PDA

View Full Version : What should the R1b-M269/steppe dna-type of Bell Beaker be called?



rms2
06-28-2019, 01:19 PM
I am posting this in the P312 subforum because thus far most ancient non-Iberian Bell Beaker has been R1b-P312 of one variety or another, with steppe autosomal dna.

Anyway, if you have not yet read the recent paper by Martin Furholt, Re-integrating Archaeology: A Contribution to aDNA Studies and the Migration Discourse on the 3rd Millennium BC in Europe (https://sci-hub.tw/10.1017/ppr.2019.4), you should do so before voting in this poll.

The issue is what to call non-Iberian Beaker and post-2500 BC Iberian Beaker to differentiate the type of Beaker with R1b-M269, steppe dna, the basic Yamnaya package, and Corded Ware-like burial rites (yes, I know about the differences) from earlier Iberian Bell Beaker, which was very Neolithic farmer-like, non-R1b-M269, and had no steppe dna.

Clearly the two types need different names in order to avoid confusing the two and creating erroneous impressions about their different origins.

Furholt's paper makes calling the R1b-M269/steppe dna brand of Beaker "SGBR Beaker" a reasonable thing to do, but the other alternatives are also reasonable.

If you are not familiar with Marija Gimbutas' Kurgan Hypothesis, it is the source for the idea of the appellation Kurgan Bell Beaker. Her idea of an overarching Kurgan Culture has fallen out of fashion, but it included Furholt's Single Grave Burial Ritual and Harrison and Heyd's Yamnaya Package well before either of those things was introduced by its authors.

This is from page 352 of Gimbutas' book, The Civilization of the Goddess:



The Proto- or Early Indo-Europeans, whom I have labeled "Kurgan" people, arrived from the east, from southern Russia, on horseback . . .

The Kurgan tradition represents a stark contrast to the civilization of Old Europe, which was, in the main, peaceful, sedentary, matrifocal, matrilineal, and sex egalitarian. The Kurgans were a warlike, patriarchal, and hierarchical culture with distinctive burial rites that included pit graves with tent- or hutlike structures of wood or stone, covered by a low cairn or earthen mound. Their economy was essentially pastoral with a rudimentary agriculture and seasonal, transient settlements of semi-subterranean houses . . .

The livelihood and mobility of the Kurgan people depended on the domesticated horse, in sharp contrast to the Old European agriculturalists to whom the horse was unknown. Pastoral economy, growing herds of large animals, horse riding, and the need for male strength to control the animals must have contributed to the transition from matrism to armored patrism in southern Russia and beyond at the latest around 5000 B.C.


Here is what Furholt says about his SGBR Complex, on pages 3-4 of the paper linked above:



Instead of seeing the 3rd millennium BC in Europe through the lens of monothetic, distinct archaeological cultures, each with their own specific set of burial ritual, the polythetic perspective reveals a wider complex of new elements of burial ritual transcending the borders of these entities. This is a complex of burials that highlights individual interments, gender differentiation, male warriors, and mostly strict rules of orientation of the dead (Fig. 1), as opposed to the mainly collective burials of the preceding periods and neighbouring regions. I would like to name it the ‘Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Single Grave Burial Ritual Complex’ (SGBR). SGBR appears in Central Europe and southern Scandinavia around 2900 BC, arrives on the British Isles a few hundred years later, and prevails until cremation burials take over, somewhen after 1400 BC.


On page 3 he makes it clear that he isn't talking merely about lumping Corded Ware and Bell Beaker together:



In addition, many Early Bronze Age ‘cultures’ directly following Corded Ware and Bell Beakers, such as the Únětice, Mierzanowice, or Nitra in Central Europe, the Nordic ‘Late Neolithic’ and Early Bronze Age in southern Scandinavia, or Wessex have also very similar burial rituals. All the burials connected to these different ‘archaeological cultures’ are basically variations over a common theme: highlighting the gendered individual; the association of weapons with males; the burial in a flexed position on their side; in or under kurgan-like burial mounds; and distinct rules of orientation and body placement.


Anyway, you decide.

This old thread (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models) may help, especially the OP, since it lists the various models of Bell Beaker origins.

rms2
06-28-2019, 02:23 PM
Well, I voted for SGBR Beaker, but don't let that influence you, positively or negatively (some here like me, but some here really hate me). I also like Kurgan Bell Beaker, which, up until I read and liked Furholt's paper, I had been using.

I do think it's useful to have something to distinguish between the two main types of Bell Beaker, something not too long and windy.

Silesian
06-28-2019, 02:34 PM
I know there are not many Bell Beaker Z-2103-2109. I voted Steppe as in L51+ Steppe Bell Beaker compared to Z-2203 + Steppe Bell Beaker both found in Hungary.

Webb
06-28-2019, 02:39 PM
I like Kurgan best, but I will use Steppe if posting with people who are anti-steppe. Just to push some buttons.

Agamemnon
06-28-2019, 02:43 PM
Personally, Steppe Bell Beaker gets my vote.

rms2
06-28-2019, 02:43 PM
I like Kurgan best, but I will use Steppe if posting with people who are anti-steppe. Just to push some buttons.

I like Kurgan, too, although I voted for SGBR.

I think Kurgan catches the whole package, actually better than SGBR does, and I'm a big fan of Marija Gimbutas, having actually read much of what she wrote (unlike some who are overly critical of her without really knowing what she had to say).

But SGBR is nice and short and can easily come to represent the whole steppe pastoralist enchilada.

rms2
06-28-2019, 02:53 PM
Personally, Steppe Bell Beaker gets my vote.

The problem I have with Steppe Bell Beaker is that it is geographic/topographic and makes it sound like BB came directly from the steppe.

But I could live with that name.

JMcB
06-28-2019, 02:59 PM
I voted for Kurgan Bell Beaker. Mostly because I think it’s a catchier label and it covers all of the bases. SGBR is too cumbersome in my opinion and requires more unpacking for those who don’t follow the subject. Steppe is also good but Kurgan Bell Beaker has a ring to it, that none of the others have.

Agamemnon
06-28-2019, 03:04 PM
The problem I have with Steppe Bell Beaker is that it is geographic/topographic and makes it sound like BB came directly from the steppe.

But I could live with that name.

Well, "Steppe" here as I understand it is useful if we are to distinguish the subset(s) of the Bell Beaker horizon responsible for the initial dissemination of steppe ancestry in Western Europe from the EF-type Iberian population where BB emerged. So it really is an important distinction and ultimately a reference to a genetic component more than anything else, though I can understand the reticence, as you said it does make it sound as if the Bell Beaker culture came all the way from the steppe.

rms2
06-28-2019, 03:07 PM
Well, "Steppe" here as I understand it is useful if we are to distinguish the subset(s) of the Bell Beaker horizon responsible for the initial dissemination of steppe ancestry in Western Europe from the EF-type Iberian population where BB emerged. So it really is an important distinction and ultimately a reference to a genetic component more than anything else, though I can understand the reticence, as you said it does make it sound as if the Bell Beaker culture came all the way from the steppe.

That is definitely reasonable, and, as I said, I could very easily live with the name Steppe Bell Beaker.

It could handily serve as a stand-in for SGBR, Kurgan, Yamnaya Package, etc.

It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all.

rms2
06-28-2019, 03:09 PM
I voted for Kurgan Bell Beaker. Mostly because I think it’s a catchier label and it covers all of the bases. SGBR is too cumbersome in my opinion and requires more unpacking for those who don’t follow the subject. Steppe is also good but Kurgan Bell Beaker has a ring to it, that none of the others have.

That's true. If one hasn't read Furholt's paper, "SGBR" is mystifying and wants too much explaining.

Hmmm . . . too bad I voted SGBR already!

Of course, for those not already familiar with the subject, all of those monikers want explaining.

rms2
06-28-2019, 03:26 PM
I see someone voted for no change, i.e., just keep calling all of Bell Beaker Bell Beaker.

The problem I see with that is that it is sledgehammer-to-the-head obvious that there is a pretty big chasm between early Iberian Bell Beaker on the one hand, and the R1b-M269/steppe dna type of Bell Beaker on the other.

The latter has more in common with Corded Ware than it does with early Iberian Bell Beaker.

Lumping both types together under the same rubric is a recipe for confusion, IMHO.

rms2
06-28-2019, 03:41 PM
This BB graphic by Marie Besse is illustrative of at least the major differences in burial rite between the two main types of BB. I'm not sure why it doesn't show the situation in Britain, Ireland, and Iberia.

31240

Dewsloth
06-28-2019, 04:09 PM
Single Steppe Beaker, as in "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

Single Grave, Steppe component. :nerd:

rms2
06-28-2019, 04:13 PM
Single Steppe Beaker, as in "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

Single Grave, Steppe component. :nerd:

Or YPBB for "Yamnaya Package Bell Beaker".

Sounds like a shout of exultation: Yip-bee-bee!

31241

rms2
06-28-2019, 06:05 PM
Wow, looks like Steppe Bell Beaker is popular, although Kurgan Bell Beaker is not far behind.

Both of those are good.

rms2
06-28-2019, 06:36 PM
Here is a list of some of the reasons to select a new name for the R1b-M269/steppe dna type of Bell Beaker.

Early Iberian Bell Beaker

Collective, Neolithic-farmer-style burials
Skeletons short in stature
Skeletons gracile (slight or slender in build)
Dolichocephalic skulls (long heads)
Y-dna I2a
No steppe autosomal dna
Elements of the Beaker burial package missing, especially when it comes to the suite of weapons and horse bones

SGBR/Kurgan/Steppe Bell Beaker

Single Graves in pits (yama) under round burial mounds (kurgans)
Full BB suite of artifacts, including weapons and horse bones
Y-dna R1b-M269, especially R1b-P312
Steppe autosomal dna
Robust skeletons (not gracile)
Tendency toward brachycephaly (round heads)
Male skeletons tall for the period

Did I leave anything out?

Olalde et al found no Iberian component in the R1b-M269/steppe dna type of Bell Beaker, not even in the Neolithic Farmer part of its autosomal dna.

rms2
06-28-2019, 09:49 PM
I thought SGBR would be more of a hit than it apparently is. Well, give it time, I guess.

MitchellSince1893
06-28-2019, 10:36 PM
...SGBR is too cumbersome in my opinion and requires more unpacking for those who don’t follow the subject...
What about just Single Grave Beaker vs Collective Grave Beaker?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d0/45/ba/d045ba67d9d80146c6c37e84906d67bd.png
http://www.r1b.org/imgs/BB_Collective_Graves.png

rms2
06-29-2019, 10:47 AM
What about just Single Grave Beaker vs Collective Grave Beaker?

. . .

Short and sweet, and both would come to signify all the other differences between the two categories.

I like it.

SGB vs. CGB.

rms2
06-29-2019, 10:58 AM
Short and sweet, and both would come to signify all the other differences between the two categories.

I like it.

SGB vs. CGB.

Even if one writes out the whole thing, Single Grave Beaker, it's not that long, and it has the added plus of sounding like Single Grave Corded Ware, which may have been its immediate source.

Wish I had included that as one of the poll options.

razyn
06-29-2019, 12:32 PM
But the B in SGBR doesn't stand for Beaker, and in fact a lot of the SGBR examples are Corded Ware or some predecessor of it (Globular Amphorae, maybe Sredni Stog, I don't know -- Furholt mentions Fatyanovo as an outlier, citing a 1987 paper, and he isn't at all emphasizing "Yamnaya" as such).

I think the long history of calling an archaeological culture after its (ceremonially buried) pottery is something he's trying to wean us from. And I think he's mostly right to do so. Coming up with new tags for something (Bell Beaker) that perhaps has more than enough already isn't changing the discourse, and that's more significant than the tags.

Finding out what the aDNA profile is (if any) for SGBR would be a good thing. AFAIK we don't have much NextGen sequenced ancient data for most of its territory. So we aren't looking at much steppe nuclear DNA yet. The mtDNA record is more complete, but useless for solving the R1b puzzle -- or for thinking we've solved it from autosomal data, that's also mostly missing in the SGBR territory. We are predisposed to think it's all going to be R1a because those conclusions have been jumped to, without the aDNA evidence in hand. The non-Z2103 ancestors of P312 and U106 are out there somewhere, on or near the steppe, and probably in the SGBR complex -- whatever pots may turn out to be in their SGBR burials.

Agamemnon
06-29-2019, 12:39 PM
Wow, looks like Steppe Bell Beaker is popular, although Kurgan Bell Beaker is not far behind.

Both of those are good.

This is basically a semantic issue, nothing more. The answer largely depends on one's perception of the Bell Beaker culture. If your approach is grounded in archeology (that is to say on the level of an enlightened amateur familiar with the literature) then SGBR or Kurgan Bell Beaker should be obvious choices. Most of the people on this forum really know the Bell Beakers only through the prism of ancient genomics, few will actually take the time to get some in-depth knowledge on what the Bell Beaker culture was like (and that is unfortunate considering the fact that so many on this forum are their direct descendants), and so Steppe Bell Beaker is a more straightforward answer.

My reasoning though (as I am familiar with the archeology) is grounded in the correlation between genes and languages which is clear in the case of the Bell Beakers, I also have become somewhat disillusioned with the claims made by archeologists (not to the point where I'll stop reading articles and books written by archeologists) and so this was another factor which led me to choose Steppe Bell Beaker over SGBR (which would probably be my second choice).

rms2
06-29-2019, 12:58 PM
But the B in SGBR doesn't stand for Beaker, and in fact a lot of the SGBR examples are Corded Ware or some predecessor of it (Globular Amphorae, maybe Sredni Stog, I don't know -- Furholt mentions Fatyanovo as an outlier, citing a 1987 paper, and he isn't at all emphasizing "Yamnaya" as such) . . .

True, but this poll is about a name for the SGBR/Steppe/Kurgan variety of Bell Beaker to differentiate it from the early Iberian/Collective Grave/Neolithic farmer variety.

MitchellSince1893 suggested Single Grave Beaker as a more succinct slight alteration of Single Grave Burial Ritual Beaker, i.e., the part of Beaker that falls into the SGBR Complex.

Globular Amphora wouldn't fall into the SGBR category, since its burials were collective.

Furholt's emphasis on gender dimorphism and the lying-on-the-side-with-knees-flexed posture would exclude a lot of Yamnaya burials, but not all of them, but I think as an archaeologist he would not require that every SGBR grave be able to tick off all the standard SGBR traits.

On the other hand, I could be wrong. Maybe for him gender dimorphism and the flexed posture are absolutely make-or-break SGBR traits.

razyn
06-29-2019, 05:46 PM
Globular Amphora wouldn't fall into the SGBR category, since its burials were collective.

I think Furholt might argue that globular amphorae are pots, JeanM used to say "tableware," and shouldn't have been used to define a culture in the first place. The (single or collective) burial ritual in question would be a better definer, having more to do with culture and less with trade goods, or the presence of a potter, or other possible minutiae. Archaeological visibility vs. cultural significance, not necessarily of equal weight.

Anyway, what I'd like to see (driven by deep, ancient genetic data we don't yet have) would be some SGBR map that helps to explain this pattern suggested graphically by MitchellSince1893: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16234-Bell-Beaker-Archaeology-and-Ancient-DNA&p=550699&viewfull=1#post550699

And I'd like for a lot of that deep, ancient genetic data to come from the very broad expanse north of the Pontic-Caspian steppe and west of the Ural mountains from which no sample has come that is illustrated in Fig. 1-B of the pretty recently published (Oct.2018) paper available as a PDF at this url: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/10/eaat4457.full.pdf

The fact that the latter illustration shows the territory in question with black background and white rivers (etc.) gives it a certain "here be dragons" quality. Big gap in the evidence. Fill it, please, somebody. And not with data from the people who live there now, or did just before their immediate ancestor came to America, and they have now tested at Ancestry, FTDNA, 23andMe. We get enough of that.

rms2
06-29-2019, 08:30 PM
Globular Amphora thus far has all been I2a on the y-Dna side. That should be an automatic Globular Amphora assumption, I guess.

Generalissimo
06-30-2019, 04:20 AM
I have serious doubts that the Bell Beaker package came from Iberia, because Bell Beakers were all about a male clan with a very specific look, and not a toolkit. I'm betting that the radiocarbon dates showing a very early presence of anything genuinely Bell Beaker in Iberia will turn out to be bogus.

Bell Beakers look like they were a very specific group of men who emerged from the interaction zone between Single Grave and whatever was just west of there, and they may have quickly adopted useful cultural traits and tools as they and their networks expanded across much of Europe. So some of the Bell Beaker package might be from Iberia, but if so using this as an early Bell Beaker signature doesn't make much sense to me.

Silesian
06-30-2019, 10:55 AM
Globular Amphora thus far has all been I2a on the y-Dna side. That should be an automatic Globular Amphora assumption, I guess.

Any idea's about chronology type of burials of Corded War-Bell Beaker-- Bronocice[Wagon-pottery] and Corded Ware settlement [area B] age compared to R1b Bell Beaker[I4253, Bell Beaker, 2571-2208 calBCE] found further east?
31293
http://rcin.org.pl/Content/54723/WA308_74882_P244_Neolithic-Plant-Expl_I.pdf
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#8/50.689/21.710

rms2
06-30-2019, 11:09 AM
I have serious doubts that the Bell Beaker package came from Iberia, because Bell Beakers were all about a male clan with a very specific look, and not a toolkit. I'm betting that the radiocarbon dates showing a very early presence of anything genuinely Bell Beaker in Iberia will turn out to be bogus.

Bell Beakers look like they were a very specific group of men who emerged from the interaction zone between Single Grave and whatever was just west of there, and they may have quickly adopted useful cultural traits and tools as they and their networks expanded across much of Europe. So some of the Bell Beaker package might be from Iberia, but if so using this as an early Bell Beaker signature doesn't make much sense to me.

Gimbutas said pretty much the same thing (at least the part about BB not originating in Iberia), as did Christian Jeunesse much more recently. I myself and a few others expressed the same opinion well before we had any ancient dna from Bell Beaker.

Certainly the SGBR aspects of Bell Beaker did not come out of Iberia.

I know I have quoted from Gimbutas a lot over the years, but this bit from page 390 of The Civilization of the Goddess sums things up so nicely, I can't resist.



The Bell Beaker culture of western Europe which diffused between 2500 and 2100 B.C. between central Europe, the British Isles, and the Iberian Peninsula, could not have arisen in a vacuum. The mobile horse-riding and warrior people who buried their dead in Yamna type kurgans certainly could not have developed out of any west European culture.

David Mc
06-30-2019, 07:02 PM
I think SGBR is the probably the most accurate and helpful descriptor for people who have a grasp of the different cultural developments and population movements happening in neolithic and bronze age Europe. Most don't have that kind of understanding, though, and are likely to be confused by the terms and by the abundance of anti-migrationist rubbish that's still out there. For that reason I chose "Steppe Bell Beaker" even though it misses a few steps (no pun intended) between the Steppe itself and the formation of Bell Beaker in northwestern and Central Europe.

xenus
06-30-2019, 07:35 PM
I went with Steppe Beaker over Kurgan Beaker because any change in terminology, while supported by archaeology, would actually be due to the genetic evidence. The autosomal steppe component is obviously the main factor but I'd also be willing to accept R1beaker because someones going to use it and I figure I should accept it now.

rms2
07-01-2019, 12:29 AM
I think SGBR is the probably the most accurate and helpful descriptor for people who have a grasp of the different cultural developments and population movements happening in neolithic and bronze age Europe. Most don't have that kind of understanding, though, and are likely to be confused by the terms and by the abundance of anti-migrationist rubbish that's still out there. For that reason I chose "Steppe Bell Beaker" even though it misses a few steps (no pun intended) between the Steppe itself and the formation of Bell Beaker in northwestern and Central Europe.

Yeah, I agree. The Steppe/Kurgan/SGBR kind of Bell Beaker was not itself directly from the steppe, which is what bugs me a little about the moniker Steppe Bell Beaker, since steppe is a geographic term that signifies a very real place. Use of it as a modifier would normally indicate that whatever it is applied to is actually found on the steppe.

But the Steppe/Kurgan/SGBR kind of Bell Beaker is a product of the steppe in much the same way that a Boston-born O'Malley whose great great grandparents emigrated from the Emerald Isle is a product of Ireland.

David Mc
07-01-2019, 01:58 AM
But the Steppe/Kurgan/SGBR kind of Bell Beaker is a product of the steppe in much the same way that a Boston-born O'Malley whose great great grandparents emigrated from the Emerald Isle is a product of Ireland.

I like that illustration. Right on the nose!

Silesian
07-01-2019, 10:26 AM
I like that illustration. Right on the nose!

Interesting etymology--
Aren't O'Malley-Welsh-Irish (Gaeilge) is a Goidelic language of the Celtic and Indo-European language family, originating in Ireland and historically spoken by the Irish people.

sróine
https://www.focloir.ie/en/dictionary/ei/nasal
Nose!-
QUOTE]nose (n.)Old English nosu, from Proto-Germanic *nuso- (source also of Old Norse nös, Old Frisian nose, Dutch neus, Old High German nasa, German Nase), from PIE root *nas- "nose."[/QUOTE]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bell Beaker Hungary samples R1b-Z2103/2109+ did not build any fortress-settlements-why would they?. They were adapted to living on the steppe. Horses and Ox drawn wagons might have trampled grasslands.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steppe

Etymology
From German Steppe or French steppe, in turn from Russian степь (stepʹ, “flat grassy plain”) or Ukrainian степ (step). There is no generally accepted earlier etymology, but there is a speculative Old East Slavic reconstruction *сътепь (sŭtepĭ, “trampled place, flat, bare”), related to топот (topot), топтать (toptatĭ).
https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2017/07/szigetszentmiklos-cemetery-santas-six.html
Szigetszentmiklós Cemetery (Santa's Six Foot Elves)

rms2
07-01-2019, 12:10 PM
Steppe Bell Beaker settlements are scarce as a general rule.

rms2
07-03-2019, 01:08 AM
I'm probably going to stick with Kurgan Bell Beaker. To each his own.

I thought SGBR was a good idea, but I can see that it went over like a pregnant poll vaulter.

Hard to believe "no change" got two votes.

razyn
07-03-2019, 05:23 AM
I thought SGBR was a good idea, but I can see that it went over like a pregnant poll vaulter.


It was a good idea, but the guy who had it and wrote the paper about it was excluding pottery types in his definition of SGBR. You included one (Bell Beaker) in framing the question your poll asks. We haven't found the M269 smoking gun in Furholt's SGBR; doesn't mean it's not there, but if we find some that early we don't yet know what tableware it will have buried, or whether raising a kurgan over the single graves will prove to have been the fashion for those specific guys.

That "Kurgan Bell Beaker" formulation is indebted to what has been found in the Carpathian Basin, and so on -- places along the Danube and parallel routes, that Generalissimo suggests weren't the entry point for the steppe autosomal signature. Not everybody is going to be right, about that. Somebody, including you, might already be. I guess we'll see, if we live long enough.

rms2
07-03-2019, 05:51 PM
It was a good idea, but the guy who had it and wrote the paper about it was excluding pottery types in his definition of SGBR. You included one (Bell Beaker) in framing the question your poll asks. We haven't found the M269 smoking gun in Furholt's SGBR; doesn't mean it's not there, but if we find some that early we don't yet know what tableware it will have buried, or whether raising a kurgan over the single graves will prove to have been the fashion for those specific guys.

He based his classification on a set of burial rites that included the placement of drinking vessels in the grave. Furholt made that pretty plain.

He did not limit SGBR to any single culture's pottery type, however. That would have defeated the purpose of the classification.

From page 3 of Furholt's paper:



All the burials connected to these different ‘archaeological cultures’ are basically variations over a common theme: highlighting the gendered individual; the association of weapons with males; the burial in a flexed position on their side; in or under kurgan-like burial mounds; and distinct rules of orientation and body placement. Drinking vessels are also a prominent grave good, be they Corded Beakers, Bell Beakers, or Bronze Age cups.


This graphic from page 4 reinforces that in pictorial form.

31430



That "Kurgan Bell Beaker" formulation is indebted to what has been found in the Carpathian Basin, and so on -- places along the Danube and parallel routes . . .

No, it isn't. It is indebted to the round burial mound called a kurgan, which began on the steppe but which was used by both Kurgan Bell Beaker and Corded Ware, as well some of the Bronze Age cultures that followed them.

Here is one of the many of them found in what is now England.

31431

The Kurgan moniker doesn't represent commitment to one route from the steppe or another. Instead it represents the steppe pastoralist, Indo-European burial ritual and the Yamnaya package in general.



. . . that Generalissimo suggests weren't the entry point for the steppe autosomal signature. Not everybody is going to be right, about that. Somebody, including you, might already be. I guess we'll see, if we live long enough.

I think you're laboring under the impression that I am wedded to the south-of-the-Carpathians, Lower Danube route. That's not really true. If you hadn't dismissed this thread (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models) out of hand (for some inexplicable reason), you might have noticed that I voted for the Dutch Model of Bell Beaker origins, in other words, for the idea that Kurgan/Steppe/SGBR Bell Beaker had its roots in Single Grave Corded Ware.

One of the alternatives in that poll was the Gimbutas Model. Had I been convinced that steppe dna and R1b-L51 entered Europe west of the Dniester via the Lower Danube and the Carpathian Basin, I would have chosen it.

For quite some time I have been convinced that Kurgan Bell Beaker was the child of an R1b-L51 (or whatever L51 subclades) group within Corded Ware, probably within Single Grave Protruding Foot Beaker.

But that could be wrong. I'm still open to Gimbutas' idea. She was pretty sharp.

razyn
07-03-2019, 06:59 PM
Nitpicking to the contrary notwithstanding, my main point is that the best terminology (Furholt's SGBR, choice #1 in this poll as you set it up) is incompatible with the "Bell Beaker" specificity in its title. SGBR includes a lot of tableware designs, none being an essential part of its description.

I'm largely in agreement with your admiration of Gimbutas, who was way ahead of her time/peers, even if she went a bit overboard on the goddess stuff. But see also David Anthony, Horse Wheel Language (2007), pp. 377-82, about Fatyanovo, the Middle and Upper Dnieper and environs. IMO that's going to be the interesting culture area, and our L11 genetic wellspring -- if and when we get the NextGen-sequenced aDNA samples from there. Not Maykop, not the southwestern fringe of Yamnaya, not Iberian Bell Beaker refluxing to Bohemia, not Anatolia, etc. And correlation of various IE language families with their genetics may turn out to be more feasible than giving the ancient users of Bell Beakers the right accent in some modern European language. So far, it's just suggested, not proven, by the skimpy evidence we have in hand. Pots are not people, and SNPs are not languages either. But some things do tend to point to some other things, as archaeologists and linguists know; they just need to argue about something.

rms2
07-03-2019, 07:29 PM
Nitpicking to the contrary notwithstanding, my main point is that the best terminology (Furholt's SGBR, choice #1 in this poll as you set it up) is incompatible with the "Bell Beaker" specificity in its title. SGBR includes a lot of tableware designs, none being an essential part of its description . . .

Pointing out that Furholt did not exclude pottery from his classification is not nitpicking. Placing drinking vessels in single graves is an essential part of what Furholt says SGBR is. I quoted him on it and posted the graphic he supplied to illustrate what he means by SGBR. Both what I quoted and the graphic make it clear that drinking vessels are part of the SGBR package.

No, SGBR is not incompatible with the Bell Beaker specificity in choice #1's title. It's the whole point of it. There is Bell Beaker that isn't SGBR, and there is Bell Beaker that is SGBR. If a Bell Beaker burial has the traits of SGBR, then pretty obviously it is both Bell Beaker and SGBR, hence SGBR Bell Beaker. The SGBR title doesn't obliterate all other designations.

Modifying the term Bell Beaker with the title SGBR simply makes it more clear what type of Bell Beaker one is talking about, because "Bell Beaker" is too general and includes the early Iberian/Neolithic farmer/collective grave type of Bell Beaker.

If an animal is both a cow and the color brown, then it is a brown cow.

artemv
07-03-2019, 07:34 PM
Generally, I agree with Razyn.

As for me SGBR and Steppe Bell Bealer are both good, but different terms.
SGBR is a more general term, its about all IE cultures that had this sort of burial tradition, not just sigle grave BB, but also most of CWC and a number of other traditions.
Steppe Bell Beaker should be viewes as a subculture or local variant of SGBR, in other words SGBR that only used a certain type of ceramics.

rms2
07-03-2019, 07:49 PM
Generally, I agree with Razyn.

Naturally. Maybe you didn't quite understand what Furholt wrote about drinking vessels as part of the SGBR package either.



As for me SGBR and Steppe Bell Bealer are both good, but different terms.
SGBR is a more general term, its about all IE cultures that had this sort of burial tradition, not just sigle grave BB, but also most of CWC and a number of other traditions.
Steppe Bell Beaker should be viewes as a subculture or local variant of SGBR, in other words SGBR that only used a certain type of ceramics.

Obviously SGBR means more than just single grave Bell Beaker. That is why it is necessary, if one is to use the term SGBR to make things clearer when speaking about Bell Beaker, to say or write both SGBR and Bell Beaker, like this: SGBR Bell Beaker.

Otherwise, if one just uses one or the other, things don't get any more specific.

razyn
07-03-2019, 09:49 PM
Okay, Stevo, your way or the highway as usual. And I prefer not to vote, as usual. I was only discussing the new formulation SGBR, itself -- not "SGBR Beaker" which, I concede, is what you said. (But Furholt didn't.)

JoeyP37
07-03-2019, 10:04 PM
I was the only one who voted for Non-Iberian Bell Beakers or NIBB, as I like to call them, if only to bust Carlos Quiles' balls, so to speak, as 'Beakers from Hungarian Yamnaya' is basically the cornerstone for his theories (besides the fact, of course, that R1a were Uralic forest-dwellers)

rms2
07-03-2019, 10:47 PM
Okay, Stevo, your way or the highway as usual. And I prefer not to vote, as usual. I was only discussing the new formulation SGBR, itself -- not "SGBR Beaker" which, I concede, is what you said. (But Furholt didn't.)

Oh, baloney. But suit yourself.

I know what Furholt said.

artemv
07-04-2019, 03:56 AM
Obviously SGBR means more than just single grave Bell Beaker. That is why it is necessary, if one is to use the term SGBR to make things clearer when speaking about Bell Beaker, to say or write both SGBR and Bell Beaker, like this: SGBR Bell Beaker.

Otherwise, if one just uses one or the other, things don't get any more specific.

Ok.
But anyway SGBR Bell Beaker means culture, but not Y DNA, so it does not suite the definition from the header "with R1b-M269". In "The Bell Beaker behemoth" article there was a single grave I2a2 Bell Beaker from British Isles, he falls under definition of SGBR Bell Beaker.
If it is important for you to point out both steppe DNA and steppe Y-DNA (like in the header), the term "Steppe Bell Beakers" will probably suite better. But I would rather prefer "SGBR Bell Beakers" to point out cultural phenomenon and not to throw away some non-M269 minority.

rms2
07-04-2019, 12:34 PM
Ok.
But anyway SGBR Bell Beaker means culture, but not Y DNA, so it does not suite the definition from the header "with R1b-M269". In "The Bell Beaker behemoth" article there was a single grave I2a2 Bell Beaker from British Isles, he falls under definition of SGBR Bell Beaker.
If it is important for you to point out both steppe DNA and steppe Y-DNA (like in the header), the term "Steppe Bell Beakers" will probably suite better. But I would rather prefer "SGBR Bell Beakers" to point out cultural phenomenon and not to throw away some non-M269 minority.

If we were talking about BB that was exclusively R1b-M269, then one of the poll options would have been "R1b-M269 Bell Beaker".

However, I can see - maybe - how the way I worded the poll question could lead to misunderstanding on that.

IMHO one has to maintain a certain amount of flexibility on questions like this one. A Beaker burial can fall into the SGBR/Kurgan/Steppe category without necessarily satisfying every requirement of the category, like, say, one that has everything except weapons, or everything except a testable skeleton, or one in which the skeleton is female.

rms2
07-31-2019, 06:05 PM
Please delete.

razyn
05-28-2020, 03:51 PM
How about a new formulation, CWC>BBB, for Bow-legged Bell Beaker?

rms2
05-28-2020, 04:14 PM
How about a new formulation, CWC>BBB, for Bow-legged Bell Beaker?

That would have the benefit of accuracy.