Radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic-Eneolithic period in the Karelian Republic (Russia)

This article discusses a radiocarbon-based chronology for the Neolithic–Eneolithic period in the present-day Republic of Karelia (Russian Federation). The main goal is to present all currently available radiocarbon datings, including the previously published dates, as well as the ones recently obtained by the authors. In total, there are 194 dates from 77 sites covering the period from the 6th to the 2nd millennium cal BC. Besides providing an up-to-date list of datings, the article also evaluates their reliability and utility in building a local chronology. Despite several shortcomings, the new AMS-supported chronology enables the study of past cultural dynamics in much greater detail than previously and allows its better integration into the wider north-east European chronological framework. IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku razpravljamo o radiokarbonski kronologiji obdobij neolitika-eneolitika v dana∏nji Republiki Kareliji (Ruska federacija). Predstaviti ∫elimo vse razpolo∫ljive datume, tako tiste ∫e objavljene kot tudi najnovej∏e datume, ki smo jih pridobili avtorji. Skupno je sedaj na voljo 194 datumov iz 77 najdi∏≠, ki pokrivajo ≠as od 6. do 2. tiso≠letja pr. n. ∏t. Poleg novega seznama vseh radiokarbonskih datumov ocenjujemo v ≠lanku tudi zanesljivost in koristnost le-teh za oblikovanje lokalne kronologije. Kljub ∏tevilnim pomanjkljivostim omogo≠a nova kronologija, ki temelji na AMS radiokarbonskih datumih, veliko bolj natan≠ne ∏tudije preteklih kulturnih dinamik, kot je bilo to mo∫no v preteklosti, ter omogo≠a bolj∏o integracijo v kronolo∏ke okvirje na ∏ir∏em obmo≠ju severovzhodne Evrope.


Aims
This paper presents all radiocarbon dates obtained from the Neolithic and Eneolithic sites (see below) in the present-day Karelian Republic, Russian Federation, and outlines the chronological position of the main groups of archaeological material (i.e. pottery types) known in this territory between the 6 th and 2 nd millennia cal BC. The current paper is a combination of two articles recently published in Russian: the first one providing a discussion of datings available prior to 2016(Tarasov, Khoroshun 2016 and the second one presenting an AMS-based chronology tained from Karelia; in addition, 24 datings have been presented in this context, even if their connection to the periods in question remains equivocal (see below).
Recently-obtained AMS dates have considerably refined the Neolithic chronology in Karelia. This paper is an attempt to compile all the available data and discuss the present state of affairs. The purpose is not to present the final word on the topic, as the number and quality of dates in many cases is still low and there are many ambiguities and problems, as will be shown below. Even if the main focus is on presenting the Karelian material, the chronology is also compared with corresponding chronologies in neighbouring regions, particularly Finland.
The dates that form the basis of this paper are listed in the tables. Table 1 presents the dates which ge-for the Karelian Neolithic through introduction of 41 new dates (Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2017a; see also Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2016a;2016b).
Most of the previous discussions of radiocarbon dates from Karelia have been in Russian (Kochkurkina 1991;German 2002;Kosmenko 2003;Lobanova 2004;Vitenkova 2009;Piezonka 2011;Mel'nikov, German 2013;Khoroshun 2015; but see Kosmenko 2004;Piezonka 2008;2015;Zhulnikov et al. 2012). An overview of the chronology and periodisation of Karelia published in 1991 comprised a total of 112 conventional radiocarbon determinations from the Mesolithic Stone Age to the Early Middle Ages (Kochkurkina 1991), and a special publication devoted to the Neolithic chronology of eastern Europe discussed Karelia some 10 years later and contained 72 dates listed as Neolithic (Timofeev et al. 2004;see also Kosmenko 2004). These publications are now out of date, since quite a few AMS dates have been produced in recent years (e.g., Lobanova 2004;Piezonka 2008;Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2017a). At the moment, 170 radiocarbon datings with a more or less clear connection to the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods have been ob-

Map 1. Location of sites with radiocarbon dates in the territory of Karelian Republic (Russian Federation: 1 Uya III; 2 Pegrema I-III, IX, Palay-
nerally correspond with archaeological materials present at the sites. In cases where a sample's connection with particular archaeological materials is unequivocal (e.g., crusts on pottery shards), only this pottery type is mentioned (column 'Typological connection') even if the site contained material from other phases, too. However, if such a clear connection cannot be established, all assemblages present at the site are listed. Table 2 presents dates that do not correspond with any archaeological materials found at these sites. It includes Neolithic/Enolithic dates from sites with no finds from this period or datings from sites with Neolithic/Eneolithic material, but with significantly deviatory (younger) ages. The dates given in Table 2 are not included in the discussion below. The geographical locations of the sites are marked on Map 1. All dates have been calibrated with OxCal v. 4.2 (Bronk Ramsey 2009) and the calibration curve IntCal13 (Reimer et al. 2013); in the text, they are given either as median values or with 2σ standard deviation.

Periodisation
The Neolithic finds of Karelia have been traditionally divided into temporal units -archaeological cultures -primarily on the basis of pottery (see Kochkurkina 1991;Kochkurkina, Kosmenko 1996). These types coincide with ceramic types recognised in neighbouring territories, especially Finland, although the periodisation schemes used in these areas are quite different, mainly due to differing research traditions (also Nordqvist 2013;Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2017c). According to the periodisation applied to Karelia, the Early Neolithic is represented by Sperrings and Säräisniemi 1 Wares, the mid-part of the period by Pit-Comb Ware, and the Late Neolithic by Comb-Pit Ware. The subsequent phases with Rhomb-Pit Ware and ceramics with asbestos and organic tempers are traditionally considered to belong already to another period, the Eneolithic, which has been separated because of small-scale exploitation of native copper originating on the western shores of Lake Onega.
The separation of the Eneolithic introduces some inconsistencies into the periodisation. As will be shown later, sites with Comb-Pit and Rhomb-Pit Wares were, in fact, largely coeval and share fairly similar material cultures and cultural images. Nevertheless, only sites with Rhomb-Pit Ware are traditionally regarded as Eneolithic, whereas sites with Comb-Pit Ware are still Neolithic, as no copper items have been found at 'pure' Comb-Pit Ware sites in Karelia. However, individual copper objects (predominantly amorphous pieces) have been discovered in Comb-Pit Ware (i.e. Typical Comb Ware) contexts in Finland and northern Sweden (see Nordqvist, Herva 2013). To solve the problem, A. M. Zhul'nikov (1999) has suggested that only sites with asbestos-and organic-tempered pottery should be regarded as Eneolithic, as during this time the thermal treatment of copper (including melting and casting) became known; at sites with Rhomb-Pit Ware (and Typical Comb Ware) only evidence of cold hammering and annealing exists (Zhul'nikov 1999.66;see Ikäheimo, Pääkkönen 2009;Ikäheimo, Nordqvist 2017 for Finland). Still, the total amount of copper items remained small and the metal did not change the general cultural image in any significant way. Therefore, the initial adoption of copper should be seen just as another example of a growing interest in the mineral world in general during the Neolithic, not a sign of a separate period (Nordqvist, Herva 2013.424;Herva et al. 2014;2017).
Because of the controversies associated with the Eneolithic period in Karelia, the dates connected with Rhomb-Pit Ware and asbestos-and organic-tempered pottery are included in this paper as well. In other words, the period covered, from the (later) 6 th to the (earlier) 2 nd millennia cal BC, is equivalent to the Neolithic and the Eneolithic (or the Neolithic and the earlier part of Early Metal Period) according to traditional Karelian periodisation (Fig. 1).

Context datings
Most Karelian radiocarbon dates (114) are context dates, mostly processed on charcoal and originating in cultural layers and different features (pits, fireplaces, dwelling constructions) of settlement sites. The reliability of these dates is seriously questioned by the fact that the majority of settlement sites in Karelia are multi-component, non-stratified locations, which contain material from several habitation episodes whose typological dating may span several millennia. This situation is explained by the geological and hydrological settings and the Stone Age and Early Metal Period economy: the groups of fisher-hunter-gatherers preferred to settle near water, which in the Karelian situation meant living mainly on lake shore terraces. As the shorelines of the majority of Karelian lakes remained fairly stable during the Holocene, areas suitable for settling remained almost the same up to the present time. This is characteristic even of such a large lake as Lake Onega, where numerous regressions and transgres-sions took place, but affected parts of its coasts in different ways (e.g., Devyatova 1986;Saarnisto, Vuorela 2007).
Due to mixed multi-component assemblages, as well as the rough excavation and documentation methods employed, especially earlier, in most cases it is not possible to establish an unequivocal connection between a charcoal sample and particular archaeological materials identified at a site. This is evident in the case of charcoals collected from the cultural layer, but even in the case of samples originating in fireplace-like or other features it is not possible to fully exclude the possibility of forest fires or other post-depositional contamination.
The old-wood effect might also affect dates processed on charcoal from clear structures, such as dwelling remains. Because tree species and the origins (branch, trunk) of dated charcoals have not been determined, further estimating its presence and magnitude is not possible. As the log-based houses were made with stone tools, the timbers used to build them are unlikely to have been dry deadwood or thick live trunks with significant age. However, repairing and reuse may have introduced material of different ages into the houses and, again, later (natural) mixing cannot be ruled out. Thus, even if the dates from burnt constructions (walls) of dwellings are likely linked to human activities and even if they may be considered as the most reliable charcoal context dates, especially at single-component sites, they may yield widely varying ages. This is well illustrated by dwelling 1 at the Sumozero XV site (Zhul'nikov 2005.85-88): seven samples of charcoal and birch bark were taken from a burnt house construction (Tab. 1), but the determinations spread over half a millennium, at the minimum. All in all, the number of dates from dwellings is not very big: 35 dates in total (21 from burnt walls), most deriving from Late Neolithic/Eneolithic contexts.

Datings of charred residues and burnt bones
The introduction of the AMS technique has revolutionised dating and local chronologies in many fields. However, in Karelia the number of AMS dates has risen only in recent years (see Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2017a). At the moment, there are 60 AMS determinations related to pottery (44 charred residue/ food crust, 14 birchbark tar, one paint-like substance, one unknown) and seven dates of bone (six of them burnt). In addition, 13 dates of charred crusts established by conventional method exist.
The dated samples are clearly of anthropogenic origin, and their archaeological context is usually unquestionable, although in the case of bones, the connection with specific archaeological phenomena may remain uncertain at multi-component sites. Also, sampling and laboratory-related issues, contamination by (younger) organics (which may affect all other types of samples as well), and the influence of the (freshwater) reservoir effect may reduce the accuracy of the dates.
The reservoir effect has been intensively studied recently on the basis of archaeological and experimental materials (e.g., Fischer, Heinemeier 2003;Olsen et al. 2010;Philippsen, Heinemeier 2013;Kulkova et al. 2015;Philippsen 2015). In Karelia, the existence of the freshwater reservoir effect was hypothesised in connection with Late Neolithic/Eneolithic asbestos-and organic-tempered wares, and it was proposed that the crust dates are mainly affected by the freshwater reservoir effect, as they tend to date somewhat older than charcoal dates (Zhulnikov et al. 2012). However, this tendency remains speculative, as the study contained almost no comparable AMS or conventional datings from the same sites, not to mention the same contexts (see also Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2017a).
The differences between AMS dates and conventional dates connected with the same cultural phases vary from zero up to 500-600 14 C-years or even more. It is not possible to say that AMS dates would always be

Fig. 1. Simplified chronology of the leading Neolithic and Eneolithic ceramic types in Karelia (designed by A. Tarasov).
older than context dates -it may also be the other way round -and the results also highlight the inconsistency of context dates at several locations. At many sites, AMS dates are spread over 50-200 14 C-years: currently, it is not possible to decide whether this is due to prolonged or recurrent use of the locations, or to limitations in measurement accuracy, the properties of calibration curves, or reservoir effects.
One way to control for the presence of the (freshwater) reservoir effect has been the study of bulk stable isotopes. Even if this provides a rather crude tool compared to the more sophisticated analyses of compound-specific values, they are nevertheless thought to allow some level of estimate of the components included in the dated samples. Unfortunately, isotopic data are scarce, and only δ 13 C values have been published for the recently-obtained AMS dates: they range between -24‰ and -30‰, the average being -27.5‰ (see Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2017a). In previous studies the boundary between residues of marine and terrestrial/freshwater origin is often set at -26‰ (Fischer, Heinemeier 2003. 460). As most Karelian dates have values below this, they could be expected to include terrestrial and/or freshwater components, also hinted at by the sites' location beside lakes and rivers. Still, the values are on average fairly moderate. The only dates with a marine component have been obtained from sites located in the White Sea area, but none of these give obviously divergent results.
The magnitude of the (freshwater) reservoir effect in north-eastern Europe, low on natural limestone, has been considered fairly small (Pesonen et al. 2012. 665), but the topic has not been specifically studied. It was proposed recently that low alkalinity of water does not automatically mean that the freshwater reservoir offset would not be present, as other factors such as the depth of basins, prolonged ice coverage and glacial meltwaters may have contributed to the phenomenon (Philippsen 2015.160). In northern central Europe, southern Scandinavia and south-eastern Baltic, the estimates and measured results of the (freshwater) reservoir offset range from some centuries to thousands of years (e.g., Fischer, Heinemeier 2003.461;Olsen et al. 2010.640;Hartz et al. 2012Hartz et al. . 1041Philippsen, Heinemeier 2013.1098Pili≠iauskas, Heron 2015.539). Nevertheless, these results cannot be directly applied to Karelian material, as the magnitude is strongly dependent on the geographical location and geological and natural environment, as well as on the period in question (e.g., Keaveney, Reimer 2012.1314; Philippsen 2015.160-162). A possible range of error in Karelia is illustrated by an Early Neolithic (Säräisniemi 1) vessel from the Kalmozero II site (Tab. 1): two dates from samples taken from the outer and inner surfaces of the same shard produced an offset of two to three centuries (Piezonka 2008.69, Abb. 2;also Hartz et al. 2012.1043)

Evaluation
The material available is biased: datings concentrate in certain areas and pottery types. Another major problem is the large share of conventional charcoal dates with poor link with actual archaeological materials. The standard errors of these conventional 14 C-ages are generally large and vary from 20 to 150 (even 600) years, with the average between 80-90 years. This causes wide distributions in calibrated ages, at times providing accuracy of a millennium only. Laboratory-related issues are more difficult to assess, but as almost all conventional datings (over 98% of the dates listed in Kochkurkina 1991 andKosmenko 2003) originate from the same laboratory, i.e. Radiocarbon Laboratory of the Institute of Geology at the University of Tartu (see Liiva et al. 1975), they should be consistent. Nevertheless, the general quality of these datings can be expected to be fairly low by default, although no systematic evaluation of their reliability has been done (see e.g., Kuzmin, Tankerslay 1996;Pettitt et al. 2003;Seitsonen et al. 2012). Similar uncertainties apply to crust dates obtained through the conventional methodre-dating of some shards with AMS showed that the unduly small samples used in the original dates made them unreliable and resulted in too young ages (Nordqvist, German 2017).
AMS-dated samples from clear archaeological contexts and with generally smaller standard errors (30-70 years BP, average 40 years BP) are also not free of problems. The potential reservoir effect is an important topic and no modern or ancient materials are currently available that could be used to reliably verify the offset in different reservoirs in the territory of Karelia. As AMS dates cluster quite nicely in many cases, it may be proposed that they still point towards the most likely use periods of different pottery types, whereas conventional dates have the tendency to disperse over a much wider period. Nevertheless, the current low number of AMS dates alone cannot be expected to provide precise dating for every cultural type and period.
With all this in mind, it can be stated that the chronology presented below operates within a margin of error of 100-200 years, and in some cases the offset may be even greater. Even if the initial and terminal dates of some pottery types must be considered tentative, the general tendencies are correct and the proposed timeframes are also generally accord with chronologies obtained in neighbouring areas.
All the remaining conventional dates for Sperrings Ware originate in mixed contexts containing also partly temporally overlapping Pit-Comb Ware (see below) and date between 5500-4400 cal BC (medians 5400-4600 cal BC). The majority of crust/tar dates group around 5200-4500 cal BC (medians 5200-4600 cal BC). The youngest date (5507±50 BP, KIA-35901) derives from a vessel slightly differing from the remaining Sperrings material at Vozhmarikha 26 (see Mel'nikov, German 2013.109).
Almost coeval with Sperrings is Säräisniemi 1 Ware, which is characteristic of the northern Karelian Republic, Finland and Norway (e.g., Torvinen 2000; German 2011; Skandfer 2011). At the moment only three AMS dates exist for this type in Karelia -two dates of one shard from Kalmozero II (6340±70 BP; KIA-35899A and 6080±45 BP; KIA-35899B; the former date may include the reservoir effect, see above) and one date from Besovy Sledki (5775±40 BP; GrA-63547) (Fig. 3). All context dates previously connected with Säräisniemi 1 Ware derive from Yerpin Pudas I. They date between c. 5600-4000 cal BC (medians 5500-4100 cal BC) and may also be connected with other components present at the site, especially Pit-Comb Ware.
Dates from Karelia do not differ significantly from the range given for Säräisniemi 1 Ware in other re-
Besides Sperrings and Säräisniemi 1 Wares, a few other pottery types dating to the 5 th millennium cal BC have been reported from Karelia: younger Early Comb Ware style I:2 (also Sperrings 2; see German 1998, who calls this pottery 'Early Comb Ware') and Kaunissaari Ware (also discussed under the umbrella term of Early Asbestos Ware; see Pesonen 1996. 24). Both types have their predominant distribution areas in Finland, where they are considered to be mostly younger than Sperrings Ware and dated between 4500 and 3800 cal BC (Pesonen et al. 2012. 664, Tab. 2;Oinonen et al. 2014.4, Tab. 1;Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2016a.204-205). No dates exist for these types in Karelia and, in general, they occur there very rarely.

Pit-Comb Ware
The emergence of Pit-Comb Ware in Karelia is traditionally connected with the Lyalovo culture, widespread in central and north-western Russia in the 5 th millennium cal BC, and probably especially with its later stage (Smirnov 1991;1996;Gurina, Kraynov 1996;Vitenkova 2016.128;Smol'yaninov 2013. 238). At the moment, the chronology of Pit-Comb Ware is based mainly on context dates, as only four AMS dates exist from Besovy Sledki and Besovy Sledki II in the White Sea region (Fig. 3). Three of these date to the second half of the 5 th millennium cal BC, which has often been considered the main use period of this pottery type (Kosmenko 2003.32;Lobanova 2004.254, 259), but the fourth one is younger (see below).
In addition, there are also some other early context dates, but the connection between all these dates and Pit-Comb Ware contexts has been challenged (German 2002.264;Filatova 2012;see also Sidorov 1997.103-105). Accepting the early dates would also

Fig. 3. Säräisniemi 1 Ware (upper left) and Pit-Comb Ware (designed by T. Mökkönen).
mean that Pit-Comb Ware in Karelia would be contemporaneous with the appearance of Lyalovo culture in the Upper-Volga region, currently dated to the very late 6 th millennium or to the turn of the 5 th millennium cal BC (Zaretskaya, Kostyleva 2011. 180-182;Hartz et al. 2012Hartz et al. .1045. Context dates connected with Pit-Comb Ware cover almost the whole of the 5 th millennium cal BC, but due to the above-mentioned uncertainties, the initial date must be placed only roughly in the first half of the 5 th millennium cal BC. Typologically, the final stage of Pit-Comb Ware has been seen to overlap with Comb-Pit and Rhomb-Pit Wares (Lobanova 2004.261;Khoroshun 2013.126-127), and a series of dates obtained from Vorob'i 4 showed that at least in some areas the use of Pit-Comb Ware continued during the first two or three centuries of the 4 th millennium cal BC.
In addition, there are dates which seem 'too young'. These include a crust date from Besovy Sledki II (4785±45 BP, GrA-64331). Typologically, this shard fits the characteristics of Pit-Comb Ware, but such a long continuation of use of this type seems very improbable (see also Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2017a for discussion). A coeval context date of charcoal exists from Chernaya Rechka I (4700±80 BP, TA-1633), but as there are two even much younger dates from the same site (with no corresponding archaeological material) it cannot be given much value. Finally, several crust dates produced by conventional methods from Vorob'i 4 are too young due to insufficient sample sizes (see Nordqvist, German 2017 for discussion).

Comb-Pit and Rhomb-Pit Wares
Comb-Pit Ware, corresponding to Typical Comb Ware of the eastern Baltic and Finland (Yanits 1959;Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2015), and Rhomb-Pit Ware, which finds analogies elsewhere in north-western and central Russia (Smirnov 1991;Smol'yaninov 2009;Vitenkova 2016), followed Pit-Comb Ware in Karelia. Traditionally, they were seen as subsequent types also among themselves, but the introduction of more accurate dating has shown them to be more or less contemporary (Zhul'nikov 2005.25;Khoroshun 2013.117;Vitenkova 2016.118). Currently, their chronology is based on many AMS and context dates, although the latter often originate from sites with mixed complexes of Comb-Pit and Rhomb-Pit Wares and cannot be attributed to only one of them. Based on some dates and stratigraphical observations (site Chernaya Guba III) it has been proposed that the appearance of Comb-Pit Ware would be slightly older, but the available data are too vague to draw such conclusions. In fact, it is not even known if the two assemblages at the same sites indicate the repeated use of these locations by two different groups or if both types were used by the same population (Vitenkova 2016.121 2002.142).
In addition to uncertain context dates, one AMS dating from Chernaya Guba III (6060±40 BP, GrA-2 The young dates from Pegrema I and Pegrema III are problematic because they have been presented quite differently in different publications. The date of 4240±90 BP has also been given as 4200±90 BP, with index ID TA-813 or with no index ID; the date 4250±50 BP (TA-493) has also been published as 4200±50 BP. Moreover, the date TA-813 has been said to originate from both of these sites (see Zhuravlev 1977;1979;1984;1991;Zhuravlev, Liiva 1980;Kochkurkina 1991;Vitenkova 2002;Timofeev et al. 2004).
63539) is problematic, as it is almost a millennium older than expected. The reservoir effect cannot be ruled out (the δ 13 C value is -27.84‰), and there is always the possibility of typological misinterpretation, even if in this case the dated shard fully fits the characteristics of Comb-Pit Ware. If the date is even tentatively connected with the Pit-Comb Ware, recovered in small amounts at this site (Vitenkova 2002.29), it would also be by far the oldest direct date of Pit-Comb Ware in Karelia. Furthermore, two conventional dates of pottery crust from Vozhmarikha 21 may date to the end phase of Comb-Pit Ware use, but may also suffer from the same problems discussed in connection with the Pit-Comb Ware dates from Vorob'i 4.
Finally, a date measured on birch bark found in a grave at Bukol'nikov 1 (4740±60 BP, LE-9391) has been connected with Comb-Pit Ware (Mel'nikov, German 2013.120), even if no Comb-Pit Ware was found at the site. The grave goods, e.g., amber jewellery and a bifacial flint point, may be seen to support this connection. However, the assemblage from the site includes mostly Pit-Comb Ware and some asbes-tos-tempered pottery of possibly Voynavolok typewithin the temporal limits provided by the date, the burial could also be connected with the latter phase.

Zalavruga, Voynavolok, Orovnavolok and Palayguba Wares
Previously, all asbestos-and organic-tempered pottery in Karelia was discussed under the one heading of Asbestos or Classic Ware (Gurina 1961.161;Kosmenko 1992.131). Such a view does not permit the tracing of cultural dynamics during the 4 th -2 nd millennia cal BC, and since then four types of pottery have been separated from the material: Zalavruga, Voynavolok, Orovnavolok and Palayguba Wares (Zhul'nikov 1991;1999;2005). These types have varying distributions mainly in Karelia and find some parallels in the Finnish types of Kierikki and Pöljä. They have also contemporary analogues in the east, and generally the emergence of asbestosand organic-tempered pottery in Karelia has been connected with the development of the Volosovo cultural entity in the Volga-Oka region (Zhul'nikov 1999.6-7 and references cited). The starting point of Volosovo in the Upper Volga region is dated to around 3600 cal BC (Kostyleva, Utkin 2010.248-250).
Asbestos-and organic-tempered wares are relatively well dated by AMS and context dates (including numerous dates from burnt dwelling constructions), although the dates are unevenly distributed among the pottery types. There are also notably many 'non-fitting' dates connected to sites with these pottery types or their use periods (see Table 2).
The oldest date connected with asbestos-and organic-tempered pottery in Karelia is a tar date related to Voynavolok Ware (Pervomayskaya I, 4710±35 BP, GrA-63682) (Fig. 6). Generally, AMS dates for this type fall between 3600-2900 cal BC (medians 3500-3000 cal BC) and cluster into two groups between 3600-3400 cal BC and 3400-2900 cal BC. The first cluster corresponds neatly with older ideas of a short use period of this pottery type, just a few centuries in the mid-4 th millennium cal BC (Zhul'nikov 1999.47, 76-78;also Zhul'nikov, Tarasov 2014.262). The second cluster is contemporary with the few available context dates from burnt dwelling constructions (3300-2600 cal BC, medians 3100-2900 cal BC).
The remaining AMS dates of Orovnavolok Ware fall between 3300-2700 cal BC (medians 3200-2900 cal BC) and are roughly congruent with the majority of context dates from dwelling constructions, 3100-2600 cal BC (medians 2800 cal BC). Still, there are a few dates some centuries younger, although it is highly implausible that at least the youngest date (Voynavolok XXIV, 3560±80 BP, TA-819) would anymore represent the use period of Orovnavolok Ware.
In sum, the start of this type should be a bit later than Voynavolok Ware and probably dates to around 3400 cal BC, although the nature of the 'transitional type' remains ambivalent. The end date can probably be placed in the first half of the 3 rd millen-nium cal BC, and no later than 2500 cal BC. Thus, in addition to Kierikki and Voynavolok Wares, it belongs to the same chronological horizon as Pöljä Ware of Finland, with which it also shares some typological and stylistic similarities (pure Orovnavolok Ware has been recognised in Finland on some occasions; Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2017b; Mökkönen, Nordqvist in prep.; see also Zhul'nikov 2005.29). Pöljä Ware is dated by AMS dates to 3500-2500 cal BC, but including context datings, its end has been extended to c. 1900 cal BC (Pesonen 2004.90, 92; authors' unpublished data).
Zalavruga Ware of the White Sea area has been considered a northern parallel to Voynavolok pottery (Zhul'nikov 2005.27). Its dating is based on a few crust/tar dates only, as all context dates derive from mixed sites and have no definite connection with this pottery (Fig. 8). AMS dates fall between 3500 and 2900 cal BC (medians 3400-2900 cal BC), whereas conventional dates date to 3700-1800 cal BC. In other words, the main use period of Zalavruga Ware is the second half of the 4 th millennium cal BC.

Fig. 8. Zalavruga Ware (designed by T. Mökkönen).
It is largely contemporary with Voynavolok Ware, but also overlaps with Orovnavolok Ware, as also evidenced by coeval datings from the Zalavruga I site. Zalavruga Ware shares some features with Kierikki Ware and the organic-tempered Comb Ware of northern Finland, but their relationships remain unresolved (Zhul'nikov 2007.123;Nordqvist, Mökkönen 2017b;Mökkönen, Nordqvist in prep.).

Final remarks
The data presented in this paper are still limited in temporal and spatial coverage, and do not allow the study of regional and temporal differences in the distribution of various phenomena in detail. In an area as large as the Karelian Republic, it is not reasonable to assume that development (e.g., appearance or disappearance of a pottery type) would have been simultaneous or similar everywhere. Instead, there might have been large differences (for example, some pottery types may have existed for longer periods in certain areas), which can cause inconsistency in the data and 'deviatory' initial and terminal dates.
Similarly, the data are too thin to provide reliable evidence of the temporal differences of some pottery types proposed on typological grounds, or to be used in statistical analyses defining certain event sequences. Also, potential sources of error -like the old wood and the (freshwater) reservoir effect -must be studied in the future, as this might also clarify the reason behind the differences between residue-based AMS and conventional charcoal dates.
Despite the numerous problems and unanswered questions, the currently available radiocarbon dates enable the study of chronological sequences in Karelia in much greater detail than was possible even two or three years ago. Nowadays, it is also possible to correlate the Karelian chronology more or less precisely with the general north-east European chronological framework. All this creates a better foundation for understanding the cultural dynamics between the later 6 th and the early 2 nd millennia cal BC of north-western Russia.

Tab. 2. Radiocarbon dates from Neolithic-Eneolithic contexts with deviatory age, and dates with Neolithic-Eneolithic age, but no correspondence with archaeological materials found at these sites. These dates have been included in many previous works on Karelian chronology, even if their suitability for building a chronology is virtually non-existent.
back to contents