PDA

View Full Version : A deeper think about beakers and genes



Pages : [1] 2 3

alan
09-23-2013, 03:01 PM
The issue of the problems in the radiocarbon curve and the choice of dating materials in major. It was criticised recently in Background to Beakers. He suggested that radiocarbon dating simply doesnt work in distinguishing 2600-2900BC. He also notes that there is a problem in some areas when all dates other than 'gold standard' dates on articulated human bone, short life materials etc are rejected. Although logical to be suspicious of such dates, there are areas like Holland where soil conditions destroy bones and rejection of charcoal samples means rejection of almost all dates for the area. That will inevitably mean ruling out of some areas as the origin point whether deserved or not. There is also a major question about what materials these Iberian samples came from. So much burial is collective too that you wonder how safe they are. Also, shells are a problem for dating. Finally diet using non-terrestrial resources can make radiocarbon dates come out too old. So, the potential diet of the person in question needs considered and indeed some sort of testing of the same samples might need done to establish this. Even with the sort of extra care I am suggesting, this still would not remove the problem of theradiocarbon curve and the impossibility of distinguising between 2600 and 2900BC even on the safest short-life materials.

What the critic of the early dates did state, and I would agree with this to some extent, is that if RC dating cannot reliably sort the beaker issue, traditional methods of looking at bell beaker cultural and social practices and typology of artifacts should be used to find the likely origin. IMO, bell beaker looks very much like a pottery with no local source in Iberia but plenty of very good potential ancestors in central and eastern Europe at the right time.

Let me put one hypothetical scenario, given the problem in narrowing a date between 2600 and 2900BC. Contacts on the existing copper networks are key. Perhaps someone in the western Alps c. 2700BC was in contact with Corded Ware groups as well as the older pre-beaker copper network. An alliance could have been established by someone in say SE France by a marriage to other copper groups in the west Med. The woman involved may have come from a tradition where similar pots were made and transferred the idea and skill further west. That way the apparent gap between early beaker in the west Med. and similar pottery in central Europe could have been bridged by a single woman. We tend to forget how important women were both for elite alliance marriages and for pottery making.

Once on the Med. a novel pot tradition could move about along the Med. copper network in multiple directions through further alliance marriages. This way the initial spread of what appears to be a central or east European tradition and some of its initial patterning may have little to do with male lineages. There has been a paper about mt haplogroup H increasing and spreading in the beaker period temporarilly into central Europe. Again this could be a crucial marriage alliance phenomenon as the networks of central Europe and the Med. met and its easy to see too how these women could have had a major role in the spread of pottery traditions and convergence.

Its also important to note that while maritime beaker has been seen as a SW European thing that spread, many of the other forms are not. A recent paper on the other domestic beaker ware we see, even in the isles although the paper does not cover the isles, such as polypod pods etc almost all come from the east. It is also true that quite a few of the aspects that we tend to think of as classic beaker, often things that make the case for a sharp social change/migration, do not occur in the early beaker phase in Iberia including single burial traditions and the classic beaker skull.

We should not lose sight of the fact that it is still very much interpretable as a contact network which more likely featured low level constant movement of individuals of both genders rather than some sort of Hollywood invasion. A multiple direction network like that is very very hard to look at and work out the genetic outcomes and both y and mt lines could have been incorporated within it and diffused at many times, places and directions. Male lineage movement IMO would only tend to happen when they either were welcomed as metallurgists or if they could move into an area that in pre-beaker times was not very well settled or important to the locals but useful for them or a bit of both. In other areas where their specialism was already wrapped up by earlier groups I suspect the geneflow may have been more female and alliance based. However, as traders it may have been very complex with middle men etc.

I have deliberately not got onto the issue of yDNA clades etc because I think first we need to imagine how it worked in a more detailed way. Some of the interpretations are far too one dimensional and perhaps a little desperate to get a simply yDNA wave sort of answer. That can lead to the wrong conclusions. So, I really just want to start a conversation on looking at it in a more nuanced way than it tends to be rather than claim to have the answers right now. There is a massive gap geographically between the likely origin areas of R1b and many cultures in between it and beaker. I think a more nuanced, possibly more chaotic appearing initially, look at the network could ultimately bring us closer to the truth and might square the apparent problem of a west-east cultural spread being correlated with what must initially have been an east-west genetic spread. I am also not saying that this hasnt been discussed creatively already but I think some more prodding may be fruitful. I also think moving away from focussing too much on the earliest maritime beaker radiocarbon dating may be required given the issues with this.

My instincts plus some knowledge on the phylogeny of R1b make me feel that we are too hung up on the idea of a single beaker culture linked to some sort of branching from maritime beaker in Iberia. An important question is what useful role could a literal beaker colonisation from Iberia actually provide along the west Med. - a region that already had copper working and in some experts opinions it was more varied and impressive in pre-beaker times. You could also ask why a group in a very copper rich area like Iberia would spread into an area like SE France or the Alps which already had a well established copper working tradition. I think in such a zone alliance and cultural diffusion through wives travelling may have been important in converging the tradition without coming into conflict.

It is however a different story in some parts of temperate Europe where developed local copper working and more importantly mining were unknown before the beaker age. In those areas there clearly would have been an advantage in letting in male lineages and specialists. That could be the reason why beaker tends to avoid initially or only slightly overlap the Corded Ware areas. The latter had their own copper working traditions although I am not sure about mining. However, beaker metallurgists would have had something approaching carte blanche in north Atlantic Europe and really would have served an important function without coming into conflict by replicating existing specialists power bases. In such areas, there would probably have been a real desire to allow beaker male lines in.

The attitude of corded ware areas to allowing new metallurgical beaker groups in is slighly more tricky to interpret. Corded Ware is a vast area and as far as I understand there is not much evidence of mining across it. However, similar arsenical copper is known in both beaker and corded ware contexts in the same area and probably the same central European sources. Its likely that there was no unity within the huge corded ware area and in particular it may have been easy to play groups off against each other if you could form an alliance to provide alternative metal sources to people at the end of the existing chain, particularly those in the west and north more peripheral to the source, putting them a little closer to the top of the new chain Once established the cultural and trade influence could have been spread wider through alliance marriages, perhaps the source of the suggested sudden temporary spread of mt H in beaker period central Europe.

So, although not at all chaos, the genetic impact of these networks, marriage alliances and vary degree of need to allow new male lines to settle would have been very complex.

R.Rocca
09-23-2013, 08:25 PM
My instincts plus some knowledge on the phylogeny of R1b make me feel that we are too hung up on the idea of a single beaker culture linked to some sort of branching from maritime beaker in Iberia. An important question is what useful role could a literal beaker colonisation from Iberia actually provide along the west Med. - a region that already had copper working and in some experts opinions it was more varied and impressive in pre-beaker times. You could also ask why a group in a very copper rich area like Iberia would spread into an area like SE France or the Alps which already had a well established copper working tradition. I think in such a zone alliance and cultural diffusion through wives travelling may have been important in converging the tradition without coming into conflict.

Most of the serious studies on metallurgy from the last 15 years see the metallurgy of southern France originating in the Rinaldone Culture (Strahm, Vaquer, Sangmeister). We also see Remedello Culture triangle daggers spilling out over the western Alps into France and Switzerland. I've always found the idea of an independent Iberian Copper Age rather unlikely, so these folks may already have been DF27 by the time they moved into the southern slopes of the Pyrenees.

Kwheaton
09-23-2013, 11:38 PM
Rich,

Although no where close to expert as you I agree whole heartedly with several of your comments. I especially like this.


A multiple direction network like that is very very hard to look at and work out the genetic outcomes and both y and mt lines could have been incorporated within it and diffused at many times, places and directions.

We should understand that with humans things are seldom simple and we often miss the obvious. A National Geographic Children's book about Stonehenge called "If these Stones Could Speak" by Marc Aronson. The book points out how someone looking at a situation with new eyes can see things that dominant thinking has missed. Expectations often blind us to new truths.



"Really it is about putting aside what you think you know, what has been passed along, and being willing to trust what you yourself see and to test it rigorously."

I applaud you all for your continued work to unravel what really happened...and not just what our vested interests want.

alan
09-24-2013, 01:37 AM
I must admit I am really fascinated by these pre-beaker copper groups, the big Italian connections in the Alps etc. I suppose the bottom line is phylogeny. We just cannot link in a literal maritime beakers=R1b way. It just doesnt work if an east-west phylogeny is explained by a west-east spread. It also is very hard to see even early beaker pot as having a far western root. It just fits far better into the sort of pottery seen in eastern and central Europe c. 4000-3000BC. The attempt to derive them from pre-beaker Iberian cupos is sheer desperation as their is no resemblance at all.

I suggested some sort of spread of beaker type ideas coming from west central Europe c. 2700BC through alliance marriages. I would see them as evidence that ideas could be spreading with alliance marriages. There were probably contacts already relating to copper technology a little before 3000BC and maritime beaker in itself shows another link c. 2700BC. As I said, there feels to me like a selling sand to the arabs thing about the 2nd phase link. I wonder if the purpose of the SE France -Iberia link shown through maritime beaker was primarily some sort of attempt to link westernmost corded ware groups at the head of the Rhone bypassing the existing localised copper using groups in southern France and the Alps, trying to establish a new link of supply. I have read a paper that suggested some of the copper age local groups used metal to display localised identity and may have tried to exclude others from it rather than a beaker style networking spread of a uniform identity. The basic idea is that beaker-like corded ware pots could have traveled down the Rhone to SE Med France and onto Iberia with diplomatic marriages with corded ware females who had headed south and west. That could explain how a general form that is basically alien to SW Europe got there. The maritime beaker form could have developed there when the pot form was combined with some local decorative ideas and soon after could have made it way again in this transformed style. The impulse for contact could have originated in the easily won copper of Iberia, connected groups in SE France etc trying to establish a mutually beneficial network linking the west Med. with the west Alpine zone and beyond.

In terms of the possibility of contact between Iberia and central Europe c. 2700BC perhaps the origin of the beaker type pot shape heading to SW Europe, it is worth noting that Harrison and Heyd comment on stray evidence of such contacts:


"Even in the south west of Europe, there are clear signs of the first transformation horizon, connecting Iberia to Atlantic France and the Rhine delta. Scattered across northern Spain are a few perforated battle axes,of various styles, dated to the first half of the third millennium BC; they are clearly exotic pieces, well outside their usual range of distribution (Delibes de Castro1995; Estremera Portela/Fabián García 2002, fig.6,30–31). Probably belonging to the same ideological milieu are the daggers of flint and copper, known from the collective tombs of central Portugal, the Algarve and Andalusia from the earlier third millennium BC(Leisner 1965)"

Shortly after this perhaps it actually succeeded and this is what we see in the early phases at Sion where beaker ideas eclipse the old Remedello ones and beaker influences move into the Rhine area. I would imagine that that would have again potentially been down to pottery ideas travelling into that zone with alliance marriages. However, in this case they would also be opening up into a zone where metallurgists and prospectors would have more of a blank canvas. As far as I understand, the corded ware copper metal sources were much further east and the westernmost corded ware cultures may have been at the margin of its metal network.

The question remains as to whether the beaker elements north of the Alps and around the Rhine were southerners or perhaps locals who had taken part in alliance marriages and heavily networked with the maritime beaker elements and were therefore beakerised locals in some way, perhaps acting as middlemen far from the actual sources. Some craniological work certainly appears to separate the early beaker elements in the west Med and south-west Alpine fringe from the later ones.

In terms of genes, I think with the recent Tyrol results and other hobbiest data a case can be made that L51 is unlikely to be beaker period in origin. Its distirbution just doesnt correspond well with the earliest beakers. However, it does look like it was involved in some pre-beaker copper hotspots and sort of gives the impression it put out feelers into the fringes of the what would later be the southern part of the beaker network. However, I get the impression that L11 and then P312 arose in the western Alps area. So maybe it was involved in the feelers put out towards the west Med. from somewhere around the Alps to establish some sort of new link between that area and west central Europe and perhaps it somehow transferred the beaker type pot idea from corded ware contact, perhaps by sending west Alpine woman down the Rhone into south-west Europe in marriage alliances. It would be fairly natural in the Iberian-SE France strong contact zone for ideas to flow both ways with maritime beaker being its most likely expression. Its easy to see that zone as featuring both male and female gene flows with SE France being the link into temperate western Europe. The evidence of Sion seems to indicate truncation or muscling into that connection by central European elements from further east. In a way they may have reestablished the old supply network from the corded ware period and cut off the alternative route from the Med.

That would have effected the area north and west of this eastern beaker group by putting them back at the far end of a central European chain instead of being primary middlemen. I wonder if this was a factor in the search for alternative sources in the NW Atlantic like Ross Island etc. Maybe discontented middlemen elements on the Rhine who had seen a more important position in a chain from the Med taken away from them with the east group dominance decided to look north-west.

I have no idea how this would be explained in detail in terms of clades but I think its important before doing that to get a more vivid feel for what was going on.


Most of the serious studies on metallurgy from the last 15 years see the metallurgy of southern France originating in the Rinaldone Culture (Strahm, Vaquer, Sangmeister). We also see Remedello Culture triangle daggers spilling out over the western Alps into France and Switzerland. I've always found the idea of an independent Iberian Copper Age rather unlikely, so these folks may already have been DF27 by the time they moved into the southern slopes of the Pyrenees.

razyn
09-24-2013, 02:45 AM
I think there are some fundamentally sound principles in this thread, that are worth airing. I like the skepticism about putting all of the maritime beaker eggs in a basket woven from reeds of pretty debatable radiocarbon dating. And I like the emphasis on metallurgy, particularly of copper and its increasingly useful alloys. Some of the diplomatic marriage stuff seems anachronistic, to me -- I'm sure the wives are important, including those who made pottery, but I suspect they tended more to be in the nature of trade goods. The society appears to have been mostly impressed by tough guys and magicians, or anyway they could afford to pay the sculptors to leave that impression. And I don't think you've said much -- if anything -- about the boat builders and expert users, all trained by their daddies, without whom that long-distance metallurgical and ceramic networking wasn't possible.


It just doesnt work if an east-west phylogeny is explained by a west-east spread.

Completely agree --


It also is very hard to see even early beaker pot as having a far western root.

Yep.


I get the impression that L11 and then P312 arose in the western Alps area.

That, I don't really see. Maybe -- conceivably -- but it doesn't just slap me upside the head. To me it looks as if L11 and P312 need to have happened rather farther east.


I have no idea how this would be explained in detail in terms of clades but I think its important before doing that to get a more vivid feel for what was going on.

Maybe, hand in hand with doing that. If we really start taking seriously the increasingly refined phylogeny -- and reach some consensus on at least the relative ages of its branches -- a lot of "what was going on" (the stuff you archaeologists can find, wash the dirt off, and read the mystical messages it has left) is likely to get a radically different back story.

I still need to spend some time with Jean Manco's new book -- she has a lot to say in this area, and some of it wasn't on her web pages before they came down.

alan
09-24-2013, 03:31 AM
Well if beaker people are proto-Italo-Celtic in some way, it is fair to note that women had quite a lot of protections and power in Celtic society compared to some. Unlike the Hollywood sort of image of the Celts, Celtic society had a lot of non-physical force powers in it through a large legal and religious specialist class and an elaborate legal system. Although men could have more than one wife and have as many mistresses as he wanted this came with responsibility for him and rights for her as well as the fact that all children had equal status whether born within or outwith wedlock. There were all sorts of complex dowry issues too. Celtic was really very much a rule of law and rule of the learned class sort of society internally. It was not the more rough and ready might is right sort of society of warlords and their followers in a hall sort of society. It had that aspect but it was a very complex litigious kind of society with a more developed structure than early Germanic society. I really think people get the wrong idea of these societies as a sort of anarchy ruled by the most ruthless. In fact they were a lot more evolved, complex and less bloody internally.

One thing important to remember about the spread of beaker is that a significant part of its core spread area north of the Alps, west of the Rhine was into an area that was outside or on the outermost periphery of corded ware and whatever metal supply it provided. A heck of a lot of that area didnt have a developed native metal traditions and certainly a lack of mining etc. So, there really was a great opportunity there for people with developed metallurgy, mining etc to be welcomed with open arms. That opportunity didnt exist in quite the same way in Med., south Alpine, eastern or east-central Europe where existing metallurgical systems already existed.

So, the social processes in different areas must have been significantly divergent. I get the impression that establishing power in the areas of Europe already with developed copper traditions must have required a lot more careful negotiation to avoid some nasty trade conflicts and wars. I often wonder about the outlying Csepel group on the islands on the Danube and adjacent in Hungary and how that worked.

rms2
09-24-2013, 11:49 AM
This thread and another recent thread made me think once again about why so many of us are interested in the whole Beaker Folk phenomenon.

1. P312 is the dominant y haplogroup in western Europe.

2. L21 is the dominant y haplogroup in the British Isles, including, and especially, Ireland; U152 is dominant in the Alps and in Italy; DF27 in Iberia and perhaps trans-Pyrenean France, etc.

3. The germ line, haplotype variance based age estimates for P312 and its next generation subclades, like U152, L21, DF27, etc., land their nativities in the Bronze Age or perhaps the late Neolithic Period/Copper Age.

4. Since it does not appear that P312's immediate ancestor, L11, was already established in the West at that time, P312 seems to have moved into western Europe from the east sometime after its birth.

If P312's birth occurred in the Bronze Age or late Neolithic, and if it was not born in western Europe, then one naturally wonders not only how it got there but how it came to be so dominant there. So we look at that period - the Bronze Age or Copper Age - to see what might account for this phenomenon. We find the Beaker "package" spreading through western Europe at the time and wonder if it could provide the answer. We think that perhaps some or most of the Beaker men were P312+. We read that some scholars, like Hubert in the early 20th century, and Anthony today, believe that the Beaker Folk may have spread Italo-Celtic languages, and we see a pretty obvious correspondence between the distribution of the descendants of those languages and the distribution of P312 and its offshoots. Lastly, ancient y-dna is obtained from a Beaker burial in Kromsdorf, Germany, and in both cases it turns out to be R1bxU106 but was not tested for P312 (one M269+, the other M343+ but probably also at least M269+).

So, although we don't really know how much of a "folk" the Beaker Folk really were, there is a circumstantial case building that puts them at the scene of the spread of P312 at about the right time . . . and direct evidence that at least two of them were in fact R1b but NOT U106.

After all, what are the alternatives? Neolithic farmers? Possibly, but that would be stretching the margins of the age estimates, and thus far no R1b has turned up at any Neolithic sites anywhere, including places that are just lousy with R1b today. I fully realize variance-based age estimates are tenuous at best, so, no, I don't make all that much of them; but they are all we have.

Could the y ancestors of P312 have arrived in Europe much earlier, in the Paleolithic or Mesolithic periods? Maybe, but does that seem likely?

So, maybe some Beaker men spread P312 and its immediate offshoots. I can't think of likelier suspects, can you?

alan
09-24-2013, 04:31 PM
I have in this thread been trying to reason through the push pull factors, where metallurgy was already developed, where it wasnt etc to try and think into how it really would have worked. A lot of the beaker patterns are probably down to competing groups and waxing and waning subnetworks of beaker using peoples. What I imagine is that beaker groups probably clashed with each other over controlling these networks but if they were really all desdended from one pretty recent P312 guy then they wouldnt have had the numbers to fall out with entire local populations. So, I imagine them more as competing and probably occasionally warring over trade and ore rather than land.

The maritime beaker phase seems to me to primarily relate to west Med. copper elites trying to expand to reach a market in west central Europe whose copper since pre-beaker corded ware times had probably come from east-central European sources. The western periphery was probably far enough away from that supply chain that they would be open to being higher up a chain coming up the Rhone. As I suggested, it is likely that alliance marriages were one way of cementing this and perhaps responsible for the flow of mtH noted in a recent paper in central Europe. As well as making alliances the female flow would have also potentially been a factor in the flow of various pottery styles. That is not to say that male lineages did not also follow as traders, specialists etc as part of the deal. However, this role may have varied and they would need to have been welcomed by the locals. They may have bypassed areas where existing groups controlled copper sources as has been suggested in some parts of Languedoc etc and one would suspect elsewhere. I find the suggestion that some of the pre-beaker groups were inward looking and not interested in widespread trading of more uniform international types of symbols interesting. Its a very different outlook to beaker and may have made linking to the beaker network attractive. The origin of this attitude to trading could be the way metal worked in Iberia. Seemingly metal was easily won there and as a result its value may have been more in trading it outwards than an intrinsic value at home.

At sion the pre-beaker copper age elements represented on some of the stelae included clear influence in terms of metallurgy from a network that included Remedello type daggers although the area was otherwise a local copper age culture. It has been argued that they are the same people taking up beaker traits via southern connections. That is possible but its also possible that they were simply very similar peoples that cant be distinguished craniologically from locals. On the other hand despite the Remedello daggers on the pre-beaker stelae, the people as far as I can gather (there seems to be a real block on Italian papers being published on google books, edu etc on the web) they were not of a similar craniological type to Remedello people. It seems that they were local Alpine clients groups who took influence from that direction rather than actual Remedello people. They may have been at the westernmost periphery of that zone of influence rather than at the centre of things. Maybe they preferred to become a less peripheral part of a new outward looking network actively interested in supplying that had a more proximate branch in SE France, ultimately linked to Iberia. I think the question as to how much of this involved movement and how much was the locals reflecting this new link is open although a bit of both is the easiest way to imagine it.

The question then arises of what the beaker people could do for the various local groups. Some with their own copper sources and pre-beaker metal traditions didnt need them and possibly actively ignored them and/or were bypassed initially. There are pre-beaker mines or implied mining in several areas in north Italy and SE France and Iberia as well as further east in central Europe. So in these places mining and copper pre-se wouldnt be something that beaker people could dazzle locals with. Studies have shown that beaker metallurgy in itself was nothing special and apparently did not use any new types of copper not already used in eastern and central Europe, including by the corded ware cultures. So, it seems to me that the role beaker people could have had there is more to do with acting as middlemen and changing how metal was distributed, perhaps releasing some locals from more protective and exclusive use of metals or perhaps just simply a bad deal that existed there before. Whatever it was, I believe beaker people had to be invited in by the locals. The archaeological footprint of the beaker people's different attitude, which may have been the attraction, is the sudden explosion of uniform international status symbols compared to the more localised types that preceded them. In this way the beaker cultures internationalised things and broke down localism.

It is interesting that in some areas like south-east France and I suppose also around Budapest that they used defended sites or naturally defensive positions. In those two examples they were within a zone with pre-beaker copper cultures. Maybe in such locations they were treading on the toes of the pre-beaker metal elites and at least initially may have been in danger. In other areas like Britain and Ireland everything points to being welcomed by the locals in terms of lack of defensive sites, burials right beside stonehenge etc etc.

None of this really helps ID the exact story of P312 and subclades. The problem still remains that L51, L11 and P312 are best placed as originating in Alpine or central Europe rather than the far west. If the most commonly given variance dates are correct then the spread was from this area in the copper age. So, a simplistic interpretation as seeing maritime beaker as linked to the spread of P312 doesnt work. If anything it looks to me that true P312* is also looking likely to be more central European than south-western. So, either P312 in central or alpine Europe adopted the idea of beakers before spreading on the P312-R1b comination or P312 made it to Iberia before the beaker period with the pre-beaker copper culture there.

I would raise a nuanced version of that. Perhaps P312 arrived with the basic idea of beaker type pots to Iberia from west central Europe c. 2700BC give or take a little as part of the founding of a trading connection with SE France with middlemen traders from that area arriving to create a mutually beneficial situation of creating an outlet for Portugal's copper wealth and creating a more proactive supply along the Med. and into the Alpine area. The idea of beaker type drinking vessels existed among the corded ware groups closeby in Switzerland around this time and the wobble in the radiocarbon curve cannot distinguise between a century or so either way in this period. Maybe some chap in the western fringes of the Alps had a wife from the nearby corded ware groups and the idea spread that way. Certainly the beaker phase did create a much wider outlet for Iberian metals than before. The arrival of P312 middlemen from somewhere like SE France or the Alpine fringes could have been very mutually beneficial. It would also explain the sudden shift in the way copper in Iberia worked. In pre-beaker times it has been recently argued that it was a rather mundane everyday thing and not widely traded. A sudden change to becoming part of a wide network could have been externally influenced by the same people who brought the beaker pot basic template to the area c. 2700BC. The beaker phase saw more of a revolution in networking in Med. and central Europe rather than a revolution in technology - it was already in place.

That really makes me wonder who mr P312/L11 was who may have established this outward looking, networking aspect. I suspect on phylogeny alone that the person came from no further west than the Alps/SE France. It would also seem pretty essential that Mr P312 came from a culture with maritime skills given that Portugal is a bit of a leap from the next area of early beakers in SE France. A previous knowledge of copper must be factor and maybe a knowledge of or prior involvement in an immediate pre-beaker copper network. Mr P312 could either have been in an area marginalised from other sources, where a source dried up, could have been in an area where the current copper supply situation was unsatisfactory or despotic or could have just been a young buck looking for his own new source of power. Putting that CV together points in the direction of Liguria and its early mines to me. A tailing off of the second phase at Monte Lorretto c. 2600BC and similar in other Ligurian mines seems a reasonable interpretation of the radiocarbon dates there. Perhaps around or just before that period would make a lot of sense for those involved to look west to make connections with Iberia seeking to act as middlemen for the wealth there and bring it back in their general direction along the south of France and NW Italy coast. This area is linked by the Rhone and various passes to Switzerland where corded ware was known from c. 2700BC, a possible link that could have brought this alien pot shape to the west Med.

R.Rocca
09-24-2013, 05:54 PM
...

At sion the pre-beaker copper age elements represented on some of the stelae included clear influence in terms of metallurgy from a network that included Remedello type daggers although the area was otherwise a local copper age culture. It has been argued that they are the same people taking up beaker traits via southern connections. That is possible but its also possible that they were simply very similar peoples that cant be distinguished craniologically from locals. On the other hand despite the Remedello daggers on the pre-beaker stelae, the people as far as I can gather (there seems to be a real block on Italian papers being published on google books, edu etc on the web) they were not of a similar craniological type to Remedello people. It seems that they were local Alpine clients groups who took influence from that direction rather than actual Remedello people. They may have been at the westernmost periphery of that zone of influence rather than at the centre of things. Maybe they preferred to become a less peripheral part of a new outward looking network actively interested in supplying that had a more proximate branch in SE France, ultimately linked to Iberia. I think the question as to how much of this involved movement and how much was the locals reflecting this new link is open although a bit of both is the easiest way to imagine it.

...


Let's not forget however that, unlike the situation in Bavaria, the strontium isotopes of Sion's Bell Beaker skeletons show they are almost entirely local born and raised. The glaring outlier is the lone brachycephalic male who's values match better with water from the middle Rhine. His dating to 2400 BC also closely matches the smashing of the original stones.

Fire Haired
09-24-2013, 09:52 PM
I am totally against the idea that non Germanic,, Italic, and Celtic people spread R1b1a2a1a L11 in Europe. From 22 Y DNa samples in southwestern France from 5,000ybp not one had R1b 19 had G2a typical for other Neolithic west European y Dna samples and 2 had I2a1a M26. So there is almost no way if Bell Beaker began in Iberia 4,800ybp or so that they are the source of dominate R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe. NO matter how u put it R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe came from a migration from the east and at some point originated in the Near east. Age estimates show it arrived in around Germany around just 5,000ybp. and its subclades then spreading in western Europe in the bronze age and after Bell Beaker culture technically ended. So I cant see grandson of L11 R1b Df27 spreading with bell Beaker over 4,000 years ago the spread of subclades P312 and U106 began around probably 4,500ybp. But then their subclades like Df27 did not begin to spread till at 3,500-4,500ybp at the very very very earliest.

3,500-4,000ybp u see Nordic bronze age culture which has Kurgens which defintley show connections with the spread of Indo European languages. They also are considered the first Germanic culture which they almost deifntley were Germanic it shows a new group of Indo Europeans that migrated to north Europe from central Europe. Then u see Unetice culture in central Europe around 4,300ybp also had Kurgens it is deifntley ancestral to Italo Celts and maybe also Germanic's. There was a new migration of Indo Europeans into western Europe starting about 5,000ybp and spreading far about 4,5000ybp and I think archeology kind of backs it up. The age estimates for the spread of R1b1a2a1a L11 also match.

JUst because there are two 4,600ybp R1b samples from German Bell Beaker does not mean their the source. This totally fits the Germanic Italo Celtic idea because that is the exact spot they would have been 4,600ybp.

Fire Haired
09-24-2013, 10:01 PM
Alan u cant generalize Celtic culture under one thing. There were so many different Celts diff gaulic tribes would have seen each other as very different. Also Celts(mainly L21 with minority Df27) in the British isles migrated there long before Urnfield and Hallstat culture even began probably 3,500-4,500ybp. We don't really know who the Gauls were cultrally and what their character was like. When u look at Germanic tribes all u have are written records of their descendants in the middle ages 100's of years after they became Christian and their culture had changed so much it is hard to say who ancient people were when we don't have their writing or have seen them in person. All we can say is they were Human which can explain a lot about them I doubt they were femine like some modern people have said. I know they are not completely unqiue in this but Celts all their land their ancestors conquered and based on roman and greek writing they defintley were not very peaceful. We cant make big generalizations about what ancient people were defintley people like Celtic tribes with all of their cultures and religions pretty much dead and extinct and we have no writing and also Romans we don't really completely know what they were like. We cant even assume about modern people.

alan
09-24-2013, 10:37 PM
I would pick out two phases of especial interest in the west Alpine area

1. THE PERIOD AROUND 3500BC

Early mining in Liguria c. 3500BC.

The early appearance of a major copper using cultures in Italy around c. 3500BC with their beaker-like physical type and claims of hints at an IE type social structure by some authors.

Remedello imagery on pre-beaker Alpine stelae.

There is the possibility of the Inn valley copper sources and passes that the iceman used being linked to this too. In this phase Italy seems to be the most influential zone.

An primary copper age phase of copper dagger and axe bearing elites who seem to look to Italy


2. THE PERIOD c. 2700-2600BC

The apparent halt in mining in the Ligurian area c 2600BC

The appearance of maritime bell beaker across the west Med c. 2600BC.

The spread of corded ware to the north in Switzerland by c. 2700BC.

The spread of Iberian copper

The spread of an archery symbolism


In terms of the 2nd phase it would be very interesting to understand just how interlocking this all was. What was the effect of the corded ware culture reaching Switzerland on previous networks of copper distribution in the Alpine zone? Did the Ligurian mines tail off because of the new network to Iberia or was that network opened up as a necessity as older mines failed? Who initiated this network?

I suspect the alien beaker type pot idea probably got to Iberia c. 2700BC by contacts somewhere near Liguria or the Rhone that had at least a familiarity with corded ware pots even if they were not users themselves. This group then networked in Iberia, an area whose pre-beaker copper industry seems very different in the way it was run and the way metals were used - more mundane and less elite use possibly due to the sheer amount of it there. This contrasts to both the prestige but inward looking localised use in some Alpine groups and to the wide networking, uniform prestige goods use of the beaker groups. IMO it looks like a new element quite substantially transformed how Iberian copper distribution worked in the beaker period. In the area of interest, the closest we come to groups who had shown more ambitious networking up to the appearance of the beaker phase are probably the Remedello symbol using groups in Italy and the Alps and the corded ware groups who were as close as Switzerland around the time of the early beaker spread in the west Med. and adjacent.

In Switzerland groups using corded ware and groups with Remedello symbolism are both present, not of course denying a major local element too. That convergence interests me because there are aspects of both cultures that prefigure beaker aspects in different ways. It strikes me that the loss of the Ligurian mines may have effected groups in areas like Switzerland who were using Remedello symbolism, perhaps suggestive of their old networking preferences. Did the arrival of corded ware people in the western Alps effect the northward contacts and networks in the western Alps or did it present a new market for them. One way or another, given the wriggle room in terms of the earliest beaker dates, I think the simplest, least geographically improbable explanation for the novel beaker type pottery that appeared along the west Med. c. 2700BC would be through the meeting of Remedello linked groups in the Alps with corded ware groups and the transfer of the idea back towards the Med. After all, the appearance of corded ware in Switzerland is approximately at the same date as the appearance of beaker pottery along the west Med. as far as SE France, the Alpine fringes, north Italy etc. This is about as close as we get to an intermediary area capable of transferring the beaker type pot idea from a west central European source to the west Med. After all establishing a link from the western Alps to Iberia is exactly what we see in the early beaker phase too so it should not be a matter of surprise if people and the idea of beakers used exactly the same route in reverse to negotiate the setting up of a network like that. In fact it is possible that the transfer of the beaker idea is the main shadowy evidence of a chain of contact from the Alps to Iberia that is otherwise unclear. I am not suggesting it involved a movement of any size but alliances in later Celtic society involved things like marriages between elites, mutual fosterage of elite children, hostages etc.



Let's not forget however that, unlike the situation in Bavaria, the strontium isotopes of Sion's Bell Beaker skeletons show they are almost entirely local born and raised. The glaring outlier is the lone brachycephalic male who's values match better with water from the middle Rhine. His dating to 2400 BC also closely matches the smashing of the original stones.

R.Rocca
09-24-2013, 10:53 PM
I am totally against the idea that non Germanic,, Italic, and Celtic people spread R1b1a2a1a L11 in Europe. From 22 Y DNa samples in southwestern France from 5,000ybp not one had R1b 19 had G2a typical for other Neolithic west European y Dna samples and 2 had I2a1a M26. So there is almost no way if Bell Beaker began in Iberia 4,800ybp or so that they are the source of dominate R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe. NO matter how u put it R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe came from a migration from the east and at some point originated in the Near east. Age estimates show it arrived in around Germany around just 5,000ybp. and its subclades then spreading in western Europe in the bronze age and after Bell Beaker culture technically ended. So I cant see grandson of L11 R1b Df27 spreading with bell Beaker over 4,000 years ago the spread of subclades P312 and U106 began around probably 4,500ybp. But then their subclades like Df27 did not begin to spread till at 3,500-4,500ybp at the very very very earliest.

3,500-4,000ybp u see Nordic bronze age culture which has Kurgens which defintley show connections with the spread of Indo European languages. They also are considered the first Germanic culture which they almost deifntley were Germanic it shows a new group of Indo Europeans that migrated to north Europe from central Europe. Then u see Unetice culture in central Europe around 4,300ybp also had Kurgens it is deifntley ancestral to Italo Celts and maybe also Germanic's. There was a new migration of Indo Europeans into western Europe starting about 5,000ybp and spreading far about 4,5000ybp and I think archeology kind of backs it up. The age estimates for the spread of R1b1a2a1a L11 also match.

JUst because there are two 4,600ybp R1b samples from German Bell Beaker does not mean their the source. This totally fits the Germanic Italo Celtic idea because that is the exact spot they would have been 4,600ybp.

Classifying the R1b people of 2500 BC as Celts, Italics or Germanics is like calling modern day Italians "Romans", or modern day French people "Gauls", or modern day Scotts "Picts". A lot changes in 2,000 years. Also, you keep making big assumptions based on dates that can themselves be off by more than a thousand years. It is obvious that the Bell Beaker people were primarily R1b. Now the question is, in what direction did R1b spread and what pre-Bell Beaker did it first appear in?

alan
09-24-2013, 11:02 PM
The point I am making is we shouldnt look at beaker culture as a west to east movement simply based on some questionable slightly earlier dates in Portugal. This is not a safe conclusion for a whole lot of reasons to do with radiocarbon dating. Early dates are also known from Italy, Hungary etc and other early dates were thrown out because they were not on short life materials so the problem with beakers seemingly south-west origin contradicting the obviously eastern origin of R1b may be an illusion based on the approaches to dating presented in the 2001 paper by Muller and Van Willigen and it may have been accepted a little too enthusiastically. If this latter is considered unsafe or contradicted then a lot of the contradiction of direction of beaker spread and R1b spread would simply fall away. The reality is early beaker spread very fast indeed at a time when their is a wobble in the radiocarbon calibration curve and it may be beyond the ability of radiocarbon to distinguise between 2600 and 2700 or 2800BC. I also wonder about the nitty gritty specifics of the contexts, environment etc of the early samples. I have never, or it was so many years ago I cannot recall now, read the original paper or chapter that concluded on an Iberian origin. I have read complaints that the nitty gritty of the contexts was not made clear. I do wonder because in Portugal beaker burial was collective and continued pre-beaker useage and that is a very hard context to 100 percent link a bone with a pot. Also marine and even fresh water aspects of the diet and environment can make radiocarbon dates older than they should be. I really need to have a closer look at the published paper to see if the conclusion is totally safe. Unless very specific details are presented they cannot be considered to be so.

Even if the older Portuguese dates area true these are only dates for one type of pot- the maritime beaker and much of what we think of as beaker culture coalesced in central Europe. Many other parts of beaker culture and beaker associated pot types have origins in central Europe. See the recent paper on the supporting pottery found with bell beakers. So I dont think we should see early dates for one type of pot in SW Europe as an indicator that the beaker culture or the beaker people originated there. What I am trying to tease out is the possibility that the people who used beakers in the Alps and central Europe are not Iberian migrants. Genetically it does not look possible anyway as Iberia basically lacks any P312**.

So, dont take too literally the idea that beaker male lineages came out of Iberia or the west Med. There is a lot of evidence that this was not so anyway including the craniological evidence of beaker people in central and northern Europe which is very different from that noted in Iberia, the west Med and apparently as far as the south-west Alps.


I am totally against the idea that non Germanic,, Italic, and Celtic people spread R1b1a2a1a L11 in Europe. From 22 Y DNa samples in southwestern France from 5,000ybp not one had R1b 19 had G2a typical for other Neolithic west European y Dna samples and 2 had I2a1a M26. So there is almost no way if Bell Beaker began in Iberia 4,800ybp or so that they are the source of dominate R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe. NO matter how u put it R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe came from a migration from the east and at some point originated in the Near east. Age estimates show it arrived in around Germany around just 5,000ybp. and its subclades then spreading in western Europe in the bronze age and after Bell Beaker culture technically ended. So I cant see grandson of L11 R1b Df27 spreading with bell Beaker over 4,000 years ago the spread of subclades P312 and U106 began around probably 4,500ybp. But then their subclades like Df27 did not begin to spread till at 3,500-4,500ybp at the very very very earliest.

3,500-4,000ybp u see Nordic bronze age culture which has Kurgens which defintley show connections with the spread of Indo European languages. They also are considered the first Germanic culture which they almost deifntley were Germanic it shows a new group of Indo Europeans that migrated to north Europe from central Europe. Then u see Unetice culture in central Europe around 4,300ybp also had Kurgens it is deifntley ancestral to Italo Celts and maybe also Germanic's. There was a new migration of Indo Europeans into western Europe starting about 5,000ybp and spreading far about 4,5000ybp and I think archeology kind of backs it up. The age estimates for the spread of R1b1a2a1a L11 also match.

JUst because there are two 4,600ybp R1b samples from German Bell Beaker does not mean their the source. This totally fits the Germanic Italo Celtic idea because that is the exact spot they would have been 4,600ybp.

alan
09-24-2013, 11:13 PM
I agree that huge caution needs to be used when looking at Christian period Gaelic laws, social structure etc and back projecting to the Iron Age. Mallory has written several pieces on this. However, in a lot of cases it is possible to corroborate things in these christian period documents with classical sources on the Celts. It is also often possible to see very strong parallels in documents from Christian Ireland and in India which is so close that it likely goes back deep in time to common IE times. Its also possible to reconstruct aspects of social structure such as patrilocality etc in the archaeological record and through DNA. So far most of the prehistoric cemeteries which have been DNA tested to a degree something about social structure, mobility, gender locality etc is in line with what was expected. Patrilocality, even in the Neolithic, had been deduced long before DNA by other techniques. What has surprised me so far is how much prehistoric society reconstructed through ancient DNA in cemeteries is conforming to expectations.


Alan u cant generalize Celtic culture under one thing. There were so many different Celts diff gaulic tribes would have seen each other as very different. Also Celts(mainly L21 with minority Df27) in the British isles migrated there long before Urnfield and Hallstat culture even began probably 3,500-4,500ybp. We don't really know who the Gauls were cultrally and what their character was like. When u look at Germanic tribes all u have are written records of their descendants in the middle ages 100's of years after they became Christian and their culture had changed so much it is hard to say who ancient people were when we don't have their writing or have seen them in person. All we can say is they were Human which can explain a lot about them I doubt they were femine like some modern people have said. I know they are not completely unqiue in this but Celts all their land their ancestors conquered and based on roman and greek writing they defintley were not very peaceful. We cant make big generalizations about what ancient people were defintley people like Celtic tribes with all of their cultures and religions pretty much dead and extinct and we have no writing and also Romans we don't really completely know what they were like. We cant even assume about modern people.

Fire Haired
09-24-2013, 11:14 PM
Alan I get what ur saying and it probably did not being in Iberia. But I also wanted to make clear that bell Beaker is not responsibly for modern distribution of R1b U106 and P312. Those would have started to spread when looking at age estimates 4,000-4,500ybp and the no R1b in 5,000ybp sample sin southwest France is evidence of that. Spread of Germanic italo Celts coming from the east makes the most sense so far. Maybe Bell Beaker in southeast alps is the origin of P312 but what about northern U106.

Fire Haired
09-24-2013, 11:34 PM
I agree that huge caution needs to be used when looking at Christian period Gaelic laws, social structure etc and back projecting to the Iron Age. Mallory has written several pieces on this. However, in a lot of cases it is possible to corroborate things in these christian period documents with classical sources on the Celts. It is also often possible to see very strong parallels in documents from Christian Ireland and in India which is so close that it likely goes back deep in time to common IE times. Its also possible to reconstruct aspects of social structure such as patrilocality etc in the archaeological record and through DNA. So far most of the prehistoric cemeteries which have been DNA tested to a degree something about social structure, mobility, gender locality etc is in line with what was expected. Patrilocality, even in the Neolithic, had been deduced long before DNA by other techniques. What has surprised me so far is how much prehistoric society reconstructed through ancient DNA in cemeteries is conforming to expectations.

I am sure some Ancient Gealic traditions survived in Ireland but basically their culture did die out pretty well they changed a lot. And different Celtic tribes even in the same area would have seen each other as very different. Look at our country how different Northerners see southerners there would have been even bigger differences between different Celts accents were so different that they spoke diff languages. We can never know exactly who a un literlate or any ancient people were like.

Like I said before knowing they were human is very important because all human society's basically work the same we can understand basic stuff about them. Gauls in 400bc were probably very different than gauls in 600bc and 50bc. I think there is a such thing as natural human society and we all life it out. Is the different societys native Americans had really that much differ than what the European colonist had it had the same basic rules. And I guess people would call it patriarchal but it is more complicated. We don't really need to think about were born with it. I really don't like the big deal about with gender roles the controversy about it is a over reaction.

Fire Haired
09-24-2013, 11:42 PM
Rocca u said I make assumptions u just assumed that Bell Beaker were dominated by R1b. Really based on two y DNA samples from 4,600ybp which defend my theory too because that is the exact spot I think Germanic Italo Celts were 4,600ybp. It is not crazy to call R1b1a2a1a L11 not just R1b people in central Europe 5,000-4,500ybp as proto Germanic Italo Celts. People in Italy speak a descendant language of latin Roman Catholicism is the biggest religion right. Rome in many ways helped create modern Europe including Italy. Spanish and French also descend from Latin u can call Gauls and CeltIberians and Iberians in the Roman empire as proto Spanish and French speakers because they were same with people in Rome during the Roman empire as proto Italian speakers.

The Gealic language is Scotland came from Ireland so the Scotia Romans mentioned were proto Scot speakers. we all believe the proto Indo European speakers existed. So why not proto Germanic Italo celtic if their languages really do go back to R1b1a2a1a L11 then it existed.

alan
09-24-2013, 11:57 PM
I wish I could answer that but one thing seems clear. P312 and U106 share a very immediate L11 ancestor. There is practically no age difference between P312 and L11. So its almost impossible to imagine them having very different stories. They both spread from a common point only shortly before P312 came into existence. I actually agree with you that intuitively I just do not see a south-west origin for any R1b other than DF27. It makes a great deal to see L11 and P312 arising somewhere more central in Europe. Like I say, I have my doubts about beaker chronology and while that doubt remains I dont want people worrying too much about the idea that a beaker-R1b spread originated in the SW of Europe. It may well not have. I am going to try and have a dig and find the exact details, if they are available at all, of the earliest bell beaker dates and the materials and context they come from.


Alan I get what ur saying and it probably did not being in Iberia. But I also wanted to make clear that bell Beaker is not responsibly for modern distribution of R1b U106 and P312. Those would have started to spread when looking at age estimates 4,000-4,500ybp and the no R1b in 5,000ybp sample sin southwest France is evidence of that. Spread of Germanic italo Celts coming from the east makes the most sense so far. Maybe Bell Beaker in southeast alps is the origin of P312 but what about northern U106.

alan
09-25-2013, 12:07 AM
Anyway, for the purpose of this thread, the discussion is really about looking at the issue of early and immediate pre-beaker interactions around the Alps and west Med. Its not about the linguistic-DNA aspect or the big European picture as yet. I am just trying to get a discussion going on the archaeological evidence in a bit more detail before returning to the language-DNA aspects.

I am not even convinced myself that all bell beaker divisions were R1b. Others are more convinced than I am but I am less sure of that and I wouldnt rule out the possibility that R1b and beaker only became linked after a number of generations. I am not tied to that idea but I dont think it can be totally ruled out.

The nearest we have to a sample of a guy with connections to the pre-beaker copper age groups in the Alps is the iceman. He was carrying one of the Remedello Italian axes that are often shown on the Alpine copper age stelae and is pretty much about as good as you could hope for in terms of an example of an individual connected to the immediate pre-beaker copper age of the Alps and the stelae there but he was haplogroup G. A sample of one of course is not enough to tell us anything.

One thing I dont think is a popular idea at present but I am going to raise the possibility that R1b will be found in corded ware. Only two sites have been tested for y DNA - one had R1a and another had no R at all. No R1b as yet but I wonder. If R1b, basically L23XL51 and a little M269* is spread all over the Balkans and Carpathians in not insignificant amounts right up to the Ukraine-Moldova border (it is much higher in the latter - its a Romanian speaking country,not slavic) its kind of hard to see how some wouldnt have ended up in corded ware given its origins around the Carpathians.


Rocca u said I make assumptions u just assumed that Bell Beaker were dominated by R1b. Really based on two y DNA samples from 4,600ybp which defend my theory too because that is the exact spot I think Germanic Italo Celts were 4,600ybp. It is not crazy to call R1b1a2a1a L11 not just R1b people in central Europe 5,000-4,500ybp as proto Germanic Italo Celts. People in Italy speak a descendant language of latin Roman Catholicism is the biggest religion right. Rome in many ways helped create modern Europe including Italy. Spanish and French also descend from Latin u can call Gauls and CeltIberians and Iberians in the Roman empire as proto Spanish and French speakers because they were same with people in Rome during the Roman empire as proto Italian speakers.

The Gealic language is Scotland came from Ireland so the Scotia Romans mentioned were proto Scot speakers. we all believe the proto Indo European speakers existed. So why not proto Germanic Italo celtic if their languages really do go back to R1b1a2a1a L11 then it existed.

Fire Haired
09-25-2013, 12:12 AM
If u take the idea of Germanic Italo Celts out of the picture. We can say that with age estimated R1b L11 would have arrived in central Europe about 6,000-5,000ybp. P312 and U106 starting 4,000-5,500ybp. R1b P312 subclade L21 starting around that time too and spreading acroos western Europe 3,500-4,500ybp and dominate while migrating to British isles. U152 age estimate at 3,500-5,000ybp its connection with Italy and Hallstat Celts points to Urnfield cuture which spread to Italy 3,200-3,000ybp probably brought Italic languages and is also the father culture to Hallstat so its expansion may have been as recent as 3,500-2,700ybp. U106 based on age estimates I don't know that much about its subclades would have spread into north and central Europe 5,000-4,000ybp or so. The spread of specific P312 subclades does not fit the time of Bell Beaker culture and it is in the Bronze age.

alan
09-25-2013, 12:33 AM
The date ranges you quote for the P312 subclades do cover the beaker period which is probably roughly 4700-4400 years bp in most of its initial spread with elements as late as 4000 years bp. It seems perfectly possible to me that the basic initial pattern of P312 was established in the beaker period with U152 in Alpine/central Europe, DF27 in the south-west, L21 in the north-west. That is not to say that other later cultures didnt also move these clades around and alter the patterns. Probably later cultures including urnfield altered the pattern somewhat and U106 probably radically altered the pattern in some area when it underwent a massive secondary expansion with Germanic.


If u take the idea of Germanic Italo Celts out of the picture. We can say that with age estimated R1b L11 would have arrived in central Europe about 6,000-5,000ybp. P312 and U106 starting 4,000-5,500ybp. R1b P312 subclade L21 starting around that time too and spreading acroos western Europe 3,500-4,500ybp and dominate while migrating to British isles. U152 age estimate at 3,500-5,000ybp its connection with Italy and Hallstat Celts points to Urnfield cuture which spread to Italy 3,200-3,000ybp probably brought Italic languages and is also the father culture to Hallstat so its expansion may have been as recent as 3,500-2,700ybp. U106 based on age estimates I don't know that much about its subclades would have spread into north and central Europe 5,000-4,000ybp or so. The spread of specific P312 subclades does not fit the time of Bell Beaker culture and it is in the Bronze age.

rms2
09-25-2013, 12:51 AM
I agree with you, Alan, that Beaker might not have been an R1b phenomenon at first. R1b tribes might have been "beakerized", but then they picked up the Beaker and ran with it, adding to it their apparent fecundity, which was a real advantage.

Have you all read this paper? Beer and Bell Beakers: Drinking Rituals in Copper Age Inner Iberia (http://www.academia.edu/711993/BEER_AND_BELL_BEAKERS_drinking_rituals_in_Copper_A ge_Inner_Iberia)

Ian B
09-25-2013, 12:53 AM
Alan: Well said. yDNA and the Bell Beaker culture are irrelevant. It's probable that many yDNA haplogroups could be associated with the Bell Beaker as its use spread throughout Europe. It seems to me that there have been more indicators that the Bell Beaker was formed in eastern Europe than the Iberian region, and no indications that its spread was by any sort of "invasionary" process.

rms2
09-25-2013, 01:03 AM
Alan: Well said. yDNA and the Bell Beaker culture are irrelevant. It's probable that many yDNA haplogroups could be associated with the Bell Beaker as its use spread throughout Europe. It seems to me that there have been more indicators that the Bell Beaker was formed in eastern Europe than the Iberian region, and no indications that its spread was by any sort of "invasionary" process.

While I agree to an extent, and think that ultimately the Beaker package spread by contact, as well as by sexual reproduction, it does seem likely to me that there is in fact a connection between the Beaker Folk phenomenon and R1b, and especially P312 and its subclades. If I did not think that, I would not waste much time on the subject.

P312 spread to and became dominant in western Europe somehow.

R.Rocca
09-25-2013, 01:03 AM
I have always seen the Fontaine-le-Puits (France) burial from the third quarter of the IVth millenium BC as a possible early "Mr. P312". He certainly had the look of an IE warrior type. Metallurgy is Rinaldone and some other objects are Remedello.

http://r1b.org/imgs/Fontaine-le-Puits.png

Fire Haired
09-25-2013, 01:11 AM
The date ranges you quote for the P312 subclades do cover the beaker period which is probably roughly 4700-4400 years bp in most of its initial spread with elements as late as 4000 years bp. It seems perfectly possible to me that the basic initial pattern of P312 was established in the beaker period with U152 in Alpine/central Europe, DF27 in the south-west, L21 in the north-west. That is not to say that other later cultures didnt also move these clades around and alter the patterns. Probably later cultures including urnfield altered the pattern somewhat and U106 probably radically altered the pattern in some area when it underwent a massive secondary expansion with Germanic.

But u forgot my point the spread of specific R1b P312 subclades points to 3,500-4,500ybo and at the vert late bell beaker culture or after. Who has P312** its very rare so u have to look at subclades ages. And just because L21 is estimated at 4,000-5,500ybp does not mean it spread then.

Fire Haired
09-25-2013, 01:14 AM
While I agree to an extent, and think that ultimately the Beaker package spread by contact, as well as by sexual reproduction, it does seem likely to me that there is in fact a connection between the Beaker Folk phenomenon and R1b, and especially P312 and its subclades. If I did not think that, I would not waste much time on the subject.

P312 spread to and became dominant in western Europe somehow.

Do u consider that it was Italo Celts that spread P312 and what about northern U106.

alan
09-25-2013, 01:53 AM
Very interesting. Italian copper age really does seem to have had considerable influence on the area across the whole of the Alps. The pre-beaker copper age is clearly very complex. I commented in the way the Ligurian mines seem to have tailed off when beaker arrived. I also found, I actually think I have read it or something very like it before, this article on the French mines around Languedoc.

halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/34/.../carozza-Mille_ottaway_c_.doc

Unlike in the beaker period it seems to have only been used for local prestige use and not traded. They also note the way that Provence across the Rhone was excluded. These older French mines seem to have been passed over by the main beaker appearance in SE France and did their own thing for a while separate from the beaker groups before they too tailed off. Its interesting that around the beaker period Alpine sources may have taken off in France. There was clearly a lot of shifting and transformation going on. Certainly the beaker period shows a really major shift to outward trading of prestige objects of a standard type that neither resembles the use of metal in Languedoc or Iberia in pre-beaker times. I get the impression that the closest thing to the beaker approach to wider trading of metal objects well beyond local is seen in the Italian influences in the pre-beaker copper age. It seems to have been widespread in the Alpine zone. In that sense it probably prefigures the beaker type set up better than any other group in western Europe. Its interesting too that Monte Loretto seem to have tailed off around the time of the beaker arrival c. 2600BC when you look at the radiocarbon dates. I wonder if there is any possibility that there is a connection. Provence was a sort of a blank between the Languedoc and Ligurian pre-beaker copper zones but then just as the latter declines, beaker settlement suddenly occurs in Provence between them with links to Iberia along the coast and also in a good position to access new Alpine mines in France and central Europe. The main advantage of this position I can see is access into central Europe through the Rhone system (including to Sion) and beyond towards the Rhine.



I have always seen the Fontaine-le-Puits (France) burial from the third quarter of the IVth millenium BC as a possible early "Mr. P312". He certainly had the look of an IE warrior type. Metallurgy is Rinaldone and some other objects are Remedello.

http://r1b.org/imgs/Fontaine-le-Puits.png

TigerMW
09-25-2013, 04:09 AM
Very interesting. Italian copper age really does seem to have had considerable influence on the area across the whole of the Alps. The pre-beaker copper age is clearly very complex. I commented in the way the Ligurian mines seem to have tailed off when beaker arrived. I also found, I actually think I have read it or something very like it before, this article on the French mines around Languedoc.

halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/34/.../carozza-Mille_ottaway_c_.doc

Unlike in the beaker period it seems to have only been used for local prestige use and not traded. They also note the way that Provence across the Rhone was excluded. These older French mines seem to have been passed over by the main beaker appearance in SE France and did their own thing for a while separate from the beaker groups before they too tailed off. Its interesting that around the beaker period Alpine sources may have taken off in France. There was clearly a lot of shifting and transformation going on. Certainly the beaker period shows a really major shift to outward trading of prestige objects of a standard type that neither resembles the use of metal in Languedoc or Iberia in pre-beaker times. I get the impression that the closest thing to the beaker approach to wider trading of metal objects well beyond local is seen in the Italian influences in the pre-beaker copper age. It seems to have been widespread in the Alpine zone. In that sense it probably prefigures the beaker type set up better than any other group in western Europe. Its interesting too that Monte Loretto seem to have tailed off around the time of the beaker arrival c. 2600BC when you look at the radiocarbon dates. I wonder if there is any possibility that there is a connection. Provence was a sort of a blank between the Languedoc and Ligurian pre-beaker copper zones but then just as the latter declines, beaker settlement suddenly occurs in Provence between them with links to Iberia along the coast and also in a good position to access new Alpine mines in France and central Europe. The main advantage of this position I can see is access into central Europe through the Rhone system (including to Sion) and beyond towards the Rhine.

I don't feel something is quite right about our (or at least my) understanding of the spread of metallurgy.

Here are some points from "Ancestral Journeys The Peopling of Europe from the first Venturers to the Vikings" by Jean Manco, pp.113-115
p.113,
"A cold period afflicted Europe from 4200 to 3800 BC.
...
The only survivor of the rich Balkan cultures was Cucuteni-Tripolye..."
....
The Alps were also rich in copper, which was discovered by metalworkers c. 4500-4000 BC. Experiments were made in smelting the local ore at Brixlegg above the Middel Inn Valley in the Austrian Tyrol. The smelters may have been Balkan prospectors.
...
The search for copper had spread to northern Italy by c. 3500 BC, where the earliest known copper mines in western Europe were found at Monte Loreto (Castiglione, Chiavarese, Liguria). Copper Age cultures sprang up in Italy: Remdeddlo and Rinaldone in the north, and Guado in the south."

I interpret her position as there being that a strong possibility that the collapse of the Carpatho-Balkans Metallurgy Province may have helped disperse metalworking to western Europe.

One of the areas I'm confused about is the dates are not lining up, at least if we think the Maikop should line up, p.108,
"Maikop culture (c.3700-3100 BC)"

Maybe that doesn't matter but it was the Maikop's that helped inject metallurgy into the Yamnaya and the the trail up the Danube into the Hungarian plains is part of David Anthony's PIE hypothesis for Italo-Celtic development.

Jean does say, p.163,
"We can also picture the mother group of Proto-Italo-Celtic speakers gradually moving further up the Danube from the Carpathian Basin and developing Proto-Celtic. If the Stelae people created the trade routes across Europe from the Carpathian Basin as far as Portugal, we can see how Bell Beaker ware developed in Portugal and yet crop up in Hungary."

So, that does make some sense. The early or pre-Beakers explored and established colonies but the "mother" group came later. This could also plain into Desideri's whole reflux concept but maybe that was just a second wave. I think Jean even makes a reference to two streams, one having DF27 and another having other L11, like L21. I'm not real comfortable about that, but it is something think about. To me the implication is that L51's and L11's split up (to P312 and U106) started somewhere close the Black Sea. On the way up the Danube, DF27 detoured southwest, L21 northwest and U152 just dropped off at home first in the Alps.
It just seems like the Stelae/early wave must not have been the main L11 lineage.

Now back to metals. I think the association of early arsenic/copper smelting with the Maikop (of the Circumpontic Metallurgy Province) is of no value to understanding migrations since arsenic/copper work was going on in the Carpatho-Balkans Metallurgy Province and into Italy already.

I'm not sure who to believe on metals, but Amzallag ("From Metallurgy to Bronze Age Civilizations: They Synthetic Theory") has a detailed case that he well defended against rebuttals. He is saying furnace smelting is the key to Maikop's metallurgical success and when the Balkans (including CBMP metallurgy) collapsed the true productive Circumpontic style quickly filled in all the way to Rio Tinto and Cabrieres. The timing for furnace smelting (not first smelting) to appear would fit a second wave/reflux or whatever it was that may have brought Pre or Proto-Celtic to the west in a subset of the Beaker folks on David Anthony's track.

I think metallurgy is a much more complex subject than pottery and even cranial data. I just can't find much more detail on the manufacture of metals so I have a tendency to give Allamazag the benefit of the doubt because seems confident with the details of furnace smelting, it makes logical sense (much more productive) as a driver of economic success, and it fits nicely with Anthony linguistic flow, genetically with a strong L11 drive up the Danube, and would be just right for Desideri's dental facts and a type of Eastern Beakers who interacted with Corded Ware (a nice path for U106 to branch off to the north.)

BTW, I apologize if I'm not interpreting anyone correctly. I realize summarizing in one's own words can end up misrepresenting something inadvertantly.

rms2
09-25-2013, 07:59 AM
Do u consider that it was Italo Celts that spread P312 and what about northern U106.

I tend to think David Anthony is right, and that Italo-Celtic was spread west by the Beaker Folk. See page 305 of his book, The Horse The Wheel and Language, which you need to read, if you are interested in Indo-European languages. Earlier, the French archaeologist and linguist Henri Hubert held the same opinion, as did the Celticists Myles Dillon and Nora Chadwick, which they asserted in their book, The Celtic Realms.

Thus I think the early Celts or Proto-Celts were the Beaker Folk.

I think U106 was involved in the Corded Ware horizon, although that has yet to be confirmed.

alan
09-25-2013, 10:05 AM
I had a read, actually a re-read as I realise I did read it before, of the Muller and Van Willigen paper on radiocarbon dating of beaker. It has got to be one of the most poorly written and confusing papers I have ever read. Even the most crucial figures are mislabeled - they have the figures based on short lived materials and all materials reversed. Also, when only short lived materials are chosen, there are so few other than around Iberia and there are practically no dates from France, none from Italy, none from Holland, none in Hungary etc so its basically worthless. There is no detailed discussion of the contexts of the crucial earliest samples - any further research into that is left to the reader. That is ridiculous as there are so few really early dates on short life materials that it would have taken little effort. The paper has clearly been stitched together by different authors with summaries at various points which are not even consistent. Its a terribly written paper that could have been so much better.

Given the extreme limitations of availability of beaker radiocarbon dates on short life samples like bone in secure contexts, the only meaningful take home is that it appears that beakers south of a line from Budapest through the Alps to NW Iberia generally look earlier and those to the north are later. The early zone takes in Iberia, southern France and north/central Italy and part of Hungary. Hungary being an outlier and based on just a couple of charcoal dates maybe is more questionable. The dates do not work in terms of beaker type chronology

In short the paper does not make an Iberian origin conclusion clear at all. All it really does is make an origin in southern Europe more likely and an origin in the much north less likely. Iberia only stands out because it has a couple of early dates on short life material while those kind of samples simply were not available for most of France, Italy etc. However, very little if anything is clearcut in this paper. It really highlights to me just how few safe radiocarbon dates there are for beaker in many areas. How this paper became the basis of an 'out of Iberia' origin soundbite over the last 10 years is unclear to me. Its possible but so are several other options on the basis of what you see in this paper.

To me it especially leaves wide open the possibility of north Italy being as old. A location like that would be far more comfortable to fit into R1b's east to west phylogeny as the Alps contain L51* and L11* concentrations. It also is closer to a location where prototypes for beakers were nearer to hand through the Alpine passes where corded ware was located and across the Adriatic in the Balkans. Northern Italy is also in a geographical good position to reach earlier beaker nodal points in the south of France, Iberia, south Germany, Hungary etc and already had a history of strong influence around the Alps in terms of pre-beaker copper age cultures from Austria to France. It wouldnt take a great leap of the imagination to see a widening of the old Remedello network at a time when the Ligurian copper mines that supplied from c. 3500-2600bc seem to come to an end. It appears that the copper mines and industry in Languedoc was not interested in outward trading beyond its locality and these mines may also have ceased within a century or so of the beaker culture arriving in adjacent Provence so that could have provided an incentive to explore other possibilities for supply and control including Iberia and the western Alps. Just exploring those two areas would have been enough to bring them into contact with corded ware as well as the metals and archery aspect of Iberia and the west Med. area which together could have formed something like an early proto-beaker package. Maybe this transformation of the old Remedello connected groups into beaker people took place around 2600BC or just before when the old Liguria mines were failing, the Languedoc mines were aloof to trading and new exploration was under way into the Alps and beyond. If little groups dispersed to find new mines and nodal trading points but remained connected in a network then you can see how ideas could have been taken from multiple areas and flowed throughout the whole network and converged these groups no matter where they were. It would be fascinating if the beaker culture reflected a sort of more expansive necessity-driven 2nd stage or offshoot of the Remedello network given that the latter does kind of prefigure some aspects of beaker behavior and also central European beaker craniology. It is also possible from a location like northern Italy to access all the beaker core areas in Provence, the Rhine, west-central Europe, even Hungary by land without much difficulty using passes that Remedello influence is already attested in. Also, people who had accessed mines in Liguria from 3500BC are also likely to have had the maritime ability to trade with somewhere like Portugal. Iberia itself lacked the outward looking prestige goods approach in its pre-beaker copper age but Remedello seems to have involved networking to link to fairly distant mines and to extend influence throughout the entire Alpine zone. So, Remedello linked elements do seem to me to have the geography, the experience and the motive to establish a new network c. 2700BC or so that became the beaker network and the actual Remedello burials and craniology do oddly prefigure beaker behavior.

I think a case can be built that Remedello-connected elements around the Alps, Liguria etc were well placed to create the beaker network and to create the culture through blending ideas from across the network. It certainly would fit R1b phylogeny better without needing epic geographical leaps. However, this essentially would then throw out the question of who were these pre-beaker copper peoples in Italy and the Alps and how did they come to have R1b. In the case of a location like this its possible to argue that they arrived in L23* form and gave birth to L51* in the Alps between Italy and Austria because the highest concentration of the latter recorded to date in a proper study is from Tyrol where it was only associated with the areas which had been Romance speaking in the past although German speaking today and was unknown in the areas of Tyrol where a Slavic settlement had taken place before Germanisation. That suggests to me that L51* is an ancient prehistoric clade in the area. It is also known in the Liguria and adjacent sort of areas in Italy and France etc. So, it fits rather well with the whole Ligurian mines-Remedello symbolism zone of the pre-beaker copper age c. 3500BC-2700BC.

So, who brought L51* or more likely its L23* ancestor to the Alpine area with its early mines and Remedello links? If it was the Balkans it is important to remember that by 3500BC the Balkans had been subject to early steppe elements intruding from 500 years before. So, the area featured likely hybrid cultures and steppe lineages. So it is not impossible to square a Balkans origin with steppe lineages around the period 3500C.

alan
09-25-2013, 10:46 AM
I think the truth is noone really has a clear picture about the finer details of metallurgy and the finer points need a larger database to have any confidence in. The dates have a lot of wriggle room because of dating issues. There is also the issue of the likely very low archaeological visibility of small groups of miners or metallurgists. I have read as much as I can on the whole copper phase thing and I dont think there is enough agreement even among the specialists to put together a clear story. Changes clearly did happen to the copper networks after the fall of Old Europe but the detail is not clear. The Maykop aspect is interesting but its chronology other than in the north Caucasus is really not earlier than 3500BC and so it could only have had a direct influence on the Old Europe area if there were very low visibility small movements of metallurgist across the Black Sea and up the Danube. Not impossible but I wouldnt want to build a whole case on it.


Chronology is an issue IMO but it may not be fully resolvable at present. The sort of axe the iceman had c. 3300BC and the sort of daggers on the stelae in the Alpine passes people like him haunted seem to date from as early as 3500BC and appear to also have some link to mining in Liguria which commenced at this time. This seems to me the most likely period that the Alpine stelae with Remedello daggers date to. Yamnaya settlement west of the Black Sea seems to date from only 2900BC according to a recent paper. So, I think this phenomenon is likely nothing to do with that phase of steppe influence anyway. However, I do realise that there were much earlier phases of steppe intrusion into the Balkans although I dont see how they are connected to stelae or metalworking and they pre-date the likely influence of Maykop and advanced metallurgy on steppe groups. For it all to add up and for the Alpine stelae showing Remdedello daggers to also have some steppe link with Kemi Oba and some link to a metallurgical new post-Carpatho-Balkans wave there is only a very tight window around 3500BC where all these things could connect IMO. I have basically hit a brick wall trying to find out much more about Kemi Oba and its dating other than vague statements in old books that do not explain how dates were arrived at. However, what I do not get is why would people with steppe links head up into the mountains and put Italian daggers and other local Alpine motifs on their stelae? I am not sure.



I don't feel something is quite right about our (or at least my) understanding of the spread of metallurgy.

Here are some points from "Ancestral Journeys The Peopling of Europe from the first Venturers to the Vikings" by Jean Manco, pp.113-115
p.113,
"A cold period afflicted Europe from 4200 to 3800 BC.
...
The only survivor of the rich Balkan cultures was Cucuteni-Tripolye..."
....
The Alps were also rich in copper, which was discovered by metalworkers c. 4500-4000 BC. Experiments were made in smelting the local ore at Brixlegg above the Middel Inn Valley in the Austrian Tyrol. The smelters may have been Balkan prospectors.
...
The search for copper had spread to northern Italy by c. 3500 BC, where the earliest known copper mines in western Europe were found at Monte Loreto (Castiglione, Chiavarese, Liguria). Copper Age cultures sprang up in Italy: Remdeddlo and Rinaldone in the north, and Guado in the south."

I interpret her position as there being that a strong possibility that the collapse of the Carpatho-Balkans Metallurgy Province may have helped disperse metalworking to western Europe.

One of the areas I'm confused is the dates are not lining up, at least if we think the Maikop should line up, p.108,
"Maikop culture (c.3700.3100 BC)"

Maybe that doesn't matter but it was the Maikop's that helped inject metallurgy into the Yamnaya and the the trail up the Danube into the Hungarian plains is part of David Anthony's PIE hypothesis for Italo-Celtic development.

Jean does say, p.163,
"We can also picture the mother group of Proto-Italo-Celtic speakers gradually moving further up the Danube from the Carpathian Basin and developing Proto-Celtic. If the Stelae people created the trade routes across Europe from the Carpathian Basin as far as Portugal, we can see how Bell Beaker ware developed in Portugal and yet crop up in Hungary."

So, that does make some sense. The early or pre-Beakers explored and established colonies but the "mother" group came later. This could also plain into Desideri's whole reflux concept but maybe that was just a second wave. I think Jean even makes a reference to two streams, one having DF27 and another having other L11, like L21. I'm not real comfortable about that, but it is something think about. To me the implication is that L51's and L11's split up (to P312 and U106) started somewhere close the Black Sea. On the way up the Danube, DF27 detoured southwest, L21 northwest and U152 just dropped off at home first in the Alps.
It just seems like the Stelae/early wave must not have been the main L11 lineage.

Now back to metals. I think the association of early arsenic/copper smelting with the Maikop (of the Circumpontic Metallurgy Province) is of no value to understanding migrations since arsenic/copper work was going on in the Carpatho-Balkans Metallurgy Province and into Italy already.

I'm not sure who to believe on metals, but Amzallag ("From Metallurgy to Bronze Age Civilizations: They Synthetic Theory") has a detailed case that he well defended against rebuttals. He is saying furnace smelting is the key to Maikop's metallurgical success and when the Balkans (including CBMP metallurgy) collapsed the true productive Circumpontic style quickly filled in all the way to Rio Tinto and Cabrieres. The timing for furnace smelting (not first smelting) to appear would fit a second wave/reflux or whatever it was that may have brought Pre or Proto-Celtic to the west in a subset of the Beaker folks on David Anthony's track.

I think metallurgy is a much more complex subject than pottery and even cranial data. I guess you all can tell me why arsenic is all we need to know. I just can't find much more detail on the types of smelting so I have a tendency to give Allamazag the benefit of the doubt because seems confident with the details of furnace smelting, it makes logical sense (much more productive) as a driver of economic success, and it fits nicely with Anthony linguistic flow, genetically with a strong L11 drive up the Danube, and would be just right for Desideri's dental facts and a type of Eastern Beakers who interacted with Corded Ware (a nice path for U106 to branch off to the north.)

BTW, I apologize if I'm not interpreting anyone correctly. I realize summarizing in one's own words can end up misrepresenting something inadvertantly.

R.Rocca
09-25-2013, 01:14 PM
While the expansion of the Copper Age into S. France is complicated, we can see a steady expansion in the use of copper daggers from areas close to Brixlegg (Waldsee and Mondsee c.~3700 BC) and then making hops into N. Italy (Remedello/Spilamberto & Rinaldone) and from there into S. France. This is likely the path of the Stelae People as well.

Vaquer et. al (2005) Les poignards métalliques et lithiques du Chalcolithique pré-campaniforme des petits et Grands Causses dans le Midi de la France

http://www.academia.edu/1475585/Les_poignards_metalliques_et_lithiques_du_Chalcoli thique_pre-campaniforme_des_petits_et_Grands_Causses_dans_le_ Midi_de_la_France

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

TigerMW
09-25-2013, 02:24 PM
...Chronology is an issue IMO but it may not be fully resolvable at present.I think its worse than that. The chronology doesn't work without some kind of multiple wave or reflux considerations, but also then the haplogroups involved may have been different.


While the expansion of the Copper Age into S. France is complicated, we can see a steady expansion in the use of copper daggers from areas close to Brixlegg (Waldsee and Mondsee c.~3700 BC) and then making hops into N. Italy (Remedello/Spilamberto & Rinaldone) and from there into S. France. This is likely the path of the Stelae People as well.
.... [/IMG]
This is what I mean about timing. Those dates are fine for a early spread of rudimentary copper working... and to align the Stelae People as the early western Pre-Bell Beaker folks.

However, as noted by RMS2, David Anthony aligns the Italo-Celt and Germanic dialect flows west with Yamnaya initiated archaeological movements as described below.

In the "The Horse The Wheel and Language...", pp.367-8. Anthony wrote,
"Bell Beaker sites of the Csepel type around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto-Celtic. Pre-Italic could have developed among the dialects that remained in Hungary, ultimately spreading into Italy through the Urnfield and Villanovan cultures. Eric Hamp and others have revived the argument that Italic and Celtic shared a common parent, so a single migration stream could have contained dialects that later were ancestral to both."
...

"The Yamnaya and Corded Ware horizons bordered each other in the hills between Lvov and Ivano-Frankovsk, Ukraine, in the upper Dniester piedmont around 2800-2600BCE (see figure 14.1). At that time early Corded Ware cemeteries were confined to the uppermost headwaters of the Dniester west of Lvov, the same territory that had earlier been occupied by the late TRB communities infiltrated by late Tripolye groups. 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. Between 2700 and 2600 BCE Corded Ware and late Yamnaya herders met each other on the upper Dniester over cups of mead or beer. This meeting was another opportunity for language shift, and it is possible that Pre-Germanic dialects either originated here or were enriched by this additional contact.

The wide-ranging pattern of interaction that the Corded Ware horizon inaugurated across northern Europe provided an optimal medium for language spread."

Anthony's timing would be just right, I think, for an advanced of the highly productive and technically more challenging furnace smelting of Nissan's Amzallag's hypothesis. This also does a better job of an origination of P312 subclades that is more Alpine oriented... which of course helps U106 to fit. These could be be the Desideri "reflux" people although it may have just been a second wave. Desideri calls them Beaker folks rather than Bell Beaker folks. Maybe we should just call them the eastern Bell Beaker folks. L11 could have been with both the western and eastern types but I don't see this kind of diversity separation. Perhaps this is what Jean meant by her two streams with early DF27 in Iberia being one of them.... but I don't think they are true pre-Celtic then, linguistically. Jean also places Etruscans as potential separators with Celtic gaining dominance on one side and Italic on their southern flank. Maybe that helps explain it, too.

alan
09-25-2013, 08:38 PM
Thanks for posting that. The dagger trail is another interesting way of looking at it. I agree that Stelae people in the sense of a spread of the full range of developed copper working and mining is an interesting idea and the pre-beaker interactions involved are very interesting, especially the Italian link of the daggers on the Alpine stelae. However, what I dont really see, although I want to see, is how this ties in with the steppes. Certainly that trail starts almost 1000 years before Yamnaya spread west of the Black Sea.

It does point towards the Balkans. The Balkans of course had seen steppe intrusions c. 4000BC long before Yamnaya. So there were steppe elements in the Balkans mix at the time and hybrid cultures. What I cannot seem to find is information on Kemi Oba other than standard short statements in old texts. It would have to be very old to tie in with this dagger trail. I am never comfortable reading much into the spread of a single artifact type but in this case it also seems to be linked to the spread of developed metallurgy and mining etc. I think most of us have felt that the appearance of all of this must have ultimate links to the area just to the east of the Alps and the Balkans. The problem with metallugical specialists is they do not agree with each other athough most look to points east somewhere.

A lot of reading into this has made it clear to me that its not a simple case of old Balkans metalwork vs CMP derived tradition ultimately derived from the Caucasus (even Iran before that). Within the Balkans themselves after 4000BC the mining moved west from the old sites into I think Romania and Hungary. So there was a period when there was a mixture of perhaps older and steppe groups in the Balkans involved in metalwork. This falls between the classic Balko-Carpathians networks fall and the Yamnaya stype intrusions, roughly in the period 4000-3000BC. There were from memory early steppe groups of that Suvorovo type wave who made a beeline for ore areas in the uplands in that area. I think Anthony mentions this. So, there is a period when there was a mixed steppe-old European population in the Balkans and metal traditions there around the time of the commencement of that dagger trail and not long before the appearance of advanced copper traditions in Italy, mines in Liguria, remedello axes being carried by the ice men and daggers being carved in stelae.

This phenomenon seems to have reached Italy and the Alps by 3500BC if not before. So, that sort of date, if not a century or two earlier is the latest date in which a steppe or IE elements in the mix in the Balkans could have been encorporated. So, if there is a steppe link, it is with cultures from there who had entered the Balkans in the period before 3500BC and probably a century or two before that. The only way I can see a connection between IE, R1b, developed copper metallurgy and the steppes is somewhere in the soup of peoples in the Balkans between 4000BC and perhaps 3700BC. Maybe there is no link though and like the Ice Man its not to do with R1b.

What I would like some clarification on is the link of the Alpine Stelae with Kemi Oba that has been suggested in a few papers and further expanded on in terms of DNA in Jean's work. The chronology seems extremely vague. Probably not surprising since many of the stelae there seem to be reused and found in later tombs. The question is how much older were the original users of those stelae that were reused by Yamnaya etc. To tie in with the whole idea of linking together Alpine stelae, IE, R1b, Remedello type cultures, early mining etc, any steppe element would have had to have been in the Balkans or Danube sort of area before 3500BC, preferably at least a couple of centuries before. Does Kemi Oba fit this. I honestly do not know. It seems rather early but I just cannot get much information on the dating of that culture. If its mostly based on re-used stelae, safe dating might be a major problem, possibly the reason for the vagueness in available info on the net.

However, even if a literal link with Kemi Oba turned out to be impossible based on date, as I said, some of the early Suvorovo type steppe groups did take an interest in controlling metal and this can be seen by the unexpected appearance in upland areas, contrary to the general steppe habit of settling steppe-like environments when they invaded old Europe. When Suvorovo groups invaded they were used to pure copper form the old mines which they mainly used for trinkets rather than tools or weapons - there was the odd copper shafthole axe. However, ironically there arrival was about the time that source collapsed and they were probably partly responsible along with the climate.

The new sources were in Transylvania and Hungary. Anthony notes that one of the smaller Suvorovo groups moved to Transylvania and to the copper rich Mures valley in eastern Hungary. They had a cemetery there at Decea Muresului and apparently this little steppe group integrated with the locals who were passing from the Tszapolgar to the Bodrogkeresztur periods c. 4000-3900BC. The latter is the earliest datapoint on the dagger map RR just posted. Perhaps some sort of link between metal working, old europeans, steppe peoples, R1b, IE langiages etc took place there and that this has some connection with the spread into the Alps and Italy. For those interested in dialect shifts or worried that these should be considered Anatolian speakers in Anthony's model it is worth noting that this is not generally accepted and also Yamnaya groups 1000 years later settled closeby too and could have influenced the dialect.

On the other hand to look at another option (which Anthony attributes to pre-Germanic) Usatovo has several attributes that area also of interest. They traded, they were in a sort of blend between the old and steppe world., they may have had maritime skills and they were big into the dagger as a symbol. They were located at the Dniester river mouth and Crimea sort of area at the eastern boundary of old Europe. There is something about their traits that put me in mind in a very broad sense of groups like Remedello and the stelae and even ultimately beaker behavour. However, this dagger thing seems to have been a general SE European and Anatolian thing and the dates for Usatovo seem a few centuries too late to relate to the whole copper thing in the Alps.


While the expansion of the Copper Age into S. France is complicated, we can see a steady expansion in the use of copper daggers from areas close to Brixlegg (Waldsee and Mondsee c.~3700 BC) and then making hops into N. Italy (Remedello/Spilamberto & Rinaldone) and from there into S. France. This is likely the path of the Stelae People as well.

Vaquer et. al (2005) Les poignards métalliques et lithiques du Chalcolithique pré-campaniforme des petits et Grands Causses dans le Midi de la France

http://www.academia.edu/1475585/Les_poignards_metalliques_et_lithiques_du_Chalcoli thique_pre-campaniforme_des_petits_et_Grands_Causses_dans_le_ Midi_de_la_France

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

alan
09-25-2013, 09:06 PM
Rich

Thanks again for posting that. Really the origin being in Bodrogkeresztur c 4000BC at the very time when Suvorovo steppe groups appeared and integrated in this new copper source region and culture with the locals is fascinating. Not only the knives but the copper sources here take off at the same time when the locals and steppe nomads met. That ties a lot of interesting aspects together. Was this where some sort of steppe-old European hybrid group originated the copper dagger elite we see spreading through the Alps and along the west Med. Is this the tie in between IE, early post-Old Europe collapse copper, the dagger cultures, the spread of mining and even R1b? Its certainly one of the best options I can see.

If, and I know its a big if, this was tied to R1b then the model could be L23* people in eastern Europe among the Bodrogkeresztur-Suvorovo mix in eastern Hungary passing into L51* in the Alps, Italy and southern France then L11* somewhere in the westernmost Alps. That seems to connect a hell of a lot together and provides that link to the steppes too. It does broadly fit R1b phylogenic geography and dating.

If it was the Suvorovo elite who took control of this new well spring of copper technology while at the same time integrating into the locals this could fit R1b on another level. The concept of an elite lineage with an interest in control of metals rather than a whole population expansion also fits well the clan like spread of L51-L11 etc. It also would explain why it doesnt appear in the archaeological record as a population movement but rather the spread of an elite who generally would intergrate with the local cultures. This fits very well as its a relatively thin trail that we see in L51* and L11* and there is no sign of anything like a folk movement in that phase.

alan
09-25-2013, 09:35 PM
This is the best summary of Bodrogkeresztur I could come up with on the web

http://www.donau-archaeologie.de/doku.php/kulturen/bodrogkeresztur_english_version

TigerMW
09-25-2013, 10:53 PM
Anthony's timing would be just right, I think, for an advance of the highly productive and technically more challenging furnace smelting of Nissan's Amzallag's hypothesis. This also does a better job of an origination of P312 subclades that is more Alpine oriented... which of course helps U106 to fit. These could be be the Desideri "reflux" people although it may have just been a second wave. Desideri calls them Beaker folks rather than Bell Beaker folks. Maybe we should just call them the eastern Bell Beaker folks. L11 could have been with both the western and eastern types but I don't see this kind of diversity separation. Perhaps this is what Jean meant by her two streams with early DF27 in Iberia being one of them.... but I don't think they are true pre-Celtic then, linguistically..

I'm going to use Jean Manco's terminology when discussing the various types of Bell Beaker folks. Below is more from Jean's book, "Ancestral Journeys The Peopling of Europe from the first Venturers to the Vikings". BTW, I'm not trying to say 100% of everything Jean says is right. I'm sure she would not claim that. I'm also not trying to critique the book. I'm just using it as a base-line and source as it is a nice compilation of pertinent information, similarly to what David Anthony has done for PIE.

As far as the Beakers, on the one hand there is some continuity in the copper mining/working sites in western Europe. p.161,
"The Beaker people seem to have arrived swiftly in Iberia. Some of their earliest sites are found in Portugal. Or to be more exact, they appear to be the same people who had brought copper working earlier. There is no change of in the metal-working technology when Bell Beaker pottery began to be made.
...
A study of inherited dental traits found that the Bell Beaker people were newcomers in Hungary and the Czech Republic, but a different pictured emerged in southern France, northern Spain and western Switzerland."

As Jean notes, the Eastern Bell Beakers were different. p.166,
"North of the Alps, people of the Eastern Bell Beaker group established themselves in what was to become a powerful trading nexus. On the east the Rhine linked the Carpathians and the North Sea; on the west the Saone-Rhone corridor linked the Mediterranean and Central Europe. The Alpine passes could also be controlled from north of the Alps. To judge by the by an abrupt change of orientation and new arrivals at the Alpine sites of Sion and Aosta, that control was exerted as early as c.2425 BC, at the expense of their distant cousins the Stelae people."

Don't forget that the Eastern Bell Beakers had similar metallurgy to the subset of the Corded Ware horizon that was adjacent to them. That doesn't mean that Eastern Bell Beakers came from Corded Ware but maybe that element of Corded Ware and the Eastern Bell Beakers had input from somewhere else, for instance, the Yamnaya reaching that area.

I don't know if Richard Rocca still agrees, but last I checked I saw high diversity for U152 in and on the northern side of the Alps (including southeastern France), not really on the southern side of the Alps. We know L21 and U106 were on the northern side of the Alps. Unless we start finding a lot of DF27, as in DF27* types, in places like Sardinia and Sicily...

I would submit that the "mother" (Jean's word) group contained R1b-L11 and drove up the Danube on the east and north sides of the Alps, branching off as they reached places like Austria, Czech Republic, Bavaria and France while reaching south into Italy proper as well.

The corollary is that the early Southern (and western) Bell Beakers were of light R1b content. Of course, that might be expected for early exploratory colonies and trading posts. The early outposts might really have needed those promontory located fortresses, like at Los Millares, c.3200 BC. I just checked and see that Amzallag says Los Millares was doing the crucible smelting, not the furnace.

Massive population change takes take time and settlers. Perhaps just limited L23*, and/or L51* (or R1b-L51+ 426=13/Z2113 subclade) were part of the exploratory migrations. The wagon trains (so to speak) came later. Perhaps the early exploration leaders, maybe the Stelae people, recruited some (indigenous) scouts among the indigenous people who might have provided much of the the prospecting and mining labor.

alan
09-26-2013, 12:50 AM
Mike said

I would submit that the "mother" (Jean's word) group contained R1b-L11 and drove up the Danube on the east and north sides of the Alps, branching off as they reached places like Austria, Czech Republic, Bavaria and France while reaching south into Italy proper as well.


I think its safe to say that R1b almost demands a route somewhere along these lines. However, it probably simply cannot be fit into the most simplistic view of beaker people spreading with maritime pots from Iberia as its directionally wrong. So, either the pre-beaker sweep west is the answer or R1b and beakers only met later. Obviously there are problems explaining R1b in Iberia and some other places if we only see R1b and beaker meeting in central Europe.

The pre-beaker copper age spread through the Alps then along the west Med. which Jean calls the Stelae people is probably the more intuitive option although its shadowy in that copper and some other traits spread but there is no unified cultural wave. On the other hand its a lineage not a population that is spreading so we maybe shouldnt expect a self evident cultural wave uniting the whole area.

My main concern about the pre-beaker copper age stelae people type idea is to make the dates fit and the right mix of attributes to mix. I think its fair to say that important similar changes did sweep across the Alps, Italy and the west Med. from 3700-3000BC. These include advanced copper traditions, mining, dagger imagery, Remedello type imagery on stelae etc. Where I think it gets hazy is the origin point and making the dates work.

This stelae people type idea if it links all the attributes I just listed looks like it had to have reached Italy and the Alps c, 3600BC or thereabouts. The paper RR posted about the origin of the new copper knife traditions seems to also reach the right areas at the right time around the same time as the other indicators appear. The origin point and date of the knives also corresponds with where the copper sources are thought to have shifted to i.e. new mines when the old Balkans ones fell. The time and location is approximately when Suvorovo peoples reached this area and melted into the local Bodrogkeresztur population who seem to have had a high level of metallurgical skills - something that the Suvorovo didnt have and only used for trinkets, relying mainly on lithics for tools and weapons. That group had connections well to the east and south and were very copper rich. That potentially ties the new wave of post-collapse copper working of SE Europe, the dagger elite symbol, the main new copper ore source etc with a culture who absorbed a Suvorovo element. This happened shortly after 4000BC, early enough to be seen as ancestral to the spread of the wave of copper working and dagger elites that spread west. This area afterwards was probably undisturbed by further steppe invasions until after 2900BC so this group had plenty of time to develop.

It is a stage between the Old Balko-Carpathian and the CMP networks (which really only exerted influence after 3500BC which always seemed too tight timewise and probably only reached Old Europe through steppe migrants several centuries later) but crucially it was centred at a point where and when natives and a Suvorovo steppe group met in a metal centre area and merged according to Anthony. The Bodrogkeresztur culture networked very widely with links in all directions including to the western edge of the steppes, cucuteni etc. The culture survived long enough to pass the torch westwards. It fits chronologically very well whereas there are chronological problems with other options. Whats not to like?

alan
09-26-2013, 12:55 AM
The moderator has a point. We all have a big picture theory on how it all fits together but threads need to focus on a particular topic. There are so many aspects to this all involving so much information that it needs broken into little bits to deal with. This thread is about beaker and the immediate pre-beaker copper age cultures that might have been ancestral to it. We are looking into that in order to compare notes on this subject to work out what is possible. Rich's post on daggers just really made a few things suddenly drop into place for me and the thread has been very useful because it is focused on one subject.



You cant just throw my posts were ever u want. THE GERMANIC ITALO CELTS ARE EXTREMLY IMPORTNAT TO BELL BEAKER AND R1B L11. So what if my grammar isn't perfect it shouldn't offend anyone just deal with it and listen to my point that is what's important.. And can you please answer the question.

Fire Haired
09-26-2013, 01:42 AM
Can he at least answer my question? Where do u guys get so much detailed information about this stuff there is no way it is from Wikpedia. I thought this was a free forum. He can politely tell me to stay on the subject which I was not that far off of. He doesn't have to insult me and move my posts before a warning I have a good reason to be angry.

[[[Mikewww/Moderator on 09/25/2013: You are right we have to resolve this. I'll work on that. It works better if you use good grammar and punctuation so we can tell when you are asking questions. I suggest you check with your public library so you can do research even though I know you've said you dislike books. I still think you should order the "Ancestral Journeys" book I've recommended. There is a ton on-line that is free that can be found with internet searches. Please consider using your persistence and energy to do a little more homework. You've been warned so we are just wasting space. ]]]

alan
09-26-2013, 01:59 AM
Its not from Wikipedia. Most of the papers can be found by googling a subject say 'bell beakers in France' and if you persist for a few papes free papers or books usually come up - usually academia.edu or google books but sometimes others. Its often a case of checking onto the 2nd or 3rd page of hits before they pop up. The problem with these subjects we are interested in is it involves DNA, linguistic, archaeology, geography and all sorts of stuff that takes years to get a grip on. Its easy to just drown in the amount of info out there. I have some background in this area but I seriously sometimes feel even after years of reading hundreds of papers that its still looking through a very dirty window and its very hard to make it all come together.

For the best summary on all aspects of genes, movements of people and languages you should buy Jean Manco's book Ancestral Journeys: The peopling of Europe... Its available on Amazon. She has read pretty well all you can on these subjects up to the point of publishing and its the only book of its type that brings it all together in an up to date way. Jean has been a long term major contributor to these forums including this one.


Can he at least answer my question? Where do u guys get so much detailed information about this stuff there is no way it is from Wikpedia. I thought this was a free forum. He can politely tell me to stay on the subject which I was not that far off of. He doesn't have to insult me and move my posts before a warning I have a good reason to be angry.

Fire Haired
09-26-2013, 02:12 AM
Its not from Wikipedia. Most of the papers can be found by googling a subject say 'bell beakers in France' and if you persist for a few papes free papers or books usually come up - usually academia.edu or google books but sometimes others. Its often a case of checking onto the 2nd or 3rd page of hits before they pop up. The problem with these subjects we are interested in is it involves DNA, linguistic, archaeology, geography and all sorts of stuff that takes years to get a grip on. Its easy to just drown in the amount of info out there. I have some background in this area but I seriously sometimes feel even after years of reading hundreds of papers that its still looking through a very dirty window and its very hard to make it all come together.

For the best summary on all aspects of genes, movements of people and languages you should buy Jean Manco's book Ancestral Journeys: The peopling of Europe... Its available on Amazon. She has read pretty well all you can on these subjects up to the point of publishing and its the only book of its type that brings it all together in an up to date way. Jean has been a long term major contributor to these forums including this one.

Thank u that's how I thought u got all of this info just wanted to make sure. But I am not sure I can trust one persons opinion. I would just want to know the were the remains are found the dates that type of stuff and come up with my own opinion and look at other people's opinion like Jean is it is he or she. So are u saying Jean is apart of this forum.

[[[ Mikewww/Moderator on 09/25/2013: This is a good exchange for PM's (Private Messages or emails). Let's stick to the topic. ]]]

alan
09-26-2013, 07:04 AM
I suppose the big question no matter what variant one puts on the pre-beaker copper age phenomenon across the Alps, Italy and the west Med. is does it relate to R1b. The ice man is the closest to a genetic datapoint being found in a pass with stelae clutching a remedello axe c. 3300BC but his not R1b. Not that that is remotely enough to conclude anything but had he been R1b it would have been nice lol. Positive evidence only needs one hit but negative evidence needs a good number of misses before it become siginificant.

rms2
09-26-2013, 11:43 AM
If you get the chance, check the following book out. The whole thing is online. It's from 1974, but it has some very interesting stuff on Rhenish Beaker.

The Rhine/Meuse Delta: Four Studies on its Prehistoric Occupation and Holocene Geology (http://tinyurl.com/kzumh85) by Leendert P. Louwe Kooijmans

On page 319-320 Kooijmans discusses "The archaeological consequences of the anthropological data", which is mainly a treatment of skull shapes. Interesting.

Wish I had more time to discuss this this morning, but Kooijmans mentions a radical change in skull shape from the Single Grave culture to Beaker, i.e., from dolichocephalic (long skulled) to brachycephalic (round skulled) and hyper-brachycephalic Steilkopf ("steep head"). He interprets the change as indicative of a Beaker immigration in which the men were the new element who recruited women from the local population (p. 320).

Jean M
09-26-2013, 11:54 AM
I'm going to use Jean Manco's terminology when discussing the various types of Bell Beaker folks. Below is more from Jean's book, "Ancestral Journeys The Peopling of Europe from the first Venturers to the Vikings". BTW, I'm not trying to say 100% of everything Jean says is right. I'm sure she would not claim that. I'm also not trying to critique the book. I'm just using it as a base-line and source

Absolutely fine. It is out there now.


The corollary is that the early Southern (and western) Bell Beakers were of light R1b content..

Why do you say that? Looks like they carried R1b-P312, and that DF27 sprang up somewhere along that southern route, in Iberia or France or wherever.

As to numbers, I picture small numbers initially, but that has nothing to do with how many of them carried R1b-P312. The scouts would be reinforced by later waves of migration. But we can also picture a process of outbreeding the Neolithic locals over time, due to economic advantages. We need to understand that DF27 looks like a pretty large component of modern Iberian Y-DNA.

Jean M
09-26-2013, 12:03 PM
But I am not sure I can trust one persons opinion. I would just want to know the were the remains are found the dates that type of stuff and come up with my own opinion .


You certainly should not trust one person's opinion. That is why I include references to all my sources and encourage people to read those sources for themselves. My book is simply being recommended as a handy way to find a lot of relevant data.

And by the way, although it took between four and five years to get from research to print, that does not mean that it represents the thinking of circa 2009. It was updated with the latest papers right up to the point when it was indexed for print this May.

alan
09-26-2013, 04:25 PM
I have often wondered if we should read any significance into the higher DF27 in eastern Iberia compared to Atlantic Iberia, which is the opposite of what we would expect in terms of the earlier beaker distribution.

alan
09-26-2013, 04:57 PM
If nothing else its an impressive map of the diffusion of a status symbol roughly in tandem with the spread of a new wave of copper working, mining etc westwards. The date and position the map puts the earliest date is as I have posted an interesting time and place where a new copper centre with roots in the old Balkans ones to the east that had died out met a small Suvorovo group c. 4000BC in an apparently not unfriendly way. These steppe groups did not really have a prior tradition of using copper for weapons other than very rare copper axes that were made of the old copper whose network they helped destroy. Interestingly though the old Balko-Carpathian metal tradition doesnt seem to include daggers in Chernyks illustrations so it was maybe the application of a new material to a flint knife tradition. The suvorovo people did use some really nasty large flint blades though. So maybe the copper knife traditions is some sort of hybrid between copper skills and a tradition of large flint knives.

This of course is not be confused with the CMP which originated in Maykop and spread into the steppes around 3500BC only to be brought west by later steppe elements.

I want to have a bit more of a dig into this phase of copper in east-central Europe that falls between the classic Balko-Carpathian and the CMP - roughly the gap is 4000-3500/3000BC depending on location. Chernynk doesnt discuss this middle phase between them.


While the expansion of the Copper Age into S. France is complicated, we can see a steady expansion in the use of copper daggers from areas close to Brixlegg (Waldsee and Mondsee c.~3700 BC) and then making hops into N. Italy (Remedello/Spilamberto & Rinaldone) and from there into S. France. This is likely the path of the Stelae People as well.

Vaquer et. al (2005) Les poignards métalliques et lithiques du Chalcolithique pré-campaniforme des petits et Grands Causses dans le Midi de la France

http://www.academia.edu/1475585/Les_poignards_metalliques_et_lithiques_du_Chalcoli thique_pre-campaniforme_des_petits_et_Grands_Causses_dans_le_ Midi_de_la_France

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

TigerMW
09-26-2013, 06:07 PM
The corollary is that the early Southern (and western) Bell Beakers were of light R1b content..


Why do you say that? Looks like they carried R1b-P312, and that DF27 sprang up somewhere along that southern route, in Iberia or France or wherever.

As to numbers, I picture small numbers initially, but that has nothing to do with how many of them carried R1b-P312. The scouts would be reinforced by later waves of migration. But we can also picture a process of outbreeding the Neolithic locals over time, due to economic advantages. We need to understand that DF27 looks like a pretty large component of modern Iberian Y-DNA.

I am just saying that is the corollary to that specific scenario. Of course this is a speculation, but one scenario which ties in nicely with David Anthony's Italo-Celtic dialect/language hypothesis is that the bulk of the IE speaking settlers came over land in a second (or at least not the first) wave of what we think of as Beaker folks. The scenario would suppose that the early Beaker folks to the west were less populous. This might be expected if they had to reach Portugal and coastal Spain by boat.

I'm truly speculating, but since I'm not a believer in frequency=origin and we have DF27 spread all over the place I think it could have come from the Alpine (not coastal) areas as an over-land settler in multiple waves. Iberia looks like pooling place for DF27, the Isles for L21, the Rhine and Alps for U152 and northern Europe for U106. If I had to guess, U152 is closest to home.

Look at L21 in Ireland. You note in "Ancestral Journeys..." on p.165,
"The only type (of Beaker wrist guard) found among the Early or Southern Bell Beaker group is narrow with two holes ... Broader , four-holed types predominate in Central Europe, England and Scotland ... while Ireland has almost exclusively two-holed types." There is a linguistic alignment too, because Ireland had the archaic Celtic variants, similar to Iberia.

However, the genetics don't nicely align with the wrist guards, p. 169,
"the predominance of R1b-L21 over R1b-DF27-derived subclades of R1b-P312 in the British Isles suggestest that British and Irish Bell Beaker people mostly arrived via the Rhine route."
We need to spefically re-do/update the British Isles research and rework an hypothesis on the settling of the Isles based on all of the great and in-depth data we now have. Of course, it would be nice to have ancient DNA and French data first.

I'm only looking at this anecdotally, but I've seen a ton of Isles data and it is apparent, based on both STR and SNP branching data, that L21 comes from Britain into Ireland, probably in multiple waves. Yes, there were multiple directions of movement, but the bulk or heaviest concentrations of L21 lineages were Britain to Ireland. Apparently, the L21 wave(s) didn't chang the culture completely in Ireland like they did in Pre-Roman Britain, though.

When I look at the R1b-P312 L21- U152- in the Isles, there is not the dominance of familiar Irish and Scottish sounding names. It's more English like, even in Ireland and possibly there is a Nordic tint some times. I think there might be some from the Atlantic Bronze Age timeframe. I would expect so, anyway, but it looks like the early Celtic/pre-Celtic culture in Ireland stayed while new people came in.

I don't have the same data and don't necessarily see the same pattern for DF27 in Iberia versus north of the Pyrenees. We know that some of it, i.e. the Basques, could be recent immigrants. We also know there were Urnfield, Gaulish language influences, etc. On DF27, I don't know, but I don't think it is necessarily a given that DF27 established itself in Iberia with the first Beaker folks there. The SNP counting age estimates might eventually be helpful, but I don't think that DF27, L21 and U152; and U106 are that far apart in age, which makes a nicer fit for an L11 launch point from or just outside the Alps. This also helps support the Yamnaya to Italo-Celtic branching timeline David Anthony has set forth and might support (if I really understand it) Desideri's Beaker (Eastern Bell Beaker) folk findings. Could the events at Sion be a part of the larger picture?

Again, I don't know. I just haven't totally bought in that DF27, L21 and U152 were in the earliest Bell Beaker folks. These L11 subclades were clearly in the groups that swamped the rest but that doesn't make them the first colonizers. I'm also not totally sold that the earliest far western Beakers were even full IE speaking... maybe they were, but used the native languages until large groups of distant cousins started coming, perhaps with better metallurgy or better military support. I think there really might be something to the better metallurgical practices being part of the L11 success formula to go with the full PIE society benefits.

I'm not one who sees myself in one camp or another, but maybe I'm now a central Europeanist. However, I don't mean that in the "classical Celt" sense, but of earlier times, as opposed to the earliest maritime Beakers. I'm trying to reconcile the dating, the distance to Portugal and the PIE timeline... along with the continuity in early west/Southern Beaker metallurgical practices.

I do think the Cetina culture is quite intriguing, though. Especially if they were strong shipbuilders and navigators. Maybe my understanding of the timeline and transportation/population logistics is off. Maybe Maikop is a red herring for R1b.

Jean M
09-26-2013, 07:25 PM
one scenario which ties in nicely with David Anthony's Italo-Celtic dialect/language hypothesis is that the bulk of the IE speaking settlers came over land in a second (or at least not the first) wave of what we think of as Beaker folks.

Not really. David Anthony 2013 suggests a date around 3000 BC for the departure from the steppe of the stream which ended up as Proto-Italo-Celtic. That does not mean absolutely on the dot of 3000 BC for the very first metal workers scouting out routes. The earliest metal-working in Iberia is about 3100 BC.

If by second wave of Beaker folk you mean the Eastern Bell Beaker, that only enters Central Europe c. 2500 BC and comes into Iberia from about 2200 BC. It never spread over the whole of Iberia and seems linked to early Celtic (Celtiberian). We have place-name and other evidence of earlier forms of Italo-Celtic which were widespread in Iberia. I do lay out this evidence in the book. So I won't be arguing it out at length here.

Those who don't like my conclusions will have to wait, just as I do, for ancient DNA to resolve the matter.

Jean M
09-26-2013, 08:09 PM
Look at L21 in Ireland. You note in "Ancestral Journeys..." on p.165,
"The only type (of Beaker wrist guard) found among the Early or Southern Bell Beaker group is narrow with two holes ... Broader , four-holed types predominate in Central Europe, England and Scotland ... while Ireland has almost exclusively two-holed types." There is a linguistic alignment too, because Ireland had the archaic Celtic variants, similar to Iberia.


Yes I didn't fully spell out my thinking on IE language progression in Ireland in the book. It looks as though early Beaker people settling in Ireland actually came up the Atlantic coast and (in my scheme) would have spoken Italo-Celtic. True Celtic would have arisen (in my scheme) from later arrivals, carrying L21.

Some authors have taken the mention in the Ora Maritima to Ligurians evicted by Celts (somewhere along the Atlantic coast) to refer to Ireland. In my view it is too vague for clarity on location. In any case it is more likely to refer to Iron Age Celtic movements in living memory for the Ancient Greeks, rather than Late Bell Beaker. So I don't think that the issue can be resolved by the Ora Maritima.

alan
09-26-2013, 09:02 PM
This is an interesting review that touches on the subject of the early Ochre graves in Transylvania. They seem very early indeed.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prehistoric/reviews/05_02_govedarica.htm

It highlights the Decea Muresului cemetery of western Transylvania.

It notes:

an AMS date for Grave 12, Decea Muresului, with a stone sceptre, flint blade, copper needle, Unio necklace & one vessel (5380�40 BP: 4335-4085 cal BC at 2 sigmas: KIA 368); and an AMS date for the grave at Cainari (5580�50 BP: 4511-4339 cal BC at 2 sigmas: KIA 369). Both dates confirm the position of the Ochre Grave complex in the early- to middle- 5th millennium cal BC.

Mallory interpreted them as a mobile group trading lithics and copper

for the first time, of the key mortuary site of Giurgiulesti, previously presented in outline by Haheu & Kurciatov in 1993. The discovery of rich Early Copper Age finds under Tumulus 2, in the context of two �cult places� and five rich graves (3 catacomb graves and 2 shaft graves), has shifted perceptions of Ochre Graves in favour of the Eastward spread of prestige grave goods from Varna.


Unfortunately, no AMS dates are published for Giurgiulesti but the author publishes two new dates for other important sites: an AMS date for Grave 12, Decea Muresului, with a stone sceptre, flint blade, copper needle, Unio necklace & one vessel (5380�40 BP: 4335-4085 cal BC at 2 sigmas: KIA 368); and an AMS date for the grave at Cainari (5580�50 BP: 4511-4339 cal BC at 2 sigmas: KIA 369). Both dates confirm the position of the Ochre Grave complex in the early- to middle- 5th millennium cal BC

The conclusions on Early Ochre Grave mortuary practices was used, in Chapter IV, to make typological comparisons of all grave goods with datable finds from the Balkan Eneolithic. Four finds categories (16 finds classes) were found to date to Pre-Cucuteni III � Cucuteni A, while two finds categories (5 finds classes) dated much later - to Cucuteni AB � B � Tripolye C. This is in harmony with the AMS 14-C evidence, suggesting that the Early Ochre Graves lasted approximately 500-600 years from c. 4650-4000 cal BC. A more detailed internal chronology (Chapter V) enabled a division of the complex into 3 periods: Period I (pre-sceptre period, subdivided into A (Giurgiulesti) and B (Capli - Cainari)) � an important period found only in the West, North and Northwest Pontic; Period II (mace-head period) � a short, transitional period found only in the Carpathian, North Pontic and North Caucasus areas; and Period III (sceptre and flint axe period) � an important period found in all five regions. This internal chronology shows that the stone sceptres were in use for only about two centuries, although presumably their biography could have been extended as heirlooms for several centuries more.

Exceptionally, a stone stele was found at Capli

It seems to be putting this stele in the early ochre grave period. Wher is Capli?

Another review on the subject of these ochre graves

http://www.academia.edu/2056814/2005_Book_review_of_Zeptertrager_Herrscher_der_Ste ppen._Die_fruhen_Ockergraber_des_alteren_Aneolithi kums_im_karpatenbalkanischen_Gebiet_und_in_Steppen raum_Sudost-_und_Osteuropas_Balkankommission_der_Heidelberger_ Akademie_der_Wissenschaften_6._by_Blagoje_Govedari ca

TigerMW
09-26-2013, 09:33 PM
Not really. David Anthony 2013 suggests a date around 3000 BC for the departure from the steppe of the stream which ended up as Proto-Italo-Celtic. That does not mean absolutely on the dot of 3000 BC for the very first metal workers scouting out routes. The earliest metal-working in Iberia is about 3100 BC.

If by second wave of Beaker folk you mean the Eastern Bell Beaker, that only enters Central Europe c. 2500 BC and comes into Iberia from about 2200 BC. It never spread over the whole of Iberia and seems linked to early Celtic (Celtiberian). We have place-name and other evidence of earlier forms of Italo-Celtic which were widespread in Iberia. I do lay out this evidence in the book. So I won't be arguing it out at length here.

Those who don't like my conclusions will have to wait, just as I do, for ancient DNA to resolve the matter.

It's throwing me off, some, trying to understand the 2900 BC dating for Bell Beakers on the Atlantic side in Portugal.

Before that, pre-Beaker, we have copper daggers in Iberia.

We have the Almeria area of southeastern Spain with crucible smelting (according to Amzallag) at Los Millares that's pretty early, perhaps as much as 3200 BC. I would love to know if these people were the predecessors to the Iberians.

However the Beakers didn't hit Los Millares until 2400-2200 BC, perhaps violently.

Meanwhile just a ways to the west at Rio Tinto, Amzallag says we have furnace smelting with the Bell Beakers occupation, at about the same time.

Do the early dates on the Atlantic side include copper manufacture?

Fire Haired
09-26-2013, 09:59 PM
If Bell Beaker was in Iberia as early as 4,500-4,900ybp I don't think they are the source of R1b1a2a1a2a Df27 or any R1b1a2a1a2 P312/S116 in Iberia. It does not match up with age estimates with R1b1a2a1a L11 estimated as 6,500-5,000 years old and R1b1a2a1a2 P312/S116 estimated at 5,500-4,000 years old all of these estimates I am getting from FTDNA click here. I haven't heard of any age estimates of R1b1a2a1a2a Df27 but its brother clade R1b1a2a1a2b S28/U152 is estimates as 3,500-5,000 years old and L21 4,000-5,500 years old. If Bell Beaker is the original source of dominate R1b1a2a1a L11 in western Europe and also spread it 4,500-4,900ybp is the absolute earliest R1b P312 mainly subclade Df27 could have spread in Iberia I think to early according to age estimates.

In my opinon R1b1a2a1a2b S28/U152 spread with Urnfield culture (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUrnfiel d_culture&ei=bKtEUp75GoTW2gWuvoG4Aw&usg=AFQjCNFiQZ9OiLC2boFrSbQAv9K1jC8CZg)(1,300-750bc). Which migrated to Italy around 3,200-3,000ybp and I think is also the spread of Italic languages and R1b S28. Urnfield's descendant in central Europe Celtic Hallstat culture also is connected with R1b S28. I explain my whole opinon on it here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1356-Urnfield-culture-and-spread-of-Italo-Gaulish-R1b-U152-S28). There is even a trace of R1b S28 in the areas of eastern Europe and central Turkey that La Tene(descended from Hallstat) Celts conquered and settled around 300-200bc. R1b S28 is also very spread out deep into Germany even in Denmark and southern Scandinavia and is almost a perfect match to the borders of Urnfield culture and then spreads deeper with Hallstat then la Tene cultures.

R1b S28 map from Eupedia click to enlarge
696
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/UrnfieldCulture.jpg/240px-UrnfieldCulture.jpg (http://www.anthrogenica.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=zSDrO54rmEAhcM&tbnid=kBaFGDiQZExI0M:&ved=0CAgQjRwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUrnfiel d_culture&ei=2a1EUvLZNOSF2QXnxoC4Ag&psig=AFQjCNGeuxNoEuADO3cDD7ZT1RuUukkVZg&ust=1380319065937812)

Hallstat Celts would have then spread R1b S28 deep into France then even into Iberia and Britain. So R1b S28 spread probably very late in the late bronze and Iron age.

alan
09-26-2013, 10:01 PM
Well we know that R1b phylogeny goes east to west so its a straight choice that it is either a fairly shadowy pre-beaker copper age thing or that R1b only joined beaker at points east after its first flush. I know that would make early Iberian beaker users non-R1b but IMO its no harder to imagine this than it is to imagine any L11 clade going from zero to dominant anywhere in Europe. The latter is surprising no matter what but it happened.

In the pre-beaker copper age scenario although there is a spread of copper working, maybe copper knife symbolism, mining etc across the Alps and west Med. its still taking place within a lot of very different cultures that are otherwise not much like each other. So, its not the sort of simple cultural trail that one would want for something as important as the spread of what was to become the defining lineage of western and central Europe. That said the get out clause is that its a rapid spread of a lineage from the east end of the Alps to Iberia that is largely defined from L51 to P312, a period of only a few centuries so its not really a population movement as such. Do I believe its linked to R1b? Not with any conviction. Its been worthwhile looking very hard into it as an option but its still leaves a lot of doubt. The Ice Man not being R1b doesnt help although it hardly definitive.

The alternative of R1b joining beaker somewhat later to the east also has its problems but I dont think they are so bad that it cannot be possible. There are so many different ways of dividing beaker groups into subsections that not much is clear. For example the Rhine group, so important in terms of the isles, in some ways looks western derived but it also experienced a lot of influence from the eastern part of the beaker world as can be seen in the main flow of domestic ware into beaker. There is also a flow that is seen at Sion and there is the whole late barbed wire beaker groups which flowed south too.

As for Ireland, I agree the DNA evidence shows overwhelming links to Britain. This is in line with the findings of Mallory's recent book on the Origins of the Irish. This was a constant connection only broken by a couple of periods where Ireland became isolated from the outside world. One period is the late Mesolithic which is irrelevant to this discussion. The other period is the Hallstatt D and earliest part of the La Tene phase c. 650-350BC and comes at a time when their is also a massive collapse in settlement traces in Ireland. That is really the only period when Ireland effectively may have drifted from its normal frenzy of contact with Britain. Its virtually certain that this is the phase when Ireland missed out on the Q to P shift but I dont think that has any significance at all, or virtually none, in terms of DNA. Wales is P Celtic and is also dominated by L21. It was just a small dialect tweak and is of nearly zero significance in terms of genes. That one small shift blinds many to the fact that the insular Celtic languages were vastly closer to each other than anyone else in terms of their unusual syntax etc, far more significant than the P-Q shift. I think both islands had identical languages as late as 650BC.




I am just saying that is the corollary to that specific scenario. Of course this is a speculation, but one scenario which ties in nicely with David Anthony's Italo-Celtic dialect/language hypothesis is that the bulk of the IE speaking settlers came over land in a second (or at least not the first) wave of what we think of as Beaker folks. The scenario would suppose that the early Beaker folks to the west were less populous. This might be expected if they had to reach Portugal and coastal Spain by boat.

I'm truly speculating, but since I'm not a believer in frequency=origin and we have DF27 spread all over the place I think it could have come from the Alpine (not coastal) areas as an over-land settler in multiple waves. Iberia looks like pooling place for DF27, the Isles for L21, the Rhine and Alps for U152 and northern Europe for U106. If I had to guess, U152 is closest to home.

Look at L21 in Ireland. You note in "Ancestral Journeys..." on p.165,
"The only type (of Beaker wrist guard) found among the Early or Southern Bell Beaker group is narrow with two holes ... Broader , four-holed types predominate in Central Europe, England and Scotland ... while Ireland has almost exclusively two-holed types." There is a linguistic alignment too, because Ireland had the archaic Celtic variants, similar to Iberia.

However, the genetics don't nicely align with the wrist guards, p. 169,
"the predominance of R1b-L21 over R1b-DF27-derived subclades of R1b-P312 in the British Isles suggestest that British and Irish Bell Beaker people mostly arrived via the Rhine route."
We need to spefically re-do/update the British Isles research and rework an hypothesis on the settling of the Isles based on all of the great and in-depth data we now have. Of course, it would be nice to have ancient DNA and French data first.

I'm only looking at this anecdotally, but I've seen a ton of Isles data and it is apparent, based on both STR and SNP branching data, that L21 comes from Britain into Ireland, probably in multiple waves. Yes, there were multiple directions of movement, but the bulk or heaviest concentrations of L21 lineages were Britain to Ireland. Apparently, the L21 wave(s) didn't chang the culture completely in Ireland like they did in Pre-Roman Britain, though.

When I look at the R1b-P312 L21- U152- in the Isles, there is not the dominance of familiar Irish and Scottish sounding names. It's more English like, even in Ireland and possibly there is a Nordic tint some times. I think there might be some from the Atlantic Bronze Age timeframe. I would expect so, anyway, but it looks like the early Celtic/pre-Celtic culture in Ireland stayed while new people came in.

I don't have the same data and don't necessarily see the same pattern for DF27 in Iberia versus north of the Pyrenees. We know that some of it, i.e. the Basques, could be recent immigrants. We also know there were Urnfield, Gaulish language influences, etc. On DF27, I don't know, but I don't think it is necessarily a given that DF27 established itself in Iberia with the first Beaker folks there. The SNP counting age estimates might eventually be helpful, but I don't think that DF27, L21 and U152; and U106 are that far apart in age, which makes a nicer fit for an L11 launch point from or just outside the Alps. This also helps support the Yamnaya to Italo-Celtic branching timeline David Anthony has set forth and might support (if I really understand it) Desideri's Beaker (Eastern Bell Beaker) folk findings. Could the events at Sion be a part of the larger picture?

Again, I don't know. I just haven't totally bought in that DF27, L21 and U152 were in the earliest Bell Beaker folks. These L11 subclades were clearly in the groups that swamped the rest but that doesn't make them the first colonizers. I'm also not totally sold that the earliest far western Beakers were even full IE speaking... maybe they were, but used the native languages until large groups of distant cousins started coming, perhaps with better metallurgy or better military support. I think there really might be something to the better metallurgical practices being part of the L11 success formula to go with the full PIE society benefits.

I'm not one who sees myself in one camp or another, but maybe I'm now a central Europeanist. However, I don't mean that in the "classical Celt" sense, but of earlier times, as opposed to the earliest maritime Beakers. I'm trying to reconcile the dating, the distance to Portugal and the PIE timeline... along with the continuity in early west/Southern Beaker metallurgical practices.

I do think the Cetina culture is quite intriguing, though. Especially if they were strong shipbuilders and navigators. Maybe my understanding of the timeline and transportation/population logistics is off. Maybe Maikop is a red herring for R1b.

Jean M
09-26-2013, 10:03 PM
Do the early dates on the Atlantic side include copper manufacture?

Of course they do. That is the whole point I'm making. Zambujal was an early Copper Age site in which Bell Beaker pottery later appears with no other change. I really have said this over and over and over and over and in two places in the book.

Jean M
09-26-2013, 10:16 PM
However the Beakers didn't hit Los Millares until 2400-2200 BC...


Yes indeed. It is clear that Bell Beaker did not emerge from Los Millares.


I would love to know if these people were the predecessors to the Iberians.

If you mean the Iberes, I have a different theory, as you know from the book. (See page 183.) Since the Iberian language appears to be an intrusion in what was previously a spead of Ligurian right along the southern coast of Iberia, I suspect that it arrived with the Argaric Culture c. 2200 BC.

alan
09-26-2013, 10:46 PM
Having recently read the Willigen and Muller paper that came up with the out of Iberia evidence, I wouldnt be so sure. It is possible that this would be overturned if someone ever repeats this with a less ridiculously small and regionally skewed sample of short life material radiocarbon dates. There were bordering on no samples accepted for large swathes of Europe and it was almost inevitable that the result would come out the way it did. So, given the dismissal of most of the samples from large chunks of Europe I do not think there is any real validity in the maps based on dates from short life samples - the map that particularly highlights Iberia. I do not think its valid.

I think that although there are also problems with creating a map that includes non short life samples, I think it is more useful as it at least samples the whole of Europe. Sure there are problems with old wood effect but I dont think this should be exaggerated. I think burning massive centuries old trunks other than in major structures that were built with them is not going to have been that common and I think the aging effect on dates of old wood effect may be often in the decades rather than multiple centuries.

So, using just the later map all I think that seems to come out consistently is that the beakers north of a line from Budapest to Portugal are a little younger and those south of the line are older. I seriously think we may be jumping through hoops based on what is a flawed paper. The paper really should have simply concluded that there is not a sufficient sample of reliable dates to say any more than a sort of south to north difference is implied. It should not have been seized on as a conclusive paper indicating an Iberian origin. To be honest, the very nature of early beakers makes an Iberian origin very unlikely as their are far better prototypes in central and Eastern Europe.

There is also a lack of any real explanation of the contexts of the selected short life samples other than 'bone' 'hazlenut' etc. No explanation of the context makes them pretty impossible to evaluate and is especially worrying in an area like Iberia where collective burial and all sorts of messing up of contexts is possible. Its a very badly written paper full of errors in terms of presentation too, mislabeling the crucial maps having multiple conclusions that do not quite match etc. There is also no discussion of context, diet isotope evidence etc which means a potential source of artificial aging of the dates is not looked at.

Certainly if ever a paper needed redone based on a much better database of safe samples this is it. I just fear that the paper has created a problem in matching beaker with a haplogroup east-west phylogeny that may not exist. Italy for instance is as old as Iberia on the map Muller and Van Willigen produced based on all the older beaker radiocarbon dates - the only map which really covers that area.

Would we be sweating so many keyboard hours if beaker originated in north Italy? I doubt it as L11 and L51 are present there or nearby in the Alps. There are better links to the Balkans and to the north Alpine area and central Europe for precursors of the beaker. There are interesting echoes of both beaker behaviour and the 'classic' beaker cranio of central and north-west Europe there. There is easy access to all the beaker areas from north Italy and easy access to the zones of the main subclades by passes and by sea. More importantly Italy is well connected with the Balkans, an area that was featuring steppe intrusion from perhaps several centuries before 4000BC. Its far closer to the higher areas of L23 and M269 in SE Europe. It had a precocious pre-beaker copper age etc etc.





It's throwing me off, some, trying to understand the 2900 BC dating for Bell Beakers on the Atlantic side in Portugal.

Before that, pre-Beaker, we have copper daggers in Iberia.

We have the Almeria area of southeastern Spain with crucible smelting (according to Amzallag) at Los Millares that's pretty early, perhaps as much as 3200 BC. I would love to know if these people were the predecessors to the Iberians.

However the Beakers didn't hit Los Millares until 2400-2200 BC, perhaps violently.

Meanwhile just a ways to the west at Rio Tinto, Amzallag says we have furnace smelting with the Bell Beakers occupation, at about the same time.

Do the early dates on the Atlantic side include copper manufacture?

Fire Haired
09-27-2013, 01:26 AM
Otzie who was killed in alps Italy in 3,300bc. He had a copper axe so his people were in the copper age. His Y DNA G2a2a2 L91 shows a constancy with pre copper age European farmers. Three Y DNA samples from LBK (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLinear_ Pottery_culture&ei=j9VEUpCAKrOl2AWzt4C4CA&usg=AFQjCNE3wbYFfyJwW8VTxfWFlWJ9FM8zvQ)in Derenburg Meerenstieg II Germany (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=Derenburg+Meerenstieg+II+Germany&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x47a57521508420bd:0xd11a2972d3947804,Meeren stieg+2,+D-38895+Derenburg,+Germany&gl=us&ei=87pEUrj-E4S22AXc5YDACA&ved=0CCsQ8gEwAA) 5,347bc F(XG,H,I,J,K), 5,000BC G2a3 L30 and F(G,H,I,J,K), Epicardiel (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCardium _Pottery&ei=6tdEUpOCOKfb2QWh9IGwCA&usg=AFQjCNG1QBEz7n5yvtaITmy1f8rg6WgkyA) culture Catalonia Spain (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=catalonia+spain&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x12a45bdc8530f5f3:0x100fae021a3c850,Catalon ia,+Spain&gl=us&ei=rNVEUvLEB6b12wXp-4GQDw&ved=0CKoBELYD)G2a P15=3, E1b1b V13=1. Also Otzie's austomal DNA results were very similar to Gok4 a farmer from southern Swedan dating to 3,000BC.
697698699

I am pretty sure southern Sweden 5,000 years ago was not in the Copper age so Gok4 defintley was Neolithic. I am not sure what Aust test it is that has Gedorasian which has a obvious connection with R1b in Europe(almost all under subclade R1b1a2a L23). If Otzie does not he and the spread of copper in the the alps around 3,500-3,000BC has nothing to do with the spread of R1b1a2a1 L51 and R1b1a2a1a L11 into western Europe and it seems Otzie is totally the same Genetically as Neolithic Europeans at least western. I am not saying everyone in western Europe at that time was Otzie like but the people who spread the farming I think were I hope that makes sense. What makes Otzie and Gok4 different from modern Europeans except Sardine. Is modern Europeans have more hunter gather like aust DNa results meaning for globe13 more North Euro and for K12b and K7b more Atlantic Baltic. I also read in this article(click here (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/04/first-look-at-dna-of-neolithic.html)) that the hunter gathers who had vast majority north Euro and Atlantic Baltic were out of modern variation. This is so confusing modern Europeans obviously have Neolithic and pre Neolithic blood but it seems that neither the farmers or hunter gathers fit into any modern European groups except maybe Soumi and Finnish in Scandinavia with hunter gathers and Sardine on a island west of Italy with farmers.

I would assume that since central and northern Scandinavia from what Maciamo says did not begin to farm till the bronze age. Also Y DNA most likely spread in Europe with farming G2a, E1b1b V13, possibly some J1, J2, and T are very very very very rare in Scandinavia and only exist in far southern Scandinavia mainly Sweden and Norway not Finland which could be because of the first farmers in Scandinavia Funnelbeaker culture. Finnish and Soumi like I said if anyone are the closest relatives to hunter gather samples. They look no different than other Europeans if anything they are the palest. So since 40% of English have yellow hair and almost 0% Syrian or Iraqi people do wouldn't it make sense Europeans get those traits from pre Neolithic Europeans and Finnish actulley have majority yellow hair. If Europeans had so much farmer blood why are they so pale unlike people who first brought farming to Europe.

Mikwww I hope I was not off topic. I think it was important to show how Otzie was most similar to Neolithic Europeans and is not evidence R1b1a2a1 L51 or R1b1a2a1a L11 was coming through the alps during that time. I know barely anything about the different cultures and how and when the copper spread but maybe it was just the spread of an idea and almost no genetics'.

rms2
09-27-2013, 07:57 AM
Don't assume that because Ötzi had a copper axe and was G-L91 that therefore R1b had nothing to do with the spread of copper metallurgy in Europe. Another thing: older photos of the Saami show them as very Asian (Mongoloid) in appearance, and the old Scandinavian sagas refer to the Finns as very dark. It is likely that the Finns of today are as Scandinavian-looking (i.e., fair haired and light eyed) as they are via admixture with Swedes and Norwegians.

701 702

Jean M
09-27-2013, 11:23 AM
For Fire Haired - my approach has been described as "The Revenge of the Hunter-gatherers". :)


Hunter-gatherers entered Europe c. 46000 year ago. They carried mtDNA U and Y-DNA equally ancient and almost unknown today: F and IJ.
The Ice Age reduced the European population to a handful in southern refuges.
As the ice receded southern people fanned out to repopulate the north around 10,000 years ago. They carried mtDNA U5, U4 and U2. The Y-DNA was perhaps I* and haplogroups rare or non-existent today, plus R1 in a niche at the extreme SE of Europe close to the Urals, from a shelter on the south of the Caspian Sea.
Waves of farmers entered Europe mainly after 6,200 BC, overcoming hunter-gatherers over most of Europe. They brought a new range of haplogroups from the Near East, including most of the mtDNA groups common in Europe today and Y-DNA G, E and probably J. Some local hunter-gathers in SE Europe (around the Danube?) carrying I2 turned farmer in contact with the new arrivals, so some I2 spread with the farmers. R1b probably entered SE Europe towards the end of this phase, with dairy farming. It is not the predominant Neolithic signature in Europe (so far it has not been found at all in Neolithic DNA) and is rare in other places settled by farmers from the Near East, such as Pakistan and the Caucasus.
Some hunter-gatherers living along the rivers of the forest-steppe north of the Black and Caspian seas turned farmer in contact with the new arrivals c. 5000 BC. These were the Dnieper-Donets people. We have ancient DNA from them. It shows them as a mixture of hunter-gatherer (U5, U2e etc) and farmers, plus a bit of Asian that arrived with pottery. They were followed by the Sredni Stog culture, which had acquired copper-working and herding from the Cucuteni culture adjacent to their west (possibly R1b) and influences from around the Urals (possibly R1a). We can guess from later events that they spoke an ancestor of Proto-Indo-European.
The descendants of Sredni Stog and Cucuteni invented the wheel and wheeled vehicles and tamed the horse. They adopted a semi-nomadic life-style on the steppe and spoke Proto-Indo-European.
The Indo-Europeans fanned out from the steppe in stages. Migrations around 3000 BC went up the rivers which flow through the steppe to the Black and Caspian Seas. These seem to have spread the dialects which eventually developed into Celtic, Illyrian, Italic and (much later) Germanic. Those who remained on the Middle Dnieper developed a later IE dialect, which eventually became Proto-Balto-Slavic. The Indo-Europeans spread it seems R1a and R1b (with some other haplogroups including I2), together with a mixture of mtDNA haplogroups from hunter-gatherer and farmer. Their descendants became predominant in Europe.

Fire Haired
09-27-2013, 11:25 AM
Rm2 Otzie shows total constancy with Neolithic west Europeans so he Is not evidence of R1b1a2a L51 arrival same with 22 5,000 year old Y DNA samples from Terillis France. ABout Soumi they are total Europeans aust dna proofs that. The reason some very very rarely look east Asian is because of the migration of Y DNa n1c1 with Kunda cukture about 8,000ybp. Also Soumi and Finnish have a trace of Mongliod austomal dna other Europeans do not. the people of Scandinavia were originally 100% Caucasian they just have some Mongliod admixture. The vast majority of Finnish and Soumi look totally European. You say old Soumi and Finnish to make it seem like in the last 100 years they have become European that sounds pretty crazy. Finnish have over 60% yellow hair they defintley are not dark. Seriously we should not get into this argument because there is nothing to argue about Finnish and Soumi not being white this is a joke.

rms2
09-27-2013, 11:53 AM
The anthropological facts have always played an important part in interpreting the Bell Beaker Culture, especially after the detailed monograph [Die Glockenbecherleute in Mittel-und Westdeutschland] devoted by Gerhardt to the skeletal material of the Bell Beaker Culture in Central and Western Germany. He distinguished five main types of skulls:
- The planoccipitale Steilkopf, the most frequent type of skull. Before the Bell Beaker Culture it does not appear to have been found north of the Alps. People with such an unusual skull, hyperbrachycephal and with a flat occiput must be regarded as the core of the Bell Beaker people. Especially the men are fairly tall. Both male skeletons at Molenaarsgraaf conform to the description given by Gerhardt of this type.
- An Alpine type (curvo-occipitale Rundkopf)
- A northern type (dolichomorf)
The Alpine and the northern type form autochthonous elements. The last element may have originated from the Single Grave Culture.
- A Mediterranean type (grazil dolichomorf)
- A Klötze type; unusual
In the Early Bronze Age we find in the Adlerberg Culture a similar assortment of skull types as was formerly found in the Bell Beaker Culture. The new type, the planoccipital Steilkopf, is also present (though in small numbers) in other Early Bronze Age groups (particularly the Unetice Culture). The Molenaarsgraaf skeletons show a similar late presence of the typical Bell Beaker skull in the Netherlands.
The Bell Beaker skull type contrasts strongly with that of the preceding Single Grave Culture . . .
The important differences in cultural remains and grave ritual between Single Grave and Bell Beaker Culture are therefore accompanied by a clear anthropological change from a fairly homogeneous dolichomorphic people to a varied population with the (hyper)brachymorphic planoccipital Steilkopf as a leading element. The transition from Bell Beaker Culture to the Early Bronze Age cultures is very gradual in every respect. We must therefore consider the appearance of the Bell Beaker Culture as a real immigration: the penetration of entirely new population elements with their own material culture, just as centuries earlier the bearers of the Battle Axe Culture penetrated Central and Western Europe. In this connection Gerhardt made a number of interesting remarks about the constitution of the BB population. It consists of the fusion of a number of "races" without any clear intermixing. Of the men particularly the majority have the typical planoccipital Steilkopf, while the women are mainly responsible for the heterogeneous character of the whole. It looks as if a group of male foreigners frequently recruted [sic] women from an existing population. (The Rhine/Meuse Delta: Four Studies on its Prehistoric Occupation and Holocene Geology (http://tinyurl.com/kzumh85), pp. 319-320.)

Gerhardt, in his book, Die Glockenbecherleute in Mittel-und Westdeutschland, said he thought he saw a connection between the Steilkopf (literally, "steep head") skulls of the Beaker men and the skulls of people in eastern Anatolia.

My own first thought is that the Steilkopf Beaker men were P312+ and arrived from the southeast, having moved up the Danube and down the Rhine. Their ultimate origin, that is, that of their M269 forefathers, might have been Anatolia by way of the Balkans.

R.Rocca
09-27-2013, 11:53 AM
The last time I checked Mike's variance spreadsheet, using 25 markers to get the most amount of samples per geography, I got that:

1. DF27-All has higher variance than U152-All, and U152-All has higher variance than L21-All. (also at 67 markers)
2. DF27-All has higher variance in Iberia, U152-All has higher variance in France and L21-All has higher variance in Ireland and England (I think).

Then we tie that information together with this:

3. Bell Beaker radiocarbon dating is oldest in Iberia, then S. France/N.Italy...Britain and Ireland are youngest. Say we we will about the validity of radiocarbon dating, but the Iberian older dates are from short-lived materials, and that's why most academics don't contest them.
4. The spread of the Copper Age went from NW Italy, through S. France and into Iberia. The same is observed through stelae.

I would put money on a future academic study that tests for U152, L21 and DF27 inevitably claiming that the genetic data points combined with archaeology all point to an early, or flat out expansion of, P312 derived Bell Beaker people from Iberia. That is not to say it is correct, but that's the way the data leans.

If we claim that we are always a step ahead of the academics, we need to start looking into the next level of detail/data to see if there is anything that contradicts this southern-leaning view. A variance comparison of known splits (i.e. N/S cluster Z216/Z270 versus N/S cluster CTS4065) would help us see if the south=older and north=younger pattern that shows up in variance and radiocarbon dating still holds up.

I also think the Dutch model still has a great deal going for it, especially that the Low Countries has a high diversity of P312 and U106 sublcades. Of interest to me is the relatively high P312+Z195- count in the Brabant study. While half of that might turn out to be DF19, DF99, etc. it could still leave room for some additional P312**.

rms2
09-27-2013, 12:15 PM
I'm just guessing that if Beaker originated in Iberia, then it wasn't associated with P312 to begin with but acquired that association in Central Europe as some P312+ groups adopted the Beaker package.

Aren't the Beaker skulls in Iberia, and the Beaker skeletons there in general, different from those of Beaker Folk, particularly the men, elsewhere? I seem to remember Coon discussing the difference, with Iberians being dolichocephalic and somewhat gracile. Beaker men elsewhere were brachycephalic and stockier.

R.Rocca
09-27-2013, 12:36 PM
I'm just guessing that if Beaker originated in Iberia, then it wasn't associated with P312 to begin with but acquired that association in Central Europe as some P312+ groups adopted the Beaker package.

Aren't the Beaker skulls in Iberia, and the Beaker skeletons there in general, different from those of Beaker Folk, particularly the men, elsewhere? I seem to remember Coon discussing the difference, with Iberians being dolichocephalic and somewhat gracile. Beaker men elsewhere were brachycephalic and stockier.

If Bell Beaker originated in Iberia, that doesn't mean P312 didn't get there with the immediately preceding pre-Beaker people. Like Iberian dental remains show, the Bell Beaker people of Iberia were home-grown and not immigrants from anywhere.

Menk has Spanish BB skulls right next to those from S. France, Bohemia, Brunswick Britain and Ireland and the lone non-BB group of Remedello. The Portuguese and Italian BB groups he has clustered primarily with Unetice which are hybrids of BB and Corded Ware.

Jean M
09-27-2013, 12:43 PM
I'm just guessing that if Beaker originated in Iberia, then it wasn't associated with P312 to begin with but acquired that association in Central Europe as some P312+ groups adopted the Beaker package.


I understand your thinking. It is a natural assumption that BB origin in Iberia must mean that the pottery was invented by people who had been living in Iberia for many thousands of years and had no connection with eastern Europe.

But we know that BB pottery was made by copper-workers, and metal-working did not arise spontaneously in Iberia, despite what some Iberian archaeologists would have you believe. It arrived in Iberia in fully-fledged form and was of the type using arsenic that we associate with the steppe. These people arrived in Iberia from the steppe. We can follow their progress clearly through the anthropomorphic stelae that they posted along the way. These in turn can be linked to copper daggers depicted on them which are of a tanged type that arose on the steppe. The stelae also have patterns that appear on BB and are associated with BB at a later date.

Bell Beaker pottery has no Neolithic predecessor in Iberia. Instead all the stylistic elements of it have predecessors on the steppe and in the Carpathian Basin.

Jean M
09-27-2013, 12:50 PM
Aren't the Beaker skulls in Iberia, and the Beaker skeletons there in general, different from those of Beaker Folk, particularly the men, elsewhere? I seem to remember Coon discussing the difference, with Iberians being dolichocephalic and somewhat gracile. Beaker men elsewhere were brachycephalic and stockier.


The early BB people along the southern route did indeed have dolichocephalic skulls. The brachycephalic type is associated with eastern BB and was probably acquired by inter-breeding with brachycephalic women towards the Carpathian Basin end of the route up the Danube. Mike Hammers worked that out: http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10990.msg140297#msg140297

Jean M
09-27-2013, 12:58 PM
Here's what I wrote on another forum back in 2012: http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10663.msg133591#msg133591

1. First we have the movement up the Danube from the steppe to the Carpathian Basin. This cannot be missed out of the story without serious misunderstanding. That trek up the Danube is so marked archaeologically that (for a wonder) no archaeologists are arguing that it does not represent a massive migration of real, live people. The arguments have simply been over what happened next. That movement included anthropomorphic stelae.

2. Next there are two routes from the Carpathian Basin.

3. Route 1 (pink on map below): The stelae mark a trail across to North Italy and from Italy via the Mediterranean to Iberia. There is even one in the Channel Isles, showing movement up the Atlantic. These people appear to be narrow-headed and carrying P312, but not L21.

4. Route 2 (black on map below): From the Carpathian Basin up to the head of the Danube and to sites north of the Alps. These people appear to be broad-headed and L21 appears to have emerged among them at some point.

5. Bell Beaker pottery travelled between the two groups. It appears to have been first made by the southern group, but the early types (Maritime and AOL) moved swiftly along the Atlantic route to the mouth of the Rhine. Eventually BB appeared in the Carpathian Basin and moved with the broad-headed types up the Danube and down the Rhine. So the two routes met in what is now the Netherlands.

6. Some broad-headed BB types arrived in eastern Iberia quite late in the BB story. Most of the BB people entering the British Isles appear to have come from the broad-headed Rhine (L21) stream.

704

Jean M
09-27-2013, 02:30 PM
Here's an updated version of my SPECULATIVE map of R1b movement:

703

TigerMW
09-27-2013, 02:58 PM
Thanks, Jean.

I'm not intending to draw you into a detailed discussion, but for the rest of us, I find the U106 branch on the east side of the Carpathians most interesting. I don't know how U106 got to northern Europe, but Jean's speculations on U106 align with David Anthony's Pre-Germanic IE people movements. The corollary to that is that L51 and L11 were already present back there on the east side of the Carpathians. I'm quite fine with that, but I certainly don't have the answers. I would be fine with U106 leaking north from the west side of the Carpathians as well. I see there is a question mark by the U106.


Here's an updated version of my SPECULATIVE map of R1b movement:

703

As this pertains to the Bell Beaker folks, U106 may been left out.

Jean M
09-27-2013, 04:02 PM
I see there is a question mark by the U106.

Please imagine question marks over all of it. As I say in the label, it is SPECULATIVE. I didn't include it in the book because my experience on forums led me to worry that it would be taken as solidly accurate down to the exact positions I put the arrows and haplogroups. No map of this type can be. Mine is just an aid to discussion.

rms2
09-27-2013, 04:27 PM
That map makes a lot of sense to me. I have thought for a long time that U106 was associated with Corded Ware rather than Beaker and only arrived in western Europe with the Germans beginning in about 700 BC. Of course, there is no proof of that yet, since the couple of Corded Ware sites that have yielded y-dna haven't turned up any U106 (or R1b of any other kind either).

R.Rocca
09-27-2013, 07:56 PM
Please imagine question marks over all of it. As I say in the label, it is SPECULATIVE. I didn't include it in the book because my experience on forums led me to worry that it would be taken as solidly accurate down to the exact positions I put the arrows and haplogroups. No map of this type can be. Mine is just an aid to discussion.

You have always been the brave one Jean :)

I should throw my SPECULATIVE map in here as well, along with some speculative rambling

My reasoning:
1. There is nothing in the phylogeny of R1b that hints at L51 originating anywhere east of Brixlegg, Austria. Since the copper used in early metalworking there was still being sourced from the Rudna Glava mine in Serbia, I assume that the area with the highest M269(xL23) anywhere on the planet is also the starting point of the Central European R1b story.
2. Z2103 would have made its move down the Danube and branched into an eastern group (L277 & L584) which reached all the way to Armenia and beyond. A second would have taken the southern Dinaric passes into modern day Albania and ultimately S. Italy (Z2109).
3. The L51 split would have happened in the Tyrolean alps and made its way westward.
4. Around the source of the Rhine (Lake Constance), L11 would have been born. From there, we have two splits, one going north along the Rhine (U106) and another (P312) taking the Alpine passes into NW Italy and France. This latter group would be the Proto-Italo-Celtic Stelae people.
5. The P312 group would have split in the Italian Alps into earlier forms of U152(xL2) (including the first Italian brachycephalics in Remedello and Rinaldone) and continued onto the southern coast of France as DF27. Later DF27 groups, primarily in the form of the NS cluster, would have some migrations out of Iberia in the form maritime BB pottery and palmela points.
6. Some P312 people would have navigated up the Rhone. These people would form the Seine-Oise-Marne (SOM) group, which brought the Copper Age and brachycephalia with them into NE France and SW Belgium. This group would ultimately give rise to L21 on the shores of the English Channel and would be the first to reach Britain and Brittany. Perhaps some of the early L21 types were responsible for the creation of Stone Hedge.
7. The L21 group would later become the two-holed wrist guard group that would come to dominate both sides of the Irish Sea and would speak Q-Celtic.
8. U106 would have been in the Rhenish Bell Beaker group that made its way into England and Scotland, but never in enough numbers to overtake the already existing L21. The first speakers of P-Celtic may have been in this group.
9. U106 would have continued up the North Sea coast making its way into Frisia, Northern Germany and ultimately into Denmark in the form of L48 and the Danish Bell Beaker group. The merger of U106 and L48 groups with Scandinavians would later produce Proto-Germanic.
10. Some U106, and U152+L2+ would have expanded into places like Bohemia as the Eastern Bell Beaker group. This seems to be the only area where Bell Beaker skulls are exclusively of the brachycephalic flat occiput type. The only area in S. Europe to receive influences from the Eastern Bell Beaker group is Northern and Central Italy. This would explain why L2 make up a much higher percentage of U152 outside of Italy than inside of it. They would also have been the first P-Italo-Celtic speakers and would merge with earlier U152 people to form the Polada Culture.
11. L48 would make its way into the east coasts of Britain thousands of years later speaking fully developed Germanic languages.

http://r1b.org/imgs/Early_R1b_Copper_Age_Migrations_v02.png

Jean M
09-27-2013, 08:31 PM
Your map is much prettier than mine Richard, but I'm not buying elements of it. For example the BB mining at Ross Island seems to derive from the Atlantic route.

Of course we want ancient DNA to sort matters out.

Fire Haired
09-27-2013, 08:53 PM
Don't assume that because Ötzi had a copper axe and was G-L91 that therefore R1b had nothing to do with the spread of copper metallurgy in Europe. Another thing: older photos of the Saami show them as very Asian (Mongoloid) in appearance, and the old Scandinavian sagas refer to the Finns as very dark. It is likely that the Finns of today are as Scandinavian-looking (i.e., fair haired and light eyed) as they are via admixture with Swedes and Norwegians.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=701&d=1380268606&thumb=1 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=701&d=1380268606) http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=702&d=1380268635&thumb=1 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=702&d=1380268635)

rms2 more proof that what ur saying is wrong. Is that in globe13 the group that was dominate in hunter gathers samples and the only to originate in Europe which is North Euro. is over 10% higher in Finns and Soumi than in Swedish and Noweigan so how could finn and soumi European side be from Swedish and Norwaigen if they have more. Also Y DNA spread to Swedan and Norway with proto Germanic languages about 4,000ybp are R1b S21(all other R1b) and I2a2 P214 which only reach 1-5% each in far western Finland also that is the only area in Finland with 1-3% red hair. More evidence for the theory red hair was raised above 1% in western Europe by the spread of R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic Italo Celts. O

Also for Y DNa I1 80% of Finnish belong to specific Finnish subclades under I1a2 L22 and the areas it peaks is not the same areas u find Germanic Y DNA. So I1a2 spread to Finland before Germanic languages arrived in Sweden and Norway so probably at least over 4,000 years. And since Most Swedish and Norwiegn I1 is also under the I1a2 L22 subclade I1 came to Scandinavia from the same migration defintley way way way before Germanic languages arrived I bet the first human settlement 9,000-11,000ybp. Also the oldest human skulls u can look it up in Scandinavia are Caucasian. Also the fact is that Finnish are the most fair haired and eyed people in Europe or at least tied with Baltic, northwest Russians, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian. There are very very rarely some east Asian looking ones this is because of the migration of N1c1 about 8,000ybp with Kunda culture.

TigerMW
09-27-2013, 09:06 PM
The last time I checked Mike's variance spreadsheet, using 25 markers to get the most amount of samples per geography, I got that:

1. DF27-All has higher variance than U152-All, and U152-All has higher variance than L21-All. (also at 67 markers)
2. DF27-All has higher variance in Iberia, U152-All has higher variance in France and L21-All has higher variance in Ireland and England (I think).

Then we tie that information together with this:

3. Bell Beaker radiocarbon dating is oldest in Iberia, then S. France/N.Italy...Britain and Ireland are youngest. Say we we will about the validity of radiocarbon dating, but the Iberian older dates are from short-lived materials, and that's why most academics don't contest them.
4. The spread of the Copper Age went from NW Italy, through S. France and into Iberia. The same is observed through stelae.

I would put money on a future academic study that tests for U152, L21 and DF27 inevitably claiming that the genetic data points combined with archaeology all point to an early, or flat out expansion of, P312 derived Bell Beaker people from Iberia. That is not to say it is correct, but that's the way the data leans.

If we claim that we are always a step ahead of the academics, we need to start looking into the next level of detail/data to see if there is anything that contradicts this southern-leaning view. A variance comparison of known splits (i.e. N/S cluster Z216/Z270 versus N/S cluster CTS4065) would help us see if the south=older and north=younger pattern that shows up in variance and radiocarbon dating still holds up.

I also think the Dutch model still has a great deal going for it, especially that the Low Countries has a high diversity of P312 and U106 sublcades. Of interest to me is the relatively high P312+Z195- count in the Brabant study. While half of that might turn out to be DF19, DF99, etc. it could still leave room for some additional P312**.

I agree that the Low Countries are especially important to understand. This looks like a great place to find P312+ U152- L21- DF27- (Big Three negative) people. I have wild haired thought on that. What if these guys aren't one of the Big Three because they grew up along side U106? In other words, they are Germanic and separated from the rest of P312 a long time ago.

Anyway, I definitely agree with using the geographical positioning of early branching of R1b-L11 subclades to try to triangulate movements and launch points.

As far as STR variance, I think it is good to have, but I just wouldn't rely on it stand-alone (I'm not saying you are) in geographic comparisons. I just updated the P312xL21 file from the P312, DF27, U153 and SRY2627 projects and then tried to evaluate DF27 STR variance by geography.

Here is an example for DF27+ confirmed only people (This is not a scientifically representative sample.):

STR relative variance:

Iberia 0.93 (67 len hts, n=84)
Iberia 1.02 (37 len hts, n=109)*
Iberia 1.11 (25 len hts, n=114)*
(Spain & Portugal)

France 1.00 (67 len hts, n=44)
France 0.98 (37 len hts, n=59)
France 1.05 (25 len hts, n=61)

Germanic 0.93 (67 len hts, n=43)
Germanic 0.93 (37 len hts, n=55)
Germanic 1.03 (25 len hts, n=55)
(Benelux, Germany, Switzerland & Austria)

The two main points I want to make are 1) more STRs are better and short haplotype comparisons are suspect; and 2) there is not really a significant difference between geographies. In regards to the latter, there is one thing I tend to agree with on Busby's R1b paper; that is that L11 STR diversity across Europe does not show significant differences. The implication is that L11 spread very quickly. Unfortunately, they didn't make use of the L23xL51 information.

As far as #1, the two asterisked lines for Iberia are a good example. I went through multiple runs of STR variance by layer of the phylogeny to see if the early haplogroups would consistently come out with higher variance like they should. I couldn't get consistency until I started using minimum 67 length ht's, which meant I was really only using 49 STRs as I throw out the multi-copies and nulls. An actuary told me he ran a number of simulations and we are smoking something if we don't have at least 50 STRs in our comparisons.

As you can see the variance increases for Iberia when adding only 4-5% more haplotypes, but losing about 60% of the STRs. That makes me nervous. Ken Nordtvedt told me the more STRs the better. This washes out anomalies. Vince V told me I needed at least 20 haplotypes and that should be good enough for comparisons but since the samples are not representative and I don't use any sampling techniques I don't trust that either. Hence, back to Busby and "they are all about the same age". It's not like one group is 30% younger consistently in comparisons.

razyn
09-27-2013, 09:17 PM
I keep looking around for a map I saw within the past week, with a discussion that mentioned the Volga route and Samara (but didn't, as I recall, mention Khvalynsk). It doesn't seem to be here: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1016-Thoughts-on-what-autosomal-component-was-originally-linked-with-R1b-%28M269-and-down%29&p=11232&viewfull=1#post11232

But anyway, things like that (emphasizing pottery), and much of what Alan says repeatedly about a circumpontic metallurgical complex -- and some other preconceptions I have, and don't share with Rich -- have led me to doubt both of these models, for at least a couple of years now. And FWIW, I still do. Anyway it's useful to have some actual pictures to look at -- even pictures that crop out some other interesting rivers, mines, archaeological cultures and so on.

A couple of specific data points: I don't think
the highest M269(xL23) anywhere on the planet is also the starting point of much of anything; it's an end point, at the moment. Nor do I think that the N/S cluster started in Iberia and moved to the Rhine. DF27 has ended up with a strong presence (of some subclades) in Iberia, or more specifically in western hemisphere populations having family ancestry in Iberia. But, you guys know all that; we just don't necessarily all read the same message from the same tea leaves.

Probably one thing we agree upon is Jean's frequently uttered reminder that some more aDNA might go a long way toward resolving some of this.

parasar
09-27-2013, 10:54 PM
4600?
Or 46000?

AJL
09-27-2013, 11:32 PM
Fire Haired, is there any point to your being here other than to link to posts from Eupedia?

I don't mean to be rude, but if that's all your doing here, now that we have all heard of Eupedia, we can just click on the links ourselves and don't really need you to continue to link to there in multiple posts. If you want to discuss Eupedia and its posts, please do it there.

I would like you to read this page (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7-Terms-of-Service-and-Forum-Rules), which I previously directed you to, and for you to pay special attention to:


3.9 Certain standards of quality-control will be enforced to ensure a productive forum atmosphere. Breaches in basic forum etiquette include but are not limited to cross-posting different threads, consecutive posting in existing threads, or reviving old threads whose course of discussion has long since expired ("necro-bumping"). If a user feels they may have made such a mistakes, they are expected to contact a moderator for assistance.

In plain language, this means that if you keep posting the same thing every day or in multiple threads, or multiple times in a thread, people will get tired and you may be kicked out of here.

rms2
09-27-2013, 11:37 PM
rms2 more proof that what ur saying is wrong. Is that in globe13 the group that was dominate in hunter gathers samples and the only to originate in Europe which is North Euro. is over 10% higher in Finns and Soumi than in Swedish and Noweigan so how could finn and soumi European side be from Swedish and Norwaigen if they have more. Also Y DNA spread to Swedan and Norway with proto Germanic languages about 4,000ybp are R1b S21(all other R1b) and I2a2 P214 which only reach 1-5% each in far western Finland also that is the only area in Finland with 1-3% red hair. More evidence for the theory red hair was raised above 1% in western Europe by the spread of R1b1a2a1a L11 Germanic Italo Celts. O

Also for Y DNa I1 80% of Finnish belong to specific Finnish subclades under I1a2 L22 and the areas it peaks is not the same areas u find Germanic Y DNA. So I1a2 spread to Finland before Germanic languages arrived in Sweden and Norway so probably at least over 4,000 years. And since Most Swedish and Norwiegn I1 is also under the I1a2 L22 subclade I1 came to Scandinavia from the same migration defintley way way way before Germanic languages arrived I bet the first human settlement 9,000-11,000ybp. Also the oldest human skulls u can look it up in Scandinavia are Caucasian. Also the fact is that Finnish are the most fair haired and eyed people in Europe or at least tied with Baltic, northwest Russians, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian. There are very very rarely some east Asian looking ones this is because of the migration of N1c1 about 8,000ybp with Kunda culture.

I'm not sure what you are arguing about. Older photos of the Saami show that they were (and in many cases still are) very Asiatic in appearance, and, as I said before, there are mentions of Finns in the old Norse sagas describing them as dark and "slant-eyed" (not my words). I already supplied a couple of photos of Asiatic-looking Saami. I could post many more, if you require them.

Your argument about I-L22 spreading to Finland before the arrival of Germanic languages proves my point: the Finns have become Scandinavian-looking over time via admixture. The language piece is a non-sequitur in that regard, since we are talking about phenotypes and admixture, not linguistics. I have no doubt Scandinavia was full of I of various kinds before the advent of Germanic languages.

Since it is likely that y haplogroup N first arose in East Asia and gradually moved west, I don't find it surprising that its early bearers might have been Asiatic (Mongoloid) in appearance. Autosomal dna recombines and thus physical appearance is subject to change. It would not surprise me at all to find out that the first R1b was Asiatic looking, although I don't know that for sure.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0066102

alan
09-27-2013, 11:47 PM
Your map is much prettier than mine Richard, but I'm not buying elements of it. For example the BB mining at Ross Island seems to derive from the Atlantic route.

Of course we want ancient DNA to sort matters out.

I am not sure its clearcut. I had a quick look at the ridiculously expensive Ross Island monograph and in the pottery appendix the beaker sherds that could be identified seemed to be categorised as of British-Rhenish sorts not maritime. I looked for years for a reference on the net to the pottery but I eventually gave up and went to the library for a quick look a year ago. The pottery types seem to fit the RC dates well enough too. Years ago I recall seeing beaker maps that made NW France look like an interface between Rhenish and Atlantic beaker impulses and where pottery from both groups converged. So, it wouldnt surprise me if it came from that source and that prospectors had visited that area before the isles.

rms2
09-27-2013, 11:54 PM
You have always been the brave one Jean :)

I should throw my SPECULATIVE map in here as well, along with some speculative rambling

My reasoning:
1. There is nothing in the phylogeny of R1b that hints at L51 originating anywhere east of Brixlegg, Austria. Since the copper used in early metalworking there was still being sourced from the Rudna Glava mine in Serbia, I assume that the area with the highest M269(xL23) anywhere on the planet is also the starting point of the Central European R1b story.
2. Z2103 would have made its move down the Danube and branched into an eastern group (L277 & L584) which reached all the way to Armenia and beyond. A second would have taken the southern Dinaric passes into modern day Albania and ultimately S. Italy (Z2109).
3. The L51 split would have happened in the Tyrolean alps and made its way westward.
4. Around the source of the Rhine (Lake Constance), L11 would have been born. From there, we have two splits, one going north along the Rhine (U106) and another (P312) taking the Alpine passes into NW Italy and France. This latter group would be the Proto-Italo-Celtic Stelae people.
5. The P312 group would have split in the Italian Alps into earlier forms of U152(xL2) (including the first Italian brachycephalics in Remedello and Rinaldone) and continued onto the southern coast of France as DF27. Later DF27 groups, primarily in the form of the NS cluster, would have some migrations out of Iberia in the form maritime BB pottery and palmela points.
6. Some P312 people would have navigated up the Rhone. These people would form the Seine-Oise-Marne (SOM) group, which brought the Copper Age and brachycephalia with them into NE France and SW Belgium. This group would ultimately give rise to L21 on the shores of the English Channel and would be the first to reach Britain and Brittany. Perhaps some of the early L21 types were responsible for the creation of Stone Hedge.
7. The L21 group would later become the two-holed wrist guard group that would come to dominate both sides of the Irish Sea and would speak Q-Celtic.
8. U106 would have been in the Rhenish Bell Beaker group that made its way into England and Scotland, but never in enough numbers to overtake the already existing L21. The first speakers of P-Celtic may have been in this group.
9. U106 would have continued up the North Sea coast making its way into Frisia, Northern Germany and ultimately into Denmark in the form of L48 and the Danish Bell Beaker group. The merger of U106 and L48 groups with Scandinavians would later produce Proto-Germanic.
10. Some U106, and U152+L2+ would have expanded into places like Bohemia as the Eastern Bell Beaker group. This seems to be the only area where Bell Beaker skulls are exclusively of the brachycephalic flat occiput type. The only area in S. Europe to receive influences from the Eastern Bell Beaker group is Northern and Central Italy. This would explain why L2 make up a much higher percentage of U152 outside of Italy than inside of it. They would also have been the first P-Italo-Celtic speakers and would merge with earlier U152 people to form the Polada Culture.
11. L48 would make its way into the east coasts of Britain thousands of years later speaking fully developed Germanic languages.

http://r1b.org/imgs/Early_R1b_Copper_Age_Migrations_v02.png

Of course, you already know I disagree about U106 being part of Rhenish Beaker, but I think one problem with your map, which makes it look like U106 formed the northeastern wing or flank of Bell Beaker, is the Kromsdorf result.

Rhenish Beaker did not just hug the east coast of Britain. It is found in western Britain, as well, which makes one wonder, if it brought U106 to Britain during the Bronze Age why U106 has such a southeastern center of gravity there, which matches the Anglo-Saxon pattern of settlement.

Maybe you're right, but I don't think U106 made it to the Rhine in time to be part of Beaker there. Just my opinion. If ancient dna testing proves me wrong, fine.

rms2
09-28-2013, 12:04 AM
I am not sure its clearcut. I had a quick look at the ridiculously expensive Ross Island monograph and in the pottery appendix the beaker sherds that could be identified seemed to be categorised as of British-Rhenish sorts not maritime. I looked for years for a reference on the net to the pottery but I eventually gave up and went to the library for a quick look a year ago. The pottery types seem to fit the RC dates well enough too. Years ago I recall seeing beaker maps that made NW France look like an interface between Rhenish and Atlantic beaker impulses and where pottery from both groups converged. So, it wouldnt surprise me if it came from that source and that prospectors had visited that area before the isles.

Yes, and the Wessex Beaker Culture is believed to derive from Middle Rhine Beaker. I don't think U106 had a hand in it. Wiltshire is pretty far west in England.

U106, in my opinion, got to the Rhine with the advent of Germanic speakers beginning in around 700 BC and did not make it to Britain in any numbers until the Migration Period and slightly before that as Roman auxilia and federati. The reason what is now England (Angle Land) is called that and speaks a Germanic language is because a whole lot of U106 and I1 Germanics jumped on the gravy train, left their mounds of manure (Terpen) im Watt on the North Sea coast and rowed on over to the greener shores of southeastern Britain.

If they had not come in great numbers, what is now England might have had an Anglo-Saxon ruling elite, but it would have retained its Celtic or perhaps even Latinate speech in much the same way Gaul did, becoming France under the Frankish elite.

Fire Haired
09-28-2013, 12:11 AM
Fire Haired, is there any point to your being here other than to link to posts from Eupedia?

I don't mean to be rude, but if that's all your doing here, now that we have all heard of Eupedia, we can just click on the links ourselves and don't really need you to continue to link to there in multiple posts. If you want to discuss Eupedia and its posts, please do it there.

I would like you to read this page (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7-Terms-of-Service-and-Forum-Rules), which I previously directed you to, and for you to pay special attention to:



In plain language, this means that if you keep posting the same thing every day or in multiple threads, or multiple times in a thread, people will get tired and you may be kicked out of here.

So your saying if I post basically the same thing twice that is a violation. Also if I put links to Eupedia that is also a violation. I post the same idea twice when the subject comes up or the same question is asked. Can you please explain this again.

R.Rocca
09-28-2013, 12:15 AM
Of course, you already know I disagree about U106 being part of Rhenish Beaker, but I think one problem with your map, which makes it look like U106 formed the northeastern wing or flank of Bell Beaker, is the Kromsdorf result.

Rhenish Beaker did not just hug the east coast of Britain. It is found in western Britain, as well, which makes one wonder, if it brought U106 to Britain during the Bronze Age why U106 has such a southeastern center of gravity there.

Maybe you're right, but I don't think U106 made it to the Rhine in time to be part of Beaker there. Just my opinion. If ancient dna testing proves me wrong, fine.

So it is OK for you to think that U106 was a part of Corded Ware even though all Corded Ware samples to date have tested negative for any kind of R1b, but it is not OK to think U106 was an important part of Rhenish Bell Beakers because of two U106- results at Kromsdorf???

rms2
09-28-2013, 12:19 AM
So it is OK for you to think that U106 was a part of Corded Ware even though all Corded Ware samples to date have tested negative for any kind of R1b, but it is not OK to think U106 was an important part of Rhenish Bell Beakers because of two U106- results at Kromsdorf???

Everything is okay. When did I say otherwise? I think it is really really really okay for you to think as you do. I said you could be right, and it makes for a fine discussion.

I just disagree, okay?

I do think the Kromsdorf result is odd, if your map is right.

Fire Haired
09-28-2013, 12:22 AM
I'm not sure what you are arguing about. Older photos of the Saami show that they were (and in many cases still are) very Asiatic in appearance, and, as I said before, there are mentions of Finns in the old Norse sagas describing them as dark and "slant-eyed" (not my words). I already supplied a couple of photos of Asiatic-looking Saami. I could post many more, if you require them.

Your argument about I-L22 spreading to Finland before the arrival of Germanic languages proves my point: the Finns have become Scandinavian-looking over time via admixture. The language piece is a non-sequitur in that regard, since we are talking about phenotypes and admixture, not linguistics. I have no doubt Scandinavia was full of I of various kinds before the advent of Germanic languages.

Since it is likely that y haplogroup N first arose in East Asia and gradually moved west, I don't find it surprising that its early bearers might have been Asiatic (Mongoloid) in appearance. Autosomal dna recombines and thus physical appearance is subject to change. It would not surprise me at all to find out that the first R1b was Asiatic looking, although I don't know that for sure.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0066102

This non sense is really starting to get on my nerves. You sound just like the people claiming China used to be white because of the 4,000 year old tarim mummies. Not true the r1a1 tarim mummies are from Indo European migrations out of probably northern Russia into asia starting about 5,000ybp and they spread Y DNa R1a1a1b2 Z93 and Indo Iranian languages. Also they had almost only Mongloiod mtDNa and all black or brown hair. While Andoronov 3,800-3,400 year old remains in central Siberia also Y DNa R1a1 but almost all Caucasian west Eurasian mtDNa haplogroups and mainly light eyes and mixed brown and blonde hair. Same story for later Indo Iranian samples like Scythians what this shows is they mixed with black haired Mongliods and they were not the first in the tarim basin.


Did you see what I said about globe13. The only group to originate in Europe is called North Euro it is also dominate in hunter gather samples Soumi and Finnish have over 10% more than Swedish and Norwegian their more European. I already showed how I1 arrived in Finland over 4,000ybp at least. Doesn't it make more sense since Finnish have the most North Euro with little Mongoliod admixture that it was the Mongliods that came and mixed with the native Europeans not the other way around. Of course Finnish European ancestry which takes up the vast vast majority of it came through Swedan since they have so much I1a2. I think it came more like 6,000-9,000ybp and was the first major human settlement in Finland.
You act as if slowly after European admixture they became white. The vast majority of their ancestry Is Europe technically they are more European than any Europeans. The Swedish would have to massacre and kill off what you think are the native Mongliods where is the evidence. Mongliod y DNA N1c1 is dominate in Finland if there was military conquest(men die in battle) and extermination it would be much less popular. You would really get Finnish people PO'ed if you said Finland was orignalley Mongliod
or said they looked Mongliod.

R1 or at least R were originally Mongliod. It is the brother of Q dominate in native Americans and central Siberia and spread out in Mongliods in Asia. It is the cousin of N dominate in northern Asians and very popular in Uralic speakers and O dominate in east Asia. It is complicated how stuff works it is just a direct paternal line.

rms2
09-28-2013, 12:26 AM
Re Corded Ware and U106, I will be the first to admit my theory looks pretty weak, given the ancient y-dna results from Corded Ware thus far. I think U106 stayed north and east until around 700 BC and only advanced as far as the Netherlands and the Rhine about that time. I believe that because of its apparent close association with Germanic speakers and the spread of Germanic languages. I don't think it had much if any part in Beaker, which I think was involved in the spread of Italo-Celtic. Italo-Celtic shows no sign that I know of of having had much of a U106 component to it.

But I am not infallible. I could be wrong as wrong can be.

R.Rocca
09-28-2013, 12:31 AM
Re Corded Ware and U106, I will be the first to admit my theory looks pretty weak, given the ancient y-dna results from Corded Ware thus far. I think U106 stayed north and east until around 700 BC and only advanced as far as the Netherlands and the Rhine about that time. I believe that because of its apparent close association with Germanic speakers and the spread of Germanic languages. I don't think it had much if any part in Beaker, which I think was involved in the spread of Italo-Celtic. Italo-Celtic shows no sign that I know of of having had much of a U106 component to it.

But I am not infallible. I could be wrong as wrong can be.

As can I, sorry if I sounded a little testy back there, that was not my intent.

rms2
09-28-2013, 12:31 AM
This non sense is really starting to get on my nerves . . .

I don't care about that. Read what I wrote.

N, the most common y haplogroup in Finland and among the Saami, probably originated in east Asia. There are loads of old photos of very Asiatic-looking Saami, and the Finns themselves are described in old Norse sagas as dark and "slant-eyed" (again, not my words).

I think the Finns and Saami probably looked rather Asiatic at one time but have become Scandinavian-looking over time via admixture. Stuff like that happens all the time. Big deal. Why it bothers you, I don't know.

rms2
09-28-2013, 12:40 AM
As can I, sorry if I sounded a little testy back there, that was not my intent.

No problem. I always look forward to your posts, which are informative and well written. Like I said, you could be right.

R.Rocca
09-28-2013, 12:42 AM
This non sense is really starting to get on my nerves.

Seriously, rms is talking nonsense ?!? People are starting to get on your nerves ?!? That is laughable.

rms2
09-28-2013, 12:54 AM
Has anyone ever seen anything on what type of Beaker stuff accompanied the Kromsdorf skeletons or what skull types those two Beaker men had? I would really like to know (and not to provide ammunition for argument).

Man, I hope we get some ancient y-dna results from some Beaker Folk in Britain, Ireland, and elsewhere soon! Honestly, I'm hoping for an L21+ result somewhere, but I would be thrilled with at least a P312+. I must admit, for me, a U106+ result in Beaker would be disappointing, but hey, you have to roll with whatever comes.

The day an L21+ Beaker result comes in, I am buying some Jameson's Irish whiskey and celebrating. If the result is merely P312 or some other subclade of P312, I celebrate with Guinness. ;)

Fire Haired
09-28-2013, 12:55 AM
I don't care about that. Read what I wrote.

N, the most common y haplogroup in Finland and among the Saami, probably originated in east Asia. There are loads of old photos of very Asiatic-looking Saami, and the Finns themselves are described in old Norse sagas as dark and "slant-eyed" (again, not my words).

I think the Finns and Saami probably looked rather Asiatic at one time but have become Scandinavian-looking over time via admixture. Stuff like that happens all the time. Big deal. Why it bothers you, I don't know.

I know about that whole thing with y DNA N its N1c1c and probably came with Kunda culture about 8,000ybp. Also when will you finally realize Finnish and Soumi have more North Euro in globe13 than Swedish and Norwegian. North Euro is the only to originate in Europe and is dominate in hunter gather samples. Who cares if pictures in 1950 or 1880 of Soumi look east Asian that wasn't that long ago you really think they became white or more white in the last 100 years or so were is the evidence. The fact is that Soumi and FInnish do have Mongliod admixture but very little it makes a lot more sense Europeans were their first. Why would a totally Mongliod population in Finland become more European then Swedish by inter marriage with Swedish over time?

Look at ancient Scandinavian skull shapes THEIR CAUCASIN. If Finalnd was originally Mongloiod like u say why don't they find a bunch of pre historic Mongoloid skulls in Finland. The reason ur attracted to this idea is because it sounds shocking and controversial. The old photos mean nothing I doubt their has been a major change in the last 100 years.

This Scandnavian admixture ur talking about when looking at Y DNA happened over 4,000ybp. Also like I said Finnish and Soumi have more North Euro than Swedish and Norwegian how do u explain that.

old pictures of Soumi the average Soumi I am pretty sure you cherry picked. They look totally European. Not a surprise they have more European blood than anyone else in Europe. and closest aust dna matches to European hunter gathers from Neolithic period.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WSQsPuiQ9Nc/S-XjzKI-_QI/AAAAAAAACDQ/4KoPsENKTCs/s320/Jol_Andersen_-_Sami_man_from_Finnmark,_Norway_-_by_Bonaparte_1884.jpghttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WSQsPuiQ9Nc/S-XkDuoqnhI/AAAAAAAACDU/w0Y3i8wWZEw/s320/Mikel_Mikelsen_Hetta_-_Sami_man,_Kautokeino,_Norway,_by_Bonaparte_1884.j pghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WSQsPuiQ9Nc/S-XjP1JXnGI/AAAAAAAACDI/sseggdnMr08/s320/Anders_Andersen_Ellen_-_Sami_Man_from_Finnmark_Norway,_by_Bonaparte_1884. jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WSQsPuiQ9Nc/S-XkTXicvCI/AAAAAAAACDY/YygwmmYBxuc/s400/Sami_Rasmus_Josefsen_Utsi_Kautokeino_Finnmark_Norw ay_1884_Bonaparte.jpghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WSQsPuiQ9Nc/S3ehp3rG0cI/AAAAAAAAB7Y/PgjsnsIDBk0/s400/Ragnhild+med+barn,+Berit+og+Ole,+Trondheim+1944.jp ghttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lPyXTxfF6X8/TwCaxyBDtLI/AAAAAAAAAQg/ozLm_AlUcqc/s400/42-03204.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lPyXTxfF6X8/TwCaxyBDtLI/AAAAAAAAAQg/ozLm_AlUcqc/s1600/42-03204.jpg)http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-a-KqOxW5PM4/TwCW_Y9OoKI/AAAAAAAAAQU/nOrpEUyGJ-0/s400/42-03249.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-a-KqOxW5PM4/TwCW_Y9OoKI/AAAAAAAAAQU/nOrpEUyGJ-0/s1600/42-03249.jpg)http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uELonmqvuHc/TwCew1zEw-I/AAAAAAAAAQ4/_skl8ex_lTQ/s400/42-03203.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uELonmqvuHc/TwCew1zEw-I/AAAAAAAAAQ4/_skl8ex_lTQ/s1600/42-03203.jpg)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AJKxCSAFxMc/TO_uKuVoWBI/AAAAAAAAAVA/EssxqJ-03Js/s400/NMA.0033065.jpg

rms2
09-28-2013, 12:59 AM
I think those photos show signs of Asiatic/Scandinavian admixture, but suit yourself. I think you cherry picked the most Europoid looking photos you could find and avoided the many Asiatic ones.

But this stuff is way off the Beaker Folk topic.

rms2
09-28-2013, 01:14 AM
I think those photos are more proof of what I said. Y hap N is also common in northern Russia on into Siberia, where its bearers have experienced much less Europoid admixture, look more Asiatic, and reside along the path that N took into Europe. N progressed from east Asia north into Siberia and then west into NE Europe. Naturally, and unsurprisingly, its bearers began to look more Europoid once they got to Europe and interbred with Europeans.

But really, this topic should be taken over to the N subforum.

710

Fire Haired
09-28-2013, 01:15 AM
Has anyone ever seen anything on what type of Beaker stuff accompanied the Kromsdorf skeletons or what skull types those two Beaker men had? I would really like to know (and not to provide ammunition for argument).

Man, I hope we get some ancient y-dna results from some Beaker Folk in Britain, Ireland, and elsewhere soon! Honestly, I'm hoping for an L21+ result somewhere, but I would be thrilled with at least a P312+. I must admit, for me, a U106+ result in Beaker would be disappointing, but hey, you have to roll with whatever comes.

The day an L21+ Beaker result comes in, I am buying some Jameson's Irish whiskey and celebrating. If the result is merely P312 or some other subclade of P312, I celebrate with Guinness. ;)

It is obvious the Bell Beaker R1b is either R1b1a2a1 L51 or R1b1a2a1a1 L11 no doubt it is connected with modern western European R1b. Shows in my opinon the arrival of Germanic Italo Celts.

rms2
09-28-2013, 01:18 AM
Glad that's so "obvious". Problem solved. I guess we can all quit now.

Fire Haired
09-28-2013, 01:25 AM
I think those photos are more proof of what I said. Y hap N is also common in northern Russia on into Siberia, where its bearers have experienced much less Europoid admixture, look more Asiatic, and reside along the path that N took into Europe. N progressed from east Asia north into Siberia and then west into NE Europe. Naturally, and unsurprisingly, its bearers began to look more Europoid once they got to Europe and interbred with Europeans.

But really, this topic should be taken over to the N subforum.

710

U keep forgetting its N1c1 when talking abut Europe.
711

And so now you agree it was Mongoliod N1c1 migration that inter married with native Europeans. Its distribution is very very close to Kunda culture and Comb Ceamic culture. Even though the Baltic people now speak Baltic languages they may have spoke Uralic before that I don't know.

alan
09-28-2013, 01:27 AM
Here is my latest spin on it - they are constantly changing as I read

1. Around 4500BC m269* emerges out of a P297* group around the Dnieper-Azov area in some sort of Sredny Stog group. Its brother clade M73 had emerged out of other P297* peoples further east in the Volga-Ural area.

2. M269* and L23* move west in small numbers into pockets in the Balkans and Lower Danube c. 4300-4000BC and is associated with the early steppe ochre graves that link from the Volga to Hungary as well as other areas to the south. They originally related to the trade in Balko-Carpathian metals heading to the steppe. However, that network came to an end c. 4000BC a few centuries after these groups started appearing in the Balkans. I agree with Mallory that they were probably traders with small enclaves near metal sources including Varna and east Hungary-Romania. They formed pockets over the SE Europe area. The most north-westerly is a group who settle in the Hungary-Romania border area where they blend in with the local people who controlled the major copper sources there after the fall of Rudna Glava etc c. 4000BC.

3. The early steppe tradition of long flint blades combines with the Balkans copper skills to produce a new symbol of the copper dagger. This is the symbol of an elite who combine the old trading mobility of the ocher grave groups with the new copper sources and continue to find their power from control of the metal trade.

4. This thin group dagger elite spread roughly along the lines on the copper dagger map RR posted and are essentially super-cultural with an ability to infiltrate other cultures that foreshadows beaker. They spread through the Alps and into Italy and SE France, probably initially still in L23* form. They are major networkers of the copper trade with mining skills and Remedello is probably their most impressive culture in terms of networking with its daggers being the elite symbol in northern Italy, and parts of Austria and Switzerland and SE France. L51 occurs at the northern end of this range perhaps c. 3300BC. This network survives c. 3600BC-3000BC is Italo-Celtic and L51 spreads freely through it in the area where Remedello daggers are the mains elite symbol. L11 and P312 occur within this network, probably in the Alps, around 3000BC.

5. An offshoot of P312 passing into DF27 and speaking the ancestor of Lusitanian heads from around southern France towards Iberia, primarily as a source of raw materials. This establishes a two-way west Med network that stretches from the the western Alps fringes to Iberia using maritime means. This network allows the prototype of the maritime beaker to pass from the Alpine end of the network which was bordered by Alpine corded ware peoples using very similar pots to pass to Iberia and martime beakers develop there and move, west-east along that network back towards the Alpine source, possibly along with a shift towards archery imagery which eclipsed, but did not totally replace, the dagger. This first shift can be seen at Sion but its largely a cultural influence from Iberia rather than migration.

6. Other elements of the old dagger network that stretched as far east as eastern Hungary are combining with other groups. The most northerly ones combine with other groups including corded ware. The Iberian influences, the old Remedello groups just eastwards within the Alps, perhaps the brachycephalic element and other elements like corded ware on the north side of the Alps combine and also meet the maritime beaker network at its maximum stretch somewhere around the Upper Rhine c. 2600BC. This is the origin of the Rhenish group and perhaps the earliest roots of the separation of pre-proto-Celtic from Italo-Celtic. They are a mixture of P312* and U152. The outlier beaker group around Budapest seems early and may have arrived only shortly after Yamnaya arrived there. I dont see the Yamnaya arrival as fundemental though although contact would have transferred some CMP metalworking traditions back west through the beaker network including tanged daggers.

7. These groups head up the Rhine as far as Holland. Elements of this group probe into northern France where L21 is born. The trail from the Rhine may be seen by the emerging group of single cist burials as far west as Normandy. Some cross to Britain while other prospectors of the same group probably looked at the NW France area before exploring western Britain and Ireland. All three areas have obvious rock exposure, mountains, cliffs of the sort that would be targetted by experienced prospectors. When Ross Island and perhaps some Irish gold sources are found a network is established where Ireland largely functions as a primary source of raw material and primary metal production while southern Britain, rather like the Lower Rhine forms a role of middlemen and wealth accumulates in the Wessex area as a result. This is shown by the major Ross Island and Irish gold origin of early beaker metalwork in Ireland, Britain and northern France, occasionally stretching even further east. A couple of centuries later Cornish tin is added, partly taking away the advantage of the naturally arsenical copper of Ross Island which contrasted with other isles copper sources. The lesser need for arsenical copper means new non-arsenical mines in Wales etc sprang up. However, Ireland does retain a role in copper and gold and mine in the SW of the Mount Gabriel type picked up as Ross Island mining ended. The network established in the Ross Island days linking Britain, Ireland and northern France continues into the Wessex period and beyond and this forms the basis of the earliest part of the Atlantic Bronze Age.



5.

5. The L11 SNP also occurs in this


You have always been the brave one Jean :)

I should throw my SPECULATIVE map in here as well, along with some speculative rambling

My reasoning:
1. There is nothing in the phylogeny of R1b that hints at L51 originating anywhere east of Brixlegg, Austria. Since the copper used in early metalworking there was still being sourced from the Rudna Glava mine in Serbia, I assume that the area with the highest M269(xL23) anywhere on the planet is also the starting point of the Central European R1b story.
2. Z2103 would have made its move down the Danube and branched into an eastern group (L277 & L584) which reached all the way to Armenia and beyond. A second would have taken the southern Dinaric passes into modern day Albania and ultimately S. Italy (Z2109).
3. The L51 split would have happened in the Tyrolean alps and made its way westward.
4. Around the source of the Rhine (Lake Constance), L11 would have been born. From there, we have two splits, one going north along the Rhine (U106) and another (P312) taking the Alpine passes into NW Italy and France. This latter group would be the Proto-Italo-Celtic Stelae people.
5. The P312 group would have split in the Italian Alps into earlier forms of U152(xL2) (including the first Italian brachycephalics in Remedello and Rinaldone) and continued onto the southern coast of France as DF27. Later DF27 groups, primarily in the form of the NS cluster, would have some migrations out of Iberia in the form maritime BB pottery and palmela points.
6. Some P312 people would have navigated up the Rhone. These people would form the Seine-Oise-Marne (SOM) group, which brought the Copper Age and brachycephalia with them into NE France and SW Belgium. This group would ultimately give rise to L21 on the shores of the English Channel and would be the first to reach Britain and Brittany. Perhaps some of the early L21 types were responsible for the creation of Stone Hedge.
7. The L21 group would later become the two-holed wrist guard group that would come to dominate both sides of the Irish Sea and would speak Q-Celtic.
8. U106 would have been in the Rhenish Bell Beaker group that made its way into England and Scotland, but never in enough numbers to overtake the already existing L21. The first speakers of P-Celtic may have been in this group.
9. U106 would have continued up the North Sea coast making its way into Frisia, Northern Germany and ultimately into Denmark in the form of L48 and the Danish Bell Beaker group. The merger of U106 and L48 groups with Scandinavians would later produce Proto-Germanic.
10. Some U106, and U152+L2+ would have expanded into places like Bohemia as the Eastern Bell Beaker group. This seems to be the only area where Bell Beaker skulls are exclusively of the brachycephalic flat occiput type. The only area in S. Europe to receive influences from the Eastern Bell Beaker group is Northern and Central Italy. This would explain why L2 make up a much higher percentage of U152 outside of Italy than inside of it. They would also have been the first P-Italo-Celtic speakers and would merge with earlier U152 people to form the Polada Culture.
11. L48 would make its way into the east coasts of Britain thousands of years later speaking fully developed Germanic languages.

http://r1b.org/imgs/Early_R1b_Copper_Age_Migrations_v02.png

MacEochaidh
09-28-2013, 01:35 AM
Just look at the evidence they are the more European than anyone. The Y DNA of Swedish origin in Finland I2a2 P214 and R1b S21 each are only about 1-5% in western Finland. It was not recent(last 4,000 years) Swedish admixture. I am sick of these dumb conspiracy theory's the fact is Finland is in Europe Finnish people are more European than any Europeans. The oldest human skull shapes in Scandinavia are CAUCASIN. You want to believe this because it sounds ground breaking and surprising if it was true and there was legit evidence I would agree with you. I know your to stubborn to agree with me no matter how much evidence I show you. I didn't cherry pick at all click here (http://www.google.com/search?um=1&newwindow=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Finnish+people&oq=Finnish+people&gs_l=img.3..0l10.471735.473470.0.473598.14.10.0.4. 4.0.163.730.9j1.10.0....0...1c.1.27.img..0.14.787. gvwyEOWMiYg#imgdii=_) for google images of Finnish.

I think you are the only true European and True Celt in the world. You are my hero and I love you with all my heart. Thank God you showed up and showed everyone the way.

rms2
09-28-2013, 01:36 AM
U keep forgetting its N1c1 when talking abut Europe.
711

And so now you agree it was Mongoliod N1c1 migration that inter married with native Europeans. Its distribution is very very close to Kunda culture and Comb Ceamic culture. Even though the Baltic people now speak Baltic languages they may have spoke Uralic before that I don't know.

This is way off topic. You should stop.

Estonian is a Uralic language, as are Finnish and Hungarian (Magyar). The Saami speak Uralic languages.

I now agree it was Mongoloid migration? I was the one who suggested that in the first place and gave it as the reason the Saami and Finns were probably originally Asiatic looking but have become progressively more Europoid via admixture.

Now I am going to ignore you if you post anything more on this topic in this thread. I am thinking about extending that policy to all of your posts.

Dear Moderators,

Feel free to delete or move all of what I have posted on the Saami and Finns in this thread. It won't bother me, as long as you are deleting or moving everything on that topic here.

alan
09-28-2013, 01:44 AM
It is obvious the Bell Beaker R1b is either R1b1a2a1 L51 or R1b1a2a1a1 L11 no doubt it is connected with modern western European R1b. Shows in my opinon the arrival of Germanic Italo Celts.

I would say there is a very good chance that the Kromsdorf M269 man who was also negative for U106 was P312 of some sort given the lack of L51 or L11 in central Germany.

alan
09-28-2013, 01:49 AM
Other than the odd reference to skull shapes on prehistoric skeletons, this forum is not really one that dabbles in the racial theory stuff. However, there is a autosomal DNA section of a little-used physical anthropology section on this site if you wish to discuss this kind of thing. It just gets too messy if big picture theories off topic to the thread are posted in any random thread. This thread is about beaker culture and its immediate pre-beaker copper age origins.

I hope you dont take offence. Its just that this site is very very structured into sections and threads. It takes a little while to get used to it.


U keep forgetting its N1c1 when talking abut Europe.
711

And so now you agree it was Mongoliod N1c1 migration that inter married with native Europeans. Its distribution is very very close to Kunda culture and Comb Ceamic culture. Even though the Baltic people now speak Baltic languages they may have spoke Uralic before that I don't know.

alan
09-28-2013, 02:39 AM
Rich R- I like the way your map, especially in its early phase tries to stick to the phylogenic geography of today in terms of M269 then L23XL51 then L51* and L11*. It is an objective way of looking at it. I think you are broadly right to do that. However, I would make a couple of observations that might put a slightly different spin on this early phase in eastern Europe.

1. Although it is tempting to look at the Balkan/east-central European distribution of M269* and L23XL51 in terms of native groups associated with the copper mines and areas of metal wealth, it is also important to note that the very early steppe ochre grave groups/Suvorovo type people settled in pockets that included the metal centres that existed in the period 4300-4000BC when they appeared. Specifically a group is known to have settled around Varna and other groups settled around the metal sources near the Hungary-Romania border. Another group may have settled in Serbia. So, an association with those old Balkans metal centres does not strictly mean that we are looking at a Balkans continuity. These areas did see very early steppe settlement. These steppe ochre grave-Suvorovo groups are basically the same people who already appear to have been carrying out the trade of Balkan metals to the steppes before the collapse and it seems to me some of them settled in Old Europe by following their established trading routes. That led them to settling around the collapsed Varna centre as well as around the Balkans successor mines that arose c. 4000BC. That could give the impression of them being native Balkans lineages when in fact they were steppe peoples who settled along the trade routes they already knew. In terms of DNA I recall that the Bulgaria study showed a big peak of L23XL51 around Varna.

2. Some allowance has to also be made for subsequent displacement. The M269* peak among Kosovo Albanians is interesting in that it has been suggested that a number of indicators within the Albanian language and other historic hints might place the original Albanian homeland in a landlocked hilly area around western Romania. That is of course interesting as its close to the area where early suvorovo type ochre grave groups appear to have settled close to the copper sources there. Perhaps they are the descendants of this original group steppe settlers there but now in a displaced position.

Jean M
09-28-2013, 09:39 AM
4600?
Or 46000?

Thanks! Fixed.

Jean M
09-28-2013, 09:54 AM
I am not sure its clearcut. I had a quick look at the ridiculously expensive Ross Island monograph and in the pottery appendix the beaker sherds that could be identified seemed to be categorised as of British-Rhenish sorts not maritime.

As I say on page 169, their technology was particularly similar to that of Atlantic France. [Palmela Points - presumed origin Portugal] Then we have the two-holed wrist bracers scattered over Ireland. I do not cite the pottery.

Ross Island is important because it is so early. It seems to have supplied both Ireland and Britain in the early days, before tin was discovered in Britain, which made Britain an attractive option just at the time that the power structures in BB were shifting to the north of the Alps.


ridiculously expensive

Surely there will be a copy in your nearest academic library. What I cite though is his contribution to Is There a British Chalcolithic? (2012). I could scan that for you, if you like.

Jean M
09-28-2013, 10:46 AM
Maju has a handy map http://forwhattheywereweare.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/languedoc-chalcolithic-dna/
From Pellicer 1986 (himself on Harrison), several maps gathered in one here by Maju.

717


Light blue dots: Palmela points (weapons originated in Portugal)
Dark blue dots: turtle buttons (originated in Portugal?)
Green dots: conical and Dufort buttons (likely from Languedoc)
Orange dots: pyramidal buttons (Catalonia essentially)
Stars indicate Treilles (green), Zambujal (blue) and Los Millares (black).

Jean M
09-28-2013, 12:16 PM
Exceptionally, a stone stele was found at Capli. It seems to be putting this stele in the early ochre grave period. Where is Capli?


Done my best to find it, but have got no closer than somewhere in the Dnieper region. Seems to be spelt Čapli in Romanian. So maybe the spelling is different in Ukrainian.

AJL
09-28-2013, 01:20 PM
Might this be Cocorăștii Capli, in Prahova County (http://www.geody.com/geospot.php?world=terra&ufi=-1156262&alc=ccr)? It's a ski area not awfully close to the Dneper, though, but rather smack in the middle of Romania.

alan
09-28-2013, 01:59 PM
Jean- I did get off my bottom and went to the library for a read of the Ross Island monograph. Which is radical for me in this hobby lol. As for the Was there a British Chalcolithic, I have not read it as yet. Sounds very interesting though from the contents listing. Its not too bad a price for an archaeological book. Sounds like one maybe worth buying.


As I say on page 169, their technology was particularly similar to that of Atlantic France. [Palmela Points - presumed origin Portugal] Then we have the two-holed wrist bracers scattered over Ireland. I do not cite the pottery.

Ross Island is important because it is so early. It seems to have supplied both Ireland and Britain in the early days, before tin was discovered in Britain, which made Britain an attractive option just at the time that the power structures in BB were shifting to the north of the Alps.



Surely there will be a copy in your nearest academic library. What I cite though is his contribution to Is There a British Chalcolithic? (2012). I could scan that for you, if you like.

Jean M
09-28-2013, 02:05 PM
Might this be Cocorăștii Capli, in Prahova County (http://www.geody.com/geospot.php?world=terra&ufi=-1156262&alc=ccr)? It's a ski area not awfully close to the Dneper, though, but rather smack in the middle of Romania.

Don't think so. Here are the snippets that led me to the Dnieper.

From the review of Govedarica 2004 by Haskel Greenfield


Govedarica demonstrates that ocher graves are found in a steppe environment, at the edges of the mountain regions (Carpathians on the west and northern Caucasus on the east)..... The earliest horizon (4600–4300 B.C.; Horizon I, Vorzepter-Periode ) is only found in the northern Pontic (“Faza Ia”/Giurgiules¸ ti i Ib/Čapli-Cainari) and northwest Pontic regions (Pre-Cucuteni III/Cucuteni A1– A2).

From Florin Gogâltan, Die Beziehungen zwischen Siebenbürgen und dem Schwarzmeerraum. Die ersten Kontakte (ca. 4500 - 3500 v. Chr.) (http://www.academia.edu/1978804/Florin_Gogaltan_Die_Beziehungen_zwischen_Siebenbur gen_und_dem_Schwarzmeerraum._Die_ersten_Kontakte_c a._4500_-_3500_v._Chr._)


Dieses entspricht der Erscheinung der ersten Tumuli sowie einer nomadischen Bevölkerung nordpontischen Ursprungs, die unter dem Namen Suvorovo bekannt ist (Govedarica 1998, 179-190; Burtănescu 2002, 386 f.; Govedarica 2004, 266-268). Das von ihnen bewohnte Gebiet ertreckte sich von der unteren Donau (Cainari, Giurgiuleşti, Fundeni, Suvorovo, Fălciu, Casimcea usw.) bis zur Dnjepr-Gegend (Novodanilovka, Čapli, Krivoi Rog, Vorošilovgrad, Mariupol usw.)

alan
09-28-2013, 02:35 PM
Shame. Its interesting in that that those reviews of that book do seem to be indicating its rather early which would be interesting as it would tie in very nicely with your Stelae people and give a nice early datapoint somewhere in between the steppes. If it is in Romania that would also make a lot of sense with the metal sources in nearby Transylvanian.

Kemi Oba has always seemed a bit vague in terms of dating but maybe that is because of their stelae being reused a lot. Perhaps the stelae tradition is somewhat earlier than thought and does go back to 4000BC and have some sort of link to some of the early ochre grave groups. Whatever the detail, its a very interesting thing that the author of that paper does link it with ochre grave groups some of whom appear to have taken an interest in the copper sources nearby. When RR posted that map of copper daggers and they also are dated earliest in that Hungary-Romania border that seemed to fit in some way too to the whole post-collapse copper and spread of dagger symbolism on those early stelae. [

QUOTE=Jean M;14736]Done my best to find it, but have got no closer than somewhere in the Dnieper region. Seems to be spelt Čapli in Romanian. So maybe the spelling is different in Ukrainian.[/QUOTE]

AJL
09-28-2013, 02:37 PM
Aha I see -- this is likely Căinari, in Moldova. That's why we weren't finding it in Romania, I suspect (changing boundaries). This is near the Dnester rather than the Dneper, but still in the right general area.

R.Rocca
09-28-2013, 02:38 PM
Don't think so. Here are the snippets that led me to the Dnieper.

From the review of Govedarica 2004 by Haskel Greenfield

From Florin Gogâltan, Die Beziehungen zwischen Siebenbürgen und dem Schwarzmeerraum. Die ersten Kontakte (ca. 4500 - 3500 v. Chr.) (http://www.academia.edu/1978804/Florin_Gogaltan_Die_Beziehungen_zwischen_Siebenbur gen_und_dem_Schwarzmeerraum._Die_ersten_Kontakte_c a._4500_-_3500_v._Chr._)

In English it looks to be "Chapli". "Chapli, Ukraine" in Ukranian is "Чаплі, Україна". It is located on the southern bank of the Dniester River of Western Ukraine.

rms2
09-28-2013, 02:49 PM
In English it looks to be "Chapli". "Chapli, Ukraine" in Ukranian is "Чаплі, Україна". It is located on the southern bank of the Dniester River of Western Ukraine.

That's in my mother-in-law's old stomping grounds: the Karpat (Carpathians). She was born in Lvov (Lviv). Her family has lived in that region, as far as she knows, forever (surname Sagalevich).

alan
09-28-2013, 02:54 PM
Oh well if its near the Dnieper, which does make more sense in terms of the chronology in the book review, its not a great geographical breakthrough but it is nevertheless an interesting early chronological datapoint for stelae.

alan
09-28-2013, 02:59 PM
lol this is fun. The Dniester is the Ukraine-Moldova border isnt it. That is slightly more geographically interesting to me. . They are Romanian speaking not Slavic apart from the Ukrainian minority within their eastern border. Most famous Moldovan I can think of was Brezhnev the USSR president in the 70s. There is a paper on the yDNA of Moldova. Moldova has quite a lot of L23xL51.



In English it looks to be "Chapli". "Chapli, Ukraine" in Ukranian is "Чаплі, Україна". It is located on the southern bank of the Dniester River of Western Ukraine.

Jean M
09-28-2013, 03:26 PM
Aha I see -- this is likely Căinari, in Moldova. That's why we weren't finding it in Romania, I suspect (changing boundaries). This is near the Dnester rather than the Dneper, but still in the right general area.

No - the quotation in German distinguishes between Căinari (Moldova) in the group near the Danube, and Čapli in the group near the Dnieper.

AJL
09-28-2013, 03:28 PM
Yes, Richard found the correct spot a minute after I posted.

alan
09-28-2013, 04:10 PM
So Dnieper it is lol. Still, the significance remains in that its a very early date for a stele. The groups on the Dnieper seem to have in the period 4500-4000BC beenn some sort oF Sredny Stog variant who were right at the then steppe-farmer interface and controlled the flow of Balko-Carpathian metals that flowed into the steppe as far as the Ural and north Caucasus. I read that some of those groups included farmer type crania especially the males. I have also thought for a while that this two way connection from about 4500BC was the first major network stretching from the Balkans to the Urals and north Caucasus so it may well have had some linguistic importance. Some call this the Skelya elite of Sredny Stog and their burials have been found from the Dniester to the Don with the metals and lithic influences they may have carried extending to the Urals. There are a number of opinions on this but I think the data would allow for two-way geneflow of a limited but important nature arund the 4500BC-4000BC period, perhaps initially more farmers into the elite Sredny Stog traders and then early steppe elements in terms of the ochre graves in the Balkans and Danube. Its an incredibly interesting period that I would like to read more about.

I do think the upshot of this stuff is that the idea of a sharp border between the steppes and old Europe is not entirely valid even well before 4000BC. It is possible that steppes lineages were as far west as Hungary before 4000BC and intergrating with the metal skilled locals there. That way R1b lineages could have been in the Balkans and Hungary well before 4000BC. That gives plenty of time for them to form a new hybrid entity (which I fancy calling the copper dagger network for shorthand) and have become associated with the expansion and control of post-4000BC copper working and mining across the Alps and Italy. That makes an awful lot of sense to me and seems chronologically to work. To me this is a variant on Jean's stelae people but pushing it back in time and making a Kemi Oba link more of a parallel one rather than origin point. I have doubts about the age of the Kemi Oba stelae anyway. Could they be significantly older than currently dated? Are they largely dates simply by reuse in later burials providing a terminus ante quem date? I honestly can find very little detail on this available on the web or the books I have. Jean-would you recommend or have any links to anything about dating of the KEMI Oba stelae? The concentration appears to be down to it being crucial trading node. However, what trade and what period? Could they relate more to these early steppe groups who clearly were involved and deeply interested in the copper trade and who settled in some important copper nodes.

alan
09-28-2013, 04:29 PM
The link to Maju just gave me a thought. The Treilles DNA was linked to the Languedoc copper age groups. Now, in pre-beaker France there was a gap in copper sources and object distribution that is approximately Provence. Copper using groups lay to its east around the Italian and Swiss area and to the west in Languedoc. The gap in Provence was not filled until the beaker phase. Anyway is the Treilles not another haplogroup G datapoint for the pre-beaker copper age groups of the Alps-west Med area to add to the Ice man? I know that is not rocket science but last time I thought about Treilles I wasnt as briefed on the pre-beaker copper age in the west Med as I am now and was really thinking of them more in terms of a late Neolithic people. However, Languedoc was actually very important in pre-beaker copper in France. That, along with the ice man is in a way two strikes against the pre-beaker copper age spread in the Alps and west Med. theory. Not enough by any means to rule it out but worrying.

rms2
09-28-2013, 05:38 PM
The link to Maju just gave me a thought. The Treilles DNA was linked to the Languedoc copper age groups. Now, in pre-beaker France there was a gap in copper sources and object distribution that is approximately Provence. Copper using groups lay to its east around the Italian and Swiss area and to the west in Languedoc. The gap in Provence was not filled until the beaker phase. Anyway is the Treilles not another haplogroup G datapoint for the pre-beaker copper age groups of the Alps-west Med area to add to the Ice man? I know that is not rocket science but last time I thought about Treilles I wasnt as briefed on the pre-beaker copper age in the west Med as I am now and was really thinking of them more in terms of a late Neolithic people. However, Languedoc was actually very important in pre-beaker copper in France. That, along with the ice man is in a way two strikes against the pre-beaker copper age spread in the Alps and west Med. theory. Not enough by any means to rule it out but worrying.

Twenty G-P15s and two I-M26s at Treilles circa 3,000 BC, yes.

Jean M
09-28-2013, 05:55 PM
That, along with the ice man is in a way two strikes against the pre-beaker copper age spread in the Alps and west Med. theory.

Yes I know. But I still feel that it is the best fit. We'll wait and see.

alan
09-28-2013, 07:07 PM
A couple of more non-r1b pre-beaker copper age site along the Alpine-Med. region and I would be seriously wondering about the theory. However, it is possible that just one of the pre-copper age groups along that region was R1b. Based on phylogeny and the widespread nature of its dagger as a symbol throughout north Italy and the Alpine area, I would fancy that to be Remedello.

Perhaps the groups further west in Languedoc and Iberia were not R1b at this time. There is a gap in Provence between the Remedello/Ligurian/Alpine groups and the Languedoc groups. The Languedoc pre-beaker copper age people apparently did not network much with their copper and the same has been said about Iberia. The Languedoc group appear to have used copper for elite local identity. They also were bypassed by the early beaker network initially which connected Provence and Italy to Iberia so they are unlikely to have had a core role in the origin of the beaker network. The Iberian groups seems to have used the copper for mundane use, possibly the easy won copper meaning it didnt lend itself to being prestigious there.

Only Remedello connected groups seem to have combined the use of use of prestige objects and weapons and wide networking which IMO foreshadows beaker behavior the best of these pre-beaker copper cultures. Remedello burials also imply some sort of elite warrior aspect and it is this and other cultures of the same period in Italy where the classic central and nw European beaker crania are known in pre-beaker times. So, it is possible that Languedoc and Iberia at this period were different people all together and it is to Italy and adjacent Alpine areas and the Remedello culture I would see the most strong hints of beaker-type behavior and traits in pre-beaker times. They did of course have influence along part of what was later the beaker network. I actually wonder, given the timing of the end of the Ligurian copper mines c. 2600BC is the real original purpose of the maritime beaker network was not driven by groups in north Italy and the Alps looking for a new source of copper. This appears to have been denied to them by the Languedoc groups who initially remained aloof. The two directions of the search could have been trading with Iberia then looking deeper into the Alps.


Twenty G-P15s and two I-M26s at Treilles circa 3,000 BC, yes.

alan
09-29-2013, 01:48 AM
I think in terms of pre-3000BC people looking into the pre-beaker copper age theory are thinking more along the lines of it passing from the Balkans in some L23* form and passing through the Alps in L51* form. Some estimates for L51 put it around 3000BC or a little after although I have seen an estimate that suggests it might be several centuries older and not so much younger than L23. The highest L51xL11 identified to date is in Austrian Tyrol with most of the rest in northern half of Italy and SE France. There are only a very few anywhere else and its rare north of the Alps or in Iberia. Its got a distribution that is distinctive enough to think of it as real. Its distribution does look like a pre-beaker copper age one as does its date.

As I said, there is no unified pre-beaker copper age cultures in the Alps, Italy and the west Med. There are several groups. However, the Remedello one seems very influential as not only do they have their own zone in north Italy but their daggers appear on stelae across the east to west width of the Alps. Remedello and some other related cultures in Italy have the first showing of beaker type broad headed populations in Europe. They also seem tied to mines in Liguria that operated c. 3500-2600BC. The distribution and roughly the age of L51 is not too far off fitting this group. I think the problem may be when we try too extend a pre-beaker model further west than the Alps for R1b. I think it falls down a little at that stage. My preference is to see it confined to the Alps and Italy with pre-beaker copper age cultures further west in Languedoc and Iberia as non-R1b.

I think it could simply be that when their Ligurian mines failed c. 2600BC and the Languedoc group didnt want to trade their copper, the Remedello type groups in Italy and their clients in the Alps made contact with Iberia. However, I do not see beaker as some sort of simple out of Iberia thing. I think beaker could have developed anywhere along the stretch between Italy and Portugal during this period of contact but the beaker pots origins look much more likely to have come from prototypes in the corded ware that was around the Alps c. 2800BC when the groups who used the Remedello knife symbol were closeby to the south at places like Sion. Maritime beakers and the archery cult thing may have come along with the contacts with the west. However, I think essentially L51 remained in the Remedello influences area around the Alps and gave birth to L11 and P312 there in pre-beaker times without much further migration until just after P312 which I think dates to around the time when beaker was adopted in the area c. 2600BC. I see the main spread of actual people as coming from the west Alpine/Liguria area after they had adopted beakers, not from Iberia. That fits far better the dna evidence IMO.

I dont want to leave a model that does not explain R1b in Iberia. Some people thinks this only leaves the option of later central European beaker groups that appear in Iberia. However, I think once the network between SE France/north Italy and Iberia was constructed for copper supply reasons, people from the Italy/NW France would have moved along this new 2 way contact line (represented by maritime beaker) into Iberia. I think a small but important number of middlemen may have been needed to settle in Iberia to create this network. Portugal's pre-beaker copper age does not seem to have been experienced in wide networking and copper use looks practical rather than showy or martial there at that time. So, I think settlers must have arrived there to set up this relationship. It is those settlers after all who would know the route home and exactly who wanted copper back home in north Italy, France and the western Alps etc. It would be much easier for them to have trade posts and collect the copper from Iberian mines, perhaps through local middlemen, and bring it back to the right place than for Iberians to have to find them. I think that stands to reason and we should imagine middlemen and maritime traders from further east settled in Iberian primary mining and copper producing communities there. That could be the origin of P312 or maybe already DF27 reaching Iberia.

They also probably in typical barbarian European style married elite wives and fostered each others children and gave hostages to create the bonds of family and clientship. That would create a situation where a prototype of beakers could have reached Iberia from Liguria or nearby and maritime beakers could have developed in Iberia and moved east with wives etc. It would have been a two way thing. However, I think the nature of pre-beaker Iberian use of metals and mining and the sheer ease of gaining copper in that copper el derado means that its real value was only when it was traded out of Iberia in the form of raw materials or finished objects to areas which had a lack of the material. The closing of the Ligurian mines used by the Remedello linked groups may have been the trigger for people further east to set up the link with Iberia. The timing is close to perfect. Once established a two way network like that could get very complex with middlemen and traders or their second generation descendants also moving back towards origin point. They were probably ridiculously mobile people but I suspect a lineage would try and dominate the network regardless of the local farmers. An advantage of a model like this is that we need not expect central European type single beaker burials to move from the Alps to Iberia or any high visibility of settlers from the Alps, Liguria etc because they also had a similar collective burial traditions, albeit that that the Remedello proper group in Italy did seem to include rather impressive elite warrior burials

It seems to me that after 2700BC or so the beaker pot and an early undeveloped version of the archery cult would have been encorporated into Alpine, Liguria and Italy who had never set foot in Iberia but who had strong alliance and possibly family links (although Remedello burials also show archery). The line of communication c. 2700BC is probably demonstrated by the fact that early dates for maritime beaker exist at both the Iberian and north Italy ends of the network. So a number of formerly separate groups would have come to look like a unified early beaker culture after a few generations.

The spread of P312 in directions would seem to me to have been achieved by beakerised Remedello groups who penetrated the Alps or went up the Rhone towards the Rhine in the west. I think that is the origin of the Rhine group. I think similar beakerised Remedello related groups probably passed through more eastern Alpine passes into Austria and beyond and formed the beaker east group. After all the old Remedello network covered the full length of the Alps and there would be some differences among beakerised former Remdedllo network groups at the west and east ends of the Alps. In fact this fits the skull evidence in that the Remedello groups proper in Italy were broad headed and the Remedello influenced groups in places like Sion were long headed (which could simply be down to the local women they married).

I think this concept that it is really the groups in Liguria/north Italy and their Alpine cousins that were the genetic originators of the beaker-R1b link is borne out by the clade patterns too.

I have suggested that a small group of middlemen sailed and settled in Iberia. Iberia fits an expansion from a tiny clan of DF27. This makes Iberia a destination point rather than source for European r1b.

The Rhine group IMO probably originated in a beakerised Remedello-linked west alpine group, such as seen in the first two stages at Sion, penetrating into the Rhine from the western Alps and Rhone c. 2600BC. I see them as probably mainly P312*(not U152 or DF27 which had by then already occurred) people at that moment in time. They spread up the Rhine and into northern France giving birth to a number of downstream clades as they went. The most important by far was L21 which is likely to have discovered the other great metal zone in the isles and NW France and grew massively on that basis.

The east group probably came from beakerised Remedello proper groups in the more easterly points on the south side of the Alps and penetrated into central Europe through eastern Alpine passes. They at that point in time may have already been U152. They were the classic broad headed beaker people. As seen at Sion, they expanded back west a century or two later, probably violently. That would probably have related to U152 too. They presumably were based on the controlling the sources around Germany, Slovakia etc and later expanded back to the western Alps to control that part.

The common thread in my model is that L51, L11 and P312 arose among Remedello and related groups c. 3500-2700BC and that they were beakerised in the sense of forming a new hybrid culture through trading with Iberia c. 2700BC. I see the L11 and L51 aspects as remants of the more stay-home pre-beaker copper age Remedello related groups. I only see a substantial spread from there as happening after P312 and this was multi-directional but all flowing from the Alpine areas - first linking to Iberia then separately linking to the Rhine and central Europe. I would see Iberia's main role as a place where P312 people went to to control trade from Iberia - initially back towards Liguria but once settled they probaby expanded with maritime beaker up the Atlantic side of France and very lightly beyond.

Jean M
09-29-2013, 01:34 PM
I also think the Dutch model still has a great deal going for it

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


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


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


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


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

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

Jean M
09-29-2013, 02:13 PM
I think in terms of pre-3000BC people looking into the pre-beaker copper age theory are thinking more along the lines of it passing from the Balkans in some L23* form and passing through the Alps in L51* form.

Not me. See my speculative map once again. If you want to devise a different theory, that's fine by me. I just want to be clear that it differs from mine.

L23 does not mark the big expansion in R1b. It may well have spread up and out from the Danube with dairy farming. Almost all of it today belongs to a subclade on a different branch from the huge P312 and U106 explosion. On the line to P312 and U106 we have a linear chain of markers with no star-bursts until that explosion. That would fit the picture of a long period of static population. Quite a different pattern emerges with the bushy lines of P312 and U106, strongly indicating population growth, typical of people spreading widely into new territory.

722

alan
09-29-2013, 02:30 PM
I dont really see much reality in the Dutch model. Its a grossly unlikely spot for a metallurgical interested and skilled culture to come from for a start. There is a good critique of it in Background to Beakers that is fairly convincing. However, I also do not think Iberia is any more than a source of maritime beaker and copper. I think if there was a migratory aspect from Iberia it was very limited and secondary.

It seems to me that the original driver for establishing the earliest beaker network was probably the more westerly Remedello elements when the Ligurian mines appear to have ceased production. They seem to have been pushing into the Alps presumably looking for sources and I suspect they also created a trade link with Iberia. The Alpine Remdedello linked groups c. 2800BC were in a good position to transfer the idea of beakers from their corded ware neighbours who arrived adjacent to them at that very time. I suspect the earliest beakers that appear between Italy and Iberia simply reflect both contact with the corded groups in Switzerland and Iberian copper producers to the west but indirectly through a Remedello middleman. The Remedello linked groups in Liguria and the western Alps and Rhone area were in the best position to simultaneously link to both to Iberia and to corded ware groups. The Remedello linked groups had several behavioural aspects that prefigure beaker that other pre-beaker copper age groups lacked IMO. The timing of this all fits very well IMO and coincides very well with the apparent winding down phases of the the Ligurian mines so they had motive.

So, in genetic terms I see the original reservoir of R1b that fed into beaker as the pre-beaker Alpine/Italian Remedello groups. That is probably represented by the entire L51-L11-P312 sequence, maybe even early DF27 and U152. I think this all remained in the basic Alpine-Italy-Ligurian area until early beaker. So, I do not see pre-beaker groups in Languedoc or Iberia as R1b. I think Iberia probably recieved its R1b from Liguria/western Alps or adjacent c. 2700BC give or take and that was in the form of a network that is best represented by maritime beaker regardless of which end of the network the actual maritime beaker formed in - although I think the prototype clearly moved east to west just before.

In a sense I am arguing that beaker culture was basically a morphing from western elements of the Remedello group and the drive of people across Europe came from them.

The question remains if R1b from L51 down to p312 was contained within the Remdello areas c. 3500-2800BC then how did it get to those areas in the first place. The evidence for L51 east of the Austrian-Italian Alps border area is poor so it seems likely that it originated in that area. All I can postulate is that the timing of the arrival of the copper age in the Alps and Italy is such that it probably got there from groups in the Romania-Hungary area near the metal sources there c. 4000BC. You could say there is a trail of copper and dagger chiefs that starts in that area and arrives in the Alps and Italy a few centuries later.

One could then ask if their is a steppe or IE connection and I would say there could be. Early steppe ochre grave groups were apparently present in the Romania-Hungary border area as well as other parts of SE Europe from before 4000BC. It is noticeable that a couple of these pockets settled important points or sources of the copper networks c. 4000BC and before. I think that they may have combined a long standing tradition of mobile trading between these areas and the steppes with local expertise and become the controlling elite of the system around east Hungary -Romania c. 4000BC. Steppe elements added mobility and may have been responsible for the spread west albeit heavily disguised by cultural transformations in the Balkans between 4300BC and 3700BC when locals and steppe elements blended.

If this is correct then the crossing into Italy and the Alps would have taken place c. 3700BC give or take and geography probably meant new groupings like Remedello developed. Is this date a problem for Italo-Celtic origins. Well if you believe the Anthony model to the letter it would be. However, Anthony himself admits that geographical nuances may be as much involved as chronology in the divisions within IE, including Anatolian. I would amplify that further and say that it is perfectly possible in a place the size of the steppes that Anatolian and PIE could have been spoken at the same time c. 4000BC. I would also point out that steppe links in two directions continued after the Suvorovo ochre grave invasions with return visits home etc so dialect changes may simply have happened that way without further waves of steppe invaders until much later.

Jean M
09-29-2013, 03:58 PM
transfer the idea of beakers from their corded ware neighbours who arrived adjacent to them at that very time.

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

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

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

alan
09-29-2013, 05:39 PM
I agree its different and it would be very boring if we all agreed on details. To be honest I am still basically formulating the detail of how I would see a pre-beaker copper age and beaker move for R1b. I think though I have come closer to a model of my own that I have some faith in over the last week or so. I also wouldnt rule out a link with dairy farming and L23. In fact they might even be compatable with each other depending on how one sees the formation of some of the steppe groups.

One thing I meant to say in terms of evidence that M269* might have stayed around the Romanian-Hungarian metal area at one time is that the most convincing origin arguement for the Albanians is that they came from Dacia or Romania. The Kosovo Albanians are by far the highest in M269* in the world. That could create an indirectly inferred data point for the first R1b intrusions around Romania-Hungary c. 4000BC which would fit my suggestion of an ochre grave pocket interested in the metals in that area. There are no forerunner P297* ancestors covering the 5000 years before M269 other than the M73 brother branch which is only a bit older. So I think a sudden appearance out of nothingness would suit a small ochre grave lineage such as is found in the Hungary-Romania border around that time more than a long term local farming population. That this is also, according to the paper RR posted the first place copper daggers emerge is also interesting. The paper I read, and I think Anthony too, indicate that they seem to have melted into the local population culturally. It just seems to me that an awful lot fits together.

The lack of a good trail from south Ukraine today doesnt bother me since I read a bit more about its modern history. I feel much happier with placing P297* on the steppe from at least 5000BC and probably earlier since considering M73 a bit more. M73 just looks so much to me like a lineage that took off close to the Urals that I dont have any issues placing P297 and perhaps the first generation of M269 on the western steppe too. However, my preference is to link the arrival in the Balkans with the Suvorovo type groups now. The date of M269 fits very well. Even if its older than currently dated that would only serve to bring L23 possibly into the Suvorovo period too. I just find it very hard to go for Anthony's Yamnaya centred model non-Anatolia IE languages given the Heyd paper that places the intrusions west after 2900BC. I just find it much easier to join the dots if we try and link the whole pre-beaker copper age of the Alps, Italy etc with descendants of groups that included the first Suvorovo wave into the Balkans.

I think I have only very recently gained a better understanding of the gap period of metallurgy between the end of the classic Carpatho-Balkans period c. 4000BC and the spread of CMP traditions which probably didnt even start making headway into the western steppes until 3500BC. Into that gap falls the post-classic Balkans copper traditions drawing on mines further west in the Balkans and the Suvorovo groups appear in those areas too. So, I think its a possible tie up of a number of the elements needed - copper expertise, a steppe link, a location in an area which has a reasonable amount of L23 and may ones have had a lot of M269xL23 if the Albanians came from there. Its also close enough and in the right sort of context at the right time to have had a role in the pre-beaker copper traditions and dagger elites of Italy and the Alps. That also puts it in a nice location for Italo-Celtic.

I think I now have a model that I think I have convinced myself of. I have long realised that if there is an IE-R1b-copper elites-steppe link that there must be a missing link in the Balkans area which lies in between but I think I now can see a good option for that missing link.




Not me. See my speculative map once again. I you want to devise a different theory, that's fine by me. I just want to be clear that it differs from mine.

L23 does not mark the big expansion in R1b. It may well have spread up and out from the Danube with dairy farming. Almost all of it today belongs to a subclade on a different branch from the huge P312 and U106 explosion. On the line to P312 and U106 we have a linear chain of markers with no star-bursts until that explosion. That would fit the picture of a long period of static population. Quite a different pattern emerges with the bushy lines of P312 and U106, strongly indicating population growth, typical of people spreading widely into new territory.

722

TigerMW
09-29-2013, 06:15 PM
The idea of beakers was not derived from Corded Ware. BB and CW are contemporary. Neither came up with the basic beaker shape, which had been around for quite a while. See AJ, p. 161 and note 15 to that chapter. I cite Anthony 2007, figs. 11.4, 12.6, 12.9.

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

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

You have done an excellent job demonstrating a potential link for Bell Beaker pottery from eastern points. Thank you for pointing out details like the crushed bone paste.

As far as ties to Y DNA, how important is pottery? Obviously this people related in general and every son has a mother, but I think you've also pointed out that pottery making was a task women had purview over. My understanding is that pottery from the Steppes was more rudimentary during this timeframe and there was continual contact between Cucuteni-Tripolye and Steppes people.

alan
09-29-2013, 06:45 PM
I am not saying corded ware was the origin of the pot shape ultimately. However, I think just in terms of geography the fact the corded ware may have had some input from the Cucuteni and TRB people as well as new elements actual strengthens the possibility that it was the main vehicle for those traditions moving west in the copper age.

Corded Ware was a neighbour of the Remedello dagger groups in the Alps c. 2800BC and I think it does make it a possible option for the spread of beaker-like traditions given a fair amount of wriggle room in the RC dates. However, its not that important IMO if it came from that or other influences. I just would like to see something geographically intermediate as a go-between the eastern and northern prototypes you cited and the west Med. area where the beakers seem earliest. Corded ware just seems the geographically closest to the Sion type pre-beaker using groups. They were only a mountain pass away from each other around the broad timeframe of the first bell beakers in the west Med. I am not trying to suggest a y dna link with corded ware. I do think there are quite separate peoples.

I am however open to a more southerly route for the tradition but I would be happier with that if there are also examples of beaker-like pot somewhere between the Balkans and the west Med along the southern/alpine route. However, either way there has to be a plausible intermediary between eastern parallels and the west. I am wary of general similarities because I often see pots that look very like Food vessels and urns in the isles in contexts far to the east that seem impossible to actually have a real connection.



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

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

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

Jean M
09-29-2013, 07:12 PM
As far as ties to Y DNA, how important is pottery?

You put your finger right on the crucial question. There is a strong suspicion that pottery-making was generally a female province while it remained a domestic craft. (Once we see the fast potter's wheel arrive in complex societies, pottery-making could become a full-time job for males.) Prof. Mallory mentions in his last book that small finger-prints found on Bell Beaker ware confirm the suspicion that it was a woman's work. All the evidence suggests that BB was a patrilocal society (i.e. brides went to live with their husbands) and a highly mobile one. Marriage partners could have been sought from the "mother-group" in the Carpathian basin even when "Stelae People" had settled in Portugal.

alan
09-29-2013, 07:31 PM
Again I agree with all of that but the issue is an intermediary between the Balkans and the west Med. In other words its a huge leap geographically and there should be evidence for this tradition making its way along the route in between. There may actually be but I am not aware of it as there is not an enormous amount of info on the web relating to the pottery between the Adriatic and west Med. in the period 3500-3000BC. If there is I would like to know.

This brings to mind the way you used to get textbooks that had lovely hand drawn pen portraits of all the artefacts, burial types, settlement types in a single illustration box. That is a wonderful way of instantly getting a feel for a culture and which ones are closer to others. Its kind of become rarer in the west but still used in central Europe. I know when I was at uni someone had to produce an unpublished reference manual like this for European cultures so you could get an 'at a glance' feel for each of the dozens, maybe hundreds of cultures across Europe from the palaeolithic to the Romans. .


You put your finger right on the crucial question. There is a strong suspicion that pottery-making was generally a female province while it remained a domestic craft. (Once we see the fast potter's wheel arrive in complex societies, pottery-making could become a full-time job for males.) Prof. Mallory mentions in his last book that small finger-prints found on Bell Beaker ware confirm the suspicion that it was a woman's work. All the evidence suggests that BB was a patrilocal society (i.e. brides went to live with their husbands) and a highly mobile one. Marriage partners could have been sought from the "mother-group" in the Carpathian basin even when "Stelae People" had settled in Portugal.

Jean M
09-29-2013, 07:32 PM
However, I think just in terms of geography the fact the corded ware may have had some input from the Cucuteni and TRB people as well as new elements actual strengthens the possibility that it was the main vehicle for those traditions moving west in the copper age.

The Corded Ware Culture is another offspring of Yamnaya - yes. It shares many features with the Bell Beaker Culture therefore. But it does not share with Bell Beaker those distinctive features that I mentioned in the pottery. It therefore cannot be the vector for them. CW simply does not lead to BB. They have their own separate stories, though criss-crossing in places.

Jean M
09-29-2013, 07:37 PM
Again I agree with all of that but the issue is an intermediary between the Balkans and the west Med. In other words its a huge leap geographically and there should be evidence for this tradition making its way along the route in between.

There is Alan. I keep on and on saying this. We have a trail of solid stone anthromorphic stelae. They begin on the steppe. They end up in Portugal (and even more distant parts.) They are linked to copper-working of the type distinctive to Yamnaya and related material of Yamnaya provenance. There is a Yamnaya package, in other words, that turns into a Bell Beaker package at some point when some woman decides she likes to make a particular kind of pot, so that returning people along the trade routes bring Bell Beaker pottery to stelae sites, and eventually back into the Carpathian Basin.

Picture a similar situation in the 19th century. Chap sets out from Paris to make his fortune in New York. Does well. Sends for fiancee, who works in one of the Parisian fashion houses. They marry in New York. She sets up shop selling fashions of her own devising, with a distinctly Parisian look.

Jean M
09-29-2013, 08:12 PM
I will speak frankly. If sorting out Bell Beaker was easy and obvious, it would have been done long ago. So our generation has to expect the tricky stuff.

alan
09-29-2013, 08:25 PM
I agree although Corded Ware is a hybrid of a number of inputs including Yamnaya influences. I think those who said it simply evolved out of TRB were wrong but I think its pretty clear that the TRB substrate did have an input. I am pretty sure that the C-Tryp refugees did too in the mix that led to corded ware first around the Carpathians c. 3000BC. Certainly so far the DNA is a mixed bag too. Certainly the mix would have surely included female potters of the non-Yamnaya element.

I agree that the beaker and corded ware streams were completely different fish that just happened to cross over at different times and places. All I am adding is that one of the crossovers or close geographical approaches made between the Alpine pre-beaker copper age groups and corded ware people occurred about 2800BC in Switzerland. For some reason this is not discussed a lot, probably because the big picture tends to get lost with obsessing about earliest RC dates of beakers (despite this being almost hopeless to totally resolve due to the lack of good short life samples in many area) instead of considering the background context immediately before beakers were invented (your book of course very much excepted from this criticism). The timing is pretty close to the origin date of beaker within limits of radiocarbon. It just strikes me as a point where the copper age groups with the Remedello daggers in the Alps simply must have been aware of their newly arrived corded neighbours. The corded ware people seem to arrived c. 2800BC in Switzerland, probably at least 500 years after the Remedello-linked groups had appeared there judging from the Ice Man's date etc. So I am sure the arrival of those corded ware groups just beyond their turf would have been a major event of their times. In fact its just struck me too if they might have posed a major worry to the south Alpine groups exploring deeper into the Alps for new ore sources

The actual process of borrowing could have been terribly obscure starting with just one corded ware woman who moved between the groups in a marriage and perhaps from there a further spread of her female lines by similar processes could have easily reached Iberia if connections were made with that area c. 2800BC. Alternatively the earliest bell beaker could simply actually have been made in Liguria or SE France and very quickly spread to Iberia. The Radiocarbon analysis by Muller anD Van Willigen would not rule that out. That area cannot be ruled out and Iberia prioritised simply because Iberia happened to have far short-life radiocarbon dated material and Italy didnt. Either way it could have been a similar process. As I posted earlier, the timing is fairly close to the termination of the Ligurian mines phases of use so their was a context there for copper interested lineages in that area probing both towards Iberia and further into the Alps, things that would simultaneously have brought them in contact with both corded ware groups to the north and Iberian copper groups. Only the groups in the western Alps/Liguria/SE France have a geographical position and the right neighbours at the right times IMO that combines proximity to people carrying beaker-like pots, some TRB and other traditions within their mix (corded ware); a modus-operandi relating to copper networking and a maritime aspect that would have rapid contact with Iberia practical.

Anyway, I am not saying I am right but just posing another interesting point in time and space worth considering.


The Corded Ware Culture is another offspring of Yamnaya - yes. It shares many features with the Bell Beaker Culture therefore. But it does not share with Bell Beaker those distinctive features that I mentioned in the pottery. It therefore cannot be the vector for them. CW simply does not lead to BB. They have their own separate stories, though criss-crossing in places.

Jean M
09-29-2013, 09:04 PM
Introducing CW into the story is one of those pointless complications that Occam urged us to cut out. Does it actually explain anything? No. In fact we would have to presuppose that this hypothetical Corded Ware woman did not actually make CW pottery, but instead had learned how to decorate pottery with crushed bone paste and the type of patterns that seem connected both to those on stelae (not generally made by CW people), and the patterned stones in Portuguese burials that are guessed to be similar to a tartan or coat of arms in distinguishing families (and not made by CW people at all).

It is whole lot simpler to forget CW and stick to the stelae route. We know that started on the steppe, where pottery with cord-impressed decoration was common, and Yamnaya had mixed with Cucuteni people who made the bell-shaped stuff. We know that it went through the Carpathian basin, where the bone-paste decoration was common.

TigerMW
09-29-2013, 09:15 PM
Introducing CW into the story is one of those pointless complications that Ockham urged us to cut out. Does it actually explain anything? No. In fact we would have to presuppose that this hypothetical Corded Ware woman did not actually make CW pottery, but instead had learned how to decorate pottery with crushed bone paste and the type of patterns that seem connected both to those on stelae (not generally made by CW people), and the patterned stones in Portuguese burials that are guessed to be similar to a tartan or coat of arms in distinguishing families (and not made by CW people at all).

It is whole lot simpler to forget CW and stick to the stelae route. We know that started on the steppe, where pottery with cord-impressed decoration was common, and Yamnaya had mixed with Cucuteni people who made the bell-shaped stuff. We know that it went through the Carpathian basin, where the bone-paste decoration was common.

It depends on why Corded Ware contact is being evaluated.

I think key to concluding that Corded Ware is not relevant to Beakers is the speculation that U106 broke off on the east side of the Carpathians.

If instead U106 had not broken away east of the Carpathians (also speculation), or was just a gleam in L51's or L11's eye before then, it would mean that Corded Ware contact with Beakers might well have been important for U106 to be transmitted into a Pre-Germanic cultural element of Corded Ware on the west side of the Carpathians.

If the degree of interaction between Corded Ware and Beaker folks was significant enough to have caused L11/U106's entry into Corded Ware, then the influence in the other direction might also be significant, even if not a Y DNA influence. The interaction might have been inspiration for Eastern Bell Beaker expansions westward.

alan
09-29-2013, 09:31 PM
I am totally open to the idea that they could have come along the same route. My only issue is whether any pot of this type appears in the area between the Balkans and Iberia in the period.

Also can I ask if you see the stelae people as a secondary thing after the Remedello type groups, the Ligurian copper mines etc. its just that they seem to originate c. 3600bc while Yamnaya west of the Black Sea is dated to about 2900BC at the earliest in Heyd's recent paper. So I cannot see how Yamnaya can be related to the copper age Remedello groups, their mines in Liguria etc. Are you saying that this is a separate phase before the stelae people spread? Otherwise I cannot see how the dates fit.

I am however prepared to believe their is a link with Kemi Oba stelae if they belonged to a pre-Yamnaya phase associated with the earlier moves into the steppes long before Yamnaya. Like I said, the dating of Kemi Oba type stelae seems a big vague to me other than that their reuse on the steppe by Yamnaya provides a terminus ante quem for them. The question for me is could they be significantly pre-Yamnaya i.e by a considerable amount of centuries. If so then I can see how it might all fall into place.


Introducing CW into the story is one of those pointless complications that Ockham urged us to cut out. Does it actually explain anything? No. In fact we would have to presuppose that this hypothetical Corded Ware woman did not actually make CW pottery, but instead had learned how to decorate pottery with crushed bone paste and the type of patterns that seem connected both to those on stelae (not generally made by CW people), and the patterned stones in Portuguese burials that are guessed to be similar to a tartan or coat of arms in distinguishing families (and not made by CW people at all).

It is whole lot simpler to forget CW and stick to the stelae route. We know that started on the steppe, where pottery with cord-impressed decoration was common, and Yamnaya had mixed with Cucuteni people who made the bell-shaped stuff. We know that it went through the Carpathian basin, where the bone-paste decoration was common.

Jean M
09-29-2013, 09:52 PM
Also can I ask if you see the stelae people as a secondary thing after the Remedello type groups, the Ligurian copper mines etc. its just that they seem to originate c. 3600bc while Yamnaya west of the Black Sea is dated to about 2900BC at the earliest in Heyd's recent paper.

We have discussed this before I think. I had vaguely assumed that Remedello could be linked to the Balkan copper cultures, but Richard R. queried that quite rightly. Not only do we have the Remedello daggers on the stelae, but their copper-working used arsenic. So my thinking at the moment is that these were early birds along the route. Scouts/prospectors would not leave much sign of their passage up the Danube. It is only from about 3000 BC that what Mike calls the wagon trains were rolling. Though really it was more like an extension of the Yamnaya culture into the Danube Basin than a swift migration. It went on for centuries and left thousands of burials.

Jean M
09-29-2013, 10:00 PM
My only issue is whether any pot of this type appears in the area between the Balkans and Iberia in the period.

I repeat:


If sorting out Bell Beaker was easy and obvious, it would have been done long ago. So our generation has to expect the tricky stuff.

Yes of course BB pottery is found between the Balkans and Iberia. But it seems to be coming from Iberia in the first instance. Perhaps for some strange reason our hypothetical fiancee did not want to delay her wedding for a couple of decades so that she could leave a trail of pottery all along the route of her wedding journey to make life easier for archaeologists of the future. For shame! How thoughtless!

TigerMW
10-01-2013, 03:59 PM
We have discussed this before I think. I had vaguely assumed that Remedello could be linked to the Balkan copper cultures, but Richard R. queried that quite rightly. Not only do we have the Remedello daggers on the stelae, but their copper-working used arsenic. So my thinking at the moment is that these were early birds along the route. Scouts/prospectors would not leave much sign of their passage up the Danube. It is only from about 3000 BC that what Mike calls the wagon trains were rolling. Though really it was more like an extension of the Yamnaya culture into the Danube Basin than a swift migration. It went on for centuries and left thousands of burials.
I agree that mass population migrations would not have been one quick sweep. The US wagon train era lasted longer than a century and was superseded primarily by railway.... but the migrations continued for some time, whatever the transportation methods.

I wonder how the events preceding the Yamnaya along the west side of the Black Sea impacted the eventual populations to the west and who were those moving west? In other words, how did the collapse of Old Europe and more specifically the Carpatho-Balkans Metallurgy Province (CBMP) impact populations westward? Did the CBMP people disperse, perhaps flee, in the form of what would become the Early Bell Beakers? In that case, were early branching forms of R1b (M269xL23, L23xL51 and/or L51xL11) and some forms of I2 and G? Was L11 with them which might have led to local (in western Europe) origins for DF27, L21, U152, U106?

Instead, did L11 and/or L51xL11 come with what David Anthony called a "true folk" movement up the Danube to the Hungarian Plains ("2800-2600 BCE")? If so, they would have been the Yamnaya derived Circumpontic Metallurgy Province (CMP) folks filling in the CBMP vacuum. Chernykh (2008) in "The 'Steppe Belt' of stockbreeding cultures in Eurasia during the Early Metal Age", wrote

... "this vast array of diverse cultures the steppe world began to play an extremely important role, one absolutely different from what we observed for it during the CBMP [Carpatho-Balkans MP] Copper Age. The distinctly marginal character of the steppe stockbreeding cultures of the Copper Age with respect not only to the central bloc of the CBMP cultures, but also to the block of Tripolye communities fell into oblivion."

Jean's note on the importance of economic success hit a chord with me. The passage I remember is related to the economic value of the Secondary Products Revolution and dairy herding. The value of improved economics should also apply to some phase in the metallurgy development. This is the point where metallic adornments and elite grave goods are surpassed in value by advanced tools and weapons. This is a topic that Alan has termed in past as a potential "smoking gun." If that was the case, the CMP might have been the critical factor and its chronology is critical.

The most thorough dating I can find appears to be Chernykh's. He thinks the Circumpontic MP was starting to expand on the western side of the Black Sea as early as the latter half of the 4th Millenium BC (3500-3000 BC). This would have been right about as the Carpatho-Balkans MP was falling into oblivion.... or dispersing westward.

The following two charts show the Chernykh's versions of Phases I and II.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Copper-CMP_Phase_I_Map_by_Chernkyh-2008.jpg

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

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Copper-CMP_Phase_II_Map_by_Chernkyh-2008.jpg

Jean M
10-01-2013, 05:52 PM
how did the collapse of Old Europe and more specifically the Carpatho-Balkans Metallurgy Province (CBMP) impact populations westward? Did the CBMP people disperse, perhaps flee, in the form of what would become the Early Bell Beakers?

The timing does not fit. The collapse of the tell society of Old Europe came c. 4000 BC. That is when we find metallurgy arriving on Sardinia. So that could be the result of copper-workers fleeing the collapse. We also find strong hints that farmers fled up the Danube at that time to create the Funnel Beaker or TRB society which took farming into the North European Plain and on into southern Scandinavia. (See my book pp. 99-101 and 113-4.)

The stelae are from a different starting point - the steppe. The package with them is steppe in source, whether we label it Yamnaya (c. 3300 BC +) or a couple of centuries earlier. However we have to consider the centuries of communication between "the steppe and the sown". Balkan prospectors west could well have brought news back of copper sources which filtered through to the peoples (Cucuteni and steppe) creating the amalgamation that became Yamnaya.

Related thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1389-Remedello-and-similar-cultures-in-Italy

TigerMW
10-01-2013, 06:07 PM
...The stelae are from a different starting point - the steppe. The package with them is steppe in source, whether we label it Yamnaya (c. 3300 BC +) or a couple of centuries earlier. However we have to consider the centuries of communication between "the steppe and the sown". Balkan prospectors west could well have brought news back of copper sources which filtered through to the peoples (Cucuteni and steppe) creating the amalgamation that became Yamnaya.

Related thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1389-Remedello-and-similar-cultures-in-Italy

Thank you.

I think you said earlier that the Beaker unfolding was quite complex. No doubt about it. I'm looking for clues in the metallurgy because that might be of significant economic influence and there appears to be some differentiation.

Back to the scouts/early traders/prospectors theme, when I picture a Great Plains Native American I picture a warrior on a horse. He probably had a knife and may have had an archery toolkit but may have had a rifle instead... probably depending on which book or movie sticks in my head the most. That being said, we know that those Great Plains folks had horses for a long time, even though they came from Mexico and Florida through the Spaniards initially. The natives also had metal knives. I can see a potential parallel with the daggers. Our early traders may have been, in a way, arms dealers. However, the real power is not in the trader but in the manufacturer and military backing. Hence copper-alloy manufacturing might be of utmost importance.

Furnace smelting apparently had significant advantages over crucible smelting both in the yield of copper-alloys and much lower grade copper input requirements. Crucible smelting people would have had to seek new mines when as the high grade copper becomes exhausted.

Amzallag (2009), from ”From Metallurgy to Bronze Age Civilizations: The Synthetic Theory", showed the below chart. This may be a differentiating element in the Bell Beaker movements and alliances. I wish I could understand the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in Iberia. I think Los Millares and the Argaric society were not furnace smelting, nor even Beaker until later. Also, the very early Beakers at Zambujal (Portugal) were not furnace smelting. Meanwhile, some phases at Rio Tinto and Cabričres were.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Copper-Furnace_Smelting_3rdM_BC_Map_by_Amzallag-2009.jpg

BTW, a third plank in Amzallag's Synthesis Theory is a Levantine origin for Furnace Smelting. He is controversial. Whether he is right on that or not, it does not necessarily follow that Furnace Smelting went to western Europe via Crete, Greece and the Mediterranean route. The Stelae trail (which seems associated) would indicate a more northerly route from the Black Sea area.

Jean M
10-01-2013, 06:29 PM
Amzallag (2009), from ”From Metallurgy to Bronze Age Civilizations: The Synthetic Theory", showed the below chart.

That paper was rebutted by several experts in the history of metallurgy: Christopher P. Thornton, J.M. Golden, David Killick, Vincent C. Pigott, Thilo Rehren and Benjamin Roberts, A Chalcolithic Error: Rebuttal to Amzallag 2009, American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 114 (2010), pp. 305-15.


In the October 2009 issue of the AJA, Amzallag published a hypothesis for the origins and spread of furnace-based metallurgy in the Old World (From Metallurgy to Bronze Age Civilizations: The Synthetic Theory, AJA [2009] 497–519). Amzallag's paper is rife with misunderstandings of both an archaeological and a technical nature, leading to a skewed vision of early metallurgical development. In this rebuttal, we seek to correct some of the more egregious errors in his article and provide a counterargument for the origins of copper-based metallurgy in the Old World.

I can't quote it all here, but it is free in pdf. http://www.ajaonline.org/sites/default/files/AJA1142Thornton.pdf In short the experts really don't buy any of it. I recommend the articles by Ben Roberts and Christopher Thorton.

TigerMW
10-01-2013, 06:44 PM
That paper was rebutted by several experts in the history of metallurgy: Christopher P. Thornton, J.M. Golden, David Killick, Vincent C. Pigott, Thilo Rehren and Benjamin Roberts, A Chalcolithic Error: Rebuttal to Amzallag 2009, American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 114 (2010), pp. 305-15.

Right, I noted he was controversial, but that does not mean he is incorrect or incorrect in the entirety. Amzallag documented his sources well in his original paper on this. He also had a very effective rebuttal to the Thornton rebuttal, at least in my opinion:

"A Return to the Dark Ages? Reply to Thorton et al. 2010". It's here: http://www.ajaonline.org/author/756

It's actually a bit humorous in its sharpness. However, that doesn't mean he is right or wrong.

Whether we have one favorite authority or another, I would not entirely discount the concepts. There really are such things as furnace smelting and crucible smelting and one eventually died away. I'm not positive that this is the core distinction, but something or combination of things apparently gave the Circumpontic metallurgy folks the edge. I would have to think the metallurgy itself was an important aspect. It could have had great economic impact. It sure does today.

Jean M
10-01-2013, 07:08 PM
The fundamental difference appears to be the use of arsenic to create a harder metal.

alan
10-01-2013, 07:55 PM
Mike

I have seen papers that re basically saying that the CMP took off, albeit in a limited area of the north Caucasus almost immediately as the CBMP collapsed c. 4000BC. There seems to have long been a puzzle about its origin but some recent suggestions point to north plateau Iran. However, it seems that the CMP only spread into the steppes around 3500BC. That leaves an apparent gap c. 4000-3500BC although I doubt it really exists.


In between CBMP and the CMP c. 4000-3500BC Balkans metal sources changed focus to other areas like Romania-east Hungary and at the same time early steppe groups arrive. It doesnt seem to me that this period is either classic CBMP or CMP. It seems like a third entity that lies in between and combines some old Balkans aspects with new ideas. Both Amzallug and Chernyk seem to lack discussion on the date, the former being too broad brush and very vague about dating to be useful.

alan
10-01-2013, 07:58 PM
I am interested in the concept of the origin of the copper dagger elite symbol. This book has a chapter by David Anthony on the origins and development of copper daggers

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vt4kXeD_u2cC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=ryndina+arsenical&source=bl&ots=M-5Q2JH3zN&sig=adp-ux_Mb7ljEDQcmRSZe38lzJo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pBRLUrHIIMO30QX97IDoCg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ryndina%20arsenical&f=false

and a very recent BAR report book which gives a lot of general background

http://www.academia.edu/4168658/Missed_Innovation_the_Earliest_Copper_Daggers_in_N orthern_Central_Europe_and_Southern_Scandinavia

TigerMW
10-01-2013, 08:18 PM
Mike

I have seen papers that re basically saying that the CMP took off, albeit in a limited area of the north Caucasus almost immediately as the CBMP collapsed c. 4000BC. There seems to have long been a puzzle about its origin but some recent suggestions point to north plateau Iran. However, it seems that the CMP only spread into the steppes around 3500BC. That leaves an apparent gap c. 4000-3500BC although I doubt it really exists.

In between CBMP and the CMP c. 4000-3500BC Balkans metal sources changed focus to other areas like Romania-east Hungary and at the same time early steppe groups arrive. It doesnt seem to me that this period is either classic CBMP or CMP. It seems like a third entity that lies in between and combines some old Balkans aspects with new ideas. Both Amzallug and Chernyk seem to lack discussion on the date, the former being too broad brush and very vague about dating to be useful.

Both Chernyk and Amzallag trumpet how much much better the Circumpontic (CMP) was than the the Carpatho-Balkans. To Jean's point, Chernyk, places more emphasis on the arsenic.

In "The 'Steppe Belt' of stockbreeding cultures in Eurasia during the Early Metal Age" (2008), Chernyk says,

During both phases of its existence the gigantic CMP is characterized by a number of remarkable feaures. The first and probably most essential of theme is the new technological and morphological standards of metal-work, ones very different from the main attributed of the disintegration CBMP system. This involves not only the categories and forms of the tools and weapons, but also the first widescale use of artificial copper-arsenic alloys (arsenical bronzes.)

However, I think there was more to it as far advances in metallurgy. I think the manufacturing sites are probably at the sources of power.

Going back to the timeline that I included on the first chart from Chernyk, I thought Chernyk was a granular and detailed as he could be on dating. See CMP Phase I chart on #148 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=14972&viewfull=1#post14972) and scroll down.

He shows CMP sites increasing in the N-W Black Sea/Danube region increasing 3600-2900 BC before reaching a zenith 2900-2600 BC with strength continued through the millennium. That black hole for metallurgy timeframe north and west of the Black Sea may have been an early "dark ages" or "wild, wild, west."

It looks like the decline of the Carpatho-Balkans complex is a separate event from the incoming Circumpontic groups. I guess that is where the climate and failure of farming might play as I think has been pointed out multiple times.

alan
10-01-2013, 08:23 PM
I am a little vague on this subject but was it not shown that the idea of a move from pure copper to Arsenical was not entirely chronological as there was some early use of arsenic in the CBMP in the Balkans? I am not sure if this was down to ore or deliberate alloying.


The fundamental difference appears to be the use of arsenic to create a harder metal.

alan
10-01-2013, 08:26 PM
I am not sure how important form vs material is in terms of relative importance. For example in part of the steppes or Ural area objects were made from Kargaly ore which was a sort of pure copper but it used the designs and techniques of the CMP, despite the latter being based on arsenical copper.

TigerMW
10-01-2013, 08:39 PM
I am not sure how important form vs material is in terms of relative importance. For example in part of the steppes or Ural area objects were made from Kargaly ore which was a sort of pure copper but it used the designs and techniques of the CMP, despite the latter being based on arsenical copper.

I'm not trying to say pure copper was a bad thing, but the requirement for purer (high grade) copper would be correlated with a lesser manufacturing capability. Yields are higher and lower grades of ore needed with better manufacturing, or I should say - smelting.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Copper-Furnace_Smelting_Advantages_by_Amzallag-2009.jpg


If we think about the continuation, advances in this whole process become the key to iron. The inputs for iron were easier to find than copper at the end of the Bronze Age and iron (combined with carbon) is stronger.

"the extraction of usable metal from oxidized iron ores — is more difficult than tin and copper smelting. These other metals and their alloys can be cold-worked, or melted in simple pottery kilns and cast in molds; but smelted iron requires hot-working and can be melted only in specially designed furnaces. It is therefore not surprising that humans only mastered iron smelting after several millennia of bronze metallurgy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age

I really think when and how furnace smelting showed up at Rio Tinto in southwest Spain is important. It may have been later, but its smelting processes were not like the early Beaker Zambujal. It is reported to NOT be from the Phoenicians. Amzallag this Rio Tinto was furnace smelting in the 3rd Millenium BC. It is also reported that Rinto Tinto processes were superior even up until when the Romans took over. The Romans methods only had minor advantages. Okay, Celtic fans ... this is Tartessos.:)

alan
10-02-2013, 12:41 AM
I would definately prefer an arsenical copper weapon to a pure copper one. The former was as strong as Bronze whether it was due to the ore or deliberate alloying. The fact that Ross Island was the major source of copper during the beaker period in the isles is because it was a very rare arsenical copper ore source in the isles. Its product was probably as strong as Bronze. It basically lost its advantage when tin alloying came in and ordinary purer copper sources could be mined instead. Even in SW Ireland, the later post-Ross Island early-mid Bronze Age mines like Mount Gabriel are not sources for arsenical copper.



I'm not trying to say pure copper was a bad thing, but the requirement for purer (high grade) copper would be correlated with a lesser manufacturing capability. Yields are higher and lower grades of ore needed with better manufacturing, or I should say - smelting.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Copper-Furnace_Smelting_Advantages_by_Amzallag-2009.jpg


If we think about the continuation, advances in this whole process become the key to iron. The inputs for iron were easier to find than copper at the end of the Bronze Age and iron (combined with carbon) is stronger.

"the extraction of usable metal from oxidized iron ores — is more difficult than tin and copper smelting. These other metals and their alloys can be cold-worked, or melted in simple pottery kilns and cast in molds; but smelted iron requires hot-working and can be melted only in specially designed furnaces. It is therefore not surprising that humans only mastered iron smelting after several millennia of bronze metallurgy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age

I really think when and how furnace smelting showed up at Rio Tinto in southwest Spain is important. It may have been later, but its smelting processes were not like the early Beaker Zambujal. It is reported to NOT be from the Phoenicians. Amzallag this Rio Tinto was furnace smelting in the 3rd Millenium BC. It is also reported that Rinto Tinto processes were superior even up until when the Romans took over. The Romans methods only had minor advantages. Okay, Celtic fans ... this is Tartessos.:)

alan
10-02-2013, 01:52 PM
The recent book on northern daggers is very interesting and contains a great map of pre-beaker daggers in single burials. It suggests that daggers and dagger symbolism represented a change in society towards male individual status which occurred around 3800BC and is concentrated in the Carpathian basin and Alpine areas and rejected by the more egalitarian societies to the north. It strikes me that this coincides with the immediate all out of the collapse of Old Europe and the arrival of the early steppe groups and their integration together. I also wonder if the steppe long flint blades have anything to do with this. Certainly in all the summaries of classic Carpatho-Balkan metalwork before the collapse c. 4000BC I have never seen copper knives. However Suvorovo groups had really nasty long flint blades. I wonder if the outcome of the blending of the suvorovo long flint blade tradition was combined with the local copper skills to produce a copper dagger tradition and further if this represents an emerging elite of this hybriding ans spreading into the Alps and north Italy. The dates would seem to fit well. The locations also fit well an interest in metal with the mixing of the suvorovo steppes groups and local Balkans peoples taking place around 4300-4000BC or so, The collapse of the old CBMP network around 4000BC, the rise of the dagger symbolism in the Capathian basin - west Romania and east Hungary etc.. the change of ore sources toward mines in that area, the appearance of copper mines and dagger using copper age groups in Italy and the Alps c. 3700-3500BC etc.

They would make a good case for an early IE offshoot with a further offshoot in the Alps-Italy area. Italo-Celts perhaps. Lets face it there is not a lot of good evidence for an actual east to west steppes movement beyond the Balkans so this might be the best there is. The date of the dagger-copper using-mining traditions in Italy and the Alps would seem to me to be a good one for a Celto-Italic offshoot, coming as it does at the far west end of the steppes infiltrated zone c. 3600BC give or take a bit, pretty close to the dates that Tocharian was heading off in the other direction from a much further east starting point.

I think it is entirely possible. However, we have to critique Anthony's attribtion of only the Anatolian dialect to the early Suvorovo settlers in the Balkans and adjacent. I think it can be. There is a lot of doubt about Anatolian anyway. Some think that the gap of say 500 years between Suvorovo and Yamnaya is nowhere near long enough to explain the profound differences in Anatolian compared to PIE. Regardless of any branching aspect, it must be noted that the Suvorovo type groups are known to have tracked back and forth from their new Balkans lands to the steppes. That kind of thing means they were not so isolated and not so likely in all cases to preserve and archaic dialect. I also have my doubts, huge doubts, about the wheel vocab dating of Anatolian. If a bunch of Suvorovo pockets existed in the Balkans, the vast majority surely would have became aware of the wheel c. 3500BC soon after invention.

So, to me, Anatolian is a special case and may link to a very isolated group and should not be thought to be the language retained in a frozen state by all Suvorovo groups in the Balkans and their descendant hyrbid cultures. I think its pretty clear that some of the groups kept close links with the steppes and would have shared in dialect shifts there and would have been well aware of the wheel once it was invented. I think that creates a situation which could placed the ancestor of Celto-Italic in the Carpathian basin c. 3700BC and the appearance of dagger using copper elites in the Alps and Italy around that time could be the fission that led to Celto-Italic. I think there is absolutely no significance that the wheel may have still been 200 years away at the time. There is absolutely no way that a linguist could distinguise between a word that was known by a group and a word that was borrowed only 200 years later.

I dont think Yamnaya really much comes into this as its far too late. However, as a culture that settled in far greater numbers in similar areas that Suvorovo had, they would have been after 2900BC in a position to influence anyone closebye beyond their borders. The other way Yamnaya influences could become significant is when a new culture and network approached them. The potentially very early dates for beaker on the islands around Budapest, possibly earlier than 2600BC, would potentially have created a conduit through which Yamnaya ideas could be passed back west through the beaker networks and other neighbouring cultures. So, that seems to me the most likely conduit for Yamnaya parallels in beaker period metalworking. However, I doubt that spread meant actual Yamnaya people spreading west. It seems much more likely that the beaker groups on the islands around Budapest were responsible for transfer of ideas west.

All of what I am talking about lies south and west of the Carpathians. North of them I feel there is a different story. Here there were no Suvorovo early steppe settlers. The first steppe contacts here were with later groups like Yamnaya and Usatovo as well as steppe-influenced Cuc-Tryp groups. The outcome was the rise of the Corded Ware culture around south-east Poland. This is a very different story to the one I have just outline to the south and west. In terms of surviving languages there seems little doubt that this matches with Slavs and Balts best. Germanic is very ambiguous and best left aside. There would also have been lost corded ware languages in the western range of corded ware where it was overrun by beaker after perhaps as little as 150 years. IMO Germanic looks like it fits a confused location of two different IE branches quickly succeeding each other and also encapsulating a large non-IE substrate within its northern fringes.



I am interested in the concept of the origin of the copper dagger elite symbol. This book has a chapter by David Anthony on the origins and development of copper daggers

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vt4kXeD_u2cC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=ryndina+arsenical&source=bl&ots=M-5Q2JH3zN&sig=adp-ux_Mb7ljEDQcmRSZe38lzJo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pBRLUrHIIMO30QX97IDoCg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ryndina%20arsenical&f=false

and a very recent BAR report book which gives a lot of general background

http://www.academia.edu/4168658/Missed_Innovation_the_Earliest_Copper_Daggers_in_N orthern_Central_Europe_and_Southern_Scandinavia

TigerMW
10-02-2013, 02:50 PM
I would definately prefer an arsenical copper weapon to a pure copper one. The former was as strong as Bronze whether it was due to the ore or deliberate alloying. ...

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing arsenic copper compounds are not preferential or beneficial. They clearly are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze

Trading versus Mining versus Manufacturing

I just see the daggers as indicators of early explorers and traders in the vicinity. This may be their source of power in the virgin areas as they would be the suppliers for the native peoples.

To some degree, I think mining sites are also not necessarily indicative of large populations nearby of the incoming metalworking people, although obviously you need some, at least to supervise, train, protect and support the mining operation.

I think that there are many more layers of complexity to metalworking than has been studied and it is not well understood and does bring out some disagreement. My guess is the most important core competencies in the new society are not the traders, nor the prospectors or miners, but the manufacturers. Whether the smelting process is the key or not, the whole manufacturing process is where the innovation takes place and eventually led to iron and steel. The leading manufacturing sites would need to be close to the larger population centers for the new/incoming society. The manufacturing would be at the core of the new society's economic success.

Speculating about R1b-L11 Migrations and the DF27/Beakers problem

If I tried to draw a speculative R1b map, it would have multiple lines per subclade, some thicker, some thinner, some kind of time dimensions and question marks everywhere. My depiction would be useless as well as subjective, which is why I appreciate others willingness to put a stake in the ground.

R1b-L11 is the big haplogroup of western and central Europe. When I look at early Bell Beaker expansion maps by LeMercier or whoever, I just can't see how L11 and it subclades fit in, given what I know of the subclades and their apparent diversity/outlier (STR & SNP) patterns. The early Beaker movements seemed more west to east and a bit all over like spaghetti. About all I can correlate is to say is either
1. The early maritime Beakers included DF27 folks and the L21 and U152 came later, colliding in France or thereabouts (maybe Sion).
2. The early maritime Beakers included P312 and L11* and they "parachuted in" putting L21, U106, U152 and DF27 each into their respective sub-regions, per David W/Tomato's description (I think it was sarcasm). Of course, the parachuting must have been done by boat.

However, I just don't think DF27 is that much more diverse than its brothers and cousins, maybe not at all. All I can say is they are all about the same age. We also haven't seen the strong DF27 presence in the Mediterranean and in Ireland that I would have thought for the Maritime Beaker folks. Maybe it's too early yet to tell that much about DF27.

On the other hand, DF27 elements do overlay the Celtic and Italic (and maybe even Germanic) zones that would lead me to think it could have easily expanded from the full PIE society. We also read that the transition in western Europe of the Final Neolithic and early Chalcolithic were blurred, with much continuity. The early Beaker incomers would only be an elite, or as noted by multiple people, perhaps just a scattering of scouts, traders, prospectors, miners, etc. The new Beaker societies may have only had a small minority of R1b and of what type I don't know. I think Richard R had a map showing a little heavier L51xL11 in Portugal so maybe that is the mainstay of the early explorers. R1b-L23xL51, L51xL11 and L11* are just so light its hard to figure them out.

Advanced Metal Smelting and Refining Growth into the 2nd Millennium BC

I posted this map of the spread of Furnace smelting from 3000-2000 BC earlier.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Copper-Furnace_Smelting_3rdM_BC_Map_by_Amzallag-2009.jpg
Let us presume that Amzallag doesn't really understand ancient smelting processes or has overstepped his bounds in theorizing, but instead just consider the gray areas of the map as measurements of slag (smelting/refining by-product.) This would be just be the "XYZ slag" map.

Below would be the follow-on map which is the 2000-1000 BC timeframe for "XYZ slag". In my opinion, this is a map that would be a lot easier to overlay migration lines and arrows for different major subclades of R1b-L11 and R1a1. Maybe even V88 fits into the picture somewhat. I don't certify that any of these kinds of maps are precise but this should be generally representative of the spread of new metalworking processes that might be Circumpontic Metallurgy derived and Yamnaya derivative* related.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Copper-Furnace_Smelting_2ndM_BC_Map_by_Amzallag-2009.jpg

Do you notice the tin road? It starts in the Isles/Bretagne as expected. I never realized it crosses the Aquitaine and the Pyrenees areas on the way to the Med. We have some younger L21 elements that fit nicely here. This could also put L21 in Sardinia.

*Yamnaya and Indo-European alignment

In "The Horse, The Wheel, The Language...", David Anthony wrote,

"Bell Beaker sites of the Csepel type around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto-Celtic. Pre-Italic could have developed among the dialects that remained in Hungary, ultimately spreading into Italy through the Urnfield and Villanovan cultures. Eric Hamp and others have revived the argument that Italic and Celtic shared a common parent, so a single migration stream could have contained dialects that later were ancestral to both."

A late 3rd Millennium BC and early 2nd Millennium growth of the more intensive metalworking from the east deep into western Europe correlates nicely with the slower moving, but larger population expansions need to justify an IE take-over of Europe. Even if there is no comprehensive total population movement that can be archaeologically attested to, the metalworking changed and the PIE based society and languages had to move through here, at least dragging some Y DNA flow with it. The new society and its logistics would be now a conducive environment for Y DNA lineages to amplify in their new domains.

I don't think any of this is new news or astounding, but I think this is just a deeper look at the Bell Beakers, particularly their mid to late phases, as well as to their derivatives. I am fascinated by Harrison and Heyd's evaluation. Some big things seem to have happened and are reflected at Sion in Switzerland.

....
I guess I'm a technologist so it is only natural that I would think the technology of the manufacturing is the core to a new level of productive and economic success. I think it started earlier than we think. We are all aware we have the Industrial Revolution, etc. in our histories, but it really all started with the metalworking. The farming, the dairying, the daggers, horses, chariots, etc. are all nice and helpful, but the basic building block is manufacturing based on technological advances. It started with the metals, but it is not any one metal or additive (arsenic, tin) that holds the key. It is the manufacturing and its innovations that supports the society. In today's world, that is extended to collecting, assembling and refining data. Although, the terminology is not used this way, we manufacture useful information from the data. Another aspect, perhaps more descriptive, for what I'm getting at is innovation in engineering.

alan
10-02-2013, 05:49 PM
A paper in German about a very early, perhaps the earliest, copper dagger in Europe from Slovakia. It was of the same type as the very early Romanian-Hungarian ones but it was arsenical copper. Its hard to say the exact date but the sort of period would be just before or after 4000BC. It is of a type associated usually with the Bodrogkeresztúr culture but in this case is made of arsenical copper instead of the usual pure copper, implying a different source.

http://www.academia.edu/1603833/Neuere_aneolithische_Kupferfunde_aus_der_Westslowa kei

There seems to be many indication of arsenical copper in south-east Europe and even further west that predate the spread of actual CMP types of objects. They predate Yamnaya although they do not pre-date the earlier steppe movements. Similarly copper daggers date to at least 4000BC, again not pre-dating earlier steppe movements but vastly earlier than Yamnaya expansion.

I do not know the origins of the use of Arsenical copper in SE Europe. It could have just been a natural process when the old CBMP mines and network collapsed and new sources were looked at. On the other hand the dates for its use are similar to its appearance in Maykop and Iran. However, there is the problem that the most obvious geographical go-between groups were the Suvorovo groups but they seemed to be using the pure copper of the old Balkans type which has even been used to date them - not sure if this is dangerously circular logic though.

TigerMW
10-02-2013, 06:31 PM
... There seems to be many indication of arsenical copper in south-east Europe and even further west that predate the spread of actual CMP types of objects. They predate Yamnaya although they do not pre-date the earlier steppe movements. Similarly copper daggers date to at least 4000BC, again not pre-dating earlier steppe movements but vastly earlier than Yamnaya expansion.

I do not know the origins of the use of Arsenical copper in SE Europe. It could have just been a natural process when the old CBMP mines and network collapsed and new sources were looked at. On the other hand the dates for its use are similar to its appearance in Maykop and Iran. However, there is the problem that the most obvious geographical go-between groups were the Suvorovo groups but they seemed to be using the pure copper of the old Balkans type which has even been used to date them - not sure if this is dangerously circular logic though.

Ironically or maybe expectantly, for R1b early branching aficionados, Wikipedia cites Harper in saying,
"Although arsenical bronze occurs in the archaeological record across the globe, the earliest artifacts so far known have been found on the Iranian plateau in the 5th millennium BCE"

Ian B
10-02-2013, 07:47 PM
Ironically or maybe expectantly, for R1b early branching aficionados, Wikipedia cites Harper in saying,
"Although arsenical bronze occurs in the archaeological record across the globe, the earliest artifacts so far known have been found on the Iranian plateau in the 5th millennium BCE"


Which gives a certain amount of credence to the hypothesis that the origins of copper working were in North East Europe/Asia, not in the south west?

TigerMW
10-02-2013, 08:10 PM
Which gives a certain amount of credence to the hypothesis that the origins of copper working were in North East Europe/Asia, not in the south west?
That's probably a whole another topic, at least in the general sense.

This is one of the interesting political things about reading those papers on early metallurgy in Europe and western Asia. There are couple of camps (i.e. Roberts, Thornton, Amzallag, etc.) and they seem to have evolved a bit related to their respective "local origins" and "diffusionist" types of hypotheses. The Amzallag rebuttal to the rebuttal (cited earlier in this thread) can give you a good flavor to the apparently long running struggle of hypotheses going to back to Childes. I don't want to be in the battle on that in any way as they seem to go beyond just a mere presentation of data and logic. I don't know any of these guys and don't really care to.

I don't really know who's right. I doubt if any of them are totally correct. I'd just like to understand any correlations of aspects of metallurgy with R1b lineages. I don't think there is any lack of clarity on the general conclusions that
there was a Carpatho-Balkans Metallurgy Province and it collapsed, and that
there was a Circumpontic Metallurgy Province and it expanded through Europe.

alan
10-02-2013, 08:30 PM
That is correct and the recent paper emphasising links with Iran as part of the Maykop genesis is almost certainly why Makyop possessed similar technology around 4000BC. However there is not a lot of evidence for the spread of Maykop type arsenical bronze with its distinctive CMP forms into the steppe before 3500BC. So, there appears to be the width of the Black Sea separating the early Maykop proto-CMP arsenical copper tradition and some examples of arsenical copper use in a more Balkans/east-central European style even though both date to c. 4000BC. The fall of Old Europe and coming of the Suvorovo ochre grave groups also happens at about the same date but they used old Balkans pure copper.

It could be that the Black Sea was simply crossed in boats bypassing the steppe but the styles are not the same. Arsenical copper working does seem to have a sporadic appearance but the CMP style of artifacts does not and doesnt really spread into the Balkans until much later with later steppe groups like Yamnaya who appear to have gained this style from Maykop and its settlers in adjacent areas of the steppe.

It could be that metalworkers moved fairly invisibly from the Caucasus and introduced arsenical copper skills into parts of Old Europe but there is no evidence or shared styles. On the other hand this period between the CBMP and CMP is the Balkans c. 4000-3500BC did have its own style which to me is rather different from either of those two. The CBMP seemed to have heavy tools and ornaments while this style between CBMP and CMP introduced copper daggers for example. I am sure there is a host of other difference when its read into. Its an awkward middle period. However, I have a problem with seeing this as a real gap. It seems very unlikely to me that the steppes had no metal between these periods. There may be a missing piece in the Jigsaw or a chronological precision problem. I am seeing dates for ochre graves being pushed back to 4300BC and that would explain why they have pure copper from the old CBMP sources. That is even older than the existence of Maykop anywhere. As it stands on the face of it it looks like use of Arsenical copper started in Iran then was present in the Caucasus by c. 4000BC and simultaneously appeared in the Balkans but without an explanatory cultural trail. I am not sure if that is real though. I am always suspicious when suddenly two areas appear to invent the same thing. In so many cases it later transpires to be diffusion. On the other hand it could simply be that the death of the old pure copper mines of Old Europe simply forced people to experiment with local copper sources and that these included the more difficult to use Sulphidic ores which although harder to process did produce better copper. Maybe knowledge of sulphidic ores did spread to copper workers across the Black Sea bypassing the steppes.


Ironically or maybe expectantly, for R1b early branching aficionados, Wikipedia cites Harper in saying,
"Although arsenical bronze occurs in the archaeological record across the globe, the earliest artifacts so far known have been found on the Iranian plateau in the 5th millennium BCE"

alan
10-02-2013, 10:23 PM
And there is also a period in between in the Balkans and adjacent that seems to need its own name but does not appear to have one. Its metallurgical context is the period when the CBMP had fallen but the CMP traditions of metal styles had not yet arrived. Its cultural context is the period between the early steppe Suvorovo peoples mixing with locals in the Balkans and the later steppe intrusions. It seems to belong to a period when hybrid societies existed in the Balkans and adjacent. I think this is a very important period of metallurgy from the perspective of R1b because it falls right into the time when the the dagger elites and new copper sources started appearing and soon after spread into the Alps, Italy etc. I fancy calling them the 'dagger elites' as this dagger symbolism was a transcultural thing. They so seem to fill the gap between the Suvorovo and Yamnaya intrusions which to me makes their makers likely Suvorovo-Balkans hybrid successor culture elites.

It seems to me that arsenical copper working, the new mines (not all of which were sulphidic ores) and copper dagger elite symbolism is a phenomenon of c. 4000-3200BC which developed in the Balkans c. 4000BC in the immediate aftermath of the Suvorovo-Balkans people fusions and then spread west along the Alps and into Italy in the middle of that period and also may have spread a little east into the area of the westernmost fringes of the steppes by 3200BC where it met the CMP metal types which, although originating much earlier in the Caucasus, were spread west by Yamnaya. The two traditions coming from different directions probably met near the Dniester/Dnieper areas c. 3200BC as can be seen in the Usatovo metalwork. The CMP traditions in terms of form/style do not seem, as far as I can make out, to appear west of the Dnieper until 3000BC or thereabouts when they were spread by Yamnaya and related tribes. I assume Yamnaya CMP type traditions only spread west when the beaker network or some part of an older network it was linked into and the Yamnaya groups faced each other in Hungary c. 2700BC.



I don't think there is any lack of clarity on the general conclusions that
there was a Carpatho-Balkans Metallurgy Province and it collapsed, and that
there was a Circumpontic Metallurgy Province and it expanded through Europe.

alan
10-02-2013, 11:58 PM
I wouldnt be surprised if the entire L51-L11-P312-U152/DF27 all happened across the span of the Alpine area. The only stumbling block on this is obsession with making maritime beaker a human trail I think is overcomplicating the more intuitive conclusion from the DNA that a position around the Alps makes the best sense for distribution of all of these clades.

I am more and more thinking that Iberia's role in the beaker period was originally a non-R1b area in the pre-beaker copper age which was a location with an existing copper supply that P312 people from perhaps the Alps and Liguria went to and settled as middlemen and traders to bring back copper because when their own older mines in Liguria dried up c. 2600BC. Maritime beaker may simply be part of the trail that brought back copper and wives making the pottery.

As I posted before, it is far more rational for copper to be procured and brought back from Iberia by people from further east around Liguria etc than for Iberians to set off randomly looking to trade. I see the beaker pot as possibly just part of what passed along that early trade network, perhaps invented in Iberia but perhaps not. Even if it was invented in Iberia, the prototype beaker type vessel it seems to have been based on most likely came in the other direction just before that.

That scenario of people from the Liguria sort of area seeking new copper sources and arriving in Iberia to act as middlemen and exporters makes a great deal of sense to me. It is noticeable that early beaker goes straight to the France-Italy border area and skips over a chunk of Iberia and France in doing that. That suggests to me the connection with Portugal was established and sought out and controlled by people from the France-Italy border area and was not a random outpouring along the coast of Iberian settlers. That sort of scenario would explain how P312 or even early DF27 was planted in Iberia at or immediately before the first beakers were made, provides a link with areas to the east with far better prototypes for the beaker form and also explains the apparently very non-random way that early beaker leaps to the France-Italy border overlooking a significant amount of areas in between this and Portugal. This model provides some sort of motive and logic to the distribution of early beaker and provides a way how a yline the likely originated in the Alpine sort of area got there. It also places the date of such an arrival perhaps c. 2700BC much closer to the date of both beaker and the dates for P312 calculated from variance.

This model of R1b having a long life in and around north Italy and the Alps through L51 to L11 to P312 and maybe even beyond c. 3500-2700BC then only spreading to Iberia c. 2700BC fits better IMO than a pre-beaker model that requires us to push P312 back to 3500BC. Evidence that the furthest west pre-beaker metalworking groups were not R1b comes from the Languedoc cemetery of c. 3000BC that was the burial of people who lived in the generations after copper mines and working had been established there. I also do not think the way copper was used in pre-beaker Iberia or Languedoc resembled the beaker modus-operandi but I do think that we can see beaker behavior prefigured in the Italian and Alpine dagger groups of pre-beaker times. I also think those dagger groups probably originated in areas that could have been effected by the very early steppe groups c. 4300BC onwards.

Another question one needs to ask one's self is is there any comparable logical motive for an out of Iberia movement compared to the into Iberia movement in the beaker period I just outlined. Why would Iberians from a copper eldorado where there was plenty for all head on a very long journey by sea and simply skip straight to the SE of France and north Italy, an area that at that time had up to then had its own copper mines? Why would they suddenly do this after 500 years of pre-beaker copper production when they didnt bother before and appear to have confined themselves to distributing it around Iberia and trading with Africa? They hadnt run out of copper. Iberian copper continued to be important for a very long time after. The pre-beaker copper cultures in Iberia had some significant fortifications by the sea but yet copper wasnt used in a showy or martial way and the settlements and burials do not indicate a very hierarchical type society.

Another obvious bit of evidence that a connection between the Alps/Italy etc with Portugal should be sought in the start of the beaker period is this- in the beaker period we see clear connections and similarities between the areas. You could call it cultural convergence through a busy trade network with traders, wives etc is supported in the archaeological record in this period. That is a clearly good background for genes, pots etc to move about in different directions. This is not the case in terms of pre-beaker copper age cultures between Italy and Portugal. They are very different. They do not appear to be in contact. They appear to be split into groups that are very different - the Iberian group, the Languedoc group and the Remedello-Rinaldone-Alps groups. They do not even use the same copper sources and do not produce similar metalwork. If you are to step back and look objectively at what period is most likely to have seen the flow of genes from the Alps etc to Iberia - the pre-beaker copper age or the early beaker period - then there is simply no competition.

In genetic terms Iberia look like they were probably originally a DF27 colony while the Alps and north Italy area looks like it had an R1b presence from L51 times at least and it looks like L51 may have originated in the Alps so the first R1b men there must have been L23*. It doesnt look to me like there is only a couple of centuries difference in the R1b history of the people around the Alps and those in Iberia. There looks to be a much longer R1b history in the Alps than Iberia and Iberia looks like a much later founder-effect type fission instead. If P312 is pushed back to before 3500BC to accommodate pre-beaker groups in the Alps, Italy etc and the Iberian pre-beaker copper cultures a few centuries later then that in turn means P312, L11, L51 and late L23* that must have been present around the Alps also needs pushed back proportionately - perhaps about 4300BC. I am not sure things work if you do that. Its too early considering that they must have been in the Alps etc.


So, I think I am about done thinking about this aspect and have pretty firmly come to the conclusion that R1b in Iberia probably didnt arrive until beaker times and likely arrived in DF27 form and came from somewhere around the France-Italy Med. area c. 2700BC give or take a generation or three. So, as far as I am concerned I am satisfied that Iberia was a late destination for R1b that arrived with the beaker prototype from the France-Italy-Alps sort of area, brought by people looking for a new place to ship copper back to where they came from. Other Alpine groups more remote from the west Med. may would also have been effected by the closure of the Ligurian copper mines in early beaker times and would also have needed new sources - a perfect reason to pass through the Alpine passes that they new well - and may have made the comparitivly short land journey through the mountains to other areas. So, R1b may have had a star-like pattern coming from the Alpine/Ligurian sort of area seeking new copper sources a little before 2600BC and may have headed both west by sea to Iberia and through the Alps to the Rhine and Danube and even to the Budapest to the ores already exploited in Hungary.

R.Rocca
10-03-2013, 01:24 AM
The Castellari Bell Beaker tumulus from Liguria has been dated to 4350±50 BP while the earliest un-calibrated dates from Portugal are 4230±60 BP. Unfortunately the site seems to have been disturbed at some point so it is impossible to verify the date. Hopefully more BB sites from the Franco-Italian border will be radiocarbon dated in the future.

alan
10-03-2013, 02:25 AM
I re-read the Van Willigen and Muller paper and it was clear that when short life material only was used for radiocarbondating the Med. area the lack of dating from Italy and many other places meant that it was not really that valid to draw any conclusion IMO. What I was reasonably convinced by when all the dates were used was that there is a basic divide between earlier dates south of a line between Budapest through the Alps and on to Porto and younger north of it. I am not convinced a good enough sample existed to conclude anything beyond that.

It also failed to describe the details of the earliest samples. I would like to know how a totally safe bone sample can be associated with beaker in an area where the rather jumbled situation you tend to get in collective burial monuments prevails. They are usually very problematic places to extrapolate from dating unless you do loads of them.

The bottom line is many features of the beaker culture have eastern prototypes so a primary position in Iberia seems unlikely. The beaker pot is almost certainly of a central European template and beaker metalwork like tanged daggers also look to have eastern origins. Copper working of course has eastern origins ultimately although that arrived pre-beaker and is not really a beaker innovation in the early beaker area. As for archery, I have not seen a paper really look into the origins of this in beaker. Archery was common among many Neolithic and copper age groups including in the west, in the east in the sreppes and of course in pre-beaker Remedello type copper age groups. I would love to see some sort of typological discussion about the arrowhead types. I have seen barbed and tanged looking ones apparently in Remedello type burials. i think I read somewhere that the hollow based arrowheads came from the east beaker groups but I know from experience they are also found in the British Isles. As for wristguards I think Harrison and Heyd claimed that they were very rare in the early Iberian burials and may have been added to the beaker package later. I am not sure if that is universally agreed on.

However, there seems little in the beaker package that would have been a big deal to existing pre-beaker copper age peoples along the Med. and Alps. The main changes were just stylistic - the pots and some metalwork styles apparently both based on prototypes from the east. Beaker appears to have been very early around Budapest which was close to Yamnaya so that could be the most rational explanation for a flow of Yamnaya ideas back west. I think that is far more likely that enormous jumps from the east straight to Iberia.


The Castellari Bell Beaker tumulus from Liguria has been dated to 4350±50 BP while the earliest un-calibrated dates from Portugal are 4230±60 BP. Unfortunately the site seems to have been disturbed at some point so it is impossible to verify the date. Hopefully more BB sites from the Franco-Italian border will be radiocarbon dated in the future.

AJL
10-03-2013, 02:27 AM
there was a Carpatho-Balkans Metallurgy Province and it collapsed

I wonder if this might account for the pocket of E-V13 in Wales? I'd love to seem them DNA-test the bones found here:

http://www.wales-underground.org.uk/orme/

alan
10-03-2013, 02:37 AM
Certainly a lot of problems would melt away if beaker was somewhere in the Alps-north Italy kind of area first. The DNA and culture dating would just match perfectly. However, even if the first beaker pot was made in Iberia I think it is clear that the prototype involved a prior movement from points east immediately before, as apparently did some of the metalwork styles. My guess is that the possibility of eastern European influences in the far west only opened up around the time of the earliest beakers when there were beaker groups at Budapest and there were also west Alpine Remedello connected people at Sion very close to corded ware groups in Swizerland - roughly from 2750BC. I doubt if enough pot analysis has been done to rule out beaker originating from either of these contacts. I cannot see any other explanation for eastern influences on bell beaker. I dont think the idea of direct leaps from steppe peoples to Iberia ring true. It seems much more likely that innovations spread from non-beaker groups like Yamnaya and Corded Ware at the points where we can see that beaker bordered these cultures. The trade route may have immediately preceded the first beakers and the beakers themselves could be a symptom of that contact.

The chances though of picking up the very first generation of settlers is low, especially if the group was very small.


The Castellari Bell Beaker tumulus from Liguria has been dated to 4350±50 BP while the earliest un-calibrated dates from Portugal are 4230±60 BP. Unfortunately the site seems to have been disturbed at some point so it is impossible to verify the date. Hopefully more BB sites from the Franco-Italian border will be radiocarbon dated in the future.

Jean M
10-03-2013, 11:48 AM
Amzallag documented his sources well in his original paper on this. He also had a very effective rebuttal to the Thornton rebuttal, at least in my opinion:

"A Return to the Dark Ages? Reply to Thorton et al. 2010". It's here: http://www.ajaonline.org/author/756


I can't agree. The sequence of thought on the spread of metal-working goes like this:

1. V. Gordon Childe had the vision of it spreading from one location. Amzallag calls this "diffusionism". Naturally it had to be spread by somebody, and Childe sees this as the wandering smith. The core argument is that the technology is too complex to have arisen in multiple locations. In Childe's day, more was known of the civilizations of Mesopotamia and Eygpt than the less obvious earlier cultures of the hilly flanks of the Fertile Crescent, so Childe (in his view) had a choice between Egypt and Mesopotamia as the source of metal-working and went for the latter. See http://www.marxists.org/archive/childe/1930/bronzeage/ch01.htm

2. In the 1960s-70s archaeology went anti-migrationist. Loads of authors proudly put forward theories of the independent origin of metal-working in their neck of the woods (or in Europe more generally) without any outside help. Amzallag calls this "localizationism".

3. In the 2000s Ben Roberts of the British Museum and other experts went on the attack against localizationism, and returned to the core argument of Childe, though not the details. For this school of thought, the most likely origin point is the region where we can see a long history of experimentation with metal prior to smelting i.e. the Neolithic heartland where Anatolia meets the Levant - not present-day Israel or Mesopotamia where there is no native copper.

Amzallag fits the pattern of 2 in that he is very keen on promoting his own neck of the woods as vitally important in the story, so he wants to defend localizationism up to a point, but he wants more glory for the Levant, which can only come from some brilliant innovation supposedly spreading from there i.e. diffusionism. So he calls his theory synthetic and claims that it reconciles the warring factions. In fact it does nothing of the kind.

Amzallag's rebuttal confusingly attacks Thornton, Roberts et al for (he supposes) defending both 1 and 2. They are not doing so, as he in fact reveals in another part of his rebuttal, where he claims that they have failed to rebut every single case of localizationism. He makes the strange statement that the Levant is the single region where copper metallurgy appears independently of the working of native copper (untrue) and that this singularity is a fundamental part of his synthetic theory. Strikes me as a load of wishful thinking.

R.Rocca
10-03-2013, 01:07 PM
Certainly a lot of problems would melt away if beaker was somewhere in the Alps-north Italy kind of area first. The DNA and culture dating would just match perfectly. However, even if the first beaker pot was made in Iberia I think it is clear that the prototype involved a prior movement from points east immediately before, as apparently did some of the metalwork styles. My guess is that the possibility of eastern European influences in the far west only opened up around the time of the earliest beakers when there were beaker groups at Budapest and there were also west Alpine Remedello connected people at Sion very close to corded ware groups in Swizerland - roughly from 2750BC. I doubt if enough pot analysis has been done to rule out beaker originating from either of these contacts. I cannot see any other explanation for eastern influences on bell beaker. I dont think the idea of direct leaps from steppe peoples to Iberia ring true. It seems much more likely that innovations spread from non-beaker groups like Yamnaya and Corded Ware at the points where we can see that beaker bordered these cultures. The trade route may have immediately preceded the first beakers and the beakers themselves could be a symptom of that contact.

The chances though of picking up the very first generation of settlers is low, especially if the group was very small.

Good point, silver hammer-head pins are found in Remedello that resemble those of Corded Ware.

TigerMW
10-03-2013, 01:48 PM
... Amzallag's rebuttal confusingly attacks Thornton, Roberts et al for (he supposes) defending both 1 and 2. They are not doing so, as he in fact reveals in another part of his rebuttal, where he claims that they have failed to rebut every single case of localizationism. He makes the strange statement that the Levant is the single region where copper metallurgy appears independently of the working of native copper (untrue) and that this singularity is a fundamental part of his synthetic theory. Strikes me as a load of wishful thinking.

I don't entirely get the Amzallag's focus on making the Levant one of the three planks in his theory, other than he claims this is the only place where the various phases of a transition of crucible to furnace smelting are evidenced. All other places, he claims show an abrupt change. Given the connection he shows with metalworking in eastern Anatolia and then also the Caucasus I would think they would be part of this enhancement. To me tying in the Levant is not essential to an R1b discussion unless somehow some is trying to link R1b-V88 into the development of metallurgy.

Anyway, I hope Thornton writes a counter-counter rebuttal as I'm sure Amzallag will respond again. After a couple rounds like this, everything tends to get laid bare. This is why I chose not to focus on Amzallag theory in and of itself. The debate struggles may have motives I don't understand or at least don't care about.

What is pertinent is there appears to be a possible link in the spread of furnace smelting through the Circumpontic Metallurgy Province. If there is disagreement on what is furnace smelting or not, let's drop use of that term and just call it the "XYZ slag" trail with slag being a by-product of smelting. That trail has a very nice alignment geographically, and possibly chronologically with other east to west movements.

TigerMW
10-03-2013, 02:19 PM
My guess is that the possibility of eastern European influences in the far west only opened up around the time of the earliest beakers when there were beaker groups at Budapest and there were also west Alpine Remedello connected people at Sion very close to corded ware groups in Swizerland - roughly from 2750BC. I doubt if enough pot analysis has been done to rule out beaker originating from either of these contacts. I cannot see any other explanation for eastern influences on bell beaker. I dont think the idea of direct leaps from steppe peoples to Iberia ring true. It seems much more likely that innovations spread from non-beaker groups like Yamnaya and Corded Ware at the points where we can see that beaker bordered these cultures. The trade route may have immediately preceded the first beakers and the beakers themselves could be a symptom of that contact.
Good point, silver hammer-head pins are found in Remedello that resemble those of Corded Ware.
I hope everyone can read the Harrison and Heyd material on this. I had to read it a couple of times through. Since I'm not an archaeologist I can't question their artifact interpretations, datings, etc. but the picture they paint is fascinating. The two sites they compared by time phase were at Sion and Aosta Switzerland. They are at the crossroads between several great river systems in Europe.
"The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of 'Le Petit-Chasseur I + III' (Sion, Valais, Switzerland)" by Harrison & Heyd, 2007

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Beakers-Regional_Groups_meet_at_Sion_by_Harrison_2007.jpg

This map is eerily reminds me of a general's battle plan. It appears that about 2425 BC is the timeframe for a change. This is important as Harrison/Heyd say,
"The Bell Beaker A1 phase, and its swift transition to the A2 period, is the moment when the burial and cult activity of the complex is redefined. The early Bell Beaker activity is confined strictly to the primary monument M VI, where there is continuity with the Final Neolithic burials.
...
The Beaker phase A2 is the climax of activity on the site,
...
shift takes place at the beginning of the middle Beaker phase A2a, and the geographical connections are aligned in a different direction entirely. At this time the people at Sion were linked to the Bell Beaker East Group, as is shown quite clearly by the special finds which all have links to the east.
..
Within two generations, another significant change takes place at both sites. This is the destruction horizon around 2425 BC, at the end of the early Beaker period, when stelae on both sites were smashed and their fragments used as building material in new monunents. (see Fig. 10). This marks a fundamental change in the prevailing ideology on each site. Such a change is clearly, abrupt, violent and conducted quickly, so that every image was broken and thrown down. Not one remains intact at Sion, where the destruction was more complete than at Aosta. The distinctive accompanying material includes Bell Beakers that have links to the East Group. It signals an idealogical switch in allegiance, transferred from the old Rhine-Rhone axis, to the new focus on the Danube."

They go on to ask the big question and then go ahead answer, giving us the direct link to the Yamnaya peoples who originated in the Pontic Steppes.


"... So the question arises, what cultural process is strong enough to cause these rapid Europe-wide changes?
The short answer is the there was a substantial migration from the steppe areas north of the Black sea, supported by a pastoral economy, which is recognisable archaeologically as the Yamnaya Culture (Fig. 43). From 4500 BC people of steppe orgin from the western Pontic area were entering familiar environments and settling in the plains of the lower Danube and the central Carpathian basin.
...
A particularly numerous well defined immigrant group from the northern Black sea reached the Hungarian plain, and their tumulus graves had identical burial customs to the Yamnaya culture in the Ukraine.
...
This immigration arrived in eastern and east-central Europe around 2900-2700 BC. Support for this dating comes from accurate relative chronologies
...
The important point is that all researchers agree that they Yamnaya culture had a pastoral economy with domesticated horses, ox-drawn wagons, and herds of cattle and sheep. Its physical mobility is essential in understanding the dynamism, and capacity for long distance social contacts (some of them, no doubt, belligerent), shown in the Yamnaya culture."

The chronology is the one that David Anthony apparently uses. The Yamnaya were making a big dent in east/east-central Europe (vicinity of Hungary) about 2900-2700 BC. Harrison/Heyd cite an ensuing change in western Switzerland about 2425 BC. The change brings in "Eastern" Bell Beaker folks, but perhaps a better term would have been "Yamnaya" Bell Beakers. ???

Did you notice the wagon train aspect? However, it should be noted there was a long movement into Hungary and no doubt the scouts and others explored far to the west at earlier times.

alan
10-03-2013, 02:55 PM
I also would add that it seems possible that the outlier in Budapest, apparently with very early dates if they can be trusted, could be a very early conduit for bringing Yamnaya influences back across the beaker network in terms of metallurgical fashions. This would be even more interesting if these proto-beaker network outliers actually arrived a generation before the first beaker pots. That would be very hard to spot but that would create a potentially conduit for not only metal fashions but also beaker prototypes to flow back west, possibly via Italy.

As I have posted a couple of times before, north Italy and adjacent did have the motive to go searching for new copper sources c. 2600BC judging by the end of the radiocarbon dates at the Ligurian mines around the early beaker phase. There supplies could have been running low in the preceding century or so. Those on the western seaboard may have searched west by sea and those in the more easterly parts of the Alps could have passed through Austria or even across the head of the Adriatic seeking these new sources or trade partners. They seem to have had a motive at the right time to do so.

With radiocarbon of course there are many many aspects of wriggle room with dates due to certainty of context, materials, diet, environment, where samples are actually available etc so I dont think the details of the very start of beaker of proto-beaker networking can be at present established on the sort of sample Muller and Van Willigen had to work with. I just feel intuitively that Iberia is overfocussed on and has an improbable location to be at the heart of the creation of the bell beaker phenomenon, regardless of the date of the first maritime beakers.

It makes a lot more sense to see Iberia as an early participant that involved immediately prior and subsequent flow from points east of people seeking contact. In that sense I am not so far from jeans model except that I would place Iberia's likely receipt of ideas and R1b in the beaker period when there seems to me to be a lot more connectivity between it and points east along the west Med. and Alpine fringe than in the pre-beaker copper age. Its clearly a complex phenomenon but I like the idea of placing a motive for the sudden appearance of the early beaker network in the west Med. and Alpine fringe after many centuries of little indication of such wide networking behavour among the pre-beaker copper groups in the same areas - the closest to beaker type networking IMO seems to be the Remedello dagger symbol users but even they were relatively restricted. They had little motive to seek contacts with other copper sources when the Ligurian and alpine mines were operating. If anything, other sources may have represented competition. However, they did suddenly have a motive as their mines may have started to wind down in the centuries leading up to 2600BC.

I see the beakers and metal styles as ultimately having more roots in groups in eastern Europe and north of the Alps around 3000BC or so. It has been claimed that the archery cult may have had Iberian origins but I am not so sure. There is plenty of archery equiptment in pre-beaker copper age groups in Italy and elsewhere, not to mention eastern Europe and of course among most native Neolithic groups in Europe. I would love to find a modern paper on the subject of pre-beaker archery c. 3000BC as its very confusing with many papers representing old views based on old ideas of younger dating of the pre-beaker groups. I will have a dig around again.




I hope everyone can read the Harrison and Heyd material on this. I had to read it a couple of times through. Since I'm not an archaeologist I can't question their artifact interpretations, datings, etc. but the picture they paint is fascinating. The two sites they compared by time phase were at Sion and Aosta Switzerland. They are at the crossroads between several great river systems in Europe.
"The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of 'Le Petit-Chasseur I + III' (Sion, Valais, Switzerland)" by Harrison & Heyd, 2007

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Beakers-Regional_Groups_meet_at_Sion_by_Harrison_2007.jpg

This map is eerily reminds me of a general's battle plan. It appears that about 2425 BC is the timeframe for a change. This important as Harrison/Heyd say,
"The Bell Beaker A1 phase, and its swift transition to the A2 period, is the moment when the burial and cult activity of the complex is redefined. The early Bell Beaker activity is confined strictly to the primary monument M VI, where there is continuity with the Final Neolithic burials.
...
The Beaker phase A2 is the climax of activity on the site,
...
shift takes place at the beginning of the middle Beaker phase A2a, and the goegraphical connections are aligned in a different direction entirely. At this time the people at Sion were linked to the Bell Beaker East Group, as is shown quite clearly by the special finds which all have links to the east.
..
Within two generations, another significant change takes place at both sites. This is the destruction horizon around 2425 BC, at the end of the early Beaker period, when stelae on both sites were smashed and their fragments used as building material in new monunents. (see Fig. 10). This marks a fundamental change in the prevailing ideology on each site. Such a change is clearly, abrupt, violent and conducted quickly, so that every image was broken and thrown down. Not one remains intact at Sion, where the destruction was more complete than at Aosta. The distinctive accompanying material includes Bell Beakers that have links to the East Group. It signals an idealogical switch in allegiance, transferred from the old Rhine-Rhone axis, to the new focus on the Danube."

They go on to ask the big question and then go ahead answer, giving us the direct link to the Yamnaya peoples who originated in the Pontic Steppes.


"... So the question arises, what cultural process is strong enough to cause these rapid Europe-wide changes?
The short answer is the there was a substantial migration from the steppe areas north of the Black sea, supported by a pastoral economy, which is recognisable archaeologically as the Yamnaya Culture (Fig. 43). From 4500 BC people of steppe orgin from the western Pontic area were entering familiar environments and settling in the plains of the lower Danube and the central Carpathian basin.
...
A particularly numerous well defined immigrant group from the northern Black sea reached the Hungarian plain, and their tumulus graves had identical burial customs to the Yamnaya culture in the Ukraine.
...
This immigration arrived in eastern and east-central Europe around 2900-2700 BC. Support for this dating comes from accurate relative chronologies
...
The important point is that all researchers agree that they Yamnaya culture had a pastoral economy with domesticated horses, ox-drawn wagons, and herds of cattle and sheep. Its physical mobility is essential in understanding the dynamism, and capacity for long distance social contacts (some of them, no doubt, belligerent), shown in the Yamnaya culture."

The chronology is the one that David Anthony apparently uses. The Yamnaya were making a big dent in east/east-central Europe (vicinity of Hungary) about 2900-2700 BC. Harrison/Heyd cite an ensuing change in western Switzerland about 2425 BC. The change brings in "Eastern" Bell Beaker folks, but perhaps a better term would have been "Yamnaya" Bell Beakers. ???

P.S. Did you notice the wagon train aspect?

Jean M
10-03-2013, 03:33 PM
I hope Thornton writes a counter-counter rebuttal as I'm sure Amzallag will respond again...

I doubt it. I don't see any point. The experts in the development of metallurgy have said enough to inject a note of caution for non-expert readers of Amzallag. They can't spend their lives responding to every fringe theory.

alan
10-03-2013, 03:43 PM
Just stumbled across this book out this year on Iberian prehistory especially social stratification. I have barely skimmed a few pages but it looks very interesting.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-Jqcr0C5GL0C&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=iberia+stelae&source=bl&ots=V-GdD1WQAS&sig=SShuN1k2JI8Ipee_0u5V3EbfHzU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ho5NUp3-HcSv0QWK4YCYAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=iberia%20stelae&f=false

Jean M
10-03-2013, 03:43 PM
I also would add that it seems possible that the outlier in Budapest, apparently with very early dates if they can be trusted, could be a very early conduit for bringing Yamnaya influences back across the beaker network in terms of metallurgical fashions.

The basic Yamnaya package had already travelled with the stelae. (See Harrison and Heyd.) New inventions could of course travel both ways along trade routes first established by the early copper workers, as I say in AJ. Some particular styles and objects are evidently later than the initial Yamnaya package, such as the bell beaker pottery that everyone obsesses over. We can perceive directions and dates of travel for some of these. Bell Beaker pottery appears to flow from Iberia eastwards to Budapest and then down the Rhine. Then we have a back-flow.

729

TigerMW
10-03-2013, 03:47 PM
I doubt it. I don't see any point. The experts in the development of metallurgy have said enough to inject a note of caution for non-expert readers of Amzallag. They can't spend their lives responding to every fringe theory. This can spiral to discussions about every theory that is new is "fringe" until it gains acceptance. However, let us move on and consider Carpatho-Balkans and Circumpontic Metallurgy provinces and their possible differentiations as they might relate to the topic. It appears Amzallag's smelting by-product (slag) trail follows the Circumpontic trail.

I'm only interested in the truth. Do we have any other studies available discussing the dating, similarities and differences in slag? I would suspect advances in the smelting and refining processes are critical to the economic successes of a Circumpontic expansion. It sure was critical to the later development of iron as a replacement. I'm not saying arsenic was not important, just that the processing systems may have been more important.

Jean M
10-03-2013, 03:49 PM
I also would add that it seems possible that the outlier in Budapest, apparently with very early dates if they can be trusted, could be a very early conduit for bringing Yamnaya influences back across the beaker network in terms of metallurgical fashions.

The basic Yamnaya package had already travelled with the stelae. (See Harrison and Heyd.) New inventions could of course travel both ways along trade routes first established by the early copper workers, as I say in AJ. Some particular styles and objects are evidently later than the initial Yamnaya package, such as the bell beaker pottery that everyone obsesses over. We can perceive directions and dates of travel for some of these. Bell Beaker pottery appears to flow from Iberia eastwards to Budapest and then down the Rhine. Then we have a back-flow to take into account.

It is a shade more complicated than archaeologists would like of course. It would be much, much simpler and easier to follow if an entire package, complete with highly identifiable pottery had moved all at once in a single direction from A to B, with no later movement either way along this route. Everyone would be very clear in their minds about what had happened. The problem is that human beings seldom behave that way unless point A is being inundated, frozen over or otherwise made totally uninhabitable. Understanding Bell Beaker requires a certain flexibility of mind and/or a good understanding of the history of the American West. :)

729

Jean M
10-03-2013, 04:00 PM
.. every theory that is new is "fringe" until it gains acceptance.

But this one shows no sign of gaining acceptance. That's what I'm saying. If it were the first salvo of a paradigm change, we could talk in terms of a new school of thought forming. We could expect some favourable reviews of Amzallag to counter the critique. There would be some point in further exchanges. Here I don't see any.

I am not the type of person who simply rejects any new idea. Far from it. That should be pretty clear by now! :biggrin1:

TigerMW
10-03-2013, 04:37 PM
But this one shows no sign of gaining acceptance. That's what I'm saying. If it were the first salvo of a paradigm change, we could talk in terms of a new school of thought forming. We could expect some favourable reviews of Amzallag to counter the critique. There would be some point in further exchanges. Here I don't see any.

I am not the type of person who simply rejects any new idea. Far from it. That should be pretty clear by now! :biggrin1: Okay.... as I mentioned before, I don't want to spiral into another discussion about academic/research authorities and I trust your judgement has better background than mine.

I don't think you are saying slag residue and/or the conversion from crucible to furnace smelting are unimportant, though, are you? I'm clearly interested in any studies that go into depth on the processing aspects of metallurgy and have attempted to explain the spread of processing advances. Do you have any?

alan
10-03-2013, 05:19 PM
Mike I think there is little question that the most direct period of possible contact between beaker and Yamnaya and Yamnanya influences groups are:

1. The Budapest outlier Csepel group. Apparently very early in the beaker period if the dates can be trusted. Perhaps 2700BC give or take? I dont think Yamnaya and beaker or even pre-beaker groups were close enough to have anything other than extremely indirect contact before around 2800-2700BC given that Yamnaya was not west of the Black Sea before 2900BC and beaker probably did not exist much before 2700BC. There is the possibility that that Csepel contact could have pre-dated the making of the first beakers and even transported the idea west along contact routes but that is total speculation.

2. Contact between Remedello dagger symbol groups such as seen at Sion and the Corded Ware culture in Switzerland. Apparently can only be proven with certainty to have arrived by 2750BC but possibly a generation or so earlier. Again being neighbours c. 2800BC is on the cusp of the origin period of bell beaker. As well as the corded ware itself here is a lot in corded wares roots that are of interest including Funnel Beaker, Cuc-Trip and steppe aspects that could be relevant to providing a prototype for beaker. I accept Jean's points about fabric but they did have roots that included people who did use these fabric types and I would doubt enough fabric work has been done everywhere to be definitive about that aspect. tHE In favour of this having influenced the origin of the beaker is geography, timing and reasonable prototypes for the form.

3. The arrival of the beaker east groups who had been in a better location to absorb eastern ideas either direct from Yamnaya derivative groups or though go-between cultures. Although this is c. 2425BC at Sion, I wouldnt automatically project that date of eastern beaker influence as late as that everywhere. The main flow of additional beaker pottery types was from the east and some of them reached the Rhine group area by 2500BC in time to transfer to Britain and Ireland. There is also the apparent closer nature of the Rhenish and isles beaker skulls with the east group rather than the early maritime type groups which to some extent runs counter to some conclusions about the Rhenish groups.

So I see three potential contacts with Yamnaya, other east-central European cultures and corded ware in the time span c. 2750BC onwards. Desideri of course is of interest in this although it has to be noted that she only sampled some of the beaker areas. She did not sample some areas that would have been of interest including Italy and her selection of northern Spain is problematic IMO as it has a quite different beaker story to Portugal, the crucial area with the early dates. However, looking at what she did find is still mighty interesting.

My hunch is that peoples around north Italy and adjacent within the Remdedllo dagger symbol area could have spread through the Alpine passes, to Iberia by sea and via the Adriatic to the Carpathian fringe by taking different routes from slightly different starting points across the wide zone that Remedello influence can be seen in - basically the full length of the southern Alps. The people in the east of this spread may have been different from those in the east end judging by what she says and some comments on round heads in classic Remedello burials. So, the same culture, especially given it had been around for maybe 700 years or so by the beaker period cannot be expected to be uniform and probably took on local characteristics of the local Neolithic groups through breeding, especially on the peripheries. So it is perfectly possible that both the more Neolithic types could have passed through the Alps at some points and more round headed types passed through the Alps at other points despite being within the Remedello dagger imagery area.

So, the consequence would be that in the west Med. Remedello dagger symbol using groups may have been so similar to the general inhabitants in the west Med that a migration may not be possible to detect. Regardless, she did not same the more relevant area of Iberia - Portugal. So, I dont think continuity or discontinuity in earliest Iberian beaker times has been tested by her paper. Seeing as Remedello dagger symbol groups along the full length of the Alps seem to have varied in their phenotypes by the beaker period, I do not see how these newcomers from the western sphere especially noted in could not have come from the southern Alps area around the time the beaker network was set up. After all she did not test Italy. In general I think we have to be careful about drawing conclusions from her study that are not certain due to the areas selected and others not selected.


This raises a question that I do not know the answer to off the top of my head. What and where are the earliest dated metalwork of beaker type that may have links with the eastern sphere i.e. tanged daggers etc? Are they dated as early as the pots?



I hope everyone can read the Harrison and Heyd material on this. I had to read it a couple of times through. Since I'm not an archaeologist I can't question their artifact interpretations, datings, etc. but the picture they paint is fascinating. The two sites they compared by time phase were at Sion and Aosta Switzerland. They are at the crossroads between several great river systems in Europe.
"The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC: the example of 'Le Petit-Chasseur I + III' (Sion, Valais, Switzerland)" by Harrison & Heyd, 2007

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Beakers-Regional_Groups_meet_at_Sion_by_Harrison_2007.jpg

This map is eerily reminds me of a general's battle plan. It appears that about 2425 BC is the timeframe for a change. This is important as Harrison/Heyd say,
"The Bell Beaker A1 phase, and its swift transition to the A2 period, is the moment when the burial and cult activity of the complex is redefined. The early Bell Beaker activity is confined strictly to the primary monument M VI, where there is continuity with the Final Neolithic burials.
...
The Beaker phase A2 is the climax of activity on the site,
...
shift takes place at the beginning of the middle Beaker phase A2a, and the geographical connections are aligned in a different direction entirely. At this time the people at Sion were linked to the Bell Beaker East Group, as is shown quite clearly by the special finds which all have links to the east.
..
Within two generations, another significant change takes place at both sites. This is the destruction horizon around 2425 BC, at the end of the early Beaker period, when stelae on both sites were smashed and their fragments used as building material in new monunents. (see Fig. 10). This marks a fundamental change in the prevailing ideology on each site. Such a change is clearly, abrupt, violent and conducted quickly, so that every image was broken and thrown down. Not one remains intact at Sion, where the destruction was more complete than at Aosta. The distinctive accompanying material includes Bell Beakers that have links to the East Group. It signals an idealogical switch in allegiance, transferred from the old Rhine-Rhone axis, to the new focus on the Danube."

They go on to ask the big question and then go ahead answer, giving us the direct link to the Yamnaya peoples who originated in the Pontic Steppes.


"... So the question arises, what cultural process is strong enough to cause these rapid Europe-wide changes?
The short answer is the there was a substantial migration from the steppe areas north of the Black sea, supported by a pastoral economy, which is recognisable archaeologically as the Yamnaya Culture (Fig. 43). From 4500 BC people of steppe orgin from the western Pontic area were entering familiar environments and settling in the plains of the lower Danube and the central Carpathian basin.
...
A particularly numerous well defined immigrant group from the northern Black sea reached the Hungarian plain, and their tumulus graves had identical burial customs to the Yamnaya culture in the Ukraine.
...
This immigration arrived in eastern and east-central Europe around 2900-2700 BC. Support for this dating comes from accurate relative chronologies
...
The important point is that all researchers agree that they Yamnaya culture had a pastoral economy with domesticated horses, ox-drawn wagons, and herds of cattle and sheep. Its physical mobility is essential in understanding the dynamism, and capacity for long distance social contacts (some of them, no doubt, belligerent), shown in the Yamnaya culture."

The chronology is the one that David Anthony apparently uses. The Yamnaya were making a big dent in east/east-central Europe (vicinity of Hungary) about 2900-2700 BC. Harrison/Heyd cite an ensuing change in western Switzerland about 2425 BC. The change brings in "Eastern" Bell Beaker folks, but perhaps a better term would have been "Yamnaya" Bell Beakers. ???

Did you notice the wagon train aspect? However, it should be noted there was a long movement into Hungary and no doubt the scouts and others explored far to the west at earlier times.

alan
10-03-2013, 05:46 PM
OK I just want to clarify my understanding of the Yamnaya package. By linking it with stelae and the copper workers you would be pushing it to say c. 3600-3200BC - the sort of time of the spread of copper associated artefacts, symbols, stelae etc. While I do feel that that seems to early for Yamnaya rather than pre-Yamnaya steppe influences, I dont want to go over the chronology right now. I am more interested in the specifics of what Yamnaya traits are evidence in those pre-beaker copper age groups from say Italy/the Alps to Iberia. I have read H and H a few times but it all seemed to become a bit unclear the further west we travel.

As far as I can make out arsenical copper outside the the steppes in Europe is very much too early for Yamnaya to be responsible. Mining seems to be present in Italy by 3600BC. Stelae often have Remedello daggers which can date from at least 3500BC and seem to have more likely roots in the Balkans c. 4000BC. Something resembling male elite burials does seem to exist in Italy by 3500BC. So, I am fairly unsure why these would be linked to Yamnaya.

I totally agree that Yamnaya or some similar eastern influence can be seen on some beaker metal types and perhaps the pots themselves. I just dont see actual Yamnaya influence on the pre-beaker copper age groups of the Alps, Italy and west Med, c. 3600-3200BC and later even if this was chronologically possible which IMO looks doubtful. However, I would feel that that sort of influence looks clearer in the beaker period itself than the pre-beaker period and that the early beaker period itself does provide some points of close contact with Yamnaya, corded and other groups through the western Alps and also beaker groups in Hungary and central Europe. That seems geographically plausible. However, a Yamnaya influence on pre-beaker groups in Italy, the Alps and further west just seems to provide a chronological-geographical problem. More importantly I am not at all clear what aspects of the pre-beaker copper age cultures in that area are clearly linked to Yamnaya.

What I do feel is that they are linked to the Balkans c. 4000BC and the centuries after where there was a soup of Balkans locals and Suvorovo/cohre grave elements probably melding together. I really can see the potential that this Balkans mix was a possible way in which steppe influences got further west and I can then see how arsenical copper, mining, dagger symbolism, general more IE looking individualistic elite type behavour was earlier there than in Italy, the Alps etc and could have had an influence. I just have trouble with seeing that link being with Yamnaya rather than the earlier wave of steppes peoples who mixed with Balkans people around 4000BC. To me that sort of mix is exactly what I would feel would make a good root in terms of symbols, behavour and technology for the stelae type groups further west c. 3600BC onwards.

Dont get me wrong this is just a variant or tweak to your model not a massive difference of opinion. The basic picture is the same but the chronology and the detail of the steppe link I am proposing is just earlier and pre-Yamnaya while I place actual Yamnaya inffluences within the early beaker period itself. .


The basic Yamnaya package had already travelled with the stelae. (See Harrison and Heyd.) New inventions could of course travel both ways along trade routes first established by the early copper workers, as I say in AJ. Some particular styles and objects are evidently later than the initial Yamnaya package, such as the bell beaker pottery that everyone obsesses over. We can perceive directions and dates of travel for some of these. Bell Beaker pottery appears to flow from Iberia eastwards to Budapest and then down the Rhine. Then we have a back-flow to take into account.

It is a shade more complicated than archaeologists would like of course. It would be much, much simpler and easier to follow if an entire package, complete with highly identifiable pottery had moved all at once in a single direction from A to B, with no later movement either way along this route. Everyone would be very clear in their minds about what had happened. The problem is that human beings seldom behave that way unless point A is being inundated, frozen over or otherwise made totally uninhabitable. Understanding Bell Beaker requires a certain flexibility of mind and/or a good understanding of the history of the American West. :)

729

Jean M
10-03-2013, 06:05 PM
I'm clearly interested in any studies that go into depth on the processing aspects of metallurgy and have attempted to explain the spread of processing advances. Do you have any?

All I have you can find in folder Archaeology > Copper Bronze Age > Metallurgy.

Jean M
10-03-2013, 06:59 PM
I totally agree that Yamnaya or some similar eastern influence can be seen on some beaker metal types and perhaps the pots themselves. I just dont see actual Yamnaya influence on the pre-beaker copper age groups of the Alps, Italy and west Med, c. 3600-3200BC

Perhaps you would like to read Harrison and Heyd again? Or most probably not, since you dislike it so much! ;) Frankly, having explained their brilliant paper half a dozen times, I feel I should be excused from further exposition. It's out there. Those who have eyes to see, let them see. :)

TigerMW
10-03-2013, 07:24 PM
All I have you can find in folder Archaeology > Copper Bronze Age > Metallurgy.

Thanks, and thanks for your feedback. I'm trying to understand the transitions in the early to mid and mid to final Beaker phases for clues of how P312 and its subclades might fit. I'm looking for clues of how and when Harrison/Heyd's elements #4 and #6 of 11 of the Yamnaya Package spread through Europe, early, mid or late Beaker... so I'm look for the following studies.

"4.The creation of a special status for craftsman, especially the metalworker, is common in the north Pontic region (Bátora 2002; Cernych 2003; Bertemes 2004). For the first time, metallurgists had a specific social status.
...
6. Re-establishment of metallurgy of gold and copper, following a long decline after 3500 BC. There is a different technology of smelting, working and casting in two-piece stone moulds (Sherratt 1997 calls it the ‘Caucasian metallurgy’; Sherratt 2004,414."

The Desideri dental-trait based bounce back or reflux might support P312 from Iberia, leaving DF27 all over, U152 in the Alps and along the Rhine with L21 to the north. However, if we take greater heed to Harrison/Heyd they think the Easter Beaker group moved westward strongly, with the Yamanaya "true folk movement" people and they possibly carried P312 with them and broke through. In other words, was there a western bounce back or an eastern break through (to the west (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Beakers-Regional_Groups_meet_at_Sion_by_Harrison_2007.jpg) see post #177 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=15117&viewfull=1#post15117))?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Beakers-Regional_Groups_meet_and_reflux_Desideri_2008.jpg

The other item of intrigue to me as it relates to the Western groups is the dating I've seen of 2900 BC in Portugal, northern Spain across the French Mediterranean to the Po Valley. Meanwhile Sion was hit hard according to Harrison/Heyd at circa 2425 BC and about the same time Rinto Tinto on the southern tip of Spain shows Beaker presence, with purportedly, a different metallurgy process than the older Western Beakers'.

... so, for P312, is it bounce back or break-through?

Jean M
10-03-2013, 07:57 PM
... if we take greater heed to Harrison/Heyd they think the Easter Beaker group moved westward strongly, with the Yamanaya "true folk movement" people and they possibly carried P312 with them and broke through.

Just to clarify for readers unfamiliar with the Harrison/Heyd paper, they do not mention haplogroups.

It does not seem logical to me to suppose that P312 first appeared in Iberia with the relatively limited ingress of Eastern Bell Beaker, which did not spread over the whole peninsula. P312 is found all over Iberia at a high level. I suppose that P312 in some form first arrived with the copper prospectors whom we can see as the head of the wave of migration. You will recall the surfing theory, in which those at the head of a wave of migration, where the migration is fewest in number, have the best chance to make a disproportionate impact on the population of the migration destination.

I have commented before on Desideri. She did not look at early Neolithic teeth in Iberia. She simply ascertained that the BB people were related to earlier people there (early copper). So for her a radiation of people from Iberia would make sense. She does not have the whole picture.

As has been said already so often, there is no necessity to imagine a huge migration of P312 males to carry BB pottery to Budapest. There might be some male movement, but the pottery was made by women, and the society patrilocal.

alan
10-03-2013, 10:00 PM
Jean I dont dislike it at all. Its a brilliant paper. There are just some points on the widest more western aspects of the Yamnayisation that I am not clear I would interpret as migratory and I suppose they themselves are not arguing that anyway. The core of the paper is fantastic though - one of the most vivid I have ever read. I always see something new each time I read it

http://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


Perhaps you would like to read Harrison and Heyd again? Or most probably not, since you dislike it so much! ;) Frankly, having explained their brilliant paper half a dozen times, I feel I should be excused from further exposition. It's out there. Those who have eyes to see, let them see. :)

alan
10-03-2013, 10:13 PM
I tend to agree with Jean that it is hard to see P312 as entirely down to the eastern later beaker wave. It just seems a heck of a stretch and would require us to see an awful lot of P312 as being down to minor contact and probably post-beaker bronze and iron age intrusions in Iberia and Italy. I dont think that fits the phylogeny or clade patterns either. However, I would never say anything is impossible given the 4 or 5 millenia of changes but it is unlikely. For example it Iberia looks to me, other than its eastern border with France to have likely been almost entirely DF27. It seems very unlikely to me that a central European movement at any time from later beakers to urnfield would have been mono-clade. I think a mono-clade pattern is much more likely to be a first-in one-time thing when a unique opportunity arose that would never be repeated again. I also tend to think that scenario is much more probable in geographical extremities where there are significant barriers of distance, mountains, seas etc to later arrivals.


Just to clarify for readers unfamiliar with the Harrison/Heyd paper, they do not mention haplogroups.

It does not seem logical to me to suppose that P312 first appeared in Iberia with the relatively limited ingress of Eastern Bell Beaker, which did not spread over the whole peninsula. P312 is found all over Iberia at a high level. I suppose that P312 in some form first arrived with the copper prospectors whom we can see as the head of the wave of migration. You will recall the surfing theory, in which those at the head of a wave of migration, where the migration is fewest in number, have the best chance to make a disproportionate impact on the population of the migration destination.

I have commented before on Desideri. She did not look at early Neolithic teeth in Iberia. She simply ascertained that the BB people were related to earlier people there (early copper). So for her a radiation of people from Iberia would make sense. She does not have the whole picture.

As has been said already so often, there is no necessity to imagine a huge migration of P312 males to carry BB pottery to Budapest. There might be some male movement, but the pottery was made by women, and the society patrilocal.

TigerMW
10-03-2013, 10:13 PM
... Harrison/Heyd's elements #4 and #6 of 11 of the Yamnaya Package:

"4.The creation of a special status for craftsman, especially the metalworker, is common in the north Pontic region... For the first time, metallurgists had a specific social status.
...
6. Re-establishment of metallurgy of gold and copper, following a long decline after 3500 BC. There is a different technology of smelting, working and casting in two-piece stone moulds"
Here's a few more tidbits on this.

Iran (potential early branching for Hg R location) seems to be important both technologically and from societal role standpoints.. In "The Emergence of Complex Metallurgy on the Iranian Plateau: Escaping the Levantine Paradigm" (2009), Thornton says,

"When smelting appears in the Levant at the end of the fifth millennium BC, it had already been practiced on the Iranian Plateau for hundreds of years (e.g. at Tal-i Iblis) as a cottage-level industry utilizing crucible-based 'proto-furnaces' like those described from Shiqmim.
...
this paper hopefully begins to demonstrate, the Iranian Plateau served as one of the early 'heartlands' of metallurgy
...
The rise of specialized metalworking areas (and the appearance of true furnaces) on the Iranian Plateau paralleled advancements in the smelting technology as shown by the Period IIB slags from Tepe Hissar (c. 3400–3100 BC).
...
One could also suggest the presence of formalized and ritualized apprenticeship systems in which crafts were passed from generation to generation."

The 3400 BC date may be late for the Circumpontic Metallurgy province. I'm trying to track some of these developments through into Europe but it is not clear or consistent so far that I can tell.

Merkyl's comments below relate to the fact that Corded Ware people and Eastern Bell Beakers had roughly the same metallurgy. The Beakers didn't do anything special. In "Bell Beaker Metallurgy and the Emergence of Fahlore-copper Use in Central Europe" (2010), Merkyl says,
"this study has clarified that metallurgy cannot be seen as both a 'culture-defining' element and the chief reason for the spread of the Bell Beaker phenomenon in central Europe."

However, he goes on to say,
"In other areas this may be different. In Britain, for instance, where the appearance of the Beaker phenomenon was roughly contemporaneous with the adoption of the first metal objects, Bell Beaker using communities may have been more strongly connected to a specific metallurgy."
That's an interesting thought that might relate to R1b's success in western Europe. The metallurgy of one culture or another in eastern Europe may have not had a big advantage... they were about the same at least as of the start of the Early Bronze Age. However, for the folks who went west, it might have been a hey day. From this perspective, the core competency of the Beakers is their mobility.

Here's something else as it relates to Corded Ware and Eastern Bell Beakers, from the Desideri's dental non-metrics paper,
"Czech unmixed gender study: We tested behaviour of men and women of Corded Ware, Bell Beaker and Unetice cultures. Men are close and women have a tendency to be more variable. The intermediary position of Corded Ware men as a common denominator uniting groups of populations is without a doubt more interesting."
Remember, this only applies to the contact zone of Corded Ware and Eastern Bell Beakers.

alan
10-03-2013, 10:55 PM
Mike I tota


Here's a few more tidbits on this.

Iran (potential early branching for Hg R location) seems to be important both technologically and from societal role standpoints.. In "The Emergence of Complex Metallurgy on the Iranian Plateau: Escaping the Levantine Paradigm" (2009), Thornton says,

"When smelting appears in the Levant at the end of the fifth millennium BC, it had already been practiced on the Iranian Plateau for hundreds of years (e.g. at Tal-i Iblis) as a cottage-level industry utilizing crucible-based 'proto-furnaces' like those described from Shiqmim.
...
this paper hopefully begins to demonstrate, the Iranian Plateau served as one of the early 'heartlands' of metallurgy
...
The rise of specialized metalworking areas (and the appearance of true furnaces) on the Iranian Plateau paralleled advancements in the smelting technology as shown by the Period IIB slags from Tepe Hissar (c. 3400–3100 BC).
...
One could also suggest the presence of formalized and ritualized apprenticeship systems in which crafts were passed from generation to generation."

The 3400 BC date may be late for the Circumpontic Metallurgy province. I'm trying to track some of these developments through into Europe but it is not clear or consistent so far that I can tell.

Merkyl's comments below relate to the fact that Corded Ware people and Eastern Bell Beakers had roughly the same metallurgy. The Beakers didn't do anything special. In "Bell Beaker Metallurgy and the Emergence of Fahlore-copper Use in Central Europe" (2010), Merkyl says,
"this study has clarified that metallurgy cannot be seen as both a 'culture-defining' element and the chief reason for the spread of the Bell Beaker phenomenon in central Europe."

However, he goes on to say,
""In other areas this may be different. In Britain, for instance, where the appearance of the Beaker phenomenon was roughly contemporaneous with the adoption of the first metal objects, Bell Beaker using communities may have been more strongly connected to a specific metallurgy."
That's an interesting thought that might relate to R1b's success in western Europe. The metallurgy of one culture or another in eastern Europe may have not had a big advantage... they were about the same at least as of the start of the Early Bronze Age. However, for the folks who went west, it might have been a hey day. From this perspective, the core competency of the Beakers is their mobility.

Here's something else as it relates to Corded Ware and Eastern Bell Beakers, from the Desideri's dental non-metrics paper,
"Czech unmixed gender study: We tested behaviour of men and women of Corded Ware and Unetice cultures. Men are close and owomen have a tendency to be more variable. The intermediary position of Corded Ware men as a common denominator uniting groups of populations [I] is without a doubt more interesting."
Remember, this only applies to the contact zone of Corded Ware and Eastern Bell Beakers.

I spotted this recent look at metallugy in Iran

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/30478/InTech-Bronze_in_archaeology_a_review_of_the_archaeometal lurgy_of_bronze_in_ancient_iran.pdf

alan
10-04-2013, 12:46 AM
I had a read through Desideri's paper on the various bell beaker groups. Its interesting but would have been a lot more useful if the right part of Iberia had been studied. I am not sure northern Iberia had anything remotely similar to the bell beaker history of the Tagus area.

Galicia

http://www.academia.edu/1077122/_A_new_Beaker_region_Northwest_Spain._A_synthesis_ proposal_from_the_Galician_data_

north Portugal

http://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/20435/2/sojorgeallover000085668.pdf



Here's a few more tidbits on this.

Iran (potential early branching for Hg R location) seems to be important both technologically and from societal role standpoints.. In "The Emergence of Complex Metallurgy on the Iranian Plateau: Escaping the Levantine Paradigm" (2009), Thornton says,

"When smelting appears in the Levant at the end of the fifth millennium BC, it had already been practiced on the Iranian Plateau for hundreds of years (e.g. at Tal-i Iblis) as a cottage-level industry utilizing crucible-based 'proto-furnaces' like those described from Shiqmim.
...
this paper hopefully begins to demonstrate, the Iranian Plateau served as one of the early 'heartlands' of metallurgy
...
The rise of specialized metalworking areas (and the appearance of true furnaces) on the Iranian Plateau paralleled advancements in the smelting technology as shown by the Period IIB slags from Tepe Hissar (c. 3400–3100 BC).
...
One could also suggest the presence of formalized and ritualized apprenticeship systems in which crafts were passed from generation to generation."

The 3400 BC date may be late for the Circumpontic Metallurgy province. I'm trying to track some of these developments through into Europe but it is not clear or consistent so far that I can tell.

Merkyl's comments below relate to the fact that Corded Ware people and Eastern Bell Beakers had roughly the same metallurgy. The Beakers didn't do anything special. In "Bell Beaker Metallurgy and the Emergence of Fahlore-copper Use in Central Europe" (2010), Merkyl says,
"this study has clarified that metallurgy cannot be seen as both a 'culture-defining' element and the chief reason for the spread of the Bell Beaker phenomenon in central Europe."

However, he goes on to say,
""In other areas this may be different. In Britain, for instance, where the appearance of the Beaker phenomenon was roughly contemporaneous with the adoption of the first metal objects, Bell Beaker using communities may have been more strongly connected to a specific metallurgy."
That's an interesting thought that might relate to R1b's success in western Europe. The metallurgy of one culture or another in eastern Europe may have not had a big advantage... they were about the same at least as of the start of the Early Bronze Age. However, for the folks who went west, it might have been a hey day. From this perspective, the core competency of the Beakers is their mobility.

Here's something else as it relates to Corded Ware and Eastern Bell Beakers, from the Desideri's dental non-metrics paper,
"Czech unmixed gender study: We tested behaviour of men and women of Corded Ware and Unetice cultures. Men are close and owomen have a tendency to be more variable. The intermediary position of Corded Ware men as a common denominator uniting groups of populations [I] is without a doubt more interesting."
Remember, this only applies to the contact zone of Corded Ware and Eastern Bell Beakers.

TigerMW
10-04-2013, 11:25 PM
Here are two maps from Lemericier and Boveda (I think.. the papers are in a foreign language) of Beaker migrations and distributions. They appear to be depictions of early movements from the west or maritime originating. I'm a little puzzled by Lemercier showing movement from Portugal to southern Spain, while Boveda shows southern Spain, Carmona of the Seville Province, as earlier or a source point.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Beakers-Distribution_and_Migrations_from_Portugal_Map_by_L emercier_2009.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Beakers-Distribution_and_Migrations_from%20Iberia_by_Boved a_2013.jpg


Besides the one in post #187 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=15136&viewfull=1#post15136), I've seen earlier maps that include dates. There must be some confusion on the dating. Not sure I understand it unless the Beakers of southern Spain that may eventually might have become Tartessians were later than the Beakers to their west and north in Iberia. This is near the rich mining area of Rio Tinto, Huelva Province. Some maps have Beakers there about 2400 BC rather than 2900 BC.

BTW, if anyone sees that I've mis-translated a title or reference, please let me know.

alan
10-05-2013, 08:09 PM
Its too easy to draw maps and IMO with beaker its jumping the gun by those authors. There are not enough good quality dates IMO and the understanding of beakers and their migratory aspects is still too poorly understood. Its too fast a spread to really be sure how it worked without a very major sample of good radiocarbon dates. A read of Van Willigen and Mullers paper shows just how unsatisfactory the sample of good safe RC dates really is.

Its very frustrating how little yDNA sampling from bell beaker burials has been carried out.

alan
10-05-2013, 11:49 PM
I seriously do believe the beaker arrival was welcomed in areas with little or no pre-beaker copper and even those who were at the last link in pre-existing supply chains. I just do not believe P312 would have had the numbers to be more than a small tolerated or welcomed group thinly spread across Europe c. 2600-2500BC.

In reverse, where P312 is high in areas that already were centres of advanced copper traditions we could ask why they would be welcomed. That is an arguement that in some areas they didnt arrive with beakers but more likely the beaker network originated with them. In other cases the beaker people may simply have provided a useful outlet for copper rich areas with a surplus who were happy for middle men to arrive and open up a new market for them.

Italy and Alps - very developed pre-beaker copper technology, mines etc and already adept at networking. I suspect they were a major part of the genesis of the beaker people rather than a place they came to. However, the closing of the Ligurian mines may have made them seek contact with new existing copper centres like Iberia and the Carpathians and also to probe further north looking for both new sources where there was no competition.

NW Europe - no previous significant copper sources, mining or technological traditions. An obvious place where they would be welcomed.

Iberia-strong pre-beaker copper traditions, sources, mining etc but rather peripheral geographically and apparently not much linked in to the areas to the east in pre-beaker times. I would say they are a place where middlemen with boats may have been welcomed.

Northern half of France and western fringes of Germany - there was pre-existing minor copper use. Corded Ware groups on arrival did have copper technology but I would say they were a bit on the end of the supply chain which seemed to come from east-central Europe. They may have been reasonably happy to have an alternative supply and allow beaker middlemen in and probably would be happy for them to prospect too.

Eastern Europe - strong existing copper traditions and sources even after the fall of the older mines and CBMP. Not an area where you would think actual seeking of mines etc by newcomers would be welcomes. Middlemen would possibly be welcomed for extension of trade to west. Csepel group on islands around Budapest would seem to fit that nicely.

TigerMW
10-07-2013, 09:49 PM
I seriously do believe the beaker arrival was welcomed in areas with little or no pre-beaker copper and even those who were at the last link in pre-existing supply chains. I just do not believe P312 would have had the numbers to be more than a small tolerated or welcomed group thinly spread across Europe c. 2600-2500BC.
...
NW Europe - no previous significant copper sources, mining or technological traditions. An obvious place where they would be welcomed.

Iberia-strong pre-beaker copper traditions, sources, mining etc but rather peripheral geographically and apparently not much linked in to the areas to the east in pre-beaker times. I would say they are a place where middlemen with boats may have been welcomed.... .

In another thread, you said Maritime Beaker artifacts in Ireland are very rare.

That matches the archaeology. Maritime sherds are incredibly rare in Ireland. You could probably put all the maritime beaker sherds found in Ireland into a trouser pocket.

Perhaps I am misreading all of these Beaker migration maps and the Maritime Beakers did not have have an extensive impact, even if their impact was broad.

Help - Where did the Maritime Beakers hit most significantly. I thought the Iberian coastal areas, but where beyond that? Perhaps not much of the Iberian coasts were hard hit and that is just an assumption on my part too.

If we go back to Boveda's map (post #197) (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=15199&viewfull=1#post15199) we see he attempted to show intensity of findings (if I understand the translation). I never really paid that close of attention but I see that southeastern France, the middle Rhine and northern Alpine areas are the most dense spots. Those aren't Maritime Beakers, obviously.

That reminds me. The southeastern France Beakers were reportedly influenced by or tied into the Early Beakers of Iberia but I noticed in one reading that some influence came in during middle Beaker periods that was "Rhodano-Provençal". I think they were supposed to be from the Alpine region. What do we know about the timing of the Rhodano-Provençal Beaker influenced areas?

alan
10-07-2013, 10:39 PM
Mike - as far as I recall its a little later than Maritime beaker. Lemercier is the guy for that subject

http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/74/57/34/PDF/Lemercier_2012_-_The_Beaker_transition_in_Mediterranean_France-light.pdf

TigerMW
10-08-2013, 02:52 AM
Mike - as far as I recall its a little later than Maritime beaker. Lemercier is the guy for that subject

http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/74/57/34/PDF/Lemercier_2012_-_The_Beaker_transition_in_Mediterranean_France-light.pdf

From what I can see Lemercier is primarily focused on pottery and only a bit on the rest of the package.

Lemercier says in that paper,

"The rare economic data enable nonetheless to consider these initial Bell Beaker settlements as domestic sites in the Neolithic agro-pastoral tradition.
...
Most of the fauna is domesticated: cattle, sheep, goat, pig. The horse is present but rare (Blaise 2010)
...
The Middle phase of the Bell Beaker in Mediterranean France is marked by the presence of two distinct regional groups which are easily distinguished by their decorated pottery, although they seem to have shared the same common ware. Geographically, the western part of the region from the Pyrenees and the Middle Garonne to central Languedoc was occupied by the Pyrenean group, while the eastern part, from eastern Languedoc to the Alps, was occupied by the Rhodano-Provençal group

This only makes sense. Lemercier also describes "exploration", "contact" and "settlement" phases of Bell Beakers.

The horses were rare in the Early (western) Bell Beaker influenced phase. I think this is an indicator of the light population impact. I would suspect that when a lot of horses showed up, a lot of people did too.

Essentially, I'm beginning to challenge the importance of the Early Bell Beakers on the western fringes of Europe. I'm not say they weren't important explorers or that they didn't carry any R1b.... they just don't look like a large group of settlers and are not necessarily R1b-L11. Rather the Early Bell Beaker people may have just mixed in with the indigenous peoples, traded daggers and livestock, shared or supervised metalworking practices, etc. They may have been rewarded inter-marriage (or something more prolific as far as progeny) alliance-wise but that wouldn't necessarily change the languages being spoken.

I'm not sure of any of this by any means, but I'd like to hear good counter-arguments to see how it holds up.

alan
10-08-2013, 04:09 PM
Although focused on Dutch material, Beckerman's paper here is probably the best new (2012) summary of the problems in dating and understanding the sequence of beaker.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=G3nFSwnoSJEC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=maritime+bell+beakers&source=bl&ots=Ho6c7ZuFZO&sig=jll-eqJ3gIeyVY3cQys1MqtLZBY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ywBUUruGMeGN0AW5tICgCQ&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=maritime%20bell%20beakers&f=false

I have always felt the case for an evolution of all over ornamented beakers from protruding foot corded ware beakers looks good but the relationship with maritime bell beakers is unknown

alan
10-08-2013, 04:17 PM
Harrison and Heyd make some interesting comments about early beaker in Iberia lacking parts of what we call the beaker package:

Our present knowledge shows that Portugal does nothave the classical ‘Bell Beaker Package’ that was so well described by C. Burgess and S. Shennan (1976), but the region does have something that we can call the ‘proto-Package’, which displays the essential early elements that belong to it, such as the Maritime Beaker, copper knives and awls, advanced archery skills and reliance on the bow and arrow, a knowledge of decorated textiles (discussed in Harrison 1977, 45–47), and perhaps also V perforated buttons of the tortuga type. Missing specifically are the boars’ tusk pendants shaped like bows, the stone wrist-guard (always a rare item in Portugal), and the type of tanged dagger that becomes identified with Beaker grave groups later on (Brand-herm/Ruiz-Gálvez in press). Therefore, it is useful to speak of a ‘proto-Package’, in which core elements are linked together in Portugal from the earliest moment,and to which, at a later date, are added the wrist-guard,tanged dagger, Palmela points, and spiral gold ornaments.


Among the items exchanged in these flows of ideas were the perforated battle axes already mentioned, and perhaps also the idea of the use of cord for decorating Bell Beaker pottery, seen in about a doze nearly Bell Beakers, spread over the north and east of Iberia, but not in central Portugal, nor the Los Millares territory (Alday Ruíz 1996; Harrison/Mederos Martín2001, fig. 3; Salanova 2003; 2004). In contrast to the maritime Beakers, the corded ones (i.e., the AOO,AOC and CZM styles) are almost all single vessels; rare and special finds, like the battle axes. This strongly suggests that the earliest Beaker ideology developed in embryo form in Portugal, but it was enriched as it was transmitted to new areas.


I think this probably would form a better basis for discussion than the problematic sequencing of pottery style which simply cannot be answered at present.






From what I can see Lemercier is primarily focused on pottery and only a bit on the rest of the package.

Lemercier says in that paper,


"The rare economic data enable nonetheless to consider these initial Bell Beaker settlements as domestic sites in the Neolithic agro-pastoral tradition.
...
Most of the fauna is domesticated: cattle, sheep, goat, pig. The horse is present but rare (Blaise 2010)
...
The Middle phase of the Bell Beaker in Mediterranean France is marked by the presence of two distinct regional groups which are easily distinguished by their decorated pottery, although they seem to have shared the same common ware. Geographically, the western part of the region from the Pyrenees and the Middle Garonne to central Languedoc was occupied by the Pyrenean group, while the eastern part, from eastern Languedoc to the Alps, was occupied by the Rhodano-Provençal group

This only makes sense. Lemercier also describes "exploration", "contact" and "settlement" phases of Bell Beakers.

The horses were rare in the Early (western) Bell Beaker influenced phase. I think this is an indicator of the light population impact. I would suspect that when a lot of horses showed up, a lot of people did too.

Essentially, I'm beginning to challenge the importance of the Early Bell Beakers on the western fringes of Europe. I'm not say they weren't important explorers or that they didn't carry any R1b.... they just don't look like a large group of settlers and are not necessarily R1b-L11. Rather the Early Bell Beaker people may have just mixed in with the indigenous peoples, traded daggers and livestock, shared or supervised metalworking practices, etc. They may have been rewarded inter-marriage (or something more prolific as far as progeny) alliance-wise but that wouldn't necessarily change the languages being spoken.

I'm not sure of any of this by any means, but I'd like to hear good counter-arguments to see how it holds up.

alan
10-08-2013, 05:24 PM
What H&H mention early beaker in Portugal did have is worth considering:

the essential early elements that belong to it, such as the Maritime Beaker, copper knives and awls, advanced archery skills and reliance on the bow and arrow, a knowledge of decorated textiles (discussed in Harrison 1977, 45–47), and perhaps also V perforated buttons of the tortuga type

Now what strikes me about this is that much of that is pretty common to all west Med. groups c. 2800BC including many pre-beaker copper groups. So I think the authors probably overstep the mark when calling it a proto package. Things like copper knives and flint arrows for archery are well known in pre-beaker cultures and archery especially is just bog standard Neolithic fodder when it is stripped away of things like wristguards.

Something that caught my attention also is the authors illustration of the proto package of Portugal. The arrows shown look like hollow based or barbed but no tangs. The classic barbed and tanged arrows that become associated with beakers in many areas are missing, However, tanged arrowheads seem common in Remedello since the time of the Ice Man c. 3300BC and probably before and I imagine many other cultures had them - I need to look into that. Is that another influence that came TO Iberia from points east? Note that they also lacked the tanged knives - as did other west Med groups like Remedello so again that is an INTO Iberia thing.

The authors also raise the interesting point that all over ornamented beakers are rare and from the north and east coastal areas of Iberia and associated with other eastern aspects like shafthole axes etc. Now I have never been convinced that AOO beakers emerged in Iberia - the Dutch case for a Corded Ware later protruding foot beaker origin is much more convincing. So, there we may have a more convincing case for INTO Iberia flow from west-central Europe. The position is also interesting as it is the most accessible bits of Iberia for contact with areas to the north and east. I also would note too that P312, presumably mainly DF27, is much higher in eastern than Atlantic Iberia although I admit that needs treated with caution as evidence as Atlantic Iberia seems to have had a denser pre-beaker population and has also had a more subsequent inputs compared to relatively conservative areas in the east and north.

I am more and more thinking that maritime beaker may be an out of Iberia flow of females as part of the network binding that linked Iberia and its copper wealth to the wider western European world. The article on the beaker increase of mtDNA H into central Europe could be the evidence of this. I think mt DNA could go viral if one of the typical ways of extending networks was through elite marriages because once the first person has married an H woman, the alliances by marrying out daughters would pass on that same mtDNA and it could really snowball. Its also noticeable that, other than things like archery that would not have been new to locals when the maritime beakers spread into their areas, the main items in the proto-beaker package could be construed as female based - pottery, textiles, awls etc. So, I am thinking that what the maritime beaker network may represent is the spread of females from the south-west as part of a system of alliances providing an outlet for Iberian copper. It is interesting that outside Iberia his first appears in Provence and NW Italy according to RC dates - the very places where the Ligurians mines closing by 2600BC may have needed new contacts. This suddenly seem clear to me. The early beaker culture skipped over Languedoc where they had their own copper sources. It was all about copper sources and setting up a link with Iberia to gain this and the main out of Iberia aspect may have been women.

What about INTO Iberia? What went the other way? Well H H note things like tanged knives, archery bracers and fancy goldwork being added later to the package. They also not the rare corded beakers associated with perforated axes etc in the north and east coast. I have posted before that its far more logical for middlemen from where they wish to import copper to settle in Iberia and ship it back than for Iberians to set sail into the wide blue yonder hoping to find the place where it is needed. As can be seen, many areas did not want to make the link - evidence being much later dates for beaker in SE Spain and Languedoc. The beakers jumped over those areas straight to where the copper appears to have been needed. So, I am suggesting here that the first INTO Iberia links in the beaker period may have come from the middlemen area around the south-western Alps which had a motive at the right time to make these links as their copper mines were running down leading up to 2600BC. Could middlemen from around the western Alps be the origin of P312 in Iberia? Then there are also the rare links with corded beaker groups found in the north and east of Iberia - could this relate to contacts being made with groups in west central Europe? Iberia had the copper but it was apparently not worth anything like as much in Iberia than it was when traded out.

To follow this thinking further, you could then ask what about the Csepel group - again they really very much look like middlemen perched as they were on islands around Budapest. Apparently early. Could they have also come from the same people from the Alps looking for another alternative source from east-central Europe? They could have simply passed through slightly more easterly passes into Austria. If this was a few generations later than the link with Iberia they could have also passed part of the early beaker package second had into that area. That was an important connection IMO as it is the most likely simple way that Yamnaya ideas could be passed back west. The dates for Yamnaya arriving in this area seem to be currently put at 2900-2700BC and may be close to the time the Csepel group set up at Budapest. The tanged daggers and wrist bracers were not present in the earliest beaker groups in Iberia according to H&H.

R.Rocca
10-08-2013, 07:26 PM
What H&H mention early beaker in Portugal did have is worth considering:

the essential early elements that belong to it, such as the Maritime Beaker, copper knives and awls, advanced archery skills and reliance on the bow and arrow, a knowledge of decorated textiles (discussed in Harrison 1977, 45–47), and perhaps also V perforated buttons of the tortuga type

Now what strikes me about this is that much of that is pretty common to all west Med. groups c. 2800BC including many pre-beaker copper groups. So I think the authors probably overstep the mark when calling it a proto package. Things like copper knives and flint arrows for archery are well known in pre-beaker cultures and archery especially is just bog standard Neolithic fodder when it is stripped away of things like wristguards.

Something that caught my attention also is the authors illustration of the proto package of Portugal. The arrows shown look like hollow based or barbed but no tangs. The classic barbed and tanged arrows that become associated with beakers in many areas are missing, However, tanged arrowheads seem common in Remedello since the time of the Ice Man c. 3300BC and probably before and I imagine many other cultures had them - I need to look into that. Is that another influence that came TO Iberia from points east? Note that they also lacked the tanged knives - as did other west Med groups like Remedello so again that is an INTO Iberia thing.

The authors also raise the interesting point that all over ornamented beakers are rare and from the north and east coastal areas of Iberia and associated with other eastern aspects like shafthole axes etc. Now I have never been convinced that AOO beakers emerged in Iberia - the Dutch case for a Corded Ware later protruding foot beaker origin is much more convincing. So, there we may have a more convincing case for INTO Iberia flow from west-central Europe. The position is also interesting as it is the most accessible bits of Iberia for contact with areas to the north and east. I also would note too that P312, presumably mainly DF27, is much higher in eastern than Atlantic Iberia although I admit that needs treated with caution as evidence as Atlantic Iberia seems to have had a denser pre-beaker population and has also had a more subsequent inputs compared to relatively conservative areas in the east and north.

I am more and more thinking that maritime beaker may be an out of Iberia flow of females as part of the network binding that linked Iberia and its copper wealth to the wider western European world. The article on the beaker increase of mtDNA H into central Europe could be the evidence of this. I think mt DNA could go viral if one of the typical ways of extending networks was through elite marriages because once the first person has married an H woman, the alliances by marrying out daughters would pass on that same mtDNA and it could really snowball. Its also noticeable that, other than things like archery that would not have been new to locals when the maritime beakers spread into their areas, the main items in the proto-beaker package could be construed as female based - pottery, textiles, awls etc. So, I am thinking that what the maritime beaker network may represent is the spread of females from the south-west as part of a system of alliances providing an outlet for Iberian copper. It is interesting that outside Iberia his first appears in Provence and NW Italy according to RC dates - the very places where the Ligurians mines closing by 2600BC may have needed new contacts. This suddenly seem clear to me. The early beaker culture skipped over Languedoc where they had their own copper sources. It was all about copper sources and setting up a link with Iberia to gain this and the main out of Iberia aspect may have been women.

What about INTO Iberia? What went the other way? Well H H note things like tanged knives, archery bracers and fancy goldwork being added later to the package. They also not the rare corded beakers associated with perforated axes etc in the north and east coast. I have posted before that its far more logical for middlemen from where they wish to import copper to settle in Iberia and ship it back than for Iberians to set sail into the wide blue yonder hoping to find the place where it is needed. As can be seen, many areas did not want to make the link - evidence being much later dates for beaker in SE Spain and Languedoc. The beakers jumped over those areas straight to where the copper appears to have been needed. So, I am suggesting here that the first INTO Iberia links in the beaker period may have come from the middlemen area around the south-western Alps which had a motive at the right time to make these links as their copper mines were running down leading up to 2600BC. Could middlemen from around the western Alps be the origin of P312 in Iberia? Then there are also the rare links with corded beaker groups found in the north and east of Iberia - could this relate to contacts being made with groups in west central Europe? Iberia had the copper but it was apparently not worth anything like as much in Iberia than it was when traded out.

To follow this thinking further, you could then ask what about the Csepel group - again they really very much look like middlemen perched as they were on islands around Budapest. Apparently early. Could they have also come from the same people from the Alps looking for another alternative source from east-central Europe? They could have simply passed through slightly more easterly passes into Austria. If this was a few generations later than the link with Iberia they could have also passed part of the early beaker package second had into that area. That was an important connection IMO as it is the most likely simple way that Yamnaya ideas could be passed back west. The dates for Yamnaya arriving in this area seem to be currently put at 2900-2700BC and may be close to the time the Csepel group set up at Budapest. The tanged daggers and wrist bracers were not present in the earliest beaker groups in Iberia according to H&H.

- I don't know that I've ever seen that play out like that anywhere. If we take the European colonization of the Americas, the men either brought their spouses or married locals.

- From Hungarian archaeologists, all signs point to the Csepel BB group coming from the west, not being local or coming from the east.

alan
10-08-2013, 07:27 PM
In terms of possible INTO Iberia pottery aspects that might be early, I think the rare, largely near-coastal group of all over corded beakers are of interest. Rare, early and apparently not funerary associated, these could be part of the link between Iberian matitime type beakers and the east. They certainly do not have a distribution similar to maritime pottery in Iberia and seem to be something different. There is a good RC date 2823-2658 BC that places them close to the earliest beaker phase in Iberia.

http://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/20435/2/sojorgeallover000085668.pdf

They are apparently largely found as strays in domestic contexts. In other words domestic pottery. I wonder if these could be due to some of the wives who passed into Iberia from the east. Maybe even bringing the prototype to Iberia.

alan
10-08-2013, 07:35 PM
Richard, I am only talking about daughters being married off along elite networks to cement trade links. Not entirely substituring female lines for male in the spread of beaker. I also referred to male lines moving to nodal points as middlemen at places like Iberia and Csepel, possibly coming from the Alpine zone. Its easier to send middlemen from the home territory to trade. The patchy distribution and nodal positions of beaker concentrations tends to fit this IMO. What I was really trying to convey is that beakers could easily move with women and possibly counter to the direction of male flow to some degree although I dont meant totally.


- I don't know that I've ever seen that play out like that anywhere. If we take the European colonization of the Americas, the men either brought their spouses or married locals.

- From Hungarian archaeologists, all signs point to the Csepel BB group coming from the west, not being local or coming from the east.

alan
10-08-2013, 07:50 PM
I should have mentioned too that it appeared to be almost the norm in Celtic society for daughters of elites to move in alliances and also for males to move in fosterage until they were adults as a kind of a bonding thing between clans. They also kind of became guarantors and sort of like friendly hostages. There is no question in my mind that an interlinking checkerboard of marrying daughters into the neighbouring tribes on all your borders would mean that mtDNA would potentially flow very wide given a few generations and also that female crafts skills would flow with this. That of course is likely to include pottery, textiles, other domestic crafts etc. Elites in the beaker period seem to have been xenophilic or at least outward looking rather than inward looking in mentality and such links through marriage that brought exotica etc seems to have been their thing. I know you get cases where the opposite happens and the outsider woman tries to conform but this does not seem to have been the elite mentality of the period and anything exotic seems to have brought kudos.

alan
10-14-2013, 04:15 PM
Just re-posting here as it fits as well here as on the mtDNA thread

The fact that the mt DNA maps on the new study shows modern similarities to central European bell beaker tend to be strongest across the old bell beaker area is of interest. That includes several subgroups of bell beaker. So perhaps that phase had a homogenizing effect of some sort through creation of a beaker marriage network. Elite marriages (it is probably only the elite we see in beaker graves) were a classic method of alliance bonding in later Celtic society along with fosterage, clientship etc.

Noone is suggesting the H rise is anything other than a south-western geneflow into central Europe. In fact I think the female flow may be the smoking gun of how the undeveloped beaker proto-package of H and H's paper spread with its pots, awls, fancy textiles, buttons, jewelry etc - al perhaps female domestic crafts. However, it is highly unlikely that this was completely one way traffic and surely women also moved the other way.

Indeed, I would hypothesis that the very first contacts could have been the other way with perhaps a west Alpine alliance with Iberia and might have provided the prototype for beaker. It would make complete sense for a group in the west Alpine zone seeking to contact immediate pre-beaker Iberia to make some sort of trade link to seal the deal with an elite marriage that left one of their own women in the far west. She and elite brides like her could explain the appearance of a beaker prototype and why a pot type with no credible local prototype but characteristics resembling central and eastern European pots led to a new tradition in the far west. We will probably never be able to prove that though as it may have been down to a very few females heading west.

Such elite marriages are used to not only seal the deal but also in effect works as a sort of guarantee/hostage for outgoing metal directed by the outsiders. The most likely method whereby Iberian metal would have moved to points where it was desired would be middlemen from the latter areas IMO. I see the best evidence for that in the obviously targeted distribution of early beaker along the Med. which skips over large areas. It was very much non-Random and skipped over hostile areas like Languedoc for a long period.

The mysterious and oddly distributed AOC beakers in Iberia might IMO relate to the initial east to west contact phase. Some have been dated very early and they have a distribution which is quite different from and only partly overlapping with the maritime ones despite similar age. They appear to be known best in coastal areas of eastern Iberia, northern Iberia with a few elsewhere. One date in the paper I link to below was centred on c. 2750BC. They are pretty rare so we may not know the whole picture. A few have recently been found in the circular enclosures in the SW. They seem to be incredibly rarely, I think just one sherd, associated with burial and are best interpreted as domestic rather than high status burial pots. They also have been described as surprisingly uniform in style, something that suggests to me a female potter driven spread. This poorly understood, rare, apparently early in Iberia and differently distributed type of beaker seems to me to be a possibility as a prototype beaker that could have links with females who moved INTO Iberia around the time of the start of the beaker phenomenon. The pot form idea could have been brought by females who moved west from points east in central Europe where good prototypes exist while the maritime decorative form may have been a very rapid local addition. It is probably beyond RC dating to prove or disprove this.

http://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bits...r000085668.pdf

Its pretty clear to me that a lot more work needs to be done to tease out the mysteries of what was going on in Iberia at the time the beaker culture formed. However, I think there is likely a complex picture of alliances at the very inception of the beaker phenomenon that could have started with a female flow west followed by a much larger female flow east. The male aspect of this perhaps can be considered harder to work out. Many of the early contacts from east to west and west to east could be down to female flow, alliances and cultural influences along those new networks. Once western H women moved east in alliances, further alliances could have made this briefly go viral over a number of generations but clearly would not be lasting. As the beaker network formed new subdivisions with their own resources that were not reliant on the Iberian network this phenomenon of mt DNA flow from the SW would have ceased.

While its relatively easy to imagine mtDNA spreading peacefully through a network of alliances and being echoed by early beaker pottery, I think we really need to think very hard to see the push and pull factors of how male lineages could have flowed in the same period. This IMO would not be achieved through marriages given the evidence for patrilineal practices. Copper technology, mining knowledge and general level of cultural development are not in themselves feasible drivers as they were similar across the west Med. and central Europe back to at least 3200BC, earlier as we head east. The real change that marked the beaker phase and contrasted with what went before is the sudden massive networking.

I can see motive for wanting to take part in a link to Iberia around the western Alps/Liguria/north Italy as we know their mines ceased around the start of the beaker phase. I can see motive in the farthest west corded ware groups who were a long way from the supply chain. I can see motive in Iberia for seeking an outlet for its copper wealth - local archaeology suggesting it was too common there to naturally have high status or value at home. I cannot see motive for them looking for copper elsewhere. I can see motives for groups a little away from the Med. shipping lanes wanting links to places like Slovakia an adjacent that had other copper sources. I can see a similar motive for the offshoot Csepel groups around Budapest close to the Carpathian sources. However, in most cases the beaker phenomenon looks like one of a wish to link to pre-existing copper sources.

My personal feeling on this is that the origin of this sudden widespread networking behavour is likely to be around the western Alps and north Italy where they may have hit a crisis in supply and looked elsewhere to Iberia, the Carpatians etc for supplies and that the beaker phenomenon and spread of R1b was predominantly that of middlemen linking areas with surplus to areas with need.

So, I would suggest that the mystery of how a south-west to east and north movement is linked to a yDNA line whose phylogeny seems to be the exact reverse may be down to some of the basic beaker fashions moving with south-western females as far as Italy and the Alps and influencing the pre-existing copper age groups there along with the trade they were linked to guaranteeing through alliance. However, many of the classic full beaker package characteristics seem much more likely to have come together is areas where this perhaps female-driven proto-package and linked Iberian trading met cultures with different characteristics who added to this. The question is when did R1b get involved.

I think its clear that the Phylogeny and variance of R1b in Europe shows a general east to west progression with the main intermediate braching off clades ike L51* and L11* looking centred around the Alps and adjacent. The dates seem to suggest a movement that was tentative spreading around the Alpine area for many centuries perhaps c. 3500-2700BC before P312 saw a sudden massive take off in multiple directions. Again variance and sheer clade variety would not point to this taking place in Iberia. I am totally aware and respect the ideas of pre-beaker movement of R1b to Iberia but I will give my own opinion on this. I think the evidence for well dated cultural connections of pre-beaker copper age Iberia is much less clear than the very strong connectivity of the beaker phase itself. So, if we are to see R1b entering Iberia from points east I would rather place it at the moment of conception of bell beaker itself when an eastern type pot prototype arrived and led to an early beaker tradition in the area. There is still considerable wriggle room and question marks as to when that date was and I would feel it works best around 2800-2700BC rather than at the extreme end of date range possibilities c. 2900BC.

alan
10-14-2013, 05:18 PM
I definately think there is a strong case for the initial flow of the early beaker proto package as defined by H and H from SW Europe to have been female mediated. Certainly the H flow into central Europe seems pretty concretely associated with the beaker phenomenon. However, a one-way flow of females in networking elite marriages doesnt make sense if it is not fleshed out so that male lines benefiting this networking take part. Not everything is clear but one way or another such a network could allow for an initially largely female genetic flow from the SW with the proto-package beaker characteristics being combined further east with more central European or Alpine cultural traits to produce the full beaker package. Yes this creates problems for some areas to explain R1b but that is a general problem and every model creates problems for some areas not matter how we cut it.

One way or another we now know there was likely some cultural and mtDNA movement out of south-west Europe in the early beaker period. However, we still need to square this to yDNA. We know R1b, most probably P312 or L11 was involved in this culture from ancient DNA already and it had long seemed very likely that P312 and possibly all L11 were involved. However, R1b has an east to west phylogeny and we need to square that in with the west-east movement of mtDNA.

I at present am not especially convinced with the pre-beaker model when extended westwards of the Alps. I have outlined why before - lack of much in the way of outside parallels of totally convincing date, lack of cultural influx of clear eastern origin other than copper, ancient DNA from one such copper age pre-beaker group at Trielles which does not include R1b etc etc. It also seems to me to require P312 to be dragged back in age to perhaps 3500BC, some 1000 years more than the central dates that a number of methods have calculated for P312. Anyway that is my view at present and we have been over this a lot before so I dont want to debate that all over again.

I am more willing to see a geographically more probable link between north Italy and the Alps to adjacent areas like Hungary, the north Balkans etc as a potential route for R1b west of eastern Europe. The phylogeny and geography of subclades would quite nicely fit an entry of a lineage through the Alps with appearing around Tyrol and giving birth to the L51 form around there. It could be broadly connected to the arrival of advanced copper working, mining, networking and dagger elites that seem to spread into the Alps and Italy at this time. Places like Hungary, Romania etc of course absorbed early steppe elements from the Sredy Stog Suvorovo groups from as early as 4300BC so steppe lineages and languages could have been around in the Balkans for 800 years or so before any hypothetical move into the Alps, Italy etc. So it all could fit together as a proto-Celto-Italic scenario as long as we ignore Anthony's idea that they were Anatolian dialect only. We cannot expect a simplistic invasion culture horizon because there simply is nothing of the kind anywhere outside steppe-like lands in Europe. Its always a lot more complex than that.

My issue really is that seeing ALL the pre-beaker copper age groups strung progressively along the west Med. is problematic. I have major doubts that they were all R1b or even linked. Arsenical metalworking is not in itself much of a help in terms of origin as it has deep roots and was known over a wider part of Europe in pre-beaker times including balkans, Alpine, corded ware and other groups. In terms of stelae, my gut feeling is that they do clearly show something going on as far as Liguria/western Alps but the parallels get too wooly west of there and the Iberian stelae are different looking and dont use the same dagger symbol as far as I am aware of. If there are really super-early steppe-linked stelae in the Balkans not long after 4000BC then the Balkans could have been an area where elements like stelae, dagger elites, copper working/mining skills fused in the centuries after 4000BC. The stelae with dagger imagery of the Alps and Italy could be related to this. There is a lot about the Remedello and related cultures that prefigure beaker IMO and their influence stretched to the western Alps. However, I just do not see this further west.

I think the Remedello dagger elites may have been the 'seeker' group who linked to Iberia and its existing pre-beaker metal wealth when their mines at Monte Loretto and others in Liguria seem to have run down after 1000 years of use according to RC dates and they have motive as well as a suggestive background culture. They also were in a good position neighboured to the east by Balkans and early steppe groups/hybrids and to the north by Corded Ware groups.

I suspect these Remedello type groups linked to Iberia with elite marriages and P312 middlemen reaching the crucial areas by 2800BC give or take a generation. They likely would have sealed the deal with the copper age pre-beaker groups with elite wives heading in both directions and middlemen from the western fringes of the Remedello group settling in Iberia. Fairly rapidly this kind of network would have produced the early beaker cultural spread we see in Iberia, SE France and northern Italy and into the western Alps with the early traits such as maritime beakers, awls, fancy textiles, perhaps buttons etc coming from Iberia - all rather female sounding crafts. As has been suggested based on cranial/dental studies, the people buried there appear to have been the same or very similar to the pre-beaker group who had the Remedello dagger imagery. So, to me a flow of new ideas and females from Iberia could the first transformation at Sion that with a flow of some middlemen/traders etc going in the other direction. The middlemen could be the origin of DF27. Other slighly later middlemen may have settled in Hungary c. 2700BC complete with the new beakers and surely they are the right people in time an place to mediate Yamnaya ideas back westwards.

So, if I was to draw a map of R1b history I would perhaps draw a line going from the western steppe into the north Balkans about 4000BC in the M269* or ealry L23* phase. I would then draw a number of L23 arrows leading in different directions through the Balkans. One would lead to the Tyrol area and through the Alps and Italy c. 3500BC and I would see the whole sequence of L51-L11-P312 as taking place in that zone. I would then around 2800BC show an arrow with DF27 heading to Iberia, U152 around the Alps and L21 heading through France somehow.

TigerMW
10-23-2013, 12:53 PM
....
My simple summary....
In short the first clan of beakers arrived and build simple barrows with inhumations. Then a second 'Wessex' clan arrived - put their cremation burials in to the top of the older barrows and built their own 'posh, Wessex' saucer and bell barrows nearby. The first beaker clan then retaliated and put their own inhumations in to the top of some of the 'posh' barrows.

So who were these clans, when did they arrive, and what type(s) of DNA dominated the people in each clan?
...

I don't know and am truly speculating. I'm treating this as a a line of thinking to investigate.

The dots to connect or in some cases disconnect:

- The Early Bell Beakers in western Europe, at least in some cases, were a continuation of prior native cultures. From what I can tell, their use of horses was light and they did not have the full Yamnaya package.

- The pre-Bell Beaker time frame in western Europe would have used Carpatho-Balkans Metallurgy practices, if any. The Early Beakers may have used the same.

- There Early Bell Beakers were already along the Atlantic when the large settlement groups of Yamnaya started coming up the Danube into the Hungarian Plains of central Europe.

- The Yamnaya, were believed by Anthony to be full PIE speaking people. They picked up the practices of the Circumpontic Metallurgy Province. Circumpontic means "around the Black Sea."

- David Anthony thinks Italo-Celtic dialects of IE may have first been spoken with these Yamnaya migrants in the Hungarian area.

- During the timeframe the Yamnaya arrived in the Hungarian Plains there was interaction with Corded Ware cultures and the just evolving Unetice culture. In this particular interaction zone, metallurgy types were shared according to Merkyl.

- Desideri said that even though the women in the Corded Ware and Eastern Bell Beakers (Hungarian area) were different, the men (according to dental traits) were the same.

- The transition to mid-Beaker phases started occurring within a couple of hundred years in years after the Yamnaya coming up the Danube. There was clear destruction during this transition according to Harrison/Heyd.

- After the early Beaker phase, there were physical changes, at least in the way of dental traits, in the Bell Beaker people in what Desideri considered a movement from Central Europe towards the Atlantic.

- The Carpatho-Balkans Metallurgy practices "collapsed" some time during these various Beaker phases and the Circumpontic Metallurgy practices replaced them.

- Celtic cultures become dominant in much of western Europe.

- Unetice cultures were becoming dominant in parts of central/north Europe.

- Germanic languages become dominant in parts of northern Europe. Anthony does not think that Pre-Germanic dialects of western IE came with the Yamnaya that traversed the Danube, but rather those that followed the north side of the Carpathian Mountains to central/north Europe. However, Anthony does point out that some linguistic development alternatives, in fact many simulations according to Warnow, place Germanic on a limb with Italo-Celtic. This would have been during the very early branching of IE.

... you can look at the modern distribution maps for P312 and U106 and see what you think about how they line up with a possible east to west movement. P312 and U106 are the two big pieces of L11, which Busby thinks is about the same age all across Europe. Germ-line mutation rate TMRCA estimates for L11 and interclade estimates for P312 and U106 would put them in middle of the Bronze Age or there abouts. We do have ancient R1b of some type showing up in Germany (Kromsdorf) in a Beaker type. We also have it in Germany (Lichenstein) in an Urnfield setting. That's about all we have for ancient R1b.

R.Rocca
10-23-2013, 01:59 PM
...
- Desideri said that even though the women in the Corded Ware and Eastern Bell Beakers (Hungarian area) were different, the men (according to dental traits) were the same.
...


This kind of reads that CW and BB men were the same in relation to one another, but I think you mean that they were the same as pre-CW and pre-BB in the same area, correct?



...
- After the early Beaker phase, there were physical changes, at least in the way of dental traits, in the Bell Beaker people in what Desideri considered a movement from Central Europe towards the Atlantic.
...


Desideri did not make any mention of the Atlantic (that I know of) and simply said "west". In her map, the movement from Central Europe stops in eastern France, eastern Switzerland, and northern Italy. This is in line with Lemercier's models as well. There is very little, if any, Central European Bell Beaker influence in Atlantic France or Iberia. With Britain, BB is influenced with Rhenish Beakers which as a group, are different from the Eastern European Bell Beakers.

R.Rocca
10-23-2013, 03:53 PM
She was talking specifically about Eastern Bell Beakers so not this is not pre-Bell Beakers and not even even Early Bell Beakers, at least of the western type.

Either way, from what little Y-DNA evidence there is, we can see that CW had very little to do, if anything with R1b.



The map is on is shown at this post, #190 (click here.) (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=15141&viewfull=1#post15141) I don't think you can infer she intended a hard stop in a general directional set of arrows like on that map. From central Europe, "west" is towards the "Atlantic". As I mentioned, these are simply dots that could be connected, a line of thinking to investigate. Desideri clearly has no such large vision of the spread of Pre/Proto Celtic speakers and I did not intend to convey she did. I'm only saying it is a possibility that this Desideri westward movement had carry-on potential to reach places like Britain.


We can absolutely infer her intent because it matches with both archaeological and anthropological data. While this thread is about Britain, the point of my post was to make sure that nobody confuses what went on in Britain with what went on for almost all of Atlantic France and Iberia.

TigerMW
10-23-2013, 04:14 PM
Either way, from what little Y-DNA evidence there is, we can see that CW had very little to do, if anything with R1b.
From an ancient Y DNA perspective, we have scant evidence on R1b, period, so to infer there was no connection between R1b and Corded Ware of any type is also not possible.

We do have a prominent linguistic theory that Germanic languages derived from Corded Ware areas. We also have a very strong correlation of R1b-U106 with Germanic languages. We also have ancient R1b finds in Germany... that's about it. We don't know what languages would have been spoken at the time but we are talking about the old interaction areas of Corded Ware, Unetice and Bell Beakers of some sorts. This should be considered. Eventually, U106 in Germanic areas has to be accounted for.


We can absolutely infer her intent because it matches with both archaeological and anthropological data. While this thread is about Britain, the point of my post was to make sure that nobody confuses what went on in Britain with what went on for almost all of Atlantic France and Iberia. Okay, although I wouldn't use the word "absolutely" as far as a hard stop to Desideri's westward arrows, your is point well-taken. My point was that follow-on advances could have ensued, but you are correct Desideri doesn't say anything to infer they did. In the paper I was quoting, she studied what she called "Five Bell Beaker portraits". They included, in her words, "Northern Spain", "Southern France", "The Czech Republic", "Hungary" and "Switzerland". From what I can tell, Desideri did not touch on northern and northwestern Europe which would include the Northern Atlantic coasts and English Channel, areas very pertinent to Britain.

R.Rocca
10-23-2013, 04:51 PM
From an ancient Y DNA perspective, we have scant evidence on R1b, period, so to infer there was no connection between R1b and Corded Ware of any type is also not possible.

We do have a prominent linguistic theory that Germanic languages derived from Corded Ware areas. We also have a very strong correlation of R1b-U106 with Germanic languages. We also have ancient R1b finds in Germany... that's about it. We don't know what languages would have been spoken at the time but we are talking about the old interaction areas of Corded Ware, Unetice and Bell Beakers of some sorts. This should be considered. Eventually, U106 in Germanic areas has to be accounted for.

In places like Moravia and the Czech Republic were CW and BB lived side by side for a short period of time before giving way to Unetice, even the most junior archaeologist can tell the difference between a Corded Ware skeleton and a Bell Beaker skeleton. They are that distinct from one another. I would actually be shocked if we find anything more than trace samples of R1b in CW aDNA.

Jean M
10-23-2013, 04:56 PM
Germanic languages become dominant in parts of northern Europe.

That was in 500 BC +. That is a looooonnnggg time after Bell Beaker, has nothing to do with Bell Beaker and could be decoupled from this train of thought with no loss, I believe.

TigerMW
10-23-2013, 06:51 PM
That was in 500 BC +. That is a looooonnnggg time after Bell Beaker, has nothing to do with Bell Beaker and could be decoupled from this train of thought with no loss, I believe.
Very, true. That's why I said, "Eventually, U106 in Germanic areas has to be accounted for."

It can not be ignored.

I"m just trying to work it into the picture. It might be a key puzzle piece in the larger L11 picture. The nice thing about U106 as an indicator is its strong proclivity to northern Europe. It's not that I care anything about northern Europe, but it is just that P312 can not be relegated as Atlantic Fringe or Western Europe only. Elements of P312 also show up in northern climates, apparently having been there for some time, hence it is not so good as a diagnostic indicator as U106 is.

U106 is pretty old, hence it can be de-coupled from Germanic, but it as good a suspect as any haplogroup for carrying pre-Germanic dialects of IE, perhaps it is the most likely participant in pre-Germanic. Someone had to bring it to I1 folks.

U106 didn't seem to have hit southern Europe or the Atlantic or Britain to any great degree until the historic period so I have a hard time placing U106 in (traditionally thought of) Celtic cultures as the Celtic influence into Jastorf.

My premise is that germ-line intraclade and interclade comparisons show L11, P312, U106, Z381, L2, DF27, Z196, L21 are all about the same age, which is basically the same as saying Busby says there are no significant clines for L11 diversity across Europe.

If you connect the dots L11, P312 and U106 didn't originate too far from each other, very likely culturally speaking, but also quite possibly geographically as well.

Maybe they are wrong, but no U106 project guru that I know of thinks U106 parachuted into northern Europe via the Atlantic to the North and Baltic Seas. They think it was either the Danubian route up through Austria or possibly from more directly east (i.e. Poland) which fits a little better with Anthony's northerly pre-Germanic route. I would have thought U106 couldn't have avoided Corded Ware cultures however they went.

TigerMW
10-23-2013, 07:14 PM
In places like Moravia and the Czech Republic were CW and BB lived side by side for a short period of time before giving way to Unetice, even the most junior archaeologist can tell the difference between a Corded Ware skeleton and a Bell Beaker skeleton. They are that distinct from one another. I would actually be shocked if we find anything more than trace samples of R1b in CW aDNA.

Your criticism must be of Desideri's approach and/or her analysis. She is the one claiming commonality among the men. Remember, she was talking about men only and only about this interaction zone.... the Czech area.

I won't be shocked if we find R1b in some Corded Ware cultures, but I doubt if anyone cares that I would or would not be shocked.

We've already found R1b around 2600 BC in Germany. It was a Bell Beaker site, but not a western Bell Beaker type. R1b was in the area, no doubt.

The truth is we can't say the same about Iberia. No ancient R1b from Iberia at all. I do we expect we'll find some, though, so I have no argument with that.

I would just ask to keep an open mind on Corded Ware as a vast horizon with multiple elements. I guess I should say it the same as I would for Bell Beakers - Corded Ware is not Corded Ware is not Corded Ware.

U106 came from somewhere.

BTW, I don't throw the whole Beaker reflux idea out the window. Perhaps R1b was "in the west" and moved east into central Europe, became fully Yamnaya'ized there and moved back towards the west, with some elements (L11*, U106, some P312) mixing northward into non-Beaker cultures.


Mike - I think the OP really, really wants to talk about Bell Beaker. That's the impression I have.

Sorry, I'm move [EDIT: done] this over to the other Bell Beaker thread, but I do think regional Bell Beaker groups have to be considered in context.

TigerMW
10-23-2013, 07:55 PM
This is really the first half of post #28 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1489-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-in-Britain-and-R1b-DNA-quot-from-the-West-quot&p=17214&viewfull=1#post17214) from the deeper think Beaker/Britain thread. However, it gets off-topic in Corded Ware and Unetice interactions with Beakers so I broke that thread in half, leaving the Amesbury archer part over there. Within this thread, this really should be sequenced as post #214 and a half, before 215 but after 214.




This kind of reads that CW and BB men were the same in relation to one another, but I think you mean that they were the same as pre-CW and pre-BB in the same area, correct? She was talking specifically about Eastern Bell Beakers. She was not specifically addressing pre-Bell Beakers in the Czech mixed study sample, at least not of the Early type.

This is from post #194 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=15147&viewfull=1#post15147) of the other Beaker thread. You should probably go back to her paper to make sure I don't misunderstand this, but this was quote was in direct discussion of the Eastern Bell Beakers, from Desideri's dental non-metrics paper,
"Czech unmixed gender study: We tested behaviour of men and women of Corded Ware, Bell Beaker and Unetice cultures. Men are close and women have a tendency to be more variable. The intermediary position of Corded Ware men as a common denominator uniting groups of populations is without a doubt more interesting."



Desideri did not make any mention of the Atlantic (that I know of) and simply said "west". In her map, the movement from Central Europe stops in eastern France, eastern Switzerland, and northern Italy. This is in line with Lemercier's models as well. There is very little, if any, Central European Bell Beaker influence in Atlantic France or Iberia. With Britain, BB is influenced with Rhenish Beakers which as a group, are different from the Eastern European Bell Beakers.

The map is on is shown at this post, #190 (click here.) (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=15141&viewfull=1#post15141) I don't think you can infer she intended a hard stop in a general directional set of arrows like on that map. From central Europe, "west" is towards the "Atlantic". As I mentioned, these are simply dots that could be connected, a line of thinking to investigate. Desideri clearly has no such large vision of the spread of Pre/Proto Celtic speakers and I did not intend to convey she did. I'm only saying it is a possibility that this Desideri westward movement had carry-on potential to reach places like Britain.

Net Down G5L
10-23-2013, 08:00 PM
Very, true. That's why I said, "Eventually, U106 in Germanic areas has to be accounted for."

It can not be ignored.

I"m just trying to work it into the picture. It might be a key puzzle piece in the larger L11 picture. The nice thing about U106 as an indicator is its strong proclivity to northern Europe. It's not that I care anything about northern Europe, but it is just that P312 can not be relegated as Atlantic Fringe or Western Europe only. Elements of P312 also show up in northern climates, apparently having been there for some time, hence it is not so good as a diagnostic indicator as U106 is.

U106 is pretty old, hence it can be de-coupled from Germanic, but it as good a suspect as any haplogroup for carrying pre-Germanic dialects of IE, perhaps it is the most likely participant in pre-Germanic. Someone had to bring it to I1 folks.

U106 didn't seem to have hit southern Europe or the Atlantic or Britain to any great degree until the historic period so I have a hard time placing U106 in (traditionally thought of) Celtic cultures as the Celtic influence into Jastorf.

My premise is that germ-line intraclade and interclade comparisons show L11, P312, U106, Z381, L2, DF27, Z196, L21 are all about the same age, which is basically the same as saying Busby says there are no significant clines for L11 diversity across Europe.

If you connect the dots L11, P312 and U106 didn't originate too far from each other, very likely culturally speaking, but also quite possibly geographically as well.

Maybe they are wrong, but no U106 project guru that I know of thinks U106 parachuted into northern Europe via the Atlantic to the North and Baltic Seas. They think it was either the Danubian route up through Austria or possibly from more directly east (i.e. Poland) which fits a little better with Anthony's northerly pre-Germanic route. I would have thought U106 couldn't have avoided Corded Ware cultures however they went.

Yes, that is my hypothesis. L11 via Poland spawns U106 and P312....then how does P312 get to France/Iberia.....?

Re U106 not reaching the Isles until the 'historic period'. - I just do not buy that.

My research in to Celtic fields raised lots of questions for me. This is my starter for 10 on the subject....they are common in Southern England. I thought....celtic....west coast...L21....= celtic...easy. But no. The distribution of Celtic fields is primarily east and south Coast - following river valleys from the coast. Dates seem to focus on the middle Bronze Age - say from 1300BC for a couple of hundred years (there were later phases in the Iron Age as well). I tried to trace their distribution in to Europe from the literature. Recent lidar research has found lots of Bronze Age field systems in the Netherlands and up to Denmark...... classic U106 territory. I have also read of hints about Celtic fields up the Rhine Valley but not found any proper published papers (U152 territory?). I also recently visited the Great Orme copper mines in North Wales. They were active roughly 2200-2000Bc and again 1500-1100BC (I need to check those dates). My shock was to find (unrecorded) celtic fields/settlement adjacent to the mines - identical to my local Celtic fields of c.1300BC. So who were the copper workers - did they include U106 (they did work copper in corded ware areas) or U152 - specialists from the Alps...or even L21 west coast specialst people (but the fields????...they do not appear in Amorica/Ireland - the other classic L21 areas).

So....at least some evidence of U106 possibly in to East and South Britain in the Middle Bronze Age. U106 modern distribution mirrors the Bronze Age Celtic fields in Britain and the low countries. So I am still undecided about celtic fields = U106 related clans or U152 related clans. .....Also..could U106 have been mixed in with early corded ware beakers in eastern England at the beginning of the Bronze Age?

Health warning. Fields/Celtic fields are VERY difficult to date. And literature on the dating is very sparce and could be wrong!

R.Rocca
10-23-2013, 08:01 PM
Your criticism must be of Desideri's approach and/or her analysis. She is the one claiming commonality among the men.

Remember, Desideri said there was a commonality among the men, not the women.



It's more about not giving it a lot of weight when we already know that Corded Ware samples have been found to be R1a, possibly I and G, with the first two being quite common in modern day Eastern Europe and the Balkans.



We've already found R1b around 2600 BC in Germany. It was a Bell Beaker site, but not a western Bell Beaker type. R1b was in the area, no doubt. The truth is we can't say the same about Iberia. No ancient R1b from Iberia at all. I do we expect we'll find some, though, so I have no argument with that. I would just ask you to keep an open mind on Corded Ware as a vast horizon with multiple elements. I guess I should say it the same as I would for Bell Beakers - Corded Ware is not Corded Ware is not Corded Ware.

U106 came from somewhere.

So I ask you and the others on this forum - is it likelier that U106 will be found in ancient DNA from the Eastern Bell Beaker province or from Corded Ware? If I was a betting man, I would bet heavily on the former.

TigerMW
10-23-2013, 08:14 PM
It's more about not giving it a lot of weight when we already know that Corded Ware samples have been found to be R1a, E and possibly I...all common in modern day Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

I think I pounded on this enough, but please consider that Corded Ware covered a vast area. We are talking about an area from about the Rhine to deep into Russia and up into Scandinavia. We might better think of Corded Ware as an horizon rather than a monolithic culture.

"Corded Ware... is an enormous European archaeological horizon" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture


So I ask you and the others on this forum - is it likelier that U106 will be found in ancient DNA from the Eastern Bell Beaker province or from Corded Ware? If I was a betting man, I would bet heavily on the former.

If you are asking where did U106 appear first, I don't know, but my more grayish position is that U106 will be more likely found in the interaction zone of Eastern Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and Unetice. The borders were not hard fixed. There was interaction among the peoples with both commonalities and differences.

I don't see it as all of Corded Ware is separate from all of Bell Beaker. We've got Unetice in the mix too, in latter phases. I also have no problem with a lineage being in one first, and then the other. U106 might be a good example. I have hard time placing U106 into Hallstatt, giving it an influence into Jastorf, where Proto-Germanic likely developed. It seems more likely that U106 was already there in the Pre-Germanic mix... already there in northern Europe, I mean.

This would be Corded Ware land or least in the Corded Ware fringes/interaction zones. I'll have to confess I don't know much about Unetice but it must have played an important role too. It is intriguing to me that Unetice folks had good trade relations with Wessex folks in Britain and also folks in Bretagne.

How do you see fitting U106 in? Do you have it coming by sea with Beaker folks (perhaps as L11 pre-U106), not making much of an impact on Fenno-Scandinavia while Corded Ware persisted, then pushing in during the Nordic Bronze Age?

Net Down G5L
10-23-2013, 08:24 PM
Very, true. That's why I said, "Eventually, U106 in Germanic areas has to be accounted for."

It can not be ignored.

I"m just trying to work it into the picture. It might be a key puzzle piece in the larger L11 picture. The nice thing about U106 as an indicator is its strong proclivity to northern Europe. It's not that I care anything about northern Europe, but it is just that P312 can not be relegated as Atlantic Fringe or Western Europe only. Elements of P312 also show up in northern climates, apparently having been there for some time, hence it is not so good as a diagnostic indicator as U106 is.

U106 is pretty old, hence it can be de-coupled from Germanic, but it as good a suspect as any haplogroup for carrying pre-Germanic dialects of IE, perhaps it is the most likely participant in pre-Germanic. Someone had to bring it to I1 folks.

U106 didn't seem to have hit southern Europe or the Atlantic or Britain to any great degree until the historic period so I have a hard time placing U106 in (traditionally thought of) Celtic cultures as the Celtic influence into Jastorf.

My premise is that germ-line intraclade and interclade comparisons show L11, P312, U106, Z381, L2, DF27, Z196, L21 are all about the same age, which is basically the same as saying Busby says there are no significant clines for L11 diversity across Europe.

If you connect the dots L11, P312 and U106 didn't originate too far from each other, very likely culturally speaking, but also quite possibly geographically as well.

Maybe they are wrong, but no U106 project guru that I know of thinks U106 parachuted into northern Europe via the Atlantic to the North and Baltic Seas. They think it was either the Danubian route up through Austria or possibly from more directly east (i.e. Poland) which fits a little better with Anthony's northerly pre-Germanic route. I would have thought U106 couldn't have avoided Corded Ware cultures however they went.

Yes, that is my hypothesis. L11 via Poland spawns U106 and P312....then how does P312 get to France/Iberia.....?

Re U106 not reaching the Isles until the 'historic period'. - I just do not buy that.

My research in to Celtic fields raised lots of questions for me. This is my starter for 10 on the subject....they are common in Southern England. I thought....celtic....west coast...L21....= celtic...easy. But no. The distribution of Celtic fields is primarily east and south Coast - following river valleys from the coast. Dates seem to focus on the middle Bronze Age - say from 1300BC for a couple of hundred years (there were later phases in the Iron Age as well). I tried to trace their distribution in to Europe from the literature. Recent lidar research has found lots of Bronze Age field systems in the Netherlands and up to Denmark...... classic U106 territory. I have also read of hints about Celtic fields up the Rhine Valley but not found any proper published papers (U152 territory?). I also recently visited the Great Orme copper mines in North Wales. They were active roughly 2200-2000Bc and again 1500-1100BC (I need to check those dates). My shock was to find (unrecorded) celtic fields/settlement adjacent to the mines - identical to my local Celtic fields of c.1300BC. So who were the copper workers - did they include U106 (they did work copper in corded ware areas) or U152 - specialists from the Alps...or even L21 west coast specialst people (but the fields????...they do not appear in Amorica/Ireland - the other classic L21 areas).

So....at least some evidence of U106 possibly in to East and South Britain in the Middle Bronze Age. U106 modern distribution mirrors the Bronze Age Celtic fields in Britain and the low countries. So I am still undecided about celtic fields = U106 related clans or U152 related clans. .....Also..could U106 have been mixed in with early corded ware beakers in eastern England at the beginning of the Bronze Age?

Health warning. Fields/Celtic fields are VERY difficult to date. And literature on the dating is very sparce and could be wrong!

It seems I am being taken down a worm hole to a different thread as I type. I will submit and see where I end up!

TigerMW
10-23-2013, 08:48 PM
...
My research in to Celtic fields raised lots of questions for me. This is my starter for 10 on the subject....they are common in Southern England. I thought....celtic....west coast...L21....= celtic...easy. But no. The distribution of Celtic fields is primarily east and south Coast - following river valleys from the coast. Dates seem to focus on the middle Bronze Age - say from 1300BC for a couple of hundred years (there were later phases in the Iron Age as well). I tried to trace their distribution in to Europe from the literature. Recent lidar research has found lots of Bronze Age field systems in the Netherlands and up to Denmark...... classic U106 territory. ...

I think it is worth considering that the modern distribution of L21 and U106 may be different now than during the period when Celtic cultures were predominant.

It is possible there was more L21 in the Netherlands back then, than there is today.

In this thread (deeper think beaker), we should probably try to focus on the Rhenish Beaker aspect of this rather than latter period/historic period migrations. For that reason I also quote you over on the Celtic/Germanic thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1237-Is-there-pure-P312-Celtic-U106-Germanic-before-Vikings-how-does-L21-fit), which is where I think the health dangers come into play more.:biggrin1:

Did the Rhenish Bell Beakers evolve into the Goedels? This sounds a bit like a Henri Hubert description - "The History of the Celtic People". However, I think folks like Alan think some of his data is outdated.

alan
10-24-2013, 01:56 AM
Hubert's problem is that he didnt really have any data - or nothing like we do now anyway. So, he was guessing a lot, educated though his guessing was. I have a bad feeling the core of his idea was based on alleged particular similarity between Irish early Bronze Age skulls and a particular group of beaker related skulls around the Rhine whose name escapes me now. Personally I think the skulls sound rather like what you would expect from beaker-local farmer hybrids. The thing to note too is that the Irish skulls actually date to the food vessel period immediately after beakers so what they represent is probably a period when beaker types and locals were mixed up into a single culture. You are not seeing the first generations of beaker people in these burials. Unfortunately a combination of easily accessible and usually disturbed stone box-like surface wedge tombs, the latter typically being in acid conditions which destroy unburnt bone, and the strength of cremation as an alternative to inhumation has deprived Ireland of any sort of useful beaker period sample. It is only in the immediate post-beaker era where a beaker-like unburnt flexed burials with pots, arrrowheads etc tradition appears all over Ireland including areas where bone will survive. IMO the best hope is that somehow a wedge tomb on limestone type land survives undisturbed somewhere.

I would also resist the idea of 'goidels'. If people spoke Celtic from the beaker period they were all Q Celts and most Celts probably remained Q celts for a further 2000 years afterwards. Again its the habit of trying to back project early historic divisions as far back as possible that people seem to have a huge irrational attraction to. People seem to try and read too much into divisions like P-Q etc.


I think it is worth considering that the modern distribution of L21 and U106 may be different now than during the period when Celtic cultures were predominant.

It is possible there was more L21 in the Netherlands back then, than there is today.

In this thread (deeper think beaker), we should probably try to focus on the Rhenish Beaker aspect of this rather than latter period/historic period migrations. For that reason I also quote you over on the Celtic/Germanic thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1237-Is-there-pure-P312-Celtic-U106-Germanic-before-Vikings-how-does-L21-fit), which is where I think the health dangers come into play more.:biggrin1:

Did the Rhenish Bell Beakers evolve into the Goedels? This sounds a bit like a Henri Hubert description - "The History of the Celtic People". However, I think folks like Alan think some of his data is outdated.

alan
10-24-2013, 02:26 AM
I must admit I think again back-projecting current patterns is the problem when people try to interpret U106 and P312. They may look different now but they shared an immediate common ancestor in L11 who is probably only a very little older. So, there is no possibility of making them approach central Europe by radically different routes IMO.

My gut feeling is people have tried to too literally tie in the origin of early beaker ceramics with the origins of the p312 OR l11 gene flow. That creates a situation of tying a west to east pot spread to an east to west r1b phylogeny. There are all sorts of way of trying to explain this away but they all wander into a fairly uncomfortable zone in terms of Occam's Razor. The main inspiration for doing that is that people do not feel comfortable in explaining R1b as a secondary arrival in places like Iberia because that area was once put on a pedestal in terms of R1b. However, there is absolutely nothing especially mysterious about R1b going from zero to a majority in Iberia in late beaker times or even in post-beaker times than there is of the same thing happening all over western Europe.

On that basis I do not find it especially improbable that R1b could have been absent or have just arrived from the east at the time the first beaker pots were being made. In general craniology does not seem very supportive of a major Iberian input into temperate Europe. A new type of skull emerged in some areas like central Europe, the Rhine, the isles etc but it was not of an Iberian type an more resembled immediate pre-beaker period skulls from Italy and the Balkans.

Having thought about it a bit I suspect that the early flow of beakers out of Iberia along the west Med. and to southern Switzerland was a female thing on the whole. The undeveloped proto-beaker package of H and H often seems to relate to the female demesne of pot, textiles, clothing items etc. I am not at all convinced that R1b was involved at all in the earliest beakers of Iberia and southern France or pre-beaker groups. I would find it more plausible that R1b joined the network in the Alps or nearby in central Europe. That makes a lot better sense of geographical patterning in the R1b. It might remove the early beaker explanation for R1b (DF27 really) in Iberia but, as I said above, explaining a rise from zero to dominance anywhere in Europe at a time without a lot of strong evidence for intrusion is going to be a problem (that is a problem for Iberia no matter how its modeled - pre-beaker, early beaker or late beaker) . I think the Occam's Razor explanation is that L11 or P312 met beakers for the first time only a couple of centuries after the pot was first made and that that meeting was somewhere like the Alps or central Europe where an eastern originated clade like R1b would be expected to pass through before meeting a western originated pot type. Think about it - this is precisely the point in time and place where western type pots meet what appear to be distinctive new people who do not seem to have roots in western Europe. The pots may have equalled wives originally - perhaps linked to the spread of H that briefly happens in central Europe in the beaker era.

Net Down G5L
10-24-2013, 08:11 AM
Having thought about it a bit I suspect that the early flow of beakers out of Iberia along the west Med. and to southern Switzerland was a female thing on the whole. The undeveloped proto-beaker package of H and H often seems to relate to the female demesne of pot, textiles, clothing items etc. I am not at all convinced that R1b was involved at all in the earliest beakers of Iberia and southern France or pre-beaker groups. I would find it more plausible that R1b joined the network in the Alps or nearby in central Europe. That makes a lot better sense of geographical patterning in the R1b. It might remove the early beaker explanation for R1b (DF27 really) in Iberia but, as I said above, explaining a rise from zero to dominance anywhere in Europe at a time without a lot of strong evidence for intrusion is going to be a problem (that is a problem for Iberia no matter how its modeled - pre-beaker, early beaker or late beaker) . I think the Occam's Razor explanation is that L11 or P312 met beakers for the first time only a couple of centuries after the pot was first made and that that meeting was somewhere like the Alps or central Europe where an eastern originated clade like R1b would be expected to pass through before meeting a western originated pot type. Think about it - this is precisely the point in time and place where western type pots meet what appear to be distinctive new people who do not seem to have roots in western Europe. The pots may have equalled wives originally - perhaps linked to the spread of H that briefly happens in central Europe in the beaker era.

OK - so early beaker spread from the west would have no R1b.
I have been struggling to find modern references to early Bronze age Amorica - modern L21 heartland.
I have this much older quote that could be useful.

Bronze Age Cultures in France - The Later Phases from the
Thirteenth to the Seventh Century BC Sandars N K (1957) Pub. Cambridge University Press
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l8w7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=fort+harrouard&source=bl&ots=FxgcQqVysv&sig=JIFgmFkb-38QsIwgFg7_2CqNZ6o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MbhoUvDAFqO80QX43oHQDQ&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=fort%20harrouard&f=false
Page 31
"On and near the Atlantic seaboard of France metalwork is exceedingly rare throughout the Early and early Middle Bronze Age, except in a few especially favoured areas. The archaeological record is dominated by the spread and long-continued use of megalithic monuments in which furniture, though occasionally rich, is more often poor or altogether lacking. the earliest metal finds, broad-tanged daggers, small bronze and gold beads, often associated with bell-beakers, come from chambered tombs, usually megalithic. Dr Daniel has traced the spread of the chambered long barrow from the Mediterranean, through Aveyron, Poiyou and Touraine into north and north-west France; while a more direct Iberian origin may be required for the Atlantic passage graves."

This supports the idea that something very different was going on on the west coast. The early beakers 'sort of integrated' with the existing culture/archaeology. It suggests 'business as usual along the Megalithic Highway'. It supports R1b from the East - possibly arriving in Britain with the first tumulus burials? That also fits TMRCA figures better. Perhaps we should also focus on the early copper miners at Ross Island and the Great Orme and understand exactly how they fit in (beaker pottery at Ross Island if I remember rightly...but I don't know if it is charactoristic enough to suggest an origin for the miners).

When I go to Carnac/Morbihan and to Penwith, west Cornwall, the archaeology looks, feels and even smells different. That includes Neolithic, Bronze age and Iron Age

[I am guessing that most people accept Amorica and Cornwall were Celtic...and L21 dominated by the Middle Iron Age (??)

So it raises the question of when L21 really took off in those areas. And was L21 just absorbed in to the existing archaeological setting - without making an obvious impact. Whereas the initial arrival of the tumulus culture in to south eastern/central England (with P312 as part of the clan?) had a massive impact on culture and archaeology. I find this the key question I need to get my head round - perhaps the pioneers versus settlers point previously referred to - but perhaps there is another thread that covers this as it seems to be off topic].

Anglecynn
10-24-2013, 11:32 AM
OK - so early beaker spread from the west would have no R1b.
I have been struggling to find modern references to early Bronze age Amorica - modern L21 heartland.
I have this much older quote that could be useful.

Bronze Age Cultures in France - The Later Phases from the
Thirteenth to the Seventh Century BC Sandars N K (1957) Pub. Cambridge University Press
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l8w7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=fort+harrouard&source=bl&ots=FxgcQqVysv&sig=JIFgmFkb-38QsIwgFg7_2CqNZ6o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MbhoUvDAFqO80QX43oHQDQ&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=fort%20harrouard&f=false
Page 31
"On and near the Atlantic seaboard of France metalwork is exceedingly rare throughout the Early and early Middle Bronze Age, except in a few especially favoured areas. The archaeological record is dominated by the spread and long-continued use of megalithic monuments in which furniture, though occasionally rich, is more often poor or altogether lacking. the earliest metal finds, broad-tanged daggers, small bronze and gold beads, often associated with bell-beakers, come from chambered tombs, usually megalithic. Dr Daniel has traced the spread of the chambered long barrow from the Mediterranean, through Aveyron, Poiyou and Touraine into north and north-west France; while a more direct Iberian origin may be required for the Atlantic passage graves."

This supports the idea that something very different was going on on the west coast. The early beakers 'sort of integrated' with the existing culture/archaeology. It suggests 'business as usual along the Megalithic Highway'. It supports R1b from the East - possibly arriving in Britain with the first tumulus burials? That also fits TMRCA figures better. Perhaps we should also focus on the early copper miners at Ross Island and the Great Orme and understand exactly how they fit in (beaker pottery at Ross Island if I remember rightly...but I don't know if it is charactoristic enough to suggest an origin for the miners).

When I go to Carnac/Morbihan and to Penwith, west Cornwall, the archaeology looks, feels and even smells different. That includes Neolithic, Bronze age and Iron Age

[I am guessing that most people accept Amorica and Cornwall were Celtic...and L21 dominated by the Middle Iron Age (??)

So it raises the question of when L21 really took off in those areas. And was L21 just absorbed in to the existing archaeological setting - without making an obvious impact. Whereas the initial arrival of the tumulus culture in to south eastern/central England (with P312 as part of the clan?) had a massive impact on culture and archaeology. I find this the key question I need to get my head round - perhaps the pioneers versus settlers point previously referred to - but perhaps there is another thread that covers this as it seems to be off topic].

From the perspective of autosomal genetics, the 2 main autosomal components in NW and much of western Europe are basically Mediterranean admixed versions of the ones that dominate in east and northeast Europe. While the West + East Mediterranean components are closest to other components from the near east. It looks a bit like an east-west layer overlaying a south-north one, or the other way around, or perhaps both in succession, like shared east-west ancestry, then south to north overlaying it, and then east-west movement into Europe again, perhaps.

The East European main components:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/SouthBaltic.jpg
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/EastEuro.jpg

West and NW European main components:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/Atlantic.jpg
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/NorthCentralEuro.jpg

East Mediterranean (first one) and West Asian:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/EastMed.jpg
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/WestAsian.jpg

TigerMW
10-24-2013, 12:11 PM
OK - so early beaker spread from the west would have no R1b....

I'm sorry as this may look I'm arguing against that. First let me be clear that I don't know the answers, I'm just speculating by trying to put the puzzle pieces together in different ways.

I think there very well could have been some R1b in the early Beaker spread. There were some new people involved in this. I'd be surprised if there weren't some R1b, if not a lot proportionally. It may not have been L11 types, though, the types that now dominate western and most of central Europe. I think that the main part of the L11 probably moved over land through Europe carrying the pre or proto Celtic, Germanic and Italic languages. It may not have been a single drive west but a flow over the years, similar to what we saw in the Anglo-Saxon invasions of England.

The Y DNA growth westward may have been greater than the general population flow. There may have been Y DNA lineage amplification in place too.

The idea of R1b L11 types parachuting in by boat into areas of localized origin is not out of the question, though. Particularly, if the natives saw them as divine in some way or specifically valuable in some way, Y DNA amplification may have taken place at a very high rate. That all seems a bit strange to me so I probably just don't see that, but maybe there was a biological disease resistance or milk drinking advantage that ramped up the amplification. One should not underestimate the power of compounding (exponentiation in population growth). I just wished the interest rates today would support that financially as well. :)

alan
10-24-2013, 12:16 PM
I am not sure what you mean by Tumulous culture. Its a term usually applied to the German mid Bronze Age. I am guessing you mean the beaker barrows?

I wouldnt say it was business as usual in the west though. There are major changes. I think they just took a little longer to be accepted in the west but by 2000BC, when beaker pot was still in domestic use locally, cist burials with food vessels were accepted across Ireland for example. The articulated flexed position, whole pots, barbed and tanged arrows etc are clearly of beaker tradition albeit slightly transformed. Prior to that beaker burial in Ireland were confined to what I would call the native late Neolithic tradition of token cremations with broken pot sherds etc in simple small pits or what I consider an intrusive tradition of wedge tombs, a type of megalithic tomb that revived the megalithic tradition after 500 years of absence but at the same time actually look a bit like above-ground cists. People assume this is local contintuity but its intrusive. Best parallels for the structure of wedge tombs is in France while the SW orientation interest seems to be be a feature of beaker period in Ireland, Scotland and possibly Armorica. The beaker period saw a drastic change in beliefs if the sudden interest in the south-west orientations in Wedge tombs, Clava cairns, recumbent stone circles etc in Ireland and Scotland is an indicator. A similar alignment preference is noticeable in the stone rows in Brittany but they are so badly dated its hard to work out what was going on. However, this is very different from the normal east to south orientations of earlier native megaliths in the pre-beaker era in the isles.

One factor in the quirky beaker period in the west of the isles may simply be that beaker people's ritual traditions were pretty unimpressive in some ways compared to the local immediate pre-beaker traditions like henges, timber/stone circles etc. Radiocarbon dates do now show, however, that the collective burials in megalithic monuments tradition was dead in Ireland 600 years before the beaker period so its wrong to compare early-mid Neolithic culture to beaker culture because pre-beaker later Neolithic culture was very different from early-mid Neolithic culture.

The other thing I think is that any link between P312 and beaker tells is is there were only a very few people of this lineage back in beaker times. That almost has to be the case if the variance dating of P312 is correct because it dates to around the same time as the beaker phase. I think the beaker people were a generally welcomed group, especially in the isles where there was no previous metallurgists. I also think they came in very small numbers, not as conquerors as such. However, their status was such that they formed a sort of elite and started large lineages that grew hugely over 1000s of years. This I think was a very slow process.


OK - so early beaker spread from the west would have no R1b.
I have been struggling to find modern references to early Bronze age Amorica - modern L21 heartland.
I have this much older quote that could be useful.

Bronze Age Cultures in France - The Later Phases from the
Thirteenth to the Seventh Century BC Sandars N K (1957) Pub. Cambridge University Press
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l8w7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=fort+harrouard&source=bl&ots=FxgcQqVysv&sig=JIFgmFkb-38QsIwgFg7_2CqNZ6o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MbhoUvDAFqO80QX43oHQDQ&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=fort%20harrouard&f=false
Page 31
"On and near the Atlantic seaboard of France metalwork is exceedingly rare throughout the Early and early Middle Bronze Age, except in a few especially favoured areas. The archaeological record is dominated by the spread and long-continued use of megalithic monuments in which furniture, though occasionally rich, is more often poor or altogether lacking. the earliest metal finds, broad-tanged daggers, small bronze and gold beads, often associated with bell-beakers, come from chambered tombs, usually megalithic. Dr Daniel has traced the spread of the chambered long barrow from the Mediterranean, through Aveyron, Poiyou and Touraine into north and north-west France; while a more direct Iberian origin may be required for the Atlantic passage graves."

This supports the idea that something very different was going on on the west coast. The early beakers 'sort of integrated' with the existing culture/archaeology. It suggests 'business as usual along the Megalithic Highway'. It supports R1b from the East - possibly arriving in Britain with the first tumulus burials? That also fits TMRCA figures better. Perhaps we should also focus on the early copper miners at Ross Island and the Great Orme and understand exactly how they fit in (beaker pottery at Ross Island if I remember rightly...but I don't know if it is charactoristic enough to suggest an origin for the miners).

When I go to Carnac/Morbihan and to Penwith, west Cornwall, the archaeology looks, feels and even smells different. That includes Neolithic, Bronze age and Iron Age

[I am guessing that most people accept Amorica and Cornwall were Celtic...and L21 dominated by the Middle Iron Age (??)

So it raises the question of when L21 really took off in those areas. And was L21 just absorbed in to the existing archaeological setting - without making an obvious impact. Whereas the initial arrival of the tumulus culture in to south eastern/central England (with P312 as part of the clan?) had a massive impact on culture and archaeology. I find this the key question I need to get my head round - perhaps the pioneers versus settlers point previously referred to - but perhaps there is another thread that covers this as it seems to be off topic].

alan
10-24-2013, 12:42 PM
The magic that the beaker people had in some areas was that they brought in-situ metallurgy where there had been none or very basic trinkets coming down a long chain from a great distance away. I think they would have been in huge demand from the locals. They need not initially have been rivals with locals and may have initially be seen as specialists and traders supplying a need. It may have been centuries before they morphed into an elite.

What is interesting to me is that this factor would vary. In some areas like Iberia and Italy and parts of southern France there beaker people were not the first developed metallurgists. So, IMO the phenomenon in the west Med. might be rather different. My best guess is the earliest beaker network was basically reflecting the need for people around the France-Italy border and north Italy etc to gain access to Iberian copper at a time when RC dates that the early Ligurian mines (used since 3500BC) were coming to an end. My feeling is there was not much movement of men - perhaps middlemen moved to Iberia and wives moved to form alliances. I think s lot of people tried to attach themselves to the Iberian copper sources, marriage may have been a very important way of sealing alliances and this IMO may have led to H mtDNA lineages expanding at this time. So, in the west Med. and south Alps the early beaker phase may have been about raw materials IMO rather than technological know-how.

In places like Britain and to a large degree north-west Europe as a whole the beaker people had a completely different attraction to the locals. They really had an opportunity to be in big demand in those areas where metallurgy was either unknown or people were at the tail end of a modest exchange network.

To me the actual spreaders of P312 must have had metallurgical knowledge to explain their expansion. This may give a clue as to where beaker male lines as opposed to pottery (a female craft) came from. Unfortunately, beaker really does not have a very distinctive metal technology (which is not the same thing as style) and this kind of technology was apparently known in pre-beaker times the whole length of the Med. as well as the Balkans and even apparently among corded ware groups. All I would say is that the meeting of bell beakers and R1b looks most likely from the phylogenic geography of R1b, variance dates etc to have taken place somewhere around the Alps with deeper pre-beaker ancestry in the Alps and before that the Balkans. Before that - well who knows?


I'm sorry as this may look I'm arguing against that. First let me be clear that I don't know the answers, I'm just speculating by trying to put the puzzle pieces together in different ways.

I think there very well could have been some R1b in the early Beaker spread. There were some new people involved in this. I'd be surprised if there weren't some R1b, if not a lot proportionally. It may not have been L11 types, though, the types that now dominate western and most of central Europe. I think that the main part of the L11 probably moved over land through Europe carrying the pre or proto Celtic, Germanic and Italic languages. It may not have been a single drive west but a flow over the years, similar to what we saw in the Anglo-Saxon invasions of England.

The Y DNA growth westward may have been greater than the general population flow. There may have been Y DNA lineage amplification in place too.

The idea of R1b L11 types parachuting in by boat into areas of localized origin is not out of the question, though. Particularly, if the natives saw them as divine in some way or specifically valuable in some way, Y DNA amplification may have taken place at a very high rate. That all seems a bit strange to me so I probably just don't see that, but maybe there was a biological disease resistence or milk drinking advantage that ramped up the amplification. One should not underestimate the power of compounding (exponentiation in population growth). I just wished the interest rates today would support that financially as well. :)

alan
10-24-2013, 01:31 PM
One thing I am wary of is the idea that late eastern or north-eastern hunters or nomads can stand in as proxy palaeolithic west Europeans. I do not believe that ice age hunters were uniform genetically. The history is just too complex with different groups, refugia etc to think that. I notice the Brana results have been spun in a number of ways that allow different interpretation. Bottom line is I have suspicions that the western refuges might have had significant differences from the eastern ones. We will see but I suspect that there is more to the differences between west and east Europe than just the degree of Neolithic farmer blood. I have no proof either way but I have a hunch that some south-western hunters may eventually be shown to be very much distinct from the late hunter DNA from NE Europe. I say that because there was no real barrier to movement along the Med. in the Palaeolithic although this is hard to see because most of the shores of this period are now under water. The loss of those Med. shorelines could be causing a massive distortion of our knowledge IMO. The effect of being able to move from east to west and perhaps north to south along the Med. must have had an impact. The options for movements at higher latitudes and eastern Europe was completely different. It would just seem odd to me if this did not lead to some contrasts between the western and eastern European hunters.


From the perspective of autosomal genetics, the 2 main autosomal components in NW and much of western Europe are basically Mediterranean admixed versions of the ones that dominate in east and northeast Europe. While the West + East Mediterranean components are closest to other components from the near east. It looks a bit like an east-west layer overlaying a south-north one, or the other way around, or perhaps both in succession, like shared east-west ancestry, then south to north overlaying it, and then east-west movement into Europe again, perhaps.

The East European main components:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/SouthBaltic.jpg
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/EastEuro.jpg

West and NW European main components:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/Atlantic.jpg
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/NorthCentralEuro.jpg

East Mediterranean (first one) and West Asian:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/EastMed.jpg
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/WestAsian.jpg

R.Rocca
10-24-2013, 03:31 PM
I think I pounded on this enough, but please consider that Corded Ware covered a vast area. We are talking about an area from about the Rhine to deep into Russia and up into Scandinavia. We might better think of Corded Ware as an horizon rather than a monolithic culture.

"Corded Ware... is an enormous European archaeological horizon" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture



If you are asking where did U106 appear first, I don't know, but my more grayish position is that U106 will be more likely found in the interaction zone of Eastern Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and Unetice. The borders were not hard fixed. There was interaction among the peoples with both commonalities and differences.

I don't see it as all of Corded Ware is separate from all of Bell Beaker. We've got Unetice in the mix too, in latter phases. I also have no problem with a lineage being in one first, and then the other. U106 might be a good example. I have hard time placing U106 into Hallstatt, giving it an influence into Jastorf, where Proto-Germanic likely developed. It seems more likely that U106 was already there in the Pre-Germanic mix... already there in northern Europe, I mean.

This would be Corded Ware land or least in the Corded Ware fringes/interaction zones. I'll have to confess I don't know much about Unetice but it must have played an important role too. It is intriguing to me that Unetice folks had good trade relations with Wessex folks in Britain and also folks in Bretagne.

How do you see fitting U106 in? Do you have it coming by sea with Beaker folks (perhaps as L11 pre-U106), not making much of an impact on Fenno-Scandinavia while Corded Ware persisted, then pushing in during the Nordic Bronze Age?

Unetice is the Bronze Age fusion of former Bell Beaker and Corded Ware, so any conversation about Unetice is likely already a R1a+R1b+I1+I2 conversation.

I think the split of L11 happened somewhere near western Austria and U106 made a turn northward via the Rhine, and that the Flemish Beakers were already primarily U106. U106 probably held the eastern bank of the Rhine while P312 held the western bank during the Bell Beaker period. It could be that L21 held a more prominent position nearer to Calais and with it, a better launch point to gain a early numerical advantage in lower Britain and Ireland. U152 subclade L2 probably trickled in as well from a location in Belgium.

alan
10-24-2013, 04:48 PM
I understand you place this in the pre-beaker copper age and you see U106 as entering eastern Britain in the beaker period. I agree that if U106 was on the Rhine then it would have been in eastern Britain too. However, I have huge doubts about U106 arriving in Britain and the Rhine that early. The relationship between the Germanic boundaries with Celtic or Romance is so strong it seems clear to me that on the continent it was on the other side of the Roman Limes until Germanics started to move in by invite or force. OK the Roman empire boundary explains U106 not crossing the Rhine except with Germanic intrusions but what explains why U106 failed to cross the Rhine in the 2000 years before the Roman boundary existed. I find it very hard to think that so little would have crossed the Rhine if it had been sitting on the opposite bank since 2500BC. Similarly I find it very hard to believe if U106 had any sort of significant presence in southern and eastern Britain in beaker times that so very little has made it into the Welsh and Irish. There was no offa's dyke in prehistory so there should not be such a strong barrier to U106. The damning thing I think for the idea of prehistoric U106 is the way it seem to strongly relate to position and degree of Germanic populations in the immediate post-Roman era. That just shouldnt be the case if U106 had been in England and on the Rhine since prehistory.

Finally I just do not see the need to place U106 along the Rhine deep in prehistory. There is not obvious reason to back project this when it fits a historic period explanation so well.


Unetice is the Bronze Age fusion of former Bell Beaker and Corded Ware, so any conversation about Unetice is likely already a R1a+R1b+I1+I2 conversation.

I think the split of L11 happened somewhere near western Austria and U106 made a turn northward via the Rhine, and that the Flemish Beakers were already primarily U106. U106 probably held the eastern bank of the Rhine while P312 held the western bank during the Bell Beaker period. It could be that L21 held a more prominent position nearer to Calais and with it, a better launch point to gain a early numerical advantage in lower Britain and Ireland. U152 subclade L2 probably trickled in as well from a location in Belgium.

R.Rocca
10-24-2013, 05:42 PM
I understand you place this in the pre-beaker copper age and you see U106 as entering eastern Britain in the beaker period. I agree that if U106 was on the Rhine then it would have been in eastern Britain too. However, I have huge doubts about U106 arriving in Britain and the Rhine that early. The relationship between the Germanic boundaries with Celtic or Romance is so strong it seems clear to me that on the continent it was on the other side of the Roman Limes until Germanics started to move in by invite or force. OK the Roman empire boundary explains U106 not crossing the Rhine except with Germanic intrusions but what explains why U106 failed to cross the Rhine in the 2000 years before the Roman boundary existed. I find it very hard to think that so little would have crossed the Rhine if it had been sitting on the opposite bank since 2500BC. Similarly I find it very hard to believe if U106 had any sort of significant presence in southern and eastern Britain in beaker times that so very little has made it into the Welsh and Irish. There was no offa's dyke in prehistory so there should not be such a strong barrier to U106. The damning thing I think for the idea of prehistoric U106 is the way it seem to strongly relate to position and degree of Germanic populations in the immediate post-Roman era. That just shouldnt be the case if U106 had been in England and on the Rhine since prehistory.

Finally I just do not see the need to place U106 along the Rhine deep in prehistory. There is not obvious reason to back project this when it fits a historic period explanation so well.

We already have 33 pages on this topic (P312=Celtic/U106=Germanic), and I have pointed out to all the doubts I have about U106 being solely Germanic, especially in Scotland.

We would have to jump through hoops to explain how U106 was not part of the Eastern European Bell Beaker provinces however.

TigerMW
11-12-2013, 04:54 AM
Look at Hammer's depiction of L11 expanding across Europe East to West through Hungary, Czech Republic and Germany.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/R1b-L11_Migration_Map_by_Hammer_2013.jpg

Then look at Desideri's dental traits study for regional Bell Beaker groups and her "phase 2" reflux from east to west. The question I had asked prior was "for P312, is it bounce back or break-through?" For Desideri it was a bounce back, but for R1b-L11 I think it was a break through from the Eastern Bell Beaker and adjacent Corded Ware folks. That's just my speculation of puzzle piece fitting.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Beakers-Regional_Groups_meet_and_reflux_Desideri_2008.jpg


Thanks, and thanks for your feedback. I'm trying to understand the transitions in the early to mid and mid to final Beaker phases for clues of how P312 and its subclades might fit. I'm looking for clues of how and when Harrison/Heyd's elements #4 and #6 of 11 of the Yamnaya Package spread through Europe, early, mid or late Beaker... so I'm look for the following studies.

"4.The creation of a special status for craftsman, especially the metalworker, is common in the north Pontic region (Bátora 2002; Cernych 2003; Bertemes 2004). For the first time, metallurgists had a specific social status.
...
6. Re-establishment of metallurgy of gold and copper, following a long decline after 3500 BC. There is a different technology of smelting, working and casting in two-piece stone moulds (Sherratt 1997 calls it the ‘Caucasian metallurgy’; Sherratt 2004,414."

The Desideri dental-trait based bounce back or reflux might support P312 from Iberia, leaving DF27 all over, U152 in the Alps and along the Rhine with L21 to the north. However, if we take greater heed to Harrison/Heyd they think the Easter Beaker group moved westward strongly, with the Yamanaya "true folk movement" people and they possibly carried P312 with them and broke through. In other words, was there a western bounce back or an eastern break through (to the west (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Beakers-Regional_Groups_meet_at_Sion_by_Harrison_2007.jpg) see post #177 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1361-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-and-genes&p=15117&viewfull=1#post15117))?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Beakers-Regional_Groups_meet_and_reflux_Desideri_2008.jpg

The other item of intrigue to me as it relates to the Western groups is the dating I've seen of 2900 BC in Portugal, northern Spain across the French Mediterranean to the Po Valley. Meanwhile Sion was hit hard according to Harrison/Heyd at circa 2425 BC and about the same time Rinto Tinto on the southern tip of Spain shows Beaker presence, with purportedly, a different metallurgy process than the older Western Beakers'.

... so, for P312, is it bounce back or break-through?

R.Rocca
11-12-2013, 04:53 PM
I should caution that, while it's a nice clean map, there is really no data that supports a L51, L11 or P312 origination anywhere in the Balkans, and even less in Anatolia. In fact, the academically tested frequencies of L51*, L11* or P312* in the Balkans is zero percent and the next Balkan samples that show up in FTDNA projects will be the first. Now I know that these all likely represent new brother clades, but the lack of diversity of clades in the Balkans is, in my opinion, very telling.

TigerMW
11-12-2013, 05:33 PM
I should caution that, while it's a nice clean map, there is really no data that supports a L51, L11 or P312 origination anywhere in the Balkans, and even less in Anatolia. In fact, the academically tested frequencies of L51*, L11* or P312* in the Balkans is zero percent and the next Balkan samples that show up in FTDNA projects will be the first. Now I know that these all likely represent new brother clades, but the lack of diversity of clades in the Balkans is, in my opinion, very telling.

Dr. Hammer has long been associated with FTDNA so my guess is he has access to their whole database, which may include the National Genographic database as well. However, presentations and chartware do not a science paper make. He is a scientist and should document and publish his R1b research and conclusions. He presented the R1b-M269 across Europe 4-8K ybp back at the 2008 FTDNA conference so he apparently has an interest in this.

How are you defining the Balkans? If use that term I generally and talking about the whole Balkan Peninsula and the extension of its islands.

As far as southeastern Europe as a whole, I think there is pretty decent early branching haplogroup diversity but I think the whole area is too lightly tested. Are you talking about some other kind of diversity? I'm not sure we can ignore M269xL23 and L23xL51 in southeastern Europe.

[[[Mikewww/moderator 12Nov2013: I've taken us off track here a bit away from Beakers and we've had a couple of other posts here about non-Beaker topics. I trie d to find categories where they would fit and moved them. Jean has a post specifically for the Hammer's presentation so let's respond over there on general R/R1b speculative migrations across Europe. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1577-Mike-Hammer-goes-for-post-Neolithic-entry-of-R-into-Europe ]]]

R.Rocca
11-12-2013, 06:06 PM
Dr. Hammer has long been associated with FTDNA so my guess is he has access to their whole database, which may include the National Genographic database as well. However, presentations and chartware do not a science paper make. He is a scientist and should document and publish his R1b research and conclusions. He presented the R1b-M269 across Europe 4-8K ybp back at the 2008 FTDNA conference so he apparently has an interest in this.

How are you defining the Balkans? If use that term I generally and talking about the whole Balkan Peninsula and the extension of its islands.

I define it the same way. The split off point for L51 seems to start no further east than Austria.


As far as southeastern Europe as a whole, I think there is pretty decent early branching haplogroup diversity but I think the whole area is too lightly tested. Are you talking about some other kind of diversity? I'm not sure we can ignore M269xL23 and L23xL51 in southeastern Europe.

Certainly I wouldn't ignore M269xL23 in the Balkans (I actually think it is a critical splitting point), but until we find out that L23xL51 in the Balkans is not all Z2103, then it is no more telling than a massive consolidation of L23+L51+ "all" in Western Europe.

alan
11-22-2013, 01:27 PM
I do agree with Richard about the lack of evidence for L51* east of Tyrol. I think the dot for it should be placed there or perhaps eastern Austria given that the Slavs seem to have wiped out this small clade when they arrived in Austria. I suspect L11 arose not far away from there too, and even P312.

One other thing I raise though is the possibility that L51* might be almost as old as the L23xL51 subclades. Someone once calculated that. If all are nearly the same age and there is simply no true L23* that could be ancestral to any of them then it suggests to me that L23* might have occurred very soon before those clades and hence left no trace. There is probably no P312* either so its no big deal that L23* cannot be found. Perhaps there is a parallel. No P312* can be found and that was at a time when its sons exploded into many branches which also seem to have been travelling geographically rapidly. Perhaps the absence of L23* and the appearance of several branches represents a similar but early phase of the phenomenon of rapid branching and geographical movement. It may be that it is always the sons that create the lineages that survive because the success of the father happened towards the end of his reproductive span (which was also your prime and usually period of death in those days) and it is only in the sons that you see the reproductive impact of the extra power and resources. If you think about it in a period when lifespan often was about 30 years if a father somehow became a big success in his late 20s then it would be his sons who really reaped the advantages for any length of time, not the father. Another factor could be that L23* simply was located in the steppes where lineages seem to have generally not experienced rapid branching until around 3500BC or so and probably only happened due to the rise of wheel and developed mobile pastoralism. Perhaps Mr L23* simply just missed that boat.

How M269* fits in is unclear but I wouldnt underpay the importance of the early branching off it indicates even if it does all trace back today to a single ancestor around 2500BC. All that tells us is that M269* was lurking around until it expanded later and subsequently a little of it dispersed wider. The presence of it in Albanians who may descend from Dacians as well as in Armenians who also are linked to the palaeo balkan linguistic branch does point to a Balkan location. Indeed, a relatively late common ancestor in the central Balkans makes sense given the strong belief that Armenians dispersed late into Anatolia from the Balkans, as did Phyrgians. Indeed it is even possible that the Anatolian branch only dispersed from the Balkans c. 3000BC so within the confidence intervals a similar picture could involve them. So, to me M269* was probably an early split but for some reason did not do as well as his brother clades and probably expanded c. 2500BC or a little earlier and subsequently dispersed into Anatolia etc.

alan
11-29-2013, 11:00 PM
I just thought I would pass on the information that the latest Archaeology Ireland contains an article on a multi-period site with a copper age phase in western Ireland (I think it was country Clare). Although no beaker pottery was found, there were apparently barbed and tanged arrowheads, it did have a date of c. 2400BC and contained traces of metalworking which did not match Ross Island. I only skimmed it and do not have a copy to hand. The copper dating from the start of the Irish beaker period not matching the Ross Island mine is interesting. I think it said it was not arsenical, more a pure copper.

razyn
11-10-2014, 03:52 PM
If we claim that we are always a step ahead of the academics, we need to start looking into the next level of detail/data to see if there is anything that contradicts this southern-leaning view. A variance comparison of known splits (i.e. N/S cluster Z216/Z270 versus N/S cluster CTS4065) would help us see if the south=older and north=younger pattern that shows up in variance and radiocarbon dating still holds up.

I was looking for something else today, and ran across this post from just over a year ago. Emphasis is mine; but Mark Jost has run that very comparison within the past week or two, and in fact it indicates the precise opposite (i.e., north=older and south=younger, by a factor of nearly a thousand years). Specifically,
the CTS4065 branch (in France, England, the Netherlands, Sweden, Poland, Bohemia and elsewhere) has an Intraclade Founder's Modal Age of 3,523.7 YBP (plus or minus 901 years); whereas the Z216/Z278 branch (overwhelmingly of Iberian descent) has an Intraclade Founder's Modal Age of 2,583.9 YBP (plus or minus 835.2 years)

I thought it appropriate to link that recent conversation, in which btw Rich has been participating, to this earlier thread discussing the same issue. So here's the link to my citation of Mark's TMRCA data -- if any be inclined to pursue it:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3218-Draft-DF27-section-in-Celts-book&p=57617&viewfull=1#post57617

R.Rocca
11-10-2014, 07:04 PM
I was looking for something else today, and ran across this post from just over a year ago. Emphasis is mine; but Mark Jost has run that very comparison within the past week or two, and in fact it indicates the precise opposite (i.e., north=older and south=younger, by a factor of nearly a thousand years). Specifically,

I thought it appropriate to link that recent conversation, in which btw Rich has been participating, to this earlier thread discussing the same issue. So here's the link to my citation of Mark's TMRCA data -- if any be inclined to pursue it:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3218-Draft-DF27-section-in-Celts-book&p=57617&viewfull=1#post57617

Thanks razyn, these are the types of data points that can really move the needle. Are there any more revelations about the DF27**?

razyn
11-10-2014, 07:57 PM
Thanks razyn, these are the types of data points that can really move the needle. Are there any more revelations about the DF27**?

Not about ** as such, that I know of. I don't think we are finding pockets of unmutated basal DF27, anyplace. But the new Big Y and (especially) FGC results are turning up lots more SNPs among which to choose. Most of them aren't on the ISOGG tree yet, but good progress is beginning to be made on our little backlog. YFull has a very elaborate-looking DF27 tree -- but in cases that are based only on one sample (so far) the phylogeny is pretty speculative; also there are known, glaring omissions where they don't have a sample yet, but we do.

Some of the recently discovered (or expanding) DF27+ but Z195- subclades are looking quite old and widespread -- A431 being one such. And the ZZ series, if it stands up to scrutiny, will shift the long-form terminology for nearly all of DF27. Whether that then tells us any more about the phylogeography, I have no idea. Sometimes the farther back we look, the less we know what we are looking at.

And I think we are tiptoeing around some issues that might divide these "known SNP" tables into distinctions that are helpful, and other distinctions that can be made but aren't helpful. OTOH as I have said for some time now, there are "fast moving" STR values and "recurrent" SNPs that actually matter, and shouldn't be arbitrarily tossed out -- one suspects, because they make someone's work more complicated. In some cases they help us define RecLOH events, back mutations, etc. that would not otherwise be noticed -- and that might shift the calculated age of a marker or SNP that has them, by a big factor.

But what we really need is more Y-chromosome aDNA. Probably I should learn a pithy way of saying that in Latin, analogous to "Carthago delenda est."

rms2
11-18-2014, 12:29 AM
Check out this new paper (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/268333605_Human_paleogenetics_of_Europe__The_known _knowns_and_the_known_unknowns) and its ideas about Beaker and R1b.

alan
11-18-2014, 12:40 AM
Check out this new paper (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/268333605_Human_paleogenetics_of_Europe__The_known _knowns_and_the_known_unknowns) and its ideas about Beaker and R1b.

Cannot access it - what is the gist?

rms2
11-18-2014, 12:43 AM
Cannot access it - what is the gist?

If you click on View (lower right), it should open up for you.

rms2
11-18-2014, 12:45 AM
Cannot access it - what is the gist?

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.

alan
11-18-2014, 12:51 AM
One thing that I think is an important observation made by many archaeologists is that, regardless of genetics, the beaker culture formed the basis of the Early Bronze Age cultures that followed - Unetice, Wessex, Breton Dagger, the isles food vessel groups and many other post-beaker groups across western and central Europe. So, genetics aside, the cultural aspects the post-beaker people adhered to and drew on was that which had come from beaker roots. So, it does seem that those roots remained precious regardless of how the genetic varied. That is interesting in itself IMO. Beaker was not just some cultural aberration but in a cultural sense is very obviously the root of what followed for several centuries after the beaker period. Even the cult of archery remained strong in post-beaker times for a few centuries before fading.