PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Bell Beaker Models



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

MitchellSince1893
03-04-2018, 04:33 AM
Just came across an indepth paper on the Mako Culture http://www.academia.edu/2523227/The_Beginnings_of_the_Bronze_Age_in_the_Carpathian _Basin._The_Makó_Kosihy_Čaka_and_the_Somogyvár_Vin kovci_cultures_in_Hungary._Varia_Archaeologica_Hun garica_23_Budapest_2009


The scanty Makó–Kosihy–Čaka pottery collected on the surface of Late Copper Age kurgans suggests some sort of contact between the Late Copper Age (or perhaps Early Bronze Age) Yamnaya population and the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka culture.76Pg 25.


Several elements contributed to the culture’s formation. These include the late Vučedol culture in the south and the late Jevišovice groups in the north-west. The possible role of the late Baden/
Kostolac communities in the transition to the Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin is still unclear because there is no unambiguous indication of this role in the archaeological record. The possible cultural contribution of Eastern European and Transylvanian elements assumed by earlier research is likewise uncertain. The role of the Yamnaya culture settling in eastern Hungary can only be clarified through new assemblages from secure contexts. Neither can the core area(s) where the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka was formed be determined from the current evidence.Pg 171


The first communities with a southern (predominantly Vučedol) ancestry, which later developed into the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka culture, appeared in the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain and along the Tisza, advancing as far as the Érmellék region and the greater part of the culture’s later distribution. The exact process leading to the eventual emergence of the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka culture cannot be reconstructed as yet because there are no reliable archaeological criteria for distinguishing early Makó sites from later ones. What seems certain nonetheless is that the culture drew from many cultural sources during its formation...

The Makó–Kosihy–Čaka culture was preceded by the Baden culture in the greater part of the Carpathian Basin. No direct links can at present be demonstrated between the material culture and settlement patterns of these two cultures...

One of the most intriguing issues in this fi eld of research is the appearance of eastern steppean groups in the Great Hungarian Plain. It has been suggested that the Yamnaya communities of steppean ancestry settling in eastern Hungary, which buried their dead under kurgans, survived until the Early Bronze Age and that the continuous infi ltration of Yamnaya groups can be assumed until the onset of the late Baden/Makó/Somogyvár/Glina III/Nyírség period...

The radiocarbon dates indicated that the earliest burials could be dated to the close of the 4th millennium, while the latest to mid-3rd millennium BC.1801 The kurgan’s investigation suggested that the successive waves of Yamnaya and, later, Catacomb groups arriving to eastern Hungary from the Late Copper Age onward survived to see the emergence of the Makó culture and that the communities of the two cultures perhaps lived side by side for some time afterward. The duration of this co-existence is not known, and neither is there any evidence for the possible interaction between the Yamnaya and the Makó cultures or for the cultural impact of the Yamnaya groups on the Makó material of the culture. Another equally important issue is how these eastern groups integrated into the local milieu, seeing that not one single independent Yamnaya settlement has yet been found. It is possible that the eastern groups blended into the local population and that for some, as yet unknown reason, they played a prominent role in these mixed communities, reflected by the “prestige” tumulus burials. This interpretation is supporter by the grave goods of the late burials (Graves 4, 7, 7a, 9) under the Sárrétudvari kurgan. The analogies to the metalwork and the pottery suggest that the burial site represented an integration point in the vast territory extending from the eastern steppe through Transylvania and eastern Hungary to central Germany in the mid-3rd millennium BC Pp 355-356

R.Rocca
03-04-2018, 05:45 AM
Here are the Global25/nMonte results for P312+ L2+ Bell Beaker sample I6580 from Poland. Just like the P312+ L2+ Bell Beaker sample I2365 from Hungary I posted earlier, he does not favor Vucedol:

[1] "distance%=2.8745"

Yamnaya_Kalmykia,61.3
Globular_Amphora,38.7
Balkans_ChL,0
Vucedol,0
France_MLN,0
Remedello_BA,0
Iberia_Central_CA,0

A pretty good two way fit, but introducing another Bell Beaker population as an origin is an even better fit:

[1] "distance%=1.5666"

Beaker_The_Netherlands,95.4
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,2.4
Vucedol,2.2
Balkans_ChL,0
France_MLN,0
Remedello_BA,0
Iberia_Central_CA,0

Replacing Netherlands Bell Beakers with German Corded Ware produces even better fits. Since both Polish and Csepel Bell Beaker are thought to derive from Moravian Bell Beaker, this seems to make sense. France_MLN and Iberia_Central_CA seem to be similar.

[1] "distance%=1.5159"

CWC_Germany,89.4
France_MLN,10.6
Balkans_ChL,0
Vucedol,0
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,0
Remedello_BA,0

[1] "distance%=1.4595"

CWC_Germany,89.3
Iberia_Central_CA,10.7
Balkans_ChL,0
Vucedol,0
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,0
France_MLN,0
Remedello_BA,0

MitchellSince1893
03-04-2018, 06:36 AM
Here are the Global25/nMonte results for P312+ L2+ Bell Beaker sample...

Have you done this/Can you do this for RISE563?

R.Rocca
03-04-2018, 12:16 PM
Have you done this/Can you do this for RISE563?

It is of too low quality, so not in the Global25 data.

rms2
03-04-2018, 01:38 PM
I still suspect Corded Ware is standing in for some other population, like the Yamnaya_Carpathian Basin we don't yet have. Otherwise, you've got an R1b-P312 Bell Beaker population resembling and possibly closely related to an R1a Corded Ware population. Since that difference rules out a y-dna connection, that leaves just one avenue: females. In that case you've done a great service for the anti-R1b cranks and die hard Iberianists who have been arguing for the last couple of years that R1b-L51 is some kind of Neolithic farmer stuff that received an infusion of steppe dna by marrying Corded Ware women.

Unless some R1b-L51 is found in Corded Ware, and soon.

If you look at the y-dna profile of Kurgan Bell Beaker, it's nothing like Corded Ware. It's overwhelmingly R1b-M269, mostly R1b-P312, with three R1b-Z2103's and one I2a2a thus far (again, I'm counting only those with high steppe dna).

R.Rocca
03-04-2018, 01:52 PM
I still suspect Corded Ware is standing in for some other population, like the Yamnaya_Carpathian Basin we don't yet have. Otherwise, you've got an R1b-P312 Bell Beaker population resembling and possibly closely related to an R1a Corded Ware population. Since that difference rules out a y-dna connection, that leaves just one avenue: females. In that case you've done a great service for the anti-R1b cranks and die hard Iberianists who have been arguing for the last couple of years that R1b-L51 is some kind of Neolithic farmer stuff that received an infusion of steppe dna by marrying Corded Ware women.

Unless some R1b-L51 is found in Corded Ware, and soon.

If you look at the y-dna profile of Kurgan Bell Beaker, it's nothing like Corded Ware. It's overwhelmingly R1b-M269, mostly R1b-P312, with three R1b-Z2103's and one I2a2a thus far (again, I'm counting only those with high steppe dna).

The service I provided is presenting data without fear of open debate.

rms2
03-04-2018, 01:53 PM
Here are the Global25/nMonte results for P312+ L2+ Bell Beaker sample I6580 from Poland. Just like the P312+ L2+ Bell Beaker sample I2365 from Hungary I posted earlier, he does not favor Vucedol:

[1] "distance%=2.8745"

Yamnaya_Kalmykia,61.3
Globular_Amphora,38.7
Balkans_ChL,0
Vucedol,0
France_MLN,0
Remedello_BA,0
Iberia_Central_CA,0

A pretty good two way fit, but introducing another Bell Beaker population as an origin is an even better fit:

[1] "distance%=1.5666"

Beaker_The_Netherlands,95.4
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,2.4
Vucedol,2.2
Balkans_ChL,0
France_MLN,0
Remedello_BA,0
Iberia_Central_CA,0

Replacing Netherlands Bell Beakers with German Corded Ware produces even better fits. Since both Polish and Csepel Bell Beaker are thought to derive from Moravian Bell Beaker, this seems to make sense. France_MLN and Iberia_Central_CA seem to be similar.

[1] "distance%=1.5159"

CWC_Germany,89.4
France_MLN,10.6
Balkans_ChL,0
Vucedol,0
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,0
Remedello_BA,0

[1] "distance%=1.4595"

CWC_Germany,89.3
Iberia_Central_CA,10.7
Balkans_ChL,0
Vucedol,0
Yamnaya_Kalmykia,0
France_MLN,0
Remedello_BA,0

It's odd that when you use Corded Ware_Germany, suddenly about 11% France_MLN and, in the next run, about 11% Iberia_Central_CA appear.

I'm certainly not qualified to judge autosomal dna tools and analysis, but that strikes me as strange. We go from none of that to about 11% just by using Corded Ware_Germany. Something's funky.

rms2
03-04-2018, 01:56 PM
The service I provided is presenting data without fear of open debate.

Yes, and I was saying why I think something is wrong with it, likewise without fear of open debate. I knew no one would like what I had to say, but I said it anyway. The part you put in bold was not the entirety of my post.

And I was not saying you intentionally performed a service for the anti-R1b cranks and die hard Iberianists. It simply works out that way.

rms2
03-04-2018, 02:03 PM
I mentioned this a couple of pages back, but no one noticed apparently. These two Corded Ware entries, RISE431 and RISE436, appear as R1b in the final spreadsheet of the Mathieson et al paper, The Genomic History of SE Europe.

21943

As I recall, we got excited about those two when that paper first appeared, but then Rich(?) and maybe someone else said they are more likely to be R1a.

Is that right? If so, I wonder why they still appear as R1b in the final Mathieson et al spreadsheet.

R.Rocca
03-04-2018, 02:43 PM
It's odd that when you use Corded Ware_Germany, suddenly about 11% France_MLN and, in the next run, about 11% Iberia_Central_CA appear.

I'm certainly not qualified to judge autosomal dna tools and analysis, but that strikes me as strange. We go from none of that to about 11% just by using Corded Ware_Germany. Something's funky.

1. These models tend to favor more recent genetic drift. So, if Globular Amphora was replaced in an area by Corded Ware and then subsequently Bell Beaker replaced Corded Ware in the same area, then it will favor the more recent ancestry.
2. In pre-steppe Central and Western Europe, there seems to be a similar genetic footprint. Globular Amphora, Iberia_Central_CA and France_MLN all seem to fall into it. For that reason, when one adds Corded Ware, which already likely contains a Globular Amphora type ancestry, the remainder shows as Iberia_Central_CA or France_MLN.
3. These models are not meant to be taken as 100% truth, but they can help determine directional gene flow. When Corded Ware Germany shows up, it should be read as "a population closely autosomally resembling Corded Ware men and women from Germany".

MitchellSince1893
03-04-2018, 02:46 PM
It is of too low quality, so not in the Global25 data.

I remember Davidski on Eurogenes got totally different results for RISE563 (U152), and RISE564 (L51), both from the same site. RISE563 was closest to Russian Karogpol and Mordovan people (in Russia, north of Kazakhstan and ~500 miles north of the Caspian Sea)

While RISE564 (Osterhofen-Altenmarkt R1b1a1a2a1 L51/M412/PF6536/S167+ no reads on L11, P312, U152) was Iberian/EEF


RISE563 - very eastern, could pass for Corded Ware
RISE564 - looks Iberian or significantly EEF
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/k8-results-for-selected-allentoft-et-al.html

R.Rocca
03-04-2018, 02:50 PM
I mentioned this a couple of pages back, but no one noticed apparently. These two Corded Ware entries, RISE431 and RISE436, appear as R1b in the final spreadsheet of the Mathieson et al paper, The Genomic History of SE Europe.

21943

As I recall, we got excited about those two when that paper first appeared, but then Rich(?) and maybe someone else said they are more likely to be R1a.

Is that right? If so, I wonder why they still appear as R1b in the final Mathieson et al spreadsheet.

No doubt they are R1a:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015/page5&highlight=RISE493&styleid=2

MitchellSince1893
03-04-2018, 03:08 PM
1. These models tend to favor more recent genetic drift. So, if Globular Amphora was replaced in an area by Corded Ware and then subsequently Bell Beaker replaced Corded Ware in the same area, then it will favor the more recent ancestry.
2. In pre-steppe Central and Western Europe, there seems to be a similar genetic footprint. Globular Amphora, Iberia_Central_CA and France_MLN all seem to fall into it. For that reason, when one adds Corded Ware, which already likely contains a Globular Amphora type ancestry, the remainder shows as Iberia_Central_CA or France_MLN.
3. These models are not meant to be taken as 100% truth, but they can help determine directional gene flow. When Corded Ware Germany shows up, it should be read as "a population closely autosomally resembling Corded Ware men and women from Germany".

Do you think this may explain RISE564's odd result from Davidski? Iberian/EEF may actually be Globular Amphora?...not saying L51 has a Globular Amphora origin, but maybe RISE564's paternal line had more time mixing with the local population...I couldn't find a date for him, but if he was a couple hundred years younger it might in part explain the difference between him and RISE563.

rafc
03-04-2018, 03:16 PM
Well, I've seen some fairly convinving arguments that BB did not originate in CW, but I still don't see how it could have come from Vucedol. Do we know of any upcoming studies that might shed light on it?

jdean
03-04-2018, 03:29 PM
I mentioned this a couple of pages back, but no one noticed apparently. These two Corded Ware entries, RISE431 and RISE436, appear as R1b in the final spreadsheet of the Mathieson et al paper, The Genomic History of SE Europe.

21943

As I recall, we got excited about those two when that paper first appeared, but then Rich(?) and maybe someone else said they are more likely to be R1a.

Is that right? If so, I wonder why they still appear as R1b in the final Mathieson et al spreadsheet.

Not very helpful but on Jean Manco's site RISE431 is listed as K(xLT) and RISE436 as CT [R?] with a note explaining the sample could be damaged, ideally it would be nice to see the thoughts of somebody who's actually looked at the BAM files [edit] just noticed Richard posted a link to his work : )

Personally I'd like to hear if anything further can be dug out of I2181 who's only been classified down to R but is one two samples that 'push back the first evidence for steppe-related ancestry this far west in Europe by almost 2,000 years'.

Unfortunately all of these are probably going to be too low quality to be of much use.

MitchellSince1893
03-04-2018, 03:29 PM
Well, I've seen some fairly convinving arguments that BB did not originate in CW, but I still don't see how it could have come from Vucedol. Do we know of any upcoming studies that might shed light on it?

To me the most straight forward thought is that mostly Yamnaya/Budzhak/Kemi-Oba/Catacomb etc. men came in from north of the Black Sea and mixed with mostly GAC women. The arrow head similarities in the early BB and Kemi-Oba (typically a male occupation passed from father to son) support this.

GAC was in the steppes
The GAC finds in the Steppe area are normally attributed to a rather late expansion between 2950-2350 cal. BC from a centre in Wolhynia and Podolia.

Location of present day Wolhynia and Podolia regions
21944

razyn
03-04-2018, 04:24 PM
To me the most straight forward thought is that mostly Yamnaya/Budzhak/Kemi-Oba/Catacomb etc. men came in from north of the Black Sea and mixed with mostly GAC women. The arrow head similarities in the early BB and Kemi-Oba (typically a male occupation passed from father to son) support this.

GAC was in the steppes

Location of present day Wolhynia and Podolia regions
21944

I'd like to see some work on harmonization, or disambiguation, of the watersheds and routes involved if (for example) the Wolhynia and Podolia populations were using a Tisza River route to propagate their relatively new L51, L11, P312 etc. lineages into the previously untouched genetic soils of central and western Europe.



3 possible routes of how L11 got from steppes to Central Europe

21927

rms2
03-04-2018, 06:02 PM
. . . When Corded Ware Germany shows up, it should be read as "a population closely autosomally resembling Corded Ware men and women from Germany".

That I understood, especially since, in my humble opinion, the strong CW result in those runs that included CW is due to CW and BB sharing a common or very similar source population, and not because BB was derived from Corded Ware.

Counting the CW y-dna results at Jean M's Ancestral Journeys/Ancient Eurasian DNA site, and adding in the three new CW results from Olalde et al, I got 22 total. I only counted those listed as Corded Ware, and did not include the Battle Axe results.

18 of the 22 are R1a, which is about 82% of the total.

There is one R1b1, RISE1, which I understand is kind of iffy, for just under 5%.

One of the three newbie CW's is I2a2a2, also for just under 5%.

There was one R1, RISE434, and one P1, I1542/ESP33.

I did not include the two CW's whose y-dna results could not really be determined and are followed by question marks.

We certainly could use some more CW y-dna test results, especially from CW regions thus far unexplored for y-dna, but thus far the R1a trend is undeniable.

rms2
03-04-2018, 06:10 PM
Well, I've seen some fairly convinving arguments that BB did not originate in CW, but I still don't see how it could have come from Vucedol. Do we know of any upcoming studies that might shed light on it?

No one has ever claimed, as far as I know, that Bell Beaker came from Vucedol. The idea is that Vucedol and Yamnaya combined to produce Bell Beaker.

Gimbutas was the source of that idea. Here's what she wrote on the subject on pages 390-391 of The Civilization of the Goddess:



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

. . . It is very likely that the Bell Beaker complex is an amalgam of Vucedol and Yamna traditions formed after the incursion of the Yamna people into the milieu of the Vucedol culture, i.e., in the course of 300 to 400 years after 3000-2900 B.C.


Olalde et al certainly have proven Gimbutas right with regard to this part of what she wrote above:



The mobile horse-riding and warrior people who buried their dead in Yamna type kurgans certainly could not have developed out of any west European culture.

I know the R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev, I7043, is not the smoking gun we need, but it could be a clue.

R.Rocca
03-04-2018, 06:20 PM
That I understood, especially since, in my humble opinion, the strong CW result in those runs that included CW is due to CW and BB sharing a common or very similar source population, and not because BB was derived from Corded Ware.

Counting the CW y-dna results at Jean M's Ancestral Journeys/Ancient Eurasian DNA site, and adding in the three new CW results from Olalde et al, I got 22 total. I only counted those listed as Corded Ware, and did not include the Battle Axe results

18 of the 22 are R1a, which is about 82% of the total.

There is one R1b1, RISE1, which I understand is kind of iffy, for just under 5%.

One of the three newbie CW's is I2a2a2, also for just under 5%.

There was one R1, RISE434, and one P1, I1542/ESP33.

I did not include the two CW's whose y-dna results could not really be determined and are followed by question marks.

We certainly could use some more CW y-dna test results, especially from CW regions thus far unexplored for y-dna, but thus far the R1a trend is undeniable.

If L51+ males are to be found in Corded Ware samples, they will likely come from a single small area (Krakow-Sandomierz, Poland, Olomouc-Slavonin, Moravia, Auvernier, Switzerland or the Netherlands). That is a big "IF" however and I don't think it likely.

jdean
03-04-2018, 06:30 PM
That I understood, especially since, in my humble opinion, the strong CW result in those runs that included CW is due to CW and BB sharing a common or very similar source population, and not because BB was derived from Corded Ware.

David has published his comparison of BB and CW autosomal components, with a list of provisos : )

On the origin of steppe ancestry in Beaker people (http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/on-origin-of-steppe-ancestry-in-beaker.html)

From my point of view they look very similar but BB seems to have a lot less Ukraine_Mesolithic and more Blatterhole_HG than the CW samples he used.

rms2
03-04-2018, 06:40 PM
Whatever happened to this?

21949

Carpathian Basin Project (http://www.ri.btk.mta.hu/archaeogenetika/kutatas_en.html)

jdean
03-04-2018, 07:15 PM
Whatever happened to this?

21949

Carpathian Basin Project (http://www.ri.btk.mta.hu/archaeogenetika/kutatas_en.html)

Judging by this still ongoing

Our ‘Lendület’/Momentum Research Group has joined the genome-wide studies of a new genetic research project launched in 2015 by the HAS RCH Institute of archaeology in cooperation with the Department, Genetics of the Harvard Medical School („Kulturális átalakulások genomikai kutatása a Kárpát-medence 4000 éves őstörténetéből /Genomic exploration of cultural transformations over 4,000 years of the Carpathian Basin’s prehistory” (http://mobilitas.ri.btk.mta.hu/?page_id=21&lang=en)

rms2
03-04-2018, 07:23 PM
It's been awhile since I first heard of that project. I hope they have something in the pipeline due to come out soon, something good, that includes what we've been hoping for.

MitchellSince1893
03-05-2018, 04:47 AM
...From page 135 of the Supplementary Info:

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...

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.

Not sure if you saw it on Eurogenes but


Samuel Andrews said...
@Rich S,
"Notice the new Hungarian R1b-L11 sample, I7043, from the Proto-Nagyrev culture, which was the transition phase between Vucedol and its offshoot, Nagyrev? "

Good eye, I didn't notice that. And he's negative for both P312 & U106 so a L151*. Not likely to be explained by admixture with eastern Beaker folk who overwelhmingly belonged to U152>L2 not L151*.

"It's not a smoking gun, but it tends in the direction of Gimbutas' idea that Bell Beaker was the result of the amalgam of Vucedol and Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin."

That has always made the most sense to me as well. R1b Z2103 and R1b L151, though in separate communities, must have migrated with each other into central Europe from Yamnaya.


Blogger Samuel Andrews said...
Here's what I7043 scores in Global 25 scaled...Not 75% Yamnaya like the Hungarian Beaker but still evidence L151 moved up along the Carpthian Basin.

Barcin: 57.7
Yamnaya: 24
WHG: 12.7
CHG: 4.9

Samples For comparison from Eurogenes. To me I7043 looks most likes the N. Italy Beaker...first one below.


Beaker_Northern_Italy

Barcin_N,61.4
Yamnaya_Samara,25
Blatterhole_HG,13.6

[1] distance%=4.8488


Beaker_Hungary_outlier

Yamnaya_Samara,76
Barcin_N,19
Koros_HG,4.4
Blatterhole_HG,0.6


Beaker_Hungary

Barcin_N,49
Yamnaya_Samara,31.8
Narva_Lithuania,11.4
Blatterhole_HG,6
Ukraine_Mesolithic,1.8


Beaker_Hungary_no_steppe

Barcin_N,76.2
Blatterhole_HG,23.8

[1] distance%=2.4992


Beaker_Central_Europe

Yamnaya_Samara,43.4
Barcin_N,37.2
Blatterhole_HG,16
Ukraine_Mesolithic,3.4

[1] distance%=3.0011


Explanation of pops from Davidski


Barcin_N (Neolithic farmers from western Anatolia)
Blatterhole_HG (HG-like Middle Neolithic sample from Germany)
Koros_HG (HG-like Early Neolithic sample from Hungary)
Narva_Lithuania (late HGs from the southern Baltic)
Ukraine_Mesolithic (HGs from the North Pontic steppe)
Yamnaya_Samara (Bronze Age herders from the eastern end of the Pontic-Caspian steppe)

rafc
03-05-2018, 06:40 AM
Can anyone check whether I7043 is S1200? Could make sense given that Yfull lists an Armenian and a Hungarian near the base.

R.Rocca
03-05-2018, 06:56 PM
Can anyone check whether I7043 is S1200? Could make sense given that Yfull lists an Armenian and a Hungarian near the base.

L151/PF6542 = derived
L52/PF6541 = no reads
CTS7650/FGC44/PF6544/S1164 = no reads
L11/PF6539/S127 = derived
P310/PF6546; S129 rs9786283 = no reads
P311/PF6545; S128 rs9785659 = deriveds
PF6540/YSC0000082 = derived
PF6543/S1159; YSC0000191 = no reads

CTS4528/S1200/AM01877 = no reads
DF100/S1203/AM01878 = no reads
S14328 = ancestral

I7041 does not have reads on any of the above SNPs.

MitchellSince1893
03-05-2018, 07:46 PM
L151/PF6542 = derived
L52/PF6541 = no reads
CTS7650/FGC44/PF6544/S1164 = no reads
L11/PF6539/S127 = derived
P310/PF6546; S129 rs9786283 = no reads
P311/PF6545; S128 rs9785659 = deriveds
PF6540/YSC0000082 = derived
PF6543/S1159; YSC0000191 = no reads

CTS4528/S1200/AM01877 = no reads
DF100/S1203/AM01878 = no reads
S14328 = ancestral

I7041 does not have reads on any of the above SNPs.

Hey Rich can you confirm what was said by a poster on Eurogenes that I7043 was negative for both U106 & P312?

R.Rocca
03-05-2018, 08:30 PM
Hey Rich can you confirm what was said by a poster on Eurogenes that I7043 was negative for both U106 & P312?

Confirmed that it is like that in the BAM file. The paper itself also lists it as such: R1b1a1a2a1a(xR1b1a1a2a1a1,xR1b1a1a2a1a2)

rms2
03-06-2018, 12:00 PM
Hey Rich can you confirm what was said by a poster on Eurogenes that I7043 was negative for both U106 & P312?

I did actually mention that, way back at Post #444 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=357771&viewfull=1#post357771).

Romilius
03-06-2018, 04:06 PM
As for RISE564? It seems Iberian... what does that mean? Has it got steppe signature?

MitchellSince1893
03-06-2018, 07:22 PM
As for RISE564? It seems Iberian... what does that mean? Has it got steppe signature?
That was my question earlier based on Rocca’s comment that Iberian and GAC cluster together

R.Rocca
03-08-2018, 12:08 PM
As for RISE564? It seems Iberian... what does that mean? Has it got steppe signature?

David from Eurogenes made the comment that it plots with modern Iberians, and since modern Iberians have Yamnaya ancestry, he does have a steppe signature.

R.Rocca
03-09-2018, 02:34 PM
Not surprisingly, Bell Beaker I1381 and I1382 from the Paris Basin were L11+ and P312+ respectively. They were related to each other and both could well be P312+. What makes them a little different is that their burial orientation was west-east, and not north-south. This area would have been right in the middle of the Grand Pressigny flint trade with Dutch All-Over-Ornamented groups as well as Dutch Single Grave Culture groups.

rms2
03-09-2018, 06:32 PM
I wonder if some Neolithic Iberians did not acquire or at least see up close some Corded Ware beakers at Grand Pressigny and reproduce their own versions of them, which would account for the evolution of the earliest bell beakers in Iberia yet having a close resemblance to CW beakers.

R.Rocca
03-09-2018, 09:50 PM
I wonder if some Neolithic Iberians did not acquire or at least see up close some Corded Ware beakers at Grand Pressigny and reproduce their own versions of them, which would account for the evolution of the earliest bell beakers in Iberia yet having a close resemblance to CW beakers.

I just asked David if he could provide the Global 25 coordinates for female I1392 from France. She is the very early 2833–2475 calBCE (4047±29 BP) Bell Beaker sample from the French/Swiss/German border that lacked steppe ancestry. She is likely a good proxy for the French Copper Age population that that interacted with Swiss and German Corded Ware. Let's see if he can provide it or not.

Camulogčne Rix
03-09-2018, 10:42 PM
Not surprisingly, Bell Beaker I1381 and I1382 from the Paris Basin were L11+ and P312+ respectively. They were related to each other and both could well be P312+. What makes them a little different is that their burial orientation was west-east, and not north-south. This area would have been right in the middle of the Grand Pressigny flint trade with Dutch All-Over-Ornamented groups as well as Dutch Single Grave Culture groups.

I1381 and I1382 are not from the Paris Basin but from Moselle (East France, close to border with Germany).

We would be more than happy to find Beakers traces in Paris Basin...

R.Rocca
03-09-2018, 11:38 PM
I1381 and I1382 are not from the Paris Basin but from Moselle (East France, close to border with Germany).

We would be more than happy to find Beakers traces in Paris Basin...

You are right, although I doubt there will be much of a difference, if any, between Paris Basin and Moselle Bell Beaker samples.

rms2
03-10-2018, 04:27 PM
I'm no pottery expert, so beakers that look very similar or pretty much the same to me might not strike everyone the same way. But take a look at these pics of various beakers and see what you think. IMHO, the bell beaker is a standard kind of steppe drinking vessel. I really doubt the first one was designed and made anywhere in western Europe.

22027 22029

jamesdowallen
03-11-2018, 07:21 AM
I've been thinking about the chronology in the Yfull tree, especially as far as P312 is concerned, and it occurs to me the Yfull's dates are spot-on correct! L151 moved westward, possibly up the Danube, spun off U106 (Corded Ware) and finally erupted in the P312 explosion.

I've always thought a good way to firmly calibrate the dating of Y-tree was to find an event with huge archaeological evidence which also has a very clear footprint in the Y-tree. The Bell Beaker explosion provides this. P312 erupts from a single individual before 2500 BC to a whopping 91 Y-splits (TMRCA events) by 2300 BC. Ninety-one subclades of P312 erupt in three centuries. That's a huge fact, and this P312 explosion must be identified as the Bell Beaker explosion. Based on the near-absence of P312 in Eastern Europe and the strong presence throughout Western Europe, this expansion must have started near the Rhine River. (Nevermind where a particular beaker style might have started, I'm focussing on the P312 SNP.) In addition to the 91 TMRCA events in the P312 tree for the three centuries 2500, 2400, 2300 BC, there were an average of 23 TMRCA events per century over the 9 centuries 2200 - 1400 BC. (Of course this doesn't even include as-yet undetected subclades and subclades which have gone extinct.) (Yfull uses "ybp" dates rather than "BC." Is their "p" 2000 AD? Something I read makes me wonder if p = 1950 AD. This is a nitpick, perhaps the difference whether an individual is dated by his birth or by maturity.)

All we need is confirmation from the archaeologists of the exact dates of the sudden "Bell Beaker" culture expansion (though not focused on the beaker style). The P312 eruption will have the same date. AFAICT 2400 BC is generally shown as the big date for Bell Beaker cultural eruption. That's uncannily identical to the Yfull dating. (Did Yfull use the Bell Beaker dates to tune their chronology?)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A related question concerns ancient graves with researched DNA. Amesbury Archer is guessed to be one of the highest prestige individuals of his day in southern Britain, I think. Ötzi the Iceman was just some random archer caught in a bad blizzard. What about the S1894 skeleton recently found in Unetice? Was his a prestige grave? Prestige graves may show a haplogroup in its infancy....

For example, Amesbury Archer's apparent L21 haplogroup does NOT strongly contradict Yfull's 2300 BC date for L21: Since Amesbury Acher was a very high-prestige individual he was likely son or grandson of L21-MRCA himself, who was surely a very high prestige individual near the Rhine.

anglesqueville
03-11-2018, 10:59 AM
I just asked David if he could provide the Global 25 coordinates for female I1392 from France. She is the very early 2833–2475 calBCE (4047±29 BP) Bell Beaker sample from the French/Swiss/German border that lacked steppe ancestry. She is likely a good proxy for the French Copper Age population that that interacted with Swiss and German Corded Ware. Let's see if he can provide it or not.

For info, and for what it's worth, I get rather nice qpAdm models for the alsacian "steppes" Beakers (I1382,I1381,I1389,I1390) with I1392 as a CopperAge proxy, and the german Corded:

left pops:
Beaker_Alsace (I1382,I1381,I1389,I1390)
I1392_Alsace_nosteppe
CW_Germany

best coefficients: 0.250 0.750
std. errors: 0.054 0.054
chisq/tail prob: 6.669/ 0.946724

Perhaps a little more surprising, I get a rather good similar model for the Beakers from southern France (only those who have a "steppes" component):

Beaker_Southern_France
CW_Germany
I1392_Alsace_nosteppe

best coefficients: 0.690 0.310
std. errors: 0.047 0.047
7.219/0.92595

R.Rocca
03-11-2018, 12:24 PM
For info, and for what it's worth, I get rather nice qpAdm models for the alsacian "steppes" Beakers (I1382,I1381,I1389,I1390) with I1392 as a CopperAge proxy, and the german Corded:

left pops:
Beaker_Alsace (I1382,I1381,I1389,I1390)
I1392_Alsace_nosteppe
CW_Germany

best coefficients: 0.250 0.750
std. errors: 0.054 0.054
chisq/tail prob: 6.669/ 0.946724

Perhaps a little more surprising, I get a rather good similar model for the Beakers from southern France (only those who have a "steppes" component):

Beaker_Southern_France
CW_Germany
I1392_Alsace_nosteppe

best coefficients: 0.690 0.310
std. errors: 0.047 0.047
7.219/0.92595

Those do look pretty good are in line with what we should have expected. Are they better fits than using France Middle Neolithic or Iberian Copper Age samples?

anglesqueville
03-11-2018, 01:05 PM
Those do look pretty good are in line with what we should have expected. Are they better fits than using France Middle Neolithic or Iberian Copper Age samples?

I computed some weeks ago some models with France_MN and Iberia_MNChL, but for some reason I'm unable to find them again. I'll run them again, results in the 3 upcoming hours ( right now my linux is busy with another work, and I'm nearly out of RAM)

anglesqueville
03-11-2018, 02:45 PM
Those do look pretty good are in line with what we should have expected. Are they better fits than using France Middle Neolithic or Iberian Copper Age samples?

left pops:
Beaker_Alsace
CW_Germany
France_MLN

best coefficients: 0.784 0.216
chisq/tail prob: 8.976/0.774734
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
left pops:
Beaker_Alsace
CW_Germany
Iberia_MN

best coefficients: 0.773 0.227

chisq/tail prob: 7.184/ 0.892414
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Beaker_Southern_France
CW_Germany
France_MLN

best coefficients: 0.710 0.290

chisq/tail prob: 7.884/ 0.851069
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
left pops:
Beaker_Southern_France
CW_Germany
Iberia_MN

best coefficients: 0.706 0.294
chisq/tail prob: 10.027/0.691704

ffoucart
03-11-2018, 06:53 PM
You are right, although I doubt there will be much of a difference, if any, between Paris Basin and Moselle Bell Beaker samples.

BBs were not present in Paris Basin. Dominant culture there was late neolithic cultures (S.O.M).

R.Rocca
03-11-2018, 09:59 PM
BBs were not present in Paris Basin. Dominant culture there was late neolithic cultures (S.O.M).

There were in Jablines and Ciry-Salsogne and they were of the AOO type. See my prior post here on these Paris Basin Bell Beaker burials: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=266639&viewfull=1#post266639

ffoucart
03-11-2018, 10:13 PM
There were in Jablines and Ciry-Salsogne and they were of the AOO type. See my prior post here on these Paris Basin Bell Beaker burials: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=266639&viewfull=1#post266639

They are not local. It was specified that they seem of foreign origin. Overall, there is no presence of BBs in Paris Basin.

What I mean is simply that there will be no BBs from Central France, only burials from foreign wanderers. So, obviously there will be no difference with other BBs, since there will be of the same population.

Camulogčne Rix
03-11-2018, 10:40 PM
They are not local. It was specified that their seem of foreign origin. Overall, there is no presence of BBs in Paris Basin.

What I mean is simply that there will be no BBs from Central France, only burials from foreign wanderers.

Originally, all the BB settled in France were probably 'foreign wanderers' (or venturers).

R.Rocca
03-12-2018, 12:05 AM
They are not local. It was specified that they seem of foreign origin. Overall, there is no presence of BBs in Paris Basin.

What I mean is simply that there will be no BBs from Central France, only burials from foreign wanderers. So, obviously there will be no difference with other BBs, since there will be of the same population.

Regardless of where they originated, those where Bell Beaker burials from the Paris Basin. I do know that Bell Beaker burials are very rare in Central France however.

R.Rocca
03-12-2018, 12:22 AM
left pops:
Beaker_Alsace
CW_Germany
France_MLN

best coefficients: 0.784 0.216
chisq/tail prob: 8.976/0.774734
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
left pops:
Beaker_Alsace
CW_Germany
Iberia_MN

best coefficients: 0.773 0.227

chisq/tail prob: 7.184/ 0.892414
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Beaker_Southern_France
CW_Germany
France_MLN

best coefficients: 0.710 0.290

chisq/tail prob: 7.884/ 0.851069
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
left pops:
Beaker_Southern_France
CW_Germany
Iberia_MN

best coefficients: 0.706 0.294
chisq/tail prob: 10.027/0.691704

I get some of the differences in tools mixed up some times, especially the ones I don't use. In the case of qpAdm, is the better fit a larger number or a smaller number?

anglesqueville
03-12-2018, 07:38 AM
I get some of the differences in tools mixed up some times, especially the ones I don't use. In the case of qpAdm, is the better fit a larger number or a smaller number?

The highest tail_probs give the best fits: in this precise case, with the alsatian wife. It is imho worth noticing that the worst fit is for the southern beakers and the iberian MN. To be quite honnest, we should have to verify the relative qualities of the genomes involved. But in the case of southern_France Beakers, 0.69 vs 0.92, such a differene starts to be noticeable. I did not search in the texts how is made the French_MLN (cluster of 4 samples). Do you know who are those 4 individuals?

R.Rocca
03-12-2018, 12:32 PM
The highest tail_probs give the best fits: in this precise case, with the alsatian wife. It is imho worth noticing that the worst fit is for the southern beakers and the iberian MN. To be quite honnest, we should have to verify the relative qualities of the genomes involved. But in the case of southern_France Beakers, 0.69 vs 0.92, such a differene starts to be noticeable. I did not search in the texts how is made the French_MLN (cluster of 4 samples). Do you know who are those 4 individuals?

They are from the southern coast, which is likely why they resemble Iberia_Central_CA in some nMonte runs I've made:

I4304 4787–4589 calBCE (5830±35 BP, PSUAMS-2226) Clos de Roque, Saint Maximin-la-Sainte-Baume
I4303 4778–4586 calBCE (5820±30 BP, PSUAMS-2260) Clos de Roque, Saint Maximin-la-Sainte-Baume
I4305 4825–4616 calBCE (5860±35 BP, PSUAMS-2225) Clos de Roque, Saint Maximin-la-Sainte-Baume
I4308 3501–3112 BCE Collet Redon, La Couronne-Martigues

It's too bad we don't have any S.O.M. samples to see if the Alscacian woman is a closer to fit to them, which I think is likely.

R.Rocca
03-15-2018, 01:39 PM
It was not one of the poll categories, but knowing what I know now, I'd be inclined to vote for "None of the above - all models have demic and cultural genetic diffusion merits and flaws".

TigerMW
03-15-2018, 02:42 PM
It was not one of the poll categories, but knowing what I know now, I'd be inclined to vote for "None of the above - all models have demic and cultural genetic diffusion merits and flaws".

I agree. It's tempting to select "Other: they're all way off" but that isn't true either. There are major pieces of some of the models that are probably correct. We just don't know which sub-elements are correct and how they meld together. .. and what is missing. There is a mysteriousness to the "beginning" of the P312 type Bell Beaker folks and how S1194 and U106 play, even if as just cousins who went a different way culturally.

I think the long stretch of generations (represented by 8 to 12 SNPs) between the L51 MRCA and the L151 MRCA is important. It makes finding the L151 MRCA like finding a needle in a haystack. He was just one man and he lived right the cusp of the great expansion of L151.

moesan
03-15-2018, 03:04 PM
Regardless of where they originated, those where Bell Beaker burials from the Paris Basin. I do know that Bell Beaker burials are very rare in Central France however.

the first place is in N-E Île-de-France, in departemement Seine-et-Marne, so close to W Champagne; the second is not very far, just a bit more northern, very close to Soissons, at the mergins of Picardy and Champagne (departement Aisne but close to Oise and Marne).
For Central France I don't know, it seems it was not a hot place for BB's.
just for foreign people because Parisian Basin is a vaste geological area, and they could think in very central places, what they are not.

TigerMW
03-15-2018, 04:15 PM
the first place is in N-E Île-de-France, in departemement Seine-et-Marne, so close to W Champagne; the second is not very far, just a bit more northern, very close to Soissons, at the mergins of Picardy and Champagne (departement Aisne but close to Oise and Marne).
For Central France I don't know, it seems it was not a hot place for BB's.
just for foreign people because Parisian Basin is a vaste geological area, and they could think in very central places, what they are not.

Is this generally true? The Bell Beakers of the 2nd of half of the third millenium (2500-2000 BC) followed the waterways.

Is there a method to this? The Parisian Basin was not a dry climate at this point time, was it?

I am just wondering if this relates to their cultural underpinnings in contrast to the Yamnaya and Corded Wares folks whom I think worked across the plains with their cattle herds.

alan
03-17-2018, 02:47 AM
Been chewing this over and think P312 Bell beaker formed in an L11 CW population who had moved along the carpathian northern fringe to Moravia whose location allowed them to gain access through to the upper Danube between Bratislava and Vienna using the Morava River c2550BC. This allowed absorption of western ideas as they took control of the upper Danube and Rhine. This created the P312 beaker culture This led to a major diaspora from Moravia

alan
03-17-2018, 11:42 AM
Been chewing this over and think P312 Bell beaker formed in an L11 CW population who had moved along the carpathian northern fringe to Moravia whose location allowed them to gain access through to the upper Danube between Bratislava and Vienna using the Morava River c2550BC. This allowed absorption of western ideas as they took control of the upper Danube and Rhine. This created the P312 beaker culture This led to a major diaspora from Moravia
As well as an incredible no of beaker graves, Moravia is also where the superconcentration of metalworkers graves in both beaker and CW graves is located http://archaeopress.com/ArchaeopressShop/Public/download.asp?id=%7B312C721B-1AA0-4863-BD8A-5EC3C11C33E1%7D

That is a fabulous paper by the way from 2016. That seems really significant in terms of the development of a key aspect of beaker culture. It seems to me likely that P312 and probably L11 crawled around the northern slopes of the carpathians from Ukraine to Morovia (perhaps leaving U106 behind in Slovakia) before passing through the Moravian Gate to reach the upper Danube just west of Bratislava. From that point they were at a crossroads between east and west and perhaps turned largely west along the Danube and Rhine as the Mid to lower Danube was already controlled by Z2103 groups.

R.Rocca
03-17-2018, 12:04 PM
Been chewing this over and think P312 Bell beaker formed in an L11 CW population who had moved along the carpathian northern fringe to Moravia whose location allowed them to gain access through to the upper Danube between Bratislava and Vienna using the Morava River c2550BC. This allowed absorption of western ideas as they took control of the upper Danube and Rhine. This created the P312 beaker culture This led to a major diaspora from Moravia

In archaeological literature, Corded Ware in Moravia is referred to as "Moravian Corded Ware" as it is distinct from other Corded Ware cultures. Unfortunately we have not seen any samples from there. I'm pretty sure all of the Czech Corded Ware samples to date have been from Bohemia.

The uniform R1a+ results from other Corded Ware samples are an issue, but no more so than not finding any R1a in Yamnaya. R1a could have been a minor lineage in Yamnaya while P312 could have been a minor lineage in Corded Ware. Dedicated papers for Corded Ware and Yamnaya are needed to resolve the issue.

alan
03-17-2018, 12:21 PM
As well as an incredible no of beaker graves, Moravia is also where the superconcentration of metalworkers graves in both beaker and CW graves is located http://archaeopress.com/ArchaeopressShop/Public/download.asp?id=%7B312C721B-1AA0-4863-BD8A-5EC3C11C33E1%7D

That is a fabulous paper by the way from 2016. That seems really significant in terms of the development of a key aspect of beaker culture. It seems to me likely that P312 and probably L11 crawled around the northern slopes of the carpathians from Ukraine to Morovia (perhaps leaving U106 behind in Slovakia) before passing through the Moravian Gate to reach the upper Danube just west of Bratislava. From that point they were at a crossroads between east and west and perhaps turned largely west along the Danube and Rhine as the Mid to lower Danube was already controlled by Z2103 groups.
Also worth noting that the Moravian gate was part of the Amber Road later as it allowed access from the Adriatic to the Baltic via the Oder etc. So it was the perfect position in many ways as it linked east, west, north and south trade routes.

alan
03-17-2018, 12:41 PM
In archaeological literature, Corded Ware in Moravia is referred to as "Moravian Corded Ware" as it is distinct from other Corded Ware cultures. Unfortunately we have not seen any samples from there. I'm pretty sure all of the Czech Corded Ware samples to date have been from Bohemia.

The uniform R1a+ results from other Corded Ware samples is an issue, but no more so than not finding any R1a in Yamnaya. R1a could have been a minor lineage in Yamnaya while P312 could have been a minor lineage in Corded Ware. Dedicated papers for Corded Ware and Yamnaya are needed to resolve the issue.

It’s also possible that P312 or L11 was a niche lineage who had the beaker metals/trade role in pre beaker times too and that set them apart. It may have also given them an odd distribution as they may have been exploring uplands areas looking for ore and also great trading node locations and while CW in general was a lowland plains culture where metals were not a big deal. I’ve always suspected beaker was some sort of outgroup within the CW zone. Someone was distributing metals (albeit on a smaller scale and not central to the culture) in pre-beaker CW times with metal from the Carpathians and central Germany. My hunch is that was early P312/ late L11 prior to the development of a distinctive culture tracking them. It may have been that superb crossroads position at the Iron agates and the rise of the importance of metals as a prestige source in late CW was that led to a distinctive culture attached to P312 developing and creating an archaeological tracking device for P312. They had a lot less competition in the CW world than the lower Danube, Balkans etc where metals were already a big deal.

rms2
03-17-2018, 02:31 PM
I voted for the Dutch Model in the poll, mainly because I think the similarities between CW Single Grave beakers and BB beakers are pretty obvious, but I'm not sure how I would vote if I had created this poll today.

I cannot help but think that finding an R1b-L11xP312,U106 in Proto-Nagyrev on Csepel Island is very significant. I'm not sure what it means exactly, maybe nothing, but it strikes me as a big clue that L11 was there in the Carpathian basin as a consequence of Yamnaya or even earlier steppe pastoralist settlement there.

Proto-Nagyrev From the Csepel Island burial site at Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor (Hungary):

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-L11xP312,U106; mtDNA H1b1

MitchellSince1893
03-17-2018, 04:14 PM
I agree. It's tempting to select "Other: they're all way off" but that isn't true either. There are major pieces of some of the models that are probably correct. We just don't know which sub-elements are correct and how they meld together. .. and what is missing. There is a mysteriousness to the "beginning" of the P312 type Bell Beaker folks and how S1194 and U106 play, even if as just cousins who went a different way culturally.

I think the long stretch of generations (represented by 8 to 12 SNPs) between the L51 MRCA and the L151 MRCA is important. It makes finding the L151 MRCA like finding a needle in a haystack. He was just one man and he lived right the cusp of the great expansion of L151.

I agree, but given the choices I voted "Other".

For the following reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if L11 (or immediate ancestors) was hiding out north of the Caspian Sea, West of the Urals e.g. Balanovo Culture, before rapidly heading west.


Fatyanovo–Balanovo culture, 3200 BC–2300 BC, is an eastern extension of the Corded Ware culture into Russia...It is really two cultures, the Fatyanovo in the west, the Balanovo in the east...The Balanovo culture occupied the region of the Kama–Vyatka–Vetluga interfluves where metal resources (local copper sandstone deposits) of the region were exploited...Balanovo burials (like the Middle Dnieper culture[6]) were both of the flat and kurgan type, containing individual and also mass graves...The Balanovo also used draught cattle and two wheeled wagons...Copper ornaments and tools have been found in Balanovo burials. Burial goods depended on sex, age, and social position. Copper axes primarily accompanied persons of high social position, stone axe-hammers were given to men, flint axes to children and women. Amulets are frequently found in the graves as well as metal working implements.

1. We have L23+ at Lopatino I, Sok River, Samara, Russia, 3300-2700 BC

2. ~250 miles north of Lopantino I site, we have the Udmurt people with the highest percentage of red hair variants in a non Celtic-Germanic European population.

3. Udmurtia is located in the same area as the Corded Ware related Balanovo Culture

4. We also have three U152 samples from different subclades (L2, Z36, Z56) in this area. They could be relatively recent arrivals, but these subclades appeared between around 3000 and 2500 BC.

5. When Davidski ran his analysis on RISE563 (oldest P312/U152) sample; it came out closest to the Kargopol people who are located within the old Balanova Cultural area.

Balanova Culture in Pink. Udmurtia (red hair folks) in Red.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/90/44/2d/90442df60117e0ef0182c2502a83675a.png

alan
03-17-2018, 04:22 PM
I agree. It's tempting to select "Other: they're all way off" but that isn't true either. There are major pieces of some of the models that are probably correct. We just don't know which sub-elements are correct and how they meld together. .. and what is missing. There is a mysteriousness to the "beginning" of the P312 type Bell Beaker folks and how S1194 and U106 play, even if as just cousins who went a different way culturally.

I think the long stretch of generations (represented by 8 to 12 SNPs) between the L51 MRCA and the L151 MRCA is important. It makes finding the L151 MRCA like finding a needle in a haystack. He was just one man and he lived right the cusp of the great expansion of L151.

Yeah I’ve been saying the same thing/ Pre-L11 L51 will be very hard to find. It will be a total fluke if it is found.

rms2
03-17-2018, 04:36 PM
What do we know in terms of y-dna for sure thus far?

R1b-L11 shows up in two ancient cultures from the 3rd millennium BC: Kurgan Bell Beaker and Proto-Nagyrev. The first of those was alleged by Marija Gimbutas to have resulted from the amalgam of Yamnaya and Vucedol in the Carpathian basin. The second represents the transition from late Vucedol to early Nagyrev.

Corded Ware is overwhelmingly R1a thus far, with one very iffy R1b-L1345, and one I2a.

We do not yet have any y-dna from Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin or on the Pontic steppe. We also don't have any y-dna from Mikhailovka or Kemi Oba, cultures with burial rites very similar to those of Bell Beaker, and we don't have any y-dna from Maikop.

There's a lot we don't know.

rms2
07-20-2018, 11:16 PM
Anyone want to change his or her vote?

razyn
07-21-2018, 12:30 AM
Several of us never voted in the first place. We stated our reasons, for example(s), in posts #63, 65 and 68. As the late and lamented JeanM said in #70, it's silly. But to answer the present question -- no, I don't want to change that.

However, this thread contains a good bit of useful information, maps, illustrations of pottery etc. -- w/o any particular reference to the "poll" that triggered it.

rms2
07-21-2018, 10:58 AM
I'm not sure why voting in this poll, selecting one of the models of Beaker origins as closest to right (per the actual poll question), is silly. It's certainly not a "hollow mockery of science" (that characterization is gasbaggery) and never was. And it is a poll, so no need to surround the word poll in quotation marks.

BTW, Jean was a really nice person, very knowledgeable, and I miss her, but she wasn't right about everything.

But thanks for reminding me of something I had almost forgotten.

rms2
07-21-2018, 11:46 AM
If you have not yet voted in this poll and would like to, please go back and read the first post, which contains brief overviews of the major models of Bell Beaker origins.

Remember too that selecting a model just means you think it is the model that is closest to right, not that you necessarily agree with every aspect of it.

rms2
07-21-2018, 08:26 PM
In his recent book, Who We Are and How We Got Here, David Reich seems to endorse Sangmeister's Reflux Model, in which an incomplete version of Bell Beaker expands eastward out of Iberia and then heads back westward after picking up a number of central European contributions.

This is from pages 114-115 of Reich's book:



Beginning about forty-seven hundred years ago, a couple of centuries after the Corded Ware culture swept into central Europe, there was an equally dramatic expansion of the Bell Beaker culture, probably from the region of present-day Iberia . . . It is possible to learn about the movement of people and objects by studying the ratios of isotopes of elements like strontium, lead, and oxygen that are characteristic of materials in different parts of the world. By studying the isotopic composition of teeth, archaeologists have shown that some people of the Bell Beaker culture moved hundreds of kilometers from their places of birth.36

. . . A major open question for understanding the spread of the Bell Beaker culture has always been whether it was propelled by the movement of people or the spread of ideas . . .

So, in contrast to what happened with the spread of the Corded Ware culture from the east, the initial spread of the Bell Beaker culture across Europe was mediated by the movement of ideas, not by migration.

Once the Bell Beaker culture reached central Europe through the dispersal of ideas, though, it spread further through migration.


Ibid, page 116:



Prompted by the ancient DNA results, several archaeologists have speculated to me that the Bell Beaker culture could be viewed as a kind of ancient religion that converted peoples of different backgrounds to a new way of viewing the world, thus serving as an ideological solvent that facilitated the integration and spread of steppe ancestry and culture into central and western Europe.

So, for Reich, Bell Beaker ideas, minus very many people, moved eastward out of Iberia and got picked up by actual people in central Europe, who spread them, along with their own innovations and, importantly, their non-Iberian dna, back to the west.

Coldmountains
01-07-2019, 12:23 AM
I agree, but given the choices I voted "Other".

For the following reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if L11 (or immediate ancestors) was hiding out north of the Caspian Sea, West of the Urals e.g. Balanovo Culture, before rapidly heading west.


1. We have L23+ at Lopatino I, Sok River, Samara, Russia, 3300-2700 BC

2. ~250 miles north of Lopantino I site, we have the Udmurt people with the highest percentage of red hair variants in a non Celtic-Germanic European population.

3. Udmurtia is located in the same area as the Corded Ware related Balanovo Culture

4. We also have three U152 samples from different subclades (L2, Z36, Z56) in this area. They could be relatively recent arrivals, but these subclades appeared between around 3000 and 2500 BC.

5. When Davidski ran his analysis on RISE563 (oldest P312/U152) sample; it came out closest to the Kargopol people who are located within the old Balanova Cultural area.

Balanova Culture in Pink. Udmurtia (red hair folks) in Red.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/90/44/2d/90442df60117e0ef0182c2502a83675a.png
Kargopol is in the Archangelsk Oblast in Northwestern Russia. Balanovo is derived from Middle Dnjepr which was ancestral to Balto-Slavs, Indo-Iranians and other eastern Indo-Europeans rich in R1a.

Chad Rohlfsen
01-07-2019, 12:47 AM
I get some of the differences in tools mixed up some times, especially the ones I don't use. In the case of qpAdm, is the better fit a larger number or a smaller number?

Those are all fine. One isn't really "better" than the other. .2 or .8, both work. If one was .00004e-5, that's another story.

rms2
01-19-2019, 08:37 PM
Given this recent blog post at Eurogenes (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/01/dutch-beakers-like-no-other-beakers.html), maybe some folks who haven't voted in this poll would like to give it a whack now.

I'm feeling better about my vote for the Dutch Model. :beerchug:

MitchellSince1893
01-19-2019, 11:19 PM
How are you feeling about Budzhak?

I’m now thinking L51 was taking a more northerly route through Corded Ware territory,like I mentioned in this thread as it relates to Balanovo.

So much for the “Goldilocks Zone” theory.

MitchellSince1893
01-19-2019, 11:36 PM
Kargopol is in the Archangelsk Oblast in Northwestern Russia. Balanovo is derived from Middle Dnjepr which was ancestral to Balto-Slavs, Indo-Iranians and other eastern Indo-Europeans rich in R1a.
Yeah it looks like I confused Kargopol with Mordovia on that map. Daviidski had RISE563 closest to present day Kargopol people and Mordvinians
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQSFJva2RkakpTdm8/view

rms2
01-19-2019, 11:39 PM
How are you feeling about Budzhak?

I’m now thinking L51 was taking a more northerly route through Corded Ware territory,like I mentioned in this thread as it relates to Balanovo.

I don't know. Still a possibility.

The regrettable thing about the Dutch Model being right (if it is) is that it leaves room for the L51 haters to claim a western European origin.

We need it on the steppe to make our case.

MitchellSince1893
01-19-2019, 11:50 PM
Oldest U152 and one of the oldest P312 samples RISE563
From Davidski

RISE563 - very eastern, could pass for Corded Ware
Eurogenes Monday, June 29, 2015
K8 results for selected Allentoft et al. genomes

MitchellSince1893
01-20-2019, 12:02 AM
I don't know. Still a possibility.

The regrettable thing about the Dutch Model being right (if it is) is that it leaves room for the L51 haters to claim a western European origin.

We need it on the steppe to make our case.

I wouldn't worry about that. Let the desire to find the truth, wherever it takes us, be our guide. :beerchug:
Whether L51 was born in the Steppes or in say the Netherlands, there's little doubt his paternal line i.e. L23 was from the Steppes, and his paternal descendants at some point originated in Western Europe.

I've got maps I made with P312, L11, L51 originating in Yamnaya country all over anthrogenica. If I was wrong, then I was wrong. I was just going with what made the most sense at the time; and will obligingly follow the data wherever it takes me. :grouphug:

Agamemnon
01-20-2019, 12:07 AM
I don't know. Still a possibility.

The regrettable thing about the Dutch Model being right (if it is) is that it leaves room for the L51 haters to claim a western European origin.

We need it on the steppe to make our case.

If an argument from silence is the best they can come up with, then they find themselves in a very tight spot indeed. The repeated claim that L51 could not have come from the steppe never really made any sense to begin with, L51 is a branch of L23 just like Z2103, in fact according to YFull they both have the same formation estimates (between 6,800 and 5,500 yBP). This close phylogenetic relationship alone should suffice to highlight how counterintuitive and illogical a non-steppe origin really is... And if we take into account the fact that, with V88 showing up in Mesolithic and Neolithic samples from Ukraine as well as V1636 showing up in Khvalynsk as well as several of the steppe samples from Wang et al., ancient genomic data clearly indicate that R1b's diversity was centered on the steppe such an argument becomes even more tenuous.

rms2
01-20-2019, 12:08 AM
I wouldn't worry about that. Let the desire to find the truth, wherever it takes us, be our guide. :beerchug:
Whether L51 was born in the Steppes or in say the Netherlands, there's little doubt his paternal line i.e. L23 was from the Steppes.

I've got maps I made with P312, L11, L51 originating in Yamnaya country all over anthrogenica. If I was wrong, then I was wrong. I was just going with what made the most sense at the time; and will obligingly follow the data wherever it takes me. :grouphug:

I think L51 was born on the steppe. Where P312 was born is an open question.

I wonder about the Amesbury Archer. It's almost certain he was L21, given the result of his likely son, "The Companion". His dental isotopes say he was probably born and raised in the Alpine region of South Germany or Switzerland, not in the Netherlands.

Maybe the whole Rhine basin, from Switzerland to the North Sea, was the Corded Ware cradle of Kurgan Bell Beaker.

28505

I wonder, does The Companion, I2565 from Olalde et al, resemble Dutch Bell Beaker or Corded Ware?

28506

MitchellSince1893
01-20-2019, 12:35 AM
I think L51 was born on the steppe. Where P312 was born is an open question.

I wonder about the Amesbury Archer. It's almost certain he was L21, given the result of his likely son, "The Companion". His dental isotopes say he was probably born and raised in the Alpine region of South Germany or Switzerland, not in the Netherlands.

Maybe the whole Rhine basin, from Switzerland to the North Sea, was the Corded Ware cradle of Kurgan Bell Beaker.

28505

I know the "Lower Rhine" is the hot topic at the moment. But as I've mentioned before the "Upper Rhine" (L21 vector), Upper Danube (U152 vector), and Upper Rhone (DF27 vector) area (Eastern France, southwest Germany, western Switzerland), is where P312 may have potentially been able to rapidly spread to the present day distributions in the British Isles, Alpine Countries, and Iberia. A great spot for "explosive growth"

One possible timeline is:
1. L51 or an ancestor between him and L23 was coming in from the east through the Corded Ware Horizon/Culture
2. P310 and then L11/L151 are born somewhere between the Samara Bend (where L23 was found), and the Low Countries.
3. Z2111/R-PF7589 either split off on the way from east to west, or was born in Lower Rhine and then headed back towards the south Baltic Coast.
4. Same thing for U106 and DF100 and certain P312 north european minor subclades. They are either born in the northeast part of the Single Grave area, or they are born in the Lower Rhine and then head back towards the Baltic Coast.
5. Major P312 subclades (L21, DF27, U152), either head across the North Sea from the Lower Rhine to the Isles (i.e. L21), or they head up the Rhine and then down the Rhone (i.e. DF27), and the Danube (U152 and eastern Bell Beaker).

Per your comment about the Amesbury Archer and the Alpine like isotopes, this may indicate that P312>Z290 headed up the Rhine from the Low Countries and that's where L21 got his "alpine like" isotopic input, before heading back down the Rhine and over to the Isles?

I don't know. Just thinking out loud with the available puzzle pieces.

rms2
01-25-2019, 12:55 AM
I mentioned this recently in another thread, but British Beaker man I2417, from the Boscombe Bowmen grave at Amesbury in Wiltshire, was R1b-L21 and had Corded Ware-level steppe dna (check out Figure S2 in the Olalde et al Supplementary Info). There were seven AOO beakers in that grave, and AOO beakers were also common in Corded Ware Single Grave Protruding Foot Beaker (say that three times fast) in the Netherlands.

Meaning? You tell me.

Finn
01-25-2019, 10:47 AM
Corded Ware Single Grave Protruding Foot Beaker

to use for.....:biggrin1:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/k2ujut.45.04.png

rms2
07-31-2019, 06:07 PM
I kind of wish we could get back to this thread/poll.

Personally, I think as the data accumulate, it is becoming more obvious that something very much like the Dutch Model is right.

Want to argue about it?

I'm ready. ;)

Silesian
07-31-2019, 08:08 PM
I kind of wish we could get back to this thread/poll.

Personally, I think as the data accumulate, it is becoming more obvious that something very much like the Dutch Model is right.

Want to argue about it?

I'm ready. ;)

If you need a vocabulary for horse, wagon, wheel,dog, basic metallurgy; you should be able to provide ample examples in R1a-L51 Bell Beaker-Corded Ware hybrid-archeology- that spans from European languages to the Tocharian language, no?

Webb
08-22-2019, 08:40 PM
I know the "Lower Rhine" is the hot topic at the moment. But as I've mentioned before the "Upper Rhine" (L21 vector), Upper Danube (U152 vector), and Upper Rhone (DF27 vector) area (Eastern France, southwest Germany, western Switzerland), is where P312 may have potentially been able to rapidly spread to the present day distributions in the British Isles, Alpine Countries, and Iberia. A great spot for "explosive growth"

One possible timeline is:
1. L51 or an ancestor between him and L23 was coming in from the east through the Corded Ware Horizon/Culture
2. P310 and then L11/L151 are born somewhere between the Samara Bend (where L23 was found), and the Low Countries.
3. Z2111/R-PF7589 either split off on the way from east to west, or was born in Lower Rhine and then headed back towards the south Baltic Coast.
4. Same thing for U106 and DF100 and certain P312 north european minor subclades. They are either born in the northeast part of the Single Grave area, or they are born in the Lower Rhine and then head back towards the Baltic Coast.
5. Major P312 subclades (L21, DF27, U152), either head across the North Sea from the Lower Rhine to the Isles (i.e. L21), or they head up the Rhine and then down the Rhone (i.e. DF27), and the Danube (U152 and eastern Bell Beaker).

Per your comment about the Amesbury Archer and the Alpine like isotopes, this may indicate that P312>Z290 headed up the Rhine from the Low Countries and that's where L21 got his "alpine like" isotopic input, before heading back down the Rhine and over to the Isles?

I don't know. Just thinking out loud with the available puzzle pieces.

I am presently liking the straight shot from the steppe to the Baltic Sea on the eastern side of Denmark, having passed through Poland, then a counter clockwise movement from the Baltic Sea over to the North Sea, up the Rhine, then back down the Danube to explain the aDna U152 in the Hungary area.

MitchellSince1893
08-23-2019, 12:31 AM
I think where R-S1194 is found and not found could be a hint. S1194 is a brother clade to U106 and P312. Ideally we would have an ancient dna to narrow it down.

Until then 79 samples are presently found in the FTDNA database in the following locations (excluding UK, Ireland, and New World samples)

Germany: 28 (35%)
Netherlands: 16 (20%)
Sweden: 9 (11%)
Denmark: 6 (8%)
Belgium: 5 (6%)
Italy: 4 (5%)
Norway: 4 (5%)
Switzerland: 3 (4%)
Poland: 2 (3%)
France: 2 (3%)
Portugal: 1 (1%)
Austria: 1 (1%)
Czechia: 1 (1%)
Hungary: 1 (1%)

56% of these sample are from Germany & Netherlands
75% are from Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark
89% are from Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, and Poland.

These samples are geographically providing a good correlation to the Single Grave Corded Ware's territory.

If this is telling us something about the past, then it may indicate that the ancestor of U106, P312, and S1194 was also in this general area and also part of SGC

rms2
09-21-2019, 01:26 PM
I'm thinking there was a lot of action in the third millennium BC, especially in eastern and central Europe and that it's difficult to sort out. There in central Europe was a whole steppe-derived Single Grave Culture (to use Furholt's term) milieu that was churning and spinning out offshoots.

Maybe P312 did come up the Danube with Yamnaya into Vucedol and only afterwards got mixed up with Corded Ware.

Who knows?

One has to take the sun god religion of the steppe PIE people into account, as well as the genetics. Beaker appears in part to have been a religious sect that buried its dead facing east, toward the rising sun.

rms2
10-21-2019, 04:12 PM
I'm thinking there was a lot of action in the third millennium BC, especially in eastern and central Europe and that it's difficult to sort out. There in central Europe was a whole steppe-derived Single Grave Culture (to use Furholt's term) milieu that was churning and spinning out offshoots.

Maybe P312 did come up the Danube with Yamnaya into Vucedol and only afterwards got mixed up with Corded Ware.

Who knows?

One has to take the sun god religion of the steppe PIE people into account, as well as the genetics. Beaker appears in part to have been a religious sect that buried its dead facing east, toward the rising sun.

I'm not wanting to change my vote. I voted for the Dutch Model, and I still think it's closest to correct. It looks to me like Kurgan Bell Beaker evolved out of Single Grave Corded Ware someplace, perhaps in the Netherlands.

We just need more Corded Ware y-dna test results, especially in the Netherlands. Mittnik et al and the R1b-P310 result of ALT_4, a little Corded Ware boy from southern Germany, could be a sign that Kurgan BB did indeed spring from Corded Ware. However, we need more and earlier results, since ALT_4 dated to the mid third millennium BC. We need some L51 results from older Corded Ware to really be sure.

razyn
10-21-2019, 05:47 PM
Mittnik et al and the R1b-P310 result of ALT_4, a little Corded Ware boy from southern Germany, could be a sign that Kurgan BB did indeed spring from Corded Ware. However, we need more and earlier results, since ALT_4 dated to the mid third millennium BC. We need some L51 results from older Corded Ware to really be sure.

I couldn't agree more. But earlier L51 results will need to be way farther east than the Netherlands, just based on the "tree's on the roots, roots are in the hole, hole's in the ground" principle. Which I helpfully applied to phylogenetic trees a couple of years ago, on a thread that was shut down soon thereafter. We've had a number of useful papers and lots of aDNA since Sept. 2017, but the principle remains a principle. Steppe ancestry in SGC, almost (but not quite) in the lower Rhine area, came from the steppe; and however you prefer to view that (I think more Caspian and less Pontic might help, as the Volga does not flow to the Black Sea), it's far to the east. https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=287409&viewfull=1#post287409

rms2
10-21-2019, 06:02 PM
I couldn't agree more. But earlier L51 results will need to be way farther east than the Netherlands, just based on the "tree's on the roots, roots are in the hole, hole's in the ground" principle. Which I helpfully applied to phylogenetic trees a couple of years ago, on a thread that was shut down soon thereafter. We've had a number of useful papers and lots of aDNA since Sept. 2017, but the principle remains a principle. Steppe ancestry in SGC, almost (but not quite) in the lower Rhine area, came from the steppe; and however you prefer to view that (I think more Caspian and less Pontic might help, as the Volga does not flow to the Black Sea), it's far to the east. https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=287409&viewfull=1#post287409

Oh, I agree. Early Dutch CW results might establish the truth of the Dutch Model for Kurgan Bell Beaker, but it won't satisfy us much on the origin of L51, even with CW levels of steppe dna (ALT_4 has that).

Call me a true believer, but I think early steppe L51 is coming. ALT_4 might be a sign that the thaw has begun.

I'm thinking Reich already knew that L51 is of steppe origin when he wrote his recent book, and I think Kristiansen knew when he gave his talk in Vienna back in December of last year.

Kopfjäger
10-21-2019, 06:19 PM
Oh, I agree. Early Dutch CW results might establish the truth of the Dutch Model for Kurgan Bell Beaker, but it won't satisfy us much on the origin of L51, even with CW levels of steppe dna (ALT_4 has that).

Call me a true believer, but I think early steppe L51 is coming. ALT_4 might be a sign that the thaw has begun.

I'm thinking Reich already knew that L51 is of steppe origin when he wrote his recent book, and I think Kristiansen knew when he gave his talk in Vienna back in December of last year.

It definitely would be great to get some L51 from the Steppe; some rumors have been circulating about this recently.

R.Rocca
10-21-2019, 08:08 PM
Oh, I agree. Early Dutch CW results might establish the truth of the Dutch Model for Kurgan Bell Beaker, but it won't satisfy us much on the origin of L51, even with CW levels of steppe dna (ALT_4 has that).

Call me a true believer, but I think early steppe L51 is coming. ALT_4 might be a sign that the thaw has begun.

I'm thinking Reich already knew that L51 is of steppe origin when he wrote his recent book, and I think Kristiansen knew when he gave his talk in Vienna back in December of last year.

Even GASKA, the most staunch supporter of all things Out-of-Iberia, was told by sources in Spain that the predecessor of DF27 was to be found in Northern Russia. Of course GASKA is still taking the "I'll believe it when I see it approach" but it says a lot for what's coming.

Ayetooey
10-21-2019, 08:28 PM
I would say Dutch or Gimbutas; voted for Dutch in the poll.

rms2
10-22-2019, 10:59 PM
Even GASKA, the most staunch supporter of all things Out-of-Iberia, was told by sources in Spain that the predecessor of DF27 was to be found in Northern Russia. Of course GASKA is still taking the "I'll believe it when I see it approach" but it says a lot for what's coming.

That sends my mind back to a year or so ago and Alexei Butin's post alleging that Alexander Khokhlov told everyone at the 14th Samara Archaeological Conference that R1b-P312 had been found at Ekaterinovsky Cape in ancient remains from the 4th quarter of the 5th millennium BC.

Khokhlov denied it, but now I wonder . . .

Generalissimo
10-23-2019, 01:34 AM
There won't be any P312 up that way. As far as I know there's isn't even any L51 or M269 in Khvalynsk, tough I suppose M269 might show up in the final results.

anglesqueville
10-23-2019, 07:16 AM
Even GASKA, the most staunch supporter of all things Out-of-Iberia, was told by sources in Spain that the predecessor of DF27 was to be found in Northern Russia. Of course GASKA is still taking the "I'll believe it when I see it approach" but it says a lot for what's coming.

The same guy announced triumphantly a few months ago that "R1b is saved from Asian hordes" (or something like that). I think in his mind, Moscow is already Asia. He will have to build a bunker, for him and for his ideas.

rms2
10-23-2019, 11:27 AM
There won't be any P312 up that way. As far as I know there's isn't even any L51 or M269 in Khvalynsk, tough I suppose M269 might show up in the final results.

I wonder what Khokhlov actually said at that conference, though. I don't think Butin imagined the whole thing, and I got the impression that Khokhlov needed to make amends for letting some kind of cat out of the bag.

I'm not at home right now, so I don't have access to my notes, but he supposedly said the skeletons were of Khvalynsk or Mariupol type (not my words, his, as quoted by Butin) and "wide-faced".

Generalissimo
10-23-2019, 11:36 AM
I wonder what Khokhlov actually said at that conference, though. I don't think Butin imagined the whole thing, and I got the impression that Khokhlov needed to make amends for letting some kind of cat out of the bag.

I'm not at home right now, so I don't have access to my notes, but he supposedly said the skeletons were of Khvalynsk or Mariupol type (not my words, his, as quoted by Butin) and "wide-faced".

It was just a misunderstanding. But you should try and get in touch with him now. If you get him in a good mood he might be able to tell you something very interesting.

rms2
10-23-2019, 11:41 AM
It was just a misunderstanding. But you should try and get in touch with him now. If you get him in a good mood he might be able to tell you something very interesting.

That's what I mean. Maybe it wasn't P312; but maybe it was just a couple of steps back from it.

I may try contacting him again. We exchanged a couple of emails back when that whole business took place.

Generalissimo
10-23-2019, 11:53 AM
That's what I mean. Maybe it wasn't P312; but maybe it was just a couple of steps back from it.

I may try contacting him again. We exchanged a couple of emails back when that whole business took place.

Ask him if he's found any L51 in his recent samples.

Finn
10-27-2019, 11:10 AM
The neo Dutch model.....!?
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18748-The-spread-of-Barbed-Wire-Beakers-to-the-west-and-a-reflux-to-the-east!

Finn
11-06-2019, 06:38 PM
IMO the signs are getting clearer: the North Dutch/NW German Bell Beaker area was indeed the 'genetic hub' with linkages more NW-wards over Sea to England/Scotland, NE-wards to Poland and the Baltic and SE-wards into Germany/Austria!

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?18856-The-tentacles-of-the-NW-Bell-Beakers-spread-all-over-the-North-European-place-!

Finn
11-07-2019, 03:06 PM
I know the "Lower Rhine" is the hot topic at the moment. But as I've mentioned before the "Upper Rhine" (L21 vector), Upper Danube (U152 vector), and Upper Rhone (DF27 vector) area (Eastern France, southwest Germany, western Switzerland), is where P312 may have potentially been able to rapidly spread to the present day distributions in the British Isles, Alpine Countries, and Iberia. A great spot for "explosive growth"

One possible timeline is:
1. L51 or an ancestor between him and L23 was coming in from the east through the Corded Ware Horizon/Culture
2. P310 and then L11/L151 are born somewhere between the Samara Bend (where L23 was found), and the Low Countries.
3. Z2111/R-PF7589 either split off on the way from east to west, or was born in Lower Rhine and then headed back towards the south Baltic Coast.
4. Same thing for U106 and DF100 and certain P312 north european minor subclades. They are either born in the northeast part of the Single Grave area, or they are born in the Lower Rhine and then head back towards the Baltic Coast.
5. Major P312 subclades (L21, DF27, U152), either head across the North Sea from the Lower Rhine to the Isles (i.e. L21), or they head up the Rhine and then down the Rhone (i.e. DF27), and the Danube (U152 and eastern Bell Beaker).

Per your comment about the Amesbury Archer and the Alpine like isotopes, this may indicate that P312>Z290 headed up the Rhine from the Low Countries and that's where L21 got his "alpine like" isotopic input, before heading back down the Rhine and over to the Isles?

I don't know. Just thinking out loud with the available puzzle pieces.

IMO your analysis is prefect but IMO it's not so much the lower Rhine but the NE Dutch and NW German BB milieu that is born out of Single Grave Culture more or less evolved into a kind of Bell Beakers and than spread towards England/Scotland, to Central Europe and North East Europe, Poland and the Baltics.


https://www.mupload.nl/img/93vgs121sjj.png

It's area 1, I guess it's more correct to speak about the North Sea bordering area in stead of Lower Rhine, and notice that this is not only the departure point of the 'NW Bell Beakers' and it's the same area that is later on Elp Culture:

See the similarities in the area's:

https://www.mupload.nl/img/g1fgabpokcsp.57.50.png

And it's also the heartland of the Anglo-Saxons. They are called Ingvaeonic or North Sea Germans and than we get for the third time the same kind of picture:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/ng1apkvgik.03.52.png

There is some 'genetic drift' between the "NW Beakers' and the "Anglo-Saxons' but that's gradual.

It's the reason why Jessie and the Finn's sometimes plot so close, we both seem to be highly NW Beakers.....

Are there still people that have doubts? And why?

rms2
04-18-2020, 10:14 PM
So, does anyone who hasn't voted wish to vote now?

Please read the first post in this thread before voting so that you know what is being asked.

I'm feeling pretty good about my vote.

corner
04-18-2020, 10:41 PM
So, does anyone who hasn't voted wish to vote now?

Please read the first post in this thread before voting so that you know what is being asked.

I'm feeling pretty good about my vote.Time flies - looks like I was one of the 17 who went Dutch.

jdean
04-18-2020, 11:02 PM
Time flies - looks like I was one of the 17 who went Dutch.

My view hasn't changed but nice to skip back and see posts from Jean Manco.

rms2
04-23-2020, 05:15 PM
It's definitely looking like Kurgan Bell Beaker was simply an offshoot of Corded Ware, as the Dutch Model postulates. Really, that always should have been clear, given the pretty obvious similarities.

IMHO, it was the Spanish Model, i.e., the idea that Bell Beaker came from Iberia, that caused all the confusion and kept people from seeing the truth.

When was it that Rich Rocca said he thought Corded Ware would turn out to be the source of R1b-L51 in Europe west of the steppe? Three years ago or more? As I recall, he said it back when there wasn't a single Corded Ware R1b yet. Good call evidently.

alan
04-23-2020, 05:46 PM
It's definitely looking like Kurgan Bell Beaker was simply an offshoot of Corded Ware, as the Dutch Model postulates. Really, that always should have been clear, given the pretty obvious similarities.

IMHO, it was the Spanish Model, i.e., the idea that Bell Beaker came from Iberia, that caused all the confusion and kept people from seeing the truth.

When was it that Rich Rocca said he thought Corded Ware would turn out to be the source of R1b-L51 in Europe west of the steppe? Three years ago or more? As I recall, he said it back when there wasn't a single Corded Ware R1b yet. Good call evidently.

Jean Manco's was a fantastic contributor and is sorely missed (its been very strange not having her around and so sad she isnt seeing the new evidence) but she was so very invested in the Stelae People idea that she did tend to shut down any discussion that CW was behind beaker/P312. However, she got a lot right and nobody is perfect. Two years gone 4 weeks ago.

MitchellSince1893
04-23-2020, 05:55 PM
I started a somewhat related thread here...in case anyone else wants to participate
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20130-L51-amp-Sub-Clades-Area-of-Origination-Poll-for-those-willing-to-go-out-on-a-limb

rms2
04-23-2020, 08:43 PM
Jean Manco's was a fantastic contributor and is sorely missed (its been very strange not having her around and so sad she isnt seeing the new evidence) but she was so very invested in the Stelae People idea that she did tend to shut down any discussion that CW was behind beaker/P312. However, she got a lot right and nobody is perfect. Two years gone 4 weeks ago.

Not to criticize Jean, since she's not here to defend herself, but I think she was wedded to the idea that somehow BB arose in Iberia and emerged from there. That's in part what I meant by the Spanish Model causing confusion. Otherwise, I think most people would have seen the pretty obvious similarities between CW and BB and concluded that the latter simply developed from the former.

That's why Jean had the Stelae People traveling all the way from the steppe to Iberia and creating BB there before migrating east into the rest of Europe.

Dieu
04-23-2020, 09:00 PM
The good vote was the reflux model but bell beaker should be split into two differents cultures: the first phase being the bell beaker, the second phase being the Corded bell beaker.

Finn
04-23-2020, 09:08 PM
The good vote was the reflux model but bell beaker should be split into two differents cultures: the first phase being the bell beaker, the second phase being the Corded bell beaker.

?
I guess single grave culture entering about 2800 BC a broad range around the North Sea transformed itself in the North Dutch/NW German are to Protruding Foot Beaker. The "PFB" heirs spread all over the place.

So I can't place the 'second phase' being CW quite well....

Dieu
04-23-2020, 09:25 PM
?
I guess single grave culture entering about 2800 BC a broad range around the North Sea transformed itself in the North Dutch/NW German are to Protruding Foot Beaker. The "PTB" heirs spread all over the place.

So I can't place the 'second phase' being CW quite well....

I just meant that the bell beaker phenomenon started in Iberia but lacked the corded ware components both cultural (corded decoration and single graves) and genetic one (R1b L151 and "steppes component") that came after with the heirs of Protruding-Foot Beaker culture going southwest.

Finn
04-23-2020, 09:37 PM
I just meant that the bell beaker phenomenon started in Iberia but lacked the corded ware components (corded decoration and single graves) that came after with the heirs of Protruding-Foot Beaker culture going southwest.

I think the transformation is Single Grave>PFB>BB, the cultural influence came to some extent from the southwest, West-TRB had also some (genetic) influence in this transformation.

Dieu
04-23-2020, 09:45 PM
I think the transformation is Single Grave>PFB>BB, the cultural influence came to some extent from the southwest, West-TRB had also some (genetic) influence in this transformation.

The problem is that BB is in fact Two distinct phenomenon, you can't say PFB>BB. The early BB from Iberia were just born in Iberia and expanded from there to france and were EEF like. Then later on, the Single grave or PFB migrated southwest and mixed or even replaced in somes place the EEF like BB present there.

anglesqueville
04-23-2020, 10:03 PM
It's clear for long that there was no genetic influx from Iberian Chalcolithic groups into northern and central Europe. One could then say that pots are often people, but sometimes not, and keep imagining that the BB-phenomenon, at least as a cultural phenomenon, has its source, or one of its sources in the Iberian Chalcolithic. In this respect, it's time to re-re-re-read Jeunesse's famous text "The dogma of the Iberian Origin ...", as precisely its purpose is not at all genetic but cultural (in the sense of archaeological cultures, of their definitions and delimitations). http://www.jna.uni-kiel.de/index.php/jna/article/view/112

jdean
04-23-2020, 10:11 PM
It's definitely looking like Kurgan Bell Beaker was simply an offshoot of Corded Ware, as the Dutch Model postulates. Really, that always should have been clear, given the pretty obvious similarities.

IMHO, it was the Spanish Model, i.e., the idea that Bell Beaker came from Iberia, that caused all the confusion and kept people from seeing the truth.

When was it that Rich Rocca said he thought Corded Ware would turn out to be the source of R1b-L51 in Europe west of the steppe? Three years ago or more? As I recall, he said it back when there wasn't a single Corded Ware R1b yet. Good call evidently.

Well I'm going to be a stick in the mud, my preference is CW & BB had a common ancestor, probably in W Ukraine, but I also suspect I'm going to have to give up on that idea soon : )

anglesqueville
04-23-2020, 10:37 PM
Well I'm going to be a stick in the mud, my preference is CW & BB had a common ancestor, probably in W Ukraine, but I also suspect I'm going to have to give up on that idea soon : )

It was as well my preference a few years ago, likely under the influence of Jean Manco. But time has passed, and the Yamna Culture has fallen from its throne. I don't remember what I voted then, but now I would vote for the Dutch model, without any hesitation.

Dieu
04-23-2020, 10:46 PM
It was as well my preference a few years ago, likely under the influence of Jean Manco. But time has passed, and the Yamna Culture has fallen from its throne. I don't remember what I voted then, but now I would vote for the Dutch model, without any hesitation.
you still can see what you voted for, it's in italic.

Dieu
04-23-2020, 10:46 PM
It's clear for long that there was no genetic influx from Iberian Chalcolithic groups into northern and central Europe. One could then say that pots are often people, but sometimes not, and keep imagining that the BB-phenomenon, at least as a cultural phenomenon, has its source, or one of its sources in the Iberian Chalcolithic. In this respect, it's time to re-re-re-read Jeunesse's famous text "The dogma of the Iberian Origin ...", as precisely its purpose is not at all genetic but cultural (in the sense of archaeological cultures, of their definitions and delimitations). http://www.jna.uni-kiel.de/index.php/jna/article/view/112

what about those Bell beaker sample in Iberia with no steppes ancestry ? they're not really bell beaker in the end ?

alan
04-23-2020, 11:41 PM
Not to criticize Jean, since she's not here to defend herself, but I think she was wedded to the idea that somehow BB arose in Iberia and emerged from there. That's in part what I meant by the Spanish Model causing confusion. Otherwise, I think most people would have seen the pretty obvious similarities between CW and BB and concluded that the latter simply developed from the former.

That's why Jean had the Stelae People traveling all the way from the steppe to Iberia and creating BB there before migrating east into the rest of Europe.

It is still the norm in archaeology to see the bell beaker pot itself as originating in Iberia - usually citing those dates c. 2800-2600BC to substantiate this. However, Iberian sites are so often a jumble of multiple layers I have always had little confidence that even the radiocarbon dates are correct. Also, I have read that Iberia had a marine component in its diet that most area didnt and that could potentially be aging the dates. Even if the dates are correct, Iberian beaker just looks awful like it was inspired by CW to me. Perhaps just a contact that came from the Grand Pressigny network which stretched from NW Germany and Holland to the France-Spain border. That network could easily have provided a way for ideas to spread in both directions. But the key thing has always been that pots are not a good way of nailing down the origin of male lineages because its normally a female craft. The focus should have been on the other stuff like burial traditions etc. Beaker pot likely only became hardwired into the culture of the P312 groups as a result of them going through a long phase of marrying mostly other beaker people and that way the pottery type effectively became linked to the spread of P312 despite the fact women were making it.

alan
04-23-2020, 11:57 PM
what about those Bell beaker sample in Iberia with no steppes ancestry ? they're not really bell beaker in the end ?

Depends on

A. Can the early dates for beaker in Iberia be trusted?

B. How you define beaker people.

Beaker, despite some very poor attempts to argue to the contrary, do not appear to have prototypes in Iberia. They look like they are a local spin on the beakers found in CW. However, the non-P312 early beaker users in Iberia share no other CW features. My guess is contact via the Grand Pressigny trade route spread the model of CW beakers to Iberia without hardly any migration. Perhaps a few women? It seems a hell of a coincidence that the earliest dates for beaker pottery in Iberia (if we accept they are valid) are very similar to the dates for CW reaching its westernmost locations i.e. c. 2800BC. I think it was just a cultural contact whereby CW beaker model was taken up by Iberians. Perhaps with a few women involved.

rms2
04-24-2020, 02:43 AM
Whatever they had early on in Iberia, it's pretty plain it wasn't what we think of when we think of Bell Beaker, which I usually refer to as Kurgan Bell Beaker. That's why, several years before the advent of the Olalde et al Beaker paper, I and a number of others (including alan) pointed out the differences and predicted that early Iberian BB and classic Kurgan BB would differ genetically.

With all the R1b-L51 showing up in Corded Ware now, and with Generalissimo warning of more to come with a promised paper on Dutch Single Grave, we're starting to see how Kurgan Bell Beaker must have come into being, i.e., as an offshoot of Corded Ware.

Here's a graphic I made as part of a Google Slides presentation. It lists some of the more obvious similarities between CW and BB.

37275

Change the CW burial orientation somewhat (but in some areas there was no change), and place more emphasis on archery equipment and less on polished stone axes, and you have the Beaker burial rite.

Finn
04-24-2020, 05:45 AM
The problem is that BB is in fact Two distinct phenomenon, you can't say PFB>BB. The early BB from Iberia were just born in Iberia and expanded from there to france and were EEF like. Then later on, the Single grave or PFB migrated southwest and mixed or even replaced in somes place the EEF like BB present there.

I agree with you about the two distinct phenomenons. It’s not one size fits all. Angles was IMO spot on. There are pots and there are people, your avatar supposed they were always one and the same. In the BB case they were not. In North and Central Europe BB are genetically a mixture of Single Grave People, Steppe Pastoralist rooted, and Funnelbeaker, that were in certain parts high in (S)HG.

In Iberia the ‘ethnogenesis’ of the BB is different, may be it’s the first area were a kind of BB package existed, so the pots, but they were certainly initial not rooted in Single Grave, so the people.

This difference between pots and people causes lots of miscommunication, confusion an rattling discussions...

Dieu
04-24-2020, 10:01 AM
Whatever they had early on in Iberia, it's pretty plain it wasn't what we think of when we think of Bell Beaker, which I usually refer to as Kurgan Bell Beaker. That's why, several years before the advent of the Olalde et al Beaker paper, I and a number of others (including alan) pointed out the differences and predicted that early Iberian BB and classic Kurgan BB would differ genetically.

With all the R1b-L51 showing up in Corded Ware now, and with Generalissimo warning of more to come with a promised paper on Dutch Single Grave, we're starting to see how Kurgan Bell Beaker must have come into being, i.e., as an offshoot of Corded Ware.

Here's a graphic I made as part of a Google Slides presentation. It lists some of the more obvious similarities between CW and BB.

37275

Change the CW burial orientation somewhat (but in some areas there was no change), and place more emphasis on archery equipment and less on polished stone axes, and you have the Beaker burial rite.

Yes that's why I said we should be split the bell beaker phenomenon in two different cultures since most archaeologist define the term bell beaker by people using using inverted-bell beaker drinking vessel. In fact there is much more than that. So yeah we should talk of Kurgan bell beaker (or Corded Bell beaker since Iberian bell beaker vessel lacked the all Over Corded look of the kurgan bell beaker ones)

Finn
04-24-2020, 10:24 AM
Yes that's why I said we should be split the bell beaker phenomenon in two different cultures since most archaeologist define the term bell beaker by people using using inverted-bell beaker drinking vessel. In fact there is much more than that. So yeah we should talk of Kurgan bell beaker (or Corded Bell beaker since Iberian bell beaker vessel lacked the all Over Corded look of the kurgan bell beaker ones)

I see that many archeologist already use the word, 'Corded Ware beaker' for the Northern one.....looks quite accurat to me, leaves no doubt.

Dieu
04-24-2020, 10:29 AM
Depends on

A. Can the early dates for beaker in Iberia be trusted?

B. How you define beaker people.

Beaker, despite some very poor attempts to argue to the contrary, do not appear to have prototypes in Iberia. They look like they are a local spin on the beakers found in CW. However, the non-P312 early beaker users in Iberia share no other CW features. My guess is contact via the Grand Pressigny trade route spread the model of CW beakers to Iberia without hardly any migration. Perhaps a few women? It seems a hell of a coincidence that the earliest dates for beaker pottery in Iberia (if we accept they are valid) are very similar to the dates for CW reaching its westernmost locations i.e. c. 2800BC. I think it was just a cultural contact whereby CW beaker model was taken up by Iberians. Perhaps with a few women involved.

Just people using using inverted-bell beaker drinking vessel

Dieu
04-24-2020, 10:52 AM
I agree with you about the two distinct phenomenons. It’s not one size fits all. Angles was IMO spot on. There are pots and there are people, your avatar supposed they were always one and the same. In the BB case they were not. In North and Central Europe BB are genetically a mixture of Single Grave People, Steppe Pastoralist rooted, and Funnelbeaker, that were in certain parts high in (S)HG.

In Iberia the ‘ethnogenesis’ of the BB is different, may be it’s the first area were a kind of BB package existed, so the pots, but they were certainly initial not rooted in Single Grave, so the people.

This difference between pots and people causes lots of miscommunication, confusion an rattling discussions...

My avatar is a ;) to the paper "Kossina smile" but yes pots are not people but cultural package seems to be people, at least in prehistoric times. The corded ware beaker or Kurgan Bell beaker bring with them their cultural package it seems with singles graves and sense of hierarchy.

alan
04-24-2020, 11:27 AM
Whatever they had early on in Iberia, it's pretty plain it wasn't what we think of when we think of Bell Beaker, which I usually refer to as Kurgan Bell Beaker. That's why, several years before the advent of the Olalde et al Beaker paper, I and a number of others (including alan) pointed out the differences and predicted that early Iberian BB and classic Kurgan BB would differ genetically.

With all the R1b-L51 showing up in Corded Ware now, and with Generalissimo warning of more to come with a promised paper on Dutch Single Grave, we're starting to see how Kurgan Bell Beaker must have come into being, i.e., as an offshoot of Corded Ware.

Here's a graphic I made as part of a Google Slides presentation. It lists some of the more obvious similarities between CW and BB.

37275

Change the CW burial orientation somewhat (but in some areas there was no change), and place more emphasis on archery equipment and less on polished stone axes, and you have the Beaker burial rite.

Even a north-south orientation was known in some parts of the larger CW world including Swedish battle axe and several others.

rms2
04-24-2020, 04:09 PM
Even a north-south orientation was known in some parts of the larger CW world including Swedish battle axe and several others.

Right, and British Beaker north of the Tees used the typical CW burial orientation.

37284

rms2
04-24-2020, 09:24 PM
BTW, it's interesting that Małopolska CW burial orientation was the same as Beaker orientation, and that's where the CW R1b-L51 is showing up.

Ka-boom! (Silly, eh?)

alan
04-24-2020, 09:54 PM
BTW, it's interesting that Małopolska CW burial orientation was the same as Beaker orientation, and that's where the CW R1b-L51 is showing up.

Ka-boom! (Silly, eh?)

Thats why I was asking about a map on the thread that posted the spreadsheet. Ive not got time to check where all those places in Poland with R1b CW are. So they are in the south of Poland?

TigerMW
04-24-2020, 10:03 PM
Right, and British Beaker north of the Tees used the typical CW burial orientation.

I'm looking for the Bell Beaker ancient DNA table with all of the P312 on it. Does any one have that link?

rms2
04-24-2020, 10:06 PM
Thats why I was asking about a map on the thread that posted the spreadsheet. Ive not got time to check where all those places in Poland with R1b CW are. So they are in the south of Poland?

Southeast, hard by the Ukrainian border near the forest-steppe, not far from Lviv, where my mother-in-law was born.

R.Rocca
04-24-2020, 10:35 PM
Thats why I was asking about a map on the thread that posted the spreadsheet. Ive not got time to check where all those places in Poland with R1b CW are. So they are in the south of Poland?

Malopolska (Little Poland)

rms2
04-24-2020, 10:36 PM
Amazing that four people voted for the Spanish Model, but then again, I did start this thread almost three years ago.

Perhaps they have changed their minds since then.

jdean
04-25-2020, 02:15 PM
Amazing that four people voted for the Spanish Model, but then again, I did start this thread almost three years ago.

Perhaps they have changed their minds since then.

Probably at least one has been banned since then : )

rms2
04-25-2020, 04:43 PM
Probably at least one has been banned since then : )

Yeah, I think I know whom you mean.

Maybe even he has changed his mind by now? Or is that too much to hope for?

jdean
04-25-2020, 04:49 PM
Yeah, I think I know whom you mean.

Maybe even he has changed his mind by now? Or is that too much to hope for?

We'll he's been noticeably quiet since the French paper came out so who knows, miracles can happen?

alan
04-25-2020, 09:28 PM
Southeast, hard by the Ukrainian border near the forest-steppe, not far from Lviv, where my mother-in-law was born.

Right on the route into SE Poland via the Dniester which has been pointed out by archaeologists for some time as a route of continuing flow from the steppes into SE Poland. An interesting zone where GAC groups penetrated south-eastwards down the rivers in the first half of the 3rd millennium, CW subcarpathian groups arrived and influences from the steppes themselves apparently spread to Poland. Easy to imagine this as a route whereby L151 might have leaked in from the steppes and become part of the CW culture in Poland and spread from there. Definitely one strong possibility for how L151 got into CW although there are others.


Also not far from the Prypet River (which links into the Dnieper system) route through the Pripet marshes. This route is often written off due to the marshes but in fact its crossed by a navigable river by boat even today for much of its length. Back in 3000-2500BC even more of it must have been navigable by the small boats of that era. Kind of depends how long the connection between L151 and being skilled boatmen goes back.

https://cdn.britannica.com/17/4817-050-53CD4527/Ukraine-map-features-locator.jpg
https://cdn.britannica.com/68/106168-004-D4416607.gif

This paper is of some interest with regards to SE Poland and Ukraine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300194/

MitchellSince1893
04-25-2020, 09:51 PM
Right on the route into SE Poland via the Dniester which has been pointed out by archaeologists for some time as a route of continuing flow from the steppes into SE Poland. An interesting zone where GAC groups penetrated south-eastwards down the rivers in the first half of the 3rd millennium, CW subcarpathian groups arrived and influences from the steppes themselves apparently spread to Poland. Easy to imagine this as a route whereby L151 might have leaked in from the steppes and become part of the CW culture in Poland and spread from there. Definitely one strong possibility for how L151 got into CW although there are others.


Also not far from the Prypet River (which links into the Dnieper system) route through the Pripet marshes. This route is often written off due to the marshes but in fact its crossed by a navigable river by boat even today for much of its length. Back in 3000-2500BC even more of it must have been navigable by the small boats of that era. Kind of depends how long the connection between L151 and being skilled boatmen goes back.

https://cdn.britannica.com/17/4817-050-53CD4527/Ukraine-map-features-locator.jpg
https://cdn.britannica.com/68/106168-004-D4416607.gif

This paper is of some interest with regards to SE Poland and Ukraine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300194/

This area is where ancestry (Steppe & "GAC like") and culture (CWC) meet/come to the closet point of approach. As I mentioned in the another thread

Yamnaya culture started in 3300 BC according some sources. So it would be old enough for L11/L151 to pick up Steppe ancestry before proceeding to CWC. That’s only one possibility though. The Steppe ancestry could be pre Yamnaya e.g. Sredny Stog culture (4500-3500 BC). In this scenario maybe it was L52 that started in SS before moving north in Forest Steppe, where L11/L151 would later appear before ending up in CWC.

Of course there are probably other possibilities for how Steppe gets into CWC.

So two options would be a direct Yamnaya to CWC or a Sredny Stog>Forest Steppe>CWC. The recent R1b samples in SE Poland are unfortunately too young to help. Does it mean only dead end R-L51/L52 took this route and the ancestors of L11/L151 took a more northerly route before heading west via Corded Ware?

Or is it a hint that this was an long-term L51/L52 route and these fellows were just the latest arrivals from the Steppe?

rms2
04-26-2020, 01:33 AM
One thing we've learned lately from Corded Ware is that the earliest results (I'm speaking of research papers) don't necessarily tell the whole story. We were all thinking R1a was the whole deal with Corded Ware, but it turns out that is not the case.

So, what if we've been fooled about Yamnaya, as well, into thinking it's all pretty much R1b-Z2103? What if that's not right, and there's some R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 Yamnaya waiting to be discovered?

After all, Corded Ware and its offshoot, Kurgan Bell Beaker, are obviously related to Yamnaya. So, how is that true if Yamnaya is pretty much a solid block of R1b-Z2103?

Generalissimo
04-26-2020, 03:18 AM
One thing we've learned lately from Corded Ware is that the earliest results (I'm speaking of research papers) don't necessarily tell the whole story. We were all thinking R1a was the whole deal with Corded Ware, but it turns out that is not the case.

So, what if we've been fooled about Yamnaya, as well, into thinking it's all pretty much R1b-Z2103? What if that's not right, and there's some R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 Yamnaya waiting to be discovered?

After all, Corded Ware and its offshoot, Kurgan Bell Beaker, are obviously related to Yamnaya. So, how is that true if Yamnaya is pretty much a solid block of R1b-Z2103?

People are certainly looking for M417 and L51 in Yamnaya. I reckon that by the time they finish, Yamnaya will be the single best sampled culture of its period, if not all periods.

Already a whole heap of Yamnaya samples are ready to go from at least six different places, but as far as I know there's no M417 or L51 in any of the ones that have been C14 dated. There's at least one M417 Yamnaya sample, but with a dodgy archeological date.

So, clearly, if Yamnaya gave rise to Corded Ware, then the right Yamnaya groups haven't been sampled yet. Spending so much time and energy on one problem is probably not a good thing, but it'll certainly be a big day here when we finally see those Yamnaya or Yamnaya-related M417 and L51 samples from the steppe roll in.

MitchellSince1893
04-26-2020, 03:29 AM
People are certainly looking for M417 and L51 in Yamnaya. I reckon that by the time they finish, Yamnaya will be the single best sampled culture of its period, if not all periods.

Already a whole heap of Yamnaya samples are ready to go from at least six different places, but as far as I know there's no M417 or L51 in any of the ones that have been C14 dated. There's at least one M417 Yamnaya sample, but with a dodgy archeological date.

So, clearly, if Yamnaya gave rise to Corded Ware, then the right Yamnaya groups haven't been sampled yet. Spending so much time and energy on one problem is probably not a good thing, but it'll certainly be a big day here when we finally see those Yamnaya or Yamnaya-related M417 and L51 samples from the steppe roll in.
Heard about any Sredny Stog samples in the pipeline?

Generalissimo
04-26-2020, 04:11 AM
Heard about any Sredny Stog samples in the pipeline?

Yep, apparently Z2103 and already very similar to Yamnaya.

jdean
04-26-2020, 09:31 AM
Or is it a hint that this was an long-term L51/L52 route and these fellows were just the latest arrivals from the Steppe?

That's my guess, not only are they late but also apparently more Steppe shifted than the R1a Polish samples which reminds me of the Z2103 Hungarian sample we all got so excited about.

anglesqueville
04-26-2020, 10:27 AM
We'll he's been noticeably quiet since the French paper came out so who knows, miracles can happen?


@Richard Rocca said "Gaska-looks like France, the final place you've been hiding your fantasy scenarios, crumbles this week as well. Good luck in your future endeavors"

Final place?-We just found 3 Neolithic farmers R1b-M269 buried in Swiss dolmens/collective burials that have nothing to do with the BBC or with the CWC-It seems that your informants about the Swiss paper were wrong, but you can check the thread “Is Yamnaya overrated” and you will see that 7/8 months ago we were already commenting that this could happen because the rumors that reached me were very different-You no longer speak of mass migrations but of solitary explorers, nor of the Yamnaya culture but of the CWC and not even about individual burials following steppe customs but of collective burials in dolmens-You and many of the scientists you quoted were wrong about R1b-L51, but don't worry, you can always continue to indoctrinate your smart cultured, anthrogenica friends aand keep using stupid terms like "kurgan bell beakers"-Exogamy and CWC are sufficient to explain the famous steppe ancestry detected in the first quarter of the third millennium BC and Switzerland has shown that R1b-L51 has nothing to do with steppe cultures (just the opposite of what you said), so I wish you luck in your efforts to find that marker in the SGC/Poland/Russia/Ucrania or Mongolia, you will certainly need a lot-Remember this site-Valle de las Higueras (Huecas, Toledo), you might get a surprise, others will surely suffer a stroke



April 25, 2020 at 9:34 AM

... this miracle can happen when pigs can fly.

Finn
04-26-2020, 10:47 AM
... this miracle can happen when pigs can fly.

Ok besides that the man ("Gaska") is one-track minded-the world has started turning from Iberia- and that makes me basically suspicious....but ok. Step over it.
Seen positive: critical voices stay important. It keeps everyone sharp.
So let's assume the spread of R1b-M269 is connected to Neolithic Farmer. Do I miss something....when I state that the only R1b that is found in 'TRB context' is that of 1 sample Blatterhohle Germany. But that R1b is apparently R1b V88....so no single R1b M269 variant.
So until now, based on the samples we know, all fingers points at an 'Eastern' origin....brought in by the Steppe Pastoralist.
Were does this reasoning go wrong??????

jdean
04-26-2020, 10:54 AM
Were does this reasoning go wrong??????

Beats me but if you put your blinkers on, refuse to accept or understand autosomal data (which is a technique used by some) then it's still possible to keep up a delusion of L51 having an ancient West European ancestry: )))

Finn
04-26-2020, 11:25 AM
Beats me but if you put your blinkers on, refuse to accept or understand autosomal data (which is a technique used by some) then it's still possible to keep up a delusion of L51 having an ancient West European ancestry: )))
Hush hush :biggrin1: of course but that’s hide and seek....basically it’s about Y-DNA in this topic....

alan
04-26-2020, 01:01 PM
That's my guess, not only are they late but also apparently more Steppe shifted than the R1a Polish samples which reminds me of the Z2103 Hungarian sample we all got so excited about.

I have found it hard to buy into the idea that from the get-go in say 2800BC Dutch Single Grave culture was P312. It doesnt fit the archaeology terribly well. Admittedly the archaeological picture may be incomplete and can of course be deceiving in terms of indicating genflow. So, I am not claiming to be certain by any means. However, I do think it looks to me that L51 arrived behind the main R1a CW group or at least was always a little off the main track to the north-west and west until at some point in time they gained access to that route. I also think there are hints in the nature of bell beaker culture and burial rites of post-2900-2700BC further influences from the steppes in the makeup of bell beaker and far better parallels for some traits in (especially later) CW in Poland, Swedish battle axe, Fatyanovo, Middle Dnieper and, as some have suggested, Budkak culture. I think bell beaker belongs more to that circle of culture that (mostly) date to a period around the time of the earliest central European steppe beaker dates or just before. They all seem to be part of some additional group of interaction that the more central and westerly CW groups largely missed by heading further west early on. If it all seems a bit nebulous then its probably because we are talking about rather mobile clans not huge settled population groups.

P312 or L151 or whatever could have been in place in some very specific parts of Poland from an early phase of CW and then received further influence from the steppes zone OR it could have been somewhere in the steppes like the Dniester c. 2600BC or so and moved in as R1a left a void behind it by moving west. It may moved around a fair bit in the period 3000-2600BC prior to beaker. They just havent sampled enough of the cultures IMO. Personally I doubt R1a or L51 was in Yamnaya and more likely was in a closely related group of near-identical ancestry, probably from a little further north in the forest steppe zone or even close to the forest steppe-forest interface. Its possible that both R1a and L151 took the same routes but at a different time with L151 moving in behind R1a as it moved out. The big Z2103 expansion of Yamnaya surely must also have had impacts on other related steppe groups.

There is also the question as to where and when the additional GAC/TRB related Neolithic subtrate in the beaker signal was picked up. GAC and TRB died out much earlier in some areas than others. However, GAC did have a fairly late presence on those rivers between the Dnieper and Carpathian.

Finn
04-26-2020, 01:56 PM
I have found it hard to buy into the idea that from the get-go in say 2800BC Dutch Single Grave culture was P312. It doesnt fit the archaeology terribly well. Admittedly the archaeological picture may be incomplete and can of course be deceiving in terms of indicating genflow. So, I am not claiming to be certain by any means. However, I do think it looks to me that L51 arrived behind the main R1a CW group or at least was always a little off the main track to the north-west and west until at some point in time they gained access to that route. I also think there are hints in the nature of bell beaker culture and burial rites of post-2900-2700BC further influences from the steppes in the makeup of bell beaker and far better parallels for some traits in (especially later) CW in Poland, Swedish battle axe, Fatyanovo, Middle Dnieper and, as some have suggested, Budkak culture. I think bell beaker belongs more to that circle of culture that (mostly) date to a period around the time of the earliest central European steppe beaker dates or just before. They all seem to be part of some additional group of interaction that the more central and westerly CW groups largely missed by heading further west early on. If it all seems a bit nebulous then its probably because we are talking about rather mobile clans not huge settled population groups.

P312 or L151 or whatever could have been in place in some very specific parts of Poland from an early phase of CW and then received further influence from the steppes zone OR it could have been somewhere in the steppes like the Dniester c. 2600BC or so and moved in as R1a left a void behind it by moving west. It may moved around a fair bit in the period 3000-2600BC prior to beaker. They just havent sampled enough of the cultures IMO. Personally I doubt R1a or L51 was in Yamnaya and more likely was in a closely related group of near-identical ancestry, probably from a little further north in the forest steppe zone or even close to the forest steppe-forest interface. Its possible that both R1a and L151 took the same routes but at a different time with L151 moving in behind R1a as it moved out. The big Z2103 expansion of Yamnaya surely must also have had impacts on other related steppe groups.

There is also the question as to where and when the additional GAC/TRB related Neolithic subtrate in the beaker signal was picked up. GAC and TRB died out much earlier in some areas than others. However, GAC did have a fairly late presence on those rivers between the Dnieper and Carpathian.

1. This is the Y DNA landscape of the Netherlands (Maarten Larmuseau et al 2019 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-019-0496-0)), with R1b P312 aka R1b S116. You see the red zone above the Rhine, in the middle, that's the Veluwe. The Veluwe was a (SGC derived) BB hotspot! SGC is the most likely candidate that brought it in.
https://www.mupload.nl/img/v0jvkp849q.45.12.png

2. Where did they pick up TRB? At the 'assemblage spot', NE Dutch had 3400 BC a TRB influx that was rooted in the 'Southern Baltics'. 2800 BC the SGC Pastoralist came in (first evidence Hijken Drenthe 2800 BC). There they mixed.
Karsten Wentink (2006) (https://www.sidestone.com/books/ceci-n-est-pas-une-hache)
https://www.mupload.nl/img/6mo9sxhws.53.39.png

jdean
04-26-2020, 02:08 PM
I have found it hard to buy into the idea that from the get-go in say 2800BC Dutch Single Grave culture was P312. It doesnt fit the archaeology terribly well. Admittedly the archaeological picture may be incomplete and can of course be deceiving in terms of indicating genflow. So, I am not claiming to be certain by any means. However, I do think it looks to me that L51 arrived behind the main R1a CW group or at least was always a little off the main track to the north-west and west until at some point in time they gained access to that route. I also think there are hints in the nature of bell beaker culture and burial rites of post-2900-2700BC further influences from the steppes in the makeup of bell beaker and far better parallels for some traits in (especially later) CW in Poland, Swedish battle axe, Fatyanovo, Middle Dnieper and, as some have suggested, Budkak culture. I think bell beaker belongs more to that circle of culture that (mostly) date to a period around the time of the earliest central European steppe beaker dates or just before. They all seem to be part of some additional group of interaction that the more central and westerly CW groups largely missed by heading further west early on. If it all seems a bit nebulous then its probably because we are talking about rather mobile clans not huge settled population groups.

P312 or L151 or whatever could have been in place in some very specific parts of Poland from an early phase of CW and then received further influence from the steppes zone OR it could have been somewhere in the steppes like the Dniester c. 2600BC or so and moved in as R1a left a void behind it by moving west. It may moved around a fair bit in the period 3000-2600BC prior to beaker. They just havent sampled enough of the cultures IMO. Personally I doubt R1a or L51 was in Yamnaya and more likely was in a closely related group of near-identical ancestry, probably from a little further north in the forest steppe zone or even close to the forest steppe-forest interface. Its possible that both R1a and L151 took the same routes but at a different time with L151 moving in behind R1a as it moved out. The big Z2103 expansion of Yamnaya surely must also have had impacts on other related steppe groups.

There is also the question as to where and when the additional GAC/TRB related Neolithic subtrate in the beaker signal was picked up. GAC and TRB died out much earlier in some areas than others. However, GAC did have a fairly late presence on those rivers between the Dnieper and Carpathian.

My problem with the Dutch SGC idea is P312 seems too monolithic from very early on, all British BB appears to be L21, all Northern Continental BB appears to be U152, seem to remember it's looking like Spanish BB is going to be prominently DF27 ?

To my mind it'd take a certain amount of room to produce that outcome which I can't personally see the Netherlands affording.

Anyhow hopefully we'll see a paper that can clarify this one way or the other in the not too distant future.

rms2
04-26-2020, 03:01 PM
But the Netherlands is still pretty much terra incognita in terms of ancient dna: four P312 Beaker skeletons, all from one single site, and not a blessed Corded Ware skeleton.

Were there any Z290 results for any of those Beaker skeletons?

As I recall, in terms of their genomes, British Beaker was a lot like German CW (aside from being close to those Dutch Beaker guys).

Beaker pottery was a lot like Dutch CW pottery; hence, the Dutch Model.

jdean
04-26-2020, 03:16 PM
But the Netherlands is still pretty much terra incognita in terms of ancient dna: four P312 Beaker skeletons, all from one single site, and not a blessed Corded Ware skeleton.

Were there any Z290 results for any of those Beaker skeletons?

As I recall, in terms of their genomes, British Beaker was a lot like German CW (aside from being close to those Dutch Beaker guys).

Beaker pottery was a lot like Dutch CW pottery; hence, the Dutch Model.

Certainly think Dutch SGC has the potential to be part of the answer but think the final one might be a tad more involved, however I've nothing concrete to add other than my gut reaction to what we're seeing in the aDNA results.

Finn
04-26-2020, 03:19 PM
There is pretty much of archeological evidence.

Take for example Fokkens, Background to the Beakers (2012). (https://www.academia.edu/5507545/Background_to_Dutch_Beakers)

I. Situation before the arrival of the Single Grave Pastoralist:the Funnelbeakers. hotspots in NE Dutch area, very high in Ertebřlle HG:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/fcy8yez.05.29.png

II. The arrival and settlements of the Single Grave Culture, high in R1b P312, as variant of Corded Ware, from Sandra Beckerman (dissertation 2015) (https://www.academia.edu/12858044/Corded_Ware_Coastal_Communities_Using_ceramic_anal ysis_to_reconstruct_third_millennium_BC_societies_ in_the_Netherlands):
https://www.mupload.nl/img/pblzih4kvd4l1.07.58.png

III. The transitional phase to Bell Beaker package:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/wcx0o5e2u6.10.31.png

IV. The Bell Beakers: red the Veluwe Beakers and blue the Drenthe/ NE-Dutch/ NW German Beakers:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/djb1g1.11.44.png

Every time there are more or less three hotspots, a small one in the Northwest, that's around Oostwoud (from the Olalde samples) and especially in the NE part of the Netherlands, just above the Rhine in the Center the Veluwe and more NE wards Drenthe.
You can see that TRB-SGC and BB are very much overlapping!

rms2
04-26-2020, 03:34 PM
Certainly think Dutch SGC has the potential to be part of the answer but think the final one might be a tad more involved, however I've nothing concrete to add other than my gut reaction to what we're seeing in the aDNA results.

I agree, plus I think these pastoralists were fast-moving and ranged pretty widely. Look at the Amesbury Archer, for example. He probably came from Switzerland or southern Germany, and it looks like he took his son ("The Companion") back there to live for awhile when the boy was young.

jdean
04-26-2020, 03:36 PM
I agree, plus I think these pastoralists were fast-moving and ranged pretty widely. Look at the Amesbury Archer, for example. He probably came from Switzerland or southern Germany, and it looks like he took his son ("The Companion") back there to live for awhile when the boy was young.

Not going to try and pretend I wasn't disappointed when all the Swiss P312 turned out to be L2 or probably L2 : )))))

MitchellSince1893
04-26-2020, 06:50 PM
Not going to try and pretend I wasn't disappointed when all the Swiss P312 turned out to be L2 or probably L2 : )))))

Even L2 guys are disappointed...(their test wasn’t designed to test for major L2 subclades)

As it helps tell the P312 story, I too am looking forward to the discovery of pre 2500 BC L21 in continental Europe. DF27 and other P312 subclades too.

glentane
04-26-2020, 07:07 PM
I agree, plus I think these pastoralists were fast-moving and ranged pretty widely. Look at the Amesbury Archer, for example. He probably came from Switzerland or southern Germany, and it looks like he took his son ("The Companion") back there to live for awhile when the boy was young.
Then he took an arrow to the knee, and got stranded in Wiltshire.
His roving days were over, even though he could theoretically have been ferried down the very nearby Avon, and across to Hook of Holland somehow.
If he'd kept his health he might well have ended up back (under a heap of sepulchral dirt) somewhere up the Oberrheingraben or thereabouts, and we'd never have known he was here at all ...

jdean
04-27-2020, 12:34 PM
... this miracle can happen when pigs can fly.

OOI Any idea which are the '3 Neolithic farmers R1b-M269 buried in Swiss dolmens/collective burials' Gaska is referring to ?

Obviously Aesch25 is one of them and I'm guessing RA63 & 64 are the other two but if so he's barking up the wrong tree as usual.

Megalophias
04-27-2020, 01:09 PM
I guess MX304 and MX310 from Auvernier and Burgäschisee, which are both very poor quality R1b samples from about 2870-2580 BC. The former is likely from the Auvernier-Cordé period (though it could be earlier), which is Corded Ware or at least CW-Late Neolithic hybrid. The latter AFAIK has no CW material, but is from same period and not that far away. The one that is in G25 is terrible quality, but comes out about 3/8 Yamnaya, or 1/2 Aesch25.

R.Rocca
04-27-2020, 01:36 PM
OOI Any idea which are the '3 Neolithic farmers R1b-M269 buried in Swiss dolmens/collective burials' Gaska is referring to ?

Obviously Aesch25 is one of them and I'm guessing RA63 & 64 are the other two but if so he's barking up the wrong tree as usual.

Aesch25 was the last person buried there (of those tested). Given his CWC autosomal makeup, there is no doubt he was a steppe pastoralist. Gaska will never admit a non-Basque speaking Western European paternal ancestor. That said, there is a reason why he hasn't posted once since the datasets from France came out.

Megalophias
04-27-2020, 01:49 PM
BTW does anyone know why Aesch is considered a Bell Beaker site by many authors? From what I can find it is just a regular Late Neolithic dolmen. Are there Bell Beaker grave goods, or intrusive BB-ritual burials, or what? Just from the date IIUC Aesch25 ought to be CW or LN, but obviously if he has BB context it's another story.

jdean
04-27-2020, 02:06 PM
BTW does anyone know why Aesch is considered a Bell Beaker site by many authors? From what I can find it is just a regular Late Neolithic dolmen. Are there Bell Beaker grave goods, or intrusive BB-ritual burials, or what? Just from the date IIUC Aesch25 ought to be CW or LN, but obviously if he has BB context it's another story.

Ask Archi : )

jdean
04-27-2020, 02:09 PM
I guess MX304 and MX310 from Auvernier and Burgäschisee, which are both very poor quality R1b samples from about 2870-2580 BC. The former is likely from the Auvernier-Cordé period (though it could be earlier), which is Corded Ware or at least CW-Late Neolithic hybrid. The latter AFAIK has no CW material, but is from same period and not that far away. The one that is in G25 is terrible quality, but comes out about 3/8 Yamnaya, or 1/2 Aesch25.

Well if he thinks he can prove anything with these two samples he's welcome to them !!!

anglesqueville
04-27-2020, 03:07 PM
That said, there is a reason why he hasn't posted once since the datasets from France came out.

The quote from him I posted yesterday is from April 25, after the publication of the French data. Anyway, he is simply blind to autosomal analyses. An individual buried in a collective grave at the end of Neolithic will automatically be identified by him as "European farmer", even if he/she is 90% Yamna-like, and he will deduce from it that the "Steppe-admixture" was present in western Europe well before the Bronze waves, and therefore has nothing to see with the Steppes, and eventually is not significant at all, and doesn't deserve any consideration. But all those Gaska-things are at most anecdotal, including his recurring insults against you, Richard, me, and more generally everyone who has ever written ten words on Anthrogenica. The same goes for Archi, their Russian archaeologist, and his very particular conception of the notion of Proof. Didn't he recently claim that "The hypothesis that early CWC had populations with R1a and with R1b is unscientific, it is wrong. Early CWC was one population (with R1a). BBC were another population (with R1b). The BBC was not Indo-European speaking, it is a proven fact." (April 25, 2020 at 3:34 PM ). I will not say more, all this is only a waste of time.

rms2
04-27-2020, 04:40 PM
I don't usually even read the comments at Eurogenes. I check the main blog itself frequently for what David has to say, but there are too many knuckleheads posting comments, people with pretty obvious ethnonationalist agendas, like Gas-bag. That guy was never honest when he used to post here. He claimed to be a Basque roaming the Pyrenees. It turned out he is a Mexican-American from Houston, Texas. Nothing wrong with being either one; the real problem is being a liar.

Token
04-27-2020, 04:48 PM
One thing we've learned lately from Corded Ware is that the earliest results (I'm speaking of research papers) don't necessarily tell the whole story. We were all thinking R1a was the whole deal with Corded Ware, but it turns out that is not the case.

So, what if we've been fooled about Yamnaya, as well, into thinking it's all pretty much R1b-Z2103? What if that's not right, and there's some R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 Yamnaya waiting to be discovered?

After all, Corded Ware and its offshoot, Kurgan Bell Beaker, are obviously related to Yamnaya. So, how is that true if Yamnaya is pretty much a solid block of R1b-Z2103?

Since R1b-L51 was already found in Afanasievo, it is just a matter of time before it is found in some Yamnaya group too. It would be good to see some Yamnaya samples from the Volga-Ural since it is from this particular Yamnaya variant that Afanasievo is supposed to come from.

anglesqueville
04-27-2020, 05:14 PM
I don't usually even read the comments at Eurogenes. I check the main blog itself frequently for what David has to say, but there are too many knuckleheads posting comments, people with pretty obvious ethnonationalist agendas, like Gas-bag. That guy was never honest when he used to post here. He claimed to be a Basque roaming the Pyrenees. It turned out he is a Mexican-American from Houston, Texas. Nothing wrong with being either one; the real problem is being a liar.

Really? If true, it's indeed hilarious.

jdean
04-27-2020, 05:30 PM
Really? If true, it's indeed hilarious.

My thoughts too : ))))

rms2
04-27-2020, 05:40 PM
Really? If true, it's indeed hilarious.

As I recall, the evidence was pretty solid. Don't remember all the details, but I believe that was one of the things that ended his Anthrogenica career.

Generalissimo
04-27-2020, 09:04 PM
Since R1b-L51 was already found in Afanasievo, it is just a matter of time before it is found in some Yamnaya group too. It would be good to see some Yamnaya samples from the Volga-Ural since it is from this particular Yamnaya variant that Afanasievo is supposed to come from.

There are new Yamnaya samples from the Don, Hungary, Moldova, Ukraine, and several sites in the Volga-Ural region.

Dieu
04-28-2020, 12:54 PM
One thing we've learned lately from Corded Ware is that the earliest results (I'm speaking of research papers) don't necessarily tell the whole story. We were all thinking R1a was the whole deal with Corded Ware, but it turns out that is not the case.

So, what if we've been fooled about Yamnaya, as well, into thinking it's all pretty much R1b-Z2103? What if that's not right, and there's some R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 Yamnaya waiting to be discovered?

After all, Corded Ware and its offshoot, Kurgan Bell Beaker, are obviously related to Yamnaya. So, how is that true if Yamnaya is pretty much a solid block of R1b-Z2103?


Judging by the age of L51, the age of yamna cultural horizon, the sredny stog culture already being z2103 heavy, the presence of corded ware L52, the geographic position of kurgan bell beaker (the culture that account for like at least 90% of the spread of L51 actual descendants) compared to yamna and corded ware ones (plus the convincing Corded ware>Single graves>protruding foot beaker>bell beaker chronology for L52>P312) the presence of L51 around ninji novgorod according to the rumors, the presence of the "steppes cluster" relatively far north of the steppes. I doubt L51 was spread by yamnaya even if we find somes one day.

alan
04-28-2020, 01:08 PM
Good point. Come to think of it, L51 seemed (from new info+rumours) to have had a real knack of spreading through multiple cultures c. 3300-2500BC and therefore it probably was in Yamnaya even if the percentage is very low or very localised. If it was only a few % in Yamnaya, it might remained undetected for some time. If every rumour ive heard is right, L51 might be in nearly 7 or 8 different cultures or sub-cultures between 3500-2500BC, albeit they almost all have some sort of close archaeological relationships to each other. We already publically know it was in beaker, central European CW, Afansievo etc with some heavy hinting going on that its in single grave, Fatyanovo etc. Oh and I forgot that its also in Volosovo.

rms2
04-28-2020, 01:12 PM
Judging by the age of L51, the age of yamna cultural horizon, the sredny stog culture already being z2103 heavy, the presence of corded ware L52, the geographic position of kurgan bell beaker (the culture that account for like at least 90% of the spread of L51 actual descendants) compared to yamna and corded ware ones (plus the convincing Corded ware>Single graves>protruding foot beaker>bell beaker chronology for L52>P312) the presence of L51 around ninji novgorod according to the rumors, the presence of the "steppes cluster" relatively far north of the steppes. I doubt L51 was spread by yamnaya even if we find somes one day.

But what does "Yamnaya" mean, after all? People who buried their dead in pits, i.e., the pit grave people. It's really a less specific term than many of us seem to think. It covers a huge swath of territory and refers to a cultural horizon rather than to a single specific culture. I'm kind of thinking of it as a reference to the gigantic, pastoralist, steppe womb that generated all those people who Indo-Europeanized Europe and South Asia beginning at the end of the Neolithic and on into the Bronze Age. It's a rubric kind of like Furholt's "SGBR" people, the steppe catch-all.

If Yamnaya was really a separate, all-Z2103 thing, then it should not be so closely related genomically and culturally to Corded Ware and Corded Ware's redheaded love child, Bell Beaker.

If Yamnaya really is a monolithic block of Z2103, then it was one of the biggest flops of all time, and is fabulously overrated, because pretty obviously it wasn't Z2103 that Indo-Europeanized Europe and South Asia.

Dieu
04-28-2020, 01:30 PM
There are new Yamnaya samples from the Don, Hungary, Moldova, Ukraine, and several sites in the Volga-Ural region.

Maybe I'm wrong but It seems that Reich wants to prove that the Indo-european urehimat was around the Pontic caspian sea and focus his efforts there. There might be some politics at stakes.

From wikipedia

Archaeogeneticist David Reich, who worked on a study related to the Corded Ware culture, experienced being shunned by colleagues after publishing his results, and was only able to win them back after publishing an essay presenting his research as contradicting Kossinna.[3] Reich noted that while Kossinna suggested a Northern European origin of the Indo-Europeans, his research rather suggested an origin on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.[9]

From The Atlantic

Zhang: You actually had German collaborators drop out of a study because of these exact concerns, right? One of them wrote, “We must(!) avoid … being compared with the so-called ‘siedlungsarchäologie Method’ from Gustaf Kossinna!”

Reich: Yeah, that’s right. I think one of the things the ancient DNA is showing is actually the Corded Ware culture does correspond coherently to a group of people. I think that was a very sensitive issue to some of our coauthors, and one of the coauthors resigned because he felt we were returning to that idea of migration in archaeology that pots are the same as people. There have been a fair number of other coauthors from different parts of continental Europe who shared this anxiety.


Even if Kossina Corded ware Indo-european urheimats theory is bollock since it's more ancient than that (at least CW is the cultural horizon that spread ancestor(s) of most of the indo-european language we know today), just saying that indo european urheimat might have originated in northern Europe (even if it's seems more northeast europe) might make some archaeologist going crazy.

Dieu
04-28-2020, 01:38 PM
But what does "Yamnaya" mean, after all? People who buried their dead in pits, i.e., the pit grave people. It's really a less specific term than many of us seem to think. It covers a huge swath of territory and refers to a cultural horizon rather than to a single specific culture. I'm kind of thinking of it as a reference to the gigantic, pastoralist, steppe womb that generated all those people who Indo-Europeanized Europe and South Asia beginning at the end of the Neolithic and on into the Bronze Age. It's a rubric kind of like Furholt's "SGBR" people, the steppe catch-all.

If Yamnaya was really a separate, all-Z2103 thing, then it should not be so closely related genomically and culturally to Corded Ware and Corded Ware's redheaded love child, Bell Beaker.

If Yamnaya really is a monolithic block of Z2103, then it was one of the biggest flops of all time, and is fabulously overrated, because pretty obviously it wasn't Z2103 that Indo-Europeanized Europe and South Asia.


Why ?

rms2
04-28-2020, 02:01 PM
Why ?

Well, are you proposing that CW and Yamnaya are closely related because CW men married Yamnaya females? In that way CW became Yamnaya-like autosomally but avoided acquiring a Yamnaya-like y-dna profile?

Do you also think CW acquired its Yamnaya-like culture via females or through some sort of cultural diffusion?

Dieu
04-28-2020, 11:48 PM
Well, are you proposing that CW and Yamnaya are closely related because CW men married Yamnaya females? In that way CW became Yamnaya-like autosomally but avoided acquiring a Yamnaya-like y-dna profile?

Do you also think CW acquired its Yamnaya-like culture via females or through some sort of cultural diffusion?

Lol what ? No Corded ware and Yamnaya are cousins, they emerge from the same ancient population, could be sredny stog (or other), but apparently the new samples are already full of z2103 but idk from which exact period it comes from early or late sredny stog. Since sredny stog last for like 1000 years. It's a long time. Apparently the "steppes" cluster is older than previously thought according to Polako.

alan
04-29-2020, 12:39 AM
Lol what ? No Corded ware and Yamnaya are cousins, they emerge from the same ancient population, could be sredny stog (or other), but apparently the new samples are already full of z2103 but idk from which exact period it comes from early or late sredny stog. Since sredny stog last for like 1000 years. It's a long time. Apparently the "steppes" cluster is older than previously thought according to Polako.

I could see the Yamnaya tyoe signal predating Yamnaya considerably and going back to Sredny Stog times. The latter was the original early IE culture highlighted by Mallory in his classic book and probably by many others before him. That might provide an array of Yamnaya-clone cultures in the western steppes in the relevant era and take a little bit away of the need to focus so much on Yamnaya itself.

alan
04-29-2020, 01:00 AM
Judging by the age of L51, the age of yamna cultural horizon, the sredny stog culture already being z2103 heavy, the presence of corded ware L52, the geographic position of kurgan bell beaker (the culture that account for like at least 90% of the spread of L51 actual descendants) compared to yamna and corded ware ones (plus the convincing Corded ware>Single graves>protruding foot beaker>bell beaker chronology for L52>P312) the presence of L51 around ninji novgorod according to the rumors, the presence of the "steppes cluster" relatively far north of the steppes. I doubt L51 was spread by yamnaya even if we find somes one day.

Certainly I think Z2103 cannot have been responsible for much of the spread of IE languages beyond the Balkans-Anatolia zone. Maybe some dead Balkans ones, Greek, Armenian and Albanian. Perhaps the main element in Tocharian. Perhaps Anatolian. But certainly none of the rest. CW and its offshoots including beaker to the west, later descendants of who spread further south in the later bronze age and the CW eastern offshoots Fatyanovo, Abashevo, Sinatshta, Andronovo etc which spread to the east probably account for all living IE languages other than Greek, Armenian and Albanian.

So, I certainly think the dominant Z2103 clan we see so far in Yamnaya wasnt as big a deal as the CW culture and its many offshoots and descendants. Also interesting to note that other than the possibility of Z2103 being linked to Tocharian and Anatolian (both still very much hypothetical), all the early branching off of the IE tree relate to languages that likely go back to CW - Celtic, Italic, Several extinct Celto-Italic languages and Germanic. Baltic and Slavic too.

Whether Yamnaya on the steppes turns out to be less of a monolithic Z2103 thing or not remains to be seen but if it wasnt, the other y lines seem to have been either small, localised or perhaps they were in Yamnaya but simply not in the royal dynasty lines found in the kurgans and therefore have no visibility until after 2900BC when they found a chance to branch off and form their own dynasties and expanding clans via CW culture. Certainly the L51 tree is suggestive of a not exactly flourishing and expanding situation until L151 and that would fit the scenario ive just given.

rms2
04-29-2020, 02:13 AM
Lol what ? No Corded ware and Yamnaya are cousins, they emerge from the same ancient population, could be sredny stog (or other), but apparently the new samples are already full of z2103 but idk from which exact period it comes from early or late sredny stog. Since sredny stog last for like 1000 years. It's a long time. Apparently the "steppes" cluster is older than previously thought according to Polako.

Here's "Lol what?": You asked why I posted the following.



If Yamnaya was really a separate, all-Z2103 thing, then it should not be so closely related genomically and culturally to Corded Ware and Corded Ware's redheaded love child, Bell Beaker.

I answered you. If Yamnaya was really a separate, all-Z2103 monolith, it wouldn't be so closely related genomically or culturally to Corded Ware, unless those relationships were due to the influx of Yamnaya women.

Then you turn around and call Yamnaya and Corded Ware "cousins", which is pretty much what I was saying. I also said that Yamnaya is the term for a hugely widespread cultural horizon, implying that it is probably much more varied than some people currently imagine, which also implies that it may not be as monolithically Z2103 as it currently seems.

Hope this reply doesn't sound too irritable, but the use of "lol" is very disrespectful and a personal pet peeve of mine.

I understand you to be saying that the genomic and cultural relationships of CW and Yamnaya go back beyond either, to the steppe Eneolithic feeder cultures that spawned them both, so that Yamnaya really was a monolithic block of Z2103 in terms of y-dna, despite the fact that it was an horizon, not a single culture, and despite the fact that it covered a huge expanse of territory.

If you're right, then Yamnaya was really an enormous flopperoo, with a reputation blown all out of proportion to what it actually managed to accomplish.

Generalissimo
04-29-2020, 02:38 AM
It's pretty obvious now what happened in regards to the Beakers. Just a lot of rapid movements and founder effects during the early Corded Ware and Beaker periods. The details will be worked out over the next few years. But for me the mystery is pretty much over.

I think the really exciting place in time and space is the Eneolithic steppe. That's where all of the important things happened in regards to later population movements from the steppe, and that's really where Northern/Central/Eastern Europeans come from in terms of our formative genetic and cultural influences.

rms2
04-29-2020, 02:46 AM
Well, I agree. I think we actually know now - really know - that R1b-L51 and R1a-M417 got into Europe west of the steppe via Corded Ware, and that Kurgan Bell Beaker developed from Corded Ware.

The issues now are how Corded Ware was first formed, how it came together, what path it took into Europe from the steppe, and what its exact relationship to Yamnaya was .

Dieu
04-29-2020, 09:22 AM
Here's "Lol what?": You asked why I posted the following.



I answered you. If Yamnaya was really a separate, all-Z2103 monolith, it wouldn't be so closely related genomically or culturally to Corded Ware, unless those relationships were due to the influx of Yamnaya women.

Then you turn around and call Yamnaya and Corded Ware "cousins", which is pretty much what I was saying. I also said that Yamnaya is the term for a hugely widespread cultural horizon, implying that it is probably much more varied than some people currently imagine, which also implies that it may not be as monolithically Z2103 as it currently seems.

Hope this reply doesn't sound too irritable, but the use of "lol" is very disrespectful and a personal pet peeve of mine.

I understand you to be saying that the genomic and cultural relationships of CW and Yamnaya go back beyond either, to the steppe Eneolithic feeder cultures that spawned them both, so that Yamnaya really was a monolithic block of Z2103 in terms of y-dna, despite the fact that it was an horizon, not a single culture, and despite the fact that it covered a huge expanse of territory.

If you're right, then Yamnaya was really an enormous flopperoo, with a reputation blown all out of proportion to what it actually managed to accomplish.

Sorry, I didn't want to be disrespectful but I didn't understand why the steppes admixture in corded ware should have been mediated by female migration. Well, now Reich and co are careful when they talk about yamna, they talk about yamna related ancestry in people like corded ware and bell beaker people. And Yamna was not an enormous flopperoo but they didn't have the huge success some (uninformed) media are saying they had.

rms2
04-29-2020, 11:50 AM
Sorry, I didn't want to be disrespectful but I didn't understand why the steppes admixture in corded ware should have been mediated by female migration. Well, now Reich and co are careful when they talk about yamna, they talk about yamna related ancestry in people like corded ware and bell beaker people. And Yamna was not an enormous flopperoo but they didn't have the huge success some (uninformed) media are saying they had.

I didn't actually say the steppe admixture in Corded Ware was mediated by female migration. I said it would have had to have been, if Yamnaya and CW are genomically related but Yamnaya is really just a solid block of Z2103.

But if you're saying their genomic affiliation goes back to their shared pool of Eneolithic steppe ancestors, and not to Yamnaya itself, well, then, that's a different story.

Maybe Yamnaya was pretty much all Z2103, but I think we ought to wait and see. Some people thought CW was a monolithic block of R1a, too, but we've seen that's not the case. Yamnaya covered a big area and had a lot of local variants (like Budzhak) that have not been subjected to dna testing. It could still surprise us.

If Yamnaya was solidly just Z2103, then it was a huge flop, because it's pretty obvious Z2103 did not have a big impact in Europe west of the steppe or in South Asia. So, if Yamnaya was monolithically Z2103, then it wasn't responsible for spreading Indo-European to either place.

Dieu
04-29-2020, 12:19 PM
It's pretty obvious now what happened in regards to the Beakers. Just a lot of rapid movements and founder effects during the early Corded Ware and Beaker periods. The details will be worked out over the next few years. But for me the mystery is pretty much over.

I think the really exciting place in time and space is the Eneolithic steppe. That's where all of the important things happened in regards to later population movements from the steppe, and that's really where Northern/Central/Eastern Europeans come from in terms of our formative genetic and cultural influences.

Just the steppes or also further north ?

Ruderico
04-29-2020, 12:26 PM
It's pretty obvious now what happened in regards to the Beakers. Just a lot of rapid movements and founder effects during the early Corded Ware and Beaker periods. The details will be worked out over the next few years. But for me the mystery is pretty much over.

I think the really exciting place in time and space is the Eneolithic steppe. That's where all of the important things happened in regards to later population movements from the steppe, and that's really where Northern/Central/Eastern Europeans come from in terms of our formative genetic and cultural influences.

I'm personally more interested in the impact Roman and Migration Era population movements had in Western and Southern Europe (Balkans included) myself, I suppose that's where modern countries and peoples were constructed, we already had a glimpse of this in 2019 for Iberia and Italy. It might not be very exciting for Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans, but alas I'm not one either

Finn
04-29-2020, 01:11 PM
I'm personally more interested in the impact Roman and Migration Era population movements had in Western and Southern Europe (Balkans included) myself, I suppose that's where modern countries and peoples were constructed, we already had a glimpse of this in 2019 for Iberia and Italy. It might not be very exciting for Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans, but alas I'm not one either

There is no need to share all intrest Ruderico. As time goes by the Bell Beakers got my interest even more and more.... I even got a new kind of 'pet' group the Protruding Foot Beakers ;)

Chapeau! for David Wesolowski (and in the slipstream Rms2!) of Eurogenes, he did a tremendous job in this respect, he made the SCG>BB transition in genetic perspective very clear!

For my own region the image is in this respect quit clear know:
- 3400 BC the funnel beaker (TRB ) came in as an offshoot of TRB North (Wentink 2008, FrankN 2019), high in Ertebřlle HG.
- 2800 BC (first evidence Hijken, Drenthe) incoming Steppe pastoralist, were fundamental for the so called Single Grave Culture. The incoming male Steppe pastoralist Y-DNA lines became dominant, in the the mtDNA we still can find TRB residu. So SGC pastoralist took TRB woman. The 'Kristiansen scenario' is at it's place here.
In the SGC>BB transformation we get a very interesting group the Protruding Foot Beaker (PFB ). In this transition the 'pots' c.q. the Bell Beaker package came most probably from SW Europe, the 'people' were as said a SGC(CW)/ TRB mix.
See:
https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.c...are-grave.html

The Protruding Foot Beaker spread al over the North European place incl. the Isles!

rms2
04-29-2020, 01:23 PM
I'm personally more interested in the impact Roman and Migration Era population movements had in Western and Southern Europe (Balkans included) myself, I suppose that's where modern countries and peoples were constructed, we already had a glimpse of this in 2019 for Iberia and Italy. It might not be very exciting for Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans, but alas I'm not one either

I'm curious about the genetic impact the Romans may have had on the population of Britain. The Migration Period is of far less interest to me.

My main interest now, aside from my own personal family genealogy, which is number one for me, is in the early Indo-Europeans.

Finn
04-29-2020, 01:38 PM
I'm personally more interested in the impact Roman and Migration Era population movements had in Western and Southern Europe (Balkans included) myself, I suppose that's where modern countries and peoples were constructed, we already had a glimpse of this in 2019 for Iberia and Italy. It might not be very exciting for Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans, but alas I'm not one either

I don't want to neglect the Roman impact (although mostly in line withe the Limes) and Migration Era is very important in this respect too. But I guess certainly for the Celto-Germanic world the SGC>BB and the spread of the 'Protruding Foot Beaker' is quite fundamental.

Ruderico
04-29-2020, 01:59 PM
Sure but Celtic and Germanic languages have been separated for thousands of years before the migration period, it's this mixing event that I'm curious about, for instance in France, England or Austria

anglesqueville
04-29-2020, 02:25 PM
In the SGC>BB transformation we get a very interesting group the Protruding Foot Beaker (PFB ). In this transition the 'pots' c.q. the Bell Beaker package came most probably from SW Europe, the 'people' were as said a SGC(CW)/ TRB mix.
See:
https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.c...are-grave.html

The Protruding Foot Beaker spread al over the North European place incl. the Isles!

In 2018 the author of the dossier in the French revue Nouvelle Ecole (you know him by the way, but it's incidental) wrote this in a note:
37408
It's not completely clear, perhaps because it would have been a little risky for him to go further on the speculative way, but he seemed to insinuate that the pottery itself (for not speaking of the other elements in the package) was native to the region, without any influence from Iberia. He went one step or two further than you ;)

jstephan
04-29-2020, 02:31 PM
I'm personally more interested in the impact Roman and Migration Era population movements had in Western and Southern Europe (Balkans included) myself, I suppose that's where modern countries and peoples were constructed, we already had a glimpse of this in 2019 for Iberia and Italy. It might not be very exciting for Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans, but alas I'm not one either

Maybe some of Ancestra's Iron age and high Middle age samples can give a hint about this for France ?

Finn
04-29-2020, 02:37 PM
In 2018 the author of the dossier in the French revue Nouvelle Ecole (you know him by the way, but it's incidental) wrote this in a note:
37408
It's not completely clear, perhaps because it would have been a little risky for him to go further on the speculative way, but he seemed to insinuate that the pottery itself (for not speaking of the other elements in the package) was native to the region, without any influence from Iberia. He went one step or two further than you ;)

Ok....but I guess the Bell Beaker package as such could be be partly derived from the Iberian one. I'm not convinced that the culture was 100% homegrown so the say....;)
At least the flint knives came in the transitional period SGC>BB from France.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=662304&viewfull=1#post662304

Ruderico
04-29-2020, 02:44 PM
Maybe some of Ancestra's Iron age and high Middle age samples can give a hint about this for France ?

I hope, because I really hate waiting

Finn
04-29-2020, 03:01 PM
In 2018 the author of the dossier in the French revue Nouvelle Ecole (you know him by the way, but it's incidental) wrote this in a note:
37408
It's not completely clear, perhaps because it would have been a little risky for him to go further on the speculative way, but he seemed to insinuate that the pottery itself (for not speaking of the other elements in the package) was native to the region, without any influence from Iberia. He went one step or two further than you ;)

Was this camu? (I mean the anthrogenica camu).

anglesqueville
04-29-2020, 03:13 PM
Was this camu? (I mean the anthrogenica camu).

Hehe... No, in this dossier Camu wrote the part devoted specifically to France. The author of the main part is moderator on here (but it's confidential, don't repeat it).

anglesqueville
04-29-2020, 03:17 PM
I hope, because I really hate waiting

Yes, I hope so, as I hope that the samples (supposedly NGS-analysed, if I haven't dreamed) will be of better coverage than those from the thesis inside.

jdean
04-29-2020, 04:06 PM
Hehe... No, in this dossier Camu wrote the part devoted specifically to France. The author of the main part is moderator on here (but it's confidential, don't repeat it).

Well that's my guess wrong then : )

Finn
04-29-2020, 05:10 PM
Hehe... No, in this dossier Camu wrote the part devoted specifically to France. The author of the main part is moderator on here (but it's confidential, don't repeat it).

Some kind of Ostfiese? ;)

anglesqueville
04-29-2020, 05:39 PM
Som kind of Ostfiese? ;)

Do hast it...

alan
04-29-2020, 06:20 PM
Well, I agree. I think we actually know now - really know - that R1b-L51 and R1a-M417 got into Europe west of the steppe via Corded Ware, and that Kurgan Bell Beaker developed from Corded Ware.

The issues now are how Corded Ware was first formed, how it came together, what path it took into Europe from the steppe, and what its exact relationship to Yamnaya was .

True. We tend to forget when caught up for so long in the mystery of bell beaker that the genesis of CW is also still a mystery in terms of its detail. I think the broad idea of how CW came about has been understood by at least some of the more traditionalist archaeologists for a century, only derailed in the 1960s-early 90s by the anti-migrationism trend. However, despite the decent ancient DNA evidence being added to the archaeological data, literally nobody knows the detail even now.

R.Rocca
04-30-2020, 11:53 AM
In 2018 the author of the dossier in the French revue Nouvelle Ecole (you know him by the way, but it's incidental) wrote this in a note:
37408
It's not completely clear, perhaps because it would have been a little risky for him to go further on the speculative way, but he seemed to insinuate that the pottery itself (for not speaking of the other elements in the package) was native to the region, without any influence from Iberia. He went one step or two further than you ;)

The protruding foot at the base of the aptly named "Protruding Foot Beaker" was a well known feature of Neolithic Northern France. If I'm not mistaken, it may even exist British pre-Bell Beaker pottery as well. However, it is clear that corded decorations on the pottery were brought from Eastern Europe. That the Alsatian woman, who was buried with an All-Over-Corded pot, pre-dates any secure Bell Beaker date from Iberia also makes any Iberian influence unnecessary.

rms2
04-30-2020, 02:20 PM
I know you know this, but to keep others from being confused, pottery with a protruding foot feature is not the same thing as the specific kind of pottery known as "Protruding Foot Beaker".

There wasn't any Protruding Foot Beaker in Neolithic Northern France or pre-Beaker Britain.

(I realize you weren't saying there was, but I am trying to keep others from becoming confused.)



QUICK REFERENCE
(PFB )

[Ar]

Type of late Neolithic ceramic vessel found in the Netherlands and lower Rhine Valley with a characteristic splayed neck, S‐shaped profile, and everted flat base. Such pots are typically ornamented with cord impressed decoration mixed with comb impressions and herringbone‐style incisions. These vessels probably provide the origins of the more widely distributed Bell Beaker vessels.


37423

R.Rocca
04-30-2020, 07:21 PM
I know you know this, but to keep others from being confused, pottery with a protruding foot feature is not the same thing as the specific kind of pottery known as "Protruding Foot Beaker".

There wasn't any Protruding Foot Beaker in Neolithic Northern France or pre-Beaker Britain.

(I realize you weren't saying there was, but I am trying to keep others from becoming confused.)



37423

Correct, thus the reason why I was careful to use lower case for the design element on a pot and upper case for the culture. You are right though, there is an important distinction and caution should be used. An All-Over Corded pot to me is just a Protruding Foot Beaker pot with the cords applied all the way to the base.

Finn
04-30-2020, 07:42 PM
About the details, the typical phenotype, brachycephaly+ flat occiput is still enigmatic....

Davidski:

the spread of most of the Yamnaya-related or steppe ancestry and quintessential Beaker physique across the Beaker world and into Western Europe can probably be blamed on the massive expansions of Beakers from what is now The Netherlands and surrounds (ie. the Lower Rhine region)

rms2
04-30-2020, 08:34 PM
Correct, thus the reason why I was careful to use lower case for the design element on a pot and upper case for the culture. You are right though, there is an important distinction and caution should be used. An All-Over Corded pot to me is just a Protruding Foot Beaker pot with the cords applied all the way to the base.

Right. I got it. I knew what you were saying, but I was afraid there could be some confusion.

I'm really looking forward to that upcoming paper on Dutch Single Grave Corded Ware that Generalissimo said is coming.

rms2
04-30-2020, 08:40 PM
About the details, the typical phenotype, brachycephaly+ flat occiput is still enigmatic....

Davidski:

That's one of the weirdest things about Beaker, or at least some Beaker men. Was it the product of cradle-boarding, as some scholars think, or an actual heritable physical trait?

Seems almost Uraloid, although I've seen it tied to Dinaric people (Coon did that, as I recall). Gerhardt, who coined the term Steilkopf for it, claimed to find it in eastern Anatolia and Armenia. (Don't blame me for that.)

rms2
04-30-2020, 08:56 PM
Speaking of round heads, I had almost forgotten about his, which is from page 384 of Gimbutas' The Civilization of the Goddess:



The physical type of this population [GAC] is not yet satisfactorily known. In Romania only seven skeletons have been examined which were characterized by Olga Necrasov as "attenuated Proto-Europid with some brachylization". The broad-headed skulls from the stone-cist graves in western Ukraine are very similar to those from Romanian Moldavia, and the skulls from Poland are also broad-headed. Multivariate comparisons made between seventeen male skulls from central Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Poland by Ilse Schwidetzky has shown affinities with the substratum TRB population. Although the number of individuals examined is still very small, it is interesting to note that Schwidetzky sees a certain gradation within the Globular Amphora population in which breadth measurements decrease from east to west.

Maybe brachycephaly made its way into Beaker via some GAC females?

Webb
04-30-2020, 10:57 PM
That's one of the weirdest things about Beaker, or at least some Beaker men. Was it the product of cradle-boarding, as some scholars think, or an actual heritable physical trait?

Seems almost Uraloid, although I've seen it tied to Dinaric people (Coon did that, as I recall). Gerhardt, who coined the term Steilkopf for it, claimed to find it in eastern Anatolia and Armenia. (Don't blame me for that.)

I think it’s genetic, maybe:
37434

This a reconstruction of Ava, Bell Beaker Scotland. Notice the flattened Occiput.

This is a link to one of the papers:
https://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/investigating-ava.htm

alan
05-01-2020, 12:54 AM
Our obsession with all things steppe and IE do tend to make us under-consider the apparently significant genetic impact of the GAC people in the genesis of bell beaker - even if it was female mediated. A cluster diagram I saw a few years ago indicated some similarity between the crania of GAC and BB. I also recall an older academic study of GAC crania stating that the GAC people from Poland, NW Ukraine, Moldova and east Romania were brachycephalic and describing GAC skulls as brachycephalised proto-Europoid type. Its common to state (as Coon did) that there was virtually no brachycephalic skulls anywhere in Europe or SW Asia in prebeaker times but it seems that this was not the case and overlooks the GAC people. So, perhaps that extra dose of GAC genes in BB is the origin of this physical feature of the bell beaker people.

alan
05-01-2020, 01:11 AM
I think it’s genetic, maybe:
37434

This a reconstruction of Ava, Bell Beaker Scotland. Notice the flattened Occiput.

This is a link to one of the papers:
https://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/investigating-ava.htm

It may be a genetic susceptibility to the rear of the head being flattened as a baby. Presumably something to do with the rear of the skull remaining softer for longer. Even today flattening of the rear of the head can be very difficult to avoid with babies. My wife clearly had a touch of this as did her dad (though not so much her siblings) and i've seen a degree of rear flattening occur is several babies in my own family including my sons despite every effort taken to avoid it. My dad said he recalled it happening to one of his brothers and I think you could see it had happened to his father/my granddad too. Strangely though it didnt happen to me or my dad. But overall I think its a genetic susceptibility to the rear of the head being soft and easily flattened as babies. Its not an inevitability but it would be very hard to avoid if you are genetically susceptible short of being hand cradled as a baby 24/7.

The flattening of course will shorten your skull front to back length dimension and push your cephalic index in the direction of brachycephalic even if it has no effect on the side to side breadth dimensions of your skull and is really just a localised impact you can only observe from some angles. The beaker skull seems to be simply a large skull that is both long and broad that has had its length reduced by flattening. So the term round or broad headed doesnt really describe it well. Its really a a large skull whose length has been shortened by rear flattening.

I also understand that the facial features of typical beaker people were dolichomorphic despite the technically brachycephalic skull - something like the Dinaric combination of long fairly narrow mid face but shortened rear part of crania.

Interestingly, in ancient Irish literature, a common phrase indicative of being handsome was 'broad above, narrow below', apparently meaning a fairly broad forehead/wide orbit area and perhaps cheekbones but with long fairly narrow mid face below the eyes. That does sound kind of beakerish to me.

alan
05-01-2020, 01:18 AM
Speaking of round heads, I had almost forgotten about his, which is from page 384 of Gimbutas' The Civilization of the Goddess:



Maybe brachycephaly made its way into Beaker via some GAC females?

Just noticed you beat me to posting almost the same thing :0) I think this is very likely. The female-mediated GAC input was a not inconsiderable chunk of beaker autosomal makeup. It seems very very likely to be the correct explanation. Also its interesting because the (not as early as Poland) German GAC was less brachycephalic and more like the local pre-GAC farmers - which indicates the GAC genes and skull traits in beaker must have been picked up further east than Germany. Presumably in Poland/NW Ukraine/Moldova area.

alan
05-01-2020, 01:34 AM
Oh and I think if I recall correctly from our own attempts to avoid skull flattening with our babies (its becoming more and more common apparently) that the danger period subsides once they start on solids. Not sure why but perhaps during the period of an all milk diet the bones of the skull stay softer. That suggests to me the possibility that the length of time before moving to solids may be a factor. Freaky though this seems to modern people, it is known that in some societies children remained being mostly breast fed until a shockingly late age - like 4. In fact I read somewhere recently that analysis of isotopes in bones had proven children had been breast fed till that sort of age in some prehistoric societies.

alan
05-01-2020, 01:42 AM
I think I also once posted before that there was one unusual Yamnaya group who did have beaker-like skulls. I think from memory they were from the very arid steppe area not far from (I think just west of) where the Volga meets the Caspian.

rms2
05-01-2020, 03:15 AM
Did you notice this from page 4 of the Furtwangler et al paper on Late Neolithic Switzerland?



Comparing outgroup-f3 statistics between the autosomes and the X chromosome of Final Neolithic and Bronze Age individuals we find that autosomes are more closely related to YAM-related ancestry than the X chromosomes are (Supplementary Note 6), consistent with a model in which more males than females brought YAM-related ancestry into the region as already shown by previous studies20.

Finn
05-01-2020, 10:10 AM
Speaking of round heads, I had almost forgotten about his, which is from page 384 of Gimbutas' The Civilization of the Goddess:
Maybe brachycephaly made its way into Beaker via some GAC females?

In your Gimbuta quote there is a line that is also interesting rms2!

The physical type of this population [GAC] is not yet satisfactorily known. In Romania only seven skeletons have been examined which were characterized by Olga Necrasov as "attenuated Proto-Europid with some brachylization". The broad-headed skulls from the stone-cist graves in western Ukraine are very similar to those from Romanian Moldavia, and the skulls from Poland are also broad-headed. Multivariate comparisons made between seventeen male skulls from central Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Poland by Ilse Schwidetzky has shown affinities with the substratum TRB population. Although the number of individuals examined is still very small, it is interesting to note that Schwidetzky sees a certain gradation within the Globular Amphora population in which breadth measurements decrease from east to west.

As we take the Dutch model as a departure point....Kurt Gerhardt spent al his life time to study the Bell Beaker physical anthropology. In a Bell Beaker symposium in Oberried (1974, published in 1976) he stated a few things about the Bell Beaker steephead. He stated that the Rhenish area has his special attention in this respect. He did not study the Dutch situation but nowadays archeologist are seeing them (Dutch and Rhenish) as close. He remarked that in the Rhineland the BB were differentiated from CW graves/people.

He thinks that the initial BB steephead had a kind of special social status. Steephead was in Kurgan BB context an elite sign. Further he suggest that BB were very clannish into endogamy, so than can cause a sudden rise of a specific phenotype. So a significant phenotype like the steephead could be cultivated and spread within a few generations I guess.

My impression, also based on the remark of Gimbuta, is that it could wel be a product of TRB/SGC hybridization. Anthroplogist and their classifications are outdated. Nevertheless a description that Coon used about 'dinarization' can be useful here:


The dimensions of the pre-auricular part of the head are derived from the long-headed strain, hence the posterior position of the ear; the breadths of the median sagittal sector of the face are inherited from the narrower-faced ancestor, often in exaggerated degree, and this applies especially to the width of the upper segment of the nose and to the interorbital distance; meanwhile the face becomes longer than in either parent stock, and the nose, in response to the shortening of the antero-posterior length of the entire head, becomes salient. This process occurs in varying degrees with individuals and with local racial entities of different origin.


I guess that hybridization took place among the Protruding Foot Beaker that transformed into Dutch Beaker that were a mixture of incoming Singe Grave pastoralist that mixed with 'indigenous' Funnelbeaker/TRB (woman). They were clannish as we also can see that the BB Dutch were dominantly R1b P312 (at least the available samples). So the hybridization, the social/sexual selection and the clannish/endogamy context caused a sudden and remarkable rise of the steephead.

Cradle boarding is IMO more a sign of that desirable head form, but this can't explain the whole phenomenon. I can assure you that because I'm a steephead too and was never cradle boarded....at least.....I will interrogate my parents ;)

Finn
05-01-2020, 01:00 PM
In addition. Gerhardt (1976) describes that there were 'robust dolichomorphe' types that he considers typical for corded ware were there in BB graves but the steepheads were only there in BB graves. Further he states that in the case of the steephead it were mostly man. And in the BB graves there are more often 'brachymorphen cromagniden' compared to the corded ware graves (= funnel beaker rooted?). And as said the steephead had according to Gerhardt and based on grave goods a 'Sonderstellung' so a special position.

Add 2. Regarding France and Spain he made the remark that the steephead is not prominent, except for the Alsace were it obviously build on a Single Grave Culture ('wo wir Einzelgraber haben')....

rms2
05-01-2020, 03:50 PM
I wish the authors of ancient dna papers were more thorough in their archaeological and anthropological accounts. Some of them are pretty good, but often their descriptions of the archaeological contexts of their finds are bare bones (pardon the pun) and there is little to no physical description of the skeletons.

corner
05-01-2020, 04:00 PM
Always thought that Bee Low man (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/beaker-people-in-britain-migration-mobility-and-diet/F059DDC58404792160DF1790B67C898D/core-reader), buried down the road in the Peak District (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_District) (in a round barrow with a bronze pin and two possible awls but no pot, in 2200–2030 cal BC), had an interesting noggin. He looks to have had the same long-distance mobility in life as the Amesbury Archer buried in Wessex.
https://i.ibb.co/SV5qh82/Bee-Low-Man.png

Finn
05-01-2020, 04:43 PM
Always thought that Bee Low man (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/beaker-people-in-britain-migration-mobility-and-diet/F059DDC58404792160DF1790B67C898D/core-reader), buried down the road in the Peak District (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_District) (in a round barrow with a bronze pin and two possible awls but no pot, in 2200–2030 cal BC), had an interesting noggin. He looks to have had the same long-distance mobility in life as the Amesbury Archer buried in Wessex.
https://i.ibb.co/SV5qh82/Bee-Low-Man.png

His 'twin', Molenaarsgraf (NL) 2200 BC (rokus blog):

https://www.mupload.nl/img/c9x1mkyga.40.12.png

alan
05-01-2020, 08:02 PM
Beaker social structure factors and the exact details of a beaker mother's everyday lifestyle could have had an impact on skull flattening. The mother would have to place the new baby in a cradle more if she:

1. Had load of young kids to deal with - i.e. a sequence of several babies over just a few years or any sort of role that meant she couldnt have a new baby in her hands/lying on her breast all the time because she would have other toddlers to deal with too.

2. The social structure meant the mother had no blood relatives in the form of unmarried female, siblings, grannies, aunts etc around to help nurse the child. Certainly she would lack these things given the beaker system was patrilocal, they didnt tend to marry the girl next door and the wife effectively left her own family and joined her husband's on marrying.

3. A less settled settlement pattern and subsistence system compared to the lifestyle of the preceding Neolithic farmers meant that housing was more rudimentary/short lived, moving location was frequent and furnishings much more rudimentary. Seasonal transhumance is traditionally associated with very basic upland huts. Often this seasonally separated the husband and wife as only on went to the upland summer pastures. In some societies (Gaelic for example) the women and children would do the moving up the hills to those huts in the summer. They did dairy processing into cheese and butter in those locations so again mothers may have had to have their hands free and need to cradle the baby in some none-to-luxurious way. Cradle boarding and swaddling may have been a necessity to keep babies safe and mother's hands free to work, cook etc.

4. The practice of fostering of boys to other families in mid childhood to mid teens may have meant a lack of helping hands for the mother from other children in some families.

5. The evidence of hypermobility of some beaker men with long distance travelling, interest in metal sources, mining and trading may imply a lot of beaker wives had to run homelife on their own, at least seasonally. When you combine that with the fact the wife would have lacked her own mother, sisters etc nearby, it again paints a picture of a fairly difficult and challenging role for mothers and a heightened need to put babies in cradles or cradle board them.

All in all, beaker society does appear to be one where the mother's role would have been much more tricky, solitary and demanding than that of Neolithic farmer life which, in contrast, had more sturdy housing and a larger support network of relatives would have been present nearby. All of that could have meant a need for cradling new babies was much greater was much greater in beaker society.

Finn
05-01-2020, 08:22 PM
Beaker social structure factors and the exact details of a beaker mother's everyday lifestyle could have had an impact on skull flattening. The mother would have to place the new baby in a cradle more if she:

1. Had load of young kids to deal with - i.e. a sequence of several babies over just a few years or any sort of role that meant she couldnt have a new baby in her hands/lying on her breast all the time because she would have other toddlers to deal with too.

2. The social structure meant the mother had no blood relatives in the form of unmarried female, siblings, grannies, aunts etc around to help nurse the child. Certainly she would lack these things given the beaker system was patrilocal, they didnt tend to marry the girl next door and the wife effectively left her own family and joined her husband's on marrying.

3. A less settled settlement pattern and subsistence system compared to the lifestyle of the preceding Neolithic farmers meant that housing was more rudimentary/short lived, moving location was frequent and furnishings much more rudimentary. Seasonal transhumance is traditionally associated with very basic upland huts. Often this seasonally separated the husband and wife as only on went to the upland summer pastures. In some societies (Gaelic for example) the women and children would do the moving up the hills to those huts in the summer. They did dairy processing into cheese and butter in those locations so again mothers may have had to have their hands free and need to cradle the baby in some none-to-luxurious way. Cradle boarding and swaddling may have been a necessity to keep babies safe and mother's hands free to work, cook etc.

4. The practice of fostering of boys to other families in mid childhood to mid teens may have meant a lack of helping hands for the mother from other children in some families.

5. The evidence of hypermobility of some beaker men with long distance travelling, interest in metal sources, mining and trading may imply a lot of beaker wives had to run homelife on their own, at least seasonally. When you combine that with the fact the wife would have lacked her own mother, sisters etc nearby, it again paints a picture of a fairly difficult and challenging role for mothers and a heightened need to put babies in cradles or cradle board them.

All in all, beaker society does appear to be one where the mother's role would have been much more tricky, solitary and demanding than that of Neolithic farmer life which, in contrast, had more sturdy housing and a larger support network of relatives would have been present nearby. All of that could have meant a need for cradling new babies was much greater was much greater in beaker society.

Why so much emphasis on cradling Alan? What the old classifiers has called 'dinarization' could well be a proces without cradling.....As said I'm a steephead and this occurs more often in Europe even without cradling. So why is cradling such a necessity for the steephead?

It's significant that especially in the area's were there is a transition from Single Grave Culture to Bell Beaker this phenotype occurred.

rms2
05-01-2020, 08:32 PM
It would be good if someone could find some sort of genetic variant that controls skull shape. Then ancient remains could be tested for it. But if there isn't any such thing, or if it's hopelessly complex (probably the most likely scenario), then maybe cradleboarding was the cause.

Finn
05-01-2020, 08:39 PM
It would be good if someone could find some sort of genetic variant that controls skull shape. Then ancient remains could be tested for it. But if there isn't any such thing, or if it's hopelessly complex (probably the most likely scenario), then maybe cradleboarding was the cause.

Indeed that would be nice, and it's complex, and may be Coon had a point:

Cradling, however, is not the cause of Dinaricization, but merely a factor which may intensify it.

Because why is it a sign of the Dutch/Rhenish/ British Beakers (the SGC rooted ones) and not of the Iberian Beakers? Where the social circumstances that Alan described substantial different in the Iberian BB setting?
Lots of unanswered questions indeed.

Finn
05-01-2020, 09:44 PM
One thing why cradling may be not the cause of the flat occiput is that researchers found that cradling causes a delay in development especially motor (movement) and cognitive development....mmm pretty devastating for the 'the classic Beaker warrior male' (dixit Davidski) :biggrin1:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11711916
https://www.choosept.com/symptomsconditionsdetail/physical-therapy-guide-to-head-shape-flatness-in-infants-plagiocephaly-brach

rms2
05-02-2020, 01:32 AM
. . .

Because why is it a sign of the Dutch/Rhenish/ British Beakers (the SGC rooted ones) and not of the Iberian Beakers? Where the social circumstances that Alan described substantial different in the Iberian BB setting?
Lots of unanswered questions indeed.

Well, you're talking about two completely different sets of people if you're talking about early Iberian Bell Beakers versus Kurgan Bell Beakers. There's a lot about them that is different.

But then Kurgan Bell Beaker people began arriving in Iberia around 2500 BC. Probably among them there was some brachycephaly, but early Iberian BB people were of the Mediterranean type: short in stature, with gracile skeletons and long heads.

Finn
05-02-2020, 07:46 AM
Well, you're talking about two completely different sets of people if you're talking about early Iberian Bell Beakers versus Kurgan Bell Beakers. There's a lot about them that is different.

But then Kurgan Bell Beaker people began arriving in Iberia around 2500 BC. Probably among them there was some brachycephaly, but early Iberian BB people were of the Mediterranean type: short in stature, with gracile skeletons and long heads.

Totally agree with the difference in 'genetic profile' , so that may be is the key?
The departure point was the remark of Alan that social circumstances in respect to cradling caused brachycephaly+ flat occiput. Iberians and Dutch/Rhenish Beakers had to some extent the same social circumstance still differences in phenotype (especial regarding brachycephaly and flat occiput).

But even more decisive looks to me that cradleboarding practices puts the little BB at great risk to get handicapped! So doesn't male sense to me....
So when it's artificial forced it can cause severe problems.....But if a natural adaptionhad more potential advantages (what could make more sense!)?

Then may be the suggestion of rokus could make sense. His proposal is: this phenotype is caused by a brain adaption.


An increased role of the cerebellum also implies an improved interconnectivity with the cerebral cortex, and related changes to optimize the brain structure towards shorter ‘communication lines’ all the way to the frontal parts implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making and moderating social behavior.
Neuroanatomical studies showed neuronal pathways linking the cerebellum with autonomic, limbic and associative regions of the supratentorial cortex. More specifically, cortical areas send information to the cerebellum via the basilar pons, and deep cerebellar nuclei send information back to prefrontal areas through dentatothalamic pathways (De Smet et al., 2007)


And:

The remarkable increase of the cerebellum in modern humans is incompatable with the traditional view on its function, that merely involved motor control. An evolutionary increase of the cerebellum is nowadays deemed necessary for modern humans, allegedly being congruent to an increase of human skills.

Wiki:

The hallmark of the mammalian cerebellum is an expansion of the lateral lobes, whose main interactions are with the neocortex. As monkeys evolved into great apes, the expansion of the lateral lobes continued, in tandem with the expansion of the frontal lobes of the neocortex. In ancestral hominids, and in Homo sapiens until the middle Pleistocene period, the cerebellum continued to expand, but the frontal lobes expanded more rapidly. The most recent period of human evolution, however, may actually have been associated with an increase in the relative size of the cerebellum, as the neocortex reduced its size somewhat while the cerebellum expanded.[79] The size of the human cerebellum, compared to the rest of the brain, has been increasing in size while the cerebrum decreased in size [80] With both the development and implementation of motor tasks, visual-spatial skills and learning taking place in the cerebellum, the growth of the cerebellum is thought to have some form of correlation to greater human cognitive abilities.[81] The lateral hemispheres of the cerebellum are now 2.7 times greater in both humans and apes than they are in monkeys.[80] These changes in the cerebellum size cannot be explained by greater muscle mass. They show that either the development of the cerebellum is tightly linked to that of the rest of the brain or that neural activities taking place in the cerebellum were important during Hominidae evolution. Due to the cerebellum's role in cognitive functions, the increase in its size may have played a role in cognitive expansion.


This is the heel of Achilles. The psychomotorique and complex decision making, learning abilities etc. are at stake. When it's artificial forced upon (cradle board) it results in maladaptive and bad outcomes (handicapped). But when it's a natural, 'internal' adaption (= 'external': brachycephaly+ flat occiput) it results in an evolutionary advantage!

https://rokus01.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/evolutionary-tales-behind-otzis-mesocephalic-skull/

https://www.iflscience.com/brain/rapid-growth-cerebellum-may-have-helped-shape-human-evolution/

jdean
05-02-2020, 09:52 AM
Beaker social structure factors and the exact details of a beaker mother's everyday lifestyle could have had an impact on skull flattening. The mother would have to place the new baby in a cradle more if she:

1. Had load of young kids to deal with - i.e. a sequence of several babies over just a few years or any sort of role that meant she couldnt have a new baby in her hands/lying on her breast all the time because she would have other toddlers to deal with too.

2. The social structure meant the mother had no blood relatives in the form of unmarried female, siblings, grannies, aunts etc around to help nurse the child. Certainly she would lack these things given the beaker system was patrilocal, they didnt tend to marry the girl next door and the wife effectively left her own family and joined her husband's on marrying.

3. A less settled settlement pattern and subsistence system compared to the lifestyle of the preceding Neolithic farmers meant that housing was more rudimentary/short lived, moving location was frequent and furnishings much more rudimentary. Seasonal transhumance is traditionally associated with very basic upland huts. Often this seasonally separated the husband and wife as only on went to the upland summer pastures. In some societies (Gaelic for example) the women and children would do the moving up the hills to those huts in the summer. They did dairy processing into cheese and butter in those locations so again mothers may have had to have their hands free and need to cradle the baby in some none-to-luxurious way. Cradle boarding and swaddling may have been a necessity to keep babies safe and mother's hands free to work, cook etc.

4. The practice of fostering of boys to other families in mid childhood to mid teens may have meant a lack of helping hands for the mother from other children in some families.

5. The evidence of hypermobility of some beaker men with long distance travelling, interest in metal sources, mining and trading may imply a lot of beaker wives had to run homelife on their own, at least seasonally. When you combine that with the fact the wife would have lacked her own mother, sisters etc nearby, it again paints a picture of a fairly difficult and challenging role for mothers and a heightened need to put babies in cradles or cradle board them.

All in all, beaker society does appear to be one where the mother's role would have been much more tricky, solitary and demanding than that of Neolithic farmer life which, in contrast, had more sturdy housing and a larger support network of relatives would have been present nearby. All of that could have meant a need for cradling new babies was much greater was much greater in beaker society.

Question, if the BB head was down to lifestyle why didn't it also appear in CW, they were nomadic too and I think the results also suggested they sourced their wives from outside their community?

anglesqueville
05-02-2020, 10:15 AM
It would be good if someone could find some sort of genetic variant that controls skull shape. Then ancient remains could be tested for it. But if there isn't any such thing, or if it's hopelessly complex (probably the most likely scenario), then maybe cradleboarding was the cause.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196148


Mapping genetic variants for cranial vault shape in humans

37464

Finn
05-02-2020, 10:21 AM
Add, brachycephaly seems indeed connected with the 'modern brain development'.

Roger Bartra, Anthropology of the Brain: Consciousness, Culture, and Free Will:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/e6du7mx.07.51.png

Based on:

It is noteworthy that the only recent human endocast examined here lies at the end of the modern trajectory, or else it acts as an outlier when the relative diameters are considered. This individual in fact shows a marked brachycephalic structure, which stresses the modern globularity of the brain. Anyhow, marked differences in endocranial shape between modern specimens of the Late Pleistocene and recent individuals has been noticed.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC307568/

So I guess we can conclude that the 'dinarization' is a kind of evolutionary adaption.....

anglesqueville
05-02-2020, 02:31 PM
[SIZE=4]So I guess we can conclude that the 'dinarization' is a kind of evolutionary adaption.....[/B][/COLOR]

On the one hand, the evolutionary phenomenon leading to anatomically modern man, on the other the so-called "dinarization". Explain, even partially the second (assuming it really exists), on the model of the first, this seems at least adventurous. For my part, I remain clear that everything concerning cranio-skeletal characters is vague, unstable, uninsured, starting with their heritability. As the purely cranial characters are fixed during the period of malleability, it seems really difficult to discriminate what is inherited in them, and what is correlated to environmental conditions during infancy, and many environmental parameters (diet, temperature, and many others) seem to have some correlation with these characters. Many studies have been devoted to these questions. I am of course thinking of that of Boas, and the very long series of studies that followed, not all of which were critical. I am also thinking of studies carried out on the Korean population, and another on Japanese women. In both cases, we observe a tendency to brachycephalization during the last two centuries, but in both cases also we observe that this tendency seems to be reversed towards the end of the XXth century. The fact that such variations can be significant in such short time intervals in my opinion frankly tips the scales in favour of the environment. In 2018 a remarkable thesis was defended at the University of Tennesee, under the title "Geometric Morphometric and Traditional Morphometric Analyzes of Secular Changes in the Craniofacial and Anterior Cranial Base Shapes of Modern Euro-Americans "(https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6620&context=utk_graddiss). This exceptionally serious text is worth studying. But I would nevertheless like to quote part of its conclusion:
"Based on the literature, the observable covariation in the morphologies of the splanchnocranial module and the basicranium that has occurred over time is likely the result of the environment acting on phenotypic expression through epigenetic interactions during ontogeny. The interactions between the environment and genetics continue to play a role during subsequent growth. The factors responsible for these changes are likely the result of the novel environment that the American population has experienced throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Extensive environmental, socioeconomic, and technological transitions during this period are likely responsible for acting on the genetic expression of the facial phenotype by means of epigenetic modulation.
The results of the study, as discussed above, in combination with prior research which identified lengthening and narrowing of the cranial vault, indicate that the cranial vault of American Whites has become dolichocephalic and the face has become more leptoprosopic over time. This trend of cranial shape changing from brachycephalization toward dolichocephalization is not isolated to that of the American population and has been observed in other populations elsewhere. "

Finn
05-02-2020, 03:12 PM
On the one hand, the evolutionary phenomenon leading to anatomically modern man, on the other the so-called "dinarization". Explain, even partially the second (assuming it really exists), on the model of the first, this seems at least adventurous. For my part, I remain clear that everything concerning cranio-skeletal characters is vague, unstable, uninsured, starting with their heritability. As the purely cranial characters are fixed during the period of malleability, it seems really difficult to discriminate what is inherited in them, and what is correlated to environmental conditions during infancy, and many environmental parameters (diet, temperature, and many others) seem to have some correlation with these characters. Many studies have been devoted to these questions. I am of course thinking of that of Boas, and the very long series of studies that followed, not all of which were critical. I am also thinking of studies carried out on the Korean population, and another on Japanese women. In both cases, we observe a tendency to brachycephalization during the last two centuries, but in both cases also we observe that this tendency seems to be reversed towards the end of the XXth century. The fact that such variations can be significant in such short time intervals in my opinion frankly tips the scales in favour of the environment. In 2018 a remarkable thesis was defended at the University of Tennesee, under the title "Geometric Morphometric and Traditional Morphometric Analyzes of Secular Changes in the Craniofacial and Anterior Cranial Base Shapes of Modern Euro-Americans "(https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6620&context=utk_graddiss). This exceptionally serious text is worth studying. But I would nevertheless like to quote part of its conclusion:

Thanks Angles, it's indeed complicated and honestly somewhat out of reach for a lay man like me.

Based on what I incremental gathered I tentative think that this kind of brachycephalic/ dinarization development is crucial to a better 'brain development'. The BB stood on the doorstep of LNBA, culture and genetic developments are influencing eachother. LNBA meant new possibilities, widening of the horizon (see the description of Alan). I guess that that 'dinarization' is an adaption to it. Was it a coincidence that the 'dinarized' BB got special grave good etc. had a 'special position' as Gerhardt has suggested? Were these the 'front-runners'?

And may be it's exaggerated (and some can explain this in a wrong/dangerous way... but ok) but I guess this development, leading to a better brain capacity, could have been a key to their 'succes' and correspondingly spread....


Of course tentative and feel free to discuss, criticize this.....

anglesqueville
05-02-2020, 03:42 PM
I never heard about a correlation between the cranial index and the cephalic capacity/brain development in the anatomically modern human. I can be wrong, but IMO your "dinarization" is nothing but a dangerous fantasy of the pre-scientific anthropology of the early XXth century.

razyn
05-02-2020, 03:52 PM
Of course tentative and feel free to discuss, criticize this.....

I was troubled by your source, the Rokus blog. He was one of the more intemperate posters on DNA-Forums, and was always quick to accuse anyone he suspected of being a "Kurganist," in a rude and sarcastic way. I had to look up the term after he accused me of it (in 2011), since I was then unaware that there was such an ailment. Sometimes his blog entries (to which he hasn't added since 2014) were a little more rational than his posts -- and they have nice pictures -- but I was conditioned to take his opinions with a big grain of salt. He had some big axe to grind, and whatever it was, his axe was not mine.

jdean
05-02-2020, 04:01 PM
I was troubled by your source, the Rokus blog. He was one of the more intemperate posters on DNA-Forums, and was always quick to accuse anyone he suspected of being a "Kurganist," in a rude and sarcastic way. I had to look up the term after he accused me of it (in 2011), since I was then unaware that there was such an ailment. Sometimes his blog entries (to which he hasn't added since 2014) were a little more rational than his posts -- and they have nice pictures -- but I was conditioned to take his opinions with a big grain of salt. He had some big axe to grind, and whatever it was, his axe was not mine.

Rokus passed away some time ago now, can't remember when exactly.

Finn
05-02-2020, 04:14 PM
I never heard about a correlation between the cranial index and the cephalic capacity/brain development in the anatomically modern human. I can be wrong, but IMO your "dinarization" is nothing but a dangerous fantasy of the pre-scientific anthropology of the early XXth century.

As stated above, here is the relationship:

Roger Bartra, Anthropology of the Brain: Consciousness, Culture, and Free Will:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/e6du7mx.07.51.png

Dinarization is just a description for brachycephaly+ flat occiput, and it's a fact that this is a BB marker (at least the NW European one). So that part is not pseudo scientific or old anthropological nonsense.

It's more disputable if this adaption is a key to their 'succes'.....

Finn
05-02-2020, 04:16 PM
I was troubled by your source, the Rokus blog. He was one of the more intemperate posters on DNA-Forums, and was always quick to accuse anyone he suspected of being a "Kurganist," in a rude and sarcastic way. I had to look up the term after he accused me of it (in 2011), since I was then unaware that there was such an ailment. Sometimes his blog entries (to which he hasn't added since 2014) were a little more rational than his posts -- and they have nice pictures -- but I was conditioned to take his opinions with a big grain of salt. He had some big axe to grind, and whatever it was, his axe was not mine.

I never had contact with him or disputed with him. But from what I have see and heard I can imagine the grumpy side of him....nevertheless even grumpy old man can sometimes be right ;)

razyn
05-02-2020, 04:23 PM
I never had contact with him or disputed with him. But from what I have see and heard I can imagine the grumpy side of him....nevertheless even grumpy old man can sometimes be right ;)

I'm a grumpy old man. But I never knew I was a Kurganist, that wasn't a thing my grumpy old peer group was taught to avoid.

Finn
05-02-2020, 04:40 PM
I'm a grumpy old man. But I never knew I was a Kurganist, that wasn't a thing my grumpy old peer group was taught to avoid.

Never saw you as grumpy razyn! And seeing yourself as one....makes you less one (iMO ;)
Kurganist is a non label to me. That the Steppe has had influence seems a fact. That would make someone Kurganist?

I'm more concerned that someone sees my better BB brain capacity riddle as some kind of 'Herrenvolk'...never meant that but ok.....that's worse for me than Kurganist or not.

anglesqueville
05-02-2020, 05:12 PM
As stated above, here is the relationship:

Roger Bartra, Anthropology of the Brain: Consciousness, Culture, and Free Will:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/e6du7mx.07.51.png

Dinarization is just a description for brachycephaly+ flat occiput, and it's a fact that this is a BB marker (at least the NW European one). So that part is not pseudo scientific or old anthropological nonsense.

It's more disputable if this adaption is a key to their 'succes'.....

What is non-scientific is to think in the same way the process that leads from the primate cranial vault to the AM human one, on one side, and the increase of the CI in some modern human groups, on the other. About this increase, I definitely don't think that it has any adaptative value, neither positive nor negative.

Finn
05-02-2020, 05:48 PM
What is non-scientific is to think in the same way the process that leads from the primate cranial vault to the AM human one, on one side, and the increase of the CI in some modern human groups, on the other. About this increase, I definitely don't think that it has any adaptative value, neither positive nor negative.

Excuse for nagging. But what is unscientific about this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC307568/

It is noteworthy that the only recent human endocast examined here lies at the end of the modern trajectory, or else it acts as an outlier when the relative diameters are considered. This individual in fact shows a marked brachycephalic structure, which stresses the modern globularity of the brain. Anyhow, marked differences in endocranial shape between modern specimens of the Late Pleistocene and recent individuals has been noticed

Finn
05-02-2020, 06:17 PM
---delete----

Finn
05-02-2020, 06:28 PM
What is non-scientific is to think in the same way the process that leads from the primate cranial vault to the AM human one, on one side, and the increase of the CI in some modern human groups, on the other. About this increase, I definitely don't think that it has any adaptative value, neither positive nor negative.

After diner I see you point it's indeed different archaic>modern. Could the LNBA transition also means a transformation with consequences for the brain structures, so greater brachycephaly....? Still open to me.

alan
05-02-2020, 06:41 PM
Why so much emphasis on cradling Alan? What the old classifiers has called 'dinarization' could well be a proces without cradling.....As said I'm a steephead and this occurs more often in Europe even without cradling. So why is cradling such a necessity for the steephead?

It's significant that especially in the area's were there is a transition from Single Grave Culture to Bell Beaker this phenotype occurred.

Mostly because ive seen it with my own eyes in my family and extended family. Its incredibly easy for a baby to get the rear of their head flattened in the period they are on an all milk diet. Ive actually seen it in happening in real time and the struggle to avoid it (special cushions, some even put special sleeping helmets on their babiesetc). Its apparently on the rise too because the medical advice that lying on the back helps prevent cot death. You just have to google it and you will see all sorts of mother and baby websites and blogs talking about it as a widespread problem and ways to try and counter it.

That said, there may be a genetic predisposition to it. But other factors could be important. Apparently after weaning the danger passes. So the length of the baby being on milk only may be a factor - in the past some societies breast fed to what today seems a ridiculous age - like almost school age. Other factors might be birth order. If you are a first child rather than a second child born only a year or so after the first, the mother will be able to hand cradle a lot more than they can if they have a 1 or 2 year old to deal with as well as their new baby. Lots of other factors about society and homelife could have a similar impact on the options a mother has re cradling and feeding.

Finn
05-02-2020, 07:02 PM
Mostly because ive seen it with my own eyes in my family and extended family. Its incredibly easy for a baby to get the rear of their head flattened in the period they are on an all milk diet. Ive actually seen it in happening in real time and the struggle to avoid it (special cushions, some even put special sleeping helmets on their babiesetc). Its apparently on the rise too because the medical advice that lying on the back helps prevent cot death. You just have to google it and you will see all sorts of mother and baby websites and blogs talking about it as a widespread problem and ways to try and counter it.

That said, there may be a genetic predisposition to it. But other factors could be important. Apparently after weaning the danger passes. So the length of the baby being on milk only may be a factor - in the past some societies breast fed to what today seems a ridiculous age - like almost school age. Other factors might be birth order. If you are a first child rather than a second child born only a year or so after the first, the mother will be able to hand cradle a lot more than they can if they have a 1 or 2 year old to deal with as well as their new baby. Lots of other factors about society and homelife could have a similar impact on the options a mother has re cradling and feeding.

I share that Alan (even own experience) but I guess if the BB were massive cradle boarders they were taking great risks with their in this case dominantly sons, because it causes retardments (mental and motorial).

As said a brachycephalic adaption could be caused by the 'LNBA transition' -nature-nurture- (an open question to me but I guess it's not unlikely).

alan
05-02-2020, 07:16 PM
I was troubled by your source, the Rokus blog. He was one of the more intemperate posters on DNA-Forums, and was always quick to accuse anyone he suspected of being a "Kurganist," in a rude and sarcastic way. I had to look up the term after he accused me of it (in 2011), since I was then unaware that there was such an ailment. Sometimes his blog entries (to which he hasn't added since 2014) were a little more rational than his posts -- and they have nice pictures -- but I was conditioned to take his opinions with a big grain of salt. He had some big axe to grind, and whatever it was, his axe was not mine.

He had a weird obsession about Swifterbant culture. He seemed to work it into almost all his posts. I got the impression you could be talking about your favourite beer and he would manage to work Swifterbant into the convo. Still, its sad to hear he has passed.