PDA

View Full Version : A deeper think about beakers and genes



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Heber
11-18-2014, 01:18 AM
If you click on View (lower right), it should open up for you.

The key graphic on Bell Beaker is event D which is clearly an out of Iberia Bell Beaker migration vectored by mtDNA H.
3020
The last paragraph of page 15 references the Atlantic Bronze Age Model of Cunliffe and Koch.

"Similarly, the genetic influx from the southwest associated with the Bell Beaker culture could be correlated with an earlier spread of the Celtic language family across Western Europe than assumed, as recently suggested by linguists (Koch, 2009; Cunliffe and Koch, 2010). Such a coherent cultural package in the West could there- fore also be linked with the pattern of high frequencies of mtDNA haplogroup H and Y-haplogroup R1b in modern-day West Euro- peans, as suggested in Brotherton et al. (2013) and hypothesised by Barry Cunliffe's model of Atlantic Europe, which rests upon a common cultural element emerging during the Megalithic, i.e., Middle Neolithic in Western Europe (Cunliffe, 2001)."


And references mtDNA haplogroup H and the origin of Europeans (Brotherton et al. 2013)

"From around 2800 BC, the LNE Bell Beaker culture emerged from the Iberian Peninsula to form one of the first pan-European archaeological complexes. This cultural phenomenon is recognised by a distinctive package of rich grave goods including the eponymous bell-shaped ceramic beakers. The genetic affinities between Central Europe’s Bell Beakers and present-day Iberian populations (Fig. 2) is striking and throws fresh light on long-disputed archaeological models3. We suggest these data indicate a considerable genetic influx from the West during the LNE. These far-Western genetic affinities of Mittelelbe-Saale’s Bell Beaker folk may also have intriguing linguistic implications, as the archaeologically-identified eastward movement of the Bell Beaker culture has recently been linked to the initial spread of the Celtic language family across Western Europe39. This hypothesis suggests that early members of the Celtic language family (for example, Tartessian)40 initially developed from Indo-European precursors in Iberia and subsequently spread throughout the Atlantic Zone; before a period of rapid mobility, reflected by the Beaker phenomenon, carried Celtic languages across much of Western Europe. This idea not only challenges traditional views of a linguistic spread of Celtic westwards from Central Europe during the Iron Age, but also implies that Indo-European languages arrived in Western Europe substantially earlier, presumably with the arrival of farming from the Near East41."

Anglecynn
11-18-2014, 01:26 AM
It's interesting that in Hungary at least it's the Bronze Age when you get a big genetic transition, worth bearing in mind anyway. The later population of western Europe cannot be the same as that from the Late Neolithic or Copper Age (or it's very unlikely at least, unless incomers completely bypassed eastern Europe during that period and got to western Europe first). So i'm with rms2 on this regarding R1b.

Interesting though, only scan read the paper so far and will read it properly tommorow.

alan
11-18-2014, 01:32 AM
It concludes that R1b traveled with Beaker and mtDNA H out of Iberia, encountering and mixing with Corded ware in Central Europe.

I think that's a mistake (the R1b out of the West part, that is), but it's still a good paper and covers a lot.

Yeah I think the R1b bit is wrong but I wouldnt deny beaker does in its classic post-2600BC phase have a lot of hallmarks of a hybriding of western and eastern elements in central Europe. I think the evidence if reasonable although IMO not clinching that beaker pot and some forms of mtDNA H spread from SW into central Europe which is not surprising and woman and pottery usually went together. I still think that R1b from the west is a very uncomfortable forcing of an archaeological model onto yDNA which looks an east to west movement. To be honest some form of reflux model has always had an appeal and it would admirably explain so much IMO. It just that the reflux need not focus on Holland as one of the models did.

rms2
11-18-2014, 08:57 AM
I also think the idea of Celtic spreading from Iberia is wrong. One would have to bring R1b and Italo-Celtic to Iberia via the Mediterranean littoral (north or south) from somewhere in the Pontic-Caspian steppe first. Easier, it seems to me, to bring Beaker out of Iberia to the Hungarian Plain, where it encounters Yamnaya, gets a good shot of R1b, and then travels back west, with a sturdy set of men who are R1b, have the classic Beaker skull, etc.

Dubhthach
11-18-2014, 09:29 AM
Little bit later the Bell Beaker but the Irish Times had following article today with regards to study been published about population collaspe in Ireland in the period during the transition from Bronze age (Atlantic Bronze age) to the Iron age. Such drastic population decline would of course offer chances at expansion of lineage when things "picked up".

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/one-tiger-economy-helps-understand-collapse-of-another-1.2004575



The European economy started to collapse 2,900 years ago, not because of dodgy banking practices but following the break-up of trade. Bronze went out of fashion in favour of iron and the business activity that had built up around the metal quickly fell apart, research from Irish archaeological sites has shown.
Researchers have long pinned the blame for a huge pan-European population collapse after 900BC on climate change. Irish site and climate records from peat bogs show, however, the colder, wetter weather didn’t arrive until at least two generations after the collapse had started.
Ironically we have the Celtic tiger economy to thank for the information used to make these claims, said Dr Katharina Becker, a lecturer in the department of archaeology at University College Cork. The building boom opened up archaeological sites under pipelines, housing and roads. This was used in a study involving UCC, the universities of Bradford and Leeds, and Queen’s University Belfast that is published this evening in the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “Our evidence shows definitely that the population decline in this period cannot have been caused by climate change,” said lead author prof Ian Armit of the University of Bradford.
The team found the change in weather started about 750BC. The population fall started after 900BC and accelerated rapidly after 800BC, the researchers found. The evidence also suggests it was an economic collapse and not war, famine or disease that caused the fall in populations across Europe, including Ireland.
Iron age
The timing was right at the juncture when bronze metal began to fall out of use to be replaced by iron, Dr Becker said. Economic activity grew in support of the bronze trade as producers needed tin and copper. Things went bad however when iron arrived.
“The basis of their power and wealth would have vanished,” Dr Becker said. “We believe this was a general economic crisis caused by the break-up or reduction in trade connections.”
Conflict and social collapse would have followed, giving way to an impoverished early iron age. Large-scale construction also stopped, putting an end to the building of major ring forts such as Dún Aonghasa on the Aran islands.


This appears to be about the following article that has been published in PNAS

Rapid climate change did not cause population collapse at the end of the European Bronze Age

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/11/12/1408028111.abstract

From memory Ireland basically entered a "dark age" (as archaeologists would term it) until about 200BC when you start seeing renewed contacts with northern Britain.

rms2
11-18-2014, 01:16 PM
I realize that ancient mtDNA is easier to recover, but something to keep in mind is that mtDNA H has been found in European Neolithic and possibly Mesolithic contexts, while ancient y-dna R1b thus far is limited to the two males from the Beaker site near Kromsdorf, Germany. MtDNA H has been recovered in Portugal, circa 5500-4750 BC, while Kromsdorf is as far west as it gets for R1b so far, circa 2600 BC.

Of course, this could be due to the luck of the draw. Y-dna is more difficult than mtDNA to recover from ancient remains. Perhaps we just haven't found older and more western R1b yet but it is out there (personally, I doubt it). Still, the number of finds is mounting, and no R1b older than 2600 BC or farther west than Kromsdorf (near Weimar in east-central Germany) has been recovered.

In addition, if Mallory, Anthony, and others are right, and PIE came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, wouldn't it be surpassing odd if one of the major branches of Indo-European, Celtic, came out of Iberia, rather than into Iberia? Isn't it a stretch to take Celtic and bring it from the PC steppe to Iberia, supposedly along the Mediterranean littoral, bypassing the more likely route up the Danube Valley and thence into Western Europe? And all that to have it arrive in Iberia in time to be spread by Beaker Folk out of Iberia?

Did it arrive there as Italo-Celtic and develop in situ in Iberia into both branches, Italic and Celtic?

Seems far fetched to me, in both senses of far fetched, literal and figurative.

razyn
11-18-2014, 02:24 PM
Seems far fetched to me, in both senses of far fetched, literal and figurative.

Good one...

MJost
11-18-2014, 03:54 PM
This is a nice analysis. I posted an overlaid an Greenland GIS chart with important dates. Notice I consider that the DF13 sons had a major expansion over two (or so) hundred years and during this period expanded out of the upper Rhine into the middle Rhine along with having to hopscotch, being pushed further beyond by the existing H&G farmers across the Paris Basin into the North and Northwest Europe with the need of new farmland. Shortly after this expansion and movement time frame, maybe partially based on being involved in the tin trade with its P312 cousins, sons of DF27 and U152, the economy collapsed as noted in the article. This created a slow growth in the DF13 populations, "juncture when bronze metal began to fall out of use to be replaced by iron" AND I feel the climate changed downwards of 2 degrees Celsius did create havoc with farming due to the this effect. La Tene brought an "impoverished early iron age" across pan-western Europe as the P312 sons including the newly expanded DF13 subclades which had just previously scattered across the north half of western Europe for several centuries, developed significant founder effects as seen in the large number of DF13 subclades that appear to show no commonality as related to STRs. Even my own FGC5494 subclades have only a few common STRs showing, in itself, a short rapid expansion.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNUDdib0tnTU5uSms/view?usp=sharing

MJost

alan
11-18-2014, 04:53 PM
Little bit later the Bell Beaker but the Irish Times had following article today with regards to study been published about population collaspe in Ireland in the period during the transition from Bronze age (Atlantic Bronze age) to the Iron age. Such drastic population decline would of course offer chances at expansion of lineage when things "picked up".

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/one-tiger-economy-helps-understand-collapse-of-another-1.2004575



This appears to be about the following article that has been published in PNAS

Rapid climate change did not cause population collapse at the end of the European Bronze Age

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/11/12/1408028111.abstract

From memory Ireland basically entered a "dark age" (as archaeologists would term it) until about 200BC when you start seeing renewed contacts with northern Britain.

Yes this picture has been known for a while and very roughly speaking the Iron Age can be divided into two phases give or take 50-100 years depending on taste. The early Iron Age was probably c 700-350BC and seems to be a period when elite stuff really died a death and the population decline was particularly bad. New Radiocarbon dating does see to indicate that there was a modest improvement in the 350-0 period, the reappearance of domestic structures, large linear earthworks, royal site enclosures and burials at roughly the sort of period we see the resumption of elite metalwork in much of Ireland in the form of La Tene metalwork-a sure sign that there is a surplus and an elite has re-emerged to use it. Interesting too how much of the La Tene material is linked to horses and perhaps chariots. This unusual bias towards this sort of material IMO ties in with a general feeling that the Iron Age Irish were mobile, warlike and very pastoral rather like the Elizabethan period where again we know the Irish were on a war footing, highly mobile but not long distant nomadic and houses of substance are rare and native domestic pottery likely absent etc. The Iron Age is one of those periods where Ireland looks like a half way house between total nomadic pastoralism and settled farming rather like it seems to be be in Elizabethan times according to historic accounts.

Ireland seems to have alternated between periods of more settled farming and what seems like an at least locally highly mobile pastoralist tradition. For example you have the big investment rectangular houses at the start of the Neolithic slowly becoming more and more ephemeral as the period went on. You have a slow increase in substantial building in the Bronze Age followed by few in the Iron Age and Roman period. Then in the 500AD-900AD period there is a lot of good evidence for domestic settlement but this slowly tails off again in a period of large scale war. There is again not much in the full Medieval and Elizabethan periods when again the Irish were involved in a lot of wars. Its like the Irish had a pattern in unstable situation of contant war to fall back to a core locally mobile pastoralism with low investment in domestic dwelling punctuated by some periods of more settled living.

TigerMW
11-18-2014, 05:04 PM
I realize that ancient mtDNA is easier to recover, but something to keep in mind is that mtDNA H has been found in European Neolithic and possibly Mesolithic contexts, while ancient y-dna R1b thus far is limited to the two males from the Beaker site near Kromsdorf, Germany. MtDNA H has been recovered in Portugal, circa 5500-4750 BC, while Kromsdorf is as far west as it gets for R1b so far, circa 2600 BC.

Of course, this could be due to the luck of the draw. Y-dna is more difficult than mtDNA to recover from ancient remains. Perhaps we just haven't found older and more western R1b yet but it is out there (personally, I doubt it). Still, the number of finds is mounting, and no R1b older than 2600 BC or farther west than Kromsdorf (near Weimar in east-central Germany) has been recovered.

In addition, if Mallory, Anthony, and others are right, and PIE came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, wouldn't it be surpassing odd if one of the major branches of Indo-European, Celtic, came out of Iberia, rather than into Iberia? Isn't it a stretch to take Celtic and bring it from the PC steppe to Iberia, supposedly along the Mediterranean littoral, bypassing the more likely route up the Danube Valley and thence into Western Europe? And all that to have it arrive in Iberia in time to be spread by Beaker Folk out of Iberia?

Did it arrive there as Italo-Celtic and develop in situ in Iberia into both branches, Italic and Celtic?

Seems far fetched to me, in both senses of far fetched, literal and figurative.

The one thing that I can't figure into the situation, although they were later, is the "Sea People" that Egyptians wrote of. Is there any chance that these people could be some kind of descendants of Beaker folks?

alan
11-18-2014, 05:13 PM
I realize that ancient mtDNA is easier to recover, but something to keep in mind is that mtDNA H has been found in European Neolithic and possibly Mesolithic contexts, while ancient y-dna R1b thus far is limited to the two males from the Beaker site near Kromsdorf, Germany. MtDNA H has been recovered in Portugal, circa 5500-4750 BC, while Kromsdorf is as far west as it gets for R1b so far, circa 2600 BC.

Of course, this could be due to the luck of the draw. Y-dna is more difficult than mtDNA to recover from ancient remains. Perhaps we just haven't found older and more western R1b yet but it is out there (personally, I doubt it). Still, the number of finds is mounting, and no R1b older than 2600 BC or farther west than Kromsdorf (near Weimar in east-central Germany) has been recovered.

In addition, if Mallory, Anthony, and others are right, and PIE came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, wouldn't it be surpassing odd if one of the major branches of Indo-European, Celtic, came out of Iberia, rather than into Iberia? Isn't it a stretch to take Celtic and bring it from the PC steppe to Iberia, supposedly along the Mediterranean littoral, bypassing the more likely route up the Danube Valley and thence into Western Europe? And all that to have it arrive in Iberia in time to be spread by Beaker Folk out of Iberia?

Did it arrive there as Italo-Celtic and develop in situ in Iberia into both branches, Italic and Celtic?

Seems far fetched to me, in both senses of far fetched, literal and figurative.

Yeah it seems to me that the press love the out of Iberia model. I dont think its easy to see how it can work. At some point from 3000BC-2500BC it is likely that R1b came INTO Iberia. I think any model that wishes to see Iberia as a secondary jumping off point of importance for R1b must firstly account for how it got to Iberia first. If it doesnt do that then its kind of worthless IMO as the evidence to date is for no R1b in the central and west Med. until at some point after 3000BC. There is to date no evidence for Neolithic R1b anywhere. If the hard positive and negative ancient DNA evidence to date is taken at face value and combined with basic phylogeny of M269 then R1b appears not long before 2600BC in central Europe from the east.

TigerMW
11-18-2014, 05:37 PM
Yeah it seems to me that the press love the out of Iberia model. I dont think its easy to see how it can work. At some point from 3000BC-2500BC it is likely that R1b came INTO Iberia. I think any model that wishes to see Iberia as a secondary jumping off point of importance for R1b must firstly account for how it got to Iberia first. If it doesnt do that then its kind of worthless IMO as the evidence to date is for no R1b in the central and west Med. until at some point after 3000BC. There is to date no evidence for Neolithic R1b anywhere. If the hard positive and negative ancient DNA evidence to date is taken at face value and combined with basic phylogeny of M269 then R1b appears not long before 2600BC in central Europe from the east.

I would not be surprised if R1b, or at least the P312 types, didn't enter Iberia until even later, like the mid to late Bell Beaker phases. This could be related to what has been called the "reflux" model but may really have just been infusion of new people (or new men anyway) rather than a "bounce-back". Metallurgy changed in Iberia at just about the right timeframe.

razyn
11-18-2014, 09:24 PM
If the hard positive and negative ancient DNA evidence to date is taken at face value and combined with basic phylogeny of M269 then R1b appears not long before 2600BC in central Europe from the east.

Emphases mine -- but I can't help thinking there's a pretty fundamental caveat to the whole "Celtic from the West" hypothesis, lurking in this. There are good arguments to be made for some of that stuff -- I'm not a complete skeptic about Cunliffe and Koch. But if the Oppenheimer genetic chronology is removed (as one leg of the tripod on which that hypothesis stands), some of the linguistic affiliations proposed for prehistoric archaeological horizons may also be much more shaky. There must be affiliations, we just need to be careful about which ones we attribute to whom.

Dubhthach
11-18-2014, 10:01 PM
Yes this picture has been known for a while and very roughly speaking the Iron Age can be divided into two phases give or take 50-100 years depending on taste. The early Iron Age was probably c 700-350BC and seems to be a period when elite stuff really died a death and the population decline was particularly bad. New Radiocarbon dating does see to indicate that there was a modest improvement in the 350-0 period, the reappearance of domestic structures, large linear earthworks, royal site enclosures and burials at roughly the sort of period we see the resumption of elite metalwork in much of Ireland in the form of La Tene metalwork-a sure sign that there is a surplus and an elite has re-emerged to use it. Interesting too how much of the La Tene material is linked to horses and perhaps chariots. This unusual bias towards this sort of material IMO ties in with a general feeling that the Iron Age Irish were mobile, warlike and very pastoral rather like the Elizabethan period where again we know the Irish were on a war footing, highly mobile but not long distant nomadic and houses of substance are rare and native domestic pottery likely absent etc. The Iron Age is one of those periods where Ireland looks like a half way house between total nomadic pastoralism and settled farming rather like it seems to be be in Elizabethan times according to historic accounts.

Ireland seems to have alternated between periods of more settled farming and what seems like an at least locally highly mobile pastoralist tradition. For example you have the big investment rectangular houses at the start of the Neolithic slowly becoming more and more ephemeral as the period went on. You have a slow increase in substantial building in the Bronze Age followed by few in the Iron Age and Roman period. Then in the 500AD-900AD period there is a lot of good evidence for domestic settlement but this slowly tails off again in a period of large scale war. There is again not much in the full Medieval and Elizabethan periods when again the Irish were involved in a lot of wars. Its like the Irish had a pattern in unstable situation of contant war to fall back to a core locally mobile pastoralism with low investment in domestic dwelling punctuated by some periods of more settled living.

Indeed the arival of the Norman's appears to lead to fragmentation and increase in Nomandism among the elite anyways (the elite depended on income from estates etc.), a good example of course been: Clan Muircheartaigh Uí Conchobhair ("Children" of Muirchertach Muimhnech Ua Conchobair). Katharine Simms published an article about them in Galway Archaeological and Historical Society, volume 53, 2001.



... the earliest, most aristocratic and best documented example of increasing nomadism in the northern half of Ireland in the late middle ages. ... In spite of the fact that they were a very numerous branch of the O'Conor family, who supplied five kings to the throne of Connacht, they seem to have vanished away in the early fifteenth century, never to be heard of again.


http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25535718?uid=3738232&uid=4582711737&uid=2&uid=3&uid=60&sid=21105239023673

What's evident in period after 1200 that when it came to housing etc that "Chief's" didn't tend to care how whimsical they were in construction as they could be easily abadoned in times of war etc. In sense the constant state of war seemed to encourage a semi-nomadism, which if you ask me survives today in the shape of the traveller community (nearly all of whom bear native Irish surnames, with heavily emphasis on west of Ireland surnames)

alan
11-18-2014, 11:04 PM
I would not be surprised if R1b, or at least the P312 types, didn't enter Iberia until even later, like the mid to late Bell Beaker phases. This could be related to what has been called the "reflux" model but may really have just been infusion of new people (or new men anyway) rather than a "bounce-back". Metallurgy changed in Iberia at just about the right timeframe.

I dont understand how fan of out of Iberia can brush over the INTO Iberia issue. I also tend to think there were more than one beaker peoples and P312 got INTO Iberia most likely in the beaker phase. The nature of the beaker phenomenon has always left several possibilities open. I cannot rule out pre-beaker R1b reaching Iberia with copper a few centuries before beaker but I remain to be convinced as there are several Ancient DNA pre-beaker samples from the area between Italy and Portugal in the date range c.3600-2800BC of the pre-beaker ccopper age and none are R1b so far. I am more and more coming to the view that R1b was not involved in the earliest beaker phase of movement along the west Med. and into the southern Alps.

That raises the question of where a secondary beakerised group carrying R1b did arise. I assume it was in one place but it cannot be entirely ruled out that it happened a couple of time. We need to consider where beaker and an R1b carrying culture were in long enough contact to produce an R1b-beaker group or groups.

We have the tie point of Kromsdorf c. 2500-2600BC. Here we see the classic developed beaker inhumation tradition already present and developed. So, it is clear that this had already developed. The pre-beaker burials are classic corded ware. I suspect if we could find the earliest example of an inhumation with classic beaker tradition orientation then we would probably find an earlier R1b beaker guy.

I think that is worth pursuing. Kromsdorf is relatively early for a beaker burial in its area. So, IMO we have to look somewhere else but not too far away to find the origin of the classic central and north-west European beaker inhumation burial tradition. I dont have an exact answer for this but I think we wont be far off correct in thinking this developed in central Europe somewhere. It stands to reason that it developed in a pre-Kromsdorf contact point where the western aspects of beaker could combine with other central European traditions to create the classic beaker single burial of central Europe. I dont think there is any evidence for this classic burial tradition greatly pre-dating Kromsdorf so Kromsdorf may be relatively early in that tradition which is interesting given its known to be M269.

Jean M
11-19-2014, 08:10 AM
So, IMO we have to look somewhere else but not too far away to find the origin of the classic central and north-west European beaker inhumation burial tradition.

You may have missed the recent paper in BAR International Series 2633 (2014), which completely overturns the idea that there were different burial practices in eastern and western BB: https://www.academia.edu/8379295/11_Pratiques_fun%C3%A9raires_du_Campaniforme_-_Bell_beaker_funeral_practices


Summary : From the point of view of funerary practices, two large, broad provinces of the Beaker culture used to be distinguished : in the south (the western Mediterranean and Iberian Peninsula) and in the west (the Atlantic region) areas of the Beaker culture, the dead would be preferentially buried in reused pre-Beaker megaliths, while the domain of the individual grave falls in the eastern region. A closer examination shows that this division does not reflect the prehistoric reality. Far from being specific to the Atlantic-Mediterranean region, the reutilisation of earlier monumental tombs (megalithic chambers or tumulus) is commonly practiced throughout the Beaker area. This practice is simply more visible in the zone with the most monumental graves which corresponds to the southern and western areas of the second megalithism. A careful review of the available literature also shows that the southern and western zone produced, alongside reused megaliths, numerous flat individual graves, which in certain cases had been covered by a tumulus. This mixture of practices is attested in all the regions of the Beaker culture where monumental tombs existed. In the south and west, the predominance of reuse is only manifested by the great visibility of monumental graves. The traditional opposition between a large province where reuse was practised and a province where individual graves were used, therefore has to be abandoned.

Before the beginning of the Beaker period, reuse had already been widely practiced in the Corded ware and Yamnaja cultures, posing the question of an eventual eastern origin for this usage. In the Corded ware and Beaker culture, reused structures are not systematically monumental tombs, in a number of cases flat graves were reused. The reused funerary contexts were either old tombs, pre-Beaker or pre-Corded ware, or the first users of the tombs had the same material culture as the second users. In the irst case, the chronological scope between the two users is very variable. The reuse can involve monuments abandoned for many centuries as well as ‘living’ structures. The idea frequently advanced that Beaker period reuse hides the reality, particularly for the Iberian Peninsula, of a continuity both demographic and ideologically from the culture substrate, is equally open to discussion. Actually, the available data strongly support a hypothesis which, in contrast, places a greater emphasis on notions of intrusion or rupture. The corresponding scenario is illustrated by the cases of partial destruction and the emptying of older monuments. The fact that monuments are frequently abandoned for centuries before they are reused also supports this argument. Finally, it is important to underline that Beaker communities in general only placed a single burial in pre-Beaker funerary chambers. There is thus not a continuity with the previous practice of collective burial, but rather the placing of an individual burial within a collective tomb. The treatment of the dead therefore obeys the same rule across the whole of the Beaker field. In the south and in the west, this practice is clearly a rupture with indigenous use. Generally, this is merely a reproduction of the funerary system used in the Corded ware culture.

Jean M
11-19-2014, 08:30 AM
So, IMO we have to look somewhere else but not too far away to find the origin of the classic central and north-west European beaker inhumation burial tradition. I dont have an exact answer for this but I think we wont be far off correct in thinking this developed in central Europe somewhere..

Both single burials under mounds and the re-use of said mounds for secondary burials are found in Yamnaya. The choice of a particular type of burial could have reflected personal choice and circumstances, just as it does today. For example a Yamnaya chief could be buried centrally under a mound, then his wife or child could be buried in separate secondary graves within his mound.

Both the Bell Beaker tradition and the Corded Ware/Single Grave tradition are descendants of Yamnaya. That has long been recognised. The only question marks have been over:


The degree to which Corded Ware reflected Yamnaya migration. The favourite idea was elite dominance. We now have a forthcoming paper showing that CW people were about 75% Yamnaya.
The exact route from Yamnaya to Bell Beaker.

Heber
11-19-2014, 10:13 AM
Cunliffe also supports a connection between Megalithic and Bell Beaker. So was it reuse of Megalithic Graves or evolution from a common cultural element?

"Similarly, the genetic influx from the southwest associated with the Bell Beaker culture could be correlated with an earlier spread of the Celtic language family across Western Europe than assumed, as recently suggested by linguists (Koch, 2009; Cunliffe and Koch, 2010). Such a coherent cultural package in the West could there- fore also be linked with the pattern of high frequencies of mtDNA haplogroup H and Y-haplogroup R1b in modern-day West Euro- peans, as suggested in Brotherton et al. (2013) and hypothesised by Barry Cunliffe's model of Atlantic Europe, which rests upon a common cultural element emerging during the Megalithic, i.e., Middle Neolithic in Western Europe (Cunliffe, 2001)."

"With some notable exceptions, most Iberian early Bell Beaker burials are at or near the coastal regions. As for the settlements and monuments within the Iberian context, Beaker pottery is generally found in association with local Chalcolithic material and appears most of all as an "intrusion" from the 3rd millennium in burial monuments whose origin may go back to the 4th or 5th millennium BC."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture#Iberian_peninsula

alan
11-19-2014, 11:39 AM
You may have missed the recent paper in BAR International Series 2633 (2014), which completely overturns the idea that there were different burial practices in eastern and western BB: https://www.academia.edu/8379295/11_Pratiques_fun%C3%A9raires_du_Campaniforme_-_Bell_beaker_funeral_practices

I totally agree with the idea that we find beakers where prominent old/disused megaliths were located and were reused and that this gives a false impression of an Atlantic megalithic beaker zone. A map of beaker burials in megaliths is effectively really is is a map of where megalithic tombs were located in the Neolithic in pre-beaker times.

However, there is one issue and that is that megalithic burials seem to have ceased in Ireland by c. 3000BC but yet from 2500BC a completely new form of megalithic burial monument appears - the wedge tomb- and the dates for the primary deposits in these seem to very closely match the beaker era of c. 2400-2000BC in Ireland and many have beaker pot, arrows etc. The association between the building of these tombs and the beaker period seems certain.

However, I personally think they are being misinterpreted and on the ground they actually often look for all the world like large above-ground boxes or cists - especially the small ones which can look just like a stone box of 4 side slabs and a lid. I personally tend to think this form probably evolved in areas where the bedrock is just below a thin soil and it was sensible to effectively build an above ground cist or chamber rather than try and excavate a pit. Its very hard to fully understand the burial tradition involved because they have so often been disturbed and re-used in post-beaker times but my general impression is that they would have held the bones on no more than a household. They often are of a design that would make it inconvenient to reuse due to very low front opening which makes me think they were not designed with a lot of re-used in mind.

alan
11-19-2014, 12:06 PM
Both single burials under mounds and the re-use of said mounds for secondary burials are found in Yamnaya. The choice of a particular type of burial could have reflected personal choice and circumstances, just as it does today. For example a Yamnaya chief could be buried centrally under a mound, then his wife or child could be buried in separate secondary graves within his mound.

Both the Bell Beaker tradition and the Corded Ware/Single Grave tradition are descendants of Yamnaya. That has long been recognised. The only question marks have been over:


The degree to which Corded Ware reflected Yamnaya migration. The favourite idea was elite dominance. We now have a forthcoming paper showing that CW people were about 75% Yamnaya.
The exact route from Yamnaya to Bell Beaker.


Jean-thanks for the feedback. What I was really getting at was not the megalithic vs single burial thing but the origin of the specific orientation of the classic central European beaker inhumation burial with its its directional preferences and gender based orientations. I think its male head to the north on left side facing east and female head to south on right side also facing east. I know it varies across the beaker world but I am interested in this central European beaker group. However, I am not aware and doubt that radiocarbon dating is fine grained enough to establish origin of the right other than generally central Europe c. 2500-2600BC.

alan
11-19-2014, 12:17 PM
Wedge tombs are often like stone boxes, a crazy design for anything other than use as a kind of cist (small, very low) and you could trip over many of them. They do not relate to the Neolithic period court tombs, portal tombs and passage tombs which had ceased to be built half of a millenium before wedge tombs appeared a the same time as beakers. To me its clear they are above ground cists and were introduced at the time beakers and metalwork appeared. Have a look at some of them:

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/20/42/73/gleninsheen-wedge-tomb.jpg

http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.4130600.1748/flat,550x550,075,f.jpg

http://irishantiquities.bravehost.com/clare/poulaphuca/poulaphuca01.JPG

rms2
11-19-2014, 12:47 PM
Both single burials under mounds and the re-use of said mounds for secondary burials are found in Yamnaya. The choice of a particular type of burial could have reflected personal choice and circumstances, just as it does today. For example a Yamnaya chief could be buried centrally under a mound, then his wife or child could be buried in separate secondary graves within his mound.

Both the Bell Beaker tradition and the Corded Ware/Single Grave tradition are descendants of Yamnaya. That has long been recognised. The only question marks have been over:


The degree to which Corded Ware reflected Yamnaya migration. The favourite idea was elite dominance. We now have a forthcoming paper showing that CW people were about 75% Yamnaya.
The exact route from Yamnaya to Bell Beaker.


Thanks, Jean, for that post and the link in your prior post to the report showing that Beaker, CW, and Yamnaya reused older tombs.

This is just one more indication, IMO, that R1b flowed into Beaker via contact with Yamnaya. In other words, Yamnaya was the source of the R1b that moved west and spread centum IE with it, primarily, in the case of BB, Italo-Celtic.

Jean M
11-19-2014, 01:11 PM
This is just one more indication, IMO, that R1b flowed into Beaker via contact with Yamnaya. In other words, Yamnaya was the source of the R1b that moved west and spread centum IE with it, primarily, in the case of BB, Italo-Celtic.

BB and Corded Ware (both starting c. 2750 BC) were descended from Yamnaya which lasted between about 3600 BC and 2900 BC, according to Anthony 2007, pp. 314-6. It has always seemed logical to me that R1b must have been somewhere in the Yamnaya Horizon by the time it began to expand up the Danube c. 3100 BC (ibid, p. 361), for that movement up the Danube is the logical source of an IE dialect that developed into Italo-Celtic. By that time Yamnaya had absorbed previous cultures as it moved westwards across the steppe. I toyed at one time with the idea of R1b in Crimea from the Caucasus, but ended up plumping for R1b in Cucuteni and thence via Mikhailovka (which was absorbed by Yamnaya) to Crimea. It would guess that R1b was also present in the Yamnaya/Cucuteni mix of Usatovo, which Anthony sees as the start of the trail that led eventually, after many twists and turns, to Proto-Gemanic.

But anyway, there is no way to confirm the source until we get ancient DNA.

rms2
11-19-2014, 01:13 PM
. . .

We have the tie point of Kromsdorf c. 2500-2600BC. Here we see the classic developed beaker inhumation tradition already present and developed. So, it is clear that this had already developed . . .

Yes, and if I recall correctly, Kromsdorf had an mtDNA profile that was not predominantly H.

rms2
11-19-2014, 01:16 PM
BB and Corded Ware (both starting c. 2750 BC) were descended from Yamnaya which lasted between about 3600 BC and 2900 BC, according to Anthony 2007, pp. 314-6. It has always seemed logical to me that R1b must have been somewhere in the Yamnaya Horizon by the time it began to expand up the Danube c. 3100 BC (ibid, p. 361), for that movement up the Danube is the logical source of an IE dialect that developed into Italo-Celtic. By that time Yamnaya had absorbed previous cultures as it moved westwards across the steppe. I toyed at one time with the idea of R1b in Crimea from the Caucasus, but ended up plumping for R1b in Cucuteni and thence via Mikhailovka (which was absorbed by Yamnaya) to Crimea. It would guess that R1b was also present in the Yamnaya/Cucuteni mix of Usatovo, which Anthony sees as the start of the trail that led eventually, after many twists and turns, to Proto-Gemanic.

But anyway, there is no way to confirm the source until we get ancient DNA.

This is just my opinion, but I don't think R1b was in Cucuteni-Tripolye, except by way of admixture from farther east. I think Cucuteni-Tripolye will wind up being predominantly G2a and I2.

Jean M
11-19-2014, 01:21 PM
This is just my opinion, but I don't think R1b was in Cucuteni-Tripolye, except by way of admixture from farther east. I think Cucuteni-Tripolye will wind up being predominantly G2a and I2.

Could well be. I2 looks a safe bet and a lot of the present G2 in Europe looks like it spread later than the early Neolithic, so that too could be another fellow traveller with R1b.

alan
11-19-2014, 01:41 PM
This is an interesting paper about beaker period wedge tombs in Ireland which although 4 or 5 years old seems to have recently appeared on the net. He even touches on Migration as he considers the dating evidence to show a clear half millenium discontinuity between the Neolithic phase of megaltith building and the building of wedge tombs as well as noting the very sudden and widespread appearance of wedge tombs in Ireland at the time of beaker, copper etc. I think a person would have to be a pedant to not feel they are almost certainly connected.

http://www.academia.edu/543798/Largantea_and_the_dating_of_Irish_wedge_tombs

alan
11-19-2014, 02:03 PM
I no longer think its likely Cuc-Trip was R1b originally as its source was earlier Balkans Neolithic groups and they or their derivatives like LBK have none in ancient DNA. R1b really does look like something de nouveau in 4th/early 3rd millennium farming Europe. Unfortunately its impossible to refine the timing of its arrival on present thin evidence but it does seem to be missing in samples from the 7th, 6th, 5th and 4th millennium so far although it seems likely that it expanded at least a little in the latter before its big expansion in the 3rd millennium.

I suppose a legitimate question to ask is why R1b has not been found in corded ware yet. The latter had roots in Usatovo and before that Yamnaya and Cuc. Again though the sample is too small to conclude. If its real there was obviously a fair bit of nuance in the genetic geography c. 3000BC or alternatively its just chance.

Michał
11-19-2014, 02:53 PM
Both the Bell Beaker tradition and the Corded Ware/Single Grave tradition are descendants of Yamnaya. That has long been recognised. The only question marks have been over:


The degree to which Corded Ware reflected Yamnaya migration. The favourite idea was elite dominance. We now have a forthcoming paper showing that CW people were about 75% Yamnaya.
The exact route from Yamnaya to Bell Beaker.


I don’t think this can be presented as a consensus view among the archaeologists. Could you please provide any paper showing that most archaeologists specializing in CW or BB support this view? There are indeed some apparent similarities between these cultures but not enough to demonstrate any kind of “continuity” between Yamna (as an ancestral culture) and CW+BB (as two “descending” cultures). In fact, Yamna and CW are for the most part two parallel cultures (since about 3000-2900 BC to 2300-2200 BC. Importantly, CW is very different from Yamna from the very beginning and there is nothing that would resemble any intermediate stage showing a transition from Yamna to CW.

An alternative scenario that would explain the similarities between Yamna, CW and BB is that all these cultures derive (at least partially) from a common ancestral culture (most likely of some Eastern European origin).


BB and Corded Ware (both starting c. 2750 BC) were descended from Yamnaya which lasted between about 3600 BC and 2900 BC, according to Anthony 2007, pp. 314-6.

As for Anthony, he actually derives CW from TRB and does not even consider CW to be definitely IE-speaking before undergoing a strong influence from Yamna (starting from about 2600 BC only), which all together does not make much sense IMO:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1519-Languages-and-Y-DNA-lineages/page38&p=22529#post22529

Also, your dates for Yamna and CW seem to be “adjusted” a bit to fit your favorite scenario.

alan
11-19-2014, 03:23 PM
The reason I brought up the central European classic 'east group' beaker burial of male on left side, head to north facing east etc is that we know a guy buried in that position at Kromsdorf was an M269xU106 person. We know nothing further in terms of yDNA and beakers.Its always best to work outwards from what you know for sure when trying to deduce from little info. So a very simple idea I had is that if Kromsdorf was buried in this very specific way which was different from the corded ware substrate then it is a reasonable assumption that other people who buried this way are more likely to be related to him. So, the suspicion must be that at least the subset of beaker people who buried in this very specific way c. 2500-2600BC were also M269xU106 people related to Kromsdorf. I dont have a map to hand of this specific burial right but there may be one out there. I believe it was common around Czech Republic for example.

Certainly the dates so far, small though they are, would nicely support the yamnaya model - ancient DNA c. 3500-3000BC in farming Europe doesnt feature R1b so far. Personally I think its easier to see a Yamnaya model whereby beaker users at the south-east corner of the east beaker provence met up with late Yamnaya people in Hungary and perhaps the latter followed the original non-R1b beaker people from the west back to source - either taking over their trade or perhaps in partnership with them provided mobility as they were experts in horses and nomadic. It wouldnt take long before you have a lot of intermarriages and a hybrid culture emerging.

If you look at fig 1 and 2 here http://www.academia.edu/1249549/_2007_V._Heyd_Families_Prestige_Goods_Warriors_and _Complex_Societies_Beaker_Groups_of_the_3rd_Millen nium_cal_BC_along_the_Upper_and_Middle_Danube._Pro ceedings_of_the_Prehistoric_Society_73_2007_p._321-370

you can see exactly the only area where late Yamnaya and the bell beaker east group were geographically proximate. Those late Yamnaya groups appear to be the Hungary-Romania border area to the east and north of the Danube bend. We also know that by the time of Kromsdorf 2600-2500BC both the east group beaker burial tradition and R1b were present. So, any meeting must have taken place by 2600BC. Noone is likely to question that certain beaker traits must have arrived n central Europe from the south-west by way of some group heading north via the Rhone etc into central Europe somehow using the upper parts of the Rhine, Rhone and Danube to head into central Europe proper. There are not too many routes I find plausible other than that. The Danube is overwhelmingly likely to have been used to move deep into central Europe and as far as Budapest where it was very close to Yamnaya groups.

What I think is harder to work out is the process of beaker and R1b coming together - something I doubt was present in the early phase. For the bell beaker east group to actually form they had to be in contact with other bell beaker groups older than them i.e. the older groups in Iberia, southern France and perhaps north-west Italy. In some ways it makes most sense if the east group of beakers (badly named in some ways as they go as far west as Switzerland) evolved towards the north side of the western Alps as they were closest to the old SW Group and in a good position to exchange ideas and intermarry. However, if Yamnaya was involved directly then we would again be looking at the east group but this time the south-east extremity of the latter as Csepel.

Jean M
11-19-2014, 05:11 PM
I don’t think this can be presented as a consensus view among the archaeologists. Could you please provide any paper showing that most archaeologists specializing in CW or BB support this view?

Most archaeologists disagree with each other. ;) I was talking about people within Indo-European studies. The idea goes back at least to Gimbutas I think, but of course any idea involving migration was crushed in the anti-migrationist decades. Here are relevant sections from J.P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams (eds.), Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (1997):
p. 653

The enormous area of distribution, its dynamic borders, and cultural life-style (e.g., horses, wheeled vehicles) of the Yamna culture has insured its general recognition as the archaeological reflection of a major group of the early Indo-Europeans. Its specific identification is disputed since models for IE origins diverge considerably in terms of the time and place of dispersal. Within the "Kurgan model", it is seen as a variant of late IE, ancestral to many although not necessarily all IE-speaking groups.

p. 127

The Corded Ware culture(s) have long been regarded as typically Indo-European because of the lack of settlements which suggested a mobile pastoral economy (as was frequently assumed for the earliest Indo-Europeans); their wide area of distribution indicated rapid expansion at the appropriate time for IE dispersals, they were seen to be intrusive in many areas of Europe; the battle-axes were regarded a expressive of the warlike propensities frequently attributed to th IE-speaking peoples; their possession of both the horse and wheeled vehicles correlated well with some of the more diagnostic items of the reconstructed IE lexicon; their area of distribution coincided with various IE stocks such as Germanic, Baltic and Slavic; and no further significant cultural intrusion was admitted into their region that might have subsequently explained the emergence of IE stocks. For this reason, the Corded Ware culture was originally supposed to represent the PIE culture in theories that derived the Indo-Europeans from the north European plain. Today, this theory has little currency although the Corded Ware culture is still commonly seen as ancestral to those IE peoples whose immediate origins are sought across northern, central and parts of eastern Europe.... Some of the other past generalizations must also be modified; for example, there is clear evidence that the Corded Ware culture did engage in some agriculture.

For the clear relationship between Yamnaya and Bell Beaker see Harrison and Heyd 2007. https://www.academia.edu/1249547/_2007_R.J._Harrison_and_V._Heyd_The_Transformation _of_Europe_in_the_Third_Millennium_BC_The_Example_ of_Le_Petit_Chasseur_I_III_Sion_Valais_Switzerland _._Praehistorische_Zeitschrift_82_2_2007_p._129-214

Jean M
11-19-2014, 05:23 PM
Also, your dates for Yamna and CW seem to be “adjusted” a bit to fit your favorite scenario.

I don't do that sort of thing Michał. I follow the evidence, because I'm driven by curiosity rather than dreams.

The dates for CW and BB are the best I could arrive at from the most recent sources. For Corded Ware Wlodarczak, P. 2009. Radiocarbon and dendrochronological dates of the Corded Ware culture, Radiocarbon, 51 (2), 737-749. The dates from Yamnaya I cite Anthony for. I was a bit surprised when I looked at his tables of dates again and it may be that I should ignore the earliest date. I'd need to read it all again more carefully.

But this is all beside the point, because we have a paper coming out shortly showing that genetically CW derived from Yamnaya.

Jean M
11-19-2014, 05:35 PM
As for Anthony, he actually derives CW from TRB and does not even consider CW to be definitely IE-speaking before undergoing a strong influence from Yamna (starting from about 2600 BC only)

In fact he talks about an amalgamation of TRB and Yamnaya influences in CW. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA367&lpg=PA367#v=onepage&q&f=false (scroll down). On the next page he says that some CW groups in SE Poland might have evolved from Late TRB IE-speaking groups through connections with Usatovo. The idea of CW as an amalgamation of TRB and Yamnaya influences is not new. What Anthony is hinting is that IE influences could have spread into the TRB before the characteristic CW pottery appears. I suspect that he is right and that the situation in the CW region was complex linguistically. Several IE dialects could have followed each other in waves from the evolving core with a satem layer last.

alan
11-19-2014, 06:44 PM
This Heyd paper is of interest in that Kromsdorf seems to have been a northerly example of the central European bell beaker east group. There are some nice maps and it gives some idea of the bigger picture of the beaker subset that he was from

http://www.academia.edu/1249549/_2007_V._Heyd_Families_Prestige_Goods_Warriors_and _Complex_Societies_Beaker_Groups_of_the_3rd_Millen nium_cal_BC_along_the_Upper_and_Middle_Danube._Pro ceedings_of_the_Prehistoric_Society_73_2007_p._321-370

Interesting how the initial phase of the east group has taller pot, tanged dagger and two hole wrist guards. The rest is further local development into 4/6 hole guards, other pots etc. Its interesting because it means that the initial phase was not much different from the rest of the beaker world and the rest is local elaboration.

Michał
11-19-2014, 08:07 PM
Here are relevant sections from J.P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams (eds.), Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (1997):
p. 653
p. 127

The above citations suggest that CW was an IE-speaking culture (and I agree that this is an extremely likely scenario), yet there is nothing in those excerpts from Mallory and Adams that would prove (or even suggest) that CW should be regarded as descending from Yamna. In fact, what they write about Yamna is: “it is seen as a variant of late IE, ancestral to many although not necessarily all IE-speaking groups”. In other words, it is perfectly possible that both Early PIE and Late PIE predate Yamna, which would not require the IE-speaking CW population to descend from Yamna. Instead, what I suggest as a more likely option (as it fits archaeology and genetics much better) is that Yamna could be regarded as representing only some selected branches of IE (among those derived from Late PIE), while the Late PIE stage should be pushed back to a period of about 4500-3500 BC.


For the clear relationship between Yamnaya and Bell Beaker see Harrison and Heyd 2007. https://www.academia.edu/1249547/_2007_R.J._Harrison_and_V._Heyd_The_Transformation _of_Europe_in_the_Third_Millennium_BC_The_Example_ of_Le_Petit_Chasseur_I_III_Sion_Valais_Switzerland _._Praehistorische_Zeitschrift_82_2_2007_p._129-214

I agree that it is certainly possible that Yamna has influenced the BB people, yet the evidence for this is definitely not as strong as you suggest, otherwise this concept would be accepted by most of the archaeologists long time ago (despite those anti-migrationist tendencies you mention). What we see are only some individual (and relatively rare) elements of the Yamna package that have been able to reach the region west of the Pannonian plain between 2900 and 2700 BC, while we don’t know any archaeological culture/group from that very period that would show the evident transition from Yamna to BB.

Anyway, I agree with you that we need the aDNA data to verify this scenario.

rms2
11-19-2014, 08:13 PM
I no longer think its likely Cuc-Trip was R1b originally as its source was earlier Balkans Neolithic groups and they or their derivatives like LBK have none in ancient DNA. R1b really does look like something de nouveau in 4th/early 3rd millennium farming Europe . . .

Yes, that is what I think, too. Were R1b in Cucuteni-Tripolye, then it should be showing up in subsequent Neolithic sites in eastern and central Europe.

I think C-T y-dna will prove to have been mostly G2a with some I2, as well. Just my opinion.

Michał
11-19-2014, 08:21 PM
The dates for CW and BB are the best I could arrive at from the most recent sources.

Does it mean that the much earlier "Iberian" dates for BB (ie. pre-27500 BC) have been negatively verified? Or rather that you consider the early Iberian and Central European varieties of BB to represent two unrelated populations that started interacting with each other at some much later point?


For Corded Ware Wlodarczak, P. 2009. Radiocarbon and dendrochronological dates of the Corded Ware culture, Radiocarbon, 51 (2), 737-749.


The author of this paper warns us against accepting some extremely early dates for Early CW (like 3300-3000 BC), but he doesn’t seem to reject the dates suggesting that CW was present in Kujavia as early as 2900-2800 BC. Here is what he writes about it: “As far as the oldest dates are concerned, in particular regions there are only individual dates, which are regarded — with a great degree of probability — as older than ~2750 BC. In other words, they are older than the beginnings of the CWC in Switzerland.”

Importantly, it is obvious that once we accept that CW appeared in Switzerland about 2750 BC (according to Wlodarczyk), those earlier dates for some particular regions in East-Central Europe cannot be considered as controversial.



The dates from Yamnaya I cite Anthony for. I was a bit surprised when I looked at his tables of dates again and it may be that I should ignore the earliest date. I'd need to read it all again more carefully.


In this case it wasn't those early dates (ranging from 3600 to 3300 BC depending on sources) but rather the "latest" ones that appeared to be definitely wrong. Dating the end of Yamna to 2900 BC is not supported by any studies I know. It is commonly accepted that the classical stage of Yamna lasted till about 2600 BC, with some late local stages dated to 2600-2300 BC.

2900 BC is actually the moment when the expansion of Yamna (directed westward towards the Carpathian, Balkan and Danubian regions) has just started. As for Anthony, I recall him suggesting some interactions between CW and Yamna dated to 2800-2600 BC, so this would be inconsistent with Yamna disappearing after 2900 BC.

Michał
11-19-2014, 08:25 PM
The idea of CW as an amalgamation of TRB and Yamnaya influences is not new.

The point is he never suggests that CW could have originated from Yamna, but only that it has been influenced by Late Yamna at some later point (which he connects to a language shift towards Late IE), which is a huge difference (though let me repeat that I don’t share his view in this respect). In other words, he could not derive Early CW from Yamna because there is simply no archaeological data that would support such scenario.

Jean M
11-19-2014, 08:46 PM
Does it mean that the much earlier "Iberian" dates for BB (ie. pre-27500 BC) have been negatively verified?

I suspect that you have added a zero there. Negatively verified? No. Muller and van Willigan concluded that the start of Bell Beaker was between 2900 and 2700 BC. I decided to lean towards the conservative end of that range for the next book (2700s), as that is in line with new dates which have come out of a sealed context at Leceia and so should be reliable.

alan
11-19-2014, 09:17 PM
This Heyd paper is of interest in that Kromsdorf seems to have been a northerly example of the central European bell beaker east group. There are some nice maps and it gives some idea of the bigger picture of the beaker subset that he was from

http://www.academia.edu/1249549/_2007_V._Heyd_Families_Prestige_Goods_Warriors_and _Complex_Societies_Beaker_Groups_of_the_3rd_Millen nium_cal_BC_along_the_Upper_and_Middle_Danube._Pro ceedings_of_the_Prehistoric_Society_73_2007_p._321-370

Interesting how the initial phase of the east group has taller pot, tanged dagger and two hole wrist guards. The rest is further local development into 4/6 hole guards, other pots etc. Its interesting because it means that the initial phase was not much different from the rest of the beaker world and the rest is local elaboration.

I also think this is interesting evidence for geneflow on the female side from around Italy into central Europe around the time Kromsdorf was alive

In the Bell Beaker East Group, especially northof the Alps, marine Columbella rustica
shells occur in small numbers as grave goods in well-equipped women’s burials, in association with neck ornaments made of V-perforated bone buttons. These constitute the first clearly visible evidence for super-regional connections to the Mediterranean area (Poppe &Goto 1991) over much of Central Europe since the Early Neolithic... However the difference between the Neolithic and the Bell Beaker systems lies in the obvious central Mediterranean connection of the later system, with the shells travelling through the valleys of the Alps (Borrellot al.2002). It seems that these imported objects originated from the coasts of what is today Italy. In a wider context, they can perhaps be regarded as a by-product of the exchange and trade connections that were already established in the Middle Copper Age of c.3300–3200 cal BC, when Ötzi the Ice Man was living.

Jean M
11-19-2014, 09:31 PM
The point is he never suggests that CW could have originated from Yamna, but only that it has been influenced by Late Yamna at some later point (which he connects to a language shift towards Late IE), which is a huge difference (though let me repeat that I don’t share his view in this respect). In other words, he could not derive Early CW from Yamna because there is simply no archaeological data that would support such scenario.

Not so. If you read page 367 (to which I linked) you will see that he says:


The defining traits of the Corded Ware Horizon are a pastoral, mobile economy that resulted in the near disappearance of settlement sites (much like Yamnaya in the steppe), the almost universal adoption of funeral rituals involving single graves under mounds (like Yamnaya) ...

On the next page is the wording to which I think you are referring, but if you read it again, I think you will see that he is postulating various possible scenarios. "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." In other words, if other archaeologists are going to be stubbornly and stupidly anti-migrationist, then we have to explain somehow or other how IE entered CW, because CW is the best candidate for spreading IE in a large chunk of Europe.

alan
11-19-2014, 11:13 PM
I think I have basically given up in terms of anything short of DNA explaining the beaker-R1b connection and its origins. I think its fair to say archaeology hasnt cracked it. The only hard fact is that early in the east beaker central European group we had M269 derived R1b at Kromsdorf. I find it interesting that Kromsdorf is quoted as 2600-2500BC when normally the central European beaker group is quoted at 2500BC so I assume Kromsdorf is early. Its also at the northernmost bit of the east group of beakers. Its curious that its such an early date for central Europe and that its from the northern edge of the east group traditions. Also interesting is that not too far away to the south-east in Bohemia there are a really incredible amount of beaker graves.

I suppose in a nutshell we can probably assume that R1b, probably P312 IMO is associated with the eastern beaker group. Contrary to some of the attempts to group beakers, there is clear evidence of central European east beaker group originated elements reached the NW and isles for example polypod bowls. The skull type too. I think beaker is very hard to break into a neat map of subgroups - more like overlapping circles.

The two big questions I dont believe anyone can answer short of ancient DNA

1. Were all beaker regions R1b from the start of the culture- I have doubts about the earliest phase in SW Europe.

2. Where did R1b and beaker combine-IMO most likely central Europe or the Alps

3 what pre-beaker culture was M269 derivatives located in-pass

razyn
11-19-2014, 11:27 PM
The two big questions I dont believe anyone can answer short of ancient DNA

1. Were all beaker regions R1b from the start of the culture- I have doubts about the earliest phase in SW Europe.

2. Where did R1b and beaker combine-IMO most likely central Europe or the Alps

3 what pre-beaker culture was M269 derivatives located in-pass

I think I would have understood this post better if you had stopped at 2...

Michał
11-19-2014, 11:27 PM
Not so. If you read page 367 (to which I linked) you will see that he says:

On the next page is the wording to which I think you are referring, but if you read it again, I think you will see that he is postulating various possible scenarios. "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." In other words, if other archaeologists are going to be stubbornly and stupidly anti-migrationist, then we have to explain somehow or other how IE entered CW, because CW is the best candidate for spreading IE in a large chunk of Europe.

:) This is just your personal (and I'm afraid unsupported) interpretation of his intentions.
He might have indeed considered many different scenarios but you still fail to demonstrate that in any of those scenarios he suggested that the Early CW originated from Yamna.

Let me explain one thing. I am not one of those anti-migrationists who believe in local development of CW without any population influx from outside. However, when CW first emerges at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, there is simply nothing that would suggest that it has descended from the neighboring Yamna culture, as these two cultures are simply much too different to suggest this. In other words, I believe they are related to each other, but not because one descends from the other but because they both descend from the same ancestral culture. I hope the aDNA data will be able to definitely verify this (either positively or negatively).

BTW, would you be able to show me any recent archaeological papers on the origin of CW that point specifically to Yamna as the most likely source of CW?

Jean M
11-19-2014, 11:48 PM
BTW, would you be able to show me any recent archaeological papers on the origin of CW that point specifically to Yamna as the most likely source of CW?

I already did, though I didn't mention the CW element of it, as Harrison and Heyd 2007 focus primarily on Bell Beaker. But if you look at p. 201, you will see that they cover the similarities of Yamnaya and CW. As they are not trying to promote migration in this article, they reject the idea that CW was a steppe intrusion (e.g. Kilian 1957) and stick with the anti-migrationist model popular in more recent times in which CW represents the impact of ideas from Yamnaya assimilated by locals, with the arrival of individuals from the steppe. Of the latter they say that their significance derives from their social rank, the archetype being the the single burial from Bleckendorf, whose equipment and burial rite was typical of Yamnaya. It is dated c. 2850-2500 BC.

alan
11-20-2014, 12:28 AM
I think though when H and H describe broad cultural changes of the copper age they are convincing in a very broad brush way rather like the way today western European countries tend to progress to some extent together in terms of technology, trends and social change albeit with variation. Most of that happened without major migration. What they dont do is show self evident eastern origins and migration in the genesis of bell beaker in a way that is easy to think can explain R1b, IE etc.

The only way I can make any sense of it is that there were two beaker groups, only one of which was originally R1b. I think there is some reason to think that the early beaker people of c. 2700-2600BC were different and may not have been R1b and that the link of R1b and beaker happened in central Europe and then NW.

Was Yamnaya directly involved in that contact? I personally doubt it on chronological grounds but part Yamnaya derived groups could have been beakerised. That is why Corded Ware still feels like the elephant in the room as it was an apparently a part Yamnaya derived group who stretched from Russia/Ukraine to the western Alps at the time beaker underwent its expansion into central Europe. They must have been the substrate through the vast majority of the bell beaker east group as well as the Rhine, low countries c. 2500BC.

I know they are not the same thing but if the developed bell beaker culture of central and NW Europe was a hybrid of western and eastern elements then Corded Ware is the giant substrate thorough most of its geographical spread. Surely corded ware on chronological and geographical grounds is still is the most likely intermediary between early beaker and Yamnaya. I also think just because they are distinct cultures doesnt mean they are not mean they dont part share the same corded ware roots.

Let me put a scenario. Corded ware groups are spread from Russia to Swizerland and the Rhine by 2700BC. The early pre-2600BC beaker groups are concentrated along the west Med, south-west Alps and Rhone. They meet about 2600-2500BC in the Rhine-Rhone heads area-probably the most logical area for any such meeting between beaker and corded ware c. 2600BC. ONE -just ONE - subset of the western corded ware groups who happen to carry R1b starts to closely interact and take wives with the early beaker and comes to adopt many elements of their culture.

This relationship includes the beakerised corded ware group then spreading in the form of the beaker east group through unbeakerised corded ware territory deeper into central Europe initially on its margins on the poorer land in the margins (the Heyd paper I posted says there is evidence of this) and only gradually expanding into the better lands (IMO this has parallels with the way beaker operated in Ireland).

There are variants on this that could place the contact point between early southern beaker groups and corded ware further east along the Italy Alps. Actually the beauty of such a model is the beaker and corded ware people might have combined at any point along the Alps when a northern group 'stole the clothes' from a southern early beaker group.

Of course in a model like this R1b would have to be in at least the one crucial corded ware group that beakerised. If this happened then it is likely that the first beakerised group was the corded ware east group. The fact that that group developed a number of traditions that seem to both parallel but oppose corded ware traditions supports this idea IMO. Kromsdorf was in that east beaker group tradition and apparently really early in it almost like he was one of the first couple of generations of this group.

I just see the concept of an early non-R1b beaker group meeting and beakerising one small subset of the west-central European corded ware group carrying R1b as very plausible. By definition an early beakerised hybrid group of southern, Alpine and corded ware elements would be quite distinct from the rest of corded ware. Its a good way of squaring the problem of linking a east to west phylogeny of M269 with a west to east chronology of beaker pottery. Genetically it should be a hybrid of central European male lines and SW European female lines which does seem in line with evidence so far. Its not a new idea by any means. In fact its been a common concept for a very long time. I just cannot see a single reason why the model is unlikely.

I would say that after reading the subject to death for years I believe this is the most likely way R1b and beaker combined. It stitches a lot of loose ends together IMO. I dont think the apparent distinctiveness of beaker should be seen as a show stopper for this theory. Any small subset if a founder effect in itself and in this scenario where it also gets heavily influenced by a prestigious external group and marries into it while it compatriots do not will naturally lead to it being distinct. The strong similarity and other factors in the beaker east group of central Europe is suggestive of one group physically expanding and driving that new beaker culture rather than being a general cultural shift. I believe this hybriding event that led to the beaker-R1b link happened just once and then there was a demographic expansion from it fairly rapidly.

alan
11-20-2014, 01:39 AM
Well I think the nature and dating of R1a and its proven presence within corded ware do support a steppe element in corded ware. I also think its very likely R1b also came from the steppe but I do not see a direct Yamnaya-beaker link as at all likely- bordering on impossible. However corded ware does provide what surely is the main chronological and geographical intermediary between the two during almost all of bell beakers expansion through central Europe. Almost any question mark against the possibility of beaker in central European being the result of a unique beakerised group can be offset by intermarriage, the very uniqueness of the event etc IMO. However for this to be the case then naturally R1b would have to be among the lineages in Corded Ware. No evidence as yet. However, a lot of non-L51 derived lineages are common among the non-Slavs of the Balkans and lower Danube and L51xL11 peaks in Austria so it seems geographically and chronologically plausible that a movement from SE Europe after 3000BC into those zones corresponds with the genesis and spread of corded ware.

alan
11-20-2014, 01:53 AM
I think I would have understood this post better if you had stopped at 2...

why? R1b and beaker had to have combined within the beaker range and R1b is an eastern derived line so its natural to place the combination at some point in central Europe-central Europe stretching from the western Alps to places like Slovakia etc.

razyn
11-20-2014, 03:45 AM
I edited my post, to emphasize one of the reasons (because you said "two big questions"); but mainly because #3 doesn't make sense as a question, to me, even if "[I] pass" is its current answer (and that isn't obvious, to me). If the larger answer to all three of your two questions is, "aDNA may be able to inform us," I sort of agree. In a general way.

nuadha
11-20-2014, 07:48 AM
Well I think the nature and dating of R1a and its proven presence within corded ware do support a steppe element in corded ware. I also think its very likely R1b also came from the steppe but I do not see a direct Yamnaya-beaker link as at all likely- bordering on impossible. However corded ware does provide what surely is the main chronological and geographical intermediary between the two during almost all of bell beakers expansion through central Europe. Almost any question mark against the possibility of beaker in central European being the result of a unique beakerised group can be offset by intermarriage, the very uniqueness of the event etc IMO. However for this to be the case then naturally R1b would have to be among the lineages in Corded Ware. No evidence as yet. However, a lot of non-L51 derived lineages are common among the non-Slavs of the Balkans and lower Danube and L51xL11 peaks in Austria so it seems geographically and chronologically plausible that a movement from SE Europe after 3000BC into those zones corresponds with the genesis and spread of corded ware.

You have a whole pool of yamnaya in hungary, a soon to be beaker region, for which corded ware did not act as any kind of mediator. The yamnaya people of hungary can already be expected to be different from the CW and it also has the demographic potential needed to explain r1b.

Michał
11-20-2014, 10:45 AM
I already did, though I didn't mention the CW element of it, as Harrison and Heyd 2007 focus primarily on Bell Beaker. But if you look at p. 201, you will see that they cover the similarities of Yamnaya and CW. As they are not trying to promote migration in this article, they reject the idea that CW was a steppe intrusion (e.g. Kilian 1957)

So in other words, they notice the similarities between CW and Yamna (which can be explained in many different ways, including a more distant common ancestry) but reject the idea of CW being a result of direct Yamna intrusion, which confirms what I have suspected (ie. that there is not a single archaeological study that would demonstrate CW being a descendant of Yamna).


and stick with the anti-migrationist model popular in more recent times in which CW represents the impact of ideas from Yamnaya assimilated by locals, with the arrival of individuals from the steppe. Of the latter they say that their significance derives from their social rank, the archetype being the the single burial from Bleckendorf, whose equipment and burial rite was typical of Yamnaya. It is dated c. 2850-2500 BC.

Bleckendorf is not a „pure” CW site, as it includes some BB-specific elements, among others.

rms2
11-20-2014, 01:08 PM
You have a whole pool of yamnaya in hungary, a soon to be beaker region, for which corded ware did not act as any kind of mediator. The yamnaya people of hungary can already be expected to be different from the CW and it also has the demographic potential needed to explain r1b.

I agree and was wondering why Alan would say he does not see evidence of direct Beaker-Yamnaya contact. The Csepel Beaker sites in Hungary are among the oldest anywhere, at least according to radiocarbon dating, c. 2800 BC, if I recall correctly.

Anthony mentions this in his book, seeing it as a possible source of Italo-Celtic (I don't have the book with me, so I can't cite the page numbers - somewhere in the neighborhood of the 340's, I believe).

TigerMW
11-20-2014, 02:50 PM
I agree and was wondering why Alan would say he does not see evidence of direct Beaker-Yamnaya contact. The Csepel Beaker sites in Hungary are among the oldest anywhere, at least according to radiocarbon dating, c. 2800 BC, if I recall correctly.

Anthony mentions this in his book, seeing it as a possible source of Italo-Celtic (I don't have the book with me, so I can't cite the page numbers - somewhere in the neighborhood of the 340's, I believe).

I feel like I'm all alone on this as being something important. Has anyone noticed that
1) Desideri says the Hungarian Beaker men and adjacent Corded Ware men were homogenous while the women were not?
2) A metallurgy specialist (Merkel??) said the metallurgy between in the adjoining areas of these cultures was the same?

rms2
11-20-2014, 04:37 PM
Brandt et al mentions male Beaker flow into Central Europe and the dilution of Beaker mtDNA as Corded Ware mtDNA lineages appear among the Beaker Folk. We see that in the Beaker results from Kromsdorf, which are a lot more like Corded Ware mtDNA, with U5a, etc., and not so much H.

alan
11-20-2014, 05:43 PM
As far as I can see the very early Csepel date is not from a safe context and is out of step with all the other dates from the east group of beakers. Heyd doesnt appear to even mention it in the paper on the beaker east group I posted above. It seems that all the other dates from this group are not much older than c. 2500BC. I dont know the final dates for local Yamnaya in east Hungary - perhaps they could have just about had contact but Corded Ware is the really huge overlapping culture of immediate pre-beaker date in central Europe from the Rhine/Switzerland to east-central Europe around 2500BC. The feeling that beaker had a south-western element that mixed with corded ware n central Europe to produce a new beakerised culture that refluxed has been around for a very long time. Now that the evidence for Corded Ware having Yamnaya influences and at least some genes seems to have grown very strong of late then corded ware is the main yamnaya-ised group that beaker would have encountered in its wide central European span. Direct contact with very late Yamnaya through Csepel may have happened but I think Kromsdorf, an apparently very early example of beaker east culture, would fit best with the concept of western beaker meeting corded ware with its part Yamnaya roots in central Europe rather than relying on the Csepel groups possible contact. Csepel in itself was a southern outlier of the beaker east group and I am not convinced there are genuine early dates there. Kromsdorf was at the northernmost part of the beaker east group deep in corded ware territory at the very start of beaker east and is clearly in a beaker-corded ware interaction area as the beaker graves follow corded ware on the same site.

I dont think the hypothesis can be ruled out that some west-central European corded ware groups north of the Alps containing R1b were beakerised by G guys with H wives from the early beaker groups of SW Europe and that the outcome was a beakerised R1b group who then spread through central and NW Europe. I think NW Europe -Holland etc- do show links to the east group in the form of aspects of burial tradition and polypod bowls etc. It may have been complex. I just believe that we cannot make any assumptions of what a beakerised group of corded ware males and SW European males would be like as it may have been a unique event. The similarity of the east group or what should really be called the central European group is suggestive to me that it all derived from one particular expanding group rather than a broad hybriding. That of course is mirrored in yDNA where it does look like Beaker might have been the expansion of a single lineage that branched massively. When you have a situation like that then no assumptions can be made because it is a kind of one of.

The speed of it suggested in yDNA is also reflected in the widespread appearance of the classic beaker skulls c. 2500-2400BC. I suspect the 'out of nowhere' feel of the appearance of those skulls is simply down to being a family trait rather than truly racial. A peculiarity if you wish and looking to explain what is a family trait with reference to cultures is futile. If you think about it, it is kind of surprising that a cranial trait would remain if a lineage was spreading among lots of different peoples in different areas. What I would say is that the classic beaker skull would appear to be a trait of the sudden mega expansion period of c. 2500BC and is not known among earlier beaker groups. It may have been a short lived phenomenon. That is the impression I get that the classic beaker skull is a central and north-west European phenomenon of a century or so from 2500BC but I am guessing because I have never seen a table or list of dates. If the idea of a beakerised group in central Europe is correct then they are a unique hybrid group undergoing massive expansion- most corded ware groups remained just corded ware-and we cannot have any surprise that they differed from ordinary corded ware in some ways.

I really would like a new paper on bell beaker chronology where all dates before 2500BC - there are probably not a lot-are discussed in terms of the archaeological context rather than just materials. It is vital that the material dated is certainly linked with the pots - something that is not easy to show in collective megalithic tomb contexts. I found the Muller and Willigen paper very very unsatisfactory in this regard. While it did divide materials dated into better short life material and long life materials which might produce dates that are too early, it does not discuss context, stratigraphy etc in any detail. That leaves us having to accept that the association between the dated material and the beaker pot is certain or having to dig through a lot of papers and reports in a variety of languages if one wants confirmation. There are also too many areas where beaker dating is very poor like Italy for example. There are other areas where acid soils mean that virtually no gold standard short life material dates can be obtained like Holland. I definately think another crack at beaker chronology is needed.

alan
11-20-2014, 05:51 PM
Brandt et al mentions male Beaker flow into Central Europe and the dilution of Beaker mtDNA as Corded Ware mtDNA lineages appear among the Beaker Folk. We see that in the Beaker results from Kromsdorf, which are a lot more like Corded Ware mtDNA, with U5a, etc., and not so much H.

Kromsdorf was at the very northern edge of the east group living at a time when the group were barely coming into existence and there were no beaker people to his north. The R1b beaker graves were founded on a site with a female corded ware grave. There are suggestions that there was female geneflow from Italy both before and during the appearance of beaker group east too which could perhaps explain the H. I looks to me like it could have been a complicated situation.

alan
11-20-2014, 06:02 PM
I feel like I'm all alone on this as being something important. Has anyone noticed that
1) Desideri says the Hungarian Beaker men and adjacent Corded Ware men were homogenous while the women were not?
2) A metallurgy specialist (Merkel??) said the metallurgy between in the adjoining areas of these cultures was the same?

I would also add that the beaker culture that arose in central Europe in the 2500sBC does give the impression of being a new entity that spread from the margins to the centre at a pretty rapid pace. It seems to me to have come into being and spread like wildfire very fast. The possibility of a central European R1b people making alliances with south-western beaker people seems very strong and logical. If you had south-western beaker people penetrating into central Europe it seems the logical way of making alliances would be the marriage of SW early beaker pot using people with central European men. That situation would not have remained forever and the flow of SW females and their lines would only serve a purpose for as long as the central Europeans needed the alliance. An alliance sustained over a few generations could have had a major cultural effect - especially in terms of the more female orientated beaker aspects like pottery, awls, clothing, buttons etc. However the marriages were not the end but the means to an end of an alliance so the influences could have been male too.

This can only be answered by two ancient DNA things

1. Test the DNA of the earliest beaker pot users of SW Europe-is it R1b - I doubt it
2. Get a much larger sample of the DNA of the corded ware peoples that the beaker culture met - is it R1b - it seems logical enough in a phylogenic geographical sense

Jean M
11-20-2014, 06:16 PM
So in other words, they notice the similarities between CW and Yamna (which can be explained in many different ways, including a more distant common ancestry) but reject the idea of CW being a result of direct Yamna intrusion, which confirms what I have suspected (ie. that there is not a single archaeological study that would demonstrate CW being a descendant of Yamna).

Michał - I realise that this is all very confusing. Archaeologists using traditional methods (i.e. just looking at material remains, not using isotopes or DNA) were not good at detecting migration. There could be various explanations for an object in place A that looks exactly like objects in place B. e.g.


trade
transfer of ideas
a travelling artisan
imitating the neighbours
the spread of a religion by travelling evangelists
a dynastic marriage that involved a court or new religion arriving with the incoming spouse
the takeover of one elite by another
amalgamation of locals with an incoming people
complete population replacement


For decades there has been so strong a bias against the last two of these that if there was any other conceivable explanation, that was the one preferred. Migration was so out of favour that even data which made mass migration easily, indeed overwhelming, the most likely explanation, as with CW spreading a way of life and burial style first seen in Yamnaya, were interpreted as continuity, in this case with just a few key Yamnaya people spreading these ideas northwards.

But now we have ancient DNA. It is the end of the anti-migrationist paradigm.

alan
11-20-2014, 06:22 PM
So in other words, they notice the similarities between CW and Yamna (which can be explained in many different ways, including a more distant common ancestry) but reject the idea of CW being a result of direct Yamna intrusion, which confirms what I have suspected (ie. that there is not a single archaeological study that would demonstrate CW being a descendant of Yamna).



Bleckendorf is not a „pure” CW site, as it includes some BB-specific elements, among others.

Corded ware is, like beaker slightly later, a hybrid entity that neither is entirely like Yamnaya or entirely like the pre-corded ware groups in the same area. Already ancient DNA seems to confirm that corded ware was a mix of R1a and non-R people. It looks like a hybrid of Yamnaya and Neolithic peoples that produced something entirely new. The similarity over a wide are in corded ware culture is strongly suggestive of a very rapid expansion after this new corded ware group came into existence. I find the evidence fairly convincing.

My point is that the developed beaker culture also looks like a hybrid new entity that then spread like wildfire. One point I would make is that until this hybriding event the spread of beaker had been not very impressive-basically as spread from Iberia to southern France and adjacent areas of the south-west Alps. It is only in the hydrided state around 2500BC that we see a huge leap in its distribution as well as a whole variety of new aspects to the beaker culture. I suspect the hybriding event between early beaker SW European non-R1b lines and central European, probably corded ware, R1b lines was the point at which beaker really found its feet and was able to mega expand within one century across central and northern Europe.

To date the ancient DNA supports such a model IMO with Languedoc, Otzi and other very late Neolithic Iberians and others not coming up R1b. So I think the earliest beaker users of SW Europe were non-R1b and that R1b in places like Iberia, SW France etc did not arrive until later in the beaker period and even later than that.

I have said this several times that Kromsdorf looks suspiciously like one of the very earliest members of the new beaker east group entity according to radiocarbon. Its easier IMO to look upon him as a local beakerised person IMO

alan
11-20-2014, 06:25 PM
Michał - I realise that this is all very confusing. Archaeologists using traditional methods (i.e. just looking at material remains, not using isotopes or DNA) were not good at detecting migration. There could be various explanations for an object in place A that looks exactly like objects in place B. e.g.


trade
transfer of ideas
a travelling artisan
imitating the neighbours
the spread of a religion by travelling evangelists
a dynastic marriage that involved a court or new religion arriving with the incoming spouse
the takeover of one elite by another
amalgamation of locals with an incoming people
complete population replacement


For decades there has been so strong a bias against the last two of these that if there was any other conceivable explanation, that was the one preferred. Migration was so out of favour that even data which made mass migration easily, indeed overwhelming, the most likely explanation, as with CW spreading a way of life and burial style first seen in Yamnaya, were interpreted as continuity, in this case with just a few key Yamnaya people spreading these ideas northwards.

But now we have ancient DNA. It is the end of the anti-migrationist paradigm.

I suspect all of the above are to a greater or lesser extent involved in the beaker phenomenon. I think it may have began with trade, alliance marriages and imitation until the P312 lineage became the drivers. My feeling is that P312 did those three things and then underwent a massive expansion of its own.

vettor
11-20-2014, 06:26 PM
The more I read these professional papers , the more I realise these professionals have no clue on migrational paths , all they know is origin of SNP here or there per haplogroup and they simply play " join the dots" and hope that it makes sense.

If in my ftdna project there a people living today who have a basal SNP and have never mutated in 50000 years ( min.age of this basal marker ), then clearly a marker can travel from east asia to western europe without issue

Jean M
11-20-2014, 06:27 PM
For the record, here is what I said about Corded Ware in AJ:


The orthodox view of the Corded Ware culture as native to the North European Plain once seemed supported by a local pottery sequence. The first pottery was the pointed-bottom and everted lip type of the hunter-gatherers. Then we have the Funnel Beaker (TRB ) type with everted lip, followed by Corded Ware with everted lip. This vision of continuity has been overturned. Ancient DNA shows clearly that the TRB people did not descend from the hunter-gatherers who made the previous type of pottery.[Bramanti 2009; Malmstrom 2009.]

Nor is the Corded Ware culture, with its influences from Yamnaya, a straightforward cultural descendant of the TRB. Archaeologically it seems to be the result of people moving up the rivers Prut, Dnieper and Dniester from the steppe and blending with previous peoples of the North European Plain. What does that mean in human terms? The TRB had already adopted much of the technology of the Secondary Products Revolution and appeared to be thriving on it c. 3400 BC. There was a diversity of burial rites, but the creation of large causewayed enclosures speaks of a society well able to cooperate. Then there are signs of a population decrease from about 3350 BC. New types of burial custom appear in Funnel Beaker (TRB ) sites after about 3000 BC. The dead are mainly buried collectively, but individual burials with weapons appear. These typical warrior burials suggest conflict appearing in this society. That could be the result of internal pressure over scarce resources, given the climate change mentioned earlier. Then the population rose again after about 2900 BC, which probably indicates the arrival of the people later identified by their characteristic Corded Ware pottery, with its own warrior burials.[Müller 2010; Hinz 2012. Note that the population fall 3350 BC and rise 2900 BC represents an overall picture. The Danish Isles are an exception, showing neither the increase or decrease. This fits with the observation of a delayed appearance of Single Grave customs as well as an intensive development of the Funnel Beaker customs. The northeastern stylistic group of Funnel Beaker ceramics is also an exception, showing intense population growth and continuous development.]

This complex picture presents an interesting challenge for genetics. So far we have mtDNA from one TRB site in Sweden (H, J and T2b).[Malmstrom 2009.] We have Y-DNA R1a1 from one Corded Ware site in Germany, together with a wider mixture of mtDNA haplogroups (H, I, K1a2, K1b, U5b and X2).[Haak 2008] These mtDNA samples are too small for meaningful comparison. So what is needed is more aDNA from a range of sites of these cultures, including Y-DNA. One scrap of evidence though is significant. Scientists managed to extract a large part of the nuclear genome of the TRB farmer carrying mtDNA H. It was more similar to modern-day southern Europeans and Anatolians than Scandinavians.[Skoglund 2012] If this pattern holds good for other samples, modern Scandinavians are not the undiluted descendants of TRB farmers.

alan
11-20-2014, 06:39 PM
You have a whole pool of yamnaya in hungary, a soon to be beaker region, for which corded ware did not act as any kind of mediator. The yamnaya people of hungary can already be expected to be different from the CW and it also has the demographic potential needed to explain r1b.

When you look at the outpost nature and more importantly the sort of hybriding Csepel was doing it just does not scream out Yamnaya. Its worth reading about them because they were a peculiar group with unusual dominant cremation and ash scattered graves, weird houses etc and didnt form the basis of a wide expansion. Its crystal clear if you read about them.

The group that clearly was the driving force of spreading related beaker traditions across central Europe and into NW Europe, not to mention the skull types etc, was the central European or beaker east group. Csepel is sort of attached to that but it was very much a one-off group not like almost any other beaker groups. It is very clear to me it was not the basis of a wide spread of idea from its zone. They were the people who toppled the earlier beaker people at Sion and they also had some resemblance in terms of burial and some types of pots like polypods in places like Holland and the isles- albeit not identical. The great expansion period of beaker is about the 2500sBC when those cultures appeared and we know that part of them - Kromsdorf-was carryng M269. We know from the phylogeny of P312 that beaker looks likely to be a single lineage expansion across Europe. That doesnt fit archaeologically well the pre-2500s groups in SW Europe or Csepel but it does fit the central and northern European expansion of new beaker cultures with a lot in common c. 2500BC. Something changed in the beaker world at that time that had not been present before and that looks to be P312 or L11 to me

alan
11-20-2014, 06:44 PM
For the record, here is what I said about Corded Ware in AJ:

I agree with the general picture you paint but there has been another early corded ware site with non-R. I cannot recall the details but I think it was Poland. I dont see a problem with a mix of yDNA as it does seem to me to have the hallmarks of a new entity arising from hybriding before massively expanding.

Jean M
11-20-2014, 06:49 PM
the similarities between CW and Yamna (which can be explained .... [B]a more distant common ancestry)

Not so. Cord-impressed pottery with an everted lip does indeed have a long history on/near the steppe and is derived from the earliest pottery to arrive in Europe (with an origin around Lake Baikal). Some other aspects of the Yamnaya culture derive from older cultures too.

But a mobile pastoral lifestyle began with Yamnaya and appeared later in CW, as did single burials under round mounds (kurgans).

Also there is another clue. Funeral stelae are not common in the Corded Ware culture. One from Dingelstedt in Germany is more of a rough slab than an anthropomorphic shape, but has the belt and footprints that link it to the Yamnaya type. See Kerig, T. Ein Statuenmenhir mit Darstellung einer Axt vom Eschollbrückener Typ? Zu einem enigmatischen Steindenkmal aus Gelnhausen-Meerholz (Mainz-Kinzig-Kreis), Praehistorische Zeitschrift, 85 (1), 59–78. And for comparison see D. Ya Telegin and J. P. Mallory, The Anthropomorphic Stelae of Ukraine (1994).

Jean M
11-20-2014, 06:56 PM
I agree with the general picture you paint but there has been another early corded ware site with non-R. I cannot recall the details ..

Yes the remains of two youths found at Jagodno, Wroclaw, Poland yielded Y-DNA. The results were uncertain, but were guessed at G and I. Gworys 2013 came out after text for AJ was out of my hands. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

alan
11-20-2014, 07:41 PM
You have a whole pool of yamnaya in hungary, a soon to be beaker region, for which corded ware did not act as any kind of mediator. The yamnaya people of hungary can already be expected to be different from the CW and it also has the demographic potential needed to explain r1b.

The core problem is not that R1b ultimately could have Yamnaya or other steppe origins. The problem is that you need heaps of optimism to see Yamnaya behind beaker without some go-between. Both geography and chronology are strained IMO. It just so happens that corded ware filled most of central Europe north of the Alps c. 2800BC and when beaker arrived a century or two later around the Rhone etc it was corded ware that lay through the passes to the north. In fact, if you are very strict about dates, the only points of contact between beaker and central Europe up to the 2500s were at the west Alpine passes although I wouldnt rule out Italy either as beaker is poorly understood. This does not support the idea that the early beaker group and Yamnaya had anything to do with each other IMO.

I have mentioned the unreliability of early Csepel dates and how most fall no earlier than the 2500s BC. In terms of cultural affinity and geography it makes a lot more sense if Csepel is an outpost of the east group to the north. I do think corded ware is the elephant in the room of R1b that has not been considered enough or rejected too soon. We are talking about one group who hybrided with early beaker people. The most logical place for this to take place is through the Alpine passes in the 2500sBC a long way from Yamnaya. A corded ware angle for R1b would also make sense of nonP312 R1b lines like L11 and even some of the L23xL51 in north and eastern Europe which are harder to tie with bell beaker if some R1b was involved in the Yamnaya aspect of the genesis of corded ware and then only 500 years later was a corded ware group beakerised.

There are of course other options such as a pre-beaker spread along the Alpine zone c. 3500-3000BC along the lines of Jean's stelae people. However, I just do not see any straight forward evidence that beaker directly evolved from Yamnaya. I just cannot see that as Yamnaya, as opposed to its partial offshoot corded ware, has never looked to have existed beyond Hungary. I wont deny that very broad trends as discussed by H and H may have spread across Europe that had steppe origins but it doesnt look migratory unless we are taking about very very low visibility. Corded ware cannot be ignored as it is a link between Yamanaya and western Europe to points just a pass away from the early beaker groups in southern France and the south-west Alps. The timing and geography of beaker beyond western Europe and its transformation into a culture with echos of corded ware as well as beaker traits strongly suggests to me that beakerisation of a western corded ware group is the most likely origin of the R1b-beaker link. I also recall that variance of P312 has at times been placed highest closest to the very point where Corded Ware and beaker groups interacted c. 2600BC

alan
11-20-2014, 08:00 PM
Another thing I wonder is that if R1a came into the formation of corded ware up the Dnieper, Dniester and Prut, does this really make a complete separation of R1a and b into corded ware and beaker respectively all that plausible? That is the same sort of area of the steppes where some believe R1b might have come from or passed through around the same time.

MJost
11-20-2014, 08:01 PM
I suspect all of the above are to a greater or lesser extent involved in the beaker phenomenon. I think it may have began with trade, alliance marriages and imitation until the P312 lineage became the drivers. My feeling is that P312 did those three things and then underwent a massive expansion of its own.


Corded ware is, like beaker slightly later, a hybrid entity that neither is entirely like Yamnaya or entirely like the pre-corded ware groups in the same area. Already ancient DNA seems to confirm that corded ware was a mix of R1a and non-R people. It looks like a hybrid of Yamnaya and Neolithic peoples that produced something entirely new. The similarity over a wide are in corded ware culture is strongly suggestive of a very rapid expansion after this new corded ware group came into existence. I find the evidence fairly convincing.

My point is that the developed beaker culture also looks like a hybrid new entity that then spread like wildfire. One point I would make is that until this hybriding event the spread of beaker had been not very impressive-basically as spread from Iberia to southern France and adjacent areas of the south-west Alps. It is only in the hydrided state around 2500BC that we see a huge leap in its distribution as well as a whole variety of new aspects to the beaker culture. I suspect the hybriding event between early beaker SW European non-R1b lines and central European, probably corded ware, R1b lines was the point at which beaker really found its feet and was able to mega expand within one century across central and northern Europe.

To date the ancient DNA supports such a model IMO with Languedoc, Otzi and other very late Neolithic Iberians and others not coming up R1b. So I think the earliest beaker users of SW Europe were non-R1b and that R1b in places like Iberia, SW France etc did not arrive until later in the beaker period and even later than that.

I have said this several times that Kromsdorf looks suspiciously like one of the very earliest members of the new beaker east group entity according to radiocarbon. Its easier IMO to look upon him as a local beakerised person IMO

So you now feel the 2500BC time frame now fits for P312/U106's expansion out of the central European R1b people? Since Central Europe (archaically "Middle Europe") is a region lying between the variously defined areas of the Eastern and Western parts of the European continent. I should ask you for a clarification, by adding possibility of defining correctly that these R1b people were from the south or southwestern central Europe?

MJost

alan
11-20-2014, 11:16 PM
So you now feel the 2500BC time frame now fits for P312/U106's expansion out of the central European R1b people? Since Central Europe (archaically "Middle Europe") is a region lying between the variously defined areas of the Eastern and Western parts of the European continent. I should ask you for a clarification, by adding possibility of defining correctly that these R1b people were from the south or southwestern central Europe?

MJost

No I dont think it is at all likely that R1b came from the south-west European early beaker pot using element that contributed to the central and NW European developed beaker cultures. I just dont see any very convincing evidence for an eastern lineage like M269 and derivatives making it to SW Europe in pre-beaker times to then expand east again.

The crux of the problem is that the evidence of pre-beaker 'into Iberia' -crucial to a beaker 'out of Iberia' is at all clear. I could be wrong but if that happened then the traces are very subtle indeed. The only real reason why I woudnt rule it out is the possibility of the link with the spread of copper working but as I have posted several times, ancient DNA of southern and Alpine Europe of 3500-3000BC is not R1b so far.

A lot depends on the chronology. One weird possibility that just struck me, now that beaker is being dated not earlier than 2700BC, is that corded ware reached its maximum extent about that time and perhaps the all over corded pottery in Iberia is an echo of some minor movement into Iberia. If it was -admittedly this is flimsy as its just pots-I would perhaps interpret that as a mobile group setting themselves up as transporters to take metals from Iberia and southern France back to west-central Europe. Again, if this happened it is low visibility but then again so is the idea of a pre-beaker spread. I dont think its hugely likely but it is possible that all over corded beaker in Iberia is a hint of the first contact with corded ware groups with the far west. It seems a heck of a coincidence to me that the all over cord beakers in Iberia date to almost exactly the sort of time that corded ware reached its westernmost extent. We could of course be talking some women heading west with their pottery skills as a result of alliance building either using the down the Rhone then Med route or a landward route.

I think the crux of my arguements is that its very hard to ignore the massive band of corded ware from places like Slovia and southern Poland to the eastern fringes of France in the immediate pre-beaker era when seeking to explain how a western pot type and an eastern lineage type got linked. It also important to note that the copper workers in Iberia date from 3200BC which is 2-3 centuries than any Yamnaya west of the Black Sea, not to mention the huge distance and the unlikely event of a bunch of steppe herders becoming Med. mariners or indeed Alpine mountaineers.

I just have been thinking for a few months now that the corded ware culture has been rejected as a possible R1b vehicle prematurely. It is the one culture which a good case can be made to be partly Yamnaya linked and which in a fairly clear way was therefore capable of bringing steppe lineages as far as the western Alps and by 2700BC and as a result in close contact with beaker groups who had reached the Rhone by 2600BC. It seems overwhelmingly the Occams Razor answer to how beaker pots from SW Europe and R1b from the east could have met. It just seems odd to not consider that when it is the only really obvious major culture that bridged the area from the steppe to Switzerland/eastern France. Also when you have a scenario of a beakerised corded ware culture developing in a contact point around the Alps then nothing is predictable about its outcome. The characteristics of such a culture would be a hybrid of early beaker and corded ware and possibly some of the smaller alpine mountain cultures in between. I think it has been rejected on the basis of differences but a hybrid culture would bring elements of both cultures together.

razyn
11-21-2014, 12:24 AM
It also important to note that the copper workers in Iberia date from 3200BC which is 2-3 centuries than any Yamnaya west of the Black Sea, not to mention the huge distance and the unlikely event of a bunch of steppe herders becoming Med. mariners or indeed Alpine mountaineers.

And let us not forget that the said beakers were used for drinking stuff that got one tipsy. Some of that stuff was made from grapes, that came ultimately from the same "eastern" (from a European viewpoint), mountainous area (Caucasus, or maybe Taurus, but not the steppes). Grape DNA leaves a trail back through time that has been investigated in recent years.

Didn't copper smelting also require some knowledge of ceramics, for crucibles and so on? Just refreshing this WAG, lest it die on the vine... so to speak. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2711-Does-the-connection-of-M269-with-copper-skills-go-right-back-to-its-invention&p=44053&viewfull=1#post44053

Webb
11-21-2014, 12:05 PM
And let us not forget that the said beakers were used for drinking stuff that got one tipsy. Some of that stuff was made from grapes, that came ultimately from the same "eastern" (from a European viewpoint), mountainous area (Caucasus, or maybe Taurus, but not the steppes). Grape DNA leaves a trail back through time that has been investigated in recent years.

Didn't copper smelting also require some knowledge of ceramics, for crucibles and so on? Just refreshing this WAG, lest it die on the vine... so to speak. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2711-Does-the-connection-of-M269-with-copper-skills-go-right-back-to-its-invention&p=44053&viewfull=1#post44053

Well, whatever libation they were carrying in their beakers made them popular. Probably the life of the party so to speak. Is it a wonder that bell beaker was very expansive? Just a little comedy interjected to keep things lite.

Michał
11-21-2014, 12:25 PM
Archaeologists using traditional methods (i.e. just looking at material remains, not using isotopes or DNA) were not good at detecting migration.
[...]
For decades there has been so strong a bias against the last two of these that if there was any other conceivable explanation, that was the one preferred. Migration was so out of favour that even data which made mass migration easily, indeed overwhelming, the most likely explanation, as with CW spreading a way of life and burial style first seen in Yamnaya, were interpreted as continuity, in this case with just a few key Yamnaya people spreading these ideas northwards.


Come on, Jean, I have already made it very clear that I am not in the “anti-migrationists” camp. I have clearly stated that I do support the predominantly non-local origin of CW, yet this alone is not enough to derive CW specifically from Yamna, as this is simply not supported by any respected archaeologist regardless of the attitude towards the “migrationism” issue. Isn’t it very telling that even the most strong propagators of the Yamna-derived “Kurgan expansion model”, like Heyd, Anthony and Mallory, do not see any evidence for Early CW being a result of a Yamna-derived intrusion? Taking this into account, would you call them some “backward anti-migrationists”? You seem to be unable to mention even a single renowned archaeologist from the “migrationists” camp who would support the Yamna origin of CW, yet you present this idea as something that is commonly accepted among the “migrationists”, which is simply not true.


But now we have ancient DNA. It is the end of the anti-migrationist paradigm.


I definitely share your hope regarding the usefulness of aDNA in this respect. In fact, this is exactly why I am so surprised that you and Alan suggest that we already know some aDNA data demonstrating that CW originated from Yamna. As you both know, I am not ruling out such possibility (as a less likely option), but wouldn’t be more appropriate to wait a bit until we indeed get some real data that would definitely verify your hypothesis?


We now have a forthcoming paper showing that CW people were about 75% Yamnaya.


That is why Corded Ware still feels like the elephant in the room as it was an apparently a part Yamnaya derived group


Now that the evidence for Corded Ware having Yamnaya influences and at least some genes


It seems that after Rhezib Khan tweeted:
“Yamnaya modeled as 50/50 Armenian/ Karelian. Corded Ware 75% Yamnaya.”,
nearly everyone has interpreted this as a „definite proof” that Yamna is ancestral to CW. Is such conclusion justified?

Sure, the fact that CW shares about 75% of its DNA with Yamna is consistent with your hypothesis suggesting that CW has originated from Yamna. However, I cannot see how this is inconsistent with the alternative hypothesis assuming the existence of a more distant common ancestor (let’s say Dnieper Donets, Khvalynsk or Repin) from whom both Yamna and CW descend, especially when the Yamna origin of CW is commonly rejected by the archaeologists.

Let me illustrate the above dilemma using a hypothetical example. If modern Poles were reported as sharing about 75% of their DNA with the Early Medieval Anglo-Saxons, would this mean that the modern Poles descended from the Anglo-Saxons? If someone told you “Bell Beakers 75% Corded Ware” would it definitely verify the hypothesis about the Bell Beakers originating from Corded Ware?


Not so. Cord-impressed pottery with an everted lip does indeed have a long history on/near the steppe and is derived from the earliest pottery to arrive in Europe (with an origin around Lake Baikal). Some other aspects of the Yamnaya culture derive from older cultures too.

But a mobile pastoral lifestyle began with Yamnaya and appeared later in CW, as did single burials under round mounds (kurgans).


Both the mobile semi-pastoral lifestyle and individual burials under mounds are also known from the Globular Amphore culture that is not only as old as Yamna (thus older than CW), but is also found on the territories that are subsequently occupied by Corded Ware, yet not many people claim that CW originated from GA (and there is a good reason for this, just like in the case of Yamna).


Also there is another clue. Funeral stelae are not common in the Corded Ware culture.

“Not common” does not seem to be an appropriate term in this context. I would rather say they are practically absent in Corded Ware, just like all of the remaining most distinctive features of a typical Yamna package that allow us to distinguish between the members of this characteristic cultural horizon and some earlier or parallel cultures of related origin. When accepting the Yamna>CW scenario, we would need to assume that this “transition” was not only extremely quick (as we don’t see any intermediate stages) but it also resulted in a surprising loss of nearly all Yamna-specific grave goods and/or tools, like the copper shaft-hole axes, tanged metal daggers, very characteristic (and very common!) bone pins, cross footed bowls and other pieces of ceramics, not to mention some apparent differences regarding the funeral rituals (like using the ochre or placing the anthropological stelae). On the other hand, nearly all features that are shared by Yamna and CW are also shared by at least some of the potentially non-related parallel cultures (like Maykop and GAC, among others) or by the most distant (ancestral?) cultures from the broad Eastern European "Kurgan" or "pre-Kurgan" horizon.

The Yamna expansion towards the non-steppe territories in Europe is first noticed about 3100-3000 BC, and although the earliest CW sites in Kuyavia and Malopolska are dated to about 2900-2800, there is not a single Yamna-like kurgan found on the future CW territory (similarly to the absence of most CW-specific elements on the Yamna territory), which is in a very sharp contrast to all other European regions that have been indeed affected by the Yamna-derived intrusions (including the Carpatian, Balkan and Danubian regions) where many hundreds of such Yamna kurgans are found for this very period (between 3000 BC and 2700BC). This is one of the most compelling evidences that if Yamna has influenced CW, this was likely at the very minimal level and probably limited to some relatively late contacts in some specific neighboring regions (Middle Dnieper being a good example).

rms2
11-21-2014, 12:29 PM
And let us not forget that the said beakers were used for drinking stuff that got one tipsy. Some of that stuff was made from grapes, that came ultimately from the same "eastern" (from a European viewpoint), mountainous area (Caucasus, or maybe Taurus, but not the steppes). Grape DNA leaves a trail back through time that has been investigated in recent years.

Didn't copper smelting also require some knowledge of ceramics, for crucibles and so on? Just refreshing this WAG, lest it die on the vine... so to speak. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2711-Does-the-connection-of-M269-with-copper-skills-go-right-back-to-its-invention&p=44053&viewfull=1#post44053

I think it likely that what was drunk from the beakers was some form of mead, which takes less skill to make than wine, and whose primary ingredient, honey, is more readily available farther north than grapes.

rms2
11-21-2014, 12:41 PM
Alan,

It strikes me that your argument against possible Beaker/Yamnaya contacts in what is now Hungary depends on debunking the early radiocarbon dating of Csepel. Is there some real reason to doubt it? Otherwise, it sounds like special pleading.

Anyway, when is the first evidence of the complete Beaker package in Iberia? In other words, did Beaker emerge from Iberia with the fully developed burial rite and burial goods, or was some aspect of that added in Central or Eastern Europe?

Beaker burials certainly have a "kurgan" quality about them that doesn't strike one as western.

Here's another thing. At least one of the Kromsdorf males tested U106-, and the second one was probably U106-, as well, although we don't know that for sure. In addition, it appears there is a connection between Beaker and Italo-Celtic, and there aren't any signs of such a connection between Italo-Celtic and U106. P312 is a better fit for Italo-Celtic (and Beaker), while U106 has a distribution that corresponds rather strikingly to that of Germanic speakers.

Given this apparent dichotomy within L11 (the P312/U106, Italo-Celtic/Germanic dichotomy), where was U106 in all of this?

If proto-German first appeared among Corded Ware folk or their successors, then it is likely there is some connection between Corded Ware and U106. But if, as you suggest, R1b flowed from Corded Ware into Beaker, then shouldn't we expect U106 in Beaker? That doesn't seem likely though, does it?

Jean M
11-21-2014, 12:56 PM
Come on, Jean, I have already made it very clear that I am not in the “anti-migrationists” camp.

Michał - I am not accusing you of anti-migrationism. I am simply trying to explain why it is pointless to expect the archaeological literature of recent decades on CW to talk in terns of mass migration from the steppe. That does not mean that there is no archaeological evidence to link Yamnaya to CW. Time and time and time again you will find the literature on European prehistory claiming that there is no archaeological evidence of migration in this place or that when what they actually mean is that certainty of such a thing was impossible prior to ancient DNA, and the preference was for interpretations favouring continuity. So instead of looking for confident statements that Yamnaya people overran and merged with TRB etc to create CW, we need to look for the more cautious evaluations noting the similarities of Yamnaya and Corded Ware. That is what I directed you to.

rms2
11-21-2014, 01:13 PM
Here is a quote from Marija Gimbutas supplied by Piquerobi over on another thread in this same subforum.



The Bell Beaker complex, an offshoot of the Vucedol bloc (more precisely of the Zok-Mako group in Hungary) continued Kurgan charateristics. The Bell Beaker of the second half of the 3rd millenium BC were vagabondic horse riders and archers in much the same way as their uncles and cousins, the Corded people of northern Europe and Catacomb-grave people of the North Pontic region. Their spread over central and western Europe to the British Isles and Spain as well as the Mediterranean islands terminates the period of expansion and destruction.

It's from the book, The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe (http://www.amazon.com/Kurgan-Culture-Indo-Europeanization-Europe-Indo-European/dp/0941694569).

I thought I would toss that into the mix.

Michał
11-21-2014, 01:14 PM
we need to look for the more cautious evaluations noting the similarities of Yamnaya and Corded Ware. That is what I directed you to.
:) Ok, so let me say that you don't seem to be cautious enough when discussing this particular question (at least this is my opinion).

alan
11-21-2014, 02:50 PM
Come on, Jean, I have already made it very clear that I am not in the “anti-migrationists” camp. I have clearly stated that I do support the predominantly non-local origin of CW, yet this alone is not enough to derive CW specifically from Yamna, as this is simply not supported by any respected archaeologist regardless of the attitude towards the “migrationism” issue. Isn’t it very telling that even the most strong propagators of the Yamna-derived “Kurgan expansion model”, like Heyd, Anthony and Mallory, do not see any evidence for Early CW being a result of a Yamna-derived intrusion? Taking this into account, would you call them some “backward anti-migrationists”? You seem to be unable to mention even a single renowned archaeologist from the “migrationists” camp who would support the Yamna origin of CW, yet you present this idea as something that is commonly accepted among the “migrationists”, which is simply not true.



I definitely share your hope regarding the usefulness of aDNA in this respect. In fact, this is exactly why I am so surprised that you and Alan suggest that we already know some aDNA data demonstrating that CW originated from Yamna. As you both know, I am not ruling out such possibility (as a less likely option), but wouldn’t be more appropriate to wait a bit until we indeed get some real data that would definitely verify your hypothesis?





It seems that after Rhezib Khan tweeted:
“Yamnaya modeled as 50/50 Armenian/ Karelian. Corded Ware 75% Yamnaya.”,
nearly everyone has interpreted this as a „definite proof” that Yamna is ancestral to CW. Is such conclusion justified?

Sure, the fact that CW shares about 75% of its DNA with Yamna is consistent with your hypothesis suggesting that CW has originated from Yamna. However, I cannot see how this is inconsistent with the alternative hypothesis assuming the existence of a more distant common ancestor (let’s say Dnieper Donets, Khvalynsk or Repin) from whom both Yamna and CW descend, especially when the Yamna origin of CW is commonly rejected by the archaeologists.

Let me illustrate the above dilemma using a hypothetical example. If modern Poles were reported as sharing about 75% of their DNA with the Early Medieval Anglo-Saxons, would this mean that the modern Poles descended from the Anglo-Saxons? If someone told you “Bell Beakers 75% Corded Ware” would it definitely verify the hypothesis about the Bell Beakers originating from Corded Ware?



Both the mobile semi-pastoral lifestyle and individual burials under mounds are also known from the Globular Amphore culture that is not only as old as Yamna (thus older than CW), but is also found on the territories that are subsequently occupied by Corded Ware, yet not many people claim that CW originated from GA (and there is a good reason for this, just like in the case of Yamna).


“Not common” does not seem to be an appropriate term in this context. I would rather say they are practically absent in Corded Ware, just like all of the remaining most distinctive features of a typical Yamna package that allow us to distinguish between the members of this characteristic cultural horizon and some earlier or parallel cultures of related origin. When accepting the Yamna>CW scenario, we would need to assume that this “transition” was not only extremely quick (as we don’t see any intermediate stages) but it also resulted in a surprising loss of nearly all Yamna-specific grave goods and/or tools, like the copper shaft-hole axes, tanged metal daggers, very characteristic (and very common!) bone pins, cross footed bowls and other pieces of ceramics, not to mention some apparent differences regarding the funeral rituals (like using the ochre or placing the anthropological stelae). On the other hand, nearly all features that are shared by Yamna and CW are also shared by at least some of the potentially non-related parallel cultures (like Maykop and GAC, among others) or by the most distant (ancestral?) cultures from the broad Eastern European "Kurgan" or "pre-Kurgan" horizon.

The Yamna expansion towards the non-steppe territories in Europe is first noticed about 3100-3000 BC, and although the earliest CW sites in Kuyavia and Malopolska are dated to about 2900-2800, there is not a single Yamna-like kurgan found on the future CW territory (similarly to the absence of most CW-specific elements on the Yamna territory), which is in a very sharp contrast to all other European regions that have been indeed affected by the Yamna-derived intrusions (including the Carpatian, Balkan and Danubian regions) where many hundreds of such Yamna kurgans are found for this very period (between 3000 BC and 2700BC). This is one of the most compelling evidences that if Yamna has influenced CW, this was likely at the very minimal level and probably limited to some relatively late contacts in some specific neighboring regions (Middle Dnieper being a good example).

It does appear that gene flow can happen in such a way that its hard to spot the moment when it enters and contributes to new cultures. I would say from an archaeologists point of view that the entire post-Neolithic shift in Europe's genes must be marked by fairly blurred or subtle indicators rather than an obvious spread from A to B. Certainly Yamnaya or any steppe culture in a literal untransformed form does not penetrate beyond Hungary. The question is more Yamnaya mixing with other farming elements then forming a new entity and then with whatever advantages came from this combination undergoing a massive expansion. That IMO is what happened with corded ware although I suspect the 75 percent Yamnaya figure wont stand up.

The real surprise, even with the detail not very well known, is that Europes genes were transformed in the copper and bronze ages without the only indicators of this being blurry or patchy. I dont think that can be denied - the changing of genetics happened in a way that is not totally startlingly evident like an A to B cultural wave from a steppe culture in archaeological terms. Archaeologically it is relatively subtle compared to the much more obvious huge Neolithic waves.

So, if we all agree its rather more subtle and blurry and involves cultural transformation and expansion of hyrbid cultures that differ strongly from any of its components then its pretty fair to say that Corded Ware is a strong candidate for such a culture that absorbed steppic elements. We already have the evidence of I, G and R1a from just 2 sites so the genetics fits the concept.

As for beaker, the immediately pre-existing culture across its entire span from the eastern borders of France/Switzerland was corded ware. So if I was to see beaker as also being a complex hybrid then I find it a kind of occams razor thing that the hybriding happened when beaker from a non-R1b, probably G, SW European early group mixed with the groups north of the Alps which was overwhelmingly corded ware - a 2nd transformation if you like. I have said this a few times but many of the early beaker aspects like the pots, copper awls and in all probability the jazzy clothing falls into the female sphere.

As I have suggested before, the phylogeny of P312 is highly suggestive of a one-off hybriding group that then expanded tremendously - which is exactly what we see in the 2500sBC north of the Alps and in NW Europe. I dont think beaker hybrided with corded ware in general and the groups remained largely separate but there may have been a one-off event where this happened. As I said above, nothing can be assumed about how a one off single group with one massively expanding lineage would look like. That is the nature of a one-off. So, for this theory - and that is all it is - to hold water we have to look at geographically realistic places and times when beaker and corded ware met. I would say from 2700-some time in the 2500sBC they probably didnt meet directly unless its so low visibility we cant find this. What is clear is that beaker and corded ware were neighbours in the western Alps/Rhone area by 2600BC and that the new north of Alps beaker groups seem to date to the 2500s. So it seems natural to think that the arising of any hybrid - the developed beaker culture-took place in west-central Europe in the 2500s. You can even sed at Sion the old SW European beaker group - who I think were not R1b-being overrun by the new central European 'east group' of beakers. The latter and the related Rhenish groups were a new creation IMO and probably a hybrid of corded ware men, local alpine elements and south-west European beaker pot using metallurgist contacts/wives.

The most logical point for this to happen would be the extreme west of the Alpine area/the area where the Rhine and Rhone meet etc and the logical time is somewhere c. 2600-2500BC. If that is right then the east group of bell beaker headed east and the Rhenish groups headed north. Come to think of it It is just possible that lines like U152 and L21 could already have existed in corded ware at the point of contact with beaker and the arising of a hybrid of beaker and corded ware.

The concept of a beakerised corded ware group at the westernmost end of the central Europe around Switzerland and the upper Rhone and Rhine is tempting too from a genetic perspective as it is not the first time the concept of P312 radiating from there as U152 heading east and south-east, L21 heading north and DF27 heading west has been raised based on variance etc.

alan
11-21-2014, 03:17 PM
Alan,

It strikes me that your argument against possible Beaker/Yamnaya contacts in what is now Hungary depends on debunking the early radiocarbon dating of Csepel. Is there some real reason to doubt it? Otherwise, it sounds like special pleading.

Anyway, when is the first evidence of the complete Beaker package in Iberia? In other words, did Beaker emerge from Iberia with the fully developed burial rite and burial goods, or was some aspect of that added in Central or Eastern Europe?

Beaker burials certainly have a "kurgan" quality about them that doesn't strike one as western.

Here's another thing. At least one of the Kromsdorf males tested U106-, and the second one was probably U106-, as well, although we don't know that for sure. In addition, it appears there is a connection between Beaker and Italo-Celtic, and there aren't any signs of such a connection between Italo-Celtic and U106. P312 is a better fit for Italo-Celtic (and Beaker), while U106 has a distribution that corresponds rather strikingly to that of Germanic speakers.

Given this apparent dichotomy within L11 (the P312/U106, Italo-Celtic/Germanic dichotomy), where was U106 in all of this?

If proto-German first appeared among Corded Ware folk or their successors, then it is likely there is some connection between Corded Ware and U106. But if, as you suggest, R1b flowed from Corded Ware into Beaker, then shouldn't we expect U106 in Beaker? That doesn't seem likely though, does it?

Rich

The model I am wondering about of developed beaker being some sort of hybrid between SW European beaker pot users and corded ware people at the interface point is an old idea to which I am just adding genetic considerations. There has been a strong tendency for ideas that were out of fashion for some time to be proven true by genetics.

My main issue with R1b being with beaker from the inception is that its an eastern group and I am not convinced by a pre-beaker movement of an eastern lineage like R1b into Iberia ergo I see no 'into Iberia' and therefore find 'out of Iberia' very hard to see.

Regarding the early date from Csepel I have long heard doubts about it and what seemed most damning was that Heyd in his paper on the central European beaker groups he doesnt seem to consider they existed prior to the 2500s and all the dates he does seem to have confidence in seem to be typical ones for beaker in central Europe i.e no earlier than the 2500s. From memory you can see the doubt about the Csepel date in the Muller and Willigen paper where they present map of the safe short life dates and a map of the more dodgy dates and Csepel disappears.

Another thing is all one has to do is read about Csepel - again Heyds paper vividly describes it - and there is not much of a hint of Yamnaya. What Csepel looks like is an oddball outlier of the beaker east/central European beaker group with some local peculiarities like cremation etc which come from the influence of cultures other than Yamnaya. I am not saying they couldnt have created a slighly link to the Yamnaya world but it certainly doesnt appear that we are seeing a group who then went on to spread out. They are localised and peculiar in many ways and an outlier from the main block. So even if the early date had been real, they just dont look like a group who were expansive at all- far from it. Where you do see massive expansion of beaker using groups with a lot in common and looking like an expansion from a single group - much of it not attested in early SW European beaker groups - is in the 2500s BC in the area from the Rhine to east-central Europe and then a couple of generations later spreading into northern France and the isles.

I just dont think there is much against the theory of a one-off group of corded ware people being beakerised through intermixing. Certainly I will say this. When you look at the fully developed beaker groups in central and NW Europe, they look a lot closer to Corded Ware than Yamnaya - which is exactly why many old theories saw commonality in the full package developed beaker groups and corded ware groups. None of this detracts from the likelihood that R1b came from steppe groups - it just means that corded ware provided the missing link between where beaker pot was c. 2600BC and where Yamnaya was at the same time i.e. bridging the expanse between Switzerland and eastern Hungary which, if you remove the dodgy Csepel date, lay between beaker and Yamnaya. It just seems like an entirely logical model that fits everything. I know Jean isnt a fan of this and that to some extent has meant I have not really pursued this but the more I think about it I dont think the arguements against it are clinching when we are talking about a hybrid culture that could cherry pick elements from both early SW beaker and corded ware as well perhaps as other nearby small Alpine cultures.

alan
11-21-2014, 03:30 PM
:) Ok, so let me say that you don't seem to be cautious enough when discussing this particular question (at least this is my opinion).

Well I agree with Jean about corded ware having some sort of steppe input but I disagree with Jean on the idea that corded ware and beaker could not have hybrided in west-central Europe and am probably never going to be convinced of a stelae trail further west than the Alps or that there is much possibility of a direct Yamnaya element in the pre-beaker or earliest beakers in SW Europe. Its not something worth arguing about though at this stage as we all know the facts, the arguments etc and its really a matter of opinion. Any of us could be wrong, right or a bit of both and I dont really care - I just want to know the truth and only ancient DNA will do that. Probably quite a lot of ancient DNA from 3500-2500BC across Europe is going to be needed to be conclusive IMO so it may take a while yet. What would be very useful is if the very early SW European beaker was tested to see if it is R1b or , as I suspect, G like Ice Man and the Languedocian pre-beaker copper age people.

alan
11-21-2014, 03:46 PM
:) Ok, so let me say that you don't seem to be cautious enough when discussing this particular question (at least this is my opinion).

I think Jean's ideas of corded ware are within the norms of the latest DNA evidence although I do suspect Yamnaya was a minority component in corded ware. Where IMO Jean does head into much more uncharted waters is the who stelae people to Iberia thing. However, I cannot say I can rule out the idea of M269 derivatives being linked to copper working and spreading with it is possible. It would make some sense in terms of the Eurasian distribution of M269xL23, L23xL51 and L51xL11. However, I am very unconvinced that this spread of copper can be linked to Yamnaya as it is just too early as Yamnaya doesnt expand west of the Black Sea at all until perhaps a little after 3000BC. I do however wonder about Remedello and its links with the Balkans (which by then had older pre-Yamnaya steppe links and hybrid cultures), the beaker-like skulls, the Remedello daggers on the Alpine stelae etc but IMO that is pre-Yamnaya in west-of Black Sea terms and I have never been convinced of evidence for that connection further west than the French Alps.

Jean M
11-21-2014, 03:51 PM
I think Jean's ideas of corded ware are within the norms of the latest DNA evidence although I do suspect Yamnaya was a minority component in corded ware.

Ancient DNA samples suggest that people of the Corded Ware culture had on average three grandparents descended from Yamnaya ancestors. (Lazaridis forthcoming). Of course we will need lots of samples to be reasonably sure of exact proportions.

Jean M
11-21-2014, 04:02 PM
I am very unconvinced that this spread of copper can be linked to Yamnaya as it is just too early as Yamnaya doesn't expand west of the Black Sea at all until perhaps a little after 3000BC.

Here we go again. You really should know that I'm not talking about Yamnaya spread west of the Black Sea i.e. in the direction presumed ancestral to the 'Balkan group' of languages (Greek etc), but Yamnaya spread up the Danube from about 3100 BC. That is fine for Remedello. I repeat:



Copper Age cultures sprang up in Italy: Remedello in the north, Rinaldone in the west and Gaudo in the south. The dating of these cultures has been an academic battleground. That is unfortunate, since the chronology is crucial to our understanding of how metallurgy spread, and who spread it. The discovery of the Brixlegg ores we can attribute to Balkan copper workers turning their sights westwards. It dates to before the collapse of the rich Balkan towns of the 5th millennium BC. In Sardinia the arrival of metallurgy around 4000 BC suggests a flight direct from that collapse. The most recent dates for Rinaldone burials centre around 3500 BC, too late for the Balkan exodus, yet too early for Yamnaya wanderings. Knowledge of metallurgy could have spread down from the Alps into central Italy. So it has been suggested that Remedello is probably at least as old as Rinaldone. Radiocarbon dating proves otherwise. The dates for Remedello graves centre around 2900 BC. They have been divided into phases: Remedello 1 (3300-2900 BC) and Remedello 2 (2900/2800-2400 BC).5 That is compatible with arrivals from the Yamnaya stream, which would explain the Yamnaya elements in the Remedello culture, such as single graves, copper-arsenic alloys and tanged daggers. The distinctive Remedello daggers are depicted on anthropomorphic stelae of northern Italy and the western Alps.

Bear in mind that radiocarbon dates are not precise. There is a range.

Jean M
11-21-2014, 04:14 PM
What would be very useful is if the very early SW European beaker was tested to see if it is R1b or , as I suspect, G like Ice Man and the Languedocian pre-beaker copper age people.

You could be right that the early phase was mainly G or at least that it was not totally R1b, since the Bell Beaker culture seems rather more influenced than CW by the Cucuteni-Tripolye element in the Yamnaya/C-T mix. BB was a shade more sophisticated than CW. It had settlements and was not a nomadic, purely pastoral culture. The stone-working, stelae-making tradition for example, as mentioned earlier, is far more prominent in BB than CW.

In short the two cultures are not identical twins. They can easily be distinguished on lifestyle where BB overlays CW. See 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.

Michał
11-21-2014, 04:17 PM
Ancient DNA samples suggest that people of the Corded Ware culture had on average three grandparents descended from Yamnaya ancestors. (Lazaridis forthcoming).
I am very strongly suspecting you just misinterpret the very enigmatic information that circulates around since the last ASHG meeting, but let's wait and see. :)

Jean M
11-21-2014, 04:24 PM
I am very strongly suspecting you just misinterpret the very enigmatic information that circulates around since the last ASHG meeting, but let's wait and see. :)

I certainly hope that this paper is out in pre-print before I go to press! The scraps have been tantalising. But here is the crucial sentence in the abstract: "By analyzing this data together with a dataset of 2,345 present-day humans and other published ancient genomes, we show that late Neolithic inhabitants of central Europe belonging to the Corded Ware culture were not a continuation of the earlier occupants of the region." I don't see that as totally enigmatic.

rms2
11-21-2014, 04:36 PM
The Bell Beaker complex, an offshoot of the Vucedol bloc (more precisely of the Zok-Mako group in Hungary) continued Kurgan charateristics. The Bell Beaker of the second half of the 3rd millenium BC were vagabondic horse riders and archers in much the same way as their uncles and cousins, the Corded people of northern Europe and Catacomb-grave people of the North Pontic region. Their spread over central and western Europe to the British Isles and Spain as well as the Mediterranean islands terminates the period of expansion and destruction.

The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe (http://www.amazon.com/Kurgan-Culture-Indo-Europeanization-Europe-Indo-European/dp/0941694569)

What happened to the idea that Beaker, at least in part, was an offshoot of Vucedol?

That would fit the anthropometrics part concerning the classic eastern Beaker skull and skeleton, since Coon and others described Beaker males as Dinaric.

Michał
11-21-2014, 04:38 PM
I certainly hope that this paper is out in pre-print before I go to press! The scraps have been tantalising. But here is the crucial sentence in the abstract: "By analyzing this data together with a dataset of 2,345 present-day humans and other published ancient genomes, we show that late Neolithic inhabitants of central Europe belonging to the Corded Ware culture were not a continuation of the earlier occupants of the region." I don't see that as totally enigmatic.
How does this imply that th Corded Ware people were derived from Yamna, or that "people of the Corded Ware culture had on average three grandparents descended from Yamnaya ancestors"?
If you really believe that your cited statement is supported by the information that "corded ware 75% yamnaya", then how would you explain the accompanying information: "corded ware 36% nonlocal ancestry"? It seems quite obvious that your interpretation is wrong.

Jean M
11-21-2014, 04:45 PM
the accompanying information: "corded ware 36% nonlocal ancestry"? It seems quite obvious that your interpretation is wrong.

Oh heavens! Where is the accompanying information? Please point me to it. I have only http://www.ashg.org/2014meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f140121091.htm

That "corded ware 75% yamnaya" quote was in a tweet I think.

Michał
11-21-2014, 04:50 PM
Oh heavens! Where is the accompanying information? Please point me to it. I have only http://www.ashg.org/2014meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f140121091.htm

That "corded ware 75% yamnaya" quote was in a tweet I think.

Here you go:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2573-New-DNA-Papers-General-Discussion-Thread/page31&p=55800#post55800

Jean M
11-21-2014, 05:08 PM
Here you go:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2573-New-DNA-Papers-General-Discussion-Thread/page31&p=55800#post55800

Oh I see! We have two tweets from Razib: "corded ware 75% yamnaya" and "corded ware 36% nonlocal ancestry" that seem contradictory. They may not be. 'Non-local' is the sort of thing you get from isotopes. But I certainly need to get to the bottom of this.

By the way re Baden see my post: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3156-First-ancient-genomes-from-Corded-Ware&p=52282&viewfull=1#post52282

I doubt whether our thinking is as wildly divergent as you may think.

Jean M
11-21-2014, 05:18 PM
What happened to the idea that Beaker, at least in part, was an offshoot of Vucedol?

I independently came to the conclusion that the easiest route from the Danube Yamnaya stream into Italy for the IE dialect ancestral to Celtic, Italic, Ligurian etc would be via Vučedol, then found that Gimbutas was before me! I didn't state that BB was an offshoot of Vučedol in AJ, but pointed out that


Vučedol is followed by the Cetina culture, where the elite were buried with archers' wrist guards, as in the Bell Beaker culture.

Volker Heyd sees Cetina as within the fringes of BB influence, IIRC. I'll see if I can find the paper.

[added] Got it: http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net/article.php?id_art=10



Two other archaeological cultures, both regionally and historically classified as Early Bronze Age, also display elements of the Bell Beaker ideology and the package in their repertoire: the Pitvaros/Maros, mainly east of the Danube on both sides of the river Maros/Mureš, and the proto-Cetina/Cetina concentrated along the Dalmatian coast, but also reaching beyond this.... Continuing south to the Proto-Cetina/Cetina group we are leaving the influence zone of the Bell Beaker East Group and enter the one of the Central Mediterranean Bell Beakers (Fig. 1a). Their heartlands are on the one hand northern Italy and Tuscany, on the other hand Sardinia and western Sicily. Bell Beaker elements in Proto-Cetina/Cetina are by no means a new assertion and have repeatedly been emphasised.

Michał
11-21-2014, 05:21 PM
Oh I see! We have two tweets from Razib: "corded ware 75% yamnaya" and "corded ware 36% nonlocal ancestry" that seem contradictory. They may not be.

Yes, I agree these two informations don't need to be contradictory. I suspect the authors did not exclude any relatively deep shared ancestry (either "local" or "nonlocal, whatever their definition of "locality" is), so this doesn't tell us much when not seen in a proper perspective.


'Non-local' is the sort of thing you get from isotopes.

I doubt it. I am pretty sure this is related to genetics in both cases.

Jean M
11-21-2014, 05:35 PM
I doubt it. I am pretty sure this is related to genetics in both cases.

That certainly is what I would expect. And come to think of it you don't get percentages with isotopes. A pretty puzzle.

R.Rocca
11-21-2014, 05:55 PM
Here we go again. You really should know that I'm not talking about Yamnaya spread west of the Black Sea i.e. in the direction presumed ancestral to the 'Balkan group' of languages (Greek etc), but Yamnaya spread up the Danube from about 3100 BC. That is fine for Remedello. I repeat:

Bear in mind that radiocarbon dates are not precise. There is a range.

Remedello-I only has Pfyn-Altheim copper daggers. Remedello-II is where the "Remedello" type dagger appears. These daggers were triangular and, in a minor correction to what you wrote above, were riveted. Tanged daggers only appear in Phase III of the Remedello Sotto cemetery, which is aptly named the Bell Beaker phase.

Anglecynn
11-21-2014, 06:23 PM
36% Non-local is a lot though, although i guess it depends on the particular timescale covered by the individuals in question.

Jean M
11-21-2014, 06:31 PM
Remedello-I only has Pfyn-Altheim copper daggers. Remedello-II is where the "Remedello" type dagger appears. These daggers were triangular and, in a minor correction to what you wrote above, were riveted. Tanged daggers only appear in Phase III of the Remedello Sotto cemetery, which is aptly named the Bell Beaker phase.

Thank you so much. I thought I asked for comment on that section before. Never mind. There is still time to fix it.

R.Rocca
11-21-2014, 06:36 PM
Thank you so much. I thought I asked for comment on that section before. Never mind. There is still time to fix it.

No guarantees that I caught it the first time :)

rms2
11-21-2014, 07:53 PM
I independently came to the conclusion that the easiest route from the Danube Yamnaya stream into Italy for the IE dialect ancestral to Celtic, Italic, Ligurian etc would be via Vučedol, then found that Gimbutas was before me! I didn't state that BB was an offshoot of Vučedol in AJ, but pointed out that



Vučedol is followed by the Cetina culture, where the elite were buried with archers' wrist guards, as in the Bell Beaker culture.


Volker Heyd sees Cetina as within the fringes of BB influence, IIRC. I'll see if I can find the paper.

[added] Got it: http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net/article.php?id_art=10


Two other archaeological cultures, both regionally and historically classified as Early Bronze Age, also display elements of the Bell Beaker ideology and the package in their repertoire: the Pitvaros/Maros, mainly east of the Danube on both sides of the river Maros/Mureš, and the proto-Cetina/Cetina concentrated along the Dalmatian coast, but also reaching beyond this.... Continuing south to the Proto-Cetina/Cetina group we are leaving the influence zone of the Bell Beaker East Group and enter the one of the Central Mediterranean Bell Beakers (Fig. 1a). Their heartlands are on the one hand northern Italy and Tuscany, on the other hand Sardinia and western Sicily. Bell Beaker elements in Proto-Cetina/Cetina are by no means a new assertion and have repeatedly been emphasised.



I do recall that from your book now that you mention it.

I find it interesting in part because of the past references to the "Dinaric" physical characteristics of what is thought of as the classic Beaker skeleton, especially the brachycephalic skull.

rms2
11-21-2014, 08:08 PM
Sorry to post the same quote a third time in this thread, but I want to use it to point something out.



The Bell Beaker complex, an offshoot of the Vucedol bloc (more precisely of the Zok-Mako group in Hungary) continued Kurgan charateristics. The Bell Beaker of the second half of the 3rd millenium BC were vagabondic horse riders and archers in much the same way as their uncles and cousins, the Corded people of northern Europe and Catacomb-grave people of the North Pontic region. Their spread over central and western Europe to the British Isles and Spain as well as the Mediterranean islands terminates the period of expansion and destruction.

The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe (http://www.amazon.com/Kurgan-Culture-Indo-Europeanization-Europe-Indo-European/dp/0941694569)

Earlier I mentioned the L11 dichotomy between P312 and U106, their differing distributions, and how they correspond to Italo-Celtic and Beaker in the case of the former, and Germanic and Corded Ware in the case of the latter.

I know we haven't gotten any kind of R1b out of Corded Ware yet, but we have gotten R1b and a U106- result out of the Beaker site near Kromsdorf.

So, since U106 isn't much of a match for Beaker or Italo-Celtic, where was it, if not in Corded Ware?

alan
11-21-2014, 09:25 PM
Sorry to post the same quote a third time in this thread, but I want to use it to point something out.



The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe (http://www.amazon.com/Kurgan-Culture-Indo-Europeanization-Europe-Indo-European/dp/0941694569)

Earlier I mentioned the L11 dichotomy between P312 and U106, their differing distributions, and how they correspond to Italo-Celtic and Beaker in the case of the former, and Germanic and Corded Ware in the case of the latter.

I know we haven't gotten any kind of R1b out of Corded Ware yet, but we have gotten R1b and a U106- result out of the Beaker site near Kromsdorf.

So, since U106 isn't much of a match for Beaker or Italo-Celtic, where was it, if not in Corded Ware?

The thing is corded ware was such a big spread that its entirely possible that L11 could have spread east to west leaving L11* in some places including some behind towards the east which would turn into U106 later and then more L11 could have reached the western end of its spread giving rise to P312 and then subclades. Corded ware was a very quick spread and in the space of 200 years ranged from Ukraine to the eastern border of France. We tend to look at beaker as the only archaeological spread that has a pace that seems to match the whole L11-P312-U152/L21/DF27 branching BUT what about corded ware? It is another culture with a similar mega-expansion in both speed and extent. Or could it have been one blended into the other and that corded ware started the L11 expansion with P312 occurring around the time of beakerisation of some of the westernmost corded groups followed by a massive expansion of these full package developed beakers=beakerised corded ware groups. Its just a possibility worth considering.

Let me put it this way, several people have in the past said that L11 gives the impression that it could have headed through central Europe dropping off U106 or an L11 ancestoral line of U106 perhaps somewhere like east-central Europe and then progressing west where L11 gave rise to P312 somewhere around the west end of central Europe where corded ware groups met beaker pot using metalurgists around 2600BC. L11* lines have been noted around the Baltic and Alps, bother places where corded ware passed through. Well, if was the case, the only culture that matches that and the northern copper age timeframe c. 3000-2500BC is corded ware. Whether P312 arose before the beakerisation would be a matter of debate. It may have been just before or just after.

alan
11-21-2014, 10:11 PM
Sorry to post the same quote a third time in this thread, but I want to use it to point something out.



The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe (http://www.amazon.com/Kurgan-Culture-Indo-Europeanization-Europe-Indo-European/dp/0941694569)

Earlier I mentioned the L11 dichotomy between P312 and U106, their differing distributions, and how they correspond to Italo-Celtic and Beaker in the case of the former, and Germanic and Corded Ware in the case of the latter.

I know we haven't gotten any kind of R1b out of Corded Ware yet, but we have gotten R1b and a U106- result out of the Beaker site near Kromsdorf.

So, since U106 isn't much of a match for Beaker or Italo-Celtic, where was it, if not in Corded Ware?

This is a very good argument IMO, and I have been saying this for a long time, that it doesnt make sense to derive P312 and U106 from different cultures as they share an immediate L11 ancestor. That has never made sense to me if we tried to link one to a culture originating around the Poland-Ukraine border and another around Iberia. We have tried to jump through hoops to explain this away but a great deal makes sense if L11 spread with corded ware then P312 arose towards the western end around the time some westermost corded ware people were beakerised. The beakerised group then spread P312 in the mighty burst in the 2500s. Like I said before, the concept of a hybrid where central European were beakerised is a really old one I think might go back a century or more.

It does seem that DNA is reviving a lot of old ideas. I just more and more think we might be going the wrong way to try and bring R1b along the Med. or south Alpine area. L11 and P312 have never really given the impression that that is likely. Most of the studies people have done of P312 subclades variance tend to point northwards and east-central Europe has been suggested for U106. Also SNP counting is suggestive that L11 and even P312 might be somewhat older than variance is suggesting.

Time will tell though and this theory would demand that L11 of some sort turns up in corded ware. I wouldnt be surprised as R1a, I and G have already turned up.

alan
11-21-2014, 10:47 PM
Here we go again. You really should know that I'm not talking about Yamnaya spread west of the Black Sea i.e. in the direction presumed ancestral to the 'Balkan group' of languages (Greek etc), but Yamnaya spread up the Danube from about 3100 BC. That is fine for Remedello. I repeat:



Bear in mind that radiocarbon dates are not precise. There is a range.

I do think Remedello is very interesting and may be important in all this especially if the dating of its classic phase is later than once suggested and therefore the wave of copper working across southern Europe west of the Balkans can be detached from Remedello in its classic phase of the distinctive daggers and their appearance on stelae etc.

Copper working and mining itself in its spread through Italy, southern France and Iberia from 3600-3200BC definitely is earlier and distinct from either classic Remedello or Yamnaya outside the steppes but the concept of it stemming from displacement from the Balkans seems pretty logical to me and it interests me that the Balkans already incorporated pre-Yamnaya beaker elements by the time this spread of copper west took place. It could have involved mixed groups or it could simply be displacement of native Balkans groups. As you say, the later dating of classic Remedello indicates it is a subsequent phenomenon to the spread of copper quite a number of centuries earlier.

In terms of genetics its hard to intepret 1. The spread of copper west 2. The later Remdedello phenomenon. It would seem most likely to me that the first is not R1b and the second might be. If that was the case then pre-beaker R1b could have been present in the Remedello influenced zone in the Alpine zone between Tyrol and SE Alpine France (which vaguely resembles the spread of L51*) and distinct from the G?? copper workers who went partly over the same ground but made it far further west as far as Portugal. The upshot of that IMO is that I cant see R1b west of the Alpine zone if it was linked to Remedello and, if the dating is correct, I cannot see the earliest beakers being made by R1b people.

I have read some archaeologist say that Remedello in very soft focus (i.e. broad social structure etc) reminds them of a southern sort of version of what was going on north of the Alps with corded ware in a similar period which could suggest a common component in both - perhaps steppic. So, I certainly wouldnt rule out the possibility of R1b being linked to Remedello although how that then played in with the beaker culture is hard to say. Interestingly similar skulls to beaker too.

alan
11-21-2014, 11:12 PM
Certainly if U106 is linked to corded ware and P312 with beaker then L11 surely existed in a shared component in both. I think the logic of this can be followed though by just looking at corded ware alone for a moment.

If L11 was indeed among the components within corded ware what does that tell us? Well the latest ideas from genetics and some archaeologists would say its a hybrid between farmers in east central Europe and steppe groups c. 3000BC. So logic would dictate that if its not from the farmers - which ancient DNA has all but proven - then it would have to be from Yamnaya. The big IF of course is whether L11 and U106 were in corded ware. But IF it was then it must surely have come from the steppe element.

If people bear with me a little I think the logic then needs to be followed through. If L11* was in corded ware and it or its immediate ancestor was in Yamnaya then we have some idea of the geography of L11 around 3000BC. Now to me, and I am not saying I have the answers, that would place L11 or its immediate ancestor in Yamnaya or a related culture c. 3000BC and within the spread of corded ware as far as Switzerland by 2700BC. It clearly could not also have been in the initial spread of copper west through all of southern Europe c.3600-3200BC as well. I think that can be struck out of the list of possibilities IF L11 was in corded ware and Yamnaya. The later dating might allow L11 to be in Remdello too though. Neither the corded ware or Remdello or both would make place L11 or a derivative further west than the Alps - either by the route north or the route south - in pre-beaker times.

The upshot of that conclusion (admittedly dependent on the possibility of L11 and U106 being in corded ware) is that P312 would not have been west of the Alps when the first beaker pot was made in SW Europe. That again suggest that P312 got attached to beaker at a secondary stage in west-central Europe when beaker traits were taken up by local groups there - most of whom were corded ware. Most of them although there were other smaller cultures including Remedello knocking about in the Alps

alan
11-21-2014, 11:23 PM
Remedello-I only has Pfyn-Altheim copper daggers. Remedello-II is where the "Remedello" type dagger appears. These daggers were triangular and, in a minor correction to what you wrote above, were riveted. Tanged daggers only appear in Phase III of the Remedello Sotto cemetery, which is aptly named the Bell Beaker phase.

Obviously it is the classic daggers that seem to show a large zone of influence in the Alps for Remedello in the pre-beaker period. What is the latest work on the dating of the three phases?

nuadha
11-21-2014, 11:40 PM
Ancient DNA samples suggest that people of the Corded Ware culture had on average three grandparents descended from Yamnaya ancestors. (Lazaridis forthcoming). Of course we will need lots of samples to be reasonably sure of exact proportions.

No, they were just modeled that way. While a 73% yamnaya input into local neolithics was a better fit than the 50% karelian input, this does not indicate that the CW descended from Yamnaya as Michal already explained.

Looking to the future, we probably need autosomal dna from a bunch of candidates along with very precise haplogroups from each of these candidates, that can separate them out, along with some reliable isotopic studies to put the case to rest.

nuadha
11-21-2014, 11:43 PM
Oh I see! We have two tweets from Razib: "corded ware 75% yamnaya" and "corded ware 36% nonlocal ancestry" that seem contradictory. They may not be. 'Non-local' is the sort of thing you get from isotopes. But I certainly need to get to the bottom of this.

By the way re Baden see my post: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3156-First-ancient-genomes-from-Corded-Ware&p=52282&viewfull=1#post52282

I doubt whether our thinking is as wildly divergent as you may think.

The 36% estimate was a lower bound for the non local ancestry. As in, 36% had to be from newcomers. How different were these newcomers? Well that is surely related to how many are required create the CW.

Jean M
11-22-2014, 12:10 AM
No, they were just modeled that way. While a 73% yamnaya input into local neolithics was a better fit than the 50% karelian input, this does not indicate that the CW descended from Yamnaya as Michal already explained.



The 36% estimate was a lower bound for the non local ancestry. As in, 36% had to be from newcomers. How different were these newcomers? Well that is surely related to how many are required create the CW.

I forgot that you went to the conference. Well that was helpful. Sort of. I thought the Karelian was something to do with the way Yamnaya was modelled.

Heber
11-22-2014, 12:15 AM
The upshot of that conclusion (admittedly dependent on the possibility of L11 and U106 being in corded ware) is that P312 would not have been west of the Alps when the first beaker pot was made in SW Europe. That again suggest that P312 got attached to beaker at a secondary stage in west-central Europe when beaker traits were taken up by local groups there - most of whom were corded ware. Most of them although there were other smaller cultures including Remedello knocking about in the Alps

I believe we will find L11 in ancient DNA samples in Iberia as well as recent modern studies (Asturias).
If we look at the Stanford University Orbis Model for Ancient (Roman) Travel.

From Constantinople to Gades (Cadiz)

Sea Route
31 days 4114 km
3040

Coastal Route
35 days 4530 km
3041

Road/River Route
324 days, 5027 km
3041

We know that the Bronze Age Sea Peoples navigated from Anatolia to Egypt to Sardinia in rapid ships.
Obviously a combination of Road (Migration) and Sea (Exploration) routes would make sense.
Once the initial beachhead was secured the slower population migration could follow.

R.Rocca
11-22-2014, 12:32 AM
Obviously it is the classic daggers that seem to show a large zone of influence in the Alps for Remedello in the pre-beaker period. What is the latest work on the dating of the three phases?

It is still based on DeMarinis' dating:

Remedello I - 3400-2900 BC - copper daggers showing links to cultures north of the Alps, especially Pfyn & Altheim.
Remedello II - 2900-2400 BC - triangular riveted daggers, pottery with metope patterns similar to that of the Languedoc "Fontbouisse Culture", itself dated to 2800-2200BC
Bell Beaker Phase - 2400-2150 BC - Typical Bell Beaker tanged daggers and pottery

The timing of the transition from Remedello II to the Bell Beaker phase seem to coincide with the upheavals brought on by Bell Beakers in Sion and Aosta.

nuadha
11-22-2014, 01:27 AM
I forgot that you went to the conference. Well that was helpful. Sort of. I thought the Karelian was something to do with the way Yamnaya was modelled.

My mistake. I had to look back earliest comments after the conference. 36% was a lower bound for foreign input in CW which coincides with 36% input of Karelian in one of the models (not 50%). Using yamnaya as the foreign input instead yielded a 73% estimate. I don't recall exactly but I think the 50/50 estimate was for Karelian in Yamnaya. In simple math that would make some sense. Here is what I wrote before,


he modeled the CW as a mixture of local middle neolithic + Karelian then he modeled the CW as a mixture local middle neolithic + yamnaya. The later was a much better fit. FYI, the estimated contribution of the Karelian in the first model (lower bound 36%) was much lower than the estimated yamnaya contribution in the the later, 73% to be precise. That's because, as laz said, the yamnaya had a diluted levels of East E. Hunter gatherer or ANE due to admixture with middle east/Caucasus related farmers (as razib mentioned).

Jean M
11-22-2014, 01:40 AM
Here is what I wrote before,

Thanks. I missed your earlier post. Should have been looking out for it. I think I am getting the picture.

Generalissimo
11-22-2014, 02:54 AM
My mistake. I had to look back earliest comments after the conference. 36% was a lower bound for foreign input in CW which coincides with 36% input of Karelian in one of the models (not 50%). Using yamnaya as the foreign input instead yielded a 73% estimate. I don't recall exactly but I think the 50/50 estimate was for Karelian in Yamnaya. In simple math that would make some sense. Here is what I wrote before,

You mentioned a while back to me that on a PCA the Corded Ware samples pulled towards the Yamnaya samples in comparison to the Middle Neolihic samples (I'm guessing like Rossen or something like that?).

But where did the Yamnaya samples cluster generally compared to modern populations?

alan
11-22-2014, 12:14 PM
I also think because corded ware ranged from Ukraine to Swizerland and existed for several centuries, included some centruries before beaker used commenced in central Europe that there is no problem at all in thinking the east end could have been satemised while the west end and the beakerised groups there would have avoided it. A perfect scenario would be that satemisation happened after the more westerly corded ware people had got out of the zone where that happened or was to happen. The corded ware people who made it to the western part of their range were there by 2700BC and probably on their way there heading west a century or so before not long after 3000BC. So, they got theirselves well beyond the satemisation zone while their compatriots back in east-central and eastern Europe would have been in the satemisation zone. I dont think there is any case for satemisation to have occurred before 3000BC

rms2
11-22-2014, 12:28 PM
I am still intrigued by Gimbutas' idea that Beaker was an offshoot of the Vučedol culture of mostly what is now Croatia. Here's another quote from the book The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe (http://www.amazon.com/Kurgan-Culture-Indo-Europeanization-Europe-Indo-European/dp/0941694569) that was supplied by Piquerobi.



In western Hungary and nothwestern Yugoslavia, the Vucedol complex was followed by the Samogyvar-Vinkovci complex, the predecessor of the Bell Beaker people. Furthermore, the exodus of the horse-riding Bell Beaker people in the middle of the 3rd millenium, or soon thereafter, from the territories of the Vucedol complex, may not be unconnected with the constant threat from the east. They carried to the west Kurgan traditions in armament, social structure, and religion. The fact of paramount importance of Bell Beaker mobility is the presence of the horse. Seven Bell Beaker sites at Budapest in Hungary have shown that the horse was the foremost species of the domestic fauna.

I know Coon is considered passé now, but he was pretty astute in many of his observations. Here are some of his comments on what he called the "Dinaric" element in Beaker.



The series of skulls from the Rhineland, including nine adult males, is the most suitable for comparison (see Appendix I, col. 21). It is identical in the cranial index mean with that of Furst's forty-four male Bronze Age skulls from Cyprus, which have already been studied, and which have been called Dinaric. The Rhenish crania are a little larger in vault dimensions, and particularly in height; but are almost identical facially. Morphologically, the two groups are also similar, but the Bell Beaker group is more extreme in many ways; the browridges are often heavy, the general ruggedness frequently greater. The faces are characteristically narrow, the orbits medium to high, the nasal skeleton high and aquiline; the occiput frequently flat. The stature for six males reached the high mean of 177 cm.

The deviation of the Rhenish Bell Beaker skulls, such as it is, from the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean Dinaric form, lies in a Borreby direction. It is, therefore, more than likely that the invaders mixed with the descendants of the earlier Neolithic brachycephals, whose territory stretched along the North Sea coast from southern Sweden to Belgium. On the whole, however, at the period represented by the Wörms crania, the eastern or Dinaric element was the more important.

The Spanish Bell Beaker problem now stands in a somewhat clearer light than before. The Dinaric type, with which the Rhenish Bell beakers are associated, is one which entered the western Mediterranean by sea from the east, and eventually moved, by some route yet to be determined in an accurate manner, to the north, and eventually to central Europe. The paucity of brachycephals in Spain may be due to the paucity of remains of this culture in general. It is still possible, one might add, that certain North African elements became involved in the Bell Beaker racial type, but such an accretion is unnecessary and hardly likely.

The Bell Beaker people were probably the first intrusive brachycephals to enter the Austrian Alps, and the mountains of northeastern Bohemia, for the push of Lake Dwelling Alpines southeastward toward the Balkans happened later in the Bronze Age. It is, therefore, possible that the present Dinaric populations of the Dinaric Alps and the Carpathians may be derived in part from this eastward invasion. The small numbers and scattered burial habits of the Bell Beaker people on the more densely populated plains of Europe must have made them of much less ethnic importance there than in the mountains.

In their Rhineland center, the more numerous Bell Beaker people had constant relationships with the inhabitants of Denmark, who were still burying in corridor tombs. Furthermore, the Corded people, one branch of whom invaded Jutland and introduced the single-grave type of burial, also migrated to the Rhine Valley, and here amalgamated themselves with the Bell Beaker people, who were already in process of mixing with their Borreby type neighbors. The result of this triple fusion was a great expansion, and a population overflow down the Rhine, in the direction of Britain. (From Coon's The Races of Europe, Chapter V, section 7.)

alan
11-22-2014, 12:48 PM
Cheers. Italian archaeology is not well served on the internet - well certainly not in English. So its hard to follow. There have been so many twists and turns in suggested dating within the last few years. I recall radiocarbon dating of rinaldone and one case of Remedello metalwork in burials in a paper giving the impression the dates need pushed back but I am supposing that was Remedello I.

Can I ask you this then. You gave a nice summary of phases and metalwork but what about the burial traditions and skulls. Do the individualistic graves and/or beaker-like skulls belong to phases 2 and 3 and not 1? If so I can agree with the idea that the very interesting phase of Remedello phase could partly relate to incomers from the north Balkans/Danube - of course completely separating this off from the spread of copper working and mining which occurs from at least 3600BC in Italy and had even reached Iberia by c. 3200BC.

This later dating for Remdello 2 has a completely different set of implications. The use of those rivetted triangular daggers has been traced in one paper to the Bodrogkeresztur of Hungary in the early 4th millnium BC and from memory much later Usatovo or a similar steppe group were unusual in that they used them too? I think also around the east Med. Just cannot remember the details. There is a great paper on copper dagger evolution with a nice map and discussion that I posted before but I cannot find it googling. Of course, ignoring the material used, Sredny Stog and its Balkan offshoots used nasty long flint daggers and it would be interesting to know if the concept but not the material had a steppe origin given that the Sredny Stog groups like Suvorovo were in the Balkans perhaps as early as 4300BC or a little after.

Ah just found the map from the paper

http://r1b.org/imgs/Pre-Beaker_Copper_Daggers_Spread.png

and the paper

http://www.academia.edu/1475585/Les_poignards_m%C3%A9talliques_et_lithiques_du_Cha lcolithique_pr%C3%A9-campaniforme_des_petits_et_Grands_Causses_dans_le_ Midi_de_la_France

rms2
11-22-2014, 01:13 PM
Here is Brandt et al's map of what they call events C and D. I think they are making a mistake in bringing R1b out of Iberia. It seems to me they do that because 1) they are linking y haplogroup R1b to mtDNA H, and 2) R1b is currently most frequent in Western Europe. It's a mistake in my view because, among other reasons, R1b clearly had an origin in Asia and should be showing up in earlier aDNA finds in Iberia if it was there in time to be in on the beginnings of Bell Beaker there.

3043

alan
11-22-2014, 01:23 PM
This gives an interesting discussion of Remedello phases, dating and dagger carvings

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6ZQeAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=remedello+culture&source=bl&ots=IDpA_JUtZa&sig=QQEzc06omjZ7D3WxyP6iCZ6lmXg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=molwVPndJ43barWlgpAH&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=remedello%20culture&f=false

If Remedello 2 is the period of the classic dagger carvings and dates to the later sort of chronology proposed here then its clear enough there were two events - the arrival of copper working and mining c. 3600BC then the whole Remedello 2 phenomenon after 3000BC and up to the arrival of beaker. Again in soft focus a lot about the Remedello 2 prefigures beaker. I like the concept that its very generalistically shows a similar societal evolution as corded ware does to the north - and at a very similar time period too and the later dating does put it in the period of Yamnaya intrusion into the Balkans. So there seem to have been two impulses from the Balkans/Danube zone into southern and Alpine Europe - copper working and mining c. 3600BC or a little earlier all the way to Iberia c. 3200BC then the Remdello phenomenon after 3000BC and up to the arrival of beaker. I think some fine tuning using a lot more radiocarbon dates would be needed to get a more accurate date of the Remedello-beaker interface. The dating of Italian beakers seems to be appalling and that is very frustrating given the interesting broad similarities of Remedello 2, beaker and corded ware. For me there is a logic that either corded ware or Remedello 2 could be R1b linked or both. We can be pretty sure the new ingredient that made corded ware was steppes derived but I am not too clear about Remedello 2 except perhaps a Balkans link. However I think I have really gone off the idea of R1b simply being linked to the spread of copper working the full length of southern Europe several centuries before

alan
11-22-2014, 01:28 PM
Just struck me about Remedello dating. The Ice Man is dated to around 3300 or 3200BC isnt he and he was found with a Remedello axe. Surely that would mean his axe is a Remedello I artifact. Does anyone have any info on this?

Also, Otzi didnt exactly have a full on beaker skull although I have read that he was Mesocephalic so moving in that direction. It has been stated that there are some classic beaker type skulls in remedello. Which of the three phases of Remedello have these skulls been found in? Obviously if it phase 3 i.e. beaker than its not all that interesting or mind blowing. However if its phase 1 or 2 that is interesting. I am guessing its phase 2 but does anyone have any information on this. Also, does the high dating of Rinaldone still stand and am I correct in thinking that the beaker type skulls were also found in this. As far as I understand such skulls were not known in pre-beaer times west of Remedello culture in southern Europe and were even not known in the earliest beaker phase.

alan
11-22-2014, 01:35 PM
I am still intrigued by Gimbutas' idea that Beaker was an offshoot of the Vučedol culture of mostly what is now Croatia. Here's another quote from the book The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe (http://www.amazon.com/Kurgan-Culture-Indo-Europeanization-Europe-Indo-European/dp/0941694569) that was supplied by Piquerobi.



I know Coon is considered passé now, but he was pretty astute in many of his observations. Here are some of his comments on what he called the "Dinaric" element in Beaker.

If Remedello 2 before the beaker phase also has the skulls then this also is interesting given the interesting status burials, a lot of archery evidence, these necklace things that seem to prefigure the beaker love of crescent shared necklaces/lunulae and the prestige daggers - albeit of a different style. I am hoping someone can clarrify which Remedello phase the skulls appear in and also what Remedello phase Otzi's axe type falls into - Remedello 1 perhaps?

rms2
11-22-2014, 01:37 PM
Here's how I have altered the Brandt et al events C and D map to show a Beaker alternative based on Gimbutas's notion that Beaker was derived from Vučedol. I'm just throwing this out there for consideration, not as an assertion that this is the way things really were.

3044

alan
11-22-2014, 01:49 PM
This was an interesting paper on crania contrasting the Neolithic and copper age in southern/Alpine Europe.

http://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/jbr/article/viewFile/4075/3578

Others have commented on Remedello and beaker being close but I dont know the source or what phase of Remedello.

alan
11-22-2014, 01:57 PM
Here's how I have altered the Brandt et al events C and D map to show a Beaker alternative based on Gimbutas's notion that Beaker was derived from Vučedol. I'm just throwing this out there for consideration, not as an assertion that this is the way things really were.

3044

I think its more than likely that copper age influences both early and in the later pre-beaker period came from the north Balkans/Danube area to the Alps and north Italy. Also always worth recalling that there were steppe elements in the Balkans from 4200BC so any move from the Bakans could have included a hybrid with steppe people. Obviously the broad heads are not typical steppe but steppe influences would surely have come through the filter of north Balkans/Danube area before reaching Italy and the Alps. However, its also entirely possible that the beaker-brachycephalic link was an almost family trait. AFAIK the beaker link with these skulls was a sudden thing little before 2500BC and that period saw the big extension of beaker and these skulls across much of Europe from the isles to Slovakia and beyond within what might only be 2 or 3 generations. So a family kind of trait seems possible to me rather than looking for an all population trait.

alan
11-22-2014, 02:18 PM
I must say that I find wristguards interesting. My impression is that the two holed one was found everywhere in the beaker world and the ones with more holes are a slightly later development that spread to Britain through continuing continental contacts. However as the single holed ones were found everywhere they are not much use in inferring much. The multi-hole ones probably infer continuing contact with continent in some areas after the initial beaker settlement. Note too the Amesbury Archer whose dates center on c. 2400BC had two two-holed bracers even though his origins have been placed in the Alps by some.

However, it is to be noted that nowhere in the isles is very early in the beaker phase -2500-2400BC with Ross Island mine probably a generation or two later and late in beaker settlement by European standards. I also posted recently that beaker period copper using a pure non-arsenical type of copper was found recently found in western Ireland and discussed in Archaeology Ireland and could have dated to c. 2500BC possibly a generation or so before Ross Island. Pure non-arsenical copper like that at that date probably came from central Europe rather than the arsenical type copper of Ross Island or Iberia.

rms2
11-22-2014, 02:20 PM
I think its more than likely that copper age influences both early and in the later pre-beaker period came from the north Balkans/Danube area to the Alps and north Italy. Also always worth recalling that there were steppe elements in the Balkans from 4200BC so any move from the Bakans could have included a hybrid with steppe people. Obviously the broad heads are not typical steppe but steppe influences would surely have come through the filter of north Balkans/Danube area before reaching Italy and the Alps. However, its also entirely possible that the beaker-brachycephalic link was an almost family trait. AFAIK the beaker link with these skulls was a sudden thing little before 2500BC and that period saw the big extension of beaker and these skulls across much of Europe from the isles to Slovakia and beyond within what might only be 2 or 3 generations. So a family kind of trait seems possible to me rather than looking for an all population trait.

I wonder what Gimbutas' reasons were for seeing a connection between Vučedol and Beaker, other than the former was supposed to be steppe derived and probably IE speaking. One thing that is interesting about the Beaker skulls/skeletons is that Coon characterized them as "Dinaric", and Vučedol sat squarely in the heartland of what old-timers like Coon called the "Dinaric race".

The main site of Vučedol is on the banks of the Danube about 3 miles downstream from the modern Croatian city of Vukovar, and Vučedol sites extend from the Adriatic to Hungary and the Czech Republic.

Isidro
11-22-2014, 02:54 PM
Since I can see we are speculating about BB and it's relationship with R1b (not an exclusive one, many other haplogroups were involved), I came across this sketch of a map I made when it seemed like a Neolithic or younger migrations had a competing case scenario with a Paleolithic presence.
As you can see the 3 arrows in the yellow P312 could well account for L21, U152 and DF27.

3045

alan
11-22-2014, 03:27 PM
Since I can see we are speculating about BB and it's relationship with R1b (not an exclusive one, many other haplogroups were involved), I came across this sketch of a map I made when it seemed like a Neolithic or younger migrations had a competing case scenario with a Paleolithic presence.
As you can see the 3 arrows in the yellow P312 could well account for L21, U152 and DF27.

3045


Well its not 2007 anymore and virtually noone believe in R1b having a west European palaeolithic presence nowadays. All evidence of all kinds in against it and it was just based on a high count in the west of what now turns out to be relatively young copper age and later P312 derived clades and then a mistaken concept of linking it with Basque and linking both with the ice age refugia in the west. The evidence all points to no sign of R1b until post-Neolithic times.

The evidence suggests R came into existence in south Siberia a few millenia before R Mal'ta boy, R1 came into existence in the LGM in a parallel line around the time of his life and R1 then probably spent the worst of the LGM in or around Altai. It then likely entered the east/north-east of Europe just after the Younger Dryas in the Mesolithic c. 9000-8000BC and didnt spread west of that until c. 4000BC or later. The ancient DNA fits the most cutting edge age calculations so its pretty well a done deal now. Just the detail remains to be sorted out.

Folks should soon, with a little more confirmatory evidence, embrace their south Siberian paleolithic ancestors. They had a culture c. 43000BC-10000BC just as impressive as the far west. Also say high to their native American cousins whose heritage is partly (it also mixed with east Asian) from hunters who likely shared the same Altai refuge in the LGM

alan
11-22-2014, 03:29 PM
The Boscombe Bowmen look pretty plano-occupital to me
http://www.culture24.org.uk/asset_arena/6/04/33406/v0_master.jpg

Amesbury archer looks more mesocephalic to me

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/17/article-2525035-1A235CDB00000578-886_306x527.jpg

alan
11-22-2014, 05:20 PM
I must say that I find wristguards interesting. My impression is that the two holed one was found everywhere in the beaker world and the ones with more holes are a slightly later development that spread to Britain through continuing continental contacts. However as the single holed ones were found everywhere they are not much use in inferring much. The multi-hole ones probably infer continuing contact with continent in some areas after the initial beaker settlement. Note too the Amesbury Archer whose dates center on c. 2400BC had two two-holed bracers even though his origins have been placed in the Alps by some.

However, it is to be noted that nowhere in the isles is very early in the beaker phase -2500-2400BC with Ross Island mine probably a generation or two later and late in beaker settlement by European standards. I also posted recently that beaker period copper using a pure non-arsenical type of copper was found recently found in western Ireland and discussed in Archaeology Ireland and could have dated to c. 2500BC possibly a generation or so before Ross Island. Pure non-arsenical copper like that at that date probably came from central Europe rather than the arsenical type copper of Ross Island or Iberia.

Jean- thanks for the thanks. Unfortunately whoever runs archaeology Ireland doesnt like the internet a lot so their site doesnt even have a link to the contents of the issues. I am pretty sure it was from this year and the site was in the west of Ireland - probably country Clare. It has a complex stratigraphy though so its perhaps a tricky one to be absolutely certain about until thesite report is fully published. It was multi-period and although there was no beaker the copper - think it may have been an axe- was in a layer with a date to 2500BC which is as early as any date I have heard off for either copper or beaker in Ireland. The fact it was of pure type of copper and clearly not from Ross Island is significant if the radiocarbon date accurately dates it. Purer copper is not a feature in Ireland until the early Bronze Age post-beaker mines at Mount Gabriel etc which I believe dont pre-date 2000BC.

Jean M
11-22-2014, 05:23 PM
Jean- Unfortunately whoever runs archaeology Ireland doesnt like the internet a lot so their site doesnt even have a link to the contents of the issues..

You are reading my mind. I went straight over to the website and couldn't find it. Plus it doesn't seem to be in William O'Brien (2014), Prehistoric Copper Mining in Europe, 5500 - 500 BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sounds like a Late Neolithic import, unrelated to BB, but best await greater clarity.

vettor
11-22-2014, 07:00 PM
I wonder what Gimbutas' reasons were for seeing a connection between Vučedol and Beaker, other than the former was supposed to be steppe derived and probably IE speaking. One thing that is interesting about the Beaker skulls/skeletons is that Coon characterized them as "Dinaric", and Vučedol sat squarely in the heartland of what old-timers like Coon called the "Dinaric race".

The main site of Vučedol is on the banks of the Danube about 3 miles downstream from the modern Croatian city of Vukovar, and Vučedol sites extend from the Adriatic to Hungary and the Czech Republic.

Since the earliest know people in the Vukovar area in the bronze-age where the Ardeioi ( illyrians ) and Illyrians where also in East Austria ( Noricum) , it is plausible that there was a connection.

Illyrians are a Dinaric race long before slavs ever got there.

On another note : it seems Gimbutas and some of her views are raising up from the "dead"........it makes the scholars who put Gimbutas ideas in the grave look silly;)

alan
11-23-2014, 11:45 AM
I dont dabble too much in autosomal because I am no expert in it but I suspect beaker will look like this and will change by phase

1. The very earliest beakers in Iberia and southern France seem likely to me to be predominantly Neolithic farmer in type although it may be a mix of local farmer and perhaps some sort of Balkan input with distant links to the copper workers that spread across the Med 3600-3200BC. I expect the men to be mainly G and the women mostly H

2. The still early beaker users of the sort we see around 2600BC at Sion will be a mix of 1. plus perhaps the Alpine/Remedello groups but still with a lot of 1. Its hard to say if the early beaker element involves males from Iberia or local males heavily influenced and intermarried with early beaker.

3. The beaker people in central and NW Europe around 2500sBC will be a mixture of no. 2 plus more central European genetics with steppe elements. They have already been shown to include R1b and H and I expect that pattern may have been a common blend of central European yDNA and more southern mtDNA lines in that century when early beaker pot using metalurgists and central Europeans met and then a great expansion took place across temperate Europe. I think the sheer speed of the expansion of the developed beaker groups in one century will mean that the earliest beaker people in central and NW Europe will look surprisingly homogeneous.

4. The homogeneity in autosomal and mt DNA terms will start to break down after 2500BC -2400BC although the pace could vary depending on how much they integrated and how much they remained an isolated specialist group. Already at Kromsdorf you may see a later generation where the need for alliance marriages with SW woman is replaced by the need to make alliances with local woman. The late beaker people will probably have less and less Neolithic farmer and more of whatever the local woman had. The pace probably varied.

BTW the apparent sudden spread of mtDNA H may have a simple explanation. People may have sought out wives who could make the prestigious beaker pots and the daughters of those wives who had been taught. However over time this link may have broken down. Maybe the movement from beaker to foodvessels in the isles around 22-2100BC marked the end of a separate community of beaker people and the mixing with the general population. Women were likely the potters so the breakdown of very widespread beaker traditions and the shift to food vessels might be some sort of material expression of intermarrying with local women as might changes in the burial traditions

This here is a very interesting read regarding the complicated British-Irish trends at the end of the beaker period and commencement of the food vessel traditions. The first 100 pages or so are a good general summary on the latest work.

http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/5192/1/Wilkin14PhD_Redacted.pdf

After you read this its not at all surprising that Ireland and Britain, especially the Scots, are so genetically similar as there seems to have been a froth of back and forth contact and movement not just in the beaker period but through the following food vessel period too. The thesis at one point states that although metal trading was part of it, it is clear that back and forth human movement beyond just trading was regularly happening.

rms2
11-23-2014, 01:06 PM
It seems with the Beaker Folk we are just waiting for more ancient dna results, especially ancient y-dna results. Any prospects for any anytime soon?

I would especially like to see some high coverage stuff, particularly from the British Isles.

Heber
11-23-2014, 01:58 PM
I like the idea of hybrid mixing of SNP to explain the expansion of L11 and P312.
Using Alans classification above I would propose.
1) Expansion of DF27 and H from Tartessos and Iberia.
2) Hybridisation of DF27 and U152 at Averyon and later Sion migrating to pure U152.
3) Hybridization of U152 and U106 in Central Europe.
4) Hybridization of DF27 and L21 along Atlantic Europe.
This has the advantage of supporting the Duck Model, ie if it looks like a duck, SNP frequency, archeology and quacks like a duck, linguistics, then it probably is a duck.:).

3055

3056

rms2
11-23-2014, 02:09 PM
I'm sorry to criticize, but y haplogroups cannot hybridize. Maybe you mean that populations with different frequencies of y haplogroups lived together and intermarried.

That map is not too accurate either. There isn't any evidence that L21 is a big factor in NW Germany, and thus far not much U106 has turned up in Normandy. L21 is as frequent in SW England as it is in Bretagne, and it runs about 10% in NE France, higher than U106 and not too far behind P312XU152,L21, the last of which would include DF99 and DF19, as well as DF27.

I cannot see the duck or hear it quack. Maybe you can explain what you mean and why you think it should be obvious to the rest of us.

razyn
11-23-2014, 02:38 PM
I cannot see the duck or hear it quack.

And nor can I -- aligning the sequential steps from Alan's post with DF27 has the duckie paddling up his Iberian stream about a thousand years before it appears to me that he got to that stream.

alan
11-23-2014, 03:27 PM
Heyd looking at the origins of the east beaker group puts the A1 phase as a short foundation one spanning 2500-2450BC. http://www.academia.edu/1249549/_2007_V._Heyd_Families_Prestige_Goods_Warriors_and _Complex_Societies_Beaker_Groups_of_the_3rd_Millen nium_cal_BC_along_the_Upper_and_Middle_Danube._Pro ceedings_of_the_Prehistoric_Society_73_2007_p._321-370

This was followed by progressive development into a more distinctive east group. Note that Heyd and many other archaeologists are being far more cautious and refined about dating and you no longer hear of dates long pre-dating 2500BC outside SW Europe and even in SW Europe the dates tend to be quoted more in the 2600s BC. This IMO makes the dates quoted for Kromsdorf especially interesting.

There are two R1b guys but no info about orientation and of this pair only a 'cup' in grave 8 might identify cultural identity - what was that cup?

Grave 5 R1b Mt I1 no orientation details. No date, No finds died middle aged
Grave 8 R1b Mt K1 no orientation details. cup 2678-2547BC died in early 20s

Only grave 1 is clearcut in its orientation details as beaker while its dating also allows suggest the woman in grave 9 is also beaker.

Grave 1 no DNA result but is clearly a beaker male in orientation has 'cup' and dated to 2573-2511.


One is clearly corded ware

Grave 2 no DNA reported classic female corded ware orientaton bowl and bone needle no date

One is odd for both

Grave 3 - c. 35 y.o. man - mtDNA reported as U2e - adherent position for either beaker or corded ware being orientated north-south on right side, no grave goods

Anyway a few things strike me. Grave 8 is one of the R1b guys (K1 mtDNA), had some sort of 'cup' but no other burial details known. However he is dated to 2678-2547BC, a date centred around 2625BC. If this is a safe date from short life material then this is a lot earlier than Heyd's c. 2500BC date for the commencement of the beaker period in central Europe. Problem is this guy has no orientation details and I am not sure what the 'cup' is. I wonder what the relationship between this guy and the corded ware woman in grave 2 for whom no dating or dna evidence was available.

Without knowledge of the cup and often unclear evidence of orientation all we can say is the classic beaker orientation was present on this site at grave 1 around 2550BC but a young R1b man in grave 8 died here around 2625BC with a 'cup' at a site that also features a young undated corded ware woman. A middle aged guy also R1b and surely related to him died at an unknown date and is in grave 5 but with no finds or orientation info. Important question - do we know what the cup in grave 8 was? Its just that he seems very early indeed and much earlier than Heyd dates even beaker phase A1. Do we know for sure he is actually a beaker guy? If not what this site could be showing is an R1b pre-beaker group here from c. 2625BC getting beakerised around 2550BC - dating that would be a bit closer to Heyd's favoured chronology which sees central European beaker commencing little before 2500BC. If this is correct then we may be seeing a group in the process of beakerisation. Either that or Heyd's chronology is wrong. So please does anyone have any info or images on the cup in the early grave 8 R1b guy?

Jean M
11-23-2014, 04:40 PM
Note that Heyd and many other archaeologists are being far more cautious and refined about dating and you no longer hear of dates long pre-dating 2500BC outside SW Europe and even in SW Europe the dates tend to be quoted more in the 2600s BC.

Waving your magic wand over the earlier dates in Portugal again Alan? :biggrin1: Alancadabra! They vanish! Except they don't. Here's the relevant paper : http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265057247_Absolute_chronology_of_the_Beaker_phenom enon_North_of_the_Tagus_estuary_demographic_and_so cial_implications


The remarkable antiquity of Beaker pottery found in the FM hut at Leceia (which dates from the 2nd quarter of the 3rd millennium BC, re-confirmed by AMS dating) has parallels both in the North and South of Portugal, as well as in Spain

Isidro
11-23-2014, 04:46 PM
Well its not 2007 anymore and virtually noone believe in R1b having a west European palaeolithic presence nowadays. All evidence of all kinds in against it and it was just based on a high count in the west of what now turns out to be relatively young copper age and later P312 derived clades and then a mistaken concept of linking it with Basque and linking both with the ice age refugia in the west. The evidence all points to no sign of R1b until post-Neolithic times.
I made this map in 2009 so contemplating R1b not being in Southwestern Europe in the Paleolithic is not news to me.
To tele transport them (R1b+) to the Bronze Age in Iberia is a bit of a stretch I would say unless we accept the idea that when P312 got to Iberia the Neolithic, Copper Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age was already established there and the R1b were just newcomers to the region. I seriously doubt that.
Like you say evidence is key but I would not rush into closing the book yet.

The Iron Age can be quite complex, I found this read interesting:
Testing Hybridity in Early Iron Age Iberia: using ceramics and theory to explain the significance of Phoenician 'colonialism'.

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/18395

Heber
11-23-2014, 05:20 PM
I cannot see the duck or hear it quack. Maybe you can explain what you mean and why you think it should be obvious to the rest of us.

Archealogy and <language
Cunliffe dnd Koch have provided ample material in the three conferences
Celtic from the West I (2011)
Celtic from the West II (2013)
Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages (2015)
I would expect an additional conference in the series in 2015.
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/celtic-from-the-west/

The Stelae People and Bell Beakers
The Stelae people model as proposed by Jean is very interesting.
I would expect this to represent the overland pathway between the Western BB and their Eastern BB cousins.
Of course the Maritime route was probably ten times faster with traffic in both directions.
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/the-stelae-people/

SNP Frequency
Most of the SNP frequency maps whether they are from Busby and Myres, Genographic, POBI, Eupedia or Citizen Scientists show a similar picture with L21 and DF27 on the West, U152 in the Alps, Italy and France and U106 in the East. The Hybrid Maps add an extra dimension to this picture. When new maps are published showing a different story we can examine them.
http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/europe-snp-analysis-maps/

alan
11-23-2014, 05:28 PM
I like the idea of hybrid mixing of SNP to explain the expansion of L11 and P312.
Using Alans classification above I would propose.
1) Expansion of DF27 and H from Tartessos and Iberia.
2) Hybridisation of DF27 and U152 at Averyon and later Sion migrating to pure U152.
3) Hybridization of U152 and U106 in Central Europe.
4) Hybridization of DF27 and L21 along Atlantic Europe.
This has the advantage of supporting the Duck Model, ie if it looks like a duck, SNP frequency, archeology and quacks like a duck, linguistics, then it probably is a duck.:).

3055

3056

A model like that needs to explain how those P312 subclades were already in those places before beaker. How did DF27, a copper age subclade or P312, get to Iberia in the first place? They are of course derivatives of L11 and L51 which seem to be central/north European or Alpine/north Italy concentrated. Ancient DNA strikes against southern European pre-beaker copper age already in form of Otzi and Languedoc G folks and an Iberian E person. So spread of copper along southern route c. 3600BC to Iberia c. 3200BC at the moment looks unsupported although sample is too small. The Remedello 2 daggers and their representation on stelae appear likely to date to 2800-2600BC and are just only just earlier than the earliest beaker in Iberia and dont actually appear in Iberia anyway So you would need to identify eastern, central or Alpine European input into Iberia in a tight timeframe. I dont see one. Beaker is not even in southern France until 2600BC at the earliest according to Lemercier recently although corded ware was present just to the north in Switzerland from 2700BC or so.

As and aside I do wonder if at least the idea of beaker shaped pots and cords somehow made it to Iberia from that contact zone c. 2700-2600BC between corded ware and beaker and somehow is linked to the AOO or AOC type beaker pots which are rare in Iberia but concentrated in the north-east. .

alan
11-23-2014, 05:32 PM
Waving your magic wand over the earlier dates in Portugal again Alan? :biggrin1: Alancadabra! They vanish! Except they don't. Here's the relevant paper : http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265057247_Absolute_chronology_of_the_Beaker_phenom enon_North_of_the_Tagus_estuary_demographic_and_so cial_implications

Not at all. I was talking about how a lot of recent papers are quoting 2500BC for central European beaker including Heyd. I didnt mention anything about Portugal. I accept that southern France earliest is about 2600BC and Iberia might be earlier still. Pot is not the issue. I totally accept that Iberia has the earliest dates. My belief though is that the earliest beaker from c. 2700-2550BC give or take is nothing to do with R1b and R1b only joined to beaker in central Europe and the Rhine.

Anyway that is a weird bit of lateral accusation when the whole point of the post is about the contradiction of the dating of one of the R1b guys and the date beaker is meant to be in the area. My conclusion is that unless I see the details of the pot I am not totally convinced the early R1b guy at Kromsdorf is actually beaker.

Jean M
11-23-2014, 05:36 PM
I do wonder if at least the idea of beaker shaped pots and cords somehow made it to Iberia from that contact zone c. 2700-2600BC between corded ware and beaker and somehow is linked to the AOO or AOC type beaker pots which are rare in Iberia but concentrated in the north-east.

Cord impressions in pottery were not invented by CW. They are present in Yamnaya. In fact they have a much longer history, going back to the hunter-gatherer pottery that arrived in Europe from Lake Baikal. It was a quick and easy form of decoration. The divisions between the stripes of pattern across "classic" BB pottery are sometimes marked by cord impressions, but BB is on the whole more refined, making use of a range of more time-consuming methods of pattern-making and colouring. Essentially BB is a blend of influences from Yamnaya, Cucuteni and the bone-encrusted ware encountered along the Danube. CW is more simple; its origins plain Yamnaya.

alan
11-23-2014, 05:40 PM
Waving your magic wand over the earlier dates in Portugal again Alan? :biggrin1: Alancadabra! They vanish! Except they don't. Here's the relevant paper : http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265057247_Absolute_chronology_of_the_Beaker_phenom enon_North_of_the_Tagus_estuary_demographic_and_so cial_implications

Our of interest what materials were used to date it and what was the context? I dont really have time to read another paper today - have been doing a bit of a marathon already

Heber
11-23-2014, 05:41 PM
A model like that needs to explain how those P312 subclades were already in those places before beaker. How did DF27, a copper age subclade or P312, get to Iberia in the first place? They are of course derivatives of L11 and L51 which seem to be central/north European or Alpine/north Italy concentrated. .

I have no problem with M269> L23> L51> L11> coming from the east and probably the Steppes, Balkens, Eastern Alps, Western Alps- My area of interest is where did P312 expand.

alan
11-23-2014, 05:45 PM
Cord impressions in pottery were not invented by CW. They are present in Yamnaya. In fact they have a much longer history, going back to the hunter-gatherer pottery that arrived in Europe from Lake Baikal. It was a quick and easy form of decoration. The divisions between the stripes of pattern across "classic" BB pottery are sometimes marked by cord impressions. Essentially BB is a blend of influences from Yamnaya, Cucuteni and the bone-encrusted ware encountered along the Danube. CW is more simple; its origins plain Yamnaya.

I dont have a problem with that at all. What bothers me is we havent found a pottery or copper teleport devise to get R1b or steppe materials from E Europe to Iberia in double quick time.

Jean M
11-23-2014, 05:53 PM
I dont have a problem with that at all. What bothers me is we havent found a pottery or copper teleport devise to get R1b or steppe materials from E Europe to Iberia in double quick time.

I understand that archaeologists like a trail in the ground. But people travelling on horseback and by boat at best speed don't leave a trail in the ground. You just see stuff at the start and end points and draw your own conclusions, like Yamnaya and Afansievo. Like Viking stuff turning up in Newfoundland. Like objects from the Balkans turning up beside the Baltic. (Aha! thinks Jean, the TRB farmers were from the Balkans.)

Jean M
11-23-2014, 06:11 PM
Our of interest what materials were used to date it and what was the context?

There are a number of sites discussed in Cardoso, J. L. 2014. Absolute chronology of the Beaker phenomenon north of the Tagus estuary: demographic and social implications, Trabajos De Prehistoria, 71 (1), 56-75. The most useful is a hut just outside the fortifications of Leceia (Oeiras). The fort at Leceia was built around 2900-2800 BC. Like Zambujal, it used pottery of different styles at different periods, ending with Bell Beaker. The FM hunt nestling just outside the wall, however, has only BB pottery.



The structure seats directly on a Late Neolithic layer, which has been radiocarbon-dated to the second half of the 4th millennium BC (Cardoso and Soares 1996). Hence, there is a gap of several hundred years with regard to the dates of the bone remains now published. Given the results obtained it cannot belong to any context other than that of the Beaker hut in question, where they were collected. Thus we can conclude that the 108 Beaker fragments gathered inside the hut correspond to waste resulting from its occupation, which was certainly limited in time.

alan
11-23-2014, 06:31 PM
I have no problem with M269> L23> L51> L11> coming from the east and probably the Steppes, Balkens, Eastern Alps, Western Alps- My area of interest is where did P312 expand.

Certainly is very interesting and the real problem is that P312 has a quick burst and sheds branches too fast to tell. However most people working on the variance seem to think Italy for instance is significantly lower in U152 variance and west-central Europe is higher. P312 in its entirety I recall having its top variance at the west end of the Alps by some people. L21 has generally been said to have its highest variance in northern France. I dont know about DF27. Then there are smaller P312 branches. In general my impression from people in this hobby including Mike W is that P312 looks more likely to have expanded through central Europe. So my own guess is that beaker pot in its oldest form in Iberia is not R1b linked simply because I have not in a long time seen archaeologists note evidence of an into Iberia migration in pre-beaker times - which is not the same as noting broad social pan-European trends. In fact of the early dates for Iberian beaker is the very reason into Iberia concepts died except in a possible reflux sense. It means you need to be looking at a move into Iberia before c. 2700BC give or take.

However, I will take one more stab at an into Iberia pre-beaker scenario that I dont think gets enough attentions. All over corded beakers are relatively rare and scattered lightly in Iberia but especially in the north-east. There is (admittedly not an exactly ideal layer based) radiocarbon date that sounds as early as any for any sort of beaker from Iberia and certainly earlier than the AOC in Holland. I am not doubting on the present evidence that AOC is oldest in Iberia. I am wondering about its external prototype if any. The only thing old enough in western Europe and by far the nearest attested in corded ware on the eastern borders of France. I cannot rule out other sources but I just have never seen an archaeological cultural map of c. 2700BC or a little earlier that places an obvious alternative external source for the AOC Iberian beakers at a plausible distance that doesnt involve a giant leap with a huge blank space in between. If there was such a culture bearing a possible prototype closer than Hungary then I wouldnt be wondering about Corded Ware being the inspiration of AOO beakers in Iberia - and lets be clear, I do think on present evidence that they are oldest in Iberia so their inspiration must be from outwith and pre-dating beaker itself. So, it is possible that that is evidence of something intrusive around 2700BC. Reading even recent stuff about the typological chronology of beaker gives the impression that there is still uncertainty about the relationship of AOO and Maritime. Both have early dates in Iberia. However their back stories may not be identical and although their distribution overlaps significantly they are radically different in how they are weighted in terms of frequency. AOC in Iberia is very old in the beaker story and it is weighted strongly towards the north-east of Spain and to a lesser degree the north coast with just a scattering around the peninsula elsewhere. To me it is clearly something different although roughly contemporary with Maritime. This IMO deserves a lot more attention.

http://architectures.home.sapo.pt/JIA%204%20SOJc.pdf

The problem with extreme low visibility migration is that once you go to that low bar of evidence then little is clear. If migration was low in visibility then only ancient DNA will work it out. However that doesnt mean its not fun to speculate.

alan
11-23-2014, 07:15 PM
Its not just the lack of a clear trail though. Its also fair to say that Iberia c. 3200-2700BC just doesnt shout out 'steppes' to many people. If such a movement took place the transformation was very fast and radical. In a way I hope you are right because it would be a hell of a story and almost Holywood epic material whereas the corded ware people in the Alps marrying beaker using Iberian metalworkers coming up the Rhone is positively mundane in comparison.


I understand that archaeologists like a trail in the ground. But people travelling on horseback and by boat at best speed don't leave a trail in the ground. You just see stuff at the start and end points and draw your own conclusions, like Yamnaya and Afansievo. Like Viking stuff turning up in Newfoundland. Like objects from the Balkans turning up beside the Baltic. (Aha! thinks Jean, the TRB farmers were from the Balkans.)

alan
11-23-2014, 07:17 PM
There are a number of sites discussed in Cardoso, J. L. 2014. Absolute chronology of the Beaker phenomenon north of the Tagus estuary: demographic and social implications, Trabajos De Prehistoria, 71 (1), 56-75. The most useful is a hut just outside the fortifications of Leceia (Oeiras). The fort at Leceia was built around 2900-2800 BC. Like Zambujal, it used pottery of different styles at different periods, ending with Bell Beaker. The FM hunt nestling just outside the wall, however, has only BB pottery.

Thank- for some reason the Thanks button has disappeared. Sounds like animal bone in a beaker hut. I do believe the earliest beakers as defined as such spread from Iberia and I agree its an external influence that created it. I am not sure I or indeed anyone fully 100 percent understand the relationship of AOC and maritime in chronological terms. They both seem to have been about in Iberia early and at a similar time but with different emphasis on their distributions. The distributions tend to make me think AOC is especially likely to be from influences coming from east of Iberia. They seem to have appeared along both the north-east Med. and Atlantic shores so I tend towards an inland route personally.

alan
11-23-2014, 07:48 PM
Although I think we all know that the whole P312 thing is only going to be solved by ancient DNA (of it was easy archaeologically speaking it wouldnt still be being debated a century or so on) but it is fun to try.

alan
11-23-2014, 07:56 PM
I tend to think the bell beaker common ware tend to unite rather than separate central Europe from the Low Countries, France and even the isles in the case of polypod bowls. I do think beaker subdivisions are such a bunch of overlapping circles that there is not real way of drawing hard and fast groupings except perhaps at the eastern and western extremes

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/3536/3051

Jean M
11-23-2014, 08:16 PM
I tend to think the bell beaker common ware tend to unite rather than separate central Europe from the Low Countries, France

Yes of course. The "Common Ware" or accompanying pottery was the pottery there already in/around the Carpathian Basin when BB arrived at Csepel. It characterizes Eastern Bell Beaker. It is very helpful in allowing us to track the spread of Eastern BB, including the reflux element of that. Some places that you might have thought would be on a route direct from Iberia turn out to be part of the later spread.

Marie Besse wrote a good paper on it, I think.

Jean M
11-23-2014, 08:38 PM
Its also fair to say that Iberia c. 3200-2700BC just doesnt shout out 'steppes' to many people.

Neither does Ireland 2400 BC. But Bell Beaker arrived there. The spread of IE languages is a remarkable episode indeed. But one thing is very obvious. Their speakers did not stick to the steppe. They seem to have been pretty keen to leave it as the grassland got drier and drier. That's the nature of people: flexible, adaptable, intelligent. It's why we are all over the globe.

nuadha
11-24-2014, 12:28 AM
You mentioned a while back to me that on a PCA the Corded Ware samples pulled towards the Yamnaya samples in comparison to the Middle Neolihic samples (I'm guessing like Rossen or something like that?).

But where did the Yamnaya samples cluster generally compared to modern populations?

i send you a photo of my notes

Generalissimo
11-24-2014, 03:28 AM
i send you a photo of my notes

Sorry, you don't remember or you don't know where they clustered?

Generalissimo
11-24-2014, 03:29 AM
i send you a photo of my notes

Sorry, you don't remember or you don't know where they clustered?

Krefter
11-24-2014, 03:57 AM
My mistake. I had to look back earliest comments after the conference. 36% was a lower bound for foreign input in CW which coincides with 36% input of Karelian in one of the models (not 50%). Using yamnaya as the foreign input instead yielded a 73% estimate. I don't recall exactly but I think the 50/50 estimate was for Karelian in Yamnaya. In simple math that would make some sense. Here is what I wrote before,

Did Laz say Yamna and Karelian hunter gatherers were part East Asian? Did he mention Yamna-CWC contribution/relation to modern Europeans?

nuadha
11-24-2014, 04:02 AM
Sorry, you don't remember or you don't know where they clustered?

did you check your email? I wrote down that map while i was listening to the presentation, so it was very sloppy and not highly accurate in terms of the relative distances between all the groups. But like i said, the ordering is correct. Its been a while since i saw the actual slide at the presentation so I cannot improve my drawing based on memory. I can however, confirm a few things off memory which i mentioned in the email.

nuadha
11-24-2014, 04:18 AM
Did Laz say Yamna and Karelian hunter gatherers were part East Asian? Did he mention Yamna-CWC contribution/relation to modern Europeans?

He didn't mention anything about the hunter gathers or yamnaya being part East Asian. He didn't really give any new insight on the nature of MA to European vs East Asians if that is what you are getting at. He was broadly saying that there was a new input in europe and a good deal seems to fit with yamnaya migration.

He did have a chart, a bar graph, showing the component MA/EHG/Yamnaya? in ancient and modern populations with included new populations like the CW and Bell Beakers. I don't remember which of MA/EHG/Yamnaya was exactly being measured. I vaguely recall CW having a lot of that component so it may be a yamnaya component...

Generalissimo
11-24-2014, 05:26 AM
did you check your email? I wrote down that map while i was listening to the presentation, so it was very sloppy and not highly accurate in terms of the relative distances between all the groups. But like i said, the ordering is correct. Its been a while since i saw the actual slide at the presentation so I cannot improve my drawing based on memory. I can however, confirm a few things off memory which i mentioned in the email.

OK, thanks. Yeah, that chart makes sense. It looks like their last PCA, with the early Neolitic samples sitting among the Sardinians, the middle Neolithic samples a bit further east, and most of the modern West/North/Central/East Euros much further northeast away from that Sardinian zone, seemingly pulling towards the eastern hunter-gatherers. Judging by that sketch, Corded Ware and Yamnaya are basically modern Europeans.

By the way, yeah, the Esperstedt [ESP 13] reference genome they used is dated to about 2,000 years before the CWC period, 4625-4250 BC, and belongs to the Rossen culture. Jean has it listed on her website.

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml

Generalissimo
11-24-2014, 08:39 AM
Oops, scratch that. I just realized that there are also Baalberge and Salzmunde samples available from Esperstedt, and they're actually Middle Neolithic as opposed to Rossen, which is still Early Neolithic.

Jean M
11-24-2014, 09:57 AM
Oops, scratch that. I just realized that there are also Baalberge and Salzmunde samples available from Esperstedt, and they're actually Middle Neolithic as opposed to Rossen, which is still Early Neolithic.

If it helps at all, Rossen appears to me to reflect the arrival of dairy farmers. It is classed as Early Neolithic in the paper on date, but it marks the transition to the Middle Neolithic, which seems to me to include a new wave of dairy farmers up the Danube.

3060

Generalissimo
11-24-2014, 11:17 AM
So it looks like we can now ignore any ideas that the bulk of ANE arrived in Central Europe with the secondary products revolution from Anatolia.

Well, maybe some of it did arrive at that time, but it seems the Middle Neolithic samples are very similar to the those from the Early Neolithic. It's basically like comparing the Hungarian samples from the Neolithic to the one from the Copper Age Baden culture.

It's not until the Yamnaya and Corded Ware expansions truly get underway that the modern European genetic structure appears in Central Europe.

Jean M
11-24-2014, 12:23 PM
So it looks like we can now ignore any ideas that the bulk of ANE arrived in Central Europe with the secondary products revolution from Anatolia.


The secondary products revolution did not come from Anatolia. Sherratt thought that the SPR had started in the Near East. But it just seemed that way because the Mesopotamian civilizations had writing and produced a lot of images. So the first mention or image of some SP development was usually from the Near East. The first image of someone on horseback, for example, is on a Near Eastern seal, if I recall rightly. But we now know that horses were first domesticated on the steppe. Dairy farming was the first step towards the SPR. It seems to have begun around the Sea of Marmara (see my map above) and entered Cucuteni from there. The wheel was pretty certainly invented by the Cutuceni/Yamnaya mix. Cucuteni had a plough as well, and was spinning wool. So basically the SPR was fully realised in Yamnaya and spread with it, along with metallurgy.

To complicate things, some elements of SPR had spread to some places earlier, notably dairy farming (see map). The plough and wool spinning filtered into the late TRB from Cucuteni. But I wouldn't worry too much about the fine detail at this stage. The important thing from this paper is that they have linked ANE to Yamnaya, as expected.

alan
11-24-2014, 01:04 PM
So it looks like we can now ignore any ideas that the bulk of ANE arrived in Central Europe with the secondary products revolution from Anatolia.

Well, maybe some of it did arrive at that time, but it seems the Middle Neolithic samples are very similar to the those from the Early Neolithic. It's basically like comparing the Hungarian samples from the Neolithic to the one from the Copper Age Baden culture.

It's not until the Yamnaya and Corded Ware expansions truly get underway that the modern European genetic structure appears in Central Europe.

Any thoughts on how all north Europeans seem to cluster today, even remote areas like Ireland which are way beyond corded ware and little effected genetically by the later Germanic invasions. It is a bit puzzling. The only group capable of explaining a shift towards modern patterns in the area west of the Rhine would seem to be beaker. I dont mean the very first pot makers in Portugal but the general phenomenon of a west and central European network like that. I cannot really see any other option to explain the changes towards a modern pattern for western Europe beyond the Rhine other than beaker. Beaker of course could have mixed a lot with central Europeans before its final expansions north.

rms2
11-24-2014, 01:12 PM
If Yamnaya is responsible for ANE in Europe, and there are places pretty far-removed from the places where Yamnaya people settled that have fairly high levels of ANE, then some sort of middle men and women are responsible.

I still think Yamnaya is responsible for the R1b in Beaker and perhaps in Corded Ware. And that is NOT saying that all or even most Yamnaya males were R1b. But I think enough of them were.

R1b came from somewhere, and it seems to have arrived relatively late (in terms of the Neolithic Period, that is).

Generalissimo
11-24-2014, 01:20 PM
Any thoughts on how all north Europeans seem to cluster today, even remote areas like Ireland which are way beyond corded ware and little effected genetically by the later Germanic invasions. It is a bit puzzling.

They must surely derive most of their ancestry from late Neolithic/Bronze Age Central Europe, like most Europeans today, but how and when, I have no idea. Hallstatt Celts maybe? Nothing else makes much sense.

We'll need a lot of ancient genomes after this paper to work out how each of the main European ethnic groups came into being from that melding of Middle Neolithic and Yamnaya-derived groups.

Jean M
11-24-2014, 02:02 PM
If Yamnaya is responsible for ANE in Europe, and there are places pretty far-removed from the places where Yamnaya people settled that have fairly high levels of ANE, then some sort of middle men and women are responsible.

That is also made clear by the paper, which evidently talks about CW as well as Yamnaya. The authors understand that Yamnaya genes fed into later cultures.

ANE has to be in large part the legacy of Indo-European speakers. Bell Beaker and Corded Ware are important parts of the story as descendant cultures of Yamnaya (as explained by Harrison and Heyd 2007). These two jointly covered such a huge swathe of Europe that they were obvious IE suspects. But there are other cultures implicated, some of them earlier, many of them later. IE movements carried on into the Iron Age and beyond. There were huge movements in the Migration Period. It will all have shuffled ANE about.

Plus we already know that some ANE arrived in Scandinavia with hunter-gatherers, quite independent of IE, and it seems very likely that some arrived in the Near East with pressure blade making, again independent of IE. But IE is the big story here, as was obvious to most of us when Lazaridis et al made available the first paper on it.

nuadha
11-24-2014, 05:24 PM
That is also made clear by the paper, which evidently talks about CW as well as Yamnaya. The authors understand that Yamnaya genes fed into later cultures.

ANE has to be in large part the legacy of Indo-European speakers. Bell Beaker and Corded Ware are important parts of the story as descendant cultures of Yamnaya (as explained by Harrison and Heyd 2007). These two jointly covered such a huge swathe of Europe that they were obvious IE suspects. But there are other cultures implicated, some of them earlier, many of them later. IE movements carried on into the Iron Age and beyond. There were huge movements in the Migration Period. It will all have shuffled ANE about.

Plus we already know that some ANE arrived in Scandinavia with hunter-gatherers, quite independent of IE, and it seems very likely that some arrived in the Near East with pressure blade making, again independent of IE. But IE is the big story here, as was obvious to most of us when Lazaridis et al made available the first paper on it.

You think ANE was in the middle east before the neolithic? Then you must think that non of it made it the the levant in time for the european neolithic.

Jean M
11-24-2014, 05:50 PM
You think ANE was in the middle east before the neolithic?

Not before the Neolithic. The technology was much older of course, but pressure blade making didn't arrive in the Near East until the Neolithic was well under way. I'm not sure if it reached the Levant. There's nothing marked there on the map of same that Alan discovered. But it is an important point that you make. If ANE arrived with pressure blade making, it certainly didn't enter Europe with the first farmers. It could have arrived with dairy farmers. Pressure blade making was in western Anatolia at the right time.

But let's not rush to conclusions. I'm quite keen on Alan's suggestion of pressure blade making as the trail in the ground that might match the movement of ANE, as it arrived both north and south of the Caspian, but we also have the pottery from Lake Baikal arriving at Samara. That's what Reich's group has investigated and they found ANE at Samara. So pressure blade making might be irrelevant. Or it might have been a second vector so that the steppe got a double dose.

Right now I don't think that we can sort all the details out. The importance of the paper is that it makes the link to Yamnaya. I ask for no more. :)

alan
11-24-2014, 08:41 PM
They must surely derive most of their ancestry from late Neolithic/Bronze Age Central Europe, like most Europeans today, but how and when, I have no idea. Hallstatt Celts maybe? Nothing else makes much sense.

We'll need a lot of ancient genomes after this paper to work out how each of the main European ethnic groups came into being from that melding of Middle Neolithic and Yamnaya-derived groups.

The Hallsatt C phase had very little impact in the isles other than a couple of metalwork types and migration above tiny is not suspected. Hallstatt D is even less well represented - virtually absent in most areas. No IMO it had to have happened in the copper/early Bronze Age.

Maybe the beaker network by its sheer extensiveness from Iberia to east-central Europe and Italy to Scotland and by the sort of out-marrying traits seen at Kromsdorf became a sort of giant mixing bowl that homogenised a lot of Europe. Maybe that is its legacy rather than any one signal.

Jean M
11-24-2014, 08:47 PM
Maybe the beaker network by its sheer extensiveness from Iberia to east-central Europe and Italy to Scotland and by the sort of out-marrying traits seen at Kromsdorf became a sort of giant mixing bowl that homogenised a lot of Europe. Maybe that is its legacy rather than any one signal.

I think you have summed it up beautifully.

alan
11-24-2014, 09:51 PM
I think you have summed it up beautifully.

I do poems too:0)

alan
11-24-2014, 09:53 PM
I think you have summed it up beautifully.

Or beaker contributed the spoon rather than much of the ingredients.

Generalissimo
11-24-2014, 09:56 PM
The Hallsatt C phase had very little impact in the isles other than a couple of metalwork types and migration above tiny is not suspected. Hallstatt D is even less well represented - virtually absent in most areas. No IMO it had to have happened in the copper/early Bronze Age.

Maybe the beaker network by its sheer extensiveness from Iberia to east-central Europe and Italy to Scotland and by the sort of out-marrying traits seen at Kromsdorf became a sort of giant mixing bowl that homogenised a lot of Europe. Maybe that is its legacy rather than any one signal.

Right, but who were the Belgae and other British Celts descendants of? British Beakers or continental Celts? We know that Hinxton4 was Irish-like, and carried as much ANE as modern Brits.

Jean M
11-24-2014, 10:23 PM
Right, but who were the Belgae and other British Celts descendants of? British Beakers or continental Celts?

A mixture of both, as far as anyone can make out. The Belgae were the last wave of Celtic speakers to arrive in the British Isles. They came from eastern Gaul, but prior to that from east of the Rhine. Before that were La Tene type arrivals. Before that were Hallstatt type arrivals. But the people who really made their presence felt all over the British Isles were Bell Beaker, hence the preference these days for them as the first Celtic speakers. But it's not that simple, as the first BB makers were probably speaking something closer to IE, with early Celtic probably appearing in Late BB.

alan
11-24-2014, 10:46 PM
Right, but who were the Belgae and other British Celts descendants of? British Beakers or continental Celts? We know that Hinxton4 was Irish-like, and carried as much ANE as modern Brits.

The Belgae are indeed the largest exception in that they may have been a moderate Iron Age intrusion but in general over the much of Britain and Ireland I dont personally think a great deal of movement from the continent happened in the Iron Age - simply because the archaeology doesnt point to anything large in the Iron Age over a lot of Britain. If there was movement it looks like elites to me because a lot of the more mundane things of life dont look continental. There are other non-Belgic exception like the chariot Burials associated with the Parisii and a couple further north.

However in general I dont see the La Tene art style in elite metalwork as representing a lot of people coming from the continent. British and Irish elites always tended to emulate and keep up with elite metalwork trends while maintaining largely non-continental styles of houses, pottery, burial etc. That kind of pattern I think suggests small scale movement at best.

There is however the possibility that the top-down demographic push we see later in Ireland etc might have been a feature for a long time before and that therefore very small elites could have a totally out of proportion genetic impact along the lines of the way Niall of the Nine Hostage's -lineage eventually spawned a crazy amount of descendants - is it a fifth of all Irish?-even though the clade is probably 2000 years old at most. The amazing thing about the expansion of this lineage under the Ui Neill and Connachta is basically archaeologically invisible and cannot be distinguished from anyone else in Ireland. If it wasnt for historical sources and recently genetics we wouldnt even know it ever happened.

alan
11-24-2014, 11:02 PM
Right, but who were the Belgae and other British Celts descendants of? British Beakers or continental Celts? We know that Hinxton4 was Irish-like, and carried as much ANE as modern Brits.

What do you think of my characterisation of the beaker network as a spoon that mixed Europeans together rather than having much of a single consistent autosomal signature. It makes sense. It was uniquely widespread and the study at Kromsdorf showed that they were big into marrying out. If that is repeated many many times in multiple directions within the beaker network for 500 years it may have had a homogenising effect on autosomal DNA. I read somewhere that this thing beaker people had about marrying far and wide contrasted with the corded ware practice of apparently marrying locally. Isotope studies seem to confirm that beaker people often did have highly adventurous travelling lives.

I kind of like the concept of the beaker people as the blender rather than the giver of a lot of autosomal DNA. That strikes me as rational because a people who were so far flung simply couldnt have long kept a distinctive signature and do not appear to have had any wish to do within-group marriage.

Its confusing though because normally pots like beakers are made by the females and you would actually think the wish to preserve that sort of skill would have the opposite effect i.e. wanting to stay within group. I suppose the mother in laws could have taught the skill to wives. Alternatively perhaps the finest beaker pottery is an exception and was made by specialists - any studies on this - fingerprints etc. I should know this but I dont recall.

It is confusing because some aspects of the beaker network make more sense as tracking the movement of women and others dont. I suppose if the beaker people had a tradition of bringing wives in from the outside then they also probably sent off their daughters out too. So you have a dual aspect to this.

The ancient DNA is fascinating in that there is evidence of the spread of the H lineage which would seem rather like beaker people marrying in but you also have Kromsdorf where R1b men married eclectically. There could have been shifts in marriage patterns over time and space within the beaker period though. There could have been a period centred on 2500BC when the very sudden expansion of beaker through northern and central Europe would have meant a generation of pioneers with similar DNA followed by an inevitable need to marry out as they were small groups scattered far apart. I think we need a few more Kromsdorf family cemetery type ancient DNA studies spread across the timespan and geographical span of the beaker period to understand this. There is little doubt though that networking was beaker people's 'thing' and probably crucial to their trade and acceptance.

alan
11-24-2014, 11:21 PM
Another thing I think when we consider beaker as partly reflecting a marriage network is that this out marrying practice seen at Kromsdorf, and almost inevitable given their spread, must have had a massive positive impact on health. It well known that relative out breeding is a good thing. Even without adding much to the mix themselves the beaker network could have greatly improved the health of people compared to people living in long term hamlets and villages marrying their cousins, 2nd/3rd cousins etc.

alan
11-24-2014, 11:43 PM
Heyd's study of the central European beaker groups noted the change from villages and more solid houses to a pattern of small farms and tiny hamlets with low investment in houses suggestive of a fluid shifting pattern rather than fixed villages. This pattern of what seem to be short term and relatively ephemeral houses kind of reminds me of some aspects of Gaelic society.

In the Medieval era in Ireland the maximum unit where land was regulated and divided out was within parish sized units called Ballybetaghs. They were probably run by male sublineages with a common ggg grandfather or similar called Cenela. Most land would be divided from father among all his sons (which obviously can mean new houses being required) but obviously some families might have several sons and some less or none. Land could be inherited in a very complex way if their were no songs and the Brehon laws seem to suggest circumstances where a farms land could be carved up right out to something like 3rd cousins in a proportionate way depending on nearness to the deceased. Anyway, while the detail is a bit obscure, it is noted in Elizabethan sources that every so often the lands in the Ballybetagh would be redivided up to fit current realities. The only thing that appears to be indivisible were the external boundaries of the Ballybetagh itself but internally it would be intermittently re-divided up among the group of cousins of different degrees - the Cenela being a typical term for these clans. I dont think anyone totally understands the system.

However what a system like that would and clearly did encourage was not investing too much in houses as lands shifted and were subdivided. I think a system along these lines might be the one we see commence in the beaker period, strongly contrasting with fixed villages and fancier houses went before in some areas in the Neolithic. I am not sure what the marriage system was -I suspect marriages were arranged at the boundaries of the Ballybetagh with neighbouring ones in fairs etc. However, I do get the impression that the Neolithic villages systems of some areas would have the opposite effect of inbreeding.

Generalissimo
11-24-2014, 11:45 PM
What do you think of my characterisation of the beaker network as a spoon that mixed Europeans together rather than having much of a single consistent autosomal signature. It makes sense. It was uniquely widespread and the study at Kromsdorf showed that they were big into marrying out. If that is repeated many many times in multiple directions within the beaker network for 500 years it may have had a homogenising effect on autosomal DNA. I read somewhere that this thing beaker people had about marrying far and wide contrasted with the corded ware practice of apparently marrying locally. Isotope studies seem to confirm that beaker people often did have highly adventurous travelling lives.

I kind of like the concept of the beaker people as the blender rather than the giver of a lot of autosomal DNA. That strikes me as rational because a people who were so far flung simply couldnt have long kept a distinctive signature and do not appear to have had any wish to do within-group marriage.

Its confusing though because normally pots like beakers are made by the females and you would actually think the wish to preserve that sort of skill would have the opposite effect i.e. wanting to stay within group. I suppose the mother in laws could have taught the skill to wives. Alternatively perhaps the finest beaker pottery is an exception and was made by specialists - any studies on this - fingerprints etc. I should know this but I dont recall.

It is confusing because some aspects of the beaker network make more sense as tracking the movement of women and others dont. I suppose if the beaker people had a tradition of bringing wives in from the outside then they also probably sent off their daughters out too. So you have a dual aspect to this.

The ancient DNA is fascinating in that there is evidence of the spread of the H lineage which would seem rather like beaker people marrying in but you also have Kromsdorf where R1b men married eclectically. There could have been shifts in marriage patterns over time and space within the beaker period though. There could have been a period centred on 2500BC when the very sudden expansion of beaker through northern and central Europe would have meant a generation of pioneers with similar DNA followed by an inevitable need to marry out as they were small groups scattered far apart. I think we need a few more Kromsdorf family cemetery type ancient DNA studies spread across the timespan and geographical span of the beaker period to understand this. There is little doubt though that networking was beaker people's 'thing' and probably crucial to their trade and acceptance.

It sounds like the Beakers from eastern Germany were basically an early enclave of modern Europeans, and I doubt they brought this genetic structure with them from Portugal.

So it probably happened like this: Bell Beakers met Yamnaya and Corded Ware in the Carpathian Basin and on the North European Plain, mixed, and then expand massively to form the bulk of the modern European gene pool.

That looks like a very robust model from the data we have available, but of course, it'd be nice to know all of the details.

alan
11-25-2014, 12:07 AM
Right, but who were the Belgae and other British Celts descendants of? British Beakers or continental Celts? We know that Hinxton4 was Irish-like, and carried as much ANE as modern Brits.

Thing is the British Belgae seem to have come from NE France. Do they not have less ANE than the Celtic fringe of the isles today? Also is ANE not higher among the Scots and Irish then English despite much less evidence of continental Gaulish or Belgic pre-Roman intrusion?

I think the homogenising in the copper age must owe something to the beaker network. Maybe we should look on them partly as prehistoric matchmakers - their trade and lives may have depended on it. As far as I can see the various beaker groupings suggested are more like overlapping circles with different beaker groups often sharing traits with others in a variable way. It seems to me for example that beakers around the Rhine in the middle of the distribution could have blended both south-west European, local and central European corded ware DNA together.

I go back again to pottery. If pottery was a female trait we can see a number of beaker styles of different origins converging in the central area of the beaker distribution. There is maritime which may show SW European and there are other groups including several Rhenish ones. Then if you look at the companion wares spreading you can see a lot of movement from east central Europe, corded ware and other cultures spreading west towards the Rhine, France etc and even the isles. That could easily be interpreted as the beaker network sucking in women from non-beaker cultures westwards. I am just using pottery as an example as it usually seen as a female craft and if it tracks the movement of females then we can partly get the picture of how the beaker network served to jumble up the genes of Europe. The bell beaker dating agency LOL. The daughters of people already using beakers simply must be responsible for part of the spreading of beaker into areas beyond its core.

What may have made the beaker people especially good at mixing genes is that not only did they marry out and sent their daughters out too but the men also seem to have been ridiculously mobile - something that I would still strongly tend to think was due to the metal trade.

alan
11-25-2014, 12:18 AM
I notice noone has commented on the fact that one of the Kromsdorf R1b guys for whom there was apparently no clearly intepretable burial tradition other than some 'pot' has a radiocarbon date that is considerably earlier -something like 2625BC - than the dating of c. 2500BC put on the beaker group in central Europe by Heyd. Was this guy actually a beaker person? The later R1b guy of c. 2550BC also has no known orientation and no finds but has a very similar date to another person int he same cemetery who was clearly using a classic beaker burial right. Was Kromsdorf a corded ware R1b man (there is an obvious corded ware tradition female burial on the site) in the process of beakerisation. Short of some details on the 'cup' the earlier R1b man had I cannot help but thinking this is likely because his date just seems significantly too early for central European beaker. If that was the case - admittedly a bit IF without knowledge of the cup type- then we may have here evidence of where R1b was located before beaker reached central Europe. The fact that another R1b guy was still present at a period when the beaker practices were present in the cemetery could mean we are seeing beakerisation of an R1b corded ware group. However, I would need to know details of the cup type and the exact material the early R1b mans RC date is from.

Generalissimo
11-25-2014, 12:24 AM
The most accurate estimates of ANE in Laz et al. are in this table, but only four Scots were sampled, all from Argyll.

http://imageshack.com/a/img908/2897/0WAGKE.png

As far as I can tell, Hinxton1 and 4 both have around 16% of ANE.

alan
11-25-2014, 12:45 AM
Anyone know if there is any evidence for who made the fine beaker pots gender-wise. Its an important fundamental question. I know of female and children's finger prints being IDed on Neolithic pottery but I cant say I am sure about beaker pottery. I ask that because beaker is almost always made locally so it was the knowledge and craft that spread rather than actual pots in backpacks. If the pots were made by women then this means the beaker people must have travelled with women. However if they were not then that creates a very different picture. However it need not require a constant expansion of female lineages as new wives could presumably be taught by the male's mother, sisters etc if they were also around. The very fact dead beaker people are buried with beakers of local clays shows they had companions of some sort from their own tradition either female or male.

alan
11-25-2014, 12:50 AM
The most accurate estimates of ANE in Laz et al. are in this table, but only four Scots were sampled, all from Argyll.

http://imageshack.com/a/img908/2897/0WAGKE.png

As far as I can tell, Hinxton1 and 4 both have around 16% of ANE.

If the Scottish ones are from Argyll then that is an area where Viking impact was far less than in the Orkneys and outer Hebrides so I dont think Norse influence is enough to explain it. Its a pity we dont have any Irish as we know they have very few indicators of much Viking input in the genetics. I wonder if there are even a few 100% Irish individual who have been tested for these three components.

alan
11-25-2014, 01:12 AM
Paul Conroy's father tested nearly 16% ANE- he is an Irish native with a Gaelic name. The Irish are well known for being relatively homogeneous genetically - small place -so I would doubt he is much off the average. That would place the Irish 2nd only to the Estonians. Its very hard to explain that but if Hixton in SE England had a guy similar to native Irish it suggests that ANE was once higher across the isles and perhaps into Gaul than it now is and that that Romans and later continental movements from the south have diluted it.

If, as continental data seems to suggest, that ANE is post-early farmer, then we all I can think is that copper, bronze and Iron Age people's who made it into the isles were carrying a significant amount of ANE. That its high in areas like Ireland and Argyll - areas with not very strong evidence of major continental input in the Iron Age-suggests we need to look at the copper and bronze ages. So, again, the beaker and successor cultures surely are the smoking gun of ANE in the far west. The question is where was this high level of ANE picked up?

Krefter
11-25-2014, 01:33 AM
Alan, Estonians and Lithuanians have around 20% ANE, far more than any west Europeans. Scandinavians, Polish, Belorussians, and Russians have 16-18%. Sami and people around the Volga have the most in Europe at just over 20%.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v4zYizoWtsoW1MNBN7SUrLf8R62NHPbMRySUJ2J48_Q/edit#gid=1410860471

Leeroy Jenkins
11-25-2014, 02:04 AM
If the Scottish ones are from Argyll then that is an area where Viking impact was far less than in the Orkneys and outer Hebrides so I dont think Norse influence is enough to explain it. Its a pity we dont have any Irish as we know they have very few indicators of much Viking input in the genetics. I wonder if there are even a few 100% Irish individual who have been tested for these three components.
If you take the Irish average from the Eurogenes K13 spreadsheet and plug it into the EEF, WHG and ANE calucaltor spreadsheet, you get this:

Irish:

EEF 45.37
WHG 38.83
ANE 15.79

R.Rocca
11-25-2014, 03:04 AM
Right, but who were the Belgae and other British Celts descendants of? British Beakers or continental Celts? We know that Hinxton4 was Irish-like, and carried as much ANE as modern Brits.

IMO, even if there was some influx from the continent, they wouldn't have been drastically different than the older population of the Isles...from an autosomal perspective anyway. Let's not forget that British Bell Beakers have most in common with those of the lower Rhine.

Jean M
11-25-2014, 09:35 AM
It sounds like the Beakers from eastern Germany were basically an early enclave of modern Europeans, and I doubt they brought this genetic structure with them from Portugal.

So it probably happened like this: Bell Beakers met Yamnaya and Corded Ware in the Carpathian Basin and on the North European Plain, mixed, and then expand massively to form the bulk of the modern European gene pool.

Sort of, but not quite. Two points:


Bell Beaker pots were made by copper-working people, who did not spring up from the Iberian Neolithic. Their type of arsenic-copper technology had its origins in Yamnaya, as did other elements of their culture. Put simply, an offshoot of Yamnaya went off prospecting from the Carpathian Basin all the way to Portugal, leaving a trail en route to mark their progress in the form of stelae. The actual first makers of BB pottery probably arrived later along the same trail, which continued in use for trading and no doubt fetching the family or a wife from the 'Old Country'. IMPORTANT - BB people were scattered about and did not act as a total replacement for the previous population of Iberia. Plus Iberia had further waves of immigrants after BB. So only by testing the actual remains of an early BB person in Portugal could we find out the level of ANE he/she carried. Taking the average of modern Iberians is useless.

Around 2400 BC trouble blew up in the 'New Country' and key BB sites were deserted. BB people scattered, a few up the Atlantic route to Brittany and even the British Isles. Others went to the 'Old Country' in the Carpathian Basin. They did not meet CW there, because it wasn't there. They met and mixed with distant relatives of Yamnaya descent, and picked up a few new habits, like wearing boar's tusk pendants, as Yamnaya people had done. They acquired some wives used to making local pottery such as polypod bowls, while continuing to make BB. From there they moved over a swathe of Europe including the Kromsdorf site and back into Iberia, this time to the NE. They moved down the Rhine into the British Isles. Both the genetics and the archaeology suggest that this was the biggest BB flow into the Isles.

Jean M
11-25-2014, 10:17 AM
So, again, the beaker and successor cultures surely are the smoking gun of ANE in the far west. The question is where was this high level of ANE picked up?

I get the feeling that the BB adventure in Iberia so distracts people that they lose sight of the basics. Perhaps if you just ignore the Portuguese end and focus on the Yamnaya expansion up the Danube into the Carpathian Basin, it will get clearer that BB got ANE from Yamnaya. Forget the trek from the Carpathian Basin to Portugal and the trek back centuries later to the Carpathian Basin. It's just confusing you I think. Stick to the Carpathian Basin and the descent from Yamnaya absolutely stares you in the face.

Generalissimo
11-25-2014, 10:48 AM
They did not meet CW there, because it wasn't there. They met and mixed with distant relatives of Yamnaya descent, and picked up a few new habits, like wearing boar's tusk pendants, as Yamnaya people had done.

Yes, I said they met the (descendents) of Yamnaya in the Carpathian Basin, but also CWC on the North Euro Plain.


Bell Beakers met Yamnaya and Corded Ware in the Carpathian Basin and on the North European Plain.

Jean M
11-25-2014, 10:59 AM
Yes, I said they met the (descendents) of Yamnaya in the Carpathian Basin, but also CWC on the North Euro Plain.

I'm with you now. Yes there may have been some mixing with CW as BB moved into previously CW areas. People do mix with the neighbours. But whenever I read a paper on that replacement these days, the authors seem keen to stress that these were separate populations and even that there was a gap in time between them in places.

rms2
11-25-2014, 12:30 PM
I get the feeling that the BB adventure in Iberia so distracts people that they lose sight of the basics. Perhaps if you just ignore the Portuguese end and focus on the Yamnaya expansion up the Danube into the Carpathian Basin, it will get clearer that BB got ANE from Yamnaya. Forget the trek from the Carpathian Basin to Portugal and the trek back centuries later to the Carpathian Basin. It's just confusing you I think. Stick to the Carpathian Basin and the descent from Yamnaya absolutely stares you in the face.

That is essentially what I have been saying, as well. And R1b, eastern in its origin, had to get into Beaker somewhere.

alan
11-25-2014, 01:04 PM
Alan, Estonians and Lithuanians have around 20% ANE, far more than any west Europeans. Scandinavians, Polish, Belorussians, and Russians have 16-18%. Sami and people around the Volga have the most in Europe at just over 20%.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v4zYizoWtsoW1MNBN7SUrLf8R62NHPbMRySUJ2J48_Q/edit#gid=1410860471

I think 'far more' is not how I would describe most eastern Europeans relative to a near 16 percent among Irish. They are not far behind many further to the east. It is interesting that a people like the Irish furthest from any movement from Europe have the west European peak and are not far off 16 percent and Scots not far behind. That indicates the pre-Roman population was high in ANE. So, high ANE is a north European phenomenon that stretches all the way to Ireland and Scotland in the NW although I agree it has its peak in the north-east of Europe.

Jean M
11-25-2014, 01:09 PM
That is essentially what I have been saying, as well. And R1b, eastern in its origin, had to get into Beaker somewhere.

Yes indeed. And Richard R. has made the point a number of times that if you look at the subclades you see a progression from east to west (if you ignore DF27). If you just focus on the main story, it is an east to west movement.

alan
11-25-2014, 01:16 PM
I get the feeling that the BB adventure in Iberia so distracts people that they lose sight of the basics. Perhaps if you just ignore the Portuguese end and focus on the Yamnaya expansion up the Danube into the Carpathian Basin, it will get clearer that BB got ANE from Yamnaya. Forget the trek from the Carpathian Basin to Portugal and the trek back centuries later to the Carpathian Basin. It's just confusing you I think. Stick to the Carpathian Basin and the descent from Yamnaya absolutely stares you in the face.

Its not confusing me. I just am not convinced by that double trek model. I may be wrong and I have considered it a lot but I am not convinced that the earliest beaker was directly Yamnaya derived I will just have to agree to disagree on that. I dont mind if I am wrong and beaker is Yamnaya derived - an amazing story - but I am not convinced. Vive le difference and all that.

Initially they may have had a SW European genetics followed by periods of change in their DNA-IMO including the yDNA, as they reached central Europe and then finally some of this blending was brought to northern Europe.Whether or not that happened I still think the basic point is the beaker network was surely the key to blending of European genes of various origins together into a modern mix. That is probably the legacy of that half millennium of the beaker network and its immediate successors too. Beaker people - a stirring pots story of genetic blending LOL

rms2
11-25-2014, 01:17 PM
I think DF27 rode into Iberia from the east, as well, just as L21 rode into the northwest from the east.

I just think those two were pretty much on the crest of the westward moving wave.

Jean M
11-25-2014, 01:22 PM
I think DF27 rode into Iberia from the east.

Of course it did. Where else? R.R. just excluded it from the chain of subclades east to west in age order, as it is quite old.

Jean M
11-25-2014, 01:31 PM
Its not confusing me. I just am not convinced by that double trek model.

Never mind that. What I'm suggesting is that you focus on the indubitable fact that Eastern BB came out of the Carpathian Basin (home of Yamnaya for centuries) with a whole bucket load of Yamnaya traits. It then went to the British Isles down the Rhine. Are you going to bet against these BB people carrying ANE?

alan
11-25-2014, 02:01 PM
That is essentially what I have been saying, as well. And R1b, eastern in its origin, had to get into Beaker somewhere.

My basic issue is we have a fairly clear and self evident picture of the west to east and then everywhere part of the story beaker having an early spread along the Med as far as the fringes of the Alps then a secondary beaker or beakerised boom in central and NW Europe little before c. 2500BC. That is pretty easy to envisage although the details of whether the male lineage was consistent from the start or the torch was picked up by other lineages in temperate Europe is simply unknowable without more ancient DNA including the pre-2600BC beaker people in SW Europe. We know that by Kromsdorf c. 2550BC R1b was linked to beaker.

However, the pre-beaker history of the into Iberia of a Yamnaya group is a lot lot more of a hard sell. Jean has done brilliantly to make a case with the stelae and other aspects I dont think anyone can say that there is an indisputable and self evident Yamnaya trail anywhere beyond Hungary.

If there was a trail west of the actual Yamnaya zone then it is IMO likely blurred in transformatory 'missing link' cultures. We see a parallel phenomenon in corded ware where culturally it only resembles Yamnaya in soft focus behavoural terms but DNA does appear to strongly suggest there was indeed a Yamnaya element of some strength in Corded Ware. I think most fair minded archaeologists felt it was some sort of hybrid but a major transformation took place in material culture as this happened which made it not self evident if there was a migration fromYamnaya into it.

So, my expectation if beaker was also derived from Yamnaya is a similar linking transformatory phase where there was morphing that masked the origin in the same way it happened when corded ware formed in a way that masked the external input except in terms of broad behavoural changes. We see the social and behavoural change towards Yamnaya type patterns but we also see a massive divergence from Yamnaya too. A classic creation of a third entity by a mix of a local and external unput. The actual moment of transformation is too fast to pick up - i.e. we dont see steppe wagons parked outside farmers houses with Mr Kurgan wooing mr Farmer's daughter type of thing. However, pure Yamnaya had to transform massively too to enter the new environment and make the most of what they had and also the farming world they entered. Hence its blurry.

My problem with Yamnaya direct to beaker is that unlike in Corded Ware there is partly the obvious one epic sized gap between Yamnaya and early beaker but its not just that. Do we see transforming cultures - a sort of a southern parallel with what happened in corded ware- in between Hungary and Portugal. Well, IMO and from comments I have heard in archaeological papers, we might be seeing something like that in Remedello 2. A lot of people have suspected that despite that lack of specifics and the non-steppes nature of a lot of the pottery and other details we might be seeing a similarly blurry transformation in behavoural terms to something with an IE look in Remedello 2. So, I am open to the basic idea that Yamnaya can spread in such a way it is not obvious because steppe peoples when they enter a farming world will take up a lot of cultural aspects that are not classic steppe things despite introducing social changes. You can see Remedello 2 influence all the way to SE France in immediate pre-beaker times. The lower dating scheme might put that c. 2800-2500BC so Yamnaya influence would then be plausible chronologically speaking too. If that is IE in some way then that does take us at least to the western edge of the Alps. I have previously wondered about Otzi but he appears on the low dating of Remedello to by a Remedello phase 1 guy so his G yDNA may not be the stumbling block I thought it was. If the concept of a Yamnaya link is confined to Remedello 2 with it representing a more southerly phenomenon parallel with Corded Ware to the north then it might work.

So the final question is can I see this extending it all the way to Portugal. Obviously from my previous posts you can see that I consider that the weakest link in the hypothesis. One possibility though which might support some sort of intrusion and perhaps deserves more attention is the mysterious all over corded minority of beaker pot in Iberia for which I have seen dates that seem as early as maritime etc. Could it be the missing link. I raised the possibility of CW link but I am open minded that it could be a link to any external group who happened to use vaguely beaker shaped pots with lots of cords. Its distribution is different from maritime in its emphasis - being more concentrated in the area of the north-east kind of Catalan area and the north coast although lightly sprinkled elsewhere. If this did somehow represent a small external intrusion then its concentration on both the south and north coasts of Spain would suggest to me that it can via France and by land. Its dating appears to be earlier than any AOO beaker from elsewhere in Europe so it would appear to me to be an Iberian invention based on external influences from pottery outside Iberia that we wouldnt technically describe as beaker but was probably similar. I have raised the possibility of an origin in westernmost corded ware c. 2700BC - which seem chronologically feasible at least but I have an open mind that it could be some other group with similar pottery traditions although the group would essentially have to be invisible. I have noticed that even with the early dates coming from Iberia the issue of maritime and AOO has not been entirely resolved and some people seem to think they are two separate but converging entities. That makes me wonder if maritime beaker possibly derived from a mixing of an eastern beaker like corded pot tradition and some other pre-beaker copper age element in the Portugal with the upshot being the maritime beaker pot.

alan
11-25-2014, 02:03 PM
Never mind that. What I'm suggesting is that you focus on the indubitable fact that Eastern BB came out of the Carpathian Basin (home of Yamnaya for centuries) with a whole bucket load of Yamnaya traits. It then went to the British Isles down the Rhine. Are you going to bet against these BB people carrying ANE?

No, I totally agree with that. That is completely non-controversial IMO. I can seem my post was confusing and have moved a sentence now to make it read better.

See my post just above for a few thoughts I have that might support a small into Iberia movement around the time beaker appears.

Michał
11-25-2014, 02:16 PM
Sort of, but not quite. Two points:


Bell Beaker pots were made by copper-working people, who did not spring up from the Iberian Neolithic. Their type of arsenic-copper technology had its origins in Yamnaya, as did other elements of their culture. Put simply, an offshoot of Yamnaya went off prospecting from the Carpathian Basin all the way to Portugal, leaving a trail en route to mark their progress in the form of stelae. The actual first makers of BB pottery probably arrived later along the same trail, which continued in use for trading and no doubt fetching the family or a wife from the 'Old Country'. IMPORTANT - BB people were scattered about and did not act as a total replacement for the previous population of Iberia. Plus Iberia had further waves of immigrants after BB. So only by testing the actual remains of an early BB person in Portugal could we find out the level of ANE he/she carried. Taking the average of modern Iberians is useless.

Around 2400 BC trouble blew up in the 'New Country' and key BB sites were deserted. BB people scattered, a few up the Atlantic route to Brittany and even the British Isles. Others went to the 'Old Country' in the Carpathian Basin. They did not meet CW there, because it wasn't there. They met and mixed with distant relatives of Yamnaya descent, and picked up a few new habits, like wearing boar's tusk pendants, as Yamnaya people had done. They acquired some wives used to making local pottery such as polypod bowls, while continuing to make BB. From there they moved over a swathe of Europe including the Kromsdorf site and back into Iberia, this time to the NE. They moved down the Rhine into the British Isles. Both the genetics and the archaeology suggest that this was the biggest BB flow into the Isles.


One problem with this scenario is that we don’t see any Y-DNA trace that would correspond to the hypothetical existence of such relatively small first “wave” of Yamna-derived people coming to Portugal and then “moderately” expanding along the Atlantic coast and towards the Central Europe. Did they all leave the Iberian peninsula (while migrating up to the north) or were just wiped out by a subsequent wave of “more aggressive” BB folk ver. 2.0 (in this particular case by the R1b-DF27 variant)?

BTW, where exactly would you place the Basques in your scenario? I recall you have suggested they came to Western Europe with the Bell Beakers, so in such case were they “Beakerized” in the Alpine-Danubian region after being DF27-ized (or maybe it was the other way around)? Both scenarios raise some doubts. Anyway, retaining the original non-IE language in such conditions would be extremely difficult.

What if there wasn’t any significant (demographic!) reflux of BB into Iberia, so it was only the relatively young (and thus initially very small) DF27 lineage that represented the southern offshoot (of the freshly differentiated R1b-L11 people) that traveled to Iberia before “inventing” BB and passing it then further to their relatives staying in the Alpine-Danubian region? This would be also consistent with the lower ANE level in Iberia (and among the “autochthonic” Basques), as compared to other regions that are very rich in R1b (or R1a). Another advantage of this scenario is that we could assign the development of the Proto-Celtic language to a relatively late group of mostly L21 and U152 people living in a region stretching from the Upper Danube to the Lower Rhine, while DF27 would have remained associated with Lusitanian and some related IE languages (plus of course with Vasconic). The Celtiberian languages would then correspond to some later influx of L21 to Northern Iberia.

Jean M
11-25-2014, 02:39 PM
One problem with this scenario is that we don’t see any Y-DNA trace that would correspond to the hypothetical existence of such relatively small first “wave” of Yamna-derived people coming to Portugal and then “moderately” expanding along the Atlantic coast and towards the Central Europe.

I propose DF27 as the said Y-DNA trace. It fits very well, being found both in Iberia and in various places reached by Eastern Bell Beaker. Of course it would not be the only R1b in the Eastern BB stream as it expanded. I'm assuming that it met up with the main P312 flow in the Carpathian Basin.

Isidro
11-25-2014, 02:42 PM
Sort of, but not quite. Two points:


Bell Beaker pots were made by copper-working people, who did not spring up from the Iberian Neolithic. Their type of arsenic-copper technology had its origins in Yamnaya, as did other elements of their culture. Put simply, an offshoot of Yamnaya went off prospecting from the Carpathian Basin all the way to Portugal, leaving a trail en route to mark their progress in the form of stelae. The actual first makers of BB pottery probably arrived later along the same trail, which continued in use for trading and no doubt fetching the family or a wife from the 'Old Country'. IMPORTANT - BB people were scattered about and did not act as a total replacement for the previous population of Iberia. Plus Iberia had further waves of immigrants after BB. So only by testing the actual remains of an early BB person in Portugal could we find out the level of ANE he/she carried. Taking the average of modern Iberians is useless.
Around 2400 BC trouble blew up in the 'New Country' and key BB sites were deserted. BB people scattered, a few up the Atlantic route to Brittany and even the British Isles. Others went to the 'Old Country' in the Carpathian Basin. They did not meet CW there, because it wasn't there. They met and mixed with distant relatives of Yamnaya descent, and picked up a few new habits, like wearing boar's tusk pendants, as Yamnaya people had done. They acquired some wives used to making local pottery such as polypod bowls, while continuing to make BB. From there they moved over a swathe of Europe including the Kromsdorf site and back into Iberia, this time to the NE. They moved down the Rhine into the British Isles. Both the genetics and the archaeology suggest that this was the biggest BB flow into the Isles.



Wow put this way it all makes sense even for sensible people.
The way the text is written above I would interpreted it as categorical and proven, if that is the case my hat off to this theory but it does come across as creative writing emulating Alan's style.

Jean M
11-25-2014, 02:47 PM
No, I totally agree with that. That is completely non-controversial IMO.

Then we can stop fretting over the presumed source of ANE in BB. It really doesn't require a lot of head-scratching in my view. Maybe we can start scratching heads if ANE is not where we expect it to be on current results.

alan
11-25-2014, 02:55 PM
One problem with this scenario is that we don’t see any Y-DNA trace that would correspond to the hypothetical existence of such relatively small first “wave” of Yamna-derived people coming to Portugal and then “moderately” expanding along the Atlantic coast and towards the Central Europe. Did they all leave the Iberian peninsula (while migrating up to the north) or were just wiped out by a subsequent wave of “more aggressive” BB folk ver. 2.0 (in this particular case by the R1b-DF27 variant)?

BTW, where exactly would you place the Basques in your scenario? I recall you have suggested they came to Western Europe with the Bell Beakers, so in such case were they “Beakerized” in the Alpine-Danubian region after being DF27-ized (or maybe it was the other way around)? Both scenarios raise some doubts. Anyway, retaining the original non-IE language in such conditions would be extremely difficult.

What if there wasn’t any significant (demographic!) reflux of BB into Iberia, so it was only the relatively young (and thus initially very small) DF27 lineage that represented the southern offshoot (of the freshly differentiated R1b-L11 people) that traveled to Iberia before “inventing” BB and passing it then further to their relatives staying in the Alpine-Danubian region? This would be also consistent with the lower ANE level in Iberia (and among the “autochthonic” Basques), as compared to other regions that are very rich in R1b (or R1a). Another advantage of this scenario is that we could assign the development of the Proto-Celtic language to a relatively late group of mostly L21 and U152 people living in a region stretching from the Upper Danube to the Lower Rhine, while DF27 would have remained associated with Lusitanian and some related IE languages (plus of course with Vasconic). The Celtiberian languages would then correspond to some later influx of L21 to Northern Iberia.

I think we all agree there was a post-Neolithic pre-2400BC into Iberia P312/DF27 event. many of us are essentially in the same ballpark with beaker and its really just the devilish details we are wondering about. I think most of us agree R1b got into Iberia from a starting point in eastern Europe and that this happened no earlier than 3200BC (if linked to the pre-beaker copper age groups)and no later than 2400BC (if it was a beaker period reflux) and at least by later beaker phase. I think most of us also agree that the main early R1b intrusion into Iberia was DF27 and it is that clade or its immediate P312 ancestor that made it to Iberia from points east. So we have come a long way and their is broad consensus except from the lunatic fringe who hold onto ice age refugia models etc.

I think we can all agree that R1b in Iberia got there post-3200BC so its really now just a case of what each person feels is the most likely archaeological trace of such a movement. Actually now we seem to know beaker itself is earliest in Iberia we have to be looking for a technically non-beaker input if we do look at the period say 3200-2700BC for the origin of beaker pot. I have suggested a kind of middle ground between a copper working arrival date and a late reflux beaker model in that that the inspiration of the AOC beakers in Iberia could have come in c. 2700BC from points east -either westernmost corded ware or a culture with similar pot traditions (in both cases France represents an virtually invisible part of the journey to Iberia). If a reflux model is preferred then that shifts it to more like 2500BC give or take. Those kind of distinctions of a few centuries is never going to be able to entirely proven by even the best SNP counting methods o its ancient DNA or nothing.

My personal preference is that DF27 arrived fully fledged into Iberia at some point between 2700sBC (if linked to AOC pots) and 2400BC (if it was later beaker reflux) and am less keen on a link with the earliest copper working wave c. 3200BC. However I cannot rule out the latter because earlier forms of M269 from L51 and above do bear a bit of a resemblance to the spread of copper working across southern Europe and SW Asia c. 5000-3200BC. I think we are probably maxed out now in what can be teased out without ancient DNA.

alan
11-25-2014, 02:59 PM
Then we can stop fretting over the presumed source of ANE in BB. It really doesn't require a lot of head-scratching in my view. Maybe we can start scratching heads if ANE is not where we expect it to be on current results.

Totally agree. I dont think there is any doubt that ANE was absorbed into bell beaker predominantly in central Europe then spread on throughout the network. The detail of the processes within that model may be fun to ponder but probably unknowable without a several more beaker sites with ancient DNA.

Jean M
11-25-2014, 03:01 PM
The way the text is written above I would interpreted it as categorical and proven, if that is the case my hat off to this theory but it does come across as creative writing emulating Alan's style.

Well I could post a several page scholarly discourse here with references, but something told me that people would prefer brevity, being that it's a case made on archaeology and linguistics. :biggrin1: We all know that we don't have the ancient DNA to prove or disprove it. So by all means spend the next couple of years pouring scorn on it.

I have to get on with my work now, so I have to bow out of this thrilling episode of the Stoning of Jean.

alan
11-25-2014, 03:03 PM
Wow put this way it all makes sense even for sensible people.
The way the text is written above I would interpreted it as categorical and proven, if that is the case my hat off to this theory but it does come across as creative writing emulating Alan's style.

Very funny. I am pretty sure I have seen you post some very outlandish stuff yourself. At least the theories Jean and I are putting - which are not identical but pretty similar ballpark-actually fit the ancient DNA evidence to date

Michał
11-25-2014, 03:03 PM
I propose DF27 as the said Y-DNA trace. It fits very well, being found both in Iberia and in various places reached by Eastern Bell Beaker. Of course it would not be the only R1b in the Eastern BB stream as it expanded. I'm assuming that it met up with the main P312 flow in the Carpathian Basin.

This makes sense, so you seem to agree with me that this would actually preclude any major reflux of BB to Iberia.

Like Alan, I still have some doubts regarding the link between Yamna and BB (or generally between Yamna and R1b-L11), but I must admit that this seems quite plausible, especially after the partially "Kurganized" Baden culture turned out to represent mostly the local Neolithic population.

Jean M
11-25-2014, 03:14 PM
BTW, where exactly would you place the Basques in your scenario? I recall you have suggested they came to Western Europe with the Bell Beakers.

I don't recall that I ever had that idea. I think the Basques are a genetic mix, like all other modern Europeans. I suspect that the mix actually happened in south-west France i.e. that waves of people arrived there, with each one mixing with the locals: Mesolithic, Cardial Ware, Copper Age. The pre-Basque language probably arrived in the Copper Age with some people fleeing from the Balkans. It does not seem connected to BB.

Michał
11-25-2014, 03:18 PM
It's a pity you haven't answered my question regarding the Basques and DF27, but I guess you don't assume that a small group of those DF27 Stelae people included both IE speakers and Early Vasconic speakers, so this scenario would rather rule out the Late Neolithic arrival of Vasconic to Western Europe.

EDIT: I have noticed your reply just after finishing my post you cited, so


I don't recall that I ever had that idea.

I am very sorry in case I have misinterpreted your view on this subject


I think the Basques are a genetic mix, like all other modern Europeans. I suspect that the mix actually happened in south-west France i.e. that waves of people arrived there, with each one mixing with the locals: Mesolithic, Cardial Ware, Copper Age. The pre-Basque language probably arrived in the Copper Age with some people fleeing from the Balkans. It does not seem connected to BB.
This is quite interesting. So which non-BB or post-BB migration from the Balkans would you associate with the Vasconic-speaking people?

Jean M
11-25-2014, 03:25 PM
It's a pity you haven't answered my question regarding the Basques and DF27, but I guess you don't assume that a small group of those DF27 Stelae people included both IE speakers and Early Vasconic speakers, so this scenario would rather rule out the Late Neolithic arrival of Vasconic to Western Europe.

I did reply Michał, but will do so again. I don't think that the Stelae People had anything to do with the presumed Copper Age input into what became the Basques. These seem to be two separate stories. There were people at San Juan Ante Portam Latinam, Spain 3000 BC with 13910T lactase persistence (a trait high in the Basques). I'd look for people like that arriving in the good pasture land of SW France. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/autosomaladna.shtml#lactase

Jean M
11-25-2014, 03:30 PM
I am very sorry in case I have misinterpreted your view on this subject


No problem. My memory is hopeless, so that might have been an idea I had years ago and discarded.

I can't be more specific on the Basques than I was in AJ, I'm afraid. They remain a bit of a mystery.

I really really have to go away and earn some money now.

parasar
11-25-2014, 03:58 PM
The key graphic on Bell Beaker is event D which is clearly an out of Iberia Bell Beaker migration vectored by mtDNA H.
3020
The last paragraph of page 15 references the Atlantic Bronze Age Model of Cunliffe and Koch.

"Similarly, the genetic influx from the southwest associated with the Bell Beaker culture could be correlated with an earlier spread of the Celtic language family across Western Europe than assumed, as recently suggested by linguists (Koch, 2009; Cunliffe and Koch, 2010). Such a coherent cultural package in the West could there- fore also be linked with the pattern of high frequencies of mtDNA haplogroup H and Y-haplogroup R1b in modern-day West Euro- peans, as suggested in Brotherton et al. (2013) and hypothesised by Barry Cunliffe's model of Atlantic Europe, which rests upon a common cultural element emerging during the Megalithic, i.e., Middle Neolithic in Western Europe (Cunliffe, 2001)."


And references mtDNA haplogroup H and the origin of Europeans (Brotherton et al. 2013)

"From around 2800 BC, the LNE Bell Beaker culture emerged from the Iberian Peninsula to form one of the first pan-European archaeological complexes. This cultural phenomenon is recognised by a distinctive package of rich grave goods including the eponymous bell-shaped ceramic beakers. The genetic affinities between Central Europe’s Bell Beakers and present-day Iberian populations (Fig. 2) is striking and throws fresh light on long-disputed archaeological models3. We suggest these data indicate a considerable genetic influx from the West during the LNE. These far-Western genetic affinities of Mittelelbe-Saale’s Bell Beaker folk may also have intriguing linguistic implications, as the archaeologically-identified eastward movement of the Bell Beaker culture has recently been linked to the initial spread of the Celtic language family across Western Europe39. This hypothesis suggests that early members of the Celtic language family (for example, Tartessian)40 initially developed from Indo-European precursors in Iberia and subsequently spread throughout the Atlantic Zone; before a period of rapid mobility, reflected by the Beaker phenomenon, carried Celtic languages across much of Western Europe. This idea not only challenges traditional views of a linguistic spread of Celtic westwards from Central Europe during the Iron Age, but also implies that Indo-European languages arrived in Western Europe substantially earlier, presumably with the arrival of farming from the Near East41."

So this would means that the Neolithic farmers were IE. Since from all accounts it appears that the Sardinians are the closest to Neolithic farmers, does the Sardinian language preserve some of the oldest IE forms?

Brotherton et. al.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978205/

Phylogeographic studies suggest that mitochondrial (mt) haplogroup H (hg H) arrived in Europe from the Near East prior to the Last Glacial Maximum (22,000 BP), and survived in glacial refugia in Southwest Europe before undergoing a postglacial re-expansion4,12. Haplogroup H now accounts for over 40% of mtDNA variation in anatomically modern humans across much of Western Eurasia...
Our genetic distance data also indicate minimal local genetic continuity between the Early Neolithic and the Mid/Late Neolithic in Central Europe (Figure 1; Table 1), again suggesting that Early Neolithic lineages were largely superseded during the Mid/Late Neolithic (~4100-2200 BC) in a previously unrecognised major genetic transition...

alan
11-25-2014, 04:20 PM
I notice my comment on the earlier R1b guy at Kromsdorf being dated to a century and a quarter before the generally thought expansion of beaker through central Europe has not received any comment. It is important as it could be evidence of pre-beaker R1b at that site. Does anyone have any info on the 'cup' noted with the guy. This is a aummary

Grave 5 R1b Mt I1 no orientation details. No date, No finds died middle aged
Grave 8 R1b Mt K1 no orientation details. cup 2678-2547BC died in early 20s

Only grave 1 is clearcut in its orientation details as beaker while its dating also allows suggest the woman in grave 9 is also beaker.

Grave 1 no DNA result but is clearly a beaker male in orientation has 'cup' and dated to 2573-2511.

The central date on grave 8 is around 2625BC which is significant earlier than the other dated guy with a clear beaker tradition burial whose central date is around 2550BC. The problem is neither R1b guy has a clear orientation known and one of them has no radiocarbon date or finds either. The other R1b guy has a 'cup' but his dating centres well before the beaker and barey overlaps the other dated beaker guy - who himself is about as early as beaker is meant to be in central Europe. I just wonder if we can be sure grave 8 guy is actually a beaker burial or a guy living at the same time as the undated corded ware woman in the same site. It all depends on what the 'cup' is in his grave.

I would also note as an aside that Kromsdorf implies that Heyd is wrong about a 2500BC date for beaker and the minimum age in the range of datrs pre-date that at least a little. If Kromsdord grave 8 is beaker then even his minimum age is c. 2550BC which is also the central date for the other clearly beaker orientated grave. However, not many people go looking at the very outside of radiocarbon dates unless they are tying to force a fit - if you went to the maximum in the range its 2678BC. However you look at it, grave 8 R1b man is between 49 and 178 (average around 120 years) years older than Heyd's 2500BC dating for the commencement of central European beaker and only whatever the nature of the 'cup' in his burial will clarify this. So either he is not a beaker guy or Heyd's chronology needs moved back 49-178 years because of Kromsdorf.

MJost
11-25-2014, 07:52 PM
So this would means that the Neolithic farmers were IE. Since from all accounts it appears that the Sardinians are the closest to Neolithic farmers, does the Sardinian language preserve some of the oldest IE forms?

Brotherton et. al.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978205/

Another MtDNA paper that sheds some light on the various dating of European HG-H subclades

A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages
Marta D. Costa & Joana B. Pereira
Nature Communications 4, Article number: 2543 doi:10.1038/ncomms3543

Received 11 July 2013 Accepted 04 September 2013 Published 08

October 2013

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html


Abstract
The origins of Ashkenazi Jews remain highly controversial. Like Judaism,
mitochondrial DNA is passed along the maternal line. Its variation in the
Ashkenazim is highly distinctive, with four major and numerous minor
founders. However, due to their rarity in the general population, these
founders have been difficult to trace to a source. Here we show that all
four major founders, ~40% of Ashkenazi mtDNA variation, have ancestry in
prehistoric Europe, rather than the Near East or Caucasus. Furthermore,
most of the remaining minor founders share a similar deep European
ancestry. Thus the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not
brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the
Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe. These
results point to a significant role for the conversion of women in the
formation of Ashkenazi communities, and provide the foundation for a
detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history

Text:
Besides the four haplogroup K and N1b founders, the major
haplogroup in Ashkenazi Jews is haplogroup H, at 23% of
Ashkenazi lineages, which is also the major haplogroup in
Europeans (40–50% in Europe, ~25% in the North Caucasus and
~19% in the Near East)note28. There are 29 Ashkenazi H
mitogenomes available (Supplementary Table S7), 26 (90%) of
which nest comfortably within European subclades dating to the
early Holocene (Supplementary Note 3, Figs 7 and 8;
Supplementary Figs S5–S10; Supplementary Table S8). Most, in
fact, nest more specifically within west/central European
subclades, with closely matching sequences in east Europe, as
with the pattern for the K founder clades. The Ashkenazi
mitogenomes from haplogroup H include 39% belonging to H1
or H3, which are most frequent in west Europe and rare outside
Europe.


Presenting more information:

Ancient DNA Reveals Key Stages in the Formation of Central European Mitochondrial Genetic Diversity
Brandt et al
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6155/257

The papers link to an interactive MtDNA movie was very interesting.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/10/10/342.6155.257.DC1/1241844s1.mov

MJost

Agamemnon
11-26-2014, 12:27 AM
One problem with this scenario is that we don’t see any Y-DNA trace that would correspond to the hypothetical existence of such relatively small first “wave” of Yamna-derived people coming to Portugal and then “moderately” expanding along the Atlantic coast and towards the Central Europe. Did they all leave the Iberian peninsula (while migrating up to the north) or were just wiped out by a subsequent wave of “more aggressive” BB folk ver. 2.0 (in this particular case by the R1b-DF27 variant)?

BTW, where exactly would you place the Basques in your scenario? I recall you have suggested they came to Western Europe with the Bell Beakers, so in such case were they “Beakerized” in the Alpine-Danubian region after being DF27-ized (or maybe it was the other way around)? Both scenarios raise some doubts. Anyway, retaining the original non-IE language in such conditions would be extremely difficult.

What if there wasn’t any significant (demographic!) reflux of BB into Iberia, so it was only the relatively young (and thus initially very small) DF27 lineage that represented the southern offshoot (of the freshly differentiated R1b-L11 people) that traveled to Iberia before “inventing” BB and passing it then further to their relatives staying in the Alpine-Danubian region? This would be also consistent with the lower ANE level in Iberia (and among the “autochthonic” Basques), as compared to other regions that are very rich in R1b (or R1a). Another advantage of this scenario is that we could assign the development of the Proto-Celtic language to a relatively late group of mostly L21 and U152 people living in a region stretching from the Upper Danube to the Lower Rhine, while DF27 would have remained associated with Lusitanian and some related IE languages (plus of course with Vasconic). The Celtiberian languages would then correspond to some later influx of L21 to Northern Iberia.

I sincerely doubt that P312, let alone DF27, is associated with Proto-Basque/Vasconic/Aquitanian... Rather, most Basque DF27 samples seem to belong to rather recent subclades of DF27.
All in all, it's far easier to picture DF27 and other P312 clades spreading Para-Italo-Celtic (or Para-Celtic) languages such as Lusitanian and Ligurian throughout Western Europe, at least that would start to make sense.

rms2
11-26-2014, 12:38 AM
I sincerely doubt that P312, let alone DF27, is associated with Proto-Basque/Vasconic/Aquitanian... Rather, most Basque DF27 samples seem to belong to rather recent subclades of DF27.
All in all, it's far easier to picture DF27 and other P312 clades spreading Para-Italo-Celtic (or Para-Celtic) languages such as Lusitanian and Ligurian throughout Western Europe, at least that would start to make sense.

I think the original Basques were predominantly something other than R1b, probably I-M26. It seems likely the original language of the Sardinians (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/03/paleo-sardinian-language-relative-of.html) was related to Basque. I-M26 reaches its highest frequencies in Sardinia, and it is also found among the Basques.

Over time admixture with the surrounding population has led to the Basques becoming more like them in their y-dna, that is, mostly R1b. I read somewhere the Basques had a matrilocal marriage tradition, which would have been tailor-made for preserving the bride's language even while non-Basque y-dna was being introduced.

Rich Rocca has mentioned this before, too, and I agree with him.

Agamemnon
11-26-2014, 12:48 AM
A mixture of both, as far as anyone can make out. The Belgae were the last wave of Celtic speakers to arrive in the British Isles. They came from eastern Gaul, but prior to that from east of the Rhine. Before that were La Tene type arrivals. Before that were Hallstatt type arrivals. But the people who really made their presence felt all over the British Isles were Bell Beaker, hence the preference these days for them as the first Celtic speakers. But it's not that simple, as the first BB makers were probably speaking something closer to IE, with early Celtic probably appearing in Late BB.

Even that's a stretch IMHO, Celtic is too young (Proto-Celtic broke up during the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age) to have been spread by BB.


I think the original Basques were predominantly something other than R1b, probably I-M26. It seems likely the original language of the Sardinians (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/03/paleo-sardinian-language-relative-of.html) was related to Basque. I-M26 reaches its highest frequencies in Sardinia, and it is also found among the Basques.

Over time admixture with the surrounding population has led to the Basques becoming more like them in their y-dna, that is, mostly R1b. I read somewhere the Basques had a matrilocal marriage tradition, which would have been tailor-made for preserving the bride's language even while non-Basque y-dna was being introduced.

Rich Rocca has mentioned this before, too, and I agree with him.

I-M26 (along with G2a and E-V13) makes much more sense if you ask me, nothing really warrants an association between P312 (or DF27) and Basque (unless we're referring to specific subclades of DF27, whose carriers would've initially spoken something different and, in all likeliness, an IE language).
Truth be told, the same can be said for Tyrsenian and U152 or any other non-IE language and R1b-L11 for that matter, the more we seem to learn about R1b (or its lack thereof) the more outlandish such models sound.


Another MtDNA paper that sheds some light on the various dating of European HG-H subclades

A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages
Marta D. Costa & Joana B. Pereira
Nature Communications 4, Article number: 2543 doi:10.1038/ncomms3543

Received 11 July 2013 Accepted 04 September 2013 Published 08

October 2013

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html


Abstract
The origins of Ashkenazi Jews remain highly controversial. Like Judaism,
mitochondrial DNA is passed along the maternal line. Its variation in the
Ashkenazim is highly distinctive, with four major and numerous minor
founders. However, due to their rarity in the general population, these
founders have been difficult to trace to a source. Here we show that all
four major founders, ~40% of Ashkenazi mtDNA variation, have ancestry in
prehistoric Europe, rather than the Near East or Caucasus. Furthermore,
most of the remaining minor founders share a similar deep European
ancestry. Thus the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not
brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the
Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe. These
results point to a significant role for the conversion of women in the
formation of Ashkenazi communities, and provide the foundation for a
detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history

Text:
Besides the four haplogroup K and N1b founders, the major
haplogroup in Ashkenazi Jews is haplogroup H, at 23% of
Ashkenazi lineages, which is also the major haplogroup in
Europeans (40–50% in Europe, ~25% in the North Caucasus and
~19% in the Near East)note28. There are 29 Ashkenazi H
mitogenomes available (Supplementary Table S7), 26 (90%) of
which nest comfortably within European subclades dating to the
early Holocene (Supplementary Note 3, Figs 7 and 8;
Supplementary Figs S5–S10; Supplementary Table S8). Most, in
fact, nest more specifically within west/central European
subclades, with closely matching sequences in east Europe, as
with the pattern for the K founder clades. The Ashkenazi
mitogenomes from haplogroup H include 39% belonging to H1
or H3, which are most frequent in west Europe and rare outside
Europe.


Presenting more information:

Ancient DNA Reveals Key Stages in the Formation of Central European Mitochondrial Genetic Diversity
Brandt et al
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6155/257

The papers link to an interactive MtDNA movie was very interesting.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/10/10/342.6155.257.DC1/1241844s1.mov

MJost

This study's methods are inherently flawed and its conclusions are, simply put, contradictory to say the least.

Leeroy Jenkins
11-26-2014, 12:55 AM
So this would means that the Neolithic farmers were IE. Since from all accounts it appears that the Sardinians are the closest to Neolithic farmers, does the Sardinian language preserve some of the oldest IE forms?

Sardinians only began speaking IE languages once the Romans moved into town. Before that, the Sardinians spoke Nuragic, a non-IE language.

rms2
11-26-2014, 01:04 AM
Even that's a stretch IMHO, Celtic is too young (Proto-Celtic broke up during the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age) to have been spread by BB.

I am not a linguist, but that is not what I have read. I have seen dates for Proto-Celtic of about 2300 BC. I believe that is the approximate date, for example, of the split for Celtic from IE given on Don Ringe's IE tree.

Celtic is supposed to be one of the older branches, after Anatolian and Tocharian.




I-M26 (along with G2a and E-V13) makes much more sense if you ask me, nothing really warrants an association between P312 (or DF27) and Basque (unless we're referring to specific subclades of DF27, whose carriers would've initially spoken something different and, in all likeliness, an IE language).
Truth be told, the same can be said for Tyrsenian and U152 or any other non-IE language and R1b-L11 for that matter, the more we seem to learn about R1b (or its lack thereof) the more outlandish such models sound.

. . .

The same sort of thing happened with the Ossetians, who speak an IE language but who are now predominantly G2a, which they pretty obviously acquired from the surrounding Caucasian population.

Agamemnon
11-26-2014, 01:42 AM
I am not a linguist, but that is not what I have read. I have seen dates for Proto-Celtic of about 2300 BC. I believe that is the approximate date, for example, of the split for Celtic from IE given on Don Ringe's IE tree.

Celtic is supposed to be one of the older branches, after Anatolian and Tocharian.

2300 BCE is far too old, it could work for an eventual split from Italo-Celtic in which case the branch in question is best labeled Pre-Proto-Celtic and not Proto-Celtic per se... Which means that it could've led to the emergence of Para-Celtic languages.

Italo-Celtic, Tocharian and Anatolian are archaic branches, that much is true.



The same sort of thing happened with the Ossetians, who speak an IE language but who are now predominantly G2a, which they pretty obviously acquired from the surrounding Caucasian population.

Most Ossetians belong to a subclade called G2a-P18, and while it could very well be local in origin, I wouldn't try to figure out how this founder effect came about just now as it potentially could've arrived with the Scythians (admittedly, we don't know much about this subclade at this stage).

Jean M
11-26-2014, 09:42 AM
Celtic is too young (Proto-Celtic broke up during the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age) to have been spread by BB.

Only if you treat the Celtic languages as a fixed tree and then compare Gaulish (a late type of Celtic) with Brittonic (actually partly the child of Gaulish) and Old Irish (actually influenced by Brittonic). The thing is a web. Mallory keeps pointing out that these three languages have a common root for the word 'iron'. Of course they would, because La Tene arrived in Britain from Gaul and spread from there to Ireland.

Jean M
11-26-2014, 11:54 AM
I propose DF27 as the said Y-DNA trace. It fits very well, being found both in Iberia and in various places reached by Eastern Bell Beaker. Of course it would not be the only R1b in the Eastern BB stream as it expanded. I'm assuming that it met up with the main P312 flow in the Carpathian Basin.

I have redrawn my speculative map of the spread of R1b to show the idea graphically with DF27 in fat orange lines to distinguish its otherwise confusing trail from the main P312 stream.

3065

But as I said above, the round trip to Portugal from the Carpathian Basin and back has been so distracting from the main issue that I feel it would be best ignored for the purposes of understanding ANE in BB. If people just focus on the Yamnaya flow up the Danube eventually manifesting itself in Eastern BB, it is all very simple and straightforward, archaeologically and genetically.

Krefter
11-26-2014, 12:48 PM
I have redrawn my speculative map of the spread of R1b to show the idea graphically with DF27 in fat orange lines to distinguish its otherwise confusing trail from the main P312 stream.

3065

But as I said above, the round trip to Portugal from the Carpathian Basin and back has been so distracting from the main issue that I feel it would be best ignored for the purposes of understanding ANE in BB. If people just focus on the Yamnaya flow up the Danube eventually manifesting itself in Eastern BB, it is all very simple and straightforward, archaeologically and genetically.

Do you think R1b originated south or north of the Caucasus? I tend to think it originated south of the Caucasus because that's where it's most diverse. What type of R1b is there just north of the Caucasus?

Krefter
11-26-2014, 12:56 PM
Only if you treat the Celtic languages as a fixed tree and then compare Gaulish (a late type of Celtic) with Brittonic (actually partly the child of Gaulish) and Old Irish (actually influenced by Brittonic). The thing is a web. Mallory keeps pointing out that these three languages have a common root for the word 'iron'. Of course they would, because La Tene arrived in Britain from Gaul and spread from there to Ireland.

3063

Didn't Celts in Iberia identify as Gaulish or Celtic like the ones in France and central Europe? While the Celts in Britain and Ireland did not associate themselves with Gauls or each other but were their own thing, and it wasn't until the 1700's when linguistics discovered Iron age and medieval Britons and Irish spoke a similar language as the Celts from mainland Europe?

And wouldn't that all suggest continental Celts spoke a more similar language to each other than they did with British-Irish Celts, and that Celts from Iberia can be classified as "Gauls"(Celt meant the same thing to Roman writers?).

Jean M
11-26-2014, 01:17 PM
Didn't Celts in Iberia identify as Gaulish or Celtic like the ones in France and central Europe? While the Celts in Britain and Ireland did not associate themselves with Gauls or each other but were their own thing, and it wasn't until the 1700's when linguistics discovered Iron age and medieval Britons and Irish spoke a similar language as the Celts from mainland Europe?

The self-identifications that people use vary according to whom they are comparing themselves with. For example a person in northern England today might call himself a Geordie, English, British or European, depending on the context. For tribal societies like the Celts, the primary identification was the tribe. They would only need a collective name for a more inclusive 'us' versus 'them'. The Gauls encountered Greek speakers on the Mediterranean coast and either the Greeks labelled them Keltoi or the Gauls came up with a collective name for 'us Celtic-speakers' vs Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans etc that the Greeks translated as Keltoi. By contrast the Celtic-speakers in Britain and Ireland only rarely encountered anyone who did not speak a Celtic language. So the collective names they needed were to distinguish between the Irish, the British and the Gauls. We have no way of knowing if some vague idea of belonging to a Celtic-speaking unity had penetrated Britain before the Romans arrived, but one suspects it wasn't common currency. In Roman times the big division would be between Britons and Romans.


wouldn't that all suggest continental Celts spoke a more similar language to each other

Linguists work out relationships between languages based on the actual evidence of those languages, not on what their speakers were called by the Romans.

Krefter
11-26-2014, 01:37 PM
Maybe the Celts in Iberia the Romans knew were recent invaders from Gaul, because Hallstatt-derived Celts migrated all over Europe.

rms2
11-26-2014, 01:45 PM
. . .

Most Ossetians belong to a subclade called G2a-P18, and while it could very well be local in origin, I wouldn't try to figure out how this founder effect came about just now as it potentially could've arrived with the Scythians (admittedly, we don't know much about this subclade at this stage).

I think the original Scythians were probably mostly R1a with perhaps some R1b mixed in (R1b is still fairly frequent among the Ossetians, with some R1a present, as well). The Scythians (Alans in this case, if I recall correctly) picked up G2a from their Kafkas neighbors. That's what I think, anyway.

Jean M
11-26-2014, 01:55 PM
Maybe the Celts in Iberia the Romans knew were recent invaders from Gaul, because Hallstatt-derived Celts migrated all over Europe.

There is no evidence of the Hallstatt culture spreading all over Europe, and specifically not into Iberia. I imagine that you are thinking of La Tene, but there is very limited La Tene in Iberia either. Some Gauls evidently did arrive before the Roman conquest, for there are place-names in Aragon indicating exactly that, such as Forum Gallorum. However there are Celtic personal names in Iberia before La Tene. I'm afraid that you will have to wait for the book for details, discussion and references. I can't quote at length here.

ADW_1981
11-26-2014, 02:13 PM
I sincerely doubt that P312, let alone DF27, is associated with Proto-Basque/Vasconic/Aquitanian... Rather, most Basque DF27 samples seem to belong to rather recent subclades of DF27.
All in all, it's far easier to picture DF27 and other P312 clades spreading Para-Italo-Celtic (or Para-Celtic) languages such as Lusitanian and Ligurian throughout Western Europe, at least that would start to make sense.

It's amusing because you can't say R1a1 is Turkic or some people cry and complain. Odd because Basque are rather insignificant on the global stage yet their name keeps getting repeated as though they left some sort of genetic legacy everywhere in Europe.

Krefter
11-26-2014, 02:26 PM
It's amusing because you can't say R1a1 is Turkic or some people cry and complain. Odd because Basque are rather insignificant on the global stage yet their name keeps getting repeated as though they left some sort of genetic legacy everywhere in Europe.

There is some biased even in academics, giving Basque more prestige, uniqueness, and ancientness than they deserve, but it isn't 2006 anymore and no one thinks "Cro-Magnon" had R1b and spoke Basque, so there's no reason to fight over this

People who study Basque autosomal DNA like Laz-2014 and Eurogenes, say there is something very unique about them compared to Iberians and French. They share more drift and genetic similarity to both Neolithic farmers and Mesolithic hunter gatherers than Iberians. According to Laz and Eurogenes they have around as much WHG as NW Europeans, but very little ANE. Also their near eastern ancestry is probably the most purely EEF-derived in Europe, next to Sardinians.

In most admixture they score ~100% in north European and west-Mediterranean centered components, and usually 0% in west Asian centered components, unlike all other Europeans but like Mesolithic, Neolithic, and bronze age(only 2 sampled so far) European samples. Eurogenes suggests Basque are largely a preservation of the Neolithic and bronze age non-Indo European people of central-west Europe. Basque and Sardinians are both pretty much living fossils.

rms2
11-26-2014, 02:32 PM
Yes, and I think Basques and Sardinians were probably originally mostly I-M26. The Sardinians still have a lot of I-M26, and the Basques still have some.

Isidro
11-26-2014, 02:39 PM
Yes I would say that the Basques are being used as a "red herring" in DNA circles to disproof that R1b was in SW Europe.I would not call it insignificant, first out of respect for the Basque culture and secondly do we really know the demographics of Europe 2000ky ago?.

Funny thing is this Basque issue looks more like an internal conflict of origins and legacy that pertains to debaters from the British Isles and descendants.

I just don't understand this bipolarity when it comes to modern populations, only valid if it fits certain migration scenarios.

rms2
11-26-2014, 02:46 PM
Well, Isidro, take a look at the evidence instead of questioning the motives of others who have.

Which seems more likely: 1) that all of Western Europe was once as the Basques are but somehow completely changed its language to Indo-European, or 2) that the Basques, a small minority population, have acquired the y-dna of the surrounding populations over the millennia?

Does it seem likely that if R1b had been in Western Europe since the Paleolithic Period it would not show up in the y-dna recovered from any site earlier than circa 2600 BC (the Beaker site near Kromsdorf, Germany) despite the growing number of ancient y-dna finds?

Does it seem likely that R1b, clearly eastern in its origin, spent the LGM in the FC Ice Age Refuge but so thoroughly hot-footed it out of there afterward that the refuge itself is so lacking in R1b diversity as to be overwhelmingly dominated by one P312+ subclade (DF27)?

And how did Western European populations lacking in R1a acquire so much ANE if not through that other R1 haplogroup, R1b?

Krefter
11-26-2014, 02:58 PM
Funny thing is this Basque issue looks more like an internal conflict of origins and legacy that pertains to debaters from the British Isles and descendants.

I see where you're going with this. You're claiming people online who argue this stuff are arrogant, inaccurate, uneducated, etc. That is true for some, but not all, and there isn't anything wrong with someone who is uneducated or unintelligent to play around with ideas and do research. If a person like that throws out a theory it doesn't make him arrogant.

There is validity to what's discussed in these forums, and there's many academic papers about it. If you ignore this subject, you're missing out on alot, including discoveries that will probably be in grammar school history books decades from now.

rms2
11-26-2014, 03:13 PM
If Euskara (Basque) and Nuragic (the original Sardinian language) are related, as they appear to be, it is interesting that the common y-dna denominator between the two populations is not R1b but I-M26.

Krefter
11-26-2014, 03:19 PM
If Euskara (Basque) and Nuragic (the original Sardinian language) are related, as they appear to be, it is interesting that the common y-dna denominator between the two populations is not R1b but I-M26.

Looking at Neolithic Y DNA from Hungary, Germany, Otzi, Gok4, France, and Spain we can see nearly all had 4 hgs I, C1a2, G2a, and F*. The only exception is the E-V13 from Spain. Most of Sardinian's and Basque's ancestors must have also fell under these hgs.

rms2
11-26-2014, 04:06 PM
Is it a coincidence that when the first ancient R1b was recovered, it was recovered in a cultural context believed by many scholars to be connected to the origin and spread of Italo-Celtic?

alan
11-26-2014, 05:09 PM
If Euskara (Basque) and Nuragic (the original Sardinian language) are related, as they appear to be, it is interesting that the common y-dna denominator between the two populations is not R1b but I-M26.

I think there is little doubt that I-M26 is one of the original lineages associated with Basque and Nuragic and R1b was originally not. IMO the Basques simply are more mixed than the Sardinians but a one time they were basically the same and the Sardinians preserve the genes associated with that language strata more purely than the Basques. They lived on an island while the Basque and Aquitania were completely surrounded by Celtic tribes. I dont think we should be too surprised either. The rest of Europe has radically changed its yDNA since 3000BC so why should the Basques be any different. They are given extra scrutiny because they are a non-IE language but Europe once had a number of those languages and before 3000BC was probably overwhelmingly non-IE. Even Iberia had Iberian just south of Basque. So, the concept of Basque exceptionalism is a modern one IMO. I have an open mind as to whether they are some sort of Cardial relic or a bronze age wave. Iberian was not the same a Aquitanian but some people think there is a broad family link in deep time. Problem is Cardial and the possible post-Neolithic waves into the west Med. all come from the east Med. sort of area so it seems hard to conclude much about that. My preference probably leans towards Cardial as there was an odd Cardial more northerly Atlantic outpost in what became Aquitania while the rest was along the Med. and Portugal. I find that quite a coincidence. On the other hand it is not obvious how Aquitania and Sardinia were linked in later times. I dont feel using vocab to date Basque's age really produces an answer as there is a lot of wriggle room there.

Agamemnon
11-26-2014, 05:18 PM
Only if you treat the Celtic languages as a fixed tree and then compare Gaulish (a late type of Celtic) with Brittonic (actually partly the child of Gaulish) and Old Irish (actually influenced by Brittonic). The thing is a web. Mallory keeps pointing out that these three languages have a common root for the word 'iron'. Of course they would, because La Tene arrived in Britain from Gaul and spread from there to Ireland.

3063

Not really, if you take all known Celtic languages into account (including Lepontic) the reconstructed proto-language still inscribes itself in a Late Bronze Age context, which is why Urnfield is such a serious contender IMO.
Of course, nothing is perfect and we'll always be missing something as long as we try to create neat phylogenies, but I'm afraid that's not going to change until we stumble onto a previously unknown Celtic language.

vettor
11-26-2014, 05:25 PM
Only if you treat the Celtic languages as a fixed tree and then compare Gaulish (a late type of Celtic) with Brittonic (actually partly the child of Gaulish) and Old Irish (actually influenced by Brittonic). The thing is a web. Mallory keeps pointing out that these three languages have a common root for the word 'iron'. Of course they would, because La Tene arrived in Britain from Gaul and spread from there to Ireland.

3063

very old tree .....where is Noric and Galatian .

not all celt languages understood each other, it like not all romance languages ( italian, french, spanish, portuguese ) understand each other.

vettor
11-26-2014, 05:33 PM
The self-identifications that people use vary according to whom they are comparing themselves with. For example a person in northern England today might call himself a Geordie, English, British or European, depending on the context. For tribal societies like the Celts, the primary identification was the tribe. They would only need a collective name for a more inclusive 'us' versus 'them'. The Gauls encountered Greek speakers on the Mediterranean coast and either the Greeks labelled them Keltoi or the Gauls came up with a collective name for 'us Celtic-speakers' vs Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans etc that the Greeks translated as Keltoi. By contrast the Celtic-speakers in Britain and Ireland only rarely encountered anyone who did not speak a Celtic language. So the collective names they needed were to distinguish between the Irish, the British and the Gauls. We have no way of knowing if some vague idea of belonging to a Celtic-speaking unity had penetrated Britain before the Romans arrived, but one suspects it wasn't common currency. In Roman times the big division would be between Britons and Romans.



Linguists work out relationships between languages based on the actual evidence of those languages, not on what their speakers were called by the Romans.

IIRC, did'nt the Romans state in proper Gaul there where 3 celtic languages!

vettor
11-26-2014, 05:35 PM
I have redrawn my speculative map of the spread of R1b to show the idea graphically with DF27 in fat orange lines to distinguish its otherwise confusing trail from the main P312 stream.

3065

But as I said above, the round trip to Portugal from the Carpathian Basin and back has been so distracting from the main issue that I feel it would be best ignored for the purposes of understanding ANE in BB. If people just focus on the Yamnaya flow up the Danube eventually manifesting itself in Eastern BB, it is all very simple and straightforward, archaeologically and genetically.

so you propose that DF27 is Iberian , as in the ancient tribe which originates in modern catalonia to southern france area , up to the Rhone river ( I am not referring to the iberian peninsula)