PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Bell Beaker Models



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

rms2
09-03-2017, 03:52 PM
Now you want me to explain how the BB people couldn't have invented an invisible stirrup? As well as an invisible composite bow? :\ I'm afraid that my knowledge of magic is insufficient. I should have gone to Hogwarts.

I imagine you've expended all your magical energies conjuring up early Iberian Yamnaya copper workers-cum-Bell Beaker people who managed to expand eastwards into Central Europe without bringing any Iberian dna with them.

Jean M
09-03-2017, 04:00 PM
Again from 'The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen' ... and on p161

Yes I know. I read it. And we certainly find the composite bow on the steppe at a later date among Scythians, etc. There just seems no evidence for it at the time of interest to us here. And without evidence, I would draw the same conclusion as Fitzpatrick. And all those who have advised the artists producing resconstruction drawings in recent years of BB archers.

PS I do recall being interested at one time in the idea that BB people had a composite bow, but dropped it fairly quickly as evidence did not seem immediately forthcoming. So I can't claim to have done in-depth research. As I said before Chad is better read than me on the topic.

Jean M
09-03-2017, 04:01 PM
I imagine you've expended all your magical energies conjuring up early Iberian Yamnaya copper workers-cum-Bell Beaker people who managed to expand eastwards into Central Europe without bringing any Iberian dna with them.

Ouch! Eek! Yes you have me totally on the run. :biggrin1:

rms2
09-03-2017, 04:08 PM
Ouch! Eek! Yes you have me totally on the run. :biggrin1:

If you're mounted, I guess that was your Parthian Shot. (It missed.)

Jean M
09-03-2017, 04:20 PM
If you're mounted, I guess that was your Parthian Shot. (It missed.)

LOL! You are on top form. :biggrin1:

rms2
09-03-2017, 04:43 PM
It would be an interesting experiment to make a self bow of BB period type and see if a skilled bareback rider could fire it at a trot or gallop while mounted.

When I was a young guy I would have been happy to try firing a self bow while galloping along on a bareback horse. Nowadays, however, I would probably shoot either myself or the poor horse or both.

Still, I am surprised no inquisitive archaeologist has tried this simple experiment.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-03-2017, 05:14 PM
About the Dutch/Rhenish and British BB(/CW) interaction see: http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/download/24936/22384

Yes I'd seen that article.
Unfortunately, recent appraisals (Dutch beaker chronology re-examined; Sandra Beckermen) raise the problems with the series of C14 dates- some are from charcaol, some from doubtful context, etc, etc.
In the end, the overall schema of PFB- AOC - BB is maintained, however, exact details on overlap remain difficult to specify.
Optimistically, the article points out two sites with current research, that contain well stratified sequences which with more modern approaches to C14-dating, might help clarify the situation further.

Jean M
09-03-2017, 06:01 PM
When I was a young guy I would have been happy to try firing a self bow while galloping along on a bareback horse. Nowadays, however, I would probably shoot either myself or the poor horse or both.

I feared for you when you mentioned it, until I realised that you did not have yourself in mind for this experiment. I was going to urge padded clothing and a helmet, but that was in case of falling off. I must admit that I hadn't thought of the danger to the horse.

vettor
09-03-2017, 06:02 PM
My choice would be a "indigenous model"...........where the indigenous people of BB lands at the time developed new ideas due to trading with neighbours ..............not migrational invasion by thousands made the BB.
one would clearly know that Indigenous people develope for themselves new techniques


The Spanish model IIRC was already disproved recently

rms2
09-03-2017, 06:15 PM
My choice would be a "indigenous model"...........where the indigenous people of BB lands at the time developed new ideas due to trading with neighbours ..............not migrational invasion by thousands made the BB.
one would clearly know that Indigenous people develope for themselves new techniques


The Spanish model IIRC was already disproved recently

That choice is the Immobilist Model.

So, where did the steppe dna and the y-dna R1b-L23 come from then?

You read Olalde et al, right?

Oh, and thanks for steering us back to the actual topic of this thread.

vettor
09-03-2017, 06:25 PM
That choice is the Immobilist Model.

So, where did the steppe dna and the y-dna R1b-L23 come from then?

You read Olalde et al, right?

Oh, and thanks for steering us back to the actual topic of this thread.

from where you state, but one has no proof they trained the BB on how and what model to pot to make

migrational invasions of slaughter bring no new techniques to the people unless the invasion completly replaced the indigenous people

rms2
09-03-2017, 06:54 PM
from where you state, but one has no proof they trained the BB on how and what model to pot to make

migrational invasions of slaughter bring no new techniques to the people unless the invasion completly replaced the indigenous people

From the abstract of Olalde et al:



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.

vettor
09-03-2017, 07:12 PM
From the abstract of Olalde et al:

BB did not begin in the british isles

rms2
09-03-2017, 07:15 PM
BB did not begin in the british isles

But you picked the Indigenous/Immobilist Model. It must have begun there (and everywhere) if indigenous people were responsible for it.

The British Isles was the exception?

rms2
09-03-2017, 07:37 PM
Whichever model is right, Gimbutas was certainly correct when she wrote the following:



The Bell Beaker of the second half of the 3rd millennium BC were vagabondic horse riders and archers in much the same way as their uncles and cousins, the Corded people of northern Europe and Catacomb-grave people of the North Pontic region. Their spread over central and western Europe to the British Isles and Spain as well as the Mediterranean islands terminates the period of expansion and destruction . . . (The Civilization of the Goddess, page 104).

. . . This was the largest and last outmigration, from east-central Europe into western Europe, up to the west Mediterranean and the British Isles, before the onset of a more stable period, and the formation of Bronze Age cultural units. (Ibid, p. 401)

epp
09-03-2017, 09:07 PM
I find it hard to vote, currently thinking the answer falls somewhere between the four leading contenders.
My guess is that Bell Beaker is a fusion culture, pulled together from different cultures by a highly mobile R1b-P312 population.

rms2
09-03-2017, 09:15 PM
I find it hard to vote, currently thinking the answer falls somewhere between the four leading contenders.
My guess is that Bell Beaker is a fusion culture, pulled together from different cultures by a highly mobile R1b-P312 population.

Well, remember, the poll question is which model is closest to right.

You can pick one and then say how you would modify it.

rms2
09-04-2017, 02:19 PM
From Aleksandar Durman, page 1 of "Radiocarbon Dating of the Vucedol Complex", in Radiocarbon, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1989, pages 1003-1009:



The late phase of the Vucedol culture, particularly its Mako type, is closely related to the Bell Beaker culture, from which it is sometimes difficult to distinguish.


Just tossing that out for consideration. I realize there are a number of ways to interpret it: as supportive of the Gimbutas Model on the one hand, or as showing that Bell Beaker influenced late Vucedol on the other. Chicken or egg.

R.Rocca
09-05-2017, 08:08 PM
Looking back at some older ancient DNA papers, I came upon this little nugget that meant very little at the time because earlier Iberian dates were being thrown around...

Grave no. 8 Bell Beaker sample from Kromsdorf, Germany, dated to 2678-2547 cal BC (KIA42883), was at least R-M343. The sample from grave no. 5 was at least R-M269 but not radiocarbon dated. These two samples seem to be well into the Corded Ware territory if I m not mistaken. It would be great if WGS could be done on these two instead of the single SNP testing that was done back in 2012.

Jean M
09-05-2017, 10:18 PM
earlier Iberian dates were being thrown around...

I have to break it to you that earlier dates for BB in Iberia have not gone away. New ones have been accepted by Heyd since the paper by Muller and Van Willigan in 2001. What we have witnessed is years and years of attempts to make them go away. It is not just certain people on this forum who have been frustrated by what they saw as illogical results. Several archaeologists have done their level best to throw doubt on this chronology in published works. My own approach is to accept evidence, however strange it may seem, and await more evidence to clarify things.

alan
09-05-2017, 10:52 PM
I have to break it to you that earlier dates for BB in Iberia have not gone away. New ones have been accepted by Heyd since the paper by Muller and Van Willigan in 2001. What we have witnessed is years and years of attempts to make them go away. It is not just certain people on this forum who have been frustrated by what they saw as illogical results. Several archaeologists have done their level best to throw doubt on this chronology in published works. My own approach is to accept evidence, however strange it may seem, and await more evidence to clarify things.

I accept the pottery dates but IMO defiining a yDNA lineage driven culture by pottery is the problem. Pottery ideas can move with brides without any invasion of men. I think a better name for the culture linked to P312 would be something like 'late single grave archer-metallurgist complex'. Not snappy but takes away the problem of tracking a male movement by a female craft. The beaker pot does appear to at least partly be based on a mental model from Central Europe reaching Iberia c 2750BC {IMO most likely along the Grand Presigny trade route). But that is many centuries before anything else that looks Central European entered Iberia. So I think te arrival of the beaker pot idea and the arrival of P312 and Central European trads into Iberia are 2 totally distinct phases separated by at least 300ys. Perhaps longer

rms2
09-05-2017, 11:05 PM
Here is what Jan Lanting said of Müller and van Willigen's rc dates on page 98 of 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):



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.

R.Rocca
09-05-2017, 11:45 PM
I have to break it to you that earlier dates for BB in Iberia have not gone away. New ones have been accepted by Heyd since the paper by Muller and Van Willigan in 2001. What we have witnessed is years and years of attempts to make them go away. It is not just certain people on this forum who have been frustrated by what they saw as illogical results. Several archaeologists have done their level best to throw doubt on this chronology in published works. My own approach is to accept evidence, however strange it may seem, and await more evidence to clarify things.

Of course they haven't gone away... I was referring to the early Iberian dates representing the birthplace of L51 and steppe ancestry in Western Europe. It is within that context that 99.9% of forum posts have been discussed. My approach is to accept evidence as well ;)

rms2
09-05-2017, 11:47 PM
I have to break it to you that earlier dates for BB in Iberia have not gone away. New ones have been accepted by Heyd since the paper by Muller and Van Willigan in 2001. What we have witnessed is years and years of attempts to make them go away. It is not just certain people on this forum who have been frustrated by what they saw as illogical results. Several archaeologists have done their level best to throw doubt on this chronology in published works. My own approach is to accept evidence, however strange it may seem, and await more evidence to clarify things.

Aren't the Olalde et al results the "more evidence" that makes it extremely unlikely that Bell Beaker originated in Iberia and spread eastwards from there? Evidence of all kinds must be weighed. When one kind of evidence goes against the weight of all of the other evidence, doesn't that raise doubts about its accuracy?

As far as I can see, the archaeological and genetic evidence weigh against Müller and van Willigen's radiocarbon dates. Those rc dates are the only thing still propping up the Spanish Model. The models based upon the Spanish Model give it a tip of the hat and then proceed to bring BB out of the steppe anyway.

Jean M
09-06-2017, 04:29 AM
I accept the pottery dates but IMO defiining a yDNA lineage driven culture by pottery is the problem. Pottery ideas can move with brides without any invasion of men. I think a better name for the culture linked to P312 would be something like 'late single grave archer-metallurgist complex'. Not snappy but takes away the problem of tracking a male movement by a female craft.

I agree entirely that too much weight has been given to pottery in identifying BB. I've been saying as much for years. Said it in the first edition of AJ in 2013. I was delighted to see Kristian Kristiansen saying the same recently in more general terms.

But this does not solve our conundrum. I just noticed a photo of a gold lunula from Denmark, which led me back to that problem. Apparently there were three of these known in Denmark by 1937, thought then to be made locally rather than imported from Ireland. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/palaeolith-from-gloucestershire/BDEC40A831D0551E094024749DBD5AC7

I doubt very much that gold lunulae were made by women. That they travelled with BB seems pretty clear, and although Ireland dominates their production, they are found in Portugal. Same thing with archery. This is not a female activity. It travels with BB. We have the fortified, copper-working site at Zambujal designed to be protected by archers.

Whatever is going on here, it does not look as though it will all make sense if we just ignore Portugal.

Jean M
09-06-2017, 07:42 AM
Of course they haven't gone away... I was referring to the early Iberian dates representing the birthplace of L51 and steppe ancestry in Western Europe.

I can't imagine who suggested that L51 was born in Iberia. I certainly did not.

Jean M
09-06-2017, 08:27 AM
Aren't the Olalde et al results the "more evidence" that makes it extremely unlikely that Bell Beaker originated in Iberia and spread eastwards from there?

I have always been convinced that the origins of Bell Beaker lay in Yamnaya. That includes the pottery. I stated this clearly in AJ in 2013. I have repeated this dozens of times on this and other Internet forums. The early dates for BB pottery in Portugal and generally in Southern BB do not mean that BB originated in Neolithic cultures in Iberia. Nor do they mean that there was an overwhelming mass migration from Yamnaya into Iberia in the Copper Age that instantly wiped out the descendants of Neolithic farmers and turned everyone in Iberia into an eastern Yamnaya clone genetically. That has never been on the cards, looking at the modern genetic pool of Spanish and Portuguese.

The early dates plus the stelae trail plus the other key elements of the BB package in Portugal do mean that it is highly likely that there was a rapid route from Yamnaya or at the very least a Yamnaya-influenced culture/people to certain spots in Iberia, opening up copper mines and starting copper working. At the moment I do not know what Y-DNA these people carried or even whether they had a drop of ANE in them. I was inclined to place a bet on R1b-DF27, but we have to consider other possibilities. Yamnaya was a cultural horizon that absorbed other cultures as it moved west across the steppe. So I continue to await aDNA results that actually mean something in terms of who these people were i.e. by testing them.

Most importantly, included in my model is continued contact with the parent group, probably somewhere in the Carpathian Basin. I have encouraged you in your efforts to locate the parent group. I suggested some time ago that factoring in Iberia was proving a distraction. I wouldn't worry about it. It is not an either/or situation.

Jean M
09-06-2017, 08:28 AM
Accidental duplicate. Sorry!

rms2
09-06-2017, 11:30 AM
I have always been convinced that the origins of Bell Beaker lay in Yamnaya. That includes the pottery. I stated this clearly in AJ in 2013. I have repeated this dozens of times on this and other Internet forums. The early dates for BB pottery in Portugal and generally in Southern BB do not mean that BB originated in Neolithic cultures in Iberia. Nor do they mean that there was an overwhelming mass migration from Yamnaya into Iberia in the Copper Age that instantly wiped out the descendants of Neolithic farmers and turned everyone in Iberia into an eastern Yamnaya clone genetically. That has never been on the cards, looking at the modern genetic pool of Spanish and Portuguese.

The early dates plus the stelae trail plus the other key elements of the BB package in Portugal do mean that it is highly likely that there was a rapid route from Yamnaya or at the very least a Yamnaya-influenced culture/people to certain spots in Iberia, opening up copper mines and starting copper working. At the moment I do not know what Y-DNA these people carried or even whether they had a drop of ANE in them. I was inclined to place a bet on R1b-DF27, but we have to consider other possibilities. Yamnaya was a cultural horizon that absorbed other cultures as it moved west across the steppe. So I continue to await aDNA results that actually mean something in terms of who these people were i.e. by testing them.

Most importantly, included in my model is continued contact with the parent group, probably somewhere in the Carpathian Basin. I have encouraged you in your efforts to locate the parent group. I suggested some time ago that factoring in Iberia was proving a distraction. I wouldn't worry about it. It is not an either/or situation.

As I see it, you do ascribe an Iberian origin to Bell Beaker in that you first bring pre-Beaker copper workers from the steppe to Iberia, have them create BB there and then spread eastwards from Iberia, taking the BB culture with them. I think you must do that because you accept the premise that BB is oldest in Iberia. But you saw that BB is basically a steppe/kurgan culture, so you had to figure out a way to make it be both oldest in Iberia and at the same time an east-central European kurgan culture. So, you brought some people out of the steppe, sent them on an end run to the western periphery of the European peninsula, and had them create BB in Iberia. Problem solved.

But if BB isn't actually oldest in Iberia, i.e., if it weren't for the Spanish Model and Müller and van Willigen, there would be no need for such a scenario.

Similarly, Sangmeister saw that there wasn't much that was Iberian about BB. Since he too was wedded to the idea that BB began in Iberia, he saluted the Spanish Model by first bringing BB out of Iberia before letting it stream back west in the Rückstrom under the new management of steppe-derived people from Central Europe.

I think both of you get the steppe-derived part right. It's the Iberian origin part that is wrong. It forces you to bring BB out of Iberia first before turning it in the right direction and letting it be what it really was.

Just my opinion.

Jean M
09-06-2017, 11:40 AM
As I see it, you do ascribe an Iberian origin to Bell Beaker in that you first bring copper workers from the steppe to Iberia, have them create BB there, and then spread eastwards from Iberia, taking the BB culture with them. I think you must do that because you accept the premise that BB is oldest in Iberia...

I accept the early dates for BB pottery in Iberia. That does not rule out the possibility that some day we may locate dates as early in the Carpathian Basin, but in any case I recognise that the influences for the pottery were all present in Yamnaya and cultures it met when moving up the Danube. That means that people (women, probably) who first made the pottery in Iberia had come from the Carpathian Basin, probably as marriage partners, or that these influences had travelled along the trade routes set up initially by copper workers between the Carpathian Basin and Iberia.

I recognise that the pottery is not really the most important element of the culture, and that more crucial elements had arrived earlier in Iberia, which can be traced back to the steppe and Yamnaya. But we have a gap of centuries between that early arrival and the making of BB pottery. So that infers continued contact back and forth.

rms2
09-06-2017, 11:51 AM
I accept the early dates for BB pottery in Iberia . . .

What if those dates are wrong? As I pointed out above in Post #272, Lanting did not accept them. Alan has mentioned before that there are good reasons for doubting them (Lanting mentions some of those reasons). They certainly run counter to the archaeological, anthropological, and genetic evidence.

Jean M
09-06-2017, 11:59 AM
Similarly, Sangmeister saw that there wasn't much that was Iberian about BB. Since he too was wedded to the idea that BB began in Iberia, he saluted the Spanish Model by first bringing BB out of Iberia before letting it stream back west in the Rückstrom under the new management of steppe-derived people from Central Europe..

Where does Sangmeister talk about steppe-derived people? And where does he say that there isn't much that is Iberian about BB? As I understand it, he initially thought that BB pottery was derived from Neolithic models in Iberia, and only recognised that it wasn't much later in life, as it was pointed out that cord-decoration was present in Iberian BB from the off. I have no idea if the idea of a Yamnaya origin occurred to him at any time. I have not read his work on BB in the original German. But the descriptions of it in English works made no mention of Yamnaya in connection with his model. All he seems to have noticed is that the type of Late BB that arrived in eastern Iberia was similar to BB East i.e. he saw different regional types of BB.

The idea of BB cultural descent from Yamnaya was present in the Gimbutas model, and in detail in Harrison and Heyd 2007, which I follow. But my model and that of Heyd 2017 has Yamnaya influences entering Iberia before BB pottery was made at all.

R.Rocca
09-06-2017, 12:04 PM
I can't imagine who suggested that L51 was born in Iberia.

About 90% of those with Iberian ancestry from Rootsweb, DNAForums and Anthrogenica.


I certainly did not.

Nor did I say that you did.

Jean M
09-06-2017, 12:08 PM
What if those dates are wrong? As I pointed out above in Post #272, Lanting did not accept them. Alan has mentioned before that there are good reasons for doubting them (Lanting mentions some of those reasons).

Lanting and Alan are hooked on the Dutch Model. But their arguments merely amount to the basic fact that radiocarbon dates can be dodgy and that the Muller and Van Willigan review article did not go into the specifics of each date sufficiently to establish their security. They merely drew together already published dates. So one would need to track back to the original publication of each date to check. Lanting had not done that. Alan has not done that. Therefore they have not shown that any of these dates is actually dodgy.

More to the point is that we now have published dates from a secure context in Portugal which cannot be affected by the reservoir effect (since they were not on human bone), and cannot be the result of mixture of layers, because there is only one layer and it is all BB. It is these recent, secure dates that convinced Heyd. Neither Lanting, nor Alan, nor anyone else that I am aware of has shown anything wrong with these dates.

Jean M
09-06-2017, 12:21 PM
About 90% of those with Iberian ancestry from Rootsweb, DNAForums and Anthrogenica.

Dear me. Well in that case let us salute the 10% who see past the flag.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-06-2017, 12:28 PM
The original Iberian dates of 2900 BC might be wrong, but the new modified ones of 27-2600 BC are probably correct, and from clear contexts.

Jean M
09-06-2017, 12:37 PM
The original Iberian dates of 2900 BC might be wrong, but the new modified ones of 27-2600 BC are probably correct, and from clear contexts.

Yes exactly. Though I should state that 2900 BC was actually just the upper limit of the range. Muller and Van Willigan simply said that BB began somewhere between 2900 and 2700 BC. The original in French:


Il est difficile de proposer une datation precise pour le debut du Phenomene Campaniforme en Europe occidentale. En effet, a cause d'une oscillation de grande amplitude de la courbe de calibration entre 2900-2800 BC cal. beaucoup de datations vont debuter, apres calibration, vers 2900-2850 BC sans qu'il soit possible de dire de fagon definitive si une telle datation correspond bien a une realite chronologique. Le Phenomene Campaniforme debute donc entre 2900 et 2700 BC cal.

So I have used the date 2800 BC or 2700 BC.

rms2
09-06-2017, 02:20 PM
Where does Sangmeister talk about steppe-derived people?
. . .

Okay, that's my interpretation of the source of his Rückstrom, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is that his acceptance of the idea that BB originated in Iberia led him to imagine BB from the east as a back flow.

alan
09-06-2017, 03:05 PM
I agree entirely that too much weight has been given to pottery in identifying BB. I've been saying as much for years. Said it in the first edition of AJ in 2013. I was delighted to see Kristian Kristiansen saying the same recently in more general terms.

But this does not solve our conundrum. I just noticed a photo of a gold lunula from Denmark, which led me back to that problem. Apparently there were three of these known in Denmark by 1937, thought then to be made locally rather than imported from Ireland. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/palaeolith-from-gloucestershire/BDEC40A831D0551E094024749DBD5AC7

I doubt very much that gold lunulae were made by women. That they travelled with BB seems pretty clear, and although Ireland dominates their production, they are found in Portugal. Same thing with archery. This is not a female activity. It travels with BB. We have the fortified, copper-working site at Zambujal designed to be protected by archers.

Whatever is going on here, it does not look as though it will all make sense if we just ignore Portugal.
Yes I may have been a longtime skeptic of Iberia having a role (other than a recipient) in P312 carrying people settling Europe but I believe they had a role. The role Iberia had (and IMO this causes confusion) was that they had 2 phases critical to the genesis of beaker pot:

1. Receipt of the concept of beaker type pots from Central Europe c 2750BC give or take a generation (I strongly suspect it got there through marriages along the Grand Presigny network) and from that creating the bell beaker

2. Passing their bell beaker design back toward Central Europe. c2550BC and probably some metallurgical traditions too (A limited movement of Iberian beaker users to SE and Atlantic France may be responsible for contact but IMO has nothing to do with P312.

3. Iberian received a modest input of P312 beaker using Central Europeans late in the beaker era.

Re lunulae - I agree they were made by men but they were worn by the wives of the wealthy.

vettor
09-06-2017, 05:43 PM
Yes I may have been a longtime skeptic of Iberia having a role (other than a recipient) in P312 carrying people settling Europe but I believe they had a role. The role Iberia had (and IMO this causes confusion) was that they had 2 phases critical to the genesis of beaker pot:

1. Receipt of the concept of beaker type pots from Central Europe c 2750BC give or take a generation (I strongly suspect it got there through marriages along the Grand Presigny network) and from that creating the bell beaker

2. Passing their bell beaker design back toward Central Europe. c2550BC and probably some metallurgical traditions too (A limited movement of Iberian beaker users to SE and Atlantic France may be responsible for contact but IMO has nothing to do with P312.

3. Iberian received a modest input of P312 beaker using Central Europeans late in the beaker era.

Re lunulae - I agree they were made by men but they were worn by the wives of the wealthy.

Many are missing the point..............pottery is circa 7000BC and was used for holding water and foods ,

By the term pottery we mean exclusively fired clay vases. Clay modelling (wet argillaceous soil) occupied man at least from the Upper Palaeolithic (large quantities of unfired clay at Theopetra Cave-Thessaly). His efforts over many years to retain the shape of the vessels he had been manufacturing from clay are linked to improved skills in pyrotechnology (firing at the correct temperature) and were finally gratified during the Neolithic Period, initially in the Near East (beginning of the 7th millenium BC) and subsequently in the Aegean area (end of the 7th millenium BC).

During the early phases of the Neolithic, vessels of leather, wood, stone, straw, but also unfired clay were used, for this reason these phases are characterized by the term Aceramic or Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Traces of these unfired vases are scarce.
The first admirable specimens of hand-made pottery date to the Early Neolithic, and were monochrome or burnished, with incised, impressed but also painted decoration. The best examples though of painted decoration originate from the Middle Neolithic Period. A great variety of pottery wares, monochrome (gray, black) and painted (e.g. black colour on a red burnished background) has been observed in particular in Thessaly during the Late Neolithic. These styles characterized various periods of this long period and require, for a more thorough study, their division into longer (Late Neolithic Ι and Late Neolithic ΙΙ) and shorter phases (e.g. Tsangli-Larisa, Classical Dimini). In pottery production of the Final Neolithic the skills passed down from previous periods.

The BB areas of central Europe have no proof of a migrational invasion , but could be only an " invasion" of a design change of pots to people whose ancestors where already doing pottery 3000 years earlier

Jean M
09-06-2017, 06:02 PM
Re lunulae - I agree they were made by men but they were worn by the wives of the wealthy.

What gives you that idea? Since they are not found in burials, we don't know who wore them. (Or even if they were worn at all.) They do not seem to be personal jewellery which went to the grave with its owner. The most common interpretation seems to be that they were pectorals denoting some religious or political office.

R.Rocca
09-06-2017, 07:12 PM
I understand this is not the only possible model and has its own problems, but based on the ancient DNA I've seen so far, this seems like the most likely model (to me)...

1. The use of stelae expands through the lower Danube into the Middle Danube. Some small-scale migrations of M269 and Z2103 men may have occurred, but from that geographic location westward, its spread was due to cultural diffusion. This gives rise to kurgan-like influences in cultures like Baden, Remedello and Fontbouisse. This would also explain the mixed Y-DNA groups and diverse levels of steppe autosomal components in Vucedol and the complete lack of L23 and steppe components in Remedello (and Otzi), the Iberian Copper Age and Early Iberian Bell Beakers.

2. Mostly R1a groups start to move north and north-west from the forest steppe into Globular Amphorae territory to form the Corded Ware A-Horizon. A peripheral Corded Ware group is made up of R-L51 males. Due to some important differences with other Corded Ware groups, the likeliest suspects are the Moravian Corded Ware Culture and/or the Auvernier Corded Ware Culutre and/or the Single Grave Culture in the Low Countries. According to Buchvaldek's 1980 model (arrows are his, color and haplogroups were added by me), Corded Ware had two major expansion points: the major one via the northern route and a minor one through Lower Poland and Moravia. This southern route could have been R-L51 with the northern one almost completely R1a with perhaps R-U106 sprinkled in. Moravian Corded Ware and East Austrian Corded Ware engaged in intensive mutual interaction with the Makó/Kosihy-Čaka group from the Carpathian Basin as is evidenced by the appearance of Nagyrév type jugs, a small amount of cremations, etc. The grave orientation changes from E-W to N-S in areas like Moravia and Lower Poland after the initial Corded Ware horizon ends and phases II-III begin. The importance of archery in Moravia and Lower Poland increases and a lower status sub-group of males in Lower Poland is even buried on their left side.

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Corded_Ware_Spread_Buchvaldek_1980.png

3. The trade of Grand Pressigny flint into the Single Grave Culture in the Low Countries and the Auvernier Corded Ware Group exposes corded decoration techniques to French and Iberian Copper Age groups. This step need not have involved P312 from the SGC side (but could have). The archetype on the receiving end of corded decoration is the Alsacian woman (2832–2476 calBCE), buried in a single grave with a zoned corded-comb stamped beaker and lacking steppe ancestry. She lived just a few miles away from Alsacian Corded Ware territory. The use of white encrustation in pottery is also seen in Fontbouisse and Ferrieres Copper Age cultures of SE France.

4. In NE Iberia, the entry point of any alleged pre-Bell Beaker migration into the rest of Iberia, the only sample from this Early Bell Beaker horizon is I0826 and is dated 2833–2480 calBCE. Not surprisingly, he belonged to I2a2 and lacked steppe ancestry. The only way these men could have expanded out of Iberia and reached the high levels of steppe ancestry found in the Central European and British P312 samples was if they were wholly R-L23 and then mixed with a 100% pure Yamnaya-like population, which are both impossibilities. Some may point out that sample I0257, dated to 2571–2350 calBCE, is also R1b1, but he also lacks steppe ancestry. We know that I0261 from the same Bell Beaker site level was R1b1a (xL23) and more than likely V88. During this time period, Iberia remains solidly in the collective grave tradition. The delayed and more gradual introduction of P312 and steppe ancestry into Iberia could explain the survival of Copper Age languages (Basque, Iberian and Sardinian) into the Roman Period.

5. One of the peripheral Corded Ware groups (Moravian?) comes into contact with non-R1b Bell Beaker cultures. Moravian Corded Ware and Bell Beaker material seems to overlap for a short period of time, perhaps with Corded Ware L51 men adopting the use of the Bell Beaker cup, but overall maintaining primarily Corded Ware customs. From there, the fully formed Bell Beaker package (wrist guards, etc.) starts to expand in all directions. Gallay proposed that Italic arose from the Begleitkeramik group and Celtic from the Rhone-Rhine Group.

alan
09-06-2017, 07:46 PM
What gives you that idea? Since they are not found in burials, we don't know who wore them. (Or even if they were worn at all.) They do not seem to be personal jewellery which went to the grave with its owner. The most common interpretation seems to be that they were pectorals denoting some religious or political office.

Lunulae are often thought to be skeumorphs or metal equivalents of the of the spacer plate or composite bead type non-metalic necklaces which fall into a similar crescent shape when worn. Harrison and Heyd noted at Sion the necklaces/lunulae of that type were shown on stelae in the early beaker phase in contrast to the simple necklaces of the pre-beaker phase. They associated the lunulae with a cluster made up of females (p168). Certainly the spacer plate/composite necklaces of the beaker and early bronze age seem to be found with females where this is known.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=h25hCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA354&lpg=PA354&dq=spacer+plate+necklace+bronze+age+women&source=bl&ots=v2ju45jakp&sig=n016HgDBoDp71hy60D8XXzvivn4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin1ay7pJHWAhXJJMAKHUByDn4Q6AEIRzAJ#v=on epage&q=spacer%20plate%20necklace%20bronze%20age%20women&f=false

I am pretty sure that I was taught this as a student and have assumed it for decades as I havent seen anything to contradict it. I feel pretty certain that the lunulae were female ornaments albeit made by men to display their wealth on their wives. AFAIK the idea of them as religious office symbol etc has been abandoned for a long time.

The more intriguing thing to me is that they are found in the early beaker period at Sion - i.e the phase which is most likely linked with the south-western beaker tradition but it may not be that simple. That raises the question of the origin of this ornament type. Personally I suspect its not the material but the crescent shape that is significant as these were made of many materials. They certainly look more elegant when made out of beads which is probably why many think that gold lunulae are copies of the versions made of non-metal beads, plates etc.

I think while females would be unlikely to effect the basic social and religious traditions they were capable of effecting fashion/taste not just in pottery but clothes, female ornaments etc. Much later (but clearly pre-Christian as the church disapproved) Brehon laws showed that in the ideal marriage, as well as the man making a payment to the brides father/clan to pass responsibility to uphold the contract of promise, the couple were meant to bring equal value of portable wealth to the matrimonial dwelling. Women retained all sorts of rights over portable wealth, divorce etc that were lost when English common law where the woman retained no legal identity after it was merged with the husband onmarriage.

The trend for the rich to display their wealth on their wives continued into the iron age where most (not all) torcs seem to have been buried with women - despite classical depictions and descriptions of men wearing them.

alan
09-06-2017, 08:04 PM
I understand this is not the only possible model and has its own problems, but based on the ancient DNA I've seen so far, this seems like the most likely model (to me)...

1. The use of stelae expands through the lower Danube into the Middle Danube. Some small-scale migrations of M269 and Z2103 men may have occurred, but from that geographic location westward, its spread was due to cultural diffusion. This gives rise to kurgan-like influences in cultures like Baden, Remedello and Fontbouisse. This would also explain the mixed Y-DNA groups and diverse levels of steppe autosomal components in Vucedol and the complete lack of L23 and steppe components in Remedello (and Otzi), the Iberian Copper Age and Early Iberian Bell Beakers.

2. Mostly R1a groups start to move north and north-west from the forest steppe into Globular Amphorae territory to form the Corded Ware A-Horizon. A peripheral Corded Ware group is made up of R-L51 males. Due to some important differences with other Corded Ware groups, the likeliest suspects are the Moravian Corded Ware Culture and/or the Auvernier Corded Ware Culutre and/or the Single Grave Culture in the Low Countries. According to Buchvaldek's 1980 model (arrows are his, color and haplogroups were added by me), Corded Ware had two major expansion points: the major one via the northern route and a minor one through Lower Poland and Moravia. This southern route could have been R-L51 with the northern one almost completely R1a with perhaps R-U106 sprinkled in. Moravian Corded Ware and East Austrian Corded Ware engaged in intensive mutual interaction with the Makó/Kosihy-Čaka group from the Carpathian Basin as is evidenced by the appearance of Nagyrév type jugs, a small amount of cremations, etc. The grave orientation changes from E-W to N-S in areas like Moravia and Lower Poland after the initial Corded Ware horizon ends and phases II-III begin. The importance of archery in Moravia and Lower Poland increases and a lower status sub-group of males in Lower Poland is even buried on their left side.

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Corded_Ware_Spread_Buchvaldek_1980.png

3. The trade of Grand Pressigny flint into the Single Grave Culture in the Low Countries and the Auvernier Corded Ware Group exposes corded decoration techniques to French and Iberian Copper Age groups. This step need not have involved P312 from the SGC side (but could have). The archetype on the receiving end of corded decoration is the Alsacian woman (2832–2476 calBCE), buried in a single grave with a zoned corded-comb stamped beaker and lacking steppe ancestry. She lived just a few miles away from Alsacian Corded Ware territory. The use of white encrustation in pottery is also seen in Fontbouisse and Ferrieres Copper Age cultures of SE France.

4. In NE Iberia, the entry point of any alleged pre-Bell Beaker migration into the rest of Iberia, the only sample from this Early Bell Beaker horizon is I0826 and is dated 2833–2480 calBCE. Not surprisingly, he belonged to I2a2 and lacked steppe ancestry. The only way these men could have expanded out of Iberia and reached the high levels of steppe ancestry found in the Central European and British P312 samples was if they were wholly R-L23 and then mixed with a 100% pure Yamnaya-like population, which are both impossibilities. Some may point out that sample I0257, dated to 2571–2350 calBCE, is also R1b1, but he also lacks steppe ancestry. We know that I0261 from the same Bell Beaker site level was R1b1a (xL23) and more than likely V88. During this time period, Iberia remains solidly in the collective grave tradition. The delayed and more gradual introduction of P312 and steppe ancestry into Iberia could explain the survival of Copper Age languages (Basque, Iberian and Sardinian) into the Roman Period.

5. One of the peripheral Corded Ware groups (Moravian?) comes into contact with non-R1b Bell Beaker cultures. Moravian Corded Ware and Bell Beaker material seems to overlap for a short period of time, perhaps with Corded Ware L51 men adopting the use of the Bell Beaker cup, but overall maintaining primarily Corded Ware customs. From there, the fully formed Bell Beaker package (wrist guards, etc.) starts to expand in all directions. Gallay proposed that Italic arose from the Begleitkeramik group and Celtic from the Rhone-Rhine Group.

Seems pretty plausible. Another possibility is that it was simply a case that one rare CW P312 lineage on the middle or upper Rhine came into contact with Iberian non-steppe beaker users who were settling up the Rhone by 2500BC. The group trade with the Iberian and intermarried with Iberian women bringing stuff like new textiles, bell beaker pot and the woman's preferences in personal ornaments. However, I like some aspects of the idea that this happened on the Upper Danube too as there are certain traits of the pre-beaker peoples in that area that prefigure beaker. As for archery, the problem is that archery apparently saw a renaissance throughout Europe in this period - even among the CW people despite the axe symbol being so dominant. There are religious differences that might be influencing the grave deposits too. Germanic and other traditions have that whole axe and thuderbolts god aspects while Celtic mythology has a theme of a hunter who when chasing their quarry passes into the other world. Perhaps the choice of gravegoods partly reflects the differing mythology.

alan
09-06-2017, 08:10 PM
Lunulae are often thought to be skeumorphs or metal equivalents of the of the spacer plate or composite bead type non-metalic necklaces which fall into a similar crescent shape when worn. Harrison and Heyd noted at Sion the necklaces/lunulae of that type were shown on stelae in the early beaker phase in contrast to the simple necklaces of the pre-beaker phase. They associated the lunulae with a cluster made up of females (p168). Certainly the spacer plate/composite necklaces of the beaker and early bronze age seem to be found with females where this is known.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=h25hCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA354&lpg=PA354&dq=spacer+plate+necklace+bronze+age+women&source=bl&ots=v2ju45jakp&sig=n016HgDBoDp71hy60D8XXzvivn4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin1ay7pJHWAhXJJMAKHUByDn4Q6AEIRzAJ#v=on epage&q=spacer%20plate%20necklace%20bronze%20age%20women&f=false

I am pretty sure that I was taught this as a student and have assumed it for decades as I havent seen anything to contradict it. I feel pretty certain that the lunulae were female ornaments albeit made by men to display their wealth on their wives. AFAIK the idea of them as religious office symbol etc has been abandoned for a long time.

The more intriguing thing to me is that they are found in the early beaker period at Sion - i.e the phase which is most likely linked with the south-western beaker tradition but it may not be that simple. That raises the question of the origin of this ornament type. Personally I suspect its not the material but the crescent shape that is significant as these were made of many materials. They certainly look more elegant when made out of beads which is probably why many think that gold lunulae are copies of the versions made of non-metal beads, plates etc.

I think while females would be unlikely to effect the basic social and religious traditions they were capable of effecting fashion/taste not just in pottery but clothes, female ornaments etc. Much later (but clearly pre-Christian as the church disapproved) Brehon laws showed that in the ideal marriage, as well as the man making a payment to the brides father/clan to pass responsibility to uphold the contract of promise, the couple were meant to bring equal value of portable wealth to the matrimonial dwelling. Women retained all sorts of rights over portable wealth, divorce etc that were lost when English common law where the woman retained no legal identity after it was merged with the husband onmarriage.

The trend for the rich to display their wealth on their wives continued into the iron age where most (not all) torcs seem to have been buried with women - despite classical depictions and descriptions of men wearing them.

I should probably add that the gold lunulae are most common in areas like Ireland where the tradition of not burying much metal wealth in graves - instead burying it in watery places and bogs - had commenced very early. So I wouldnt read much into their absence in graves. Certainly the non-metallic ones of the beaker and early bronze age do end up in graves in Britain.

Jean M
09-06-2017, 09:33 PM
Lunulae are often thought to be skeumorphs or metal equivalents of the of the spacer plate or composite bead type non-metalic necklaces which fall into a similar crescent shape when worn.

Very helpful Alan. Clearly there is more than one possible interpretation.

António Carlos Valera 2010 has some images of anthropomorphic stelae with lunulae from Portugal. I have read this stuff and then forgotten it.

alan
09-07-2017, 06:32 AM
Very helpful Alan. Clearly there is more than one possible interpretation.

António Carlos Valera 2010 has some images of anthropomorphic stelae with lunulae from Portugal. I have read this stuff and then forgotten it.

What I do not know anything about is the origin of these necklaces that fall into crescent shapes. I can thInk of a pre-beaker precursor in either the east or west that is really convincing . Boars tusks maybe?

alan
09-07-2017, 07:19 AM
I think the presence of lunula type ornaments in the early beaker phase at Sion points to an origin in SW Europe where they were worn like a lunula rather than upside down as wity boat tusk pendants in Central Europe. This paper seems to be supporting an Iberian origin in the pre-beaker chalcolothic but I am not sure as it's in Portuguese ;0)! https://www.academia.edu/498004/MARFIM_NO_RECINTO_CALCOL%C3%8DTICO_DOS_PERDIG%C3%9 5ES_1_L%C3%9ANULAS_FRAGMENTA%C3%87%C3%83O_E_ONTOLO GIA_DOS_ARTEFACTOS

If so this would not surprise me as I tend to think of the early beaker phase at Sion (and SE France and NW Italy and Atlantic France) as a limited migration of non-steppe non-P312 Iberian beaker users. I suspect DNA will confirm a short lived out of Iberia migration of beaker users who c 2500BC briefly interacted in a friendly way with Central Europeans (likely including a short period of intermarriage) before being overrun and usurped by the latter. However, I think the period of friendly contact (even if genetic impact of the Iberians was v small and confined to the interface area around the upper Rhine/upper Rhone ) did mean transfer of some Iberian culture into the P312 Central Europeans. I personally suspect this was largely in the female sphere and limited to pottery,clothing and taste in female personal ornaments.

In the male sphere I am not convinced the archery focus came entirely from the west as death by arrow is pretty common in pre-beaker CW bodies and in general archery was on the rise after 3000BC. As others have pointed out there were a few archery focussed CW groups too. That said, an encounter period with a group from SWEurope who were extremely archery focussed may have encouraged it's popularity as I think the bow beats the stone axe in the stone-paper-scissors game!

Jean M
09-07-2017, 08:32 AM
What I do not know anything about is the origin of these necklaces that fall into crescent shapes. I can thInk of a pre-beaker precursor in either the east or west that is really convincing . Boars tusks maybe?

That is what I thought António Carlos Valera 2010 proposed. Now I read it again, it doesn't look as though he does.

The 'lunulae' on the Sion stelae do look more like compound necklaces. Funnily enough I have proposed an image of one such multi-string necklace (from the Wessex group of BB ) in the forthcoming book, as it is amber, and I'm writing about the amber routes. But the gold lunulae don't look as though they could be worn in the same way as a necklace. They are too flat to curve around the neck. They look more like they were suspended as a pectoral.

TigerMW
09-07-2017, 02:04 PM
Polls are supposed to be kind of fun. Hopefully this one will be.

Please read the summaries of the various Bell Beaker models below before voting. :)

Voting for a model does not mean you necessarily agree with every detail its proponents have advanced. It just means that model comes closest to your current thinking. Feel free to post your own opinions, how you would modify a model or combine elements of more than one model, etc.

I haven't posted on this thread until now but not because I'm not interested. Occasionally, just occasionally, I keep my mouth shut when I don't have anything intelligent or otherwise of value to say. (I expect some "thanks" for that!)

I don't remember what I voted but I'd like to change it to "Other: they're all way off" except I'd like to remove the word "way" and change it to "significantly". I am just saying most of the models have strong areas that are probably correct but are missing or insufficient in other areas.

Please do not confuse what I'm saying here as I'm not saying the "reflux" model is correct or that a particular "fusion-fission" model is correct.

I think the words "fusion-fission" capture the concept which makes picking any of these models insufficient or at least insufficient in terms of our simplifications of them.

The first and most important construct is that Bell Beaker cultures were not homogenous. They were different mixes at different times and different places. They were an horizon, not a culture nor just a network. There were common traits and it appears that R1b-P312 was a common trait but only for the half-millenium or so starting about 2500 BC.

A second important construct is that the Bell Beaker cultures were sourced from multiple prior and adjoining cultures. This is what really makes things difficult because different cultural traits and genetic traits may have come from different sources. The male and female lineages may have substantially different sources at least in some timeframes. It is hard for a simple model to explain everything. This is why I like the term "fusion."

I'm biased in my interests. I'm most interested in the R1b-L151 ancestry and immediate descendants and how they fit into this. In this regards I consider the Bell Beaker expansion (call it if "fission" if you like) of the second half of the 3rd millenium BC as the most interesting. I think this was aggressive expansion in multiple directions from Central Europe. It went both north to the Baltic and North Seas as well into France and the Atlantic as well as to the Pyrenees. This may have been a broad and quick sweep into the British Isles. This may have been similar into Aquitaine and the Pyrenees but then lapped like waves time again into the Iberian Peninsula as well as the hinterlands of the Isles as latter Beakers and descendant cultures such as types of Celts. This is further complicated by extensive trade and some movement between destination sites.

Ravai
09-07-2017, 02:22 PM
I think the presence of lunula type ornaments in the early beaker phase at Sion points to an origin in SW Europe where they were worn like a lunula rather than upside down as wity boat tusk pendants in Central Europe. This paper seems to be supporting an Iberian origin in the pre-beaker chalcolothic but I am not sure as it's in Spanish! https://www.academia.edu/498004/MARFIM_NO_RECINTO_CALCOL%C3%8DTICO_DOS_PERDIG%C3%9 5ES_1_L%C3%9ANULAS_FRAGMENTA%C3%87%C3%83O_E_ONTOLO GIA_DOS_ARTEFACTOS

Is portuguese! ;)

Jean M
09-07-2017, 04:43 PM
I think the presence of lunula type ornaments in the early beaker phase at Sion points to an origin in SW Europe where they were worn like a lunula rather than upside down as with boar tusk pendants in Central Europe. This paper seems to be supporting an Iberian origin in the pre-beaker chalcolothic but I am not sure as it's in Spanish!

Yes that is the paper I keep referring to: António Carlos Valera 2010. There is a copy in my digital library.

As Ravai says, it is in Portuguese, but there is an English abstract at the end. António Carlos Valera is the chap who has done a lot of work on Perdigőes and has a blog in English: http://portugueseenclosures.blogspot.co.uk/

Jean M
09-07-2017, 05:10 PM
However, I think the period of friendly contact (even if genetic impact of the Iberians was v small and confined to the interface area around the upper Rhine/upper Rhone ) did mean transfer of some Iberian culture into the P312 Central Europeans. I personally suspect this was largely in the female sphere and limited to pottery, clothing and taste in female personal ornaments.

I think our views are nearly meeting, but not quite. It is not just the appearance of gold lunulae in Denmark that don't look Irish, but the appearance of a gold sun-disk in BB Csepel, and the whole sun-symbolism thing in the Nordic Bronze Age. I was happy enough at one point to follow Fitzpatrick in seeing the gold lunulae and sun-disk sets as an Atlantic phenomenon that travelled north from Portugal to Ireland. (See slide below). But I have a feeling that we need to visualise a route to Central Europe as well - right to the Danube. What I need is a map of their distribution. But dating is a problem in a lot of cases.

18603

alan
09-07-2017, 08:45 PM
Is portuguese! ;)

It's all Greek to me ;0)

alan
09-07-2017, 09:04 PM
I think our views are nearly meeting, but not quite. It is not just the appearance of gold lunulae in Denmark that don't look Irish, but the appearance of a gold sun-disk in BB Csepel, and the whole sun-symbolism thing in the Nordic Bronze Age. I was happy enough at one point to follow Fitzpatrick in seeing the gold lunulae and sun-disk sets as an Atlantic phenomenon that travelled north from Portugal to Ireland. (See slide below). But I have a feeling that we need to visualise a route to Central Europe as well - right to my the Danube. What I need is a map of their distribution. But dating is a problem in a lot of cases.

18603
I am pretty sure. I have seen a map of European distribution of gold lunulae in an Irish archaeology journal. I wish I could recall a lot which! From memory it I think there were a coupe in Northern France and Germany and one in Denmark. I don't recall Iberia having any. But this was gold or metal ones and didn't include lunula type composite necklaces some of whiich are very obviously the same thing but using beads and plates.
H
Edit - here it is https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Catherine_Frieman/publication/268448875/figure/fig5/AS:[email protected]/Figure-14-6-Distribution-of-gold-lunula-with-known-find-locations.png

Jean M
09-07-2017, 09:23 PM
I am pretty sure. I have seen a map of European distribution of gold lunulae in an Irish archaeology journal. I wish I could recall a lot which! From memory it I think there were a coupe in Northern France and Germany and one in Denmark. I don't recall Iberia having any. But this was gold or metal ones and didn't include lunula type composite necklaces some of whiich are very obviously the same thing but using beads and plates. Edit - here it is

Thank you! That's a good start, though obviously not the lot.

I can't agree that the composite necklaces are the same thing, for the reasons I gave in a post above. The composite necklaces are the same shape as a lunula when laid out in a museum case, but on a person they are flexible, so fitting around the neck. The gold lunulae are flat. There is no way of wearing them around the neck. They must have been suspended. Take a look at the Iron Age silver one from Portugal with hooks for suspension that is the last of the images on the topic in this page: http://www.sourcememory.net/veleda/?p=497

alan
09-07-2017, 09:46 PM
Thank you! That's a good start, though obviously not the lot.

I can't agree that the composite necklaces are the same thing, for the reasons I gave in a post above. The composite necklaces are the same shape as a lunula when laid out in a museum case, but on a person they are flexible, so fitting around the neck. The gold lunulae are flat. There is no way of wearing them around the neck. They must have been suspended. Take a look at the Iron Age silver one from Portugal with hooks for suspension that is the last of the images on the topic in this page: http://www.sourcememory.net/veleda/?p=497
It is very hard to see gold lunulae being worn. I wonder if they might have been placed around the necks of humanoid wooden idols of the kinds sometimes found in bogs

alan
09-07-2017, 10:12 PM
It is very hard to see gold lunulae being worn. I wonder if they might have been placed around the necks of humanoid wooden idols of the kinds sometimes found in bogs

Maybe the idol idea is not just speculation. The reference to a wooden idol (lost) in an Irish biog with sheet gold traces on the breast could be the remains of just such a thing http://thetipperaryantiquarian.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/a-bronze-age-wooden-idol-in-bog-of.html?m=1

alan
09-07-2017, 10:53 PM
I think once a sufficient sample of beaker Europe is available I am convinced that, while P312 will dominate yDNA outside Iberia 2550-2200BC, big regional variation in mtDNA and austosomal DNA by geography and chronology wil emerge.

Jean M
09-08-2017, 09:43 AM
Maybe the idol idea is not just speculation. The reference to a wooden idol (lost) in an Irish bog with sheet gold traces on the breast could be the remains of just such a thing http://thetipperaryantiquarian.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/a-bronze-age-wooden-idol-in-bog-of.html?m=1

Oh golly! Wow! I think you may have the answer. It's like fairy gold. No sooner seen by peat cutters than it mysteriously vanishes. ;)

rms2
09-09-2017, 01:30 PM
I understand there is no real Neolithic Iberian pottery vessel that looks like it could have led to the Maritime Bell Beaker. If I understand Jean, the Maritime Bell Beaker was based on Yamnaya pottery-making techniques brought to Iberia from the steppe by pre-BB copper workers.

To me, at least visually, the Dutch Model pottery typology of Corded Ware->
AOC/AOO->Maritime Bell Beaker is pretty convincing (see the illustration below).

18632

Alan seems to give that the nod, as well, but, apparently restrained by the Iberian 14c argument, he says Iberian potters were influenced to come up with early Maritime Bell Beakers by CW pottery either acquired or seen via the Grand Pressigny flint trade. That does have the nifty quality of deriving the Maritime pot from some original that really does look like it without having to argue against those early Iberian 14c dates.

It also seems to me that the beakers made and used by the branch of Yamnaya known as the Budzhak culture look a lot like CW and BB beakers. Budzhak evidently arose in the territory around the NW coast of the Black Sea, the old stomping grounds of the Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba culture, whose burial rites were so like those of Bell Beaker.

So did these Budzhak beakers predate those of CW, or were they simply CW knock-offs, that is, were Budzhak potters simply copying CW originals after having come into contact with CW people? Or did CW potters copy Budzhak pottery?

18633

rms2
09-09-2017, 02:00 PM
Just for your amusement, take a look at these early Bell Beaker beakers next to some Budzhak beakers, the latter apparently without ornament.

18634

Jean M
09-09-2017, 02:20 PM
I understand there is no real Neolithic Iberian pottery vessel that looks like it could have led to the Maritime Bell Beaker. If I understand Jean, the Maritime Bell Beaker was based on Yamnaya pottery-making techniques brought to Iberia from the steppe by pre-BB copper workers.

Not exactly.


Varied inspiration. The use of cord impression for decoration was used by steppe potters long before Yamnaya and in Yamnaya. However the use of bone paste to pick out decoration seems to have arisen along the Danube. So I presume that it was absorbed into Yamnaya potting as Yamnaya moved up the Danube. So we look to the Carpathian Basin for the influences that shaped BB pottery.
Chronology. There is a gap between copper-working and the BB pottery. The copper workers did not arrive in Iberia and immediately make BB pottery, possibly because they were male and were not bringing that technology with them. So I presume that the pottery arrived via trade routes set up between Iberia and the Carpathian Basin.

Jean M
09-09-2017, 02:38 PM
There is a useful article on the BB pottery inlay. It wasn't always made of bone paste.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440314002064
D. Všianskýa et al., Continuity and changes of manufacturing traditions of Bell Beaker and Bronze Age encrusted pottery in the Morava river catchment (Czech Republic), Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 49, September 2014, Pages 414-422

Abstract:


The white inlayed decorations represent a distinctive phenomenon of prehistoric Europe, and are known to have been produced in diverse areas since the Neolithic. This paper reveals how the raw materials were gathered and utilized, as well as the complex technological processes of the inlay decorations, from the period of their widest production and use. A large set of shards of Late Copper Age Bell Beakers and Early Bronze Age vessels from Moravia (Czech Republic) were examined, with a focus on material analyses of the white inlay decorations. Based on x-ray diffraction analyses, five technology groups were defined: kaolin, bone material, carbonates, gypsum plaster, and mixtures of some of those materials. The gypsum plaster inlay represents the oldest evidence of gypsum production and application in Central Europe. The results indicate both regional and chronological aspects in the selection of the raw materials. In contrast to the bone and gypsum, the kaolin inlay was not thermally treated. Based on the physical properties of bones and the crystallinity of bone hydroxylapatite, it can be presumed that the encrusting slurry was prepared out of fired bones. These facts prove a knowledge of the different properties of the individual raw materials; hence, the need for different production chains.

Extract:


In Moravia, these vessels are typically decorated with complex, mainly horizontally organized motifs made by incisions, punctures, and comb impressions, which are sometimes filled with a white inlay, contrasting with the primarily red painted surface. The continuing tradition of using white pottery inlay may be traced to the subsequent Early Bronze Age; including the Únetice culture (ca 2300/2200 to 1650 cal BC) ...
1500 cal BC) e occasionally to later periods.

alan
09-09-2017, 02:44 PM
I understand there is no real Neolithic Iberian pottery vessel that looks like it could have led to the Maritime Bell Beaker. If I understand Jean, the Maritime Bell Beaker was based on Yamnaya pottery-making techniques brought to Iberia from the steppe by pre-BB copper workers.

To me, at least visually, the Dutch Model pottery typology of Corded Ware->
AOC/AOO->Maritime Bell Beaker is pretty convincing (see the illustration below).

18632

Alan seems to give that the nod, as well, but, apparently restrained by the Iberian 14c argument, he says Iberian potters were influenced to come up with early Maritime Bell Beakers by CW pottery either acquired or seen via the Grand Pressigny flint trade. That does have the nifty quality of deriving the Maritime pot from some original that really does look like it without having to argue against those early Iberian 14c dates.

It also seems to me that the beakers made and used by the branch of Yamnaya known as the Budzhak culture look a lot like CW and BB beakers. Budzhak evidently arose in the territory around the NW coast of the Black Sea, the old stomping grounds of the Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba culture, whose burial rites were so like those of Bell Beaker.

So did these Budzhak beakers predate those of CW, or were they simply CW knock-offs, that is, were Budzhak potters simply copying CW originals after having come into contact with CW people? Or did CW potters copy Budzhak pottery?

18633
I think origin can be confusing to work out because a couple of interacting groups who marrying their daughters off to each other over several decades could pitch wives and pottery ideas back and forth between each other

Jean M
09-09-2017, 02:49 PM
To me, at least visually, the Dutch Model pottery typology of Corded Ware-> AOC/AOO->Maritime Bell Beaker is pretty convincing .

But is there any evidence of paste inlay in Corded Ware? I don't know of any. Frankly the idea of BB pottery descending from CW pottery can be dropped on the spoil heap of ideas that did not work out on closer inspection.

alan
09-09-2017, 03:04 PM
Not exactly.


Varied inspiration. The use of cord impression for decoration was used by steppe potters long before Yamnaya and in Yamnaya. However the use of bone paste to pick out decoration seems to have arisen along the Danube. So I presume that it was absorbed into Yamnaya potting as Yamnaya moved up the Danube. So we look to the Carpathian Basin for the influences that shaped BB pottery.
Chronology. There is a gap between copper-working and the BB pottery. The copper workers did not arrive in Iberia and immediately make BB pottery, possibly because they were male and were not bringing that technology with them. So I presume that the pottery arrived via trade routes set up between Iberia and the Carpathian Basin.

That is a heck of a distance to not a involve intermediary cultures At least we have a rough date to work with for the technology arriving in Iberia c 2800-2700BC. North of the Danube that coincides with CW spreading through most of Europe to the eastern borders of France and the Grand Presigny trade route which extended from Holland/NW Germany to the French/Spanish border. South of the Danube you have Yamnaya as far as Hungary. But west of Hungary and south of the Danube you have a myriad of south Alpine and west Med copper age cultures. I just struggle to see a southern route that links the Carpathian basin and Iberia while there is a plausible northern route IMO. Personally I don't see either as linked to P312 spreading west of the Rhine - I think that happened 300 years later

Jean M
09-09-2017, 03:23 PM
That is a heck of a distance to not a involve intermediary cultures .... I just struggle to see a southern route that links the Carpathian basin and Iberia while there is a plausible northern route IMO.

I can't say that I am bothered which exact route was taken by a copper worker from Iberia bringing his Carpathian Basin bride back home to Iberia. Nor would I expect her to be leaving pottery as presents at every stop along the way.

rms2
09-09-2017, 03:27 PM
But is there any evidence of paste inlay in Corded Ware? I don't know of any. Frankly the idea of BB pottery descending from CW pottery can be dropped on the spoil heap of ideas that did not work out on closer inspection.

I don't know whether or not CW used paste inlay. But suppose for a minute CW did not use it. Is it not possible that Bell Beaker beakers evolved from Corded Ware beakers and that using paste inlay was a technique Bell Beaker people added themselves? Perhaps it was something they copied from some non-CW culture.

A prototype does not have to have all the features of the fully developed model.

I'm no expert, but I don't think it's quite time to be throwing the idea that BB pottery was based on CW prototypes on any spoil heaps.

Jean M
09-09-2017, 03:34 PM
.. I don't think it's quite time to be throwing the idea that BB pottery was based on CW prototypes on any spoil heaps.

You may not, but I did years ago. I was quite gratified to find that aDNA supports me. ;)

Finn
09-09-2017, 03:44 PM
You may not, but I did years ago. I was quite gratified to find that aDNA supports me. ;)

Exactly BB pottery is derived from CW prototype can be thrown away, but I guess that some kind of hybridization between those two "cultures" isn't.

See:
http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.nl/2015/11/interesting-corded-ware-grave.html

rms2
09-09-2017, 03:46 PM
A quick search has not yet revealed a source that says whether or not CW people used white paste inlay, but the photo of these CW pots seems to show that they did (photo By Einsamer Schütze (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0), via Wikimedia Commons).

18640

rms2
09-09-2017, 03:49 PM
You may not, but I did years ago. I was quite gratified to find that aDNA supports me. ;)

Whoa, wait a minute! It does?

Where is the R1b-L23 and steppe dna in early Iberian Bell Beaker then?

We have R1b-P312 in Dutch Bell Beaker. Now we need some y-dna from Dutch CW and all the other untested varieties of CW.

Jean M
09-09-2017, 04:01 PM
Whoa, wait a minute! It does?

Of course it does. If BB descended from CW, why is CW R1a and Eastern BB R1b? The argument just gets stronger if some western BB is not R1 at all, but one of the fellow travellers. This has been said before. In fact there is a strong flavour of déjŕ vu about this whole thread. So far there is not the teeniest scrap of evidence of any description, archaeological or genetic, that BB descended from CW. There is plenty of evidence that it evolved from Yamnaya.

rms2
09-09-2017, 04:12 PM
I understand this is not the only possible model and has its own problems, but based on the ancient DNA I've seen so far, this seems like the most likely model (to me)...

1. The use of stelae expands through the lower Danube into the Middle Danube. Some small-scale migrations of M269 and Z2103 men may have occurred, but from that geographic location westward, its spread was due to cultural diffusion. This gives rise to kurgan-like influences in cultures like Baden, Remedello and Fontbouisse. This would also explain the mixed Y-DNA groups and diverse levels of steppe autosomal components in Vucedol and the complete lack of L23 and steppe components in Remedello (and Otzi), the Iberian Copper Age and Early Iberian Bell Beakers.

2. Mostly R1a groups start to move north and north-west from the forest steppe into Globular Amphorae territory to form the Corded Ware A-Horizon. A peripheral Corded Ware group is made up of R-L51 males. Due to some important differences with other Corded Ware groups, the likeliest suspects are the Moravian Corded Ware Culture and/or the Auvernier Corded Ware Culutre and/or the Single Grave Culture in the Low Countries. According to Buchvaldek's 1980 model (arrows are his, color and haplogroups were added by me), Corded Ware had two major expansion points: the major one via the northern route and a minor one through Lower Poland and Moravia. This southern route could have been R-L51 with the northern one almost completely R1a with perhaps R-U106 sprinkled in. Moravian Corded Ware and East Austrian Corded Ware engaged in intensive mutual interaction with the Makó/Kosihy-Čaka group from the Carpathian Basin as is evidenced by the appearance of Nagyrév type jugs, a small amount of cremations, etc. The grave orientation changes from E-W to N-S in areas like Moravia and Lower Poland after the initial Corded Ware horizon ends and phases II-III begin. The importance of archery in Moravia and Lower Poland increases and a lower status sub-group of males in Lower Poland is even buried on their left side.

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Corded_Ware_Spread_Buchvaldek_1980.png

3. The trade of Grand Pressigny flint into the Single Grave Culture in the Low Countries and the Auvernier Corded Ware Group exposes corded decoration techniques to French and Iberian Copper Age groups. This step need not have involved P312 from the SGC side (but could have). The archetype on the receiving end of corded decoration is the Alsacian woman (2832–2476 calBCE), buried in a single grave with a zoned corded-comb stamped beaker and lacking steppe ancestry. She lived just a few miles away from Alsacian Corded Ware territory. The use of white encrustation in pottery is also seen in Fontbouisse and Ferrieres Copper Age cultures of SE France.

4. In NE Iberia, the entry point of any alleged pre-Bell Beaker migration into the rest of Iberia, the only sample from this Early Bell Beaker horizon is I0826 and is dated 2833–2480 calBCE. Not surprisingly, he belonged to I2a2 and lacked steppe ancestry. The only way these men could have expanded out of Iberia and reached the high levels of steppe ancestry found in the Central European and British P312 samples was if they were wholly R-L23 and then mixed with a 100% pure Yamnaya-like population, which are both impossibilities. Some may point out that sample I0257, dated to 2571–2350 calBCE, is also R1b1, but he also lacks steppe ancestry. We know that I0261 from the same Bell Beaker site level was R1b1a (xL23) and more than likely V88. During this time period, Iberia remains solidly in the collective grave tradition. The delayed and more gradual introduction of P312 and steppe ancestry into Iberia could explain the survival of Copper Age languages (Basque, Iberian and Sardinian) into the Roman Period.

5. One of the peripheral Corded Ware groups (Moravian?) comes into contact with non-R1b Bell Beaker cultures. Moravian Corded Ware and Bell Beaker material seems to overlap for a short period of time, perhaps with Corded Ware L51 men adopting the use of the Bell Beaker cup, but overall maintaining primarily Corded Ware customs. From there, the fully formed Bell Beaker package (wrist guards, etc.) starts to expand in all directions. Gallay proposed that Italic arose from the Begleitkeramik group and Celtic from the Rhone-Rhine Group.

Nice post, although I am not sure I agree with the necessity of CW coming into contact with non-R1b Bell Beaker people. That only becomes necessary if one accepts the idea that the bell beaker originated in Iberia. I'm not convinced it did.

But anyway, what if Budzhak is the source of the R1b-L51 in the CW variant that became Bell Beaker? Budzhak beakers were very similar to CW and BB beakers, and Budzhak did originate in the old territory of Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba, whose burial rite was strikingly similar in many respects to that of Bell Beaker.

Here's a version of your map, Rich, with the Budzhak speculation added. I'm not too good at drawing lines in Paint, so the line from Budzhak's homeland on the NW coast of the Black Sea to your L51 balloon doesn't really represent the exact route they probably took. I'm guessing they went north up the Prut valley and then turned west near the headwaters of the Tisza, using the Tisza valley through the Carpathians (a route suggested by MitchellSince1893).

18641

rms2
09-09-2017, 04:29 PM
Of course it does.

Well, we disagree there. Thus far the ancient dna evidence shows discontinuity between early Iberian Bell Beaker and non-Iberian, kurgan Bell Beaker. If Bell Beaker was created in Iberia by pre-BB copper workers from the steppe, there is as yet no sign of it in the ancient dna.



If BB descended from CW, why is CW R1a and Eastern BB R1b?

If that trend continues after much more extensive testing of CW, then it would be evidence that BB did not descend from CW. However, as things now stand, most of the regional variants of CW remain completely untested.

That same sort of argument is employed to deny R1b-L51 a steppe origin, btw. It is frequently pointed out that thus far no R1b-L51 has turned up in Yamnaya.



The argument just gets stronger if some western BB is not R1 at all, but one of the fellow travellers.

Honestly, I don't see how that makes your argument stronger, especially since non-Iberian Bell Beaker carries no Iberian dna. Certainly it should if it is the product of an initial movement out of Iberia.



This has been said before. In fact there is a strong flavour of déjŕ vu about this whole thread. So far there is not the teeniest scrap of evidence of any description, archaeological or genetic, that BB descended from CW. There is plenty of evidence that it evolved from Yamnaya.

The archaeological evidence seems to me to come in the form of the similarities between CW and BB. Another form of archaeological evidence is the CW and Bell Beaker pottery typology.

The genetic evidence that hints at a connection between CW and BB is the fact that Olalde et al found that the best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in non-Iberian Bell Beaker is Globular Amphora + TRB. That points at a route through GAC and TRB territory, i.e., across the North European Plain, which was the Corded Ware route.

If Bell Beaker first spread east from Iberia, then one would think the Neolithic farmer component in non-Iberian Bell Beaker should be Iberian, at least a little.

Jean M
09-09-2017, 04:42 PM
A quick search has not yet revealed a source that says whether or not CW people used white paste inlay, but the photo of these CW pots seems to show that they did (photo By Einsamer Schütze (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0), via Wikimedia Commons).

Yes, I've seen that and been rather puzzled as to why it is labelled Corded Ware. It is certainly not early CW.

rms2
09-10-2017, 04:05 AM
For fun here's a map of speculation about Budzhak Yamnaya heading into Central Europe via the Tisza valley.

18646

Jean M
09-10-2017, 08:10 AM
Honestly, I don't see how that makes your argument stronger....

You maybe did not pick up the clue about Únětice. It had pottery using the same type of inlay as BB pottery. It had stone wristguards and arrowheads. It had advanced metallurgy. It had lockenringe of Yamnaya/early BB type. To quote Wikipedia (sorry):


The Únětice culture had trade links with the British Wessex culture. Unetice metalsmiths mainly used pure copper; alloys of copper with arsenic, antimony and tin to produce bronze became common only in the succeeding periods. The cemetery of Singen is an exception, it contained some daggers with a high tin-content (up to 9%). They may have been produced in Brittany, where a few rich graves have been found in this period. Cornish tin was widely traded as well. A gold lunula of Irish design has been found as far south as Butzbach in Hessen (Germany). Amber was traded as well, but small fossil deposits may have been used as well as Baltic amber.


Ancient DNA samples from Únětice so far have turned up no R1b, let alone R1a. So far we have I2, I2c and I2a2b.

rms2
09-10-2017, 02:14 PM
You maybe did not pick up the clue about Únětice. It had pottery using the same type of inlay as BB pottery. It had stone wristguards and arrowheads. It had advanced metallurgy. It had lockenringe of Yamnaya/early BB type. To quote Wikipedia (sorry):



Ancient DNA samples from Únětice so far have turned up no R1b, let alone R1a. So far we have I2, I2c and I2a2b.

But Únětice came after Bell Beaker, not before it. Its potters could have easily learned the white inlay technique from BB pottery and acquired all the rest from BB, as well. Únětice has little or no bearing on the origin of Bell Beaker.

Jean M
09-10-2017, 03:08 PM
But Únětice came after Bell Beaker, not before it. Its potters could have easily learned the white inlay technique from BB pottery and acquired all the rest from BB, as well. Únětice has little or no bearing on the origin of Bell Beaker.

What I am saying is that Únětice appears to be derived from Bell Beaker and its people traded with Bell Beaker people. I find particularly interesting the lunula, since some relationship between lunulae and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebra_sky_disk has been suggested.

So we have this BB offshoot that so far is not R1b dominant. Of course it might turn out to be eventually, when more indivuals are sampled. But we can at least say it provides a clue to one or more I2 haplogroups travelling with R1b-P312 (or in some BB bands). You may recall I argued for this in AJ. I think it likely that I-FGC20479 arrived in Britain with Bell Beaker, but we don't have a sample yet. Hans De Beule noted some time ago that the present-day distributions of I2a2b and R1b-L21 both flow along the Rhine and into the British Isles, and so probably reflect the movements of the Celts. Now we have I2a2b in Únětice.

rms2
09-10-2017, 03:59 PM
What I am saying is that Únětice appears to be derived from Bell Beaker and its people traded with Bell Beaker people. I find particularly interesting the lunula, since some relationship between lunulae and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebra_sky_disk has been suggested.

So we have this BB offshoot that so far is not R1b dominant. Of course it might turn out to be eventually, when more indivuals are sampled. But we can at least say it provides a clue to one or more I2 haplogroups travelling with R1b-P312 (or in some BB bands). You may recall I argued for this in AJ. I think it likely that I-FGC20479 arrived in Britain with Bell Beaker, but we don't have a sample yet. Hans De Beule noted some time ago that the present-day distributions of I2a2b and R1b-L21 both flow along the Rhine and into the British Isles, and so probably reflect the movements of the Celts. Now we have I2a2b in Únětice.

Okay, but honestly I don't think that says much about the origin of Bell Beaker. It speaks more to the origin of Únětice. Naturally after several centuries of Bell Beaker we should expect to see it acquiring recruits from other y haplogroups besides R1b-L23. We already see that in the Olalde et al results, with non-R1b non-Iberian BB men who had very low or no steppe dna, with one exception, I2786, an I2a2a-M223 from Csepel Island, who had plenty of steppe dna.

If Bell Beaker evolved from one of the regional CW variants or a single CW tribe that was R1b-P312, what happened afterwards wouldn't change any of that.

Of course, I don't want to sound like I am dogmatically asserting that Bell Beaker evolved from Corded Ware. I think it might have, but I also almost voted for the Gimbutas Model because I find it compelling.

One thing is for sure: we really need a Big Steppe Behemoth paper that includes hundreds if not thousands of samples from the kurgans on the Pontic steppe, in the Carpathian basin, the Tisza River valley, and (if possible) from all of the regional Corded Ware variants.

I was hoping Leo Klejn's discussion with the geneticists would inspire them to try to find the source of R1b-L51.

alexfritz
09-10-2017, 04:52 PM
Okay, but honestly I don't think that says much about the origin of Bell Beaker. It speaks more to the origin of Únětice. Naturally after several centuries of Bell Beaker we should expect to see it acquiring recruits from other y haplogroups besides R1b-L23. We already see that in the Olalde et al results, with non-R1b non-Iberian BB men who had very low or no steppe dna, with one exception, I2786, an I2a2a-M223 from Csepel Island, who had plenty of steppe dna.

If Bell Beaker evolved from one of the regional CW variants or a single CW tribe that was R1b-P312, what happened afterwards wouldn't change any of that.

Of course, I don't want to sound like I am dogmatically asserting that Bell Beaker evolved from Corded Ware. I think it might have, but I also almost voted for the Gimbutas Model because I find it compelling.

One thing is for sure: we really need a Big Steppe Behemoth paper that includes hundreds if not thousands of samples from the kurgans on the Pontic steppe, in the Carpathian basin, the Tisza River valley, and (if possible) from all of the regional Corded Ware variants.

I was hoping Leo Klejn's discussion with the geneticists would inspire them to try to find the source of R1b-L51.

i think that is a great example for how steppe-related ancestry is selective in other lineages than M417 or L23 for the contemporary BB_Spain_Arr1 I0460 is also I2a2a yet has no steppe-related ancestry; and with Szi2 I2786 being an early example of the later in-situ unetice and bronze-age type when the R1 lineages thin out;

rms2
09-15-2017, 11:53 AM
You know, I voted for the Dutch Model, not because I accept all parts of it as advanced by its proponents, but because I thought it was the one model presented in this poll that is closest to the truth, i.e., that Bell Beaker began as simply a local variety of Corded Ware, maybe in the southern Poland/northern Moravia area.

But I still find the Gimbutas Model pretty compelling and kind of waver between the two of them. Either could turn out to be right. I would be surprised if any of the others does.

Jean's model, if right, would also be a vindication of Gimbutas, since it ultimately derives Bell Beaker from Yamnaya.

kinman
09-15-2017, 01:41 PM
I agree that this path is more likely than going up the Danube from its mouth. However, it think it would be a better map if showed another (perhaps more likely?) path north of Slovakia and then south to the Bratislava-Vienna area.

The only way I would prefer the Tisza Valley path is if U106 is found in ancient DNA in Hungary, and that seems even less likely than finding P312 in that area. I still think the only R1b in ancient Hungary will probably be a bunch of Z2103.


For fun here's a map of speculation about Budzhak Yamnaya heading into Central Europe via the Tisza valley.

18646

rms2
09-15-2017, 05:26 PM
I agree that this path is more likely than going up the Danube from its mouth. However, it think it would be a better map if showed another (perhaps more likely?) path north of Slovakia and then south to the Bratislava-Vienna area.

The only way I would prefer the Tisza Valley path is if U106 is found in ancient DNA in Hungary, and that seems even less likely than finding P312 in that area. I still think the only R1b in ancient Hungary will probably be a bunch of Z2103.

You might be right, but if so, I wonder why Z2103 seems not to have expanded west from there. Z2103 is pretty scarce in central and western Europe.

kinman
09-16-2017, 01:51 AM
That's a good question. Some of them did go west, but they mostly stayed south of the Alps. And their biggest expansion was southeast into Turkey and beyond. It's almost like they didn't like colder climates. Maybe it had something to do with their particular brand of pastoralism.


You might be right, but if so, I wonder why Z2103 seems not to have expanded west from there. Z2103 is pretty scarce in central and western Europe.

rms2
09-16-2017, 02:34 AM
That's a good question. Some of them did go west, but they mostly stayed south of the Alps. And their biggest expansion was southeast into Turkey and beyond. It's almost like they didn't like colder climates. Maybe it had something to do with their particular brand of pastoralism.

Or there weren't that many of them there and it was mostly R1b-L51 in western Yamnaya. We'll find out if they ever test enough of the remains in those kurgans.

rms2
09-17-2017, 08:40 PM
I was just looking at the following from page 361 of David Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language, and it raised a question in my mind:



The largest number of Yamnaya migrants ended up in eastern
Hungary . . . This was a major, sustained population movement, and, like all such movements, it must have been preceded by scouts who collected information while on some other kind of business, possibly horse trading.


This question occurred to me before, but I don't think I have ever mentioned it. Pardon me if it has already been asked and answered before.

Here it is: With so many Yamnaya settlers in eastern Hungary, why is it the Hungarian BA samples have less Yamnaya and more EEF than either Bell Beaker or Corded Ware?

Did the descendants of those Yamnaya settlers move off to the northwest after becoming BB people? Or were the Yamnaya settlers in Hungary already shifted to the EEF side from centuries of living in the western steppe, where they mixed with CT and other Neolithic farmers?

kinman
09-20-2017, 12:06 PM
I don't know where David Anthony got the idea that the largest number of Yamnaya migrants ended up in eastern Hungary. What does he base that on? If he is wrong, that would answer your question.
------------------------------------------------------


I was just looking at the following from page 361 of David Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language, and it raised a question in my mind:

This question occurred to me before, but I don't think I have ever mentioned it. Pardon me if it has already been asked and answered before.

Here it is: With so many Yamnaya settlers in eastern Hungary, why is it the Hungarian BA samples have less Yamnaya and more EEF than either Bell Beaker or Corded Ware?

Did the descendants of those Yamnaya settlers move off to the northwest after becoming BB people? Or were the Yamnaya settlers in Hungary already shifted to the EEF side from centuries of living in the western steppe, where they mixed with CT and other Neolithic farmers?

rms2
09-20-2017, 05:20 PM
I don't know where David Anthony got the idea that the largest number of Yamnaya migrants ended up in eastern Hungary. What does he base that on? If he is wrong, that would answer your question.
------------------------------------------------------

I'm pretty sure he based it on the fact that there are so many Yamnaya kurgans there. That makes sense.

TigerMW
09-20-2017, 05:27 PM
I'm pretty sure he based it on the fact that there are so many Yamnaya kurgans there. That makes sense.
Does anyone know the range and variance of the RC dating of the Kurgans in eastern Hungary? Perhaps what looked like a massive "folk movement" involved more than one wave of Kurgan building Yamnaya. If so, that might make differences in Y haplogroups more likely. One wave might have been dominated by Z2103, another by something else, like L51.

rms2
09-20-2017, 05:29 PM
Does anyone know the range and variance of the RC dating of the Kurgans in eastern Hungary? Perhaps what looked like a massive "folk movement" involved more than one wave of Kurgan building Yamnaya. If so, that might make differences in Y haplogroups more likely.

There are some there from earlier waves, but there are also many dated to Wave 3, which was Yamnaya.

kinman
09-21-2017, 12:07 AM
One could perhaps instead say that there are many "surviving" kurgans there. Perhaps there were as many (or even more) kurgans in other areas that simply haven't survived.



I'm pretty sure he based it on the fact that there are so many Yamnaya kurgans there. That makes sense.

Gravetto-Danubian
09-21-2017, 11:31 AM
There is a must read recent article about BB & CWC interactions in the important Rhine area
I have no time to summarise, but Jean posted it for me into the Vault
Perhaps someone couuld take a look at it- Its not long but it´s ´dense´, so it would need some effort & understanding


``interrelations between corded ware and bell beaker phenomena? material cultures and identities in the 3rd millennium bc``

rms2
09-21-2017, 11:35 AM
One could perhaps instead say that there are many "surviving" kurgans there. Perhaps there were as many (or even more) kurgans in other areas that simply haven't survived.

Maybe, but using that same sort of reasoning, one could guess there were also some in Hungary that have not survived and the thousands that have represent an even more extensive number that once existed. Maybe so many more survived in Hungary because there were that many more there to begin with.

Really, though, one has to go with the kurgans that actually exist and not with hypothetical kurgans for which there is no evidence.

Obviously, Anthony said the largest number of Yamnaya migrants ended up in eastern Hungary because that is what the actual physical evidence indicates.

kinman
09-21-2017, 11:59 AM
That's true. However, it just occurred to me that most of those kurgans in Hungary weren't migrants at all, but rather the descendants of migrants.



Maybe, but using that same sort of reasoning, one could guess there were also some in Hungary that have not survived and the thousands that have represent an even more extensive number that once existed. Maybe so many more survived in Hungary because there were that many more there to begin with.

Really, though, one has to go with the kurgans that actually exist and not with hypothetical kurgans for which there is no evidence.

Obviously, Anthony said the largest number of Yamnaya migrants ended up in eastern Hungary because that is what the actual physical evidence indicates.

rms2
09-21-2017, 12:15 PM
That's true. However, it just occurred to me that most of those kurgans in Hungary weren't migrants at all, but rather the descendants of migrants.

I guess whether those buried in the kurgans were migrants or the descendants of migrants would depend on the dates of the kurgans. Just the same, Yamnaya was not native to Hungary. More kurgans, more migrants and their descendants.

As I recall, Anthony said there was a steady stream of Yamnaya migrants from 3100 - 2800 BC.

rms2
09-22-2017, 02:51 PM
Epoch mentioned here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=289928&viewfull=1#post289928) that the update of Mathieson et al (The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe, 2017 (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135616)) has Tiefbrunn Corded Ware skeleton RISE436 as R1b1:



I just found out that Tiefbrunn Corded Ware sample RISE436's Y-DNA never was published as R1a. Mathieson 2015 had CT, Allentoft 2015 had R1. Mathieson 2017 has R1b1.

R1b1:L1349:22722580T->C; R:CTS7880:17723850C->T


Were there doubts about that one, or is that right?

If RISE436 is R1b1, that is important news.

R.Rocca
09-22-2017, 02:55 PM
Epoch mentioned here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=289928&viewfull=1#post289928) that the update of Mathieson et al (The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe, 2017 (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135616)) has Tiefbrunn Corded Ware skeleton RISE436 as R1b1:



Were there doubts about that one, or is that right?

If RISE436 is R1b1, that is important news.

It's been discussed many times. Both Genetiker and I confirmed that this sample is in fact R1a1a1.

rms2
09-22-2017, 02:56 PM
It's been discussed many times. Both Genetiker and I confirmed that this sample is in fact R1a1a1.

That's what I thought I remembered, but I wasn't sure, and apparently it does appear as R1b1 in the latest update of Mathieson et al.

epoch
09-22-2017, 04:26 PM
It's been discussed many times. Both Genetiker and I confirmed that this sample is in fact R1a1a1.

O, OK. So Mathieson 2017 is a mistake? Have a link to some of that discussion?

epoch
09-22-2017, 04:52 PM
That's what I thought I remembered, but I wasn't sure, and apparently it does appear as R1b1 in the latest update of Mathieson et al.

I try to word it all carefully, because it may simply be a mistake. Remember Ust'Ishim's assignment?

rms2
09-22-2017, 05:26 PM
Evidently RISE1, a Corded Ware skeleton from Oblaczkowo, Poland, is still R1b1-L1345.

Or is that one controversial, as well?

rms2
09-23-2017, 01:03 AM
This post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10564-The-Genomic-History-of-Southeastern-Europe-Mathieson-Reich-et-al&p=289599&viewfull=1#post289599), if right, would tend to support the Gimbutas Model or the Manco Model.

rms2
09-23-2017, 02:11 PM
We were talking a few posts back about Anthony's claim that the largest number of Yamnaya migrants settled in eastern Hungary. On pages 361-365 of his book, The Horse The Wheel and Language, David Anthony describes "The Yamnaya Migration Up the Danube Valley", which is his title for that section of Chapter 14. In it, on page 361, he says the following:


The Yamnaya migrations into the Danube valley were targeted toward at least five specific destinations (see figure 14.1).

Figure 14.1 on page 345 has a nice map that shows the five targets of Yamnaya migrants. Anthony lists them as:

1. Northwest of Varna bay in Bulgaria, with kurgan cemeteries at Plachidol, Madara, "and other nearby places"

2. The Balkan uplands 200 km southwest of Varna bay, with kurgan cemeteries at Kovachevo and Troyanovo

3. 300 km farther up the Danube valley in northwestern Bulgaria, with kurgan cemeteries at Tarnava and Rast

4. Northern Serbia just west of the Iron Gates

5. On the Hungarian plains north of the Körös and east of the Tisza rivers

Here's why he says the largest number of Yamnaya migrants went to eastern Hungary (page 362):



Finally, the fifth and largest group of kurgans appeared in the eastern Hungarian plains north of the Körös and east of the Tisza rivers. The number of kurgans raised in the east Hungarian cluster is unknown, but Ecsedy estimated at least three thousand, spread over about 6000-8000 km2. Archaeologists have mapped forty-five Yamnaya cemeteries, each of which contained five to thirty-five kurgans . . . The east Hungarian Yamnaya population seems to have been the largest that accumulated in any of the five target areas. Some of them wore leather caps, silver temple rings, and dog-canine-tooth necklaces in their graves.


Here's Gimbutas on the three waves of Kurgan infiltration into Old Europe, from The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 352:



The Kurgan tradition became manifest in Old European territories during three waves of infiltration: I at c. 4400-4300 BC, II at c. 3500 BC, and III soon after 3000 BC. This chronology does not represent the evolution of a single group but of a number of various steppe peoples who shared a common tradition, extending over broad temporal and spacial parameters. Kurgan I people were from the Volga steppe; Kurgan II, who were culturally more advanced, developed in the North Pontic area between the Lower Dniester and the Caucasus mountains; Kurgan III people were again from the Volga steppe.

Russian archeologists use the terms "early Yamna" for Kurgan I; "Mikhailovka I" or "Maikop" culture for Kurgan II; and "late Yamna" for Kurgan III.


Mikewww had asked about rc dates for kurgans from the various waves. Here's a photo of a skeleton from a Wave I kurgan from Csongrad-Kettőshalom in eastern Hungary dated to 4400-4200 BC:

18951

Interesting that Gimbutas said that Russian archaeologists call Wave II "Mikhailovka I" or "Maikop". Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba burials were very similar to Bell Beaker and Corded Ware burials, and at Nalchik in what became Maikop territory there was also a similar burial rite.

rms2
09-23-2017, 03:31 PM
If the Gimbutas Model of Bell Beaker origins is right, then we should expect to find some R1b-L51 (rubric for the downstream subclades, as well) in Yamnaya in eastern Hungary, given the proximity of the region north of the Körös and east of the Tisza rivers, where Anthony says the heaviest Yamnaya settlement occurred, to Bell Beaker sites.

We already see an R1b-L2 Bell Beaker man (I2365, 2465-2205 BC) and an R1b-Z2103 Bell Beaker man (I2787, 2458-2202 BC) who were contemporaries buried within a few miles of one another in the vicinity of Budapest.

Here is a map showing the Tisza/Körös Yamnaya settlement region. If Bell Beaker represents "the largest and last [Kurgan] outmigration from east-central Europe into western Europe", as Gimbutas believed (The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 401), then movement west/northwest from the Tisza/Körös zone is what we should expect.

18952

epoch
09-23-2017, 05:44 PM
That's what I thought I remembered, but I wasn't sure, and apparently it does appear as R1b1 in the latest update of Mathieson et al.

Just to make sure: RISE436 has been marked from the earliest draft as R1b1 and it still is. It could very well be a mistake like Ust Ishim was in an earlier version. I emailed Iain Mathieson about it, let's see if he has time to respond.

TigerMW
09-24-2017, 03:10 PM
We were talking a few posts back about Anthony's claim that the largest number of Yamnaya migrants settled in eastern Hungary. On pages 361-365 of his book, The Horse The Wheel and Language, David Anthony describes "The Yamnaya Migration Up the Danube Valley", which is his title for that section of Chapter 14. In it, on page 361, he says the following:



Figure 14.1 on page 345 has a nice map that shows the five targets of Yamnaya migrants. Anthony lists them as:

1. Northwest of Varna bay in Bulgaria, with kurgan cemeteries at Plachidol, Madara, "and other nearby places"

2. The Balkan uplands 200 km southwest of Varna bay, with kurgan cemeteries at Kovachevo and Troyanovo

3. 300 km farther up the Danube valley in northwestern Bulgaria, with kurgan cemeteries at Tarnava and Rast

4. Northern Serbia just west of the Iron Gates

5. On the Hungarian plains north of the Körös and east of the Tisza rivers

Here's why he says the largest number of Yamnaya migrants went to eastern Hungary (page 362):



Here's Gimbutas on the three waves of Kurgan infiltration into Old Europe, from The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 352:



Mikewww had asked about rc dates for kurgans from the various waves. Here's a photo of a skeleton from a Wave I kurgan from Csongrad-Kettőshalom in eastern Hungary dated to 4400-4200 BC:

18951

Interesting that Gimbutas said that Russian archaeologists call Wave II "Mikhailovka I" or "Maikop". Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba burials were very similar to Bell Beaker and Corded Ware burials, and at Nalchik in what became Maikop territory there was also a similar burial rite.
Nice summary, Richard. Which Gimbuytus wave number corresponds to Anthony's wave number five to eastern Hungary? Is Maikop associated with the leather caps, silver rings and dog tooth necklaces?

rms2
09-24-2017, 06:11 PM
Nice summary, Richard. Which Gimbuytus wave number corresponds to Anthony's wave number five to eastern Hungary? Is Maikop associated with the leather caps, silver rings and dog tooth necklaces?

That's not really a separate wave. Those are all destinations of Yamnaya, which was Wave III.

I'll have to check on the leather caps, etc., when it comes to Maikop. I think the connection to Mikhailovka is more interesting, since Mikhailovka covered the NW Black Sea coastal region and buried its dead very much the way BB did (in a stone lined cist/pit covered with a round mound, body crouched on its side, with stone cromlechs and anthropomorphic stelae). At Nalchik burial practices were like that plus they practiced sexual dimorphism, i.e., men were buried lying on one side and women were buried lying on the opposite side.

epoch
09-26-2017, 04:57 PM
Just to make sure: RISE436 has been marked from the earliest draft as R1b1 and it still is. It could very well be a mistake like Ust Ishim was in an earlier version. I emailed Iain Mathieson about it, let's see if he has time to respond.

Iain Mathieson kindly answered that it's based on L1349, but that's a C->T mutation and the sample is not UDG-treated so it could just be damage. He also mentioned it isn't a high coverage sample so it could be a mistake. He didn't respond to R1a suggestions.

So RISE436 is inconclusive, I'd say

rms2
10-07-2017, 01:28 AM
Looks like the Gimbutas Model is still in the lead, despite the opinion of some folks that her ideas are antiquated. Of course, I voted for the Dutch Model, but Gimbutas was my second choice. My vote for the Dutch Model was really for the idea that BB was simply a variety of Corded Ware.

rms2
11-26-2017, 02:45 PM
I hope this is not considered cross posting, but I think it is important to mention the following, since it might be an important piece in the puzzle of Bell Beaker origins that this thread addresses.

Alexfritz pointed out the following quote from the paper, The Stone Age Plague and Its Persistence in Eurasia (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31328-3) (Valtueńa et al, 2016):



The two Late Neolithic Y. pestis genomes from the Baltic in this study were reconstructed from individuals associated with the Corded Ware Complex (Gyvakarai1 and KunilaII) ... the younger Late Neolithic Y. pestis genomes from Southern Germany are genetically derived from the Baltic strains and are found in individuals associated with the Bell Beaker Complex. Previous analyses have shown that Bell Beaker individuals from Germany also carry ‘steppe ancestry’ (Allentoft et al., 2015; Haak et al., 2015).


So, why were German Bell Beaker people carrying Yersinia pestis derived from the Baltic strain carried earlier by Corded Ware?

Evidently not because they married Corded Ware females and caught it from them, since we know from the paper, Genome diversity in the Neolithic Globular Amphorae culture and the spread of Indo-European languages (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1867/20171540) (Tassi et al, 2017), that Bell Beaker drew much of its mtDNA and Neolithic farmer dna from GAC:



To formally test the Steppe migration hypothesis, we selected a subset of the mtDNA data including the nine GAC individuals and 56 samples from five populations (see electronic supplementary material, table S7; the complete dataset is in electronic supplementary material, table S6, and the correspondence median network in electronic supplementary material, figure S11), and we ran some preliminary analyses on it. In the neighbour joining (NJ) tree inferred from the ϕST pairwise distances estimated for this subset, the Early Bronze Age people, represented by the Srubnaya culture, appear connected with the eastern Corded Ware peoples, and also close to the Yamna. The GAC samples are clearly separated from those populations, and show instead a closer relationship with the western, Late Neolithic, Bell Beaker population (electronic supplementary material, figure S12).


Note: I realize the plague is not an inherited trait. I mentioned marriage as a form of contact only.

19984

jdean
11-26-2017, 03:45 PM
However over at Eurogenes Colin Welling made this (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/11/whos-your-proto-daddy-western-europeans.html?commentPage=2&showComment=1511418243408#c8620866185574359880) observation


There was massive explosion of bell beaker people across Hungary, Czech Republic, Germany, and the British Isles in a matter of a few hundred years. This massive population did not develop from a sliver of land at the BB/CW border in just a few hundred years. So the population size of the beakers already says that your scenario makes no sense. Furthermore, the Northern Bell Beakers scattered across Hu, Cz, Ger, and Br/Ire were extremely homogeneous. It takes time for a population to homogenize to the degree that the bell beakers were. What you are suggesting is that two very distinct populations mated for a few generations then produced a highly homogenized population. Again, not feasible. Finally, Even when a MN european man and a CW woman mate, their offspring would only be 3/8 yamanaya, not 4/8 yamnaya. So to make this weird concoction you would need the hybridized offspring (who are 3/8 yamnaya) to wait around in said borderland in order to mix with another full CW woman before any BB offspring have at least 1/2 yamnaya. Again, this is just silly.

Think we'll be batting the 'did BB descend from CW' ball about for quite a while yet : )

Edit: BTW I know this was an argument against BB acquiring their Yamnaya DNA from female CW but presumably it works for BB descending from CW males as well ?

jdean
11-26-2017, 03:55 PM
Please delete

rms2
11-26-2017, 04:06 PM
Colin's argument does work against BB descending from CW males, as well, unless there was a sizable chunk of CW that was L51 and it formed the nucleus of the Bell Beaker population explosion mentioned (very well mentioned) by Colin Welling.

There are a lot - literally thousands - of Yamnaya kurgans in the Carpathian basin, and, as far as I know, not a one of them has yet been cracked open for y-dna testing.

Then there is the Dutch and NW German Corded Ware population that, also as far as I know, remains untested.

Yamnaya, Vucedol and Bell Beaker thus far all have R1b-L23 in common, and, more specifically, all three have R1b-Z2103 in common. As I have said many times before, Z2103 is the brother of L51 under L23. Bell Beaker is loaded with R1b-L51. Hard to believe that is a coincidence, and one (Z2103) came from the steppe with Yamnaya while the other (L51) was Old European, Neolithic farmer or Central European WHG stuff.

MitchellSince1893
11-26-2017, 04:36 PM
As it pertains to Yersinia pestis, that could easily be explained via transmission of trade contacts e.g. amber trade network.

As to massive population growth over a short period we do have recent examples of how fast one man's family can grow. The first King of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud (1875-1953), had 22 wives, and 35 sons who had children themselves, at least 97 Patrilineal grandsons (there are more but this is the number listed on wiki page), and has approximately 1000 grandchildren.

rms2
11-26-2017, 09:33 PM
As it pertains to Yersinia pestis, that could easily be explained via transmission of trade contacts e.g. amber trade network . . .


If that's the case, it should be turning up in GAC, TRB, Cucuteni-Tripolye, etc.

TigerMW
11-27-2017, 04:21 PM
There was massive explosion of bell beaker people across Hungary, Czech Republic, Germany, and the British Isles in a matter of a few hundred years.

As to massive population growth over a short period we do have recent examples of how fast one man's family can grow. The first King of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud (1875-1953), had 22 wives, and 35 sons who had children themselves, at least 97 Patrilineal grandsons (there are more but this is the number listed on wiki page), and has approximately 1000 grandchildren.
We should be cautious about what is meant by population growth. Do we really have evidence of a massive general population growth? Or do we just have a replacement of lineages which brought in cultural changes?

rms2
12-20-2017, 12:59 PM
This was mentioned on another thread, but evidently a new paper is due out soon on the El Argar culture and the ancient sites of La Bastida and La Almoloya.

Here is what I squeezed out of Google Translate from the article El origen genético de la población espańola podría estar en La Bastida y La Almoloya (http://cadenaser.com/emisora/2017/11/17/radio_murcia/1510906585_606724.html):




The genetic origin of the Spanish population could be in La Bastida and La Almoloya

It is the hypothesis handled by researchers at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and that is about to be confirmed by geneticists who analyze the nuclear DNA samples from both sites

The archaeological sites of La Bastida and La Almoloya in Murcia could have the keys to the genetic origin of the entire Spanish population.

It is the working hypothesis handled by the researchers of the Autonomous University of Barcelona and that is about to be confirmed by the geneticists who analyze the nuclear DNA samples from both sites.

In the Almoloya there was, in the framework of the Argar culture, in the Bronze Age, the miscegenation that constitutes the current genetic basis of the entire population of the Iberian Peninsula.

Those men who came from outside came from the south of present-day Russia. The change was not only genetic, everything points, according to archaeological research, that the importance of women in that society of Argar culture, present in what is now Murcia, was much more socially and politically relevant than it was after.


I put the part about the men from outside who came from South Russia in bold for emphasis.

We'll have to wait for the paper to find out, but sounds to me like they found some steppe dna and probably some R1b-L23, maybe even R1b-P312 (maybe even DF27). The article mentions nuclear dna, so it doesn't sound like the usual, dull, mtDNA review:



. . . the working hypothesis handled by the researchers of the Autonomous University of Barcelona and that is about to be confirmed by the geneticists who analyze the nuclear DNA samples from both sites.

Jean M
12-20-2017, 01:48 PM
This was mentioned on another thread, but evidently a new paper is due out soon on the El Argar culture and the ancient sites of La Bastida and La Almoloya. ... Those men who came from outside came from the south of present-day Russia.

Golly! That would be a huge surprise.

razyn
12-20-2017, 02:12 PM
This was mentioned on another thread, but evidently a new paper is due out soon on the El Argar culture and the ancient sites of La Bastida and La Almoloya.
I found a video (of a conference presentation at the National Archaeological Museum) about these sites that runs for about an hour, has a lot of good visual information. I can't follow the accompanying narrative, but I'm sure it's very informative for those who can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij5QNWqXBZk

I captured one of their slides (at 55:28, near the end of the presentation) that shows some of the pertinent terrain features, locale, date, etc.

20510

rms2
12-20-2017, 03:18 PM
Hope we're not disappointed, but it sounds like this could be an impactful paper.

(I also hope it appears in English.)

Romilius
12-20-2017, 05:05 PM
Hope we're not disappointed, but it sounds like this could be an impactful paper.

(I also hope it appears in English.)

We will be disappointed if they turn to be R1b... because El Argar culture wasn't Indoeuropean...

Gravetto-Danubian
12-20-2017, 05:31 PM
We will be disappointed if they turn to be R1b... because El Argar culture wasn't Indoeuropean...

Why 'disappointed' ? Isn't the truth that matters ?
Even if they are M269, it doesn't mean that other M269s weren't I.E.

alexfritz
12-20-2017, 06:07 PM
Why 'disappointed' ? Isn't the truth that matters ?
Even if they are M269, it doesn't mean that other M269s weren't I.E.

just to be on the same page, am i understanding it correctly as to why this is fundamental/monumental? correct me where i am wrong, the new paper is about to highlight el argar as superseded by british bronze agers (rathlin type?) via galicia who are the source of steppe related ancestry and prob P312+ yet that part of iberia (el argar) in roman times and before was attested non IE speaking hence the monumental back deduction to britain and bell beakers linguistically? if that is what the paper reveals (continuity) than that is truly monumental;

Romilius
12-24-2017, 06:10 AM
just to be on the same page, am i understanding it correctly as to why this is fundamental/monumental? correct me where i am wrong, the new paper is about to highlight el argar as superseded by british bronze agers (rathlin type?) via galicia who are the source of steppe related ancestry and prob P312+ yet that part of iberia (el argar) in roman times and before was attested non IE speaking hence the monumental back deduction to britain and bell beakers linguistically? if that is what the paper reveals (continuity) than that is truly monumental;

That's my point. And, if we want to hop on that train, so also Yamna in back deduction wouldn't be IE speaking.

There is another possibility, id est what Martiniano stated in his paper: P312 migration in Iberia was smaller than in the Continent and only male driven, so the language spoken was that of indigenous people.

I can't think about R1b not IE only because it's very difficult to explain all IE world only in terms of R1a.

alexfritz
12-24-2017, 07:32 AM
That's my point. And, if we want to hop on that train, so also Yamna in back deduction wouldn't be IE speaking.

There is another possibility, id est what Martiniano stated in his paper: P312 migration in Iberia was smaller than in the Continent and only male driven, so the language spoken was that of indigenous people.

I can't think about R1b not IE only because it's very difficult to explain all IE world only in terms of R1a.

i dont have a clue i am just trying to figure as to why this paper is supposed to be monumental and what linguistic refs have to do with it all; i guess it will be seen when it is published;

Romilius
12-24-2017, 03:55 PM
Why 'disappointed' ? Isn't the truth that matters ?
Even if they are M269, it doesn't mean that other M269s weren't I.E.

Sure it is the truth that matters... but let's see what we have: R1b linked with Southern Russia Yamna culture and linguistically linked to Vasconic-Iberian. I can deal with it... but how about the mass of R1a-nazi supremacists? To recognize that Yamna supermen weren't IE... and, of course, that that Kurgan idea wasn't exclusively IE but also Vasconic.

Obviously I'm exaggerating... but I suppose we would re-think about haplogroups-language connection and also "fanfictionfeatures-reality"... for example: a probably Vasconic culture, i.e. Bell Beaker, was the first to have osteological proof of horse riding and not a IE culture... I'm very excited in destroying that IE-supermen connection. It's time to be logical and not emotional.

rms2
12-24-2017, 04:06 PM
We will be disappointed if they turn to be R1b... because El Argar culture wasn't Indoeuropean...

How do we know El Argar wasn't Indo-European speaking?

I remember reading that place name evidence indicates that an Indo-European language was spoken in that region before Iberian. It strikes me as a mistake to assume linguistic continuity in SE Iberia from the Bronze Age all the way into the 6th century BC, when the Greeks first mention the Iberians.

rms2
12-24-2017, 04:07 PM
We will be disappointed if they turn to be R1b... because El Argar culture wasn't Indoeuropean...

How do we know El Argar wasn't Indo-European speaking?

I remember reading that place name evidence indicates that an Indo-European language was spoken in that region before Iberian. It strikes me as a mistake to assume linguistic continuity in SE Iberia from the Bronze Age all the way into the 6th century BC, when the Greeks first mention the Iberians.

rms2
12-24-2017, 04:31 PM
Sure it is the truth that matters... but let's see what we have: R1b linked with Southern Russia Yamna culture and linguistically linked to Vasconic-Iberian. I can deal with it... but how about the mass of R1a-nazi supremacists? To recognize that Yamna supermen weren't IE... and, of course, that that Kurgan idea wasn't exclusively IE but also Vasconic.

Obviously I'm exaggerating... but I suppose we would re-think about haplogroups-language connection and also "fanfictionfeatures-reality"... for example: a probably Vasconic culture, i.e. Bell Beaker, was the first to have osteological proof of horse riding and not a IE culture... I'm very excited in destroying that IE-supermen connection. It's time to be logical and not emotional.

I think you are going overboard, way overboard. How could the finding of a few R1b-L23 men with steppe dna at La Bastida and La Almoloya overturn the enormous preponderance of evidence that has already been built up showing the close connection between R1b-L23 and Indo-European? That would be like finding a flea on a St. Bernard and concluding the flea was host to the dog. It is far more likely that such a finding might overturn the idea that El Argar was non-Indo-European.

Romilius
12-24-2017, 05:48 PM
How do we know El Argar wasn't Indo-European speaking?

I remember reading that place name evidence indicates that an Indo-European language was spoken in that region before Iberian. It strikes me as a mistake to assume linguistic continuity in SE Iberia from the Bronze Age all the way into the 6th century BC, when the Greeks first mention the Iberians.

Yes, I agree with you about ancient IE hydronomy, and not only for Iberia, but also for the greatest part of Europe covered by Bell Beaker culture... but mine was a caveat: I bet that if they turned out to be R1b, God knows...

rms2
12-24-2017, 06:47 PM
For some reason, I cannot see anything past post #380.

DMXX
12-30-2017, 06:43 AM
For some reason, I cannot see anything past post #380.

Testing to see if this works...

...Yup, can see this page and the other two bugs are fixed. :) May the conversations continue!

rms2
12-30-2017, 03:52 PM
Yes, I agree with you about ancient IE hydronomy, and not only for Iberia, but also for the greatest part of Europe covered by Bell Beaker culture... but mine was a caveat: I bet that if they turned out to be R1b, God knows...

I'm looking forward to the results, especially now that my curiosity is piqued by the mention of the male outsiders from the Russian steppe. I just hope the paper is in English so I don't have to depend on chunking sections of text into Google Translate and deciphering the weird-sounding results.

Naturally those who don't want R1b to be Indo-European, whatever the cost, will find something to carp about.

Romilius
12-30-2017, 04:42 PM
I'm looking forward to the results, especially now that my curiosity is piqued by the mention of the male outsiders from the Russian steppe. I just hope the paper is in English so I don't have to depend on chunking sections of text into Google Translate and deciphering the weird-sounding results.

Naturally those who don't want R1b to be Indo-European, whatever the cost, will find something to carp about.

Sure... but I feel that we will wait many months before seeing something.

Now I'm only waiting for Olalde's paper publication... I'm really interested in those two R1b from Cerdanyola... hoping they are V88 or V88 equivalent.

jdean
12-30-2017, 04:56 PM
I'm looking forward to the results, especially now that my curiosity is piqued by the mention of the male outsiders from the Russian steppe. I just hope the paper is in English so I don't have to depend on chunking sections of text into Google Translate and deciphering the weird-sounding results.

Naturally those who don't want R1b to be Indo-European, whatever the cost, will find something to carp about.

Oooh, mentioned where ?

rms2
12-30-2017, 05:13 PM
Sure... but I feel that we will wait many months before seeing something.

Now I'm only waiting for Olalde's paper publication... I'm really interested in those two R1b from Cerdanyola... hoping they are V88 or V88 equivalent.

One of them already tested L23-. V88 seems likely.

rms2
12-30-2017, 05:15 PM
Oooh, mentioned where ?

Check out this post (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=326577&viewfull=1#post326577).

jdean
12-30-2017, 07:20 PM
This was mentioned on another thread, but evidently a new paper is due out soon on the El Argar culture and the ancient sites of La Bastida and La Almoloya.

Here is what I squeezed out of Google Translate from the article El origen genético de la población espańola podría estar en La Bastida y La Almoloya (http://cadenaser.com/emisora/2017/11/17/radio_murcia/1510906585_606724.html):



I put the part about the men from outside who came from South Russia in bold for emphasis.

We'll have to wait for the paper to find out, but sounds to me like they found some steppe dna and probably some R1b-L23, maybe even R1b-P312 (maybe even DF27). The article mentions nuclear dna, so it doesn't sound like the usual, dull, mtDNA review:

Just in case anybody else had as much trouble as me in locating La Almoloya : )

37.952738N, 1.507883W

Isidro
12-30-2017, 07:50 PM
This is the latest info I have read on the El Argar subject, it is interesting to assume that the Steppe signature is still absent from the females tested unless she meant strictly the missing MtDNA from the steppes, hence the male only implication.


This is an excerpt of the interview to Cristina Rihuete-Herrada, an anthropologist from the UAB, on December 11, 2017:


- Is it possible that all the Spaniards of the Iberian Peninsula genetically originated ... from Murcia?


-I'm glad you ask me this, because in the last weeks there has been a bit of excess in the dissemination of the results about the genetic analysis we are doing. It has to do with that "steppe" genetic imprint of which I spoke before and which remains to this day in European populations but which, according to our data, did not reach Iberia in Chalcolithic times. The results of nuclear DNA are going to be decisive in this regard, since it may be a later male migration that is impossible to verify in the maternal lineages we are identifying. We did not expect this, and it adds an even greater interest to the El Argar investigation, since for years we have evidence of the prominent role of women in the political organization of that society.


http://www.adelantosdigital.com/web/es-un-exceso-decir-que-todos-los-espanoles-proceden-geneticamente-de-murcia/

alan
12-30-2017, 08:20 PM
As Argaric culture is post-beaker I am not sure the presence of steppe genetics would be a big deal. It’s too late to make a big deal of considering P312 is already known all over Europe before the Argaric period, La Bastida etc. It would be a bit like the finding Of L21 in immediaye post beaker period at Rathlin- interesting but not that important as we know L21 arrived a few centuries earlier with Isles beaker.

rms2
12-30-2017, 08:29 PM
As Argaric culture is post-beaker I am not sure the presence of steppe genetics would be a big deal. It’s too late to make a big deal of considering P312 is already known all over Europe before the Argaric period, La Bastida etc. It would be a bit like the finding Of L21 in immediaye post beaker period at Rathlin- interesting but not that important as we know L21 arrived a few centuries earlier with Isles beaker.

Except that Iberian Bell Beaker is thus far absent steppe dna, except for the female I0462 (Roy 5) buried at Arroyal in Burgos (c. 2465–2211 BC), and absent R1b-L23, as well.

That makes the results from El Argar more significant than they might otherwise be.

Romilius
12-30-2017, 08:42 PM
This is the latest info I have read on the El Argar subject, it is interesting to assume that the Steppe signature is still absent from the females tested unless she meant strictly the missing MtDNA from the steppes, hence the male only implication.


This is an excerpt of the interview to Cristina Rihuete-Herrada, an anthropologist from the UAB, on December 11, 2017:


- Is it possible that all the Spaniards of the Iberian Peninsula genetically originated ... from Murcia?


-I'm glad you ask me this, because in the last weeks there has been a bit of excess in the dissemination of the results about the genetic analysis we are doing. It has to do with that "steppe" genetic imprint of which I spoke before and which remains to this day in European populations but which, according to our data, did not reach Iberia in Chalcolithic times. The results of nuclear DNA are going to be decisive in this regard, since it may be a later male migration that is impossible to verify in the maternal lineages we are identifying. We did not expect this, and it adds an even greater interest to the El Argar investigation, since for years we have evidence of the prominent role of women in the political organization of that society.


http://www.adelantosdigital.com/web/es-un-exceso-decir-que-todos-los-espanoles-proceden-geneticamente-de-murcia/

I read the article at link... but... it seems they haven't got any Y-DNA result and those are only implications... Or, probably, I didn't understand anything.

alan
12-30-2017, 08:46 PM
Except that Iberian Bell Beaker is thus far absent steppe dna, except for the female I0462 (Roy 5) buried at Arroyal in Burgos (c. 2465–2211 BC), and absent R1b-L23, as well.

That makes the results from El Argar more significant than they might otherwise be.
True but those saying P312 in El Argar would change the big picture that steppe gene carrying L11 derived men spread all across Europe c 2500BC-2300BC are delusional.

rms2
12-30-2017, 08:56 PM
True but those saying P312 in El Argar would change the big picture that steppe gene carrying L11 derived men spread all across Europe c 2500BC-2300BC are delusional.

I don't think it will alter the big picture, but it will be another piece in the puzzle, particularly for Iberia. Thus far, no one has found any steppe dna in Iberia prior to that one female at Arroyal in Burgos in about 2465-2211 BC and no P312 prior to those (rather late) Bronze Age Portuguese.

El Argar won't alter the picture at all outside Iberia, but it will shine a little light inside Iberia.

Isidro
12-30-2017, 08:57 PM
That is what I get from it also.
Since steppe DNA is absent from Iberia in the Chalcolithic they are venturing to guess that's when steppe DNA appears in Iberia.

Many big issues still to be solved about Bell Beakers, steppe DNA and R1b and we know they appear on their own and as an ensemble.


I read the article at link... but... it seems they haven't got any Y-DNA result and those are only implications... Or, probably, I didn't understand anything.

rms2
12-30-2017, 09:45 PM
I believe the site at Arroyal in Burgos is Chalcolithic rather than Bronze Age, and at least one of the females buried there, I0462 (Roy 5), had some steppe dna.

That initial article mentioned nuclear dna. I would be surprised if they got no y-dna.

Should be an interesting paper, even if I am forced to labor over it with Google Translate.

Update: Olalde et al also mention steppe dna in a second of the females at Arroyal, I0461 (Roy 4), but she was a little later (2348-2200 BC) in date than I0462 (2465-2211 BC), and had a bit less steppe dna than I0462 did.

alan
12-30-2017, 09:55 PM
I don't think it will alter the big picture, but it will be another piece in the puzzle, particularly for Iberia. Thus far, no one has found any steppe dna in Iberia prior to that one female at Arroyal in Burgos in about 2465-2211 BC and no P312 prior to those (rather late) Bronze Age Portuguese.

El Argar won't alter the picture at all outside Iberia, but it will shine a little light inside Iberia.
I still suspect that P312 did enter some localities of Iberia during the later part of the beaker era but a lot more samples may be needed to pick that up and collective tombs are a nightmare. It strikes me that Argaric peoples
arriving in Iberia bringing a tradition of bastioned forts could have made good use of expert archers already located there or en route. From memory there are beaker type elements like archery equipment, v perforated buttons etc. So they could have been absorbed by the exotic east Med migrants

alan
12-30-2017, 10:12 PM
I believe the site at Arroyal in Burgos is Chalcolithic rather than Bronze Age, and at least one of the females buried there, I0462 (Roy 5), had some steppe dna.

That initial article mentioned nuclear dna. I would be surprised if they got no y-dna.

Should be an interesting paper, even if I am forced to labor over it with Google Translate.

Update: Olalde et also mention steppe dna in a second of the females at Arroyal, I0461 (Roy 4), but she was a little later (2348-2200 BC) in date than I0462 (2465-2211 BC), and had a bit less steppe dna than I0462 did.

Makes sense that there may have been a peaceful long contact phase between Chalcolithic Iberia and steppe genetics carrying peoples to the east. The movement of wives seems a likely scenario when both groups are patrilocal. Probably most likely to be visible in terms of pottery ideas travelling in both directions and perhaps also female ornament fashions too. It would only be when a male intrusion of significant scale happened later that more profound changes in society and burial would be likely. Personally I think the appearance of corded beakers in Iberia by perhaps 2700BC or soon after is an echo of contact and wives moving - perhaps along the Flint route that stretched from north Germany to the French- Spanish border.

parasar
12-30-2017, 10:18 PM
This is the latest info I have read on the El Argar subject, it is interesting to assume that the Steppe signature is still absent from the females tested unless she meant strictly the missing MtDNA from the steppes, hence the male only implication.


This is an excerpt of the interview to Cristina Rihuete-Herrada, an anthropologist from the UAB, on December 11, 2017:


- Is it possible that all the Spaniards of the Iberian Peninsula genetically originated ... from Murcia?


-I'm glad you ask me this, because in the last weeks there has been a bit of excess in the dissemination of the results about the genetic analysis we are doing. It has to do with that "steppe" genetic imprint of which I spoke before and which remains to this day in European populations but which, according to our data, did not reach Iberia in Chalcolithic times. The results of nuclear DNA are going to be decisive in this regard, since it may be a later male migration that is impossible to verify in the maternal lineages we are identifying. We did not expect this, and it adds an even greater interest to the El Argar investigation, since for years we have evidence of the prominent role of women in the political organization of that society.


http://www.adelantosdigital.com/web/es-un-exceso-decir-que-todos-los-espanoles-proceden-geneticamente-de-murcia/

I think she meant mtDNA per the google translate:
"The study analyzed the fingerprint of mitochondrial DNA transmitted by the mother in about 700 ancient and modern individuals from Spain and Portugal, and other samples from Europe ... Apparently, a 'steppe' genetic imprint arrived in Iberia in a preferentially male migration that we did not identify in maternal lineages ... The results of nuclear DNA are going to be decisive in this regard, since it may be a later male migration that is impossible to verify in the maternal lineages we are identifying. We did not expect this, and it adds an even greater interest to the El Argar investigation, since for years we have evidence of the prominent role of women in the political organization of that society."

alan
12-30-2017, 10:26 PM
Argaric civilisation makes you wonder. Could seaborn beaker groups hoping around the west med (clearly implied by distribution) have encountered east Med seaborne groups at some intermediate point along the Med hop like in Sicily and dreamed up a joint venture to take over part of Iberia?

Gravetto-Danubian
12-31-2017, 05:44 AM
Sure it is the truth that matters... but let's see what we have: R1b linked with Southern Russia Yamna culture and linguistically linked to Vasconic-Iberian. I can deal with it... but how about the mass of R1a-nazi supremacists? To recognize that Yamna supermen weren't IE... and, of course, that that Kurgan idea wasn't exclusively IE but also Vasconic.

Obviously I'm exaggerating... but I suppose we would re-think about haplogroups-language connection and also "fanfictionfeatures-reality"... for example: a probably Vasconic culture, i.e. Bell Beaker, was the first to have osteological proof of horse riding and not a IE culture... I'm very excited in destroying that IE-supermen connection. It's time to be logical and not emotional.

What R1a supremacists ? I haven't seen any here. You even called JeanL an R1a supremacist.
You're an odd fellow.

Gravetto-Danubian
12-31-2017, 05:48 AM
just to be on the same page, am i understanding it correctly as to why this is fundamental/monumental? correct me where i am wrong, the new paper is about to highlight el argar as superseded by british bronze agers (rathlin type?) via galicia who are the source of steppe related ancestry and prob P312+ yet that part of iberia (el argar) in roman times and before was attested non IE speaking hence the monumental back deduction to britain and bell beakers linguistically? if that is what the paper reveals (continuity) than that is truly monumental;

Yes there's no point speculating on a press release.
But IIRC south Iberia was non- IE until very late, unless one accepts the supposition that Tartessian is Celtic.
As you know, I have difficulty seeing BB as Italo-Celtic, so it certainly would be another piece of the puzzle to me- esp. as more data comes in form Greece and South Asia which might temper the basic steppe model. I see IE beginning to expand into Western Europe somewhat later (middle Bronze age), so to me the language of BB is an open question.
We shall see ;)

Jean M
12-31-2017, 07:08 AM
But IIRC south Iberia was non- IE until very late, unless one accepts the supposition that Tartessian is Celtic.


The complication here is that the non-IE language of the Iberes (often assumed to be the language of Iberia before the arrival of IE speakers) seems actually to have post-dated an IE language, judging by the layers visible in place-names in the south and the fact that the ancient Greeks c. 6th century BC encountered Ligurians all along the coast of the Mediterranean from NW Italy to Gibraltar and even along the Atlantic coast of west Iberia.

As for the language which Koch likes to call Tartessian, I doubt whether it was actually that of Tartessia. The inscriptions fall almost exclusively in SW Iberia. His idea that it was Celtic is not popular with other linguists either. But there is other evidence of Celtic spoken in Iberia before the development in central Europe of the La Tene culture.

Gravetto-Danubian
12-31-2017, 07:23 AM
The complication here is that the non-IE language of the Iberes (often assumed to be the language of Iberia before the arrival of IE speakers) seems actually to have post-dated an IE language, judging by the layers visible in place-names in the south and the fact that the ancient Greeks c. 6th century BC encountered Ligurians all along the coast of the Mediterranean from NW Italy to Gibraltar and even along the Atlantic coast of west Iberia.



Yes I see, that could well be the case.
And whilst we agree that La Tene is much too late for Celtic, how does Celtic- Ligurian in Atlantic Iberia prove that 'Iberian' arrived later than Celtic ?
To me, it seems Celtic is the latest linguistic stratum of all, even later than earlier IE (Lusitanian), which probably pre-empted its arrival in NW Iberia.

Happy new year

Jean M
12-31-2017, 08:16 AM
And whilst we agree that La Tene is much too late for Celtic, how does Celtic- Ligurian in Atlantic Iberia prove that 'Iberian' arrived later than Celtic ?

Let me be clearer. There is no such language as Celtic-Ligurian. Ligurian is a separate branch of Italo-Celtic family.

20531

Let's leave Celtic out of it for the purposes of discussing the Iberes, who lived in a restricted area of south-east Iberia at the time of the Roman conquest of Iberia. It is clear from place-name evidence that an IE language was once spoken in that zone. This fits the evidence of the Ligurians along that coast in the 6th century BC. However, some of these place-names may be pre-Ligurian, dating to the earliest wave of IE speakers into Iberia, speaking a dialect of PIE.

Gravetto-Danubian
12-31-2017, 09:09 AM
Let me be clearer. There is no such language as Celtic-Ligurian. Ligurian is a separate branch of Italo-Celtic family.

20531

Let's leave Celtic out of it for the purposes of discussing the Iberes, who lived in a restricted area of south-east Iberia at the time of the Roman conquest of Iberia. It is clear from place-name evidence that an IE language was once spoken in that zone. This fits the evidence of the Ligurians along that coast in the 6th century BC. However, some of these place-names may be pre-Ligurian, dating to the earliest wave of IE speakers into Iberia, speaking a dialect of PIE.

Sure, we can treat it as separate, although the exact relation to Celtic depends on which linguist you ask
Which places in Iberia have Ligurian inscriptions ?

Jean M
12-31-2017, 10:14 AM
Which places in Iberia have Ligurian inscriptions ?

Ligurian inscriptions? There are very few anywhere in Europe. That's why linguists have struggled to place it exactly on the tree. However Lusitanian seems to be on that branch; there are some Lusitanian inscriptions. Discussion tends to focus more on place-names, most obviously those in an IE language similar to the Italic branch, retaining the initial 'p' which was lost in Celtic. Most specifically Stephanus of Byzantium records from a lost early source a reference to Ligystine, 'a Ligurian city of the west', close to Tartessos. Presumably this was near the Ligustinus Lacus, the marshes at the mouth of the Guadalquivir.


Sure, we can treat it as separate, although the exact relation to Celtic depends on which linguist you ask.

I would ask those expert in palaeohispanic languages e.g. Blanca Maria Prosper, who is exasperated by the attempt to present Lusitanian as a precursor of Celtic.

rms2
02-24-2018, 11:33 PM
Here is some news I think is relevant for this thread and the various Bell Beaker models. Personally, I think it tends to bolster the Gimbutas Model.

As most of us know, the final edition of the Olalde et al paper, The Beaker Phenomenon and Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe, appeared this past Wednesday. Interestingly, it contained two new R1b-Z2103 samples, bringing the total Z2103 Bell Beaker samples to three. Here they are:

I2787 R1b-Z2103 2458–2202 BC Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) [reported in the pre-print]

I4253 R1b-Z2103 2457–2208 BC Samborzec (Małopolska, Poland)

I7044 R1b-Z2109 2500–2200 BC Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor (Hungary)

Their presence seems to be a signal of eastern Yamnaya. I think the R1b-L51 in Bell Beaker is the signal of western Yamnaya. Evidently the two R1b-L23 brother clades, L51 and Z2103, were thoroughly mixed in Bell Beaker, but Z2103 formed a minority, since it was from Yamnaya's eastern province, and Bell Beaker was a phenomenon of central and western Europe.

I think you can see this from the fact that Bell Beaker is overwhelmingly R1b-L51, and from the circumstances of the burials of these Z2103 individuals. I2787 was buried within a few short miles of another Bell Beaker man, I2365, who was R1b-L2. I7044 was buried at the exact same site as Bell Beaker man I7043, who was R1b-L11. I4253 was buried at the same site as an R1b-L151 Bell Beaker man, I4252.

rms2
02-25-2018, 01:43 AM
I hope I don't get busted for cross posting, but I tried posting this in the thread in the ancient dna subforum on the Olalde et al paper, and it immediately got swallowed up by several posts that have nothing to do with it. I think it could be pretty important, so I thought I would try bringing it up here.

Evidently the burial site Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor in Hungary had some burials that are regarded as Csepel Bell Beaker and some that are regarded as Proto-Nagyrev. Nagyrev is supposed be the successor culture to Vucedol-Zok.

Here's where things get interesting.

From page 135 of the Supplementary Info:



The assemblages of the settlement and cemetery in Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor prove that the infiltration of the Bell Beaker Complex is a reality at the end of the EBA l/a (end of the Makó phase), and it must have preceded the development of the Nagyrév culture in the area nearby Budapest. People of the Bell Beaker Complex merged into the local inhabitants gradually. This integrating process already began in the EBA II/a – this period is contemporary with the early phase of the Nagyrév culture, with Somogyvár-Vinkovci II, Cłopice-Veselé, Nyírség and ÓbébaPitvaros cultures.

The observations made at Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor, namely the buried vessel depot of eight intact vessels from the Feature 779, the graves containing bodies in an unusual position forming a distinct cluster at the edge of the cemetery, separate from the Bell Beaker–Csepel burial ground, the grave pottery deposited with the mouth downward suggest that the individuals belonging to proto- (early) Nagyrév community were presumably treated as “enemies”. Wedged into the heartland of the proto-Nagyrév culture, the Bell Beaker-Csepel communities controlled the strategic areas on the Danube and on the eastern fringes of the Beaker distribution.


I7041 (reported as R1b-M269) and I7043 (R1b-L11) are described as brothers, so in reality they were both probably R1b-L11 unless they had the same mother and different fathers (and thus were only half brothers). Both belonged to mtDNA haplogroup H1b1, so they probably did have the same mother. Apparently they were both buried in the Proto-Nagyrev part of the site.

From page 136:



Grave 12 (I7041/HUNG495t): Round pit (size: 128×130 cm, depth: -79 cm) with light brown homogeneous filling and hard clay wall. On the straight bottom of the pit a N-S oriented male (20-25 years old) individual was unearthed, laid on its left side but in abnormal prone position. The left arm was under the body, whilst the right one was close to the upper part of the body. Both arms were bent back (the right hand was just under the scapula); both hands were in front of the cranium; both legs were bent in knee. Finds/proto-Nagyrév period: a little handled, profiled cup, upside down in depth 63 cm, next to the eastern wall of the pit. Some sherds appeared above the skeleton and could be remains of intentionally broken vessels. This individual is a brother of I7043.

I7041/HUNG495t/Grave 12: 2500–2200 BCE

This is from page 137:



Grave 119 (I7043/HUNG497): Round pit with cylindrical wall (with a slightly concave part on the eastern side) and with curved bottom. On the bottom of the pit (in the centre of it) a ESE-NNW oriented child (12-14 years old; male according to genetic sex) individual in a left sided contracted position was located. The grave was partly disturbed, without grave goods. There was only one piece of EBA sherd found on the ribs. The left arm situated under the chest, but the right arm is missing. The mandible was not in its right anatomical position.

I7043/HUNG497/Grave 119: 2500–2200 BCE


A little confusing, but if those two were indeed part of Proto-Nagyrev rather than Bell Beaker, that would be evidence of R1b-L11 in Nagyrev and, by extension, Vucedol, since Nagyrev is supposed to have succeeded Vucedol. And Proto-Nagyrev would be the transition period from Vucedol-Zok to full-fledged Nagyrev, right?

Weird.

rms2
02-27-2018, 12:42 PM
I'm kind of amazed that no one seems to have noticed that last post. Of course, the position of this thread in the generic P312 category doesn't help. The appearance of R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev strikes me as possibly important. It marks the earliest appearance of L11 in a culture other than Bell Beaker, and Proto-Nagyrev would be the transition stage from Vucedol-Zok to Nagyrev.

rafc
02-27-2018, 03:45 PM
Why do you think that is significant? There clearly was contact between this BB outlier and the Proto-Nagyrev. If they shared a burial site it's not unlikely they had contacts and there was intermarriage.

TigerMW
02-27-2018, 04:57 PM
Why do you think that is significant? There clearly was contact between this BB outlier and the Proto-Nagyrev. If they shared a burial site it's not unlikely they had contacts and there was intermarriage.

I think it is significant as we don't know where the Eastern/Dutch/Baltic Bell Beaker male lineages come from.

It appears very, very unlikely the were associated with the early Bell Beaker folks in Iberia.

The East Bell Beaker male predecessors would not have been Bell Beaker folks in the sense cultures have been named. They may have come up the Danube, been in the Vucedol Culture and then Nagyrev.

They had to come from somewhere and we know their Z2103 and L23* cousins were found in Yamnaya and are currently more common in Eastern/Southeastern Europe and Anatolia and parts of the Near East.

alan
02-27-2018, 05:59 PM
I think it is significant as we don't know where the male Eastern/Dutch/Baltic Bell Beaker males come from.

It appears very, very unlikely the were associated with the early Bell Beaker folks in Iberia.

The East Bell Beaker male predecessors would not have been Bell Beaker folks in the sense cultures have been named. They may have come up the Danube, been in the Vucedol Culture and then Nagyrev.

They had to come from somewhere and we know their Z2103 and L23* cousins were found in Yamnaya and are currently more common in Eastern/Southeastern Europe and Anatolia and parts of the Near East.
Does the latest round of info back the idea of a Steppe group with GAC culture admixture?

rms2
02-27-2018, 06:12 PM
Why do you think that is significant? There clearly was contact between this BB outlier and the Proto-Nagyrev. If they shared a burial site it's not unlikely they had contacts and there was intermarriage.

It's significant because Marija Gimbutas believed that Bell Beaker was an amalgam of Yamnaya + Vucedol. R1b-L11 (of whatever actual terminal SNP) in Proto-Nagyrev is a possible link to Vucedol-Zok, which was the immediate predecessor of Nagyrev. This might be a clue to the pre-Beaker milieu in the Carpathian basin.

According to Gimbutas, Vucedol itself was the product of Kurgan Waves 1 and 2 mixing with Neolithic farmers. Wave 3 was Yamnaya, which mixed with Vucedol (a steppe pastoralist/farmer hybrid) and begat Bell Beaker.

I'm not saying Gimbutas was right, but she might have been.

Of course, like you said, maybe this R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev is just the product of Bell Beaker admixture. But maybe it is a sign of Yamnaya admixture, or maybe it came with steppe pastoralists from Kurgan Wave 1 or Kurgan Wave 2.

rms2
02-28-2018, 12:24 AM
I7043 tested R1b-L11xU106,P312. His brother, I7041, tested R1b-M269. So either I7043 was DF100 or he belonged to some clade of L11 that is either rare today or extinct altogether.

A third Proto-Nagyrev skeleton at that same site, I7042, was I2a1.

I cannot find anything in the Olalde et al Supplementary Info that says what their level of steppe dna was. Maybe someone with access to the raw data and enough computer power can find out.

rms2
02-28-2018, 12:45 PM
Okay. So someone with access to the raw data and sufficient computer power did check out I7041 and I7043: Rich Rocca. Check out his post here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10565-The-Beaker-Phenomenon-And-The-Genomic-Transformation-Of-Northwest-Europe-Olalde&p=356513&viewfull=1#post356513) and quoted below.

So now we apparently have our earliest R1b-L11 in a non-Bell Beaker culture, Proto-Nagyrev, with plenty of steppe dna, and it is a culture from the Carpathian basin that is supposed to be derived from the mix of Vucedol and Yamnaya there.

My own view is that the Corded Ware showing up so strongly in these nMonte runs is acting as an autosomal stand-in for the western Yamnaya from the Carpathian basin that we don't yet have, because no archaeologist I've ever heard of derives Vucedol-Zok>Proto-Nagyrev, or Mako or Somogyvar, etc., from Corded Ware. Instead, the mix there was supposed to be, first, Kurgans from Waves 1 and 2 plus Baden farmers to create Vucedol, then Vucedol plus Yamnaya spinning off the subsequent cultures.

So, did R1b-L11 come in with Yamnaya or from Wave 1 or Wave 2?



I think you are onto something here. Running nMonte, just about every combination of reference populations I used picked Vucedol as the primary component for both Proto-Nagyrev skeletons. Surprisingly, they did not take a liking to Bell Beaker:

Hungary_BA:I7041
[1] "distance%=2.1004"

Vucedol,42.4
Balkans_ChL,25.2
CWC_Germany,14.6
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,12.3
Baden_LCA,5.5
Beaker_Central_Europe,0

Hungary_BA:I7043
[1] "distance%=2.2141"

Vucedol,29.9
Baden_LCA,26.3
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,17.2
CWC_Germany,15.4
Balkans_ChL,9
Beaker_Central_Europe,2.2

I even tried replacing the Central Bell Beakers with Hungarian R1b-L2+ Bell Beaker sample I2365 and still pretty much the same result:

Vucedol,42.4
Balkans_ChL,25.2
CWC_Germany,14.6
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,12.3
Baden_LCA,5.5
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2365,0

Hungary_BA:I7043
[1] "distance%=2.2099"

Vucedol,31.5
Baden_LCA,22.7
CWC_Germany,15.7
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,15
Balkans_ChL,10
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2365,5.1

Lastly I tried removing Corded Ware just in case Bell Beaker ancestry was getting lumped into it:

Hungary_BA:I7041
[1] "distance%=2.1279"

Vucedol,43
Baden_LCA,24
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,23.4
Balkans_ChL,9.6
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2365,0

Hungary_BA:I7043
[1] "distance%=2.2358"

Baden_LCA,36.6
Vucedol,29.8
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,25.3
Beaker_Central_Europe:I2365,8.3
Balkans_ChL,0

rms2
02-28-2018, 02:33 PM
This discovery of R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev strikes me as a big deal. It's not as big a deal as finding R1b-L11 or R1b-L51 in Yamnaya or even in Vucedol, say, before 2600 BC, but it's still a big deal because it's in a steppe-derived culture other than Bell Beaker in the Carpathian basin mixing bowl. This could be a big clue when it comes to the pre-Beaker culture.

I've posted this map of the Carpathian basin in the third millennium BC before, but it shows the position of Yamnaya and of Zok-Vucedol (aka Vucedol-Zok), the immediate predecessor of Nagyrev. Proto-Nagyrev would be the transition stage between late Vucedol-Zok and Nagyrev.

21827

R.Rocca
02-28-2018, 04:51 PM
Okay. So someone with access to the raw data and sufficient computer power did check out I7041 and I7043: Rich Rocca. Check out his post here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10565-The-Beaker-Phenomenon-And-The-Genomic-Transformation-Of-Northwest-Europe-Olalde&p=356513&viewfull=1#post356513) and quoted below.

So now we apparently have our earliest R1b-L11 in a non-Bell Beaker culture, Proto-Nagyrev, with plenty of steppe dna, and it is a culture from the Carpathian basin that is supposed to be derived from the mix of Vucedol and Yamnaya there.

My own view is that the Corded Ware showing up so strongly in these nMonte runs is acting as an autosomal stand-in for the western Yamnaya from the Carpathian basin that we don't yet have, because no archaeologist I've ever heard of derives Vucedol-Zok>Proto-Nagyrev, or Mako or Somogyvar, etc., from Corded Ware. Instead, the mix there was supposed to be, first, Kurgans from Waves 1 and 2 plus Baden farmers to create Vucedol, then Vucedol plus Yamnaya spinning off the subsequent cultures.

So, did R1b-L11 come in with Yamnaya or from Wave 1 or Wave 2?

I agree that this appears, on the surface, to point to Vucedol as the main vector for how R-L11 got into Kurgan Bell Beaker. However, since Proto-Nagyrev did not enter Csepel space until 2300/2200-2200/2100 BC and is therefore chronologically younger than R-P312 Bell Beaker there, there are still other (albeit less likely) options to explore. Perhaps there were other populations similar to Vucedol in the vicinity that had more Corded Ware-like ancestry. In Transdanubia, between 2600–2500 BC we have Early Mako when Late Vucedol was still much further south. On the eastern bank of the Danube we have Early Mako and on the Great Hungarian Plain we have Yamnaya. Of course the Yamnaya presence east of the Danube goes even further back to 2800 BC. Mako seems to have been the source for the handled pitcher and its diffusion in the Bell Beaker culture. From Piguet 2009:

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Handled_pitcher_map.png

rms2
02-28-2018, 06:18 PM
Vucedol-Zok was the predecessor culture that led to Proto-Nagyrev, and Zok is just the Hungarian name for Vucedol, especially in the southwest, and Mako is the name for Vucedol in the Koros and Maros basins of southeastern Hungary.

So, Proto-Nagyrev was not intrusive in that region. It was simply the next development of Vucedol-Zok in that area. In fact, since this was Proto-Nagyrev, it would have been the transition period between Vucedol-Zok and full-fledged Nagyrev. So, we're not talking about something younger than Bell Beaker, something totally brand new to that region; we're talking about a culture that simply developed out of Vucedol-Zok, which was already there.

Finding R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev is almost like finding it in Vucedol, which I think might happen if we get some more Vucedol samples from that area. If we ever get some Yamnaya samples from the Carpathian basin, this could be a real indication that at least some of them will be R1b-L11.

MitchellSince1893
02-28-2018, 07:08 PM
A better map of the early Nagyrez culture than the one I posted in the Olade thread

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_zN2Ph9yq-0/WR0C_qfrPdI/AAAAAAAAXQc/ffd73mW_e40rRugcIJc8vaY_yyHrU33UgCLcB/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Screen%2BShot%2B2017-05-17%2Bat%2B9.07.22%2BPM.png

R.Rocca
02-28-2018, 07:50 PM
Vucedol-Zok was the predecessor culture that led to Proto-Nagyrev, and Zok is just the Hungarian name for Vucedol, especially in the southwest, and Mako is the name for Vucedol in the Koros and Maros basins of southeastern Hungary.

So, Proto-Nagyrev was not intrusive in that region. It was simply the next development of Vucedol-Zok in that area. In fact, since this was Proto-Nagyrev, it would have been the transition period between Vucedol-Zok and full-fledged Nagyrev. So, we're not talking about something younger than Bell Beaker, something totally brand new to that region; we're talking about a culture that simply developed out of Vucedol-Zok, which was already there.

Finding R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev is almost like finding it in Vucedol, which I think might happen if we get some more Vucedol samples from that area. If we ever get some Yamnaya samples from the Carpathian basin, this could be a real indication that at least some of them will be R1b-L11.

That I know of, Vucedol was never in the area of Csepel which is where these samples are from. The Proto-Nagyrev Culture was intrusive to Csepel around 2300/2200-2200/2100 BC and replaced the thin stretch of Bell Beaker controlled waterways and also the Mako-Kosihy-Caka Culture in the surrounding areas. See: Endrodi (2011) Effects of cultural contacts on the burial rites of the Bell Beaker Csepel Group.

I've always known Mako to be its own culture and not just another name for Vucedol. Mako, Kosihy and Caka on the other hand seem to be regional names for the same culture. Either way, it could be that both Vucedol and Mako-Kosihy-Caka both had L11. We will have to wait and see.

Eterne
02-28-2018, 08:26 PM
rms2 / R Rocca, suggestion that might help/be relevant (as an exercise in "Trying, perhaps too hard, to fit the two brothers using Beaker samples alone):

Looking at these samples and the supplements from the Olalde paper, the samples I2364 (male H), I7044 (male R1b1a1a2a2c1), I7045 (female) are broken out into a subcluster BK_Hungary_HUN. These look to be in a different position on the Eurogenes PCA to the other samples labelled BK_Hungary (HUN2 cluster: I2365, I4178, I3529; HUN2 Outlier I3528; SFU I2741, I2786, I2787), and indeed all other BK populations, and they look very "Southeastern" and much closer to Vucedol (while other Beakers are very different). The position looks like it would make this work better as an "ancestor" for the two brothers than other Beakers.

There's still not a great lot of possibilities for "another side", but two Beaker Bavarian (BK_Germany_BAV) outliers I5017 (female) and I5524 (female) look they could fit.

(Coordinates for on the Eurogenes Global25 for BK_Hungary_HUN:Average,0.1267230607,0.1614691776,0 .0392205497,-0.023579113,0.0577543976,-0.017477148,0.0018017482,0.0051536314,0.0311557979 ,0.0475636249,0.0026523442,0.0032970654,-0.0115459801,0.0014679752,-0.0175079188,-0.0034473294,0.0129949435,-0.0011401974,0.0081703733,-0.0006669866,0.0032026817,0.000783134,-0.0082986797,-0.009760416,0.0003592492)

As a model, this pretty much fairly OK in nMonte for the average of the two brothers: (distance%=2.6841, BK_Germany_BAV-I5524,38.8 BK_Hungary_HUN,35.6 BK_Germany_BAV-I5017,25.6), but still not as good as the models using Croatia_Vucedol.

(Another couple of Bavarian Beakers, E09538 and I3594, at least, are also outliers and may somehow help with models).

rms2
02-28-2018, 09:07 PM
Budapest/Csepel Island was well within the Vucedol cultural zone, and what I quoted from page 135 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Info says that Csepel Bell Beaker was "wedged into the heartland of the Proto-Nagyrev culture".

That makes Proto-Nagyrev sound native and Csepel Bell Beaker sound intrusive.

rms2
02-28-2018, 11:59 PM
Here is some of what Gimbutas had to say, on page 376 of her book, The Civilization of the Goddess, about the names of the Vucedol culture:



In the early third millennium B.C., the Vucedol culture followed the Baden in the northwestern Balkans and the east Alpine area. This culture is named after the Vucedol hill fort at Vukovar on the Danube, northwestern Yugoslavia, excavated by R.R. Schmidt. In Hungary it is called the "Zok culture" with several subgroups: "Zok" proper in southwestern Hungary, "Mako" in the Körös and Maros basins of southeastern Hungary, and "Nyirseg" in northeastern Hungary. In the eastern Alpine area, it is known as "Laibach-Ljubliana culture," after the peat-bog site excavated at Ljubliana in 1878-79 by K. Deschmann.

Here is something interesting from page 1 of Aleksandar Durman's "Radiocarbon Dating of the Vucedol Complex" (RADIOCARBON, VOL 31, No. 3, 1989, P 1003-1009):



The late phase of the Vucedol culture, particularly its Mako type, is closely related to the Bell Beaker culture, from which it is sometimes difficult to distinguish.

Here's a map of the extent of the Vucedol culture I got from this site (https://www.slavorum.org/vucedol-culture-of-eastern-croatia/).

21849

rms2
03-01-2018, 12:36 AM
. . .

Finding R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev is almost like finding it in Vucedol, which I think might happen if we get some more Vucedol samples from that area. If we ever get some Yamnaya samples from the Carpathian basin, this could be a real indication that at least some of them will be R1b-L11.

That is why I think this little-noticed part of Olalde et al is so important: because it could have important implications for understanding the genesis of Bell Beaker and how R1b-L51 (rubric for any of its subclades) got into it. It could also be an indication that if the researchers ever get around to digging up some of the skeletons from the thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in the Carpathian basin and the Tisza River valley, they're likely to find more R1b-L11.

We've known a lot about Kurgan Bell Beaker since the pre-print came out last year. These Proto-Nagyrev samples are brand new with the final edition, and finding an R1b-L11 result among them, to me, is the most important news to come out of it.

R.Rocca
03-01-2018, 02:22 AM
That is why I think this little-noticed part of Olalde et al is so important: because it could have important implications for understanding the genesis of Bell Beaker and how R1b-L51 (rubric for any of its subclades) got into it. It could also be an indication that if the researchers ever get around to digging up some of the skeletons from the thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in the Carpathian basin and the Tisza River valley, they're likely to find more R1b-L11.

We've known a lot about Kurgan Bell Beaker since the pre-print came out last year. These Proto-Nagyrev samples are brand new with the final edition, and finding an R1b-L11 result among them, to me, is the most important news to come out of it.

Nah, all of the L2+ samples in Eastern Bell Beaker is way more important - haha.

All kidding aside, this is pretty cool if ti is what we think it is.

MitchellSince1893
03-01-2018, 05:10 AM
Nah, all of the L2+ samples in Eastern Bell Beaker is way more important - haha.

All kidding aside, this is pretty cool if it is what we think it is.

As the L2+ samples are all Z49- they're really not that important. :D just kidding.

Interesting article on this subject...To put it into a easier to follow chronological context, I added the dates inside the brackets e.g. [2300/2200 BC], to the quote below in accordance to this source http://mobilitas.ri.btk.mta.hu/?media=ujrairni-bronzkor-idorendjet-konferencia-115-eves-reinecke-kronologiarol&lang=en
http://mobilitas.ri.btk.mta.hu/wp-content/uploads/Fischletal2015_Fig1b.jpg

http://mek.oszk.hu/09100/09156/pdf/regeszet1.pdf

Some of the finds (Begleitkeramik) are connected with the Makó-Kosihy-Caka and Somogyvár-Vinkovci Cultures, but there are assemblages showing the process of assimilation to the Nagyrév Culture. The classical period of the Bell-Beaker Culture containing real "beakers" (EBA ll/a) [~2300 BC] comes to an end before the late phase of the Nagyrév Culture [~2050BC]. At the end of the EBA ll/a [~2250BC] and in the EBA ll/b [~2200 BC] the assimilation process of the Bell-Beaker Culture to the Nagyrév Culture becomes stronger and stronger. But there is not any sharp caesura, because the assemblages of the early phase of the Nagyrév Culture [2300/2200 BC] easily found their ways to the Bell-Beaker settlements. The assemblages of Szigetszentmiklós-üdülősor support this idea. The assemblages dated to the EBA ll/b [~2200 BC] in the neighbourhood of Budapest (Budatétény, Csepel-Háros etc.) are related to the early phase of the Nagyrév Culture [~2250BC] and not to the Bell-Beaker Culture. There is very little tipological relationship with the Bell-Beaker Culture. It means that early Nagyrév finds occur in and nearby Budapest too. There is an interaction between the assimilating Bell-Beaker and early Nagyrév Cultures marking the beginning of the period. The process came to an end at the end of the early Nagyrév Culture [~2100 BC]. The assemblages of the settlement and cemetery in Szigetszentmiklós-üdülősor prove that the infiltration of the Bell-Beaker Culture is a reality at the end of the EBA l/a (end of Makó phase) [~2350 BC], and it must have preceded the development of the Nagyrév Culture in the area nearby Budapest. People of the Bell-Beaker Culture merged into the local inhabitants step by step. This integrating process already began in the EBA Il/a [~2250 BC]- this period is contemporary with the early phase of the Nagyrév Culture, with Somogyvár-Vinkovci II, Clopice-Veselé, Nyírség and Óbéba-Pitvaros cultures. In the territory and neighbourhood of Budapest the EBA ll/b is called by us early Nagyrév period, showing some Bell-Beaker reminiscensces. It is contemporary with the Leithaprodersdorf (Leitha or Loretto) group, with the early phase of the Nagyrév Culture, the Mora vian Aunjetitz ll-lll phases and the Clopice-Veselé II Culture. According to its origin and characteristic features the Bell-Beaker Culture, dated to the EBA ll/a, is considered as an original, special cultural unit - not as the part of the Nagyrév Culture.



This I7043/HUNG497 L11 fellow has a date range of 2500–2200 BCE...midpt 2350 BC. The proto-Nagyreve phase started ~2350 BC, so for argument sake let's say that's when he lived. The earliest L11 Bell Beaker man is RISE563 dated to ~2540 BC.

My 5th great grandmother was a native of India, born ~160 years before me. 6 generations later I show basically no Indian ancestry on admixture tools.

So is it reasonable to consider that I7043's paternal line may have originated in Bell Beaker but after several generations of mating with non Bell Beaker females in the Carpathian Basin, I7043 doesn't show much BB ancestry?

I'm not trying to "poo poo" this idea about a possibly new discovery, but before I get excited about it, I would want to consider all the possibilities e.g. his 5th great grandfather was a lone Bell Beaker copper/horse trader who moved down the Danube and settled in a foreign culture e.g. Mako/Vucedol/pre proto Nagyrev etc.

Maybe I have missed other evidence as to why the above scenario is unlikely.

rms2
03-01-2018, 12:18 PM
As the L2+ samples are all Z49- they're really not that important. :D just kidding.

. . .


This I7043/HUNG497 L11 fellow has a date range of 2500–2200 BCE...midpt 2350 BC. The proto-Nagyreve phase started ~2350 BC, so for argument sake let's say that's when he lived. The earliest L11 Bell Beaker man is RISE563 dated to ~2540 BC.

Although it would be better if we had an older R1b-L11 sample from a non-Bell Beaker culture, this is the oldest we have (and the first of this degree of antiquity). What I think matters here is not so much the exact age of the individual sample, but the age of the cultures involved. Proto-Nagyrev did not just spring from the ground around 2350 BC. It evolved from Vucedol, which had already been in Pannonia/the Carpathian basin since about 3000 BC.

That's why the quote from page 135 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Info is somewhat confusing that says that Bell Beaker "must have preceded the development of the Nagyrév Culture in the area nearby Budapest". Although Bell Beaker may have been in the area before the development of Nagyrev, it did not precede Nagyrev's parent culture in the region, Vucedol. Vucedol was there first, well before Bell Beaker, and Nagyrev evolved in situ from Vucedol.



My 5th great grandmother was a native of India, born ~160 years before me. 6 generations later I show basically no Indian ancestry on admixture tools.

So is it reasonable to consider that I7043's paternal line may have originated in Bell Beaker but after several generations of mating with non Bell Beaker females in the Carpathian Basin, I7043 doesn't show much BB ancestry?

I'm not trying to "poo poo" this idea about a possibly new discovery, but before I get excited about it, I would want to consider all the possibilities e.g. his 5th great grandfather was a lone Bell Beaker copper/horse trader who moved down the Danube and settled in a foreign culture e.g. Mako/Vucedol/pre proto Nagyrev etc.

Maybe I have missed other evidence as to why the above scenario is unlikely.

If you missed what it makes unlikely, I certainly missed what makes it likely.

I don't think it is unreasonable to consider that as a possibility, but one must ask if there is really any good reason to think that is the case. Barring a good reason for imagining such a (to me) unlikely scenario, I think we have to take this find at face value, i.e., that it is what it appears to be: an R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev, with plenty of steppe dna and an autosomal profile that fits what we would expect from a man from a culture derived from Vucedol.

Is there any good reason to imagine that I7043 had a "paternal line [that] may have originated in Bell Beaker"? Not that I can see. There is really nothing about him that looks Bell Beakerish. One has to imagine a distant Bell Beaker y-dna ancestor and plenty of time for dilution of his Bell Beaker autosomal dna to arrive at that conclusion, and there really is no justification for it except as a means of explaining this (R1b-L11 outside Bell Beaker) away.

This is not the sledgehammer discovery finding a much older R1b-L11 sample in Vucedol or Yamnaya would be, but I think it's still pretty significant.

MitchellSince1893
03-01-2018, 03:58 PM
If you missed what it makes unlikely, I certainly missed what makes it likely.

I don't think it is unreasonable to consider that as a possibility, but one must ask if there is really any good reason to think that is the case. Barring a good reason for imagining such a (to me) unlikely scenario, I think we have to take this find at face value, i.e., that it is what it appears to be: an R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev, with plenty of steppe dna and an autosomal profile that fits what we would expect from a man from a culture derived from Vucedol.

Is there any good reason to imagine that I7043 had a "paternal line [that] may have originated in Bell Beaker"? Not that I can see. There is really nothing about him that looks Bell Beakerish. One has to imagine a distant Bell Beaker y-dna ancestor and plenty of time for dilution of his Bell Beaker autosomal dna to arrive at that conclusion, and there really is no justification for it except as a means of explaining this (R1b-L11 outside Bell Beaker) away.

This is not the sledgehammer discovery finding a much older R1b-L11 sample in Vucedol or Yamnaya would be, but I think it's still pretty significant.

Just so you understand my thought process. I'm throwing spaghetti/possibilities against the wall to see what sticks. I just haven't worked through this to point to say it's the most likely possibility...so bear with me as I throw these possibilities out there.

I believe the part I put in bold lessens the possibility of I7043's paternal line originating in Bell Beaker and ending up in proto-Nagyrev, because this male line would need to mate with women of a foreign culture with significant steppe ancestry. Forgive me if it's already been mentioned but was there any female Vucedol/proto-Nagyrez samples? If so do we know their steppe ancestry percentage?

If there are Vucedol/proto-Nagrez females samples and they are high in Steppe then a Bell-Beaker origin for I7043 is still reasonable (if unlikely). If the Vucedol/proto-Nagyrez females are low in Steppe ancestry then this would make it less likely I7043 was of Bell Beaker origin. Instead it may indicate he was a recent arrival from the Steppe...possibly from the L11 starting point.

vettor
03-01-2018, 04:53 PM
Here is some of what Gimbutas had to say, on page 376 of her book, The Civilization of the Goddess, about the names of the Vucedol culture:



Here is something interesting from page 1 of Aleksandar Durman's "Radiocarbon Dating of the Vucedol Complex" (RADIOCARBON, VOL 31, No. 3, 1989, P 1003-1009):



Here's a map of the extent of the Vucedol culture I got from this site (https://www.slavorum.org/vucedol-culture-of-eastern-croatia/).

21849

no change that vucedol was proto-illyrian as stated also in many other texts. fits the illyrians of pannonia, istrian and east-austrian lands.

on a side note , the Dorians would also fit into this coastal southern part ( map ) and be Vucedol culture ( my opionion ) ..............the Dorians had to have a navy to conquer crete, rhodes and other greek islands in the late bronze-age

R.Rocca
03-01-2018, 07:45 PM
Although it would be better if we had an older R1b-L11 sample from a non-Bell Beaker culture, this is the oldest we have (and the first of this degree of antiquity). What I think matters here is not so much the exact age of the individual sample, but the age of the cultures involved. Proto-Nagyrev did not just spring from the ground around 2350 BC. It evolved from Vucedol, which had already been in Pannonia/the Carpathian basin since about 3000 BC.

That's why the quote from page 135 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Info is somewhat confusing that says that Bell Beaker "must have preceded the development of the Nagyrév Culture in the area nearby Budapest". Although Bell Beaker may have been in the area before the development of Nagyrev, it did not precede Nagyrev's parent culture in the region, Vucedol. Vucedol was there first, well before Bell Beaker, and Nagyrev evolved in situ from Vucedol.

Like I said previously, Vucedol was never in Csepel. Yes, Nagyrev made its way there, but even if we consider Nagyrev as a Vucedol off-shoot, it wasn't Vucedol. If we start labeling all Vucedol offshoots as Vucedol, then at some point we may have to say that the Vucedol Culture extended all the way to Ireland! :D If we look at detailed maps from detailed studies like I sent previously, it is very clear.

That said, while not unlikely, I do not think the R-L11+ Nagyrev samples were derived from local Bell Beaker men. More than likely they were migrants from further south who broke away from Vucedol. Since, most of Csepel literature promotes the idea of a Moravian origin for Csepel Bell Beaker, it would seem like a meeting point of an earlier branch-off from the south and a later branch-off from the NW.

rms2
03-01-2018, 08:48 PM
Csepel is in Budapest, and Budapest was well within Vucedol territory. And we're talking Proto-Nagyrev, the transition period between Vucedol and Nagyrev.

What I quoted earlier from Olalde et al said that Csepel Bell Beaker was wedged into the heartland of Proto-Nagyrev.

I never said Vucedol and Proto-Nagyrev are one and the same, but Proto-Nagyrev sprang from Vucedol, and Vucedol was in the Csepel area, since Csepel was within Vucedol territory.

Proto-Nagyrev was an immediate and close offshoot of Vucedol. It would be a bit of a stretch to say that of any culture in Ireland.

R.Rocca
03-01-2018, 09:28 PM
Csepel is in Budapest, and Budapest was well within Vucedol territory. And we're talking Proto-Nagyrev, the transition period between Vucedol and Nagyrev.

What I quoted earlier from Olalde et al said that Csepel Bell Beaker was wedged into the heartland of Proto-Nagyrev.

I never said Vucedol and Proto-Nagyrev are one and the same, but Proto-Nagyrev sprang from Vucedol, and Vucedol was in the Csepel area, since Csepel was within Vucedol territory.

Proto-Nagyrev was an immediate and close offshoot of Vucedol. It would be a bit of a stretch to say that of any culture in Ireland.

It wasn't that I know of. Here are maps from Jan Turek who is an expert in the area:

The area in question from 3000-2850 BC

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Vucedol_3000-2850_BC.png

The area in question from 2700-2450 BC

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Vucedol_2700-2450_BC.png

And finally the expansion of Proto-Nagyrev into Mako-Kosihy-Caka territory (2300-2100 BC) from the paper by Endrodi that I mentioned previously:

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/Expansion_of_Proto-Nagyrev_into_MKC.png

alan
03-01-2018, 11:23 PM
Like I said previously, Vucedol was never in Csepel. Yes, Nagyrev made its way there, but even if we consider Nagyrev as a Vucedol off-shoot, it wasn't Vucedol. If we start labeling all Vucedol offshoots as Vucedol, then at some point we may have to say that the Vucedol Culture extended all the way to Ireland! :D If we look at detailed maps from detailed studies like I sent previously, it is very clear.

That said, while not unlikely, I do not think the R-L11+ Nagyrev samples were derived from local Bell Beaker men. More than likely they were migrants from further south who broke away from Vucedol. Since, most of Csepel literature promotes the idea of a Moravian origin for Csepel Bell Beaker, it would seem like a meeting point of an earlier branch-off from the south and a later branch-off from the NW.

Simple fact is it’s not early enough an L11 to safely infer anything. Same problem with the L11 guy in battle axe Sweden. If either had predated beaker then they would have been big news but in both cases they could be stray beaker derived m en. On a positive note I do think we will find pre-Beaker P312 and L11 because the best date estimates indicate healthy branching for several centuries before 2500BC. It’s not like L51xL11 period which looks pretty edge of the survival and I suspect we may never find. I think we will find pre-beaker L11 and P312 and I think it will be discovered to be hiding in the vast CW territory 2800-2500BC. My advice is look for CW burials with rare traits that prefigure beaker like indications of copper smith, horse riding, long distance trade, archery etc

rms2
03-01-2018, 11:43 PM
Turek's maps make it appear that he is limiting Vucedol to its birthplace between the Danube and the Sava in Croatia. Remember, too, what Gimbutas said about the different names by which Vucedol is known in different regions.

I quoted her before, but here she is once again from page 376 of The Civilization of the Goddess:



In the early third millennium B.C., the Vucedol culture followed the Baden in the northwestern Balkans and the east Alpine area. This culture is named after the Vucedol hill fort at Vukovar on the Danube, northwestern Yugoslavia, excavated by R.R. Schmidt. In Hungary it is called the "Zok culture" with several subgroups: "Zok" proper in southwestern Hungary, "Mako" in the Körös and Maros basins of southeastern Hungary, and "Nyirseg" in northeastern Hungary. In the eastern Alpine area, it is known as "Laibach-Ljubliana culture," after the peat-bog site excavated at Ljubliana in 1878-79 by K. Deschmann.


It's tough to find a good map showing the full extent of the Vucedol culture. From what I've read, it extended throughout the Pannonian Plain.

Here are some maps from Gabriella Kulcsar.

21864 21865

I hesitate to post this one again, because I cannot vouch for the source, but here it is anyway.

21866

rms2
03-01-2018, 11:56 PM
It appears that last map is based on the map from Aleksandar Durman's Radiocarbon Dating of the Vucedol Culture Complex (RADIOCARBON, VOL 31, No. 3, 1989, P 1003-1009).

Here is Durman's map from the article itself:

21870

One can see that Budapest is well within the full extent of Vucedol expansion.

rms2
03-02-2018, 12:02 AM
Here is another pair of Kulcsar maps that are relevant to this topic.

21878

rms2
03-02-2018, 12:03 AM
Delete please: duplicate post.

rms2
03-02-2018, 12:11 AM
Simple fact is it’s not early enough an L11 to safely infer anything. Same problem with the L11 guy in battle axe Sweden. If either had predated beaker then they would have been big news but in both cases they could be stray beaker derived m en. On a positive note I do think we will find pre-Beaker P312 and L11 because the best date estimates indicate healthy branching for several centuries before 2500BC. It’s not like L51xL11 period which looks pretty edge of the survival and I suspect we may never find. I think we will find pre-beaker L11 and P312 and I think it will be discovered to be hiding in the vast CW territory 2800-2500BC. My advice is look for CW burials with rare traits that prefigure beaker like indications of copper smith, horse riding, long distance trade, archery etc

I agree in the same sense in which I said earlier that this is not the sledgehammer discovery an earlier Vucedol or Yamnaya R1b-L11 would be. On the other hand, it is our oldest 3rd millennium BC non-Bell Beaker result, and, given all the attendant circumstances, I think it has important implications. It's a clue, a sign, and a pretty decent one, in my opinion.

rms2
03-02-2018, 03:45 PM
That I know of, Vucedol was never in the area of Csepel which is where these samples are from . . .

Actually, after looking into this further, I believe you are right, at least about Csepel itself. Even though Budapest was within the area of eventual Vucedol expansion, apparently there were no Vucedol settlements in Csepel or really close to Csepel. Olalde et al mention the cultural sequence in Csepel on page 134 of the Supplementary Info:



Based on the evidence of the revealed periods (MCA/Ludanice culture, LCA/Kostolac culture, Bell Beaker culture, Celtic Period, Medieval Árpádian Age) it was a large, long-lived place.


Vucedol could not have been very far away, but evidently it wasn't in Csepel.

rms2
03-02-2018, 04:06 PM
. . .

If there are Vucedol/proto-Nagrez females samples and they are high in Steppe then a Bell-Beaker origin for I7043 is still reasonable (if unlikely). If the Vucedol/proto-Nagyrez females are low in Steppe ancestry then this would make it less likely I7043 was of Bell Beaker origin. Instead it may indicate he was a recent arrival from the Steppe...possibly from the L11 starting point.

Here's the list I made of the Proto-Nagyrev skeletons from the Csepel Island burial site at Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor. There is one 11-12 year old female among them, I7040.


I7040 (2500-2200 BC) 11-12 year old female, mtDNA K1a4b
I7041 (2500-2200 BC) brother of I7043, y-dna R1b-M269, mtDNA H1b1
I7042 (2500-2200 BC) y-dna I2a1, mtDNA H
I7043 (2500-2200 BC) brother of I7041, y-dna R1b-L11xU106,P312, mtDNA H1b1


Here are the two BB results from the same site:


I7044 (2500-2200 BC) y-dna R1b-Z2109, mtDNA U5b1d1b
I7045 (2500-2200 BC) 40-50 year old female, mtDNA T2c1d+152

rms2
03-02-2018, 04:35 PM
The cemetery from the northwestern part of Csepel Island (Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő) produced the following BB test results (with no Proto-Nagyrev):


I2741 (2458-2154 BC) y-dna I2a1a1, mtDNA H1+16189
I2786 (2459-2206 BC) y-dna I2a2a, mtDNA I1
I4178 (2500-2200 BC) y-dna R1b-M269, mtDNA J1c1b1a
I2787 (2458-2202 BC) y-dna R1b-Z2103, mtDNA T2b


I2741 above had no appreciable steppe dna. I2786, although non-R1b, had a normal level of steppe dna for a BB man.

rms2
03-02-2018, 04:50 PM
Here is something interesting from the Supplementary Info about the nearby burial site (but not on Csepel Island) at Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja:



The site is situated in northern part of Budapest, on the western bank of the Danube River. Rózsa Kalicz-Schreiber uncovered 154 burials of the cemetery between 1960 and 1983, at Budapest, Békásmegyer–Királyok útja. The cemetery, according to her estimates, had originally contained between 200-300 hundred graves. Inurned burials dominated in the investigated cemetery section covering an area of 7700 m2. The inhumation burials of the Békásmegyer cemetery contained jugs of the southern type rather than the Bell Beakers type. No more than four of the 30 inhumation graves yielded genuine Bell Beakers, while five contained various elements of the Beaker package such as stone wrist-guards, stone arrow-heads and bone buttons with V-shaped perforation. Jugs of the southern, Somogyvár–Vinkovci/proto-Nagyrév type were deposited in 15 inhumation burials; nine inhumation graves did not contain any grave goods. Eighteen of the 28 scattered cremation burials contained genuine Bell Beakers, while three yielded locally made copies or bowls with a stamped rim. New radiocarbon dates were generated for three burials of the Budapest–Békásmegyer cemetery.


I think I mentioned that last year when the pre-print came out, but it's interesting in light of the new Proto-Nagyrev samples.

Here are the three results reported from Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja:


I2364 (2470-2060 BC) female, no grave goods, mtDNA U5a2b
I5015 (2461-2211 BC) female, one jug, mtDNA H1aj
I2365 (2465-2205 BC) male, one bell beaker, one urn, one bowl, and one jug; y-dna R1b-L2, mtDNA V3

Interesting mix of BB and Somogyvár–Vinkovci/proto-Nagyrév grave goods.

jdean
03-02-2018, 05:08 PM
Here is something interesting from the Supplementary Info about the nearby burial site (but not on Csepel Island) at Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja:
.

Any idea what a Southern jug looks like ?

rms2
03-02-2018, 05:26 PM
Any idea what a Southern jug looks like ?

This is from Gabriella Kulcsar, one of the et al in Olalde et al.

21893

rms2
03-02-2018, 05:35 PM
Look at these pedestalled bowls from the steppe and from Vucedol, its offshoots, and Bell Beaker.

21894

21896

rms2
03-02-2018, 06:14 PM
Interesting that on Csepel Island itself, among the actual Bell Beaker people, the only y-dna results obtained downstream of R1b-L23 were both R1b-Z2103 (I7044 and I2787).

The only R1b-L11 result obtained on Csepel Island was from Proto-Nagyrev man I7043.

Of course, not far away, but off Csepel Island, there was a Bell Beaker man (but buried with at least one Somogyvár–Vinkovci/proto-Nagyrév jug), I2365, who was R1b-L2.

I'm not trying to read too much into that. I just thought it might be worth mentioning.

Just grubbing for scraps of information while the answers may lie waiting in the thousands of kurgans in the Carpathian basin and on the Pontic steppe.

glentane
03-02-2018, 06:28 PM
Any idea what a Southern jug looks like ?

There's a kind of wobbly cutoff between the jug/mug categories, defined by the pottery specialists as usual, rather than any real-life function. Basically jug=bigger, mug=smaller, all much of a muchness really.

https://www.academia.edu/2523227/The_Beginnings_of_the_Bronze_Age_in_the_Carpathian _Basin._The_Mak%C3%B3_Kosihy_%C4%8Caka_and_the_Som ogyv%C3%A1r_Vinkovci_cultures_in_Hungary._Varia_Ar chaeologica_Hungarica_23_Budapest_2009

Have a look at p478 (pls. 6,7), and p276-267


A distinction is generally drawn between the one-handled vessels used as liquid containers and for drinking: larger pieces are generally categorised as jugs, while smaller ones as mugs. In her evaluation of the pottery finds from Börzönce, Bondár divided the vessels earlier lumped together as jugs into two different categories: large jugs, with a height of 17.2–19.3 cm and smaller juglets with a height of 12–13.8 cm.
However, the typological system created for the ceramic inventory from Börzönce cannot be consistently applied to all the pottery
finds from the culture’s distribution and thus the following distinction shall be applied here: vessels with a height of 3–12 cm will be described as mugs, while vessels with a height of 12–20 cm as jugs

rms2
03-02-2018, 07:06 PM
It's good that Olalde et al have relieved us of the old paradigm of having to think that somehow Bell Beaker moved in from the West, ultimately from Iberia. Now we are free to look at the evidence and be open to an eastern origin, at least for Kurgan Bell Beaker.

That in part is what makes The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe such a groundbreaking research paper. Its subtitle should be Olalde et al and the Transformation of the Thinking about Bell Beaker.

R.Rocca
03-02-2018, 07:13 PM
Actually, after looking into this further, I believe you are right, at least about Csepel itself. Even though Budapest was within the area of eventual Vucedol expansion, apparently there were no Vucedol settlements in Csepel or really close to Csepel. Olalde et al mention the cultural sequence in Csepel on page 134 of the Supplementary Info:

Vucedol could not have been very far away, but evidently it wasn't in Csepel.

From what I've seen, the maps that include the larger area are the ones that classify Mako etc. as later regional variants of Vucedol. I thought running nMonte on a Mako sample would produce similar results to Nagyrev, but that does not appear to be the case. I get Vuceol at 0% every time, with a strong pull towards the Baltic. Unfortunately it is a somewhat late Mako sample dated to 2190-1980 calBCE (3686±28 BP,OxA-23799).

Hungary_BA:I1502
[1] "distance%=4.5539"

CWC_Baltic,53
Globular_Amphora,47
Baden_LCA,0
Balkans_ChL,0
Vucedol,0
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,0
Beaker_Central_Europe,0

rms2
03-02-2018, 07:24 PM
From what I've seen, the maps that include the larger area are the ones that classify Mako etc. as later regional variants of Vucedol. I thought running nMonte on a Mako sample would produce similar results to Nagyrev, but that does not appear to be the case. I get Vuceol at 0% every time, with a strong pull towards the Baltic. Unfortunately it is a somewhat late Mako sample dated to 2190-1980 calBCE (3686±28 BP,OxA-23799).

Hungary_BA:I1502
[1] "distance%=4.5539"

CWC_Baltic,53
Globular_Amphora,47
Baden_LCA,0
Balkans_ChL,0
Vucedol,0
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,0
Beaker_Central_Europe,0

I wonder whether or not Corded Ware is acting as a stand-in for the Carpathian basin Yamnaya we don't yet have. Of course, Mako did come in contact with Corded Ware itself, as well, so it could be the real deal.

Would you mind running the other two Proto-Nagyrev samples, I7040 and I7042, and seeing how they look?

If you get the chance and don't mind, it would be interesting to see how the BB samples from Csepel Island look: I7044, I7045, I2741, I2786, I4178, and I2787.

The nearby samples from Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja (one of which, I2365, is R1b-L2) would be interesting, as well:

I2364, I2365, and I5015.

I realize that's a lot to ask.

Dewsloth
03-02-2018, 07:51 PM
It's too bad Alberstedt (I0118) was female -- she's supposed to look like an intermediate combo of CW and BB. I wonder who the Y-lines were.

rms2
03-02-2018, 07:56 PM
It's too bad Alberstedt (I0118) was female -- she's supposed to look like an intermediate combo of CW and BB. I wonder who the Y-lines were.

The problem with Corded Ware for us R1b-P312 guys is that thus far Corded Ware is almost completely R1a. I keep waiting for some R1b in Corded Ware, but it seems that every time some new CW samples come along, they're R1a.

Arguments for a CW origin for BB seem only to encourage the crank anti-R1b naysayers and others who want to argue that R1b-L51 is not of steppe origin but acquired its steppe dna from CW females.

jdean
03-02-2018, 08:39 PM
The problem with Corded Ware for us R1b-P312 guys is that thus far Corded Ware is almost completely R1a. I keep waiting for some R1b in Corded Ware, but it seems that every time some new CW samples come along, they're R1a.

Arguments for a CW origin for BB seem only to encourage the crank anti-R1b naysayers and others who want to argue that R1b-L51 is not of steppe origin but acquired its steppe dna from CW females.

According to Jean Manco's site RISE1 is supposed to be R1b, admittedly that's not much to go on or has this been overturned now ?

Edit: Just found a conversation on Molgen where the status below R of this sample was put in doubt and I was listed as one of the sources for this information: )))))

R.Rocca
03-02-2018, 09:37 PM
I wonder whether or not Corded Ware is acting as a stand-in for the Carpathian basin Yamnaya we don't yet have. Of course, Mako did come in contact with Corded Ware itself, as well, so it could be the real deal.

Would you mind running the other two Proto-Nagyrev samples, I7040 and I7042, and seeing how they look?

If you get the chance and don't mind, it would be interesting to see how the BB samples from Csepel Island look: I7044, I7045, I2741, I2786, I4178, and I2787.

The nearby samples from Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja (one of which, I2365, is R1b-L2) would be interesting, as well:

I2364, I2365, and I5015.

I realize that's a lot to ask.

The Csepel BB samples are overwhelmingly not R1b, which is surprising. I took a look at I2365 which, like you said, is R1b-L2. Unlike Proto-Nagyrev which consistently favors Vucedol, I2365 favors Yamnaya-Kalmykia and Copper Age populations to the north and west. Perhaps this is more the Great Hungarian Plain Yamnaya signal?

Beaker_Central_Europe:I2365
[1] "distance%=2.5897"

Yamnaya_Kalmykia,51.1
Globular_Amphora,48.9
Baden_LCA,0
Balkans_ChL,0
Vucedol,0
Czech_MN,0
Remedello_BA,0
CWC_Germany,0

Beaker_Central_Europe:I2365
[1] "distance%=2.5688"

Yamnaya_Kalmykia,43.2
Globular_Amphora,33.7
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1392,11.7
CWC_Germany,11.4
Balkans_ChL,0
Vucedol,0
Remedello_BA,0

Beaker_Central_Europe:I2365
[1] "distance%=2.5179"

Yamnaya_Kalmykia,41.9
Beaker_Southern_France,29.4
Globular_Amphora,27.8
Balaton_Lasinja_CA,0.9
Balkans_ChL,0
Iberia_Southwest_CA,0
Vucedol,0
Remedello_BA,0

Beaker_Central_Europe:I2365
[1] "distance%=2.4163"

Yamnaya_Kalmykia,49
Iberia_Central_CA,32.6
CWC_Germany,8.7
Globular_Amphora,8.6
Balkans_ChL,1.1
Baden_LCA,0
Vucedol,0
Remedello_BA,0

rms2
03-02-2018, 10:04 PM
Nice results on I2365, that R1b-L2 from Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja. I think you're right that he is a sign of Yamnaya input.

I think you meant that the BB samples from Csepel Island were overwhelmingly not R1b-L51: two I2a's, two R1b-Z2103's, and an R1b-M269 who is anybody's guess.

rafc
03-02-2018, 10:14 PM
Looking at the final paper and the samples we have now I'm inclined to accept a CW origin for most of the BB folks. I think the CW that spread out over Northeastern Europe very fast after 2900BC was a mix of R1a, P312 and U106 (and maybe some others), with each 'clan' occupying an area within the larger CW region. This CW would have spread from the fringes or northern neighbours of Yamnaya. I think the current 'dominance' of R1a in CW is due to local sampling bias.

In more or less the same period BB shapes and some aspects developed in Iberia and spread to Southern France, Sardinia and Sicily. From here they influenced the westernmost CW groups with whom they were in contact. They eventually adopted the S shape on their beakers and other aspects, but mixed it with local traditions, leading to the AOO beaker in the Lower Rhine area much like in the Dutch model, only that it was not the source for the others, and no source for migration to Central Europe or Iberia. In Central Europe, the influences from local neolithic societies led to the typical common ware. Through trade links between several regions innovations were shared. There was migration off course, probably from the Lower Rhine area to the British Isles and also between other areas. The current P312 spread is a mix of the original CW settlement patterns, BB era migrations and later events. I know there are problems with such a model, but for the moment it's the only one that makes sense to me.

rms2
03-02-2018, 10:14 PM
According to Jean Manco's site RISE1 is supposed to be R1b, admittedly that's not much to go on or has this been overturned now ?

Edit: Just found a conversation on Molgen where the status below R of this sample was put in doubt and I was listed as one of the sources for this information: )))))

I think that one is actually still pretty firm as maybe our only CW R1b-L1345 thus far. A slim thread to hang onto.

Maybe there was a segment of CW that was R1b-L51, but, personally, I'm starting to doubt it.

rms2
03-02-2018, 10:19 PM
Looking at the final paper and the samples we have now I'm inclined to accept a CW origin for most of the BB folks. I think the CW that spread out over Northeastern Europe very fast after 2900BC was a mix of R1a, P312 and U106 (and maybe some others), with each 'clan' occupying an area within the larger CW region. This CW would have spread from the fringes or northern neighbours of Yamnaya. I think the current 'dominance' of R1a in CW is due to local sampling bias.

In more or less the same period BB shapes and some aspects developed in Iberia and spread to Southern France, Sardinia and Sicily. From here they influenced the westernmost CW groups with whom they were in contact. They eventually adopted the S shape on their beakers and other aspects, but mixed it with local traditions, leading to the AOO beaker in the Lower Rhine area much like in the Dutch model, only that it was not the source for the others, and no source for migration to Central Europe or Iberia. In Central Europe, the influences from local neolithic societies led to the typical common ware. Through trade links between several regions innovations were shared. There was migration off course, probably from the Lower Rhine area to the British Isles and also between other areas. The current P312 spread is a mix of the original CW settlement patterns, BB era migrations and later events. I know there are problems with such a model, bit for the moment it's the only one that makes sense to me.

My thought is that it was Corded Ware pots that influenced Iberian BB pots, perhaps by way of trade encounters in France (the name of that big trading center escapes me just now).

Maybe you're right, but there isn't much hint of R1b in Corded Ware yet. Every time we get new samples, they all seem to be R1a.

And that puts me in mind of the Gimbutas Model, which has Bell Beaker emerge from the Yamnaya/Vucedol mixing bowl in the Carpathian basin. A route north from there could account for the GAC component.

rafc
03-02-2018, 10:39 PM
I think Gimbutas was partially right, as the Eastern Beakers were a mix of Yamnaya through CW and Vucedol (and maybe Mako), but that this doesn't apply to the other BB provinces. So every model is right in their own province. I do think Vucedol would have been influenced first by Steppe cultures, certainly by the Yamnaya Kurgan people that popped up in Eastern Hungary and Northern Serbia around 3000BC, but they seem more like Z2103 branches.

rafc
03-02-2018, 10:41 PM
But it's true we lack CW R1b L151, only thing I can argue is that we didn't find it anywhere else either before 2500BC, and several of the BB tested sites were clearly in CW regions (like the Dutch one, or the Central European and German)

rms2
03-02-2018, 10:43 PM
I think Gimbutas was partially right, as the Eastern Beakers were a mix of Yamnaya through CW and Vucedol (and maybe Mako), but that this doesn't apply to the other BB provinces. So every model is right in their own province. I do think Vucedol would have been influenced first by Steppe cultures, certainly by the Yamnaya Kurgan people that popped up in Eastern Hungary and Northern Serbia around 3000BC, but they seem more like Z2103 branches.

Except we now have an R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev, an offshoot of Vucedol, and this particular Proto-Nagyrev, I7043, and his brother, I7041, have autosomal profiles that look like they had close Vucedol ancestors.

I do think you're right in the sense that there was probably "a whole lot of shakin' going on" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dC0DseCyYE) from Moravia on down to Croatia in the third millennium BC.

rms2
03-02-2018, 10:45 PM
But it's true we lack CW R1b L151, only thing I can argue is that we didn't find it anywhere else either before 2500BC, and several of the BB tested sites were clearly in CW regions (like the Dutch one, or the Central European and German)

We have not yet tested any of the bones in the literally thousands of kurgans in the Carpathian basin or on the Pontic steppe for y-dna.

Many of them predate Yamnaya.

R.Rocca
03-03-2018, 12:31 AM
Nice results on I2365, that R1b-L2 from Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja. I think you're right that he is a sign of Yamnaya input.

I think you meant that the BB samples from Csepel Island were overwhelmingly not R1b-L51: two I2a's, two R1b-Z2103's, and an R1b-M269 who is anybody's guess.

Correct, I meant "not L51".

rafc
03-03-2018, 11:25 AM
Except we now have an R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev, an offshoot of Vucedol, and this particular Proto-Nagyrev, I7043, and his brother, I7041, have autosomal profiles that look like they had close Vucedol ancestors.

I do think you're right in the sense that there was probably "a whole lot of shakin' going on" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dC0DseCyYE) from Moravia on down to Croatia in the third millennium BC.

The guys in the Ponitc steppe can be ancestral to both the later Kurgan guys in the Carpathian bassin and the CW guys. But I agree it would be very interesting to finally ahve data on them.

Let's suppose that the Vucedol model of Gimbutas is correct. In the Carpathian bassins there are thousands of Kurgans, both in the Eastern Hungary and norther Serbia. This is close to the center of the Vucedol site. David Anthony puts the movement of Yamnaya to this region at 3100-2800BC. This is about the same period of the blossoming of the Vucedol culture a bit more westward. Not surprising the Mathieson paper also shows that Vucedol had Steppe admixture. Up to now we see a mix of local, Neolithic groups, and some Z2103. this makes sense since when you look at the tree, you see Mr. L151 is 17 SNP's down of Mr. L23, while Mr. Z2103 is only 10 down. so when the L151 clade still had to expand, the Z2103 was already branching out, providing the guys who would be buried in the Kurgans in the Carpathian bassin.
If we assume that P312 had followed it's far away Z2103 cousins (P312 being 19 SNPs down of Mr. L23) then presumably it was present in Vucedol and successor cultures, mixed in with other groups. Then how they became Bell Beaker and why precisely P312 seems mysterious to me, it's still some distance from Vucedol to the Bell Beaker east group.

Anthony supposes a more or less contemporary migration from Yamnaya northwestward to form Corded ware. He assumes they spoke an ancestor to Baltic, Slavic and Germanic, while the guys going to Hungary spoke an ancestor to Italo-Celtic. I think he was close, but that the CW-language was also ancestral to Italo-Celtic. The carpathian guys were more likely to have brought Paleo-Balkan languages IMO.

rms2
03-03-2018, 02:46 PM
If you're right, R1b-L151 should be showing up in Corded Ware, but thus far it's not, despite the growing number of Corded Ware samples. Before someone jumps to point out that no L51 has shown up in Yamnaya either, I hasten to answer that Yamnaya y-dna results are still few, and thus far we have exactly zero from the Pontic steppe and the Carpathian Basin. Likewise, we have no y-dna results from Mikhailovka, Kemi Oba, Budzhak, Maikop, etc.

I think you are on the wrong track counting SNP's in this case, as well. It isn't the case that those western Yamnaya pioneers who were Z2103 were merely Z2103* with no further downstream SNP'S, so that they can conveniently be shown to have advanced west of the Dniester ahead of L151 or its immediate L51 ancestor.

rms2
03-03-2018, 02:54 PM
Here's another thing. If Yamnaya in the Carpathian Basin was just loaded with Z2103, what happened to it all? Why is Z2103 relatively rare in central and western Europe?

We have some Z2103 in Bell Beaker, but it's a minority. Bell Beaker was evidently overwhelmingly P312. I'm guessing that will be the picture in western Yamnaya kurgans, as well.

rafc
03-03-2018, 04:30 PM
If you're right, R1b-L151 should be showing up in Corded Ware, but thus far it's not, despite the growing number of Corded Ware samples. Before someone jumps to point out that no L51 has shown up in Yamnaya either, I hasten to answer that Yamnaya y-dna results are still few, and thus far we have exactly zero from the Pontic steppe and the Carpathian Basin. Likewise, we have no y-dna results from Mikhailovka, Kemi Oba, Budzhak, Maikop, etc.

I think you are on the wrong track counting SNP's in this case, as well. It isn't the case that those western Yamnaya pioneers who were Z2103 were merely Z2103* with no further downstream SNP'S, so that they can conveniently be shown to have advanced west of the Dniester ahead of L151 or its immediate L51 ancestor.

You're completely right about the lack of L151 in Corded ware. It does turn up over a large part of the area where Corded ware settled, so either it came later (and even if BB originated in Vucedol and spread P312 over Western Europe, what about U106?), or it came with corded ware. As for why then we have only found R1a CW and not L151 I see three possible explanations, none of which I particulary like: 1. bad luck; 2. regional bias, where R1a was situated more easternly than P312 and more southernly(?) than U106. It could be that L151 arrived in a later wave and had to leapfrog R1a to areas that were less suited to Steppe nomads, but more exposed to 'western' influences. 3. Status bias, where an R1a carrying clan was considered the leading dynasty, a bit like the later Merovingians and Carolingians or the recent Saudi's. They get the flashy graves we dig up and test, while the broader population (R1a, L151, ...) gets undersampled.

As for the remark on counting SNPs, I'm not sure I understand your comment.

rafc
03-03-2018, 04:39 PM
Here's another thing. If Yamnaya in the Carpathian Basin was just loaded with Z2103, what happened to it all? Why is Z2103 relatively rare in central and western Europe?

We have some Z2103 in Bell Beaker, but it's a minority. Bell Beaker was evidently overwhelmingly P312. I'm guessing that will be the picture in western Yamnaya kurgans, as well.

I kinda like the recent theory that the Yamnaya Kurgans in the Carpathian bassin were a seasonal event. So in the winter the nomads stayed near the Black sea coasts with their cattle, as weather was milder there, while in spring they moved to the carpathian bassins where there was pleanty of food for the cattle available. When important Yamnaya men died while they where in the Carpathian bassin the nomads build a Kurgan there since that was more convenient than taking the deceased back with them. So the genetic impact would be mostly on local genetic societies, which is what we see. Z2103 did leave it's mark on South-Eastern Europe, but there was never a migration from there to Western Europe. Z2103 in Western Europe today is mostly due to Balkan soldiers being stationed on the Limes in Roman times (I do assume some Z2103 will have found it's way westwards, and some could have been present in CW).

In the end both models have the same problem, if BB comes from Vucedol, why don't we see Z2103 popping up more in western European BB, and if it comes from CW why don't we see more R1a in it?

rms2
03-03-2018, 04:44 PM
. . .

As for the remark on counting SNPs, I'm not sure I understand your comment.

I was talking about this part:



. . . when you look at the tree, you see Mr. L151 is 17 SNP's down of Mr. L23, while Mr. Z2103 is only 10 down. so when the L151 clade still had to expand, the Z2103 was already branching out, providing the guys who would be buried in the Kurgans in the Carpathian bassin.

You're comparing Z2103 to L151, an older L23 clade to a younger, but L151's immediate ancestor, L51, has the same tmrca as Z2103, 5700 ybp (according to YFull, but it's probably a bit too young an estimate). Besides, as I mentioned, those western Yamnaya pioneers who were Z2103 probably belonged to subclades downstream of Z2103. So, you can't say those Yamnaya guys who were Z2103 preceded the Yamnaya guys who were L151, because the SNP situation isn't strictly one of Z2103 versus L151.

rms2
03-03-2018, 05:01 PM
. . .

In the end both models have the same problem, if BB comes from Vucedol, why don't we see Z2103 popping up more in western European BB, and if it comes from CW why don't we see more R1a in it?

You're helping me make my case. BB is not totally without Z2103, but thus far it is totally without R1a. Probably Vucedol had plenty of R1b-L11 in it. We don't have many Vucedol samples yet; this new Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11 may be a sign of the future when it comes to Vucedol y-dna test results. I know he wasn't, strictly speaking, Vucedol, but he did belong to a culture in transition from full-on Vucedol to full-on Nagyrev.

I don't think the transhumance theory makes much sense, pardon me for saying it. I don't think such bi-annual cattle drives would have been all that convenient, not given the Carpathian mountain barrier between the two regions and the need to either go around down south or up north or use mountain passes like the Tisza River valley. I think it more likely that when the early Kurgans of Waves 1 and 2, and the Yamnaya Kurgans of Wave 3, went west, they did so mostly as permanent settlers.

I could be wrong, of course. Perhaps all those kurgans in the Carpathian basin are just chock full of Z2103. But I don't think so. If they were, I think Z2103 would be more frequent in central and western Europe than it is. IMHO, the y-dna composition of western Yamnaya differed somewhat from that of eastern Yamnaya. It still had Z2103 in it, but I think it was mostly R1b-L51 (of whatever subclades were old enough to be present). It's also possible that L51 came with Wave 1 or Wave 2 or both and was already present in the Carpathian basin before Yamnaya arrived.

I voted for the Dutch Model in this poll, largely based on the remarkable similarity between BB pottery and northwestern CW pottery. But the ongoing acquisition of more and more CW R1a, and this new R1b-L11 Proto-Nagyrev result, have caused me to rethink my vote.

rafc
03-03-2018, 05:30 PM
You're helping me make my case. BB is not totally without Z2103, but thus far it is totally without R1a. Probably Vucedol had plenty of R1b-L11 in it. We don't have many Vucedol samples yet; this new Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11 may be a sign of the future when it comes to Vucedol y-dna test results. I know he wasn't, strictly speaking, Vucedol, but he did belong to a culture in transition from full-on Vucedol to full-on Nagyrev.

I don't think the transhumance theory makes much sense, pardon me for saying it. I don't think such bi-annual cattle drives would have been all that convenient, not given the Carpathian mountain barrier between the two regions and the need to either go around down south or up north or use mountain passes like the Tisza River valley. I think it more likely that when the early Kurgans of Waves 1 and 2, and the Yamnaya Kurgans of Wave 3, went west, they did so mostly as permanent settlers.

I could be wrong, of course. Perhaps all those kurgans in the Carpathian basin are just chock full of Z2103. But I don't think so. If they were, I think Z2103 would be more frequent in central and western Europe than it is. IMHO, the y-dna composition of western Yamnaya differed somewhat from that of eastern Yamnaya. It still had Z2103 in it, but I think it was mostly R1b-L51 (of whatever subclades were old enough to be present). It's also possible that L51 came with Wave 1 or Wave 2 or both and was already present in the Carpathian basin before Yamnaya arrived.

I voted for the Dutch Model in this poll, largely based on the remarkable similarity between BB pottery and northwestern CW pottery. But the ongoing acquisition of more and more CW R1a, and this new R1b-L11 Proto-Nagyrev result, have caused me to rethink my vote.

Nomads tend to be mobile, and winters on the Hungarian plain can get very cold. Not ideal for cattle herders. I think if L51 was really in those Yamnaya, we would find more of it in the Balkans.

rms2
03-03-2018, 05:32 PM
Regarding Vucedol, thus far we have only two Vucedol y-dna results: I3499 (2884-2666 BC) y-dna R1b-Z2103, mtDNA T2e; and I2792 (2872-2617 BC) y-dna G2a, mtDNA T2c2. That's not much.

Now we have I7043, an R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev, a culture in transition from its immediate Vucedol predecessor to Nagyrev, and I7043 has an autosomal profile that looks like what one might expect of a person belonging to such a culture.

MitchellSince1893
03-03-2018, 05:45 PM
Getting back to the origin of L11/P312. Richard Rocca had a thread on exploring of Corded Ware origin for Bell Beaker https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312

And I like Alan's idea in this thread of L11 (or maybe he said P312) being a fringe trading group within Corded Ware especially in Moravia where we see a mixture of both CW and BB at the same sites.

But I just came across this paper which complicates this possibility.

The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe: Mobility and local evolution during the 3rd millennium BC (pp 11-12)


"The groups of the Bell Beaker people are the stranger ethic element not only in Central Europe (Desideri, Eades 2002). There is no doubt, from the anthropological point of view, that the Bell Beaker communities are distinguished from the Corded Ware Culture people. In particular these differences are visible in physical traits. This concerns the metrical parameters and skull proportions as well as morphological characteristics. The Bell Beaker skulls are short (brachycranial), with flat of the nape area, in contrast - the Corded Ware Culture people had longer ones (meso or dolichocranial) with concave occipital region. Similar differences in comparison to other Malopolska Upland's Early Bronze Age societies of the Mierzanowice Culture, are observed. These observations are confirmed for other Central Europe Corded Ware Culture series from Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia (Havel and Pavelkova 1989). These distinguishing characteristics of the biological nature are not in conflict with the archaeological data. In the opinion of Makarowicz (2003) there is[n't] any genetic relationship between Corded Ware Culture and Bell Beakers. The biological differences are confirmed in the sphere of material culture and funeral practices "bring out Bell Beakers strangeness with respect to local societies...The presence of long-headed female skeletons in the BBC indicates their local origin and the great probability of incorporation local inhabitants to the newcomer's groups.

So I looked up Makarowicz (2003) Bell Beakers and Corded Ware people in the Little Poland Upland


Populations of southern Beakers sometimes interacted with communities of the late Corded Ware Culture (ca. 2400 / 2200 BC WŁODARCZAK / KOWALEWSKA-MARSZAŁEK 1998), similar in social organisation (a model, in which men warriors dominate). The role played by the Beakers is also stressed in the establishment of social structures of the proto Mierzanowice Culture in Little Poland (KADROW 1995; 2001) as well as the proto-Únětice Culture in Silesia. Bell Beaker populations were characterised by their mobility. Anthropological analyses carried out in Little Poland show differences between male skeletons and those of members of local populations. It were only female skeletons that exhibited local characteristics(MACHNIK 1987, 141; BUDZISZEWSKI / HADUCH / WŁODARCZAK 2003). These observations are consistent with opinions, severely criticised in the 1980s, considering Bell Beakers a male culture, which was also supposed to account for its mobility. In their ritual life the discussed communities used varied items of prestige made of exotic materials, non-existent in those areas. This is a proof of the vast contacts of Beaker members and intense exchange with communities that had access to them (see: WALDREN / KENNARD 1987)...An additional argument in favour of the migration theory of Beaker appearance in southern Poland is provided by the contemporary interpretations of the so-called Begleitkeramik (accompanying ware or common ware)...Neither is there any continuity (genetic relationship) between the Corded Ware Culture and Bell Beakers. Beaker folk came here from the south, from Bohemia, Moravia and south-western Slovakia. Some scholars go as far as to interpret the southern Polish Bell Beakers enclave as the northernmost frontier of the Csepel group (Fig. 12:3 WOJCIECHOWSKI 1987). This must be one of very few (the only?) known regional case where the appearance of Bell Beakers may be related to population migrations. After negotiating mountain passes (a convenient route led through, for instance, the Moravian Gate), they settled near the fertile loess lands of Silesia and Little Poland to participate actively in the rise of the Early Bronze Age there


In Silesia and Little Poland [southern Poland], the emergence of the package was related to the [B]migration of Beaker folk of Danube traditions, whereas in the north, the Beakerization of the Single Grave Culture was an effect of much broader processes of cultural syncretization taking place between the lower Elbe and Vistula rivers

Note the time frame for the southern Beakers in Poland is 2470-2270 BC, while the northern Poland BB was a couple of hundred years younger. To me it appears that in this area of southern Poland it was foreign Bell Beaker men marrying local Corded Ware women and as quoted above BB men were anatomically different from CW men.

rms2
03-03-2018, 05:47 PM
Nomads tend to be mobile, and winters on the Hungarian plain can get very cold. Not ideal for cattle herders. I think if L51 was really in those Yamnaya, we would find more of it in the Balkans.

The Russian steppe is pretty cold in winter, too, even near the Black Sea.

That last line could be applied to the steppe in general: If L51 was really from the steppe, we would find more of it in Ukraine.

The answer is that it moved west, and then in the form of Bell Beaker went mainly northwest. For whatever reason, it did not go farther south into the Balkans and settle there. As you said, nomads tend to be mobile (although they were really mobile pastoralists and not true nomads).

Look at the y-dna composition of Kurgan Bell Beaker: overwhelmingly R1b-L51, mainly of the P312 variety, with three Z2103's thus far, and one I2a2a (I'm counting only those with high steppe dna). Those last two y-dna haplogroups have already been found in eastern Yamnaya (plus another I2a2a in a Bulgarian Yamnaya). Z2103 has been found in Vucedol, as well, and now we have R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev, a derivative of Vucedol in that same Pannonian neck of the woods.

The y-dna composition of Corded Ware is overwhelmingly R1a, with maybe-maybe one lone R1b-L1345, and no Z2103. I'm not sure any I2a2a has shown up in Corded Ware. If it has, it doesn't appear at Jean M's Ancient Eurasian DNA/Ancestral Journeys web site.

No R1a thus far in either Vucedol or Bell Beaker.

Romilius
03-03-2018, 05:51 PM
The thing I see very interesting and intriguing is that in CW we have few R1b, but in BB we haven't got any R1a...

vettor
03-03-2018, 05:59 PM
Regarding Vucedol, thus far we have only two Vucedol y-dna results: I3499 (2884-2666 BC) y-dna R1b-Z2103, mtDNA T2e; and I2792 (2872-2617 BC) y-dna G2a, mtDNA T2c2. That's not much.

Now we have I7043, an R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev, a culture in transition from its immediate Vucedol predecessor to Nagyrev, and I7043 has an autosomal profile that looks like what one might expect of a person belonging to such a culture.

there are at least 3 samples of mtdna T2e in
Malak Preslavets bulgaria 5800-5400 BC
samples IIRC are I1108 , I0700 and ?

clearly the movement was along the danube river

rms2
03-03-2018, 06:17 PM
Say, what about these two apparent Corded Ware R1b's from the final excel spreadsheet of Mathieson et al's Genomic History of SE Europe?

21926

Didn't we hash those out before, and Rich or somebody say they were really more likely to be R1a? If so, why are they still showing up as R1b in the final spreadsheet of Mathieson et al?

MitchellSince1893
03-03-2018, 06:26 PM
I moved this post https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=358355&viewfull=1#post358355 out of the Olade thread to this one, but it might be missed as it's on the previous page of this thread.


I don't think the lack of anatomical similarities between BB men and CW men mentioned in Makarowicz 2003 precludes the possibility of L11 passing through the southern edge of CW territory to enter Moravia and on to the Carpathian Basin.

3 possible routes of how L11 got from steppes to Central Europe

21927

rms2
03-03-2018, 06:40 PM
I think those anatomical differences mostly have to do with skull shape and might be the product of the cultural practice of cradle-boarding.

I mentioned this over on the Olalde et al thread, as well, but apparently Bell Beaker men had a thing for GAC women rather than CW women (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?12654-The-Two-R1b-Bl%E4tterh%F6hle-Skeletons-Were-R1b-V88&p=314221&viewfull=1#post314221).

BTW, nice map. Hope you don't mind that I swiped it.

MitchellSince1893
03-03-2018, 06:53 PM
I think those anatomical differences mostly have to do with skull shape and might be the product of the cultural practice of cradle-boarding.

I mentioned this over on the Olalde et al thread, as well, but apparently Bell Beaker men had a thing for GAC women rather than CW women (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?12654-The-Two-R1b-Bl%E4tterh%F6hle-Skeletons-Were-R1b-V88&p=314221&viewfull=1#post314221).

BTW, nice map. Hope you don't mind that I swiped it.
No I don't mind. I found a base map of CW from the internet edited it to include the arrows.

There's no reason they couldn't have had both GAC and CW wives...The GAC territory overlapped the CW territory in that part of southern Poland.

rms2
03-03-2018, 06:59 PM
No I don't mind. I found a base map of CW from the internet edited it to include the arrows.

There's no reason they couldn't have had both GAC and CW wives...The GAC territory overlapped the CW territory in that part of southern Poland.

True, but BB mtDNA grouped with GAC mtDNA, not CW mtDNA.

Once we start arguing that BB men took CW wives, we're simply bolstering the argument that CW women were the source of BB steppe dna.

Dewsloth
03-03-2018, 07:09 PM
No I don't mind. I found a base map of CW from the internet edited it to include the arrows.

There's no reason they couldn't have had both GAC and CW wives...The GAC territory overlapped the CW territory in that part of southern Poland.

Maybe Baden, too?

rms2
03-03-2018, 07:13 PM
Maybe Baden, too?

According to Gimbutas, Vucedol was the product of steppe pastoralists from Waves 1 and 2 mixing with Baden people. Yamnaya was Wave 3, according to her. Once it mixed with Vucedol, the result was Bell Beaker.

MitchellSince1893
03-03-2018, 07:53 PM
Strontium Isotopes and Prehistoric Human Migration: The Bell Beaker Period in Central Europe
Abstract: Human skeletal remains from Bell Beaker graves in southern Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, and Hungary were analyzed for information on human migration. Strontium isotope ratios were measured in bone and tooth enamel to determine if these individuals had changed ‘geological’ residence during their lifetimes. Strontium isotopes vary among different types of rock. They enter the body through diet and are deposited in the skeleton. Tooth enamel forms during early childhood and does not change. Bone changes continually through life. Difference in the strontium isotope ratio between bone and enamel in the same individual indicates change in residence. Results from the analysis of 81 Bell Beaker individuals indicated that 51 had moved during their lifetime. Information on the geology of south-central Europe, the application of strontium isotope analysis, and the relevant Bell Beaker sites is provided along with discussion of the results of the studyhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.3989&rep=rep1&type=pdf



As the oldest Bell Beaker P312 sample is from Osterhofen, Bavaria on the Rhine River near the Austrian border (RISE563 2572-2512 BC), In the study above they tested 8 samples from Osterhofen and 5 were migrants according to their testing.

Here are the 5 men for Osterhofen. Their enamel and bone values. (L)ocal and (M)igrant.

Osterhofen Germany OBB 25 A M 0.70960 0.70903 M
Osterhofen Germany BB 21 A M 0.70928 0.70911 L
Osterhofen Germany OBB 8 A M 0.70986 0.70918 M
Osterhofen Germany BB 6 A M 0.70924 0.70935 L
Osterhofen Germany YBB 30 A M 0.71060 0.70938 M


Bavaria
More than 100 Bell Beaker sites have been excavated in Bavaria, with the majority found between the Danube and the Alps. Ceramics from sites in northern Bavaria are associated with the western group of the central European branch of the Bell Beaker tradition, while materials from the Danube River and south are affiliated with the eastern group (Gerhardt 1953). The archaeological and anthropological evidence suggests that the closest sources for these Bell Beaker materials lay to the east and south, likely in the Czech Republic, Hungary, or Austria, and spread northwest into Bavaria along the Danube and other rivers which provided water, food, and transport.


OBSERVATIONS
...It is clear from the graph that there is substantial variation in the strontium isotope ratios among the samples. This general pattern alone suggests a rather high degree of movement by Bell Beaker individuals...
The fact that the majority of the values for bone fall between 0.710 and 0.708 reflects site location in or near the Danube valley. Although the distance from sites in the Budapest region to western Bavaria is more than 500 km, the strontium isotope ratios are generally similar, around 0.709. Thus it is unlikely that individuals moving from one place to another in the Danube valley would be distinguished in this analysis. For this reason, it is likely that individuals with higher, or lower, strontium isotope enamel ratios originated outside the Danube valley itself.

Celt_??
03-03-2018, 08:08 PM
Thus it is unlikely that individuals moving from one place to another in the Danube valley would be distinguished in this analysis. For this reason, it is likely that individuals with higher, or lower, strontium isotope enamel ratios originated outside the Danube valley itself.

Did the authors suggest possible locations where they may have originated? Thanks

rms2
03-03-2018, 08:43 PM
So, if the "locals" had actually come up the Danube from the Budapest area, it would be impossible to tell, and they would look like people native to that part of Bavaria. Those who could be distinguished as non-locals could have come from anywhere from Moravia to Pannonia, i.e., from the southern edge of Corded Ware territory down to Vucedol/Yamnaya Carpathian basin territory.

MitchellSince1893
03-03-2018, 08:52 PM
Did the authors suggest possible locations where they may have originated? Thanks

No they said

While it is possible to identify migrants, it is difficult to determine the specific
homeland of these individuals because of the complex geology of south-central
Europe and our lack of knowledge about surficial deposits at the site locations and
how they are reflected in local biologically available strontium isotope. At present
it is not possible to provide more detail with regard to place of origin. Within
south-central Europe there are multiple localities where any given strontium
isotope ratio might occur.

MitchellSince1893
03-03-2018, 08:56 PM
So, if the "locals" had actually come up the Danube from the Budapest area, it would be impossible to tell, and they would look like people native to that part of Bavaria. Those who could be distinguished as non-locals could have come from anywhere from Moravia to Pannonia, i.e., from the southern edge of Corded Ware territory down to Vucedol/Yamnaya Carpathian basin territory.

Right locals somewhere along the Danube. Migrants from the Czech Rep. do appear different

Values above 0.710 are exceptional in all areas except the Czech Republic. There is one extraordinary
value above 0.716 from the cemetery at Augsburg. The original home of this
individual may have been in metamorphic or sandstone geologies to the north of
the Danube or perhaps the freshwater molasse to the east of the site. There are also
three individuals from Austria and the Czech Republic with values above 0.712
that likely reflect the older metamorphic highlands of the Czech highlands. The
generally higher values for both bone and enamel from the Czech region and
Alicenhof site in Austria may be a reflection of the proximity of such deposits.

MitchellSince1893
03-03-2018, 08:58 PM
Speaking of the Czech Rep. I pulled this from the old Corded Ware thread. It's the area of the Czech Republic where Mako, CC, and BB were interacting.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=245279&viewfull=1#post245279

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/70/7c/0c/707c0c7cf529d897a00f3066a28ed1ce.png

It is also where the Amber Road went through this area between the Baltic and the Adriatic
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Amber_Road.jpg

rms2
03-03-2018, 09:13 PM
This is from Aleksandar Durman's "Radiocarbon Dating of the Vucedol Culture Complex" (RADIOCARBON, VOL 31, No. 3, 1989, pp. 1003-1009), page 1 of the article, which is page 1003 of that issue of Radiocarbon.



The Vucedol culture is a synonym for the late Copper Age of the Carpathian Valley and the western Balkans. It fills the span between the second wave of the Kurgan people expansion, according to Gimbutas (1973), in the central part of the Danube Basin and the start of the early Bronze Age, according to the central European chronology . . .

The late phase of the Vucedol culture, particularly its Mako type, is closely related to the Bell Beaker culture, from which it is sometimes difficult to distinguish.

The Mako type of the Vucedol culture represents only its late phase and should not be identified with the general Vucedol culture.

vettor
03-03-2018, 09:18 PM
regardless of what I read I keep falling back into this "celtic theory" which some italian scholars follow

2100 BC: Celtic tribes in Europe. Celtic and Italic migrants are quite certain to be among the first Indo-Europeans who penetrated into Central Europe. It is known that the task to connect exact archaeological cultures with exact tribes at that time is not yet completed, but still according to the most widespread version, Celts were represented by the "cord pottery" culture. In the late 3rd millennium they began to migrate west from the Low Danube (where they lived together with Italics and Illyrians). Soon Celts appeared in France and in South Germany. The date mentioned above can be regarded as a possible time of separation of the Celtic language from the Celto-Italo-Veneto-Illyrian language community.

https://s20.postimg.org/aa7txl1n1/veneto_illyro.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

no sure anymore

vucedol should have followed the danube river northwards

rms2
03-03-2018, 09:31 PM
Thus far we have only one Mako test result, I1502, a female from Hungary, mtDNA K1c1, from Mathieson 2015. We have no Mako y-dna.

There are a lot of big holes in our knowledge when it comes to figuring out the genesis of Bell Beaker.

rms2
03-03-2018, 09:43 PM
regardless of what I read I keep falling back into this "celtic theory" which some italian scholars follow

2100 BC: Celtic tribes in Europe. Celtic and Italic migrants are quite certain to be among the first Indo-Europeans who penetrated into Central Europe. It is known that the task to connect exact archaeological cultures with exact tribes at that time is not yet completed, but still according to the most widespread version, Celts were represented by the "cord pottery" culture. In the late 3rd millennium they began to migrate west from the Low Danube (where they lived together with Italics and Illyrians). Soon Celts appeared in France and in South Germany. The date mentioned above can be regarded as a possible time of separation of the Celtic language from the Celto-Italo-Veneto-Illyrian language community.

https://s20.postimg.org/aa7txl1n1/veneto_illyro.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

no sure anymore

vucedol should have followed the danube river northwards

Not trying to ignore you, vettor. That map doesn't even have Bell Beaker mentioned on it, unless that is what its author(s) meant by "Italo-Celto-Veneto-Illyrians". Seems like some antiquated stuff except for maybe that 2100 BC date for Celtic tribes, which is close to the c. 2300 BC date I've seen for Italo-Celtic.

Maybe Vucedol did go northwest up the Danube in the bodies of members of a successor culture, Bell Beaker (if Gimbutas is right). In other words, it didn't go unchanged, just as Yamnaya didn't go northwest unchanged, but in the form of its successor(s).

MitchellSince1893
03-03-2018, 09:59 PM
This is from Aleksandar Durman's "Radiocarbon Dating of the Vucedol Culture Complex" (RADIOCARBON, VOL 31, No. 3, 1989, pp. 1003-1009), page 1 of the article, which is page 1003 of that issue of Radiocarbon.

Finally found some good Mako Culture dates. Essentially it was from as early as 2800 BC to 2100 BC


Poz-31798 Berettyóújfalu-Nagy-Bócs dűlő Makó animal bone from pit Feature 82/353 3990 ± 30 2566–2473 BC
Poz-31800 Berettyóújfalu-Nagy-Bócs dűlő Makó animal bone from pit Feature 152/603 3955 ± 35 2566–2351 BC
Poz-31803 Berettyóújfalu-Nagy-Bócs dűlő Makó animal bone from pit Feature 824/1889 3970 ± 40 2570–2461 BC
Poz-31804 Berettyóújfalu-Nagy-Bócs dűlő Makó animal bone from pit Feature 1922/4212 3940 ± 35 2548–2348 BC
Poz-31801 Debrecen-Szennyvíztelep Makó human bone Grave 479/617 3955 ± 35 2566–2351 BC

2800–2600 BC Early Makó?
2600–2500 BC Early Makó
2500–2300 BC Makó
2300–2200 BC Late Makó
2200–2130 BC Makó

21933

http://real.mtak.hu/8990/1/Transition_Horvath%20etal.pdf

vettor
03-03-2018, 11:40 PM
Not trying to ignore you, vettor. That map doesn't even have Bell Beaker mentioned on it, unless that is what its author(s) meant by "Italo-Celto-Veneto-Illyrians". Seems like some antiquated stuff except for maybe that 2100 BC date for Celtic tribes, which is close to the c. 2300 BC date I've seen for Italo-Celtic.

Maybe Vucedol did go northwest up the Danube in the bodies of members of a successor culture, Bell Beaker (if Gimbutas is right). In other words, it didn't go unchanged, just as Yamnaya didn't go northwest unchanged, but in the form of its successor(s).

I was looking at this site ............as well as other sites

https://indo-european.eu/2017/10/our-monograph-on-north-west-indo-european-first-draft-is-out/

jamesdowallen
03-04-2018, 12:06 AM
I thought of answering the poll question off-the-cuff, and asking to be graded, but the more I thought, the more I realized I had questions, not answers. Still I won't peek at the thread so may make errors that have already been corrected.

This is why getting a sure handle on the Y-haplotree dating is so important. Yfull shows (1700 BC - 3300 BC) as the R1b-P312 TMRCA confidence interval. Nobody imagines this as late as 1700 BC, so the 2500 BC Yfull mean is sometimes quoted — just when Bell Beaker was getting into its hey-day. OTOH, a 3300 BC origin for P312 would support an R1b Stelae people migration, perhaps early enough for the Los Millares copper age.

But I don't think that works. Stipulate that DF27 was some copper age aristocrat in Spain, how does he get a nephew L21, aristocrat near the lower Rhine? Sudden expansion from a P312 King near the Rhine makes most sense, I think.

When was the Azután copper age? Were these early metallurgists Eastern invaders, or megalithic(?) natives? Couldn't Los Millares be a mainly local development, with the center soon silently overrun by Bell Beaker invaders? In India the Bronze Age Harrapans were bypassed by Indo-Aryan invaders, Yamnaya overwhelmed or bypassed Tripolye; why not the early Iberian copper age silently acquiescing to a Bell Beaker take-over?

The Spanish Model — clearly the copper-makers of the late 3rd millenium BC were potent. But were they pre-Celtic speaking R1b immigrants from Eastern Europe? Or were they pre-Basque speakers (G and E chromosomes) who came as Cardial Ware adventurers from the Eastern Mediterranean?

The Reflux Model - Yes there were influences traveling in both directions along the Spain-Central Europe axis. We can be sure of this because :— Otherwise Bell Beaker would be less confusing! In particular, there were conquests of Ireland by Bell Beaker Spain: the Irish myths are based on fact! (The Milesian dynasty comes, in the myth, from Scythia, a name for the steppes. These legends turn out to be TRUE, but we're not completely sure whether the "Scythians" came by sea, or up the Danube and then down the Rhone.)

The Manco Model - This scenario makes sense — and is closely related to Gimbutas model I think — but again the exact Y-haplotree dating becomes very important.

The Dutch Model - The upper Rhine is a central transit point, projecting westward to all of France and beyond, north to Frisia, Britain and Thule, and East to Germany and down the Danube to Hungary and the steppes. Is this a multi-vote poll question? What if I think the Beaker Horizon had 2 or 3 origins?

The Gimbutas Model This lays another source: Vučedol culture contributed (via the Stelae people?) to the early Iberian copper age. Force is exerted in Europe almost exclusively east-to-west (not west-to-east) so the connection Yamnaya --> (Vučedol culture?) --> Stelae --> Iberia is natural. Can't someone just find a rich tomb in southern Spain circa 3000 BC, and check the y-chromosome of the "royal" skeleton?

The Immobilist Model - The Y-chromosome of Western Europe was completely replaced as a result of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. R1b conquerors were happy to take indigenous wives, but the male line was certainly not Immobile.

The R1b chromosome needn't have massacred indigenous males during a few generations. Instead, an elite caste with even just a 25% procreational advantage would gradually become dominant, if the caste retained its elite status for several centuries. And we see that caste sustenance clearly, I think, in medieval genealogical records.