Baltic Reindeer Hunters: Swiderian, Lyngby, Ahrensburgian, and Krasnosillya cultures 12,020 to 11,020 years ago are evidence of powerful migratory waves during the last 13,000 years and a genetic link to Saami and the Finno-Ugric peoples.

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Archaeology shows both the common culture and genetics of the earliest Indo-Europeans in Europe were forming from the 8,000-6,020 years ago, due to migration of the Western Baltic Mesolithic population linked with Poland. Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers: mix of Western and Eastern Hunter-Gatherers beginning around 13,000 years ago.

Baltic Reindeer Hunters: Swiderian, Lyngby, Ahrensburgian, and Krasnosillya cultures 12,020 to 11,020 years ago are evidence of powerful migratory waves during the last 13,000 years and a genetic link to Saami and the Finno-Ugric peoples. Two Different Bone Point Phases: fine-barbed 11,200–10,100 years ago and larger-barbed 9,658–8,413 years ago.

Gravettian

“The Gravettian was an archaeological industry of the European Upper Paleolithic that succeeded the Aurignacian circa 33,000 years ago or older like 36,000 years ago. It is archaeologically the last European culture many consider unified, and had mostly disappeared by c. 22,000 years ago, close to the Last Glacial Maximum, although some elements lasted until c. 17,000 years ago. At this point, it was replaced abruptly by the Solutrean in France and Spain, and developed into or continued as the Epigravettian in Italy, the Balkans, Ukraine, and Russia. They are known for their Venus figurines, which were typically carved from either ivory or limestone. The Gravettian culture was first identified at the site of La Gravette in the Dordogne department of southwestern France.”. ref

“The Gravettians were hunter-gatherers who lived in a bitterly cold period of European prehistory, and the Gravettian lifestyle was shaped by the climate. Periglacial environmental changes forced them to adapt. West and Central Europe were extremely cold during this period. Archaeologists usually describe two regional variants: the western Gravettian, known mainly from cave sites in France, Spain, and Britain, and the eastern Gravettian in Central Europe and Russia. The eastern Gravettians, which include the Pavlovian culture, were specialized mammoth hunters, whose remains are usually found not in caves but in open-air sites.”. ref

“Gravettian culture thrived on their ability to hunt animals. They utilized a variety of tools and hunting strategies. Compared to theorized hunting techniques of Neanderthals and earlier human groups, Gravettian hunting culture appears much more mobile and complex. They lived in caves or semi-subterranean or rounded dwellings which were typically arranged in small “villages”. Gravettians are thought to have been innovative in the development of tools such as blunted-back knives, tanged arrowheads, and boomerangs. Other innovations include the use of woven nets and oil lamps made of stone. Blades and bladelets were used to make decorations and bone tools from animal remains.”. ref

“Gravettian culture extends across a large geographic region, as far as Estremadura in Portugal. but is relatively homogeneous until about 27,000 BN. They developed burial rites, which included the inclusion of simple, purpose-built, offerings and/or personal ornaments owned by the deceased, placed within the grave or tomb. Surviving Gravettian art includes numerous cave paintings and small, portable Venus figurines made from clay or ivory, as well as jewelry objects. The fertility deities mostly date from the early period; there are over 100 known surviving examples. They conform to a very specific physical type, with large breasts, broad hips, and prominent posteriors. The statuettes tend to lack facial details, and their limbs that are often broken off. During the post glacial period, evidence of the culture begins to disappear from northern Europe but was continued in areas around the Mediterranean.”. ref

Diet

“Animals were a primary food source for early humans of the Gravettian period. Since Europe was extremely cold during this period, food sources needed to be high in energy and fat content. Testing comparisons among various human remains reveal that populations at higher latitudes placed greater dietary emphasis on meat. A defining trait distinguishing Gravettian people was their ease of mobility compared to their Neanderthal counterparts. Modern humans developed the technology and social organization that enabled them to migrate with their food source whereas Neanderthals were not adept at traveling, even with relatively sedentary herds.”. ref

“With their ability to move with the herds, Gravettian diets incorporated a huge variety of animal prey. The main factors were the animal’s age and size. For example, first-year deer offered hides most suitable for clothing, while fourth-year deer contained far more meat. The Gravettian diet included larger animals such as mammoths, hyenas, wolves, reindeer killed with stone or bone tools, as well as hares and foxes captured with nets. This time period is classified by the strong emphasis on meat consumption because agriculture had not been fully introduced nor utilized. In addition, the climate was not favorable to stable crop cultivation. Coastal Gravettians were able to avail of marine protein. From remains found in Italy and Wales, carbon dating reveals that 20-30% of Gravettian diets of coastal peoples consisted of sea animals. Populations of lower latitudes relied more on shellfish and fish while higher latitudes’ diets consisted of seals.”. ref

Physical type

“Physical remains of people of the Gravettian have revealed that they were tall and relatively slender people. The male height of the Gravettian culture ranged between 179 and 188 centimeters tall with an average of 183,5 centimeters, which is exceptionally tall not only for that period of prehistory, but for all periods of history. They were fairly slender and normally weighed between 67-73 kilograms, although they would likely have had a higher ratio of lean muscle mass compared to body fat in comparison to modern humans as a result of a very physically active and demanding lifestyle. The females of the Gravettian were much shorter, standing 158 centimeters on average, with an average weight of 54 kilograms. Examinations of Gravettian skulls reveal that high cheekbones were common among them.”. ref

Hunting

“Clubs, stones, and sticks were the primary hunting tools during the Upper Paleolithic period. Bone, antler, and ivory points have all been found at sites in France; but proper stone arrowheads and throwing spears did not appear until the Solutrean period (~20,000 Before Present). Due to the primitive tools, many animals were hunted at close range. The typical artifact of the Gravettian industry, once considered diagnostic, is the small pointed blade with a straight blunt back. They are today known as the Gravette point, and were used to hunt big game. Gravettians used nets to hunt small game, and are credited with inventing the bow and arrow.”. ref

“Gravettian settlers tended towards the valleys that pooled migrating prey. Examples found through discoveries in Gr. La Gala, a site in Southern Italy, shows a strategic settlement based in a small valley. As the settlers became more aware of the migration patterns of animals like red deer, they learned that prey herd in valleys, thereby allowing the hunters to avoid traveling long distances for food. Specifically in Gr. La Gala, the glacial topography forced the deer to pass through the areas in the valley occupied by humans. Additional evidence of strategically positioned settlements include sites like Klithi in Greece, also placed to intercept migrating prey.”. ref

“Discoveries in the Czech Republic suggest that nets were used to capture large numbers of smaller prey, thus offering a quick and consistent food supply and thus an alternative to the feast/famine pattern of large game hunters. Evidence comes in the form of 4 mm thick rope preserved on clay imprints. Research suggests that although no larger net imprints have been discovered, there would be little reason for them not to be made as no further knowledge would be required for their creation. The weaving of nets was likely a communal task, relying on the work of both women and children.”. ref

Use of animal remains: Decorations and tools

“The Gravettian era landscape is most closely related to the landscape of present-day Moravia. Pavlov I in southern Moravia is the most complete and complex Gravettian site to date, and a perfect model for a general understanding of Gravettian culture. In many instances, animal remains indicate both decorative and utilitarian purposes. In the case of, for example, Arctic foxes, incisors, and canines were used for decoration, while their humeri and radii bones were used as tools. Similarly, the skeletons of some red foxes contain decorative incisors and canines as well as ulnas used for awls and barbs.”. ref

“Some animal bones were only used to create tools. Due to their shape, the ribs, fibulas, and metapodia of horses were good for awl and barb creation. In addition, the ribs were also implemented to create different types of smoothers for pelt preparation. The shapes of hare bones are also unique, and as a result, the ulnas were commonly used as awls and barbs. Reindeer antlers, ulnas, ribs, tibias, and teeth were utilized in addition to a rare documented case of a phalanx. Mammoth remnants are among the most common bone remnants of the culture, while long bones and molars are also documented. Some mammoth bones were used for decorative purposes. Wolf remains were often used for tool production and decoration.”. ref

Genetics

“In a genetic study published in Nature in May 2016, the remains of fourteen Gravettians were examined. The eight samples of Y-DNA analyzed were determined to be three samples of haplogroup CT, one sample of I, one sample of IJK, one sample of BT, one sample of C1a2, one sample of F. Of the fourteen samples of mtDNA, there were thirteen samples of U and one sample of M. The majority of the sample of U belonged to the U5 and U2. In a genetic study published in Nature in November 2020, the remains of one adult male and two twin boys from a Gravettian site were examined. The Y-DNA analysis revealed that all 3 individuals belonged to haplogroup I. The 3 individuals had the same mtDNA, U5.”. ref

Epi-gravettian

“The Gravettian and the Epigravettian chronology in eastern central Europe, aimed at contributing to the environmental variability of the Gravettian population in ‘southeastern’ Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) with an interdisciplinary study at the Upper Palaeolithic site Ságvár Lyukas Hill (Hungary). However, the classification of the site as Gravettian is erroneous because the LGM archaeological record of eastern central Europe is composed of findings of another culture, the Epigravettian. This short comment on the paper of the archaeological chronology between 34,000 and 16,000 years ago with a focus on the Gravettian–Epigravettian dichotomy.” ref

“The results of the detailed geological and malacological investigations of the Upper Palaeolithic site Ságvár Lyukas Hill in western Hungary, dated to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Besides the specific aims of their paper, the results are an important contribution to reconstructions of the paleoenvironment of hunter-gatherer societies during the LGM in the Carpathian Basin. While the natural science results are soundly presented, the archaeological classification of the site is misunderstood and thus the consequent implications to archaeological research are inaccurate. Ságvár Lyukas Hill is a Gravettian site and represents one of few dated to the LGM in southeastern Europe.” ref

“However, the archaeological literature directly contradicts this statement; there are no Gravettian sites dated to the LGM in this region, which is often mentioned as central Europe, or eastern-central Europe (ECE – roughly the Western Carpathians and the Carpathian Basin). The last Gravettian hunter-gatherer camps in the chronology of the Upper Palaeolithic in ECE predate 24,000 years ago, which is the time of the greatest extent of the Fennoscandian ice sheet (FIS).

“The Upper Palaeolithic human record in ECE consists of three archaeological cultures representing three hunter-gatherer populations: Gravettian ~ 34,000–24,000 years ago, Epigravettian ~24,000–16,000 years ago, and Magdalénian ~ 18,000–13,000 years ago. The Gravettian archaeological record is further classified into three sequential clusters. The earliest is the Early Gravettian, dated to ~34,000–30,000 years ago. The next is the Pavlovian, dated to ~31,000–28,000 years ago. The last member of the Gravettian culture is the Late Gravettian, also called Willendorf–Kostenkian or shouldered point horizon, which occupied ECE between ~28,000–24,000 years ago. At the onset of the maximal extent of the FIS, ~24,000 years ago, there is a significant change in the archaeological record, and the sites dated to between ~24,000 and 16,000 years ago are classified into another culture, the Epigravettian. The Epigravettian also can be divided into two chronological phases.” ref

“The early phase is 3 contemporaneous with the FIS maximum extent roughly between 24,000 and 20,000 years ago, and the later phase dates to the time of FIS retreat. While Epigravettian sites are documented all over ECE, the third hunter-gatherer culture of this region, the Magdalénian, arrived from western Europe, left abundant occupational remains only north of the Carpathians, and a few sites in Moravia, and none in the Carpathian Basin. The Magdalénian seems to have been partly coeval with the later Epigravettian phase. The sole overlap involves 65 Mogyorósbánya (Hungary) and the lower layer of Kašov (Slovakia), at 100 years. Fig. 1 thus shows that the latest Gravettian occupations are not associated with the peak of the LGM, which in turn is highly correlated with the Epigravettian.” ref

“The striking difference between the Epigravettian and the Gravettian in ECE, as we know today, is that Gravettian lithic hunting weapon tool types are absent in Epigravettian, such as the shouldered point, microgravette or Gravette point, Late Gravettian rectangle (ventrally bi-truncated backed bladelet), fléchette, and the bifacial leaf point. The Epigravettian during the FIS maximum has a low proportion of lithic armatures, which most often are simple backed bladelets. However, after FIS started retreating, the later Epigravettian lithic inventories were again abundant in armatures, but without the style of the Gravettian weaponry. The lithic assemblage of Ságvár entirely lacks the Gravettian armature types and has a decreased frequency of armature compared to the previous periods.” ref

“Only backed bladelets and retouched points were found in the armature. In the Hungarian Upper Palaeolithic chronology, the “Gravettian Entity Model” (GEM) has been used to classify archaeological assemblages between 32,000 and 15,000 years ago. GEM can be misleading in the view of ECE research because it uses the 4 term Gravettian for chronologically and culturally different hunter-gatherer populations, suggesting they are lineally related. However, even GEM clearly distinguished Ságvár and 86 the similar lithic industries from the chronologically earlier and later ones with sound archaeological data. This difference was enough significant to separate Ságvár and further Hungarian sites similar to Ságvár in a new group of the Epigravettian era of ECE, called Ságvárian, which was specific to the inner Carpathian basin.” ref

“The name Ságvárian recently was proposed to be eliminated, and Ságvár was classified early Epigravettian. The Ságvár was occupied during a typical cold LGM climate. The revision of GEM’s radiocarbon ages and the archaeological evidence of Ságvár also suggested cold environmental conditions for the human occupation instead of what had long been claimed, that the human settlement at Ságvár was established under interstadial phases and mild climate of the LGM. The results now presented sound evidence for cold glacial environment. However, because they did not have new data to support the Gravettian classification of the site Ságvár, all of their achievements regarding human paleoenvironment are relevant to the Epigravettian instead of the Gravettian. We think the classification scheme of GEM misled them to form this conclusion. Nevertheless, a thorough reading of the archaeological literature would have helped them avoid this misunderstanding.” ref

“The Epigravettian was one of the last archaeological industries and cultures of the European Upper Paleolithic. It emerged after the Last Glacial Maximum around ~21,000 years ago and is considered to be a cultural derivative of the Gravettian culture. Initially named Tardigravettian (Late Gravettian) in reference to several lithic industries, found in Italy it was later renamed in order to better emphasize its independent character. Three subphases, the Early Epigravettian (20,000 to 16,000 years ago), the Evolved Epigravettian (16,000 to 14,000 years ago), and the Final Epigravettian (14,000 to 8,000 years ago), have been established, that were further subdivided and reclassified. In this sense, the Epigravettian is simply the Gravettian after ~21,000 years ago, when the Solutrean had replaced the Gravettian in most of France and Spain.” ref

“Several Epigravettian cultural centers have developed contemporaneously after 22,000 years ago in Europe. These range across southern, central, and most of eastern Europe, including south-western France, Italy, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Ukraine, and Western Russia to the banks of the Volga River.” ref

“Its lithic complex was first documented at numerous sites in Italy. Great geographical and local variability of the facies is present, however, all sites are characterized by the predominance of microliths, such as backed blades, backed points, and bladelets with retouched end. The Epigravettian is the last stage of the Upper Paleolithic succeeded by Mesolithic cultures after 10,000 years ago. In a genetic study published in Nature in May 2016, the remains an Epigravettian male from Ripari Villabruna in Italy were examined. He carried the paternal haplogroup R1b1 and the maternal haplogroup U5b. An Epigravettian from the Satsurblia Cave in Georgia examined in a previous study has been found to be carrying the paternal haplogroup J2 and the maternal haplogroup K3.” ref

Magdalenian

“The Magdalenian cultures (also Madelenian; French: Magdalénien) are later cultures of the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic in western Europe. They date from around 21,000 to 12,000 years ago. It is named after the type site of La Madeleine, a rock shelter located in the Vézère valley, commune of Tursac, in France’s Dordogne department. Édouard Lartet and Henry Christy originally termed the period L’âge du renne (the Age of the Reindeer). The Magdalenian epoch is associated with reindeer hunters, although Magdalenian sites contain extensive evidence for the hunting of red deer, horses, and other large mammals present in Europe toward the end of the last glacial period. The culture was geographically widespread, and later Magdalenian sites stretched from Portugal in the west to Poland in the east, and as far north as France, the Channel Islands, England, and Wales. It is the third epoch of Gabriel de Mortillet’s cave chronology system, corresponding roughly to the Late Pleistocene. Besides La Madeleine, the chief stations of the epoch are Les Eyzies, Laugerie-Basse, and Gorges d’Enfer in the Dordogne; Grotte du Placard in Charente and others in south-west France.” ref

“The Magdalenian epoch is represented by numerous sites, whose contents show progress in arts and culture. It was characterized by a cold and dry climate, humans in association with the reindeer, and the extinction of the mammoth. The use of bone and ivory as implements, begun in the preceding Solutrean epoch, increased, making the period essentially a bone period. Bone instruments are quite varied: spear-points, harpoon-heads, borers, hooks, and needles. The fauna of the Magdalenian epoch seems to have included tigers and other tropical species along with reindeer, blue foxes, Arctic hares, and other polar creatures. Magdalenian humans appear to have been of short stature, dolichocephalic, with a low retreating forehead and prominent brow ridges. The culture spans to almost the end of the most recent ice age. Magdalenian tool culture is characterized by regular blade industries struck from carinated cores.” ref

“The Magdalenian epoch is divided into six phases generally agreed to have chronological significance (Magdalenian I through VI, I being the earliest, and VI being the latest). The earliest phases are recognized by the varying proportion of blades and specific varieties of scrapers, the middle phases marked by the emergence of a microlithic component (particularly the distinctive denticulated microliths), and the later phases by the presence of uniserial (phase 5) and biserial ‘harpoons’ (phase 6) made of bone, antler, and ivory. Debate continues about the nature of the earliest Magdalenian assemblages, and it remains questionable whether the Badegoulian culture is the earliest phase of Magdalenian culture. Similarly, finds from the forest of Beauregard near Paris have been suggested as belonging to the earliest Magdalenian. The earliest Magdalenian sites are in France. The Epigravettian is a similar culture appearing at the same time. Its known range extends from southeast France to the western shores of the Volga River, Russia, with many sites in Italy.” ref

“The later phases of Magdalenian culture are contemporaneous with the human re-settlement of north-western Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum during the Late Glacial Maximum. As hunter-gatherers, Magdalenians did not re-settle permanently in northwest Europe, instead of following herds and seasons. By the end of the Magdalenian epoch, lithic technology shows a pronounced trend toward increased microlithisation. The bone harpoons and points have the most distinctive chronological markers within the typological sequence. As well as flint tools, Magdalenians are known for their elaborate worked bone, antler, and ivory that served both functional and aesthetic purposes, including perforated batons.” ref

“The sea shells and fossils found in Magdalenian sites may be sourced to relatively precise areas and have been used to support hypotheses of Magdalenian hunter-gatherer seasonal ranges, and perhaps trade routes. In northern Spain and south-west France, this tool culture was superseded by the Azilian culture. In northern Europe, it was followed by variants of the Tjongerian techno-complex. It has been suggested that key Late-glacial sites in south-western Britain may be attributed to Magdalenian culture, including Kent’s Cavern. Bones, reindeer antlers, and animal teeth display crude pictures carved or etched on them of seals, fish, reindeer, mammoths, and other creatures. Some of the best Magdalenian artworks are a mammoth engraved on a fragment of its own ivory a dagger of reindeer antler, with a handle in form of a reindeer; a cave-bear cut on a flat piece of schist; a seal on a bear’s tooth; a fish drawn on a reindeer antler; and a complete picture, also on reindeer antler, showing horses, an aurochs, trees, and a snake biting a man’s leg. The man is naked, which, together with the snake, suggests a warm climate in spite of the presence of the reindeer.” ref

“In the Tuc d’Audoubert cave, an 18-inch clay statue of two bison sculpted in relief was discovered in the deepest room, now known as the Room of the Bisons. Examples of Magdalenian portable art include batons, figurines, and intricately engraved projectile points, as well as items of personal adornment including sea shells, perforated carnivore teeth (presumably necklaces), and fossils. Cave sites such as Lascaux contain the best-known examples of Magdalenian cave art. The site of Altamira in Spain, with its extensive and varied forms of Magdalenian mobiliary art has been suggested to be an agglomeration site where groups of Magdalenian hunter-gatherers congregated.” ref

Treatment of the Dead

“Human bones from the Magdalenian often show cut marks and breakage, consistent with cannibalism with both flesh and bone marrow being consumed. Some skulls were cleaned of soft tissues, then had the facial regions removed, with the remaining brain case retouched, possibly to make the broken edges more regular. This manipulation suggests the shaping of skulls to produce skull cups.” ref

Genetics

“The genes of seven Magdalenians, the El Miron Cluster in Iberia, have shown a close relationship to a population who had lived in Northern Europe some 20,000 years previously. The analyses suggested that 70-80% of the ancestry of these individuals was from the population represented by Goyet Q116-1, associated with the Aurignacian culture of about 35,000 BP, from the Goyet Caves in modern Belgium. The three samples of Y-DNA included two samples of haplogroup I and one sample of HIJK. All samples of mtDNA belonged to U, including five samples of U8b and one sample of U5b.” ref

Swiderian culture

“Swiderian culture, also published in English literature as Sviderian and Swederian, is the name of an Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic cultural complex, centered on the area of modern Poland. The type-site is Świdry Wielkie, in Otwock near the Swider River, a tributary to the Vistula River, in Masovia. The Swiderian is recognized as a distinctive culture that developed on the sand dunes left behind by the retreating glaciers. Rimantienė (1996) considered the relationship between Swiderian and Solutrean “outstanding, though also indirect”, in contrast with the Bromme-Ahrensburg complex (Lyngby culture), for which she introduced the term “Baltic Magdalenian” for generalizing all other North European Late Paleolithic culture groups that have a common origin in Aurignacian.” ref

“Three periods can be distinguished. The crude flint blades of Early Swiderian are found in the area of Nowy Mlyn in the Holy Cross Mountains region. The Developed Swiderian appeared with their migrations to the north and is characterized by tanged blades: this stage separates the northwestern European cultural province, embracing Belgium, Holland, northwest Germany, Denmark and Norway, and the Middle East European cultural province, embracing Silesia, Brandenburgia, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Central Russia, Ukraine, and the Crimea. Late Swiderian is characterized by blades with a blunted back.” ref

“The Swiderian culture plays a central role in the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic transition. It has been generally accepted that most of the Swiderian population emigrated at the very end of the Pleistocene (10,000 years ago uncalibrated; 9500 BCE calibrated or 11,520 years ago) to the northeast following the retreating tundra, after the Younger Dryas[citation needed]. Recent radiocarbon dates prove that some groups of the Svidero-Ahrensburgian Complex persisted into the Preboreal. Unlike western Europe, the Mesolithic groups now inhabiting the Polish Plain were newcomers. This has been attested by a 300-year-long gap between the youngest Palaeolithic and the oldest Mesolithic occupation. The oldest Mesolithic site is Chwalim, located in western Silesia, Poland; it outdates the Mesolithic sites situated to the east in central and northeastern Poland by about 150 years. Thus, the Mesolithic population progressed from the west after a 300-year-long settlement break, and moved gradually towards the east. The lack of good flint raw materials in the Polish early Mesolithic has been interpreted thus that the new arriving people were not acquainted yet with the best local sources of flint, proving their external origin.” ref

Impact

“The Ukrainian archaeologist L. Zalizniak believes Kunda culture of Central Russia and the Baltic zone, and other so-called post-Swiderian cultures, derive from the Swiderian culture. Sorokin (2004) rejects the “contact” hypothesis of the formation of Kunda culture and holds it originated from the seasonal migrations of Swiderian people at the turn of Pleistocene and Holocene when human subsistence was based on hunting reindeer. Many of the earliest Mesolithic sites in Finland are post-Swiderian; these include the Ristola site in Lahti and the Saarenoja 2 site in Joutseno with lithics in imported flint, as well as the Sujala site in Utsjoki in the province of Lapland. The raw materials of the lithic assemblage at Sujala originate in the Varanger Peninsula in northern Norway. Concerning this region, the commonly held view today is that the earliest settlement of the North Norwegian coast originated in the Fosna culture of the western and southwestern coast of Norway and ultimately in the final Palaeolithic Ahrensburg culture of northwestern Europe.” ref

“The combination of a coastal raw material and a lithic technique typical to Late Palaeolithic and very early Mesolithic industries of northern Europe, originally suggested that Sujala was contemporaneous to Phase 1 of the Norwegian Finnmark Mesolithic (Komsa proper), dating to between 9 000 and 10 000 BP. Proposed parallels with the blade technology among the earliest Mesolithic finds in southern Norway would have placed the find closer or even before 10,000 years ago. However, a preliminary connection to early North Norwegian settlements is contradicted by the shape of the tanged points and by the blade reduction technology from Sujala. The bifacially shaped tang and ventral retouch on the tip of the arrow points and the pressure technique used in blade manufacture are rare or absent in Ahrensburgian contexts, but very characteristic of the so-called Post-Swiderian cultures of northwestern Russia. There, counterparts of the Sujala cores can also be found. The Sujala assemblage is currently considered unquestionably post-Swiderian and is dated by radiocarbon to 9,265-8,930 years ago, corresponding to 8300-8200 calBCE or 10,320-10,220 years ago. Such an Early Mesolithic influence from Russia or the Baltic might imply an adjustment to previous thoughts on the colonization of the Barents Sea coast.” ref

“Kunda culture”The Kunda culture, originating from the Swiderian culture, comprised mesolithic hunter-gatherer communities of the Baltic forest zone extending eastwards through Latvia into northern Russia, dating to the period 8500–5000 BCE or 10,520-7,020 years ago according to calibrated radiocarbon dating. It is named after the Estonian town of Kunda, about 110 kilometers (70 mi) east of Tallinn along the Gulf of Finland, near where the first extensively studied settlement was discovered on Lammasmäe Hill and in the surrounding peat bog. The oldest known settlement of the Kunda culture in Estonia is Pulli. The Kunda culture was succeeded by the Narva culture, who used pottery and showed some traces of food production.” ref

“Most Kunda settlements are located near the edge of the forests beside rivers, lakes, or marshes. Elk were extensively hunted, perhaps helped by trained domestic hunting-dogs. On the coast seal hunting is represented. Pike and other fish were taken from the rivers. There is a rich bone and antler industry, especially in relation to fishing gear. Tools were decorated with simple geometric designs, lacking the complexity of the contemporary Maglemosian Culture communities to the southwest.” ref

Origin of Kunda culture

“The Kunda culture appears to have undergone a transition from the Palaeolithic Swiderian culture located previously over much of the same range. One such transition settlement, Pasieniai 1C in Lithuania, features stone tools of both Late Swiderian and early Kunda. One shape manufactured in both cultures is the retouched tanged point. The final Swiderian is dated 7800–7600 BCE or 9,820-9,620 years ago by calibrated radiocarbon dating, which is in the Preboreal period, at the end of which time with no gap the early Kunda begins. Evidently, the descendants of the Swiderians were the first to settle Estonia when it became habitable. Other post-Swiderian groups extended as far east as the Ural mountains.” ref

“Jones et al. (2017) determined that peoples of the Kunda culture and the succeeding Narva culture showed a closer genetic affinity with Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHGs) than Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHGs). Mittnik et al. (2018) analyzed the remains of a male and female ascribed to the Kunda culture. They found the male to be carrying haplogroup I and U5b2c1, while the female carried U4a2. They were found to have “a very close affinity” with WHGs, although with “a significant contribution” from Ancient North Eurasians (ANE). Their ANE ancestry was lower than that of Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers, indicating that ANE ancestry entered Scandinavia without traversing the Baltic.” ref

“Matthieson et al. (2018) analyzed a large number of individuals buried at the Zvejnieki burial ground, most of whom were affiliated with the Kunda culture and the succeeding Narva culture. The mtDNA extracted belonged exclusively to haplotypes of U5, U4, and U2. With regards to Y-DNA, the vast majority of samples belonged to R1b1a1a haplotypes and I2a1 haplotypes. The results affirmed that the Kunda and Narva cultures were about 70% WHG and 30% EHG. The nearby contemporary Pit–Comb Ware culture was, on the contrary, found to be about 65% EHG.” ref

Hamburgian and Creswellian

“The Hamburg culture or Hamburgian (15,500-13,100 years ago) was a Late Upper Paleolithic culture of reindeer hunters in northwestern Europe during the last part of the Weichsel Glaciation beginning during the Bölling interstadial. Sites are found close to the ice caps of the time. They extend as far north as the Pomeranian ice margin. The Hamburg Culture has been identified at many places, for example, the settlement at Meiendorf and Ahrensburg north of Hamburg, Germany. It is characterized by shouldered points and zinken tools, which were used as chisels when working with antler. In later periods tanged Havelte-type points appear, sometimes described as most of all a northwestern phenomenon. Notwithstanding the spread over a large geographical area in which a homogeneous development is not to be expected, the definition of the Hamburgian as a technological complex of its own has not recently been questioned. The culture spread from northern France to southern Scandinavia in the north and to Poland in the east. In Britain a related culture is called Creswellian.” ref

“In the early 1980s, the first find from the culture in Scandinavia was excavated at Jels in Sønderjylland. Recently, new finds have been discovered at, for example, Finja in northern Skåne. The latest findings (2005) have shown that these people traveled far north along the Norwegian coast dryshod during the summer, since the sea level was 50 meters (160 ft) lower than today. In northern Germany, camps with layers of detritus have been found. In the layers there is a great deal of horn and bone, and it appears that the reindeer was an important prey. The distribution of the finds in the settlements show that the settlements were small and only inhabited by a small group of people. At a few settlements, archaeologists have discovered circles of stones, interpreted as weights for a teepee covering.” ref

“The Creswellian is a British Upper Palaeolithic culture named after the type site of Creswell Crags in Derbyshire by Dorothy Garrod in 1926. It is also known as the British Late Magdalenian. According to Andreas Maier: “In current research, the Creswellian and Hamburgian are considered to be independent but closely related entities which are rooted in the Magdalenian.” The Creswellian is dated between 13,000 and 11,800 years ago and was followed by the most recent ice age, the Younger Dryas, when Britain was at times unoccupied by humans. It is also the first monograph about the Upper Paleolithic of Britain at the national level and it remained the only one on the subject for half a century. Garrod suggested that the British variant of the Magdalenian industry is different enough to create a specific name: “I propose tentatively “Creswellian”, since Creswell Crags is the station in which it is found in greatest abundance and variety.”— Dorothy Garrod, The Upper Palaeolithic Age in Britain, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1926, p. 194. The definition of Creswellian was refined since then and now refers exclusively, in the British context, to the Late Magdalenian-style industry.” ref

Description

“Diagnostic tools used to identify the period include trapezoidal backed blades called Cheddar points, variant forms known as Creswell points, and smaller bladelets. Other tool types include end scrapers made from long, straight blades. A special preparation technique was employed to remove blades from a core through striking in a single direction, leaving a distinct ‘spur’ on the platform. The tools were made using a soft hammerstone or an antler hammer. Other finds include Baltic amber, mammoth ivory, and animal teeth and bone. These were used to make harpoons, awls, beads, and needles. Unusual beveled ivory rods, known as sagaies have been found at Gough’s Cave in Somerset and Kent’s Cavern in Devon.” ref

“Twenty-eight sites producing Cheddar points are known in England and Wales though none have so far been found in Scotland or Ireland, regions which it is thought were not colonized by humans until later. Most sites are caves but there is increasing evidence for open-air activity and that preferred sources of flint were exploited and that tools traveled distances of up to 100 miles from their sources. Some of the flint at Gough’s Cave came from the Vale of Pewsey[citation needed] in Wiltshire whilst non-local seashells and amber from the North Sea coast also indicate a highly mobile population. This matches evidence from the Magdelanian cultures elsewhere in Europe and may suggest that the exchange of goods and the sending out of specialized expeditions seeking raw materials may have been practiced. Analysis of debitage at occupation sites suggests that flint nodules were reduced in size at source and the lighter blades carried by Creswellian groups as ‘toolkits’ in order to reduce the weight carried.” ref

“Comparison of flint from Kent’s Cavern and Creswell Crags has led some archaeologists to believe that they were made by the same group. Food species eaten by Creswellian hunters focused on the wild horse (Equus ferus) or the red deer (Cervus elaphus), probably depending on the season, although the Arctic hare, reindeer, mammoth, Saiga antelope, wild cow, brown bear, lynx, Arctic fox, and wolf were also exploited. Highly fragmentary fossil bones were found in Gough’s Cave at Cheddar. They had marks that suggested actions of skinning, dismembering, defleshing, and marrow extraction. The excavations of 1986-1987 noted that human and animal remains were mixed, with no particular distribution or arrangement of the human bones. They also show the signs of the same treatments as the animal bones. These findings were interpreted in the sense of a nutritional cannibalism. However, slight differences from other sites in skull treatment leave open the possibility of elements of ritual cannibalism.” ref

“Three archaeologically visible expansions of technology in pre-7500 BC Scandinavia that can be linked with population movement and/or gene flow. All three and the three from the map above pre-date the currently earliest aDNA sequence from Scandinavia. And, from the data on archaeological sites and technological change in Fennoscandia pre-dating the earliest aDNA, indicate at least six pre-7500 BCE or 9,520 years ago population events:

1.The initial dispersal into southern Sweden from the south c. 11300– 10000 BCE. 2. The north-westward migration along the Norwegian coast from western Sweden c. 9500–9300 BCE. 3. The pre-9000 BCE north-eastern migration into northern Norway and Kola. The eastern dispersal into Finland and Karelia c. 9000–8400 BCE. 4. The movement of quartz-using groups into northern Sweden from the east between 8900–8200 BCE. 5. The southward migration of groups using the eastern technology along the Norwegian coast and into central Sweden c. 8400–8000 BCE.” ref

“Haplogroup I is the oldest major haplogroup in Europe and in all probability the only one that originated there (apart from very minor haplogroups like C1a2 and deep subclades of other haplogroups). Haplogroup IJ would have arrived from the Middle East to Europe some 35,000 years ago, then developed into haplogroup I soon afterward. It has now been confirmed by an ancient DNA test that the first Homo sapiens to colonize Europe during the Aurignacian period (45,000 to 28,000 years ago), belonged to haplogroups CT, C1a, C1b, F, and I.” ref

“It is estimated that the I1 branch bifurcated from the rest of haplogroup I some 27,000 years ago. I1 is defined by over 300 unique mutations, which indicates that this lineage experienced a serious population bottleneck. Most of the Late Glacial and Mesolithic remains tested to date belonged to haplogroup I* or I2. It is not yet clear in which part of Europe I1 originated. It has been speculated that I1 evolved in isolation in Scandinavia during the late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods, when hunter-gatherers from southern Europe recolonized the northern half of the continent from their Last Glacial Maximum refugia. The oldest attested evidence of postglacial resettlement of Scandinavia dates from 11,000 BCE with the appearance of the Ahrensburg culture. However, five Y-DNA samples from Mesolithic Sweden, dating from c. 5800 to 5000 BCE and tested by Lazaridis et al. (2013) and Haak et al. (2015) all turned out to belong to haplogroup I2.” ref

“The earliest sign of haplogroup I1 emerged from the testing of Early Neolithic Y-DNA from western Hungary (Szécsényi-Nagy et al. (2014)). A single I1 sample was identified alongside a G2a2b sample, both from the early Linear Pottery (LBK) culture, which would later diffuse the new agricultural lifestyle to most of Poland, Germany, and the Low Countries. This means that haplogroup I1 was present in central Europe at the time of the Neolithic expansion. It is, therefore, possible that I1 lineages were among the Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers that were assimilated by the wave of East Mediterranean Neolithic farmers (represented chiefly by Y-haplogroup G2a). There is also evidence from the samples of the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture and Cardium Pottery culture that haplogroup I2a lived alongside G2a farmers both in south-eastern and south-western Europe.” ref

“It would appear that a founder effect in the northern LBK population led to a sudden explosion of I1 lineages, perhaps in part thanks to their better knowledge of the Central European terrain and fauna (since hunting was typically practiced side by side to agriculture to complement the farmers’ diet). I1 would later have spread to Scandinavia from northern Germany. The data is consistent with a Neolithic dispersal of I1 from Hungary with the LBK culture and the subsequent Funnelbeaker culture (4000-2700 BCE) in northern Germany and southern Scandinavia. One Swedish sample from the late Mesolithic Pitted Ware culture (3200-2300 BCE) also turned out to belong to I2a1 and not I1.” ref

“Both the Funnelbeaker and Pitted Ware cultures represent a merger between the Neolithic (farming) and Mesolithic (hunter-gathering) lifestyles. Neolithic farmers from Germany penetrated late into Scandinavia and in small numbers. There is archeological evidence that Neolithic farmers settled in southern Scandinavia and lived side by side with hunter-gatherers for several centuries during the Funnelbeaker culture. Skoglund et al. 2012 tested and compared the DNA of one Neolithic farmer and three hunter-gatherers from Sweden dating from 5,000 years ago. It turned out that the farmer was much closer genetically to modern Mediterranean people, especially the Sardinians, who are considered to be the closest modern population to Neolithic European farmers. The hunter-gatherers’ DNA resembled that of modern Northeast Europeans, and perhaps even more that of the Balts, Finns, and Samis than Scandinavians.” ref

“Scandinavian hunter-gatherers would have adopted the new Neolithic lifestyle little by little, using pottery and keeping domesticated animals (sheep, cattle, pigs, and goats) to complement their traditional diet of fishing and game hunting. The cultivation of wheat, barley, and legumes was fairly limited due to the cold climate. The cold climate was actually a barrier to the expansion of farmers from the continent. This is why Scandinavians retained a greater percentage of Mesolithic ancestry than virtually all other Europeans, apart from the Samis, Finns, Balts and Russians.” ref

“No ancient Y-DNA from the Funnelbeaker culture in Scandinavia has been tested to date, but it is likely that I1 really started gathering momentum toward the end of the Funnelbeaker period. It might also have been among the Funnelbeaker lineages that were most successfully assimilated by Proto-Indo-European invaders during the Corded Ware culture (aka Battle-Axe culture in Scandinavia). Most I1 individuals today share a common ancestor around the time of the transition between the Funnelbeaker and Corded Ware periods.” ref

How did I1 spread around northern Europe?

“So how comes that modern Scandinavians belong essentially to three haplogroups (I1, R1a, and R1b) that haven’t been found in Mesolithic Scandinavian samples? I1 would have been the first to penetrate into Scandinavia during the farming transition that lasted roughly from 4,200 to 2,300 BCE. It could be that the replacement of Mesolithic paternal lineages (I* and I2) throughout Nordic countries, including Lapland and Finland, started with a few farmers and stockbreeders that spread around Scandinavia and through a founder effect belonged almost exclusively to I1. The alternate hypothesis is that I1 spread together with R1a-Z284 from Denmark to Sweden and Norway during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age with the Battle-Axe culture. So far the earliest evidence of I1 in Scandinavia dates from the Nordic Bronze Age, with a single sample from Sweden dating from circa 1400 BCE by Allentoft et al. (2015).” ref

“In the vast majority of farming societies, men are the ones who inherit the land and the livestock. As wild game became scarcier, especially during cold winters, farmers would have had a definite advantage for food and survival prospects. As surely happened in other parts of Europe, women from hunter-gathering families were married to wealthy farmers. After several millennia, with agricultural land and livestock always inherited by I1 lineages from father to son, I1 became the dominant lineage, even though their maternal lines had become hybridized over time. Nowadays, according to the autosomal admixture tested performed by Lazaridis et al. (2014), Scandinavians have only a few percent more Mesolithic admixture than Neolithic admixture.” ref

“The Saami of Lapland were the last hunter-gatherers of Europe. But even they turned to stockbreeding by domesticating the indigenous reindeer, better suited to the harsh local climate than cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats. Reindeer domestication appears to have originated with North Asian N1c1 tribes. And indeed modern Saami are primarily N1c1 people with only a minority of Scandinavian paternal lineages (I1, R1b, R1a). The proportions between haplogroups I1, R1a, and R1b among the Sami, and the age of the deep clades present in this population indicate that these haplogroups were incorporated into the Saami gene pool together relatively recently (probably in historical times, from or after the Viking age).” ref

“N1c1 lineages, however, may have not have arrived that early either. N1c1 is associated with the diffusion of the Uralic languages, which are thought to have spread to the eastern Baltic with the Comb Ceramic culture from 4200 BCE, around the same time as the Funnelbeaker culture. According to a phylogenetic reconstruction of the Uralic languages by Honkola et al. (2013), the Proto-Finnic and Proto-Samic split from each others only 2,500 years ago, and Samic dialects started diversifying less than 1,000 years ago. In all likelihood, all trace of the Mesolithic inhabitants of Lapland has been wiped out on the paternal (Y-chromosomal) side, like in most of Scandinavia. Before the arrival of N1c1 in Fennoscandia, the Nordic ancestors of the Saami would have belonged to Y-haplogroups I* and I2, and to mt-haplogroups U5b and V.” ref

How did I1 become Germanic?

“From 2800 BCE, a large-scale cultural and genetic upheaval hit Scandinavia with the arrival of the Indo-Europeans from Eastern Europe, who introduced the Copper Age and Early Bronze Age to the region practically without Neolithic transition. The first Indo-Europeans to reach Scandinavia were the Corded Ware people from modern Russia, Belarus, and Poland, who are thought to have belonged predominantly to haplogroup R1a, with a minority of R1b and I2a. These people shared some similar maternal lineages as Scandinavian I1 inhabitants, including mtDNA haplogroups U2e, U4, and U5, but also brought many new lineages such as H2a1, H6, W, and various subclades of I, J, K, and T.” ref

“The second major Indo-European migration to Scandinavia was that of haplogroup R1b-U106, the branch that is thought to have introduced Proto-Germanic languages, as an offshoot of the Proto-Celto-Germanic speakers from Central Europe. R1b probably entered Scandinavia from present-day Germany as a northward expansion of the late Unetice culture (2300-1600 BCE). The oldest known R1b sample in Scandinavia dates from the Nordic Bronze Age circa 1400 BCE.” ref

“According to the Germanic substrate hypothesis, first proposed by Sigmund Feist in 1932, Proto-Germanic was a hybrid language mixing Indo-European (R1b, and to a lower extent R1a) and pre-Indo-European (Mesolithic I2 and Neolithic G2a and I1) elements. This hybridization would have taken place during the Bronze Age and given birth to the first Proto-Germanic civilization, the Nordic Bronze Age (1700-500 BCE).” ref

I1 in Lapland and Finland

“Finland is not a Germanic country linguistically despite having been part of the Kingdom of Sweden for most of its recorded history until the 19th century. The same is true of the Sami, who retained their linguistic and cultural identity after centuries of officially belonging to Sweden or Norway. Over 60% of Finns and 50% of the Sami belong to the Uralic haplogroup N1c1, which is concordant with the fact that their languages (Suomi and Saami) also belong to the Uralic linguistic family. One might therefore wonder whether the 25 to 30% of I1 lineages among the Finns and Sami came from their Scandinavian neighbors (notably Sweden) sometime between the Bronze Age and the Middle Ages, or on the contrary whether I1 spread throughout Fennoscandia during the Late Mesolithic/Neolithic period.” ref

“Of the 28% of I1 in Finland, 65% belong to the exclusively Finnish L287 (downstream of L22) and particularly its L258 subclade. A few percent more belong to other subclades that are also specifically Finnish (e.g. L300). The rest (5-10%) generally resemble more closely Swedish I1. The Swedish-like subclades are unsurprisingly found primarily on the west and south-west coast of Finland, where Swedes have settled in historical times and where Swedish is still spoken. This is also where most of the R1b (3.5%) and Scandinavian R1a-Z282 (3%) is to be found. The Scandinavian I1 in Finland is found at a similar proportion to R1b and R1a as in Sweden. In contrast, Finnish I1 is found in all the country, where hardly any Germanic Y-DNA is present, strongly hints that these specifically Finnish branches of I1 are of pre-Germanic origin.” ref

“Most of the Sami either belong to the L258 clade like the Finns, or to the L1302 subclade of I1-Z60, a branch more generally associated with West Germanic tribes. L258 is found mostly among the eastern Sami from north-east Norway and Finland, while L1302 is more common in the rest of Norway and in Sweden. The more recent age of I1-L1302 found among the Sami, combined with the higher percentages of R1a (13%) and R1b (7%) and the presence of E-V13 and J2 suggests that some, if not all of the Sami I1 resulted from an introgression in Germanic times, probably through centuries of occasional intermarriages between Sami women and Scandinavian men. Nowadays, approximately half of all paternal Saami lineages are of Scandinavian origin.” ref

“Finland is the only country with more than 15% of I1 where the Germanic culture and language didn’t take root. A good reason for this would indeed be if Germanic culture did not yet exist in Scandinavia at the time when I1 reached Finland. Germanic culture is supposed to have been progressively formed during the Nordic Bronze Age, maturing by the start of the Iron Age around 500 BCE. If only a small group of I1 men spread their Y-chromosomal lineages among the last Mesolithic Fennoscandians, with little or no maternal contribution from the Battle-Axe culture, then their language would most probably have been lost too, as that small number of I1 men joined the northern tribes and adopted their language.” ref

“A look at the phylogenetic tree shows that the Finns, Swedes, and Norwegians belong primarily to the northern cluster (L22), which is just over 4,000 years old. Out of five subclades, two (L287 and L300) are almost exclusively Finnish, while the others are Scandinavian. According to the Y-chromosomal phylogeny at Yfull.com the L287 and L300 subclades are approximately 3,000 years old. The dates might be older as the number of mutations fails to take into account historical population sizes. Larger populations create more genetic variations. Nordic countries have always had a lower population density than central or southern Europe. Before the Bronze Age, Nordic people were still essentially hunter-gatherers, while the rest of Europe had been farming for up to 3500 years. Agricultural societies could support populations ten times higher than hunter-gatherers in similar climates. In cold Fennoscandia, the pre-Indo-European population density must have been at least 20 times lower than in Mediterranean Europe. This would mean that the mutation rate would also be 20 times lower, and therefore that haplogroup I1 and its subclades could be much older than SNPs and STR variations suggest.” ref

“If the current age estimates are correct, it would mean that L22 was formed during the Battle-Axe period, while its Finnish subclades would have appeared at the beginning of the Nordic Bronze Age. If the age of the I1 subclades were underestimated, L22 could have arisen during the Funnelbeaker period and spread before the arrival of R1a and R1b in Scandinavia. Whatever the time frame, one possible scenario is that some I1-L22 tribes from southern Scandinavia migrated north, either on their own or pushed by Indo-European invaders. They would have been forced to drop farming by the colder climate in northern Scandinavia, and would have reverted to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, perhaps with a bit of stockbreeding, just like modern Sami. It’s hard to tell whether I1 or N1c arrived first in Lapland and Finland. Both could have arrived approximately 2,500 to 2,000 years ago, I1 getting first to northern Sweden and Norway, then moving into Finland, while N1c would have followed the opposite path, the two groups eventually converging and intermingling to form the ancestors of the Finns.” ref

“It is possible that various small groups of I1 men joined the remnants of Mesolithic Fennoscandians in northern Scandinavia and modern Finland, and perhaps thanks to superior technology asserted their dominance and became tribal chieftains, quickly spreading their Y-DNA and replacing Mesolithic I2 lineages by I1. That would explain why both the Finns and the Sami have very different maternal lineages from modern Scandinavians, which resemble more those of Mesolithic Scandinavians.” ref

Germanic migrations

“The Germanic migrations dispersed I1 lineages to Britain (Anglo-Saxons), Belgium (Franks, Saxons), France (Franks, Visigoths, and Burgundians), South Germany (Franks, Alamanni, Suebi, Marcomanni, Thuringii, and others), Switzerland (Alamanni, Suebi, Burgundians), Iberia (Visigoths, Suebi, and Vandals), Italy (Goths, Vandals, Lombards), Austria and Slovenia (Ostrogoths, Lombards, Bavarians), Ukraine and Moldova (Goths), as well as around Hungary and northern Serbia (Gepids). The I1 found among the Poles (6%), Czechs (11%), Slovaks (6%), and Hungarians (8%) is also the result of centuries of influence from their German and Austrian neighbors. The relatively high frequency of I1 around Serbia and western Bulgaria (5% to 10%) could be owed to the Goths who settled in the Eastern Roman Empire in the 3rd and 4th centuries.” ref

“The Danish and Norwegian Vikings brought more I1 to Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Normandy, Flanders, Iberia, Sicily… The Swedish Vikings (Varangians) set up colonies in Russia and Ukraine, and outposts as far as the Byzantine Empire, the Caucasus, and Persia. The higher frequency of I1 in Northwest Russia (east of the Baltic) hints at had a particularly strong Varangian presence, which is concordant with the establishment of the Kievan Rus’ by the Swedes.” ref

Geographic distribution

“Haplogroup I1 is the most common type of haplogroup I in northern Europe. It is found mostly in Scandinavia and Finland, where it typically represents over 35% of the Y chromosomes. Associated with the Norse ethnicity, I1 is found in all places invaded by ancient Germanic tribes and the Vikings. After the core of ancient Germanic civilization in Scandinavia, the highest frequencies of I1 are observed in other Germanic-speaking regions, such as Germany, Austria, the Low Countries, England, and the Scottish Lowlands, which all have between 10% and 20% of I1 lineages.” ref

Distribution of haplogroup I1 in Europe

Origins & History

“It is, therefore, possible that I1 lineages were among the Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers that were assimilated by the wave of East Mediterranean Neolithic farmers (represented chiefly by Y-haplogroup G2a). There is also evidence from the samples of the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture and Cardium Pottery culture that haplogroup I2a lived alongside G2a farmers both in south-eastern and south-western Europe.” ref

“The most likely hypothesis at present is that I1 and I2 lineages were dispersed around Europe during the Mesolithic, and that some branches prospered more than others thanks to an early adoption of agriculture upon contact with the Near Eastern farmers who were slowly making their way across the Balkans and the Mediterranean shores. The small groups of farmers from the early LBK culture in Hungary surely included a majority of G2a men accompanied by other minor haplogroups assimilated along the way over the centuries, including I1 men. Yet distinct families would have spread in different directions and met varying successes in their expansion. It would appear that a founder effect in the northern LBK population led to a sudden explosion of I1 lineages, perhaps in part thanks to their better knowledge of the Central European terrain and fauna (since hunting was typically practiced side by side to agriculture to complement the farmers’ diet). I1 would later have spread to Scandinavia from northern Germany. Archaeological excavations at Ga-Mohana Hill North Rockshelter, where crystals and other early evidence for complex behaviors among early Homo sapiens was discovered.” ref

The extent of the Linear Pottery culture (LBK, c. 5600-4250 BCE)

“This data is consistent with a Neolithic dispersal of I1 from Hungary with the LBK culture and the subsequent Funnelbeaker culture (4000-2700 BCE) in northern Germany and southern Scandinavia. One Swedish sample from the late Mesolithic Pitted Ware culture (3200-2300 BCE) also turned out to belong to I2a1 and not I1.” ref

The extent of the Funnelbeaker culture (c. 4200-2650 BCE)

“Both the Funnelbeaker and Pitted Ware cultures represent a merger between the Neolithic (farming) and Mesolithic (hunter-gathering) lifestyles. Neolithic farmers from Germany penetrated late into Scandinavia and in small numbers. There is archeological evidence that Neolithic farmers settled in southern Scandinavia and lived side by side with hunter-gatherers for several centuries during the Funnelbeaker culture. Skoglund et al. 2012 tested and compared the DNA of one Neolithic farmer and three hunter-gatherers from Sweden dating from 5,000 years ago. It turned out that the farmer was much closer genetically to modern Mediterranean people, especially the Sardinians, who are considered to be the closest modern population to Neolithic European farmers. The hunter-gatherers’s DNA resembled that of modern Northeast Europeans, and perhaps even more that of the Balts, Finns, and Samis than Scandinavians.” ref

How did I1 spread around northern Europe?

“So how comes that modern Scandinavians belong essentially to three haplogroups (I1, R1a, and R1b) that haven’t been found in Mesolithic Scandinavian samples? I1 would have been the first to penetrated into Scandinavia during the farming transition that lasted roughly from 4,200 to 2,300 BCE. It could be that the replacement of Mesolithic paternal lineages (I* and I2) throughout Nordic countries, including Lapland and Finland, started with a few farmers and stockbreeders that spread around Scandinavia and through a founder effect belonged almost exclusively to I1. The alternate hypothesis is that I1 spread together with R1a-Z284 from Denmark to Sweden and Norway during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age with the Battle-Axe culture. So far the earliest evidence of I1 in Scandinavia dates from the Nordic Bronze Age, with a single sample from Sweden dating from circa 1400 BCE by Allentoft et al. (2015).” ref

“In the vast majority of farming societies men are the ones who inherit the land and the livestock. As wild game became scarcier, especially during cold winters, farmers would have had a definite advantage for food and survival prospects. As surely happened in other parts of Europe, women from hunter-gathering families were married to wealthy farmers. After several millennia, with agricultural land and livestock always inherited by I1 lineages from father to son, I1 became the dominant lineage, even though their maternal lines had become hybridized over time. Nowadays, according to the autosomal admixture tested performed by Lazaridis et al. (2014), Scandinavians have only a few percent more Mesolithic admixture than Neolithic admixture.” ref

How did I1 become Germanic?

I1 in Lapland and Finland

“Finland is not a Germanic country linguistically despite having been part of the Kingdom of Sweden for most of its recorded history until the 19th century. The same is true of the Sami, who retained their linguistic and cultural identity after centuries of officially belonging to Sweden or Norway. Over 60% of Finns and 50% of the Sami belong to the Uralic haplogroup N1c1, which is concordant with the fact that their languages (Suomi and Saami) also belongs to the Uralic linguistic family. One might therefore wonder whether the 25 to 30% of I1 lineages among the Finns and Sami came from their Scandinavian neighbors (notably Sweden) sometime between the Bronze Age and the Middle Ages, or on the contrary whether I1 spread throughout Fennoscandia during the Late Mesolithic/Neolithic period.” ref

“Of the 28% of I1 in Finland, 65% belong to the exclusively Finnish L287 (downstream of L22) and particularly its L258 subclade. A few percents more belong to other subclades that are also specifically Finnish (e.g. L300). The rest (5-10%) generally resemble more closely Swedish I1. The Swedish-like subclades are unsurprisingly found primarily on the west and south-west coast of Finland, where Swedes have settled in historical times and where Swedish is still spoken. This is also where most of the R1b (3.5%) and Scandinavian R1a-Z282 (3%) is to be found. The Scandinavian I1 in Finland is found at a similar proportion to R1b and R1a as in Sweden. In contrast, Finnish I1 is found in all the country, where hardly any Germanic Y-DNA is present, strongly hints that these specifically Finnish branches of I1 are of pre-Germanic origin.” ref

“They would have been forced to drop farming by the colder climate in northern Scandinavia, and would have reverted to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, perhaps with a bit of stockbreeding, just like modern Sami. It’s hard to tell whether I1 or N1c arrived first in Lapland and Finland. Both could have arrived approximately 2,500 to 2,000 years ago, I1 getting first to northern Sweden and Norway, then moving into Finland, while N1c would have followed the opposite path, the two groups eventually converging and intermingling to form the ancestors of the Finns.” ref

Germanic migrations

Phylogeny of I1/Grouping by STR

“All Germanic tribes expanded from a small geographic core around Denmark and southern Sweden within the last 2500 years. STR (short tandem repeats) variations allows to divide I1 members in various categories. There are two main clusters, each with their own subgroups.” ref

“The Northern cluster, peaking in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, which corresponds to the I1a2 (L22+, formerly known as I1d) subclade. It normally has an STR value greater than 22 for DYS390.
- the Norse group, corresponds to Ken Nordtvedt’s Norse (mostly Swedish) and Ultra-Norse (mostly Norwegian and Icelandic) haplotypes. The Ultra-Norse haplotype 1 (I1-uN1) difers from the Norse one by having DYS385b=15 and (usually) DYS449=29.
- the Bothnian group, is found mostly in Finland and northeast Sweden. It corresponds to I1a2c1 (L287>L258+) subclade, which it makes up 75% of the I1 lineages in Finland.
the Southern cluster, most common in Denmark, Germany, the Low Countries, and the British Isles. It corresponds to Ken Nordtvedt’s Anglo-Saxon haplotype (originally Danish and North German).
- the Danish/Polish group usually has a DYS557 value greater than 15.
- the Western group, comprising the Low countries, England, Scotland, and Ireland, matches the Z58+ subclade. It probably matches Anglo-Saxon and Frisian/Batavian ancestry.
  - there appears to be a specific Welsh subgroup defined by a GATA-H4 value superior or equal to 11. This subgroup is also found in England and on the continent, but is especially common in Wales.
- the German group, is the most common type of I1 in Germany, France, Italy, and Central Europe, but is also found in the British Isles and to a lower extent in Scandinavia. It is defined by a DYS456 value inferior to 15. It corresponds to the Z63+ subclade.” ref

SNP Analysis

“Z131+ is a minor subclade that has been found in areas bordering the ancient Celtic-Germanic boundary (Belgium, central Germany, Bohemia), but also in Sweden and Britain.
Z17925+ is a minor subclade found in Germany, France, and England.
Z19086+ is a minor subclade found in Finland.
DF29+ represents 99% of I1 lineages.
- CTS6364+ is the main Nordic branch, centered mostly on Scandinavia, Germany, and northern Poland.
  - Y3866+ is found mostly in Scandinavia.
    - A5338+ is found especially in Sweden and Norway, but has also been found in Scotland (Y17395 subclade dating from 1250 ybp, Viking ancestry).
    - S11221+ is found especially in Sweden and Norway, but has also been found in Hungary.
    - S4767+ was formed 4,000 years ago and immediately split into two clades.
      - Y4781+ is found mostly in Nordic countries.
        
        M227+ has been found in Scandinavia, Baltic countries, Belarus, Russia, Poland, Switzerland, France, and southern England. It could have been spread by Varangian Vikings.
      - S7642+ is found mostly around Scandinavia and the Baltic.
        
        L69/Y18103+ is found mostly in Poland, but also in Denmark, Slovakia, Hungary, and Russia.
  - L22+ (aka S142+) is a very big Nordic branch. It is also very common in Britain, especially on the east coast where the Vikings settled most heavily, in the Low Countries and Normandy (also doubtlessly the heritage of the Danish Viking), as well as in Poland and Russia (Swedish Vikings).
    - P109+ A mostly southern Scandinavian subclade, with a presence in all the regions settled by the Danish Vikings. It has been found sporadically in many parts of Europe, such as western Iberia, northern Italy, the Balkans, Lithuania, and Russia.
      - S10891+ is found mostly in Sweden and Norway, but also in Normandy and the British Isles (Viking ancestry) as well as in northern Italy (FGC21732 subclade).
      - S7660/Y3662+
        
        Y4045+ is found in England and Ireland (Viking origin).
        
        S14887+ is found mostly in Denmark, Sweden, and Finland.
        
        FGC22045+ is the main variety of I1 found in Serbia (7% of the population), probably of Gothic/Gepid origin.
      - Y3664+ is a minor clade found in Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein, Normandy, and Guernsey (Viking origin).
      - Y5621+ is a minor clade found in Sweden, Normandy, and Britain (Viking origin).
      - Y14999+ is a minor clade found in France and Britain.
    - L205+ is mostly limited to the Low Countries, France, and Britain. Isolated cases were also identified in Sweden and Spain.
    - L287+ is an overwhelmingly Finnish subclade (found nation-wide), with a very small presence in Norway, Sweden, Poland, and Russia.
    - L300+ is a minor subclade found almost exclusively in southern Finland.
    - L813+ is a predominantly Scandinavian subclade, particularly common in southern Norway, but also found in Sweden, and to a lower extent western Finland. It is also found in Britain (likely of Viking descent) and in the northern Netherlands (but not in Germany).
- Z58+ is chiefly West Germanic, with a very strong presence in Germany, the Low Countries, and Britain. It is also found to a lower extent in Nordic countries and throughout Continental Europe. Its age has been estimated around 4,600 years before the present.
  - Z138+ (aka Z139+) is a very disparate subclade. It is found at very low frequency throughout the Germanic world, with a peak in England and Wales (although it could just be because of oversampling in Britain). Besides Germanic countries, it has also been found in Ireland, Portugal, southern Italy, Hungary, and Romania. Z138+ corresponds to AS2, AS10, AS1010.2, AS10910, AS1221, AS1414 and Esc-13 in FTDNA’s STR-based nomenclature. Z138 is divided in four subclades: S2293 (the largest), S5619, PF1610, and PF2364.
    - S2293+ was formed 4,500 years ago and immediately split in two branches: S6277 and Z2541.
      - S6277+ is found in Scandinavia, Britain, France, Germany, Austria, and Italy (Torino, Matera, Reggio di Calabria).
      - Z2541+ corresponds to AS1313 in FTDNA’s STR-based nomenclature. It is a relatively small clade found especially in northwestern Europe, but also in western Ukraine, Romania, and Portugal. It emerged 4,500 years ago but has a TMRCA of 3,800 years. It has five subclades:
        
        S2268+ is found in Ireland, Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Austria, and Hungary.
        
        S19185+ is found in Britain, Ireland, Norway, and Hungary.
        
        Y7043+ is the largest of the Z2541 subclades. It is found from Norway to northern Italy (possible Lombard connection) via Germany, Belgium, and Switzerland.
        
        Y21391+ has been found in Luxembourg.
        
        Y29668+ is a minor clade found in England.
  - Z59+ is the main branch of Z58.
    - Z2040+ formed 4300 years ago and split into two clades around 3900 years ago. Samples negative for L1450 and Z382 were found in Norway, Finland, and Russia.
      - L1450+ is a small clade scattered in Norway, Germany, Poland, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Switzerland, Britain, and Ireland.
      - Z382+ has been found especially in the British Isles and Germany, with a minor presence in Scandinavia. Isolated samples were also identified in Finland, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Croatia, and Romania. corresponds to AS3, AS3-911, AS13, and Sw in FTDNA’s STR-based nomenclature.
        
        S26361+ is found mainly in Sweden and Norway.
        
        S16414+ has been found in Norway and in Sardinia (YP5417+, TMRCA 1750 ybp), where it could have been brought by the Vandals.
        
        Y2170+ is found in Germany, Britain, Scandinavia, and Russia.
        
        Y5384+ is found in Finland and Italy (Rome).
    - Z60+ is found throughout the Germanic world
      - Y12342+ is a small clade found mostly in Finland, but also in England.
      - Y22033+ is a minor clade found in Scotland.
      - Z140+ is a strongly West Germanic subclade, found essentially in the British Isles, the Netherlands (one-third of all I1), northern France, central and southern Germany, and Switzerland. It is very rare in Nordic countries. Isolated samples were found in Spain, central and southern Italy, Slovenia, Bohemia, Poland, Ukraine, and Russia. Z140* matches the AS5, AS6, AS814, and EE haplotypes in FTDNA’s STR-based nomenclature.
        
        A196+ is found in Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, France, Portugal, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Belarus, and Russia.
        
        A1605+ is a minor clade found in the Netherlands and Britain.
        
        BY477/Y15150+ is a small clade found in Germany, Britain, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain.
        
        CTS8691/F2642/S2169+ is a large clade found especially in Scandinavia, Germany, and Britain, but also in Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, and Ireland.
        
        Y6232+ is found in central Europe, Britain, and Italy.
        
        Y7277+ is found in Germany, the Netherlands, England, Czechia, Switzerland, and Italy. It could be related to the Lombards.
        
        Y10890+ is found especially in central/southern Italy near places settled by the Lombards (Ortona, Alifae, Campobasso) and the Vandals (Trapani).
        
        Z2535+ is a very large clade found in Scandinavia, Britain, Germany, Czechia, Poland, and Romania.
        
        L338+ is a large subclade found in Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Britain, Switzerland, Poland, and Romania. It typically has the STR value GATA-H4=9. L338+ is divided into several subclades which correspond to AS1, AS1H, AS8, AS114, and AS11616 in FTDNA’s STR-based nomenclature.
      - Z73+ (and L1301+) is chiefly northern Scandinavian and Finnish. It is also found in Russia, on the east coast of Britain, and the Scottish Isles (Viking heritage). Z73+ corresponds to AS9 and AS16 in FTDNA’s STR-based nomenclature.
        
        L1302+ is found chiefly in Sweden, with a few subclades in Finland and Norway (BY495), and a few isolated samples identified in Scotland and Russia.
      - L573+ appears to be mainly a Northeast German subclade, but it has also been found in Belgium, France, Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, and northwest Russia.
      - L1248+ is a minor subclade that has been found in Sweden, Britain, Germany, and Russia.
        
        L803+ has only been identified in Scotland.
- Z63+ is a strongly Continental Germanic subclade, virtually absent from Nordic countries. It is most common in Central Germany, the Benelux, England, Lowland Scotland, as well as Poland. It has also been found in Russia, Ukraine, the Balkans, Italy, Spain, and Portugal.
  - S2078+ is a widely distributed clade found across most of Europe, but is relatively rare in Nordic countries, in the Benelux, and in the British Isles.
    - Y2245.2+/PR683 makes up a big part of the Z63 in Russia, Ukraine, Poland, the Balkans, Italy, and Iberia. It is also found in the UK, Sweden, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Bosnia, Albania, and Lebanon. Some subclades could have been spread by the Goths.
      - L1237+ is found in Sweden, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Serbia, Bosnia, Czechia, France, and northern Italy. Could be of Gothic origin. The A8249 subclade is found chiefly in the UK, while the very young (850 ybp) Y8815 subclade is found exclusively in Scotland.
      - Y3968+/S10360+ is found in Scandinavia, Finland, Germany, England, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Not exclusively Gothic, but was surely found among the Goths.
      - Y7234+/FGC14480+is found in Poland, Germany, Belgium, France, and Spain.
    - S2097/Y4102+ > FGC29230+ is found especially and Spain (Catalonia, Madrid, Extremadura) and Italy (Lombardy, Sicily), but also in Germany. Could be of Gothic origin.
    - Y6375+ is found in Britain.
    - Y16435+ is found in Serbia (the second most common subclade after FGC22045).
    - Y24458+
    - V68+ is found in Belarus, Serbia, and Kosovo.
  - BY351+ is a subclade found in Poland, Ukraine, Croatia, Italy (including Sardinia), France, Spain, and Portugal. It was very probably spread by the Visigoths and Ostrogoths.” ref