[I cross-posted this to sci.archaeology and sci.lang; to the latter mostly
because I seem to remember that the topic has been discussed there, too]
Now that this thread has been revived again, here’s an article I wrote
some months ago, I hope it’ll shed some light on the topic (I admit that
it’s a somewhat confusing piece of text.. the topic itself is rather
confusing, too). To summarize, there are basically three contestants for
the "original Finns" that Lee Hsieh was after:
1) the comb-ceramic culture of Finland (hunter-gatherers, anthropologically
probably a mixup of Europids and Mongolids, quite possibly speaking a
Finno-Ugric language),
2) the branch of battle-axe culture that reached Finland (they practised
animal husbandry and possibly also agriculture, were Europids, probably
spoke an Indo-European language), and
3) the east-Baltic colonizers who arrived around 0-200AD (practised agricul-
ture, were Europids and spoke a Finno-Ugric language).
In my opinion, and that of many others, none of these alone can be considered
to have been the people from whom Finns are descended; instead, they – and
several other groups – have all equally contributed to the forming of the
Finnish people _in Finland_.
[here's my reply to Bjorn Vennstrom, from March this year]:
In <bjorn.vennstrom-0903951742040…@bvmac.cmb.ki.se> bjorn.vennst…@postmac.cmb.ki.se (Bjorn Vennstrom) writes:
>Moreover, from what I gather, populations with agriculture appear to have
>spread from the south northwards, replacing hunter communities.
>I am the first to admit that I know very little about European prehistory
>and population migration, and that I may be out on very thin ice here.
>Antti, any comments?
Sure. First, let me list the main lithic (stone age) cultures of
prehistoric Finland as a basis for what I’m going to say (I’m typing
this from memory, so slight mistakes are possible):
mesolithic (pre-ceramic)
First signs of humans 7300 BC
Suomusj{rvi culture 7000-4200
sub-neolithic
Comb-ceramic culture I-III 4200-2000
CC I (early) 4200-3300
CC II (typical) 3300-2800
CC III (late) 2800-2000
Asbestos-ceramic cultures 2500-1500?
neolithic (SW Finland)
Corded ware (battle-axe culture) 2500-2000
Kiukainen culture 2000-1500
bronze age, iron age, etc.
It is possible that already the pre-ceramic Suomusj{rvi culture spoke a
Finno-Ugric language, but in the case of the comb-ceramic cultures it’s
already almost certain that they did. However, one has to keep in mind
that language doesn’t show in archaeological finds unless you actually
have some item with something intelligible written on it (which, of course,
we don’t), so all of this is very speculative.
Of anthropological features a precious little can be said; Finnish soil is
so acrid (no limestone to speak of) that organic material survives only in
exceptional circumstances, and there’s only one single human skeleton
found in Finland from the lithic periods (from Jetterb|le in ]land; a
europid who probably belonged to the battle-axe culture, but had no grave
goods with him). Therefore, all speculations on anthropology of the early
early settlement are based on finds from outside Finland.
The Estonian mesolithic Kunda culture, from which the Suomusj{rvi culture
may have originated, seems to have been predominantly europid; on the
other hand, in the mesolithic burials of Olennij Ostrov in Russian Karelia,
both cro-magnon and protolapponid types are present. During the period
of typical comb-ceramics (at least), protolapponids seem to have formed
the majority in Estonia; presumably in Finland as well. There have
been various waves of migration during the comb-ceramic periods, but
tracing them is difficult; in any case, population in Finland probably
was heterogenous already then.
Suomusj{rvi culture relied purely on fishing, hunting & gathering. Comb-
ceramic cultures were, as the name implies, familiar with one of the
inventions of the "neolithic revolution" — ceramics — but so far there
is little or no evidence of either agriculture or animal husbandry (that’s
why they’re sometimes called sub-neolithic). Even if they would’ve
practiced them in some primitive form, hunting was still certainly the
main economy.
Around 2800 BC the corded ware or battle-axe cultures started to spread
fast over large areas of Europe; some scholars have linked this to the
spreading of the Indo-European languages, although I guess that question
isn’t quite settled yet; in any case, anthropologically they were purely
europid. They were, it seems, a rather war-like people whose main economy
was animal husbandry but they also practiced agriculture; most of western
Europe did already before them, so that brought no major change, except
in the peripheria e.g Finland, where the battle-axe culture settled in
the south-western corner, in that part of the country where conditions
for agriculture are most beneficial (even so, there’s no conclusive proof
that they practiced agriculture in Finland; it does seem rather likely,
though).
There may have been a decrease of comb-ceramic population in the CC III
period, certain seal species for example were probably hunted into
extinction from the Baltic around this time, but south-west Finland was
by no means empty when the battle-axe culture arrived from the Baltic
countries. What were the relations between the two peoples? One can
imagine that a hunter population with no sense of ownership regarding
animals and a people practising animal husbandry as their main economy
are bound to clash. On the other hand, after initial problems, they may
have co-existed peacefully, their economies not disturbing each other.
Based on finds, that would seem to have been the case.
During its whole existense in Finland the battle-axe culture remained
remarkably free of any comb-ceramic influence, while the comb-ceramic
people did e.g make "barbaric copies" of the stone battle-axes, the most
characteristic feature of the battle-axe culture (surprise, surprise).
This contrast is so marked that some scholars have even suggested that
some sort of a prehistoric apartheid system existed, with the battle-axe
people acting as a ruling class of some sort.
Apropos the battle-axes, which in Finland and some other coutries were
often hammer-shaped at the other end. They were so finely shaped that they
clearly haven’t been used for cutting wood; they have been battle-weapons,
status-symbols (graves of men were almost always equipped with a battle-
axe; ones that weren’t probably belonged to slaves) and probably
carried religious significance. In the following bronze age, to which
the battle-axe cultures formed a basis most everywhere that they spread,
this was certainly the case; finely drilled stone axes were made e.g in
the bronze age Lausitz culture in Poland, despite the fact that there was
no shortage of metal; the axes continued to carry a cultic significance
and were made in Finland during the bronze age as well.
Now, the thunder gods of the Indo-European peoples very often carry an axe
or a hammer, cf. Thor, Indra and Jupiter. This phenomenon is found in Finland
as well: the Finnish thunder deity and supreme god Ukko wielded according
to tradition a stone axe (!). And in Finnish folklore, the drilled stone
axes which people occasionally found (they’re relatively common) were
called "Ukonvaaja" or Ukko’s wedge (?). Up to historical times it has been
believed that these items come from heaven at the tip of a stroke of
lightning, and that you would find one everywhere where lightning had struck.
They were considered powerful magic items which would protect you from
lightning, and were commonly placed on the roofs of houses as a kind of a
magical lightning rod. An interesting piece of evidence to support the
assertion that the battle-axe people were indeed Indo-Europeans.
Anyway, after 500 years of existense, the battle-axe culture seems to
have rather suddenly merged with the comb-ceramic population, forming
the Kiukainen-culture. The reason to this may have been a temporary
worsening of climate, which would’ve caused a crisis in agriculture and
forced the battle-axe people to resort to hunting with the comb-ceramic
population (thus destroying the "apartheid system"?).
Comb-ceramic elements are dominant in the Kiukainen culture, and the
current opinion seems hold that it continues the comb-ceramic
tradition rather than that of the battle-axe culture. However, many
important features link it to the battle-axe culture as well; for
instance, the area it occupies is almost exactly the same as that of
the battle-axe culture, it had lively contacts with Scandinavia and
other areas overseas, it made drilled axes like the battle-axe culture,
and it seems to have practiced some agriculture, although hunting and
fishing were of great importance to it as well.
To bring the question of language into this, here we have a rather
substantial body of europid people, presumably speaking an Indo-European
language, being assimilated by what probably was something of a "mestizo"
population of europid-lapponids, speaking a Finno-Ugric language. Chris-
tian Carpelan and others have suggested that this corresponds to the
branching of early proto-Finnic (varhaiskantasuomi) into proto-Finnic
(kantasuomi) and proto-Lappish (kantalappi), the former of which would
have been spoken by the Kiukainen culture and the latter by the asbestos-
ceramic cultures in the rest of the country, who were continuing that
part of comb-ceramic tradition which remained unaffected by the
assimilation of the battle-axe population. This is supported by the fact
that the earliest layer of loan-words in Finnish is of Baltic origin
…
read more »