There are two steppe influences in Transylvania, one being the early, related to Usatovo and Cernovada, constituting the shift from earlier Copper Age groups to Cotofeni, and the latter being with Yamnaya. But at the time of Yamnaya, we already have an established Cotofeni population, which just adopts some customs from nearby Yamnaya people. Like the built Yamnaya-type kurgans, but in the burials were their people with their grave goods, just as an example.
But this continuous steppe influence on Cotofeni results in the successor groups, like Livezile.
Worth to note that even in the later periods, the successor groups did oftentimes cremate thier dead, as we can see in Mako, Nagyrev and Niyrseg as well. I think that the latter might represent later E-V13 dominated Proto-Thracians the best.
Crucial for the early steppe influence in Transylvania are not the later Yamnaya sites, but Decea Muresului. Note that we got preliminary mtDNA/basic genetic results from an old paper, which already claimed steppe influence on Decea Muresului.
On the group:
In Romania, to this stage are attributed the following cultures: Gumelniţa, Sălcuţa,
Petreşti, Cucuteni, Tiszapolgár, Bodrogkeresztúr, Decea Mureşului, Cernavoda I as well as
Foeni and Stoicani-Aldeni cultural groups (Dragomir 1983; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 2001;
Ursulescu 2002; Drașovean 2004, 2005). In the Romanian archaeological schools’
acceptation, some of these cultures are the result of the evolution of some of the earlier
cultures (e.g., the Gumelniţa culture evolves from the Boian culture, the Cucuteni culture
evolves from the Precucuteni culture, etc.) (Dumitrescu et alii 1983; Comşa 1987, 1993).
Others instead (e.g., Bodrogkeresztúr culture) are a continuation of the same chrono-cultural
level (e.g., Tiszapolgár culture) (Luca 1999; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 2001).
At the same time, the cultural phenomena such as Decea Mureşului and Cernavoda I
are considered to be the result of the insertion of non-indigenous populations, coming from
the North Pontic steppes. The material culture of these communities differs fundamentally
from that of the Eneolithic cultures, fact that places them closer to the cultures of the
transition period from the Eneolithic to the Bronze Age (Berciu 1961; Morintz & Roman
1968; Dodd-Oprițescu 1978; Luca 1999; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 2001).
I see the main steppe influence on Transylvania coming from Decea Muresului, ultimately from Usatovo-Gorodsk/Cernavoda, and not from Yamnaya. The site of Gorgan is interesting:
The trench revealed two distinct cultural layers, the above belonging to the Coţofeni Culture (the beginning of phase III in its evolution) and the lower belonging to the Decea Mureşului Culture (copper age) (fig.4-5).
[...]
The Decea Mureşului houses also revealed pottery with specific ornaments (pl. I-VI),
chipped and polished lithics (pl. III/1, 3-4) and a very well preserved small copper chisel within
the cultural layer (pl. VII/4). The stratigraphical results confirmed the hypothesis that this hill was
raised for habitation purposes by the prehistoric communities (Decea Mureşului and Coţofeni
Cultures).
The complex stratigraphy, the archaeology and the materials revealed are very important in
clarifying important aspects of the developed and late Eneolithic phenomenon in the intra-
Carpathian area. These are only some of the reasons that determined the planning of wide and
systematic excavations at this site in the near future.
Concernig Cotofeni and its relationship to Livezile-Soimus in particular, those are descendants which just got additional Yamnaya influence, like described above - we know that from the archaeological research already - and yes, Cotofeni has some of the strongest (!) Copper Age influences of all the cultures post-steppe expansion in Europe,
so we have to expect them to be rich in EEF - this is what we can deduce from archaeological research, and this is what the abstract on the genetic results suggests. Note that
Cotofeni, Livezile and Soimus got sampled, so if the paper writes about continuity, there was continuity from Cotofeni to Livezile and Soimus. Archaeologically, the situation is absolutely clear as well:
2. The content needs to be reinterpreted, not being excluded that what P. Roman, but also other specialists, including me, have defined as Coŗofeni I is, in fact, a last, final phase of the evolution of Cernavodë culture III (!). Question marks were raised, but they were reduced to statements that would rather look at the origin of the Coŗofeni culture than the content of its first phase. In this way, I do not exclude that in the future the Coŗofeni evolutionary phases will not only be redefined, but also the name of the phenomena that cover the vast cultural area, today called "Coŗofeni" (!), will be changed. Since I will return to this aspect through a special study, I will summarize here these observations, which will, of course, have to be argued in the future.
Another major problem of current research, with repercussions also in the terminological spectrum, is that of establishing the elements that distinguish, in its essence, the Coŗofeni culture from the early bronze groups/cultures that succeed it in its territory. And which groups/cultures did not always convince specialists by the way they were defined. I insist on Transylvania, as the "heart" of the phenomenon, but also the largest region in its area of spread. The so-called Livezile group, in the form in which it was defined, would not contain any major distinctive element compared to the Coŗofeni culture233, perhaps with the exception of the generalized practice of burials under tumuli with stone mantles. On the contrary, there are extremely many common elements, from habitat type, subsistence strategies, occupations, including similarities between forms and the decoration of ceramic vessels, but also regarding a reduced processing of copper.
The Şoimuş cultural group 234, which normally, I think should succeed the Coŗofeni culture, in its southwestern area, including part of the Western Mountains, but also parts of Banat and Lower Mures, presents similar characteristics, if we abstraction from the ceramic style. Moreover, the metal pieces are obviously less in the Şoimuş sites than in the Coŗofeni III235! The CopaĈceni group, defined as the main group, is located on the same coordinates
cultural entity of the Early Bronze Age in the center of Transylvania236. A substantial change in cultural realities, with an impact on the type of habitat, material culture, spiritual life, etc., takes place in the last stage of the Early Bronze Age (BT III), respectively during the great Gornea-Foeni group237. Only now are we essentially moving away from the Coŗofeni matrix. Therefore, what prevents us from treating the early bronze groups mentioned together with the contents of the Coŗofeni II-III phases?
The phenomenological aspect/bronze metallurgy? No, and we'll see why below.
Also highly important, with Late Cotofeni starts the cremation rite in the Transtisza/Transylvanian area, which being regularly interrupted by invaders, which introduce inhumation again, but the local always fall back to cremation afterwards (invaders like Yamnaya, Maros group, Füzesabony-Otomani, Noua-Coslogeni-Sabatinovka, Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Celts etc.):
Funeral practices. Within the Coŗofeni culture, bi-ritualism was practiced with, it seems, a preponderance of the cremation rite in the last phases. As for the practice of erecting tumuli as funerary monuments, although it has been proven that the members of the Coŗofeni communities sometimes use them in the final phase, they are still not characteristic of this world, but of an epi-Coŗofeni era.
The main difference to groups like Copaceni, Livezile, Soimus etc. is this Yamnaya influence, especially visible in the funerary rites, when they built kurgans in the Yamnaya style for their deceased. Its an open question of how much influence the Yamnaya had on the Cotofeni people, but I doubt their influence was bigger than that from the Usatovo-Cernavoda sphere, which influences were formative for the emergence of Cotofeni, as this author absolutely stresses.
Google translate from:
This study deals with terminological issues concerning Coţofeni culture and the way in which this culture was linked to prehistoric eras or periods. The variety of archaeological options that classified Coţofeni finds under Neolithic, Copper Age, the
www.academia.edu
My expection is therefore, that the actual results from multiple sites relevant to the inner Carpathian, Transylvanian region, will reveal a population which is both low in steppe and WHG admixture, and mostly EEF, but the steppe input will be signfiicant and well in the double digits for sure. And this will come from the early intrusions from the East, which can be seen with sites which show influence from Usatovo and Cernavoda, like Decea Muresului, which is a steppe influenced site as well, but the connection is even bigger and stronger than in Baden.
I think that the early steppe admixture will decrease from East to West, therefore Baden has the least, Cernavoda has most, Cotofeni in the middle.
