PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Bell Beaker Models



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

rms2
08-23-2017, 02:44 PM
Polls are supposed to be kind of fun. Hopefully this one will be.

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

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

The Bell Beaker model summaries, with the exception of the Gimbutas Model and the Manco Model, come from pages 476-479 of "Bell Beakers from West to East" in Ancient Europe, 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World; Bogucki, Peter and Crabtree, Pam J., editors; New York: Scribner and Sons, 2004 (available online as an e-book here (http://ens9004.mza.infd.edu.ar/sitio/upload/11-%20BOGUCKI%20&%20CRABTREE%20-%20LIBRO%20-%20Ancient%20Europe%208000%20AC%20-%20AD%201000.PDF)).

The Spanish Model:



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


The Dutch Model:



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

The Immobilist Model:



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


The Reflux Model:



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


The Gimbutas Model is the hypothesis that Bell Beaker arose from the mixing of Yamnaya and Vucedol in the Carpathian basin in the third millennium BC. The following comes from page 390 of Gimbutas' book, The Civilization of the Goddess:



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


The Manco Model, which author and historian Jean Manco advances in her books, Ancestral Journeys and Blood of the Celts, is kind of a cross between the Spanish Model, the Gimbutas Model, and the Reflux Model, with steppe people arriving in Iberia early, creating BB there, spreading east from Iberia and spreading west from the Carpathian basin simultaneously, in a network of kindred peoples.

The following are excerpts from her book, Ancestral Journeys.

From pages 162-163:



Copper workers may have arrived in Iberia initially with a small company of migrants, to be gradually reinforced over time by others seeking pastures new. Carved stone anthropomorphic stelae mark the trail of these copper workers, so let us call them the Stelae People.


(Ms. Manco makes it clear on pages 161-163 that the stelae to which she refers began on the Pontic steppe and mark the trail across Europe from there to Iberia.)

From page 161:



The Beaker people seem to have arrived swiftly in Iberia. Some of their earliest sites are found in Portugal. Or to be more exact, they appear to be the same people who had brought copper-working earlier. There is no change in the metal-working technology when Bell Beaker pottery began to be made.

rafc
08-23-2017, 03:15 PM
I have not followed all the discussions since the Bell beaker papers appeared and I don't know how thinking has evolved as a result of them. But from my distant point of view (I'm mostly concerned with V13 and the Balkans) it seems like the large correlation between P312 and Bell Beaker has been confirmed, it would seem reasonable that some elements were developed in Spain by a genetically unrelated people and than adopted by a P312-dominated clan and spread further over Europe.
If I had to guess right now I would say that P312 was one of many clans somewhere in the Eastern European Steppe in the early third millenium BC. As so many Steppe-people after them would do they moved westward towards Bohemia/Southern Germany. They were very skilled with bows and developed a certain ideology that drove them to spread out wide (as many Steppe people after them would do). This would bring them over most of Europe. I have to admit that U106's role in this is not so clear. Although that's not exactly what Gimbutas meant it's the closest so I'll vote for that. In my opinion cultures like Vucedol (but also i.e. Ezero) were the results of remnants of Neolithic populations and new influx from Sredny Stog and other Steppe peoples (marked mostly by I2 and R1B-Z2103). I think the P312 guys arrived in a later wave but might have adopted some of the developments of previous groups when they arrived in their vicinity.

sweuro
08-23-2017, 03:32 PM
I would say it's a mix of the spanish model and Gimbautas.

Jean M
08-23-2017, 04:48 PM
I think that it is safe to predict that my model will never be named after me. It will be the Heyd 2017 model.

jdean
08-23-2017, 05:24 PM
I think that it is safe to predict that my model will never be named after me. It will be the Heyd 2017 model.

Well if it pans out at least here it will be known as your modal.

jdean
08-23-2017, 05:29 PM
Personally I can't make my mind up between The Dutch & Gimbutas Model.

rafc
08-23-2017, 05:49 PM
Personally I can't make my mind up between The Dutch & Gimbutas Model.
I have the same tendency. And yet they seem fundamentally different.

Jean M
08-23-2017, 06:50 PM
Well if it pans out at least here it will be known as your model.

I can't stop you, but the model will do much better with an archaeologist as sponsor. In fact it already has.

MitchellSince1893
08-23-2017, 08:11 PM
Unless I'm missing something I vote "none of the above". I'm partial to the Małopolska/Bohemia/Moravia area where a specific subtype of corded ware similar to eastern beaker in certain respects existed. I currently think this might be the area where P312 was introduced into/adopted Bell Beaker.

I'm not well versed in the associated chronology, so that may throw a wrench into the above opinion.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-23-2017, 08:15 PM
Id go for my own modification of Harrison and Heyd with some Manco added in

rms2
08-23-2017, 08:21 PM
Unless I'm missing something I vote "none of the above". I'm partial to the Małopolska/Bohemia/Moravia area where a specific subtype of corded ware similar to eastern beaker in certain respects existed. I currently think this might be the area where P312 was introduced into/adopted Bell Beaker.

I'm not well versed in the associated chronology, so that may throw a wrench into the above opinion.

You could be right, and, as far as I know, we don't have any y-dna yet from the Bohemian-Moravian or Małopolska Corded Ware variants.

But remember, the poll question is "Which Bell Beaker model is closest to being right?"

When I eventually vote (I haven't yet), I will pick the one I think comes closest and then post whatever modifications I think it needs (not that I am any kind of expert).

rms2
08-23-2017, 08:28 PM
Personally I can't make my mind up between The Dutch & Gimbutas Model.

That's where I am. I have not voted yet.

Those Single Grave and Protruding Foot Beaker beakers sure look like Bell Beaker beakers, and evidently CW and BB were both using AOC and AOO beakers. It seems to me that Corded Ware and Bell Beaker were a lot alike in other respects, as well.

On the other hand, the CW y-dna results thus far are mostly R1a, and that gives me pause; but we don't have any y-dna from many of the CW variants, and CW accounted for a huge area.

Jean M
08-23-2017, 08:31 PM
Id go for my own modification of Harrison and Heyd with some Manco added in

I have to say, in your own interests, that you would be better off with Heyd 2017, as he includes the actual Yamnaya-style burial at the copper Age site at Valencina de la Concepción, which I missed (curses, curses).

rms2
08-23-2017, 08:34 PM
I think that it is safe to predict that my model will never be named after me. It will be the Heyd 2017 model.

It should be named for you. For one thing, you were talking about it, explaining it and making it understandable long before 2017.

Jean M
08-23-2017, 08:51 PM
It should be named for you. For one thing, you were talking about it, explaining it and making it understandable long before 2017.

The stelae trail alone was enough to interest some people enough to explore the idea further, which was what I was aiming at in AJ - a raft of ideas that could be tested by others, using aDNA or whatever else. A few fireworks to get the migration party started. :biggrin1: The stelae trail really needs a solid study of the stelae, which might be forthcoming from a stelae expert.

alan
08-23-2017, 10:59 PM
I have puzzled the beaker phenomenon as a hobby horse area of interest on and off for 30 years and I still don't know what to think. All I am confident in is that P312 likely arrived into an Iberia that had already been making beaker pots for some centuries.

I think the beaker pot idea reaching Iberia is a separate contact phase several centuries earlier c2750BC and was not accompanied by an influx of P312 and owed more to marriage networks and women. I think probably beaker pot arose when the mental model of corded ware was brought to north and east Iberia via the Grand Pressigny trade network which stretched from as far NE as Holland and Germany and as far SW as the SW France-Spanish border and from there passed down the long Iberian east-west flowing rivers to Portugal where Maritime was born as a kind of 2nd generation version.

P312 IMO most likely originated as a trading clan located within the Corded Ware world,likely on the Upper Danube and Rhine by 2700BC but probably of western steppe origin before that.

rms2
08-23-2017, 11:09 PM
I have puzzled the beaker phenomenon as a hobby horse area of interest on and off for 30 years and I still don't know what to think. All I am confident in is that P312 likely arrived into an Iberia that had already been making beaker pots for some centuries.

I think the beaker pot idea reaching Iberia is a separate contact phase several centuries earlier c2750BC and was not accompanied by an influx of P312 and owed more to marriage networks and women. I think probably beaker pot arose when the mental model of corded ware was brought to north and east Iberia via the Grand Pressigny trade network which stretched from as far NE as Holland and Germany and as far SW as the SW France-Spanish border and from there passed down the long Iberian east-west flowing rivers to Portugal where Maritime was born as a kind of 2nd generation version.

P312 IMO most likely originated as a trading clan located within the Corded Ware world,likely on the Upper Danube and Rhine by 2700BC but probably of western steppe origin before that.

So how did you vote? Dutch Model?

rms2
08-24-2017, 12:03 AM
IMHO the Spanish Model and the others closely related to it have suffered as a consequence of ancient dna test results, particularly at the hands of Olalde et al and their recent paper, The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of NW Europe (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962).

Ancient dna has not necessarily dealt the death blow to the idea that some aspects of BB culture emerged from Iberia, but it has certainly knocked in the head the notion that BB people came out of Iberia in any significant way.

I suspect and have suspected for a long time that Bell Beaker did not actually begin in Iberia. No need to go into the details of the differences between alleged early Iberian BB and non-Iberian BB again. I've posted about them here at Anthrogenica many times over the last few years. Suffice it to say that it looked to me like we were talking about two completely different sets of people, and that is what the results of Olalde et al seem to have borne out.

Those results indicate that there is nothing genetically Iberian about non-Iberian BB people, the ones whose males are mostly R1b-M269 and carry steppe autosomal dna. In fact, even the Neolithic farmer component in their make-up comes from outside Iberia. So, it doesn't look like there was any kind of Iberian BB diaspora, at least not one that made much of a genetic impact.

Christian Jeunesse wrote an impressive paper entitled The dogma of the Iberian origin of the Bell Beaker: attempting its deconstruction (https://www.academia.edu/11325848/The_dogma_of_the_Iberian_origin_of_the_Bell_Beaker _attempting_its_deconstruction), in which he argues that it was the support given to the Spanish Model by Hubert Schmidt and his student at the University of Berlin, Pedro Bosch-Gimpera, in the early years of the twentieth century, and the subsequent support of scholars like Sangmeister and Harrison that led to that model's prominence. Since then the Spanish Model has become a kind of tradition, a set of assumptions that form a lens through which Bell Beaker is viewed and interpreted. Jeunesse engages in what he calls "archaeological fiction" to examine how things might have gone had scholars like Schmidt and Bosch-Gimpera argued for a Danubian origin of Bell Beaker.

I think Jeunesse is pretty astute. Here is some of what he writes on page 164 of the article linked above:



• The chronology of the cemeteries of the Eastern group: the idea of a central European origin of the Bell Beaker would have led experts to examine the typological variability of the pottery assemblages discovered in the graves in a different way. If the Bell Beaker originates from the Danubian area, the possibility would be carefully examined that at least some of the assemblages without decorated beakers, those most obviously from the Post -Vučedol complex, could be placed at the start of the sequence within the internal periodization of the cemeteries.

• The origin of the decorated bell-shaped beaker: it would not have been advanced, as it still is today, that the bell-shaped beaker has no regional precursor. Through its shape, its decoration with horizontal bands and the frequent use of impressed corded decoration a probable evolution from the corded beaker would have been suggested, as put forward by the supporters of the Dutch model (who have not been criticised with regard to this point of their construction).

• The notion of Begleitkeramik: the notion of Begleitkeramik, starting point and corner stone of a large number of current studies would obviously never have arisen as it would not have made any sense for a phenomenon the epicentre of which was located in the Danubian regions, more precisely those regions from which the so-called «accompanying pottery» stems.


With regard to Sangmeister's Reflux Model (Rückstrom in German), which is simply a variation of the Spanish Model, Jeunesse says this, also on page 164:



The hypothesis of Rückstrom: for obvious reasons, which it is not necessary to detail here, another pillar of current research on the Bell Beaker, the thesis of the Rückstrom would never have been created.


Without the idea that Bell Beaker first came out of Iberia, there would be no need for a reflux or backflow (Rückstrom) to explain why non-Iberian Bell Beaker is so different from the alleged Iberian original or how central European BB characteristics arrived in Iberia.

On the Maritime Beaker as the original decorated Bell Beaker (also from page 164):



The maritime beaker would be considered as being a «peripheral» production, characteristic of the western margins. It is possible without greater risk to bet that its emergence would have been related to a twofold process of impoverishment and homogenization of pottery decoration linked to the distance from the area of emergence of the Bell Beaker, a well-known mechanism for other historical contexts. It obviously would not be considered as being the earliest type of decorated beaker and one would do without the stereotype of a necessary evolution from the simplest to the most baroque shape. Its success in Portugal and more generally on the Atlantic shores would be connected with a phenomenon of regionalization, quite a natural process for a culture occupying such a large territory over such a long period of time. The same applies to the other «western» traits the formation of which would be analysed as resulting from geographical distance and from interactions with local substrata.

alexfritz
08-24-2017, 02:05 AM
voted for the dutch model;
all speculations but since the dutch_model derives bb from cw with U106 in battle-axe and BB_Netherlands I4070 there is a common L51 lineage (since vucedol was L23>Z2103) makes it at east plaus that L51>P312* was also present maybe in more seclusive lower rhineland; also the beakers in olalde et al from the netherlands (k=8) look more stemming from cw than from a fresh steppe migration; my two sesterces;

Jean M
08-24-2017, 08:42 AM
IMHO the Spanish Model and the others closely related to it have suffered as a consequence of ancient dna test results, particularly at the hands of Olalde et al and their recent paper, .

Ancient dna has not necessarily dealt the death blow to the idea that some aspects of BB culture emerged from Iberia, but it has certainly knocked in the head the notion that BB people came out of Iberia in any significant way.


Given that BB very obviously derives from Yamnaya, it is no longer a question of what came out of Iberia, but what went into it. That we may learn from Sion, Valencina de la Concepción and any other sites which are actually related to the stelae trail or the early copper-producing and/or working sites. So far the Heyd 2017 model has not really been tested.

Jean M
08-24-2017, 08:58 AM
In fact all the old models which did not recognise that BB derived from Yamnaya are now dead in the water. Ancient DNA has shown that BB East and BB Britain and Ireland carried ANE and R1b-P312+. So it's just a question of tying up the connections.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-24-2017, 09:01 AM
Given that BB very obviously derives from Yamnaya, it is no longer a question of what came out of Iberia, but what went into it. That we may learn from Sion, Valencina de la Concepción and any other sites which are actually related to the stelae trail or the early copper-producing and/or working sites. So far the Heyd 2017 model has not really been tested.

How do you think that Yamnaya looking individual ended up in Concepcion?

Jean M
08-24-2017, 09:36 AM
How do you think that Yamnaya looking individual ended up in Concepcion?

The rock crystal dagger may suggest a route via the Alps. There are sources of rock crystal in Iberia, but as far as I know, it had not been worked earlier in Iberia, whereas there is a long history of its working in the Alps. Mind you it was apparently worked in Moravia in the Palaeolithic! Being wrapped up in my latest book, I have not had time to thoroughly research this aspect of the Valencina de la Concepción burial, I'm afraid.

angscoire
08-24-2017, 12:54 PM
It is much easier to discount certain models (eg Spanish , Immobilist) than it is to nail ones colours to the mast and pick a model. Gimbutas or Dutch , although neither are rock solid IMO. Gimbutas , for now.

Jean M
08-24-2017, 01:29 PM
With regard to Sangmeister's Reflux Model (Rückstrom in German), which is simply a variation of the Spanish Model, Jeunesse says this, also on page 164: ... Without the idea that Bell Beaker first came out of Iberia, there would be no need for a reflux or backflow (Rückstrom) to explain why non-Iberian Bell Beaker is so different from the alleged Iberian original or how central European BB characteristics arrived in Iberia.


Marc E. Heise's recent PhD: Heads North or East? A Re-Examination of Beaker Burials in Britain (University of Edinburgh 2014) includes a summary of Sangmeister that proves you right. Sangmeister did indeed suppose initially that BB pottery arose from Neolithic cultures in Iberia, but later realised his mistake:


The Rückstromtheorie
Another theory that gained wide acceptance was Edward Sangmeister’s ‘Rückstromtheorie’ (Reflux-Theory) (Sangmeister 1957; 1961, 25-56).22 This idea was based on a two-stage development of the ‘Beaker Culture’ that tried to explain its diffusion. Accepting Castillo’s view that the Maritime Beaker stood at the beginning of the Beaker development, he argued that it then spread from the Tagus estuary to east-central and central Europe. The prime catalyst for the spread northwards (either via migration or exchange of ideas or goods) was the search for metals (Sangmeister 1961, 25-56). The Maritime Beaker then developed hybrid forms, on the one hand with the Corded Ware in the Netherlands, and on the other hand with local pottery in Bohemia and Moravia. In that way, influenced by the alien pottery (and the people behind it), the local
archaeological ‘cultures’ then formed Beaker ‘cultures’ that still retained local attributes, elements of which (namely wrist-guards, V-perforated buttons, the practice of single grave interment, copper daggers) then re-fluxed to the Iberian Peninsula and were responsible there for the formation of the late regional Beaker styles, e.g. Ciempozuelos or Palmela (Sangmeister 1966, 395-407). Stuart Piggott supported Sangmeister’s model and considered the British Beaker ‘cultures’ associated with, and being part of, the Rückstrom (Piggott 1963, 89).


This model was criticized, for example by David L. Clarke, who argued on grounds of Dutch radiocarbon dates that AOC Beakers were older than Maritime Beakers or at least considerably overlapped chronologically, thus reversing Sangmeister’s sequence (Clarke 1970, 45). His second objection was that many European Maritime Beakers that should, according to Sangmeister, be part of the Beaker in-flux into central Europe already carried cord impressed lines which in the re-flux model would only have become part of the Beaker repertoire in the Rhineland (ibid., 45-46). Additionally, Clarke criticized the “strange hotchpotch” of elements belonging to the reflux-movements and lastly the short chronology of 200 years that Sangmeister calculated for both flux and re-flux (ibid., 46-47). Sangmeister’s comparison of finds over very large distances, such as comparing Ciempozuelos pottery and Beaker pottery from Bohemia and Moravia also weakened his theory. When revising his model, Sangmeister himself criticized his theory, as it was at least partially based on a flawed premise. He realised that the opinion held at the time, that the Maritime Beaker derived from Neolithic impressed wares and had their position at the beginning of the Beaker development, was wrong. In accepting this, a major argument of the reflux-theory disappeared (Sangmeister 2008, unpublished manuscript).

rms2
08-24-2017, 02:16 PM
Given that BB very obviously derives from Yamnaya, it is no longer a question of what came out of Iberia, but what went into it. That we may learn from Sion, Valencina de la Concepción and any other sites which are actually related to the stelae trail or the early copper-producing and/or working sites. So far the Heyd 2017 model has not really been tested.

That may be true. Valencina de la Concepción and Sion may change things, but if steppe people went into Iberia early, there is no genetic sign of it yet or that they or their descendants came out again.

rms2
08-24-2017, 02:30 PM
It is much easier to discount certain models (eg Spanish , Immobilist) than it is to nail ones colours to the mast and pick a model. Gimbutas or Dutch , although neither are rock solid IMO. Gimbutas , for now.

Very true.

Christian Jeunesse is helpful in explaining how the Spanish Model came to prominence and what some of its weaknesses are, but he is of little help in choosing between Gimbutas and the Dutch Model.

On the one hand he says the following, which sure sounds like Gimbutas:



• The chronology of the cemeteries of the Eastern group: the idea of a central European origin of the Bell Beaker would have led experts to examine the typological variability of the pottery assemblages discovered in the graves in a different way. If the Bell Beaker originates from the Danubian area, the possibility would be carefully examined that at least some of the assemblages without decorated beakers, those most obviously from the Post-Vučedol complex, could be placed at the start of the sequence within the internal periodization of the cemeteries.


On the other hand he says this, which sounds like an endorsement of the Dutch Model:



• The origin of the decorated bell-shaped beaker: it would not have been advanced, as it still is today, that the bell-shaped beaker has no regional precursor. Through its shape, its decoration with horizontal bands and the frequent use of impressed corded decoration a probable evolution from the corded beaker would have been suggested, as put forward by the supporters of the Dutch model (who have not been criticised with regard to this point of their construction).


He also comments on the so-called Begleitkeramik, which also sounds like it tends to support Gimbutas:



• The notion of Begleitkeramik : the notion of Begleitkeramik, starting point and corner stone of a large number of current studies would obviously never have arisen as it would not have made any sense for a phenomenon the epicentre of which was located in the Danubian regions, more precisely those regions from which the so-called «accompanying pottery» stems.

alan
08-24-2017, 02:40 PM
So how did you vote? Dutch Model?

Not sure how the vote. There is an element of better th the Dutch and reflux models in my than thoughts but not exactly the same as either.

rms2
08-24-2017, 02:57 PM
Not sure how the vote. There is an element of better th the Dutch and reflux models in my than thoughts but not exactly the same as either.

I still haven't voted yet, but I suspect BB did not originate in Iberia in any meaningful way. I lean toward a kind of hybrid of Gimbutas and the Dutch Model.

I can't quite get over the plain, one-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words argument of the Dutch Model, but Gimbutas makes sense to me, as well.

Jean M
08-24-2017, 02:57 PM
That may be true. Valencina de la Concepción and Sion may change things, but if steppe people went into Iberia early, there is no genetic sign of it yet or that they or their descendants came out again.

There are signs in the archaeology of an exodus from Iberia at around the time (2400 BC?) that BB started to appear more widely. Some sites in Portugal were abandoned and burial mounds closed. But that is not to say that they all left. Then we have the reflux from BB East 2200 BC and possibly people arriving south down the Atlantic route from 1300 to 700 BC.

By the Bronze Age we have steppe DNA present in Iberia, as expected, given that some people were speaking Celtic there in the Iron Age. But we do not know whether that came in with people like our chap at Valencina de la Concepción, or some later stage, or all of them.

I think we really need to forget any idea of Iberia having a sudden and virtually complete population replacement like the one we see in Britain. The archaeology gives no reason to expect every single person in the whole peninsula to suddenly be not descended from Neolithic farmers any more the minute that we get a few scattered copper working sites with a handful of people in them. It is no use testing just anybody of a Chalcolithic date.

rms2
08-24-2017, 03:03 PM
There are signs in the archaeology of an exodus from Iberia at around the time (2400 BC?) that BB started to appear more widely. Some sites in Portugal were abandoned and burial mounds closed. But that is not to say that they all left. Then we have the reflux from BB East 2200 BC and possibly people arriving south down the Atlantic route from 1300 to 700 BC.

By the Bronze Age we have steppe DNA present in Iberia, as expected, given that some people were speaking Celtic there in the Iron Age. But we do not know whether that came in with people like our chap at Valencina de la Concepción, or some later stage, or all of them.

I think we're talking about two different things. Obviously non-Iberian Bell Beaker got to Iberia eventually. I was talking about there being no genetic sign yet of an early, pre-Beaker arrival of steppe people there. There is also no genetic sign yet of anything Iberian about non-Iberian Bell Beaker. If there was an eastward Iberian BB diaspora, apparently it had little genetic impact.

Your model may turn out to be correct; it's just that the genetic evidence doesn't support it, not yet, anyway.

Jean M
08-24-2017, 03:21 PM
I was talking about there being no genetic sign yet of an early, pre-Beaker arrival of steppe people there.

That is what I said. We don't know. But I was probably adding stuff as you posted. I'll put it here:


I think we really need to forget any idea of Iberia having a sudden and virtually complete population replacement like the one we see in Britain. The archaeology gives no reason to expect every single person in the whole peninsula to suddenly be not descended from Neolithic farmers any more the minute that we get a few scattered copper working sites with a handful of people in them. It is no use testing just anybody of a Chalcolithic date.

I'm sticking with the linguistic and archaeological evidence. It has worked for me so far. Linguistically we have evidence in Iberia of pre-Celtic IE, which suggests therefore that there were IE speakers there in a wave before the 2200 BC one that I suspect brought Celtic.

rms2
08-24-2017, 03:31 PM
. . .
I'm sticking with the linguistic and archaeological evidence. It has worked for me so far. Linguistically we have evidence in Iberia of pre-Celtic IE, which suggests therefore that there were IE speakers there in a wave before the 2200 BC one that I suspect brought Celtic.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I was talking about the alleged very early Iberian BB stuff, the BB stuff behind Müller and van Willigen's c. 2800 BC 14C dates.

Couldn't pre-Celtic IE in Iberia have come c. 2500 BC with the usual run of kurgan BB people rather than much earlier with pre-BB copper workers from the steppe?

Pylsteen
08-24-2017, 03:38 PM
At the moment I understand it as having at least culturally expanded from Iberia to Central Europe, where it was picked up by some Corded-Ware like tribes, who then hugely expanded both culturally and genetically. Is that the reflux model?

rms2
08-24-2017, 03:44 PM
At the moment I understand it as having at least culturally expanded from Iberia to Central Europe, where it was picked up by some Corded-Ware like tribes, who then hugely expanded both culturally and genetically. Is that the reflux model?

I think that is a fair statement of the Reflux Model, perhaps modified by recent ancient dna results. The original I think would have involved the movement of Iberian BB people eastward, as well. It began with the basic assumption that the Spanish Model was correct, that the Maritime Beaker was the oldest decorated beaker and came from Portugal.

Jean M
08-24-2017, 03:56 PM
At the moment I understand it as having at least culturally expanded from Iberia to Central Europe, where it was picked up by some Corded-Ware like tribes, who then hugely expanded both culturally and genetically. Is that the reflux model?

No. The Reflux Model is from long before ancient DNA.

The idea that BB spread culturally from Iberia to Central Europe is one of the conclusions of the Olalde 2017 pre-print: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962

The idea that it fused with CW people is quite a popular idea on this forum, but rather than call it the Anthrogenica Model, I suppose we could name it for Humphrey Case, who like the fusion idea. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/sep/17/humphrey-case-obituary

rms2
08-24-2017, 04:10 PM
. . .

The idea that BB spread culturally from Iberia to Central Europe is one of the conclusions of the Olalde 2017 pre-print: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962
. . .

That conclusion comes from the (erroneous) place of prominence currently held by the Spanish Model. If one assumes Bell Beaker began in Iberia, but then finds that there is nothing genetically Iberian about non-Iberian Bell Beaker, what is left but to conclude that it was Bell Beaker culture that began in and spread east from Iberia? Never mind that there is little if anything Iberian about non-Iberian Bell Beaker culture, as well.

Maybe it will eventually occur to them to question the idea that Bell Beaker began in Iberia. When it does, there will be no need to envision the initial spread of a culture without much human agency.

Jean M
08-24-2017, 04:25 PM
Maybe it will eventually occur to them to question the idea that Bell Beaker began in Iberia. When it does, there will be no need to envision the initial spread of a culture without human agency.

Indeed. Only archaeologists (except Heyd) could really buy the cultural transmission idea. But let's be fair. Olalde 2017 did sort out the transmission of BB into Britain by nice sensible means i.e. people moving. They have picked the low-hanging fruit. They could not miss it. They just have not sorted out the trickier stuff.

rms2
08-24-2017, 04:42 PM
. . .

The idea that it fused with CW people is quite a popular idea on this forum, but rather than call it the Anthrogenica Model, I suppose we could name it for Humphrey Case, who like the fusion idea. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/sep/17/humphrey-case-obituary

There are guys here who lean toward the idea that the R1b-P312 in Bell Beaker came from Corded Ware, but I don't think that has anything to do with fusion with any kind of Iberian original. The Olalde et al results don't support that at all. I could be wrong, but rather than fusion, I think the idea is that Bell Beaker evolved in central or east central Europe as a variety of Corded Ware. It's sort of a modified Dutch Model.

Some folks who oppose the idea that R1b-L51 had a steppe/Indo-European origin recently advanced the (to my mind ludicrous) idea that the steppe dna, Indo-European language, culture, etc., in Bell Beaker were the consequences of Neolithic farmers taking Corded Ware wives. That could be characterized as "fusion", I guess.

Jean M
08-24-2017, 04:55 PM
There are guys here who lean toward the idea that the R1b-P312 in Bell Beaker came from Corded Ware, but I don't think that has anything to do with fusion with any kind of Iberian original.

Well I have been rather out of the fray, working on something else, but I do recall at least one person keen on the BB-CW 'fusion corridor' concept. Obviously that was an archaeological concept - i.e. cultural fusion and nothing to do with genetics.

Jean M
08-24-2017, 07:53 PM
Couldn't pre-Celtic IE in Iberia have come c. 2500 BC with the usual run of kurgan BB people rather than much earlier with pre-BB copper workers from the steppe?

That is when BB people were starting to move out of Iberia and BB turns up elsewhere.

The logic goes like this. Celtic cannot have arrived in Ireland and Iberia with La Tene because there isn't enough La Tene there. In fact Iberia was pretty well cut off from events in Central Europe for a long time. So (supposing that Celtic did not actually come from Iberia, which I rule out because of its contact with Pre-Germanic) it had to arrive with a population movement from Central Europe earlier. There is one from Central Europec. 1200 BC bringing BB East type stuff to the region where later people spoke Celiberian, a type of Q-Celtic with the most antique features of any known Celtic language. So we can peg that as the start of the development of Celtic (presumed by me to be around the heads of the Rhine and Danube.) That would also explain how Q-Celtic arrived in Ireland, because there is a BB tin rush down the Rhine at that time into Britain and Ireland. Remember that there are a few Pre-Celtic IE river names in the British Isles. So the earliest BB people were not quite speaking Celtic.

Richy
08-24-2017, 10:49 PM
Wow, anthrogencia is a great source for Bell Beaker info.

alan
08-25-2017, 10:10 AM
I think there are several interactive phases in the beaker phenomenon that involve Iberia but have erroneously been compressed together. I see this pattern

1. A phase where pottery ideas reached Iberia from the western end of the CW world c 2750BC- prob 2nd hand via the Grand Presigny trade network which stretched from the France-Spain border to Holland and NW Germany. Probably reflected in the genesis of AOC beaker scattered across north and east Iberia where it may be as early as Maritine.

2. I think the beaker idea then rapidly spread down the long east-west Iberianr rivers to the Atlantic where maritime was invented . I think this was spread by trade contact and marriages and involved extremely little genetic movement into Iberia if any.

3. The same route in reverse prob spread certain pottery ideas back from Iberia to the Rhine and upper Danube 2550BC and P312 CW single grave groups there (I think P312 was a specialist trade specialist clan of horsemen etc living within the CW zone since 2800BC).

4. Also around c2550BC some of the Iberian non-P312 beaker users colonised SE France/NW Italy/south Switzerland and come into contact with CW groups at the Rhine-Rhone heads.

5. The latter 2 phases probably involved a tiny amount of females moving from Iberia along marriage network. This phase of contact with P312 Central Europeans was the genesis that of the P312 beaker users.

6. Finally late in the beaker period the P312 beaker users of Central Europe reached Iberia (Perhaps 2200BC?)

So the whole story was a complex multi phase bi-directional spread of ideas and people over 500+ years. I think confusion comes from trying to compress this into a single simple phase. In reality the creation of the classic P312 beaker phenomenon happend midway through and discontinuous, intermittent set of phases over 15-20
Generations

alan
08-25-2017, 10:45 AM
Rich- I think we can safely rule out the idea that the P312 beaker using culture had its genesis in Iberia C 2750BC and spread east and north-east to the res of Europe. Every piece of ancient DNA evidence is against it and IMO Iberian pre-beaker copper age and Iberian (and all West Med) early beaker users 2750-2400BC have no archaeological resemblance to Steppe cultures beyond (arguably) the mental model of the beaker pot itself. Everything else resembles western Neolithic groups who had had a tiny input from further east along the Med. who brought copper working and perhaps the fortified sites idea c. 3000BC. IMO there is no genetic or cultural change of importance in Iberia between 3000 and 2300BC other than a novel central European pottery model reaching them c 2750BC.

For what it is worth I suspect (going out on a v speculative limb and maybe a bit crazy) there was a seaborne spread of copper workers of ultimately south Caucasian origins c3000BC following mixing with maritime people in the East Med used a hopping seaborne route that was used in later times involving perhaps some of the following - Levant-Cyprus - Sicily? - Sardinia? -Iberia. However the evidence is not there - I just suspect it after reading about an east med Kura-Araxes influenced bastioned settlement of c 3000BC. I wouldn't bet the house on it though!

Jean M
08-25-2017, 11:22 AM
1. A phase where pottery ideas reached Iberia from the western end of the CW world c 2750BC- prob 2nd hand via the Grand Presigny trade network which stretched from the France-Spain border to Holland and NW Germany

I knew that any talk of BB being descended from CW would bring you back to the forum full throttle! ;)

Bear in mind that the bone paste decoration has a separate source from the basic idea of the beaker shape and the cord decoration. Both of the latter are found on the steppe and of course in CW. But the bone paste idea was acquired somewhere along the Danube and has nothing to do with CW.

I think that Rich has been on the right lines all along in looking to the Danubian cultures.

Jean M
08-25-2017, 11:27 AM
Rich- I think we can safely rule out the idea that the P312 beaker using culture had its genesis in Iberia C 2750BC and spread east and north-east to the res of Europe.

I don't think that anybody has proposed that P312 was born in Iberia, have they? That would be a pretty potty idea.

kinman
08-25-2017, 12:16 PM
I agree that the Danube is the key to so many of these unresolved questions. Even if Z2013 blocked P312 from going up the lower Danube, the alternate path of P312 north of the Carpathians still lead them to the middle Danube in the Vienna-Bratislava area. Whether the subclades of P312 (U152, etc.) were born in that same middle Danube region or north of the Carpathians is another interesting question (I think it was Mitchell who brought up the possibility they arose north of the Carpathians). We obviously need a lot more testing both north and south of the Carpathians, and meanwhile we can only speculate.


I knew that any talk of BB being descended from CW would bring you back to the forum full throttle! ;)

Bear in mind that the bone paste decoration has a separate source from the basic idea of the beaker shape and the cord decoration. Both of the latter are found on the steppe and of course in CW. But the bone paste idea was acquired somewhere along the Danube and has nothing to do with CW.

I think that Rich has been on the right lines all along in looking to the Danubian cultures.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-25-2017, 01:28 PM
Bear in mind that the bone paste decoration has a separate source from the basic idea of the beaker shape and the cord decoration. Both of the latter are found on the steppe and of course in CW. But the bone paste idea was acquired somewhere along the Danube and has nothing to do with CW.

I think that Rich has been on the right lines all along in looking to the Danubian cultures.



Were the maritime beakers mostly herringbone or geometric decoration, with a minorty Corded ?

The other key is understanding the AOC beakers, as Alan pointed out, because they seemed to have connected the lower rhine, Italy and Sion before the "eastern episode"

rms2
08-25-2017, 02:39 PM
That is when BB people were starting to move out of Iberia and BB turns up elsewhere . . .

BB people moving out of Iberia c. 2500 BC and showing up elsewhere? How did that work, since there is nothing genetically Iberian about non-Iberian BB?

If we don't assume the Maritime Beaker began in Iberia, there is really nothing culturally Iberian about non-Iberian BB either.

Jean M
08-25-2017, 02:42 PM
BB people moving out of Iberia c. 2500 BC and showing up elsewhere? How did that work, since there is nothing genetically Iberian about non-Iberian BB?

Why would there be if the people concerned came from Yamnaya in the first place?

Look - all I'm doing is reporting on the actual archaeology. See Catriona Gibson.

Jean M
08-25-2017, 02:50 PM
Were the maritime beakers mostly herringbone or geometric decoration, with a minorty Corded ?

The Maritime type has horizontal zones of decoration. The lines which form the divisions between the decorated and plain zones can be formed with cord.

rms2
08-25-2017, 02:54 PM
I agree that the Danube is the key to so many of these unresolved questions. Even if Z2013 blocked P312 from going up the lower Danube, the alternate path of P312 north of the Carpathians still lead them to the middle Danube in the Vienna-Bratislava area. Whether the subclades of P312 (U152, etc.) were born in that same middle Danube region or north of the Carpathians is another interesting question (I think it was Mitchell who brought up the possibility they arose north of the Carpathians). We obviously need a lot more testing both north and south of the Carpathians, and meanwhile we can only speculate.

Actually, in his book, The Horse The Wheel and Language, David Anthony suggested the Yamnaya tribes went around both the south end and the north end of the Carpathians. MitchellSince1893 very astutely spotted the Tisza River route, which is supported by historical evidence of what later steppe tribes did.

Svitlana Ivanova discussed the westward routes of Yamnaya migration in Baltic-Pontic Studies vol. 18: 2013, 86-120 PL ISSN 1231-0344, Connections Between the Budzhak Culture and Central European Groups of the Corded Ware Culture, page 98:



Włodarczak reconstructed the Danube way of westward migration of the Yamnaya tribes [Włodarczak 2010] . The routes of migration to Alfeld could be restored based on archaeological finds with the use of written sources and historic data from later epochs, e .g ., about the migration of Medieval nomads to Pannonia . Pechenegs and Cumans mastered three ways from the southern Rus steppes to the central European Plain, to Hungary: the first, through the Iron Gates; the second, through the southern Carpathians in the headwaters of the Olt, Mures and Szomes rivers; the third, from the Upper Siret and Prut rivers to the Tisza [Rasovskiy 1993: 3].


The trip down the Tisza River valley would bring Budzhak Yamnaya tribes around the north side of the Carpathians, as one can see from this map.

18349

rms2
08-25-2017, 03:06 PM
Why would there be if the people concerned came from Yamnaya in the first place?

If those Yamnaya people had arrived three or more centuries earlier as pre-BB copper workers, subsequently forming the BB culture in Iberia, they could hardly have avoided picking up a lot of Iberian dna. If they then moved out of Iberia around 2500 BC, they would have brought their Iberian dna with them.

Where did it go?



Look - all I'm doing is reporting on the actual archaeology. See Catriona Gibson.

I think we all know the actual archaeology is subject to interpretation. Jeunesse did a good job of showing how that has worked in the case of Bell Beaker.

If the Iberian origin assumptions are all wrong, the whole game changes, and that is what the genetic evidence is showing.

Jean M
08-25-2017, 03:12 PM
If those Yamnaya people had arrived three or more centuries earlier as pre-BB copper workers, subsequently forming the BB culture in Iberia, they could hardly have avoided picking up a lot of Iberian dna. If they then moved out of Iberia around 2500 BC, they would have brought their Iberian dna with them.

Yes I agree that we can expect mixing. I vaguely recall somebody saying (contra Olalde) that there is such an effect. Could have been Davidski. But I think what we are looking at in BB in Germany is a further stage down the line anyway, after mixing in the Carpathian Basin.

rms2
08-25-2017, 03:20 PM
Yes I agree that we can expect mixing. I vaguely recall somebody saying (contra Olalde) that there is such an effect. Could have been Davidski. But I think what we are looking at in BB in Germany is a further stage down the line anyway, after mixing in the Carpathian Basin.

Olalde et al tested a lot of BB skeletons and found no Iberian dna in non-Iberian BB. Even the Neolithic farmer component in non-Iberian BB wasn't Iberian; its best fit was Globular Amphora+TRB.

I could be wrong, but I think they killed the idea that BB came out of Iberia. What their work showed, IMHO, is that BB moved from east to west. Because it gained prominence very early on, the Spanish Model simply screwed things up. It prevented otherwise really smart people like Childe from recognizing the IE character of BB, and it's still screwing things up.

Jean M
08-25-2017, 03:21 PM
I think we all know the actual archaeology is subject to interpretation. Jeunesse did a good job of showing how that has worked in the case of Bell Beaker.

He tried to pick Iberia First to pieces, but did not provide any evidence to resolve the issue in a different way. I'm fully open to the possibility that the very first BB pot was made in what is now Moravia by a woman who subsequently married a copper-worker and moved with him to Iberia. These people were evidently very mobile. We should not get hung up on the pottery dates.

But what I'm talking about is the evidence provided by Catriona Gibson of the closure of burial mounds and abandonment of sites in Portugal at around the same time that BB shows up outside Iberia.

rms2
08-25-2017, 03:38 PM
He tried to pick Iberia First to pieces, but did not provide any evidence to resolve the issue in a different way. I'm fully open to the possibility that the very first BB pot was made in what is now Moravia by a woman who subsequently married a copper-worker and moved with him to Iberia. These people were evidently very mobile. We should not get hung up on the pottery dates.

But what I'm talking about is the evidence provided by Catriona Gibson of the closure of burial mounds and abandonment of sites in Portugal at around the same time that BB shows up outside Iberia.

If BB was created in Iberia by pre-BB copper workers from the steppe, who then migrated from Iberia around 2500 BC, then steppe dna should be showing up in Iberia in early BB, and Iberian dna ought to be showing up in non-Iberian BB c. 2500 BC and thereafter. Thus far, neither thing is the case.

kinman
08-25-2017, 03:45 PM
Has anyone speculated which haplogroup(s) might have been the "Stelae People" of the Black Sea area (Kemi Oba) who went west into Italy and Spain? I would think that R1b-Z2103 could be a very likely candidate.

Jean M
08-25-2017, 04:08 PM
Has anyone speculated which haplogroup(s) might have been the "Stelae People" of the Black Sea area (Kemi Oba) who went west into Italy and Spain? I would think that R1b-Z2103 could be a very likely candidate.

R. Rocca came up with the clever idea that they were some sort of I2a. That's what we find in Remedello, and no ANE. The whole thing is up in the air really, until properly tested.

alexfritz
08-25-2017, 04:12 PM
Has anyone speculated which haplogroup(s) might have been the "Stelae People" of the Black Sea area (Kemi Oba) who went west into Italy and Spain? I would think that R1b-Z2103 could be a very likely candidate.

as far as i know;
the 'stelae people' of the remedello-culture (alpine/italy) turned out as I2a1(M26) and G2a (Ötzi) and based on admixture analysis not derived from the steppes but of earlier neolithic_farmers from anatolia; the 'stelae' culture of the lunigiana-area is of a much later date, it displays remedello-type daggers and even later (iron-age?) stelae/statue-menhir incl a ligurian inscription uṿezaṛụap̣us; the earlier 2200-1900bc parma-beaker of the po-valley was R1b-P312 (olalde et al);

rms2
08-25-2017, 04:19 PM
Has anyone speculated which haplogroup(s) might have been the "Stelae People" of the Black Sea area (Kemi Oba) who went west into Italy and Spain? I would think that R1b-Z2103 could be a very likely candidate.

The Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba burial rite was a lot like the Bell Beaker burial rite: single graves in stone-lined pits under kurgans (mounds), with the mound surrounded by a stone cromlech and surmounted by an anthropomorphic stone stela. The most common burial posture was crouched on the side.

The most common Yamnaya burial posture was supine with the knees flexed, although crouched-on-the-side is also found.

I wish we could get some Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba y-dna. I suspect we might find R1b-L51 there.

Remember, Budzhak developed after Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba in that same area.

rms2
08-25-2017, 06:17 PM
I finally cast my vote. I voted for the Dutch Model as the closest to right. It was really difficult to choose between it and the Gimbutas Model, and my vote for the Dutch Model involves a few reservations and modifications.

Basically I voted that Bell Beaker is a variety of Corded Ware. I realize I could be wrong. Like MitchellSince1893, and I think Rich Rocca, kinman, and maybe jdean, I suspect the variety of Corded Ware that became known as Bell Beaker first developed in the Małopolska/Bohemia/Moravia area.

Here are the main reasons I voted the way I did. First off, Corded Ware and Bell Beaker have so much in common besides similar drinking cups. Each practiced gender dimorphism in its burial rites, each practiced burial in single graves in stone-lined pits (cists) under kurgans (mounds), with the mound often surrounded by a stone cromlech, and each for the most part used the crouched-on-the-side burial posture. Each culture included weapons, horse bones, tools and other artifacts in its graves.

I am also really impressed with the argument from beaker typology and evolution put forward by van der Waals, Glasbergen and Lanting. For them the evolutionary beaker sequence is 1. Single Grave Culture beakers; 2. All Over Ornamented (AOO) and All Over Corded (AOC) beakers (used by both the CW and BB cultures); and 3. Maritime beakers.

18350

Here's another thing that persuades me. Olalde et al found that the Neolithic farmer component in non-Iberian Bell Beaker, instead of being Iberian, was best fit by a combination of Globular Amphora and TRB (Funnel Beaker). This is from pages 73-74 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Information:



In contrast, for Beaker Complex individuals outside Iberia, models using Iberian populations as a source for their Neolithic ancestry are rejected. We obtain a good fit for Globular_Amphora_LN and TRB_Sweden_MN, two populations with a hunter-gatherer component close to KO1 on the cline defined by LaBrańa1-KO1 (Extended Data Fig. 2; Table S5), and beyond Loschbour on the cline defined by LaBrańa1-Loschbour (Table S6).


Mixing with Globular Amphora and TRB best matches the Corded Ware track across the North European Plain. The following is from page 469 of "Corded Ware from East to West" in Ancient Europe, 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World; Bogucki, Peter and Crabtree, Pam J., editors. New York: Scribner and Sons, 2004:



In many regions (from the Lower Rhine basin to Kujavia and Małopolska), the Corded Ware culture appeared alongside the late periods of the Funnel Beaker culture. In the area between central Germany and the Russian lowland, one can observe a long period where it existed alongside the Globular Amphora culture. In Kujavia, this lasted through the entire development of the local Corded Ware culture. In the western part of its domain (to the Vistula River), one can observe its contemporaneity with the Bell Beakers, a period lasting to the middle of the third millennium b.c.


My speculation is that the Budzhak culture, which came from the NW Black Sea coast and had some of the same types of Yamnaya arrowheads that appear in eastern Bell Beaker, came round the north side of the Carpathians down the Tisza River valley and became a variety of Corded Ware that was predominantly R1b-P312. Before Budzhak, the NW Black Sea coast was the home of the Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba culture, which had burial rites very much like Bell Beaker and Corded Ware. The R1b-P312 variety of Corded Ware ended up in Single Grave and Protruding Foot Beaker in the Netherlands, Belgium, and NW Germany. I don't have all the details worked out, but that is what I am going with for now.

18351 18352

To me the most reasonable alternative is the Gimbutas Model.

Jean M
08-25-2017, 06:32 PM
I'm not voting, because of the obvious conflict of interest. :biggrin1:

rms2
08-25-2017, 06:47 PM
I have not factored U106 into all of this. I think maybe Budzhak was R1b-L151 (L11), and somewhere along the way P312 and U106 arose. P312 ended up in what became Bell Beaker, while U106 went into Single Grave in North Germany and Scandinavia. Not very neat and tidy, I know.

alan
08-25-2017, 08:02 PM
I have not voted because I think there is part truth in several models but none tell thedevolved story.

Just to be clear my hunch is P312 was within the CW zone from the get go c2800BC but possibly an outgroup clan of highly mobile traders who may have been of a slightly different origin than mainstream CW folks. My working hypothesis is they may have been a,late yamnaya related group close to the Ukraine-Moldova area who performed a function as horse riding traders in the CW world. I agree with those who suggest a route west from there aloneg the northern edge of the Carpathians and thus only reaching the Danube around Bratislava and Vienna. That fits the Z2103/L11 divide along the Danube beautifully. From there they could have taken control of trade along the upper Danube, Rhine etc. A mobile specialist trader group spread along stations on trade routes might be v hard to spot archaeologically as their lifestyle and predispose them to be cultural magpies just like their descendants in the beaker era.

It's even possible that a geographical patterning among P312 subclades had been established by them 200 years before they adopted beaker eg L21 on the middle and lower Rhine, U152 in the Upper Danube and north Alpine fringes and DF27 somewhere handy to strike south-west close to where the Rhine and Rhine meet. If these P312 groups still formed links in a trade chain c2550BC then even a single contact could have led to beaker spreadin like wildfire to all the stations on the route and therefore to all the P312 branches despite them being already spread out.

If the P312 folk along the chain tended to marry daughters of distant cousins along the chain to maintain and renew the alliances then a distinctive autosomal signifies would develop through a process of long distance inbreeding and autosomal convergence. I see no other way how a distinctive physical type could be retained over several centuries from the Poland to the British isles,etc. They must have used marriages to other P312 families along key parts a chain of links as vital to alliance and binding the network? When the beaker network fractured and ended they probably stopped marrying the daughters of distant cousins down the network and so the practice of strange long distance inbreeding ended and the beaker physical type soon disappeared

rms2
08-25-2017, 09:19 PM
I have not voted because I think there is part truth in several models but none tell thedevolved story . . .

The poll question is "Which Bell Beaker model is closest to being right?"

So all you have to do is figure out which one you think comes closest to the reality. That's what I did. I can't say that I agree with every tenet of the Dutch Model as expounded by its proponents, but I think it comes closest to right.

Basically I think the early acceptance of the Spanish Model, reinvigorated by the Müller and van Willigen 14C dates, prevented scholars from seeing Bell Beaker as just another Corded Ware variant.

kinman
08-26-2017, 12:19 AM
I doubt that P312 went through the Iron Gates (too far south, through territory probably already dominated by Z2103. However, I must admit that the Tisza River route is an interesting possibility, but probably not all the way to the mouth (easier to just cut across directly to Budapest).

But I would predict that we would find more ancient remains of Z2103 even in the Tisza River Valley. So I still prefer a route north of Slovakia, then down through Czechia via the early Amber Road. That route would also take them into what would become Bell Beaker territory. Of course, both routes could have been used by different bands of P312, but we won't know until there are DNA results from the Tisza River Valley region.


Actually, in his book, The Horse The Wheel and Language, David Anthony suggested the Yamnaya tribes went around both the south end and the north end of the Carpathians. MitchellSince1893 very astutely spotted the Tisza River route, which is supported by historical evidence of what later steppe tribes did.

Svitlana Ivanova discussed the westward routes of Yamnaya migration in Baltic-Pontic Studies vol. 18: 2013, 86-120 PL ISSN 1231-0344, Connections Between the Budzhak Culture and Central European Groups of the Corded Ware Culture, page 98:



The trip down the Tisza River valley would bring Budzhak Yamnaya tribes around the north side of the Carpathians, as one can see from this map.

18349

razyn
08-26-2017, 02:39 AM
I'm not voting because it's a hollow mockery of science as I understand that. One guy's version of several, but not all, theories; to be voted upon by an unlimited supply of random clueless persons, and a few well-informed ones. Tabulating the results of this "poll" won't prove anything, it just gives us another thread on which to chatter while we wait for some more actual clues to trickle in. I'd rather do something else while waiting, and in fact have been so doing for several weeks. But, y'all have fun.

Jean M
08-26-2017, 07:36 AM
MitchellSince1893 very astutely spotted the Tisza River route, which is supported by historical evidence of what later steppe tribes did.

The Tisza River route is actually covered re CW in Włodarczak 2014.* That is where I got it from for the new book.

* Włodarczak, P. 2014. The traits of Early-Bronze Pontic cultures in the development of Old Upland Corded Ware (Małopolska group) and Złota culture communities, in A. Kosko et al. (ed.), Reception Zones of 'Early Bronze Age' Pontic Culture Traditions : Baltic basin - Baltic and Black Sea drainage borderlands, 4/3 mil. to first half 2 mil. BC, Baltic-Pontic Studies, 19, 7-52.

Yamnaya settling on the Tisza River is also shown by Anthony 2007, fig 14.1:

18362

I have shown some maps from my new book on the forum, certainly this one:

18361

Possibly this one:

18363

Jean M
08-26-2017, 08:00 AM
I'm not voting because it's a hollow mockery of science as I understand that.... But, y'all have fun.

It's the silly season. It's what people do on slow news days in August - fill the space with "Cat gets caught in granny's knickers". Don't be a grouch now. :biggrin1:

rms2
08-26-2017, 12:19 PM
I'm not voting because it's a hollow mockery of science as I understand that.

Oh, brother. Yeah, that's what it is, "a hollow mockery of science".

This is actually just a poll intended to be kind of fun, which is what I wrote right off the bat in the original post. I thought it might be interesting to list the Bell Beaker models and see what people here think of them.




One guy's version of several, but not all, theories; to be voted upon by an unlimited supply of random clueless persons, and a few well-informed ones. Tabulating the results of this "poll" won't prove anything, it just gives us another thread on which to chatter while we wait for some more actual clues to trickle in. I'd rather do something else while waiting, and in fact have been so doing for several weeks. But, y'all have fun.

"One guy's version" . . . supported by sources that are cited and from which quotes are posted. Guess you missed that part. That's what one does when he wants to post the actual model, not just his own version of it.

Everyone is free to reread the post that began this thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=278019&viewfull=1#post278019) and judge for himself or herself whether the Bell Beaker models are presented as "[o]ne guy's version of several, but not all, theories" or if summaries of the actual models themselves were posted from sources that can be checked by anyone who cares to do so. I doubt posting "all theories" is a reasonable request.

Note that the original post said nothing about this poll proving anything.

kinman
08-26-2017, 01:59 PM
The second map shows an arrow going north, "up" the Tisza River, and then crossing the Carpathians. Is this what Mitchell also meant.

Perhaps I was wrong in assuming that he was proposing P312 went north of the Carpathians and then south along the Tisza River Valley.


The Tisza River route is actually covered re CW in Włodarczak 2014.* That is where I got it from for the new book.

* Włodarczak, P. 2014. The traits of Early-Bronze Pontic cultures in the development of Old Upland Corded Ware (Małopolska group) and Złota culture communities, in A. Kosko et al. (ed.), Reception Zones of 'Early Bronze Age' Pontic Culture Traditions : Baltic basin - Baltic and Black Sea drainage borderlands, 4/3 mil. to first half 2 mil. BC, Baltic-Pontic Studies, 19, 7-52.

Yamnaya settling on the Tisza River is also shown by Anthony 2007, fig 14.1:

18362

I have shown some maps from my new book on the forum, certainly this one:

18361

Possibly this one:

18363

Jean M
08-26-2017, 02:12 PM
The second map shows an arrow going north, "up" the Tisza River, and then crossing the Carpathians. Is this what Mitchell also meant.

Oh I see! I don't know/recall what Mitchell had in mind. Włodarczak 2014 shows arrows in both directions indicating exchange. I kept it simple, since my aim was just to show Yamnaya influences into Corded Ware.

rms2
08-26-2017, 02:21 PM
Steppe people coming up the Danube valley by way of the Iron Gates could hang a right at the Tisza and head northeast up the Tisza River valley. But Ivanova cited the route down the Tisza as one of the historically documented ways steppe people traveled from the steppe to the Central European Plain (from page 98 of Connections Between the Budzhak Culture and Central European Groups of the Corded Ware Culture, in Baltic-Pontic Studies vol. 18: 2013, 86-120 PL ISSN 1231-0344):



Pechenegs and Cumans mastered three ways from the southern Rus steppes to the central European Plain, to Hungary: the first, through the Iron Gates; the second, through the southern Carpathians in the headwaters of the Olt, Mures and Szomes rivers; the third, from the Upper Siret and Prut rivers to the Tisza [Rasovskiy 1993: 3].


Coming from the upper Siret and Prut rivers to the Tisza would put one at the north end of the Tisza, its headwaters. The route into central Europe would then be southwest, down the Tisza valley.

rms2
08-26-2017, 02:53 PM
Interesting that utilizing the headwaters of the Olt, Mures or Szomes rivers and then their valleys actually involves traversing, or beginning to traverse, the Carpathians first.

I could not find a river with the spelling Szomes, but I believe the Someș (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some%C8%99_(river)) is the same river. It actually comes out of the NW Carpathians and is a tributary of the Tisza. People traveling over the Carpathians could head down the Someș valley to the Tisza. People coming up or down the Tisza could head up the Someș valley into the Carpathians or as a path toward the central Carpathian basin.

rms2
08-26-2017, 03:09 PM
I kind of enjoy this hollow mockery of science stuff here in the silly season. It strikes me as one way we clueless can become well informed, or at least better informed. ;)

Jean M
08-26-2017, 05:08 PM
I kind of enjoy this hollow mockery of science stuff here in the silly season.

Naturally. You are a born debater, true to your Welsh roots. :) And the forum would be much the poorer without you.

rms2
08-26-2017, 05:48 PM
Given the sexual dimorphism in the burial rites of both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker (men buried lying on one side and women in the same locality buried lying on the opposite side), I wanted to toss this out for consideration. I'm not sure what to make of it, if anything, but it's more grist for the mill.

This is from James Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans, pages 205-206:



One of the earliest north Caucasian sites of importance is the cemetery at Nalchik. Here were found 147 burials placed under very low mounds which together formed an extensive low kurgan covering an area of about 300 square metres. Although twelve of the burials were found in the supine position with legs flexed (as we frequently encounter in the steppe), the majority were deposited on their sides, males on their right and females on their left. Ochre frequently accompanied the burials . . .

Nalchik precedes the Maykop culture which takes its name from the famous royal barrow at Maykop southeast of the Sea of Azov . . . Burials are typically found beneath kurgans which generally employ stone constructions such as cromlechs and stone cists. The deceased are found buried either in the supine position with legs flexed, or on their sides. Copper objects are a frequent burial accompaniment . . .

More important from our point of view is the elaboration of their burials, with stone constructions which many archaeologists see as a source for the stone-built tombs encountered in the Lower Mikhaylovka and Kemi Oba cultures.


From page 291 of Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language:



The stone walls of the Nalchik grave chamber incorporated carved stone stelae like those of the Mikhailovka I and Kemi-Oba cultures (see Figure 13.110).

Ibid, page 187:



Near Nalchik, in the center of the North Caucasian piedmont, was a cemetery containing 147 graves with contracted skeletons lying on their sides in red ochre-stained pits in groups of two or three under stone cairns. Females lay in a contracted pose on the left side and males on their right.

alan
08-26-2017, 06:15 PM
Given the sexual dimorphism in the burial rites of both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker (men buried lying on one side and women in the same locality buried lying on the opposite side), I wanted to toss this out for consideration. I'm not sure what to make of it, if anything, but it's more grist for the mill.

This is from James Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans, pages 205-206:



From page 291 of Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language:



Ibid, page 187:

My theory is that beaker men were buried on their left side simply because it meant the archers draw arm was free and ready for action and so looked much better symbolically in the eyes of an archer.

kinman
08-26-2017, 07:16 PM
(1) So would the left-handed archers be among those buried in the supine position (since lefties are often ambidextrous)?

(2) I know nothing about archery, so this might be a dumb question. Would there be both right-handed and left-handed bows back then? Or was it one style fits all?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My theory is that beaker men were buried on their left side simply because it meant the archers draw arm was free and ready for action and so looked much better symbolically in the eyes of an archer.

Chad Rohlfsen
08-26-2017, 08:17 PM
There were no arrow shelves then. It was shoot off the hand. An archer could pick up any bow and use it.

Chad Rohlfsen
08-26-2017, 08:20 PM
Left-side flexed burials go back to the earliest Neolithic of Europe and some of Anatolia.

rms2
08-26-2017, 10:07 PM
Left-side flexed burials go back to the earliest Neolithic of Europe and some of Anatolia.

True, and if that were all there was to it, it wouldn't mean much. That is but one of a number of factors. Besides, which side men and women were buried on varied in both Beaker and Corded Ware. What was significant was that the men were buried on one side and the women in the same locality were buried on the opposite side.

MitchellSince1893
08-26-2017, 10:20 PM
The second map shows an arrow going north, "up" the Tisza River, and then crossing the Carpathians. Is this what Mitchell also meant.

Perhaps I was wrong in assuming that he was proposing P312 went north of the Carpathians and then south along the Tisza River Valley.

Rather than repeat myself, here are my previous thoughts
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=273119&viewfull=1#post273119
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=273177&viewfull=1#post273177


If Budzhak was a reservoir of P312 subclades a few branches down, you could have a situation were multi subclade groups were taking more than one route into Central Europe at multiple times, complicating our efforts to make this a simple to follow story.

What might that look like?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/55/fc/f6/55fcf61a7d71fcdc288f61312f1f9a5d.png

Imagine the black circle being the source for multiple P312 subclades, and for that matter, U106.

These various routes being followed by the descendants of the original DF27, L21, U152, and/or U106 ancestors over several generations. Not one trip with one subclade, but multiple subclade groups over several generations taking multiple routes. This idea doesn't preclude the idea of a subclade being dominant along a certain route.

Is that what really happened? We may never know, but it may help us to consider the possibility that there may not be a clean and simple explanation.

MitchellSince1893
08-26-2017, 10:42 PM
rms2,

I've favored the Budzhak culture for being the source for P312. And you've previously mentioned the Kemi Oba culture from the same region. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=275584&viewfull=1#post275584

But I'm not an expert on this subject. Any reason Kemi Oba rather than Budzhak could be the source for P312?

rms2
08-26-2017, 11:13 PM
rms2,

I've favored the Budzhak culture for being the source for P312. And you've previously mentioned the Kemi Oba culture from the same region. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=275584&viewfull=1#post275584

But I'm not an expert on this subject. Any reason Kemi Oba rather than Budzhak could be the source for P312?

If you look at my Post #62 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=278816&viewfull=1#post278816), you'll see that I agree with you in speculating that Budzhak may be the mysterious source of P312:



My speculation is that the Budzhak culture, which came from the NW Black Sea coast and had some of the same types of Yamnaya arrowheads that appear in eastern Bell Beaker, came round the north side of the Carpathians down the Tisza River valley and became a variety of Corded Ware that was predominantly R1b-P312. Before Budzhak, the NW Black Sea coast was the home of the Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba culture, which had burial rites very much like Bell Beaker and Corded Ware. The R1b-P312 variety of Corded Ware ended up in Single Grave and Protruding Foot Beaker in the Netherlands, Belgium, and NW Germany. I don't have all the details worked out, but that is what I am going with for now.


I mentioned Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba because it preceded Budzhak in that same area, probably included the ancestors of the Budzhak people, and had burial rites strikingly similar to Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. I also mentioned Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba because it was the westernmost Eneolithic steppe culture (before Budzhak, which is a variety of Yamnaya) and thus very likely to have supplied the ancestors of the pioneers who eventually made the westward trek.

MitchellSince1893
08-26-2017, 11:30 PM
I ask because I may have a date issue with Budzhak and P312. Is it old enough to be the origin of P312?. Maybe not but that doesn't preclude P312 to have ended up in Budzhak.

rms2
08-26-2017, 11:35 PM
I ask because I may have a date issue with Budzhak and P312. Is it old enough to be the origin of P312?. Maybe not but that doesn't preclude P312 to have ended up in Budzhak.

I believe Budzhak is one of the subcultures of Yamnaya and dates to around 3,000 BC, so it's definitely old enough. If P312 is a little older than Budzhak, it could have come about during Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba. If it's a bit younger than Budzhak, then it could have arisen from L151 within Budzhak.

rms2
08-26-2017, 11:44 PM
Ivanova puts Budzhak within the period 3100–2200 BC.

MitchellSince1893
08-27-2017, 12:11 AM
McDonald's best guess for P312 is currently 3155 BC so right on the edge

kinman
08-27-2017, 12:14 AM
I also have a dating issue with Budzhak. I estimate the origin of P312 at about 3400-3500 BC. Therefore, being born in the Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba (which apparently began about 3700 BC) would make more sense to me. Of course, some P312 men may have remained near the place of origin and become part of Budzhak Culture (while the more adventurous P312 men headed northwest).


I believe Budzhak is one of the subcultures of Yamnaya and dates to around 3,000 BC, so it's definitely old enough. If P312 is a little older than Budzhak, it could have come about during Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba. If it's a bit younger than Budzhak, then it could have arisen from L151 within Budzhak.

lgmayka
08-27-2017, 02:30 AM
I have shown some maps from my new book on the forum, certainly this one:

18361
I had to look around for the definition of Finnish Lakeland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Lakeland), presumably the source of the term Paleo-Lakelandic.

rms2
08-27-2017, 11:46 AM
I also have a dating issue with Budzhak. I estimate the origin of P312 at about 3400-3500 BC. Therefore, being born in the Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba (which apparently began about 3700 BC) would make more sense to me. Of course, some P312 men may have remained near the place of origin and become part of Budzhak Culture (while the more adventurous P312 men headed northwest).

Either way is fine. Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba preceded Budzhak in the same area. Maybe that is where L151 arose and P312 and U106 both came out of that same milieu.

Anyway, Budzhak is speculation for me, as I said in the post in which I explained my vote for the Dutch Model.

We need a big behemoth paper that looks into the origins of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware and includes hundreds if not thousands of samples from the Pontic steppe, from Maikop, from the Carpathian Basin, and from more of the Corded Ware variants.

I take everybody's dates with a big lump of salt. Ancient dna results with good 14C dating work best.

rms2
08-27-2017, 12:07 PM
Here is a list of some of the ways in which Bell Beaker and Corded Ware burials are alike. This list is not meant to imply that every BB and CW burial included all of these elements or that there are no differences.

Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Burial Rites: Common Elements

1. Gender dimorphic, crouched-on-side burial (men buried lying on one side,
women in the same locality buried lying on the opposite side)

2. Single graves in pits (yama)

3. Burial mounds (kurgans)

4. Grave pits are often stone or wood-lined cists

5. Cromlechs (stone circles surrounding kurgans)

6. Sometimes wooden palisades surrounded the kurgan

7. Strikingly similar beakers with corded decoration deposited in grave pits

8. Weapons, including arrowheads and shafthole axes, deposited in grave pits

9. Horse and other animal bones deposited in grave pits

If I've left anything out, let me know. I think both cultures used ochre, as well, but I wasn't sure and could not find a quick reference on that, so I left it out.

Jean M
08-27-2017, 02:22 PM
Here is the diagram of the Yamnaya package from Harrison and Heyd 2007:

18382

The details:

A : The social sphere

The most important and visible is the round barrow as a personalised monument (Ecsedy 1979; Primas 1996, 126ff.). The barrow is often combined with an anthropomorphic stela (Telegin 1987; Telegin/Mallory 1994; Riscuta 2001).
The single burial lies flexed on its back (Rückenhocker), often covered in red ochre, and in a deep rectangular pit (Ecsedy 1979; Gimbutas 1981).
Social position and gender are systematically marked. In the Ukraine and Moldavia (Ivanova 2003), but less so in Bulgaria (Panayotov 1989), the wooden wagon marks an elevated social position. However, at the western edge of the distribution there is little grave equipment.
The creation of a special status for craftsman, especially the metalworker, is common in the north Pontic region (Bátora 2002; Cernych 2003; Bertemes 2004). For the first time, metallurgists had a specific social status.
Hoarding metal objects begins again (Bátora 2003). There are hoards of shaft-hole axes in the western Yamnaya area from Corbasca (Moldavia), Fajsz (Hungary), Dunakömlod (Hungary), Kiskundoroszma (Hungary), Vilcele (Romania), and Virgis (Lublinit-cave, Romania).


B : The technological sphere

Re-establishment of metallurgy of gold and copper, following a long decline after 3500 BC. There is a different technology of smelting, working and casting in two-piece stone moulds (Sherratt 1997 calls it the ‘Caucasian metallurgy’; Sherratt 2004, 414).
New weapon designs in copper, consisting of the shaft-hole axe (Primas 1996; Bátora 2003) and tanged metal dagger (Anthony 1996; L. Cernych 2003; Zimmermann 2003).


C : The economic sphere

The domesticated horse features importantly in a dedicated pastoral economy (Bökönyi 1978; Benecke 2002), which raises herds of cattle (Ebersbach 2002), and perhaps flocks of sheep for wool (Sherratt 1997; 2003; 2004, 414).
Wooden wagons placed in graves as social markers (Ivanova 2003; Turetskij 2004); the westernmost examples are the graves of Placidol in northern Bulgaria (Panayotov 1989).


D : Novelties in the material culture

The custom of using simple golden, electrum or silver hair rings (Lockenringe) (Primas 1996; Motzoi-Chicideanu/Olteanu 2001; Ruttkay 2003, 458–460); a distinctive bone toggle (Knochenknebel) and decorated bone discs (Kaiser 2003).
Widespread use of cord decoration on pottery (Roman et al. 1992; Bertemes 1993; 1998); the common cross-footed bowls (Burger 1980; Kulcsár 1998/99) copy models on the eastern Pontic steppes (Nagler 1996; Kaiser 2003).

Jean M
08-27-2017, 02:29 PM
Extract from Harrison & Heyd 2007 re Corded Ware:


Corded Ware/Single Grave cultures emerge north and west of the Carpathians (Raetzel-Fabian 2001; Heyd 2004a), where the cemeteries of tumuli and single graves assert people’s social identities in death, as in life; gender is carefully respected in burial customs, and male graves display a warrior ideal with their battle-axes or flint daggers, while female graves have personal ornaments. The individual human body becomes the focus of the burial customs, as in the Yamnaya world to the east. We recognize signs of a social structure based on small family units, strongly contrasting with the nucleated villages of the previous period, but sharing many elements with the ‘Yamnaya Package’. For example, the bone toggles (Knebel) and discs are identical to those from the steppes (Kaiser 2003) and the earliest central European metal workers’ graves appear (Bertemes/Heyd 2002; Bátora 2003). The pastoral component in the economy grows, with specialized cattle herding (Ebersbach 2002).

rms2
08-27-2017, 02:32 PM
Obviously Corded Ware and Bell Beaker both have a lot in common with Yamnaya culturally, as well as genetically. What really marks the CW and BB burial rite as different from Yamnaya is the gender dimorphic, crouched-on-the-side body position that occurs in both CW and BB. Yamnaya sometimes has the crouched-on-the-side body position, although the most common position is supine with knees flexed, but I have never heard of gender dimorphism of body position in Yamnaya.

Crouched-on-the-side was the most common burial position in Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba, but I have not heard that there was gender dimorphism involved. I mentioned in an earlier post the gender dimorphic, crouched-on-the-side burials in the kurgans at Nalchik that preceded Maikop.

Jean M
08-27-2017, 03:07 PM
Harrison & Heyd 2007 have a huge amount to say about Bell Beaker, but I'll just pick out a couple of snippets about archery:


Bows and arrows remain part of the material culture of European societies from the Mesolithic into the later Bronze Age, but it is only with the Bell Beaker groups that we see archery become emblematic weaponry. This is an extraordinary break with established traditions in the Alps and northern Europe, where suddenly, unexpectedly, the stone axe is superseded as the emblematic weapon.



Another way of appreciating the choice of archery is that it creates a deliberate contrast to earlier styles of combat, which used hafted axes and daggers, for close hand-to-hand fighting. Archery allows the warrior to fight at a distance, even from horseback, and he can choose to kill from thirty metres, or be concealed from view. This is antithetical to a code of honour based on individual combat where rivals face each other two metres apart. In either case, the choice of archery as the combat mode of choice for the Beaker warrior carries a powerful symbolic charge. In Portugal especially, great numbers of arrows were manufactured in the fourth and third millennia, and the stone citadels of the macro-villages were designed for defense by many archers.

rms2
08-27-2017, 03:20 PM
Harrison & Heyd 2007 have a huge amount to say about Bell Beaker, but I'll just pick out a couple of snippets about archery:

. . .



Another way of appreciating the choice of archery is that it creates a deliberate contrast to earlier styles of combat, which used hafted axes and daggers, for close hand-to-hand fighting. Archery allows the warrior to fight at a distance, even from horseback, and he can choose to kill from thirty metres, or be concealed from view. This is antithetical to a code of honour based on individual combat where rivals face each other two metres apart. In either case, the choice of archery as the combat mode of choice for the Beaker warrior carries a powerful symbolic charge.


I think they were able to fire their bows from horseback. A CW kurgan at Göhlitzsch in Germany had a stone slab that has the carved images of a quiver of arrows and what is believed to be a reflex bow.

In IE mythology some of the gods and goddesses used bows, so the bow probably would not have been regarded as dishonorable or unheroic.






In Portugal especially, great numbers of arrows were manufactured in the fourth and third millennia, and the stone citadels of the macro-villages were designed for defense by many archers.



Stone citadels and macro-villages. Very uncharacteristic of BB elsewhere, where settlements are difficult to find.

There is a lot about alleged early Iberian BB that is very un-BB-like.

Jean M
08-27-2017, 04:52 PM
. . .
A CW kurgan at Göhlitzsch in Germany had a stone slab that has the carved images of a quiver of arrows and what is believed to be a reflex bow.

I can see that Julian Maxwell Heath, Warfare in Neolithic Europe claims this, but I see no image in support. Several publications mention a cist grave at Göhlitzsch, with images on the slabs which are similar to those at a Maikop cist grave at Klady, and also Kemi Oba graves. None of them identify the Göhlitzsch grave as Corded Ware.

There are pictures of said slabs from Göhlitzsch in Torsten Schunke, Klady-Gölitzsch. Vom Kaukasus nach Mitteldeutschland oder umgekehrt? in H. Meller (Hrsg.), 3300 BC. Myteriöse Steinzeittote und ihre Welt, Halle/Saale: 151-155. The text in in German and won't let me use Google translate, but I see no bow or arrows. https://www.academia.edu/6981852/Klady_G%C3%B6hlitzsch._Vom_Kaukasus_nach_Mitteldeu tschland_oder_umgekehrt_In_H._Meller_Hrsg._3300_BC _mysteri%C3%B6se_Steinzeittote_und_ihre_Welt_Halle _2013_151-155

Michał
08-27-2017, 04:56 PM
Extract from Harrison & Heyd 2007 re Corded Ware:
It is also worth quoting the very next sentence you have omitted in your post:

However, linking these elements together is not quite the same as accepting the old model that suggested the Corded Ware culture was a steppe intrusion (e.g. Kilian 1957).
And here is what Heyd writes about Corded Ware and Yamna in his much more recent paper (Heyd 2017) :

1. Yamnaya and CWC generally represent the inhabitants of different ecozones — steppe habitat vs forested temperate Europe — and there is not a single known burial of either group that transgresses this border.
2. The beginnings of Yamnaya and CWC show a chronological offset of some 200 years, c. 3050/3000 BC vs c. 2850/2800 BC (Włodarczak 2014; Frînculeasa et al. 2015).
3. While very similar at first glance, the burials, by far our most prolific source of both Yamnaya and CWC, are actually more different than identical in their fundamental regularities of ritual and equipment, and in material culture (Furholt 2014; Frînculeasa et al. 2015).

If it is so difficult to demonstrate archaeologically the smooth translation from Yamnaya to CWC, then there might perhaps be alternative or supplementary scenarios that fit the evidence. Starting points for such an approach do indeed exist and can be summarised in terms of time and scale.

Instead of favouring one episode of genetic transmission from Yamnaya to CWC, and despite a handful of Yamnaya and/orMiddle Dnieper/CWC graves along the steppe/foreststeppe border in Moldova and Ukraine having ‘mixed inventories’ of material culture (Telegin 2005; Włodarczak 2014), it is more convincing in terms of the archaeological realities to include interactions during previous centuries and to argue for a long-term and incremental relationship between steppe and temperate European populations, particularly as CWC is only partially contemporaneous with Yamnaya.
All this clearly shows that those forumers who have previously claimed that Heyd supports the Yamna origin of CWC were simply wrongly interpreting his paper from year 2007.

rms2
08-27-2017, 05:17 PM
Speaking of the emphasis on archery in Bell Beaker, here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=243441&viewfull=1#post243441) is an excellent post from Rich Rocca which touches on that subject. Rich's original post features some images that are worth seeing, so it's best to follow the link above over to the original, but I quote the text below:



When looking for R-L51 in "Early Begleitkeramik" instead of simply "Early Bell Beaker", it really makes for much more focused reading. Probably the most interesting things I've been reading about during the past week are the developments within the Kraków-Sandomierz Corded Ware group of the Małopolska Upland, southern Poland.

1. After an initial phase where single graves were oriented in the typical Corded Ware west-east axis, the Kraków-Sandomierz CW group switches to placing their dead in a north-south axis starting ca. 2700 BC. This is the same orientation of the Moravian Corded Ware Group from Olomouc-Slavonín and the Bell Beaker East group.

2. Also from its inception phase, the Kraków-Sandomierz CW group places a premium on archery equipment in male graves including arrow heads, flint tips and other flake producing tools. This archery toolkit is typical of the Bell Beaker package, but is not common for Corded Ware. Corded Ware grave 1(2) from Żuków shows the importance of archery and includes an S-shaped beaker with zone ornamentation...

3. Around the time when graves switched to the north-south axis, pottery is influenced by Globular Amphora Culutre/Zlota and also TRB. From the Olalde paper, genetic contributions from GAC and TRB are the best Late Neolithic fits for Bell Beaker samples from outside of Iberia.

The similarities between Moravia and the Małopolska Upland continues into the Bell Beaker period. As mentioned in my prior post, just like the Moravian Olomouc-Slavonín BB group lacked decorated pottery, it is missing from the Samborzec Bell Beaker burials as well. Of the three Samborzec males tested by Olalde et al 2017, one low resolution sample belongs to haplogroup R while the other two belong to at least R-M269. Perhaps the raw data will reveal better haplogroup resolution. The I4251 sample has an early date of 2837–2672 calBCE (3990±60 BP, Ki-7926). The date is disputed however. The Samborzec Begleitkeramic sample (Grave III) was not tested, but it is by far the most interesting. The burial contains a male in the typical N-S orientation, but lying on his back with knees bent outward. This position is found in some other Corded Ware graves and earlier Pit Graves. One of the Corded Ware samples is the very sample from Żuków that produced the grave goods above! Also in Samborzec Grave III was a copper tanged dagger which also looks a lot like a Yamnaya dagger. He also checks just about every Eastern Bell Beaker checkbox...bow-shaped pendant made of boar tusk, four holed wrist guard, flint arrowhead, and the archers toolkit (flint, bone and antler tools) and a polypod bowl. Again, of importance is the lack of decorated beakers. Here is an image of the grave goods and his position...

Only four Corded Ware samples from Poland have been tested thus far (that I know of)... one is R1a, one is G, one is likely I/J and the fourth is the low quality Corded Ware R1b1a-L1345 sample from Oblaczkowo, Poland that is dated to 2865-2578 BC. This sample could of course belong to L51 just as well as it could to Z2103. Either way, it will be interesting to see if a Corded Ware paper comes out with as much information as the recent Bell Beaker one. If so, I hope they include samples from Moldovian and southern Poland, as it may throw some surprises our way.

Jean M
08-27-2017, 05:26 PM
I can see that Julian Maxwell Heath, Warfare in Neolithic Europe claims this..

Plus he claims the burnt remains of a probable composite bow were found in the Corded Ware grave of a female in Bo ejewice Poland. (I think that is meant to be Bozejewice.) Where is he getting this? I have Wayne E. Lee, Waging War (2016), who says (p. 170) that the composite recurve bow seems to have first appeared in the sedentary Middle East in the 17th century BC, but its origins were clearly with pastoral and probably nomadic peoples. That makes sense to me - shooting from horseback.

rms2
08-27-2017, 05:48 PM
. . .

All this clearly shows that those forumers who have previously claimed that Heyd supports the Yamna origin of CWC were simply wrongly interpreting his paper from year 2007.

Yes, the origin of Corded Ware is as problematic in its own way as the origin of Bell Beaker.

This is from Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans, pages 247-248:



It should be emphasized that there is no widely accepted solution to the problem of Corded Ware origins. Ivan Artemenko recognizes the existence of at least four major camps: those who support a western origin between the Rhine and Vistula (such as Ulrich Fischer, Alexander Häusler and Karl Jazdzewski); a Vistula-Dnieper origin (Dmitry Kraynov, Raisa Denisova and Miroslav Buchvaldek); an origin in the forest-steppe zone of the Middle Dnieper region (Ivan Artemenko, I. K. Sveshnikov, V.P. Tretyakov, Sofia Berezanskaya, N. Bondar, and others); and a steppe origin (Gustav Rosenberg, P.V. Glob, Karl Struve, Marija Gimbutas, Aleksandr Bryusov and Valentin Danilenko).



Ibid, pages 248-249:



However, Buchvaldek does note the similarities between Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures, such as tumulus, flexed supine burials, corded ornament, heavily pastoral component, absence of settlements, and several other items of grave accompaniment. He thus considers that the Corded Ware culture shows stronger ties to Yamnaya than it exhibits with any other culture, though he admits that there are also striking differences between these two cultures.


One more quote, Ibid, page 246:



Although the Yamnaya culture may have begun earlier than the Corded Ware, there is no real case for an expansion of Yamnaya invaders across the North European Plain, producing the Corded Ware horizon. Intrusive steppe burials as we previously encountered in Southeast Europe are generally absent from the Corded Ware region, and on what little anthropological data we possess, there is no reason whatsoever to associate the Corded Ware populations, themselves quite heterogeneous, with the physical type which we encounter on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

rms2
08-27-2017, 05:53 PM
Plus he claims the burnt remains of a probable composite bow were found in the Corded Ware grave of a female in Bo ejewice Poland. (I think that is meant to be Bozejewice.) Where is he getting this? I have Wayne E. Lee, Waging War (2016), who says (p. 170) that the composite recurve bow seems to have first appeared in the sedentary Middle East in the 17th century BC, but its origins were clearly with pastoral and probably nomadic peoples. That makes sense to me - shooting from horseback.

Reflex bows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_shape) differ from recurve bows and are earlier.

Jean M
08-27-2017, 06:38 PM
All this clearly shows that those forumers who have previously claimed that Heyd supports the Yamna origin of CWC were simply wrongly interpreting his paper from year 2007.

I have tended to simplify, feeling that there is a limit to the number of cultures readers can cope with. But I did update the text for the next book after the two papers this year in Antiquity. Latest version on this reads:


Corded Ware

From around 2800-2750 BC a new way of life spread over the North European Plain and into southern Fennoscandia. This vast archaeological culture is commonly called Corded Ware after its most characteristic pottery, which was decorated with cord-impressions. [Illustration 40] As we have seen, this decoration was common on Yamnaya and earlier steppe pottery (p. 69). Other names used, Single Grave and Battle Axe, reflect other notable features of the culture. It dotted the landscape with round mounds, under each of which was typically a single individual in a crouched position with grave goods. This was a visible sign of a new emphasis on the individual, an echo of Yamnaya thinking.....[More details]

Farming had reached central Europe long before this period, but it was not until around 4000 BC that the Funnel Beaker culture brought farming to the southern parts of Scandinavia. These farmers later acquired wheeled vehicles, the plough and wool spinning from their more advanced southern neighbour, the Late Cucuteni-Tripolye culture. Then in north and west Jutland 'stone heap graves' were created between 3100 and 2800 BC, which contained the corpses of cattle in one part and humans in another. The deceased could have been borne to his burial by an ox-drawn cart and the oxen then slaughtered. Burials with pairs of cattle have also been found in northern Germany, but are found earlier in the Carpathian Basin. This suggests that ideas were filtering northward along with technology.

South of Jutland, between the Elbe and the Vistula, the Globular Amphora culture, named for its characteristic pots, acted as another chronological bridge between Funnel Beaker and Corded Ware. DNA samples from the people of this stock-breeding culture show no steppe component. They appear typical of the European Neolithic. Yet the culture draws some traits from the steppe, such as a preference for single graves. Like the 'stone heap graves' in Jutland, a Globular Amphora grave could contain a human burial in one section and a pair on oxen in an adjoining section. So Corded Ware penetration northwards could have followed existing trade or migration routes. ...

MitchellSince1893
08-27-2017, 07:13 PM
and despite a handful of Yamnaya and/or Middle Dnieper/CWC graves along the steppe/forest steppe border in Moldova and Ukraine having ‘mixed inventories’ of material culture (Telegin 2005; Włodarczak 2014),

I know this was downplayed in the quote, but I think it's important to recognize that there are areas where the two cultures were mixed in present day Moldova and Ukraine...same area as Budzhak.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-27-2017, 07:48 PM
It is also worth quoting the very next sentence you have omitted in your post:

And here is what Heyd writes about Corded Ware and Yamna in his much more recent paper (Heyd 2017) :


All this clearly shows that those forumers who have previously claimed that Heyd supports the Yamna origin of CWC were simply wrongly interpreting his paper from year 2007.

What may be added to Heyd's comments is that the normally presumed contact zone northeast of the Carpathians was actually one of GAC settlement until c 2400 BC, at least, when Epi-Corded cultures appear. Of course, by then the CWC / BAx/SGC had been in Northern Europe for ~ 350 years.

alan
08-27-2017, 08:43 PM
One thing seems clear. New peoples never seen before outside eastern Europe suddenly expand into new areas with very different environments . That would have required cultural and subsistance strategy adaption to do. The first stage of yamnaya expansion west was limited to steppe like areas and therefore not much adaption was needed. There was apparently a,period of 200 years before carriers of steppe genes adapted to non-steppe conditions. CW is the signature of a steppe group who adapted to non steppe conditions then spread like crazy. Wherever they were located they had at least 200 years to adapt. My hunch based on the dominance of L23 in classic Yamnaya on the actual steppes is the R1a rich CW people's main ancestry comes from a group living further upstream on a west Ukraine river in a environment Ike the forest steppe/ forest interface which made them at least party preadapted to conditions different from the classic steppe.

alan
08-27-2017, 09:02 PM
It is also worth quoting the very next sentence you have omitted in your post:

And here is what Heyd writes about Corded Ware and Yamna in his much more recent paper (Heyd 2017) :


All this clearly shows that those forumers who have previously claimed that Heyd supports the Yamna origin of CWC were simply wrongly interpreting his paper from year 2007.

200 years or 8 generations seems plenty time for a steppe group bordering a non-steppe environment to learn enough from non-steppe groups to adapt sufficiently to be able to expand into non-steppe lands. The only oddity is that sort of frontier interaction didn't lead CW to absorb and carry more farmer genes from intermarriage with TRB and GAC people. Isn't it odd that the beaker people have a genetic signal more like that expected from that sort of steppe/forest zone frontier interaction than the CW people do??? It's almost like the ancestors of the beakers WERE these frontiers people and acted as buffer and intermediary through which ideas from the GAC or TRB farmers could be passed to the ancestors of the CW people without the latter experiencing genetic impact

Chad Rohlfsen
08-27-2017, 09:25 PM
Reflex bows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_shape) differ from recurve bows and are earlier.

Recurve and reflex are different. Reflex is later than recurve. All available evidence points to Bell Beakers using longbows of the Holmgaard or Meare Heath style. This is shot on foot. Trust me, I know this stuff. I'm a traditional archer and hunter with a good bow inventory.

Look at the bow pendants! They're longbows! D shape.

alan
08-27-2017, 09:30 PM
200 years or 8 generations seems plenty time for a steppe group bordering a non-steppe environment to learn enough from non-steppe groups to adapt sufficiently to be able to expand into non-steppe lands. The only oddity is that sort of frontier interaction didn't lead CW to absorb and carry more farmer genes from intermarriage with TRB and GAC people. Isn't it odd that the beaker people have a genetic signal more like that expected from that sort of steppe/forest zone frontier interaction than the CW people do??? It's almost like the ancestors of the beakers WERE these frontiers people and acted as buffer and intermediary through which ideas from the GAC or TRB farmers could be passed to the ancestors of the CW people without the latter experiencing genetic impact

I think I could be onto something here. I need to chew this over as it's a bit outside the box. So could the ancestors of the beaker people have formed a frontiers steppe group between the GAC/TRB farmers and the ancestors of the CW group? I have often wondered how the CW group seem to have borrowed a lot of ideas from the farmers but have absorbed so few genes. But if the beaker farmer genes are from GAC and TRB is it possible that the ancestors of the beakers actually lay between those farmer cultures and the ancestors of CW c 3000BC? Or were the ancestors of the beakers already doing a role that made them almost like frontiers traders who would pass into both worlds and spread ideas both ways? We do have human bone evidence that the beaker people did master off-steppes horse riding.

George Chandler
08-27-2017, 09:45 PM
Gimbutas

alan
08-27-2017, 10:28 PM
I think I could be onto something here. I need to chew this over as it's a bit outside the box. So could the ancestors of the beaker people have formed a frontiers steppe group between the GAC/TRB farmers and the ancestors of the CW group? I have often wondered how the CW group seem to have borrowed a lot of ideas from the farmers but have absorbed so few genes. But if the beaker farmer genes are from GAC and TRB is it possible that the ancestors of the beakers actually lay between those farmer cultures and the ancestors of CW c 3000BC? Or were the ancestors of the beakers already doing a role that made them almost like frontiers traders who would pass into both worlds and spread ideas both ways? We do have human bone evidence that the beaker people did master off-steppes horse riding.

Interesting that the GAC goes as far south-east as the upper Dniester and Bug but not the Dnieper. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://journal.topoi.org/index.php/etopoi/article/viewFile/182/212&ved=0ahUKEwj75PGmtfjVAhUnDMAKHXqGDYwQFghnMAw&usg=AFQjCNFw9S2m-OfywuEFV1xwYqwr7WZh4Q

Same is true re TRB.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=funnel+beaker+culture&client=tablet-android-pega&prmd=isvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWj-iWuvjVAhVMKMAKHXLJBRwQ_AUIESgB&biw=960&bih=600#imgrc=j2ZJny4rUmK7sM:

Could this indicate the ancestors of the beaker people interfaced with them on a lower part of the Dniester c3000BC while the ancestors of CW were on the Dnieper at a remove from the contact zone with GAC?

rms2
08-27-2017, 10:29 PM
Recurve and reflex are different. Reflex is later than recurve. All available evidence points to Bell Beakers using longbows of the Holmgaard or Meare Heath style. This is shot on foot. Trust me, I know this stuff. I'm a traditional archer and hunter with a good bow inventory.

Look at the bow pendants! They're longbows! D shape.

Just going on this from "Corded Ware from East to West" in Ancient Europe, 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World; Peter Bogucki and Pam J. Crabtree, editors. New York: Scribner and Sons, 2004:



An interesting find in this group [Central German Corded Ware Culture] was the grave at Göhlitzsch. On one of the stone slabs forming the grave there was engraved the image of a reflex bow and quiver. It is one of the earliest representations of this technologically advanced form of bow.

alan
08-27-2017, 10:31 PM
Gimbutas

She got a lot wrong though. Proven wrong by hard ancient DNA evidence.

MitchellSince1893
08-27-2017, 10:33 PM
I think I could be onto something here. I need to chew this over as it's a bit outside the box. So could the ancestors of the beaker people have formed a frontiers steppe group between the GAC/TRB farmers and the ancestors of the CW group? I have often wondered how the CW group seem to have borrowed a lot of ideas from the farmers but have absorbed so few genes. But if the beaker farmer genes are from GAC and TRB is it possible that the ancestors of the beakers actually lay between those farmer cultures and the ancestors of CW c 3000BC? Or were the ancestors of the beakers already doing a role that made them almost like frontiers traders who would pass into both worlds and spread ideas both ways? We do have human bone evidence that the beaker people did master off-steppes horse riding.

To me it appears Eastern Beaker ancestors were part of a peripheral group on CW's southern boundary. This may help explain the similarities and differences noted between CW and BB.

rms2
08-27-2017, 10:44 PM
She got a lot wrong though. Proven wrong by hard ancient DNA evidence.

I voted for the Dutch Model, but Gimbutas got a lot of things right, too, the big things really. I still think there is a good chance she could have been right about Bell Beaker.

She didn't fall for the Spanish Model or the anti-migrationist, immobilist hooey.

alan
08-27-2017, 10:51 PM
I voted for the Dutch Model, but Gimbutas got a lot of things right, too, the big things really. I still think there is a good chance she could have been right about Bell Beaker.

She didn't fall for the Spanish Model or the anti-migrationist, immobilist hooey.

Having chewed over the poll I would vote Dutch model too but it seems I voted already and forgot!

rms2
08-27-2017, 10:58 PM
We tend to think Corded Ware is well tested and thoroughly R1a, but that's not entirely true. Corded Ware covered a huge area from the Lower Rhine to the Volga. There were a number of CW cultural variants, and most of them are untested.

I made a Google sheet of Corded Ware y-dna test results which can be found here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F8HuPA4qMeRPxXQNF-qfvYBd8LLp2HnHV-oBh8rtpAk/edit?usp=sharing).

Here's a screenshot:

18389

I tried to list the cultural variants of Corded Ware into which the samples fall, but I am not sure of most of them, so they are followed by a question mark. Anyway, it looks like the only cultural variant at all well represented (if I am right about the classification) is Central German Corded Ware.

Here are the cultural variants and the number of y-dna test results for each of them:

1. Single Grave culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 y-dna results

2. Protruding Foot Beaker culture . . . . . . . . . 0

3. Corded Ware of the Alpine Pile Dwellings . . . 0

4. Central German Corded Ware . . . . . . . . . . . 14?

5. Bohemian-Moravian Corded Ware . . . . . . . . 0

6. Małopolska Corded Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

7. Złota culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

8. Battle-Axe culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

9. Rzucewo culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4?

10. Middle Dnieper culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

11. Fatianovo culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

Mallory says there were actually over 20 regional CW variants (page 244 of In Search of the Indo-Europeans). Those listed above come from "Corded Ware from East to West" in Ancient Europe, 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World; Peter Bogucki and Pam J. Crabtree, editors. New York: Scribner and Sons, 2004.

alan
08-27-2017, 11:03 PM
To me it appears Eastern Beaker ancestors were part of a peripheral group on CW's southern boundary. This may help explain the similarities and differences noted between CW and BB.

I think pre-beaker P312 bordered and interfaced with CW and may have been incorporated
into it. The weird thing is it's the beaker people, not CW, with the strong signal of meeting and mixing with GAC and TRB. That's it odd when you look at maps and the overlap of GAC and CW. I am now wondering if there was a few pulses of CW and P312 was in the vanguard 1st wave before R1a came to dominate. Its believed by many that CW is earliest in SE Poland. The Polish CW yDNA is incredibly varied and not at all like the R1a domination of CW and it's derivatives in Germany and NE Europe.

alan
08-27-2017, 11:16 PM
We tend to think Corded Ware is well tested and thoroughly R1a, but that's not entirely true. Corded Ware covered a huge area from the Lower Rhine to the Volga. There were a number of CW cultural variants, and most of them are untested.

I made a Google sheet of Corded Ware y-dna test results which can be found here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F8HuPA4qMeRPxXQNF-qfvYBd8LLp2HnHV-oBh8rtpAk/edit?usp=sharing).

Here's a screenshot:

18389

I tried to list the cultural variants of Corded Ware into which the samples fall, but I am not sure of most of them, so they are followed by a question mark. Anyway, it looks like the only cultural variant at all well represented (if I am right about the classification) is Central German Corded Ware.

Here are the cultural variants and the number of y-dna test results for each of them:

1. Single Grave culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 y-dna results

2. Protruding Foot Beaker culture . . . . . . . . . 0

3. Corded Ware of the Alpine Pile Dwellings . . . 0

4. Central German Corded Ware . . . . . . . . . . . 14?

5. Bohemian-Moravian Corded Ware . . . . . . . . 0

6. Małopolska Corded Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

7. Złota culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

8. Battle-Axe culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

9. Rzucewo culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4?

10. Middle Dnieper culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

11. Fatianovo culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

Mallory says there were actually over 20 regional CW variants (page 244 of In Search of the Indo-Europeans). Those listed above come from "Corded Ware from East to West" in Ancient Europe, 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World; Peter Bogucki and Pam J. Crabtree, editors. New York: Scribner and Sons, 2004.

Yeah an awful lot of that CW R1a is from central Germany. The ecclectic yDNA from Polish CW is v different. SE Poland is thought by many to be the origin area of CW too. Really makes me wonder if R1a wasnt dominant in earliest CW but sort of hijacked 2nd or 3rd generation CW

Chad Rohlfsen
08-28-2017, 01:28 AM
Just going on this from "Corded Ware from East to West" in Ancient Europe, 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World; Peter Bogucki and Pam J. Crabtree, editors. New York: Scribner and Sons, 2004:

I call horse poop! Let me see the pic of this "reflex" bow. The pic I saw showed no bow.

Generalissimo
08-28-2017, 01:34 AM
Yeah an awful lot of that CW R1a is from central Germany. The ecclectic yDNA from Polish CW is v different. SE Poland is thought by many to be the origin area of CW too. Really makes me wonder if R1a wasnt dominant in earliest CW but sort of hijacked 2nd or 3rd generation CW

You don't have to wonder. R1a was dominant in the earliest Corded Ware, because Baltic Corded Ware is 100% R1a thus far, and some individuals look like they're straight from the steppe, because they're no different from Yamnaya.

alexfritz
08-28-2017, 01:52 AM
I call horse poop! Let me see the pic of this "reflex" bow. The pic I saw showed no bow.

https://books.google.de/books?id=h3H9pjiDsgsC&pg=PA18&dq=G%C3%B6hlitzsch+bogen&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi91viR6PjVAhUQL1AKHZQ1DjkQ6AEIMTAB#v=on epage&q&f=true
Abb.13 (Göhlitzsch bogen) it is referred to here as 'recurve' yet most german sources refer to it as Halbreflex (semi-reflex) or 'eingedrückten' (dont know the english term) bow akin to Natal'evka;

Chad Rohlfsen
08-28-2017, 02:06 AM
I think they mean reflex-deflex longbow. That might be a stretch though. The slab is hardly conclusive of such a thing. A true reflex bow doesn't enter the European arena until the Scythian period. All known finds of European bows of this period are longbows and much, much too long to be shot from a horse. If this is a reflex-deflex, it is quite different than a traditional "reflex" bow and would likely be about as tall as the archer. Horse-archery likely did not exist in Europe at that time. There's not even evidence that horses were used at all in war during this period either. Also, some Holmgaard bows have been seen to have the tips bent forward (done with heating, water, and holding) a bit, as the bows actual action happens in the lower limbs, near the handle. The tips are left very thick. This little bend forward gives a little extra power, but not a lot.

It is also likely that there was no extra thickness at the handle to keep bows from bending there. It was common for bows way back then to bend at the handle, unlike modern productions. So, over time, one's bow would curve back at the handle. To counteract that, one would string the bow backwards to keep the limbs back and strong. I do that with my bows at times when they limbs start to naturally pull back to the strung position. There really is zero evidence of composite reflexes or purposefully reflexed longbows for quite some time after this.

Bell Beaker pendants are all clearly longbows with no reflex to them, so there is that.

Also, I honestly think the curvy part in the picture is the string and the straight part is the bow, unstrung. It doesn't look right. It certainly isn't a strung bow, as the string is always behind the limbs and not working around it. Anyway, the whole thing is suspect and actual recovered bows from the period are as I've described.

Chad Rohlfsen
08-28-2017, 02:16 AM
Anyone that thinks this is a strung reflex bow clearly has never shot one, let alone seen one in-person.

alexfritz
08-28-2017, 02:21 AM
in the text the bow-depiction is also described as an angular-bow akin to hittite types; and that the bow in contrast to the arrows however as rather short, but that is solely based on the depiction i.e. however precise the scale; the conclusion from the text is that it represents a composite bow and not a heat-formed selfbow; what seems certain however is that this representation is a portrait of the actual bow of the buried warrior;

Chad Rohlfsen
08-28-2017, 02:39 AM
A bow cannot be strung in that way. There is also no recovered finds to my knowledge of a composite bow in Europe during this period. One would expect to find horn in the remains of the period. Bows in Northern Europe from the Mesolithic and clear through the Middle Ages have all been the longbow and flatbow varieties.

A composite bow in Central Europe 1000 years before they appear in West Asia is awfully unrealistic, IMO.

Chad Rohlfsen
08-28-2017, 02:55 AM
This is also from the Bernberg culture ~3300BCE, from what I understand. So, nothing to do with Corded Ware or Bell Beaker anyway. It all seems too improbable.

alexfritz
08-28-2017, 03:00 AM
A bow cannot be strung in that way. There is also no recovered finds to my knowledge of a composite bow in Europe during this period. One would expect to find horn in the remains of the period. Bows in Northern Europe from the Mesolithic and clear through the Middle Ages have all been the longbow and flatbow varieties.

A composite bow in Central Europe 1000 years before they appear in West Asia is awfully unrealistic, IMO.

exactly whether this is a heat-formed or composite is pure speculation, since it is from the bernburger-group it is of an early date (early 3rdmilbc) and what is however def certain is it is from an elite burial, thus the masses would not possess such bows to begin with whereas sargon's army of the late 3rdmilbc had it (comp bow) in masses;

Jean M
08-28-2017, 09:32 AM
You don't have to wonder. R1a was dominant in the earliest Corded Ware, because Baltic Corded Ware is 100% R1a thus far, and some individuals look like they're straight from the steppe, because they're no different from Yamnaya.

This is the most persuasive evidence that CW came from Yamnaya, in addition to the fact that CW has Yamnaya features that were not present in its steppe predecessors. I think maybe I should actually state that in the forthcoming book. As it stands the text is tiptoing round it. There are technological innovations and cultural influences moving north from the steppe/Cucuteni before CW, but they are not accompanied by Y-DNA R1a. Conversely R1a moved north to the Baltic with pottery-making and/or pressure-blade making foragers, but their autosomal DNA lacks the CHG found in Yamnaya and Corded Ware. I do make that latter point already, but so far all I say on Baltic CW is:


So Corded Ware penetration northwards could have followed existing trade or migration routes. By contrast the heavily forested region east of the Baltic, rich in game, beside a sea teeming with fish, was more attractive to those happy to live by fishing and hunting. The Corded Ware culture was the first to bring herding and milk-drinking to the region now Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Even so, agriculture as an everyday way of life developed there no earlier than 1000 BC.

I'll have a think.

Michał
08-28-2017, 10:23 AM
I know this was downplayed in the quote, but I think it's important to recognize that there are areas where the two cultures were mixed in present day Moldova and Ukraine...same area as Budzhak.
But there is no evidence for those areas associated with the Budzhak variant of Yamna to be a associated with the very origin of Corded Ware. In fact, this is a region where Corded Ware appears relatively late, about a century (or even two) after it is found in other regions (including for example Kuyavia). Budzhak could have influenced the neighboring Corded Ware populations (and vice versa) but it wasn't a source of CWC (just like CWC was not a source for Budzhak).

Jean M
08-28-2017, 10:46 AM
In IE mythology some of the gods and goddesses used bows, so the bow probably would not have been regarded as dishonorable or unheroic.

There is very little IE mythology that can be traced back to the PIE language. Specific gods or goddesses are hard to determine with confidence that far back. There are a few - sky father, dawn goddess etc, but none of them is related to archery (Mallory and Adams 2006, p. 409). You may be thinking of Artemis/Diana, Greek/Roman goddess of the hunt, and her twin brother Apollo. Evidence for their worship in Greece begins with the Homeric Hymns, as far as I know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeric_Hymns

They may be a fusion of pre-Greek cults with IE worship of the sun and moon, but I hate to delve into the murky waters of mythology, on which I am no expert. All I can say is that the simple D-shaped bow and crescent moon are obviously similar in shape and we don't really know what the Yamnaya people and their BB descendants intended by wearing boar's tusk pendants, which evolved in Portugal into the gold lunula, generally thought to be a moon symbol. Obviously the chariot-riding of Apollo and Artemis cannot pre-date the chariot.

Michał
08-28-2017, 11:04 AM
The only oddity is that sort of frontier interaction didn't lead CW to absorb and carry more farmer genes from intermarriage with TRB and GAC people. Isn't it odd that the beaker people have a genetic signal more like that expected from that sort of steppe/forest zone frontier interaction than the CW people do???
This is just one of many factors that make the Upper Dniester (or NW Ukrainian-Moldovan) origin of Corded Ware very unlikely, and it is worth noting that David Anthony was well aware of that fact long before the aDNA data became available to us (see his "The Horse, the Wheel and Language"). However, he was definitely wrong when initially assuming that the Corded Ware population was not derived from the steppe and spoke a non-IE language (before being influenced by Yamna). This is because by contrast to Mallory and many other IE-ists he considered the relatively late Yamna culture (rather than one of the earlier steppe cultures) to be a PIE population ancestral to all non-Anatolian IE-speakers, which is an apparent misconception that still dominates on this forum. After the aDNA data make David Anthony realize he was wrong about the initial non-IE status of Corded Ware, he switched to the Yamna origin of Corded Ware, instead of moving the Late PIE step back to the pre-Yamna times, so it would place the common ancestor of both Corded Ware and Yamna in earlier steppe cultures, like Sredny Stog or Khvalynsk (which is exactly what Heyd seems to point to in his most recent paper).

Jean M
08-28-2017, 11:05 AM
Isn't it odd that the beaker people have a genetic signal more like that expected from that sort of steppe/forest zone frontier interaction than the CW people do??? It's almost like the ancestors of the beakers WERE these frontiers people and acted as buffer and intermediary through which ideas from the GAC or TRB farmers could be passed to the ancestors of the CW people without the latter experiencing genetic impact

No it is not odd at all. :) I postulate that the TRB was formed mainly by Balkan farmers moving north. Same more or less goes for GAC. I expect the same autosomal signature in Cucuteni. The further west Yamnaya went, the more it mixed with Late Cucuteni.

Jean M
08-28-2017, 11:32 AM
However, he was definitely wrong when initially assuming that the Corded Ware population was not derived from the steppe and spoke a non-IE language (before being influenced by Yamna).

You have misunderstood him. He does not say that at all in HWL (2007). Bear in mind that his dating of CW post-dates Yamnaya. So there is no CW before Yamnaya in his model. But he leaves room in the model for the possibility of some form of early IE filtering northwards before CW, to accommodate the idea of so many archaeologists that CW evolved from the TRB. In any case he sees CW as IE speaking. No question.

From page 367:


The Corded Ware horizon is often invoked as the archaeological manifestation of the cultures that introduced the northern Indo-European languages to Europe... spread across most of northern Europe ... after 3000 BCE, with the initial rapid spread happening mainly between 2900 and 2700 BCE. The defining traits of the Corded Ware horizon were a pastoral, mobile economy that resulted in the near disappearance of settlement sites (much like Yamnaya in the steppes), the almost universal adoption of funeral rituals involving single graves under mounds (like Yamnaya), the diffusion of stone hammer-axes probably derived from Polish TRB styles, and the spread of a drinking culture linked to particuar kinds of cord-decorated cups and beakers, many of which had local stylistic prototypes in variants of TRB ceramics.

from page 368:


some Corded Ware groups in south-eastern Poland might have evolved from Indo-European speaking late TRB societies through connections with Usatovo and late Tripolye... The Yamnaya and Corded Ware horizons bordered each other in the hills between Lvov and Ivano-Frankovsk, Ukraine ... 2800-2600 BCE ... If Corded Ware societies in this region evolved from local late TRB origins, as many believe, they might already have spoken an Indo-European language.

What the aDNA has shown is that CW people were not descended from TRB farmers. They were descended from Yamnaya. So no problem.

Michał
08-28-2017, 11:34 AM
This is the most persuasive evidence that CW came from Yamnaya
It is just the opposite. I see it as another evidence for Corded Ware coming from a steppe culture that was ancestral to Yamna. Please note that those Baltic CWC samples are 100% steppe-derived, yet they are associated with the same very characteristic (or I would say "fully matured") Corded Ware package as their Farmers-admixed counterparts from other CWC groupings. If those "pure steppe" CWC individuals represented some initial "Yamna-associated" steps of CWC development, their cultural package should resemble the Yamna package much more closely, and this is not what we see. All this clearly suggests that CWC originates from an earlier pre-CWC population that was genetically (autosomally) nearly identical to the neighboring Yamna population but it already represented a very different (although apparently related) cultural package, clearly associated with the forest or forest-steppe environment. Thus, the most logical interpretation of all those archaeological and genetic data is that CWC originates from a steppe-derived and R1a-dominated community that has relatively early adapted to the non-steppe environment and thus developed a very distinct cultural package long before any significant contacts with the European farmers (be it TRB or GAC or CT). The most likely place of origin for Corded Ware are the forest-steppe territories located just north of Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk, and the Middle Dnieper region (with the Dnieper-Donets III culture) seems to be one of the strongest candidates.

Jean M
08-28-2017, 12:14 PM
It is just the opposite. I see it as another evidence for Corded Ware coming from a steppe culture that was ancestral to Yamna.

The cultures ancestral to Yamna did not have the mobile pastoral economy and would not have had the words for wheel and wagon. Where I would agree with you is that pottery-making foragers carrying Y-DNA R1 varieties and ANE evidently spread out from their early settlement in the Samara region on the Volga to other niches in the forest-steppe. We can expect them to be speaking pre-PIE. Here's the relevant bit of my text for the new book:


...So archaeology gives us evidence of contact between the pockets of people along the European steppe that we can imagine speaking a pre-PIE language. Linguistic developments would probably be shared. So when the Yamnaya cultural horizon rolled across the European steppe from around 3300 BC, putting its mark on local cultures, this would not bring a complete change of language everywhere. Evolving between the rivers Volga and Don, mainly from the Khvalynsk culture via the Repin culture (3900–3300 ВС, sometimes labelled early Yamnaya), this was a more mobile society, living in tents and ox-drawn carts.

That mobility is apparent in CW, moving north via the forest-steppe. But we could see the influences from Yamnaya as a layer superimposed upon an already existing forest-steppe cattle-keeping culture.

MitchellSince1893
08-28-2017, 12:25 PM
But there is no evidence for those areas associated with the Budzhak variant of Yamna to be a associated with the very origin of Corded Ware. In fact, this is a region where Corded Ware appears relatively late, about a century (or even two) after it is found in other regions (including for example Kuyavia). Budzhak could have influenced the neighboring Corded Ware populations (and vice versa) but it wasn't a source of CWC (just like CWC was not a source for Budzhak).

I wasn't saying Budzhak was the origin of Corded Ware. But rather they (or Kemi Oba or Mikhailovka I) may have mixed with the southern areas of CW and been a source for eastern BB.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=279570&viewfull=1#post279570
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=266549&viewfull=1#post266549
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=267687&viewfull=1#post267687

Michał
08-28-2017, 12:46 PM
You have misunderstood him. He does not say that at all in HWL (2007). Bear in mind that his dating of CW post-dates Yamnaya. So there is no CW before Yamnaya in his model. But he leaves room in the model for the possibility of some form of early IE filtering northwards before CW, to accommodate the idea of so many archaeologists that CW evolved from the TRB. In any case he sees CW as IE speaking. No question.
Most of this misunderstanding is because Anthony seems to be totally lost when trying to merge two concepts (ie. the IE character of CWC and the PIE status of Yamna), so he presents many different concepts that together make no sense at all. For example, if CWC was indeed derived from TRB (as wrongly assumed by Anthony) and they both spoke IE, then it doesn't make sense to assume that the PIE dialect spoken in Yamna was ancestral to all known non-Anatolian IE languages (as it is obvious to all of us that TRB could not have been derived from Yamna).

In WHL, Anthony never suggests that CWC could have originated from Yamna. Instead, he sees CWC as strongly influenced by Yamna (and more specifically by Ushatovo).



What the sDNA has shown is that CW people were not descended from TRB farmers. They were descended from Yamnaya.
No, what the aDNA data show to us is that Corded Ware people descended from a Yamna-like population (not necessarily from Yamna itself), so when taking into account both the archaeology and the latest aDNA data from the Baltic region, it is definitely most likely that both CWC and Yamna are brother populations that descend from a common (Pre-Yamna) steppe ancestor.

Michał
08-28-2017, 01:05 PM
The cultures ancestral to Yamna did not have the mobile pastoral economy and would not have had the words for wheel and wagon. Where I would agree with you is that pottery-making foragers carrying Y-DNA R1 varieties and ANE evidently spread out from their early settlement in the Samara region on the Volga to other niches in the forest-steppe. We can expect them to be speaking pre-PIE. Here's the relevant bit of my text for the new book:

That mobility is apparent in CW, moving north via the forest-steppe. But we could see the influences from Yamnaya as a layer superimposed upon an already existing forest-steppe cattle-keeping culture.
Since Yamna and the hypothetical pre-CWC culture are likely to have been close neighbors with common ancestors, they could have certainly influenced each other, so it is definitely possible that many new features (associated with the mobility) that were initially developed in Late Repin (or Early Yamna) penetrated to the closely related (but already forest-steppe-associated) pre-CWC culture. Perhaps this is also why the 200 years offset is seen for the expansion of Yamna and CWC, as CWC needed more time to fully implement those new inventions.

Generalissimo
08-28-2017, 01:07 PM
I'll have a think.

As Michal points out, both Corded Ware and Yamnaya might be from a pre-Yamnaya steppe group, like, say, Repin.

But I don't think the idea that Corded Ware might be an offshoot of a Yamnaya population is far fetched, considering the genetic and even now some archeological links, like those Yamnaya pins in early Corded Ware graves.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/the-puzzle-of-early-corded-ware-grave_8.html

Jean M
08-28-2017, 01:14 PM
Most of this misunderstanding is because Anthony seems to be totally lost when trying to merge two concepts (ie. the IE character of CWC and the PIE status of Yamna), so he presents many different concepts that together make no sense at all.... as it is obvious to all of us that TRB could not have been derived from Yamna.

Bear in mind that Antony was writing in 2007 before the revolution wrought by ancient DNA. He was stuck with anti-migrationism (which he did not personally espouse) still deeply embedded in archaeology. He had to deal with it somehow in Horse, Wheel and Language. Had he pressed for migration as the obvious explanation for CW, he would have been howled down and the whole book therefore rejected by the anti-migrationist establishment, who were still preaching that CW originated in the TRB. They believed that language could spread almost by magic without people moving. Load of rubbish as we know. I don't doubt that Anthony is hugely relieved to be able to shrug off the burden of dealing with anti-migrationism. :)

Jean M
08-28-2017, 01:50 PM
As Michal points out, both Corded Ware and Yamnaya might be from a pre-Yamnaya steppe group, like, say, Repin.

But I don't think the idea that Corded Ware might be an offshoot of a Yamnaya population is far fetched, considering the genetic and even now some archeological links, like those Yamnaya pins in early Corded Ware graves.

Not to worry. All I've done to my text on this since your post is to make clearer that the CW sample from Latvia in Jones et al 2017 is virtually identical genetically to Yamnaya. That is not exactly spelled out in their text, but I take it that his 'Steppe eneolithic' = Yamnaya.

Yes the Yamnaya origin of CW seems clear enough, but Yamnaya was an 'horizon' that absorbed/influenced pre-existing cultures, so there is still a lot left to work out about the details. Kristiansen says Yamnaya moved north before the characteristic CW pottery. His explanation for how the pottery developed does not make sense to me though.

Generalissimo
08-28-2017, 02:16 PM
Not to worry. All I've done to my text on this since your post is to make clearer that the CW sample from Latvia in Jones et al 2017 is virtually identical genetically to Yamnaya. That is not exactly spelled out in their text, but I take it that his 'Steppe eneolithic' = Yamnaya.

Steppe_Eneolithic is Khvalynsk.

But that CW sample from Latvia is also in the Mathieson et al. 2017 preprint (Latvia_LN_CW I4629) and clusters in the Yamnaya cluster in their PCA. Not sure if that's pointed out in the text though. However, don't forget Mittnik et al. which also has a couple of Yamnaya clones from the East Baltic, this time Lithuania, and the authors do say this.


qpWave estimates that the Baltic LN samples, when analysed as a population, are consistent with being derived from the same source as Central European CWC samples (p=0.12; Supplementary Information Table S4) and no significant positive hits appear for the statistic D(Baltic_LN, CordedWare_Central; X, Mbuti). Analysed individually, however, this model is rejected for three LN samples: Gyvakarai1 and Plinkaigalis242, which is dated to the very beginning of the LN, are instead consistent with being derived from the same source as EMBA Steppe pastoralists (p=0.41 and p=0.19, respectively; Supplementary Information Table S4), which corresponds with their ADMIXTURE profiles that lack the early farmer component also missing in EMBA Steppe samples (orange component in Fig. 2b).

Jean M
08-28-2017, 03:15 PM
Steppe_Eneolithic is Khvalynsk.

But that CW sample from Latvia is also in the Mathieson et al. 2017 preprint (Latvia_LN_CW I4629) and clusters in the Yamnaya cluster in their PCA. Not sure if that's pointed out in the text though. However, don't forget Mittnik et al. which also has a couple of Yamnaya clones from the East Baltic, this time Lithuania, and the authors do say this.

Many thanks. I'll get right on it.

alan
08-28-2017, 08:17 PM
You don't have to wonder. R1a was dominant in the earliest Corded Ware, because Baltic Corded Ware is 100% R1a thus far, and some individuals look like they're straight from the steppe, because they're no different from Yamnaya.

But Baltic CW is not the earliest from what I have read in the past.Southern Polish is. I agree that Baltic and other CW derived R1a groups look straight from the steppe area. That is kind of my point. It doesn't look like the genetics of a group who had long directly interfaced withTRB and GAC farmers and then entered their zone . But Polish CW yDNA kind of does. Could the CW material culture have initially arisen in a group whose genetics reflected better the CW cultural evidence of mixing and borrowing between farmers and steppe groups (like the Polish CW y DNA) but rapidly overun by a more completely steppe/R1a genes carrying group on it's periphery who adopted the culture? The curious things is the autosomal DNA of beaker does reflect a position and history of mixing with TRB and GAC. So could pre-beaker P312 have been at the vanguard of interfacing and mixing with farmers and absorbing some of their genes, acting as an interface which allows ideas from the farming world to pass to the R1a group without the expected absorbing of farmer genes

rms2
08-28-2017, 09:28 PM
I wasn't saying Budzhak was the origin of Corded Ware. But rather they (or Kemi Oba or Mikhailovka I) may have mixed with the southern areas of CW and been a source for eastern BB.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=279570&viewfull=1#post279570
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=266549&viewfull=1#post266549
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=267687&viewfull=1#post267687

Exactly. That was the point. We were looking for the origin of Bell Beaker rather than the origin of CW, which is also the point of this entire thread. The idea was that Budzhak, coming from the NW Black Sea coast, from the region of the prior Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba culture, might have been the vehicle whereby P312 entered CW territory and created a new CW variant that became Bell Beaker.

It was purely speculative, and might be far fetched, but some Budzhak burials, and those of Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba before them, had a lot in common with BB and CW.

rms2
08-28-2017, 09:34 PM
I call horse poop! Let me see the pic of this "reflex" bow. The pic I saw showed no bow.

Look. I'm not an expert on archery. I merely spotted a blurb about the possibility of a reflex bow being engraved on a stone slab used in a CW burial at Göhlitzsch in a source on CW and mentioned it. If it's horse poop, fine.

On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that Amerindians who were at the Neolithic level of technology could figure out how to fire their bows from horseback, but CW and especially BB, with its emphasis on both archery and horses, could not.

rms2
08-28-2017, 09:51 PM
On pages 267-275 of The Horse The Wheel and Language, Anthony describes five cultures of the final Eneolithic on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which he dates to 3800-3300 BC:

1. Mikhailovka I

2. Post-Mariupol

3. Late Sredni Stog

4. Late Khvalynsk

5. Repin

There's a nice map of their positions on page 267.

I have mentioned this before, but Anthony talks about Mikhailovka I mixing with neighboring farmers, as follows, from page 271:



The skulls and faces of some Mikhailovka I people were delicate and narrow. The skeletal anthropologist Ina Potekhina established that another North Pontic culture, the Post-Mariupol culture, looked most like the old wide-faced Suvorovo-Novodanilovka population. The Mikhailovka I people, who lived in the westernmost steppes closest to the Tripolye culture and to the lower Danube valley, seem to have intermarried more with people from Tripolye towns or people whose ancestors had lived in Danubian tells.


If Budzhak people were descended from Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba people, they might have carried a bigger EEF component than CW people farther north and farther away from farmers.

rms2
08-28-2017, 10:17 PM
It seems to me one of the main things, maybe the main thing, that makes Corded Ware and Bell Beaker stand out from other steppe peoples, particularly Yamnaya, is the practice of a gender dimorphic burial rite. I mentioned this before, in Post #78 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=279207&viewfull=1#post279207), but the same practice occurred at Nalchik in the North Caucasus piedmont, later occupied by Maikop.

Mallory also mentions a gender dimorphic burial rite practiced by some of the Andronovo tribes, at Tulkhar and in the Tazabagyab cultural variant of Andronovo (see pages 53, 230 and 244 of In Search of the Indo-Europeans), but those are too late to be viewed as influencing either CW or BB.

alexfritz
08-28-2017, 10:18 PM
But Baltic CW is not the earliest from what I have read in the past.Southern Polish is. I agree that Baltic and other CW derived R1a groups look straight from the steppe area. That is kind of my point. It doesn't look like the genetics of a group who had long directly interfaced withTRB and GAC farmers and then entered their zone . But Polish CW yDNA kind of does. Could the CW material culture have initially arisen in a group whose genetics reflected better the CW cultural evidence of mixing and borrowing between farmers and steppe groups (like the Polish CW y DNA) but rapidly overun by a more completely steppe/R1a genes carrying group on it's periphery who adopted the culture? The curious things is the autosomal DNA of beaker does reflect a position and history of mixing with TRB and GAC. So could pre-beaker P312 have been at the vanguard of interfacing and mixing with farmers and absorbing some of their genes, acting as an interface which allows ideas from the farming world to pass to the R1a group without the expected absorbing of farmer genes

that is actually key info, and reveals that the post-cw beakers emerged from an east>west northern route and not a southern (danube) route as olalde et al (supp.info p.74) also discards the danube-farmers(baden?) as the admix-farmer source; and what exactly is the farmer-source in cw? goldberg et al revealed that the steppe migrations were heavily male based and therefor intermixing with pre-existing (farmer)females must have been necessary otherwise extinction, explaining why IEs like the mycenaeans already had low steppe-related ancestry by the middle 2ndmilbc; in mathieson et al the bell-beakers have a higher farmer admixture than the previous Central_LNBA maybe the farmer-admix in Central_LNBA was also TRB/GAC derived and later bell-beakers being a mere progression of that which would fit with the dutch-model and bb stemming from earlier cw context; a fresh steppe-migration seems unlikely judging by the k=8 admix analysis in olade et al;
goldberg graphic and mathieson admix-an
1839518394

alan
08-28-2017, 10:32 PM
We have the keep in mind the distinction between the complex genesis of the CW culture (which clearly did take some elements from farmers) in an archaeological sense and the very different impression of near total replacement by Yamnaya clone people in the genetics of some CW individuals. That is a mismatch but neither is wrong. CW really does look like a hybrid of steppe and TRB and perhaps other elements in an archaeological sense. The genes of several CW people however do not reflect that. The explanation IMO is that the genetic mixing with farmers you would expect in the create of a clearly hybrid culture may have been confined to a single frontiers interface steppe group of subset who were at the core of the cultural genesis of CW. They may have then disseminated these new ideas and culture to groups not in direct contact with the farmers. Finally the latter may have expanded at the expense of the interface group. SE Poland is thought to be the origin area of CW culture but the CW males in Poland sure do not seem to fit the R1a dominated Yamnaya clones of CW elsewhere. That suggests to me that the cultural genesis of CW was not the product of till pure Yamnaya R1a tribes but that the latter came to dominate it in the 2nd of 3rd generation. This is pure speculation but isn't it odd that the bell beaker genetics look like what you would expect from a Yamnaya group hybriding with TRB and GAC while classic CW Yamnaya clone R1a people do not

alan
08-28-2017, 10:45 PM
We have the keep in mind the distinction between the complex genesis of the CW culture (which clearly did take some elements from farmers) in an archaeological sense and the very different impression of near total replacement by Yamnaya clone people in the genetics of some CW individuals. That is a mismatch but neither is wrong. CW really does look like a hybrid of steppe and TRB and perhaps other elements in an archaeological sense. The genes of several CW people however do not reflect that. The explanation IMO is that the genetic mixing with farmers you would expect in the create of a clearly hybrid culture may have been confined to a single frontiers interface steppe group of subset who were at the core of the cultural genesis of CW. They may have then disseminated these new ideas and culture to groups not in direct contact with the farmers. Finally the latter may have expanded at the expense of the interface group. SE Poland is thought to be the origin area of CW culture but the CW males in Poland sure do not seem to fit the R1a dominated Yamnaya clones of CW elsewhere. That suggests to me that the cultural genesis of CW was not the product of till pure Yamnaya R1a tribes but that the latter came to dominate it in the 2nd of 3rd generation. This is pure speculation but isn't it odd that the bell beaker genetics look like what you would expect from a Yamnaya group hybriding with TRB and GAC while classic CW Yamnaya clone R1a people do not

If there is anything to this then phasing and subgrouping within CW may be v pertinent. I certainly think the fact that the alleged origin point of CW culture (Poland) produced non-R1a dominated results cannot just be special pleaded away. There may well have been subsets within CW in Poland who had done most of the interaction with the local farmers and there may have been subsets who did not and recieved the benefit of this 2nd hand from the folk at the frontier/interface and without much genetic mixing at all. In fact that seems a virtual certainty and fits the ancient DNA. History is full of the tribes on the periphery taking over the core

rms2
08-28-2017, 10:46 PM
Remember that what we are calling "Yamnaya" in terms of autosomal dna is chiefly the Yamnaya of the Volga-Ural steppe. That's what we have made our standard of measurement.

How "Yamnaya" would western Yamnaya be?

Yamnaya was a cultural horizon that spanned a vast territory. Mallory lists nine regional variants of Yamnaya (on page 211 of In Search of the Indo-Europeans):

1. Southwest

2. Northwest

3. Lower Dnieper

4. Crimean

5. Azov

6. North Donets

7. Don

8. Volga-Ural

9. North Caucasian

alan
08-28-2017, 10:59 PM
Remember that what we are calling "Yamnaya" in terms of autosomal dna is chiefly the Yamnaya of the Volga-Ural steppe. That's what we have made our standard of measurement.

How "Yamnaya" would western Yamnaya be?

Yamnaya was a cultural horizon that spanned a vast territory. Mallory lists nine regional variants of Yamnaya (on page 211 of In Search of the Indo-Europeans):

1. Southwest

2. Northwest

3. Lower Dnieper

4. Crimean

5. Azov

6. North Donets

7. Don

8. Volga-Ural

9. North Caucasian
Archaeology and craniology is pretty clear that the steppe people in south-west Ukraine around the Dnieper, Crimea etc had a very long period of car stronger contact 5000-3500BC with the farmers to the west than people on the Volga. Those steppe groups near the Dneper and Crimea etc might be radically different from Volga Yamnaya. From the fact that Sredny Stog skulls from the area nearest the Dnieper have a big farmer element and that this was particularly so among the males, it seems to me that the westernmost steppe tribes may even have had a large non-R1 element.

alan
08-28-2017, 11:06 PM
It seems to me one of the main things, maybe the main thing, that makes Corded Ware and Bell Beaker stand out from other steppe peoples, particularly Yamnaya, is the practice of a gender dimorphic burial rite. I mentioned this before, in Post #78 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=279207&viewfull=1#post279207), but the same practice occurred at Nalchik in the North Caucasus piedmont, later occupied by Maikop.

Mallory also mentions a gender dimorphic burial rite practiced by some of the Andronovo tribes, at Tulkhar and in the Tazabagyab cultural variant of Andronovo (see pages 53, 230 and 244 of In Search of the Indo-Europeans), but those are too late to be viewed as influencing either CW or BB.
I read about a battle axe group around Baltic Poland whose burial positions seem far more like bell beaker than classic CW.

alan
08-28-2017, 11:11 PM
Archaeology and craniology is pretty clear that the steppe people in south-west Ukraine around the Dnieper, Crimea etc had a very long period of car stronger contact 5000-3500BC with the farmers to the west than people on the Volga. Those steppe groups near the Dneper and Crimea etc might be radically different from Volga Yamnaya. From the fact that Sredny Stog skulls from the area nearest the Dnieper have a big farmer element and that this was particularly so among the males, it seems to me that the westernmost steppe tribes may even have had a large non-R1 element.

If thet is the case then some of the tribes that spilled out of the westernmost end of steppes into Old Europe may have had heavy dilution of steppe genes and may have been non-R1. I suspect suvorovo might be like that

Generalissimo
08-28-2017, 11:27 PM
But Baltic CW is not the earliest from what I have read in the past.Southern Polish is. I agree that Baltic and other CW derived R1a groups look straight from the steppe area. That is kind of my point. It doesn't look like the genetics of a group who had long directly interfaced withTRB and GAC farmers and then entered their zone . But Polish CW yDNA kind of does. Could the CW material culture have initially arisen in a group whose genetics reflected better the CW cultural evidence of mixing and borrowing between farmers and steppe groups (like the Polish CW y DNA) but rapidly overun by a more completely steppe/R1a genes carrying group on it's periphery who adopted the culture? The curious things is the autosomal DNA of beaker does reflect a position and history of mixing with TRB and GAC. So could pre-beaker P312 have been at the vanguard of interfacing and mixing with farmers and absorbing some of their genes, acting as an interface which allows ideas from the farming world to pass to the R1a group without the expected absorbing of farmer genes

I don't think Polish CWC will look any different from German and Baltic CWC once more and higher quality samples roll in.

It looks like early Corded Ware was from the steppe (because the ancestors of Baltic CWC didn't detour into Poland).

kinman
08-29-2017, 12:46 AM
Sounds like it could be U106. By any chance, was this group near the Amber Road?


I read about a battle axe group around Baltic Poland whose burial positions seem far more like bell beaker than classic CW.

George Chandler
08-29-2017, 02:58 AM
She got a lot wrong though. Proven wrong by hard ancient DNA evidence.

Agreed but like Rich said..there are a lot of things that are correct too. I don't claim to be an expert on it but from everything I've seen that's where I place my vote.

Chad Rohlfsen
08-29-2017, 04:16 AM
Look. I'm not an expert on archery. I merely spotted a blurb about the possibility of a reflex bow being engraved on a stone slab used in a CW burial at Göhlitzsch in a source on CW and mentioned it. If it's horse poop, fine.

On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that Amerindians who were at the Neolithic level of technology could figure out how to fire their bows from horseback, but CW and especially BB, with its emphasis on both archery and horses, could not.

Plains Indians switched to short bows on horseback. Completely different than Beaker bows. If you want a comparison, look to woodlands tribes that had similar longbows and flatbows shot while standing. Mounted hordes of archers in LN/EBA Europe is fantasy land.

There is plenty of evidence of a diet that included horses, but none for warfare.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-29-2017, 06:05 AM
If there is anything to this then phasing and subgrouping within CW may be v pertinent. I certainly think the fact that the alleged origin point of CW culture (Poland) produced non-R1a dominated results cannot just be special pleaded away. There may well have been subsets within CW in Poland who had done most of the interaction with the local farmers and there may have been subsets who did not and recieved the benefit of this 2nd hand from the folk at the frontier/interface and without much genetic mixing at all. In fact that seems a virtual certainty and fits the ancient DNA. History is full of the tribes on the periphery taking over the core

It's a shame all the results from polish CWC are poor quality/ old. A key region for understanding CWC deserves a better look.
About your "Genesis frontier" idea, Im inclined to agree.
But the question i keep asking is why did the "CHG" component admix so rapidly and diffusely in Yamnaya-CWC-B.B., but MNE only patchily (outside B.B.).?

Ryukendo
08-29-2017, 06:32 AM
We have the keep in mind the distinction between the complex genesis of the CW culture (which clearly did take some elements from farmers) in an archaeological sense and the very different impression of near total replacement by Yamnaya clone people in the genetics of some CW individuals. That is a mismatch but neither is wrong. CW really does look like a hybrid of steppe and TRB and perhaps other elements in an archaeological sense. The genes of several CW people however do not reflect that. The explanation IMO is that the genetic mixing with farmers you would expect in the create of a clearly hybrid culture may have been confined to a single frontiers interface steppe group of subset who were at the core of the cultural genesis of CW. They may have then disseminated these new ideas and culture to groups not in direct contact with the farmers. Finally the latter may have expanded at the expense of the interface group. SE Poland is thought to be the origin area of CW culture but the CW males in Poland sure do not seem to fit the R1a dominated Yamnaya clones of CW elsewhere. That suggests to me that the cultural genesis of CW was not the product of till pure Yamnaya R1a tribes but that the latter came to dominate it in the 2nd of 3rd generation. This is pure speculation but isn't it odd that the bell beaker genetics look like what you would expect from a Yamnaya group hybriding with TRB and GAC while classic CW Yamnaya clone R1a people do not

This seems extremely important to me.

Also, after the samples from the Balkans, we should not be so fixed about this idea that the outcome of farmer-herder interaction was the same everywhere, even demographically the situation was extremely contrasting.

There is an extreme level of "chromosomal flatness" in the samples we have now, which is visible in Kivisild et al's 2017 paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5418327/figure/Fig7/) which fit aDNA Y chromosomes on trees, and actually included some of the Mathieson and Olalde et al Y chromosome sequences (before they were even published! He had access to them) i.e. many, many males from BB and CW have Y chromosomes that coalesce extremely quickly prior to their deaths, within a couple centuries only, which geneaologically speaking has interesting implications about our social understanding of the time. I.e. large numbers of males from the horizon descended from a few kinship groups at most several tens of generations before sample deposition. This doesn't mean that there was some "urvolk" that was implicated since the beginning of a culture's expansion however. My bet is that as sampling gets denser we would see that this "flattening" is a result of social processes that occurred during the expansion itself and just after that, and not necessarily indicative of the situation at the cultural source.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-29-2017, 06:51 AM
Don't go ruining the urvolk fantasy, now :)
But there's 2 very simple Explanations for what we seeing

alan
08-29-2017, 10:05 AM
It's a shame all the results from polish CWC are poor quality/ old. A key region for understanding CWC deserves a better look.
About your "Genesis frontier" idea, Im inclined to agree.
But the question i keep asking is why did the "CHG" component admix so rapidly and diffusely in Yamnaya-CWC-B.B., but MNE only patchily (outside B.B.).?
Probably geography and/or something to do with their high interest in trade P312 started to expand 500 years before bell beaker was adopted in Central Europe so it must have a pre-beaker identity somewhere in the steppe-TRB-GAC contact zone which at least narrows down the options

alan
08-29-2017, 10:19 AM
I don't think Polish CWC will look any different from German and Baltic CWC once more and higher quality samples roll in.

It looks like early Corded Ware was from the steppe (because the ancestors of Baltic CWC didn't detour into Poland).

Even if it's just a single frontier group within the CW cultural genesis core, I think some subset had to have done a lot more friendly interacting with the TRB people to explain the obvious cultural and subsistence economy aspects in CW that were not brought from the steppes. Like I said there is a disconnect between the impression of the genesis of CW in archaeological and genetic terms. That is a genuine disconnect. So a limited vanguard/frontiers steppe group doing the mixing while the main body to their rear not mixing is a model that makes sense.

Michał
08-29-2017, 11:15 AM
But Baltic CW is not the earliest from what I have read in the past.Southern Polish is.
This is simply not true. Can you show us any publication (with radiocarbon dates) that would demonstrate such relatively early dates for CWC in Southern Poland? Are you aware of papers by Włodarczak and Wencel indicating that CWC was definitely not younger (and perhaps significantly older, if trusting the dates provided by Wencel) in Northern Poland and in the Baltic region?

Michał
08-29-2017, 11:28 AM
But the question i keep asking is why did the "CHG" component admix so rapidly and diffusely in Yamnaya-CWC-B.B., but MNE only patchily (outside B.B.).?
The most likely explanation is that there was much more time for CHG to become thoroughly mixed with EHG on the steppe, as it probably started as early as 4500 BC (and maybe a bit earlier), so there was at least 1500 years for stabilizing the CHG level on the steppe (and in the forest-steppe territory north of it), while the MNE admixture process was initially limited to the the Western or North-Western periphery of the European steppe and was intensified only after the westward expansion started about 3000 BC, so there was not much time to make all those westward (and northward!) migrants showing a similar level of EEF.

alan
08-29-2017, 11:48 AM
The most likely explanation is that there was much more time for CHG to become thoroughly mixed with EHG on the steppe, as it probably started as early as 4500 BC (and maybe a bit earlier), so there was at least 1500 years for stabilizing the CHG level on the steppe (and in the forest-steppe territory north of it), while the MNE admixture process was initially limited to the the Western or North-Western periphery of the European steppe and was intensified only after the westward expansion started about 3000 BC, so there was not much time to make all those westward (and northward!) migrants showing a similar level of EEF.
But there were farmer and steppe groups bordering each orher at the Dnieper for an equally long period and multiple evidence of contact and mixing too - crania, subsistence and others. I have little doubt that if they sample the right place and time they will find some steppe groups had a lot of EEF genes absorbed including yDNA. I am thinking especially of the pre-3300BC cultures on the east bank of the Dnieper and Crimea as well as the earlier Stedny Stog subset near the Dnieper - all those show a significant farmer influence in the crania as well as the evidence of cultural and trade contacts with farmers to the west and south-west. I would be amazed in Mikhaelovka I, Kemi Oba and perhaps Usatovo etc didn't have far higher EEF than Volga Yamnaya. I think the genetic picture on the steppes c 4500-3000BC is going to be complex over time and geography. There are still far too many time/space units totally unsampled.

rms2
08-29-2017, 12:13 PM
I read about a battle axe group around Baltic Poland whose burial positions seem far more like bell beaker than classic CW.

Which side an individual was buried on varied both within CW and within BB. But always within a given locality men were buried on one side and women on the opposite side.

rms2
08-29-2017, 12:19 PM
. . . Mounted hordes of archers in LN/EBA Europe is fantasy land . . .

Who said anything about "[m]ounted hordes of archers in LN/EBA Europe"?

We disagree. I think it likely that BB figured out how to fire their bows from horseback, and fighting from horseback is as simple as hitting someone over the head with a blunt instrument or stabbing them with a spear while mounted.

My archery experience is limited, but I did ride horses when I was younger. It's easy enough while mounted to whack people who are on foot with a stick or similar object.

Michał
08-29-2017, 12:37 PM
But there were farmer and steppe groups bordering each orher at the Dnieper for an equally long period and multiple evidence of contact and mixing too - crania, subsistence and others. I have little doubt that if they sample the right place and time they will find some steppe groups had a lot of EEF genes absorbed including yDNA. I am thinking especially of the pre-3300BC cultures on the east bank of the Dnieper and Crimea as well as the earlier Stedny Stog subset near the Dnieper - all those show a significant farmer influence in the crania as well as the evidence of cultural and trade contacts with farmers to the west and south-west. I would be amazed in Mikhaelovka I, Kemi Oba and perhaps Usatovo etc didn't have far higher EEF than Volga Yamnaya. I think the genetic picture on the steppes c 4500-3000BC is going to be complex over time and geography. There are still far too many time/space units totally unsampled.
Well, those EEF-deficient Baltic CWC samples from Latvia and Lithuania show that either the level of interbreeding with the farmers from Western Ukraine was very low (and limited to some peripheral pre-CWC groupings) or the CWC homeland was located mostly east of the Dnieper river.

What about those putative radiocarbon dates showing that Corded Ware was the earliest in Southern Poland?

alan
08-29-2017, 01:41 PM
Well, those EEF-deficient Baltic CWC samples from Latvia and Lithuania show that either the level of interbreeding with the farmers from Western Ukraine was very low (and limited to some peripheral pre-CWC groupings) or the CWC homeland was located mostly east of the Dnieper river.

What about those putative radiocarbon dates showing that Corded Ware was the earliest in Southern Poland?

I think in genetic sense the dominant CW signature looks unlikely to have arisen at the interface with farmers in Poland. However in a cultural sense that is exactly what CW looks like. The circle can be squared if we see CW as having a small unique frontiers group who did mix both culturally and genetically somewhere like SE Poland but to their rear (east) was the main body of those Yamnaya clone R1a people. The latter would receive the cultural
Influences but not genes because the former formed an intermediary and buffer. I am just thinking out loud and need to work on and develop this hupothesis when I get time.
What is not detabatble is that a CW is not culturally a simple Yamnaya clone even if many of its tested members are genetically just that. So there are missing pieces to the CW story and the weirdly eclectic yDNA in Poland may be part of it. Perhaps culturally CW evolved in Poland but the big genetic spread was from the Middle Dnieper group?

Generalissimo
08-29-2017, 01:51 PM
The weirdly eclectic yDNA in Poland may be part of it.

There's one reliable result and it's R1a. The rest may or may not be correct.

rms2
08-29-2017, 04:45 PM
Relative to the topic of this thread, it would be interesting if everyone talked about how he or she thinks Bell Beaker originated.

Bell Beaker and Corded Ware have a lot in common, but thus far Bell Beaker has been overwhelmingly R1b-L23, and Corded Ware has been mostly R1a. Why is that?

alexfritz
08-29-2017, 05:28 PM
Well, those EEF-deficient Baltic CWC samples from Latvia and Lithuania show that either the level of interbreeding with the farmers from Western Ukraine was very low (and limited to some peripheral pre-CWC groupings) or the CWC homeland was located mostly east of the Dnieper river.

What about those putative radiocarbon dates showing that Corded Ware was the earliest in Southern Poland?

as far as i know the earliest dates for poland are from Zielona3 and Wereszczyca and date to 3090-2920bc whereas the mittelelbe-saale (MES) date in prominence much later (~2600bc>onwards) contemporary to time range of cw-estonia R1a(Z645); what is the R1a sample dated to in poland?
Furholt 2003
18409


Bell Beaker and Corded Ware have a lot in common, but thus far Bell Beaker has been overwhelming R1b-L23, and Corded Ware has been mostly R1a. Why is that?

my best guess is that it was a clan based migration/expansion more coincidence than intentional the occupation by certain lineages of certain land districts; the answer is def in the testing yet testers seem busy with aDNA from egypt and east-africa at the moment thus having to wait a bit longer til the western corders from the rhine-maas and lower rhineland area get tested; they ought to be L23>L51* to prove the dutch-model correct; the area i am from (taubertal) is corded-ware zone and grave fields are quite extensive but nothing has been tested yet only some skulls got send to Audi for 3D scans, though i suppose the corders here being akin to R1a Bergrheinfeld (lower-franconia) and not that western as the lower rhineland might be;

Ryukendo
08-29-2017, 08:09 PM
Don't go ruining the urvolk fantasy, now :)
But there's 2 very simple Explanations for what we seeing

Please don't be so coy now, explain.

Michał
08-29-2017, 08:36 PM
as far as i know the earliest dates for poland are from Zielona3 and Wereszczyca and date to 3090-2920bc whereas the mittelelbe-saale (MES) date in prominence much later (~2600bc>onwards) contemporary to time range of cw-estonia R1a(Z645); what is the R1a sample dated to in poland?
Furholt 2003

Those early dates for Zielona grave 3 (among others) have been questioned by Włodarczak as unreliable (2009):
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/3530/3045

Also, see the most recent work by Wencel who has tried to summarize most of the available data:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12047/abstract
The paper is behind a paywall, but Richard Rocca has previously posted the results for Corded Ware:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2573-New-DNA-Papers-General-Discussion-Thread&p=227651&viewfull=1#post227651

PS. You have wrongly quoted a post by rms2 as mine.

Michał
08-29-2017, 08:49 PM
Bell Beaker and Corded Ware have a lot in common, but thus far Bell Beaker has been overwhelmingly R1b-L23, and Corded Ware has been mostly R1a. Why is that?
There are two possibilities. Either R1b-L51 was not associated with Corded Ware (so some obvious similarities between BB and CW are due to either exclusively cultural or genetic but non-Y-DNA-related contacts) or R1b-L51 was associated with a relatively small subset of CWC samples for which the Y-DNA haplogroups have not been investigated so far. In this context, I should point to the most recent post by Richard Rocca (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11815-Corded-Ware-Material-at-Sion-Implications-for-R1b&p=280302#post280302), while reminding all of you that the Swiss group of CWC left no graves (so it will be very difficult to verify its potential association with R1b-L51).

alexfritz
08-29-2017, 09:24 PM
Those early dates for Zielona grave 3 (among others) have been questioned by Włodarczak as unreliable (2009):
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/3530/3045

Also, see the most recent work by Wencel who has tried to summarize most of the available data:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12047/abstract
The paper is behind a paywall, but Richard Rocca has previously posted the results for Corded Ware:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2573-New-DNA-Papers-General-Discussion-Thread&p=227651&viewfull=1#post227651

that is def the case, a disagreement between furholt and wlodarczak though here i view the furholt dates as alright since he cautions the C14 method (p.5) and explains why 'kurzlebig' (shortlived?) material is more precise than carbon; and the dates are derived from shortlived material (probenmaterial I) for Zielona3 (p.6) what method did wlodarczak use to obtain his dates?
http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/2003_furholt.pdf


PS. You have wrongly quoted a post by rms2 as mine.
that happens, wont be the last time;

Chad Rohlfsen
08-29-2017, 09:29 PM
Who said anything about "[m]ounted hordes of archers in LN/EBA Europe"?

We disagree. I think it likely that BB figured out how to fire their bows from horseback, and fighting from horseback is as simple as hitting someone over the head with a blunt instrument or stabbing them with a spear while mounted.

My archery experience is limited, but I did ride horses when I was younger. It's easy enough while mounted to whack people who are on foot with a stick or similar object.

You're entitled to believe as you wish, but it's not based on evidence.

I had horses as well. However, shooting a bow, vs using a spear or club on horseback is a completely different ballgame. It takes years to become efficient just from your feet. Also, remember they had no saddle or stirrups, so they're bouncing up and down with the horse and trying to shoot. There's a reason horse archery didn't become effective until after the stirrup.

Shooting a bow or even a rifle on horseback without stirrups is highly ineffective. Look at what happened to Natives on the battlefield 9+ times out of 10. You're better off hiding in trees and bushes for an ambush, guerilla style.

alan
08-29-2017, 10:51 PM
There are two possibilities. Either R1b-L51 was not associated with Corded Ware (so some obvious similarities between BB and CW are due to either exclusively cultural or genetic but non-Y-DNA-related contacts) or R1b-L51 was associated with a relatively small subset of CWC samples for which the Y-DNA haplogroups have not been investigated so far. In this context, I should point to the most recent post by Richard Rocca (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11815-Corded-Ware-Material-at-Sion-Implications-for-R1b&p=280302#post280302), while reminding all of you that the Swiss group of CWC left no graves (so it will be very difficult to verify its potential association with R1b-L51).

Also a hell of a lot of the single grave burials in Holland fall on the very worst types of acidic soil for bone preservation so that has enormously reduced the number of burials where DNA retrieval is likely there. There is probably a hell of a lot we dont and may never know.

alan
08-29-2017, 11:19 PM
There are two possibilities. Either R1b-L51 was not associated with Corded Ware (so some obvious similarities between BB and CW are due to either exclusively cultural or genetic but non-Y-DNA-related contacts) or R1b-L51 was associated with a relatively small subset of CWC samples for which the Y-DNA haplogroups have not been investigated so far. In this context, I should point to the most recent post by Richard Rocca (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11815-Corded-Ware-Material-at-Sion-Implications-for-R1b&p=280302#post280302), while reminding all of you that the Swiss group of CWC left no graves (so it will be very difficult to verify its potential association with R1b-L51).

The post by RR is good and kind of agrees with the gist of what I am trying to say (perhaps clumsily on my part) is CW period in Poland etc is bloody complicated with all sorts of variants and hybrids. CW genetics in many cases sampled so far does not reflect that and seems rather simple and very Yamnaya like. Although some doubt exists about the non-R1a Polish CW samples, in some ways a complex genetic mix would quite well reflect the archaeology of CW Poland better than a clear sweep of R1a yamnaya clones.

The fact that there were important R1a dominated and/or Yamnaya clone CW groups does require explaining. I have long had doubts about the most commonly quoted origin point of the genesis of CW (in a cultural sense) in south-east? (not sure of the correct terminology) Poland. Ever since the R1a pure Yamnaya austosomal DNA CW samples in the Baltic etc I have wondered if the origin was a little further east.

Alternatively my off the cuff hypothesis that the cultural genesis of CW and the main group who then spread it might not be from exactly the same location. The latter might have been on the eastern periphery of the cultural genesis of CW but ultimately have been the main spreaders of it. For a parallel think about the beaker situation. The beaker pot in a strict sense might have originated in Iberia among non-steppe peoples but the ultimate spreader and main genetic beneficiary were P312 lines with a significant amount of steppe genes.

I vaguely recall heated academic debate about different waves and phases within CW - as to whether they existed or not but I cannot recall the paper. I think someone suggested an early widespread phase or wave then further ones but its years ago I read it.

alan
08-29-2017, 11:22 PM
Looks like the winner is the Dutch-Reflux-Gimbutas-Manco model which oddly I think might be right :0) I think all could be partly right.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-30-2017, 12:42 AM
The Dutch model has one major problem- a complete settlement shift between CWC / AOC and BB period, in the lower Rhine (ie abandonment of CWC phase settlements and appearance of new BB ones), as well as decline of the GP flint trade and appearance of a new, Copper one).

David Mc
08-30-2017, 01:33 AM
Look at what happened to Natives on the battlefield 9+ times out of 10. You're better off hiding in trees and bushes for an ambush, guerilla style.

If you're facing carbine rifles and Gatling guns, (or even a regiment with flintlock rifles), absolutely. If you're facing men on foot, carrying stone axes and spears, not so much. The natives you refer to adopted the horse and perfected mounted archery in fairly short order. They knew how to shoot on foot; shooting from horseback was an almost inevitable next step, as seems to be the case with most equestrian cultures. Do stirrups give an advantage? Clearly. But if you search for an older thread on this self-same subject, you'll see find examples of cultures that did admirably without that advantage. The stirrup argument seems to me to be without real merit, particularly in the context of ancient warfare.

Chad Rohlfsen
08-30-2017, 02:02 AM
Without merit? Come on now. No one relied on horse archery before the stirrup. They were a minority of the soldiers for Scythians and other Iranians and appear on Assyrian images and are basically the earliest depicted as using this.

Secondly, a mounted archer is easily defeated by a foot archer as they are able to make themselves a smaller target and can use cover. Horse archers can't win anything without huge open ground and facing some peasant/ weekend warriors. Horses and their archers make for large targets. Shoot the horse and finish off the bowman on the ground.

Third, Beakers never adopted a short bow that is needed for horse archery. Go try and shoot a 70 inch bow off a horse and let me know how it goes.

Lastly, why would horse archers only face people with stone axes and spears? Archery was everywhere. MN Europeans weren't primitive Neandertals. Everyone had bows. I'd rather get into a shooting match with a guy on a horse than one on foot.

Edit: Anyway, there is really no evidence of mounted archery before the Iron Age. It also wasn't ever really employed by Northern Europeans as the terrain was too wooded and put one at a disadvantage.

Michał
08-30-2017, 09:31 AM
that is def the case, a disagreement between furholt and wlodarczak though here i view the furholt dates as alright since he cautions the C14 method (p.5) and explains why 'kurzlebig' (shortlived?) material is more precise than carbon; and the dates are derived from shortlived material (probenmaterial I) for Zielona3 (p.6)
In this case, both Furholt and Włodarczak referred to the radiocarbon dates that had been previously produced by other investigators, and Furholt did not analyze any new material to verify those old data. Also, I have never seen Furholt questioning the more recent Włodarczak's study, so I wouldn't say that he disagrees with him.

Also, please note that Furholt (2003) dated the earliest sites in Kuyavia and South Poland to about the same period (which has been already discussed in another thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2573-New-DNA-Papers-General-Discussion-Thread&p=227640&viewfull=1#post227640), so his paper does not provide any data favoring the South Polish origin of CWC.



what method did wlodarczak use to obtain his dates?

Please see the link to the actual paper (in my previous post) for more details.

Michał
08-30-2017, 09:40 AM
what I am trying to say (perhaps clumsily on my part) is CW period in Poland etc is bloody complicated with all sorts of variants and hybrids.
You might be right about it, but this is another reason to doubt that Poland (and more specifically South Poland) was a place from which Corded Ware has initially expanded in different directions (including east and north-east), as there is no way that any strongly admixed population would produce multiple waves of non-admixed migrants (like those who have been found in Latvia and Lithuania).

Jean M
08-30-2017, 10:05 AM
.. this is another reason to doubt that Poland (and more specifically South Poland) was a place from which Corded Ware has initially expanded in different directions (including east and north-east), as there is no way that any strongly admixed population would produce multiple waves of non-admixed migrants (like those who have been found in Latvia and Lithuania).

I suspect (but have not sufficiently researched) that CW pottery spread along the forest-steppe zone and was taken up by related populations in riverine niches, some of whom then moved up river. The degree of admixture with farming populations in CW groups would in that case reflect:

The degree of admixture in each home riverine zone - highest to the west.
The potential for admixture in the target zone - highest where following on from agricultural populations, non-existent in the Eastern Baltic.


Some CW people could have reached the Baltic up the Volga. Others might have reached there by travelling east along the North European Plain from a more western source and so would resemble the CW in Germany. Isn't that the picture we see?

Michał
08-30-2017, 11:49 AM
I suspect (but have not sufficiently researched) that CW pottery spread along the forest-steppe zone and was taken up by related populations in riverine niches, some of whom then moved up river. The degree of admixture with farming populations in CW groups would in that case reflect:

The degree of admixture in each home riverine zone - highest to the west.
The potential for admixture in the target zone - highest where following on from agricultural populations, non-existent in the Eastern Baltic.


Some CW people could have reached the Baltic up the Volga. Others might have reached there by travelling east along the North European Plain from a more western source and so would resemble the CW in Germany. Isn't that the picture we see?
If your scenario assumes that it was mostly the CW pottery (but not people) that migrated east (from South Poland?) along the forest-steppe zone, so this would explain why the subsequent northward migration towards Baltic (up the rivers) did not include as much EEF as one should expect, there seem to be two things that make this hypothesis relatively unlikely. Firstly, as already noted by Generalissimo, CWC in both the East Baltic region and Germany is dominated by R1a, which suggests a common genetic origin (or a common R1a-rich source population of steppe origin) rather than multiple steppe-derived populations from different locations along the forest-steppe zone. One may of course assume that the entire pre-CW forest-steppe zone stretching from the Upper Dniester to Volga was occupied by the same steppe-derived population that was distinct from the R1b-rich population occupying the steppe zone, but this is not supported by archaeology (ie. no cultural transmission nor migration along the entire forest-steppe zone in the pre-Yamna or Early Yamna period is seen). Secondly, this scenario is not consistent with the radiocarbon dates we have for the relevant regions, ie. CWC doesn't seem to have been born neither in SE Poland nor in NW Ukraine.

Jean M
08-30-2017, 01:22 PM
Firstly, as already noted by Generalissimo, CWC in both the East Baltic region and Germany is dominated by R1a, which suggests a common genetic origin (or a common R1a-rich source population of steppe origin).

I'm assuming that R1a arrived in several riverine niches with the early pottery.

18414

Extracts from draft text:


A man of the Dnieper-Donets II culture, buried at Vovnihi, Ukraine, had the Y-DNA haplogroup R1a (L146).... By around 4700-4600 BC, stock-breeding had spread as far east as the Volga, creating the Khvalynsk culture, which is particularly interesting for its copper-working, hints of horse domestication and social structure. Copper-working began in the Near East, but around 5000 BC smelting and cast-copper objects appeared in the Balkans. The oldest copper objects in the Volga-Ural steppes had been traded from what is now Bulgaria all the way to Khvalynsk, on the west bank of the Volga River, in what is now Russia. ...

The men of Copper Age Khvalynsk were overall genetically similar to the early pottery-maker on the Volga with his ANE input, but also carried the CHG component, perhaps from the nearby Caucasus... One young man aged 20-30 was buried with 293 copper artefacts (mostly beads), which suggests a high status in his small community. He carried Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1 (M415). Another man aged 30-35, buried with a copper ring and a copper bead, carried R1a1 (M459). Here is proof that both of the branches of R1 were present in the culture.

alan
08-30-2017, 03:02 PM
The Dutch model has one major problem- a complete settlement shift between CWC / AOC and BB period, in the lower Rhine (ie abandonment of CWC phase settlements and appearance of new BB ones), as well as decline of the GP flint trade and appearance of a new, Copper one).

According to some recent papers there was a truly exceptional period of aridity around 2500BC so the cause of settlement change could be environmental

alan
08-30-2017, 03:28 PM
You might be right about it, but this is another reason to doubt that Poland (and more specifically South Poland) was a place from which Corded Ware has initially expanded in different directions (including east and north-east), as there is no way that any strongly admixed population would produce multiple waves of non-admixed migrants (like those who have been found in Latvia and Lithuania).

Yes I totally agree that in a genetic sense the R1a Yamnaya clone pop is a bad mismatch for the archaeology of Poland and aspects of CW in a material culture sense. I think it's more likely the key R1a Yamnaya clone genes carrying CW group were from further east in a location more remote from a significant farming population. As for radiocarbon dating I think given multiple pitfalls in the method it is never safe to make a call based on origin if there is only a century in it. best to just say the jury is out and radiocarbon is incapable of resolving it Bottom line is the sample is ludicrously small to give a full understanding of a culture that lasted several centuries and stretched from Switzerland to Ukraine and beyond. It makes take a hundred or so CW sample to fully understand it. There seems no doubt that the R1a Yamnaya like group was a big deal in CW in Germany and the Baltic and derivatives further east but there could be one other CW groups who were different and it might take a far bigger sample to find them.

alexfritz
08-30-2017, 03:39 PM
In this case, both Furholt and Włodarczak referred to the radiocarbon dates that had been previously produced by other investigators, and Furholt did not analyze any new material to verify those old data. Also, I have never seen Furholt questioning the more recent Włodarczak's study, so I wouldn't say that he disagrees with him.

Also, please note that Furholt (2003) dated the earliest sites in Kuyavia and South Poland to about the same period (which has been already discussed in another thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2573-New-DNA-Papers-General-Discussion-Thread&p=227640&viewfull=1#post227640), so his paper does not provide any data favoring the South Polish origin of CWC.

Please see the link to the actual paper (in my previous post) for more details.

the way i understand furholt is that he manifests two dates for cw 'becoming' a uniformed-horizon, that is ~2900bc with the burial-rite and that is ~2700bc with a common ceramic tradition within the burial rite, and an important observation from furholt is that this is accompanied by globular-amphorae; with other words the burial-rite itself illustrates a common people emerging ~2900bc but with diff regional traditions and that poland was an(the) important center out of which a uniformed material tradition emerged from (obviously in contact with GAC framers) that in turn created a uniformed cultural horizon from 2700bc onwards; maybe im wrong, but i view furholts methods and chronology as conclusive and as you pointed out there truly is not much disagreement with the others;

rms2
08-30-2017, 04:31 PM
You're entitled to believe as you wish, but it's not based on evidence.

Actually, I have not seen you cite any evidence. You've made assertions or otherwise expressed opinions.

Do we actually have any Bell Beaker bows? If we do, I've never heard about it and would enjoy reading about it.

I recently read that archaeologist Stuart Piggott believed BB made composite bows. I can't say I've read what he wrote on that subject yet. I have not had time to find it, since I am a teacher and just started back to work after the summer break.

I still find it hard to believe that Amerindians at the Neolithic level of technology discovered how to fire bows from horseback but CW and BB did not. Claiming they did not is as big an assertion as claiming they did, since we don't really know.



I had horses as well. However, shooting a bow, vs using a spear or club on horseback is a completely different ballgame. It takes years to become efficient just from your feet. Also, remember they had no saddle or stirrups, so they're bouncing up and down with the horse and trying to shoot. There's a reason horse archery didn't become effective until after the stirrup.

Shooting a bow or even a rifle on horseback without stirrups is highly ineffective. Look at what happened to Natives on the battlefield 9+ times out of 10. You're better off hiding in trees and bushes for an ambush, guerilla style.

I realize that firing a missile weapon from a moving platform is difficult, often ineffective, and requires extensive practice, but you mentioned that there was little or no evidence for people as early as CW and BB (I'm paraphrasing) even fighting from horseback at all. I merely pointed out that fighting from horseback is as simple as whacking someone with a stick while mounted. It doesn't require a lot of sophistication.

I know stirrups were a later development, and I was not talking about organized cavalry tactics, etc. Since both of us have horse riding experience, I'm sure you have ridden bareback, just as I have. It's possible to become quite good at it. I'm pretty sure both CW and BB men were accomplished riders. After all, one of the BB skeletons from Germany (RISE563, if I recall correctly) had osteological evidence of extensive horseback riding. One has to spend a lot of time astride a horse for it to show up in his bones.

Jean M
08-30-2017, 05:41 PM
Do we actually have any Bell Beaker bows?

The wood of bows and arrows would normally disintegrate in the soil, but there are images of bows on stelae. Extract from Harrison and Heyd 2007:


a) Bow and Arrow (Fig. 23)
The image of a bow is always combined with at least one arrow. In Sion, this combination occurs on four stelae, all of Type B; 1a, 18, 20A and 25. Only on stela 1 are three arrows shown, while the others have one arrow. Archery equipment occupies the central place in the composition of each stela on which it was included, always strikingly visible in the centre of the chest, with the bow angled sharply from the top right to bottom left side. The single arrow is placed exactly, with the tip uppermost, facing the right shoulder, and the notched end at the bottom. The arrow is placed inside the bow. In real life, bows and arrows are not carried like this.

This example from Sion is particularly clear:
18415

Reconstruction:

18416

rms2
08-30-2017, 05:59 PM
The wood of bows and arrows would normally disintegrate in the soil, but there are images of bows on stelae. Extract from Harrison and Heyd 2007:



This example from Sion is particularly clear:
18415

Reconstruction:

18416

I'm on the train at the moment, typing on my phone, so you will have to excuse me, but I seem to recall some pretty short looking bows on BB stelae from Sion. In fact, the image of the bow you posted isn't much longer than the arrow depicted with it.

You all are going to have a hard time convincing me that a people so devoted to both archery and horses as to have apparently incorporated them into its religious cult would not have found a way to combine the two.

rms2
08-30-2017, 08:15 PM
The wood of bows and arrows would normally disintegrate in the soil, but there are images of bows on stelae. Extract from Harrison and Heyd 2007:



This example from Sion is particularly clear:
18415

Reconstruction:

18416

I'm home now.

Here's an example from Sion that is even clearer in the context of the stela on which it was carved:

18417

I realize stela are symbolic renderings, but if one is going to use them to make the case that BB bows were too long to be fired from horseback, he or she ought to make sure the bows depicted on them actually look too long to be fired from horseback.

rms2
08-30-2017, 08:17 PM
Delete please: duplicate.

rms2
08-30-2017, 08:23 PM
I realize these archers have saddles and stirrups, and their bows are definitely well made composite bows, but take a gander at the length of them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K-vzMFSDQ

Gravetto-Danubian
08-30-2017, 08:26 PM
According to some recent papers there was a truly exceptional period of aridity around 2500BC so the cause of settlement change could be environmental

Yes on the steppe, but this was more tempered and later in Western Europe.
Some of the clearest data comes from SW Germany:

2800 BC- end of LN groups (eg Cortalloid, Pfyn)
2680: start of CWC
2450: end CWC
2400: start BB, different economy and land use, which continues into EBA.

rms2
08-30-2017, 08:44 PM
Yes on the steppe, but this was more tempered and later in Western Europe.
Some of the clearest data comes from SW Germany:

2800 BC- end of LN groups (eg Cortalloid, Pfyn)
2680: start of CWC
2450: end CWC
2400: start BB, different economy and land use, which continues into EBA.

What were those differences? Weren't CW and BB both chiefly pastoral peoples, with settlements that are difficult to find?

If you can, please cite some sources. Thanks.

Jean M
08-30-2017, 09:37 PM
What were those differences? Weren't CW and BB both chiefly pastoral peoples, with settlements that are difficult to find?

If you can, please cite some sources. Thanks.

Here's a paper that I cited in Blood of the Celts: (And it is available from academia.edu)

Lechterbeck et al. 2014. How was Bell Beaker economy related to Corded Ware and Early Bronze Age lifestyles? Archaeological, botanical and palynological evidence from the Hegau, Western Lake Constance region, Environmental Archaeology, 19 (2), 95-113. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/1749631413Y.0000000010?journalCode=yenv20
http://www.academia.edu/8915369/How_was_Bell_Beaker_economy_related_to_Corded_Ware _and_Early_Bronze_Age_lifestyles_Archaeological_bo tanical_and_palynological_evidence_from_the_Hegau_ Western_Lake_Constance_region


The Europe wide spread of what has been called the Bell Beaker phenomenon remains an enigma of European prehistory. While most of the recent research stresses the ideological aspects of using Bell Beaker material culture, here we take a regional and economical perspective. We look for the chronological relationships and the economic choices of the Bell Beaker phase and of its closest neighbours in time and space: the Late Neolithic Corded Ware and the Early Bronze Age. We focus on the regional archaeological settlement history and present the hitherto richest European Bell Beaker associated collection of palaeobotanical macro-remains, together with our high-resolution palynological work on annually laminated lake sediments. These different lines of evidence are tied together by an absolute chronology derived from new radiocarbon accelerated mass spectrometry (AMS) dates (now more than 200) and from the dendrodates from the World Heritage wet preserved pile dwellings. We show the preceding Late Neolithic, the actual Bell Beaker, and the following Early Bronze age economies each relying on different agricultural strategies that focus on distinct parts of the landscape. There is no link obvious between Late Neolithic [Corded Ware] and Bell Beaker, but there is between Bell Beaker and Early Bronze Age. Related to different modes of production, differences in ideology become visible in food preferences as well as in other parts of the material culture. We conclude that the Bell Beaker economy represents a reorientation of the mode of production focusing on single, rather small farmsteads which often do not leave a distinct signal in the archaeological record.


According to our pattern of reasoning (Fig. 1) discontinuity between the settlement phases connected to CW and BB material cultures, as well as continuity between BB culture and EBA, becomes visible. It can be seen foremost in the use of different parts of landscapes for plant and animal production, as indicated in the pollen record and in the macroremains.

Michał
08-30-2017, 10:32 PM
I'm assuming that R1a arrived in several riverine niches with the early pottery.

But those were some early diverged subclades of R1a that had probably nothing to do with the much more recent expansion of the Corded Ware culture. Based on both the aDNA data and the modern distribution of different R1a subclades in Europe, it seems that the Corded Ware population in both Germany and Baltic states was dominated by the relatively young clades under M417 (including mostly Z645), which again points to a single common ancestral population for most (if not all) Corded Ware groupings.

Chad Rohlfsen
08-30-2017, 10:33 PM
This is my last post on the subject.

A.) That representation on the stelae doesn't match sizes of actual recovered bows. There are no stelae showing horse archery. I don't think there is even a stelae from this period that shows horseback riding. You can't even prove that Bell Beakers rode horses regularly, rather than just eating them.

B.) That Japanese archer is using a Yumi bow. These are highly asymmetrical, with the upper limb being twice as long as the lower limb. Again, yes, they are on a high saddle and stirrups, allowing them to stand and shoot, and the length of the lower limb making a full-draw easier. Bell Beakers didn't use Yumi bows, saddles, or stirrups. This is irrelevant.

C.) There is evidence and sources all over the place. One need only know how to use Google Scholar.

You can search for the following:

Lanting et al (1999) Bows from the Netherlands

Clark (1963) Neolithic Bows from Somerset, England and the Prehistory of Archery in North-western Europe

Bergman (1993) The development of the bow in Western Europe


There is a lot available. The general consensus is that Beakers used longbows that had either a flat or D-shaped profile and were about as tall as the archer. These are from single staves, usually of elm or yew.

There is no evidence of composite bow use in LN/EBA Europe, nor is there any evidence or depiction of horseback archery. This is accepted by so many people that I could never list them all. A finding supporting this would be absolutely huge and contrary to everything there is.

Ever heard the phrase, "Great claims require great proofs"? Well, have at it. The onus is on you guys with this wild stuff to prove that every single individual that has delved into this was wrong. It's not on me. Happy fishing.. I'm out..

Michał
08-30-2017, 10:51 PM
the way i understand furholt is that he manifests two dates for cw 'becoming' a uniformed-horizon, that is ~2900bc with the burial-rite and that is ~2700bc with a common ceramic tradition within the burial rite, and an important observation from furholt is that this is accompanied by globular-amphorae; with other words the burial-rite itself illustrates a common people emerging ~2900bc but with diff regional traditions and that poland was an(the) important center out of which a uniformed material tradition emerged from (obviously in contact with GAC framers) that in turn created a uniformed cultural horizon from 2700bc onwards; maybe im wrong, but i view furholts methods and chronology as conclusive and as you pointed out there truly is not much disagreement with the others;
I must admit I am much more skeptical as for the conclusions Furholt made regarding the chronology and the overall character of the Corded Ware expansion. In his more recent papers, he even claimed that Corded Ware was basically a cultural phenomenon that wasn't really associated with any massive migrations nor population movements, but was rather an adaptation of a common cultural model/package by local Late Neolithic populations from different regions in Europe, so we know today (thanks to the aDNA data) that he was definitely wrong about it, and thus we should treat his CWC-related hypotheses with caution .

GoldenHind
08-30-2017, 11:15 PM
I'm on the train at the moment, typing on my phone, so you will have to excuse me, but I seem to recall some pretty short looking bows on BB stelae from Sion. In fact, the image of the bow you posted isn't much longer than the arrow depicted with it.

You all are going to have a hard time convincing me that a people so devoted to both archery and horses as to have apparently incorporated them into its religious cult would not have found a way to combine the two.

I would not discount the suggestion you made earlier that they may have operated like the dragoons of the 18C who rode mounted to battle but then fought on foot. Their mobility gave them a tremendous advantage over the regular infantry.

JMcB
08-31-2017, 03:57 AM
An interesting discussion on bows, which is admittedly a subject I am not well versed in. Nevertheless, I thought these might also be of interest. Even if, tangentially.


Mesolithic Bows from Denmark and Northern Europe

http://www.academia.edu/11765815/Mesolithic_Bows_from_Denmark_and_Northern_Europe


Characterizing prehistoric archery: technical and functional analyses of the Neolithic bows from La Draga (NE Iberian Peninsula)

http://www.academia.edu/11894428/Characterizing_prehistoric_archery_technical_and_f unctional_analyses_of_the_Neolithic_bows_from_La_D raga_NE_Iberian_Peninsula_


WARFARE IN THE EUROPEAN NEOLITHIC
BOWS AND ARROWS

A bow is actually a piece of highly advanced technology, with very exact properties. The heaviest possible impact, a long range and a flat trajectory are desirable in both warfare and hunting, and even simple bows, made of one piece of wood, have a range of several hundred metres. An arrow has a low striking energy, but because it has a relatively high weight and a cutting edge, it makes a deep, open wound, which causes the target to bleed to death (Rausing 1967, 29f.).

Neolithic bows were simple segment bows made from the core of yew trees, or from shadow grown elm in Northern Europe. Many longbows are known from the Cortaillod culture in Schwitzerland and the north European wetlands, they have a D-formed cross section with a flat back and rounded sides and belly. The length is around 170 cm, i.e. a little larger than the average height (Rausing 1967, 132ff.). The existence of composite bows, made of layers of horn, wood and sinew, are inferred from a rockcarving in a Corded Ware tomb in Gölitzsch near Merseburg, depicting what is probably an angular non-reflex composite bow (Rausing 1967, 38f.).

Complete arrows are very rare, but most of the discovered arrow shafts are more than 70 cm long (Clark 1963, 72ff.). Many different types of projectile points are known from the Neolithic, they are gener- ally made of stone (flint), but bonepoints are also found. Transverse arrowheads are found in the west- ern part of the Linear Pottery culture, as well as the Funnel Beaker and the SOM culture. Pointed bifacial pressure-flaked arrowheads are common in the Middle Neolithic: Triangular points are known from the SOM and Altheim cultures for example, and leaf or lozenge shaped arrowheads in the Chasse ́en and Windmill Hill cultures (Clark 1963, 71). In the Late Neolithic the Bell Beaker culture had triangular arrowheads, often barbed and tanged, but sometimes hollow-based (Harrison 1980).

Other forms of equipment can also demonstrate the significance of archery. Wrist guards and arrow shaft smoothers are sometimes found in graves from the Bell Beaker culture. Wrist guards are often found together with copper daggers, but rarely with arrow points (Harrison 1980, 53). The existence of wrist guards, which shields the wrist from the lash of the bowstring, was perhaps connected to the use of powerful composite bows in the Late Neolithic (Raus- ing 1967, 47). Wrist guards were also used in the Middle Neolithic, however, and they might also have been made of materials such as bone, leather or wood, which are not preserved (Clark 1963, 77).

The distribution of bows and arrows can be an indication of the prevalence of warfare. Arrowheads are only found in the western part of LBK for instance, but since hunting was just as rare as in Eastern Europe, the arrows were probably used in warfare (Kruk & Mili- sauskas 1999, 298). It is difficult to determine the function of an arrow based on the shape of the arrowhead, but war points were often barbed or connected to the shaft in such a way that they remained in the wound when the arrow was extracted. The popular broad tri- angular arrow points are probably meant for warfare rather than hunting (Keeley 1996, 54ff.).

http://faculty.uml.edu/ethan_spanier/Teaching/documents/WarfareintheNeolithic.pdf

JMcB
08-31-2017, 04:02 AM
I would not discount the suggestion you made earlier that they may have operated like the dragoons of the 18C who rode mounted to battle but then fought on foot. Their mobility gave them a tremendous advantage over the regular infantry.

If I remember correctly, the Vikings also fought that way on occasion. At least, in England.

Jean M
08-31-2017, 09:35 AM
But those were some early diverged subclades of R1a that had probably nothing to do with the much more recent expansion of the Corded Ware culture. Based on both the aDNA data and the modern distribution of different R1a subclades in Europe, it seems that the Corded Ware population in both Germany and Baltic states was dominated by the relatively young clades under M417 (including mostly Z645), which again points to a single common ancestral population for most (if not all) Corded Ware groupings.

I wouldn't dream of arguing with the expert here, but I think we have room for flexibility.


CTS4385 - Single Grave. The current date in Y-Full for M417 is "Formed 8500 ybp, TMRCA 5500 ybp". So it seems just possible (assuming that the Y-Full dates are under-estimates) that some M417 travelled westwards from the Samara region with pottery-making foragers, reaching the Bug-Dniester around or after 6200 BC, there to give rise to CTS4385. If descendants moved north up the Dniester, that would explain both the Eulau type and the later correlation of L664 with Germanic-speakers.
R1a1a1b (S224/Z645) - Main burst of CW with present-day descendants. Found 2200-1900 BC in Utyevka VI, Samara River, Samara, Russia [I0419/SVP 27], a Potapovka culture site. Found also in 4,800–4,000 cal BP [Kunila 1] Estonian CW; 2620-2470 cal BCE Gyvakarai [1], Lithuania, Baltic LN, 2621-2472 BC; and [RISE94] Viby, Sweden, Battle Axe. Does this all have to go north up the Dnieper? Or could some travel with the CW pottery eastward along the forest steppe and mix with locals, before taking off northwards along the Don and/or the Volga to the Baltic?

rms2
08-31-2017, 12:21 PM
This is my last post on the subject.

A.) That representation on the stelae doesn't match sizes of actual recovered bows.

We don't have any recovered Bell Beaker bows, so we don't know what size they were. One cannot simply assume that Bell Beaker bows were the same as bows recovered from Neolithic and earlier contexts.



There are no stelae showing horse archery. I don't think there is even a stelae from this period that shows horseback riding. You can't even prove that Bell Beakers rode horses regularly, rather than just eating them.

There are all sorts of activities we are pretty sure the BB people engaged in that are not depicted on stelae. If our thinking about their lives is limited by what is depicted on the very few BB stelae we have, then all we can really be sure about is that they stood around a lot.

I can't really prove much at all about BB, and neither can you. But there is plenty of evidence they rode horses: as examples, there are finds of perforated antler cheek pieces at BB sites, and the fact that I0806 (I erroneously referred to him as RISE563 in an earlier post), a BB man from Quedlinburg, Germany, showed osteological evidence of frequent horseback riding. As I said before, one has to spend a lot of time astride a horse for it to show up in his bones. I doubt he was the only BB individual who could and did ride horses.



B.) That Japanese archer is using a Yumi bow. These are highly asymmetrical, with the upper limb being twice as long as the lower limb. Again, yes, they are on a high saddle and stirrups, allowing them to stand and shoot, and the length of the lower limb making a full-draw easier. Bell Beakers didn't use Yumi bows, saddles, or stirrups. This is irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant, because the point was that bows that are fairly long can be fired from horseback, i.e., bow length is not an absolute impediment to horse-borne archery.



C.) There is evidence and sources all over the place. One need only know how to use Google Scholar.

You can search for the following:

Lanting et al (1999) Bows from the Netherlands

Clark (1963) Neolithic Bows from Somerset, England and the Prehistory of Archery in North-western Europe

Bergman (1993) The development of the bow in Western Europe


The gist of that is, "Go look it up". I realize your time might be limited, but you could have quoted at least one or two of those authors to support your contention and cited the sources.



There is a lot available. The general consensus is that Beakers used longbows that had either a flat or D-shaped profile and were about as tall as the archer. These are from single staves, usually of elm or yew.

If that is the general consensus, why would Harrison and Heyd mention the possibility of horse-borne archery in the Bell Beaker context, as quoted by Jean M in Post #98 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=279471&viewfull=1#post279471) in this thread?



Another way of appreciating the choice of archery is that it creates a deliberate contrast to earlier styles of combat, which used hafted axes and daggers, for close hand-to-hand fighting. Archery allows the warrior to fight at a distance, even from horseback, and he can choose to kill from thirty metres, or be concealed from view.


I realize that is not the same thing as saying "Bell Beaker people fired their bows from horseback", but why mention the possibility if it is absolutely excluded?



There is no evidence of composite bow use in LN/EBA Europe, nor is there any evidence or depiction of horseback archery. This is accepted by so many people that I could never list them all. A finding supporting this would be absolutely huge and contrary to everything there is.


We don't have any Bell Beaker bows.

The Bell Beaker blogger mentions that archaeologist Stuart Piggott believed Bell Beaker people used compound or composite-laminate bows here (http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/search?q=bows):



Stuart Piggott suspected that some Bell Beaker archers possibly used compounded or composite-laminate bows.

I have not had the chance to read what Piggott wrote on the subject. I think it may be in his paper, Beaker Bows: A Suggestion (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/beaker-bows-a-suggestion/C4B5E38C48E553B6D64608607C0FB667), but I don't have access to that paper, and it is otherwise behind a paywall.

Gimbutas also mentions the use of composite bows in Late Neolithic Europe. I am not home now or I would look up the citation for you, quote her, and supply the source and page number(s).



Ever heard the phrase, "Great claims require great proofs"? Well, have at it. The onus is on you guys with this wild stuff to prove that every single individual that has delved into this was wrong. It's not on me. Happy fishing.. I'm out..

First, I don't think you have even come close to establishing that "every single individual that has delved into this" agrees with you. You've claimed they do, but I have not seen much proof of that, so the onus is as much on you as it is on anyone else.

Secondly, we know that human beings at the Neolithic level of technology who had only a relatively short time before taken up horseback riding learned to fire their bows while mounted. I am of course referring to the Amerindians of the North American prairie (steppe). That is an historically documented example that shows that not only could it be done without a lot of sophistication, but it was possible to become quite good at it.

I for one find it really hard to believe the Amerindians were such exceptional human prodigies that they could master horse archery, but the BB and CW people were such comparative dunces that they could not.

Chad Rohlfsen
08-31-2017, 01:27 PM
But.. we have evidence for Native Americans. None for Beaker. If you actually take the time to do a little research on the subject of European bows and horse archery you would see that I am arguing from where really everyone agrees. You might also see Yumi bows lower limbs are shorter than longbows. Being in stirrups helps too, as they can stand and shhot. There are no composite bow finds in Europe until the Scythian period in Eastern Europe. This is also the first time there is evidence of archery on horseback.

There are bows from the pre-Beaker-post-Beaker period in England and the Netherlands. Did you even look at what I posted.

Do a little research and see the onus is on you. Read it yourself because you obviously think you know more about archery than me.

rms2
08-31-2017, 02:22 PM
. . .

Do a little research and see the onus is on you. Read it yourself because you obviously think you know more about archery than me.

I don't think I know more about archery than you, but I do know you have not convinced me. You believe what you believe, which is fine, and you have reasons, but your reasons have not persuaded me, and I have already said why that is (more than once).

I would have enjoyed some citations from the sources you mentioned but did not actually cite, something that would show those authors actually agree with you that Bell Beaker people could not have fired their bows from horseback.

You might be right, but you have not convinced me that you are, and I still suspect that BB people figured out how to fire their bows from the back of a horse.

Chad Rohlfsen
08-31-2017, 03:03 PM
You won't be convinced if you don't actually read and do some research yourself.

Also, the Native American thing is really a false analogy. Wild horses spread through North America long before they were ridden. It is only well after contact woth Europeans riding and shooting did Native Americans then do the same. Bell Beaker had no one to emulate. Hence, no evidence they did, nor Tumulus, Urnfield, Hallstatt, or even Iron Age Britains, as far as I've seen.

You won't find anything that disputes this. I've researched this and encourage you to do the same. You'll see that I'm only following the general consensus based on evidence, including recovered bows.

rms2
08-31-2017, 04:17 PM
You won't be convinced if you don't actually read and do some research yourself.

You are asserting that if I read and research, I'll see you are right. That's great, but anyone can say that. You did not actually cite any sources or quote anyone to show that you are right. You just asserted that everyone who is anyone agrees with you.




Also, the Native American thing is really a false analogy . . .

No, it's not. The Amerindians were at the Neolithic level of technology, learned to ride horses, and not long thereafter acquired the ability to fire their bows from horseback. We know that from history, so it is entirely reasonable to infer that other humans could have done the same. Since BB people placed a great emphasis on horses and on archery, it stands to reason they would have learned to combine the two.



You won't find anything that disputes this. I've researched this and encourage you to do the same. You'll see that I'm only following the general consensus based on evidence, including recovered bows.

Again, we don't have any Bell Beaker bows.

You may be right, but I don't find persuasive what you evidently find persuasive. You don't find persuasive what I find persuasive in this context.

We'll have to agree to disagree so that we can get back to the actual topic of this thread.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-31-2017, 05:58 PM
I must admit I am much more skeptical as for the conclusions Furholt made regarding the chronology and the overall character of the Corded Ware expansion. In his more recent papers, he even claimed that Corded Ware was basically a cultural phenomenon that wasn't really associated with any massive migrations nor population movements, but was rather an adaptation of a common cultural model/package by local Late Neolithic populations from different regions in Europe, so we know today (thanks to the aDNA data) that he was definitely wrong about it, and thus we should treat his CWC-related hypotheses with caution .

We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. The downplaying of migration was just current at the time, but it does not diminish the C14 dates
At least there is evidence for southern Poland being early, not to mention typology (CWC, Zlota, Baden) interactions
On the other hand, the middle dnieper doesn't produce much over 2600 BC, with 16 or so carbons dates. And it's typology synchronises with Catacomb.
But this is not to say I disagree with you.

Chad Rohlfsen
08-31-2017, 06:09 PM
There are bows from the Beaker period and I gave you three or four sources to go check out. If you choose to just be argumentative just for the sake of being so, don't bother responding. Come with evidence to back your claims against the sources I've given you.

rms2
08-31-2017, 06:43 PM
There are bows from the Beaker period and I gave you three or four sources to go check out. If you choose to just be argumentative just for the sake of being so, don't bother responding. Come with evidence to back your claims against the sources I've given you.

"Go read this, this and that" is not an argument. It's not evidence either. It sounds more like the start of a wild goose chase. What did those authors actually say that supports your point of view?

You did not quote from those sources or cite page numbers to indicate what they say on this specific subject (the possibility that Bell Beaker people were able to fire their bows from horseback). I'm not going to read an entire paper or book on Neolithic or Mesolithic European bows simply because you tell me to when what I am specifically interested in is Bell Beaker.

Do those authors actually say that Bell Beaker people could not have fired their bows from horseback? If you are familiar with those sources, you could lift a couple of quotes from them and post them here to show they agree with you on that subject.

I gave you reasons for what I believe. It's not like what you posted has been entirely error free, since you expressed some doubt that Bell Beaker people even rode horses at all rather than merely ate them.

Sorry if I seem argumentative to you, but you seem that way to me, especially since you announced your last post on this subject several posts back but are apparently unable to stop, even after I said we are going to just have to agree to disagree.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-31-2017, 07:28 PM
What were those differences? Weren't CW and BB both chiefly pastoral peoples, with settlements that are difficult to find?

If you can, please cite some sources. Thanks.

It's a matter of degree. CWC looks more LN in influence, whilst BB provides continuity into the EBA for western Europe. They differ in specific type of crops grown, areas settled (eg CWC settled Lakelands, whilst BB did not), etc.

"Settlement dynamics and land use between the Hegau and the western Lake Constance region, Germany, during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC". Matthias B. Merkl and Jutta Lechterbeck


A similar shift is seen in Netherlands.
c. 2450 BC, the BB culture appears, with a few generation transition phase. Prior to this the SGC had co-existed with Vlaardingen, the latter which maintained its boundaries but had acquired Corded Ware ceramics from their neighbours. Both latter cultures disappeared after 2400BC.
https://books.google.ro/books? id=57OVD144tUIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=background+to+the+beakers&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=background%20to%20the%20beakers&f=false

parasar
08-31-2017, 08:39 PM
“Indo-Europeanists imagined that “the Aryans” of the Battle Axe and Bell Beaker cultures were adept as mounted archers … mounted combat began no earlier than the tenth century BC, whether on the steppe or anywhere else”
https://books.google.com/books?id=EDElDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA28

alexfritz
09-01-2017, 05:26 AM
I must admit I am much more skeptical as for the conclusions Furholt made regarding the chronology and the overall character of the Corded Ware expansion. In his more recent papers, he even claimed that Corded Ware was basically a cultural phenomenon that wasn't really associated with any massive migrations nor population movements, but was rather an adaptation of a common cultural model/package by local Late Neolithic populations from different regions in Europe, so we know today (thanks to the aDNA data) that he was definitely wrong about it, and thus we should treat his CWC-related hypotheses with caution .

i think there has to be a differentiation between the emergence of a new people and the emergence of a new cultural horizon; that furholt (2014) did not derive the people from a migratory event is given the now known aDNA info false, yet the model of the cw horizon emerging from regional networks and high mobility remains well examined; in fact one can simply apply the confirmed aDNA info to this model and it well fits;
http://www.academia.edu/5878366/Upending_a_Totality_Re-evaluating_Corded_Ware_Variability_in_Late_Neolith ic_Europe._Proceedings_of_the_Prehistoric_Society_ FirstView_Article_January_2014_pp_1_-_20._DOI_10.1017_ppr.2013.20_Published_online_28_J anuary_2014

the alternative would be cw as a packaged culture spreading to all the known sites, but that is not what archaeological record indicates;

rms2
09-01-2017, 11:39 AM
“Indo-Europeanists imagined that “the Aryans” of the Battle Axe and Bell Beaker cultures were adept as mounted archers … mounted combat began no earlier than the tenth century BC, whether on the steppe or anywhere else”
https://books.google.com/books?id=EDElDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA28

Thanks for at least providing a quote, such as it is. Your use of an ellipsis, which is perfectly legitimate, tends to conflate two different things: mounted archery and mounted combat. The second part of that quote, "mounted combat began no earlier than the tenth century BC, whether on the steppe or anywhere else”, is patently ridiculous. As the research of David Anthony and his wife Dorcas Brown into bit wear on the teeth of ancient horses has shown, people were probably riding horses as early as the 5th millennium BC and certainly no later than the 4th millennium BC. "Mounted combat", as I have mentioned before, need be no more sophisticated than whacking someone with a stick while seated on horseback. To imagine that people were not doing at least that until the 10th century BC is laughable.

As for mounted archery, that's another subject. I am not asserting dogmatically and absolutely that Bell Beaker and Corded Ware people were able to fire their bows from horseback. I don't know for sure whether they could or not. Maybe they never did and such a thing never occurred to them. However, I think it likely that they did figure out how to fire their bows from horseback and in fact did so.

I've already listed a number of reasons why I think the way I do. This is just my own personal opinion, but I find it very hard to imagine a people so dedicated to archery and horsemanship as the Bell Beaker people obviously were, engaged in both probably on a daily basis, not thinking, "Gee, wouldn't it be cool if we could fire our bows while riding?" Think about it for a minute. Using bows all the time. Riding horses a lot. Probably carrying a bow, perhaps across one's back, while riding. Who but a complete dunderhead, numb from the neck up, would not think to try to fire the bow from horseback? What people so familiar with archery and horses would not try to make a bow that could be fired from horseback?

Robert Drews, the author of the work at the link you posted, apparently does not believe the early Indo-Europeans were even riding horses, let alone firing bows from their backs. IMHO, the evidence for horseback riding as early as the 5th millennium BC is pretty convincing, and Drews is just wrong. The fact that he argues against the idea that the steppe people were riding horses greatly reduces his credibility when it comes to the more controversial matter of mounted archery, as well.

Can we return to the topic of this thread now, please?

Jean M
09-01-2017, 03:45 PM
I realize stela are symbolic renderings, but if one is going to use them to make the case that BB bows were too long to be fired from horseback, he or she ought to make sure the bows depicted on them actually look too long to be fired from horseback.

I'm not making any case. You asked for information re BB bows. I supplied it. That's about all I can contribute here, as I am not a military historian. I have several artist's renderings of Bell Beaker bowmen, and images from stelae, but Chad is far better read than I am on this topic! I have actually created a new folder in my digital library for the interesting papers that have turned up in this discussion.

PS As Chad says, the weapons depicted on stelae are not shown strictly life-size or strictly in proportion, but will vary according to the size of the stele and the space on it.

rms2
09-01-2017, 04:24 PM
. . .

PS As Chad says, the weapons depicted on stelae are not shown strictly life-size or strictly in proportion, but will vary according to the size of the stele and the space on it.

In the post of mine you quoted, I acknowledged that things depicted on stelae are symbolic renderings. Just the same, we don't really know what Bell Beaker bows were like exactly, because we don't have any. We certainly cannot use the pictures of bows and arrows from stelae to say that BB people could not have fired their bows from horseback.

Jean M
09-01-2017, 04:35 PM
... So (supposing that Celtic did not actually come from Iberia, which I rule out because of its contact with Pre-Germanic) it had to arrive with a population movement from Central Europe earlier. There is one from Central Europe c. 1200 BC bringing BB East type stuff to the region where later people spoke Celiberian, a type of Q-Celtic with the most antique features of any known Celtic language.

Just spotted my error. That should be 2200 BC.

Jean M
09-01-2017, 04:37 PM
Just the same, we don't really know what Bell Beaker bows were like exactly, because we don't have any.

Chad said that we do have, but I haven't had the time to do all the reading that he suggested.

rms2
09-01-2017, 05:11 PM
Chad said that we do have, but I haven't had the time to do all the reading that he suggested.

No, that's not what he said. He said we have Beaker period bows. Not the same thing. If he knew of an actual Bell Beaker bow that could not or probably could not be fired from horseback, believe me, it would have been a prominent feature of his posts.

Ral
09-01-2017, 05:11 PM
Thanks for at least providing a quote, such as it is. Your use of an ellipsis, which is perfectly legitimate, tends to conflate two different things: mounted archery and mounted combat. The second part of that quote, "mounted combat began no earlier than the tenth century BC, whether on the steppe or anywhere else”, is patently ridiculous. As the research of David Anthony and his wife Dorcas Brown into bit wear on the teeth of ancient horses has shown, people were probably riding horses as early as the 5th millennium BC and certainly no later than the 4th millennium BC. "Mounted combat", as I have mentioned before, need be no more sophisticated than whacking someone with a stick while seated on horseback. To imagine that people were not doing at least that until the 10th century BC is laughable.

As for mounted archery, that's another subject. I am not asserting dogmatically and absolutely that Bell Beaker and Corded Ware people were able to fire their bows from horseback. I don't know for sure whether they could or not. Maybe they never did and such a thing never occurred to them. However, I think it likely that they did figure out how to fire their bows from horseback and in fact did so.

I've already listed a number of reasons why I think the way I do. This is just my own personal opinion, but I find it very hard to imagine a people so dedicated to archery and horsemanship as the Bell Beaker people obviously were, engaged in both probably on a daily basis, not thinking, "Gee, wouldn't it be cool if we could fire our bows while riding?" Think about it for a minute. Using bows all the time. Riding horses a lot. Probably carrying a bow, perhaps across one's back, while riding. Who but a complete dunderhead, numb from the neck up, would not think to try to fire the bow from horseback? What people so familiar with archery and horses would not try to make a bow that could be fired from horseback?

Robert Drews, the author of the work at the link you posted, apparently does not believe the early Indo-Europeans were even riding horses, let alone firing bows from their backs. IMHO, the evidence for horseback riding as early as the 5th millennium BC is pretty convincing, and Drews is just wrong. The fact that he argues against the idea that the steppe people were riding horses greatly reduces his credibility when it comes to the more controversial matter of mounted archery, as well.

Can we return to the topic of this thread now, please?

This is a very doubtful hypothesis of Anthony.

It is believed that the emergence of devices that convert fast horseback riding (not even combat) from a deadly trick to a safe exercise is well documented. This is the first millennium BC-first millennium AD. It is doubtful that horseback riding existed during a thousands years without such simple devices.
As I know, Russian historians believe that horse riding first appeared in the late Andronovo or among the early Scythians. In addition, they suggest that the of emergence of horseback riding in Europe is also documented (Scythians-> Persians-> Greeks and so on)
There is a too little space for Anthony's hypothesis .

rms2
09-01-2017, 05:24 PM
That's wrong, but this is really not the thread for that discussion. We have already gone way off topic with Bell Beaker bows.

Finn
09-02-2017, 06:57 AM
It's a matter of degree. CWC looks more LN in influence, whilst BB provides continuity into the EBA for western Europe. They differ in specific type of crops grown, areas settled (eg CWC settled Lakelands, whilst BB did not), etc.

"Settlement dynamics and land use between the Hegau and the western Lake Constance region, Germany, during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC". Matthias B. Merkl and Jutta Lechterbeck


A similar shift is seen in Netherlands.
c. 2450 BC, the BB culture appears, with a few generation transition phase. Prior to this the SGC had co-existed with Vlaardingen, the latter which maintained its boundaries but had acquired Corded Ware ceramics from their neighbours. Both latter cultures disappeared after 2400BC.
https://books.google.ro/books? id=57OVD144tUIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=background+to+the+beakers&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=background%20to%20the%20beakers&f=false

About the Dutch/Rhenish and British BB(/CW) interaction see: http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/download/24936/22384

Finn
09-02-2017, 11:58 AM
That's wrong, but this is really not the thread for that discussion. We have already gone way off topic with Bell Beaker bows.

What could be the case for at least Northern Europe is this genetic connection. The Bell Beaker impuls came from the central European area, so East Bell Beaker.

These East Bell Beakers influenced the Dutch-Rhenish one. The Dutch-Rhenish one became the hub for the Isles and Southwestern Scandinavia (North Denmark, West Norway).

Remarkable, Pijlsteen did some analysis and for the North Dutch he detected some "Hungarian mesolithic affinity". This would support my picture.


The Benelux (K36), myAverages,]
North Dutch



[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCES"
EMA_Anglosaxon BA_Unetice_Germany CWC_Sweden EMA_Sweden
6.768905 7.029429 7.999966 10.670024
CWC_Denmark IA_Britain_York CWC_Germany Bell_Beaker_Germany
10.919891 11.128716 11.489188 12.283906


[1] "distance%=2.619 / distance=0.02619"
North_Dutch
EMA_Anglosaxon 52.35
CWC_Denmark 13.20
Mesolithic_Hungary 12.35
IA_Celtic_Britain 10.50
BA_Germany_ 4.95
IA_Wielbark 4.20
CWC_Poland 2.45



All plausible? Or.....?

Pylsteen
09-02-2017, 02:02 PM
Remarkable, Pijlsteen did some analysis and for the North Dutch he detected some "Hungarian mesolithic affinity"

Just to make clear; I think it may show some WHG mesolithic remnants, not necessarily Hungarian; needs Ertebölle (or similar) samples :)

alan
09-02-2017, 04:19 PM
There is a lot in the developed beaker culture of central and Northern Europe after 2550BC that is found in CW related cultures of Eastern Europe. The famous east-west body orientation does not apply to all CW related groups. The north-south orientation was presfersd by South Polish CW, Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo and I recall a battle axe group on the south Baltic shore too.

alan
09-02-2017, 08:37 PM
There is a lot in the developed beaker culture of central and Northern Europe after 2550BC that is found in CW related cultures of Eastern Europe. The famous east-west body orientation does not apply to all CW related groups. The north-south orientation was presfersd by South Polish CW, Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo and I recall a battle axe group on the south Baltic shore too.

In fact the more you dig into the subdivisions of CW the more you see that most of classic full package beaker culture is prefigured in Eastern Europe including regional CW variations. I think some of the discussions on Anthtigenuca aboutay pre beaker cultures and hybrids in south Poland, west Ukraine and Moldova together with evidence of genetic substrate in beaker most resembling TRB and GAC has really brought the subject of beaker origins into an interesting light and shows that you really can't chew over a subject too much. I am now fairly convinced that L11 all went round the north side of the Carpathians and didn't reach the Danube till he stretch around Bratislava-Vienna, thereby establishing the L11/Z2103 divide we see today. If that is correct then it's borderline impossible to not see them as living in the CW zone even if they were an atypical outgroup clan or specialist traders or even ultimately a stray lineage

Jean M
09-02-2017, 11:07 PM
No, that's not what he said. He said we have Beaker period bows. Not the same thing. If he knew of an actual Bell Beaker bow that could not or probably could not be fired from horseback, believe me, it would have been a prominent feature of his posts.

Actually we do have Bell Beaker bows. Andrew Fitzpatrick covers the evidence in The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen, Early Bell Beaker burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire, Great Britain: Excavations at Boscombe Down, volume 1 (2011), p.161. He mentions two self-bows contemporary with the Amesbury Archer, one from Stadskanaal and the other recently discovered in Ireland.

Here's part of what he says (I couldn't get it all in):

18519

This bit covers the one in Ireland.

18520

He covers the various depictions that have already been mentioned here and points out the problems with them, saying that the use of a composite bow by BB people cannot be regarded as proven.

jdean
09-02-2017, 11:51 PM
He covers the various depictions that have already been mentioned here and points out the problems with them, saying that the use of a composite bow by BB people cannot be regarded as proven.

Or dispoved ?

Chad Rohlfsen
09-03-2017, 01:52 AM
Not a single piece of horn in Beaker burials or by any bows. That's pretty sufficient.

I haven't seen evidence of a single composite bow before the Roman period in Western Europe. Yew and Elm don't need reinforcement.

Also, I haven't seen any evidence in Roman, Saxon, or Norman periods in Britain.

rms2
09-03-2017, 03:05 AM
Actually we do have Bell Beaker bows. Andrew Fitzpatrick covers the evidence in The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen, Early Bell Beaker burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire, Great Britain: Excavations at Boscombe Down, volume 1 (2-1), p.161. He mentions two self-bows contemporary with the Amesbury Archer, one from Stadskanaal and the other recently discovered in Ireland.

Here's part of what he says (I couldn't get it all in):

18519

This bit covers the one in Ireland.

18520

He covers the various depictions that have already been mentioned here and points out the problems with them, saying that the use of a composite bow by BB people cannot be regarded as proven.

What you posted mentions short, composite bows. Sounds like the kind that could have been fired from horseback. Not definite proof, but certainly not supportive of the argument that BB could not fire their bows from horseback.

But geez, I sure would like to get back to the Bell Beaker models.

Jean M
09-03-2017, 06:53 AM
Or disproved ?

For some strange reason, scientists go for evidence. Powerful emotional appeal gets you nowhere with them. One is just wasting one's eloquence with arguments along the lines of 'I just know that the Romans must have had electric washing machines, because they are so useful. I don't know what I would do without mine.'

jdean
09-03-2017, 02:41 PM
For some strange reason, scientists go for evidence. Powerful emotional appeal gets you nowhere with them. One is just wasting one's eloquence with arguments along the lines of 'I just know that the Romans must have had electric washing machines, because they are so useful. I don't know what I would do without mine.'

Having done only a little reading on the subject doesn’t even qualify me as a beginner but in 1971 Stuart Piggott went to some lengths to demonstrate his theory that boar tusk pendants represented short bows

Beaker Bows: A Suggestion (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/beaker-bows-a-suggestion/C4B5E38C48E553B6D64608607C0FB667)

and on page 60 of 'The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen (Wessex Archaeology Report)' it says


they are now widely considered to be decorative pendants made in the shape of a miniature recurve bow

Only point here is this doesn't exactly demonstrate a unified view of Bell Beakers exclusively using self bows.

rms2
09-03-2017, 03:01 PM
For some strange reason, scientists go for evidence.

Where is the actual evidence that Bell Beaker people could not fire their bows from horseback?

Maybe they couldn't, but there is no real evidence of that.

Part of the scientific process is looking at the evidence, thinking about, interpreting it, making inferences and forming opinions about it, and creating an hypothesis. You know that, or should.





Powerful emotional appeal gets you nowhere with them. One is just wasting one's eloquence with arguments along the lines of 'I just know that the Romans must have had electric washing machines, because they are so useful. I don't know what I would do without mine.'

That's ridiculous. The reasons I have given for thinking BB people may have been able to fire their bows while on horseback are nothing like "I just know that the Romans must have had electric washing machines, because they are so useful. I don't know what I would do without mine."

If you disagree, fine, but don't mischaracterize my arguments.

There is no "powerful emotional appeal" involved. I have good reasons for thinking the BB people might have been able to fire their bows from horseback.

Jean M
09-03-2017, 03:15 PM
and on page 60 of 'The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen (Wessex Archaeology Report)' it says

..... Only point here is this doesn't exactly demonstrate a unified view of Bell Beakers exclusively using self bows.

I know. The ideas that BB people used the composite bow and shot from horseback have evidently been knocking around for decades. But as I posted earlier, we don't really know what the boar tusk pendants represented. The facts that they:


were used earlier by Yamnaya people, who did not seem to have any particular devotion to the bow
were apparently the inspiration for the Bell Beaker gold lunulae, which don't look like a bow at all and are considered to be moon symbols

rather works against the idea that they symbolise a bow. However:

The Bell Beaker blogger posted on archery in 2015 http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/upcoming-paper-on-beaker-archery.html he says:


If you look closely at the bow-shaped pendants, you'll notice that they have what looks like banding which would indicate the use of bows like the Meare Heath Bow, roughly contemporary with the Beaker phenomenon.

If he is right, then the bows used by BB people were a Neolithic type of yew bow, described as a Primitive flat bow: https://www.digitaldigging.net/meare-heath-bow-reconstruction/
https://www.digitaldigging.net/meare-heath-bow-reconstruction-part-2/

rms2
09-03-2017, 03:25 PM
I know the current trend is to rubbish whatever Marija Gimbutas had to say (even though her model of BB origins leads in this poll), but here she is on the subject of composite bows, from pages 383-384 of The Civilization of the Goddess:



Composite bows, known from engravings on stone stelae (see fig. 10-46), on the walls of stone cist graves (Göhlitzsh, River Saale basin in central Germany), and from actual finds of burnt bows laid in graves (cf. grave at Bozejewice at Strzelno in western Poland) were made of wood, most likely of ash, as supported by linguistic evidence. The composite bow evidenced from around the end of the 4th millennium B.C., between central Germany and the Lower Dnieper, has close analogies in central Asia, particularly in the Siberian-Mongolian steppe.


Here's part of Figure 10-46 that Gimbutas refers to above:

18529

rms2
09-03-2017, 03:40 PM
Here is the whole of Figure 10-46, so you can see it in context:

18530

jdean
09-03-2017, 03:43 PM
If he is right, then the bows used by BB people were a Neolithic type of yew bow

Again from 'The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen' evidence for 'bow shaped pendants' being 'quiver ornaments' is discussed, p. 60

and on p161


In his study of prehistoric archery in north west Europe, Clark argued that composite bows were developed in environments in which wood with the toughness and resilience necessary for a good self-bow was absent, environments such as the tundra of Siberia

Jean M
09-03-2017, 03:46 PM
Where is the actual evidence that Bell Beaker people could not fire their bows from horseback?

Now you want me to explain how the BB people couldn't have invented an invisible stirrup? As well as an invisible composite bow? :\ I'm afraid that my knowledge of magic is insufficient. I should have gone to Hogwarts. Yes. You have me completely beaten.

rms2
09-03-2017, 03:48 PM
It would be an interesting experiment to make a self bow of BB period type and see if a skilled bareback rider could fire it at a trot or gallop while mounted.