39

Fennoscandia archaeologica XXIV (2007)

AbstractThe study of eastern regions was important in Finnish archaeology especially during the 1870s and1880s and again in the first decades of the 20th century. In accordance with the nationalistic spiritof the late 19th century, the main aim was to find the original home of the Finns and to providethem with a history. Later, the significance of ideological factors diminished in directing archaeo-logical research, and actual archaeological questions became dominant. In this article, I examine byusing the framework of cultural semiotics how interpretations of the Bronze Age changed from thework of Johan Reinhold Aspelin to that of Aarne Michaël Tallgren and what the central reasons forthe change were. Aspelin’s significations were based on the narrative ‘Finnish migration’, and themeaning of all finds depended on their relationship to it. Tallgren delved deeper into one specificpart of Aspelin’s field. Although Tallgren refuted many of Aspelin’s interpretations, he did notquestion Aspelin’s position as the icon of Ural-Altaic archaeology.

Keywords: history of archaeology, cultural semiotics, Ural-Altaic Bronze Age, J.R. Aspelin, A.M. Tallgren

Timo Salminen, Lopentie 10 C 45, 11100 Riihimäki, Finland, timo.salminen@pp3.inet.fi

Timo SalminenTHE URAL-ALTAIC BRONZE AGE AS SEEN BYJ.R. ASPELIN AND A.M. TALLGREN

The study of Russia and Siberia was important inFinnish archaeology especially during the 1870sand 1880s and again in the first decades of the 20th

century. In accordance with the nationalistic spiritof the late 19th century, the main aim was to findthe original home of the Finns and to provide themwith a history. Later, the significance of ideologi-cal factors diminished in directing archaeologicalresearch, and actual archaeological questionsbecame dominant (see Salminen 1994; 1998;2002a; 2003a; 2003b; 2006; 2007 with refer-ences).

Two prehistoric periods were especially impor-tant for Finnish archaeologists: the Bronze Age,together with the Anan’ino Culture, on the onehand, and the Late Iron Age on the other. In thisarticle, I examine how interpretations of theBronze Age changed from the work of JohanReinhold Aspelin (1842–1915) to that of AarneMichaël Tallgren (1885–1945) and what the cen-tral reasons for the change were.

ELEMENTS OF FINNO-UGRICARCHAEOLOGY

J.R. Aspelin’s licentiate’s thesis (doctoral disser-tation) Suomalais-ugrilaisen muinaistutkinnonalkeita (Elements of Finno-Ugric Archaeology)was published in late 1875, and Aspelin defendedhis thesis the following February. Aspelin hadcollected the material during his long stays inRussia and journeys to European museums in1871–74. In his dissertation, Aspelin formulatedthe first general view of the prehistory of the as-sumed Finnish tribe and its migration from itsoriginal home to Finland. The core of theAspelinian interpretation was the assumption ofa uniform Bronze Age culture extending fromeastern Russia to western Siberia. Contrary toM.A. Castrén’s view, Aspelin adopted P.S. Pallas’interpretation that the assumedly Bronze Age an-tiquities in the Minusinsk region belonged to theFinns. M.A. Castrén denied this, although it washe who had considered the Finns to have origi-

fa07.p65 20.12.2007, 18:2839

40

Fig. 1. The Ural-Altaic Area. All administrative borders are not shown on the map. 15 Samara, 16 Kazan’,18 Perm’, 21 Saratov, 35 Tobol’sk, 44 Minusinsk, 46 Tomsk, 54 Anan’ino, 55 Ekaterinburg, 56 Galich.Salminen 2003b: map 1 (p. 209). Drawn by T. Mökkönen.

fa07.p65 20.12.2007, 18:2840

41

nated from the Altai (Castrén 1845: 184–6; 1855:10, 76–7; Aalto 1971: 83).

In his dissertation, Aspelin built a conceptualframework of the Finnish tribe, its historical bor-ders, chronological and ethnic groups, distribu-tion, the way of living and cultural level of the‘ancient national settlement’, the character of eacharchaeological group, and the development his-tory of different forms. The aim of archaeologywas cultural history (Aspelin 1875: 1–2).

Aspelin’s dissertation, the papers he presentedin French at international archaeological con-gresses in Stockholm, St. Petersburg and Buda-pest, and his atlas Muinaisjäännöksiä Suomensuvun asumus-aloilta – Antiquités du Nord finno-ougrien aroused considerable interest internation-ally because of the material they systematized.The atlas was printed as five bilingual booklets,which contained the material Aspelin had col-lected for his dissertation and were supplementedwith new finds (Aspelin 1874; 1876a; 1876b;1877–84; 1878b).

Aspelin divided the European Bronze Age intotwo separate cultural areas, West European andUral-Altaic. He did not completely accept theMontelian diffusionistic concept, according towhich the whole cultural development of Europehad its roots in the Near East. On the other hand,he considered Montelius’ model as a natural ex-planation for the spread of metal (Aspelin 1875:55). Aspelin thought several western Iron Ageartefact forms had developed from Siberian ori-gins and belonged to the same people. Despitethis, he was not the first to present the concept ofa Ural-Altaic Bronze Age. It had occurred alreadyin Pallas’ books and had been formulated archaeo-logically by the Dane J.J.A. Worsaae (Worsaae1872).

In the south, Aspelin separated the Scythianbronze culture. Its forms had great similaritieswith Siberian forms, but Aspelin admitted that itwas difficult to say whether this indicated ethnickinship or a common source of culture (Aspelin1875: 79–80).

According to Aspelin, a still unexplained rea-son had forced the Finns to leave the Altai in theLate Bronze Age. After arriving in regions whereno bronze was available, they had had to maketheir utensils of other materials: at first, at the riverKama, of bone and antler, then later, in Olonec,of stone. As the main evidence for this theory,

Aspelin considered the animal figures found fromthe whole area from Siberia to Karelia. Later, thepopulation had again had access to bronze and inAnan’ino they had learned to use iron. Artefactforms had maintained the Siberian tradition.Anan’ino forms lived further in the so-calledPermian Iron Age. Aspelin assumed that the Finnshad moved from the Baltic to Finland around AD700, because the artefact forms of the earlier IronAge in Finland were Scandinavian or Germanic,whereas later forms resembled the types found inthe dwelling areas of Finno-Ugric peoples inRussia (Aspelin 1875; 1883: 54–9; Worsaae 1872:348–60; see also Kokkonen 1984: 154;Белокобыльский 1986: 31–56).

Aspelin had visited Anan’ino in 1872, and hisobservations caused him to consider it as a partof the Finno-Ugric past. What became significantwas the relationship between Anan’ino and thelate, assumedly Finno-Ugric Iron Age (Aspelin1875: 106–25, 158–59, 209–10; 1877–84: 124).Because of its assumed position as a link betweenSiberia and European Russia, Anan’ino played acentral role in Finnish archaeology for severaldecades. In addition to Aspelin’s own publica-tions, his ideas were presented to Russian audi-ences by P.D. Šestakov (Шестаковъ, П. Д.1880: 129–30, 133).

Aspelin rejected some interpretations made byWest European archaeologists. J.J.A. Worsaae hadassumed that the Finnish tribe had brought theStone Age culture from Siberia to the west, but inAspelin’s opinion, the Stone Age in EuropeanRussia could not have a Finnish origin, becauseno Stone Age were known between the Urals andeastern Siberia.

Aspelin also rejected Constantin Grewingk’sassumption about the Finno-Ugrianism of theStone Age in the Baltic, because the Iron Age wasinterpreted as Gothic there. Grewingk had exam-ined F.M. Müller’s idea that the original inhabit-ants of Central Europe had been Finnic, butAspelin never paid any attention to that possibil-ity. Actually, also Grewingk considered it unlikely(Worsaae 1872: 345; Grewingk 1874: 59–60, 70–72, 89–90, 106; Aspelin 1875: 49–53). Later,Julius Ailio (1872–1933) presented the same ideain the Finnish literature on the basis of GustafKossinna’s views. Nevertheless, Ailio assumedthe Finnish original home to have been situatedin the Valdaj region (Ailio 1923).

fa07.p65 20.12.2007, 18:2841

42

Antiquités brought Aspelin into correspond-ence with several foreign colleagues. Especiallyinteresting was the discussion he had with theFrench archaeologist Charles de Linas, becauseLinas referred in his letters to the Bronze Age andEarly Iron Age contacts between central Russiaand Caucasia. Aspelin had neglected this possi-ble explanation for the background of theAnan’ino culture, because Castrén’s theory of theoriginal home of the Finns had so strongly di-rected his views (Salminen 2003b: 55, 62 withreferences; see also Сафонов 2004a: 27; 2004b:62).

DIE KUPFER- UND BRONZEZEIT INNORD- UND OSTRUSSLAND

A.M. Tallgren began his studies of the Ural-AltaicBronze Age with a study trip to the museums ofLondon and Paris in 1908. There he noticed the

difference between Bronze Age cultures in Sibe-ria and in the Volga–Kama region. Tallgren pub-lished his observations immediately as an articlein Finnish. The principal groups of artefacts pro-viding evidence of separate cultures in Siberia andat the Kama were axes, animal figures, and dag-gers, for all of which Tallgren could show west-ern or southern equivalents. Tallgren left thequestion of the possible Finno-Ugrianism of theBronze Age in Russia to wait for the ‘cartographicresearch of types’ (Tallgren 1908: 149–165).

In 1911, Tallgren’s dissertation Die Kupfer-und Bronzezeit in Nord- und Ostrussland estab-lished a new interpretation of the Bronze Age inRussia. Here, he separated the Uralic and AltaicBronze Ages from each other. He was not the firstto do this, however. I already mentioned J.J.A.Worsaae’s views, but also another Dane, SophusMüller, noticed in 1882 that the Bronze Age re-mains between the Volga and the Altai showedmore similarity with European remains than withSiberian ones. In addition to that, he consideredthe western finds older than the finds from Sibe-ria. In Russia, A.A. Stuckenberg published thesame idea in 1901, noting that the Bronze Age inEuropean Russia was an independent cultural areacompared to both Western Europe and Siberia.Tallgren’s merits were that, firstly, he searchedand found detailed evidence for this, and, sec-ondly, his results were printed in an internation-ally understood language, German, instead ofDanish or Russian (Müller 1882: 348–56;Штукенбергъ 1901: 165–8; Tallgren 1911b;1919: 124–5).

Stone Age finds from the middle of the 1880sshowed that there indeed was a local backgroundbehind the Uralic and Volga Bronze Age(Зайцевъ 1886: 50–5; Tallgren 1908: 148–59;1907: 71; Salminen 2003b: 118). Tallgren built hisinterpretation on new finds, new ways to exam-ine the previously known material, and a moredetailed analysis of the material he had at his dis-posal. He assumed that shared Scythian originscaused the similarities in the Uralic and Altaiccultural groups (Tallgren 1911b: 1–24, 94–5;1919: 79, 124–6, 171, 175–7; Kosinskaya 2001:265–75).

Despite the division he had made, Tallgren stillbound the cultural groups together with a super-structure, the ‘so-called Ural-Altaic area’(Tallgren 1911b: V, 1–2, 10–12, 15, 122). This

Fig. 2. An inscription stone in Chirkovo, WesternSiberia. From Appelgren-Kivalo 1931, Abb. 157.

fa07.p65 20.12.2007, 18:2842

43

concept was needed to keep the whole area insidethe borders of the field signified as belonging toFinnish archaeology (Tallgren 1926: 12ff; 1927:3–4).

In Tallgren’s opinion, the Bronze Age in Rus-sia had mostly received influences, but he ex-pected new finds to give it a more active role inthe cultural development (Tallgren 1911b: 216–7). Tallgren developed this idea further in his laterworks. He saw the Ukrainian Bronze Age as acombination of independent forms and externalinfluences. The whole steppe culture was directedtowards the west, contrary to what Aspelin,Müller, and V.A. Gorodcov had assumed (Tallgren1926: 87, 214–21). In the turn of the Bronze andIron Ages, Russia had certainly had connectionswith the Black Sea region and probably also withArmenia. Tallgren found the centre of theAnan’ino culture at the river Kama and consid-ered its area as extending to Ekaterinburg, perhapsto Tobol’sk, even Tomsk, in the south to the gov-

ernments of Samara and Saratov, and in the north-west at least sporadically to Finland. The originsof the Caucasian Bronze Age could also be foundelsewhere than in the Ural-Altaic area. LikeAspelin, Tallgren considered the Anan’ino cultureand Scythian civilization as independent groups(Tallgren 1919: 86, 92, 95–103, 171, 184).

Tallgren’s dissertation refuted the AspelinianUral-Altaic theory. It was also the first publica-tion to bring the question of the eastern BronzeAge in Finland into the general consciousness.Eastern Bronze Age finds had been made in Fin-land since the turn of the century, and Tallgren wasaware of two cultural areas in Finland at leastaround 1906. Alfred Hackman (1864–1942) hadpublished papers on eastern socketed axes fromFinland in 1899 and 1903. He still referred tocontacts in the Urals, but, significantly enough,did not take the birth of the bronze culture furtherto the east any more (Hackman 1899: 2; 1903: 11,13; Tallgren 1906: 47; 1911a; 1911b: 144–50,

Fig. 3. Siberian artefact forms.Tallgren 1911b, Abb. 1.

fa07.p65 20.12.2007, 18:2843

44

153–86, 198; 1917: 25; 1930: 5–6, 1933: 20–1;1934: 41).

Tallgren’s book changed the relationship be-tween Ural-Altaic archaeology and Finnish pre-history. In Aspelin’s works, the Ural-Altaiccultural sphere and the eastern Bronze Age hadbelonged to the past of the Finnish tribe far awayand in times long past. From Alfred Hackman’sand A.M. Tallgren’s studies on, these subjects losttheir indisputable connection with the Finnishpeople, but became a part of the prehistory ofFinland.

ARCHAEOLOGY AS SIGNIFIER: GENERALPOINTS OF VIEW

By using information about linguistic relation-ships, historical, archaeological, and ethnographi-cal ideas about the material culture of the Finnic

peoples, and mentions in folk tradition, Aspelinformulated his view of the development of theFinno-Ugric material culture, the birth and migra-tion of the Finnish tribe, i.e. the Ural-Altaic theory.This was possible, because Aspelin consideredonly certain types of artefacts as signs of the‘white-eyed Chuds’ of folk tradition.

In the turn of the 1860s and 1870s, Aspelin hadvery few ready meanings on which to base theinterpretations of archaeological finds. Aspelinconfronted his material, the cultural languagesexpressed in it, and the prehistoric peoples’significations, which he had to translate into thelanguage of his own archaeological signification.In principle, these significations were incommen-surable with each other. Although unconsciously,Aspelin was nevertheless creating a myth of theprehistory of the Finnish people (for a generaltheory of cultural semiotics, see Lotman &

Fig. 4. East Russian arte-fact forms. Tallgren1911b, Abb. 2.

fa07.p65 20.12.2007, 18:2844

45

Uspenskij 1984: x–xii, 3; Danow 1991: 22–27,59–60, 96, 99, 102–4; Tarasti 1995; Lotman 1999:12, 18–21, 24, 39–42, 58, 62).

The general aims of 19th-century archaeologywere typological and chronological: archaeolo-gists wanted to arrange the material they had attheir disposal. Phenomena were ascribed a spe-cial meaning only when an archaeologist ex-ceeded this level. Aspelin’s aim was to definenationalities, and he emphasized the newness ofthis attempt (Aspelin 1875: 3–5). He consideredthe recipients of his writings to consist of thenationally-minded educated class as well as thecommon people and the sceptical, even hostile,opposing party. The latter group meant especiallySwedish-speaking Finns, but also Russians.

Aspelin’s point of view was based on the ideaof progress. This idea was inherited from the Ageof Enlightenment, and Aspelin saw no need toprovide further arguments for it. Without the ideaof progress, it would be impossible to understandthe construction with which Aspelin explained theFinnish migration from the Altai to the west(Aspelin 1875: 4–5).

By including his papers in international con-ferences and publications, Aspelin attempted tosignify some Bronze and Iron Age cultures inRussia as Finnish property. This meant both theright to research these cultures and the right toown their heritage. Finnish archaeological re-search was exhibited also in the World Exhibitionin Paris in 1878. Finds from Finland, as well asfrom the Ural-Altaic region, were taken to theexhibition. Building a nation required presentingthe past and especially the Finnish national char-acter to foreign audiences (Aspelin 1874; 1876a;1876b; 1876c; 1878a; 1878b; Аспелинъ 1884;Smeds 1996: 43–4, 152–3, 159).

URAL-ALTAIC BRONZE AGE ANDPERMIAN IRON AGE SIGNIFIED

Aspelin was the first to construct a theoretical andmethodological framework for Finnish archaeol-ogy. He presented it in the fourth All-Russian ar-chaeology conference in Kazan’ in 1877 andpublished his paper in both Finnish and Russian.The task of archaeology was to discover ‘nationalpeculiarities in archaeological material’ and usethem to ‘understand peoples that no longer exist’.Aspelin did not place an especially strong empha-

sis on typology, although he discussed the signifi-cance of series of finds in explaining the devel-opment of forms (Aspelin 1877: 138–9, 142.Аспелинъ 1884; cf. Оконникова 2002: 64–5).

In his time, J.R. Aspelin did not consider it easyto recognize national forms in Stone Age artefacts,because the material used determined the possi-ble forms and also because stone artefact formswere not yet well researched. On the other hand,bronze as a material did not determine artefactforms. The caster could form objects according totaste and each people’s ‘special consciousness ofbeauty’ could be freely reflected (Aspelin 1875:57).

Aspelin divided the Russian Bronze Age intotwo main groups: the western group, which wasconnected with the Central European Bronze Age,and the eastern group, which was different. Thelatter one ‘appears as a completely peculiar groupin the easternmost parts of our research area’.Aspelin already admitted to connecting the east-ern Bronze Age with the Finnish tribe (Aspelin1875: 55, 65).

Now he had to define both the regional andchronological borders of his eastern or Ural-Altaicculture. In his opinion, it began on the steppesaround the upper course of the river Enisej and themountains of Altai (Aspelin 1875: 68). After this,Aspelin’s concept of the Bronze Age also con-tained Castrén’s linguistic theory of the Finno-Ugrianism of the inhabitants on the steppesaround the headwaters of the Enisej. The conceptof the Iron Age, again, contained the assumptionthat these inhabitants emigrated to the west at thetime of adaptation of iron, and a new, Kirgiz set-tlement took place in Siberia. That meant thatAspelin could leave the Siberian Iron Age gravesoutside his analysis, without comparison to theearlier ones.

Because the Finnish tribe had, according toCastrén, come from Siberia, its earliest signsshould be sought there. There were inscriptionsand rock drawings, which Aspelin assumed todate to the Bronze Age, because their distributionwas the same as the area of the Altaic Bronze Ageculture that he had defined. Combined withCastrén’s assumption about the Finnish originalhome in the Altai, especially the Siberian BronzeAge culture was considered as ‘Finnic’ and be-longed entirely within the borders of the

fa07.p65 20.12.2007, 18:2845

46

Aspelinian Finno-Ugric culture. Following thebronze culture, also the inscriptions were signi-fied as belonging to the ‘Finnish tribe’. Aspelinsingled out human and animal figures among in-scription motifs, because he saw expressions inthem belonging to the same cultural language hecould recognize from later periods in the west.Moreover, when Spasskij and Grewingk had com-pared the Siberian pictures with the rock carvingsat Lake Onega, their position in the centre of theAspelinian Finnic culture was clear. Other Sibe-rian pictures, made with red paint, had equivalentsin the Urals, which indicated the distribution ofthese pictures and their makers in that area, too.New significations were built upon this infrastruc-ture (Aspelin 1875: 87–91).

In this way, Aspelin had divided prehistoriccultures into artificial groups. Their borders weredefined partly retrospectively and named. Withnames the groups were semiotized to explain ex-actly the problem that the archaeologist had set(Salminen 2002b).

The Galich treasure was given a meaning as anactual bind between different cultures. In anAnan’ino cemetery, Aspelin saw a continuation tothe forms of Galich idols. In this way, archaeo-logical comparison gave the Anan’ino figures andmotifs their meaning. The shared meaning of‘Finnish tribe’ between the Siberian bronze cul-ture, Galich, and Anan’ino prevented Aspelinfrom seeing a connection between Anan’ino andCaucasian cultures. Caucasus remained a non-cul-ture, because it did not fit the picture Aspelin hadin mind.

After Anan’ino had become the central pointof the narrative ‘Finnish migration’, the meaningof other finds depended on their relationship to it.The Late Iron Age in the Perm’ region was con-sidered Finno-Ugric without any doubt. Was theearlier Iron Age known from the Perm’ region anintermediate phase between Anan’ino and theLate Permian Iron Age there or a separate phe-nomenon? Could the material signs of the Finn-ish tribe be extended over a period of almost athousand years from which there were no finds?

Because the forms of the later Iron Age seemedto be commonplace in the areas where they wereknown, it seemed probable that the settlementusing them had had a longer development historyonly in those places where it was found. This ishow the Early Iron Age finds were considered by

Aspelin as signs of the Finno-Ugrians. Actually,they attained this position due to the fact that therewas no other material to which he could havegiven that kind of meaning. Because Anan’inocould at least in principle be proven to be a cen-tre where the later Finno-Ugric forms originated,its own meaning was strengthened. This againstrengthened the meanings of later finds (Aspelin1875: 210–11).

In Aspelin’s attitude as a whole, two conflict-ing powers can be seen: romanticism sought theobscure past of peoples and positivistic archaeo-logical method sought the independence of sci-ence (Aspelin 1875: 57, 210–12; Shanks 1992:15–21; Salminen 1993: 14–17).

All interpretations of Finnish prehistory at theend of the 19th century and in the beginning of the20th century were based on Aspelin’s work. Untilthe middle of the 1890s, it had become a myththrough which the formation process of the Finn-ish people out of a larger Finno-Ugric communitywas viewed.

In some respects, the situation of Finnish ar-chaeology started to change in the 1890s. Therewas no longer such unanimity concerning the re-lationship of the Bronze Age and Early Iron Ageto the Finnish tribe as there had been earlier. TheLate Iron Age retained its position, and J.R.Aspelin himself as well. He was already theFounder of Finnish Archaeology and his theorieshad attained a mythical position.

FINNISH SIGNIFICATIONS AND RUSSIANARCHAEOLOGISTS IN THE 19TH CENTURY

An extensive analysis of how the Finnish systemof significations influenced Russian archaeolo-gists’ interpretations cannot be carried out here,but some observations can be made. I use archae-ologists and archaeological publications fromKazan’ as examples, because J.R. Aspelin was acorresponding member of the Kazan’ Society ofHistory, Archaeology and Ethnography since1884.

Aspelin’s central object of study in easternRussia had been the cemetery of Anan’ino, whichhe semiotized as a junction of his Ural-Altaic cul-ture between Siberia and Europe. In 1892, P.A.Ponomarev attempted to reach a general overviewof all research at Anan’ino and its interpretations.He accepted the Aspelinian concept of a Ural-

fa07.p65 20.12.2007, 18:2846

47

Altaic culture but did not comment on Anan’ino’sposition within the whole. Speculation about dat-ing and ethnicity did not, in his opinion, belongto a presentation that should concentrate on facts(Пономаревъ 1892: 412, 438).

The approach of a natural scientist is clearlyvisible here. Many Kazan’ archaeologists weretrained in the natural sciences and the centre oftheir semiosphere could not contain anything butresults of empirical observations and experiments.In this climate, Aspelin’s system of significationshad no chance of success. This also mostly ex-plains the characteristic of Russian archaeologythat the Finnish archaeologists considered as in-capability to generalize, but it does not explainwhy the typological method did not become anestablished part of archaeological methodology inRussia in the same way as in the west (see alsoОконникова 2002: 60–5; Salminen 2003b: 32).

Later, S.P. Šestakov wrote on how archaeologi-cal finds cannot tell as much about race as aboutthe way of life. He stated that although theScythian material culture is very similar to that ofMongolia, this does not refute the theory of theAryan or Iranian origin of the Scyths, because

linguistics, archaeology, and folk tradition allspeak for it (С.П. Шестаковъ 1906: 145). Ac-tually, material culture and ethnicity were sepa-rated from each other even earlier in Russian thanin Finnish archaeology.

Aspelinian, Fennoman archaeology had also toconfront Russian, Slavic nationality and nation-alism. In the Kazan’ Society, plans were createdto found a Russian (русский) public museumof history and archaeology at the end of 1870s.According to V.M. Florinskij, this museum shouldhave sought and presented the original, purelyRussian culture that had in the course of timebecome mixed with European culture and evenbecome extinct. No copies of foreign modelsshould have been exhibited (Флоринскiй 1880:128–9). Florinskij started from the same idea ofnational spirit as Aspelin but went further: he as-sumed that a purely original, Russian form ofculture could be found. Because the museum wasmeant to be exclusively Russian, it seemed tostrengthen Aspelin’s idea of Finns as the rightfulheirs of the Finno-Ugric peoples.

In spite of everything, the Kazan’ Society alsosaw itself within the Ural-Altaic framework of

Fig. 5. The University of Kazan’ was one of the archaeological centres in Eastern Russia. Postcard fromthe beginning of the 20th century.

fa07.p65 20.12.2007, 18:2847

48

significations established by the Finns, undoubt-edly as a leading Ural-Altaic archaeological so-ciety. It published information about new Finnishpublications, but also new collections of other eastRussian museums as far as Minusinsk. Kazan’archaeologists carried out excavations far outsidetheir own government, too (Библiографiя1892; Смирновъ 1895; Лобановъ 1893;Чупинъ 1893; Мартьяновъ 1895; Зайцевъ1886).

RE-ASSESSING THE SEMIOSPHERE:HACKMAN AND TALLGREN

The circumstances in which Finnish archaeologywas working in the early 20th century had changedfrom the circumstances 20–30 years earlier. Onthe one hand, archaeology had been establishedwith the foundation of the Archaeological Com-mission and the Historical Museum, but on theother hand, it had not been able to answer all thequestions raised by national awakening. Also,because Finnish society had to fight againstRussification, it was more and more compelled toemphasize the special character of Finland and itspast locally, instead of searching for remote roots,especially if they were situated in Russia.

Alfred Hackman’s Die ältere Eisenzeit inFinnland established a more detailed explanationof the settlement of Finland. Hackman examinedthe Late Bronze Age in Finland as a backgroundto the Iron Age by using Aspelinian concepts, butsetting the concept of Kulturkreis above them. Heconsidered the main settlement in Bronze AgeFinland to have been Scandinavian. The Uralicfinds showed mainly trade connections. Hackmandid not use the concept of Ural-Altaic – he hadactually questioned it already in 1897, and evenin the Anan’ino and Zuevskoe cemeteries he re-fers only to daggers similar to those found in Si-beria. The central result of Hackman’s book wasthe new interpretation of the Finnish immigrationto Finland. According to him it had started alreadyin the first century AD (Hackman 1905: 2–3, 8–13, 18, 318–59; Salminen 1993: 40, endnote 211).

It is important to note that despite new inter-pretations, Hackman never rejected the Aspeliniantradition as a whole and never questionedAspelin’s significance as a central figure in Finn-ish archaeology.

In A.M. Tallgren’s thinking, groups of artefactsand cultures emerge more clearly from the mate-

rial itself than in Aspelin’s view. Aspelin had con-sidered objects as signs in which the spirit of thepeople has signified the artefacts. An archaeolo-gist’s duty was to recognize these meanings.

Tallgren used typology, but analogy wasequally important to him. He searched for equiva-lents without using typological series. SinceMontelius, Bronze Age research had bound itselfto typology, and in that realm Tallgren followeda strong tradition. On the other hand, while writ-ing about the Late Stone Age and Copper Agefinds from Galich, Tallgren preferred to use hisanalogy method. He has stated that he attempts toformulate syntheses rather than make typologicalseries (Tallgren 1911b: 45–93, 170–83; 1919:111–81; 1926: 169–213; cf. Appelgren-Kivalo1912a, 1912b; Tallgren 1936: 248).

Both Aspelin and Tallgren found some kind ofcultural idea in the artefacts. For Aspelin it wasnational, ethnic, for Tallgren more difficult todefine. Aspelin noted forms that were similar toor completely different from each other withoutmaking detailed comparisons. Tallgren used hisgeographic-chronological method to create a gen-eral picture of the culture, which he tried to pro-portion to other pictures and to which heproportioned each artefact form. This is especiallytypical of his work in the 1920s, and its similar-ity to Julius Krohn’s (1835–88) and KaarleKrohn’s (1863–1933) geographic-historicalmethod of folklore research is significant(Tallgren 1919: 86–103; 1926: 85–7, 139; Krohn1909; Hautala 1954: 264–5).

Tallgren left the question of the nationality ofthe East Russian inhabitants open, although heconsidered it possible that they could be Finno-Ugric. The main contingent of the Finno-Ugrictribes would probably have lived east of theseareas, where especially rich remains of Stone Ageculture could be found. At least the Finno-Ugrianshad been bearers of the east Russian metal culture.Probable evidence of this was provided by theAnan’ino finds, which were a precondition of thePermian ‘certainly Finno-Ugric’ bone and ironculture. Because Anan’ino culture transformedunnoticeably into an iron culture, which againtransformed into Permian culture, it was possiblethat Anan’ino could be derived from an earlierbronze culture. The new, oriental artefact formsin Anan’ino could be explained with the changein ethnic circumstances caused by a Scythianmigration in the Black Sea region. The immi-

fa07.p65 20.12.2007, 18:2848

49

grants would have adopted cultural influencesfrom the south there. Tallgren denied a connec-tion between material culture and ethnic identity(Tallgren 1911b: 217–218; 1913; 1915: 218).

In 1919, Tallgren repeated the separation ofmaterial culture and ethnic identity less clearly inhis book L’époque dite d’Ananino, in which hewrote about the spread of Scythian ornaments inRussia. The Anan’ino people at least were notScyths. Their culture had emerged from a localbackground and adopted Scythian influences.Tallgren hoped that in the future archaeologycould shed light on questions such as the originalhome of the Finns. This is why he speculated onthe ethnic background of the Scyths, too, assum-ing them probably to be Indo-European. Whendiscussing the Finno-Ugric original home, hestated that it could not be located yet. He had tocontent himself with general characteristics likethe connection between Comb Ceramics andFinno-Ugrians (Tallgren 1919: 103, 181–4; 1923:335; Ligi 1994a: 114; 1994b; Tõnisson 1994:808–9; Salminen 2006: 30).

Although artefacts in themselves were notbearers of national spirit, the culture as a wholehad its own character. One of the clearest exam-ples of this was Tallgren’s characterization ofAnan’ino culture (Tallgren 1919: 171, 177–8).

The difference between Aspelin’s andTallgren’s approaches can be explained onlythrough the difference in the idea of culture andthe questions arising from it. Aspelin sought ageneral picture of a large area, whereas Tallgrendelved deeper into one specific part of Aspelin’sfield. Tallgren broke the Aspelinian myth intopieces, but did not build a new myth instead.Tallgren got the closest to building myths whenhe made a paradigm out of Alfred Hackman’s newinterpretation of the Finnish immigration to Fin-land (Tallgren 1926: 189, 196–7; 1931: 141–4).

Although Tallgren refuted many of Aspelin’sinterpretations, he did not question Aspelin’s po-sition as the icon of Ural-Altaic archaeology.Aspelin remained the mythical Father of all Finn-ish archaeologists. In the same way, Tallgreniconized the Ural-Altaic area, only giving it amodified meaning for the new situation (Tallgren1911b: V, VII, 1–2, 10, 15, 122).

REFERENCESAalto, P. 1971. Oriental Studies in Finland 1828–1918.

History of Learning and Science in Finland 1828–1918, 10b. Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Helsinki.

Ailio, J. 1923. Onko suomalais-ugrilainen alkukoti ollutSkandinaaviassa vaiko Venäjällä? HistoriallinenAikakauskirja 21: 78–89.

Appelgren-Kivalo, Hj. 1912a. Die Grundzüge desskythisch-permischen Ornamentstiles. Suomen Mui-naismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 26: 1–20.

Appelgren-Kivalo, Hj. 1912b. Vogelkopf und Hirsch alsOrnamentsmotive in der Vorzeit Sibiriens. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 12: 290–6.

Appelgren-Kivalo, Hj. 1931. Alt-altaische Kunst-denkmäler. Briefe und Bildermaterial von J.R.Aspelins Reisen in Sibirien und der Mongolei 1887–1889. Finnische Altertumsgesellschaft, Helsingfors.

Aspelin, J.R. 1874. Études archéologiques sur le NordFinno-Ougrien. Trois mémoires lues au Congrèsinternational d’anthropologie et d’archéologiepréhistoriques à Stockholm. Stockholm.

Aspelin, J.R. 1875. Suomalais-ugrilaisen muinaistut-kinnon alkeita. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seurantoimituksia 51. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura,Helsinki.

Aspelin, J.R. 1876a. Chronologie de l’Âge du BronzeAltai-Ouralien. Congrès international d’anthropo-logie et d’archéologie préhistoriques. Compte-rendude la huitième session à Budapest 1876, vol. I: 677–86. Budapest.

Aspelin, J.R. 1876b. Du groupe arctique et des Lapons.Congrès international d’anthropologie et d’archéo-logie préhistoriques. Compte-rendu de la huitièmesession à Budapest 1876, vol. I: 694–700. Budapest.

Aspelin, J.R. 1876c. Från arkeologiska kongressen iBudapest. II. Morgonbladet, No. 225/1876(28.9.1876). III. Morgonbladet, No. 227/1876(30.9.1876).

Aspelin, J.R. 1877. Vertailevasta muinaistutkinnosta.Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 2:137–54.

Aspelin, J.R. 1877–84. Muinaisjäännöksiä Suomensuvun asumus-aloilta – Antiquités du nord Finno-ougrien I–V. G.W. Edlund, Helsinki.

Aspelin, J.R. 1878a. Catalogue raisonné des antiquitésdu nord Finno-Ougrien exposées par l’Universitéd’Helsingfors à l’éxposition universelle de 1878.Helsingfors.

Aspelin, J.R. 1878b. De la civilisation préhistorique despeuples Permiens et de leur commerce avec l’Orient(Travaux de la 3-ème session du Congrès inter-national des orientalistes à St. Pétersbourg 1876). E.J.Brill, Leiden.

Aspelin, J.R. 1883. Suomen asukkaat pakanuudenaikana. K.E. Holm, Helsinki.

Castrén, M.A. 1845. Anteckningar om Samojediskansförvandtskap med de Finska språken. Suomi 5: 177–186.

Castrén, M.A. 1855. M.A. Castréns reseberättelser ochbref åren 1845–1849. M.A. Castréns nordiska resoroch forskningar II. Tikkanen, Helsingfors.

Danow, D.K. 1991. The Thought of Mikhail Bakhtin:From Word to Culture. Macmillan, London.

Grewingk, C. 1874. Zur Archäologie des Balticum undRusslands. Archiv für Anthropologie 7: 59–109.

fa07.p65 20.12.2007, 18:2849

50

Hackman, A. 1899. Ett märkligt bronsåldersfynd. FinsktMuseum 6: 1–3.

Hackman, A. 1903. Ett märkligt bronsåldersfynd frånnorra Finland. Studier tillägnade Oscar Montelius 199/9 03 af Lärjungar: 1–12. P.A. Norstedt & Söner,Stockholm.

Hackman, A. 1905. Die ältere Eisenzeit in Finnland I.Die Funde von fünf ersten Jahrhunderten n. Chr.Finnische Altertumsgesellschaft, Helsinki.

Hautala, J. 1954. Suomalainen kansanrunoudentutki-mus. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia244. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, Helsinki.

Kokkonen, J. 1984. The concept of the Finnic peoplesand the early stages of archaeology in Finland. InIskos 4: Fenno-ugri et slavi 1983. Papers Presentedby the Participants in the Soviet-Finnish Symposium“Trade, Exchange and Culture Relations of thePeoples of Fennoscandia and Eastern Europe” 9–13May 1983 in the Hanasaari Congress Center: 151–5. Finnish Antiquarian Society, Helsinki.

Kosinskaya, L.L. 2001. The Neolithic period of north-western Siberia: the question of southernconnections. In C. Carpelan, A. Parpola & P. Koski-kallio (eds.), Early Contacts between Uralic andIndo-European: Linguistic and ArchaeologicalConsiderations. Papers presented at an internationalsymposium held at the Tvärminne research Stationof the University of Helsinki 8–10 January 1999:265–287. Mémoires de la Société Finno-ougrienne242. Finno-Ugrian Society, Helsinki.

Krohn, K. 1909. Suomalaisesta kansanrunoudentut-kimuksen metodista. Virkaanastujaisesitelmä 30/I1909. Valvoja 29: 103–12.

Ligi, P. 1994a. Poliitika, ideoloogia ja muinasteadus.Looming 1/1994: 110–21.

Ligi, P. 1994b. Tuuleveskid, Dulcinea ja Eestiesiajalugu. Looming 6/1994: 812–23.

Lotman, J. 1999. Semiosfäärist (koostanud ja tõlkinudKajar Pruul). Vagabund, Tallinn.

Lotman, Ju. M. & Uspenskij, B.A. 1984. The Semioticsof Russian Culture (ed. by Ann Shukman). Universityof Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Müller, S. 1882. Den europeiske BronzealdersOprindelse og første Udvikling, oplyst ved de ældsteBronzefund i det sydøstlige Europa. Aarbøger fornordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, 1882: 279–356.

Salminen, T. 1993. Suomalaisuuden asialla: muinais-tieteen yliopisto-opetuksen syntyvaiheet n. 1877–1923. Helsinki Papers in Archaeology 6. Universityof Helsinki, Department of Archaeology.

Salminen, T. 1994. Finnish archaeologists in Russia andSiberia up to 1917; The antiquities collections ofZausailov and Tovostin and their acquisition byFinland; The artefacts. Appendix in A. Parpola & P.Koskikallio (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Inter-national Conference of the European Association ofSouth Asian Archaeologists held in Helsinki Uni-versity 5–9 July 1993: 847–853. Annales AcademiaeScientiarum Fennicae B 271:2. Finnish Academy ofSciences and Letters, Helsinki.

Salminen, T. 1998. Kysynnän ja tarjonnan laki arkeo-logiassa – suomalaisten toivotut ja löydetyt juuret.Muinaistutkija 4/1998: 103–9.

Salminen, T. 2002a. Archaeologists’ Siberia. In I.Lehtinen (ed.), Siberia, Life on the Taiga and Tundra:47–64. National Board of Antiquities, Helsinki.

Salminen, T. 2002b. Suomenkielistä muinaistutki-musta? Arkeologisen käsitteistön ja kielenkäytönmuotoutuminen tutkimusongelmana. Muinaistutkija3/2002: 20–8.

Salminen, T. 2003a. National and internationalinfluences in the Finnish archaeological research inRussia and Siberia. Fennoscandia archaeologica 20:101–14.

Salminen, T. 2003b. Suomen tieteelliset voittomaat:Venäjä ja Siperia suomalaisessa arkeologiassa1870–1935. Suomen MuinaismuistoyhdistyksenAikakauskirja 110. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys,Helsinki.

Salminen, T. 2006. Searching for the Finnish roots –archaeological cultures and ethnic groups in worksof Aspelin and Tallgren. In V.-P. Herva (ed.), People,Material Culture and Environment in the North:Proceedings of the 22nd Nordic ArchaeologyConference, University of Oulu, 18–23 August 2004:26–32. Studia humaniora ouluensia 1. University ofOulu, Oulu.

Salminen, T. 2007. Finnish archaeologists in Russia1870–1935: backgrounds, goals and developments.Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology ofEurasia 1/2007: 100–110 (also in Russian).

Shanks, M. 1992. Experiencing the Past: On theCharacter of Archaeology. Routledge, London.

Smeds, K. 1996. Helsingfors–Paris: Finlandsutveckling till nation på världsutställningarna 1851–1900. Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Litteratur-sällskapet i Finland 598. Svenska Litteratursällskapeti Finland, Helsingfors.

Tallgren, A.M. 1906. Tre nya bronsåldersfynd frånFinland. Suomen Museo-Finskt Museum 13: 42–8.

Tallgren, A.M. 1907. Kivikautinen taideteos Säkki-järveltä. Suomen Museo–Finskt Museum 14: 67–72.

Tallgren, A.M. 1908. Ural-altailaisesta pronssikaudesta.Historiallinen Aikakauskirja 6: 148–65.

Tallgren, A.M. 1911a. Alkkulan kivi-pronssikaudenlöytö. Suomen Museo 18: 49–57.

Tallgren, A.M. 1911b. Die Kupfer- und Bronzezeit inNord- und Ostrussland, I: Die Kupfer- und Bronze-zeit in Nordwestrussland; Die ältere Metallzeit inOstrussland. Suomen MuinaismuistoyhdistyksenAikakauskirja 25(1): 1–229. Finnish AntiquarianSociety, Helsinki.

Tallgren, A.M. 1913. Itä-Venäjän pronssikausi. Valvoja33: 673–82.

Tallgren, A.M. 1915. ”Kaman-takaiset” hopeat. Valvoja35: 211–18.

Tallgren, A.M. 1917. Muutamia siperialais-uralilaisiaonsikelttejä. Suomen Museo 24: 23–5.

Tallgren, A.M. 1919. L’époque dite d’Ananino dans laRussie orientale. Die Kupfer- und Bronzezeit in Nord-und Ostrussland, II. Suomen Muinaismuisto-yhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 31. Finnish AntiquarianSociety, Helsinki.

Tallgren, A.M. 1923. Itäbaltikumin esihistoriallisistakansallisuusoloista. Suomi 5(2): 330–347.

Tallgren, A.M. 1926. La Pontide préscythique aprèsl’introduction des métaux. Eurasia SeptentrionalisAntiqua II, Helsinki.

Tallgren, A.M. 1927. Pronssikausi Mustanmerenaroilla. Suomen Museo 34: 1–24.

Tallgren, A.M. 1930. Harvinainen pronssikauden löytöPerniöstä. Suomen Museo 37: 1–6.

fa07.p65 20.12.2007, 18:2850

51

Tallgren, A.M. 1931. Suomen muinaisuus. Suomenhistoria I. Werner Söderström Oy, Helsinki.

Tallgren, A.M. 1933. Pronssikautinen kirves Maariasta.Suomen Museo 40: 18–21.

Tallgren, A.M. 1934. Eräitä epäselviä muinaislöytöjä.Suomen Museo 41: 41–8.

Tallgren, A.M. 1936. Geschichte der antiquarischenForschung in Finnland. Eurasia SeptentrionalisAntiqua 10: 199–261.

Tarasti, E. 1995. Semiotics for Archaeologists. In M.Tusa & T. Kirkinen (eds.), Nordic TAG: The Archaeo-logist and His/Her Reality. Report from the FourthNordic TAG Conference, Helsinki 1992. HelsinkiPapers in Archaeology 7: 69 – 74. University ofHelsinki, Helsinki.

Tõnisson, E. 1994. Miks ei võiks ma olla indiaanlane?Looming 6/1994: 806–11.

Worsaae, J.J.A. 1872. Ruslands og det SkandinaviskeNordens Bebyggelse og ældste Kulturforhold. Bidragtil sammenlignende forhistorisk Archæologie.Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie1872: 309–432.

Аспелинъ, И. Р. 1884. О потребностиизученiя формъ предметовъ ипостепенномъ развитiи этихъ формъ въдоисторическихъ временахъ. Труды IV0го Археологическаго Съезда въ КазанеI: 5–18. Казань.

Белокобыльский, Ю. Г. 1986. Бронзовыйи ранний железный век южной Сибири.История идей и исследований XVIII–первая треть XX в. Наука, Сибирскоеотделение, Новосибирск.

Библiографiя 1892. Известiя ОбществаАрхеологiи, Исторiи и Этнографiи приИМПЕРАТОРСКОМЪ Казанскомъуниверситете X (6): 661–668.

Зайцевъ, А. 1886. Къ археологiи Урала.Известiя Общества Археологiи,Исторiи и Этнографiи приИМПЕРАТОРСКОМЪ Казанскомъуниверситете VI (1885): 50–58.

Лобановъ, Д. А. 1893. Новейшiяпрiобретенiя музея УральскагоОбщества Любителей Естествознанiя въЕкатеринбурге. Известiя ОбществаАрхеологiи, Исторiи и Этнографiи приИМПЕРАТОРСКОМЪ Казанскомъуниверситете XI (2): 201–203.

Мартьяновъ, Н. 1895. ДревностиМинусинскаго края, поступившiя въМинусинскiй музей въ января 1892 годадо декабрь 1893. Известiя ОбществаАрхеологiи, Исторiи и Этнографiи приИМПЕРАТОРСКОМЪ Казанскомъуниверситете XII (1) (1894): 90–95.

Оконникова, Т. И. 2002. Формированиенаучных традиций в археологииПрикамя (600е гг. XIX в. – конец 400х гг. XX в.). Материалы иисследования Камско0Вятскойархеологической экспедиции т. 5.Издательский дом Удмуртскийуниверситет, Ижевск.

Пономаревъ, П. А. 1892. Матерiалы дляхарактеристики бронзовой эпохи

Камско0Волжскаго края. I.Ананьинскiй могильникъ.(Археологическiй этюдъ). ИзвестiяОбщества Археологiи, Исторiи иЭтнографiи при ИМПЕРАТОРСКОМЪКазанскомъ университете Х: 405–438.

Сафонов, И. Е. 2004a. А. С. Уваров иначало изучения бронзового векаРоссии. История отечественнойархеологии: дореволюционное время.Материалы IV чтении по историографииархеологии Евразии: 25–30.Воронежский университет, Воронеж.

Сафонов, И. Е. 2004b. Некоторыепроблемы изучения бронзового векаюжнорусской степи в археологиипоследней трети – рубеже XIX–XX в.Проблемы первобытной археологииЕвразии. К 750летию А. А. Формозова.Сборник статей: 57–70. Институтархеологии РАН, Mосква.

Смирновъ, И. Н. 1895. ДешифрацiяЕнисейско0орхонскихъ надписей.Известiя Общества Археологiи,Исторiи и Этнографiи приИМПЕРАТОРСКОМЪ Казанскомъуниверситете XII (1) (1894): 71–74.

Флоринскiй, В. М. 1880. Проектъпубличнаго историко0этнографическагомузея при Казанскомъ обществеархеологiи, исторiи и этнографiи.Известiя Общества Археологiи,Исторiи и Этнографiи приИМПЕРАТОРСКОМЪ Казанскомъуниверситете I (1879): 126–131.

Чупинъ, П. 1893. Списокъантропологическихъ, археологическихъи этнографическихъ предметовъБарнаульскаго горнаго музеума.Известiя Общества Археологiи,Исторiи и Этнографiи приИМПЕРАТОРСКОМЪ Казанскомъуниверситете XI (4): 396–398.

Шестаковъ, П. Д. 1880. Несколько словъо могильнике находящемся близьдеревни Ананьиной въ 4 верстахъ отъЕлабуги. Известiя ОбществаАрхеологiи, Исторiи и Этнографiи приИМПЕРАТОРСКОМЪ Казанскомъуниверситете II (1879): 129–134.

Шестаковъ, С. П. 1906. По поводу онацiональности древнейшаго населенiяюжной Россiи. Известiя ОбществаАрхеологiи, Исторiи и Этнографiи приИМПЕРАТОРСКОМЪ Казанскомъуниверситете XXII (2): 119–145.

Штукенбергъ, А. А. 1901. Матерiалы дляизученiя меднаго (бронзоваго) векавосточной полосы европейской Россiи.Известiя Общества Археологiи,Исторiи и Этнографiи приИМПЕРАТОРСКОМЪ Казанскомъуниверситете XVII: 165–212 + I–IV.

fa07.p65 20.12.2007, 18:2851