Janne Ikäheimo The Context of the Kierikki Copper Knife: a Reappraisal* Introduction An intriguing artefact made of native copper was found in 1997 from the Kuuselankangas Eteläharju site in Yli-Ii. The test excavations carried out at the site by the Oulu University – under the supervision of lecturer Pentti Koivunen – focused on a house-pit, in other words the vestiges of a Neolithic semi-subterranean dwelling, and they yielded the copper knife cut and hammered out of sheet metal. Today, the artefact is better known as “the Kierikki copper knife” due to location of the find spot within the substantially well-known archaeological area called Kierikki comprising several Neolithic dwelling sites. 1 An approximate date of 3500 cal. BC was first proposed for the find on the basis of its context and regional land uplift curve. However, the context of the Kierikki copper knife was soon subjected to further scrutiny as PhD Andre Costopoulos (McGill University, Montreal) conducted additional excavations at the site in 1999. The results of his campaign were published a few years later in an article, 2 in which several arguments were put forward to challenge the then prevalent interpretation of the context. While the main period of utilization was still dated to the Stone Age, previously unnoticed phase of later occupation, possibly dating to the Iron Age, had been observed at the dwelling site. According to Costopoulos the evidence for such late phase of utilization included: a) a rectangular feature observed as darker area in leached soil during the excavation, b) a significant drop in the amount of finds within the aforementioned feature, c) the discovery of a .29 gram piece of heavily oxidized material, possibly identifiable as slag and d) a surprisingly late AMS radiocarbon date derived from organic resin attached to the knife’s tang. * The author acknowledges here his great debt to the Academy of Finland, whose generous grant has enabled the preparation of this article. 1 For an overview, see e.g. Samuel Vaneeckhout, ”Dwelling depressions at Kierikki: results of a GPS-survey”. Faravid XXXII, Pohjois-Suomen Historiallinen Yhdistys r.y., Rovaniemi 2008, 7–17. 2 Andre Costopoulos, ”Evaluating the chronological context of a prehistoric copper knife find in Northern Finland”. Faravid XXVI, Pohjois-Suomen Historiallinen Yhdistys r.y., Rovaniemi 2002, 13–19.
Transcript
7
Janne Ikäheimo
The Context of the Kierikki Copper Knife: a Reappraisal*
Introduction
An intriguing artefact made of native copper was found in 1997 from the Kuuselankangas Eteläharju site in Yli-Ii. The test excavations carried out at the site by the Oulu University – under the supervision of lecturer Pentti Koivunen – focused on a house-pit, in other words the vestiges of a Neolithic semi-subterranean dwelling, and they yielded the copper knife cut and hammered out of sheet metal. Today, the artefact is better known as “the Kierikki copper knife” due to location of the find spot within the substantially well-known archaeological area called Kierikki comprising several Neolithic dwelling sites.1 An approximate date of 3500 cal. BC was first proposed for the find on the basis of its context and regional land uplift curve.
However, the context of the Kierikki copper knife was soon subjected to further scrutiny as PhD Andre Costopoulos (McGill University, Montreal) conducted additional excavations at the site in 1999. The results of his campaign were published a few years later in an article,2 in which several arguments were put forward to challenge the then prevalent interpretation of the context. While the main period of utilization was still dated to the Stone Age, previously unnoticed phase of later occupation, possibly dating to the Iron Age, had been observed at the dwelling site. According to Costopoulos the evidence for such late phase of utilization included: a) a rectangular feature observed as darker area in leached soil during the excavation, b) a significant drop in the amount of finds within the aforementioned feature, c) the discovery of a .29 gram piece of heavily oxidized material, possibly identifiable as slag and d) a surprisingly late AMS radiocarbon date derived from organic resin attached to the knife’s tang.
* The author acknowledges here his great debt to the Academy of Finland, whose generous grant has enabled the preparation of this article.
1 For an overview, see e.g. Samuel Vaneeckhout, ”Dwelling depressions at Kierikki: results of a GPS-survey”. Faravid XXXII, Pohjois-Suomen Historiallinen Yhdistys r.y., Rovaniemi 2008, 7–17.
2 Andre Costopoulos, ”Evaluating the chronological context of a prehistoric copper knife find in Northern Finland”. Faravid XXVI, Pohjois-Suomen Historiallinen Yhdistys r.y., Rovaniemi 2002, 13–19.
8 Janne Ikäheimo
During the preparation of an article on the Kierikki copper knife for a forthcoming festschrift,3 the author gathered information on the conditions in which this find was made. The examination of the poorly available data aroused some critical remarks, particularly regarding the nature and the interpretation of rectangular “feature” observed in the 1999 excavations. The criticism is published here, as the first and foremost goal of this paper is to gather and interpret the evidence regarding both the discovery of the copper knife in 1997 and the subsequent excavations in 1999. The main focus will be on a few photographs, because other types of documentation in addition to the two excavation reports were not available. The distribution of the finds will also be discussed here to some extent, while issues related to the knife and its ambiguous AMS radiocarbon date will be categorically omitted, as they will be extensively discussed in the aforementioned article.
Ambiguous circumstances
The sequence leading to the discovery of the Kierikki copper knife can be described in short as follows. In 1997 at Eteläharju (“Southern Ridge”) a 2x2 meter test pit was opened on the eastern bank of a house-pit, the remains of a Neolithic semi-subterranean dwelling. During the removal of topsoil a copper knife tumbled to the fore immediately underneath the turf. The knife was first considered to be a recent intrusion, and, before its value was fully realized, it even spent a few hours in the lunch box of a student who participated in the excavations. For this reason, neither the exact find spot of the knife is known nor there are any pictures showing the object in situ. After the discovery, the excavation of the test pit was carried on as usual until, at the depth of 5 centimeters in leached layer, it was called to a halt because of frost that turned out to be impenetrable.4
In 1999, an excavation area of 2x7 meters was marked out on the eastern part of the house-pit (x= 50–52, y= 108–115), where it is said to have enveloped the 1997 test pit. A rectangular feature, visible as darker area against the surrounding leached layer, was soon spotted between squares 51/111 and 51/113.5 Brownish blotches of sand were detected near the corners of the feature, which was practically devoid of quartz flakes and other typical Neolithic finds. On the contrary, fire cracked stones in addition to quartz and quartzite flakes were found in the illuvial layer, where the
3 Janne P. Ikäheimo and Mirva Pääkkönen, ”Kierikin kupariveitsi – uusimpia tutkimustuloksia”. In press.
4 Pentti Koivunen and Timo Ylimaunu, Kaivauskertomus Yli-Ii 43 Kuuselankangas 1997. Unpublished excavation report. University of Oulu, Laboratory of Archaeology 1998, 12.
5 Andre Costopoulos and Timo Ylimaunu, Yli-Ii Karjalankylä Kierikkisuon Eteläharju. Kertomus arkeologisista tutkimuksista vuodelta 1999. Unpublished excavation report. University of Oulu, Laboratory of Archaeology 2001, 1; cf. Costopoulos 2002, 17.
9The Context of the Kierikki Copper Knife: a Reappraisal
feature itself could no longer be detected. The information is slightly rephrased in the section focusing on the results of the expedition, as the leached layer is said to have comprised the remains of a quadrangular structure with no Neolithic finds. Therefore, the structure is interpreted to post-date the house-pit.6
By combining the information of the two excavation reports with the few publicly accessible photographs and maps, an alternative interpretation concerning the origins of the feature can be put forward.7 Hence, the “feature” observed in the 1999 excavations is the 1997 test pit, dug only five centimeters deep into the leached horizon and then backfilled. The dark color of the soil can be explained by organic matter that was mixed into leached sand when the soil was shoveled back to the pit. Had it resulted from Iron Age activity, the “feature” would very unlikely have been observable due to prolonged podzolisation. Both the quadrangular shape of the feature and its size with the length of the side being approximately 1.8 meters8 fit also well into this interpretation. Anyone with at least some archaeological fieldwork experience can tell that excavation areas are commonly reduced 5-10 centimeters from each side if not rigorously monitored, and in the case of test pits they seldom are. The blotches of brown sand observed near the corners of the “feature”, on the other hand, resulted from the pulling off the pickets that outlined the test pit. The use of pickets with a delimiting string is corroborated by the photographs (e.g. Fig. 1) taken in 1997.
Snapshotgun wedding
The question of ultimate importance in this context is, of course, whether location of the 1997 test pit and the “feature” observed in 1999 coincide. Unfortunately, the evidence regarding this matter is rather scarce, as several attempts to relocate the primary documentation – notes, maps or photographs – pertaining to the 1999 excavations were unsuccessful even though their location was directly requested for several times from the director of the excavations. Still, the scarce evidence the author was able to scrape up is sufficient to draw conclusions about the question.
In the first picture (Fig. 1), the test pit dug in 1997 is in the front with the grey sand pertaining to the excavated leached layer piled to the left of it. The most useful
6 Costopoulos and Ylimaunu 2001, 3–5.7 In 1997, two color slides were taken at Eteläharju before the test pit was marked off and excavated.
Three other slides show the test pit after the excavation. These slides are permanently stored at the Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Oulu, under inventory numbers 21634–21638. Two additional slides were provided for the study by Patrik Franzén, the acting director of the Kierikki Archaeological Exhibition and Activity Centre at Yli-Ii, who happened to visit the excavations in 1999.
8 Costopoulos and Ylimaunu 2001, Map 2.
10 Janne Ikäheimo
feature for locating the test pit in relation to its surroundings is formed by a pair of young birches on the background. The branches of a young pine and spruce growing in the foreground on the right hand side are also worth observing. The snapshot provided by Patrik Franzén has been taken in 1999 nearly from the same angle (Fig. 2). The two birches are seen in the background with a sieve leaning on the one on the left. The shape of the trunks with their birch bark patterns, identical to trees seen in the picture taken in 1997, as well as coppices growing in between them strongly suggest that it is the same pair of trees we see in both pictures.
In the picture taken by Franzén, a somewhat darker area can be observed in otherwise whitish gray soil behind the two students facing left; the edge of this area is visible as a diagonal line, which actually forms a tangent for the shadow of the student wearing a white blouse. By juxtaposing the two pictures, it should be very evident for anyone that it is the test pit dug in 1997, which can be observed as a darker anomaly in the ground. Now, the question is whether this anomaly is the same that has been promulgated as evidence on later, intrusive occupation.9 The clarification of this matter calls for somewhat tedious chain of arguments, which is to be presented next.
9 Costopoulos 2002, 16–19.
Figure 1. The Kuuselankangas Eteläharju site in 1997 with a test pit visible in the front. Photograph: Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Oulu.
11The Context of the Kierikki Copper Knife: a Reappraisal
Firstly, the imprints of three logs, possibly representing the remains of a wooden floor, are said to have been observed on the northern profile of the 1999 excavation trench.10 More importantly, these imprints are reported to have been found parallel to the edge of the “feature”. Now, near the upper right hand corner of the figure showing the presumed imprints, one can notice a metal marking rod with flattened out, rectangular top bearing the number three (3). The very same marking rod can be seen behind the foremost kneeling student with a dark hooded jacket and a canvas hat in Franzen’s photograph (Fig. 2).
Hence, by combining the information of these two pictures with related textual references in the excavation reports, it becomes undeniably evident that the straight edge referred to by Costopoulos and the edge of the test pit visible in Franzén’s photograph are nothing else but the one and same thing. Hence, the photograph supposed to depict the southwestern corner of the “feature” 11 actually presents a close-up of what is left of a test pit dug two years earlier. In the snapshot taken by Franzén, this corner is the one seen near the student facing the camera on the background and wearing a dark hooded jacket.
Figure 2. The Kuuselankangas Eteläharju excavations in 1999. Photograph: Patrik Franzén.
12 Janne Ikäheimo
The finds: dramatic drop vs. usual peak
As mentioned earlier, the excavation of the test pit was halted in 1997 due to impenetrable layer of frost encountered when only some 5 centimeters of the leached horizon had been removed. This explains why the finds made within the “feature” were concentrated in the illuvial layer, in which the “feature” itself was no longer observable. One of the arguments put forward by Costopoulos on behalf of the later intrusion is “a dramatic drop” in the number of the finds within the “feature”.12 But if the other finds from the 1997 test pit13 are taken into account, the dramatic drop turns into a moderate peak in two squares (x= 50–51, y= 110), whereas the general tendency in the number of finds is otherwise steadily declining eastwards. The area where the peak is observed is the inner side of the embankment surrounding the house-pit, which frequently coincides with the lower timber frame of the dwelling that once occupied the spot. The observation that the distribution of finds is often weighed towards such delimiting feature has been reported from numerous excavated Neolithic house-pit sites.14
At this point, it would be rather useless to dwell into a long argument regarding the nature of the supposed piece of slag found in 1999. Furthermore, the item is missing among the finds pertaining to 1999 excavations, and several unsuccessful attempts were also made to retrieve it from among finds of the 2002 and 2003 excavations at the Eteläharju site. Besides, as its context has turned out to be a backfill dating to 1997, the object may virtually anything that the participants of the 1997 archaeological field school of the Oulu University decided to carry with them to the site. And, finally, while this article has focused extensively on the context of the Kierikki copper knife, it is worth pointing out here that the data gathered through the cross-disciplinary research on the artefact itself speaks on the behalf of its Neolithic origin.15
Conclusions
The final conclusion reached by the re-evaluation of the data regarding the spatio-temporal context of the Kierikki copper knife is that the environment from which it was found is purely Neolithic lacking any convincing signs of post-depositional human alteration prior to the 1997 excavations. This is not only corroborated by the observations regarding the spatial relationship of the 1997 test pit and the 1999
12 Costopoulos 2002: 18, particularly Fig. 4.13 KM 30775:2–3 (:2 – stone raw-material, 1 pc., 170,5 g; :3– quartz flakes, 32 pcs, 50,0 g).14 See, e.g., Helena Ranta (ed.), Huts and Houses. Stone and Early Metal Age Buildings in Finland.
National Board of Antiquities, Helsinki 2002, passim.15 Ikäheimo and Pääkkönen, in press.
13The Context of the Kierikki Copper Knife: a Reappraisal
excavation area, but also by all the finds retrieved between 1997 and 2003. The same conclusion has also been reached by studying the find and its various properties.
Then, what are the consequences of the reinterpretation suggested in this article? Firstly, a fact that has also become apparent through the study of the find itself is that the Kierikki copper knife should be included among the few copper artefacts known from Stone Age contexts in Finland. In fact, it may well be the oldest metal tool known to date from this country. It will also be interesting to observe, whether the alternative interpretation that has been put forward here gains any official support. In the on-line database maintained by the National Board of Antiquities that is designed to contain information on all archaeological sites in Finland, the site of Kuuselankangas Eteläharju is at present dated to the Medieval period.16 It is the author’s sincere wish that, if nothing else, at least this misinformation will be corrected in the very near future.
Language consultant: Eeva-Maria Viitanen
16 The National Board of Antiquities: Rekisteriportaali (Registry Portal)/Hankerekisteri (Project Registry): entry #8935: ”2003 Kuuselankangas eteläharju Kivikautisen asuinpaikan kaivaus”. Retrieved on 24.3.2009 from http://kulttuuriymparisto.nba.fi/netsovellus/rekisteriportaali/portti/default.aspx
