A woman buried in Romania in the Bronze Age era

I11912
Portrait reconstruction
Specimen Details
Sample ID:
I11912
Date:
3500 BCE - 1100 BCE
Biological Sex:
Female
mtDNA:
Not available
Y-DNA:
Not applicable
Cultural Period:
Glavanesti Culture of Romania
Location
Country:
Romania
Locality:
Glăvăneşti
Coordinates:
Map Location
Historical Timeline
Description

The Glăvănești culture, situated primarily in the region that is today known as Romania, is part of the larger tapestry of Indo-European migrations and cultural expressions during the European Bronze Age. While not as famous as other Bronze Age cultures, the Glăvănești culture provides key insights into the life, rituals, and societal structures of ancient Indo-European peoples in Eastern Europe.

Geographic Context

The Glăvănești culture is primarily associated with the area surrounding the Siret River, in what is now the northeastern part of Romania. This location places it at a crossroads of various cultural influences due to the proximity to the Carpathian Mountains and the vast plains that extend towards the Black Sea. The geography facilitated both isolation and interaction, allowing for a unique cultural development while also interacting with neighboring cultures through trade and migration.

Temporal Context

The Glăvănești culture dates roughly from the late Neolithic to the early Bronze Age, approximately between 2500 BCE and 1500 BCE. This era was marked by significant transitions in technology, social organization, and economic activities as communities domesticated plants and animals, developed metallurgy, and established trade networks.

Cultural Characteristics

  1. Agriculture and Economy: The economic backbone of the Glăvănești culture was predominantly agrarian, with evidence of advanced agricultural techniques including crop cultivation and animal husbandry. The fertile plains near the Siret River would have provided ideal conditions for growing cereals and legumes, as well as for raising cattle, pigs, and sheep.

  2. Settlements and Architecture: Archaeological evidence suggests that Glăvănești settlements were typically small, fortified villages. The presence of fortifications indicates potential conflicts with neighboring cultures or the need to protect resources. Structures were mainly constructed from wood and thatch, reflecting available local materials and the technological capabilities of the time.

  3. Social Structure: The social organization of the Glăvănești culture was likely hierarchical. As in many other contemporary Indo-European societies, a stratified society with a clear distinction between elites and commoners probably existed. Evidence of social stratification can be deduced from burial sites, where differences in grave goods indicate varying social statuses.

  4. Burial Practices and Religion: Burial practices provide significant insights into the spiritual beliefs and social hierarchy of Glăvănești society. Graves often contained pottery, weapons, and personal ornaments, suggesting a belief in an afterlife where the deceased required personal possessions. The presence of ritualistic artifacts hints at sophisticated religious beliefs, possibly involving ancestor worship or deities connected to natural elements and fertility.

  5. Art and Craftsmanship: The material culture of Glăvănești is notable for its pottery, often decorated with intricate patterns and designs. These artifacts showcase the aesthetic values and technical skills of the people. In addition, metallurgy was an essential aspect of their culture, with bronze tools and weapons indicating a developing knowledge of metalworking techniques.

  6. Language and Symbols: While direct evidence of language use is sparse, as an Indo-European culture, the Glăvănești people would have spoken an early form of an Indo-European language. Symbols found on pottery and other artifacts suggest that they utilized symbolic communication, perhaps for religious or communal purposes.

Interactions and Influence

The Glăvănești culture did not exist in isolation; it was part of the broader collection of Indo-European cultural groups spreading across Europe. There are indications of trade links and cultural exchanges with neighboring cultures such as the Cucuteni-Trypillia, Otomani, and others, which would have influenced their development and vice versa. This interaction highlights the region's role as a cultural melting pot during this period.

Legacy and Importance

Although less well-known than some other contemporary cultures, the Glăvănești culture plays a crucial role in understanding the spread of Indo-European peoples and their cultural expressions in Eastern Europe. The synthesis of indigenous and Indo-European elements in the culture presents a dynamic picture of societal evolution during the Bronze Age, contributing to the broader narrative of human history in the region.

In conclusion, the Glăvănești culture offers invaluable insight into the early Indo-European presence in Eastern Europe. Through their agricultural practices, social structures, and artistic achievements, we gain a deeper appreciation for the complexity and richness of human societies during the Bronze Age in this part of the world.

Related Samples
Sample ID Culture/Period Date Location Action
I11912 Glavanesti Culture of Romania 3500 BCE Glăvăneşti, Romania View
I11902 The Bodrogkeresztur Culture 4500 BCE Urziceni, Romania View
I11906 The Bodrogkeresztur Culture 4500 BCE Urziceni, Romania View
I11929 Middle Neolithic Alföld Linear Pottery Culture, Hungary 4300 BCE Polgár-Ferenci hát. M3-31, Hungary View
I11933 Middle Neolithic Alföld Linear Pottery Culture, Hungary 4300 BCE Polgár-Ferenci hát. M3-31, Hungary View
I20767 Iron Age Scythian Culture, Hungary 4000 BCE Kesznyéten-Szérűskert; Great Hungarian Plain. Borsodi-Mezőség, Hungary View
I20766 Iron Age Scythian Culture, Hungary 400 BCE Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary View
I20770 Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age Hungary 1700 BCE Mezőkeresztes-Cethalom. M3-10 lelőhely; Great Hungarian Plain. Borsodi-Mezőség, Hungary View
I20773 Late Bronze Age Hungary 1700 BCE Besenyszög Berek-ér partja, Hungary View
I11683 Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age Hungary 1700 BCE Mezőkeresztes-Cethalom. M3-10 lelőhely; Great Hungarian Plain. Borsodi-Mezőség, Hungary View
I20747 Iron Age Scythian Culture, Hungary 400 BCE Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary View
I20749 Late Bronze Age Halomsíros (Tumulus) Culture, Hungary 1700 BCE Hajdudorog-Szallasfold, Hungary View
I20750 Middle Bronze Age Füzesabony Culture, Hungary 2300 BCE Polgar Kenderfold, Hungary View
I20751 Late Bronze Age Hungary 1500 BCE Besenyszög Berek-ér partja. Köröm-Kápolnadomb, Hungary View
I20752 The La Tene Culture in Hungary 500 BCE Besenyszög Berek-ér partja. Köröm-Kápolnadomb, Hungary View
I20756 Old Bering Sea Culture Ekven, Russia 970 CE Chukotka. Bering Strait. Ekven, Russia View
I4112 5500 BCE Dereivka I, Ukraine View
Sample ID Culture/Period Date Location Action
I11912 Glavanesti Culture of Romania 3500 BCE Glăvăneşti, Romania View
Ancient Genetic Admixture

Ancient genetic admixture analysis compares the DNA profile of this individual (I11912) with present-day reference populations. These results show what percentage of the individual's genetic makeup resembles ancient populations from different geographic regions.

Neolithic Farmers 38%
Western Steppe Pastoralists 35%
European Hunter-Gatherers 25%
Ancient Asians 2%
Modern Genetic Admixture

Modern genetic admixture analysis compares the DNA profile of this individual (I11912) with present-day reference populations. These results show what percentage of the individual's genetic makeup resembles modern populations from different geographic regions.

These results complement the ancient ancestry components shown in the previous section, offering a different perspective on the individual's genetic profile by comparing it with modern reference populations rather than prehistoric ancestral groups.

Europe 88%
Southern European 58%
Italian 32.0%
Sardinian 14.6%
Iberian 11.2%
Northwestern European 20%
Scandinavian 9.4%
English 5.4%
Finnish 4.9%
Eastern European 10%
Eastern European 10.0%
Asia 12%
Northern West Asian 12%
Mesopotamian 12.1%
G25 Coordinates

The G25 coordinates for the sample I11912 are as follows. You can analyze its admixture using G25 Studio.

I11912,0.1229854,0.13881942,0.02755208,0.00019074,0.03440488,0.00136144,-0.00033292,0.00416618,0.01122992,0.01979054,-0.00438598,0.00746056,-0.01056646,-0.00684342,0.00368074,0.00023256,-0.004463,0.001321,-8.886E-05,-0.00300672,0.00230758,0.00376856,-0.0029223,-0.00043702,0.00281152
Analyze it in G25 Studio
Scientific Papers References
A minimally destructive protocol for DNA extraction from ancient teeth
Authors:
Harney É, Cheronet O, Fernandes DM
Abstract:

Ancient DNA sampling methods-although optimized for efficient DNA extraction-are destructive, relying on drilling or cutting and powdering (parts of) bones and teeth. As the field of ancient DNA has grown, so have concerns about the impact of destructive sampling of the skeletal remains from which ancient DNA is obtained. Due to a particularly high concentration of endogenous DNA, the cementum of tooth roots is often targeted for ancient DNA sampling, but destructive sampling methods of the cementum often result in the loss of at least one entire root. Here, we present a minimally destructive method for extracting ancient DNA from dental cementum present on the surface of tooth roots. This method does not require destructive drilling or grinding, and, following extraction, the tooth remains safe to handle and suitable for most morphological studies, as well as other biochemical studies, such as radiocarbon dating. We extracted and sequenced ancient DNA from 30 teeth (and nine corresponding petrous bones) using this minimally destructive extraction method in addition to a typical tooth sampling method. We find that the minimally destructive method can provide ancient DNA that is of comparable quality to extracts produced from teeth that have undergone destructive sampling processes. Further, we find that a rigorous cleaning of the tooth surface combining diluted bleach and UV light irradiation seems sufficient to minimize external contaminants usually removed through the physical removal of a superficial layer when sampling through regular powdering methods.

Save 85% coupon: DNADAY85

Valid until April 25 2025