PDA

View Full Version : Bell Beaker & R1b - A weak hypothesis



Northern Line
06-29-2013, 12:32 PM
Hi, first of all I really respect your collective genetic knowledge. I'm approaching this from an archaeological perspective so I can't really comment on the genetic variety of R1b itself bar the largest sub-groups.

I cannot accept, from the point of view of archaeology, R1b arriving into Britain and Ireland only during the Copper Age. It goes against everything I have learnt of prehistoric Britain and of human nature.

I've noticed that the Atlantic Megalithic culture of Western Europe tends to be where we have the highest concentration of R1b today. Megaliths of this sort are found in great number in Portugal, Northern Spain/Basque Country/ Western France and the British Isles. To me, this suggests a spread of R1b earlier than the Bronze Age but later than the Mesolithic.

It is inconceivable that a major genocide occurred all across Europe perpetrated by R1b Bell Beaker males. Neolithic Europe had a flourishing culture and we would be looking towards hundreds of thousands of people dying. Britain in ~2500BC is estimated to have had a population of many tens of thousands. We would find the remains of this violent time. We don't. We do see the early Neolithic as a violent time though. If I recall correctly, in the early Neolithic 10-20% of human remains found show signs of violent injuries. We don't see this with the time of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. Jews in Nazi Germany made up a tiny minority of Germans and the Nazis with all their modern weapons could not kill them all. Therefore, the killing of 60% plus of Western Europe's male population is unthinkable and ridiculous with these population numbers. Please don't say it was disease or social effects that made R1b so heavily present today. People from Britain had long been in contact with the continent. Any disease affecting the Neolithic population would have been equally affecting the Bell Beaker people. Socially, it is ridiculous to think that the other haplogroups were bred out. That would require one homogeneous social system from Iberia, through the Alps, to the British Isles and Germany etc. People don't work like that.

It is also incorrectly assumed that the Bell Beaker people had better weaponry. This is a myth; copper is not a durable metal and not useful in a war-like scenario. Neolithic populations and the possible Bell Beaker people will have had equal weaponry. This is not a Native Americans vs Europeans type scenario.

Barry Cunliffe in his recent book "Britain Begins" remarks how Bell Beakers are found in only small numbers in Ireland and even then they usually only occur alongside "indigenous" culture. This is evidence for continuity. Western Ireland is up to 90% R1b so this haplogroup must have been earlier.

One final piece of evidence against the R1b Bell Beaker theory is that stone circles continued to be built and used during the early Bronze Age. This shows a continuity of culture which one would not expect of genocidal maniacs. In Scotland, a recent study by the University of Aberdeen shows Bell Beaker burials related to earlier Neolithic Stone Circle alignments and Bell Beakers were found alongside earlier megalithic phenomena. Again, continuity.

The Basque language is another problem. It is not Indo-European yet 90%+ Basque Y-DNA is R1b. Therefore, Indo-European languages did not enter this part of Europe during this period alongside R1b.

Now, this is the serious part. Some of the members on here are clearly very political and show a complete bias. Now, this is not to claim I am free from bias. I want to be descended from Cro-Magnon but I realise this is not at all likely considering the evidence. Others allow their bias to completely affect their work. Members from this and other forums have remarked about not liking "politically correct Anti-Migrationists" and one forum member talked of Bell Beaker people "routing" the earlier people in war....with no evidence! If you see a simple pot as evidence of a genocide event then you clearly must see the Romans having replaced all the Iron Age people of Gaul, Britain, Iberia etc. Others appear to love the idea of their R1b ancestors being a warlike, ultra-aggressive Mongolesque invasion force wiping out people all over Europe. This is unrealistic nonsense and is more akin to the Stormfront version of history. People are random!

One must remember how metallurgy will have looked to a Neolithic person. It will have been seen as magic, how this lump of apparent stone will melt into a red hot liquid then poured into a cast where it magically becomes a solid, cold knife etc. This explains the sudden loss of British Neolithic religion. Try and enter a Stone Age mind. In the South Pacific, during WW2, native tribes worshipped American planes and radios, building mock wooden planes to try and encourage the Gods to give them the American foodstuffs. Faced with an advanced new technology, the Americans became their focus of religion.

My hypothesis is that R1b arrived into a sparsely populated Europe of hunter gatherers and early farmers and achieved a greater population density leading to violence. The Early/Middle Neolithic is the best candidate for a spread of R1b. I do not accept the Basque/R1b/Ice Age hypothesis either.

Thanks for reading, this issue has been bothering me recently.

Crossposted from WorldFamilies

R.Rocca
06-29-2013, 03:15 PM
It seems like you bunched up 10 different things into one post, but are you saying that the Late Neolithic/Early Copper Age people that took up using Bell Beakers in their funerary practice were not heavily R1b+ ???

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 03:32 PM
It seems like you bunched up 10 different things into one post, but are you saying that the Late Neolithic/Early Copper Age people that took up using Bell Beakers in their funerary practice were not heavily R1b+ ???


I don't think I've bunched up anything. My points are about the unlikelihood of the Bell Beakers bringing R1b to the British Isles (and consequently, probably not bringing it to other areas). I'm of the opinion that R1b was already in Britain before the Bell Beaker culture. I've included the Basque Indo-European problem also because it is connected to R1b. I've also said that my opinion is that the Early/Mid Neolithic is the most likely period for R1b's arrival.

razyn
06-29-2013, 04:22 PM
I've also said that my opinion is that the Early/Mid Neolithic is the most likely period for R1b's arrival.

But your opinion appears to be based on straw men of your own devising, and especially preconceptions that are unproven (and not widely shared by the people actually studying the genetics of haplogroup R). Recent proposals or theories (e.g. about the genetic makeup of early Bell Beaker culture bearers) don't have to make sense to you to be valid. It is not necessary for R1b lineages to have been in northwestern Europe for several millennia before the mutations involved had occurred, nor for them to have exterminated their northwestern European predecessors at sword point, for them to be the most numerous male haplogroup there today.

In short, I agree with R. Rocca. (About this, anyway.)

newtoboard
06-29-2013, 04:37 PM
I agree with you that this R1b doesn't come from the steepe like some people wish. No way steepe people can wipe out such densely populated areas. And I also disagree that R1b is some sort of super advantageous haplogroup (the argument seems to have been made numerous times before and it has been mentioned how R1a didn't dominate Eastern Europe the way R1b did to Western Europe). Whenever R1b has existed alongside other Neolithic West Asian haplogroups it has been anything far of dominant (see West Asia, SE Europe, the Caucasus) etc

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 04:48 PM
But your opinion appears to be based on straw men of your own devising, and especially preconceptions that are unproven (and not widely shared by the people actually studying the genetics of haplogroup R). Recent proposals or theories (e.g. about the genetic makeup of early Bell Beaker culture bearers) don't have to make sense to you to be valid. It is not necessary for R1b lineages to have been in northwestern Europe for several millennia before the mutations involved had occurred, nor for them to have exterminated their northwestern European predecessors at sword point, for them to be the most numerous male haplogroup there today.

In short, I agree with R. Rocca. (About this, anyway.)

People like you make me angry. You've ignored all the archaeological evidence I've presented and you've ignored the fact that I've said I don't understand genetics. I've said i'm not making judgements on R1b itself. I'm simply informing you of the archaeological + anthropological evidence against Bell Beaker people spreading R1b.

Anyway, I'm afraid that the genetic spread of R1b must make sense with the archaeology. Otherwise you're just spreading pseudo-science. There is no straw man anywhere. Explain to me how R1b became so numerous only in the Copper Age without genocide? You're attempting to explain away evidence and it doesn't work in the real world.

Have I angered you by using real evidence to back up an opinion? You may wish to disagree with professional archaeologists but that's to your detriment.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 04:53 PM
I agree with you that this R1b doesn't come from the steepe like some people wish. No way steepe people can wipe out such densely populated areas. And I also disagree that R1b is some sort of super advantageous haplogroup (the argument seems to have been made numerous times before and it has been mentioned how R1a didn't dominate Eastern Europe the way R1b did to Western Europe). Whenever R1b has existed alongside other Neolithic West Asian haplogroups it has been anything far of dominant (see West Asia, SE Europe, the Caucasus) etc

Thanks for reading my post. This idea of super-R1b is indeed in the realm of pseudo-history. It feels as if I'm reading the journal of a 19th century historian at times. Good intentions but lack of evidence and population genetics is still a fairly new science so we have much to learn! :)

Rathna
06-29-2013, 04:53 PM
I answered Northern Line on Worldfamilies and I post them here too.
1
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2013, 08:48:15 PM »
Many thanks for your writing. Perhaps you know that my theory of the Italian Refugium of R1b amongst other haplogroups presupposes a diffusion from Italy at least from 7500 years ago with the agriculturalists by sea to Iberia and later to the Isles, see the presence of R-L51 in the places where they landed in Iberia but also the presence in Ireland.
Northern line or Southern line?
I carried many proofs (against all of course, also in this forum) of this theory, and the migration was at least twice: from Iberia to the Isles but also from Italy directly Northwards: see Amesbury Archer etc., but also my mtDNA haplogroup: K1a1b1e, which demonstrates a link with the Isles but not with Iberia.
Someone I don't want to name said that I carry only single samples: every proof is single, but I carried tons of proofs.

2
Of course I completely agree with you, above all about the aDNA we need (but the skeptics, like some your compatriot, is just on the safe side...).

Kopfjäger
06-29-2013, 05:00 PM
But your opinion appears to be based on straw men of your own devising, and especially preconceptions that are unproven (and not widely shared by the people actually studying the genetics of haplogroup R). Recent proposals or theories (e.g. about the genetic makeup of early Bell Beaker culture bearers) don't have to make sense to you to be valid. It is not necessary for R1b lineages to have been in northwestern Europe for several millennia before the mutations involved had occurred, nor for them to have exterminated their northwestern European predecessors at sword point, for them to be the most numerous male haplogroup there today.

In short, I agree with R. Rocca. (About this, anyway.)

Well-played, Dick.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 05:02 PM
Well-played, Dick.

Elaborate please. At the moment, people are proving my distrust of amateur geneticists.

Kopfjäger
06-29-2013, 05:05 PM
People like you make me angry.


Um. Who implies distrust here?

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 05:11 PM
Um. Who implies distrust here?

Sorry I'm not sure what you're saying. In regards to "razyn", he attacked my argument whilst completely ignoring my argument itself and the evidence contained within it. This isn't how science is supposed to work. I've presented an argument, it's up to him to disprove it or agree with it or remain neutral, not just leave a useless comment. I'm not sure whether he read my OP anyway.

Kopfjäger
06-29-2013, 05:16 PM
If you're any kind of "scientist", I think you do know what I am saying. You are already losing credibility with the tone of your posts, which, in my opinion, are more about feelings than anything else.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 05:19 PM
If you're any kind of "scientist", I think you do know what I am saying. You are already losing credibility with the tone of your posts, which, in my opinion, are more about feelings than anything else.

I've never claimed to be a scientist. I'm just concerned at the obvious bias of some amateur geneticists. I've written an OP full of evidence. From two members I've received comments basically telling me that I'm wrong without doing anything to disprove my OP. This is bound to make me upset as I thought I'd receive a critique from people who had good knowledge of the archaeology as well as the genetics.

DMXX
06-29-2013, 05:22 PM
A gentle reminder for everyone to remain on topic without personalising the discussion, which in this case, is the assignment of Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b(-M269) in Europe to the Bell Beaker cultural phenomenon.

Northern Line, there are several users on this forum who have taken a multidisciplinary approach (principally concerning archaeology, linguistics and genetics). Jean M is one user I have in mind. Hopefully your thread will catch their attention and provide a debate concerning why some equate Bell Beaker with Y-DNA R1b males.

razyn
06-29-2013, 05:22 PM
Response to Northern Line removed as suggested.

History-of-Things
06-29-2013, 05:23 PM
Thank you for your contribution Northern Line. The fact of the matter is this particular forum was not originally so filled with speculation on the Y-chromosome. When it started it was much more dedicated to sharing of information broadly. I had myself been away for several months consumed with work and personal matters and was a bit shocked to find the way things had gone. This stuff is largely a carry-over from the defunct DNA-Forums board, and had thankfully for a while confined itself to "A Genetic Genealogy Community" while we were chugging along here quite peacefully for a while sharing articles and the like in a more rational, harmonious way. We shall see which way this board finally swings. Please don't think everyone on this forum agrees with what is posted--it's just we know how useless it is to try and engage in conversation with certain personalities we have now experienced online for years and years.

I personally would like to get back to sharing actual information on this forum and leave the rife speculation to other places on the net.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 05:28 PM
Razyn, I think it's a shame that you will remove your comment. I want to get to the bottom of R1b. I feel annoyed as you have attacked me with no purpose and have still refused to show me any incorrect things in my work. I am more than happy to debate anything you think I am wrong on. I just wish you'd have not left a comment if you weren't interested in my post.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 05:30 PM
A gentle reminder for everyone to remain on topic without personalising the discussion, which in this case, is the assignment of Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b(-M269) in Europe to the Bell Beaker cultural phenomenon.

Northern Line, there are several users on this forum who have taken a multidisciplinary approach (principally concerning archaeology, linguistics and genetics). Jean M is one user I have in mind. Hopefully your thread will catch their attention and provide a debate concerning why some equate Bell Beaker with Y-DNA R1b males.

Thank you for the information. I've not tried to be inflammatory but I haven't received a good response from the off. It feels as if people don't like hearing the evidence and so attacked me in a childish way.

DMXX
06-29-2013, 05:33 PM
The fact of the matter is this particular forum was not originally so filled with speculation on the Y-chromosome. When it started it was much more dedicated to sharing of information broadly.

There is a place for speculation, particularly when enthusiasts are constantly awaiting information from academia.

In a typical online community where information is shared, certain ideas or speculations are repeated/recycled to the point where it is held as common knowledge. Those ideas or speculations may be completely false, sometimes caused by a lack of relevant backgrounds from within the community.

The observation you have made concerning this forum is a reflection of it's increased activity and some cross-linkage with other online communities (as well as a large constituency from DNA-Forums). It is not a "mission statement" of sorts to give preferential treatment to any ideas or speculations, no matter how popular or unpopular they are.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 05:33 PM
Thank you for your contribution Northern Line. The fact of the matter is this particular forum was not originally so filled with speculation on the Y-chromosome. When it started it was much more dedicated to sharing of information broadly. I had myself been away for several months consumed with work and personal matters and was a bit shocked to find the way things had gone. This stuff is largely a carry-over from the defunct DNA-Forums board, and had thankfully for a while confined itself to "A Genetic Genealogy Community" while we were chugging along here quite peacefully for a while sharing articles and the like in a more rational, harmonious way. We shall see which way this board finally swings. Please don't think everyone on this forum agrees with what is posted--it's just we know how useless it is to try and engage in conversation with certain personalities we have now experienced online for years and years.

I personally would like to get back to sharing actual information on this forum and leave the rife speculation to other places on the net.

Thank you for your comment. Like you, I enjoy engaging in evidence-based reasoning. Speculation without evidence does have its place but it must always be remembered as speculative.

Kopfjäger
06-29-2013, 05:38 PM
We do not mind the evidence if it is presented in a way that cultivates sound discussion. Contrary to what some folks - and yourself - may believe, you do not appear aptly receptive of feedback when you write things like, "people like you make me angry".

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 05:41 PM
We do not mind the evidence if it is presented in a way that cultivates sound discussion. Contrary to what some folks - and yourself - may believe, you did not appear aptly receptive of feedback when you write things like, "people like you make me angry".

I'm sorry but I have been polite throughout, and I'm afraid Razyn's response did anger me greatly. I have nothing against you. I did my best to encourage discussion by asking the critical posters to tell me where I have gone wrong and what my "straw-man" arguments were but they have failed to do so.

History-of-Things
06-29-2013, 05:46 PM
It is not a "mission statement" of sorts to give preferential treatment to any ideas or speculations, no matter how popular or unpopular they are.

I don't think I ever implied that there was any particular bias, only that people such as myself who would be skeptical of a considerable amount of things posted by certain cliques within the broader genetic genealogy community do not always have a visible presence within the threads, and this may be difficult for some new participants to understand. I am not the only early member of this forum who has become exasperated of late, I might add.

At any rate, here's one vote for "we have years to go before we can possibly begin putting together archaeological and DNA evidence in an adequate way to explain historical developments, and we should really be concentrating on developing methodologies rather than guessing and arguing in circles." I might add a caveat to that: relating genetic trends to historically documented eras is the first step to understanding how we can use genetic evidence in prehistory.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 05:50 PM
At any rate, here's one vote for "we have years to go before we can possibly begin putting together archaeological and DNA evidence in an adequate way to explain historical developments, and we should really be concentrating on developing methodologies rather than guessing and arguing in circles." I might add a caveat to that: relating genetic trends to historically documented eras is the first step to understanding how we can use genetic evidence in prehistory.

Your comment perfectly illustrates my feelings on this matter as I am a person who understands the archaeology much more than the genetics. The genetics should fit with the archaeology but at present it does not. I just want people not to put their eggs in one basket and keep an open mind.

Silesian
06-29-2013, 06:06 PM
Easy question yes or no answer, are you equating megaliths with R1b? I have some questions?

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 06:14 PM
Are you equating megaliths with R1b?

Hi

I'm suggesting that the people who were members of the Megalithic culture were probably R1b already. I should have structured that paragraph better. To me, it appears like Bell Beakers were quickly moved around Western Europe by the existing Megalithic culture through long established trade links and new metal prospectors following the trade routes (if 'prospectors' is not too much of an anachronistic word).

Silesian
06-29-2013, 06:17 PM
Hi

I'm suggesting that the people who were members of the Megalithic culture were probably R1b already. I should have structured that paragraph better. To me, it appears like Bell Beakers were quickly moved around Western Europe by the existing Megalithic culture through long established trade links and new metal prospectors following the trade routes (if 'prospectors' is not too much of an anachronistic word).

Which is the oldest Megalithic structure roughly speaking in the geographical region you have outlined in your original post? You don't have to be exact you could say Callanish Stones for example?

Ezana
06-29-2013, 06:21 PM
Thank you for your contribution Northern Line. The fact of the matter is this particular forum was not originally so filled with speculation on the Y-chromosome. When it started it was much more dedicated to sharing of information broadly. I had myself been away for several months consumed with work and personal matters and was a bit shocked to find the way things had gone. This stuff is largely a carry-over from the defunct DNA-Forums board, and had thankfully for a while confined itself to "A Genetic Genealogy Community" while we were chugging along here quite peacefully for a while sharing articles and the like in a more rational, harmonious way. We shall see which way this board finally swings. Please don't think everyone on this forum agrees with what is posted--it's just we know how useless it is to try and engage in conversation with certain personalities we have now experienced online for years and years.

I personally would like to get back to sharing actual information on this forum and leave the rife speculation to other places on the net.

It's true, there was a lot more sharing of studies and less speculation in the early days, and I'd like to see more articles and studies posted (as well as more diversity in their content - autosomal genetics, medicine, anthropology, history, etc., not just Y DNA haplogroups), but DMXX is absolutely right in that speculation has a place. If this forum were limited to papers and news articles, it'd be little more than an RSS feed, or a link aggregator like reddit.

/ 2 cents.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 06:28 PM
Which is the oldest Megalithic structure roughly speaking?

There's no consensus on the issue. Barry Cunliffe has stated that it may be that the Neolithic Megaliths were a continuation of Mesolithic culture. He states that the evidence for this can be seen in Brittany. It is a curious idea, so who knows when the culture developed. It is also hard to accurately date stone structures. The best way to date it is by material found alongside the structure although this can be misleading.

It is also important to recognise that the land built on by the Neolithic Megalith builders appears to occasionally be significant in the Mesolithic period. For example, under the Stonehenge visitor car park, two Mesolithic post holes have been found which some have suggested to be like Totem poles in the Americas. Also, at the bottom of a reservoir in Devon, archaeologists found a stone circle adjacent to a Mesolithic mound.

I believe Cunliffe stated (though I may be wrong) that Megaliths started in Brittany as a recognisable culture first. The Carnac Stones etc are particularly interesting. It's all still very confusing.

Jean M
06-29-2013, 06:29 PM
Northern Line - I understand perfectly how it seems to you. Your views are not new to most of us. They have been vigorously expressed by various people on similar forums for years. The whole idea of R1b as a relatively late arrival in Western Europe seemed crazy to many, including an archaeologist who spent years fighting against the idea that R1b arrived with Bell Beaker and preferring the Neolithic as the key period. Indeed it is only a decade or so ago that I favoured the Neolithic myself as the period most likely for the Indo-European languages to spread (Colin Renfrew's position).

But British archaeology is in paradigm change. That change has been generated from within. Population genetics is engaged in a parallel rethink, again generated from within. The pace of change has resulted in a lot of crossed wires.

A good example was the recent lurid press release by Alistair Moffat, talking in terms of genocide as the only explanation for the genetic change in the Copper-Bronze Age. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/is-distinctive-dna-marker-proof-of-ancient-genocide-1.1426197 He bases that on the lack of R1b in European Neolithic ancient DNA discovered so far. The earliest R1b found so far is in Bell Beaker. He does not realise that some British and Irish archaeologists looking at the rise and fall of numbers of sites of different periods in radiocarbon databases have concluded that there was a population drop in the Late Neolithic in the British Isles. [There was a similar one in the LBK.] For whatever reason, perhaps climate, the Neolithic farmers ceased to flourish. So newcomers arriving with new technology (the plough, animal traction, etc) could have had the advantage and gradually out-bred the original farmers. There is, as you say, no particular reason to suppose that the Bell Beaker incomers fought the locals. They probably traded with and inter-married with them in fact.

The supposed scarcity of Bell Beaker in Ireland has been overturned by a wealth of discoveries in recent years, I think mainly along the line of a new motorway (I'd have to check.) So Prof. Cunliffe is a little out of date on that.

Silesian
06-29-2013, 06:32 PM
There's no consensus on the issue. Barry Cunliffe has stated that it may be that the Neolithic Megaliths were a continuation of Mesolithic culture. He states that the evidence for this can be seen in Brittany. It is a curious idea, so who knows when the culture developed. It is also hard to accurately date stone structures. The best way to date it is by material found alongside the structure although this can be misleading.

It is also important to recognise that the land built on by the Neolithic Megalith builders appears to occasionally be significant in the Mesolithic period. For example, under the Stonehenge visitor car park, two Mesolithic post holes have been found which some have suggested to be like Totem poles in the Americas. Also, at the bottom of a reservoir in Devon, archaeologists found a stone circle adjacent to a Mesolithic mound.

I believe Cunliffe stated (though I may be wrong) that Megaliths started in Brittany as a recognisable culture first. The Carnac Stones etc are particularly interesting. It's all still very confusing.

Thank you, have to step out for a few minutes but will continue.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 06:49 PM
Northern Line - I understand perfectly how it seems to you. Your views are not new to most of us. They have been vigorously expressed by various people on similar forums for years. The whole idea of R1b as a relatively late arrival in Western Europe seemed crazy to many, including an archaeologist who spent years fighting against the idea that R1b arrived with Bell Beaker and preferring the Neolithic as the key period. Indeed it is only a decade or so ago that I favoured the Neolithic myself as the period most likely for the Indo-European languages to spread (Colin Renfrew's position).

But British archaeology is in paradigm change. That change has been generated from within. Population genetics is engaged in a parallel rethink, again generated from within. The pace of change has resulted in a lot of crossed wires.

A good example was the recent lurid press release by Alistair Moffat, talking in terms of genocide as the only explanation for the genetic change in the Copper-Bronze Age. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/is-distinctive-dna-marker-proof-of-ancient-genocide-1.1426197 He bases that on the lack of R1b in European Neolithic ancient DNA discovered so far. The earliest R1b found so far is in Bell Beaker. He does not realise that some British and Irish archaeologists looking at the rise and fall of numbers of sites of different periods in radiocarbon databases have concluded that there was a population drop in the Late Neolithic. For whatever reason, perhaps climate, the Neolithic farmers ceased to flourish. So newcomers arriving with new technology (the plough, animal traction, etc) could have had the advantage and gradually out-bred the original farmers. There is, as you say, no particular reason to suppose that the Bell Beaker incomers fought the locals. They probably traded with and inter-married with them in fact.

The supposed scarcity of Bell Beaker in Ireland has been overturned by a wealth of discoveries in recent years, I think mainly along the line of a new motorway (I'd have to check.) So Prof. Cunliffe is a little out of date on that.

Thanks for your comment.

I've read of the evidence for the population drop but I don't see this as being particularly important in Britain at least. The evidence I've seen for the population drop is from Germany, Denmark and Poland I believe. Is their any new evidence from Britain, Ireland or France? I'm not convinced this happened in Britain at the moment. I say this because the archaeologist Mike Parker-Pearson has shown evidence of Neolithic feasting on a huge scale at Durrington Walls near Stonehenge and Woodhenge. This feasting was on animals that travelled from as far away as Scotland. It looks like an annual journey to Stonehenge from across Britain. Parker-Pearson shows a dramatic end to this tradition which lasted for 40 years previous. This end coincided with the presumed arrival of the Bell Beakers. Whatever this means, it still shows a flourishing united island culture right to the end of the Neolithic. The big issue is, the end of Neolithic religion occurs too rapidly for the gradual adoption of Bell Beaker customs or the Neolithic people being out-bred yet there's no evidence of a violent intrusion. I think the introduction of metallurgy would have revolutionised the Neolithic people's religion as soon as they encountered it, showing up as the change in burial patterns etc.

Also,

I haven't heard of the new Irish evidence. Is it related to this? If so, I'll give it read. : http://www.m3motorway.ie/Archaeology/Section2/Skreen3/file,16726,en.pdf

Cunliffe's book is very recent (published 2013) so I imagine he would have taken the new research into consideration, although I could be wrong.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 06:51 PM
Thank you, have to step out for a few minutes but will continue.

No problem.

Jean M
06-29-2013, 08:28 PM
Thanks for your comment.

I've read of the evidence for the population drop .... The evidence I've seen for the population drop is from Germany, Denmark and Poland I believe.

You are thinking of Shennan and Edinborough 2007.


Is there any new evidence from Britain, Ireland or France?

Shennan 2009 shows the rise in population in Britain and Ireland at the start of the Insular Neolithic (c. 4000 BC) followed by a fall in the Late Neolithic. In Britain evidence of cereals declines so sharply after 3350 BC as to virtually disappear. The agrarian collapse was probably accompanied by population decline (Stevens and Fuller 2012.) In Ireland bog built up over abandoned Neolithic field systems from 3000 BC, preserving them for archaeologists to find in the modern era (Caulfield, O'Donnell and Mitchell 1998; Verrill and Tipping 2010.) Evidence for a fall in cereal production in Ireland in the Late Neolithic was mentioned in presentations at the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland Conference 3 November 2012: The Archaeology of Disaster and Recovery (http://www.iai.ie/index.php/news-a-events/iai-news/105.html), particularly in the lecture by Dr. Nicki Whitehouse (School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen's University Belfast): The Boom and Bust of early farming communities; linking archaeological and environmental change in the Neolithic. But I'm not sure if anything has yet been published. This is all relatively new stuff.

Jean M
06-29-2013, 08:38 PM
Mike Parker-Pearson has shown evidence of Neolithic feasting on a huge scale at Durrington Walls near Stonehenge and Woodhenge. This feasting was on animals that travelled from as far away as Scotland. It looks like an annual journey to Stonehenge from across Britain.

Yes indeed. This is fascinating stuff. But I don't think that it tells us that the population of Britain was massive at the time. On the contrary. If the population of Britain could be fitted into Durrington Walls, then it was smaller than the number currently enjoying Glastonbury.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 08:38 PM
.

Thanks for the information. I'll take a look at the relevant studies. Do the studies allude to whether the decline seems to have lasted as long as to the Copper Age? It reminds me of the period initially before the Black Death with unpredictable weather causing crop failure and starvation. It's common sense that this must have happened in prehistory too. This reminds us how much we still have to learn even from recent prehistoric times.

To clarify, are you of the opinion that R1b in the British Isles is of Bell Beaker origin? I don't think we have anywhere near enough evidence to say when it came and so I eagerly await any new ancient DNA.

G2a is interesting as it's at such high levels in Sardinia I believe? Yet we also have Bell Beakers from this area as well. I think it's all much more complicated and less uniform than any of us can assume.

rms2
06-29-2013, 08:40 PM
I realize some contrary evidence could turn up tomorrow, but it does seem odd that, of all the Neolithic y-dna results thus far, not a single R1b has turned up. As Jean M mentioned above, the only Bell Beaker site thus far to produce any y-dna yielded two R1b results (Kromsdorf, Germany, c. 2600 BC).

Here's the Google map of ancient y-dna results in Europe I made based on info from Jean M's excellent site, Ancient Western Eurasian DNA (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml):

Ancient European Y-DNA (http://goo.gl/maps/Dh90)

I tend to think the Neolithic males of Britain were predominantly G2a and I2a, because that is the way the ancient y-dna is trending right now. That could change, obviously, and I think we are due to hear more, one way or the other, very soon.

TigerMW
06-29-2013, 08:45 PM
...
Thanks for reading, this issue has been bothering me recently.
Why does this bother you?

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 08:48 PM
I realize some contrary evidence could turn up tomorrow, but it does seem odd that, of all the Neolithic y-dna results thus far, not a single R1b has turned up. As Jean M mentioned above, the only Bell Beaker site thus far to produce any y-dna yielded two R1b results (Kromsdorf, Germany, c. 2600 BC).

Here's the Google map of ancient y-dna results in Europe I made based on info from Jean M's excellent site, Ancient Western Eurasian DNA (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml):

Ancient European Y-DNA (http://goo.gl/maps/Dh90)

I tend to think the Neolithic males of Britain were predominantly G2a and I2a, because that is the way the ancient y-dna is trending right now. That could change, obviously, and I think we are due to hear more, one way or the other, very soon.

Cheers. I find this all very interesting as a pattern is emerging yet we've not quite got enough to come to a conclusion yet. We're all being left in suspense :) . Whatever the results, it'll be amazing.

Jean M
06-29-2013, 08:48 PM
I haven't heard of the new Irish evidence.

It is Neil Carlin of University College Dublin who has been collating all the new Bell Beaker evidence from development-led archaeology in the Republic of Ireland. He completed his PhD on it in 2011. http://www.ucd.ie/archaeology/staff/post-doctoral/neil_carlin/ He mentioned many new sites in a poster presentation in 2008. I haven't read his 'Into the West: placing Beakers within their Irish contexts' In: A. M. Jones & G. Kirkham (eds). Beyond the Core: Reflections on Regionality in Prehistory. Oxford: Oxbow.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 08:49 PM
Why does this bother you?

Because it seems like a blank area of our knowledge and there's a lot of conflicting evidence.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 08:53 PM
It is Neil Carlin of University College Dublin who has been collating all the new Bell Beaker evidence from development-led archaeology in the Republic of Ireland. He completed his PhD on it in 2011. http://www.ucd.ie/archaeology/staff/post-doctoral/neil_carlin/ He mentioned many new sites in a poster presentation in 2008. I haven't read his 'Into the West: placing Beakers within their Irish contexts' In: A. M. Jones & G. Kirkham (eds). Beyond the Core: Reflections on Regionality in Prehistory. Oxford: Oxbow.

Carlin's quote here seems intriguing. "The depositional treatment of Beaker-associated artefacts within settlements, funerary monuments, ceremonial settings and natural places was examined and placed within its European context. This revealed that their deposition formed part of a highly structured interlinked system of social practices conducted in accordance with long standing traditions". I wonder if these traditions are the Neolithic traditions or the Continental Beaker traditions he's alluding to?

It seems that he sees, most recently, both continuity and foreign influence.

rms2
06-29-2013, 08:56 PM
Ancient DNA testing has been ongoing in Ireland for the last two years by Bradley in Trinity and Prof Ron Pinhasi in the UCD School of Archaeology, who is involved with a large project of ancient DNA testing throughout Europe . . . The mapping out of ancient genetics of populations from 45,000BC to the Bronze Age, now under way, may very possibly reveal many misconceptions about our past.


Source article: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/is-distinctive-dna-marker-proof-of-ancient-genocide-1.1426197

I cited that article not to introduce Moffat's extravagant claims into this discussion but merely to show that we should probably expect some ancient y-dna news soon that could answer a lot of questions (and probably raise many more, as well).

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 09:01 PM
Source article: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/is-distinctive-dna-marker-proof-of-ancient-genocide-1.1426197

I cited that article not to introduce Moffat's extravagant claims into this discussion but merely to show that we should probably expect some ancient y-dna news soon that could answer a lot of questions (and probably raise many more, as well).

It certainly looks like it could be well worth the wait. If R1b is only Copper Age then archaeology is going to have to hurry up and try and provide an answer, but if it's early then R1b itself will need to be looked at again :)

Moffat sounds like he's just trying to be controversial. Is he the guy who came up with the Roman DNA in Britain study recently? I think he lets his imagination run too wild too soon, nothing to do with money of course ;)

rms2
06-29-2013, 09:19 PM
I could be wrong, but my own money is on the later arrival. I don't know the exact process by which the various clades of R1b (mainly P312+ clades) replaced the y-dna of the Neolithic inhabitants of the Isles, but I suspect it was some form of elite dominance, with local chieftains and their numerous sons acquiring multiple wives, concubines, short-term liaisons, etc. The Neolithic males would have been gradually reduced to getting by with less and with fewer opportunities to produce male offspring, who would in turn have had even fewer opportunities to produce male offspring, and so on. The replacement wasn't complete even then. There are still surviving Neolithic y-dna lines in the British Isles today.

It seems to me you would not have to slaughter very many people for such a process to be quite effective in reducing some y haplogroups while boosting others.

Jean M
06-29-2013, 09:21 PM
Carlin's quote here seems intriguing... It seems that he sees, most recently, both continuity and foreign influence.

Yes he goes for continuity interpretations. But the fact remains that there is a lot more Bell Beaker in Ireland than once thought.

I have now located among the piles of material on my computer this short piece by Carlin: Neil Carlin, Some Findings from a Study of Beaker Settlement in Leinster, Association of Young Irish Archaeologists, Proceedings of the Conference 2006 (2006), pp. 13-27 (which you can find online).


The advent of Beaker pottery and its associated material culture signifies key changes in European society, however, its origins, method of distribution and social significance remain a bone of contention. A vast amount of new archaeological data concerning Beaker-related activities in Ireland has been generated by the increase in development led excavations. Much of this information remains unsynthesised, despite its potential to advance Beaker studies at a European-wide level. This paper will outline some of the findings from a study of the published and unpublished information from Leinster.

Dubhthach
06-29-2013, 09:31 PM
The ancient DNA is going to be key, particulary to get an idea about the changes in Y-Chromsome haplogroup distrbition over long period of time. We also have to remember that until the destruction of Irish society in the 17th century that it was quite possible for lineages to grow to enourmous size, as well as a process of top-down replacement in society. Here's a quote from Nichol's "Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland during the Middle Ages"


One of the most important phenomena in a clan-based society is that of
expansion from the top downwards. The seventeenth-century Irish scholar and
genealogist Dualtagh Mac Firbisigh remarked that 'as the sons and families of
the rulers multiplied, so their subjects and followers were squeezed out and
withered away; and this penomenon, the expansion of the ruling or dominant
stocks at the expense of the remainder, is a normal feature in societies of this
type. It has been observed of the modern Basotho of South Africa that 'there is
a constant displacement of commoners by royals [i.e. members of the royal clan]
and of collateral royals by the direct descendants of the ruling prince;, and
this could have been said without adaptation , of any important Gaelic or
Gaelicized lordship of late medieval Ireland.

In Fermanagh, for example the kingship of the Maguires began only with the
accession of Donn Mór in 1282 and the ramification of the family - with the
exception of one or two small and territorially unimportant septs - began with
the sons of the same man. the spread of his descendants can be seen by the
genealogical tract called Geinelaighe Fhearmanach; by 1607 they must have been
in the possesion of at least three-quarters of the total soil of Fermanagh,
having displaced or reduced the clans which had previously held it. The rate
which an Irish clan could itself must not be underestimated. Tulrlough an fhíona
O'Donnell, lord of Tirconnell (d. 1423) had eighteen sons (by ten different
women) and fifty-nine grandsons in the male line. Mulmora O'Reilly, the lord of
East Brefny, who died in 1566, had at least fifty-eight O'Reilly grandsons.
Philip Maguire, lord of Fermanagh (d. 1395) had twenty sons by eight mothers,
and we know of at least fifty grandsons. Oliver Burke of Tirawley (two of whose
became Lower Mac William although he himself had never held that position) left
at least thirty-eight grandsons in the male line.

Irish law drew no distinction in matters of inheritance between the legitimate
and the illegitimate and permitted the affiliation of children by their mother's
declaration (see Chapter 4), and the general sexual permissiveness of
medieval Irish society must have allowed a rate of multiplication approaching
that which is permitted by the polygyny practised in, for instance, the clan societies
of southern Africa already cited.

We know that this societal model existed for at least 1,200 years (from the onset of Christianity), the question is can it be extrapolated backwards into pre-christian Ireland.

Whats interesting looking at data from Busby report on M269 (R1b1a2*) in Europe is that we see that M222+ (R1b1a2a1a2c1a1a1) alone makes up an average of 23.61% of the men across the four large population groups taken from "Moore et al 2002" ("East Ireland"/"North Ireland"/"South Ireland"/"West Ireland" ; n=377)

McEvoy/Bradely put a TMRCA of 1,730 (SD 670) years ago for M222. See:
A Y-Chromosome Signature of Hegemony in Gaelic Ireland
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380239/

It's interesting that one lineage (marked by the SNP M222) that came into existence sometime during the Iron Age/Roman period, now represents 23.61% of a fairly decent size sample (n=377) of Irishmen.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 09:49 PM
I could be wrong, but my own money is on the later arrival. I don't know the exact process by which the various clades of R1b (mainly P312+ clades) replaced the y-dna of the Neolithic inhabitants of the Isles, but I suspect it was some form of elite dominance, with local chieftains and their numerous sons acquiring multiple wives, concubines, short-term liaisons, etc. The Neolithic males would have been gradually reduced to getting by with less and with fewer opportunities to produce male offspring, who would in turn have had even fewer opportunities to produce male offspring, and so on. The replacement wasn't complete even then. There are still surviving Neolithic y-dna lines in the British Isles today.

It seems to me you would not have to slaughter very many people for such a process to be quite effective in reducing some y haplogroups while boosting others.


Your theory is certainly very intriguing and is obviously very plausible. For me however, I can't see how likely it is for elite dominance in this to have occurred quite uniformally across such a large area with a small population density. I would guess that the elite DNA would eventually be absorbed by the subservient pre-existing DNA just through the sheer number of women who wouldn't mate with the elite. However, if you're correct it would show how advanced the Bronze Age truly was, and that the tribes may have been more closer to unified petty kingdoms with good communications.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 09:51 PM
Yes he goes for continuity interpretations. But the fact remains that there is a lot more Bell Beaker in Ireland than once thought.

I wonder how likely that this information will become readily available given the financial situation in Ireland. The state may not be so willing to fund future studies which would be a real shame.

Dubhthach
06-29-2013, 10:01 PM
Your theory is certainly very intriguing and is obviously very plausible. For me however, I can't see how likely it is for elite dominance in this to have occurred quite uniformally across such a large area with a small population density. I would guess that the elite DNA would eventually be absorbed by the subservient pre-existing DNA just through the sheer number of women who wouldn't mate with the elite. However, if you're correct it would show how advanced the Bronze Age truly was, and that the tribes may have been more closer to unified petty kingdoms with good communications.

Well the example I give is from the Iron age and the Middle ages, it's quite probable given some of the work done with haplotypes that M222 first arose in what is now Northern Britain and only arrived into Ireland after 200BC. Phylogenically it's interesting that you see a fairly large DF23+/M222- cluster in South-West Britain. (DF23 is parent clade of M222).

All the research on native Irish societal structure until it's destruction in the 17th century by the English state points to ongoing elite replacement over the proceeding 1200 years. This ties in even with the written sources from the period. The real question is did Ireland become such a lineage based society with Christianity or was it an ongoing process since the arrival of Celtic languages in Ireland. There's is some debate that society was more based on tribal structure in the pre-christian era. For example we see the usage of the term "Mucoi" (member of tribe) on Ogham stones but it's usage had completely dropped out of the language during the Old Irish period (600-1000AD).

I should note that the closest written langauge to the "Archaic Irish" of Ogham stones is Gaulish.

Dubhthach
06-29-2013, 10:04 PM
I wonder how likely that this information will become readily available given the financial situation in Ireland. The state may not be so willing to fund future studies which would be a real shame.

Well with collapse of construction industry there's gonna be alot less archaelogy going on. Over 1,000km of Motorway (Freeway) were built in the period 2002-2008, all of which required archaeological investigation before construction could proceed.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 10:11 PM
.

I bow down to your Irish history knowledge :) While I'm English the history of Ireland is very interesting to me because my Granddad was from Tipperary and on my other side part of my family were Irish who emigrated to London after the famine to dig out the South London docks.

I like to think that the Celtic structure was kept but we know how destructive religions can be to a culture. A Christian church which wanted to convert pagans is likely to have created huge divisions within the society.

Dubhthach
06-29-2013, 10:38 PM
Well the missionary church went after the "nobility" this is evident in the written texts of the period. More over in hagiographies of Patrick and the like from the 7th and 8th centuries we see the "downfall" of dynastical groupings explained by claiming that their purported ancestor 200 years earlier had pissed off Patrick who had subsequently put a curse on their lineage.

A prime example of this obviously is with the Uí Cairbre (Cenel Cairpri) who were descended from Cairbre mac Néill (Coirpre). The historians generally agree that in the 5th century that the Cenel Cairpri had carved out a large kingdom from the Boyne to Donegal Bay, thus making them the most important of the "Southern Uí Néill" during the period. However by the time Tírechán was writing his biography of Patrick in the late 7th century the power of the "Cenel Cairpri" had been broken and they control only three small disconnected "Kingdoms". Tírechán as was his want explains the political situation by stating that it was a result of Cairbre been an enemy of Patrick that he was cursed that none of his lineage would hold the kingship.

In general all of the irish saints tend to come from dynastical groupings. More over there is a clear break during this period between the language of the Ogham stones (Archaic Irish) and the subsequent written language (Old Irish). It's been purported that the writing on ogham stones is specifically in a "archaic register" of the language that may have only been used by learned elite class (Druids, poets etc.). Whereas the register that gave rise to "Old Irish" was more reflected of the register of the language used by the "nobility" who were among the first to be Christianised.

Northern Line
06-29-2013, 10:49 PM
Wow, the so called "Dark Ages" is really quite fascinating as it lays down the foundations of the countries we live in today. Do you know roughly what year Ogham is first found? I know we have examples of it in Wales.

So the conclusion seems to be that the post-Patrick elites were not following the same principles as before? Amazing, all because of a religion.

rms2
06-30-2013, 12:51 AM
. . .

So the conclusion seems to be that the post-Patrick elites were not following the same principles as before? Amazing, all because of a religion.

Why is it amazing that a person's religious beliefs would shape or at least strongly influence his or her actions?

Northern Line
06-30-2013, 12:54 AM
Why is it amazing that a person's religious beliefs would shape or at least strongly influence his or her actions?

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was referring to how a new religion could completely end the dynasties of previous elites. How that religion permeated all parts of the social system.

Jean M
06-30-2013, 10:53 AM
I wonder how likely that this information will become readily available given the financial situation in Ireland. The state may not be so willing to fund future studies which would be a real shame.

It would help if Neil Carlin's thesis was more readily available. Universities hosting theses online is a welcome trend.

Jean M
06-30-2013, 12:40 PM
To clarify, are you of the opinion that R1b in the British Isles is of Bell Beaker origin?
Not all of it. The problem is that people don't just sit still after the one particular migration that their descendants happen to be interested in. They keep on moving about. So we are left with a hugely complicated puzzle. Or to take an archaeological analogy, we need to excavate the layers. We could find R1b at many different archaeological levels in the British Isles. Only by testing for subclades can we hope to work out whether the R1b in level 3 is actually descended from the R1b in level 1, or a completely new arrival to that area. I will be very disappointed if new ancient DNA studies do not test thoroughly enough to establish that.

For example it would not entirely surprise me to find some early R1b (L23) in the Neolithic of Britain and Ireland, because farming arrived late there and was considerably different from the Central European Neolithic (LBK). The orthodox assumption has been that the LBK gave rise to all later Neolithic cultures of Northern Europe. Now we know that the LBK seems to have fizzled out, we have to rethink. Dairy farmers seem to have gradually spread up the Danube and fed new ideas and probably new DNA into Northern Europe. So far we just don't know whether L23 was a part of that mixture.

It looks like most of the R1b-L21 and some of the R1b-DF27 found in the British Isles today descends from Bell Beaker arrivals, but we won't be sure until we get ancient DNA.

People kept pouring into the British Isles at intervals after that. If Western Europe was full of R1b by the Bronze Age, we can guess that new arrivals from any part of that area could have carried it, for example R1b-U152 could have arrived with La Tene, and R1b-L165 with the Vikings.


G2a is interesting as it's at such high levels in Sardinia I believe? Yet we also have Bell Beakers from this area as well. I think it's all much more complicated and less uniform than any of us can assume.

I couldn't agree more.

razyn
06-30-2013, 01:31 PM
Only by testing for subclades can we hope to work out whether the R1b in level 3 is actually descended from the R1b in level 1, or a completely new arrival to that area. I will be very disappointed if new ancient DNA studies do not test thoroughly enough to establish that.

Another potential problem is the current popularity of tooth-enamel studies. Some of the reports I've seen suggest that every old tooth found in the British Isles might be in the queue for that treatment. That's all very well, as far as it goes; I know it's useful to see what these folks were eating, and whether their childhood environment resembled that of their old age. But I suspect it pretty well eliminates the possibility of extracting the Y-DNA from any given tooth that's been sacrificed on that altar. I hope that suspicion is wrong. Anyway, so far, teeth have been the best preservers of the elusive Y-DNA information (as distinguished from mtDNA, that can be recovered from very small bone samples). And most of the few ancient Y-DNA samples so far have been tested at a very low resolution of haplotypes.

Northern Line
06-30-2013, 01:37 PM
.

Going by previous studies (such as Kromsdorf) it's probably quite likely they won't test fully. It seems that people on forums such as this are always one step ahead of the 'professional' geneticists which has to be quite worrying for the profession. If they don't understand the different layers of R1b (I don't haha) then they're not going to have the full knowledge required to come to a reasoned conclusion yet the danger is they publicise their results and create a big media interest. It especially annoys me when they tie one subgroup of a haplogroup to one particular invading ethnicity as fact, as if it's all so simple and uniform like that.

Until recently, I just took Oppenheimer for the truth, as I didn't question any of it and the media kept feeding us it. It's only happened recently that I see it as being such an over-simplification of the issues at hand. This is comparable to the recent obsession about the Bell Beakers in my opinion. People have been trying to get a huge haplogroup into a very small time period without questioning the wider issues around Europe, ignoring how only one group of R1b males is just too unlikely to have spread it at one point in a huge war.

This whole Bell Beaker period definitely reminds me of the Anglo-Saxon question. In the Victorian era they saw Bell Beaker as another huge invasion wipeout event, then from the 60-70s onwards it turned into just a cultural phenomena with no movement of people. Now, we're seeing that there must be movement of people but that also there is no way complete population replacement happens.

I just find this period very odd personally. Megaliths appear to have begun to have been built in the Mesolithic, expand through the Neolithic and then into the Bronze Age with sites such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudston_Monolith and Irish stone circles. Yet somewhere in this wide period something big happens genetically.

lgmayka
06-30-2013, 01:52 PM
Jews in Nazi Germany made up a tiny minority of Germans and the Nazis with all their modern weapons could not kill them all.
Numerically, the primary target of the Shoah was the Jewish population of 1939 Poland, which was several million--roughly 10% of the population, and 30% or more of cities like Warsaw. The Nazi extermination campaign was shockingly efficient, murdering 90% of Polish Jews within only a few years, despite the "distractions" of war on two fronts, an army of resistance in Poland, the long-term genocide of Polish Gentiles, and the diplomatic need for plausible deniability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#World_War_II_and_the _destruction_of_Polish_Jewry_.281939.E2.80.9345.29

As Adolph Hitler said on August 22, 1939:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Obersalzberg_Speech#German_and_English_wording
---
Our strength is our quickness and our brutality. Genghis Khan had millions of women and children hunted down and killed, deliberately and with a gay heart. History sees in him only the great founder of States. What the weak Western European civilization alleges about me, does not matter. I have given the order—and will have everyone shot who utters but one word of criticism—that the aim of this war does not consist in reaching certain designated [geographical] lines, but in the enemies' physical elimination. Thus, for the time being only in the east, I put ready my Death's Head units, with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Only thus will we gain the living space that we need. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?
---

Of course, Hitler was merely putting into practice what Prime Minister Otto von Bismarck of Prussia (and later Chancellor of the German Empire) enviisioned almost a century earlier during the 146-year Prussian occupation of Poland:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Quotes
---
Hit the Poles so hard that they despair of their life; I have full sympathy with their condition, but if we want to survive, we can only exterminate them; the wolf, too, cannot help having been created by God as he is, but people shoot him for it if they can.
---

Northern Line
06-30-2013, 02:31 PM
.

Hi

Of course, everything you've said is entirely correct and I'm not arguing against that. I was comparing this with the theory that R1b males killed off most of the Neolithic males across Atlantic Europe in one huge clean sweep of genocide. My point was, if R1b is 90% in Ireland and the Neolithic G2a is 1.5% as a result of genocide then this is highly succesful genocide comparable to the Holocaust. This would be ridiculous as the Nazis used modern weapons and poisons and had superior communications. If the Nazis couldn't push all the Jews out of Europe, then R1b Bell Beaker males surely couldn't push 90%+ of G2a out of Atlantic Europe. This is assuming that it was genocide by the Bell Beaker people of course, with other members bringing good theories on other ways for the population demographic to change considerably.

Anyway, do you think it's likely that in 1000 years time Hitler will be looked on as a cult figure and the Holocaust not seen as how we see it? I say this because look at Genghis Khan. There is a statue commemorating him next to Marble Arch in London which seems crazy because of the amount of innocents who were killed by his actions. It appears that these leaders who leave a trail of blood behind them get remembered as heroic rather than barbaric. Alexander the Great, Caesar, Khan and possibly Hitler in the future.

Dubhthach
06-30-2013, 06:07 PM
In an Irish context haplogroup E and in particular I is more prevalent to G. Of course the leval of R1b varies between studies ranging anywhere from 80-90%. It's worthwhile to look at the haplogroup breakdown even in the studies showing 90%

The below is taken from Busby paper on M269 specifically the four groups that he used from Myers 2002 paper. (n=377). These four combined give a percentage of 91.51% for R1b-M269 and it's subclades. The breakdown is as follows

R1b-M269 eg. R1b1a2 (negative for L51): 2.12%

R1b-L11 eg. R1b1a2a1a (negative for P312 and U106): 1.33%


R1b-U106 eg. R1b1a2a1a1: 5.04%


R1b-P312 eg. R1b1a2a1a2 (negative for L21 and U152): 6.90%



R1b-U152 eg. R1b1a2a1a2b: 2.39%



R1b-L21 eg. R1b1a2a1a2c: 73.34% --- R1b-M222 which is sub-branch of L21 made up 23.61% by itself!

The 2.12% of the sample that came back as been R1b-M269/L51- implies a very early lineage, more then likely they are R1b-M269+/L23+ but they could also be L23-. Likewise the 1.33% who were R1b-L11+ (L11 is a sbclade of L51) but negative for P312 and U106 are also quite interesting.

The 5.04% represented by R1b-U106+ probably reflects the last 800 years of Irish history. By and large we see that men who test U106+ don't have native Irish surnames. Of course U106 reaches it's peak in the Netherlands/Northern Germany, as well as having an inverse gradiant across Britain with L21 eg. As you go westward the level of U106 drops as the level of L21 increases.

Basically the Irish R1b isn't very diverse, 80% of it belongs to one major Lineage specifically R1b-L21. Not only that but in that study 1/3rd of total R1b-L21 (R1b1a2a1a2c)belonged to R1b-M222 (R1b1a2a1a2c1a1a1) which is at the earliest probably arose during the Iron age (post 300BC).

Over and over again actually we see major subclades of R1b-L21 (more specifically subclades of it's major clade R1b-DF13) associated with large genetic clusters in Ireland that are appear connected to the established Irish dynastical system that came to an end with the Tudor conquest at beginning of the 17th century.

For example:

Irish Type I (North West Irish) Haplotype: R1b-M222 (R1b1a2a1a2c1a1a1) associated with Uí Néill and the three Connachta (Uí Bhriúin, Uí Fhiachrach, Uí nAilleo)
Irish Type II (South Irish) Haplotype: R1b-CTS4466 (R1b1a2a1a2c1l) associated with the Eoghanacht of Munster, Kings of Desmond until 17th century
Irish Type III Haplotype: R1b-L226 (R1b1a2a1a2c1f2a) -- subclade of wider R1b-Z253 -- associated with Dál gCais of Thomond
Irish Sea Cluster/Leinster (Laighin) haplotype: R1b-L159.2 (R1b1a2a1a2c1e1) -- subclade of R1b-Z255 -- asscoiated with the Laighin (Leinster), seen in both uí Cheinnselaig and Uí Dhúnlainghe
Airghialla I Haplotype: R1b-DF21+ (R1b1a2a1a2c1g) specifically with Null value at STR425. Connected to the Airghialla of South-Ulster, specifically Monaghan (Kingdom of Oirialla eg. Oriel in English)
Airghialla II Haplotype: R1b-L513+ (R1b1a2a1a2c1b). Connected to western part of the Airghialla which basically Fermanagh the Kingdom of the Maguires.



The fact is the above clusters appear to map onto pre-17th century Irish kindred groupings. Each of the "dynastical" groups above only come into the historic radar in the period after Christianity and going on the written record generally came into power and over time dominated specific provincal kingdoms and sub-kingdoms.

I had quoted from Nichol earlier, in it he specifically mentions the Maguires (Arighialla II -- L513) and how they only came into position of kingship in Fermanagh within the 13th century, let by by the end of the power in the 1600's basically controlled 3/4th of the lands of Fermanagh, having basically overtime replaced the major landholders. The example of Philip Maguire with 50 grandsons in the mid 14th century is prime example of how such kindreds could grow exponentially over a couple hundred years.

Irish society was very very different from medieval European society, marriage was generally a civil affair as divorce was legal under Irish law (and very common). Likewise there was no concept of illegitmacy a man could have sons by any number of women and any of them could potentially succeed him if was elected with enough support. Kingship/lordship model not been based on primogentiure but on election with all candidates having to be members of a four generation descent group (Deirbhfhine). In other words if your Great-Grandfather was lord, you could be elected next in competition to the sons of the last Lord (your second cousins) etc.

The system led to top down displacement in society, as men fell out of a Clann's deirbhfhine they gradually dropped down the societal ladder. Until as one poet derisively declared that "they didn't even know who their great-great-grandfather was!"

GailT
06-30-2013, 08:25 PM
For me however, I can't see how likely it is for elite dominance in this to have occurred quite uniformally across such a large area with a small population density. I would guess that the elite DNA would eventually be absorbed by the subservient pre-existing DNA just through the sheer number of women who wouldn't mate with the elite.

I would guess that low population density made it possible that elite dominance could have gradually replaced low status or low-technology y-DNA over a large area, and in the absence of large scale warfare or genocide. I can't even begin to speculate what social conventions were like in the Neolithic, but it is difficult to imagine large numbers of women refusing to mate with elite men.

It is fun to speculate while we wait for ancient y-DNA data, but maybe not very productive. I don't see how anyone can take a strong view one way or another until we have better data.

I'm also hopeful that the full y-DNA testing currently in progress will give us more reliable age estimates for y-DNA subclades, and that this along with ancient y-DNA, will help bring some clarity.

Northern Line
07-01-2013, 01:39 AM
I would guess that low population density made it possible that elite dominance could have gradually replaced low status or low-technology y-DNA over a large area, and in the absence of large scale warfare or genocide. I can't even begin to speculate what social conventions were like in the Neolithic, but it is difficult to imagine large numbers of women refusing to mate with elite men.

It is fun to speculate while we wait for ancient y-DNA data, but maybe not very productive. I don't see how anyone can take a strong view one way or another until we have better data.

I'm also hopeful that the full y-DNA testing currently in progress will give us more reliable age estimates for y-DNA subclades, and that this along with ancient y-DNA, will help bring some clarity.

I agree women would certainly be attracted to an elite dominant male over the run-of-the-mill man. However, my point is that for every woman who procreates with an elite member, there will be a huge number of women who won't be sleeping with the elites. This period before the Bronze Age is characterised by the lack of permanent settlement and villages that we see in the Bronze Age. If G2a was Neolithic (alongside surviving Mesolithic groups) and now Ireland is only 1.5% G2a this would need generations upon generations of G2a males to be deprived of women. Without a social structure provided by a state/kingdom and permanent settlement this is pretty unlikely. Wouldn't G2a have much more of a presence today?

The next point I'm going to make may be irrelevant and not useful but I'll say it anyway. England has had so many elites in the last 2000 years; Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes & Normans yet close to the majority of English R1b is L21 I believe (outside of East Anglia where Germanic invaders were most numerous)? R1b still outnumbers R1a also. Therefore a huge bulk of English DNA is still Iron Age 'Celtic'. And some of that non L21 will be pre-Roman Germanic anyway. This appears on paper to agree with my view that elite DNA will never replace a native haplogroup without forced violence (and even then it is difficult to wipe out an ethnic group). As the evidence for violence in the Bell Beaker period is minimal, especially compared to the early Neolithic, I can't see room for G2a to drop from the majority to a 1 in 100 haplogroup.


Yes indeed. This is fascinating stuff. But I don't think that it tells us that the population of Britain was massive at the time. On the contrary. If the population of Britain could be fitted into Durrington Walls, then it was smaller than the number currently enjoying Glastonbury.

I think this is far from the truth. Silbury Hill was being worked on from at least as late as ~2400BC by Neolithic cultures (antler) and no-one knows when construction ended. The most recent evidence will have been disturbed and replaced by Roman + Medieval settlement and presence on the hill so work could be more recent than the dated antler. 4000 years of weathering will have also caused problems. (http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba70/feat2.shtml). Yet, the Amesbury Archer appears in 2300-2200BC and his gold is dated as far back as 2470BC (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/introduction.html). Neolithic Britain was a well organised thriving place, hardly a wilderness.

Of course, any speculation on the social structure will always be speculation. Without writing we're pretty much stuck with taking educated guesses. Who knows what their take on an 'elite' is. Ancient DNA will tell us when R1b appears and in what quantity and that's probably the best we can hope for to solve the mystery....unless a book turns up from that period!! hahah :)

ADW_1981
07-01-2013, 02:30 AM
When there is no Neolithic evidence placing R1b on the scene, you make the next best educated guess with the data that is available. A Bell Beaker/R1b is no more in left field than those who associate R1a1/Corded Ware.

Northern Line
07-01-2013, 02:40 AM
When there is no Neolithic evidence placing R1b on the scene, you make the next best educated guess with the data that is available. A Bell Beaker/R1b is no more in left field than those who associate R1a1/Corded Ware.

I just think that until we have ancient DNA from Britain or Ireland then we have no way of possibly linking any haplogroups to these places in prehistoric times with anything close to certainty. The ancient DNA we do have is limited, but granted there is a pattern growing with G2a. On the other hand, a new genetic study could push R1b's dating towards an older expansion by way of new scientific techniques. It would have been great to have had the Amesbury Archer tested for his Y-DNA but looks like he was found 10 years too early :(

Jean M
07-01-2013, 08:41 AM
Wessex Archaeology (who found the Amesbury Archer) said a few years ago that they would not be doing DNA testing until the price dropped. And there are other problems. They recently announced the discovery another early, high-status Bell Beaker burial, this time female. It was found in Kingsmead Quarry, Berkshire and dated c.2500-2200 BC. http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/blogs/news/2013/04/19/beaker-burial


Archaeological excavations at CEMEX’s Kingsmead Quarry in Berkshire not far from Windsor have revealed a rare 'Beaker' burial of 'Copper Age' date (2500-2200 BC). Found within the grave were some of Britain’s earliest gold ornaments (five tubular beads), along with 29 bead fragments of amber and 30 beads of black lignite... The woman’s burial represents an unusual and important find as only a small number of Beaker burials from Britain contain gold ornaments, and most are associated with male skeletons. It would appear that their religious beliefs dictate that most men were buried in a crouched position with the head resting to the north and facing east. With women the body position is often reversed with the head to the south.

Unfortunately the acid nature of the 'brickearth' soil is far from ideal for the preservation of bone and a lack of surviving collagen limits the possibility of scientific research, such as radiocarbon dating and DNA.

rms2
07-01-2013, 08:48 AM
1. R1b is hands down the most common y haplogroup in the British Isles, especially as L21, and especially in the "Celtic Fringe" of the British Isles.

2. A number of scholars over the years, the most recent being David Anthony, associate the spread of Italo-Celtic with the Beaker Folk, and Celtic got to the British Isles somehow.

3. The only Beaker Folk y-dna results thus far are R1bxU106.

4. Thus far, no R1b has turned up in Neolithic or older remains. Instead, G2a and I2a predominate, with some E1b1b and F*.

Things could change, but those facts seem to me to make the Beaker Folk as the vector of most of the L21 and DF27 in the Isles a very reasonable working hypothesis.

Northern Line
07-01-2013, 10:45 AM
Wessex Archaeology (who found the Amesbury Archer) said a few years ago that they would not be doing DNA testing until the price dropped. And there are other problems. They recently announced the discovery another early, high-status Bell Beaker burial, this time female. It was found in Kingsmead Quarry, Berkshire and dated c.2500-2200 BC. http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/blogs/news/2013/04/19/beaker-burial

Thanks for the link. These were certainly very wealthy groups/individuals, their grave goods of gold certainly confirm that.

Northern Line
07-01-2013, 11:02 AM
[B] 2. A number of scholars over the years, the most recent being David Anthony, associate the spread of Italo-Celtic with the Beaker Folk, and Celtic got to the British Isles somehow.



Would the Late Neolithic/Copper Age/Early Bronze Age not be a bit too early for the spread of the Indo-European language? I'm not very well read on the Indo-European issue but I have read the opinions on others who say that Celtic and the Italic family are too similar to be introduced that far back. As I say, I don't know enough about it.

It also leaves the problem of the Basque language again. Highest amount of R1b but a non Indo-Euro language. Their language also has different words for metals and resources to Indo-European languages which share a similarity in that respect. Do you have an opinion on how that language fits in with this period?

I just worry we're trying to fit too much into one cultural/migration event as it would end so many of the mysteries. I'm still utterly confused as to how stone circles and menhirs continue to be built well into the Bronze Age, especially in Ireland if that culture was replaced by a new religion, as is suggested by the burials.I was reading last night of a stone circle in England (I think) where underneath the stones they found crushed Beaker pottery. The issue of the 'indigenous' burial of the woman in the Kromsdorf burial is odd, alongside the new Beaker R1b men. If they were buried at the same time, then their allowing of her to be buried in the native way doesn't suggest a hatred/fear of the previous religion. Either that or the men were converts and R1b was already present, but we'll have to wait for future testing.

With all respect to genetics, I think it's unwise to take the current dating of R1b as fact, we're dealing with an exciting new science which could be still finding its feet in terms of dating. The studies I've seen of the dating of the R1b subgroups do seem to have large error margins, and a recent study suggested that we were placing the dating too young. Much like radiocarbon dating whereby we started off with very big error margins and we thought Stonehenge, in its current form, was erected by Beaker people. New methods show it was built just before the Beaker people, or at the same time as the initial settlers.

Jean M
07-01-2013, 11:54 AM
Would the Late Neolithic/Copper Age/Early Bronze Age not be a bit too early for the spread of the Indo-European language? I'm not very well read on the Indo-European issue but I have read the opinions on others who say that Celtic and the Italic family are too similar to be introduced that far back.

I don't know of anyone arguing that, but linguistics is an argumentative discipline, so you could be right that someone has. Don Ringe and colleagues calculated a date of around 3250 BC for a common ancestor of Celtic and Italic. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/language/v081/81.2nakhleh.pdf

The idea of such a common ancestor had rather fallen out of favour in recent decades, but it seems generally agreed that such an ancestor would be very close to Proto-Indo-European (generally dated c. 4000 BC by linguists).

Jean M
07-01-2013, 12:03 PM
It also leaves the problem of the Basque language again. Highest amount of R1b but a non Indo-Euro language. Their language also has different words for metals and resources to Indo-European languages which share a similarity in that respect. Do you have an opinion on how that language fits in with this period?


My tentative proposition is that Basque descends from the language spoken in the Cucuteni Culture, which I suggest was the vector for R1b into the Yamnaya Horizon. But I really don't want to quote here large chunks of my forthcoming book. See http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?755-Ancestral-Journeys-The-Peopling-of-Europe-from-the-First-Venturers-to-the-Vikings . It would be much better to await publication and see all the arguments laid out with full references. I feel sure that it will arouse plenty of controversy and counter arguments, but most importantly my book provides testable hypotheses. The only way to find out whether I'm right or not is to test much more ancient DNA. One can only get so far with deduction and debate. Now we need more hard evidence.

Northern Line
07-01-2013, 04:03 PM
My tentative proposition is that Basque descends from the language spoken in the Cucuteni Culture, which I suggest was the vector for R1b into the Yamnaya Horizon. But I really don't want to quote here large chunks of my forthcoming book. See http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?755-Ancestral-Journeys-The-Peopling-of-Europe-from-the-First-Venturers-to-the-Vikings . It would be much better to await publication and see all the arguments laid out with full references. I feel sure that it will arouse plenty of controversy and counter arguments, but most importantly my book provides testable hypotheses. The only way to find out whether I'm right or not is to test much more ancient DNA. One can only get so far with deduction and debate. Now we need more hard evidence.

Ah, so it is entirely possible, indeed likely, that this period did see the introduction of the languages we speak today in Western Europe. It would be quite amazing if the mother-language of Basque was spoken that far East and was transported to that small area of Iberia and France and survived all the Celtic influence and Carthaginian influence then the Latin languages. Especially considering the total collapse of the Gaelic language in Ireland, although that's got a lot to do with politics and more recent history.

Your books looks really interesting, I like your coverage of so much material. Controversy is always good, keeps everyone's interest in the subject. As I'm going to be a full time student in a few weeks I shouldn't be spending money on books not connected to my course.....but I always end up splashing the cash :) My education has really suffered for reading books nothing to do with my studies haha. Good luck with the publication and I'll definitely look at buying a copy.

Jean M
07-01-2013, 04:28 PM
It would be quite amazing if the mother-language of Basque was spoken that far East and was transported to that small area of Iberia and France and survived all the Celtic influence and Carthaginian influence then the Latin languages.

The survival of Basque has nothing to do with where it came from and everything to do with where it went to. At least the best theory I have seen for its survival amid the wash of Celtic, followed by Latin and Romance (I know of no Carthaginian influence in the Pyrenees), is that the Pyrenees were off the beaten track. The Caucasus provides another example of language survival amid mountainous terrain. As it happens one linguist has proposed that Basque is related to North Caucasian, and had its origin in that area, arriving in the Pyrenees with the Cardial Culture,* but that idea is not generally accepted and there is certainly no genetic reason to support such an origin. It is an undeniable fact that Basque has its own agricultural terms, but as you pointed out earlier, it also has its own terms for metals, which suggests an origin rather in a Copper Age culture.

* John D. Bengtson, The Basque Language: History and Origin, International Journal of Modern Anthropology, (2011) 4 : 43 - 59

alan
07-01-2013, 07:34 PM
@northernline
I don't think any of the more considered posters are suggesting the crazy Irish article about an Iberian massacre was realistic. That article was idiotic and ignorant of most of the basics of facts about R1b not least being that Irish R1b is mainly different from Iberian in terms if subclade and closer to that of Britain and France. It is phylogenetically impossible for most Irish r1b to be derived from Iberian.

In general the beaker model derives from variance and phylogeny which dates most Western European R1b to the copper age. The only sane version of the beaker R1b model is that a small group morphed into the Bronze Age elites and thousands of years of advantageous access to resources by that group led to a major switch in y DNA proportions. This can happen.

The very young (early medieval) Irish m222 clade linked to the ui Neill dynasty is carried by a large chunk of Irishmen. This is only 1500-2000 years old but look at the effect one man had. Similar processes could have also happened with other big men figures thoroughly the bronze and iron ages.

It is increasingly clear in DNA studies that we are not our remote ancestors on the yDNA lines and that the latter has patterns has been mainly formed in the last few millennia.

If you looked at the Irish R1b and how it divides up into subclades it's amazing how many are apparently descended from just a handful of medieval chiefs. It's hard to get the head around that but there is a very sound basis for this in surname-DNA studies.

We are the descendants of a few survivors of disease, poverty, war, daughtering out etc and the main way to avoid this in the past was to have lots of surviving sons and preferential access to resources.

Over millennia that can have an incredible impact especially in a Celtic type society where the chiefs seem to have had strings of wives and concubines and all sons were recognised regardless of legitimacy. In general a small advantage sustained over say 10 generations can have a dramatic influence on DNA. Anthropological studies of rival groups in a single population in the third world have shown how a big majority can turn into a modest minority over a few generations simply by minor but constant advantage.

Finally continuity is nearly always visible in archaeology and I don't think there were too many scorched earth moments on a macro scale. However change in yDNA lineage is not going to be visible.

Look at an early estate tenants roll and see how it compares to today. It will generally be very altered indeed but we cannot see how this came about archaeologically in any detail.

alan
07-01-2013, 08:11 PM
The very notion of a megalithic culture is nonsense. There were temporary spheres of contact between some not too distant megalithic areas but without further refining the term megalithic is utterly meaningless. Just means big stone.

They were common across swathes of Europe in totally different timeframes and unconnected.


There are far far more differences than similarities between most. The strongest evidence of contacts were between Ireland and Britain but the evidence of the continental contact aspect is very very thin indeed.

In general any map showing a megalithic culture across Europe should not really be in a post 1970s book unless there are about 29 pages explaining the wooly concept

Northern Line
07-01-2013, 08:19 PM
@northernline

I can definitely see the evidence for this, but does that really explain how G2a (if it was the principal Neolithic haplogroup) is now at such low levels? Especially considering that well organised megalithic projects continue to be built well into the Bronze Age, this must show a surviving Neolithic population with the ability to organise large religious gatherings? I just feel that the explanations given are perhaps too convenient especially as we have no way of knowing the workings of the society back then, let alone making connections between the Early Middle Ages in Ireland and the Early Bronze Age. I think there's a lot of evidence for population continuity during the Bell Beaker expansion, alongside new arrivals (probably the elite you're talking about). We're also assuming that all the incomers were R1b heavy, and not a mix of other haplogroups. I think if it transpires that R1b was already present in the Late Neolithic and elite R1b was added to that, it seems to make more sense. It also needs to be explained how the Bell Beaker people became the elite. It could be possible that they were a religious sect rather than an elite and we're adding 21st century interpretations to their grave goods. Again, this comes back to my idea of Neolithic people being exposed to metallurgy and seeing it as a magical phenomena. The knives and archery related objects in the graves could all have ritual significance of which we will never understand. The Beaker pots themselves are often found around religious and burial related monuments.

I've also read up on the Bronze Age and Iron Age. The Bronze Age in Britain appears to be an age with less violence than the Neolithic and the Iron Age with a much more communal atmosphere to it with there being little evidence for an elite. I think the example of today's R1b related to different clans is likely to be an Iron Age social event. Francis Pryor is a Bronze Age expert and states that 9 out of every 10 Bronze Age burials seem to be well-nourished with little sign of an obvious underclass or a controlling elite. The breeding-out of G2a would have had to have happened very quickly and very surely in the thin time of Britain's Copper Age, yet we see continuity which can't just be explained away as it has to fit in somewhere. He also talks of a small enough population resulting in less need for violence to secure land as the population density was low enough. In fact, it is suggested this period of 'the good life' resulted in a rising population leading to the more brutal Iron Age.

Of course, it's likely your theory is close to the truth. I've just learnt through reading history that many theories of this sort come and go with the passing of time and new advancements in understanding. Personally, I don't feel able to trust genetics at this time as final. I think it's quite telling that in the early 2000s it seemed that R1b was Cro-Magnon then suddenly it changed to Copper Age with a new understanding. I hope that the people who carry out the studies keep an open mind to the possibility that they need to adjust their interpretation of the data.



The very notion of a megalithic culture is nonsense. There were temporary spheres of contact between some not too distant megalithic areas but without further refining the term megalithic is utterly meaningless. Just means big stone.

They were common across swathes of Europe in totally different timeframes and unconnected.


There are far far more differences than similarities between most. The strongest evidence of contacts were between Ireland and Britain but the evidence of the continental contact aspect is very very thin indeed.

In general any map showing a megalithic culture across Europe should not really be in a post 1970s book unless there are about 29 pages explaining the wooly concept

I think this is unhelpful. Firstly, Britain, Brittany and Ireland do seem to have a unique version of Megalith culture. This culture continues into the Bronze Age so this is related to my points above. Secondly, there are differing types of Bell Beakers which I was reading about last night, with a special maritime version. The similar Bell Beaker phenomena could also be described as a woolly concept.

dartraighe
07-01-2013, 09:10 PM
R1b is estimated to be 17-22000.That is Mesolithic.

alan
07-01-2013, 09:16 PM
@ northernline

I was maybe little harsh in the thread about megaliths but I had just read through some of the early posts on the thread and it was all a but agro! I read in and things seem a lot better. I do stand by megalithic culture being one of the wooliest concepts that still appears in mainstream archaeological books. That is another subject though!

I think some reacted as they thought you. were accusing folk In this site of agreeing with the crazy nazi beaker article. very few if any seem to agree with the beaker genocide idea on this site which has a better lunatic filter than most. it does worry me a bit how many people on other sites seem to like the idea of there ancestors as slaughter merchants though rather than some kind saintly sort or someone who did good!

I don't even think the guy who wrote the piece could remotely believe it. probably a publicity

Anyway I think I am in agreement that no archaeologist who is sane would ever have suggested or predicted a beaker origin for most yDNA in Europe. That is probably still true today! So it is the unexpected DNA evidence that is driving a beaker model. The DNA is providing the data (albeit only a little) for a lack of R1b in Neolithic Europe and its appearance in the beaker era.

However the ancient DNA sample is still too low to rule out a mid Neolithic spread with dairying from SE to NW through Europe from the bosphoris to the Atlantic c. 5200-4000BC. See evershed etc No DNA evidence for it yet though and some against,

The mid neolithic seems too early to correlate to R1b according to variance dating but there are issues with that. Not as big an issue as would revive Mesolithic or palaeolithic models but big enough to mean that arriving in tge isles c4000BC can be ruled out.

Northern Line
07-01-2013, 09:32 PM
@ northernline

I was maybe little harsh in the thread about megaliths but I had just read through some of the early posts on the thread and it was all a but agro! I read in and things seem a lot better. I do stand by megalithic culture being one of the wooliest concepts that still appears in mainstream archaeological books. That is another subject though!

I think some reacted as they thought you. were accusing folk In this site of agreeing with the crazy nazi beaker article. very few if any seem to agree with the beaker genocide idea on this site which has a better lunatic filter than most. it does worry me a bit how many people on other sites seem to like the idea of there ancestors as slaughter merchants though rather than some kind saintly sort or someone who did good!

I don't even think the guy who wrote the piece could remotely believe it. probably a publicity

Anyway I think I am in agreement that no archaeologist who is sane would ever have suggested or predicted a beaker origin for most yDNA in Europe. That is probably still true today! So it is the unexpected DNA evidence that is driving a beaker model. The DNA is providing the data (albeit only a little) for a lack of R1b in Neolithic Europe and its appearance in the beaker era.

However the ancient DNA sample is still too low to rule out a mid Neolithic spread with dairying from SE to NW through Europe from the bosphoris to the Atlantic c. 5200-4000BC. See evershed etc No DNA evidence for it yet though and some against,

The mid neolithic seems too early to correlate to R1b according to variance dating but there are issues with that. Not as big an issue as would revive Mesolithic or palaeolithic models but big enough to mean that arriving in tge isles c4000BC can be ruled out.

I know what you meant regarding the Megalithic culture, there are obvious flaws in the idea of a united culture going along with it, not at least because of the time frames involved and the evidence for it starting in the Mesolithic.

Yeah, I've seen most of the ''super-R1b-genocide'' people on other sites and I shouldn't have included the reference to this site and World Families in my OP which was hastily put together I must admit. I found it quite scary when I saw threads on Stormfront which seemed to be very similar to ideas by people pushing for a huge invasion Hollywood style event and I found it difficult to differentiate between people who were more moderate and the people seriously pushing the genocide model.

My initial reaction to Razyn was harsh and I went back and saw I couldn't edit it earlier today. Alas, that's the problem with the internet, it's too easy to misinterpret people's intentions and react in a over-the-top-way. I apologise for that.

Yes, it's the unexpected DNA that is really bothering me with all this. I haven't read any book recently proposing the Bell Beaker-R1b idea and so it came as quite a shock. I went back and re-read the information a few weeks ago and there still seems to be too much continuity. I find the Bell Beaker theory quite uncomfortable as Late Neolithic Britain and Ireland seems to go into overdrive with megaliths springing up all over the place and that culture continuing. It doesn't really fit with the ultra-impoverished, declining population idea IMO. I like the view that R1b was already in Western Europe and any invaders were just bringing more of it to the Isles. I realise that this goes against the majority opinion, but I can't see myself changing my view unless new ancient Isles DNA completely rubbishes it. The G2a found on the Catalonia-French border is very interesting considering R1b there today so I am seriously doubting myself anyway. Of course, with the differences between Iberian and British Isles DNA the timing of arrival may not be at all uniform and this is why we desperately need DNA from the Isles.

Dubhthach
07-01-2013, 09:48 PM
R1b is estimated to be 17-22000.That is Mesolithic.

More like Pleistocene for R1b-M343 (R1b*), however in Western Europe R1b is majority made up R1b-L11+ and it's subclades eg. (R1b1a2a1a...

alan
07-01-2013, 10:03 PM
Yeah it's weird when it doesn't compute with everything you were ever taught! I am a pro archae too and was highly resistant to the beaker model although a couple of us did early note that the distribution of R1b in Europe fits beaker far better than any other cultures. It never could have fitted just arriving in either cardial or LBK / its derivatives as the higher R1b areas do not respect that divide at all.

I spotted the possibility of a link with advanced cattle pastoralists when I attended eversheds pre-publication lectures at an archaeological conference on his work on milk residues that indicated a spread from Anatolia as far as the British isles moving a little behind the initial farming waves except in the north- west where it caught up.

I have slightly gone off the idea but I would not rule it out. In fact it is easy enough to combine that theory as an element in a near- steppe spread into Neolithic cultures like cucuteni trypole to the west or pre- maykop on the Caucasus- steppe interface.


I know what you meant regarding the Megalithic culture, there are obvious flaws in the idea of a united culture going along with it, not at least because of the time frames involved and the evidence for it starting in the Mesolithic.

Yeah, I've seen most of the ''super-R1b-genocide'' people on other sites and I shouldn't have included the reference to this site and World Families in my OP which was hastily put together I must admit. I found it quite scary when I saw threads on Stormfront which seemed to be very similar to ideas by people pushing for a huge invasion Hollywood style event and I found it difficult to differentiate between people who were more moderate and the people seriously pushing the genocide model.

My initial reaction to Razyn was harsh and I went back and saw I couldn't edit it earlier today. Alas, that's the problem with the internet, it's too easy to misinterpret people's intentions and react in a over-the-top-way. I apologise for that.

Yes, it's the unexpected DNA that is really bothering me with all this. I haven't read any book recently proposing the Bell Beaker-R1b idea and so it came as quite a shock. I went back and re-read the information a few weeks ago and there still seems to be too much continuity. I find the Bell Beaker theory quite uncomfortable as Late Neolithic Britain and Ireland seems to go into overdrive with megaliths springing up all over the place and that culture continuing. It doesn't really fit with the ultra-impoverished, declining population idea IMO. I like the view that R1b was already in Western Europe and any invaders were just bringing more of it to the Isles. I realise that this goes against the majority opinion, but I can't see myself changing my view unless new ancient Isles DNA completely rubbishes it. The G2a found on the Catalonia-French border is very interesting considering R1b there today so I am seriously doubting myself anyway. Of course, with the differences between Iberian and British Isles DNA the timing of arrival may not be at all uniform and this is why we desperately need DNA from the Isles.

Northern Line
07-01-2013, 10:15 PM
.

The trouble is, I can see clear flaws in all the theories which leads to a confusing mess! When you look at the spread of R1b it's quite even from one side of Europe (considering recent invasions etc) gradually growing less towards the East, yet Bell Beakers are found mostly along sea and river routes. But then you have the fact that no other previous culture is as widespread to counter-act that.

My heavily simplified version of the arguments (Please correct me if wrong)

Pro Bell Beaker & R1b - New culture of burial, metals, isotopes (Amesbury Archer etc), G2a Neolithic DNA, fairly united culture, Indo-Euro language, dating of R1b majority opinion

Pro Neolithic & R1b - Organised society, lots of new megaliths in this transitional period and after, Bell Beakers with megaliths, little violence, burial continuation alongside R1b (Kromsdorf), lack of ancient DNA, different types of Bell Beaker, modern G2a and historic Bell Beaker in Sardinia, dating of R1b still perhaps open to Neolithic spread

I passionately believe that the genetics and archaeology must work together and both must fit the final conclusion. It's simply not enough to say, well R1b definitely spread at this point according to genetics and the archaeology is secondary. Equally, archaeologists need to be much more open to what the genetic studies say. A lot of them read as very opposed to genetics.

razyn
07-01-2013, 10:52 PM
Archaeologists, and everybody else, will eventually have to accept what the DNA tells them because, unlike most academics, DNA doesn't have any turf to defend and therefore (well, not therefore... furthermore) is incapable of lying. It can be misinterpreted, but it is what it is. Like pollen, tree rings, isotopes -- the relatively dependable, physical markers.

And one of the things it's been saying for at least a couple of years is that the R1b for which we have any evidence so far in the westward projection of Asia usually called "Europe" is nowhere near old enough to be a survivor of the much, much earlier ice age(s), Great Flood, etc. that livened up the publications of certain popular writers on genetics, six to ten years ago. They were quick out of the starting gate, but not yet very well informed. Unfortunately they are still being cited. Their books are still in print, being sold and being read. Arguing with them is a recurring and unpleasant task, but it needs doing.

Northern Line
07-01-2013, 11:04 PM
Archaeologists, and everybody else, will eventually have to accept what the DNA tells them because, unlike most academics, DNA doesn't have any turf to defend and therefore (well, not therefore... furthermore) is incapable of lying. It can be misinterpreted, but it is what it is. Like pollen, tree rings, isotopes -- the relatively dependable, physical markers.

And one of the things it's been saying for at least a couple of years is that the R1b for which we have any evidence so far in the westward projection of Asia usually called "Europe" is nowhere near old enough to be a survivor of the much, much earlier ice age(s), Great Flood, etc. that livened up the publications of certain popular writers on genetics, six to ten years ago. They were quick out of the starting gate, but not yet very well informed. Unfortunately they are still being cited. Their books are still in print, being sold and being read. Arguing with them is a recurring and unpleasant task, but it needs doing.

I think you're first point is wrong on one level but right on one. In the future, genetics will be the final answer. But right now, genetic dating is still in its infancy as a science and the dating is far from accurate. I'm not suggesting that we'll find R1b to be Ice Age European, but the idea of Neolithic spread and even Mesolithic expansion still exists. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010419 < studies such as this show how much still needs to be learnt, and that is not to mock genetics in any way. It isn't, or shouldn't be a competition between archaeologists and geneticists. Bias exists in all scientific analysis as a result of authors who have their own axe to grind, much like our prehistoric ancestors.

I agree with your annoyance at out of date books. Unfortunately these things take years before they're updated in the media's consciousness and thus the public's.

rms2
07-01-2013, 11:34 PM
Speaking of megaliths, it is interesting that the only ancient y-dna thus far connected to any sort of megalithic tomb came from the Dolmen of La Pierre Fritte (c. 2800 BC), in France, and was I2a (predicted to be I-M26, based on the haplotypes).

Northern Line
07-01-2013, 11:42 PM
Speaking of megaliths, it is interesting that the only ancient y-dna thus far connected to any sort of megalithic tomb came from the Dolmen of La Pierre Fritte (c. 2800 BC), in France, and was I2a (predicted to be I-M226, based on the haplotypes).

Thanks for that. If this is a pattern that continues (I2a and G2a) then it's pretty amazing as these haplogroups are so rare now.

rms2
07-01-2013, 11:43 PM
Speaking of megaliths, it is interesting that the only ancient y-dna thus far connected to any sort of megalithic tomb came from the Dolmen of La Pierre Fritte (c. 2800 BC), in France, and was I2a (predicted to be I-M26, based on the haplotypes).

My own opinion is that the Basques were once predominantly I-M26. Over time they became predominantly R1b through admixture, retaining their non-IE language by means of a matrilocal tradition, in which the husband went to live with the bride's family.

Sardinia was also mentioned as having some G2a, as well some Beaker sites. Sardinia also has the highest frequency of I-M26 anywhere, as I recall, but it seems to me its U152+ population is what reflects Beaker influence. The G2a and I-M226 there predate Beaker, in my opinion.

Northern Line
07-01-2013, 11:49 PM
P.S I wonder if anyone will explain the ancestor question please?

What I mean is, how many people who say, lived in 2000BC Ireland will have descendants today, and how many who will have no living descendent? This might be asking a lot because it's a complicated issue. I'm quite confused as I've read about the clan issues in Ireland. However, on other research related to this some say that for every child, grandchild etc a person had, the likelihood of them having a living descendant today grows and that at some point in the Middle Ages, we'll be related to everyone who lived in that area in that certain year who had children.

Sorry if this sounds confused.

rms2
07-01-2013, 11:56 PM
I am waiting for the opportunity to read Jean's book, but I do not think Cucuteni-Tripolye was the vector for R1b into the Yamnaya horizon, etc. I suspect Cucuteni will prove to be predominantly E1b1b, G2a, and I2a. That's my opinion.

I'm not sure exactly where R1b came from, but I doubt it was Cucuteni.

rms2
07-02-2013, 12:00 AM
P.S I wonder if anyone will explain the ancestor question please?

What I mean is, how many people who say, lived in 2000BC Ireland will have descendants today, and how many who will have no living descendent? This might be asking a lot because it's a complicated issue. I'm quite confused as I've read about the clan issues in Ireland. However, on other research related to this some say that for every child, grandchild etc a person had, the likelihood of them having a living descendant today grows and that at some point in the Middle Ages, we'll be related to everyone who lived in that area in that certain year who had children.

Sorry if this sounds confused.

I've seen Dr. Ken Nordtvedt and John Chandler go into quite a bit of detail about such issues on Rootsweb, but they are statisticians far beyond my meager capabilities. Some of their discussions can probably be found via a search of the Rootsweb archives:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search?path=GENEALOGY-DNA

MJost
07-02-2013, 12:06 AM
Thanks for that. If this is a pattern that continues (I2a and G2a) then it's pretty amazing as these haplogroups are so rare now.

May we ask what is your haplogroup or isn't it public?

MJost

TigerMW
07-02-2013, 12:08 AM
What I mean is, how many people who say, lived in 2000BC Ireland will have descendants today, and how many who will have no living descendent?

I can't say much about your general question, but from a perspective of Y DNA (paternal) lineages, what I've read consistently is that most Y DNA lineages go extinct. Very few survive, however some have to survive or we wouldn't be here. In the case of Y DNA it appears the larger haplogroups that make up a majority of European descendants have most recent common ancestors from somewhere along in the Bronze Age. A most recent common ancestor is a single person so that is a bit hard to grasp at times.


This might be asking a lot because it's a complicated issue. I'm quite confused as I've read about the clan issues in Ireland. However, on other research related to this some say that for every child, grandchild etc a person had, the likelihood of them having a living descendant today grows and that at some point in the Middle Ages, we'll be related to everyone who lived in that area in that certain year who had children.

Sorry if this sounds confused.

I think some of those discussions involve autosomal DNA. That is quite complex and I think RMS2 probably has it right that most of us here don't have the statistical background and knowledge of autosomal DNA results to add much about that.

Northern Line
07-02-2013, 12:14 AM
May we ask what is your haplogroup or isn't it public?

MJost

I don't know mine. I don't have the money, being a student, to get a useful test done. I've been trying to convince my dad to get a test for himself but he's not really that bothered at the moment. I know my great-great granddad came from Western Devon so I assume it's likely to be a type of R1b. I'll have to wait to found out haha.

Northern Line
07-02-2013, 12:16 AM
.

Ah okay, thanks to you and rms2. I'll have a look around for information on the subject. As i understand it your Y-haplogroup is just one part of your genetic makeup so it doesn't really carry a lot of information compared to all the others added up? I'm still new to all this :)

MJost
07-02-2013, 01:09 AM
I don't know mine. I don't have the money, being a student, to get a useful test done. I've been trying to convince my dad to get a test for himself but he's not really that bothered at the moment. I know my great-great granddad came from Western Devon so I assume it's likely to be a type of R1b. I'll have to wait to found out haha.

Thank you for your honest answer. As Gail Riddell, Admin on several projects stated,"...if you are serious about getting the best out of your testing (Y chromosome), you really need to save your lunch money and upgrade to Y-67...".

For only $99 = 23andme gives you a haplogroup and far more, $129 = FtDNA 37marker with Predicted Haplogroup, 67M for $208 or if you want the cheap entry deal is $49 for 12 markers and upgrade later.

RMS2, would you have the various HG percentages in Western Devon handy?

MJost

Northern Line
07-02-2013, 01:22 AM
Thank you for your honest answer. As Gail Riddell, Admin on several projects stated,"...if you are serious about getting the best out of your testing (Y chromosome), you really need to save your lunch money and upgrade to Y-67...".

For only $99 = 23andme gives you a haplogroup and far more, $129 = FtDNA 37marker with Predicted Haplogroup, 67M for $208 or if you want the cheap entry deal is $49 for 12 markers and upgrade later.

RMS2, would you have the various HG percentages in Western Devon handy?

MJost

I will look towards getting a test done because I am interested to know myself. I'll have a hunt round for the best UK service and see how the money works out.

I believe Devon is one of the most 'Celtic' areas of England aside from Cornwall, along with Lancashire, Cumbria and the border counties with Wales such as Herefordshire. I was always led to believe I was mostly English but by going through family records none of my family come from Eastern England at all, aside from Londoners who could come from anywhere. Irish/Welsh make up at least 60% of my background (very unscientific I know) with half of the 40% being 'Celtic' areas of England.

rms2
07-02-2013, 01:59 AM
Thank you for your honest answer. As Gail Riddell, Admin on several projects stated,"...if you are serious about getting the best out of your testing (Y chromosome), you really need to save your lunch money and upgrade to Y-67...".

For only $99 = 23andme gives you a haplogroup and far more, $129 = FtDNA 37marker with Predicted Haplogroup, 67M for $208 or if you want the cheap entry deal is $49 for 12 markers and upgrade later.

RMS2, would you have the various HG percentages in Western Devon handy?

MJost

The Busby et al figures for Exeter in Devon are as follows (for the major R1b groups), from most to least frequent:

L21+ = 37.5%

U106+ = 25%

U152+ = 8.3%

P312 (xL21,U152) = 6.3%

The sample size was 48.

MJost
07-02-2013, 02:08 AM
Steve,

Interesting that L21 is that high considering the history. Thanks for the info. NL could be several HG types.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exeter

MJost

Kopfjäger
07-02-2013, 02:54 AM
I don't know mine. I don't have the money, being a student, to get a useful test done. I've been trying to convince my dad to get a test for himself but he's not really that bothered at the moment. I know my great-great granddad came from Western Devon so I assume it's likely to be a type of R1b. I'll have to wait to found out haha.

That would be interesting if you ended up being a Z255+ clan member. We have some hits in the Southwest England area.

GailT
07-02-2013, 03:03 AM
The survival of Basque has nothing to do with where it came from and everything to do with where it went to. At least the best theory I have seen for its survival amid the wash of Celtic, followed by Latin and Romance (I know of no Carthaginian influence in the Pyrenees), is that the Pyrenees were off the beaten track.

At least 12% of Basque mtDNA is in the very rare haplogroup U5b1f which has been found in only a few samples outside the Basque region, ranging from Portugal to Germany. Perhaps an early Basque male immigrant married a local U5b1f woman, and the population was very isolated, allowing U5b1f to reach 12% from population drift within a small isolated community. Lack of intermarriage with women from other communities might also have played a role in preserving the Basque language. I have not looked closely at other mtDNA haplogroups in the Behar et al 2012 Basque paper, but it would be interesting to see if other mtDNA haplogroups tell a similar story.

TigerMW
07-02-2013, 03:31 AM
Thank you for your contribution Northern Line. The fact of the matter is this particular forum was not originally so filled with speculation on the Y-chromosome. When it started it was much more dedicated to sharing of information broadly. I had myself been away for several months consumed with work and personal matters and was a bit shocked to find the way things had gone. This stuff is largely a carry-over from the defunct DNA-Forums board, and had thankfully for a while confined itself to "A Genetic Genealogy Community" while we were chugging along here quite peacefully for a while sharing articles and the like in a more rational, harmonious way. We shall see which way this board finally swings. Please don't think everyone on this forum agrees with what is posted--it's just we know how useless it is to try and engage in conversation with certain personalities we have now experienced online for years and years.

I personally would like to get back to sharing actual information on this forum and leave the rife speculation to other places on the net.

Hisgtory-of-Things, I think there is room for both pure information sharing as well as speculative discussions and brainstorming on potential ancient migrations. One of the beauties of Anthrogenica is that the administrators are very flexible in setting up pertinent sub-categories.

I think you've already been over there in the subclade categories, but if you dive into some of the sub-categories you'll find great detail and the purer information sharing. I'm most familiar with the L21 sub-category, but we've got threads organized by most of the major subclades, including DF21. Generally, there are one or two advocates per each L21 subclade who always are finding something. If you really want data, I've got some spreadsheets for you... and charts.

Anyway, no one can participate in all of the threads so the important thing is find the ones, or start the ones, that are specific to what you want to do. I admit there is enough going on that it takes a little time to settle into a conversation with others in specific thread with a mutually beneficial purpose.

Dubhthach
07-02-2013, 08:45 AM
Thanks for that. If this is a pattern that continues (I2a and G2a) then it's pretty amazing as these haplogroups are so rare now.

Well in Ireland I2 is most common non R1b haplogroup, with a range of generally 5-6% of Irishmen. It's important to point out that the Y-chromosome a man has represents only one line of descent.

If you go back 8 generations theoretically should have 128 male ancestors in that generation cohort ("2^8"/2). In such a situation (where there have been no intermarriage of second cousins since), you only carry the Y-Chromosome of one of those 128 men. Within your only lineage the other Y-lineages have daughtered out. (not to say they haven't survived in someone elses lineage -- say a fourth cousin etc.).

So you mightn't carry the Y of the other 127 men but you are descended from them and may contain some of their autosomnal DNA -- depending on how recombination worked out over the generations.

Jean M
07-02-2013, 09:07 AM
At least 12% of Basque mtDNA is in the very rare haplogroup U5b1f which has been found in only a few samples outside the Basque region, ranging from Portugal to Germany. Perhaps an early Basque male immigrant married a local U5b1f woman, and the population was very isolated, allowing U5b1f to reach 12% from population drift within a small isolated community. Lack of intermarriage with women from other communities might also have played a role in preserving the Basque language.

That is pretty much the mental picture I have. Alan asked me about the Basques on another thread, probably by accident. I think he was following up a post of mine on this thread. Part of my response there (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?141-The-genetic-history-of-Europeans-%28paper-online-August-2012%29&p=8855&viewfull=1#post8855) (click for link):


My feeling is that the modern-day Basques are a mixed people, like every other modern European ethnos. I suspect that they carry some local hunter-gatherer DNA, and some from Cardial groups, and some from Copper Age incomers. But all of this needs more research. They remain something of an enigma.

Jean M
07-02-2013, 09:43 AM
I passionately believe that the genetics and archaeology must work together and both must fit the final conclusion. It's simply not enough to say, well R1b definitely spread at this point according to genetics and the archaeology is secondary. Equally, archaeologists need to be much more open to what the genetic studies say.

There could be no stronger advocate of a multi-disciplinary approach than myself. I'm happy to say that some of the best brains in British archaeology (e.g. Barry Cunliffe) and population genetics (e.g. Mark Jobling) are of the same view. However things are not quite as simple as they might seem in the blending business. ;)

Barry Cunliffe is fond of saying that there is no such thing as a fact in archaeology. There are interpretations of the evidence. Periodically the very same evidence will be re-interpreted in the light of new thinking. We have certainly seen dramatic switches of views of Bell Beaker. One strand in that reinterpretation of Bell Beaker in the 1970s and 1980s was to throw out the original idea that this culture arrived with new people. In that post-war, post-imperial era, continuity was king in archaeological theory. The concept had a powerful attraction. Gradually the idea of migration as important in any era of prehistory or early history faded away in the enthusiasm for perceived continuity. Anti-migrationism became orthodoxy. In his book Europe Between the Oceans (2008), Barry Cunliffe remarked that the process had gone too far, and was being countered by another paradigm shift. (In reality history/prehistory is a blend of continuity and change. If we pick out just one of those, we are not seeing the full picture.)

Meanwhile geneticists such as Bryan Sykes had interpreted the early findings from modern DNA in the light of the many, many archaeology texts which preached the continuity gospel as though it were proven fact. So it has come as a big surprise to many geneticists to find a gradual accumulation of evidence (from ancient DNA particularly) actually running counter to that early view. They have been every bit as bewildered you find yourself.

In the long term archaeology has a habit of swallowing up new technologies which spring from other disciplines. Modern archaeologists see radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, isotope testing, etc as additions to their toolbox. Ancient DNA will be no different. There is already a textbook out for archaeologists on the use of ancient DNA.

Jean M
07-02-2013, 10:40 AM
I suspect Cucuteni will prove to be predominantly E1b1b, G2a, and I2a.

Could well be. I have certainly been operating on the assumption that those haplogoups were present. R1b would not need to be the predominant haplogroup in Cucuteni in order to create the present picture. It might simply chance that a few R1b men were early migrants from there. A haplogroup that is at the head of a migration flow, where the numbers are smallest, has the best chance of multiplying over subsequent generations. See Chiaroni 2009.

It is pretty staggering to think that millions of present-day European descend from just two men: R1b-U106 and R1b-P312, and indeed from their common ancestor R1b-L11, who may have lived only about 5000 years ago. But there it is.

R.Rocca
07-02-2013, 11:54 AM
That is pretty much the mental picture I have. Alan asked me about the Basques on another thread, probably by accident. I think he was following up a post of mine on this thread. Part of my response there (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?141-The-genetic-history-of-Europeans-%28paper-online-August-2012%29&p=8855&viewfull=1#post8855) (click for link):

I would also add I-M26 which reaches 7% in Basques. That is significant as it is only found in trace quantities elsewhere outside of Sardinia where it makes up 39%. On the Italian peninsula, it makes up less than 1%.

Jean M
07-02-2013, 11:59 AM
@ Richard Rocca - Yes that's a point I make in my book.

R.Rocca
07-02-2013, 12:09 PM
Sorry for the off-topic, but I just looked at Sardinia's mtDNA U5b and it is 7.1%!

Rathna
07-02-2013, 12:44 PM
Sorry for the off-topic, but I just looked at Sardinia's mtDNA U5b and it is 7.1%!

I posted somewhere that probably the most ancient language of Sardinians was linked with Basco-Caucasian (we'd say Basco-Caucasian/Sino-Tibetan/Na Denè now) and I carried some sample like that of "thiligugu". But my hypothesis presupposed also that Basco-Caucasian/Etruscan and linked languages/ Indo-European had the same origin in the Alpine or Italian Refugium after the Younger Dryas.
I know there are on the forum many people who laughed in the past and probably are laughing now,
but both at linguistic and genetic point of view
I never was an Ingénu.

dartraighe
07-02-2013, 01:05 PM
More like Pleistocene for R1b-M343 (R1b*), however in Western Europe R1b is majority made up R1b-L11+ and it's subclades eg. (R1b1a2a1a...

I tested positive for M343 so we are all M343 in western Europe.

TigerMW
07-02-2013, 01:16 PM
I think you're first point is wrong on one level but right on one. In the future, genetics will be the final answer. But right now, genetic dating is still in its infancy as a science and the dating is far from accurate. I'm not suggesting that we'll find R1b to be Ice Age European, but the idea of Neolithic spread and even Mesolithic expansion still exists. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010419 < studies such as this show how much still needs to be learnt, and that is not to mock genetics in any way. It isn't, or shouldn't be a competition between archaeologists and geneticists. Bias exists in all scientific analysis as a result of authors who have their own axe to grind, much like our prehistoric ancestors.

I agree with your annoyance at out of date books. Unfortunately these things take years before they're updated in the media's consciousness and thus the public's.

There is more good news on our TMRCA estimation capabilities.

It is a bit of bore for some, but Rathna, MJost and myself discuss TMRCA estimates and related topics over on the following thread. Mark has posted some new analysis by Dr. Terry Robb. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?828-STR-Wars-GDs-TMRCA-estimates-Variance-Mutation-Rates-amp-SNP-counting&p=8930&viewfull=1#post8930

"UPDATE20: TMRCA of Y-Haplogroups - based of Complete Genomics data" by Dr. Terry Robb, 2013.
http://www.goggo.com/terry/HaplogroupI1/#CompleteGenomicsTMRCA

Terry Robb says,

Haplogroup R1b-P312 (a subgroup of R1b-M269 found mainly in Europe), would split at 6.1 (+- 0.6 SD) kya

As I interpret it, this estimate would put the first P312 man at about 4000 BC. This is slightly older than most STR based/germ-line mutation rate estimates but this is about the same ball game.

Also keep in mind that STR based methods are calculating the Most Recent Common Ancestor, whereas Robb's estimate, if I interpret it correctly, is when P312 split off so this man would have to older or the same age as the P312 MRCA.

No one here is really pushing a Mesolithic origin for R1b in Europe, but I think we have to consider that a Mesolithic expansion for R1b in Europe is quite unlikely. U106 is younger, by most estimates, than P312 so you have the vast majority of R1b covered between the two.

Another point is that if R1b was expanding significantly before the Neolithic, we expect to find ancient DNA for it in the Neolithic sites but we haven't.

Dubhthach
07-02-2013, 01:26 PM
I tested positive for M343 so we are all M343 in western Europe.

Just the same way that you would test positive for A-P305, the fact that you are Z156+ implies implicitly that you would have to be M343+, my point is though that nearly all of the Western European R1b specifically belongs under the branches of R1b-L11. For example you don't tend to find R1b-V88+ which is also has M343 as it's ultimate parent.

L11 is after all the parent SNP for both P312 and U106. You don't find any R1b-M343* eg. negative for subclades of M343.

Dubhthach
07-02-2013, 01:45 PM
There is more good news on our TMRCA estimation capabilities.

It is a bit of bore for some, but Rathna, MJost and myself discuss TMRCA estimates and related topics over on the following thread. Mark has posted some new analysis by Dr. Terry Robb. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?828-STR-Wars-GDs-TMRCA-estimates-Variance-Mutation-Rates-amp-SNP-counting&p=8930&viewfull=1#post8930

"UPDATE20: TMRCA of Y-Haplogroups - based of Complete Genomics data" by Dr. Terry Robb, 2013.
http://www.goggo.com/terry/HaplogroupI1/#CompleteGenomicsTMRCA

Terry Robb says,

Haplogroup R1b-P312 (a subgroup of R1b-M269 found mainly in Europe), would split at 6.1 (+- 0.6 SD) kya

As I interpret it, this estimate would put the first P312 man at about 4000 BC. This is slightly older than most STR based/germ-line mutation rate estimates but this is about the same ball game.

Also keep in mind that STR based methods are calculating the Most Recent Common Ancestor, whereas Robb's estimate, if I interpret it correctly, is when P312 split off so this man would have to older or the same age as the P312 MRCA.

No one here is really pushing a Mesolithic origin for R1b in Europe, but I think we have to consider that a Mesolithic expansion for R1b in Europe is quite unlikely. U106 is younger, by most estimates, than P312 so you have the vast majority of R1b covered between the two.

Another point is that if R1b was expanding significantly before the Neolithic, we expect to find ancient DNA for it in the Neolithic sites but we haven't.

It would be interesting to see the same methodology applied to R1b-L11 given that it's the direct parent of both R1b-P312 and R1b-U106. At a bare minimal it has to be older then what's calculated for P312.

On the data that Busby used from Myers a total of 87.67% of sample was R1b-P312+ (P312*, L21+ or U152+) for Ireland (n=377)

alan
07-02-2013, 01:54 PM
Well that estimate might be a face saver for archaeology! If P312 was that old then what would that make L23? Something like 6000BC? That would fit the evershed derived dairy farmer secondary Neolithic wave model. Would make a lot of archaeologists lot more comfortable than a copper age model even though the latter is still possible

lgmayka
07-02-2013, 02:05 PM
Terry Robb says,

Haplogroup R1b-P312 (a subgroup of R1b-M269 found mainly in Europe), would split at 6.1 (+- 0.6 SD) kya

As I interpret it, this estimate would put the first P312 man at about 4000 BC. This is slightly older than most STR based/germ-line mutation rate estimates but this is about the same ball game.
Terry cautions: "...under the assumption that CT-M168 splits at 70 thousand years ago..."

If, for example, the CT split only 60,000 years ago, then all Terry's numbers must be reduced by 14%. What was 6.1 kya becomes 5.2 kya.

rms2
07-02-2013, 02:28 PM
I would also add I-M26 which reaches 7% in Basques. That is significant as it is only found in trace quantities elsewhere outside of Sardinia where it makes up 39%. On the Italian peninsula, it makes up less than 1%.

That's why I remarked earlier that I think the Basques were originally predominantly I-M26 but became mostly R1b later via admixture and retained their non-IE language due to a matrilocal tradition. I had a brain fart and called I-M26 "I-M226" in my original post, I think because I had been thinking about a friend's expected L226 test result. Anyway, I went back and corrected the "I-M226" error to I-M26, which is what I meant.

The relatively high mtDNA U5b frequency you mentioned on Sardinia, and that Jean mentioned among the Basques, seems to point in the same direction.

dartraighe
07-02-2013, 02:37 PM
Just the same way that you would test positive for A-P305, the fact that you are Z156+ implies implicitly that you would have to be M343+, my point is though that nearly all of the Western European R1b specifically belongs under the branches of R1b-L11. For example you don't tend to find R1b-V88+ which is also has M343 as it's ultimate parent.

L11 is after all the parent SNP for both P312 and U106. You don't find any R1b-M343* eg. negative for subclades of M343.

When we write R1b, M343+ is the defining mutation.If M343 is around 20,000 ybp is it not possible to divide that figure by the number of downstream SNPs to find the average age? Wouldnt that give us the age of the different subgroups?

rossa
07-02-2013, 02:49 PM
When we write R1b, M343+ is the defining mutation.If M343 is around 20,000 ybp is it not possible to divide that figure by the number of downstream SNPs to find the average age? Wouldnt that give us the age of the different subgroups?

I'm wide open to correction but how I see it is that SNP's don't necessarily arise in a systematic manner (ie one very 500 years or whatever), then you have the issue that there are still SNP's to be discovered so each time a new one is discovered then you have to re-adjust the age.

rms2
07-02-2013, 02:55 PM
Besides that, R1 (M173) is thought to have arisen about 18k years ago, so it isn't likely that its descendant, R1b (M343), is 2k years older.

TigerMW
07-02-2013, 02:59 PM
When we write R1b, M343+ is the defining mutation.If M343 is around 20,000 ybp is it not possible to divide that figure by the number of downstream SNPs to find the average age? Wouldnt that give us the age of the different subgroups?

Please note that in the scientific paper from 2008, Karafet, et al., estimated the TMRCA for R1, not R1b to be 18.5 k ybp, using SNP counting methods. That means R1b (M343) should be no older than that. However, that's just a side issue as the error ranges are wide, but Dubhthach's point is well taken,

my point is though that nearly all of the Western European R1b specifically belongs under the branches of R1b-L11

Jean M
07-02-2013, 03:22 PM
Well that estimate might be a face saver for archaeology!

Archaeology does not need its face saving. :) Archaeology is a methodology, not a permanent commitment to the ideas expressed in a given year or book or lecture or university department. Archaeological conclusions are in a permanent state of flux. That is as it should be. You can tell a top-notch archaeologist (or indeed any other scholar) from the eagerness with which he rushes to tell you that his latest book went to press before he found out that he was completely wrong about X. Just wait for his next book ...

Northern Line
07-02-2013, 04:04 PM
.

And that's what makes archaeology so interesting! As you've said, it's a highly political thing alongside the written history. I always find it quite staggering how cultural/migration views shifted so closely to modern events. Like how great the Romans were presented by Victorian historians as a way to justify 'civilising' barbarian peoples. Post-Empire and everyone's had a big interest in the Iron Age Britons. Now, we're finding that the Roman invasion appears to have been working with some Iron Age tribes as well as warring against others. Never simple :)

Isn't Sykes and Oppenheimer still sticking to their views? I know Oppenheimer's book about British DNA was ridiculous, as he suggested England was speaking English for thousands of years before the Romans. I'm not sure how much history he's read.

Northern Line
07-02-2013, 04:08 PM
Well that estimate might be a face saver for archaeology! If P312 was that old then what would that make L23? Something like 6000BC? That would fit the evershed derived dairy farmer secondary Neolithic wave model. Would make a lot of archaeologists lot more comfortable than a copper age model even though the latter is still possible

This would be my bet if I had to put money on it. However, I could be very wrong and the archaeologists will have to just be uncomfortable :)

Rathna
07-02-2013, 04:50 PM
You can tell a top-notch archaeologist (or indeed any other scholar) from the eagerness with which he rushes to tell you that his latest book went to press before he found out that he was completely wrong about X. Just wait for his next book ...

Do you know that archaeologist?

Jean M
07-02-2013, 05:22 PM
Do you know that archaeologist?

More than one of them. :) Barry Cunliffe and James Mallory are shining examples.

TigerMW
07-02-2013, 06:05 PM
Terry cautions: "...under the assumption that CT-M168 splits at 70 thousand years ago..."

If, for example, the CT split only 60,000 years ago, then all Terry's numbers must be reduced by 14%. What was 6.1 kya becomes 5.2 kya.

Anatole Klyosov has responded to Terry Robb and Klyosov agrees there should be an earlier yardstick date, even a little earlier yet - 55,000 ybp, which would yield P312 at 4200 ybp.


You approach is certainly valid and useful. However, in this particular case you took the 70 kya for the CT split, which should rather be around 55 kya. As a result, all other estimates are shifted up. For example, R1b-P312 is about 4200 years "old" (3900 ybp on some accounts, which is within the margin of error anyway), I1 has a common ancestor around 3600 ybp, all over Europe. I do not know (and you did not explain) how specifically supported the 70 kya figure which your calibration is based upon. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2013-07/1372781288

I don't think we should get too hung up on the differences other as they are still just estimates. I think these SNP counting methods are pretty well repudiating the evolutionary Y STR mutation rates, though. Even on the high end of this, its hard to go too far back into the Neolithic. I'm NOT saying a Neolithic expansion in Europe for R1b is impossible or outlandish. I think it is clearly within the realms of consideration, however, I think the early Neolithic looks more and more unlikely and the Mesolithic even more so - based on the TMRCA estimates.

alan
07-03-2013, 12:35 AM
Face saver was only me being silly. All I mean is a middle Neolithic spread would fit more comfortably into archaeological thinking. That is not to deny the evidence that all was not well for the Neolithic and this transformed but that does not require migration. There were already dramatic adjustments in isles Neolithic settlement, economical and ritual life as the Neolithic advanced, some mirroring Eastern Europe but pre dating beaker.

However, there is clearly still issues with y DNA dating and it is premature to decide. As has been pointed out, the beaker model is counter intuitive to archaeology minus it's parasiting white coat work from other sciences but it is not impossible. Irish medieval evidence does show huge y line replacement over the last 2000 years and r1b has had a lot linger than that

alan
07-03-2013, 12:51 AM
This would be my bet if I had to put money on it. However, I could be very wrong and the archaeologists will have to just be uncomfortable :)

The basis I have chewed over this subject is that DNA must set some even general chronological parameters before an archaeologist has something to work with. The problem has always been that y dna has been a major weakness for geneticists. Over the years they have suggested hugely different times and locations of origin requiring all sorts of often ultimately fruitless reading into the archaeology of a time and place. However, I don't regret that as I learned a lot in the process even if it was irrelevant to r1b. It kind of reminds me of trying to interpret a site plan where someone has forgotten one or both of the tie in points

Northern Line
07-03-2013, 01:09 AM
The basis I have chewed over this subject is that DNA must set some even general chronological parameters before an archaeologist has something to work with. The problem has always been that y dna has been a major weakness for geneticists. Over the years they have suggested hugely different times and locations of origin requiring all sorts of often ultimately fruitless reading into the archaeology of a time and place. However, I don't regret that as I learned a lot in the process even if it was irrelevant to r1b. It kind of reminds me of trying to interpret a site plan where someone has forgotten one or both of the tie in points

Exactly, even if you're learning about the wrong archaeological places, you're still learning in the end and that's always a good thing. I really hope the Irish genetic studies are published soon, I'm afraid I'll go off to university and forget about the issue and I'll never know haha :)

GailT
07-03-2013, 02:46 AM
The relatively high mtDNA U5b frequency you mentioned on Sardinia, and that Jean mentioned among the Basques, seems to point in the same direction.

The high frequency might only indicate a small, isolated population that is subject to genetic drift. We see this especially in the Saami who have a very high percentage of U5b1b1a. Unfortunately, this has led many mtDNA U5 people to the false conclusion that they have Saami ancestry. I'm very cautious in trying to interpret results for a population that has a very high frequency of a relatively young subclade. It probably says more about bottlenecks than it does about ancient origins of the population.

GailT
07-03-2013, 02:55 AM
I'm wide open to correction but how I see it is that SNP's don't necessarily arise in a systematic manner (ie one very 500 years or whatever), then you have the issue that there are still SNP's to be discovered so each time a new one is discovered then you have to re-adjust the age.

That's the beauty of the analysis based on the full Y genome. We should be able to identify and count all of the SNPs in each individual. It would be interesting to see full Y comparisons of fathers, sons, grandsons etc to see if we can estimate the average number of mutations per generation directly.

Jean M
07-03-2013, 09:33 AM
Face saver was only me being silly. All I mean is a middle Neolithic spread would fit more comfortably into archaeological thinking.

Whose archaeological thinking? I doubt that it would better fit the current consensus among British and Irish archaeologists. Few of them have yet caught up with the new ideas about boom and bust within the European Neolithic. The idea of R1b spreading with dairy farmers (after the early Neolithic) would be just as alien to most of them as its spread with Bell Beaker. The picture in most of their minds is one Neolithic "wave of advance". In that view the Neolithic that reached Scandinavia and the British Isles sprang from the LBK via intermediate cultures. That assumption is built into the standard texts. It took me some time to shake it off myself, even though I knew that the common SNP for lactase persistence was not found in the LBK. I eventually re-worked my text so that dairy farming was presented as a separate wave that eventually became the Neolithic of Scandinavia and the British Isles. My editor was puzzled. This was an unfamiliar approach.

Anti-migrationist orthodoxy wrote "Bell Beaker Folk" out of the story, but at least that concept has a history within British archaeology, even if only one of having scorn poured on it from the 1970s to the 1990s. It is in much the same position as the idea of farming being brought to Europe by actual farmers from afar. That whole idea was fought tooth and nail for decades. But let's not confuse fashions in interpretation with archaeological methodology. The former come and go. The latter is a lasting gift to those who wonder about the human past.

TigerMW
07-03-2013, 11:05 PM
... I cannot accept, from the point of view of archaeology, R1b arriving into Britain and Ireland only during the Copper Age. It goes against everything I have learnt of prehistoric Britain and of human nature.

I've noticed that the Atlantic Megalithic culture of Western Europe tends to be where we have the highest concentration of R1b today. Megaliths of this sort are found in great number in Portugal, Northern Spain/Basque Country/ Western France and the British Isles. To me, this suggests a spread of R1b earlier than the Bronze Age but later than the Mesolithic.

It is inconceivable that a major genocide occurred all across Europe perpetrated by R1b Bell Beaker males. Neolithic Europe had a flourishing culture and we would be looking towards hundreds of thousands of people dying. Britain in ~2500BC is estimated to have had a population of many tens of thousands.

I think if I step back I have to totally agree that tying R1b to Bell Beakers as the primary vehicle for the spread of R1b is a weak hypothesis. We do know at least some R1b was carried in some types of Bell Beaker folks but it is certainly a stretch to account for the total coverage or anything near it for R1b via this vehicle.

On the other hand, all of the other hypotheses seem like they have big holes in them so the Bell Beakers R1b hypothesis is kind of like the last man standing or if we were speaking in terms of macro-economics - the tallest man in a room of short men.

This actually goes back to a discussion that Richard Rocca and I've had related to DF27 in Iberia and that I try to equate (perhaps wrongly) with L21 into Ireland. I don't think there was one fell swoop, just the general tendency of direction in migrations. I can't say that some elements Bell Beaker folks were the first to carry R1b into Western Europe, but they may have been one of the first major expansions to carry R1b.

Something to keep in mind is that Y DNA lineage expansions are not necessarily total population replacement violence born types of events. As has been pointed out, it could be as small a factor as a high correlation to milk tolerance to go with dairying skills, or some slight statistical anomaly in producing "male" sperm. We've got British geneticists who think there was some kind of Anglo-Saxon apartheid system that inhibited Old Brit males. Could that be a factor in other cultures before the Anglo-Saxons?

Northern Line
07-03-2013, 11:37 PM
Something to keep in mind is that Y DNA lineage expansions are not necessarily total population replacement violence born types of events. As has been pointed out, it could be as small a factor as a high correlation to milk tolerance to go with dairying skills, or some slight statistical anomaly in producing "male" sperm. We've got British geneticists who think there was some kind of Anglo-Saxon apartheid system that inhibited Old Brit males. Could that be a factor in other cultures before the Anglo-Saxons?

I think it's really a huge leap of faith to say Bell Beakers = spread of R1b. There are lots of new ideas that come to Britain during the Neolithic which probably means movement of people as well. Of course, none of them seem as decisive or widespread as the Beakers we see. However, a Neolithic spread would mean that a gradual influx of new people for a thousand years plus will gradually replace the older lineages. Then significant Bell Beaker migration would add to it possibly with IE languages. As pointed out by Alan, it would make the archaeologists more happy to agree to recent migration being responsible for present day lineages.

I believe it was Mark Thomas of UCL who came up with the idea of Anglo-Saxon apartheid. I think it's wrong and way too simplistic. Firstly, he said that the Germanic factor in English populations could be explained by background migration in prehistory of huge, modern-day levels of settlers. Obviously this isn't the case. Therefore he said that it must have been significantly the Anglo Saxons. I think it's much more likely that there was always a small amount of background Germanic settlement definitely in the Iron Age with genetically Germanic tribes such as the Belgae and Atrebates etc. Definitely in the Roman period with Saxon legions and Northern Gaulish settlers. Then a new Ang-Sax elite with continuity and new migration from the environmentally stricken areas of Northern Europe. On top of that we have lots of Danes who moved into the Danelaw who are genetically indistinguishable from Angles. Aside from that, one of his colleagues took a look at his data and disagreed with him.

I think "apartheid" is also an anachronistic word. It implies a state structure actively working against one ethnic group. This would be hard to achieve in either prehistory or the early Middle Ages. The evidence for it in the Anglo Saxon period is definitely sketchy with examples against it such as early Wessex kings having British names such as 'Cerdic'. I think any population replacement on the parental lineages would not be brought about by an elite willingly, rather over many years of background migration slowly squashing the Y-DNA and to a lesser extent the mtDNA leaving just autosomal DNA of earlier people. This would work with the population continuity we see from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age.

alan
07-03-2013, 11:40 PM
I didn't say it was right. I just said what was and is the norm of archaeological thinking. I am we'll aware that almost no archaeologists keep remotely up to date with the latest DNA evidence and at best tend to be back in the ice age refugia or Oppenheimer phase. It's what makes me follow this hobby. Almost no other archaeologists do but I think they are wrong to do so. I do not know a single archaeologist who keeps up to date o DNA to the level of the hobbyists on these forums. Fair enough it is slightly outside discipline but I think it is stupid not to combine knowledge

alan
07-03-2013, 11:46 PM
Exactly, even if you're learning about the wrong archaeological places, you're still learning in the end and that's always a good thing. I really hope the Irish genetic studies are published soon, I'm afraid I'll go off to university and forget about the issue and I'll never know haha :)

Thought you said you were a professional archaeologist?

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 12:01 AM
Thought you said you were a professional archaeologist?

Never said I was a professional archaeologist! :) :)

I'm a 19 year old guy about to go to a mediocre London university to study modern history hahahahaha

I've just always had a deep interest in prehistoric Britain and Ireland and the Middle Ages.

Although if the boots fit....B)

TigerMW
07-04-2013, 12:14 AM
Never said I was a professional archaeologist! :) :)

I'm a 19 year old guy about to go to a mediocre London university to study modern history hahahahaha

I've just always had a deep interest in prehistoric Britain and Ireland and the Middle Ages.

Although if the boots fit....B)

Alan, I think you are just thinking of one of Northern Line's response to Razyn. Northern Line never said he was a professional archaeologist.


... Explain to me how R1b became so numerous only in the Copper Age without genocide? You're attempting to explain away evidence and it doesn't work in the real world.
...
You may wish to disagree with professional archaeologists but that's to your detriment. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1052-Bell-Beaker-amp-R1b-A-weak-hypothesis&p=8719&viewfull=1#post8719

The implication is that some professional archaeologists must think either specifically

1) R1b couldn't be so numerous if it only reached Europe in the Copper Age
or that some archaelogists must think that

2) Bell Beaker expansions did not account for enough population replacement to have spread a such a prevailing male lineage as R1b
or maybe that

3) there was no evidence of genocide during the Copper Age so there is no way a Bell Beaker set of paternal lineages could have swamped Europe
or maybe something else.

Northern Line, which archaeologists are saying what that you referred to?

alan
07-04-2013, 12:20 AM
Ah OK I misinterpreted one of your first posts. To be honest I wondered a bit because of a couple of things you said and the fact you kept quoting cunliffe. I don't mean that in a bad way. You know more than most but there are some traits in the way pro archaes write that makes them distinctive ( not all of them good !) like being hyper cautious and heavily qualifying every statement or simply dodging the subject.

Good luck with your studies and I hope you keep up the interest in archaeology.

[QUOTE=Northern Line;9075]Never said I was a professional archaeologist! :) :)

I'm a 19 year old guy about to go to a mediocre London university to study modern history hahahahaha

I've just always had a deep interest in prehistoric Britain and Ireland and the Middle Ages.

Although if the boots fit....B)[/QUOTE

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 12:29 AM
Yeah, I think it was that response. I am in no way authoritative on this subject



The implication is that some professional archaeologists must think either specifically

1) R1b couldn't be so numerous if it only reached Europe in the Copper Age
or that some archaelogists must think that

2) Bell Beaker expansions did not account for enough population replacement to have spread a such a prevailing male lineage as R1b
or maybe that

3) there was no evidence of genocide during the Copper Age so there is no way a Bell Beaker set of paternal lineages could have swamped Europe
or maybe something else.

Northern Line, which archaeologists are saying what that you referred to?


Basically all the books written by archaeologists, historians and viewpoints by anthropologists i've read. None have ever floated the idea of a genocide, but then most people here don't believe that either.

A lot of the historians do seem to be late on DNA. I've got the book on Ireland by Mallory which is unread as of now so I can't comment on him yet.

I've read Francis Pryor (Bronze Age expert and archaeologist)
A couple of books by Barry Cunliffe
A more basic book by Neil Oliver (semi-archaeologist and historian who gave a view influenced by the experts)
A book by Simon Schama on British history
A book by David Miles on British history which is quite detailed on prehistory (he's an archaeologist I believe)
A film and simplified book by an anthropologist interested in the megalith building Brits.

These authors either ignore DNA or just give a basic, perhaps incorrect and outdated overview. However, they still don't see a huge invasion or a huge migration and are quite conservative on debating the issues due to lack of evidence either way. I think they struggle, as I did, in understanding how a Y marker could become so prolific without war.

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 12:32 AM
Ah OK I misinterpreted one of your first posts. To be honest I wondered a bit because of a couple of things you said and the fact you kept quoting cunliffe. I don't mean that in a bad way. You know more than most but there are some traits in the way pro archaes write that makes them distinctive ( not all of them good !) like being hyper cautious and heavily qualifying every statement or simply dodging the subject.

Good luck with your studies and I hope you keep up the interest in archaeology.

Haha, no problem. I hope to keep up with prehistory. The only undergraduate degrees in Britain related to prehistory primarily were at the top universities, and my grades are not the best ;)

TigerMW
07-04-2013, 12:34 AM
Basically all the books written by archaeologists, historians and viewpoints by anthropologists i've read. None have ever floated the idea of a genocide, but then most people here don't believe that either.
...
A lot of the historians do seem to be late on DNA. I've got the book on Ireland by Mallory so I can't comment on him yet.
...
These authors either ignore DNA or just give a basic, perhaps incorrect and outdated overview. However, they still don't see a huge invasion or a huge migration and are quite conservative on debating the issues due to lack of evidence either way. I think they struggle, as I did, in understanding how a Y marker could become so prolific without war.

Okay, so your think of the consensus archaeological opinion is more like #2 that I outlined - "Bell Beaker expansions did not account for enough population replacement to have spread a such a prevailing male lineage as R1b". Correct?

I know this is mostly a theoretical question but I do want to get the mathematical feasibility out of the way.

Do you agree that it is mathematically feasible for one man about 4500 years ago to have one hundred million male lineage descendants today? I mean without implying some wild family sizes or Genghis Kahn-like situations?

alan
07-04-2013, 12:41 AM
Mike
I don't really know of any archaeologists who even consider DNA other than very out of date stuff like Sykes and Oppenheimer. I would actually think 99% have not even heard of R1b! However it is implicit in 99% of what is written that the idea of European yDNA being largely established after the Neolithic will be a massive shock to them and we'll outside the realms of what traditional archaeological thought considered possible. That said migration detection is not the main point of archaeology and has long been considered its weakest suit.

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 12:41 AM
I know this is mostly a theoretical question but I do want to get the mathematical feasibility out of the way.

Do you agree that it is mathematically feasible for one man about 4500 years ago to have one hundred million male lineage descendants today? I mean without implying some wild family sizes or Genghis Kahn-like situations?

I don't properly understand it, and can't comprehend it, yet I do agree due to the information provided by users on here and by other things i've read on the subject. I just struggle to feel any sort of confidence in the dating of when that man lived. I realise that the Y DNA is different from our autosomal DNA which carries our other genetic information from many of our other ancestors.

Oh and yes, I think Bell Beakers are not the earliest point R1b may have hit the British shores.

alan
07-04-2013, 12:48 AM
Haha, no problem. I hope to keep up with prehistory. The only undergraduate degrees in Britain related to prehistory primarily were at the top universities, and my grades are not the best ;)

Good luck anyway. Just one thing about your other post on reading material - Francis Pryor is the most notoriously extreme anti migrationist and you should be aware of that when reading his stuff. He also seems to be a bombastic flannel
Merchant judging by his appearances on time team lol

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 12:57 AM
Good luck anyway. Just one thing about your other post on reading material - Francis Pryor is the most notoriously extreme anti migrationist and you should be aware of that when reading his stuff. He also seems to be a bombastic flannel
Merchant judging by his appearances on time team lol

HAHAHA. I agree with you, he is a man of his time (the 60's) so I have learnt to read other interpretations of the evidence and cross-reference it with his. I do however, really like him as an historian. I'll tell you a story as to why......

On one of the Time Team episodes they were excavating an Iron Age hill fort in Southern England somewhere. They found the first signs of skeletal remains of a baby. One other ''expert'' archaeologist was adamant that this baby was simply thrown away, that the parents didn't care, and was treated no better than rubbish. However, Pryor said he didn't believe that and that people have never simply disregarded their dead children in that manner. Well, it turned out that after further excavation the baby had been carefully laid to rest on a bed of pebbles and not simply ignored in death. Pryor has an ability to connect with how ancient people may have treated certain things such as death, birth, disease, religion and I respect that. Largely because lots of people see prehistoric people as savages or barbarians who aren't quite refined and evolved humans and that was the traditional approach. The new post-WW2 approach has helped shake off that view and give the subject more humanity.

R.Rocca
07-04-2013, 01:11 AM
I don't properly understand it, and can't comprehend it, yet I do agree due to the information provided by users on here and by other things i've read on the subject. I just struggle to feel any sort of confidence in the dating of when that man lived. I realise that the Y DNA is different from our autosomal DNA which carries our other genetic information from many of our other ancestors.

Oh and yes, I think Bell Beakers are not the earliest point R1b may have hit the British shores.

I wouldn't rule out a pre-Beaker arrival in the isles either, but there are substantial issues with a much earlier arrival, say pre-3000BC. Neolithic ancient DNA from France, Germany and Spain has yielded no R1b. I know those places aren't Britain & Ireland, but unless R1b was holed up in the isles (and/or Iberia) in isolation for a very long time and then started an advance from west to east (which has no archaeological and/or genetic/variance backing), then the likelihood of a much earlier arrival is greatly reduced IMO. That scenario would present many times more mismatches with archaeology than an R1b/Bell Beaker/Britain+Ireland scenario.

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 01:21 AM
I wouldn't rule out a pre-Beaker arrival in the isles either, but there are substantial issues with a much earlier arrival, say pre-3000BC. Neolithic ancient DNA from France, Germany and Spain has yielded no R1b. I know those places aren't Britain & Ireland, but unless R1b was holed up in the isles (and/or Iberia) in isolation for a very long time and then started an advance from west to east (which has no archaeological and/or genetic/variance backing), then the likelihood of a much earlier arrival is greatly reduced IMO. That scenario would present many times more mismatches with archaeology than an R1b/Bell Beaker/Britain+Ireland scenario.

I agree that the early Neolithic is not likely. However, I still maintain megalith building is important with Britain and Ireland. One of the earliest stone circles in Britain is Castlerigg dating from 3200BC while stone circles are built well into the Bronze Age with stone circles built 500 years at the earliest after our Beaker friends and metallurgy appear. Bell Beakers are also found underneath stone circle stones. This would be odd if an elite which replaced the Y lineages was present as most elites would want to impose their own culture.

It is also maintained that British culture changes just around the age of Castlerigg with different types and methods of farming with different burial practices, possibly brought by new people? I don't know. But those people must still have been around in great number in the early Bronze Age.

TigerMW
07-04-2013, 01:22 AM
I don't properly understand it, and can't comprehend it, yet I do agree due to the information provided by users on here and by other things i've read on the subject. I just struggle to feel any sort of confidence in the dating of when that man lived. I realise that the Y DNA is different from our autosomal DNA which carries our other genetic information from many of our other ancestors..

Okay, I just wanted to assure you that only a very slight edge in producing children, or at least male children, that in turn produce descendants can lead to a big difference in surprisingly short time periods. Y DNA (paternal) lineages seems to particularly be prone to going extinct so just a slight edge or a lot of luck can make a big difference over a thousand years.

TigerMW
07-04-2013, 01:25 AM
I agree that the early Neolithic is not likely. However, I still maintain megalith building is important with Britain and Ireland. One of the earliest stone circles in Britain is Castlerigg dating from 3200BC while stone circles are built well into the Bronze Age with stone circles built 500 years at the earliest after our Beaker friends and metallurgy appear. This would be odd if an elite which replaced the Y lineages was present as most elites would want to impose their own culture.

If there was a great deal of inter-marriage we might see an integration of cultures rather than an imposition of a totally new one. At some point, apparently we do see an imposition of Indo-European languages. I'm not sure when that happened or who brought them but they came from far east of Britain.

The people who originally built the megaliths, if they survived, had to learn IE languages at some point. That is not to say the Beaker folks brought those languages, but they are one of the first candidates who could have brought them.

You are reading Cunliffe, right? I thought he and Koch had some kind of hypothesis possibly linking Celtic speaking with the "west", possibly as early as the Beaker folks. If so, even they would probably admit that IE languages (PIE itself)[EDIT] did not originate in Western Europe, but probably far to the east.

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 01:27 AM
Okay, I just wanted to assure you that only a very slight edge in producing children, or at least male children, that in turn produce descendants can lead to a big difference in surprisingly short time periods. Y DNA (paternal) lineages seems to particularly be prone to going extinct so just a slight edge or a lot of luck can make a big difference over a thousand years.

Yeah, I definitely understand that now and was too hung up on violence beforehand. Thanks :)

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 01:31 AM
If there was a great of inter-marriage we might see an integration of cultures rather than an imposition of a totally new one. At some point, apparently we do see an imposition of Indo-European languages. I'm not sure when that happened or who brought them but they came from far east of Britain.

The people who originally built the megaliths, if they survived, had to learn IE languages at some point. That is not to say the Beaker folks brought those languages, but they are one of the first candidates who could have brought them.

You are reading Cunliffe, right? I thought he and Koch had some kind of hypothesis possibly linking Celtic speaking with the "west", possibly as early as the Beaker folks. If so, even they would probably admit that IE languages did not originate in Western Europe, but probably far to the east.

Yeah, i'm working my way through Cunliffe's recent book on Britain. I haven't read his 'Celtic from the West' book so I can't comment. I think it must be very likely that Bell Beaker people brought this new language with them, I just think they may not have been the ones to replace the lineages. Or maybe they were a benign elite who adopted the native culture through time and it was only Y DNA that changed, not the people per se.

TigerMW
07-04-2013, 02:23 AM
Yeah, i'm working my way through Cunliffe's recent book on Britain. I haven't read his 'Celtic from the West' book so I can't comment. I think it must be very likely that Bell Beaker people brought this new language with them, I just think they may not have been the ones to replace the lineages. Or maybe they were a benign elite who adopted the native culture through time and it was only Y DNA that changed, not the people per se.

Why do you think that some group of Bell Beaker folks did not at least initiate the replacement of Y (paternal) lineages? By that I mean I don't necessarily think they completed the process but they could have started it.

What do you mean by benign? ... non-violent?

David Mc
07-04-2013, 02:25 AM
... Bell Beakers are also found underneath stone circle stones. This would be odd if an elite which replaced the Y lineages was present as most elites would want to impose their own culture...

Actually, this is would be unsurprising to me. Many ancient cultures seem to have been henotheistic-- which is to say, they had their own tribal god(s), but acknowledged the existence of other gods who held dominion over other territories. When one came into another god's realm, one honored that god. It's impossible to say anything definitive about the beliefs of any of the pre-iron age peoples (and only a little more about the iron age cultus), but adaptation to local customs may very well have been par for the course.

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 02:35 AM
Why do you think that some group of Bell Beaker folks did not at least initiate the replacement of Y (paternal) lineages? By that I mean I don't necessarily think they completed the process but they could have started it.

What do you mean by benign? ... non-violent?

By benign, I mean an elite which did not attempt to end the religious aspect of the native peoples. Non-benign I guess means violent and/or a push to enforce their religion. For example, how the European empires forced Christianity upon the natives of other countries because of a belief in 'saving' people who are different.

I think it's perfectly likely the Beaker people did initiate it, but that it must also be considered that R1b was already there considering cultural and religious changes that happened circa 3300BC which could also fit the spread of R1b.

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 02:39 AM
Actually, this is would be unsurprising to me. Many ancient cultures seem to have been henotheistic-- which is to say, they had their own tribal god(s), but acknowledged the existence of other gods who held dominion over other territories. When one came into another god's realm, one honored that god. It's impossible to say anything definitive about the beliefs of any of the pre-iron age peoples (and only a little more about the iron age cultus), but adaptation to local customs may very well have been par for the course.

Good point, it's just hard to have any idea what pre-Bronze Age people would have believed in this respect. I guess we'll never know but you could well be correct.

Aside from that, my take is on continuity and mixture of cultures. It just seems odd how Bell Beakers turn up quite suddenly presumably with an elite with a new burial practice, with lavish grave goods at times. Yet it's the Bell Beakers that end up connected to Neolithic-style stone circles as well as grave goods continuing in a Beaker fashion. Indeed the megaliths continue to be constructed long after the British use of Bell Beakers disappears. Round barrows were also already used in Britain before the Bell Beakers so that can't really be used as an indicator. The long barrows ended with the new British culture ~3300BC.

TigerMW
07-04-2013, 03:06 AM
I think it's perfectly likely the Beaker people did initiate it, but that it must also be considered that R1b was already there considering cultural and religious changes that happened circa 3300BC which could also fit the spread of R1b.

Is there any genetic data that leads you to think R1b was involved with the megaliths before the Beakers showed up? Surely it is possible, but are there reasons why you think that is likely?

I'm not that knowledgable about megaliths. I imagine there are different types, right? Of the ones in Britain, where were they likely to have originated or in what other areas are the same kinds of megaliths found? and when were they originally built? this particular type that is?

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 03:08 AM
Reposted elsewhere.

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 03:15 AM
Is there any genetic data that leads you to think R1b was involved with the megaliths before the Beakers showed up? Sure it is possible, but are there reasons why you think that is likely?

I'm not that knowledgable about megaliths. I imagine there are different types, right? Of the ones in Britain, where were they likely to have originated or in what other areas are the same kinds of megaliths found? and when were they originally built? this particular type that is?

My reason for believing it could be earlier is because:

1: We have no ancient British/Irish Neolithic DNA yet.
2: Continental DNA is still in short supply.
3: R1b dating to ~3300 BC would still fit with dating.
4. Kromsdorf R1b is very early

However, I am very open to it being with the Beaker people

Megaliths are a big subject. Basically, British/Irish/Brittany megaliths share similarities and the earliest are in Brittany and apparently re-use some possible Mesolithic standing stones etc. It's commonly cited that the British megalithic culture lasted from 3300 BC to 1500BC or later. So, really, they could have developed from many cultures many thousands of years earlier than the ones we see today. The important point is that it continues through and past the Beaker stage.

There are a few different types. Some early ones are graves such as passage tombs, long barrows with stones at the entrance, dolmens etc. Later ones are stone circles. Standing stones themselves carry on through all ages so they themselves aren't a sign of a culture and they really should be called a monolith.

TigerMW
07-04-2013, 03:18 AM
I'm going to ask another question which might actually be really stupid or really complicated.

Say, Bell Beaker people did replace the Y lineages without violence and just through social differences, how much Pre-Beaker Neolithic genetics would a British/Irish person today have? Would we still be majority Neolithic but with a 'foreign' Y signal or does the Y lineage carry more than any other chromosome?

Thanks in advance.

That's more of an autosomal DNA question. Maybe someone like Jean can answer that. However, I do think that Y DNA lineages are proving to be quite unstable with many going extinct, so I can see it being likely that some autosomal DNA has been around a long time relative to Y DNA. I'm not sure they are right, but some of these testing companies are claiming percentages of Neanderthal and Denisovan autosomal DNA in us, which is "pre" Homo Sapiens Sapiens so Paleolithic at the least.

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 03:21 AM
That's more of an autosomal DNA question. Maybe someone like Jean can answer that. However, I do think that Y DNA lineages are proving to be quite unstable with many going extinct, so I can see it being likely that some autosomal DNA has been around a long time relative to Y DNA. I'm not sure they are right, but some of these testing companies are claiming percentages of Neanderthal and Denisovan autosomal DNA in us, which is "pre" Homo Sapiens Sapiens so Paleolithic at the least.

Thanks

I've heard about this apparent 2-3% Neanderthal lurking around. That would have to be very old. Interestingly, I remember reading that this could have just been a few individual admixture events rather than something that was prolific.

TigerMW
07-04-2013, 03:27 AM
My reason for believing it could be earlier is because:

1: We have no ancient British/Irish Neolithic DNA yet.
2: Continental DNA is still in short supply.
3: R1b dating to ~3300 BC would still fit with dating.
4. Kromsdorf R1b is very early

However, I am very open to it being with the Beaker people

I agree we should all be open as we are just speculating.

These four items are all non-affirmative points. They don't make any alternative most likely. They just leave the door open to potential alternatives. Do you have any affirmative reasons that you think R1b was in Britain earlier than the Beaker folks in a significant way?


Megaliths are a big subject. Basically, British/Irish/Brittany megaliths share similarities and the earliest are in Brittany and apparently re-use some possible Mesolithic standing stones etc. It's commonly cited that the British megalithic culture lasted from 3300 BC to 1500BC or later. So, really, they could have developed from many cultures many thousands of years earlier than the ones we see today. The important point is that it continues through and past the Beaker stage.

There are a few different types. Some early ones are graves such as passage tombs, long barrows with stones at the entrance, dolmens etc. Later ones are stone circles. Standing stones themselves carry on through all ages so they themselves aren't a sign of a culture and they really should be called a monolith.

As you point out, megaliths are not megaliths are not megaliths. Of the ones common in Britain, I think you are saying their commonality is relegated to the British Isles and Bretagne, is that correct? and they were initiated in the 3300 BC timeframe? do we know from where?

It is interesting that these areas overlay the areas where R1b-L21 is heaviest. The question is - does that have more to do with the fact they are heavily Celtic speaking areas or with the British type megaliths or something else? I don't know. Perhaps looking at L21's peers would be helpful. What other regional megalith types are there and what regions do they entail. We could be onto something if we can overlay them with the distribution of R1b's major subclades.

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 03:41 AM
I agree we should all be open as we are just speculating.

These four items are all non-affirmative points. They don't make any alternative most likely. They just leave the door open to potential alternatives. Do you have any affirmative reasons that you think R1b was in Britain earlier than the Beaker folks in a significant way?

As you point out, megaliths are not megaliths are not megaliths. Of the ones common in Britain, I think you are saying their commonality is relegated to the British Isles and Bretagne, is that correct? and they were initiated in the 3300 BC timeframe? do we know from where?

It is interesting that these areas overlay the areas where R1b-L21 is heaviest. The question is - does that have more to do with the fact they are heavily Celtic speaking areas or with the British type megaliths or something else? I don't know. Perhaps looking at L21's peers would be helpful. What other regional megalith types are there and what regions do they entail. We could be onto something if we can overlay them with the distribution of R1b's major subclades.

My only affirmative point is that British Neolithic culture changed quite suddenly in ~3300BC. My other points just show that it could well be possible.

Yes, the Isles, Brittany and also the Basque areas (but they are late Bronze Age/Iron Age so probably unconnected). The megalith building probably spread from Brittany along the Atlantic coast. There's few stone circles in Eastern England, although this could be because higher recent populations = more destruction.

I've noticed before that Brittany, Ireland & Britain have the most but I don't know how significant that is otherwise. Stone circles are more of an Isles phenomenon than Breton though. L21 is probably very heavy in Brittany because of the post-Roman movement of South-West Britons.

Jean M
07-04-2013, 08:57 AM
You are reading Cunliffe, right? .... even they would probably admit that IE languages (PIE itself) did not originate in Western Europe, but probably far to the east.

They do indeed. They specifically state that they are not proposing a new PIE homeland theory.

Webb
07-04-2013, 11:03 AM
My only affirmative point is that British Neolithic culture changed quite suddenly in ~3300BC. My other points just show that it could well be possible.

Yes, the Isles, Brittany and also the Basque areas (but they are late Bronze Age/Iron Age so probably unconnected). The megalith building probably spread from Brittany along the Atlantic coast. There's few stone circles in Eastern England, although this could be because higher recent populations = more destruction.

I've noticed before that Brittany, Ireland & Britain have the most but I don't know how significant that is otherwise. Stone circles are more of an Isles phenomenon than Breton though. L21 is probably very heavy in Brittany because of the post-Roman movement of South-West Britons.

There are a large number of Dolmen's in the Netherlands that quite possibly rival the age of the megaliths in Brittany. 3400 B.C. Is the current age of the oldest sites in the Netherlands.

Northern Line
07-04-2013, 04:41 PM
There are a large number of Dolmen's in the Netherlands that quite possibly rival the age of the megaliths in Brittany. 3400 B.C. Is the current age of the oldest sites in the Netherlands.

That's interesting if the ages of Dutch dolmens are similar to Brittany's. Dolmens are odd as they're found as far east as Korea and as far south as India. However, Brittany's megaliths are much older. This site > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnenez is more than a thousand years older than 3400 BC, along with this > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Menhir_of_Er_Grah and possibly the famous Carnac stones > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnac_stones

Webb
07-04-2013, 10:05 PM
That's interesting if the ages of Dutch dolmens are similar to Brittany's. Dolmens are odd as they're found as far east as Korea and as far south as India. However, Brittany's megaliths are much older. This site > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnenez is more than a thousand years older than 3400 BC, along with this > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Menhir_of_Er_Grah and possibly the famous Carnac stones > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnac_stones

As you said in an earlier post. The stone itself is not easy to put an age on, as far as when they were erected. You can surmise where and when they were deposited in a certain place, but not when a human decided to move them and erect a structure. The age in the Netherlands correspond with human deposits in the areas close to the structures. Also, we know pretty well that L21 had had the run of the isles for a long time without much pressure from the continent until maybe mid Iron Age. The Netherlands however had always been a gate to and from Scandinavia and Germany, so my guess is that what we see today, might not represent what the haplogroup distribution was at around 2500 B.C. L21 is found in the German population at a decent concentration.

Northern Line
07-05-2013, 01:17 AM
As you said in an earlier post. The stone itself is not easy to put an age on, as far as when they were erected. You can surmise where and when they were deposited in a certain place, but not when a human decided to move them and erect a structure. The age in the Netherlands correspond with human deposits in the areas close to the structures. Also, we know pretty well that L21 had had the run of the isles for a long time without much pressure from the continent until maybe mid Iron Age. The Netherlands however had always been a gate to and from Scandinavia and Germany, so my guess is that what we see today, might not represent what the haplogroup distribution was at around 2500 B.C. L21 is found in the German population at a decent concentration.

When do you propose that L21 made it to Germany originally?

Webb
07-05-2013, 03:29 AM
When do you propose that L21 made it to Germany originally?

I really can only guess that as they were expanding west into the isles they were possibly expanding north and east ad well. If U106 and R1a were still absent from what is now Germany, then they might not have met with much opposition. So if they were migrating to the isles at around 2000 B.C., then I would think its reasonable to expect them to be moving east also.

TigerMW
07-05-2013, 02:37 PM
You are reading Cunliffe, right? .... even they would probably admit that IE languages (PIE itself) did not originate in Western Europe, but probably far to the east.


They do indeed. They specifically state that they are not proposing a new PIE homeland theory.

This is amusing. I can't believe I'm so slow as to have just grasped the irony since the only two strong hypotheses, IMO, are the Steppes and Anatolia. Cunliffe and Koch seems to support that. Their proposal narrows the gap and number of alternatives available for IE to have reached the Atlantic.

From "Celtic Scholar's Reviews and Opinions", a review of "Celtic From the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archeology, Genetics, Language and Literature Edited by Barry Cunliffe and John T. Koch",

"The theory discussed in this book is : “Celtic probably evolved in the Atlantic Zone during the Bronze Age.” It should be noted that this departure (1) does not involve a re-evaluation of Indo-European as the language from which Celtic evolved, (2) does not require a relocation of the Indo-European homeland itself to the west (nor does it favor any particular homeland for it), and (3) continues to regard the La Téne culture as predominately Celtic speaking from its beginnings in the 5th century BC and most probably also its Hallstatt predecessor, especially the western Hallstatt D of the 6th century BC. Some definitions that should be known: Atlantic Zone: Ireland, Britain, Armorica, and the north and west of the Iberian Peninsula. Celtic: is meant in a linguistic sense, meaning the language family and the ancestral proto-language." http://celticscholar.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/celtic-from-the-west-alternative-perspectives-from-archeology-genetics-language-and-literature-edited-by-barry-cunliffe-and-john-t-koch/

- You can't have PIE without metals, wheels, horses, etc.
- PIE is apparently from no further west than the Pontic Steppes or West Asia.. [Edit]
- Proto-Celtic has to be younger than PIE and it couldn't appear before the Chalcolithic(Copper).
- Proto-Celtic was spoken pre-Iron Age, in the Bronze Age according to Koch/Cunliffe.
- Proto-Celtic was spoken in the Atlantic Zone according to Koch/Cunliffe.

This eliminates a lot of alternatives hypotheses and narrows the gap.

- At the same time we have this extremely strong correlation of Celtic lands in the Classical timeframe with modern R1b-P312 distribution.

Webb
07-05-2013, 04:27 PM
This is amusing. I can't believe I'm so slow as to have just grasped the irony since the only two strong hypotheses, IMO, are the Steppes and Anatolia. Cunliffe and Koch seems to support that. Their proposal narrows the gap and number of alternatives available for IE to have reached the Atlantic.

From "Celtic Scholar's Reviews and Opinions", a review of "Celtic From the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archeology, Genetics, Language and Literature Edited by Barry Cunliffe and John T. Koch",

The theory discussed in this book is : “Celtic probably evolved in the Atlantic Zone during the Bronze Age.” It should be noted that this departure (1) does not involve a re-evaluation of Indo-European as the language from which Celtic evolved, (2) does not require a relocation of the Indo-European homeland itself to the west (nor does it favor any particular homeland for it), and (3) continues to regard the La Téne culture as predominately Celtic speaking from its beginnings in the 5th century BC and most probably also its Hallstatt predecessor, especially the western Hallstatt D of the 6th century BC. Some definitions that should be known: Atlantic Zone: Ireland, Britain, Armorica, and the north and west of the Iberian Peninsula. Celtic: is meant in a linguistic sense, meaning the language family and the ancestral proto-language. http://celticscholar.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/celtic-from-the-west-alternative-perspectives-from-archeology-genetics-language-and-literature-edited-by-barry-cunliffe-and-john-t-koch/

- You can't have PIE without metals, wheels, horses, etc.
- PIE is apparently from West Asia.
- Proto-Celtic has to be younger than PIE and it couldn't appear before the Chalcolithic(Copper).
- Proto-Celtic was spoken pre-Iron Age, in the Bronze Age according to Koch/Cunliffe.
- Proto-Celtic was spoken in the Atlantic Zone according to Koch/Cunliffe.

This eliminates a lot of alternatives hypotheses and narrows the gap.

- At the same time we have this extremely strong correlation of Celtic lands in the Classical timeframe with modern R1b-P312 distribution.

What do these implications mean to U152 and DF27? If L21 was in the isles long before there was a Hallstatt, then that variety of L21 couldn't have been the facilitator of the Hallstatt. We suspect they were already speaking a Celtic language prior to the Hallstatt, then you might have to assume that DF27 and U152 were as well.

Jean M
07-05-2013, 04:32 PM
- PIE is apparently from West Asia.


Not exactly. As you say there are only two PIE homeland theories in serious contention these days: steppe and Anatolia. (And Anatolia is out of contention if you accept the dating by lexicon, as you evidently do.) While Anatolia counts as West Asia, the steppe west of the Urals is now considered part of Europe. So if we are talking in terms of modern geography, it is just inside Europe.

In Classical times the Don was accounted the border between Europe and Asia. PIE was very likely spoken on both sides of it, making it a most politically tactful language! :)

MJost
07-05-2013, 05:15 PM
Is this Steppes map current?
http://www.britannica.com/media/full/3658

MJost

TigerMW
07-05-2013, 05:46 PM
- PIE is apparently from West Asia.


Not exactly. As you say there are only two PIE homeland theories in serious contention these days: steppe and Anatolia. (And Anatolia is out of contention if you accept the dating by lexicon, as you evidently do.) While Anatolia counts as West Asia, the steppe west of the Urals is now considered part of Europe. So if we are talking in terms of modern geography, it is just inside Europe.

In Classical times the Don was accounted the border between Europe and Asia. PIE was very likely spoken on both sides of it, making it a most politically tactful language! :)

I agree with what you are saying but my terminology on Europe and Asia is just a little different, or perhaps behind and I don't see a crisp, clear line between West Asia and East Europe. I was counting the steppes as West Asia but that's fine if Urals are correct dividers. So, I'll reword it like this.

- PIE is apparently from no further west than the Pontic Steppes or West Asia.

I do not think PIE's homeland is Anatolia but I see that there is a significant argument for that so my wording is just an accommodation of that. Almost more to my point is that I don't see any significant argument for a PIE homeland in Western Europe or Germany, Poland, Italy, Greece, etc. It's all points east.

The good news about the Koch/Cunliffe hypothesis on "Celtic from the West" is, if we accept it, that closes the gap another 1000 years on when/how PIE must have come its homeland. Instead of saying we have Celtic speakers all over Western Europe during the Classical timeframe we are inching back into pre-1000 BC territory. If we keep pressing backward in time, we'll be up against the Bell Beakers, as far as the spread of IE speaking goes.

I think it is great news that there could be a large geographical gap remaining while the timing gap is closing. This limits the number of potential cultural vehicles available to carry IE to the Atlantic.

Well, the gap is still there but it is closing. I'm surprised I haven't heard you speak of the stelae for a while. There must be some missing links out there. Do you see the stelae as the key link? or is the key link really some complex set of related findings waiting to be found?

Jean M
07-05-2013, 06:05 PM
The good news about the Koch/Cunliffe hypothesis on "Celtic from the West" is, if we accept it, that closes the gap another 1000 years ...

I don't accept it, but I wouldn't worry about that. They are two of a number of academics who have been pushing back the spread of Celtic from the Iron Age to the Copper-Bronze Age. The exact point it spread from is less important from the chronological point of view.


I'm surprised I haven't heard you speak of the stelae for a while.

I should have thought you'd be tired of hearing about them! :) Yes they are the link between the steppe and Bell Beaker, as demonstrated by Harrison and Heyd 2007.

Jean M
07-05-2013, 06:08 PM
Is this Steppes map current?
http://www.britannica.com/media/full/3658


Yes - that is the area of dry grassland today, identified as cold steppe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steppe

TigerMW
07-05-2013, 06:30 PM
On the anthropomorphic stelae ...
I should have thought you'd be tired of hearing about them! :) Yes they are the link between the steppe and Bell Beaker, as demonstrated by Harrison and Heyd 2007.

No, no. I think few people understand them. I'd love see a good "con" argument against the linkage of anthropomorphic stelae with the Bell Beakers. Have there been rebuttals to Harrison and Heyd? I think it would be good to see it thrashed around a bit to see if any disagreement can stand.

In "The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millenium BC", 2007, Harrison and Heyd wrote,
"Our analysis of the funeral monuments, the anthropomorphic stelae, and the material remains (which form three independent Quellengruppen) shows the tensions between tradition and innovation, and the successive adaptions of a local Late Neolithic population to the different branches of the Bell Beaker ideology and the Early Bronze Age. We compare Sion with the similar structured site of Aosta-‘St.Martin-de-Corléans’, and locate both complexes in the wider framework of Europe in the third millennium BC. The comparison extends to include the immigration of the Yamnaya populations from the northern Pontic steppes into east and southeast Europe, and ends with the emergence of the Bell Beaker phenomenon on the west of the Iberian Peninsula. This is all set into the wider transformation horizon between 2900 and 2700BC."
http://academia.edu/1249547/_2007_R.J._Harrison_and_V._Heyd_The_Transformation _of_Europe_in_the_Third_Millennium_BC_The_Example_ of_Le_Petit_Chasseur_I_III_Sion_Valais_Switzerland _._Praehistorische_Zeitschrift_82_2_2007_p._129-214

MJost
07-05-2013, 06:35 PM
So my question: Was this wide area similar back 5000 to 7000 years ago? I just didnt realize that it was such a hugh area.

MJost

TigerMW
07-05-2013, 06:53 PM
So my question: Was this wide area similar back 5000 to 7000 years ago? I just didnt realize that it was such a hugh area.

Oh yes, it is huge indeed. The great Eurasian Steppes are several million square miles, I think I calculated around six or seven.

Spencer Wells called it a "great highway". This has been one of Alan's points, but I'm not sure why we might think that same people have lived there for the last four or five thousand years, and that they would be uniform? There aren't that many great hiding places/safe havens.

MJost
07-05-2013, 07:11 PM
1500 miles across would take at 8 Mph/ 12 km/h. the horse can travel over 100 miles a day. It is said that the "The Wild Ride of the Abernathy Boys" did New York to San Francisco in 62 days.

MJost

TigerMW
07-05-2013, 07:21 PM
1500 miles across would take at 8 Mph/ 12 km/h. the horse can travel over 100 miles a day. It is said that the "The Wild Ride of the Abernathy Boys" did New York to San Francisco in 62 days.

MJost

I think the large rivers may have been a bit of imposition since they didn't have bridges back then, but they can be forded if the right location and time of year are found.

This reminds of my ggg-grandfather since I'll be in Tennessee tomorrow near start of his wild ride in "Grierson's Raid" through Mississippi as a preamble for the "Battle of the South". John Wayne and William Holden were with him (see the "Horse Soldiers"). :) ... but the eyewitness account goes that as Grierson's main unit cut the bridges behind them to delay their Confederate pursuers, one of Grierson's wayward scouting units came across the main group and asked them kindly not to cut the bridge until they crossed. They were all dead tired and had been riding for 17 straight days pretty much non-stop. They were covered with dirt so you couldn't tell their uniforms were blue. I don't know if they were running on caffeine or fear. They commandeered (traded) horses all the way through.

When did the old pull rope/ferry/tool system get started?

Jean M
07-05-2013, 07:39 PM
I'd love see a good "con" argument against the linkage of anthropomorphic stelae with the Bell Beakers. Have there been rebuttals to Harrison and Heyd?

You mean that you would like me to argue against myself, because you don't think that the repeated attacks of others really stand up? How very flattering. :)

newtoboard
07-05-2013, 08:14 PM
This is amusing. I can't believe I'm so slow as to have just grasped the irony since the only two strong hypotheses, IMO, are the Steppes and Anatolia. Cunliffe and Koch seems to support that. Their proposal narrows the gap and number of alternatives available for IE to have reached the Atlantic.

From "Celtic Scholar's Reviews and Opinions", a review of "Celtic From the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archeology, Genetics, Language and Literature Edited by Barry Cunliffe and John T. Koch",

"The theory discussed in this book is : “Celtic probably evolved in the Atlantic Zone during the Bronze Age.” It should be noted that this departure (1) does not involve a re-evaluation of Indo-European as the language from which Celtic evolved, (2) does not require a relocation of the Indo-European homeland itself to the west (nor does it favor any particular homeland for it), and (3) continues to regard the La Téne culture as predominately Celtic speaking from its beginnings in the 5th century BC and most probably also its Hallstatt predecessor, especially the western Hallstatt D of the 6th century BC. Some definitions that should be known: Atlantic Zone: Ireland, Britain, Armorica, and the north and west of the Iberian Peninsula. Celtic: is meant in a linguistic sense, meaning the language family and the ancestral proto-language." http://celticscholar.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/celtic-from-the-west-alternative-perspectives-from-archeology-genetics-language-and-literature-edited-by-barry-cunliffe-and-john-t-koch/

- You can't have PIE without metals, wheels, horses, etc.
- PIE is apparently from no further west than the Pontic Steppes or West Asia.. [Edit]
- Proto-Celtic has to be younger than PIE and it couldn't appear before the Chalcolithic(Copper).
- Proto-Celtic was spoken pre-Iron Age, in the Bronze Age according to Koch/Cunliffe.
- Proto-Celtic was spoken in the Atlantic Zone according to Koch/Cunliffe.

This eliminates a lot of alternatives hypotheses and narrows the gap.

- At the same time we have this extremely strong correlation of Celtic lands in the Classical timeframe with modern R1b-P312 distribution.

Sorry PIE can't be from West Asia. The correlation of IE languages to R1a and R1b would make this impossible. Unless you have jumped on the bandwagon of making J2a (in addition to E, J1, G, L2) a PIE lineage.

Jean M
07-05-2013, 08:20 PM
Here is pdf of the slides of a lecture by Alain Gallay (Professeur honoraire de l’Université de Genève) on anthropomorphic stelae and Bell Beaker in 2011: http://www.archeo-gallay.ch/7a_ineditsTx/7aPetitChasseur1.pdf

The text is in French, but there are a lot of images that tell the story, including maps. I thought he had some argument with Harrison and Heyd, but I can't see what it was. Seems to be making the same case.

R.Rocca
07-05-2013, 08:23 PM
On the anthropomorphic stelae ...

No, no. I think few people understand them. I'd love see a good "con" argument against the linkage of anthropomorphic stelae with the Bell Beakers. Have there been rebuttals to Harrison and Heyd? I think it would be good to see it thrashed around a bit to see if any disagreement can stand.

In "The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millenium BC", 2007, Harrison and Heyd wrote,
"Our analysis of the funeral monuments, the anthropomorphic stelae, and the material remains (which form three independent Quellengruppen) shows the tensions between tradition and innovation, and the successive adaptions of a local Late Neolithic population to the different branches of the Bell Beaker ideology and the Early Bronze Age. We compare Sion with the similar structured site of Aosta-‘St.Martin-de-Corléans’, and locate both complexes in the wider framework of Europe in the third millennium BC. The comparison extends to include the immigration of the Yamnaya populations from the northern Pontic steppes into east and southeast Europe, and ends with the emergence of the Bell Beaker phenomenon on the west of the Iberian Peninsula. This is all set into the wider transformation horizon between 2900 and 2700BC."
http://academia.edu/1249547/_2007_R.J._Harrison_and_V._Heyd_The_Transformation _of_Europe_in_the_Third_Millennium_BC_The_Example_ of_Le_Petit_Chasseur_I_III_Sion_Valais_Switzerland _._Praehistorische_Zeitschrift_82_2_2007_p._129-214

I don't think anybody can really deny the anthropomorphic stelae/Bell Beaker link (in certain areas) because it is quite obvious that some stelae depict Bell Beaker people. This is based on clothing patterns, daggers and archery equipment. However, H&H go on to link Bell Beaker and Yamnaya based on Yamnaya expansion into the Carpathians around 2,900 BC. This is a big issue as D.Telegin and J.Mallory see no stone working tradition in Yamnaya and instead credit the stelae to the Kemi-Oba culture which was very local to the Crimea and the area just to the north of it. If Jean makes a case for a Kemi-Oba migration west in her upcoming book, I think she will be the first to do so.

TigerMW
07-05-2013, 08:37 PM
Sorry PIE can't be from West Asia. The correlation of IE languages to R1a and R1b would make this impossible. Unless you have jumped on the bandwagon of making J2a (in addition to E, J1, G, L2) a PIE lineage.

I'm on no purist bandwagon of any kind, whether J2a, E, J1, G and L2 are PIE lineages or not, I don't know and haven't researched it. As you know, I'm not trying call any haplogroup pure of anything nor much of anything (i.e. PIE) pure of any haplogroup.

I wouldn't necessarily say R1b was in in the PIE homeland, but if it wasn't, it apparently caught its early trains out of town going west a long a time ago.

Since you were responding to "PIE is apparently from no further west than the Pontic Steppes or West Asia" I take it that means you think PIE had to come from the Pontic Steppes, right? That's fine, you are good company with Mallory and Anthony.

TigerMW
07-05-2013, 08:44 PM
I don't think anybody can really deny the anthropomorphic stelae/Bell Beaker link (in certain areas) because it is quite obvious that some stelae depict Bell Beaker people. This is based on clothing patterns, daggers and archery equipment. However, H&H go on to link Bell Beaker and Yamnaya based on Yamnaya expansion into the Carpathians around 2,900 BC. This is a big issue as D.Telegin and J.Mallory see no stone working tradition in Yamnaya and instead credit the stelae to the Kemi-Oba culture which was very local to the Crimea and the area just to the north of it. If Jean makes a case for a Kemi-Oba migration west in her upcoming book, I think she will be the first to do so.

Okay, now I'm confused unless we have some confusion on who is Yamnaya or not.


"Kemi Oba culture, ca. 3700—2200, an archaeological culture at the northwest face of the Sea of Azov, the lower Bug and Dnieper Rivers and the Crimea. This was a component of the larger Yamna horizon" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemi_Oba_culture

As you know, I am on the bandwagon that the Yamnaya was an horizon and probably not uniform both genetically or linguistically, if only in variation.

Given that, I have no problem accepting the Kemi-Oba culture as a potential element of the Yamnaya horizon. Does that matter?

Is anyone arguing that the language, genetics and/or culture were uniform across the full extent of the Yamnaya horizon during the PIE phase? This is just simplistic thinking on my behalf, but the area was so large I could hardly see them being uniform. I would not be surprised if it would not be analgous to the Celtics, who were not of one nation but a variety of tribes and practices that had some commonalities. ... all shapes and sizes.

Jean M
07-05-2013, 08:58 PM
If Jean makes a case for a Kemi-Oba migration west in her upcoming book, I think she will be the first to do so.

Up to a point. I bring the concept of migration to the story. But the cultural link has been made by others.

The idea of stelae presumably came from the Near East. The earliest versions among the Kemi-Oba were arranged in stone circles. We can trace the heritage of that idea back to Göbekli Tepe. Kemi Oba was influenced by Maikop. So we can guess the idea filtered in that way. But once it was in the Kemi Oba culture, the idea was available to other steppe groups. Kemi Oba was caught up into the Yamnaya Horizon. That horizon began it seems close to the Urals and swept west along the steppe. It did not have a tradition of stone-working when it started near the Urals. But the stelae spread into other parts of the steppe subsequently, as well as up the Danube, etc.

That spread from the steppe is recognised by Harrison and Heyd 2007, Robb 2009 and Galley 2011 (the lecture slides to which I just linked.)

R.Rocca
07-05-2013, 09:34 PM
Okay, now I'm confused unless we have some confusion on who is Yamnaya or not.


"Kemi Oba culture, ca. 3700—2200, an archaeological culture at the northwest face of the Sea of Azov, the lower Bug and Dnieper Rivers and the Crimea. This was a component of the larger Yamna horizon" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemi_Oba_culture

As you know, I am on the bandwagon that the Yamnaya was an horizon and probably not uniform both genetically or linguistically, if only in variation.

Given that, I have no problem accepting the Kemi-Oba culture as a potential element of the Yamnaya horizon. Does that matter?

Is anyone arguing that the language, genetics and/or culture were uniform across the full extent of the Yamnaya horizon during the PIE phase? This is just simplistic thinking on my behalf, but the area was so large I could hardly see them being uniform. I would not be surprised if it would not be analgous to the Celtics, who were not of one nation but a variety of tribes and practices that had some commonalities. ... all shapes and sizes.

I'm not really bringing language or genetics into it, but rather answering your prior question based solely on archaeology. The Yamnaya seem to have toppled pre-existing stelae and used them as covering slabs for their graves. Some stelae are buried outside of funerary contexts leading Telegin and Mallory to conclude that the Kemi-Oba people erected the stelae and buried them when the Yamnaya advanced so as not to have them destroyed and/or re-used. Whether the Kemi-Oba were a sub-set of Yamnaya or not, the people that moved west into the Carpathians in 2900 BC did not seem to bring the stelae tradition with them. I think Jean mentioned some trace of stelae, in Hungary I believe, but I think they are very rare and I don't know of any that were used in the Carpathian Yamnaya kurgans as they were in southern Ukraine.

Jean M
07-05-2013, 10:04 PM
the people that moved west into the Carpathians in 2900 BC did not seem to bring the stelae tradition with them. I think Jean mentioned some trace of stelae, in Hungary I believe, but I think they are very rare and I don't know of any that were used in the Carpathian Yamnaya kurgans as they were in southern Ukraine.

See Ciugudean 2011 in the stelae folder.


According to the classification made by D. J. Telegin, the Floreşti stela, together with Baia de Criş and Ciceu–Mihăieşti finds, fit in his second type, more precisely they belong to the sub-type IIb-Natalievka (Telegin 1987, 41–42, fig. 2), while the stelae from Gherla and maybe Pianu de Jos belong to the first group of so-called primitive stelae (Telegin 1987, 40). N. C. Rişcuţa has already assigned the stelae from Baia de Criş to the Natalievka sub-type (Rişcuţa 2001, 148). It may be assumed that the earliest burials in the Floreşti tumuli belong to a Yamnaya-related group, part of them probably disturbed by secondary EBA burials – with Copăceni-type (?) ceramics, according to the excavators. The stela probably belongs to the primary graves, having been removed in the second phase of burials and placed near the slabs of the outer ring..

Also (further south in NE Bulgaria): Manzura 2005:


The fourth period of the cemetery is represented by the grave 1126 surrounded by a stone ring (fig. 1.3) (Vajsov 2002: 165,Abb. 185A.4, Tab. 200). It was in a rectangular pit with the skeleton in supine contracted position slightly turned to the left and orientated with the head to the west. A stone anthropomorphic stele was found near the burials. The position of the deceased and its orientation completely correspond to the later group (Budzhak) of the Yamnaya culture in the Northwest Pontic region (Dergachev 1986). The presence of the stone ring and stele even can point to the latest phase of the early group of this culture (the Dnestr group).

R.Rocca
07-05-2013, 11:02 PM
See Ciugudean 2011 in the stelae folder.

Also (further south in NE Bulgaria): Manzura 2005:

Thanks Jean. Please tell me this made it into your book! :D

Jean M
07-05-2013, 11:25 PM
Both references are in the bibliography. The locations of the stelae mentioned are on the relevant map. Can't say that I go into tremendous detail on the topic. There isn't the space. You bring up some interesting points on the primary and secondary uses of the stelae, which really need to be thrashed out.

alan
07-06-2013, 01:06 AM
Understanding the nature of yamnaya is still very much a work in progress. It is probably emerging to have been overly focused on in terms of PIE. Horizon is a usefully vague concept. Regarding stelae, the often displaced nature, the fact that standing stones are notoriously almost impossible to directly date and the only option being tentative stylistic comparisons makes it something I would not feel should be a keystone of any model and is more an interesting possibility. The pre-beaker stelae in the Alps do not appear to be associated with burials with anything in common with steppe groups. Much as though I like the general idea of r1b spreading c.3500BC onwards along the alpine zone and beyond, the evidence for it is far too waifer thin. The pre beaker alpine coped age graves look mostly like local groups coming under remedello influence than anything steppic.

The more and more I read the more convinced I am that yamnaya was nothing more than a late steppic response to a larger network that originated when maykop started to take over the vacuum left by the carpatho Balkan collapse. Some areas became part of the new network through steppe cultures but others joined the new network without the intermediary of a steppe group.

I personally think Harrison and heyds attempts to see yamnaya impact across Europe is incredibly short of evidence of migration on a meaningful scale. It sets the bar for evidence of migration lower than anything I have ever seen in modern archaeological literature.

R.Rocca
07-06-2013, 01:34 AM
Understanding the nature of yamnaya is still very much a work in progress. It is probably emerging to have been overly focused on in terms of PIE. Horizon is a usefully vague concept. Regarding stelae, the often displaced nature, the fact that standing stones are notoriously almost impossible to directly date and the only option being tentative stylistic comparisons makes it something I would not feel should be a keystone of any model and is more an interesting possibility. The pre-beaker stelae in the Alps do not appear to be associated with burials with anything in common with steppe groups. Much as though I like the general idea of r1b spreading c.3500BC onwards along the alpine zone and beyond, the evidence for it is far too waifer thin. The pre beaker alpine coped age graves look mostly like local groups coming under remedello influence than anything steppic.

The more and more I read the more convinced I am that yamnaya was nothing more than a late steppic response to a larger network that originated when maykop started to take over the vacuum left by the carpatho Balkan collapse. Some areas became part of the new network through steppe cultures but others joined the new network without the intermediary of a steppe group.

I personally think Harrison and heyds attempts to see yamnaya impact across Europe is incredibly short of evidence of migration on a meaningful scale. It sets the bar for evidence of migration lower than anything I have ever seen in modern archaeological literature.

I am not sold on Yamnaya either, but is its evidence for a migration trail any less convincing than a Maykop migration west?

alan
07-06-2013, 02:10 AM
I am not sold on Yamnaya either, but is its evidence for a migration trail any less convincing than a Maykop migration west?

I am not arguing for either. Maykop is primarily of interest in that most of the things that mark yamnaya out from its predecessors on the steppe were introduced to them by maykop. I just have become more and more aware through several papers if the last 5 years or so that yamnaya is not the actual originator if much. They were simply the first deeper steppe tribe to take up these new ideas. There are major doubts about its migratory nature now. I feel that a super cultural entity like the part of the CMP network in Europe is much more likely to explain a language that dominated both huge area of steppe and non steppe lands. There is otherwise no convincing common denominator between those areas. When the edged of the steppe like areas of Europe are left the steppe models just involve the bar of evidence being set almost below ground and has always been a massive house of cards supported by special pleading at every turn. Clearly the steppe cultures were just one aspect of something bigger than them.

Jean M
07-06-2013, 08:58 AM
Understanding the nature of yamnaya is still very much a work in progress. It is probably emerging to have been overly focused on in terms of PIE.

Alan it may be emerging in your mind, but not in academia. Let's be clear.


I personally think Harrison and Heyd's attempts to see Yamnaya impact across Europe is incredibly short of evidence of migration on a meaningful scale.

As I have said before, they are not arguing for large-scale migration (except up the Danube, which everyone agrees on.) They deduce new arrivals in the mid-Bell Beaker period at the particular site they investigate. That is the sum total of their discussion of movement of people. They stick to observation of material remains, which is what archaeology is good at. As you have said yourself, archaeology is not really the ideal discipline with which to detect migration. Let's leave that to ancient DNA. The case they make is for cultural connections.

That is exactly the same as the archaeological evidence of cultural connections between Yamnaya and Afanasievo. In fact Yamnaya and Afanasievo are pretty well identical. Now we may deduce that a Yamnaya group moved to the Minusinsk Depression. That would be logical, since Yamnaya has cultural antecedents on the European steppe, while Afanasievo has no antecedents at all in the Minusinsk Depression. This culture represents the first settlement there. But anti-migrationists might argue that a group of hunter-gatherers around the Minusinsk Depression had picked up cultural influences from Yamnaya. With aDNA we can settle the point.

Jean M
07-06-2013, 09:04 AM
May I just remind those desperately keen to attack my book that it is not out yet. When it does come out, I think you can look forward to a lot of hostile reviews, acid attacks and general fun and games that everyone can join in. Patience folks.

I realise that it is boring at the moment, with the general lack of good new papers to get our teeth into. So a good old debate standby is attacking Jean. But we have been round these houses a dozen times already on different forums. There is nothing new to say.

alan
07-06-2013, 11:15 AM
Jean the understanding of steppe and indeed all cultures is constantly developing. There is no moment in time when we can feel safe we know most of it. We are only fooling ourselves just as previous generations have. that is lesson no 1 in the history of archaeology. Just dig out any book pre dating even say 1990.

The problem is some people treat Anthony as some kind of last word as he is the most recent popular english language publication. How many times have apparent last words on subjects been made only to seem naive later. YThere has been quite a bit of new info come out since Anthony wrote and I have tried to seek out stuff in that timeframe. It is quite clear to me that Anthony is going to be far from the last word on this already. It's also clear that an awful lot of work is only available in Russian. Time passes and ideas and data will change in ways we can barely imagine. It's best to be humble about these things and not see this moment in time as immune to that.

R.Rocca
07-06-2013, 12:55 PM
May I just remind those desperately keen to attack my book that it is not out yet. When it does come out, I think you can look forward to a lot of hostile reviews, acid attacks and general fun and games that everyone can join in. Patience folks.

I realise that it is boring at the moment, with the general lack of good new papers to get our teeth into. So a good old debate standby is attacking Jean. But we have been round these houses a dozen times already on different forums. There is nothing new to say.

Jean, when I said...


If Jean makes a case for a Kemi-Oba migration west in her upcoming book, I think she will be the first to do so.

...it was meant as a compliment. It takes a lot of courage to come up with something new and attach one's name to it.

newtoboard
07-06-2013, 02:19 PM
I'm on no purist bandwagon of any kind, whether J2a, E, J1, G and L2 are PIE lineages or not, I don't know and haven't researched it. As you know, I'm not trying call any haplogroup pure of anything nor much of anything (i.e. PIE) pure of any haplogroup.

I wouldn't necessarily say R1b was in in the PIE homeland, but if it wasn't, it apparently caught its early trains out of town going west a long a time ago.

Since you were responding to "PIE is apparently from no further west than the Pontic Steppes or West Asia" I take it that means you think PIE had to come from the Pontic Steppes, right? That's fine, you are good company with Mallory and Anthony.

I agree with the South Urals hypothesis more than the Pontic steepes. The Pontic steepes was more likely a type of second homeland.

newtoboard
07-06-2013, 02:23 PM
Alan it may be emerging in your mind, but not in academia. Let's be clear.



As I have said before, they are not arguing for large-scale migration (except up the Danube, which everyone agrees on.) They deduce new arrivals in the mid-Bell Beaker period at the particular site they investigate. That is the sum total of their discussion of movement of people. They stick to observation of material remains, which is what archaeology is good at. As you have said yourself, archaeology is not really the ideal discipline with which to detect migration. Let's leave that to ancient DNA. The case they make is for cultural connections.

That is exactly the same as the archaeological evidence of cultural connections between Yamnaya and Afanasievo. In fact Yamnaya and Afanasievo are pretty well identical. Now we may deduce that a Yamnaya group moved to the Minusinsk Depression. That would be logical, since Yamnaya has cultural antecedents on the European steppe, while Afanasievo has no antecedents at all in the Minusinsk Depression. This culture represents the first settlement there. But anti-migrationists might argue that a group of hunter-gatherers around the Minusinsk Depression had picked up cultural influences from Yamnaya. With aDNA we can settle the point.

Do you whatever happened to that Yamnaya study that German team was working on?

newtoboard
07-06-2013, 02:26 PM
Jean the understanding of steppe and indeed all cultures is constantly developing. There is no moment in time when we can feel safe we know most of it. We are only fooling ourselves just as previous generations have. that is lesson no 1 in the history of archaeology. Just dig out any book pre dating even say 1990.

The problem is some people treat Anthony as some kind of last word as he is the most recent popular english language publication. How many times have apparent last words on subjects been made only to seem naive later. YThere has been quite a bit of new info come out since Anthony wrote and I have tried to seek out stuff in that timeframe. It is quite clear to me that Anthony is going to be far from the last word on this already. It's also clear that an awful lot of work is only available in Russian. Time passes and ideas and data will change in ways we can barely imagine. It's best to be humble about these things and not see this moment in time as immune to that.


Yet you take his satem languages originate in Corded Ware theory as the last word when it is likely satemization is younger than Corded Ware.

Jean M
07-06-2013, 02:56 PM
Jean the understanding of steppe and indeed all cultures is constantly developing. There is no moment in time when we can feel safe we know most of it. We are only fooling ourselves just as previous generations have. that is lesson no 1 in the history of archaeology.


As I said in a previous post on this thread:


Barry Cunliffe is fond of saying that there is no such thing as a fact in archaeology. There are interpretations of the evidence. Periodically the very same evidence will be re-interpreted in the light of new thinking.


And also


Archaeology does not need its face saving. Archaeology is a methodology, not a permanent commitment to the ideas expressed in a given year or book or lecture or university department. Archaeological conclusions are in a permanent state of flux. That is as it should be. You can tell a top-notch archaeologist (or indeed any other scholar) from the eagerness with which he rushes to tell you that his latest book went to press before he found out that he was completely wrong about X. Just wait for his next book ...

The problem is that simply saying something new is not a guarantee of quality. Academics tend to be judged on perceived originality. So there is a huge temptation to strive for novelty, to look for a new twist on an old idea (whether or not it is really an improvement.) That leads to as much bad scholarship as those academics who cling to old ideas "to save face." The best scholarship is driven only by the desire to understand. That leads to following the evidence with cold, hard logic.

As Anthony acknowledged, there is plenty of recent Russian research which seems intent on dividing the Yamnaya Horizon into a multitude of ever smaller cultures. I don't say that it is worthless. All new information is valuable. But I don't see any sign of the perceived link between Yamnaya and PIE disintegrating under the stress. Not in serious Indo-European studies. There is a sound logic to the concept of the steppe as a linguistic spread zone, once a semi-nomadic life was adopted.

Jean M
07-06-2013, 03:00 PM
whatever happened to that Yamnaya study that German team was working on?

The Palaeogenics group at Mainz has not yet published its results in full. You can find some information on its website: http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/MolA/English/Research/CentralAsia.html

newtoboard
07-06-2013, 03:19 PM
The Palaeogenics group at Mainz has not yet published its results in full. You can find some information on its website: http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/MolA/English/Research/CentralAsia.html

Thank you. Since the red dots in the NE of the map represent Iron Age sites I am guessing they are Andronovo and not Afanasevo sites (that area seems to be their geographical overlap)?

Jean M
07-06-2013, 03:21 PM
@ newtoboard - I presume so.

Jean M
07-06-2013, 03:23 PM
Yet you take his satem languages originate in Corded Ware theory as the last word when it is likely satemization is younger than Corded Ware.

Anthony does not say that satemization originated in Corded Ware.

Jean M
07-06-2013, 04:24 PM
Peeking back at the last time the stelae issue was thrashed out (March 2013): http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=877&start=160 I see that I discovered some anthropomorphic stelae in Corded Ware. That's a topic that rather got lost in the battle-fever. They have their own distinct style, but you can discern a common origin with the Bell Beaker ones.

Is that my next book ? .... ;)

newtoboard
07-06-2013, 05:41 PM
Anthony does not say that satemization originated in Corded Ware.

I was referring to Alan's insistence that all satem languages originate in Corded Ware, likely to drive Indo-Iranians out of the steepe. While the Indo-Iranian Abashevo culture might derive from Corded Ware its linguistic element is likely an intrusive Poltavka element.

Jean M
07-06-2013, 06:31 PM
@ newtoboard

The endless battles over Corded Ware boil down to continuity vs migration. Corded Ware was very likely a blend of both i.e. people moving north from the steppe up rivers leading to the North European Plain, mingling en route with forest-steppe villagers and then merging with existing people on the plain. So when Corded Ware spread across the forest-steppe, it would be carried by people presumably speaking a dialect of PIE and who would be little different genetically from the Poltavka culture people with whom they mixed to create Abashevo. In other words CW is just one Yamnaya offspring blending with other such offspring to create Abashevo. I can understand the desire to label it Proto-Indo-Iranian, but it seems too early. It might be better to see it as a dialect of PIE heading in the direction of Indo-Iranian.

Proto-Indo-Iranian is the language just before it split into the ancestors of the Indic and Iranian families. In other words it is the language that can be reconstructed from both Indic and Iranian vocabulary. And that language had absorbed vocabulary from an urban culture which we suppose to be the BMC. So the logical deduction is that Sintashta and Andronovo generated Proto-Indo-Iranian.

newtoboard
07-06-2013, 09:51 PM
I just find it hard to see a Corded Ware movement eastwards having anything to do with the ethnogenesis of the Proto Indo-Iranians. Corded Ware is not a steppe type environment where people could have avoided admixture with other groups. Corded Ware samples have shown up with Y-DNA I have they not? Suggesting an eastward movement had something to do with Andronovo has to invent a mythical bottleneck that eliminated the non R1a lineages found in Andronovo.

alan
07-06-2013, 10:39 PM
Jean
No one is attacking your hypothesis. However the PIE discussions will continue as people are interested and everyone has ideas and variants. It's no slight on your excellent book if the debate carries on. It's a tricky subject and it will likely go on for decades yet. It's perhaps the hardest nut to crack and is pretty hard to imagine how it can be resolved beyond doubt by anyone as the period between PIE and the first attested direct linguistic evidence is pretty large.

alan
07-07-2013, 01:23 AM
Yet you take his satem languages originate in Corded Ware theory as the last word when it is likely satemization is younger than Corded Ware.
No I do not. I have just pointed out that this angle exists when you look at the chain of cultures he links to some languages. He himself doesn't highlight this as he is focussed on the steppe nomad angle. I personally find the way his book is treated like a bible very annoying because i have seen new books and papers over 4 decades come and go and he is overly confident IMO. I am not committed to any model because I think it is beyond resolving at present and possibly ever. There is a mountain of inference required in working out linguistic situations millennia before records. That makes it not your average problem.

Jean M
07-07-2013, 07:41 AM
I just find it hard to see a Corded Ware movement eastwards having anything to do with the ethnogenesis of the Proto Indo-Iranians. Corded Ware is not a steppe type environment where people could have avoided admixture with other groups. Corded Ware samples have shown up with Y-DNA I have they not? Suggesting an eastward movement had something to do with Andronovo has to invent a mythical bottleneck that eliminated the non R1a lineages found in Andronovo.

Indeed that is a good point. We actually have only a few samples of ancient DNA from Corded Ware: two confirmed R1a1a, plus two which could not be pinned down certainly, but which might be one G and one J or I.

We need to understand that CW covered a vast geographical area. The people making CW pottery in northern Poland or Germany could include haplogroups R1a1a with a steppe origin, I2 with an origin in Cucuteni, G with an origin in Cucuteni or Funnel Beaker and I1 with an origin in Ertebolle. (That's just speculation, but you see my point.) People making CW in the forest steppe could include haplogroups R1a1a with a steppe origin and I2 with an origin in Cucuteni, but the further east the pottery is found, the less likely it is that I2 would be included. In fact the pottery would have been made by women, and could have spread to some extent by inter-marriage. So Abeshevo could have been strongly R1a1a, with little or no I2 input. We shall have to wait and see. :)

Jean M
07-07-2013, 08:16 AM
Jean No one is attacking your hypothesis.

That would be very strange and disappointing. You and other users of selected genetic genealogy forums were given every opportunity and encouragement by me to criticise my work while it was in progress. The continually modified draft was put online for that very purpose. The first draft went online in March 2009 with an invitation to critique in DNA Forums, which was matched by a similar invitation in a forum used by professional archaeologists in Britain and private invitations to certain academic archaeologists. The process of professional review continued via the publisher en route to a book.

Once the book is available, the process of critique will continue in academia and outside it. That is absolutely as it should be. It is all part of the normal process of the advancement of knowledge. But right now, the online material has been taken down and the book is not yet out. So many readers of this forum do not have access to my material and cannot join in the debate. I cannot present a case without posting lengthy extracts and images from copyright material in which the publisher has a stake. In short this is not the best time for yet another round of "let's find something wrong with Jean's Stelae People." In just a few short months, that will be a game everyone can play. OK?

Jean M
07-07-2013, 08:57 AM
I personally find the way his book is treated like a bible very annoying because i have seen new books and papers over 4 decades come and go and he is overly confident IMO.

Anthony's book was a huge critical and popular success. That is annoying for Colin Renfrew and his supporters. Renfrew attempted to smear Anthony in completely unfair ways. Others have been sour. All very understandable if you put your money on PIE-from-Anatolia. But the fact of the matter is that Anthony did a terrific job. He has a first-class mind. It is not he saying that. It is those academics who have reviewed his work. I was hugely enthusiastic. Yet just a decade or so ago, I plumped for PIE-with-the-Neolithic. I am always willing to be convinced by logical deduction from the evidence.

David Anthony would be the first to say that the last word on the PIE homeland has not been spoken. As the Archaeology Editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies, he will see new ideas presented all the time. Mallory would agree. He greeted David Anthony's book as the best synthesis on the topic so far (i.e. generously placing it above his own synthesis in 1989). But in the natural course of things, we can expect another synthesis in a decade or so. Such a new synthesis could be informed by ancient DNA as another strand in the story.

alan
07-08-2013, 11:03 PM
That would be very strange and disappointing. You and other users of selected genetic genealogy forums were given every opportunity and encouragement by me to criticise my work while it was in progress. The continually modified draft was put online for that very purpose. The first draft went online in March 2009 with an invitation to critique in DNA Forums, which was matched by a similar invitation in a forum used by professional archaeologists in Britain and private invitations to certain academic archaeologists. The process of professional review continued via the publisher en route to a book.

Once the book is available, the process of critique will continue in academia and outside it. That is absolutely as it should be. It is all part of the normal process of the advancement of knowledge. But right now, the online material has been taken down and the book is not yet out. So many readers of this forum do not have access to my material and cannot join in the debate. I cannot present a case without posting lengthy extracts and images from copyright material in which the publisher has a stake. In short this is not the best time for yet another round of "let's find something wrong with Jean's Stelae People." In just a few short months, that will be a game everyone can play. OK?

That is fair enough if the subject is specifically one unique to your book. I agree that any actual criticism of finer points unique to your book should wait but otherwise discussion of the subject as a whole will rumble on as per normal.

TigerMW
07-08-2013, 11:40 PM
.... So many readers of this forum do not have access to my material and cannot join in the debate. I cannot present a case without posting lengthy extracts and images from copyright material in which the publisher has a stake. In short this is not the best time for yet another round of "let's find something wrong with Jean's Stelae People." In just a few short months, that will be a game everyone can play. OK?

Sorry, I guess that's my fault. I buy off (agree with you) on the Stelae people and I like to see the debate to just double check to see if I'm still with it and see if anyone else agrees or disagrees. I'm always open to something, but I honestly don't think the Stelae folks are getting their due attention. I guess we'll wait until the book!

alan
07-08-2013, 11:49 PM
Anthony's book was a huge critical and popular success. That is annoying for Colin Renfrew and his supporters. Renfrew attempted to smear Anthony in completely unfair ways. Others have been sour. All very understandable if you put your money on PIE-from-Anatolia. But the fact of the matter is that Anthony did a terrific job. He has a first-class mind. It is not he saying that. It is those academics who have reviewed his work. I was hugely enthusiastic. Yet just a decade or so ago, I plumped for PIE-with-the-Neolithic. I am always willing to be convinced by logical deduction from the evidence.

David Anthony would be the first to say that the last word on the PIE homeland has not been spoken. As the Archaeology Editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies, he will see new ideas presented all the time. Mallory would agree. He greeted David Anthony's book as the best synthesis on the topic so far (i.e. generously placing it above his own synthesis in 1989). But in the natural course of things, we can expect another synthesis in a decade or so. Such a new synthesis could be informed by ancient DNA as another strand in the story.

I agree its a very good book and has put much more flesh on the bones of the steppe model. I particularly like his discussion of the non or pre-Yamnaya elements in the southern edge of the western steppes that he links to Anatolians and other IE branches. I think that is the most important part of his book. I think he has started the important process of moving on from an overly Yamnaya-dominated model to a wider steppe one with the process of IE peoples moving commencing nearly 1000 years before Yamnaya and recent papers suggest a broader western steppe model might emerge.

My main beef with Anthony compared to Mallory is he tends to be too confident in some of his assertions when there is a lot of things that hang on very slight evidence. I much prefer Mallory's style of writing too. Anthony is rather dry.

Rory Cain
01-01-2015, 10:02 PM
1. R1b is hands down the most common y haplogroup in the British Isles, especially as L21, and especially in the "Celtic Fringe" of the British Isles.

2. A number of scholars over the years, the most recent being David Anthony, associate the spread of Italo-Celtic with the Beaker Folk, and Celtic got to the British Isles somehow.

3. The only Beaker Folk y-dna results thus far are R1bxU106.

4. Thus far, no R1b has turned up in Neolithic or older remains. Instead, G2a and I2a predominate, with some E1b1b and F*.

Things could change, but those facts seem to me to make the Beaker Folk as the vector of most of the L21 and DF27 in the Isles a very reasonable working hypothesis.

Nice summary. There's a place for the speculation and that's OK, but this is a timely reminder of what we actually know so far.