Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b

[Megalophias]

Did we ever get a satisfactory explanation of the Puerto Rican R-L389 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L389/)* example?
Well, "statistical fluke" is never a satisfactory explanation, but sometimes that's what it is. One of the Kura-Araxes ancient samples did belong to the same clade.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Well, "statistical fluke" is never a satisfactory explanation, but sometimes that's what it is. One of the Kura-Araxes ancient samples did belong to the same clade.

But we can attribute it to his presumably Spanish (~south European) Patrilineage ?

[Megalophias]

But we can attribute it to his presumably Spanish (~south European) Patrilineage ?

I guess so :noidea:

[Gravetto-Danubian]

I guess so :noidea:

In which case it's not really a fluke, as side & basal R1b lineages keep popping up in southern Europe, although L51/ BB didn't expand from there (for whom it was probably east-central Europe).

[lgmayka]

One of the Kura-Araxes ancient samples did belong to the same clade.
Where do you see that? According to Ancestral Journeys (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml), one 4000-year-old Kura-Araxes sample from Armenia tested R1b1-M415 (xM269). YFull calls that same clade R-L278 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L278/). If we assume that this Kura-Araxes sample had further SNPs that are now unreadable, it is most likely V88+ . R-V88 is mysterious in itself--it, too, separated from the others about 17,000 years ago--but R-V88 is entirely separate from R-L389*.

[rms2]

If we are assuming the Puerto Rican's L389* is attributable to his likely Spanish ancestry, and if, as Gravetto-Danubian says, "side & basal R1b lineages keep popping up in southern Europe", then I wonder what other odd bits pop up in southern Europe, and if all or most of these kinds of results can be attributed to the cosmopolitan nature of the Roman Empire, which moved people about from far flung regions within its orbit.

[smal]

Where do you see that?

See here R1b-M343 (M269-) Phylogenetic Tree (http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/R1b-M343xM269%20Y-DNA%20tree_04_07_29_2016.pdf)
We already have the first BigY result from this subclade (46835 Mangino). It will be included in tree in next update.

[Jean M]

See here R1b-M343 (M269-) Phylogenetic Tree (http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/R1b-M343xM269%20Y-DNA%20tree_04_07_29_2016.pdf)
We already have the first BigY result from this subclade (46835 Mangino). It will be included in tree in next update.

I have updated my table accordingly, thank you.

[Megalophias]

In which case it's not really a fluke, as side & basal R1b lineages keep popping up in southern Europe, although L51/ BB didn't expand from there (for whom it was probably east-central Europe).
The fluke is that a very rare haplogroup turned up in a rather small sample of mixed ancestry. In such a case it is natural to suspect that the unusual haplogroup comes from its 'exotic' side. (Actually the 1000 Genomes Puerto Ricans seem to have no paternal Amerindian ancestry at all, though they do have ~10% Sub-Saharan African.)

[MitchellSince1893]

Double post

[MitchellSince1893]

Found this old map of R-M269+ R-L11- (middle map labeled R-xS127) from the Busby study. S127 = L11

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044/F2.large.jpg


As this thread is 276 pages long, it may have already been posted and discussed, but I'll state the obvious (which has probably been said many times before).

It's tempting to think L11 was born in the vicinity of the dark gray area over present day Romania and Bulgaria, living among his M269 cousins, and either he or his R-L11+ children went West while most of his male R-M269+ RxL11 relatives stayed behind.

On that same map the higher percentage areas over the Northeast Black Sea coast and Levant, makes me wonder if Adyghe/Circassian men would be high in R-M269+ RxL11.
FWIW, their homeland is within the ancient Maykop cultural boundaries.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Caucasus-ethnic_en.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture#/media/File:Maykop_culture-en.svg

[rms2]

There has been a lot of y-dna water under the bridge since the 3rd or 4th millennium BC. The steppe is like a super highway into Europe. Many wanderers have taken that route in from the East, and tides of peoples have ebbed and flowed over it.

I think it likely that L11 arose farther east than those modern maps would lead one to believe.

[alan]

The main take-home from modern L23 in Europe IMO is that there is a Z2103 zone and and an L51 zone. Obviously not absolute but surprisingly clear.

We of course should not try and project this division too far back because Z2103 was clearly as steppe lineage and very likely unknown west of the Dnieper or Dniester until Old Europe was collapsing. So essentially L23 probably had no distrubution at all in Europe outside the steppe until the fall of Old Europe and beyond.

So why is there a fairly sharp division between Z2103 and L51 even after 5000 years or more? There are several options

1. L51 is just a fluke founder effect where a guy from a minor lineage in a Z2103 population got very lucky as he headed further west than the rest

2. L51 was the first L23 lineage to leave the steppes and Z2103 arrived in later waves and essentially overlaid and erased L51 in east-central and Balkans Europe.

3. L51 actually left the steppes after Z2103 but leapfrogged it west.

Linguistics may support the idea that L51 was an early branch off in that the earlier dialects on the branch like Celtic, Italic and perhaps Germanic are most associated with L51 (L11) while Z2103 is attested in Yamnaya and relatively strong in areas formerly held by Dacians, Thracians, Greeks, Armenians, Albanian, Romanian etc. I think (this only applies to the east to west spread of IEs) that the possibility that L51 was first to spread west and is associated with the earliest branching of the European IE tree seems high.

Archaeologically we are hamstrung by not having any samples from the Ukraine from any steppe cultures of the period 4500-2600BC (if I recall correctly). We known that Z2103 dominated eastern Yamnaya but we have no idea if it dominated the Ukraine part of that culture. The linguistic associations today could suggest that Z2103 was not in western Yamnaya and not in the first wave to enter old Europe and that it was only later that Z2103 waves associated with later linguistic branches like Greek and perhaps most of the Palaeo-Balkans IE languages overlaid this area at L51's expense. If Z2103 was in the eastern part of Yamanaya then while L51 was in Ukraine Yamnaya then the latter could have initially blocked the former's expansion west. This wasnt the case to the east and to the south as ancient DNA has already noted Z2103 in the easternmost parts of Yamnaya.

Basically we need ancient yDNA from the steppe overspill of Yamnaya into east-central Europe and the Balkans (and from Ukraine of course). Only that will tell us what L51's relation to Yamnaya was.

There is one other undeniable implication in L51 and Z2103's distributions. L51 somehow developed the ability to expand beyond steppe-like lands in Old Europe and/or areas where Yamnaya culture spread. Z2103 in Europe looks more like a remnant (sometimes faint) of groups who never adapted to spread beyond the steppe-like areas that Yamnaya settled in.

While there are multiple options for how the L51 and Z2103 settlements worked, what order they came in etc BUT there is no denying that L51 (primarily L11) clearly developed the ability to settle outside steppe-like lands or the areas Yamanaya is attested. We cant answer the 'when' precisely enough because of the gap (both chronological and geographical) in quality well resolved ancient yDNA samples between the eastern part of the Yamnaya steppes c. 3300-2900BC and central European beaker after c. 2600-2500BC. We can only say L51 (L11) likely arrived in central Europe between those dates.

As to the why of this, L51 derivatives clearly had the ability to move much further into Europe than Z2103 generally could. This is almost certainly IMO indicative that L51 (L11) went through generations or centuries in contact with farmers and produced a substance strategy that took steppe and farming elements and blended them into a new system suitable for non-steppe like lands. That sounds awfully like Corded Ware but at present that is not a good fit from an ancient DNA perspective. However if not Corded Ware then surely in a culture where a similar blending of steppe and farming elements took place. You could probably draw a line showing the interface of steppe and farming around 3000BC and it is fairly likely that L51 (L11) spent time at the interface adapting.

The final big hint of the L51 story is that it didnt do a lot until after the L11 SNP. So, short of a major wipeout event/bottleneck in the L51 story pruning most of the branches, L11 probably provides the date when L51 suddenly expanded. If L11 could be dated closely enough then we could easily make a very short shortlist of cultures which match a large expansion starting at that date.

[alan]

There has been a lot of y-dna water under the bridge since the 3rd or 4th millennium BC. The steppe is like a super highway into Europe. Many wanderers have taken that route in from the East, and tides of peoples have ebbed and flowed over it.

I think it likely that L11 arose farther east than those modern maps would lead one to believe.

Its probably fair to say that European prehistory and post-Roman history has largely been a series of shunts from east to west. This view is sometimes criticised but essentially I think there is still a great deal of truth in this. So there are a lot of scenarios and many indications of shunting west and overlay/erasing from the east and hence I think in general today many yDNA distributions in Europe will be west of their positions and extents of the past, with the eastern part of their former extent largely erased. Off the beaten track, up mountains there may be exceptions but even there there has probably been several waves of refugees from the better lands fleeing the next wave of incomers.

[alan]

The main take-home from modern L23 in Europe IMO is that there is a Z2103 zone and and an L51 zone. Obviously not absolute but surprisingly clear.

We of course should not try and project this division too far back because Z2103 was clearly as steppe lineage and very likely unknown west of the Dnieper or Dniester until Old Europe was collapsing. So essentially L23 probably had no distrubution at all in Europe outside the steppe until the fall of Old Europe and beyond.

So why is there a fairly sharp division between Z2103 and L51 even after 5000 years or more? There are several options

1. L51 is just a fluke founder effect where a guy from a minor lineage in a Z2103 population got very lucky as he headed further west than the rest

2. L51 was the first L23 lineage to leave the steppes and Z2103 arrived in later waves and essentially overlaid and erased L51 in east-central and Balkans Europe.

3. L51 actually left the steppes after Z2103 but leapfrogged it west.

Linguistics may support the idea that L51 was an early branch off in that the earlier dialects on the branch like Celtic, Italic and perhaps Germanic are most associated with L51 (L11) while Z2103 is attested in Yamnaya and relatively strong in areas formerly held by Dacians, Thracians, Greeks, Armenians, Albanian, Romanian etc. I think (this only applies to the east to west spread of IEs) that the possibility that L51 was first to spread west and is associated with the earliest branching of the European IE tree seems high.

Archaeologically we are hamstrung by not having any samples from the Ukraine from any steppe cultures of the period 4500-2600BC (if I recall correctly). We known that Z2103 dominated eastern Yamnaya but we have no idea if it dominated the Ukraine part of that culture. The linguistic associations today could suggest that Z2103 was not in western Yamnaya and not in the first wave to enter old Europe and that it was only later that Z2103 waves associated with later linguistic branches like Greek and perhaps most of the Palaeo-Balkans IE languages overlaid this area at L51's expense. If Z2103 was in the eastern part of Yamanaya then while L51 was in Ukraine Yamnaya then the latter could have initially blocked the former's expansion west. This wasnt the case to the east and to the south as ancient DNA has already noted Z2103 in the easternmost parts of Yamnaya.

Basically we need ancient yDNA from the steppe overspill of Yamnaya into east-central Europe and the Balkans (and from Ukraine of course). Only that will tell us what L51's relation to Yamnaya was.

There is one other undeniable implication in L51 and Z2103's distributions. L51 somehow developed the ability to expand beyond steppe-like lands in Old Europe and/or areas where Yamnaya culture spread. Z2103 in Europe looks more like a remnant (sometimes faint) of groups who never adapted to spread beyond the steppe-like areas that Yamnaya settled in.

While there are multiple options for how the L51 and Z2103 settlements worked, what order they came in etc BUT there is no denying that L51 (primarily L11) clearly developed the ability to settle outside steppe-like lands or the areas Yamanaya is attested. We cant answer the 'when' precisely enough because of the gap (both chronological and geographical) in quality well resolved ancient yDNA samples between the eastern part of the Yamnaya steppes c. 3300-2900BC and central European beaker after c. 2600-2500BC. We can only say L51 (L11) likely arrived in central Europe between those dates.

As to the why of this, L51 derivatives clearly had the ability to move much further into Europe than Z2103 generally could. This is almost certainly IMO indicative that L51 (L11) went through generations or centuries in contact with farmers and produced a substance strategy that took steppe and farming elements and blended them into a new system suitable for non-steppe like lands. That sounds awfully like Corded Ware but at present that is not a good fit from an ancient DNA perspective. However if not Corded Ware then surely in a culture where a similar blending of steppe and farming elements took place. You could probably draw a line showing the interface of steppe and farming around 3000BC and it is fairly likely that L51 (L11) spent time at the interface adapting.

The final big hint of the L51 story is that it didnt do a lot until after the L11 SNP. So, short of a major wipeout event/bottleneck in the L51 story pruning most of the branches, L11 probably provides the date when L51 suddenly expanded. If L11 could be dated closely enough then we could easily make a very short shortlist of cultures which match a large expansion starting at that date.

I suppose that in short the story of L51 is really the story of L11. Whatever the date of L11, expansion sudden occurred with it after many many centuries of L51 doing very little (or experiencing a wipeout event). So accurately date the L11 SNP and a lot could be inferred. I dont know what the best date for L11 is but I guess it pre-dates central European beaker by at least a few centuries so must have started to expand in pre-beaker times in central European terms.

[ADW_1981]

Something happened in the LBK territory which caused a collapse and a rebound which seems to be linked to a mix of Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. If you look at the distribution of L11+ for example, it's almost exclusively north European in distribution, and we know that U106+ and P312+ aren't far removed from this location in likely point of origin. Due to the fact L51(xL11) and L11(xP312, xU106) aren't all that numerous it could be due to the fact they are part of the collapsed lineages rather than the recovery period. We have a relatively quick rebound shortly afterwards and pure growth period which accounts for U106 and P312 and their distributions to modern day.

[R.Rocca]

Found this old map of R-M269+ R-L11- (middle map labeled R-xS127) from the Busby study. S127 = L11

As this thread is 276 pages long, it may have already been posted and discussed, but I'll state the obvious (which has probably been said many times before).

It's tempting to think L11 was born in the vicinity of the dark gray area over present day Romania and Bulgaria, living among his M269 cousins, and either he or his R-L11+ children went West while most of his male R-M269+ RxL11 relatives stayed behind.

On that same map the higher percentage areas over the Northeast Black Sea coast and Levant, makes me wonder if Adyghe/Circassian men would be high in R-M269+ RxL11.
FWIW, their homeland is within the ancient Maykop cultural boundaries.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Caucasus-ethnic_en.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture#/media/File:Maykop_culture-en.svg

The problem is that map of R-M269+L11- represents, at minimum, three distinct branches all lumped together:

M269+PF7558+
L23+Z2103+
L23+L51+Z2118+

These three groups themselves have different STR variances.

[Jean M]

Reporting back on the lecture on Bell Beaker by Volker Heyd this evening in Dorchester. The expected two aDNA papers on Bell Beaker have been delayed for the best possible reason. The two teams, one from Harvard and the other from Copenhagen, have agreed to amalgamate their results into one huge paper, which will give the results of over 200 samples. It is due to be published in a couple of months. Until then all the results are embargoed. Volker Heyd would only say that they are exciting.

He would also prefer me not to divulge everything he said at the lecture on the archaeological side, since he has a paper coming out in the March issue of Antiquity on Bell Beaker; while in the same issue will be one by Kristiansen on Corded Ware. So I'll be brief. He went through the various theories of the origins of Bell Beaker: the Dutch model prevalent until the 1990s, the change wrought by the Muller and Van Willigen radiocarbon date compilation of 2001 and subsequent publications of early dates in Iberia, the various attempts to make sense of an Iberian origin. The problem of the latter and of the idea of a North African origin are the same in his view. There is no prior usage of cord in pottery decoration of either. So he sticks by the Yamnaya link to a pre-BB culture proposed in Harrison and Heyd 2007. The icing on the cake lies in two significant new discoveries, which are not entirely published as yet.

[Dewsloth]

I know I already clicked "thank you," but THANK YOU!

Now what shall we all argue about 'til Feb-March?

[MitchellSince1893]

Based on the comments from Jean M and rms2 in the other thread, http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6988-drought-of-ancient-DNA-papers-on-prehistoric-Europe-SW-Asia&p=200568&viewfull=1#post200568

and Alan's detailed posts in this thread; I felt compelled to improve my understanding of the "Kurgan people".

In the The three waves of the Kurgan People into Old Europe, 4500 -2500 BC by Gimbutas; I could see some of the R-M269+L11- in Romania and Bulgaria having as its source, the first (4400-4200 BC) and/or 2nd (3400-3200 BC) Kurgan wave, with R-L11 appearing in the 3rd Kurgan Wave (3000-2800 BC). The 2nd Kurgan Wave "was connected the North Pontic Majkop culture", while the 3rd wave was connected to Yamnaya culture.

As was pointed out by others, L11 may have originated further East in Western Yamnaya and been a later arrival than his R-M269+L11- brethren.

Some of you old-timers may remember this thread where we were calculating our EEF, WHG and ANE Admixture Proportions.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1781-Post-Your-EEF-WHG-and-ANE-Admixture-Proportions

At the time it baffled me why so many of us British ancestry types were getting close matches to Ukrainians. On the surface they seemed to have little in common.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1781-Post-Your-EEF-WHG-and-ANE-Admixture-Proportions&p=25205&viewfull=1#post25205

Maybe ancient ancestors from present day Ukraine had something to do with it.

[Lugus]

Reporting back on the lecture on Bell Beaker by Volker Heyd this evening in Dorchester. The expected two aDNA papers on Bell Beaker have been delayed for the best possible reason. The two teams, one from Harvard and the other from Copenhagen, have agreed to amalgamate their results into one huge paper, which will give the results of over 200 samples. It is due to be published in a couple of months. Until then all the results are embargoed. Volker Heyd would only say that they are exciting.

He would also prefer me not to divulge everything he said at the lecture on the archaeological side, since he has a paper coming out in the March issue of Antiquity on Bell Beaker; while in the same issue will be one by Kristiansen on Corded Ware. So I'll be brief. He went through the various theories of the origins of Bell Beaker: the Dutch model prevalent until the 1990s, the change wrought by the Muller and Van Willigen radiocarbon date compilation of 2001 and subsequent publications of early dates in Iberia, the various attempts to make sense of an Iberian origin. The problem of the latter and of the idea of a North African origin are the same in his view. There is no prior usage of cord in pottery decoration of either. So he sticks by the Yamnaya link to a pre-BB culture proposed in Harrison and Heyd 2007. The icing on the cake lies in two significant new discoveries, which are not entirely published as yet.

Does Volker Heyd know the results?

I assume they also did samples from Estremadura Bell Beaker, including YDNA. If so, and the genomes have decent coverage, this could be the end of the story.

[Net Down G5L]

12855

Edit:
Lost this quote when I inserted the image of stelae in the Ukraine:

Based on the comments from Jean M and rms2 in the other thread, http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6988-drought-of-ancient-DNA-papers-on-prehistoric-Europe-SW-Asia&p=200568&viewfull=1#post200568

and Alan's detailed posts in this thread; I felt compelled to improve my understanding of the "Kurgan people".

In the The three waves of the Kurgan People into Old Europe, 4500 -2500 BC by Gimbutas; I could see some of the R-M269+L11- in Romania and Bulgaria having as its source, the first (4400-4200 BC) and/or 2nd (3400-3200 BC) Kurgan wave, with R-L11 appearing in the 3rd Kurgan Wave (3000-2800 BC). The 2nd Kurgan Wave "was connected the North Pontic Majkop culture", while the 3rd wave was connected to Yamnaya culture.

As was pointed out by others, L11 may have originated further East in Western Yamnaya and been a later arrival than his R-M269+L11- brethren.

Some of you old-timers may remember this thread where we were calculating our EEF, WHG and ANE Admixture Proportions.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1781-Post-Your-EEF-WHG-and-ANE-Admixture-Proportions

At the time it baffled me why so many of us British ancestry types were getting close matches to Ukrainians. On the surface they seemed to have little in common.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1781-Post-Your-EEF-WHG-and-ANE-Admixture-Proportions&p=25205&viewfull=1#post25205

Maybe ancient ancestors from present day Ukraine had something to do with it.

[Lugus]

I was recently in Portugal and visited Leceia and Zambujal. Both places are based on the same topographical logic: a small headland falling into a small watercourse with easy access to the sea. In the case of Zambujal the ocean can actually be seen in the horizon.

I was also at the Lionel Trindade Museum in Torres Vedras (near Zambujal) where there's currently a special exhibition on the 50 years of activity of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in that area. Here are some pictures:

1285612857128581285912860

[Lugus]

Some of the pictures uploaded sidewise, sorry, I don't know how to fix it.

Here are two more pictures, one of them of Zambujal. The kid on the wall is my son.
1286112862

It's ironic that in the Torres Vedras' museum there was another exhibit about the Lines of Torres Vedras, which were successive lines of fortifications based on the fact that the Estremadura peninsula is protected by water from 3 sides. The very last line of fortifications was near Leceia and was meant to allow the evacuation of the British troops in case of defeat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lines_of_Torres_Vedras

[rms2]

Some of the pictures uploaded sidewise, sorry, I don't know how to fix it.

Here are two more pictures, one of them of Zambujal. The kid on the wall is my son.
1286112862

It's ironic that in the Torres Vedras' museum there was another exhibit about the Lines of Torres Vedras, which were successive lines of fortifications based on the fact that the Estremadura peninsula is protected by water from 3 sides. The very last line of fortifications was near Leceia and was meant to allow the evacuation of the British troops in case of defeat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lines_of_Torres_Vedras

For some reason, I could not open the photos you posted in the post above.

[Lugus]

For some reason, I could not open the photos you posted in the post above.

Thanks for telling me. Here they are again:

1286912870

[Jean M]

I was also at the Lionel Trindade Museum in Torres Vedras (near Zambujal) where there's currently a special exhibition on the 50 years of activity of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in that area. Here are some pictures:

I went there myself earlier this year and posted about it here, as you know: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8752-Exhibition-on-the-Copper-Age-castle-of-Zambujal-Portugal

Well worth a visit! :) Thanks for the pictures. You got some shots that are better than mine.

[Jean M]

Does Volker Heyd know the results?

Yes indeed. He said they were exciting. He was involved with both of the BB aDNA projects that have now been combined. I presume that he supplied bone samples to both from some of the BB sites that he has excavated.

[rms2]

Reporting back on the lecture on Bell Beaker by Volker Heyd this evening in Dorchester. The expected two aDNA papers on Bell Beaker have been delayed for the best possible reason. The two teams, one from Harvard and the other from Copenhagen, have agreed to amalgamate their results into one huge paper, which will give the results of over 200 samples. It is due to be published in a couple of months. Until then all the results are embargoed. Volker Heyd would only say that they are exciting.

He would also prefer me not to divulge everything he said at the lecture on the archaeological side, since he has a paper coming out in the March issue of Antiquity on Bell Beaker; while in the same issue will be one by Kristiansen on Corded Ware. So I'll be brief. He went through the various theories of the origins of Bell Beaker: the Dutch model prevalent until the 1990s, the change wrought by the Muller and Van Willigen radiocarbon date compilation of 2001 and subsequent publications of early dates in Iberia, the various attempts to make sense of an Iberian origin. The problem of the latter and of the idea of a North African origin are the same in his view. There is no prior usage of cord in pottery decoration of either. So he sticks by the Yamnaya link to a pre-BB culture proposed in Harrison and Heyd 2007. The icing on the cake lies in two significant new discoveries, which are not entirely published as yet.

Of course, I am really interested in y-dna, but I wonder if they have not turned up some Yamnaya-like autosomal dna in Iberian Bell Beaker. Ancient autosomal dna seems to be all the rage among these researchers now. I still prefer y-dna. It's much more straightforward, but it's nice to cover all the bases.

[Lugus]

Yes indeed. He said they were exciting. He was involved with both of the BB aDNA projects that have now been combined. I presume that he supplied bone samples to both from some of the BB sites that he has excavated.

So 2017 will be Bell Beaker year. I hope finally we'll know who those people were. I'll be happy with whatever answers we'll get.

[rms2]

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that what they have found is Yamnaya-like autosomal dna in Iberian Bell Beaker. Time will tell.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Perhaps I should have pasted this here first instead of the other thread. But I have to disagree with Marija;)

In his ""Families, Prestige Goods, Warriors & Complex Societies: Beaker Groups of the 3rd Millennium cal BC Along the Upper & Middle Danube", Heyd highlights two major things. One is his effort to delineate the BB East group from Mediterranean or early Atlantic BB. The second is that he suggests (IMO) that the BB East group might have arrived to central Europe via southern Poland & eastern Moravia , northern Hungary perhaps also playing a role, also highlighting that the easternmost tip of Austria. This suggests a trail of Proto-East-Beaker traits. He doesn't really mention Vucedol.
Lastly, he highlights that BB "begins" in Danube Germany , Moravia etc c. 2500 BC.

Recalling Durman's article on Vucedol, it begins by 3000 BC (in Croatia), but it's similarity to BB develops later, after 2500 BC, with the interlinked Mako culture, occurring due to the arrival of BB Csepel from further up then Danube.
Also, genetically, BB Germany doesn't look like it's had a 'secondary Vucedol homeland', but instead a group of Yamnaya people with already some German MNE input.

It thus seems to me at least, that BB East pastoralists arrived to central Europe directly from Late classic Yamnaya, after CWC had already expanded there from Poland. Whilst we can see steppe-(early Croatian) Vucedol links (3000BC) and later secondary BB-(classic) Vucedol (2500BC) links, it doesn't seem that Vucedol is a the genesis of BB East, but some group of far western Yamnayans directly, consisting of some 25 -50 households and their heads, just before Yamnaya itself disappears from Hungary and the Balkans.

From its new base in Central Europe, they expanded further west (eg as illustrated at Sioni).
I haven't speculated about what might have been happening in southern Iberia, but the appearance of single inhumations with prestigious metals there is c. 23/2200 BC.

[Dewsloth]

So 2017 will be Bell Beaker year. I hope finally we'll know who those people were. I'll be happy with whatever answers we'll get.

Even if they look like my avatar? ;)

[rms2]

. . .
I haven't speculated about what might have been happening in southern Iberia, but the appearance of single inhumations with prestigious metals there is c. 23/2200 BC.

From what I recall reading somewhere (wish I could remember where), this new Beaker paper will not include any of the really old Iberian stuff but goes back only to about 2500 BC. I could be wrong about that.

[Jean M]

In his ""Families, Prestige Goods, Warriors & Complex Societies: Beaker Groups of the 3rd Millennium cal BC Along the Upper & Middle Danube", Heyd highlights two major things. One is his effort to delineate the BB East group from Mediterranean or early Atlantic BB. The second is that he suggests (IMO) that the BB East group might have arrived to central Europe via southern Poland & eastern Moravia , northern Hungary perhaps also playing a role, also highlighting that the easternmost tip of Austria. This suggests a trail of Proto-East-Beaker traits.

Lastly, he highlights that BB "begins" in Danube Germany , Moravia etc c. 2500 BC.

As Dr Heyd says in this paper:


...The Corded Ware/Single Grave Cultures, and finally the Bell Beaker Culture, follow in a third stage from the first quarter of the 3rd millennium cal BC. The latter expand[s] – emerging from the Iberian Peninsula according to current research – towards the east in a fourth stage, reaching Britain and Ireland, Central Europe, and the central Mediterranean by 2500 cal BC. It is now common knowledge that this Bell Beaker phenomenon does not represent a homogeneous unit, but splits into at least four supra-regional groupings. Of these, the Central European, or Bell Beaker East Group, is the focus of this study.

He is not saying that the earliest BB anywhere in Europe is 2500 BC. He is not saying that BB begins with BB East. He knew perfectly well in 2007 that the earliest dates discovered up to then were in Iberia. It would all be beautifully simple and straightforward if the earliest dates for BB were in Danube Germany. That would have saved us all thousands of words. :biggrin1:

[rms2]

I am wondering how they can solve the BB riddle without testing the very earliest Iberian BB remains.

[rms2]

Another thing: what about Bell Beaker in the Isles? Can we expect this much anticipated paper to include any of that? Man, I would really love to see some results from the Amesbury Archer.

[rms2]

. . .

Recalling Durman's article on Vucedol, it begins by 3000 BC (in Croatia), but it's similarity to BB develops later, after 2500 BC, with the interlinked Mako culture, occurring due to the arrival of BB Csepel from further up then Danube . . .

I'm no archaeologist or ancient pottery expert, but it seems to me certain aspects of BB's resemblance to Vucedol show that it wasn't that Vucedol developed a similarity to BB but vice versa.

12871

[Jean M]

Another thing: what about Bell Beaker in the Isles? Can we expect this much anticipated paper to include any of that? Man, I would really love to see some results from the Amesbury Archer.

Wessex Archaeology gave samples (including from AA) to one of three projects which wanted them. I don't know which one. But since two big projects have now amalgamated, the odds seem pretty good on getting some DNA from him in the big paper.

[rms2]

Sorry to post so many times in a row, but I am wondering about that R1b-M343 in need of further testing from the Vucedol period and the Lánycsók cemetery in Hungary (Szécsényi-Nagy et al, 2015). That one is supposed to date to around 2800 BC and likely belonged to the Vucedol culture.

[rms2]

Wessex Archaeology gave samples (including from AA) to one of three projects which wanted them. I don't know which one. But since two big projects have now amalgamated, the odds seem pretty good on getting some DNA from him in the big paper.

Oh, I hope so, and I hope the coverage is excellent.

[Chad Rohlfsen]

Perhaps I should have pasted this here first instead of the other thread. But I have to disagree with Marija;)

In his ""Families, Prestige Goods, Warriors & Complex Societies: Beaker Groups of the 3rd Millennium cal BC Along the Upper & Middle Danube", Heyd highlights two major things. One is his effort to delineate the BB East group from Mediterranean or early Atlantic BB. The second is that he suggests (IMO) that the BB East group might have arrived to central Europe via southern Poland & eastern Moravia , northern Hungary perhaps also playing a role, also highlighting that the easternmost tip of Austria. This suggests a trail of Proto-East-Beaker traits. He doesn't really mention Vucedol.
Lastly, he highlights that BB "begins" in Danube Germany , Moravia etc c. 2500 BC.

Recalling Durman's article on Vucedol, it begins by 3000 BC (in Croatia), but it's similarity to BB develops later, after 2500 BC, with the interlinked Mako culture, occurring due to the arrival of BB Csepel from further up then Danube.
Also, genetically, BB Germany doesn't look like it's had a 'secondary Vucedol homeland', but instead a group of Yamnaya people with already some German MNE input.

It thus seems to me at least, that BB East pastoralists arrived to central Europe directly from Late classic Yamnaya, after CWC had already expanded there from Poland. Whilst we can see steppe-(early Croatian) Vucedol links (3000BC) and later secondary BB-(classic) Vucedol (2500BC) links, it doesn't seem that Vucedol is a the genesis of BB East, but some group of far western Yamnayans directly, consisting of some 25 -50 households and their heads, just before Yamnaya itself disappears from Hungary and the Balkans.

From its new base in Central Europe, they expanded further west (eg as illustrated at Sioni).
I haven't speculated about what might have been happening in southern Iberia, but the appearance of single inhumations with prestigious metals there is c. 23/2200 BC.

Right. The Rarecoal results with 20% German MN input by 2300-2100BCE suggests that they were essentially identical to Corded Ware when arriving around Germany.

[Heber]

I understand that Soares has access to the significant Iberian BB samples from Alentejo, Perdigoes and Carrer Paris and is working with Reich Lab on these.
Pala, Soares and Richards acknowledged David Reich for access to his unpublished work. P375, CFTW3.
I assume this (combined 200 samples) is what Haak meant when he emphasized "massive" and "unfolding" for the next phase on BB discovery.
I suspect we will find CHG and R1b in SW Iberian BB. CHG contributed ~50% to Yamnaya.
I suspect the Alpine and Mediterranean route from Caucasus will be key as described by Koch who referenced the work of Heyd.
Whatever the result and whatever the data tells us it is going to be a very interesting read.

https://www.academia.edu/8299894/Indo-European_from_the_east_and_Celtic_from_the_west_re conciling_models_for_languages_in_later_prehistory

12875

Volker Heyd
From Yamnaya to Bell Beakers: Mechanisms of Transmission in an
Interconnected Europe, 3500–2000 BC

John T. Koch
Indo-European in Atlantic Europe at the proto-historic horizon and
before: some recent work and its possible implications

So Heyd, Koch, Reich, Haak, Lazaridis, Allentoft, Krause and others contributed to last years Jena conference which led to Krause latest Hybrid Model.

http://www.shh.mpg.de/105713/LAG2015_MPISHH_Programme_draft4.pdf

12876

https://www.academia.edu/22767854/2016_Elements_for_the_definition_of_the_Bell_Beake r_horizon_in_the_lower_Ebro_Valley_preliminary_app roaches

[rms2]

. . .
I suspect we will find CHG and R1b in SW Iberian BB. CHG contributed ~50% to Yamnaya . . .

CHG by itself? What would that prove? That R1b went to Iberia from the Caucasus?

Where is the CHG in Bell Beaker except as part of an autosomal resemblance to Yamnaya?

[Heber]

CHG by itself? What would that prove? That R1b went to Iberia from the Caucasus?

Where is the CHG in Bell Beaker except as part of an autosomal resemblance to Yamnaya?

CHG is a significant contributor to Yamnaya:

"CHG genomes significantly contributed to the Yamnaya steppe herders who migrated into Europe ∼3,000 BC, supporting a formative Caucasus influence on this important Early Bronze age culture. CHG left their imprint on modern populations from the Caucasus and also central and south Asia possibly marking the arrival of Indo-Aryan languages."

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912

CHG is a significant contributor to the Irish Rathlin Bell beaker samples (~4,000 ya).
R1b-L21-DF21 was also found in the Rathlin samples with continuity to modern day populations.

"First, from ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 1), we examined the green Caucasus
(CHG) ancestry component. We presume an ultimate source of this as
the Yamnaya where it features at a proportion of 40% of their
total ancestry. In our three Irish Bronze Age samples, it is present
at levels between 6–13%, which, when scaled up to include the
remaining 60% of Yamnaya ancestry, imply a total of 14–33%
Yamnaya ancestry and therefore 67–86% MN in the Irish Bronze
Age."

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/2/368.abstract

CHG is also the principal component in my Metal Age Invader in FTDNA ancient European Origins, and this is typical of an Irish result.
So while ~12% of my aDNA is Caucasus related via the Steppes which may have migrated via the Atlantic Zone, the vast majority came from the EEF and WHG components which probably did migrate via the Atlantic Zone along with my mtDNA H1 component.

I have no reason to doubt that CHG will also be found in Bell Beaker in Iberia 4,000 ya.
I suspect R1b-DF27 will also be found there mirroring the continuity found in Ireland.
So looking forward to the new paper to clarify these points.

[rozenfeld]

Wessex Archaeology gave samples (including from AA) to one of three projects which wanted them. I don't know which one. But since two big projects have now amalgamated, the odds seem pretty good on getting some DNA from him in the big paper.

One project is Harvard, another is Copenhagen, what is the third one?

[Gravetto-Danubian]

As Dr Heyd says in this paper:



He is not saying that the earliest BB anywhere in Europe is 2500 BC. He is not saying that BB begins with BB East. He knew perfectly well in 2007 that the earliest dates discovered up to then were in Iberia. It would all be beautifully simple and straightforward if the earliest dates for BB were in Danube Germany. That would have saved us all thousands of words. :biggrin1:

I guess id take your point if it actually addressed mine, but it doesn't, because I didn't suggest that ALL BB began on the Danube 2500 BC. Rather, if you go back and read carefully, I pointed that the BB East group emerges in Alpine Europe c.2500 BC (which it undoubtedly does), both fully "immersed" within the BB phenomenon yet of apparent Yamnaya origins, which is 100% supported by aDNA. BB East (Germany/ Czech) is a done deal, little to debate here.

Contemporaneously, or even earlier, there was also a "BB phenomenon" in Iberia, which so far looks to be the product of 'Middle Neolithic central-west European folk" (Alpine/ Italian Copper making traditions, collective megaliths, enclosures, etc); unless of course the aDNA shows some surprises. We might get a mini paper in Jan with more aDNA from Iberia ;)

The idea of warrior burials seems to have spread from the BB East group to those west of the Rhine - in the paper you earlier linked "although the evolution of the relationship between metal and funerary rituals during the Copper and Bronze Age is complex, recent research has revealed some general trends: from the greater presence of symbolic elements in the collective burials of the Copper Age, with metal (copper and gold) being somewhat unrelated to the exhibition of personal social status, towards the more personalized grave goods of the Early Bronze Age often in individual tombs (although not universally, since there is an important casuistry of reusing old collective burial chambers), with a greater presence of weapons and gold objects from c. 2300–2200 cal BC and a rise in personal copper and silver-based adornment items around c. 1800 cal. BC (Costa Caramé et al. in press).""

[Huitzilopochtli]

What are peoples' guesses about when and how Yamnaya ancestry entered Western Europe? Was it before the spread of Bell Beaker of after? Did R1b migrate before or after R1a?

[Generalissimo]

CHG is also the principal component in my Metal Age Invader in FTDNA ancient European Origins, and this is typical of an Irish result.

Come on, be more objective. This test is complete nonsense as it gives higher Metal Age Invader scores to Southern Europeans than to Northern and Eastern Europeans, and totally ignores EHG and ANE.

Whatever your preferred pet theory, you need to remain sober and critical.

[ArmandoR1b]

I can't wait for the results. Then most of the speculation will end.

[Jean M]

One project is Harvard, another is Copenhagen, what is the third one?

I was not told anything at all about the three projects which requested samples. Nothing. No names, no clues. I am guessing that one was Harvard and another Copenhagen. We could all make guesses as to the third, but guesses are all we have right now.

[Jean M]

Contemporaneously, or even earlier, there was also a "BB phenomenon" in Iberia, which so far looks to be the product of 'Middle Neolithic central-west European folk" (Alpine/ Italian Copper making traditions, collective megaliths, enclosures, etc); unless of course the aDNA shows some surprises.

Until we get the big BB aDNA paper, nothing is set in stone on the genetic side and debate can of course remain open here.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Until we get the big BB aDNA paper, nothing is set in stone on the genetic side and debate can of course remain open here.

Preaching to the Choir !

[Heber]

I was not told anything at all about the three projects which requested samples. Nothing. No names, no clues. I am guessing that one was Harvard and another Copenhagen. We could all make guesses as to the third, but guesses are all we have right now.

I would guess Bradley or Pinhasi. Bradley has x10s samples from the Isles mainly Ireland and Pinhasy ~1000 samples from Eurasia mainly Europe.

[Jean M]

I would guess Bradley or Pinhasi. Bradley has x10s samples from the Isles mainly Ireland and Pinhasy ~1000 samples from Eurasia mainly Europe.

Or could be Pedro Soares and Martin Richards. We just don't know.

[Romilius]

I would guess Bradley or Pinhasi. Bradley has x10s samples from the Isles mainly Ireland and Pinhasy ~1000 samples from Eurasia mainly Europe.

And I remember that prof. Bradley said he had 30 samples cca of Irish remains to be tested... until now we have only 4 samples tested: 1 from Neolithic and the 3 from Rathlin.

[razyn]

Or could be Pedro Soares and Martin Richards. We just don't know.
Isn't their canoe still being paddled in the opposite direction from that of Reich, Lazaridis and Willerslev? For me, it's hard to see how their respective positions could be blended into one big BB paper, and the resulting boat actually get anywhere beyond the slip-slop, backwash, reflux type narrative. Hybrid models are OK, but at some point, someone's presuppositions are clearly mistaken and need to be corrected. aDNA should win that argument; but the argument itself was in place before we had uniparental aDNA of the male Copper Age incomers, and it does not go quietly.

[rms2]

CHG is a significant contributor to Yamnaya:

"CHG genomes significantly contributed to the Yamnaya steppe herders who migrated into Europe ∼3,000 BC, supporting a formative Caucasus influence on this important Early Bronze age culture. CHG left their imprint on modern populations from the Caucasus and also central and south Asia possibly marking the arrival of Indo-Aryan languages."

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912

CHG is a significant contributor to the Irish Rathlin Bell beaker samples (~4,000 ya).
R1b-L21-DF21 was also found in the Rathlin samples with continuity to modern day populations.

"First, from ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 1), we examined the green Caucasus
(CHG) ancestry component. We presume an ultimate source of this as
the Yamnaya where it features at a proportion of 40% of their
total ancestry. In our three Irish Bronze Age samples, it is present
at levels between 6–13%, which, when scaled up to include the
remaining 60% of Yamnaya ancestry, imply a total of 14–33%
Yamnaya ancestry and therefore 67–86% MN in the Irish Bronze
Age."

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/2/368.abstract

CHG is also the principal component in my Metal Age Invader in FTDNA ancient European Origins, and this is typical of an Irish result.
So while ~12% of my aDNA is Caucasus related via the Steppes which may have migrated via the Atlantic Zone, the vast majority came from the EEF and WHG components which probably did migrate via the Atlantic Zone along with my mtDNA H1 component.

I have no reason to doubt that CHG will also be found in Bell Beaker in Iberia 4,000 ya.
I suspect R1b-DF27 will also be found there mirroring the continuity found in Ireland.
So looking forward to the new paper to clarify these points.

Generalissimo already answered you, but you missed my questions entirely.

Let me repeat them:

CHG by itself? What would that prove? That R1b went to Iberia from the Caucasus?

Where is the CHG in Bell Beaker except as part of an autosomal resemblance to Yamnaya?

Your non-answer above makes my point: "contributed to", "contributor", "component". CHG is only part of the Yamnaya or Yamnaya-like autosomal dna story: the part apparently contributed by females derived from the Caucasus.

As Generalissimo said, it completely ignores ANE and EHG.

I like FTDNA, but its "Metal Age Invader" thing is bogus, as one can see by comparing the results that have been posted here at Anthrogenica.

[Jean M]

Isn't their canoe still being paddled in the opposite direction from that of Reich, Lazaridis and Willerslev?

Possibly. I couldn't say where they are positioned currently. All I'm saying is that:


Two BB aDNA projects have been combined. These are those of the Harvard and Copenhagen teams. This fact was revealed by Dr Heyd.
A Wessex Archaeology spokeman revealed to me that Wessex was approached by three separate projects (no names, no details given) wanting samples from the Amesbury Archer. His and other Wessex samples were sent to the project that was felt to be most likely to produce a (relatively) prompt and academically satisfactory publication with the results. I do not know which that was, but I would guess one of the two that have now been combined i.e. Harvard and Copenhagen, since they both have impressive publication records.


I have no current reason to think that the Soares and Richards study has been combined with the other two.

[Dewsloth]

I like FTDNA, but its "Metal Age Invader" thing is bogus, as one can see by comparing the results that have been posted here at Anthrogenica.

Their Farmer category also so grossly oversimplifies things, I wouldn't trust that test to tell me anything meaningful. I'm half Lebanese and the test says I'm "0% Non-European."
It seems to have slipped their minds that some of those neolithic farmers might have stayed home.

[vettor]

Their Farmer category also so grossly oversimplifies things, I wouldn't trust that test to tell me anything meaningful. I'm half Lebanese and the test says I'm "0% Non-European."


Its called "ancient origins".............when does "Ancient" stop, at the end of the Roman Empire ?.............clearly they have a system that they test which excludes everything after 400AD

The other is "myOrigins" which IIRC is about oneself for the last 1800 years

I doubt their tests, the same as I doubt all admixture tests in Gedmatch ...............they all have a start and end date

[Net Down G5L]

I would guess Bradley or Pinhasi. Bradley has x10s samples from the Isles mainly Ireland and Pinhasy ~1000 samples from Eurasia mainly Europe.

My understanding is that both labs in the combined Beaker paper had access to Irish samples and we will now get an integrated analysis. Having looked through my notes of the Volker Heyd lecture again I noted that he "hopes that the paper will be out within the next two months".

[Net Down G5L]

My personal hope is that the Bell Beaker paper also samples late Neolithic pre-bell beaker material so we can see what changes took place with Beaker arrival.

We know the early and middle Neolithic story to a degree. When it comes to the Isles the late Neolithic period 3000-2450BC is very interesting. Outside the Isles we had Stelae that may have been in advance of Beaker as Jean has written about and discussed with us over the years.
I have previously raised the Neolithic round barrows in the Isles.... .and at the risk of repeating myself to a degree...... J. R. Mortimer's Duggleby Howe paper of 1905 has recently been digitised and is available at:

http://https://ia800208.us.archive.org/30/items/fortyyearsresea00mortgoog/fortyyearsresea00mortgoog.pdf (https://ia800208.us.archive.org/30/items/fortyyearsresea00mortgoog/fortyyearsresea00mortgoog.pdf)

In a nutshell below the round barrow at Duggleby Howe are Middle Neolithic remains typical of those in long barrows. At a higher level - at the time the round barrow was constructed, a second set of burials took place (with later cremation insertions into that round barrow). Recent studies by Gibson and others have dated the second group of burials and construction of the round barrow at about 2900BC. Analysis of the skeletons and skulls in 1905 suggested that the (2,900BP) skulls were very different to the typical earlier (early/middle Neolithic) 'long barrow type skulls'. Also that they were closer to but not the same as the bronze age round barrow skulls. they concluded the skulls represented a 'new racial group'.
So...the most interesting results for me would be comparison of the 2900BP 'new racial group' skulls with the Beaker skulls that arrived in the Isles 500 years later. The autosomal and YDNA comparison would be of huge interest to me.
Did this 'new racial group' of people have a CHG componant or are is their DNA identical to middle Neolithic samples...or something different again? And why did they adopt Kurgan style burials - was it co-incidence or was there influence/input from the Steppe.

I personally think that the 3000-2450BC story in the Isles is just as interesting as the arrival of Beaker and the related transition through the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age and I am just as keen to see aDNA from that period. I believe we will never fully understand Bell Beaker until we understand what was happening immediately before.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

^^ very interesting
I always find myself going back to an article by Dorian Fuller: "Did Neolithic farming Fail.."

They conclude that there was a significant population drop and shift to pastoralism in Britain c 3350 BC.

[Huitzilopochtli]

^^ very interesting
I always find myself going back to an article by Dorian Fuller: "Did Neolithic farming Fail.."

They conclude that there was a significant population drop and shift to pastoralism in Britain c 3350 BC.

If the population drop is as late as 3350 B.C. couldn't it plausibly be the result of the first IEs to reach the island?

[Gravetto-Danubian]

If the population drop is as late as 3350 B.C. couldn't it plausibly be the result of the first IEs to reach the island?

All is possible, but it's tempting to link it to the "WHG bounce back" phenomenon seen in the mainland at this same time (indeed, these Neolithic British barrows probably belong to the same phenomenon as seen in France and northern europe) Early, heavily crop focused farmers (Hg G, H2) came, boomed and then declined as they overused the soil, +/- climate warming. They'd managed to intermix with native foragers, who then adapted traits of farming but also maintained their own economies as well (chestnuts, hunting, elements of pastoralism, etc). A certain amount of conflict also occurred , as a lot of mass graves are seen just c 4000 BC.
Then steppe people came along, going by the current evidence from Central Germany, it was after 3000 BC (c. 2500 BC to be precise).

[Net Down G5L]

If the population drop is as late as 3350 B.C. couldn't it plausibly be the result of the first IEs to reach the island?

Rasmussen 2015 Early Divergent Strains of Yersinia pestis in Eurasia 5,000 Years Ago
"From our findings, we conclude that the ancestor of extant Y. pestis strains was present by the end of the 4th millennium BC and was widely spread across Eurasia from at least the early 3rd millennium BC. The occurrence of plague in the Bronze Age Eurasian individuals we sampled (7 of 101) indicates that plague infections were common at least 3,000 years earlier than recorded historically. However, based on the absence of crucial virulence genes, unlike the later Y. pestis strains that were responsible for the first to third pandemics, these ancient ancestral Y. pestis strains likely did not have the ability to cause bubonic plague, only pneumonic and septicemic plague. These early plagues may have been responsible for the suggested population declines in the late 4th millennium BC and the early 3rd millennium BC (Hinz et al., 2012, Shennan et al., 2013)."

The Rasmussen Y Pestis positive samples are later...but....see their conclusion above...

[Net Down G5L]

Rasmussen 2015 Early Divergent Strains of Yersinia pestis in Eurasia 5,000 Years Ago
" These early plagues may have been responsible for the suggested population declines in the late 4th millennium BC and the early 3rd millennium BC (Hinz et al., 2012, Shennan et al., 2013)."

The Rasmussen Y Pestis positive samples are later...but....see their conclusion above...

Shennan 2013 Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe

From the discussion:

" It is possible that some of these regional declines represent out-migration to neighbouring areas rather than a real decline in numbers, for example, from the Paris Basin into Britain, but, in some cases, for example, Ireland, Scotland and Wessex, it is very clear that the rising and falling trends are roughly synchronous with one another there is little indication of one going up as the others go down. On present evidence the decline in the initially raised population levels following the introduction of agriculture does not seem to be climate-related, but of course this still leaves open a variety of possible causes that remain to be explored in the future. One possibility is disease, as the reference to the Black Death above implies, although this would have to be occurring on multiple occasions at different times in different places, given the patterns shown. It is perhaps more likely that it arose from endogenous causes; for example, rapid population growth driven by farming to unsustainable levels, soil depletion or erosion arising from early farming practices, or simply the risk arising from relying on a small number of exploitable species32".

12896

[TigerMW]

...
Linguistics may support the idea that L51 was an early branch off in that the earlier dialects on the branch like Celtic, Italic and perhaps Germanic are most associated with L51 (L11) while Z2103 is attested in Yamnaya and relatively strong in areas formerly held by Dacians, Thracians, Greeks, Armenians, Albanian, Romanian etc. I think (this only applies to the east to west spread of IEs) that the possibility that L51 was first to spread west and is associated with the earliest branching of the European IE tree seems high.

.... quality well resolved ancient yDNA samples between the eastern part of the Yamnaya steppes c. 3300-2900BC and central European beaker after c. 2600-2500BC. We can only say L51 (L11) likely arrived in central Europe between those dates.

As to the why of this, L51 derivatives clearly had the ability to move much further into Europe than Z2103 generally could. This is almost certainly IMO indicative that L51 (L11) went through generations or centuries in contact with farmers and produced a substance strategy that took steppe and farming elements and blended them into a new system suitable for non-steppe like lands. That sounds awfully like Corded Ware but at present that is not a good fit from an ancient DNA perspective. However if not Corded Ware then surely in a culture where a similar blending of steppe and farming elements took place. You could probably draw a line showing the interface of steppe and farming around 3000BC and it is fairly likely that L51 (L11) spent time at the interface adapting.

The final big hint of the L51 story is that it didnt do a lot until after the L11 SNP. So, short of a major wipeout event/bottleneck in the L51 story pruning most of the branches, L11 probably provides the date when L51 suddenly expanded. If L11 could be dated closely enough then we could easily make a very short shortlist of cultures which match a large expansion starting at that date.


Reporting back on the lecture on Bell Beaker by Volker Heyd this evening in Dorchester.
...
There is no prior usage of cord in pottery decoration of either. So he sticks by the Yamnaya link to a pre-BB culture proposed in Harrison and Heyd 2007. The icing on the cake lies in two significant new discoveries, which are not entirely published as yet.

I emboldened the selected quotes above. Given L51+ L11- is hard to find have we been assuming too much about Corded Ware ancient DNA finds?

Could R1b-L51 have come around the horn of the Carpathian Mountain range on the north side? In this case the L11 expansion didn't really blast off until Southern Poland, Hungary, Austria, the Czech Republic.

This would make the lower Danube Valley south of the Carpathians a red herring as far as L11 is concerned and mean Anthony's PIE version is somewhat off on the Italo-Celtic language development route.

It doesn't feel likely that the L51 lineage that was truly the ancestor of L11 came around via the Ukraine to Poland but it gnaws at me. This would align nicely with the whole Bell Beaker-Corded Ware fusion-fission thing.

Who impacted who the most? Were the post fusion-fission Beakers in Central-Western Europe more like the Eastern Beaker folks or Corded Ware? at least as far as male related items?

[razyn]

Could R1b-L51 have come around the horn of the Carpathian Mountain range on the north side? In this case the L11 expansion didn't really blast off until Southern Poland, Hungary, Austria, the Czech Republic.

This would make the lower Danube Valley south of the Carpathians a red herring as far as L11 is concerned and mean Anthony's PIE version is somewhat off on the Italo-Celtic language development route.

In that regard, I continue to have trouble with the assumption, or at least expectation, that this is a Mediterranean movement that went west first and then eventually north, whether by squeezing the cows etc. through the Iron Gates, or by conquering the Alps from Italy. (As Ötzi and those G haplogroup guys had been doing all along, but w/o the cows.) The expectation was most recently expressed on this thread, I think, by Heber: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=200771&viewfull=1#post200771 I may be reading a little too much into what he actually said. But the big blue arrow labeled 4800 in the Krause "Hybrid model" (found in that same post) looks more like the northern route you are discussing than any sort of Mediterranean trade.

I'm not unaware that such southern routes existed, and were in some eras important. But the old Celtic-sounding Iberian inscriptions (in Phoenician letters) that Koch discusses are Tartessian, aren't they? Anyhow, way later than the first L11+ Bell Beaker aDNA that's already been found in Germany, etc.

[rms2]

My personal hope is that the Bell Beaker paper also samples late Neolithic pre-bell beaker material so we can see what changes took place with Beaker arrival.

We know the early and middle Neolithic story to a degree. When it comes to the Isles the late Neolithic period 3000-2450BC is very interesting. Outside the Isles we had Stelae that may have been in advance of Beaker as Jean has written about and discussed with us over the years.
I have previously raised the Neolithic round barrows in the Isles.... .and at the risk of repeating myself to a degree...... J. R. Mortimer's Duggleby Howe paper of 1905 has recently been digitised and is available at:

http://https://ia800208.us.archive.org/30/items/fortyyearsresea00mortgoog/fortyyearsresea00mortgoog.pdf (https://ia800208.us.archive.org/30/items/fortyyearsresea00mortgoog/fortyyearsresea00mortgoog.pdf)

In a nutshell below the round barrow at Duggleby Howe are Middle Neolithic remains typical of those in long barrows. At a higher level - at the time the round barrow was constructed, a second set of burials took place (with later cremation insertions into that round barrow). Recent studies by Gibson and others have dated the second group of burials and construction of the round barrow at about 2900BC. Analysis of the skeletons and skulls in 1905 suggested that the (2,900BP) skulls were very different to the typical earlier (early/middle Neolithic) 'long barrow type skulls'. Also that they were closer to but not the same as the bronze age round barrow skulls. they concluded the skulls represented a 'new racial group'.
So...the most interesting results for me would be comparison of the 2900BP 'new racial group' skulls with the Beaker skulls that arrived in the Isles 500 years later. The autosomal and YDNA comparison would be of huge interest to me.
Did this 'new racial group' of people have a CHG componant or are is their DNA identical to middle Neolithic samples...or something different again? And why did they adopt Kurgan style burials - was it co-incidence or was there influence/input from the Steppe.

I personally think that the 3000-2450BC story in the Isles is just as interesting as the arrival of Beaker and the related transition through the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age and I am just as keen to see aDNA from that period. I believe we will never fully understand Bell Beaker until we understand what was happening immediately before.

Gimbutas discusses those round, mostly single grave mounds in her book, The Civilization of the Goddess, and I brought that up again yesterday, over here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6988-drought-of-ancient-DNA-papers-on-prehistoric-Europe-SW-Asia&p=201026&viewfull=1#post201026).

[Jean M]

What are peoples' guesses about when and how Yamnaya ancestry entered Western Europe? Was it before the spread of Bell Beaker of after?

My guess in Ancestral Journeys (2013) was that people of Yamnaya descent entered Western Europe where they later developed Bell Beaker. Dr Heyd has the same idea. But we are still awaiting published evidence for or against the genetics of this in the form of ancient DNA.

[TigerMW]

My guess in Ancestral Journeys (2013) was that people of Yamnaya descent entered Western Europe where they later developed Bell Beaker. Dr Heyd has the same idea. But we are still awaiting published evidence for or against the genetics of this in the form of ancient DNA.
Hopefully, they will analyze down two levels younger than L51 in their study. I think the uncovering of L51+ L11- versus L11+ ancient skeletons is important. This could tell us a lot about the complexity and timing of the expansion of L11.

From my perspective the real story is to understand the routes and timing of L11 through P312 (L21, DF27, U152, DF19, DF99, L238) and U106.

I tried to communicate this to Haak but even though he is very excited he divulged little information and took the "less is more" route in terms of replies. Either that or he didn't want to waste his time with me. I get it. :)

[Dewsloth]

Hopefully, they will analyze down two levels younger than L51 in their study. I think the uncovering of L51+ L11- versus L11+ ancient skeletons is important. This could tell us a lot about the complexity an timing of the expansion of L11.

From my perspective the real story is to understand the routes and timing of L11 through P312 (L21, DF27, U152, DF19, DF99, L238) and U106.

I tried to communicate this to Haak but even though he is very excited he divulged little information and took the "less is more" route in terms of replies. Either that or he didn't want to waste his time with me. I get it. :)

I am reasonably optimistic it's the former. :)

[Net Down G5L]

All is possible, but it's tempting to link it to the "WHG bounce back" phenomenon seen in the mainland at this same time (indeed, these Neolithic British barrows probably belong to the same phenomenon as seen in France and northern europe) Early, heavily crop focused farmers (Hg G, H2) came, boomed and then declined as they overused the soil, +/- climate warming. They'd managed to intermix with native foragers, who then adapted traits of farming but also maintained their own economies as well (chestnuts, hunting, elements of pastoralism, etc). A certain amount of conflict also occurred , as a lot of mass graves are seen just c 4000 BC.
Then steppe people came along, going by the current evidence from Central Germany, it was after 3000 BC (c. 2500 BC to be precise).

Been thinking about this and yes it does correlate with the Brandt 2013 WHG bounce back and 'two thirds of the archaeology; fits nicely. However, there seems to be mixed in a new steppe like component in the Kurgan like features.

So could we in fact have an early Steppe input to the WHG society. Could the WHG society have been more resistant to Steppe disease. Could the steppe disease have weakened the farming society / caused population crashes.

Could this be what allowed whg/atlantic re-expansion and a period where Orkney / Boyne Valley / Stonehenge united with the symbolic movement of the bluestone circle from west to east (to stonehenge).

[ffoucart]

All is possible, but it's tempting to link it to the "WHG bounce back" phenomenon seen in the mainland at this same time (indeed, these Neolithic British barrows probably belong to the same phenomenon as seen in France and northern europe) Early, heavily crop focused farmers (Hg G, H2) came, boomed and then declined as they overused the soil, +/- climate warming. They'd managed to intermix with native foragers, who then adapted traits of farming but also maintained their own economies as well (chestnuts, hunting, elements of pastoralism, etc). A certain amount of conflict also occurred , as a lot of mass graves are seen just c 4000 BC.
Then steppe people came along, going by the current evidence from Central Germany, it was after 3000 BC (c. 2500 BC to be precise).

It does also means that WHG and Early Farmers coexisted in various geographical areas. It could be guessed that farming was more or less limited to "pockets" of land, while other parts were populated by HG (forests, mountains,...).

But I don't think we've got many sites found for the later.

[razyn]

So could we in fact have an early Steppe input to the WHG society. Could the WHG society have been more resistant to Steppe disease. Could the steppe disease have weakened the farming society / caused population crashes.
A few years ago (I believe, on the now-defunct DNA-Forums; maybe on the WorldFamilies forum for R1b, or Eupedia) there was a little chatter about cowpox. The people who had had it would have been more resistant to smallpox than a population that hadn't yet tamed cattle. I forget whether the dairy pastoralist types had come in late (early Bronze Age) from the steppe, or much earlier from Mesopotamia. Anyway the theory was a little more specifically about steppe antibodies than steppe pathogens, as such. I'm not sure we agreed whether it was correct. Did that get incorporated into JeanM's Ancestral Journeys?

[Heber]

Two interesting reviews here:

http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/200-ancient-bell-beaker-genomes-to-be.html

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/200-bell-beaker-genomes-tea-leaves.html

and some chatter speculating on a January (or earlier) Preprint.
Cassidy et al gave us a nice New Years Eve present last year.:).

http://pin.it/ObVHxar

[Jean M]

A few years ago (I believe, on the now-defunct DNA-Forums; maybe on the WorldFamilies forum for R1b, or Eupedia) there was a little chatter about cowpox. The people who had had it would have been more resistant to smallpox than a population that hadn't yet tamed cattle. I forget whether the dairy pastoralist types had come in late (early Bronze Age) from the steppe, or much earlier from Mesopotamia. Anyway the theory was a little more specifically about steppe antibodies than steppe pathogens, as such. I'm not sure we agreed whether it was correct. Did that get incorporated into JeanM's Ancestral Journeys?

I don't mention cowpox or smallpox. Some other cross-species diseases get a mention: brucellosis, tuberculosis and leishmaniasis.

Cattle first arrived in Europe with the early farmers. They did not come from Mesopotamia. Farming first arose across the hilly lands to the north of same. The general idea at the time I wrote was that the early farmers in the Near East kept cattle for beef. There might be a bit of milking when cows were in calf, but dairy farming (keeping predominently for milk) came later (part of the Secondary Products Revolution). So I suggested a later wave into Europe of specifically dairy farmers. Farming came late to the British Isles and Scandinavia, which seemed to explain why they were dairy farming from the first arrival of farming in these regions. However more evidence of early milking in the Near East and elsewhere keeps cropping up. So I've been making notes in case this chapter needs a major revision in the next edition.

[Jean M]

Two interesting reviews here:

Ye gods! I have responded to the Bell Beaker Blogger:


Amazing how people can misinterpret what I write. Where am I going wrong? Thanks to Davidski for riding to the rescue above. Here follows more clarification.

The two papers in the March issue of Antiquity will be on archaeology. They were requested as an archaeological response to the aDNA papers that came out last year regarding the Yamnaya and related cultures, which found a Yamnaya genetic element in both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. The paper by Heyd will not copy or revisit any paper of the 1970s, not even one by his former colleague Harrison. It will be bang up to date, and aiming to take us further than Harrison and Heyd 2007 (which was not remotely a repeat or revisiting of Harrison 1974).

The paper by Kristian Kristiansen will be on Corded Ware - a culture also known in places as Single Grave Culture. It was not confined to the Netherlands. Far from it. Nor can I see any reason for Kristian Kristiansen to confine himself to any one part of its massive range.

[Amerijoe]

Ye gods! I have responded to the Bell Beaker Blogger:

Now you have spend 72 hrs. in protected isolation. :laugh: Joe

[Jean M]

Now you have spend 72 hrs. in protected isolation.

I should probably have said nothing at all in the first place.

[Heber]

Parker Pearson, Mike and Chamberlain, Andrew and Jay, Mandy and Richards, Mike and Sheridan, Alison and Curtis, Neil and Evans, Jane and Gibson, Alex and Hutchison, Margaret and Mahoney, Patrick and Marshall, Peter and Montgomery, Janet and Needham, Stuart and O'Mahoney, Sandra and Pellegrini, Maura and Wilkin, Neil (2016)

'Bell Beaker people in Britain : migration, mobility and diet.', Antiquity., 90 (351). pp. 620-637

"The skeletal remains of 264 individuals in Britain (Figure 1) from that period (c.2500 BC– 1500 cal BC) have been analysed, as part of the Beaker People Project (BPP), for isotope ratios (strontium, oxygen, sulphur, nitrogen and carbon), radiocarbon-dating, osteology and dental microwear. The sample ranges geographically from the north of mainland Scotland to the Wessex heartland of southern England. The BPP was accompanied by a smaller, regional
project in northeast Scotland – the Beakers & Bodies Project (Curtis & Wilkin 2012) – and the full results of both will be published together (Parker Pearson et al. forthcoming). The BPP is the first large-scale strontium and oxygen isotope investigation of human skeletons excavated from across Britain, aiming to establish whether the Bell Beaker people were immigrant groups (Childe 1929: 194–6) or indigenous converts to a ‘Beaker package’ of cult practices and prestige goods (Burgess & Shennan 1976).

The earliest dates for Bell Beakers in the second quarter of the third millennium BC have been obtained in Iberia and southern France (Müller & van Willigen 2001). Yet across much of the rest of Europe the Bell Beaker phenomenon was not present until the middle of that millennium. Their earliest appearance in Britain was relatively late, with no cases dateable to before 2500 BC."

"Our research demonstrates a considerable degree of mobility between childhood and death, most of it probably within Britain and persisting over many centuries. Almost a third of the sampled population provide evidence that they were buried in a geological region different to that in which they grew up. Some regions show considerable evidence for inward migration, notably the Peak District, whilst others such as central England show virtually none."

http://dro.dur.ac.uk/17046/1/17046.pdf?DDD6+wmfr25+d700tmt

Perhaps some of the 200 BB came from this collection.

[Jean M]

Perhaps some of the 200 BB came from this collection.

I would think it highly likely, but obviously we just have to wait to find out.

[Jean M]

Thank goodness The Bell Beaker Blogger has distracted us with news from another source: http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/once-upon-time-in-west-dna-roth-2016.html

Ancient mtDNA may not be exactly what we want, but it is better than nothing.

Roth, Christina, Once upon a time in the West : paleogenetic analyses on Mesolithic to Early Bronze Age individuals from the Iberian Peninsula, Dissertation, Mainz : Univ. 236 Seiten, 2016: https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/frontdoor.php?source_opus=100000815&la=en

Abstract


While the amount of ancient Iberian genetic data has increased over the last years, few studies have focused on population dynamic processes beyond the immediate period of the Neolithic transition. In this study, the Iberian dataset was enlarged by SNP-based haplogroup information for 249 new Mesolithic to Early Bronze Age individuals and 187 reproduced HVR I sequences. These new data allow confident insights into post-Neolithisation population dynamic processes on the Iberian Peninsula and make it possible to compare the development of Iberian and Central European groups over a time span of about 4,000 years.

The results of this study reveal a strong genetic regionalization of Iberian groups throughout the Neolithic and partially in the Chalcolithic. A considerable amount of hunter-gatherer maternal heritage persisted during the Iberian Early Neolithic. The greatest amount of “Neolithic” lineages/haplogroups (HV, J, K, N1a, T2, V, and X) has been found in Northeast Spain and Aragón, suggesting these regions were the main entrance for Neolithic lineages into the Iberian Peninsula, while the amount of mitochondrial hunter-gatherer influence increases with growing distance from these regions, pointing to various forms of Neolithic transitions on the Iberian Peninsula. In some areas genetic continuity between Early and Late Neolithic seems highly likely (Ebro Valley) while other regions show large genetic differences to the preceding period (Central Portugal, Northern Meseta). Central Iberian Bell Beaker groups are genetically distinct to most other Chalcolithic groups.

Although a substantial number of Early Neolithic Iberian individuals share direct sequence hits to contemporary individuals of the Central European Linear pottery culture, the amount of hunter-gatherer mitochondrial heritage is considerably greater in all regions of the Iberian Peninsula than in Central Europe. No genetic connection between Iberian and Central European Bell Beakers or the Corded Ware culture could be found. When focusing on the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroup H, differences between the Iberian Peninsula and the groups from other parts of Europe were recognizable. In the Iberian samples set only sub-haplogroups H1 and H3 could be identified. While H1 was present in all Early and Later Neolithic groups from Central and Western Europe, H3 shows strong Western European affinities and is not detectable in Central Europe before the Middle Neolithic. While no strong differences in sub-haplogroup H variability among Iberian groups of different epochs could be detected, a clear shift between Central Europe´s Early and Middle Neolithic is recognizable.

[Jean M]

Meanwhile I have only just found Around the Petit-Chasseur Site in Sion (Valais, Switzerland) and New Approaches to the Bell Beaker Culture ed. Marie Besse (Archaeopress 2014): http://www.archaeopress.com/Public/displayProductDetail.asp?id={A632C561-3DE9-43A4-B1A2-DEA258F87703}

It is telling me how wrong I have been about various things. It includes a critique of Harrison and Heyd 2007.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Meanwhile I have only just found Around the Petit-Chasseur Site in Sion (Valais, Switzerland) and New Approaches to the Bell Beaker Culture ed. Marie Besse (Archaeopress 2014): http://www.archaeopress.com/Public/displayProductDetail.asp?id={A632C561-3DE9-43A4-B1A2-DEA258F87703}

It is telling me how wrong I have been about various things. It includes a critique of Harrison and Heyd 2007.

I might get it
But anything in particular you found different to your earlier views ? (The straight to south Iberia view?)

[Jean M]

I might get it

It is freely available from academia.edu


But anything in particular you found different to your earlier views ?

I have barely had time to skim bits of it, let alone digest. There is a discussion of horses and Bell Beaker on pages 166-7 which looks distinctly more complex than I had envisaged, with a suggestion of horse-hunting in places. In fact it is suggested to be part of a pattern of hunting for prestige, which I suppose we could link to the archery equipment. Must get some sleep....

[Dewsloth]

Interesting. Are they using domesticated horses while hunting wild horses or is this on the edge of hunting>domestication?

[Heber]

This is consistent with Brotherton and Brandt and a West to East expansion of Bell Beaker from Iberia with MtDNA H.

Once upon a time in the West : paleogenetic analyses on Mesolithic to Early Bronze Age individuals from the Iberian Peninsula

"When focusing on the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroup H, differences between the Iberian Peninsula and the groups from other parts of Europe were recognizable. In the Iberian samples set only sub-haplogroups H1 and H3 could be identified. While H1 was present in all Early and Later Neolithic groups from Central and Western Europe, H3 shows strong Western European affinities and is not detectable in Central Europe before the Middle Neolithic. While no strong differences in sub-haplogroup H variability among Iberian groups of different epochs could be detected, a clear shift between Central Europe´s Early and Middle Neolithic is recognizable."

https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/frontdoor.php?source_opus=100000815&la=en

https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/volltexte/2016/100000815/pdf/100000815.pdf

http://pin.it/OyCMPxg

Brotherton
Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2656

Brandt
Ancient DNA reveals key stages in the formation of central European mitochondrial genetic diversity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24115443

[ffoucart]

Roth doesn't back an expansion from Iberia to Central Europe (demic diffusion). She considers that genetic evidence dismiss this possibility.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

It is freely available from academia.edu



Thank you. There were some strong words in the refutation to Harrison & Heyd Abstract. It was a long and complex sequence enough without getting into a refutation of a refutation :confused:. I'd be interested in what you make of it, when rested.

[Jean M]

There were some strong words in the refutation to Harrison & Heyd Abstract. It was a long and complex sequence enough without getting into a refutation of a refutation :confused:

Too horribly true. Actually I was told some time ago that Gallay did not agree with Harrison and Heyd 2007, but was not given the details. I have only just caught up with this 2014 publication in English of papers from the conference of 2011. Now I will need to mull it over.

[rms2]

This is consistent with Brotherton and Brandt and a West to East expansion of Bell Beaker from Iberia with MtDNA H . . .

If that's true, this is an odd thing for Roth to write:



No genetic connection between Iberian and Central European Bell Beakers or the Corded Ware culture could be found.

If H expanded eastward from Iberia with Bell Beaker, shouldn't there be some genetic connection between Iberian Bell Beaker and Central European Bell Beaker in terms of mtDNA?

[Arch]

Yeah, them R1b-L51 couldn't figure out how to go south. It was an impossible dream so they settled for going north.

[rms2]

Yeah, them R1b-L51 couldn't figure out how to go south. It was an impossible dream so they settled for going north.

You are aware that the topic of the last several posts is Roth's dissertation, which concerns itself with mtDNA rather than y-dna, are you not?

And Heber mentioned movement from west to east.

[rms2]

This is consistent with Brotherton and Brandt and a West to East expansion of Bell Beaker from Iberia with MtDNA H . . .


If that's true, this is an odd thing for Roth to write:



No genetic connection between Iberian and Central European Bell Beakers or the Corded Ware culture could be found.



If H expanded eastward from Iberia with Bell Beaker, shouldn't there be some genetic connection between Iberian Bell Beaker and Central European Bell Beaker in terms of mtDNA?

ffoucart supplies the following quote from Roth's dissertation (p.148) here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9255-Once-Upon-a-Time-in-the-West-quot-DNA-%28Roth-2016%29&p=201564&viewfull=1#post201564):



Genetic evidence available so far can therefore dismiss an Iberian origin of the Bell
Beaker phenomenon with demic distribution into Central Europe – at least on mitochondrial
level; one will have to await what Y-chromosomal or autosomal ancient DNA data will show.
Anyway, one should not forget that one of these theories may very well be true for the
distribution of the pottery itself, the incision style or any other archaeological assemblage via
acculturation phenomena.

[Jessie]

I can't wait for this issue to be sorted. It has been ongoing for years. It will be so wonderful when these results are released. Hopefully they will be definitive.

[rms2]

1. Bell Beaker had (in Gimbutas' words) a kurgan culture that could not have originated in Iberia.

2. Thus far it appears to have been characterized mainly by a y haplogroup (R1b-L23) that did not originate in Iberia.

3. Ancient Bell Beaker remains thus far have included a significant steppe autosomal component.

4. And now Roth says the mtDNA evidence is against a demic expansion of Bell Beaker eastward out of Iberia.

So, what are we to conclude?

[Jessie]

1. Bell Beaker had (in Gimbutas' words) a kurgan culture that could not have originated in Iberia.

2. Thus far it appears to have been characterized mainly by a y haplogroup (R1b-L23) that did not originate in Iberia.

3. Ancient Bell Beaker remains thus far have included a significant steppe autosomal component.

4. And now Roth says the mtDNA evidence is against a demic expansion of Bell Beaker eastward out of Iberia.

So, what are we to conclude?

I think there are a lot of people that have quite a good idea following where the evidence is going. It has been obvious for a while that the genetics anyway don't support an Iberian origin so this big study should be extremely interesting. I'll just be happy if the puzzle is finally solved.

[Isidro]

I am not sure what does it mean "not support for an Iberian origin". It has been on the record and for many years that certain sizable group of fans of genetics do not support an Iberian origin no matter what age we are talking about, which is fine, eventually everything will become clearer with time.

This latest genetic disclosure people are starting to spread about the disconnection between BB from Iberia and Central Europe is just one of many.
Getting a closer look and without any agenda, let's examine what the paper says in it's totality. It is talking about a uniparental marker, MTDNA in this case and enclosed in the movements of mitochondrial H1 and H3.

We could deduce from it if the results stick 3 things:

Pots are not women
Cultural, not demic diffusion seems to get a stronghold
If there was people movement from Iberia to C Europe it points to a Y-chromosome facilitator

[ADW_1981]

I am not sure what does it mean "not support for an Iberian origin". It has been on the record and for many years that certain sizable group of fans of genetics do not support an Iberian origin no matter what age we are talking about, which is fine, eventually everything will become clearer with time.

This latest genetic disclosure people are starting to spread about the disconnection between BB from Iberia and Central Europe is just one of many.
Getting a closer look and without any agenda, let's examine what the paper says in it's totality. It is talking about a uniparental marker, MTDNA in this case and enclosed in the movements of mitochondrial H1 and H3.
We could deduce from it if the results stick 3 things:

Pots are not women
Demic diffusion seems to get a stronghold
If there was people movement from Iberia to C Europe it points to a Y-chromosome facilitator

Yet autosomally it doesn't seem that way when we look at Rathlin genomes for instance. The clear connection is between central Europe (Germany) and NW Europe. That distinction remains today.

[razyn]

Pots are not women
We are not on the same side of the larger argument, but that's a good one.

[Isidro]

I don't think we are on the same side of anything for many years Razin but I celebrate your openness.

[Isidro]

Yet autosomally it doesn't seem that way when we look at Rathlin genomes for instance. The clear connection is between central Europe (Germany) and NW Europe. That distinction remains today.

Autosomals can be like abstract paintings subject to interpretations, although we have to deal with about 40% EEF in Central Europe and a lot of unknowns so far.

I wonder if we fed into a supercomputer ALL (not just aDNA) the info available what it would come up with.

[ADW_1981]

Autosomals can be like abstract paintings subject to interpretations, although we have to deal with about 40% EEF in Central Europe and a lot of unknowns so far.

I wonder if we fed into a supercomputer ALL (not just aDNA) the info available what it would come up with.

According to the evidence presented in this paper (http://www.pnas.org/content/113/2/368.full), the Bronze Age migrations arrived in Britain and Ireland from the cultures of Central Europe that superseded LBK. Unless we can somehow formulate an argument that R1b was a hunter-gatherer lineage that was pushed out of Iberia by the Iberian Cardial farming cultures and didn't absorb any admixture, wound up in Germany, and then suddenly absorbed LBK admixture and then found their way to UK/Ireland.... It doesn't seem like a reasonable or likely scenario.

[vettor]

If that's true, this is an odd thing for Roth to write:



If H expanded eastward from Iberia with Bell Beaker, shouldn't there be some genetic connection between Iberian Bell Beaker and Central European Bell Beaker in terms of mtDNA?

True and what about

KC553986(KAR6a) Brotherton Haplogroup H1bz 23-APR-2013
G1N A2N T3N C4N A5N C6N A7N G8N G9N T10N
C11N T12N A263G A750G A1438G G1719A G3010A C3107N A4769G A8860G
C14380T A15326G T16519C G16558N A16559N C16560N A16561N T16562N C16563N
A16564N
C16565N G16566N A16567N T16568N G16569N

found by Brotherton in 2013 aged 7000 years ago in Central germany ...................where did this come from

or another

KC553988(KAR16a) Brotherton Haplogroup H46b 23-APR-2013
G1N A2N T3N C4N A5N C6N A7N G8N G9N T10N
C11N T12N A263G A750G A1438G C2772T C3107N A4769G A8860G A11893G
A15326G T16519C G16558N A16559N C16560N A16561N T16562N C16563N A16564N
C16565N
G16566N A16567N T16568N G16569N

both are confirmed in GenBank as per their ID numbers


Clearly it is a bold statement for anyone to claim that the Iberian H ( mtdna ) populated Central Europe

[rms2]

I am not sure what does it mean "not support for an Iberian origin".

Roth explained what she meant:



Genetic evidence available so far can therefore dismiss an Iberian origin of the Bell
Beaker phenomenon with demic distribution into Central Europe – at least on mitochondrial
level . . .



It has been on the record and for many years that certain sizable group of fans of genetics do not support an Iberian origin no matter what age we are talking about, which is fine, eventually everything will become clearer with time.

The implication is that there are some really rabid anti-Iberianists out there. That may be true, but there aren't many of them. I don't know of any.

Some of us objected to the old R1b-in-the-Iberian-Ice-Age-Refuge idea, but that wasn't based on any bias against Iberia. We just didn't believe the evidence supported that idea.

When it comes to Bell Beaker, there are problems with a simple, straightforward, out-of-Iberia approach. There are also problems with a simple, straightforward, out-of-eastern-Europe approach. Bell Beaker is an enigma. We're just trying to figure it out.



. . .

We could deduce from it if the results stick 3 things:

Pots are not women

Pots are not men either.



Cultural, not demic diffusion seems to get a stronghold

Roth identifies that as a possibility:


Anyway, one should not forget that one of these theories may very well be true for the distribution of the pottery itself, the incision style or any other archaeological assemblage via acculturation phenomena.

Maybe the pots spread somewhat independently of the people who first made them.



If there was people movement from Iberia to C Europe it points to a Y-chromosome facilitator

Except that thus far the predominant y haplogroup among the Bell Beaker people is R1b-L23 (with some P312, including U152, DF27 and L21), which is Eastern European in origin. It's absent from Iberia before the Bronze Age, at least thus far, so it isn't likely it spread from Iberia eastward, just the reverse.

[razyn]

Pots are not women.


Pots are not men either.

Isidro was riffing on "Pots are not people." Roth's mtDNA study is pretty specifically about women, so if it rules out the mass migration of anything, it's not "people." I think the distinction, in four words, is pretty apt. JeanM and others have pointed out that the Atlantic style beaker pottery has little finger impressions that appear to be those of female potters (as would be expected anyhow). Probably, we are actually learning something, here; we just need to be careful about what that is.

[rms2]

Isidro was riffing on "Pots are not people" . . .

I got that, but it's important to remember that pots are not men either.

[rms2]

I got that, but it's important to remember that pots are not men either.

I was in kind of a hurry when I made that post, so let me explain. What I meant is that "Pots are not women" implies "but they could be men", i.e., that if women had little or no hand in the expansion of Bell Beaker out of Iberia, perhaps men did the job instead.

If men spread Bell Beaker out of Iberia, and if those men were R1b-L23, then they came to Iberia from the steppe first, so the sequence of events would be 1) steppe, 2) Iberia, 3) eastward out of Iberia.

I suspect some other scenario, honestly. Perhaps the eponymous beakers were simply traded eastward out of Iberia, and the kurgan-type of Bell Beaker people were strictly an eastern European product. I still find it odd that the very early Iberian Bell Beaker people were buried in Neolithic-type collective graves, without weapons, etc., and that they were so physically different from later Bell Beaker people.

[Isidro]

Roth explained what she meant:





The implication is that there are some really rabid anti-Iberianists out there.
I am not sure about rabid...but there are some people that have a huge problem having their Y-DNA branch descendant from Iberia and what it implies for their identity, especially (and this is my opinion), have an issue having a ancestral branch coming from the so called third world countries.

Some of us objected to the old R1b-in-the-Iberian-Ice-Age-Refuge idea, but that wasn't based on any bias against Iberia.
I recall before aDNA and over a decade ago, was it you that plastered non-Basque origin on every other thing that you posted, and probably still are.

When it comes to Bell Beaker, there are problems with a simple, straightforward, out-of-Iberia approach. There are also problems with a simple, straightforward, out-of-eastern-Europe approach. Bell Beaker is an enigma. We're just trying to figure it out.
I agree

Except that thus far the predominant y haplogroup among the Bell Beaker people is R1b-L23 (with some P312, including U152, DF27 and L21), which is Eastern European in origin. It's absent from Iberia before the Bronze Age, at least thus far, so it isn't likely it spread from Iberia eastward, just the reverse.
To call BB R1b-L23 predominantly and of Eastern European origin and absent from Iberia before the Bronze Age knowing what we know is more than short sighted, is totally biased in my opinion, but of course you have the right to it but it has little to no value on it's own.

[rms2]

To call BB R1b-L23 predominantly and of Eastern European origin and absent from Iberia before the Bronze Age knowing what we know is more than short sighted, is totally biased in my opinion, but of course you have the right to it but it has little to no value on it's own.

It is neither shortsighted nor biased, because thus far Bell Beaker y-dna has been mostly R1b-L23, with no non-R at all, and Bell Beaker autosomal dna has contained a significant Yamnaya-like component. R1b-L23 itself gives every indication of being of Eastern European origin. Its oldest exemplars have been found in Eastern Europe, and thus far there is no sign it was present in Europe west of the Dnieper before the Late Copper Age/Early Bronze Age.

As for the Bell Beaker culture itself, it buried its important dead singly in pits (yama), with weapons, horse bones, etc., the whole covered by a large round tumulus. Bell Beaker was a horse-borne kurgan-type culture that could not have arisen anywhere in western Europe but appears to be derived from Yamnaya.

Those things are matters of evidence, a big part of actually "knowing what we know".

[Il Papà]

It is neither shortsighted nor biased, because thus far Bell Beaker y-dna has been mostly R1b-L23, with no non-R at all, and Bell Beaker autosomal dna has contained a significant Yamnaya-like component. R1b-L23 itself gives every indication of being of Eastern European origin. Its oldest exemplars have been found in Eastern Europe, and thus far there is no sign it was present in Europe west of the Dnieper before the Late Copper Age/Early Bronze Age.

As for the Bell Beaker culture itself, it buried its important dead singly in pits (yama), with weapons, horse bones, etc., the whole covered by a large round tumulus. Bell Beaker was a horse-borne kurgan-type culture that could not have arisen anywhere in western Europe but appears to be derived from Yamnaya.

Those things are matters of evidence, a big part of actually "knowing what we know".

I think Bell beaker are not diverging from Yamnaya but from an earlier Indo-European culture like possibly "Sredny Stog" but it may as well be another one. Just look at L51 coalescence time, the period where Yamna culture appear and the absence of L51 in Yamna.

[rms2]

I think Bell beaker are not diverging from Yamnaya but from an earlier Indo-European culture like possibly "Sredny Stog" but it may as well be another one. Just look at L51 coalescence time, the period where Yamna culture appear and the absence of L51 in Yamna.

We have no ancient y-dna from western Yamnaya, that is, Yamnaya west of the Don. In other words, we have no ancient y-dna from the Pontic steppe but only from the Caspian steppe.

So, it is only correct to say we have no R1b-L51 from eastern Yamnaya, and it may yet turn up even in eastern Yamnaya. But it was western Yamnaya that actually moved west of the Dnieper.

[vettor]

I was in kind of a hurry when I made that post, so let me explain. What I meant is that "Pots are not women" implies "but they could be men", i.e., that if women had little or no hand in the expansion of Bell Beaker out of Iberia, perhaps men did the job instead.



If we note from Haak 2010 paper and moving through brotherton 2013 and continue to the latest papers, what we have for early-neolitihic LBK are the following ( maybe I have some HG's missing )
ydna = G2a, T1a and H2 ..............we also have the I group

Mtdna = T2, J, K, U5a, W, N1a and V

your "pots are not women " out of Iberia is correct , but it does not exclude that .....women from the east or elsewhere played a part in potting..........
and too imply that the BB where only R1b men poses a question of ..............what pots where made in the LBK farming times pre BB?

Clearly farmers needed pots regardless of what period in time .................once you know one method of pot making, one can easily learn another "style" of other pots from different pot makers.

[rms2]

"Pots are not women" was not my aphorism; it was Isidro's. The point was really Roth's: that, as far as ancient Bell Beaker mtDNA can show, the genetic evidence does not support the idea that Bell Beaker expanded eastward to Central Europe from Iberia.

No one was saying women played no role in Bell Beaker or in making the famous beakers.

[MitchellSince1893]

Maybe "pots are like tobacco". i.e. it was a highly desired commodity that spread westward from its origin, but the original users didn't spread with it.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

The idea of Beakers and Amphora comes from the east anyway (TRB, GAC, CWC), so it isn't really an issue.
It's just that one particular type of Pot derives from Portuguese Copos has seemed to have monopolized discussion, to this point; combined with inflated C14 dates from Iberia and prior confusion about Bell Beaker aspects being inserted into earlier collective burials.
Not only are the idea of single burials, and most Ceramics, new to the southwest, but there is also a distinctive settlement shift between late Neolithic and BB west of the Rhine, whilst to the east it is more of a gradual transition (Pg 127 (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qKSVAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA7&dq=Similar+but+Different:+Bell+Beakers+in+Europe%2 2&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Similar%20but%20Different%3A%20Bell%20Beakers%20 in%20Europe%22&f=true)).

[Jean M]

Not only are the idea of single burials, and most Ceramics, new to the southwest...

I'm not with you. Ceramics arrived in Iberia with the early Neolithic farmers. The point that Dr Heyd was making was simply that cord decoration was not present on this Neolithic pottery. The use of cord in pottery decoration arrived in Europe with the Mesolithic pottery from Siberia. It crops up in subsequent varieties of European steppe pottery. Then it appears in Corded Ware and Bell Beaker pottery. This is a point that I made in Ancestral Journeys. In fact I pointed out that there are several aspects of Bell Beaker pottery that find exact predecents on the steppe and/or up the Danube with Yamnaya.


... one particular type of Pot derives from Portuguese Copos ...

Some authors have argued a derivation of BB from the Copper Age "copos" (themselves an intrusion), but I was not convinced, as I said in AJ. When visiting Zambujal, I was able to take a close look at the "copos", and could see the reasoning better than before, but the fact remains that they did not have the cord decoration.

My feeling was that the Bell Beaker pottery combined various elements to be found in Yamnaya and the cultures with which it came in contact when moving up the Danube, and that these filtered along the trading routes set up by people of Yamnaya descent, to come together finally in a trading hub on the Tagus, centuries after the first copper-workers arrived. But we shall have to await the new papers to find out whether I was right or not.

[GailT]

If H expanded eastward from Iberia with Bell Beaker, shouldn't there be some genetic connection between Iberian Bell Beaker and Central European Bell Beaker in terms of mtDNA?

I don't think you can draw any firm conclusions based on the mtDNA analysis in this study. First, they assume that H and N* represent hunter-gatherers. Second, they do not analyze the full sequence. For migrations of BB, it would be very difficult to resolve population migrations even using full sequence results because of the very slow mtDNA mutation rate. I hope the auotosomal DNA will be much more useful when it is available.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

I'm not with you. Ceramics arrived in Iberia with the early Neolithic farmers. The point that Dr Heyd was making was simply that cord decoration was not present on this Neolithic pottery. The use of cord in pottery decoration arrived in Europe with the Mesolithic pottery from Siberia. It crops up in subsequent varieties of European steppe pottery. Then it appears in Corded Ware and Bell Beaker pottery. This is a point that I made in Ancestral Journeys. In fact I pointed out that there are several aspects of Bell Beaker pottery that find exact predecents on the steppe and/or up the Danube with Yamnaya.


Yes I think few people wouldn't know that ceramics came with the 'Neolithic package', all the more given that I mentioned the pre-BB Cops in the very same breath.
As you say, what I referring to is the "idea' of "beaker' and 'amphorae' style ceramics first became 'fashionable' in Europe with the GAC, and CWC (if their name didn't give it away), and specifically the cord decoration.



Some authors have argued a derivation of BB from the Copper Age "copos" (themselves an intrusion), but I was not convinced, as I said in AJ. When visiting Zambujal, I was able to take a close look at the "copos", and could see the reasoning better than before, but the fact remains that they did not have the cord decoration.

I agree. Perhaps we should have no problem with this: the copos was the inspiration for just some (or perhaps one) of the arsenal of Beaker wares (=Maritime style); with the bulk of 'Common Wares' otherwise deriving from steppe-inflected cultures east of the Rhine.


My feeling was that the Bell Beaker pottery combined various elements to be found in Yamnaya and the cultures with which it came in contact when moving up the Danube, and that these filtered along the trading routes set up by people of Yamnaya descent, to come together finally in a trading hub on the Tagus, centuries after the first copper-workers arrived. But we shall have to await the new papers to find out whether I was right or not.

This has always been my position regarding Iberia: Copper metallurgy first (c. 3000 BC), then steppe elements much later (23/2200 BC). Within the possibilities of surprises from aDNA, any 'new' admixtures arriving in southern Iberia c. 3000 BC in my playing around with numbers, I expect much of Copper Age Iberia (pre 2200BC) to be essentially MNE + some minor 'East Mediterranean' admixture (which, however, only becomes more significant after 2200 BC in, eg with El Agar, so Roberto Risch).


The use of cord in pottery decoration arrived in Europe with the Mesolithic pottery from Siberia
I have have no problem in accepting that the general idea of such decoration drifted west during the Mesolithic. I cannot say too much, but merely the issue is quite complex from a genetic-demographic perspective, not the least of possible multiple 'waves' from the East between the Late Glacial and Meso-Neolithic. We have many blanks still, and some results might come out to be not what we had expected. But for now, I believe we are looking at two distinctive pottery traditions/ introductions in eastern Europe & the Baltic. One of ultimate Siberian origins, one Aral-Caucasus-Black Sea.

[Jean M]

Perhaps we should have no problem with this: the copos was the inspiration for just some (or perhaps one) of the arsenal of Beaker wares (=Maritime style); with the bulk of 'Common Wares' otherwise deriving from steppe-inflected cultures east of the Rhine.

It is not just the AOC BB ware that uses cord decoration. The Maritime style can use a thin cord to horizontally demarcate the decorated panels from the plain panels. So that means that cord decoration features in both of the "International" types of BB. The inverted bell shape of the classic Bell Beaker pot is also obviously similar whatever the decoration, and equally obviously related in shape to Corded Ware - so much so that BB was long thought to derive from CW.

The "Common Wares" or "accompanying pottery" found in the BB Eastern tradition were certainly absorbed from local cultures of the Carparthian Basin and nearby regions. They are not diagnostic of BB. It has always been the bell-shaped beaker that was considered diagnostic.

But not to worry, because it won't be long before we have aDNA that should help to unravel some of the complexities of who moved where.

[Lugus]

But not to worry, because it won't be long before we have aDNA that should help to unravel some of the complexities of who moved where.

I hope they analyzed samples from early third millennium Estremadura and/or Alentejo and not just HVRs from MtDNA, otherwise it will be another disappointment.

My non-expert intuition as a native of Lisbon is that they came by sea from the Mediterranean area, including North Africa, and not by horse from the steppe. Lisbon and the area upstream until Santarém have always been more connected to the Mediterranean and more attractive to settlers from that area (Phoenicians, Romans, Moors). On the other hand continental invaders always went to other places (Meseta and inland areas, the NW).

[R.Rocca]

I hope they analyzed samples from early third millennium Estremadura and/or Alentejo and not just HVRs from MtDNA, otherwise it will be another disappointment.

My non-expert intuition as a native of Lisbon is that they came by sea from the Mediterranean area, including North Africa, and not by horse from the steppe. Lisbon and the area upstream until Santarém have always been more connected to the Mediterranean and more attractive to settlers from that area (Phoenicians, Romans, Moors). On the other hand continental invaders always went to other places (Meseta and inland areas, the NW).

Unfortunately local intuition has led forum members of Italian ancestry to claim R1b expanded from Italy, a Dutchman saying it expanded from the Low Countries, a Basque saying it expanded from Basque country and so on and so forth. Fortunately we have ancient DNA to refute local intuitions.

[Lugus]

Unfortunately local intuition has led forum members of Italian ancestry to claim R1b expanded from Italy, a Dutchman saying it expanded from the Low Countries, a Basque saying it expanded from Basque country and so on and so forth. Fortunately we have ancient DNA to refute local intuitions.

I agree and I hope we have good quality aDNA to settle the argument scientifically. I of all people tend to believe things did not originate or expand from what is now Portugal or Iberia. I'm actually only 80% convinced BB expanded from Estremadura and would like to see further radiocarbon testing done. I'm of those who prefer unpleasant truths to rosy fairy tales.

[rms2]

I don't think you can draw any firm conclusions based on the mtDNA analysis in this study. First, they assume that H and N* represent hunter-gatherers. Second, they do not analyze the full sequence. For migrations of BB, it would be very difficult to resolve population migrations even using full sequence results because of the very slow mtDNA mutation rate. I hope the auotosomal DNA will be much more useful when it is available.

I don't think it matters what labels are put on what mtDNA haplogroups. What matters is that Roth did not find the same ones in both Iberian and Central European Bell Beaker. If one finds roses in Iberian BB gardens, and tulips in Central European BB gardens, the natural conclusion is that Iberian roses weren't taken from Iberia and transplanted in Central Europe.

[Jean M]

My non-expert intuition as a native of Lisbon is that they came by sea from the Mediterranean area, including North Africa, and not by horse from the steppe. Lisbon and the area upstream until Santarém have always been more connected to the Mediterranean and more attractive to settlers from that area (Phoenicians, Romans, Moors). On the other hand continental invaders always went to other places (Meseta and inland areas, the NW).

I also feel that the VNSP culture was created by people who arrived by sea and traded by sea. That is the message of the fortifications with access to the sea and the long-distance imports (from North Africa for example). To me it is also the message of the more or less coastal stelae trail from Italy.

However Copper Age people didn't have to choose between horses and ships. They could have both, either bringing domestic horses with them by sea, or bringing the knowledge of how to domesticate the wild horses of Iberia. People also did not have to use just one route into and out of Iberia. I had a picture of the earliest copper prospectors arriving by sea along the Mediterranean coast, exploring up rivers and finding ore c. 3100 BC at Cabezo Juré. The elite there used horses, probably in the transport of copper ore.

We just have to wait to find out whether these people had any genetic connection with the Yamnaya and/or people making Bell Beaker pottery in the VNSP settlements several centuries later. It could all turn out very complex.

[Jean M]

Interesting. Are they using domesticated horses while hunting wild horses or is this on the edge of hunting>domestication?

Sorry. I have only just got back to this question. Here is the bit about hunting from Emilie Blaise et al, Bell Beaker herding and hunting in south-eastern France: an interdisciplinary approach with technological, historical and social implications in the volume edited by Besse (2014), p. 167:


While having the same range of environmental resources available, Bell Beaker and Neolithic groups, herders, nonetheless differed in their choice of whether or not to exploit wild fauna. The existence of hunting activity among the Bell Beakers is clearly different from the practices of local communities at the end of the Neolithic and marks real cultural choices. The diversity of wild species [in remains on their sites] reveals that among the Bell Beakers, some people regularly hunted or trapped small game (rabbit, fox, etc.) and also went after species that were not only rare at other regional Neolithic sites, but especially the intention remains dif!cult to determine: a taste for game, feasts, domestic and/or initiation rites or symbolic for the warrior/hunter? The hunting of small large animals, such as aurochs, red deer and wild caprines, bear or lynx (and possibly horse), may have garnered prestige or at least tendered a speci!c status within their community to those who hunted. Hunting could also furnish a dietary complement in cases of epidemic outbreak in animal populations or climatic difficulties to compensate for resources that would have been provided by herds. It could indicate the presence of small herds, for which possible losses would not have been sufficiently offset by inter- and intra-group trade at certain times of the year....

[Lugus]

I had a picture of the earliest copper prospectors arriving by sea along the Mediterranean coast, exploring up rivers and finding ore c. 3100 BC at Cabezo Juré. The elite there used horses, probably in the transport of copper ore.

For that purpose I would have preferred donkeys or mules.

The funny thing about Estremadura is the absence of copper, which is found in Alentejo. The settlements in chalcolithic Estremadura seem to evolve from the Neolithic and to be around good farming land, not metals, and easy access to the sea.

The Tagus estuary was used in ancient times as a transit platform between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic worlds.

[Jean M]

The funny thing about Estremadura is the absence of copper, which is found in Alentejo. The settlements in chalcolithic Estremadura seem to evolve from the Neolithic and to be around good farming land, not metals, and easy access to the sea.

But settlements with access to the sea and strongly fortified towards the land suggest non-natives. Copper was brought from Alentejo to be worked in Zambujal. Alluvial gold could be panned from the Tagus. So the VNSP culture looks like a second stage of the metal economy in Iberia.


Stage 1: Ores could be extracted and then exported to metal-workers outside Iberia.
Stage 2: Ores could be extracted and delivered to metal-working and trading settlements within Iberia, which could then export finished goods in return for valuables from elsewhere. It would be ideal to site such settlements amid good farming land, which could support the settlers without long-distance haulage of food, and with access to the sea for easy trading.

[Lugus]

But settlements with access to the sea and strongly fortified towards the land suggest non-natives.

I also think so, but some say they just got rich and feared plundering by their poorer neighbors.

As I mentioned before, I was recently in Leceia and took some pictures. I'll try to upload some of them tomorrow (also from the Museum). The fortifications remind me of Los Millares and Tel Arad in Israel: a circular perimeter with semicircular towers jutting out at regular spaces. But I'm just an armchair "archaeologist", although I did participate once in an excavation (very often backbreaking work with buckets and wheelbarrows).

[Lugus]

Here are some pictures from Leceia:

12976

12969

12971

And this is Tel Arad (From Stern et al., The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 1):

12974

12973

[Lugus]

Pictures from the Museum:

12977

12978

12979

The famous copo:

12980

[Jean M]

As I mentioned before, I was recently in Leceia and took some pictures. ... The fortifications remind me of Los Millares and Tel Arad in Israel: a circular perimeter with semicircular towers jutting out at regular spaces. ..

Yes the fortifications are very similar. But the big difference seems to be the lack at Los Millares and the VNSP fortified settlements of rectangular buildings inside the settlement. The architecture of the Near East became based on the rectangle during the Neolithic. Instead the houses at Leceia and Los Millares were built on a circular plan. See Cardoso, The chalcolithic fortified site of Leceia (Oeiras, Portugal), 2008.

[Jean M]

I also think so, but some say they just got rich and feared plundering by their poorer neighbors.

Cardoso 2008 points out that the VNSP economy had the advantage of the package of farming changes that is usually called the Secondary Products Revolution (SPR): cattle used for traction, weaving (wool?), dairy products. As he says, this would produce an agricultural surplus. I can understand his argument that this might have contributed to social tension. We can picture less affluent farmers being tempted to raid the stock and stores of their affluent neighbours.

But I think we also need to consider where these ideas had come from and how. They arrived in Iberia with copper-working. The SPR was present in the Copper Age of the Near East, and in Europe in the Late Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture (ca. 3500-3000 BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture and the adjoining Yamnaya Culture (c. 3,500 – 2,300 BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture

Apart from the fortification type, the only other clue to a Near Eastern link is ivory objects made of asiatic elephant tusks. From Nocete 2013:


In the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, all five samples from the ivory workshop of Valencina de la Concepción consist of ivory from the Asian elephant (E. maximus). In a parallel way, in the Spanish Southeast, four out of five objects from the tombs of Los Millares (Fig. 1) analysed, are of Asian elephant ivory. In Atlantic Portugal on the contrary the situation is totally different (Schuhmacher et al., 2009). Here we find a majority of African Savannah elephant ivory and not Asian elephant. However, in the following period, in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, the situation changes to a certain extent. So now six out of twelve objects analysed from the tholos of Matarrubilla in Valencina (Table 6) were made out of ivory from the Asian elephant, whereas the other five objects correspond to ivory from E. antiquus. In the Southeast of the Iberian Peninsula, at the end of the 3rd millennium BC, two out of four objects are also from Asian elephant ivory and the rest from African savannah elephant ivory.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440312004797

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Cardoso 2008 points out that the VNSP economy had the advantage of the package of farming changes that is usually called the Secondary Products Revolution (SPR): cattle used for traction, weaving (wool?), dairy products. As he says, this would produce an agricultural surplus. I can understand his argument that this might have contributed to social tension. We can picture less affluent farmers being tempted to raid the stock and stores of their affluent neighbours.

But I think we also need to consider where these ideas had come from and how. They arrived in Iberia with copper-working. The SPR was present in the Copper Age of the Near East, and in Europe in the Late Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture (ca. 3500-3000 BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture and the adjoining Yamnaya Culture (c. 3,500 – 2,300 BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture

Apart from the fortification type, the only other clue to a Near Eastern link is ivory objects made of asiatic elephant tusks. From Nocete 2013:



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440312004797

I've not given up on CT playing an important role in LNBA events ;)

[Lugus]

Yes the fortifications are very similar. But the big difference seems to be the lack at Los Millares and the VNSP fortified settlements of rectangular buildings inside the settlement. The architecture of the Near East became based on the rectangle during the Neolithic. Instead the houses at Leceia and Los Millares were built on a circular plan. See Cardoso, The chalcolithic fortified site of Leceia (Oeiras, Portugal), 2008.

You're right about that. 3 more pictures:

12984

12982

12983

[rms2]

If not for the assumption that Maritime Bell Beakers are the oldest because they are the plainest and simplest type, and for the early radiocarbon dates associated with them in Iberia, what would the rest of the evidence tell us about Bell Beaker origins?

[Lugus]

If not for the assumption that Maritime Bell Beakers are the oldest because they are the plainest and simplest type, and for the early radiocarbon dates associated with them in Iberia, what would the rest of the evidence tell us about Bell Beaker origins?

I remember seeing a graph in the museum of Torres Vedras (near Zambujal) showing that the highest amount of Bell Beaker pottery has been found in Estremadura. Unfortunately I didn't take a picture of it. There are also lots of these chalcolithic settlements, which is something I wasn't aware of, including one at the end of a street not far from where I used to live near Lisbon!

12985

This map, taken from J. Cardoso, shows only the main sites.

[rms2]

I remember seeing a graph in the museum of Torres Vedras (near Zambujal) showing that the highest amount of Bell Beaker pottery has been found in Estremadura. Unfortunately I didn't take a picture of it. There are also lots of these chalcolithic settlements, which is something I wasn't aware of, including one at the end of a street not far from where I used to live near Lisbon!

12985

This map, taken from J. Cardoso, shows only the main sites.

Do you know any of the radiocarbon dates associated with those sites?

[Lugus]

Do you know any of the radiocarbon dates associated with those sites?

Nope. I still have to read Müller and Willigen's paper from 2001 that apparently settled the dating issue.

[Jean M]

Do you know any of the radiocarbon dates associated with those sites?

The VNSP settlements start before the BB pottery, so it is important to get dates specifically related to the pottery, if the comparison is with BB pottery sites elsewhere. So the date for the sealed context at Leceia is important. This is a building (the FM hut) outside the fortifications. In this hut all the pottery was BB. That dates from the 2nd quarter of the 3rd millennium BC, re-confirmed by AMS dating.


Absolute chronology of the earliest Beaker contexts in Estremadura is now well-established as having occurred circa 2700/2600 cal BC, prior to the transition from the traditional Early to the Full Chalcolithic. This transition has been established in Leceia between 2600/2500 cal BC (Cardoso and Soares 1996).

That is in João Luís Cardoso, Absolute chronology of the Beaker phenomenon North of the Tagus estuary: demographic and social implications, Trabajos de Prehistoria, 71, N.º 1, enero-junio 2014, pp. 56-75. This paper includes other BB radiocarbon dates for Portugal published more recently than the compilation in 2001. It is in the Vault here. Or just Google.

[rms2]

The rc date ~2900 B.C. is frequently tossed around for BB in Iberia. Where does that come from?

[Lugus]

This is a building (the FM hut) outside the fortifications. In this hut all the pottery was BB.

Here is the FM hut:

[rms2]

I think that the big new mega Beaker paper is going to vindicate Gimbutas (which is sticking to the original topic of this thread in a very noble, exemplary and selfless way) and make users of Anthrogenica scramble to buy copies of her works. It may not vindicate her 100% in every detail, but it will show that Bell Beaker was largely derived from Yamnaya, whether it was Yamnaya to Iberia or Yamnaya steadily moving west, and that will show that Gimbutas was way ahead of her time and knew what was what before anyone knew anything about ancient dna results.

I will contribute at least ten bucks to the statue of Gimbutas fund.

[Jean M]

The rc date ~2900 B.C. is frequently tossed around for BB in Iberia. Where does that come from?

That is the upper end of the range of radiocarbon dates for Andalusia and Portugal (region 1) and the South of France and Catalonia (region 2) in Muller and van Willigen 2001. Notice the earliest dates at the top in the chart below of region 1. They fall between 2900 and 2700 BC. Because of this lack of exactitude (not to mention the calibration curve problem), we cannot say exactly what date within that range is the real one for the earliest so far dated BB pottery. Unfortunately.

12987

As I recall I went for the conservative date of 2700 BC in AJ and the midpoint (2800 BC) in BotC and so was inadvertently inconsistent.

[rms2]

If it turns out to be Yamnaya to Iberia, we will have to build a statue of Jean M, or maybe a stela. It will feature Jean as the thunder goddess, with some axes, a belt, and a wagon pulled by a team of oxen.

I will contribute to that fund, as well.

[Jean M]

If it turns out to be Yamnaya to Iberia, we will have to build a statue of Jean M, or maybe a stela. It will feature Jean as the thunder goddess, with some axes, a belt, and a wagon pulled by a team of oxen.

:biggrin1: Help! You are not turning me into a graven image. It's bound to be against somebody's religion. :behindsofa:

[rms2]

:biggrin1: Help! You are not turning me into a graven image. It's bound to be against somebody's religion. :behindsofa:

St. John of Damascus said it was okay. The veneration of the icon transfers over to the intended object.;)

[MitchellSince1893]

How about a statue based on Boadicca below holding a bell beaker in her left hand? :D

http://www.behindthename.com/imagebank/images/boudicca.jpg

[Jean M]

How about a statue based on Boadicca below holding a bell beaker in her left hand?

Me? A warrior? I'm a pacifist who would be happy to live in a library. In fact I more or less do. A bit of cerebral jousting is the most I can manage. And that is mostly with myself! :biggrin1:

[Lugus]

If it turns out to be Yamnaya to Iberia, we will have to build a statue of Jean M, or maybe a stela. It will feature Jean as the thunder goddess, with some axes, a belt, and a wagon pulled by a team of oxen.

I will contribute to that fund, as well.

If that happens you also should have a statue dressed up as Amesbury Archer.

[Jean M]

If that happens you also should have a statue dressed up as Amesbury Archer.

I'll second that. When I first joined the old DNA forums, rms2 was campaigning there for R1b in Western Europe to be recognised as the other half of the Indo-European story. That was one of the inspirations for Peopling of Europe online, which ended up after endless revision as AJ in print. Whatever the ins and outs of how exactly BB came about, we can already see the prescience of rms2.

[rms2]

Wish I could claim some great scientific acumen, but I'm not a scientist (not even close). I just took a look at a map of the spread of Indo-European and thought it looked a lot like the distribution map of R1. At that time (2006), the popular idea was that R1a was responsible for the spread of Indo-European, since it shows up significantly in India, as well as Europe. I noticed that R1a is pretty scarce in western Europe, where R1b is the predominant y haplogroup, so it did not seem likely that R1a could be responsible for the spread of Indo-European there. The idea that Indo-European spread to western Europe through some strange form of osmosis but was spread by actual Indo-Europeans elsewhere struck me as straining to make something work where it just would not. Then I noticed the centum/satem divide and how it was very similar geographically to the split in R1 between R1b and R1a. That is when it occurred to me that maybe R1b had spread centum IE westward from the IE homeland first, and R1a had spread satem IE eastward later.

As it turns out, perhaps the centum/satem split is not as important as I once thought, but even if that was overblown, it put me on the right track. It also struck me as odd, when I saw just how prevalent and fecund R1b was, that it should be thought of as the downtrodden aboriginal population of western Europe, the "cast of thousands" that formed the background for the heroic exploits of later invaders. That just did not make sense to me. The winners are the ones who get to reproduce, and the losers recede steadily. So how did R1b become so numerous in western Europe? (I'm not calling anyone's y haplogroup "losers". I am merely pointing out why I thought it unlikely that R1b was simply the aboriginal population of western Europe and had IE language and culture imposed on it from outside.)

I should add that I was also reading that haplotype variance showed that R1b gets older as one moves eastward across Eurasia, which is also supported by the fact that R1b's closest haplogroup cousins - R1a, R2, Q, N, etc. - are eastern. Even the most ardent advocates of the R1b-in-the-Iberian-Ice-Age-Refuge idea had to bring R1b across the continent from eastern Europe or western Asia to Iberia to begin with. I thought that was telling (and kind of funny, to be honest).

[razyn]

The idea that Indo-European spread to western Europe through some strange form of osmosis but was spread by actual Indo-Europeans elsewhere struck me as straining to make something work where it just would not.
I joined this fray a good bit later than you did, having ordered a Deep Clade test in March 2011. At that time the ISOGG tree and FTDNA tree agreed that SRY2627 and M153 were pretty close to basal P312; so the zillions of men of western European patrilineal descent who were still testing out as R1b-P312* (most of whom were DF27+, but not Basque, not speakers of non-Indo-European languages, and not ancestrally Iberian) were carrying on their shoulders quite a bit of theoretical baggage that preexisted their DNA testing. After Z196 and DF27 were discovered and began showing up in test results -- in 2011 and thereafter -- the picture became less cloudy. But the baggage was (and remains) still on the train, for a lot of people.

[rms2]

I joined this fray a good bit later than you did, having ordered a Deep Clade test in March 2011. At that time the ISOGG tree and FTDNA tree agreed that SRY2627 and M153 were pretty close to basal P312; so the zillions of men of western European patrilineal descent who were still testing out as R1b-P312* (most of whom were DF27+, but not Basque, not speakers of non-Indo-European languages, and not ancestrally Iberian) were carrying on their shoulders quite a bit of theoretical baggage that preexisted their DNA testing. After Z196 and DF27 were discovered and began showing up in test results -- in 2011 and thereafter -- the picture became less cloudy. But the baggage was (and remains) still on the train, for a lot of people.

I think you and I have pretty much the same perspective. I'm hoping this new paper helps us out a bit. 200 samples sounds great, but probably not all of them are male. But even if only a quarter of them are, that should be outstanding.

[rms2]

BTW, I never tried to elevate R1b to the status of "pure Indo-European" at the expense of R1a. I always regarded the two as IE brothers, West and East. In fact, George van der Merwede and I started dna forums because we couldn't talk Charles Kerchner into opening his FTDNA R1b forum to the R1a guys.

That is the truth, believe it or not.

[Jean M]

In fact, George van der Merwede and I started dna forums because we couldn't talk Charles Kerchner into opening his FTDNA R1b forum to the R1a guys.

I did not know that. But I can confirm for those not present:


I always regarded the two as IE brothers, West and East

That is exactly how I remember it.

[rms2]

Yeah, we tried to get Charles to rename the FTDNA R1b Forum the R1 Forum, but he wouldn't do it. So, George used his van der Merwede family genealogy site and thus began dna forums. I was the one with the idea originally, but George was the computer guy and the one with a web site. He and I were the first admins there.

[GoldenHind]

I'm hoping this new paper helps us out a bit. 200 samples sounds great, but probably not all of them are male. But even if only a quarter of them are, that should be outstanding.

What worries me that many of the R samples will yield such ambiguous results that people will be arguing where they fall on the tree.

[jdean]

What worries me that many of the R samples will yield such ambiguous results that people will be arguing where they fall on the tree.

No mater what comes out there will be arguments, including black is blue : )

[rms2]

What worries me that many of the R samples will yield such ambiguous results that people will be arguing where they fall on the tree.

No doubt some will have better coverage than others, but we can hope that many of them will yield clear, unambiguous results.

Time will tell.

[rms2]

Wish we at least had a list of which specific BB sites are set to yield up some dna results, especially y-dna.

I also hope they look for things like osteological evidence of horseback riding, like we got from I0805 from Quedlinburg.

Too bad bows were made of such perishable material. It would be great to see an intact Beaker bow.

[jdean]

Wish we at least had a list of which specific BB sites are set to yield up some dna results, especially y-dna.

I also hope they look for things like osteological evidence of horseback riding, like we got from I0805 from Quedlinburg.

Too bad bows were made of such perishable material. It would be great to see an intact Beaker bow.

according to the latest Y. pestis paper they have 168 tooth and bone samples


A total of 168 tooth and bone samples dating from the Neolithic and Bronze Age from Lithuania
(27), Estonia (45), Latvia (10), and Germany (Althausen 4, Augsburg 83) were screened for Y.
pestis by

I'm not sure if these are from 168 individuals though but the German ones were definitely Bell Beaker, I'm guessing this is part of the set that'll be coming out in the new Bell Beaker paper ?

[rms2]

Either way, I figure the big BB paper will appear when I am really busy at work. It would be nice if it appeared on 21 or 22 December, since I am about to have the Christmas holiday off, but no, that probably won't happen.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Either way, I figure the big BB paper will appear when I am really busy at work. It would be nice if it appeared on 21 or 22 December, since I am about to have the Christmas holiday off, but no, that probably won't happen.

Yes. So we can read it at leisure, with brandy and cigars !

[rms2]

Yes. So we can read it at leisure, with brandy and cigars !

Perfect! B)

[Huitzilopochtli]

Is rms2 Stevo? I found an early thread from September 2006 advocated R1b as a centum IE marker. http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=2890

[jdean]

Is rms2 Stevo? I found an early thread from September 2006 advocated R1b as a centum IE marker. http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=2890

Yep !!

[rms2]

Is rms2 Stevo? I found an early thread from September 2006 advocated R1b as a centum IE marker. http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=2890

Yeah, that was me. I'm not sure how sound some of the linguistic ideas I expressed in that post are, but that's what I was posting back in September of 2006.

I'm surprised you were able to find that.

[lgmayka]

Yeah, that was me. I'm not sure how sound some of the linguistic ideas I expressed in that post are, but that's what I was posting back in September of 2006.
I was there too (http://forums.familytreedna.com/showpost.php?p=27700&postcount=89). :) Not everything we wrote turned out to be correct, but we were clearly closer to the truth than Mainstream Academia was at that point.

[rms2]

I was there too (http://forums.familytreedna.com/showpost.php?p=27700&postcount=89). :) Not everything we wrote turned out to be correct, but we were clearly closer to the truth than Mainstream Academia was at that point.

I definitely remember. I'm a little embarrassed by some of what I wrote, but live and learn.

[jdean]

I definitely remember. I'm a little embarrassed by some of what I wrote, but live and learn.

But compared to the Iberian refugium crowed ? : )))))

[razyn]

Even if they look like my avatar? ;)

In case Dewsloth's avatar changes sometime and renders the comment too cryptic, it currently shows the Muppet character Beaker, inside a Bell.

The music to which that was set is so delightfully seasonal, I thought it might cheer up the restless crowd waiting for the new Beaker paper. There are versions of this on Facebook that don't begin with a commercial, but not everybody can see Facebook, so I believe this link is more general. Skip the ad after 5 seconds. If I posted it to the Lounge ("What are you listening to?" thread), it probably wouldn't reach the targeted demographic. Also, the choral number in question is originally Ukrainian, so it has that whole steppe thing going on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysIzPF3BfpQ

[rms2]

I was hoping we would get that big Bell Beaker paper as a Christmas present, but it doesn't look like it, unless Santa brings it sometime overnight. :pray:

[GoldenHind]

I was hoping we would get that big Bell Beaker paper as a Christmas present, but it doesn't look like it, unless Santa brings it sometime overnight. :pray:

With any luck, we will have the raw data by Christmas of next year.

[angscoire]

I was hoping we would get that big Bell Beaker paper as a Christmas present, but it doesn't look like it, unless Santa brings it sometime overnight. :pray:

I heard that Santa did indeed leave his grotto with the new Bell Beaker paper to deliver in time for Christmas , but he was kidnapped en route by unknown 'R1b from the West' folks who then destroyed the paper without reading it as a 'pre-cautionary measure' , according to their spokesperson .

[rms2]

I'm betting Bell Beaker is basically Yamnaya 2.0.

[jdean]

I'm betting Bell Beaker is basically Yamnaya 2.0.

Judging by the hints being dropped here and there I think you could well be right : )

[ADW_1981]

I'm a little more curious on the implications of Iberian Bell Beaker. Looking at the recent video from Kristiansen, it looks like his suggestion is that CW was borrowing pottery traditions from local European women and assimilating them into their tribes. The later "German Bell Beakers" appear to be a reflection of this merging of European women and immigrant men from the steppe. I may have jumped the gun and drawn some hasty conclusions, but that was my take on it. It will be interesting to see if the new papers state the same.

[rms2]

Two things though: 1) Bell Beaker pottery techniques resembled steppe pottery making, and 2) thus far Corded Ware males have been mostly R1a not R1b.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Yes but there were R1b in CWC and "LNBA" Germany, ie pre Bell-Beaker. 90% look autosomally steppic, but RISE 471 looked different. Indeed, he was labelled outlier and not further tested . I had a look at him and he looks more Hungarian Copper Age than steppe, but the latter is certainly there.

Germany_Bronze_Age:RISE471
Hungary_Neol: 56%
Ko1: 22%
Kotias: 16%
Karelia_HG: 3%

So on balance of present evidence I'd assume the 'steppe' in BB came from a CWC vanguard (or some pre-CWC intrusion) via Poland instead of Vucedol because most BB samples are still too steppic to be mixed steppe/Balkan Vucedol. But who knows ..

[rms2]

Yes but there were R1b in CWC and "LNBA" Germany, ie pre Bell-Beaker. 90% look autosomally steppic, but RISE 471 looked different. Indeed, he was labelled outlier and not further tested . I had a look at him and he looks more Hungarian Copper Age than steppe, but the latter is certainly there.

Germany_Bronze_Age:RISE471
Hungary_Neol: 56%
Ko1: 22%
Kotias: 16%
Karelia_HG: 3%

So on balance of present evidence I'd assume the 'steppe' in BB came from a CWC vanguard (or some pre-CWC intrusion) via Poland instead of Vucedol because most BB samples are still too steppic to be mixed steppe/Balkan Vucedol. But who knows ..

You sure that one is Corded Ware?

My guess for a long time is that R1b-U106 was part of Corded Ware, and R1b-P312 came from Yamnaya further south, around the south side of the Carpathians and thus into Bell Beaker.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

You sure that one is Corded Ware?

My guess for a long time is that R1b-U106 was part of Corded Ware, and R1b-P312 came from Yamnaya further south, around the south side of the Carpathians and thus into Bell Beaker.

Im not 100% sure, and neither are the authors, it would seem: In Allentoft he was labelled "Corded Ware", but in Mathieson he was rebranded 'Central European LNBA '. No direct dating was attached, either. So we'd need to dig up the original excavation paper. He deemed was R1b1a2a1a P310 (? is that L51/L11* ?)

Tying in with this would be the article https://www.academia.edu/30479844/Beakers_and_Bodies_British_Archaeology_Jan_Feb_201 7 (I think someone flagged it already, via BB Blogger), and the appearance of "Battle Axes' in Iberia (Harrison/ Heyd; 2007).

[rms2]

Im not 100% sure, and neither are the authors, it would seem: In Allentoft he was labelled "Corded Ware", but in Mathieson he was rebranded 'Central European LNBA '. No direct dating was attached, either. So we'd need to dig up the original excavation paper. He deemed was R1b1a2a1a P310 (? is that L51/L11* ?)

Tying in with this would be the article https://www.academia.edu/30479844/Beakers_and_Bodies_British_Archaeology_Jan_Feb_201 7 (I think someone flagged it already, via BB Blogger), and the appearance of "Battle Axes' in Iberia (Harrison/ Heyd; 2007).

Yeah, P310 is on the same level as L11. Could be another name for the same SNP, but I'm not sure about that.

[rms2]

Yeah, P310 is on the same level as L11. Could be another name for the same SNP, but I'm not sure about that.

Looks like they're two different SNPs but on the same level.

[ADW_1981]

Two things though: 1) Bell Beaker pottery techniques resembled steppe pottery making, and 2) thus far Corded Ware males have been mostly R1a not R1b.

I am just referring to the Kristiansen lecture where his argument suggested female mediated gene flow linked with pottery making - he didn't specify but I inferred this as Bell Beaker influence(?). We know that the dates of central European Bell Beaker are quite a few centuries after CW. It is no wonder that after a few centuries, a lot of EEF ancestry was picked up from the local women at the expense of "Steppe" type of ancestry. I think a major key to the puzzle will be to see the YDNA but also the autosomal make up of the very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker males.

[rms2]

I am just referring to the Kristiansen lecture where his argument suggested female mediated gene flow linked with pottery making. We know that the dates of central European Bell Beaker are quite a few centuries after CW. It is no wonder that after a few centuries, a lot of EEF ancestry was picked up from the local women at the expense of "Steppe" type of ancestry. I think a major key to the puzzle will be to see the YDNA of the very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker males.

I think their autosomal dna will be quite telling, as well.

I suspect that either the steppe came to Iberia directly and spawned Bell Beaker, or the very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker was neither R1b nor steppic, or the early Iberian BB rc dates are erroneous and Bell Beaker really was a simple, straightforward east-to-west process.

I agree with Gimbutas, however, when she said the following of the kurgan type of Bell Beaker:



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. We must ask what sort of ecology and ideology created these people, and where are the roots of the specific Bell Beaker equipment and their burial rites. In my view, the Bell Beaker cultural elements derive from Vucedol and Kurgan (Late Yamna) traditions.

(Gimbutas, The Civilization of the Goddess, page 390.)

[Jean M]

...Looking at the recent video from Kristiansen, it looks like his suggestion is that CW was borrowing pottery traditions from local European women and assimilating them into their tribes. The later "German Bell Beakers" appear to be a reflection of this merging of European women and immigrant men from the steppe.

Men from the European steppe were also European. :) Kristiansen is certainly picturing CW as a mixture of incoming steppe men and women of more local Neolithic origin.

But he is saying something a bit more subtle re the pottery. He seems to be taking a leaf out of my book in saying that archaeologists have paid too much attention to pottery. The CW culture starts pre-pottery. He points out that the earliest single graves under barrows in what became CW territory had little or no pottery. These were the earliest arrivals from the steppe and they were almost entirely male. Since pottery making was most likely a woman's job, the predominance of males would explain the lack of pottery. He then imagines that marriage with local women would bring with it the basic knowledge of pottery making, but that these women copied in their pottery the styles that appealed to their men, which they saw in objects which have not survived, as they were made of more perishable materials.

This last point I really doubt. How would you have cord-impression on a wooden vessel? In fact if these women were from the TRB, they would be making TRB type pottery, which has some elements similar to those in Corded Ware. CW pottery might be a mixture of Yamnaya and TRB elements. While some wives would be taken from local people, others might come from further south, close to the steppe.

[jdean]

Men from the European steppe were also European. :) Kristiansen is certainly picturing CW as a mixture of incoming steppe men and women of more local Neolithic origin.

But he is saying something a bit more subtle re the pottery. He seems to be taking a leaf out of my book in saying that archaeologists have paid too much attention to pottery. The CW culture starts earlier. He points out that the earliest single graves under barrows in what became CW territory had little or no pottery. These were the earliest arrivals from the steppe and they were almost entirely male. Since pottery making was most likely a woman's job, the predominance of males would explain the lack of pottery. He then imagines that marriage with local women would bring with it the basic knowledge of pottery making, but that these women copied in their pottery the styles that appealed to their men, which they saw in objects which have not survived, as they were made of more perishable materials.

This last point I really doubt. How would you have cord-impression on a wooden vessel? In fact if these women were from the TRB, they would be making TRB type pottery, which has some elements similar to those in Corded Ware. CW pottery might be a mixture of Yamnaya and TRB elements. While some wives would be taken from local people, others might come from further south, close to the steppe.

I thought he was guessing the CW males used woven goods (easier for strapping to horses ?) and the cord impression on the pots was a nod to that ?

[Jean M]

I thought he was guessing the CW males used woven goods (easier for strapping to horses ?) and the cord impression on the pots was a nod to that ?

I still can't really buy it. The complication is that cord-impressed pottery of the earliest European type (Samara) had spread north with hunter-gatherers long before CW e.g. Ertebolle. (That was on pointed-base pottery.) Also the TRB pottery had some cord impression.

[jdean]

I still can't really buy it. The complication is that cord-impressed pottery of the earliest European type (Samara) had spread north with hunter-gatherers long before CW e.g. Ertebolle. (That was on pointed-base pottery.) Also the TRB pottery had some cord impression.

Thanks Jean what's your current leaning WRT Bell Beaker pots, the snippets that are coming out sound a bit like there's going to be a bit of a surprise on the Portuguese front. Possibly those have turned out to be a red herring ?

[Jean M]

Thanks Jean what's your current leaning WRT Bell Beaker pots, the snippets that are coming out sound a bit like there's going to be a bit of a surprise on the Portuguese front. Possibly those have turned out to be a red herring ?

My current thinking on BB pottery is that I should not do any more thinking about it until we get some more data. :)

[jdean]

My current thinking on BB pottery is that I should not do any more thinking about it until we get some more data. :)

Sounds like a plan : )

[Romilius]

Thanks Jean what's your current leaning WRT Bell Beaker pots, the snippets that are coming out sound a bit like there's going to be a bit of a surprise on the Portuguese front. Possibly those have turned out to be a red herring ?

Well... I'm not optimistic by nature... so I could expect everything from those Portuguese beakers, also some evidence that destroys our understanding of R1b in Europe.

I'm not very familiar with English, because I'm not a native speaker... but with "those" you are referring to Portuguese beakers? Or to other cultures?

[rms2]

Well... I'm not optimistic by nature... so I could expect everything from those Portuguese beakers, also some evidence that destroys our understanding of R1b in Europe.
. . .

I don't know why you would expect that. One has to look at the ancient dna evidence that has accumulated thus far, as well as the archaeological evidence. How likely is it that the western branch of R1b-L23 is completely separate and other from the eastern branch? L23 only dates to about the 5th millennium BC.

[jdean]

Well... I'm not optimistic by nature... so I could expect everything from those Portuguese beakers, also some evidence that destroys our understanding of R1b in Europe.

I'm not very familiar with English, because I'm not a native speaker... but with "those" you are referring to Portuguese beakers? Or to other cultures?

Indeed but you do a pretty good job I'm a monoglot I'm afraid : )

[Romilius]

I don't know why you would expect that. One has to look at the ancient dna evidence that has accumulated thus far, as well as the archaeological evidence. How likely is it that the western branch of R1b-L23 is completely separate and other from the eastern branch? L23 only dates to about the 5th millennium BC.

You are right, I know that... I only mean that I really hope to see the chapter about the history of R1b in Europe nearly closed... because I'm interested in this haplogroup... perhaps the most bad treated in haplogroup history!

[Romilius]

Indeed but you do a pretty good job I'm a monoglot I'm afraid : )

Well... thank you... but I don't think I'm doing really a good job: red herring means something deviating attention... but I'm thinking about the possibility that rms2 is partially right about a Yamna instrusion via Vucedol. I don't know if you are aware of something more than us about the progress of the beaker double paper coming soon.

[Marscrater]

Guys.
I am confused with your “expected outcome”.

1 . Earliest Carbon dating, and even AMS puts Portuguese BB centuries earlier than all others.
2 . Several studies based on dental morphological traits, something very good as a proxy of DNA, puts those BB as a continuum of Iberia Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic that spread into the rest of Europe.
3 . Just now a recent Roth paper (2016) states that not only Iberia BB were an homogenous package of people that did not mix (as stated in 2) but specifies that MtDna puts them as a Portuguese a continuum of Portuguese (exact same place as 1) late neolithic/chalcolithic (same as 2).
4. some known outliers also tell us that the story above Is probably correct as the finding of a H10e Mtdna 3700BC (in the same place as 3) and the other only sample being a 2600BC CWC female in Eulau germany the exact same place where we know BB and an extensive exchange of females with CWC.

And somehow you guys seem to expect BB to be something …. What exactly?

[Marscrater]

JeanM

In ancestral Journeys I noticed that you do have specimens in copper age (even from spain ) that are much older than 3700bc but you did not include that H10e from Bom Santo Cave also in there. was there a reason?

[jdean]

Guys.
I am confused with your “expected outcome”.

1 . Earliest Carbon dating, and even AMS puts Portuguese BB centuries earlier than all others.
2 . Several studies based on dental morphological traits, something very good as a proxy of DNA, puts those BB as a continuum of Iberia Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic that spread into the rest of Europe.
3 . Just now a recent Roth paper (2016) states that not only Iberia BB were an homogenous package of people that did not mix (as stated in 2) but specifies that MtDna puts them as a Portuguese a continuum of Portuguese (exact same place as 1) late neolithic/chalcolithic (same as 2).
4. some known outliers also tell us that the story above Is probably correct as the finding of a H10e Mtdna 3700BC (in the same place as 3) and the other only sample being a 2600BC CWC female in Eulau germany the exact same place where we know BB and an extensive exchange of females with CWC.

And somehow you guys seem to expect BB to be something …. What exactly?

Exactly, which is why I suspect these 'Bell Beaker' folk are looking to be a red herring so even though they made a 'Beaker' style pot they may not have had anything to do with the BB folk who turned up further West.

From Jean's post #2768 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=200566&viewfull=1#post200566) reporting Volker Heyd recent talk.


subsequent publications of early dates in Iberia, the various attempts to make sense of an Iberian origin. The problem of the latter and of the idea of a North African origin are the same in his view

[rms2]

Guys.
I am confused with your “expected outcome”.

1 . Earliest Carbon dating, and even AMS puts Portuguese BB centuries earlier than all others.
2 . Several studies based on dental morphological traits, something very good as a proxy of DNA, puts those BB as a continuum of Iberia Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic that spread into the rest of Europe.
3 . Just now a recent Roth paper (2016) states that not only Iberia BB were an homogenous package of people that did not mix (as stated in 2) but specifies that MtDna puts them as a Portuguese a continuum of Portuguese (exact same place as 1) late neolithic/chalcolithic (same as 2).
4. some known outliers also tell us that the story above Is probably correct as the finding of a H10e Mtdna 3700BC (in the same place as 3) and the other only sample being a 2600BC CWC female in Eulau germany the exact same place where we know BB and an extensive exchange of females with CWC.

And somehow you guys seem to expect BB to be something …. What exactly?

You really need to go back and read the posts in this thread; otherwise, we'll be forced to re-post and re-hash a lot that has been said multiple times already.

In short, the kurgan type of Bell Beaker, which is predominantly R1b-L23, did not originate in Iberia.

[Marscrater]

You really need to go back and read the posts in this thread; otherwise, we'll be forced to re-post and re-hash a lot that has been said multiple times already.

In short, the kurgan type of Bell Beaker, which is predominantly R1b-L23, did not originate in Iberia.

RMS Thanks. just point/Link to places where I can read about the following:
BB that were confirmed L23 (Xl51 and Xother subclades). Where is that?
KurganType BB? where are those BB buried in Kurgans?

[rms2]

RMS Thanks. just point/Link to places where I can read about the following:
BB that were confirmed L23 (Xl51 and Xother subclades). Where is that?
KurganType BB? where are those BB buried in Kurgans?

Ah, I see. You come with an agenda. Oh, well, you're not the first. Read the thread.

1336313364

[Megalophias]

RMS Thanks. just point/Link to places where I can read about the following:
BB that were confirmed L23 (Xl51 and Xother subclades).
Why L23*? What's the tortuous connection to Shulaveri-Shomu this time?

[jdean]

RMS Thanks. just point/Link to places where I can read about the following:
BB that were confirmed L23 (Xl51 and Xother subclades). Where is that?
KurganType BB? where are those BB buried in Kurgans?

: )))) Hang on let me dig out my time machine, now where did I put it ?

[Romilius]

Guys.
I am confused with your “expected outcome”.

1 . Earliest Carbon dating, and even AMS puts Portuguese BB centuries earlier than all others.
2 . Several studies based on dental morphological traits, something very good as a proxy of DNA, puts those BB as a continuum of Iberia Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic that spread into the rest of Europe.
3 . Just now a recent Roth paper (2016) states that not only Iberia BB were an homogenous package of people that did not mix (as stated in 2) but specifies that MtDna puts them as a Portuguese a continuum of Portuguese (exact same place as 1) late neolithic/chalcolithic (same as 2).
4. some known outliers also tell us that the story above Is probably correct as the finding of a H10e Mtdna 3700BC (in the same place as 3) and the other only sample being a 2600BC CWC female in Eulau germany the exact same place where we know BB and an extensive exchange of females with CWC.

And somehow you guys seem to expect BB to be something …. What exactly?

1 . true, even if some scholars pointed out the problem of reservoir effect;
2 - not true: not only in Iberia (well... not all Iberia, but only the Northern part) there was continuity, but also in Czechia;
3 . really? I understood the exact opposite... but, as I stated before, I'm not an English native speaker;
4 . we know BB had an extensive exchange of females with CWC? What's the source? A BB man from the past that told you that? Or a CWC man?

[rms2]

Here is a blast from the past (in terms of this thread).

From Gimbutas' The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe:



The Bell Beaker complex, an offshoot of the Vucedol bloc (more precisely of the Zok-Mako group in Hungary) continued Kurgan characteristics. The Bell Beaker of the second half of the 3rd millennium BC were vagabondic horse riders and archers in much the same way as their uncles and cousins, the Corded people of northern Europe and Catacomb-grave people of the North Pontic region. Their spread over central and western Europe to the British Isles and Spain as well as the Mediterranean islands terminates the period of expansion and destruction . . . (p. 104)

In western Hungary and northwestern Yugoslavia, the Vucedol complex was followed by the Samogyvar-Vinkovci complex, the predecessor of the Bell Beaker people. Furthermore, the exodus of the horse-riding Bell Beaker people in the middle of the 3rd millennium, or soon thereafter, from the territories of the Vucedol complex, may not be unconnected with the constant threat from the east. They carried to the west Kurgan traditions in armament, social structure, and religion. The fact of paramount importance of Bell Beaker mobility is the presence of the horse. Seven Bell Beaker sites at Budapest in Hungary have shown that the horse was the foremost species of the domestic fauna (pp. 258-259).

From Gimbutas' The Civilization of the Goddess:



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. We must ask what sort of ecology and ideology created these people, and where are the roots of the specific Bell Beaker equipment and their burial rites. In my view, the Bell Beaker cultural elements derive from Vucedol and Kurgan (Late Yamna) traditions.

The specific correspondence between the Yamna, Late Vucedol, and Bell Beaker complexes is visible in burial rites which include grave pits under round barrows, the coexistence of cremation and inhumation rites, and the construction of mortuary houses. (FIGURE 10-38) In armaments we see tanged or riveted triangular daggers made of arsenic copper, spear points of arsenic copper and flint, concave-based or tanged triangular arrowheads of flint, and arrow straighteners. In ornaments there are necklaces of canine teeth, copper tubes, or bird bones; boar tusks; and crescent-shaped pendants resembling breast plates. In solar symbolism we find sun or star motifs excised and white encrusted on the inside of braziers, or incised on bone or amber button-shaped beads. Techniques of ceramic decoration include stamping or gouging in zoned metopes, encrustation with white paste of delicate geometric motifs, zigzags, dashes, nets, lozenges, and dots or circles (a Baden-Kostolac-Vucedol tradition). Certain ceramic forms placed in graves, such as braziers and beakers, are from the Kurgan tradition. The Bell Beaker people, wherever they spread, continued the traditional ceramic art connected with their faith. Only the ritual importance of their uniquely beautiful stereotyped beakers could have motivated their production for hundreds of years in lands far from the homeland. The correspondences linking the Bell Beaker and Yamna with the Vucedol - in armament, costume, funeral rites, beliefs in life after death, and in symbolism - are precisely the most significant and revealing. It is very likely that the Bell Beaker complex is an amalgam of Vucedol and Yamna traditions formed after the incursion of the Yamna people into the milieu of the Vucedol culture, i.e., in the course of 300 to 400 years after 3000-2900 B.C. (pp. 390-391)
. . .

Horse bones in a series of sites provide a clue to the mobility of the Bell Beaker people. Analysis of animal bones from the sites at Budapest (Csepel Hollandiut and Csepel-Haros) have shown that the horse was the foremost species of the domestic fauna, constituting more than 60 percent of the total animal bones. This suggests a large-scale domestication of the horse in the Carpathian basin. Bell Beaker migrations were carried out on horseback from central Europe as far as Spain (where horse bones have also been found in Bell Beaker contexts). The horse also played a significant role in religion, as can be seen from the remains of the horse sacrifice where skulls are found in cremation graves . . .

The striking similarity of burial practices ties the Bell Beaker complex to the Kurgan (Late Yamna) tradition. (p. 391)

There is hardly any reason to treat these groups [Vinkovci-Samogyvar and Bell Beaker] as separate cultures. (p. 391).

4. The warlike and horse-riding Bell Beaker people of the middle and second half of the third millennium B.C., who diffused over western Europe, are likely to have originated from an amalgam of remnants of the Vucedol people with the Yamna colonists (after Wave No. 3) in Yugoslavia and Hungary. Their parent culture is called Vinkovci-Samogyvar. This was the largest and last outmigration, from east-central Europe into western Europe, up to the west Mediterranean and the British Isles, before the onset of a more stable period, and the formation of Bronze Age cultural units. (p. 401)

[Marscrater]

Ah, I see. You come with an agenda. Oh, well, you're not the first. Read the thread.

1336313364

Rms. ...humm I see, 1955 archaeology from Gimbutas as a reference? haven't we learned so much more since?

Its just that I feel you mix so much stuff together that got me confused. I thought you were talking about real Bell beaker folks. sorry. Its fine.

[Marscrater]

Why L23*? What's the tortuous connection to Shulaveri-Shomu this time?

Shulaveri-Shomu? - What is the connection that you see? Intriguing.

[rms2]

Rms. ...humm I see, 1955 archaeology from Gimbutas as a reference? haven't we learned so much more since?

Its just that I feel you mix so much stuff together that got me confused. I thought you were talking about real Bell beaker folks. sorry. Its fine.

Well then, let's hear your viewpoint.

BTW, Gimbutas was still writing in the 1990s, which is when she published The Civilization of the Goddess, and the ancient dna evidence supports her conclusions.

[Megalophias]

Shulaveri-Shomu? - What is the connection that you see? Intriguing.
Oh, it seems a popular theory right now among some, but I don't know anything about it myself.

What I actually wanted to know is why Bell Beaker folk should have L23* if they were connected to the steppe. Your point is hard to follow.

[Marscrater]

1 . true, even if some scholars pointed out the problem of reservoir effect;
2 - not true: not only in Iberia (well... not all Iberia, but only the Northern part) there was continuity, but also in Czechia;
3 . really? I understood the exact opposite... but, as I stated before, I'm not an English native speaker;
4 . we know BB had an extensive exchange of females with CWC? What's the source? A BB man from the past that told you that? Or a CWC man?

Romilius. thank you for your comments.
Although I am confused with either your lack of knowledge (and not of english language) or I fail to grasp your logic. Let alone to the point where you posit right or wrong to what I have written. Don't you think?

1- No. no problem with dating. Especially after Cardoso has redone some with AMS. So, yes, BB in places like Leceia and Vnsp are really older than...
2 -No. what do you mean? - as per Non metric dental that I have read it clear that there was a network of bell beaker people out of Iberia into most of western Europe. Yes the same studies also posit that in bohemia bell beaker groups there was an extensive exchange or Exogamy, mostly women, with CWC. therefore those are a admix diferently than the rest of Admix that Bell beaker folks had. that leads to what Roth as posit in her paper... which is point 3: ...

3 - really! - What she posits by Mtdna is that closeness of BB people with Portuguese late Neo and chalc sites, and a closeness to Northern meseta BB group to those Portuguese groups with leads to the closeness of BB in the previous point. She does not leave room to any interpretation. Must be your difficulties with English language, I suppose.

No. not a CWC telling me. But apparently its what Non metric dental traits told authors of papers regarding that issue. Should we ask those authors if they manage to talk to CWC men? why not women? couldn't they ask CWC women? wouldn't that be an option as well?

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Romilius. thank you for your comments.
Although I am confused with either your lack of knowledge (and not of english language) or I fail to grasp your logic. Let alone to the point where you posit right or wrong to what I have written. Don't you think?

1- No. no problem with dating. Especially after Cardoso has redone some with AMS. So, yes, BB in places like Leceia and Vnsp are really older than...
2 -No. what do you mean? - as per Non metric dental that I have read it clear that there was a network of bell beaker people out of Iberia into most of western Europe. Yes the same studies also posit that in bohemia bell beaker groups there was an extensive exchange or Exogamy, mostly women, with CWC. therefore those are a admix diferently than the rest of Admix that Bell beaker folks had. that leads to what Roth as posit in her paper... which is point 3: ...

3 - really! - What she posits by Mtdna is that closeness of BB people with Portuguese late Neo and chalc sites, and a closeness to Northern meseta BB group to those Portuguese groups with leads to the closeness of BB in the previous point. She does not leave room to any interpretation. Must be your difficulties with English language, I suppose.

No. not a CWC telling me. But apparently its what Non metric dental traits told authors of papers regarding that issue. Should we ask those authors if they manage to talk to CWC men? why not women? couldn't they ask CWC women? wouldn't that be an option as well?

Luckily we don't have to rely on tooth shapes anymore, because it's 2017 (almost).
And the aDNA shows that BB Germany & Czexh came from northwest Black Sea area, not a miscegenation between Iberia chalcolithic and CWC .

[Marscrater]

Luckily we don't have to rely on tooth shapes anymore, because it's 2017 (almost).
And the aDNA shows that BB Germany & Czexh came from northwest Black Sea area

Hi. Yes its a fact. were are almost in 2017.
Yes you are correct. I agree with you (at least is what I think you mean) that in 2016 we should start to look for different names for these groups. We should not call them Bell beakers. Germany BB that we have Adna from were as we knew all along a mix of CWC and BB. I read that some even question if some of those can really be called a Bell beaker burial.
If they came from northwest black sea I don't know. its confusing how you know that. Couldn't it be north black see? or Western? anyway I remember that there are a lot of people pointing to the Iberia chalcolithic component in admix in them? how did they got that while coming from Northwestern black sea?

[Marscrater]

Oh, it seems a popular theory right now among some, but I don't know anything about it myself.

What I actually wanted to know is why Bell Beaker folk should have L23* if they were connected to the steppe. Your point is hard to follow.

What is my point?
I think all bell beakers should be L23-L51...and even further downclades.

If they are connected to the steppes? Why should one say that.
If the Germany BB are a subset of BB mixing with CWC... then they are not representative of the BB phenomena, at least not to its origin and ethnogenisis. So, if a person is talking about bohemia/germany BB its one thing. If that same person wants to talk about the Bell beaker folk than it should talk about what we know from archaeology, from Nmdental traits, from Sna (mtdna) don''t you think?
so regarding real bell beakers folks and dna, out if Iberia ones, what is your opinion about them?

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Hi. Yes its a fact. were are almost in 2017.
Yes you are correct. I agree with you (at least is what I think you mean) that in 2016 we should start to look for different names for these groups. We should not call them Bell beakers. Germany BB that we have Adna from were as we knew all along a mix of CWC and BB. I read that some even question if some of those can really be called a Bell beaker burial.
If they came from northwest black sea I don't know. its confusing how you know that. Couldn't it be north black see? or Western? anyway I remember that there are a lot of people pointing to the Iberia chalcolithic component in admix in them? how did they got that while coming from Northwestern black sea?

True I'd certainly agree with very careful cultural and chronological attribution.
The problem with Iberia chalcokithic is that the representative samples date from 3000-2200 BC; whilst BB dates from 2700 BC (Iberia) and 2500 BC (Germany). So we can get errors due to contemperity. So I instead use Iberia middle Neolithic: which is fine because "Iberia Chalcolithic" is essentially Iberia MN + extra WHG. In other words Iberia chalcolithic has nothing too Special or new in it; and is often taken up in models because it nicely approximates a high WHG, MNE population.
Overall, I found the role of Iberia isn't major for BB East (let's call it). At best 10-15% in certain individuals .
I can post full breakdowns for every individual later .....


NB:"northwestern Black Sea" is a term used by scholars to refer to the westernmost steppe: Bulgaria to west Ukraine

[Leroy Jenkins]

Hi. Yes its a fact. were are almost in 2017.
Yes you are correct. I agree with you (at least is what I think you mean) that in 2016 we should start to look for different names for these groups. We should not call them Bell beakers. Germany BB that we have Adna from were as we knew all along a mix of CWC and BB. I read that some even question if some of those can really be called a Bell beaker burial.
If they came from northwest black sea I don't know. its confusing how you know that. Couldn't it be north black see? or Western? anyway I remember that there are a lot of people pointing to the Iberia chalcolithic component in admix in them? how did they got that while coming from Northwestern black sea?

Most here are of the belief that the ancient BBC samples from Central Europe were the result of predominately steppe males and Neolithic European females mixing together. We of course need more samples from Western Europe, particularly the Iberian peninsula, to get a clear picture of ancient BBC genetics and affinities, but as of now, most here believe the majority of R1b subclades in present day Western Europe are the result of male migrations from Eastern Europe to the Atlantic during the LN/EBA period.

[Marscrater]

True I'd certainly agree with very careful cultural and chronological attribution.
The problem with Iberia chalcokithic is that the representative samples date from 3000-2200 BC; whilst BB dates from 2700 BC (Iberia) and 2500 BC (Germany). So we can get errors due to contemperity. So I instead use Iberia middle Neolithic: which is fine because "Iberia Chalcolithic" is essentially Iberia MN + extra WHG. In other words Iberia chalcolithic has nothing too Special or new in it; and is often taken up in models because it nicely approximates a high WHG, MNE population.
Overall, I found the role of Iberia isn't major for BB East (let's call it). At best 10-15% in certain individuals .
I can post full breakdowns for every individual later ..

Oh then you are making a grave mistake. it really must be ruining all your analysis. Iberia Middle Neolithic has nothing to do with Iberia Late neolithic. One cant at this point clarify were the increase population came from, but surely such an increase in population would be impossible, malthusian impossible, to be from local population increased demographics. hence, an exogenous and in considerable number population arrived to Iberia and that is what Non metric dental traits posits as well. That is the population that is considered a source (or some of them) of Bell beakers and one should never make the mistake of consider the same people. The 4th milenia in Iberia is considered the arrival, the sudden arrival, of Carenated Pottery and Arrows, lots o arrows.

[Marscrater]

Most here are of the belief that the ancient BBC samples from Central Europe were the result of predominately steppe males and Neolithic European females mixing together. We of course need more samples from Western Europe, particularly the Iberian peninsula, to get a clear picture of ancient BBC genetics and affinities, but as of now, most here believe the majority of R1b subclades in present day Western Europe are the result of male migrations from Eastern Europe to the Atlantic during the LN/EBA period.

Leroy. Yes that is what most here believe. But that is just a believe most here have, isn't it?
The Y dna we have for those R1b in Germany are not downclades of the steppe R1b clades we have, are they? and some geneticist that are currently publishing dna papers posit that steppe clades we have for steppe never left the steppe (Oleg Balanovsky). Hence the R1b maps you can google show a blog in that exact place in steppe like an island and then no R1b dna around it.

then is confusing to say that central Europe BB are a steppe male migration when that migration looks like a R1a migration and even the BB in Germany are a solid cluster of R1b. it follows that it is not a reasonable inference that in a sea of R1a migration such a solid group of R1b were so early (2500bc) showing so many traits of out of Iberia Bell beakers. I think.
Anyway Non metric dental traits tell a different story and should be reckon it strengthens the story of male migration from elsewhere (Iberia?) and having an exchange of females in Bohemia and Germany.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Oh then you are making a grave mistake. it really must be ruining all your analysis. Iberia Middle Neolithic has nothing to do with Iberia Late neolithic. One cant at this point clarify were the increase population came from, but surely such an increase in population would be impossible, malthusian impossible, to be from local population increased demographics. hence, an exogenous and in considerable number population arrived to Iberia and that is what Non metric dental traits posits as well. That is the population that is considered a source (or some of them) of Bell beakers and one should never make the mistake of consider the same people. The 4th milenia in Iberia is considered the arrival, the sudden arrival, of Carenated Pottery and Arrows, lots o arrows.

Given that you might not actually know what my analysis shows, it's wise not to make statements which will make you sound silly.

As I said- as far as the current samples we have- there is no evidence of any special migration beyond the Neolithic in Iberia apart from some follow-through of MNE groups from Central Europe . So that and natural population growth accounts for the demographic rise which has baffled you.

To re-summarise (as you appear to be slow):
Iberia MN:
Iberia EN 80%
Bichon 20%

Iberia Chalcolithic :
Iberia MN 90%
Loschbour 10%

[Marscrater]

Given that you might not actually know what my analysis shows, it's wise not to make statements which will make you sound silly.

As I said- as far as the current samples we have- there is no evidence of any special migration beyond the Neolithic in Iberia apart from some follow-through of MNE groups from Central Europe . So that and natural population growth accounts for the demographic rise which has baffled you.

To re-summarise (as you appear to be slow):
Iberia MN:
Iberia EN 80%
Bichon 20%

Iberia Chalcolithic :
Iberia MN 90%
Loschbour 10%

By the way, you sound like that crazy person "OM"..

Now you are confusing me.
I was just advising you regarding a mistake you might be making with your analysis and didn't intent to say anything regarding the quality of something I do not know.

Having said said that, I do know Iberian pre-history and if you only consider for your inference of a vast reality, a vast and rich archaeological reality, only a meager, outlier and scarce current samples we have then in your opinion what is the value of the statements that your analysis produces?

[Leroy Jenkins]

Leroy. Yes that is what most here believe. But that is just a believe most here have, isn't it?

Yes, although some believe it as if it is an indisputable fact, the matter is still not settled.


The Y dna we have for those R1b in Germany are not downclades of the steppe R1b clades we have, are they?

No, but the R1b subclades from the Central European Bell Beaker samples are closer in relation to the R1b subclades of our current Yamnaya samples than they are to say the Villabruna or Neolithic Iberian samples; the former being R-P297 (or L278?) and the latter being an equivalent of R-V88. Yamnaya sample I0443 is Y-DNA R-L23 (Z2105-, L51-).


and some geneticist that are currently publishing dna papers posit that steppe clades we have for steppe never left the steppe (Oleg Balanovsky). Hence the R1b maps you can google show a blog in that exact place in steppe like an island and then no R1b dna around it.

Many papers published over the years have said various things about R1b and yet here we are, still debating its origin and migrations. Also, modern frequencies are not very good indicators of prehistoric frequencies. aDNA has taught us that, if nothing else.


then is confusing to say that central Europe BB are a steppe male migration when that migration looks like a R1a migration and even the BB in Germany are a solid cluster of R1b. it follows that it is not a reasonable inference that in a sea of R1a migration such a solid group of R1b were so early (2500bc) showing so many traits of out of Iberia Bell beakers. I think.

We are all entitled to our opinions and interpretation of the data.



Anyway Non metric dental traits tell a different story and should be reckon it strengthens the story of male migration from elsewhere (Iberia?) and having an exchange of females in Bohemia and Germany.

We have access to aDNA now, so I will wait for more samples from Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Iberia as I do not take non-metric dental traits as equivalent evidence.

[Jean M]

JeanM

In ancestral Journeys I noticed that you do have specimens in copper age (even from spain ) that are much older than 3700bc but you did not include that H10e from Bom Santo Cave also in there. was there a reason?

Perhaps you were looking in the wrong table. The sample in question is in the Neolithic table on page: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml with the date 3735 BC.

[Marscrater]

Yes, although some believe it as if it is an indisputable fact, the matter is still not settled.



No, but the R1b subclades from the Central European Bell Beaker samples are closer in relation to the R1b subclades of our current Yamnaya samples than they are to say the Villabruna or Neolithic Iberian samples; the former being R-P297 (or L278?) and the latter being an equivalent of R-V88. Yamnaya sample I0443 is Y-DNA R-L23 (Z2105-, L51-).



Many papers published over the years have said various things about R1b and yet here we are, still debating its origin and migrations. Also, modern frequencies are not very good indicators of prehistoric frequencies. aDNA has taught us that, if nothing else.



We are all entitled to our opinions and interpretation of the data.




We have access to aDNA now, so I will wait for more samples from Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Iberia as I do not take non-metric dental traits as equivalent evidence.

Leroy,
Very sensible arguments. Not much disagreements from me.
Just a couple notes.

Yes Non metric is not equivalent to aDna...but we are seeing current top investigators dropping some samples for being outliers. therefore what if we only had aDna for that sample, that specifically, that now is being dropped? there are several examples where we only have one or two samples. should we put so much faith in those spot samples in detriment to other methods? should we not have a healthy skeptical look when aDna contradicts clear archaeological and linguistic?

So, what is the value of one or two aDna sample found side by side, compared to Nmetric dental studies that usually use vast amounts of samples, from very different sites?

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Now you are confusing me.
I was just advising you regarding a mistake you might be making with your analysis and didn't intent to say anything regarding the quality of something I do not know.

Having said said that, I do know Iberian pre-history and if you only consider for your inference of a vast reality, a vast and rich archaeological reality, only a meager, outlier and scarce current samples we have then in your opinion what is the value of the statements that your analysis produces?

We all know that actual BB samples from Iberia are missing. So that'll clear things up, as well as a clarification on dating issues.
But as far as Iberia Neolithic to chalcolithic as a whole (as we have samples from north & south): the population is descended from early farmers + European foragers. As simple as that.

But: here I included Iberian Chalcolithic as possible source for Bell Beaker, as well as Corded Ware, to test your "tooth hypothesis'.

Bell_Beaker_Germany_UDG
Yamnaya_Samara 35 %
Iberia_Chalcolithic 19.7 %
Remedello_BA 13.4 %
Anatolia_Chalcolithic 10.4 %
Hungary_HG 9.95 %
Corded_Ware_Germany 7.45 %


Bell_Beaker_Czech
Remedello_BA 44.15 %
Yamnaya_Samara 38.9 %
Corded_Ware_Germany 13.85 %
Hungary_HG 2.1 %
Ulchi 0.85 %


BB Germany is largely from Yamnaya, and fused with SW European middle Neolithics (here represented as Iberia Chalcolithic & Remedello). CWC plays a minimal role in its genesis.
BB Czech is slightly different degree of essentially the same processes.
The appearance of Hungarian HG is also revealing; In that western Yamnaya is going to be more WHG shifted than at Samara

[Leroy Jenkins]

Leroy,
Very sensible arguments. Not much disagreements from me.
Just a couple notes.

Yes Non metric is not equivalent to aDna...but we are seeing current top investigators dropping some samples for being outliers. therefore what if we only had aDna for that sample, that specifically, that now is being dropped? there are several examples where we only have one or two samples.

That's just a basic statistics issue. Of course a couple of samples is not enough.


should we not have a healthy skeptical look when aDna contradicts clear archaeological and linguistic?

I am of the exact opposite opinion. I believe archaeological and linguistic beliefs should be re-evaluated in light of aDNA evidence. Assuming there are enough samples, of course. ;)


So, what is the value of one or two aDna sample found side by side, compared to Nmetric dental studies that usually use vast amounts of samples, from very different sites?

Once again, this is a personal opinion, but I would still prefer the aDNA sample or two as it/they can give you far more information than a collection of dental traits. Dental traits can't tell me hair color or pigmentation, for example, but aDNA can if the quality allows.

[Marscrater]

Perhaps you were looking in the wrong table. The sample in question is in the Neolithic table on page: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml with the date 3735 BC.

Yes, I saw that. Its just that dates and periods sometimes gets confusing to look for and sort in a table. Just a suggestion... would it be possible to have all in one table? the period is already there. So, just a suggestion. cheers.

[Marscrater]

Once again, this is a personal opinion, but I would still prefer the aDNA sample or two as it/they can give you far more information than a collection of dental traits. Dental traits can't tell me hair color or pigmentation, for example, but aDNA can if the quality allows.

Yes, its mostly a matter of preference. I, however, much rather have information about concomitance and correlation of dental traits, that are per all measures today a good proxy for genetic proximity of two populations, than know the color of the eyes for that individual. :)


Bid you all good night.

[rms2]

Of course, in her dissertation, Roth said the following of the mtDNA evidence (p. 148):



Genetic evidence available so far can therefore dismiss an Iberian origin of the Bell
Beaker phenomenon with demic distribution into Central Europe – at least on mitochondrial
level; one will have to await what Y-chromosomal or autosomal ancient DNA data will show.
Anyway, one should not forget that one of these theories may very well be true for the
distribution of the pottery itself, the incision style or any other archaeological assemblage via
acculturation phenomena.

and



No genetic connection between Iberian and Central European Bell Beakers or the Corded Ware culture could be found.


All of the Yamnaya remains thus far save one have been R1b-L23, like most of the Bell Beaker remains, and L23 only dates to about the mid-5th millennium BC, about the time that the mobile, horse-riding life on the steppe was beginning. It isn't likely that there were two separate branches of L23, west and east, one steppic and one not, and Bell Beaker thus far has had a sizable Yamnaya-like autosomal component.

[jdean]

This isn't the only example but why there are still people who don't realise these are the sound of a hammer hitting a nail beats me ?

[Megalophias]

What is my point?
I think all bell beakers should be L23-L51...and even further downclades. If they are connected to the steppes? Why should one say that.
Well, most people around here seem to think that their R1b was L11 and that it came ultimately from the steppe, so not sure what L23* has to do with it. Without sampling of hypothesized source areas (Pontic steppe, Merimde, or whatever) I don't see how the presence or absence of L23* would tell where they came from.


so regarding real bell beakers folks and dna, out if Iberia ones, what is your opinion about them?
That they are the remains of time-travelling trolls who went back to the Bronze Age in order to annoy future generations with interminable threads. ;)

[GailT]

Most here are of the belief that the ancient BBC samples from Central Europe were the result of predominately steppe males and Neolithic European females mixing together.

Some people here have proposed the theory that both males and females migrated from the Steppe. The strongest evidence for this is in mtDNA U5a1a1 which has been found in ancient remains in the Steppe and may have originated there, but it seems likely that other mtDNA haplogroups would have accompanied U5a1a1 as part of the Steppe migration.


We of course need more samples from Western Europe, particularly the Iberian peninsula, to get a clear picture of ancient BBC genetics and affinities, but as of now, most here believe the majority of R1b subclades in present day Western Europe are the result of male migrations from Eastern Europe to the Atlantic during the LN/EBA period.

My impression it that most people here think that this is the theory most consistent with the currently available evidence, but they are waiting for more ancient DNA evidence to further test the theory. You said in another post that some people here believe it as an "indisputable fact". I don't think that is accurate, but perhaps you can cite a post where someone claimed it to be an indisputable fact? I doubt that many people here believe it to be indisputable.

[Jean M]

Just a suggestion... would it be possible to have all in one table? the period is already there.

Once upon a time all the results were in one table on one Internet page. But the page grew so long that it was slow to load both for people reading it online and for me working on it. So it was split up into separate pages.

PS This is a digression from the topic here. If you have further questions or suggestions for my online tables, there is a thread for them in the Ancient DNA section of this forum: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7167-Ancient-DNA-table-on-ancestraljourneys-org

[Marscrater]

Of course, in her dissertation, Roth said the following of the mtDNA evidence (p. 148):



and



All of the Yamnaya remains thus far save one have been R1b-L23, like most of the Bell Beaker remains, and L23 only dates to about the mid-5th millennium BC, about the time that the mobile, horse-riding life on the steppe was beginning. It isn't likely that there were two separate branches of L23, west and east, one steppic and one not, and Bell Beaker thus far has had a sizable Yamnaya-like autosomal component.

@Rms2,
I don’t understand what you mean:
Either you know nothing about the subject, or you actually know a lot and beyond reasonable knowledge so I get lost or the last category is that you are an instrument of some motivational reasoning to produce content to serve some purpose that I also don’t follow. (sorry) .

I am truly confused by what you actually know as a reasonable inference.

1. If you are talking specifically about 2500BC Germany and Bohemia BB group. So. Yes. The evidence is mounting as to say that the Mtdna of those elements was not a typical BB or a typical CWC. That is what archeological evidence shows for a long time, with a mix of traits for BB and CWC for those sites and some even cataloging as BB than later as CWC and so forth.

2. it’s what 2008-2013 several publications regarding Non Metric Dental traits was telling us that BB where a stock of people coming from an admix with Late neolithic Chalcolithic Iberia that did not admix with local populations all over Europe until reaching the bohemia group. That group in the bohemia, hence the Germany BB, had an extensive admix between BB and CWC. Later subset analysis posits that the admix was achieved by exogamy of women between those groups.

3. What Roth 2016 dissertation is addressing is that by Mtdna the BB culture were a Portuguese stock of people that didn’t really admix much with ancestral local population in other parts of Iberia. Like the previous point (2) posits, also Roth says that the Mtdna in the Bhoemia/Germany is completely different therefore by mtdna that stock of Portuguese DNA is not the source of Mtdna in the central European BB. But that is what we already knew for a long time and from point 1 and 2, isn’t it?

4 . By reasoning it follows, until proven wrong, that if the group of Central European BB
a. showed a consistent, albeit mixed, trait of a Bell beaker culture like the rest of the earlier south/western Europe;
b. and the data, either Non metric dental or Mtdna, is telling us that the exchange between those two cultures was made by female exogamy,
c. and both groups still showed a consistent Y.dna difference with CWC being overwhelming R1a and BB being overwhelming R1b it follows as per most plausible explanation that the consistent BB traits that makes us call them Bell beakers was that the group of males showing up in Germany were a stock of R1b coming out of Iberia.

[Marscrater]

Once upon a time all the results were in one table on one Internet page. But the page grew so long that it was slow to load both for people reading it online and for me working on it. So it was split up into separate pages.

PS This is a digression from the topic here. If you have further questions or suggestions for my online tables, there is a thread for them in the Ancient DNA section of this forum: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7167-Ancient-DNA-table-on-ancestraljourneys-org

Jean M
Thank you. Will do so.

[Dubhthach]

thank god for ancient DNA -- I wonder when Copenhagen/Harvard Bell Beaker paper will be published (>150 genomes)

[ADW_1981]

Leroy. Yes that is what most here believe. But that is just a believe most here have, isn't it?
The Y dna we have for those R1b in Germany are not downclades of the steppe R1b clades we have, are they? and some geneticist that are currently publishing dna papers posit that steppe clades we have for steppe never left the steppe (Oleg Balanovsky). Hence the R1b maps you can google show a blog in that exact place in steppe like an island and then no R1b dna around it.

then is confusing to say that central Europe BB are a steppe male migration when that migration looks like a R1a migration and even the BB in Germany are a solid cluster of R1b. it follows that it is not a reasonable inference that in a sea of R1a migration such a solid group of R1b were so early (2500bc) showing so many traits of out of Iberia Bell beakers. I think.
Anyway Non metric dental traits tell a different story and should be reckon it strengthens the story of male migration from elsewhere (Iberia?) and having an exchange of females in Bohemia and Germany.

For starters, yes they are downstream L23->L51->L11->U106/P312. Not all of the steppe burials were positive for Z2103. In addition, there are plenty of L23(xL51) in Germany today.

[Jean M]

@Rms2,
I don’t understand what you mean:
Either you know nothing about the subject, or you actually know a lot

Rms2 knows a huge amount about R1b. He has been involved in R1b projects at Family Tree DNA for many years. He has been way ahead of most academics in understanding R1b. He was already talking about R1b as the other half of the Indo-European story back in the days when standard thinking was that R1b spread from Iberia in the Mesolithic.

[Marscrater]

Rms2 knows a huge amount about R1b. ....

Yes. It was a doubt of mine not a statement. I don't know Rms at all.

however I don't much really care for "authority figures" such as the one in your statement. At the end of the day are meaningless. Either one is in fact correct or wrong.
I am perfectly ok with the problem being me, but he does not make a clear axiom that I can follow. that is why I postulate the axioms as I did.
So those points I made are a solid ground for further reasoning or are not. I think the axioms I posit are. Which does not mean are true or false. That is to be seen in the future.

However, if one wants to counter those axioms needs himself to make others that are better crafted.

Life is this this simple in terms of argument a case. Is it not?

[Jean M]

I don't much really care for "authority figures" ....

As you get to know this forum, I think you will find that a lot of people here would agree with you. Arguing from authority cuts little ice. However you asked. So I answered. So now you know. ;)

I remember my own confusion when I first began to read a forum dedicated to DNA. Who were these people? Where did they get their ideas? :biggrin1:

It might clarify things to read around the topic, as you have come in late to a very long thread here.

[rms2]

. . . and both groups still showed a consistent Y.dna difference with CWC being overwhelming R1a and BB being overwhelming R1b it follows as per most plausible explanation that the consistent BB traits that makes us call them Bell beakers was that the group of males showing up in Germany were a stock of R1b coming out of Iberia.

If you think Bell Beaker "were a stock of R1b coming out of Iberia", how and when did that "stock of R1b" get to Iberia?

Ancient male Bell Beaker remains have thus far been overwhelmingly R1b-L23 (I am including the subclades under that heading), just as ancient male Yamnaya remains have been. R1b-L23 dates to about the mid-5th millennium BC.

So, how and when did R1b-L23 first get to Iberia to eventually emerge from Iberia as Bell Beaker?

Do you think L23 actually arose in Iberia and that what became the eastern branch leading to Z2103 hotfooted it out to the Caspian steppe in time to become involved in the Yamnaya culture, leaving the western branch behind to emerge from Iberia as Bell Beaker later, during the 3rd millennium BC?

Or did the two branches of L23, eastern and western, arise from M269 pretty much simultaneously at opposite ends of the European continent?

Are you claiming that Bell Beaker acquired its patriarchal, steppe-type culture from Corded Ware females?

Don't you find it incredibly odd, if Bell Beaker males "were a stock of R1b coming out of Iberia", that Yamnaya thus far is predominantly R1b-L23, Bell Beaker is predominantly R1b-L23, the Bell Beaker culture had many traits in common with Yamnaya, and Bell Beaker also carried a significant level of Yamnaya-like autosomal dna? Keep in mind also that Marija Gimbutas, a highly respected archaeologist, believed that Bell Beaker was the product of the melding of Vucedol and Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin.

If it turns out that Bell Beaker males were indeed "a stock of R1b coming out of Iberia", then that stock had to come from the steppe first, as Jean M theorizes in her book, Ancestral Journeys, and it would have to have come sometime after the mid-5th millennium BC.

[Dewsloth]

I am perfectly ok with the problem being me, but he does not make a clear axiom that I can follow. that is why I postulate the axioms as I did.
So those points I made are a solid ground for further reasoning or are not. I think the axioms I posit are.

However, if one wants to counter those axioms needs himself to make others that are better crafted.



If you think Bell Beaker "were a stock of R1b coming out of Iberia", how and when did that "stock of R1b" get to Iberia?

Ancient male Bell Beaker remains have thus far been overwhelmingly R1b-L23 (I am including the subclades under that heading), just as ancient male Yamnaya remains have been. R1b-L23 dates to about the mid-5th millennium BC.

So, how and when did R1b-L23 first get to Iberia to eventually emerge from Iberia as Bell Beaker?

Do you think L23 actually arose in Iberia and that what became the eastern branch leading to Z2103 hotfooted it out to the Caspian steppe in time to become involved in the Yamnaya culture, leaving the western branch behind to emerge from Iberia as Bell Beaker later, during the 3rd millennium BC?

Or did the two branches of L23, eastern and western, arise from M269 pretty much simultaneously at opposite ends of the European continent?

Are you claiming that Bell Beaker acquired its patriarchal, steppe-type culture from Corded Ware females?

Don't you find it incredibly odd, if Bell Beaker males "were a stock of R1b coming out of Iberia", that Yamnaya thus far is predominantly R1b-L23, Bell Beaker is predominantly R1b-L23, the Bell Beaker culture had many traits in common with Yamnaya, and Bell Beaker also carried a significant level of Yamnaya-like autosomal dna? Keep in mind also that Marija Gimbutas, a highly respected archaeologist, believed that Bell Beaker was the product of the melding of Vucedol and Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin.

If it turns out that Bell Beaker males were indeed "a stock of R1b coming out of Iberia", then that stock had to come from the steppe first, as Jean M theorizes in her book, Ancestral Journeys, and it would have to have come sometime after the mid-5th millennium BC.

Marscrater axioms, rms tells[i]'ems.

[ADW_1981]

Yes. It was a doubt of mine not a statement. I don't know Rms at all.

however I don't much really care for "authority figures" such as the one in your statement. At the end of the day are meaningless. Either one is in fact correct or wrong.
I am perfectly ok with the problem being me, but he does not make a clear axiom that I can follow. that is why I postulate the axioms as I did.
So those points I made are a solid ground for further reasoning or are not. I think the axioms I posit are. Which does not mean are true or false. That is to be seen in the future.

However, if one wants to counter those axioms needs himself to make others that are better crafted.

Life is this this simple in terms of argument a case. Is it not?

It depends on how many generations are between the L23(xL51) and L51 male which can be demonstrated with scientific methods. If, for example, we are looking at a 500 or even upwards of 1000 years, an out of Iberia scenario seems unlikely when you have L23(xL51) in far eastern Yamnaya. Moreover, the bulk of Iberian R1b is below DF27+, not many L51(xL11) men have turned up from very large samples that have been collected in recent Iberian datasets. Therefore an east to west migration of L23->L51->L11..etc seems the most likely explanation, rather than a pincer effect from east and west around the same time.

[Marscrater]

Rms2,
Thank you for your replies.
Nevertheless the condescending and somewhat sarcastic tone does not really contribute to clarify if you really have a deep insight of the issue in matter

Respectfully allow me to go paragraph by paragraph.
1

If you think Bell Beaker "were a stock of R1b coming out of Iberia", how and when did that "stock of R1b" get to Iberia?

I have no Idea. And apparently, in spite of your words, neither do you.
Let me tell you what I know. The fourth millennium BC is the arrival of a vast amount of exogenous people to South Iberia. Notice south, not Iberia as a whole. Shortly after they got into Portugal and in there we are currently digging large settlements that attest to that migration. Some are very big.

So the stock of R1b (if they were indeed that) arrived with people that made carinated pottery, herringbone decoration pottery, arrows (some tanged) , an eastern (not steppe!) type of lever pressure blade making, made round huts and silos for storage with walls that fortified those castros settlements and buried their dead in pits inside their homes (mostly). In short this is the people arriving to south Iberia and most important to the place where is registered the earliest bell beakers. Nothing about those bell beakers made them different in those traits.

Does this cries Yamnaya culture to you? If so, please elaborate.

[rms2]

Rms2,
Thank you for your replies.
Nevertheless the condescending and somewhat sarcastic tone does not really contribute to clarify if you really have a deep insight of the issue in matter

I don't think I was being sarcastic or condescending, but name calling seems to be one of your specialities, since you began a post or two back by implying that I don't know what I am talking about.



I have no Idea. And apparently, in spite of your words, neither do you.


I think I have a pretty good idea, but we disagree.

The evidence indicates that R1b-L23 came into Europe from the steppe beginning in the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. It's pretty obviously a steppe lineage.

If Bell Beaker came out of Iberia, which I think there is good reason to doubt, beyond perhaps some of the pottery, and if it had R1b-L23 in it, then that R1b-L23 got to Iberia from the steppe first. There is also a possibility that the very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker was not R1b at all.

I have to agree with Davidski's recent observation over on his Eurogenes blog:



Davidski said...
Start thinking how you're gonna re-write your thesis, cos you'll have to do that soon.

Make sure you put the origins of proto-Beakers in the Yamnaya Culture of the Pontic steppes, and then the origins of Bell Beakers proper somewhere further west, but not in Iberia.

Good luck. Look forward to seeing the new thesis.
December 6, 2016 at 5:28 PM


I also think Gimbutas was right when she wrote the following on page 390 of her book, The Civilization of the Goddess:



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. We must ask what sort of ecology and ideology created these people, and where are the roots of the specific Bell Beaker equipment and their burial rites. In my view, the Bell Beaker cultural elements derive from Vucedol and Kurgan (Late Yamna) traditions.

[Marscrater]

2

Ancient male Bell Beaker remains have thus far been overwhelmingly R1b-L23 (I am including the subclades under that heading), just as ancient male Yamnaya remains have been. R1b-L23 dates to about the mid-5th millennium BC.


Yes it does. However if L23 has coalescence in Steppe then it’s extremely confusing.
L23 coalescence in steppe but the highest variance of R1b1a2 (M269) is in eastern Anatolia? So If I had to choose a place where L23 appeared out of M269 I would pick eastern Anatolia and not steppe. And does it sound as solid inference of origins of a clade when 5 individuals out of 110 tested in the Ararat Valley, Armenia belonged to R1b1a2* and 36 to L23*, with none belonging to known subclades of L23? Isn’t it Armenia just next to Eastern Anatolia?

And Oleg Balanovsky makes a very good case for that subclades of the R1b-L23 steppe not going anywhere does he not? If you disagree please explain why.
Do you really believe that if Yamnaya was such a vast migration of Males with that haplogroup, R1b-L23 (Z2105/2103) shows nowhere else? Only L23* migrated? Do you really believe that Z2105/2103 went absolutely nowhere and only males with L23* did? Is this solid inference of the data?

And if L51 is the trademark we seek for all this western r1b, should we not only posit origin of that stock of people after finding the first L51?

This are just a couple arguments that in a very short time anyone can gatherer against steppe origins of R1b in Bell beaker and it looks like very sound arguments against such an hypothesis. So, what is the fixation of such a weak steppe hypothesis?

[Marscrater]

Rms2,
Your last comment is a complete enigma to me. Should I carry on replying or you want me to stop?