Neolithic Refuge and Continuity in Transylvania

PaleoRevenge

Regular Member
Messages
956
Reaction score
675
Points
93
EEA 2024 Abstract:

The region of today’s Transylvania has long been a region of rich natural resources, fertile farming land and relative protection from the surrounding Carpathian and Apuseni mountains. However, the genetic history of the people that have inhabited this region is poorly understood, and the archaeogenetic record in Transylvania is only represented by very few individuals. Conversely, the history of the regions in southeastern Europe surrounding Transylvania have been well studied, and attest to dramatic genetic turnovers accompanying the change from a hunter-gatherer to a sedentary agricultural lifestyle, and the arrival of steppe-related ancestry with the expansion of pastoralist societies from east of the Carpathian mountains.

In this study we report archaeogenetic results from individuals from Transylvania and the surrounding regions in Romania, spanning the Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age. We report a surprising level of genetic continuity within Transylvania, with little evidence for an influx of steppe-related ancestry into individuals associated with the main cultural groups until the Late Bronze Age, coinciding with the arrival of people associated with the Noua culture. In stark contrast to this, we also find evidence for Yamnaya and Yamnaya-related groups from the Early Bronze Age who appear to have been unsuccessful in making a genetic foothold in the region. In summary, we find that Transylvania was at times a melting pot of genetic profiles, but still maintained a relatively continuous genetic legacy during the Copper Age and much of the Bronze Age.
 
What's your take on this regarding Y-DNA, i mean educated guess?
 
I made some qpdam runs a while back on the Moldovian Scythians. First was a run on the most local profile of them all against what I consider Bassarabi profiles, than I ran all Moldovian Scythians with Bassarabi plus Ural Sarmatians.

People from rrenjet questioned my designation of Bassarabi profile, but how do you explain this.

CmtG5nG.png



All models pass, how is it possible a Iron Age sample from Skopje or western Hungary(E-V13 btw) is successfully modeled as the primary local component of the Moldovan Scythian, what can this component represent, as they are clearly related.

All these three samples put on a map:
pyWcFtl.png


1RHKT6B.png
 
Last edited:
What's your take on this regarding Y-DNA, i mean educated guess?

This a E-V13 slam dunk. If someone thinks otherwise, than what other non-IE haplogroup is it? What evidence we have of them in ancient and modern samples, one would be forced to argue they were dead-ends. But from this very region arose a massive culture horizon that spread quite wide, these people were not dead ends, they were quite significant. Everything points to the explosion of E-V13.
 
We report a surprising level of genetic continuity within Transylvania, with little evidence for an influx of steppe-related ancestry into individuals associated with the main cultural groups until the Late Bronze Age, coinciding with the arrival of people associated with the Noua culture.

This sentence is a harbinger, we have seen this play out before with Illyrian J2b-L283. The oldest Thracian samples are E-V13 with a lone R1a-Z93, this combo matches perfectly the quote above. Coincidence?
 
This sentence is a harbinger, we have seen this play out before with Illyrian J2b-L283. The oldest Thracian samples are E-V13 with a lone R1a-Z93, this combo matches perfectly the quote above. Coincidence?

What's even more, we know a group which is E-V13 dominated, and that's Post-Psenichevo from South Eastern Thrace.

Now what was Psenichevo? Psenichevo was a mix with elements from Lapus II-Gáva, possibly also Belegis II-Gáva and other Gáva-related formations (like Vartop etc.) being involved, plus local and steppe influences. And what was the local influence and steppe influence in this region? Mostly Coslogeni, the Southern branch from the Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni complex and new steppe influences on top, from the early Cimmerian-related horizon, like Belozerka and Chernogorovka-Novocherkassk.

And what do we see, like you said, high levels of EEF, high levels of E-V13 and one R-Z93 from the Noua. Same pattern as in Himera, where we find two Caucasian shifted individuals, one E-V13, the other R-Z93. So apparently, there was some sort of connection between the Iranian/steppe R-Z93 and E-V13 after Noua and the Cimmerians.

The reason is that what remained from Noua was assimilated by Channelled Ware, while at the same time there was some backflow of E-V13 Daco-Thracian lineages to the East, to the steppe. It happened with Yamnaya, with Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni, with the Scythians and the Sarmatians. And this can also be proven by E-V13 lineages spreading to parts of the Caucasus and especially Central-, even Eastern Asia along the Northern steppe route, up to China as we know from modern samples.

I found it interesting that Bruzmi does now no longer question as much that E-V13 was strong in Dacians. He gets closer to the point of accepting that fact, or at least that's how it looks to me.


It is very important to note that there was an early steppe influence on Transylvania which predated the Yamnaya invasion by many centuries. This steppe influence in Decea Muresului and Cotofeni was culturally significant, but we don't know how much it impacted the locals genetically.

The idea of Yamnaya being the agent for the IE of the Thracians is in my opinion quite unlikely. More likely are the early Decea Muresului-Cotofeni stage IE of the Carpathian basin, or a later date with Füzesabony-Otomani (R-Z283 from Kostany-Mierzanowice) or Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni complex (least likely in my opinion, but still possible).

Yamnaya is irrelevant, the groups which led to Cotofeni were earlier and we already know that groups from Cernavoda-Usatovo had individuals with far more CA-Neolithic ancestry than any early Yamnaya. Cotofeni people did adopt some Yamnaya customs, like kurgans, but they were people apart.

You know how relative that claim can be:

with little evidence for an influx of steppe-related ancestry into individuals associated with the main cultural groups until the Late Bronze Age

This could be interpreted that the locals had of course steppe ancestry, but that new steppe influences (Scythian-type ancestry levels) came in only later, with Noua. That they had zero or even only insignificant, say below 10 % steppe ancestry, seems extremely unlikely.

From the paper I quoted before, keep in mind that Suvorovo is a Western steppe group of importance to the Carpatho-Balkan sphere long before Yamnaya:

Two Eneolithic (Eneol) individuals from Romania have been analyzed, showing the same mitochondrial haplotype (haplogroup K) (Table 2). These haplotypes are unique, not found in any mtDNA database of ancient populations. The network performed with the haplotypes corresponding to haplogroup K (S6 Fig) showed that the two individuals from the Decea Mureşului site shared polymorphisms with the ancient and present-day populations from the Near East. Although the two individuals from Decea Mureşului are associated to the Suvorovo culture from the North-Pontic steppes [2932], and this has been suggested to represent the first contact between Transylvania and North-Pontic steppes, we have not found genetic evidence in the present study to support this hypothesis.


The cultural steppe influence was there and noticeable, what kind of genetic impact it had will be seen. But its very unlikely to have been zero.

Decea Muresului is absolutely crucial for the Carpatho-Balkan region and the Cotofeni horizon and it predates any Yamnaya incursions, which weren't even close by that time:

The first contacts between the steppe populations and
the Lower Danube area date long before the third mil-
lennium BC. They started during the last third of the fifth
millennium BC with discoveries assigned to the Skelya
(Suvorovo-Novodanilovka) complex
(Anthony, 2007,
p. 249). In Transylvania this process can be seen in the flat
cemetery of Decea Mureşului,
comprised of 19 richly fur-
nished burials. The graves were of individuals lying supine
with the knees initially raised, oriented south-westwards
or south-south-westwards, sprinkled with red ochre and
accompanied by pottery, ornaments made of copper and
Unio shells, flint blades and four-knobbed stone mace-
heads (Fig. 7, No. 4) (Govedarica, 2004, p. 62-76). Similar
mace-heads come from burials or more often stray finds,
as do several zoomorphic sceptres (Govedarica, 2004,
p. 76-77; Gogâltan and Ignat, 2011, Fig. 2/10-17). Such a
sceptre was discovered in a burial mound in Casimcea, in
Dobruja, along with flint items and ochre (Fig. 7, No. 5)
(Govedarica, 2004, p. 104). East of the Carpathians, the
destroyed burials from Lungoci and Fălciu contained orna-
ments made of gold, as well as copper, flint and stone axes,
and several flint items (Govedarica, 2004, p. 83-84). To
the south, close to the Danube, a vessel typical of the north
Pontic Skelya culture was found in the tell settlement of
Pietrele, Măgura Gorgana, also testifying to the existence
of an exchange network between east and west (Fig. 7,
No. 1) (Reingruber and Rassamakin, 2016, p. 274).
For most of the first half of the fourth millennium BC,
the evidence for contacts is very scarce, becoming more
obvious only towards the end of this period, with the
appearance of corded ornaments on vessels of Dereivka,
Cernavoda I and Cucuteni B pottery
(Reingruber and Ras-
samakin, 2016, p. 274). The much debated Cucuteni C
shell-tempered pottery also needs to be mentioned
(Anthony, 2007, p. 231). Discoveries of the Cernavoda I
type consist of shallow habitation layers in Muntenia and
Dobruja and especially isolated flat burials, Gr.75 from
Sultana being such an example, even though their dating
was long disputed and is still not supported by radiocarbon
data (Fig. 7, No. 2) (Frînculeasa et al., 2017c, p. 86). The
last third of the fourth millennium BC saw the emergence
of mounds that predated the Yamnaya monuments and dis-
played a different funerary ritual.

West of the Prut, several
burials were assigned to this time frame, of which we men-
tion Grave 22 from Lieşti, Movila Arbănaşu, containing
a painted vessel of the Horodiştea-Gordineşti tradition
(Fig. 7, No. 3) (Burtănescu, 2002, p. 392), while in Dobruja
these graves contained either crouched or extended indi-
viduals (Frînculeasa et al., 2015a, p. 80-82). In northern
Muntenia an absolutely unique aspect was recently iden-
tified, consisting of burials surrounded by gravel rings,
individuals lying crouched and oriented in diverse direc-
tions; both men and women burials are common, as well as
post-mortem body manipulation (Frînculeasa et al., 2015a,
p. 56, p. 83). Ochre is rare, however the burials are richly
furnished with ceramics typical of the Baden-Coţofeni
tradition, and especially adornments such as silver spiral
hair rings, copper torques, or complex strings comprising
copper and shell beads, copper spectacle-shaped pendants,
as well as with weapons such as copper flanged axes (Frîn-
culeasa et al., 2017b, p. 117). This is also probably the
period in which cord decoration appears on Coţofeni III
pottery, even though a recent discovery from Transylva-
nia indicates the existence of sherds decorated with “false”
cord as early as the IIa phase (Gogâltan, 2013, p. 50-51)

Mix of local CA-Neolithic, GAC and Western steppe groups from the wider sphere related to Sredny Stog - not Yamnaya.

The Cotofeni descendants stayed on top on the long run, the Yamnaya did just influence, not replace them, just like the abstract is saying:

In Transylvania the scenario is quite complex as
there are differences between the eastern and the western
regions. In the west, interaction with late Coţofeni com-
munities is attested by the graves uncovered in Silvaşu
de Jos, a hilly area outside the regular Yamnaya steppe
landscape. Two mounds built over previous Coţofeni
features had primary burials displaying a typical Yam-
naya ritual, individuals lying supine, oriented westwards;
these were interpreted as external influence of the Yam-
naya on the local late Coţofeni population (Diaconescu
and Tincu, 2016, p. 108, p. 115). Subsequently, a dif-
ferent type of burial mound occupied the highland areas,
or mountains, contemporary to the Yamnaya kurgans in
the lowlands. The funerary standard of the Livezile group
consisted of building stone mounds over the burials of
individuals lying in a contracted position directly on the
ancient soil surface. Post-mortem manipulation of bodies
is quite common; the dead were accompanied with spe-
cific pottery and metal ornaments, such as Leukas hair
rings made of gold or copper spectacle-shaped pendants
(Ciugudean, 2011, p. 23-27). In central and south-eas-
tern Transylvania, stone cist burials of Zimnicea-Mlăjet-
Sânzieni-Turia type, containing askos pots with origins
south of the Danube, were interpreted as a mixture of
Globular Amphora and Ezerovo/Zimnicea elements
(Székely, 2009, p. 42; Burtănescu, 2002, p. 384). Some
grave-goods found in Yamnaya burials in Muntenia fill
the gap between these, such as askos pots and crescent
silver hair rings with close analogies in the Zimnicea
cemetery (Fig. 8, No. 2) (Frînculeasa et al., 2015a, p. 71;
Frînculeasa et al., 2017b, p. 100). In opposition, ochre
and typical Yamnaya spiral hair rings were documented
in several burials from the flat cemetery in Zimnicea (Fig.
8, No. 1) (Alexandrescu, 1974, p. 83). Several mound
burials from Muntenia contained pots bearing cord deco-
ration resembling the typical Corded Ware beakers of
central and northern Europe, however, their shapes also
find good analogies east of the Prut (Ivanova, 2013; Frîn-
culeasa et al., 2015a, p. 67). Similar vessels come from
the supposed flat cemetery from Brăiliţa (Harţuche, 2002)
and from a destroyed burial mound at Buj in Hungary
(Dani, 2011, p. 34). The pots with cord decoration from
Milostea, found in the hilly area of northern Oltenia, are
more likely related to Transylvania, as good analogies
can be found in the corded ware of the Jigodin type and
in findings from Moacşa-Eresteghin (Popescu and Vulpe,
1966; Ciugudean, 2011, p. 22).


The steppe influence clearly predates Yamnaya and was likely transmitted by people already low in actual steppe ancestry. But their impact was big enough for a possible language shift.

Petresti -> Cotofeni (1) -> Nyirseg -> Eastern Otomani-Gyulavarsand/Wietenberg (2) -> Suciu de Sus-Lapus/Pre-Gáva -> Gáva-related Channelled Ware is still my preferred scenario for both E-V13 and Daco-Thracians.

1 = early IE
2 = late IE from Otomani-Füzesabony or Sabatinovka
 
And yes, I'm a bit disappointed that the paper won't get published earlier. Because if the meeting is in August, that's the earliest date to expect. Many interesting papers on the table for this conference by the way. One might include the older E1b1b samples we talked about many times before, because the Hungarian author involved participates.
 
I found it interesting that Bruzmi does now no longer question as much that E-V13 was strong in Dacians. He gets closer to the point of accepting that fact, or at least that's how it looks to me.

E-V13 autochthonous theory in Bugaria is a dead-end. Even if it arose in northern Bulgaria during the Yamnaya intrusion, it clearly was expelled and took shelter somewhere better suited for defense.
We can go over the archeological reasons over and over, but the proof is in ancient samples. If E-V13 was in Bulgaria all along, it would be found in Greece and even Turkey. We are to believe E-V13 expanded only along the Danubian but ignored much more attractive options like Greece and western Turkey, while having a home base right next to it? The entire idea is idiotic.

This could be interpreted that the locals had of course steppe ancestry, but that new steppe influences (Scythian-type ancestry levels) came in only later, with Noua. That they had zero or even only insignificant, say below 10 % steppe ancestry, seems extremely unlikely.

Don't read too much into it, I think it means about 20-25% and this is for the core groups, the frontier groups had higher steppe as they were expanding on IE territories. E-V13 story seems like a early run of the Albanian, where it contracts at one point, then expands into largely Slavic speaking regions, picking up/accumulating Slavic admixture. The groups expanding into the Hungarian plain were absorbing more steppe admixture, which would in time backflow into the core regions too.

The authors seem to think the final chrystalization occured when R1a-Z93 folks intruded and were eventually dissolved. They seem to be aware that these people are the parent of Daco-Thracians and are introducing their opinion of how such a group came to be. I think at the time of the channel ware invasions, the average steppe admixture had leveld to around 39%.

Reading your posts on Bythini and Mysi. they seem to be the pre-Thracian popularion that got booted out of the Balkans, in some instances the name of the land like Moesia was kept.
 
Reading your posts on Bythini and Mysi. they seem to be the pre-Thracian popularion that got booted out of the Balkans, in some instances the name of the land like Moesia was kept.

Actually there were a whole host of people which moved out of the Balkans into Anatolia and further, not the least the Sea Peoples.

From what I read many of these people were indeed not proper Thracians, BUT the Thyni and Bithyni likely were. Keep in mind that a strong Channelled Ware influx was more constricted to the area around Troy, North Western Anatolia. It is very likely that some splinter groups of Thracians made it much further, but most likely within the context of other tribes which dominated them. So the lineages migrated, into the Near East, probably even among people like the Philistines, but these were not Thracians ethnically for long.

But those North Western Anatolian tribes seem to have been and there was constant communication forth and backward with the tribes in South Thrace in particular, and of course those Thracians on the Aegean islands. In my opinion these Thracians were one of the primary sources of early E-V13 in Greeks.

Interesting text, don't agree with everything, but worth to read on the topic:
The names of the Thracian tribes have reached today through Greek and
Roman historiographers. Here we are going to give brief information only about the
tribes that migrated to the Bithynian region. The homeland of the Thynians, the first
Thracian tribe that immigrated to the Bithynian region, was around the modern Igne-
liada (Solmydessos). The Mygdons, on the other hand, had lived in the region between
Axias and Vardar before they migrated to the Bithynian region.


There was a series of migrations of tribes, probably some Thracians, others not, to North Western Anatolia/Bithynia in particular. That a lot of these people were actual Thracians seems highly likely.
 
Some LBA-IA samples from North-West Anatolia should solve the issue but i think Thyni/Mysi should have been Knobbed-Ware people hence E-V13, even Dardanii. But time will tell.

Dardanii tribes were split into Galabri and Thunatae, we have instances of Galabri in Southern Italy where very likely todays Calabria is named after, and Thunatae bears similarity to Thyni/Bithyni. Dardanii are still kind of mysterious to have a clear classification i would say.

Perhaps Galabri were the native Central Balkans tribe and Thunatae were the Knobbed-Ware/Channeled-Ware people, and then during MIA Glasinac Illyrians expanded on western Dardanian domain.
 
More highly important papers relevant for E-V13 in the Daco-Thracian context:

FR9CZ6Ancient DNA samples from Iron Age, Roman Period and Migration Period Transylvania are coming.
Contrasting genetic impacts of eastern migrants on Early Iron Age communities in Hungary and TransylvaniaContent:
Ancient DNA from Iron Age nomads across the Eurasian steppe, including individuals from “Scythian” contexts, has revealed their varied genetic origins and high genetic diversity. However, little is known about their genetic impact and legacy on European communities. By analysing genomes of “Scythian” Age individuals from Transylvania (n=67, unpublished) and Hungary (n=7, previously published), we find ~40% eastern admixture in Transylvania but 0% in Hungary. In contrast to the trans-Eurasian migrations to the Pannonian Basin in the Avar period, the eastern ancestry in Transylvanian “Scythians” largely came from “Scythian” communities in neighbouring Moldova and Ukraine, which admixed into the pre-existing Balkan genetic substratum. In addition to eastern ancestry, we find multiple genetic outlier individuals from central/northern Europe and southern Balkans buried in “Scythian” contexts, implying a dynamic admixture process associated with the formation of these “Scythian” communities. From Transylvania, we reconstruct several families from “Scythian” burial contexts up to three generations deep, most consisting of members with and without eastern ancestry, documenting real-time admixture between locals and eastern migrants. Among these is also a case of siblings buried 11km apart. However, this eastern ancestry did not persist after the “Scythian” period, with subsequent “Celtic” Age associated individuals (n=6) carrying primarily the pre-existing local ancestry with limited evidence of additional central European or eastern gene flow.
Seeking for the Dacian Dream. Exploring ancient mobility in Roman DaciaContent:
The province of Dacia, now part of modern-day Romania, was annexed into the Roman Empire by Trajan in 106 AD, drawing people from ancient Italy and other areas, attracted by the prospect of enhancing their livelihoods. Apulum was strategically selected by the Romans as the site for a legionary fort where the Legio XIII Gemina was stationed until the withdrawal of the Roman administration around 270 AD. Initially, a civilian settlement emerged near the castrum. The transformation into one of the most prominent Romano-Dacian settlements featuring two urban centres, still requires in-depth examination in terms of social and demographic change from a bioarchaeological perspective. This interdisciplinary research examines a sample of individuals buried in the Pitchforks Hill (Dealul Furcilor, ADF) biritual necropolis of the Roman Apulum, which is the largest identified in Dacia so far with its over 1000 burials, being utilised throughout the Roman rule. Teeth samples from 34 Roman-era individuals from ADF necropolis were collected for Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) analysis. After applying rigorous quality controls, 21 samples were chosen for the downstream analyses, with their genetic variants being filtered using the 1240K SNP panel. PCA, F statistics, and Admixture modeling were utilised to assess the genome-wide variation of the ADF group in relation to coeval and current-day populations. The genetic diversity within the ADF group aligns with the broader European genetic landscape. However, it is possible to distinguish two primary clusters: the majority of the samples share genetic similarities with Mediterranean populations, while a minority shows closer ties to Eastern European groups. These findings significantly enhance our understanding of the Romanisation in the region, revealing the genetic imprints left by legionaries and other Italic peoples who settled in Apulum compared to those who migrated from nearby regions, whose genomic makeup is anticipated to be markedly distinct.
Multidisciplinary bio-archaeological approach to study the population transformations during the Migration Period in the Eastern Carpathian Basin.Content:
Archaeological and historical sources describe a relatively stable scenario in the Tisza region at the beginning of the first millennium, with four centuries of continuous presence of “Sarmatian” communities reported in Roman written sources as in archaeological finds.
With the beginning of the 5th century, the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the extension of the Hunnic influence to this region, two centuries of power instability are reported in historical sources. This is also reflected in changes in settlement structure and burial tradition, but it is questionable whether the changes from the Sarmatian period were mostly cultural or involved a significant change in genetic structure.
In particular, during both the 5th and 6th century, the ethnonym “Gepid” appears for the first time to describe one of the populations in this region. This term was used to identify one of the “Germanic” peoples that allied with Attila during the Hunnic empire in Europe, but also to denote the kingdom at the Eastern part of the Carpathian Basin that played an important role between the centuries, appearing in both the history of the Eastern Roman Empire and of the Langobards Kingdom in the Eastern part of the Carpathian Basin.
A comprehensive analysis of these transition periods through a deep sampling of entire cemeteries in the frame of the HistoGenes project is presented, combining genome-wide analyses of more than 500 individuals with isotopic and archaeological analysis of the sites.
Multiple lines of evidence point at an increase in short- and long-scale mobility, emerging also from an increase in genetic diversity, highlighting a compound scenario of continuity and discontinuity.
Thanks to the sampling strategy, these observations emerge both as overall patterns and single stories of burials and cemeteries, narrowing the distance between large-scale and small-scale events in the history of this region.

Yes, looks like we are getting closer to the background of the North Thracians/Dacians, the E-V13 origins and and what happened with them. There are additional papers of high interest on the matter, almost like a focus on Daco-Thracians with many new papers, in chronological order.

This paper is crucial for understanding whether E-V13 and Daco-Thracians origins trace back to the Copper Age/Early Bronze Age, to the Cotofeni horizon and its successors (Livezile, Rosia etc.), or were coming in later:

Title:
Genomic stability and transformations in prehistoric Transylvania
Content:
The region of today’s Transylvania has long been a region of rich natural resources, fertile farming land and relative protection from the surrounding Carpathian and Apuseni mountains. However, the genetic history of the people that have inhabited this region is poorly understood, and the archaeogenetic record in Transylvania is only represented by very few individuals. Conversely, the history of the regions in southeastern Europe surrounding Transylvania have been well studied, and attest to dramatic genetic turnovers accompanying the change from a hunter-gatherer to a sedentary agricultural lifestyle, and the arrival of steppe-related ancestry with the expansion of pastoralist societies from east of the Carpathian mountains.

In this study we report archaeogenetic results from individuals from Transylvania and the surrounding regions in Romania, spanning the Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age. We report a surprising level of genetic continuity within Transylvania, with little evidence for an influx of steppe-related ancestry into individuals associated with the main cultural groups until the Late Bronze Age, coinciding with the arrival of people associated with the Noua culture. In stark contrast to this, we also find evidence for Yamnaya and Yamnaya-related groups from the Early Bronze Age who appear to have been unsuccessful in making a genetic foothold in the region. In summary, we find that Transylvania was at times a melting pot of genetic profiles, but still maintained a relatively continuous genetic legacy during the Copper Age and much of the Bronze Age.

This paper might reveal the background of Belegis II-Gáva, Kalakacsa horizon and/or Early Bosut-Basarabi communities, which succeeded Belegis II-Gáva in the Banat-Northern Serbia. Highly important and even more interesting if those two paper (the EBA one) can link to each other:

Title:
Mass violence, age and gender in the Early Iron Age of the southwest Carpathian Basin
Content:
In this paper, we present the results of the bioarchaeological and biomolecular (re-)analysis of 77 individuals from the Early Iron Age of Gomolava. Situated within the Carpathian Basin in southeastern Europe, Gomolava occupies a position amidst intricate socio-spatial relations, divergent cultural norms and competing landscape-use ideologies. Employing a multidisciplinary framework, we suggest a model for the social context in which the violent events surrounding the death of those buried in Gomolava took place. We explore the cause of death through osteological analysis, discern mobility patterns and diet habits through isotope analyses, ascertain the age and sex distribution across the complete assemblage using a combination of osteological examination, genetic sexing and enamel peptide analysis and establish the age and time frame of the burial event using radiocarbon dating and micro-CT scanning. These findings contribute to our understanding of wider events not only for this transformative period in European prehistory but also, more broadly, on the evolution in complexity of selective violent practice in human history.
Keywords:
Multidisciplinarity, Mass grave, Gender, Early Iron Age, Carpathian Basin, Ancient biomolecules

In Eastern Hungary the remains of Gáva came largely under the control of Cimmerian invaders, resulting in the Mezocsat group. We already know they were mostly Gáva-related from a group of females, but my hope is we might finally get some males from Mezocsat local Gáva people too:

Title:
Bioarchaeological research of the Iron Age populations of the Carpathian Basin - Past, present, and future
Content:
The Iron Age (IA) of the Carpathian Basin (CB) is characterised by significant changes which began in the 10th century BC and lasted until the 1st century AD.
Transdanubia was inhabited by the bearers of the Hallstatt culture in the Early and Middle Iron Ages (EIA and MIA); meanwhile, at the foothills of the Northern Hungarian Mountain Range and at the Great Hungarian Plain (GHP), the Mezőcsát and later the Vekerzug populations lived. The appearance of Celtic groups in the Late Iron Age (LIA) transformed the whole CB. Interestingly, IA burial rites show remarkable heterogeneity. The Hallstatt, as well as some of the Vekerzug and Celtic groups, cremated their dead, whilst the Mezőcsát population, several of the Vekerzug and Celtic people, inhumated the deceased.
The IA of the CB is notable for several population movements, mainly described using historical sources and archaeological observations; but there are limited anthropological studies. Thus, the aim of our ongoing research is to revise previous studies and expand our understanding of the IA populations of the CB by introducing new osteological materials.
Due to their burial practice, the Hallstatt groups are considered almost anthropologically unknown. As for the Mezőcsát and Vekerzug cultures, the question arises whether they descended from the local Late Bronze Age inhabitants adapting lifestyle and some characteristic artefacts from the steppe region or did an eastward influx of populations during the EIA and MIA partially or fully assimilated the autochtons. The Celtic migration is also recognizable in the heterogeneous LIA osteological materials, however, according to previous and recent results, the local component remained more dominant.
This project is supported by the Bolyai Scholarship, the New National Excellence Program (ÚNKP-23-5, ÚNKP-23-3-SZTE-61), project no. 405906 of the HNM NIA, the grant of the Hungarian NRDI Office (FK128013), and project no. C2284509 KDP-2023.


Also the idea that the Celts replace the local Dacian/North Thracian people can be laid to rest. All papers on Scythians, Celts and Sarmatians prove that up to this point the local element survived in great numbers. And this local element was more "Balkan-like" = Dacians, even before the Romans.

Two papers confirming the Dacian element stayed dominant in Transylvania in the Celtic period.


Paper 1:


However, this eastern ancestry did not persist after the “Scythian” period, with subsequent “Celtic” Age associated individuals (n=6) carrying primarily the pre-existing local ancestry with limited evidence of additional central European or eastern gene flow.


Paper 2:


The Celtic migration is also recognizable in the heterogeneous LIA osteological materials, however, according to previous and recent results, the local component remained more dominant.
 
Last edited:
More highly important papers relevant for E-V13 in the Daco-Thracian context:



Yes, looks like we are getting closer to the background of the North Thracians/Dacians, the E-V13 origins and and what happened with them. There are additional papers of high interest on the matter, almost like a focus on Daco-Thracians with many new papers, in chronological order.

This paper is crucial for understanding whether E-V13 and Daco-Thracians origins trace back to the Copper Age/Early Bronze Age, to the Cotofeni horizon and its successors (Livezile, Rosia etc.), or were coming in later:



This paper might reveal the background of Belegis II-Gáva, Kalakacsa horizon and/or Early Bosut-Basarabi communities, which succeeded Belegis II-Gáva in the Banat-Northern Serbia. Highly important and even more interesting if those two paper (the EBA one) can link to each other:



In Eastern Hungary the remains of Gáva came largely under the control of Cimmerian invaders, resulting in the Mezocsat group. We already know they were mostly Gáva-related from a group of females, but my hope is we might finally get some males from Mezocsat local Gáva people too:




Also the idea that the Celts replace the local Dacian/North Thracian people can be laid to rest. All papers on Scythians, Celts and Sarmatians prove that up to this point the local element survived in great numbers. And this local element was more "Balkan-like" = Dacians, even before the Romans.

Two papers confirming the Dacian element stayed dominant in Transylvania in the Celtic period.


Paper 1:





Paper 2:
I cannot wait to see the worm squirm
 
The new study about ancient Germanic origins has a extremely new cool analysis based on IBD clusters in their supplementary, they did restrict the new method only for Germanics, but created clusters for most of per-existing ancient samples. The results pretty much agree with proper autosomal models I ran in the past two years.

v6KvcsF.png


I want to note that the authors seem to have a struggle on how to categorize the Paeonian-Phrygian cluster and stuffed in between the Daco-Thracians one. This is because E-V13 since MBA was expanding towards Vatin(pay attention where most BA Serbia falls) and Vatin-derived groups(Paeonians) and for that long period(500-700 years), it absorbed part of their genepool, that by the Iron Age they seem related, even though they are rival groups since the Bronze Age that started off genetically distinct, despite later mergers.

Also noteworthy, Ohrid samples are clustered with Logkas primarly and Paeonians secondary, these two small clusters can be broadly called Phrygian-Paeonian. Even the only R-PF7562 Illyrian from Cinamak falls under this IBD cluster. LOL Can't say I told you so, because I did.
Pretty much everything is going against team retard/rrenjet, yet they double and triple down. It's becoming clear to me, most people can't model, the concept itself is alien as they want to project their worldview into a model, as a result they can't extract data. Absolute apes.

The clusters are not without error. They include one clear Illyrian R1b from Macedonia as Paeonian because part of his DNA is with the greater Daco-Thracian cluster. The Kenete sample is thrown with the rest of Albanians, probably because it shares some IDB fragmants with the later post-mdv Kukes samples. When more ancient populations get sampled, I am sure some of the assigned samples will chage seats and will be shifted to new discovered clusters.

And what do you know, early Albanian samples are a spinoff of Bassarabi. Bessa just does not go away.😁
 
They coordinated in Discord, 8-9 people (probably half of them entertain's sock-puppet accounts) to report my posts on genarchivist. 🤣
 
Last edited:
They coordinated in Discord, 8-9 people (probably half of them entertain's sock-puppet accounts) to report my posts on genarchivist. 🤣

Brumziu the bajraktar is getting pegged by Ojkifi in exchange for moderating rights through his lover.
 
BTW notice that the Illyrian related cluster follow geographically perfectly when one looks at the location of the samples. The Daco-Thracian cluster also follows geography (Moldova, Slovakia-Hungary, Bulgaria) despite missing samples from the core group.

I plotted all the Daco-Thracian samples out of curiosity, and it's a rerun of the E-V13 cline I argued for in the past. It would be nice if the Serbia Roman samples and Himera were also part of this analysis but one can hope so going forward.

dBYTAnl.png
 
Pretty obvious that Daco-Thracians are autosomally more diverse than Illyrians, which is due to their rapid conquest and expansions during which they mixed with local females on a large scale.
 
Currently the Illyrian cluster looks larger because we have way more samples of them. But geographically speaking, Daco-Thracian has much larger presence. In the Bessarabi cluster, the authors did not give a haplogroup to I18528, but this is also E-V13. Despite the poor sampling from E-V13s zones, a clear pattern is emerging which follows haplogroup distribution.
One thing is obvious, the Illyrian cluster is more close-knit than Daco-Thracian which is more intertwined with neighboring peoples.
 
I ran the report based on haplogroup E only. There is no option to filter by date, other than having to go in and remove all post BC time frames manually, takes too long.

ZVXLCJo.png


Let's see if the Scandanavian Es turn out to be E-V13, but already from Czech La Tene, Hungary, and Netherlands, there are E-V13s with local Celto-Germanic profiles before Roman conquest.


Edit: In the Bassarabi IDB cluster now fall four E-V13s, R107(imperial Rome), Slovakia Roman Age, Hun LaTene I18832 and Hun La Tene I18528. And we have no sample from the core region at all. The pattern is clear though, these are E-V13 folks.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 2648 times.

Back
Top