PDA

View Full Version : Bell Beaker and the Spread of R1b-P312



rms2
07-02-2017, 07:08 PM
Recently someone posted his opinion about Bell Beaker that it was "a local development and not [a] genetically spread cultural event". That is a post-Olalde et al opinion, too, which I found surprising. I wondered how anyone could get that out of Olalde et al's paper The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962). I mean, look at just the title of the paper. Seems kind of hard to miss. If Bell Beaker affected the genomic transformation of NW Europe, it was hardly "a local development and not [a] genetically spread cultural event".

Anyway, I guess if one takes the point of view of early Iberian Bell Beaker, i.e., that Bell Beaker originated in Iberia, then it looks like Bell Beaker was "not [a] genetically spread cultural event". After all, here is what Olalde et al say about early Iberian Bell Beaker (from Olalde et al, page 3):



In contrast to the Corded Ware Complex, which has previously been identified as arriving in central Europe following migration from the east, we observe limited genetic affinity between Iberian and central European Beaker Complex-associated individuals, and thus exclude migration as a significant mechanism of spread between these two regions.

However, Olalde et al definitely do NOT conclude that non-Iberian Bell Beaker was "not [a] genetically spread cultural event".



However, human migration did have an important role in the further dissemination of the Beaker Complex, which we document most clearly in Britain using data from 80 newly reported individuals dating to 3900–1200 BCE. British Neolithic farmers were genetically similar to contemporary populations in continental Europe and in particular to Neolithic Iberians, suggesting that a portion of the farmer ancestry in Britain came from the Mediterranean rather than the Danubian route of farming expansion. Beginning with the Beaker period, and continuing through the Bronze Age, all British individuals harboured high proportions of Steppe ancestry and were genetically closely related to Beaker-associated individuals from the Lower Rhine area. We use these observations to show that the spread of the Beaker Complex to Britain was mediated by migration from the continent that replaced >90% of Britain’s Neolithic gene pool within a few hundred years, continuing the process that brought Steppe ancestry into central and northern Europe 400 years earlier.

With regard to R1b-P312 and its spread, Olalde et al say that Bell Beaker apparently played a key role.

From Olalde et al, page 4:



For individuals in whom we could determine the R1b subtype (n=22), we found that all but one had the derived allele for the R1b-S116/P312 polymorphism, which defines the dominant subtype in western Europe today. Finding this early predominance of the R1b-S116/P312 polymorphism in ancient individuals from central and northwestern 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.

What we have in Olalde et al is evidence that what some us of suspected all along is in fact true, that there were two different kinds of Bell Beaker people: 1) very early Iberian, who buried their dead in collective megalithic Neolithic tombs, and whose skeletons were short in stature, long headed (dolichocephalic), and gracile, and 2) Kurgan Bell Beaker, who buried their dead in single graves in pits under a round burial mound, with weapons and horse bones, and whose skeletons were tall and robust, with round (brachycephalic) heads.

So, Bell Beaker people did not spread to the rest of Europe from Iberia (Olalde et al, page 8):



In central Europe, Steppe ancestry was widespread and we can exclude a substantial contribution from Iberian Beaker Complex-associated individuals, contradicting initial suggestions of gene flow between these groups based on analysis of mtDNA and dental morphology.

Elsewhere, however, Bell Beaker and R1b-P312 were spread by migration (Olalde et al, pages 8-9):



Although cultural transmission seems to have been the main mechanism for the diffusion of the Beaker Complex between Iberia and central Europe, other parts of the Beaker Complex expansion were driven to a substantial extent by migration, with Beaker-associated burials in southern France, northern Italy, and Britain, representing the earliest occurrence of Steppe-related ancestry so far known in all three regions. This genomic transformation is clearest in Britain due to our dense genetic time transect. The earliest Beaker pots found in Britain show influences from both the lower Rhine region and the Atlantic façade of western Europe. However, such dual influence is not mirrored in the genetic data, as the British Beaker Complex individuals were genetically most similar to lower Rhine individuals from the Netherlands. The arrival of the Beaker Complex precipitated a profound demographic transformation in Britain, exemplified by the absence of individuals in our dataset without large amounts of Steppe-related ancestry after 2400 BCE.

So very early Iberian Bell Beaker appears to be a Mediterranean Neolithic farmer culture that was not spread to other parts of Europe by migration. Non-Iberian, Kurgan Bell Beaker, however, was spread from east-central Europe to the rest of Europe by migration and was evidently the vehicle of the spread of R1b-P312.

rms2
07-03-2017, 05:36 PM
Now the question seems to be, how did R1b-P312 get into non-Iberian Bell Beaker? Where did it come from before Bell Beaker? Yamnaya, as would seem to be suggested by the ideas of Marija Gimbutas and Volker Heyd? Or Corded Ware, as others have suggested? Still others suggest that R1b-P312 may represent a population of Neolithic farmers, sprung from Neolithized hunter-gatherer antecedents, who were kurganized, perhaps through contact and intermarriage with Corded Ware people.

I would like to see the question of the origin of P312 thoroughly investigated through ancient dna studies.

alan
07-03-2017, 06:38 PM
Recently someone posted his opinion about Bell Beaker that it was "a local development and not [a] genetically spread cultural event". That is a post-Olalde et al opinion, too, which I found surprising. I wondered how anyone could get that out of Olalde et al's paper The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962). I mean, look at just the title of the paper. Seems kind of hard to miss. If Bell Beaker affected the genomic transformation of NW Europe, it was hardly "a local development and not [a] genetically spread cultural event".

Anyway, I guess if one takes the point of view of early Iberian Bell Beaker, i.e., that Bell Beaker originated in Iberia, then it looks like Bell Beaker was "not [a] genetically spread cultural event". After all, here is what Olalde et al say about early Iberian Bell Beaker (from Olalde et al, page 3):



However, Olalde et al definitely do NOT conclude that non-Iberian Bell Beaker was "not [a] genetically spread cultural event".



With regard to R1b-P312 and its spread, Olalde et al say that Bell Beaker apparently played a key role.

From Olalde et al, page 4:



What we have in Olalde et al is evidence that what some us of suspected all along is in fact true, that there were two different kinds of Bell Beaker people: 1) very early Iberian, who buried their dead in collective megalithic Neolithic tombs, and whose skeletons were short in stature, long headed (dolichocephalic), and gracile, and 2) Kurgan Bell Beaker, who buried their dead in single graves in pits under a round burial mound, with weapons and horse bones, and whose skeletons were tall and robust, with round (brachycephalic) heads.

So, Bell Beaker people did not spread to the rest of Europe from Iberia (Olalde et al, page 8):



Elsewhere, however, Bell Beaker and R1b-P312 were spread by migration (Olalde et al, pages 8-9):



So very early Iberian Bell Beaker appears to be a Mediterranean Neolithic farmer culture that was not spread to other parts of Europe by migration. Non-Iberian, Kurgan Bell Beaker, however, was spread from east-central Europe to the rest of Europe by migration and was evidently the vehicle of the spread of R1b-P312.

Yep I could never see anything steppe derived in the early beaker culture of Iberia. the only exception is the pottery which some see as derived from central Europe but even that is very much disputed. FWIW I think it does represent an influence from central Europe but just a few females and of little genetic or cultural influence. I suspect they flowed along the Grand Pressigny flint trade network which in total stretched from NW Germany and the north Alps to the French-Spanish border c 2900-2500BC

alan
07-03-2017, 07:29 PM
IF there s a link between L11 or P312 and the Dutch single grave CW culture and P312 beaker really replaced 90% of genes in the isles then that makes the fact that the Celtic fringe today (despite only modest Germanic input)) autosomally cluster with Holland, Denmark etc highly interesting. Is this because the beaker groups who went to the isles and the CW groups of the coastal area around Holland were genetically near identical? There is still a coastal / landlocked division in the autosomal genetics of northern half of Europe as far as I can see.

Kopfjäger
07-03-2017, 07:48 PM
IF there s a link between L11 or P312 and the Dutch single grave CW culture and P312 beaker really replaced 90% of genes in the isles then that makes the fact that the Celtic fringe today (despite only modest Germanic input)) autosomally cluster with Holland, Denmark etc highly interesting. Is this because the beaker groups who went to the isles and the CW groups of the coastal area around Holland were genetically near identical? There is still a coastal / landlocked division in the autosomal genetics of northern half of Europe as far as I can see.

This may be solely anecdotal, but my father's closest autosomal matches are listed as North Dutch/North German. Our paternal lineage is believed to originate from eastern England. I think this affinity has something to do with an ancient connection to the North Sea littoral, possibly via the Bell Beakers.

rms2
07-03-2017, 09:03 PM
. . . Still others suggest that R1b-P312 may represent a population of Neolithic farmers, sprung from Neolithized hunter-gatherer antecedents, who were kurganized, perhaps through contact and intermarriage with Corded Ware people . . .

This last idea seems the least likely to me, i.e., that P312 represents Neolithic farmers who were converted to a steppe lifestyle by Corded Ware brides.

Does it seem likely that Corded Ware women, taken into the Bell Beaker community, would convert their husbands to a patriarchal culture, with a pantheon of male gods?

This is from page 153 of Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language:



But Warren DeBoer has shown that wives who marry into a foreign tribe among tribal societies often feel so exposed and insecure that they become hyper-correct imitators of their new cultural mores rather than a source of innovation.

The following are some points I have made before but that are worth repeating.

How exactly would women create the warlike, horse-riding, patriarchal, Indo-European kurgan culture that is Bell Beaker by marrying Neolithic farmers? (And farmers belonging almost exclusively to a y-haplogroup thus far not found among Neolithic farmers, R1b-L51.)

If those farmers formed that culture by learning from their R1a fathers-in-law and brothers-in-law, how did they keep it so overwhelmingly R1b? Surely cultures in such close cooperation and collaboration would exchange daughters and sons, would they not? Does one-way exogamy, with the exclusive target being R1b males, make any sense?

Usually whichever sex is the local part of patri-local or matri-local has the culture that dominates, yet the idea that CW women imparted the steppe autosomal dna to Bell Beaker reverses that. It has women going to live with Neolithic farmer husbands and, instead of adopting their farmer ways, converting their husbands to the ways of their CW fathers and brothers. Recall the quote from Anthony above.

This is from page 66 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Information:



Overall, Y-chromosome haplogroups are highly correlated with steppe ancestry proportions in the nuclear genome . . .

Six individuals outside Iberia without R1b Y-chromosomes were excavated in Hungary (n=4), Germany (n=1) and England (n=1). Interestingly, most of these individuals presented low amounts of steppe ancestry in the nuclear genome as compared to other individuals from the same regions (Figure S1).

If R1b-P312 came from Neolithic farmers, how is it that R1b-P312 is correlated with steppe ancestry in Bell Beaker, and non-R1b is correlated with low to non-steppe ancestry?

Remember, too, that P312 is under L23, L51, and L151, and L23 has been found in Yamnaya, mostly in the form of R1b-Z2103, which is a brother clade to L51 under L23.

Here are the non-Iberian Bell Beaker individuals with low to no steppe dna:

1. E09538 Y-DNA: G2a 2471–2300 calBC Unterer Talweg 58-62 (Augsburg, Germany) Low steppe dna (BB_Germany_BAV)

2. I1767 Y-DNA: I2a 2200–1970 calBC Windmill Fields, Ingleby Barwick (Stockton-on-Tees, County Durham, England) Moderately low steppe dna (BB_England_NOR)

3. I2364 Y-DNA: H2 2470–2060 calBC Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja (former Vöröshadsereg útja) (Hungary) Very low steppe dna (BB_Hungary_Bud1)

4. I2741 Y-DNA: I2a 2458–2154 calBC Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Very low steppe dna (BB-Hungary_Szi1)

5. I3528 Y-DNA: G2a 2559–2301 calBC Budakalász, Csajerszke (M0 Site 12) (Hungary) Moderately low steppe dna (BB_Hungary_HUN)

Only one non-R1b Bell Beaker sample had significant steppe dna. That was I2786 Y-DNA: I2a 2459–2206 calBC Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary).

alan
07-04-2017, 03:32 PM
This last idea seems the least likely to me, i.e., that P312 represents Neolithic farmers who were converted to a steppe lifestyle by Corded Ware brides.

Does it seem likely that Corded Ware women, taken into the Bell Beaker community, would convert their husbands to a patriarchal culture, with a pantheon of male gods?

This is from page 153 of Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language:



The following are some points I have made before but that are worth repeating.

How exactly would women create the warlike, horse-riding, patriarchal, Indo-European kurgan culture that is Bell Beaker by marrying Neolithic farmers? (And farmers belonging almost exclusively to a y-haplogroup thus far not found among Neolithic farmers, R1b-L51.)

If those farmers formed that culture by learning from their R1a fathers-in-law and brothers-in-law, how did they keep it so overwhelmingly R1b? Surely cultures in such close cooperation and collaboration would exchange daughters and sons, would they not? Does one-way exogamy, with the exclusive target being R1b males, make any sense?

Usually whichever sex is the local part of patri-local or matri-local has the culture that dominates, yet the idea that CW women imparted the steppe autosomal dna to Bell Beaker reverses that. It has women going to live with Neolithic farmer husbands and, instead of adopting their farmer ways, converting their husbands to the ways of their CW fathers and brothers. Recall the quote from Anthony above.

This is from page 66 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Information:



If R1b-P312 came from Neolithic farmers, how is it that R1b-P312 is correlated with steppe ancestry in Bell Beaker, and non-R1b is correlated with low to non-steppe ancestry?

Remember, too, that P312 is under L23, L51, and L151, and L23 has been found in Yamnaya, mostly in the form of R1b-Z2103, which is a brother clade to L51 under L23.

Here are the non-Iberian Bell Beaker individuals with low to no steppe dna:

1. E09538 Y-DNA: G2a 2471–2300 calBC Unterer Talweg 58-62 (Augsburg, Germany) Low steppe dna (BB_Germany_BAV)

2. I1767 Y-DNA: I2a 2200–1970 calBC Windmill Fields, Ingleby Barwick (Stockton-on-Tees, County Durham, England) Moderately low steppe dna (BB_England_NOR)

3. I2364 Y-DNA: H2 2470–2060 calBC Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja (former Vöröshadsereg útja) (Hungary) Very low steppe dna (BB_Hungary_Bud1)

4. I2741 Y-DNA: I2a 2458–2154 calBC Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Very low steppe dna (BB-Hungary_Szi1)

5. I3528 Y-DNA: G2a 2559–2301 calBC Budakalász, Csajerszke (M0 Site 12) (Hungary) Moderately low steppe dna (BB_Hungary_HUN)

Only one non-R1b Bell Beaker sample had significant steppe dna. That was I2786 Y-DNA: I2a 2459–2206 calBC Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary).

What these demonstrate to me is that as well as the high steppe beaker folks who existed for centuries there were other groups nearby that were predominant native farmers genetically speaking .Also for beaker people (and even beyond into the food vessel era at Rathlin) to have remained so distinct from the farmers across 5 centuries suggests when they married they strongly preferred it to be with other beaker people rather than natives. Obviously the above list show exceptions but some beaker groups clearly remained aloof from the general population. I suspect this may be down to the beaker people marrying off their daughters to other beaker people in the network as a major tool of maintaing these network alliances. So marrying your daughter off was a major asset and opportunity not to be wasted and normally would be married of to other important beaker families in the network chain. If that was the norm then there may have been a long period for centuries where there were 2 genetically district populations living near each other. A modern example would be Irish travellers who marry almost exclusively among other traveller families rather than the larger settled populations around them. Curiously Irish travellers were associated with copper working too

razyn
07-04-2017, 04:07 PM
I'm a little troubled by the very frequent use of "Ukraine" to mean "the steppe," or the circumpontic whatever, or really anything between Samara and the plains of Hungary. That terminology or shorthand is really based on an aDNA coverage gap, more than something we actually know from having sampled aDNA globally and thoroughly. But the term itself to some extent presupposes that the R1b route out of the said steppe was the Danube, and the Iron Gates. Then we quibble about which century saw that migration, which archaeological culture was dominant in that century, and what YDNA most likely was found in that century, on one or the other side of those Gates (Danube River gorge).

So anyway I copied a link to Rozenfeld's map that rms2 posted yesterday, blew it up to a reasonable size, and made a screen shot of the coverage gap, centered on the tiny village of "Moscow" (indicated, on this map, by the metropolitan area of greater Podolsk). This is the area, I think a significant one, from which so far we have no aDNA data pertaining to the Y chromosome. My guess is, it was not all R1a throughout the late neolithic, copper and bronze ages. My guess may be wrong, but its wrongness is not proven by available sampling.

17356

rms2
07-04-2017, 06:24 PM
I agree with you that Pontic steppe or north of the Black Sea or something like them are probably better terms than Ukraine, although the first use of Ukraine in this thread was yours above. But I know I have used it a number of times recently in other threads here in referring to the R1b Ice Age Refuge, so mea culpa. I don't think Ukraine is necessarily a bad descriptor, but the others may be better.

I just changed my ways and heeded your advice, however:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11154-Mesolithic-R1b-in-the-Danube-Gorge-R1b-V88&p=255679&viewfull=1#post255679

Note: When I have used Ukraine in the past, I meant the area of the present-day nation of that name, not the steppe all the way to the Ural River, the steppe north of the Caspian, etc.; in other words, I would not use Ukraine to refer to the entire Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Coldmountains
07-04-2017, 07:45 PM
I'm a little troubled by the very frequent use of "Ukraine" to mean "the steppe," or the circumpontic whatever, or really anything between Samara and the plains of Hungary. That terminology or shorthand is really based on an aDNA coverage gap, more than something we actually know from having sampled aDNA globally and thoroughly. But the term itself to some extent presupposes that the R1b route out of the said steppe was the Danube, and the Iron Gates. Then we quibble about which century saw that migration, which archaeological culture was dominant in that century, and what YDNA most likely was found in that century, on one or the other side of those Gates (Danube River gorge).

So anyway I copied a link to Rozenfeld's map that rms2 posted yesterday, blew it up to a reasonable size, and made a screen shot of the coverage gap, centered on the tiny village of "Moscow" (indicated, on this map, by the metropolitan area of greater Podolsk). This is the area, I think a significant one, from which so far we have no aDNA data pertaining to the Y chromosome. My guess is, it was not all R1a throughout the late neolithic, copper and bronze ages. My guess may be wrong, but its wrongness is not proven by available sampling.

17356

The steppe areas of modern day Ukraine should better not be called "Ukraine" when we talk about pre-modern times because this is giving a wrong impression about population dynamics in this region and this areas became just recently part of Ukraine or Russia. Historical Ukraine (Kiev, Poltava, Podolia, Chernihiv, Galicia, Volhynia,..) was Corded Ware territory and the Middle Dnjepr culture in Northern Ukraine and Southern Belarus played a big role in the early expansion of Corded Ware at least eastwards (Fatyanovo–Balanovo, Abashevo,..). But the pre-historical Pontic steppe areas of Ukraine were mainly R1b territory with some R1a, I2 and Q. The main reason why R1b was pushed out of the steppe was the expansion of Indo-Iranians from the east, which entered the steppe from the Ural region and were themselves ultimately derived from Corded Ware culture (Middle Dnjepr in my opinion). My impression is that western Yamnaya was also mainly R1b-Z103 but pre-yamnaya southern "Ukraine" would be the birthplase of R1b-L11/P312

parasar
07-04-2017, 10:09 PM
I'm a little troubled by the very frequent use of "Ukraine" to mean "the steppe," or the circumpontic whatever, or really anything between Samara and the plains of Hungary. That terminology or shorthand is really based on an aDNA coverage gap, more than something we actually know from having sampled aDNA globally and thoroughly. But the term itself to some extent presupposes that the R1b route out of the said steppe was the Danube, and the Iron Gates. Then we quibble about which century saw that migration, which archaeological culture was dominant in that century, and what YDNA most likely was found in that century, on one or the other side of those Gates (Danube River gorge).
...

As long as we understand what is being meant I think it is fine. I myself have used the term Khazar steppe even though the Khazars were there only for a limited period. But Khazaria geographically covers the west Eurasian steppe region.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Chasaren.jpg

alan
07-05-2017, 07:10 PM
Anyone got a table or map of all prehistoric P312 discovered so far ?

rms2
07-05-2017, 10:43 PM
Anyone got a table or map of all prehistoric P312 discovered so far ?

Here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1K4UrW2A2vCGkM5jJVwO75K-dd5s2bLyLNRaQBahy0II/edit?usp=sharing) is my Google sheet of Kurgan Bell Beaker R1b. It includes all the Kurgan Bell Beaker R1b, not just P312, but the P312 stuff is there.

Interesting to me that I1382 (R1b-P312) has the same mtDNA haplogroup I do: U5a2c3a. I don't see that from anyone very often, and there it is in a Bell Beaker man from Moselle, France. I4253 from Malopolska, Poland, (R1b-M269) is U5a2c. Like I said, interesting.

ADW_1981
07-06-2017, 12:11 AM
Any word on the Olalde data being released?

Romilius
07-06-2017, 05:30 AM
Any word on the Olalde data being released?

Good question... data from 170 or 196 samples...

rms2
07-06-2017, 11:53 AM
Any word on the Olalde data being released?

Maybe they're waiting for those additional samples from Sion and for their second shot at the Amesbury Archer.

Personally, I really hope they succeed with the Archer this time.

Romilius
07-06-2017, 01:06 PM
Maybe they're waiting for those additional samples from Sion and for their second shot at the Amesbury Archer.

Personally, I really hope they succeed with the Archer this time.

I really agree with you...

rms2
07-06-2017, 05:41 PM
We do have the Archer of France at least:

17409

rms2
08-22-2017, 05:38 PM
I want to talk about the various Bell Beaker models and where they stand currently, given the Bell Beaker dna test results, especially those from Olalde et al.

First, the Spanish Model.

This is from page 475 of "Bell Beakers from West to East" in Ancient Europe, 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World; Bogucki, Peter and Crabtree, Pam J., editors; New York: Scribner and Sons, 2004 (available online as an e-book here (http://ens9004.mza.infd.edu.ar/sitio/upload/11-%20BOGUCKI%20&%20CRABTREE%20-%20LIBRO%20-%20Ancient%20Europe%208000%20AC%20-%20AD%201000.PDF)):



The first all-encompassing model for explaining the genesis of Bell Beakers was proposed by Spanish researchers Pedro Bosch-Gimpera (1926) and Alberto del Castillo Yurrita (1928). In archaeological literature, their theory is called the Spanish Model. It stated that the Bell Beaker phenomenon started on the Iberian Peninsula and from there its peoples, practicing trade, expanded as far as central Europe.


It seems to me Olalde et al shot down the Spanish Model, unless one wants to argue that the Beaker culture spread from Iberia. In terms of people, however, it is apparent that Bell Beaker did not spread from Iberia.

The Spanish Model got a shot in the arm from the Müller and van Willigen (2001) radiocarbon dates, which seem to indicate that Iberian Bell Beaker sites are the oldest. Those dates aren't without controversy. Jan Lanting, a prominent advocate of the Dutch Model of Bell Beaker, had this to say about Müller and van Willigen's 14C dates:



I see no reason to renounce our 1976 hypothesis of the special relationship of AOO and Single Grave beakers in the Netherlands, Belgium and Western Germany, and of the origin of the Maritime bell beaker in the same area. I do not believe in the results of the study by Müller & Van Willigen (2001), who use radiocarbon dates produced by a series of laboratories (without critical analysis of find circumstances, degree of association, laboratory procedures etc., and without analysis of the dated pottery) to postulate an origin of the earliest bell beakers on the Iberian peninsula around 2900 BC (i.e. even before the Single Grave culture came into existence in Central Europe!). A recent study by Needham (2005), based to a large extent on Müller & Van Willigen is rejected as well.


The above is from page 98 of Lanting, Jan N., The North Netherlands/Northwest German Bell Beaker group: Cultural Background, Typology of the Earthwork, Date, Distribution and Burial Ritual (2008) (http://ens9004.mza.infd.edu.ar/sitio/upload/11-%20BOGUCKI%20&%20CRABTREE%20-%20LIBRO%20-%20Ancient%20Europe%208000%20AC%20-%20AD%201000.PDF).

rms2
08-22-2017, 05:51 PM
Now the Dutch Model.

This is from page 476 of "Bell Beakers from West to East" in Ancient Europe, 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World; Bogucki, Peter and Crabtree, Pam J., editors; New York: Scribner and Sons, 2004:


Later research, concentrating on the typology of finds in various regions, complicated the picture of Bell Beakers. A breakthrough in this regard were the studies published in 1955 by Dutch researchers J. D. (Johannes D.) van der Waals and Willem Glasbergen that presented a scheme of evolution for the bell beaker vessels. In their opinion this form developed from the beakers of the Corded Ware culture on the Lower Rhine. In the literature this view is known as the Dutch Model.


This has the following obvious advantages:

1) Corded Ware pottery in the Netherlands and NW Germany, especially Protruding Foot Beaker, really looks like Bell Beaker pottery;

2) Corded Ware burial practices are very similar to non-Iberian Bell Beaker burial practices; and

3) Corded Ware is a steppe-derived culture, and dna test results reveal a high level of steppe dna in Bell Beaker.

I must confess the Dutch Model really commends itself to me. My opinion is currently wavering between it and Gimbutas' ideas on the origin of Bell Beaker.

We don't have any ancient y-dna from Dutch and/or NW German Single Grave Corded Ware, including Protruding Foot Beaker. In fact, we don't any ancient y-dna from most of the cultural variants of Corded Ware.

I have a couple of more models to mention, but I guess I will stop there in case anyone wants to comment.

jdean
08-22-2017, 06:10 PM
I must confess the Dutch Model really commends itself to me.

Ditto, interested to hear what the other models are though : )

rms2
08-22-2017, 06:21 PM
Ditto, interested to hear what the other models are though : )

Thanks. Okay, here is one I think is mostly defunct, since it was used to argue against the spread of Bell Beaker by migration.

I'm calling it the Immobilist Model, and, unfortunately, we can blame this one on the British.

The following is from the same book I quoted in the last couple of posts, pages 478-479:



In the 1970s the Dutch Model gained strong support because a series of carbon-14 datings confirmed its typological sequence. It was an argument that convinced most archaeologists, mainly on the Continent, to accept the Dutch Model. At approximately the same time in the British Isles, new concepts were gaining voice. These addressed concepts far removed from the traditional question about the genesis of an archaeological culture linked to a specific people. Archaeologists such as David L. Clarke called on their colleagues to address the issue of the Bell Beakers from new perspectives. This general appeal was followed by concrete proposals, examining Bell Beakers as a result of processes that were being played out in the social or religious spheres rather than representing the actual movements of peoples. Colin Burgess proposed that Bell Beakers be analyzed as a cultural “package”: a collection of artifacts displaying a single type of cultural behavior, which in this instance involved the custom of communal libations. This concept was further developed by Andrew Sherratt, who proposed that Bell Beakers reflect the introduction of fermented beverages and the social privileges associated with the consumption of alcohol. Stephen Shennan devoted much attention to the thesis that Bell Beakers are not a classical archaeological culture but a gathering of specific objects that appear in various cultural contexts. Such perspectives resulted in a change of approach in research on the Bell Beakers. The questions of the genesis and “Beaker People” became less important to archaeologists. The term “Bell Beaker culture” was no longer used, and archaeologists substituted “Bell Beaker phenomenon,” “beaker package,” or simply “Bell Beakers.” Interpretations of the phenomenon reached for a totally different concept of understanding and generally placed Bell Beakers in the frame of a large cultural change that took place as the Neolithic Age passed to the Bronze Age and social stratification was emerging.


The ancient dna results have shot that one down in flames, I think.

rms2
08-22-2017, 06:31 PM
Here is the famous Reflux Model, succinctly summarized on page 478 of "Bell Beakers from West to East" in Ancient Europe, 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World (2004):



About the same time that the Dutch Model was formulated, Edward Sangmeister proposed the so-called Reflux Model of Bell Beaker origins and distribution. Typological studies done in many regions showed that not all Bell Beaker attributes were connected with Spain, one of the main problems being the fact that corded decoration was absent there. Sangmeister proposed that after the initial phase of Bell Beaker development and expansion from the Iberian Peninsula in the direction of central Europe, a second phase of development took place, this being the “reflux” or reverse flow of Bell Beakers back to the Iberian Peninsula in a new version that had been enriched by central European contributions. Sangmeister, like some of his contemporaries, was becoming aware that it was increasingly difficult to find a single region where Bell Beaker attributes originated.


The Reflux Model was an obvious attempt to explain how Bell Beaker could be simultaneously Iberian in origin and so un-Iberian in character.

Jean M
08-22-2017, 06:31 PM
I must confess the Dutch Model really commends itself to me.

That will be music to Alan's ears! ;) This was the favourite with British archaeologists for decades. Clearly it was not easy for some to let go of it. Certainly some Dutch archaeologists are still hanging on to it for dear life, plus http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/people/staff/vander_linden who seems to be Belgian, but has been working in Britain for years.

Jean M
08-22-2017, 06:35 PM
The Reflux Model was an obvious attempt to explain how Bell Beaker could be simultaneously Iberian in origin and so un-Iberian in character.

Er. Well no. Not really. It was the brain child of the German chap who excavated in Iberia for years, and realised that there were two types of Bell Beaker in Iberia: the early type and the late type. Extract from B of the C:


The German prehistorian Edward Sangmeister deserves credit for his insight into the Bell Beaker phenomenon. He worked at the German Archaeological Institute in Madrid in the 1950s and excavated Zambujal from 1964 to 1973. Recognizing the differences between the early Bell Beaker of Zambujal and the later Bell Beaker of more easterly Iberia, he argued that the pottery spread from Iberia into Central Europe and then returned to Iberia together with new cultural influences.

rms2
08-22-2017, 06:38 PM
I'm almost done.

The last model I want to mention is one I think almost everyone here at Anthrogenica is familiar with, in part because I have repeated it over and over and over again to the point where most of you are sick of it. I call it the Gimbutas Model.

This is from page 390 of Marija Gimbutas' 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.


That's the Gimbutas Model: Vucedol + Yamnaya in the Carpathian Basin = Bell Beaker.

Right now I lean toward the Dutch Model, but the Gimbutas Model is a close second.

We don't have y-dna that would test either the Dutch Model or the Gimbutas Model, and that is what we need.

rms2
08-22-2017, 06:42 PM
The Reflux Model was an obvious attempt to explain how Bell Beaker could be simultaneously Iberian in origin and so un-Iberian in character.


Er. Well no. Not really. It was the brain child of the German chap who excavated in Iberia for years, and realised that there were two types of Bell Beaker in Iberia: the early type and the late type. Extract from B of the C:

We disagree. The differences between the early Iberian BB pottery and the later Iberian BB pottery, and the differences between early Iberian BB as a whole (if we accept Müller and van Willigen's dates) and later Iberian BB as a whole, are the differences between something Iberian and something un-Iberian.

If later BB wasn't un-Iberian, Sangmeister would not have come up with the idea that it came from someplace outside Iberia.

Jean M
08-22-2017, 06:44 PM
The Reflux Model was an obvious attempt to explain how Bell Beaker could be simultaneously Iberian in origin and so un-Iberian in character.

You may be thinking of the Proto-BB model, whereby BB began in Iberia and then absorbed traits from Yamnaya in central Europe. I can't recall whether that was Harrison's idea or surfaced in Harrison and Heyd 2007. But either way it has been abandoned by Heyd, as he now recognises the Yamnaya-type push into Iberia prior to the development of BB.

Jean M
08-22-2017, 06:48 PM
The differences between the early Iberian BB pottery and the later Iberian BB pottery, and the differences between early Iberian BB as a whole (if we accept Müller and van Willigen's dates) and later Iberian BB as a whole, are the differences between something Iberian and some un-Iberian.

Anything actually in Iberia can be labelled Iberian, but if you mean that early BB developed from Neolithic cultures in Iberia, then you could not be more wrong. It's not just me, a weak and feeble woman who has never used a trowel for anything but potting plants, saying this. It is archaeologists who know the material.

rms2
08-22-2017, 06:54 PM
Anything actually in Iberia can be labelled Iberian, but if you mean that early BB developed from Neolithic cultures in Iberia, then you could not be more wrong. It's not just me, a weak and feeble woman who has never used a trowel for anything but potting plants, saying this. It is archaeologists who know the material.

We were talking about the Reflux Model, which strikes me as a modification of the Spanish Model. It accepts as fact that BB began in Iberia and spread from there (which I personally doubt and have doubted for a long time), but then posits that BB returned west from central Europe with innovations it acquired there.

Those innovations, since they did not originate in Iberia, would be un-Iberian.

I could catch a plane and land in Madrid tomorrow, but that wouldn't make me Iberian.

Jean M
08-22-2017, 06:56 PM
If later BB wasn't un-Iberian, Sangmeister would not have come up with the idea that it came from someplace outside Iberia.

Yes of course. He knew that it was like Central European BB.

And for all I know, come to think of it, he may have thought that the Copper Age VNSP culture (which gave rise to early BB ) did spring from Neolithic cultures in Portugal. I haven't read his stuff in ages. But for sure he was working in Zambujal in the 1960s and 70s when archaeology went into the mad anti-migrationist mode. So you could be right. That was the era in which Renfrew started saying that copper-smelting was independently invented here there and everywhere.

rms2
08-22-2017, 07:03 PM
I am certainly no scientist, no archaeologist, no geneticist, no linguist. I'm just a punk school teacher having fun and learning (which I enjoy doing) here at Anthrogenica. My opinions on prehistory aren't worth a hill of beans.

That said, here's an extra bean:

I suspect that Lanting is right and Müller's and van Willigen's rc dates are off.

rms2
08-22-2017, 07:07 PM
Anyway, sorry for posting again so soon, but I think it is helpful to post summaries of the various Bell Beaker models.

I am tempted to add the Manco Model, but I'm afraid I would get it wrong.

Jean M
08-22-2017, 07:14 PM
Those innovations, since they did not originate in Iberia, would be un-Iberian.

Again we seem to be talking at cross purposes. In my view the entire BB package (with the possible exception of the emphasis on archery) developed from the Yamnaya package. That includes the copper-smelting, which arrived in Iberia first. It includes the pottery. Cord-impression is typical of Yamnaya and earlier steppe pottery. It does not occur in Iberia prior to BB. So in your terms, the whole of BB is un-Iberian. It just happened to evolve there early. As far as we know so far. We may yet find some very early dates in Moldavia for the pottery, which seems to be the only thing archaeologists will take as proof! It would resolve a lot of problems.

rms2
08-22-2017, 07:23 PM
Again we seem to be talking at cross purposes. In my view the entire BB package (with the possible exception of the emphasis on archery) developed from the Yamnaya package. That includes the copper-smelting, which arrived in Iberia first. It includes the pottery. Cord-impression is typical of Yamnaya and earlier steppe pottery. It does not occur in Iberia prior to BB. So in your terms, the whole of BB is un-Iberian. It just happened to evolve there early. As far as we know so far. We may yet find some very early dates in Moldavia for the pottery, which seems to be the only thing archaeologists will take as proof! It would resolve a lot of problems.

Could you summarize your model, Jean? I could try, but I don't want to misrepresent it.

It seems to me yours is kind of a cross between the Spanish Model and the Gimbutas Model, with steppe people arriving in Iberia early, creating BB there, spreading east from Iberia and spreading west from the Carpathian basin kind of simultaneously, in a sort of network of kindred peoples.

Sorry if I screwed that up.

Jean M
08-22-2017, 07:32 PM
I am tempted to add the Manco Model, but I'm afraid I would get it wrong.

You can call it the Heyd 2017 model now. Mine is the same.

rms2
08-22-2017, 07:35 PM
You can call it the Heyd 2017 model now. Mine is the same.

Is this too far off?



It seems to me yours is kind of a cross between the Spanish Model and the Gimbutas Model, with steppe people arriving in Iberia early, creating BB there, spreading east from Iberia and spreading west from the Carpathian basin kind of simultaneously, in a sort of network of kindred peoples.

Jean M
08-22-2017, 07:36 PM
It seems to me yours is kind of a cross between the Spanish Model and the Gimbutas Model, with steppe people arriving in Iberia early, creating BB there, spreading east from Iberia and spreading west from the Carpathian basin kind of simultaneously, in a sort of network of kindred peoples.

Your summation is fine, except I said in B of the C that I was following the Sangmeister model in spirit, if not in all its details. Like I said there, I think he deserves credit for his recognition of the different types of BB. But obviously I was much impressed by Harrison and Heyd 2007, which really drew together the Yamnaya and BB packages. They did a lot of the groundwork.

rms2
08-22-2017, 07:39 PM
Gimbutas and a glass of Sangria with a Sangmeister beer chaser.

Got it.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-22-2017, 08:04 PM
I don't think the early Iberia copper is steppic in technique (? Alpine), nor are the forts (which show analogies to Michelsberg etc)
Certainly the idea behind maritime decoration is from steppe Corded pottery, and we know individuals from steppe arrived in south Iberia
But the actual "BB package" arrives in late BB even EBA in most of Iberia

Gravetto-Danubian
08-22-2017, 08:05 PM
Delete

rms2
08-22-2017, 08:21 PM
Here is a graphic representation of Single Grave beakers, AOO beakers and Bell Beaker beakers from page 17 of Harry Fokkens' Background to Dutch Bell Beakers (https://www.academia.edu/5507545/Background_to_Dutch_Beakers), plus a photo of some Protruding Foot Beaker culture beakers.

18272 18273

Those look like Bell Beaker beakers. Look at those and think about the similarities between Corded Ware and Bell Beaker burial practices.

The big obstacle right now is the fact that most CW y-dna results have been R1a and most BB y-dna results have been R1b.

Jean M
08-22-2017, 08:54 PM
the forts (which show analogies to Michelsberg etc)

I presume that you are thinking of the ditched enclosures. I vaguely recall that we had an exchange about them. Extract from AJ


The Michelsberg culture (MK) appeared c. 4300 BC beside the Rhine. MK is thought to have its roots in the Bischheim group of sites, in the Bas-Rhin department of Alsace, France. Some see this group as a form of Late Rössen. Certainly it springs from Rössen territory. So dairy farming seems likely. MK had a dramatic impact on the landscape. The density of its population is estimated to be ten times that of the LBK. It could muster the numbers to create communal centres, dotting causewayed enclosures down the Rhine valley from 4200 to 4000 BC. These enigmatic circular bank and ditch structures may have functioned as meeting places for an expanding community. Archaeologists sometimes place the Paris basin in the MK zone. Whether Chasséen or MK, causewayed enclosures appear in the Paris Basin too in the same period. In the TRB and the British Isles they were erected centuries later, when farming was well-established. Windmill Hill is a causewayed enclosure.


They are Neolithic and not seen as forts. The actual walled forts are found in the VNSP culture and are Copper Age. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iberia_Bronze.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castro_of_Vila_Nova_de_S%C3%A3o_Pedro

rms2
08-22-2017, 09:15 PM
. . .

The big obstacle right now is the fact that most CW y-dna results have been R1a and most BB y-dna results have been R1b.

Of course, the Corded Ware culture and its many variants extended over a vast territory from the Volga to the Rhine, over 1800 miles across.

We don't have any ancient dna from most of the Corded Ware cultural variants, including Single Grave and Protruding Foot Beaker in the Netherlands and NW Germany.

Jean M
08-23-2017, 09:56 AM
The actual walled forts are found in the VNSP culture and are Copper Age.

And of course Los Millares in Spain. Nearly forgot!

Jean M
08-23-2017, 10:22 AM
The big obstacle right now is the fact that most CW y-dna results have been R1a and most BB y-dna results have been R1b.

It's not the only problem. BB and CW have a lot in common, as we would expect if they both descend from Yamnaya, but they are not identical. The details of the burial positions are different. The BB package includes archery - all the way across its range. Physically BB East people look different from CW people. The difference in skull (from cradle-boarding?) was picked up by BB somewhere in central Europe, as it melded with groups in the Carpathian Basin.

The Dutch Model relied on pottery alone. It was part of a larger model from pottery in which there was supposed population continuity in the Netherlands from Mesolithic onwards. As you can see from the map below, the forager pottery that first crossed the Urals to appear on the Volga about 7000 BC moved north gradually and got as far west as the Netherlands. Dutch archaeologists labelled it Swifterbant. They noticed smilarities with later Corded Ware. These are not surprising to us who know that CW arose from Yamnaya, which developed on the steppe from Repin, which developed from earlier forager cultures with pottery of the same type that arrived on the Volga c. 7000 BC. But for Dutch archaeologists looking only within the modern boundaries of their small country, CW developed from Swifterbant. And BB developed from CW.

In short the Dutch Model was part of the problem with anti-migrationist and narrow-vision national outlooks that plagued archaeology for decades. It relied on ignoring everything except pottery, and only one type of pottery at that. It does not explain how BB East acquired the 'accompanying pottery' with its obvious origins in/near the Carpathian Basin.

18294

jdean
08-23-2017, 10:41 AM
Thanks. Okay, here is one I think is mostly defunct, since it was used to argue against the spread of Bell Beaker by migration.

I'm calling it the Immobilist Model, and, unfortunately, we can blame this one on the British.

The following is from the same book I quoted in the last couple of posts, pages 478-479:



The ancient dna results have shot that one down in flames, I think.

Not really relevant to this conversation but I was watching a documentary by Francis Pryor regarding his theory that the Saxons didn't 'invade' England, apart from righting off the cultural and linguistic changes to 'fashion' he also claimed this was a grain store.

18299

: )))))

Anyhow I think it's a good example of how far anti migrationist will go to support their theories.

Jean M
08-23-2017, 10:46 AM
Not really relevant to this conversation but I was watching a documentary by Francis Pryor regarding his theory that the Saxons didn't 'invade' England.... Anyhow I think it's a good example of how far ant immigrationist will go to support their theories.

What I found so hilarious about Pryor is that he is so obviously Anglo-Saxon. He couldn't stand in a Dutch marketplace for 10 minutes without being addressed in Dutch. :biggrin1:

Jean M
08-23-2017, 01:02 PM
Of course, the Corded Ware culture and its many variants extended over a vast territory from the Volga to the Rhine, over 1800 miles across.

We don't have any ancient dna from most of the Corded Ware cultural variants, including Single Grave and Protruding Foot Beaker in the Netherlands and NW Germany.

I agree that it is likely that CW will eventually be found to have been less than 100% R1a: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10134-Origins-of-Germanic&p=223628&viewfull=1#post223628

rms2
08-23-2017, 01:25 PM
It's not the only problem. BB and CW have a lot in common, as we would expect if they both descend from Yamnaya, but they are not identical. The details of the burial positions are different. The BB package includes archery - all the way across its range. Physically BB East people look different from CW people. The difference in skull (from cradle-boarding?) was picked up by BB somewhere in central Europe, as it melded with groups in the Carpathian Basin.

The Dutch Model relied on pottery alone. It was part of a larger model from pottery in which there was supposed population continuity in the Netherlands from Mesolithic onwards. As you can see from the map below, the forager pottery that first crossed the Urals to appear on the Volga about 7000 BC moved north gradually and got as far west as the Netherlands. Dutch archaeologists labelled it Swifterbant. They noticed smilarities with later Corded Ware. These are not surprising to us who know that CW arose from Yamnaya, which developed on the steppe from Repin, which developed from earlier forager cultures with pottery of the same type that arrived on the Volga c. 7000 BC. But for Dutch archaeologists looking only within the modern boundaries of their small country, CW developed from Swifterbant. And BB developed from CW.

In short the Dutch Model was part of the problem with anti-migrationist and narrow-vision national outlooks that plagued archaeology for decades. It relied on ignoring everything except pottery, and only one type of pottery at that. It does not explain how BB East acquired the 'accompanying pottery' with its obvious origins in/near the Carpathian Basin.

18294

I don't think one has to sign up for the entire Swifterbant-to-CW-to-BB package to entertain the idea that Bell Beaker might have been an outgrowth of Corded Ware. The two cultures look more like each other more than either of them looks like Yamnaya. In fact, Bell Beaker looks like a variety of Corded Ware. It seems to me it might have been classed as one, had it not been for the early prominence of Bosch-Gimpera and the Spanish model.

Burial positions vary within both CW and BB. What they generally have in common in that regard are the crouched-on-the-side posture and gender differentiation in the orientation of the body.

There is plenty of evidence of archery in CW, although it didn't get the emphasis it was given in BB burials. CW got started earlier than BB. If BB developed as a variety of CW, then it was a variety that came to value archery very highly. As I mentioned before, there are a number of CW variants, each with its own identifying characteristics.

I don't know where the cradle-boarding custom came from. I don't think anyone does. Whatever the case, it produces a result that makes some BB skulls differ not only from CW skulls but from Yamnaya skulls, as well. And speaking of physical differences, among the most marked and startling are the differences between the tall, robust, non-Iberian BB people and the shorter, gracile, Mediterranean people associated with early (if those rc dates are right) Iberian BB people.

I am not ready to enlist 100% in the Dutch Model Army, but I do think Single Grave and Protruding Foot Beaker beakers strongly look like Bell Beaker beakers. I have not seen anything in Iberia or Morocco that even comes close. Add to that the fact that CW and BB are very much alike.

This has been mentioned a number of times before, but the Olalde et al finding that the Neolithic farmer component in BB has a best fit with a combination of Globular Amphora and TRB (Funnel Beaker) does seem to point to the Corded Ware track across the North European Plain. There are other possible explanations, I understand, but it does seem an odd coincidence, if in fact BB did not develop out of a branch of CW.

Like I said, I currently waver between the Dutch Model, by which I mean simply that BB is a variety of CW, and the Gimbutas Model. I would place less emphasis on Vucedol than she does, so for me the Gimbutas Model means simply the idea that BB sprung from the Yamnaya milieu in the Carpathian Basin in the third millennium BC.

kostoffj
08-23-2017, 01:39 PM
Not really relevant to this conversation but I was watching a documentary by Francis Pryor regarding his theory that the Saxons didn't 'invade' England, apart from righting off the cultural and linguistic changes to 'fashion' he also claimed this was a grain store.

http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/images/Britain/Romans/Portchester_SaxonShore02_full.jpg

: )))))

Anyhow I think it's a good example of how far anti migrationist will go to support their theories.

One day I hope someone writes a book on the political peculiarities of anthropologists and how these distorted the discipline. Not only the abuses of scholarship in the name of politics of varying kinds in the 30s and 40s and earlier, but also the bizarre lengths some scholars went in the opposite direction after the war. As a layman, I was surprised when I first started seeing the stringent denials of violent migrations in prehistory - recorded history is full of conquests, dispossessions, large migrations, wars, massacres, and so forth, why would prehistory be any different? And yet. It boggles my mind.

R.Rocca
08-23-2017, 01:53 PM
Here is a graphic representation of Single Grave beakers, AOO beakers and Bell Beaker beakers from page 17 of Harry Fokkens' Background to Dutch Bell Beakers (https://www.academia.edu/5507545/Background_to_Dutch_Beakers), plus a photo of some Protruding Foot Beaker culture beakers.

18272 18273

Those look like Bell Beaker beakers. Look at those and think about the similarities between Corded Ware and Bell Beaker burial practices.

The big obstacle right now is the fact that most CW y-dna results have been R1a and most BB y-dna results have been R1b.

I'm not saying there is or is not a link, but during Lower Poland's Corded Ware Phase II, beakers with protruding feet start to appear. Beakers are of type PIVAc5, PIVBc4, PIVBc5, PIVBc6, PIVBc7, PIVBc8 and PIVBc9...

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Malopolska_Phase-II_Beakers_v01.png
http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Malopolska_Phase-II_Beakers_v02.png

Jean M
08-24-2017, 10:07 AM
I don't think one has to sign up for the entire Swifterbant-to-CW-to-BB package to entertain the idea that Bell Beaker might have been an outgrowth of Corded Ware. The two cultures look more like each other more than either of them looks like Yamnaya. In fact, Bell Beaker looks like a variety of Corded Ware.

Not so. I presume that you are just taken with the pottery similarities, which beguiled so many archaeologists for so long. There is nothing in BB that had to come from CW rather than Yamnaya. I have said this loads of times. If BB came from CW why is it different? If single graves came from CW to BB, why are the postures different? Heyd always points out the difference. All three cultures have single graves and similarities in same, but there are characteristic differences between them.

The archery emphasis and strong interest in mining and metalwork is there in BB from the off and neither came from CW. The stelae are there from the off and they came direct from the steppe. There are very few anthropomorphic stelae in CW and they are distinctly different from the BB type. Quite apart from the fact that CW and BB arose at the same date and a considerable distance from each other, there really is no chance whatever that BB arose from CW.

Jean M
08-24-2017, 12:53 PM
It is amusing to look back on this same discussion in 2013. :biggrin1:

Me on the Dutch Model:


The Dutch model has been destroyed by genetics as much as archaeology. The model claims that Bell Beaker arose in the Netherlands from people who had been there from the Mesolithic. It was based on a sequence of pottery:


Swifterbant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swifterbant_culture) hunter-gatherer type with pointed base and everted lip, sometimes with cord impressions.
Corded Ware with cord impressions and everted lip
Bell Beaker with even more everted lip and sometimes with cord impressions.


This was a classic case of national myopia - a focus only on what was happening within the present boundaries of a small country.


Swifterbant is actually just the western extension of Ertebřlle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ertebřlle_culture), which itself derives its pottery from the earliest to arrive in Europe - the Samara type (see my book, fig 19, p. 63), which had arrived from Siberia. The people who made it carried either Asian mtDNA C (some early samples from the Dnieper) or the European hunter-gatherer U5 and U4.
Corded Ware people were also intruders into the Netherlands and not descended either from the local hunter-gatherers or the subsequent LBK farmers (as shown by ancient Y-DNA.)
Bell Beaker did not descend from Corded Ware, as we now know from radiocarbon dates. They were brother cultures. BB may well have arrived in the Netherlands after Corded Ware. But that local sequence is not repeated over Europe.


When we look at the wider cultural picture, all three types of pottery derive from predecessors on the steppe (and in the Carpathian basin for one element of BB - the bone paste in decoration.)

Having said all that, I assume that some early BB from Portugal arrived quite early at the mouth of the Rhine, which was to receive later BB from down the Rhine. So this was an important nexus for BB. It just wasn't the fountainhead.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=14828&viewfull=1#post14828

Jean M
08-24-2017, 12:55 PM
Me on the beaker shape:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=14841&viewfull=1#post14841


The idea of beakers was not derived from Corded Ware. BB and CW are contemporary. Neither came up with the basic beaker shape, which had been around for quite a while. See AJ, p. 161 and note 15 to that chapter. I cite Anthony 2007, figs. 11.4, 12.6, 12.9.

In fig. 11.4, see no. 2 - a Cucuteni B vessel of bell beaker shape.
In fig. 12.6, see the righthand pot on the second row - a Tripolye C small bell-shaped beaker.
In fig. 12.9, see the bell-shaped Svobodnoe vessels including some small enough to be beakers, but not flat-bottomed.

The really crucial evidence though is not shape, but the crushed bone paste with which BB vessels were decorated, which has its origins in Danubian pottery and was also used in TRB pots before BB.

Jean M
08-24-2017, 12:57 PM
Can anyone show that CW pots were decorated with crushed bone paste?