• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Neolithic Refuge and Continuity in Transylvania

Closer look of sica

1000015691.jpg
 
A new abstract for the Gomolava mass burial sampling:

Mass Violence, Age and Gender in the Early Iron Age of the Carpathian Basin
Miren Iraeta Orbegozo (1) - Linda Fibiger (2) - Dorothea Mylopotamitaki (3) - Cheryl Makarewicz (4) -
Jason Laffoon (5) - Caroline Bruyere (6) - Jovan Koledin (7) - Jazmín Ramos-Madrigal (3) - Hannes
Schroeder (3) - Barry Molloy (6)
University of Lausanne, Computational Biology, Lausanne, Switzerland (1) - School of History, Classics & Archaeology,
University of Edinbrugh, Edinbrugh, United Kingdom (2) - Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
(3) - Institute of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archaeology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany (4) - Department of
Archaeological Science, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands (5) - School of Archaeology, University College Dublin,
Dublin, Ireland (6) - Museum of Vojvodina, Museum of Vojvodina, Vojvodina, Serbia (7)
Keywords: Age and gender, Mass violence, Interdisciplinarity
This study presents the bioarchaeological findings of 77 individuals and the biomolecular
analysis of 25 individuals from a 9th-century BCE mass grave at Gomolava in the Carpathian
Basin, Southeast Europe. The site is located at the crossroad of complex socio-spatial
relations, divergent cultural traditions, and competing ideologies of landscape use. Excessive
lethal violence enacted mostly on women and children suggests a selective demographic bias.
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, reconstruct their genetic ancestry through genomic 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 shed new light on the socioeconomic roles and significance of women and young
individuals in later European prehistory and aim to serve as a model for integrating genetic data
across disciplines to construct meaningful, context-rich narratives.
Click to expand...

First samples from Kalakacza/Bosut horizons, groups likely (not sure, but the most common interpretation) directly descending from Belegis II-Gáva/Vartop/Gáva-related Channelled Ware. If anyone can gather any information on this one, especially if there were yDNA haplogroups mentioned, that would great. Just a bit of a disappointment that only 25 individuals were genetically analysed it seems. I hoped for more from this big mass grave, to be sure in any direction.

More abstracts:

Radko ISBA11 abstract book - https://www.isba11.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/ISBA11-abstract-book.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Posted in genarchivist, Gepid samples from Transylvania:

1osa5lA.jpeg


Based on genetic sex determination, there are 58 male and 58 female individuals in the dataset, corresponding with archaeological observations.
Successful mitochondrial haplogroup determination was achieved for 112 samples.
The mitochrondrial lineages were dominated by haplogroup H, T2, J1, K and U which are widespread in Europe in our days.
The Y-haplogroup determination was succesful for 50 individuals, the most common ones were E-V13 and I1a 12-12 samples belonged to each of them. Besides these, samples belonging to haplogroup G2a, I1b, I2a, J2a, J2b, R1a and R1b were also present.
Click to expand...
 
Riverman said:
I saw that. First samples from a core Dacian territory and E-V13 is dominant!
I hope once the data gets published, we will get downstream assignments.
Click to expand...

Look at the PCA carefully, I think the circled region says Sardania, there are a bunch of samples that cluster similar to Thracians, so I would conclude Dacians were similar in profile, just less ME admixture and slightly more WHG. And the frontier populations like Himera and Vekerzug samples represent the end/edge of Dacian profiles not the norm.

sMieJK2.png
 
Hawk said:
Those are Gepid samples, remove I1a which comes from them, almost exclusively Dacians were E-V13, same as Kapitan Andreevo.
Click to expand...

The most conservative calculation is that E-V13 was about 40 % the least, but likely significantly higher, in the local population (minus Germanics, minus Slavs). If subtracting more speculatively, like removing outliers from other Balkan-Mediterranean regions as well, we get to a total domination., but that would be indeed too speculative.

In any case, the lowest number after subtracting recent migrants is still higher than what we got from Viminacium, which is significant enough!
 
PaleoRevenge said:
Look at the PCA carefully, I think the circled region says Sardania, there are a bunch of samples that cluster similar to Thracians, so I would conclude Dacians were similar in profile, just less ME admixture and slightly more WHG. And the frontier populations like Himera and Vekerzug samples represent the end/edge of Dacian profiles not the norm.
Click to expand...

That's very possible. Honestly, I even entertained the idea that, as one option out of others, the original Transylvanian groups like Wietenberg were probably MORE EEF than the Kapitan Andreevo/South Thracian samples. If we take the abstract on BA Transylvania literally, that's a distinct possibility, actually, since Cotofeni might have had very low levels of steppe ancestry and this is the main source for the local Pre-Daco-Thracian population in areas like Transylvania and Oltenia.
 
From the preliminary IBD database, Thracians are not from the Aegean, that connection is ruled out. Its interesting that there is also J2a, G2a, J2b, and R1b, these might be the Romanians, unlikely to be remnants of Roman control but likely resettled Roman citizens by the Germanic rulers, Huns did the same thing as did the Avars.
 
PaleoRevenge said:
From the preliminary IBD database, Thracians are not from the Aegean, that connection is ruled out. Its interesting that there is also J2a, G2a, J2b, and R1b, these might be the Romanians, unlikely to be remnants of Roman control but likely resettled Roman citizens by the Germanic rulers, Huns did the same thing as did the Avars.
Click to expand...

I think its both, because there seems to have been a sizeable Daco-Roman remnant population in the wider area and in those Daco-Romans, assuming the majority was not from a purely Daco-Carpic tribal context in the area, should have the typical "Imperial Roman" admixture and show some Romanised settlers from various regions, including the West Balkan and Aegean-Anatolian-Levantine. That's my suggestions, but we would know for sure if the Roman era samples from Transylvania would get published.

If all the results got out which are in the pipeline for Transylvania, we should have a nice diachronic representation from the
1) Bronze Age (from Cotofeni to Noua-Pre-Gáva)
2) Iron Age (at least Ciumbrud and La Tene)
3) Roman era (provincials)
4) Late Roman into Avar period (these results)

The only real gap is local Eastern Otomani-Western Wietenberg into Suciu de Sus into Gáva, which is of course crucial, but at this point I don't think that this is the only E-V13 source (also becasue of the obvious much earlier split of the main branches). And even if there are not enough male samples, it will tell us a lot about autosomal profiles and possibly IBD matching.

Completely agreed that the IBD overlap with the Greeks is so weak to absent, that this is a strong additional argument against an Aegean origin of the main Thracian population. In fact, even if there was significant admixture, it should have created a stronger link. That this is not the case doesn't suggest the majority of the EEF ancestry comes from the Aegean at all.
 
Last edited:
Completely agreed that the IBD overlap with the Greeks is so weak to absent, that this is a strong additional argument against an Aegean origin of the main Thracian population. In fact, even if there was significant admixture, it should have created a stronger link. That this is not the case doesn't suggest the majority of the EEF ancestry comes from the Aegean at all.
Click to expand...

A while back I ran qpdam on the Thracian samples, the G25 model of EEF+Yamnya+MENA fails. Instead a model of either Transylvania neolithic(these samples are singletons, so not the greatest) or Bulgarian Gulmenitsa neolithic, + Yamnya + Israel MBA. That's a model that worked, using Barcin never worked. The G25 model is a mirrage, it does the same thing with all samples, if there is both WHG and MENA admixture it will spit out as Barcin. The famous Roman J2b sample from Montenegro(Doclea) is a good example, the samply is clearly in the Illyrian + levantine admixture cline, but G25 will show it as 67% EEF and no Mena or barely any WHG(both impossible). G25 does not have the ability to capture minute signals.
 
Last edited:
PaleoRevenge said:
A while back I ran qpdam on the Thracian samples, the G25 model of EEF+Yamnya+MENA fails. Instead a model of either Transylvania neolithic(these samples are singletons, so not the greatest) or Bulgarian Gulmenitsa neolithic, + Yamnya + Israel MBA. That's a model that worked, using Barcin never worked. The G25 model is a mirrage, it does the same thing with all samples, if there is both WHG and MENA admixture it will spit out as Barcin. The famous Roman J2b sample from Montenegro(Doclea) is a good example, the samply is clearly in the Illyrian + levantine admixture cline, but G25 will show it as 67% EEF and no Mena or barely any WHG(both impossible). G25 does not have the ability to capture minute signals.
Click to expand...

Yes, I came to the same conclusions. The best currently available models are with Gumelnita samples. The strange thing is, there are some good ones from Oltenia, which give a perfect fit, but there are the strange ones which all have excess WHG/steppe from Gumelnita, Salcuta etc., all from the Bukarest sampling group, and those being usually not used in papers very often, presumably because there is an issue (contamination?).

It is worth to mention that Salcuta-Gumelnita heavily influenced the Transylvanian groups of Bodrogkeresztur and Ariuszd group of Tripolye-Cucuteni and they also contributed to the following Cotofeni and Cernavoda groups respectively.

Also, the South Thracians have obvious minor admixture or at least relations with the Anatolian-Levantine sphere. Like they have some IBD sharing with Bronze Age Levantine samples and Anatolian Iron Age ones. The exact direction and reason for the potential gene flow is uncertain, but it would be my guess there was some mixture with Anatolians when they marched into the area in the LBA-EIA transitional period. And there likely were contacts to the East, especially West Anatolian Thracians and Phrygians, later on.

That those Anatolian contacts can be seen, but the Aegaean ones rather not is quite significant.

Petresti and the adjacent areas of the neighbouring groups (like Ariuszd group of TCC, Salcuta, Bodrogkeresztur, Gumelnita) are my favourite for the E-V13 presence in the Late Neolithic to Copper Age beside Usatovo-Gorodsk (basically Tripolye-Cucuteni origin as well).

In a regional context West of the steppe, I consider the borderzone between Petresti-Bodrogkeresztur-Salcuta most interesting:
1920px-SEE-Eneolithic-cultures_2.png


That's right the centre of later Cotofeni.
 
Last edited:
In qpdam Israel MBA admixture is 20% in south Thracians, so not minor. It's to be seen how much of this admixture was already built in Cotofeni, if any. But yes, Daco-Thracians have both of admixtures, which shows up as EEF on G25.
 
PaleoRevenge said:
In qpdam Israel MBA admixture is 20% in south Thracians, so not minor. It's to be seen how much of this admixture was already built in Cotofeni, if any. But yes, Daco-Thracians have both of admixtures, which shows up as EEF on G25.
Click to expand...

Can u prove this? I think G25 would pick this as well, if u put Israel_MLBA and distance fall then for sure they had it.

Why then author papers said Thracians were like Mycaneans with slightly more Steppe and less CHG.

If yes, the only reasonable explanation is that the ancestors of Daco-Thracians were part of Sea People coalition and plundering in Middle East.
 
Last edited:
Hawk said:
Can u prove this? I think G25 would pick this as well, if u put Israel_MLBA and distance fall then for sure they had it.

Why then author papers said Thracians were like Mycaneans with slightly more Steppe and less CHG.

If yes, the only reasonable explanation is that the ancestors of Daco-Thracians were part of Sea People coalition and plundering in Middle East.
Click to expand...

I am not as confident about the exact amount of this Near Eastern ancestry, it could be very low. But fact is, that its there in South and East Thracians. Not in the North and West Thracians as much, which still share IBD with South Thracians.

Also, we know that Coarse Ware (Brnjica- and Coslogeni-related) and Channelled Ware came at least to Troy, one after another.

And we also know that in the Iron Age Thracian tribes moved from the Strymon area to Anatolia.
Plus we also know of related Balkan groups participating in the Sea Peoples.

That's all known.

The question is how much gene flow came back to the Balkans.
Plus there were potentially Anatolian-related locals in the Southern East Balkans.
 
Hawk said:
Can u prove this? I think G25 would pick this as well, if u put Israel_MLBA and distance fall then for sure they had it.

Why then author papers said Thracians were like Mycaneans with slightly more Steppe and less CHG.

If yes, the only reasonable explanation is that the ancestors of Daco-Thracians were part of Sea People coalition and plundering in Middle East.
Click to expand...

It shows up in IBD reads, so I would say it's validated. Also qpdam can be dumbed down, as was the case in the recent Albanian paper where three conditions in the right command were dropped so models that they wanted to pass(and could not) finally pass. If qpdam models are of good standard they will match IBD cluster sharing.
I can give you another example how data can be misused. In the new paper by the butterfly expert, he grouped the samples from Bezdanja Croatia(all R-L21) as Illyrians. The Himera E-V13 shared some fragments with this Celtoid group(not Illyrians) and on that basis, they speculated Himera E-V13s are half Thracian half Illyrian, its obvious on the PCA this is impossible. Also the lack of IBD sharing with BA Serbia makes this a dead-end theory, as such proposed(mythical) population can only have inhabited Serbia.
 
PaleoRevenge said:
It shows up in IBD reads, so I would say it's validated. Also qpdam can be dumbed down, as was the case in the recent Albanian paper where three conditions in the right command were dropped so models that they wanted to pass(and could not) finally pass. If qpdam models are of good standard they will match IBD cluster sharing.
I can give you another example how data can be misused. In the new paper by the butterfly expert, he grouped the samples from Bezdanja Croatia(all R-L21) as Illyrians. The Himera E-V13 shared some fragments with this Celtoid group(not Illyrians) and on that basis, they speculated Himera E-V13s are half Thracian half Illyrian, its obvious on the PCA this is impossible. Also the lack of IBD sharing with BA Serbia makes this a dead-end theory, as such proposed(mythical) population can only have inhabited Serbia.
Click to expand...

What is your hypothesis on ~20% Israel_MLBA then?
 
It's easy to say it's from LBA/EIA raids into Levant and Turkey, but E-V13 is at the end of the day a pseudo-Semitic haplogroup before 4,000 BC, so I would not personally rule out some of that heritage being from chalcolithic period. It's a crap shoot because we have literally zero data, all the needed samples need to come from Romania and those are not being published, or intentionally being held back. We know what's going in Romania before and after Daco-Thracian periods from DNA samples.

From little data, I would say south Thracians got most of this Israel MBA ancestry from their expansion south. But the fact that E-V13 is a progeny of E-M78, I can't rule out some levantine/natufian heritage might be inherited from their past. Ancient samples can clear this up real fast, if only they get published.
 
Yes, but the E-L618 migration is so much more deeper in pre-history that i doubt actual Natufian-like is before MLBA-LBA. It just fits in timeline.
 
Last edited:
Hawk said:
Yes, but the E-L618 migration is so much more deeper in pre-history that i doubt actual Natufian-like is before MLBA-LBA. It just fits in timeline.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. We have all the populations which are truly relevant, we have Bodrogkeresztur, Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelnita-Pre-Salcuta. When ignoring these strange buk samples, what remains are high EEF Copper Age samples with varying degrees (1-18 %) of WHG admixture in the pre-steppe Late Neolithic to Copper Age. And ALL those groups had E-L618. The only group missing is Petresti, which in my opinion will have more EEF than Bodrogkeresztur and being closer to the Oltenia-Gumelnita samples which were nearly 100 % EEF. Because Petresti looks to me like an offshoot anyway.
These are all old European Neolithic groups and we also have E-L618 from earlier Neolithic groups like Impresso-Cardial, Lengyel, LBK, Michelsberg etc.

Therefore if there was any more Anatolian-Levantine admixture, I guess it was coming from later Late Neolithic/Copper Age movements unrelated to E-V13, like e.g. exchange networks of Usatovo-Gorodsk and Cernavoda.

It is pretty clear that we have to look for Cotofeni-related groups and Glina-Schneckenberg first and foremost, because those are the deep rooted regional groups of the Copper-EBA which gave rise to the later Thracian cultures.

I recently read about the spread of Thracians in the Hellenistic armies, which could have contributed to the distribution of South Thracian branches like E-BY5022 in the Near East in particular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top