PDA

View Full Version : New Bell Beaker site in Poland



Jean M
09-29-2014, 11:43 PM
http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/en/news/news,401990,unique-archaeological-discovery-in-suprasl.html

Unique archaeological discovery in Supraśl


A place where people performed rituals more than four thousand years ago has been discovered by archaeologists in Supraśl (Podlaskie). The closest analogies to discovered fragments of ceramic vessels originate from the Iberian Peninsula, told PAP Dariusz Manasterski, one of the leaders of the excavation. ... archaeologists stumbled upon fragments of cups and bowls, belonging to the Bell Beaker community, named after the culture's distinctive pottery drinking vessels that resemble inverted bells. This culture inhabited large areas of Europe and even North Africa, but can not be identified with one particular people. Vessels discovered in Supraśl were decorated with incised ornament on both the outer and inner surface.

"The entire ritual deposit is an exceptional find in the central Europe. It contains one of the richest collections of objects usually found in the elite skeletal graves in Western Europe from this period" - said the researcher. Archaeologists believe that the representative bell beaker fragments, ornaments made of exotic material and parts of prestigious arms indicate the presence near Supraśl of privileged persons with a different, higher social status, ancestors of the aristocracy. However, so far have not been able to unambiguously determine the origin of the discovered objects. Specialized laboratory tests will help answer this question.

"This year's finds, while exceptional due to the presence of the most easterly collection of objects associated with the Bell Beaker community, do not explain the migration routes and distances of its carriers" - concluded Dr. Manasterski.

George Chandler
09-30-2014, 03:11 AM
It will be interesting to see if they can tie the grave evidence to the Bell's. I wonder how much of the artifacts found at these different sites were from trade or plunder only? Some sites obviously have the different burial customs of the Bell's and the artifacts there are obviously from a Bell site. I wonder if that's the case here as it can't be tied yet to a specific people?

Jean M
09-30-2014, 11:21 AM
Some sites obviously have the different burial customs of the Bell's and the artifacts there are obviously from a Bell site. I wonder if that's the case here as it can't be tied yet to a specific people?

They are treating the site as a ritual deposit. That means that they think it was made by Bell Beaker people. But they don't know how far these people had come. The tests on the artifacts could include looking at the clay from the pottery, and metal from weapons, to try to identify their source.

There are other Bell Beaker sites in Poland. See http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net/article.php?id_art=10


Recent systematic research in Greater Poland, the Baltic States and beyond

Most notably, in recent years Janusz Czebreszuk, Przemyslaw Makarowicz and Marzena Szmyt from Pozńan have systematically introduced Bell Beaker finds from the Greater Polish area in several works and put them in a wider context. 5 One of the most important results certainly was the definition of an independent Bell Beaker group that embraces the Jutland peninsula and the northern/northeastern European lowlands 6 alongside vast areas of Greater Poland. In a pan-European context it thus represents the Bell Beaker derivative of the wide North European plain. The Dutch Beaker groups are a feasible source of inspiration.
But again, the spatial distribution is not homogeneous. In fact, we spot large or small concentrations and sometimes islands formed by certain elements of the Bell Beaker package. Moreover, gradation in their combination and quality is displayed. The Polish colleagues therefore distinguish between six different elements:

genuine Bell Beakers
zone-metope decoration
application of comb-stamp decoration technique
zonal decoration in general
wristguards
a variety of small finds, e.g. the V-shaped buttons

Imitations are commonplace. On the Baltic coast, for instance, wristguards made of bone occur. Moreover, many V-shaped buttons are worked in the regionally abundant raw material of amber. Isolated finds of those Bell Beaker elements or its imitations transgress the actual concentrations to the east and southeast. Indeed, some even believe they can recognise such finds from the eastern Baltic and Belarus. But one should act with caution, as the comb-stamp decoration technique is also in use among the foraging Pitted Ware societies. Flint daggers are as well not reckoned as being exclusive to the Bell Beaker users.

Another aspect comes from the Iwno culture of Greater Poland and to a certain degree also from the Trzciniec culture. In this case, we perceive the Bell Beaker elements merged with local cultural expression to form a new unity that subsequently endures, developing an own identity and later carrying the cultural phenomena of the Early Bronze Age in Greater Poland. Hence, the Polish colleagues term Iwno a ‘syncretistic culture’.

alan
09-30-2014, 01:01 PM
I still wonder if the decidedly dodgy beaker dating paper by Muller and Willigen etc has mislead us very badly. The wide acceptance of its conclusions despite no description of contexts for samples etc is baffling and against everything I was ever taught about not accepting conclusions at face value. I have been here before several times when a conclusion is presented as definative only to be overturned.

I notice that people are now being a lot more conservative in how they quote the findings and there is a lot less of the 2900BC date - the outer part of the range- being quoted and a lot more people taking about the 2600s. I just wonder about this. While I accept that northern Europe is post-2500BC and SW Europe is pre-2600BC, I am not convinced that the remainder of Europe is well dated. I would like to see a lot more solid contexted, short life calibrated dates from Hungary for example.

alan
09-30-2014, 01:24 PM
Again it has to be wondered what beaker people could bring to the table in places like central Europe where copper working of a similar standard, copper mining and similar pottery etc already existed. The only thing that stands out for me that beaker people may have had on their side is extreme mobility. If so - why? What gave them this extreme mobility? Given the timing of early bell beaker c. 2700 or so and the fact Yamnaya spread out of the steppes into farming Europe c. 2900BC it is very tempting to link this mobility to horses and possibly wheels. Ideology may have been a factor but materially the spread of the horse and the wheel west seem the most likely smoking gun to me.

Jean M
09-30-2014, 02:37 PM
I notice that people are now being a lot more conservative in how they quote the findings and there is a lot less of the 2900BC date - the outer part of the range

I'd certainly say that the two c. 2900 BC dates are outliers, but the dates for Portugal still look the oldest, starting c. 2800 BC, which is comparable to c. 2750 BC for the earliest Corded Ware (Wlodarczak 2009). We have just had new dates from Leceia in Portugal of 2700s BC.

The BB dates in Poland are much later. This really has to be accepted. BB follows CW in this territory. No amount of fulmination about M and vW will change that. They simply compiled the radiocarbon dates available at the time.


Again it has to be wondered what beaker people could bring to the table in places like central Europe where copper working of a similar standard, copper mining and similar pottery etc already existed. The only thing that stands out for me that beaker people may have had on their side is extreme mobility.

Quite the contrary in Poland. It was the CW people who were mobile pastoralists. The Bell Beaker people were more settled.

Jean M
09-30-2014, 02:57 PM
See Jutta Lechterbeck et al., How was Bell Beaker economy related to Corded Ware and Early Bronze Age lifestyles? Archaeological, botanical and palynological evidence from the Hegau, Western Lake Constance region, Environmental Archaeology, Volume 19, Issue 2 (June, 2014), pp. 95-113
for an absolute chronology derived from new radiocarbon accelerated mass spectrometry (AMS) dates (now more than 200) and from the dendrodates from the World Heritage wet preserved pile dwellings. BB starts there 2450 BC.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259903141_How_was_Bell_Beaker_economy_related_to_C orded_Ware_and_Early_Bronze_Age_lifestyles_Archaeo logical_botanical_and_palynological_evidence_from_ the_Hegau_Western_Lake_Constance_region

On the economy, they say:


The site Engen-Welschingen “Guuhaslen” is exceptionally rich in plant macro-remains from the BB phase – in fact it is the site with the richest material for that period. The preserved plant material represents activities such as threshing and further processing of cereals as well as collecting of wild fruits. ... According to our pattern of reasoning discontinuity between the settlement phases connected to CW and BB material cultures, as well as continuity between BB culture and EBA, becomes visible. It can be seen foremost in the use of different parts of landscapes for plant and animal production, as indicated in the pollen record and in the macroremains.

The pollen diagrams are dated independently and show human impact contemporary to the CW phase. Furthermore, it could be shown that the low-lying hinterland of the CW settlements was used for pasture, whereas BB phase people instead used the higher-elevated forests as pasture. The pollen record shows no continuity whatsoever from CW to BB phases in the Western Lake Constance area.

alan
09-30-2014, 03:16 PM
I'd certainly say that is an outlier, but the dates for Portugal still look the oldest. The dates in Poland are much later. This really has to be accepted. BB follows CW in this territory. No amount of fulmination about M and vW will change that. They simply compiled the radiocarbon dates available at the time.



Quite the contrary in Poland. It was the CW people who were mobile pastoralists. The Bell Beaker people were more settled.

Forget the pottery certainly. Pottery had been around in Europe since c. 7000 BC. The pottery of the BB is not new, exciting, more amazingly useful or anything else. It has just had a lot of attention paid to it because it is so recognisable.

My main issue - and it is a big one - with M and W is that there is no quick way to judge the safe/closed nature of the archaeological context from their list. We just have to take their word for it if we dont have time to do primary research. Its just a list of materials and dates. I think with any very early date ALL aspects of its source and context - not just the material used- is crucial. For example one thing that immediately springs to mind is that in SW Europe collective burial in megaliths was the norm which is not at all an easy context to link bones with pottery. Not impossible but full of potential issues.

I dont dispute the idea that southern Europe is older than the north. I am just not quite as confident about the dating from Italy, Hungary etc in between. It didnt seem to me that there was a reasonable sample in M and W. I am really just saying I dont think the paper delivered the holy grail a lot of people think it has - a systematic survey of the dating of bell beaker through Europe. To do that would require a fair bit of funding to get new dates IMO. I believe it has partly answered the problem but there are areas where there is a distinct lack of good dates so its impossible to judge. There are other areas where M and W's criteria of short lived material essentially disqualifies most dates - such as Holland where bones doesnt tend to survive. Some people now seem to be considering that there are so many potential problems with bone as a material to do with diet, environment etc that the use of short lived materials has to be compared with a sample from sources like charcoal - I mean a discrete closed depost not a bulk sample. I would like to see another paper on this subject some time in the not too distant future in light of the better understanding of issues with radiocarbon from bone. I would especially like detailed archaeological discussion of the context of any particularly old samples.

Jean M
09-30-2014, 03:24 PM
My main issue - and it is a big one - with M and W is that there is no quick way to judge the safe/closed nature of the archaeological context from their list. We just have to take their word for it if we dont have time to do primary research.

The people who do have time to do primary research are the ones we expect to argue and correct. If you don't have time to do it then it might be best not to claim (on no evidence) that particular dates are 'dodgy'. The recent BB dates from Leceia in Portugal of 2700s BC are not from communal burials. They are indeed from a safe context. You can read the paper for yourself.


M and W's criteria of short lived material essentially disqualifies most dates - such as Holland where bones doesnt tend to survive.

Yes I know, and am perfectly happy to accept that some BB pottery could have arrived at the mouth of the Rhine quite early by the Atlantic route. That still does not bring the Dutch model back into contention. It has crashed for the simple reason that we can no longer believe that BB derives from CW.

alan
09-30-2014, 03:33 PM
I got to be honest I now have read a lot more and have more data on the beaker problem than say a decade or so ago but I still have no confidence I really get what it was. In general though I do believe that what we think of as the beaker ideology 'the full beaker package' rather than the pots to a large degree only came together in central Europe somewhat later than the suggested origin of the pots themselves. I look at south-western Europe and the collective burials in megaliths looks like a continuity of earlier Neolithic practices.

My suspicion in all of this is that the poor beaker dating available from Italy and Hungary could be a crucial missing link in all of this story of how beaker, R1b and centrum IE became closely linked. Those areas lie between the SW European megalithic beaker cultures and the zone of complex fusion of farming and steppe cultures in the Balkans and lower Danube. Hungary is of course on the western edge of the steppe cultures area both of the Suvorovo and Yamanya waves while Italy of course has the interesting Remedello type pre-beaker groups that seemed to include hierarchical burials with beaker type skulls and early metalworking. To me an alternative possibility to a pre-beaker spread to Iberia is that R1b, the skull types, IE and beaker pot might have melded in areas like Hungary,the Italian Alps etc. I dont feel like the data is available to make a call.

rms2
09-30-2014, 03:55 PM
Personally, I think some ancient western Yamnaya burials are going to yield R1b. The timing seems right to me. How else did R1b get to SE Europe and expand so rapidly?

It also strikes me as odd, if true, that Alexei Kovalev recovered R1b from Afanasievo and Okunevo remains in the Altai, in the presence of anthropomorphic stelae, if R1b was not a factor. Too bad that paper has not appeared in English, if it in fact exists. My Russian is not up to scientific papers, but I have relatives who can translate if the right paper can be located.

alan
09-30-2014, 04:13 PM
The people who do have time to do primary research are the ones we expect to argue and correct. If you don't have time to do it then it might be best not to claim (on no evidence) that particular dates are 'dodgy'. The recent BB dates from Leceia in Portugal of 2700s BC are not from communal burials. They are indeed from a safe context. You can read the paper for yourself.



Yes I know, and am perfectly happy to accept that some BB pottery could have arrived at the mouth of the Rhine quite early by the Atlantic route. That still does not bring the Dutch model back into contention. It has crashed for the simple reason that we can no longer believe that BB derives from CW.

I wasnt claiming any particular date was dodgy or making comment on any particular date. I was just saying that M and W's paper just doesnt provide comment on archaeological context at all which makes it kind of useless as a stand alone piece of work. I dont know how anyone could read that paper alone and have any confidence at all unless they then go on to drag out the archaeological excavation reports (if indeed they are published in sufficient detail - many are not) to fill in that crucial context gap. Its extraordinary in its narrow minimalist context-free approach.

I know the correct way to solve doubts is to dig in further one's self but I would wager that very few people who actually read it do that. In fact it may well not be possible unless there is a full final excavation report for the site with all the crucial section drawings etc. In all probability - based on experience- the data needed to make a judgement probably is not all published for many of the sites and the archive may remain deposited somewhere in raw state.

Its not safe to take anything at face value if it is omitted no matter how big the name - archaeology is littered with decades of overturned certainties posited by big names. So I wont accept on face value how well they considered context as much as they have considered material type. Its amazing how little actual experience of archaeological contexts that some academics have.

Certainly I have never read a follow up report where someone looks at the contexts of the crucial earliest dates and discusses. If that existed I would be satisfied. I once did some research into the dating of Dun structures - read every published excavation - looked at the section plans and contexts of the finds and radiocarbon dates - and discovered that - at that time - all statements on their dating in print (including many prestigious publications) were unfounded and contextually most of the dating material could not be tied to the structure. Same thing happened with Wedge Tombs where it was not until someone reviewed the context of various types of dating materials in the 1990s that it was realised that they were misdated to the Neolithic. Archaeologists are very fallible.

Jean M
09-30-2014, 05:32 PM
Archaeologists are very fallible.

The fallibility of archaeologists I take for granted. (As with the fallibility of all humankind.) What perturbs me is that by the sheer power of oratory you seem to have convinced others on this forum that the M and vW compilation is the worst ever paper on radiocarbon dates and should be totally ignored. That's quite an achievement for Irish blarney. :biggrin1:

The problem with that position is that more radiocarbon dates crop up all the time. If these completely altered the picture from M and vW, we would hear all about it. Authors love to make a big splash by overturning existing ideas. Instead the dates keep falling into line. (With the exception of some new dates for the Netherlands, which have been paraded with suitable glee. )

parasar
09-30-2014, 05:39 PM
Personally, I think some ancient western Yamnaya burials are going to yield R1b. The timing seems right to me. How else did R1b get to SE Europe and expand so rapidly?

It also strikes me as odd, if true, that Alexei Kovalev recovered R1b from Afanasievo and Okunevo remains in the Altai, in the presence of anthropomorphic stelae, if R1b was not a factor. Too bad that paper has not appeared in English, if it in fact exists. My Russian is not up to scientific papers, but I have relatives who can translate if the right paper can be located.

It had to have gotten into Mediterranean Europe quite early, IMO, to have become part of EEF. For modern Europeans to have so much EEF, there has to be a major driver, and I can't think of anything else but R1b. It is definitely not only G and some others.

For R1b an expansion from the Mediterranean region makes more sense that from the eastern European steppes, though some early R1b branches may well be found on the euroasiatic steppes.

vettor
09-30-2014, 06:11 PM
I cannot see any logic in trying to link pots (bell beakers) with ydna or language.

BB is only about a type of pot which is now found between Poland and Morocco. A type which was found to be handy for its time and taught/learnt from region to region by different people/races

ADW_1981
09-30-2014, 08:05 PM
It had to have gotten into Mediterranean Europe quite early, IMO, to have become part of EEF. For modern Europeans to have so much EEF, there has to be a major driver, and I can't think of anything else but R1b. It is definitely not only G and some others.

For R1b an expansion from the Mediterranean region makes more sense that from the eastern European steppes, though some early R1b branches may well be found on the euroasiatic steppes.

Not if a lot of the EEF is driven by mitochondrial lineages such as H1, H3...etc

Truthfully, Ma'lta is not the best approximation for any sort of PIE component, but I don't altogether think it's false either. Take the Lezgins for instance, they are from the NE Caucasus, and although they speak a non-IE language, I think geography wise, they are very close to where these "PIE" speaking ancestors lived. It should also be no surprise that they are closest to the European group among all west Asians.

Generalissimo
09-30-2014, 10:23 PM
It had to have gotten into Mediterranean Europe quite early, IMO, to have become part of EEF. For modern Europeans to have so much EEF, there has to be a major driver, and I can't think of anything else but R1b. It is definitely not only G and some others.

For R1b an expansion from the Mediterranean region makes more sense that from the eastern European steppes, though some early R1b branches may well be found on the euroasiatic steppes.

Europeans got their EEF from...early Europen farmers. And this probably mostly happened via women, I think for good reason, which would explain well the current European mtDNA structure.


Truthfully, Ma'lta is not the best approximation for any sort of PIE component, but I don't altogether think it's false either. Take the Lezgins for instance, they are from the NE Caucasus, and although they speak a non-IE language, I think geography wise, they are very close to where these "PIE" speaking ancestors lived. It should also be no surprise that they are closest to the European group among all west Asians.

Quote from the published version of Laz et al., supp info page 126.


The finding of high ANE ancestry in the North Caucasus might suggest that the Caucasus is a potential source of this type of ancestry in Europe. However, when we try to fit present-day Europeans as a 3-way mixture of a North Caucasian population+EEF+WHG in the structure of Fig. S14.20 this model is successful for only 5 populations (Bergamo, Bulgarian, Italian_South, Spanish_North, Tuscan using Lezgins as a sister group to the admixing population). Admixture from the Caucasus would need to be substantial to account for observed ANE levels in Europe (e.g., for a European population with ~15% ANE ancestry, almost half of its ancestry must come from a Lezgin-like population with ~29% ANE ancestry; this would account for the ANE ancestry but would greatly dilute its WHG-related ancestry, and yet present-day Europeans have increased affinity to WHG in Extended Data Fig. 4 relative to Stuttgart).

The upshot is that the ANE-rich population that moved across Europe after the Neolithic had much less EEF/Near Eastern ancestry than the Lezgins do.

alan
09-30-2014, 10:32 PM
It had to have gotten into Mediterranean Europe quite early, IMO, to have become part of EEF. For modern Europeans to have so much EEF, there has to be a major driver, and I can't think of anything else but R1b. It is definitely not only G and some others.

For R1b an expansion from the Mediterranean region makes more sense that from the eastern European steppes, though some early R1b branches may well be found on the euroasiatic steppes.

Problem is there is no record of an expansion in the correct time frame. It seems to be absent among the early farmers who did come to Europe via the east Med. It even so far seems absent in late Neolithic/early copper age people around 3000BC although the sample is not great. Ancient DNA so far (and I admit this may be inconclusive) does actually fit R1b only becoming any sort of factor around the beaker period. There is no evidence as yet that any other culture significantly expanded European R1b before beaker. We have hard evidence of the link at Kromsdorf early in the beaker phase of that area. Distribution alone indicates that only L51 and downstream, especially P312 can be linked to bell beaker.

L23xL51 and M269xL23 have a distribution that makes a link with bell beaker very unlikely as these clades are centred on the Balkans in European terms. They also appear to be significantly older and pre-beaker.

The simply unbiased conclusion on what info we have at present would be that European R1b had an earlier European story in the large block of SE/east-central Europe (Balkans, Carpathians, Hungary)where Lucotte shows the older parallel L23xL51 lines predominate

http://secherbernard.blog.free.fr/public/Map_ht35.jpg

Because L51 and below pick up almost where it dies out - somewhere around Austria - then its hard not to think the L51 line split off around Austria - L51* peaks in the Tyrol.

One thing that stands our about L23xL51, m269* and even L51* is the tendency to be in mountainous area - Balkans, Carpathians, Alps etc. In that sense it seems to markedly contrast with Corded Ware. There are many reasons why that could be including metal and simply that those areas have been refuges for survival of these lines from later waves - which were many and varied in east-central Europe and the Balkans. The upland locations I think tend to think that these are survival zones of peoples who may or may not have originally lived in lower lands. Its hard to know the original linguistic associations of this group but I tend to think the Albanian, Greek, Armenian are closely connected. All the original languages of this zone have otherwise disappeared but I think there is a convincing case that Albanians originally lived in inland Dacia and were Dacians. Armenians probably were a thin elite from the same sort of Balkans zone but autosomally basically diluted enormously. I highly suspect that Anatolian R1b was originally also attached to Anatolian speakers like Hittites but the picture has been very blurred by later wave after wave.

I think whatever, the default conclusion is that R1b's older European story lay somewhere around the Balkans and Carpathian areas before it spread west.

alan
09-30-2014, 10:49 PM
I have never been convinced that there is a strong or consistent autosomal signal for R1b. A thin lineage of males need not make much autosomal impact at all even if it imposes language. I think that has been demonstrated in places like Hungary, Turkey etc. I personally think a lot of L23xL51 and M269 is upland survival of groups who lived there before the upheavals in the historic era and many of the languages it had originally been associated with are dead today - with the exception of pre-Slavic Balkans originated groups like Albanian, Armenian etc.

alan
09-30-2014, 11:05 PM
That said, when I try and put the whole enigma of beaker pots and people etc to one side I still am convinced it is to the area in and around the Balkans and Carpathians that I look for its deeper European origins. I think that is pretty clear. The main thing that is the big bone of contention for me is how this earlier zone of R1b and the whole beaker-P312 thing came together. There are several options.

A big uncertain question is U106. If it is not associated with beaker - which I think is unclear - then it would strongly push the origin of upstream L11 towards east-central Europe IMO. I say that because it has been suggested it is older in that area and there are really no non-beaker cultures which we would look westwards for the origin of in the copper age. If U106 was not linked to beaker then it really does force us to look for L11 in central Europe. Lots of ifs and buts though.

Jean M
10-01-2014, 09:08 AM
Here's a paper with radiocarbon dates for Poland: https://www.academia.edu/2022469/Northern_and_Southern_Bell_Beakers_in_Poland

Southern Poland: The sum of probability distribution of all the calibrated dates stays in the interval between 2470 and 2270 BC.
The agglomerations are closely related to their Czech and Moravian counterparts.

Iwno Culture: The sum of probability distribution of all the calibrated dates obtained for the Iwno Culture stays between 2210 and 1880 BC.
In the Polish Lowlands the Iwno Culture emerged, a syncretic unit that combines traits of Bell Beakers, the Single Grave Culture and, to a lesser degree, early ┌nýtice Culture.

nuadha
10-01-2014, 11:08 AM
Europeans got their EEF from...early Europen farmers. And this probably mostly happened via women, I think for good reason, which would explain well the current European mtDNA structure.

Current ydna structure for r1b supports an introduction of r1b from the east and your general statement on gender suggests that male lines would better resemble the autosomal changes in the bronze age. I know there is a lot of context to the r1b story that im ignoring but I just want to point out that you should be leaning towards r1b coming from the east unless you can find some other compelling argument.

That aside, im sure women were a significant part of the migrating people that brought higher levels of ANE to europe. The mtdna structure in europe will have more diversity, and thus look less ANE specific, regardless of whether or not women made up half the migrants. There is just more selection that happens on the y chromosome than mtdna, which is completely separate from the size of the mating pool for men and women. One prime example is how the y chromosome affects the likelyhood of having male offspring.


The upshot is that the ANE-rich population that moved across Europe after the Neolithic had much less EEF/Near Eastern ancestry than the Lezgins do.

And so we have the official death of "west asian" as the marker of IE...

ADW_1981
10-01-2014, 01:52 PM
The upshot is that the ANE-rich population that moved across Europe after the Neolithic had much less EEF/Near Eastern ancestry than the Lezgins do.

Agreed. Naturally the Lezgins derive much of their ancestry to their Caucasian farmer roots, and they expectedly have this middle eastern ancestry.

parasar
10-01-2014, 02:04 PM
Europeans got their EEF from...early Europen farmers. And this probably mostly happened via women, I think for good reason, which would explain well the current European mtDNA structure.

...


If they got it from early European farmers and it was mtDNA driven, we would see a lot more N(xR) in Europe. The driving force came later I think in the Y-R1b and mtDNA H expansion time-frame, well after the 8000bc early European farmer phase.

parasar
10-01-2014, 02:06 PM
Agreed. Naturally the Lezgins derive much of their ancestry to their Caucasian farmer roots, and they expectedly have this middle eastern ancestry.

Plus these two main components in the Lezgins have very little affinity for each other - clearly an admixture scenario.

alan
10-01-2014, 03:48 PM
Current ydna structure for r1b supports an introduction of r1b from the east and your general statement on gender suggests that male lines would better resemble the autosomal changes in the bronze age. I know there is a lot of context to the r1b story that im ignoring but I just want to point out that you should be leaning towards r1b coming from the east unless you can find some other compelling argument.

That aside, im sure women were a significant part of the migrating people that brought higher levels of ANE to europe. The mtdna structure in europe will have more diversity, and thus look less ANE specific, regardless of whether or not women made up half the migrants. There is just more selection that happens on the y chromosome than mtdna, which is completely separate from the size of the mating pool for men and women. One prime example is how the y chromosome affects the likelyhood of having male offspring.



And so we have the official death of "west asian" as the marker of IE...

I think the only reason why anyone today looks for a west to east spread for R1b is the beaker theory and a rather literal interpretation of pots and people. If it wasnt for that theory there is absolutely no way that the phylogeny of M269 and the geography of the clades of various ages would make one look to a west to east spread.

If we were to look purely at ancient DNA we would probably conclude that R1b was absent even in very late Neolithic/early copper age groups in any sampled part of Europe.

If we ignored archaeological models, beakers etc and combined ancient DNA and modern geography and Phylogeny of R1b we would probably conclude that M269 and L23xL51 had their first footfall in the lands of farming Europe somewhere not far from the Carpathians and Balkans and then L51 probably shed off or first expanded somewhere around Austria before heading west along the Alps and north up the Elbe in L11 and derived forms.

I think its important when we get too tied up in the beaker model - a model whose genetic dynamics may not be uniform- and strip it back to genetics sometimes rather than to tussle to get the spread of a pot type to fit the spread of yDNA when they dont actually fit together very well at all. You could argue that the connection between beaker and R1b looks most likely to have come from a south-central European group who acquired beaker characteristics rather than the inventor of the pots in south-west Europe.