Mobility, contact, and exchange in the Baltic Sea basin 6000–2000 BC

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 178–192

www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Mobility, contact, and exchange in the Baltic Sea basin 6000–2000 BC

Marek Zvelebil

Department of Archaeology, The University of SheYeld, SheYeld S10 2TN, UK

Received 1 July 2005; revision received 17 November 2005Available online 18 January 2006

Abstract

My intention in this paper is to outline the main features and principal aspects of contact and exchange among the laterprehistoric hunter–gatherers (late Mesolithic and post-Mesolithic) in the Baltic Sea basin, which covers the southern andeastern reaches of Northern Europe, and to summarise the main advances in current research. The area broadly coveredincludes the Baltic Sea basin that has provided eVective routes for communication between the coastal regions surroundingthe Baltic Sea, central Baltic islands, and regions further away in the north European Plain, inland regions of Fennoscandiaand Russia that could be reached by an extensive network of major rivers and lakes. EVective transport for negotiatingthese routes both in the summer and winter existed already from the early Mesolithic. Goods moved along these routesincluded a wide range of artefacts discussed in the paper. Geographically, exchange was organised at three levels: region-ally, inter-regionally, and over long distances. Each mode of exchange was probably organised along diVerent lines socially,and each served to implement wide-ranging social strategies for the general purposes of social reproduction, mate exchangeand biological reproduction, as well as the spread of innovations. In the concluding section, I discuss the nature of contactsand consequences of exchanges between the early farming communities and the hunter–gathering groups within the frame-work of the core-periphery relations.© 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mesolithic; Exchange; Baltic Sea basin

Introduction: Baltic Sea basin—environment, water shorelines provided fertile grounds and rich
palaeoenvironment, and natural contact routes
There is no other region in Europe where Meso-lithic settlement was as fully represented and wherehunter–gatherer communities continued to Xourishuntil so relatively recently than Northern Europe.Atlantic Scandinavia and the basin of the Baltic Sea,with their network of marine coastlines and fresh-

E-mail address: [email protected].

0278-4165/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2005.11.003

waters for hunting, Wshing, and gathering. Extensivenetworks of estuaries, lakes and rivers, bays andarchipelagos provided ample opportunities fortransport and travel. It is impossible to do justicehere to the full story of the development and trans-formation of hunting–gathering communities whoutilised this landscape in the last 12,000 years—onlyto focus on pivotal themes. My intention in thispaper is to outline the main features and principalaspects of contact and exchange among the laterprehistoric hunter–gatherers (late Mesolithic and

mailto: [email protected]




M. Zvelebil / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 178–192 179

post-Mesolithic) in the Baltic Sea basin, which cov-ers the southern and eastern reaches of NorthernEurope, and to summarise the main advances in cur-rent research.

The area broadly covered here includes the Bal-tic Sea basin; a lowland region of rivers, lakes andmarshes, whose landscape has been shaped by pro-cesses of deglaciation, isostatic uplift, and eustaticchanges in sea level. In the centre of the area liesthe Baltic Sea with the two large gulfs of Finlandand Bothnia, major islands of Bronholm, Öland,Åland, Gotland and Saarema, and numeroussmaller, archipelagic islands. Today, the area isshared by Sweden, Poland, the East Baltic coun-tries—Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—Russia andFinland.

During the late Pleistocene, this area was mostlyburied under the Scandinavian glacier. As the icemelted with deglaciation, the sea Wrst Xooded thelow-lying areas in peninsular Scandinavia, Latvia,Estonia, and Finland; but the isostatic rebound ofthe landmass freed of ice followed, resulting in anoverall emergence of the land over time. Only alongthe southern shores of the Baltic and in parts ofsouthern Scandinavia did the eustatic rise in thelevel of the sea outpace the isostatic rebound, andland dry during the late Palaeolithic was Xooded bythe sea in the early part of the Holocene. These pro-cesses resulted in unstable and changing shorelinesthroughout the region.

The beginning of the post-glacial was marked bya rapid rise in temperature by 5–6 °C to around15 °C July mean temperature (Blankholm, in press;Dolukhanov, in press). Climatic ameliorationpeaked during the Climatic Optimum of the Atlan-tic period (ca. 8000–5000 BP), when July mean tem-peratures reached 21 °C. The introduction offarming, marking the conventional end of the Meso-lithic period, began around 5000 BP, just as the tem-peratures began to decline, reaching the currentmean July levels of 16 °C.

Climate shifts facilitated changes in the biome,particularly in more northerly regions. In outline,the forest succession and the associated faunalchanges were marked by the predominance of birchand pine in the preboreal period (10,300–9500/9300BP), pine and hazel in the boreal (9500/9300–8000/7500 BP), mixed oak forest of elm, oak, lime andbeech in the Atlantic (ca. 8000–5000/4500 BP), and amore mixed broadleaved-conifer forest in the cooler,more arid sub-boreal period (ca. 5 000/4500–2500BP).

Prehistoric hunter–gatherers of the region—chronological overview

Colonization and settlement of northern Europeat the end of the last glaciation, ca. 14,000–10,000years ago, was one of the key events in the history ofhunter–gatherer communities of the area. This pro-cess of colonization was gradual and metachronous,laying foundations for the major patterns in culturaldiversity of Northern Europe during the Mesolithic(Larsson et al., 2003; Zvelebil, in press).

Using southern Scandinavia as a frame of refer-ence, the chronology of the Mesolithic can bebroadly divided into the Early and Late Mesolithic.The transformation of the early Mesolithic Magle-mose culture to the late Mesolithic Kongemose andErtebølle cultures marks the division in southernScandinavia at ca. 8000 BP. Cultural groups cognatewith the Maglemose operated in the eastern parts ofthe Baltic. They included Komornice in northwestPoland, Neman in northeast Poland, Neman, Narvaand Kunda in the east Baltic, Sandarna in southernSweden, and Suomusjärvi in Finland. Salient fea-tures of the technological equipment included adeveloped bone and antler industry, core and Xakeaxes and microblade/microlith technology whichdecreased in use from the west to east, where theolder tanged point technology prevailed within tra-ditions such as the Kunda in Estonia.

The beginning of the late Mesolithic at about8000 BP (6000 bc) is marked by the introduction ofbroader rhombic and trapezoidal microliths, a shiftfrom microblade to core and blade technology and anumber of regionally speciWc new items. At a laterstage, marking the beginning of the Ertebølle culturein Denmark-Scania ca. 6500 BP, transverse arrow-heads, trimmed core axes, and T-shaped antler axesappear. Regional groupings include Kongemose andlater Ertebølle in Scania, late Suomusjärvi (Matis-kainen, 1989) in Finland, Chojnice-Pienki in north-west Poland, Janislawice in northeast Poland, lateNeman, Narva and Kunda in the east Baltic, andLihult in southern Sweden.

Introduction of farming into the Baltic Sea basinand peninsular Scandinavia was a slow and gradualprocess, which began in the mid-sixth millenniumBP (4400 BC, 3500 bc) with the emergence of theFunnel Beaker culture in the lowland regions ofPoland and north Germany, and in Denmark andsouthern Sweden (5200 BP, 3900 BC, 3200 bc). Thegradual establishment of farming communities overthe following 5000 years in most other regions of

180 M. Zvelebil / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 178–192

this area unfolded hand in hand with the develop-ment of contacts, trade, and exchange with commu-nities that remained hunting, Wshing, and gathering.In terms of economic relations, exchange and con-tact, this period can be broadly divided into an early,stone age phase and a more recent period whichincluded medieval and early modern times (Fig. 1).

Later Mesolithic hunter–gatherers of the climatic optimum 6000–4000 BC

Long-distance contacts, circulation of exoticprestige items and of sought-after raw materials, aswell as channels for the dispersal of innovationswere all maintained through trade and exchange. Innorthern Europe, the use of skis and sledges in win-ter and of boats in the summer months facilitatedsuch contacts (Burov, 1989, 1992; Clark, 1953, 1975;Fischer, 1995). Combined evidence from rock-carv-ing sites, Wnds of paddles and of watercraft in water-logged and submerged estuarine and marinedeposits indicates that both freshwater and seatransport was practiced routinely using a range ofvessels including skin boats with a direct keel, steepbow and frame with projections; dug-out canoesand “plank(?)” boats (Burov, 1989, 1992; Warren,2000; Clark, 1952, 1975; Fischer, 1995; Gramsch andKloss, 1989; Grøn and Skaarup, 1991; Rimantiené,1979, 1998, 1992; Tolan-Smith, 1992; Vankina,1970). Similarly, Wnds of skis and sledge runnerspoint to a widespread use of this means of transport

in northern Europe (Aalto et al., 1980; Burov, 1992;Clark, 1952, 1975). The ritual dimension of suchmeans of transport is shown by elk-headed carvingstipping the ski runners in northwest Russia and else-where (Burov, 1989), decorated paddles such asthose from Tybrind Vig (Andersen, 1987, 1994–1995), and by rock carvings of elk placed on thesterns of boats (Figs. 2 and 3; Lindquist, 1994;Nuñez, 1995; Tilley, 1993).

It is important to note that settlement andresource use varied from region to region andchanged over time. It is diYcult, for an area so largeas the Baltic, to capture in summary major patternsof change. Overall, the general trend has beentowards greater regional and territorial deWnition.This is evident from a gradual shift from Xint ofsuperior quality and often imported to local lithicsources later in the Mesolithic (e.g., Larsson andMolin, 2000), in the development of regional stylisticvariation in stone and bone tools, and later in ceram-ics (e.g., Stillborg and Bergenstrahle, 2000; Vang Pet-ersen, 1984 etc), and in territorial appropriationmarked in the landscape and within settlements byburials, cemeteries, rock carvings and paintings, andother marks of enculturation (e.g., Loze, 1998; Row-ley-Conwy, 1998, 1999; Zvelebil, 1997, in press).

Patterns of contact and trade changed togetherwith these developments. In the early Mesolithic theimpression is one of a more direct procurement ofresources, linked perhaps to greater general mobilityand regional colonization, and of a generalised and

Fig. 1. Chronological framework for contact, exchange, and mobility in the Baltic Sea basin and northern Europe.


intermittent long-distance trade and exchange. Inthe later Mesolithic, trading patterns become morestreamlined, enduring and regular, suggesting amore formalised contact and greater control overtraded items by specialist individuals. At the sametime the number of source locations of traded itemsfor any one region appears to decline.

The distribution of various traded items indicatesthe range of distances covered, and two, possiblythree levels of contact. Within Northern Europe,direct open sea contacts of around 100km are indi-cated, while contacts of up to 400 km are thought tohave occurred using sea-routes in coastal and archi-pelagic environments. Indirect contacts of around

Fig. 2. Remains of sledges and boats from hunter–gatherer contexts in the Baltic Sea basin. (A) Decorated paddle from Tybrind Vig, Den-mark (after Andersen, 1987), (B) sledge runner from Heinola, Finland (after Clark, 1952), (C) remains of skis from the site of Vis 1 innorthwest Russia (after Burov, 1989), (D) sculpted ski with an elk headed terminal from Vis 1 (after Burov, 1989).


500 km (Lindstrom, 2003) and upwards to more than1000 km (Fischer, 2003) are shown by movements ofexotic goods through the Mesolithic and the Neo-lithic periods (Zvelebil, 1992). The use of dug-outcanoes, possibly Wxed with outriggers was not consid-ered an impediment to sea voyages (Lindstrom, 2003),a view conWrmed by a voyage successfully completedby Tichý and a crew of nine people in a replica of adug-out canoe across the Aegean and the Adriaticfrom Asia Minor to Greece and on to southern Italyand France in 1995 and 1998 (Tichý, 2001a,b, 2002).

We can conceptualise contacts and exchangesoccurring at three levels: regional, inter-regional,and long distance. Regional exchanges can beexpected to occur within the territory of the samecommunity, or within a region occupied by commu-nities that are linked and related through economic,

political, and kinship ties. Such exchanges can beexpected to occur at regular intervals within general-ised or balanced ties of reciprocity and involve non-exotic and utilitarian items produced locally (forfurther discussion, see Sahlins, 1974 etc). Circulationof such items cannot be easily identiWed in thearchaeological record, at least within the Balticregion and northern Europe in the Mesolithic andthe Neolithic. Nevertheless, (Knutsson et al., 2003,pp. 422–423) suggest that in Sweden the distributionof handle cores of tuYte, centred on southern Norr-land, and of quartzite handle cores, centred on thenorthern part of Norrland, might represent aregional distribution through annual movement orexchange within a single social territory.

At an inter-regional level, exchanges occurredbetween adjacent regions or areas located in relative

Fig. 3. Boat remains from the site of Sarnate. (A) Lifting of a dugout canoe. (B) Remains of a stern of another boat (after Vankina, 1970).


proximity, which were geographically distinct andtherefore capable of producing speciWc items, whichbecame objects of exchange for practical reasons orfor their social value. Here, exchanges occurredacross middle distances of about 100–300 kmbetween presumably unrelated social groups (takinginto account the speculative size of social territories,e.g., Carlsson, 2003; Clark, 1975; Lindstrom, 2003, p.157). This activity may have involved direct procure-ment (Bengtsson, 2003; Bergsvik and Olsen, 2003;Fischer, 2003), personalised exchange sociallyembedded within real or Wctive kinships (Bergsvikand Olsen, 2003), or down-the-line passage of goodsinvolving several donors (i.e., Bengtsson, 2003; Sah-lins, 1974).

Examples of inter-regional trade include Xinttraded from Xint-producing southern Scandinaviainto adjacent middle Sweden and Norrland as nod-ules of raw material, or semi-manufactured andWnished artifacts (Carlsson, 2003; Knutsson et al.,2003), greenstone and diabase axes from quarry sitesin south-west coastal Norway traded within westernNorway (Bergsvik and Olsen, 2003), south Norwe-gian dolerite axes found in western Sweden, orweapons and ornaments of exotic faunal materialfound in southern Scandinavian islands where theywere brought from other parts of the Baltic (Fischer,2003). They include the circulation of Xint and ochrein Poland (Sulgustowska, 1990). They include circu-lation of amber and its products in regions adjacentto its centres of procurement in the east Baltic whosefall-oV distribution curves suggest quite clearly thediVerence between long-distance and inter-regionalexchanges (Vankina, 1970). A similar pattern is sug-gested by the distribution of Lihult adzes acrosssouthern parts of Sweden, which appears to com-bine regional and long-distance exchange patterns(Bengtsson, 2003, p. 389), as do the tuYte andquartzite handle cores in southern and northernSwedish Norrland respectively (Olofsson, 1995, butsee Knutsson et al., 2003, pp. 422–442 for an alterna-tive explanation).

Another exchange practice involved long-dis-tance contact, trade and exchange, by means ofwhich goods moved over vast distances. This net-work of long-distance exchanges was probably con-trolled and organised by social elites and/orspecialised traders with privileged access to procure-ment locations (Lindstrom, 2003), although down-the-line exchange cannot be excluded in the absenceof a rigorous examination of the distribution pat-terns (i.e., Renfrew, 1977; Torrence, 1986).

Long-distance trade, linking considerable dis-tances is outlined in Fig. 4. It includes the distribu-tion of green Olonets slate and Xint from Kareliaacross Finland, northwest Russia and the easternBaltic (Clark, 1952; Luho, 1945); and amber fromthe south and east Baltic coasts across northwestRussia into Finland (Loze, 1998; Rimantiené, 1992;Vankina, 1970) and as far aWeld as Södermanlandand Mälar in middle Sweden (Lindstrom, 2003).Flint from the Valdai mountains in western centralRussia was transported to areas within northwestRussia, the east Baltic and Finland (Zhilin, 2003).Similarly, Xint and amber from south Scandinaviamoved to northern Scandinavia (Fischer, 2003;Knutsson et al., 2003), pumice from northern Nor-way to other regions in Scandinavia, and seal oil andother products travelled from coastal regions of theBaltic and the central Baltic islands (Saaremaa, Got-land, Öland, Åland) to northern Poland and otherparts of northern Europe (Zvelebil, 1996, 1998a).

Among the Mesolithic hunter–gatherers, contactand exchange occurred mostly between hunting andgathering communities, although from ca. 7400 BP(ca. 4500 bc, 5400 BC) the south Baltic area ofnorthern Europe came into contact with the Wrstfarming communities of the LBK (Danubian) tradi-tion. The motivation and the initiative for maintain-ing contact and exchange links must have arisenfrom a number of social strategies. One of these,according to Carlsson (2003) must have been linkedto expressing identity, social coherence and solidar-ity with other members of the community or socialgroup—identity symbolised by displaying speciWcartifacts, including exotic items (see also Knutssonet al., 2003). Another strategy utilised exotic artifactsin quite the opposite direction—to symbolise socialstatus and ranking, a move that engendered socialcompetition between individuals, households, socialgroups or lineages (i.e., Hayden, 1990, 1998, 2003;Verhart, 2000, 2003; Verhart and Wansleeben,1997). Yet another strategy that incorporated tradeand exchange, perhaps more speciWcally at an inter-regional level, was linked to maintaining kinshipties, and through them lines of contact and commu-nication for Wnding partners in marriage and biolog-ical reproduction (Knutsson et al., 2003; Zhilin,2003, see also e.g., Coles and Darling, 1990; Hayden,2003 for Northwest coast examples, and Wiessner,1983 for the Kalahari San).

In summary, during this period we see the devel-opment of inter-regional and long-term trading andexchange patterns that continued into, and were fur-


ther elaborated in the following early farmingperiod, although Lindstrom (2003, p. 152, 156, 158)warned against uncritical acceptance of long-termcontinuity and long-term trade links. Using thechanging distribution of exotic battle axes in thethird millennium Sweden as an example, he arguesinstead for short lived, but intensive and deliberatecontacts organised by social elites. This does notnecessarily represent a contradiction: it seems thatwhile contact routes and core areas generatingexchange remained broadly the same, the tradeditems and their signiWcance changed with social andhistorical contexts.

Farming period—hunter–gatherers in the farming world and their role in core-periphery systems

Farming was introduced from Central Europebetween 6400–6000 BP (5300–500 BC, 4400 and4000 bc) into northern Poland and Germany byenclave forming, isolated settlements of the LBKand derivative (SBK, Lengyel) traditions. Followingthis episode, the Wrst extensive farming communitiesin northern Poland and Germany, Denmark, south-ern Norway and southern and middle Swedenbelong to the TRB culture and date from ca. 5700BP (4600 BC, 3700 bc) on the north European Plain,

Fig. 4. Major long-distance trade routes in the Mesolithic of the Baltic Sea basin and Scandinavia (after Zvelebil, 1992).


and from ca. 5200 BP (ca. 3200 bc, 3900 BC) insouthern Scandinavia (Bogucki, 1996, 1998, 2000;Fischer, 2003; Fischer and Kristiansen, 2002; Midg-ley, 1992; Nowak, 2001; Price, 2000). In northernScandinavia and more eastern regions of the Balticthe agricultural transition unfolded between 4500and 2500 BP (2500–500 bc, Antanaitis, 2001;Antanaitis et al., 2000; Daugnora and Girinkas,1995; Zvelebil, 1981, 1987, 1993).

At the same time, in certain regions, such as Sile-sia, Kashubia, Mazovia, and Masuria in Poland,hunter–gatherer communities survived into theBronze Age (until ca. 1500 bc, Bagnienvski, 1986;Cyrek et al., 1986; Kobusiewicz and Kabacijski,1998), in parts of Lithuania hunter–gatherers con-tinued until ca. 500 bc (Antanaitis, 2001; Daugnoraand Girinkas, 1995). In southern Finland, farmingwas gradually adopted between 3500 and 2000 bp(1500 bc—0, Meinander, 1984; Taavitsainen et al.,1994, 1998; Vuorela, 1976, 1998; Vuorela and Lem-piäinen, 1988; Zvelebil, 1981). In Swedish Norrland,and in northern and eastern Finland the transitiononly ended in the 16th–17th centuries AD, in earlymodern times with the domestication of reindeer bythe Saami and the development of swidden farmingamong the Karelians (Mulk and Bayliss Smith,1999; Orrman, 1991; Taavitsainen et al., 1998). Inthis sense, there is no break between the Mesolithichunter–gatherer communities of the early post-gla-cial period and the later prehistoric and early histor-ical hunters within this region. Rather than viewingthese later hunter–gatherers as stone age survivals,however, we should regard them as communitieswho have successfully responded to the historicalnecessity of living in an increasingly farming worldby developing the trading potential of hunter–gath-erer existence: they became commercial hunter–gatherers.

The nature of exchanges between foraging andfarming communities within the conditions of theagricultural frontier in Europe has been much dis-cussed in recent years (Alexander, 1978; Dennell,1983, 1992; Fischer, 2003; Green and Perlman, 1985;Verhart, 2000, 2003; Verhart and Wansleeben, 1997;Zvelebil, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2002; Zvelebil andDolukhanov, 1991; Zvelebil and Lillie, 2000; Zvele-bil et al., 1998). In the speciWc historical and geo-graphic conditions of Northern Europe, at the onsetof the Neolithic the Baltic region became a valuableperiphery to the farming societies developing to thesouth. It is clear that there is extensive archaeologi-cal evidence for trade and contact between the Wrst

farming communities of the north European plain(and later, southern Scandinavia) and hunter–gath-erer settlements to the north and east. Settlements ofeach community were often located close to oneanother, as in Kujavia (Bogucki, 1988; Bogucki andGrygiel, 1993; Malinowski, 1986; Nowak, 2001;Zvelebil, 1998a), or were sometimes separated byrelatively unexploited ‘no mans lands’ as in southernFinland (Zvelebil, 1981).

Exchanges occurred in a patterned, structuredway. Characteristically for core-periphery relations(Brun, 1995; Budil, 2001; Hodges, 1982; Noceteet al., 2005; Wallerstein, 1978, 1993), raw materialsand products of hunting and gathering such asamber, pumice, coloured slate, furs, honey, and sealfat were exchanged by hunter–gatherers for Wnishedproducts such as axes, ceramics, and ornaments(Andersen, 1975, 1987; Fischer, 2002a,b, 2003;Nuñez, 1990; Nuñez and Okkonen, 1999; Price andGebauer, 1992; Rowley-Conwy, 1999; Schwabedis-sen, 1981; Siiriäinen, 1981, 1982; Solberg, 1989; Tim-ofeev, 1998; Vankina, 1970; Zvelebil, 1985, 1996,2001; Zvelebil et al., 1998); in some areas such asScania, or the east Baltic, grain and domestic ani-mals may have also become a part of exchange(Dolukhanov, 1979; Fischer, 2003; Jennbert, 1984;Zvelebil, 1985; Zvelebil and Dolukhanov, 1991).Some of these exchanges passed along major, well-established contact routes that followed coastlinesor major river courses; these are shown in Fig. 5.

Both the social context and societal implicationsof these exchanges deserve a brief discussion. AsSherratt suggested with particular reference to cat-tle, such exchanges would pass, “as transactionsbetween acephalous groups linked by alliances andas symbols of competitive prestige” (Sherratt, 1982,p. 23). Similarly, Hayden (1990, 1998, 2003) andothers (Verhart, 2000, 2003; Verhart and Wanslee-ben, 1997; Zvelebil, 1996, 1998a) have noted thatincrease in social competition and competitivefeasting, fuelled by trans-regional trade andexchange, led to the development of social ranking,and to socially diVerentiated communities with cer-tain households and individuals within hunter–gatherer communities appropriating certainresources and produce and enjoying higher statusand wealth than others trans-generationally, on along-term basis, yet without formalised politicalauthority. Hayden termed such unstable yet endur-ing, non-egalitarian social arrangements amonghunter–gatherers (and early farmers) “transegali-tarian societies” Hayden, 2003.


I have argued elsewhere that among such socie-ties, those still practicing a hunter–gatherer mode ofsubsistence, no longer could be regarded as belong-ing to the hunter–gatherer mode of production (e.g.,Ingold, 1988), because they no longer maintainedthe ideology of sharing as a social practice (Zvelebil,1998b). Moreover, the need to engage in continuoussocial competition to maintain the privileged posi-tion of some households, lineages and individuals,was bound to lead to an inXation in the value of sta-tus goods and tokens, and to the consequentincrease in their procurement through trade, or to

the emergence of new symbols of status demon-strated by new goods (Fischer, 2002b, 2003; Zvele-bil, 1996, 1998a,b). This process has been welldocumented ethnographically (e.g., Verhart, 2000,2003; Verhart and Wansleeben, 1997).

In the prehistoric, hunter–gatherer, context of theBaltic region, the increase in social competition, andthe associated increase in trade and exchange withthe farming communities could not be maintainedindeWnitely. The costs to a community based onhunting and gathering as a principal mode of subsis-tence were twofold. The increasing need for procure-

Fig. 5. Long-distance trade in Baltic Sea basin and Scandinavia during the Neolithic, 4000–2000 bc (after Zvelebil, 1996, 1998a).


ment of raw materials and goods for exchangewould generate pressure to reorganise tasks awayfrom hunting and gathering for subsistence andmore towards hunting and gathering for exchange.This shift might lead to a level of exploitation ofresources for fur, seal fat, etc. when hunting andgathering could no longer be maintained as the basisof subsistence. One solution to this problem wouldbe the adoption of farming, a solution that wouldhave been reinforced by the practice of hypo/hyperhyny: women departing from hunter–gatherercommunities to settle in farming communities aswives or partners of farmer men (Bentley et al., 2002,2003; Price et al., 2001; Zvelebil, 1996, 1998a; Zvele-bil and Lillie, 2000).

In the world of core-periphery relations, wherethe symbols of status were primarily or exclusivelythose associated with the farming societies, hypo/hypergyny can be a powerful vehicle of social andeconomic change. The argument for the femaledeparture to farmers is based on the perception thatlife in farming communities was easier for women asfood producers and childbearers, and/or that sym-bols of status and social position they confer onwomen can be easier to come by living with farmersrather than foragers. The response of a hunter–gath-erer community could have been twofold: either toadopt farming themselves and so equalise the com-petition for partners, or to shift emphasis to com-mercial hunting, and so facilitate the import ofgoods and status symbols into the foraging commu-nity.

Over the long duration of forager–farmer con-tacts in northern Europe, we can identify both ofthese strategies of accommodation as northernhunter–gatherers became increasingly drawn intothe ‘world system’ of trading relations in the morerecent past. Although it involved a considerabledegree of inter-dependence, commercialisation ofhunting and gathering was perhaps the most eVec-tive hunter–gatherer survival strategy in the worldincreasingly dominated by farming societies. Thebeginnings of this process can be identiWed alreadyin the late Mesolithic of northern and circum-BalticEurope (i.e., Fischer, 2002a,b, 2003; Zvelebil, 1996,1998a, 2000, 2002). The adoption of ceramics byhunting and gathering communities, from about6600 BP (4600 bc) is held by many to have aided in amajor way the production of seal train and oil, someof it for exchange (Nuñez, 1990 with references,Nuñez and Okkonen, 1999). Patterned discard ofbone remains of fur-bearing animals at specialised

kill-sites suggests trade in fur—in both the west andthe east Baltic from the mid-sixth millennium BP(Andersen, 1994–1995; Fischer, 2003, pp. 407–408;Rowley-Conwy, 1994–1995, 1998; Timofeev, 1998;Zvelebil, 1985, 1993). The trade between foragersand farmers in amber, Xint, green and red slate bycircum-Baltic hunter–gatherer communities is alsodocumented (Loze, 1980; Nuñez and Okkonen,1999; Timofeev, 1998; Vankina, 1970; Zvelebil, 1996,1998a,b). These items were traded for livestock,ornaments, metal artifacts, polished stone and latercopper and bronze axes, and other items from out-side Northern Europe (i.e., Forsberg, 1995; Lavento,2001; Loze, 1998; Olsen, 1994; Zvelebil, 1987, 1992).

In strategic locations on cross-points of tradingroutes, the participation of hunting and gatheringcommunities of the Baltic in trade and exchangewith farming settlements in southern Scandinaviaand central and eastern Europe resulted in theXorescence of residentially permanent, trading set-tlements such as Kierikki in northern Finland inthe 5th and 4th millennium bp (4000–2000 cal BC,Nuñez and Okkonen, 1999). The persistence of, orreturn to, a hunter–gatherer existence in centralBaltic within the cultural context of the PittedWare culture, ca. 4500–3800 bp, 2500–1800 bc(Åkerlund, 1996; Lindqvist and Possnert, 1994;Nuñez and Liden, 1997; Rowley-Conwy, 1999;Welinder, 1975, 1977, 1981; Zvelebil, 1996,Fig. 18.3), and the continued existence of huntingand gathering communities in eastern and northernFinland and Karelia during late prehistory andthroughout the medieval period, (ca. 3200 bp–1600AD, 1200 bc–1600 ad; Hansen, 1996; Hvarfner,1965; Taavitsainen et al., 1998) can also be attrib-uted, at least partly, to the Xorescence of commer-cial hunting and gathering and to the inter-dependent trade and exchange with the farmingcommunities who were by then established insouthern Sweden and Finland, east Baltic and cen-tral Russia, and involved in far-Xung trade thatreached western Europe, the Mediterranean, andthe Near East. In the late Medieval and early mod-ern times, the domestication of reindeer, the incor-poration of reindeer herding with the existingstrategies of hunting and Wshing, and the trade inthe products of reindeer husbandry further rein-forced the viability of hunter–gatherer social andeconomic traditions, and contributed to their con-tinuation into the modern times (Aikio, 1989;Hvarfner, 1965; Igegren, 1985; Mulk and BaylissSmith, 1999; Olsen, 1994, 2000; Zachrisson, 1994).


Conclusions

It is clear that wide-ranging and intensive contactand exchange links operated in the circum-Balticregion and in Northern Europe in general during theMesolithic and the Neolithic periods, a time that wasmarked by the continued Xorescence of hunting andgathering communities in parts of the area. In termsof economic orientation and subsistence practices, thearea can be best described as a mosaic of hunting–Wshing–gathering and of farming communities in thestone age farming period. The regional variability fos-tered further development of exchange relationships,which were established already in the late Mesolithic.

The immediate social context of these exchanges,the control over the procurement, distribution andexchange of traded items, and the method of distribu-tion remain somewhat unclear. It is assumed that sev-eral distribution mechanisms were in operation—which, in the case of long-distance trade probablyincluded exclusive control over sources of procure-ment and activities of specialised tradesmen. There isa need for further, speciWc research dedicated to eluci-dating these issues (Klassen, 1994–1995, pp. 174–176).

The broader implications of contact, exchange,and trade for the condition of hunter–gatherer com-munities can be summarised as follows:

During the early post-glacial period, prior to theintroduction of farming into the Baltic Sea basin/northern Europe, the Mesolithic hunter–gatherercommunities developed an extensive network ofcommunication and contacts throughout the areaand beyond with cognate settlements in central andeastern Europe. This network was facilitated by theexistence of a large number of water routes—lakes,rivers, coastal habitats and open seas—that oVeredpotential routes for communication and contact.Watercraft, skis, and sledges were used for transportalong these routes.

We can conceptualise inter-communityexchanges occurring at a regional, inter-regional,and a long-distance level. Such a division has morethan a notional signiWcance: the distances coveredwere of a diVerent order (ca. less than 100 km, 100–300 km, and over 300 km, respectively) and thesocial context of exchange was probably diVerenttoo, involving combinations of direct procurement(mostly regional), socially contextualised exchangebetween reciprocal partners (mostly inter-regional),and a specialised long-distance trade.

The trade and exchange in exotic materialsWtted several social strategies, implemented situa-

tionally through the agency of individuals partici-pating in the exchange networks. Such strategiesincluded use of exotic materials to symbolise com-munal identity and to maintain social cohesion ofthe individual’s social group, but also to promotesocial competition and development of socialdiVerentiation. The elaborate burials marked bytheir exotic materials at some late Mesolithic ceme-teries, such as Olenii Ostrov, Zvejnieki, or Skate-holm are worth noting in this context (Gurina,1956; Larsson, 1988, 1989, 1993a,b; O’Shea andZvelebil, 1984; Zagorska, 2000, 2001; Zagorskaand Lõugas, 2000; Zagorskis, 1987). Exchange ofexotic goods was probably also used to maintaincontact and communication in order to participatein mating networks.

After the establishment of farming communitiesin the area, trade and exchange became a part of for-ager–farmer contacts. Gradually hunter–gathererswere drawn into participating within a broader core-periphery system of exchanges, with the core areasituated in Central and Southeastern Europe duringthe Neolithic, and later Bronze and Iron Age andthe Medieval period. For hunting–gathering com-munities, these contacts represented both dangers ofextinction and opportunities for survival.

Increase in social competition through import ofexotic material from a farming world with a highsocial value, and female exogamy to farming com-munities both must have caused disruption to thesocial fabric and posed danger to survival of thehunting–gathering communities. I would argue thatin response, hunter–gatherers adopted two socialstrategies. One was the adoption of farming itselfand a participation in a broader farming world—aprocess which engendered cultural modiWcation of afarming way of life through the agency of hunter–gatherers becoming farmers. The other was a shiftfrom subsistence hunting and gathering to a morecommercially oriented hunting that enabled hunter–gatherer communities to participate eVectively inand proWt from the trading system dominated bycore-periphery relations. By employing the latterstrategy, many hunter–gatherer communities innorthern Europe continued their existence success-fully throughout the later prehistory and into thehistorical period.

References

Aalto, M., Taavitsainen, J.-P., Vuorela, I., 1980. Palaeobotanicalinvestigations at the site of a sledge runner Wnd, dated to


about 4900 BP, in Noormarkku, SW Finland. Suomen Museo87, 41–66.

Aikio, P., 1989. The changing role of reindeer in the life of theSámi. In: Clutton-Brock, J. (Ed.), The Walking Larder. UnwinHyman, London, pp. 169–184.

Åkerlund, A., 1996. Human Responses to Shore Displacement.Arkeologiska undersökningar, Riksantikvarieämbetet.

Alexander, J., 1978. Frontier studies and the earliest farmers inEurope. In: Green, D., Haselgrove, C., Springs, M. (Eds.),Social Organisation and Settlement. BAR International Series47, Oxford, pp. 13–29.

Andersen, S.H., 1975. Ringkloster. En jysk indlandsboplads medErtebøllekultur. Kuml, 1974.

Andersen, S.H., 1987. Tybrind Vig: a submerged Ertebølle settle-ment in Denmark. In: Coles, J.M., Lawson, A.J. (Eds.), Euro-pean Wetlands in Prehistory. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp.253–280.

Andersen, S.H., 1994–1995. Ertebølle trappers and wild boarhunters in eastern Jutland, a survey. Journal of DanishArchaeology 12, 13–59.

Antanaitis, I., 2001. East Baltic economic and social organizationin the late stone and early bronze ages. Unpublished Ph.D dis-sertation summary Humanities, History (05 H). Vilnius.

Antanaitis, I., Riehl, S., Kisieliené, K., 2000. The evolution of the sub-sistence economy and archaeobotanical research in Lithuania.Lietuvos archeologija. Vilnius, Diemedqio leidykla. T. 19, pp. 47–67.

Bagnienvski, Z., 1986. Remarks on Mesolithic settlement in thesouthern part of the Kashubian Lakeland. In: Malinowski, T.(Ed.), Problems of the Stone Age in Pomerania. Warsaw Uni-versity, Warsaw, pp. 127–154.

Bailey, G., Spikins, P. (Eds.), Mesolithic Europe. In press.Bengtsson, L., 2003. Knowledge and interaction in the stone age:

raw material for adzes and axes, their sources and distributionpatterns. In: Larsson, L., Kingdrem, H., Knutsson, K.,LoeZer, D., Å´kerlund, A. (Eds.), Mesolithic on the Move.Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 389–394.

Bentley, R.A., Price, T.D., Lüning, J., Gronenborn, D., Wahl, J.,Fullagar, P.D., 2002. Human migration in early NeolithicEurope. Current Anthropology 43 (5), 799–804.

Bentley, R.A., Chikhi, L., Price, T.D., 2003. The Neolithic transi-tion in Europe: comparing broad scale genetic and local scaleisotopic evidence. Antiquity 77, 63–66.

Bergsvik, K.A., Olsen, A.B., 2003. TraYc in stone adzes in Meso-lithic Western Norway. In: Larsson, L., Kingdrem, H., Knuts-son, K., LoeZer, D., Å´kerlund, A. (Eds.), Mesolithic on theMove. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 395–404.

Blankholm, H.P. Mesolithic in Southern Scandinavia. In: Bailey,G., Spikins, P. (Eds.), Mesolithic Europe. In press.

Bogucki, P.I., 1988. Forest Farmers and Stockherders: EarlyAgriculture and its Consequences in North-Central Europe.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bogucki, P., 1996. Sustainable and unsustainable adaptations byearly farming communities of northern Poland. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 15, 289–311.

Bogucki, P., 1998. Holocene climatic variability and early agricul-ture in Temperate Europe: the case of northern Poland. In:Zvelebil, M., Dennell, R., Domajska, L. (Eds.), Harvesting theSea, Farming the Forest. SheYeld University Press, SheYeld,pp. 77–86.

Bogucki, P., 2000. How agriculture came to north-central Europe.In: Price, T.D. (Ed.), Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge, pp. 197–218.

Bogucki, P., Grygiel, R., 1993. Neolithic sites in the Polish low-lands: research at BrzemT Kujawski, 1933 to 1984. In: Bogucki,P. (Ed.), Case Studies in European Prehistory. CRC Press,Boca Raton, pp. 147–180.

Brun, P., 1995. Contacts entre colons et indigèns au milieu du Iermillénaire av. J.-C. en Europe. Journal of European Archaeol-ogy 3.2, 59–89.

Budil, I.T., 2001. Za obzor Zapadu. Academia Prague, CzechRepublic.

Burov, G.M., 1989. Some Mesolithic wooden artefacts from thesite of Vis I in the European North East of the USSR. In:Bonsall, C. (Ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. John Donald,Edinburgh, pp. 391–401.

Burov, G.M., 1992. Mesolithic Wshing in the European northeast(Russia). Mesolithic Miscellany 13 (2), 1–9.

Carlsson, T., 2003. Expressing identities: contact as a social strat-egy during the Mesolithic. In: Samuellson, C., Ytterberg, N.(Eds.), Uniting Sea: Stone Age Societies in the Baltic SeaRegion. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History,Uppsala, pp. 43–49.

Clark, J.G.D., 1952. Prehistoric Europe: The Economic Basis.Methuen, London.

Clark, J.G.D., 1953. The economic approach to Prehistory. Proc.Brit. Acad. 39, 215–238.

Clark, J.G.D., 1975. The Earlier Stone Age Settlement of Scandi-navia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Coles, D., Darling, D., 1990. History of the early period. In: Sut-tles, W. (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians 7,Northwest Coast. Washington, pp. 119–134.

Cyrek, K., Grygiel, R., Nowak, K., 1986. The basis for distin-guishing the ceramic Mesolithic in the Polish lowland. In:Malinowski, T. (Ed.), Problems of the Stone Age in Pomera-nia. Warsaw University, Warsaw, pp. 95–126.

Daugnora, L., Girinkas, A., 1995. Neolithic and Bronze Agemixed farming and stock breeding in the traditional Balticculture-area. In: Kazakevibius, V., Sidrys, R. (Eds.), Archaeo-logia Baltica. Institute of Lithuanian History, Vilnius, pp. 43–51.

Dennell, R., 1983. European Economic Prehistory. A NewApproach. Academic Press, London.

Dennell, R., 1992. The origins of crop agriculture in Europe. In:Cowan, C.W., Watson, P.J. (Eds.), The Origins of Agriculture.Smithsonian Institute, Washington.

Dolukhanov, P.M., 1979. Ecology and Economy in NeolithicEastern Europe. Duckworth, London.

Dolukhanov, P. Mesolithic in Eastern Europe. In: Bailey, G., Spi-kins, P. (Eds.), Mesolithic Europe. In press.

Fischer, A. (Ed.), 1995. Man and Sea in the Mesolithic. Proceed-ings of the International Symposium, Kalundborg, Denmark1993. Oxbow Monograph 53, Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Fischer, A., 2002a. The introduction of cereals and cattle intoSouthern Scandinavia: a population-pressure model. TheNeolithisation of Denmark—150 years of debate. J R CollisPublications, SheYeld Archaeological Monographs 12,SheYeld. pp. 231–240.

Fischer, A., 2002b. Food for feasting? In: Fischer, A., Kristiansen,K. (Eds.), The Neolithisation of Denmark—150 Years ofDebate. J R Collis Publications, SheYeld ArchaeologicalMonographs 12, SheYeld, pp. 343–393.

Fischer, A., 2003. Trapping up the rivers and trading across thesea—steps toward the neolithisation of Denmark. In: Larsson,L., Kingdrem, H., Knutsson, K., LoeZer, D., Å´kerlund, A.


(Eds.), Mesolithic on the Move. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp.405–413.

Fischer, A., Kristiansen, K., 2002. The Neolithisation of Den-mark—150 Years of Debate. J R Collis Publications, SheYeldArchaeological Monographs 12, SheYeld.

Forsberg, L., 1995. Forskningslinjer innom tidig samisk förhisto-ria. Arkeologi i Norr, Vol 6/7 1993–1994, 165–186.

Gramsch, B., Kloss, K., 1989. Excavations near Friesack: an earlyMesolithic marshland site in the northern plain of centralEurope. In: Bonsall, C. (Ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe: Pro-ceedings of the Third International Symposium. John Donald,Edinburgh, pp. 313–324.

Green, S., Perlman, S., 1985. The Archaeology of Frontiers andBoundaries. Academic Press, New York.

Grøn, O., Skaarup, J., 1991. Møllegabet II—A submerged Meso-lithic site and a “boat burial” from Ærø. Journal of DanishArchaeology 10, 38–50.

Gurina, N.N., 1956. Oleneostrovski Mogilnik. Materialy iIssledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 47.

Hansen, L.I., 1996. Interaction between northern European sub-arctic societies during the middle ages: indigenous peoples,peasants and state builders. In: Rindal, M. (Ed.), Two Studieson the Middle Ages, 66. KULTs skriftserie, Oslo, pp. 31–95.

Hayden, B., 1990. Nimrods, piscators, pluckers, and planters: theemergence of food production. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 9, 31–69.

Hayden, B., 1998. Practical and prestige technologies: the evolu-tion of material systems. Journal of Archaeological Methodand Theory 5 (1), 1–55.

Hayden, B., 2003. A Prehistory of Religion: Shamans, Sorcerersand Saints. Smithsonian books, Washington.

Hodges, R., 1982. Dark Age Economics: The Origins of Townsand Trade AD 600–1000. Duckworth, London.

Hvarfner, H. (Ed.), 1965. Hunting and Fishing. NorrbottensMuseum, Denmark.

Igegren, E., 1985. Osteological evaluation of reindeer bone Wndsfrom the territory of the southern Saamis. In: Bäckman, L.,Hultkrantz, Å (Eds.), Saami Pre-Christian religion. Studies onthe Oldest Traces of Religion Among the Saamis, 25. Studiesin Comparative Religion, Stockholm, pp. 101–113.

Ingold, T., 1988. Notes on the foraging mode of production. In:Ingold, T., Riches, D., Woodburn, J. (Eds.), Hunters andGatherers, 1: History, Evolution and Social Change. Berg,Oxford, pp. 269–285.

Jennbert, K., 1984. Den produktiva gåvan. Wallin and DalholmAB, Lund.

Klassen, L., 1994–1995. The debate on the Mesolithic–Neolithictransition in the western Baltic: a central European perspec-tive. Journal of Danish Archaeology 13, 171–178.

Knutsson, K., Falkenström, P., Lindberg, K.F., 2003. Appropria-tion of the past. Neolithisation in the northern Scandinavianperspective. In: Larsson, L., Kingdrem, H., Knutsson, K.,LoeZer, D., Å´kerlund, A. (Eds.), Mesolithic on the Move.Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 414–430.

Kobusiewicz, M., Kabacijski, I., 1998. Some aspects of the Meso-lithic–Neolithic transition in the western part of the Polishlowlands. In: Zvelebil, M., Dennell, R., Domajska, L. (Eds.),Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest. SheYeld UniversityPress, SheYeld, pp. 95–102.

Larsson, L., 1988. The Skateholm Project. I. Man and the Envi-ronment. Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum LundensisLXXIX. Almqvist and Wiksell International, Lund.

Larsson, L., 1989. Late Mesolithic settlements and cemeteries atSkateholm, southern Sweden. In: Bonsall, C. (Ed.), The Meso-lithic in Europe. John Donald Publishers, Edinburgh, pp. 367–378.

Larsson, L., 1993a. The Skateholm project: Late Mesolithiccoastal settlement in southern Sweden. In: Bogucki, P. (Ed.),Case Studies in European Prehistory. CRC Press, Ann Arbor,pp. 31–62.

Larsson, L., 1993b. The Mesolithic period in Southern Scandivia:with special reference to burials and cemeteries. In: MesolithicScotland and its Nearest Neighbors.

Larsson, M., Molin, F., 2000. A new world. Cultural links andspatial disposition—the early Mesolithic landscape inÖstergötland on the basis of the Storlyckan investigations.Lund Archaeological Review 6, 7–22.

Larsson, L., Kindgren, H., Knutsson, K., LeoZer, D., Åkerlund,A. (Eds.), 2003. Mesolithic on the Move. Oxbow Books,Oxford.

Lavento, M., 2001. Textile ceramics in Finland—recent perspec-tives. Acta Archaeologica 2000, 59–73.

Lindquist, C., 1994. Fångstfolkets Bilder. Theses and papers inarcheology n.s. A5, Stockholm (monograph).

Lindqvist, C., Possnert, G., 1994. Gotlands faunal history fromthe Boreal of the Subatlantic chronozone, based on analysedfaunal remains from prehistoric dwelling sites. Materials ofthe meeting of Faunahistorists in Blekinge, Sweden.

Lindstrom, J., 2003. Long distance distribution of battle axes innorthern Europe—some aspects of the contacts between Den-mark, Sweden and Finland 2800–2300 BC. In: Samuelsson, C.,Ytterberg, N. (Eds.), Uniting the Sea: Stone Age Societies inthe Baltic Sea Region. Department of Archaeolgoy andAncient History, Uppsala, pp. 147–160.

Loze, I.A., 1980. Voprosy kartograWrovaniya nakhodok yantaryaepokhi neolita na Evropejskoj chasti SSSR. Izvestiya Aka-demii nauk Latvijskoj SSR 9 (398), 73–86.

Loze, I., 1998. The adoption of agriculture in the area of present-day Latvia (the Lake Lubana Basin). Baltic-Pontic Studies 5,59–84.

Luho, V., 1945. Das Alter der Schlittenkufe aus Pielavesi. SuomenMuseo LII, 82–84.

Malinowski, T. (Ed.), 1986. Problems of the Stone Age in Pomer-ania. Warsaw University, Warsaw.

Matiskainen, H., 1989. The chronology of the Finnish Mesolithic.In: Bonsall, C. (Ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. John DonaldPublishers Ltd, Edinburgh, pp. 379–401.

Meinander, C.F., 1984. Om introduktioonen av sädesodling I Fin-land. Finskt Museum, 5–20.

Midgley, M., 1992. TRB Culture. Edinburgh University Press,Edinburgh.

Mulk, I.-M., Bayliss Smith, T., 1999. The representation of Sámicultural identity in the cultural landscapes of northern Swe-den: the use and misuse of archaeological knowledge. In:Ucko, P.J., Layton, R. (Eds.), The Archaeology and Anthro-pology of Landscape.. One World Archaeology. London,Routledge, pp. 358–396.

Nocete, F., Sáez, R., Nieto, J.M., Cruz-Auñón, R., Cabrero, R.,Alex, E., Bayona, M.R., 2005. Circulation of siliciWed ooliticlimestone blades in South-Iberia (Spain and Portugal) duringthe third millennium B.C.: an expression of a core/peripheryframework. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24, 62–81.

Nowak, M., 2001. The second phase of Neolithization in east-cen-tral Europe. Antiquity 75 (289), 582–592.


Nuñez, M., 1990. On subneolithic pottery and its adoption in lateMesolithic Finland. Fennoscandia archaeologica VII, 27–50.

Nuñez, M., 1995. ReXections on Finnish rock art and ethnohisto-rical data. Fennoscandia archaeological XII, 123–134.

Nuñez, M., Liden, K., 1997. Taking the 5000 year old ‘Jettböleskeletons’ out of the closet: a palaeo-medical examination ofhuman remains from the Åland (Ahvenanmaa) islands. Inter-national Journal of Circumpolar Health 56, 30–39.

Nuñez, M., Okkonen, J., 1999. Environmental background for therise and fall of villagtes and megastructures in north Ostro-bothnia 4000–2000 cal BC. In: toim M. Huurree et al. (Eds.),Dig it all. Papers Dedicated to Ari Siiriänene. The FinnishAntiquarian Society and The Archaeological Society of Fin-land, Helsinki.

O’Shea, J., Zvelebil, M., 1984. Oleneostrovskii Mogilnik: recon-structing social and economic organisation of prehistorichunter-Wshers in Northern Russia. Journal of Anthropologi-cal Archaeology 3, 1–40.

Olofsson, A., 1995. Kölskrapor, mikrospånkärnor orch mikrospån.Arkeologiska studier vid Umeå universitet, 3, Umeå.

Olsen, B., 1994. Bosetning og samfunn i Wnnmarks forhistorie.Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Olsen, B., 2000. Beliggerent chieftains and oppressed hunters?—changing conceptions of inter-ethnic relationships in northernNorway during the iron age and early medieval period. In:Appelt, M. Berglund, J. Gullõv, H.C. (Eds.), Identities andCultural Contacts in the Arctic. Proceedings from a Confer-ence at the Danish National Museum. Danish Polar CenterPublication No. 8, Copenhagen, pp. 28–42.

Orrman, E., 1991. Geographical factors and the spread of perma-nent settlement in parts of Finland and Sweden from the Endof the iron age to the beginning of modern times. Fennoscan-dia archeologica 8, 3–21.

Price, T.D. (Ed.), 2000. Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge.

Price, T.D., Gebauer, A.B., 1992. The Wnal frontier: foragers tofarmers in Southern Scandinavia. In: Gebauer, A.B., Price,T.D. (Eds.), Transition to Agriculture in Prehistory. Prehis-tory Press, Madison, WI, pp. 97–115.

Price, T.D., Bentley, A., Lüning, J., Gronenborn, D., Wahl, J.,2001. Prehistoric human migration in the Linearbandkeramikof central Europe. Antiquity 289 (75), 593–603.

Renfrew, C., 1977. Alternative models for exchange and spatialdistribution. In: Earle, T., Ericson, J.E. (Eds.), Exchange Sys-tems in Prehistory. New York, pp. 71–90.

Rimantiené, R., 1979. Kventoji, 1, Narvos Kulturos Gyvenvietes.Mokslas, Vilinius.

Rimantiené, R., 1992. The Neolithic in the eastern Baltic. Journalof World Prehistory 6, 97–143.

Rimantiené, R., 1998. The Wrst Narva culture farmers in Lithua-nia. In: Zvelebil, M., Dennell, R., Domajska, L. (Eds.), Har-vesting the Sea, Farming the Forest. SheYeld UniversityPress, SheYeld, pp. 213–218.

Rowley-Conwy, P., 1994–1995. Meat, furs, and skins: Mesolithicanimal bones from ringkloster, a seasonal hunting camp inJutland. Journal of Danish Archaeology 12, 87–98.

Rowley-Conwy, P., 1998. Cemeteries, seasonality and complexityin the Ertebølle of Southern Scandinavia. In: Zvelebil, M.,Dennell, R., Domajska, L. (Eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farm-ing the Forest. SheYeld University Press, SheYeld.

Rowley-Conwy, P., 1999. Economic prehistory in southern Scan-dinavia. Proceedings of the British Academy 99, 125–159.

Sahlins, M., 1974. Man the Hunter. Aldine, Chicago.Schwabedissen, H., 1981. Ertebølle/Ellerbek–Mesolithikum oder

Neolithikum? In: Gramsch, B. (Ed.), Mesolithikum in Europa.VEB Deutscher Verlag, Berlin, pp. 129–142.

Sherratt, A.G., 1982. Mobile resources: settlement and exchangein early agricultural Europe. In: Renfrew, C., Shennan, S.(Eds.), Ranking, Resources and Exchange: Aspects of theArchaeology of Early European Society. Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Cambridge, pp. 13–26.

Siiriäinen, A., 1981. On the cultural ecology of the Finnish stoneage. Suomen Museo 87, 5–40 (1980).

Siiriäinen, A., 1982. Recent studies on the stone age economy inFinland. Fennoscandia Antiqua 1, 17–26.

Solberg, B., 1989. The Neolithic transition in southern Scandina-via: internal development or migration? Oxford Journal ofArchaeology 8, 261–296.

Stillborg, O., Bergenstrahle, I., 2000. Traditions in transition: acomparative study of the patterns of Ertebølle lithic and pot-tery changes in the Late Mesolithic ceramic phase at Skate-holm I, III and Sodattorpet in Scania, Sweden. LundArchaeological Review 6, 23–42.

Sulgustowska, Z., 1990. Occurrence and utilization of local ochreresources during the early Holocene in the Oder and Vistulariver basins. In: Vermeersch, P.M., van Peer, P. (Eds.), Contri-butions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Leuven University Press,Leuven, pp. 317–321.

Taavitsainen, J.P., Ikonen, L., Saksa, A., 1994. On early agricul-ture in the archipelago of lake Ladoga. Fennoscandia archeo-logica 11, 29–39.

Taavitsainen, J.-P., Simola, H., Grönlund, E., 1998. Cultivationhistory beyond the periphery: early agriculture in the northEuropean boreal forest. Journal of World Prehistory 12 (2),199–253.

Tichý, R., 2001a. Expedice Monoxylon: PocházÂ´me z MladnÂ´Doby Kamenné [Monoxylon Expedition: Our Journey fromthe Neolithic]. Spolebnost ExperimentálnÂ´ Archeologie, Hra-dec Králové.

Tichý, R., 2001b. Expedice Monoxylon I: Dlabaný Blun v EgejskémMolÂ´. Rekonstrukce a Experiment v Archeologii 2, 21–44.

Tichý, R., 2002. Monoxylon expeditions 1995 and 1998—factsabout the oldest sea navigation. Experimentalle Archäologie inEuropa, Bilanz 2002, pp. 189–197.

Tilley, C., 1993. Interpretative Archaeology. Berg, Oxford.Timofeev, V.I., 1998. The beginning of the Neolithic in the East-

ern Baltic. In: Zvelebil, M., Dennell, R., Domajska, L. (Eds.),Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest. SheYeld AcademicPress, SheYeld, pp. 225–236.

Tolan-Smith, C., 1992. Late Stone Age Hunters of the BritishIsles. London, Routledge.

Torrence, R., 1986. Production and Exchange of Stone Tools,Prehistoric Obsidian in the Aegean. Cambridge UniversityPress, New York.

Vang Petersen, P., 1984. Chronological and regional variation inthe Late Mesolithic of Eastern Denmark. Journal of DanishArchaeology 3, 7–18.

Vankina, L.V., 1970. Torfyanikovaya Stoyanka Sarnate, Riga‘Zinatne’.

Verhart, L., 2000. Times Fade Away: The Neolithisation of theSouthern Netherland in an Anthropological and Geographi-cal Perspective. Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University.

Verhart, L., 2003. Mesolithic economy and social changes in theSouthern Netherlands. In: Larsson, L., Kingdrem, H., Knuts-


son, K., LoeZer, D., Å´kerlund, A. (Eds.), Mesolithic on theMove. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 442–450.

Verhart, L., Wansleeben, M., 1997. Waste and prestige: the Meso-lithic–Neolithic transition in the Netherlands from a socialperspective. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29, 65–74.

Vuorela, I., 1976. An instance of slash and burn cultivation in S.Finland investigated by pollen analysis of a mineral soil.Memory of Society Flora Fauna Fenniae 52, 29–45.

Vuorela, I., 1998. The transition to farming in southern Finland.In: Zvelebil, M., Dennell, R., Domajska, L. (Eds.), Harvestingthe Sea, Farming the Forest. SheYeld University Press,SheYeld, pp. 175–180.

Vuorela, I., Lempiäinen, T., 1988. Archaeobotany of the oldestcereal grain Wnd in Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici 25, 3–345.

Wallerstein, I., 1978. Civilization and modes of production. The-ory and Society 5, 1–10.

Wallerstein, I., 1993. World system versus world-systems. A cri-tique. In: Frank, A.G., Gills, B.K. (Eds.), The World System.Five Hundred Year or Five Thousand. Routledge, London,pp. 292–296.

Warren, G.M., 2000. Seascapes: boats and inhabitation in thelater Mesolithic of western Scotland. In: Young, R. (Ed.),Mesolithic Lifeways: Current Research in Britain and Ireland.Leicester University Press, Leicester, pp. 97–104.

Welinder, S., 1975. Agriculture, inland hunting and sea hunting inthe western and northern region of the Baltic, 6000–2000 BC.In: Fitzhugh, W. (Ed.), Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations ofthe Circumpolar Zone. Mouton Publishers, Paris, pp. 21–55.

Welinder, S., 1977. The Mesolithic stone age of Eastern MiddleSweden. Antikvariskt Arkiv, 65.

Welinder, S., 1981. The disappearance of a hunting–gatheringeconomy. In: Gramsch, B. (Ed.), Mesolithikum in Europa.VEB Deutscher Verlag, Berlin, pp. 151–163.

Wiessner, P., 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari Sanprojectile points. American Antiquity 48, 253–276.

Zachrisson, I., 1994. Archaeology and politics: Saami prehistoryand history in central Scandinavia. Journal of EuropeanArchaeology, 361–368.

Zagorska, I., 2000. The art from Zvenjnieki burial ground, Latvia.Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis 20, 79–92.

Zagorska, I., 2001. Amber graves of Zvejnieki burial ground.Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis 22, 109–124.

Zagorska, I., Lõugas, L., 2000. The tooth–pendant head-dressesof Zvejnieki cemetery. De temporibus antiquissimis ad honoremLembit J, Tallinn, pp. 223–244.

Zagorskis, F., 1987. Zvejnieku Akmens Laikmeta Kapulauks. Riga,Zinatne.

Zhilin, M., 2003. Early Mesolithic communication networks inthe East European forest zone. In: Larsson, L., Kingdrem, H.,Knutsson, K., LoeZer, D., Åkerlund, A. (Eds.), Mesolithic onthe Move. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 688–693.

Zvelebil, M., 1981. From forager to farmer in the Boreal zone.British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 115,Oxford.

Zvelebil, M., 1985. Iron age transformations in Northern Russiaand the northeast Baltic. In: Barker, G., Gamble, C. (Eds.),Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe, pp. 147–80.

Zvelebil, M. (Ed.), 1986. Hunters in Transition. Mesolithic Socie-ties of Temperate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Zvelebil, M., 1987. Wetland settlements in Eastern Europe. In:Coles, J.M., Lawson, A.J. (Eds.), European Wetlands in Pre-history. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 94–116.

Zvelebil, M., 1992. Les chasseurs pêcheurs de la Scandinavie pré-historique. La Recherche 246, 23.

Zvelebil, M., 1993. Hunters or farmers? the Neolithic and BronzeAge societies of north-east Europe. In: Chapman, J., Dolu-khanov, P. (Eds.), Cultural Transformation and Interactionsin Eastern Europe. Avebury, Aldershot.

Zvelebil, M., 1996. The agricultural frontier and the transition tofarming in the circum-Baltic region. In: Harris, D. (Ed.), TheOrigin and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia.UCL Press, London, pp. 323–345.

Zvelebil, M., 1997. Neolithization in eastern Europe: a view fromthe frontier. Porobilo o raziskovanju paleolitika,neolitika ineneolitika v Sloveniji XXII, 107–151.

Zvelebil, M., 1998a. Agricultural frontiers, Neolithic origins, andthe transition to farming in the Baltic basin. In: Zvelebil, M.,Dennell, R., Domajska, L. (Eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farm-ing the Forest. SheYeld Academic Press, SheYeld.

Zvelebil, M., 1998b. What’s in a name: the Mesolithic, the Neo-lithic and social change at the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition.In: Edmonds, M., Richards, C. (Eds.), Social Life and SocialChange: The Neolithic of North Western Europe. Routledge,London.

Zvelebil, M., 2001. The agricultural transition and the origins ofNeolithic society in Europe. Documenta PraehistoricaXXVIII, 1–26.

Zvelebil, M., 2002. Indo-European dispersals and the agriculturaltransition in northern Europe: culture, genes and language.In: Julku, K. (Ed.), The Roots of Peoples and Languages ofNorthern Eurasia IV. Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae,Oulu, pp. 318–343.

Zvelebil, M., in press. Innovating hunter–gatherers. In: Bailey, G.,Spikins, P. (Eds.), Mesolithic Europe.

Zvelebil, M., Dolukhanov, P., 1991. Transition to farming inEastern and Northern Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 5(3), 233–278.

Zvelebil, M., Lillie, M., 2000. Transition to agriculture in easternEurope. In: Price, T.D. (Ed.), Europe’s First Farmers. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57–92.

Zvelebil, M., Dennell, R., Domanska, L., 1998. Harvesting theSea, Farming the Forest. SheYeld Academic Press, SheYeld.

Documents

Mobility, contact, and exchange in the Baltic Sea basin 6000–2000 BC