PDA

View Full Version : Bell Beaker R1b-L21



Pages : 1 [2] 3

corner
02-25-2018, 07:38 PM
If you scroll down on Genetikers page for I2426 it shows the DF27 result and below but the haplogroup designation still shows L151. I've seen this before even with 6DRIF-18 where the haplogroup designation is the safer bet or just not updated.

I only mentioned the DF27 results on the L21 page because it may help with the founder age estimate for L21.

Georgehttps://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10565-The-Beaker-Phenomenon-And-The-Genomic-Transformation-Of-Northwest-Europe-Olalde&p=354649#post354649

George Chandler
02-25-2018, 07:49 PM
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10565-The-Beaker-Phenomenon-And-The-Genomic-Transformation-Of-Northwest-Europe-Olalde&p=354649#post354649

Excellent! Thanks.

rms2
02-25-2018, 08:07 PM
Recall, too, that one of the other Boscombe Bowmen in that collective grave, I2417, tested R1b-L21, which was reported in the Olalde et al paper.

I2416 was a little different, though, in that he had the lowest steppe dna of any of the British BB's, much less than I2417, the L21 from the same burial, who had very high steppe dna.

From page 106 of the Supplementary Info:



Among the British individuals dated to after 2450 calBCE in our dataset, the skeleton from burial 25004 has the lowest amount of steppe-related ancestry:


I2416/25004: 2470–2200 calBCE [2460–2200 calBCE (3845±27 BP, OxA-13624), 2470–2285 calBCE (3830±30 BP, Beta-432804)]



I2416 is not totally without steppe dna; it's just on the low side for British Bell Beaker. His level of steppe dna is very close to but slightly higher than I6588, an R1b-P310 Bell Beaker from the site at Humanejos (Parla, Madrid, Spain), 2500–2000 BC.

jdean
02-25-2018, 08:37 PM
Am I being really slow, just noticed there's isotopic information on table 5 of the supplementary data : )

Anybody who knows something about this type of analysis looking at it ?

rms2
02-25-2018, 08:59 PM
Am I being really slow, just noticed there's isotopic information on table 5 of the supplementary data : )

Anybody who knows something about this type of analysis looking at it ?

Where is that table? I can't find it. Table S5 in the Supplementary Information is about admixture proportions. Am I missing a supplement?

Update: Never mind. I see it's Table 5 on the excel spreadsheet. Sorry for my confusion.

Good catch, jdean!

rms2
02-25-2018, 11:47 PM
Recall, too, that one of the other Boscombe Bowmen in that collective grave, I2417, tested R1b-L21, which was reported in the Olalde et al paper.

I2416 was a little different, though, in that he had the lowest steppe dna of any of the British BB's, much less than I2417, the L21 from the same burial, who had very high steppe dna.

From page 106 of the Supplementary Info:



Among the British individuals dated to after 2450 calBCE in our dataset, the skeleton from burial 25004 has the lowest amount of steppe-related ancestry:


I2416/25004: 2470–2200 calBCE [2460–2200 calBCE (3845±27 BP, OxA-13624), 2470–2285 calBCE (3830±30 BP, Beta-432804)]



I2416 is not totally without steppe dna; it's just on the low side for British Bell Beaker. His level of steppe dna is very close to but slightly higher than I6588, an R1b-P310 Bell Beaker from the site at Humanejos (Parla, Madrid, Spain), 2500–2000 BC.

I know I2416 isn't L21, and I whined about it when he kept coming up, but nobody is posting in this thread right now, so I thought I would bring up something more I noticed about I2416.

In Table S1 on page 159 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Info, I2416 is characterized as an outlier among the South England BB samples thus:



I2416 Ame BK_England_SOUout


In Table S9, I2416 has more British Neolithic than any other BB sample in that table. In Table S10, I2416 has more England Neolithic than any other sample in that table, and in Table S11, I2416 has more Scotland Neolithic than any other sample in that table.

Given all that, and what I quoted above, could I2416 be a Kurgan Bell Beaker immigrant from Iberia? Maybe he really is DF27+?

rms2
02-26-2018, 01:11 AM
But evidently Alex Williamson saw no signs of DF27 in I2416 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10565-The-Beaker-Phenomenon-And-The-Genomic-Transformation-Of-Northwest-Europe-Olalde&p=355416&viewfull=1#post355416).

Who knows?

corner
02-26-2018, 11:45 AM
I know I2416 isn't L21, and I whined about it when he kept coming up, but nobody is posting in this thread right now, so I thought I would bring up something more I noticed about I2416.

In Table S1 on page 159 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Info, I2416 is characterized as an outlier among the South England BB samples thus:



In Table S9, I2416 has more British Neolithic than any other BB sample in that table. In Table S10, I2416 has more England Neolithic than any other sample in that table, and in Table S11, I2416 has more Scotland Neolithic than any other sample in that table.

Given all that, and what I quoted above, could I2416 be a Kurgan Bell Beaker immigrant from Iberia? Maybe he really is DF27+?Good to know that Alex has checked all new samples for DF27. Gilles and R. Rocca had found only P310 and FGC11381 in I2416's low quality .bam file and no P312>ZZ11>DF27>ZZ12>ZZ19>Z34609>Z2571>FGC11380 between P310 and FGC11381. If I2416 has a real FGC11381+, there could be more definite answers in further research, hopefully they'll get a good quality sample so we know what's between P310 and FGC11381. Knowing a L151/P310 or P312 burial is definitely DF27- etc. is as important as finding a definite +.

A. P. Fitzpatrick's The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen, 2013, goes into it in great detail. The bit I've been able to read online gives a different impression and is obviously a lot more interesting and complex than the online sound bites I'd seen so far - still lots of reading to do. The archaeology is described in detail. I2416's grave (25000) looks more like a traditional Neolithic collective grave in use over centuries, perhaps not so much a man buried with his own sons. FGC11381+ I2416/25004 is the central in situ articulated male 30-45 burial and had been placed in the disarticulated bones. There are (possibly curated) bundles of bones, incomplete disarticulated bits and pieces of bodies, some possibly added at different times and some being brought from other graves (L21 burial 25005/I2417 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10565-The-Beaker-Phenomenon-And-The-Genomic-Transformation-Of-Northwest-Europe-Olalde&p=353274&viewfull=1#post353274) looks to be disarticulated remains overlaid on articulated I2416). There could have been more than seven individuals, possibly nine or ten.

21769

Webb
02-26-2018, 02:56 PM
These samples, to me, are the most intriguing. They are R1b1a1a2a1a2(xR1b1a1a2a1a2c), so I assume they were tested for L21 but are negative:

I6539 Bell Beaker Spain
I7570 England-MBA
I7571 England-MBA
I2860 Scotland-LBA

I just realized this post is the complete opposite of the thread title.

rms2
02-27-2018, 12:35 PM
These samples, to me, are the most intriguing. They are R1b1a1a2a1a2(xR1b1a1a2a1a2c), so I assume they were tested for L21 but are negative:

I6539 Bell Beaker Spain
I7570 England-MBA
I7571 England-MBA
I2860 Scotland-LBA

I just realized this post is the complete opposite of the thread title.

The ways things seem to be trending, those will probably all turn out to be L2. :noidea:

jdean
02-27-2018, 06:27 PM
The ways things seem to be trending, those will probably all turn out to be L2. :noidea:

I6539 had low coverage and didn't get a call for L2 according to Alex but the the British samples were L2 neg however for some odd reason there appeared to be no (or very poor) coverage for U152 itself in all the R1b samples so that's still a possibility.

rms2
03-07-2018, 01:30 AM
I guess we're not going to get anything further downstream from what Olalde et al reported initially. Alex Williamson, whose main interest is L21, has been looking at the raw data, and thus far he hasn't found anything beyond what Olalde et al reported.

The biggest disappointment to me is that they did not get the Amesbury Archer's genome. That should have warranted extra effort, in my humble opinion.

Sigh . . .

To me the biggest news out of the final Olalde et al paper is that R1b-L11xU106,P312 Proto-Nagyrev result, I7043.

TigerMW
03-07-2018, 03:46 AM
I guess we're not going to get anything further downstream from what Olalde et al reported initially. Alex Williamson, whose main interest is L21, has been looking at the raw data, and thus far he hasn't found anything beyond what Olalde et al reported.

The biggest disappointment to me is that they did not get the Amesbury Archer's genome. That should have warranted extra effort, in my humble opinion.

Sigh . . .

To me the biggest news out of the final Olalde et al paper is that R1b-L11xU106,P312 Proto-Nagyrev result, I7043.
I'd love to see a R1b-P312>Z290 but L21- finding in ancient DNA. That's L21's only brother.

rms2
03-15-2018, 11:19 PM
Doesn't look we're ever likely to find out for sure what the Amesbury Archer's y-dna haplogroup was. I would put money on L21, since The Companion was L21, and he was probably the Archer's son.

Sure would be nice to know for sure, though, and to get a gander at the Archer's autosomal profile.

Sigh . . .

rms2
03-15-2018, 11:35 PM
BTW, I just emailed Wessex Archaeology and asked them if they know which of the Amesbury Bell Beaker skeletons have isotope results that indicate they were born and raised on the Continent, especially the males. I referred to the Olalde et al paper and indicated I am especially interested in the males who tested R1b-L21.

We'll see if I get an answer and what it is.

I kept my email very brief and to the point.

Pappy
03-18-2018, 06:57 PM
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707617698

rms2
03-18-2018, 08:47 PM
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707617698

Not to discourage you, Pappy, but what does Native American y-dna have to do with Bell Beaker L21?

Pappy
03-18-2018, 09:59 PM
Not to discourage you, Pappy, but what does Native American y-dna have to do with Bell Beaker L21?

Oh no worries, I'm trying to figure out why R1b-L21 is not confirmed to be from anywhere, but heavily represented in Ireland and North America and North America isn't listed on ancestry sites. I just found out today it's also imbedded in Diné and Ojibwe. If it were just imbedded in Metis, I could leave it alone. But what!? ;)

Edit

Like here
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1308-Another-R1b-distribution-problem

rms2
03-18-2018, 10:38 PM
Are you R1b-L21?

Lusitano
03-18-2018, 10:46 PM
Native Portuguese R1b-L21 here. I don't know yet my subclade though.

rms2
03-18-2018, 11:14 PM
What part of Portugal are you from?

Lusitano
03-19-2018, 08:52 AM
What part of Portugal are you from?

From the center, Beira-baixa.

rms2
03-28-2018, 07:53 PM
Another thread put me in mind of the bad old days before NGS testing for ancient dna and Olalde et al. I remember a guy on Rootsweb arguing that the Amesbury Archer could not be L21 because L21 got to Britain right after the Last Glacial Maximum. According to him, L21's were half-naked, primitive natives who were still digging in the dirt with deer antlers (those were pretty much his exact words, no kidding) when the Amesbury Archer got to Britain with enlightenment from the Continent. I won't mention to what y-dna haplogroup he thought the Archer belonged, but it wasn't L21, obviously.

rms2
03-28-2018, 08:48 PM
Another thread put me in mind of the bad old days before NGS testing for ancient dna and Olalde et al. I remember a guy on Rootsweb arguing that the Amesbury Archer could not be L21 because L21 got to Britain right after the Last Glacial Maximum. According to him, L21's were half-naked, primitive natives who were still digging in the dirt with deer antlers (those were pretty much his exact words, no kidding) when the Amesbury Archer got to Britain with enlightenment from the Continent. I won't mention to what y-dna haplogroup he thought the Archer belonged, but it wasn't L21, obviously.

Guess I'm getting to be a dna discussions forums old timer, because I remember a lot of similar things, like the guy who argued that lactase persistence developed in situ in western Europe because Mesolithic European adults were drinking human breast milk. Yep, you read that right. Wonder if they built dairy barns for that purpose.

And so many arguments there were about how R1b just had to represent the absolute first knuckle-dragging white guys in Europe right after the LGM, and how Doggerland is just littered with R1b bones, if we could only get at them, and on and on.

Sorry for going down memory lane.

George Chandler
03-31-2018, 10:39 PM
Native Portuguese R1b-L21 here. I don't know yet my subclade though.

We have a few from the Azores, Portugal and Spain under S1051. Do you have the 19-19 at YCAII and a 12 at DYS640?

Thanks
George

Kopfjäger
03-31-2018, 10:45 PM
Guess I'm getting to be a dna discussions forums old timer, because I remember a lot of similar things, like the guy who argued that lactase persistence developed in situ in western Europe because Mesolithic European adults were drinking human breast milk. Yep, you read that right. Wonder if they built dairy barns for that purpose.

And so many arguments there were about how R1b just had to represent the absolute first knuckle-dragging white guys in Europe right after the LGM, and how Doggerland is just littered with R1b bones, if we could only get at them, and on and on.

Sorry for going down memory lane.

That's pure comedy, lol.

Webb
04-02-2018, 08:12 PM
Guess I'm getting to be a dna discussions forums old timer, because I remember a lot of similar things, like the guy who argued that lactase persistence developed in situ in western Europe because Mesolithic European adults were drinking human breast milk. Yep, you read that right. Wonder if they built dairy barns for that purpose.

And so many arguments there were about how R1b just had to represent the absolute first knuckle-dragging white guys in Europe right after the LGM, and how Doggerland is just littered with R1b bones, if we could only get at them, and on and on.

Sorry for going down memory lane.

And I am sure you remember, fondly, a lively fellow at Enmolgen who was convinced U106 was a major Celtic lineage in Ireland.

alan
04-02-2018, 09:00 PM
And I am sure you remember, fondly, a lively fellow at Enmolgen who was convinced U106 was a major Celtic lineage in Ireland.

I am sure that the U106 found in middle bronze age SE Scotland has provided fresh straw to clutch at. My advice is you are very nationalistic about your country and your identity and/or politics mean that primordial native ancestry is a must then either don't risk doing DNA testing or develop a less blood and soil view of nationhood and identity.

alan
04-02-2018, 09:12 PM
Another thread put me in mind of the bad old days before NGS testing for ancient dna and Olalde et al. I remember a guy on Rootsweb arguing that the Amesbury Archer could not be L21 because L21 got to Britain right after the Last Glacial Maximum. According to him, L21's were half-naked, primitive natives who were still digging in the dirt with deer antlers (those were pretty much his exact words, no kidding) when the Amesbury Archer got to Britain with enlightenment from the Continent. I won't mention to what y-dna haplogroup he thought the Archer belonged, but it wasn't L21, obviously.

What ever happened to D Faux? While we're going down memory lane is Ken N still with us?

MitchellSince1893
04-02-2018, 09:33 PM
What ever happened to D Faux? While we're going down memory lane is Ken N still with us?

I spoke with him via email last month. He assisted me with writing a short history of the discovery of U152 for the FTDNA U152 project page.

rms2
04-02-2018, 10:17 PM
And I am sure you remember, fondly, a lively fellow at Enmolgen who was convinced U106 was a major Celtic lineage in Ireland.

That particular individual was banned from here, and he is the reason I quit posting at FTDNA's forum.

Lusitano
04-10-2018, 01:38 PM
We have a few from the Azores, Portugal and Spain under S1051. Do you have the 19-19 at YCAII and a 12 at DYS640?

Thanks
George

Sorry for the late reply. I haven't done any BigY test or anything similar so I don't know yet what I really am. I only know I am L21* according to 23andMe.

rms2
04-15-2018, 09:17 PM
Sorry for the late reply. I haven't done any BigY test or anything similar so I don't know yet what I really am. I only know I am L21* according to 23andMe.

I really recommend you get with Family Tree DNA and do a y-dna STR (Short Tandem Repeat) test. 111 markers are best, but anything is better than nothing. FTDNA's STR testing gives you y-dna matches.

Then you can join FTDNA projects and decide whether or not you want to go with the Big Y (which I recommend) or do one of the less expensive SNP packs, based on what looks likely from your STR matches.

Finn
04-25-2018, 07:24 PM
And I am sure you remember, fondly, a lively fellow at Enmolgen who was convinced U106 was a major Celtic lineage in Ireland.

Would be no surprise because we now have a sample: 1800 BC in Oostwoud West Friesland on the shores of the North Sea right across England. It’s not reasonable to think that it has been 2400 years in quarantine until the Germanic migration to set a step on the beaches of England!?

About R1b L21:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14067-What-was-the-impact-of-Unetice-on-the-Euro-population

Dubhthach
05-02-2018, 12:36 PM
Would be no surprise because we now have a sample: 1800 BC in Oostwoud West Friesland on the shores of the North Sea right across England. It’s not reasonable to think that it has been 2400 years in quarantine until the Germanic migration to set a step on the beaches of England!?

About R1b L21:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14067-What-was-the-impact-of-Unetice-on-the-Euro-population

Ireland is a bit more of a row than England from Friesland, needless to say most U106 in Ireland probably post-dates 1169AD.

Finn
05-02-2018, 08:29 PM
Ireland is a bit more of a row than England from Friesland, needless to say most U106 in Ireland probably post-dates 1169AD.

But they could find the land of milk and honey;)

http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/download/24793/22241

See chapter 2


In summary, the evidence suggests that there were two principal trade routes in use in our area during the Early Bronze Age: one directly oversea between South Scandinavia and Britain and Ireland, the other between Ireland-South England and the Low Countries, 'Westphalia, South Hanover and Saxo-Thuringia.

During the MBA and LBA the contacts intensified.

rms2
05-04-2018, 11:05 AM
Would be no surprise because we now have a sample: 1800 BC in Oostwoud West Friesland on the shores of the North Sea right across England. It’s not reasonable to think that it has been 2400 years in quarantine until the Germanic migration to set a step on the beaches of England!?

About R1b L21:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14067-What-was-the-impact-of-Unetice-on-the-Euro-population

Boy, you just pop up in all sorts of threads pushing that erroneous "U106 is Celtic" narrative, don't you?

Kind of strange, if U106 got to Ireland as early as the Bronze Age, that it is so infrequent there. It's also funny that where it does reach 5% or so just happens to be those places most heavily settled by the English and others from areas with far more U106 than Ireland has.

How does one U106 in a Bronze Age mound in the Netherlands translate to U106 in Ireland that early? How is it Olalde et al missed U106 in their Bronze Age British samples?

Those are really rhetorical questions, because, honestly, this thread is about Bell Beaker R1b-L21, and should not be turned into another gassy campaign to make U106 Proto-Celtic, or full-blown Celtic, or Balto-Slavic, or Chinese or whatever.

22953

Finn
05-04-2018, 03:27 PM
Boy, you just pop up in all sorts of threads pushing that erroneous "U106 is Celtic" narrative, don't you?

Kind of strange, if U106 got to Ireland as early as the Bronze Age, that it is so infrequent there. It's also funny that where it does reach 5% or so just happens to be those places most heavily settled by the English and others from areas with far more U106 than Ireland has.

How does one U106 in a Bronze Age mound in the Netherlands translate to U106 in Ireland that early? How is it Olalde et al missed U106 in their Bronze Age British samples?

Those are really rhetorical questions, because, honestly, this thread is about Bell Beaker R1b-L21, and should not be turned into another gassy campaign to make U106 Proto-Celtic, or full-blown Celtic, or Balto-Slavic, or Chinese or whatever.

22953

It's only a suggestion, based on literature, a possibility that from EBA there was some spread of R1b U106 (as other Y-DNA and M-DNA) between Ireland, England,, Low Countries, Northern Germany and Scandinavia.

Why do all the Irish R1b U106 must be quote que quote an Anglo Saxon derivate? With this old Bronze Age linkages (and samples!) there are more possibilities (no necessities). New samples, new possibilities Rms2! Some grooves seems to be deep...

Dubhthach
05-04-2018, 03:31 PM
there's also the point that when you look in various DNA projects that many of U106 with recent ancestry in Ireland carry non Gaelic-Irish surnames.

In Busby's paper on M269 in Western Europe there was a total of 476 men in his Irish cohorts the breakdown is:

L11: 87.61% (417)

P312: 81.30% (387)

L21: 70.59% (336)
P312* (L21-, U152-): 8.40% (40)
U152: 2.31% (11)

U106: 5.25% (25)
L11+ (P312-, U106-): 1.05% (5)

If you exclude the L11- men (many of whom would not be R1b) the breakdown between P312 and U106 goes:
P312+: 92.8%
U106+: 6%
L11+ (P312-, U106-): 1.2%

Of course even going back to average of 5.25% within the sampleset there are three collections that exceed this namely:
Dublin: 6.7% (10 out of 149)
Carlow Town: 8.3% (2 out of 24)
Magherfelt: 14.3% (3 out of 21)

The small sample size on Carlow and Magherfelt don't help, but anyone who has read abit of Irish history will see that:
a. Dublin and Carlow Town were key parts of the Cambro-Norman colony -- the 'English Pale' around Dublin is source of term 'beyond the Pale' (eg. to be Gaelic Irish)
b. Magherfelt is in South Derry which underwent massive colonisation process along with several other of counties of province of Ulster form 1609 onwards, the incomers of which were Protestant and British.

Finn
05-04-2018, 04:25 PM
there's also the point that when you look in various DNA projects that many of U106 with recent ancestry in Ireland carry non Gaelic-Irish surnames.

In Busby's paper on M269 in Western Europe there was a total of 476 men in his Irish cohorts the breakdown is:

L11: 87.61% (417)

P312: 81.30% (387)

L21: 70.59% (336)
P312* (L21-, U152-): 8.40% (40)
U152: 2.31% (11)

U106: 5.25% (25)
L11+ (P312-, U106-): 1.05% (5)

If you exclude the L11- men (many of whom would not be R1b) the breakdown between P312 and U106 goes:
P312+: 92.8%
U106+: 6%
L11+ (P312-, U106-): 1.2%

Of course even going back to average of 5.25% within the sampleset there are three collections that exceed this namely:
Dublin: 6.7% (10 out of 149)
Carlow Town: 8.3% (2 out of 24)
Magherfelt: 14.3% (3 out of 21)

The small sample size on Carlow and Magherfelt don't help, but anyone who has read abit of Irish history will see that:
a. Dublin and Carlow Town were key parts of the Cambro-Norman colony -- the 'English Pale' around Dublin is source of term 'beyond the Pale' (eg. to be Gaelic Irish)
b. Magherfelt is in South Derry which underwent massive colonisation process along with several other of counties of province of Ulster form 1609 onwards, the incomers of which were Protestant and British.


This is what Mac Donald stated in 2016:

Ireland (Republic of and Northern)
170 testers from 169 families
Although greatly dominated by its brother clade P312, Irish U106 are an important component of the population. Although most branches are represented, the proportions are considerably skewed from the continental average. There are very few Z18, which could be of mostly Norse origin. L48 shows proportions roughly consistent with a north-western European origin (some admixture of the populations bounding the North Sea). Z156 and U198 are both present in large numbers, but they are dominated by particular downstream clades. In Z156, S5520 is very strong, and its large 1000-year-old subclade FGC11660 (the “Mac Maolain” cluster) appears native. Z156>DF96 is also very populous, buoyed by both higher FGC13326 and L1 proportions. Several DF98 here are thought to have an Ulster Scots origin, which is likely to apply to other clades too. In U198, the DF89 (particularly “type g”) clade dominates. The subclades present in Ireland point to most of the U106 population having arrived within the last 2000 years, though as with everywhere there will be exceptions.

Z156 and U198 are most prominent in Ireland, these are most probably Bronze Age lines. Z18 is typically Nordic and (also) came in with L48 during the Germanic migration (or via England). That last sentence 2000 years is contra (but was before Olalde etc). So never say never ;)

rms2
05-04-2018, 11:42 PM
This is what Mac Donald stated in 2016:

Ireland (Republic of and Northern)
170 testers from 169 families
Although greatly dominated by its brother clade P312, Irish U106 are an important component of the population. Although most branches are represented, the proportions are considerably skewed from the continental average. There are very few Z18, which could be of mostly Norse origin. L48 shows proportions roughly consistent with a north-western European origin (some admixture of the populations bounding the North Sea). Z156 and U198 are both present in large numbers, but they are dominated by particular downstream clades. In Z156, S5520 is very strong, and its large 1000-year-old subclade FGC11660 (the “Mac Maolain” cluster) appears native. Z156>DF96 is also very populous, buoyed by both higher FGC13326 and L1 proportions. Several DF98 here are thought to have an Ulster Scots origin, which is likely to apply to other clades too. In U198, the DF89 (particularly “type g”) clade dominates. The subclades present in Ireland point to most of the U106 population having arrived within the last 2000 years, though as with everywhere there will be exceptions.

Z156 and U198 are most prominent in Ireland, these are most probably Bronze Age lines. Z18 is typically Nordic and (also) came in with L48 during the Germanic migration (or via England). That last sentence 2000 years is contra (but was before Olalde etc). So never say never ;)

We had this stuff out on other threads, but you insist on posting the same stuff repeatedly everywhere, even in a thread on Bell Beaker L21. As you said, "Some grooves seems to be deep." Yeah, you're in a "U106 is Celtic" rut.

Note that MacDonald said, "The subclades present in Ireland point to most of the U106 population having arrived within the last 2000 years . . .". If we use 1950 as "present", that goes back to 50 BC. If we go with 2000, that take us to AD 1. If we go with 2018, that takes us back to AD 18. None of that is Bronze Age, and I think MacDonald was allowing for a big margin of error. I'm guessing almost all the U106 in Ireland arrived there since the Viking Age, i.e., since about 800 AD, most of it coming later than that, with the English.

About Z156 and U198 being present "in large numbers", well, I guess "large numbers" is a relative term. Since U106 as a whole only reaches between 5 and 6 percent in Ireland, and that in places most heavily settled by outsiders, I don't see what MacDonald means by "in large numbers". Maybe he means relative to the rest of U106. In other words, "large numbers" = small potatoes.

U106 keeps showing up in Migration Period Germanic tribesmen, and its oldest representative popped up in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery in Sweden (where all the trendiest Celts went to be buried, I guess).

Please, can you leave this thread alone for its topic, Bell Beaker L21? Campaign for U106 as Celts elsewhere, in the five or six threads you have already used for that purpose.

Finn
05-05-2018, 11:08 AM
Please, can you leave this thread alone for its topic, Bell Beaker L21? Campaign for U106 as Celts elsewhere, in the five or six threads you have already used for that purpose.


As long as you in other threads use ‘a man going to the disco’ for Celtic pictures.....

I know that it’s in your country popular to lay up on your own views on the rest of the world. But as long as I stay civilized and based on good sources and not ad hominem I’m not intended to do so. And as long as you act like the Germans say Grossschnauzig I’m even less intended to do so.

So get use to it and come with dignified views and sources Rms2.

First look at yourself and then point with your finger.....

rms2
05-05-2018, 12:11 PM
As long as you in other threads use ‘a man going to the disco’ for Celtic pictures.....

I did no such thing. I said the hairstyle and moustache of the man depicted in the "Dying Gaul" statue made him look a disco guy from the late 1970's. I still think so.



I know that it’s in your country popular to lay up on your own views on the rest of the world. But as long as I stay civilized and based on good sources and not ad hominem I’m not intended to do so. And as long as you act like the Germans say Grossschnauzig I’m even less intended to do so.

The topic of this thread is reflected in its title, "Bell Beaker R1b-L21". If you are going to post in it, you should stick to the topic and not try to turn it into another of your interminable campaigns to make U106 something it's not, that is, Celtic.



So get use to it and come with dignified views and sources Rms2.

No, Finn. You should stick to the topic of this thread and post your views about U106 someplace else. You have been thoroughly refuted time and again in a number of other threads, by me and others. But this thread is for discussing "Bell Beaker R1b-L21", not whether or not U106 was Proto-Celtic or whether or not U106 got to Ireland in the Bronze Age.



First look at yourself and then point with your finger.....

That makes no sense.

Finn
05-05-2018, 12:13 PM
I did no such thing. I said the hairstyle and moustache of the man depicted in the "Dying Gaul" statue made him look a disco guy from the late 1970's. I still think so.



The topic of this thread is reflected in its title, "Bell Beaker R1b-L21". If you are going to post in it, you should stick to the topic and not try to turn it into another of your interminable campaigns to make U106 something it's not, that is, Celtic.



No, Finn. You should stick to the topic of this thread and post your views about U106 someplace else.



That makes no sense.

You clearly missed the point and made my point clear.

Finn
05-05-2018, 12:43 PM
We had this stuff out on other threads, but you insist on posting the same stuff repeatedly everywhere, even in a thread on Bell Beaker L21. As you said, "Some grooves seems to be deep." Yeah, you're in a "U106 is Celtic" rut.

Note that MacDonald said, "The subclades present in Ireland point to most of the U106 population having arrived within the last 2000 years . . .". If we use 1950 as "present", that goes back to 50 BC. If we go with 2000, that take us to AD 1. If we go with 2018, that takes us back to AD 18. None of that is Bronze Age, and I think MacDonald was allowing for a big margin of error. I'm guessing almost all the U106 in Ireland arrived there since the Viking Age, i.e., since about 800 AD, most of it coming later than that, with the English.

About Z156 and U198 being present "in large numbers", well, I guess "large numbers" is a relative term. Since U106 as a whole only reaches between 5 and 6 percent in Ireland, and that in places most heavily settled by outsiders, I don't see what MacDonald means by "in large numbers". Maybe he means relative to the rest of U106. In other words, "large numbers" = small potatoes.

U106 keeps showing up in Migration Period Germanic tribesmen, and its oldest representative popped up in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery in Sweden (where all the trendiest Celts went to be buried, I guess).

Please, can you leave this thread alone for its topic, Bell Beaker L21? Campaign for U106 as Celts elsewhere, in the five or six threads you have already used for that purpose.

If I'm off topic you are not obligated to react on a even more off topic way. And yes your style is sometimes overbearing, the fact is that much people who do so may be have not always that intention, but more often they are surprised or deaf if someones says so....

So let me finish the R1b U106 and that may also be transported to another thread no problem wit that.

The point is that I quoted Mac Donald well and said that 2000 years ago si a "contra" to my thesis. But I also stated that was before Olalde etc.

As you look at R1b U106 Z156 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S264/)it's dated on y- full TMRCA 4400 ybp.

Maciamo made the following tree:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/jk3v0zqe3.png

So even taken with tons of salt you can't really state that until 0 it didn't move for 2000 years and after that it moved.....illogical!

So it's prudent to state that R1b U106 Z156 could well spread in the Bronze Age, and in this Bronze Age there were lot of contact in NW Europe and in which Ireland especially played a part!
(And Oostwoud Sample showed it did).

So for R1b U106 an lets eventually continu this on another thread.

Then R1b L21.

This is the nowadays picture.
https://www.mupload.nl/img/m4bxni6yk7lg.png

Again you see the spread in Ireland, British Isles, Belgium and NW Germany. Again a matter of spread from LN-EBA BB, Unetice and other Bronze Age cultures.

Cassidy (2016)

However, a large shift in genetic variation is seen between Ballynahatty and the three Irish Early Bronze Age samples, Rathlin1, Rathlin2, and Rathlin3, who fall in a separate central region of the graph along with Unetice and other Early Bronze Age genomes from Central and North Europe. These plots imply that ancient Irish genetic affinities segregate within European archaeological horizons rather than clustering geographically within the island.


and picture:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/8ay4tl4.png

My point is that you underestimate the Bronze age (genetic) interaction especially in relationship to Ireland.

rms2
05-05-2018, 01:37 PM
Finn, here's a suggestion: start a thread in the U106 subforum about how you think U106 got to Ireland in the Bronze Age.

In the meantime, leave this thread for its intended purpose.

Finn
05-05-2018, 01:40 PM
Finn, here's a suggestion: start a thread in the U106 subforum about how you think U106 got to Ireland in the Bronze Age.

In the meantime, leave this thread for its intended purpose.

You better read well.

The second part of the topic is especially on topic, and give a counter view not based on who has the biggest mouth (or scream the hardest boooh!)

rms2
05-05-2018, 01:45 PM
You better read well.

The second part of the topic is especially on topic, and give a counter view not based on who has the biggest mouth.

No, it's not. It's you once again pushing your U106-is-Celtic narrative, and that in a thread about Bell Beaker L21.

Odd that none of the actual U106 guys seem to be doing the same sort of thing.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to stop and to post your arguments in places where they would be more appropriate.

Dubhthach
05-05-2018, 01:49 PM
Rathlin1, Rathlin2 and Rathlin2 were all L21+ though, Rathlin1 was also DF21+ which interesting enough was also found in the first modern Irish man to have his genome sequenced (And published), nice symmetry to that :D

With regard to McDonald, well he specifically mentions 'Ulster Scots' which is can only be used for people who came into Ireland after 1609AD with the Plantation of Ulster. There is also the fact that McMullen is more than likely a scottish surname though there was one family bearing the name in the Dublin area in early middle ages. Most Irish 'Mullen's' are actually 'O'Mullen' eg. Ó Maoláin

The name is heavily represented in Ulster in the Griffith survey data from the mid 19th century
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/mcmullen.png

In 1901 the religious breakdown of the surname was 50/50 Catholic/Protestant. (when as a whole the Island was on 74% catholic in early 20th century). If you ask me this points to McMullen U106 lineage been relatively modern in a Irish context.

Finn
05-05-2018, 01:58 PM
Rathlin1, Rathlin2 and Rathlin2 were all L21+ though, Rathlin1 was also DF21+ which interesting enough was also found in the first modern Irish man to have his genome sequenced (And published), nice symmetry to that :D

With regard to McDonald, well he specifically mentions 'Ulster Scots' which is can only be used for people who came into Ireland after 1609AD with the Plantation of Ulster. There is also the fact that McMullen is more than likely a scottish surname though there was one family bearing the name in the Dublin area in early middle ages. Most Irish 'Mullen's' are actually 'O'Mullen' eg. Ó Maoláin

The name is heavily represented in Ulster in the Griffith survey data from the mid 19th century
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/mcmullen.png

In 1901 the religious breakdown of the surname was 50/50 Catholic/Protestant. (when as a whole the Island was on 74% catholic in early 20th century). If you ask me this points to McMullen U106 lineage been relatively modern in a Irish context.

Nice findings but all pretty modern, I think a split Catholic/Protestant is not appropriate for the Bronze Age.....

R1b L21 has definitely a central European-NW European-Bronze Age link.

I think not all Irish R1b U106 is 'WASP' could be parlly Bronze Age....but time will tell. But I upset some people to much who are in a single Germanic groove.

Finn
05-05-2018, 02:00 PM
No, it's not. It's you once again pushing your U106-is-Celtic narrative, and that in a thread about Bell Beaker L21.

Odd that none of the actual U106 guys seem to be doing the same sort of thing.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to stop and to post your arguments in places where they would be more appropriate.

Pretty well done Rms2 the only thing you can do when it comes to a debate is building walls....no single argument.... couldn't aspect otherwise...

LN/EBA is Bell Beaker.

rms2
05-05-2018, 02:06 PM
Pretty well done Rms2 the only thing you can do when it comes to a debate is building walls....no single argument.... couldn't aspect otherwise...

Baloney. I invited you to start a thread in the U106 subforum for your claim that U106 got to Ireland in the Bronze Age. I'll be glad to debate the topic there.

This is simply not the place for it. You are filling a thread about BELL BEAKER R1b-L21 with off-topic stuff about U106.

Why not do that in the y-dna haplogroup O subforum, or in one of the mtDNA subforums?

Get the point?

Finn
05-05-2018, 02:10 PM
ok I will start and I hope I get a qualified response....I will wonder.

rms2
05-05-2018, 04:44 PM
You know, I am really grateful to Olalde et al for their super paper, The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe, but it was bittersweet, because I was really hoping for the Amesbury Archer's genome, especially his y-dna. It was really a let down when that didn't come to pass. The Companion's genome is great, especially since he turned out to be R1b-L21, but I really wanted to see the Archer's results.

Oh, well . . .

Dubhthach
05-05-2018, 06:13 PM
Nice findings but all pretty modern, I think a split Catholic/Protestant is not appropriate for the Bronze Age.....

R1b L21 has definitely a central European-NW European-Bronze Age link.

I think not all Irish R1b U106 is 'WASP' could be parlly Bronze Age....but time will tell. But I upset some people to much who are in a single Germanic groove.

sure for Bronze age, but not for the massive movement of British protestant colonists into Ireland as a result of the Tudor conquest of the country. It's estimated 350,000 British colonialists arrived between 1540 and 1660 into the country, the reformation in comparison failed among the native Irish, as a result to a certain extent religion can be used as a proxy for British settlement in Ireland post 1550. Again a rather brief understanding of say the last 800 years of Irish history would kinda explain where the bulk of any modern Irish U106 and I1 comes from.

As a comparison with McMullen, in 1901 my surname which is of Gaelic Irish origin was 97.9% Roman Catholic in 1901. Even Murphy which is the most common name in Ireland (and which can sometimes also hide angliscation of a scottish surname) was 94.05% Roman Catholic in 1901.

rms2
05-05-2018, 06:28 PM
. . .

I think not all Irish R1b U106 is 'WASP' could be parlly Bronze Age....but time will tell. But I upset some people to much who are in a single Germanic groove.

Geez. You're all over Anthrogenica pushing the unlikely scenario that U106 is Celtic, and then you have the cods to accuse me of being "in a single Germanic groove". Oh, brother.

I don't think U106 has much to do with Celtic, but I'm not all over Anthrogenica starting threads or butting into threads harping on that. Honestly I don't care all that much. It seems to me one would have to be absolutely stark raving blind not to see the connection between U106 and the Germanic peoples, but I guess that's how people who sell white canes stay in business.

rms2
05-05-2018, 06:31 PM
Once again, what about R1b-L21 and the Companion? Nice result, eh?

jdean
05-05-2018, 06:51 PM
Once again, what about R1b-L21 and the Companion? Nice result, eh?

Since we know they were also related ,because of the strange foot deformity, it would be extraordinarily coincidental if the Archer wasn't also L21.

rms2
05-05-2018, 06:57 PM
Since we know they were also related ,because of the strange foot deformity, it would be extraordinarily coincidental if the Archer wasn't also L21.

I agree. Since the Archer wasn't native to Britain, I regard that as evidence that L21 wasn't native to Britain either, but the diehards won't be satisfied until the smoking gun is found.

jdean
05-05-2018, 07:16 PM
I agree. Since the Archer wasn't native to Britain, I regard that as evidence that L21 wasn't native to Britain either, but the diehards won't be satisfied until the smoking gun is found.

Modern distribution of L21 doesn't exactly support an origin in Britain either but so far ancient Continental L21 is doing a pretty good job of hiding itself : )

Really does make me wonder where it was skulking about ?

rms2
05-06-2018, 11:05 AM
Modern distribution of L21 doesn't exactly support an origin in Britain either but so far ancient Continental L21 is doing a pretty good job of hiding itself : )

Really does make me wonder where it was skulking about ?

I know the Archer's isotope results don't exactly pinpoint his ultimate origin, but the Alpine region of Switzerland and southern Germany has been suggested. I wonder about the two sets of Kurgan Bell Beaker y-dna results from Petit-Chasseur at Sion in Switzerland. They only got as far as M269 with one of them (I5755) and L151 with the other (I5757). But maybe not.

redeyednewt
05-17-2018, 02:04 AM
Ever since L21 was rediscovered and made available for commercial testing in late 2008, its probable birthplace has been hotly debated. The initial gusher of L21 among Irishmen and men of Irish descent led many to conclude that L21 must have been born in Ireland. A "back migration" was posited for L21 found elsewhere. Sometimes it was attributed to wandering Irishmen, e.g., "randy monks", and "Wild Geese". When it was discovered in the course of testing that the y-dna L21 in Ireland was exclusively DF13 (and subclades), enthusiasm for an Irish origin waned. Some then turned to Britain as the likely birthplace of L21. Others believe that L21 was born somewhere on the European continent.

Since it is widely (but not universally) believed that Bell Beaker men brought L21 or the y-dna line immediately ancestral to L21 to the British Isles and Ireland, how has the recent spate of Bell Beaker y-dna test results affected the problem of the L21 Urheimat?

Of the ten British Bell Beaker y-dna test results in the recent Olalde et al paper, The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962), eight were R1b-L21, and of those eight, six were R1b-DF13.

Bell Beaker R1b-L21 (https://tinyurl.com/ydyd52l8)

16617

The oldest of those R1b-L21 Bell Beaker skeletons, by more than a century, as one can see, are as follows:

I2457 2480-2031 BC (Amesbury, Wiltshire) Midpoint: 2255 BC

I2565 2470-2140 (Amesbury, Wiltshire) Midpoint: 2305 BC ("The Companion")

I2447 2400-2040 BC (Yarnton, Oxfordshire) Midpoint: 2220 BC

I2565 above is the oldest of the three, at least based on the mid-point of his rc-based age estimate. He is the Amesbury Bell Beaker man known as "The Companion", because his skeleton was found only a few meters from the burial of the famous Amesbury Archer. The Archer and The Companion share unusual bone structure in their feet, which indicates that they were related. Here are some remarks on that from Wessex Archaeology:



Isotope analysis indicated that the Archer probably grew up on the Continent, perhaps in the region of the Alps, but that The Companion may have been raised in southern England or someplace on the Continent geologically similar to southern England.

http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/book/export/html/5

Unfortunately, Olalde et al did not publish the Archer's y-dna test results, possibly because of poor coverage, or perhaps (hopefully) because they are saving them for a separate paper. Anyway, if The Companion was the Archer's son, then the Archer himself was R1b-L21, as well. Certainly, at any rate, the Archer and The Companion were closely related. If the Archer was R1b-L21, that would make it extremely unlikely that L21 originated in Britain, since the Archer was evidently born and raised on the Continent.

YFull's current estimate for the birth of the mrca of L21 is about 2400 BC. If that is right, then L21 had a very narrow window in which to be born in Britain, since the earliest known Bell Beaker burials there date to about that time. The earliest in Ireland date to about 2300 BC. Olalde et al found no R1b or steppe dna at all in Britain predating Bell Beaker, so it is extremely unlikely that L21 was already there before the Beaker Folk arrived.

IMHO, L21 is older by at least a couple of centuries than YFull's current estimate (which is based on the NGS test results submitted to them by living men). If I am right, that would render it almost impossible for Britain or Ireland to have been the birthplace of L21.

The Companion:

16618

Thanks for posting about this.

Bas
05-17-2018, 02:45 AM
I know the Archer's isotope results don't exactly pinpoint his ultimate origin, but the Alpine region of Switzerland and southern Germany has been suggested

Yes, that or the lower Rhine valley and into NE France has got to be in the mix too. Would have thought that the Rhine was also a well known route, or even *the* route at that time.

Also worthwhile remembering the (albeit tenuous-due-to-lack-of-markers ) lean The Companion was showing with the Eastern French Beakers, over South England Beakers in D-stats. The Z-score in those was indicative of something like a significant 5 point D-stat if sufficient markers had been present...

rms2
06-13-2018, 11:41 PM
Interesting that Davidski's latest qpGraph shows British Kurgan Bell Beaker derived directly from Yamnaya here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11vGRsoyhr5rDGUhRN6RmVyDB5TydG7Ax/view).

23964

Reminds me of what Gimbutas wrote on page 390 of her book, The Civilization of the Goddess:



The Bell Beaker culture of western Europe which diffused between 2500 and 2100 B.C. between central Europe, the British Isles, and the Iberian Peninsula, could not have arisen in a vacuum. The mobile horse-riding and warrior people who buried their dead in Yamna type kurgans certainly could not have developed out of any west European culture. We must ask what sort of ecology and ideology created these people, and where are the roots of the specific Bell Beaker equipment and their burial rites. In my view, the Bell Beaker cultural elements derive from Vucedol and Kurgan (Late Yamna) traditions.


And this from page 391 of the same book:



The striking similarity of burial practices ties the Bell Beaker complex to the Kurgan (Late Yamna) tradition.


Thus far I am the only one I know of using the term Kurgan Bell Beaker, but I think it is useful to differentiate between the steppe-derived pastoralist people who had steppe dna and were mostly R1b-P312 and the Neolithic farmer types of Iberia who had neither steppe dna nor R1b-P312 and who are alleged to have been the earliest Bell Beaker people.

If those Neolithic Iberians were really Bell Beaker people, then obviously there were at least two very different kinds of Bell Beaker people.

redeyednewt
06-14-2018, 11:43 AM
Interesting that Davidski's latest qpGraph shows British Kurgan Bell Beaker derived directly from Yamnaya here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11vGRsoyhr5rDGUhRN6RmVyDB5TydG7Ax/view).

23964

Reminds me of what Gimbutas wrote on page 390 of her book, The Civilization of the Goddess:



And this from page 391 of the same book:



Thus far I am the only one I know of using the term Kurgan Bell Beaker, but I think it is useful to differentiate between the steppe-derived pastoralist people who had steppe dna and were mostly R1b-P312 and the Neolithic farmer types of Iberia who had neither steppe dna nor R1b-P312 and who are alleged to have been the earliest Bell Beaker people.

If those Neolithic Iberians were really Bell Beaker people, then obviously there were at least two very different kinds of Bell Beaker people.

Maybe they were both very different, and maybe they were the same or interconnected? We really do not know yet.

rms2
06-15-2018, 12:35 AM
Maybe they were both very different, and maybe they were the same or interconnected? We really do not know yet.

We do know that early Iberian Bell Beaker differed considerably from Kurgan Bell Beaker and that there was no discernible Iberian ancestry in Kurgan Bell Beaker outside Iberia.

From pages 3-4 of Olalde et al, The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe:



For Beaker complex-associated individuals from Iberia, the best fit was obtained when Middle Neolithic and Copper Age populations from the same region were used as the source for their Neolithic-related ancestry; we could exclude central and northern European populations as sources of this ancestry (P < 0.0063) (Fig. 2c). Conversely, the Neolithic related ancestry in Beaker-complex-associated individuals outside of Iberia was most closely related to central and northern European Neolithic populations with relatively high hunter-gatherer admixture (for example, Poland_LN, P = 0.18 and Sweden_MN, P = 0.25), and we could significantly exclude Iberian sources (P < 0.0104) (Fig. 2c). These results support mostly different origins for Beaker-complex associated individuals, with no discernible Iberia-related ancestry outside of Iberia.

rms2
06-22-2018, 01:55 AM
Wick Barrow (https://archaeologyathinkleypoint.wordpress.com/wick-barrow/) in Stogursey, Somerset, England, yielded the skeletal remains of a number of ancient people, but Olalde et al were able to obtain the genome of just one of them, skeleton #2 (from page 103 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Information):



The earthen grave containing Skeleton No. 2 was located slightly to the west of the centre of the mound and deeper than Skeleton No. 1, around 0.9m from the barrow surface. Skeleton No. 2 was buried tightly flexed on its left side with its head to the north. The skeleton was accompanied by an Wessex/Middle Rhine Beaker positioned at its right shoulder and two flint knives located close to the pelvis and the lumbar vertebrae respectively.


Skeleton #2:

I6775/Skeleton No. 2: 2400–2000 BCE Y-DNA: R1b-L21 mtDNA: H1

24186 24187

rms2
06-22-2018, 01:34 PM
Here's a photo of the bell beakers recovered from Wick Barrow. Bell beaker 2 was found with I6775 (Skeleton 2 above).

24203

Here are black-and-white photos of them with their dimensions.

24200

rms2
06-24-2018, 03:42 PM
Here is something I just noticed in re-reading Harrison and Heyd's The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of ‘Le Petit-Chasseur I + III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland) (2007), from page 25:



The ‘Amesbury Archer’ in Wiltshire (England) is one example of such an exotic immigrant from the continent, and perhaps linked to the immigrants at Sion (Fitzpatrick 2003; Desideri/Eades 2004).

rms2
06-26-2018, 02:21 AM
Here is something I just noticed in re-reading Harrison and Heyd's The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of ‘Le Petit-Chasseur I + III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland) (2007), from page 25:



The ‘Amesbury Archer’ in Wiltshire (England) is one example of such an exotic immigrant from the continent, and perhaps linked to the immigrants at Sion (Fitzpatrick 2003; Desideri/Eades 2004).




When Harrison and Heyd spoke of the Amesbury Archer possibly being linked to the "immigrants" at Sion, the immigrants they were talking about were Kurgan Bell Beaker people from the East, whom they describe as belonging to the "Bell Beaker East Group".

From page 192 of the paper cited above:



Within two generations, another significant change takes place at both sites. This is the destruction horizon around 2425 BC, at the end of the early Beaker period, when stelae on both sites were smashed and their fragments used as building material in new monuments (see Fig. 10). This marks a fundamental change in the prevailing ideology on each site. Such a change is clearly abrupt, violent and conducted quickly, so that every image was broken and thrown down. Not one remains intact at Sion, where the destruction was more complete than at Aosta. The distinctive accompanying material includes Bell Beakers that have links to the East Group. It signals an ideological switch in allegiance, transferred from the old Rhine-Rhône axis, to the new focus on the Danube . . .

We suggest that this destruction horizon is the intellectually transforming moment at both Sion and Aosta. The stable isotope studies describe how we can recognize individual immigrants coming to live at Sion from areas a long way to the east (Chiaradia et al. 2003). This moment is also reflected in the fundamental change of dental and cranial morphology of the Sion skeletons at the transition of the Final Neolithic to the Bell Beaker period (Desideri/Eades 2004), or, as we think, at the transition of the early to the middle Bell Beaker phase. This human mobility is convincing evidence that agrees with the distribution of artifact types, and the personal nature of the ornaments and weapons. In these burials we look upon the face of prehistoric Beaker migrants, who arrived as individuals, and not as a migratory population. It shows the importance of the individual person in promoting a cultural change. The conflict of ideas could therefore be seen as a doctrinal conflict within the Bell Beaker ideology. This fits the two distinct Beaker traditions that we identify, coming respectively from the southwest and the east. The Bell Beaker middle phase A2 is the climax of the development of the site. The cists reflect the new family based structures, that are dominant in the community and which follow the East Group customs (Heyd 2007).


Harrison and Heyd believe Kurgan Bell Beaker people (Bell Beaker East Group) arrived at Sion in Switzerland and Aosta in northern Italy around 2425 BC and came into conflict with the earlier Bell Beaker inhabitants, who were westerners.

Ibid, page 172:



In Sion, the early Beaker ideology from the west was violently challenged, and replaced by an antagonistic version of the same beliefs that came from the east, ultimately from the Carpathian basin and the middle Danube. The result was the obliteration of the specifically western Beaker ideology, and the stelae, which materialized it. No more were erected, and the solar axis of the site was less respected. If the destruction of the stelae is treated as an historical incident, when one social group of Beaker users overthrows its rival, it should be possible to read the rest of the site’s history with a similar logic. This is a task for the future, once the physical anthropology on the human skeletal remains is published, and the immigrants identified.

Ibid, page 187:



The difference is a chronological one; the stelae are created first, with symbols and inventories of southern origin; then the elements of the ‘Beaker Package’ arrive from the Danubian region. The rivalry that arose between the two was so great that the stelae were destroyed, and the new symbol code was imposed.

rms2
06-26-2018, 12:26 PM
The only y-dna test results from Sion in Olalde et al came from skeletons recovered from the stone cist known as Dolmen M XI. It was one of the post-destruction horizon cists and was constructed from reused stone stelae.

From Harrison and Heyd, The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of ‘Le Petit-Chasseur I + III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland), page 142:



Stages and their descriptions (summarised in our Fig. 10): . . .

3. Destruction horizon of all stelae. Human burials and grave goods removed from Dolmen M VI, and the skulls and human bones of about 90 individuals are placed on its eastern side. Couche 5B includes this cultural material that accumulates around the dolmen.

4. The first megalithic cists M I, M V and M XI are built on the surface of couche 5C2. They include many broken stelae used as construction materials.


Ibid, page 141 (description of Dolmen M XI):



Dolmen M XI (Gallay/Chaix 1984a, 13–23; Gallay/ Chaix 1984b, docs. 8–38) Stelae 20 to 28

A large rectangular cist composed of four slabs, all of them re-used stelae, and with two smaller boxes constructed as extensions, to the north and south of the main cist, like additional cells (general plan, ibid. 1984b, doc. 22). The main cist measured about 2.25 by 1.25 m. The original entrance was a small porthole measuring 50 by 60 cm, and just large enough for a man to squeeze through, opened in the NE corner of stela no. 20, which formed the eastern side of the cist. The capstone was in place, with the NE corner smashed to allow the entrance to the cist in the EBA. A long and detailed sequence of Bell Beaker (c. 10 individuals) and EBA burials took place here, with up to 8 phases of cairn construction.

There are fragments from nine different stelae used to build this cist. None are in their original positions. Stela no. 25 was placed on its side, partly obscured from view, and used as the southern face of the extension box (ibid. doc. 43 with figure). Of all the large stones in the construction, only the capstone is not a reused stela. Another small cist was attached to the west side of the monument in the EBA, and contained a single inhumation (ibid. docs. 42, 44–46).


Y-DNA and mtDNA Results from Sion from Olalde et al, Supplementary Information, page 44, and Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4:

I5755/BB_01_MXI: 2470-1985 BCE Y-DNA: R1b-M269 mtDNA: K2b1a

I5757/BB_18_MXI: 2470-1985 BCE Y-DNA: R1b-L151 mtDNA: H3af

I5759/BB_23_MXI: 2470-1985 BCE mtDNA: U2e1c1

It's too bad they were only able to get as far as M269 and L151 with the two males. Anyway, we can see in the only y-dna results from Sion the presence of R1b-M269 (and steppe dna, which was present in all three skeletons) in the post-destruction phase, after the Kurgan Bell Beaker immigrants arrived. It would be interesting to see some dna test results from the pre-destruction period.

redeyednewt
06-29-2018, 03:27 AM
We do know that early Iberian Bell Beaker differed considerably from Kurgan Bell Beaker and that there was no discernible Iberian ancestry in Kurgan Bell Beaker outside Iberia.

From pages 3-4 of Olalde et al, The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe:

Again we really do not know. For all we know they are genetically related, and Archaeologists and scientists have yet to find archaeological or genetic evidence of this.

David Mc
06-29-2018, 05:30 AM
rms2 is trying to explain to you that we do know. Once we didn't. Now we do. The reason we know is that we have DNA from both the early Iberian Bell Beaker-using people and the Eastern Bell beaker groups. What we've found out is that:

a) The early Iberian types have YDNA lines that reflect neolithic ancestry without the autosomal DNA that was present on the Steppe.
b) The Eastern Bell Beaker groups have different yDNA not found in western Europe before the early Bronze Age and autosomal DNA that comes from the Steppe.

The archaeology can be argued either way, although I think it also supports a Bell-Beaker from the east movement. Either way, ancient DNA has rendered it moot.

It's really quite simple.

oneillabu
06-29-2018, 11:25 PM
rms2 is trying to explain to you that we do know. Once we didn't. Now we do. The reason we know is that we have DNA from both the early Iberian Bell Beaker-using people and the Eastern Bell beaker groups. What we've found out is that:

a) The early Iberian types have YDNA lines that reflect neolithic ancestry without the autosomal DNA that was present on the Steppe.
b) The Eastern Bell Beaker groups have different yDNA not found in western Europe before the early Bronze Age and autosomal DNA that comes from the Steppe.

The archaeology can be argued either way, although I think it also supports a Bell-Beaker from the east movement. Either way, ancient DNA has rendered it moot.

It's really quite simple.

It must be wonderful to have such infinite wisdom, everything is black and white and categorised in its proper place, the problem is that I seem to recall the same infinite wisdom from these self same individuals stating that DF21 was Belgae in origin and came to Ireland 2000 years ago and we all know where that particular theory ended up so I would not rule out anything regarding the bell beaker people just yet, here is an interesting pdf to download regarding Iberian R1b

http://originsdna.com/content/MRM-R1bAgg.pdf

jdean
06-29-2018, 11:32 PM
It must be wonderful to have such infinite wisdom, everything is black and white and categorised in its proper place, the problem is that I seem to recall the same infinite wisdom from these self same individuals stating that DF21 was Belgae in origin and came to Ireland 2000 years ago and we all know where that particular theory ended up so I would not rule out anything regarding the bell beaker people just yet, here is an interesting pdf to download regarding Iberian R1b

http://originsdna.com/content/MRM-R1bAgg.pdf

Got as far as Maglio, very funny : )

David Mc
06-30-2018, 12:29 AM
It must be wonderful to have such infinite wisdom, everything is black and white and categorised in its proper place... http://originsdna.com/content/MRM-R1bAgg.pdf

With the case in point infinite wisdom isn't necessary, just a little bit of common sense.

rms2
06-30-2018, 01:41 AM
Delete this post please.

rms2
06-30-2018, 01:49 AM
It must be wonderful to have such infinite wisdom, everything is black and white and categorised in its proper place, the problem is that I seem to recall the same infinite wisdom from these self same individuals stating that DF21 was Belgae in origin and came to Ireland 2000 years ago and we all know where that particular theory ended up so I would not rule out anything regarding the bell beaker people just yet, here is an interesting pdf to download regarding Iberian R1b

http://originsdna.com/content/MRM-R1bAgg.pdf

I don't know who said that. What was pointed out at the time, with what we knew at the time, was that those two Hinxton Celts were recovered from Catuvellauni territory, and the Catuvellauni were a Belgic tribe. They may have come to Britain with the Catuvellauni.

Subsequently, the Rathlin Island DF21 results turned up, chock full of steppe dna, and not at all Iberian-like in any way.

Now, try to wrap your head around the idea that DF21 could have come to Britain and Ireland with the Kurgan Bell Beaker people (or it could have arisen in Britain or Ireland among Bell Beaker people) and also subsequently with the Belgae, who came from just across the Channel.

While you're at it, contrast those Rathlin Island guys with the Ballynahatty woman and all of Olalde et al's British Neolithic farmers. Those Neolithic folks had no steppe dna, and the males had no y-dna R1b.

No need for infinite wisdom to know these things. Just read the relevant scientific papers.

24342

rms2
06-30-2018, 02:31 AM
That Michael Maglio paper linked by oneillabu above didn't make much sense when it was first written. It has been rendered ridiculous subsequently by ancient dna test results.

jdean
06-30-2018, 09:21 AM
That Michael Maglio paper linked by oneillabu above didn't make much sense when it was first written. It has been rendered ridiculous subsequently by ancient dna test results.

Haven't seen anybody use him for a source in years but remember one of his efforts when he claimed he'd worked out the haplotype of somebody famous (Rollo the Viking I think ?) by calculating the mode of all people at FTDNA who claimed to descend from said gentleman, basically he ended up reinventing WAMH : )

oneillabu
06-30-2018, 10:08 AM
I don't know who said that. What was pointed out at the time, with what we knew at the time, was that those two Hinxton Celts were recovered from Catuvellauni territory, and the Catuvellauni were a Belgic tribe. They may have come to Britain with the Catuvellauni.

Subsequently, the Rathlin Island DF21 results turned up, chock full of steppe dna, and not at all Iberian-like in any way.

Now, try to wrap your head around the idea that DF21 could have come to Britain and Ireland with the Kurgan Bell Beaker people (or it could have arisen in Britain or Ireland among Bell Beaker people) and also subsequently with the Belgae, who came from just across the Channel.

While you're at it, contrast those Rathlin Island guys with the Ballynahatty woman and all of Olalde et al's British Neolithic farmers. Those Neolithic folks had no steppe dna, and the males had no y-dna R1b.

No need for infinite wisdom to know these things. Just read the relevant scientific papers.

24342

To suggest that Bell Beaker R1b did not exist in the Iberian pennisula but existed in Italy 14.000 years ago does not make much sense so an R1b Iberian origin is not out of the question by no means given that it is most likely that R1b is over 20,000 years old, also we have an R1b migration to Africa which also points to Iberia as the point of origin, is it really that hard to believe that when P which existed in the Siberian region split into the Native American and Eskimo Q and the Germanic Norse and Celtic R that a migration took place to the most habitable region which was the Iberian Penninsula and R1b was formed here

Regarding the Hinxton Celts, I argued at the time that based on the enormous genetic distances between different Irish groups that around a 4000 year old Irish origin for DF21 was likely and this was borne out by the Rathlin result, also I argued at the time that it was most likely S5488 was also around 4000 years old based on the genetic distances of this branch of DF21 and the Rathlin Two result bore this out as well, S5488 is almost certainly indigineous Irish in origin, just look at the project group results to see this,

There was no Belgic Celtic invasion of Britain or Ireland, this myth was perpetrated by people like O'Rahilly and others, the main evidence given for this was a specific type of Celtic Iron age sword which was found in both Europe and the Celtic Isles however this type of sword was subsequently found much earlier than this in the Celtic Isles dating from the bronze age which indicates that it is entirely possible that the migration went the other way or that these people were much more mobile than was originally thought

Regarding the Steppes, of course there was R1b there and it is entirely possible that L21 began there around 5000 years ago, the similarities between the burial practices, stone circles etc are irrefutable backed by as you say Steppe DNA however to suggest that the Iberian penninsula was devoid of R1b and populated only by Neolithic Farmers is equally ludicrous,

Where did the Irish get their Basque DNA from, there are too many similarities between the Iberian region and Ireland to be just coincidence, the Celtiberians were not Neolithic in origin so did a migration to Ireland take place 3700 years ago as written in the Irish Annals, I would say that it is entirely plausible that a separate migration to Ireland other than the early L21 Steppe migration to Britain took place and this migration was the source of Irish DF21

I have absolutely no interest in any of the politically motivated Ballynahatty woman or Cheddar man garbage that is being spewed out by these so called studies, we know what the agenda is so I will stick to Y DNA results only, just look at the three Rathlin results who were all buried together, everyone of them had different female DNA so this just goes to show how meaningless it is to try and assign origins based on this type of DNA, to put is simply, I don't trust these people to be impartial in their so called studies so Y DNA ONLY

Y DNA FACTS

Oldest Bell beaker R1b was found in Italy 14,000 years ago

Oldest Celtic L21 was found in Britain around 4500 years ago

Oldest tested branch of L21 called DF21 was found in Ireland around 3700 years ago

Everything else is pure speculation !!!

jdean
06-30-2018, 11:03 AM
Y DNA FACTS

Oldest Bell beaker R1b was found in Italy 14,000 years ago

What an absolute load of toffee !!!

Bell Beaker culture is Copper/Bronze age not Paleolithic for one thing and the branch of R1b found in one of the Villabruna samples was thousands of years off being an ancestor to the branch of R1b found in Bell Beakers anyway

oneillabu
06-30-2018, 12:34 PM
What an absolute load of toffee !!!

Bell Beaker culture is Copper/Bronze age not Paleolithic for one thing and the branch of R1b found in one of the Villabruna samples was thousands of years off being an ancestor to the branch of R1b found in Bell Beakers anyway

To suggest that R1b began in the middle East and did not arrive in Europe till the Bell Beaker migration which is what is being suggested here is the absolute toffee, you are playing with words so let me rephrase it then to Proto Beaker R1b which is what I meant as you well know,

R1b began somewhere and the Iberian Penninsula is as good a place as any to look and given the fact that the bulk of the sister branch of L21 called DF27 is of Iberian origin and DF27 branched before L21 then it looks like the Beaker migration may well have began in the Iberian Penninsula and spread to Eurasia and the elsewhere in Europe, the fact that R1b was in Italy 14,000 years ago is absolute proof that it began in Europe and not Eurasia, also is the Iberian Penninsula not the gateway to Africa, how else would you explain a distinct ancient branch of R1b in Africa unless you are trying to suggest an African origin for R1b which migrated to Europe which does not make sense !!!

jdean
06-30-2018, 12:40 PM
let me rephrase it then to Proto Beaker R1b which is what I meant as you well know

No it wasn't clear that was what you meant and it makes little difference anyway that's toffee too.

I'll repeat, the single R1b Villabruna was thousands of years off being an ancestor to the branch of R1b found in Bell Beakers.

oneillabu
06-30-2018, 12:57 PM
To suggest that R1b began in the middle East and did not arrive in Europe till the Bell Beaker migration which is what is being suggested here is the absolute toffee, you are playing with words so let me rephrase it then to Proto Beaker R1b which is what I meant as you well know,

R1b began somewhere and the Iberian Penninsula is as good a place as any to look and given the fact that the bulk of the sister branch of L21 called DF27 is of Iberian origin and DF27 branched before L21 then it looks like the Beaker migration may well have began in the Iberian Penninsula and spread to Eurasia and the elsewhere in Europe, the fact that R1b was in Italy 14,000 years ago is absolute proof that it began in Europe and not Eurasia, also is the Iberian Penninsula not the gateway to Africa, how else would you explain a distinct ancient branch of R1b in Africa unless you are trying to suggest an African origin for R1b which migrated to Europe which does not make sense !!!


No it wasn't clear that was what you meant and it makes little difference anyway that's toffee too.

I'll repeat, the single R1b Villabruna was thousands of years off being an ancestor to the branch of R1b found in Bell Beakers.

But they share a common R1b ancestor in L278 the fact that L754 is now extinct is irrelevant, European R1b stems from L389 which was a sister clade of the extinct L754 so R1b is European in origin because it has been proven to exist there 14,000 years ago !!!

jdean
06-30-2018, 01:12 PM
But they share a common R1b ancestor in L278 the fact that L754 is now extinct is irrelevant, European R1b stems from L389 which was a sister clade of the extinct L754 so R1b is European in origin because it has been proven to exist there 14,000 years ago !!!

Much more recent aDNA has been found in the Steppes that share not only L23 with the Bell Beakers but also boat loads of autosomal DNA

But not only that, older aDNA that shares P297 with the Bell Beakers and also autosomal DNA has been found in the exact same area.

So question, why do so many Iberia Refugium obsessives keep banging on about a single Paleolithic result ?

rms2
06-30-2018, 01:57 PM
To suggest that Bell Beaker R1b did not exist in the Iberian pennisula but existed in Italy 14.000 years ago does not make much sense so an R1b Iberian origin is not out of the question by no means given that it is most likely that R1b is over 20,000 years old, also we have an R1b migration to Africa which also points to Iberia as the point of origin, is it really that hard to believe that when P which existed in the Siberian region split into the Native American and Eskimo Q and the Germanic Norse and Celtic R that a migration took place to the most habitable region which was the Iberian Penninsula and R1b was formed here

First off, Bell Beaker is a culture that began in the 3rd millennium BC and is not anywhere near 14000 years old. So Villabruna was not a Bell Beaker man. He wasn't a used car salesman either for a similar reason.

Villabruna was R1b-L754 at a time when P297 was already in existence, so he was not the ancestor of any of today's R1b-M269 men. He also belonged to an autosomal cluster composed of other Paleolithic men who belonged to y-dna haplogroup I2a. So, evidently his y-dna line represents that of an R1b hunter-gatherer outlier who had wandered west at some point. Hunter-gatherers were wide ranging in their quest for game. Even so, Villabruna isn't in Iberia. It's north of the headwaters of the Adriatic Sea in NE Italy. That's south central Europe.

If R1b spent the LGM in Iberia or Italy, we should be finding R1b nearby in ancient remains subsequent to the end of the LGM, but we're not, the one exception being a few rare finds of R1b-V88. R1b-V88 is L754+ (like Villabruna) but L389-. That means that the y-dna line of by far the majority of Kurgan Bell Beaker men (and of most modern R1b men) split from the line leading to V88 about 17000 years ago.

Villabruna may have been on the line leading to V88, because V88 has been found in Mesolithic remains near the Iron Gates and in European Neolithic remains at Blätterhöhle in Germany and in Iberia. So, V88 apparently was the westernmost form of early R1b.

No R1b-M269 has been found in Europe west of the steppe prior to the steppe-derived Vucedol culture in the 3rd millennium BC. Olalde et al, for their monumental paper, The Bell Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of NW Europe, tested early Iberian Bell Beaker skeletons and Iberian skeletons from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods before Bell Beaker. None of them was R1b-M269, not a one. There were two Neolithic skeletons in Catalonia that were R1b-V88, but that was it. There was also no steppe dna in Iberia before the arrival of Kurgan Bell Beaker and R1b-M269 around 2500 BC.

Olalde et al also tested the Neolithic inhabitants of Britain from before the arrival of Kurgan Bell Beaker from the Continent around 2400 BC. In this case, they found no R1b whatsoever and no steppe dna before Kurgan Bell Beaker got there.

You seem to be totally unfamiliar with the Olalde et al paper. You should read and become familiar with it. You can find it at the link below:

The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738).

BTW, there is just no way R1b arose in the Iberian peninsula.



Regarding the Hinxton Celts, I argued at the time that based on the enormous genetic distances between different Irish groups that around a 4000 year old Irish origin for DF21 was likely and this was borne out by the Rathlin result, also I argued at the time that it was most likely S5488 was also around 4000 years old based on the genetic distances of this branch of DF21 and the Rathlin Two result bore this out as well, S5488 is almost certainly indigineous Irish in origin, just look at the project group results to see this,

There was no Belgic Celtic invasion of Britain or Ireland, this myth was perpetrated by people like O'Rahilly and others, the main evidence given for this was a specific type of Celtic Iron age sword which was found in both Europe and the Celtic Isles however this type of sword was subsequently found much earlier than this in the Celtic Isles dating from the bronze age which indicates that it is entirely possible that the migration went the other way or that these people were much more mobile than was originally thought

This is not the thread for an argument about DF21, but one thing is certain, your past arguments for an Irish origin for DF21 have no bearing whatsoever on the ridiculous claim the R1b arose in Iberia. In fact, the Rathlin Island skeletons simply bolster the case that R1b-M269 has its ultimate source on the Eurasian steppe.

Keep in mind that DF21, wherever it first appeared, stems from a y-dna line brought to Britain by the Kurgan Bell Beaker people, but it was also found in Iron Age remains from Belgic Catuvellauni territory. Those men might have come over from Belgic territory on the Continent or had y-dna ancestors who did. You do realize it is possible for both things to be true, right? There were DF21 men in Britain and Ireland since the late 3rd millennium BC, and there could have been DF21 men right across the Channel in Belgic territory at the same time, some of whose descendants arrived in Britain with the Belgae.



Regarding the Steppes, of course there was R1b there and it is entirely possible that L21 began there around 5000 years ago, the similarities between the burial practices, stone circles etc are irrefutable backed by as you say Steppe DNA however to suggest that the Iberian penninsula was devoid of R1b and populated only by Neolithic Farmers is equally ludicrous,

It was apparently devoid of R1b-M269, but R1b-V88 has been found in Iberia from the Neolithic Period. See my comments about R1b-V88 above. It is only very distantly related to R1b-M269 and has an entirely different history.



Where did the Irish get their Basque DNA from,

The Irish don't have "Basque DNA". Whatever they have in common with the Basques stems from mutual connections to earlier peoples. If the Irish have anything resembling Basque dna, that could come from the earlier Neolithic inhabitants of Ireland, the people who lived there before the Kurgan Bell Beaker people arrived, mainly from Britain, around 2300 BC.

Keep in mind also that the Basques have some steppe dna, which they no doubt acquired from the same ancestors who bequeathed to them their R1b-M269.

When I read arguments for some kind of Iberian source for R1b-M269, arguments that draw on the example of the Basques for support, I cannot help but think this person stopped being curious about this stuff in about 2007. Maybe that is not true in your case, but you seem to be seriously behind the times and the current state of knowledge.



there are too many similarities between the Iberian region and Ireland to be just coincidence, the Celtiberians were not Neolithic in origin so did a migration to Ireland take place 3700 years ago as written in the Irish Annals, I would say that it is entirely plausible that a separate migration to Ireland other than the early L21 Steppe migration to Britain took place and this migration was the source of Irish DF21

You do realize that DF21 is downstream of L21 and DF13 and that most of the British Kurgan Bell Beaker men from the Olalde et al paper were already at the DF13 level, right?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that DF21 has an origin separate from that of the rest of British R1b-L21, and there is even less reason to suppose it has an Iberian source.



I have absolutely no interest in any of the politically motivated Ballynahatty woman or Cheddar man garbage that is being spewed out by these so called studies, we know what the agenda is so I will stick to Y DNA results only, just look at the three Rathlin results who were all buried together, everyone of them had different female DNA so this just goes to show how meaningless it is to try and assign origins based on this type of DNA, to put is simply, I don't trust these people to be impartial in their so called studies so Y DNA ONLY

That was irrational.

No one said anything about Cheddar Man, who evidently belonged to y-dna haplogroup C (speaking of y-dna) and who lived long long before Bell Beaker.

The Ballynahatty woman was a Neolithic inhabitant of Ireland from the period before Kurgan Bell Beaker arrived there. Her results are consistent with what Olalde et al found in the Neolithic inhabitants of Britain from before the arrival of Kurgan Bell Beaker: she was similar to Neolithic Iberians and to modern Sardinians and had no steppe dna.



Y DNA FACTS

Oldest Bell beaker R1b was found in Italy 14,000 years ago

Remember the old Gong Show?

That would have gotten you the gong from everyone on the panel, right away.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D-SqQV_T04



Oldest Celtic L21 was found in Britain around 4500 years ago

Around 4300-4400 years ago, and it's a bit of a stretch to label Kurgan Bell Beaker as "Celtic", but that part doesn't bother me that much, since they were probably speaking a form of Italo-Celtic.



Oldest tested branch of L21 called DF21 was found in Ireland around 3700 years ago

Roughly correct, so far, but the oldest DF13 thus far came from Kurgan Bell Beaker skeletons in Britain, and it's likely Kurgan Bell Beaker and DF13 spread from Britain to Ireland. Kurgan Bell Beaker in Britain is a century or so older than it is in Ireland.



Everything else is pure speculation !!!

It seems to me you aren't very familiar with much of "everything else" and so are not in a position to pontificate about it.

oneillabu
06-30-2018, 02:13 PM
To suggest that R1b began in the middle East and did not arrive in Europe till the Bell Beaker migration which is what is being suggested here is the absolute toffee, you are playing with words so let me rephrase it then to Proto Beaker R1b which is what I meant as you well know,

R1b began somewhere and the Iberian Penninsula is as good a place as any to look and given the fact that the bulk of the sister branch of L21 called DF27 is of Iberian origin and DF27 branched before L21 then it looks like the Beaker migration may well have began in the Iberian Penninsula and spread to Eurasia and the elsewhere in Europe, the fact that R1b was in Italy 14,000 years ago is absolute proof that it began in Europe and not Eurasia, also is the Iberian Penninsula not the gateway to Africa, how else would you explain a distinct ancient branch of R1b in Africa unless you are trying to suggest an African origin for R1b which migrated to Europe which does not make sense !!!


Much more recent aDNA has been found in Steppes that share not only L23 with the Bell Beakers but also boat loads of autosomal DNA

But not only that, older aDNA that shares P297 with the Bell Beakers and also autosomal DNA has been found in the exact same area.

So question, why do so many Iberia Refugium obsessives keep banging on about a single Paleolithic result ?

Here is how I see it, haplogroup P existed in Eurasia, most probably the Siberian region since very early times, this split into two distinct groups being R and Q,

some climatic event forced both groups to migrate sometime around 15,000 to 20,000 years ago, some of the Q group travelled to North America, some to Scandinavia while the R group travelled through West Asia into the Balkans, this group split into two distinct groups, R1a and R1b around 15.000 years ago possibly in the Iberian penninsula because this was the most habitable area,

later when conditions improved R1a spread Northwards into Central and Northern Europe while R1b spread through Southern Europe and one group to Africa, this migration accounts for the early Italian R1b, this migration continued to spread eventually back to the Steppes and Eurasia again, these people were very nomadic and probably still had a presence in many areas including Iberia hence the early Iberian DF27 people who split from R1b before the formation of L21, maybe L21 was formed in Iberia and travelled to Eurasia or maybe the other way round, only testing of ancient remains can solve this mystery but there are many different scenarios anyone of which may be correct so as I pointed out this is not black and white !!!

rms2
06-30-2018, 02:36 PM
If R1b-L389 (remember, R1b-V88 is L389-, and Villabruna was not derived for L389 either) had a presence in Europe west of the steppe in Paleolithic or even Mesolithic times, we should be finding R1b-L389 remains there subsequent to those periods, but we are not.

Instead, the earliest L389 and P297 thus far comes from Latvia in NE Europe, and it probably got there via hunter-gatherers from Russia or Ukraine who moved via river valleys to the Baltic region.

When it comes to R1b-M269 and steppe dna, it does not show up west of the steppe until the steppe-derived Vucedol culture in the 3rd millennium BC.

So, any scenario that tries to finagle an Iberian or other western European origin for R1b-L389 and especially R1b-M269 is just totally off base and inconsistent with the ancient dna evidence.

oneillabu
06-30-2018, 03:16 PM
To suggest that R1b began in the middle East and did not arrive in Europe till the Bell Beaker migration which is what is being suggested here is the absolute toffee, you are playing with words so let me rephrase it then to Proto Beaker R1b which is what I meant as you well know,

R1b began somewhere and the Iberian Penninsula is as good a place as any to look and given the fact that the bulk of the sister branch of L21 called DF27 is of Iberian origin and DF27 branched before L21 then it looks like the Beaker migration may well have began in the Iberian Penninsula and spread to Eurasia and the elsewhere in Europe, the fact that R1b was in Italy 14,000 years ago is absolute proof that it began in Europe and not Eurasia, also is the Iberian Penninsula not the gateway to Africa, how else would you explain a distinct ancient branch of R1b in Africa unless you are trying to suggest an African origin for R1b which migrated to Europe which does not make sense !!!


If R1b-L389 (remember, R1b-V88 is L389-, and Villabruna was not derived for L389 either) had a presence in Europe west of the steppe in Paleolithic or even Mesolithic times, we should be finding R1b-L389 remains there subsequent to those periods, but we are not.

Instead, the earliest L389 and P297 thus far comes from Latvia in NE Europe, and it probably got there via hunter-gatherers from Russia or Ukraine who moved via river valleys to the Baltic region.

When it comes to R1b-M269 and steppe dna, it does not show up west of the steppe until the steppe-derived Vucedol culture in the 3rd millennium BC.

So, any scenario that tries to finagle an Iberian or other western European origin for R1b-L389 and especially R1b-M269 is just totally off base and inconsistent with the ancient dna evidence.

How do you explain the Iberian origin of DF27 which has the highest frequencies of R1b-DF27 in Native Basques and Western Iberian populations such as Asturias, Portugal and Galicia, This branch split from R1b before the formation of L21 so how did they get there if as you say there was no R1b in the Iberian pennisula during this period plus the fact that the oldest archaeological beaker findings are from the Iberian region, how does this fit in with your Eurasian origin for all R1b-M269 prior to the 3rd millennium BC?

jdean
06-30-2018, 05:12 PM
Here is how I see it, haplogroup P existed in Eurasia, most probably the Siberian region since very early times, this split into two distinct groups being R and Q,

some climatic event forced both groups to migrate sometime around 15,000 to 20,000 years ago, some of the Q group travelled to North America, some to Scandinavia while the R group travelled through West Asia into the Balkans, this group split into two distinct groups, R1a and R1b around 15.000 years ago possibly in the Iberian penninsula because this was the most habitable area,

later when conditions improved R1a spread Northwards into Central and Northern Europe while R1b spread through Southern Europe and one group to Africa, this migration accounts for the early Italian R1b, this migration continued to spread eventually back to the Steppes and Eurasia again, these people were very nomadic and probably still had a presence in many areas including Iberia hence the early Iberian DF27 people who split from R1b before the formation of L21, maybe L21 was formed in Iberia and travelled to Eurasia or maybe the other way round, only testing of ancient remains can solve this mystery but there are many different scenarios anyone of which may be correct so as I pointed out this is not black and white !!!

Hardly the most parsimonious explanation is it : ))))

jdean
06-30-2018, 05:15 PM
How do you explain the Iberian origin of DF27 which has the highest frequencies of R1b-DF27 in Native Basques and Western Iberian populations such as Asturias, Portugal and Galicia, This branch split from R1b before the formation of L21 so how did they get there if as you say there was no R1b in the Iberian pennisula during this period plus the fact that the oldest archaeological beaker findings are from the Iberian region, how does this fit in with your Eurasian origin for all R1b-M269 prior to the 3rd millennium BC?

Prove the Iberian origin of DF27, then we can discuss holes in arguments.

razyn
06-30-2018, 06:06 PM
How do you explain the Iberian origin of DF27

That's a published but erroneous assertion based on modern frequency, in the male population, of some DF27 subclades (and, therefore, DF27 itself as compared with U106, L21 or U152) -- in or near Iberia. It maps nicely, but doesn't point to place of origin of people who had migrated into western Europe nearly 5,000 years earlier than the mapped data.

DF27 presumably had its origin (a YDNA mutation, in a guy) somewhere between the Rhine watershed and the Volga watershed (and my best guess is it was closer to the Volga, at least in travel time). East of the Carpathians, though maybe not east of the Urals. It's a brother clade of U152; their immediate ancestry is shared with each other, but not with L21 and not with U106.

oneillabu
06-30-2018, 10:07 PM
To suggest that R1b began in the middle East and did not arrive in Europe till the Bell Beaker migration which is what is being suggested here is the absolute toffee, you are playing with words so let me rephrase it then to Proto Beaker R1b which is what I meant as you well know,

R1b began somewhere and the Iberian Penninsula is as good a place as any to look and given the fact that the bulk of the sister branch of L21 called DF27 is of Iberian origin and DF27 branched before L21 then it looks like the Beaker migration may well have began in the Iberian Penninsula and spread to Eurasia and the elsewhere in Europe, the fact that R1b was in Italy 14,000 years ago is absolute proof that it began in Europe and not Eurasia, also is the Iberian Penninsula not the gateway to Africa, how else would you explain a distinct ancient branch of R1b in Africa unless you are trying to suggest an African origin for R1b which migrated to Europe which does not make sense !!!


That's a published but erroneous assertion based on modern frequency, in the male population, of some DF27 subclades (and, therefore, DF27 itself as compared with U106, L21 or U152) -- in or near Iberia. It maps nicely, but doesn't point to place of origin of people who had migrated into western Europe nearly 5,000 years earlier than the mapped data.

DF27 presumably had its origin (a YDNA mutation, in a guy) somewhere between the Rhine watershed and the Volga watershed (and my best guess is it was closer to the Volga, at least in travel time). East of the Carpathians, though maybe not east of the Urals. It's a brother clade of U152; their immediate ancestry is shared with each other, but not with L21 and not with U106.

As far as I know they found DF27 R1b-DF27, in an individual from the Bronze Age in Lower Rioja (Cueva de Los Lagos, Alhama de Cervera), belonging very to the Central Iberian culture of Cogotas and this individual did not have steppe DNA, here is a link to the article I read

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2018/03/oldest-known-iberian-r1b-s116-and-df27.html

oneillabu
06-30-2018, 10:26 PM
To suggest that R1b began in the middle East and did not arrive in Europe till the Bell Beaker migration which is what is being suggested here is the absolute toffee, you are playing with words so let me rephrase it then to Proto Beaker R1b which is what I meant as you well know,

R1b began somewhere and the Iberian Penninsula is as good a place as any to look and given the fact that the bulk of the sister branch of L21 called DF27 is of Iberian origin and DF27 branched before L21 then it looks like the Beaker migration may well have began in the Iberian Penninsula and spread to Eurasia and the elsewhere in Europe, the fact that R1b was in Italy 14,000 years ago is absolute proof that it began in Europe and not Eurasia, also is the Iberian Penninsula not the gateway to Africa, how else would you explain a distinct ancient branch of R1b in Africa unless you are trying to suggest an African origin for R1b which migrated to Europe which does not make sense !!!


Prove the Iberian origin of DF27, then we can discuss holes in arguments.

Link to paper
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/03/07/1717762115.DCSupplemental/pnas.1717762115.sapp.pdf

David Mc
07-01-2018, 12:15 AM
Link to paper
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/03/07/1717762115.DCSupplemental/pnas.1717762115.sapp.pdf

Firstly, Cogotas I, which is the culture that ESP005 is associated with (although note that it was found on the very northeastern edge of the territory) is pretty late, starting at ca. 1700 and ending ca.1000 BC. R1b Bell Beaker folk began moving west almost a thousand years before that. Why on earth would you assume a R1b person in the late bronze age was anything other than one of their descendants?

Secondly, as far as I can see, ESP005 does have steppe DNA. See https://indo-european.eu/2018/03/first-iberian-r1b-df27-sample-probably-from-incoming-east-bell-beakers/.

David Mc
07-01-2018, 12:26 AM
Another interesting article from the same site noting that the Cogotas culture's pottery builds upon earlier Bell Beaker styles. Also strongly affirming R1b as an intrusive presence from the East. See this paragraph in particular:


If we take into account that the earliest Iberian Bell Beakers were I2a (most likely I2a2a2a), R1b-V88, and G2a, just like previous Chalcolithic and Neolithic Iberians, it cannot get clearer how and when the first Indo-European waves reached Iberia, and thus that the Harrison and Heyd (2007) model of East Bell Beaker expansion was right. Not a single reputable geneticist contests the origin of R1b-L23 subclades in Iberia anymore (see e.g. Heyd, or Lazaridis).

Well said.

The article can be read here: https://indo-european.eu/2018/06/cogotas-i-bronze-age-pottery-emulated-and-expanded-bell-beaker-decoration/

rms2
07-01-2018, 02:51 AM
How do you explain the Iberian origin of DF27 which has the highest frequencies of R1b-DF27 in Native Basques and Western Iberian populations such as Asturias, Portugal and Galicia, This branch split from R1b before the formation of L21 so how did they get there if as you say there was no R1b in the Iberian pennisula during this period plus the fact that the oldest archaeological beaker findings are from the Iberian region, how does this fit in with your Eurasian origin for all R1b-M269 prior to the 3rd millennium BC?

Others have answered you very well, but I think I'll also take a stab at it. First off, DF27 did not originate in Iberia. Olalde et al and others have clearly demonstrated that there was no R1b-M269, let alone P312 or DF27, or any steppe dna in Iberia prior to the arrival of the Yamnaya-descended Kurgan Bell Beaker people around 2500 BC and after.

DF27 has been found in a Kurgan Bell Beaker man (I0806) whose skeleton was recovered near Quedlinburg, Germany, and 14C dated to 2431-2150 BC. It has not been found in Iberia that early, and I0806 had steppe dna, as well, like all the R1b-P312 Kurgan Bell Beaker men.

Modern Basques have steppe dna, which they evidently acquired, along with their DF27, via admixture with their IE-speaking neighbors.

Early Iberian Bell Beaker had no R1b-M269 or steppe dna. Once again, please read Olalde et al. If you were familiar with their monumental paper, The Bell Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of NW Europe, we wouldn't have to go over all this really elementary stuff.

Speaking of the Basques, here are some additional early Iberian BB results from Lipson et al (2017) (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/03/06/114488) not in Olalde et al - Three skeletons from the megalithic tomb of El Sotillo in Spain, in the Basque Country, found with Bell Beaker pottery, all three non-R1b, with no steppe autosomal dna:

I1976 2571-2347 calBCE Y-DNA: I2 mtDNA: H3

I2473 2916-2714 calBCE Y-DNA: I2a2a mtDNA: H3

I2467 2481-2212 calBCE Y-DNA: I2a2a mtDNA: X2b

Those results, although not in the Olalde et al paper, are consistent with what Olalde et al found in Iberia before the arrival of the Yamnaya-derived Kurgan Bell Beaker people, who carried steppe dna and whose men were overwhelmingly R1b-P312. They are also consistent with what Olalde et al found in Neolithic Britain before the arrival of the Yamnaya-derived Kurgan Bell Beaker people.

From Olalde et al, pages 1-2:



The Y-chromosome composition of Beaker-complex-associated males was dominated by R1b-M269 (Supplementary Table 4), which is a lineage associated with the arrival of steppe migrants in central Europe after 3000 bc2,3. Outside Iberia, this lineage was present in 84 out of 90 analysed males. For individuals for whom we determined the R1b-M269 subtype (n = 60), we found that all but two had the derived allele for the R1b-S116/P312 polymorphism, which defines the dominant subtype in western Europe today14. By contrast, Beaker-complex-associated individuals from the Iberian Peninsula carried a higher proportion of Y haplogroups known to be common across Europe during the earlier Neolithic period2,4,15,16, such as I (n = 5) and G2 (n = 1); R1b-M269 was found in four individuals with a genome-wide signal of steppe-related ancestry, and of these, the two with higher coverage could be classified as R1b-S116/P312. The widespread presence of the R1b-S116/P312 polymorphism in ancient individuals from central and western Europe suggests that people associated with the Beaker complex may have had an important role in the dissemination of this lineage throughout most of its present-day distribution.


From pages 3-4:



For Beaker complex-associated individuals from Iberia, the best fit was obtained when Middle Neolithic and Copper Age populations from the same region were used as the source for their Neolithic-related ancestry; we could exclude central and northern European populations as sources of this ancestry (P < 0.0063) (Fig. 2c). Conversely, the Neolithic related ancestry in Beaker-complex-associated individuals outside of Iberia was most closely related to central and northern European Neolithic populations with relatively high hunter-gatherer admixture (for example, Poland_LN, P = 0.18 and Sweden_MN, P = 0.25), and we could significantly exclude Iberian sources (P < 0.0104) (Fig. 2c). These results support mostly different origins for Beaker-complex associated individuals, with no discernible Iberia-related ancestry outside of Iberia.


Regarding the impact of Kurgan Bell Beaker in Britain, see this from page 4:



The genetic profile of British Beaker-complex-associated individuals (n = 37) shows strong similarities to that of central European Beaker-complex-associated individuals (Extended Data Fig. 3). This observation is not restricted to British individuals associated with the ‘All-Over-Cord’ Beaker pottery style that is shared between Britain and central Europe: we also find this genetic signal in British individuals associated with Beaker pottery styles derived from the ‘Maritime’ forms, which were predominant earlier in Iberia. The presence of large amounts of steppe-related ancestry in British Beaker-complex associated individuals (Fig. 2a) contrasts sharply with Neolithic individuals from Britain (n = 51), who have no evidence of steppe genetic affinities and cluster instead with Middle Neolithic and Copper Age populations from mainland Europe (Extended Data Fig. 3). A previous study showed that steppe-related ancestry had arrived in Ireland by the Bronze Age23; here we show that, at least in Britain, it arrived earlier in the Copper Age (which, in Britain, is synonymous with the Beaker period).

Among the continental Beaker-complex groups analysed in our dataset, individuals from Oostwoud, the Netherlands, are the most closely related to the large majority of Beaker-complex-associated individuals from southern Britain (n = 27). The two groups had almost identical steppe-related ancestry proportions (Fig. 2a), the highest level of shared genetic drift (Extended Data Fig. 6b) and were symmetrically related to most ancient populations (Extended Data Fig. 6a), which shows that they are likely derived from the same ancestral population with limited mixture into either group. This does not necessarily imply that the Oostwoud individuals are direct ancestors of the British individuals, but it does show that they were closely related genetically to the population—perhaps yet to be sampled—that moved into Britain from continental Europe . . .

In either case, our results imply a minimum of 90 ± 2% local population turnover by the Middle Bronze Age (approximately 1500–1000 bc), with no significant decrease observed in 5 samples from the Late Bronze Age. Although the exact turnover rate and its geographic pattern await refinement with more ancient samples, our results imply that for individuals from Britain during and after the Beaker period, a very high fraction of their DNA derives from ancestors who lived in continental Europe before 2450 bc. An independent line of evidence for population turnover comes from uniparental markers. Whereas Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b was completely absent in Neolithic individuals (n = 33), it represents more than 90% of the Y chromosomes in individuals from Copper and Bronze Age Britain (n = 52) (Fig. 3). The introduction of new mtDNA haplogroups, such as I, R1a and U4, which were present in Beaker complex-associated populations from continental Europe but not in Neolithic Britain (Supplementary Table 3), suggests that both men and women were involved in this population turnover.

razyn
07-01-2018, 01:48 PM
DF27 has been found in a Kurgan Bell Beaker man (I0805) whose skeleton was recovered near Quedlinburg, Germany, and 14C dated to 2431-2150 BC. It has not been found in Iberia that early, and I0805 had steppe dna, as well, like all the R1b-P312 Kurgan Bell Beaker men.

As you know, I agree with most of your thinking here. But it was I0806 that was DF27+. I0805 was U152+, I believe. Note that Quedlinburg is in the Elbe valley, east of the Rhine and west of the Vistula. In terms of their eventual spread, all of these earlier Kurgan Bell Beaker guys (including over a dozen U152+ ones from burials in the Prague vicinity) were still westbound. We have not yet seen any aDNA evidence that their brother haplogroups (below ZZ11) DF27 and U152 had reached Iberia.

rms2
07-01-2018, 06:15 PM
As you know, I agree with most of your thinking here. But it was I0806 that was DF27+. I0805 was U152+, I believe. Note that Quedlinburg is in the Elbe valley, east of the Rhine and west of the Vistula. In terms of their eventual spread, all of these earlier Kurgan Bell Beaker guys (including over a dozen U152+ ones from burials in the Prague vicinity) were still westbound. We have not yet seen any aDNA evidence that their brother haplogroups (below ZZ11) DF27 and U152 had reached Iberia.

Oops! You're right, and I have now corrected my post above. I was looking at my Google spreadsheet of Kurgan BB results. I0805 is right above I0806. Somehow I mixed them up but got the right date.

I have I0805 listed as R1b-M269.

Dubhthach
07-03-2018, 08:09 AM
No one said anything about Cheddar Man, who evidently belonged to y-dna haplogroup C (speaking of y-dna) and who lived long long before Bell Beaker.



Don't forget that both La Brana 1 and La Brana 2 from NW Spain were also Haplogroup C. That's at least three Haplogroup C results from Mesolithic western Europeans and over quite a broad geographic distance.

rms2
07-03-2018, 11:48 AM
Don't forget that both La Brana 1 and La Brana 2 from NW Spain were also Haplogroup C. That's at least three Haplogroup C results from Mesolithic western Europeans and over quite a broad geographic distance.

True, and now y-dna haplogroup C is very rare in Europe.

By the Neolithic it seems to be missing in action in Europe, but today it's found out in East Asia, Oceania, and among some Amerindians in North America.

razyn
07-03-2018, 01:24 PM
I was looking at my Google spreadsheet of Kurgan BB results. I0805 is right above I0806. Somehow I mixed them up but got the right date.

I have I0805 listed as R1b-M269.


For reference
-I0805 BB_Central_Europe U152 from Quedlinburg, Germany, U152>PF6658 2467-2142 BCE Mean 2305 BCE

Source: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10566-U152-Specific-Discussions-from-the-New-Papers-released-10-May-2017&p=233581&viewfull=1#post233581

rms2
07-03-2018, 01:59 PM
Heading back a few posts to the stuff about the Sion Bell Beaker site in Switzerland, I brought it up because of this remark from Harrison and Heyd's The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of ‘Le Petit-Chasseur I + III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland) (2007), from page 25:



The ‘Amesbury Archer’ in Wiltshire (England) is one example of such an exotic immigrant from the continent, and perhaps linked to the immigrants at Sion (Fitzpatrick 2003; Desideri/Eades 2004).


Post 319 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10825-Bell-Beaker-R1b-L21&p=422744&viewfull=1#post422744)

It's interesting that in the destruction phase at Sion, about 2425 BC, the Kurgan Bell Beaker immigrants from the east threw down the anthropomorphic stelae that were already there in standing positions and used them to construct stone cists for single and family burials. That is evidently exactly what the Yamnaya people did with earlier stelae from the Kemi Oba culture.

Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, page 204:



Of greater representational interest are the carved stone stelae on which are depicted the heads and arms of figures, and which are covered with both geometric and more realistic ornament. A fine example of this is the stone stela that derives from Kernosovka. The stela stood 1.2 metres high and depicts the head, including a face with a moustache and beard; arms; and phallus. On the front surface of the stela are carved images of what have been interpreted as tools such as mattocks, a battle-axe, and animals including two horses. There are about seventy such figures known from the Pontic region. Considerable evidence exists that they were employed in Later Eneolithic burials, especially in the construction of Yamnaya graves where they were used to cover the deceased. This was clearly not their original purpose since they were constructed to stand upright, and Dmitry Telegin suggests that they were originally manufactured by the Lower Mikhaylovka-Kemi Oba culture and later appropriated by Yamnaya tribes who reused them in their own burials.

rms2
07-22-2018, 04:42 PM
Hope this post isn't too long, but I made some notes on all the R1b-L21 Kurgan Bell Beaker results from Olalde et al. These do not include the Bronze Age R1b-L21 results.

Total: 14 (thus far, 22 July 2018)

Amesbury Down, Wiltshire, England -

1. I2417/53535_25005: 2500–2140 BCE (based on associated dates in same context especially 25004); Y-DNA: R1b-L21; mtDNA: J1c. One of the "Boscombe Bowmen".

Grave goods: "Grave goods include eight beakers, seven of All-Over-Cord (AOC) type and one of Cord-Zoned-Maritime (CZM) type, a boar’s tusk ‘scoop’, worked flints and an antler pendant. Because of the nature of the grave it is difficult to directly associate any of the grave goods with a particular individual with complete confidence".

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, page 106; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).

2. I2457/13382: 2480–2031 calBCE; Y-DNA: R1b-L21: mtDNA: U5b1+16189.

". . . [F]ound near the western edge of the overall site and close to a timber post setting of Late Neolithic date."

No grave goods.

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, page 108; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).

3. I2565/1238: 2470–2140 calBCE; Y-DNA: R1b-L21; mtDNA: W1+119. The famous "Companion", buried about three meters from the grave of the Amesbury Archer and thought to be a close relative of the Archer due to an anomaly in the foot bones of both men.

Grave Goods: "The burial included a pair of gold hair ornaments, a boar’s tusk and five worked flints".

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, page 107; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).

Yarnton, Oxfordshire, England -

1. I2445/SK 8633 (YCF 95): 2397–1930 calBCE; Y-DNA: R1b-DF13; mtDNA: X2b6. Infant male 12-14 months old.

No grave goods.

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, pages 93-94; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).

2. I2447/SK 8779 (YCF 95): 2116–1911 calBCE; Y-DNA: R1b-DF13; mtDNA: K1a26. Newborn infant male.

Grave Goods: ". . . Beaker pottery, worked flint, a polished bone point, animal bone and charred plant remains".

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, pages 93-94; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).

Dairy Farm, Willington, Bedfordshire, England -

1. I2452/BEDFM2009.12, feature F.66 skeleton 186: 2277–1920 calBCE; Y-DNA: R1b-DF13; mtDNA: H1e1a.

Burial/Grave Goods: "A mature adult male, F.66 (I2452), was found crouched on his left side, with a notched flint dagger that lay at the head, and with a fineware Beaker close to the feet".

Note: "The individual had suffered a compound fracture to the right femur; this had healed, but in a slipped position, the result of which would have been considerable physical impairment".

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, page 90; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).

West Deeping, Lincolnshire, England -

1. I2453/CQWDO7, feature F.320 skeleton 1126: 2289–2041 calBCE; Y-DNA: R1b-DF13; mtDNA: K2a. Sub-adult.

Burial/Grave Goods: "Tightly crouched within a shallow grave, the sub-adult lay on its left side, with the knees on the chest, facing west. Five barbed-and-tanged arrowheads, a flint flake, and a flake knife accompanied the body. A length of worked red deer antler and a strip of cattle-sized rib bone were also present, with their position indicating that they may have been attached to the back of the deceased. Their association with the arrowheads suggests that they may have been archery-related, perhaps part of a bow or as a quiver stiffener, or else as a pressure-flaker for the manufacture of barbed-and-tanged arrowheads".

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, page 91; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).


Dryburn Bridge, East Lothian, Scotland -

1. I2568/GENSCOT15, Burial 10, Cist 2: 2287–2039 calBCE; Y-DNA: R1b-DF13; mtDNA: U5a1b1g.

Burial/Grave Goods: "These burials comprised two well-built stone cists . . . Cist 2 contained a further crouched inhumation of an adult male (Burial 10) along with the disarticulated remains of a child of around 6–8 (Burial 11). A Beaker vessel was found resting on the slabs above Cist 2".

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, page 68; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).

Trumpington Meadows, Cambridge, England -

1. I3256/TRM10, skeleton [3384]: 2204–2029 calBCE; Y-DNA: R1b-DF13; mtDNA: T2b. Aged 17-20.

Grave Goods: ". . . a fineware Beaker".

Note: Buried with second-degree female relative, aged 16-18, I3255, who belonged to the same mtDNA haplogroup (T2b).

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, page 83; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).

Central Flying School, Upavon, Wiltshire, England -

1. I4950/DZSWS:C.36: 2500–1800 BCE; Y-DNA: R1b-DF13; mtDNA: U5a2d1.

Grave Goods: ". . . a comb decorated Beaker".

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, page 95; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).

Canada Farm, Sixpenny Handley, Dorset, England -

1. I5379/F1: 2470–2290 calBCE; Y-DNA: R1b-L21; mtDNA: HV0+195.

Burial/Grave Goods: "F1 included the remains of a 25-30-year-old male on his left side facing east. The remains had probably been interred inside a wooden coffin, and were accompanied by a boar’s tusk, an antler pendant or toggle, a flint flake and a Middle Rhine/Wessex style Beaker. The skeleton was complete and mostly articulated; however the mandible had been removed and placed in the northwest corner of the coffin. The proximal articular ends of both humeri were slightly out of anatomical articulation. Signs of carnivore gnawing on some of the bones confirmed that there must have been a delay between this individual’s death and burial. Two radiocarbon dates obtained from this skeleton (2620-2470 calBCE (2-sigma) and 2470-2290 calBCE (2-sigma)) were statistically inconsistent with one another. It has yet to be resolved which of these dates is likely to be most accurate, although both dates place the death of the individual at the beginning of the Beaker period in Britain. Both dates are anomalously early when compared to the typology of the accompanying Beaker pot, suggesting that the period between death and burial was likely to have been a century or more. The correct anatomical articulation of the skeleton inferred the persistence of substantial soft tissue. This observation, as well as results from the histological analysis of the femur from this skeleton, were consistent with this individual having been mummified previously."

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, page 114; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).

Nr. Ablington, Figheldean, England -

1. I5513/DZSWS:X146.1 b: 2500–1800 BCE; Y-DNA: R1b-DF13; mtDNA: V.

Grave Goods: " . . . a long necked Beaker".

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, pages 123-124; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).

Wick Barrow, Stogursey, Somerset, England -

1. I6775/Skeleton No. 2: 2400–2000 BCE; Y-DNA: R1b-L21; mtDNA: H1.

Burial/Grave Goods: "Skeleton No. 2 was buried tightly flexed on its left side with its head to the north. The skeleton was accompanied by an Wessex/Middle Rhine Beaker positioned at its right shoulder and two flint knives located close to the pelvis and the lumbar vertebrae respectively".

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, page 103; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).

Wilsford Down, Wilsford-cum-Lake, Wiltshire, England -

1. I6777/G.54: 2400–2000 BCE; Y-DNA: R1b-L21; mtDNA: U4b1b2.

Burial/Grave Goods: "The Wilsford-cum-Lake G.54 round barrow consists of an outer mound and a slightly ovoid core measuring 14m in diameter. The original grave pit, which was slightly off centre had been badly disturbed by Cunningon’s investigations, which had left a hollow at the centre of the mound. Below this hollow was a disturbed area located to the east of the grave containing a dense concentration of artefacts including sherds of a Cord-Zone Maritime Maritime Beaker, an All-Over Cord Beaker, a Wessex/Middle Rhine Beaker and four barbed-and-tanged arrowheads. A disturbed area to the east of the grave contained another sherd from an All-Over Cord Beaker. These areas of disturbance were thought to reflect piles of artefacts that Cunnington’s diggers had displaced from the burial and piled up on the side of the grave edge. It is assumed that the all of these artefacts originally accompanied the burial.

The grave itself was orientated NW-SE with only a human cranium belonging to a 17-25-year-old male remaining in situ on its left side orientated northwest facing northeast. A flat three-rivet bronze dagger had been placed in front of the cranium and a stone battle axe was situated above the cranium. The fill of Cunnington’s disturbance through the grave contained sherds of an All-Over Cord and Wessex/Middle Rhine Beaker, a barbed-and-tanged arrowhead, 14 fragments of deer antler and parts of the human skeleton. The variety of artefacts found in this grave would make it quite rich and even though the remains of only one individual were recovered, the level of disturbance suggests that some of the artefacts may have been residual, and associations between artefacts and the skeleton have to be approached with caution."

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, pages 104-105; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).

rms2
07-22-2018, 05:14 PM
I am really curious about this one, from Canada Farm, Sixpenny Handley, Dorset, England:



1. I5379/F1: 2470–2290 calBCE; Y-DNA: R1b-L21; mtDNA: HV0+195.

Burial/Grave Goods: ". . . Signs of carnivore gnawing on some of the bones confirmed that there must have been a delay between this individual’s death and burial. Two radiocarbon dates obtained from this skeleton (2620-2470 calBCE (2-sigma) and 2470-2290 calBCE (2-sigma)) were statistically inconsistent with one another. It has yet to be resolved which of these dates is likely to be most accurate, although both dates place the death of the individual at the beginning of the Beaker period in Britain. Both dates are anomalously early when compared to the typology of the accompanying Beaker pot, suggesting that the period between death and burial was likely to have been a century or more. The correct anatomical articulation of the skeleton inferred the persistence of substantial soft tissue. This observation, as well as results from the histological analysis of the femur from this skeleton, were consistent with this individual having been mummified previously."


So, could this apparent mummy have been a revered ancestor whose remains were brought from the Continent to Britain and interred there?

I would like to know what the isotopes revealed about where he was born and raised (if his tooth enamel was tested).

jdean
07-22-2018, 06:35 PM
I am really curious about this one, from Canada Farm, Sixpenny Handley, Dorset, England:



So, could this apparent mummy have been a revered ancestor whose remains were brought from the Continent to Britain and interred there?

I would like to know what the isotopes revealed about where he was born and raised (if his tooth enamel was tested).

Sounds like they were on the road for a good while : )

Very interesting !!!

rms2
07-22-2018, 07:19 PM
I got bored today, since nobody was talking Bell Beaker, which is why I went back to Olalde et al and made some notes.

I had not noticed the bit about that one being a mummy before, and it put me in mind of the Israelites taking Joseph's remains with them from Egypt back to the Promised Land.

Btw, anyone who wants to, feel free to copy and paste my notes onto your own hard drive. I cited the page numbers from Olalde et al so you can double check me.

jdean
07-22-2018, 07:52 PM
I got bored today, since nobody was talking Bell Beaker, which is why I went back to Olalde et al and made some notes.

I had not noticed the bit about that one being a mummy before, and it put me in mind of the Israelites taking Joseph's remains with them from Egypt back to the Promised Land.

Btw, anyone who wants to, feel free to copy and paste my notes onto your own hard drive. I cited the page numbers from Olalde et al so you can double check me.

Just guessing but it seems reasonable to assume the mummification process would have been pretty primitive, possibly just drying ?

If so they might have found him going a bit mouldy in the British climate : )

rms2
07-22-2018, 08:04 PM
Just guessing but it seems reasonable to assume the mummification process would have been pretty primitive, possibly just drying ?

If so they might have found him going a bit mouldy in the British climate : )

Yeah. I was surprised any mummification took place among the Bell Beaker people. I'm thinking this guy must have been an important big shot.

rms2
07-24-2018, 02:22 PM
I got my copy of The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen (https://www.amazon.com/Amesbury-Archer-Boscombe-Bowmen-Excavations/dp/1874350620), by Dr. Fitzpatrick of Wessex Archaeology, yesterday afternoon. Amazing book! Extremely detailed and dense, with all sorts of great photos and illustrations. It's going to take some time to digest it, especially since I have two other books I have already started reading.

One thing I noticed in skimming through the book is that the isotopic results show that the Companion evidently began his life in a place a lot like Amesbury, but when he was still a small child he was taken to live in a place like the one in which the Archer was born and raised, i.e., the Alpine region of Switzerland or southern Germany. If the Archer was the Companion's father, as seems likely, it sounds like he took him back to the old homeland for some years before returning to Britain.

Tons of fascinating stuff in this book!

jdean
07-24-2018, 02:55 PM
I got my copy of The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen (https://www.amazon.com/Amesbury-Archer-Boscombe-Bowmen-Excavations/dp/1874350620), by Dr. Fitzpatrick of Wessex Archaeology, yesterday afternoon. Amazing book! Extremely detailed and dense, with all sorts of great photos and illustrations. It's going to take some time to digest it, especially since I have two other books I have already started reading.

One thing I noticed in skimming through the book is that the isotopic results show that the Companion evidently began his life in a place a lot like Amesbury, but when he was still a small child he was taken to live in a place like the one in which the Archer was born and raised, i.e., the Alpine region of Switzerland or southern Germany. If the Archer was the Companion's father, as seems likely, it sounds like he took him back to the old homeland for some years before returning to Britain.

Tons of fascinating stuff in this book!

Funnily enough I came across similar info yesterday in something else by Fitzpatrick : )

The Arrival Of The Bell Beaker Set In Britain And Ireland (https://www.academia.edu/24957136/THE_ARRIVAL_OF_THE_BELL_BEAKER_SET_IN_BRITAIN_AND_ IRELAND)


A few metres away from the grave of the Amesbury Archer was the burial of a 20–25 year-old man who had died a generation, possibly two, after him (2350–2260 cal BC ). The presence of a rare trait in the bones of their feet demonstrates that the two were biologically related though whether as, for example, father/son or uncle/nephew cannot be determined. The oxygen isotopes also suggest that the younger man may also have travelled to continental Europe.

TigerMW
07-24-2018, 03:19 PM
...
One thing I noticed in skimming through the book is that the isotopic results show that the Companion evidently began his life in a place a lot like Amesbury, but when he was still a small child he was taken to live in a place like the one in which the Archer was born and raised, i.e., the Alpine region of Switzerland or southern Germany. If the Archer was the Companion's father, as seems likely, it sounds like he took him back to the old homeland for some years before returning to Britain.

We know there strong trade ties between the Wessex Bell Beakers of Britain and the Unetice Culture of the Czech Republic area. Something is up there, I'm not sure what, but I think the East (Kurgan/Steppe) Bell Beaker and Unetice genesis were caused by the same series of events in Central Europe with these two cultures being among the outcomes.
Unetice seems to be the more eceletic of the two. I notice they had flat graves, barrows (east facing), cremation and wood coffins.
Desideri said the men (but not the women) of the Beakers, Unetice and Corded Ware in the Czech area had the same dental traits. I can't remember the German metal specialist's name but he said metalworking was not differentiated between the three in this region.

rms2
07-24-2018, 03:19 PM
This is from page 188 of The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen:



Burial 1238 (the 'Companion') shows the largest shift in oxygen isotope composition between two teeth of any of the individuals in this study, indicating a significant move between areas of different climate during his childhood . . . His strontium isotopes show a shift from a value consistent with living on the Chalk Downs to a more elevated value for later childhood within the range of the Archer's strontium isotope range.


Ibid, pages 189-190:



The strontium isotope composition of the Amesbury Archer and the 'Companion' are hence consistent with continental Copper Age-Bronze Age populations from much of central Europe
. . .

The 'Companion' has a combined signature that is consistent with an early childhood in south-east England in a Chalk founded area but later childhood values suggest a domicile closer on conditions to that of the Amesbury Archer.

Dewsloth
07-24-2018, 03:22 PM
The fact that is wasn't merely a one-way trip, but repeated ones with children just seems wild.
Long-distance travel in the region must have been easier, more commonplace, or at least somewhat less dangerous than I imagined.
More like a pilgrimage to Mecca than Bilbo's travels from the Shire to the Lonely Mountain (and back again).

rms2
07-24-2018, 03:28 PM
The fact that is wasn't merely a one-way trip, but repeated ones with children just seems wild.
Long-distance travel in the region must have been easier, more commonplace, or at least somewhat less dangerous than I imagined.
More like a pilgrimage to Mecca than Bilbo's travels from the Shire to the Lonely Mountain (and back again).

Given the Wessex Bell Beaker people's fondness for Middle Rhine-type beakers, I'm guessing travel from the Archer's old homeland to Britain included a trip down the Rhine in some kind of boat.

Dewsloth
07-24-2018, 04:15 PM
Given the Wessex Bell Beaker people's fondness for Middle Rhine-type beakers, I'm guessing travel from the Archer's old homeland to Britain included a trip down the Rhine in some kind of boat.

Maybe they ran out of R̶i̶e̶s̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ mead and had to get more?

jdean
07-24-2018, 04:34 PM
Given the Wessex Bell Beaker people's fondness for Middle Rhine-type beakers, I'm guessing travel from the Archer's old homeland to Britain included a trip down the Rhine in some kind of boat.

Picking up souvenir pots on the way : )

TigerMW
07-24-2018, 06:10 PM
Given the Wessex Bell Beaker people's fondness for Middle Rhine-type beakers, I'm guessing travel from the Archer's old homeland to Britain included a trip down the Rhine in some kind of boat.

Needham, who specialized in the British Age, felt like the Beaker culture in Britain was derived from the Rhine Valley, not just an concurrent exchange. I don't know what the keys are to his conclusion. I think it is in the paper "Transforming Beaker Culture in North-West Europe; Processes of Fusion and Fission".

glentane
07-24-2018, 06:44 PM
Just guessing but it seems reasonable to assume the mummification process would have been pretty primitive, possibly just drying ?

If so they might have found him going a bit mouldy in the British climate : )
They got a series of bronze age "mummies" shoved under hut floors at Cladh Hallan (Western Isles). Seems the trick was to pickle them for a season or so in a bog until they were no longer tasty for bugs, and bundle them up tight, instead of cremating them like regular folks round there.
Incomprehensibly, at least one of them was a chimaera, made up of at least 3 individuals of either sex, and most were centuries older than the burial context.
Inevitably, M P-P starts banging on about "ancestors", and "reverence".

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/archaeology/research/cladh-hallan/cladh-hallan03

rms2
07-25-2018, 11:54 AM
Needham, who specialized in the British Age, felt like the Beaker culture in Britain was derived from the Rhine Valley, not just an concurrent exchange. I don't know what the keys are to his conclusion. I think it is in the paper "Transforming Beaker Culture in North-West Europe; Processes of Fusion and Fission".

I didn't mean to make it sound like they picked up Middle Rhine beakers like tourists on one of those Viking River Cruises would. I think probably the Kurgan Bell Beaker folk of Britain came via the Rhine and lived along it in various places.

rms2
07-25-2018, 12:15 PM
Here's something from an earlier post I wanted to mention:




West Deeping, Lincolnshire, England -

1. I2453/CQWDO7, feature F.320 skeleton 1126: 2289–2041 calBCE; Y-DNA: R1b-DF13; mtDNA: K2a. Sub-adult.

Burial/Grave Goods: "Tightly crouched within a shallow grave, the sub-adult lay on its left side, with the knees on the chest, facing west. Five barbed-and-tanged arrowheads, a flint flake, and a flake knife accompanied the body. A length of worked red deer antler and a strip of cattle-sized rib bone were also present, with their position indicating that they may have been attached to the back of the deceased. Their association with the arrowheads suggests that they may have been archery-related, perhaps part of a bow or as a quiver stiffener, or else as a pressure-flaker for the manufacture of barbed-and-tanged arrowheads".

(Olalde et al Supplementary Info, page 91; Spreadsheet, Supplementary Tables 2 and 4).

I have the wild idea that Kurgan Bell Beaker people had composite and perhaps recurved bows they were able to fire while on horseback. I fully realize others disagree and have their reasons. The bit of red deer antler and cattle rib bone attached to this boy's back and thought perhaps to be part of a bow make me wonder. Were those components part, along with the wood that has long since rotted away, of what comprised his bow?

jdean
07-25-2018, 03:02 PM
I have the wild idea that Kurgan Bell Beaker people had composite and perhaps recurved bows they were able to fire while on horseback. I fully realize others disagree and have their reasons. The bit of red deer antler and cattle rib bone attached to this boy's back and thought perhaps to be part of a bow make me wonder. Were those components part, along with the wood that has long since rotted away, of what comprised his bow?

Personally I think the orthodox that riding must have proceeded horse drawn carts is a bit wild, and then the logic that they wouldn't have been able to figure out how to use a bow whilst sat on a horse until they'd worked stirrups out is even wilder : )

glentane
07-25-2018, 04:38 PM
..the logic that they wouldn't have been able to figure out how to use a bow whilst sat on a horse until they'd worked stirrups out is even wilder : )
Looking up old English army lists that were recently (i.e. some years ago, I'm as old as dirt) put online, I was puzzled by the numbers of my name who served under the likes of the Stanleys or (more locally, the Asshetons; there's a ludicrously fractal feudal hierarchy involved, I fear).

To a man, horse archers. OK it got you several pence a day, unlike the poor bloody infantry.

But how in the heck did they manage a full-bore English war-bow (one big stick, 100lb plus draw, and XXIV little thin sticks), while careering around like lunatics balanced on the back of a half-trained farm animal?

I think Mike Loades has it. As usual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmaEiyZKd0U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qowg6-cMtuo

Point being, you don't need stirrups, ain't no half-ton of crazed landlord+hoss bearing directly down on you to unseat you. Short bandy legs and a flexible long back would help.

jdean
07-25-2018, 06:08 PM
Looking up old English army lists that were recently (i.e. some years ago, I'm as old as dirt) put online, I was puzzled by the numbers of my name who served under the likes of the Stanleys or (more locally, the Asshetons; there's a ludicrously fractal feudal hierarchy involved, I fear).

To a man, horse archers. OK it got you several pence a day, unlike the poor bloody infantry.

But how in the heck did they manage a full-bore English war-bow (one big stick, 100lb plus draw, and XXIV little thin sticks), while careering around like lunatics balanced on the back of a half-trained farm animal?

I think Mike Loades has it. As usual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmaEiyZKd0U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qowg6-cMtuo

Point being, you don't need stirrups, ain't no half-ton of crazed landlord+hoss bearing directly down on you to unseat you. Short bandy legs and a flexible long back would help.

People on horse back generally didn't fair very well when confronted by those properly trained in the use of the Welsh long bow but I doubt the Bell Beakers had anything anywhere near as devastating as that.

The Men of Gwent were particularly well known for their expertise and made their bows from alder and elm boughs which they would only finish very roughly, even leaving the bark on.

rms2
07-25-2018, 07:33 PM
Please delete: duplicate post.

rms2
07-25-2018, 07:34 PM
Table 8: Scoring of post-cranial non-metric traits from graves 25000, 1236, and 1289, on page 23 of Dr. Fitzpatrick's book, indicates the presence of Poirier's facet two times. Grave 25000 is that of the Boscombe Bowmen. Grave 1236 belonged to the Companion, and grave 1289 belonged to the Amesbury Archer. Table 8 does not say which skeletons had Poirier's facet. It's not listed in the index. I scoured the text for another mention of it, but could not find one.

Poirier's facet is believed to be associated with horseback riding.

Here is the definition of non-metric traits that I could find:



Non-metric, discontinuous, or discrete, traits are anomalies in the normal anatomy of the skeleton. They are not measurable and are simply recorded on a present or absent basis.


Since I am a layman and not an archaeologist or an anthropologist, I must confess Table 8 is not the clearest thing I have ever attempted to decipher, but it does list Poirier's facet and has 2 in the column labeled Presence.

The Absence column is harder to understand. It has the following entries as they appear: 1:2 and 1:1.

Below the table is the following note: "Key: data from burials 1238 and 1291 are italicised."

Burials 1238 and 1291 are apparently references to the Companion and the Archer respectively.

rms2
07-25-2018, 09:14 PM
I mentioned Poirier's facet in that last post because I often wonder about evidence of horseback riding in British Kurgan Bell Beaker, i.e., how much evidence there is for it and what the nature of the evidence is.

rms2
07-30-2018, 01:33 PM
Here's something interesting I had not noticed before. According to Figure S2 on page 155 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Information, I2417, one of the Boscombe Bowmen, had very high steppe dna, about as high as the Corded Ware reference sample at the bottom of Figure S2.

Here are the stats for I2417:

I2417/53535_25005: 2500–2140 BCE Y-DNA: R1b-L21; mtDNA: J1c

There are some interesting things about I2417, referred to in Fitzpatrick's The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen as "burial 25005". I2417 was not a complete, articulated skeleton but consisted of "disarticulated bone(s)" (pages 14 and 16 of The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen). These disarticulated bones lay on top of burial 25004 (I2416), which was a fully articulated male skeleton in the typical Kurgan Bell Beaker burial posture.

One interesting fact is that I2416 (burial 25004), the fully articulated skeleton, in contrast to I2417 (burial 25005), had the lowest level of steppe dna of any of the British Kurgan Bell Beaker skeletons (Olalde et al Supplementary Information, p. 106). I2416 had steppe dna, however; it's just that the level of it was lower than that of the other British Kurgan Bell Beaker people. I2416 was R1b-P310, and, as I recall, he was L21-.

So, there in the Boscombe Bowmen burial is an unusual contrast: an R1b-L21 individual (I2417/burial 25005) with a very high level of steppe dna, and an L21- individual with a much lower level of steppe dna (although steppe dna was not absent).

Once again, I am basing my remarks on Figure S2 on page 155 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Information, which is an f4 statistics table. It does not give percentages of steppe dna. If someone out there has the steppe dna percentages for I2417 and I2416, please post them here, because that information would be interesting.

I have not finished reading The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen yet, mainly because I am engaged in reading a couple of other books at the same time. But the Boscombe Bowmen burial strikes me as strange. It is technically a collective burial (containing the bones of 9 or 10 individuals), but it is not like the typical Neolithic collective tomb, which had passages and a chamber that could be reopened for the placement of new additions. No, the Boscombe Bowmen burial looks to me like it started out as the typical Kurgan BB single grave of I2416/Burial 25004 to which other bodies, most of them bundles of disarticulated bones, were added later. I could be wrong about that impression; like I said, I haven't finished reading the book.

The Boscombe Bowmen burial was nearly destroyed a couple of times by construction work, as well, so it's kind of a mess. We're lucky we know anything about it at all.

rms2
07-30-2018, 02:18 PM
I cropped Figure S2 from page 155 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Information to make it easier to see the steppe dna results for the British Kurgan Bell Beaker samples relative to the Corded Ware sample at the bottom of the figure.

24898

Webb
07-30-2018, 02:38 PM
I cropped Figure S2 from page 155 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Information to make it easier to see the steppe dna results for the British Kurgan Bell Beaker samples relative to the Corded Ware sample at the bottom of the figure.

24898

In regards to the Steppe component, did you read the link Generalissimo posted way back on the Oldest Steppe Bell Beaker thread when I posted about FTDNA's reporting of Bronze Age Invader?

rms2
07-30-2018, 02:44 PM
In regards to the Steppe component, did you read the link Generalissimo posted way back on the Oldest Steppe Bell Beaker thread when I posted about FTDNA's reporting of Bronze Age Invader?

I probably did, but I don't remember it.

I do remember reading a recent update of his over at his blog in which he said that now it looks like Bell Beaker could have been as much as 80-90% steppe. I'm not sure what changed to make that right. Maybe those thus far unpublished Hungarian Yamnaya?

Webb
07-30-2018, 02:58 PM
I probably did, but I don't remember it.

I do remember reading a recent update of his over at his blog in which he said that now it looks like Bell Beaker could have been as much as 80-90% steppe. I'm not sure what changed to make that right. Maybe those thus far unpublished Hungarian Yamnaya?

I read it. Davidsky's Spanish samples have some of the lowest Steppe component. This makes sense. If our guys were coming off the steppe at full 100%, then taking local women, after a few generations their descendants arrive in Spain, you would expect a low steppe component. What doesn't make sense, to me, is Davidsky's Norwegian sample has the highest steppe component. This shouldn't be if the movement was from the steppe into Eastern Europe then up the Danube, and then down the Rhine to the North Sea, then across to Scandinavia. The Norwegian sampling should be very similar to the Spanish sampling. Point of impact in Eastern Europe should be higher. The peripheries, lower.

rms2
07-30-2018, 03:06 PM
I read it. Davidsky's Spanish samples have some of the lowest Steppe component. This makes sense. If our guys were coming off the steppe at full 100%, then taking local women, after a few generations their descendants arrive in Spain, you would expect a low steppe component . . .

That's true of the Olalde et al samples, as well, even the Spanish ones with steppe dna. The one exception was I6471, whose steppe dna was pretty high. Unfortunately, they could only get as far as CTxIxGxE with his y-dna. I'm guessing he was R1b-P312, but we'll probably never know.

Probably the Kurgan Bell Beaker guys who went into Iberia were relatively few in number and did not bring very many if any women of their own with them. Reich said they managed a 30% total population replacement but on the other hand a 90% y-dna replacement, so they had an outsized male-biased impact compared with their overall contribution to the Iberian genome.

corner
07-30-2018, 03:11 PM
Here's something interesting I had not noticed before. According to Figure S2 on page 155 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Information, I2417, one of the Boscombe Bowmen, had very high steppe dna, about as high as the Corded Ware reference sample at the bottom of Figure S2.

Here are the stats for I2417:

I2417/53535_25005: 2500–2140 BCE Y-DNA: R1b-L21; mtDNA: J1c

There are some interesting things about I2417, referred to in Fitzpatrick's The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen as "burial 25005". I2417 was not a complete, articulated skeleton but consisted of "disarticulated bone(s)" (pages 14 and 16 of The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen). These disarticulated bones lay on top of burial 25004 (I2416), which was a fully articulated male skeleton in the typical Kurgan Bell Beaker burial posture.

One interesting fact is that I2416 (burial 25004), the fully articulated skeleton, in contrast to I2417 (burial 25005), had the lowest level of steppe dna of any of the British Kurgan Bell Beaker skeletons (Olalde et al Supplementary Information, p. 106). I2416 had steppe dna, however; it's just that the level of it was lower than that of the other British Kurgan Bell Beaker people. I2416 was R1b-P310, and, as I recall, he was L21-.

So, there in the Boscombe Bowmen burial is an unusual contrast: an R1b-L21 individual (I2417/burial 25005) with a very high level of steppe dna, and an L21- individual with a much lower level of steppe dna (although steppe dna was not absent).

Once again, I am basing my remarks on Figure S2 on page 155 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Information, which is an f4 statistics table. It does not give percentages of steppe dna. If someone out there has the steppe dna percentages for I2417 and I2416, please post them here, because that information would be interesting.

I have not finished reading The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen yet, mainly because I am engaged in reading a couple of other books at the same time. But the Boscombe Bowmen burial strikes me as strange. It is technically a collective burial (containing the bones of 9 or 10 individuals), but it is not like the typical Neolithic collective tomb, which had passages and a chamber that could be reopened for the placement of new additions. No, the Boscombe Bowmen burial looks to me like it started out as the typical Kurgan BB single grave of I2416/Burial 25004 to which other bodies, most of them bundles of disarticulated bones, were added later. I could be wrong about that impression; like I said, I haven't finished reading the book.

The Boscombe Bowmen burial was nearly destroyed a couple of times by construction work, as well, so it's kind of a mess. We're lucky we know anything about it at all.From what I remember of reading about this grave, the disarticulated bone from L21+ I2417 might have been a later burial originally above the lid of the collective grave containing main in situ articulated R1b-P310>?FGC11381 burial, the 'Boscombe Bowman' I2416. L21+ I2417's bones could have dropped down into the collective grave of I2416 Boscombe Bowman when the wooden lid separating them gave way. We talked about this burial and the possibility of I2416 being DF27+ (but not satisfactorily proven) earlier in this thread back in February (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10825-Bell-Beaker-R1b-L21&p=355644&viewfull=1#post355644).

I hope they will try again with yDNA analysis on I2416 Boscombe Bowman (and the nearby Amesbury Archer). Their isotope results, indicating they were early and widely-travelled Bell Beaker migrants born far from Stonehenge, must make them two of the most interesting Bell Beaker burials in Britain - yet frustratingly they have ambiguous and non-existent yDNA results respectively.

George Chandler
07-30-2018, 03:15 PM
What doesn't make sense, to me, is Davidsky's Norwegian sample has the highest steppe component. This shouldn't be if the movement was from the steppe into Eastern Europe then up the Danube, and then down the Rhine to the North Sea, then across to Scandinavia.

Was he able to determine the Y-hap for that sample? Could it be that the local inhabitants at the time were few and far between leading to more closed community for a longer period of time?

Bas
07-30-2018, 03:20 PM
I read it. Davidsky's Spanish samples have some of the lowest Steppe component. This makes sense. If our guys were coming off the steppe at full 100%, then taking local women, after a few generations their descendants arrive in Spain, you would expect a low steppe component. What doesn't make sense, to me, is Davidsky's Norwegian sample has the highest steppe component. This shouldn't be if the movement was from the steppe into Eastern Europe then up the Danube, and then down the Rhine to the North Sea, then across to Scandinavia. The Norwegian sampling should be very similar to the Spanish sampling. Point of impact in Eastern Europe should be higher. The peripheries, lower.

Maybe what it is with the Norwegian sample is that the local Farmer+WHG mix in a slightly different Northern Europe route to Norway (avoiding the Rhine) were WHG rich. Also possible causes are less dense/weaker farming communities in Northern Europe making it easier to dominate and less likely to be contributors to the new Bell Beaker genepool. A weak society may have simply been annihilated and replaced without any intermarriage between them and the incomers.

rms2
07-30-2018, 03:22 PM
I do remember that discussion (the one about I2416 back in February). What I did not remember was noticing just how high the level of steppe dna belonging to I2417 was.

I was making some notes in my copy of The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen this morning, and was looking at Figure S2 in the Olalde et al Supplementary Information. It suddenly struck me that I2417 was about as far to the left in Figure S2 as the Corded Ware reference sample. Most of the British Kurgan Bell Beaker samples are shifted to the left of most of the other BB's in Figure S2, but that one stood out.

Webb
07-30-2018, 03:28 PM
Was he able to determine the Y-hap for that sample? Could it be that the local inhabitants at the time were few and far between leading to more closed community for a longer period of time?

I don't remember. I will try to find the link that Generalissimo posted a while back.

Webb
07-30-2018, 04:02 PM
Here is the link:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13871-Oldest-Steppe-Bell-Beakers-Saxony-Anhalt-Germany&p=411864&highlight=invader#post411864

jdean
07-30-2018, 06:14 PM
There are some interesting things about I2417, referred to in Fitzpatrick's The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen as "burial 25005". I2417 was not a complete, articulated skeleton but consisted of "disarticulated bone(s)" (pages 14 and 16 of The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen). These disarticulated bones lay on top of burial 25004 (I2416), which was a fully articulated male skeleton in the typical Kurgan Bell Beaker burial posture.

Andrew Fitzpatrick has this to say


While the grave of the Amebsury Archer is better known, the earliest grave at Boscombe Down, dating to the 24th century BC, is that of the Boscombe Bowmen (Fig. 2.4). It is striking that the grave is a collective one as most Bell Beaker burials in Wessex and southern England are single burials, a characteristic often been used to support a Rhineland origin for the introduction of the Bell Beaker Set.
The grave of the Boscombe Bowmen was not covered by a barrow but it probably had a timber chamber and this would have enabled the access necessary for the successive internments to be made. Only the last two burials in the grave were articulated, the other five or six individuals were represented by some—but not all—their disarticulated remains

I'm reminded of some mummified remains we were discussing the other day

post by rms2 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10825-Bell-Beaker-R1b-L21&p=444697&viewfull=1#post444697)

rms2
08-02-2018, 04:46 PM
I've mentioned this elsewhere, but Figure 2 on page xvi of the introduction of David Reich's book, Who We Are and How We Got Here, shows that the total of ancient samples for which there are whole-genome data is 3,748, but that as of November 2017 only 711 samples had been published.

I'm wondering if Reich has any continental L21 samples in that mass of unpublished stuff.

glentane
08-09-2018, 09:36 PM
I dug up some more horsy fun, just because it's great to watch old gadgies like me giving themselves hernias.
The crucial element is the size (height, in hands at the shoulder I suppose).
Thilo there gives us a range of historical cuddy elevations, with the putative Roman-era cav. nag being not much higher than a Fell galloway, possibly shorter and not obviously different to an Exmoor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmoor_pony). Jess Ennis could loup a dozen of them sideways like Evel Knievel, carrying her baby, and not even break sweat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwLlUIeEIoM

I forgot to say:- no stirrups until they're massive Prussian cavalry mounts

rms2
08-11-2018, 08:51 PM
I dug up some more horsy fun, just because it's great to watch old gadgies like me giving themselves hernias.
The crucial element is the size (height, in hands at the shoulder I suppose).
Thilo there gives us a range of historical cuddy elevations, with the putative Roman-era cav. nag being not much higher than a Fell galloway, possibly shorter and not obviously different to an Exmoor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmoor_pony). Jess Ennis could loup a dozen of them sideways like Evel Knievel, carrying her baby, and not even break sweat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwLlUIeEIoM

I forgot to say:- no stirrups until they're massive Prussian cavalry mounts

Excellent video. When I was a teenager I did some horseback riding, and I couldn't always be bothered with the saddle. I can easily see how riders in the 3rd millennium BC could have whacked each other with sticks or what-have-you from horseback. It would be easy to ride up on a person on foot and brain him from horseback with your club or mace, with or without benefit of a saddle or stirrups.

That's why people like Robert Drews irritate me.

glentane
08-16-2018, 01:05 PM
.. couldn't always be bothered with the saddle.
Here's something that struck me while watching either of my lads occasionally slowly rotate sideways on the back of their mount at the riding school (indoors, stationary, nice soft bark/sawdust floor), and end up on the deck with a foot or two in the stirrups. The cunning critters had blown themselves out extra-fat when being saddled, presumably just for the subsequent fun. They did it a lot.
How on earth could you cinch up a girth without serious metal buckles? Some massive and vanished wooden (because I don't see anyone claiming bone or antler ones) pulley/toggle contraption, maybe through the saddle frame? Real fancy knotting/rigging patterns? Six-inch nails?

I think people (OK, daft young lads, realistically) just learned how to stay aboard from childhood, the hard way, and made do with a pad and rug for extended rides. Cuts out all that (potentially fatal, if moving) trickery from the horse.
They would also be used to jumping on and off constantly, like gymnasts, to do various things (e.g. tracking, hiding, foraging/prospecting, or even fighting) using only the bridle to make the beast behave and not run off (another favourite horse-joke is to innocently wander under low-hanging branches, to try and clothes-line the rider).
Not a daunting prospect, as long as you're not five-feet-odds up in the air on a thoroughbred, tanking along at 40.

rms2
08-16-2018, 07:59 PM
A couple of years ago (or more) Dubthach posted this pic of a couple of young boys riding horses bareback in Dublin.

25308

Brings back memories (but I wasn't in Dublin when I did that kind of thing).

glentane
08-16-2018, 11:40 PM
of course, if you want to go fast with the size of horse available at that time (pre-medieval), the ould chariot is yer only man. Them Ancient Brits that faced down Caesar weren't all that stupid at all, at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhFlw7r63R8
But it's a heck of a full-time job, having a horse. Eat you out of house and home. They'll take a third of any farm they can till, even before the vet's bills.
Roll up to about 7mins30 to see why saddles and stirrups are more of an encumbrance than an advantage, if you're not a full-on (paid-for and maintained, with back-up) cataphract on a giant steed, facing armoured opposition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI4mDUe-mvs

Oh lookee. Is there anyone in Britain that that can even afford a saddle, never mind stirrups?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM7oO4LUbxk

rms2
08-17-2018, 01:14 AM
Great videos!

I think people who believe you absolutely must have a saddle and stirrups to ride and fight from horseback don't have much riding experience themselves.

It's not that I'm an expert; it's been years since I last rode a horse. But I have good memories of having done it as a kid, and I know riding bareback is fun and not that difficult.

jdean
08-17-2018, 12:55 PM
A couple of years ago (or more) Dubthach posted this pic of a couple of young boys riding horses bareback in Dublin.

25308

Brings back memories (but I wasn't in Dublin when I did that kind of thing).

I was just going to mention that pic then (luckily) panned up : )

I showed it to my wife a while back and she said it reminder her of when she was working up near Merthyr Tydfil, I tried pointing out these people were riding without saddles and she said something very sarcastic which probably had something to do with her not being the one that has to wear glasses : )

rms2
08-19-2018, 10:32 AM
I'd like to get back into horseback riding, but I wonder if at my age that would be wise. I got thrown once when I was a teenager. I just picked myself up, dusted myself off, and got back on the horse. Now that would probably involve a trip to the hospital, if not a trip to the undertaker.

On page 26 of The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen, one of the Boscombe Bowmen, I2416/25004, is described as having suffered "a major, probable multiple, fracture to the proximal third of the left femur, which was well-healed but mis-aligned". The author of that section of the text speculates that the possible causes of such an injury "could include a fall . . . from a horse . . . moving at speed" (p. 26).

Dubhthach
08-20-2018, 02:18 PM
the lads in that photo are basically "urban cowboys" living in what folks in North America would call "The Projects" and what's called a Council Estate here. Of course I'm always reminded of the following book cover which is based on a German 16th century print of an Irish horseman ("A Wild-Irish rider")

http://www.fourcourtspress.ie/assets/BookJackets/_resampled/SetWidth440-Duffy-Gaelic-Ireland.jpg

rms2
08-25-2018, 12:30 AM
Which of course makes one wonder where those horses and the tradition of horsemanship came from.

Dubhthach
09-03-2018, 09:18 AM
Which of course makes one wonder where those horses and the tradition of horsemanship came from.

In case of Urban horses? Well some of it is probably to do with the urbanisation of the Traveller population during the mid-late 20th century. Travellers were always involved with horses, stuff like horse fairs etc. they also tended to be involved in various parts of rural economy such as disposing of dead animals etc. (thence one of most pejorative terms for them is associated with the profession of slaughtering of old horses etc. -- "K... Yard"), another tradition term form them which is now also considered pejorative was to do with "tinsmithing"
https://www.museum.ie/The-Collections/Documentation-Discoveries/April-2014/Tin-Objects-Made-by-Donegal-Traveller-and-Musician

At the same time during the 1960's as Travellers started increasing moving into illegal campsites in expanding Dublin hinterland you saw a process of "urban renewal" with slum demolition and movement of inner city people out to newly built council estates which were often on the periphery (with poor transport links back into city) and often with lots of open greenspace. In sense keeping of horses became part of a youth culture, partially due to lack of resources/facilities. I also think the preference for piebalds might be due to high popularity of Western's been shown on TV from 1960's onwards.

Anyways here's rather funny story where someone brought their horse (piebald and all) onto the LUAS tram in 2015 out in Tallaght (an area with historically large amount of public housing)
http://www.thejournal.ie/horse-luas-2336771-Sep2015/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPHIHP7UkAAJp0c.jpg

http://img2.thejournal.ie/inline/2336877/original?width=479&version=2336877

For reference here's what a LUAS looks like while running on street (large parts of it run offstreet)

https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.3384684.1518122672!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg

rms2
09-09-2018, 04:52 PM
Here's an abstract from the 2018 ISBA conference that could be relevant, since the Amesbury Archer is thought to have been born and raised in the Swiss or German Alps.



Genetic transition in the Swiss Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age

A. Furtwängler et al

Major genetic turnovers in European populations marked the beginning as well as final stages of the Neolithic period as shown by recent studies. The transition from hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists and farmers in the 6th millennium BCE coincided with a human migration from the Near East. A second migration into Central Europe occurred originating from the Pontic steppe in the 3rd millennium BCE and was linked to the spread of the Corded Ware Culture which ranged as far southwest as modern day Western Switzerland. These genetic processes are well studied, for example for the Middle-Elbe-Saale region in Eastern Germany, however, little is known from the regions that connect Central and Southern Europe.

In this study, we investigate genome-wide data from 97 individuals from the Swiss Plateau, Southern Germany and the Alsace region in France that span the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (5500 to 4000 BP). Our results show a similar genetic process as reported for the Middle-Elbe-Saale region suggesting that the migration from the Pontic steppe reached all the way into the Swiss Plateau. However, our evidence suggests that the onset of that transition may have started even earlier in Switzerland compared to the Middle-Elbe-Saale region.

The existence of core families within multiple burials, the determination and quantification of different ancestry components and the evaluation of a migration route taken by the ancestors of the Late Neolithic populations in this region were analysed. Our data represent the first comprehensive genome wide dataset from Neolithic individuals from the Swiss Plateau and provide the first insights into the genetic history of this region.


I shouldn't get my hopes up, but I must admit I am hoping they snagged at least one ancient pre-British Kurgan Bell Beaker L21 in this study.

jdean
09-09-2018, 05:42 PM
I shouldn't get my hopes up, but I must admit I am hoping they snagged at least one ancient pre-British Kurgan Bell Beaker L21 in this study.

I've got my fingers crossed too : )

razyn
09-09-2018, 05:48 PM
I shouldn't get my hopes up

I know, right? (As my elder son and his friends say, on Facebook, almost as if it meant something.)

One keeps getting them up, though. I guess it's an aspect of the Human Condition.

rms2
09-23-2018, 09:26 PM
In case of Urban horses? . . .

No, I was really thinking of the tradition of horsemanship in Ireland and the British Isles more generally. We read about the Kurgan Bell Beaker people in Ireland and Britain, but what about their horses? They were supposed to be a horse riding people. So, what about that?

R.Rocca
09-24-2018, 10:41 PM
I'd like to get back into horseback riding, but I wonder if at my age that would be wise. I got thrown once when I was a teenager. I just picked myself up, dusted myself off, and got back on the horse. Now that would probably involve a trip to the hospital, if not a trip to the undertaker.

On page 26 of The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen, one of the Boscombe Bowmen, I2416/25004, is described as having suffered "a major, probable multiple, fracture to the proximal third of the left femur, which was well-healed but mis-aligned". The author of that section of the text speculates that the possible causes of such an injury "could include a fall . . . from a horse . . . moving at speed" (p. 26).

The timing is certainly right for Ireland as well:



The earliest evidence for the presence of domesticated horse is from
Early Bronze Age contexts at Newgrange, Co. Meath dating to about
2,400 B.C. (Van Wijngaarden-Bakker 1975: 345)

Source: The Horse in Early Ireland
http://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2007n1a5_0.pdf

rms2
09-24-2018, 11:38 PM
The timing is certainly right for Ireland as well:



Source: The Horse in Early Ireland
http://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2007n1a5_0.pdf

Thanks for that!

rms2
11-21-2018, 03:46 PM
I took linguist Tandy Warnow's Maximum Compatibility tree of early Indo-European and added arrows indicating the Italo-Celtic branch, the split between Italic and Celtic, and a box showing the BB period. If that tree is right, the Kurgan Bell Beaker people who went to Britain could have been speaking a very early form of Celtic or at least Italo-Celtic.

27205

Notice that Italo-Celtic is the third oldest branch of IE, after Anatolian and Tocharian.

Ruderico
11-21-2018, 03:48 PM
Just a shame there is no Lusitanian language on that tree

rms2
11-21-2018, 03:54 PM
Just a shame there is no Lusitanian language on that tree

It would be a branch off the Italo-Celtic line. Not sure when it separated from the main Italo-Celtic line.

Ruderico
11-21-2018, 03:58 PM
It would be a branch off the Italo-Celtic line. Not sure when it separated from the main Italo-Celtic line.

Precisely which is why it'd be interesting to see his opinion on the matter. Personally I have no strong feelings, but it might be a very early split from the Celtic branch

Capitalis
11-21-2018, 05:12 PM
I took linguist Tandy Warnow's Maximum Compatibility tree of early Indo-European and added arrows indicating the Italo-Celtic branch, the split between Italic and Celtic, and a box showing the BB period. If that tree is right, the Kurgan Bell Beaker people who went to Britain could have been speaking a very early form of Celtic or at least Italo-Celtic.

27205

Notice that Italo-Celtic is the third oldest branch of IE, after Anatolian and Tocharian.

About 20 years ago (maybe more) I can remember reading an explanation of the split between the Celtic Irish and Welsh languages: they originally spoke the same language but when the sea levels rose, cutting Ireland off from Britain, the languages went their separate ways. Wish I could remember where I read that but regardless, it's looking slightly (!) incorrect these days.

JMcB
11-21-2018, 05:38 PM
About 20 years ago (maybe more) I can remember reading an explanation of the split between the Celtic Irish and Welsh languages: they originally spoke the same language but when the sea levels rose, cutting Ireland off from Britain, the languages went their separate ways. Wish I could remember where I read that but regardless, it's looking slightly (!) incorrect these days.

Indeed!

jdean
11-21-2018, 06:12 PM
I took linguist Tandy Warnow's Maximum Compatibility tree of early Indo-European and added arrows indicating the Italo-Celtic branch, the split between Italic and Celtic, and a box showing the BB period. If that tree is right, the Kurgan Bell Beaker people who went to Britain could have been speaking a very early form of Celtic or at least Italo-Celtic.

27205

Notice that Italo-Celtic is the third oldest branch of IE, after Anatolian and Tocharian.

Just in case others are struggling with the abbreviations I think this is the correct key

27207

Ruderico
11-21-2018, 06:17 PM
How likely is it that Albanian descends from the same linguistic ancestor as Germanic? It strikes me as very odd, but I'm not a linguist

alexfritz
11-21-2018, 06:45 PM
How likely is it that Albanian descends from the same linguistic ancestor as Germanic? It strikes me as very odd, but I'm not a linguist

as likely as there ever having been an italo-celtic unit, not much;
if there were and quite alot substantially speaks against it yet leaving that aside then there would also have to be an illyrian branch from that common node ult an italic/illyrian/celtic unit, but thats a cramp so at the end we are looking at a host of languages (xgermanic/xbalto-slavic) from a PIE node just seperated by isoglosses; i think the bell beaker complex already had alot to do with its diffusions(but maybe not ult positions);

rms2
11-22-2018, 01:14 PM
as likely as there ever having been an italo-celtic unit, not much . . .

I'm not linguist enough to really judge, but Warnow is a respected linguist, and there have been quite a few others who believe(d) that Italo-Celtic was a valid branch off of PIE. It makes sense to me.

I posted that tree to stir up some conversation, since Anthrogenica has been a little skuchna (Russian for boring, langweilig) lately.

rms2
11-22-2018, 01:18 PM
About 20 years ago (maybe more) I can remember reading an explanation of the split between the Celtic Irish and Welsh languages: they originally spoke the same language but when the sea levels rose, cutting Ireland off from Britain, the languages went their separate ways. Wish I could remember where I read that but regardless, it's looking slightly (!) incorrect these days.

Those sea levels rose over eight thousand years ago, long before Indo-European was even a dream.

Capitalis
11-22-2018, 02:07 PM
Those sea levels rose over eight thousand years ago, long before Indo-European was even a dream.

Yes, I did realise that.

rms2
11-22-2018, 02:43 PM
Like I said, I'm not much of a linguist, but I have never found the idea that Celtic originated with Hallstatt and spread to Britain during the Iron Age very satisfying. It seems more likely to me that an early form of it arrived with Kurgan Bell Beaker. Later the P-Celtic innovation may have spread from the Continent.

Pylsteen
11-22-2018, 02:58 PM
Came across Schrijver (https://www.academia.edu/13749183/Pruners_and_trainers_of_the_Celtic_family_tree_the _rise_and_development_of_Celtic_in_the_light_of_la nguage_contact)'s interesting article (it's upside down) on the Celtic family tree; lots of linguistic material; he suggests several substrates that may have influenced Celtic branches. He follows the Insular/Continental split (which I like; kw > p is a trivial change that also happened in certain Germanic and Greek forms, Oscan-Umbrian, Romanian). He sees the split between Brittonic and (proto-)Irish as relatively late (few centuries BC). Also intersting is his discussion of the influence of Celtic on Old English.

Capitalis
11-22-2018, 03:12 PM
Like I said, I'm not much of a linguist, but I have never found the idea that Celtic originated with Hallstatt and spread to Britain during the Iron Age very satisfying. It seems more likely to me that an early form of it arrived with Kurgan Bell Beaker. Later the P-Celtic innovation may have spread from the Continent.

Trust this as far as you can throw it.

Beaker Culture Europe K20


"distance%=0.4696"
England_CA_EBA
Beaker_South_England,46.6
Beaker_Scotland,8.8
Beaker_North_England,3.4

Beaker_Netherlands,9.4
Beaker_South_Germany,9
Beaker_Czechia,5.8
Late_Neolithic_Sweden,5.4
Beaker_Central_Germany,5.2
Beaker_East_France,2.8
Beaker_Spain,1
Beaker_Poland,0.8
Beaker_South_France,0.8
Beaker_West_Germany,0.6
Beaker_North_Italy,0.4


"distance%=0.6501"
England_MBA
Beaker_South_England,32.8
Beaker_Scotland,17.2
Beaker_North_England,7.8

Beaker_Czechia,14.8
Beaker_Central_Germany,9.2
Beaker_South_Germany,5.6
Beaker_Netherlands,4.8
Beaker_East_France,2.4
Beaker_South_France,2
Beaker_Spain,2
Beaker_North_Italy,0.6
Late_Neolithic_Sweden,0.4
Beaker_Hungary,0.2
Beaker_Poland,0.2


"distance%=2.1087"
England_LBA
Beaker_Scotland,17.4
Beaker_North_England,8.6
Beaker_South_England,2.2

Beaker_Czechia,23.2
Beaker_West_Germany,20.8
Beaker_South_Germany,14.8
Beaker_East_France,9
Beaker_Spain,1
Migration_Period_Uralic,1
Beaker_Poland,0.8
Beaker_North_Italy,0.6
Beaker_Central_Germany,0.2
Beaker_Hungary,0.2
Beaker_Netherlands,0.2


"distance%=1.2148"
England_IA
Beaker_South_England,12
Beaker_Scotland,9.8
Beaker_North_England,6.2

Beaker_Czechia,27.8
Beaker_East_France,17.2
Beaker_South_Germany,15.4
Beaker_Netherlands,3.6
Beaker_Central_Germany,2
Beaker_Hungary,1.2
Beaker_Poland,1.2
Beaker_South_France,1.2
Beaker_Portugal,0.8
Beaker_Spain,0.8
Beaker_North_Italy,0.4
Migration_Period_Baltic-Slavic,0.4


"distance%=1.4342"
Modern English
Beaker_North_England,17.8
Beaker_Scotland,9.2
Beaker_South_England,4.2

Beaker_Czechia,33
Beaker_South_Germany,11.6
Beaker_South_France,11
Beaker_Netherlands,3.8
Beaker_Central_Germany,3
Beaker_Spain,1.8
Beaker_East_France,1.6
Beaker_North_Italy,1.2
Beaker_Poland,0.6
Beaker_Portugal,0.6
Beaker_Hungary,0.2
Late_Neolithic_Sweden,0.2
Migration_Period_Baltic,0.2


"distance%=1.5498"
Modern Irish
Beaker_North_England,22.8
Beaker_South_England,10.2
Beaker_Scotland,8.8

Beaker_Czechia,21.6
Beaker_South_Germany,11
Beaker_South_France,9.8
Beaker_Central_Germany,7
Beaker_Netherlands,4
Beaker_Spain,1.8
Beaker_North_Italy,0.8
Beaker_East_France,0.6
Beaker_Poland,0.6
Beaker_Portugal,0.6
Beaker_Hungary,0.4


"distance%=1.6304"
Modern Austrian
Beaker_North_England,2
Beaker_South_England,0.4

Beaker_Czechia,47.4
Beaker_South_Germany,23.4
Migration_Period_Baltic-Slavic,10.4
Beaker_Hungary,9.6
Beaker_North_Italy,1.8
Beaker_Netherlands,1.6
Beaker_Sicily,1.4
Migration_Period_Uralic,0.6
Beaker_Central_Germany,0.4
Late_Neolithic_Sweden,0.4
Migration_Period_Baltic,0.4
Beaker_East_France,0.2

jdean
11-22-2018, 03:25 PM
Like I said, I'm not much of a linguist, but I have never found the idea that Celtic originated with Hallstatt and spread to Britain during the Iron Age very satisfying. It seems more likely to me that an early form of it arrived with Kurgan Bell Beaker. Later the P-Celtic innovation may have spread from the Continent.

Can't remember who it was now but I'm sure there's at least one respected linguist who's of the opinion that there's only one group of people who could account for the entirety of the Isles speaking Celtic languages prior to the Romans turning up.

rms2
11-22-2018, 05:43 PM
Can't remember who it was now but I'm sure there's at least one respected linguist who's of the opinion that there's only one group of people who could account for the entirety of the Isles speaking Celtic languages prior to the Romans turning up.

This may be what you are thinking of. It's from Professor Patrice Brun, (2006), L'origine des Celtes. Communautés linguistiques et reséaux sociaux. In D. Vitali (ed.), Celtes et Gaulois, l'Archéologie face à l'Histoire. 2 La Préhistoire des Celtes, 29-44, Bibracte, Glux-en-Glenne (Quoted in Falileyev, Alexander (2015), Introduction. A Folk Who Will Never Speak: Bell Beakers and Linguistics. In The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe, Prieto Martinez and Salanova, editors, p. 3).



Since there is no evidence that the regions of Western Europe where Celtic languages are still spoken today became Celtic after 1600 BC, they must have become so at an earlier date. Before 1600 BC, the only time when the zones which gave rise to the north-Alpine and Atlantic complexes shared similar material and structural characteristics was the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. This was the well known Bell Beaker "package". Linking all the regions where a Celtic language was later to be spoken, this community represents a unique situation.

jdean
11-22-2018, 06:07 PM
This may be what you are thinking of. It's from Professor Patrice Brun, (2006), L'origine des Celtes. Communautés linguistiques et reséaux sociaux. In D. Vitali (ed.), Celtes et Gaulois, l'Archéologie face à l'Histoire. 2 La Préhistoire des Celtes, 29-44, Bibracte, Glux-en-Glenne (Quoted in Falileyev, Alexander (2015), Introduction. A Folk Who Will Never Speak: Bell Beakers and Linguistics. In The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe, Prieto Martinez and Salanova, editors, p. 3).

That's the minky : )

alexfritz
11-22-2018, 06:22 PM
I'm not linguist enough to really judge, but Warnow is a respected linguist, and there have been quite a few others who believe(d) that Italo-Celtic was a valid branch off of PIE. It makes sense to me.

I posted that tree to stir up some conversation, since Anthrogenica has been a little skuchna (Russian for boring, langweilig) lately.

well its still def the consensus but if you can debunk it(and it has) then it gets you thinking on alternatives; in the notes p21-24 there ought to be a chronology of how this matter was viewed and treated(incl constructing and debunking it)
https://books.google.de/books?id=59gFBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA333&dq=italo+celtic+watkins&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiml7nBtr3ZAhWFsKQKHXhdCrwQ6AEIRjAD#v=on epage&q=italo%20celtic%20&f=false
also a bit about it here
https://books.google.de/books?id=4Av0DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT603&dq=italic+celtic+latin+watkins&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS_umnx-jeAhVJ66QKHSVICxQQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q&f=true

so assuming that based on it celtic and italic did not derive from a common intermediary node then where did they derive from? leaving only PIE itself as a common node for both aka a scenario in which a PIE speaking people covered large areas and out of which they developed in situ but not nec in ult position; as also in the consensual system shown by warnow the branching-off by italic for example does not indicate a branching of by migration(s) as at that supposed time the branched-off italic would still have nothing to do with italy; it also has been shown that proto- stages for both are difficult to reconstruct with languages showing high affinity to both still not assigned to either, factoring that in we might just be looking at all these individual languages developed from PIE independently but in a common broad area (?frm beaker) incl later difusion/migrations;

Pylsteen
11-22-2018, 06:25 PM
Came across Schrijver (https://www.academia.edu/13749183/Pruners_and_trainers_of_the_Celtic_family_tree_the _rise_and_development_of_Celtic_in_the_light_of_la nguage_contact)'s interesting article (it's upside down) on the Celtic family tree; lots of linguistic material; he suggests several substrates that may have influenced Celtic branches. He follows the Insular/Continental split (which I like; kw > p is a trivial change that also happened in certain Germanic and Greek forms, Oscan-Umbrian, Romanian). He sees the split between Brittonic and (proto-)Irish as relatively late (few centuries BC). Also intersting is his discussion of the influence of Celtic on Old English.

Here (http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/Pruners_and_trainers_of_the_Celtic_famil.pdf) is a version the article that is not upside down.

Some notes I find interesting:

He makes a distinction between North Celtic (Gaulish + Insular) and South Celtic (Celtiberian + Lepontic).
Celtiberian and Lepontic apparently share the development -d- (-ð-) into a -s/z- sound, according to Schrijver possibly due to language contact with Basque-type languages (or Rhaetic/Etruscan for Lepontic).

This is a map from a very different article (https://www.academia.edu/30676662/Confirmation_of_the_Basque_ancient_extension_throu gh_study_of_Western_European_romance_dialects_180j lr2016_14_1_21_27) on Basque substrate in Romance; it is IMO suggestive of language contact between "South Celtic" dialects and Vasconic.

27225

He also suggests that the loss of Proto-Celtic *p (> φ > h > - ) might also be due to contact with Vasconic; which I myself are not convinced about (although we do have things such as Lat. fabulare > Sp. hablar), in particular because this -d->-s/z- development is the only thing that sets apart "south Celtic" from north Celtic.

He writes that "north Celtic" (Gaulish+Insular) may contain a verb-initial substrate (probably from the remainders of the neolithic farmers in Southern Germany). Interestingly, this verb-initial phenomenon is not present in south Celtic.

Insular Celtic and Gaulish share a lot developments. He claims that (proto-)Irish and proto-Brittonic were (phonologically) identical apart from the Brittonic developments of *-ai- > *-è- and *kw > *p (he regards the kw > p change as different from Gaulish, because in Gaulish some kw remained (e.g. Sequana).).
Because of these small differences, Proto-Irish and proto-Brittonic can not have split very early. (maybe a few centuries BC but not much more).

Brittonic seems to have had a period of convergence with Gaulish due to the fact that both were incorporated in the Roman Empire.

Insular Celtic seems to contain a few words from a (Indo-European) substrate that are also found in Germanic or behave in a similar phonetic way (e.g. geminated consonants).

rms2
11-23-2018, 03:24 PM
Just in case others are struggling with the abbreviations I think this is the correct key

27207

I added your key to the graphic.

27237

jdean
11-23-2018, 03:33 PM
I added your key to the graphic.

27237

Good idea : )

Ruderico
11-23-2018, 03:37 PM
He also suggests that the loss of Proto-Celtic *p (> φ > h > - ) might also be due to contact with Vasconic; which I myself are not convinced about (although we do have things such as Lat. fabulare > Sp. hablar)

Yes Castilian is notable for having many words starting in ⟨h⟩ that usually go with ⟨f⟩ in Galician-Portuguese or Astur-Leonese for example, almost certainly from Basque influence. This was even transferred into names, such as Fernandez/Hernandez

rms2
11-24-2018, 12:30 AM
IMHO the idea that the Kurgan Bell Beaker people brought an early form of Celtic to Britain and from thence to Ireland makes the most sense. What evidence is there of an Iron Age introduction of Celtic from the Continent by way of Hallstatt or La Tene? I don't see it.

rms2
12-13-2018, 12:27 PM
Here is the abstract for an upcoming paper that should be informative for R1b-L21:



Marc Vander Linden*

*Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge

Island in the stream: on the scale of human mobility during the British Bronze Age

The existence of human mobility during the Later European Prehistory, and in particular the Bronze Age, has
been heavily debated for many decades. Whilst metal trade by definition implies some element of connectivity
between different European regions, Sr and more recently aDNA studies have demonstrated that human
mobility not only happened, but most probably on a scale that few archaeologists were willing to contemplate.
Yet there is a clear difference between documenting and explaining past human mobility, and extensive work
remains to be done to understand its role in shaping the culture history of the corresponding populations. As
argued by several scholars, archaeologists should grasp the opportunity offered by newly available scientific
techniques to explore population history. This contribution will thus discuss the identification, description
and role of population history for the British Bronze Age, with a focus on its earlier stages and especially
the Bell Beaker Phenomenon. Particular attention will be given to the inclusion of multiple lines of evidence,
including Sr, aDNA and more “traditional” archaeological data.


https://www.orea.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/Institute/OREA/Events/2018/Genes/GenesIsotopesArtefacts_Abstracts.pdf

rms2
12-13-2018, 12:33 PM
Here's another one being discussed at the same conference that ought to be extremely interesting.



John T. Koch*

*University of Wales, Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies

Formation of the Indo-European Branches in the light of the Archaeogenetic Revolution

Philology and archaeology evolved in tandem for over a century in a general awareness that reconstructed
proto-languages (such as Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Germanic, Proto-Celtic) and later prehistoric cultures
inhabited the same world. In effect, the two disciplines were studying the same thing. However, mapping
reconstructed linguistic evidence onto text-free archaeology presented a near insurmountable challenge. The
widespread astonishment that greeted the decipherment of Linear B as Late Bronze Age Greek illustrates the
unreliability of carefully argued circumstantial inferences, even at the protohistoric horizon. David Anthony’s
The Horse, the Wheel, and Language (2007) impressed many readers, but I know of no prior adherents of the
Anatolian hypothesis of Indo-European origins who changed views upon reading it.

By then, we knew that ancient DNA evidence was coming. What we had not expected is that it would
reveal, not incremental changes of population, but changes so dramatic that they very probably came with a
change of language. In particular, this was the case with massive gene flow from the Pontic–Caspian steppe
in the 3rd millennium BC, which transformed the Siberian Altai and central, northern, and western Europe. In
other words, this new data seemed to confirm, for at least some key elements, the steppe hypothesis that had
been constructed and won adherents on the basis of completely non-genetic evidence, rather linguistic and
archaeological.

There were also less dramatic negative discoveries. For example, Cassidy et al. 2016 shows that three Early
Bronze Age men from Rathlin Island were very different genetically from Neolithic woman from near Giant’s
Ring outside Belfast. But the men were much closer to the modern Irish. In other words, the shift at the
Neolithic–Bronze Age Transition was much greater, and relatively little had happened since. The authors
accordingly suggested that the Rathlin men spoke the Indo-European language that then evolved into Gaelic
in situ.

We can anticipate that genome-wide samples of ancient Europeans will soon number many 10,000s, filling
gaps in most parts between the expansion from the steppe and historical populations speaking attested
preRoman languages. We shall soon see whether this new evidence (archaeogenetic and isotopic) provides
a conclusive advance for mapping nodes of the Indo-European family tree onto prehistoric populations and
archaeological cultures. The paper will attempt a snapshot, reviewing results of some recent archaeogenetic
studies and what they might imply about languages in later prehistoric Europe. What gaps and uncertainties
remain? And where might answers come from?

rms2
12-13-2018, 12:45 PM
This one could make an impact on our understanding of Bell Beaker, but I wish they had cast their net a little wider, to include a few centuries before 2500 BC.



Kiss, V.1, Barkóczy, P., Czene, A., Csányi, M., Dani, J., Endrődi, A., Fábián, Sz., Gerber, D., Giblin,
J., Gyöngyösi Sz., Hajdu, T., Káli Gy., Kasztovszky, Zs., Köhler, K., Maróti, B., Melis, E., Mende,
B. G., Patay, R., Pernicka, E., Szabó, G., Szeverényi, V., Szécsényi-Nagy, A., Reich, D.; Kulcsár, G1.

1Hungarian Academy of Sciences

People and interactions vs. genes, isotopes and metal finds from the first thousand years of the
Bronze Age in Hungary (2500-1500 BCE)

There is a long tradition in archaeological research of explaining the observed changes in the archaeological
record through the appearance and immigration of a new population. Although these first interpretations
were based on an outdated theoretical background, migration is indeed an important social strategy, often
used both individually and by communities to solve their problems and improve their situation, as recent
scientific results suggest. A basic question in archaeology remains: “who moved: people, objects or ideas?”
The Momentum Mobility Research Group will present the current state of research from the central part of the Carpathian Basin in the first ten centuries of the Bronze Age (2500–1500 BCE), concerning bioanthropological data including stable isotope and aDNA, as well as analyses of metal finds including lead isotope results.

jdean
12-13-2018, 01:51 PM
Twitter account for that conference is bizarrely mute, possibly they've put an embargo up ?

Finn
12-13-2018, 02:06 PM
About the Dutch/ NW Germany (and Isles....) Beakerfolk especially in relationship with Central European Corded Ware/East Beakerfolk this work of archeologist JN Lanting (https://books.google.nl/books?id=jnNTDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=lanting+saale+corded+ware++2013&source=bl&ots=FHmEpNyaPB&sig=bNl2WFHGyiG4E6laRZODNoUvIiA&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP6Yvh7ZzfAhWQUlAKHW16ClYQ6AEwCHoECAUQA Q#v=onepage&q=lanting%20saale%20corded%20ware%20%202013&f=false). It's written in Dutch but the summary is in English (page 101 and further).

What about this figure, R1b L21 prominent in Ireland, Wales, Scotland, but also significant in NW Germany!
https://www.mupload.nl/img/ntkhq9fb.jpg

rms2
12-13-2018, 02:39 PM
NW Germany is where Henri Hubert thought the BB in Britain came from. I would quote him, but I'm not at home, so I don't have my notes handy.

rms2
12-14-2018, 12:14 AM
NW Germany is where Henri Hubert thought the BB in Britain came from. I would quote him, but I'm not at home, so I don't have my notes handy.

From The History of the Celtic People by Henri Hubert, pages 169, 171-173:



But whence did the Goidels come, and when did they come? Where must we look for their earliest home on the Continent and their starting-point? Probably they came from north of the Brythonic domain, and it is to them that tradition refers when it tells that the Celts used to live on the low coasts of the North Sea. They must have left those shores very early, for hardly a trace of them remains there (p. 169).

. . . In the first period of the Bronze Age there arrived in the British Isles, coming from the Continent, people with very marked characteristics. The old Neolithic inhabitants (among whom I include those of all the beginning of the Bronze Age) were long-heads of Mediterranean type, who built for their dead, or, at least, for the more distinguished of them, tumuli with a funeral chamber known as the "long barrows", in which one sometimes finds those curious bell-shaped beakers adorned at regular intervals with bands of incised or stamped decoration, of a very simple and austere type. The newcomers were of quite a different type, and had other funeral practices.

They buried their dead under round tumuli, known as "round barrows", in graves in which the body was placed in a crouching position on one side and enclosed in stone flags or woodwork. Later they burned them. In their graves there were zoned beakers (Fig. 33), but of a late type in which the neck is distinguished from the belly, or vases derived from these beakers . . . The grave goods comprised buttons with a V-shaped boring, flint and copper daggers, arrow-heads, and flat perforated pieces of schist which are "bracers", or bowman's wristguards. The skeletons were of a new type: tall, with round heads of a fairly constant shape, the brow receding, the supraciliary ridge prominent, the cheek-bones highly developed, and the jaws massive and projecting so as to present a dip at the base of the nose. I have already described them as one of the types represented in Celtic burials.

The association of the physical type of this people with the beaker has led British anthropologists to call it the Beaker Folk . . . In Scotland they were accompanied by other brachycephals, with a higher index and of Alpine type. In general they advanced from south to north and from east to west, and their progress lasted long enough for there to be a very marked difference in furniture between their oldest and latest tombs.

. . . Their progress was a conquest. It is evident that they subdued and assimilated the previous occupants of the country.


Ibid, pages 175-176:



It is at least certain that the Beaker Folk went from Germany to Britain, and not from Britain to Germany. The typical round-heads of the round barrows are a Nordic type, which may have grown up on the plains of Northern Europe . . . Secondly, the similarity of the British barrows to the tumuli of North Germany at the beginning of the Bronze Age and the constant practice of burying the dead, when inhumation is practised, in a contracted position, as in Central Germany; and lastly, the similarity of many of the urns of the round barrows, which are late developments of the zoned beaker, and of other vases found there, to the so-called Neolithic pottery of North Germany in the region of the megaliths.

. . . At this point it is legitimate to ask what became of all the people who set up the megalithic monuments in the north-west of Germany, and what became of the tribes of bowmen who were mingled with them, for it is a dogma of German Siedelungsgeschichte that all the north-west seaboard, Westphalia, and Hanover were emptied of their inhabitants before the second period of the Bronze Age.

Many scholars, British, German, and French, have accordingly thought that the mixed population of this part of Germany, which one day set off and emigrated, was the original stock of the Goidels.

Ibid, pages 187-188:



. . . The most obscure point in the hypothesis adopted is the original position of the future Goidels, for if the zone-beaker folk was the nucleus which organized them it is very hard to determine where it was itself formed. Moreover, it spread over almost the whole of the Celtic domain and left descendants there. In any case it occupied all the seaboard districts between the Rhine and the Elbe which remained outside the frontiers previously mentioned. These were the districts which were emptied by the migration of the Goidels to Britain.

. . . Was it a total or a partial emigration? It was probably partial, for there remained what is usually left behind by peoples which have been a long time in a country where they have been engaged in adapting the ground to human life, namely the distribution of dwellings and the shape of villages and fields. In the western part of North-Western Germany, in Western Hanover, and Westphalia, cultivated land and dwellings are arranged in a manner which is foreign to Germany, or has become so. It is the arrangement found in Ireland (Fig. 35), part of England, and France.

. . . Agricultural peoples never change their abode entirely. This is an indication that the Goidels did not leave in one body, and that they did not all leave.

What was the reason of their emigration? It was certainly not weakness or poverty. Perhaps there was some encroachment of the sea on a coast which has altered much. Perhaps some invention in the matter of navigation was discovered. The megalith builders whom the Goidels surrounded were certainly sailors who were not afraid of crossing the North Sea.

Finn
12-14-2018, 12:22 PM
@rms2 thanks! Henri Hubert was spot on! Insightfull.

Some fragments from Lanting that more or less support Huberts view and of course based on more actual archeological research, especially when Hubert speaks about 'zoned-beaker folk' :

I. Relationship East Beakerfolk-Dutch/NW German Beakers-Isles Beakerfolk
https://www.mupload.nl/img/9fc9rjjdrv84.png
https://www.mupload.nl/img/s6pqw3i0.25.18.png
https://www.mupload.nl/img/deqjhu8vcq.27.29.png


II Zoned Beakers, Beakers rooted in Corded Ware
https://www.mupload.nl/img/g8uyei729.13.21.png

rms2
12-15-2018, 02:01 AM
Please delete.

Ethereal
12-15-2018, 09:49 AM
Twitter account for that conference is bizarrely mute, possibly they've put an embargo up ?

Yup, looks like it.

Dubhthach
12-17-2018, 05:23 PM
IMHO the idea that the Kurgan Bell Beaker people brought an early form of Celtic to Britain and from thence to Ireland makes the most sense. What evidence is there of an Iron Age introduction of Celtic from the Continent by way of Hallstatt or La Tene? I don't see it.

Well there is evidence for at least a non-Celtic (but possibly Indo-European language) in Ireland as late as early Christian period. This is due to the issue of a population grouping in the west of Ireland called the 'Partraige' and also words such as Partán (Portán in modern irish -- word for crab) which cannot be of Celtic origin due to retention of /p/ phoneme which was deleted in Proto-Celtic.

Other then some words in Irish (of clearly non-Latin origin -- as /p/ was reborrowed from Latin during Old-Irish linguistic phase) and said population grouping name there's no evidence for such a hypothesised language. However perhaps one theory would be of a broad undifferenated form of Proto-Indo-European (lacking the deletion of /p/ required for Proto-Celtic) spreading across Atlantic Europe with later differenation occuring in the proceeding 1,000-2,000 years. As a result within the area you would have a dialect chain reflecting the various sound-changes connected to Proto-Celtic as well as number of isolated non-Celtic (but potentially Proto-IE) derived languages such as Lusitanian (which some have described as 'para-celtic') within the region.

What's interesting in sense is the Partraige when they come into our glimpse of written history were a peripheral grouping concentrated in areas of upland. Ironically enough the modern day area of 'Partry' in South Mayo is area where Irish language persisted considerably longer then rest of Mid-Connacht after major language shift during late 19th/early 20th centuries.


Partraige Cera - located at the northern end of Lough Mask (Loch Mask) and the region of Lough Carra (Loch Corrib), County Mayo.
Partraige in Laca - at and around Cong, County Mayo
Partraige in tSlebe - covering the area from Croagh Patrick to Lough Corrib, all of south-west Mayo
Partraige Beca - located at Crossakell, south of Kells, County Meath.


FJ Byrne for example drew parallels between their name and that of certain Illyrian/continental population groups.

What we do know is that Archaic Irish (on Ogham Stones) other then retention of Proto-Celtic /kw/ is extremely closely related to written Gaulish and of course to Brythonic (which much of spilt between what became Old Irish and Old Welsh dated to quite late)

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/celtic-isoglosses.png
27718

Johane Derite
12-17-2018, 07:28 PM
Well there is evidence for at least a non-Celtic (but possibly Indo-European language) in Ireland as late as early Christian period.

Partraige Cera - located at the northern end of Lough Mask (Loch Mask) and the region of Lough Carra (Loch Corrib), County Mayo.
Partraige in Laca - at and around Cong, County Mayo
Partraige in tSlebe - covering the area from Croagh Patrick to Lough Corrib, all of south-west Mayo
Partraige Beca - located at Crossakell, south of Kells, County Meath.


FJ Byrne for example drew parallels between their name and that of certain Illyrian/continental population groups.

[/IMG]
27718

Never knew about this Partraige theory. Byrne seems to have also thought that the German Partenkirchen (originates from the Roman town of Partanum)
may also have been related to this people?

The only Illyrian tribe that immediately comes to mind that could be related are the Parthini (or Partheni or Peerthenetai in different sources).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthus

Is there any Y-dna results available from this region?


This is pretty interesting for me.

Albanian and Celtic have some deep iso-glosses that linguists have just begun to scratch the surface on. This from 2018:

"Çabej (1969) originally posited a small number of Albanian-Celtic-Germanic isoglosses. Apart from a more detailed discussion of besa and njerí, we highlight in greater depth the areal diffusion of the I-E diffusion of Albanoid bërrakë, e blertë, brī and dritë. We add in-depth observations on the Celto-Albanian binomial ardracht (Old Irish) – dritë (Albanoid), where the Celtic terms involved are traceable to Gaulish dercos and uodercos of texts and inscriptions."

2018 | John Trumper | University of Calabria

Link: https://benjamins.com/catalog/la.252.26tru?fbclid=IwAR2KV-5W15LFgJK2_09go1uvCg0lLEy0354evwgoO0wlCbVuK1VC8tsm Q48

Dubhthach
12-18-2018, 12:02 PM
Never knew about this Partraige theory. Byrne seems to have also thought that the German Partenkirchen (originates from the Roman town of Partanum)
may also have been related to this people?

The only Illyrian tribe that immediately comes to mind that could be related are the Parthini (or Partheni or Peerthenetai in different sources).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthus

Is there any Y-dna results available from this region?


This is pretty interesting for me.

Albanian and Celtic have some deep iso-glosses that linguists have just begun to scratch the surface on. This from 2018:

"Çabej (1969) originally posited a small number of Albanian-Celtic-Germanic isoglosses. Apart from a more detailed discussion of besa and njerí, we highlight in greater depth the areal diffusion of the I-E diffusion of Albanoid bërrakë, e blertë, brī and dritë. We add in-depth observations on the Celto-Albanian binomial ardracht (Old Irish) – dritë (Albanoid), where the Celtic terms involved are traceable to Gaulish dercos and uodercos of texts and inscriptions."

2018 | John Trumper | University of Calabria

Link: https://benjamins.com/catalog/la.252.26tru?fbclid=IwAR2KV-5W15LFgJK2_09go1uvCg0lLEy0354evwgoO0wlCbVuK1VC8tsm Q48

Well Byrne was writing over 40 years ago. The other argument people have brought up since is that the 'Partraige' (and related loanwords into Old Irish) are non Indo-European. Now I don't think that's viable option now given what we know about shift from Neolithic to Copper/Bronze age in the isles. Unless of course it's case of loan words from a pre-Indo-European language going into a non-Celtic IE language (thus retaining the /p/ phoneme) whose speakers survived in isolated pockets down until at least the 6th century AD.

The area associated with them for example consists of mountain and general area between two large lakes (southern one is second largest lake on island)

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/Partraige.png

Image modified and taken from here: http://notesfromtheninthcircle.blogspot.com/2013/12/tribes-of-west-connacht-and-their.html



Partraige an-t Sliebh

The Partraige were another fortuatha-class group once one large population dominant over a wide area that broke up under pressure from rising new populations. In the case of the Partraige, these were the Conmaicne Cuile Tolad and the Fir Ceara of Ui Fiachrach. It was domination by the former to which the Partraige an-t Sliebh succumbed. As mentioned above, the kings of Conmaicne Mara, the O’Cadhlas/O’Kealys came here in the early 13th century, only to find themselves under the Joyces half a century later. Their chiefs were the O’Kynes.

The area became the core of Joyce Country, which eventually took in the lands of the other Partraige tribes as well as most of what is now Ballynakill parish. The last was a wedding gift when his son or grandson married an O’Flaherty daughter and became the one cause of the wars between the two powerful families in the 16th century.

Abbey:

St. Brendan’s Abbey
Kilbeg Lower, Ross, Ross, Co. Galway

Churches:

Teampull Brionain (St. Brendan’s Church)
Kilbeg Lower, Ross, Ross, Co. Galway
Early Church
Cloonbur, Ross, Ross, Co. Galway
Cill Mor (Big Church)
Kilmore, Ross, Ross, Co. Galway
Cill Bride (St. Brigit’s Church)
Kilbride, Ross, Ross
Cill na Brionain (St. Brendan’s Church)
Kilnabrennaun, Ross, Ross, Co. Galway

Partraige Locha

Another group of the fortuatha-class Partraige, these fell to the Conmaicne Cuile Tolad even before their cousins. Their chiefs were the O’Dorchys. They later became subjects of the Joyces.

Abbey:

St. Fechin’s Abbey
Cong South, Cong, Kilmaine, Co. Mayo

Churches:

Cill Fhechin (St. Fechin’s Church)
Cong South, Cong, Kilmaine, Co. Mayo
Cill Fhursa (St. Fursey’s Church)
Ballymacgibbon North, Cong, Kilmaine, Co. Mayo
Cill Ard Chroabh na Naomh (Church of the High Branch of Saints), aka Cill Fraoichin (St. Fraochin’s Church )
Dowagh East, Cong, Kilmaine, Co. Mayo
Cill Cholmain (St. Colman’s Church), aka Attyrickard Church
Cross, Cong, Kilmaine, Co. Mayo
Cill In Maelruain (Little Church of St. Maelruin), aka Neale Church
Lecarrowkilleen, Cong, Kilmaine, Co. Mayo
Early Church
Gortacurra, Cong, Kilmaine, Co. Mayo
Early Church (aka Billypark Church)
Carheens, Cong, Kilmaine, Co. Mayo
Teampull Padraig(St. Patrick’s Church)
Inchagoill Island, Dooris, Cong, Ross, Co. Galway
Teampull na Naomh (Church of the Saint)
Inchagoill Island, Dooris, Cong, Ross, Co. Galway
Cill Bride (St. Brigit’s Church)
Killbride, Ballinchalla, Ross, Co. Galway
Teampull O Moghery (O’Mohery’s Church)
Churchfield East, Ballinrobe, Ross, Co. Galway

Partraige Ceara

This group of the fortuatha-class Partraige dominated all of what is now the barony of Carra until they were reduced to the district of Odhbha by the Fir Ceara of the Ui Fiachrach Muaidhe in the 8th century. Their chiefs were the O’Garvalys. They came under domination by the Joyces sometime after the arrival of that family in the late 13th century.

Abbey:

Early Convent
Rocksboro South, Ballinrobe, Kilmaine, Co. Mayo

Churches:

Teampull Colmcille
Portroyal, Ballyovey (Partry), Carra, Co. Mayo
Teampull Colmcille
Ilauncolmcille Island, Loch Measg, Ballyovey (Partry), Carra, Co. Mayo
Cill In (Little Church)
Portroyal, Ballyovey (Partry), Carra, Co. Mayo
Cill Ciarain (St. Ciaran’s Church)
Kilkeerin, Ballyovey (Partry), Carra, Co. Mayo
Cill In (Little Church)
Carrowkilleen, Ballyovey (Partry), Carra, Co. Mayo
Cill Luighna (St. Lughna’s Church)
Cornfield, Ballyovey (Partry), Carra, Co. Mayo
Cill Tacharain (St. Tacharan’s Church)
Kiltaugharaun, Ballyovey (Partry), Carra, Co. Mayo
Teampull Ruadhain (Ruadhan’s Church), aka Cill Padraig (St. Patrick’s Church)
Carrownalecka, Ballinrobe, Kilmaine, Co. Mayo
Cill In ‘a Chraobha (Little Church of the Devout)
Rathkelly, Ballinrobe, Kilmaine, Co. Mayo



Of course other then their name there is no evidence that in early middle ages they spoke anything other then 'Old Irish'


The part of ancient Irish law known as the Book of the Rights and Privileges of Kings spells out the tributes paid upward, the stipends paid downward, and other matters of protocol divided all the tribes of Ireland into three categories: (1) Saortuatha, or free non-tribute-paying tribes; (2) Fortuatha, or free tribute-paying tribes; and (3) Aithechtuatha, or nonfree, tribute-paying tribes.


There status of Fortuatha basically shows how they had been pushed to periphery during the large scale changes that seem to have occurred in Connacht in period after 400 AD with the rising of new dynastical groups (Uí Briúin and Uí Fiachrach of the Connachta -- relatives of the Uí Néill). There name with the -raige suffix is part of a pattern where we see Fortuatha groups around the country with more 'tribal names' (Part-raige = 'Crab people') often mixed with specific animal (Dart-raige = calf-people) as a contrast with the more clearly patrilineal name groups that came to dominate the political scene in Early Christian Ireland. (Uí Briúin = grandsons/descendants of Brion)

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/eochaid-connachta.png

Finn
12-19-2018, 07:28 PM
From The History of the Celtic People by Henri Hubert, pages 169, 171-173:



Ibid, pages 175-176:



Ibid, pages 187-188:


Christopher Hawkes ain't bad either:



https://www.mupload.nl/img/ggpm34.png


https://www.mupload.nl/img/2mrtrwciyhv.png


https://www.mupload.nl/img/pisrli8.png

jdean
12-20-2018, 06:21 PM
Recent tweet from 'The 40th Theoretical Archaeology Group Conference
17th−19th December 2018' apparently linking Celts and BBC.

Celts and Beaker Folk? Language n genetics emphasised by monoglot research (https://twitter.com/CaradocPeters/status/1075417262008471552)

Pic quality is inevitably dire but also appears to connect BBC to Steppe folk.

This sounds promising too.

multidisciplinary approaches 2Celts n BeakerFolk great,but more room 4error (https://twitter.com/CaradocPeters/status/1075418006837215232)

rms2
02-16-2019, 06:02 PM
Thought I should update this thread to include the latest thinking from David at Eurogenes that Kurgan Bell Beaker was derived from Single Grave Corded Ware in the Netherlands, which of course would be PFB (Protruding Foot Beaker).

This post (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/01/dutch-beakers-like-no-other-beakers.html) and this one (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-boscombe-bowmen.html) explain things more fully.

I would ignore the comments or at least approach them cautiously: a lot of nutjobs with weird agendas seem to be drawn to Eurogenes (after having been banned elsewhere, including at Anthrogenica).

Anyway, the basic argument is that British Beakers are a lot like Dutch Beakers, and both are a lot like Corded Ware autosomally. One of the Boscombe Bowmen, I2417 from Olalde et al, has a lot of steppe dna and is pretty much indistinguishable from Corded Ware (and he is R1b-L21). In addition, AOO (All Over Ornamented) beakers, especially AOC (All Over Corded) beakers, feature prominently in Single Grave Corded Ware and in British Beaker.

28954

jdean
02-16-2019, 06:21 PM
Thought I should update this thread to include the latest thinking from David at Eurogenes that Kurgan Bell Beaker was derived from Single Grave Corded Ware in the Netherlands, which of course would be PFB (Protruding Foot Beaker).

This post (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/01/dutch-beakers-like-no-other-beakers.html) and this one (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-boscombe-bowmen.html) explain things more fully.

I would ignore the comments or at least approach them cautiously: a lot of nutjobs with weird agendas seem to be drawn to Eurogenes (after having been banned elsewhere, including at Anthrogenica).

Anyway, the basic argument is that British Beakers are a lot like Dutch Beakers, and both are a lot like Corded Ware autosomally. One of the Boscombe Bowmen, I2417 from Olalde et al, has a lot of steppe dna and is pretty much indistinguishable from Corded Ware (and he is R1b-L21). In addition, AOO (All Over Ornamented) beakers, especially AOC (All Over Corded) beakers, feature prominently in Single Grave Corded Ware and in British Beaker.

28954

Must say I much prefer PCA plots and those graph things to the posts full of just nos. : )

rms2
02-16-2019, 06:24 PM
Must say I much prefer PCA plots and those graph things to the posts full of just nos. : )

Me too. One picture is a worth a thousand words (and numbers).

rms2
02-23-2019, 11:43 PM
Thought I should update this thread to include the latest thinking from David at Eurogenes that Kurgan Bell Beaker was derived from Single Grave Corded Ware in the Netherlands, which of course would be PFB (Protruding Foot Beaker).

This post (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/01/dutch-beakers-like-no-other-beakers.html) and this one (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-boscombe-bowmen.html) explain things more fully.

I would ignore the comments or at least approach them cautiously: a lot of nutjobs with weird agendas seem to be drawn to Eurogenes (after having been banned elsewhere, including at Anthrogenica).

Anyway, the basic argument is that British Beakers are a lot like Dutch Beakers, and both are a lot like Corded Ware autosomally. One of the Boscombe Bowmen, I2417 from Olalde et al, has a lot of steppe dna and is pretty much indistinguishable from Corded Ware (and he is R1b-L21). In addition, AOO (All Over Ornamented) beakers, especially AOC (All Over Corded) beakers, feature prominently in Single Grave Corded Ware and in British Beaker.

28954

So, since I2417 is R1b-L21 and indistinguishable from Corded Ware, does that mean L21 will turn up among Single Grave Corded Ware in the Netherlands, North Germany, or Jutland?

Thought I would bring that up, since y-dna discussions seem to have gone the way of the Dodo, having been replaced by arcane autosomal comparisons and calculations. Of course, such a comparison/calculation is at the heart of this question.

razyn
02-24-2019, 12:15 AM
Thought I would bring that up, since y-dna discussions seem to have gone the way of the Dodo, having been replaced by arcane autosomal comparisons and calculations. Of course, such a comparison/calculation is at the heart of this question.

For a little trip down memory lane, someone updated one of your old threads from five years ago, and I noticed that way back then, Generalissimo still seemed to be interested in YDNA.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2410-Map-Busby-et-al-Europe-U106-P312xL21-U152-L21-and-U152&p=37685&viewfull=1#post37685

Seek the old paths, and walk therein.

Kopfjäger
02-24-2019, 03:56 AM
So, since I2417 is R1b-L21 and indistinguishable from Corded Ware, does that mean L21 will turn up among Single Grave Corded Ware in the Netherlands, North Germany, or Jutland?

Thought I would bring that up, since y-dna discussions seem to have gone the way of the Dodo, having been replaced by arcane autosomal comparisons and calculations. Of course, such a comparison/calculation is at the heart of this question.

We know those Beaker guys in the Netherlands are P312, but were they tested for L21?

David Mc
02-24-2019, 04:07 AM
So, since I2417 is R1b-L21 and indistinguishable from Corded Ware, does that mean L21 will turn up among Single Grave Corded Ware in the Netherlands, North Germany, or Jutland?

Thought I would bring that up, since y-dna discussions seem to have gone the way of the Dodo, having been replaced by arcane autosomal comparisons and calculations. Of course, such a comparison/calculation is at the heart of this question.

The big "want" for me is still more yDNA. I'm primarily interested in autosomal dna insofar as it illumines the movement of R1b across Europe (as seems to be the case with linking BB to CW). Others too, but primarily R1b. Some of the autosomal tests are interesting enough and they help pass the time...

Tolan
02-24-2019, 06:56 AM
So, since I2417 is R1b-L21 and indistinguishable from Corded Ware, does that mean L21 will turn up among Single Grave Corded Ware in the Netherlands, North Germany, or Jutland?

Thought I would bring that up, since y-dna discussions seem to have gone the way of the Dodo, having been replaced by arcane autosomal comparisons and calculations. Of course, such a comparison/calculation is at the heart of this question.

Your remark reminds me the L21 map I made in 2015, from places found in L21 DNA project of FTDNA:

Today, there would be a little more L21 in northwestern Germany today than in neighboring regions.

29035

rms2
02-24-2019, 09:52 PM
We know those Beaker guys in the Netherlands are P312, but were they tested for L21?

As I recall, they were actually ancestral for L21, but I could be wrong about that.

Given the estimated age of L21 and the date of the earliest Beaker remains in Britain, it's likely L21 originated on the Continent. Besides, we're pretty sure the Amesbury Archer was born and raised on the Continent, and, given the Companion's L21+ result, it's likely the Archer was L21+.

So, if Kurgan Bell Beaker was Corded Ware Single Grave 2.0, then it seems likely that someone will find some L21 in CW Single Grave (and I2417 looks like a Corded Ware guy).

Kopfjäger
02-25-2019, 02:29 AM
As I recall, they were actually ancestral for L21, but I could be wrong about that.

Given the estimated age of L21 and the date of the earliest Beaker remains in Britain, it's likely L21 originated on the Continent. Besides, we're pretty sure the Amesbury Archer was born and raised on the Continent, and, given the Companion's L21+ result, it's likely the Archer was L21+.

So, if Kurgan Bell Beaker was Corded Ware Single Grave 2.0, then it seems likely that someone will find some L21 in CW Single Grave (and I2417 looks like a Corded Ware guy).

If you had a guess of where on the Continent we may find the earliest L21, what would you choose?

rms2
02-25-2019, 12:18 PM
If you had a guess of where on the Continent we may find the earliest L21, what would you choose?

I don't know. If Kurgan Bell Beaker really came from Single Grave Corded Ware, then somewhere within its distribution.

Otherwise, I would guess Switzerland or the alpine region of South Germany, since that is where the Amesbury Archer is supposed to have been born and raised.

rms2
02-25-2019, 12:53 PM
It seems to me the most likely source of the first R1b-L21 was the Corded Ware Single Grave Protruding Foot Beaker culture, that is, if in fact Kurgan Bell Beaker was an outgrowth of Corded Ware.

The following is from the article Corded Ware From East to West (https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/corded-ware-east-west).



Protruding Foot Beaker Culture. The Protruding Foot Beaker culture is the best-known part of the Corded Ware story. It is found along the Lower Rhine, in a key place for long-range contacts between the British Isles and the Alpine area, as well as along the Atlantic shore to the Baltic Sea. There exists an accurate typology of its basic object: the beaker. Much is known about the culture's settlements. To assure proper living conditions (that is, a dry place on the wet landscape of the Rhine Delta), permanent settlements were built on artificial platforms consisting of layers of shells, organic remains, and clay. The dwellings were rectangular huts of post construction. The funeral rites were characterized by the presence of flat graves as well as barrows, in which according to the Corded Ware custom, only one individual was laid. The Protruding Foot Beaker culture is also important because in 1955 Johannes D. van der Waals and Willem Glasbergen were able to demonstrate stylistic links that its beakers shared with the Bell Beakers. This became a basis for one of the main models for the genesis of the Bell Beakers called the "Dutch Model."


Unfortunately PFB seems to have buried its dead in a region with acidic, skeleton-eating soil.

corner
02-25-2019, 08:50 PM
Besides, we're pretty sure the Amesbury Archer was born and raised on the Continent, and, given the Companion's L21+ result, it's likely the Archer was L21+.I wonder how likely it is that there will be another attempt at getting a yDNA result for the Amesbury Archer. I'm not arguing that the Amesbury Archer is not L21 like 'The Companion', it seems likely he is, but I'd prefer my own yDNA subclade was determined by a lab using my sample rather than inferring it by testing a neighbour with similar feet.


'A few metres away from the grave of the Amesbury Archer was the burial of a 20–25 year-old man who had died a generation, possibly two, after him (2350–2260 cal BC ). The presence of a rare trait in the bones of their feet demonstrates that the two were biologically related though whether as, for example, father/son or uncle/nephew cannot be determined.' A. Fitzpatrick 2013

rms2
02-26-2019, 01:18 PM
I wonder how likely it is that there will be another attempt at getting a yDNA result for the Amesbury Archer. I'm not arguing that the Amesbury Archer is not L21 like 'The Companion', it seems likely he is, but I'd prefer my own yDNA subclade was determined by a lab using my sample rather than inferring it by testing a neighbour with similar feet.

I have written Dr. Olalde a couple of times on that subject. He said getting access to the Archer was tough because of his fame and his prominence as a museum specimen, so I doubt we'll ever see his genome.

Probably inference of his y-dna haplogroup is the best we're going to get, unfortunately.

We're lucky they got dna from the Companion just three meters away and that the two of them were obviously related. We don't know that the Companion is the Archer's son, but that seems likely.

I would certainly have preferred the Archer's genome, but we have to take what we can get.

alan
02-26-2019, 04:30 PM
I also think Mike is onto something with regards to the cluster of very early beaker dates on the Elbe. Seems the origin of the north-south orientated burial with beaker may be in that area. I find that interesting because a couple of the rare CW groups who used north-south orientation were also accessible from the Elbe. There is the Carpathian Polish CW group. Ive read conflicting accounts of the Moravian CW group orientations so I am not sure about them.

rms2
03-02-2019, 02:00 PM
It's interesting that evidently in Britain there were different Beaker burial traditions, a northern and a southern. The one north of the Tees featured bodies oriented E-W like Single Grave Corded Ware, and the one south of the Tees featured the N-S orientation.

This is from page 64 of Marc Heise's Heads North or East? A Re-Examination of Beaker Burials in Britain:



In a more systematic way funerary practices were described by David Clarke (1970). He argued that Beaker and Corded Ware burial practices mixed in the Rhineland and subsequently entered Britain where it was possible to distinguish between a northern and southern Beaker burial tradition. According to Clarke, the group of N-S orientated burials in southern Britain had its roots in the European Beaker burial traditions, whereas the mainly E-W orientated Beaker burials in the north of Britain stood in the tradition of Corded Ware / SGC burial practices (1970, 257-258). The observation of a distinct north / south burial tradition that was defined broadly by the River Tees had already been made by Stuart Piggott (1963, 76).43 This boundary in the Tyne and Tees is expressed by different burial traditions, with barrows in the south and cists burials in the north (Atkinson 1972, 107-116). Clarke furthermore assumed that these burial traditions became less significant at a later stage, after Beaker groups were established in Britain (Clarke 1970, 257). This notion can also be matched with Needham’s model that described the early phase as “circumscribed culture” with affiliations to the continent, while at a later stage Beakers had become part of the local communities and the initially strict orientation rules lost their importance (Needham 2005). In their critique on Clarke’s work Beakers of Great Britain and Ireland, Lanting & van der Waals (1972) also discussed the funerary practices and generally agreed with Clarke.


Of course, Amesbury in Wiltshire is certainly well south of the Tees, and the Boscombe Bowman I2417 was autosomally indistinguishable from a Corded Ware man.

rms2
03-02-2019, 02:36 PM
Apparently Małopolska Corded Ware had a N-S burial orientation.

This is from page 471 of "Corded Ware From East to West", by Janusz Czebreszuk, in Bogucki, Peter and Crabtree, Pam; editors, Ancient Europe 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000: The Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World, Volume I The Mesolithic to Copper Age (c. 8000–2000 B.C.); New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 2004.



Małopolska Corded Ware. Małopolska Corded Ware in southern Poland is known mainly from cemeteries, where at most a few dozen individuals were buried (the largest number of graves in one place totaled sixty-four at Zerniki Górne). These were single-burial graves, mostly flat. Barrows were also numerous, but they did not form unified cemeteries. Instead, they often followed one after another along the crest of a rise in the terrain. The individual was placed on a north-south axis, opposite the east-west arrangement found in the other Corded Ware regions. A characteristic of the Małopolska Corded Ware culture is the so-called catacomb tombs, consisting of a vertical shaft dug in the loess subsoil, at the bottom of which was a chamber where the body was placed. Usually the grave goods consisted of one or two vessels, heart-shaped arrowheads, flakes, and stone objects, such as battle-axes. The few settlements found exhibited impermanent dwellings. The thesis that the Małopolska Corded Ware culture had a pastoral character is widely accepted, not only on a theoretical basis but also on the basis of physical evidence.

rms2
03-02-2019, 03:25 PM
I modified Heise's Figure 11 to include some of the regional variations of Corded Ware and Beaker burial orientation.

29122

alan
03-02-2019, 06:47 PM
Its still archaeologically tempting to see the early Elbe beaker dates as somehow linked to Malopolska CW with their strangely beaker-like traits of burial orientation, archery etc. On the other hand I am not sure if any of these Malopolska CW guys have radiocarbon dates any earlier than those early Elbe bell beaker dates. The Elbe does approach the south-west corner of Poland so a connection in one direction or the other doesnt seem outlandish.

alan
03-02-2019, 07:04 PM
Its still archaeologically tempting to see the early Elbe beaker dates as somehow linked to Malopolska CW with their strangely beaker-like traits of burial orientation, archery etc. On the other hand I am not sure if any of these Malopolska CW guys have radiocarbon dates any earlier than those early Elbe bell beaker dates. The Elbe does approach the south-west corner of Poland so a connection in one direction or the other doesnt seem outlandish.

In fact there is a danger that the Malopolska CW might even be influenced by the beaker people on the Elbe if the early dates are solid. Could they even actually be beaker men with CW wives? Ive generally read that these north-south archery using CW Malopolska folk dont have dates prior to 2600BC . Those dates are younger than the early Elbe beaker dates. Happy to be corrected if there are older dates.

razyn
03-02-2019, 11:04 PM
Has anyone serious tried to associate the varying, but usually patterned, orientation of such interments with variations in the religious/magical system of the respective undertakers? Being dead doesn't necessarily make a person useless, in most cultures. One might speculate that they were looking back to the old home, or watching for the perceived baddies that had chased them out of it, whether human or spiritual (problems with climate or microbes would have been Angry Gods). The gender-specific distinctions were probably about the good old "division of labor" extended beyond, or at least into, the grave. We hunt, you gather. The guys with weapons may have been guarding the flanks; women may have been ushering the kids to safety. Maybe each faced toward what they considered the desirable place for an afterlife: Land of the Dawn, the Golden West, the Crystal Palace of Jor-el, whatever. Or the most nearby gates into the underworld. They didn't have compasses, but they knew a point the night sky rotated around, where the sun was expected to rise and set, basic directional stuff like that. It all meant something, to them. And strictly observed burial positions, linked to what we think of as compass points, were among other things a function of that meaning.

rms2
03-03-2019, 01:38 AM
It's interesting that Beaker and Corded Ware weren't absolutely monolithic when it came to burial orientation.

It seems to me their burial rite similarities were greater than their differences.

Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Burial Rites: Common Elements

1. Gender dimorphic, crouched-on-side burial (men buried lying on one side,
women in the same locality buried lying on the opposite side)
2. Single graves in pits (yama)
3. Burial mounds (kurgans)
4. Grave pits are often stone or wood-lined cists
5. Cromlechs (stone circles surrounding kurgans)
6. Sometimes wooden palisades surrounded the kurgan
7. Strikingly similar beakers with corded decoration deposited in grave pits
8. Weapons, including arrowheads and shafthole axes, deposited in grave
pits
9. Horse and other animal bones deposited in grave pits

Did I miss anything?

rms2
04-11-2019, 11:30 PM
So, will we ever get any y-dna from Corded Ware Single Grave Protruding Foot Beaker in the Netherlands or NW Germany, and, if so, will it be R1b-L21?

Webb
04-12-2019, 12:24 AM
So, will we ever get any y-dna from Corded Ware Single Grave Protruding Foot Beaker in the Netherlands or NW Germany, and, if so, will it be R1b-L21?

I think based on probability L21 is the most likely scenario. If not L21 then a toss up between DF19, DF99, DF27, and U152.

alan
04-12-2019, 08:38 AM
Well as L21xDF13 seems to have been a few SNPs younger than DF13 and L21xDF13 is rare in the British Isles and more common on the continent (given the isles-skewed hobby sampling), I would be pretty sure that L21 originated on the continent. I am not sure about DF13 - what is the best date estimate for it? Yfull doesnt seem to have a sensible date for DF13. What is the oldest ancient DNA instance of DF13?

alan
04-12-2019, 08:50 AM
I think the answers probably are best sought by working backwards from what is known about the earliest British L21 beaker in ancient DNA.

FionnSneachta
04-12-2019, 12:35 PM
I am not sure about DF13 - what is the best date estimate for it? Yfull doesnt seem to have a sensible date for DF13. What is the oldest ancient DNA instance of DF13?

I don't know about the oldest instance but Ian McDonald estimates it as 2602 BC (3112 BC — 2159 BC). The Big Tree has it as 4094.42 YBP (2145 BC or 2636 BC to 1741 BC). YFull is 4000 ybp (3700-4400 ybp) so about 1981 BC. Considering the time frame being looked at, they're all giving relatively similar estimates.

alan
04-12-2019, 06:55 PM
Can someone remind me what the earliest dated instance of L21 and of DF13 are in ancient DNA. I cant recall. I am pretty sure they are British beaker ones though.

TigerMW
04-12-2019, 07:36 PM
Can someone remind me what the earliest dated instance of L21 and of DF13 are in ancient DNA. I cant recall. I am pretty sure they are British beaker ones though.

As best as my notes have them. You can see the ancient DNA dating and on the R1b-Z290 & L21 Descendant tree here. It's the second chart, look at the table on the left.
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-l21/about/results

We have DF13 confirmed in England as of about 2200 BC. The DF13 MRCA is very close in age to the L21 TMRCA. Very close. DF13 is only a two SNP block. We have L21 at 2300 BC in England.

We need a few ancient Z290+ L21- remains. They may be hard to find.

alan
04-12-2019, 08:21 PM
As best as my notes have them. You can see the ancient DNA dating and on the R1b-Z290 & L21 Descendant tree here. It's the second chart, look at the table on the left.
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-l21/about/results

We have DF13 confirmed in England as of about 2200 BC. The DF13 MRCA is very close in age to the L21 TMRCA. Very close. DF13 is only a two SNP block. We have L21 at 2300 BC in England.

We need a few ancient Z290+ L21- remains. They may be hard to find.

Seems that yfull need to update as they have the date of both the formation and TMRCA of DF13 at c. 2000BC when that obviously is not possible if its been found in ancient dna at 2200BC. They place formation of L21 at 2400BC which isnt disproved I suppose. However, their TMRCA date of 2000BC for L21 seems wrong given that its been found at 2300BC in ancient DNA. It kind of sounds like yfull dates all about 10-15% (or more) too young. If that was the case then L21 formation date would be something like 2640-2760BC. I realise that is grossly simplistic but I am just trying to get a handle on whether the date is likely pre-isles-beaker (pre-2400BC) and even pre-steppe beaker. It does seem on balance that L21 does pre-date the most accepted date of the arrival of beaker in the isles c. 2400BC and therefore is continental in origin. I suspect too that DF13 may have occurred very shorty before the move to the isles but that is perhaps too close to call - though I doubt all continental DF13 relates to out-of-the-isles back migration to the continent.

alan
04-12-2019, 11:25 PM
Every time I go back to look at the known L21 beaker guys in Britain and try to work backwards to find a source, the sheer ecclectic nature of the geography of the influences you see defeats me. There is no simple answer. I do think though that the presence of large burial pits that probably had a wooden structure and roof that is seen in several early beaker burial sites in southern England is interesting. The rite reminds me of the contemporary one at Wedge Tombs in Ireland, which is not surprising really given the strong connections shown by the fact so much copper used in Britain c. 2400-2200BC was from Ross Island in SW Ireland. I dont think a satisfactory realistic continental source has been found for this burial rite on the continent. And we are somewhat restricted for choice by the fact that the L21 Boscome bowman was very high in steppe and so the source really has to be northerly. Personally I have a suspicion that this tradition came from Rhenish beaker people who had been probing west along the Channel coast area of France and who may have entered the isles from a roughly Normandy-Isle of Wight-Portsmouth/southhampton-Stonehenge type route into England but also forked off west to Ireland too. These early L21 people seem to have been able to gather a really eclectic range of influences and I get the impression they were constantly on the move and plying trad routes that stretched from the Atlantic to the Rhine and Alps.

alan
04-12-2019, 11:55 PM
A lot would make sense if the L21 people who settled the isles were Rhenish type beaker people who had been operating the trade routes west across northern France to the Loire area (Grand Presigny) and perhaps came into contact c. 2450BC with Iberian maritime elements heading up the Atlantic coast of France to Brittany and linked into the metal trade coming from that area and influences from northern France but while essentially remaining a Rhenish group genetically. There clearly was a link between the Lower Rhine and SW France/Iberia that pre-dated the sort of 2500BC date usually thought of as the start of the Rhine beakers and went back to CW times. There was no teleport between the two areas so someone had to straddle the gap (essentially northern France) either by travelling or living at trading nodes at intermediate points. There is a thin but distinctive group of northern French AOC beaker burials that fit into the gap between the Lower Rhine and the Loire mouth area. They seem originally to have been interested in the Grand Presigny flint but they may have then taken an interest in metals. Brittany could be important as its the nearest metal rich area between the Loire and Rhine without crossing over to the isles. A group who plied that zone between the Rhine and Atlantic France would be able to tick many of the boxes of the earliest beaker burials in Britain in a way that no single location could. A key aspect of this is the British group as exemplified by the Amesbury Archer were metallurgists but this is not something that is likely to have been acquired at the Rhine mouth. Other early L21 burial sites like the Boscombe Bowmen also have burial rites that are not classic burial in a person sized hole or cist. They seemed to bury in far larger deeper pits with evidence of a timber chamber and re-use. Not exactly Neolithic type mass collective burial but also not classic single burial either. More like a family chamber used for single burials over a few decades. Personally I think this is very similar to the Wedge tomb beaker era tradition in Ireland, albeit on is earth and wood and the other is stone built. So I think there is every chance that the wedge tombs will also be L21 people and also commence around 2400BC. I suspect the best chance of a continental parallel for this will be in northern France.

TigerMW
04-13-2019, 12:12 AM
... It does seem on balance that L21 does pre-date the most accepted date of the arrival of beaker in the isles c. 2400BC and therefore is continental in origin. I suspect too that DF13 may have occurred very shorty before the move to the isles but that is perhaps too close to call...
This is exactly what I think. The birth dates of R-L21 can only get pushed back further (older) beyond current ancient DNA radiocarbon dates. Those dates set a floor on the age.

If you look at the arrival of the Kurgan/Steppe Bell Beakers on to the Isles we are just running out of runway. L21 had to come in to being before the Kurgan Bell Beakers arrived on the Isles. That pretty much only leaves you with a continental Europe as a birth place for L21.

From there it more interesting. We have the nearby Bell Beakers of the Lower Rhine. We have the Middle Rhine and then we have the Upper Rhine and Upper Danube or the Alps. Then you have to ask what is up with the Amesbury Archer isotope analysis which indicates the Alps. The Wessex Beakers traded with the Unetice people so is that meaningful?


I suspect the best chance of a continental parallel for this will be in northern France.
We really could use some in depth population studies of Bretagne and Normandy and some ancient DNA.

rms2
04-13-2019, 07:25 AM
Can someone remind me what the earliest dated instance of L21 and of DF13 are in ancient DNA. I cant recall. I am pretty sure they are British beaker ones though.

The oldest c14-dated R1b-L21s are as follows:

I2565 2470-2140 calBC Amesbury, Wiltshire, England
I2457 2480-2031 calBC Amesbury, Wiltshire, England

The oldest c14-dated R1b-DF13 is the following:

I2568 2287-2039 calBC Dryburn Bridge, East Lothian, Scotland

MitchellSince1893
04-13-2019, 05:24 PM
...or the Alps. Then you have to ask what is up with the Amesbury Archer isotope analysis which indicates the Alps. The Wessex Beakers traded with the Unetice people so is that meaningful?

Lower Rhine SCG>Bell Beaker>L21>British Isles is appealing due to its straight forward simplicity.

The isotope analysis of a Alpine type early childhood does complicate things.

corner
04-13-2019, 06:07 PM
Lower Rhine SCG>Bell Beaker>L21>British Isles is appealing due to its straight forward simplicity.

The isotope analysis of a Alpine type early childhood does complicate things.Yes. Of course, they didn't get yDNA results for the Amesbury Archer so it's not certain he's L21. He was buried 3 m from The Companion who was from Britain, was L21+ and had similar foot bones. I wish they'd have another go at the Archer.

David Mc
04-13-2019, 07:20 PM
Yes. Of course, they didn't get yDNA results for the Amesbury Archer so it's not certain he's L21. He was buried 3 m from The Companion who was from Britain, was L21+ and had similar foot bones. I wish they'd have another go at the Archer.

I wish they would too. Having said that, I'm give to understand that the shared mutation in the tarsals means we can be pretty confident that they are near relations and therefore likely both L21+. Maybe we'll get confirmation someday.

alan
04-13-2019, 09:47 PM
This is probably the core text and a very balanced summary of the likely origins of beaker in the isles - though admittedly it doesnt exactly come to hard and fast conclusions. https://www.academia.edu/24957136/THE_ARRIVAL_OF_THE_BELL_BEAKER_SET_IN_BRITAIN_AND_ IRELAND

alan
04-13-2019, 10:39 PM
I've been reading the supplementary info of the big beaker dna study which describes the nature of the beaker burials they sampled. I had previously found it difficult to get a lot of info in English on French beaker other than the few classic summaries that we have all probably read. But they tend to focus on the collective beaker burials of Med. France and the south-west Alps with just a few general references to a thin line of burials across northern France leading from the Low Countries to the Loire. The latter clearly were linked to the Grand Pressigny flint trade. However they were orientated east-west. That is not a common orientation in southern Britain but it is very common in Holland. So, I am not sure what to make of them and I think I may be wrong to think they could be ancestral to the earliest L21 beaker burials in southern England. However, reading this supplementary info in the DNA study, I was very struck by how many of the other beaker single burials from France sound not disimilar to the Amesbury Archer - large pit with evidence of a wooden chamber, classic orientation. The Boscombe Bowmen burial is an odd one in that it also is a large pit with traces of a wooden chamber but has had a number of bodies stuffed into it. However the one that isnt disturbed can clearly be seen to have a classic beaker single burial orientation. Both these famous burials have an interesting combo of classic full package eastern and western elements/contacts. They sound like they simply had to have come from the interface zone between the Rhine area and the Seine.

alan
04-13-2019, 11:37 PM
One of the Boscombe Bowmen was L21 wasnt he? Very high steppe almost like a CW person? Think it was a disarticulated bone disturbed by an articulated beaker burial with far lower steppe.

corner
04-14-2019, 11:37 AM
One of the Boscombe Bowmen was L21 wasnt he? Very high steppe almost like a CW person? Think it was a disarticulated bone disturbed by an articulated beaker burial with far lower steppe.I2417 was disarticulated L21+ bone lying above central in situ I2416 Boscombe Bowman (R1b-P310/L151+ with no reads downstream in the low quality .bam file except a FGC11381+) who was in a flat grave in a wooden tomb surrounded by many individuals, curated bundles of bones, pots and other grave goods.

I2416 had low steppe/high Neolithic farmer admixture. Apparently I2417 was a relation, yet he had very high steppe admixture in contrast to I2416. In the report it was suggested I2417 may have been originally buried above (outside the Bowman's flat grave) and had fallen down inside when the wooden lid separating them decayed. Olalde et al Supplementary Info: 'The ‘Boscombe Bowmen’ grave was later marked by a Bronze Age barrow, which in turn became the focus for a small cemetery.'

The Boscombe Bowmen's grave contained eight beakers. There were seven All-Over-Ornamented beakers and one Cord-Zoned-Maritime vessel.

corner
04-14-2019, 11:43 AM
I wish they would too. Having said that, I'm give to understand that the shared mutation in the tarsals means we can be pretty confident that they are near relations and therefore likely both L21+. Maybe we'll get confirmation someday.Yes, although I gather that we can potentially inherit bone defects from any of our relatives, not just the paternal line.

TigerMW
04-14-2019, 02:09 PM
The oldest c14-dated R1b-L21s are as follows:

I2565 2470-2140 calBC Amesbury, Wiltshire, England
I2457 2480-2031 calBC Amesbury, Wiltshire, England
Were these two proven DF13- Z2542- ?

alan
04-14-2019, 11:07 PM
I2417 was disarticulated L21+ bone lying above central in situ I2416 Boscombe Bowman (R1b-P310/L151+ with no reads downstream in the low quality .bam file except a FGC11381+) who was in a flat grave in a wooden tomb surrounded by many individuals, curated bundles of bones, pots and other grave goods.

I2416 had low steppe/high Neolithic farmer admixture. Apparently I2417 was a relation, yet he had very high steppe admixture in contrast to I2416. In the report it was suggested I2417 may have been originally buried above (outside the Bowman's flat grave) and had fallen down inside when the wooden lid separating them decayed. Olalde et al Supplementary Info: 'The ‘Boscombe Bowmen’ grave was later marked by a Bronze Age barrow, which in turn became the focus for a small cemetery.'

The Boscombe Bowmen's grave contained eight beakers. There were seven All-Over-Ornamented beakers and one Cord-Zoned-Maritime vessel.

Yeah the deposits of bones are so odd and the site so disturbed that I wouldnt want to read too much into it in terms of burial tradition. I dont think its clear that this was a collective tradition per se. Curation etc could really confuse things. The key thing for me is that the L21 bone was very high steppe, apparently very like CW. That is another suggestion that this person came from beaker within the CW zone or at least from beaker groups who originated in the CW zone and had only married among their own if they had moved west of that zone. Either way we are probably looking at the Rhine area or unadmixed populations who were from there and lived at another point further west. It has been suggested that the Boscome Bowmen had previously lived further west within Britain too. Perhaps the maritime beaker shows a female link to further west and perhaps that is the source of the elevated non-steppe DNA found in the articulated burial. I wouldnt read too much into the weird mix of bones at the burial. It looks pretty much a classic early wessex beaker burial in an pit with a wooden chamber on the local NW-SE variant of the N-S beaker orientation (all this is similar to the Amesbury archer burial) but with some unusual activity probably involving moved and/or curated bones that gives a false impression of collectivism. The problem with this burial though is it isnt a first generation continental migrant grave. But not are the Amesrbury and Boscombe burials both L21 group but also share the same early beaker burial tradition of Wessex as the Amesbury archer. So, I think both the Boscome Bowman and Amesbury archer burials come from essentially the same group even if they were different generations and had traveled to different places before descending on the same part of England for burial. My overall feeling of them is that they were probably Rhenish in origin but also from an area which was receptive to Atlantic contact. They are definitely not bell beaker east judging by the arrows etc.

If these fairly early L21 migrants to the UK are representative of their origins on the continent, I would rule out the Upper Rhine area (French Alsace/east Swiss/ Baden-Wurrtemberg SW German) because they are within the bell beaker east traditions while the British L21 burials at Amesbury and Boscombe are clearly not.

alan
04-15-2019, 08:49 PM
Maybe not the thread for this but a thought just struck me. Archaeology appears to rule out the DF27 Iberian beakers as having come from the Upper Rhine area to the Rhone route as the start of a route to the med. and Iberia. That looks v unlikely as Upper Rhine groups in Alsace, east Switzerland and SW Germany were beaker east groups culturally (hollow based arrows etc) and therefore likely U152. That doesnt rule out a Rhone route to the Med. then Iberia but it means such a journey is unlikely to have commenced in the upper rhine areas of SW Germany, France or Switzerland. It looks to me that DF27 before 2500BC probably lay in France somewhere north and west of U152 but south of L21. As L21 surely was on the Lower Rhine and U152 surely dominated the Upper Rhine then it only really leaves the middle Rhine and the French rivers to the west as a likely pre-Iberia location for DF27; Iberian later beaker looks like it culturally was from something more akin to the NW beakers (Dutch etc) than the beaker east group.

alan
04-15-2019, 09:10 PM
When you look at the NW beaker grouping around Holland, they kind of look like a distinctive frontiers group or subset of the beaker east group. However, if they really were a quirky frontiers vanguard or outgroup of the beaker east group, then how come there isnt an early layer in Holland and adjacent areas that is properly beaker east in nature with hollow based arrowheads etc before the NW type characteristics developed? On the other hand, a case can be made for seeing the P312 later Iberian beaker single burials as coming from a NW beaker tradition (same burial orientations, barbed and tanged arrows etc). I certainly would view a lot of the French single burials (other than the east group types around Alsace) as also looking like they come from a NW beaker tradition. Maybe David is right that beaker developed around the Lower-Middle Rhine area from single grave and spread from there.

I personally am very wary of radiocarbon dating and just a few early ones being used as a method of constructing a chronology with increments as little as 50ys being claimed as indicators of origin and direction of dispersal. I think only a very large group of dates and Bayesian analysis gives any sort of confidence when looking at chronology in thin slices. I personally dont have much confidence in radiocarbon as a method to sort out the chronology of a culture where the earliest dates in so many areas fall into a single 100 year slice.

TigerMW
04-16-2019, 06:46 PM
When you look at the NW beaker grouping around Holland, they kind of look like a distinctive frontiers group or subset of the beaker east group. However, if they really were a quirky frontiers vanguard or outgroup of the beaker east group, then how come there isnt an early layer in Holland and adjacent areas that is properly beaker east in nature with hollow based arrowheads etc before the NW type characteristics developed? On the other hand, a case can be made for seeing the P312 later Iberian beaker single burials as coming from a NW beaker tradition (same burial orientations, barbed and tanged arrows etc). I certainly would view a lot of the French single burials (other than the east group types around Alsace) as also looking like they come from a NW beaker tradition. Maybe David is right that beaker developed around the Lower-Middle Rhine area from single grave and spread from there.

I personally am very wary of radiocarbon dating and just a few early ones being used as a method of constructing a chronology with increments as little as 50ys being claimed as indicators of origin and direction of dispersal. I think only a very large group of dates and Bayesian analysis gives any sort of confidence when looking at chronology in thin slices. I personally dont have much confidence in radiocarbon as a method to sort out the chronology of a culture where the earliest dates in so many areas fall into a single 100 year slice.

Alan, what do you think about the possibility that the Dutch/Lower Rhine (I think you are calling them NW) Bell Beakers have a strong cultural input from "Swifterband-Erteboelle/North European post-Kongemose"? I've always thought the non-Iberian Bell Beakers were much more than just Corded Ware and farmers. On another thread we see the proposal that the TRB folks had "Swifterband-Erteboelle/North European post-Kongemose" hunter-gatherer input. Could this regional sect of TRB folks had the sea-faring skills to truly add-value to the Corded Ware incomers so as to create the northern Bell Beakers with their own synergistic advancements?

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16862-TRB-West-and-it-s-echo!

Finn
04-16-2019, 07:04 PM
Alan, what do you think about the possibility that the Dutch/Lower Rhine (I think you are calling them NW) Bell Beakers have a strong cultural input from "Swifterband-Erteboelle/North European post-Kongemose"? I've always thought the non-Iberian Bell Beakers were much more than just Corded Ware and farmers. On another thread we see the proposal that the TRB folks had "Swifterband-Erteboelle/North European post-Kongemose" hunter-gatherer input. Could this regional sect of TRB folks had the sea-faring skills to truly add-value to the Corded Ware incomers so as to create the northern Bell Beakers with their own synergistic advancements?

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16862-TRB-West-and-it-s-echo!

When Davidski is right the timing for the North Dutch is Swiftertbant>Funnelbeaker (incl. Ertebølle)>Single Grave flowing into BB. And of course they could cross the North Sea:biggrin1:

alan
04-17-2019, 07:46 PM
Alan, what do you think about the possibility that the Dutch/Lower Rhine (I think you are calling them NW) Bell Beakers have a strong cultural input from "Swifterband-Erteboelle/North European post-Kongemose"? I've always thought the non-Iberian Bell Beakers were much more than just Corded Ware and farmers. On another thread we see the proposal that the TRB folks had "Swifterband-Erteboelle/North European post-Kongemose" hunter-gatherer input. Could this regional sect of TRB folks had the sea-faring skills to truly add-value to the Corded Ware incomers so as to create the northern Bell Beakers with their own synergistic advancements?

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16862-TRB-West-and-it-s-echo!

The hunter-gather substrate is something I really havent thought or read much about I must admit. Ive really just taken on board the GAC-northern TRB type farmer substrate. But it is a fair point to make. Most Neolithic farmers turned their back on marine produce and therefore the sea. However, to have boating skills they clearly had, some ancestral strand of the beaker people must have not turned their back of the sea. That said, there is evidence of small-scale cross-channel trade in the pre-beaker Neolithic too. So perhaps we should look at those pre-beaker maritime traders rather than hunter-fishers. Whoever these people with the maritime travel skills were, they clearly were rather unusual and had a niche that was outside the terrestrial bound norm of Neolithic life.

Another thing to consider is that paper Upending a ‘Totality: Re-evaluating Corded Ware Variability in Late Neolithic Europe by by Furholt. His map of the network of contacts which caused the 2nd/3rd generation convergence of scattered CW type groups to form the badly named Corded Ware A-horizon does show some lines of contact which would be much easier and more rational to do by boat than land. So, it can probably be assumed that significant maritime skills did exist on the north sea shores at this time. Whether some Mesolithic substrate was ultimately responsible for these skills existing is very hard to prove but not an unreasonable theory given the very land-focused Neolithic diet and economy in the vast majority of Neolithic farming cultures. Id guess the strongest retention of such skills would be areas where the climate and conditions made farming alone too precarious and a tradition of farmer/herder-fishers may have developed. There is a long history of that in Scandinavia.

Its also clear though that there was a heck of a lot of contact, trade and movement between Britain and Ireland in the Neolithic. Not just the initial settlement of Ireland and Britain but all the smaller islands within the British Isles too. There was clearly a major stone axe trade going on between the islands from quite early in the Neolithic. More relevant to beaker is in the late Neolithic 3000-2500BC a series of things - henges, timber circles, a new wave of stone circles and grooved ware pottery all seemed to spread across the two islands. Some of the contacts appear overwhelmingly likely to have come down the Atlantic coast of Scotland from Orkney to Ireland. So, in the final centuries before beaker arrived, at least some coastal areas of the isles (most noticeably the Irish Sea and Atlantic off NW Scotland) seem to have had significant maritime travel capabilities. Those are rough seas and noone has any idea of what sort of boats were used in the later Neolithic to make those journeys.

My guess is the populations of small islands are most likely to have the most developed maritime capability so it wouldnt surprise me if places like the Hebrides, Isle of Man, Angelsey, Rathlin (whose stone axes were traded into Scotland) etc were major providers of marine skilled middlemen forming the links in the chain of the contacts we can see in the archaeology

alan
04-17-2019, 08:39 PM
Bit of a tangent but, I was thinking there. Elite dominance is sometimes raised as a way of spreading languages without major population change. BUT its incredibly rare in the sort of conditions and relatively undeveloped societies of central and northern Europe. It only seems to happen when very developed states and empires are involved (Rome and the modern era too). I cannot think of much in the way of clear imposition of a language by a thin elite in across the vast bulk of Europe in any pre-modern period. I think they could influence dialect but I do not think they could impose an external language without the machinery of advanced state or empire. The failure of the Germanic languages in most Latinate areas of the former Roman empire they invaded as a small minority is well known. They influenced dialect of course but did not impose their language. A good example of this is the almost total replacement of the elite of Anglo-Saxon England with an elite that was perhaps 5%? of the pop. They failed to replace the local language but they did influence it hugely. All the other language frontier that took place seem linked to movements of people that was larger than just an elite - for example Anglo-Saxon appears to have at least in a chunk of the country been a folk movement.

So, I think as a general rule, the idea of language change by elite dominance should not be applied when the invading elite are not of an advanced state or empire type. So, we should forget the idea of elite dominance as a means of imposing language across a lot of Europe throughout prehistory and indeed the Medieval era. In almost every case, elites from a not particularly developed society who invaded other's lands ended up losing their language. More importantly this means that virtually all language change in areas where no developed state like structures exist (among either the invaders or invaded) required significant demographic input from the invaders. However, also note that this does not mean elite dominance by relatively simple invading groups could not influence the local language. There is a big difference between replacing a language with your own and influencing the native language. You clearly see in the cases of the influence of the Franks on northern French and of the Norman elite on English that they could influence the dialrct of the language of the natives even if they couldnt impose their own.

We should probably apply this logic to prehistory. IMO if you dont see a major genetic change but perhaps can only detect a small change (which could relate to elite movement or even friendly elite intermarriage or trickle immigration) then its likely that the maximum change this could bring is some influence of the existing language rather than replacing it with a completely new one.

rms2
04-21-2019, 12:56 AM
Were these two proven DF13- Z2542- ?

Not as far as I know.

TigerMW
04-22-2019, 02:55 AM
Not as far as I know.
I was just looking for any separation of DF13 from L21. I think it is quite likely that those early L21 guys were also DF13. If so, then DF13 probably originated back on the continent along with L21. We just don't know, though. For those who don't know, the vast majority of L21+ is DF13+. L21 has 3,807 downstream branches on the FTDNA tree. 3,698 of those branches are DF13's, or 97%.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/R;name=R-L21
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/R;name=R-DF13