- Email: [email protected]
NEW CATEGORIES OF WOODEN ARTIFACTS OF THE MID 1ST MILLENNIUM AD FROM THE SITE OF VIS II (VYCHEGDA BASIN)
ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62 E-mail: [email protected]
54
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
G.M. Burov V.I. Vernadsky Tavrian National University, Vernadskogo 4, Simferopol, 95007, Ukraine E-mail: [email protected]
NEW CATEGORIES OF WOODEN ARTIFACTS OF THE MID 1ST MILLENNIUM AD FROM THE SITE OF VIS II (VYCHEGDA BASIN)
This article gives a description of wooden artifacts recovered from an oxbow peat bog at the Vis II settlement in the vicinity of Lake Sindorskoye (Komi Republic, Russia). The article attempts to identify their function determining a number of artifacts as cherkan parts, a jaw trap used in trapping small fur-bearing animals. The assemblage described also comprises bow drills with elaborate string attachment, a composite tool, hoes, blind parts covering windows of huts without a chimney, a hanging hook, a ski, handles of various objects, a ball probably used in play, and a human ¿gurine considered to be a cult object or toy.
Introduction The polychronous settlement of Vis II in the vicinity of Lake Sindorskoye (Komi Republic, Russia) is a unique site located on the remnant of a sandy fluvial terrace. Human occupation has been recorded at the site from the Mesolithic to the Early Middle Ages. An oxbow peat bog containing thousands of wooden objects attributed to the early Vanvizdino culture (approx. 5th cent. AD) is located within the limits of the settlement. Hundreds of objects were recovered during excavations carried out in 1962, 1963, and 1966. To the current author’s knowledge, the ¿nds from Vis II are unparalleled both in terms of quantity and variety among the synchronous sites of Northern Eurasia. The stratigraphy of Vis II is described in detail in a monograph devoted to archaeological ¿nds from the Sindor Region (Burov, 1967). The relevant wooden artifacts have been included in a series of articles published both in Russia and Great Britain, some of which give a general description of the finds (Burov, 1966: 165–173; 1968: 202–209; 1996; 2001a: 222–227), while others address
speci¿c themes such as bows and arrows (Burov, 1983), ¿shing gear (Burov, 1984; 2005), sledges (Burov, 1981b, 1995), woodworking (Burov, 1993b), and other handicrafts (Burov, 2001b). However, not all the Vis Vanvizdino artifacts made from organic materials are described in detail in these publications. The artifact types represented by solitary specimens receive least research attention. The study of these unique objects and likewise those that represent a series of artifacts continued over the proceeding decades. As a result, the function of various artifacts has been reconsidered and that of previously enigmatic objects established. Despite this, however, the function of various artifacts remains to be determined with complete certainty. The present paper focuses on the results of recent studies into the wooden objects from Vis II. Description of artifacts Cherkans – jaw traps. A segment-shaped plate, 7 cm long, made of softwood, i.e. wood of a coniferous tree,
Copyright © 2008, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2009.03.006
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
was discovered in the peat bog. The softwood is better preserved than hardwood, i.e. pieces of birch and other deciduous trees recovered from the same bog (softwood is now denser, numerous cracks are absent, etc.). The plate demonstrates three notches along one side (Fig. 1, 3). Two are small and symmetrically located at the narrowed ends. The third notch is large and located closer to one end. Previously, the present author believed this implement reminiscent of Neolithic stone and bone stems of ¿shing hooks, although it differs in its deep central notch. At the present time, this parallel no longer seems warranted. The plate is too wide to serve as the stem of a ¿shing hook (Zagorska, 1991: ¿g. 5). More importantly, despite the great precision of the working of this artifact, the deep central notch has sharp edges; this portion of the artifact is clearly rectangular in the cross-section unlike other the parts of this object. The shape of the notch would appear to be functional: two adjoined arches; the smaller one designed for a stop, the larger one for sliding an asymmetrically rounded detail, presumably, the cherkan trigger. Cherkan traps were used by the Russians, Komi, and various peoples of Siberia for hunting ermine and other small fur-bearing animals. The construction of Siberian cherkans made by the Kets has been described by E.A. Alekseyenko (1967: 59). The cherkan is illustrated for the purposes of this article by a Selkup variant (Fig. 1, 2) (Prokofieva, 1956: 670). According to Alekseyenko, the base (stand) of this type of trap is made from a bifurcated tree branch or a thick bent twig of a bird cherry tree with pointed ends (to stick them into the earth) connected with a transverse plate. Above it, two long grooves are made at the ends. In the middle portion of the stand, a bow made of larch with a sinew string is attached perpendicularly. The string is bound to a Àat drive ended with a transverse plate, the ends of which move freely in the longitudinal grooves. On the top of the stand, a trigger (a fork-like stick) and a lock (a pointed wooden plate with a notch at the upper end) are attached. Such a trap was set at the animal’s burrow. The trigger kept the string in a setup position by attaching the opposite end of the trigger to the lock with a cord. The sharp end of the lock was inserted into a hole in the transverse plate. As the animal left its burrow, it touched the easily set lock. The trigger was thereby set off, the string bringing the drive quickly downwards. The drive with the transverse plate held the animal down. The Komi people used traps of a similar construction (Fig.1, 1) (Konakov, 1983: ¿g. 34, a). The cherkan from Vis II seems to have had a more complicated trigger system compared with the one described above. However, in all three cases, the same lever principle was used. The artifacts from the peat bog make it possible to reconstruct the Vis trap. The segment-shaped wooden plate mentioned above is attached by both ends to the upper part of the
55
1
2
0
2 cm
3
Fig. 1. Cherkan traps used by the Komi (1) and the Selkups (2); a presumable trigger holder of a cherkan from Vis II (3). 1 – after (Konakov, 1983); 2 – after (Proko¿eva, 1956).
stand. The arch-shaped surface contacting with the stand is wider than the opposite surface with notches. Hence, the plate adjoins the stand surface tightly. The plate resembles the holder of the trigger. The proposed reconstruction has been carried out with the help of an experimental model of the Vis cherkan (Fig. 2, 6). This model includes a trigger (this detail is absent in the Vis II collection), which ¿ts to the central large notch on
56
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
the plate. The trigger has two holes: one is for a metal nail that holds the trigger and the drive together; the other is for a cord which connects the trigger to another wooden plate at the bottom of the stand. The metal nail represents the axis on which the trigger moves freely. The nail stands 2–3 mm above the edge of the triggerholding element. This is the position of the cherkan when it is set; it is set off when the animal touches the cord at which point the upper end of the trigger moves downwards. The experiment also shows that the device requires the drive to be supported by an additional detail attached to it by an iron or wooden nail on the side opposite to where the trigger is fastened. Experiments have also shown that the trigger holder similar to the one from Vis II and made of pinewood for the purpose of the experiment can stand the weight of not less than 10 kg. However, this holder would hardly have been used in a powerful bow placed for an elk or bear on the animal trail despite the fact that similar devices were apparently used at Vis II in larger proportions. The evidence from Vis I suggests that such devices existed as early as the Mesolithic (Burov, 1981a: 385–386). The study of enigmatic objects from Vis II has made it possible to identify other parts of the cherkan trap. The most interesting is a wooden bar manufactured of a
2
3
0 4 cm 1
4
2 cm
0
5
2–5
f
d c
1
e
b а
6
Fig. 2. Presumable wooden parts of cherkan traps (1–5) and the reconstruction of a cherkan trigger device (6). 1 – bow, 2–4 – stand fragments; 5 – support of a drive. a– stand; b – trigger holder; c – drive; d – trigger; e – support of a drive, f – cord.
coniferous tree, 2.8 cm wide and 0.3–0.8 cm thick. One end is thicker than the rest of the bar (such a thickening normally enhanced the strength of Mesolithic bows) (Ibid.: Abb. 2, 3, 5) and the opposite end is broken. This piece has two pairs of small (0.1–0.2 cm in diameter), angular, pricked holes separated by a distance that ¿ts perfectly for the purpose of binding the Vis trigger holder (Fig. 2, 2). This artifact corroborates our hypothesis concerning the function of this plate. Two other pieces made of softwood belong to the same category as the perforated object. These are two bars. One of them (2.7 cm wide) has cuts resulting from utilization (Fig. 2, 4); a thickening and a hole are still discernible. The hole is larger (0.3 cm) than that on the item mentioned above and located along the symmetrical axis. It is possible that this bar had only two holes for binding the trigger holder. The cord would have run around the holder, both ends running through one hole and bound together by a small stick with a thinner middle part and rounded ends. A series of such sticks was found in medieval Novgorod (10th–15th cent.). The smaller sticks served as buttons while the larger specimens (over 25 cm long) were used in marine practices (Kolchin, 1968: pl. 80, 6, 7). The collection from Vis II includes a fragment of an artifact made from softwood that is identi¿able as a part of the similar object about 20 cm long (Fig. 3, 5). Its preserved end is asymmetrically rounded; the waist is delimited by ring-shaped Àanges. The other stand fragment (or part of a bow pulling device) belongs to a large part of a cherkan with a thick pointed end and drilled holes approx. 1 cm in diameter (Fig. 2, 3). The exact number of the holes cannot be determined with certainty; however, the considerable size of the preserved hole suggests that they would not have numbered more than two. Another artifact made of softwood has been identi¿ed as a drive supporter (Fig. 2, 5). It represents a wooden bar (3.8 × 2.4 × 1.1 cm) that ¿ts in shape and size to the Vis trigger holder. For some reason, this piece was not ¿nished (not perforated). The bow represents the most important part of the cherkan, and the Vis collection includes numerous plates of composite bows (Burov, 1983: ¿g. 2). These pieces are too elaborate to have been used as cherkan parts which are simple and large in size. A primitive bow, however, made of a stem of a young coniferous tree, up to 3 cm thick might have belonged to a cherkan. The bottom part of the stem is hewed; it demonstrates a hollow for string binding (Fig. 2, 1). The opposite end is broken. Another hollow, possibly for free drive passing, was seemingly located in the middle of the complete bow. This makes it possible to estimate the size of this object. The direct line between the ends of the bow measures 110 cm; the length of the straightened bow is approx. 125 cm. The bow was used and preserved in its curved form.
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
57
4
3
2
4 cm
0 1–6
6
5
3
2
0
4 cm
1
4 cm
0
7
7
Fig. 3. Wooden artifacts.
1
Fig. 4. Bow drills.
1, 2 – sticks; 3 – hook; 4, 6 – ski fragments (?); 5 – waisted stick; 7 – ski fragment.
Proceeding from the trigger holder as a starting point an entire set of details that were previously enigmatic have been reconstructed. One may conclude therefore that Vanvizdino tribes used traps with a special triggerreleasing device. Bow drills (¿re makers) with an elaborated string attachment. The Vis II collection comprises numerous simple bows of various types that were made of wood from coniferous trees. Most are represented by non-finished, fractured or fragmented specimens of straight pro¿le, i.e. without signs of use (Burov, 1983: ¿g. 1, 1, 2; 2, 3). However, two objects in this category are particularly worthy of note. One is a small, archshaped bow with a missing end (Fig. 4, 1). The distance between the ends of the preserved part measures 40.7 cm in a direct line; the length of the straightened bow measures 44.5 cm. The bow is made of a thin stem or twig partially preserving its cylindrical shape. The crosssection is ovoid. The bow demonstrates a speci¿c feature: the preserved pointed end shows not only notches for string binding, but also a rectangular hole (0.9 × 0.6 cm) located 3 cm from the notches. The function of this hole
is clear: as the examination of a test model has shown, such a hole was designed to secure the string binding. A new bow drill of which the object under consideration evidently represents a part (Semenov, 1968: ¿g. 16, 14; 56), is almost straight; in this case, the string slides easily towards the center and breaks the waist or its protruding parts. In order to avoid this, the waist is cut in such a way that its steep margins front the hole rather than the center. The string runs through the hole from the interior surface of the bow; the bifurcated ends of the string enlace the waist protrusions and are tied onto the interior surface. In this case, the main load falls on the strong margin of the hole, rather than on the waist. The reconstructed bow feature sheds light on the function of another object which is similar albeit straight (Fig. 4, 3). This object also has a hole at the end (0.8 × × 0.4 cm) and a similar waist, although the distance between these features is greater (13 cm). In addition, another waist is located at a distance of 10 cm from the ¿rst. The length of this fragment exceeds 25 cm, hence it cannot be excluded that there may have been a third waist. The object represents an elaborated variant of a bow with
58
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
displays a rectangular cavity left by an object 0.9 cm long and 0.3–0.4 cm wide. Some areas of the artifact surface are also covered with clay. The fragment measures 20.4 cm long, 2.1 cm wide at the broken part, and 2.2 cm wide at the opposite end. The width of the ends is approximately the same, while the thickness at the broken part is considerably less than at the opposite end. This artifact 3 would appear to represent the base of a 2 cm 0 1 composite tool that emerged during the Upper 1 Paleolithic, became wide-spread during the Mesolithic, and survived until the SeimaTurbino period in Northeastern Europe. During the Stone Age, flint microblades served as the in-laid parts; during the Bronze Age, geometric Àakes modi¿ed by continuous Àat retouch were inserted into the base (Bader, 1964: ¿g. 94, a–g). The medial grooves of the Vis specimen may have held ¿ne blades cemented with clay. The blades were likely trapezoid fragments of 2 cm 0 iron knives. An object with a stem rectangular 2–5 in the cross-section (possibly, an iron arrowhead or a knife) was set in the end part of the artifact (Burov, 1967: pl. XXXIII, 5, 13–15). The Vanvizdino population mastered 5 4 2 the technique of manufacturing rough Àint scrapers and are not known to have made any Fig. 5. Figurine (1), composite tool (2), and laths of blinds (3–5). other stone tools. The absence of a stop and the small size of the haft suggest that this implement was unlikely to have been used as a dagger although it may the strain of the string regulated with the use of one of the have been used as a casting weapon, such as a Mesolithic available waists. Such a device be¿ts bow drills. Cases of club (Burov, 1993a: ¿g. 6, 2, 3). Both composite tools holes being used to bind the bowstring (though in a less and flint scrapers in the Vanvizdino culture represent sophisticated manner) have been recorded to as early as remnants of a much earlier tradition. This may account the Mesolithic (Burov, 1981a: Abb. 2; 3, 2; 5, 1, 2; 7, 1, for the weak clayey binding substance used instead of 5; 8, 3, 6). stronger substances such as resin having been forgotten The Vis II collection also includes a small bent bow by that time. with broken ends (Fig. 4, 2) and simple straight bows Hoes. The Vis II assemblage includes two or three hoes that could have been used as drills, trap parts or toys. The of softwood used for soil tilling, gathering, and possibly two bows described here could have been used for ¿re digging. One of the tools is complete and ī-shaped making purposes, however, steels were already in use in (Fig. 6, 1). The exterior part of a tree trunk served as a the Vanvizdino period. These have been reported from working element and an arch-shaped branch was used as a sites dated to the Agafonovo period (6th–7th cent.) in the haft. The wedge-shaped working part is pointed at the end. Upper Kama region (Goldina, 1985: ¿g. 16, 71). Hence, The working edge is rounded and slightly bent towards the one may conclude that these small bows most likely haft. The opposite end of the haft is bent slightly outwards. represent parts of drilling devices. The wedge is rectangular in cross-section and the working Composite tool. A Àat object made of hardwood and edge has an additional ridge on its exterior. The tool is ovoid in cross-section (Fig. 5, 2) represents an unexpected considerable in size measuring 64.3 cm in length; wedge ¿nd. Two grooves 3.5 cm long and 0.5–0.6 cm wide, with is 27.0 cm in length and 7.3–7.5 cm in width. sharp bottom, have been chiseled into its wide medial part. The closest analogues to the hoe described are One of the thin ends is broken; it bears a deep groove implements dated to the 7th–10th cent. from Staraya 0.3–0.4 cm wide. The grooves are ¿lled with clay. The Ladoga (Korzukhina, 1971: 123–127). A complete tool medial grooves are ¿lled completely, while the end groove
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
recovered from the oldest horizon differs from the Vis specimen in a straight haft and greater length (90 cm) (Orlov, 1954: 345, ¿g. 3, 3). Hoes of the 10th–15th cent. from Novgorod also demonstrate a certain similarity. One (11th cent.) measures approx. 84 cm in length; its haft is convex, like that of the Vis specimen. Another example from Novgorod is larger resembling the Staraya Ladoga tools (Kolchin, 1968: 17, 18, ¿g. 6, 1, 2). The hoe from the Slavic settlement of Wilderberg located to the northwest of Berlin also demonstrates similarities with the Vis specimen (Vogt, 1975: 500, ¿g. 3, 5). Tools of this type were used in the Vologda region and in Byelorussia for soil tillage up until the 19th cent. (Orlov, 1954: 345). The second hoe in the Vis collection (Fig. 6, 2) is smaller. The wedge is broken at both ends, oval in crosssection and 3.2–3.6 cm wide. Length is approx. 21 cm. The wedge has notches in the lateral side suggesting that a blade was attached to it. Hoes with fastened stone, horn or iron blades were widely used in primitive agriculture in South America and Africa, for instance in Patagonia (Lippert, 1902: 36) and Cameroon (Lips, 1961: obr. 58). The Vis II collection also includes a bent stick of softwood resembling the hafts of the tools mentioned above. The Vis hoes may have been used for the purposes of digging graves, hearth pits, and foraging. However, such tools serve as strong evidence of the beginning of agriculture activities among the Vanvizdino tribes who also began practicing animal breeding. Y.A. Krasnov believes that the hoe served as an additional tool in soil tillage, secondary to the “digging stick” (1971: 21–53). Blinds. This artifact category is represented by three laths cut from softwood, oval in cross-section. Rectangular holes are cut into the wood at approximately equal intervals (approx. 16 cm) on one of the specimens and at various intervals (14 and 3 cm) on another. All three laths are fragments (Fig. 5, 3–5); one shows signs of utilization (Fig. 5, 4). These objects are analogous to laths from Novgorod, which were bound together with rawhide straps and formed blinds. The straps connected the laths either through holes at the ends and middle or at the ends only (Kolchin, 1968: ¿g. 75). However, the Novgorod laths are wedge-shaped in cross-section and are connected overlapping one another. The Novgorod laths are 22.5 and 23.5 cm long, while the length of the Vis specimens measures a minimum 34 cm. According to Kolchin, the Novgorod blinds may have been used on windows in houses heated by a chimneyless stove (Ibid.: 85). If the Vis laths were used for the same purpose, they were probably covered with skin or fur to make them more hermetic. Hooks. Evidently, hooks were also used in dwellings. One hook with the upper part missing and pointed tip (the fragment is 17.3 cm long) was cut from a curved piece of wood, probably from the trunk of a broken coniferous
59
2
0
4 cm
1
Fig. 6. Hoes.
tree (Fig. 3, 3). Hooks attachable to walls and hanging hooks have been found in Novgorod. The hanging hooks share some similarities with the Vis object, although they have a thick bottom (cut into a piece of wood with an outgrowing twig) and a blunt tip. The upper part of these hooks display a bulb, waist, or hole for cord. Such hooks measuring from 8 to 40 cm long were used for hanging cloths, utensils, etc. Another broken specimen, possibly a ¿shhook, was made of a piece of softwood with an outstretching twig (Fig. 7, 3). The fragment measures 10.7 cm long suggesting that the total length may have been 11.5 cm. A complete ¿shhook with one tip (for pike) from Vis II measures 8.9 cm long, while the hooks with three tips measure as much as 13.3 cm. However, the slight curvature of this object suggests that it is a hanging hook. Ball. A ball (5.5 and 6.3 cm in diameter) is an unusual ¿nd. It was cut from a deciduous tree trunk or branch measuring approx. 6.1 cm in diameter (Fig. 8, 8). This object can be identi¿ed as a game piece. Ski. A Àat artifact of hardwood, mostly 0.8 cm thick, with flanges approx. 0.5 cm high on the margins is considered to represent the fragment of a ski (Fig. 3, 7). The object is narrowed and thickened at the end; it is reminiscent of Mesolithic skis of the Vis type (Burov, 1989: fig. 2, 1; 3). However, in distinction from the Mesolithic skis, this specimen has a hole located on the axis of symmetry. The ski’s maximum width is no less than 16 cm. Two other artifacts made of wood of a deciduous tree (Fig. 3, 6) and of a coniferous one (Fig. 3, 4) may also represent ski fragments.
60
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
Unidenti¿able objects. The function of two sticks, oval-to-circular in cross-section, cut from hardwood has not been determined (Fig. 3, 1, 2). Large, straight handles with a mushroom-shaped (Fig. 8, 2, 3) or rounded (Fig. 8, 7) top, with a blade (Fig. 8, 1, 9) and a widened end (Fig. 8, 5, 6) are included among the ¿nds. One is made of softwood and has a hole (probably for hanging) (Fig. 8, 5). Other handles are made of the wood from deciduous trees. These pieces could represent fragments of paddles, skiing sticks, ¿shing tools used for driving ¿sh into a net, etc. One piece from the wood of a deciduous tree evidently belonged to a small object such as a spoon (Fig. 7, 4). A curved handle with a blade-like tip made from the wood of a deciduous tree (Fig. 8, 10) indirectly suggests that wooden scoops or ladles were used during the Vanvizdino period. The artifact is 34.5 cm long and the blade portion is 2.6 cm wide. Scoops and spoons with similar handles have been reported from Novgorod (Kolchin, 1968: pl. 27, 6; 29, 4; 31, 1; 32, 4). A cylinder-shaped haft made from hardwood probably represents a paddle part. The cylinder is 2.5 cm in diameter with a mortise 2.5 × 1.1 cm and is heavily burnished through use (Fig. 8, 4). This type of object is known to have topped some paddles found at Novgorod.
2
1
3
0
4
2 cm
5
Fig. 7. Unidenti¿able objects. 1 – stick with a waist at the end; 2 – stick with a head; 3 – hook used in household or for ¿shing; 4 – handle of a small implement; 5 – human ¿gurine (?).
4 2 5 6
3
1 4 cm
0
7
1
4 cm
0
8
2–10
10 9
Fig. 8. Ball (8) and handles of various implements.
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
They are also typical of paddles used by the Komi and Ob Ugrians (Burov, 1984: 165). It has not been possible to determine the function of certain objects represented by small sticks with a head or waist (Fig. 7, 1, 2). They bear similarity to nichenki, elements of a weaving loom. Wooden (Burov, 2001: 127, 128) and clay spindle-whorls (Burov, 1967: pl. XXXIII, 16, 21) have been found at Vis II, although no spindles have been recorded (spindles often occur at medieval Novgorod). Figurine. A small statuette showing a standing man has no analogues. The ¿gurine measures 6.3 cm high, and is made from a piece of softwood 2 cm in diameter (Fig. 5, 1). The human image may have been executed using a technique of chopping according to year rings. However, it is more likely that the ¿gurine was deposited at one time in conditions unfavorable for preservation, such as in sand or Àowing water. As a result, the surface of the figurine is uneven with rounded edges. The features rendered include nose, eyeholes, chin, ears, neck, shoulders, hands folded on the stomach, legs, and pointed hat. This figurine resembles certain bronze plaques chronologically close to the Vanvizdino culture (Burov, 1992: ¿g. 2, 6). It no doubt served as a cult object or toy. No parallels have been established for another object made of softwood (Fig. 7, 5). It may represent an un¿nished human ¿gurine, perhaps a toy or replica of a bronze cult plaque (Spitsyn, 1906: ¿g. 416). The shape of this object is slightly reminiscent of the wooden ¿gurine described above. Conclusions Some categories of wooden artifacts from Vis II are represented by single specimens only. However, since only approx. 5 % of the cultural layer at peat bog has been excavated, there is no doubt that further excavations will yield not only new ¿shing structures and wooden artifacts such as sledge parts, paddles, hunting and drilling bows, arrows, trap parts, ¿shhooks, spatulas for clay working, axe and adze hafts, pins, spindle whorls, scrapers, combs, laths of blinds, etc., but also new specimens of the types that are currently unique. It is considered probable that artifacts belonging to categories that have not yet been recorded at the site will also be found in the course of further excavation. The wooden inventory of Vis II contains a considerably greater number of artifact categories than the bone, metal, clay, and glass assemblages of this site.
References Alekseyenko E.A. 1967 Kety. Leningrad: Nauka.
Bader O.N. 1964 Drevneishie metallurgi Priuralia. Moscow: Nauka. Burov G.M. 1966 Arkheologicheskie nakhodki v starichnykh tor¿anikakh basseina Vychegdy. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 1: 155–173. Burov G.M. 1967 Drevnii Sindor: Iz istorii plemen Evropeiskogo SeveroVostoka v VII tysyacheletii do n.e. – I tysyacheletii n.e. Moscow: Nauka. Burov G.M. 1968 Rezultaty raskopok Visskikh tor¿anikov v 1963–1964 gg. Uchenye zapiski Perm. Gos. Univ., vol. 191: 194–209. Burov G.M. 1981a Der Bogen bei den mesolithischen Stämmen Nordosteuropas. Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam, No. 14/15: 373–388. Burov G.M. 1981b Fragmenty sanei s poselenii Vis I (mezolit) i Vis II (I tysyacheletie n.e.). Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 2: 117–131. Burov G.M. 1983 Luki i derevyannye strely V–VI vv. n.e. s poselenia Vis II v Privychegodie. KSIA, vol. 175: 55–62. Burov G.M. 1984 K izucheniyu rybolovstva na Evropeiskom Severo-Vostoke v seredine I tysyacheletia n.e. In Voprosy istorii Evropeiskogo Severa. Petrozavodsk: Petrozavod. Gos. Univ., pp. 147–165. Burov G.M. 1989 Mesolithic wooden artifacts from the Vis I site in the European North East of the U.S.S.R. In The Mesolithic in Europe. Edinburgh: Donald, pp. 391–401. Burov G.M. 1992 Bronzovye kultovye plaketki I tysyacheletiya n.e. na Krainem Severo-Vostoke Evropy: Pechorsky mestnyi “zverinyi” stil. In Problemy ¿nno-ugorskoi arkheologii Urala i Povolzhiya. Syktyvkar: Komi nauch. tsentr UrO RAN, pp. 51–59. Burov G.M. 1993a Dereviannye orudiya okhoty u mezoliticheskikh plemen Krainego Severo-Vostoka Evropy. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 3: 149–164. Burov G.M. 1993b Obrabotka dereva i beresty u plemen vanvizdinskoi kultury. In Voprosy istorii Evropeiskogo Severa. Petrozavodsk: Petrozavodsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 129–144. Burov G.M. 1995 Sani rannego srednevekoviya s poseleniya Vis II v basseine Vychegdy. Rossiiskaya arkheologiya, No. 3: 184–192. Burov G.M. 1996 Wooden objects and constructions of the ¿fth century AD at the site of Vis II, North East European Russia. NewsWARP: The Newsletter of the Wetland Archaeology Research Project, England, No. 20: 27–31. Burov G.M. 2001a Ancient wooden objects and structures in oxbow peat bogs of the European Northeast (Russia). In Enduring Records: The Environmental and Cultural Heritage of Wetlands. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 214–232. Burov G.M. 2001b Wooden tools of craft production from the Vis II settlement in the Vychegda Bassin (middle of the 1st millennium AD). Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 4 (8): 124–130.
61
62
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
Burov G.M. 2005 Fishing gear of the 1st millennium AD in the North East of European Russia. Wetland Archaeology Journal, vol. 5: 5–16. Goldina R.D. 1985 Lomovatovskaya kultura v Verkhnem Prikamie. Irkutsk: Izd. Irkutsk. Gos. Univ. Kolchin B.A. 1968 Novgorodskie drevnosti: Derevyannye izdeliya. Moscow: Nauka. Konakov N.D. 1983 Komi okhotniki i rybolovy vo vtoroi polovine XIX – nachale XX v. Moscow: Nauka. Korzukhina G.F. 1971 O nekotorykh oshibochnykh polozheniyakh v interpretatsii materialov Staroi Ladogi. Skandinavskii sbornik (Tallinn), No. 16: 123–133. Krasnov Y.A. 1971 Rannee zemledelie i zhivotnovodstvo v lesnoi polose Vostochnoi Evropy. Moscow: Nauka. Lippert Y. 1902 Istoria kultury v otdelnykh ocherkakh. St. Petersburg: Elektropechatnya. Lips J.E. 1961 Pri prameñoch civilizácie. Bratislava: Osveta
Orlov S.N. 1954 Ostatki selskokhozyaistvennogo inventarya VII–X vv. iz Staroi Ladogi. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 21: 343–354. Proko¿eva E.D. 1956 Selkupy. In Narody Sibiri. Moscow, Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, pp. 665–686. Semenov S.A. 1968 Razvitie tekhniki v kamennom veke. Leningrad: Nauka. Spitsyn A.A. 1906 Shamanskie izobrazheniya. Zapiski otdeleniya rus. i slav. arkheologii Rus. arkheol. obschestva, bk. 8, vol. 1: 29–45. Vogt H.-J. 1975 Archäologische Beiträge zur Kentnis der landwirtschaftlichen Produktionsinstrumente der Slaven in der brandenburgischen Bezirke. Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift, Bd 16: 491–503. Zagorska I.A. 1991 Rybolovstvo i morskoi promysel v kamennom veke na territorii Latvii. In Rybolovstvo i morskoi promysel v epokhu mezolita – rannego metalla v lesnoi i lesostepnoi zone Vostochnoi Evropy. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 39–64. Received October 15, 2007.
54
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
G.M. Burov V.I. Vernadsky Tavrian National University, Vernadskogo 4, Simferopol, 95007, Ukraine E-mail: [email protected]
NEW CATEGORIES OF WOODEN ARTIFACTS OF THE MID 1ST MILLENNIUM AD FROM THE SITE OF VIS II (VYCHEGDA BASIN)
This article gives a description of wooden artifacts recovered from an oxbow peat bog at the Vis II settlement in the vicinity of Lake Sindorskoye (Komi Republic, Russia). The article attempts to identify their function determining a number of artifacts as cherkan parts, a jaw trap used in trapping small fur-bearing animals. The assemblage described also comprises bow drills with elaborate string attachment, a composite tool, hoes, blind parts covering windows of huts without a chimney, a hanging hook, a ski, handles of various objects, a ball probably used in play, and a human ¿gurine considered to be a cult object or toy.
Introduction The polychronous settlement of Vis II in the vicinity of Lake Sindorskoye (Komi Republic, Russia) is a unique site located on the remnant of a sandy fluvial terrace. Human occupation has been recorded at the site from the Mesolithic to the Early Middle Ages. An oxbow peat bog containing thousands of wooden objects attributed to the early Vanvizdino culture (approx. 5th cent. AD) is located within the limits of the settlement. Hundreds of objects were recovered during excavations carried out in 1962, 1963, and 1966. To the current author’s knowledge, the ¿nds from Vis II are unparalleled both in terms of quantity and variety among the synchronous sites of Northern Eurasia. The stratigraphy of Vis II is described in detail in a monograph devoted to archaeological ¿nds from the Sindor Region (Burov, 1967). The relevant wooden artifacts have been included in a series of articles published both in Russia and Great Britain, some of which give a general description of the finds (Burov, 1966: 165–173; 1968: 202–209; 1996; 2001a: 222–227), while others address
speci¿c themes such as bows and arrows (Burov, 1983), ¿shing gear (Burov, 1984; 2005), sledges (Burov, 1981b, 1995), woodworking (Burov, 1993b), and other handicrafts (Burov, 2001b). However, not all the Vis Vanvizdino artifacts made from organic materials are described in detail in these publications. The artifact types represented by solitary specimens receive least research attention. The study of these unique objects and likewise those that represent a series of artifacts continued over the proceeding decades. As a result, the function of various artifacts has been reconsidered and that of previously enigmatic objects established. Despite this, however, the function of various artifacts remains to be determined with complete certainty. The present paper focuses on the results of recent studies into the wooden objects from Vis II. Description of artifacts Cherkans – jaw traps. A segment-shaped plate, 7 cm long, made of softwood, i.e. wood of a coniferous tree,
Copyright © 2008, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2009.03.006
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
was discovered in the peat bog. The softwood is better preserved than hardwood, i.e. pieces of birch and other deciduous trees recovered from the same bog (softwood is now denser, numerous cracks are absent, etc.). The plate demonstrates three notches along one side (Fig. 1, 3). Two are small and symmetrically located at the narrowed ends. The third notch is large and located closer to one end. Previously, the present author believed this implement reminiscent of Neolithic stone and bone stems of ¿shing hooks, although it differs in its deep central notch. At the present time, this parallel no longer seems warranted. The plate is too wide to serve as the stem of a ¿shing hook (Zagorska, 1991: ¿g. 5). More importantly, despite the great precision of the working of this artifact, the deep central notch has sharp edges; this portion of the artifact is clearly rectangular in the cross-section unlike other the parts of this object. The shape of the notch would appear to be functional: two adjoined arches; the smaller one designed for a stop, the larger one for sliding an asymmetrically rounded detail, presumably, the cherkan trigger. Cherkan traps were used by the Russians, Komi, and various peoples of Siberia for hunting ermine and other small fur-bearing animals. The construction of Siberian cherkans made by the Kets has been described by E.A. Alekseyenko (1967: 59). The cherkan is illustrated for the purposes of this article by a Selkup variant (Fig. 1, 2) (Prokofieva, 1956: 670). According to Alekseyenko, the base (stand) of this type of trap is made from a bifurcated tree branch or a thick bent twig of a bird cherry tree with pointed ends (to stick them into the earth) connected with a transverse plate. Above it, two long grooves are made at the ends. In the middle portion of the stand, a bow made of larch with a sinew string is attached perpendicularly. The string is bound to a Àat drive ended with a transverse plate, the ends of which move freely in the longitudinal grooves. On the top of the stand, a trigger (a fork-like stick) and a lock (a pointed wooden plate with a notch at the upper end) are attached. Such a trap was set at the animal’s burrow. The trigger kept the string in a setup position by attaching the opposite end of the trigger to the lock with a cord. The sharp end of the lock was inserted into a hole in the transverse plate. As the animal left its burrow, it touched the easily set lock. The trigger was thereby set off, the string bringing the drive quickly downwards. The drive with the transverse plate held the animal down. The Komi people used traps of a similar construction (Fig.1, 1) (Konakov, 1983: ¿g. 34, a). The cherkan from Vis II seems to have had a more complicated trigger system compared with the one described above. However, in all three cases, the same lever principle was used. The artifacts from the peat bog make it possible to reconstruct the Vis trap. The segment-shaped wooden plate mentioned above is attached by both ends to the upper part of the
55
1
2
0
2 cm
3
Fig. 1. Cherkan traps used by the Komi (1) and the Selkups (2); a presumable trigger holder of a cherkan from Vis II (3). 1 – after (Konakov, 1983); 2 – after (Proko¿eva, 1956).
stand. The arch-shaped surface contacting with the stand is wider than the opposite surface with notches. Hence, the plate adjoins the stand surface tightly. The plate resembles the holder of the trigger. The proposed reconstruction has been carried out with the help of an experimental model of the Vis cherkan (Fig. 2, 6). This model includes a trigger (this detail is absent in the Vis II collection), which ¿ts to the central large notch on
56
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
the plate. The trigger has two holes: one is for a metal nail that holds the trigger and the drive together; the other is for a cord which connects the trigger to another wooden plate at the bottom of the stand. The metal nail represents the axis on which the trigger moves freely. The nail stands 2–3 mm above the edge of the triggerholding element. This is the position of the cherkan when it is set; it is set off when the animal touches the cord at which point the upper end of the trigger moves downwards. The experiment also shows that the device requires the drive to be supported by an additional detail attached to it by an iron or wooden nail on the side opposite to where the trigger is fastened. Experiments have also shown that the trigger holder similar to the one from Vis II and made of pinewood for the purpose of the experiment can stand the weight of not less than 10 kg. However, this holder would hardly have been used in a powerful bow placed for an elk or bear on the animal trail despite the fact that similar devices were apparently used at Vis II in larger proportions. The evidence from Vis I suggests that such devices existed as early as the Mesolithic (Burov, 1981a: 385–386). The study of enigmatic objects from Vis II has made it possible to identify other parts of the cherkan trap. The most interesting is a wooden bar manufactured of a
2
3
0 4 cm 1
4
2 cm
0
5
2–5
f
d c
1
e
b а
6
Fig. 2. Presumable wooden parts of cherkan traps (1–5) and the reconstruction of a cherkan trigger device (6). 1 – bow, 2–4 – stand fragments; 5 – support of a drive. a– stand; b – trigger holder; c – drive; d – trigger; e – support of a drive, f – cord.
coniferous tree, 2.8 cm wide and 0.3–0.8 cm thick. One end is thicker than the rest of the bar (such a thickening normally enhanced the strength of Mesolithic bows) (Ibid.: Abb. 2, 3, 5) and the opposite end is broken. This piece has two pairs of small (0.1–0.2 cm in diameter), angular, pricked holes separated by a distance that ¿ts perfectly for the purpose of binding the Vis trigger holder (Fig. 2, 2). This artifact corroborates our hypothesis concerning the function of this plate. Two other pieces made of softwood belong to the same category as the perforated object. These are two bars. One of them (2.7 cm wide) has cuts resulting from utilization (Fig. 2, 4); a thickening and a hole are still discernible. The hole is larger (0.3 cm) than that on the item mentioned above and located along the symmetrical axis. It is possible that this bar had only two holes for binding the trigger holder. The cord would have run around the holder, both ends running through one hole and bound together by a small stick with a thinner middle part and rounded ends. A series of such sticks was found in medieval Novgorod (10th–15th cent.). The smaller sticks served as buttons while the larger specimens (over 25 cm long) were used in marine practices (Kolchin, 1968: pl. 80, 6, 7). The collection from Vis II includes a fragment of an artifact made from softwood that is identi¿able as a part of the similar object about 20 cm long (Fig. 3, 5). Its preserved end is asymmetrically rounded; the waist is delimited by ring-shaped Àanges. The other stand fragment (or part of a bow pulling device) belongs to a large part of a cherkan with a thick pointed end and drilled holes approx. 1 cm in diameter (Fig. 2, 3). The exact number of the holes cannot be determined with certainty; however, the considerable size of the preserved hole suggests that they would not have numbered more than two. Another artifact made of softwood has been identi¿ed as a drive supporter (Fig. 2, 5). It represents a wooden bar (3.8 × 2.4 × 1.1 cm) that ¿ts in shape and size to the Vis trigger holder. For some reason, this piece was not ¿nished (not perforated). The bow represents the most important part of the cherkan, and the Vis collection includes numerous plates of composite bows (Burov, 1983: ¿g. 2). These pieces are too elaborate to have been used as cherkan parts which are simple and large in size. A primitive bow, however, made of a stem of a young coniferous tree, up to 3 cm thick might have belonged to a cherkan. The bottom part of the stem is hewed; it demonstrates a hollow for string binding (Fig. 2, 1). The opposite end is broken. Another hollow, possibly for free drive passing, was seemingly located in the middle of the complete bow. This makes it possible to estimate the size of this object. The direct line between the ends of the bow measures 110 cm; the length of the straightened bow is approx. 125 cm. The bow was used and preserved in its curved form.
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
57
4
3
2
4 cm
0 1–6
6
5
3
2
0
4 cm
1
4 cm
0
7
7
Fig. 3. Wooden artifacts.
1
Fig. 4. Bow drills.
1, 2 – sticks; 3 – hook; 4, 6 – ski fragments (?); 5 – waisted stick; 7 – ski fragment.
Proceeding from the trigger holder as a starting point an entire set of details that were previously enigmatic have been reconstructed. One may conclude therefore that Vanvizdino tribes used traps with a special triggerreleasing device. Bow drills (¿re makers) with an elaborated string attachment. The Vis II collection comprises numerous simple bows of various types that were made of wood from coniferous trees. Most are represented by non-finished, fractured or fragmented specimens of straight pro¿le, i.e. without signs of use (Burov, 1983: ¿g. 1, 1, 2; 2, 3). However, two objects in this category are particularly worthy of note. One is a small, archshaped bow with a missing end (Fig. 4, 1). The distance between the ends of the preserved part measures 40.7 cm in a direct line; the length of the straightened bow measures 44.5 cm. The bow is made of a thin stem or twig partially preserving its cylindrical shape. The crosssection is ovoid. The bow demonstrates a speci¿c feature: the preserved pointed end shows not only notches for string binding, but also a rectangular hole (0.9 × 0.6 cm) located 3 cm from the notches. The function of this hole
is clear: as the examination of a test model has shown, such a hole was designed to secure the string binding. A new bow drill of which the object under consideration evidently represents a part (Semenov, 1968: ¿g. 16, 14; 56), is almost straight; in this case, the string slides easily towards the center and breaks the waist or its protruding parts. In order to avoid this, the waist is cut in such a way that its steep margins front the hole rather than the center. The string runs through the hole from the interior surface of the bow; the bifurcated ends of the string enlace the waist protrusions and are tied onto the interior surface. In this case, the main load falls on the strong margin of the hole, rather than on the waist. The reconstructed bow feature sheds light on the function of another object which is similar albeit straight (Fig. 4, 3). This object also has a hole at the end (0.8 × × 0.4 cm) and a similar waist, although the distance between these features is greater (13 cm). In addition, another waist is located at a distance of 10 cm from the ¿rst. The length of this fragment exceeds 25 cm, hence it cannot be excluded that there may have been a third waist. The object represents an elaborated variant of a bow with
58
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
displays a rectangular cavity left by an object 0.9 cm long and 0.3–0.4 cm wide. Some areas of the artifact surface are also covered with clay. The fragment measures 20.4 cm long, 2.1 cm wide at the broken part, and 2.2 cm wide at the opposite end. The width of the ends is approximately the same, while the thickness at the broken part is considerably less than at the opposite end. This artifact 3 would appear to represent the base of a 2 cm 0 1 composite tool that emerged during the Upper 1 Paleolithic, became wide-spread during the Mesolithic, and survived until the SeimaTurbino period in Northeastern Europe. During the Stone Age, flint microblades served as the in-laid parts; during the Bronze Age, geometric Àakes modi¿ed by continuous Àat retouch were inserted into the base (Bader, 1964: ¿g. 94, a–g). The medial grooves of the Vis specimen may have held ¿ne blades cemented with clay. The blades were likely trapezoid fragments of 2 cm 0 iron knives. An object with a stem rectangular 2–5 in the cross-section (possibly, an iron arrowhead or a knife) was set in the end part of the artifact (Burov, 1967: pl. XXXIII, 5, 13–15). The Vanvizdino population mastered 5 4 2 the technique of manufacturing rough Àint scrapers and are not known to have made any Fig. 5. Figurine (1), composite tool (2), and laths of blinds (3–5). other stone tools. The absence of a stop and the small size of the haft suggest that this implement was unlikely to have been used as a dagger although it may the strain of the string regulated with the use of one of the have been used as a casting weapon, such as a Mesolithic available waists. Such a device be¿ts bow drills. Cases of club (Burov, 1993a: ¿g. 6, 2, 3). Both composite tools holes being used to bind the bowstring (though in a less and flint scrapers in the Vanvizdino culture represent sophisticated manner) have been recorded to as early as remnants of a much earlier tradition. This may account the Mesolithic (Burov, 1981a: Abb. 2; 3, 2; 5, 1, 2; 7, 1, for the weak clayey binding substance used instead of 5; 8, 3, 6). stronger substances such as resin having been forgotten The Vis II collection also includes a small bent bow by that time. with broken ends (Fig. 4, 2) and simple straight bows Hoes. The Vis II assemblage includes two or three hoes that could have been used as drills, trap parts or toys. The of softwood used for soil tilling, gathering, and possibly two bows described here could have been used for ¿re digging. One of the tools is complete and ī-shaped making purposes, however, steels were already in use in (Fig. 6, 1). The exterior part of a tree trunk served as a the Vanvizdino period. These have been reported from working element and an arch-shaped branch was used as a sites dated to the Agafonovo period (6th–7th cent.) in the haft. The wedge-shaped working part is pointed at the end. Upper Kama region (Goldina, 1985: ¿g. 16, 71). Hence, The working edge is rounded and slightly bent towards the one may conclude that these small bows most likely haft. The opposite end of the haft is bent slightly outwards. represent parts of drilling devices. The wedge is rectangular in cross-section and the working Composite tool. A Àat object made of hardwood and edge has an additional ridge on its exterior. The tool is ovoid in cross-section (Fig. 5, 2) represents an unexpected considerable in size measuring 64.3 cm in length; wedge ¿nd. Two grooves 3.5 cm long and 0.5–0.6 cm wide, with is 27.0 cm in length and 7.3–7.5 cm in width. sharp bottom, have been chiseled into its wide medial part. The closest analogues to the hoe described are One of the thin ends is broken; it bears a deep groove implements dated to the 7th–10th cent. from Staraya 0.3–0.4 cm wide. The grooves are ¿lled with clay. The Ladoga (Korzukhina, 1971: 123–127). A complete tool medial grooves are ¿lled completely, while the end groove
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
recovered from the oldest horizon differs from the Vis specimen in a straight haft and greater length (90 cm) (Orlov, 1954: 345, ¿g. 3, 3). Hoes of the 10th–15th cent. from Novgorod also demonstrate a certain similarity. One (11th cent.) measures approx. 84 cm in length; its haft is convex, like that of the Vis specimen. Another example from Novgorod is larger resembling the Staraya Ladoga tools (Kolchin, 1968: 17, 18, ¿g. 6, 1, 2). The hoe from the Slavic settlement of Wilderberg located to the northwest of Berlin also demonstrates similarities with the Vis specimen (Vogt, 1975: 500, ¿g. 3, 5). Tools of this type were used in the Vologda region and in Byelorussia for soil tillage up until the 19th cent. (Orlov, 1954: 345). The second hoe in the Vis collection (Fig. 6, 2) is smaller. The wedge is broken at both ends, oval in crosssection and 3.2–3.6 cm wide. Length is approx. 21 cm. The wedge has notches in the lateral side suggesting that a blade was attached to it. Hoes with fastened stone, horn or iron blades were widely used in primitive agriculture in South America and Africa, for instance in Patagonia (Lippert, 1902: 36) and Cameroon (Lips, 1961: obr. 58). The Vis II collection also includes a bent stick of softwood resembling the hafts of the tools mentioned above. The Vis hoes may have been used for the purposes of digging graves, hearth pits, and foraging. However, such tools serve as strong evidence of the beginning of agriculture activities among the Vanvizdino tribes who also began practicing animal breeding. Y.A. Krasnov believes that the hoe served as an additional tool in soil tillage, secondary to the “digging stick” (1971: 21–53). Blinds. This artifact category is represented by three laths cut from softwood, oval in cross-section. Rectangular holes are cut into the wood at approximately equal intervals (approx. 16 cm) on one of the specimens and at various intervals (14 and 3 cm) on another. All three laths are fragments (Fig. 5, 3–5); one shows signs of utilization (Fig. 5, 4). These objects are analogous to laths from Novgorod, which were bound together with rawhide straps and formed blinds. The straps connected the laths either through holes at the ends and middle or at the ends only (Kolchin, 1968: ¿g. 75). However, the Novgorod laths are wedge-shaped in cross-section and are connected overlapping one another. The Novgorod laths are 22.5 and 23.5 cm long, while the length of the Vis specimens measures a minimum 34 cm. According to Kolchin, the Novgorod blinds may have been used on windows in houses heated by a chimneyless stove (Ibid.: 85). If the Vis laths were used for the same purpose, they were probably covered with skin or fur to make them more hermetic. Hooks. Evidently, hooks were also used in dwellings. One hook with the upper part missing and pointed tip (the fragment is 17.3 cm long) was cut from a curved piece of wood, probably from the trunk of a broken coniferous
59
2
0
4 cm
1
Fig. 6. Hoes.
tree (Fig. 3, 3). Hooks attachable to walls and hanging hooks have been found in Novgorod. The hanging hooks share some similarities with the Vis object, although they have a thick bottom (cut into a piece of wood with an outgrowing twig) and a blunt tip. The upper part of these hooks display a bulb, waist, or hole for cord. Such hooks measuring from 8 to 40 cm long were used for hanging cloths, utensils, etc. Another broken specimen, possibly a ¿shhook, was made of a piece of softwood with an outstretching twig (Fig. 7, 3). The fragment measures 10.7 cm long suggesting that the total length may have been 11.5 cm. A complete ¿shhook with one tip (for pike) from Vis II measures 8.9 cm long, while the hooks with three tips measure as much as 13.3 cm. However, the slight curvature of this object suggests that it is a hanging hook. Ball. A ball (5.5 and 6.3 cm in diameter) is an unusual ¿nd. It was cut from a deciduous tree trunk or branch measuring approx. 6.1 cm in diameter (Fig. 8, 8). This object can be identi¿ed as a game piece. Ski. A Àat artifact of hardwood, mostly 0.8 cm thick, with flanges approx. 0.5 cm high on the margins is considered to represent the fragment of a ski (Fig. 3, 7). The object is narrowed and thickened at the end; it is reminiscent of Mesolithic skis of the Vis type (Burov, 1989: fig. 2, 1; 3). However, in distinction from the Mesolithic skis, this specimen has a hole located on the axis of symmetry. The ski’s maximum width is no less than 16 cm. Two other artifacts made of wood of a deciduous tree (Fig. 3, 6) and of a coniferous one (Fig. 3, 4) may also represent ski fragments.
60
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
Unidenti¿able objects. The function of two sticks, oval-to-circular in cross-section, cut from hardwood has not been determined (Fig. 3, 1, 2). Large, straight handles with a mushroom-shaped (Fig. 8, 2, 3) or rounded (Fig. 8, 7) top, with a blade (Fig. 8, 1, 9) and a widened end (Fig. 8, 5, 6) are included among the ¿nds. One is made of softwood and has a hole (probably for hanging) (Fig. 8, 5). Other handles are made of the wood from deciduous trees. These pieces could represent fragments of paddles, skiing sticks, ¿shing tools used for driving ¿sh into a net, etc. One piece from the wood of a deciduous tree evidently belonged to a small object such as a spoon (Fig. 7, 4). A curved handle with a blade-like tip made from the wood of a deciduous tree (Fig. 8, 10) indirectly suggests that wooden scoops or ladles were used during the Vanvizdino period. The artifact is 34.5 cm long and the blade portion is 2.6 cm wide. Scoops and spoons with similar handles have been reported from Novgorod (Kolchin, 1968: pl. 27, 6; 29, 4; 31, 1; 32, 4). A cylinder-shaped haft made from hardwood probably represents a paddle part. The cylinder is 2.5 cm in diameter with a mortise 2.5 × 1.1 cm and is heavily burnished through use (Fig. 8, 4). This type of object is known to have topped some paddles found at Novgorod.
2
1
3
0
4
2 cm
5
Fig. 7. Unidenti¿able objects. 1 – stick with a waist at the end; 2 – stick with a head; 3 – hook used in household or for ¿shing; 4 – handle of a small implement; 5 – human ¿gurine (?).
4 2 5 6
3
1 4 cm
0
7
1
4 cm
0
8
2–10
10 9
Fig. 8. Ball (8) and handles of various implements.
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
They are also typical of paddles used by the Komi and Ob Ugrians (Burov, 1984: 165). It has not been possible to determine the function of certain objects represented by small sticks with a head or waist (Fig. 7, 1, 2). They bear similarity to nichenki, elements of a weaving loom. Wooden (Burov, 2001: 127, 128) and clay spindle-whorls (Burov, 1967: pl. XXXIII, 16, 21) have been found at Vis II, although no spindles have been recorded (spindles often occur at medieval Novgorod). Figurine. A small statuette showing a standing man has no analogues. The ¿gurine measures 6.3 cm high, and is made from a piece of softwood 2 cm in diameter (Fig. 5, 1). The human image may have been executed using a technique of chopping according to year rings. However, it is more likely that the ¿gurine was deposited at one time in conditions unfavorable for preservation, such as in sand or Àowing water. As a result, the surface of the figurine is uneven with rounded edges. The features rendered include nose, eyeholes, chin, ears, neck, shoulders, hands folded on the stomach, legs, and pointed hat. This figurine resembles certain bronze plaques chronologically close to the Vanvizdino culture (Burov, 1992: ¿g. 2, 6). It no doubt served as a cult object or toy. No parallels have been established for another object made of softwood (Fig. 7, 5). It may represent an un¿nished human ¿gurine, perhaps a toy or replica of a bronze cult plaque (Spitsyn, 1906: ¿g. 416). The shape of this object is slightly reminiscent of the wooden ¿gurine described above. Conclusions Some categories of wooden artifacts from Vis II are represented by single specimens only. However, since only approx. 5 % of the cultural layer at peat bog has been excavated, there is no doubt that further excavations will yield not only new ¿shing structures and wooden artifacts such as sledge parts, paddles, hunting and drilling bows, arrows, trap parts, ¿shhooks, spatulas for clay working, axe and adze hafts, pins, spindle whorls, scrapers, combs, laths of blinds, etc., but also new specimens of the types that are currently unique. It is considered probable that artifacts belonging to categories that have not yet been recorded at the site will also be found in the course of further excavation. The wooden inventory of Vis II contains a considerably greater number of artifact categories than the bone, metal, clay, and glass assemblages of this site.
References Alekseyenko E.A. 1967 Kety. Leningrad: Nauka.
Bader O.N. 1964 Drevneishie metallurgi Priuralia. Moscow: Nauka. Burov G.M. 1966 Arkheologicheskie nakhodki v starichnykh tor¿anikakh basseina Vychegdy. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 1: 155–173. Burov G.M. 1967 Drevnii Sindor: Iz istorii plemen Evropeiskogo SeveroVostoka v VII tysyacheletii do n.e. – I tysyacheletii n.e. Moscow: Nauka. Burov G.M. 1968 Rezultaty raskopok Visskikh tor¿anikov v 1963–1964 gg. Uchenye zapiski Perm. Gos. Univ., vol. 191: 194–209. Burov G.M. 1981a Der Bogen bei den mesolithischen Stämmen Nordosteuropas. Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam, No. 14/15: 373–388. Burov G.M. 1981b Fragmenty sanei s poselenii Vis I (mezolit) i Vis II (I tysyacheletie n.e.). Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 2: 117–131. Burov G.M. 1983 Luki i derevyannye strely V–VI vv. n.e. s poselenia Vis II v Privychegodie. KSIA, vol. 175: 55–62. Burov G.M. 1984 K izucheniyu rybolovstva na Evropeiskom Severo-Vostoke v seredine I tysyacheletia n.e. In Voprosy istorii Evropeiskogo Severa. Petrozavodsk: Petrozavod. Gos. Univ., pp. 147–165. Burov G.M. 1989 Mesolithic wooden artifacts from the Vis I site in the European North East of the U.S.S.R. In The Mesolithic in Europe. Edinburgh: Donald, pp. 391–401. Burov G.M. 1992 Bronzovye kultovye plaketki I tysyacheletiya n.e. na Krainem Severo-Vostoke Evropy: Pechorsky mestnyi “zverinyi” stil. In Problemy ¿nno-ugorskoi arkheologii Urala i Povolzhiya. Syktyvkar: Komi nauch. tsentr UrO RAN, pp. 51–59. Burov G.M. 1993a Dereviannye orudiya okhoty u mezoliticheskikh plemen Krainego Severo-Vostoka Evropy. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 3: 149–164. Burov G.M. 1993b Obrabotka dereva i beresty u plemen vanvizdinskoi kultury. In Voprosy istorii Evropeiskogo Severa. Petrozavodsk: Petrozavodsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 129–144. Burov G.M. 1995 Sani rannego srednevekoviya s poseleniya Vis II v basseine Vychegdy. Rossiiskaya arkheologiya, No. 3: 184–192. Burov G.M. 1996 Wooden objects and constructions of the ¿fth century AD at the site of Vis II, North East European Russia. NewsWARP: The Newsletter of the Wetland Archaeology Research Project, England, No. 20: 27–31. Burov G.M. 2001a Ancient wooden objects and structures in oxbow peat bogs of the European Northeast (Russia). In Enduring Records: The Environmental and Cultural Heritage of Wetlands. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 214–232. Burov G.M. 2001b Wooden tools of craft production from the Vis II settlement in the Vychegda Bassin (middle of the 1st millennium AD). Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 4 (8): 124–130.
61
62
G.M. Burov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36/4 (2008) 54–62
Burov G.M. 2005 Fishing gear of the 1st millennium AD in the North East of European Russia. Wetland Archaeology Journal, vol. 5: 5–16. Goldina R.D. 1985 Lomovatovskaya kultura v Verkhnem Prikamie. Irkutsk: Izd. Irkutsk. Gos. Univ. Kolchin B.A. 1968 Novgorodskie drevnosti: Derevyannye izdeliya. Moscow: Nauka. Konakov N.D. 1983 Komi okhotniki i rybolovy vo vtoroi polovine XIX – nachale XX v. Moscow: Nauka. Korzukhina G.F. 1971 O nekotorykh oshibochnykh polozheniyakh v interpretatsii materialov Staroi Ladogi. Skandinavskii sbornik (Tallinn), No. 16: 123–133. Krasnov Y.A. 1971 Rannee zemledelie i zhivotnovodstvo v lesnoi polose Vostochnoi Evropy. Moscow: Nauka. Lippert Y. 1902 Istoria kultury v otdelnykh ocherkakh. St. Petersburg: Elektropechatnya. Lips J.E. 1961 Pri prameñoch civilizácie. Bratislava: Osveta
Orlov S.N. 1954 Ostatki selskokhozyaistvennogo inventarya VII–X vv. iz Staroi Ladogi. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 21: 343–354. Proko¿eva E.D. 1956 Selkupy. In Narody Sibiri. Moscow, Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, pp. 665–686. Semenov S.A. 1968 Razvitie tekhniki v kamennom veke. Leningrad: Nauka. Spitsyn A.A. 1906 Shamanskie izobrazheniya. Zapiski otdeleniya rus. i slav. arkheologii Rus. arkheol. obschestva, bk. 8, vol. 1: 29–45. Vogt H.-J. 1975 Archäologische Beiträge zur Kentnis der landwirtschaftlichen Produktionsinstrumente der Slaven in der brandenburgischen Bezirke. Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift, Bd 16: 491–503. Zagorska I.A. 1991 Rybolovstvo i morskoi promysel v kamennom veke na territorii Latvii. In Rybolovstvo i morskoi promysel v epokhu mezolita – rannego metalla v lesnoi i lesostepnoi zone Vostochnoi Evropy. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 39–64. Received October 15, 2007.