This five-year-old boy was buried in Schleinbach near Vienna, Austria in an Early Bronze Age Únětice Culture setting. He was a bit small for his age and he had an ear infection that stressed the bones on one side of his face. He was murdered.
The area where he was buried is a few farm houses and a few dozen graves, women with jewelry, so on. The abstract tells the story.
The identification of sex-specific peptides in human tooth enamel by nanoflow liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry ( nano LC-MS/MS ) represents a quantum leap for the study of childhood and social relations more generally. Determining sex-related differences in prehistoric child rearing and mortality has been hampered by the insufficient accuracy in determining the biological sex of juveniles. We conducted mass spectrometric analysis to identify sex-specific peptides in the dental enamel of a child from a settlement pit of the Early Bronze Age settlement of Schleinbach, Austria (c. 1950–1850 BC). Four perimortal impression fractures on the skull of a 5–6-year-old child indicate an intentional killing, with a co-buried loom weight as possible murder weapon. Proteomic analysis, conducted for the first time on prehistoric teeth in Austria, determined the child’s sex as male. While we cannot conclusively determine whether the child was the victim of conflicts between village groups or was slain by members of his own community, we suggest that contextual evidence points to the latter. A possible trigger of violence was the follow-on effects of an uncontrolled middle ear infection revealed by an osteological analysis. The boy from Schleinbach highlights the potential for further investigation of gender-biased violence, infanticide and child murder based on the recently developed method of proteomic sex identification.
Let's get to the disturbing part. Who kills with a loom weight?? Whoever it was, she faced the child when striking him. Two smaller punctures made with a different instrument might be interpreted as a coup de grace, perhaps by someone else? No idea what the fourth blow was.
The authors discuss the other folks in the cemetery and other contemporary child murders for the age before going over some interesting statistics on family violence. They make a fairly compelling case that this child was killed either as an act of mercy, or with some combination of frustration and malevolence.
I think Rebay-Salisbury et al don't really believe it was a mercy killing though. The reason is the stack of forensic statistics on child murders and perpetrators at different ages, male, female and so forth. For example, we all know that a poor soul stabbed 100 times was likely the victim of a "crime of passion" where the victim actually knew the assailant. Usually this happens face to face. Muggings and carjackings bring different types of traumas. Assassinations something else, etc.
The Schleinbach boy was obviously killed (probably) by a woman and she looked into his eyes as she killed him. The problem with a mercy killing of the young and incompetent is that, if we loved them, we would never let them see our evil deed. I doubt that changed in four thousand years.
"Child murder in the Early Bronze Age: proteomic sex identification of a cold case from Schleinbach, Austria" Katharina Rebay-Salisbury1 & Lukas Janker2 & Doris Pany-Kucera1,3 & Dina Schuster2 &Michaela Spannagl-Steiner1,3 & Lukas Waltenberger1 & Roderick B. Salisbury1,4 & Fabian Kanz5 Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (2020) 12:265 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01199-8
The reasoning above appears sound. My only real caveat is that Unetice looks to me to have been a bit of a factory for females trafficked westwards - to Britain, Ireland and Spain. Horrible as it sounds, the traffickers might have been making a point to the women that resistance was futile and they were not going to be taking the kids along with them (particularly any male weaklings).
ReplyDeleteA child driving his carer frantic with his moaning over a really maddening pulsating pain in his ear? Yes, I can see that. Getting bashed in the area he was indicating? Yes. But then being buried with the murder weapon as a grave gift? They say the loom is the possible instrument of death, so it is conjectural. The loom weight might also point to the boys daily chores of helping the women with the weaving ... Another scenario would involve an attempted attack on the evil spirits that were bothering the child. The Neanderthals knew how to deal with infections better than these people to whom the symptoms must have been a death knell. So maybe they indeed killed him in an effort to help, and thought the tool would be of assistance in the afterlife.
ReplyDeleteLove this post. Recommend Gary Sineses reading of Of Mice and Men!
Very unscientific, of course, to want to try to feel close to past experiences? I love science, but I love people more. If the science is the only window we have it had better be as good as it can possibly be!
Great thoughts all around; especially the idea of being buried with the loom weight. Would seem a bit strange to include if it was strictly a murder.
DeleteI can't imagine someone killing a child in pain out of anger.
ReplyDeleteI'm making a Youtube channel on population genetics (mainly ancient DNA).
ReplyDeleteLink to my channel. You all should subscribe.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoL-O5egSxkfvkCGGE0vN1Q?view_as=subscriber
My first videos will be on Viking ancient DNA study, Roman ancient DNA study.
By January I will begin an about 20 video series on the population history of Europe. Even people who already know it well will learn new things.
I will also be doing a separate video on Bell Beaker at some point.
bellbeakerblogger, I will ask you for clarifications on Bell Beaker. I've heard from Rob, that there is no dual origin for Bell Beaker: In Netherlands and Iberia. That instead Bell Beaker originated in Netherlands as an off shoot of Corded Ware and the early Beaker pottery in Iberia is miss dated. Also that the Bell Beaker DNA samples with no Steppe ancestry in Iberia comes from people who predate the Beaker pottery associated with them. IN other words, Beaker pottery is wrongly associated with them.
I just subscribed, Sam. Look forward to seeing the content.
DeleteLet me try at the second question first. What is clear is that by the MBA in Iberia, almost all Y-chromosomes have been superseded. That means that there was a physical change in Iberia in the Ch-EBA. That is very under-reported. So this notion that Britain is an example of "People not pots" and Iberia is "Pots not people" is ridiculous. Both Britain and Iberia were transformed genetically. In Iberia it was a paternal transformation, in Britain is was a wipeout. So to continue with the second question, I believe that the vast interiors of Iberia were the vector of Beaker cultural and genetic influence on the coastal civilizations. I think we see this in the samples from the Mesetas, Castille-LaMancha and so on. But less so on the coasts. I think that when you prune away the questionable associations where there is no steppe ancestry, the genetic impact is more significant that so far realized. Plus, quite a few of these people were in mixed marriages, and mixed marriages in old burial locations, so we shouldn't expect every sample to come back with some perceivable about steppe ancestry. But you definitely see it in Cogotas folks and so on.
Dual origin? Kind of hard to say. Beaker formed in Western Europe and it draws influences from this area. Jan Turek has given an explanation that makes a lot of sense. It definitely has in its cultural package Iberian/North African influences (by way of the interior of Spain) but is in its greater parts probably an offshoot of the Western Corded/SGC Culture. I really wouldn't pose the question as a single origin or dual origin since it vacuumed up a lot of different things. Probably the bulk of migration originally came out of NW Europe
Hi Sam & BBB
DeleteJust to clarify, the challenge with BB in Iberia is (i) different contextual uses (ii) older excavations or disturbances of the burials with make relation between the goods and deceased difficult to ascertain (iii) the phenomenon of ruse of older Megaliths (iv) sometimes Beakers were deposited in Megaliths & caves in the absence of any burial, but perhaps as part of a ceremony, ''cleansing'', or ceremonial closures.
More data are needed to clarify each aspects, but so far definitey some of the labelled 'Iberian BB' in Olalde 2018 is inaccurate - e.g. the site from Cerdanyola amongst some others. But what is clear is if we look at those burials in Iberia which have wrist guards, Palmela points, Hallberds - these are almost all R1b-L151 central Europeans. There are a couple of non-/steppe non-R1b guys with Beakers & copper daggers, but not the entire set or the package. Which means there was social heriarchy being formed. ALso, as Nicolas says below, (central European) females were also used as central figures in the burial act.
Looking at the early dates in the Tagus e.g. Leceia - it comes from a domestic context, so we don;t know who those people were which brought them, because there is no burials to analyse. But their huts certainly look distinctive to the enclosures next to them. Whatever the case, a dating of 27/2600 BC in Leceia sits comfortably with late SGC/ AOC in the lower Rhine, and all an coastal hug away.. (?)
Im sure we'll get more clariy in due course with more samples, so I myself will keep an open mind on it for now
There are three striking aspects to the burials with Central European DNA in Iberia during the Beaker period:
Delete1. They are mainly female, rather than male.
2. The autosomal DNA that was introduced was more like Central European Corded Ware than Central European Bell Beaker.
3. The yDNA that arrived was West European DF27, rather than Central European U152.
And there were similarities in Ireland.
This paints a picture to me of Central European Corded Ware women being hawked around by Bell Beaker men, rather than showing anything clear about Bell Beaker origins per se.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ BBB
Delete''Jan Turek has given an explanation that makes a lot of sense. It definitely has in its cultural package Iberian/North African influence''
DO you mean the maritime Beaker, arsenical copper weapons, & wrist guards being inspired from northern Africa ? that's an odd claim
An African presence there was was already there in the pre-Beaker copper Age (e.g. African Ivory), and that influenced local ceramic designs. Otherwise, the flow moved toward north Africa during the BB period.
Incidentally, the north African exotic indivudal from Camino de Yseras had no BB good buried with him. Gotta let the (ancient) people do the talking, instead of our presuppositions :)
''I believe that the vast interiors of Iberia were the vector of Beaker cultural and genetic influence on the coastal civilizations. ''
Another difficult one. Its mostly Ciempezuelos & Purenean style inland. I thought the greater 'diversity' of shapes & styles is in west Iberia & Brittany,
...'genetically'' , you're right though
DeleteI don't think the suggestion of an 'influence' on Bell Beaker from Iberia/North Africa represents a claim that the whole Beaker package was inspired from North Africa.
DeleteAnd a flow towards North Africa during Bell Beaker does not mean there was not also a flow in the other direction either just before or at the same time. When people meet, the influence is usually two-way to some degree.
Genetically, the single grave culture of North West Continental Europe looks like a melting pot of Balkan Chalcolithic, North Russian/Siberian, local hunter gatherer, Funnel Beaker and Iberian Beaker. It is highly unlikely that it only had one influence, especially if this claimed influence was Pontic-Caspian Steppe, which is one of the few populations that appears to have made little contribution to its genetic best-fit.
Rob, not so much the different accoutrements which come from everywhere but more a type of pottery character and decoration. These have predecessors in the Akabar Ware (?) and Saharan Styles. Aside from all the geographical variations of Beaker pottery (which usually combines some local elements), I guess the "Standard" pottery, or "International" or whatever seem to combine elements from this Southern location with elements from the NW European SGC or PFB.
DeleteWhy it is that these Late Neolithic folk from NW Europe had such a fetish for NW African style is kind of a weird thing, but it is probably because Morocco was like Mars to them and the source of the most exotic trade and they were soul-less materialists.
Do we know whether the boy was properly buried, or might he have been casually tossed into the pit along with the murder weapon?
ReplyDeleteBeakerology seems beset by fashion. Originally we knew it came from Portugal. Then we were sure it came straight from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. Now we seem equally convinced that it came from Holland.
Holland lòoks like a face-saver for two opposing schools of thought who can both use it to claim they were right all along, although still largely misses the point. Like many phenomena, Bell Beaker is probably a synthesis of different influences not wholly constrained by pottery, language or genetics.
Autosomallly, whilst different varieties of Corded Ware show close similarities to Bell Beaker, none comfortably fit into it, indicating they are cousins (or at best brothers), rather than father and son.
Also, while much of Beaker looks paternally-influenced (P312), the Bronze Age looks the opposite. The earliest EHG-infused BA samples in Iberia are mostly female. And despite stemming from prior local P312 subclades (L21) paternally, the earliest BA samples in Ireland have Central European autosomal profiles (presumably from the material side).
There were those that believed that Beakers galloped in from the steppe as a coherent identity, and then there were those that believe it was purely a native Iberian phenomenon. I think most archaeologists took a more nuanced view that it combined elements of both, so both are true in a sense.
DeleteAs far as the Iberia vs. Holland back and forth, I think archaeologists have struggled with this for several decades and a lot of it stems from the fact that Beakers spread so quickly and combine material elements of various cultures. Aside from DNA and isotopes, it's difficult to give some materials precedence over others and carbon dates are only somewhat helpful.
And they were strongly exogenous , at least with marriages to women, so there is also continuity most places which complicates everything
DeleteI respect and appreciate the more measured approach on this blog.
DeleteRegarding Iberia v. Holland, I suspect the bit in between might have something to do with it.
One observation about Beaker exogeny indicated by the genetic data. I would suggest it looks nuanced, rather than universal.
ReplyDeleteGenetic exchanges appear to have occurred with (i) related R1b-P312 clans, (i) North West Continental European Neolithics (Belgium to Denmark), (iii) Central European Corded Ware and Neolithics.
It looks to me like exogeny was mostly unoffered or (more likely) unwelcome in e.g. (i) Iberia (probably forced on the females some time later), (ii) Ireland (resulting instead in replacement) and (iii) Yamnayan-infused Corded Ware (resulting in replacement and eastwards displacement).
Thanks for sharing a really very nice article i like your blog too much
ReplyDeletecustom mylar bags
E-Commerce Diversify
Roofing company