This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 09 October 2014, At: 07:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Norwegian Archaeological ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sarc20

House Societies among CoastalHunter-Gatherers: A Case Study ofStone Age Ostrobothnia, FinlandSamuel Vaneeckhout aa Faculty of Humanities, Archaeology, University of Oulu ,FinlandPublished online: 15 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Samuel Vaneeckhout (2010) House Societies among Coastal Hunter-Gatherers: A Case Study of Stone Age Ostrobothnia, Finland, Norwegian Archaeological Review,43:1, 12-25, DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2010.499003

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2010.499003

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2010

DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2010.499003 © 2010 Taylor & Francis

SARC

ARTICLE

House Societies among Coastal Hunter-Gatherers: A Case Study of Stone Age Ostrobothnia, FinlandHouse Societies among Complex Hunter-GatherersSAMUEL VANEECKHOUT

In this article I discuss a concept that can be useful for cross-scale comparativeresearch on the origin and evolution of social inequality. Lévi-Strauss’ ‘HouseSociety’ concept is theoretically and methodologically useful because of itsopen and diachronic character. House Societies, used as a framework forexplanation, allow comparative research across large temporal and spatialscales. I apply the House Society – adaptive cycle model to the complexhunter-gatherer context from Stone Age Ostrobothnia, Finland. Populationaggregation and increased population density, due to environmental circum-scription around 6500–6000 cal. BP led to increasing social differences betweenHouses in Ostrobothnian communities. In the long run, we find a core of large,successful Houses and a second group of smaller less successful Houses. By theend of Stone Age, c. 4000 cal. BP, increasing institutionalization of socialdifferences resulted in population dispersal and a weakened position forOstrobothnian House Societies in relation to larger entities (trade, exchange).

INTRODUCTION

Explaining the origins and evolution of per-manent social inequality remains a greatchallenge to archaeologists. Only archaeolo-gists can accomplish this, although we mustdraw on theory and evidence from a varietyof places. In many cases the archaeologist isconfronted with the issue of whether per-manent inequality and ranking existed at all.In archaeology it is essential to use as manylines of evidence as possible. These lines ofevidence are to be found in the archaeological(material) record. Multiple lines of evidence arelikely to yield contradictory evidence anddifferent techniques might yield differentresults. It is crucial for archaeologists to under-stand that the absence of evidence of ranking isnot evidence of absence. Conversely, some

evidence for wealth is not by itself evidencefor permanent inequality. Positively demon-strating that the prehistoric society in ques-tion was ranked or egalitarian can be doneonly from a long-term perspective (Ames2007).

In ‘The archaeology of rank’ KennethAmes (2007) introduces different aspects ofthe archaeological study of permanent socialinequality. One thing that is particularlymissing is the comparison of social develop-ment at different temporal, spatial and socialscales. The focus of studies on social inequalityin archaeology lies on a specific set ofscales while linking the different cross-scaledevelopments seems forgotten.

The first aim in this paper is to introduceLévi-Strauss’ concept of House Societies

Samuel Vaneeckhout, Faculty of Humanities, Archaeology, University of Oulu, Finland. E-mail: samuel.vaneeckhout@oulu.fi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:45

09

Oct

ober

201

4

House Societies among Complex Hunter-Gatherers 13

(Lévi-Strauss 1979) as a tool for cross-scalecomparative research. I introduce this conceptas part of my research on the origin andevolution of social inequality during prehistoryin the northern Bothnian Gulf. I start bydescribing the environmental context inwhich this evolution took place. In thesecond part of this paper I discuss the evolutionof ‘social’ markers in the material remains ofthe prehistoric society in question. I concludewith a discussion on the long-term socialchanges in the region.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

The study of hunter-gatherer social organiza-tion in Ostrobothnia (Finland) necessarilystarts with the environmental framework inwhich the social processes occurred. Themost significant element which influencedStone Age hunter-gatherers in coastalFinland has its origins in the retreat of theglacier after the Last Glacial Maximum. Ever

since, the Finnish coast has been scene ofcontinuous change due to post-glacialisostatic land uplift (Eronen 2005). Thecentre of this uplift is located in the BothnianBay, the northern part of the Gulf of Bothnia(Fig. 1). The uplift caused continuous regres-sion at the concave coastline of the BothnianBay. The regression in turn resulted in thereduction of the coastline (Vaneeckhout et al.2009).

SHORELINE REDUCTION AND COASTAL VARIABILITY

The effect of this reduction on human popu-lation was intensified by the variability inshoreline displacement due to differences inlocal topography. Land uplift in flat regionsfrees more land from the sea and thus causesmore displacement of the coastline. Theeffect of the slowing down of the land upliftaround 6000–5500 cal. BP was neutralized. InFig. 2 we see that the period around 5000cal. BP is the period with the highest rate of

Fig. 1. Map with study area.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:45

09

Oct

ober

201

4

14 Samuel Vaneeckhout

coastal displacement because of the flattopography of the coastal zone during thattime. More specifically the peak period ofshoreline displacement happened between5700 and 2800 cal. BP (Nunez & Okkonen1999). Fig. 2 also shows the peak in variationof coastal displacement between the differentriver estuaries of the Finnish Bothnian Baycoast. Some rivers were very stable; theirriver mouths did not migrate much. Otherriver mouths on the contrary were veryunstable and migrated a lot, causing muchchange in the local environment.

POPULATION AGGREGATION AND DECREASED MOBILITY

The reduction of the coast resulted inincreasing population density, even withoutincrease of population. The variability inriver estuary stability, i.e. the amount of dis-placement due to the land uplift, resulted inthe aggregation of population at the moststable river estuaries, seeking predictability intheir environment. The heavy concentration ofoccupation sites at stable river mouths mightbe partly due to the lack of migration and thecloseness between different ancient shore-lines. But the archaeological material also

indicates that the concentration of sites atstable river estuaries resulted in much richer(abundant exotic goods) assemblages, suchas at the prehistoric villages of Yli-Ii (Iijoki)and Kaustinen (Perhonjoki-Lestijoki) (Halinen1997).

I propose that increasing population den-sity and increasing contact between groups atthe major river mouths were made possibleby the reduction in length of the coastline inOstrobothnia between 8000 and 5500 cal. BP

and by the high variability in river estuarystability during that period. Higher populationdensities are not caused by environmentalchanges but they would have been unlikelywithout those changes. In combination withthe concentration of resources during a periodof climatic and environmental stabilization, thehigher population density allowed decreasesin population mobility in Ostrobothniaaround 6500–5500 cal. BP.

Pesonen (2002) provides data on the housedepressions which can be ascribed to a cer-tain period in prehistory, mostly based onpottery assemblages. A first concentration ofhouse depressions is assigned to the TypicalComb Ware period (5900–5500 cal. BP)(Nunez & Uino 1998, Pesonen 2002). Thereis not much variation between south and

Fig. 2. Graph showing average temporal variation in coastal displacement and spatial variation of rivermouths over time.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:45

09

Oct

ober

201

4

House Societies among Complex Hunter-Gatherers 15

north Finland during this period in terms ofnumbers and nature of the dwelling depres-sions. Maps of their distribution (Huurre1995, Pesonen 2002) show how most of thesites with house depressions are situated onthe coast. This first concentration of housedepressions is consistent with the idea ofincreasing population densities during thestable period before and around 6000 cal. BP.The Typical Comb Ware period is marked byincreasing numbers of more substantialhouse depressions indicating a certain degreeof decreasing mobility (Halén 1994, Okkonen2003: 171).

Not only was pottery adopted and housedepressions built, but there was also anaccompanying intensification of hunting dur-ing the Typical Comb Ware period. This is visi-ble in the total size of refuse fauna (Siiriäinen1980, Ukkonen 2004) and in the diversity offaunal species detected during archaeologicalexcavation (Mökkönen 2001). All these fac-tors indicate a pattern of increasing seden-tary lifestyle before and during the TypicalComb Ware period.

Southern Finland provides an excellentcounter-example. Until the halfway mark ofthe sixth millennium cal. BP, during the TypicalComb Ware period, there was a similardevelopment in most of Finland. In thesecond half of the sixth millennium cal. BP

northern Finland becomes the scene of espe-

cially intense and increasing social inequal-ity. The differentiation is manifested byclusters of semi-subterranean houses in village-like arrangements at the river mouths innorthern Finland. These villages are associ-ated with abundant exotic material (Balticamber, copper and Russian flint) and a newpottery form, Kierikki Ware (5500–5200 cal.BP), characterized by asbestos temper. Theabundance of exotic goods points to the pres-ence of an established organization in theregion, which could serve as support for along-distance exchange network. Similarly,large pots and semi-subterranean houses sug-gest a certain degree of stability in settlementpatterns (Nunez & Okkonen 1999). Thedevelopment in the south is one of a moredispersed settlement and limited innovation.

POLARIZATION IN AN AGGREGATION COMMUNITY

The river Iijoki, one of the most stable riversbetween 6000 and 5000 cal. BP, contains oneof the largest concentrations of prehistoricremains in Finland. Over 300 house depres-sions and other pit features are known fromthe ancient estuary. These remains are thecentral focus in this discussion of socialorganization and House Societies.

Fig. 3 is an overview of the sites situatedon the ancient river mouth of the Iijoki river.

Fig. 3. Overview of dwelling depression clusters at Kierikki. The northern river bank has more and largerclusters than the southern bank.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:45

09

Oct

ober

201

4

16 Samuel Vaneeckhout

There are more numerous and larger identi-fied sites on the north side of the river. Pastresearch revealed changes in architectureover time and clear differences in theremains between the north and the southbank. There is a trend from small circularto large rectangular house depressions andto multi-room structures when we followthe remains from oldest to youngest downthe river (Okkonen 2003: 227). The part ofthe riverside which was occupied between6500 and 4000 cal. BP lies now more than20km inland due to isostatic land uplift.Due to the marked land uplift since the lastIce Age, the successive shorelines provide arough guide for site chronology, even ifthere is evidence of substantial reuse ofsites over time.

The first dwelling depressions can be foundbetween 60 and 70m above sea level and areorganized in semi-circular formations. Thefind assemblages at those elevations arethose of residential structures: quartz fromtool making and tool use, burnt bone andceramics. The dwelling depressions arehomogeneous in shape, size and content.

There is no difference in the size andnature of the different house depressions.The dwellings at Kierikin Sorakuoppa aredated to 6200– 600 cal. BP. Fig. 4 uses shore-line chronology to give an idea of thechanges in population density over time. Thedensity of clusters gradually increasesbetween 60 and 75m above sea level. There isa first clear concentration of clusters ofhouse depressions around the 60m elevation.This corresponds with dates around 5500 cal.BP, the period of aggregation at stable rivermouths. This period is also a turning point inthe prehistory of the Iijoki river.

Before 5500 cal. BP the archaeologicalremains on both sides of the river are verysimilar. There is an evolution from simplefind scatters on the highest terraces to thefirst semi-circular clusters of dwelling depres-sions a bit lower. This corresponds with theperiod of increased sedentism and concentra-tion of population on the river mouths.Around 5500 cal. BP, settlement at the Iijokiriver mouth intensifies, and differentiationappears between the occupations on thenorth bank and the south bank of the river.

At Kuuselankangas, on the north bank ofthe river (Fig. 5) 24 house depressions havebeen identified. Most of these have been(partly) excavated. There is a core of largedepressions on the western end of Kuuse-lankangas and a second group of smallerdepressions at the eastern end. Excavationindicates that there is a positive correlationbetween the size of house depressions and thewealth of the find assemblages as measuredby abundance and diversity.

Fig. 5 shows how the concentration ofexotic goods corresponds with the core oflarge house depressions. Amber, flint andinnovative asbestos tempered pottery areconcentrated in the area with the largedepressions. Radiocarbon dates indicate thatmost of the houses were occupied roughlycontemporaneously (Vaneeckhout 2009).The dwellings at Kuuselankangas were prob-ably used as residential structures.

The south bank Kotikangas complex onthe other hand contains at least 12 housedepressions spread out over the 1500-meterlength of the palaeo-peninsula (Fig. 6). Thedepressions tend to be clustered in groups ofthree, some of the large ones standing alone.Excavation revealed a very interesting

Fig. 4. Distribution of clusters of dwelling depressions set against elevation above sea level as a rough timescale. Every vertical line is a cluster of dwelling depressions (three to seven dwelling depressions).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:45

09

Oct

ober

201

4

House Societies among Complex Hunter-Gatherers 17

pattern indicating economic specialization atthe different structures. The house depres-sions are large and rectangular with similarinternal structure and size. They contain twohearths on the long axis, an entrance at thewestern end and a midden at the eastern endof the dwelling. Similar houses have beendescribed for Arctic Norway (Simonsen1975), Sweden (Halén 1994) and south-easternFinland (Katiskoski 2002). In the dwellingsat Kierikki, the find assemblages are veryvariable, in terms of both their contents andtheir spatial distribution. One dwelling isstrongly dominated by lithics, includingflakes and worn tools of at least half a dozendifferent raw materials. The material is fairlyevenly distributed over the whole structure.A second dwelling contains mostly ceramics,

its density clearly increasing towards themidden (eastern) end (Costopoulos 2005).Only one amber bead and one flint arrowheadhave been uncovered from the Kotikangas.

HOUSE SOCIETY

The remains at Kuuselankangas provide theargument that justifies the critical assumptionin this discussion. There is a clear relation-ship between architectural change and socialdevelopment. Space has a social logic. It isknown from ethnographic and archaeologicalexamples (Samson 1990, Blanton 1994,Carsten & Hugh-Jones 1995) that there is acorrelation between the size of houses andthe status of their occupants, whether it is areflection of the size of the group occupying

Fig. 5. Map of Kuuselankangas archaeological remains. This cluster contains 24 dwelling depressionssubdivided into clusters of three to five.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:45

09

Oct

ober

201

4

18 Samuel Vaneeckhout

a house or of its social status. Houses with alarger group of occupants have more oppor-tunity to accumulate higher prestige and ranksimply by their longevity and their increasedpresence in the community (cf. residual elites inBogucki 1999). Ames discusses how largerhouses would be more successful in managingdemographic cycles of households and in man-aging risk, both in terms of the costs of failureand in the outcome of resource procurement(Ames 2006: 31). The accumulation of pres-tige and rank will in turn lead to more suc-cessful recruitment of members and labourorganization. Household studies on theAmerican Northwest Coast, suggest thatprestige and rank will be communicatedthrough size and elaboration of houses. Thisis what Blanton (1994: 9) calls indexicalcommunication.

The approach followed here has been dis-cussed in a number of recent edited volumes(Joyce & Gillespie 2000, Sobel et al. 2006)and has the advantage that it seeks to bridgethe gap between generalist and particularistapproaches. ‘House Society’ was first defined

by Lévi-Strauss (1979) as an alternative kinshipmodel for American Northwest societies.Due to difficulties in categorizing kinshiprelations among some of the Northwest Coastsocieties (Boas 1920, 1924) Lévi-Straussdeveloped the concept of ‘Société à maisons’,based on local nomenclature for a society’scentral social unit. A House for Lévi-Strauss is:

a corporate body holding an estate made up ofboth material and non-material wealth, whichperpetuates itself through the transmission of itsname, its goods and its titles down a real andimaginary line, considered legitimate as long asthis continuity can express itself in the languageof kinship or affinity, and most often, both. (Lévi-Strauss 1979: 174)

Even though sharing some overlap, ‘House’is conceptually different from ‘household’(Wilk & Rathje 1982) or ‘corporate group’(Hayden & Cannon 1982). As with householdsand corporate groups, Houses are intermediatebetween the individual and the community.Houses can include more than one household

Fig. 6. Map of Kotikangas archaeological remains. Dwelling depressions are isolated or clustered ingroups of three.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:45

09

Oct

ober

201

4

House Societies among Complex Hunter-Gatherers 19

and a whole range of people who affiliatethemselves with the House for strategic rea-sons (Gillespie 2000). Houses are constitutedof a number of positions, not of persons.Houses have a fluid membership but thepositions in a House are always filled. TheHouse is always full (Gillespie 2000).

While households and corporate groupsare defined in terms of economy and prop-erty, Houses are defined by and locate conti-nuity in place (Marshall 2006). While centralto it, the estate of a House is not the all-enhancing factor. Place, and continuity inplace, is used to justify a House’s social status.The focus of Houses is on reproduction andpersistence. Houses live longer than any ofthe humans that comprise them and longerthan the architectural manifestation of theHouse (Gillespie 2000, Ames 2006).

Houses occur in hierarchical societies or insocieties evolving towards more complexityand inequality. But with Ames (2006) andGillespie (2000) I would argue against theview of House Societies as ‘yet another inter-mediate stage between egalitarian societiesand states’ (Ames 2006: 18). House Societiescan be found in a wide diversity of socialorganization patterns, hence the differentexamples given by Lévi-Strauss himself(1987).

House is an open concept. First, the con-tent of the House as a social unit is notstrictly defined. This makes it a useful con-cept for comparison across space and time.Although societies might be organized verydifferently, and the basic social units mighthave different composition, comparison isstill possible between House Societies. Sec-ond, the organization in a House Society isopen. Members of the House ‘vote with theirfeet’. Houses and House Societies are sys-tems of opportunistic individuals andgroups. Change in House Societies is the res-ult of choices made by these individuals and/or groups. Social changes in society can belong or short term depending on the adapta-bility of the choices made. Changes becomemore permanent when they are adaptive to

the social, spatial and temporal environmentin which they are made. Similar choices can bemade in different contexts, with a completelydifferent outcome. Institutionalization ofinequality, putting a limit on the free choiceof individuals and groups in House Societies,i.e. on the open character of the society, leadsto decline in House Societies (cf. adaptivecycle in resilience theory in Redman & Kinzig2003).

As mentioned earlier, the social status of aHouse is based on its long-term persistenceand reproduction. Long-lived Houses accu-mulate higher status simply by virtue of theirlongevity. Successful reproduction of Housesdepends on the decisions made by the mem-bers of a House. Ames simulated the persist-ence of Houses based on data for Gtiksanlineage extinction. He concludes that ‘overthe long run, Northwest coast societies con-sisted of a core of large, successful Houses,with well-established estates, that generallypersisted for long periods of time and asecond group of smaller, less stable Housesthat lasted only a few generations or a cen-tury or two’ (Ames 2006: 25).

The size of a House thus influences Housereproduction. Larger Houses are bufferedagainst failure and risk. The members oflarger Houses can do more complex taskssimultaneously. Small Houses have feweralternatives and have a higher risk of failurewhen one of their strategies fails. Recruit-ment is crucial to House success and it can beassumed that success also attracts people.Another crucial element in successful Housesis their interaction with larger-scale entitieslike the House Society and trade partners.

HOUSE SOCIETY AT KIERIKKI

The society on the banks of the river Iijoki atthe time of occupation of Kuuselankangas, c.5500 cal. BP fits with the most importantcharacteristics of House Societies. At thetime, there was already a thousand-year-longhistory of occupation at Kierikki, and thesociety was going through an increase in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:45

09

Oct

ober

201

4

20 Samuel Vaneeckhout

social inequality. Kuuselankangas is com-posed of a core of large successful Housesand their smaller, less successful neighbours,as indicated by the correlation between thesize of the house depressions and the varietyand quantity of exotic goods found in them.There is evidence for interaction with larger-scale entities, in the form of large quantitiesof imported goods, such as amber from thesouthern Baltic and flint from Russia. TheHouse Society concept would thus seem to beuseful for a study of long-term social devel-opment at Kierikki based the history of itsdwelling depressions.

Eventually, clusters of house depressionsin the Kierikki area reliably consisted of acore of large house depressions and a secondgroup of smaller depressions. Fig. 7 showsthe three largest clusters of house depres-sions. The distribution of house depressionsize reveals a clear pattern of two size groups,especially for Kierikinkangas and Korvala.At Vuornos, the youngest phase in the occu-pation of the river mouth, the pattern is dif-ferent. There is one particularly big housedepression and a large group of smaller ones.After Vuornos there are no dwelling depres-sions or other residential structures known.

This increasing polarization correspondswith the evolution of house size. Fig. 8 showsthe exponential growth in variation of dwell-ing depression size set against elevationabove sea level as a rough temporal scale.This pattern of change in house size intensi-fies when specific patterning is taken intoaccount. Throughout the occupation, housedepressions are clustered in smaller clustersof three or four house depressions. A divisionor clustering in three at houses and villagesin ethnographic and archaeological con-texts usually has a functional explanation(Rapoport 1990, Darvill and Thomas 1996).Plotting the size of clusters against elevationshows a similar exponential growth in varia-tion through time.

Over time, increasing axiality in the build-ing pattern creates more distance betweenclusters of houses. In the earliest clusters likeKierikin sorakuoppa, house depressions aresituated in semi-circles, creating a centralcommon space. The pattern is repeated atKierikinkangas and Kuuselankangas. AtKierikinkangas we also spot the first row-structured clusters of dwelling depressions.At Voima-Kuusela, a row house was built,creating a common, or less private, dwelling

Fig. 7. Distribution of dwelling depression size at the three largest clusters.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:45

09

Oct

ober

201

4

House Societies among Complex Hunter-Gatherers 21

and at the same time creating distancebetween the different ‘rooms’, due to its axialstructure (Fig. 9). At Vuornos distance is cre-ated by building the dwellings further apart.

DISCUSSION: SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT – FROM AGGREGATION TO POLARIZATION

Increasing social inequality and economicspecialization at Kierikki are triggered byaggregation of population due to environ-mental circumscription caused by a shorten-ing coastline and compressed distancesbetween major river mouths. These factors

are themselves the result of shoreline regres-sion caused by isostatic land uplift followingthe disappearance of the Fennoscandian icemass. Initially, circumscription allowsincreased sedentism. Further populationgrowth leads to the organization of Houses.Successful Houses take the lead in hunting,fishing and long-distance exchange. Patron-client relations are established. Patrons fromsuccessful Houses need people to join theHouse to be able to keep up high huntingand fishing quotas. Clients from less success-ful Houses seek protection and predictabilityin resource acquisition. In the long run, theHouse Society at Kierikki consists of a core

Fig. 8. Change over time (from left to right) of variation between smallest and largest dwelling depressionper cluster.

Fig. 9. Change over time (from left to right) of building patterns from semi-circular to axial and to widerspread. The black dots stand for dwelling depressions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:45

09

Oct

ober

201

4

22 Samuel Vaneeckhout

of large successful Houses and a secondgroup of smaller less successful Houses.These differences are visible in the differencesbetween their estates. At the beginning groupstrength seems to increase, resulting in multi-room structures and the use of inter-housespace for activities.

With increasing institutionalization at thevillage level, family groups become less cent-ral. Increasing axiality in architecture sug-gests that power in the House Society isappropriated rather than granted (Glenn2003). With declining group strength andincreased privatization of space, there is aneed for public architecture: feasting arenas,monumental architecture. At the end of2500 years of occupation, social differencesbetween Houses seem to have been institu-tionalized. Social inequality at Kierikkiappears in the form of polarization. But, asmembers of House Societies vote with theirfeet, this institutionalization is still relative.While the successful and dominant Houses incharge try to reproduce their success, lesssuccessful Houses constantly seek to improvetheir status. One strategy for this lies in spe-cialization. The initial inequality at Kierikkiwas contemporary with the first signs of eco-nomic specialization.

Another strategy for Houses to achievesuccess and improve their status lies in theirrelations with larger entities. (Ames 2006.)The first level of networking to whichKierikki Houses had access consists of theeastern arc of the Bothnian Bay. The coastalregion was subject to circumscription, and,with the decreasing distance between majorriver mouths over time, contact betweencommunities increased. The people of thecoastal region had a common history interms of settlement. After initial sedentismand aggregation at the river mouths, therewas a similar cultural development acrossthe whole eastern coast of the BothnianBay. This is visible in the rapid and general-ized spread of asbestos-tempered pottery,village-like clusters of house depressionsand the monumental Giant’s churches. They

are enclosures delimited by a low wall of piledboulders and can be as large as 70 meters by40 meters. The earliest ones appeared around5500 cal. BP on the Ostrobothnian coast,and their chronological distribution peakedbetween 5000 and 4000 cal. BP. Their function isstill unknown. Similar development continueseven with the disappearance of these particularcultural manifestations.

Competition on the east coast of the Both-nian Bay unfolded in the arena of long-distancetrade. Sedentism there triggered long-distancecontacts, a common phenomenon amongsedentary hunter-gatherers (Kelly 1992).Along the excellent waterways, a large areacould be covered in a relatively short period.During the Typical Comb Ware period alarge network was established between ArcticNorway, the southern Baltic and CentralRussia, but amber from the southern Baltic,flint from Russia and Onega green slate arethe only trade goods that survived in thearchaeological record. Most likely, theexchange included a whole range of wilder-ness products: seal, fish, aquatic birds, skins,beaver and so on (Nunez & Okkonen 2005).During the Typical Comb Ware period,exchange intensified. After 5500 cal. BP, tradebecame a way of life in northern Finland.The centre of gravity in amber exchangeshifted towards the north. Southern Finland,closer to the source of amber, had mostamber available before 5500 cal. BP but, withthe dispersal of local communities as thesouthern coast lengthened, amber tradeshifted north.

Another contemporary trade pattern is theshift in flint availability. During the TypicalComb Ware period, flint was available in theform of raw material and technology. Quartzand imported flint were both knappedlocally, using similar reduction strategies(Manninen et al. 2003). Flint exchange wasaccompanied by exchange of know-how andthe resulting establishment and maintenanceof strong social relationships. After the Typi-cal Comb Ware period, flint is available inthe region only in the form of finished products.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:45

09

Oct

ober

201

4

House Societies among Complex Hunter-Gatherers 23

Gradually, quartz knapping became differen-tiated from the previous flint-like reductionstrategies. There is a shift from flint as gift,with its accompanying social relations, toflint products as commodity. Trade becomesa way of life.

The high productivity of the coastal zonein northern Finland after 5500 cal. BP gavelocal communities the necessary resources toestablish trade relations and to make a livingout of trade. The intensification of tradecaused increasing competition betweenHouses in each community, but also betweendifferent House Societies on the coast of theBothnian Bay. Inter-House competition alsointensified, with successful Houses trying tomonopolize trade and make less successfulHouses dependent.

With the spread of the Battle Axe farmingculture into southern Scandinavia, the direc-tion of the trade was realigned westward.The most visible trade good is red slate fromthe Scandinavian mountain area. But tradebetween Finland and Norway/Sweden mostlikely included a whole range of farming vs.wilderness products. The Battle Axe Culturealso spread to southern Finland after aperiod of decline in local culture. But thevitality of groups in the north caused thespread of the Battle Axe Culture to stoparound Vaasa on the coast (Siiriäinen 1980,Carpelan 1999).

The period at the end of Stone Age around4000 cal. BP is the period of least shoreline dis-placement of the eastern coast of the BothnianBay. At the same time the variability in dis-placement of the various river mouths issmaller than ever. Communities at the stableStone Age river mouths are divided into moreand smaller communities, no longer concen-trating on the most stable river mouths. Untilthen high population density and flexibleorganization had created a situation of inter-dependency between trade partners. With theincreasing uniformity of river mouth stabilityalong the coast, communities were allowed tofragment, leading to lower population densi-ties and smaller communities. Increasing

polarization and competition in House Socie-ties resulted in weaker internal social organi-zation. In their attempts to monopolize tradeand make other Houses dependent, successfulHouses had to give up some of their independ-ence from trade partners.

Increasing pressure from the west and thesouth, causing inter-group and inter-Housecompetition on the eastern coast of the Both-nian Bay, made Houses look for alternatives.At the end of Stone Age, there is a shift backto the east. Flint from this period is mostlyfrom the Russian flint mines (Costopoulos2003). The coastal zone was dominated bywestern features. The position of the commu-nities on the east coast of the Bothnian Baychanges towards dependency, hence the dis-cussed decline of northern Finnish culture(Huurre 1995).

CONCLUSION

This article suggests a socio-ecological modelof the Neolithic (6500–4000 cal. BP) in coastalOstrobothnia. The Bothnian Bay is locatedat the centre of the postglacial land uplift. Itscoast is subject to continuous evolution frommarine to terrestrial. Due to its particularconcave shape and local flat topography theOstrobothnian coast has been decreasing inlength. Environmental circumscription andincreased population densities resulted inincreasing sedentism at the river mouthsflowing into the Bothnian Bay. Differences indisplacement rate at the different river mouthscaused differences in their human occupation.In the long term there was an aggregation ofpeople at the most stable river estuaries.Increased sedentism and population aggrega-tion came to a peak around 5500 cal. BP.

At Kierikki, located on one of the moststable rivers in the region, I studied the archi-tectural remains to discover some trends inthe archaeological material. As space has asocial logic, these trends indicate somethingabout the way human groups were organizedat the time of their occupation. The archaeo-logical material at Kierikki indicates a period

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:45

09

Oct

ober

201

4

24 Samuel Vaneeckhout

of increasing social inequality and economicspecialization. At Kuuselankangas, one ofthe most extensively studied prehistoric sitesin Finland, the positive relation between thesize of dwelling depressions and exotic goodsshows the start of social inequality at theriver Iijoki. At Kotikangas, on the south sideof the river, similar dwellings have been usedand reused for very different purposes and atdifferent time intervals

In the framework of Lévi-Strauss ‘HouseSocieties’ I was able to discuss the socialchanges on the banks of the river Iijoki in thelong term based on the archaeologicalremains. The increasing variation in the sizeof dwelling depressions across time, in con-junction with their artefacts, is the result ofthe long-term success of large successfulHouses and the failure of smaller, less success-ful Houses. Towards the end of the Neolithicthe community living at the mouth of the riverIijoki was polarized with a small number ofsuccessful Houses and a large number of lesssuccessful, less resilient Houses.

The concept of House Societies allowsarchaeologists to do comparative analysisacross spatial and temporal scales. The con-cept could thus be used to achieve a moreholistic picture of the origin and evolution ofpermanent social inequality within a particularsociety. Archaeologists (and anthropologists)can also use the concept for inter-societalcomparative research.

REFERENCES

Ames, K. 2006. Thinking about household archae-ology on the Northwest Coast. Householdarchaeology on the Northwest Coast. In Sobel, E.,Trieu Gahr, D. & Ames, K. (eds). HouseholdArchaeology on the Northwest Coast. Interna-tional Monographs in Prehistory. ArchaeologicalSeries 16, Ann Arbor, MI.

Ames, K. 2007. The archaeology of rank. In Bent-ley, A., Maschner, H. & Chippendale, C. (eds).Handbook of Archaeological Theories. AltaMiraPress, Lanham, MD.

Blanton, R.E. 1994. Houses and Households. AComparative Study. Plenum Press, New York.

Boas, F. 1920. The social organization of the Kwakiutl.American Anthropologist 22(2), 111–126.

Boas, F. 1924. The social organization of thetribes of the North Pacific Coast. AmericanAnthropologist 26(3), 323–332.

Bogucki, P. 1999. The Origins of Human Society.Blackwell, Oxford.

Carpelan, C. 1999. Käännekohtia Suomen esihistori-assa aikavälillä 5100. . .1000 eKr. Bidrag till känne-dom av Finlands nature och folk 153, 249–280.

Carsten, J. & Hugh-Jones, S. (eds). 1995. Aboutthe House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Costopoulos, A. 2003. Prehistoric flint prove-nance in Finland: Reanalysis of southern data,and initial results for the north. FennoscandiaArchaeologica 20, 41–54.

Costopoulos, A. 2005. Two multi-room Neolithicdwellings from Kierikki. Surprising likeness,thought provoking differences. Faravid 29, 5–18.

Darvill, T. & Thomas J. 1996. Neolithic Houses inNorthwest Europe and Beyond. Oxbow Books,Oxford.

Eronen, M. 2005. Land uplift. Virgin land fromthe sea. In Seppälä, M. (ed.). The PhysicalGeography of Fennoscandia. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.

Gillespie, S. 2000. Beyond kinship. An introduction.In Joyce, R. & Gillespie S. (eds). Beyond Kin-ship. Social and Material Reproduction in HouseSocieties. University of Pennsylvania Press,Philadelphia.

Glenn, M. 2003. Architecture demonstratespower. BA thesis, Haverford College.

Hálen, O. 1994. Sedentariness during the StoneAge of Northern Sweden. Acta ArchaeologicaLundensia 20.

Halinen, P. 1997. Kaustisen Kankaan asuinpaikkaja punamultahaudat. Muinaistutkija 2, 18–27.

Hayden, B. & Cannon, A. 1982. The corporategroup as an archaeological unit. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 1, 132–158.

Huurre, M. 1995. 9000 vuotta Suomen Esihistoria.Otavan Kirjapaino Oy, Helsinki.

Joyce, R. & Gillespie S. (eds). 2000. Beyond Kin-ship. Social and Material Reproduction in HouseSocieties. University of Pennsylvania Press,Philadelphia.

Katiskoski, K. 2002. The semisubterraneandwelling at Kärmelahti in Puumala, SavoProvince, Eastern Finland. In Ranta, H.(ed.). Huts and Houses. Stone Age and Early

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:45

09

Oct

ober

201

4

House Societies among Complex Hunter-Gatherers 25

Metal Age Buildings in Finland. Jyväskylä,National Board of Antiquities.

Kelly, R.L. 1992. Mobility/sedentism. Concepts,archaeological measures and effects. AnnualReview of Anthropology 21, 43–66.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1979. The Way of the Masks.Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver and Toronto.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1987. Anthropology and Myth.Lectures 1951–1982. Blackwell, Oxford.

Manninen, M., Tallavaara, M. & Hertell, E. 2003.SubNeolithic bifaces and flint assemblages inFinland. Outlining the history of research andfuture questions. In Samuelsson, C. & Ytterberg, N.(eds). Uniting Sea. Stone Age Societies in the BalticSea Region. Department of Archaeology andAncient History, Uppsala.

Marshall, Y. 2006. Houses and domestication onthe Northwest Coast. In Sobel, E., Trieu Gahr,D. and Ames, K. (eds). Household Archaeologyon the Northwest Coast. International Mono-graphs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series 16,Ann Arbor, MI.

Mökkönen, T. 2001. Hauki on kala. Saimaanvesistöalueen kivi- ja varhaismetallikaudenosteologinen aineisto. Muinaistutkija 3, 2–13.

Nunez, M. & Okkonen, J. 1999. Environmentalbackground for the rise and fall of villages andmegastructures in North Ostrobothnia 4000–2000 cal BC. In Huurre, M. (ed.). Dig It All.Papers Dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen. GummerusKirjapaino Oy, Jyväskylä.

Nunez, M. & Okkonen, J. 2005. Humanizing ofnorth Ostrobothnian landscapes during the 4thand 3rd millennia BC. Journal of Nordic Archae-ological Sciences 15, 25–38.

Nunez, M. & Uino, P. 1997. Dwellings and relatedstructures in prehistoric mainland Finland.Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift 33, 133–152.

Okkonen, J. 2003. Jättiläisen hautoja ja hirveitä kiviröyk-kiöitä. Pohjanmaan muinaisten kivirakennelmien arke-ologiaa. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B 52.

Pesonen, P. 2002. Semisubterranean houses inFinland. A review. In Ranta, H. (ed.). Huts andHouses. Stone Age and Early Metal Age Buildingsin Finland. National Board of Antiquities,Helsinki.

Rapoport, A. 1990. The Meaning of the Built Envi-ronment. A Nonverbal Communication Approach.University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Redman, C. & Kinzig, A. 2003. Resilience of pastlandscapes. Resilience theory, society, and thelongue durée. Conservation Ecology 7(1), 14.http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss1/art14

Samson, R. (ed.). 1990. The Social Archaeology ofHouses. Edinburgh University Press, Edin-burgh.

Siiriäinen, A. 1980. On the cultural ecology of theFinnish Stone Age. Suomen Museo, 5–40.

Simonsen, P. 1975. When and why did occupa-tional specialization begin at the Scandinaviannorth coast. In Fitzhugh, W. (ed.). PrehistoricMaritime Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone.Mouton, Paris.

Sobel, E., Trieu Gahr, D. & Ames, K. (eds). 2006.Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast.International Monographs in Prehistory.Archaeological Series 16, Ann Arbor, MI.

Ukkonen, P. 2004. Early in the North. Utilizationof Animal Resources in Northern Finland duringPrehistory. Iskos 13.

Vaneeckhout, S. 2009. 2500 years of social evolutionin a northern Finnish Stone Age village. InMökkönen, T. & Seppälä, S.-L. (eds). Arkeolo-gipäivät 2008. Sosiaaliarkeologiaa – yhteisöt arke-ologisen auneiston taustalla & Tutkimushistorianpainolasti. Suomen arkeologinen seura, Helsinki.

Vaneeckhout, S., Okkonen, J. & Costopoulos, A.2009. Paleoshorelines and prehistory in north-west coastal Finland. Fennia (in press).

Wilk, R. & Rathje, W. 1982. Household archae-ology. American Behavioral Scientist 25(6),617–639.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:45

09

Oct

ober

201

4