PDA

View Full Version : Unetice - More early R1b into Isles - Wessex Culture?



Net Down G5L
10-22-2014, 08:10 PM
Unetice - More early R1b into Isles (in addition to Beaker R1b)?
Inspired by some of the earlier discussion on the ' First ancient genomes from Corded Ware' thread (thanks Jean et al for posting the conference tweets/blogs) I have been motivated to start a new thread on Unetice and R1b dna.
I am interested in views on what dna the Unetice culture carried - and if it could have carried R1b dna in to Southern England - the Wessex Culture - in an Early Bronze Age migration (and if so what R1b - and other - clades).

In simple terms did the Yamnaya (and Maykop) culture carry R1 dna (and single grave tumulus burials) in to Western Europe then (mix with Beaker) to form the Unetice culture. Did the Unetice culture migrate into the low countries (Hilversum culture) and/or down the North Sea (from the Baltic) to form the Wessex Culture and the Amorican tumulus burials around 2000BC (to 1700BC).

It seems to me that there is enough in common between the 'princely graves' of Poland/Central Europe and the Wessex/Amorican high status tumuli (e.g. Amber artefacts) to suggest a migration of people (rather than just a transfer of ideas and traded objects).

There also seems to be a continuity of flow of people/ideas across these areas through the Tumulus Culture period (including L21 dna?) before the Atlantic Bronze Age was 'modified' by the Urnfield migrations c 1300BC onwards.

Is this all too obviously correct and 'discussed to death on earlier Anthrogenica threads (that I have failed to find). Or is it too obviously wrong to have been discussed. I am interested in your collective vast expertise on these matters.

Jean M
10-22-2014, 08:20 PM
Hello Net Down and welcome to the forum. The Wessex Culture is a rich variety of Bell Beaker. The term has rather fallen into disuse. Here's the definition from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology
http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121804603


Early Bronze Age culture of central southern England, defined by Stuart Piggott in 1938 on the basis of a series of well‐known richly furnished burials under round barrows in the Wessex region of Dorset, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, and surrounding areas. Later, in 1954, Arthur ApSimon proposed subdividing the Wessex Culture into two consecutive phases, initially on the basis of the dagger typology: Wessex I (c.2000–1650 bc), with richly furnished inhumation graves containing bronze triangular daggers (Bush Barrow type), axes, beads, and buttons of amber and shale, and gold dress fittings. The most famous example is the Bush Barrow burial, near Stonehenge, Wiltshire. Wessex II (c.1650–1400 bc) was characterized by ogival daggers (Camerton–Snowshill type), together with cremation replacing inhumation and faience beads becoming more common. However, Joan Taylor has shown that the gold used for the manufacture of objects variously assigned to both Wessex I and II in fact came from the same crucible, thus making the objects themselves contemporary and the traditional chronological divisions meaningless. Instead, the differences in burial tradition may be explained in terms of rank, status, gender, or identity. Connections between the Wessex Culture and contemporary communities in northern France are widely accepted (e.g. with the Armorican Tumulus Culture), and these date to the European early Bronze Age, Reinecke A1 and A2. There has been much discussion of the possibility of long‐distance links to the Aegean world, but most can be discounted on chronological grounds. Graves of the Wessex Culture are especially numerous around Stonehenge, but they mainly date to the centuries after the main monument had been constructed.

Net Down G5L
10-22-2014, 10:14 PM
Jean,

Yes, the Wessex Culture has been devalued as it tended to dominate discussion on the Early Bronze Age in Britain and resulted in the great EBA diversity in the Isles to be undervalued. Also the dismissal of migrations meant that a lot of earlier archaeology work was sidelined or ignored. I find that a lot of the work of Calkin and Piggott had very valuable content.

I am interested in exploring the possible Yanama - Unetice route for R1b dna into the Isles via the Wessex Culture. Is there a possible P312 legacy, an early R1a legacy, other non R1 legacy? Who were the Wessex Culture people? I know we need aDNA and scientific studies but can we speculate at this stage?

Jean M
10-22-2014, 11:10 PM
Who were the Wessex Culture people?

Are we talking about the same thing? Rich Bell Beaker burials around Stonehenge? If so the Amesbury Archer was from near the Alps. The Boscombe Bowmen came from a region with a more ancient geology than Wessex, according to their isotope signatures. That covers a wide range of possibilities, including places within the British Isles, but the date of the burials pushes them towards the head of wave of Beaker arrivals from the Continent. Brittany and Portugal have a geology to match the isotope traces of the Boscombe Bowmen.

These were Bell Beaker folk. The Únětice culture was post-Bell Beaker in its region. Trade continued along the trade routes established by BB.

I'm having to delve deep into older literature to find claims of links between the Wessex Culture and Únětice. To be specific - Colin Renfrew, Before Civilization (1973).

Net Down G5L
10-23-2014, 06:28 AM
Hi Jean,
Will check my facts later today - but from memory the early Beaker burials (like the Amesbury Archer) were in flat graves. Some Beaker burials are thought to have tumuli built over them at a later stage. I think it was Henri Hubert who suggested that the only Beaker burials with Tumuli were those with corded ware decorated beakers.

So did the long period of Tumuli building in Isles and N France come from a fusion of Yamnaya > Corded Ware with beaker.

From reviews, I think there is some interesting relevant information in Dalia Anna Pokutta's thesis Population Dynamics, Diet and Migrations in the Unetice of Poland. However, I have not been able to get hold of the full publication.

So I wonder if the route for Tumuli in to the Isles was a northern route and carried by migrating people - not just their ideas. They could have carried a variety of dna - if R1 it immediately suggests R1a. However, I also wonder if any R1b could have reached the Isles in this way. Of course any lines could now be extinct and not show up in modern DNA. But there appears to be some early L11 in England - and also in Poland. So, for example, could L11 have acccompanied the early spread of tumuli. Could the Unetice / tumuli trail have taken L11/P312 into the Rhine?
All idle speculation - but my initial interest is understanding 'trail' of the Tumuli in to the Isles. DNA is then a step beyond that. And there may well not be an R1b connection. but I would still like to understand the process of tumuli spread and what, if any, movement of dna may have been involved.
Bob

Jean M
10-23-2014, 08:06 AM
Will check my facts later today - but from memory the early Beaker burials (like the Amesbury Archer) were in flat graves. Some Beaker burials are thought to have tumuli built over them at a later stage. I think it was Henri Hubert who suggested that the only Beaker burials with Tumuli were those with corded ware decorated beakers.

These days we have a lot more information than Henri Hubert did. First let's sort out the terminology.


Bell Beaker is the pottery shaped like an inverted bell. Some of it was decorated all over with cord impressions (All Over Corded).
Corded Ware has strong similarities in shape, and is decorated with cord impressions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture#mediaviewer/File:Museum_f%C3%BCr_Vor-_und_Fr%C3%BChgeschichte_Berlin_031.jpg
Both are derived from Yamnaya pottery, which itself was derived from early steppe pottery, often with cord impressions.


Both Bell Beaker and Corded Ware had round barrows, or tumuli or 'kurgans' to appropriate the Russian word. These also derive from Yamnaya.
The similarities between the two and the fact that Bell Beaker followed Corded Ware in Central and Eastern Europe led to suppositions that Bell Beaker was derived from Corded Ware. This idea was destroyed by radiocarbon dating. The two cultures begin more or less simultaneously, BB in the west and CW in the east. Corded Ware never entered Britain. Bell Beaker did.

Net Down G5L
10-23-2014, 09:03 AM
Yes, agreed.
Bell Beaker entered Britain 'in zones'. Maritime at the western extreme and all over corded at the north eastern extreme (Needham 2005).
So if we work on the basis that NE Beaker people introduced tumuli in to Britain - and I would need to check latest research for dates - but lets say from 2,300 BC as a ballpark.

The classic dates for the Wessex 1 rich burials is from 2000BC - a similar date to Unetice. So perhaps the NE Beaker people spawned the Unetice and Wessex cultures that followed them - perhaps the chiefs 'were of the same clan'.

Just looking at Albrecht Jockenhovel (2013) Germany in the Bronze Age he states about the EBA:
'...around 2000-1800BC a leading social group ('chieftains') emerged, in farming communities that stretched from the lower Danube to southern Scandinavia, the south of England (Wessex Culture), and Brittany, and were in close contact with each other. Their common features are evident not only on a physical level, as seen cross-regionally in very similar object forms and burial rights, but also in the spread of new technologies, like the introduction of tin bronze and the advent of complex metalworking techniques. EBA cultural groups are like islands in central Europe, particularly near important deposits of copper, tin, and salt. .......The most distinctive culture group is the Aunjetitz or Unetice culture. Of more than regional significance, this culture spreads from the middle Danube to central Germany and as far away as Silesia and Great Poland.....In the largest known central German site, Grossbrembach, single families were buried. It was also possible to demonstrate the peoples supposed Bohemian origin from epigenetic markers on the skeletons.'..............The latter phase, whose beginning has been dendrodated to the latest to the twentieth century BC, is characterised by distinctive pottery forms. burials from this time yield considerably more goods made of copper alloy......... however, there are exceptional richly furnished tumuli from this period. These are isolated mounds that are visible from afar, which are referred to as 'princely graves'.

Hence, I suspect there is a very strong link between the princely graves of the Unetice in Poland to Germany (particularly around 2000BC onwards) and the rich burials of the Wessex culture (and tumuli in Amorica) that happened at the same sort of time. I suspect the links have some common dna

I perceive some continuity of contact and trade through to and including the tumulus culture in the Middle Bronze Age . This continuity breaks down with the spread of the Urnfield culture - perhaps dominated by 'different clans'.

Net Down G5L
10-23-2014, 09:33 AM
I have only just bought the Handbook of the European Bronze age because of its rediculous price. Here is another extract from the chapter on Poland:
Janusc Czebreszuk 2013 The Bronze age in the Polish Lands
'The Unetice culture itself followed more than one course. Towards the end of the third millenium BC it was characterised by the scarcity of metal objects, and its settlement structures and social organisation were rather simple. Around 2000 cal BC - in the lowlands earlier than is lower Silesia- the Unetice culture underwent a substantial transformation. Metal objects showing the specific Unetice style began to be manufactured using local ore deposits from the Harz Mountains and eastern Alps., located directly south-west of the region. Significantly tin-bronze also started to be widely used. Highly developed metallurgy ushered in social stratification. This is confirmed by the finds of rich barrows (kurgans,; the so called princely tumuli); prestige objects including bronze weapons and especially halberds and fluted stone maceheads; imports testifying to a broad network of cultural contacts, including gold, amber, and foreign gold objects; and complex settlements with stable, fortified centres.'

There is an interesting pattern of tin bronze metal development and high status tumuli. There is clearly a Wessex culture link. I think that the reason Wessex developed as the English centre of 'princely graves' must be down to its heritage as a travel route/ focal point (stonehenge etc) as there is no immediate tin-bronze source. There must have been some control of trade routes?

Jean M
10-23-2014, 10:34 AM
Princely graves under a mound are not restricted to Wessex and Únětice. They are found in several places within the Bell Beaker zone. In the Bell Beaker necropolis at Hulín-Pravčice, Czech Republic are a group of large graves with inner structures and rich equipment which overshadow that of the Amesbury Archer. Such princely tombs continued into Hallstatt where they become wagon burials as often as not. They are also a feature of other cultures derived from Yamnaya.

Control of trade routes has long been deduced to explain the wealth of certain nodes within both the Bell Beaker zone and the later Hallstatt and La Tene spheres.

Net Down G5L
10-23-2014, 12:35 PM
OK , thanks. So ideas to build Kurgan burial mounds travel across Europe to Wessex and Amorica. They access Wessex and Amorica through a fusion of Beaker with some Corded Ware traditions (pot decoration, use of kurgan). This most likely happened in the Rhine Valley.
The Beaker people carry the package to Wessex c. 2350BC and Amorica. These people were brachycranial. They most likely carried R1 dna (?). Initial burials were a mixture of flat graves or very small mounds. The Beaker package developed with more elaborate goods but the presence of actual beaker pots declined in Wessex towards the end of the millenium.
After 2000 a number of 'cultures' have common themes of 'princely burials'. they seem to correlate with pockets of advanced metallurgy and trade across the region. the region coincides with the activities and growth of the Beaker people.
So the Unetice-Wessex - Amorican link is better described as a 'Beaker legacy network' that extends 'in a patchy or web like way) across areas including parts of Poland, Czeck, Slovakia, Germany, Britain, France etc. So it is only found, for example, in part of the Unetice culture.
So, I should start thinking of the tumuli of Britain as a Beaker legacy - but one they adopted from the corded ware people (from the Yamnaya) in the Rhine Valley.
So the Y dna of the Wessex Culture (at least the rich burials) likely reflects the dna of the Beaker people who were in the Rhine Valley c. 2400-2200BC.
There may or may not have been the inclusion of a few or a lot of people from the corded ware culture in to the Rhine Valley Beaker people as the transfer of the Kurgan idea took hold.
This is pretty much the Beaker model I had in my head but I had not made the 'transfer' of the kurgan / tumulus connection.
So if I look at possible R1b in the Rhine Valley , in Mark Jost's timescales, the Early Beaker phase is in P312 timescales and by the time 'princely burials' are going strong L21 is probably on the scene in the Rhine.
Does the spread of early L21 fit with this beaker network (I am thinking pre-DF13)? [sorry if this has been discussed/answered on previous threads].

Net Down G5L
10-23-2014, 01:00 PM
Oh, and perhaps to state the obvious - the early beaker burials in Wessex, like the Amesbury Archer(c.2350BC) contained copper artefacts so many would class this as the copper age in Britain rather than Early Bronze Age. The 'princely graves' (c.2000BC) contain tin-bronze artefacts and are firmly in the Bronze Age proper. The 'Beaker legacy network' was clearly critical in the trade of tin (as well as the transfer of other valuable goods such as amber and gold). Perhaps I will start thinking of the 'princes of tin' - the forerunners of our fabulously wealthy metal exchange traders in the City of London and elsewhere.

Jean M
10-23-2014, 02:01 PM
a fusion of Beaker with some Corded Ware traditions (pot decoration, use of kurgan).

There is no need whatsoever to suppose such a fusion. As I explained, these traits have a common ancestor in Yamnaya. There are a few cord-decorated BB pots in Portugal, though the Maritime style predominates there. Until recently it was thought that there was a division between collective burials (including re-use of megalithic burials) in southern and Atlantic BB vs single burials in eastern BB. That myth has just gone up in smoke. https://www.academia.edu/8379295/11_Pratiques_fun%C3%A9raires_du_Campaniforme_-_Bell_beaker_funeral_practices

If we look in detail at specific sites in Central Europe where Bell Beaker follows Corded Ware, we find that these were distinct populations with differences in lifestyle. There is no sign of fusion. The people even look different, having different shaped skulls. Now that we have ancient DNA, we find Y-DNA R1a in Corded Ware and R1b in Bell Beaker. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml Both the R1a and R1b men were carrying a genetic input from Yamnaya, as was announced in a paper read last weekend.

There may well be some overlap somewhere. Mixing with the neighbours is common, after all. But fusion with CW is not required in any way at all in order to explain the Bell Beaker culture.


The 'princely graves' (c.2000BC) contain tin-bronze artefacts and are firmly in the Bronze Age proper.

The Amesbury Archer is Copper Age. He represents an early BB arrival from the continent. Later BB people in Britain were overwhelmingly born in Britain, as shown by the Bell Beaker isotope project. However there was an increased BB interest in Britain after the discovery of tin there. Looks like an influx c. 2200 BC down the Rhine.

Net Down G5L
10-23-2014, 03:07 PM
I am thinking out loud here.
In our FGC5494 group (particularly Mark J and Jim W) we have been discussing (read as they have been explaining to me!) the late development of L21(DF13 sub-clades) and how it may not have expanded in to the Isles until Hallstatt / La Tene.
If I remember correctly Richard Rocca posted in the summer he thought L2 could have reached the Isles with Beaker (Sorry Richard if I remembered wrong).
Could the whole 'princely graves tin barrons' and Atlantic Bronze Age networks be driven by P312, U152 and sub-clades (I used to think of U152 arrival in the Isles as Urnfield and later).
Could L21 be a really late player on the scene who somehow 'took over' the whole of the west of the Isles in the Iron Age from a zero base?

I can actually see some of my outstanding archaeology 'issues' falling in to place if this was the case.

alan
10-26-2014, 03:04 PM
I am thinking out loud here.
In our FGC5494 group (particularly Mark J and Jim W) we have been discussing (read as they have been explaining to me!) the late development of L21(DF13 sub-clades) and how it may not have expanded in to the Isles until Hallstatt / La Tene.
If I remember correctly Richard Rocca posted in the summer he thought L2 could have reached the Isles with Beaker (Sorry Richard if I remembered wrong).
Could the whole 'princely graves tin barrons' and Atlantic Bronze Age networks be driven by P312, U152 and sub-clades (I used to think of U152 arrival in the Isles as Urnfield and later).
Could L21 be a really late player on the scene who somehow 'took over' the whole of the west of the Isles in the Iron Age from a zero base?

I can actually see some of my outstanding archaeology 'issues' falling in to place if this was the case.

Incredibly unlikely because there was no unifying Iron Age culture in the isles that could have spread L21. There is no real meaningful Hallstatt phase - it just consists of some swords and a couple of other bits and pieces. La Tene is patchy and very poorly represented in the northern two-thirds of Scotland and the southern third of Ireland where L21 is very very common. So, no a late arrival seems very hard to believe unless it was completely archaeologically invisible. Also the very areas with the highest L21 today are relatively poor in Iron Age finds of a continental type. What we tend to find in high L21 areas is a lack of evidence for continental or indeed any outside influence in the Iron Age compared to the south and east of England where there is more evidence for continental influence. So, I think the absolute reverse is true - L21 is highest where the Bronze Age population was least disturbed in the Iron Age.

Its far more likely that L21 arrived in the beaker period although there could have continued to be low level movement by sea within the north Atlantic zone of the isles, northern France, Belgium etc throughout the Bronze Age. It is possible, even likely that there was considerable rivalry among clans and tribes to control the various metal networks and one of these in the period c. 2500-800BC was the one centred around the English channel. Some have described this zones as a maritory - a sea territory because in truth this had to have been controlled by folks with boats. I believe that the distribution of L21 is a reduced echo of the dominantion of the NW Seas and the metal trade of that area by L21 lineages throughout the copper and Bronze Age.

Only when central European influences and possibly U152 pushed towards the channel around the southern Low Countries in the form of Urnfield cultures might a challenge to this have commenced but this never reached the isles and regardless the old Bronze system collapsed c. 700-600BC with the arrival of iron which is ubiquitous and cannot be controlled by elites. Hallstatt C seems to mainly be swords and nothing else in the isles. Hallsatt D is similar but even poorer and is pretty non-existent on most of the isles. La Tene influences were stronger although not in all areas but its far from clear if this involved many people or was mainly fashion.

alan
10-26-2014, 03:43 PM
Certainly the classic beaker skulls on central and NW Europe and the isles are a new type to that area and also hard to find a geographically plausible predecessor - perhaps the Balkans and Italian Alps area. However, they could simply be hybrids of robust east and gracil west and then inbreeding. We already have suggestions in the mtDNA of a western female input - this is what I would like with the spread of the pots. They IMO are the pots does equal people part of the beaker story. However, beaker people had other element in their genetics that cannot be from the south-west and I would include R1b in that. So IMO beaker pots and a few other craft traits were the result of R1b central Europeans of an eastern origin intermarrying with the females of an early beaker groups from south-west Europe with this taking place somewhere between Hungary and the western Alps. If this process involved Corded Ware groups then this could have happened in the Alps c. 2600BC. If, as Jean prefers, this didnt involve CW then the direct Yamnaya-beaker interface was around Hungary c. 2700BC. A third and final option is that R1b met beaker when R1b Remedello type groups in the Tyrol sort of area c. 2600BC met beaker commng from the west. Seems less plausibly although the skulls of some Remedello people are beaker-like.

My prediction is that the very earliest beaker people in Iberia and southern France were, like the ice man and the Languedoc pre-beaker copper age ancient DNA, G2 people and that R1b and beaker didnt meet until c. 2700-2600BC in central Europe when R1b central Europeans took SW European beaker wives from the daughters of the G2 beaker men from SW Europe - thus creating a hybrid that led to beakerised R1b groups but carrying western mtDNA and wives making nice pots. It was these groups that expanded beaker widely across Europe c. 2600-2400BC including back towards SW Europe.

Net Down G5L
10-26-2014, 07:18 PM
Thanks Alan
I decided a few days ago to throw out all my previous conclusions and start with a blank sheet again - hence the 152 question. Actually quite liberating. Lets me think about questions like:

Could the dna that dominates be 'last in' rather than 'first in' (as long as last in can assume a position of power / have a clear reproductive advantage e.g. clan system).

I was thinking today about when DF27 may have expanded and left a clear trail across the Isles. TMRCA calcs (STR and SNP) seem to be more possibly variable (from different leading citizen scientists) now than they were some time ago. Mark Jost's calcs (that I have always used in the past) now have quite young dates for L21 and DF13. If he is right the c1800BC wave of cremation activity taking hold in the Isles could be pre L21. So in that case it could be a wave of DF27 - the reflux that moves back down to Iberia but also taking in the Isles.
Interested in your thoughts.
Bob

Agamemnon
10-27-2014, 02:02 AM
Only when central European influences and possibly U152 pushed towards the channel around the southern Low Countries in the form of Urnfield cultures might a challenge to this have commenced but this never reached the isles and regardless the old Bronze system collapsed c. 700-600BC with the arrival of iron which is ubiquitous and cannot be controlled by elites. Hallstatt C seems to mainly be swords and nothing else in the isles. Hallsatt D is similar but even poorer and is pretty non-existent on most of the isles. La Tene influences were stronger although not in all areas but its far from clear if this involved many people or was mainly fashion.

Are you saying that U152 came to the isles with Urnfield?

Net Down G5L
10-27-2014, 06:34 PM
I go further than Alan. In my view the archaeology is very clear - yes RSFO and hence U152 reached the Isles in the Urnfield period. There are plenty of Urnfield cemeteries in Southern England such as Simons Ground close to where I live in Dorset (D A White 1982. The Bronze Age Cremation cemeteries at Simons Ground, Dorset DNHAS Monograph Number 3). The report notes the similarities to sites in the Low Countries. This was interpreted as British people colonising the Low Countries but it is very clear to me it was the reverse.
Bob

alan
10-27-2014, 06:37 PM
Thanks Alan
I decided a few days ago to throw out all my previous conclusions and start with a blank sheet again - hence the 152 question. Actually quite liberating. Lets me think about questions like:

Could the dna that dominates be 'last in' rather than 'first in' (as long as last in can assume a position of power / have a clear reproductive advantage e.g. clan system).

I was thinking today about when DF27 may have expanded and left a clear trail across the Isles. TMRCA calcs (STR and SNP) seem to be more possibly variable (from different leading citizen scientists) now than they were some time ago. Mark Jost's calcs (that I have always used in the past) now have quite young dates for L21 and DF13. If he is right the c1800BC wave of cremation activity taking hold in the Isles could be pre L21. So in that case it could be a wave of DF27 - the reflux that moves back down to Iberia but also taking in the Isles.
Interested in your thoughts.
Bob

I think you are correct that last in tends to create the picture today. However that only works if the last in group remained in their position of advantage for a long long period. If hegemony was cut short then the impact on a late invader might be small. What I think has happened in the Celtic fringe is that the last in group got in a very long time ago and essentially remained unchallenged until relatively modern times when their challengers were no longer operating on a clan type basis. Once you get to the 18th century AD for example in the isles, the upper classes in the isles far from breeding like bunnies are often daughtering out and their estates passing through marriage of daughters. I see that all the time when looking at estate records of the last 300 years. It was really the Celtic clan system that seems to have been adept at massive increasing of male lineages. Once the system died this stopped. Even in early Norman times, extra sons were seen as a problem to be sent to the church or to crusades etc. The primogeniture system and the Celtic clans system were really very different. The clan system has a mix of being demographically expansive but also the cursed because it always led to constant factionalism and fission and low level warfare and inability to consistently unite. There was always a less fortunate branch of the clan who wanted to get on top who would side with an outsider to topple the head branch- read the history of the Irish clans in Ulster and this happened in virtually every clan and played into the divide and conquer tactics of the English.

alan
10-27-2014, 06:45 PM
I go further than Alan. In my view the archaeology is very clear - yes RSFO and hence U152 reached the Isles in the Urnfield period. There are plenty of Urnfield cemeteries in Southern England such as Simons Ground close to where I live in Dorset (D A White 1982. The Bronze Age Cremation cemeteries at Simons Ground, Dorset DNHAS Monograph Number 3). The report notes the similarities to sites in the Low Countries. This was interpreted as British people colonising the Low Countries but it is very clear to me it was the reverse.
Bob

Are you sure they meant urnfields in a cultural sense or fields of urns in a more generic sense? There were strong connections between the Hiversum culture of north Belgium and Holland west of the Rhine and the Deverel-Rimbury ware and Wessex in southern England. So strong that this has been described as a maritory. However, although urns and cremations are involved this is not an Urnfield culture link. Its an older middle Bronze Age phase. Urnfield culture has a very specific meaning. As far as I am aware it didnt make it to England - England had its own indigenous cremation traditions long before Urnfield culture on the continent.

However, you are correct that there was a very close link between Belgium, southern Holland and southern England in the middle Bronze Age. I personally think we are still talking L21 at that phase but noone really can know for sure.

Net Down G5L
10-27-2014, 09:08 PM
The radio-carbon dates for Simons ground are Late Bronze Age. It is now accepted by many that RSFO reached Belgium. If Simons ground has the same assemblages as Belgium at that time..........

Both L21 and Urnfield were active in Southern England at that time. Hence the long standing confusion regarding the Deverel-Rimbury complex and the post Deverel Rimbury phases. Hard to understand if the idea of migration was totally rejected. But we know better now.

TigerMW
05-04-2016, 02:48 PM
Hello Net Down and welcome to the forum. The Wessex Culture is a rich variety of Bell Beaker. The term has rather fallen into disuse. Here's the definition from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology
http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803121804603


Early Bronze Age culture of central southern England, defined by Stuart Piggott in 1938 on the basis of a series of well‐known richly furnished burials under round barrows in the Wessex region of Dorset, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, and surrounding areas. Later, in 1954, Arthur ApSimon proposed subdividing the Wessex Culture into two consecutive phases, initially on the basis of the dagger typology: Wessex I (c.2000–1650 bc), with richly furnished inhumation graves containing bronze triangular daggers (Bush Barrow type), axes, beads, and buttons of amber and shale, and gold dress fittings. The most famous example is the Bush Barrow burial, near Stonehenge, Wiltshire. Wessex II (c.1650–1400 bc) was characterized by ogival daggers (Camerton–Snowshill type), together with cremation replacing inhumation and faience beads becoming more common. However, Joan Taylor has shown that the gold used for the manufacture of objects variously assigned to both Wessex I and II in fact came from the same crucible, thus making the objects themselves contemporary and the traditional chronological divisions meaningless. Instead, the differences in burial tradition may be explained in terms of rank, status, gender, or identity. Connections between the Wessex Culture and contemporary communities in northern France are widely accepted (e.g. with the Armorican Tumulus Culture), and these date to the European early Bronze Age, Reinecke A1 and A2. There has been much discussion of the possibility of long‐distance links to the Aegean world, but most can be discounted on chronological grounds. Graves of the Wessex Culture are especially numerous around Stonehenge, but they mainly date to the centuries after the main monument had been constructed.

I would like to understand the Wessex types of Bell Beakers. Do we think they are more closely linked with the Maritime Beaker folks or with the Rhenish Bell Beaker folks.

A link with the Armorican Tumulus seems to indicate Maritime.

What's the meant behind this map on Wikipedia from Muller, et. al. ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture#/media/File:Beaker_culture_diffusion.svg

It appears that Muller thinks that a combination of Rhenish and undefined "Reflux" Beakers dominated in Great Britain.

I think understanding Wessex will be important to L21 expansion, if Wessex expanded over time to dominate Britain. On the other hand, if Wessex was swamped by another wave it might not mean so much.

TigerMW
05-04-2016, 06:09 PM
My gosh, I must have been sleeping, but I didn't realize this alignment.

Compare the Irish Genome study ancestry heat map for the L21+ Rathlin 1 man with the Henri Hubert's Celtic place names in the "Origins of the Celts" chapter.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Irish%20Genome%20and%20Celtic%20Place%20Names.pdf

It's hard to miss the hotspot south of the Jutland Peninsula in Germany.

I'll the quote from Hubert that RMS2 has pointed to in the past,
From "The History of the Celtic People" by Henri Hubert:


"But whence did the Goidels come, and when did they come? Where must we look for their earliest home on the Continent and their starting-point? Probably they came from north of the Brythonic domain, and it is to them that tradition refers when it tells that the Celts used to live on the low coasts of the North Sea. They must have left those shores very early, for hardly a trace of them remains there (p. 169).
. . . In the first period of the Bronze Age there arrived in the British Isles, coming from the Continent, people with very marked characteristics. The old Neolithic inhabitants (among whom I include those of all the beginning of the Bronze Age) were long-heads of Mediterranean type, who built for their dead, or, at least, for the more distinguished of them, tumuli with a funeral chamber known as the "long barrows", in which one sometimes finds those curious bell-shaped beakers adorned at regular intervals with bands of incised or stamped decoration, of a very simple and austere type. The newcomers were of quite a different type, and had other funeral practices.
They buried their dead under round tumuli, known as "round barrows", in graves in which the body was placed in a crouching position on one side and enclosed in stone flags or woodwork. Later they burned them. In their graves there were zoned beakers (Fig. 33), but of a late type in which the neck is distinguished from the belly, or vases derived from these beakers . . . The grave goods comprised buttons with a V-shaped boring, flint and copper daggers, arrow-heads, and flat perforated pieces of schist which are "bracers", or bowman's wristguards. The skeletons were of a new type: tall, with round heads of a fairly constant shape, the brow receding, the supraciliary ridge prominent, the cheek-bones highly developed, and the jaws massive and projecting so as to present a dip at the base of the nose. I have already described them as one of the types represented in Celtic burials.
The association of the physical type of this people with the beaker has led British anthropologists to call it the Beaker Folk . . . In Scotland they were accompanied by other brachycephals, with a higher index and of Alpine type. In general they advanced from south to north and from east to west, and their progress lasted long enough for there to be a very marked difference in furniture between their oldest and latest tombs.
. . . Their progress was a conquest. It is evident that they subdued and assimilated the previous occupants of the country." (pp.171-173).