Coversheet

This is the publisher’s PDF (Version of Record) of the article. This is the final published version of the article.

How to cite this publication:

Ivanovaite, L., & Riede, F. (2018). The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research. Open Quaternary, 4(4), 1-21. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/oq.39

Publication metadata

Title: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research Author(s): Felix Riede & Livija Ivanovaitė Journal: Open Quaternary DOI/Link: http://doi.org/10.5334/oq.39 Document version: Publisher’s PDF (Version of Record) Document license: CC BY 4.0

General Rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

If the document is published under a Creative Commons license, this applies instead of the general rights.

This coversheet template is made available by AU Library Version 1.0, December 2017 Ivanovaitė, L and Riede, F. 2018. The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research. Open Quaternary, 4: 4, pp. 1–21, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/oq.39

RESEARCH PAPER The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research Livija Ivanovaitė and Felix Riede

This paper critically reviews the culture-historical framework for the re-colonisation of Lithuania dur- ing the Final Palaeolithic in the light of recent palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental data. We argue that the existing chronology of the Final Palaeolithic in Lithuania suffers from an undue western Euro- pean orientation grounded in research history, and that it likely requires reconsideration. The lack of well-constrained excavations, the paucity of both radiocarbon dates and of palaeoenvironmental data pertinent to the Last Glacial-Interglacial Transition (LGIT) lead us to be cautious with regard to the existing chronology. In reviewing the typological classification of the relevant lithic material, we argue in particular that there is a lack of reliable evidence not only for Hamburgian occupation but also for any substantive Federmessergruppen, Brommean and Ahrensburgian presence. Whilst Swiderian sites are better represented, a large majority of these may date to the early Holocene. In light of the current evidence, we question the usefulness of existing archaeological taxonomies for this period and favour a model of punctuated colonisation for the Lithuanian territory, where periodic and ephemeral forager presences are interspersed with longer periods of depopulation. In closing, we outline avenues for future research in the region.

Keywords: Final Palaeolithic; Baltic Magdalenian; Lithuania; classification; Last Glacial Interglacial ­Transition; pioneer colonisation

Introduction sense – were colonised even later and only during the During the height of the last ice age, hunter-gatherer Meiendorf Interstadial warming (GI-1e) at the earliest. groups were pushed southwards, leaving Northern Europe In the Western Baltic, this re-colonisation sequence is depopulated for several millennia (e.g. ­Burdukiewicz reasonably well investigated with a traditional suc- 2001). Despite some initial forays northwards very early cession of an initial colonisation by the Hamburgian after peak glaciation (Terberger & Street 2002), North- (Meiendorf/Bølling – GI-1e; Grimm & Weber 2008), fol- ern Europe was once again colonised by hunter-gatherer lowed by the Federmessergruppen (early/middle Allerød groups only during the Late Glacial, i.e. from about 14,700 – GI-1c and b; Riede & Edinborough 2012), then the years ago (Riede 2014b; Wygal & Heidenreich 2014). This Brommean interlude (late Allerød/early Younger Dryas process can be said to have proceeded in several waves – GI-1a and into GS-1; Fischer et al. 2013; Riede 2017), and in relation to the see-saw warming and cooling that and finally the Ahrensburgian (late Younger Dryas/early occurred during the final phases of the Late Pleistocene Holocene – GS-1; Eriksen 2002; Brinch Petersen 2009; (the so-called Last Glacial Interglacial Transition, LGIT; see Weber, Grimm & Baales 2011). Rasmussen et al. 2014). Increasingly, the Hamburgian colonisation in the Initially, the topographically and hence ecologically Western Baltic is seen as highly ephemeral and possi- more varied regions of Western and Central Europe were bly unsuccessful (Riede 2014a; Riede & Pedersen 2018). occupied by Magdalenian horse and reindeer ­hunters Although the subsequent Allerød-period settlement and expanding outward from the south-western refugial especially the autochthonous Brommean are often viewed areas. The settlement of Europe remained at low densi- as the best-understood of these Scandinavian techno-com- ties and patchy, however, with vast swaths of land effec- plexes (Eriksen 1999), an interesting debate about its taxo- tively uninhabited (Maier 2015). Areas north of ca. 54° nomic status and relationship to the Federmessergruppen N – here specifically the Baltic region in the broadest has recently emerged (Riede 2013; Buck Pedersen 2014; Riede 2014c; Buck Pedersen 2015; Riede 2017). In par- ticular, an analysis of supposedly diagnostic artefacts Department of Archaeology and Heritage Studies, Aarhus – the large tanged points – from the Brommean as well ­University, Moesgård Allé 20, 8270 Højbjerg, DK as a range of other Final Palaeolithic techno-complexes Corresponding author: Felix Riede ([email protected]) indicates that regionally and chronologically consistent Art. 4, page 2 of 21 Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research patterns are difficult to establish (Riede, Laursen & Hertz latter had earlier been defined by Sawicki (1936) and had 2011b; Serwatka & Riede 2016). Whilst still preliminary, become widely used by eastern European archaeologists these analyses cast doubt on the utility of this supposed (e.g. Benet-Tygel 1944). Swiderian material culture shares Leitfossil as both a cultural and chronological marker in many similarities with the Ahrensburgian of the Western the Western Baltic region and beyond. Baltic, but is characterised by leaf-shaped and tanged Large tanged points also occur outside of the Western points with basal retouch on their ventral face instead of Baltic and similarly critical arguments with regards to their small tanged points with ventral retouch only (Kobusie- culture-historical sensitivity have already been made pre- wicz 2002). In contrast, the term Baltic Magdalenian was viously (Kobusiewicz 2009b; Kobusiewicz 2009a). Yet, out- devised by Rimantienė herself in order to capture the vari- side of Scandinavia, large tanged points – usually labelled ability of candidate Final Palaeolithic material – various typologically as Bromme or Lyngby points – are commonly large and small tanged points, backed elements as well as used as proxies for the presence of these hunter-gatherer scrapers, burins and borers – in Lithuania, and to reflect groups: Barton & Roberts (2001) extend the territory of her unwillingness to further differentiate these. the Brommean to the British Isles, and Breest & Gerken In order to classify the existing lithic material, she (2008) see these hunters also ranging south of the River drew far-reaching parallels to other and at that time bet- Elbe. Likewise, and with specific reference to Lithuania, ter investigated regions to the west. While assemblages Šatavičius (2004) sees the presence of large tanged points with projectile points containing characteristic invasive as indicative of Brommean foragers in the region, who retouch on the ventral side of the tang were undoubt- succeeded earlier cultures in lock-step with the Western edly identified as Swiderian, other lithic assemblages Baltic. Others still would like to see additional Final with tanged projectile points were tentatively compared Palaeolithic groups characterised by large tanged points to Northern German and Southern Scandinavian tanged present in the Eastern Baltic (Sinitsyna 2002). In contrast, point technocomplexes. In this, Rimantienė (1971) drew however, Rimantienė (1971) – Lithuania’s very own ‘trow- on key publications that had earlier established the cul- elblazing’ (see http://trowelblazers.com/) pioneer in rela- ture-historical framework for the Baltic region: Ekholm tion to the Final Palaeolithic (see Butrimas 2016) – had (1926), Brøndsted (1938), Mathiassen (1946) and De previously argued that all the material that may belong Molyn (1954) for the Lyngby culture (synonymous with to the Final Palaeolithic in the present-day territory of the Brommean – see Brinch Petersen 1970), as well as the Lithuania is so heterogeneous that truly diagnostic pieces important syntheses of Schwabedissen (1954) and Taute and hence specific techno-complexes cannot be readily (1968) for the Final Magdalenian/Federmessergruppen distinguished. Instead, she suggested a more generic cat- and Ahrensburgian respectively. In light of the evident egory under the label ‘Baltic Magdalenian’. More recently, typological and technological variability seen in the Kobusiewicz (2009b) presented similar reflections arguing Lithuanian candidate assemblages, Rimantienė shied that the ubiquitous occurrence of large tanged points and away from a classification as detailed as that suggested their consistent link to especially Federmessergruppen as for the Western Baltic by Taute who distinguished not well as later inventories invalidates their use as culturally only between some of the major technocomplexes, but specific diagnostic marker artefact. This paper attempts to also between numerous sub-categories or groups within, resolve these opposing viewpoints through an in-depth for instance, the Ahrensburgian. Instead, she applied the research historical analysis and a critical review of the cur- label Baltic Magdalenian as a catch-all category for assem- rent archaeological and palaeoenvironmental evidence blages containing Lyngby/Brommean, Ahrensburgian base for the Final Palaeolithic settlement in Lithuania. Our and at times Hamburgian elements. The use of this ‘lump- results indicate no secure evidence for the presence of the ing’ rather than a ‘splitting’ classification (see Simpson Hamburgian, and at best an ephemeral presence of forag- 1945) was intended to stress both the heterogeneity of ers in the region during the Allerød Interstadial and, most lithic assemblages from Lithuania as well as their simi- likely centuries later at the very end of the Younger Dryas larities to the Magdalenian, as Rimantienė (1971) con- or first in the early Holocene, a more substantive settle- sidered all these cultures to have evolved from the Late ment by groups of the Swiderian tradition. In concluding, Magdalenian (stage VI). It reflects the general hypothe- we offer suggestions for future research. sis that the re-colonisation of Eastern Baltic region took place from the south-west. Although the term did not Research history enter widespread usage outside of Lithuania, Rimantienė The first Final Palaeolithic finds from the region of (1996) herself never revised it substantially. She consid- ­present-day Lithuania were registered in amateur collec- ered the Baltic Magdalenian to date to the end of Allerød tions at the end of the 19th and early in the 20th ­centuries and the Younger Dryas. According to her suggested chro- (Szukiewicz 1901). Yet, more systematic attempts to clas- nology, the peopling of Lithuania began in the Allerød sify the lithic material and to place it into a chronological­ and was an uninterrupted process, reflected, she argued, framework appeared only in the second half of the in the what she saw as hybrid assemblages: an initial Baltic 20th century. The first synthesis of the Final Palaeoli- Magdalenian, later on with strong Swiderian influences. thic in Lithuania was published by Rimutė Rimantienė The classification proposed by Rimantienė prevailed in in 1971. In this seminal publication, she suggested a the regional archaeological literature for 30 years until ­culture-historical framework for the Final Palaeolithic Šatavičius (2001) suggested a new and, he argued, more in the region that distinguishes only two main cultural up-to-date chronology for the Final Palaeolithic in his units: 1) the Baltic Magdalenian and 2) the Swiderian. The doctoral dissertation. His cultural-historical framework Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Art. 4, page 3 of 21 Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research

was comprised of five cultural units: the Hamburgian analysis and associated techniques (chironomid stud- (both ‘classic’ and Havelte phases), Federmessergruppen, ies, plant macrofossil­ analyses, isotopic measurements). Brommean, Ahrensburgian, and Swiderian. This chronol- The articulation of these large- and small-scale datasets ogy suggested that the re-colonisation of Lithuania began remains challenging (Eriksen 2002), although isochro- already in the Bølling Interstadial (GI-1e) and it was seen as nous tephra layers occurring in many archives over large a continuous process (Šatavičius 2001; Šatavičius 2005b). parts of Europe assist in robustly assessing lead and lag There is little doubt that the impetus for this new effects in these dynamics (e.g. Litt et al. 2001; Lowe hypothesis for the Final Palaeolithic re-colonisation of 2001; Lane et al. 2015). Lithuania is to be sought in broadly contemporaneous Despite these recent developments, the framework developments in the Western Baltic. In the late 1980s based on the traditional Late Glacial chronozones sug- and throughout the 1990s in particular a great number gested by Mangerud et al. (1974) remains in widespread of new publications regarding the earliest settlement in use among Lithuanian archaeologists. Correlating local the wider region became available (Burdukiewicz 1986; archaeological finds with these chronozones is prob- Burdukiewicz & Kobusiewicz 1987; Barton, Roberts & Roe lematic, however, as the classification was intended to 1991; Larsson 1996; Kozłowski, Gurba & Zaliznyak 1999), be valid for the Nordic (i.e Western Baltic) region only. It along with new and significantly more highly-resolved cli- has been shown that this chronozone succession is not matic and environmental data for northern Europe (Björck readily transferable to more southern and continental 1995; Björck et al. 1998). New evidence for the earliest re- regimes (de Klerk 2004). Thus, a one-to-one application of colonisation of the Western Baltic emerged in the form the chronozones to regions outside of Scandinavia leads of definite Hamburgian sites in Denmark (Holm & Rieck to the perception that the palaeoenvironmental condi- 1983; Holm & Rieck 1987; Holm & Rieck 1992) as well tions in the wider Baltic region were homogeneous and as perhaps in southern Sweden (Larsson 1991; Larsson that changes were strictly synchronous across this rather 1994). Also, the Federmessergruppen were recognised in vast area. Models have long suggested that both latitu- Denmark and a Final Palaeolithic culture-historical frame- dinal and oceanic-to-continental gradients have a signifi- work including the Hamburgian (Havelte phase only), cant modulating influence on local and regional climate Federmessergruppen, Brommean and Ahrensburgian (Renssen & Isarin 2001). became quickly established in this region (Eriksen 1999). More recent empirical studies, too, reveal a more com- Milestone regional syntheses effectively reached out with plicated scenario for environmental changes during these new data to regions beyond the Western Baltic (e.g. the LGIT. Muschitiello & Wohlfarth (2015), for instance, Larsson 1996; Straus et al. 1996). It is in light of these demonstrate that there are regional lead-lag differences developments that the establishment of a similar clas- in the transition from the Allerød to the Younger Dryas sification of and chronology for the Lithuanian material of nearly 300 years. Furthermore, Central and Eastern must be understood. Europe, in particular, appear to have been characterised However, the chronology suggested by Šatavičius (2001) by strongly regionally specific environmental conditions encountered strong critique from Ostrauskas (2002a) during the LGIT, where especially the Greenland Stadial shortly after it was proposed; he argued that its empiri- 1 (GS-1) cooling event were marked by cold winters cal basis was rather weak. Still, the chronology proposed (Feurdean et al. 2014). Although climatic changes and by Šatavičius soon became the new orthodoxy among vegetation responses followed broadly similar trajectories Lithuanian Stone Age researchers (Girininkas 2009; in Western, Central and Eastern Europe, the differences Girininkas 2011) and now represents the textbook culture were appreciable: In Central Poland and further to the history of the Lithuanian Final Palaeolithic (Šatavičius south (e.g. Frenzel 1983), favourable environmental con- 2016). In the following, we critically examine the pal- ditions were registered approximately 700 years earlier aeoenvironmental background for the Final Palaeolithic and climatic cooling events including GS-1 were not as human colonisation of the Lithuanian territory as well harsh as in the Eastern Baltic (Table 1). as the available archaeological evidence. Given that the This recent evidence thus suggests possible time-trans- established framework of early and continuous settle- gressive changes in the palaeoenvironmental conditions ment is being questioned for the Western Baltic, we here across the Baltic region. New data on Late Glacial envi- explore the implications of such revisions for the situa- ronmental developments in Lithuania (Stančikaitė et al. tion in the Eastern Baltic, specifically for Lithuania. 2008; Stančikaitė et al. 2009; Gaidamavičius et al. 2011; Stančikaitė et al. 2011; Stančikaitė et al. 2015) allow ten- Palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental data tative comparisons with well-investigated locales such as Any consideration of the Final Palaeolithic colonisa- Slotseng in Denmark (Lemdahl, Buckland & Mortensen tion of northern latitudes must be made in relation to 2014; Mortensen et al. 2014). Such preliminary com- contemporaneous climatic and environmental changes. parison reveals a possible lag between the Western and Recent developments in palaeoclimatology have yielded Eastern Baltic of 200–300 years (Table 2). As hunter-gath- important new and highly resolved datasets, coming erers are demographically sensitive to climatic variables primarily from the Greenland ice cores, that track hem- such as effective temperature (Binford 2001; Kretschmer isphere-wide climatic changes during the LGIT (Lowe et 2015; Tallavaara et al. 2015) as well as associated changes al. 2008; Rasmussen et al. 2014). This is supplemented in plant and animal availability, even such short time lags by information on local or regional environmental may have important implications for our understanding changes gained from terrestrial archives through pollen of human settlement dynamics during this period. Art. 4, page 4 of 21 Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research

Table 1: Comparison of reconstructed palaeoclimatic conditions in Central Poland and the Eastern Baltic region during­ the Late Glacial and Early Holocene. Age b2k = thousands of years before AD 2000, following Lowe et al. (2008). After Feurdean et al. (2014).

Event chronology Age (b2k) Central Poland Eastern Baltic GS-1 12,896–11,703 Mild Cold GI-1a 13,099–12,896 Warm Moderate GI-1b 13,311–13,099 Warm Cold GI-1c 13,954–13,311 Warm but colder than GI-1e Moderate GI-1d 14,075–13,954 Warm Cold GI-1e 14,692–14,075 Warm Cold GS-2a Very cold Very cold

Table 2: Approximate comparison of registered palaeoclimatic changes in the sediment cores across the Baltic region. After Mortensen et al. (2011) and Stančikaitė et al. (2008). YD = Younger Dryas; OD = Older Dryas.

Age calBP

Palaeoclimatic changes Slotseng (SW Denmark) Kašučiai (W Lithuania)

Cooling associated with the YD 12,800 12,600

Warming associated with Allerød 14,000 13,700

Cooling associated with OD 14,100 14,300

Warming associated with Bølling 14,700

The reconstructions of palaeovegetation based on the During the Younger Dryas, the expansion of species archaeobotanical analysis from Slotseng in southwest in favour of open habitats is recorded at Slotseng. At Denmark and Kašučiai in western Lithuania provide first Kašučiai, a decrease in forest vegetation and attendant insights into the ecological differences between these increase in non-arboreal species is registered. Although two regions. At Slotseng, Bølling warming was more birch was present in the sparse local vegetation, open pronounced than in western Lithuania, and vegetation herb-grass cover dominated the landscape (Stančikaitė started to develop earlier creating a landscape covered by et al. 2008; Mortensen et al. 2011). In the following, we open dwarf-shrub vegetation dominated by Betula nana, review the sites and assemblages known from the LGIT Helianthemum oelandicum, Salix, Dryas octopetala and in Lithuania and attempt to correlate these with the cur- Poaceae. In contrast, palaeobotanical data from Kašučiai rent, albeit tentative, palaeoclimatic changes as sketched indicate open, tundra-like conditions with a dominance out here. of herbs, grasses and shrubs. Cyperaceae, Poaceae and Artemisia along with Salix and Juniperus are the most Archaeological data common plant species, although Betula nana L. and The bulk of candidate Final Palaeolithic archaeological Betula sect. Albae have also immigrated at that time. material from Lithuania is part of surface collections from In south-western Denmark, during the Older Dryas the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centu- drought-tolerant species such as Campanula cf. rotundifo- ries (Szukiewicz 1901), field surveys conducted – with lia, G. detonsa, Rumex acetosella, Lychnis alpina increased significant wartime interruptions – during the 1920s to suggesting a period of moisture restriction rather than a the 1960s, and archaeological excavations carried out significant temperature decrease. Meanwhile, at Kašučiai during the 1950s and 1960s (Rimantienė 1971). These the vegetation cover remained very sparse with a domi- lithic assemblages still form the empirical backbone for nance of Artemisia, Chenopodiaceae and Cyperaceae. the Lithuanian Final Palaeolithic chronology today. Sev- The subsequent Allerød is, in both regions, marked by an eral new excavations have been conducted at the end increase of arboreal vegetation. At the Slotseng catchment, of the 1990s, in the early years of the new millennium Betula generally dominated these forest stands, although (Ostrauskas 1998; Ostrauskas 2000a; Ostrauskas 2000b; the amount of Betula pollen decreased significantly while Šatavičius 2012; Šatavičius 2014) as well as during the last Pinus reached its maximum during the colder Gerzensee decade (Grigaliūnas 2013; Girininkas et al. 2016; Slah 2016; oscillation. In contrast, at Kašučiai (like in other regions Girininkas et al. 2017), but these have failed to produce of Lithuania), Pinus dominated throughout the Allerød. new robustly datable sites. More than half of all candidate Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Art. 4, page 5 of 21 Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research

Lithuanian Final Palaeolithic assemblages derives from saw these as reflecting Hamburgian – both the ‘classic’ old surveys and collecting activities (Table 3). and Havelte phases – Federmessergruppen, Brommean, Working with surface collections as the foundation for and Ahrensburgian occupations. Lithic material from culture-historical classification is fraught with difficulties, five sites was identified as Hamburgian, from one site however. While surface assemblages must and can be used as Federmessergruppen, 27 sites were attributed to as valid sources of information (Schwabedissen 1955; Veil the Brommean and 24 sites to the Ahrensburgian. 2006), they have usually been subject to a variety of dif- Table 4 summarizes those currently known candidate ficult to account for transformations related to natural, Final Palaeolithic sites from Lithuania, which have figured anthropogenic and stochastic processes (Ammerman & most prominently in the taxonomic debate. Importantly, Feldman 1974; Baker 1978; Odell & Cowan 1987; Boismier Table 4 lists how different workers have classified the same 1997) with the result that the relative composition of lithic material in different ways. Figure 2 shows these such assemblages cannot be seen as reflecting prehistoric locales on a current topographic map. reality. Furthermore, preservation of organic and hence Regrettably, the existing Final Palaeolithic chronology­ datable material is generally low and stratigraphic reso- for Lithuania cannot be significantly supported by lution poor or non-existent (Vermeersch 1977; Crombé dated organic artefacts. At present, there is only one et al. 2013). Many major studies of the Final Palaeolithic ­radiocarbon date, which falls within the Late Pleistocene, in northern Europe have attempted to account for this obtained on a reindeer antler implement found in reservation by assigning a quality ranking to all sites (e.g. the ­village of Parupė (Biržai district, Lithuania) in 2014 Taute 1968; Burdukiewicz 1986). (Table 5; Girininkas et al. 2016). This implement stands All Lithuanian lithic assemblages share the difficul- as the oldest known antler axe from the Eastern Baltic ties outlined above. Rimantienė’s (1971) solution was region. Its Allerød date falls squarely within the known to define the Baltic Magdalenian as a lumping category corpus of dates for these objects, which, however, stretch arguing that “every Baltic Magdalenian site shows a slight from the early Allerød to the Holocene with cultural affil- variation in tools and sometimes it might look accidental, iations to the Federmessergruppen, the Brommean and however, that is one of the main characteristic features the Ahrensburgian (Clausen 2004; Girininkas et al. 2016). of this culture” (Rimantienė 1971: 30). Accordingly, it is Like the Parupė implement, most of these objects are not defined by a broad and inclusive range of diagnostic tool or only circumstantially found in association with lithics types that cuts across the boundaries of techno-complexes and hence provide little to no clues as to their cultural as defined elsewhere (e.g. Ahrensburgian, Brommean, affiliation. At present, it seems most likely that reindeer Federmessergruppen). These include (i) tanged points of antler implements were in common use across all Final different sizes and shapes/types, (ii) projectile points with Palaeolithic techno-complexes. complete retouch along one edge, (iii) lancet-shaped blades It is worth noting further that it has been suggested for with retouch at the tip only, (iv) wide and short scrapers a long time that four paddle-shaped points and one bob- including so-called thumbnail scrapers, (v) concave end- bin-shaped bone point found in Kalniškiai (Lithuania) in scrapers, (vi) various types of burins, which occur almost 1865 could belong to the Final Palaeolithic (Rimantienė in the same number as scrapers, (vii) combination tools 1971; Rimantienė 1996; Girininkas 2009; Grigaliūnas with a burination on one end and a scraper on the other. 2013), yet the actual age of these bone points remains Additional tool types are said to be very rare, but blades uncertain. Future radiocarbon dating of these and other or flakes with retouch do occur (Figure 1). In 1971, there relevant organic implements may yet allow us to better was no evidence for bone and antler tools but, according constrain and evaluate the Final Palaeolithic occupation to Rimantienė, Lyngby-type reindeer axes and harpoons in the Eastern Baltic region. with large barbs should belong to the Baltic Magdalenian tool-kit (Rimantienė 1971; Rimantienė 1996). Discussion Three decades later and in strong contrast to While reviewing the existing chronology, it becomes evi- Rimantienė, Šatavičius (2001; 2005b; 2016) proposed dent that the current culture history and chronology for an alternative splitting culture history and chronology the Lithuanian Final Palaeolithic are constructed solely for the Final Palaeolithic in Lithuania. Interestingly, he on a foundation of typology, in the absence of secure stra- drew largely on the same assemblages as Rimantienė but tigraphies and absolute chronological fix-points, and in analogy with other regions, especially the Western Baltic. Given recent discussions about the robusticity of these Table 3: Indicated number and the percentage of reference sequences (Kobusiewicz 2009b; Kobusiewicz ­candidate Final Palaeolithic assemblages that were 2009a; Riede 2017; Sauer & Riede 2018), it is warranted to obtained from different types of archaeological ask whether the Lithuanian data hold up against a critical ­investigation in Lithuania. assessment. One of the most controversial components of the current chronology is related to the possible Ham-

Type of archaeological investigation Nsite % burgian presence in the territory during the Bølling/GI-1e. Surface collection 28 50 During GI-1e, significant climatic ­amelioration is reg- istered in Western and Central Europe, yet the Eastern Archaeological survey 6 11 Baltic remains cold (see Table 1). These differing climatic Archaeological excavation 22 39 conditions are likely a key factor for human occupation, Art. 4, page 6 of 21 Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research

Figure 1: Selected lithics from 1) Kašėtos collection, 2) Ežerynas 11, 3) Ežerynas 16, 4) Vilnius defined as diagnos- tic tools for the Baltic Magdalenian by Rimantienė and divided by Šatavičius into four different cultural units: 1) ­Hamburgian, 2) Federmessergruppen, 3) Brommean, 4) Ahrensburgian. Based on Šatavičius (2002b; Figure 2:1,2), Girininkas (2009; Figure 30:3–8), Rimantienė (1971; Figures 6 and 11). especially in this early phase when populations were low in the north-eastern extremes of Poland – here assumed and environments fragile (Riede 2014a; Riede & Pedersen to be the most probable route into the Eastern Baltic and 2018). Today, the easternmost known site of the Ham- into Lithuania – have not yielded material older than at burgian is Krągola 25 (Kabacinski & Kobusiewicz 2007; most the Allerød/GI-1c-a (Siemaszko 1999). Kabacinski & Sobkowiak-Tabaka 2012). Secure evidence Taking into account this prima facie absence of evi- for the Hamburgian is absent in the area east of the River dence for the Hamburgian in the entire south-eastern and Vistula, which has led to suggestions that the eastern Eastern Baltic region, it is worth re-evaluating the archaeo- and north-eastern border of the Hamburgian expansion logical evidence from Lithuania. The typological assess- should be limited by the Rivers Noteć and Vistula respec- ment of projectile points assigned to the Hamburgian (e.g. tively (Bobrowski & Sobkowiak-Tabaka 2006). This notion Figure 1:1) forms the basis for the argument in favour finds support in palaeoenvironmental datasets that indi- of very early human presence. Yet, these artefacts are cate relatively favourable conditions in Western Poland interpreted differently by different workers: While some but harsher conditions in the Eastern Baltic at this time researchers see them as typical Hamburgian shouldered (Feurdean et al. 2014). Moreover, extensive field surveys projectiles (Zaliznyak 1999; Šatavičius 2001; Šatavičius Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Art. 4, page 7 of 21 Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research ius ius ius ius ius ius č č č č č č ius (Contd.) č (1971); (1971); Ostrauskas Ostrauskas ė ė ė alphabetically. ­ alphabetically. ius (2004); č ius (2004) ius (2005a) ius (2004) ius (2004) ius (2004) ius (2004) ius (2001); ius (2001); č č č č č č č (1974); Šatavi (1974); (1999a); Šatavi (1974); Šatavi (1971); Šatavi (1974); Šatavi (1974); Šatavi (1971); ė ė ė ė ė ė ė nas (2013) ius (2001); ius (2001); ius (2004) ius (2005a) Šatavi ius (2001); ius (2005a) ius (2001) ū č č č č č č References Grigali Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Rimantien Šatavi Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); ­ (2005); Rimantien Šatavi (1971); Šatavi (2009).; ­ Girininkas (2005); Rimantien Šatavi (2002a); Šatavi Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Ostrauskas (2005); Rimantien Šatavi Slah nas Grigali ū A - Girin inkas B; A S B B B; A S H; F; B; A; S A Ostrau skas S BM; S BM ius Šatavi č B B; A; S S B B B; A B; A; S S H; F; B; A; S A Taxonomic assignments by author Taxonomic Braz aitis

ė Riman tien BM B S BM BM BM; S BM S BM; S BM Context (Multiple/ Single phase) Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Single phase Single phase

46 >13 >50 >50 1600 6292 >500 lithics ~ 23 000 N ~ - Investiga tion type Excavation Surface Excavation Survey Surface Surface Surface Surface Excavation Excavation Surface Museum No. LNM (EM 2255) LNM a. ax) (V11 LNM 14) (Va LNM LNM (EM 2966) LNM VDKM LNM (EM 1991) LNM (EM 3063) Lat 54.16 55.37 54.03 54.04 54.85 54.22 54.22 55.00 54.02 54.93 54.20 21.36 23.99 24.70 25.37 24.54 24.54 24.08 24.69 23.92 23.98 24.29 Long Palaeolithic sites in Lithuania and their lumping and splittingand lumping their and Lithuania in sites identificationtaxonomic cultural Palaeolithic differentto according listed are Sites archaeologists. -6 ė s-1 s ė ia-6 ia-30 ė č č seikiai-1 ą Candidate Final Final Candidate Site name Aukštumala Baltašišk Barzdžio miškas (Margiu V) Bratonišk Derežny Derežny Dr Dubos ežeras Eiguliai-1 Ežerynas Glyno pelk H = Hamburgian, F = Federmessergruppen, B = Brommean, A Ahrensburgian, S Swiderian, BM Baltic Magdalenian, M Mesolithic. LNM National Museum of Lithuania, VDKM H = Hamburgian, F Federmessergruppen, 2. Museum, KšM = Kaišiadorys Museum, JKM = Jonava Area NM Nalšia Museum. See also Figure Museum, ŠAM = Šiauliai “Ausra” the Great War = Vytautas # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Table 4: Table Art. 4, page 8 of 21 Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research ius ius ius ius č č č ius č (Contd.) č (1971); (1971); Ostrauskas Girininkas Ostrauskas ė ius (2004); č ius (2001); ius (2001); ius (2001); ius (2004) ius (2004) ius (2004) ius (2005a) (1998); (1998); č č č č č č ė (1971); Šatavi (1971); Šatavi (1971); (1971); Šatavi (1974); ė ė ė ė ius (2001) ius (2005a) ius (2014) Šatavi ius (2001); ius (2005a) ius (2004) č č č č č č References Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); ­ Ostrauskas (1999); (2005); Šatavi Šatavi Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Ostrauskas (2005); Rimantien Šatavi (2002a); Šatavi Šatavi Girininkas (2000); ­ (2009); Šatavi Šatavi Girininkas (2009); ­ & Rimantien ­ Ostrauskas (2005). Šatavi Šatavi (2001); Slah nas Grigali ū - Girin inkas B B; A; S A B S H; B; A B; S S Ostrau skas S BM S ius Šatavi č B B; A A B S B; A; S H; B; A; S B; S S Taxonomic assignments by author Taxonomic Braz aitis

ė Riman tien S BM BM BM BM; S S Context (Multiple/ Single phase) Multiple Multiple Single phase Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple 6 850 <10 2070 lithics 19300 ~ ~ N 200 000 ~ - Investiga tion type Surface Surface Surface Surface Excavation Excavation Surface Excavation Excavation Museum No. LNM b) 21 (Va LNM 71) (Va LNM 25) (Va LNM (EM 23) LNM (EM 2724) Lat 54.11 54.29 54.04 54.27 54.34 53.95 54.72 54.00 54.02 24.56 24.73 24.20 24.60 24.29 24.29 24.35 24.60 24.67 Long tos nai-2 kas-4 ė ė ū Site name Gl Gribaša Ilgio ežeras (Mergežeris-19) Jak (Duobupis-1) Kabeliai-2C Kalviai-1 ( ­ Basonys) Kaš Katra-1 ištakos-1 Katros # 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Art. 4, page 9 of 21 Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research ius ius ius ius č č č č ius (Contd.) č

Ostrauskas Ostrauskas Ostrauskas ė ius (2004); č ius (2001); ius (2001); ius (2001); ius (2004) ius (2005a) ius (2004) ius (2004) ius (2001); ius (2001); č č č č č č č (1974); (1974); (1971); (1999b); Šatavi (1971); Šatavi (1971); Šatavi (1971); Šatavi (1971); ė ė ė ė ė ė ė ius (2004) ius (2002a) ius (2001) Šatavi ius (2001); ius (2005a) ius (2001); ius (2005a) ius (2004) č č č č č č č č References Girininkas (2009); ­ (2005); Šatavi Šatavi Girininkas (2009); ­ (2005); Rimantien Šatavi (1971); Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2002a); Šatavi Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi Šatavi Girininkas (2009); ­ (2000b); Ostrauskas (2005); Šatavi Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Slah nas Grigali ū - Girin inkas B H; S A; S H; B; A; S B; A; S B B B; S B; A; S Ostrau skas BM BM; S B; S ius Šatavi č B H; S A H; B; A; S B; A; S B B S B B; A; S Taxonomic assignments by author Taxonomic Braz aitis

ė Riman tien BM; S S BM; S M BM BM; S BM BM Context (Multiple/ Single phase) Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Single Single Multiple Multiple 1 10 60 180 ~ ~ 3300 lithics ~ 10 000 10 63 222 N ~ - Investiga tion type Excavation* Surface Surface Excavation Excavation Excavation Surface Survey Surface Surface Museum No. ŠAM (I–A 199/1) LNM (EM 3033) LNM (31) LNM (EM 53/ EM 2735) LNM (EM 2258 – 2686) LNM LNM 128) (Va LNM 98 a) (Va LNM 56) (Va LNM (57) Lat 54.19 54.16 55.89 54.06 54.04 54.04 54.00 54.29 54.20 54.20 24.13 23.25 24.38 24.70 24.70 24.29 24.62 24.52 24.52 24.34 Long la Ū Site name Lieporiai Maksimonys-1 Marcinkonys-1 Margiai “Sala” Margiai-1 Margionys Maskauka-6 Mergežeris-3 Mergežeris-8 Merkys- # 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Art. 4, page 10 of 21 Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research ius ius ius ius ius č č č č č (Contd.) ius (2001); ius (2001); ius (2016) ius (2004) ius (2004) ius (2005a) ius (2005a) ius (2005a) č č č č č č č (1971); (1971); Šatavi (1974); (1971); Šatavi (1974); (1971); (1971); Šatavi (1974); (1974) Šatavi (1971); Šatavi (1974); ė ė ė ė ė ė ė ė ė ė ius (2001) ius (2005a) ius (2006) č č č References Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas et al. (2017) Girininkas (2009); Ostrauskas (2005); Šatavi Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Girininkas Brazaitis (1998); (2009); Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Slah nas Grigali ū - Girin inkas B B; S A A; S B; A A; S A F; A A; S S A; S Ostrau skas S S ius Šatavi č B B A S A; S M A; S S A; S Taxonomic assignments by author Taxonomic Braz aitis M

ė Riman tien BM; BM; S BM BM; S S S BM; S Context (Multiple/ Single phase) Multiple Single Multiple Single Single Multiple Multiple Multiple Single Multiple Multiple 20 ~ 230 >90 1000 ~ >350 lithics ~ >6000 N >12000 - Investiga tion type Surface Surface Excavation Surface Surface Excavation Excavation Excavation Survey Survey Surface Museum No. LNM a) 107 (Va LNM a) 107 (Va LNM (EM 2047) LNM (EM 1987 (3042)) KšM LNM LNM LNM (KJ b) N11 VDKM Lat 54.19 54.11 54.76 54.24 54.24 54.69 54.68 54.99 54.92 54.97 56,39 25.15 23.76 24,76 24.55 24.55 23.38 24.08 23.60 24.97 24.30 23.96 Long s) s-5 s-6 ė ė ė iai-1 ė č gainiai ū Site name Mitrišk Mitrišk Nendriniai-1 Netiesos-1 Parup Pasieniai-1 1 Paštuva Pypliai-1C P (Papišk Puvo Radikiai # 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Art. 4, page 11 of 21 Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research ius ius ius ius - ius č č ius ius č č ius č (Contd.) č č č

ė ius (2012) č ius (2001); ius (2001); ius (2001); ius (2001); ius (2005a) ius (2016) ius (2005a) ius (2016) ius (2004) ius (2002a); ius (2001); ius (2001); č č č č č č č č č (1971); Šatavi (1971); (1974); Šatavi (1974); Šatavi (1971); Šatavi (1974); ė ė ė ė ė ius (2005a) ius (2001) ius (2005a) ius (2004); Šatavi ius (2005a) č č č č č References Girininkas (2009); Šatavi Šatavi (1998); Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Ostraus kas (2005); Rimantien Šatavi (1971); Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Šatavi Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Ostrauskas (2005); Šatavi Šatavi (2005a); Šatavi Slah (2016) Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Ostrauskas Ostrauskas (2000a); (1998); ­ Ostrauskas (2005); Šatavi Šatavi (2001); Šatavi Slah A nas Grigali ū - Girin inkas A; S B; A A A; S F; S S A; S B; S B; S H; B; A Ostrau skas BM S S BM; S ius Šatavi č A; S B; A; S A A; S S S A B; S B; A; S H; B Taxonomic assignments by author Taxonomic Braz aitis

ė Riman tien BM; S S BM; S S BM; S S Context (Multiple/ Single phase) Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Single Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple 93 ~ 1200 1500 6700 >200 lithics ~ ~ ~ >3000 N - Investiga tion type Excavation Surface Surface Surface Excavation Excavation Surface Excavation Survey Surface Excavation Museum No. NM LNM (3060) VDKM JKM LNM (EM 2986) LNM (EM 1969) LNM (EM 2414) Lat 55.12 55.12 55.28 54.07 55.08 55.08 54.93 54.08 55.62 54.22 54.25 26.11 23.17 24.31 23.76 24.67 24.37 24.58 25.97 24.66 24.58 24.55 Long liai ė -2 n iai-1B ė ė č na n ė ė ku ė Site name R Rudnia Saleninkai-2 Samantonys Skaruliai Sudota-2A Šilelis-2 Titno ežeras Tytuv Var Var # 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Art. 4, page 12 of 21 Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research ius ius č č (1971); (1971); ė ius (2004) ius (2004) č č (1974); Šatavi (1974); (1974); ė ė ius (2001) ius (2001) č č References Girininkas (2009); Ostrauskas (2005); Rimantien Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi (2001); Girininkas (2009); Rimantien Šatavi Girininkas (2009); Šatavi Šatavi (2001); Slah nas Grigali ū - Girin inkas A B A B Ostrau skas BM ius Šatavi č A B A B Taxonomic assignments by author Taxonomic Braz aitis

ė Riman tien BM BM BM Context (Multiple/ Single phase) Single Single Multiple Multiple 30 50 60 ~ ~ 800 ~ lithics N - Investiga tion type Surface Surface Excavation Survey Museum No. LNM (V1) LNM (V2 a. b. c) LNM (V25) Lat 54.69 54.68 54.90 54.45 25.28 25.29 24.99 23.62 Long Site name Vilnius-1 Vilnius-2 Žalioji-1 Žuvintai-1 # 53 54 55 56 Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Art. 4, page 13 of 21 Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research

Figure 2: Map indicating candidate Final Palaeolithic sites from Lithuania. List of sites: 1. Aukštumala, 2. Baltašiškės ­(collection), 3. Barzdžio miškas (Margiu V), 4. Bratoniškės-1, 5. Derežnyčia-6, 6. Derežnyčia-30, 7. Drąseikiai-1, 8. Dubos ežeras (collection), 9. Eiguliai-1, 10. Ežerynas, 11. Glyno pelkė-6, 12. Glūkas-4, 13. ­Gribaša (collection), 14. Ilgio ežeras ­(Mergežeris-19), 15. Jakėnai-2 (Duobupis-1), 16. Kabeliai-2C, 17. Kalviai-1 (Basonys),­ 18. Kašėtos (collection), 19. Katra-1, 20. Katros ištakos-1, 21. Lieporiai, 22. Maksimonys-1, 23. ­Marcinkonys-1, 24. Margiai “Sala”, 25. Margiai-1, 26. Margionys, 27. Maskauka-6, 28. Mergežeris-3, 29. Mergežeris-8, 30. Merkys-Ūla (collection), 31. Mitriškės-5, 32. Mitriškės-6, 33. Nen- driniai-1, 34. Netiesos-1, 35. Parupė, 36. Pasieniai-1, 37. Paštuva-1, 38. Pypliai-1C, 39. Pūgainiai (Papiškės), 40. Puvočiai-1, 41. Radikiai, 42. Rėkučiai-1B, 43. Rudnia (collection), 44. Saleninkai-2, 45. Samantonys, 46. Skaruliai, 47. Sudota-2A, 48. Šilelis-2, 49. Titno ežeras, 50. ­Tytuvėnėliai, 51. Varėna (collection), 52. Varėnė-2, 53. Vilnius-1, 54. Vilnius-2, 55. Žalioji-1, 56. Žuvintai-1, 57. Kalniškiai. See also Table 4.

Table 5: Results of radiocarbon dating of Parupė antler In nearby Belarus, there are found a handful of possible axe. After Girininkas et al. (2016), re-calibrated using shouldered points, but these too are finds from uninforma- OxCal 4.3 (Bronk Ramsey 2009) and the IntCal13 tive context and all lack secure dating (Vashanau 2010). All ­calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2013). these observation amount to a cautious stance: The few candidate lithic objects may indicate a Hamburgian pres- 14 Laboratory C age Calibrated age ence, but the lack of additional material such as cores and number (BP) (cal BP), 95,4 % CI Zinken coupled with the lack of numeric dates indicating BETA-403383 11,170 ± 40 13,130–12,930 human presence at this early stage in the LGIT should lead to a careful interpretation of these collections. The Federmessergruppen techno-complex, perceived 2002a; Šatavičius 2005b), others claim that they, nei- as a more western and central European phenomenon, ther typologically nor technologically, can convincingly has traditionally attracted less interest from Lithuanian be linked to the Hamburgian. Instead, they see them as Final Palaeolithic researchers. Compared with other being of the Grensk type and hence as reflecting this much Final Palaeolithic cultures, the smallest number of younger techno-complex (Butrimas & Ostrauskas 1999; artefacts are ascribed to this techno-complex. Only Ostrauskas 2002a). Hamburgian points, especially of the a small assemblage from Ežerynas 11 that contains ‘classic’ variant, are diverse in shape (Grimm, Jensen & Wehlen-type tanged scrapers, microburins, fragments Weber 2012; Riede & Pedersen 2018). Yet, Hamburgian flint- of blades with retouch, and one special-purpose tool knappers, similarly to their Magdalenian ancestors, were (Figure 1:2; Šatavičius 2001), as well as two backed rather strict in the application of specific chaîne opératoire pieces from Pypliai 1C and Skaruliai (Girininkas 2009) approaches (Weber 2012) and the observed difference in have been attributed to the Federmessergruppen. This technology, therefore, suggest caution in classifying such paucity may in part relate to the fact that in the Western stray finds (see Figure 1:1, and compare Table 4). Initially, Baltic, finds of Federmessergruppen artefacts and asso- Rimantienė (1971; 1996) attributed these projectiles to ciated sites have been underreported until the 1970s her Baltic Magdalenian and identified them as projectiles (Riede 2017). During the last few decades, however, with complete retouch on one edge (i.e. backed pieces). much new knowledge about the distribution, typology, Art. 4, page 14 of 21 Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research and technology of the Federmessergruppen has been In contrast to the other cultural entities discussed gained. Its boundaries have been expanded, including above, the evidence for a Swiderian presence in present- eastwards into Poland. In Poland, more and more sites day Lithuania is derived from more secure contexts. are ascribed to the Federmessergruppen (Sobkowiak- Radiocarbon dates from Kabeliai-2 (Ostrauskas 2002b) Tabaka 2014). Yet, substantial uncertainty regarding the obtained from charred wood found in the lower cultural Federmessergruppen remains: This is in part driven by level C indicates an age of occupation at the end of the the much lower degree of technological standardisation Younger Dryas/GS-1 or the beginning of the Holocene that results in a rather varied and often hard to recog- (Table 6). It should also be noted that – much like the nise archaeological signature. Federmessergruppen bulk of dates for the Ahrensburgian – most Swiderian flint-knappers adapted their technological strategies to sites should probably be dated to the very end of the the available raw materials using flexible chaînes opé- Younger Dryas or even the early Holocene (Weber, Grimm ratoires (De Bie & Vermeersch 1998; Loew 2005), mak- & Baales 2011). ing Federmessergruppen single finds and assemblage In summary, the review of the available evidence for the components easy to overlook or to falsely ascribe them Final Palaeolithic culture history of present-day Lithuania to other cultural units – a problem further confounded leaves us compelled to side with the earlier and less when working with surface collections (Riede, Laursen detailed chronology suggested by Rimantienė. A ques- & Hertz 2011a; Riede 2013). tion remains with regard to the Baltic Magdalenian, its The number of sites attributed to the Brommean chronology and its place with the contemporaneous land- increases significantly in comparison to the scape of Final Palaeolithic taxonomic units. Tentatively, Hamburgian and Federmessergruppen. This presumed the similarity of the candidate assemblages to the Final presence of the Brommean is, however, based almost Magdalenian combined with the lack of standardization exclusively on the presence of large tanged points, in the flint technology, the presence of thumbnail scrap- which by many are assumed to be a diagnostic tool for ers and large tanged points suggests an affiliation with said culture. Yet, large tanged points are found within the Federmessergruppen. In light of research conducted Federmessergruppen, Ahrensburgian, Swiderian and since Rimantienė’s definition of the Baltic Magdalenian, other Eastern European Final Palaeolithic cultures it is tempting to advocate a collapse of the taxonomic unit (Kobusiewicz 2009b; Kobusiewicz 2009a). Both in Baltic Magdalenian into the Federmessergruppen. Given their shape (Serwatka & Riede 2016) and their technol- the high level of variability within lithic assemblages of ogy (Fischer 1985) large tanged points from different the Federmessergruppen and their wide chronological contexts cannot readily be distinguished – an issue and geographic occurrence, this techno-complex consti- almost certainly due to convergent cultural evolution- tutes the most conservative ‘lumping’ taxonomic unit for ary trajectories­ shaped by similar functional constraints this period. However, Sauer & Riede (2018) have recently (cf. O’Brien, Buchanan & Eren 2018). shown that uncertainties in the construction of archaeo- While some researchers want to extend the territory logical taxonomic units in the Final Palaeolithic of Europe of the Bromme culture both far to the west as well as to may be so acute as to warrant a more radical rejection of the east (Andersson et al. 2004), the lithic evidence from such traditional frameworks (see also Otte & Keeley 1990; Lithuania cannot be harnessed for such arguments. While Barton & Neeley 1996; Houtsma et al. 1996). New methods the antler axe from Parupė clearly indicates human pres- (e.g. geometric morphometrics) that couple technological ence in the territory of present-day Lithuania in the Allerød, analyses with transparent data-driven classifications may this artefact class lacks cultural diagnostic value (Clausen yet come to offer alternative avenues to unit construction 2004) and hence cannot resolve to which technological tra- and classification (e.g. cultural phylogenetics). dition these colonists may belong. Given the current uncer- Regarding the chronology and the process of re-coloni- tainties regarding the Final Palaeolithic cultural taxonomy sation, we conclude that the suggestion that Lithuania was (Sauer & Riede 2018), it may be best not to ascribe these re-inhabited by Hamburgian foragers already during GI-1e finds to a specific techno-complex at this point. does not, we argue, have enough supporting evidence at Similar to the Brommean, a significant num- present. Recolonisation during the Allerød/GI-1c, b, a ber of Lithuanian assemblages are attributed to the may be supported by the environmental data indicating Ahrensburgian. These are characterised by the presence moderate climatic conditions and the AMS radiocarbon of small tanged points without retouch on the ventral side date from the Parupė implement. However, as yet, there of the tang and other lithic material which could possibly be attributed to this culture. The absence of retouch on the ventral side of the tang is, however, not a strong argu- Table 6: Radiocarbon dates from the Kabeliai-2 site ment for the presence of the Ahrensburgian in Lithuania, obtained on charred wood. After Ostrauskas (2002b), since most Swiderian assemblages contain at least some re-calibrated using OxCal 4.3 (Bronk Ramsey 2009) and projectile points that conform to this description. Indeed, the IntCal13 calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2013). the lithic assemblages of the two cultures are both typo- logically and technologically very similar (Kobusiewicz Laboratory 14C age Calibrated age 2002; Galiński & Sulgostowska 2010). Thus, the identifi- number (BP) (cal BP), 95,4 % CI cation of the Ahrensburgian in Lithuania during the Final Ta-2606 9910 ± 100 11,770–11,170 Palaeolithic should be considered with utmost caution. Ta-2601 9820 ± 220 12,050–10,650 Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Art. 4, page 15 of 21 Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research

is no robust archaeological evidence indicating human technological recording and analysis. Increasing the presence during the warmer early GI-1c, nor during the number of radiocarbon­ dates on clearly humanly modi- cold Gerzensee oscillation (GI-1b). Palaeoenvironmental fied organic objects is the most straightforward way of data suggest rather large climate fluctuations during the falsifying the hypothesis of a more curtailed colonisation entire Late Glacial and, independently of the precise date suggested here. Yet, even if new and secure numeric dates for an initial human presence in the region, we favour a can be obtained, these must still be brought into robust model of punctuated human colonisation in accordance contextual association with the lithic material in order to with these frame-setting fluctuations. At present, a basic further inform our understanding of the cultural taxo- model for the Final Palaeolithic human re-colonisation of nomic relations and trajectories in this period. In parallel, Lithuania would postulate a periodic, perhaps seasonal the acquisition of high-resolution palaeoenvironmental but at any rate ephemeral presence of foragers during the information for the LGIT, ideally time-constrained by key GI-1c, b, a, followed by a longer period of depopulation marker tephras, would be desirable. All of these efforts during the first half of GS-1, followed again by re-colo- will require substantial investments into research, but as nisation at the very end of GS-1 and the Early Holocene. long as such data are not available, we caution against models outlining all too detailed colonisation chronolo- Concluding remarks and future perspectives gies and culture-historical connections. The Lithuanian Final Palaeolithic culture history and pal- aeoenvironmental data critically reviewed in this paper Acknowledgements serves as a cautionary example of the excessive applica- The authors would like to thank Florian Sauer (Aarhus tion of typology and of supposedly diagnostic tool types University) for helping with the illustrations and the two as cultural markers. We suggest that a model with a col- anonymous reviewers for the valuable comments on our onisation sequence much like the Western Baltic is not manuscript. Research associated with this paper is car- supported by the data currently at hand. Typology has ried out as part of grant #6107-00059B awarded by the been heavily criticised as an outmoded tool for construct- ­Danish Council for Independent Research. ing cultural taxonomies in the Palaeolithic (Houtsma et al. 1996; Newell & Constandse-Westermann 1996; Bisson Competing Interests 2000; Shea 2014) and regionally specific taxonomies are The authors have no competing interests to declare. argued to often obscure rather than reveal important cross-regional similarities and differences (Otte & Keeley References 1990; Sauer & Riede 2018). The existing chronology which Ammerman, AJ and Feldman, MW. 1974. On the suggests the presence of Hamburgian, Federmessergrup- “Making” of an Assemblage of Stone Tools. Ameri- pen, Brommean and Ahrensburgian technological units can Antiquity, 39(4): 610–616. DOI: https://doi. in Lithuania during the Final Palaeolithic, mirroring the org/10.2307/278909 Western Baltic situation, is found unsupported by the Andersson, M, Karsten, P, Knarrström, B and evidence currently available. The older culture-historical ­Svensson, M. 2004. Stone Age Scania. Significant framework suggested by Rimantienė (1971) including places dug and read by contract archaeology. Lund: only two cultural entities – the Baltic Magdalenian and Riksantikvarieämbetet. the Swiderian – is considered more appropriate, although Baker, CM. 1978. The Size Effect: An Explanation of we further suggest collapsing the Baltic Magdalenian into Variability in Surface Artifact Assemblage Content. the Federmessergruppen, or alternatively rejecting these American Antiquity, 43(2): 288–293. DOI: https:// traditional classifications in favour of new more uni- doi.org/10.2307/279254 formly constructed classifications (cf. Gamble et al. 2005). Barton, CM and Neeley, MP. 1996. Phantom cul- Based on the existing evidence, the timing of re- tures of the Levantine Epipaleolithic. Antiquity, colonisation should be placed not into GI-1e but rather 70(267): 139–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ into GI-1c-a when the amelioration of climatic condi- S0003598X00082995 tion is registered in the Eastern Baltic. It is likely, how- Barton, RNE and Roberts, AJ. 2001. A Lyngby point from ever, that the subsequent cooling of GS-1/Younger Dryas Mildenhall, Suffolk and its implications for the again led to a decolonisation of the region. In our view, British Late Upper Palaeolithic. In: Milliken, S and the Final Palaeolithic in Lithuania is in need of both more Cook, J (eds.), A Very Remote Period Indeed. Papers critical re-assessments of the available evidence as well on the Palaeolithic presented to Derek Roe, 234–241. as new data. Only preliminary conclusions vis-à-vis cul- Oxford: Oxbow. tural affiliations, chronology and relations to contempo- Barton, RNE, Roberts, AJ and Roe, D. (eds.) 1991. The raneous environmental changes can be offered – there Late Glacial in north-west Europe: human adaptation is a clear need for excavations to be carried out accord- and environmental change at the end of the Pleis- ing to contemporary standards, further absolute dates tocene Council for British Archaeology Research and robust stratigraphic observations. In addition, dat- Report 77. London: CBA. ing organic artefacts – even stray finds – from Lithuania Benet-Tygel, S. 1944. The Magdalenian culture and surrounding regions should be given priority in in Poland. American Anthropologist, 46(4): researching the Final Palaeolithic in Lithuania, and the 479–499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/ candidate lithic material should be submitted to detailed aa.1944.46.4.02a00050 Art. 4, page 16 of 21 Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research

Binford, LR. 2001. Constructing frames of reference: an Burdukiewicz, JM. 2001. The last Ice Age and settlement analytical method for archaeological theory building break in the northern part of Central Europe. Fontes using hunter-gatherer and environmental data sets. Archaeologici Posnanienses, 39: 15–29. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Burdukiewicz, JM and Kobusiewicz, M. (eds.) 1987. Late Bisson, MS. 2000. Nineteenth Century Tools for Glacial in Central Europe. Culture and Environment. Twenty-First Century Archaeology? Why the 5. Kracow: Prace Komisji Archeologicznej. Middle Paleolithic Typology of François Bordes Butrimas, A. 2016. Rimutė Rimantienė: Founder of Must Be Replaced. Journal of Archaeological the School of Stone Age Explorations in Lithu- Method and Theory, 7(1): 1–48. DOI: https://doi. ania and the Eastern Baltic Region. Archaeologia org/10.1023/A:1009578011590 ­Lituana, 17: 11–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/ Björck, S. 1995. A review of the history of the Bal- ArchLit.2016.17.10679 tic Sea, 13.0-8.0 ka BP. Quaternary International, Butrimas, A and Ostrauskas, T. 1999. Tanged Points Cul- 27(Supplement C): 19–40. DOI: https://doi. tures in Lithuania. In: Kozlowski, SK, Gurba, J and org/10.1016/1040-6182(94)00057-C Zaliznyak, LL (eds.), Tanged Point Cultures in Europe. Björck, S, Walker, MJC, Cwynar, LC, Johnsen, SJ, Read at the International Archaeological Symposium. Knudsen, K-L, Lowe, JJ and Wohlfarth, B. Lublin, September, 13–16, 1993, 267–271. Lublin: 1998. An Event Stratigraphy for the Last Termi- Maria Curie-Sklodowska University Press. nation in the North Atlantic Region based on Clausen, I. 2004. The reindeer antler axe of the Alleröd the Greenland ice-core record: a proposal by the period from Klappholz LA 63, Kreis Schleswig- INTIMATE group. Journal of Quaternary Science, Flensburg/Germany. Is it a relict of the Federmesser, 13(4): 283–292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ ­Bromme or Ahrensburg culture? In: Terberger, (SICI)1099-1417(199807/08)13:4<283::AID- T and Eriksen, BV (eds.), Hunters in a Changing JQS386>3.0.CO;2-A World. Environment and Archaeology of the Pleisto- Bobrowski, P and Sobkowiak-Tabaka, I. 2006. How far cene – Holocene Transition (c. 11000–9000 B.C. in east did the Hamburgian culture reach? Archaeolo- Northern Central Europe), 141–164. Rahden: Verlag gia Baltica, 7: 11–20. Marie Leidorf GmbH. Boismier, WA. 1997. Modeling the effects of tillage pro- Crombé, PH, Robinson, E, Van Strydonck, M and cesses on artifact distributions in the ploughsoil. A Boudin, M. 2013. Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic simulation study of tillage-induced pattern forma- open-air sites in the coversand area of the North- tion. British Archaeological Reports (International west European Plain: Problems and prospects. Series) 259. Oxford: Archaeopress. Archaeometry, 55(3): 545–562. DOI: https://doi. Brazaitis, D. 1998. Pyplių piliakalnio papėdės gyvenvietė. org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2012.00693.x Lietuvos archeologija, 15: 87–102. De Bie, M and Vermeersch, PM. 1998. Pleistocene- Breest, K and Gerken, K. 2008. Kulturelle Einflüsse und Holocene transition in the Benelux. Quaternary Beziehungen im Spätpaläolithikum Niedersach- International, 49/50: 29–43. DOI: https://doi. sens – Ein Diskussionsbeitrag Sassenholz 78 und org/10.1016/S1040-6182(97)00052-9 82, Ldkr. Rotenburg (Wümme). Die Kunde N.F., 59: de Klerk, P. 2004. Confusing concepts in Lateglacial 1–38. stratigraphy and geochronology: origin, conse- Brinch Petersen, E. 1970. Le Brommeen et le cycle de quences, conclusions (with special emphasis on Lyngby. Quartär, 21: 93–95. the type locality Bøllingsø). Review of Palaeobotany Brinch Petersen, E. 2009. The human settlement of and Palynology, 129: 265–298. DOI: https://doi. southern Scandinavia 12500-8700 cal BC. In: Street, org/10.1016/j.revpalbo.2004.02.006 M, Barton, RNE and Terberger, T (eds.), Humans, De Molyn, JCM. 1954. The Bromme Culture. Notes environment and chronology of the late glacial of the on Denmarks most ancient culture. Quartär, 6: North European Plain, 89–129. Mainz: Verlag des 109–117. Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums. Ekholm, G. 1926. Lyngby-Kultur. In: Ebert, M (ed.), Brøndsted, J. 1938. Danmarks Oldtid I. København: Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte. Band 7, 324–326. Gyldendal. Berlin: Verlag Walter de Gruyter & Co. Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Eriksen, BV. 1999. Late Palaeolithic settlement in Den- Dates. Radiocarbon, 51(1): 337–360. DOI: https:// mark – how do we read the record? In: Kobusiewicz, doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033865 M and Kozlowski, JK (eds.), Post-Pleniglacial Re- Buck Pedersen, K. 2014. Brommeproblemet 2.0 – kom- Colonisation of the Great European Lowland, 157– mentarer til Riedes artikel ‘Brommeproblemet’. 174. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejetnosci. Arkæologisk Forum, 30: 7–11. Eriksen, BV. 2002. Reconsidering the geochronologi- Buck Pedersen, K. 2015. Brommekulturen lever! Arkæol- cal framework of Lateglacial hunter-gatherer ogisk Forum, 32: 37–41. ­colonization of southern Scandinavia. In: Eriksen, Burdukiewicz, JM. 1986. Late Pleistocene Shouldered BV and Bratlund, B (eds.), Recent studies in the Final Point Assemblages in Western Europe. Leiden: ­Palaeolithic of the European plain, 25–42. Højbjerg: E.J. Brill. ­Jutland Archaeological Society. Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Art. 4, page 17 of 21 Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research

Feurdean, A, Perşoiu, A, Tanţău, I, Stevens, T, Grigaliūnas, M. 2013. The first Palaeolithic and ­Magyari, EK, Onac, BP, Marković, S, Andrič, ­Mesolithic settlements in Aukštumala, Šilutė dis- M, Connor, S, Fărcaş, S, Gałka, M, Gaudeny, T, trict, the Nemunas river delta. Archaeologia Baltica, Hoek, W, Kolaczek,­ P, Kuneš, P, ­Lamentowicz, 20: 174–189. M, Marinova, E, Michczyńska, DJ, Perşoiu, Grimm, SB, Jensen, DS and Weber, M-J. 2012. A lot I, Płóciennik, M, Słowiński, M, Stancikaite, of good points – Havelte points in the context M, Sumegi, P, Svensson,­ A, Tămaş, T, Timar, of Late Glacial tanged points in Northwestern A, Tonkov, S, Toth, M, Veski, S, Willis, KJ and Europe. In: Niekus, M, Barton, RNE, Street, M and ­Zernitskaya, V. 2014. Climate variability and Terberger, T (eds.), A mind set on flint. Studies in hon- associated vegetation response throughout Cen- our of Dick Stapert. Groningen: Barkhuis. 251–266. tral and Eastern Europe (CEE) between 60 and DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt2272864.21 8 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews, 106(Supplement Grimm, SB and Weber, M-J. 2008. The chronological C): 206–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. framework of the Hamburgian in the light of old quascirev.2014.06.003 and new 14C dates. Quartär, 55: 17–40. DOI: https:// Fischer, A. 1985. Late Paleolithic Finds In: Kristian- doi.org/10.7485/QU55_02 sen, K (ed.), Archaeological Formation Processes. Holm, J and Rieck, F. 1983. Jels 1 – the First Danish Site The representativity of archaeological remains of the Hamburgian Culture. A Preliminary Report. from Danish Prehistory, 81–88. Copenhagen: Journal of Danish Archaeology, 2: 7–11. Nationalmuseet. Holm, J and Rieck, F. 1987. Die Hamburger Kultur in Fischer, A, Mortensen, MF, Henriksen, PS, Dänemark. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, ­Mathiassen, DR and Olsen, J. 2013. Dating the 17(2): 151–168. Trollesgave site and the Bromme culture – chrono- Holm, J and Rieck, F. (Eds.) 1992. Istidsjægere ved Jelssøerne. logical fix-points for the Lateglacial settlement Monografi i serien Skrifter fra ­Museumsrådet for of Southern Scandinavia. Journal of Archaeologi- Sønderjyllands Amt 5. Haderslev: Museumsrådet for cal Science, 40(12): 4663–4674. DOI: https://doi. Sønderjyllands Amt. org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.06.026 Houtsma, P, Kramer, E, Newell, RR and Smit, JL. Frenzel, B. 1983. Die Vegetationsgeschichte Süd- 1996. The Late Palaeolithic Habitation of Haule deutschlands im Eiszeitalter. In: Müller-Beck, H V: From Excavation Report to the Reconstruction (ed.), Urgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg, 91–166. of Federmesser Settlement Patterns and Land-Use. Stuttgart: Theiss Verlag. Assen: Van Gorcum. Gaidamavičius, A, Stančikaitė, M, Kisielienė, D, Kabacinski, J and Kobusiewicz, M. 2007. Kragola near Mažeika, J and Gryguc, G. 2011. Post-glacial Kolo (Central Poland) – the easternmost settlement vegetation and environment of the Labanoras of the Hamburgian Culture. In: Kobusiewicz, M Region, East Lithuania: implications for regional and Kabacinski, J (eds.), Studies in the Final Palaeo- history. Geological Quarterly, 55(3): 269–284. lithic settlement of the Great European Plain, 21–52. Galiński, T and Sulgostowska, Z. 2010. Younger Dryas Poznan: ­Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, tanged point key sites in western Pomerania. Polish Academy of Sciences (Poznan Branch). Archaeologia Baltica, 13: 43–57. Kabacinski, J and Sobkowiak-Tabaka, I. 2012. The Gamble, CS, Davies, W, Pettitt, P and Richards, M. ‘Eastern extension’ – New data on the Hamburgan 2005. The Archaeological and Genetic Foundations in Poland. In: Niekus, M, Barton, RNE, Street, M and of the European Population during the Late Glacial: Terberger, T (eds.), A mind set on flint. Studies in hon- Implications for ‘Agricultural Thinking’. Cambridge our of Dick Stapert, 217–234. Groningen: Barkhuis. Archaeological Journal, 15(2): 193–223. DOI: https:// DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt2272864.19 doi.org/10.1017/S0959774305000107 Kobusiewicz, M. 2002. Ahrensburgian and Sviderian: Girininkas, A. 2000. Katros 1-oji gyvenvietė. Arche- two different modes of adaptation? In: Eriksen, BV ologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje, 1998/1999: 12–14. and Bratlund, B (eds.), Recent studies in the final Girininkas, A. 2009. Lietuvos Archeologija/T.1: Akmens Palaeolithic of the European plain: proceedings of amžius. Vilnius: Versus aureus. a U.I.S.P.P. symposium, Stockholm, 14.–17. October Girininkas, A. 2011. Baltu kulturos istakos II. Klapeida: 1999, 117–122. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Klapeidos universiteto leidykla. Society. Girininkas, A, Rimkus, T, Slah, G and Daugnora, L. Kobusiewicz, M. 2009a. Whether the Bromme cul- 2017. Liungbiu tipo dirbiniai Lietuvoje. Istorija, ture existed? Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia, XV: 105(1): 4–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15823/ 75–91. istorija.2017.01 Kobusiewicz, M. 2009b. The Lyngby point as a cultural Girininkas, A, Rimkus, T, Slah, G, Daugnora, L, marker. In: Street, M, Barton, RNE and Terberger, Stančikaitė, M and Zabiela, G. 2016. Lyngby type T (eds.), Humans, environment and chronology of artefacts of Lithuania in the context of the Stone the late glacial of the North European Plain, 169– Age in Europe: Multidisciplinary study. Arheologija 178. Mainz: ­Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen un etnografija, 29: 13–30. Zentralmuseums. Art. 4, page 18 of 21 Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research

Kozłowski, SK, Gurba, J and Zaliznyak, LL (Eds.) 1999. Mangerud, J, Andersen, ST, Berglund, BE and Tanged Point Cultures in Europe. Read at the Interna- Donner, J. 1974. Quaternary stratigraphy of tional Archaeological Symposium. Lublin, September, Norden, a proposal for terminology and classi- 13–16, 1993. Lubelsie Materialy Archeologiczne 13. fication. Boreas, 4: 109–128. DOI: https://doi. Lublin: Maria Curie-Sklodowska University Press. org/10.1111/j.1502-3885.1974.tb00669.x Kretschmer, I. 2015. Demographische ­Untersuchungen zu Mathiassen, T. 1946. En senglacial Boplads ved Bromme. Bevölkerungsdichten, Mobilität und Landnutzungs- Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, mustern im späten Jungpaläolithikum. Rahden/Westf.: 1946: 121–197. VML Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH. Mortensen, MF, Birks, HH, Christensen, C, Holm, Lane, CS, Brauer, A, Martín-Puertas, C, Blockley, SPE, J, Noe-Nygaard, N, Odgaard, BV, Olsen, J and Smith, VC and Tomlinson, EL. 2015. The Late Rasmussen, KL. 2011. Lateglacial vegetation ­Quaternary tephrostratigraphy of annually ­laminated development in Denmark – New evidence based sediments from Meerfelder Maar, Germany. Quater- on macrofossils and pollen from Slotseng, a small- nary Science Reviews, 122(0): 192–206. DOI: https:// scale site in southern Jutland. Quaternary Science doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2015.05.025 Reviews, 30(19–20): 2534–2550. DOI: https://doi. Larsson, L. 1991. The Late Palaeolithic in southern Sweden:­ org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.04.018 Investigations in a marginal region. In: ­Barton, RNE, Mortensen, MF, Olsen, J, Holm, J and Christensen, C. Roberts, AJ and Roe, D (eds.), The Late Glacial in 2014. Right time, right place – dating the Havelte north-western Europe: human adaptation and environ- phase in Slotseng, Denmark. In: Riede, F and mental change at the end of the ­Pleistocene, 122–127. ­Tallavaara, M (eds.), Lateglacial and ­postglacial London: CBA. pioneers in northern Europe, 11–22. Oxford: Larsson, L. 1994. The Earliest Settlement in Southern Swe- Archaeopress. den. Current Swedish Archaeology, 2: 159–177. Muschitiello, F and Wohlfarth, B. 2015. Time-transgres- Larsson, L. (Ed.) 1996. The Earliest Settlement of Scandi- sive environmental shifts across Northern Europe navia and Its Relationship with Neighbouring Areas. at the onset of the Younger Dryas. Quaternary Sci- Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. ence Reviews, 109(0): 49–56. DOI: https://doi. Lemdahl, G, Buckland, PI and Mortensen, MF. 2014. Lat- org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.11.015 eglacial insect assemblages from the Palaeolithic site Newell, RR and Constandse-Westermann, TS. 1996. Slotseng: New evidence concerning ­climate and envi- The Use of Ethnographic Analyses for Researching ronment in SW Denmark. Quaternary International, Late Palaeolithic Settlement Systems, Settlement 341(0): 172–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Patterns and Land Use in the Northwest ­European quaint.2014.01.050 Plain. World Archaeology, 27(3): 372–388. Litt, T, Brauer, A, Goslar, T, Merkt, J, Balaga, K, Müller,­ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1996.998 H, Ralska-Jasiewiczowa, M, Stebich, M and 0315 Negendank, JFW. 2001. Correlation and synchroni- O’Brien, MJ, Buchanan, B and Eren, MI. (Eds.) 2018. sation of Lateglacial continental sequences in north- Convergent Evolution in Stone-Tool Technology. ern central Europe based on annually laminated Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology. Cambridge, MA: lacustrine sediments. Quaternary Science Reviews, MIT Press. 20(11): 1233–1249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ Odell, GH and Cowan, F. 1987. Estimating Tillage Effects S0277-3791(00)00149-9 on Artifact Distributions. American Antiquity, 52(3): Loew, S. 2005. Der Federmesser-Fundplatz Rüsselsheim 456–484. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/281594 122 am unteren Main (Hessen). Archäologisches Kor- Ostrauskas, T. 1998. Varėnės 2-oji senovės gyvenvietė. respondenzblatt, 35: 143–158. Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje, 1996/1997: Lowe, JJ. 2001. Abrupt climatic changes in Europe during 47–40. the last glacial–interglacial transition: the poten- Ostrauskas, T. 1999. Late Paleolithic and Mezolithic in tial for testing hypotheses on the synchroneity of South Lithuania. Lietuvos Archeologija, 16: 7–19. ­climatic events using tephrochronology. Global and Ostrauskas, T. 2000a. Tyrinėjimai Varėnės 2-ojoje Planetary Change, 30(1–2): 73–84. DOI: https://doi. gyvenvietėje 1999 m. Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai org/10.1016/S0921-8181(01)00079-0 Lietuvoje, 1998/1999: 52–53. Lowe, JJ, Rasmussen, SO, Björck, S, Hoek, WZ, ­Steffensen, Ostrauskas, T. 2000b. Tyrinėjimai Margionių titnago JP, Walker, MJC and Yu, ZC. 2008. Synchronisation kasyklų ir dirbtuvių komplekse 1999 m. Arche- of palaeoenvironmental events in the North Atlantic ologiniai tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje, 1998/1999: 50–51. region during the Last ­Termination: a revised proto- Ostrauskas, T. 2002a. Apie vėlyvojo paleolito col recommended by the INTIMATE group. Quater- periodizaciją Lietuvoje. Šatavičiaus koncepcijos nary Science Reviews, 27(1–2): 6–17. DOI: https://doi. ­kritika. Lietuvos archeologija, 23: 239–246. org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2007.09.016 Ostrauskas, T. 2002b. Kabeliai 2 Stone age site. Archaeo- Maier, A. 2015. The Central European Magdale- logia Baltica, 5: 51–82. nian. Regional diversity and internal variability. Ostrauskas, T. 2005. Vėlyvasis paleolitas. In: Girininkas, ­Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology A (ed.), Lietuvos istorija, vol. 1, 11–47. Vilnius: Baltos New York: Springer. lankos. Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Art. 4, page 19 of 21 Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research

Ostrauskas, T and Rimantienė, RJ. 1998. Katros Ištakų Riede, F and Edinborough, K. 2012. Bayesian radiocar- 1-oji senovės gyvenvietė. Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai bon models for the cultural transition during the Lietuvoje, 1996/1997: 35–37. Allerød in southern Scandinavia. Journal of Archae- Otte, M and Keeley, LH. 1990. The Impact of Regionalism ological Science, 39(3): 744–756. DOI: https://doi. on Palaeolithic Studies. Current Anthropology, 31(5): org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.11.008 577–582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/203904 Riede, F, Laursen, ST and Hertz, E. 2011a. Ingvor Rasmussen, SO, Bigler, M, Blockley, SP, Blunier, ­Filtenborgs flintsamling. Et diskussionsbidrag om T, Buchardt, SL, Clausen, HB, Cvijanovic, I, senglacialtidens jagtvåbenteknologi. By, marsk og ­Dahl-Jensen, D, Johnsen, SJ, Fischer, H, Gkinis, geest, 23: 6–20. V, Guillevic, M, Hoek, WZ, Lowe, JJ, Pedro, JB, Riede, F, Laursen, ST and Hertz, E. 2011b. Federmesser- Popp, T, Seierstad, IK, Steffensen, JP, Svensson, Gruppen i Danmark. Belyst med udgangspunkt i en AM, Vallelonga, P, Vinther, BM, Walker, MJC, amatørarkæologs flintsamling. Kuml, 2011: 9–38. Wheatley, JJ and Winstrup, M. 2014. A strati- Riede, F and Pedersen, JB. 2018. Late Glacial Human graphic framework for abrupt climatic changes Dispersals in Northern Europe and Disequilibrium during the Last Glacial period based on three syn- Dynamics. Human Ecology, 1–12. DOI: https://doi. chronized Greenland ice-core records: refining and org/10.1007/s10745-017-9964-8 extending the INTIMATE event stratigraphy. Quater- Rimantienė, RJ. 1971. Paleolit i mezolit Litvy. Vilnius: nary Science Reviews, 106: 14–28. DOI: https://doi. Akademiia nauk Litovskoi. org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.09.007 Rimantienė, RJ. 1974. Akmens amžiaus paminklai. In: Reimer, PJ, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Blackwell, P Rimantienė, RJ (ed.), Lietuvos TSR archeologijos atla- G, Bronk Ramsey, C, Grootes, PM, Guilderson, T sas 1. Akmens ir žalvario amžiaus paminklai, 5–83. P, Haflidason, H, Hajdas, I, Hatté, C, Heaton, TJ, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Hoffmann, DL, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kaiser, Rimantienė, RJ. 1996. Akmens amžius lietuvoje. Vilnius: KF, Kromer, B, Manning, SW, Niu, M, Reimer, Ziburio leidykla. RW, Richards, DA, Scott, EM, Southon, JR, Staff, Rimantienė, RJ. 1999a. Barzdžio miško gyvenvietė. Lietu- RA, Turney, CSM and van der Plicht, J. 2013. vos archeologija, 16: 171–208. IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibra- Rimantienė, RJ. 1999b. Margių 1-oji gyvenvietė. Lietuvos tion Curves 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon, archaeologija, 16: 109–170. 55(4): 1869–1887. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2458/ Šatavičius, E. 1998. Rėkučių 1-osios akmens amžiaus azu_js_rc.55.16947 gyvenvietės tyrinėjimai. Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Renssen, H and Isarin, RFB. 2001. The two major warm- Lietuvoje, 1996/1997: 43–45. ing phases of the last deglaciation at ~14.7 and ~11.5 Šatavičius, E. 2001. Vėlyvojo paleolito kultūros ir jų liki- ka cal BP in Europe: climate reconstructions and mas ankstyvajame mezolite. Unpublished thesis AGCM experiments. Global and Planetary Change, (PhD). Vilniaus universitetas. 30: 117–153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ Šatavičius, E. 2002a. Hamburgo kultūros radiniai Lietu- S0921-8181(01)00082-0 voje. Lietuvos archaeologija, 23: 163–186. Riede, F. 2013. ‘Brommeproblemet’ – senglacial kultur- Šatavičius, E. 2002b. Finds of the Hamburgian culture in taksonomi og dens forståelses- og forvaltningsmæs- Lithuania. Lietuvos Archeologija, 23: 163–186. sige implikationer. Arkæologisk Forum, 29: 8–14. Šatavičius, E. 2004. Bromės (liungbiu) kultūra Lietuvoje. Riede, F. 2014a. Success and failure during the Late Lietuvos Archeologija, 25: 17–44. ­Glacial pioneer human re-colonisation of southern Šatavičius, E. 2005a. Svidrų kultūra Lietuvoje. Lietuvos Scandinavia. In: Riede, F and Tallavaara, M (eds.), archaeologija, 29: 133–170. Lateglacial and postglacial pioneers in northern Šatavičius, E. 2005b. Lietuvos vëlyvojo paleolito kultûrø Europe, 33–52. Oxford: Archaeopress. periodizacija. Archaeologia Lituania, 6: 49–82. Riede, F. 2014b. The resettlement of northern Europe. Šatavičius, E. 2006. Žvalgymai ir žvalgomieji tyrimai In: Cummings, V, Jordan, P and Zvelebil, M (eds.), Rytų ir Pietų Lietuvoje. Archeologiniai tyrinėjimai Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropol- Lietuvoje, 2004: 295–296. ogy of Hunter-Gatherers, 556–581. Oxford: Oxford Šatavičius, E. 2012. Titnago kasimo ir apdirbimo University Press. dirbtuvės prie Titno ežero. Archaeologia Lituana, Riede, F. 2014c. Brommeproblemet 2.1 – et gensvar til 13: 66–83. Kristoffer Buck Pedersens kommentar. Arkæologisk Šatavičius, E. 2014. Ankstyvosios priešistorės objektų Forum, 31: 39–45. tyrimai Kalvių apyežeryje. Archaeologia Lituana, 15: Riede, F. 2017. The ‘Bromme problem’ – notes on under- 7–20. standing the Federmessergruppen and Bromme Šatavičius, E. 2016. The First Palaeolithic Inhabitants and culture occupation in southern Scandinavia during the Mesolithic in Lithuanian Territory. In: Zabiela, G, the Allerød and early Younger Dryas chronozones. Baubonis, Z and Marcinkevičiūtė, E (eds.), A Hun- In: Sørensen, M and Buck Pedersen, K (eds.), Prob- dred Years of Archaeological Discoveries in Lithuania, lems in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Research, 61–85. 8–39. Vilnius: Society of Lithuanian Archaeology. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen & Museum Sauer, F and Riede, F. 2018. A critical reassessment of of Southeast Denmark. cultural taxonomies in the Central European­ Late Art. 4, page 20 of 21 Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research

­Palaeolithic. Journal of Archaeological Method Stančikaitė, M, Šinkūnas, P, Šeirienė, V and and Theory, 1–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ Kisielienė, D. 2008. Patterns and chronology of s10816-018-9368-0 the Lateglacial environmental development at Sawicki, L. 1936. Przemysl swiderski stanowiska Pamerkiai and Kašučiai, Lithuania. Quaternary wydmowego Swidry Wielkie I. Przeglad Archeolog- Science Reviews, 27(1): 127–147. DOI: https:// iczny, 5: 1–23. doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2007.01.014 Schwabedissen, H. 1954. Die Federmessergruppen des Straus, LG, Eriksen, BV, Erlandson, JM and Yesner, nordwesteuropäischen Flachlandes. Zur Ausbreitung D R. (Eds.) 1996. Humans at the End of the Ice des Spät-Magdalénien. Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz Age. The Archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene Verlag GmbH. Transition. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Schwabedissen, H. 1955. Zur Auswertung steinzeitlicher Szukiewicz, W. 1901. Poszukiwania archeologiczne Oberflächenfundplätze. Eiszeitalter & Gegenwart, 6: w powiatach Lidzkim i Trockim (gub. Wileńska). 159–169. Światowit, 3: 3–29. Serwatka, K and Riede, F. 2016. 2D geometric Tallavaara, M, Luoto, M, Korhonen, N, Järvinen, ­morphometric analysis casts doubt on the validity of H and Seppä, H. 2015. Human population large tanged points as cultural markers in the Euro- dynamics in Europe over the Last Glacial Maxi- pean Final Palaeolithic. Journal of ­Archaeological mum. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: Reports, 9: 150–159. DOI: https://doi. Sciences, 112(27): 8232–8237. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.07.018 org/10.1073/pnas.1503784112 Shea, JJ. 2014. Sink the Mousterian? Named stone tool Taute, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen-Gruppen im nördli- industries (NASTIES) as obstacles to investigating chen Mitteleuropa. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der hominin evolutionary relationships in the Later späten Altsteinzeit. Köln: Böhlau Verlag. Middle Paleolithic Levant. Quaternary International, Terberger, T and Street, M. 2002. Hiatus or conti- 350: 169–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nuity? New results for the question of plenigla- quaint.2014.01.024 cial settlement in Central Europe. Antiquity, Siemaszko, J. 1999. Stone Age Settlement in the Lega 76: 691–698. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ Valley Microregion of North-East Poland. European S0003598X00091134 Journal of Archaeology, 2(3): 293–312. DOI: https:// Vashanau, A. 2010. Concerning shouldered points in doi.org/10.1177/146195719900200302 the south-western Belarus. Acta Archaeologica Simpson, GG. 1945. The principles of classification and a ­Albaruthenica, VI: 22–28. classification of mammals. Bulletin of the American Veil, S. 2006. Are Stone Age ploughzone sites third Museum of Natural History, 85: 1–350. class monuments? Some insights from inves- Sinitsyna, G. 2002. Lyngby Points in Eastern Europe. tigations on Stone Age surface sites in Lower Archeologia Baltica, 5: 83–93. Saxony, Germany. In: Rensink, E and Peeters, Slah, G. 2016. Nemunėlio Radviliškio paleolitinės H (eds.), Preserving the Early Past: Investiga- radimvietės žvalgomieji tyrimai. Archeologiniai tion, selection and preservation of Palaeo- tyrinėjimai Lietuvoje, 2015: 71–72. lithic and Mesolithic sites and landscapes, Sobkowiak-Tabaka, I. 2014. The recolonisation of the 107–126. Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor het Polish Lowland – new ideas and discoveries. In: Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek. Riede, F and Tallavaara, M (eds.), Lateglacial and Vermeersch, PM. 1977. Die stratigraphischen Prob- postglacial pioneers in northern Europe, 53–66. leme der postglazialen Kulturen in Dünengebi- Oxford: Archaeopress. eten. Quartär, 27/28: 103–109. Stančikaitė, M, Baltrūnas, V, Karmaza, B, Karmazienė, Weber, M.-J. 2012. From technology to tradition – Re- D, Molodkov, A, Ostrauskas, T, Obukhowsky, V, evaluating the Hamburgian-Magdalenian rela- Sidorowich, W and Motuzko, A. 2011. The Late tionship. Untersuchungen und Materialien zur Glacial history of Gornitsa foreland and Kovaltsy Steinzeit in Schleswig-Holstein und im Ostse- Palaeolithic site, W Belarus. BALTICA, 24(1): 25–36. eraum, Band 5. Neumünster: Wachholtz. Stančikaitė, M, Kisielienė, D, Moe, D and Vaikutienė, Weber, M.-J, Grimm, SB and Baales, M. 2011. Between G. 2009. Lateglacial and early Holocene environ- warm and cold: Impact of the Younger Dryas on mental changes in northeastern Lithuania. Quater- human behavior in Central Europe. Quaternary nary International, 207(1): 80–92. DOI: https://doi. International, 242(2): 277–301. DOI: https:// org/10.1016/j.quaint.2008.10.009 doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.002 Stančikaitė, M, Šeirienė, V, Kisielienė, D, Martma, T, Wygal, BT and Heidenreich, SM. 2014. Deglaciation Gryguc, G, Zinkutė, R, Mažeika, J and Šinkūnas, and Human Colonization of Northern Europe. P. 2015. Lateglacial and early Holocene environmen- Journal of World Prehistory, 27(2): 111–144. tal dynamics in northern Lithuania: A multi-proxy DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-014-9075-z record from Ginkūnai Lake. Quaternary Interna- Zaliznyak, LL. 1999. Final Palaeolithic in the North- tional, 357(Supplement C): 44–57. DOI: https://doi. west of Eastern Europe. Kiev: National University org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.036 of Kyiv-Mohyla­ Academy. Ivanovaitė and Riede: The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Art. 4, page 21 of 21 Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research

How to cite this article: Ivanovaitė, L and Riede, F. 2018. The Final Palaeolithic Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Lithuania in Light of Recent Palaeoenvironmental Research. Open Quaternary, 4: 4, pp. 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/oq.39

Submitted: 28 October 2017 Accepted: 23 May 2018 Published: 27 June 2018

Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Open Quaternary is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press. OPEN ACCESS