PDA

View Full Version : 6500 Year Old Necropolis Found in Bulgaria



Angela
27-09-15, 19:00
Given that the site is in the area occupied by the Cernevoda culture, I was interested to read the article:

This is the link:
http://archaeologyinbulgaria.com/2015/09/22/archaeologists-discover-6500-year-old-prehistoric-necropolis-underneath-school-yard-in-bulgarias-kamenovo/

Cernevoda is held by most scholars to be an intrusive culture from the steppe.

See: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cernavoda+culture

It's dated from 4,000 BC. This site and it's samples date to 4800-4200 BC, so about 200 years before that time.

"The four graves in the prehistoric necropolis in Kamenovo were found last week; they contain three skeletons of adults, and one child skeleton.
Their bodies were placed in the graves in fetal positions, on their left sides, and were oriented in the eastern and northeastern direction.
On top of one of the adult skeletons in Bulgaria’s Kamenovo, the archaeologists have found flint bowls painted in black, red, and white, and placed with their bottoms up.
In the other two adult graves, the funeral inventories consist of flint tools, while it is in the child grave that the researchers have found three beads of the Spondylus mollusk put on top of the skeleton."

Prior finds in the area have turned up copper tools and jewelry, but this particular grave seems to contain objects made from high quality flint, perhaps connected to a large flint manufacturing center nearby.

The archaeologists seem to see the site as reflecting recent movement from the Aegean and Anatolia. I'm not sure of the basis for that. The use of Spondylus shells dates far back into pre-history. Does anyone know off hand if they were found in LBK graves? Anyway, this is what they have to say about the skeletons:

"According to Boyadzhiev, the people who lived in today’s Northeast Bulgaria some 6,000 years ago did not differ anthropologically from modern-day people.
Their height averaged between 167 and 173 cm (5 feet 5 inches – 5 feet 8 inches). The skeletons found in Bulgaria’s Kamenovo belonged to individuals from a Mediterranean people who came from the region of Anatolia (in today’s Turkey) but mixed with a population that originated north of the Danube River, in today’s Romania."

Does it sound as if they've read Lazaridis et al and Haak et al? :)

Interesting that they think that they don't differ from modern people given all the population movements into the area in the Bronze Age, Iron Age, and early medieval period. I'll be interested to see if that's borne out by further investigation and, hopefully, genetic testing.

bicicleur
27-09-15, 19:47
Isn't this before Cernavoda culture?
I guess Boyadzhiev is only judging from skeletons and skull. I suppose the skull is dolicephalic ('mediterranean') and skelletons, apart from size, by 6500 BC all looked more or less the same.
We need DNA to tell anything more.
Spondylus was also in Vinca culture, but afaik not in LBK. LBK people seemed rather isolated and didn't have connections with the Mediterranean.

Fire Haired14
28-09-15, 00:27
mtDNA from Early Neolithic Romania is far from identical to Neolithic mtDNA from Hungary/Germany. It's possible a very differnt people lived in that region during the Neolithic. They could be partly ancestral to people in that region and other regions today.

LeBrok
28-09-15, 00:49
"According to Boyadzhiev, the people who lived in today’s Northeast Bulgaria some 6,000 years ago did not differ anthropologically from modern-day people.
Their height averaged between 167 and 173 cm (5 feet 5 inches – 5 feet 8 inches). The skeletons found in Bulgaria’s Kamenovo belonged to individuals from a Mediterranean people who came from the region of Anatolia (in today’s Turkey) but mixed with a population that originated north of the Danube River, in today’s Romania."

Does it sound as if they've read Lazaridis et al and Haak et al? :)

Interesting that they think that they don't differ from modern people given all the population movements into the area in the Bronze Age, Iron Age, and early medieval period. I'll be interested to see if that's borne out by further investigation and, hopefully, genetic testing.
Archaeologists might be most conservative scientists on this planet. Why wouldn't they do genetic sequencing of at least couple of individuals? The cost is not big these days, and I'm sure some university labs would do it as charity if asked nicely.

Fire Haired14
28-09-15, 06:53
Archaeologists might be most conservative scientists on this planet. Why wouldn't they do genetic sequencing of at least couple of individuals? The cost is not big these days, and I'm sure some university labs would do it as charity if asked nicely.

I bet Knowledge learned via genetics will take years maybe decades to be common sense(among people who need to know, academics).

Maciamo
28-09-15, 08:54
The description of the graves correspond to a Neolithic culture of 'Old Europe', not a Steppe culture. They therefore do not belong to the Cernavoda culture, but to the one that preceded it - probably the Gumelniţa A2 culture.

bicicleur
28-09-15, 09:08
mtDNA from Early Neolithic Romania is far from identical to Neolithic mtDNA from Hungary/Germany. It's possible a very differnt people lived in that region during the Neolithic. They could be partly ancestral to people in that region and other regions today.

mtDNA from what period in Early Neolithic Romania ?
there is Balkan neolithic and there is Hamangia

Angela
28-09-15, 19:29
Isn't this before Cernavoda culture?
I guess Boyadzhiev is only judging from skeletons and skull. I suppose the skull is dolicephalic ('mediterranean') and skelletons, apart from size, by 6500 BC all looked more or less the same.
We need DNA to tell anything more.
Spondylus was also in Vinca culture, but afaik not in LBK. LBK people seemed rather isolated and didn't have connections with the Mediterranean.

Yes, it is. Just two hundred years before any proposed influx from the steppe, and they probably are just going by skull shape. I hope it occurs to them to get the bones tested.

Angela
28-09-15, 19:32
mtDNA from Early Neolithic Romania is far from identical to Neolithic mtDNA from Hungary/Germany. It's possible a very differnt people lived in that region during the Neolithic. They could be partly ancestral to people in that region and other regions today.

Fire-Haired, I would second Bicicleur's question. Could you please clarify that statement with some data from the Neolithic grouped by area and time period? In particular, what is the data you're looking at for early Neolithic Romania and how does it specifically compare with LBK and other central European data?

Fire Haired14
28-09-15, 20:33
Fire-Haired, I would second Bicicleur's question. Could you please clarify that statement with some data from the Neolithic grouped by area and time period? In particular, what is the data you're looking at for early Neolithic Romania and how does it specifically compare with LBK and other central European data?

BTW, I'll have a post ready in the next few weeks that'll be a very detailed analysis of West Asian and European mtDNA. I'll include a section all about comparing ancient European mtDNA to modern(there's also mtDNA from Neolithic Syria which is very strange). It's going be awesome.

mtDNA Neolithic Romania Source (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128810). 46 are dated 6500-5500 BC or 5500-4500 BC.

Here's a list of differences with Early Neolithic Central Europe(Hungary, Germany) who I'll call EEF. I'll call Neolithic Romania NR.

>23% of EEF had T2b, T2c1, T2e. 0% of NR has T2. Their only T is T1 at 6.5%.
>19% of EEF had K, almost all of which was K1a. 8.7% of NR has K which also seems to be K1a.
>10% of EEF had N1a1a. 0% of NR has N1a1a.
>57% of NR has H. 22% of EEF has H.

Every single site with mtDNA from Neolithic Germany and Hungary produces the same results. The uniformity over 1,000s of years is insane. The mtDNA from Neolithic Romania doesn't look like it was apart of the same people.

But the differences are in haplogroup-frequencies which is superficial, we need to know what deep-subclades each belonged to understand their relationship. With the low coverage data we have, it seems both EEF and NR belonged to the same European-specific subclades. So, they do have some-type of relationship with each other and modern Europeans, that they don't share with West Asians.

mtDNA from Early Neolithic Northern France is also noticeable differnt from EEF. There's a high frequency of H at 36%(almost all is confirmed Euro-specific H1 and H3), low frequency of T2, and high frequency of U5b. There's an equally high frequency of K as EEF and N1a1a has a presence of 3.6%. Old mtDNA studies with data from Neolithic Iberia show crazy high frequencies of H and U(xK) and low frequencies of J, T, K.

So, it's pretty interesting. Early European farmers may have been uniform autosomally, belonged to the same Euro-specific mtDNA subclades, but had very differnt haplogroup frequencies.

Angela
28-09-15, 21:50
BTW, I'll have a post ready in the next few weeks that'll be a very detailed analysis of West Asian and European mtDNA. I'll include a section all about comparing ancient European mtDNA to modern(there's also mtDNA from Neolithic Syria which is very strange). It's going be awesome.

mtDNA Neolithic Romania Source (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128810). 46 are dated 6500-5500 BC or 5500-4500 BC.

Here's a list of differences with Early Neolithic Central Europe(Hungary, Germany) who I'll call EEF. I'll call Neolithic Romania NR.

>23% of EEF had T2b, T2c1, T2e. 0% of NR has T2. Their only T is T1 at 6.5%.
>19% of EEF had K, almost all of which was K1a. 8.7% of NR has K which also seems to be K1a.
>10% of EEF had N1a1a. 0% of NR has N1a1a.
>57% of NR has H. 22% of EEF has H.

Every single site with mtDNA from Neolithic Germany and Hungary produces the same results. The uniformity over 1,000s of years is insane. The mtDNA from Neolithic Romania doesn't look like it was apart of the same people.

But the differences are in haplogroup-frequencies which is superficial, we need to know what deep-subclades each belonged to understand their relationship. With the low coverage data we have, it seems both EEF and NR belonged to the same European-specific subclades. So, they do have some-type of relationship with each other and modern Europeans, that they don't share with West Asians.

mtDNA from Early Neolithic Northern France is also noticeable differnt from EEF. There's a high frequency of H at 36%(almost all is confirmed Euro-specific H1 and H3), low frequency of T2, and high frequency of U5b. There's an equally high frequency of K as EEF and N1a1a has a presence of 3.6%. Old mtDNA studies with data from Neolithic Iberia show crazy high frequencies of H and U(xK) and low frequencies of J, T, K.

So, it's pretty interesting. Early European farmers may have been uniform autosomally, belonged to the same Euro-specific mtDNA subclades, but had very differnt haplogroup frequencies.

Yes, but I thought you said early Neolithic Romania was very different from early Neolithic Germany. The paper to which you linked says the following:

"We assessed mtDNA from ten sites from the current territory of Romania, spanning a time-period from the Early Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age. mtDNA data from Early Neolithic farmers of the Starčevo Criş culture in Romania (Cârcea, Gura Baciului and Negrileşti sites), confirm their genetic relationship with those of the LBK culture (Linienbandkeramik Kultur) in Central Europe, and they show little genetic continuity with modern European populations. On the other hand, populations of the Middle-Late Neolithic (Boian, Zau and Gumelniţa cultures), supposedly a second wave of Neolithic migration from Anatolia, had a much stronger effect on the genetic heritage of the European populations. In contrast, we find a smaller contribution of Late Bronze Age migrations to the genetic composition of Europeans. Based on these findings, we propose that permeation of mtDNA lineages from a second wave of Middle-Late Neolithic migration from North-West Anatolia into the Balkan Peninsula and Central Europe represent an important contribution to the genetic shift between Early and Late Neolithic populations in Europe, and consequently to the genetic make-up of modern European populations.?"

So, did you divide the samples from Romania into these three chronological periods? Are the differences you cited above based on a comparison of LBK to early Neolithic Romania, middle to late Neolithic Romania, Bronze Age Romania, or the total data set?

bicicleur
28-09-15, 22:07
Here's a list of differences with Early Neolithic Central Europe(Hungary, Germany) who I'll call EEF. I'll call Neolithic Romania NR.

>23% of EEF had T2b, T2c1, T2e. 0% of NR has T2. Their only T is T1 at 6.5%.
>19% of EEF had K, almost all of which was K1a. 8.7% of NR has K which also seems to be K1a.
>10% of EEF had N1a1a. 0% of NR has N1a1a.
>57% of NR has H. 22% of EEF has H.

at first sight it looks like this :

7439

'early/middle neolithic' = EEF = starcevo koros cris - LBK
'other' = NR = Boian - Dudesti - Hamangia

The Dudeşti culture is a farming/herding culture that occupied part of Romania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania) in the 6th millennium BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_millennium_BC), typified by semi-subterranean habitations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit-house)(Zemlyanki) on the edges of low plateaus. This culture contributed to the origin of both the subsequent Hamangia culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamangia_culture) and the Boian culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boian_culture). It was named after Dudeşti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude%C8%99ti,_Bucharest), a quarter in the southeast of Bucharest.

The Boian culture originated on the Wallachian Plain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallachian_Plain) north of the Danube River (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube_River) in southeastern Romania.

The Boian culture emerged from two earlier Neolithic groups: the Dudeşti culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude%C5%9Fti_culture) that originated in Anatolia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia) (present-day Turkey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey)); and the Musical note culture (also known as the Middle Linear Pottery culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Pottery_culture) or LBK) from the northern Subcarpathian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Ruthenia) region of southeastern Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland) and westernUkraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boian_culture#cite_note-French-2)

on the other hand 6300 BC NW Anatolian DNA would be EEF (and hence starcevo koros cris - LBK ):
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31562-Teasers-Anatolians-of-6300-BC-Y-DNA-G2a-ancestral-to-EEF

On the other hand, populations of the Middle-Late Neolithic (Boian, Zau and Gumelniţa cultures), supposedly a second wave of Neolithic migration from Anatolia, had a much stronger effect on the genetic heritage of the European populations. In contrast, we find a smaller contribution of Late Bronze Age migrations to the genetic composition of Europeans. Based on these findings, we propose that permeation of mtDNA lineages from a second wave of Middle-Late Neolithic migration from North-West Anatolia into the Balkan Peninsula and Central Europe represent an important contribution to the genetic shift between Early and Late Neolithic populations in Europe, and consequently to the genetic make-up of modern European populations.

so 2 different groups originating from NW Anatolia ?

did the Dudesti people replace the 6300 BC NW Anatolians before they moved further into SE Roumania?

Angela
28-09-15, 22:58
Here's a list of differences with Early Neolithic Central Europe(Hungary, Germany) who I'll call EEF. I'll call Neolithic Romania NR.

>23% of EEF had T2b, T2c1, T2e. 0% of NR has T2. Their only T is T1 at 6.5%.
>19% of EEF had K, almost all of which was K1a. 8.7% of NR has K which also seems to be K1a.
>10% of EEF had N1a1a. 0% of NR has N1a1a.
>57% of NR has H. 22% of EEF has H.

at first sight it looks like this :

7439

'early/middle neolithic' = EEF = starcevo koros cris - LBK
'other' = NR = Boian - Dudesti - Hamangia

The Dudeşti culture is a farming/herding culture that occupied part of Romania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania) in the 6th millennium BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_millennium_BC), typified by semi-subterranean habitations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit-house)(Zemlyanki) on the edges of low plateaus. This culture contributed to the origin of both the subsequent Hamangia culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamangia_culture) and the Boian culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boian_culture). It was named after Dudeşti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude%C8%99ti,_Bucharest), a quarter in the southeast of Bucharest.

The Boian culture originated on the Wallachian Plain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallachian_Plain) north of the Danube River (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube_River) in southeastern Romania.

The Boian culture emerged from two earlier Neolithic groups: the Dudeşti culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude%C5%9Fti_culture) that originated in Anatolia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia) (present-day Turkey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey)); and the Musical note culture (also known as the Middle Linear Pottery culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Pottery_culture) or LBK) from the northern Subcarpathian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Ruthenia) region of southeastern Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland) and westernUkraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boian_culture#cite_note-French-2)

on the other hand 6300 BC NW Anatolian DNA would be EEF (and hence starcevo koros cris - LBK ):
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31562-Teasers-Anatolians-of-6300-BC-Y-DNA-G2a-ancestral-to-EEF

On the other hand, populations of the Middle-Late Neolithic (Boian, Zau and Gumelniţa cultures), supposedly a second wave of Neolithic migration from Anatolia, had a much stronger effect on the genetic heritage of the European populations. In contrast, we find a smaller contribution of Late Bronze Age migrations to the genetic composition of Europeans. Based on these findings, we propose that permeation of mtDNA lineages from a second wave of Middle-Late Neolithic migration from North-West Anatolia into the Balkan Peninsula and Central Europe represent an important contribution to the genetic shift between Early and Late Neolithic populations in Europe, and consequently to the genetic make-up of modern European populations.

so 2 different groups originating from NW Anatolia ?

did the Dudesti people replace the 6300 BC NW Anatolians before they moved further into SE Roumania?


That's an excellent point about this correlating with the "Other" category in the paper.

We've discussed this before, and I think I've posted this link before. This archaeologist reviews what used to be the consensus about these cultures, and the fact that they were linked to Anatolia, although he takes the opposite position based on some burial practices.
http://www.academia.edu/449589/HAMANGIA-ANATOLIA_DIFFERENCES_AND_RESEMBLANCES_AT_THE_LEVEL _OF_FUNERARY_PRACTICES

However, the genetics may be showing that the earlier view was the correct one. I wonder if this has any connection to the J2 that showed up in Sopot and Lengyel?
Could this new wave have filtered into a lot of these cultures?

Hamangia: 5200 BC-4500 BC

Sopot: C results place the I-B stage to the period 5480–5070 cal BC,stage II-A to 5030–4770 cal BC, stage II-B to 4800–4250 cal BC,and phase III to 4340–3790 cal
BC.
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/4265/3690

Fire Haired14
28-09-15, 23:16
Yes, but I thought you said early Neolithic Romania was very different from early Neolithic Germany. The paper to which you linked says the following:


.................................

So, did you divide the samples from Romania into these three chronological periods? Are the differences you cited above based on a comparison of LBK to early Neolithic Romania, middle to late Neolithic Romania, Bronze Age Romania, or the total data set?

My comparsion is with Early/Middle Neolithic Romania and Early Neolithic Central Europe. Middle Neolithic Central Europe is basically the same as earlier ones, just they have a much higher frequency of U5b and slight differences in other frequencies.

There are only 4 samples from EN Romania. H=2, T1a=1, J=1. No T2 or K which took up almost 50% of LBK mtDNA. Anyways, 4 samples isn't enough to say they had a close relationship to LBK.

In the section "Middle/Late Neolithic and Eneolithic from Romania" the authors compared Middle Neolithic Romanian mtDNA(N=42) to Middle Neolithic German mtDNA. They noticed the same differences I mentioned in my first post because of a larger amount of samples.

Fire Haired14
28-09-15, 23:22
@Everyone,

This is getting off topic. Maybe we should move anymore posts about Neolithic mtDNA to Teasers: Anatolians of 6300 BC Y DNA G2a, ancestral to EEF (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31562-Teasers-Anatolians-of-6300-BC-Y-DNA-G2a-ancestral-to-EEF).

Angela
29-09-15, 16:41
Four samples from one site also aren't enough to say the the EN in the two areas was very different.

I think my take away is that there aren't enough samples to say that EN Romania was different from EN Central Europe, but there are enough to say that Middle Neolithic Romania was different from Middle Neolithic Central Europe, which again speaks to a new migration wave from the Near East via Anatolia.

We need some high quality analysis of high quality dna, including y Dna, from this area