New Rituals and Violence with the appearance of Pottery and People?

Pic ref, ref

Bridging the Boreal Forest: Siberian Archaeology and the Emergence of Pottery among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of Northern Eurasia

Pic ref

Globalization and the Emergence of Ceramic-using Hunter-gatherers in Northern Eurasia

A comparative perspective on the ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ Neolithics of Eurasia: Ceramics; agriculture and sedentism

Pic ref 

Abstract

“Ancient genomes have revolutionized our understanding of Holocene prehistory and, particularly, the Neolithic transition in western Eurasia. In contrast, East Asia has so far received little attention, despite representing a core region at which the Neolithic transition took place independently ~3 millennia after its onset in the Near East. We report genome-wide data from two hunter-gatherers from Devil’s Gate, an early Neolithic cave site (dated to ~7.7 thousand years ago) located in East Asia, on the border between Russia and Korea. Both of these individuals are genetically most similar to geographically close modern populations from the Amur Basin, all speaking Tungusic languages, and, in particular, to the Ulchi. The similarity to nearby modern populations and the low levels of additional genetic material in the Ulchi imply a high level of genetic continuity in this region during the Holocene, a pattern that markedly contrasts with that reported for Europe.” ref

About witchcraft and the birth of the world in rock paintings?

“I dare to test the soundscape by drumming. The rock wakes up to the drumming with a tremendous reverberation, and we drum together for a moment. The rock of painting closes me to its own world, where the rest is forgotten. Jacob Fellman tells of the Sámi ceremonies with the seids that “They held feasts in honor of the gods by singing and drumming, and the brighter the drum played, the better it pleased the gods”. At least on this basis, Hahlavuori is the most favorable place for the gods.” – Tarja Soiniola, Senior Archivist, MA, Helsinki, Southern Finland, Finland

Writings on culture, research, and cultural heritage: About witchcraft and the birth of the world in rock paintings 

Bridging the Boreal Forest: Siberian Archaeology and the Emergence of Pottery among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of Northern Eurasia

Abstract 

“This article examines Siberia’s increasingly important role in the study of the emergence of pottery across northern Eurasia. The world’s earliest pottery comes from Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer sites in East Asia. This material is typically seen as disconnected from later pottery traditions in Europe, which are generally associated with sedentary farmers. However, new evidence suggests that Asian and European pottery traditions may be linked to a Hyperborean stream of hunter-gatherer pottery dispersals that spanned eastern and western Asia, and introduced pottery into the prehistoric societies of northern Europe. As a potential bridge between the eastern and western early pottery traditions, Siberia’s prehistory is therefore set to play an increasingly central role in one of world archaeology’s most important debates.” ref

Haplogroup N-M231

“Haplogroup N (M231) is a Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup and it is most commonly found in males originating from northern Eurasia. It also has been observed at lower frequencies in populations native to other regions, including the Balkans, Central Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. Haplogroup NO-M214 – its most recent common ancestor with its sibling, haplogroup O-M175 – is estimated to have existed about 36,800–44,700 years ago. It is generally considered that N-M231 arose in East Asia approximately 19,400 (±4,800) years ago and populated northern Eurasia after the Last Glacial Maximum. Males carrying the marker apparently moved northwards as the climate warmed in the Holocene, migrating in a counter-clockwise path, to eventually become concentrated in areas as far away as Fennoscandia and the Baltic (Rootsi et al. 2006). The apparent dearth of haplogroup N-M231 amongst Native American peoples indicates that it spread after Beringia was submerged (Chiaroni, Underhill & Cavalli-Sforza 2009), about 11,000 years ago.” ref 

Distribution

“Projected distributions of haplogroup N sub-haplogroups. (A) N*-M231, (B) N1*-LLY22g, (C) N1a-M128, (D) N1b-P43, (E) N1c-M46. Haplogroup N has a wide geographic distribution throughout northern Eurasia, and it also has been observed occasionally in other areas, including Central Asia and the Balkans.” ref

“It has been found with the greatest frequency among indigenous peoples of Russia, including Finnic peoples, Mari, Udmurt, Komi, Khanty, Mansi, Nenets, Nganasans, Turkic peoples (Yakuts, Dolgans, Khakasses, Tuvans, Tatars, Chuvashes, etc.), Buryats, Tungusic peoples (Evenks, Evens, Negidals, Nanais, etc.), Yukaghirs, Luoravetlans (Chukchis, Koryaks), and Siberian Eskimos, but certain subclades are very common in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and other subclades are found at low frequency in China (Yi, Naxi, Lhoba, Han Chinese, etc.). Especially in ethnic Finnic peoples and Baltic-speaking peoples of northern Europe, the Ob-Ugric-speaking and Northern Samoyed peoples of western Siberia, and Turkic-speaking peoples of Russia (especially Yakuts (McDonald 2005), but also Altaians, Shors, Khakas, Chuvashes, Tatars, and Bashkirs). Nearly all members of haplogroup N among these populations of northern Eurasia belong to subclades of either haplogroup N-Tat or haplogroup N-P43.” ref

‘Y-chromosomes belonging to N1b-F2930/M1881/V3743, or N1*-CTS11499/L735/M2291(xN1a-F1206/M2013/S11466), have been found in China and sporadically throughout other parts of Eurasia. N1a-F1206/M2013/S11466 is found in high numbers in Northern Eurasia.” ref

‘N2-Y6503, the other primary subclade of haplogroup N, is extremely rare and is mainly represented among extant humans by a recently formed subclade that is virtually restricted to the countries making up the former Yugoslavia (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro), Hungary, and Austria. Other members of N2-Y6503 include a Hungarian with recent ancestry from Suceava in Bukovina, a Slovakian, a few British individuals, and an Altaian.” ref

N* (M231)

“Y-chromosomes that display the M231 mutation that defines Haplogroup N-M231, but do not display the CTS11499, L735, M2291 mutations that define Haplogroup N1 are said to belong to paragroup N-M231*. N-M231* has been found at low levels in China. Out of a sample of 165 Han males from China, two individuals (1.2%) were found to belong to N*. (Karafet et al. 2010). One originated from Guangzhou and one from Xi’an. Among the ancient samples from the Baikal Early Neolithic Kitoi culture, one of the Shamanka II samples (DA250), dated to c. 6500 BP, was analyzed as NO1-M214.” ref

N1 (CTS11499, Z4762, CTS3750)

“In 2014, there was a major change in the definition of subclade N1, when LLY22g was retired as the main defining SNP for N1 because of reports of LLY22g’s unreliability. According to ISOGG, LLY22g is problematic because it is a “palindromic marker and can easily be misinterpreted.” Since then, the name N1 has been applied to a clade marked by a great number of SNPs, including CTS11499, Z4762, and CTS3750. N1 is the most recent common ancestor of all extant members of Haplogroup N-M231 except members of the rare N2-Y6503 (N2-B482) subclade. The TMRCA of N1 is estimated to be 18,000 years before present (16,300–19,700 BP; 95% CI).” ref

“Since the revision of 2014, the position of many examples of “N1-LLY22g” within haplogroup N have become unclear. Therefore, it is better to check yfull and ISOGG 2019 in order to understand the updated structure of N-M231. However, in older studies, N-LLY22g has been reported to reach a frequency of up to 30% (13/43) among the Yi people of Butuo County, Sichuan in Southwest China (Hammer et al. 2005, Karafet et al. 2001, and Wen2004b). It is also found in 34.6% of Lhoba people (Wen 2004, Bo Wen 2004).” ref

N1-LLY22g* has been found in samples of Han Chinese, but with widely varying frequency:

• 15.0% (6/40) Han from Guangzhou (Hammer et al. 2005 and Karafet et al. 2001)
• 6.8% (3/44) Han from Xi’an (Hammer et al. 2005 and Karafet et al. 2001)
• 6.7% (2/30) Han from Lanzhou (Xue et al. 2006)
• 3.6% (3/84) Taiwanese Han (Hammer et al. 2005)
• 2.9% (1/34) Han from Chengdu (Xue et al. 2006)
• 2.9% (1/35) Han from Harbin (Xue et al. 2006)
• 2.9% (1/35) Han from Meixian District (Xue et al. 2006)
• 0% (0/32) Han from Yining City (Xue et al. 2006) ref

Other populations in which representatives of N1*-LLY22g have been found include:

• Hani people (4/34 = 11.8%) (Xue et al. 2006)
• Sibe people (4/41 = 9.8%) (Xue et al. 2006)
• Tujia people (2/49 = 4.1%) (Hammer et al. 2005)
• Manchu people (2/52 = 3.8% (Hammer et al. 2005) to 2/35 = 5.7% (Xue et al. 2006)
• Bit people (1/28 = 3.6%) (Cai 2011)
• Uyghurs (2/70 = 2.9% (Xue et al. 2006) to 2/67 = 3.0%) (Hammer et al. 2005)
• Tibetan people (3/105 = 2.9% (Hammer et al. 2005) to 3/35 = 8.6% (Xue et al. 2006))
• Koreans (0/106 = 0.0% – 2/25 = 8% (Rootsi et al. 2006, Xue et al. 2006, and Kim 2007)
• Vietnamese people (2/70 = 2.9%) (Hammer et al. 2005)
• Japanese people (0/70 Tokushima – 2/26 = 7.7% Aomori) (Hammer et al. 2005)
• Manchurian Evenks (0/26 = 0.0% (Xue et al. 2006) to 1/41 = 2.4%(Hammer et al. 2005))
• Altai people (0/50 Northern to 5/96 = 5.2% Southern, or 0/43 Beshpeltir to 5/46 = 10.9% Kulada),(Hammer et al. 2005)(Kharkov 2007)
• Shors (2/23 = 8.7%) (Rootsi et al. 2006)
• Khakas people (5/181 = 2.8%) (Rootsi et al. 2006)
• Tuvans (5/311 = 1.6%) (Rootsi et al. 2006)
• Southern Borneo (1/40 = 2.5%) (Rootsi et al. 2006)
• Forest Nenets (1/89 = 1.1%) (Rootsi et al. 2006)
• Yakuts (0/215 – 1/121 = 0.8%) (Rootsi et al. 2006)
• Turkish people (1/523 = 0.2%) (Rootsi et al. 2006) In Turkey, the total of subclades of haplogroup N-M231 amounts to 4% of the male population.
• One individual who belongs either to N* or N1* has been found in a sample of 77 males from Kathmandu, Nepal (1/77 = 1.3% N-M231(xM128,P43, Tat)) (Gayden 2007) ref

N1(xN1a, N1c) was found in ancient bones of Liao civilization:

• Niuheliang (Hongshan Culture, 6500–5000 BP) 66.7%(=4/6)
• Halahaigou (Xiaoheyan Culture, 5000–4200 BP) 100.0%(=12/12)
• Dadianzi (Lower Xiajiadian culture, 4200–3600 BP) 60.0%(=3/5) ref 

ref

ref

Ancient mDNA “N1a1a1” and Pottery from Turkey to Europe? People likely descended from central Anatolian populations with Pottery and mDNA “N1a1a1” such as Boncuklu/Çatalhöyük, spread to central Europe through NW Anatolia thousands of years later?

ref

Boncuklu Höyük: The earliest ceramics on the Anatolian plateau?

Ancient mDNA “N1a1a1” and Pottery?

Bon005 – Boncuklu Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 10,220 years ago Turkey – Central Anatolia ref

Bon004 – Boncuklu Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 10,076 years ago Turkey – Central Anatolia ref

ZHAG – Boncuklu Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 9,900 years ago Turkey – Central Anatolia ref

People who lived in ancient settlement in central Turkey migrated to Europe: archaeologists

“10,300-year-old Boncuklu Höyük settlement in Turkey revealed that the people who lived in the settlement migrated to Europe. And the Boncuklu Höyük settlement was established a thousand years before Çatalhöyük, so is the ancestor of later Çatalhöyük.” ref

Ash040 – Aşıklı Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 9,875 years ago Turkey – Central Anatolia ref

CCH144 – Çatalhöyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 8,808 years ago Turkey – Central Anatolia ref

I1096 – Barcın Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 8,300 years ago Turkey – Northwest Anatolia ref

Bar25 – Barcın Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 8,295 years ago Turkey – Northwest Anatolia ref

Tep004 – Tepecik-Çiftlik Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 8,237 years ago Turkey – Northwest Anatolia ref

Tep006 – Tepecik-Çiftlik Höyük mtDNA N1a1a1 around 8,099 years ago Turkey – Northwest Anatolia ref

I0725 – Mentese mtDNA N1a1a1 around 7,950 years ago Turkey – South-Western corner, on the Aegean Sea ref

I0174 – Alsonyek-Bataszek mtDNA N1a1a1 around 7,558 years ago Hungary – Starcevo ref (Starčevo–Körös–Criș culture: 6,200 – 4,500 BCE or around 8,223-6,523 years ago)

“Starčevo culture of Southeastern Europe originates in the spread of the Neolithic package of peoples and technological innovations including farming and ceramics from Anatolia to the area of Sesklo. The Starčevo culture marks its spread to the inland Balkan peninsula as the Cardial ware culture did along the Adriatic coastline. It forms part of the wider Starčevo–Körös–Criş culture which gave rise to the central European Linear Pottery culture c. 700 years after the initial spread of Neolithic farmers towards the northern Balkans.” ref

Klein1 – Kleinhadersd mtDNA N1a1a1 around 7,500 years ago Austria – LBK/AVK ref (Linear Pottery culture *LBK*: 5,500–4,500 BCE or around 7,523-6,523 years ago)

UZZ74 – Grotta dell’Uzzo, Sicily mtDNA N1a1a1 around 7,223 years ago Italy – Stentinello I ref (Stentinello culture: dated to the 5th millennium BCE: 5000 to 4000 BCE or around 7,023-6,023 years ago)

I0412 – Els Trocs, Bisaurri, Huesca, Aragón mtDNA N1a1a1 around 7,177 years ago Spain – Epicardial ref (Cardium/Cardial–Epicardial pottery culture: 6400 – 5500 BCE or around 8,423-7,023 years ago)

A Common Genetic Origin for Early Farmers from Mediterranean Cardial and Central European LBK Cultures

“Fernández et al. 2014 found traces of maternal genetic affinity between people of the Linear Pottery Culture and Cardium pottery with earlier peoples of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, including the rare mtDNA (maternal) basal haplogroup N*, and suggested that Neolithic period was initiated by seafaring colonists from the Near East. Mathieson et al. 2018 examined three Cardials buried at the Zemunica Cave near Bisko in modern-day Croatia c. 5800 BCE the three samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to the maternal haplogroups H1, K1b1a, and N1a1.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

“The shaman is, above all, a connecting figure, bridging several worlds for his people, traveling between this world, the underworld, and the heavens. He transforms himself into an animal and talks with ghosts, the dead, the deities, and the ancestors. He dies and revives. He brings back knowledge from the shadow realm, thus linking his people to the spirits and places which were once mythically accessible to all.–anthropologist Barbara Meyerhoff” ref

Early Pottery at 20,000 Years Ago in Xianrendong Cave, China

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6089/1696 

The oldest pottery, in China, remains of crude pots and bowls, hints at cooking’s ice-age origins

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21985-oldest-pottery-hints-at-cookings-ice-age-origins

The Advent and Spread of Early Pottery in East Asia: New Dates and New Considerations for the World’s Earliest Ceramic Vessels

Abstract and Figures

“This paper discusses recent data from North and South China, Japan, and the Russian Far East and eastern Siberia on the dating and function of early pottery during the Late Pleistocene period and shows how reconsiderations are needed for the patterns and reasons for its emergence and spread. Early pottery typically appears in contexts that, except for containing small amounts of pottery, are otherwise similar to Late Paleolithic sites. There is also no evidence of plant cultivation, so clearly, in eastern Asia, the old view of pottery’s emergence or dispersal as only coming within agricultural societies is no longer viable. Greater consideration needs to be given to the invention and spread of pottery in hunter-gatherer societies.” ref 

“This paper first reviews recent finds of early pottery sites in South China and North China that now clearly show that the pottery first appears in otherwise Late Paleolithic contexts. Excavations and re-dating at Xianrendong Cave (Jiangxi) in South China show that pottery appears there in securely dated stratigraphic contexts dating to ca. 20,000 cal BP, during the Last Glacial Maximum, some ten millennia before sedentary, Early Neolithic villages first appear in China. Yuchanyan Cave (Hunan) has pottery dating to 18,300 cal BP, evidence for processing deer bones to extract marrow and grease, and perhaps evidence of seasonal visits to the site in annual rounds by mobile hunter-gatherer groups. Sites with early pottery in North China, such as Yujiagou, Zhuannian, Donghulin, Lijiagou, and Nanzhuangtou, appear relatively late, from the climatic downturn of the Younger Dryas, some eight millennia after sites in South China and four millennia after early pottery in Japan and the Russian Far East.” ref 

“North China sites variously feature such adaptations as microblades and/or grinding stones, as well as evidence for the exploitation of wild grasses (including millets), acorns, and tubers. These sites might represent hunter-gatherers retreating to more favorable habitats during the Younger Dryas and indicate reduced mobility and semisedentary practices with more intensified exploitation of closer resources. Early pottery finds beginning from ca. 16,800 cal BP in Japan (Incipient Jōmon) and the Russian Far East (“Initial Neolithic”) are also reviewed. Incipient Jōmon sites occur contemporaneously with Final Upper Paleolithic sites, and are found from southern Kyūshū to Hokkaidō (Taishō 3 site). With over 80 known sites, Japan has a better evidence for changes in pottery distribution patterns and diverse adaptations to climatic changes from the time period of the earliest site, Ōdai Yamamoto I, to the Holocene. Molecular and stable isotope analyses of pottery adhesions provide valuable data on the use of early pottery in Japan lacking for all other regions: these indicate the widespread use of pottery for processing marine and freshwater animals.” ref 

“Like Final Upper Paleolithic sites, Incipient Jōmon sites also may have microblades, edge polished stone axes, arrowheads, and bifacial spear points. Undecorated pottery with Mikoshiba-type lithics are found in the initial phase of pottery making (Ōdai Yamamoto I, Kitahara, and Maeda Kōji sites, dating ca. 16,500-13,500 BP). Decorated pottery (Phase 2) begins ca.15,700 cal BP during the Bølling-Allerød warming period and rapidly disperses across the archipelago at a time when there may have been significant changes in subsistence and mobility patterns. Phase 1 pottery might occur during a time of intensive information flow and fluidity of social networks, while diversification of pottery in Phase 2 occurs when social networks were becoming more embedded in place. Russian “Initial Neolithic” early pottery sites, such as Khummy, Gasya, and Goncharka 1 in the Lower Amur River basin, are transitional between Paleolithic traditions and typical Neolithic sites of the Holocene, with pottery and ground stone tools gradually appearing amongst Upper Paleolithic toolkits.” ref 

“As in China and Japan, early pottery production is at a very low scale, with only limited quantities of sherds being found at a few sites. Eastern Siberia early pottery is first present at the Ust’-Karenga 12 site ca. 13,000 cal BP. Pottery may have dispersed westerly across Siberia as forested areas expanded, perhaps resulting in the introduction of pottery into Europe by hunter-gatherer groups. Across East Asia, early pottery appears only in small amounts and at a few sites, and it persists in this episodic, low scale usage from the Last Glacial Maximum until the Early Holocene. We still need to better understand why this is the case. Early pottery may have been invented and used for special purposes, such as in feasting that was carried out to achieve various socio-political goals.” ref 

“While pottery also offered utilitarian or economic value, its long-lasting, low-scale use, but widespread dispersal despite this, cannot be fully accounted for only in terms of it being an adaptation tied to subsistence and increasing energy yields. Questions still remain over whether pottery was the result of a single or multiple inventions in East Asia. South China sites are clearly earlier, and the contemporaneity of Japan and Russia does not rule out singular invention and spread, as sites of the same radiocarbon date in the Late Pleistocene actually fall within a real calendrical range on a centuries-long scale. We need to better understand the scale and patterns of hunter-gatherer mobility and the extent of information exchange networks through which knowledge of pottery making could have spread widely in Late Pleistocene East Asia.” ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

“The arrival of haplogroup R1a-M417 in Eastern Europe, and the east-west diffusion of pottery through North Eurasia.” https://indo-european.eu/2018/02/the-arrival-of-haplogroup-r1a-m417-in-eastern-europe-and-the-east-west-diffusion-of-pottery-through-north-eurasia/

Ancient North Eurasian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_North_Eurasian

Ancient North Eurasian/Mal’ta–Buret’ culture haplogroup R* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal%27ta%E2%80%93Buret%27_culture

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

“The arrival of haplogroup R1a-M417 in Eastern Europe, and the east-west diffusion of pottery through North Eurasia.” ref 

R-M417 (R1a1a1)

“R1a1a1 (R-M417) is the most widely found subclade, in two variations which are found respectively in Europe (R1a1a1b1 (R-Z282) ([R1a1a1a*] (R-Z282) and Central and South Asia (R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93) ([R1a1a2*] (R-Z93).” ref

R-Z282 (R1a1a1b1a) (Eastern Europe)

“This large subclade appears to encompass most of the R1a1a found in Europe.

• R1a1a1b1a [R1a1a1a*] (R-Z282*) occurs in northern Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia at a frequency of c. 20%.
• R1a1a1b1a3 [R1a1a1a1] (R-Z284) occurs in Northwest Europe and peaks at c. 20% in Norway.
• R1a1a1c (M64.2, M87, M204) is apparently rare: it was found in 1 of 117 males typed in southern Iran.” ref

R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93) (Asia)

“This large subclade appears to encompass most of the R1a1a found in Asia, being related to Indo-European migrations (including Scythians, Indo-Aryan migrations, and so on).

• R-Z93* or R1a1a1b2* (R1a1a2* in Underhill (2014)) is most common (>30%) in the South Siberian Altai region of Russia, cropping up in Kyrgyzstan (6%) and in all Iranian populations (1-8%).
• R-Z2125 occurs at highest frequencies in Kyrgyzstan and in Afghan Pashtuns (>40%). At a frequency of >10%, it is also observed in other Afghan ethnic groups and in some populations in the Caucasus and Iran.
• R-M434 is a subclade of Z2125. It was detected in 14 people (out of 3667 people tested), all in a restricted geographical range from Pakistan to Oman. This likely reflects a recent mutation event in Pakistan.
• R-M560 is very rare and was only observed in four samples: two Burushaski speakers (north Pakistan), one Hazara (Afghanistan), and one Iranian Azerbaijani.
• R-M780 occurs at high frequency in South Asia: India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Himalayas. The group also occurs at >3% in some Iranian populations and is present at >30% in Roma from Croatia and Hungary.” ref

R-M458 (R1a1a1b1a1)

“R-M458 is a mainly Slavic SNP, characterized by its own mutation, and was first called cluster N. Underhill et al. (2009) found it to be present in modern European populations roughly between the Rhine catchment and the Ural Mountains and traced it to “a founder effect that … falls into the early Holocene period, 7.9±2.6 KYA.” M458 was found in one skeleton from a 14th-century grave field in Usedom, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany. The paper by Underhill et al. (2009) also reports a surprisingly high frequency of M458 in some Northern Caucasian populations (for example 27.5% among Karachays and 23.5% among Balkars, 7.8% among Karanogays and 3.4% among Abazas).” ref

Who were the Groups migrating and merging with the previous Groups of Europe 9,000 to 7,000 years ago?

Pic ref 

Ancient Human Genomes…Present-Day Europeans – Johannes Krause (Video)

Ancient North Eurasian (ANE)

Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG)

Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG)

Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG)

Early European Farmers (EEF)

A quick look at the Genetic history of Europe

“The most significant recent dispersal of modern humans from Africa gave rise to an undifferentiated “non-African” lineage by some 70,000-50,000 years ago. By about 50–40 ka a basal West Eurasian lineage had emerged, as had a separate East Asian lineage. Both basal East and West Eurasians acquired Neanderthal admixture in Europe and Asia. European early modern humans (EEMH) lineages between 40,000-26,000 years ago (Aurignacian) were still part of a large Western Eurasian “meta-population”, related to Central and Western Asian populations. Divergence into genetically distinct sub-populations within Western Eurasia is a result of increased selection pressure and founder effects during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, Gravettian). By the end of the LGM, after 20,000 years ago, A Western European lineage, dubbed West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) emerges from the Solutrean refugium during the European Mesolithic. These Mesolithic hunter-gatherer cultures are substantially replaced in the Neolithic Revolution by the arrival of Early European Farmers (EEF) lineages derived from Mesolithic populations of West Asia (Anatolia and the Caucasus). In the European Bronze Age, there were again substantial population replacements in parts of Europe by the intrusion of Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) lineages from the Pontic–Caspian steppes. These Bronze Age population replacements are associated with the Beaker culture archaeologically and with the Indo-European expansion linguistically.” ref 

“As a result of the population movements during the Mesolithic to Bronze Age, modern European populations are distinguished by differences in WHG, EEF, and ANE ancestry. Admixture rates varied geographically; in the late Neolithic, WHG ancestry in farmers in Hungary was at around 10%, in Germany around 25%, and in Iberia as high as 50%. The contribution of EEF is more significant in Mediterranean Europe, and declines towards northern and northeastern Europe, where WHG ancestry is stronger; the Sardinians are considered to be the closest European group to the population of the EEF. ANE ancestry is found throughout Europe, with a maximum of about 20% found in Baltic people and Finns. Ethnogenesis of the modern ethnic groups of Europe in the historical period is associated with numerous admixture events, primarily those associated with the Roman, Germanic, Norse, Slavic, Berber, Arab and Turkish expansions. Research into the genetic history of Europe became possible in the second half of the 20th century, but did not yield results with a high resolution before the 1990s. In the 1990s, preliminary results became possible, but they remained mostly limited to studies of mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal lineages. Autosomal DNA became more easily accessible in the 2000s, and since the mid-2010s, results of previously unattainable resolution, many of them based on full-genome analysis of ancient DNA, have been published at an accelerated pace.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

ref, ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

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.

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.

• Epi-gravettian
• Magdalenian
• Swiderian culture
• Hamburgian
• Creswellian

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B

“Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) is part of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, a Neolithic culture centered in upper Mesopotamia and the Levant, dating to c. 10,820 – c. 8,520 years ago, that is, 8,800–6,500 BCE. It was typed by Kathleen Kenyon during her archaeological excavations at Jericho in the West Bank. Like the earlier PPNA people, the PPNB culture developed from the Mesolithic Natufian culture. However, it shows evidence of a northerly origin, possibly indicating an influx from the region of northeastern Anatolia. Area of the fertile crescent main Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites, Mesopotamia proper was not yet settled by humans.” ref

“The earliest proto-pottery in the fertile crescent was White Ware vessels, made from lime and gray ash, built up around baskets before firing, for several centuries around 7000 BCE or 9,020 years ago at sites such as Tell Neba’a Faour (Beqaa Valley). Sites from this period found in the Levant utilizing rectangular floor plans and plastered floor techniques were found at Ain Ghazal, Yiftahel (western Galilee), and Abu Hureyra (Upper Euphrates). The period is dated to between c. 9,020 and c. 8,020 years ago or 7000–6000 BCE. Though, the site of ‘Ain Ghazal in Jordan has indicated a later Pre-Pottery Neolithic C period, which existed between 8,220 and 7,920 years ago.” ref

“The culture disappeared during the 8.2 kiloyear event, a term that climatologists have adopted for a sudden decrease in global temperatures that occurred approximately 8,220 years before the present, or c. 6200 BCE, and which lasted for the next two to four centuries. In the following Munhatta and Yarmukian post-pottery Neolithic cultures that succeeded it, rapid cultural development continues, although PPNB culture continued in the Amuq valley, where it influenced the later development of the Ghassulian culture.” ref

“Around 8000 BCE or 10,020 years ago, before the invention of pottery, several early settlements became experts in crafting beautiful and highly sophisticated containers from stone, using materials such as alabaster or granite, and employing sand to shape and polish. Artisans used the veins in the material to the maximum visual effect. Such objects have been found in abundance on the upper Euphrates river, in what is today eastern Syria, especially at the site of Bouqras. These form the early stages of the development of the Art of Mesopotamia.” ref

Haplogroup N* found among the fertile crescent Pre-Pottery Neolithic B

“Pre-Pottery Neolithic B fossils that were analysed for ancient DNA were found to carry the Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroups E1b1b (2/7; ~29%), CT (2/7; ~29%), E(xE2,E1a,E1b1a1a1c2c3b1,E1b1b1b1a1,E1b1b1b2b) (1/7; ~14%), T(xT1a1,T1a2a) (1/7; ~14%), and H2 (1/7; ~14%). The CT clade was also observed in a Pre-Pottery Neolithic C specimen (1/1; 100%). Maternally, the rare basal haplogroup N* has been found among skeletal remains belonging to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, as have the mtDNA clades L3 and K.” ref

“DNA analysis has also confirmed ancestral ties between the Pre-Pottery Neolithic culture bearers and the makers of the Epipaleolithic Iberomaurusian culture of North Africa, the Mesolithic Natufian culture of the Levant, the Savanna Pastoral Neolithic culture of East Africa, the Early Neolithic Cardium culture of Morocco, and the Ancient Egyptian culture of the Nile Valley, with fossils associated with these early cultures all sharing a common genomic component.” ref

Pottery Neolithic the fertile crescent

“The Neolithic period is traditionally divided into the Pre-Pottery (A and B) and Pottery phases. PPNA developed from the earlier Natufian cultures of the area. This is the time of the agricultural transition and development of farming economies in the Near East, and the region’s first known megaliths (and Earth’s oldest known megalith, other than Gobekli Tepe, which is in the Northern Levant and from an unknown culture) with a burial chamber and tracking of the sun or other stars. In addition, the Levant in the Neolithic (and later, in the Chalcolithic) was involved in large-scale, far-reaching trade.” ref

“Trade on an impressive scale and covering large distances continued during the Chalcolithic (c. 4500–3300 BCE). Obsidian found in the Chalcolithic levels at Gilat, Israel have had their origins traced via elemental analysis to three sources in Southern Anatolia: Hotamis Dağ, Göllü Dağ, and as far east as Nemrut Dağ, 500 km (310 mi) east of the other two sources. This is indicative of a very large trade circle reaching as far as the Northern Fertile Crescent at these three Anatolian sites.” ref

“The Ghassulian period created the basis of the Mediterranean economy which has characterized the area ever since. A Chalcolithic culture, the Ghassulian economy was a mixed agricultural system consisting of extensive cultivation of grains (wheat and barley), intensive horticulture of vegetable crops, commercial production of vines and olives, and a combination of transhumance and nomadic pastoralism. The Ghassulian culture, according to Juris Zarins, developed out of the earlier Munhata phase of what he calls the “circum Arabian nomadic pastoral complex”, probably associated with the first appearance of Semites in this area.” ref

“The urban development of Canaan lagged considerably behind that of Egypt and Mesopotamia and even that of Syria, where from 3,500 BCE or 5,520 years ago a sizable city developed at Hamoukar. This city, which was conquered, probably by people coming from the Southern Iraqi city of Uruk, saw the first connections between Syria and Southern Iraq that some have suggested lie behind the patriarchal traditions. Urban development again began culminating in Early Bronze Age sites like Ebla, which by 2,300 BCE or 4,320 years ago, was incorporated once again into the Empire of Sargon, and then Naram-Sin of Akkad (Biblical Accad). The archives of Ebla show reference to a number of Biblical sites, including Hazor, Jerusalem, and a number of people have claimed, also to Sodom and Gomorrah, mentioned in the patriarchal records. The collapse of the Akkadian Empire, saw the arrival of peoples using Khirbet Kerak Ware pottery, coming originally from the Zagros Mountains, east of the Tigris. It is suspected by some that this event marks the arrival in Syria and Palestine of the Hurrians, people later known in the Biblical tradition possibly as Horites.” ref

“The following Middle Bronze Age period was initiated by the arrival of “Amorites” from Syria in Southern Iraq, an event which people like Albright (above) associated with the arrival of Abraham’s family in Ur. This period saw the pinnacle of urban development in the area of Syria and Palestine. Archaeologists show that the chief state at this time was the city of Hazor, which may have been the capital of the region of Israel. This is also the period in which Semites began to appear in larger numbers in the Nile delta region of Egypt.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Raqefet Cave

13,000-year-old stone mortars offers the earliest known physical evidence of an extensive ancient beer-brewing operation.

“The find comes on the heels of a July report that archaeologists working in northeastern Jordan discovered the charred remains of bread baked by Natufians some 11,600 to 14,600 years ago. According to the Stanford scientists, the ancient beer residue comes from 11,700 to 13,700 years old. Through laboratory analysis, other archaeological evidence found in the cave, and the wear of the stones, the team discovered that the ancient Natufians used species from seven plant families, “including wheat or barley, oat, legumes and bast fibers (including flax),” according to the article. “They packed plant-foods, including malted wheat/barley, in fiber-made containers and stored them in boulder mortars. They used bedrock mortars for pounding and cooking plant-foods, including brewing wheat/barley-based beer likely served in ritual feasts ca. 13,000 years ago,” the scientists write. “It has long been speculated that the thirst for beer may have been the stimulus behind cereal domestication, which led to a major social-technological change in human history; but this hypothesis has been highly controversial,” the Stanford authors say. “We report here of the earliest archaeological evidence for cereal-based beer brewing by a semi-sedentary, foraging people.” ref

“Beer making was an integral part of rituals and feasting, a social regulatory mechanism in hierarchical societies,” said Stanford’s Wang. The Raqefet Cave discovery of the first man-made alcohol production, the cave also provides one of the earliest pieces of evidence of the use of flower beds on gravesites, discovered under human skeletons. “The Natufian remains in Raqefet Cave never stop surprising us,” co-author Prof. Dani Nadel, of the University of Haifa’s Zinman Institute of Archaeology, said in a press release. “We exposed a Natufian burial area with about 30 individuals, a wealth of small finds such as flint tools, animal bones and ground stone implements, and about 100 stone mortars and cupmarks. Some of the skeletons are well-preserved and provided direct dates and even human DNA, and we have evidence for flower burials and wakes by the graves.” ref

“And now, with the production of beer, the Raqefet Cave remains provide a very vivid and colorful picture of Natufian lifeways, their technological capabilities, and inventions,” he said. Stanford’s Liu posited that the beer production was of a religious nature because its production was found near a graveyard. “This discovery indicates that making alcohol was not necessarily a result of agricultural surplus production, but it was developed for ritual purposes and spiritual needs, at least to some extent, prior to agriculture,” she said. “Alcohol making and food storage were among the major technological innovations that eventually led to the development of civilizations in the world, and archaeological science is a powerful means to help reveal their origins and decode their contents,” said Liu. “We are excited to have the opportunity to present our findings, which shed new light on a deeper history of human society.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Swiderian culture c. 11,000 – c. 8,200 BCE centered on the area of modern Poland.

“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 (11,520 years ago or 9500 BCE calibrated) to the northeast following the retreating tundra, after the Younger Dryas. 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

“The Ukrainian archaeologist L. Zalizniak (1989, p. 83-84) 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.” ref

“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. 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 years ago. 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.” ref

“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 9265-8930 BP, corresponding to 8300-8200 calBCE. 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

Maglemosian culture c. 9000 – c. 6000 BCE or 11,020-8,020 years ago in Northern Europe.

“Maglemosian (c. 9000 – c. 6000 BC) is the name given to a culture of the early Mesolithic period in Northern Europe. In Scandinavia, the culture was succeeded by the Kongemose and Tardenoisian cultures. When the Maglemosian culture flourished, sea levels were much lower than now and what is now mainland Europe and Scandinavia were linked with Britain. The cultural period overlaps the end of the last ice age, when the ice retreated and the glaciers melted. It was a long process and sea levels in Northern Europe did not reach current levels until almost 6000 BC, by which time they had inundated large territories previously inhabited by Maglemosian people. Therefore, there is hope that the emerging discipline of underwater archaeology may reveal interesting finds related to the Maglemosian culture in the future. The Maglemosian people lived in forest and wetland environments, using fishing and hunting tools made from wood, bone, and flint microliths. It appears that they had domesticated the dog. Some may have lived settled lives, but most were nomadic.” ref

Kongemose culture c. 6,000 – 5,200 BCE or 8,020-7,220 years ago

The Kongemose culture (Kongemosekulturen) was a mesolithic hunter-gatherer culture in southern Scandinavia ca. 6000 BC–5200 BCE and the origin of the Ertebølle culture. It was preceded by the Maglemosian culture. In the north, it bordered on the Scandinavian Nøstvet and Lihult cultures. The Kongemose culture is named after a location in western Zealand and its typical form is known from Denmark and Skåne. The finds are characterized by long flintstone flakes, used for making characteristic rhombic arrowheads, scrapers, drills, awls, and toothed blades. Tiny micro blades constituted the edges of bone daggers that were often decorated with geometric patterns. Stone axes were made of a variety of stones, and other tools were made of horn and bone. The main economy was based on hunting red deer, roe deer, and wild boar, supplemented by fishing at the coastal settlements.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

Ertebølle culture c. 5300 – 3400 BCE or 7,320-5,420 years ago

“The Ertebølle culture (ca 5300 – 3950 BCE or 7,320-5,420 years ago) (Danish pronunciation: [ˈɛɐ̯təˌpølə]) is the name of a hunter-gatherer and fisher, pottery-making culture dating to the end of the Mesolithic period. The culture was concentrated in Southern Scandinavia. It is named after the type site, a location in the small village of Ertebølle on Limfjorden in Danish Jutland. In the 1890s, the National Museum of Denmark excavated heaps of oyster shells there, mixed with mussels, snails, bones and bone, antler and flint artifacts, which were evaluated as kitchen middens (Danish køkkenmødding), or refuse dumps. Accordingly, the culture is less commonly named the Kitchen Midden. As it is approximately identical to the Ellerbek culture of Schleswig-Holstein, the combined name, Ertebølle-Ellerbek is often used. The Ellerbek culture (German Ellerbek Kultur) is named after a type site in Ellerbek, a community on the edge of Kiel, Germany.” ref

“In the 1960s and 1970s, another closely related culture was found in the (now dry) Noordoostpolder in the Netherlands, near the village Swifterbant and the former island of Urk. Named the Swifterbant culture (5300 – 3400 BCE or 7,320-5,420 years ago) they show a transition from hunter-gatherer to both animal husbandry, primarily cows and pigs, and cultivation of barley and emmer wheat. During the formative stages contact with nearby Linear Pottery culture settlements in Limburg has been detected. Like the Ertebølle culture, they lived near open water, in this case, creeks, river dunes, and bogs along post-glacial banks of the Overijsselse Vecht. Recent excavations show a local continuity going back to (at least) 5600 BCE or 7,620 years ago, when burial practices resembled the contemporary grave fields in Denmark and South Sweden “in all details”, suggesting only part of a diverse ancestral “Ertebølle”-like heritage was locally continued into the later (Middle Neolithic) Swifterbant tradition (4200 – 3400 BCE or 6,220-5,420 years ago).” ref

“The Ertebølle culture was roughly contemporaneous with the Linear Pottery culture, food-producers whose northernmost border was located just to the south. The Ertebølle did not practice agriculture but it did utilize domestic grain in some capacity, which it must have obtained from the south. The Ertebølle culture replaced the earlier Kongemose culture of Denmark. It was limited to the north by the Scandinavian Nøstvet and Lihult cultures. It is divided into an early phase ca 5300 – 4500 BCE or 7,320-6,520 years ago, and a later phase ca 4500 -3950 BCE or 6,520-5,970 years ago. Shortly after 4100 BCE or 6,120 years ago, the Ertebølle began to expand along the Baltic coast at least as far as Rügen. Shortly thereafter it was replaced by the Funnelbeaker culture.” ref

“In recent years archaeologists have found the acronym EBK most convenient, parallel to LBK for German Linearbandkeramik (Linear Pottery culture) and TRB for German Trichterbecher, Danish Tragtbæger (Funnelbeaker culture) and Dutch trechterbekercultuur. Ostensibly for Ertebølle Kultur, EBK could be either German or Danish and has the added advantage that Ellerbek also begins with E.” ref

Ertebølle culture Evidence of conflict

There is some evidence of conflict between Ertebølle settlements: an arrowhead in a pelvis at Skateholm, Sweden; a bone point in a throat at Vedbæk, Zealand; a bone point in the chest at Stora Biers, Sweden. More significant is evidence of cannibalism at Dyrholmen, Jutland, and Møllegabet on Ærø. There human bones were broken open to obtain the marrow. The evidence of marrow exploitation in the Ertebølle remains indicates dietary rather than ritual cannibalism; as marrow is never the subject of ritualistic cannibalism.” ref

Ertebølle culture Pottery related to the Samara region of Russia c. 7000 cal BCE or 9,020 years ago

“Pottery was manufactured from native clays tempered with sand, crushed stone, and organic material. The EBK pot was made by coil technique, being fired on the open bed of hot coals. It was not like the neighboring Neolithic Linearbandkeramik and appears related instead to a pottery type that first appears in Europe in the Samara region of Russia c. 7000 cal BC, and spread up the Volga to the Eastern Baltic and then westward along the shore.” ref

“Two main types are found, a beaker and a lamp. The beaker is a pot-bellied pot narrowing at the neck, with a flanged, outward turning rim. The bottom was typically formed into a point or bulb (the “funnel”) of some sort that supported the pot when it was placed in clay or sand. One can imagine a sort of mobile pantry consisting of rows of jars set now in the hut, now by the fire, now in the clay layer at the bottom of a dugout.” ref

“The beaker came in various sizes from 8 to 50 cm high and from 5 to 20 cm in diameter. Decoration filled the entire surface with horizontal bands of fingertip or fingernail impressions. It must have been in the decoration phase that grains of wheat and barley left their impression in the clay. Late in the period technique and decoration became slightly more varied and sophisticated: the walls were thinner and different motifs were used in the impressions: chevrons, cord marks, and punctures made with animal bones. Handles are sometimes added and the rims may turn in instead of out. The blubber lamp was molded from a single piece of clay. The use of such lamps suggests some household activity in the huts after dark.” ref

“The Ertebølle culture is of a general type called Late Mesolithic, of which other examples can be found in Swifterbant culture, Zedmar culture, Narva culture, and in Russia. Some would include the Nøstvet culture and Lihult culture to the north as well. The various locations seem fragmented and isolated, but that characteristic may be an accident of discovery. Perhaps if all the submarine sites were known, a continuous coastal culture would appear from the Netherlands to the lakes of Russia, but this has yet to be demonstrated. Some of the pottery shreds of evidence grain impressions, which some interpret as the use of food imported from the south. Certainly, they did not need to import food and were probably better nourished than the southerners. Analysis of charred remains in one pot indicates that it at least was used for fermenting a mixture of blood and nuts. Some have therefore guessed that fermentation of grain was used to produce beer.” ref

Swifterbant culture c. 5300 – 3400 BCE or 7,320-5,420 years ago 

“The Swifterbant culture was a Subneolithic archaeological culture in the Netherlands, dated between 5300 – 3400 BCE. Like the Ertebølle culture, the settlements were concentrated near water, in this case, creeks, river dunes, and bogs along post-glacial banks of rivers like the Overijsselse Vecht. In the 1960s and 1970s, artifacts classified as “Swifterbant culture” were found in the (now dry) Flevopolder in the Netherlands, near the villages of Swifterbant and Dronten. Other well-known sites were uncovered in South Holland (Bergschenhoek) and the Betuwe (Hardinxveld-Giessendam).” ref

“The oldest finds related to this culture, dated to circa 5600 BCE, cannot be distinguished from the Ertebølle culture, normally associated with Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia. The culture is ancestral to the Western group of the agricultural Funnelbeaker culture (4000–2700 BCE), which extended through Northern Netherlands and Northern Germany to the Elbe. The earliest dated sites are season settlements. A transition from hunter-gatherer culture to cattle farming, primarily cows and pigs, occurred around 4800–4500 BCE. Pottery has been attested from this period. In the region indications to the existence of pottery are present from before the arrival of the Linear Pottery culture in the neighborhood. The material culture reflects a local evolution from Mesolithic communities, with a pottery in a Nordic (Ertebølle) style and trade relationships with southern late Rössen culture communities, as testified by the presence of true Breitkeile pottery sherds.” ref

“The Rössen culture, being an offshoot of Linear Pottery, is older than the finds in Swifterbant, and contemporary to older stages of this culture as found in Hoge Vaart (Almere) and Hardinxveld. Contact between Swifterbant and Rössen expressed itself by some hybrid early Swifterbant pots in Anvers (Doel) and hybrid Rössen pottery Hamburg-Boberg. In general, Swifterbant pottery does not show the same variety as Rössen pottery and Swifterbant pottery with Rössen influences are rare. Possibly the idea of cooking could be derived from agricultural neighbors. However, the technical style for making pottery are too different to consider such external influences.” ref

“Wetland settlement, unlike previous opinions, was a deliberate choice by prehistoric communities, as this offered attractive ecological conditions and a high natural productivity or agricultural potential. The economy covered a broad spectrum of resources to gather food, ruled by a strategy to diversify rather than increasing volume. As such, the wetlands offered, next to hunting and fishing, optimized conditions for cattle and small-scale cultivation of different crops, each having conditions for growing of their own. The agrarian transformation of the prehistoric community was an exclusively indigenous process, that ultimately realized itself only at the end of the Neolithic. This view has been supported by the discovery of an agricultural field in Swifterbant dated 4300–4000 BCE. Animal sacrifices found in the bogs of Drenthe are attributed to Swifterbant and suggest a religious role for both wild and domesticated bovines.” ref

Narva culture c. 5300 – 1750 BCE or 7,320-3,770 years ago

“Narva culture or eastern Baltic was a European Neolithic archaeological culture found in present-day Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kaliningrad Oblast (former East Prussia), and adjacent portions of Poland, Belarus, and Russia. A successor of the Mesolithic Kunda culture, Narva culture continued up to the start of the Bronze Age. The time span is debated. Zinkevičius and the Fin.wikipedia assign it from (c. 5300 to 1750 BCE) (indirectly cited), Saag (2020) from 4410 to 4286 BCE. The technology was that of hunter-gatherers. The culture was named after the Narva River in Estonia.” ref

“The people of the Narva culture had little access to flint; therefore, they were forced to trade and conserve their flint resources. For example, there were very few flint arrowheads and flint was often reused. The Narva culture relied on local materials (bone, horn, schist). As evidence of trade, researchers found pieces of pink flint from Valdai Hills and plenty of typical Narva pottery in the territory of the Neman culture while no objects from the Neman culture were found in Narva. Heavy use of bones and horns is one of the main characteristics of the Narva culture. The bone tools, continued from the predecessor Kunda culture, provide the best evidence of continuity of the Narva culture throughout the Neolithic period. The people were buried on their backs with few grave goods. The Narva culture also used and traded amber; a few hundred items were found in Juodkrantė. One of the most famous artifacts is a ceremonial cane carved of horn as a head of female elk found in Šventoji.” ref

“The people were primarily fishers, hunters, and gatherers. They slowly began adopting husbandry in the middle Neolithic. They were not nomadic and lived in same settlements for long periods as evidenced by abundant pottery, middens, and structures built in lakes and rivers to help fishing. The pottery shared similarities with the Comb Ceramic culture, but had specific characteristics. One of the most persistent features was mixing clay with other organic matter, most often crushed snail shells. The pottery was made of 6-to-9 cm (2.4-to-3.5 in) wide clay strips with minimal decorations around the rim. The vessels were wide and large; the height and the width were often the same. The bottoms were pointed or rounded, and only the latest examples have narrow flat bottoms. From mid-Neolithic, Narva pottery was influenced and eventually disappeared into the Corded Ware culture.” ref

“For a long time, archaeologists believed that the first inhabitants of the region were Finno-Ugric, who were pushed north by people of the Corded Ware culture. In 1931, Latvian archaeologist Eduards Šturms [lv] was the first to note that artifacts found near the Zebrus Lake in Latvia were different and possibly belonged to a separate archaeological culture. In the early 1950s settlements on the Narva River were excavated. Lembit Jaanits [et] and Nina Gurina [ru] grouped the findings with similar artifacts from the eastern Baltic region and described the Narva culture.” ref

“At first, it was believed that Narva culture ended with the appearance of the Corded Ware culture. However, newer research extended it up to the Bronze Age. As Narva culture spanned several millennia and encompassed a large territory, archaeologists attempted to subdivide the culture into regions or periods. For example, in Lithuania two regions are distinguished: southern (under influence of the Neman culture) and western (with major settlements found in Šventoji). There is an academic debate on what ethnicity the Narva culture represented: Finno-Ugrians or other Europids, preceding the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. It is also unclear how the Narva culture fits with the arrival of the Indo-Europeans (Corded Ware and Globular Amphora cultures) and the formation of the Baltic tribes.” ref

Narva culture Genetics 

“Jones et al. (2017) examined the remains of a male of the Narva culture buried c. 5780-5690 BCE. He was found to be a carrier of the paternal haplogroup R1b1b and the maternal haplogroup U2e1. People of the Narva culture and preceding Kunda culture were determined to have a closer genetic affinity with Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHGs) than Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHGs). Saag et al. (2017) determined haplogroup U5a2d in a Narva male.” ref

“Mittnik et al. (2018) analyzed 24 Narva individuals. Of the four samples of Y-DNA extracted, one belonged to I2a1a2a1a, one belonged to I2a1b, one belonged to I, and one belonged to R1. Of the ten samples of mtDNA extracted, eight belonged to U5 haplotypes, one belonged to U4a1, and one belonged to H11. U5 haplotypes were common among Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHGs) and Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers (SHGs). Genetic influence from Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHGs) was also detected.” ref

“Mathieson (2015) 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. And an individual from the Corded Ware culture, which would eventually succeed the Narva culture, was found to have genetic relations with the Yamnaya culture.” ref

Michelsberg Culture c. 4400–3500 BCE of 6,420-5,520 years ago

“The Michelsberg culture (German: Michelsberger Kultur (MK)) is an important Neolithic culture in Central Europe. Its dates are c. 4400–3500 BCE. Its conventional name is derived from that of an important excavated site on Michelsberg (short for Michaelsberg) hill near Untergrombach, between Karlsruhe and Heidelberg (Baden-Württemberg). The Michelsberg culture belongs to the Central European Late Neolithic. Its distribution covered much of West Central Europe, along both sides of the Rhine.” ref

“The Michelsberg culture emerges in northeastern France c. 4400 BCE. Genetic evidence suggests that it originated through a migration of peoples from the Paris Basin. Its people appear to trace their origins to Mediterranean farmers expanding from the southwest. Shortly after its emergence in northeastern France, the Michelsberg culture expands rapidly throughout central Germany, northeastern France, eastern Belgium, and the southwestern Netherlands. These areas had previously been occupied by cultures derived from the Linear Pottery culture (LBK), with whom the Michelsberg culture shares surprisingly little cultural or genetic affinity. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Michelsberg expansion was accompanied by violence.” ref

“The Michelsberg culture has strong affinities to the Chasséen culture of central France. Archaeological evidence strongly suggests that colonists from the Michelsberg culture played an instrumental role in establishing the Funnelbeaker culture of Northern Europe, which brought agriculture to southern Scandinavia. The Michelsberg culture also displays close affinities to the cultures of the Neolithic British Isles. The spread of agriculture into the British Isles by colonists from the continent happens at almost exactly the same time as in Scandinavia, suggesting that the two events are connected. The Michelsberg culture ends about c. 3500 BCE. It is succeeded in its core area by the Wartberg culture, with which it displays strong signs of continuity.” ref

“Michelsberg pottery is characterized by undecorated pointy-based tulip beakers. Finds of barley and emmer indicate an agricultural economy. Animal husbandry is indicated by bones of domesticated cattle, pig, sheep, and goat. Domestic dogs have also been identified. Bones of deer and fox suggest that the MK diet was supplemented by hunting. Prehistoric settlement patterns in Central Europe are generally quite volatile. The abandonment of a settlement may be part of a broader economic and social system. Thus, the Bruchsal area appears to contain several earthworks from different phases within MK.” ref

“There was no indication of a destruction of the site; nor were there any finds suggesting humans meeting a violent end. Some pits contained the remains of food stores. Thus, the abandonment of the site may have had environmental reasons. A common suggestion is the drying up of the Rhine’s arms which used to flow by the bottom of the hill, due to an extensive dry period. As the result of such a change in climate, the area would not have easily supported agriculture anymore, forcing human communities (and their livestock) to relocate.” ref

Michelsberg Culture Burial habits

“Formal Michelsberg burials have only been recognized rarely. There is no indication of organized burial grounds, as known from the earlier Linear pottery (LBK) and Rössen cultures. Human skeletal remains, frequently disarticulated, have been found inside pits and ditches in many MK earthworks and have had considerable influence on the interpretation of such structures. Their discussion is closely connected with that of similar remains in the ditches of British Causewayed enclosures.” ref

“The MK settlement of Aue yielded eight pit graves, six containing a single individual and two containing several. The age profile of those buried is very striking, as it is limited to children under the age of seven and adults over 50 (a considerable age in Neolithic Europe). In other words, humans of the ages that must have dominated the active social and economic life of the settlement are absent. It has been suggested that their bodies may not have received formal burial, but were disposed of by excarnation, in which case the skeletal remains from rubbish pits may be the result of such activity.” ref

“The same may apply to human bones found in the fills of enclosure ditches around MK settlements. It has also been suggested (hypothetically) that partially articulated remains found in such ditches may indicate that graves were placed on the surfaces adjacent to them and later washed into the ditches due to erosion. Occasionally, earthwork ditches contain more structured deposits of human bone, e.g. adult skeletons surrounded by those of children. Such burials are probably connected to the realms of cult or ritual, as are specific depositions of offerings in some of the ditches, especially at the settlements of Aue and Scheelkopf. Here, ditches contained carefully placed complete vessels, well-preserved quern-stones, and the horns of aurochs. The latter had been neatly separated from the skulls, perhaps reflecting a special symbolic significance ascribed to that animal.” ref

“A hitherto unknown aspect to MK burial practice is suggested by the recent discovery of MK burials in the Blätterhof cave near Hagen, Westphalia. Here, a full age profile appears to be represented. An unusual burial was found at Rosheim (Bas-Rhin, France). Here, the fill of a pit contained the crouched remains of an adult woman, her legs leaning against a quernstone. She appeared to have been laid onto a carefully placed packing of clay lumps, mixed with pottery and bones. Her death had been caused by some blunt impact on her skull.” ref

“Beau et al. 2017 examined the remains 22 Michelsberg people buried at Gougenheim, France. The 21 samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to the maternal haplogroups H (7 samples), K (4 samples), J (2 samples), W (1 samples), N (1 sample), U (3 samples), and T (2 samples). The examined individuals displayed genetic links to earlier farming populations of the Paris Basin, and were genetically very different from previous post-LBK cultures of the region, suggesting that the Michelsberg culture emerged through a migration of people from west. They displayed genetic links to other farmers of Western Europe, and carried substantial amounts of hunter-gatherer ancestry. The authors of the study proposed that migrations of people associated with the Michelsberg culture may have been responsible for the resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry observed in Central Europe during the Middle Neolithic.” ref

“Lipson et al. 2017 examined the remains of 4 individuals buried c. 4000-3000 BCE at the Blätterhöhle site in modern-day Germany, ascribed to the Michelsberg culture and its successor, the Wartberg culture. The 3 samples of Y-DNA extracted belonged to the paternal haplogroups R1b1, R1, and I2a1, while the 4 samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to the maternal haplogroups U5b2a2, J1c1b1, H5, and U5b2b2. The individuals carried a very high amount of Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) ancestry, estimated at about 40–50%, with one individual displaying as much as c. 75% Brunel et al. 2020 examined the remains of 18 individuals ascribed to the Michelsberg culture. The 2 samples of Y-DNA belonged to the paternal haplogroup I, while the 16 samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to types of the maternal haplogroups H (3 samples), K (9 samples), X (1 sample), T (2 samples), and U (1 sample).” ref

Chasséen Culture c. 4500–3500 BCE of 6,520-5,520 years ago 

“Chasséen culture is the name given to the archaeological culture of prehistoric France of the late Neolithic (Stone Age), which dates to roughly between 4500 – 3500 BCE. The name “Chasséen” derives from the type site near Chassey-le-Camp (Saône-et-Loire). Chasséen culture spread throughout the plains and plateaux of France, including the Seine basin and the upper Loire valleys, and extended to the present-day départments of Haute-Saône, Vaucluse, Alpes-de-Haute-Provence, Pas-de-Calais and Eure-et-Loir. Excavations at Bercy (in Paris) have revealed a Chasséen village (4000 – 3800 BCE) on the right bank of the Seine; artifacts include wood canoes, pottery, bows, and arrows, wood and stone tools.

“Chasséens were sedentary farmers (rye, panic grass, millet, apples, pears, prunes) and herders (sheep, goats, oxen, pigs). They lived in huts organized into small villages (100-400 people). Their pottery was little decorated. They had no metal technology (which appeared later), but mastered the use of flint. By roughly 3500 BCE, the Chasséen culture in France gave way to the late Neolithic transitional Seine-Oise-Marne culture (3100 – 2000 BCE) in Northern France and to a series of archaeological cultures in Southern France.

Chasséen Culture Time line

• “4000: Chasséen village of Bercy near Paris
• 4400: Chasséen village of Saint-Michel du Touch near Toulouse.
• 4400: Appearance of Rössen culture at Baume de Gonvillars in Haute-Saône.
• 3190: Chasséen culture in Calvados.
• 3530: Chasséen culture in Pas-de-Calais.
• 3450: End of Chasséen culture in Eure-et-Loir.
• 3400: End of Chasséen culture in Saint-Mitre (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence).” ref

Millet Domestication in East Asia

“Millets are important crops in the semiarid tropics of Asia and Africa,  and Millets are indigenous to many parts of the world. The most widely grown millet is pearl millet, which is an important crop in India and parts of Africa. Finger millet, proso millet, and foxtail millet are also important crop species. Millets may have been consumed by humans for about 7,000 years and potentially had “a pivotal role in the rise of multi-crop agriculture and settled farming societies.” ref

“The various species called millet were initially domesticated in different parts of the world most notably East Asia, South Asia, West Africa, and East Africa. However, the domesticated varieties have often spread well beyond their initial area. Specialized archaeologists called palaeoethnobotanists, relying on data such as the relative abundance of charred grains found in archaeological sites, hypothesize that the cultivation of millets was of greater prevalence in prehistory than rice, especially in northern China and Korea. Millets also formed important parts of the prehistoric diet in Indian, Chinese Neolithic, and Korean Mumun societies.” ref

“Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) and foxtail millet (Setaria italica) were important crops beginning in the Early Neolithic of China. Some of the earliest evidence of millet cultivation in China was found at Cishan (north), where proso millet husk phytoliths and biomolecular components have been identified around 10,300–8,700 years ago in storage pits along with remains of pit-houses, pottery, and stone tools related to millet cultivation. Evidence at Cishan for foxtail millet dates back to around 8,700 years ago. The oldest evidence of noodles in China were made from these two varieties of millet in a 4,000-year-old earthenware bowl containing well-preserved noodles found at the Lajia archaeological site in north China.” ref

“Palaeoethnobotanists have found evidence of the cultivation of millet in the Korean Peninsula dating to the Middle Jeulmun pottery period (around 3500–2000 BCE). Millet continued to be an important element in the intensive, multicropping agriculture of the Mumun pottery period (about 1500–300 BCE) in Korea. Millets and their wild ancestors, such as barnyard grass and panic grass, were also cultivated in Japan during the Jōmon period some time after 4000 BCE. Chinese myths attribute the domestication of millet to Shennong, a legendary Emperor of China, and Hou Ji, whose name means Lord Millet.” ref

“Little millet (Panicum sumatrense) is believed to have been domesticated around 5000 before present in India subcontinent and Kodo millet (Paspalum scrobiculatum) around 3700 before present, also in Indian subcontinent. Various millets have been mentioned in some of the Yajurveda texts, identifying foxtail millet (priyaṅgu), Barnyard millet (aṇu) and black finger millet (śyāmāka), indicating that millet cultivation was happening around 1200 BCE in India.” ref

“Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) was definitely domesticated in Africa by 3500 before present, though 8000 before present is thought likely. Early evidence includes finds at Birimi in West Africa with the earliest at Dhar Tichitt in Mauritania. Pearl millet was domesticated in the Sahel region of West Africa, where its wild ancestors are found. Evidence for the cultivation of pearl millet in Mali dates back to 2500 BCE, and pearl millet is found in the Indian subcontinent by 2300 BCE. Finger millet is originally native to the highlands of East Africa and was domesticated before the third millennium BCE. Its cultivation had spread to South India by 1800 BCE.” ref

Spreading of millet from China to the Black Sea region of Europe by 5000 BCE or 7,000 years ago

“The cultivation of common millet as the earliest dry crop in East Asia has been attributed to its resistance to drought, and this has been suggested to have aided its spread. Asian varieties of millet made their way from China to the Black Sea region of Europe by 5000 BCE. Millet was growing wild in Greece as early as 3000 BCE, and bulk storage containers for millet have been found from the Late Bronze Age in Macedonia and northern Greece. Hesiod describes that “the beards grow round the millet, which men sow in summer.” And millet is listed along with wheat in the third century BCE by Theophrastus in his “Enquiry into Plants”.” ref

Funnelbeaker culture c. 4300–2800 BCE of 6,320-4,820 years ago

“The Funnel(-neck-)beaker culture, in short TRB or TBK (German: Trichter(-rand-)becherkultur, Dutch: Trechterbekercultuur; Danish: Tragtbægerkultur; c. 4300–2800 BCE) was an archaeological culture in north-central Europe. It developed as a technological merger of local neolithic and mesolithic techno-complexes between the lower Elbe and middle Vistula rivers, introducing farming and husbandry as a major source of food to the pottery-using hunter-gatherers north of this line. It was preceded by Lengyel-influenced Stroke-ornamented ware culture (STK) groups/Late Lengyel and Baden-Boleráz in the southeast, Rössen groups in the southwest and the Ertebølle-Ellerbek groups in the north.” ref

“The TRB techno-complex is divided into a northern group including modern northern Germany and southern Scandinavia (TRB-N, roughly the area that previously belonged to the Ertebølle-Ellerbek complex), a western group in the Netherlands between the Zuiderzee and lower Elbe that originated in the Swifterbant culture, an eastern group centered on the Vistula catchment, roughly ranging from Oder to Bug, and south-central groups (TRB-MES, Altmark) around the middle and upper Elbe and Saale. Especially in the southern and eastern groups, local sequences of variants emerged. In the late 4th millennium BCE, the Globular Amphora culture (GAC) replaced most of the eastern and subsequently also the southern TRB groups, reducing the TRB area to modern northern Germany and southern Scandinavia. The younger TRB in these areas was superseded by the Single Grave culture (EGK) at about 2800 BCE. The north-central European megaliths were built primarily during the TRB era.” ref

“The Funnelbeaker culture emerged in northern modern-day Germany c. 4100 BCE. Archaeological evidence strongly suggests that it originated through a migration of colonists from the Michelsberg culture of Central Europe. The Michelsberg culture is archaeologically and genetically strongly differentiated from the preceding post-Linear Pottery cultures of Central Europe, being distinguished by increased levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry. Its people were probably descended from farmers migrating into Central Europe out of Iberia and modern-day France, who in turn were descended from farmers of the Cardial Ware cultures who had migrated westwards from the Balkans along the Mediterranean coast. Connections between the Funnelbeakers and these farmers of the Atlantic coast is supported by genetic evidence.” ref

“After its establishment, the Funnelbeaker culture rapidly spread into southern Scandinavia and Poland, in what appears to have been a well-organized colonizing venture. In southern Scandinavia, it replaced the Ertebølle culture, which had maintained a Mesolithic lifestyle for about 1500 years after farming arrived in Central Europe. The emergence of the Neolithic British Isles through maritime colonization by Michelsberg-related groups occurred almost at the same time as the expansion of the Funnelbeaker culture into Scandinavia, suggesting that these events may be connected. Although they were largely of Early European Farmer (EEF) descent, people of the Funnelbeaker culture had a relatively high amount of hunter-gatherer admixture, particularly in Scandinavia, suggesting that hunter-gatherer populations were partially incorporated into it during its expansion into this region. People of the Funnelbeaker culture often had between 30% and 50% hunter-gatherer ancestry depending on the region.” ref

“During later phases of the Neolithic, the Funnelbeaker culture re-expanded out of Scandinavia southwards into Central Europe, establishing several regional varieties. This expansion appears to have been accompanied by significant human migration. The southward expansion of the Funnelbeaker culture was accompanied by a substantial increase in hunter-gatherer lineages in Central Europe. The Funnelbeaker communities in Central Europe which emerged were probably quite genetically and ethnically mixed, and archaeological evidence suggests that they were relatively violent. From the middle of the 4th millennium BCE, the Funnelbeaker culture was gradually replaced by the Globular Amphora culture on its southeastern fringes, and began to decline in Scandinavia.” ref

“In the early 3rd millennium BC, the Corded Ware culture appeared in Northern Europe. Its peoples were of marked steppe-related ancestry and traced their origins in cultures further east. This period is distinguished by the construction of numerous defensive palisades in Funnelbeaker territory, which may be a sign of violent conflict between the Funnelbeakers, Corded Ware, and Pitted Ware. By 2650 BCE, the Funnelbeaker culture had been replaced by the Corded Ware culture. Genetic studies suggest that Funnelbeaker women were incorporated into the Corded Ware culture through intermixing with incoming Corded Ware males, and that people of the Corded Ware culture continued to use Funnelbeaker megaliths as burial grounds. Subsequent cultures of Late Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age Central Europe display strong maternal genetic affinity with the Funnelbeaker culture.” ref

Funnelbeaker Culture Distribution

“The TRB ranges from the Elbe catchment in Germany and Bohemia with a western extension into the Netherlands, to southern Scandinavia (Denmark up to Uppland in Sweden and the Oslofjord in Norway) in the north and to the Vistula catchment in today’s Poland in the east. Variants of the Funnelbeaker culture in or near the Elbe catchment area include the Tiefstich pottery group in northern Germany as well as the cultures of the Baalberge group (TRB-MES II and III; MES = Mittelelbe-Saale), the Salzmünde and Walternienburg and Bernburg (all TRB-MES IV) whose centres were in Saxony-Anhalt.” ref

“With the exception of some inland settlements such as Alvastra pile-dwelling, the settlements are located near those of the previous Ertebølle culture on the coast. It was characterized by single-family daubed houses c. 12 m x 6 m. In Olszanica 5000 BCE a longhouse was constructed with 2.2 m wide doors, presumably for wagon entry. This building was 40 m long with 3 doors.” ref

Funnelbeaker Culture Technology

“The Funnel Beaker Culture preserves the oldest dated evidence of wheeled vehicles in middle Europe. One example is the engraving on a ceramic tureen from Bronowice on the northern edge of the Beskidy Mountains (northern Carpathian ring), which is indirectly dated to 3636 – 3373 BCE and is the oldest evidence of knowledge of covered carriages in Central Europe. Further details are described in the articles Wheel, Bullock cart, and Wagon,  They were drawn by cattle, presumably oxen whose remains were found with the pot. Today it is housed in the Archaeological Museum of Cracow (Muzeum Archeologiczne w Krakowie), Poland.” ref

‘The houses were centered on a monumental grave, a symbol of social cohesion. Burial practices were varied, depending on region, and changed over time. Inhumation seems to have been the rule. The oldest graves consisted of wooden chambered cairns inside long barrows, but were later made in the form of passage graves and dolmens. Originally, the structures were probably covered with a mound of earth and the entrance was blocked by a stone.” ref

“The Funnelbeaker culture marks the appearance of megalithic tombs at the coasts of the Baltic and of the North sea, an example of which are the Sieben Steinhäuser in northern Germany. The megalithic structures of Ireland, France, and Portugal are somewhat older and have been connected to earlier archeological cultures of those areas. At graves, the people sacrificed ceramic vessels that contained food along with amber jewelry and flint-axes.” ref

Funnelbeaker Culture Religion

“Flint-axes and vessels were also deposited in streams and lakes near the farmlands, and virtually all of Sweden’s 10,000 flint axes that have been found from this culture were probably sacrificed in water. They also constructed large cult centers surrounded by pales, earthworks, and moats. The largest one is found at Sarup on Fyn. It comprises 85,000 m2 and is estimated to have taken 8000 workdays. Another cult center at Stävie near Lund comprises 30,000 m2.” ref

Funnelbeaker Culture Ethnicity

“In the context of the Kurgan hypothesis (or steppe hypothesis), the culture is seen as non-Indo-European, representing a culture of Neolithic origin, as opposed to the Indo-European-language-speaking peoples (see Yamna culture) who later intruded from the east. Marija Gimbutas postulated that the political relationship between the aboriginal and intrusive cultures resulted in quick and smooth cultural morphosis into the Corded Ware culture. A number of other archaeologists in the past have proposed that the Corded Ware culture was a purely local development of the Funnelbeaker culture, which has been debunked by genetics.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

 Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Masseboth similar but much smaller than a European Menhir, dates to around 13,000-11,000 years ago in the Near East. Kurgan a burial mound over a timber burial chamber, dates to around 7,000/6,000 years ago. Dolmen a single-chamber ritual megalith, dates to around 7,000/6,000 years ago. Ziggurat a multi-platform temple around 4,900 years ago. Pyramid a multi-platform tomb, dates to around 4,700 years ago. #3 is a Step Pyramid (or proto pyramid) for the burial of Pharaoh Djoser it went through several revisions and redevelopments. First are three layers of Mastaba “house of eternity” a flat-roofed rectangular structure, then two step pyramid one on top the other, showing the evolution of ideas.

Pit–Comb Ware culture 7,620 to 4,320 years ago?

“Calibrated radiocarbon dates for the comb-ware fragments found (e.g., in the Karelian isthmus), give a total interval of 5600  – 2300 BCE. The Pit–Comb Ware culture is one of the few exceptions to the rule that pottery and farming coexist in Europe. In the Near East farming appeared before pottery, then when farming spread into Europe from the Near East, pottery-making came with it. However, in Asia, where the oldest pottery has been found, pottery was made long before farming. It appears that the Comb Ceramic Culture reflects influences from Siberia and distant China.” ref

“The ceramics consist of large pots that are rounded or pointed below, with a capacity from 40 to 60 litres. The forms of the vessels remained unchanged but the decoration varied. By dating according to the elevation of land, the ceramics have traditionally (Äyräpää 1930) been divided into the following periods: early (Ka I, c. 4200 – 3300 BCE), typical (Ka II, c. 3300 – 2700 BCE), and late Comb Ceramic (Ka III, c. 2800 – 2000 BCE).” ref

“The settlements were located at seashores or beside lakes and the economy was based on hunting, fishing, and the gathering of plants. In Finland, it was a maritime culture that became more and more specialized in hunting seals. The dominant dwelling was probably a teepee of about 30 square meters where some 15 people could live. Also, rectangular houses made of timber become popular in Finland from 4000 BC cal. Graves were dug at the settlements and the dead were covered with red ochre. The typical Comb Ceramic age shows an extensive use of objects made of flint and amber as grave offerings.” ref

“In earlier times, it was often suggested that the spread of the Comb Ware people was correlated with the diffusion of the Uralic languages, and thus an early Uralic language would have been spoken throughout this culture. It was also suggested that bearers of this culture likely spoke Finno-Ugric languages. Another view is that the Comb Ware people may have spoken Palaeo-European languages, as some toponyms and hydronyms also indicate a non-Uralic, non-Indo-European language at work in some areas. In addition, modern scholars have located the Proto-Uralic homeland east of the Volga, if not even beyond the Urals. The great westward dispersal of the Uralic languages is suggested to have happened long after the demise of the Comb Ceramic culture, perhaps in the 1st millennium BCE.” ref

“Generally, the Comb Ceramic culture individuals were mostly of Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) descent, with even more EHG than people of the Narva culture. Lamnidis et al. (2018) confirmed and specified this to 65% Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG), 20% Western Steppe Herder (WSH), and 15% Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) ancestry. This amount of EHG ancestry was higher than among earlier cultures of the eastern Baltic, while WSH ancestry had previously not even been attested among such an early culture in the region.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art 

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Pic ref 

“In north-eastern Europe, the appearance of pottery and the beginning of the Neolithic is generally accepted as taking place c. 5500–5200 cal BCE or 7,520-7,220 years ago. Interestingly, for example, Typical Comb Ware is recognized as a phenomenon existing in Finland, parts of north-west Russia, Estonia, and Latvia, but still lacks any truly inter-regional studies.” ref

Stone age wooden snake ‘staff’ found in Finland

“Jafar eat your heart out! Unique 4,400-year-old snake ‘staff’ is discovered in Finland that may have been used by Stone Age shamans for rituals. The unbelievably well-preserved wooden stick was intricately carved in the shape of a snake slithering away. It was found in Järvensuo 1, a prehistoric wetland site that was occupied between the years 4000 – 2000 BCE or 6,020-4,020 years ago. The snake staff was 4,400 years old and dates back to the Neolithic period – the final division in the history of the Stone Age.” ref 

“Archaeologists in Finland have uncovered a intricately-carved wooden staff that may have been used by Stone Age shamans for rituals. More than half a meter long, the perfectly preserved life-sized wooden stick is a carving of a snake, shaped as if it is slithering away. It was found at Järvensuo 1, a wetland site in Finland’s southwest that was occupied between 4000 – 2000 BCE, and is ‘unlike any other wooden artifact found in Northern Europe’ during this period.” ref

“The archaeologists say the object is 4,400-years-old, meaning it dates back to the Neolithic period – the final division of the Stone Age. Incredibly preserved detail of the carved snake’s head. The unbelievably well-preserved wooden stick was intricately carved in the shape of a snake slithering away. ‘This delicately carved natural-sized snake figurine is a magnificent, thought-provoking glimpse from far back in time,’ said study author Dr Satu Koivisto at the University of Turku. ‘I have seen many extraordinary things in my work as a wetland archaeologist, but the discovery of this figurine made me utterly speechless and gave me the shivers.’ Contemporary rock art shows snake-shaped objects being held by human-like figures, which is why the experts think the carving was a Stone Age shaman’s staff for rituals.” ref

Contemporary rock art shows snake-shaped objects being held by human-like figures, which could indicate the carving was a Stone Age shaman’s staff for rituals. Pictured, depictions of snakes in North European Neolithic rock art – a) Lake Onega; b) Kola Peninsula; c–e) Finland; f ) White Sea (figure by A. Lahelma). ‘There seems to be a certain connection between snakes and people,’ said co-author Dr Antti Lahelma from the University of Helsinki.” ref

“This brings to mind northern shamanism of the historical period, where snakes had a special role as spirit-helper animals of the shaman. ‘Even though the time gap is immense, the possibility of some kind of continuity is tantalizing – do we have a Stone Age shaman’s staff?’ Järvensuo 1 was discovered by accident by ditch diggers during the 1950s but had not been fully excavated. As such, archaeologists have been working to explore the site since 2019. The prehistoric lakeshore has wetland conditions conducive to preserving wooden items. Previous excavation work at the site unearthed a wooden scoop with a handle like a bear’s head.” ref

“According to archaeologists, this indicates Järvensuo 1 was the site of not just bizarre rituals involving the snake figurine, but practical activities as well-meaning it offers a snapshot of all aspects of ancient life. ‘Well-preserved finds from wetlands help our understanding of ancient peoples and the landscape where they performed both mundane and sacred activities,’ said Dr Koivisto. Sadly, Järvensuo 1 and the historical treasures within are under threat from drainage and other changes to the local environment, exacerbated by climate change. ‘The signs of destruction caused by extensive drainage are already clearly evident at the site and its organic treasures are no longer safe,’ said Dr Koivisto.” ref

List of Serpentes of Finland:

• Smooth snake (Coronella austriaca)
• Grass snake (Natrix natrix)
• Adder (Vipera berus)

“Vipera berus, the common European adder or common European viper, is a venomous snake that is extremely widespread and can be found throughout most of Western Europe and as far as East Asia. The species is also the only venomous snake native to Great Britain. Known by a host of common names including common adder and common viper, adders have been the subject of much folklore in Britain and other European countries. They are not regarded as especially dangerous; the snake is not aggressive and usually bites only when really provoked, stepped on, or picked up. Bites can be very painful, but are seldom fatal. The specific name, berus, is New Latin and was at one time used to refer to a snake, possibly the grass snake, Natrix matrix. The common adder is found in different terrains, habitat complexity being essential for different aspects of its behavior.” ref 

Finland chronology

“The main chronological focus hunter-fisher-gatherer sites of the Finnish (Sub-)Neolithic (typically referred to in Finland as non-agricultural Neolithic or pottery Mesolithic, ca. 5100–2000 cal BCE or 7,120-4,020 years ago.” ref 

“The History of Finland begins around 9,000 BCE or 11,000 years ago during the end of the last glacial period. Stone Age cultures were Kunda, Comb Ceramic, Corded Ware, Kiukainen, and Pöljä cultures [fi]. The Finnish Bronze Age started in approximately 1,500 BCE or 3,520 years ago and the Iron Age started in 500 BCE or 2,520 years ago and lasted until 1,300 CE. Finnish Iron Age cultures can be separated into Finnish proper, Tavastian, Proto Sámi, and Karelian cultures. The earliest written sources mentioning Finland start to appear from the 12th century onwards when the Catholic Church started to gain a foothold in Southwest Finland.” ref 

Mesolithic Finland

“The last ice age in the area of the modern-day Finland ended c. 9000 BCE or 11,000 years ago. Starting about that time, people migrated to the area of Finland from the South and South-East. Their culture represented mixture of Kunda, Butovo [fi], and Veretje cultures [fi]. At the same time, northern Finland was inhabited via the coast of Norway. The oldest confirmed evidence of the post-glacial human settlements in Finland are from the area of Ristola in Lahti and from Orimattila, from c. 8900 BC. Finland has been continuously inhabited at least since the end of the last ice age, up to the present. The earliest post-glacial inhabitants of the present-day area of Finland were probably mainly seasonal hunter-gatherers. Among finds is the net of Antrea, the oldest fishing net known ever to have been excavated (calibrated carbon dating: ca. 8300 BCE or 10,320 years ago).” ref

Neolithic Finland

“By 5300 BCE or 7,320 years ago, pottery was present in Finland. The earliest samples belong to the Comb Ceramic cultures, known for their distinctive decorating patterns. This marks the beginning of the neolithic period for Finland, although subsistence was still based on hunting and fishing. Extensive networks of exchange existed across Finland and northeastern Europe during the 5th millennium BC. For example, flint from Scandinavia and the Valdai Hills, amber from Scandinavia and the Baltic region, and slate from Scandinavia and Lake Onega found their way into Finnish archaeological sites, while asbestos and soap stone from Finland (e.g. the area of Saimaa) were found in other regions. Rock paintings—apparently related to shamanistic and totemistic belief systems—have been found, especially in Eastern Finland, e.g. Astuvansalmi.” ref

“Between 3500 and 2000 BC, monumental stone enclosures colloquially known as Giant’s Churches (Finnish: Jätinkirkko) were constructed in the Ostrobothnia region. The purpose of the enclosures is unknown. In recent years, a dig in Kierikki site north of Oulu on River Ii has changed the image of Finnish neolithic Stone Age culture. The site had been inhabited year round and its inhabitants traded extensively. Kierikki culture is also seen as a subtype of Comb Ceramic culture. More of the site is excavated annually. From 3200 BCE or 5,220 years ago onwards, either immigrants or a strong cultural influence from south of the Gulf of Finland settled in southwestern Finland. This culture was a part of the European Battle Axe cultures, which have often been associated with the movement of the Indo-European speakers.” ref

“The Battle Axe, or Cord Ceramic, culture seems to have practiced agriculture and animal husbandry outside of Finland, but the earliest confirmed traces of agriculture in Finland date later, approximately to the 2nd millennium BCE. Further inland, the societies retained their hunting-gathering lifestyles for the time being. The Battle Axe and Comb Ceramic cultures eventually merged, giving rise to the Kiukainen culture that existed between 2300 -1500 BCE or 4,320-3,520 years ago, and was fundamentally a comb ceramic tradition with cord ceramic characteristics.” ref

Bronze Age Finland

“The Bronze Age began sometime after 1500 BCE or 3,520 years ago. The coastal regions of Finland were a part of the Nordic Bronze Culture, whereas in the inland regions the influences came from the bronze-using cultures of northern and eastern Russia.” ref

A 5,000-year-old barley grain discovered in Finland changes the understanding of livelihoods

“A 5,000-year-old barley grain discovered in Aland, southern Finland, turns researchers’ understanding of ancient Northern livelihoods upside down. New findings reveal that hunter-gatherers took to farming already 5,000 years ago in eastern Sweden, and on the Aland Islands, located on the southwest coast of Finland. On the basis of prior research, representatives of the Pitted Ware Culture from the Stone Age have been known as hard-core sealers, or even Inuits of the Baltic Sea. Now, researchers have discovered barley and wheat grains in areas previously inhabited by this culture, leading to the conclusion that the Pitted Ware Culture adopted agriculture on a small scale.” ref

“A study carried out in cooperation with parties representing the discipline of archaeology and the Department of Chemistry at the University of Helsinki, as well as Swedish operators in the field of archaeology (The Archaeologists, a governmental consultant agency, and Arkeologikonsult, a business), found grains of barley and wheat in Pitted Ware settlements on Finland’s Aland Islands and in the region of modern Stockholm. The age of the grains was ascertained using radiocarbon dating. Based on the results, the grains originated in the period of the Pitted Ware culture, thus being approximately 4,300-5,300 years old. In addition to the cereal grains, the plant remnants found in the sites included hazelnut shells, apple seeds, tuberous roots of lesser celandine, and rose hips.” ref

“The study suggests that small-scale farming was adopted by the Pitted Ware Culture by learning the trade from farmers of the Funnel Beaker Culture, the latter having expanded from continental Europe to Scandinavia. Other archaeological artifacts are also evidence of close contact between these two cultures. “The grains found on Aland are proof that the Pitted Ware Culture introduced cultivation to places where it had not yet been practiced,” says Santeri Vanhanen, a doctoral student of archaeology at the University of Helsinki.” ref

Cereal perhaps used to brew beer?

‘The 5,000-year-old barley grain found on Aland is the oldest grain of cereal ever found in Finland. The researchers also found a handful of barley and wheat grains a few hundred years younger, representing either common wheat or club wheat. “We also dated one barley grain found in Raseborg, southern Finland. This grain and the other earliest grains found in mainland Finland date back some 3,500 years, some 1,500 years behind Aland according to current knowledge,” Vanhanen explains.” ref

In prior studies, it has been extremely difficult to demonstrate that the hunter-gatherer population would have adopted farming during recorded history, let alone in the Stone Age. Research on ancient DNA has in recent years proven that the spread of agriculture in Europe was almost exclusively down to migrants. “We find it possible that this population, which was primarily specialized in marine hunting, continued to grow plants as the practice provided the community with social significance.” ref 

From time to time, an abundance of pig bones are found at Pitted Ware sites, even though pigs were not an important part of their daily nourishment. For instance, the bones of more than 30 pigs were found in a grave located on the island of Gotland. “Members of the Pitted Ware culture may have held ritual feasts where pigs and cereal products were consumed. It’s not inconceivable that grains might even have been used to brew beer, but the evidence is yet to be found,” Vanhanen continues.” ref 

Astuvansalmi rock paintings

“The Astuvansalmi rock paintings (Finnish: Astuvansalmen kalliomaalaukset) are located in Ristiina, Mikkeli, Southern Savonia, Finland at the shores of the lake Yövesi, which is a part of the large lake Saimaa. The paintings are 7.7 to 11.8 metres above the water-level of lake Saimaa. The lake level was much higher at the time the rock paintings were made. There are about 70 paintings in the area.” ref

Rock Art From around 5,000 Years Ago (Finland)

“The Astuvansalmi rock paintings are located on a steep outcrop, resembling a human head, on the shore of lake Yövesi. The site may have been used for ceremonial purposes.” ref 

“Rock paintings created during the Stone Age can still be seen today in dozens of sites around Finland. These awe-inspiring artworks are like windows into the ancient past, revealing tantalizing glimpses of long-lost cultures. FINLAND’S rock paintings mainly consist of brownish-red figures and markings painted onto steep granite walls, often overlooking waterways. Scenes feature people, boats, elk, fish, and mysterious partly human figures that may be linked to shamanistic beliefs, as well as more abstract shapes and patterns whose meanings will probably remain forever lost in the mists of time.” ref

“So far we know of 127 sites in Finland where such paintings have been found,” explains archaeologist Helena Taskinen of the National Board of Antiquities. “These paintings have survived thanks to the formation of a thin layer of silicon dioxide on the rock surface, which has protected them. Many more paintings have undoubtedly vanished over the intervening millennia, but it’s also likely that more paintings are still out there in the forests waiting to be discovered.” ref

“Experts believe the paintings were made by people from the “Comb Ceramic Culture”, who lived in what is now Finland between 5000-2000 BCE or 7,020-4,020 years ago. They made their paints using iron oxide obtained from the soil, probably mixed with blood, animal fat, or egg, although traces of these organic materials are no longer detectable. “Whatever it was, it was a good mix considering how long their works have survived!” says Taskinen.” ref

“We can also see that the paintings were made by skilled artists, especially since some may have been painted from boats,” she adds. Even if the creations of these Northern European artists are not on the same scale as those of their contemporaries in Egypt or Mesopotamia, they still give a fascinating insight into the lifestyles of long ago.” ref 

“What’s striking is that the places where we find these paintings always seem to be very beautiful and atmospheric – at least to me!” says Taskinen. “I strongly suspect that these were very special sites, somehow linked to people’s spiritual beliefs. But one nice thing about them is anyone who sees them can come up with their own interpretation, and no one will ever be able to say for sure who is right.” Ancient markings struck a chord with Sibelius.” ref

“Most of Finland’s rock paintings lie in the Saimaa Lake District. The best-known site, at Astuvansalmi, has been proposed for UNESCO’s world heritage list. Subjects include a human figure with antlers, and elk or reindeer marked with spots showing the location of the animals’ hearts, as if to aid hunters. The cliffs at Astuvansalmi have a profile that resembles a giant human face, and dainty amber pendants apparently carved into the shape of a head have been found by archaeologists beneath the cliffs.” ref

“Another well-publicized and accessible site, in the Hossa Hiking Area, features freakish figures with triangular heads. But at most sites, the authorities make no attempt to attract tourists, especially where paintings lie near private homes or hazardous cliffs. Taskinen herself prefers to visit the paintings’ scenic settings alone, and let her mind wander. Visitors are urged not to touch the paintings, to ensure that art-lovers from future generations will also be able to enjoy these unique works from long ago.” ref

“People during every era leave their own marks on the landscape, which are gradually buried under the marks left by subsequent generations,” he explains. “Seeing these paintings somehow creates a personal connection between ancient people and our modern lives. I think the people who made them can’t have been so different from us. Their paintings are not just about hunting, but can also tell us something more about their lives and their beliefs.” ref

Värikallio Rock art, Finland’s Horned Shaman and Pre-Horned-God 4,500 years old?

“Hossa is a village in Finland, located in the province of Oulu and part of the Suomussalmi municipality. The village is a popular outdoor tourist destination and is known for the oldest rock paintings in Northern Finland, dating back to 1500-2500 BCE or 3,520-4,520 years ago (Värikallio). The name “Hossa” originates from the old Sami word Huossa meaning “a place far away”.” ref 

“The Horned figure rock art is from Värikallio rock art – Kainuu. Oldest rock paintings in Hossa, Northern Finland, drawn sometimes around 3,500 – 4,500 years ago. Among other shows also humans with triangular heads.” ref

“Hossa is a village in Finland, located in the province of Oulu and part of the Suomussalmi municipality. The village is a popular outdoor tourist destination and is known for the oldest rock paintings in Northern Finland, dating back to 1500-2500 BC (Värikallio). The name “Hossa” originates from the old Sami word Huossa meaning “a place far away.” ref

“The Värikallio rock paintings are on a cliff near the eastern end of Lake Somerjärvi in the Hossa Hiking Area. It is one of the two northernmost sites of rock art in Finland, as well as one of the largest collections with over 60 figures discerned. The human images at Värikallio are notable for exhibiting triangular heads (seen at only two other sites), and for a human figure with horns. As at other sites, the most numerous images are of animals, including one that may be the only bear depicted in Finnish rock art. Hand print and paw print pictographs are also represented. Another unusual aspect of the Värikallio paintings is the lack of boat images, which are common at other Finnish sites.” ref

“Finnish rock art pictographs created during the Stone Age have been found at 127 sites around Finland. They consist mainly of brownish-red figures and markings painted onto steep granite walls, often overlooking waterways. There are scenes featuring people, boats, elk, fish, and mysterious part-human figures. The survival of the art in adverse climatic conditions is due to their protection by a naturally forming thin layer of silicon dioxide on the rock surface.” ref

“The Comb Ceramic Culture who lived in what is now Finland between 7,000-4,000 years ago is credited with their production. The paints used included a mix of iron oxide, blood, and animal fat or egg, although traces of the organic materials are no longer detectable. Characteristic to the art are sacrificial parts (arrow points, bones, signs of fire, etc.) and the location on steep cliffs at water’s edge. Similar sites can be found in parts of Northern Sweden, Norway and Russia – mainly, it seems, in areas once populated by the Saami or other Finno-Ugric peoples.” ref

Prehistoric pictographs of Finland: Symbolism and territoriality

“Transformation of landscape with symbolic art does not only mark a space as sacred. Such demarcations also serve as symbols of other social functions, such as the delineation of territories and the exchange of information. As enduring monuments to the past, they symbolize a territory of time; as part of a cultural landscape, they symbolize a territory of space. A distributional study of evidence of symbolic territoriality in the landscapes of three rock art sites from the Neolithic – Early Metal periods in Finland, this work utilizes GIS spatial analysis to locate prehistoric dwelling sites and sacred sites (red ochre burials, cairn burials, cremation burials, and cup-stones) within 5 and 10 km catchment zones of the pictographs sites. The results are interpreted with explanatory models from Information Exchange Theory and territorial analysis.” ref 

Pic ref 

HORNED ANTHROPOMORPHIC FIGURES IN FINNISH ROCK-PAINTINGS: SHAMANS OR SOMETHING ELSE?

“It has been generally accepted that the homed anthropomorphic figures in our rock-paint­ ings represent shamans. I doubt the validity of this interpretation and start by emphasiz­ ing the methodical advice that the local folk tradition must take priority when drawing conclusions. Furthermore, there is no evidence of such Lapp or Finnish shamans who would have used horns in shamanizing like their Siberian colleagues. Neither do the fig­ ures of shamans on the Saami drums give any undisputable proof of it. On the contrary, the emblem and the by-name of the supreme god depicted on the magic drums indicate a god who may have originally been a reindeer. This corresponds also with the statements made by Arvid Genetz, according to which “Mintis” is a god and the word “mientus” is of Saami derivation and means a wild reindeer. In the Kola Peninsula there are legends, beliefs, and rituals which are distinctly totemistic. All these factors together make me abandon the interpretations based on Siberian shamanism.” ref

Pic ref 

How did CHG get into Steppe_EMBA ? Part 2 : The Pottery Neolithic 

“Turns the focus towards the Neolithic that in Russian archeologic tradition is defined by the presence of pottery rather than agricultural / pastoralist activities –  a fascinating issue anyway, since the European Russian Neolithic is commonly (e.g. Gronenborn 2008) assumed to have supplied the earliest European pottery, slightly predating EEF (Sesklo, Argissa) [Of course, ceramic figurines were already present in Dolni Vestonice and various other UP sites, but they were about people, not pots (containers)]. Equally fascinating is that more-or-less contemporarily not just one, but three, maybe even four fairly different ceramic cultures appeared in European Russia. This post will try to explore the possible origins of each of these cultures, and the extent to which they may have participated in the emergence of the Steppe_EMBA genetics.” ref

Combed Ceramics

“The latest, but nevertheless quite early of the entrants is so-called Combed Ceramics. I personally find the name somewhat misleading, as combing the outer surface of pottery with twigs, feathers, moss, or similar material in order to remove excess clay has been practiced by many potters also outside of what is known as “combed ware”, e.g. by the Sioni Culture. Alternative terms found in some papers are “netted” or “pseudo-corded” ware. Main stylistic characteristic is all-over ornamentation in narrowly-placed, horizontal patterns that are either incised or imprinted, apparently emulating containers made of plant material (basketry, or woven/ knitted textiles).” ref

“This pottery appears around 5800 BCE in the forest zone between the Middle Ural in the East to near Moscow in the West. Karmanov e.a. 2014 suggest a W. Siberian, influence, as there are parallels with Middle Urals sites such as Koksharovsky, and eventually Barsova Gora on the Middle Ob (c.f. Shorin 2017) that have been AMS-dated to ca. 6400 BCE (Kuzmin 2014). The style is quite frequent across all of North-East Asia, including Early Jomon and 14000 BCE Lower Amur pottery, where it may actually have originated. Trans-Baikal sites such as Krasnaya Gorka (pottery dated to 11000 BCE) may have served as a bridge towards West Siberia and ultimately NE Europe. However, there remain various gaps to fill before such a path can be considered as archeologically confirmed.” ref

The Lower Volga Neolithic

“Lower Volga pottery appeared even earlier. From ca. 6500 BCE it is found on the eastern bank of the Upper Volga in the Kairshak Culture, to by ca. 6000 BCE also covers the western bank (Jangar Culture), and around 5800 BCE spread northwards towards Volgograd and beyond (Orlovka culture). It is characterized by triangular and diagonal impressions/ incisions, sometimes alluded to as  “steppe decoration”. This label isn’t completely unjustified, considering that such patterns were also typical for Potapovka, Andronovo, or Sintashta. However, a similar decoration, albeit painted instead of impressed/ incised, was common in LN Iran and North Mesopotamia, and the closest parallel to the Lower Volga is provided by Early Kelteminar incised pottery, so one might equally label it as “Circum-Caspian style”. [Considering that Catalhöyük Painted Ware, Archaic Fikirtepe in NW Anatolia, and Neolithic Palestine (Jericho etc.) used similar patterns, even “Circum-Caspian” may only imperfectly address the true geographic extent.]” ref

“Triangular and diagonal incisions are quite typical of Mesolithic carving, e.g. the 9500 BCE Shigir Idol from the Central Urals, or pre-9th millennium BCE pebble engravings from Gobustan, AZ; Neolithic engravings in this style are a/o documented from the middle Dniepr, and the Anta do Olival da Pega dolmen (Évora, Portugal). Hence, the decoration style may well have been transferred from organic vessels (wood, Calabash) onto early pottery more than once.” ref

As per Vybornov 2016:

“Kairshak early Neolithic types of site, commonly found in the northern Caspian area [..] existed from 6690 BC to 5980 BCE. At that time, blades and blade tools predominated in the stone industry. Geometric microliths – rhomboid and circular segments with a retouched convex edge – are well represented. These artefacts are typical of the local Mesolithic industry (Vybornov et al. 2015). These testify to the local origin of pottery in this region. [..]
The climatic factors which influenced the transition from one period to another present a complicated
picture (Budja 2007). Extensive aridisation is thought to have occurred between 6400 and 6300 BCE in the
southern part of the Low Volga basin (Bolikhovskaja 1990). This is also verified, according to the 14C dates, by the absence of inhabited settlements at this time. Thus, the beginning of Neolithisation and pottery making in the Lower Volga basin could not have been connected to natural factors. The situation changed after the aridisation ended (6200 BCE). [..] Settlements became long-term; living conditions and the economic system changed, and so a great number of household objects, dwellings, artefacts and faunal and fish remains from that time can be found (Grechkina et al. 2014). We can suppose that the initial inhabitants of Kairshak-type sites in this region were more nomadic than the inhabitants of subsequent periods. With the exception of dogs (Vybornov et al. 2015), the faunal remains [..]  were all wild species.” ref

“Hmm – the local origin of pottery… Mesolithic continuity is in general not a particularly convincing argument, as we all know from pre-aDNA debates about the Neolithisation of Europe. Moreover, the Lower Volga area was flooded during the post-LGM Khvalynian transgression, and only re-colonized some time after the Younger Dryas had lowered the Caspian Sea Level (Mangyshlak Regression).  The Caspian Sea’s salinity isn’t particularly high (1.2%, one-third of ocean salinity). Still, it should have taken more than just a couple of years before the freshly exposed Lower Volga region turned from a salt pan into a reasonably attractive habitat for ungulates and their hunters, especially as dried-up inland water bodies inevitably mean arid micro-climate.” ref

“As such, it is out of the question that the Lower Volga was colonized during the early Holocene. The only questions are when, and by whom. As concerns the latter,  Szymczak 2002 points out that the Lower Volga tools “are different in their character from the assemblages of Crimea and Black Sea regions, as well as from the southern Urals ones“, which essentially leaves us with the Daghestani Chokh culture from the SW, and the (so far poorly evidenced) Western Central Asian Mesolithic from the SE.  For the question at hand here, the issue is ultimately irrelevant as those Mesolithic HGs should anyway have been small in numbers.” ref

“Relevant, however, is who was behind the apparent re-colonization and demographic expansion after 6,200 BC (the 8.2 ky event). The cultural sequence of Kairshak – Jangar – Orlovka proceeded from SE to NW, which points towards a south-eastern origin of the colonists. Pottery indicates connections to Kelteminar that, however, is unlikely to be the direct origin of the migrants. Late 7th/ early 6th millennium BCE early Kelteminar already possessed domesticated animals (cattle, ovocaprids, possibly camels, see Szymczak e.a. 2006), but these domesticates didn’t make it to the Lower Volga.” ref

‘Moreover, early Kelteminar was located in Zerafshan (around Samarkand) and Central Uzbekistan, quite afar from the Volga. A more likely and proximate source is the Neolithic of the Ustjurt Plateau (between the Caspian and Aral Seas), archeologically poorly described and so far lacking AMS dating, but according to Brunet 2005 sharing various commonalities with Kelteminar, partly going back to  Epi-Paleolithic/ Mesolithic traditions that relate to the SW Siberian Yangielsk culture (see Part 1 for details). Connections between the Lower Volga and Central Asia are also discussed in Wechler 2001 (as summarised by A. Sumzun), and briefly mentioned by Mazurkevich / Dolbunova 2015. A final hint is provided by the colonists’ architecture: They used mudbricks, typical for SW and Central Asia and a.o. evidenced for Kel’teminar, but alien to Mesolithic Europe that, if building semi-permanent structures at all, used wattle-and-daub or thatched wooden constructions.” ref

“In summary, the Lower Volga Neolithic appears to be the north-western outpost of an East Caspian communication sphere, with which it shares lithic, pottery, and building traditions. In the absence of any Neolithic aDNA from the region in question, we may only speculate what that means genetically. However, as discussed in Part 1, the Central Asian lowlands already in the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic were a communication zone between W. Siberia and the S. Caspian, transferring ANE admix towards Iran_Hotu, and small but measurable CHG admix into Sidelkino, and they may well have continued to do so during the (pottery) Neolithic.” ref

Rakushechny Yar on the Lower Don

‘Rakushechny Yar has been puzzling many archeologists. The site lies on an island in the lower Don, some 100 km from the Sea of Azov, in-between the mouths of the Manych river providing connection to the NW Caspian Sea via the Kuma-Manych Depression, and the Donets river connecting into East Ukraine. It is an island in more than just geographical sense – amidst an apparently “mosaic” cultural set-up (Tsybrij e.a. 2017), Rakushechny Yar has provided very early pottery, AMS-dated to around 7.000 BCE, while nearby sites, including Razdorskaya II on the opposite north bank of the Don,  have staid aceramic until the first half of the 6th millennium BCE.” ref

“There is good reason to question the dating of Rakushechny Yar pottery – the Kiev laboratory responsible is known to regularly come out with earlier dates than other labs (e.g.  Poznan), and a plateau in the calibration curve doesn’t allow for much distinction within the period of 7,000 – 6,500 BCE. Most importantly, AMS dates derived from shells, shell-tempered pottery, or pottery food crusts stemming from aquatic food may be significantly influenced by aquatic reservoir effects. Such effects have recently been demonstrated for Erteboelle and Narva pottery, in both cases leading to revising the respective dating downwards by around 500 years.” ref 

“Rakushechny Yar is characterized by shell middens and substantial heaps of fish bones, strongly suggesting similar effects may be at work here as well. Analysis of pottery Neolithic sites in the Donets basin yielded “that mollusk samples are affected by a freshwater reservoir effect, resulting in an offset of the actual date, when compared to terrestrial samples of animal bone or charcoal, of up to 3000 yr. These results call into question all the existing 14C dating results from eastern Ukraine” (Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute 2015). As such, the AMS dates reported by Tsybrij e.a. 2017 for soil (pollen) samples from the lowest Rakushechny Yar layers, which range around 6200 BCE, are probably more representative of the actual emergence of pottery there. Still, such dates are very early for Europe as a whole, and predate the appearance of pottery on other sites surrounding the Sea of Azov by several centuries.” ref

“Mazurkevich / Dolbunova 2015 characterizes Rakushechny Yar pottery as follows: “Most of this pottery is undecorated, and decorated vessels comprise only 9% of the assemblage (..). Vessels covered with red and yellow ochre on the outer and/or inner surfaces are also present at the site. (..) The analyses (..) made in the State Hermitage Museum by L. Gavrilenko (..) lead us to believe that more than 10% of the whole ceramic assemblage was covered with red and/or yellow ochre (..). The decoration is very simple, consisting of horizontal and parallel lines of impressions (..) usually covering only the upper part of the vessel.” ref 

“They set forth: “The great variety of raw materials and clay pastes used for pottery shows the ability of potters to adapt to different types of materials which were available at different periods, which might be an indicator of developed skills and experience in pottery making (Mazurkevich et al. 2013). (..)  The range of similar technological operations typical of vessels of the lowest layers (e.g. surface smoothing and vessel treatment with a comb-like tool, modeling of symmetrical flat rims, predominance of the coil technique with N-junction, use of well-kneaded clay, and additional pieces of clay for modeling, typical vessel forms) allow us to characterize this pottery assemblage as one made according to established cultural standards.” IOW: This was obviously not some home-grown practice that emerged from observing how wattle-and-daub or mudbricks reacted to fire – these potters absolutely represented the late 7th millennium BCE state of the art.” ref

Elshan pottery from the Samara region

“(Y)Elshan(skaya) pottery from the Samara area, especially the Sok river valley, has equally delivered very old AMS datings, up to 7000 BCE.  However, isotope analysis (Schulting/ Richards 2016) indicates a prevalence of aquatic food, so concerns about possible reservoir effects apply here as well. Consequently,  Vybornov e.a. 2017 date its onset to ca. 6500 BCE, whereby most of the credible AMS datings center around 6200 BCE.” ref

“Elshan ware displays many similarities to Rakushnechy Yar.  It is also sparsely decorated, decorations typically restrict to knobbed and/or pitted rims. As concerns technology,  Mazurkevich / Dolbunova 2015 state: “Some types of Elshanskaya culture are similar to pottery from Rakushechny Yar (form 2), made with the ‘S’ technique with an admixture of grog (only in this case, crushed pottery was used). Also, the straight walls and roundish or pointed rims of the earliest stage of Elshanskaya culture are similar to forms 1 and 5 from Rakushechny Yar (Pl. 1).”  Against this background, Kulkova e.a. 2015 regard Elshan as “secondary center” that developed under Rakushechny Yar influence.” ref

“OTOH, there are important differences: While Rakushechny Yar pottery was flat-based, Elshan ware had conical bases “although it might be supposed that flat bases would have been among the most ancient types” (Mazurkevich / Dolbunova 2015). Most importantly, early Elshan ware included thin-walled pottery (3-4 mm thickness) unknown from Rakushechny Yar. As such, in addition to possible cultural relations between the Lower Don and the Samara area that are so far hardly explored archeologically, another stream into Elshan culture needs to be envisaged.” ref

Possible origins of Rakushechny Yar and Elshan cultures

“There is an abundance of theories on the origin of the (pottery) Neolithisation of South Russia and Ukraine. Some of them, e.g. descent from Cardium / Impresso pottery and as such ultimately EEF Mediterranean “island-hopping” as proposed by Gaskevych 2011, can easily be discarded based on aDNA (see below). When mussels anyway make up for a good part of your diet, as evidenced by the manifold shell middens at Rakushechny Yar and other Pontic/ Caspian sites, it shouldn’t require inspiration from outside to use them for stamping pottery. Moreover, assigning value to shells (shell imprints) isn’t specific to the Mediterranean, but well known around the world, and might actually go back to the Middle Paleolithic (OOA). Intriguing in this context, however, is that the Lagoon Cockle (Cerastoderma glaucum) that most likely accounts for a good part of the a/m shell middens and imprints appear to be a human introduction from the Sea of Azov into the Caspian Sea around 6,000 BCE (Krijgsman e.a. 2018). Unless one wants to propose Early Neolithic aquaculture, the most likely explanation is boat portage across the Pontic-Caspian watershed via the Kuma-Manych depression.” ref

“At NW Anatolia, pottery making could have arrived just in time to account for Rakushechny Yar – Barcin and Mentese have both yielded AMS dates around or slightly before 6200 BCE (Seeher 2009).  However, the associated Fikirtepe pottery, characterized by triangular incisions, is a poor match that rather aligns with “Steppe” or “circum-Caspian” decoration as a/o known from the Lower Volga than with Rakushechny Yar. aDNA (see below) also speaks against intensive contact between NW Anatolia and the S. Pontic/ Sea of Azov.” ref

“Far more substantial is the claim brought forward by Gorelik e.a. 2014: “In the PPNB period, across the Caucasian shore of the Black and Azov seas, possibly also by sea, there were connections established between Zagros and Lower Don regions. The penetration of the new reproducing economy, possibly, together with its bearers, took part between 8500—7000 BCE. (..) Together with ceramics, we suppose the provenience of domesticated animals (cattle, swine, sheep/goat) from the territory of Zagros and adjacent regions of Iran.” ref 

“The existence of close contacts between the population of Neolithic sites in Lower Don region and some areas from the Fertile Crescent are confirmed by analogies for such inventory, as clay balls, adzes/axes of soſt stone, specific “polishers”, medallions, bone pendants with snake ornamentation, stone vessels, and geometrical microlites.” The paper is worth a look even for those not understanding Russian for its many distribution maps such as the one replicated here that deals with polished adzes/ axes. A recurrent theme is the connection of the Lower Don to Shanidar and Jarmo in Iraqi Kurdistan.” ref

“However, as the same authors discuss in a later publication (Gorelik e.a. 2016), the 7/6th millennium BCE inhabitants of the Lower Don (and also of Southern Ukraine) weren’t yet holding domestic animals other than dogs (with the possible exception of ovocaprids that still require further analysis). Moreover, the cultural influence from the Zagros appeared far earlier than Rakushechny Yar pottery, and also affected aceramic sites such as Mateev Kurgan. Ultimately, the whole idea of the pre-pottery Zagros Neolithic supplying pottery, but not agriculture to the North Pontic looks counter-intuitive. Essentially,  Gorelik e.a. 2014 seem to describe a valid pattern of Mesolithic cultural interaction that, however, cannot explain the emergence of North Pontic pottery in a satisfactory manner.” ref

“Shulaveri-Shomu pottery displays manifold parallels to Rakushechny Yar: Use of organic temper, essentially undecorated, but the regular presence of plastique decoration such as knobs on/ near the outer rim (around 1/3 at Arukhlo acc. to Chataigner e.a. 2014), and also an occasional painting with ochre. However, so far, Shulaveri-Shomu has only supplied AMS dates from 6,000 BCE onwards, i.e. several centuries later than credible dates from Rakushechny Yar. Chokh in Dagestan, a possible Shulaveri-Shomu outpost, hasn’t yet been AMS-dated, but for the ceramic phase palynologic analysis points towards a damp climate that only evolved around 6,000 BCE. Moreover, Chokh was fully Neolithic, including wheat and barley agriculture and animal husbandry, and is in this respect a poor match for Rakushechny Yar. Last but not least, Kamiltepe in Lower Karabagh has produced some pottery with knobbed rims (D’Anna in Lyonnet e.a. 2012), but that site equally only dates to the early 6th millennium BCE, and its black-on-white painted triangular decorations are otherwise more reminiscent of Haji Firuz and Hassuna.” ref

“Available pollen analyses point to a significant climatic deterioration in Caucasia during the 8.2 kya event. The quite dense Mesolithic archeological record of the (North) Caucasus thins out massively during the Neolithic, and a hiatus, most likely climate-induced, is apparent at many sites: From Gubs Cave, e.g., one of the most important Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites, no Neolithic finds are known; occupation apparently only recommenced during the Chalcolithic (Leonova 2014). In Darkveti (W. Georgia, next to Dzudzuana), the late Mesolithic layer 5 is separated by one meter of sterile soil from the yet undated Neolithic layer 4 (Rostunov e.a. 2009). There also appears to be a hiatus between the Mesolithic and Neolithic layers of Chokh, Dagestan.” ref

“Quite instructive in this respect is Tsmi in N. Ossetia as described in Rostunov e.a. 2009 (in German). The site lies at the junction of two of the main connections through the Central Caucasus, namely the Ossetian Military Road to the Upper Rioni, the only connection into Colchis east of Abkhazia, and the Transcaucasian Highway that connects North and South Ossetia via the Roki pass/ tunnel. For its strategic location, Tsmi can provide us with a good idea of what was passing through the Central Caucasus, and what not.” ref

“The lowest level at Tsmi, AMS-dated to around 6.4 kya, has yielded Mesolithic artifacts such as large trapezoids with manifold Caucasian parallels, especially from the Terek basin. Separated by 55 cm of sterile soil, two Neolithic levels, both AMS-dated to around 5.9-5.7 ky BC, followed, which displayed a quite different lithic inventory with a prevalence of microblades. Chalcolithic level 4, AMS-dated to ca. 3,6 ky BC, contained typical Kura-Araxes pottery (note, btw.,  the dating as one more indication of Kura-Araxes possibly having emerged earlier than commonly assumed).” ref

“In Neolithic level 3,  sherds of a pot, thick-walled and undecorated except for a knobbed rim, were found. While the decoration is reminiscent of Shulaveri-Shomu, according to the excavators Tsmi pottery is technologically quite different and might rather be related to the Neolithic layer of Chokh, Daghestan. Analogies to Rakushechny Yar are alluded to in a footnote but unfortunately not explored further. Nevertheless, the hiatus between the late Mesolithic and the Neolithic layers that falls into the late 7th millennium BCE speaks against Rakushechny Yar originating from a migration through the Central Caucasus.” ref

“In Colchis, pottery seems to have appeared comparatively late, and then only in a narrow strip along the Black Sea Coast. The Anaseuli-1 site, AMS-dated to 5,746 – 5,595 cal BCE, e.g., was still aceramic. Late Neolithic Colchian pottery is described as “undifferentiated red-baked jars with a button base [that] could be decorated with incised geometric ornaments and grooves on the rim” that bears “typological parallels of the pottery assemblages with the Early Chalcolithic of eastern Georgia (Sioni culture)”.(Chataigner e.a. 2014). Typical of the latter are “incisions and circular or comb impression decorations always applied on the rims” (Palumbi 2015), and such decoration pattern is set forth in Chalcolithic/ EBA Shengavit, commonly considered as Kura-Araxes type site.” ref

“In conclusion, Rakushechny Yar pottery might be considered as “typical Caucasian”, wasn’t it for the facts that it chronologically precedes Caucasian pottery, and the Caucasian uplands were apparently deserted during the period in question, i.e. the 8.2 ky event, and as such don’t qualify as a migration route.” ref

“As concerns Elshan, Vybornov e.a. 2017 propose the south-eastern Caspian coast, including the Dzhebel (Djebel) cave, as the origin. Djebel belongs to the same EP to Neolithic SE Caspian ensemble as Hotu and Kamarband (Belt) Caves. I was unable to figure out any details about Dzhebel pottery – the site is generally poorly described, sources listed are usually from the Soviet period and in Russian. However, Hotu and Belt Cave “soft ware”, generally thick-walled, lightly-fired and undecorated (except for one piece with incised decoration around the rim), seems to bear some similarity to Elshan pottery and comes from layers that have delivered late 8th/ early 7th millieum BCE C14-dates (Gregg/ Thornton 2012) – a long enough pottery-making tradition to possibly generate the extent of mastership seen in Rakushechny Yar and Elshan.” ref

“Moreover, nearby Sang-e-Chakhmag on the southern foothills of the Alborz Mts. has supplied similar “soft ware”, this time painted with red ochre, from a layer AMS-dated to the early 7th millineum BCE. From ca. 6300 BCE onwards, Sang-e-Chakhmag produced thin-walled pottery that is generally believed to have been the prototype of equally thin-walled Jeitun ware from the Kopet Dag foothills in South Turkmenistan (A. Tsuneki 2014).” ref

“As such, the SE Caspian fulfills the necessary prerequisites to qualify as a potential source of Rakushnechy Yar and Elshan ware: Long-enough pottery tradition to acquire mastership, and presence of all of undecorated, red ochre-painted,  rim-decorated, and thin-walled wares before ca. 6.2 ky BC. Surely, that is no proof that Rakushechny Yar / Elshan actually originated there, and a detailed comparison yet to be undertaken by someone may well uncover various incompatibilities. However, unless one wants to turn to the Chinese Peiligang culture (a rather unlikely candidate IMO for various reasons), options really get scarce…” ref

“Well, there is a final one, namely Gobustan some 30 km SW of Baku, an UNESCO World Heritage Site for its petroglyphs that partly date back to the Epi-Paleolithic. “The rockshelters of Kyaniza and Firuz have produced two layers of homogenous lithic material, (…) the upper level containing vessels with pointed bases evoking the Neolithic of the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea (Formozov, 1966; Rustamov and Muradova, 1972, 1978)” (Chataigner e.a. 2014).” ref

“Fortunately, some post-Soviet, non-Russian language publications about Gobustan start to come in: Farajova 2017 reports about the Firuz rockshelter: “Numerous female figures, images of hunters, animals, and boats are fixed. (..). Besides these, images of animals (aurochs, wild boars, onagers, gazelles, bezoar goats) were depicted on stone №19 (..) found in the Neolithic layer. (..) AMS dating of the cultural layers of the “Firuz 2” site allowed to understand the variability in the form and meaning of the petroglyphs of various periods. (..)  The last AMS dating provided the result: 7,850 years ago, which led to suppose that Gobustan was the earliest center in which navigation emerged in the Caucasian region.” ref

“Neolithic” here, in a context of depicting hunters, aurochs, gazelles, etc., obviously means pottery. If the cited AMS dating of 7,850 years ago is to be understood as uncalibrated, CalPal converts it into ca. 6,700 cal BCE. Appropriate time, appropriate cultural context (pottery-using HGs), and a pottery tradition apparently connected to the E. Caspian, i.e the area that Russian authors propose as Elshan origin – this sounds promising. Even more so as seaworthy boats would have enabled access to the Lower Don, via the Kuma-Manych depression/ rivers, and to the Middle Volga. Of course, I would still like to see some depictions, ideally also technological analyses of Gobustan pottery (and believe me, I searched for it, for no avail), but for the time being, I deem Gobustan as the most likely origin of Rakushechny Yar and Elshan.” ref

Expansion, Contact, and Admixture

“Interestingly, while “West Siberian” Combed Ceramics seems to have expanded quickly across most of the forest zone between the Urals and Moscow, all of Lower Volga, Rakushechny Yar, and Elshan ceramics initially remained restricted to relatively small core areas. For Kairshak ceramics from the eastern Lower Volga, it took around 500 years to also appear on the western bank of the Volga, and another 200 years to make it to the Volgograd area (Vybornov e.a. 2017). A similar time scale was required by Elshan pottery to expand from the Sok river further upwards the Volga towards the Oka basin (ibid.).” ref 

“For the Donets Neolithic (Starobelsk, Novoselovka), technologically and stylistically related to Rakushechny Yar and located less than 300 km north, AMS dates on sources that are unsuspicious of conveying reservoir effects (animal bones, charcoal) point to an onset during the 5800 BCE  (Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute 2015), i.e. several centuries after credible Rakushechny Yar datings. This seems to indicate the “foreign” character of these early pottery makers – it obviously took surrounding Mesolithic populations quite some time to accept pottery and the changes in lifestyle associated with it.” ref

“This doesn’t mean early potters were immobile – quite to the opposite. Kairshak-type triangular decorations make occasional appearances already in lower Rakushechny Yar layers and in Middle Elshan, while the Algay site on the Lower Volga has delivered one sherd with grooved rim decoration, so both ceramic spheres seem to have been in contact. Intriguing is the case of the Serteya culture in the Dnepr-Dvina-Lovat region around Vitebsk and Smolensk at the watershed between the Black and Baltic Seas. Its pottery has delivered AMS-dates as early as 7,500 BC that most likely require substantial downward correction for reservoir effects but should still fall into the second half of the 7th mBC, i.e. precede Balkans pottery. The region may be considered a major ceramical province, having supplied some 130 early Neolithic vessels from 22 sites.” ref 

“Typologically, it is divided into three phases, “a-1”, “a” and “b”: “Phase ‘a-1’ seems to be the oldest in this region, given the typological-technological analysis and 14C dates, and could have originated in the pottery of the Rakushechny Yar site. (..) The pottery of phase ‘a’ is similar to the early Neolithic pottery of the Northern Caspian region (..) The traditions with triangular impressions first found in materials of phase ‘a’ continued into phase ‘b’. It was probably during this time that the influence of this decoration of steppe cultures first spread in different directions along the basins of the Middle Volga, Middle Don, Upper Volga, Sursko-Moksha basin, Desna, Upper Dvina, Upper Dnepr, and Valdai valley” (Mazurkevich / Dolbunova 2015). Of course, the story doesn’t end here:  Phase “b” witnesses the arrival of comb-incised decorations in dense horizontal rows as typical of West Siberian and East European forest-zone pottery, and Mazurkevich / Dolbunova 2015 (Plate 5) see that amalgamation of “steppe” and “combed” decorations set forth in the chronologically later Bug-Dniestr culture.” ref

“Another long-distance expansion may be indicated by the appearance of Rakushechny Yar-like pottery at Onega Lake (Mazurkevich / Dolbunova 2015 Plate 6, w/o further discussion except for assigning it to the late 7th-6th millennium BCE). Early Upper Volga pottery, undecorated or just carrying notched/ grooved rims, and AMS-dated to ca. 6,000 BCE (Hartz e.a. 2012)  seems to better align with Rakushechny Yar/ Elshan than “combed” traditions, and precedes attestations of the latter. Kulkova e.a. 2015 e.a. furthermore assign Valdai pottery (Dvina-Volga watershed) and the Berezovaya Slobodka site in the upper Northern Dvina basin east of Belozero, both dating to around 6,000 BCE, to this tradition.” ref

“What seems to shine up here for the first time is the river-based East European trade network that is well known from Medieval Varangians (Kiev Rus) as described a/o in Carlsson/ Selin 2012. The quasi-simultaneous appearance of geographically disjunct but nevertheless closely related pottery traditions is strongly suggestive of a spread by boats, availability of which is attested by the Gobustans petroglyphs. “Southern” trade commodities seem to have included obsidian – Mt. Elbrus obsidian has a/o been found in early 6th milineum BCE contexts on the Lower Volga (Rostunov e.a. 2009); the late 6th mBC Azov-Dniepr Culture has supplied four specimens of Armenian obsidian blades (Biagi e.a. 2014) as typical of Shulaveri-Shomu. No “Northern” commodities are archeologically attested, but one may speculate about fur, beeswax, maybe also amber.” ref

“Expectably, the next step on the route was the Narva Culture (from ca. 5,100 BCE) on the SE Baltic Sea.  Interestingly, Narva pottery displays quite a geographic differentiation, with NE Narva (N. Estonia) more alluding to Combed Ceramics, W. Narva (W. Latvia/ Estonian Isles) aligning with Elshan/ Rakushechny Yar, and the zone in between reflecting both influences plus some triangular, Lower Volga-like decorations (Kriiska e.a. 2017). The (West) Narva origin of Erteboelle pottery has been supposed for long. Gronenborn 2003 extended the connection even further to the south-west, to the HG Melsele Group in Belgian Flanders (ca. 5,000 BCE) and some “atypical” pottery found in Alsatian LBK graves. Against this background, the occurrence of Elshan-typical pitted rims in Bischheim (SW German MN), Michelsberg, and Michelsberg/ Erteboelle-influenced cultures such as TRB-N, Baalberge and Wartberg is at a second look not as surprising as it might seem initially.” ref

“[Intriguing, however, is that Wartberg, in addition to pitted rims, also has knobbed rim pottery otherwise best known from Shulaveri-Shomu]. The prevalence of such patterns also in the Bavarian MN/LN (Altheim, Cham, etc.) is still somewhat puzzling to me. Maybe we are dealing here with another, yet unrecognized EN expansion out of the SE Balticum. The relatively sudden appearance of pile-dwellings in SW Germany during the 4th millinium BCE is so far unexplained. Origins are commonly sought for on the French/ W. Italian Mediterranean coast, but the Dniepr-Dvina interfluve has also early evidence of pile-dwellings.” ref

“Just for fun, I have also screened the “Göttinger Typentafeln” (Raetzel-Fabian 2002), a comprehensive catalog of Neolithic pottery from Germany, for the occurrence of “Steppe decoration“, i.e. triangular incisions in Lower Volga/ Kelteminar (plus Sintashta/ Andronovo) tradition.  There is certainly no lack of such decoration, starting already with Youngest LBK, becoming predominant in SBK (Stroke-ornamented pottery) and Rössen, to be set a/o forth into Bernburg, GAC, and Corded Ware. Some Russian authors (I, unfortunately, forgot to bookmark them) have used these parallels to postulate a pre-EEF migration from the Lower Volga into W. Ukraine and ultimately Bohemia (with further spread, via SBK, into Germany and beyond).  I personally feel that a lot of caution is advisable in this respect – “Steppe decoration” was a/o also present at Fikirtepe (Barcin), Pottery Neolithic Jericho, and Haji Firuz. It may well have been transferred at various points in time and space from Upper Paleolithic/ Mesolithic stone/ wood carving onto ceramics.” ref

Ukranian Neolithic aDNA

“We don’t have any aDNA yet from the Lower Don and the Lower Volga, as entrance points of pottery, and with it possibly some CHG ancestry. However, we may infere a bit from comparisons of Ukrainian Mesolithic and Neolithic aDNA. [In this context, I thank Alberto for having run various models based on G25 data, the most informative of which are displayed below.]” ref

“There are some caveats in this respect: As described in Part 1, Southern Ukraine is likely to have experienced CHG inflow from Colchis during the Final Paleolithic (Kammenaya Balka) and the Mesolithic (Kukrek-Imereti Culture). Moreover, 9-8th millennium BCE cultural connections to the N. Zagros as described by Gorelik e.a. 2014 (see above) might have brought in more easterly CHG ancestry.” ref 

Therefore, a Mesolithic baseline is in order.  It shows the following:

1. “CHG was, in varying shares up to 6.6%, already present during the Mesolithic.
2. Mesolithic Ukraine had quite some substructure, notably co-existence of a more westerly strain pre-dominated by IronGates_HG plus some 5% Barcin (to be interpreted as approximating pre-Neolithic NW Anatolian HGs), best represented by UA_Mes:I1734 (yDNA R1b1a2), and a more easterly strain with strong AG3 component. Intriguingly, all samples except for UA_Mes:I5876 stem from the same location, Vasilevka in the Dniepr rapids region half-way between Dnipro and Zaporoshje, commonly associated to the Kukrek Culture.” ref
3. “Inclusion of Sidelkino as a source significantly improves the fit, at the same time doing away with some of the CHG and Barcin components, suggesting that Sidelkino is a reasonably good approximation of an early Holocene population that not only shaped the Samara area, but much of Eastern Europe. The same effects, i.e. significantly better fits, and disappearance of spurious CHG traces, also occurred when Sidelkino was introduced as a source into models for Baltic_HGs and SHG (not shown here).
4. Even with Sidelkino, which contains some 3% CHG of presumably East Caspian provenance (see Part 1), as a source, Ukrainian Mesolithic samples contain up to 4% extra CHG.” ref
5. “The samples are chronologically poorly resolved and may, in addition, require date corrections for reservoir effects. Still, the youngest of them, UA_Mes:I5876 that already falls close to the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, seems to indicate some westward shift, as well as a slight uptake in CHG. The latter might speculatively be connected to the  N. Zagros connection described by Gorelik e.a. 2014. OTOH, as UA_Mes:I5876 falls into the same date range as early Rakushechny Yar (uncorrected for reservoir effects), it also may already incorporate some genetic influence from there. As long as reservoir effects have not been systematically analyzed, we can’t be certain. For that reason, I have excluded I5876 from any further inclusion in modeling.” ref

“For the apparent substructure, I deemed it unwise to pool all Ukraine_Mesolithic samples, and asked instead Alberto to analyze each of them separately for their explanatory quality. Expectedly, “western” and Barcin-heavy I1734 fared poorly in this respect. The same applied to comparatively CHG-heavy I1733: Whether because of comprising the “wrong CHG”, i.e. from Colchis rather than further east, or being too CHG-loaded overall, it forced the models to drive up both IronGates_HG and Sidelkino in order to get the CHG profile right, resulting in very poor fits. The remaining two samples, I1763, and I1819, in spite of their apparent similarity, yielded very different results depending on the target, so I decided to have them both included in the model.” ref

“Apparently, there was quite some CHG influx during the Neolithic. Barcin and Levante_N only appear sporadically, signifying some contact but no decisive role of NW Anatolian and Balkans farmers in the spread of pottery. In interpreting the data, the “mosaic” nature of the cultures in question that becomes apparent from widely variating shares of EHG (Sidelkino) and Iron Gates HG needs to be considered. Clearly, at some point in time and space the diffusion of pottery disentangled from substantial demic change. While Narva pottery, e.g., reflects Rakushechny Yar traditions, early Narva samples still show genetic continuity with the preceding Mesolithic Kunda culture. However, note Jones e.a. 2017 reported that their Latvia_MN2 (6,199–5,770 years ago) sample ” is placed toward EHG in PCA space and has several components in ADMIXTURE analysis that are found in Native Americans, Siberians, and hunter-gatherer samples from the Caucasus.” ref

Against this background, let’s have a closer look at the individual Ukraine_Neolithic samples:

• “I1736, Vasiliveka 2 cemetery: The cemetary goes back to the Mesolithic Kukrek Culture, and hasn’t delivered any pottery, so technically it could still be regarded as Mesolithic. However, there is little genetic continuity with the Mesolithic, and around the sample’s date, the Neolithic Surska(ya) Culture emerges in the neighborhood. Nadezhda 2009 explains its genesis as follows: “At the beginning of this arid period, around 6300 calBCE, (..)  the Surskaya culture in the Middle Dnieper Region [appeared]. The migration of the Grebeniki population from the Azov Sea steppe area to the Dnieper valley, where the big river mitigated the dry conditions, resulted in their coexistence with local Kukrek inhabitants and the formation a new culture on the bases of their respective traditions. It was probably at that time that pottery with line and pit ornamentation [and] polished tools (..) were borrowed from the Rakushechny Yar culture. (..) It is possible that the Vasilievka 2 and Marievka cemeteries date to the first period of the Surskaya culture, too.” ref
  “With the sample falling into the initial contact phase, no major aDNA signal from Rakushechny Yar is yet to be expected. The Surska culture was involved in a long-distance exchange, as documented by a Cappadocian obsidian blade found in Semenovka 1 further south (Biagi e.a. 2014), which might explain the rather homeopathic Barcin and Ganj Dareh components of the sample.” ref
• “I1732/ I1738, Vovnigi 2 cemetery: The site lies just some 10km downstream from Vasilevka on the opposite (western) bank of the Dniepr. Its cultural assignment, or better, the overall cultural landscape of late 6th mBC SE Ukraine, is disputed: Some authors, e.g. Kotova, have proposed a separate Azov-Dniepr Culture “based on the common features of the burial rite (the latitudinal orientation of the deceased, the occurrence of burial pyre, the red ochre, and specific funerary inventories)” (Dolukhanov e.a. 2009 p.104, see there also for a more in-depth discussion of competing approaches) as part of a wider ‘Mariupol cultural entity’. Others, e.g. Telegin, consider it as part of the Dniepr-Donets culture characterized by “comb-and-stroke” decoration, i.e. synthesis of forest-zone horizontally, all-over ornamented “combed”, and Lower Volga triangular traditions as also present in the late phase of the Serteya Culture in the Dniepr-Dvina interfluve. The Jones e.a. 2017 Suppl. Materials follow the latter opinion. I don’t intend to take a position in this debate. Rather, I think it illustrates the long-range connectivity along the main waterways of the  East European plain that had emerged during the 6th mBC and blurred previously clear-cut cultural distinctions.” ref
  “Several sites, e.g. Semenovka 1 and Kammenaya Mogila 1, show settlement continuity between an earlier Surska and a subsequent Azov-Dniepr layer. As such, Vovigni may capture Surska substrate. This makes it impossible to assign its “fresh” 2-7% CHG to a specific source – it could reflect Rakushechny Yar influence on the Sursk Culture, but also a spread of Lower Volga triangular decorations into Eastern Ukraine (Dniepr-Donets Culture). There is even a third possibility: Lysa Gora, 2km NW of Vasilevka, has alongside Azov-Dniepr sherds yielded four obsidian blades from  Syunik in SE Armenia (Biagi e.a. 2014), a source otherwise so far only known to have supplied the Urmia Lake Basin, e.g. Chalcolithic (pre-Kura-Araxes) Pisdeli (Chataigner/ Gratuze 2013). Alberto has tested Haji Firuz as source, which wasn’t requested by any of the Ukranian Neolithic samples, so demic influence from the Urmia basin can be excluded, but an Armenian (Arashten-Shulaveri-Shomu) origin of the CHG admix could be considered. Otherwise, the samples show a decrease in WHG (IronGates) ancestry compared to preceding I1736, and for the younger I1732 also EHG (Sidelkino) admix, which in general corresponds to what might be expected under a “pottery from the (North-)East” scenario as archeologically suggested.” ref
• “I3715/I5870, Vilnyanka cemetery: Another site from the Dniepr Rapids area, some 20 km downstream of Vovigni. The cultural assignment is uncertain – Kotova 2010 lists it as belonging to the Surska Culture, but according to the Supp. Materials of Mathieson e.a. 2017, it was in use for a long time, i.e. (at least) also during the Azov-Dniepr stage. aDNA-wise, it closely resembles Vovigni: Around 5% fresh CHG, and some eastern influence, in this case resembling AG3, appearing in the younger sample some time after 5500 BCE.” ref
• “Dereivka (various samples): This site, long wrongly assumed to have provided the earliest evidence of horse domestication, lies some 150 km further upstream the Dniepr. While described as Mariupol cemetery in Mathieson e.a. 2017, Dolukhanov e.a. 2009 state: “Dereivka cemetery which generally belongs to the Kiev-Cherkassy culture, includes the burials, which belong both to the Dniepr-Donets (longitudinal orientation) and Azov-Dnieprian (latitudinal) rites. The burials of the later stage of the same cemetery contain skeletons in the supine position having the longitudinal orientation. The burial inventory includes then pottery belonging to the second stage of the Kiev-Cherkassyan culture.” As per the Mathieson e.a. 2017 Supp. Materials: “According to craniometric analysis, the Dereivka I population consists of two components, one of which was similar to previous hunter-gatherers of the same region while another is more closely related to individuals from the northern forest zone.” ref
  “Obviously a multi-cultural set-up (major trade location?), the diversity of which is reflected in the aDNA that splits into two groups – one (I3717, I3718) consisting of Ukraine_Mesolithic ancestry with strong WHG (Iron Gates) influence and a bit of CHG, the other one (I4114, I5875, I5890) showing EHG (Sidelkino) admixture of up to 16%. Overall lower CHG admixture may relate to a location outside the area of the Surskaya/ Azov-Dniepr cultures. Interesting are small but above noise level additional components in individual samples that geographically range from Levante_N and Barcin in the SW to Ganj Dareh, Sarazm, and W. Siberia in the SE.  The fact that CHG, WestSiberia_N and for I3717 also Sarazm seem to form a “package” suggests joint arrival/ origin, possibly from the Lower Volga and ultimately the Kazakh Steppe (Sarazm is the closest approximation in time, space, and material culture to Kelteminar for which aDNA is available).” ref

Koksharovsky Kholm and Chertova Gora, Two Neolithic Sanctuariesin the Urals and in Western Siberia: Similarities and Differences

“Two Neolithic sanctuaries are compared: Koksharovsky Kholm in the Middle Urals, and Chertova Gora in western Siberia. They were apparently established by related but separate populations represented by the Koshkino-Boborykinoand Kozlov-Poludenka decorative traditions (respectively), dating to the 7th–5th-millennium cal BCE. Sanctuaries were arranged on high salient promontories. At Koksharovsky Kholm, the ritual meaning of each place was accentuated by two ditches separating the sacred space from the dwelling area. Another attribute of these sanctuaries was variously sized and shaped structures made of wooden poles or slabs. At Koksharovsky Kholm, remains of much smaller (less than 1 × 1 m) structures resembling chests were found, and at Chertova Gora, birch-bark box-like containers. Stone tools from the two sites differ. Parallels include intact or broken clay vessels, rods with notches, flint arrowheads, etc. Some appear to have been made for ritual purposes, and some were broken intentionally. Offerings of artifacts were accompanied by sacrifices of wild animals, birds, and fishes. At Chertova Gora, an offering of hemp grains was found. Parallels with the Mansi, Khanty, and Udmurts may imply ideological continuity.” ref

“The objects that have received the name of “sacrificial hills” or “rich hillocks” stand out by their external appearance among the Neolithic sites of northern Eurasia. Ten such sites are known; all of them are located north of 58° N, in relatively confined areas of the Trans-Urals Peneplain and the Konda Lowland, both of which are adjacent to the eastern spurs of the Ural Mountains. The best-known of such hills are the theUst-Vagilsky, Makhtylsky, and Koksharovsky, as well as Chertova Gora, which have been interpreted as sanctuaries. The sites of Koksharovsky Kholm and Chernova Gora have been most fully excavated, and are described in publications (Shorin, 2007, 2010; Shorin, Shorina, 2011; Sladkova, 2007, 2008).” ref 

“The coinciding time when the sanctuaries functioned at a certain stage of the Neolithic was the second–third quarter of the 6th millennium BCE. The objects belonged to related groups of the population, which, however, were not identical in archaeological and cultural terms. This allows us not only to analyze each site on its own, but also to identify specific features of their cult-space by exploring their similarities and differences.” ref 

Pitted Ware Culture

“The Pitted Ware culture (c. 3500 – 2300 BCE) was a hunter-gatherer culture in southern Scandinavia, mainly along the coasts of Svealand, Götaland, Åland, north-eastern Denmark, and southern Norway. Despite its Mesolithic economy, it is by convention classed as Neolithic, since it falls within the period in which farming reached Scandinavia. The Pitted Ware people were largely maritime hunters, and were engaged in lively trade with both the agricultural communities of the Scandinavian interior and other hunter-gatherers of the Baltic Sea.” ref 

“The people of the Pitted Ware culture were a genetically homogeneous and distinct population descended from earlier Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers (SHGs). The culture emerged in east-central Sweden around 3,500 BCE, gradually replacing the Funnelbeaker culture throughout the coastal areas of southern Scandinavia. It subsequently co-existed with the Funnelbeaker culture for several centuries.” ref

“From about 2,800 BCE, the Pitted Ware culture co-existed with the Battle Axe culture, which was the successor of the Funnelbeaker culture in southern Scandinavia. By 2,300 BCE, the Pitted Ware culture had been absorbed by the Battle Axe culture. The subsequent Nordic Bronze Age represents a fusion of elements from the Pitted Ware culture and the Battle Axe culture. Modern Scandinavians, unlike the Sami, display partial genetic origins from the Pitted Ware people.” ref

“Genetic studies suggest that the Pitted Ware peoples, unlike their Neolithic neighbors, were descended from earlier Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers (SHGs). At the time of the emergence of the Pitted Ware culture, these hunter-gatherers persisted to the north of the agricultural Funnelbeaker culture. Their ceramic traditions are related to those of the Comb Ceramic culture.” ref

“The Pitted Ware culture arose around 3,500 BCE. Its earliest sites are found in east-central Sweden, where it appears to have replaced the Funnelbeaker culture. Its subsequent expansion is accompanied by the disappearance of settlements of the Funnelbeaker culture throughout large parts of southern Scandinavia. It came to occupy the coasts of Denmark, southern Sweden, southern Norway, and various islands of the Baltic Sea, such as Öland, Gotland, and Åland. There were lively contacts with hunter-gatherer communities of Finland and the eastern Baltic.” ref 

“During its initial years, the Pitted Ware culture co-existed with the Funnelbeaker culture. Although the two cultures exchanged goods with each other, their peoples appear to have had widely different identities, and they did not mix with each other to any notable extent. During the period of Pitted Ware expansion, the Funnelbeakers constructed a number of defensive palisades, which may mean that the two peoples were in conflict with each other. Throughout its existence of more than 1,000 years, the Pitted Ware culture remained virtually unchanged.” ref

“From around 2,800 BCE, the Pitted Ware culture co-existed for some time with the Battle Axe culture and the Single Grave culture, which succeeded the Funnelbeaker culture in southern Scandinvia. Both were variants of the Corded Ware culture. Like the Funnelbeakers, the Corded Ware constructed a series of defensive palisades during this period, which may be a sign of violent conflict between them and the Pitted Ware. Though cultural influences of the Battle Axe culture are detectable in Pitted Ware burials, its peoples do not appear to have mixed with each other. By ca. 2,300 BCE, the Pitted Ware culture had merged with the Battle Axe culture. The subsequent Nordic Bronze Age represents a fusion of elements from the Pitted Ware culture and the Battle Axe culture.” ref

“The economy of the Pitted Ware culture was based on fishing, hunting, and gathering of plants. Pitted Ware sites contain bones from elk, deer, beaver, seal, porpoise, and pig. Pig bones found in large quantities on some Pitted Ware sites emanate from wild boar rather than domestic pigs. The hunting of seal was particularly important. For this reason, the Pitted Ware people have been called “hard-core sealers” or the “Inuit of the Baltic”.” ref

“Seasonal migration was a feature of life, as with many other hunter-gatherer communities. Pitted Ware communities in Eastern Sweden probably spent most of the year at their main village on the coast, making seasonal forays inland to hunt for pigs and fur-bearing animals and to engage in exchange with farming communities in the interior. This type of seasonal interaction may explain the unique Alvastra Pile Dwelling in south-western Östergötland, which belongs to the Pitted Ware culture as far as the pottery is concerned, but to the Funnelbeaker culture in tools and weapons.” ref

“The Pitted Ware peoples appear to have been specialized hunters who engaged in the trade of animal goods with peoples throughout the Baltic. The repertoire of Pitted Ware tools varied from region to region. In part, this variety reflected regional sources of raw materials. However, the use of fish-hooks, harpoons, and nets, and sinkers was fairly widespread. Tanged arrowheads made from blades of flintstone are abundant on Scandinavia’s west coast, and were probably used in the hunting of marine mammals.” ref

Pitted Ware Culture Ceramics

“One notable feature of the Pitted Ware Culture is the sheer quantity of shards of pottery on its sites. The culture has been named after the typical ornamentation of its pottery: horizontal rows of pits pressed into the body of the pot before firing. Though some vessels are flat-bottomed, others are round-based or pointed-based, which would facilitate stable positioning in the soil or on the hearth. In shape and decoration, this ceramic reflects influences from the Comb Ceramic culture (also known as Pit-Comb Ware) of Finland and other parts of north-eastern Europe, established in the sixth and fifth millennia BCE. Small animal figurines were modeled out of clay, as well as bone. These are also similar to the art of the Comb Ware culture. A large number of clay figurines have been found at Jettböle on the island of Jomala in Åland, including some which combine seal and human features.” ref

Pitted Ware Culture Graves

“The Pitted Ware people had an animistic cosmography similar to that of the people of the Comb Ceramic culture and other Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of the Baltic. The Pitted Ware people buried their dead in cemeteries. Most excavated Pitted Ware burials are located at Gotland, where around 180 graves have been found at numerous sites with several layers. One such site is at Västerbjers. Pitted Ware people were typically buried in flat inhumation graves, although cremation does occur. Unlike the Funnelbeakers, they did not have megalithic graves. Pitted Ware burials are also distinguished from Funnelbeaker burials through their use of red ochre.” ref 

Grave goods include ceramics, boar tusks, pig jaws, pendants of fox, dog and seal teeth, harpoons, spears, fishhooks of bone, stone, and flint axes, and other artifacts. The presence of slate artifacts and battle-axes attest wide-ranging contacts between the Pitted Ware people and other cultures of Northern Europe and the Baltic. People of all ages and genders were buried in the same cemetery. There are no indications of differences in social status. Their mortuary houses and secondary burials are nevertheless evidence of complex burial customs.” ref

Pitted Ware Culture Physical anthropology

“Examination of the skeletons of Pitted Ware people has revealed that they were of a more robust build than contemporary neighboring populations. In particular, they were much better adapted to cold temperatures.” ref

Pitted Ware Culture Genetics

Further information: Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer

“Genetic studies of the Pitted Ware peoples have found them to have been strikingly genetically homogenous, suggesting that they originated from a small founder group.” ref

“In a genetic study published in Current Biology in September 2009, mtDNA was extracted from seventeen Pitted Ware people from Gotland. Eight individuals belonged to U4 haplotypes, seven belonged to U5 haplotypes, one belonged to K1a1, one belonged to T2b, and one belonged to HV0. The results debunked previous theories suggesting that the Pitted Ware were related to the Sami people. On the contrary, Pitted Ware people showed closer genetic kinship to modern Balts and Estonians. The examined Pitted Ware were genetically much closer to modern Scandinavians than to the Sami people.” ref

“In a genetic study published in BMC Evolutionary Biology in March 2010, it was discovered that the Pitted Ware possessed a very low level (5%) of an allele (−13910*T) strongly associated with the ability to consume unprocessed milk. This frequency is dramatically different from modern Swedes (74%). Whether the increase of this allele among the Swedes was a result of admixture or natural selection was uncertain.  In a genetic study published in Science in April 2012, an individual from the Pitted Ware culture was examined. The individual was found to have “a genetic profile that is not fully represented by any sampled contemporary population”.” ref

“In another genetic study published in Science in May 2014, the mtDNA of six individuals ascribed to the Pitted Ware culture was extracted. Four samples belonged to U4d, one belonged to U, and one belonged to V. A genetic study published in August 2014 found that Pitted Ware peoples were closely genetically similar to people of the Catacomb culture, who like the Pitted Ware people carried high frequencies of the maternal haplogroups U5 and U4. These lineages are associated with Western Hunter-Gatherers and Eastern Hunter-Gatherers. In a genetic study published in Nature in September 2014, members of the Pitted Ware culture were determined to largely belong to the Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG) cluster.” ref

“In a genetic study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B in January 2015, the mtDNA of thirteen PCW individuals from Öland and Gotland was extracted. The four individuals from Öland carried H1f, T2b, K1a1, and U4a1. Of the ten individuals from Gotland, four carried U4, two carried U5 haplotypes, two carried K1a1, and one carried HV0. The results indicated that the Pitted Ware culture was genetically distinct from the Funnelbeaker culture, and closely genetically related to earlier Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Scandinavia and Western Europe. It was found that the Pitted Ware culture left a genetic imprint on Scandinavians, although this number is certainly not more than 60%.” ref

“A genetic study published in Nature Communications in January 2018 indicated genetic continuity between SHGs and the Pitted Ware culture and found that the Pitted Ware people were genetically distinct from the Funnelbeaker culture. In a 2019 study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B the remains of a Pitted Ware male were analyzed. He was found to the carrying the maternal haplogroup U5b1d2, and probably a subclade of the paternal haplogroup I2. He was estimated to be 25–35 years old and 165–175 cm tall. It was found that the Pitted Ware people only slightly contributed to the gene pool of the Battle Axe culture, who were almost wholly of Western Steppe Herder descent.” ref

“A genetic study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B in June 2020 examined the remains of 19 Pitted Ware individuals buried on the island of Gotland. The study included a number of individuals who had been buried in a way typical of the Battle Axe culture. The 6 samples of Y-DNA extracted belonged to the paternal haplogroup I2a-L460 (2 samples), I2-M438 (2 samples), I2a1a-CTS595, and I2a1b1-L161. The 17 samples of mtDNA extracted belonged overwhelmingly to the maternal haplogroups U4 and U5. The study found no evidence of Battle Axe admixture among the Pitted Ware. They were genetically very different from earlier Funnelbeaker inhabitants of Gotland, although they carried a tiny amount of EEF admixture. The evidence suggested that while the Pitted Ware culture was culturally influenced by the Battle Axe culture, it was not genetically influenced by it.” ref

Zvejnieki Burial Ground 7500-2600 BCE or 9,520-4,620 years ago

“The Zvejnieki burial ground is an archaeological site consisting of a large Stone Age (i.e. Mesolithic and Neolithic cemetery with over 400 burials and associated grave goods. It is located along a drumlin on the northern shore of Lake Burtnieks in northern Latvia. Archaeologists estimate that the site originally contained over 400 burials. The cemetery contains 330 recorded burials, with roughly equal numbers of male and females. About one-third of the burials are children. The principal grave goods are animal tooth pendants, occurring in both adult and child graves. A smaller number of male and female graves contain hunting and fishing equipment, including harpoons, spears, arrowheads, and fish-hooks. The earliest burials are dated to the Middle Mesolithic, 8th millennium BCE, but they continue throughout the Stone Age, extending over at least four millennia. Two sites representing settlements have been identified close to the cemetery: Zvejnieki I (Neolithic) and Zvejnieki II (Mesolithic).” ref 

“In 2017, researchers successfully extracted the ancient DNA from the petrous bone of six adult individuals buried at Zvejnieki. DNA analysis showed that Burial 121, which was previously thought to be female, was actually male, and that Burials 221 and 137, which were previously thought to male, were actually female.” ref 

“DNA analysis shows that the people from Zvejnieki appear to have maintained genetic continuity from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic and likely adopted Neolithic practices through cultural diffusion, as the populations showed little genetic affinity for the Anatolian farmers that migrated to large parts of Europe during the Neolithic. However, a late Neolithic individual from Zvejnieki, Burial 137, appears to show some genetic affinity for the Caucasus hunter-gathers typified by an ancient DNA sample from Satsurblia Cave.” ref

“In 2018, Mathieson et al. published an analysis of a large number of individuals buried at the Zvejnieki burial ground from ca. 7500 BC to 2700 BCE. The Y-DNA of 15 males was extracted, with 8 carrying haplogroup R1b1a1a, 6 carrying I2a1, and various subclades of it (particularly I2a1a1), and one carrying Q1a2. With regards to mtDNA, every individual successfully analyzed (both male and female) carried subclades of haplogroup U (particularly subclades of U2, U4, and U5).” ref

“The burials at Zvejnieki include evidence for secondary burial: that people were intentionally using remains left by previous generations in their graves. The most typical way of burying their dead was in an oval-shaped pit with grey fill. There were instances of darker soil from previous graves and burials that cut into other ones. This could be because of the want for the dead to be connected to their ancestors in the afterlife. By being dug into a previous grave, they can remain with their loved ones forever. The darker soil from other graves can be an indication that they were of higher status. It can also mean that this grave is not to be disturbed any further (see Burial 316 and 317). Disturbing previous graves at Zvejneiki was done more often than not. This could be in part due to the fact that they did not build permanent buildings. By incorporating their dead, or the past, into their burials, they were making it as permanent as it could be.” ref

“The most recent burials are listed here with what is known about them. Due to looting that has taken place, many do not have confirmations on what gender or age they were. Artifacts appear in some, as well as what was once clothing in a few. Some graves have multiple individuals within them, but it is still hard to say whether they were related or just buried together.” ref

List of Sami religion deities

“The Sami religion differed somewhat between regions and tribes. Although the deities were similar, the spelling of their names could vary between regions. The deities could also overlap: in one region, one deity could appear as several separate deities, and in another region, several deities could be united in to just a few. Because of these variations, they have therefore been somewhat confused with each other.” ref 

They main deities of the Sami were as follows:

• “Akka – a collective group of fertility goddesses, including Maderakka, Juksakka and Uksakka.
• Beaivi – goddess of the sun, mother of humankind.
• Bieggagallis – husband of the sun goddess, father of humankind.
• Bieggolmai ‘Man of the Winds’ – god of the winds.
• Biejjenniejte – goddess of healing and medicine, daughter of the Sun, Beaivi.
• Horagalles – god of thunder. His name means ‘Thor-man’, also called “Grandfather”, Bajanolmmai, Dierpmis, and Tordöm.
• Jahbme akka – the goddess of the dead and mistress of the underworld and the realm of the dead.
• Ipmil ‘God’ – adopted as a native name for the Christian God (see the related Finnish word Jumala), also used for Radien-attje.
• Lieaibolmmai – god of the hunt, and of adult men.
• Madder-Attje – husband of Maderakka and father of the tribe. While his wife give the newborns their bodies, he gives them their soul.
• Mano, Manna, or Aske – god of the moon.
• Mubpienålmaj – the god of evil, influenced by the Christian Satan.
• Radien-attje – Creator and high god, the creator of the world and the head divinity. In Sámi religion, he is passive or sleeping and is not often included in religious practice. Created the soul of human kind with his spouse. He was also called Waralden Olmai.
• Raedieahkka – wife of the high god Radien-attje. Created the soul of mankind with her spouse.
• Rana Niejta – spring goddess, the daughter of Radien-attje and Raedieahkka. Rana, meaning ‘green’ or by extension ‘fertile earth’, was a popular name for Sámi girls.
• Radien-pardne – the son of Radien-attje and Raedieahkka. He acts as the active proxy of his passive father, performing his tasks and will.
• Ruohtta – god of sickness and a death god. He was depicted riding a horse.
• Stallo – feared cannibal giants of the wilderness.
• Tjaetsieålmaj – “the man of water”, god of water, lakes and fishing.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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, 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, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref 

Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

“How have human cultures engaged with and thought about animals, plants, rocks, clouds, and other elements in their natural surroundings? Do animals and other natural objects have a spirit or soul? What is their relationship to humans? In this new study, Graham Harvey explores current and past animistic beliefs and practices of Native Americans, Maori, Aboriginal Australians, and eco-pagans. He considers the varieties of animism found in these cultures as well as their shared desire to live respectfully within larger natural communities. Drawing on his extensive casework, Harvey also considers the linguistic, performative, ecological, and activist implications of these different animisms.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Low Gods “Earth” or Tutelary deity and High Gods “Sky” or Supreme deity

“An Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the “chthonic” deities of the underworld. Ki and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhūmi, etc. traced to an “Earth Mother” complementary to the “Sky Father” in Proto-Indo-European religion. Egyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref

“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of nature, motherhood, fertility, creation, destruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.” ref

“Any masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as “sky father” deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a “sky father” god with an “earth mother” goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with “sky” not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.” ref

“In comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a “father”, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of “sky father” may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an “earth mother“. “Sky Father” is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeûs Pater and Roman Jupiter and Germanic Týr, Tir or Tiwaz, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deity’s name, *Dyēus Ph₂tḗr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).” ref

Tutelary deity

“A tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation. The etymology of “tutelary” expresses the concept of safety and thus of guardianship. In late Greek and Roman religion, one type of tutelary deity, the genius, functions as the personal deity or daimon of an individual from birth to death. Another form of personal tutelary spirit is the familiar spirit of European folklore.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Korean shamanism, jangseung and sotdae were placed at the edge of villages to frighten off demons. They were also worshiped as deities. Seonangshin is the patron deity of the village in Korean tradition and was believed to embody the Seonangdang. In Philippine animism, Diwata or Lambana are deities or spirits that inhabit sacred places like mountains and mounds and serve as guardians. Such as: Maria Makiling is the deity who guards Mt. Makiling and Maria Cacao and Maria Sinukuan. In Shinto, the spirits, or kami, which give life to human bodies come from nature and return to it after death. Ancestors are therefore themselves tutelaries to be worshiped. And similarly, Native American beliefs such as Tonás, tutelary animal spirit among the Zapotec and Totems, familial or clan spirits among the Ojibwe, can be animals.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Austronesian beliefs such as: Atua (gods and spirits of the Polynesian peoples such as the Māori or the Hawaiians), Hanitu (Bunun of Taiwan‘s term for spirit), Hyang (Kawi, Sundanese, Javanese, and Balinese Supreme Being, in ancient Java and Bali mythology and this spiritual entity, can be either divine or ancestral), Kaitiaki (New Zealand Māori term used for the concept of guardianship, for the sky, the sea, and the land), Kawas (mythology) (divided into 6 groups: gods, ancestors, souls of the living, spirits of living things, spirits of lifeless objects, and ghosts), Tiki (Māori mythology, Tiki is the first man created by either Tūmatauenga or Tāne and represents deified ancestors found in most Polynesian cultures). ” ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Mesopotamian Tutelary Deities can be seen as ones related to City-States 

“Historical city-states included Sumerian cities such as Uruk and Ur; Ancient Egyptian city-states, such as Thebes and Memphis; the Phoenician cities (such as Tyre and Sidon); the five Philistine city-states; the Berber city-states of the Garamantes; the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth); the Roman Republic (which grew from a city-state into a vast empire); the Italian city-states from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, such as Florence, Siena, Ferrara, Milan (which as they grew in power began to dominate neighboring cities) and Genoa and Venice, which became powerful thalassocracies; the Mayan and other cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including cities such as Chichen Itza, Tikal, Copán and Monte Albán); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coast; Ragusa; states of the medieval Russian lands such as Novgorod and Pskov; and many others.” ref

“The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BCE; also known as Protoliterate period) of Mesopotamia, named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia and the Sumerian civilization. City-States like Uruk and others had a patron tutelary City Deity along with a Priest-King.” ref

“Chinese folk religion, both past, and present, includes myriad tutelary deities. Exceptional individuals, highly cultivated sages, and prominent ancestors can be deified and honored after death. Lord Guan is the patron of military personnel and police, while Mazu is the patron of fishermen and sailors. Such as Tu Di Gong (Earth Deity) is the tutelary deity of a locality, and each individual locality has its own Earth Deity and Cheng Huang Gong (City God) is the guardian deity of an individual city, worshipped by local officials and locals since imperial times.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Hinduism, personal tutelary deities are known as ishta-devata, while family tutelary deities are known as Kuladevata. Gramadevata are guardian deities of villages. Devas can also be seen as tutelary. Shiva is the patron of yogis and renunciants. City goddesses include: Mumbadevi (Mumbai), Sachchika (Osian); Kuladevis include: Ambika (Porwad), and Mahalakshmi. In NorthEast India Meitei mythology and religion (Sanamahism) of Manipur, there are various types of tutelary deities, among which Lam Lais are the most predominant ones. Tibetan Buddhism has Yidam as a tutelary deity. Dakini is the patron of those who seek knowledge.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion:

You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me … . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” ref

“Tutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno. In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary, as Augustus did Apollo. Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.” ref

“Each town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus). The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome. The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii, and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location. The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.” ref

“The Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome. The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as “tower-crowned” represents their capacity to preserve the city. A town in the provinces might adopt a deity from within the Roman religious sphere to serve as its guardian, or syncretize its own tutelary with such; for instance, a community within the civitas of the Remi in Gaul adopted Apollo as its tutelary, and at the capital of the Remi (present-day Rheims), the tutelary was Mars Camulus.” ref 

Household deity (a kind of or related to a Tutelary deity)

“A household deity is a deity or spirit that protects the home, looking after the entire household or certain key members. It has been a common belief in paganism as well as in folklore across many parts of the world. Household deities fit into two types; firstly, a specific deity – typically a goddess – often referred to as a hearth goddess or domestic goddess who is associated with the home and hearth, such as the ancient Greek Hestia.” ref

“The second type of household deities are those that are not one singular deity, but a type, or species of animistic deity, who usually have lesser powers than major deities. This type was common in the religions of antiquity, such as the Lares of ancient Roman religion, the Gashin of Korean shamanism, and Cofgodas of Anglo-Saxon paganism. These survived Christianisation as fairy-like creatures existing in folklore, such as the Anglo-Scottish Brownie and Slavic Domovoy.” ref

“Household deities were usually worshipped not in temples but in the home, where they would be represented by small idols (such as the teraphim of the Bible, often translated as “household gods” in Genesis 31:19 for example), amulets, paintings, or reliefs. They could also be found on domestic objects, such as cosmetic articles in the case of Tawaret. The more prosperous houses might have a small shrine to the household god(s); the lararium served this purpose in the case of the Romans. The gods would be treated as members of the family and invited to join in meals, or be given offerings of food and drink.” ref

“In many religions, both ancient and modern, a god would preside over the home. Certain species, or types, of household deities, existed. An example of this was the Roman Lares. Many European cultures retained house spirits into the modern period. Some examples of these include:

• Brownie (Scotland and England) or Hob (England) / Kobold (Germany) / Goblin / Hobgoblin
• Domovoy (Slavic)
• Nisse (Norwegian or Danish) / Tomte (Swedish) / Tonttu (Finnish)
• Húsvættir (Norse)” ref

“Although the cosmic status of household deities was not as lofty as that of the Twelve Olympians or the Aesir, they were also jealous of their dignity and also had to be appeased with shrines and offerings, however humble. Because of their immediacy they had arguably more influence on the day-to-day affairs of men than the remote gods did. Vestiges of their worship persisted long after Christianity and other major religions extirpated nearly every trace of the major pagan pantheons. Elements of the practice can be seen even today, with Christian accretions, where statues to various saints (such as St. Francis) protect gardens and grottos. Even the gargoyles found on older churches, could be viewed as guardians partitioning a sacred space.” ref

“For centuries, Christianity fought a mop-up war against these lingering minor pagan deities, but they proved tenacious. For example, Martin Luther‘s Tischreden have numerous – quite serious – references to dealing with kobolds. Eventually, rationalism and the Industrial Revolution threatened to erase most of these minor deities, until the advent of romantic nationalism rehabilitated them and embellished them into objects of literary curiosity in the 19th century. Since the 20th century this literature has been mined for characters for role-playing games, video games, and other fantasy personae, not infrequently invested with invented traits and hierarchies somewhat different from their mythological and folkloric roots.” ref

“In contradistinction to both Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnett Tylor, who defended theories of animistic origins of ancestor worship, Émile Durkheim saw its origin in totemism. In reality, this distinction is somewhat academic, since totemism may be regarded as a particularized manifestation of animism, and something of a synthesis of the two positions was attempted by Sigmund Freud. In Freud’s Totem and Taboo, both totem and taboo are outward expressions or manifestations of the same psychological tendency, a concept which is complementary to, or which rather reconciles, the apparent conflict. Freud preferred to emphasize the psychoanalytic implications of the reification of metaphysical forces, but with particular emphasis on its familial nature. This emphasis underscores, rather than weakens, the ancestral component.” ref

“William Edward Hearn, a noted classicist, and jurist, traced the origin of domestic deities from the earliest stages as an expression of animism, a belief system thought to have existed also in the neolithic, and the forerunner of Indo-European religion. In his analysis of the Indo-European household, in Chapter II “The House Spirit”, Section 1, he states:

The belief which guided the conduct of our forefathers was … the spirit rule of dead ancestors.” ref

“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:

It is thus certain that the worship of deceased ancestors is a vera causa, and not a mere hypothesis. …

In the other European nations, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the Kelts, the House Spirit appears with no less distinctness. … [T]he existence of that worship does not admit of doubt. … The House Spirits had a multitude of other names which it is needless here to enumerate, but all of which are more or less expressive of their friendly relations with man. … In [England] … [h]e is the Brownie. … In Scotland this same Brownie is well known. He is usually described as attached to particular families, with whom he has been known to reside for centuries, threshing the corn, cleaning the house, and performing similar household tasks. His favorite gratification was milk and honey.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

Hinduism around 3,700 to 3,500 years old. ref

 Judaism around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (The first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew” dated to around 3,000 years ago Khirbet Qeiyafa is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Elah Valley. And many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed around 2,500) ref, ref

Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (“Paleo-Hebrew” 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)

“Judaism is an Abrahamic, its roots as an organized religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age. Some scholars argue that modern Judaism evolved from Yahwism, the religion of ancient Israel and Judah, by the late 6th century BCE, and is thus considered to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions.” ref

“Yahwism is the name given by modern scholars to the religion of ancient Israel, essentially polytheistic, with a plethora of gods and goddesses. Heading the pantheon was Yahweh, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah, with his consort, the goddess Asherah; below them were second-tier gods and goddesses such as Baal, Shamash, Yarikh, Mot, and Astarte, all of whom had their own priests and prophets and numbered royalty among their devotees, and a third and fourth tier of minor divine beings, including the mal’ak, the messengers of the higher gods, who in later times became the angels of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Yahweh, however, was not the ‘original’ god of Israel “Isra-El”; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name “Israel”, and none of the Old Testament patriarchs, the tribes of Israel, the Judges, or the earliest monarchs, have a Yahwistic theophoric name (i.e., one incorporating the name of Yahweh).” ref

“El is a Northwest Semitic word meaning “god” or “deity“, or referring (as a proper name) to any one of multiple major ancient Near Eastern deities. A rarer form, ‘ila, represents the predicate form in Old Akkadian and in Amorite. The word is derived from the Proto-Semitic *ʔil-, meaning “god”. Specific deities known as ‘El or ‘Il include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion and the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period. ʼĒl is listed at the head of many pantheons. In some Canaanite and Ugaritic sources, ʼĒl played a role as father of the gods, of creation, or both. For example, in the Ugaritic texts, ʾil mlk is understood to mean “ʼĒl the King” but ʾil hd as “the god Hadad“. The Semitic root ʾlh (Arabic ʾilāh, Aramaic ʾAlāh, ʾElāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾl with a parasitic h, and ʾl may be an abbreviated form of ʾlh. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning “gods” is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm “powers”. In the Hebrew texts this word is interpreted as being semantically singular for “god” by biblical commentators. However the documentary hypothesis for the Old Testament (corresponds to the Jewish Torah) developed originally in the 1870s, identifies these that different authors – the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source – were responsible for editing stories from a polytheistic religion into those of a monotheistic religion. Inconsistencies that arise between monotheism and polytheism in the texts are reflective of this hypothesis.” ref

Jainism around 2,599 – 2,527 years old. ref

Confucianism around 2,600 – 2,551 years old. ref

Buddhism around 2,563/2,480 – 2,483/2,400 years old. ref

Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref

Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref

Islam around 1407–1385 years old. ref

Sikhism around 548–478 years old. ref

Bahá’í around 200–125 years old. ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Expressions of Atheistic Thinking:

• Around 2,600 years ago, Ajita Kesakambali, ancient Indian philosopher, who is the first known proponent of Indian materialism. ref
• Around 2,535 to 2,475 years ago, Heraclitus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, a native of the Greek city Ephesus, Ionia, on the coast of Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor or modern Turkey. ref
• Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, according to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals, and even what burials accrue are without ceremony. ref
• Around 2,490 to 2,430 years ago, Empedocles, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. ref
• Around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, Democritus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism. ref
• Around 2,399 years ago or so, Socrates, a famous Greek philosopher was tried for sinfulness by teaching doubt of state gods. ref
• Around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago, Epicurus, a Greek philosopher known for composing atheistic critics and famously stated, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ref

This last expression by Epicurus, seems to be an expression of Axiological Atheism. To understand and utilize value or actually possess “Value Conscious/Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care responsibilities. Because value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic/psychopathic evil.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.

Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?

Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.

I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.

Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.

At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.

Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d  

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)

Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.” http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft

Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie

Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist. 

To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so. 

My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?

Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com