European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013, 660–684 Early Farming in Finland: Was there Cultivation before the Iron Age (500 BC)? MARIA LAHTINEN AND PETER ROWLEY-CONWY Department of Archaeology, Durham University, UK We review the evidence for the earliest agriculture in Finland. The claims are all based on pollen analysis. Some claims go back to the Neolithic period. We contest these claims critically and argue that the ‘early cereal-type’ pollen grains may in fact come from large-grained wild grasses, and cannot be taken as clear evidence for cultivation in the absence of other lines of evidence. Cultivation of cereals in Finland may have started as late as the start of the Iron Age in c. 500 BC. Keywords: farming, cultivation, cereal, pollen, Finland, Iron Age, Neolithic, Bronze Age INTRODUCTION In this contribution, we consider the start of agriculture in Finland. Finland would have presented a major challenge to early farmers. It lies north of 60°N (Figure 1), and close to the northern limit for deciduous forest. However, it is still possible to practise cultivation, although modern farming is concentrated in the southwestern corner and coastal areas. In most of Europe, the agricultural transition is equated with the start of the Neolithic. This is not, however, the case in Finland, where the start of the Neolithic is defined by the appearance of pottery (see Figure 2). The question ‘when did cultivation start?’ is under discussion in various parts of Europe, but while the question elsewhere is ‘was there pre-Neolithic cultivation?’ (e.g. Rowley-Conwy, 2004; Behre, 2007), in Finland it is ‘was there pre-Iron Age cultivation?’ In Finland, the Iron Age started c. 500 cal BC, and continued until AD 1200. © European Association of Archaeologists 2013 Manuscript received 28 January 2013, accepted 20 May 2013, revised 9 April 2013 There is still no consensus as to when cereal cultivation started in Finland. Some have suggested that cultivation started as early as 3200–2300 cal BC, in the Neolithic Corded Ware (CW) culture (Vuorela & Hicks, 1996; Alenius et al., 2009; Mökkönen, 2010). Mökkönen (2010) suggests that the first cultivation might have begun even earlier. More recently, Alenius et al. (2013) and Nordqvist and Herva (2013) have argued that it could have been as early as the appearance of the first ceramics in 5000–4000 BC. These claims of early cultivation have sometimes been used uncritically (e.g. Costopoulos et al., 2012; Nordqvist & Herva, 2013). Finland, like other northern areas, generally has very poor organic preservation on archaeological sites, so finds of animal bones and macrobotanical plant remains are very rare. Many of the claims for early agriculture are therefore based on palynological records (Huurre, 2003), often single grains of cereal-type pollen. DOI 10.1179/1461957113Y.000000000040 Lahtinen and Rowley-Conwy — Early farming in Finland 661 Figure 1. Map of Finland showing various geographical features, and sites mentioned in the text, other than where pollen cores have been sampled. Distribution of Corded Ware from Nuñez (2004: Fig. 11). We will argue that cultivation may have begun much later, as late as the start of the Iron Age (c. 500 cal BC). Finland is not alone in claiming early agriculture on the basis of pollen evidence (see the important paper by Behre, 2007). In Britain, Edwards (1989) identified numerous traces of ‘cereal-type’ pollen of Mesolithic age, but in a recent major study, Whittle et al. (2011: 808, 849) reject these claims and date the start of farming to the Neolithic. Claims for Mesolithic ‘cereal-type’ pollen have also recently been advanced in central and southern Europe (e.g. Tinner et al., 2007; Jeunesse, 2008). Other areas of northern Europe have seen a similar debate. In northern Norway, Johansen and Vorren (1986) argued that ‘cereal-type’ pollen indicates that agriculture started in the mid-third millennium cal BC, although other lines of evidence suggest a date not much before 1000 cal BC (Valen, 2007). The Finnish debate should thus be seen as part of a wider European discussion. EARLY AGRICULTURE IN FINLAND: THE DEBATE The Late Neolithic Corded Ware and Kiukainen cultures The traditional view has been that farming was introduced into southern Finland by people of the CW archaeological culture 662 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 Figure 2. Chronological and cultural outline of prehistoric Finland. Redrawn with modifications from Carpelan (2002: Fig. 5). (see Figure 1 for the CW distribution). This typologically Late Neolithic culture is associated with agriculture across a wide area of Europe. Various arguments have been advanced to support the claim for cultivation in Finland. Most of these involve pollen, and will be considered in detail below. The most recent claim that the Finnish CW was agricultural has been put forward by Mökkönen (2010). Mökkönen used new data concerning changes in settlement pattern, and a correlation between spruce and the CW culture, to claim that the CW people were cultivators. The change in settlement pattern was from more sheltered inland areas towards more coastal and open sites. This change could, however, be interpreted in the opposite way: there is no clear reason why such a settlement shift Lahtinen and Rowley-Conwy — Early farming in Finland should be connected to cultivation, and it is questionable whether cultivation has anything to do with it. It might equally indicate more intensive fishing as part of an adaptation to the climate change. Previous discussions have alluded to CW cultivation. Nuñez (2004) stresses the weaknesses in the evidence, but argues that the CW was indeed likely to have been partially agricultural, mainly based on the fact that CW people were agriculturalists elsewhere. He believes that farming was environmentally vulnerable this far north, and may have suffered a setback and disappeared almost totally soon after the CW period. Edgren (1999) argues that positive indicators of cultivation by the CW culture are lacking, and that the argument is based purely on the situation at CW sites in Sweden and the Baltic countries. Edgren believes that it is unlikely that cultivation occurred during the Late Neolithic period, although he does not say when it did start. He points out that the Pre-Roman Iron Age was the period of intensification of cultivation in southern Finland. There have been various critiques of these early farming claims. Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy (1984) wrote that ‘the palynological evidence for CW farming in Finland rests on a few uncertain identifications of cereal pollen—evidence which in view of the great similarities in size and shape of other Gramineae pollen…, could hardly justify the belief that CW economy was based on farming’ (Zvelebil & Rowley-Conwy, 1984: 115). Finds of single pollen grains have subsequently increased, but the same problems with reliability have remained (see Discussion below). Direct evidence for CW agriculture continues to elude archaeologists. A recent major radiocarbon programme using accelerator mass spectrometry was directed towards potential early domestic animal 663 bones. None of the bones dated were of CW age; most were recent or modern in origin (Bläuer & Kantanen, 2013). Although the evidence from the subsequent Kiukainen period is broadly similar, one domestic animal bone, a sheep/goat carpal, has been directly dated to this period. The bone is from Pedersöre Kvarnabba, remarkably far north on Finland’s west coast (see Figure 1), and is dated to 3679 ± 33 BP (Ua-43043) (Bläuer & Kantanen, 2013: Table 1), or 2192–1960 cal BC1. It is also possible that animal herding and cereal cultivation were adopted at different times. THE BRONZE AGE There is some published evidence that could support Bronze Age cultivation. Zvelebil (1981) used productivity modelling to compare site locations and connections to land which is suitable for cultivation in south-western Finland. He showed that CW sites were not situated in close proximity to potential arable land. However, during the Bronze Age, the proximity of the archaeological sites to land suitable for cultivation increased. Thus, Zvelebil (1981) concluded that the Bronze Age economy was a combination of farming and hunting. However, since direct evidence is missing, this alone need not prove anything about cultivation. Such potentially cultivable areas can also be rich in natural flora, and might be optimal for wild animals such as elk (Alces alces). Another possibility is that these results simply reflect land uplift that made former sea floor sediments, like arable clays and silts, more available in the Bronze Age, as hunters also benefit from close proximity to watercourses. As Zvelebil and Rowley1 All calibrations in the article have been carried out using OxCal 4.1 and the IntCal 09 curve (Bronk Ramsay, 2009). 664 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 Table 1. Criteria used to classify wild grass and various categories of cereal-type pollen in the schemes of Andersen (1978) and Beug (1961) Classification Andersen (1978) Beug (1961) Wild grass Mean pollen size <37 µm, mean annulus diameter <8 µm, surface pattern scabrate or verrucate <37 µm, pore <2.7 µm, annulus diameter <2.7 µm, annulus thickness <2.0 and >3.0 µm Cerealia Group No general cereal type >37 µm, pore >2.7 µm, annulus diameter >2.7 µm, annulus thickness between 2.0 and 3.0 µm Hordeum type Mean pollen size 32–45 µm, mean annulus diameter, 8–10 µm, surface pattern scabrate (together with Avena type) Mean pollen size >40 µm, mean annulus diameter >10 µm, surface pattern verrucate Cerealia type that have the surface structure punkt clumpen Cerealia type that have the surface structure punkt clumpen Triticum type Conwy (1984: 117) note, there is an ‘autocorrelation between watercourses, sedimentary basins and soil fertility.’ According to Zvelebil (1981), arable land does not become a major focus of the settlement pattern in south-western Finland during the mid-first millennium AD. Sarmaja-Korjonen (1992: 146) argues that ‘there is no detailed Finnish pollen record that indicates continuous farming from the Bronze Age onward’. She points out that biostratigraphical correlation with the archaeological record might be poor because of wide error ranges in the radiocarbon dates, and also believes that cereal pollen might have been transported over long distances; thus, a decline in Picea (spruce) pollen together with single Cerealia-type pollen grains should be treated very cautiously as evidence of local cultivation. However, other palaeobotanists have suggested that cultivation began in the Bronze Age. Tolonen (1984) argues that the results from three pollen analyses in southern Finland are reliable. Two of those studies, from lakes Kantala and Kissalammi, suggest that cultivation started in the Late Bronze Age (Tolonen, 1978a, 1981). One of these is from Lake Ahvenainen, and has one pollen grain of Triticum-type and one of Hordeum-type in a level dated by varves to 1200–1300 BC (Tolonen, 1978b). Simola (1999) discusses cultivation in the Bronze Age as if it was an established fact, but does not give any references to support this idea. Having said this, he does admit that signs of early cultivation are scarce, and can only be seen in a small area of south-western Finland before the Iron Age (Simola, 1999). Macrofossil evidence for agriculture remains very scarce. One directly dated domestic animal bone, a cow maxillary molar from Nakkila Viikkala, is dated to 3086 ± 30 BP (Hela-1271) (Bläuer & Kantanen, 2013: Table 1), or 1427–1271 cal BC. This is further south-west than the Kuikainen example mentioned above (Figure 1). These two bones remain the only directly dated evidence of domestic animals in Finland that necessarily predate the Iron Age. Charred cereal grains are also very scarce. One directly dated grain of barley has been recovered from a multiperiod site from Kotirinne in Niuskala in the city of Turku (Figure 1). 30 years after its discovery, it remains ‘the oldest cereal grain find in Finland’, with a radiocarbon date of 3200 ± 170 BP (Ua-338), or 1891–1018 cal BC (Vuorela & Lampiäinen, 1988: 33). It is derived from a ‘grain from the lower part of the undisturbed layer’ (Vuorela & Lempiäinen, 1988: 36). This has been used as clear evidence of Lahtinen and Rowley-Conwy — Early farming in Finland cultivation (Vuorela & Hicks, 1996; Lempiäinen, 1999; Huurre, 2003; Mökkönen, 2010). This date is one of five from Niuskala, and when calibrated (Figure 3), they show a remarkably wide degree of spread. The date on the cereal grain has a very large standard deviation. A review of the dates both of the cereal grain and of the entire site is needed, and independent verification of the cereal date required. In the osteological study from Niuskala, no domestic animals were found. The bone fragments were identified as seal, fish and hare (Asplund et al., 1989). This suggests that this settlement was mainly a fishing and hunting site. Three other barley grains from two sites have been dated to nearer the end of the Bronze Age. Two from the site Jätinhaudanmaa in Laihia have been dated to 2785 ± 30 BP (Poz-23351) and 2590 ± 40 BP (Ua-33250) (Holmblad, 2010: 135), or 1008–844 cal BC and 831–552 cal BC, respectively. The one from Kitulansuo has been dated to 2990 ± 60 BP (Lavento, 1998), or 1400–1048 cal BC. However, the grain from Kitulansuo was published in a non-peer reviewed journal, with no contextual information or discussion of the 665 date. The location of these sites is puzzling: Jätinhaudanmaa is remarkably far north and Kitulansuo remarkably far inland for such an early date; however, barley grains directly dated to about the same time have been recovered from Umeå (Viklund, 2011), opposite Jätinhaudanmaa on the Swedish side of the Gulf of Bothnia (see Figure 1). The presence of barley grains at these sites may indicate Late Bronze Age cultivation, but does not necessarily prove that it took place locally: we cannot rule out the possibility that they could have been traded into the area. More studies are urgently needed that focus on this issue. Apart from these isolated examples, macrofossil data suggest that cultivation began between AD 100 and 1000 in the southwestern extremity of Finland (see Onnela et al., 1996). Most of the sites were excavated before Accelerator Mass Spectrometry dating was widely used, and so it is very likely that some dates are inaccurate. Plant macrofossil studies mainly cover southern Finland, and in many more northern areas, such studies are still lacking. Thus, more detailed analyses are needed. At the ancient field in Rapola, Figure 3. Calibration of the five radiocarbon dates from Niuskala. Us-338 is the cereal grain. Original dates from Asplund et al. (1989). 666 cereal macrofossils are dated to between AD 780 and 1217 (Vikkula et al., 1994). In Mikkeli, central Finland, they are dated to AD 596–1690 (Vanhanen, 2010) (see Figure 1 for the location of these sites). In Finland, the earliest evidence for agriculture thus comes from the pollen record. It is to this that we now turn our attention. ARE SINGLE POLLEN GRAINS EVIDENCE OF CEREAL CULTIVATION? Most sites at which early agriculture is claimed have only one grain of cereal pollen. The claim that single pollen grains are reliable evidence is based on the fact that self-pollinating (autogamous) Hordeum (barley) releases only small quantities of pollen into its immediate surroundings (Vuorela, 1973). The pollen is unlikely to be found, and thus it has been claimed that every single pollen grain provides reliable evidence of cultivation (Vuorela, 1986; Vuorela & Kankainen, 1991; Vuorela & Hicks, 1996; Alenius et al., 2009). Forests have an important filtering effect on pollen, which makes it even more difficult to find, especially in a mosaic-like forested area like those around slash-and-burn clearances. This has lead Vuorela (1999: 339) to state that ‘the first record of Cerealea pollen in pollen diagrams, in many cases, can be taken as an indication of the beginning of agriculture’. We do not argue against the unlikelihood of self-pollinating plants being seen in pollen analysis—barley pollen does not spread in large quantities. But does this mean that every pollen grain find is reliable evidence of cultivation? There are various reasons to doubt it. We are not the first to raise these problems. In a major review article, Behre (2007) pointed out that there are several possible errors in the identification of single pollen grains of cereals, such as European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 • reliability of identification; • long-distance transportation of cereal pollen; long-distance transportation of large grass pollen; • contamination; reliability of dating; • reliability of anthropogenic indicators. In summary, Behre (2007) highlights that it is impossible to prove whether single pollen grains are local or even from cultivated plants at all. He argues that a single pollen grain neither proves early cultivation nor the lack of it. Pollen analysis, used alone, might not be the right tool to research very small-scale changes. IDENTIFICATION Firstly, ‘cereal-type’ pollen does not always mean cereal pollen! It is only a classification type, which also includes several wild grasses. There are also several definitions as to how to distinguish cereal pollen from wild grass pollen and how to classify different cereal pollen types. Criteria used in early farming studies in Finland are from Rowley (1960), Beug (1961), Erdtman et al. (1961), Andersen and Bertelsen (1972), Andersen (1978), Faegri et al. (1989), Moore et al. (1991), and Reille (1992, 1995). Andersen and Bertelsen (1972) and Rowley (1960) have tried to distinguish cereal pollen types on the basis of surface structure and exine. Rowley (1960) argues that most cereal pollens have an incised surface, but admits that this is not an exclusive criterion. Andersen and Bertelsen (1972) suggest that Hordeum vulgare (barley), Secale cereale (rye), Triticum monococcum (einkorn), and several wild species such as Agropyron repens, Ammophila arenaria, Elymus arenarius, and Glyceria fluitans all have similar sculptures (i.e. structures on the pollen surface), although Hordeum, Elymus, and Glyceria may have Lahtinen and Rowley-Conwy — Early farming in Finland larger spinules. Both studies suggest that there are insufficient differences in surface or exine structure in wild and cultivated grass pollen to identify individual grains. Other classifications are listed in Table 1, with a list of species falling into each class in Table 2. It is clear that in every classification there are several wild grasses that fall into the definition of cereal, Hordeum or Triticum type. The classification by Erdtman et al. (1961) does not fulfill modern scientific criteria because the measurements of the pollen grains (i.e. the data) on which the study is based were not published. Erdtman et al. (1961: 3) even state that ‘the descriptions are definitely provisional’ and ‘the size figures may sometimes even be misleading’. Therefore, this classification should not be used. Andersen (1978: 91) states that ‘the Hordeum-group includes cultivated species and some wild grasses’. Beug (1961) proposes that wild grasses, with few exceptions, belong to wild grass type, and those exceptions are included in the cereal-type group. Faegri et al. (1989: 284–85) summarize this as follows: ‘by statistical methods it is possible to differentiate between the pollen of various taxa if there is a sufficient number and no admixture, but since the various curves 667 overlap, identification of individual grains remain impossible or doubtful.’ There is currently no method to distinguish every single wild grass from cultivated species. Every study is based on statistical differences and there is overlap between species of both classes. Modern distributions of the Finnish wild species producing large pollen grains have been studied by the Natural Museum of Finland. The dispersion of wild large pollen grain species are reported in 1 × 1 km2 (see Figure 4). The total number of squares examined in 2011 was 7993 (Lampinen & Lahti, 2012). Two species producing Hordeum-type pollen are found in Finland: Hordeum murinum is known from eleven squares, Glyceria fluitans from no fewer than 1385 squares, which accounts for over 17 per cent of all the squares (Lampinen & Lahti, 2012). Pollen grains of Leymus (previously Elymus) arenarius and Ammophila arenaria fall into Beug’s (1961, 2004) Triticum-type, and several wild species fall into Beug’s (2004) category of Cerealia-type pollen (Behre, 2007). In Finland, two such wild species are found, Setaria pumela in eleven squares and Avena fatua from 220 squares, accounting for nearly 3 per cent of the squares (Lampinen & Lahti, 2012). The Table 2. Species falling into the categories of cereal-type pollen listed in Table 1 Classification Andersen (1978) Beug (1961, 2004) Cerealia type No Cerealia type Hordeum type Ammophila arenaria, Agropyron repens, A. junceiforme, Glyceria fluitans, G. plicata, Bromus inermis, Elymus arenarius, Hordeum jubatum, H. murinum, H. vulgare, Triticum monococcum Hordeum distichon, H. vulgare, H. murinum, H. nodosum, H. marinum, Otyza sativa, Elymus arenarius, Agropyron junceum, A. intermedium, A. caninum, A. littorale, Spartina maritima and partly Glyceria fluitans, G. plicata, Bromus mollis, B. erectus, B. inermis, Agropyron littorale, Secale Cereale, Triticum monoccium Triticum type Avena fatua, A. nuda, A. sativa, Triticum aestivum, T. compactum, T. dicoccocum, T. durum, T. polonicum, T. spelta Triticum dicoccum, T. durum, T. dicoccioden, T. compactum, T. aestivum, T. spelta, T. monococcum, T. aegilopoides, Avena brevis, Avena nuda, Avena Strigoissa (?), Ammophila arenaria, Bromus div sp., Hordeum div, spec. Agropyron (?), Leymus arenarius 668 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 Figure 4. Modern distribution of wild grasses in Finland that fall into Beug’s (1961, 2004) criteria as Hordeum (A1, A2) and Triticum (B1, B2). Maps redrawn and modified from Lampinen & Lahti (2012) modern distribution of Agrypyron species in Finland is twelve squares, and Bromus species 662 squares. Leymus species are common not only in the coastal area (see following discussion), but their modern distribution covers almost the whole of Finland (Lampinen & Lahti, 2012). These problems have not, however, been much discussed in Finland. Tolonen (1984) did criticize the use of single pollen grains, stressing that size is the only separator between wild and cultivated grasses. However, several wild plants produce pollen so large that it will be considered as Cerealia-type. Other indicators of forest clearance (e.g. Plantago major and Chenopodiaceae) occur naturally in coastal areas of Finland, often together with the wild grasses that produce large pollen grains. Therefore, it is not possible to study the beginning of cultivation in such places and it would be also more secure to only use cereal pollen as evidence. Tolonen (1984) also mentioned the possibility of long-distance transport. Donner (1984) also criticizes studies of early farming. He mentions the problems of distinguishing cereal from wild grass pollen, and argues that the solution is to use different limits. The first, the ‘absolute limit’, is the first occurrence of the taxon; the second, the ‘empiric limit’, is when the pollen curve becomes continuous; and the third, the ‘rational limit’, is when the frequency of pollen increases. He explains differences between the empiric and rational limits with reference to the introduction of rye, since it produces more pollen than other species, rather than an intensification of farming. However, he does not discuss whether the absolute limit, often only based on one pollen grain, can be considered as evidence for local farming. More recently Simola (2012) has criticized the paper by Mökkönen (2010) for citing little actual evidence for early agriculture, and emphasized that there are problems in the recognition of cereal-type pollen. It is important to know the local history of the sampling site. In Finland, because of land uplift, the coast has moved throughout history. Single pollen grain evidence has been used as evidence for cultivation in the Tornio area before 3500 BP (Vuorela & Hicks, 1996—citing Tikkanen, 1978). However, Tikkanen (1978) showed that the period is clearly characterized by coastal vegetation. Wild grasses Lahtinen and Rowley-Conwy — Early farming in Finland producing large pollen grains, such as Elymus and Agropyron, are common in coastal biotopes (Reynald & Hjelmroos, 1976). The large pollen grains are more likely to belong to these species than cultivated plants. At Merinjänjärvi, changes in lithology (Figure 5) suggest that when the first signals of cereal are seen, the site was coastal (Reynald & Hjelmroos, 1980). In such areas, pollen should not be used as the only indicator for cultivation. Modern pollen dispersal has been used to evaluate whether pollen analysis can be used to study small-scale cultivation. Finland is a large country, and, in marginal northern areas where cultivation is small scale, indicators of cultivation are always sporadic. According to Hicks (1985: 82), ‘… one cannot expect to be able to distinguish close related activities at this level (e.g. cereal fields from hay fields)’. Thus, it is not possible to draw any conclusion about the beginning of cultivation based on pollen analyses (Hicks, 669 1985). This is supported by a study where modern pollen was used to test the representativeness of anthropological pollen (Hicks & Birks, 1996). These modern samples show that farms and fields cannot be distinguished, and furthermore both activities leave only a small amount of pollen evidence. This suggests that it is impossible to distinguish small-scale cultivation by pollen analysis. LONG-DISTANCE TRANSPORTATION Long-distance transportation is always a problem in pollen studies. Evidence of modern long-distance transportation suggests that pollen can be transported by storms to Fennoscandia from as far away as North Africa or North America (Franzén & Hjelmroos, 1988). Studies of coloured snow from southern Sweden found that Hordeum-type pollen, together with that of other plants usually regarded Figure 5. The lithology of Merinjänjärvi, showing the change from sea (i.e. clay and silt), through lake (i.e. gyttja), and finally the development of the bog. The coastal stage is marked by the presence of large size grass pollen falling into the definition of Cerealia-type. Redrawn with modifications from Reynald and Hjelmroos (1980: figs. on pp. 270 and 271) 670 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 as cultural indicators, including Plantago lanceolata and Urtica (nettle), is part of such particle movements. The source of such pollen is impossible to trace absolutely, but mineral grains and plants suggest that the origin was somewhere in Denmark, at least 200 km away from the sampling site (Franzén & Hjelmroos, 1988). Pollen can travel not just hundreds of kilometres, but also thousands. Samples collected from the snow surface in close proximity to the Arctic Circle in central Sweden show this. Cerealia-type pollen was found, mainly Secale-type and Triticum-type. The closest area where cereals flowered before the time of sampling was Italy, and mineral particles even suggest North Africa. These data suggest that drawing conclusions from single pollen grains should be avoided (Hjelmroos & Franzén, 1994). DATING AND INTERPOLATING PROBLEMS Simola (1999) has pointed out that Vuorela and Hicks (1996) used pollen evidence uncritically and have used radiocarbon dates for early agricultural activity without any discussion of reliability of the results. Many of their radiocarbon dates come from bulk sediment samples. Simola states that the possibility of old carbon is not considered, and that the dating results are not even discussed. Bulk sediment was often used to date pollen cores in the 1970s and 1980s. It has been shown that such results can be in error by thousands of years (Barnekow et al., 1998; Grimm & Nelson, 2009; Stanton et al., 2010). This has long been known in Finland: Tolonen et al. (1976) showed that radiocarbon dates from several lakes in southern Finland are 500–800 years too old compared with known rates of land uplift or annual varves. Several other Finnish studies have produced similar results (Huttunen & Tolonen, 1977; Tolonen, 1980a, 1990). Tolonen et al. (1976) accepted that such dates are estimates and should not be considered as absolute dates. Therefore, estimating the beginning of farming should be based on several dates and results from several sites, and one must accept that some of the sites will give dates that may be too old. In another study, Pitkänen and Huttunen (1999) compared radiocarbon dates on leaves and sticks from Betula (birch) with annual varves from Lake Pönttölampi. The results showed that the radiocarbon dates were 500–1100 years older than the varve ages. Thus, any results should be considered with considerable caution. In some studies, the layer with early farming evidence is not itself dated. Often, in pollen analysis, age-depth models based on sedimentation rates are used to place the results on a chronological scale, and ages for particular horizons are interpolated or extrapolated. One study compared such an age-depth model based on six radiocarbon dates to a lake’s annual varves, and concluded that the age-depth model was in error by as much as 90–180 years (Telford et al., 2004). Most of the earlier studies in Finland used only two to four dates, and the samples spanned several years of sedimentation. Thus, it is very likely that in reality the errors are even greater. One major problem with extrapolating dates occurs when the latest radiocarbon date comes from below the level under consideration: the sediment at the surface is always recent and the sedimentation rate is fastest. To be able to interpolate, it is necessary to distinguish where the sediment ends (i.e. which is the topmost layer), which is always an estimation. In many cases, error limits are not even discussed and thus the uncertainty of the study is not known, which makes comparison of the studies more unreliable. Lahtinen and Rowley-Conwy — Early farming in Finland THE SPRUCE DECLINE AND FOREST FIRES A decline in Picea (spruce) has often been used as evidence for cultivation, because the occurrence of single cereal-type pollen grains, other cultural indicator species, high levels of charcoal and the introduction of spruce often appear together in pollen diagrams. The explanation offered for this is that slash-and-burn cultivation worked well in spruce forests (Vuorela, 1986). However, in Finland, such cultivation has been practised until recently, and the most suitable forest type was in fact Betula-Alnus (birch and alder) forest aged about 15–30 years old (Heikinheimo, 1915). Grönlund et al. (1992) used the spruce decline as evidence of a local forest clearance phase, and together with single pollen grains as an indication of early agriculture. Vuorela (1986) has even suggested that the decline of Picea pollen is the only indicator of early clearance for cultivation. However, it is not possible to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic fires, although fires are often visible in pollen diagrams before cereal pollen occurs. Natural fires do occur: Larjavaara et al. (2005) show that lightning can cause a fire in boreal forest. A connection between spruce and cultivation is not accepted by all. Rowley-Conwy (1983) argued that a spruce decline can be explained without connection to human activity. His main point is that ‘fire is a natural component of spruce forest ecology’ (Rowley-Conwy, 1983: 206), and the so-called cultural indicators originate naturally in the area. A study from northern Sweden supports the idea that fire is an important element in spruce-dominated forest (Hörnberg et al., 2012). Similar results between spruce and fire connections are seen in boreal forests in Canada (Black & Bliss, 1980). Spruce did not spread in close proximity to 671 swamps where fires were absent even if it was present in the area (Segerström et al., 2008). In Finland, Mökkönen (2010) pointed out that the introduction of spruce does not correlate with the spread of the CW culture. If this culture did practice cultivation, as Mökkönen (2010) assumes, the appearance of spruce therefore cannot be explained by cultivation. Fire-interval studies have been made in the context of early cultivation studies. Huttunen (1980) reconstructed fire intervals in southern Finland. There were several changes in frequency. From AD 470 to 1100 mean frequency was 95 years; from then until AD 1600 the mean interval was 57 years; and between AD 1600 and 1900 it was 30 years. A continuous cereal pollen curve started around AD 1500. Similar results can be seen in eastern Finland, where the fire interval between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries was around 30–40 years after the start of cultivation, and 100–200 years before that (Lehtonen, 1998; Pitkänen & Huttunen, 1999). In eastern Finland, a study of charcoal particles showed intervals of 320–520 years without a clear spruce connection. However, sampling did not reach to the modern surface, so this evidently reflects the natural fire frequency in boreal forest, not one caused by agriculture (Pitkänen et al., 2003a). Another study supports this: in eastern Finland, intervals are approximately 170–240 years until AD 1500, and, after that, approximately 50 years (Pitkänen et al., 2003b). More recent studies suggest longer intervals. In northern Swedish Lappland, fire intervals fluctuated between shorter (approximately 200–300 years) and longer (approximately 500 years) periods. This in fact correlates better with climatic fluctuations than archaeological data (Caseldine et al., 2008). It is doubtful whether agriculture played any important role at all in such northern areas. 672 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 In sum, it seems that fire intervals might have decreased after cereal cultivation started. Cultivation would also explain why there are differences between regions. In northern Finland, where cultivation was not possible, slash-and-burn cultivation was never practised and fire frequency stayed low. In southern and central Finland, the evidence suggests the opposite to what has previously been argued. There is no evidence that slash-and-burn cultivation was practised in the early stages of cultivation. Furthermore, it was probably never important in the western part of the country. Thus, the spread of agriculture into eastern Finland might have been affected by the late innovation of fast-cycle slash-and-burn cultivation. However, more studies are needed from the western part of the country. WHAT DO THE POLLEN DIAGRAMS TELL US? On the basis of the arguments put forward in the previous section, it is questionable whether pollen provides any evidence concerning the beginning of cultivation in Finland. It might be a more recent innovation in Finland than has been previously suggested. Pollen studies that have been suggested to support the presence of early cultivation before the Iron Age are discussed here. Stone Age cultivation before 1500 cal BC The only evidence for this period is in the form of single pollen grains found at various sites around Finland. Seventeen examples are mentioned by Vuorela and Hicks (1996) and Mökkönen (2010). These are listed in Table 3, and plotted in Figure 6 (top). As we have discussed, method of identification is important. The studies of the sites of Lamminjärvi, Lalaxkärret, and Humppila, Vasikkasuo and Karvalammi do not publish the criteria used for cereal pollen recognition (Tolonen, 1980a, 1980b; Aalto et al., 1985; Vuorela, 1990). At Könttärinlahti, a size criterion of 42 µm is mentioned and at Vasikkasuo, 41 µm is used, but at Könttärinlahti, the pollen is said to be Hordeum-type (Vuorela & Kankainen, 1991; Vuorela, 1994). In Northen Ostrobotnia, size (greater than 45 µm) and pore size (greater than 8 µm) were used to identify cereal-type pollen (Reynald & Hjelmroos, 1980). At Kankareenjärvi and Preittilänsuo, Beug’s (1961) criteria were used. However, Kankaanjärvi was dated using bulk sediment dating, and it has already been mentioned that such dates are probably too old. Two cerealtype pollen grains (type is not mentioned) were found in different layers at Preittilänsuo (Tolonen, 1987); these could just as well be large wild grasses. At Katajajärvi, modern methods of morphology and size are used, and one Hordeum-type pollen grain was found in the Stone Age layers (Alenius et al., 2009). A similar situation is seen at Kemiö where one Hordeum-type pollen grain and one Secale-type pollen grain occur in Stone Age contexts (Alenius et al., 2008). The most recent claim to find Hordeum-type pollen is by Alenius et al. (2013) from southern Finland. This paper published the criteria utilized. One grain of Fagopyrum esculentum (buckwheat) was dated to 6276 ± 55 BP (5369–5063 cal BC). It is possible for such large grains to travel long distances; also the possibility of modern contamination has to be considered with this single pollen grain. In a study like this, where the minimum number of pollen grains counted is 1100, it is much more likely that rare large size grass pollen grains will be recorded. Three Lahtinen and Rowley-Conwy — Early farming in Finland 673 Table 3. Sites producing claims of cereal cultivation during the Stone Age, earlier than 1500 cal BC Site Classification used Apart from single pollen, evidence of farming Dating material and comments Reference 1. Ahmasjärvi, Utajärvi Grain size >45, annulus >8 Cannot be determined Bulk sediment, site unsuitable for such studies Reynald and Hjelmroos (1980) 2. Jalasjärvi, Raahe Grain size >45, annulus >8 Cannot be determined Bulk sediment, site unsuitable for such studies Reynald and Hjelmroos (1980) 3. Sotkasuo, Utajärvi Grain size >45, annulus >8 Cannot be determined 4. Nimisjärvi, Vaala Grain size >45, annulus >8 Cannot be determined 5. Piplajärvi, Ylikiiminki Grain size >45, annulus >8 Cannot be determined 6. Iso-Mustajärvi, Tornio Grain size >45, annulus >8 Cannot be determined Bulk sediment, site unsuitable for such studies Bulk sediment, site unsuitable for such studies Bulk sediment, site unsuitable for such studies Bulk sediment, site unsuitable for such studies Reynald and Hjelmroos (1980) Reynald and Hjelmroos (1980) Reynald and Hjelmroos (1980) Reynald and Hjelmroos (1980) 7. Vasikkasuo, Puolanka Not published Modern period (100 ± 65 BP) Peat Vuorela and Kankainen (1991) 8. Karvalampi, Pihtipudas Not published 710 ± 50 bp AD 1200–1400 Bulk sediment Vuorela (1997) 9. Pieni-Summanen, Saarijärvi Not published 1460 ± 100 BP cal AD 383–775 Dating material is not mentioned Vuorela (1995) 10. Lamminjärvi, Lammi 11. Katajajärvi Valkeala Not published AD 500 Relative dating Erdtman et al. (1961), Faegri et al. (1989), Moore et al. (1991), Reille (1992, 1995) Not fully published, Grain size >42 µm 2780 (interpolated estimation) cal BP Dating material not published Tolonen (1980a) Alenius et al. (2009) 1180 ± 110 BP cal AD 644–1039 Dating material not published Vuorela (1994) 12. Könttärinlahti, Keuruu 13. Järvensuo, Humppila Not published Only single pollen evidence, analysis did not reached surface Dating material not published Aalto et al. (1985) 14. Labbölenträsket, Kemiönsaari Faegri et al. (1989), Moore et al. (1991), Reille (1992, 1995) Cal AD 775–900 Dating material not published Alenius et al. (2008) 15. Laxkärret, Nauvo Not published No data Dating material not published, bulk sediment (?) Vuorela (1990) 16. Kankareenjärvi, Salo Beug (1961) 3530 ± 140 BP 2281–1517 cal BC Tolonen (1987) 17. Preittilänsuo, Paimio 18. Huhdasjärvi Beug (1961) 570 ± 100 BP cal AD 1226–1618 1126 ± 32 BP cal AD 782–992 Dating from bulk sediment, clearly too old Dating from bulk sediment Dating from bulk sediment Erdtman, et al. (1961), Faegri et al. (1989), Moore et al. (1991), Reille (1992, 1995), Beug (2004) single pollen grains of Hordeum-type connected to signs of erosion are not highly significant proof of cultivation, but may Tolonen (1987) Alenius et al. (2013) result from natural variation in wild grass pollen. This simply does not prove cultivation in the whole country. 674 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 Figure 6. Maps showing distribution of pollen sites with cereal-type grains. Top: Stone Age, sites numbered as in Table 3; bottom: Bronze Age, sites numbered as in Table 4. The only continuous pollen curve claimed from the Stone Age is from Lake Kankareenjärvi in southwestern Finland, dated to 3530 BP. However, the author of the study has stated that compared to other studies in the region, the date is likely too old. Dating was done on bulk sediments, which are probably contaminated by old carbon. Furthermore, the site is coastal, and thus some large cereal-type pollen from wild grasses growing in these habitats should be expected. Reynald and Hjelmroos (1980) studied six sites in the northern Ostrobotnian region. Every one of the sites shows evidence of cereal-type pollen. This has been used without any criticism as clear evidence of farming. However, most of the sites were coastal, and have scattered cereal-type evidence from the time the rising land caused the isolation of the lake. The large-grained wild species Elymis arenaria and Agropyron canina are common species in the area (Reynald & Hjelmroos, 1976), so any evidence should be treated very cautiously. Levels of cereal pollen were low and sporadic in every diagram, and no change from a natural to a farmed landscape can be seen. Radiocarbon dating in the area is problematic because of the recycling of old carbon. In the absence of any other source of evidence, it cannot be Lahtinen and Rowley-Conwy — Early farming in Finland determined when cultivation first occurred. Historical sources suggest that it could be as recent as the medieval era (Luukko, 1954). Bronze Age cultivation (1500–500 cal BC) There are several sites that have claimed evidence of Bronze Age cultivation. They are listed in Table 4 and plotted in Figure 6 (bottom)2. There are only four sites with more than single pollen grains. They are Aholanlammi (Koivula et al., 1994), Loimaansuo (Vuorela, 1975), Antinlampi (Vuorela et al., 1993), and Kissalammi (Tolonen, 1981). At Loimaansuo and Antinlampi, the identification criteria were not published. One single Hordeum-type pollen grain from Antinlampi is stated to be as large as 60 µm. According to Faegri et al. (1989) this should apparently be classified as Elymus-type, although, since other criteria are not mentioned, this is not completely certain. Because of this, it is not possible to consider the pollen grains from these sites as reliable evidence. At Aholammi, evidence is put forward for Bronze Age cultivation. A continuous cereal-type pollen curve starts after 3460 ± 90 BP (Koivula et al., 1994), or 2019–1531 cal BC. The radiocarbon dates have, however, been done on bulk organic material, which includes all organic material found in the sediment; therefore, the date should be considered only very cautiously. The dating of the layer is the latest date in the core, so it is not known how accurate it is (see earlier discussion). The sample for radiocarbon dating was a 2 All dates are calibrated, and the original radiocarbon date is mentioned in parentheses. If the original paper published the calibration, only that is mentioned. 675 10-cm slice, which itself will cause great error limits (Koivula et al., 1994). At Kissalammi, Cerealia-type pollen appears as early as 3940 ± 110 BP (2864– 2135 cal BC) but there are never more than one or two pollen grains (Figure 7). These pollen grains appear in the pollen diagram as Cerealia-type, but in the published text it is stated that ‘in the last part of QM-3060 ± 120 BP [1608–979 cal BC] Cerealia pollen grains, viz. Hordeum and Triticum types was connected with cultivation in the vicinity of the site’ (Tolonen, 1981: 217). It is not evident how many pollen grains from each genus were determined, or whether some grains were just of cereal type. The total amount of cereal-type pollen increases from 500 varve BC onward. The study was carried out by counting 1500 arboreal pollen grains per sample (Tolonen, 1981); this large total increases the likelihood that wild large-pollen species or long-distance transportation grains will be found. There is also one cereal-type pollen grain before the Bronze Age, so it is likely that some large-grain wild species grew near the site. In northern Finland, only a limited number of studies have been done. Small amounts of cereal-type pollen are found at almost every site. Tikkanen (1978) states that coastal vegetation can clearly be seen in the diagrams, and this will include wild grasses with large pollen grains. Thus, it is not possible to say whether the cereal-type pollen really comes from cultivated cereals. As already mentioned, cultural indicators are common in such an environment. As discussed in the Stone Age section, there is similar evidence in the study by Reynald and Hjelmroos (1976) from several sites in the northern Ostrobotnian region, so this evidence is not conclusive. However, it has been used to support the hypothesis that cultivation started in northern Finland soon after it began in the southern part of the country (Vuorela 676 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 Table 4. Sites producing claims of cereal cultivation during the Bronze Age, 1500–500 cal BC Site Definition used for cerealia-type pollen Apart from single pollen, evidence of farming Dating material and comments Reference 19. Lohijärvi, Ylitornio Grain size >40 µm Ignored Not possible to trace beginning from this site. (See discussion) Tikkanen (1978) 20. Aholammi, Jämsä Grain size >37 µm, annulus >8 µm, Anderssen (1978) 3460 ± 90 BP 2019– 1531 cal BC Dating from bulk sediment Koivula et al. (1994) 21. Katinhännäsuo, Vihti 22. Loimaansuo, Huittinen Not published 1650 ± 140 BP cal AD 85–647 3400 ± 130 BP 2032–1423 cal BC Dating from bulk sediment Dating from bulk sediment Vuorela (1975) 23. Morträskt, Sipoo Grain size >40 µm, annulus >8 µm, Beug (1961), Andersen (1978) Between 2000– 1000 BP (based on estimation) Sarmaja-Korjonen (1992) 24. Isoskärret, Kemiö Not published 2480 ± 190 cal BP Dating from bulk sediment was too old and thus estimation done by comparing to other studies Dating from bulk sediment 25. Mossdalen, Kemi Not published 500 cal BP (based on estimation) Dating from bulk sediment Asplund and Vuorela (1998) 26. Ahvenainen, Koski > 42 µm, Beug (1961), Faegri and Iversen (1989), Rowley (1960), Andersen and Bertelsen (1972) 2400 BP,
450 cal BC No dating Tolonen (1978b) 27. Ketohaka, Salo >42 µm, Beug (1961), Faegri and Iversen (1989), Rowley (1960), Andersen and Bertelsen (1972) Not published 2320 ± 120 BP, 775–111 cal BC Dating from bulk sediment Tolonen (1985) No results before 30 cm Sampling from modern field sediment Vuorela and Lempiäinen (1988) 29. Syrjälänsuo, Taipalsaari Not published 1605 ± 40 BP, cal AD 353–553 Radiocarbon from moss Vuorela and Kankainen (1993) 30. Hirvilammi, Loppi Not published Only sporadic traces (1 to 2) cereal pollens Dating from bulk sediment. Results from 5 cm (960 ± 100 BP) clearly too old Rankama and Vuorela (1988), Vuorela (1993) 31. Kaartinlammensuo, Loppi Not published 900 ± 90 BP, cal AD 987–1276 Dating material is not mentioned Vuorela (1993) 32. Ryönänsuo, Vihti 33. Kissalammi, Pälkäne Not published 120 ± 100 BP, modern 2450 BP,
500–600 cal BC Dating material is not mentioned Varve dating Vuorela (1993) 34. Siikasuo, Harjavalta 35. Kirkkojärvi, Vehmaa Not published No dating from the beginning 1140 ± 140 BP, cal AD 643–1174 Dating from peat Vuorela (1991) Dating from bulk sediment Vuorela (1975) 28. Niuskala, Turku Not published Beug (1961), Faegri and Ivarsen (1975), Rowley (1960), Andersen and Bertelsen (1972) Not published Vuorela (1975) Asplund and Vuorela (1998) Tolonen (1981) Continued Lahtinen and Rowley-Conwy — Early farming in Finland 677 Table 4. Continued Site Definition used for cerealia-type pollen Apart from single pollen, evidence of farming Dating material and comments Reference 36. Konnunsuo, Joutseno Beug’s (1961) criteria, only Cerealia type was recognized Beug’s (1961) criteria, only cerealia type was recognized Not published < 620 ± 95 BP, modern Dating from bulk sediment Tolonen and Ruuhijärvi (1976) 1670 ± 140 BP, cal AD 74–642 Dating from bulk sediment Tolonen and Ruuhijärvi (1976) 2350 ± 100 BP, 766–203 cal BC Dating from bulk sediment Donner et al. (1978) 39. Antinlampi, Laukaa Not published Dating from bulk sediment Vuorela et al. (1993) 40. Merijärvi, Ii Grain size >45 µm, annulus >8 µm One separate stage 2790 ± 40 BP, 1041–836 cal BC, more continuous from 900 ± 40 BP, 1034–1215 cal BC ignored Reynald and Hjelmroos (1976) 41. Kantala, Sääksmäki Beug (1961), Faegri and Ivarsen (1989, Rowley (1960), Andersen and Bertelsen (1972) Not published It is not possible to trace beginning from such site (see discussion) Dating is based on radiocarbon and sedimentation rate Dating from bulk sediment Dating from bulk sediment and interpolation, Tolonen (1990) mentioned that it is likely to be 600 years too old Dating from bulk sediment, Huttunen and Tolonen (1977) believed that dating were 800 years too old Vuorela and Kankainen (1992) Tolonen (1990) 37. Haukkasuo, Valkeala 38. Työtjärvi, Hollola 42. Kuivajärvi, Tammela 43. Linnajärvi, Kuhmoinen Estimation 1000 BP Tolonen (1978a) Beug (1961), Faegri and Ivarsen (1989), Rowley (1960), Andersen and Bertelsen (1972) 2620 ± 45 BP 901–594 cal BC <2650 ± 120 BP 1111–412 cal BC interpolated 2000– 2200 BP
1st three centuries cal BC 44. Lovojärvi, Lammi Beug’s (1961) criteria, only Cerealia type was recognized 2620 ± 180 BP, 1266–364 cal BC 2500 ± 180 BP, 1053–171 cal BC 45. Heinälammi, Siilinjärvi 46. Katajajärvi Not published No dating Ignored Simola et al. (1991) Erdtman et al. (1961), Faegri and Iversen (1989), Moore et al. (1991), Reille (1992, 1995) c. 660 cal BC Dating material not published Alenius et al. (2009) 47. Igumeeninlampi Not published c. 800 BP, in the neighbouring sites Dating from plant macrofossils. Vuorela et al. (2001) & Hicks, 1996; Mökkönen, 2010). However, the occurrences of cereal-type pollen are small and scattered. For example, cereal-type pollen is seen at Huttunen and Tolonen (1977) Merijanjärvi from the basal section of the core, which dates to before the isolation of the lake. This can be viewed as evidence of the marine shore environment rather 678 European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 Figure 7. Pollen of cereal-type curve from Kissalammi. Redrawn with modifications from Tolonen (1981, Fig. 2) than cultivation. There than pollen to support the archaeological record tivation started in the (Huurre, 1983). is nothing other early cultivation; suggests that culMedieval period CONCLUSIONS Pollen analysis is a useful tool, but is not an absolute method for determining the presence of agriculture. Wild grasses can produce pollen of cereal-type, Hordeumtype, and Triticum-type. Consequently, any evidence derived from single pollen grains is always questionable. As there is not enough reliable evidence to support agriculture in Finland before the Iron Age, we conclude that more studies using different lines of evidence are required before Stone Age or Bronze Age cultivation can be proposed. The evidence from Finland thus takes its place alongside that from most of the rest of Europe. The early pollen claims for cereal cultivation are anomalous, and increasingly out of line with all the other sources of evidence for agriculture. Finland acts as an important test-case for Europe as a whole: since prehistoric agriculture was a marginal economic activity so far north, the pollen claims focus attention on the issue across the continent. Future work by Finnish archaeologists on the date of the earliest agriculture in Finland will be of continental significance. Lahtinen and Rowley-Conwy — Early farming in Finland ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank various colleagues for sending us copies of their work: Hannu Ahokas, Auli Bläer, Kevin Edwards, Christain Jeunesse, Teemu Mökkönen, Jussi-Pekka Taavitsainen, Christian Roll Valen and Ulf Segerström. We would also like to thank Julia von Bokuslawski and Kati Salo for their help with getting access to some of the articles. Responsibility for the contents of this article rests with the authors alone. REFERENCES Aalto, M., Siiriäinen, A. & Vuorela, I. 1985. Humppila Järvensuo: A Preinvestigation for an Archaeological and Palaeobotanical Project in SW Finland. Iskos, 5:165–77. Alenius, T., Lavento, M. & Saarnisto, M. 2009. Pollen-Analytical Results from Lake Katajajärvi: Aspects of the History of Settlement in the Finnish Inland Regions. Acta Borealia, 26:136–55. Alenius, T., Mikkola, E. & Ojala, A. 2008. History of Agriculture in Mikkeli Orijärvi, Eastern Finland as Reflected by Palynological and Archaeological Data. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 17:171–83. Alenius, T., Mökkönen, T. & Lahelma, A. 2013. Early Farming in the Northern Boreal Zone: Reassessing the History of Land Use in southeastern Finland through High-Resolution Pollen Analysis. Geoarchaeology, 28:1–24. Andersen, S. 1979. Identification of Wild Grass and Cereal Pollen. Danmarks Geologiske Undersogelse, 1978:69–92 Andersen, T.S. & Bertelsen, F. 1972. Scanning Electron Microscope Studies of Pollen of Cereals and Other Grasses. Grana, 12:79–86. Asplund, H., Formisto, T. & Illmer, K. 1989. Kotirinne—A Late Neolithic Mixed Farming Site: Osteological and Chemical Investigations at the Kotirinne Dwelling Site at Niuskala, Turku, SW Finland. 679 Norwegian Archaeological Review, 22:119–29. Asplund, H. & Vuorela, I. 1998. Settlement Studies in Kemiö: Archaeological Problems and Palynological Evidence. Fennoscandia Archaeologica, 6:67–79. Barnekow, L., Possnert, G. & Sandgren, P. 1998. AMS C-14 Chronologies of Holocene Lake Sediments in the Abisko Area, Northern Sweden: A Comparison Between Dated Bulk Sediment and Macrofossil Samples. GFF, 120:59–67. Behre, K.-E. 2007. Evidence for Mesolithic Agriculture in and around Central Europe? Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 16:203–19. Beug, H.-J. 1961. Leitfaden der Pollenbestimmung fur Mitteleuropa und angrenzende Gebiete. Stuttgart: Fischer. Beug, H.-J. 2004. Leitfaden der Pollenbestimmung fur Mitteleuropa und angrenzende Gebiete. Munich: Pfeil. Black, R.A. & Bliss, L.C. 1980. Reproductive Ecology of Picea Mariana (Mill.) BSP., at Tree Line Near Inuvik, Northwest Territories, Canada. Ecological Monographs, 50:331–54. Bläuer, A. & Kantanen, J. 2013. Transition from Hunting to Animal Husbandry in Southern, Western and Eastern Finland: New Dated Osteological Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40:1646–66. Bronk Ramsay, C. 2009. Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon, 51(1): 337–60. Carpelan, C. 2002. Esihistorian vuosiluvut, ajoitukset ja kronologia. In: R. Grünthal, ed. Ennen muinoin. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura, pp. 18–27. Caseldine, C., Fyfe, R. & Hjelle, K. 2008. Pollen Modelling, Palaeoecology and Archaeology: Virtualisation and/or Visualisation of the Past? Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 17:543–9. Costopoulos, A., Vaneeckhout, S., Okkonen, J., Hulse, E., Paberzyte, I. & Wren, C.D. 2012. Social Complexity in the Mid-Holocene Northeastern Bothnian Gulf. European Journal of Archaeology, 15:41–60. Donner, J. 1984. Some Comments on the Pollen-Analytical Records of Cereals and Their Dating in Southern-Finland. Fennoscandia Archaeologica, 1:13–7. 680 Donner, J., Alhonen, P., Eronen, M., Jungner, H. & Vuorela, I. 1978. Biostratigraphy and Radiocarbon Dating of the Holocene Lake Sediments of Työtjärvi and the Peats in the Adjoining Bog Varrassuo West of Lahti in Southern Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici, 15:258–80. Edgren, T. 1999. Alkavan rautakauden kulttuurikuva. In: P. Fogelberg, ed. Pohjolan poluilla. Helsinki: The Finnish Society of Science and Letters, pp. 311–33. Edwards, K.J. 1989. The Cereal Pollen Record and Early Agriculture. In: A. Milles, D. Williams & N. Gardner, eds. The Beginnings of Agriculture. British Archaeological Reports International Series 496. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, pp. 113–47. Erdtman, G., Berglund, B. & Praglowski, J. 1961. An Introduction to Scandinavian Pollen Flora. Grana, 2(3): 3–92. Faegri, K., Iversen, J. & Krzywinski, K. 1989. Textbook of Pollen Analysis. Thirth edition. Copenhagen: Scandinavian University Books. Faegri, K., Iversen, J. & Krzywinski, K. 1989. Textbook of Pollen Analysis. Fourth edition. Chichester: Wiley. Franzén, L. & Hjelmroos, M. 1988. A Coloured Snow Episode on the Swedish West Coast, January 1987: A Quantitative and Qualitative Study of Air Borne Particles. Geografiska Annaler. Series A, Physical Geography, 70:235–43. Grimm, E.C. & Nelson, D.M. 2009. The Magnitude of Error in Conventional Bulk-Sediment Radiocarbon Dates from Central North America. Quaternary Research, 72:301–08. Grönlund, E., Kivinen, L. & Simola, H. 1992. Pollen Analytical Evidence for Bronze-Age Cultivation in Eastern Finland. Laborativ arkeologi, 6:37–42. Heikinheimo, O. 1915. Kaskiviljelyn vaikutus Suomen metsiin. Acta Forestalia Fennica, 4:1–264. Hicks, S. 1985. Problems and Possibilities in Correlating Historical/Archaeological and Pollen-Analytical Evidence in a Northern Boreal Environment: An Example from Kuusamo, Finland. Fennoscandia Archaeologica, 2:51–84. Hicks, S. & Birks, H.J.B. 1996. Numerical Analysis of Modern and Fossil Pollen Spectra as a Tool for Elucidating the European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 Nature of Fine-Scale Human Activities in Boreal Areas. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 5:257–72. Hjelmroos, M. & Franzén, L.G. 1994. Implications of Recent Long-Distance Pollen Transport Events for the Interpretation of Fossil Pollen Records in Fennoscandia. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 82:175–89. Holmblad, P. 2010. Coastal Communities on the Move: House and Polity Interaction in Southern Ostrobothnia 1500 BC—AD 1. Archaeology and Environment 26. Umeå: Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies. Hörnberg, G., Staland, H., Nordström, E.-M., Korsman, T. & Segerström, U. 2012. Fire as an Important Factor for the Genesis of Boreal Picea Abies Swamp Forests in Fennoscandia. The Holocene, 22:203–14. Huttunen, P. 1980. Early Land Use, Especially the Slash-and-Burn Cultivation in the Commune of Lammi, Southern Finland, Interpreted Mainly Using Pollen and Charcoal Analyses. Acta Botanica Fennica, 113:1–45. Huttunen, P. & Tolonen, K. 1977. Human Influence in the History of Lake Lovojärvi, S. Finland. Finskt Museum, 1975:68–105. Huurre, M. 1983. Pohjois-Pohjanmaan ja Lapin historia I: Pohjois-Pohjanmaan ja Lapin esihistoria. Oulu: PohjoisPohjanmaan, maakuntaliiton ja Lapin maakuntaliiton yhteinen historiatoimikunta. Huurre, M. 2003. Viljanviljelyn varhaisvaiheet. In: V. Rasila, E. Jutikkala & A. Mäkelä-Alitalo eds. Suomen maatalouden historia 1. Perinteisen Maatalouden aika esihistoriasta 1870-luvulle. Jyväskylä: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, pp. 19–37. Jeunesse, C. 2008. Un Néolithique non Cardial antérieur à 5500 cal BC dans l’interieur de la Péninsule Ibérique? Un point de vue extérieur. In: M.S. Hernandez Pérez, J.A. Solar Díaz & J.A. López Padilla, eds. IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular, 27–30 de Noviembre de 2006, vol. II. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico de Alicante, pp. 391–6. Johansen, O.S. & Vorren, K.-D. 1986. The Prehistoric Expansion of Farming into Lahtinen and Rowley-Conwy — Early farming in Finland ‘Arctic’ Norway: A Chronology Based on 14C Dating. Radiocarbon, 28:739–47. Koivula, L., Raatikainen, M., Kananen, T. & Vasari, Y. 1994. Ihmisen vaikutus luontoon Keski-Suomessa siitepölytutkimuksen valossa. Jyväskylän Yliopisto. Historian Laitos. Suomen Historian Julkaisuja, 21:1–93. Lampinen, R. & Lahti, T. 2012. Kasviatlas 2010. University of Helsinki, Finnish Museum of Natural History, Botanical Museum, Helsinki [Accessed 13 May 2012]. Available at: <http://www.luomus. fi/kasviatlas> Larjavaara, M., Pennanen, J. & Tuomi, T. 2005. Lightning that Ignites Forest Fires in Finland. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 132:171–80. Lavento, M. 1998. Sisämaan vanhemman metallikauden väestö tutkimusongelmana. Muinaistutkija, 4:44–55. Lehtonen, H. 1998. Fire History Recorded on Pine Trunks and Stumps: Influence of Land Use and Fires on Forest Structure in North Karelia. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 13:462–68. Lempiäinen, T. 1999. Hiiltyneet viljanjyvät ja maanviljelyn alku Suomessa. In: P. Fogelberg ed. Pohjolan Poluilla. Helsinki: The Finnish Society of Science and Letters, pp. 152–4. Luukko, A. 1954. Pohjois-Pohjanmaan ja Lapin historia. 2. Pohjois-Pohjanmaan ja Lapin keskiaika sekä 1500-luku. Oulu: Pohjois-Pohjanmaan maakuntaliiton ja Lapin maakuntaliiton yhteinen historiatoimikunta. Mökkönen, T. 2010. Kivikautinen maanviljely Suomessa. Suomen Museo, 2009:5–38. Moore, P., Webb, J. & Collinson, M. 1991. Pollen Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Nordqvist, K. & Herva, V-P. 2013. Copper Use, Cultural Change and Neolithization in North-eastern Europe (c. 5500–1800 BC). European Journal of Archaeology, 32:401–32. Nuñez, M. 2004. All Quiet on the Eastern Front? In: H. Knutsson ed. Coast to Coast: Arrival. Results and Reflections. Coast to Coast Books 10. Uppsala: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, pp. 345–67. Onnela, J., Lempiäinen, T. & Luoto, J. 1996. Viking Age Cereal Cultivation in SW 681 Finland: A Study of Charred Grain from Pahamäki in Pahka, Lieto. Annales Botanici Fennici, 33:237–55. Pitkänen, A. & Huttunen, P. 1999. A 1300-Year Forest-Fire History at a Site in Eastern Finland Based on Charcoal and Pollen Records in Laminated Lake Sediment. The Holocene, 9:311–20. Pitkänen, A., Huttunen, P., Tolonen, K. & Jungner, H. 2003a. Long-Term Fire Frequency in the Spruce-Dominated Forests of the Ulvinsalo Strict Nature Reserve, Finland. Forest Ecology and Management, 176:305–19. Pitkänen, A., Huttunen, P., Jungner, H., Meriläinen, J. & Tolonen, K. 2003b. Holocene Fire History of Middle Boreal Pine Forest Sites in Eastern Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici, 40:15–33. Rankama, T. & Vuorela, I. 1988. Between Inland and Coast in Metal Age Finland Human Impact on the Primeval Forests of Southern Häme during the Iron Age. Memoranda Societatis Pro Fauna et Flora Fennica, 64:25–34. Reille, M. 1992. Pollen et spores d’Europe et d’Afrique du nord, supplément 1. Marseille: Laboratoire de botanique historique et palynologie. Reille, M. 1995. Pollen et spores d’Europe et d’Afrique du nord, supplément 2. Marseille: Laboratoire de botanique historique et palynologie. Reynald, C. & Hjelmroos, M. 1976. Vegetational History and Evidence of Settlement on Hailuoto, Finland, Established by Means of Pollen Analysis and Radiocarbon Dating. Aguilo Series Botany, 14:46–60. Reynald, C. & Hjelmroos, M. 1980. Pollen Evidence and Radiocarbon Dating of Human Activity within the Natural Forest Vegetation of the Pohjonmaa Region (Northern Finland). Candollea, 35:257–304. Rowley, J.R. 1960. The Exine Structure of Cereal and Wild Type Grass Pollen. Grana Palynologica, 2:9–15. Rowley-Conwy, P. 1983. Reviews. Journal of Danish Archaeology, 2:205–09. Rowley-Conwy, P. 2004. How the West Was Lost: A Reconsideration of Agricultural Origins in Britain, Ireland, and Southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology, 45:83–113. Sarmaja-Korjonen, K. 1992. Fine-Interval Pollen and Charcoal Analysis as Tracers 682 of Early Clearance Periods in S Finland. Acta Botanica Fennica, 146:1–75. Segerström, U., von Stedingk, H. & Hörnberg, G. 2008. Long-Term Sustainability of a Northern Boreal Deciduous Swamp Forest in Northern Sweden: Succession in the Absence of Fire. The Holocene, 18:1113–22. Simola, H. 1999. Siitepölyanalyysin mahdollisuudet ja rajat. In: P. Fogelberg, ed. Pohjolan Poluilla. Helsinki: Finnish Society of Science and Letters, pp. 155–8. Simola, H. 2012. Kivikautista maanviljelyä ei voi todistaa siitepölyanalyysillä. Suomen Museo, 2011:137–8. Simola, H., Grönlund, E., Taavitsainen, J-P. & Huttunen, P. 1991. Savolanen väestöräjähdys. In: P. Hakamies, ed. Saimaalta Kolille. Joensuu: Karjanlantutkimuksenlaitos, pp. 241–59. Stanton, T., Snowball, I., Zillén, L. & Wastegård, S. 2010. Validating a Swedish Varve Chronology Using Radiocarbon, Palaeomagnetic Secular Variation, Lead Pollution History and Statistical Correlation. Quaternary Geochronology, 5:611–24. Telford, R., Heegaard, E. & Birks, H. 2004. All Age-Depth Models are Wrong: But How Badly? Quaternary Science Reviews, 23:1–5. Tikkanen, R. 1978. Kulttuurin vaikutuksesta Lohijärven seudun kasvillisuuteen. Faravid, 2:63–73. Tinner, W., Nielsen, E.H. & Lotter, A.F. 2007. Mesolithic Agriculture in Switzerland? A Critical Review of the Evidence. Quaternary Science Reviews, 26:1416–31. Tolonen, M. 1978a. The History of Agriculture in Sääksmäki Traced by Pollen Analysis. Annales Botanici Fennici, 15:47–54. Tolonen, M. 1978b. Paleoecology of Annually Laminated Sediments in Lake Ahvenainen, S. Finland. I. Pollen and Charcoal Analyses and their Relation to Human Impact. Annales Botanici Fennici, 15:177–208. Tolonen, M. 1980a. Postglacial Pollen Stratigraphy of Lake Lamminjärvi, S Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici, 17:15–25. Tolonen, M. 1980b. Degradation Analysis of Pollen in Sediments of Lake Lamminjärvi, European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 S Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici, 17:11–4. Tolonen, M. 1981. An Absolute and Relative Pollen Analytical Study on Prehistoric Agriculture in South Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici, 18:213–20. Tolonen, K. 1984. Paleoekologin puheenvuoro. In: J. Galén, ed. Suomen väestön esihistorialliset juuret. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk, 131. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, pp. 319–25 Tolonen, M. 1985. Paleobotanical reconstrudtion of vegetation in a prehistoric settlement area, Salo, SW Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici, 22:101–16. Tolonen, M. 1987. Vegetational History in Coastal SW Finland Studied on a Lake and a Peat Bog by Pollen and Charcoal Analyses. Annales Botanici Fennici, 24:353–70. Tolonen, M. 1990. Pollen-Analytical Evidence of Ancient Human Action in the Hillfort Area of Kuhmoinen, Central Finland. In: J.-P. Taavitsainen, ed. Ancient Hillforts of Finland. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys, pp. 247–69. Tolonen, M. & Ruuhijärvi, R. 1976. Stantard Pollen Diagrams from Salpauselkä Region of Southern Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici, 13:155–96. Tolonen, K., Siiriäinen, A. & Hirviluoto, A.-L. 1976. Iron Age Cultivation in SW Finland. Finskt Museum, 83:5–66. Valen, C.R. 2007. Jordbruksimpulser i Neolitikum og Bronsealder i Nord-Norge? En Revisjon av det Arkeologiske Gjenstandmaterialet og de Naturvitenskapelige Undersøkelsene. Tromsø: Institutt for Arkeologi. Vanhanen, S. 2010. Charred Seeds in Mikkeli Orijärvi: A Study of Subsistence Strategies of an Iron Age Settlement in East Finland. Master’s Thesis, University of Helsinki, Department of Archaeology, Helsinki. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/26504 Vikkula, A., Seppälä, S.-L. & Lempiäinen, T. 1994. The Ancient Field of Rapola. Fennoscandia Archaeologica, 11:41–59. Viklund, K. 2011. Early Farming at Umeå in Västerbotten. Charred Cereal Grains Dated to the Bronze Age. Fornvännen, 106:238–42. Vuorela, I. 1973. Relative Pollen Rain Around Cultivated Fields. Acta Botanica Fennica, 102:1–27. Lahtinen and Rowley-Conwy — Early farming in Finland Vuorela, I. 1975. Pollen Analysis as a Means of Tracing Settlement History in SW Finland. Acta Botanica Fennica, 104:2–48. Vuorela, I. 1986. Palynological and Historical Evidence of Slash-and-Burn Cultivation in South Finland. In: K.-E. Behre, ed. Anthropogenic Indicators in Pollen Diagrams. Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 53–64. Vuorela, I. 1990. Pollenanalytiska studier. In: Z. Zillacius, ed. Finska Skären. Studier i Åbolandsk Kulturhistoria. Föreningen Konstsamfundets Publikationsserie 7. Helsinki: Konstsamfundet, pp. 115–32. Vuorela, I. 1991. Lounais-Suomen Varhaismetallikautinen asutus ja viljely siitepölyanalyysin valossa. Karhunhammas, 13:2–23. Vuorela, I. 1993. The Past and the Present of the Past and Present Nature of the Rasi Area. Helsinki Papers in Archaeology, 5:11–39. Vuorela, I. 1994. Keski-Suomen asutushistoriaa keuruun ja jämsän järvikerrostumien arkistossa. Espoo: Geologian tutkimuskeskus. Vuorela, I. 1995. Keski-Suomen asutushistoriaa Keuruun ja Jämsän Järvikerrostumien arkistossa. Espoo: Geologian Tutkimuskeskus. Vuorela, I. 1997. Pihtiputaan karvalampi paleoekologisen tutkimuksen kohteena. Espoo: Geologian tutkimuskeskus. Vuorela, I. 1999. The Beginning of Agricultural Land Use in Finland: An Assessment Based on Palynological Data. PACT, 57:339–51. Vuorela, I. & Hicks, S. 1996. Human Impact on the Natural Landscape in Finland. A Review of the Pollen Evidence. PACT, 50:245–57. Vuorela, I. & Kankainen, T. 1991. Siitepölyanalyyttinen tutkimus asutuksen vaikutuksesta kasvillisuuteen Puolangan kunnan Kotilan kylässä. Espoo: Geologian Tutkimuskeskus. Vuorela, I. & Kankainen, T. 1992. Tammelan asutushoria Kuivajärven kerrostumien Paleoekologisten tutkimuksien valossa. Espoo: Geologian tutkimuskeskus. Vuorela, I. & Kankainen, T. 1993. Luonnonja Kulttuurimaiseman kehitys Taipalsaaressa. Espoo: Geologian tutkimuskeskus. Vuorela, I. & Lempiäinen, T. 1988. Archaeobotany of the Oldest Cereal Grain in Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici, 25:33–45. 683 Vuorela, I., Lempiäinen, T. & Saarnisto, M. 2001. Land Use Pollen Record from the Island of Valamo, Russian Karelia. Annales Botanici Fennici, 38:139–65. Vuorela, I., Uutela, A., Saarnisto, M., Ilmasti, M. & Kankainen, T. 1993. Vuojärven ja Antinlammen kerrotumat Laukaan asutus ja luonnonhistorian arkistona. Espoo: Geologian Tutkimuskeskus. Whittle, A., Healy, F. & Bayliss, A. 2011. Gathering Time: Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of Southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Zvelebil, M. 1981. From Forager to Farmer in the Boreal Zone. British Archaeological Reports International Series 115. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Zvelebil, M. & Rowley-Conwy, P. 1984. Transition to Farming in Northern Europe: A Hunter-Gatherer Perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 17:104–20. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Maria Lahtinen received her BSc in Geology (2008) and MSc in Geology (2010) from the University of Helsinki. She also studied Archaeology and Archaeological Science to BA level. She is currently a PhD student in the Department of Archaeology at Durham University. Her PhD is on agriculture in Finland, with an emphasis on the analysis of human diets through isotopic analysis of preserved human remains. Address: Department of Archaeology, Durham University, South Road, Durham. DH1 3LE. UK. [email: m.l.lahtinen@durham.ac.uk] Peter Rowley-Conwy is professor of environmental archaeology at Durham University. He specializes in the archaeology of hunter-gatherers and early farmers, and the transition to agriculture in Europe. He is a zooarchaeologist, and 684 directed the Durham Pig Project, which examined the distinction between wild boar and domestic pigs. European Journal of Archaeology 16 (4) 2013 Durham University, South Road, Durham. DH1 3LE. UK. [email: p.a.rowley-conwy@durham.ac.uk] Address: Department of Archaeology, Débuts de l’agriculture en Finlande: est-ce que la culture des céréales existait avant l’Âge du Fer (500 BC)? Nous réexaminons les preuves des débuts de l’agriculture en Finlande. Toutes les assertions se fondent sur des analyses polliniques; quelques-unes remontent jusqu’à la période néolithique. Nous évaluons de façon critique ces affirmations et avançons que les grains de pollen de type ‘céréales anciennes’ pourraient très bien provenir d’herbes sauvages à gros grains, et, en l’absence d’autres preuves, ne sauront pas servir comme preuves évidentes pour la culture de céréales. Il se peut que la culture des céréales en Finlande n’ait commencé qu’au début de l’Âge du Fer vers 500 BC. Translation by Isabelle Gerges. Mots-clés: agriculture, culture, céréales, pollen, Finlande, Âge du Fer, Néolithique, Âge du Bronze Frühe Landwirtschaft in Finnland: Hat es dort Pflanzenanbau vor der Eisenzeit (500 v. Chr.) gegeben? In diesem Beitrag werden die frühesten Belege für Landwirtschaft in Finnland untersucht, die sämtlich auf Pollenanalysen beruhen und teilweise sogar Datierungen bis ins Neolithikum beanspruchen. Diese Ansätze werden kritisch untersucht und es wird vermutet, dass diese Pollenkörner ‘früher Cerealientypen’ eigentlich von langkörnigen Wildgräsern stammen und bei Abwesenheit anderer Belege nicht als klarer Beweis einer Kultivierung angesehen werden können. Die Kultivierung von Getreide wird erst zu einem späten Zeitpunkt, dem Beginn der Eisenzeit um etwa 500 v. Chr., begonnen haben. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg. Stichworte: Landwirtschaft, Kultivierung, Getreide, Pollen, Finnland, Eisenzeit, Neolithikum, Bronzezeit View publication stats