Pressure Flakers of Late Neolithic Forest Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Eastern Europe and Their Remote Counterparts

1 Introduction

During the Mid-Holocene, which includes Mesolithic and Neolithic periods according to the Russian archaeological terminology (ninth to third millennium cal BC), the hunter-gatherer-fisher settlements of the forest zone were concentrated in the lake lowlands, and connected to the particular areas near the mouth or source of a river connected to the lake. The lowlands were extremely rich in food resources, such as waterfowl, mammals, and fish. These were the most comfortable spots where people settled for several millenniums, and that is why the large multi-period sites emerged all over the forest zone of the East European Plain (Burov, 2011).

The period to which these pressure flakers are dated (3500–2700 cal BC) was marked by the emergence and development of the large rectangular semi-subterranean dwellings having the square of more than 30 m². Sometimes several dwelling pits in a row were connected by corridors, so the total square was sometimes close to 100 m². They were investigated in Finland, and Northwestern and Central Russia (Pesonen, 2002; Zhulnikov, 2005). This process could point at the general increase in sedentism, as well as at the known changes in social structure (Herva, Nordqvist, Lahelma, & Ikäheimo, 2014). Simultaneously, the distinct change has happened around 3700–3500 BC in the ceramic technology: in the huge area of the Pit–Comb Ware and the Comb–Pit Ware cultures, the production of ware with the organic admixture started to prevail over the use of mineral admixture, and thus the Late Comb Ware and other types of the Porous Ware appeared in the Circum-Baltic, while in the central and partly in the Northern Russian regions, the ceramic type cardinally changed from the Pit–Comb Ware to the porous Volosovo Ware, featuring shells and bird down as the main admixtures. The core reasons for these changes are generally unknown.

The pressure flaker users mostly belonged to the Volosovo culture. Later, around 2900 BC, the new inhabitants – herders of the Corded Ware and the Globular Amphorae Ware came into the forest zone, marking the beginning of the Bronze Age (Nordqvist & Heyd, 2020). Nevertheless, during the third millennium BC many hunter-gatherer-fisher “niches” existed all over the forest zone featuring the material culture, which was in general very close to the Volosovo one, both in stone and bone inventory and in the Porous Ware types, e.g. at the territory of Pskov region and North Belarus (Mazurkevich et al., 2016). Only one pressure flaker was found outside Russia, at the Asaviec 2 settlement (North Belarus), the materials of which were dated in frames of the third millennium BC (Charniauski, 2016). The younger hunter-gatherer-fishers remained at the centre of the East European Plain forest zone until at least the Early Iron Age (the end of the first millennium BC), and in some wooded Northern areas for much longer. No such pressure flakers were found among these younger materials so far in the East European forest zone. On the contrary, similar tools from the Kamchatka and Chukotka hunter-gatherer-fishers’ settlements were detected, dated to the first millennium AD (Bronshtein, Dneprovsky, & Sukhorukova, 2007). Moreover, the Inuit tools from Alaska of similar appearance are known in ethnographical collections (Vanstone, 1980; Wilson, 1899).

The mysterious finds were noticed among the archaeological materials of Volosovo settlements during 1960–1980. Large antler crooked items with flat upper part sometimes resembling a paddle or a duck beak, and with lower part shaped as a rod with longitudinally grooved slot usually had a thickening at the distal end. Some of them had the distinct sculpted swan head at their upper part. The silhouette of intact items and the context of some finds, discovered near the burials at the Sakhtysh II burial ground, Ivanovo region (Figure 1), together with other (sometimes burnt) tools, made of flint and bone, forming the so-called “ritual hoards,” which were the essential part of several Volosovo burial grounds in the central part of Russia, initially gave way to their interpretation as the ritual phallic items (Kraynov, 1992; Utkin & Kostyleva, 1998). Later, a closer look at these items’ morphology, and the fact that one of them, found in the Sakhtysh II “hoard” #11, had the antler tip, inserted into the slot, erroneously interpreted by Kraynov as a brown bear (Ursus arctos) baculum, made scholars to conclude that we are dealing with tools, namely, the pressure flakers (Kashina, 2009; Zhilin & Kostyleva, 2021). One pressure flaker was made of wood. After looking through the literature, we have found out that the Volosovo/North-Belorussian items (19 pieces in total) are not unique and that their ivory (walrus tusk) and antler counterparts of exactly the same construction are known among the archaeological materials of the Kamchatka and Chukotka Peninsulas (four pieces) (Bronshtein et al., 2007; Ponomarenko, 2000).

Figure 1

Distribution map of the East European forest zone Neolithic pressure flakers. Map by E. Kashina.

It made us to conduct a deeper study, both morphological and traceological (microscopic), of nine pressure flaker handles (including fragments) and 105 antler tips with active ends available at the museum collections of the State Historical Museum (SHM; Moscow) and the State University Museum (SUM; Ivanovo). The latter materials were recently published in Russian (Zhilin & Kostyleva, 2021).

2 Aim of the Study

By this study, we aim to widen our understanding of the detailed morphological, technological, and semantic peculiarities of the Late Neolithic pressure flakers found at the territory of the East European Plain and to preliminarily compare them with the corresponding remote pressure flakers of the Bering Strait. In future, we plan to study the latter materials more precisely.

First, the morphology of handles and hafts will be represented, after that the results of traceological study of both groups of items will be shown, supplemented by some modern experimental data. Also, the remote archaeological and ethnographical parallels to the same tools will be described and finally both technological and ritual peculiarities of all these pressure flakers will be discussed, aiming to constitute a full picture of their lifecycles and meanings.

3 The Pressure Flaker Handles’ Morphology

The total number of handles from the east European (Central Russian and North Belorussian sites) is 19 pieces and they could be subdivided into two groups: with a beak-like or flat lever and with the bird-sculpture one. The distribution shows their prevalence at the large long-term sites in cultural layers rich in organic matter due to either peat layers (Asaviec 2, Ivanovskoye VII), or loamy, and sandy sediments (the Sakhtysh sites, Ivanovskoye III, Yazykovo I, Shagara I, Chornaya Gora, Vladychino, Volosovo) (Figure 1), which provided the natural conservation conditions for bone and antler, especially inside the deep dwelling-pits.

All of them have the same monolith construction, the length of 12–15 cm, and consist of a handle and a lever. The angle between lever and handle varies between 80° and 120°. The lower part of the handle is always equipped with the slot/channel of 2–5 mm depth, where the long cylindrical bone/antler tip was inserted and wrapped by cord. The distal end of a handle in a number of cases has a thickening, obviously needed for the effective cord fixing when the tip was in use. Among the whole series of elk antler items (as the elk was the main hunting prey according to different Volosovo culture osteological assemblages), only one was made of wood (the wood species is unfortunately not yet determined). There are 7 intact pieces and 12 broken ones. Among the latter, eight are levers (including those with a bird head) and four are handles (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Pressure flaker handles. (1) Ivanovskoye III, (2 and 3) Sakhtysh II, (4, 7, and 8) Chornaya Gora, (5) Volosovo, (6) Vladychino, and (9) the unknown site (Oka River area). Photos by M. Zhilin (1) and E. Kashina (2–9). Courtesy: (1) SUM (Ivanovo) and (2–9) SHM (Moscow). Drawings: (2 and 3) from Zhilin & Kostyleva, 2021.

The bird-shaped items (six pieces) were sometimes found at the same sites with the “normal” pressure flakers (Chornaya Gora and Volosovo), but at other sites, e.g. Asaviec 2, Yazykovo 1, and Shagara 1, only the bird-shaped items were obtained (Figure 3). The implemented species is apparently a swan (Cygnus) (Zhilin & Kostyleva, 2021). The bird head was detailed differently: sometimes the eyes, nostrils, and mouth were carved (Asaviec 2, Volosovo), or only nostrils and mouth (Ivanovskoye VII), or a mouth only (Shagara I). In some cases, no details were made on the head except the vague mouth line (Yazykovo 1, Chornaya Gora). This diversity probably points at different traditions inherent to certain groups. Other curious carving details, which were observed at several swan depictions, are the “sewn mouth” pattern and the V-shaped “pit-under-mandible.” The first pattern is a row of short incisions intersecting the mouth line at both sides of a bird head (Ivanovskoye VII, Chornaya Gora) (Figure 4(1) and (2)), which has analogues at the carved bird sculptures of the seventh and late fourth millennium BC (Kashina & Emelyanov, 2003; Zhilin, 2021). The second pattern is the V-shaped “pit-under-mandible” (Ivanovskoye VII, Shagara I) (Figure 4(1)), which can be observed at some East European Plain forest zone bone/antler mammal sculptures of the fourth to third millennium BC (https://www.academia.edu/8256960/E_Kashina_Crooked_tools_made_of_antler_with_bird_heads_Russian_forest_Final_Stone_age_). It seems that at least the “sewn mouth” pattern had nothing in common with the swan head anatomy, so the meaning of this detail remains unknown to us.

Figure 3

Pressure flaker handles with sculpted bird heads. (1) Asaviec 2, (2) Yazykovo 1, (3) Ivanovskoye VII, (4) Chornaya Gora, (5) Shagara I, and (6) Volosovo. Photos by E. Kashina. Courtesy: National Historical Museum of the Republic of Belarus (Minsk), Tver State United Museum (Tver), and SHM (Moscow). Drawing: (5) from Zhilin & Kostyleva, 2021.

Figure 4

Decorated bird heads and levers. (1) Ivanovskoye VII, (2) Chornaya Gora, (3) Ivanovskoye III, (4) and (5) Sakhtysh II. Photos by E. Kashina. Courtesy: (1, 3) SUM (Ivanovo) and (2) SHM (Moscow); Drawings: (4 and 5) from Zhilin & Kostyleva, 2021.

The “decoration” patterns were situated at the levers only, and detected in eight “non-bird” items. Their appearance and the unique character of patterns make us to suspect that the majority of them were created for some purpose other than purely decorative. The symmetrical composition of straight carved lines occurs at the fragmented levers from Chornaya Gora and Sakhtysh II sites. These are probably the only pieces which can be named as “decorated” (Figure 4(5) and 5(2–3)). The other motives are represented by groups of incisions, short or long, herringbone pattern, mesh pattern, straight grooves, or grooves at the lever edges ((Figure 4(3–4) and 5). All mentioned cases, except probably the herringbone and mesh patterns, could represent the kinds of marks made on occasion. Some other pressure flaker levers, including those with bird head sculpture, carry no decor and show only the rare grooving marks and scratches.

Figure 5

Pressure flakers with decorated levers. (1–3) Chornaya Gora. Photos and drawings: (1 and 2) by E. Kashina and (3) drawing by A.V. Emelyanov. Courtesy: SHM (Moscow).

Apart from the general “settlement layer” context and three stray finds, (Figure 3(3, 4, 6)) four pieces were found inside the so-called “ritual hoards,” (Figure 2(2–3), Figure 4(4–5)) the agglomerations of burnt artefacts, animal bones, and sometimes red ochre in the burial ground areas, the phenomena known among the fourth millennium BC Volosovo communities was interpreted as possible afterlife gifts or as the remains of commemoration practices (Zhilin & Kostyleva, 2021). Hypothetically three more bird-head handles have been found in quite the same contexts: two of them reported as stray finds at the settlement areas Ivanovskoye VII and Volosovo and one from the settlement layer Chornaya Gora (Figure 3(3, 4, 6)), but there was a possibility of these items’ initial special deposition, as two of them are complete (the Chornaya Gora item has a slightly damaged beak tip), and the Volosovo item is an extremely long lever fragment, and all three items have small traces of ochre at the bird heads, though the additional microscopic study is needed to prove it. Remarkably, in the “hoard” #11 at Sakhtysh II (excavated in the year 1979), the pressure flaker and other bone and flint tools were covered by red ochre and found under the ceramic vessel (Zhilin & Kostyleva, 2021, p. 61) (Figure 2(3)).

Thus, the pressure flaker handles indeed have well-recognizable silhouettes and peculiarities such as the bird head sculpture, décor, and other different incisions/grooving marks at their levers.

4 The Morphology of Tips

The total number of the studied tips is 105. Fifty-two pieces come from the settlements of the Oka River basin, Ivanovo region (Sakhtysh I, II, IIa) and are kept in the SUM. Fifty-three pieces come from the Oka River basin settlements, situated in Moscow, Ryazan, and Nizhny Novgorod Regions (Velikodvorye I, Shagara II, Vladychino, Chornaya Gora, Odoevskiye Fermy 1, Volosovo, Volodary) and are kept in the SHM.

The tips are made of antler (most probably of Alces alces). They have a length of 3–10 cm (most frequently 3–6 cm), and a diameter of 0.7–1.3 cm (usually around 1 cm) (Figure 6). Their general form is straight or slightly bent, fully cylindrical, or sometimes one end is slightly narrower than the other. Only one active end prevails, but in a row of cases both ends were active. Obviously, the tips were exhausted tools deposited in cultural layers after being intensively used with the multiple subsequent active end re-sharpening. Long tips were found rarely.

Figure 6

Pressure flaker tips. (1–4, 8–10, 15) Sakhtysh II, (5–7, 12, 14, 17) Sakhtysh I, and (11, 13, 16, 18) Sakhtysh IIA. Photos by M. Zhilin. Courtesy: SUM (Ivanovo).

5 Pressure Flaker Technological and Traceological Study

5.1 Handles

The previous study of both handles and tips was performed by Zhilin with the use of a binocular microscope MBS-9 at magnifications between 4.8 and 119, the microphotos were made with the ocular camera DCM-800 and composed with the Helicon Focus 6 software (Zhilin & Kostyleva, 2021). The new study of SHM materials, both handles and tips, by Simonenko and Zhilin involved microscope Olympus MX51, and the microphotos were made with the ocular camera Olympus DP73.

The naturally shaped raw antler with a beam was chosen. Judging by the long wide plane traces, the antler was preliminarily softened. The lever was additionally polished by the fine abrasion. In the slot/channel, the traces of longitudinal carving were visible, and their edges were slightly regularized by the pressure of a fastened tip. At the active end of the handle, the thickening was usually carved to sustain the tip taping, but in some cases, the handle was straight and had no thickening. At the extremity, the scraped grooves were detected as a row of items, obviously left by the sharp edges of flint tools, when the pushed pressure flaker occasionally slid along the flint surface (Figure 7(1)). At some levers, fine chaotic scratches and the polishing caused by a hand were visible (Figure 7(2)). The swan heads were shaped in the following sequence: carving, fine scraping, and abrasion. After that, additional details, such as nostrils and mouth line, were carved, and the eyes were drilled.

Figure 7

Traceological study of pressure flaker handles. (1) Sakhtysh II, (2) Ivanovskoye VII, and (3) Ivanovskoye III. Photos by M. Zhilin. Courtesy: SUM (Ivanovo).

The unique intact wooden handle was found at the burial “hoard” of the Ivanovskoye III site together with the long tip (11 cm length, unfortunately the latter was lost in the course of museum storing). The handle has no thickening at the extremity, which was crushed and carried the dens and grooves, which emerged after the occasional contact with flint edges. The whole surface of a handle is scraped carefully. In the slot/channel, the traces of longitudinal carving were visible, and their edges were slightly regularized by the pressure of a fastened tip. Exactly the same was observed at the antler counterparts. In the lower handle part, the traces of taping are visible in the form of thin transversal scratches/grooves at the slot edge, and at the inner curved part of a handle, the polishing and fine chaotic striations caused by a hand are visible (Figure 7(3).

Without doubt, judging by all known active ends of these handles, they were involved in flint pressure flaking. However, the known differences were observed accordingly in the series of technological marks and wear traces of the investigated handles.

5.2 Tips

As it was mentioned before, the tips were manufactured from elk antler. First, the blank was made by the longitudinal carving and fracturing, after that it was regularized by scraping. Sometimes the remains of the antler outer surface or inner spongy tissue are visible at the tips. But the majority of them was rigorously planed using the longitudinal scraping. At some tips, the use of fine abrasion over the whole surface was detected. Primarily the active end was shaped with the help of abrasion (rarely by scraping) as a low cone (Figure 8(1)), but in the process of flint working, it became flat or bevelled and required modification. Dens are visible at the surface of the working end, which have not been destroyed by the tip maintenance (Figure 8(3)). As a result of exhaustion, the tip became shorter from being initially let us say 10 cm to only 2 cm at the moment it was discarded (for example, see Figure 6(7–8) and (17–18)). The circular grooves were made at some tips, but they apparently do not carry any wear marks (Figure 8(2)). The use-wear traces of two kinds were detected at the active ends of tips.

1. Grooves and coarse striations headed from the tip extremity in different directions (Figure 8(3)). At three first-type tips, the flint chips are visible, which stuck during the flint-working (Figure 9(1–3)). Obviously, the effort was applied almost in parallel to the worked flint surface to pressure the flint chips while making the sloping/flat retouch, which was very common for the Volosovo arrow- and spearheads.

2. Grooves and coarse striations headed from one side of active end to another. The pitting is present at only one side. In these cases, the traces reflect the sharpening of the flint tool’s edge by the avulsion/tearing of flint chips, when the bevelled action was applied (Figure 8(4–5)). This method could have been used both for re-sharpening of weaponry and household tools like scrapers and knives.

Figure 8

Traceological study of pressure flaker tips. (1) Chornaya Gora, (2 and 3) Sakhtysh II, (4) Vladychino, and (5) Sakhtysh I. Photos by A. Simonenko (1, 4) and M. Zhilin (2, 3, 5). Courtesy: (1, 4) SHM (Moscow) and (2, 3, 5) SUM (Ivanovo).

Figure 9

Traceological study of pressure flaker tips with flint chips. (1 and 2) Sakhtysh II and (3) Vladychino. Photos by M. Zhilin (1, 2) and A. Simonenko (3). Courtesy: (1–2) SUM (Ivanovo) and (3) SHM (Moscow).

The majority of tips show the presence of first-type grooves, there are 55 pieces in total: 36 tips from the Upper Volga River sites (let us name them as “northern”), Yazykovo 1, Sakhtysh I, II, and IIa, and 19 tips from the Middle and Lower Oka River sites (let us name them as “southern”) Velikodvorye I, Shagara II, Vladychino, Chornaya Gora, Odoevskiye Fermy 1, Volosovo, and Volodary (Figure 1). The number of tips with only one active end was 73 pieces (36 tips from the “northern” sites and 37 tips from the “southern” sites).

Tips with one active end and with type 1 grooves are known to be of 30 pieces from the “northern” sites and 14 pieces from the “southern” sites. Tips with one active end and with type 2 grooves are represented by 6 pieces from the “northern” sites, and 21 pieces from the “southern” sites.

Among the 32 pieces of tips with two active ends (16 and 16 in both ”northern” and “southern” areas), 19 (14 and 5, respectively) carry the first-type grooves at both ends, 4 (2 and 2, respectively) have the ends of different types, and 8 have the ends of type 2 grooves only (exclusively the “southern” sites). Three pieces from the SHM collection have uneven traces and hence have been excluded from this count.

The prevalence of type 1 grooves in settlement materials from the “northern” sites (the Lake Sakhtysh sites, SUM) and of the type 2 grooves from the “southern” sites (the Middle and Lower Oka River sites, SHM) probably reflect the different availability of raw flint resources, which were more abundant at the Lake Sakhtysh sites and limited at the Middle Oka River basin. It seems that majority of the “northern” pressure flaker tips were used to make the tools, while majority of the “southern” pressure flaker tips were used only to sharpen them. Probably, in the latter case, most part of the finished flint tools was transported to the settlements, requiring only a slight repair/sharpening during their usage. The thoughtful, provident use of flint at the Middle Oka River basin was already documented in the study of the Volosovo polished axes and adzes repair and re-use (Kashina, 2014).

Thus, the traceological study of tips gave us the additional proof of these items’ use as the flint pressure flakers. Obviously, they were applied not only at the final stage of the bifacial tool manufacturing, but also for re-sharpening of a wide spectrum of flint implements, e.g. the two flint pieces from the Upper Volga burial “hoards” found together with handles and tips in question could have been processed this way (Figure 10(1–2)) (Zhilin & Kostyleva, 2021). Speaking about analogies, the similar use-wear was observed on tips of the Solutrean pressure flakers (Baumann & Hinguant, 2016; Baumann, Maury, & Plisson, 2022).

Figure 10

Flint bifacial tools from the “hoards” and the graphical reconstruction of a pressure flaker in use. (1) Ivanovskoye III, (2) Sakhtysh II, and (3) reconstruction (not to scale). Drawings from Zhilin & Kostyleva, 2021.

6 Pressure Flakers from Chukotka and Kamchatka

Two corresponding finds of the Chukotka intact pressure flaker ivory (walrus tusk) handles came from the Ekven site (stray find and burial inventory, 14.7 and 12.7 cm in length, respectively), and dated first to ninth century AD. The first one has the linear carved décor at the lower face of a lever and a narrow hole. The latter has the unique carved decoration pattern at both sides of a lever as well as the chaotic grooving marks at the inner and especially at the upper side of a lever (Figure 11(1–4)) (Bronshtein et al., 2007). The cylindrical tips, made of caribou antler or ivory, fit these pressure flakers and were found in the archaeological materials of the Chukotka sites and burials (Dneprovskiy, personal communication, January 17, 2007), but they still have not been studied by a microscope.

Two finds of intact handles from Kamchatka made of antler came from the two settlements at the estuary of the Galgan River and Anadyrka dated the first millennium AD (Figure 11(5–6)). They are around 19 cm and 13.5 cm in length, respectively. Both have the decorated levers. In the lever of the Anadyrka handle, the chaotic (non-décor) incisions are visible, which could be compared with those at the East European Plain pressure flaker levers, discussed earlier. At the Kamchatka sites, the cylindrical tips which were intended to be used with handles were found as well (Ponomarenko, 2000). Two items from Ekven and Anadyrka, respectively, have the carved hole at the handle, apparently used to tape a spare cylindrical tip more effectively. It seems that no wooden pressure flakers of the same appearance were found yet in both regions. Though at the Kamchatka sites, some straight wooden fragmented items having a form resembling the pressure flaker handle are known in small amount, interpreted generally as the “handles,” which could hypothetically have been the fragmented pressure flaker handles. The collection of flint tools not only contained the flat bifacial arrowheads, knives, awls, but also the unifacial scrapers (Ponomarenko, 2000, pp. 227–228). These data correspond well with the conclusions obtained for the East European pressure flaker main usage: for the making of flat-retouched flint bifacial tools, mainly the arrow- and spear-heads.

7 The Inuit Pressure Flakers

According to Witthoft (1968, p. 33), the Inuit pressure flakers were collected mostly by buying them from people who dug out these tools at the territories of old sites. Almost half of them contained no tips, but only handles. There was a practice of putting the metal tips in handles before selling them to antiquarians. Thus, the genuine Inuit archaeological tips, according to Witthoft, were made of walrus rib, while handles were made of wood and ivory (both walrus and fossilized mammoth tusk). Pressure flakers were found in many points of Alaska (Chaussonnet, 1995; Murdoch, 1892; Nelson, 1899; Vanstone, 1980; Wilson, 1899; Museum of Stone tools. Pressure Flaking Tool. Point Barrow, Alaska. MoST ID: 1684. https://une.pedestal3d.com/r/-e2kjHamZG), and look quite similar to the rest of materials, which we discussed earlier, in silhouettes, raw materials, and sporadic presence of décor at the lever.

As the soft organic materials are not known from the archaeological data, we could rely on the Inuit ways of fastening a tip to a handle. For example, Nelson mentions that wrappings of sinew or rawhide cord were used (1899, p. 91, Figure 26).

8 Experimental Study

The pressing of flakes with the use of these tools is seldom demonstrated. The most informative source is the blog of the German enthusiast Marquardt Lund (http://marquardt-lund-flintknapping.de/page4.php). The large force applied through the pressure flaking tool required the use of a paddle-shaped lever resting against the belly as a support. These experiments give sufficient explanation of the substantial need for a lever as part of this construction. Zhilin supposed that the lever was used also to perch a palm during flaking (Figure 10(3)).

Now we are going to put together all obtained data concerning pressure flakers of different points of the world and different time periods to clarify the technical and spiritual issues of these highly required and pronounced artefacts.

Figure 11

Pressure flaker handles of Chukotka and Kamchatka. (1) Ekven burial ground, (2 and 3) Ekven, burial #314, (4) Ekven burial ground, hand collected item, (5) Galgan River, and (6) Anadyrka. Photos by E. Kashina. Courtesy: (1, 3, 4) State Museum of Oriental Art (Moscow). Drawings: (2) by E. Kashina and (5, 6) from Ponomarenko, 2000.

9 Discussion

The elk antler and ivory (walrus tusk) were the most durable raw materials in forest and Arctic zones, respectively, so there is no surprise that they were used for the making of pressure flakers. It seems, however, that the presence of a wooden pressure flaker with use-wear traces (Ivanovskoye III site) could probably point at the much wider spreading of these tools along the forest zone, while the antler ones could have carried some special meaning. On the other hand, in Arctic areas, the lack of appropriate wood may have caused wider use of bone and ivory than in the forest zone.

Eight lever fragments and two handle-rod fragments were found among the archaeological East European pressure flakers. No signs of intentional dismemberment were observed on the breaks. It may witness the unintentional breakage, caused by the intensive pressure at the curve of the handle and lever junction. Thus, they could have been broken during the enhanced pressure flaking at the curve, where the spongy tissue was the more fragile matter.

The special symbolic load of pressure flakers is witnessed by the finds of these with a swan head (Figure 3). The special finding circumstances like burial “hoards” (Sakhtysh II) and burials themselves (Ekven) point at the probable high status of these items. In this sense, the find of deliberately sawn handle tip fragment (Figure 2(9)) looks inexplicable: was it an attempt to make the ready handle shorter (as Zhilin supposed), or was it a ritual “killing” of a tool, because the sawn bone tool and weaponry fragments are known in the Volosovo collections, as well as the deliberately broken bone/antler/flint items are known in the Mesolithic-Neolithic burial inventories (Kashina, Ahola, & Mannermaa, 2021). The fragmented handle was found in the burial “hoard” #11 at Sakhtysh II, but the corresponding tip was extremely long and not exhausted at all (Figure 2(3)). It is possible that in this case, the lever was deliberately broken off in order to “kill” this tool. From the other hand, the wooden pressure flaker from the Ivanovskoye III burial “hoard,” found together with the corresponding long tip, was intact (Figure 2(1)).

The decoration patterns at levers look unique, though their style is merged with the particular region: especially the pressure flakers from Chukotka demonstrate the common style, which is comparable with these at many other decorated bone and ivory items (Bronshtein et al., 2007). The presence of décor or sculpture at the lever could mean the special role of particular pressure flakers, though we cannot be sure if all of them were recognized as “special,” as we are not aware of the general number of flint-knappers in these hunter-gatherer groups. According to Zhilin’s view, it could have been a property mark or a personal decoration similar to what one can see on the Mesolithic and Neolithic bone weaponry of the East European boreal forest (Zhilin, 2020).

Chaotic or grouped grooving marks at the lever surfaces can be observed at the East European and the Ekven (Chukotka) items. Usually they are situated at both sides of a lever. These grooving marks are usually straight and put into groups. The two rows of them at the wooden lever surface seem to be made simultaneously (Figure 4(3)). Most probably, there were attempts to quickly check the sharpness of a newly made or of a re-sharpened tool, as the appropriate surface was right here, at hand. Probably the incisions at the lever edges reflected the same actions and were not decorative. Judging by the swan head of the Ivanovskoye VII, even the sculpture was sometimes used to test instruments on it, which apparently was not vandalism.

The major lever form is the tongue- or beak-shaped, but six items from Central Russia has the form of a sculptured swan head. These pressure flakers look rather similar to the so-called elk-head staffs of the NE European Mesolithic (Mantere & Kashina, 2020), and maybe the provision of such similarity was intentional. It recalls the special role of elk and swan in mythology and cosmology of indigenous North Eurasian peoples, connected with notions of creation, procreation, seasonal calendar and well-being (Kosarev, 2008). The cosmological aspect of creation was probably expressed by the special swan-shaped flaker, aimed to bring a new flint tool to this world (Kashina, 2009). The special symbolic meaning of these tools, both with or without swan head, is signified by the particular finding contexts at the Central Russian sites. They were deposited at the settlement (finds of intact tools) or in the vicinity of burials (inside the so-called “hoards,” broken and/or burnt, and painted by red ochre). Most probably, these particular “hoards” had the connection with burials of the skilled flint-knappers. Considering some “hoard” pressure flaker peculiarities, such as the long “fresh” tip and the different handle states (intact in Ivanovskoye III/intentionally broken in Sakhtysh II), we could suppose that the afterlife notions existed, presuming the continuation of activities in flint working by the deceased person.

Summing up the contextual observations, the presence of pressure flakers in ritual and funeral contexts, as well as the making and usage of swan-headed tools, reflect the high social role of the skilled flint-knappers when alive and even after death.

10 Conclusion

In this study, we investigated the wide group of pressure flakers from the East European Plain forest zone, found at the settlements of North Belarus and Central Russia, the most attention was paid to the latter. The morphological and technological (traceological) studies were performed, aiming to conduct the differences and similarities of this tool making and usage. Not only the handles (including these with sculptures of swan heads) were studied but also their spare tips with active ends. The main conclusions were made, witnessing this tool function as a pressure flaker for making mainly the bifacial flint tools. Nineteen elk antler pressure flaker handles including the unique wooden one were found at the hunter-gatherer-fishers’ settlements of Central Russia and North Belarus dated generally as the second half of the fourth millennium BC. Over 90 spare tips from the settlements of Central Russia made of antler and bone were studied with the help of a microscope, and their use in pair with handles was proved. Four pressure flaker handles made of ivory (walrus tusk) and antler were found at the settlements and in burials of Chukotka and Kamchatka, and dated the first mill AD. A bunch of pressure flakers is known from the Inuit ethnographical collections. All tools share not only form and function but some spiritual issues implemented in the décor of a tool lever. It is an outstanding example of the convergent invention, but hypothetically the presence of similar, probably more “profane” wooden pressure flakers in the hunter-gatherer-fishers’ material culture all over North Eurasia cannot be neglected.