Background

By way of preparation for a project and for comparanda, I began re-visiting aspects of the Copper Age in Central Europe. As far as this region goes, the broad picture of Neolithic and steppe migrations has been sketched out, although some aspects of the ‘received wisdom’ for both of these large topics require serious re-attention. Whatsmore, the growing dataset can be used to look into more specific topics and questions.

I thought I’d begin with an ‘archaeological block’ which has attracted considerable attention by scholars – the Boleraz -Baden culture which spans from ~ 3700 to 2500 BCE. Early perspectives viewed the Baden culture as a manifestation of ‘Trojan refugees’, a theory which is obviously chronologically incompatible. Marija Gimbutas perceived the Boleraz-Baden complexes to be ‘semi-kurganized’. Indeed, the material culture features begin to depart from the earlier Neolithic model, with a more dispersed settlement pattern, emphasis on pastoralism and other aspects of the ‘Secondary Product Revolution’, appearance of wagons, and new forms of funerary ritual such as the use of barrows.

Boleraz is seen to have evolved from local late Middle Chalcolithic groups and spread out over much of the Carpathian basin (in place of the myriad of Late Neolithic groups). It is often divided into proto-Boleraz (Furchenstichkeramik), Boleraz/ early Baden, classic Baden and late Baden phases (Sachße 2008). The proto-Boleraz phase is most represented at the Danube bend, modern northern Transdanubia and western Slovakia, but some finds also in the Upper tizsa valley and Bukk foothills. This phase is characterised by extra-mural urn-cremation burials, either isolated or in larger cemetries, often under barrows. Funerary gifts include ceramics, stone axes & hammers, occasional copper tools and animal offerings. However, isolated inhumations did occur within settlements, sometimes as disarticulated remains (perhaps ancestral omens). By the developed Boleraz phase, sites had spread south to Lake Balaton.

By the Baden phase, sites can also be found in the Drava-Sava region. Extramural inhumations became predominant, suggesting a profound transformation in funerary behaviour. However, a variety of burials can be found, with regionalization and social stratification becoming more evident. The presence of human sacrifice pits suggests that there were internal conflicts, vandettas and/or extreme stratification.

The material elements and influences of the Boleraz-Baden complex appear as far as northern Europe and even in Late Tripolje millieu beyond the Carpathians. To the south, elements of the B-B-Complex (such as Bratislava bowls) appear in the eastern Serbia, Macedonia, northern Greece, the Rhodopes, and even western Anatolia (Kumtepe) (Coleman & Facorellis 2018). However by 2500 BC the Baden complex had dissolved, not least due to the pressure exerted by the expansion of Yamnaya groups.

DNA

The first Baden genome was published in Gamba (2014), then several additional Baden & Boleraz individuals were analysed in Lipson et al (2017). These were shown to lack ‘steppe ancestry’, and instead appeared to be fairly typical of the profile seen in Middle Neolithic and Copper Age ‘Farmers’ across central & western Europe. In regions beyond the Balkans, late hunter-gatherers (HG) mixed with Balkan-Anatolian Farmers after the ‘Early Farmer’/ LBK horizon. Lipson et al observed that the amount of HG admixture in the LN-Chlc. Carpathian basin was modest (~ 10%) when compared to levels seen in northern or western Europe, most likely due to larger HG population sizes in the latter regions.

To begin, a PCA visualization shows that B-B individuals are expectedly situated on a cline connecting Balkan-Anatolian Farmers to WHG. One Boleraz individual appears pulled toward the northeast.

I then analysed more closely with qpADM using a ”rotating strategy”. I kept Neolithic source fairly constant (e.g. Bulgaria_N or Vinca_N) and ‘auditioned’ the preferred HG admixture (table 1). In terms of broad patterns, levels of HG do not exceed 10% before 4000 BCE, and groups from the northeastern Carpathian basin (i.e. ALPc) tend to have higher HG admixture than those in Pannonia (table 2). The source of HG admixture also showed an interesting pattern – ‘eastern’ sources such as Dnieper-HG or ‘steppe Eneolithic’ are rejected. Iron Gates were satisfactory for earlier groups, however ‘Copper Age’ groups increasingly required trans-Carpathian admixture, represented by the Mesolithic individual from Bottendorf (Saxony, Germany). As an example:

This is not to say that these individuals came from Saxony, but certainly does point to extensive social networks which might very well extended that far.

Many would also have noticed the individual from Gura Baciului from Romania ~ 3300 BC (Gonzales-Fortes 2017), with some ~ 50% WHG admixture. Although I will not go into it now, she will no longer be lonely.

Looking to male uniparentals, Boleraz male individuals from Abony fall under Y-hg G2a2b, a typical Anatolian-early European Farmer lineage. Two others at Abony belong within what was known as ‘Y-hg I2c’, specifically I-PF3923 (which is also found in later Unetice-related individuals) and I-BY136048 (defining a Carpathian cluster with links to central Germany) (as per ftDNA). Curiously, I2c is missing in hunter-gatherers from Iron Gates region but has been found in hunter-gatherers from Motala (Sweden) & Łojewo, (Poland).

Baden phase individuals predominantly belong to Y-hg G2a2b, but there is also an individual with Y-hg H, and at least three with I2a1-M26-CTS595 from Balatonelle. The latter lineage is that found in the Remedello trio, an elite Bell Beaker individual from Szigetszentmiklós, late TRB/ Wartberg burials from southern Germany, and pre-Beaker tholoi tombs in Iberia. It seems these were an elite clan linking across Alpine Europe in the Chalcolithic era. Nowadays, M26 lineage is Y-hg I lineage found in ~ 40% of Sardinians. The more distantly related M423 is prevalent in Neolithic & Chalcolithic individuals from western Europe but is now relatively uncommon there. One specific lineage within M423 (CTS10228) is now common across central-eastern Europe, but that’s another era and another story.

Conclusions

We can draw several conclusions from this brief look. Within broad terms, the B-B people can be modelled as two-way admixtures between Anatolian Farmers (~ 85 – 90 %) and European hunter-gatherers (10-15%). However, these percentage should not be taken at face value because of the different population sizes expected between Neolithic tells and villages, on the one hand, and bands of late hunter-gatherers, probably in the order of a magnitude. From a male uniparental perspective, the introgression of ‘Mesollithic’ lineages is more significant- closer to the order of 30%. In fact, the Carpathian – East Alpine was a ‘hotbed’ of uniparental diversity, as we also see instances of H2, J2a, C1a, E-M78 and R1b-V88 throughout the Neolithic, Copper, Bronze Ages.

As outlined in Lipson (2017), the admixture of HGs was progressive and occurred over several hundred years, beginning ca. 5000 BC. This pattern is observed throughout temperate Europe and corresponds to the phase immediately after the ‘dissolution’ of the LBK horizon, although the regional successors (e.g. Rossen, Gatarsleben, BKG, Lengyel) still maintain ‘Danubian Neolithic’ traditions of the LBK. In other words, the agency of admixing late HGs should not to be overlooked, but in simple terms they were assimilating into Neolithic societies, rather than taking over as seen later in western France and northern TRB/ GAC zones.

Another WHG rise is observable in Boleraz phase individuals. Levels do not continue to rise in Baden period samples but in fact plataeu, consistent with its propagation further south. Aside from one outlier, these groups lack eastern affinities, suggesting that the “kurgan” traits observed in these groups ocurred as a hallmarks of engaging in Secondary Products economy and its ideological sequalae. The Boleraz fineware probably represents a material veneer, perhaps associated with feasting, which crystalized amongst communities in Lower Austria and southwestern Slovakia (Furholt 2007). This behaviour then diffused further afield by various means.

Whether the instances of Boleraz and Baden pottery further south were translated by migrating groups, or represents an ‘accompanying pottery’ phenomenon remains to be clarified. I suspect the latter might be the case, at least as far as its presence in pre-Yamnaya and Yamnaya related contexts from the western Black Sea region.

This is a snippet of what I’ll be looking at over the next few years, occasionally here and hopefully formally in due course.

References

Pottery, cultures, people? The European Baden material re-examined. Furholt 2007

Baden Cultural Identities? Late Copper Age Funerals Reviewed. Claudia Sachße 2008

The shadowy “proto-Earlyt Bronze Age” in the Aegean. Coleman & Facorellis 2018

Parallel paleogenomic transects reveal complex genetic history of early European farmers. Lipson et al 2017

Genome flux and stasis in a five millennium transect of European prehistory/ Gamba et al 2014

Paleogenomic Evidence for Multi-generational Mixing between Neolithic Farmers and Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers in the Lower Danube Basin. Gonzales-Fortes et al. 2017

ftDNA ‘Time Tree’. https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna

In ancient DNA papers to date, the emerging perception is that there is no evidence of movement from southeastern Europe to Anatolia. Instead, the main genetic shift Anatolia experienced between the Neolithic and Bronze Age was ‘eastward’, toward Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) and Zagros Neolithic -related populations. This of course is correct at a macro-scale, and deserves to be further studied on its own right. However, it is also interesting as it pertains to the question of the Anatolian Indo-European languages such as Luwian and Hittite which are distributed across western Anatolia. As such, placing their origins in the East – where numerous non-IE languages are attested – is a priori problematic. Moreover, archaeological evidence points to several episodes where there might have been movements from the Balkans / west Pontic region into Anatolia. These include:

• the Epipaleolithic: close analogies between the Antalya caves and Balkan Epigravettian has been suggested, as well as close similarities between Bullet cores noted in the Marmara region with those in the northwest Black Sea region
• After the Neolithic migration from Anatolia to Europe, the tide of influences appear to have gone the other way, as Balkan Chalcolithic centres became prominent whilst many settlements were abandoned in Anatolia after ~ 55/5000 BC. Between 5000 and 4000 BC, prominent Balkan influences are noted as far as Cappadocia (a ‘Balkan-Anatolian Chalcolithic koine”), however these are not sweeping or monolithic but instead suggest the small communities remaining in western-central Anatlia were ‘open’ to contacts with and influenced by those in the Balkans and Aegean regions. Indeed, they were distant kin.
• New excavations around Istanbul point to the presence of Yamnaya-like kurgans, with stallae and battle-axes in Troy, whilst the layout of the settlement at Dermicihoyuk has close affinities with that in Sintashta
• But there is more to understand. Firstly, the settlement distribution within Anatolia as a whole appears to shift – whereas pre-5500 BC settlements are mostly situated around the Mediterranean littoral, by the Bronze Age, northern Anatolia comes to life. At a microregional scale, alluvial plains were abandoned, whilst highland sites became preferred. Thirdly, there is no doubt that influences from the Caucasus were prominent, however these must be understood as part of a bidirectional interaction sphere between north/northeastern Anatolia, the Caucasus and lowland sites such as Arslantepe which in certain periods were integrated within Mesopotamian social spheres.
• By 3500 BC, the lull and shift in the Anatolian material record had ended, and now the region set in a period of demographic growth which culminated by the Bronze Age. Towns and Citadels emerged, from which local chiefs controlled the countryside and conducted far-reaching trade.

So why have ancient DNA studies so far failed to detect admixture from southeastern Europe ? First of all, the situation is extremely challenging, with even foremost Anatolian specialists remaining cautious in their reconstructions. Secondly, most genetics papers ignore archaeology and even uniparental markers, whilst their main focus is demonstrating complex statistical models. Thirdly, the way the genetics analyses were performed is sometimes problematic.

Some of these issues include:

1) Using Iron Gates Mesolithic (IG) as a proxy for southeastern Europe. When analysed, recent studies noted a negligible presence in Anatolian Chalcolithic and Bronze Age. These same studies also suggested that given that IG admixture is prolific in Europe, its absence in Anatolia excludes movement from Europe.

– However, this is a faulty assumption. Even within the Balkans, there is minimal IG related admixture (at least in most groups). E.g. in Vinca reaching a mere ~ 5% – needed for a passing qpAdm model but definitely small. For Anatolia, it would be virtually undectable. Coupled with the fact that over 95% of Balkan ancestry is deeply shared with Anatolian farmers, this makes analyses a challenging task.

– IG is in fact not the only type of hunter-gatherer ancestry present in the Balkans, there is EHG/ steppe related admixture, and even Baltic-affinity admixture (e.g. the ROU_C outlier sample from Gonzales-Fortes). These would need to be tested, but again their amounts would be small. Nuanced analyses using a ‘stepping stone’ model would need to be implemented.

2) Drawing an arbitrary line in the sand.
Pinarbasi, and by extension all ANFs, have Balkan related admixture a priori. This is corroborated by the presence of Y-hg I2c and C in Anatolia, and qpgraph typologies suggesting input from Iron Gates into Anatolian Epipaleolithic. Historically plausible in light of archaeological observations noted above.

3) The kurgans from around Istanbul and adjacent regions of Anatolia have not yet been analysed.

4) the CHG-ANF cline that papers speak of, is only an end-result. Publications to date have not rationalised genetic shifts within the context of aforementioned settlement and cultural changes between 5000 BC and 3000 BC. Whilst I can only briefly deal with analytics here, the CHG-shift is not simply a result of a unidirectional migration of CHG-rich people across Anatolia from a hypothetical ‘southern Arc homeland’.

Whilst a 2-way model for CHG + ANF might work for many Anatolian individuals, it does not work for all samples.

For example, Camilbel Tarlasi individuals require a 3-way admixture with extra Levant/Mesomotamian input, which makes sense given the Halaf-related impact c. 4000 BC

TUR_C_ÇamlıbelTarlası_ChL
CHG
TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N
TUR_Hatay_TellKurdu_ChL

best coefficients: 0.248 0.137 0.615
std. errors: 0.019 0.073 0.087

T.P: 0.24

Similarly, as noted in Skourtianoti et al, 2-way models failed for Arslantepe, which also required additional Iran-related or Mesopotamian input.

Most interesting, however, is western Anatolian samples such as Isparta and Yassitepe.
When Vinca was used, the models passed (in the case of Yassitepe), or achieved the highest P-value (for Isparta).

TUR_Med_Isparta_BA
AZE_N
HUN_Vinca_MN

best coefficients: 0.636 0.364
std. errors: 0.033 0.033

TP 0.45

TUR_Med_Isparta_BA
CHG
TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N

best coefficients: 0.348 0.652
std. errors: 0.018 0.018

TP 6.03531e-05

For Yassitepe

TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA
AZE_N
HUN_Vinca_MN

best coefficients: 0.398 0.602 (!)
std. errors: 0.047 0.047

TP 0.13

This does not imply ‘mass migrations from the Balkans’ , it does however demonstrate the existence of active social and biological networks across the Balkan-Anatolian koine. As a sanity check, the I2a-L701 found in Yassitepe is that which is also found across the Balkans, Carpathian basin and western steppe. Curiously, this lineage is found across Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age periods, and multiple genomic clusters, from hunter-gatherers, to steppe, to Balkan and Anatolian Farmers. Even more interestingly, this specific lineage is first attested in the northern Balkans and Carpatho-Dnieper region, and only later in more southern areas of the Balkans (but also as far as Central Asia and Late Bronze Age Swat valley). Hence, these represent ‘tracer dye’ in a longue duree link.

The findings briefly presented here are consistent with the known Copper Age influences of Balkan Centres which precipitated the Sredni Stog horizon, or Chernykh’s “Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province”, or whatever we might wish to call it. It obviously extended to Anatolia too, but then the system ‘collapsed’ and a new, steppe-focussed one took over, the proverbial ‘nuclear IEs”, whilst Central Anatolia was increasingly included within the burgeoning Caucasian network.

This is not to suggest that PIE was introduced into Anatolia by Epipaleolithic movements arounds the western Black Sea, nor necessarily via the Balkan Chalcolithic. But this preliminary look does demonstrate that there was, beyond doubt, movement from southeast Europe into Anatolia on several occasions. Further work is required to elicit details.

Fig 1. My model of ”Anatolian Chalcolithic nodes & networks”. The mauve dashed line depicts the focus of ‘Early Anatolian Farmers’, the orange depicts the shift toward northern Anatolia during the Bronze Age. Also depicted traditional ‘Pottery provinces’ Troy-Yortan and Bithynian.

But what about the ‘Caucasian kurgans” ? Various Caucasian groups were drawn toward the Sredni Stog network, with Meshoko groups moving across the mountains to participate episodically with the burgeoning Sredni Stog network. Somewhat later, East Anatolian-Caucasian highland networks also extended toward the steppe, and these borrowed the idea of kurgan burials & elaborate display to communicate the status of local chiefs, such as at Majkop, Soyuq Bulaq, Arslantepe, Alacahoyuk. Indeed, between 4000 and 2200 BC, eastern Anatolia looked more illustrious than the west. However, in each of these cases, the phenomenon was short-lived. In the case of Arslantepe, internal struggles between Caucasian highland “haves’ and “have nots’ ended in a conflagration, whilst further north, the Kura-Araxes system was frankly invaded by the groups emanating from the western Catacomb/ Babino horizon (featuring R1b-Z2013 and I2c).

I will not get into details on the Steppe Eneolithic and its genesis. However, archaeology points to a gradual process of development and selective receptivity, whilst the ”expanding lineages” associated with the Yamnaya & Corded Ware horizons – R1a-M17, R1b-M269 and I2a-L701 existed in Europe since at least 10,000 BC, and probably much longer. The earliest and most important influences came from the Balkans, but this is often lost in Indo-European discourses which pitch an oppositional view between pastoralists and farmers, whilst geneticists have tended to fixate on ”CHG”. In reality, CHG relates to north Caucasian fisher-hunter-gatherers who were just another component in the dynamic socio-scape of the Ponto-Caspian region, and not an especially transformative one. Much more work needs to be devoted to this question. For now, we need to caution against collapsing the long, complex and multi-directional influences which impacted the steppe into one monolithic revolution.

Right populations used, + rotating refference strategy

right pops:
CMR_SMA_published
MAR_Taforalt_EpiP
BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
CHN_Tianyuan
RUS_MA1_HG
RUS_DevilsCave_N
ITA_Villabruna
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
BGR_ChL
RUS_Karelia_HG
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
TUR_C_Tepecik-Çiftlik_N
IRN_HajjiFiruz_ChL
HUN_Vinca_MN
AZE_N