Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 144

Thread: Ancient DNA from Romania

  1. #11
    Registered Users
    Posts
    155
    Sex

    I am not aware of centralised archaeological database in Bulgaria
    Balkan Neolithic and to certain extend Bronze periods are already more or less clear from the study "The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe". It is obvious that modern Balkan people are not identical to those early samples.
    I have heard many Bulgarian Thracian samples have been sent to the same scientists and probably will be published soon. Unfortunately Western labs are ready to test samples for free for their own projects only and late Medieval history on the Balkans is of no interest for them.
    The Bulgarian Academy of Science recently bought a new sequenator for its DNA research and promised to test more local samples. However the first stage will be mtDNA only, which proved not to be very useful. Later with more experience they will probably move to NGS.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to eastara For This Useful Post:

     Fungene (03-11-2018),  Ryukendo (03-16-2018)

  3. #12
    Registered Users
    Posts
    288
    Sex
    Omitted

    Information on autosomal aDNA from Romania in one convenient place

    Samples from the Early Neolithic

    Dates for aDNA samples, as well as haplogroup assignments are from
    - Mathieson 2018, “The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe,” Supplementary Data, and Supplementary Information (where there is incompatibility, the information from the Excel Spreadsheet, the Data, was chosen over the Supplementary Information)
    - Gonzáles-Fortes, 2017, “Paleogenomic Evidence for Multi-generational Mixing between Neolithic Farmers and Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers in the Lower Danube Basin, “ Supplemental Information.

    The samples are I2532, I2533, I2534 in Mathieson 2018 and GB1_Eneol, classified as Eneolithic in Gonzáles-Fortes but as Starčevo-Criş in Lăzar’s Catalogue (Catalogue is referenced in the first post in this thread.)

    Cârcea-Viaduct, Starčevo-Criş Early Neolithic
    I2533 / ROM29 in Mathieson 2018, Supplementary Info.
    Female
    5484-5372 cal BCE, J1c5
    Cârcea II, Dolj, in Lăzar, Catalogue, #6, p. 26.

    Coțatcu, Starčevo-Criş Early Neolithic
    I2532 / ROM1 in Mathieson 2018, Supplementary Info.
    Male
    5715-5626 cal BCE, K1a2, G2a2b2b
    Coțatcu, Buzău, in Lăzar, Catalogue, #10, p. 27.

    Măgura Buduiasca, Starčevo-Criş Early Neolithic
    I2534 / TEL1 in Mathieson 2018, Supplementary Info.
    Female
    6061-5985 calBCE, K1
    Măgura, Teleorman, in Lăzar, Catalogue, #22, p. 32.

    I2532.png

    I2534.png

    Extended Data Fig. 2, Mathieson, 2018. Supervised admixture analysis.
    Grey: Anatolian Neolithic
    Pink: Western Hunter-Gatherer
    Green: Eastern Hunter-Gatherer
    Yellow: Yamnaya Samara


    Gura Baciului, Cluj, classified as Eneolithic
    Female
    GB1_Eneo, in Gonzáles-Fortes, 2017
    5,377 ± 77 cal BP, K1a4a
    Gura Baciului, Cluj, in Lăzar, Catalogue, #20, pp. 31-32, classified as Starcevo-Cris, Early Neolithic

    GonzalesAdmixtureAnalys.png

    Gonzáles-Fortes, 2017, Fig S3B. Admixture for all ancient individuals.
    Yellow: Anatolia Neolithic



    Back to Mathieson 2018 for the Middle Eneolithic

    Urziceni-Vamă, Satu Mare, Middle Eneolithic, Bodrogkeresztúr

    I4088 / URZI16
    Female
    4331-4076 cal BCE, K2a

    I4089 / URZI48
    “The sample … belongs to an adult individual discovered in grave no. 48 from 2014.”
    Male.
    3761-3645 cal BCE , J1c, C1a2a
    Urziceni-Vamă, Satu Mare in Lăzar, Catalogue, #125, pp. 160-161 (for information up to 2012).

    MiddleEn2.png
    Extended Data Fig. 2, Mathieson, 2018. Supervised admixture analysis.
    Grey: Anatolian Neolithic
    Pink: Western Hunter-Gatherer
    Green: Eastern Hunter-Gatherer
    Yellow: Yamnaya Samara

    All told there is autosomal information for ancient samples from the Neolithic to Eneolithic from the following areas:

    aDNAsamplNeolEneol.png

    The only cultures sampled are Starčevo-Criş (mostly) and Bodrogkeresztúr. (Why?)

    When I find some time, I will collect similar information for the Mesolithic samples.
    Last edited by Fungene; 03-12-2018 at 12:02 PM.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Fungene For This Useful Post:

     euasta (11-03-2018),  kingjohn (03-12-2018),  Onur Dincer (03-22-2018)

  5. #13
    Registered Users
    Posts
    288
    Sex
    Omitted

    All information on autosomal aDNA from Romania in one convenient place

    Samples from the Mesolithic

    Dates for aDNA samples, as well as haplogroup assignments are from
    - Mathieson 2018, “The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe,” Supplementary Data, and Supplementary Information (where there is incompatibility, the information from the Excel Spreadsheet, the Data, was chosen over the Supplementary Information)
    - Gonzáles-Fortes, 2017, “Paleogenomic Evidence for Multi-generational Mixing between Neolithic Farmers and Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers in the Lower Danube Basin, “ Supplemental Information.

    The samples are I4607, I4655, I5411, I5436, I4081, I4582, I5408 in Mathieson 2018 and OC1_Meso, SC1_Meso, SC2_Meso in Gonzáles-Fortes 2017.

    From Mathieson 2018:
    Schela Cladovei, Mehedinţi –Mesolithic

    I4607 / SCCL_46
    Male
    7340-6640 cal BCE, U5a2, I2

    I4655 / SCCL_50
    Male
    7060-6570 cal BCE, K1, R (R:M764:21263029G->A)

    I5411 / SCCL_12
    Male
    7000-6300 BCE, U5a1c1, R1b1a (xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)

    I5436 / SCCL_43
    Female
    7451-6698 cal BCE, U5a2

    Ostrovul Corbului, Mehedinţi- Mesolithic

    I4081 / OSTCOR1a+1b / ROM47
    Male
    7580-7190 cal BCE, H13, R1b1a

    I4582 / OSTCOR32
    Female
    7021-6473 cal, BCE, K1

    I5408 / OSTCOR24
    Male
    6000-5000 BCE, K1c, R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)

    I4607-5408.png

    Extended Data Fig. 2, Mathieson, 2018. Supervised admixture analysis.
    Grey: Anatolian Neolithic
    Pink: Western Hunter-Gatherer
    Green: Eastern Hunter-Gatherer
    Yellow: Yamnaya Samara


    From Gonzáles-Fortes, 2017:

    Ostrovul Corbului- Mehedinţi- Mesolithic

    OC1_Meso
    Male
    8,704 ± 269 cal BP, K1 + 16362, R1b

    Schela Cladovei - Mehedinţi –Mesolithic

    SC1_Meso
    Male
    8,814 ± 261 cal BP, U5b2c, R

    SC2_Meso
    Male
    U5a1c, R1

    GonzalesAdmixtureAnalys.png
    From Fig S3B. Admixture for all ancient individuals.


    For the Mesolithic, the following area was sampled:
    Meso.png
    Last edited by Fungene; 03-12-2018 at 12:03 PM.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fungene For This Useful Post:

     kingjohn (03-12-2018),  Onur Dincer (03-22-2018)

  7. #14
    Registered Users
    Posts
    288
    Sex
    Omitted

    Repertoriul Arheologic National (RAN)

    Repertoriul Arheologic National (RAN)

    http://ran.cimec.ro

    As of February 2018, RAN provided the following statistics concerning the number of archaeological sites in Romania (one would have to scour each record for reports of human remains and references to publications)


    Paleolithic: 348
    Mesolithic: 29
    Neolithic: 1835
    Eneolithic: 1969
    Bronze Age: 3942

    Iron Age: 91
    Halstatt period: 1503
    La Tčne period: 2335
    Geto-Dacian period: 37

    Greek period: 16
    Roman period: 3101
    Greco-Roman period: 17
    Post-Roman period: 95
    Hellenistic period: 72
    Late Antiquity: 1

    Roman-Byzantine period: 123
    Byzantine period: 27
    Migration period: 1549
    Medieval period: 4738

    Prehistory [unspecified]: 518
    Antiquity [unspecified]: 25
    Modern period [unspecified]: 553
    Contemporary period [unspecified]: 24
    Unspecified: 162
    Unknown: 1792
    Last edited by Fungene; 03-12-2018 at 12:05 PM.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Fungene For This Useful Post:

     Principe (03-12-2018)

  9. #15
    Registered Users
    Posts
    155
    Sex

    This is ineresting, but rather overwhelming, when you are not sure what to search for.
    Just found the site Ariadne - Explore the digital resources and services that ARIADNE has brought together from across Europe for archaeological research, learning and teaching.
    http://portal.ariadne-infrastructure.eu/
    It seems it includes archaeological sites from 16 European countries, which are searchable by map and keyword.

  10. #16
    Registered Users
    Posts
    288
    Sex
    Omitted

    This is a great resource, thanks.
    I used Ariadne's browse-by-map capability. Very nice. You can zoom in on an area of interest.
    I just checked some references pertaining to Romania. They point back to ciMEC, which hosts RAN.
    There seems to be a nice variety of things for Bulgaria.
    So many interesting things to look at ...

  11. #17
    Registered Users
    Posts
    155
    Sex

    The Capidava study is published:

    Maternal DNA lineages at the gate of Europe in the 10th century AD
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0193578

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to eastara For This Useful Post:

     Onur Dincer (03-22-2018),  Principe (03-15-2018)

  13. #18
    Registered Users
    Posts
    288
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by eastara View Post
    The Capidava study is published
    The Eurasian steppe reaches into Romania, near to the mouth of the Danube. Capidava is a fort on the Danube, and the small group of individuals that is the focus of the study is a group of migrants. Forts have an obvious military function.

    This study provides information exclusively about mitogenomes, but we are at are least getting to see data at higher resolutions in five of the nine reported results.

    In comparison with contemporary populations, the studied group of individuals “showed the lowest genetic distances from present-day Slavic populations from Eastern Europe (BLR, UKR, RUS, SVN, and SVK).” This remark is based on high-resolution mitochondrial data for samples M2: V1a; M5: H13a1a3; and M17: H5e1a1.
    But some individuals from the Capidava population, M9 and M11: N9, show a close relation with contemporary individuals from the Tubalar ethic group in the Republic of Altai and from the Kyrgyz ethnic group.
    So, this small group of migrants was predominantly Western Eurasian with a minority from Central Asia. Just as one would expect. It is a good thing for a study to provide expected results.

    Note that the study chose to examine residents of a fort, which has military functions and is useful to incursions implying the use of armed force. So parts of the statements in the conclusion are a bit ambiguous: “The Capidava medieval sample analyzed here displays a very high haplogroup/haplotype diversity, which in conjunction with the very large difference when compared to the local modern population may indicate a very dynamic genetic environment: intense local population turnover.”

    Perhaps what the authors meant was that because of migrations, there was a very dynamic genetic environment. Everybody can agree with that. Inferring that there was a very intense local population turnover because the contemporary population in Dobruja is not Belarusian, Russian, etc. is a stretch.

    A more general comment, not specific to this study: of late, studies seem to gravitate toward perceived elites, whether it be Lombards, women with deformed skulls, occupants of forts, or “conquerors.” Perhaps it is thought that this will generate more interest?
    We will need a lot more data from a greater diversity of individuals. The sobering conclusion in the Capidava study shows that the authors are aware of the work that remains to be done: “In the age of NGS technology, a critical mass of data has to be reached in order to permit future more thorough phylogenetically, phylogeographically and demographically informative comparisons.”
    Hear, hear.
    Last edited by Fungene; 03-16-2018 at 12:58 AM.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Fungene For This Useful Post:

     Principe (03-15-2018)

  15. #19
    Registered Users
    Posts
    288
    Sex
    Omitted

    More on the people from 10th century Capidava: a health report

    Whatever their social status, the individuals at Capidava led a harsh life. Physically, they seemed to be quite challenged. 4/11 of the samples had periosteal inflammation, which comes from repetitive physical activity.

    That was the least of their problems. Almost half had linear enamel hypoplasia, due to physiological stress in childhood. Over 25% had porotic hyperostosis, or spongy cranial vault bones. This is caused by iron deficiency anemia and malnutrition. Pretty much all of the samples had lousy teeth.
    Some of the women seem to have been particularly unfortunate. M8 (mtDNA U3a,) who was around 16-24 years old at time of death, not only had periosteal inflammation, but also a rib fracture and a cranial lesion, both of which had healed prior to death. M1 (U5a1c2a,) 38-48 at time of death, also had a healed fracture of the humerus.
    Was their health atypical for incoming steppe migrants? Was this group particularly unsuccessful in making a life in new surroundings? Can we even answer this question at this stage?

    All information from:
    Rusu et al. 2018. “Maternal DNA lineages at the gate of Europe in the 10th century AD.” PLoS ONE. S1 Table. Information regarding the osteological and pathological analysis of the samples.
    Last edited by Fungene; 03-15-2018 at 07:19 PM.

  16. #20
    Registered Users
    Posts
    155
    Sex

    It seems the authors are not willing to make a statements who were the buried people in Capidava. They mention only "Within this area, one can find tracks marking the passage of multiple populations (e.g. Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Pechenegs, Tatars, etc.)".
    However Тhe direct radiocarbon dating performed on the M4 human bones placed the remains at 880 and 990 cal. AD
    So those remains are shifted more around mid 10th centuries while this fortress was a part of the Bulgar Empire. Note it is on the South side of Danube and not in the land lost to the Pechenegs to the North. Byzantines came only around 1000AD, when the Bulgarian Empire fell completely under their rule and the fortress rebuilding was probably around that time.
    All the burials are with Christian tradition. This definitely excludes the Pechenegs and Russians, who were defiant Pagans around that time. It is too early for Cumans, Tartars, etc. So the only option is they were Bulgars or subjects of the Bulgarian empire.
    Why are they not related to the previous study about old Bulgars? I have listed our objections regarding the Nesheva/Karachanak study above - bad choice of samples, which reflect probably only the local subjects, but not the Bulgars themselves.
    Last edited by eastara; 03-16-2018 at 12:30 AM.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to eastara For This Useful Post:

     Ryukendo (03-16-2018)

Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Nine Bronze Age Graves Discovered In Eastern Romania
    By MfA in forum History (Ancient)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-04-2017, 06:23 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-22-2017, 11:54 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-10-2016, 04:17 PM
  4. 40,000BP hybrids from Pestera-Cu_Oase-Romania
    By palamede in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-27-2015, 04:51 PM
  5. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 06-14-2015, 04:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •