The Late Glacial, that is the period from the first pronounced warming after the Last Glacial Maximum to the beginning of the Holocene (c. 16,000-11,700 cal BP), is traditionally viewed as a time when northern Europe was being recolonized and Late Palaeolithic cultures diversified. These cultures are characterized by particular artefact types, or the co-occurrence or specific relative frequencies of these. In north-eastern Europe, numerous cultures have been proposed on the basis of supposedly different tanged points. This practice of naming new cultural units based on these perceived differences has been repeatedly critiqued, but robust alternatives have rarely been offered. Here, we review the taxonomic landscape of Late Palaeolithic large tanged point cultures in eastern Europe as currently envisaged, which leads us to be cautious about the epistemological validity of many of the constituent groups. This, in turn, motivates us to investigate the key artefact class, the large tanged point, using geometric morphometric methods. Using these methods, we show that distinct groups are difficult to recognize, with major implications for our understanding of patterns and processes of culture change in this period in north-eastern Europe and perhaps elsewhere.

Only a limited number of radiometric dates for the Final Palaeolithic and the first half of the Mesolithic are available from the southeastern Baltic. This paper presents eight new Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene radiocarbon accelerator mass spectrometry (14C AMS) ages of osseous artifacts housed at the Kaliningrad Regional Museum of History and Art. These artifacts include one piece of worked reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) antler, three axes of the so-called Lyngby type, one bone point, one uniserial harpoon, one so-called bâton percé antler shaft, and one slotted bone. All the samples were successfully dated and yielded five Late Pleistocene and three Early Holocene ages, including the hitherto earliest age for human occupation in the Eastern Baltic. The dates include not only a surprisingly early date for a bone point (for this region), but also some dates that contradict expected ages based on traditional typological assessment. Our study significantly adds to the still small number of existing absolutely dated artifacts from the region and proposes new ways of viewing the Final Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic chronology in the southeastern Baltic.

Orphaned osseous tools are very often perceived as having a high aesthetic value, but are usually under-examined. This article illustrates the research potential of these artefacts, with a case study of Mesolithic stray finds from Lithuania. Four bone points from the River Šventoji, Vaikantonys, Obšrūtai and Kamšai were subjected to AMS dating, tandem mass spectrometry for animal species identification, and technological and use-wear analysis. The results revealed that all four bone points could be dated to the Boreal period, and imply an Early to Middle Mesolithic date. Harpoons from the River Šventoji and Kamšai were most likely made of aurochs bones. All of the bone points were produced from long sections of tubular long bones, and three of the points show signs of reuse. Overall, the analysis revealed similarities with contemporaneous material in northern Europe. Within the context of the present research, the paper briefly describes other scientific methods which could be applied to orphaned bone and antler tools, including biomolecular and stable isotope analysis. Digital recording methods can be useful for bone artefact recording. This is relevant today, as the demand for good-quality digital representations is increasing, in order to apply software for further analysis, such as geometric morphometrics. As a result, more widespread and systematic applications of these new methods to orphaned osseous finds would lead to a significant activation of these finds in a scientific and outreach context.

This paper critically reviews the culture-historical framework for the re-colonisation of Lithuania during 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 European 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.

No abstract