100
Fennoscandia archaeologica XL (2023)
Henrik Asplund, Jussi Moisio, Sanni Salomaa, Anne-Mari Liira, Saara-Veera Härmä, 
Auli Bläuer
CEMETERY CONSIDERATIONS – THE CASE OF CAIRN 4 AT NOKIA VIIK, FINLAND
Abstract
Finnish cairn sites are typically defined through the concepts of ‘grave’ or ‘cemetery’, their main purpose being 
associated with burials. However, when one examines cemetery-related contexts in Iron Age Finland, they 
exhibit a great deal of variation with regard to the existence of interments, how they can be identified, and 
how they correlate with other finds. The case study, a re-examination of Cairn 4 at Nokia Viik, excavated in 
1986–1987, illustrates some of these issues. With a focus on understanding the chronology, osteology, forma-
tion, and more detailed spatial character of the cairn, it is revealed that the monument has been accumulated 
over several centuries and includes elements that cannot easily be explained as individual burials or even 
cremation remains in a collective grave context. The site’s timespan extends from the Late Roman Iron Age 
and the Migration Period to the Merovingian Period and the Viking Age, where especially the latter periods 
seem to include deposited materials not related to any actual or distinguishable funerals. One major issue 
addressed is how to interpret complex structures, where distinct burials are difficult to define, and human 
remains only occur as one component.
Keywords: burial, cairn, cemetery, cremation, Iron Age, osteology, radiocarbon dating
Henrik Asplund,  Department of Archaeology, University of Turku, FI-20014 Turun yliopisto, Finland: asplund@utu.fi, 
ORCID 0009-0006-6522-5018
Jussi Moisio, Department of Archaeology, University of Turku, FI-20014 Turun yliopisto, Finland: jusmoi@utu.fi
Sanni Salomaa, Department of Archaeology, University of Turku, FI-20014 Turun yliopisto, Finland: saisalo@utu.fi, 
ORCID 0000-0002-7208-0025
Anne-Mari Liira, Department of Archaeology, University of Turku, FI-20014 Turun yliopisto, Finland: amliir@utu.fi
Saara-Veera Härmä, Department of Archaeology, University of Turku, FI-20014 Turun yliopisto, Finland: svlhar@utu.fi, 
ORCID 0009-0002-8534-148X
Auli Bläuer, Department of Archaeology, University of Turku, FI-20014 Turun yliopisto, Finland: aultou@utu.fi, 
ORCID 0000-0003-0693-3373
Received: 23 June 2023; Revised: 28 November 2023; Accepted: 1 December 2023
Asplund, H., Moisio, J., Salomaa, S., Liira A-M., Härmä, S-V. & Bläuer, A. 2023. Cemetery Considerations – The Case 
of Cairn 4 at Nokia Viik, Finland. Fennoscandia archaeologica XL: 100–125. https://doi.org/10.61258/fa.131323
INTRODUCTION
It is a widely known issue that Iron Age cemeteries 
have complex, long-term formation histories. 
From a practical point of view, a burial is an event, 
but it also contains aspects that go beyond the 
actual funerary ceremony. The process of burying 
is related to both the past and present, as well 
as a supposed or desired future, making it fairly 
multifaceted. Mortuary practices involve not only 
cultural/societal norms but also the intentions of 
the people left behind who needed to seek out 
new roles for themselves – their arrangements 
could have had an impact before, during, and 
after the actual interment or other final treatment 
of the body of the deceased.
101
The formation of a burial ground or cemetery 
consists of a series of events, which provides 
each site with a complex history in terms of its 
chronology, spatial characteristics, and the rituals 
performed. Embedded in the formation process 
of cemetery sites is the potential performance of 
rituals between funerals. Some have discussed 
the possibility of cemetery sites being used for a 
variety of rituals – related to not only mortuary 
practices but also domestic/everyday rituals. In 
addition, due to different processes and practices, 
the displacement of cemetery material is another 
possibility worth considering.
One way of furthering the understanding of 
various uses for different sites, and the diversity 
in their types, is to analyse cemeteries and their 
archaeological material in closer detail. It is 
important to acknowledge the whole material in 
its context, in addition to merely placing emphasis 
on the presence of human bone.
A re-evaluation of the archaeological material 
from Cairn 4, an earth and stone mixed cairn 
excavated between 1986 and 1987 at the Nokia 
Viik site in Finland, presents the opportunity 
to discuss these themes in further detail. An 
osteological analysis of the bone material was 
conducted after the excavations, but, for the 
purposes of this study, we have further elaborated 
the identification of the animal bones and 
analysed a small amount of the bone that was 
left unanalysed in the original research. We also 
examined the metal finds and pottery material in 
closer detail, reassessed the site’s find distribution, 
and created a more detailed chronology that 
combines object data with new radiocarbon dates 
of the bone material and pottery. We focused on 
the chronological formation process of the cairn, 
as well as on its interpretation as a burial or ritual 
cairn in terms of its deposition patterns.
BACKGROUND
The concepts of cemetery, cremation burial, 
and grave 
From a contemporary point-of-view, a cemetery 
is a burial ground, more specifically a graveyard, 
i.e., a distinct burial space. In Europe, this form of 
burying has its roots in prehistory (e.g., Snodgrass 
2015), but it became more organized during the 
Middle Ages. The form of the graveyard as we 
experience it today was established in the 
late 18th and early 19th centuries (Anthony 
2016). In Finnish archaeology, the concept of 
cemetery (in Finnish kalmisto) is commonly 
used for sites and monuments that contain 
burials or have been interpreted as probable 
burial sites. In official ontology, the definition 
encompasses sites/locations containing 
multiple (or collective) burials, often dating 
before the spread of Christianity.1 
Cremated archaeological human remains, 
as well as their deposition and interpretation, 
are topics that have received much discussion 
(e.g., Appelgren & Renck 2007; Schmidt & 
Symes 2008; Kaliff & Østigård 2013; Röst 
2016; Williams et al. 2017; Therus 2019). 
Many researchers have also elaborated further 
on the more specific challenges related to the 
identification, definition, and interpretation 
of burials and cemeteries (cf. Asplund et al. 
2019: 84, with references). Wessman (2010: 
29–30; cf. Wessman & Williams 2017) has 
previously discussed the definition of the term 
‘grave’ in Finland. It has been pointed out that 
some deposits have been interpreted as graves 
without detailed analysis of the quantity or 
quality of the present bone material. Indeed, 
sometimes the presence of a single fragment 
of human bone has been enough to define a 
grave-like structure as a grave (Taavitsainen 
2003: 33), while in other sites, the existence of 
larger collections of human bone in a structure 
has not merited the same interpretation (Raike 
& Seppälä 2005: 65). In addition, some have 
attempted to identify burial events, and thus 
individual graves, on the basis of clusters of 
bone and/or artefacts, even if the burial form 
in cremation cemeteries under level ground is 
generally considered collective (Formisto 1996; 
Heikkurinen-Montell 1996; Hietala 2003). 
The terms ‘cemetery’, ‘cremation burial’ and 
‘grave’ have seemingly been applied to a wide 
variety of sites and features, the interpretations 
of which are based on their structures or the 
presence of human bone (cf. Muhonen 2009: 
295). 
One definition for ‘burying’ is placing the 
dead in a ‘burial site’ that has been designed to 
last for a generation or more, as a reminder to 
102
future descendants of their ancestors (Herschend 
2009: 37; Lang 2011: 110). If moving from 
the material content and physical structure of 
graves towards the process of burying, Thereus 
(2019: 410) defines the archaeological notion 
of burial customs as ‘all collective practices, 
often of a rite of passage nature, associated 
with a deceased person’s remains, memorial, or 
remembrance, which have left material traces.’ 
With regard to the ‘burial’ concept, instead 
of seeing it in a functionalist perspective 
as ‘simply a container for the corpse’, it is 
identified as an expression of commemorative 
practices established in society (Thereus 2019: 
412).
Quantities of cremated bone material 
In Finland, the small quantity of burnt human 
bone present in graves or cemeteries has often 
not been considered problematic (Wessman 
2010: 29). Finland’s typically acidic soil is poor 
for the preservation of unburned bone and, 
perhaps because of this, the presence of small 
volumes of any type of bone material is usually 
considered to represent the norm. However, after 
cremation – be it of the modern or ancient kind –, 
a considerable amount of human bone should still 
be present and osteologically identifiable – up to 
30–140-mm fragments and with a 99% rate of 
element identification (McKinley 1994a; 1994b, 
Plates II-VI; 2013: 163–64). Modern cremations 
typically result in 1600–3600 g of bone material, 
with an average of 3000 g (McKinley 1989: 66).
The amount of bone in archaeological 
deposits is affected by the recovery rate from 
the pyre site, the deposition and handling 
of the bones, the destruction in the soil, and 
archaeological recovery methods (McKinley 
1989; 1994a). Jaqueline McKinley (1989) 
has stated that, in archaeological contexts, the 
weight of bones from single adult cremations 
seem to vary between 200 and 2000 g, with an 
average of 800 g. These figures are in line with 
Finnish cremation urn or cremation pit burials. 
In the Early Roman Iron Age cemetery site 
Kärsämäki in Maaria, the depositions interpreted 
as single adult cremation burials range from 5 g 
(KM 12686:89) to 1955 g (KM 8773:895, adult 
male), most falling within the range of 300–
1000 g (Lahtiperä 1973).
Bones, ritual, symbolism
Even if the amount of bone material in Finnish 
archaeological burial sites is often low, it is 
evident that there is a lot of variation in the 
amounts of burnt human bone. This is the 
case in other areas as well (cf. Thereus 2019: 
210–211). Small amounts of burnt human bone 
should not be considered the default, but rather 
a phenomenon that ought to be discussed with 
reference to ritual and taphonomic contexts. 
In the context of Finnish cremation burials, 
the possibility that the small amount of bone 
material could be due to deliberate partial burials 
(‘token burials’) has received some discussion 
(Taavitsainen 2003: 33; Tourunen & Troy 2011; 
Saipio 2017), but not in depth. A token (memento, 
symbolic, nominal) burial is a challenging term 
to define, but it is still a concept that is often 
used when discussing the deposition of burnt 
human remains (Andesson 2008; Kaliff & 
Østigård 2013: 79; McKinley 2013: 154).2 In our 
article, we recognize the possibility of deliberate 
partial burials, i.e. burials where the deposited 
bone material intentionally contains only part 
of the whole cremation. We acknowledge that 
identifying and interpreting the purpose behind 
past action is challenging. However, repeating 
patterns of deposition, in this case in mortuary 
and other ritual practices, offer the possibility 
of studying these past intentions (cf. Andersson 
2008: 112).
In a study of Iron Age (ca. AD 300–700) 
burnt bone deposits from the Lunda site in 
Sweden, Gunnar Andersson (2008) discusses 
the distinguishing factors of grave deposits 
and grave-like structures used for offerings. 
According to Andersson’s interpretation, part 
of the burial pattern in the Lunda cremations, 
dating from the 7th and 8th centuries AD, was to 
deposit part of the human bone material to some 
separate place, leaving only part of the total 
bone material for the main burial. According 
to Andersson, the modern concept of a grave is 
perhaps not applicable to prehistoric contexts – 
instead, we should focus our discussion on more 
general ritual behavior and depositions.
The questions related to the presence of low 
amounts of bone are not restricted to the Late 
Iron Age. In Eastern Sweden, for example, Late 
Bronze Age graves often contain only small 
103
amounts of bone (Röst 2016). This continued 
in the Early Iron Age, when the variation of the 
number of bones is so striking that it cannot be 
just a coincidence (Appelgren & Renck 2007: 
40). With respect to the Bronze Age in Finland, 
there have a long time been discussions on how 
the cremated bones in cairns from the period 
could be interpreted. The related issues include, 
for example, the small amounts of bone found and 
whether they should be treated as mere burials or 
as sites that also involve other meanings related 
to, for example, the cairn as a manifestation of a 
place and the symbolic control over its areas and 
landscapes. The bones of ancestors may have 
been used to connect a place with a kin group or 
tribe – thus actually being built primarily for the 
living and not for the deceased (Asplund 2008: 
77–79). Accordingly, Jarkko Saipio (2017: 227) 
emphasizes the possibility that burnt human 
bone remains in Finnish Bronze Age inland 
cairns could derive from a variety of rituals, not 
all funerary in nature.3 There is a variation in the 
amount of human bone material recovered from 
cairns, ranging from one fragment to several 
hundreds of grams per individual (Vormisto 
1985; Saipio 2017: 227). However, the 
quantification and comparison of this variation 
is challenging, due, e.g., to varying taphonomic 
factors affecting the demise of the bone material. 
Osteological analyses of human bones in Early 
and Middle Iron Age cairns in Finland
While burnt human bones have previously 
been recovered from several cairns or other 
stone structures dating to the Roman Iron Age 
or Migration Period, osteological analyses 
and radiocarbon dates of the burials or burial-
related artefacts are scarce. However, the 
analyzed cairns exhibit variation in the amount 
and distribution of finds and bone material. 
Providing an exhaustive list of all available 
cairns is not within the scope of this article, 
but the following sites are examples selected to 
represent the variation found in cairns dating to 
the Early and Middle Iron Age.
Only a meagre amount of human bone material 
has been identified in some Iron Age burial cairns. 
In the cemetery site of Naarankalmanmäki, 
located in Lempäälä, ca. 20 km SE of the Viik 
site, two radiocarbon dates have been made 
from the charcoal found in Cairn 3. One gave a 
result to the Bronze Age (1492–902 calBC) and 
the other to the Late Roman Iron Age (calAD 
234–541), of which the latter is considered more 
indicative of the age of the burial (Raike & 
Seppälä 2005: 64). Here, 124 g of burnt bones 
of a child and pottery fragments were recovered 
from a tight cluster near the central stone (Raike 
& Seppälä 2005: 49, 77). Two radiocarbon dates 
are also available from Cairn 5, the first one from 
a cereal grain (calAD 183–538) and the second 
one from the organic crust of a potsherd (calAD 
260–602). This cairn included ca. 53 g of burnt 
bone. Most of the bone belonged to a child, but 
one elk bone was also found. The bones were 
found scattered in the cairn. Most of the finds 
consisted of pottery and iron slag, leading to 
the conclusion that the structure represented 
a sacrificial cairn instead of a burial (Raike & 
Seppälä 2005: 65, 77). In the latter case the 
potential complexity of the monument could be 
considered, i.e., the possibility of both a burial 
and other ritual activity. It is possible that cairns 
have not necessarily been specifically graves or 
sacrificial cairns but have had different functions 
during their time of use (cf. Moilanen 2015: 36).
The analysis of bone material from the 
Päivääniemi cemetery, also in Lempäälä, 
belonging to a partially excavated burial cairn 
resulted in the recovery of just ca. 100 g of 
burnt bone (Formisto 1987; Katiskoski 1987). 
The bones were found together with bronze 
jewelry and pottery fragments in a concentration 
at excavation layers three and four. The bone 
material consisted of human bone from at least 
one individual and four bear claws (Formisto 
1987). However, most of the pottery was 
recovered outside of the burial cluster, scattered 
around the excavation area (Katiskoski 1987: 8). 
The artefacts found in the cairn date to the Late 
Roman Iron Age (ca. AD 200–400) and to the 
Merovingian period (ca. AD 600–800).
A Late Roman Iron Age cairn in Ketohaka 
2 site in Salo, Southwest Finland, exhibits 
a different burial pattern. Here, ca. 19 kg of 
burnt bone belonging to at least 19 individuals 
– 18 adults and one infant – was identified 
(Hirviluoto & Vormisto 1984). The bones, along 
with various artefacts, such as bronze jewelry, 
knives, and a spearhead, were concentrated in a 
sooty layer ca. 40 cm in thickness. No pottery or 
104
animal bones were found in this cairn. Several 
individuals and a total of ca. 21.7 kg of burnt 
bone were also recovered from the excavations 
of a cairn in Sotkalinna site in Nokia, dating to 
the Merovingian Period and possibly the Viking 
Age (Hakanpää 1996; 1997). The analyzed 
bone material (15.9 kg) was comprised of bones 
from at least five human individuals, as well 
as bear claws and sheep or goat bones (Fisher 
1997). The bone material was found clustered 
on the western side of the cairn. However, the 
distribution of the pottery and burnt clay did 
not follow the distribution of the burnt bone 
(Hakanpää 1996; 1997).
Complex formation processes
Iron Age cemeteries and cairns in Finland 
often have complex formation histories that are 
increasingly emphasized by the growing number 
of radiocarbon dates from the sites. It has been 
suggested that remembrance rituals, offerings, 
using sites as waste heaps or ritual deposition 
of domestic waste are responsible for the 
accumulation of finds, and that these may have 
been contemporary in nature or have occurred 
later than the initial burials (e.g., Taavitsainen 
1992; Muhonen 2009; Mäntylä-Asplund & Storå 
2010; Wessman 2010; Asplund et al. 2019).
A study of an earth and stone mixed cairn at 
Roismala Ristimäki site in Sastamala emphasizes 
the potential complexity of depositions in a site 
that has primarily been interpreted as a single 
formation event (Asplund et al. 2019). In this 
case, an inhumation burial was radiocarbon 
dated to the Late Roman Iron Age. However, 
from the cairn above the inhumation burial, a 
cluster of unburned human bone was dated to 
the end of the Pre-Roman Iron Age or to the 
Early Roman Iron Age, as well as pottery and 
animal bone to the Migration Period and the 
Merovingian Period. The latest date was given 
to a partial sheep skeleton at the bottom of 
the cairn. The results emphasize the complex 
formation process and several construction 
phases of Iron Age cairns, involving secondary 
deposition of a variety of materials, including – 
evidently reburied – old human remains.
CAIRN 4 AT NOKIA VIIK – MATERIAL AND 
RESULTS
The Nokia Viik site and its previous 
interpretations
Already in the late 19th century, late Iron Age 
objects were described from the area of Viik 
Manor (Heikel 1882: 52–54), but the exact 
locations of the sites of these finds are not 
clear. The actual Viik site (Fig. 1) was first 
registered in an archaeological survey of the 
municipality of Nokia in 1948.4 Five burial 
mounds were identified at the time (Erä-Esko 
1948: 22). A survey in 1985 described four of 
them (Renvall & Salo 1986: 35–36). Further 
investigations in 1999 indicated a somewhat 
larger number of structures, with a total of 
eight (Haimila & Taavitsainen 1999: 5–6). 
The first (1986–1987) excavated structure 
was Cairn 4, according to the latest numbering 
Figure 1. The location of Nokia Viik and the 
other sites referenced in the text: 1) Nokia, 
Viik, 2) Nokia, Sotkanlinna, 3) Lempäälä, 
Naarankalmanmäki, 4) Lempäälä, Päivääniemi 
and 5) Salo, Ketohaka. Map: H. Asplund.
105
(Haimila & Taavitsainen 1999: 6).5 Cairn 3 
was excavated in 1988 (Pietikäinen & Salo 
1989) and cairn 7 in 1999. Furthermore, 
a test pit was dug in the center of Cairn 8 
(Haimila & Taavitsainen 1999). In this study, 
Cairn 4 was chosen for closer examination to 
analyze and understand the monument more 
comprehensively than before. 
The total excavated area of Cairn 4 is 160 
m2 in size (Koivisto & Salo 1988: 3; Koivisto 
1991: 31). The construction has been described 
in many ways, such as ‘great mound’ (in Finnish 
suurkumpu) (e.g., Koivisto & Salo 1988: 3), but 
already during its excavation, it became apparent 
that the monument consists of several parts (Fig. 
2).6 The main structure excavated in 1986 (in the 
northern part of the complex) has been interpreted 
as a Migration Period burial cairn with a central 
stone and a surrounding stone circle (Renvall 
& Salo 1987). An earthen mound (without any 
stones) was added to it at a later period in time. 
Furthermore, according to the excavation report, 
the complex was later extended to the east and 
south in the form of a construction resembling an 
underground cremation cemetery. 
The conclusion of the 1986 excavation was that 
the complex represented a rare ‘extended burial 
mound’ in which several burials had been made.7 
Two to three separate burials were distinguished, 
and it was considered likely that the cairn with 
a stone circle contained the remains of one male 
burial (even though the finds were distributed all 
around the area). However, no concentrations of 
bone were detected, and the amount of burnt bone 
was low in general (Renvall & Salo 1987). One 
further burial, now based on the concentration 
of bone, was identified in excavation squares 
102–104/98, though no objects could be linked to 
the burial (Renvall & Salo 1987). A third burial 
was recognized as a separate stone setting in the 
eastern part of the excavated area. Here, a knife, a 
glass bead, two clay beads, as well as a fragment 
of a bracelet were found, likely indicating a 
Viking Age female burial (Renvall & Salo 
Figure 2. Main stone constructions of Viik Cairn 4 as documented in layer 4 of both excavations, except 
for the separate stone setting in the eastern part of the 1986 excavation area, best visible in layer 1. Gray 
shading represents areas with smaller stones. Map: H. Asplund and S. Salomaa.
106
1987). These examples illustrate the problem of 
defining a grave – evidently, it can be based on 
the occurrence of bones and/or supposedly burial-
related artefacts.
The main structure, excavated in 1987 in the 
southwestern part of the complex, was a roundish 
cairn surrounded by stones partly bigger than in 
the rest of the cairn, but still did not likely indicate 
a bordering stone circle (Koivisto & Salo 1988: 
18). Looking at some of the excavation maps, 
one could also interpret this as a rectangular 
structure. Based on the metal objects found, 
the construction of this cairn began in the Late 
Roman Iron Age, but the site was used also in the 
Migration Period. A couple of secondary stone 
settings were impossible to date accurately, but 
there was nothing to suggest that they would be 
considerably younger (Koivisto & Salo 1988: 19). 
One secondary stone setting in close connection 
with the cairn suggested at least one burial, based 
on some finds (a knife, a fragment of a sickle, 
three arrowheads, and a ring made of thin bronze 
thread) (Koivisto & Salo 1988: 18).
According to the interpretations of the 
excavations made in 1986 and 1987, Cairn 4 (the 
combination of separate stone and earth mixed 
constructions) could be dated from the Late 
Roman Iron Age to the Viking Age (Koivisto 
& Salo 1988: 19; Koivisto 1991: 33). The 
archaeological identification of individual burials 
proved difficult, but the cairn was estimated to 
contain several interments, which is supported 
by an osteological analysis where a minimum 
of three individuals was identified. However, 
the distribution of the bones suggested, that both 
main structures could have contained at least three 
burials (Koivisto 1991: 33). The assumed purpose 
of the earthen mound between the two cairns was 
that it serves to unite the two cairns into one big 
mound. According to field observations, a further 
Figure 3. Nokia Viik, Cairn 4, modelled using leveling data, depicted as a) 3D model and b) contour 
lines. Map: H. Asplund.
107
one peculiar detail is that nothing pointed to an 
Iron Age dating of this uniting mound (Koivisto 
& Salo 1988: 20).8 
Even though the appearance of the mound 
might have seemed prominent, the height of 
the monument could not have been more than 
one meter, based on the leveling readings from 
the topsoil and the bottom of the lowermost 
excavated layer. A 3D model made using 
levelling data in connection with this study 
reveals that the mound is not symmetrical and 
that the topsoil of the excavated areas displays 
a more complex change in elevations. The 
mound-like appearance, however, is clearly 
visible, as is the center stone of the structure 
excavated in 1986 (Fig.3).
Contrary to Cairn 4, the other excavated 
cairns at the site contained a more limited 
number of finds. Cairn 3 does not seem to be 
related to any Iron Age activities at all.9 Cairn 
7, excavated in 1999, was clearly intentionally 
built, but the minor amount of bone present puts 
into question whether it represents an actual 
burial monument. The cairn has been interpreted 
as a possible ritual burial or sacrificial cairn, 
or even some kind of waste heap (Haimila & 
Taavitsainen 1999). The main parts of the finds 
consisted of ceramics (67.8%), followed by 
slag and quarts . Only eight pieces of bone (7.5 
g) were found (Haimila & Taavitsainen 1999: 
13).
Reanalysis of the metal objects
Several metal objects have been found in 
Cairn 4. They consist of jewelry, tools, and 
weapons as well as unidentifiable iron and 
bronze fragments. Majority of the metal 
artifacts are from the stone structure excavated 
in 1987, consisting mostly of jewelry and iron 
arrowheads.10 There are also some arrowheads 
in the stone structure excavated in 1986 and 
only a few are outside of these structures. The 
same applies to the jewelry, which was mainly 
found in or close to the stone constructions (see 
the section on spatial analysis, below). Other 
tools and weapons appear also outside of these 
structures.
In the stone structure excavated in 1986 two 
objects are of special interest. A socketed axe 
without eyelet (TYA 426:32) and a spearhead 
(TYA 426:31) were found together underneath 
the central stone of the structure, and therefore 
represent a single assemblage. Similar 
spearheads in Finland have been dated to the 
Migration Period (Salmo 1938: 192; Kivikoski 
1973: 52). Socketed axes without eyelets 
were common in the Early Roman Period and 
remained in use up to the Merovingian Period 
(Salo 1968: 163–164; Asplund 2008: 246). It 
is probable that these objects date the structure 
to the Migration period, since it is unlikely that 
objects could have been added under the central 
stone several times.
In the stone structure excavated in 1987 
several datable objects were found. They 
originate from the bottom layers of the 
structure, dating mostly from the Late Roman 
Iron Age to the Migration Period.
Several finds of jewellery were found in 
this stone structure. The crossbow fibula with 
a tendril foot (TYA 426:6; Fig. 4a) represents a 
common type of crossbow fibula in Finland (cf. 
Keskitalo 1979: 151–159). Fibulae of this type 
are typically found in an area that encompasses 
large portions of Scandinavia and Central 
and Eastern Europe. These were in use from 
the beginning of the Late Roman Iron Age to 
the early Migration Period (Godłowski 2011: 
75–77; Heynowski 2016: 89). The closest 
parallels (type A161) date from the early to 
mid-Late Roman Period (Nowakowski: 1998: 
52; Heideman Lutz 2010: 156–157).
The crossbow fibula with a straight foot 
(TYA 426:5; Fig. 4b) is a simple variant of this 
group. Previous examples from Finland have 
been discovered in regions of Ostrobothnia, 
Satakunta and Finland Proper (Keskitalo 1979: 
166–167). The closest parallels (type A170) can 
be found from Gotland, Öland and Bornholm in 
Sweden and Denmark (Keskitalo 1979: 167). 
These date from the early to mid-Late Roman 
Period (Heideman Lutz 2010: 164).
The cross-ribbed fibula (TYA 426:2; Fig. 
4c) represents a Finnish variant of a type that 
has been developed from Estonian and Latvian 
examples. These are heavily concentrated in the 
region of Ostrobothnia (cf. Moora 1938: 94–
97; Meinander 1950: 74–75; Hauptman 1998: 
169–170, Abb. 13). The Finnish finds originate 
from the early Migration Period (Meinander 
1950: 75, 80).
108
The first crossbow fibula with a triangular 
foot (TYA 426:4; Fig. 4d) is a simple variant 
with few parallels from Finland (Keskitalo 
1979: 184–185). Similar brooches have 
been found in Öland and the Baltics, but the 
form seems to represent a local development 
(Keskitalo 1979: 185). The Finnish examples 
date to the transition of the Late Roman and 
Migration Period (Keskitalo 1979: 185).
The other two crossbow fibulae with 
triangular foot (TYA 426:1, 3; Fig. 4e-f) also 
represent local developments, and they are well 
known from the region of Ostrobothnia. The 
form was influenced by fibulae designs from 
Gotland and the Baltics (Meinander 1950: 84). 
Most of the Finnish fibulae date to the early 
Migration Period (Meinander 1950: 85).
In addition to these, other pieces and 
fragments of jewelry have been found in Cairn 
4: two copper alloy bracelets (TYA 426:11, 
12) that have parallels from the Late Roman 
Period (cf. Keskitalo 1979: 220, 222–223) and 
a broken copper alloy neck-ring with thickened 
ends (TYA 426:14) that has Late Roman Period 
parallels from Finland (cf. Kivikoski 1973: 48).
There are also several datable weapons and 
tools from the stone structure excavated in 
1987. There were four arrowheads (TYA 426: 
21-22, 26, 28; Fig 4) in the construction dating 
roughly to the Late Roman and Migration 
Periods (Hiekkanen 1979: 67; Koivisto 1991: 
33). One arrowhead is a barbed type (TYA 
426:24; Fig. 5), which represents Hiekkanen’s 
group 3GII. This type is rare in Finland, as only 
a few finds have been discovered in regions 
of Uusimaa, Satakunta, Häme, and Central 
Ostrobothnia. The earliest one is from a site 
dating to the Early to Late Roman Period, 
while the youngest site dates to the Migration 
Period (Hiekkanen 1979: 69–71). There is also 
Figure 4. Fibulae form Nokia Viik, Cairn 4. Photo: S.-V. Härmä.
109
a socketed axe without eyelet (TYA 426:33) 
dating from the Early Roman Period up to 
the Merovingian Period (Salo 1968: 163–164; 
Asplund 2008: 246).
Outside of the main stone structures only 
a few datable objects have been found. These 
include three iron arrowheads (TYA 337:15, 
20; TYA 426: 20) dating to the Late Roman 
and Migration Periods (Hiekkanen 1979: 67; 
Koivisto 1991: 33), an oval fire striker (TYA 
337:6), the earliest examples dating to the 
late Merovingian Period, and being common 
in the Late Iron Age (Kivikoski 1973: 88) as 
well as a blue glass serial bead (TYA 337:5) 
dated to the Viking Age (Koivisto 1991: 33) 
from the low stone structure excavated 1986.
In addition to these, Cairn 4 featured a 
wide assortment of fragmented iron artefacts 
and finds more difficult to date. The better-
preserved examples include three knives and 
one broken knife blade, two clay beads, four 
finger-rings, and two copper alloy spirals.11
Analysis of the pottery material
According to the rim pieces, the area excavated 
in 1986 contained fragments from at least 15 
different pots (Salomaa 2020). Nine of them are 
crude tempered, with over 2-mm-sized crushed 
stone in the paste. Six are fine tempered, with 
sub-2-mm-sized crushed stone. All the pots 
are undecorated, and their surfaces have been 
smoothed. According to the shape of the rim 
and variation with regard to the temper used, 
the material consists of small fragments from 
different pots – none of the pots come close to 
accounting for an entire vessel. In two different 
pots (numbers 1.6 and 1.7), a couple of rim 
pieces fit together, but the rest are connected 
only in resemblance.12 Most of the pots are 
s-profiled (9 pots), but there are also pieces from 
pots with straight profiles (5 pots), as well as one 
pot with an inward-turning rim.
In the area excavated in 1987, pieces from 
at least 17 different pots were found (Salomaa 
2020). Of these, ten are crude tempered and 
eight fine tempered. Most of the pots from this 
area are undecorated with smoothed surfaces, 
excluding one pot (number 2.1) belonging to 
the Morby Ware type of Early Metal Period 
ceramics (Meinander 1954: 173–179; 1969: 
40–47; Edgren 1969; 1999: 313–317; Asplund 
2008: 210–213). Again, only a few pieces from 
each pot were recovered, with none coming even 
close to accounting for a whole specimen. In 
addition, the pieces from just two pots (numbers 
2.4 and 2.10) actually fit together. Nine of the 
pots have an s-profiled rim; the rest feature a 
straight profile (6 pots) or an inward-turning rim 
(3 pots).
A comparison of the pieces of different pots 
from both areas reveals that, in seven cases, the 
pieces could have originated from the same pot. 
In this case, the minimum number of different 
Figure 5. Examples of iron arrowheads from 
Nokia Viik, Cairn 4. Numbers refer to the find 
catalogues TYA 337 (the two arrowheads top left) 
and TYA 426. Photo: S.-V. Härmä.
110
pots in the total excavated area is 24. However, 
the pieces from different areas do not fit together.
The only typologically identifiable ceramic 
type is Morby Ware, represented by fragments 
from at least one vessel. This coarse pot features 
a striated surface and is decorated with imprints, 
also on the top of its rim. Crust from one fragment 
of this particular pot was radiocarbon dated to the 
Late Bronze Age or (more probably) the Early 
Iron Age (see the chapter on chronology). These 
fragments have been interpreted as occurring in a 
secondary context and may have ended up in the 
monument during some phase of its construction 
(Koivisto 1991: 33). One small piece of pottery 
with pit decorations (TYA 426:243), most likely 
representing the same type, was found from a 
test pit dug in the vicinity of the main excavation 
area (Koivisto & Salo 1988: 16).
Most of the crude-tempered pots could 
be common Iron Age ceramics, used mainly 
in everyday contexts (Carpelan 1980: 193; 
Enqvist 2005: 98–99). This follows the general 
interpretation made in the excavation report of the 
1987 material, according to which the majority 
represented coarse, undecorated pottery typical 
for the Iron Age (Koivisto & Salo 1988: 16). The 
fine-tempered pots, although carefully made, are 
not decorated or polished and thus cannot be 
linked to the finer ceramics occurring during the 
Late Iron Age in Finland (cf. Lehtosalo-Hilander 
1982: 76–84). The pieces are so small that no 
orifices could be measured. However, with 
regard to the thickness and shape of the rim, 
some of the pots differ from one another, and it 
is likely that they have been used for different 
purposes (Fig. 6).
In the report of the 1987 excavation, it 
was noted that some large concentrations of 
pottery were found, but no pots broken in 
situ (Koivisto & Salo 1988: 16). According 
to the re-examination, this also applies to the 
1986 excavation. The material in total is quite 
fragmented, with an average sherd weight of 3.8 
g. In layers 1–4, pieces of ceramics occur both 
in the earthen mound and in the stone structure 
excavated in 1987. In layers 5–6, the pieces 
occur in the stone structure, whereas in layers 
7–9, they only appear in the earthen mound in 
the middle of the complex. However, the stone 
structure excavated in 1986 featured markedly 
less or even hardly any pottery. Although no 
Fig. 6. Examples of pots found in Nokia Viik, Cairn 
4. Each identified pot has its own number that 
was given during the ceramics analysis process. 
Pictures and descriptions of each identified pot 
can be found in the ceramics analysis report 
(Salomaa 2020). Photo: S. Salomaa and S.-V. 
Härmä.
111
whole vessels were put into the complex, the 
spatial distribution suggests that there was some 
intention or depositional reason behind the 
distribution of the ceramics. 
The two dated potsherds representing the 
Late Iron Age (TYA 337:147 and TYA 426:155) 
are from two different parts of the monument – 
square 104/92 in layer 4 and square 104/84 in 
layer 4, respectively. While these pieces date to 
slightly different periods of the Late Iron Age, 
they were found in the same layer. Furthermore, 
some of the fitting rim pieces were discovered 
in very different locations, suggesting that later 
disturbances affected the material in the complex 
and caused the ceramics that had been added in 
different periods to mix.13 Another possibility is 
that the material had already been mixed before 
ending up in the complex.
Osteological results
The osteological material from the site was 
originally analyzed by Tarja Formisto (1991). 
A total of six samples (TYA 337:156–161) that 
were not included in the original analysis for 
an unknown reason were now analyzed for this 
article. In addition, the animal bone material was 
re-examined and clarified further, such as by 
identifying unidentified fish bones and allocating 
previously unidentified materials to the correct 
species. The original analysis did not include a 
NISP (Number of Identified Fragments) table; 
this was now counted based on the original and 
new analysis (Table 1). The fragment number of 
unidentified bones was not counted, and therefore 
the distribution analyses are based on weight.
The osteological material consists of both 
burnt and unburned bone. Formisto (1991) 
divided the material into human, animal, and 
unidentified fractions, and this division is 
also used in this article. All the human bones 
recovered from the site, 491 fragments in total, 
are burnt. According to Formisto (1991), the 
bone material includes a minimum of three 
individuals identified by the piece of skull above 
the right eye socket (margo supraorbitalis and 
arcus superciliaris) – one adult male and two 
children (TYA 426:255 and 312 belonging 
together, 291, 299). An interesting fact 
regarding the two fitting eye socket bones is 
that they were found in different excavation 
squares and layers. The vertical positions 
of the pieces were quite different, as the one 
was found in layer 1 and the other in layer 5.14 
This is an interesting detail, and difficult to 
interpret without considering a mixing of strata 
or elements in the deposition process. A total 
of 371.2 g of human bone was recovered from 
the site, with a total of 540.4 g of human and 
unidentified burnt bone in all.
The animal bone material consists of 235 g 
of burnt and 147.2 g of unburnt fragments. The 
identified animal species include sheep or goat 
(Ovis aries/Capra hircus), pig (Sus scrofa), 
cattle (Bos taurus), horse (Equus caballus), 
European elk (Alces alces), northern pike (Esox 
lucius), and cyprinids (Cyprinidae).
Spatial analysis
When the excavation of Cairn 4 began in 
1986, the excavation area was divided into 
2x2-meter squares (Renvall & Salo 1987). The 
same coordinate system and fixation point for 
levelling were used during the 1987 season 
(Koivisto & Salo 1988: 4; Koivisto 1991: 31). 
The 1986 excavation was conducted in five 
technical excavation layers, while in 1987, the 
total amount of documented technical layers 
was nine. This poses problems as to whether the 
layers are compatible. While they are certainly 
not parallel in detail, it seems that the 1987 
excavation reached deeper in the monument than 
before, in which case the top-level layers (which 
contained the majority of the finds) might be 
comparable.15
The bronze finds generally display an even 
vertical distribution but with a peak in layer 4 
within the 1987 excavation area. This applies 
to objects and fragments classified as jewellery. 
Horizontally, most of the bronze ornaments and 
fragments can be found in connection with the 
stone structure excavated in 1987 (Fig. 7a). The 
distribution of iron (mostly related to weaponry 
and/or tools) is similar, with layers 3–4 standing 
out in particular. All the iron arrowheads, save 
for one, are from layer 3 or deeper down. 
Horizontally, the iron finds have a somewhat 
wider distribution than bronze, but the 1987 
stone structure and its vicinity still remain the 
standouts (Fig. 7b).
Burnt human bones (ca. 330 g in total) 
112
were found in layers 1–6 (3–5 in the 1986 
excavation), with the largest number found in 
layers 3–4 of the 1987 excavation. Horizontally, 
the bones were found both within and outside 
the main structures. However, most of the burnt 
human bones were located within or close to the 
structure excavated in 1987, while considerably 
fewer bones occurred within or close to the 
1986 structure (Fig. 7c). In the report of the 
1987 excavation, it was noted that burnt bone 
– unidentified in species at the time – was 
concentrated in some specific areas within the 
most solid stone structure; 527.9 g in all, mostly 
in layers 3 and 4 (Koivisto & Salo 1988: 17).
Burnt animal bones (ca. 235 g in total) were 
most prevalent in layer 3 of the 1986 excavation 
area. However, bones occur in all layers – even 
in small numbers in the lower layers of the 1987 
excavation. In addition, unidentified burnt bone 
(ca. 157 g) occurred most frequently in layers 
3 and 4. The most notable single concentration 
of burnt animal bone is present in one square 
(x 102-104, y 98-100) in the SE part of the 
excavation area, in layers 2 and 3. Contrary to 
burnt bone, unburned animal bones (ca. 150 
g in total) occurred mainly within the 1987 
excavation area (Fig 7d). The largest numbers 
were found in layers 3 and 5. In these layers, the 
horizontal distribution is within the central part 
of the excavated area, in and around the stone 
structure excavated in 1987. The distribution 
is quite different from that of the burnt animal 
bone.
Pottery (ca. 10.2 kg in total) was distributed 
throughout the layers, including the lower layers 
of the 1987 excavation. The majority of the 
finds were, however, from the upper layers; 
most of the pottery was found in layers 3–4 
of the 1986 excavation and layers 2–3 of the 
1987 excavation. With regard to the horizontal 
distribution, the pottery does not seem to be 
closely related to the main stone structures 
(Fig. 7e). Only in layer 6 was there more 
pottery within the stone structure excavated 
Nokia Viik TYA 337, 426 NISP
Species Unburnt Burnt Total
Human 491 491
Sheep/goat 4 4 8
Pig 2 5 7
Cattle 4 2 6
Cattle? 1 1
Horse 2 2
Elk 1 1
Large ungulate 9 5 14
Small ungulate 1 1 2
Pike 3 3
Cyprinid 1 1
Unidentified fish 2 2
Total 23 515 538
Nokia Viik TYA 337, 426 weight (g)
Human 371,2 371,2
Animal 147,2 235,0 382,2
Unidentified 2,3 169,2 171,5
in 1987 than outside of 
it. The find material from 
the 1987 excavation 
and its distribution have 
already been elaborated 
in the excavation report. 
When the distribution of 
pottery was viewed as 
distribution per excavation 
square, it was noted that 
the biggest concentrations 
were found especially at 
the borders of the most 
solid stone construction, 
while considerably less 
pottery could be found in 
the central part.
Burnt clay (ca. 5.2 
kg in total) exhibited a 
somewhat similar vertical 
distribution to the pottery, 
with most of the finds 
being made in layers 2 and 
4 of the 1986 excavation 
and layers 2–3 of the 1987 
excavation. The burnt clay 
seems, however, to have 
a different distribution 
over the excavated area 
Table 1. Bone material from Nokia Viik, Cairn 4. Data are provided as 
NISP (Number of Identified Specimens).
113
Figure 7. Horizontal distribution of main find categories in Cairn 4. The central stone structures in 
the excavation areas of 1986 and 1987 depicted as circles. Metal finds include a) bronze objects and 
fragments, and b) iron objects and fragments, arrowheads in black; the numbering refer to the find 
catalogues TYA 337 (1986) and TYA 426 (1987). Distribution of bone shown as the total distribution 
of c) burnt human bone (dots and curves), and d) unburned animal bone (black dots and curves) and 
burnt animal bone. Pottery and burnt clay compared as e) the total distribution of pottery (curves) and 
distribution in layer 3 (dots), and f) the total distribution of burnt clay (curves) and distribution in layer 
3 (dots); the size of dots (representing weight) is not comparable to those of bone. Map: H. Asplund.
114
than the other find categories, like that of the 
pottery (Fig. 7f). A few pieces are daub with 
triangular cross-sections, and some display 
imprints of twigs (Koivisto & Salo 1988: 17).
Iron slag (ca. 5.1 kg in total) has a vertical 
distribution that differs from all the other 
finds. During the 1986 excavation, most of the 
slag was found in the upper layers, especially 
in layer 1, while in the 1987 material, slag was 
found only in the lower layers, with a large 
concentration in layer 8. This concentration 
is in the middle of the total excavated area, 
located between the main stone structures. 
In the excavation report, this concentration 
(square 108/92) was explicitly noted to have 
occurred within the earthen mound (Koivisto 
& Salo 1988: 17).
Chronology
The datable bronze ornaments date to 
the Late Roman Iron Age and the early 
Migration Period. The same applies to the 
iron arrowheads as well as the iron spearhead. 
The previously suggested Viking Age dating 
seems to be based solely on one serial bead. 
The dating presented in the report of the 1986 
excavation (Renvall & Salo 1987) was later 
repeated by Koivisto (1991: 33). The dating is 
not conclusive as blue serial beads could occur 
even during the Early Iron Age (Tempelmann-
Mączyńska 1985: 33, Tafel 2:91). The copper 
alloy spirals as well as the oval fire striker 
could, however, be other indicators of Late 
Iron Age depositions of ornaments and metal 
objects.
Seven samples were radiocarbon dated 
– two from human bone, three from pottery 
crusts, and two from animal bones. The dates 
give a new insight into the chronology, but 
the material is still limited. There is no way 
to exclude the possibility of material from 
other periods as well, if more samples of, for 
example, bones were dated. The oldest result 
is from a potsherd (TYA 426:163), which 
on typological grounds can be considered to 
belong to the Early Metal Period or, more 
specifically, to the Late Bronze Age or the 
earliest Iron Age. This is confirmed by the 
outcome, 2419±30 BP (Ua-61157), i.e., 
calBC 750–680, 670–640 or 570–400, where 
the highest probability (76.1%) points to the 
latest period.16 The occurrence of this type of 
pottery in the site complex has been interpreted 
as indicating Early Iron Age (or maybe Late 
Bronze Age) activities, but not as having a 
direct link to processes recorded later. All the 
other dated samples were younger in nature 
(Fig. 8), with a gap of seven centuries.
The material related to burial includes 
two dates from burnt human bone (TYA 
337:157 and TYA 426:318). The results are 
1661±30 BP (Ua-61158), i.e., calAD 250–
280, 330–440 (75.3%) 450–480 or 490–540, 
and 1569±31 BP (Ua-61160), i.e., calAD 
420–570, respectively. The results point to 
the probability of two different burials: one 
that most likely dates to the end of the Late 
Roman Iron Age or the very beginning of the 
Migration Period, and the other with a general 
dating to the Migration Period. There is, 
however, a small possibility of overlap. The 
older date is from the 1986 excavation area, 
outside or at the edge of the stone structure 
with a central stone. The latter is from the 1987 
excavation area, inside the main stone structure. 
If the dates were interpreted as directly related 
to the structures, this would contradict the 
previous idea of the chronological phases 
of the monument. These dates are, however, 
in general accordance with the dating to the 
Late Roman Iron Age and the early Migration 
Period, suggested by the typologically datable 
metal finds.
Regarding the later use of the site, dates from 
charred organic material (crust) from fragments 
of two different ceramic vessels (TYA 337:147 
and TYA 426:155) indicate that the vessels 
were in use during the Merovingian Period. 
The results are 1338±29 BP (Ua-61155), i.e., 
calAD 640–710 or 730–780 and 1283±29 BP 
(Ua-61156), i.e., calAD 660–780 (92.5%), 
790–800 or 810–820, respectively. It seems 
evident that the potsherds are of a later date 
than the burial-indicating bones – at least there 
is an age difference between the bones and the 
potsherds now dated.
This complex chronology is underlined 
furthermore by one burnt pig (Sus scrofa) bone 
(TYA 337:156), which dates to 1207±28 BP 
(Ua-61159), i.e., calAD 700–740 or 770–890 
(88.8%). Regardless of the slight overlap, 
115
this suggests a younger date than the pots, 
most probably the late Merovingian Period or 
the earlier part of the Viking Age. The latest 
date of the series was obtained from one 
unburned sheep or goat (Ovis/Capra) bone 
(TYA 426:343). This bone might, in principle, 
be contemporaneous with the former, although 
exhibiting a somewhat later date of 1156±31 BP 
(Ua-61161), i.e., calAD 770–790 or 820–990 
(86.2%).
DISCUSSION
Deposition of human bone
In the case of Nokia Viik Cairn 4, the main 
impression – both vertically and horizontally – 
is that there is no clear occurrence of clusters 
of bones and objects in combinations that 
could be directly interpreted as single burial 
depositions, positioned in a specific spot. The 
stone construction unearthed in 1987 contains 
lots of objects and bones, but the distribution 
is more in the fashion of communal/collective 
burials encountered in Finland in later cremation 
cemeteries under level ground. It is interesting 
that the first excavated (1986) structure does 
not seem to show any concentrations of human 
bone and/or artefacts (except for the deposition 
of an axe and spearhead under the central stone), 
with very little human bone overall. There 
must be some reason behind the erection of 
the stone construction, but it almost seems like 
the distribution of burned human bone, found 
mainly outside the structure, is avoiding it.
In the osteological material, the remains 
of at least three individuals – one adult, one 
child or adolescent, and one of undetermined 
age – were deposited in a mixed and scattered 
state. Due to the distribution of the bones, it has 
been suggested that the material could involve 
other individuals with the same osteological 
characteristics (Koivisto 1991: 33). An equally 
possible explanation is that the distribution of 
bones is more random and does not correlate 
with the structures identified, i.e., the deposition 
of bones from certain individuals could follow 
a different pattern. In addition, the bones of the 
adolescent and adult individuals are mixed in the 
material and e.g., found in the same square/layer. 
In this sense, the deposits resemble communal 
burials, e.g., cremation cemeteries under level 
ground, contradicting the idea that bones of 
each individual should be deposited separately.
In such cases, it is likely that the body did 
not have to be complete or located in a single 
place (Appelgren & Renck 2007: 40). The low 
amount of bone – the destruction of the body – 
could be seen as a way of erasing the individual. 
However, as Appelgren & Renck (2007) have 
suggested, this could also be a method for 
including the individual in something more 
Figure 8. Radiocarbon dates (excluding the Early Metal Period date from pottery).
116
comprehensive. When a structure is physically 
identified as a grave but contains only a 
small amount of bone or no bones at all, one 
possibility is that the bones of the deceased 
have been returned to nature and deposited in 
one or several of its four elements (Appelgren 
& Renck 2007: 72–73).
The cremated human bone materials from 
Nokia Viik, Lempäälä Naarankalmanmäki and 
Päivääniemi as well as Salo Ketohaka sites 
(cf. Hirviluoto & Vormisto 1984; Formisto 
1987; Katiskoski 1987; Raike & Seppälä 2005) 
demonstrate the variation of depositions in 
Iron Age cairns. What is evident is that there 
are at least as many differences as there are 
similarities, and this seems to also apply to 
other materials and not only bones. Variation 
seems to be one key feature of Finnish Iron 
Age cairns. In Naarankalmanmäki Cairn 3, 
Päivääniemi and Ketohaka, a clear cluster 
of human bones was present, while in 
Naarankalmanmäki Cairn 5 and in Nokia Viik, 
the human remains were more scattered. In 
the case of the former group, the osteological 
analysis supports the interpretation of the 
human bone clusters as burials in the traditional 
sense – all or most of the remains from the 
cremation pyre were deposited in one location. 
Even in Naarankalmanmäki Cairn 5, the human 
remains could derive from one individual, a 
child. 
In the case of Nokia Viik Cairn 4, it is 
possible that the human bone material represents 
deliberate token burials with symbolic or ritual 
purposes. The potential deliberate shifting of 
burial elements has been discussed regarding 
the Iron Age in Estonia, especially tarand-
graves (e.g., Kalman 2000: 25–29; Arukask 
2011: 141; Lang 2011: 121–122). At Viik, 
the slight correlation between metal finds 
and human bones in and around the stone 
construction excavated in 1987 may represent 
an area dedicated to a ritual that involved 
scattering elements related to one or several 
funerals. Without a total excavation of the Viik 
site, it is challenging to evaluate whether these 
bones derive from other burials made at the 
same site or if they were perhaps transported 
from another location, e.g., for the purposes of 
maintaining a connection with one’s ancestral 
spirits in a new settlement. However, as the Viik 
cairn contained evidence of later depositions, 
we must also consider the possibility that some 
of the bones may represent disturbed primary 
burials. 
Chronology
Nokia Viik Cairn 4 revealed a complex 
chronology, where the dated pottery and 
animal bone samples turned out younger than 
most of the archaeologically dated artefacts and 
the radiocarbon dates from human bone. The 
artefacts point to the Late Roman Iron Age and 
the early Migration Period. This is supported by 
the radiocarbon dates from the burned human 
bone, while the other radiocarbon dates indicate 
other periods of activity and, evidently, changes 
in deposition patterns at the site. The bone and 
metal objects dating from the Late Roman Iron 
Age to the Migration Period are from the middle 
layers (mostly layers 4–5) of the stone structure 
excavated in 1987. Objects have probably been 
deposited on several occasions, and at least in 
the Migration Period also human bone material 
has been added to it. Later abundance of other 
material, such as pottery, animal bones and 
burned clay has been brought to the structure as 
well as outside of it.
Deposition of metal objects under the central 
stone of the main structure excavated in 1986 
suggest that the structure might have been in 
use at the same time in the Migration Period. 
However, in this structure only a few metal 
objects, a minimal amount of human bone and, 
in the upper layers, some burned clay has been 
added. Outside the structure there is a deposition 
of human bones with an older or similar dating 
as the main stone structures. So here, one stone 
structure has been a target of several depositions, 
whereas it seems like the other structure of the 
same date has almost been avoided.
It is not possible to accurately date the different 
structures inside the monument since repeated 
depositions have been made during a long period 
of time. However, since the radiocarbon dates of 
the pottery and animal bones are of later periods 
(from the Merovingian Period to the early Viking 
Age) and they are found further away from 
the main stone structures, it is likely that they 
represent an expansion of the monument and a 
changed deposition pattern of adding waste-like 
117
material into the complex. The two cases where 
human bones and pottery pieces fitting together 
were found in different layers, strengthen the 
picture of later interferences.
The complex result of several depositions 
is highlighted by the animal bones. The dated 
unburned mandibular tooth of a sheep or goat 
in an animal bone deposit was recovered from 
the mound connecting the two earlier cairns. 
In this find context, the presence of material 
younger than the burial activity is perhaps not 
surprising (see also Bläuer 2020). However, 
the dated burnt pig tarsal bone (T4) was found 
in a concentration of animal bones outside the 
stone construction excavated in 1986, near 
burnt human bones of a different age. The find 
context is such that, without dating, it could have 
been interpreted as part of actual burial activity 
at the site. The same applies to the pottery 
fragments – without closer analysis and dating 
the deposition of ceramics could be mistaken for 
a contemporary phenomenon directly related to 
the human bones. 
Once again, it is evident that the extended use 
or reuse of a former (burial or ritual) site is an 
important issue that has also been discussed in 
previous research (e.g., Asplund et al. 2019: 98–
100, with references). Burial may have been the 
starting point – the initiation or manifestation of 
a special place – which led to other events later 
on. The dates from the Nokia Viik site share an 
interesting resemblance with a former series from 
Roismala Ristimäki in Sastamala (Asplund et al. 
2019, Fig. 6), as both series indicate old human 
bones, followed by the depositions of ceramics, 
and later pig and sheep bones. However, there 
are also dissimilarities both in the actual dates, 
as well as in the occurrence of unburned human 
bones in the case of Roismala Ristimäki. It is 
quite probable that the similarity of composition 
is due to a still-limited number of sites and 
dates. The general observation of chronological 
complexity is, however, beginning to appear 
increasingly typical.
Formation
Extended use is one factor affecting the formation 
of cemeteries. Estonian examples show that 
burials in the same grave constructions could 
take place over multiple centuries (Kalman 
2000). Reuse in the form of consciously 
adding or removing material from a cemetery 
site is likewise another option. An interesting 
concept is that of ‘palimpsest monuments’ 
(Thereus 2019), involving the idea of reuse and 
remembrance, where depositions connect the 
place and people, creating and maintaining a 
collective identity.
Scandinavian examples demonstrate that 
sometimes the old monuments have been 
reused for burials after a break, becoming 
subjects of new meanings and functions for the 
new users (Thäte 2007: 192–193, 278–279). 
The remembered or presumed age of the old 
monuments has affected which monuments 
have been chosen for reuse: monuments of 
certain age have been chosen or avoided (Thäte 
2007: 192–194, 237–238, 276–280). The place 
where the secondary burial inside or next to 
the monument was placed probably carried 
meaning (Thäte 2007: 234–241). The logic of 
avoiding or targeting structures, seen also inside 
Nokia Viik Cairn 4, might be connected to real 
or mis-remembered properties of the structures 
and desired effects and meanings of the reuse.
The locations of former burial sites may 
also have been used in other ritual contexts. 
The general concept of ‘ritual deposition’ 
(Berggren 2006: 306; cf. Röst 2016: 322) could 
be considered in the case of cemeteries as well. 
There are cases where it becomes difficult to 
distinguish the concept of ‘grave’ from that 
of ‘offering’ (Thereus 2019: 240). Concerning 
Uppland in eastern Sweden Thereus (2019) 
has highlighted the complexity and diversity of 
burial customs during the Late Iron Age; only 
very late in the process the burial practices 
started to resemble what is today regarded as 
burials.
The discrepancy between the dates of 
burials and those of other ritual activities were 
underlined in a study of animal remains from 
twelve Iron Age cemeteries from southern 
and western Finland. Unburned animal bones 
could have been ritually deposited in former 
(or then-unused) cemeteries in connection with 
remembrance rituals or with the intention of 
securing the health and productivity of livestock 
(Bläuer 2020). One idea is that these sites may 
have contained a certain power – ‘kalma’ – due 
to the human remains (Bläuer 2020: 12). The 
118
cemetery was a platform where the sacred and 
profane intertwined, which was probably the 
case in the everyday life of Iron Age people 
as well (Korkeakoski-Väisänen & Bläuer 
2020: 353). The dating results from this study 
demonstrate that the same could also apply to the 
burnt animal bone material. Thus, not all burnt 
bone necessarily belong to a burial phase, as 
burnt animal bone could also have been used in 
later ritual depositions within the old structures.
It is probable that ‘everyday rituals’ or ‘secular 
rituals’ have been involved in the formation of 
sites (Brück 1999; Bradley 2003; 2005; Berggren 
2006; Asplund et al. 2019). In principle, any 
type of object can contain or transmit symbolic 
meanings; what is important when trying to 
reach an archaeological interpretation is the 
contexts of the occurrence, its irregularities, 
and the recurring combinations of these (Renck 
2000: 214–217). Regarding cemetery sites where 
burial-related rituals have been performed, 
this could have made them places where other 
remains of past lives – including material 
remains from the daily sphere of living – could 
be properly disposed of (Asplund et al. 2019: 
99). At some sites, the simplest explanation for 
the occurrence of material related to the domestic 
sphere is that the material was actually brought 
from a settlement site. This leads to the question 
of how the ritual treatment of waste may have 
contributed to the formation of sites that have 
been archaeologically defined as cemeteries 
(Asplund et al. 2019: 96–100).
What is now regarded as mere waste may 
not have been experienced in the same way 
in the past. When we consider the abundance 
of pottery fragments, the connection to the 
domestic sphere is evident. Pottery vessels used 
by households can function as metaphors for 
home, food, etc., which makes the pot fragments 
additionally meaningful in a ritual sense; the 
destruction of the objects and the remaining 
sherds could also be seen as being anchored 
to death as such (Stilborg 2021).17 The idea of 
depositing fragments from daily life can also be 
considered to represent the remnants of a farm 
or family. Much of the material could, in fact, 
be household waste from one or several houses. 
One could think of a relationship between the 
house/the living and the cemetery/the dead if 
one sees their house as a ‘living entity’ (Bailey 
1990: 28). Houses could have been thought of 
in a biographical/life cycle-oriented manner, 
where crises or the abandonment – or ‘death’ – 
of a house would have consequences resulting 
in rituals of remembrance and the deposition of 
household waste at a place of ritual importance.
CONCLUSIONS
Sites that fall under the Finnish archaeological 
concept of a cemetery (kalmisto) often seem to 
involve elements that are not comparable to the 
current understanding people have of graveyards 
or other locations solely intended for burials. 
What is problematic is that we have no knowledge 
of how prehistoric people experienced sites that 
archaeologists now classify as cemeteries. It is 
certain that these locations were sites – places 
– of importance due to mortuary practices. 
However, they seem to include other aspects as 
well, relegating the burial function itself, as we 
experience it today, to a seemingly secondary 
role. In many cases, the very concept of a burial 
– the existence of and variation in the number 
of bones and/or other materials indicative of 
funerals – has proven to be difficult to interpret.
The main factor uniting the different 
ritual elements at these sites are the locations 
themselves. In addition to actual burials or rituals 
involving human remains, they have hosted 
different kinds of activities, resulting in the 
deposition (and, likely, displacement) of material 
during different periods. While it may be too early 
to abandon the Finnish archaeological concept 
of cemeteries, they should be understood in a 
more multifaceted manner than as mere burial 
sites. Categorization also remains a key issue. 
Attaching the concept of ‘cemetery’ to sites such 
as cairns without detailed analysis subsumes 
sites that may be very different in nature, 
especially when we acknowledge changes in 
their use during different times. From the 
perspective of interpretation, the ways in which 
the cemetery concept is used is problematic, 
as it encompasses sites that may include other 
than funerary functions. A ‘cemetery’ is often a 
label used for sites or monuments with common 
physical characteristics, while identifying actual 
burial and/or other ritual practices is a matter 
of interpretation. Through future analyses 
119
concentrating on recognizing nuanced activities 
in sites such as Nokia Viik, we might be able to 
understand them in a way that better appreciates 
the varied activities that were carried out in these 
locations. While we cannot inhabit the minds 
of those who were present in these rituals and 
ascertain whether later depositions were related 
to any mortuary practices or other rituals, we can 
still record the material evidence of change.
The functions of different sites, and the 
ways in which people understood them, could 
have changed over time – a former burial site 
may still have been recognized as a special and 
important place as it was repurposed for other 
types of rituals. Based on the few samples 
examined in this article, this seems to apply to 
earth and stone mixed cairns involving elements 
from different periods of the Iron Age. These 
sites seem to indicate patterns of prolonged use 
and changes in rituals, especially in cases of 
burial-like constructions and depositions from 
the Early Iron Age that also include materials of 
a non-funerary character from later periods.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We sincerely thank two anonymous reviewers 
for their critical and insightful comments on the 
manuscript, helping to develop it further.
REFERENCES
Andersson, G. 2008. Pärlor för svin – den heliga 
lunden och rituell praktik i Lunda. In G. An-
dersson & E. Skyllberg (eds.) Gestalter och 
gestaltningar – om tid, rum och händelser i 
Lunda: 65–130. Riksantikvarieämbetet Arke-
ologiska undersökningar Skrifter nr 72. Stock-
holm: Riksantikvarieämbetet.
Anthony, S. 2016. Materialising Modern Cem-
eteries: Archaeological narratives of Assistens 
cemetery, Copenhagen. Lund Studies in His-
torical Archaeology 18. Lund: University of 
Lund, MediaTryck Lund.
Appelgren, K. & Nilsson, A. 2007. Gravar och 
symboliska begravningar. In J. Anund (ed.) 
Gården, tingen, graven. Arkeologiska perspek-
tiv på Mälardalen: 107–132 Riksantikvarieäm-
betet Arkeologiska undersökningar Skrifter nr 
71. Sundbyberg: Riksantikvarieämbetet.
Appelgren, K. & Renck, A. M. 2007. Vad är en 
grav? In M. Notelid (ed.) Att nå den andra 
sidan. Om begravning och ritual i Uppland: 
37–74. Arkeologi E4 Uppland – studier. Upp-
sala: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis 
Arukask, M. 2011. Communicating across the bor-
der: what burial laments can tell us about old 
beliefs. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 15(2): 
130–150. https://doi.org/10.3176/arch.2011.2.04
Asplund, H. 2008. Kymittæ. Sites, centrality and 
long-term settlement change in the Kemiön-
saari region in SW Finland. Annales Univer-
sitatis Turkuensis B 312. Turku: University of 
Turku.
Asplund, H., Moisio, J., Salomaa, S. & Bläuer, 
A. 2019. Digging deeper into an Iron Age 
cairn – rethinking Roismala Ristimäki in Sas-
tamala, Finland. Fennoscandia archaeologi-
ca XXXVI: 108–129.
Bailey, D. W. 1990. The Living House: Signi-
fying Continuity. In: R. Samson (ed.) The 
Social Archaeology of Houses: 19–48. Edin-
burgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Berggren, Å. 2006. Archaeology and sacrifice. 
A discussion of interpretations. In A. Andrén, 
K. Jennbert & C. Raudvere (eds.) Old Norse 
Religion in Long-term Perspectives. Origins, 
changes, and interactions. An international 
conference in Lund, Sweden, June 3–7, 2004: 
303–307. Vägar till Midgård 8. Lund: Nordic 
Academic Press. 
Bläuer, A. 2020. Animal bones in old graves: 
a zooarchaeological and contextual study 
on faunal remains and new dated evidence 
for the ritual re-use of old cemetery sites in 
Southern and Western Finland. Archaeologi-
cal and Anthropological Sciences 12: 206. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01165-4
Bradley, R. 2003. A life less ordinary: the ritualization 
of the domestic sphere in later prehistoric Europe. 
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13/1: 5–23. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774303000015
Bradley, R. 2005. Ritual and Domestic Life in 
Prehistoric Europe. London and New York: 
Routledge.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibra-
tion and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal 
program. Radiocarbon 37(2): 425–430.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200030903
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocar-
120
bon calibration program. Radiocarbon 43(2A): 355–
364. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200038212
Brück, J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: Some prob-
lems of interpretation in European archaeology. 
European Journal of Archaeology 2(3): 313–
344. https://doi.org/10.1179/eja.1999.2.3.313
Carpelan, C. 1980. Contacts in the Northern 
Baltic Region as shown by ceramics. In Fen-
no-Urgi et Slavi 1978: 188–199. Helsingin 
yliopiston arkeologian laitos, Moniste n:o 22. 
Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Edgren, Torsten 1969. Reflexioner kring tvenne 
epineolitiska lerkärl. Finskt Museum 1969: 
22–26.
Edgren, Torsten 1999. Alkavan rautakauden 
kulttuurikuva Länsi-Suomessa. In P. Fogel-
berg (ed.) Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten ju-
uret nykytutkimuksen mukaan: 311–333. Bid-
drag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 
153.  Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.
Enqvist. J 2005. Rautakauden tyypin keramiik-
ka – rautakauden keramiikkatyyppikö? In 
T. Mökkönen & P. Pesonen (eds.) Arkeolo-
gipäivät 2004: 95–102. Helsinki: Archaeo-
logical Society of Finland.
Erä-Esko, A. 1948. Nokian kauppalan ja ent. 
Pohjois-Pirkkalan pitäjän Tampereen kau-
punkiin liitettyjen osien kiinteät muinais-
jäännökset. Kertomus inventointimatkasta, 
jonka ylioppilas Aarni Erä-Esko suoritti Mui-
naistieteellisen Toimikunnan stipendiaattina 
syyskuussa v. 1948. Survey report, Finnish 
Heritage Agency, Helsinki.
Formisto, T. 1987. Osteologinen raportti. In K. 
Katiskoski, Lempäälä Päivääniemi, rautakau-
tisen kalmiston kaivaus ja kartoitus. Osteo-
logical report, Finnish Heritage Agency, Hel-
sinki.
Formisto, T. 1991. Nokia, Viik. Luuanalyysi. 
Osteological report, Department of Archaeol-
ogy, University of Turku.
Formisto, T. 1996. Osteological material. In P. 
Purhonen (ed.) Vainionmäki – a Meroving-
ian Period Cemetery in Laitila, Finland: 81–
87. Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities.
Fisher, T. 1997. An osteological investigation 
of burnt bone from the Iron Age cremation 
burial site at Sotkanlinna, Nokia, Finland. 
Unpublished osteological report, Depart-
ment of Archaeology, University of Turku.
Godłowski, K. 2011. Vorrömische Eisenzeit 
und Römische Kaiserzeit im östlichen Mit-
teleuropa und in Osteuropa. In R. Müller & 
H. Steuer (eds.) Fibeln und Fibeltracht 2. 
Auflage: 68–86. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Haimila, M. & Taavitsainen, J.-P. 1999. Ker-
tomus rautakautisen röykkiön kaivauksesta 
Nokian Viikissä 16.7.–4.8.1999. Excavation 
report, Department of Archaeology, Univer-
sity of Turku.
Hakanpää, P. 1996. Kertomus Nokian Haurois-
ten Sotkanlinnan röykkiön kaivauksista 3.6.-
12.7. 1996. Excavation report, Department 
of Archaeology, University of Turku.
Hakanpää, P. 1997. Kertomus Nokian Hau-
roisten Sotkanlinnan rautakautisen röykkiön 
kaivauksista ja sen ympäristön koetutkimuk-
sista 23.6.-25.7. 1997. Excavation report, 
Department of Archaeology, University of 
Turku.
Hauptman, T. 1998. Studien zu den Dreispros-
senfibeln. In J. Kunow (ed.) 100 Jahre Fibel-
formen nach Oscar Almgren. Internationale 
Arbeitstagung 25. – 28. Mai 1997 Klein-
machnow, Land Brandenburg. Forschungen 
zur Archäologie im Land Brandenburg 5: 
159–173. Wünsdorf: Verlag Brandenburgis-
ches Landesmuseum für Ur- und Frühge-
schichte. 
Heideman Lutz, L. 2010. Die Insel in der Mitte. 
Bornholm im 2.–4. Jahrhundert. Regionale 
und vergleichende Untersuchungen der 
jüngerkaiserzeitlichen Grabfunde. Berliner 
Archäologische Forschung 9. Rahden: Ver-
lag Marie Leidorf.
Heikel, A. O. 1882. Kertomus Pirkkalan ki-
hlakunnan muinaisjäännöksistä. Bidrag 
till kännedom af Finlands natur och folk 
utgifna af Finska Vetenskaps-Societeten. 
Trettiondeåttonde Häftet [XXXVIII]. Hels-
ingfors.
Heikkurinen-Montell, T. 1996. Distribution of 
the osteological material. In P. Purhonen 
(ed.) Vainionmäki – a Merovingian Period 
Cemetery in Laitila, Finland: 88–101. Hel-
sinki: National Board of Antiquities.
Herschend, F. 2009. The Early Iron Age in 
South Scandinavia. Social Order in Settle-
ment and Landscape. Occasional Papers in 
Archaeology 46. Uppsala: Uppsala Univer-
sitet.
Heynowski, R. 2016. Fibeln. Erkennen, 
121
bestimmen, beschreiben. Bestimmungsbuch 
Archäologie 1. Berlin: Deutscher Kunstver-
lag.
Hiekkanen, M. 1979. Suomen rautakauden nu-
olenkärjet. Helsingin yliopiston arkeologian 
laitos. Moniste n:o 19. Helsinki: University 
of Helsinki.
Hietala, Elsa 2003. Liedon Sauvalan Ylipää 
– Perusteellisesti tutkittu polttokenttäkalm-
isto? Muinaistutkija 3/2003: 2–12. 
Hirviluoto, A.-L. & Vormisto, T. 1984. En 
massgrav från yngre romersk järnålder i 
Isokylä, Salo. Finskt Museum 90: 21-49.
Kaliff, A. & Østigård, T. 2013. Kremation och 
kosmologi – en komparativ arkeologisk in-
troduktion. Occasional Papers in Archaeol-
ogy 56. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.
Kalman, J. 2000. Skeletal Analysis of the 
Graves of Kaseküla, Poanse I and Poanse II. 
In T. Tamla (ed.) Eesti ajaloomuuseum II. 
Töid ajaloo ajalt: 17–40. Tallinn: Eesti Aja-
loomuuseum.
Katiskoski, K. 1987. Lempäälä Päivääniemi, 
rautakautisen kalmiston kaivaus ja kartoitus. 
Excavation report, Finnish Heritage Agency, 
Helsinki.
Keskitalo, O. 1979. Suomen nuoremman 
roomalaisen rautakauden löydöt. Helsingin 
yliopiston arkeologian laitos. Moniste n:o 
20. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Kivikoski, E. 1973. Die Eisenzeit Finnlands. 
Bildwerk und Text. Helsinki: Suomen 
Muinaismuistoyhdistys.
Koivisto, L. & Salo, U. 1988. Nokian Viikin 
rautakautisen kumpukalmiston kaivaus 
1987. Excavation report, Department of Ar-
chaeology, University of Turku, Turku.
Koivisto, L. 1991. Nokia, Viik. Rautakautisen 
kumpukalmiston tutkimus 1986–1987. Kar-
hunhammas 13: 31–37. Turku: University of 
Turku.
Korkeakoski-Väisänen, K. & Bläuer, A. 2020. 
Erään rautakautisen kalmiston anatomia 
Aurajokilaaksossa – Liedon Ylipään polt-
tokenttäkalmiston arkeologinen tulkinta. In 
M. Silver & P. Uino (eds.) Tiedenainen pei-
lissä. Arkeologian professori Ella Kivikosken 
elämä ja tutkimuskentät: 341–357. Bibliothe-
ca Sigillumiana 9. Turku: Sigillum.
Lahtiperä, P. 1973. Maarian Kärsämäen kalmis-
ton luuanalyysi. Seminar paper, Department 
of Archaeology, University of Turku, Turku.
Lang, V. 2011. Traceless death. Missing buri-
als in Bronze and Iron Age Estonia. Estoni-
an Journal of Archaeology 15(2): 109–129. 
https://doi.org/10.3176/arch.2011.2.03
Lehtosalo-Hilander, P.-L. 1982. Luistari II. The 
artefacts. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyks-
en Aikakauskirja 82(2). Helsinki: Finnish 
Antiquarian Society.
Lempiäinen, T. 1991. Nokia Viikin rautakautisen 
kumpukalmiston makrofossiilit. Karhunham-
mas 13: 38–45. Turku: University of Turku.
McKinley, J. 1989. Cremations: expectations, 
methodologies and realities. In C. A. Roberts, 
F. Lee & J- Bintliff (eds.) Burial Archaeol-
ogy. Current Research, Methods and Devel-
opment: 65–74. BAR British Series 211. Ox-
ford. 
McKinley, J. 1994a. Bone fragment size in Brit-
ish cremation burials and its implications for 
pyre technology and ritual. Journal of Ar-
chaeological Science 21: 330–342.
McKinley, J. 1994b. Spong Hill Part VII: The 
Cremations. East Anglian Archaeology. 
Dereham: Field Archaeology Division, Nor-
folk Museums Service.
McKinley, J. 2013. Cremation: excavation, 
analysis and interpretation of material from 
cremation-related contexts. In S. Tarlow & L. 
N.  Stutz (eds.) The Oxford handbook of the 
archaeology of death and burial: 147–171. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meinander, C.F. 1950. Etelä-Pohjanmaan histo-
ria I. Seinäjoki: Etelä-Pohjanmaan historia-
toimikunta.
Meinander, C.F. 1954. Die Bronzezeit in Finn-
land. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Ai-
kakauskirja 53. Helsinki: Finnish Antiquarian 
Society.
Meinander, C.F. 1969. Dåvits. En essä om för-
romersk järnålder. Finskt Museum 1969: 
27–69.
Moilanen, U. 2015. Uusia ajoituksia Sastama-
lan Kaukolasta. Pirkan maan alta 14: 26–37. 
Tampere: Museum Centre Vapriikki.
Moilanen, U. 2023. Bonded by pieces. Frag-
ments as means of affirming kinship in Iron 
Age Finland. In A. Sörman, A. A. Noterman, 
& M. Fjellström (eds.) Broken Bodies, Places 
and Objects. New Perspectives on Fragmen-
tation in Archaeology: 55–68. London: Rout-
122
ledge.
Moora, H. 1938. Die Eisenzeit in Lettland bis 
etwa 500 n.Chr. II. Teil: Analyse. Õpetatud 
Eesti Seltsi toimetised XXIX. Tartu.
Muhonen, T. 2009. Something Old, Some-
thing New: Excursions into Finnish Sac-
rificial Cairns. Temenos. Nordic Journal 
of Comparative Religion 44(2): 293–346. 
https://doi.org/10.33356/temenos.4592
Mäntylä-Asplund, S. & Storå, J. 2010. On the 
Archaeology and Osteology of the Rikala 
Cremation Cemetery in Salo, SW Finland. 
Fennoscandia archaeologica XXVII: 53–68.
Nowakowski, W. 1998. Die Funde der Römis-
chen Kaiserzeit und Völkerwanderungszeit in 
Masuren. Bestandskataloge Band 6. Berlin: 
Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte.
Pietikäinen, T. & Salo, U. 1989. Nokia, Viik: 
Historialliseksi osoittautuneen röykkiön 
kaivaus ajalla 1.6.–22.6.1988. Excavation re-
port, Department of Archaeology, University 
of Turku.
Raike, E. & Seppälä, S.-L. 2005. 
Naarankalmanmäki. An Iron Age Complex in 
Lempäälä, Southern Finland. Fennoscandia 
archaeologica XXII: 43–78.
Reimer, P., Austin, W., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Black-
well, P., Bronk Ramsey, C., Butzin, M., Cheng, 
H., Edwards, R., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P., 
Guilderson, T., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T., Hogg, A., 
Hughen, K., Kromer, B., Manning, S., Muschel-
er, R., Palmer, J., Pearson, C., van der Plicht, J., 
Reimer, R., Richards, D., Scott, E., Southon, J., 
Turney, C., Wacker, L., Adolphi, F., Büntgen, 
U., Capano, M., Fahrni, S., Fogtmann-Schulz, 
A., Friedrich, R., Köhler, P., Kudsk, S., Miyake, 
F., Olsen, J., Reinig, F., Sakamoto, M., Sookdeo, 
A., & Talamo, S. 2020. The IntCal20 Northern 
Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve 
(0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62(4): 725–757. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41
Renck, A. M. 2000. Den helgade marken – ritu-
alen som dokument. In: L. Ersgård (ed.) Män-
niskors platser – tretton arkeologiska studier 
från UV: 209–227. Riksantikvarieämbetet 
Arkeologiska undersökningar Skrifter nr 31. 
Göteborg: Riksantikvarieämbetet.
Renvall, E. & Salo, U. 1986. Nokian kaupungin 
inventointi 1985. Survey report, Department 
of Archaeology, University of Turku, Turku.
Renvall, E. & Salo, U. 1987. Nokia, Viik. Rau-
takautisen kumpukalmiston kaivaus 1.7.–
8.8.1986. Excavation report, Department of 
Archaeology, University of Turku, Turku.
Röst, A. 2016. Fragmenterade platser, ting och 
människor. Stenkonstruktioner och deposi-
tioner på två gravfältslokaler i Söderman-
land ca 1000–300 f Kr. Stockholm Studies 
in Archaeology 71. Doctoral dissertation. 
Stockholm: Stockholms universitet
Saipio, J. 2017. The Emergence of Cremations 
in Eastern Fennoscandia: Changing uses 
of Fire in Ritual Contexts. In J.I. Cerezo-
Román, A. Wessman & H. Williams. (eds.) 
Cremation and the Archaeology of Death: 
201–230. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Salmo, H. 1938. Die Waffen der Merowinger-
zeit in Finnland. Suomen Muinaismuistoy-
hdistyksen Aikakauskirja XLII. Helsinki: 
Finnish Antiquarian Society.
Salo, U. 1968. Die frührömische Zeit in Finn-
land. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen 
Aikakauskirja 67. Helsinki: Suomen Muina-
ismuistoyhdistys.
Salomaa, S. 2020. Nokia Viikin röykkiön 4 
keramiikka-aineiston analyysi. Ceramics 
analysis report, Department of Archaeology, 
University of Turku, Turku.
Schmidt, C. & Symes, S. 2008. The Analysis of 
Burned Human Remains. Amsterdam: Aca-
demic Press.
Snodgrass, A. 2015. Putting Death in Its Place: 
The Idea of the Cemetery. In C. Renfrew, 
M. Boyd, & I. Morley (eds.) Death Rituals, 
Social Order and the Archaeology of Im-
mortality in the Ancient World: ‘Death Shall 
Have No Dominion’: 187–199. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014509.013
Stilborg, O. 2021. Fragments of grief. Academia Let-
ters, Article 770. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL770
Taavitsainen, J.-P. 1992. Cemeteries or refuse 
heaps? Archaeological formation processes 
and the interpretation of sites and antiquities. 
Suomen Museo 1991: 5–14.
Taavitsainen, J.-P. 2003. Lapp Cairns as a Source 
on Metal Period Settlement in the Inland Re-
gions of Finland. Acta Borealia 20(1): 21-47.
Tempelmann-Mączyńska, M. 1985. Die Perlen 
der römischen Kaiserzeit und der frühen 
Phase der Völkerwanderungszeit im mit-
teleuropäischen Barbaricum. Römisch-
123
Germanische Forschungen, Band 43.
Therus, J. 2019. Den yngre järnålderns 
gravskick i Uppland. Framväxten av den 
arkeologiska bilden och en materialitet 
i förändring. AUN 50. Uppsala: Uppsala 
universitet.
Thäte, E. 2007. Monuments and Minds. Mon-
ument Re-use in Scandinavia in the Second 
Half of the First Millenium AD. Acta ar-
chaeologica Lundensia Series in 4° No. 27. 
Lund: Wallin & Dalholm.
Tourunen, A. & Troy, C. 2011. Tuloksia ja 
tulkintaa: osteologisen analyysin tuomia 
uusia näkökulmia vanhoihin kohteisiin. 
Muinaistutkija 1/2011: 11–20.
Vormisto, T. 1985. Osteologisk bearbetning 
av benmaterial framgrävt av den arkeolo-
giska institutionen vid Åbo Universitet 
1975–1983. Karhunhammas 9: 135–177. 
Turku: University of Turku.
Wickholm, A. 2008. Re-use in the Finnish 
Cremation Cemeteries under Level Ground 
– Examples of Collective Memory. In F. 
Fahlander & T.Oestigaard (eds.) Material-
ity of Death – Bodies, Burials, Beliefs: 89–
97. British Archaeological Reports (BAR) 
International Series 1768. 
Wessman, A. 2010. Death, Deconstruction 
and Commemoration. Tracing ritual ac-
tivities in Finnish Late Iron Age cemeter-
ies (AD 550-1150). Iskos 18. Helsinki: 
Suomen muinaismuistoyhdistys.
Wessman, A. & Williams, H. 2017. Build-
ing for the Cremated Dead: Ephemeral and 
Cumulative Constructions. In J.I. Cerezo-
Román, A. Wessman & H. Williams (eds.) 
Cremation and the Archaeology of Death: 
177–198. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198798118.003.0018
Williams, H., Cerezo-Román, J.I. & Wess-
man, A. 2017. Introduction: Archaeologies 
of Cremation. In J.I. Cerezo-Román, A. 
Wessman & H. Williams (eds.) Cremation 
and the Archaeology of Death: 1–26. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198798118.003.0007
124
NOTES
1 In Sweden, the definition of a cemetery or 
burial ground (in Swedish gravfält) includes 
the occurrence of at least five prehistoric grave 
constructions within a mutual distance of no more 
than 20 meters.
2 There have even been discussions on whether 
it is possible to distinguish graves with no burial 
remains at all (Appelgren & Nilsson 2007; 
Appelgren & Renck 2007).
3 In the case of Late Bronze Age structures it has 
been stated that the material should be discussed 
in its own right – not as ‘graves’, but as ‘traces of 
actions’ concerning stones and sometimes human 
bones (Röst 2016: 320).
4 The site is registered under the name Viik 1, 
#536010019, in the Ancient Relics Register 
maintained by the Finnish Heritage Agency.
5 There have been some irregularities in the 
numbering (and locations) of the monuments at 
the site. This is explained in the 1999 excavation 
report (Haimila & Taavitsainen 1999: 5–6).
6 Different concepts have been used to define the 
monument. At first, the term ‘mound’ was used, 
while ‘cairn’ (in Finnish röykkiö) has been used 
more frequently in subsequent studies. In addition, 
the Finnish term ‘raunio’, evidently a synonym 
for ‘cairn’, has been used on some occasions (e.g. 
Koivisto & Salo 1988). In this study, the main 
structure as well as the combination of structures 
are referred to as an ‘earth and stone mixed cairn’ 
(for a clarification of the concept, see Asplund et 
al. 2019: 83).
7 The composition of the monument has 
evidently been regarded as special at the time of 
investigation. In general terms, however, reuse 
and the extension of burial constructions is not 
uncommon (cf. Thäte 2007; Wickholm 2008; 
Wessman 2010; Wessman & Williams 2017; 
Therus 2019: 240–242).
8 In connection with the excavation in 1987, ten 
soil samples were taken from the excavation area 
for macrofossil analysis. Eight of the samples are 
from the earthen mound and two from the cairn. 
Several charred cereal grains were found in both 
sets of samples – ten from the mound and nine 
from the cairn. Seven were identified as barley 
(Hordeum vulgare) and one as rye (Secale cereale) 
(Lempiäinen 1991: 41). As part of the material 
was discovered in layers that were interpreted to 
be old, it is likely that the grains are connected to 
the cairn (Lempiäinen 1991: 43). However, none 
of the grains have been radiocarbon dated.
9 Cairn 3, excavated in 1988 (the investigation 
had begun already in 1986 when the uppermost 
part of half of the mound had been unearthed) 
is the smallest (about 4 meters in diameter and 
0.6 meters in height) of the mounds at the site, 
and situated about 20 meters NE of the ‘great 
mound’ (Pietikäinen & Salo 1989: 1–2). The 
finds consisted of one piece of Iron Age pottery 
and one piece of burnt bone. Other finds were 
a couple of metal objects (one button and one 
button-like piece), three clay fragments from a 
tobacco pipe and two pieces of glazed pottery. 
Furthermore, the mound contained over 20 kg 
of brick fragments (Pietikäinen & Salo 1989: 6). 
Although the mound at first sight was considered 
as a ‘perfect’ Iron Age cairn, the content makes 
unlikely the interpretation that this would be a 
prehistoric structure (Pietikäinen & Salo 1989: 7).
10 Seventeen arrowheads were recovered from 
the monument (Fig. 5). Sixteen of these represent 
Hiekkanen’s group 3BII (Koivisto 1991: 33), 
which have mostly been found in Häme and 
Satakunta (Hiekkanen 1979: 68). Group 3BII 
dates roughly to the Late Roman and Migration 
Periods (Hiekkanen 1979: 67).
11 The clay beads (TYA 337:12) are rather 
irregular and feature skewed holes, which 
might suggest that they could have been formed 
naturally. On the other hand, they seem burned, 
which could suggest that they were deliberately 
produced.
12 Invidual pots are referred to with the 
numberings used in the ceramics analysis report 
(Salomaa 2020).
13 In the area excavated in 1986, pieces fitting 
together from pot number 1.6 were found in 
Figure 8. Radiocarbon dates (excluding 
the Early Metal Period date from pottery).
125
layer 1, square 108/84 and layer 4, square 
106/94. In the area excavated in 1987, pieces 
fitting together from pot 2.4 were found in layer 
4, square 100/88 and layer 5, square 100/88.
14 TYA 426:255 was found in layer 1, square 
102/88, while TYA 426:312 was found in layer 
5, square 104/88, according to the osteological 
report (Formisto 1991). In the find catalogue 
TYA 426:312 is, however, recorded as found 
in square 204/90, which must be a typing error 
– probably the correct numbering should be 
104/90.
15 From a current perspective, the excavation 
and documentation technique was not optional. 
When mainly focusing on layers and squares, 
the interpretation of single contexts and their 
relationships is almost impossible to achieve 
later. Even creating simple distribution maps 
in a true metric system (e.g. Fig. 7) from the 
old data require a lot of work. In this case, the 
number of catalogued finds or assemblages was 
549, the locations of which had been recorded 
with reference to layers and 2x2 meter squares, 
in some cases supplemented with measurements 
(coordinates) within squares. As the current 
example and the former case of Roismala 
Ristimäki in Sastamala (Asplund et al. 2019) 
illustrates, recalculations can (to some extent) 
be done, which increases the potential for more 
detailed spatial analyses of old excavation data.
16 All calibrated dates are given with a 95.4% 
probability. They were calculated with the 
OxCal v3.10 program (Bronk Ramsey 1995; 
2001) using the IntCal20 calibration dataset 
(Reimer et al. 2020).
17 When discussing mortuary practices, the 
common occurrence of fragments of objects 
(as well as burned and crushed human bones) 
in Finnish Iron Age cemeteries has also been 
explained as linked to conscious breaking and 
sharing. Fragments could have been distributed 
within the group of people linked to the ritual site 
– this would have been a sign of bond between 
kin group members (Moilanen 2023). 
Figure 8. Radiocarbon dates (excluding 
the Early Metal Period date from pottery).