World (e.g., Passek 1938; Nechaeva 1975; Frayne
1998; Tallet 2017), the research base for Stone Age
dwellings is almost entirely limited to archaeological
remains of buildings or traces of such structures.
82
Documenta Praehistorica XLVIII (2021)
Introduction
While pictorial sources (sculptural images, engrav-
ings and drawings) are available to study dwellings
mainly from the Chalcolithic period, and written
sources from the earliest civilizations of the Old
From a concentration of finds to Stone Age architecture>
the Lommi III pit-house in Northwestern Russia
Irina Khrustaleva 1, Aivar Kriiska2
1 Chair of Laboratory Archaeology, University of Tartu, Tartu, EE< Department of Archaeology of Eastern Europe
and Siberia, the State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, RU< irina.khrustaleva@ut.ee
2 Chair of Laboratory Archaeology, University of Tartu, Tartu, EE< aivar.kriiska@ut.ee
ABSTRACT – High-quality documentation that was made during fieldwork at archaeological sites
can provide new information for old excavations, even decades later. The revision of the archival
data of the Stone Age settlement site Lommi III, located in the border zone of Russia and Estonia and
excavated by Richard Indreko in 1940, allowed us to identify the remains of a Comb Ware culture
(4th millennium cal BC) pit-house based on the concentration of artefacts marked in the field draw-
ings. The rectangular shape and size of the concentration (c. 7.1x4.4m, depth 0.7–0.75m) corre-
sponds to the architectural form common in the European forest zone and has numerous analogies
at the settlement sites of that time in Finland, Karelia (Russia) and Estonia. The composition and
diversity of the finds and their distribution indicate the (semi-)sedentary way of life of inhabitants
of the pit-house. The radiocarbon age obtained from the organic crust on pottery fragments collect-
ed in the pit-house corresponds to the first half of 4th millennium cal BC.
IZVLE∞EK – Kakovostna terenska dokumentacija arheolo∏kih najdi∏≠ lahko prinese nove podatke o
starih izkopavanjih, tudi desetletja kasneje. Z revizijo arhivskih podatkov o kamenodobnem najdi∏-
≠u Lommi III, ki se nahaja na meji med Rusijo in Estonijo in ga je izkopaval Richard Indreko leta
1940, smo lahko prepoznali ostanke vkopane hi∏e z najdbami kulture z glavni≠asto keramiko (4.
tiso≠letje pr. n. ∏t.), in sicer na podlagi koncentracij najdb, ki so bile dokumentirane na terenskih
skicah. Pravokotna oblika in velikost te koncentracije (ok. 7,1x4,4 m, globina 0,7–0,75 m) se sklada
z arhitekturno obliko, ki je pogosta na evropskem gozdnem obmo≠ju in ima ∏tevilne primerjave s
so≠asnimi naselbinami na Finskem, v Kareliji (Rusiji) in Estoniji. Sestava in raznolikost najdb ter
njihova razprostranjenost ka∫ejo na to, da ima ta vkopana hi∏a zna≠ilnosti (delno) stalne poselitve.
Vkopano hi∏o smo s pomo≠jo organskih ostankov na kerami≠nih odlomkih radiokarbonsko datirali
v prvo polovico 4. tiso≠letja pr. n. ∏t.
KEY WORDS – Luga River basin; Stone Age; Comb Ware culture; concentration of finds; pit-house;
architecture
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – pore≠je Luge; kamena doba; kultura glavni≠aste keramike; koncentracija najdb;
vkopana hi∏a; arhitektura
Od koncentracije najdb do kamenodobne arhitekture>
vkopana hi[a na najdi[;u Lommi III v severozahodni Rusiji
DOI> 10.4312\dp.48.17
From a concentration of finds to Stone Age architecture> the Lommi III pit-house in Northwestern Russia
83
There are very few exceptions for Palaeolithic peri-
od from different parts of the World (Pidoplichko
1969.Fig. 58; Marshack 1979.290; Svoboda 1997.
Fig. 8; Olenkovskiy 2000.376; García-Diez, Vaquero
2015).  However, not a single image of the dwellings
of the Stone Age hunter-gatherer societies of the Eu-
ropean forest zone is known.
Folk dwellings, as can be seen from ethnographic
data (Popov 1961; Hole, Heizer 1973.112), can be
very diverse depending on natural conditions, his-
torical period, lifestyle of the residents and building
traditions. At the same time, although building re-
mains from archaeological contexts are relatively
numerous, the data are mostly limited in the archi-
tectural sense and the level of detail. We subscribe
here to the idea that from an archaeological point of
view a dwelling is a set of archaeological materials
with certain boundaries and a way of accumulation;
quite often a dwelling can only be identified as an
artificially allocated or transformed natural space
that can accommodate at least one person, in short,
often just the floor of the dwelling can be found (Bo-
riskovskiy 1958.4; Grigorjev 1974.12; Rogachev,
Anikovich 1984.189; Grøn 2003.686–688; Leonova
2004.66).
The main architectural remains, destroyed and de-
cayed structural elements are usually not preserved
in the sandy soils of the Stone Age sites in the Euro-
pean forest zone without special conditions (such
as wetlands or other kinds of anaerobic soils, burn-
ing of wooden elements or clay daub, etc.). Some-
times only post holes, stones or ash and charcoal
spots can indicate the location and existence of an
ancient dwelling (Loze 1979.55–60; 1988; Zhulni-
kov 2003.20; Leonova 2004; Khrustaleva 2017).
Often, however, only concentrations of artefacts or,
vice versa, empty zones can indicate the presence of
settlement features (Pesonen 2002.11; Zhulnikov
2003.19; Gelhausen et al. 2009; Larsson, Sjöström
2013.506–508; Kriiska et al. 2016; Rostedt, Kri-
iska 2019.18). The high quality of the excavations
and the documentation required for such an analy-
sis are usually only achieved through modern exca-
vations. However, archival data may also provide
new discoveries for some studies conducted decades
ago.
The results of the revision of the archival data of the
Stone Age settlement site Lommi III, located in In-
gria (Leningrad Region, northwestern Russia) and
excavated by Richard Indreko in 1940 (at that time
this territory was part of Estonia), can also be called
a discovery. When working with the materials from
this site, attention was drawn to a rather expressive
concentration of artefacts marked on field drawings,
both on the horizontal plan and on the stratigraphic
section of one of the excavation areas. The size and
shape of this concentration suggested a structure
that had divided space and limited the distribution
of cultural remains. All this indicated the presence
of a pit-house that Indreko had discovered without
even realising it. After excavating in the area that is
at the heart of our paper, he wrote in his field report:
“To see how widespread the finds are, and also
partly in search of a dwelling, 5 small test pits
were dug in different places on the right bank of
the Notika River…” (Indreko 1940.6). As the quote
suggests, Indreko went to look for a dwelling else-
where, but the quality of his field documentation,
which is very high for its era, allows for a new ana-
lysis using modern knowledge and methods.
This discovery determined the purpose of our work
– to analyse the materials of the settlement site and
substantiate the presence of the dwelling remains,
and, if possible, establish its function and construc-
tion details. The methodological basis of the study
includes spatial and comparative-typological analy-
sis and analysis of the proportions of raw materials
used, as well as radiocarbon (AMS) dating of burnt
animal bones and organic crust on pottery frag-
ments. In addition to an overview of the general con-
text of contemporaneous settlement sites, this work
also prompted us to delve into the theoretical dis-
course on the history and methods of studying Stone
Age pit-houses in a larger territory and broader chro-
nology.
Lommi III settlement site
Lommi Stone Age settlement sites (named after a
now lost village) are located on the banks of the
small River Notika, a left tributary of the Luga River
in Ingria, near the Gulf of Finland of the Baltic Sea.
The area is a coastal lowland bounded in the south
and east by the Cambrian and Ordovician bedrocks
(Baltic Klint) and located on the border of Estonia
and Russia (Fig. 1.1). Two major rivers, Narva and
Luga, flow through the lowlands and numerous dif-
ferent coastal landforms of Middle and Late Holo-
cene are preserved in the area (Rosentau et al. 2013).
Nearly a hundred archaeological sites, mostly Stone
Age settlements (Fig. 1. 2), have been discovered in
the basins of the two rivers during a century of re-
search (Kriiska 1996a; Kriiska et al. 2016b; Gera-
simov et al. 2019).
Fig. 1. Location of the re-
search area: 1 Narva-Luga
interfluve (red rectangle) on
the map of the Eastern Bal-
tic; 2 Stone Age sites known
in the Narva-Luga interfluve
(after Kriiska et al. 2016; Ge-
rasimov 2019; amended by
the authors), red dots mark
the settlement sites of the
Comb Ware culture: 1 Narva
Joaorg; 2 Vasa; 3–19 Riigi-
küla I–XVII; 20 Viljapea; 21–
25 Narva-Jõesuu I–IV; 26
Venkul (Väiküla); 27–29
Lommi I–III; 30–34 Izvoz 2–
6; 35 Keykino; 36–52 Rosson
1–16; 53–54 Väike-Ropsu 6–
7; 55–59 Väike-Ropsu 1–5;
60 Kuzemkino 3; 61–63 Ku-
zemkino 5–7; 64–66 Kuzemkino 1, 2, and 4; 67 Strupovo; 68–74 Galik 3, 4, and 6–10; 75 Kurovitsy 7;
76 Kurovitsy 1; 77–78 Kurovitsy 4 and 8; 79–82 Kurovitsy 2, 3, 5, and 6. 3 location of Lommi settlement
sites (after: Map AI 4-1-51-1-1= Narvataguse khk. Lommi kl. kammkeraamilise kult. asulakoha ümbrus-
konna plaan. Kaevamised R. Indreko 1940. a. 1–19.VII. AI 4-1-51-1-1. Drawing in the Archaeological Re-
search Collection of the University of Tallinn, Estonia), red dot – Lommi III.
Irina Khrustaleva, Aivar Kriiska
84
The story of the discovery of the Stone Age settle-
ment sites in Lommi began in the winter of 1939
with a careful border guard who found potsherds
and flint artefacts from the gravel transported to
build a road near the cordon. He interviewed the
transporters, stopped the gravel quarrying and sent
the finds to the head of the border guards, who in
turn took them to the Narva Museum (Soom 1939;
Indreko 1940). In October of the same year, the di-
rector of the Narva Museum visited the place toge-
ther with the border guard and collected Stone Age
artefacts from both banks of the Notika River (Soom
1939). Finds and documentation of field observa-
tions were sent to the Institute of Archaeology of the
University of Tartu (Soom 1939; Indreko 1940). Af-
ter that, Richard Indreko of the University of Tartu
conducted an inspection and excavations at the site
from 1 to 19 July 1940. In addition to the leader, six
other people took part in the expedition. The field
report (Indreko 1940), which has not been complet-
ed and does not contain any photos, shows the en-
suing war (Fig. 2). This naturally affected all archaeo-
logical work in Europe as a whole, and for Indreko
personally ended with emigration from Estonia (Jo-
hanson, Tõrv 2013). He published the results of the
excavations only after the Second World War (In-
dreko 1948; 1964).
Indreko provided general information and a map of
the locations of the discovered sites. Two of them
were situated on the left bank of the Notika River,
in the territory of the former farms of Männimetsa/
Passi (Lommi I) and Saare/E. Hämäläinen (Lommi
II). The Lommi III site was located on the right bank
of the Notika, opposite Lommi II. The modern river-
bed was formed later and partially destroyed the
settlements, as indicated by the Stone Age finds (in-
cluding potsherds) from the Notika River (Indreko
1940.3). Full-scale excavations were conducted at
Lommi III (Fig. 1.3). The find assemblage of more
than 150 excavated square meters included pot-
sherds, flint artefacts, whetstones, stone and amber
ornaments and clay figurines (the finds are stored
in the Archaeological Research Collection of the
University of Tallinn, Estonia; collection number AI
3867). Indreko associated all the excavated materi-
als with the Comb Ware culture, and suggested that
the cultural layer had developed ‘simultaneously’
(Indreko 1940.6; 1948.299); currently the Comb
Ware culture in Estonia is divided into two parts, the
Typical and Late Comb Ware culture, dating 3900–
3500 cal BC and 3500–1750 cal BC respectively (Kri-
iska et al. 2020.Fig. 1).
Later, only minor fieldwork was done in Lommi. In
1952, Nina Gurina from the Institute of Archaeology
(Leningrad, USSR) surveyed the area and made two
test trenches measuring 2x2m on the left bank of
the Notika River (Gurina 1961). This was the terri-
tory of the Lommi I or II site, as became apparent
after the recent detailed revision of her fieldwork
plans and written site descriptions. However, Gurina
From a concentration of finds to Stone Age architecture> the Lommi III pit-house in Northwestern Russia
85
seems to have assumed that
this was site III, as she includ-
ed it in the general context of
artefacts found by Indreko in
Lommi III. Gurina also de-
scribed the stratigraphy of the
site, but it is not clear from
her text which finds were di-
rectly made in the test tren-
ches (at least part of the finds
is kept in the Kingisepp Mu-
seum of History and Local Lo-
re, Russia). She dated the set-
tlement site to the ‘advanced
Neolithic’ (Gurina 1961.412).
The Lommi I settlement site
was again localised in 2011
by Dmitry Gerasimov (Peter
the Great Museum of Anthro-
pology and Ethnography, the
Kunstkamera; St. Petersburg,
Russia) and Aivar Kriiska. Ar-
chaeological finds (Comb Wa-
re sherds and a few bone frag-
ments) were collected from
the surface of a small sandy
hillock (Gerasimov 2019.
183). A fragment of Estonian
Corded Ware (2800–2000 cal
BC; Kriiska et al. 2020.Fig. 1)
was also discovered, indicat-
ing that the same places by
the Notika River were used at
the end of the Stone Age as
well.
To summarize, only Indreko
conducted a full-scale excava-
tion at the Lommi III settle-
ment site during one season.
He opened two large areas
east of the gravel pit from
which the artefacts collected by the border guard
came, and also dug five test pits and a trench with
a total area of probably only a few square meters
(Indreko 1940). Unfortunately, some parts of the
documentation were lost during World War II, in-
cluding the general plan of the excavations. Plans
are only available for two large excavation areas,
but their spatial relationship to each other is un-
clear. The larger excavation area was 128m2, and
the second area of 24m2 was apparently located to
the west of it. The excavation and documentation
methods were very precise, but since sieving was
not practiced in those days some of the small items
were obviously overlooked. Most of the artefacts
were collected individually, in some cases small
groups were recovered from a single location. Each
of them got its own number and was drawn on ho-
rizontal and vertical plans; thus, all finds have a do-
cumented three-dimensional position.
This paper focuses only on the large excavation area,
and especially its northern part, where the concen-
Fig. 2. The only surviving photo from the excavations of Lommi was
published in Estonian newspapers on July 12, 1940 (4500-aastane asula
Narva taga. Maa Hääl: maarahva ajaleht, 80, 12 juuli 1940). On Septem-
ber 29, 1950 (as indicated by a stamp faintly visible in place of text cut
out from a newspaper article, kept in the Archaeological Research Col-
lection of the University of Tallinn, Estonia), history was corrected with
the ‘Soviet method’ – part of the text was completely cut out, and the
name of Richard Indreko, together with the words ‘near the border’ and
‘border guard’ were painted over with black ink, because after the war
this border area of the Republic of Estonia was annexed to the Russian
Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and because Indreko had become
“an enemy of the people” due to his escape to the ‘West’.
Irina Khrustaleva, Aivar Kriiska
86
tration of finds that initially caught our attention is
located (Fig. 3). We analysed the artefacts drawn on
the plans (401 numbers, 1538 items; more than 95%
of all finds from this area), but without other docu-
mentation it is impossible to localize the rest. All of
these artefacts were found in situ, with the excep-
tion of the gravel pit edge in the northeastern part
of the area.
At the time of Indreko’s fieldwork, a thin layer of
moss covered the entire study area. Beneath it a
sandy cultural layer, intersected by lenses of dark
sand of varying thickness. The upper part of the la-
yer also contained lenses of ash along with occasio-
nal charcoal pieces (thickness c. 0.1–0.3m). The base
layer consisted of white-greenish sand. The upper
part of the cultural layer was mixed to a depth of
about 0.1m and, in addition to the Stone Age finds,
also contained nails, bullets and cartridge cases. Finds
from the cultural layer were made up to a depth of
1.15m from the surface at that time. According to
the lithological layers drawn on the horizontal plans,
the main artefact concentration, visually estimated,
is mainly associated with the dark sand and ash la-
yers, the boundaries of which cannot be clearly out-
lined on the horizontal level (Fig. 4.1). In the strati-
graphic section, however, the inter-layered dark
sands and ash spots quite clearly stand out against
the background of other layers (Fig. 4.2). Still, it is
difficult to determine what these ‘ash’ layers actual-
ly mean in Indreko’s documentation: was it a descrip-
tion of a colour (gray as ash) or did it mean inclu-
sions of charcoal pieces? We suppose that it meant
the presence of charcoal, since there are quite a few
pieces of it present in the find collection. However,
it cannot be unambiguously confirmed whether they
are related to Stone Age activities at the site.
Methods
The methodological basis of the study includes spa-
tial and comparative-typological analysis and analy-
sis of the proportions of raw materials used, as well
as radiocarbon (AMS) dating of burnt animal bones
and organic crust on pottery fragments. Plans of the
horizontal and vertical distribution of lithological lay-
ers, finds and archaeological features drawn on pa-
per were digitized using the AutoCAD 2013 Auto-
desk Software. The coordinates (x, y, z) of all arte-
facts were determined according to their position on
the drawings and recorded together with their de-
scription in a table. This enabled further easy mani-
pulation of this data in three-dimensional space using
the computer programs AutoCAD 2013 Autodesk
Software and Surfer 11 Golden Software. Spatial ana-
lysis (see Binford 1972; Hodder, Orton 1979; Blank-
holm 1991; Lancelotti et al. 2017) was the main me-
thod for substantiating the presence of dwelling re-
mains at the site and determining its outlines.
All finds were classified and their raw material, type,
size (stone artefacts) and weight (flint items) re-
corded. The composition of the admixture added to
the moulding clay mass was determined visually for
potsherds. To investigate the homogeneity of the
cultural layer and determine the relationship of fea-
tures at the settlement site, the links between stone
finds made from the same raw material were traced.
To establish the age of the settlement site, radiocar-
bon dates were obtained from burnt animal bones
and organic crusts on pottery fragments. The sam-
ples were dated by the acceleration mass spectro-
metry (AMS) technique at the Kiel Leibniz-Labora-
tory for Radiometric Dating and Isotope Research
(KIA), the Beta Analytic Testing Laboratory (Beta)
and the Poznań Radiocarbon Laboratory (Poz). The
obtained dates were calibrated using the OxCal 4.4.2
program (Bronk Ramsey 2020) with the IntCal 20
atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2020).
Results
Most finds from the large excavation area (Fig. 5)
are pottery sherds (1331 pcs), flint tools, blanks and
production waste (150 pcs) and sandstone whet-
stones (34 pcs); the absence of micro debris noted
in the course of the analysis is likely the result of
the lack of sieving during excavations. Pottery is re-
presented by sherds of Typical Comb Ware, both
with mineral and organic admixture, two fragments
can be associated with Narva Ware (typo-chrono-
logical date in Estonia and Ingria 5200–3900 cal BC;
Kriiska et al. 2017.77).
The main concentration of finds includes 1236 arte-
facts (80% of all finds from this excavation area;
Table 1). It is located in the northern part of the ex-
cavation, rectangular in shape and c. 7.1x4.4m in
size. The finds reach a depth of 0.7–0.75m from the
ground surface of that time, with most artefacts
found at a depth of 0.2m to 0.7m. In the northeast-
ern corner of this concentration, more than 680
finds have been recorded under one number (AI
3867:51). As can be seen on the plan (Fig. 3.1), this
part was disturbed by a later (gravel?) pit and it can
be assumed that this number includes all the finds
collected from this pit during excavations.
From a concentration of finds to Stone Age architecture> the Lommi III pit-house in Northwestern Russia
87
Fig. 3. Lommi III, the large excavation area. All artefact finds measured during excavations drawn on
the plans. 1 Horizontal projection, the red lines show the positions of vertical sections; a gray oval drawn
in pencil in the northern part of the excavation area marks a probable gravel pit (Plan of finds AI 4-1-
51-1-11 = Kiviaja asula kaevamisala leidude plaan. Narvataguse khk. Narva vld. Lommi kl. E. Hämäläi-
nen’i (Saare) tl. maal Notika jõe kaldal 1–19.VII.1940. AI 4-1-51-1-11. Drawing in the archaeological Re-
search Collection of the University of Tallinn, Estonia ). 2 Vertical section (Composite profile AI 4-1-51-1-4
= Läbilõige ühes leidudega kaevamisalast kiviaja asulal Narvataguse khk. Narva vld. Lommi kl. E. Hämä-
läinen’i (Saare) tl. maal Notika jõe kaldal 1–19.VII.1940. AI 4-1-51-1-4. Drawing in the Archaeological Re-
search Collection of the University of Tallinn, Estonia ).
Irina Khrustaleva, Aivar Kriiska
88
Fig. 4. Lommi III, the large excavation area. Lithological layers drawn on the plans. 1 Horizontal projec-
tion, level of the third layer (0.25–0.3m) (Layer III AI 4-1-51-1-8 = Kiviaja asula kaevamisala kihi plaan.
narvataguse khk. Narva vld. Lommi kl. Notika jõe kaldal 1–19.VII.1940. Kiht III (25–30 (40) sm. süg.).
AI 4-1-51-1-8. Drawing in the Archaeological Research Collection of the University of Tallinn, Estonia), the
red lines show the positions of vertical sections. 2 Vertical projection (Composite profile AI 4-1-51-1-5 =
Läbilõige ühes leidudega kaevamisalast kiviaja asulal Narvataguse khk. Narva vld. Lommi kl. E. Hämä-
läinen’i (Saare) tl. maal Notika jõe kaldal 1–19.VII.1940. AI 4-1-51-1-5. Drawing in the Archaeological Re-
search Collection of the University of Tallinn, Estonia).
From a concentration of finds to Stone Age architecture> the Lommi III pit-house in Northwestern Russia
89
Among the artefacts from the main concentration
are 1118 potsherds. Of these, 63% are Typical Comb
Ware with mineral admixture (Fig. 6.1 and 3) and
36% Typical Comb Ware with organic admixture
(Fig. 6.2), less than 1% can be classified as Narva
Ware. In addition to pottery, one small clay lump
with a pit (‘figurine’) was found (Fig. 6.4). The Ty-
pical Comb Ware vessels have round or pointed bot-
toms, are weakly profiled and often large (according
to the measurable fragments found in the settlement,
the volume could reach 43 litres; Kriiska 1995.Tab.
4). They are made of iron-rich clays (Kriiska 1996b.
377) and crushed rock debris of the granite-gneiss
group (the main minerals are quartz, feldspar and
biotite) and, in individual cases, grog (probably
crushed pottery), are present as mineral admixtures
(Kriiska 1996; 2008.198). Organic admixture is re-
presented by burnt-away pieces of crushed plant.
Most of the potsherds have some decoration indi-
cating that often the entire surface of the vessels
was ornamented. Decoration elements include comb
stamp impressions, pits and notches, which are com-
bined in different motifs and often located in hori-
zontal zones (Kriiska 1995.83, 91).
Most of the 80 artefacts of Carboniferous flint found
from the main concentration were of material with
a distinctive purple and pink tint. The total weight
of these finds is 239.5g, 44.5% of the weight of all
flint from the excavation. The assemblage includes
one double-platform core for blades and flakes (Fig.
6.6) and one fragment of a blade core that was re-
touched into a scraper (Fig. 6.5), but flakes, blades
and various tools, such as bifacial arrowheads (Fig.
6.7) and blanks of arrowheads (Fig. 6.8), scrapers
(Fig. 6.9), points, and retouched flakes and blades
were also found (Tab. 1). Items made of other types
of stone, mainly sandstones and slates, are repre-
sented by whetstones of different shapes and sizes
and with intensive traces of abrasion (Fig. 6.10,11),
fragments of polished tools (Fig. 6.12), fragments of
undefined tools, as well as stones with no traces of
processing. In addition, a flat slate pendant (Fig. 6.
14), an amber bead (Fig. 6.13) and only one frag-
ment of burnt animal bone were found in this con-
centration.
The concentration of artefacts, its shape and size ob-
viously indicate the remains of a settlement struc-
ture (building). The composition and diversity of
the finds are similar to the assemblages commonly
encountered in dwellings of the Comb Ware and
contemporary cultures from the neighbouring ter-
ritories (Foss 1940.35; Karjalainen 2002; Miettinen
2002.142–144; Zhulnikov 2003.Tab. 9). Judging by
the concentration of artefacts, the depth of the pit,
its regular geometric shape and vertical walls, the
feature can therefore only be interpreted as the re-
mains of a pit-house (Fig. 7). Its horizontal and verti-
cal boundaries are most clearly marked with whet-
stones (Fig. 7), but the distribution of artefacts and
different artefact types does not allow determining
the internal structure of the pit-house or revealing
any specific activity areas. Despite the alternation of
zones with a high density of finds and zones with-
out finds, there is no specific pattern in the distribu-
tion of artefacts within this concentration; rather,
they are distributed over it relatively unevenly. The
finds at the bottom level were mainly sherds of
Typical Comb Ware with mineral admixture, flint
and some other stone flakes, as well as the amber
bead (Fig. 7). Higher up, all other artefact categories
Tab. 1. Find material from the main concentration
of artefacts (i.e. filling of the supposed pit-house).
Artefact category Number, % (pcs) of finds of the
pcs same category in the
large excavation area
Pottery> 1118 84
Mineral-tempered
Typical Comb Ware
709 91
Organic-tempered
Typical Comb Ware
407 74
Narva Ware 2 100
Flint> 80 53
Flakes 39 48
Blades 5 36
Cores 2 67
Tools> 34 64
Scrapers 11 46
Retouched flakes
(or fragments)
11 85
Bifacial arrowheads 3 50
Blanks of arrowhead 3 100
Retouched blades
(or fragments)
3 100
Points 2 100
Bifacial tool 1 100
Other stone items> 34 67
Whetstones 24 71
Fragments of
polished tools
3
Fragments of stone tools 5
Stones without
processing
2
Other finds> 3
Slate pendant 1
Clay lump 1
Amber bead 1
Burnt bone 1 100
TOTAL 1236 80
Irina Khrustaleva, Aivar Kriiska
90
Fig. 5. Lommi III, the large excavation area. Horizontal distribution of artefacts, the black solid line
shows the limits of the main concentration. The size of the symbols depends on the number of artefacts
recorded with the same number.
were found together, including Typical Comb Ware
with various admixtures.
Tracing links between artefacts based on their raw
material was not carried out systematically for Lom-
mi III, and only items and materials that could more
or less easily be identified by the naked eye when
classifying finds were studied. They include various
flint raw materials of a specific colour combination
or containing visually identifiable inclusions and
fragments of sandstone slabs, differing in their struc-
ture and thickness. No pottery was studied, with the
exception of fragments of one ‘mini-pot’, which
strongly stood out from the other material due to its
From a concentration of finds to Stone Age architecture> the Lommi III pit-house in Northwestern Russia
91
size and ornamentation. As a result, a few link chains
were distinguished: three of them for flint artefacts
(consisting of four, five and eight items), one for
sandstone whetstones (consisting of four fragments)
and one for pottery (two fragments). Only two whet-
stone fragments could be refitted into one item, and
these were found close to each other in the south-
eastern corner of the pit-house. Raw material links
between artefacts found inside the concentration, in-
and outside of it and in other excavation areas can
be traced. In vertical projection all items from each
chain of links lay mostly in similar elevations. How-
ever, it cannot be proven that the whole excavated
part of the settlement site would have been occu-
pied only once and at the same time (for discussion
on the same topic, see Kravtsov, Zhilin 1995.138;
Grøn 1998.12).
Outside the pit-house remains, finds are spread ir-
regularly and only small accumulations can be dis-
tinguished. Some of these find concentrations could
also be settlement features, such as pits or fireplaces,
but their nature can no longer be confirmed due to
a lack of documentation.
To solve the chronology of the site, radiocarbon
dates were obtained from two burnt bones found
in different parts of the second (smaller) excavation
area and from crust on two Typical Comb Ware pot-
tery fragments with mineral admixture found in the
pit-house. Unfortunately, most of the numerous pie-
ces of charcoal and burnt bones included in the as-
semblage are from unclear contexts or too small for
analysis (for example, the single fragment of bone
originating in the pit-house). The first date obtained
from a burnt animal bone (large mammal, AI 3867:
436) gave an age 4784–4552 cal BC (5820±30 BP,
Beta-309096, first published by Rosentau et al. 2013.
Tab. 2; all dates are given with 95.4% probability),
and the second one (ringed seal, AI 3867:285) 4454–
4352 cal BC (5578±26 BP, KIA-55278, from apatite).
The crusts on two Typical Comb Ware fragments gave
ages 3946–3642 cal BC and 3948–3661 cal BC
(4970±70 BP, Poz-133669, and 5020±40 BP, Poz-
133186).
Discussion
As it was documented in several cases in Estonia and
Finland (e.g., Pesonen 2004.90; Kriiska, Nordqvist
2012.30; Khrustaleva et al. 2020.14), both admix-
tures mineral and the organic were used in the pro-
duction of Typical and Late Comb Ware. Based on
this knowledge and on the similarity of ornamenta-
tion, there is no reason to see different pottery types
according to the admixture at the Lommi III settle-
ment site (c. 64% of mineral-tempered sherds and
36% of organic-tempered sherds). Along with the
Riigiküla II site materials (3765–3532 cal BC, Kri-
iska et al. 2016.76) in the lower reach of the Narva
River, it rather indicates that the coexistence of two
types of admixture began relatively fast during the
early stage of Typical Comb Ware.  One of the main
lithic raw materials of the Comb Ware culture was
flint. It predominated in Estonia and was also pre-
sent in Finland, sometimes in significant amounts, at
the sites with Typical Comb Ware, while at the Late
Comb Ware site its amount significantly decreased
(Kriiska, Rappu 2008.18–19; Mökkönen, Nordqvist
2016; Mökkönen et al. 2017.182; Kriiska et al.
2020.124). The closest natural sources of flint for the
Lommi sites are in eastern Estonia (Silurian flint), in
the southeastern part of the Novgorod Region in Rus-
sia (Valday Hills area; Carboniferous flint) and in
Fig. 6. Lommi III, exam-
ples of artefacts from the
main concentration: 1
Comb Ware fragment
with mineral admixture
(AI 3867:28); 2 Comb
Ware fragment with or-
ganic admixture (AI
3867:140); 3 fragment
of a ‘mini-pot’ (AI 3867:
51); 4 clay lump with a
pit (‘figurine’; AI 3867:
51); 5–6 flint cores (AI
3867:143, 12); 7 bifacial
flint arrowhead (AI 3867:
94); 8 broken blank of a
bifacial flint arrowhead
(AI 3867:33); 9 flint scraper (AI 3867:104); 10–11 sandstone whetstones (AI 3867:105, 148); 12 fragment
of a polished tool of metatuff (AI 3867:115); 13 amber bead (AI 3867:242); 14 slate pendant (AI 3867:43).
Irina Khrustaleva, Aivar Kriiska
92
southern Lithuania and Belarus (Cretaceous flint)
(Galibin, Timofeev 1993; Baltrūnas et al. 2006; Kri-
iska et al. 2018.37). In Lommi III, flint makes up
more than 70% of all the lithics, and the specific Car-
boniferous variant with a characteristic purple and
pink tint from the Valday Hills prevails. At the other
sites, the composition of different flints varies, but
often predominately Carboniferous and to a lesser
degree Silurian and Cretaceous flint are present.
Carboniferous flint from Estonian and Ingrian sites
varies in colour and quality, reflecting the different
sources of raw material used at different sites. How-
ever, we cannot assume that there were permanent
contacts between the inhabitants of the Comb Ware
culture settlements in our area and some specific
‘suppliers’ of any particular type of natural flint, be-
cause a one-time arrival of raw materials to the site
is also a real possibility. For example, at the large ex-
cavation area of Lommi III, 150 flint items with a to-
tal weight of only 550g were discovered. Usually
micro debris make up a large percentage of flint
finds, nevertheless, even if we multiply the current
quantity several times, the weight of the flint raw
material remains within the limits that could be
brought to the site during one episode.
The earliest radiocarbon dates obtained from bones
correlate with the time of Narva culture (Kriiska et
al. 2017) and probably point to the first habitation
phase of the Lommi III settlement site, which is also
indicated by the few fragments of Narva Ware (Kri-
iska 1995.60). These two pieces of Narva Ware re-
vealed in the large excavation area, both in the pit-
house, indicate that the Typical Comb Ware dwelling
was dug through a layer containing some earlier ar-
tefacts. Moreover, their small number does not call
into question the assignment of the remaining ma-
terial to the context of the Comb Ware culture. Ra-
diocarbon dates obtained from organic crust on the
Comb Ware sherds with mineral admixture togeth-
er gave an age of 3948–3642 cal BC. Lipid analysis
(going to be published elsewhere) of both dated
Fig. 7. Lommi III, horizontal and vertical outlines of the pit-house, drawn according to the concentration
of artefacts. The size of the symbols on the horizontal plan depends on the amount of artefacts recorded
with the same number. A–A’ projection of all artefacts onto the northern ‘wall’ of the pit-house and B–B’
projection of all artefacts onto the eastern ‘wall’. Artefacts without elevation data were excluded from ver-
tical projections.
From a concentration of finds to Stone Age architecture> the Lommi III pit-house in Northwestern Russia
93
fragments showed that the crust does not contain
aquatic markers (pers. com. Ester Oras, 29 June
2021). Therefore, we have no reason to suspect the
existence of a reservoir effect in the obtained dates,
which are also not inconsistent with the archaeolo-
gical material of the southern shore of the Gulf of
Finland. The predominance of mineral-tempered pot-
tery and the use of flint raw material may indicate
the earlier phase of the Comb Ware culture, as the
settlements of the late 4th millennium cal BC are
already dominated organic-tempered pottery and
quartz is the main material compared to flint (Kada-
kas et al. 2010.35,  37; Khrustaleva et al. 2020.14;
Kriiska et al. 2020.126).
Prior knowledge and preconceptions play an impor-
tant role in archaeological discoveries and interpre-
tations, because much depends on the personal ex-
perience of the archaeologist, on what one has en-
countered during earlier excavations, what one has
read or heard about and what one is ‘ready to see’
(for a discussion of the same question regarding the
study of Stone Age architecture, see e.g., Seitsonen
2006.141; Fretheim 2017.17). This can probably ex-
plain the fact that Indreko did not recognise the pit-
house in Lommi III, since according to the main ideas
of that time huts with a tent-like construction were
supposed to exist during the Stone Age in the Baltic
region (Pälsi 1918.28–31; Indreko 1932.216–217;
see also Johanson et al. 2013.108–109). According
to Indreko (1937.103,105), Stone Age houses had
parallels even in the Estonian folk architecture,
where “the rudiment [of the houses] has been pre-
served to this day as an outdoor kitchen, especial-
ly on the islands and in coastal areas, where they
are mostly conical structures of stacked stakes”,
and in the architecture of modern Siberian peoples
like ‘Voguls, Ostyaks, etc.’ (modern names Mansi and
Khanty, see Indreko 1937.103, 105). Lommi III is
not the first example of the discovery of a Stone Age
dwelling decades after its excavation in eastern and
northern Europe (Rogachev, Anikovich 1984.190;
Pesonen 2002.16; Seitsonen 2006; Fretheim 2017.
17).
Nowadays the main field methodology of studying
Stone Age settlement sites consists of careful exca-
vation, observation of lithological layers, analysis of
the stratigraphic situation and detailed documenta-
tion of all objects and features of the cultural layer.
However, the methods used at different sites vary,
and not all information extraction possibilities are
used everywhere. Field methodology has changed
mainly with the development of post-excavation in-
formation processing technologies and methods.
Among the methods used to uncover and study
Stone Age architecture, the most important are spa-
tial analysis (using visual or various statistical and
three-dimensional computer visualization and mod-
elling methods) and refitting analysis (Grøn 1995.
5–11; 1998; Katiskoski 2002; Halinen et al. 2008.
257; Gelhausen et al. 2009). Since all of these me-
thods started to develop gradually only from the
1960s on, the materials from old excavations are of-
ten unsuitable or only partially suitable for such ana-
lyses (Leonova 2004.63; Larionova 2019), because
the documentation does not contain enough data.
The main difficulty in studying Stone Age architec-
ture is the discovery and interpretation of its re-
mains. Most pit-houses can easily be found during
excavations due to the depressions (sunken house
floors filled with cultural layer) visible at the natu-
ral lithological level, and in some regions the house
depressions can be observed even in the modern
landscape, although there are variations. More than
100 years of research into Stone Age architecture in
eastern and northern Europe has gradually accumu-
lated knowledge, but the process has been slow and
irregular (for a more detailed research history see
Bryusov 1959; Loze 1978; Gurina 1996a.141, 143;
1996b.150; Karjalainen 1996.75–80; Pesonen 2002;
Zhulnikov 2003; Leonova 2004; Norberg 2008; Mök-
könen 2011; Zimina 2014). From published ac-
counts on Stone Age pit-houses, it can be concluded
that the first were excavated in the first quarter of
the 20th century on the East European Plain (Gorodt-
sov 1914) and in Finland (Itkonen 1913.3–4; Pälsi
1918; 1920.45,105; Europaeus 1922.67–68; Tanner
1929.13–15). However, research interest in these
objects increased mainly after the 1980s, although
there were also a few earlier waves of research in
the 1950s and 1970s (Pesonen 2002.Tab. 2; Zhulni-
kov 2003.5; Norberg 2008.Fig. 2.3; Fretheim 2017.
Fig. 1.3).
The distribution of discovered pit-houses in eastern
and northern Europe is uneven. Thousands of dwel-
ling depressions visible in the modern landscape are
known in Scandinavia (Norberg 2008.16, Fig. 6.1),
Finland and the Karelian Republic of Russia (Peso-
nen 2002.14; Zhulnikov 2003.Tab. 1), while in the
territory of the Baltic countries and in the northern
part of the European Russia to the Middle Volga re-
gion pit-houses have been discovered only during
excavations. According to published data and ex-
cluding the pit-houses of Scandinavia, more than 350
buildings have been excavated in this area, includ-
Irina Khrustaleva, Aivar Kriiska
94
ing over 310 in Finland, Karelia and the Baltic coun-
tries (Gurina 1967.22–30; Girininkas 1994.212;
Ostrauskas 2001.180–181; Pesonen 2002.14, 30–
31; Zhulnikov 2003; Filatova 2004.23–50; Grasis
2010; Juodagalvis 2016.71, Figs. 8, 9; Marcinkevi-
≠iūtė 2016.61–63; πatavi≠ius 2016.27, 32, 37–38;
Kriiska et al. 2016; Rostedt, Kriiska 2019; Khru-
staleva et al. 2020) and about 40 in the forested
part of western area of European Russia (excluding
Karelia) (Oshibkina 1978.106–107; Koltsov 1985;
Vereschagina et al. 1995; Koltsov, Zhilin 1999.11–
44; Polkovnikova 2003; Leonova 2004; Mazurke-
vich et al. 2012; Zimina 2014; Khrustaleva 2016).
The earliest pit-house is dated to the Late Palaeoli-
thic (πatavi≠ius 2016.27), and this form of architec-
ture was used throughout the Stone Age (Grasis
2010.61–62; Kriiska et al. 2016.23–24). However,
of the more than 220 pit-houses that can be dated
to the 4th and 3rd millennia cal BC in the territory
of Finland, Karelia and the Baltic countries, over
150 are associated with the Comb Ware culture and
its contemporaries (Pesonen 2002.Tab. 5; Zhulni-
kov 2003.Tab. 2; Khrustaleva et al. 2020).
Stone Age pit-houses are rare finds, especially in Esto-
nia and Ingria, where only nine of them are known
and associated with different cultures (Khrustaleva
et al. 2020). Of the 91 known settlements of the
Comb Ware culture in this area (Gerasimov 2019;
Sikk et al. 2020.93), the remains of a dwelling were
only revealed at one other site besides Lommi III,
namely at the Jägala Jõesuu V site in northern Esto-
nia. Here, too, the pit-house had an almost rectangu-
lar shape and contained the main concentration of
the site’s artefacts inside. In addition, at the Riigikü-
la I settlement site in northeastern Estonia, some
settlement structures of the Comb Ware culture are
known, but their construction cannot be distin-
guished (Khrustaleva et al. 2019).
The distribution area of Comb Ware and contempo-
rary cultures discussed here covers Finland, the Ka-
relian Republic and the Pskov, Novgorod and Lenin-
grad Regions in Russia, Estonia, Latvia, as well as the
northern parts of Lithuania and Belarus (see Kriiska
et al. 2020.Fig. 25). The pit-houses of these cultures
are currently known mainly in areas north and
northeast of the northern coast of Estonia. They are
usually rectangular or rarely square in shape, with an
average size of 20–50m2 (although some can reach
80m2) and a depth of 0.2–0.6m, and are often sur-
rounded by an embankment of sand dug from the
house pit (Halén 1996.284; Ojanlatva, Alakärppä
2002; Pesonen 2002.27–31; Zhulnikov 2003.56–57,
Tab. 4; Mökkönen 2009). For Karelian and Finnish
pit-house sites, the most typical locations are shel-
tered places on the lake shores or along the sea bays
of the Finnish Ostrobothnia (Kankaanpää 2002.
66; Mökkönen 2002; 2009.143–145; Zhulnikov
2003.53; Seitsonen 2006.142; Nordqvist, Lavento
2008.155), and the known sites in Estonia are also
connected to the shores of the bays (Khrustaleva et
al. 2020.15). Lommi III is also located on the coast
of the Litorina Sea, along a lagoon and possibly on
the bank of a small river that flowed into it (Rosen-
tau et al. 2013.Fig. 7; the Litorina phase of the Bal-
tic Sea dates back to 7800–2500 cal BC).
The Fennoscandian pit-houses mainly correlate with
the main find concentration in these settlement sites
(Boaz 1999.135; Grøn 2003.692), and this is also
true for Lommi III. In some pit-houses, most of the
finds are concentrated along the walls (Zhulnikov
2003.54). Usually micro debris (first of all, flint or
quartz and bone) is the best indicator of the dwel-
ling floor in both horizontal and vertical projection
(Grøn 1995.34; Ojanlatva, Alakärppä 2002.116),
but this material is missing in Lommi. The elevation
of the artefacts in the Lommi III pit-house is not tied
to any particular level, they are almost evenly dis-
tributed throughout its entire filling. This may indi-
cate a long lifespan of the pit-house, during which
repeated living and cleaning episodes could have
contributed to the formation of floor fillings. In nu-
merous other cases, the finds correlate only with the
bottom level, as documented, for example, in some
Karelian pit-houses (Zhuravlev 1990; Zhulnikov
2003.5).
No fireplace was revealed in the Lommi III pit-house
by Indreko, although a fireplace or hearth is often
one of the main attributes of a dwelling. However,
aboveground fireplaces without any construction
may not have been preserved at all. In rare cases
only small pieces of charcoal, calcined bones or other
burnt finds may be present, less often spots of ash
or burnt soil (Pesonen 2002.15). In the pit-houses in
Karelia and Finland, in many cases no stone hearth
was revealed and other traces of fireplaces, even if
documented, were not given due attention (Karja-
lainen 1996.76; Zhulnikov 2003.54). In some sites
where fire cracked stones were found in or near the
pit-house, heating with hot stones or reuse of the
house for purposes other than living is assumed
(Kankaanpää 2002.77). In the Lommi III pit-house,
some charcoal pieces, burnt bone, flint artefacts and
stones were found, as well as an ash lens. Currently,
ash and charcoal pieces can no longer be clearly as-
From a concentration of finds to Stone Age architecture> the Lommi III pit-house in Northwestern Russia
95
sociated with the Stone Age and, in particular, with
the construction. The location of other burnt items
does not reveal any system that would indicate the
location of the fireplace, but we cannot say for sure
that there was no fireplace in the dwelling.
Since no construction details were preserved or re-
corded, the location of the entrance cannot be de-
termined either. Linking the artefacts based on their
raw material can provide additional information
about the characteristics of the dwelling (Petersen,
Johansen 1996.81–83; Boaz 1999.135), although
this method is rarely used in Stone Age sites with
pottery (Cuenca-Solana et al. 2018.904). When stu-
dying the remains of an ancient dwelling, the direc-
tions and concentrations of these links can reveal
not only the so-called ‘wall effect’, but also the loca-
tion of the entrance if there is sufficient documenta-
tion (Grøn 1998; Leonova 2004.63; Gelhausen et
al. 2009). In Lommi III, the ‘wall effect’ cannot be
shown, firstly, due to the small number of links
found between the artefacts, and secondly, due to
the absence of micro debris. Although most of the
links run to the west from the house, it is not known
what was to the east of it, as this territory was al-
ready destroyed before the earlier studies and was
not excavated. Thus, the location of the entrance (or
the entrances) of the pit-house in Lommi III remains
an open question.
Despite the fact that many individual details of con-
struction cannot be distinguished, the shape and size
of the pit-house in Lommi III and the types of arte-
facts inside it are analogous to those of the Stone
Age houses of Fennoscandia (Halinen et al. 2002.
Fig. 6; Pesonen 2002.15–22). The diversity and num-
ber of artefacts inside the pit-house in Lommi III can
probably show its (semi-)sedentary way of life of its
inhabitants. It was likely a timber building, similar
to the analogies from the surrounding areas (Halén
1996.284–285), but it is impossible to determine
whether it was based on a post or log construction,
since no traces of posts or logs have been preserved
or were documented during excavations. The regu-
lar shape of the pit indicates that it most probably
had straight vertical walls, at least in the subterra-
nean part.
Conclusion
The discovery of the archived plans of the Lommi III
settlement site and its largest excavation area, with
the expressive concentration of finds drawn on it,
marked the beginning of the present research. All
finds from this excavation area were analysed, and
it turned out that c. 80% of finds are concentrated
in an area of 7.1x4.4m, forming a rectangular pit
with a depth of 0.7–0.75m from the ground surface.
Most of the artefact assemblage consists of frag-
ments of Typical Comb Ware (mineral and organic-
tempered), flint tools and debris, and sandstone
whetstones. Links between artefacts, determined by
their raw materials, connect items both within the
concentration and between it and the area outside,
and indicate the homogeneity of the cultural layer,
at least in this part of the site.
Based on the shape and size of the concentration,
the composition and variety of finds (including pot-
tery, flint tools, whetstones and other stone items,
as well as an amber bead, stone pendant and clay
figurine), and parallels from neighbouring areas, it
is concluded that a pit-house existed in this location.
The distribution of the different artefact types is un-
systematic and cannot be used to distinguish any
structural features in the pit-house, although its bor-
ders are indicated by whetstones. The number of
finds, their relatively regular vertical distribution
over the entire thickness of the pit filling and the
lack of correlation to a particular elevation level in-
dicate the (semi-)sedentary way of life. The absence
of clearly identified traces of fireplace does not con-
tradict this conclusion, as without a stone construc-
tion, it may not have preserved and recognized dur-
ing fieldwork. All these arguments are supported by
numerous analogies from other contemporaneous
settlement sites in Finland, Karelia and Estonia.
According to the radiocarbon analysis of organic
crusts on pottery, the Lommi III pit-house can be
dated to the first half of the 4th millennium cal BC.
This date is broadly supported by the typo-chronolo-
gical date of the archaeological material, which shows
the predominance of mineral admixture over orga-
nic-tempered pottery, together with the predomi-
nance of flint raw material. While the history of the
study of Stone Age architecture started in eastern
and northern Europe at the beginning of the 20th
century, the main research methods were mainly de-
veloped from the 1960s or even the 1980s on. How-
ever, assuming high-quality documentation is avail-
able, these methods can provide new information
for old excavations even decades later. While the in-
terpretation is influenced by prior knowledge and
preconceptions of the researcher, the main task dur-
ing fieldwork is the thoroughness of the excavation
and documentation processes. The case of Lommi III
is a good example of such an approach.
Baltrūnas V., Karmaza B., Kulbickas D., and Ostrauskas
T. 2006. Distribution of raw material for prehistoric flint
artefacts in South Lithuania. Geografija 42(2): 41–47.
Binford L. R. 1972. An archaeological perspective. Semi-
nar Press. New York, London.
Blankholm H. P. 1991. Intrasite Spatial Analysis in
Theory and Practice. Aarhus University Press. Aarhus.
Boaz J. 1999. Pioneers in the Mesolithic: the initial occu-
pation of the interior of eastern Norway. In J. Boaz (ed.),
The Mesolithic of central Scandinavia. Universitetets
Oldsaksamlings Skrifter. Nyrekke 22. Univeritetets Old-
sakssamling. Oslo: 125–152.
Boriskovskiy P. I. 1958. Izuchenie paleoliticheskih zhilisch
v Sovetskom Soyuze. Sovetskaya arheologiya 1: 3–19. (in
Russian)
Bronk Ramsey C. 2020. OxCal 4.4 manual.
https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/OxCal.html
Bryusov A. Ya. 1940. Istoriya drevney Karelii. Izdatel-
stvo Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo muzeya. Moskva.
(in Russian)
1959. Neoliticheskie zhilischa lesnoy zoni Evropeyskoy
chasti SSSR. Vologodskiy kray 1: 133–141. (in Russian)
Cuenca-Solana D., Gutiérrez-Zugasti I., and Marchand G.
2018. Mesolithic dwelling structures: from methodologi-
cal approaches to archaeological interpretation. Journal
of Archaeological Science: Reports 18: 902–904.
https://doi.org/110.1016/j.jasrep.2018.02.027
Europaeus A. 1922. Fornfynd från Kyrkslätt och Esbo
socknar. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskir-
ja XXXIII. Nr. 1. Helsinki.
Filatova V. F. 2004. Mezolit basseina Onezhskogo ozera.
Karelskiy nauchnyi tsentr Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. Pe-
trozavodsk. (in Russian)
Foss M. E. 1940. Stojanka Kubenino. Sovetskaya arheolo-
giya 5: 31–64. (in Russian)
Frayne D. R. 1998. Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC)
(The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods 1).
University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Buffalo, London.
Fretheim S. E. 2017. Mesolithic dwellings. An empirical
approach to past trends and present interpretations in
Norway. Unpublihed PhD thesis. Norwegian University
of Science and Technology. Faculty of Humanities Depart-
ment of Historical Studies. Trondheim.
Galibin V. A., Timofeev V. I. 1993. Novyi podkhod k raz-
rabotke problemy vyavleniya istochnikov kremnevogo
syrya dlya kultur kamennogo veka Vostochnoy Pribaltiki.
Arkheologicheskie Vesti 2: 13–19. (in Russian)
García-Diez M., Vaquero M. 2015. Looking at the Camp:
Paleolithic Depiction of a Hunter-Gatherer Campsite. PLoS
ONE 10(12): e0143002.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143002
Gelhausen F., Kegler J. F., and Wenzel S. 2009. Find con-
centrations and dwelling structures. The interpretation of
Final Palaeolithic find scatters. In S. McCartan, R. Schul-
ting, G. Warren, and P. Woodman (eds.), Mesolithic Ho-
rizons. Papers presented at the Seventh International
Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005.
Vol. I. Oxbow Books. Oxford, Oakville: 450–457.
Gerasimov D. V. 2019. Katalog pamyatnikov kamennogo
veka Rossiyskoy chasti Narvsko-Luzhskogo mezhdurech-
ya. In D. V. Gerasimov (ed.), Pamyatniki kamennogo
veka Rossiyskoy chasti Narvsko-Luzhskogo mezhdurech-
ya. Muzey Antropologii i Etnografii Rossiyskoy Akademii
Nauk. Sankt-Peterburg: 165–192. (in Russian)
Gerasimov D. V., Lisitsyn S. N., Kriiska A., and Nordqvist K.
2019. Istoriya issledovaniy kamennogo veka Narvsko-
Luzhskogo mezhdurechya. In D. V. Gerasimov (ed.), Pam-
yatniki kamennogo veka Rossiyskoy chasti Narvsko-
Luzhskogo mezhdurechya. Muzey Antropologii i Etnogra-
Irina Khrustaleva, Aivar Kriiska
96
This research was supported by the Estonian Research Council project PRG243, a base-financed project of the In-
stitute of History and Archaeology of the University of Tartu PHVAJ20919 and Arheograator Ltd. The authors are
grateful to Lembi Lõugas (University of Tallinn) for the determination of animal bones, Ester Oras (University of
Tartu) for the information on the results of the lipid analyses of organic crust on the Lommi III potsherds, Kerk-
ko Nordqvist (University of Helsinki), and Vladimir Sazonov (University of Tartu) for their useful comments on
the manuscript. Also we would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful questions and suggestions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
References
∴
From a concentration of finds to Stone Age architecture> the Lommi III pit-house in Northwestern Russia
fii Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. Sankt-Peterburg: 19–26.
(in Russian)
Girininkas A. 1994. Baltu kultūros i∏takos. Savastis. Vil-
nius.
Gorodtsov V. A. 1914. Arheologicheskie issledovaniya v
okrestnostyah gor. Muroma v 1910 g.: Posvyaschaetsa
Grafine Praskovye Sergeevne Uvarovoy, kak initsiator-
she nastoyaschih issledovaniy, avtorom. Tip. G. Lissnera
i D. Sobko. Moskva. (in Russian)
Grasis N. 2010. A Mesolithic dwelling: evidence interpret-
ing from the U∫avas Celmi site in Latvia. Archaeologia
Baltica 13: 58–68.
Grigorjev G. P. 1974. Problematika paleoliticheskih pose-
leniy kak arheologicheskogo istochnika. In V. M. Masson
(ed.), Rekonstruktsiya drevnih obschestvennyh otnoshe-
niy po arheologicheskim materialam zhilisch i posele-
niy. Kratkie tezisy dokladov na obyedinennom simpo-
ziume metodologicheskogo seminara i sektora Sredney
Azii i Kavkaza LOIA AN SSSR. 23–26 aprelya 1973 g.
Nauka. Leningrad: 2–13. (in Russian)
Grøn O. 1995. The Maglemose culture: The reconstruc-
tion of the social organization of a mesolithic culture
in Northern Europe. BAR International Series 616. Tem-
pvs Reparatvm Ltd 1995. Oxford.
https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860547976
1998. Aggemose – part II. Refitting and wall effect.
Journal of Danish Archaeology 12: 7–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0108464X.1995.10590083
2003. Mesolithic dwelling places in south Scandinavia:
their definition and social interpretation. Antiquity 777
(298): 685–708.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00061640
Gurina N. N. 1961. Drevnyaya istoriya Severo-Zapada
Evropeyskoy chasti SSSR. Materialy i issledovaniya po
arheologii SSSR, 87. Izdatelstvo Akademii nauk SSSR.
Moskva, Leningrad. (in Russian)
1967. Iz istorii drevnih plemen zapadnyh oblastey
SSSR (po materialam Narvskoy expeditsii). Materialy
i issledovaniya po arheologii SSSR, 144. Izdatelstvo
Akademii nauk SSSR. Leningrad. (in Russian)
1996a. Narvskaya kultura. In S. V. Oshibkina (ed.),
Arkheologiya. Neolit Severnoy Evrazii. Nauka. Moskva:
136–147. (in Russian)
1996b. Kultura grebenchato-yamochnoy keramiki (pri-
baltijskaya). In S. V. Oshibkina (ed.), Arkheologiya. Neo-
lit Severnoy Evrazii. Nauka. Moskva: 147–151. (in Rus-
sian)
Halén O. 1996. The North Swedish Comb Ceramic site Lil-
lberjet, Överkalix-finno-ugrian cultural manifestations in a
4000–3000 BC context. Congressus primus historiae fen-
no-ugricae. Historia fenno-ugrica I(1): 283–304.
Halinen P., Joensuu J., Lavento M., and Martio L. 2002.
House pit studies at Martinniemi in Keramäki. In H. Ran-
ta (ed.), Huts and houses. Stone Age and Early Metal
buildings in Finland. National Board of Antiquities. Hel-
sinki: 201–210.
Halinen P., Seitsonen O., Seitsonen S., and Nordqvist K.
2008. Excavations at the Juoksemajärvi Westend Stone
Age site in 2002. In M. Lavento (ed.), Karelian Isthmus –
Stone Age studies in 1998–2003. ISKOS 16 The Finnish
Antiquarian Society. Helsinki: 235–265.
Hodder I., Orton C. 1979. Spatial Analysis in Archaeo-
logy. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge.
Hole F., Heizer R. F. 1973. An introduction to prehisto-
ric archaeology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. New York.
Indreko R. 1932. Der Siedlungsfund von Moksi, Gemein-
de Võisiku. Sitzungsberichte der Gelehrten estnischen
Gesellschaft 1930: 197–218.
1937. Eesti ürgaeg. Pilte Eestist 7–9000 aasta eest.
Eesti Kirjanduse Selts. Tartu.
1940. Kaevamised 2.VII 40. Ekaterina Hämäläinen’i
(Jaan Saare) maal Narvataguse, Narva vld. Lommi kru-
usaaugus. Notika jõe ääres, mis jookseb Luuga jõkke.
[Excavations 2.VII 40. on the Ekaterina Hämäläinen’s
(Jaan Saar’s) land of Narvataguse, in the Lommi gravel
pit in the Narva parish. By the River Notika, which flows
into the River Luga.]. Manuscript in the Archaeological
Research Collection of the University of Tallinn (Esto-
nia).
1948. Bemerkungen über die wichtigsten steinzeitli-
chen Funde in Estland in den Jahren 1937–1943. Anti-
kvariska Studier III. KVHAA Handlingar: 291–315.
1964. Mesolithische und frühneolithische Kulturen in
Osteuropa und Westsibirien. Kungl. Vitterhetsakade-
miens handlingar. Antikvariska serien 13. Almqvist &
Wiksell. Stockholm.
Itkonen I. 1913. Tietoja Inarin kirkonkylän seudun mui-
naisuudesta. Suomen Museo XX: 2–9.
Johanson K., Jonuks T., Kriiska A., and Tõrv M. 2013. From
the first people to idols and figurines: Richard Indreko as
a scientist. In K. Johanson, M. Tõrv (eds.), Man, his time,
artefacts, and places. Collection of articles dedicated to
Richard Indreko. Muinasaja teadus 19. Joint edition of
97
Irina Khrustaleva, Aivar Kriiska
98
Institute of History and Archaeology of the University of
Tartu and the Department of Archaeology at the Institute
of History of Tallinn University. Tartu: 95–179.
Johanson K., Tõrv M. 2013. The many faces of Richard In-
dreko. In K. Johanson, M. Tõrv (eds.), Man, his time, ar-
tefacts, and places. Collection of articles dedicated to
Richard Indreko. Muinasaja teadus 19. Joint edition of
Institute of History and Archaeology of the University of
Tartu and the Department of Archaeology at the Institute
of History of Tallinn University. Tartu: 25–93.
Juodagalvis V. 2016. The Neolithic-Early Bronze Age in
the Trans-nemunas region (U∫nemunė). In G. Zabiela, Z.
Baubonis, and E. Marcinkevi≠iūtė (eds.), Hundred years
of archaeological discoveries in Lithuania. Society of Li-
thuanian Archaeology. Vilnius: 66–85.
Kadakas U., Vedru G., Lõugas L., +4 authors, and Toos G.
2010. Rescue excavations of the Neolithic settlement site
in Vabaduse Square. In E. Oras, E. Russow (eds.), Archaeo-
logical Fieldwork in Estonia 2009. Muinsuskaitseamet.
Tallinn 27–46.
Kankaanpää J. 2002. The house pits at Kauvonkangas,
Tervola. In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts and houses. Stone Age
and Early Metal buildings in Finland. National Board of
Antiquities. Helsinki: 65–77.
Karjalainen T. 1996. Pithouse in Outokumpu Sätös exca-
vated in 1992–1994. In T. Kirkinen (ed.), Pithouses and
Potmakers in Eastern Finland. Reports of the Ancient
Lake Saimaa Project. Helsinki papers in archaeology 9.
University of Helsinki. Department of Archaeology. Hel-
sinki: 71–88.
2002. Comparison between the artefact assemblages
of six Neolithic houses. In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts and hou-
ses. Stone Age and Early Metal buildings in Finland.
National Board of Antiquities. Helsinki: 42–52.
Katiskoski K. 2002. The semisubterranean dwelling at
Kärmelahti in Puumala, Savo province, Eastern Finland.
In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts and houses. Stone Age and Early
Metal buildings in Finland. National Board of Antiquities.
Helsinki: 171–200.
Khrustaleva I. Yu. 2016. The earliest dwellings of the
Stone Age in Smolensk and Pskov Regions of Russia. Sa-
marskiy nauchnyi vestnik 4(17): 77–85. (in Russian)
https://doi.org/10.17816/snv20164202
2017. Buildings of the late settlement stage site Serteya
XIV: Cultural attribution and possibilities of graphic
reconstruction. Samarskiy nauchnyi vestnik 6(3): 143–
150. (in Russian)
https://doi.org/10.17816/snv201763210
Khrustaleva I. Yu., Kriiska A., and Kholkina M. A. 2019.
Peresmotr materialov poseleniya kamennogo veka Riigi-
kula I (Estonia). Samarskiy nauchnyi vestnik 8(2): 250–
262. (in Russian)
https://doi.org/10.24411/2309-4370-2019-12222
Khrustaleva I., Roog R., Kholkina M., and Kriiska A. 2020.
Hunter-Gatherer Pit-Houses in Stone Age Estonia. Archa-
eological and Anthropological Sciences 12(2): 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01018-0
Koltsov L. V. 1985. O sezonnom funktsionirovanii mezo-
liticheskih stoyanok (po materialam Volgo-okskogo mezh-
durechya). Sovetskaya arheologiya 3: 25–36. (in Russian)
Koltsov L. V., Zhilin M. G. 1999. Mezolit Volgo-Okskogo
mezhdurechya. Pamyatniki butovskoy kulturi. Nauka.
Moskva. (in Russian)
Kravtsov A. E., Zhilin M. G. 1995. Opyt funktsionalno-pla-
nigraficheskogo analiza mezoliticheskoy stoyanki Belivo-
4G-severnaya. Rossiyskaya arheologiya 2: 135–148. (in
Russian)
Kriiska A. 1995. Narva jõe alamjooksu ala neoliitiline ke-
raamika. In V. Lang (ed.), Eesti arheoloogia historiogra-
afilisi, teoreetilisi ja kultuuriajaloolisi aspekte. Muinasa-
ja Teadus 3. Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus. Tallinn: 54–
115.
1996a. Stone Age settlements in the lower reaches of
the Narva River, north-eastern Estonia. In T. Hackens,
S. Hicks, and V. Lang (eds.), Coastal Estonia: Recent Ad-
vances in Environmental and Cultural History. PACT
51 (European Study Group on Physical, Chemical, and
Mathematical Techniques Applied to Archaeology). Coun-
cil of Europe. Strassbourg, Rixensart: 359–369.
1996b. The Neolithic Pottery Manufacturing Technique
of the Lower Course of the Narva River. In T. Hackens,
S. Hicks, and V. Lang (eds.), Coastal Estonia: Recent Ad-
vances in Environmental and Cultural History. PACT
51 (European Study Group on Physical, Chemical, and
Mathematical Techniques Applied to Archaeology). Coun-
cil of Europe. Strassbourg, Rixensart: 373–384.
2008. Savinõude vormimismass. Keraamika uurimise
võimalikkusest III. In L. Jaanits, V. Lang, and J. Peets
(eds.), Loodus, inimene ja tehnoloogia 2. Muinasaja
teadus 17 Tallinna Ülikooli ajaloo instituudi arheolo-
ogia osakond. Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo ja arheoloogia insti-
tuut. Tallinn. Tartu: 187–208.
Kriiska A., Gerasimov D. V., Nordqvist K., Lisitsyn S. N.,
Sandel S., and Kholkina M. A. 2016b. Stone Age Research
in the Narva-Luga Klint Bay Area in 2005–2014. In P.
Uino, K. Nordqvist (eds.), New sites, new methods. Pro-
From a concentration of finds to Stone Age architecture> the Lommi III pit-house in Northwestern Russia
99
ceedings of the Finnish-Russian Archaeological Sympo-
sium, Helsinki, 19–21 November, 2014. ISKOS 11. Finnish
Antiquarian Society. Helsinki: 101–115.
Kriiska A., Johanson K., and Khrustaleva I. 2018. Checking
the borders. Distribution of redeposited Silurian and Car-
boniferous flint in Estonia and Russia. In V. Asheichyk,
D. H. Werra, I. Sobkowiak-Tabaka, K. Pyżewicz, and A. Va-
shanau (eds.), Abstract book: International conference
“Crossing the Borders. Interregional and Cross-Cultural
Interactions in the Context of Lithic Studies” (15th
SKAM Lithic Workshop) 17–19 October 2018, Minsk.
Stowarzyszenie Krzemieniarskie SKAM. Institute of History
of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Minsk:
37.
Kriiska A., Lang V., Mäesalu A., Tvauri A., and Valk H.
2020. Eesti esiajalugu I. Eesti esiajalugu. Tartu Ülikooli
ajaloo ja arheoloogia instituut. Tartu.
Kriiska A., Nordqvist K. 2012. Arheoloogilised väljakae-
vamised Narva-Jõesuu IIa neoliitilisel asulakohal 2010.
aastal. In A. Kriiska, M. Ivask (eds.), Märgilised mäles-
tised. Uurimusi Narva piirkonna ajaloost. Narva Mu-
useumi toimetised 12. Narva Muuseum. Narva: 14–37.
Kriiska A., Oras E., Lõugas L., Meadows J., Lucquin A., and
Craig O. E. 2017. Late Mesolithic Narva stage in Estonia:
pottery, settlement types and chronology. Estonian Jour-
nal of Archaeology 21(1): 52–86.
https://doi.org/10.3176/arch.2017.1.03.
Kriiska A., Rappu M. 2008. Riigiküla II asulakoha 2006–
2007. aasta arheoloogiliste päästekaevamiste tulemused.
In A. Kriiska, M. Ivask, and K. Martsik (eds.), Maal, linnas
ja linnuses. Uurimusi Narva piirkonna ajaloost. Narva
Muuseumi toimetised 8. Narva Muuseum. Narva: 8–45.
Kriiska A., Rostedt T., and Jussila T. 2016. The Develop-
ment of the Early Mesolithic Social Networks during the
Settlement of Virgin Lands in the Eastern Baltic Sea Zone
– Interpreted through Comparison of Two Sites in Fin-
land. In L. Melheim, H. Glørstad, and Z. Tsigaridas Glør-
stad (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Colonisation,
Maritime Interaction and Cultural Integration. Series.
New directions in anthropological archaeology. Equinox
Publishing Ltd. Shefield: 19–40.
Lancelotti C., Perez J.-N., Alcaina-Mateos J., Carrer F. 2017.
Intra-site Spatial Analysis in Ethnoarchaeology. Environ-
mental Archaeology 22(4): 354–364.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2017.1299908
Larionova A. V. 2019. Planigraficheskij analiz sred-
nepaleoliticheskoy stoyanki Ketrosy. Unpublished PhD
thesis. Institute for the history of material culture. Rus-
sian Academy of Science. St. Petersburg. (in Russian)
Larsson L., Sjöström A. 2013. Mesolithic research in the
central part of Scania, southern Sweden. In K. Johanson,
M. Tõrv (eds.), Man, his time, artefacts, and places. Col-
lection of articles dedicated to Richard Indreko. Muina-
saja teadus 19. Joint edition of Institute of History and
Archaeology of the University of Tartu and the Depart-
ment of Archaeology at the Institute of History of Tallinn
University. Tartu: 487–513.
Leonova E. V. 2004. Mezoliticheskie zhilischa Volgo-Oks-
kogo mezhdurechya (k probleme interpretatsii istochnika).
In Kh. A. Amirhanov (ed.), Problemy kamennogo veka
Russkoy ravniny. Nauchnyi mir. Moskva: 49–68. (in Rus-
sian)
Loze I. 1978. Neolīta celtņu vietas Austrumbaltijā. Arheo-
loģija un Etnogrāfija XII: 7–23.
Loze I. A. 1979. Pozdniy neolit i rannyaya bronza Lu-
banskoy ravniny. Zinatne. Riga. (in Russian)
1988. Poseleniya kamennogo veka Lubanskoy niziny.
Mezolit, ranniy i sredniy neolit. Zinatne. Riga. (in Rus-
sian)
Marcinkevi≠iūtė E. 2016. The Neolithic in South-east Li-
thuania. In G. Zabiela, Z. Baubonis, and E. Marcinkevi≠i-
ūtė (eds.), Hundred years of archaeological discoveries
in Lithuania. Society of Lithuanian Archaeology. Vilnius:
50–65.
Marshack A. 1979. Upper Paleolithic symbol systems of the
Russian Plain: cognitive and comparative analysis of com-
plex ritual marking. Current Anthropology 20(2): 271–311.
Mazurkevich A., Kulkova M., and Savel’eva L. 2012. Hu-
man occupation history of the Upper Dvina basin. In A.
V. Panin (ed.), Geoarchaeological issues of the Upper
Dnieper – Western Dvina river region (Western Rus-
sia): Fieldtrip Guide. Geomorphic Processes and Geoar-
chaeology. From Landscape Archaeology to Archaeotou-
rism International conference August 20–24, 2012. Uni-
versum. Moscow, Smolensk: 70–104.
Miettinen M. 2002. Investigations at the Madeneva Stone
Age site in Pihtioudas. In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts and hous-
es. Stone Age and Early Metal buildings in Finland. Na-
tional Board of Antiquities. Helsinki: 137–146.
Mökkönen T. 2002. Chronological variation in the loca-
tions of hunter-gatherer occupation sites vis-vis-à-vis en-
vironment. In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts and houses. Stone Age
and Early Metal buildings in Finland. National Board
of Antiquities. Helsinki: 53–64
2009. Neolithic housepits in the River Vuoksi Valley,
Karelian Isthmus, Russia – chronological changes in size
Irina Khrustaleva, Aivar Kriiska
100
and location. Fennoscandia Archaeologica XXVI: 133–
161.
2011. Studies on Stone Age housepits in Fennoscan-
dia (4000–2000 cal BC). Changes in ground plan, site
location, and degree of sedentism. Unpublished PhD
thesis. Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and
Art Studies, Archaeology. Faculty of Arts. University of
Helsinki. Helsinki.
https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/26492
Mökkönen T., Nordqvist K. 2016. Quantifying mineral raw
materials in Neolithic knapped tool production in Lake Sai-
ma area, Finnis inland. In P. Uino, K. Nordqvist (eds.),
New Sites, New Methods. Proceedings of the Finnis-Rus-
sian Archaeological Symposium, Helsinki, 9–21 Novem-
ber, 2014. Iskos 21. The Finnish Antiquarian Society. Hel-
sinki: 41–58.
Mökkönen T., Nordqvist K., and Herva V.-P. 2017. Chan-
ges in Neolithic lithic raw materials in eastern Finland: in-
dications of changing contact networks. In D. V. Gerasi-
mov (ed.), Kulturnye protsessy v tsirkumbaltiyskom pro-
stranstve v rannem i srednem golotsene. Doklady me-
zhdunarodnoy nauchnoy konferentsii, posvyaschennoy
70-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya V. I. Timofeeva. Sankt-Pe-
terburg, Rossiya, 26–28 aprelya 2017 g. Muzey Arheologii
i Etnografii Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. Sankt-Peterburg:
181–186.
Nechaeva L. G. 1975. O zhilische kochevnikov yuga Vo-
stochnoy Evropi v zheleznom veke (I tis. do n.e. – perv.
pol. II tis. n.e.). In M. G. Rabinovich (ed.), Drevnee zhili-
sche narodov Vostochnoy Evropi. Nauka. Moskva: 7– 49.
(in Russian)
Norberg E. 2008. Boplatsvallen som bostad i Norrbot-
tens kustland 5000 till 2000 före vår tideräkning. En
studie av kontinuitet och förändringar. Studia Archaeo-
logica Universitatis Umensis 23. University of Umeå.
Umeå.
Nordqvist K., Lavento M. 2008. Archaeological survey in
Kaukola and Räisälä in 1999 and a study of environmen-
tal settings of the Stone Age dwelling sites in the area. In
M. Lavento (ed.), Karelian Isthmus – Stone Age studies
in 1998–2003. ISKOS 16. The Finnish Antiquarian Society.
Helsinki: 140–163.
Ojanlatva E., Alakärppä J. 2002. Interpretation of the Peu-
rasuo House Pit in Oulu. In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts and hou-
ses. Stone Age and Early Metal buildings in Finland. Na-
tional Board of Antiquities. Helsinki: 109–122.
Olenkovskiy N. P. 2000. Tsentralnoevropeyskiy epigravett
i vostochno-gravettiyskie kulturi Ukrainy. Stratum Plus 1:
368–377. (in Russian)
Oshibkina S. V. 1978. Neolit Vostochnogo Prionezhya.
Nauka. Moskva. (in Russian)
Ostrauskas T. 2001. Glūko ir Varėnio e∫erų apylikės. In
V. Baltrūnas (ed.), Akmens am∫ius Pietų Lietuvoje (geo-
logijos, paleogeografijos ir archeologijos duomenimis).
Geologijos institutas. Vilnius: 179–182.
Pälsi S. 1918. Kaivaus Pitkäjärven kivikautisella asuin-
paikalla Räisälässä v. 1915. Suomen Museo XXV: 23–34.
1920. Riukjärven ja Piiskunsalmen kivikautiset asu-
inpaikat Kaukolassa. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdisty-
ksen Aikakauskirja 28. Helsinki.
Passek T. S. 1938. Tripolskie modeli zhilischa. Vestnik
drevney istorii 4/5: 235–247. (in Russian)
Pesonen P. 1998. Vihi – kampakeraaminen asuinpaikka
Rääkkylässä. Muinaistutkija 1: 23–30.
2002. Semisubterranean Houses in Finland – a Review.
In H. Ranta (ed.), Huts and houses. Stone Age and
Early Metal buildings in Finland. National Board of
Antiquities. Helsinki: 9–41.
2004. Neolithic pots and ceramic chronology – AMS-dat-
ings of Middle and Late Neolithic ceramics in Finland.
In P. Uino (ed.), Fenno-ugri et Slavi 2002. Dating and
Chronology. Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkai-
suja 10. Museovirasto. Helsinki: 87–97.
Petersen P. V., Johansen L. 1996. Tracking Late Glacial
reindeer hunters in eastern Denmark. The earliest settle-
ment of Scandinavia and its relationship with neighbour-
ing areas. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia 24: 75–88.
Pidoplichko I. G. 1969. Pozdnepaleoliticheskie zhilischa
is kostey mamonta na Ukraine. Naukova Dumka. Kiev.
(in Russian)
Polkovnikova M. E. 2003. Planigraficheskaya i ‘kulturna-
ya’ struktura ranneneoliticheskogo poseleniya Serteya
XIV. In A. N. Mazurkevich (ed.), Drevnosti Podvinya: is-
toricheskiy aspekt Gosudarstvennyi Ermitazh. Sankt-
Peterburg: 99–106. (in Russian)
Popov A. A. 1961. Zhilische. In M. G. Levin, L. P. Potapov
(eds.), Istoriko-etnographicheskiy atlas Sibiri. Izdatel-
stvo akademii nauk SSSR. Moskva, Leningrad: 131–226.
(in Russian)
Reimer P., Austin W., Bard E., + 38 authors, and Talamo
S. 2020. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon
age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62:
1–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41
From a concentration of finds to Stone Age architecture> the Lommi III pit-house in Northwestern Russia
Rogachev A. N., Anikovich M. V. 1984. Pozdniy paleolit
Russkoy ravnini i Kryma. In P. I. Boriskovskiy (ed.), Pa-
leolit SSSR. Arheologia SSSR. Tom 1. Nauka. Moskva:
162–271. (in Russian)
Rosentau A., Muru M., Kriiska A., + 10 authors, and Lety-
ka N. 2013. Stone Age settlement and Holocene shore
displacement in the Narva-Luga Klint Bay area, eastern
Gulf of Finland. Boreas 42(4): 912–931.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12004
Rostedt T., Kriiska A. 2019. Mesoliittisten varhaisasutta-
jien jäljillä Etelä-Karjalassa: vuorossa Hiekkasilta. Hiisi
2: 14–18.
Seitsonen O. 2006. Räisälä Pitkäjärvi revisited – new in-
terpretations of the dwelling remains. In. P. Pesonen, T.
Mökkönen (eds.), Arkeologia ja kultuuri. Uuta kivikau-
den tutkimuksessa. Arkeologianpäivät 2005. Suomen
arkeologinen seura. Hamina: 138–145.
Sikk K., Kriiska A., Johanson K., Sander K.,and Vindi A.
2020. Environment and settlement location choice in
Stone Age Estonia. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 24
(2): 89–140. https://doi.org/10.3176/arch.2020.2.01.
Soom A. 1939. Kiri (Nr. 52) Tartu Ülikooli Arheoloogia
Kabinetile. 5. oktoober 1939. [Letter (No. 52) to the Cen-
tre for Archaeological Research of the University of Tartu.
October 5, 1939.] Manuscript in the Archaeological Re-
search Collection of the University of Tallinn (Estonia).
Svoboda J. 1997. Symbolisme gravettien en Moravie. Es-
pace, temps et formes. Bulletin de la Société Préhistori-
que d´Ariège-Pyrenées LII: 87–104.
πatavi≠ius E. 2016. The First Palaeolithic Inhabitants and
the Mesolithic in Lithuanian Territory. In G. Zabiela, Z.
Baubonis, and E. Marcinkevi≠iūtė (eds.), Hundred years
of archaeological discoveries in Lithuania. Society of
Lithuanian Archaeology. Vilnius: 8–39.
Tallet P. 2017. Les papyrus de la Mer Rouge I, Le jour-
nal de Merer, (papyrus Jarf A et B). Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale. Cairo.
Tanner V. 1929. Om Petsamo-kustlapparnas sägner om
forntida underjordiska boningar, s.k. jennam “vuölas”
kuatt. Finskt Museum 1928: 1–14.
Vereschagina I. V., Sinitsina G. V., Timofeev V. I., Tikho-
mirova O. M., Shayakhmetova L. G., and Shumkin V. Ya.
1995. Kamenniy vek Verkhnevolzhskogo regiona (po ma-
terialam Verkhnevolzhskoy expeditsii LOIA AN SSSR –
IIMK RAN, provedennikh pod rukovodstvom N. N. Guri-
noy). Vip. 1. Materialy k arkheologicheskoy karte. In V. M.
Masson (ed.), Arkheologicheskie iziskaniya 27. Rossiy-
skaya Akademiya nauk. Institut istorii materialnoy kultu-
ry. Sankt-Peterburg. (in Russian)
Zamyatnin S. N. 1935. Raskopki u sela Gagarina (Ver-
hovya Dona, TsChO). Paleolit SSSR. Materialy po istorii
dorodovogo obschestva. Izvestiya Gosudarstvennoj Aka-
demii Istorii Materialnoj Kultur 118: 26–77. (in Rus-
sian)
Zhulnikov A. M. 2003. Drevniye zhilischa Karelii. Petro-
zavodsk. (in Russian)
Zhuravlev A. P. 1990. Nekotoriye metodicheskiye priemi
izucheniya zhilisch epokhi mezolita-rannego metalla Ka-
relii. Polevaya arkheologiya mezolita-neolita: sbornik
nauchnyh trudov. Leningrad: 107–113. (in Russian)
Zimina M. P. 2014. Neoliticheskie pamyatniki Valdayskogo
Priozerja (raspolozhenie, organizatsiya prostranstva).
Kratkie soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii 235: 296–
306. (in Russian)
101