| Geographical range | Europe |
|---|---|
| Period | Mesolithic |
| Dates | c. 5300 —c. 1750 BC |
| Type site | Narva River |
| Preceded by | Kunda culture |
| Followed by | Pit–Comb Ware culture,Corded Ware culture,Brushed Pottery culture |
| TheMesolithic |
|---|
| ↑Upper Paleolithic |
| Europe |
| Epipalaeolithic Near East |
| Caucasus |
| Zagros |
| ↓Neolithic |
TheNarva culture oreastern Baltic was aEuropean Neolithicarchaeological culture in present-dayEstonia,Latvia,Lithuania,Kaliningrad Oblast (formerEast Prussia), and adjacent portions ofPoland,Belarus andRussia. A successor of theMesolithicKunda culture, the Narva culture continued up to the start of theBronze Age. The culture spanned fromc. 5300 to 1750 BC.[1] The technology was that ofhunter-gatherers. The culture was named after theNarva River in Estonia.
The people of the Narva culture had little access toflint; therefore, they were forced to trade and conserve their flint resources.[2] For example, there were very few flint arrowheads and flint was often reused. The Narva culture relied on local materials (bone, horn,schist). As evidence of trade, researchers found pieces of pink flint fromValdai Hills and plenty of typical Narva pottery in the territory of theNeman culture while no objects from the Neman culture were found in Narva.[2] Heavy use of bones and horns is one of the main characteristics of the Narva culture. Thebone tools, continued from the predecessorKunda culture, provide the best evidence of continuity of the Narva culture throughout the Neolithic period. The people were buried on their backs with fewgrave goods.[2] The Narva culture also used and tradedamber; a few hundred items were found inJuodkrantė. One of the most famous artifacts is a ceremonial cane carved of horn as a head of femaleelk found inŠventoji.[3]
The people were primarily fishers, hunters, and gatherers. They slowly began adopting husbandry in the middle Neolithic. They were not nomadic and lived in the same settlements for long periods as evidenced by abundant pottery,middens, and structures built in lakes and rivers to help fishing.[2] The pottery shared similarities with theComb Ceramic culture, but had specific characteristics. One of the most persistent features was mixing clay with other organic matter, most often crushedsnail shells.[2] The pottery was made of 6-to-9 cm (2.4-to-3.5 in) wide clay strips with minimal decorations around the rim. The vessels were wide and large; the height and the width were often the same. The bottoms were pointed or rounded, and only the latest examples have narrow flat bottoms. From mid-Neolithic, Narva pottery was influenced and eventually disappeared into theCorded Ware culture.[2]
For a long time, archaeologists believed that the first inhabitants of the region wereFinno-Ugric, who were pushed north by people of theCorded Ware culture.[4] In 1931, Latvian archaeologistEduards Šturms [lv] was the first to note that artifacts found near the Zebrus Lake in Latvia were different and possibly belonged to a separate archaeological culture. In early 1950s settlements on theNarva River were excavated.Lembit Jaanits [et] andNina Gurina [ru] grouped the findings with similar artifacts from eastern Baltic region and described the Narva culture.[4]
At first, it was believed that Narva culture ended with the appearance of the Corded Ware culture. However, newer research extended it up to the Bronze Age.[4] As Narva culture spanned several millennia and encompassed a large territory, archaeologists attempted to subdivide the culture into regions or periods. For example, in Lithuania two regions are distinguished: southern (under influence of theNeman culture) and western (with major settlements found inŠventoji).[5] There is an academic debate whatethnicity the Narva culture represented:Finno-Ugrians or otherEuropids, preceding the arrival of theIndo-Europeans.[6] It is also unclear how the Narva culture fits with the arrival of the Indo-Europeans (Corded Ware andGlobular Amphora cultures) and the formation of theBaltic tribes.[7]
Mathieson (2015) analyzed a large number of individuals buried at theZvejnieki burial ground, most of whom were affiliated with theKunda culture and the succeeding Narva culture. ThemtDNA extracted belonged exclusively to haplotypes ofU5,U4 andU2. With regards toY-DNA, the vast majority of samples belonged toR1b1a1a haplotypes andI2a1 haplotypes. The results affirmed that the Kunda and Narva cultures were about 70% WHG and 30% EHG. The nearby contemporaryPit–Comb Ware culture was on the contrary found to be about 65% EHG. An individual from theCorded Ware culture, which would eventually succeed the Narva culture, was found to have genetic relations with theYamnaya culture.[8]
Jones et al. (2017) examined the remains of a male of the Narva culture buried c. 5780-5690 BC. He was found to be a carrier of the paternal haplogroupR1b1b and the maternal haplogroupU2e1. People of the Narva culture and precedingKunda culture were determined to have closer genetic affinity withWestern Hunter-Gatherers (WHGs) thanEastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHGs).[9]
Saag et al. (2017) determinedhaplogroup U5a2d in a Narva male.[10]
Mittnik et al. (2018) analyzed 24 Narva individuals. Of the four samples ofY-DNA extracted, one belonged toI2a1a2a1a, one belonged toI2a1b, one belonged toI, and one belonged toR1. Of the ten samples ofmtDNA extracted, eight belonged toU5 haplotypes, one belonged toU4a1, and one belonged toH11. U5 haplotypes were common amongWestern Hunter-Gatherers (WHGs) andScandinavian Hunter-Gatherers (SHGs). Genetic influence fromEastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHGs) was also detected.[11]