N-L550 Origin and Initial Dispersal
N-L550 is relatively common throughout Northeastern Europe, reaching a peak frequency of around 40% in Latvia and Lithuania. Although, men from these countries almost exclusively belong to the N-L1025 subclade. N-L550 stands out among Y-haplogroup N branches in Europe because it is found at high frequencies among Indo-European speakers. The process by which this came to be, is intimately tied to the history of N-L1025 and that is not the focus of my blog post here. Instead, I am concentrating on when and from where N-L550 came to the East Baltic to begin with. I present here, a compilation of recent archaeological research which I believe is relevant to the topic. This is by no means intended to be an exhaustive account of all available evidence, nor am I claiming myself to be an expert. This is merely a place for me to share some research and give my opinions on the topic.
Reconsidering KAM axes:
The provenance of KAM axes has been deliberated for over a century, however very recent scientific insights are shining a new light on the topic. KAM axes have two main distribution areas: the Volga-Kama (Akozino-Akhmylovo culture) and Scandinavia (primarily Central Sweden). Rare axes and the majority of casting molds come from fortified settlements in the East Baltic. Nearly all KAM axes in Scandinavia are chance finds, making them notoriously hard to date; in the Volga-Kama they appear mainly as grave goods. KAM axes probably spread to the East Baltic between 800-400 BC based on C14 dates of wooden hafts from Astangü 510-370 calBC (Čivilytė, 2014) and Uppland 757-199 cal BC (Hjärthner-Holdar, 1998) as well as revised dates of Lithuanian hillforts where casting molds for KAM have been found (see below). It is worth noting that there are many different types of KAM axes, which differ in their areas of distribution.
Eastern provenance?
-Ananyino -type axes definitely originate in the Volga-Kama area and spread west, albeit farther north than KAM axes (Lang, 2018). This at least sets a precedent for materials moving from east to west.
-KAM axes have a coastal distribution in Central Sweden, compared to other Nordic Bronze Age axe types found more commonly around the inland lakes (Eriksson, 2009) .
-Deposits and burial mounds in Central Sweden generally display typical Southern Scandinavian (NBA) materials, without KAM axes (Eriksson, 2009). The opposite is true in the Volga-Kama, where it has been suggested that ethnic identity was tied to burials including KAM axes. Perhaps this indicates KAM axes were seen as foreign in Scandinavia.
-Central Sweden is unique within Scandinavia, in that there is evidence for influence and even settlement from the East Baltic (fortified settlements with Asva-style coarse grain ceramics and later, early-Tarand graves) (Lang, 2018).
-There are rare examples of Eastern types of KAM axes in the East Baltic (Podėnas, 2022).
-More different Volga-Kama variants have been discovered than Scandinavian.
Western provenance?
-Melheim (2015) argues that KAM axes developed from NBA axes, there are apparently hybrid forms of NBA-KAM axes in Norway. She argues that Norwegian KAM axes may be as old as 1200-1000 BC from their contexts, making them older than the Akozino-Akhmylovo cemeteries.
-Earlier metallurgical analysis indicated that some KAM axes from Sweden were made with Ural bronze, however more recent analysis suggests that this was probably an error. The Scandinavian axes tested so far, were probably cast with a similar Mediterranean metal source (Melheim, 2015).
-The earliest KAM axes in the Volga-Kama are found farther west and belong to types most similar to those found in Scandinavia (Melheim, 2015).
-Recent metallurgical analysis of KAM axes in the East Baltic suggests that these axes were made using a Central European metal source. The molds found here are more similar to Scandinavian types (Čivilytė & Podėnas, 2019).
-All other metal objects found and cast in LBA East Baltic fortified settlements are Scandinavian in form and were cast seasonally. This has led some experts to argue that metallurgy was spread to East Baltic fortified settlements via traveling Scandinavian artisans. There is no evidence for a local experimentation phase either, metallurgy begins in a fully formed state (Čivilytė & Podėnas, 2019).
In my opinion, even if the original prototypes for these axes spread from Scandinavia to the Volga-Kama, that does not preclude the possibility of a back migration. That might be why there are some rare Volga-Kama-type KAM axes in the East Baltic. Although, it does seem like metallurgy (including a large part of the KAM axe related material), spread to the East Baltic from Scandinavia.
Pottery from the East?
Two new pottery traditions appear in the East Baltic at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. These can be referred to as Brushed/Striated ceramics and SW-Tapiola ware (Asva coarse grain, Lugansüe, Ilmandu, etc.). I will be focusing on the latter here.
According to Lang (citing Lõugas), SW-Tapiola ware originates in the Upper-Volga- Moskva- Mid-Oka region (i.e ‘Klimentovo’, or ‘pre-Dyakovo’ ceramics). This was a variant of the Textile ware culture, which at the beginning of this period replaced the Pozdnyakovo culture. These were hunter-gatherers who began settling on hills, with perhaps some rudimentary fortifications. No evidence of metallurgy is available, although the flint industry has noticeably declined (Syrovatko, 2022).
SW-Tapiola ware first appears with hunter gatherers near the inland lakes of Estonia (1220-920 cal BC) from Altküla (Lang, 2018). Around the 9th century BC, Lugansüe ceramics became a common grave good in Stone-cist graves (Asva coarse grain is also present to a lesser extent) and Asva coarse grain is found in Estonian, Finnish, Central Swedish and some Latvian hillforts which appear 1000/900-500 BC (Sperling & Lang, 2021).
It is interesting that Stone-cist graves share aspects of material culture with hillforts (SW-Tapiola ceramics, bone pins) and the Kivutkalns cemetery (bone pins), but aDNA from these sites lacked Y-haplogroup N.
Ilmandu ceramics appear between 800-400 BC and are a development of Asva coarse grain ceramics. They are found in Estonian/Latvian hillforts, late Stone-cist graves and are common among early-Tarands (Sperling & Lang, 2021). It is possible they developed because of new influences from the east, Lang (2018) specifically mentions common motifs with the early Dyakovo culture ceramics (a development of the preceding Textile ware population).
Why Fortified settlements?
The earliest fortified settlements in the East Baltic were established between 1000 and 850 BC: Lower Daugava (1000-800 cal BC), Lake Lübyn (900-750 cal BC) and Asva (917-809 cal BC). Dates from the others tested so far fall within the Hallstatt plateau, including the East Lithuanian sites. Therefore, the earliest fortified settlements were probably established abutting the Gulf of Riga; subsequently spreading along the coast of Estonia and inland along the Daugava river in the following centuries (Podėnas, 2022). Around 500 BC, hillforts in Estonia are abruptly abandoned, with a new wave of sites being constructed a couple centuries later. In Latvia and Lithuania this hiatus is not observed.
The impetus for fortifying settlements is another point of contention among archaeologists. Valter Lang has proposed that ‘eastern’ migrants, arriving with SW-Tapiola ware, certain bone/antler materials and KAM axes were of central importance to the development of this settlement type. There were LBA hill top settlements, perhaps with minimal fortifications in the Upper-Volga- Mosvka- Mid-Oka region where ‘Klimentovo’ ceramics are found (Krenke, 2011). He also argues that no currently known cemeteries/graves can be associated with these sites. Other scholars prefer a more autochthonous development, with emphasis placed on contacts with the west, especially Scandinavia.
In the latter case, the earliest evidence for primitive agriculture appears between 1400-1200 BC in West Lithuania, then spreading throughout the region (Podėnas, 2022). A few centuries later, fortified settlements appear in coastal regions with strong evidence for contacts with the West, like Asva fine grain ceramics in Estonia- which are similar to Urnfield types and Scandinavian metal forms/products (Sperling, 2014). A mixed subsistence economy prevails, seemingly biased towards animal husbandry. It can thus be argued that this shift in subsistence economy and greater wealth accumulation through trade contacts with Scandinavia led to the hierarchicalization of society and/or a growing need to defend ones wealth (Podėnas, 2022). Eastern migrations are not necessarily mutually exclusive with this hypothesis, but they would not play a central role in the dissemination of fortified settlements.
Grave types:
The Stone-Cist graves of Estonia and Latvia (1100-400 BC) have strong parallels to burial rites in Bronze Age Sweden/Gotland, they also contain various Scandinavian imports (bronze razors, pins, knives, tweezers, buttons, etc.) (Lang, 2022). As mentioned above, there are also local/eastern materials in Stone-cist graves contemporary to, or even slightly older than the first fortified settlements. Some of the latest (early Iron Age) Stone-cist graves have materials identical to contemporary early-Tarands. One of these late samples tested for aDNA (X14), was genetically most similar to the other ‘EST_IA’ (early-Tarand) samples (Saag et al. 2018). Yet, most of the Stone-cist grave samples are very similar to other Bronze Age individuals in the East Baltic (Mittnik et al. 2017), so it seems improbable that they were migrants from Scandinavia.
Early-Tarand graves arrive at some point during the Hallstatt plateau (800-400 cal BC). The earliest of which probably belong to the LBA (800-500 BC) and have no grave goods, or only Ilmandu ceramics. The majority of these graves belong to the pre-Roman Iron Age, when burial furnishings become richer, primarily bronze and iron jewelry (Lang, 2018).
The early-Tarands are sometimes built joining or even around Stone-cist graves (Lang, 2018). In terms of form, they bear a striking resemblance to the ‘type II house’s of the dead’ characteristic of the Akozino-Akhmylovo culture (Chizhevsky, 2008). The main difference being their construction of stone, instead of wood and the lack of furnishings. Burials in the Akozino-Akhmylovo culture were fantastically rich, warrior/weapon graves were common (Patrushev, 2000). This is in stark contrast to the early-Tarand graves in Estonia.
Akozino-Akhmylovo 'House of the Dead' (Chizhevsky, 2008)
So, what are the implications of this information on our understanding of the origin and dispersal of N-L550? The earliest evidence of ‘eastern’ materials in the East Baltic with later continuity are the hunter gatherer communities with SW-Tapiola ware. The earliest N-L550 aDNA sample is from an Estonian early-Tarand grave. VII4 (already L1025+ Y4706) dated to 760-400 cal BC, was buried with materials typical of the early Iron Age. Neither of the two non-local (according to isotope testing) Tarand samples (V10 and OLS10) belonged to N-L550. Perhaps it is worth noting that both of the non-local samples were already rich in Baltic_BA admixture, suggesting they had mixed with such a population before arriving in Estonia. Baltic_BA groups might have already existed at this time in the Russian forest-zone (Dnieper-Dvina and Upper-Oka cultures). I think we can thus place a broad temporal boundary on the arrival of N-L550 to the East Baltic region between 1200 BC and 400 BC. Although, pottery alone can not be strongly associated with the arrival of N-L550, or Y-Haplogroup N in general (see SW-Tapiola ware in Stone-cist graves).
Another problem is the where N-L550 came from. The Upper-Volga- Moskva- Mid-Oka region is the eastern extent of SW-Tapiola ceramics (Klimentovo/pre-Dyakovo) and where Lang argues the tradition originated. This area also shares other material similarities to the LBA East Baltic, for example hilltop settlements, certain bone/antler materials (similar forms are widely distributed in Central Europe and Scandinavia), as well as a dearth of cemeteries (Azarov, 2014). The Dyakovo culture developed in this area during the 8/7th centuries BC and is characterized by the adoption of primitive agriculture, fortifications, clay weights and the beginnings of iron metallurgy slightly later (usually jewelry) (Krenke, 2011). The ceramics of the Dyakovo culture may have contributed to the development of Ilmandu ceramics as mentioned above. There is currently only a single known example of a burial site attributed to the early Dyakovo culture- that is the Dunino 4 site. A cremation placed in a small pit, dated to the 7-6th centuries BC (Azarov, 2014). The earliest ‘Houses of the Dead’ in this area have only been dated to the end of the 1st millennium BC - early 1st millennium AD and are attributed to influences from the steppe, or post-Ananyino world (Chizhevsky, 2008).
Speaking of the Ananyino culture, if KAM axes did indeed spread from east to west (even IF the prototypes came from Scandinavia), it stands to reason that they would have come from the Akozino-Akhmylovo culture 9/8-4/3 centuries BC. This population may have formed as a result of Textile ware groups expanding east and merging with the Maklasheevo culture. Despite this, Textile ware is not typically found in Akozino-Akhmylovo sites, aside from the odd 'Younger Volosovsky' site (Kuzminykh & Chizhevsky 2017). The ‘Houses of the Dead’ found here, also happen to be the most similar to early-Tarand graves, both in temporal and structural aspects as seen above. However, much of the material culture differs between these two areas. A possible explanation is that Akozino-Akhmylovo groups adopted many local customs while moving west and mixing with the autochthonous population, but maintained cultural memory of their ancestral grave structure (Lang, 2018).
It is entirely possible that people from both areas spread to the East Baltic, but in my opinion it is unlikely that N-L550 was present in both at such an early date. Current estimates for the most recent common ancestor are 3100-2600 ybp (95% CI YFull) and 3310-2474 ybp (95% CI FTDNA).
In conclusion:
N-L550 probably arrived in the East Baltic between 1200 and 400 BC. It spread from either the ‘Klimentovo’ variant of the Textile ware culture (12-9 centuries BC), the Dyakovo culture (8th-4th centuries BC), or farther east from the Akozino-Akhmylovo culture (8th-4th centuries BC).
Due to the lack of osteological material throughout the area where SW-Tapiola ware is found, the closest we will probably ever come to a definitive answer will be if N-L550 shows up in a >800 BC Stone-cist grave sample, or in one of the large Akozino-Akhmylovo culture cemeteries.
Sources
Azarov, Evgeny & Pojidaev, Victor & Borisevich, Igor & Babichenko, Natalia & Yatsishina, Ekaterina. (2021). On the type of economy of the settlements with Bronze Age “textile” pottery in the Volga-Oka interfluve: new data from old collections of ware. Rossiiskaia arkheologiia. 19-35.
Azarov, Evgeny. (2014). Погребальные памятники культуры текстильной керамики Окского бассейна / Burial sites of the textile ceramics culture in the Oka basin. Ананьинский мир: истоки, развитие, связи, исторические судьбы. Археология евразийских степей. Вып. 20 / Отв. ред. С.В. Кузьминых, А.А. Чижевский. Казань: Отечество. 20. 352-373.
Čivilytė, A. (2014). Žmogus ir metalas priešistorėje: žvilgančios bronzos trauka. Piemedžio leidykla,Vilnius.
Čivilytė, Agnė & Podėnas, Vytenis & Minkevičius, Karolis & Luik, Heidi. (2023). New Insights on Bronze Age Metallurgy in the Eastern Baltic Region: Archeometallurgical Investigations Based on EDXRF and Lead-Isotope.
Čivilytė, Agnė. (2023). Peripheral or non-peripheral? The “world view” of the Bronze Age people in the eastern Baltic in THE EAST BALTIC IN THE BRONZE AGE; Regional patterns, interactions and boundaries. Institute for Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology (Institut für Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie) of the University of Hamburg. 309.
Chizhevsky, A.A. (2008) Погребальные памятники населения Волго-Камья эпохи финальной бронзы – раннего железа (Доананьинская и Ананьинская культурно-исторические области) / Археология евразийских степей. Выпуск 5, Казань: Институт истории АН РТ, 2008, 172.
Eriksson, T. (2009). Kärl och social gestik : Keramik i Mälardalen 1500 BC-400 AD. (PhD dissertation, Uppsala universitet/Riksantikvarieämbetet).
Hjärthner-Holander (1998). E. Samspel mellan olika regioner i Sverige och Ryssland under yngre bronsåldern sett ur järnteknikens införande in Bronsealder i Norden - Regioner og interaksjon. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger Varia 33 (Stavanger 1998) 35-44.
Krenke N.A. (2011) Dʼyakovo gorodishche: kul’tura naseleniya bas-seina Moskvy-reki v I tys. do n. e. – I tys. n. e. (Dyakovo settlement: culture of the population of the Moskva River basin in the 1st millennium BC. – I millennium AD). Moscow: IA RAN, 2011, 546.
Kuzminykh, Chizhevsky 2017: S. V. Kuzminykh and A. A. Chizhevsky, Introduction to Ananyino Archaeologycultural and historical area: Northeast Europe in the final of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages. Archaeology of the Eurasian steppes № 3, 2017, 22–36.
Lang, V. (2018). LÄÄNEMERESOOME TULEMISED- Muinasaja Teadus, 28. University of Tartu Press, Tartu.
Lang, V. (2022) Bronze Age cultural changes, population movements, and the formation of the Proto-Finnic ethnos in THE EAST BALTIC IN THE BRONZE AGE; Regional patterns, interactions and boundaries. Institute for Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology (Institut für Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie) of the University of Hamburg. 355.
Lavento, M. (2019). Early Metal Age bronze axes in Finland: an overview. TRANSACTIONS OF THE INSTITUTE FOR THE HISTORY OF MATERIAL CULTURE. Russian Academy of Sciences. 20. 35-52.
Melheim, L. (2015). Late Bronze Age axe traffic from Volga-Kama to Scandinavia? The riddle of the KAM axes revisited. Der Anschnitt.
Patrushev, Valeri. (2000) The early history of the Finno-Ugrian peoples of European Russia. (StudiaArchaeologica Fenno-Ugrica 1). Oulu: Societas historiae Fenno-Ugricae.
Podėnas, Vytenis & Čivilytė, Agnė. (2019). Bronze casting and communication in the southeastern Baltic Bronze Age. Lietuvos archeologija. 45. 169-199.
Podėnas, Vytenis. (2022). Įtvirtintos gyvenvietės Rytų Baltijos regione 1100–400 cal BC. Doctoral dissertation.
Saag, L. (2018). The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East: Current Biology, Volume 29, Issue 10. 1701-1711.
Sperling, U. (2014). ASPECTS OF CHANGE IN THE BRONZE AGE EASTERN BALTIC. THE SETTLEMENTS OF THE ASVA GROUP IN ESTONIA. Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 18(2S), 394.
Sperling, U., & Lang, V. (2021). The Bronze and Iron Age Transition in the East Baltic - Challenges for Research in TIME AND MATERIALITY: PERIODIZATION AND REGIONAL CHRONOLOGIES AT THE TRANSITION FROM BRONZE TO IRON AGE IN EURASIA (1200-600 BCE). PRAHISTORICHE ARCHAOLOGIE IN SUDOSTEUROPA, 31, 265-282.
Syrovatko, Aleksandr. (2022). The Transition from the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age in the Forest Zone of Central Russia: How to Interpret the Material Basis.
Small correction: The "EST_IA" Stone-cist grave sample is X04 not X14.
ReplyDelete