246 Documenta Praehistorica XLVI (2019) The chronology of Jäkärlä Ware – Bayesian interpretation of the old and new radiocarbon dates from Early and Middle Neolithic southwest Finland Petro Pesonen 1 , Markku Oinonen 2 1 Department of Biology, University of Turku, Turku, FI petro.pesonen@utu.fi 2 Laboratory of Chronology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FI markku.j.oinonen@helsinki.fi ABSTRACT – The chronology of the eastern Fennoscandian Neolithic is organized with the help of pottery styles, one of which is southwestern Finnish Jäkärlä Ware. In this paper a number of new radiocarbon dates connected with Jäkärlä Ware and other relevant ceramic groups are presented and discussed. The radiocarbon dates of each group are modelled within a Bayesian chronological framework. Also, the potential reservoir effect in charred crust dates is estimated for each date based on stable carbon isotopic ratios of the crust samples and incorporated into models. Jäkärlä Ware ap- pears to be a short-living and quite a isolated group, which had no chronological contacts with Sper- rings 1–2 Wares, but with possible coexistence with Middle Neolithic Typical Comb Ware. Jäkärlä Ware is partly simultaneous with eastern Finnish asbestos-tempered Kaunissaari Ware, and forms with it a short chronological horizon in the turn of the Early and Middle Neolithic of eastern Fennoscandia. IZVLE∞EK – Neolitska kronologija na obmo≠ju vzhodne Fenoskandije je organizirana s pomo≠jo okrasov na lon≠enini, ene izmed njih so tudi posode tipa Jäkärlä iz obmo≠ja jugo zahodne Finske. V ≠lanku predstavljamo in razpravljamo o ∏tevilnih novih radiokarbonskih datumih, vezanih na te posode in druge pomembne kerami≠ne skupine. Datume vsake od predstavljenih kerami≠nih skupin smo modelirali z Bayesovim kronolo∏kim okvirjem. Ocenjujemo tudi morebitne efekte rezervoarja na podlagi razmerij stabilnih izotopov ogljika pri datumih, pridobljenih iz zoglenelih organskih os- tankov na keramiki, kar smo nato vklju≠ili tudi v modeliranje. Posode tipa Jäkärlä ka∫ejo na skup- nost, ki je ∫ivela izolirano in le kratko ≠asovno obdobje ter ni imela nobenih kronolo∏kih povezav s posodami tipa Sperrings 1-2, opa∫amo pa dolo≠eno sobivanje s srednje neolitskimi posodami z zna- ≠ilnim glavni≠astim okrasom. Posode tipa Jäkärlä so tudi so≠asne s posodami Kaunissaari iz obmo≠- ja vzhodne Finske, ki imajo dodan azbest, in skupaj z njimi sestavlja kratek ≠asovni horizont na pre- hodu zgodnjega v srednji neolitik na obmo≠ju vzhodne Fenoskandije. KEY WORDS – Bayesian modelling; Early and Middle Neolithic; Eastern Fennoscandia; chronology; radiocarbon dates KLJU∞NE BESEDE – Bayesovo modeliranje; zgodnji in srednji neolitik; vzhodna Fenoskandija; kro- nologija; radiokarbonski datumi Kronologija posod tipa Jäkärlä – Bayesova interpretacija starih in novih radiokarbonskih datumov iz ;asa zgodnjega in srednjega neolitika na obmo;ju JZ Finske DOI> 10.4312\dp.46.15 The chronology of Jäkärlä Ware – Bayesian interpretation of the old and new radiocarbon dates from Early and Middle Neolithic ... 247 Dragsfjärd (now Kemiönsaari). Curiously enough, these dates are generally younger than the ones from Nummenharju and spanning over 600 radio- carbon years, the median value being 4710 BP (e.g., Asplund 1995). In 1969, Ari Siiriäinen dated the Jäkärlä group ac- cording to shoreline chronology into the periods of Ka 1:2 and Ka 2:1. The dating was not unambigu- ous, but nevertheless it showed that Jäkärlä Ware would belong to the end period of the Ka 1:2 rather than to its beginning (Siiriäinen 1969.65–66). Later, Siiriäinen pointed out that the radiocarbon dates from Nummenharju are generally too old for the shoreline chronology, showing that the younger limit of the dates is of the age expected while the older limit is at least 500 years more than expected (Siiriäinen 1973.11). In the chronological diagram, Jäkärlä Ware remained an entity without a begin- ning or an end (Siiriäinen 1973.18). The strong dis- crepancy between the radiocarbon dates and the shoreline position of the Nummenharju site has been pointed out more recently (Tiitinen 2011.60). In se- veral studies, the problems with the geological shore- line curves for the Southwest Finland have also been put forth (Lehtonen 2005; Asplund 2006; Tiitinen 2011). The chronological position and the development succession of the Jäkärlä ceramics have been dis- cussed most extensively by Henrik Asplund (e.g., 1990; 1995; 1997; 1998). He maintains the validity of Nummenharju and Nöjis radiocarbon dates, buil- ding a line of succession between Ka 1:1 and Pyhe- ensilta Ware, via Jäkärlä Ware. Pyheensilta Ware is a Late Neolithic ceramic group with some common traits and technology with Jäkärlä Ware. Moreover, the connection between Jäkärlä Ware and Uskela Ware (style Ka 3:1 of Late Comb Ware) was proposed earlier (Vikkula 1981.65–67). With this background of mixed cultural connections and long time span of c. 1500 years, it is obvious that the dating and also the cultural position of the Jäkärlä Ware is far from clear. In this paper an at- tempt to give this group a solid chronological back- ground is made and some notes on the cultural affi- liations of the group are also presented. The new ra- diocarbon dates from short-lived materials combined with those from other sources provide us with the possibility to examine the shoreline chronology once more. In this paper the phase chronology of Jäkärlä Ware is established with a Bayesian approach built in the Oxcal calibration programme (Bronk Ramsey Introduction Jäkärlä Ware, or Jäkärlä pottery, is a special Early Neolithic group of ceramics with a distinctively south- western Finnish distribution. Traditionally, Jäkärlä Ware has been dated contemporary with the young- er style of Early Comb Ware (Sperrings 2 or Ka 1:2) and the beginning of Typical Comb Ware (Ka 2) in Finland. What makes Jäkärlä Ware sites diffe- rent, e.g., to certain sub-groups within Sperrings 2, is the more differentiated stone tool inventory than in these groups, giving grounds to call Jäkärlä Ware sites a separate group differing from the Early Comb Ware sites. The chronology of the Jäkärlä group has been a sub- ject of discussion ever since the realization of its typological peculiarity among other comb ceramic groups. First, Jäkärlä Ware was interpreted as a lo- cal south-western Finnish variant of Early Comb Ware 1:2, but chronologically belonging to the time of Typical Comb Ware because Jäkärlä Ware was found together with Typical Comb Ware in the Eura Lammila site (Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930.178–179). In the eponymic Turku Jäkärlä site the style is succe- eded by Typical Comb Ware, and Europaeus-Äyrä- pää saw Jäkärlä Ware as a delayed phenomenon of Ka 1:2. This was the state of art formulated in var- ious studies between the 1910s and 1960s before the advent of radiocarbon dating (e.g., Europaeus 1916; 1917; 1922; 1925; 1926; Europaeus-Äyräpää 1930; Riska 1945; Luho 1948; 1952; Meinander 1965; Edgren 1966). A notion put forward especial- ly by Tove Riska (1945) was that in southwestern Finland Jäkärlä ceramics replaced style Ka 2:1 of Typical Comb Ware, rather rare in SW Finland, and was thus succeeded by style Ka 2:2 of Typical Comb Ware. The first radiocarbon dates of charcoal samples from the Jäkärlä Ware sites were produced at the advent of the methodology in Finland from Sauvo Nummen- harju (six pcs) and Eura (Honkilahti) Kolmhaara (five pcs). The Nummenharju datings spanned from 6000 to 5000 BP, two Kolmhaara dates were from c. 5450–5400 BP, and the others clearly dating to a later period. Carl F. Meinander, who published the dates, used the median value for Nummenharju, 5625 BP, as a date for Jäkärlä group (Meinander 1971). The next set of radiocarbon dates from the Jäkärlä context were derived only twenty years later. Seven charcoal samples were dated in 1990 after a small- scale text excavation on the Jäkärlä site Nöjis in Petro Pesonen, Markku Oinonen 248 2009a) that allows for coherent testable quantitative estimates for timing of cultural phases. This same approach is used for other ceramic/cultural groups in the typo-chronological environment in the Early and Middle Neolithic southwestern Finland. Essential ceramic groups in this connection are Sperrings 1 and 2 (Early Comb Ware 1 and 2), Typical Comb Ware and Late Comb Ware. Early and Middle Neolithic ceramic types in Eastern Fennoscandia The earliest Neolithic ceramics in southwestern Fin- land are called Sperrings Ware or Early Comb Ware. Its origins lie in the Comb-stamp decorated ceramic traditions developed in the northern taiga zone of Eurasia, first appearing c. 6000–5500 cal BC in the north-eastern part of European Russia (Karmanov et al. 2014), with possible predecessors even further east (Vybornov et al. 2014; Kosinskaya 2014). Sper- rings Ware has its ceramic roots in the Upper-Volga area, where it developed and from where it spread to north-western Russia and Finland (Piezonka 2015; Nordqvist 2018). The earlier Sperrings 1 Ware tradi- tion continued in the later Sperrings 2 Ware, which was however limited mainly to Finland, and not to Karelia, where Pit-Comb Ware prevailed after Sper- rings 1 ceramics (Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2016). In southwestern Finland the succession of ceramic types and/or cultures continued with Typical Comb Ware and Late Comb Ware, of which Late Comb Ware is a markedly southern/western coast type, while several ceramic types after Typical Comb Ware appeared in- land (e.g., Carpelan 1979; Vikkula 1981; Nordqvist 2018). Some of the prominent sites of the Sperrings 1 Ware (Early Comb Ware 1 or Ka 1:1, Fig. 1a) are known in Southwest Finland, e.g., Kokemäki Kraviojankan- gas site in Satakunta. It seems that Sperrings 1 Ware does not have chronologically much in common with the Jäkärlä Ware, even though the earliest dates from Sauvo Nummenharju site would fit into this pe- riod (e.g., Pesonen et al. 2012). In contrast, Sper- rings 2 Ware (Early Comb Ware 2 or Ka 1:2, Fig. 1.b-c) has often been considered as a contemporary phenomenon with the Jäkärlä Ware and these both as later developments following Sperrings 1 Ware. Within this sequence of events, Typical Comb Ware was thought as an interference disturbing the deve- lopment. However, the people producing Typical Comb Ware and Jäkärlä Ware were speculated to have lived together in the same area for some time (e.g., Meinander 1965; Edgren 1966; Asplund 1995; 1998). This situation of cultural melange makes it interesting to try to find out the chronological niches of these other ceramic groups in southwest Finland during the time. Sperrings 1 Ware was the earliest type of ceramic in southern Finland, and it spread all the way to south- ern Lapland and Russian Karelia. Sperrings 1 Ware is roughly contemporaneous with the northern Sä- räisniemi 1 Ware. These two ceramic styles also have a common distribution in northern Ostrobothnia, southern Lapland and Russian Karelia (e.g., Piezon- ka 2015). In an earlier study (Pesonen et al. 2012) the chronological boundaries for Sperrings 1 cera- mics were defined for the northern and southern part of the eastern Fennoscandia separately. In the southern part of the distribution area Sperrings 1 Ware was dated c. 5145–4400 cal BC with the conti- nuation of Sperrings 2 Ware c. 4400–4175 cal BC. Typical Comb Ware (Ka 2; Fig. 1h) succeeded earlier ceramic types in many areas, and did not spread any further north than Sperrings Ware did. Among other things, the more or less common distribution has led to the assumption that there was a continuum from Sperrings to Typical Comb Ware, even though the central cultural attributes within these two cera- mic carrying traditions differ a lot. For example, the use of semi-subterranean houses, richly furnished graves and contacts to the amber and flint areas are almost extinct within Sperrings Ware while they are common in Typical Comb Ware sites (e.g., Meinan- der 1984; Carpelan 1999; Pesonen 2002; Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2015; Mökkönen, Nordqvist 2016). Late Comb Ware was the third stage in the Äyräpää’s succession of comb ceramics. It was first defined as a ‘degenerated style’ of Typical Comb Ware (Euro- paeus-Äyräpää 1930.183). Later on, this pejorative denomination was largely rejected and the role of Late Comb Ware and its connections realized (e.g., Vikkula 1981). In particular, a possible stylistic and chronological connection between Jäkärlä and Late Comb Ware has been suggested (e.g., Asplund 1995; 1998). Jäkärlä Ware and its setting in southwestern Finland Jäkärlä Ware characteristics Jäkärlä ceramics, i.e. Jäkärlä Ware of the Jäkärlä group, was defined according to ceramics analysed from 22 settlement sites known by 1965 (Edgren 1966). The ceramics are the most important factor The chronology of Jäkärlä Ware – Bayesian interpretation of the old and new radiocarbon dates from Early and Middle Neolithic ... 249 that constitutes the Jäkärlä group, as no other artefact group or solid struc- ture is present in all sites. The diatom poor clay used in Jäkärlä ceramics is of glacial origin. Such clay deposits are available in the surroundings of many Jäkärlä sites. Jäkärlä ceramic sherds are often very porous, which points to the use of organic substances in tempering. These mate- rials have obviously been dissolved during the tap- honomic process in the ground. In some sherds, however, survived pieces of Cardium-shells have been detected among temper material. The firing of Jäkärlä pots presumably happened at a relatively low temperature as the sherds are often grey. Some- times the surface of the wall has been split away, and this indicates the use of an extra clay slip on the sur- face (Edgren 1966.107–109). The technological choi- ces are different from the other Early Neolithic pot- teries, where, for example, Sperrings 1–2 pots are often tempered with rock minerals. The forms of the vessels follow the standard comb ceramic forms, where the most common type is a round-bottomed, unprofiled large jar. Sometimes the rim-part is bent a little inwards. A few occurrences of flat-bottomed jars exist, and some small, low bowl- like vessels and miniature vessels also occur (Ed- gren 1966.109; 1983). The decoration of Jäkärlä pots covers the whole ves- sel body, but the rim top decoration occurs very ra- rely. This is also a common trait in Sperrings 1–2 Wares and Säräisniemi 1 Ware of northern Finland, while in other later or contemporary ceramics Early Asbestos Ware and Typical Comb Ware rim top deco- ration is dominant. The most common decoration stamps are comb stamps, twisted cord stamps, tube stamps and oval or grain-shaped stamps (e.g., Fig. 1.d-f). The comb stamps are most common, and they are usually oval-shaped and relatively wide. The de- coration is overall horizontal (Edgren 1966.110– 111). The most distinct peculiarities of Jäkärlä Ware com- pared to roughly contemporaneous and geographi- cally overlapping ceramic styles (Typical Comb Ware, Sperrings Ware 1–2) are the organic temper mater- ial, poorly fired clay (grey in colour), the use of broad and oval comb stamps, and the absence of pit stamps and the rim top decoration. These fea- tures make it possible to distinguish Jäkärlä Ware from other ceramic styles in the find material. However, the typological difference between Jäkär- lä Ware and Sperrings 2 Ware is sometimes very dif- ficult to decipher. The use of organic temper is not a rare occurrence in Sperrings 2 Ware, either. Some- times, only the decoration with broad and oval stamps in Jäkärlä Ware separates it from Sperrings Fig. 1. Examples of radiocarbon dated ceramics in this study. a Sper- rings 1 Ware, Porvoo Böle (KM 17074:724, Hela-3177, 5884±43 BP); b Sperrings 2 Ware, Raasepori Tim- merkärr (KM 31635:210, Hela-3170, 5614±41 BP; c Sperrings 2 Ware, Es- poo Kläppkärr (KM 31107:399, He- la-3173, 5439±43 BP); d Jäkärlä Wa- re, Espoo Mynt (KM 13594:392, Hela- 3166, 5210±40 BP); e Jäkärlä Ware, Turku Jäkärlä (KM 8063:107, Hela- 3169, 5119±42 BP); f Jäkärlä Ware, Lieto Kukkarkoski II (KM 16879:161, Hela-3176, 5130±40 BP, MRE corre- cted 5096±43 BP); g inner surface of Jäkärlä Ware, Lieto Merola (KM 16879:28, Hela-3172, 5002±40 BP, MRE corrected 4992±40 BP); and h Typical Comb Ware, Nousiainen Ku- konharja 2 (KM 38207:21, Hela- 3178, 4829±40 BP, MRE corrected 4560± 137 BP). Petro Pesonen, Markku Oinonen 250 2 Ware, which is usually decorated with long comb stamps or lines (Rankama 1982). The geographical distribution and natural environment of Jäkärlä Ware sites Judging by its distribution, Jäkärlä ceramics are a characteristically southwestern Finnish phenome- non. Of the c. 50 sites, 1 1 a vast majority are situated in the southwestern provinces of Varsinais-Suomi and Satakunta (Fig. 2). A number of sites are also spread along the southern coast of Uusimaa and Kymenlaakso, and the most eastern site is situated in Virolahti, near the Russian border. There are two sites on the Åland Islands and a few sites in the pro- vinces of South and North Ostrobothnia, the north- ernmost site lies in Kalajoki, in North Ostrobothnia. Due to the rebounding of the earth’s crust after the Ice Age, the sites are today in the inland, but all the evidence points to the fact that they were without exception once maritime and coastal sites. In the Middle Holocene, during the Jäkärlä period, the climate was optimal and this contributed to in- creased productivity and greater availability of na- tural resources. The forests were composed mainly of pine and broad-leaved trees, with water chestnut thriving in small ponds, etc. (e.g., Tallavaara 2015. 48–49; Tallavaara, Seppä 2012). The Jäkärlä sites were situated at the coast, near to both maritime and terrestrial resources (e.g., Tiitinen 2011). The lipid analyses conducted recently on Jäkärlä ceramics also show the use of both resources (Papakosta, Pesonen 2019; Pääkkönen et al. 2016). The Jäkärlä pottery was obviously used for cooking both terrestrial and aquatic products. So far there have been no osteological analyses connected di- rectly with Jäkärlä Ware. In the eponymous Turku Jäkärlä site, seal and fish dominate, but the oste- ologial material is limited and the context is mixed (Pääkkönen et al. 2016.70). The aquatic/maritime orientation of the Jäkärlä group and its ceramics must be kept in mind. The radiocarbon dates con- ducted on the Jäkärlä pottery food crust are thus vul- nerable to the marine reservoir effect (see later). Pure contexts of Jäkärlä Ware are rare. For a long time only the Sauvo Nummenharju site was known, but later other sites with only Jäkärlä ceramics were discovered, e.g., Kemiönsaari Nöjis (Asplund 1990; 1995). But from the chronological point of view, the mixed sites also tell stories. In Finnish coastal con- ditions, the mixing of chronologically different cul- tural items principally happens only during a fairly limited time period, when the shoreline was still close enough to the settlement site. The mixing thus gives a chronological hint for the dating of Jäkärlä Ware. Of the c. 50 sites with Jäkärlä ceramics, two are mixed with Sperrings 1 Ware, ten with Sperrings 2 Ware and 20 with Typical Comb Ware. Late Comb Ware (aka. Uskela ceramics) occurs in eight sites to- gether with Jäkärlä Ware, Corded Ware at 11 sites and Pyheensilta Ware at six sites. Bronze Age and Iron Age ceramics are also featured in some sites. It thus seems that Jäkärlä Ware would have a common geographical contact mainly with Sperrings 2 Ware and Typical Comb Ware. Material and methods Radiocarbon dating procedures For this paper, 18 samples from charred crust of ceramics and burnt bone were radiocarbon dated (eight samples of Jäkärlä Ware, two samples of Sper- rings 1 Ware, four samples of Sperrings 2 Ware and four samples of Typical Comb Ware). The chemical pretreatment protocol for the charred crust samples followed an acid-alkali-acid (AAA) treatment (Taylor, Bar-Yosef 2014.93). The protocol for burnt bones was according to Dorien Lanting et al. (2001). The pre-treated samples were converted to CO2 either by combusting (charred crusts) or acid release (burnt bones) after which the CO2 samples were converted to graphite targets (Slota et al. 1986) by chemical reduction. The AMS radiocarbon measurements were carried out by the Uppsala Tandem Laboratory (Pos- snert 1984) on these graphite targets. All conver- sions to calendar years were performed using the Oxcal software (Bronk-Ramsey 2009a) and with the Intcal13 radiocarbon calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2013). The data selection Additional radiocarbon dates were gathered from the database collected during the Argeopop-project (Pesonen, Sundell 2011) and most of these have al- ready been published in several papers (e.g., Peso- nen et al. 2012; Oinonen et al. 2014). The original dates are reproduced in Appendices (1–2). Even though Jäkärlä Ware is the focus of this paper, it is necessary to also deal with the other ceramic groups relevant in this connection, which are Sperrings 1 Ware, Sperrings 2 Ware, Typical Comb Ware and Late Comb Ware. The Sperrings 1–2 and Late Comb 1 The exact number of sites is not fixed, as the identification of Jäkärlä Ware in some sites remains uncertain. The chronology of Jäkärlä Ware – Bayesian interpretation of the old and new radiocarbon dates from Early and Middle Neolithic ... 251 Ware dates are so far so few that only Typical Comb Ware could be studied separately for southwestern Finland, with regard to the main distribution area of Jäkärlä Ware. Sperrings 1–2 Wares and Late Comb Ware were studied for the whole area of Finland. There are currently 69 radiocarbon dates available from sites where Jäkärlä Ware has also been disco- vered (Appendix 1 at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp. 46.15). Inevitably, many of these sites are multipe- riodic, and thus a large proportion of the radiocar- bon dates lack a proper context. Altogether 31 dates from 11 archaeological sites were deduced to be in close contact with the Jäkärlä pottery (‘class 2’ dates; see later). Of these, ten dates are charred crust from the pottery surface, one is a burnt bone date, one is Fig. 2. Early and Middle Neolithic ceramics in Finland. A The distribution of Jäkärlä Ware in the former coast of the Baltic Sea. The list of sites is in Appendix 3 at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.46.15; B The first half of the Early Neolithic. 1 Sperrings 1 Ware; 2 Säräisniemi 1 Ware; C The second half of Early Neoli- thic. 1 Sperrings 2 Ware; 2 Asbestos-tempered Sperrings 2 and Kaunissaari Wares; 3 Jäkärlä Ware; D Early Middle Neolithic. 1 Typical Comb Ware. The distribution of the Late Comb Ware (Uskela Ware) coincides roughly with that of Jäkärlä Ware, though several variants of Late Comb Ware are present also in the Fin- nish inland and Baltic States (e.g., Nordqvist 2018). Maps B-D from Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2017, published with a permission from the authors. Original design of maps B-D by Kerkko Nordqvist, modified by Petro Pesonen. Petro Pesonen, Markku Oinonen 252 a charred nut date and the rest are traditional char- coal dates. Most of the charred crust dates and the single burnt bone dating were performed for this pa- per, with the exception of one crust date from the Turku Jäkärlä site (Pääkkönen et al. 2016) and two crust dates from the Nousiainen Kukonharju 2 site made earlier (unpublished). 2 2 Most of the charcoal dates have already been published (Meinander 1971; Asplund 1995), but one date from the Turku Jäkärlä site has been published only in the date list and in the related open-access database (Junno et al. 2015). Three dates from the Nousiainen Rauannniittu site and three dates from the Eura Kolmhaara site have not been published before. 3 3 For the other periods similar screening of dates was applied, even though it is sometimes difficult for the samples from multiperiod sites. For the Sperrings 1 and 2 Wares, those dates sampled from gyttja layers or having unknown origin were left out altogether. The same applies in principle also to the Typical and Late Comb Ware dates. Because the charcoal dates typically have much larg- er error margins and also because of potential error sources in the samples themselves, the calibration runs were performed for each period also just on charred crust and birch bark dates. Luckily, the cor- pus of crust and birch bark tar dates has gradually grown, so these kind of general, phasewise dating schemes are now possible to make. Altogether 350 dates were applied in this study (Jäkärlä dates in- cluded in the count), and of these 152 are charred crust and birch bark tar dates (see Appendix 2 at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.46.15). As for the Jä- kärlä dates, most of these have also been published earlier in various papers and in the open-access data- base (www.oasisnorth.org/14carhu), but some are published for the first time in this paper with the per- mission of the original samplers. Radiocarbon dates in Jäkärlä Ware context Charcoal dates from Jäkärlä sites have a wide chro- nological variation spanning from 5990±180 BP (Hel-48) to 4490±120 BP (Hel-2816), while more re- liable charred crust dates show a much shorter time- slice for the ceramics from 5230±41 BP (Hela-2660) to 5055±41 BP (Hela-3076). One charred crust date (7450±49 BP; Hela-3075) is over 2000 radiocarbon years older than the other crust dates and 2400 ra- diocarbon years older than the other charred crust dating from the same site (5055±41 BP; Hela-3076). It turned out, however, that there was probably some glue or conservation liquid in the dated sherd (glued together from two pieces), which may have contami- nated the result as the glue was probably made of fossil (i.e. old radiocarbon-free) material, and was thus likely resistant against the chemical pretreat- ment. When calibrated, the mean result is 6325±55 cal BC, 4 4 which is more than 1000 years older than any ceramic date from Finland and neighbouring areas. This date is thus rejected as potentially conta- minated. The other charred crust dates seem to be reliable as far as it is possible to judge from the suc- cessful analysis procedure and results. The charcoal datings of Jäkärlä Ware are problema- tic, as 1500 radiocarbon years for an otherwise very local and even an ‘introvert’ cultural feature seems to be an unexpectedly long time period. In the fol- lowing, the reliability of the each charcoal series is discussed. According to shoreline chronology, the older end of the Sauvo Nummenharju dating series seem in par- ticular to be anomalously old (Siiriäinen 1973.11). Siiriäinen observed, that “it may be a question of the excessive dispersion which has been generally observed in datings obtained from the hearth charcoal of settlements” (Siiriäinen 1973.11 with references). Nummenharju remains an enigmatic site, as the context of the samples seems to be fair- ly good. One further reason to suspect the charcoal dates of the site is however a new burnt bone result from the area (Hela-3165; 4926±35), which is c. 100 radiocarbon years younger than any of the charcoal dates from the site and it obviously fits fairly well also in the shoreline chronology (cf. Tiitinen 2011). However, the δ 13 C-value of the burnt bone is con- siderably higher than any other values in the data set, –12.7 ‰. This resembles a highly marine value, and probably shows the conservation of the marine signal in the sample despite the burning process (see discussion on the burnt bone dates below). In contrast, the dating series from the Kemiönsaari Nöjis site is from the lower end of the whole se- quence, with a span of c. 600 radiocarbon years. 2 The dates from Nousiainen Kukonharju 2 were initiated by Simo Vanhatalo, Finnish Heritage Agency (Vanhatalo 2010). 3 The dates from Nousiainen Rauanniittu were initiated by Simo Vanhatalo (Vanhatalo 1991), and the dating from Eura Kolmha- ara by Päivi Kankkunen, of the Finnish Heritage Agency (Kankkunen 2005). 4 In this paper, all calibrations are made with Oxcal v. 4 or later (Bronk Ramsey 2009a) and the atmospheric data is from Reimer et al. (2013). The chronology of Jäkärlä Ware – Bayesian interpretation of the old and new radiocarbon dates from Early and Middle Neolithic ... 253 There is no clear information how the Nöjis dates were obtained, but by the nature of the excavation (test pitting) it is reasonable to suspect they are char- coal pieces collected from the cultural layer, which are not very reliable in normal circumstances as they may as well derive from forest fires and the like. However, most of the Nöjis datings are in fairly good accordance with the shoreline chronology. One of the oldest datings in the Jäkärlä series is a charcoal dating from the Eura Kolmhaara site (5850± 90; Hel-4612). There are many other dates, but they are usually thought to belong to the Typical Comb Ware phase of the site. However, it is noteworthy, that there are also two quite early Typical Comb Ware context dates which were also dated in the same era as the above-mentioned Sauvo Nummen- harju dates (Hel-39, 5430±160 BP and Hel-20, 5410± 150 BP). These are 250 radiocarbon years older than the oldest charred crust Typical Comb Ware date from Kolmhaara (Hela-362; 5155±60 BP), which itself is almost 400 radiocarbon years older than two AMS-dates from charcoal and charred nut from the site (Hela-651, 4775±65 BP and Hela-650, 4710± 55 BP), which are from the Munasaari part of the site, interpreted primarily as a Jäkärlä group part in the Kolmhaara site. There thus seems to be a pat- tern which gives older dates for those radiocarbon dates conducted in the early years of radiocarbon dating in Finland, but also a pattern which gives old dates for the charcoal samples in the region in gen- eral when using the conventional dating method. It is however obvious that, judging from the Kolmha- ara dates alone, the Jäkärlä and Typical Comb Ware are contemporaneous phenomena. According to the excavation report, the above-mentioned old date Hel-4612 is from a fireplace stratigraphically below the other fireplaces in the site, which were dated to the Jäkärlä period (Kankkunen 2005) giving grounds for rejecting this date from the Jäkärlä context. The other two dates (Hela-650 and Hela-651) are from the same excavation and are interpreted to derive from a Jäkärlä context. However, these two dates are considerably younger than the other dates of the site and other dates with Jäkärlä contexts elsewhere. Thus a doubt arises as to whether they truly repre- sent Jäkärlä Ware. The Nousiainen Rauanniittu site might be a pure Jä- kärlä group site, or at least no other ceramic types have been found in the site so far. The site was test excavated in 1988 (Vanhatalo 1991). The excava- tion is well documented and the radiocarbon dates seem to be from reliable contexts in the fireplaces. The importance of the site is further attested by the presence of a potential pithouse in the site, which is unique if truly assigned to the Jäkärlä group. Apart from two charred crust dates, one charcoal date from the Turku Jäkärlä site also exists. This was collected in 1985, but on the basis of the excavation report alone (Salo, Laukkanen 1986) the context of the date is impossible to define, so this date is eventu- ally rejected. After such scrutiny only 15 dates were thought reli- able enough, and most probably connected with the Jäkärlä Ware (class 1 dates). However, it is useful to make runs also with all 31 dates (class 2 dates) in order to see how great an effect the new dates real- ly have on the dating of the whole cultural group. Radiocarbon dates in Sperrings 1–2 Ware, Typical Comb Ware and Late Comb Ware con- texts Sperrings 1 and 2 Wares are also present in the Ka- relian Republic and Leningrad oblast in Russia (Ger- man 2009; Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2016). A number of radiocarbon dates also derive from this region and these were used in this study too. Altogether 82 radiocarbon dates are from the Sperrings 1 con- text and 26 from the Sperrings 2 context. Five Sper- rings 1 Ware dates and six Sperrings 2 Ware dates are published for the first time in this study, and six of these samples were dated by the authors for this work. The seven oldest radiocarbon dates are from Sperrings 1 contexts in the Karelian Republic and Leningrad oblast, and six of these are from char- coal samples and one from a burnt bone sample charred birch black chewing burnt charred charcoal wood altogether crust bark tar paint resin bone nut shell Sperrings 1 35 5 1 8 33 82 Sperrings 2 18 8 26 Jäkärlä (class 1 and 2) 10 1 1 19 31 Typical Comb Ware 24 48 13 12 2 84 5 188 Late Comb Ware 9 3 1 2 8 23 altogether 96 56 1 13 22 5 152 5 350 Tab. 1. The radiocarbon dates and sample material in each ceramic group. Petro Pesonen, Markku Oinonen 254 (e.g., Piezonka 2008; German 2009; Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2016). The burnt bone from Sulgu 2 site is the oldest of all, 6670±35 BP (KIA-35900), but it may well derive from settlement use in Mesolithic times (Piezonka 2008). The oldest context date from Finland is from a burnt bone sample in the Erolan- niemi site in Kontiolahti, eastern Finland, 6267±44 BP (Hela-2557), and the oldest charred crust date is from the Uja III site in the Karelian Republic, Russia, dated to 6225±40 BP (GrA-63566; Nordqvist, Mök- könen 2016). The contact period between Sperrings 1 and 2 Wares has previously been studied with the help of Baye- sian modelling with a two-phase model, and the boundary between successive phases was estimated to be c. 4400 cal BC (Pesonen et al. 2012). There is a group of radiocarbon dates younger than this limit in the Sperrings 1 context, and a number of dates older than this in the Sperrings 2 context. The youngest date within the Sperrings 1 context is from the Haasiinniemi site in Lieksa, eastern Finland, dated to 5240±110 BP (Hel-3574), and oldest date within the Sperrings 2 context is from the Kivimäki site in Pielavesi, central Finland, dated to 5680±40 BP (GrA-62077). Thus major overlap may occur for several reasons: 1) a true, slow shift of styles, 2) problems in defining the ceramic styles, and 3) prob- lems in specifying the context of the sample. Sperrings 2 dates are not as numerous as Sperrings 1, but there are now enough of them to form a pic- ture of its chronological framework. The youngest Sperrings 2 dates are clearly overlapping with the Ty- pical Comb Ware dates, but it is noteworthy that none of the direct datings (charred crust and birch bark tar) overlap, as the youngest Sperrings 2 charr- ed crust is from the Summassaari Uimaranta site in central Finland and dated to 5335±45 BP (Hela-642), while the oldest Typical Comb Ware charred crust is from the Törmävaara site in northern Finland and dated to 5160±100 BP (Hela-78). Typical Comb Ware is present in great numbers also in northwest Russia, the Baltic states and to some extent also in Sweden. Accordingly, a number of ra- diocarbon dates exist also from these regions, but for the purpose of this study only some samples from Leningrad oblast and the Karelian Republic were taken along in the study, as there are many Typical Comb Ware contexts and direct dates from Finland and a few more would not add much to the corpus. As already noted, a number of early Typical Comb Ware contexts dates are available, with the earliest example from the Autioniemi site in Hankasalmi and dated to 5500±170 BP (Hel-30). It was noted al- ready at the end of the 1990s that the early dates derived from charcoal are in strong conflict with the birch bark tar and the charred crust dates (Pesonen 1999), and this remains the case. The earliest set of Typical Comb Ware context dates are likely outliers. The youngest Typical Comb Ware date is from a mul- tiperiod site of Naarajärvi in Pieksämäki, central Fin- land, dated to 4200±190 BP (Hel-1926), and there are a number of other dates almost as young as this. There is again a strong overlap between Typical Comb Ware and Late Comb Ware dates, as the oldest Late Comb Ware date from the Maarinkunnas site in Vantaa, southern Finland, is 4940±70 BP (Hela-259). The overlap is significant and really comprises the younger part of the whole Typical Comb Ware se- quence of dates. The problems in direct seriation of these two ceramic types have already been noted (Leskinen 2003; Räihälä 1996). This overlap may have similar causes as the overlap between Sperrings 1 and 2 dates. Late Comb Ware is here understood predominantly as Uskela Ware (as defined by Vikku- la 1981), because the late forms of Comb Ware and their connection with the other Middle Neolithic ce- ramic types (e.g., Kierikki, Zalavruga, Orovnavolok and Voynavolok Wares) are not fully understood and studied in the Finnish assemblages (Mökkönen, Nord- qvist 2018). The distribution of Late Comb Ware (of the Uskela-type) is extended to the Karelian Isth- mus (Kholkina 2018), but obviously it is mainly a coastal type with other ceramic types dominating in inland Finland during the Late Middle Neolithic. The youngest Late Comb Ware context date is from the Ostrobothnia, Bläckisåsen site in Kokkola, and dated to 4200±60 BP (Su-1568), i.e. to the same time as the youngest Typical Comb Ware context date from Naarajärvi in Pieksämäki (see above). Reservoir effect and other potential error sour- ces There are many potential error sources affecting the radiocarbon dating results. Besides the obvious po- tential error sources in sampling, which indeed is one of the most crucial points in the radiocarbon dat- ing procedure, some other error sources in the dated material itself are also a risk. One of the most chal- lenging ones is the so-called reservoir effect. Radio- carbon dating is based on comparison of the mea- sured radiocarbon content of a sample to the known past atmospheric radiocarbon contents. If all the car- bon in aquatic environments would be based on just dissolved atmospheric carbon dioxide into water, The chronology of Jäkärlä Ware – Bayesian interpretation of the old and new radiocarbon dates from Early and Middle Neolithic ... 255 the radiocarbon content of the aquatic and atmos- pheric carbon would resemble each other. However, aquatic organisms, marine in particular, contain typi- cally less radiocarbon compared to contemporane- ously-living terrestrial organisms due to old dissolv- ed organic carbon in water, to the slower aquatic carbon cycle and to dissolved inorganic carbon from limestone bedrocks. These result in older values for the dates than expected if aquatic carbon is involved. The amount of marine reservoir effect (MRE) within the Baltic Sea varies according to the assumed geo- graphical origin of carbon from c. 400 radiocarbon years at the Danish Straits to c. 25–50 radiocarbon years at the bottom of the Bothnian Bay (Lougheed et al. 2013). In the marine conditions of the north- ern Baltic Sea (between 59° and 66°N latitude), the current average value of the MRE is estimated as 231±113 radiocarbon years (N = 8, CHRONO Marine database, http://calib.org/marine/; Appendix 4 at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.46.15). 5 5 One possibil- ity to estimate this systematic offset is to make a cor- rection based on the stable isotope signals (δ 13 C and δ 15 N) in the dated material. The isotopic ratios reflect the marine or terrestrial origin of the food in- gredients present in the crust sample, and it is pos- sible to scale down the maximal reservoir effect in each sample based on this data (Pesonen et al. 2012; Oinonen et al. 2013a). The δ 13 C values of the eight Jäkärlä charred crust dates vary between –27.1 and –19.5‰. 6 6 These val- ues are in line with the other charred crust values obtained in Finland (Pesonen et al. 2012.665). Ge- nerally, the average value for terrestrial samples in the food residue is about –26‰ (Fischer, Heineme- ier 2003.460–461; Pesonen et al. 2012). As the Jä- kärlä sites have been considered to situate at the marine shoreline, it is assumed that aquatic influ- ence is essentially also marine, and thus any poten- tial freshwater influence would be minimal. Four of the charred crust dates have values over –26‰, but only the samples from the Nousiainen Kukonharju 2 site have a clear marine signature (–19.5 and –20.8‰) and the potential of the reservoir effect must thus be considered. Interestingly, another one of these Kukonharju 2 dates is the oldest crust date of Jäkärlä Ware. The reservoir effect correction with the procedure explained in Pesonen et al. (2012) has been applied, and corrected values for the four Jä- kärlä crust dates used in the model runs. To perform comparable chronological analysis to our previous work, Pesonen et al. (2012), we have adopted δ 13 C = –19.3 ± 2.0‰ as the 100% marine isotopic signature. The isotopic baseline values for the Bothnian Sea and Bothnian Bay are different for marine animals on both sides of the Quark (a strait between Bothnian Bay and Bothnian Sea). This means that for correction of the reservoir effect, in addition to the different maximal MRE, different iso- topic values should also be used for maximal 100% marine share in the correction procedure for differ- ent parts of the Baltic Sea. Obviously, these would slightly affect the outcome of the reservoir correc- tion procedure. The maximally terrestrial δ 13 C value (–26 ± 1‰) is based on measurements on terrestri- al material and is robust (e.g., Fischer, Heinemeier 2003; Pesonen et al. 2012.665–666). A sensitivity analysis has been made by assuming a δ 13 C value of –15.9 ± 2.0‰ as representing the 100% marine con- tent in the crust. The value is derived from an open access database (www.oasisnorth.org/diana; Etu-Sih- vola et al. 2019). The isotopic signature for the flesh of the marine animals was deduced as δ 13 C = –15.9 ± 1.8‰ for the areas south of the Quark (lat. 56– 63°N) based on bone collagen data and by assuming a collagen – flesh isotopic offset of –1‰ (Fernandes 2016). The results of the sensitivity analysis show only minor effects in the modelled boundary values. The maximum effect observed is 95 years for the start boundary of the Late Comb Ware crust and birch bark tar dates, obviously caused by several very high ma- rine signals in crust samples. This makes the indivi- dual corrected dates and corresponding model result slightly younger when the alternative 100% marine isotopic value is adopted. For all the other bounda- ries, the changes due to this alternative selection were within the original uncertainty estimates. Al- though an extensive pairwise marine terrestrial sam- ple comparison approach could also cross check our results in the future (e.g., Edinborough et al. 2016), this is well beyond the scope of the present study. In the meantime, we conclude that the modelling re- sults, except for Late Comb Ware, are not significant- ly affected by the assumed isotopic signature for a 100% marine crust. We also note that this kind of ap- proach is crucial to improving the analysis procedure. 5 In Pesonen et al. (2012) the MRE was defined as 279±77 years according to values then available from the whole Baltic Sea basin. Now it was possible to choose only the eight northernmost datapoints that better refer to Finnish conditions, thanks to new mea- surements by Lougheed et al. (2013). The Northern Baltic Sea data is from studies by Olsson (1980) and Lougheed et al. (2013). 6 Here, the rejected date (Hela-3075) is not considered. The δ 13 C-isotope value of Ua-46150 (Turku Jäkärlä; Pääkkönen et al. 2016) has not been reported. Petro Pesonen, Markku Oinonen 256 Although bone is prone to a confounding reservoir effect through the food chain, there is a strong possi- bility that burnt (or cremated) bone dates actually represent the age of the wood burned in the pyre (Hüls et al. 2010; Van Strydonck et al. 2010; Olsen et al. 2012). In fact, the original study by Lanting (2001) compared burnt bone dates to charcoal dates from the same contexts. If the carbon of the inorga- nic component of burnt bones is replaced by char- coal carbon, then the radiocarbon measurements of the samples would still be coeval. Thus, burnt bone dates should have the same potential errors as tradi- tional charcoal dates, which in principle should not carry any other error sources except the possible old wood effect. At the same time, the replacement of the animal carbon signal by the wood carbon signal would eliminate the possible reservoir effect in the burnt bone dates. No burnt bone radiocarbon dates have thus been corrected for the reservoir effect in this paper. Bayesian modelling of the archaeological dates Bayesian modelling of radiocarbon dates was pione- ered in Britain during the 1990s and 2000s (e.g., Buck et al. 1991; Bayliss 2009; 2015; Bronk Ramsey 2009a) and in Scandinavia (e.g., Edinborough 2009), and modelling of a series of dates has become a stan- dard procedure in many archaeological projects. Such modelling, with archaeological a priori consi- derations on the order, is especially useful in stra- tigraphic contexts (e.g., Oinonen et al. 2013b). Ar- chaeological phases, technological traits, fashions and ‘cultures’ can be understood as stratigraphic units as well, and these phases and the underlying assumptions can be scrutinized and tested with new Bayesian approaches (e.g., Edinborough et al. 2015). This was also the presupposition in several earlier works, where Säräisniemi 1, Sperrings 1–2, Early As- bestos Ware and Typical Comb Ware phases were discussed and the dates of these modelled (Pesonen et al. 2012; Oinonen et al. 2014). Moreover, analys- ing dates within a consistent Bayesian framework allows for building comparable time spectra of ar- chaeological events, such as the beginnings and ends of cultural phases, and to study their temporal rela- tions. In the earlier studies, the models were created with Oxcal software (Bronk Ramsey 2009a), which has extensive built-in capabilities for creating and run- ning models with different parameters. Oxcal is the most widely used programme for Bayesian model- ling in archaeology (Bayliss 2015). The current on- line version Oxcal 4.3 was selected for this study, and a simple model with end and start boundaries (Boundary-command in Oxcal language) was used for each ceramic phase (cf. Edinborough 2009). Outlier analysis (Bronk Ramsey 2009b) was employ- ed in the early stages of the project to recognize those outliers which were not obvious even from the start. 7 7 Eventually only one date, Hela-3075 (see above), was hand-picked and removed from the mo- dels. Results The results of the runs are presented in Table 2 and Figures 3–4. With the Jäkärlä Ware, the 15 samples classified as class 1 were treated first and they gave mean value limits for Jäkärlä Ware from 4055±50 cal BC (start) to 3550±65 cal BC (end). With all 31 dates (class 2), the time scale is considerably broad- er, c. 4700–3350 cal BC. Here the Sauvo Nummen- harju dates and the earliest Eura Kolmhaara dates are the ones pulling the start boundary earlier. The Nummenharju dates are certainly problematic, as the oldest date is c. 4900 cal BC (Hel 48; 5990±180 BP), when the water level of the Baltic Sea was still several meters above the site (e.g., Siiriäinen 1973; Eronen et al. 2001.28 Fig. 7; Hatakka, Glückert 2000). The lower end of Jäkärlä model is dictated by two earlier mentioned dates from the Eura Kolm- haara Munasaari site, obtained in the 2005 excava- tion (Hela-650 and Hela-651). The reservoir correc- tion of the four ‘marine’ charred crust dates does not change the model results much. First of all, the amount is small, and even though single dates may contain even 200 years individual MRE correction, their effect on the model result depends on their temporal position within the phase. Moreover, by having larger uncertainties the corrected dates result in wider and more evenly spread calendar-year pro- bability distributions. The Jäkärlä run was also performed for the charred crust datings only (with the anomalous Mynämäki Aisti crust date Hela-3075 left out), and these mean values give 4035±40 cal BC to 3885±55 cal BC. With the reservoir correction the values are almost same, only the end date going a little later, 3830±80 cal BC. These values are very interesting and are dis- cussed below. This is perhaps the ‘safest’ core phase 7 There are a number of radiocarbon dates from Typical Comb Ware sites, that probably reflect later occupation phases at the site. These dates are not used in the runs, nor are they presented in Appendix 2 at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.46.15 The chronology of Jäkärlä Ware – Bayesian interpretation of the old and new radiocarbon dates from Early and Middle Neolithic ... 257 dating for the Jäkärlä ceramics sequence, i.e. 4030– 3830 cal BC. A similar procedure was also performed for the other Early and Early Middle Neolithic ceramic groups in Finland. In recent years, new radiocarbon dates have been accumulated and the situation has greatly im- proved, especially in the case of Sperrings 1 and 2 ceramics, while the already large amount of Typi- cal Comb Ware dates has been growing even more extensive. Only Late Comb Ware does not have so many new dates. The Sperrings 1 phase dating has a significant dif- ference when one uses the whole dataset with con- text dates compared to charred crust and birch bark tar dates. The mean boundaries for the whole data- set with MRE correction from 5560±40 to 4170±45 cal BC, while crust and birch bark dates give from 5155±50 to 4335±50 cal BC. A number of Sperrings 1 charcoal dates from northwest Russia skew the start boundary to Mesolithic times, while a group of char- coal dates from Finnish sites are younger than the youngest Sperrings 1 crust date from the Timmerkärr site in Raasepori, southern Finland (Hela-3175, 5451± 44 BP). Ten of the charred crust dates show marine inference by their carbon stable isotope values and were corrected accordingly. On the basis of the char- red crust and birch bark tar dates, we give Sperrings 1 a phase dating of c. 5155–4335 cal BC. With Sperrings 2 dates the basis for the analysis is not so strong, only 27 dates are connected with the style in Finland and Karelian Isthmus. However, in this case, accounting for the small number of con- text dates, there is no great discrepancy between the dates from whole dataset and crust and birch bark tar dates. The run with all dates gives us mean value boundaries (with reservoir correction of five charred crust dates) of 4525±40 and 4050±110 cal BC, while the crust and birch bark tar run results in 4510±40 to 4225±50 cal BC. The latter, fairly con- cise and short phase, is based on 19 dates, which gives the dating of the phase c. 4510–4225 cal BC. The Typical Comb Ware run is based on total of 183 radiocarbon dates, mostly from Finland, but some also from northwest Russia. The large corpus gives more reliability to the model, where the whole data- set with reservoir correction gives mean values be- tween 3920±30 and 3345±45 cal BC, while 70 dates on crust and birch bark tar values are 3800±25 to 3545±30 cal BC. As there are so many radiocarbon dates connected with Typical Comb Ware, it was possible to also make a test run for the Southwest Finnish Typical Comb Ware separately. 8 8 The results give a slightly shorter phase to the whole dataset, 3900±60 to 3445±85 cal BC, but a slightly longer phase for crust and birch bark tar, 3840±90 to 3440± 105 cal BC. While the southwest Finnish Typical Comb Ware consists of only 10 crust and birch bark tar dates, the values from the whole distribution area are considered as the dating for the whole phase, i.e. 3800–3545 cal BC. However, it is interesting to note that the Southwest Finnish dates in particu- lar raise the possibility for an overlap between Typi- cal Comb Ware and Jäkärlä Ware. Within Typical Comb Ware, 16 charred crust dates were corrected for the reservoir effect. Late Comb Ware dates are from the coastal area of Finland and six stable carbon isotope values in the crust reflect the marine components in it, and thus a need for the reservoir estimate in the dates. This is shown in the results of the runs, where in the crust and birch bark tar runs the difference between un- corrected and corrected dates is almost 200 years in the start boundary mean values. This emphasizes the importance of marine resources within the Late Comb Ware culture. With reservoir corrected dates, the result of the runs for the whole dataset is 3660± 75 to 2940±125 cal BC and for crust and birch bark tar dates the values are 3540±95 to 3195±100 cal BC. The dating for Late Comb Ware in Finland and the Karelian Isthmus would be c. 3540–3195 cal BC. Taking into account the sensitivity analysis with an alternative 100% marine limit, the span of Late Comb Ware would be c. 3635–3165 cal BC. The results clearly show that the large range espe- cially in charcoal dates distorts the chronological picture, and that the dates from the charred crust or birch bark tar in the surface of the ceramic itself form a much more concise and coherent sequence. The application of the reservoir effect correction changes the date limits to some extent, but rarely more than some tens of years. The greatest differ- ence seems to be for Late Comb Ware, where the beginning of the use of this type of ceramic is almost 200 years younger with the correction applied than it would be without it. The indicated marine orien- tation in the use of Late Comb Ware pots is an inte- resting observation and calls for studies into the eco- logical strategies adopted during this stage. 8 Southwest Finland comprising in this case three counties: Uusimaa, Finland Proper and Satakunta. Petro Pesonen, Markku Oinonen 258 In summary, our radiocarbon results provide a signi- ficantly more robust chronological framework for the Early and Middle Neolithic ceramic groups in Finland and Eastern Fennoscandia, because of the new charred crust and birch bark tar measurements. Discussion Shoreline dating of Jäkärlä Ware and related ceramics The shoreline chronology of the Baltic Sea is based on observations on shore formations and pollen and the diatom stratigraphy of bogs. For the absolute chronology, radiocarbon dates of several lake isola- tion horizons have been used. For southwest Fin- land, the basic work was accomplished in 1976 by Gunnar Glückert. New material and dates were pre- sented by Matti Eronen et al. (2001) and Lassi Ha- takka and Gunnart Glückert (2000). The last menti- oned study shows the calibrated shore diagrams for five separate areas in southwest Finland. These dia- grams have aroused some concern among archaeo- logists who feel that calibrated shore diagrams give too old dates for the shorebound archaeological sites, especially Stone Age settlement sites (Lehtonen 2005; Asplund 2006; Tiitinen 2011). Henrik Asplund has illustrated the problem by ten- tatively re-calibrating the old isolation radiocarbon dates presented by Glückert (1976). This shoreline diagram fits much better with the radiocarbon date from the Turku Jäkärlä site and the Typical Comb Ware (Ka 2) and Earlier Late Comb Ware (Ka 3:1/ Uskela Ware) occupation zone levels at the same site than with the diagram presented by Hatakka and Glückert (2000) (Asplund 2006.5, Fig. 2). Tab. 2. The resulting table of the analysis. The models used are so-called single-phase models (see Peso- nen et al. 2012.Tab. 2). The first and last values in the given cell are the start boundary and the end boundary, respectively, while xxxx denotes that the boundary could not be solved. In the analysis, OxCal 4.2 was used (Bronk Ramsey 2009a), with the calibration curve IntCal 13 (Reimer et al. 2013). Those val- ues marked in bold are used for the further analysis and describing the most probable boundaries for the use-period of given ceramic types. TCW = Typical Comb Ware; CW = Comb Ware. Without Without Without With With With reservoir reservoir reservoir reservoir reservoir reservoir correction, correction, correction, correction, correction, correction,95% mean value 68% HPD 95% HPD mean value 68% HPD HPD region (calBC) region (calBC) region (calBC) (calBC) region (calBC) (calBC) Jäkärlä class 1 4070±50 4090–4020 4180–3995 4055±50 4080–4000 4160–3980 dates (n = 15) 3550±60 3620–3525 3635–3425 3550±65 3620–3525 3635–3420 Jäkärlä class 2 4700±105 4780–4575 4910–4500 4700±110 4780–4575 4915–4505 * dates (n = 30) 3355±105 3475–3285 3550–3135 3350±110 3475–3280 3550–3120 Jäkärlä only crust 4035±40 4055–3990 4105–3975 4030±50 4050–3980 4120–3960 ** (n = 9) 3885±55 3945–3870 3955–3770 3830±80 3930–3790 3950–3675 Sperrings 1 \ 5555±40 5590–5515 5620–5490 5560±40 5595–5515 5630–5490 Ka 1>1 all (n = 82) 4175±45 4243–4155 4325–4080 4170±45 4225–4150 4235–4075 Sperrings 1 \ Ka 1>1 5160±50 5195–5095 5260–5070 5155±50 5190–5095 5250–5070 crust and bbt (n=40) 4340±50 4425–4295 4435–4255 4335±50 4405–4285 4435–4255 Sperrings 2 \ 4525±35 4550–4485 4460–4525 4525±40 4550–4485 4605–4460 Ka 1>2 all (n = 26) 4075±110 4215–3915 4225–3865 4050±110 4205–3900 4220–3855 Sperrings 2 \ Ka 1>2 4510±35 4540–4475 4556–4420 4510±40 4540–4475 4600–4415 crust and bbt (n=18) 4240±40 4290–4210 4353–4101 4225±50 4290–4200 4310–4125 TCW all (n = 188) 3930±30 3950–3905 3970–3880 3920±30 3950–3895 3965–xxxx 3335±20 3345–3325 3355–3310 3345±45 3350–3320 3475–3300 TCW crust and birch 3825±25 3840–3800 3885–3780 3800±25 3825–3780 3840–xxxx bark tar (n = 72) 3550±30 3580–3525 3600–3500 3545±30 3585–3530 xxxx–3495 TCW SW Finland all 3900±50 3950–3845 3990–3810 3900±60 3970–3840 4005–3780 (n = 34) 3530±60 3605–3500 3620–3420 3445±85 3535–3375 3600–3285 TCW SW Finland 3920±75 3970–3830 4075–3800 3840±90 3890–3730 4000–xxxx crust and bbt (n = 10) 3560±65 3635–3530 3655–3420 3440±105 3565–3365 xxxx–3260 Late CW all (n = 23) 3735±70 3785–3660 3890–3595 3660±75 3720–3580 3825–xxxx 2905±115 3065–2780 3250–2675 2940±125 3080–2805 3235–2730 Late CW crust and 3710±85 3795–3640 3875–3540 3540±95 3630–3395 3715–3380 bbt (n = 12) 3140±100 3275–3060 3325–2950 3195±100 3325–3140 3340–3000 * Hela-3075 left out< ** Hela-3075 left out The chronology of Jäkärlä Ware – Bayesian interpretation of the old and new radiocarbon dates from Early and Middle Neolithic ... 259 One problem in testing the shoreline diagrams has been the lack of reliable archaeological radiocarbon dates that could be used to correlate the diagrams (Asplund 2006.4). In the present paper a number of new radiocarbon dates are from the Turku region, the area covered in Asplund’s paper, thus giving a possibi- lity to evaluate the shoreline diagrams once more. The diagram was reproduced from Asplund’s paper (2006.5, Fig. 2). 9 9 The radiocarbon dates of Jäkärlä, Typical Comb Ware (Ka 2) and Late Comb Ware (Ka 3) were calibrated and their mean value was plotted on the diagram, which shows both the calibrated old curve with error margins (68.2%) by Glückert (1976) and the new calibrated curve by Hatakka and Glü- ckert (2000). It is obvious that the radiocarbon dates settle better with the old curve than the new curve (Fig. 5). The height difference between the lower limits of the sites and the mean curve of the Glü- ckert (1976) varies between 0 and 5.5m, while the same variation between the lower limits and the curve by Hatakka and Glückert (2000) is c. 1.5– 10m. 1 10 0 On the basis of the new radiocarbon dates, it seems that the curve presented by Glückert (1976) is a better fit with the archaeological material. New datings from the other sites and the calibration and re-evaluation of the new isolation dates in Eronen et al. (2001) and Hatakka and Glückert (2000) would probably further improve the shoreline diagrams in Southwestern Finland. Jäkärlä Ware among the Early and Middle Neolithic ceramic traditions in eastern Fenno- scandia The new date ranges give a chance to further dis- cuss the cultural succession between ceramic assem- blages, cultures or even populations (cf. Figs. 3–4). According to the new results, the transformation of Sperrings 1 to Sperrings 2 happened between c. 4500–4300 cal BC. In the earlier work, by assuming phase independence, the end of Sperrings 1 was dated to 4360±60 cal BC and the beginning of Sper- rings 2 to 4365±95 cal BC (Pesonen et al. 2012), but new dates favour an earlier beginning for Sperrings 2 (especially the Pielavesi Kivimäki site (Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2016)). 1 11 1 The Bayesian model takes ac- count of the new dates in a reasonable way. While the new dates push the end of Sperrings 1 to an even younger direction, until 4335±50 cal BC, and the beginning of Sperrings 2 to 4510±40 cal BC, a direct succession from Sperrings 1 to Sperrings 2 does not seem probable anymore (cf. Pesonen et al. 2012) as the two ceramic styles clearly overlap chro- nologically. Still, we would suggest a closer style ana- lysis of these ceramics and see whether all the style determinations are still valid and in line with each Fig. 3. The posterior probability distributions for the start and end boundaries of each ceramic group. The distributions are from the Bayesian model runs with crust and birch bark tar datings with reservoir correction applied (Tab. 2). 9 The original calibrations were kindly given for the author’s use by Henrik Asplund, which is acknowledged. 10 The definition of the lower limit of the site is often based on the very superficial notion in the Register of the Ancient Monu- ments and in some cases in the literature. The limit cannot thus be taken as an accurate measurement. 11 The model in Pesonen et al. (2012) was created two-ways: as a single-phase model and as a two-phase model. The referred dates are single-phase model (independent) boundaries. Petro Pesonen, Markku Oinonen 260 other. Further dates would further illuminate the overlapping period between Sperrings 1 and 2 Wares. Perhaps the most interesting result is the time-gap between the end of Sperrings 2 Ware and the be- ginning of Jäkärlä Ware. According to Jäkärlä Ware crust dates (and also class 1 dates), Jäkärlä Ware starts 4030±50 cal BC while Sperrings 2 Ware ends 4225±50 cal BC. This implies that a connection be- tween Sperrings Ware and Jäkärlä Ware is not plau- sible (cf. Figs. 3–4) undermining the old idea of Jä- kärlä Ware being a subgroup of Sperrings 2 Ware. However, a new question arises: where does the Jä- kärlä Ware come from? The end of Jäkärlä Ware is dated according to crust dates to 3830±80 cal BC, but with the other (class 2) dates counted in, to a much later time, until 3350± 110 cal BC. According to shoreline chronology, the shorter chronology is more suitable for Jäkärlä Ware. Furthermore, there are in practice only the two Eura Kolmhaara dates (Hela-650 and Hela-651) and the set of Kemiönsaari Nöjis dates, which pull the range too young for the end boundary. Typical Comb Ware has a lot of dates, and corres- pondingly the Bayesian model gives quite sharp boundaries for this tradition. There is no big diffe- rence in the beginning of Typical Comb Ware in any of the model alternatives. The boundaries given by charred crust and birch bark tar dates from the whole country confirm that Typical Comb Ware starts c. 3800 cal BC. It is interesting that the end of Jäkärlä Ware and the beginning of Typical Comb Ware actually overlap, and this indicates their par- tial contemporaneity. This observation allows for a question as to whether these two ceramic groups are also archaeologically connected in time and space. One key site in this potential connection is Aisti in Mynämäki, which has yielded crust dates for both Jä- kärlä Ware and Typical Comb Ware. Jäkärlä sherd was dated 5055±41 BP (Hela-3076) and Typical Comb Ware sherd 5071±42 BP (Hela-3077). How- ever, after reservoir correction the latter is slightly younger, 5006±53 BP. As the individual calendar- year probability distributions overlap, ceramics have possibly been used contemporaneously at the same site. Another interesting site is Kukonharju 2 in Nou- sianen, with two crust dates from Jäkärlä of 5230± 41 BP (Hela-2660) and 5177±37 BP (Hela-2661), and one crust date from Typical Comb Ware of 4829±40 BP (Hela-3178). The Jäkärlä dates are much young- er when corrected, 5051±97 BP and 4953±116 BP, respectively, but the Typical Comb Ware date goes even younger to 4560±137 BP. So, at this site, the pattern seems to be quite clear and no contempora- neity is observed. These are the only two sites where both Jäkärlä Ware and Typical Comb Ware charred crust or birch bark tar dates are available. The beginning of Late Comb Ware is fairly concise regardless of dating material, though the crust and birch bark tar set gives a c. 100 years younger start for the style, c. 3540 cal BC. The most interesting thing is that the end of Typical Comb Ware (accord- ing to crust and birch bark tar dates) is put at almost exactly the same date. This suggests these two cera- mic groups follow each other chronologically. The RE correction especially affects the Late Comb Ware dates. Without correction, the beginning of Late Comb Ware would be almost 200 years older. The apparent chronological overlap of Typical and Late Fig. 4. The date ranges for the studied ceramic types. The shading implies 95%, 68% HPD region and mean values for the model runs with reservoir correction applied. TCW = Typical Comb Ware, LCW = Late Comb Ware. The chronology of Jäkärlä Ware – Bayesian interpretation of the old and new radiocarbon dates from Early and Middle Neolithic ... 261 Comb Ware is a problem recognized in earlier publi- cations (e.g., Leskinen 2003; Leskinen, Pesonen 2008; Räihälä 1996) but understandable in the light of reservoir effect, which particularly affects the old- est Late Comb Ware dates from the sites Maarinkun- nas in Vantaa and Kuuvanvuori in Nousiainen. This corresponds well with the lipid and isotope studies performed for Typical and Late Comb Ware pots showing substantial use of marine food (Leskinen 2003; Pesonen, Leskinen 2009; Cramp et al. 2014) which agrees with the high δ 13 C – values in the food crusts of these items. Conclusions Our new dates and their modelling inside a Bayesian framework give a clear and concise picture of the chronological position of southwestern Finnish Jäkär- lä Ware. The use period of this ceramic type is dated to c. 4030–3830 cal BC, which is a considerably shorter period than previous radiocarbon dates have lead us to think. According to this study the model dating of Sperrings 1 Ware is c. 5155–4335 cal BC and Sperrings 2 Ware 4510–4225 cal BC. These fig- ures are fairly consistent with earlier studies (Peso- nen et al. 2012; Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2017), and would imply an overlap period between Sperrings 1 and 2 ceramics. However, there is no overlap what- soever between the periods of Sperrings 2 and Jä- kärlä Wares. The dating of Typical Comb Ware was already fixed in earlier studies (Pesonen 1999; 2004; Oinonen et al. 2014), and now the borders are only closing in so that the Typical Comb Ware begins c. 3800 cal BC and ends soon after, c. 3545 cal BC. Ac- cording to the data in this study, the production of Late Comb Ware begins right after Typical Comb Ware and lasts until c. 3195 cal BC. Several consequences on the chronological succes- sion of ceramic types follow from the results. First, Jäkärlä pottery is chronologically (and spatially) a limited phenomenon, which does not seem to have roots in Sperrings (Ka 1:1 or Ka 1:2) pottery, which must be sought elsewhere. So far, there are no para- Fig. 5. The shoreline diagrams by Glückert (1976) and Hatakka and Glückert (2000) with radiocarbon dates and elevation of sites in Turku region. The radiocarbon dates with calibrated mean values: Jäkärlä dates – 1 Sauvo Nummenharju, Hela-3165 (4926±35 BP, 3704±30 cal BC); 2 Nousiainen Rauanniittu, Hel-2662 (5190±110 BP, 4015±143 cal BC); 3 Nousiainen Rauanniittu, Hel-2664 (5040±110 BP, 3841± 118 cal BC); 4 Nousiainen Rauanniittu Hel-2663 (4900±110 BP, 3700±134 cal BC); 5 Turku Jäkärlä, Ua-46150 (5195±56 BP, 4019±86 cal BC); 6 Turku Jäkärlä, Hela-3169 (5119±42 BP, 3895±62 cal BC); 7 Lieto Kukkarkoski II, Hela-3176 (5130±40 BP, reservoir corrected 5096±43 BP, 3879±56 cal BC); 8 Mynämäki Aisti, Hela-3076 (5055±41 BP, 3861±59 cal BC); 9 Nousiainen Kukonharja 2, Hela-2660 (5230±41 BP, reservoir corrected 5051±97 BP, 3847±105 cal BC); 10 Lieto Merola, Hela-3172 (5002±40 BP, reservoir corrected 4992±40 BP, 3787±72 cal BC); 11 Nousiainen Kukonharja 2, Hela-2661 (5177±37 BP, reservoir corrected 4953±116 BP, 3762±110 cal BC); Typical Comb Ware dates – 12 Lieto Kukkarkoski I, Hela-118 (5060±65 BP, 3853±75 cal BC); 13 Lieto Kukkarkoski I, Hel-832 (4880±150 BP, 3671±180 cal BC); 14 Lieto Kukkarkoski I, Hel-831 (4310±170 BP, 2964±249 cal BC); 15 Mynämäki Aisti, Hela-3077 (5071± 42 BP, reservoir corrected 5006±53 BP, 3810±78 cal BC); 16 Nousiainen Kukonharja 2, Hela-3178 (4829± 40 BP, reservoir corrected 4560±137 BP, 3270±189 cal BC); and Late Comb Ware date – 17 Nousiainen Kuuvanvuori, Hela-979 (4775±55 BP, 3546±76 cal BC). Aalto M., Taavitsainen J.-P., and Vuorela I. 1981. Palaeo- botanical investigations at the site of a sledge runner find, dated to about 4900 BP, in Noormarkku, SW Finland. Suomen Museo 1980: 41–65. Ahokas H. 2012. Crop evolution under fire: The past cul- tivation with sequential kytö burning selected against the shattering weedy forms and comparison between Finnish kytö and Ethiopian guie. Interdisciplinary Bio- logy, Agriculture, Linguistics and Antiquities 5. Kave. Hel- sinki. Asplund H. 1990. Nöjis – en exkurs I kulturbegrepp och dateringsproblematik. In H. Myhrman (ed.), Från säljäga- re till rösbyggare. Stenåldern I Dragsfjärd ur en amatör- arkeologs synvinkel. Åbo Akademi. Åbo: 20–28. 1995. Radiocarbon dating of Jäkärlä ceramics – a com- ment on Comb Ceramic chronology and typology. Kar- hunhammas 16: 69–75. 1997. Kemiön suurpitäjän esihistoria. Kemiön suur- pitäjän historia I. Sagalundin museon kuntayhtymä. Tammisaari: 213–286. 1998. Cultural groups and ethnicity. A Comb Ceramic case. Etnicitet eller kultur. Mitthögskolan. Östersund: 79–99. 2006. Muinaisranta etääntyy Lounais-Suomessa – Geo- logian vai arkeologian ongelma? Muinaistutkija 4: 2–10. 2008. Kymittae. Sites, centrality and long-term change in the Kemiönsaari region in SW Finland. Turun ylio- piston julkaisuja. Sarja B (312), Humaniora. Turku. Bayliss A. 2009. Rolling out Revolution: Using Radiocar- bon Dating in Archaeology. Radiocarbon 51: 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033750 2015. Quality in Bayesian chronological models in ar- chaeology. World Archaeology 47(4): 677–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2015.1067640 Bronk Ramsey C. 2009a. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51: 337–360. 2009b. Dealing with Outliers and Offsets in Radiocar- bon Dating. Radiocarbon 51: 1023–1045. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200034093 Petro Pesonen, Markku Oinonen 262 gons for Jäkärlä Ware. Secondly, Jäkärlä pottery may have existed contemporaneously with Typical Comb Ware, but the scenario is still not clear with regard to these two styles. Most likely Jäkärlä pottery and its users were there sometime together with Typi- cal Comb Ware, before the Jäkärlä tradition finally ceased. The situation may have been somewhat si- milar to the circumstances in eastern Finland and between Early Asbestos Ware and Typical Comb Ware (cf. Oinonen et al. 2014). Thirdly, we find it very unlikely that Jäkärlä pottery and Late Comb Ware (or any other Middle or Late Neolithic pottery type) would have any chronological contacts with each other. The few dates pointing to the late exis- tence of Jäkärlä pottery are from Nöjis and Kolmha- ara sites, but they are both controversial and unfit for the shoreline chronology as well. The new chronology for the Jäkärlä Ware also im- plies that the sometimes postulated (e.g., Pesonen 1996; 2001) connection between eastern Finnish Early Asbestos Ware and Jäkärlä Ware is difficult to understand. Early Asbestos Ware was produced be- tween c. 4670–3845 cal BC (Oinonen et al. 2014), i.e. starting long before Jäkärlä Ware and coming to end along with the appearance of Typical Comb Ware. According to the new interpretation the term ‘Early Asbestos Ware’ should be rejected, and the terms ‘asbestos-tempered Sperrings 2 Ware’ and ‘Kaunissaari Ware’ should probably be used instead (Nordqvist 2018). This division carries chronological significance. Although not yet studied, it is possible that Kaunissaari-type Early Asbestos Ware is young- er than asbestos-tempered Sperrings 2 Ware, and in- deed may overlap chronologically with Jäkärlä Ware. A geographical gap still separates two ceramic tradi- tions, but the possible connection is worthy of fur- ther investigation, and may reveal a hitherto un- known typo-chronological period that exists between Sperrings 1–2 Wares and Typical Comb Ware. The Appendices 1–4 are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4312/dp.46.15 The authors wishes to thank Päivi Kankkunen and Simo Vanhatalo, of the Finnish Heritage Agency, for letting us use their unpublished radiocarbon dates in this study and Henrik Asplund, University of Turku, for help with the manuscript. Miikka Tallavaara is thanked for the help in the mathematics. The study has partly been financed by the Emil Aaltonen Foun- dation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS References ∴ ∴ The chronology of Jäkärlä Ware – Bayesian interpretation of the old and new radiocarbon dates from Early and Middle Neolithic ... 263 Buck C., Kenworthy J., Litton C., and Smith A. 1991. Com- bining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Ba- yesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65(249): 808– 821. Carpelan C. 1979. Om asbestkeramikens historia i Fenno- skandien. Finskt Museum 1978: 5–25. 1999. Käännekohtia Suomen esihistoriassa aikavälullä 5100–1000 eKr. In P. Fogelberg (ed.), Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. Bi- drag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk, 153. The Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters. Helsinki: 249– 280. Carpelan C., Uino P., and Gerasimov D. V. 2008. Archaeo- logy in the former Municipality of Johannes. In M. Laven- to, K. Nordqvist (eds.), Karelian Isthmus. Stone Age Stu- dies 1998–2003. Iskos 16: 185–214. CHRONO Marine database, http://calib.org/marine/ Cramp L. J. E., Evershed R. P., Lavento M., Halinen P., Man- nermaa K., Oinonen M., Kettunen J., Perola M., Onkamo P., and Heyd V. 2014. Neolithic dairy farming at the ex- treme of agriculture in northern Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281: 20140819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0819 Costopoulos A., Vaneeckhout S., Okkonen J., Hulse E., Pa- berzyte I., and Wren C. D. 2012. Social complexity in the Mid-Holocene Northeastern Bothnian Gulf. European Jo- urnal of Archaeology 15(1): 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000005 Edinborough K. 2009. Population history and the evolu- tion of Mesolithic arrowhead technology in Scandinavia. In S. Shennan (ed.), Pattern and Process in Cultural Evo- lution. University of California Press. Berkley CA: 191–202. Edinborough K., Martindale A., Cook G. T., Supernant K., and Ames K. M., 2016. A marine reservoir effect ΔR value for kitandach, in Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia, Canada. Radiocarbon 58(4): 885–891. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.46 Edinborough K., Shennan S.J., Crema E. R., and Kerig T. 2015. An ABC of lithic arrowheads: a case study from south-eastern France. In K. Brink, S. Hydén, K. Jennbert, L. Larsson, and D. Olausson (eds.), Neolithic Diversities. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series 8o, vol. 65. Depart- ment of Archaeology and Ancient History. Lund Univer- sity. Lund: 213–223. Edgren T. 1966. Jäkärlä-gruppen. En västfinsk kultur- grupp under yngre stenålder. Suomen Muinaismuistoyh- distyksen Aikakauskirja 64. Finska fornminnesförenin- gen. Helsinki. 1983. Formgivning och funktion. En kamkeramisk studie. Iskos 3. Suomen muinaismuistoyhdistys. Helsinki. 1999. Alkavan rautakauden kulttuurikuva Länsi-Suomes- sa. In P. Fogelberg (ed.), Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. Bidrag till känne- dom av Finlands natur och folk, 153. The Finnish So- ciety of Sciences and Letters. Helsinki: 311–333. Eronen M., Glückert G., Hatakka L., van der Plassche O., van der Plicht J., and Rantala P. 2001. Rates of Holocene isostatic uplift and relative sea-level lowering of the Bal- tic in SW Finland based on studies of isolation contacts. Boreas 30: 17–30. Etu-Sihvola H., Bocherens H., Drucker D., Junno A., Man- nermaa K., Oinonen M., Uusitalo J., and Arppe L. 2019. The dIANA database – Resource for isotopic paleodietary re- search in the Baltic Sea area. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 24: 1003–1013. www.oasisnorth.org/dIANA Europaeus A. 1916. Förvärv till Statens Historiska Mu- seum år 1914, Stenåldern. Finskt Museum 1916: 36–53. 1917. Förvärv till Statens Historiska Museum år 1915. Stenåldern. Finskt Museum 1917: 39–58. 1922. Fornfynd från Kyrkslätt och Esbo socknar. Suo- men Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja XXXII. Puromie. Helsinki. 1925. Kansallismuseon kivikauden kokoelmain kasvu vuosina 1920–1923. Suomen Museo 1925: 12–54. 1926. Stenålderskeramik från kustboplatser i Finland. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja XXXVI:1: 45–77. Europaeus-Äyräpää A. 1930. Die relative Chronologie der steinzeitlichen Keramik in Finnland I-II. Acta Archaeolo- gica I. Fasc. 2 & 3: 165–190, 205–220. Fernandes R. 2016. A Simple(R) Model to Predict the Source of Dietary Carbon in Individual Consumers. Ar- chaeometry 58(3): 500–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12193 Fischer A., Heinemeier J. 2003. Freshwater reservoir effect in 14 C dates of food residue on pottery. Radiocarbon 45 (3): 449–486. German K. 2009. Early hunter-gatherer ceramics in Kare- lia. In P. Jordan, M. Zvelebil (eds.), Ceramics before farm- ing: the dispersal of pottery among prehistoric Eura- sian hunter-gatherers. Left Coast Press. Walnut Creek: 255–280. Petro Pesonen, Markku Oinonen 264 Glückert G. 1976. Post-Glacial Shore Level Displacement of the Baltic in SW Finland. Annales Academiae Scientia- rum Fennicae. Series A III Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Helsinki: 118: 1–92. Hatakka L., Glückert G. 2000. Calibration curves repre- senting shore displacement of the Baltic based on radio- carbon ages in the Karjaa, Perniö, Turku, Mynämäki, and Laitila areas, SW Finland. In A. Nissinaho (ed.), Sites and settlement. Publications of the project Changing Environ- ment – Changing Society. University of Turku, Åbo Aka- demi University. Turku: 3–14. Halinen P. 1997. Ajoitustuloksia. Muinaistutkija 3: 53. Halinen P., Katiskoski K., and Sarkkinen M. 1998. Yli-Iin Kuuselankankaan asuinpaikan tutkimukset 1994–1996. In H. Ranta (ed.), Kentältä poimittua 4. Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja 7. Helsinki: 24–40. Halinen P., Mökkönen T. 2009. Between lake and sea: Stone Age settlement by Ancient Lake Ladoga on the Kare- lian Isthmus. Fennoscandia Archaeologica XXVI: 107– 132. Hallgren F. 2004. Identitet i praktik. Lokala, regionala och överregionala sociala sammanhang inom nordlig trattbägarkultur. Coast to coast book 17. Uppsala Univer- sity. Stockholm. Hertell E., Manninen M. A. 2006. House-pit formation pro- cesses – a preliminary assessment of pit 4 at Rävåsen, southern Ostrobothnia, Finland. In V.-P. Herva (ed.), Peo- ple, Material Culture and Environment in the North. Proceedings of the 22 nd Nordic Archaeological Conference, University of Oulu, 18–23 August 2004. Studia humanio- ra ouluensia 1. University of Oulu. Oulu: 183–197. Huurre M. 1991. Satakunnan kivikausi. In Satakunnan hi- storia I, 1. Rauma: Satakunnan Maakuntaliitto ry. ja Sata- kuntaliitto: 87–323. Hüls C.M., Nadeau M. J., Grootes P. M., Erlenkeuser H., and Andersen N. 2010. Experimental study on the origin of cremated bone apatite carbon. Radiocarbon 52: 587– 599. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200045628 Junno A., Uusitalo J., and Oinonen M. 2015. Radiocarbon dates of Helsinki University. www.oasisnorth.org/carhu. Article in preparation. Kankkunen P. 2005. Eura Kolmhaara Munasaari, kivi- kautisen asuinpaikan kaivaus 2002–2004 (Excavation of a Stone Age settlement site). Unpublished excavation report. Archives of the Finnish Heritage Agency, Helsinki, Finland. https://www.kyppi.fi/palveluikkuna/raportti/read/ asp/hae_liite.aspx?id=101950&ttyyppi=pdf&kansio_id=50 Karjalainen T. 2002. Comparisons between the artefact assemblages of six Neolithic houses. In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts and houses. Stone Age and Early Metal Age build- ings in Finland. National Board of Antiquities. Helsinki: 42–52. Karmanov V. N., Zaretskaya N. E., and Volokitin A. V. 2014. Another way of pottery distribution in eastern Eu- rope? Case study of the Pezmog 4 site, European Far North- east. Radiocarbon 56: 733–741. https://doi.org/10.2458/56.16952 Katiskoski K. 1996. Lisiä Pielisen alueen esihistoriaan: kai- vaustutkimuksia Lieksassa 1991–1993. In H. Ranta (ed.), Kentältä poimittua 3. Kirjoitelmia arkeologian alalta. Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja 6. The Na- tional Board of Antiquities. Helsinki: 23–36. Katiskoski K. 2004. Cemetery and the dwelling site Va- ateranta in Taipalsaari, southeastern Finland. Suomen Museo 110(2003): 81–125. Kholkina M. 2018. A group of Late Comb Ware from the Karelian Isthmus. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 22 (2): 96–118. Kosinskaya L. L. 2014. Rannyaya grebenchataya kerami- ka v neolite Zauralya. Uralskiy Istoricheskiy Vestnik 43: 30–40. Kuokkanen T. 2000. Stone age Sledges of central-grooved type: Finnish reconstructions. Fennoscandia Archaeolo- gica XVII: 37–56. Lanting J. N., Aerts-Bijma A. T., and van der Plicht J. 2001. Dating of cremated bones. Radiocarbon 43: 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200038078 Lehtonen K. 2005. Eurajoen Etukämppä – hylkeenpyytä- jien ja kalastajien tukikohta muinaisen Panelianlahden rannalla. In H. Ranta (ed.), Kentältä poimittua 6. Kirjoi- telmia arkeologian alalta. Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja 11. National Board of Antiquities. Hel- sinki: 5–18. Lesell K. 2005. Keramiikan karsta-ajoituksia. In H. Ranta (ed.), Kentältä poimittua 6. Kirjoitelmia arkeologian al- alta. Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja 11. National Board of Antiquities. Helsinki: 103–105. Leskinen S. 2002. Late Neolithic House at Rusavierto. In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts and houses. Stone Age and Early Metal Age buildings in Finland. National Board of Anti- quities. Helsinki: 147–169. 2003. On the dating and function of the Comb Ceramics from Maarinkunnas. Finskt Museum 1995: 5–43. The chronology of Jäkärlä Ware – Bayesian interpretation of the old and new radiocarbon dates from Early and Middle Neolithic ... 265 Leskinen S., Pesonen P. 2008. Vantaan esihistoria. Van- taan kaupunki. Vantaa. Lougheed B. C., Filipsson H. L., and Snowball I. 2013. Large spatial variations in coastal 14 C reservoir age – a case study from the Baltic Sea. Climate of the Past 9: 1015– 1028. Luho V. 1948. Suomen kivikauden pääpiirteet. Otavan kulttuurisarja. Otava. Helsinki. 1952. Den kamkeramiska kulturen. In C. F. Meinander (ed.), Forntid och fornfynd. En översikt av Finlands förhistoria i den moderna arkeologins belysning. Hol- ger Schildts Förlag. Helsingfors: 12–18. Luoto J., Terho A. 1988. Kuoppakeraaminen astia Nousiai- sten Kirjunpajusta. Faravid 12: 7–28. Matiskainen H. 1979. Päijänteen arkeologinen rannansiir- tymiskronologia. Tutkimuksia. Lahden museo – ja taide- lautakunta. Suomi. Matiskainen H., Jussila T. 1984. Naarajärven kampakera- aminen asumus. Suomen Museo 1984: 17–52. Meinander C. F. 1965. Skifferknivar med djurhuvudskaft. Finskt Museum 1964: 5–33. 1971. Radiokarbondateringar till Finland stenålder. Societas Scientiarum Fennica Årsbok – Vuosikirja XLVIII B No. 5: 3–14. 1984. Kivikautemme väestöhistoria. Suomen väestön esihistorialliset juuret. Bidrag till kännedom av Fin- lands natur och folk, H. 131. The Finnish Society of Sci- ences and Letters. Helsinki: 21–48. Miettinen M. 2002. Investigations at the Madeneva Stone Age site in Pihtipudas. In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts and houses. Stone Age and Early Metal Age buildings in Finland. Na- tional Board of Antiquities. Helsinki: 137–146. 2005. Sammanfattning. In H. Edgren (ed.), Rävåsen. Finskt Museum 2002: 104–112. Moisanen J. 1991. Tutkimuksia Kerimäen kivikautisilla asuinpaikoilla. Sihti 1: 25–32. Mäkivuoti M. 1991. Ylikiimigin Latokankaan kivikautinen asuinpaikkatutkimus. Faravid 15/1991: 119–136. Mökkönen T. 2008. A review of neolithic multi-room hou- sepits as seen from the Meskäärtty site in virolahti parish, extreme south-eastern Finland. Estonian Journal of Ar- chaeology 12(2): 114–151. http://www.kirj.ee-public/Archa eology/2008/issue_2-arch-2008-2-114-151.pdf Mökkönen T., Nordqvist K. 2016. Quantifying Mineral Raw Materials in Neolithic Knapped Tool Production in the Lake Saimaa Area, Finnish Inland. In P. Uino, K. Nord- qvist (eds.), New Sites, New Methods. Proceedings of the Finnish-Russian Archaeological Symposium, Helsinki, 19– 21 November, 2014. Iskos 21. Vaasa: The Finnish Antiqua- rian Society: 4–58. 2018. Kierikki Ware and the contemporary Neolithic as- bestos- and organic-tempered potteries in North-East Europe. Fennoscandia archaeologica XXXIV (2017): 83–116. Nieminen E.-L., Ruonavaara L. 1984. Stilisierte Vogeldar- stellungen auf gefässcherben aus Kiikarusniemi, Gemein- de Sotkamo und Böle, Gemeinde Porvoo. Fennoscandia archaeologica I: 7–11. Nordqvist K., Mökkönen T. 2015. Äyräpää’s Typical Comb Ware: An umbrella term for the Early 4 th millennium BC pottery in northeastern Europe? Fennoscandia archae- ologica XXXII: 151–158. 2016. New radiocarbon dates for early pottery in north- eastern Europe. In O. V. Lozovsky, A. N. Mazurkevich, and E. V. Dolbonova (eds.). Traditions and Innova- tions in the Study of Earliest Pottery. Materials of the International Conference, May, 24–27, 2016, St. Peters- burg, Russia. St. Petersburg: 204–214. 2017. Periodisation of the Neolithic and radiocarbon chronology of the Early Neolithic and the beginning of the Middle Neolithic in Finland. Documenta Praehisto- rica 44: 78–86. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.44.5 Nordqvist K. 2018. The Stone Age of north-eastern Eu- rope 5500–1800 calBC: bridging the gap between the East and the West. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis, B Huma- niora 160. University of Oulu. Oulu. Nuñez M. 1990. On Subneolithic pottery and its adoption in Late Mesolithic Finland. Fennoscandia Archaeologica VII: 27–52. Oinonen M., Vasks A., Zarina G., and Lavento M. 2013a. Stones, Bones and Hillfort – Radiocarbon Dating of Kivut- kalns Bronze-Working Centre. Radiocarbon 55: 1252– 1264. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200048165 Oinonen M., Hilasvuori E., Mehtonen H., Uotila K., and Zetterberg P. 2013b. On the eve of urbanization: Bayesian model dating for medieval Turku. Radiocarbon 55(2–3): 1265–1277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200048177 Oinonen M., Pesonen P., Alenius T., Heyd V., Holmqvist- Saukkonen E., Kivimäki S., Nygrén T., Sundell T., and On- kamo P. 2014. Event reconstruction through Bayesian Petro Pesonen, Markku Oinonen 266 chronology: massive mid-Holocene lakeburst triggered large-scale ecological and cultural change. The Holocene 24(11): 1419–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683614544049 Olsen J., Heinemeier J., Horsnstrup K. M., Bennike P., and Thrane H. 2012. ’Old Wood’ effect in radiocarbon dating of prehistoric cremated bones? Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.034 Olsson I. U. 1980. Content of 14 C in marine mammals from northern Europe. Radiocarbon 22: 662–675. Papakosta V., Pesonen P. 2019. Lipid residues in early hunter-gatherer ceramics from Finland. In K. Mannermaa, M. A. Manninen, P. Pesonen, and L. Seppänen (eds.), Hel- sinki Harvest. Proceedings of the 11 th Nordic Conference on the Application of Scientific Methods in Archaeology. Monographs of the Archaeological Society of Finland 7. The Archaeological Society of Finland. Helsinki: 32–47. Pesonen P. 1996. Early Asbestos Ware. In T. Kirkinen (ed.), Pithouses and Potmakers in Eastern Finland. Re- ports of the Ancient Lake Saimaa Project. Helsinki Pa- pers in Archaeology, no. 9. Helsinki: Department of Archa- eology. University of Helsinki. Helsinki: 9–39. 1999. Radiocarbon dating of birch bark pitches in Ty- pical Comb Ware in Finland. In M. Huurre (ed.), Dig it all. Papers dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen. The Archaeolo- gical Society of Finland. The Finnish Antiquarian So- ciety. Helsinki: 191–200. 2002. Semisubterranean houses in Finland: a Review. In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts and Houses: Stone Age and Early Metal Age Buildings in Finland. National Board of Antiquities. Helsinki: 9–41. 2004. Neolithic pots and ceramics chronology – AMS- datings of Middle and Late Neolithic ceramics in Fin- land. In P. Uino (ed.), Fenno-Ugri et Slavi 2002, Dating and Chronology. Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja no. 10. National Board of Antiquities. Hel- sinki: 87–97. 2013. Stratigraphy and chronology of a Stone Age pit- house in Raahe, northern Ostrobothnia. In K. Johanson, M. Tõrv (eds.), Man, his time, artefacts, and places. Muinasaja Teadus 19. University of Tartu, Institute of History and Archaeology. Tartu: 517–545. Pesonen P., Leskinen S. 2009. Pottery of the Stone Age Hunter-Gatherers in Finland. In P. Jordan, M. Zvelebil (eds.), Ceramics Before Farming. The Dispersal of Pot- tery Among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers. Left Coast Press. Walnut Creek: 299–318. Pesonen P., Oinonen M., Carpelan C., and Onkamo P. 2012. Early Subneolithic ceramic sequences in Eastern Fennoscandia – a Bayesian approach. Radiocarbon 54(3– 4): 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200047330 Pesonen P., Sundell T. 2011. Argeopop-projektin arkeolo- giset tietokannat. Muinaistutkija 4: 11–18. Pesonen P., Viljanmaa S., and Oinonen M. 2013. An evi- dence of Neolithic beeswax in North Ostrobothnia, Fin- land, on 65° latitude. 7 th International Symposium: 14 C and Archaeology: Book of Abstracts. Universiteit Gent. Gent: 139–410. Piezonka H. 2008. Neue AMS-Daten zur Frühneolithischen Keramikentwicklung in der Nordosteuropäischen Wald- zone. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 12(2): 67–113. https://doi.org/10.3176/arch.2008.2.01 2015. Jäger, Fischer, Töpfer: Wildbeutergruppen mit früher Keramik in Nordosteuropa im 6. und 5. Jahrtau- send v. Chr. Archäeologie in Eurasien 30. Habelt. Bonn. Possnert G. 1984. AMS with the Uppsala EN tandem ac- celerator. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 5(2): 159–161. Pääkkönen M., Bläuer A., Evershed R. P., and Asplund H. 2016. Reconstructing Food Procurement and Processing in Early Comb Ware Period Through Organic Residues in Early Comb and Jäkärlä Ware Pottery. Fennoscandia Ar- chaeologica XXXIII: 57–76. Rankama T. 1982. Tyylivaihe I:2 Kymenlaaksossa. In H. Edgren, P. Uino (eds.), Studia Minora. The University of Helsinki, Department of Archaeology. Stencil 29: 13–24. Reimer P. J., and 29 co-authors. 2013. IntCal13 and Ma- rine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4): 1869–1887. http://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947 Riska T. 1945. Stenåldersfynden från Parkkila i Kjulo. Finskt Museum 1945: 15–29. Räihälä O. 1996. A Comb Ware house in Outokumpu Sätös – some remarks on the application of ceramic typologies. In T. Kirkinen (ed.), Pithouses and Potmakers in Eastern Finland. Reports of the Ancient Lake Saimaa Project. Helsinki Papers in Archaeology, no. 9. Department of Ar- chaeology, University of Helsinki. Helsinki: 89–117. Räty J. 1995. The red-ochre graves of Vaateranta in Tai- palsaari. Fennoscandia Archaeologica XII: 161–172. Salo U., Laukkanen E. 1986. Turku (Entistä Maariaa) Jäkärlä, kivikautisen asuinpaikan kaivaus 6.–17.9.1985. The chronology of Jäkärlä Ware – Bayesian interpretation of the old and new radiocarbon dates from Early and Middle Neolithic ... 267 (Excavation of a Stone Age settlement site). Unpublished excavation report. Archives of the Finnish Heritage Agency, Helsinki, Finland. https://www.kyppi.fi/palveluikkuna/ra portti/read/asp/hae_liite.aspx?id=104359&ttyyppi=pdf &kansio_id=853 Schulz E.-L. 2004. Ankkapurhan arkeologisen aineiston ra- diohiiliajoitukset. In P. Uino (ed.), Ammoin Ankkapur- hassa. Kymenlaaksossa kivikaudella. Museovirasto, Stora Enso, Anjalankosken tehtaat. Jyväskylä: 46. 2006. Joroisten Kanavan radiohiiliajoitukset. In P. Pe- sonen, T. Mökkönen (eds.), Arkeologipäivät 2005. Ar- keologia ja kulttuuri; Uutta kivikauden tutkimukses- sa. The Archaeological Society of Finland. Hamina: 132– 137. Seitsonen O., Nordqvist K., and Gerasimov D. 2009. Re- cent archaeological research in the Lake Pyhäjärvi micro- region, Karelian Isthmus, Russia: The multi-period site of Pyhäjärvi Kunnianniemi and some Early Combware peri- od finds. Fennoscandia Archaeologica XXVI: 95–103. Siiriäinen A. 1969. Über die Chronologie der steinzeitli- chen Küstenwohnplätze Finnland im Lichte der Uferver- schiebung. Suomen Museo 1969: 40–73. 1973. Studies Relating to Shore Displacement and Stone Age Chronology in Finland. Finskt Museum 1973: 5– 22. Slota P. J., Jull A. J. T., Linick T. W., and Toolin L. J. 1986. Preparation of small samples for 14 C accelerator targets by catalytic reduction of CO. Radiocarbon 29(2): 303–306. Stenbäck N. 2003. Människorna vid havet. Platser och keramik påÅ landsöarna perioden 3500–2000 f.Kr. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 28. Institutionen för arkeologi. Stockholm universitet. Stockholm. van Strydonck M., Boudin M., and de Mulder G. 2010. The carbon origin of structural carbonate in bone apatite of cremated bones. Radiocarbon 52: 578–586. Takala H., Sirviö T. 2003. Telkkälä, Muolaa – A multi-peri- od dwelling site on the Karelian Isthmus. Fennoscandia Archaeologica XX: 55–78. Tallavaara M. 2015. Humans under climate forcing – How climate change shaped hunter-gatherer population dynamics in Europe 30000–4000 years ago. Helsinki. Tallavaara M., Seppä H. 2012. Did the mid-Holocene envi- ronmental changes cause the boom and bust of hunter-ga- therer population size in eastern Fennoscandia? The Ho- locene 22: 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683611414937 Taylor R. E., Bar-Yosef O. 2014. Radiocarbon dating. An archaeological perspective. Left Coast Press. Walnut Creek. Tiitinen T. 2011. Liikettä ajassa ja paikassa – Lounais-Suo- men muinaisrannat tarkastelussa. In K. Uotila (ed.), Avau- ksia Ala-Satakunnan esihistoriaan. Kåkenhus-kirjat nro 2. Eura Print Oy. Eura: 47–80. Timofeev V. I., Zaitseva G. I., Lavento M., Dolukhanov P., and Halinen P. 2004. The radiocarbon datings of the Stone Age – Early Metal Period on the Karelian Isthmus. Geo- chronometria 23: 93–99. Torvinen M. 1979. Liedon Kukkarkosken kivikautinen kal- misto. Suomen Museo 1978: 37–80. Vanhatalo S. 1991. Nousiainen Rauanniittu. Kivikauti- sen asuinpaikan koekaivaus 1988 (Excavation of a Stone Age settlement site). Unpublished excavation re- port. Archives of the Finnish Heritage Agency, Helsinki, Finland. https://www.kyppi.fi/palveluikkuna/raportti/read/ asp/hae_liite.aspx?id=103348&ttyyppi=pdf&kansio_id= 538 2010. Nousiainen Kukonharju 2. Kivikautisen asuin- paikan koekaivaus 2010. (Excavation of a Stone Age settlement site). Excavation report not available until 5/2019. Archives of the Finnish Heritage Agency. Hel- sinki. Varonen M. 2008. Valinnan vapautta kulttuurin kehyk- sissä: saviastian valmistusprosessi ja sen muutos Rä- äkkylän Vihin kampakeraamisen ajan asuinpaikalla. Unpublished MA dissertation. University of Helsinki. De- partment of Archaaeology. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/19525 Vikkula A. 1981. Vantaan Maarinkunnas-Stenkulla. Tut- kimuksia Uskela-keramiikan alalta. Helsingin yliopiston arkeologian laitos. Moniste 27. Helsinki. 1987. The Stone Age graves of the Nästinristi site in Lai- tila, SW Finland. Suomen Museo 1986: 5–18. Viljanmaa S. 2009. Punamultahauta Yli-Iin Kierikinkan- kaan kivikautiselta asuinpaikalta. In J. Ikäheimo, S. Lip- ponen (eds.), Ei kiveäkään kääntämättä: Juhlakirja Pentti Koivuselle. Pentti Koivusen juhlakirjatoimikunta. Oulu: 175–182. Vybornov A. A., Moisin V. S., and Epimakhov A. V. 2014. Chronology of the Uralian Neolithic. Archaeology, Ethno- logy and Anthropology of Eurasia 42: 33–48.