3

Fennoscandia archaeologica XXII (2005)

Marianne Skandfer

EARLY, NORTHERN COMB WARE IN FINNMARK: THE CONCEPT OFSÄRÄISNIEMI 1 RECONSIDERED1

All pottery in Finnmark, north Norway, decoratedwith comb stamps or similar stamps and rows ofpits, and lacking asbestos temper, belongs to theearliest Comb Ware in northern Fennoscandia.This pottery is known as Säräisniemi 1 Ware (Sär1), and is presumed to form a typologically dis-tinct group. I will present some of the results fromdetailed morphological analyses of the Finnmarkmaterial. The analyses aim at a critical examina-tion of the proposed definitions of Sär 1 Ware. Themain focus of the analyses is on variation. Meth-odologically, such a focus stands in conflict withthe idea of defined archaeological ‘types’. I havetherefore chosen to avoid the term Sär 1 here andinstead use a term only referring to a loose tem-poral and geographical designation for this ma-terial: Early, Northern Comb Ware (ENCW).

ENCW has been found on thirteen sites in east-ernmost Finnmark (Fig. 1). Three sites lie on thesouthern shore of the inner part of the Varangerfjord2 , the remaining ten on the Norwegian sideof the upper Pasvik River. In this article within-

and between-site variation in the ceramic mate-rial is addressed. The observed variations are thencompared with suggested type-definitions for Sär1 and with parts of the ENCW material from north-ern Finland, typologically defined as Sär 1. Themain question is whether the empirical materialnow at hand supports the distinction between aspecific northern type of Comb Ware and othercontemporary types of Comb Ware. Additionally,earlier socio-cultural interpretations of the Sär 1/ENCW material are re-considered in light of theanalyses.

THE TYPOGICAL CONSTRUCTION OFSÄRÄISNIEMI 1: A SHORT HISTORY OFRESEARCH

The first ENCW site in Finnmark was discoveredat Mennikkakoski in the upper Pasvik River val-ley in 1910 and partly excavated by Ole Solbergthe following year (Solberg 1918). Twenty-fiveyears later the next site was found and excavated

AbstractArchaeological typologies are almost always based only on parts of a total material. In thesearch for distinct features the uncommon or unique tends to get too much attention: often theuncommon comes to define a particular ‘type’. Analyses of variation in Early Comb Ware fromFinnmark (ENCW) has brought forward new knowledge about actual morphological variation in alarge ceramic material, but also a better understanding of how this variation is geographicallydistributed between sites and regions. The observation of regionally dependent variations makesit necessary to reflect on the nature of archaeological types in general and regional variations inthe ENCW material challenges the idea of Säräisniemi 1 as a distinct ‘type’. Last but not least,the documented morphological variation constitutes a new starting point for making interpreta-tions about the socio-cultural context for the earliest pottery technology in northern Fennoscandia.

Keywords: Early Comb Ware, Säräisniemi 1 Ware (Sär 1), variation analysis, technological choice,Varanger area, northern Fennoscandia.

Marianne Skandfer, Institute for archaeology, University of Tromsø, NO-9037 Tromsø, Norway.Email: skandfer@sv.uit.no

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:323

4

by Anders Nummedal and later by GutormGjessing at Nordli in Karlebotn, the inner part ofthe Varanger Fjord (Nummedal 1937, 1938;Gjessing 1942). With one exception the rest ofthe ENCW sites in Finnmark were found duringPovl Simonsen’s extensive field surveys along thesouthern shore of the Varanger Fjord and in thePasvik River valley between 1951 and 1961(Simonsen 1961, 1963). Only one of these siteswas not (partly) excavated. The last site(Storsteinneset) was reported to Tromsø Museumin 1973. It has not been investigated further.

Until 1957, presentations and descriptions ofComb Ware in Finnmark and the rest of northernFennoscandia were based only on descriptionsand definitions of Comb Ware from southern Fin-land (Ailio 1909, 1922; Europaeus-Äyräpää1930; Äyräpää 1956). In southern Finland threemain types of Comb Ware tradition are distin-guished, each separated into two sub-types: EarlyComb Ware (Ka I:1 and Ka I:2) is the oldest one,with broad comb-stamp or twisted-cord impres-sions in combination with pits, the decorationarranged in both horizontal and vertical patterns.The vessels are rather large with thick walls. The

greyish or yellowish clay is tempered with coarsestone temper. Gradually, the decoration becomesmore elaborated, symmetrical and horizontallyorganized, the ware finer and the vessels smallerand thinner through Typical Comb Ware (Ka II:1and Ka II:2) before the Comb Ware traditionreaches a ‘degenerated’ stage in Late or Degener-ated Comb ware (Ka III:1 and Ka III:2), with lesssymmetrical and refined decoration and some useof asbestos temper. The pottery tradition in Fin-land (as well as further east) continues unbrokeninto a number of regionally and chronologicallydistinct ceramic wares with different origins, theearliest ones overlapping Late Comb Ware(Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930; Meinander 1954;Äyräpää 1956; Edgren 1966). In northern Finland,the Comb Ware tradition is succeeded by differ-ent types of asbestos-tempered ware (Carpelan1978).

The central point for the earliest definitions ofComb Wares was to establish a pattern of differ-ent types with mutually exclusive geographicaland chronological distributions (Ailio 1909,1922; Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930; Äyräpää 1956).The pottery types were believed to reflect distinct

Fig. 1. Map of ENCW sites in Finnmark,northern Norway (map by M. Skandfer).

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:324

5

populations or ‘cultures’, a belief in line with theculture-historical approach of the time. A distinctnorthern variant would then correspond to a dis-tinct northern population. In more recent presen-tations, the focus is no longer on this suggestedstrong link between pottery styles and ‘culture’understood as distinct peoples. Instead the focushas turned much towards chronology (see Edgren1982; Asplund 1995; Pesonen 1996; Edgren &Törnblom 1998: 42; but see also the discussionof Sär 1 presented in Torvinen 2000, see below).

Until the 1970s it was believed that northernComb Ware, Sär 1, with its elaborated symmetri-cal, horizontally organized decoration, had to becontemporary with the similarly refined TypicalComb Ware. But, in contrast to the developmentfurther south, northern Comb Ware is not be-lieved to evolve into new types. Instead, the dis-tinct northern variant disappears and later typesare introduced from the south.

The largest and richest Norwegian ENCW siteis Noatun Innmarken in the upper Pasvik Rivervalley. The 2000–3000 m2 site (Simonsen 1963:10) was partly excavated between 1957 and 1961,but a large number of artefacts had been collectedfrom the fields and sent to Tromsø Museum bythe farm’s owners in previous years. The most fre-quent finds were sherds of both ENCW and later,asbestos-tempered ware. Simonsen presented adescription of Comb Ware based on these strayfind sherds from Noatun Innmarken in a 1957article. This article was the first detailed descrip-tion of an ENCW material. As in earlier discus-sions of the ENCW material from Finnmark andthe rest of northern Fennoscandia, Simonsen(1957) held that the Sär 1 pottery at NoatunInnmarken was a regional variant of TypicalComb Ware found in southern Finland.Simonsen’s description of the ENCW material atNoatun Innmarken nevertheless suggested spe-cific features for a northern Comb Ware, and hisdescription has been adopted as a working defi-nition for the earliest Comb Ware in northernFennoscandia – Sär 1 (Siiriäinen 1971, 1973;Halén 1994; Torvinen 1998, 1999, 2000). It hasalso been the basis for culture-historical interpre-tations of ENCW in Finnmark (Simonsen 1979;Olsen 1994).

The long-held assumption that the northern-most Comb Ware had to belong to a youngerphase of pottery production than the eldest Comb

Ware in Southern Finland is the result of a cul-ture-historical assumption underlying the con-cept of Sär 1 Ware: according to theculture-historical doctrine, new cultural expres-sions and technical developments spread from thesouthern centres towards an assumed peripheryin the north. It was not until Ari Siiriäinen(Siiriäinen 1971, 1973) presented the first radio-carbon dates from Sär 1 sites in the early 1970sthat Sär 1 was accepted as belonging to the old-est pottery traditions in Fennoscandia.

Since Julius Ailio’s (1909, 1922) first descrip-tions of different Comb Wares in Finland, severalof the original ‘types’ in southern Finland havebeen rejected as only local variants of the sametype. For the northern variant the opposite hashappened: Markku Torvinen has recently pre-sented the first typological definition of Sär 1Ware (Torvinen 1999, 2000), which is based onSimonsen’s (1957) description, but is far moreelaborated and detailed. Torvinen points out sev-eral features exclusive to Sär 1, thereby apparentlydistinguishing a northern type clearly from otherComb Wares further south and southeast. Theimpression of a specific northern Comb Ware typeis thereby fully established.

DATINGS

New datings confirm the impression that the en-tire Comb Ware material in Finnmark is contem-porary, and must be viewed as parts of the sametechnological and socio-cultural context. Sixteenradiocarbon datings from eight of the thirteenknown sites have been derived from material di-rectly associated with ENCW3 (Appendix I).Because the sites were excavated before the ra-diocarbon dating method was developed, or atleast commonly known and used in archaeology,little organic material was collected at the earlyexcavations. The stratigraphic relation betweenthe sparse organic material and the ceramics issometimes dubious. Therefore, ten AMS dateswere run on carbonised food residues collectedfrom the interior of selected pottery sherds. Of theremaining six conventional dates, three are onseal-bones, one is on marine shell and two oncharcoal.

The dates range between 5800 and 4210 BC.All the dates of carbonised food residue lie withinone thousand years, between 5565 and 4560 BC,

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:325

6

and 13 of the total 16 dates lie between 5565 and4620 BC. This constitutes the main period of pro-duction and use of ENCW in Finnmark, with apossible use until c. 4200 BC.

The ten datings of carbonised food residue are– with one exception (see below) – slightly olderthan the six datings on other organic material. Nosimilar difference is recorded on Comb Ware sitesin northern Finland (Torvinen 2000) or on anyother sites with Stone Age ceramics in Norway.The ten datings come from both coastal and in-land sites. The measured δ13C-values can give anindication of whether any of the food residuescontain a large amount of marine lipids and there-fore should be corrected for the marine reservoireffect (MRE). But the values show no systematicdifferences between coastal and inland sites, andall the datings of food residues should thereforebe considered reliable. It seems that the MRE haslittle or no impact on the datings of food residue

from the two coastal sites ‘Lossoas hus’ and Nordli.The oldest dating, 5800–5610 BC (Tua-3660) ison marine shell from an old seashore underneaththe culture layer containing ENCW, and is there-fore probably a terminus post quem dating of thepottery at ‘Lossoas hus’. Two datings, one on seal-bone from ‘Lossoas hus’4 and one on charcoalfrom Noatun Innmarken – both supposed to bestratigraphically associated with Comb Ware – areslightly younger than 4500 BC. This could meanthat they date an occupation phase directly suc-ceeding the one represented by the ceramics, butit could also indicate that ENCW was actuallyused down to around 4200 BC in Finnmark.

The datings from Finnmark fit well with themajority of datings of ENCW from northern Fin-land. Here, ENCW food residues and ENCW sitesare dated between 5900 and 3690 BC, with themajority of datings (24 out of 27 datings fromtwelve different sites) between 5500 and 4040

Table 1. Graphical presentation of the radiocarbon datings from ENCW sites in Finnmark

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:326

7

BC (Torvinen 2000: 29). Torvinen (2000: 17)delimits the chronological period for Sär 1 to5200–4420 BC. This is in close accordance withthe chronological limits for Early Comb Ware 1(Ka I:1) further south. In my opinion however, thedatings from both Finnmark and northern Finlandshow that ENCW was already being produced andused in eastern parts of northern Fennoscandiafrom c. 5500 BC.

In Finnmark, ceramic production was given upsome time between 4500 and 4100 BC. Potterytechnology was not re-introduced until asbestos-tempered pottery appeared around 2300 BC(Jørgensen & Olsen 1988; Olsen 1994). This situ-ation marks an interesting contrast to the neigh-bouring areas: in northern Finland up to Inari andin northwestern Russia the ceramic tradition wascontinued in a seemingly uninterrupted techno-logical line of development until the Iron Age. Inthe Kalix River valley in Norrbotten, northernSweden, a ceramic tradition seem to have beenintroduced around the time it disappeared inFinnmark, c. 4500 BC (Halèn 1994: 150). Thetechnological tradition of Comb Ware productionwas maintained in upper Kalix at least until c.3500 BC (Halén 1994; Färjare & Wickström1997).

THE POTTERY

Comb Ware in Finnmark amounts to 3847 sherds,from which 270 different vessels have been iden-tified based on visual analysis of preserved rimforms and individual stamps and decoration pat-terns (Appendix II) (Skandfer 2003a: 124).

For each identified vessel, several attributesconcerning shape and size, decoration, temperand colour were chosen for statistical analyses,based on Simonsen’s (1957) typologically impor-tant description of parts of the Comb Ceramicmaterial from Noatun Innmarken and Torvinen’s(1999, 2000) recent definition of Sär 1 Ware.Eleven variables were defined, each of them con-taining several categories (Appendix III). Deco-rative variation was regarded as the potentiallymost informative, but also as the most complexvariable for understanding variation as an expres-sion of ENCW’s socio-cultural context. Therefore,most of the categories chosen describe stampmotifs and decorative patterns. Earlier attemptsto describe or provide definitions of Comb Ware

in general, and ENCW material specifically, havealso focused mainly on decoration (Solberg 1918;Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930; Nummedal 1937,1938; Simonsen 1957; Torvinen 1999; 2000).

The main goals of the analysis of ENCW inFinnmark were to identify:

1. Which properties are common and which areuncommon in the material?

2. Are there any systematic relations between dif-ferent variables describing vessel size, vesselform, temper, form and decoration?

3. Are the documented properties in the ENCWmaterial from Finnmark in accordance with theestablished impression of the earliest, north-ernmost Comb Ware tradition (Sär 1)?

4. How can different properties in the ENCWmaterial be explained within a past socio-cul-tural context?

VISUAL AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES OFVARIATION

ENCW in Finnmark is analysed using differentmethods; first by visual observation and docu-mentation of morphological variables and cat-egories, and second, by different statisticalanalyses of relations between the observed at-tributes. These include univariate analyses,bivariate cross-tabulations and multivariate mul-tiple-correspondence analyses (MCA). The re-sults of these analyses permit a detaileddescription of similarities and variations in theENCW material from Finnmark. The descriptionis more detailed and less general than the earlierdescriptions and definitions of ENCW (Sär 1)presented by Simonsen (1957) and Torvinen(1999, 2000), and the results from Finnmark dif-fer in several respects from the established gen-eral picture of Sär 1/ENCW (Skandfer 2003a).

Vessel form

As for all Comb Ware, the ENCW vessels inFinnmark have straight walls slanting towards around or tapering base. Bases are rare; only threehave been documented in Finnmark. As describedfor Comb Ware further south (Ailio 1909;

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:327

8

Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930), a differentiation invessel size between larger vessels and small cupscan be observed in the material. But based on acomparison between mouth diameters and wallthickness just below the rim, actually three dif-ferent vessel sizes can be suggested:

Cups: mouth diameter < 8 cm, wall thickness <9.5 mm.

Smaller vessels: mouth diameter 13–22 cm, wallthickness 6.8–12.0 mm.

Larger vessels: mouth diameter 25–36 cm, wallthickness 9.8–13.0 mm.

The relation between rim diameter less than8.0 cm and wall-thickness less than 9.5 mm issystematic. It makes it possible to distinguish 27small cups in the total material of 270 vessels.Because of the fragmentation of the material it isimpossible to give an exact number of smaller vs.larger vessels. The analysis shows a correlationbetween rim diameter, wall thickness and the sitewhere the vessel was found. The vessels are madefrom coils successively put on top of each other,firmly squeezed and joined together. The vesselscould be at least partly modelled over or inside aprepared mould, as indicated by the on-site sys-tematics in rim diameter. The small cups are madein a pinching and drawing technique in which alump of clay is shaped in the hand to obtain thedesired form.

Rim form

Six different rim profiles are distinguished amongthe 95 preserved rims (Fig. 2). Most rims arestraight-walled with more or less rounded edge(64 % of the total). This is the only rim-form docu-mented on the small cups. Rims thickened in-wards and with straight edges are also commonamong the larger vessels (20 %), while the otherrim profiles are rare. There is no systematic vari-ation in preferred rims between the sites.

Temper

The clay used in the vessels is intentionally tem-pered. Most often the temper consists of rathercoarse pieces of crushed quartz (83 % of the ves-sels), but sand is also quite common (18 %). It is

noteworthy, however, that while sand temperingis common on the sites Noatun Innmarken on theupper Pasvik and ‘Lossoas hus’ at the Varangercoast, it is practically unknown on all the othersites. There are clear between-site differences withrespect to quartz temper quality, further indicat-ing the use of local temper material. One vesselfrom Noatun Innmarken is tempered with soap-stone, probably from one of the local sources inthe Pasvik–Varanger region. Eight vessels atNoatun Innmarken are tempered with chamotte(crushed pottery). This kind of re-use of brokenvessels is one of the most direct indications oflocal pottery production here. One vessel at Nordliis tempered with crushed pumice. This was a newbut natural and local raw material on the coast ofFinnmark from around 5000 BC, which wasbrought over the sea after a volcanic eruption atIceland (Skandfer 2003a: Appendix 2; Tephrabase2002). In addition, one example of ochre-temperhas been documented at Nesheim. The clay usedfor cups is never tempered. The temper seems tohave had a practical function related to the largervessels.

Colour

Sherd colour varies between the sites, from lightyellow to dark brick red. The colour differencesdepend partly on firing conditions but also on theamount of iron in the clay. The between-site col-

Fig. 2. Rim profiles (A-F) represented in ENCWfrom Finnmark (drawing by M. Skandfer).

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:328

9

our differences indicate that several local claysources were used to produce the ENCW foundin Finnmark. The surface of the vessel or cup wassmoothed over with a thin layer of clay mixedwith water on the inside and outside before it wasdecorated and painted. The vessels were origi-nally painted with red ochre on the outside, par-ticularly on the upper parts of the vessel and onthe rim edges. Pieces and powder of burnt redochre are commonly observed at the ENCW sitesin Finnmark.

Decorative Technique

Each vessel is individually decorated with a par-ticular stamp, always in combination with pits.Each stamp seems to have been produced to deco-rate a single vessel. Most of the stamp impressionsare strictly symmetrical linear ornaments whichare cut into pieces of organic material such aswooden sticks, bone or antler. In the material fromFinnmark the most common stamp is the combwith a varying number of vertical lines, but stampswith angled and straight hatching or zig-zag linesare also common. In addition, twisted cord, birdhumerus, small pins and marine shell have beenused as stamps, and nail impressions also occur(Fig. 3). No stamps have been preserved.

Comb-stamp motifs with vertical lines (Fig. 3a)represent 62.6 % of the total stamp motif varia-tion and are thereby the most common, aside fromconical pits. The rest of the nine defined stamp-decoration motifs are all uncommon in the mate-rial as a whole (Appendix IV: A). Looking closerat the material, however, interesting variations canbe observed. While humerus motifs (Fig. 3f) inthe material as a whole are rare, they are the sec-ond most frequent motif on the small cups, to-gether with another generally rare motif – the pinor nail impression (Fig. 3h). On the other hand,pits are lacking on half of the identified cups whiletwo cups are decorated only with pits. Both thesechoices of decoration diverge from the decora-tion of the vessels. Based on calculated expectedfrequencies of the stamp motifs found on each siteseparately, between-site differences can also beobserved. At Mennikka, for example, humerus-stamp impressions and shell-stamp impressionsoccur much more commonly than expected on thevessels. At Nesheim and Nordli, twisted cord ismore frequent than expected and on ‘Lossoas hus’

and Noatun Neset comb-stamp motifs with verti-cal lines are found more frequently than expected(Appendix IV: B).

Decorative motif

Similar observations can be made for variationsin decorative motif patterns: a multiple-corre-spondence analysis of the pattern variation showsa clear contrast between horizontally and verti-cally organised patterns (Fig. 4), but there are noother contrasts in the pattern organisation. Thisreflects the fact that the entire decoration of eachcup or vessel is organised in the same overallmanner. Horizontally organised patterns are byfar the most common ones. Combinations ofstamp motifs in different horizontally organisedpatterns (Fig. 5k–o) account for around 90 % ofthe total pattern variation, not including horizon-tal rows of conical pits. The remaining c. 10 %

Fig. 3. Stamp motifs (a-i) represented on ENCWfrom Finnmark (drawing by M. Skandfer).

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:329

10

are different vertically organised patterns (Fig.5p–s). The stamp impressions, which the patternsare combinations of, can be placed diagonallywithin both the horizontally and the verticallyorganised patterns. Among these combinations,diagonally placed comb- or twisted-cord stampmotifs in horizontal ribbons (Fig. 5o) is the sec-ond most common one, accounting for 20.6 % ofthe total pattern variation. But a combination ofvertically placed comb or twisted-cord stampmotifs in horizontal ribbons (Fig. 5l) is even morecommon, counting for 29.6 % of the total varia-tion (Appendix IV: C)

Again, between-site differences are observed.Mennikka also stands out with respect to decora-tive motif patterns. At Mennika there is a higherfrequency of vertically organised patterns andless horizontally organised patterns than ex-pected. At the two coastal sites, ‘Lossoas hus’ andNordli, and also at Noatun Innmarken on the up-per Pasvik, there are higher than expected fre-quencies of vertically placed motifs in horizontalribbons (Fig. 4o). The two coastal sites also di-verge in other respects from the expected frequen-cies as they both present more of the brokenhorizontal line pattern (Fig. 4k) than expected.In addition, diagonally placed motifs in horizon-tal ribbons (Fig. 4l) is more frequent than ex-pected on the pottery from Nordli, while verticalzig-zag lines have a higher than expected fre-quency at ‘Lossoas hus’ (Appendix IV: D). In otherrespects, only small variations in the choice ofdecoration patterns are observed. Some of the siteshave extensive pattern variation while others are

more homogeneous. An MCA conducted on therelationship between decorative technique andmotif pattern variation showed no systematic re-lationships.

Sixteen rim edges are decorated, either by shortcomb stamps or pin stitches. The rim is neverdecorated with the same stamp as the wall. Ves-sels with comb motifs on the rim always havecomb decoration on the wall as well. No othersystematic relationship between wall decorationand rim decoration could be observed.

The cup-material is too small to draw firm con-clusions about decorative motif pattern prefer-ences or indicate clear pattern differencesbetween cups and vessels.

Evaluation

The analyses reveal considerable variation withinthe seemingly homogeneous ENCW material.Cups were decorated somewhat differently thanthe vessels. More interesting are the systematicvariations between sites and possibly regions(Varanger coast–upper Pasvik) which point to-wards local, on-site pottery production. Amongthese variations are different temper materials thatwere probably collected close to the productionsite, and between-site colour differences in theENCW material resulting from the exploitationof different local clay sources. The fact that piecesand powder of burnt red ochre are commonlyobserved at the ENCW sites in Finnmark strength-ens this impression of local pottery production.The differences between the sites point towards

Fig. 4. Horizontally, vertically and diagonally organized patterns (K-S) (drawing by M. Skandfer).

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3210

11

individual potters living on each site, an impres-sion that is strengthened by the variations in ves-sel size and wall thickness. Indications ofbetween-site variations should probably be seenpartly as the result of varying technologicalchoices and skill between different potters. Theanalyses of decorative variation further indicatethat out of a limited number of motifs, the indi-vidual potter(s) living on each site had differentpreferences when it came to certain motifs andpatterns. The observed variations imply that theENCW sites on the upper Pasvik and at theVaranger coast were not occupied by the samehunter-fisher group. Instead, a possible close re-lation is suggested between the two coastal sitesNordli and ‘Lossoas hus’.

A COMPARISON WITH ENCW MATERIALFROM THREE SITES IN NORTHERNFINLAND

To test the impression of regional and between-site variation observed, the decoration featuresof the ENCW material from Finnmark is comparedwith the Sär 1 pottery at the sites Ylikiiminki [46]Vepsänkangas (Ylikiiminki municipality), Inari[13] Saamen museo (Inari municipality) and Inari[406] Nellimjoen suu (Inari municipality). Thethree sites have all been excavated in recent years,

though excavations at Inari [13] Saamen museohave been carried out since 1910 (Seppälä: pers.comm.). There are several C14-dates from each ofthe sites and the stratigraphy and various featuresare properly documented. Inari [406] Nellimjoensuu is a particularly interesting site: the onlydwelling structure associated with early CombWare in northern Fennoscandia is documentedthere (Sohlström 1992). At Ylikiiminki [46]Vepsänkangas several heaps of fire-cracked rocksand hearts were excavated (Koivisto 1998). Thedatings show that the three sites are contempo-rary with the ENCW sites in Finnmark (Torvinen2000: Appendix II). The pottery from Ylikiiminki[46] Vepsänkangas is central in Torvinen’s (1999,2000) definition of Sär 1. The ceramic materialfrom each of the three sites is documented in thesame way as the Finnmark material, resulting inan observed number of 31 larger vessels and onecup from Ylikiiminki [46] Vepsänkangas, 12 ves-sels from Inari [13] Saamen museo and seven ves-sels from Inari [406] Nellimjoen suu.

The decorative variation analyses show thatthere is relatively little variation in decorativemotifs within each of the three sites. There is alsolittle between-site variation in motifs and patterns(Skandfer 2003a: 159). There are, however, sys-tematic differences in the frequencies of motifschosen for the vessels from the three north Finn-

Fig. 5. MCA-plot showing the contrasting relation between horizontally (o, r, s) and vertically (k, l, m,n) organized patterns.

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3211

12

ish sites compared to the Finnmark material as awhole. Two examples can be given: whilst twistedcord stamp motifs are extremely uncommon in theFinnmark material, this motif is the second mostcommon on the three sites from northern Finland;on both Inari [406] Nellimjoen suu and Inari [13]Saamen museo, it is actually the most commonone. Another difference is that combinations oftwo different stamp impressions occurred on fiveof the total fifty vessels from the three sites. Thiswas never observed in the Finnmark material.

A similar picture of regional difference occurswhen decorative pattern variation among the fiftyvessels from the three north Finnish sites is com-pared to the Finnmark material. One differenceshould be mentioned specifically since it is oneof the decoration features emphasized byTorvinen (2000: 8) as the most typical for Sär 1:diagonal comb stamps placed close together, con-stituting ‘ribbons’ with edges looking serrated onthe top and bottom, is common on all three Finn-ish sites and is found on 50 % of the total numberof vessels. In contrast, this particular pattern con-stitutes only 2.2 % of the pattern variation in theFinnmark material. It seems that this pattern is aregionally limited phenomenon.

The regional and even local character ob-served in the decoration of the vessels fromFinnmark is further strengthened by the analysesof similar pottery from the three sites in northernFinland. The results constitute a starting point for

an examination and reconsideration of the pro-posed generalized descriptions and definitions ofa supposed distinct northern Comb Ware – Sär 1.

A COMPARISON WITH SIMONSEN’SDESCRIPTION AND TORVINEN’SDEFINITION OF SÄR 1

To test the representativity of the features empha-sized as typical and distinct for Comb Ware innorthern Fennoscandia, and also to evaluate therelevance of a distinct northern Comb Ware type,observed features in the Finnmark ENCW mate-rial is compared with the accepted descriptionsand definition of Sär 1 (Simonsen 1957; Torvinen1999, 2000).

Form

The analysis of the ENCW material fromFinnmark has not changed the impression thatearly Comb Ware comprises vessels with straightwalls slanting towards a round or tapering base,and straight rims. Nonetheless, a flat base from asmall cup shows that the cups had a different formthan the larger vessels. The cups were also pro-duced in a different technique. This differentia-tion in form and technique between large vesselsand small cups has never before been given at-tention in any early Comb Ware material, al-though small cups are mentioned in later CombWare materials (e.g. Ailio 1909: 82; Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930: 172f). Neither Simonsen (1957)nor Torvinen (2000) mention small cups in theSär 1 material.

Size

In the material from Finnmark wall thickness var-ies between 4.3 and 16.5 mm and mouth diam-eter varies between 6 and 48 cm. The cups musthave been 5–7 cm high, with wall thickness lessthan 9.5 mm and mouth diameters less than 8 cm,indicating a volume of only 1–3 dl. The largervessels have mouth diameters between 13 and 36cm and an average wall thickness of 10.7 mm.Simonsen (1957) mentions that the vessel wallsat Noatun Innmarken are a little more than 1 cmthick. In comparison Torvinen (2000: 7) indi-cates a diameter at the vessel mouth between 20and 35 cm and an average wall thickness of only

Fig. 6. Example of comb stamp impressions end-ing in conical pits (Ts. 6128t from Noatun NesetVest, upper Pasvik Valley, Norway) (photo by A.Icagic, Tromsø Museum).

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3212

13

9.3 mm in his material, and according to him EarlyComb Ware (Ka I) has larger vessel sizes andthicker walls than this (Torvinen 2000: 18). Theanalyses show that the Finnmark material consistsof vessels with substantially thicker walls thanthe material Torvinen bases his Sär 1 definitionon. I have argued that both wall thickness andmouth diameter are partly the result of the pot-ter’s preferences and technical skills, thereby re-sulting in both within- and between-sitevariations as well as regional differences. Wallthickness – and to a certain extent also vessel size– are thus bad parameters to base a typologicaldistinction on.

Colour

Most of ENCW from Finnmark is rather darkbrownish-reddish in colour, thereby differingfrom both Simonsen’s (1957) description of pot-tery from Noatun Innmarken and Torvinen’s(2000: 18) description of Sär 1 in north Finlandas light yellowish-brown. As pointed out earlier,the vessels from Finnmark vary in colour fromlight yellowish-brown to dark brick-red. The col-our variations seem partly to be related to the useof local clay sources containing different amountsof iron. Chemical variations between local claysources probably explain much of the seemingcolour differences between early Comb Ware indifferent parts of Fennoscandia. It is noteworthy,

however, that ENCW in Finnmark is never grey-ish in colour. Greyish tones could indicate firingat low temperatures. Torvinen (2000: 18) de-scribes Early Comb Ware (Ka I) as greyish-brown.This is possibly the result of a different firing tech-nique than for the brownish, yellowish and red-dish pottery, but the seemingly different coloursbetween supposed different pottery types couldalso be the consequence of a limited and unrep-resentative selection of pottery samples for thetype definitions. Colour should not be givenweight in a generalized description of CombWare types.

Both Simonsen (1957: 243–4) and Torvinen(2000: 6) point out that the outside of the vesselsis often painted with red ochre. This is also theoverall impression of the material from Finnmarkas a whole (Skandfer 2003a: 133–4), although itseems that many of the vessels were only paintedon their upper portions and on the rim edge. Thelack of red ochre on the lower portions might in-dicate that there was a particular symbolic rela-tionship between red ochre and the rim edge/opening of the vessel. It could also be explainedmore technically as a result of erosion throughuse (for instance the vessels being kept over astrong fire or partly dug down into the ground).

Decorative technique and motif

As both Simonsen (1957: 242) and Torvinen

Fig. 7. Diagonal comb stamp impressions forming ‘ribbons’ with serrated edges (NM 24376:140, :186,:190, :192 from Inari [406] Nellimjoen suu, Inari municipality, Finland) (photo by M. Skandfer).

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3213

14

point out (2000: 9), the vessels are individuallydecorated and the decoration can therefore beinfinitely varied. At the same time, the vesseldecoration demonstrates a high degree of homo-geneity, making it possible for them to suggesttype definitions for a supposedly distinct Sär 1.

There are differences between the definitionsmade by Simonsen and Torvinen and the ob-served variation in the ENCW material fromFinnmark. Simonsen (1957) gives little detailedinformation about the decorative techniques: heregards all the stamp motifs to be variants of imi-tation twisted cord. Broad, short comb stamps aremost common, but he also mentions bird-humerusand shell impressions. Torvinen (2000) is far moredetailed, focusing on elements that are not foundin any other, typologically defined Comb Ware.According to Torvinen (2000: 18) several stampimpressions are found solely in the so-called Sär1, among them oval twisted cord, stamp impres-sions with angled or straight hatching and stampimpressions with zig-zag lines. All these motifsare found in the Finnmark material, but they areamong the most rare ones. Furthermore, Torvinen(2000: 18) claims that nail impressions have neverbeen documented in Sär 1 and that this stands incontrast to Early Comb Ware further south. In theFinnmark material, however, nail impressionsoccur on a few vessels while the small trianglesand squares described by Torvinen in the Finn-ish material, are not found.

Simonsen (1957) observes that the decorative

patterns in the Noatun Innmarken material arealways organised horizontally. Torvinen (2000:8, 18) makes the same observation for the mate-rial from northern Finland, and he contrasts thisproperty with Early Comb Ware further south (KaI:1) (Torvinen 2000: 18). The results of the analy-ses of the Finnmark material, on the other hand,show that vertically organized patterns also oc-cur, although they are rare. According to Simonsen(1957: 242), the overall impression is that of com-binations of stamp impressions and pits, but somevessels are decorated only with pits, others onlywith stamp impressions. Torvinen (2000: 7), onthe other hand, claims that there are always pitsin Sär 1 pottery, an assertation that is supportedby the analyses of the Finnmark ENCW material.

Two particular decoration patterns have hith-erto been regarded as typologically diagnostic fora supposedly distinct, early northern Comb Ware(Sär 1). The most important pattern is the slant-ing, oblong stamp impressions ending in conicalpits at one or both ends (Fig. 6). It was first de-scribed by Simonsen (1957) and was later re-garded as a typological marker for Sär 1(Siiriäinen 1971; Halèn 1994; Torvinen 2000).The analyses of the material from Finnmark showthat only 43 out of 270 identified vessels (16 %)have this pattern motif. As mentioned earlier,Simonsen (1957) based his description of a dis-tinct northern Comb Ware on only part of the to-tal ceramic material from Noatun Innmarken. Theanalyses reveal that more than half of the exam-ples of this combination pattern with oblongstamps and pits are found at Noatun Innmarkenand seven more were found at the neighbouringsites Noatun Neset and Noatun Neset Vest. Thisimplies that the pattern is almost site-specific forNoatun and very rare on all the other sites. Con-sequently, this motif pattern cannot be regardedas a distinct feature for an ENCW.

Torvinen (2000: 8, 18) sets out two more deco-rative features as distinct. One is diagonal combstamps placed close together, constituting ‘rib-bons’ with edges looking serrated at the top andbottom (Fig. 7). The other is horizontally organ-ized zig-zag bands (Torvinen 2000: 18, Fig. 9).Only six out of 270 vessels (2.2 %) from Finnmarkare decorated with the first ‘ribbon’ motif; thevessels are found on six different sites. The zig-zag band motif is found on only two vessels (0.7% of the total material), one from Noatun

Fig. 8. Bifacial retouched bi-point (fromGropbakkeengen, Varanger Fjord) (photo by A.Icagic, Tromsø Museum).

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3214

15

Innmarken and one from Nordli. As demonstratedabove, these features are common on at least sev-eral of the earliest Comb Ware sites in northernFinland.

In the Finnmark material all the features char-acterized as particularly distinct are very uncom-mon, while several features claimed to never occurin the northernmost early Comb Ware are present.Based on these results, the idea of ‘Sär 1’ as a dis-tinct archaeological type is questionable. Instead,a model of continuous regional variation in alarger Comb Ware technology seems more fruit-ful. The fact that several of the ‘characteristic’features of ‘Sär 1’ are locally or regionally delim-ited within its supposed distribution area(Skandfer 2003a) brings out the need for a moreflexible handling of morphological variation thancan be provided by traditional pottery typology.This flexible treatment is also needed to acquirean understanding of the socio-cultural settings inwhich ENCW was produced and used.

OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALFROM THE ENCW PERIOD IN FINNMARK

An important additional source to the pottery forunderstanding the societies in Finnmark c. 5500–4500/4200 BC is, of course, the contemporaryarchaeological material in the region. As of to-day, thirteen ENCW sites are known. Two siteslie in the inner part of the Varanger Fjord and theremaining 11 on the upper Pasvik River. In addi-tion, several contemporary sites without potteryhave been documented along the Varanger Fjord.The dwelling site F6 (R12) at Mortensnes is theonly contemporary non-ceramic site at theVaranger Fjord to have been properly excavated(Schanche 1988). The sites Reppen andGressbakken Øvre have only been partly investi-gated. The Pasvik River valley – as the rest ofinterior Finnmark – has not been systematicallysurveyed for prehistoric sites; therefore little isknown about the possible existence of contem-porary dwelling sites without pottery in the in-land areas. A contemporary coastal site hasrecently been excavated at Slettnes in westernFinnmark (Hesjedal et al. 1996) and a few othercontemporary sites in western Finnmark are partlyexcavated, among them two sites for preparingstone tools in the Alta Fjord (Nummedal 1929)5 .Interesting comparisons can be made between

these archaeological materials contemporary withENCW, and preliminary results from Sven ErikGrydeland’s ongoing PhD project on settlementpatterns in the Varanger Fjord prior to c. 5500 BC6 .

In this section I will discuss further the be-tween-site and regional variations observed in theENCW material by turning to other parts of thearchaeological material from both the ENCWsites and contemporary and earlier non-ceramicsites along the coast of Finnmark. The focus isput on stone technology, selected stone tools andthe presence or absence of dwelling structures.

Raw materials and stone reductiontechnology

In traditional presentations of stone tools theemphasis is placed on their finished form andpresumed ‘type’. In this presentation I will focusmore on raw material selection and the reductionsequences through which the tools have beenproduced. A number of scholars have demon-strated that, under given circumstances, decora-tive style or traditional types provide lessinformation about social identities within thecontext of production and use of the artefacts thandoes technological traditions (Dietler & Herbich1989; Pfaffenberger 1992). The basic assumptionis that the large numbers of technological choices,which lie behind any finished artefact, are morethe results of socio-cultural relations than of ma-terial efficiency or technical rationality(Lemonnier 1986).

The stone material associated with ENCW ex-hibits a wide variety of raw materials: coarse andfiner quartzes including quartzcrystal, quartzitesof different qualities, chert, flint, ‘dolomite’7 andslate. Apart from the flints, which have probablybeen imported from sources in present-day Rus-sia, the raw materials seem to be of localprovenience. A comparison between the raw ma-terial variations found on the two coastal ENCWsites, the contemporary non-ceramic site atMortensnes in Varanger, sites along the VarangerFjord just preceding ENCW in eastern Finnmarkand the excavated houses at Gropbakkeengen inVaranger, succeeding the ENCW phase, shows aninteresting pattern. The three contemporary sitesfrom the ENCW phase display a very similar vari-ation in raw material use. Finer qualities ofquartzite together with chert, ‘dolomite’ and

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3215

16

some slate have been preferred on these sites,along with a small amount of Russian flint. Thesame materials are found at the contemporary sitesat Slettnes, western Finnmark (Hesjedal et al.1996), but here flint is lacking. In contrast, thesites just prior to c. 5500 BC display an empha-sis on quartz, with only small amounts of otherraw materials (Grydeland 2003: pers. comm.). Atthe other end of the ENCW phase is another con-trast: just after ENCW is no longer produced,around 4500/4200 BC, the stone technology isalmost exclusively based on polished slate, asdemonstrated at Gropbakkeengen.

In the ENCW phase, diverse reduction tech-niques including the bipolar technique, bladetechnique, pressure retouch, bifacial retouch, saw-ing and polishing are practiced. The changes inraw material use over time reflect changes in re-duction techniques, from primarily bipolar reduc-tion of quartz to a combination of primarily twodifferent techniques in the ENCW phase: bifacialretouch of hard, fine-grained materials, and saw-ing and polishing of slate. After this phase, sur-face retouch disappears. The shift from quartzknapping to slate polishing seems to have takenplace within one thousand years, and was virtu-ally a total replacement at least in the coastal re-gions. In a Stone Age context, this is a rapid andconsiderable change.

Stone tools

Points made with different reduction techniquesand a small variety of polished slate objects arethe most common stone tools associated withENCW, although these forms are distributed un-evenly among the sites from the ENCW phase.The same tool forms are found on both ceramicand non-ceramic sites.

Bifacial retouch seems to be a new reductiontechnology introduced at the same time as theearliest pottery in Finnmark. But in contrast tothe pottery, this technology is also spread outsidethe Varanger/Pasvik region. The new techniqueis used to produce long, slim bifacial points infine-grained, hard materials such as chert, flintand ‘dolomite’ (Fig. 8). A rare variant is in flakedslate. It has been assumed that several otherbifacially retouched forms occurring frequentlyare different undefined tools (Nummedal 1937,1938; Gjessing 1942; Simonsen 1961, 1963,

1976; Helskog 1980; Schanche 1988; Olsen1994; Hesjedal et al. 1996). A re-examination ofthe bifacial forms, however, reveals that all butthe symmetrical points are standardized preformsin a reduction sequence; only the points are fin-ished tools (Skandfer 2003a: 271). The standard-ized preforms are only known from easternFinnmark in Norway, but the same reduction se-quence preforms are present at both Ylikiiminki[46] Vepsänkangas and Inari [13] Saamen museo.Although similar finished points occur in westFinnmark, their preforms exhibit different char-acteristics. Thus, at least two different reductionsequences for producing bifacial retouchedpoints were practiced in northern Fennoscandiaaround 5500–4500 BC, one in the eastern areasand one in the western parts.

Transverse flake points with retouched sidesof fine-grained, hard materials are found on someof the coastal sites from the ENCW phase, amongthem the ENCW site Nordli. They are also foundon contemporary non-ceramic sites at the coast.On the other hand, transverse flake points fromflakes are not found on any of the Pasvik valleyENCW sites. This difference between coastal andinland sites indicates a degree of between-sitespecialization in resource exploitation or hunt-ing technique. Transverse points were commonprior to the ENCW phase in Varanger (Grydeland2000), but they are not found in any of the exca-vated houses at Gropbakkeengen, suggesting thatthey went out of use together with ENCW.

The oldest polished slate tools occur inFinnmark around 5200 BC8 . These are differentsmall and thin shapes, such as points, knives(mostly single-edged) and perforators. One of themost characteristic forms is the long, slim, so-called Nyelv point with rhombic cross-section.The Nyelv point strongly resembles the laterPyheensilta point, but the former is not dated laterthan c. 3000 BC in Finnmark. The Nyelv point israre in eastern Finnmark before c. 4500/4200 BC.Only three fragments of long, slim slate pointshave been found on ENCW phase sites in theVaranger coastal area, and none in Upper Pasvik.A different characteristic polished slate tool fromthis period is the more or less symmetrical, leaf-shaped point. Variations in the symmetry and sizeof these points imply functional differences, sothey have been classified either as knifes, dag-gers, spear heads or projectile points. Both asym-

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3216

17

metrical points with single or double edges – pre-sumably knives – and symmetrical leaf-shapedpoints have been found together with ENCW atthe coastal sites, and also at the non-ceramiccoastal sites in Varanger. The overall impression,however, is that polished slate tools are uncom-mon in this phase in coastal eastern Finnmark.Slate tools occur at several of the ENCW sites inUpper Pasvik, but they are very rare. In contrast,polished slate tools are commonly found on con-temporary sites in western Finnmark (Nummedal1929; Andreassen 1985; Hesjedal et al. 1996).

Dwelling structures

Large semi-subterranean house depressions re-ported from several of the ENCW sites in thePasvik valley have been claimed to belong to theENCW occupation phase (Simonsen 1963; Olsen1994). Olsen (1994: 66-7) suggests that they rep-resent winter dwelling sites in the inland, therebycontrasting with the lack of house structures onthe two coastal ENCW sites, interpreted by Olsenas summer fishing and hunting camps. But newdatings and a reconsideration of the stratigraphicconditions at the ENCW sites in question indi-cate beyond dispute that the house structures rep-resent much later phases in the prehistory of thePasvik valley (Skandfer 2003a: 310, Appendix9). The situation is instead that no house struc-tures are known from any of the ENCW sites inFinnmark, whilst stone-built hearts are reportedfrom most of them. On the other hand, at the con-temporary non-ceramic sites at Mortensnes inVaranger and at Slettnes in western Finnmarkshallow semi-subterranean houses contemporarywith ENCW have been excavated (Schanche1988; Hesjedal et al. 1996). No house structureshave been observed on the surface at any of theunexcavated contemporary non-pottery coastalsites along the Varanger fjord.

In general, sites without visible house struc-tures are probably strongly under-represented inthe Stone Age dwelling site material fromFinnmark (Skandfer 2003a: 313). If we look at thesituation just prior to the introduction of ENCWc. 5500 BC in the Varanger coastal area some siteshave small, shallow, round semi-subterraneanhouse depressions, but most of them do not(Grydeland 2000). This seems to correspond tothe situation in the ENCW phase. However, just

after the pottery technology is abandoned inFinnmark – around 4500/4200 BC – semi-sub-terranean house structures were built in large set-tlements on both sides of the Varanger Fjord, suchas at Gropbakkeengen and Mortensnes. Similarhouses are also found on later Comb Ware sitesin northern Finland and in Upper Kalix, northernSweden, as well as on non-ceramic sites in inte-rior northern Sweden at least from around 4200/4000 BC (Lundberg 1985, 1986, 1997; Halén1994; Torvinen 2000; Pesonen 2002). The wide-spread practice of building semi-subterraneanhouses could mark some kind of socio-culturalor economic change in the hunter-fisher societiesof northern Fennoscandia around 4500/4200 BC.

ENCW IN A SOCIO-CULTURAL CONTEXT:OUTLINES FOR A RELATIONALINTERPRETATION

Olsen (1994: 66–7) suggests that the ENCW sitesin Finnmark represent summer camps and winterdwellings for a population travelling between thePasvik valley and the Varanger coast on a seasonalbasis. Based on the absence of pottery on othercontemporary coastal sites, he suggests a culturaldifference between ‘inland groups’ with pottery,living on the southern side of the Varanger Fjord,and an ‘original coastal population’ without pot-tery, living on the northern side and further westalong the coast (my translations). Torvinen (1998,2000: 24–6) presents a similar mobile settlementpattern model for the earliest societies using pot-tery in northern Finland. The Sär 1 using groupswere primarily hunters of marine mammals whomoved to the coast in summer but spent the win-ters in the more sheltered inland forests. Accord-ing to Torvinen, the Sär 1 sites represent anorthern pottery producing population, contrast-ing with a southern group with similar economicbasis but producing a typologically differentComb Ware (the Early Comb Ware, Ka I:1).

Torvinen’s interpretation is based on an essen-tialist and static view on ethnicity and culture associal phenomena. This is further underlined byhis suggestion that the emergence of Sär 1 Waremarks the first step towards the development ofSámi ethnicity much later (Torvinen 2000: 26).But, both Olsen (1994) and Torvinen (1998,2000) base their interpretations of ethnic or cul-tural differences solely on the presence of a sup-

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3217

18

posed distinct pottery type. The assumed mutu-ally exclusive difference in pottery use or potterytypes is the only material element distinguishingthe different population groups. Otherwise thesuggested opposed population groups – the non-pottery groups in Finnmark and the Ka I:1 groupsfurther south in Finland – maintain the samehunter-fisher economy and use the same stonetools as the ENCW population. In Finland, thesupposedly different groups even have a contem-porary introduction of Comb Ware in common.

The analyses presented in this article raise sev-eral questions regarding these interpretations. Theempirical variation and similarities within andbetween established Comb Ware types and theobserved differences in the archaeological mate-rial associated with ENCW suggest that a moredynamic relational model should be applied tobetter understand the socio-cultural context inwhich the earliest Comb Ware of northernFennoscandia occurred. I will focus on two mat-ters concerning socio-cultural relations: 1) mo-bility within regions, and 2) contact betweendifferent groups.

Mobility within regions

As shown, several of the observed properties inthe ENCW material point to local, on-site potteryproduction. Pottery production demands goodsummer weather conditions, indicating that thelarger ENCW sites were used at least during sum-mer. No other material differences coincide withthe ceramic/a-ceramic contrast between sites ineastern Finnmark. Non-ceramic sites thereforeprobably represent the same social groups as theENCW sites. One possibility is that they were usedat different times of the year. The ENCW sites werethen summer camps in a mobile pattern in east-ern Finnmark that included several non-ceramicoccupation sites during fall, winter and spring.Another possibility is that the non-ceramic sitesrepresent different resource managementspecialisations within the group from the ENCWsites, but not necessarily related to specific peri-ods of the year. The non-ceramic sites were prob-ably located both in the inland and on each sideof the Varanger Fjord. The presence of house struc-tures at some of the sites and not others should beviewed as a variable reflecting economic speciali-sation between sites or differences in seasonal

occupation. The sites with house structures couldbe winter camps.

The decorative variations on ENCW indicatethat there were closer relations between the pot-tery producers in present-day Finnmark than be-tween the Finnmark-potters and their fellowpotters in northern Finland. At the same time, thedecoration indicates that the inhabitants of thetwo sites by the Varanger Fjord had somewhatcloser relations with each other than with thepopulation in the upper Pasvik valley. These re-lations are probably expressed through the pot-tery decoration as an effect of how potteryproduction is learned: potters learn to make potsthrough direct long-term observation of a skilledpotter and through practical participation in theprocess. Decorative pattern preferences are prob-ably learned in the same process. If the teachingof new potters was a family matter, then the deco-rative variations and similarities observed in theENCW material express different preferences be-tween different families. The potters and the us-ers of the pots probably recognized andappreciated these signs of possible family rela-tions expressed on the vessels. If decorative pat-tern preferences are based on differentfamily-based preferences, then the observed deco-rative patterns probably indicate family relationson different levels among the ENCW population.Based on the decorative analyses I suggest thatthe ENCW sites in Finnmark represent two dif-ferent groups consisting of several family enti-ties: one in the upper Pasvik valley and the otherat the inner Varanger Fjord. Close family ties de-fined each of the groups, but similarities in thedecorative patterns also indicate that the twogroups were related to each other by lineage. Asimilar family-based group relation can be sug-gested for northern Finland, based on the analy-ses of the Comb Ware from the three selected sitesin this study. The between-site similarities indi-cate close family relations. At the same time, theclear differences between the decorative patternvariation on these three sites and the variationobserved in Finnmark indicate a far more distantlineage relation – if any – between these two ar-eas. Some similarities between the pattern varia-tions observed at Inari [13] Saamen museo and atthe Varanger Fjord sites may nevertheless suggesta closer relation within the Inari (Enare)/innerVaranger area.

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3218

19

The distribution of ENCW sites in Finnmarksuggests that the Varanger Fjord and the Pasvikgroups had established some kind of geographi-cal division, which could have been between acoastal and an inland area. As indicated in thedecorative pattern variation, it could also – andperhaps more probably – have been a divisionbetween different waterways stretching from Inari(Enare) to the Arctic coast. The ENCW sites in-form us that summer occupation took place bothby the seashore and on the larger rivers in theinland. In a waterway-territory model this indi-cates a difference between a Pasvik/outer Varangermobile group spending summers in the inlandand a western Inari/inner Varanger group spend-ing summers by the coast. It could also indicateloose mobility patterns with no strict seasonalityamong the ENCW groups moving within a de-fined territory.

At the same time as the archaeological mate-rial informs us about family based hunter-fishersocieties, mobility but also possibly territorial-ity, it informs us about a widespread and closecontact net across the territories. New tool forms,technological skills and raw materials spread fastover long distances. Individuals and groups musthave moved with them.

Contact between different groups

Modern ethnicity theory emphasises that ethnicidentity is a way of structuring relational socialphenomena. It is not through isolation but in theencounter with, and knowledge of, an Other thatyou become conscious of your own identity. Eth-nic or cultural identity is made up of contraststowards the Other, as well as of collective tem-plates transferred to you by birth and throughchildhood within a specific society (Eriksen1993; Jenkins 1997; Jones 1997). Under givenhistorical conditions groups can see it as relevantto express ethnic differences. Most ethnic differ-ences are probably expressed through immaterialsignals, among them language, but material signscan also be used. This can be done in differentways: ethnicity or cultural difference can be ex-pressed through the use of culture-specific ob-jects or – perhaps more commonly – as materialcorrelates of culture-specific behaviour (Hodder1982; McGuire 1982). The material phenomenabest suited for expressing ethnic differences are

thus often objects which two or more ethnicgroups have in common, but which they produceor use differently. Such objects are particularlypowerful symbols of identity because they arerecognised by members of both groups as some-thing familiar. That makes the differences in usemore salient to an outsider than would the dis-play of a totally unknown object would do. It isalso important to consider what parts of the ma-terial culture were involved in possible inter-eth-nic relations and what were the characteristics ofsuch inter-ethnic relations.

Both Olsen (1994) and Torvinen (1998, 2000)interpret the earliest pottery in northernFennoscandia as an expression of socio-culturalor ethnic dualism: Olsen for the Varanger area,Torvinen for northern Finland and northernFennoscandia as a whole. I find it difficult to sup-port these interpretations (Skandfer 2003a,2003b). The archaeological material from east-ern Finnmark points towards mobile hunter-fishergroups sharing the same technologies (pottery,raw material use, reduction sequences), but oc-cupying differently equipped sites within largerterritories. The territories probably covered bothinland and coastal areas on both sides of theVaranger Fjord. The groups living in easternFinnmark most likely consisted of a populationwith a common socio-cultural identity, not twoseparate populations.

At a broader, spatial scale, we find a con-trast between ceramic-producing groups in east-ern Finnmark and aceramic groups in westernFinnmark. This material culture contrast is paral-leled by differences in the bifacial point reduc-tion sequences. The observed contrast can beunderstood as a socio-cultural difference betweeneastern and western areas, expressed through dif-ferent technological choices: the ceramic and theaceramic hunter-fisher groups share the same for-mal expectations when it comes to finished stonetools, but they signal cultural difference by pro-ducing them differently.

Instead of promoting a contrast between ‘north’and ‘south’ (Torvinen 1998; 1999; 2000) or‘coast’ vs. ‘inland’ (Olsen 1994) – which in myopinion lacks support in the archaeological ma-terial – I suggest that early Comb Ware should beviewed as a shared phenomenon among hunter-fisher groups identifying themselves as belong-ing to the same socio-cultural or possibly ethnic

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3219

20

group. Variations in the ceramic material shouldbe seen as more or less conscious local or regionaldifferences signalling family ties and possiblyterritoriality internal to this larger group. At thesame time, aceramic groups with a different stonetechnology lived further west. ENCW could havebeen of little symbolic importance towards theseOthers because it probably did not take part inthe contact situations. Instead, other material andnon-material differences could have been exhib-ited while shared formal expectations towardsbifacial bi-points indicate some kind of socio-cultural solidarity between the two groups.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL TYPES: TOOLS, NOT‘TRUTH’

Typologies are mere tools in archaeological re-search but many of the typologies archaeologistsuse – often rather uncritically – have been givena life of their own as ‘truths’. Since they were es-tablished in the 19th and early 20th century, basedon the very limited material available at that time,they have been referred to so many times and byinfluential researchers that they have achieved astatus as objective and representative descrip-tions of certain empirical materials. An additionalproperty of archaeological types is that the selec-tive entities on certain attributes that providecontrasts with other types has become more im-portant than the actual empirical content of thetypes – the variation and frequency of their quali-ties. This essentialist approach to typology canmake rare or even individually exclusive phenom-ena in an archaeological material the most impor-tant criteria for separating one type from another.

Most typologies are based on culture-histori-cal presuppositions not consistent with the ques-tions we wish to address today. The mostimportant underlying assumption is that of ma-terially observable, geographically and culturallyexclusive culture traits. Cultures and ethnicgroups were considered to form an archipelagoof separate and separable populations. Pottery hasprobably been the most important archaeologi-cal material for identifying – and separating – dif-ferent cultures and populations. The assumeddirect connection between pottery types andpopulations still restrains other ways of address-ing differences and variation in an archaeologi-cal material.

Even the short and recent research history ofSär 1 is a typical example. The suggested defini-tions of Sär 1 (Simonsen 1957; Torvinen 1999,2000) are based on only a selection of the earli-est Comb Ware material from northernFennoscandia. The features proposed as mostimportant in defining Sär 1 are those distinguish-ing this supposed type from other, earlier definedComb Wares (Ka I, Ka II). The overwhelming be-tween-type similarities are given little attentionand there is practically no focus on within-typevariation, both in Sär 1 and in the other types. Theresult is an impression of strict differences be-tween fundamentally different pottery types, iden-tifying different population groups living inseparate geographical areas, and/or chronologi-cal differences between different monothetictypes of Comb Ware, as presented by Torvinen inhis recent definition of Sär 1 (Torvinen 1999,2000). In a similar way, Olsen (1994) suggests aclear-cut cultural distinction between two differ-ent population groups in eastern Finnmark, basedsolely on the presence or absence of pottery atdifferent sites.

ENCW in Finnmark displays a much widervariety of forms, sizes, colour, temper and, not theleast, decoration patterns, than has hitherto beendescribed for Sär 1 Ware. I suggest that differencesand similarities in the ENCW material are func-tions not only of a shared technological tradition(‘culture’ in the traditional sense), but also to alarge extent of individual technological choicesmade by the potters, including the use of localraw materials and preferences for certain decora-tive motifs. The results of the analyses of ENWCmaterial from Finnmark, compared with the ma-terial from three contemporary sites in northernFinland, give an impression of considerable vari-ation within the earliest pottery of northernFennoscandia. Both between-site variation andregional variation is observed, and it is impossi-ble to fit the material into the established defini-tion of Sär 1 as a distinct type. It also seemsdifficult to maintain a clear-cut distinction be-tween a specific ‘northern’ (‘Sär 1’) and a more‘southern’ (Ka I:1) early Comb Ware based on thematerial now at hand. Several features of theENCW material from Finnmark are attributes thatotherwise define the contemporary but suppos-edly typologically different Early Comb Ware KaI:1. The similarities between ENCW and the later

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3220

21

Ka II are also striking, but Ka II is believed to haveno cultural or technological connection with theearliest northern Comb Ware.

The results from Finnmark indicate that mu-tually exclusive Comb Ware types supposedlyrelated to different population groups do not givea fair representation of the range of variation ob-servable in early Comb Ware today. The resultssuggest that analyses of variation in large sam-ples of early Comb Ware from other regions ofFennoscandia would present a similarly variedpicture as that from Finnmark.

The observed differences in reduction se-quences, distribution of raw materials and toolsbetween different contemporary sites indicate thatno part of the lithic technology can be linkedexclusively to the ENCW sites. Instead of a con-trast between ceramic and aceramic sites, a pat-tern of systematic technological variationbetween easternmost Finnmark and western,coastal Finnmark can be observed. The differentreduction sequences for bifacial points demon-strate that formal tool types can conceal impor-tant variation in the archaeological material. Suchvariations are important for interpretations ofsocio-cultural relations during the Stone Age.Only a closer examination of technological vari-ations between pottery-producing groups in theeastern parts of northern Fennoscandia andgroups without pottery in the western parts canreveal whether significant socio-cultural differ-entiation emerged in northern Fennoscandia c.5500 BC. Such an examination would also castnew light on the important question of why somehunter-fisher groups took up pottery productionand maintained it for several millennia, whileothers gave it up after some hundred years.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My PhD project (1999–2002) was funded by agrant from The Research Council of Norway andthe University of Tromsø. I wish to thank MiaHelena Krogh, MA, who translated Finnish litera-ture into Norwegian for me. A special thank mysupervisor, Associate Professor Bryan Hood, Ar-chaeological Institute, University of Tromsø, formany and long discussions during the projectperiod, and for valuable comments on an earlierdraft of this paper.

REFERENCES

Ailio, J. 1909. Die steinzeitlichen Wohnplatzfunde inFinland, vol 2. Finnische Altertumsgesellschaft: inKommmission bei der Akademischen Buchhandlung,Helsingfors.

Ailio, J. 1922. Fragen der Russischen Steinzeit. SuomenMuinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 29. SuomenMuinaismuistoyhdistys, Helsinki.

Andreassen, R.L. 1985. Yngre steinalder på Sørøy:økonomi og samfunn 4000-1000 f.Kr. UnpublishedMaster’s thesis in archaeology. University of Tromsø,Tromsø.

Asplund, H. 1995. Radiocarbon dating of Jäkärläceramics – a comment on comb ceramic chronologyand typology. Karhunhammas 16.

Carpelan, C. 1978. Om asbestkeramikens historia iFennoskandien. Finskt Museum 85: 5–25.

Dietler, M. & Herbich, I. 1989. Tich Matek: thetechnology of Lou pottery production and the definitionof ceramic style. World Archaeology 21: 148–64.

Edgren, T. 1966. Jäkärlä-gruppen: en västfinskkulturgrupp under yngre stenålder. Suomen Muinais-muistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 64. SuomenMuinaismuistoyhdistys, Helsinki.

Edgren, T. 1982. Formgivning och function: enkamkeramisk studie. Iskos 3. Suomen Muinais-muistoyhdistys, Helsinki.

Edgren ,T. & Törnblom, H. 1998. Finlands historia, vol.1. Schilds förlag, Esbo.

Eriksen, T.H. 1993. Ethnicity and Nationalism:Anthropological Perspectives. Pluto Press, London.

Europaeus-Äyräpää A. 1930. Die Relative Chronologieder Steinzeitlichen Keramik in Finland. ActaArchaeologica I: 165–90.

Färjare, A. & Wickström, C. 1997. En sälidol frånÖverkalix: diskussion om en djurfigurins funktion ochbetydelse på den kamkeramiska boplatsen Lillberget.In A. Åkerlund, S. Bergh, J. Nordbladh & J. Taffinder(eds.), Till Gunborg: arkeologiska samtal: 291–302.Stockholm Archaeological Reports. University ofStockholm, Stockholm.

Gjessing, G. 1942. Yngre steinalder i Nord-Norge.Aschehoug, Oslo.

Grydeland, S.E. 2000. Nye perspektiver på eldresteinalder i Finnmark – en studie fra Varanger. VikingLXII: 10–50.

Halén, O. 1994. Sedentariness During the Stone Age ofNorthern Sweden in the Light of the Alträsket Site, c5000 B.C., and the Comb Ware Site Lillberget, c. 3900B.C.: Source Critical Problems of Representativity inArchaeology. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia 4(20),Lund.

Helskog, K. 1980. The chronology of the younger StoneAge in Varanger, North Norway, revisited. NorwegianArchaeological Review 13: 47–54.

Hesjedal, A., Damm, C., Storli, I. & Olsen, B. 1996.Arkeologi på Slettnes: dokumentasjon av 11.000 årsbosetning. Tromsø Museums Skrifter 26. TromsøMuseum, Tromsø.

Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action: EthnoarchaeologicalStudies of Material Culture. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Jenkins, R. 1997. Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments andExplorations. Sage, London.

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3221

22

Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity:Constructing Identities in the Past and Present.Routledge, London.

Jørgensen, R. & Olsen, B. 1988. Asbestkeramiskegrupper i Nord-Norge. Tromura kulturhistorie 13.Tromsø Museum, Tromsø.

Koivisto, S. 1998. Ylikiiminki Vepsänkangas – Sär 1 -asuinpaikka Pohjois-Pohjanmaalla. Kentältä poimittua4: 41–50. Museovirasto, Helsinki.

Lemonnier, P. 1986. The study of material culture today:toward an anthropology of technical systems. Journalof Anthropological Archaeology 5: 147–86.

Lundberg, Å. 1985. Villages in the inland of northernSweden 5000 years ago. In M. Backe (ed.), Inhonorem Evert Baudou. Archaeology andEnvironment 4. University of Umeå, Umeå.

Lundberg, Å. 1986. Skärvstensvallar i Norrland. ActaBothensia Occidentalis: skrifter i Västerbottniskkulturhistoria 8: 81–99.

Lundberg, Å. 1997. Vinterbyar - ett bandsamhällesterritorier i Norrlands inland 4500 - 2500 f.Kr. StudiaArchaeological Universitatis Umensis 8. Universityof Umeå, Umeå.

McGuire, R. 1982. The study of ethnicity in historicalarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology1: 159–78.

Meinander, C.F. 1954. Die Kiukaiskultur. SuomenMuinasmuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 53. SuomenMuinaismuistoyhdistys, Helsinki.

Myklevoll, L.B.H. 1998. Bergartsøkser i Nord-Norge:forslag til klassifisering, kronologi og tolkning.Stensilserie B 50. Archaeological Institute, Universityof Tromsø, Tromsø.

Nummedal, A. 1929. Stone Age Finds in Finnmark.Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning, seriesB 13. Aschehoug, Oslo.

Nummedal, A. 1937. Yngre stenaldersfund fra Nyelvenog Karlebotn i Øst-Finnmark. UniversitetetsOldsakssamlings Årbok 1935-36: 69–128.

Nummedal, A. 1938. Yngre stenaldersfund fra Nylevenog Karlebotn (II). Universitetets OldsakssamlingsÅrbok 1937: 1–26.

Olsen, B. 1994. Bosetning og samfunn i Finnmarksforhistorie. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Pesonen, P. 1996. Early asbestos ware. In T. Kirkinen(ed.), Pithouses and Potmakers in Eastern Finland:Reports of the Ancient Lake Saimaa Project. HelsinkiPapers in Archaeology 9. Department of Archaeology,University of Helsinki, Helsinki.

Pesonen, P. 2002. Semisubterranean houses in Finland– a review. In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts and Houses: StoneAge and Early Metal Age Buildings in Finland: 9–41.National Board of Antiquities, Helsinki.

Pfaffenberger, B. 1992. Social anthropology oftechnology. Annual Review of Anhropology 21: 491–516.

Schanche, K. 1988. Mortensnes, en boplass i Varanger:en studie av samfunn og materiell kultur gjennom10.000 år. Unpublished Master’s thesis in archaeology.University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Siiriäinen, A. 1971. Shoreline dating of the Säräisniemi1-ceramics in Finland. Finskt Museum 78: 9–19.

Siiriäinen, A. 1973. Studies relating to shore displacementand Stone Age chronology in Finland. Finskt Museum80: 5–22.

Simonsen, P. 1957. Bopladserne ved Noatun iPasvikdalen. In C.F. Meinander (ed.), Studia Neolithicain honorem Aarne Äyräpää: 234–67. SuomenMuinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 58. SuomenMuinaismuistoyhdistys, Helsinki.

Simonsen, P. 1961. Varangerfunnene II: fund ogudgravninger på fjordens sydkyst. Tromsø MuseumsSkrifter 7(2). Tromsø Museum, Tromsø.

Simonsen, P. 1963. Varangerfunnene III: fund ogudgravninger i Pasvikdalen og ved den østligefjordstrand. Tromsø Museums Skrifter 7(3). TromsøMuseum, Tromsø.

Simonsen, P. 1976. Veidemenn på Nordkalotten, vol. 2:143–361. University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Simonsen, P. 1979. Veidemenn på Nordkalotten, vol. 3:363–547. University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Skandfer, M. 2003a. Tidlig, nordlig kamkeramikk:typologi – kronologi – kultur. Unpublished Ph.D.thesis in archaeology. University of Tromsø, Tromsø.

Skandfer, M. 2003b. The Early Comb-Ceramics innorthern Fennoscandia: material expression of culturalidentity? In J. Bergstøl (ed.), ScandinavianArchaeological Practice – in Theory. University ofOslo, Oslo.

Sohlström, B. 1992. En stenåldershydda – enbosättingsanalys. Kentältä poimittua 4: 27–36.Museovirasto, Helsinki.

Solberg, O. 1918. Mennikka-fundet. Oldtiden 1916: 1-11.

Tephrabase 2002. http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/tephra.Torvinen, M. 1998. Sär 1 -keramiikaa käyttänyt väesto

– etnisiä kysymyksia. Muinaistutkija 4/1998: 38–45.Torvinen, M. 1999. Sär 1 – tutkielma luoteisen

varhaiskeramiikan alalta. Unpublished Phil. Lic.thesis. University of Helsinki, Helsinki.

Torvinen, M. 2000. Säräsniemi 1-ware. Fennoscandiaarchaeologica XVI: 3–35.

Äyräpää, A. 1956. Den yngre stenålderns kronologi iFinland och Sverige. Finskt Museum 62: 5–52.

Personal commentsEngelstad, E. 2003.Grydeland, S. E. 2003.Hood, B. 2003.Seppälä, S.-L. 2001.

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3222

23

NOTES1 This article is based on the author’s unpublished PhD

thesis in archaeology on Early, Northern Comb Ware:Typology – Chronology – Culture (Skandfer 2003a)at the Institute for Archaeology, University of Tromsø,Norway.

2 Reppen, referred to by Olsen (1994: Fig. 43) as acoastal Sär 1 site, is contemporary with the ENCWsites but lacks pottery.

3 All datings referred to in the text are calibrated usingOxCal 3.5.

4 This dating has been adjusted for MRE (Table 1,Appendix I)

5 A large archaeological investigation of Stone Age andEarly Metal Age sites on the island Melkøya in westernFinnmark has not yet been published. ProfessorCharlotte Damm, University of Tromsø, is at present

conducting a research project on the period c. 6000–4000 BC in the coastal regions of northern Troms andwestern Finnmark. So far, little excavation has beencarried out and therefore no new material has yet beenpublished.

6 The results from this project are only partly published(Grydeland 2000).

7 ‘Dolomite’ was originally named by Simonsen (1961,1963) and has since been incorporated into the northNorwegian archaeological discourse. It describes afine-grained, light grayish-yellow to dark green rawmaterial, typically found on sites from the ENCWphase in eastern Finnmark. Geologically it could be asilicified slate, a tuff or a rhyolite (Hood 2003: pers.comm.)

8 The polishing technique is not new, though. It wasused to produce axes and chisels of different formsdating back to c. 8000 BC (Myklevoll 1998: Fig. 22).

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3223

24

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3224

25

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3225

26

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3226

27

fa05_b.p65 8.1.2006, 15:3327