Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b

[R.Rocca]

The important takeaway from that is that Basques do not have zero steppe autosomal dna, not even close.

Of course, what modern Basques are, one way or the other, isn't going to matter all that much if Heber is right in what to expect from that new paper on ancient Iberian dna from Martiniano.

Also, as can be clearly seen in jeanL's attachment, the Bronze Age Iberia_BA_ATP9 sample (and Basques for that matter) pulls away from Iberia_ChL towards samples with Bronze Age Steppe ancestry.

[TigerMW]

Also, as can be clearly seen in jeanL's attachment, the Bronze Age Iberia_BA_ATP9 sample (and Basques for that matter) pulls away from Iberia_ChL towards samples with Bronze Age Steppe ancestry.
What's the dating on Iberia_BA-ATP9? Is it the 1st half of the third millenium BC or the 2nd half?

[rms2]

What's the dating on Iberia_BA-ATP9? Is it the 1st half of the third millenium BC or the 2nd half?

1750-1618 BC, according to Jean M's Ancient Western Eurasian DNA site. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml

[sweuro]

Basques do not have more Steppe Autosomal DNA than other Southern Europeans with the only exception being Sardinians, this is an issue that has been discussed over and over here. This is evident in any PCA Map that features Basques and other Southern Europeans alongside Yamnaya. Look at PC2 and notice that Basque second to Sardinians are the modern day Europeans farther away from the Steppe.

15195

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FOhPQouhbcU/WJ7uL0sSjKI/AAAAAAAAFSU/Wjsiy8EFvFwm9_xqe603sVyj5e5yCl-IACLcB/s1218/ATP9.png

Also the statement that Basques have 30% Steppe Autosomal component is also false.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gzxMCTBTJo0NZ5jsTXnM2N6mkbBUUTXHLRgOw2CqQb4/edit#gid=515556785

Spanish Basques 23.3% Steppe_EBA the lowest in all of Iberia.
French Basques 26.9% Steppe_EBA
Pais Vasco = 31.1%
What are the other Southern EUropeans apart from iberians, who have more than this ?

[TigerMW]

1750-1618 BC, according to Jean M's Ancient Western Eurasian DNA site. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml

Iberia_BA-ATP9 may have nothing to do with the early Bell Beakers then, other than residence on the Iberian Peninsula. If I am looking at the language phylogeny charts, Italic would have already broken away by the this time. In fact, Italic would have split with Celtic about 2500BC. I recognize those age estimates are not likely precise but still we could have Proto-Celtic occurring about the time of the fusion/fission events of central Europe.

[rms2]

Iberia_BA-ATP9 may have nothing to do with the early Bell Beakers then, other than residence on the Iberian Peninsula. If I am looking at the language phylogeny charts, Italic would have already broken away by the this time. In fact, Italic would have split with Celtic about 2500BC. I recognize those age estimates are not likely precise but still we could have Proto-Celtic occurring about the time of the fusion/fission events of central Europe.

I don't think Rich's point was that ATP9 had anything to do with BB, just that by then Iberians were shifted away autosomally from Near Eastern-like Neolithic/Chalcolithic farmers and toward the steppe.

[TigerMW]

I don't think Rich's point was that ATP9 had anything to do with BB, just that by then Iberians were shifted away autosomally from Near Eastern-like Neolithic/Chalcolithic farmers and toward the steppe.

I was not assuming Richard R was making a point of early Bell Beakers. I only brought this point up for emphasis.

R1b-P311 types in the Iberian Peninsula may have little to do with early Bell Beakers. The emphasis being on a central European origin rather than a "Celtic from the West." However, that does not mean I agree with the idea of a late Proto-Celtic origin associated with Hallstatt.

The real P311 population and (controlling) territory expansion may have have been from 2500 to 1000 BC. That's what I think. Proto-Celtic and U152/Italic were part of this expansion. That's speculative, though. I think that aligns with Henri Hubert in a strange way. I don't know if he was thinking this timeframe for Italic and Celtic splits but this was well before Hallstatt.

There are some clues out there, but I doubt if any of the major subclade origins were a "parachute in" and explode by locality. More than likely, there were multiple waves, and yes, some back-migration.

Look at North America. Discovered by Europeans about 1500 with settlement starting then, but many of the major settlements not until the 1600s. Then you have other waves including the Pennsylvania Dutch, the Scots-Irish, etc. As of the 1800s, there is a major wave as a result of the Irish maladies. We have a lot of Italians coming after these. These are only a few of the waves, but the actual current content of North American DNA would be an interesting thing to estimate by immigration date. I do have some 1700 style lineages, but most didn't arrive before the 1800s so I would assume my mix would be rather late.

It is my opinion that is what makes L21 in the British Isles difficult to unravel. There were likely various L21 types coming in from Gaul, Amorica, the Low Countries over a long period of time with some back-migration too. It started with the Beakers but the Isles Beakers may not be the source of most L21 type around today.

[R.Rocca]

I don't think Rich's point was that ATP9 had anything to do with BB, just that by then Iberians were shifted away autosomally from Near Eastern-like Neolithic/Chalcolithic farmers and toward the steppe.

Exactly, and if what Heber reported is accurate, the Early Bronze Age samples from Iberia will plot even further north (away from Neolithic/Chalcolithic) with the Irish Bell Beakers.

BTW... European Neolithics/Chalcolithics are Sardinian-like, not Near Eastern-like. There are no modern day Near Eastern populations that plot close to them.

[jeanL]

Pais Vasco = 31.1%
What are the other Southern EUropeans apart from iberians, who have more than this ?

You know very well that Pais_Vasco aka Spanish_North have nonBasque blood, this is evident by their intermediate position between Basques and Spanish, David even went over this fact on the comment section of that thread. In addition, look at the freaking PCA, no other Southern European with the exception of Sardinians plots farther South in the PC2 direction than Basques. Also, did you forget that Spanish_Basques score 23.3% Steppe and French Basques 26.6%. So no, you are in the wrong in this case!

[sweuro]

You know very well that Pais_Vasco aka Spanish_North have nonBasque blood, this is evident by their intermediate position between Basques and Spanish, David even went over this fact on the comment section of that thread. In addition, look at the freaking PCA, no other Southern European with the exception of Sardinians plots farther South in the PC2 direction than Basques. Also, did you forget that Spanish_Basques score 23.3% Steppe and French Basques 26.6%. So no, you are in the wrong in this case!
The PC2 direction can be misleading, because there is also admixture with CHG that pulls populations upwards. For example South Italians or Cypriots don't have more Steppe than Basques, yet appear more upwards.

[rms2]

Exactly, and if what Heber reported is accurate, the Early Bronze Age samples from Iberia will plot even further north (away from Neolithic/Chalcolithic) with the Irish Bell Beakers.

BTW... European Neolithics/Chalcolithics are Sardinian-like, not Near Eastern-like. There are no modern day Near Eastern populations that plot close to them.

I meant in terms of ancient Neolithic farmers, many of whom were ultimately of Near Eastern origin.

[R.Rocca]

I meant in terms of ancient Neolithic farmers, many of whom were ultimately of Near Eastern origin.

But even ancient Near Easterner Neolithic farmers is still too broad a term, as three very distinct populations existed (Anatolia, Iran, Levant). Can we settle on ancient Anatolian Farmer-like? :D

[rms2]

But even ancient Near Easterner Neolithic farmers is still too broad a term, as three very distinct populations existed (Anatolia, Iran, Levant). Can we settle on ancient Anatolian Farmer-like? :D

Sure. :biggrin1:

[Isidro]

I would put in contention "Anatolian Farmer like"...maybe it was Anatolian Hunter Gatherer like, followed a few thousand years later with the popularly known tag as EEF.

"A new article co-authored by experts at the University of Huddersfield bolsters a theory that the spread of agriculture throughout Europe followed migration into the Mediterranean from the Near East more than 13,000 years ago – thousands of years earlier than widely believed.

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-dna-true-migration-route-early.html

[R.Rocca]

I would put in contention "Anatolian Farmer like"...maybe it was Anatolian Hunter Gatherer like, followed a few thousand years later with the popularly known tag as EEF.

"A new article co-authored by experts at the University of Huddersfield bolsters a theory that the spread of agriculture throughout Europe followed migration into the Mediterranean from the Near East more than 13,000 years ago – thousands of years earlier than widely believed.

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-dna-true-migration-route-early.html

In this day of ancient DNA studies, papers like this one seem so out of touch. Dating migrations based on modern mtDNA is so 2005. I guess I am getting off topic though.

[Isidro]

Out of topic for sure,
Out of touch time will tell,opinions can go so far,
I just think that calling the Med basin migrations so simplistic calls for a higher level of intellect than the context it was put in.

In this day of ancient DNA studies, papers like this one seem so out of touch. Dating migrations based on modern mtDNA is so 2005. I guess I am getting off topic though.

[rms2]

Here is a graphic I cooked up to show how I think R1b-L51 got into Bell Beaker (with reference to Gimbutas).

15232

[rms2]

The Bell Beaker Blogger has some interesting stuff on BB in Norway (http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2017/04/anthropology-of-prospector-melheim.html).

[Gravetto-Danubian]

I meant the I2a2 type associated with the Copper Age is Spain. Did they immigrate into Iberia before the Chalcolithic? If they did, then they aren't much of a marker for any Bell Beaker movement from points east. They were prior or indigenous at the time of the early Bell Beakers and can't tell us much about where the earliest Iberian Bell Beaker folks were from, if not indigenous.

I think I2a2 increasingly moved into Iberia from Central Europe from the MNE and really peaked in Copper age, displacing earlier G2 lineages. They were thus already present, or formative in the early Iberian Bleakers.
At some point I2a2 seems to have been almost wholly replaced by DF27, although exactly when and at what rate needs to be demonstrated


I guess you are saying they developed in situ, then. Where did they get their copper working skills from?
As above- alpine metallurgical centres (Pfyn, Mondsee, etc cultures), as predicted by archaeometallurgists.
These I2 people were the Megalith builders and sailors of early Europe, too. But ultimately their civilization gave way to a new organisation arriving from the east, because the former were dispersed hamlet societies occasionally coming together for megalithic rituals, whilst BB conglomerated into well formed villages.

[Ral]

It's obvious to me, Cucuteni is the pra-ie culture in Europe.
Modern Europeans are Cucuteni peoples's language descendants and partly genetic descendants,
and partly genetic descendants of steppic people who was assimilated by the descendants of Cucuteny peoples(indo-european people).
Gimbutas was right, but in part. Since at that time scientists were not particularly aware that the genetic history of peoples can be very different from language history.

[Romilius]

Over on the Irish DNA Atlas thread in the Celtic subforum, Heber mentioned some interesting news from the recent WDYTYA thingy in Birmingham, England.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5079-Irish-DNA-Atlas-Preliminary-Results&p=225462&viewfull=1#post225462



What is particularly interesting is the apparent finding that the Neolithic Iberian skeletons are similar to the Irish Neolithic skeletons (like the Ballynahatty woman, I guess) and are not R1b.

Heber repeats that report in a subsequent post in the same thread:



http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5079-Irish-DNA-Atlas-Preliminary-Results&p=226214&viewfull=1#post226214

So, one more paper to be waiting on, with some tantalizing hints as to its contents.

Really interesting... I hope Heber will write something in this topic about those comments, at least to know if those are actual results or speculation...

[Heber]

I think Carles Lalueza-Fox is involved in this new Iberian aDNA paper, as well.

Lalueza-Fox Interview La Vanguardia (http://www.lavanguardia.com/lacontra/20170222/42212094430/todos-los-europeos-de-hace-8000-anos-tenian-ojos-azules.html)

From the Charles Lalueza-Fox interview:

And we keep mixing genes ...

Yes, 4,000 years ago came the kurganes, domesticators of the horse in the steppes pontics and carriers of the protoindoeuropea language, matrix of Celtic, Latin, Greek ... They left us a high genetic impact.

What does it mean?

They claimed the right to reproduce, and the previous population regressed genetically: today 40% of the Western European population carries the kurgan genetic footprint!

Also in the Iberian peninsula?

Our ancestral substrate is 50% neolithic, and the other half is distributed between 30% kurgán and 20% hunter collector.

[Heber]

Really interesting... I hope Heber will write something in this topic about those comments, at least to know if those are actual results or speculation...

The only thing I can add is that it appears to support continuity in the Atlantic Bronze Age Zone and reflecting the Atlantic Cist Tradition from 4,000 years ago as described by Koch in Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages, part of the Celtic from the West trilogy.

Atlantic Cist Tradition
15264

https://youtu.be/Ub5izFOdtDs

Atlantic Bronze Age Ireland and Britain
15265

Atlantic Bronze Age Iberia
15266

Atlantic Bronze Age Weapons
15267

Atlantic Bronze Age Cauldrons
15268

https://www.academia.edu/22189046/Beakers_into_Bronze_Tracing_connections_between_Ib eria_and_the_British_Isles_2800-800_BC

http://pin.it/BQwj2rK

http://pin.it/AR5KW80

http://pin.it/j2dYvvt

We will have to wait for the paper to get the details of the Site, Archealogy, Haplogroups and Admixture.
I would speculate that it is probably R1b-DF27, possibly R1b-L21 with up to 30% CHG.

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

http://pin.it/J0C3zPZ

[Heber]

The only thing I can add is that it appears to support continuity in the Atlantic Bronze Age Zone and reflecting the Atlantic Cist Tradition from 4,000 years ago as described by Koch in Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages, part of the Celtic from the West trilogy.

Atlantic Cist Tradition
15264

https://youtu.be/Ub5izFOdtDs

Atlantic Bronze Age Ireland and Britain
15265

Atlantic Bronze Age Iberia
15266

Atlantic Bronze Age Weapons
15267

Atlantic Bronze Age Cauldrons
15268

https://www.academia.edu/22189046/Beakers_into_Bronze_Tracing_connections_between_Ib eria_and_the_British_Isles_2800-800_BC

http://pin.it/BQwj2rK

http://pin.it/AR5KW80

http://pin.it/j2dYvvt

We will have to wait for the paper to get the details of the Site, Archealogy, Haplogroups and Admixture.
I would speculate that it is probably R1b-DF27, possibly R1b-L21 with up to 30% CHG.

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

http://pin.it/J0C3zPZ

And this evolved into the familiar Atlantic Zone.

15281

15282

[rms2]

"Continuity in the Atlantic Bronze Age Zone" kind of makes it sound as if the whole area has been a monolithic genetic block since the Bronze Age, which of course it hasn't. According to Cassidy et al, the modern Irish are pretty much like those three Rathlin Island Bronze Age guys, but I think a lot has probably changed elsewhere in the Atlantic Zone since the Bronze Age. And people in the Isles are a lot more like other northern Europeans than they are like Iberians.

On the y-dna side, P312 has apparently prevailed in the Atlantic Zone since the Bronze Age, but there are obvious differences in the distribution and frequency of its subclades from one part of it to another.

The idea of continuity since the Bronze Age is a big improvement over the old idea of continuity since the last Ice Age, however. :)

[Kale]

"Continuity in the Atlantic Bronze Age Zone" kind of makes it sound as if the whole area has been a monolithic genetic block since the Bronze Age, which of course it hasn't. According to Cassidy et al, the modern Irish are pretty much like those three Rathlin Island Bronze Age guys, but I think a lot has probably changed elsewhere in the Atlantic Zone since the Bronze Age. And people in the Isles are a lot more like other northern Europeans than they are like Iberians.

On the y-dna side, P312 has apparently prevailed in the Atlantic Zone since the Bronze Age, but there are obvious differences in the distribution and frequency of its subclades from one part of it to another.

The idea of continuity since the Bronze Age is a big improvement over the old idea of continuity since the last Ice Age, however. :)

Honestly one could argue continuity and discontinuity at the same time and be right. Sure a lot of movements might have taken place since the bronze age, but all by closely related peoples.

[rms2]

That depends on the level of resolution, I guess.

[Romilius]

I read the last comment on the blog entry at Eurogenesblog about those two new papers about archaeology of Corded Ware and Bell Beaker... Kristiansen says that we'll have the answer to Bell Beaker mistery in two or three months... Does someone know something more? It would mean that the big paper will be delayed again.

[paoloferrari]

I read the last comment on the blog entry at Eurogenesblog about those two new papers about archaeology of Corded Ware and Bell Beaker... Kristiansen says that we'll have the answer to Bell Beaker mistery in two or three months... Does someone know something more? It would mean that the big paper will be delayed again.

if there were another delay some people would do better to speak(write) less

[rms2]

I read the last comment on the blog entry at Eurogenesblog about those two new papers about archaeology of Corded Ware and Bell Beaker... Kristiansen says that we'll have the answer to Bell Beaker mistery in two or three months... Does someone know something more? It would mean that the big paper will be delayed again.

Probably he wrote that well before the article itself was published. Word is that the big Bell Beaker paper will be out next month.

[TigerMW]

The Bell Beaker Blogger has some interesting stuff on BB in Norway (http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2017/04/anthropology-of-prospector-melheim.html).
The Prescott and Glorstad map mentions "other potential sites in southern Norway" besides the two specified. However, I don't see any other sites, just the general gray area along the along the coasts for Late Neothilic/Early Bronze Age.

What are the "other" sites?

The reason I ask is the general gray area encompasses a large coastal region that includes Sweden and Denmark. Do Melheim & Prescott think that Bell Beakers reached into Baltic Sea?

[rms2]

The Prescott and Glorstad map mentions "other potential sites in southern Norway" besides the two specified. However, I don't see any other sites, just the general gray area along the along the coasts for Late Neothilic/Early Bronze Age.

What are the "other" sites?

The reason I ask is the general gray area encompasses a large coastal region that includes Sweden and Denmark. Do Melheim & Prescott think that Bell Beakers reached into Baltic Sea?

Well, they did say "other potential BBC sites in southern Norway", with no mention of Sweden (Denmark has some Beaker sites).

There is another map on page 201 of the article, Exploring New Territories, Expanding Frontiers: Bowmen and Prospectors on the Scandinavian Peninsula in the Third Millennium BC (https://www.academia.edu/31271420/Melheim_and_Precott_2016_Exploring_new_territories _expanding_frontiers_bowmen_and_prospectors_on_the _Scandinavian_Peninsula_in_the_3rd_millennium_BC). It shows the other potential sites in southern Norway.

[GoldenHind]

I have wondered for some time whether the Beakers reached the southern shore of the Baltic. Most maps of Beaker settlements I have seen show nothing anywhere in the vicinity. However I have seen a few maps which show Beakers at least very near the Baltic. There seems to be no doubt that there were Beaker settlements on both the Oder and Vistula rivers in what is now Poland. Both of these drain northwards into the Baltic, so it wouldn't be too much of a leap for them to have followed those rivers to their terminus. It would also have been accessible by boat from Jutland. The south shore of the Baltic has long been a major source for amber, so with their widespread trading links, some Beaker participation in the lucrative amber trade seems like a reasonable possibility.

[TigerMW]

I have wondered for some time whether the Beakers reached the southern shore of the Baltic. Most maps of Beaker settlements I have seen show nothing anywhere in the vicinity. However I have seen a few maps which show Beakers at least very near the Baltic. There seems to be no doubt that there were Beaker settlements on both the Oder and Vistula rivers in what is now Poland. Both of these drain northwards into the Baltic, so it wouldn't be too much of a leap for them to have followed those rivers to their terminus. It would also have been accessible by boat from Jutland. The south shore of the Baltic has long been a major source for amber, so with their widespread trading links, some Beaker participation in the lucrative amber trade seems like a reasonable possibility.

I found that the Swedish Battle Axe culture is considered more specifically of the Boat Axe culture type.

New tribes, practicing agriculture and cattle raising, made their appearance about 2500 bce, and soon afterward a peasant culture with good continental communications was flourishing in what are now the provinces of Skåne, Halland, Bohuslän, and Västergötland. The so-called Boat-Ax culture (an outlier of the European Battle-Ax cultures)
https://www.britannica.com/place/Sweden/Cultural-institutions#ref403657


A wonderful Boat Axe from Mecklenburg found in the 1890ies. The so called boat axe culture (about 2000 BC), an outlier of the European Battle-Ax ( Corded Ware) cultures is named after its boat-shaped battle axes made of stone.
Thousands of these axes have been found, as stray findings and in single graves, mainly in Southern Scandinavia and Northern Germany. Isolated finds are known from Southern Germany and Northern France. One of the finest specimens I know can bee seen in the Amiens Museum. Boat Axes are interpreted as non-utilitarian prestige goods.
http://www.aggsbach.de/2010/11/the-boat-axe-culture/

It may not have been the case, but I don't think we can discount U106 interjecting itself into Swedish Battle/Boat Axe from the river or sea systems coming up directly from the south or even the west somehow and not necessarily from the southeast.

Could an outlier Corded Ware type such as Boat Axe have been instigated from the fusion/fission events with the Bell Beaker folks?

It will be very interesting to see what Bell Beaker aDNA turns up.

[GoldenHind]

The Wikipedia article on the Beaker culture states that "Bell Beaker related material has now been uncovered in a line from the Baltic Sea down to the Adriatic and the Ionic Sea...", citing Volker Heyd, The Eastern Border of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon, 2004. This is entirely consistent with the ancient amber route to the Mediterranean.

The same article also says "Clusters of Late Neolithic Beaker presence similar to northern Jutland appear as pockets or 'islands' of Beaker Culture in northern Europe, such as Mecklenburg, Schleswig-Holstein, and southern Norway," citing multiple sources. Both Mecklenburg and Schleswig-Holstein have borders on the Baltic.

I only hope that the long awaited Bell Beaker aDNA includes samples from these areas.

[TigerMW]

The Wikipedia article on the Beaker culture states that "Bell Beaker related material has now been uncovered in a line from the Baltic Sea down to the Adriatic and the Ionic Sea...", citing Volker Heyd, The Eastern Border of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon, 2004. This is entirely consistent with the ancient amber route to the Mediterranean.

The same article also says "Clusters of Late Neolithic Beaker presence similar to northern Jutland appear as pockets or 'islands' of Beaker Culture in northern Europe, such as Mecklenburg, Schleswig-Holstein, and southern Norway," citing multiple sources. Both Mecklenburg and Schleswig-Holstein have borders on the Baltic.

I only hope that the long awaited Bell Beaker aDNA includes samples from these areas.

Others think I may be all wet, but I would not be surprised if part of the Bell Beaker mobility advantage also had to do with exploiting water ways. This would have given them an advantage over the north European plains-men, i.e. Corded Ware folks. Perhaps instead we'll find that Bell Beaker and Corded Ware were all birds of the same feather but just different color shades.

Bell Beakers would have been in Scandinavia early enough to contribute to early Nordic Bronze Age, perhaps a small contribution, but they may have brought some P312 (like L238, for example) with them and possibly even U106. ... so it poses a provocative question - Who were the Pre-Vikings and where did they get their skills on the waters?

I guess this just all proves that where data is absent, speculation abounds. LOL.

[rms2]

Maybe the big Bell Beaker paper will say otherwise, but I think it strains credulity to try to make that U106 Nordic Battle Axe skeleton from Lille Beddinge a stray Bell Beaker man.

If Bell Beaker had a lot of U106 in it, surely it would have shown up in German Bell Beaker, but it hasn't.

U106 does not look at all like it has much of a connection to Italo-Celtic speakers, and Bell Beaker is usually associated with Italo-Celtic.

[razyn]

Others think I may be all wet, but I would not be surprised if part of the Bell Beaker mobility advantage also had to do with exploiting water ways.
Exploiters of waterways may be all wet, but still have significant advantages over their drier competitors in long-distance trade. Even the ones on horses.


<--------------

[TigerMW]

Maybe the big Bell Beaker paper will say otherwise, but I think it strains credulity to try to make that U106 Nordic Battle Axe skeleton from Lille Beddinge a stray Bell Beaker man.

If Bell Beaker had a lot of U106 in it, surely it would have shown up in German Bell Beaker, but it hasn't.

U106 does not look at all like it has much of a connection to Italo-Celtic speakers, and Bell Beaker is usually associated with Italo-Celtic.

We have to keep in mind that back in the time of Bell Beakers, there may not have Italo-Celtic in any sense, just western dialects of PIE. We also have some P312 types in strong old Germanic lands.

It is clear that Bell Beakers of various types and Corded Ware met in Germany and perhaps Denmark and even Poland on the other side. It was a short ride through the straits in to the Baltic or a boat ride down stream heading northward into the Baltic. I think this is a bit of longshot but its not like we have a found a ton U106 in ancient DNA yet.

[GoldenHind]

We have to keep in mind that back in the time of Bell Beakers, there may not have Italo-Celtic in any sense, just western dialects of PIE. We also have some P312 types in strong old Germanic lands.

It is clear that Bell Beakers of various types and Corded Ware met in Germany and perhaps Denmark and even Poland on the other side. It was a short ride through the straits in to the Baltic or a boat ride down stream heading northward into the Baltic. I think this is a bit of longshot but its not like we have a found a ton U106 in ancient DNA yet.

While it remains speculative at this point, I think some of your proposals are entirely reasonable. I think some mixing between Bell Beaker and Corded Ware is certainly possible. Their languages (Northwest PIE?) may even have been mutually intelligible. I also think the Beakers are quite likely to have developed boats and river transportation skills, perhaps while navigating up rivers like the Danube and Rhine. After all, they didn't get to Britain and Ireland by swimming. Anyone who has crossed the English Channel knows it can be quite challenging. A reconstruction of the Bronze Age boat found recently in Kent proved to be seaworthy.

Finally I have pointed ad nauseam that P312 and U106 in modern Scandinavia are roughly equal. It may not have been that way in the Nordic Bronze Age, but we simply don't know. I don't buy the notion that all the P312 there are immigrants from historic times. Nor does it seem likely to me that Beakers in Jutland, Norway and northern Germany simply disappeared and played no role in the Nordic Bronze Age.

I suggest we wait for the long promised Beaker aDNA before we get too dogmatic about these issues.

[rms2]

We have to keep in mind that back in the time of Bell Beakers, there may not have Italo-Celtic in any sense, just western dialects of PIE.

Of course, if Italo-Celtic did not exist until after the Bell Beaker period, that would mean quite a few scholars were wrong in connecting Italo-Celtic to the Bell Beaker people, but scholars have been wrong before. If they are right, however, then before Italo-Celtic emerged, the Bell Beaker people would have been speaking whatever language led up to it, Proto-Italo-Celtic, and, before that, Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic.



We also have some P312 types in strong old Germanic lands.

Many areas that are now "strong old Germanic lands" weren't always Germanic. Take Germany, for example. Most of it was inhabited by Celtic speakers until Germanic tribes expanded into Celtic territory and brought their language with them.



It is clear that Bell Beakers of various types and Corded Ware met in Germany and perhaps Denmark and even Poland on the other side. It was a short ride through the straits in to the Baltic or a boat ride down stream heading northward into the Baltic. I think this is a bit of longshot but its not like we have a found a ton U106 in ancient DNA yet.

I guess the issue at hand is whether or not it's a good idea to attribute that U106 skeleton from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge (c. 2300 BC) in Sweden to Bell Beaker.

I don't think there is any reason whatsoever to do so.

1. No U106 has turned up in Bell Beaker yet, despite the growing list of BB y-dna results, including results from places where U106 is quite frequent now.

2. Probably the most important point is that no Bell Beaker sites or artifacts have ever been found in Sweden. Bell Beaker has its geographic limits, and, unless things change, Sweden is beyond them.

U106 may show up in Bell Beaker eventually, but it can't show up in Bell Beaker in Sweden for the same reason that it cannot show up in Bell Beaker in Japan: so far there is no evidence of any Bell Beaker in either place.

Isn't it just far more likely that the U106 skeleton from Lilla Beddinge belonged to a member of the Nordic Battle Axe culture? I mean, he was found in a Nordic Battle Axe culture cemetery, after all. Besides that, the distribution of U106 fits that of a people who had a very early and significant role in the evolution and spread of Germanic languages. Finding U106 in a Nordic context is not all that surprising.

[rms2]

. . .

Finally I have pointed ad nauseam that P312 and U106 in modern Scandinavia are roughly equal. It may not have been that way in the Nordic Bronze Age, but we simply don't know.

I don't think the modern levels of P312 versus U106 in Scandinavia are the issue here. The issue really is whether or not that U106 skeleton from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden ought to be attributed to Bell Beaker, and really there is absolutely no good reason to do so.

Two things militate against it: No Bell Beaker has ever been found in Sweden, and no U106 has yet been found in Bell Beaker, even in Germany, where U106 is quite frequent today.

Both of those things could change, but until they do, there is no reason to think that a skeleton belonging to a y haplogroup never yet found in Bell Beaker, dug up in a region in which no Bell Beaker sites have ever yet been found, from a cemetery belonging to a distinct, non-Bell Beaker culture, should be attributed to Bell Beaker.



I don't buy the notion that all the P312 there are immigrants from historic times. Nor does it seem likely to me that Beakers in Jutland, Norway and northern Germany simply disappeared and played no role in the Nordic Bronze Age . . .

I don't think all the P312 in Scandinavia arrived there in historic times, nor do I think the BB in northern Germany, etc., disappeared, etc.

Some of it probably did get to those places in the historical period, but some of it probably descends from people who got there much earlier.

IMHO the scholars who attribute to Bell Beaker the genesis of Italo-Celtic are right, so probably the BB people who went to Scandinavia spoke some early form of it, perhaps pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic. Evidently they got swamped in Scandinavia at some point by people speaking whatever eventually became Germanic. The same thing happened somewhat later to the descendants of other Bell Beaker people in places like what is now England and what is now Germany.

[rms2]

BTW, I know that because I have argued that U106 did not have much to do with Bell Beaker, if any U106 whatsoever pops up in the long-expected big Bell Beaker paper, I will be inundated with I-told-you-sos.

No, you did not tell me so. I have said this before, and I will say it again: it would not surprise me at all if a U106 did pop up in Bell Beaker here or there, just as it would not surprise me if a G2 or an E1b or an I2 popped up in Bell Beaker here or there.

What would surprise me would be a regular run of U106 in Bell Beaker, showing that U106 was a significant part of that culture. If we see that, and if you have predicted it (no one has, if I recall correctly), then you can say you told me so.

My prediction is that P312 and its subclades will remain the default y haplogroup of the kurgan type of Bell Beaker, with the occasional non-P312 result here and there.

[R.Rocca]

...I will be inundated with I-told-you-sos...

I wouldn't worry.. you have a big "I told you so" on the entire DNA community (including academia) by pointing out the possible link between Bell Beaker and R1b during a time that most (including me) thought it was related to the Franco-Cantabrian Refugium B)

[rms2]

What I did starting back in 2006 was argue that most of the R1b in Europe was of Indo-European origin and did not spend the LGM in the FC Ice Age Refuge. That got me a lot of ridicule back then.

Rick Arnold was actually the first person I know of to connect Bell Beaker and P312. He did that back on the old dna forums. Of course, the ancient y-dna has thus far proven him right.

[TigerMW]

Of course, if Italo-Celtic did not exist until after the Bell Beaker period, that would mean quite a few scholars were wrong in connecting Italo-Celtic to the Bell Beaker people, but scholars have been wrong before.
What scholars are saying that the Bell Beaker folks spoke Italo-Celtic? There is a difference between saying Italic and Celtic languages have been found in old Bell Beaker territories versus saying that Bell Beaker folks spoke Italo-Celtic. The terming "connecting" is vague and general.


If they are right, however, then before Italo-Celtic emerged, the Bell Beaker people would have been speaking whatever language led up to it, Proto-Italo-Celtic, and, before that, Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic.
A pre-Celtic and pre-Italic language or language dialect appears to have occurred. However, the language tree is not a pure inheritance thing, like male specific parts of the Y chromosome. We know Y mutations pass down strictly father to son. There are some steps on the language tree where the branching is blurry because the identifiable branch is somewhat of an amalgamation, similar to autosomal DNA inheritance.

Please note the Ringe-Warnow-Taylor diagram and note that they indicate there is some uncertainty in the branching and they draw the sweeping "cross branch" from Italic and Celtic to Germanic.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/495958977687548804/


Many areas that are now "strong old Germanic lands" weren't always Germanic. Take Germany, for example. Most of it was inhabited by Celtic speakers until Germanic tribes expanded into Celtic territory and brought their language with them.
Specifically, P312's L238 appears to have been in "old-old" Germanic speaking lands if that is the term we are seeking. I think cases can be made for DF19 and DF99 and even elements of DF27. Remember, DF27 is much older than Proto-Germanic language development. They don't call DF27's Z209 the north-south cluster for no reason.


I guess the issue at hand is whether or not it's a good idea to attribute that U106 skeleton from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge (c. 2300 BC) in Sweden to Bell Beaker.
This is a trend of "one". I believe the RISE98 U106+ individual is dated as 2275-2032 BC.
The Nordic Battle Axe is thought to be derived from Corded Ware but this is post the Corded Ware period and could well have been related to the central European fusion/fission events of related to Bell Beakers, Corded Ware and also Unetice.


2. Probably the most important point is that no Bell Beaker sites or artifacts have ever been found in Sweden. Bell Beaker has its geographic limits, and, unless things change, Sweden is beyond them.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We know Bell Beaker artifacts have been found on the Danish island of Zealand. This is about as close to Sweden as you can get and Zealand has its own Baltic shore. What should expect if the Beakers were a seafaring people?


U106 may show up in Bell Beaker eventually, but it can't show up in Bell Beaker in Sweden for the same reason that it cannot show up in Bell Beaker in Japan: so far there is no evidence of any Bell Beaker in either place.
This is a false equivalence logical fallacy. The Copenhagen airport on Zealand is only about 20 km from Sweden. From Sweden to Japan is more like 9,500 km.


Isn't it just far more likely that the U106 skeleton from Lilla Beddinge belonged to a member of the Nordic Battle Axe culture?
I'm saying that Bell Beaker might have contributed to the Nordic Bronze Age. I don't think we can assume that the Nordic Bronze Age cultures are solely derived from Corded Ware.

I still agree with you that U106 was likely in Corded Ware, but I think we just have keep open to the idea the Bell Beakers did more than we thought in central Europe.... Perhaps we should call the post fusion/fission Bell Beakers the Kurgan Bell Beakers or the Yamnaya-ized Bell Beakers.

I also agree with you with higher confidence that P312 must have been dominant in post fusion/fission Bell Beakers, but that doesn't mean it didn't also show in the Nordic Bronze Age at all. I think we are pretty much agreement on that although our emphasis points may be different.

[rms2]

What scholars are saying that the Bell Beaker folks spoke Italo-Celtic? There is a difference between saying Italic and Celtic languages have been found in old Bell Beaker territories versus saying that Bell Beaker folks spoke Italo-Celtic. The terming "connecting" is vague and general.

I don't have time to answer your entire post right now. That will have to wait for later.

Hubert, Dillon, Chadwick, Anthony and a number of others over the years have attributed the genesis of Italo-Celtic to the Bell Beaker people. I'm not sure any of them ever said anything as simplistic as "the Bell Beaker people spoke Italo-Celtic". As you know, ancient extinct languages that are reconstructed based on evidence from their descendant languages are snapshots in time and are not intended to be absolute or to represent situations that prevailed for long periods of time.





. . .

Please note the Ringe-Warnow-Taylor diagram and note that they indicate there is some uncertainty in the branching and they draw the sweeping "cross branch" from Italic and Celtic to Germanic.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/495958977687548804/

Italo-Celtic and Germanic shared a common border and influenced one another. They are not thought to have developed from a common IE sub-language.



Specifically, P312's L238 appears to have been in "old-old" Germanic speaking lands if that is the term we are seeking. I think cases can be made for DF19 and DF99 and even elements of DF27. Remember, DF27 is much older than Proto-Germanic language development. They don't call DF27's Z209 the north-south cluster for no reason.

It is a fact that much of Germany was inhabited by Celtic tribes and only became Germanic speaking after Germanic tribes expanded into what was formerly Celtic territory. That was the point I was making. I'm not sure what point you are making.



This is a trend of "one" . . .

No. It's part also of the trend of not finding any U106 in Bell Beaker, of U106 having a heavily Germanic distribution, of Italo-Celtic rather than Germanic being attributed to Bell Beaker people, and of P312 turning up in ancient Bell Beaker results and having an Italo-Celtic distribution.

U106 turning up in Nordic Battle Axe circa 2300 BC is just one more piece in a growing collection of evidence, the preponderance of which argues against U106 having much of a role in Bell Beaker.

I'll get to the rest of your post when I get the chance later.

[TigerMW]

... Hubert, Dillon, Chadwick, Anthony and a number of others over the years have attributed the genesis of Italo-Celtic to the Bell Beaker people. I'm not sure any of them ever said anything as simplistic as "the Bell Beaker people spoke Italo-Celtic". As you know, ancient extinct languages that are reconstructed based on evidence from their descendant languages are snapshots in time and are not intended to be absolute or to represent situations that prevailed for long periods of time.
...
Italo-Celtic and Germanic shared a common border and influenced one another. They are not thought to have developed from a common IE sub-language.
I just showed you the Ringe-Taylor-Warnow chart that David Anthony cites too. There is uncertainty about Proto-Germanic. This could be it's late development compared to Italo-Celtic dialects and that it may be an amalgamation. That's the "cross-branch" in the IE language tree.


... It is a fact that much of Germany was inhabited by Celtic tribes and only became Germanic speaking after Germanic tribes expanded into what was formerly Celtic territory. That was the point I was making. I'm not sure what point you are making.
I cited L238 because its really Nordic, not from central Germany nor southern Germany, nor apparently even northern Germany. Look at the countries on the project web site.
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-L238?iframe=yresults


...
No. It's part also of the trend of not finding any U106 in Bell Beaker, of U106 having a heavily Germanic distribution, of Italo-Celtic rather than Germanic being attributed to Bell Beaker people, and of P312 turning up in ancient Bell Beaker results and having an Italo-Celtic distribution.
Okay, the trend is in what we don't find. I'm a little nervous about that but that's why I suggest remaining open about the origins of L11>P311 and U106 in particular. I'm not against what you are saying. I think it is not an open/shut case yet.

I'm afraid we won't know the answer this year even. It could be but it is important that the scientists hit the different regional Bell Beaker groups and western Corded Wares and Unetice across some major phases too. I hope they have a good cross-section. Of course they have to test for the right regions of the Y too or we just have to be lucky.


...U106 turning up in Nordic Battle Axe circa 2300 BC is just one more piece in a growing collection of evidence, the preponderance of which argues against U106 having much of a role in Bell Beaker.
The actual date range for RISE98, the U106+ individual, is younger than 2300 BC. the high end of the range is 2275 BC.
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml
In any case, this is post the fusion/fission events that involved regional Bell Beaker groups and Corded Ware, just to the south.

I have a general question for the audience. What was the transition from Corded Ware along northern Germany and Poland? By 2300 BC, Corded Ware is considered gone and transformed into other cultures. We know we have Unetice in central/south Germany and the Czech Rep, Slovakia, etc.

BTW, I'm still curious about the Britain's Wessex Bell Beakers trading alliance with the Unetice people and the fact that the Wessex Amesbury Archer is thought to have come from a place like the Alpine lands.

[miiser]

I don't think the modern levels of P312 versus U106 in Scandinavia are the issue here. The issue really is whether or not that U106 skeleton from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden ought to be attributed to Bell Beaker, and really there is absolutely no good reason to do so.

This defense is a complete reversal of the argument you made in this other discussion to defend your stubborn, aggressive position founded on weak data, when I questioned the wisdom of taking aggressive positions based on a handful of ancient DNA samples:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10197-Re-theorising-the-Corded-Ware-Culture-(Kristiansen-et-al-2017)/page10



I did not say the ancient Bell Beaker y-dna results were startlingly inconsistent with the spread of Italo-Celtic. I said that U106, i.e., its distribution, is startlingly inconsistent with the spread of Italo-Celtic. If U106 was a significant part of Bell Beaker, and if the scholars are right who over the years have said that Bell Beaker is to be credited with the spread of Italo-Celtic, one would expect U106 to be a better fit for Italo-Celtic, but it's not. It's a lousy fit.


You should at least try to make up your mind whether it's the modern distribution or ancient distribution of U106 that's "startingly inconsistent" with Bell Beaker.



Both of those things could change, but until they do, there is no reason to think that a skeleton belonging to a y haplogroup never yet found in Bell Beaker, dug up in a region in which no Bell Beaker sites have ever yet been found, from a cemetery belonging to a distinct, non-Bell Beaker culture, should be attributed to Bell Beaker.


. . .



BTW, I know that because I have argued that U106 did not have much to do with Bell Beaker, if any U106 whatsoever pops up in the long-expected big Bell Beaker paper, I will be inundated with I-told-you-sos.


The convenience of making every possible argument in various discussions, even when they are self contradictory, is that you can always go back and find SOMETHING to quote to show that you were right all along.

[GoldenHind]

BTW, I know that because I have argued that U106 did not have much to do with Bell Beaker, if any U106 whatsoever pops up in the long-expected big Bell Beaker paper, I will be inundated with I-told-you-sos.

No, you did not tell me so. I have said this before, and I will say it again: it would not surprise me at all if a U106 did pop up in Bell Beaker here or there, just as it would not surprise me if a G2 or an E1b or an I2 popped up in Bell Beaker here or there.

What would surprise me would be a regular run of U106 in Bell Beaker, showing that U106 was a significant part of that culture. If we see that, and if you have predicted it (no one has, if I recall correctly), then you can say you told me so.

My prediction is that P312 and its subclades will remain the default y haplogroup of the kurgan type of Bell Beaker, with the occasional non-P312 result here and there.

Since you accept the possibility that some U106 may have spilled over to the Beakers, is it not equally possible that some may have spilled over to Corded Ware from the Beakers? If, as Mike has proposed, there was some mixing between CW and BB, there may not have been a strict dividing line of HGs and subclades in the two cultures.

I have certainly never predicted a major role for U106 in the Beakers, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if they played a significant role in the northern and even the Rhenish Beakers. Although I do think that is a reasonable possibility, I have merely urged keeping an open mind until we have more data, which I hope will be forthcoming eventually.

And BTW, as you may remember, I was a very early supporter of your proposed connection between R1b and IE. That was back in the days before the discovery of P312, when we were both R1b1c* and labelled by some as "Atlantic facade aboriginees."

[TigerMW]

...And BTW, as you may remember, I was a very early supporter of your proposed connection between R1b and IE.
I'm also a "me too" on this one. When Rick and Richard brought this up it wasn't too hard to see, even for folks from Nebraska.


..That was back in the days before the discovery of P312, when we were both R1b1c* and labelled by some as "Atlantic facade aboriginees."
This was earlier than the R1b and IE association. I came in thinking Dr. Wells must know what he's talking about. I think it as Vince Vizachero that convinced me about R1b not being out of Iberia from the Paleolithic.

As far as that goes, I remember disagreeing with Vince (nicely) that R1b-P312 was a Neolithic expansion but I couldn't see any reason that it wasn't a Bronze Age phenomenon. The Neolithic thinking was enthralling at the time. The STR variance said it was Bronze Age, so far all the trash about STR variance it was right before the SNP age counting came in to being. To be fair, Vince left himself wriggle room to go either way.

He posted on the R1b-YDNA forum the other day. He doesn't think much of the publisher "Scientific Research" and made that clear. Apparently it was just something he couldn't let go by.

Meanwhile, Dr. Wells owns a nightclub down here in Austin. I would think he would have a beard by now. I was joking but I found him. Yep, he does.
https://www.facebook.com/pg/insitome/photos/?tab=album&album_id=978451582284457
He probably just wears flip-flops. I do.

[rms2]

Attempting to answer the rest of your earlier post.


. . .

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We know Bell Beaker artifacts have been found on the Danish island of Zealand. This is about as close to Sweden as you can get and Zealand has its own Baltic shore. What should expect if the Beakers were a seafaring people?

Since you did not make up the saying, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", I hope you don't mind me commenting on it. It has got to be the least clever of all the supposedly clever aphorisms. Of course absence of evidence is evidence of absence, if one has actually been looking for evidence. It is not dispositive, final proof, but it is evidence.

I am not an expert in Swedish archaeology, but I strongly doubt Sweden is exactly terra incognita. One would suspect that if there were Bell Beaker sites in Sweden, someone would have found at least one by now. So, I think in this case there is some evidence that Bell Beaker never made it to Sweden. Is that the final word? No, but until someone actually finds a Bell Beaker site in Sweden, it sure looks like it was absent.

Now someone will say, "But rms2, you are constantly saying that simply because L51 hasn't been found in Yamnaya yet doesn't mean it wasn't there." True, but I actually cite reasons and evidence that support my position. There really is no evidence to support the idea that there was Bell Beaker in Sweden or that RISE98 ought to be chalked up to Bell Beaker, even though his remains were recovered from a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery.



This is a false equivalence logical fallacy. The Copenhagen airport on Zealand is only about 20 km from Sweden. From Sweden to Japan is more like 9,500 km.

No it's not, Mike. It isn't anything nearly so grand. It is hyperbole, a simple literary device.

If Bell Beaker wasn't in Sweden, then we aren't going to get any Bell Beaker U106 (or any other kind of Bell Beaker y-dna) from there.



I'm saying that Bell Beaker might have contributed to the Nordic Bronze Age. I don't think we can assume that the Nordic Bronze Age cultures are solely derived from Corded Ware.

I think Bell Beaker pretty obviously contributed to Bronze Age Norway and Bronze Age Denmark, but apparently it did not make it to Sweden, at least not in enough numbers to be found yet.



I still agree with you that U106 was likely in Corded Ware, but I think we just have keep open to the idea the Bell Beakers did more than we thought in central Europe.... Perhaps we should call the post fusion/fission Bell Beakers the Kurgan Bell Beakers or the Yamnaya-ized Bell Beakers.

I would not use a term like Yamnaya-ized with reference to Bell Beaker, because that makes it sound like they were a non-IE people on whom Yamnaya culture rubbed off. I agree with Gimbutas that Yamnaya went into the actual making of Bell Beaker, including at the genetic level.



I also agree with you with higher confidence that P312 must have been dominant in post fusion/fission Bell Beakers, but that doesn't mean it didn't also show in the Nordic Bronze Age at all. I think we are pretty much agreement on that although our emphasis points may be different.

Like I said, Bell Beaker made a contribution to the Bronze Age of Norway and Denmark but evidently not to that of Sweden. I can change my mind on that, if BB is ever found in Sweden.

Since I agree with the idea that Bell Beaker was involved in the genesis and spread of Italo-Celtic, I think its people were speaking something along its linguistic continuum when they went to Denmark and Norway. Evidently at some point they got swamped by Germanic speakers and their descendants became Germanic speakers themselves.

[TigerMW]

... Since you did not make up the saying, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", I hope you don't mind me commenting on it. It has got be the least clever of all the supposedly clever aphorisms.
It does not matter if we disparage the quote or not. The logic still holds. This is not a case where we have hundreds of Bell Beaker samples tested post the fusion/fission events. This is not a case of hundreds of U106+ ancient DNA samples, just one. There is a long way to go. Maybe we'll get there this year. Attacking the adage doesn't make it less or more true. I think in this case, our evidence is still quite limited. I don't you think disagree with that, do you?


I am not an expert in Swedish archaeology, but I strongly doubt Sweden is exactly terra incognita.
Sweden was the back woods at this time back in the early Bronze Age.


Now someone will say, "But rms2, you are constantly saying that simply because L51 hasn't been found in Yamnaya yet doesn't mean it wasn't there." True, but I actually cite reasons and evidence
You actually bring up your own point of double standards.
You just did not like the circumstantial evidence I give of Bell Beaker documented on the island Zealand 20 KM from Sweden when the Bell Beakers were able seamen (according to JP Mallory).
We also have the additional cirmcumstance where the Swedish "Boat" Axe has its own cousins from the mainland those territories are in the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker interaction zone. Bell Beaker folks could have interjected themselves into the "Boat" Axe people on the continent or from Zealand up in the Nordic region. There is NO proof, just like L51 in Yamnaya (as of today), there are just circumstances that cause us to want to keep our minds open.


Like I said, Bell Beaker made a contribution to the Bronze Age of Norway and Denmark but evidently not to that of Sweden. I can change my mind on that, if BB is ever found in Sweden.
Back at the time there was no political entity named Sweden. You could walk across the Scandinavian Peninsula and I'm sure some folks did, as well as those on horseback like we think the Beakers had.
The scant 20KM from the Jutland to Sweden is more like a highway rather than a barrier.

The evidence is all very limited as of right now, therefore we are speculating. Let's just admit it.

[rms2]

Since you accept the possibility that some U106 may have spilled over to the Beakers, is it not equally possible that some may have spilled over to Corded Ware from the Beakers? If, as Mike has proposed, there was some mixing between CW and BB, there may not have been a strict dividing line of HGs and subclades in the two cultures.

As I said in my response to Mike, if we are talking about RISE98, the U106 from the Lilla Beddinge Nordic Battle Axe cemetery, there is no reason whatsoever to attribute him to Bell Beaker. Are we supposed to do that because some Bell Beaker might have leaked into Corded Ware and thus into Nordic Battle Axe? Even admitting that possibility, why would we suspect it of a U106 skeleton, since thus far U106 has not been found in Bell Beaker? And why would we suppose that in a country bereft of Bell Beaker sites, bodies, and artifacts?



I have certainly never predicted a major role for U106 in the Beakers, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if they played a significant role in the northern and even the Rhenish Beakers. Although I do think that is a reasonable possibility, I have merely urged keeping an open mind until we have more data, which I hope will be forthcoming eventually.

How is having a strong opinion now inconsistent with keeping an open mind with regard to future results?

I have opinions today based on what we know today. What we learn tomorrow may make what I think tomorrow something altogether different.

I don't think U106 was involved in Rhenish Beakers because evidently Rhenish Beaker was involved in the Bell Beaker movement to Britain. I don't think U106 got to Britain as early as the Bronze Age. I think the distribution of U106 tells against that. It too closely fits Germanic peoples both on the Continent and in Britain and Ireland to have been involved in what was essentially the first movement of people who eventually became Celts.




And BTW, as you may remember, I was a very early supporter of your proposed connection between R1b and IE. That was back in the days before the discovery of P312, when we were both R1b1c* and labelled by some as "Atlantic facade aboriginees."

That is right. I remember that very fondly. You were right there and there very early on.

[TigerMW]

May be we should try to learn something new about the circumstances in northern Europe.

What is the genesis for the Swedish Boat Axe culture?

Is purely a mixture of Corded Ware and old Neolithic on the Scandinavian Peninsula?

http://www.aggsbach.de/2010/11/the-boat-axe-culture/

"A wonderful Boat Axe from Mecklenburg found in the 1890ies. The so called boat axe culture (about 2000 BC), an outlier of the European Battle-Ax ( Corded Ware) cultures is named after its boat-shaped battle axes made of stone.
Thousands of these axes have been found, as stray findings and in single graves, mainly in Southern Scandinavia and Northern Germany. Isolated finds are known from Southern Germany and Northern France. One of the finest specimens I know can bee seen in the Amiens Museum. Boat Axes are interpreted as non-utilitarian prestige goods."

I can't find much else. Surely there are some folks in Scandinavia who have researched this thoroughly and have theories.

[rms2]

It does not matter if we disparage the quote or not. The logic still holds.

No it does not. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is simply bad logic. If I have misplaced my keys, and I look under my bed ten times, very thoroughly, I would be stupid and obsessive to persist in looking under my bed, citing the goofy aphorism, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The hell it isn't!

I used to be a cop. If I went before a judge and asked for an arrest warrant, and all I had for the judge was, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", I would be thrown out on my ear.

If one has looked long and hard for the evidence, and it is just not forthcoming, then absence of evidence certainly does look like evidence of absence.

I don't know Swedish archaeology very well, but I suspect that if there were Bell Beaker sites in Sweden, somebody would have found one by now.



This is not a case where we have hundreds of Bell Beaker samples tested post the fusion/fission events. This is not a case of hundreds of U106+ ancient DNA samples, just one. There is a long way to go. Maybe we'll get there this year. Attacking the adage doesn't make it less or more true. I think in this case, our evidence is still quite limited. I don't you think disagree with that, do you?

I attacked the adage because I don't think it is really true, not in every case.

With regard to our evidence being limited, it depends on whether or not we are talking about the same thing. I was talking about evidence of Bell Beaker in Sweden. There isn't any. I suspect people have looked over the Swedish countryside for archaeological sites pretty thoroughly but have not found any Bell Beaker. Will they find one tomorrow? Maybe. if they do, I'll admit I was mistaken. In the meantime, it does not look like there was any Bell Beaker in Sweden.



Sweden was the back woods at this time back in the early Bronze Age.

Okay.



You actually bring up your own point of double standards.
You just did not like the circumstantial evidence I give of Bell Beaker documented on the island Zealand 20 KM from Sweden when the Bell Beakers were able seamen (according to JP Mallory).
We also have the additional cirmcumstance where the Swedish "Boat" Axe has its own cousins from the mainland those territories are in the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker interaction zone. Bell Beaker folks could have interjected themselves into the "Boat" Axe people on the continent or from Zealand up in the Nordic region. There is NO proof, just like L51 in Yamnaya (as of today), there are just circumstances that cause us to want to keep our minds open.

My mind is open, but BB in Zealand is not BB in Sweden . . . or Finland . . . or Russia, etc.

I don't have a double standard because BB in Zealand is not evidence of BB in Sweden or anything even remotely like good cause to attribute to it RISE98, who belonged to a y haplogroup never yet found in Bell Beaker and who was recovered not in a Bell Beaker context but in a Nordic Battle Axe context.

Why would anyone think a U106 found in Sweden in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery should be attributed to Bell Beaker? Why? No U106 has ever yet been found in Bell Beaker, and no Bell Beaker has ever yet been found in Sweden. As far as I know, no Bell Beaker burials have turned up in Nordic Battle Axe cemeteries either. Seems like a triple whammy to me.



Back at the time there was no political entity named Sweden. You could walk across the Scandinavian Peninsula and I'm sure some folks did, as well as those on horseback like we think the Beakers had.
The scant 20KM from the Jutland to Sweden is more like a highway rather than a barrier.

Now, however, Sweden has internationally recognized borders, and no Bell Beaker has yet been found within them.

Outside those borders, no U106 has been found in Bell Beaker.

No Bell Beaker burials have been found in Nordic Battle Axe cemeteries, not as far as I know.



The evidence is all very limited as of right now, therefore we are speculating. Let's just admit it.

Sure.

[GoldenHind]

How is having a strong opinion now inconsistent with keeping an open mind with regard to future results?



It depends on how strong one's opinion is, but the danger is something called confirmation bias. The best example I can think of is those who were convinced that L21 originated in the British Isles, and argued that every new example of L21 on the continent was descended from a wandering Irish monk or an Aberdeen merchant.

In the words of Sherlock Holmes, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

I don't consider the handful of aDNA results we have at the moment to be insufficient data to resolve the question.

[Administrator]

This thread is being monitored. Please remain civil in your discussions.

[TigerMW]

No it does not. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is simply bad logic. If I have misplaced my keys, and I look under my bed ten times, very thoroughly, I would be stupid and obsessive to persist in looking under my bed, citing the goofy aphorism, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The hell it isn't!

I used to be a cop. If I went before a judge and asked for an arrest warrant, and all I had for the judge was, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", I would be thrown out on my ear..
If the burden of proof is has heavy as it is in the courts, then we don't have much to talk about and won't for a while.

You are not willing to admit that the evidence we have is very limited, right? That's the point. Since the evidence today, the survey today, is very, very limited, then making judgements about absence is precarious. That doesn't mean your speculations are not right but I'm just saying we might remain open as the actual data comes in.

Let's go talk about something worthwhile and of new value-add like what is genesis for the Swedish Boat Axe Culture?

What are the remnants of the fusion/fission events in the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware interaction zone? I think Unetice is one but I'm not sure what happened along the Baltic coasts. I think we should also be wary of the Bell Beakers after the fusion/fission. They may not be quite a different from the Beakers of the first half of the 3rd millenium BC.

I contend that we treat the Bell Beakers in too monolithic of a manner. If the Bell Beakers continued on post the fusion/fission but Corded Ware disintegrated by 2300 BC it almost appears the Beakers won. I'm not sure that is at all the case. It may just be a new brand Beakers and perhaps we should be evaluating the commonalities across the 2000 BC type Beakers and the Unetice folks and the Northern European Bronze Age types of 2000 BC. The pottery may be the least of the factors to evaluate.

[rms2]

Because of something called confirmation bias, often demonstrated by those who refused to let go of the Ice Age R1b Iberian Refuge theory long after the evidence against it became overwhelming.

In the words of Sherlock Holmes, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

I don't consider the handful of aDNA results we have at the moment to be anywhere near definitive.

We have enough data upon which to base informed opinions. Having an opinion today does not mean one's mind is closed to new evidence.

Some cherished opinions die hard, like R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge. But I have seen a lot of people go where the evidence leads.

When I began my own genealogical quest, I thought my y-dna line was some kind of Germanic, perhaps even Viking. The evidence trashed that cherished opinion, so I dropped it like a ton of bricks.

I will go where the evidence leads. If the big Bell Beaker paper we're all waiting on reveals that Bell Beaker was just full of U106, that will be weird, given the way things turned out, but I'm sure we'll make sense of it somehow.

[rms2]

. . .

You are not willing to admit that the evidence we have is very limited, right? That's the point. Since the evidence today, the survey today, is very, very limited, then making judgements about absence is precarious. That doesn't mean your speculations are not right but I'm just saying we might remain open as the actual data comes in.

You and Goldenhind keep talking about being open, but I am left wondering how having an opinion, even a strong opinion, necessarily means one is not open.

I think what I think today based on what I know today. What I learn tomorrow might change all that.



Let's go talk about something worthwhile and of new value-add like what is genesis for the Swedish Boat Axe Culture?

That probably belongs in another thread.



What are the remnants of the fusion/fission events in the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware interaction zone? I think Unetice is one but I'm not sure what happened along the Baltic coasts. I think we should also be wary of the Bell Beakers after the fusion/fission. They may not be quite a different from the Beakers of the first half of the 3rd millenium BC.

Can we at least agree that Sweden was hardly in the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware interaction zone?



I contend that we treat the Bell Beakers in too monolithic of a manner. If the Bell Beakers continued on post the fusion/fission but Corded Ware disintegrated by 2300 BC it almost appears the Beakers won. I'm not sure that is at all the case. It may just be a new brand Beakers and perhaps we should be evaluating the commonalities across the 2000 BC type Beakers and the Unetice folks and the Northern European Bronze Age types of 2000 BC. The pottery may be the least of the factors to evaluate.

I have been surprised just how monolithic Bell Beaker seems to be, at least in terms of y-dna. Maybe that will change once we have more results.

[TigerMW]

If no one knows anything about the Boat Axe people and their genesis, let me rephrase the question appropriate to the topic.

What Bell Beaker influences were there, if any, among the Nordic Bronze Age peoples?

.. and if we don't want to talk about that, what about the northeastern-most Bell Beakers? What do we know about them?

https://www.academia.edu/2022469/Northern_and_Southern_Bell_Beakers_in_Poland

I'll read this tonight but I'm no expert on north-central/northeastern Europe.

I will say I'm impressed with expansion of the Bell Beakers folks to the east. They expanded along the Baltic coastal areas quite nicely.
https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/772bh7szr42dzgsy/images/14-f1838bf767.jpg

[TigerMW]

... I have been surprised just how monolithic Bell Beaker seems to be, at least in terms of y-dna. Maybe that will change once we have more results.
You've separated what you call Kurgan Beakers from the early western Beakers, right? Are you saying you think the Y DNA of the early western Bell Beakers will be the same?

I'm digging to a deeper layer than P312, but it is obvious that L21, DF27, U152 and the brothers L238, DF19 and DF99 all have their regional focuses.

[rms2]

You've separated what you call Kurgan Beakers from the early western Beakers, right? Are you saying you think the Y DNA of the early western Bell Beakers will be the same?

I'm digging to a deeper layer than P312, but it is obvious that L21, DF27, U152 and the brothers L238, DF19 and DF99 all have their regional focuses.

I have posted a number of times about what I find odd about the earliest Iberian Bell Beaker people. I suspect they were a different people from what I call Kurgan Bell Beaker people and may not have been R1b of any kind. The evidence from the megalithic tomb of El Sotillo in Spain indicates that could be right. The earliest skeleton from El Sotillo dates from about 2900 BC, and BB pottery was found in what was otherwise a collective, megalithic tomb. It was all talked about before in this thread. The three skeletons recovered from there and tested all belonged to y haplogroup I: two I2a2as and one I.

As I recall, aren't DF27, U152 and DF99 more properly phylogenetic brothers, since they are all three Z40481+? L21, L238, and DF19 are all Z40481-, right?

Z40481 Splits R-P312 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7150-Z40481-Splits-R-P312&p=156214&viewfull=1#post156214)

[TigerMW]

[QUOTE=rms2;227763...
As I recall, aren't DF27, U152 and DF99 more properly phylogenetic brothers, since they are all three Z40481+? L21, L238, and DF19 are all Z40481-, right?

Z40481 Splits R-P312 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7150-Z40481-Splits-R-P312&p=156214&viewfull=1#post156214)[/QUOTE]

Here is the best depiction I'm able to make.
http://rebrand.ly/R1b-Descendant-Tree-pdf

L21 and U152 each have their localized focuses for sure. The same can be said for L238. I'll defer to Goldenhind on DF19 and DF99. To me, DF27 is more scattered but others don't necessarily see it that way. Some of these brothers have phylogenetic equivalent blocks (like L21 or really now Z290 and then L21). L238 is similar. In that way they are P312* folks expanding like half a star to the N, S and W from central Europe and then along the way somewhere a king-like person took over. Kind of like a colonial governor.

U152 and DF27 are unique in they have no equivalents so they were very close in time to the origin of P312 and probably close geographically too. They are more like true brothers under ZZ11. One might speculate that ZZ11's two branches took over southern Europe from Austria or Hungary or something like that.

The other successful P312* went off into the hinterlands of the northwest as predecessors to Z290/L21, DF19, DF99, L238 and their colonial governorships.

Again, somehow in my book, DF27 became the most scattered. I'm not sure if this has something to do with Urnfielders or the like, or they were at the heart of the fusion/fission Beaker/Corded Ware events.

[GoldenHind]

If no one knows anything about the Boat Axe people and their genesis, let me rephrase the question appropriate to the topic.

What Bell Beaker influences were there, if any, among the Nordic Bronze Age peoples?

.. and if we don't want to talk about that, what about the northeastern-most Bell Beakers? What do we know about them?

https://www.academia.edu/2022469/Northern_and_Southern_Bell_Beakers_in_Poland

I'll read this tonight but I'm no expert on north-central/northeastern Europe.

I will say I'm impressed with expansion of the Bell Beakers folks to the east. They expanded along the Baltic coastal areas quite nicely.
https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/772bh7szr42dzgsy/images/14-f1838bf767.jpg

Thanks for the two links, neither of which I was familiar with. The article shows a greater presence of Beakers near the mouth of the Oder and the map suggests the Beakers had a greater spread along the southern shore of the Baltic than I realized.

Most of the emphasis appears to me to be on the Atlantic and western Beakers, to the detriment of the eastern and northern Beakers. This may be in part due to the enormous overweighting of DNA samples from Britain and Ireland, the fact that most English speakers know next to nothing about the history of the regions to the east of the Oder, and the influence of the Celtic from the West crowd.

[GoldenHind]

I have posted a number of times about what I find odd about the earliest Iberian Bell Beaker people. I suspect they were a different people from what I call Kurgan Bell Beaker people and may not have been R1b of any kind. The evidence from the megalithic tomb of El Sotillo in Spain indicates that could be right. The earliest skeleton from El Sotillo dates from about 2900 BC, and BB pottery was found in what was otherwise a collective, megalithic tomb. It was all talked about before in this thread. The three skeletons recovered from there and tested all belonged to y haplogroup I: two I2a2as and one I.

As I recall, aren't DF27, U152 and DF99 more properly phylogenetic brothers, since they are all three Z40481+? L21, L238, and DF19 are all Z40481-, right?



Z40481 Splits R-P312 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7150-Z40481-Splits-R-P312&p=156214&viewfull=1#post156214)

I am inclined to agree with you about the earliest Iberian Beakers.

I am not certain what to make of Z40481. As I understand it, it is actually an STR rather than an SNP. In any case, I suspect it occurred very soon after the origin of P312 itself, quite possibly before the various P312 subclades began to disperse, in which case it may not have much significance.

[Heber]

Maciamo has updated his maps:

"I have reworked, corrected and improved most of the prehistoric migration maps on Eupedia. I have also split the map for the 4000-3000 BCE period into two new maps: 4000-3500 BCE and 3500-3000 BCE.

(If you have any of seen maps on Eupedia recently, please make sure that you clear your browser cache to see the changes)."

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml

#history #archeology #genetics #anthropology #maps

[Dewsloth]

Maciamo has updated his maps:

"I have reworked, corrected and improved most of the prehistoric migration maps on Eupedia. I have also split the map for the 4000-3000 BCE period into two new maps: 4000-3500 BCE and 3500-3000 BCE.

(If you have any of seen maps on Eupedia recently, please make sure that you clear your browser cache to see the changes)."

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml

#history #archeology #genetics #anthropology #maps

His maps still ignore DF19, and his R1b tree incorrectly shows DF19 under Z40481 - unless someone has discovered something I don't know about.

[R.Rocca]

His maps still ignore DF19, and his R1b tree incorrectly shows DF19 under Z40481 - unless someone has discovered something I don't know about.

How is one supposed to create a frequency map of DF19 if it hasn't been tested for in an unbiased way?

[Dewsloth]

How is one supposed to create a frequency map of DF19 if it hasn't been tested for in an unbiased way?

I'll be honest, I have no idea what brought the other haplogroup maps into existence. Did DF19 not show up at all in whatever tests their data originated?

[MitchellSince1893]

His maps still ignore DF19, and his R1b tree incorrectly shows DF19 under Z40481 - unless someone has discovered something I don't know about.

Tangent: I just now looked more carefully at your avatar and laughed. I get it. :)

Not too much of a tangent as it directly relates to this thread.

[R.Rocca]

I'll be honest, I have no idea what brought the other haplogroup maps into existence. Did DF19 not show up at all in whatever tests their data originated?

The maps are based primarily on published academic studies of Europe. That I now of, DF19 has only been academically published for Iberia, where zero was found. The Genome of the Netherlands project posted Y-SNP counts (and then retracted the data a few days later). That was many years ago. DF19 was only 2% of 500 males tested, and all were also DF88+.

[TigerMW]

Maciamo has updated his maps:

"I have reworked, corrected and improved most of the prehistoric migration maps on Eupedia. I have also split the map for the 4000-3000 BCE period into two new maps: 4000-3500 BCE and 3500-3000 BCE.

(If you have any of seen maps on Eupedia recently, please make sure that you clear your browser cache to see the changes)."

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml

#history #archeology #genetics #anthropology #maps

I see Maciamo does not show R1b going along the north side of the Carpathians at all. His only maps/directions for R1b take the Danube route and does not participant in Corded Ware until the timeframe of the fusion/fission when Corded Wares disintegrates/fractures into other things.

I don't know about that, but that appears to be his position.

[MitchellSince1893]

Disregard

[TigerMW]

The maps are based primarily on published academic studies of Europe. That I now of, DF19 has only been academically published for Iberia, where zero was found. The Genome of the Netherlands project posted Y-SNP counts (and then retracted the data a few days later). That was many years ago. DF19 was only 2% of 500 males tested, and all were also DF88+.

DF99 may be a better diagnostic tracker than I thought.

Let us set ZZ11 and Z40481 aside as counters for SNP based age estimates. YFull would not include them and I don't know if anyone would. I'm not saying they are useless as they indicate closeness in relationships between major subclades of P312, but let's not confuse age/generation estimates by including them.

DF99 has only one equivalent so it's MRCA is quite old, in the same ballgame of U152's and DF27's MRCAs. U152 and DF27 have zero equivalents. We can hypothesize with some legitimacy that the MRCAs for P312, U152, DF27 and DF99 all lived within a few generations of each other. This means their origins could be close geographically. That's a little more iffy because the Bell Beakers were so mobile.

I don't think there are any unbiased frequency studies of DF99. You can eyeball it on the project screens but we know that will be biased. There is quite a bit of Germany compared to the Isles so given the testing penetration rates I think we have to take Germany seriously. We DF99 in Sweden but just one or two that I noticed.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-DF99?iframe=yresults

However, we also see a Spain and Italy. I wasn't really expecting that. Better yet, go to the Big tree for DF99. It has turned up in a couple of academic studies. We see Portugal, Italy, Peru and Poland.

This is NOT the kind of thing you see with L21.

Again, not everyone agrees with me but I will classify DF99 in my own mind similar to DF27, quite scattered. Both DF27 and DF99 may have been in the thick of things when the great P312 expansion occurred.

All road go back to central Europe.

I guess it is also fair to say that U152 is scattered. The difference it doesn't have the same proportion of Atlantic/western content as some of these other subclades. That's probably why I think of it as more Alpine/North Italy biased.

http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=186

I would really love it if Z290 is examined in these ancient DNA studies. We could consider it pre-L21. Z290 has only two or three equivalents so its MRCA is also old. The problem is we have like no survey of Z290+ L21- folks at all. There is just the one. It appears the L21 MRCA was more of the colonial governor type born in route to the hinterlands of NW Europe. Z290 may be close to home.

[TigerMW]

... All road go back to central Europe. ..
I keep talking myself back and forth on this. It looks clear that all roads lead back to central Europe for P312.

We may never have the survey of ancient DNA to uncover this but if we don't find ancient P312, DF99, U152 and DF27 DNA along the middle or lower Danube then one has to lean towards a P312 origin along the upper Danube in the Alpine regions, etc. or in the Hungarian Plains.

That's perplexing because that makes it very hard to put U106 on the north side of the Carpathians early on in Corded Ware. There is just little time between the MRCAs of P311, U106 and P312... like almost none or more like decades rather than centuries. This does not work well with David Anthony's pre-Germanic route along the north side of the Carpathians. Maybe Anthony is all wet on this as Proto-Germanic may be too much of an amalgamation of language dialects for any one thing to be consider Pre-Germanic or that U106 is not the core carrier of Pre-Germanic dialects.

[rms2]

. . .

That's perplexing because that makes it very hard to put U106 on the north side of the Carpathians early on in Corded Ware. There is just little time between the MRCAs of P311, U106 and P312... like almost none or more like decades rather than centuries. This does not work well with David Anthony's pre-Germanic route along the north side of the Carpathians. Maybe Anthony is all wet on this as Proto-Germanic may be too much of an amalgamation of language dialects for any one thing to be consider Pre-Germanic or that U106 is not the core carrier of Pre-Germanic dialects.

YFull has U106 with tmrca that is about 500 years older than that of P312. Maybe that's off, but I don't see why U106 could not stem from an L151 stream that went around the north side of the Carpathians onto the North European Plain, if U106 had not already arisen before that movement.

P312 evidently stemmed from an L151 stream that went around the south side of the Carpathians and up the Danube Valley.

I'm out of time again. See you all later.

[razyn]

Let us set ZZ11 and Z40481 aside as counters for SNP based age estimates. YFull would not include them and I don't know if anyone would. I'm not saying they are useless as they indicate closeness in relationships between major subclades of P312, but let's not confuse age/generation estimates by including them.

DF99 has only one equivalent so it's MRCA is quite old, in the same ballgame of U152's and DF27's MRCAs. U152 and DF27 have zero equivalents. We can hypothesize with some legitimacy that the MRCAs for P312, U152, DF27 and DF99 all lived within a few generations of each other. This means their origins could be close geographically.

This logic, if that's the right term for it, depends on acceptance of the unproven hypothesis that mutations always occur sequentially (and have a statistically observable average "rate" for doing that).

If mutations "at the same level" have happened in quick bursts -- or all at once, to one guy, who sat on a radioactive rock while eating his box lunch -- then having a bunch of equivalents for a particular level of the phylogenetic tree we now observe does not ipso facto relate to some calculable time gap since the last previous observed mutation on that branch of the said tree.

As long as I'm here, being curmudgeonly, I might add that your recently favored meme "fusion/fission" is OK for some; but if one doesn't believe the reflux theory (translating a previously German version of "backwash" into Latin roots, for respectability), there isn't really any fusion observable in the topic of this forum thread (Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b). It's all fission. Trees branch, the branches don't graft themselves back together. The fusion/fission model may be fine for linguistics, and several other anthropological interests, but it kind of gets in the way for genetics. Genetic fission in R1b lineages may well have occurred in populations whose movements occurred in multiple directions, but that doesn't make it fusion.

That said, I think John T. Koch is actually right about several things. Some of the excesses of the "Celtic from the West" camp are not based on his linguistic work, and are not his fault.

[TigerMW]

This logic, if that's the right term for it, depends on acceptance of the unproven hypothesis that mutations always occur sequentially (and have a statistically observable average "rate" for doing that).
I agree that SNPs do not necessarily occur at the average rate. Given the coverage that we have of the Y chromosome for these old haplogroups, we should have one SNP every 3 generations and possibly even one per 2-2.5 generations. The average, which would be our centerpoint guess is that there are about 90 years between the P312 MRCA and the MRCAs for U152 and DF27. I have not seen any variance studies on this but if we say this period was a pause then we are 180 years or if it was a burst it may have been 30 years or less between the MRCAs. Perhaps we should be using a 25 year/gen for this ancient time so that would make it less.

Likewise U106 has no equivalents so it should be about 90 (or 75) years younger than P311.

If we simplify things we can say
1) the distance from P311 MRCA to P312 MRCA is one SNP.
2) The distance from the P311 MRCA to the U106 MRCA is one SNP.
These two statements are not disputable. Essentially, as far as we can tell, P312 and U106 are of one and and the same age.

Adamov has written a paper on SNP counting which is what YFull uses. There has been some intelligence applied to SNP age estimation. There is a problem that always pops up, adjusting at branch points as we know at an MRCA for any two brother branches, the age of the MRCA is only one number so bottoms-up SNP counting must be adjusted.

At the risk of confusing everyone, I'll show YFull's challenge. This branch point adjustment appears to have no rational methodology for resolution (that I can see). Look at the YFull TMRCAs for the key subclades along with their SNP branch paths.

4900 P311(branch L151)
4900 P311>U106
4700 P311>U106>Z381>Z301>L48
4400 P311>P312
4400 P311>P312>U152
4400 P311>P312>DF27

Do you see they have P311 and U106 at the same age? The mutation rate they used for U106 itself was 0 years whereas for P312 they use a mutation rate of one every 500 years.

YFull also has the L48 MRCA as only 200 years younger than P311. There the mutation rate is one SNP every 50 years. How logical is that L48 is a distance of 4 SNPs from P311 but is older than P312 which is only a distance of one SNP from P311. It is possible but I would bet against it.

It is all over the board so we should not be confused by looking at their estimates without understanding what is going. They are just choosing to let their "pile-up" of branch adjustments needed to jam up at these branch points.

I personally think the problem is U106's YFull calculation is too biased by L48 and that is throwing them off as L48 must have had a "spurt" of SNPs that makes it look older than it is. You can argue either side, though. Someday we'll have simulation/analytics software give us a best fit. I think it'll look at the STRs and other mutations as well.

Let's go back to the simple

Whatever the mutation rate is, U106 and P312 are each just one SNP mutation younger than P311. Do we think that P311 happened in Moldova or eastern Romania and there was a long pause of SNPs while P311* or the first P312 held their breath and traveled at breakneck speed along most of the Danube and through the Iron Gates to the Hungarian Plains. This is why I said if we find ancient DNA DF99, U152 and DF27 along the middle or lower Danube that will be big.

I don't know, but this is why I have a hard time putting U106 and P312 on (north vs south) opposite sides of the Carpathians, one in Danubian pre-Beaker kurganists and the other in Corded Wares kurganists. I think they were either both in or near Moldova or both in or near Hungary/Austria.

[miiser]

You and Goldenhind keep talking about being open, but I am left wondering how having an opinion, even a strong opinion, necessarily means one is not open.

I think what I think today based on what I know today. What I learn tomorrow might change all that.



That probably belongs in another thread.



Can we at least agree that Sweden was hardly in the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware interaction zone?



I have been surprised just how monolithic Bell Beaker seems to be, at least in terms of y-dna. Maybe that will change once we have more results.

The problem is not having a strong opinion or not being open. The problem is being explicitly wrong in your statistical interpretation and analysis of the data. Statistical analysis is a science, not an opinion. You repeatedly and confidently interpret the small number of ancient DNA Bell Beaker data samples we have as being representative of the larger population, and you take aggressive positions based on this interpretation. But the science of statistics says that there is only some smallish level of confidence that the minuscule sample of ancient DNA is representative of the population. (I have posted specific confidence levels for P312 and U106 in the past, and don't remember the exact details now, but you can find them if you dig through my past comments on this topic). You believe that ancient Bell Beaker must be almost entirely P312, because the small sample is almost entirely P312. But the science of statistics does not agree with you. Statistical science says there is a good chance that a large fraction of Bell Beaker may be non P312.

[MitchellSince1893]

There are all kinds of possibilities. One is the occurrences of U106 and P312 were indeed separated by several generations.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a2/e3/b7/a2e3b7f4524cf406b1026e975101c7b6.png

[TigerMW]

... there isn't really any fusion observable in the topic of this forum thread (Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b). It's all fission. Trees branch, the branches don't graft themselves back together. The fusion/fission model may be fine for linguistics, and several other anthropological interests, but it kind of gets in the way for genetics....
I agree but the fusion/fission description is what archaeologists call the meeting of various regional Bell Beaker groups and Corded Wares groups. That is their term. It sound's better than Beaker reflux because reflux implies there was a bounceback towards western Europe of Bell Beaker types. It may have really just been a new Bell Beaker type(s) moving west after the fusion/fission, the kurgan/Yamanized type(s).

The fusion I think is a reference to a mixing of cultures, not Y DNA, well certainly not Y DNA branch inheritance. The mixing may not have been very peaceful. Maybe it was more like the Vikings pillaging etc, except for these folks didn't sail home.

Here is a depiction from Harrison.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/88n8qs3fwo08udm/Beakers-Regional_Groups_Converging.pdf?dl=0

... and from Desideri.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gmsq2ger16yk48v/Beakers-Regional_Groups_meet_and_reflux_Desideri_2008.jpg? dl=0

[TigerMW]

There are all kinds of possibilities. One is the occurrences of U106 and P312 were indeed separated by several generations.
I've been loose and I think conservative but I'll put the squeeze on this to show you why I (I'll borrow from Richard) feel "strongly" about his.

In other words, I'll imagine I am forced to bet real money based on the information available and that there are no abstentions.

Let's review again. We are seeking to understand how close in relationship the MRCAs (Most Recent Common Ancestors) are for the following MRCA men that gave us some very large subclades.

P311(branch L151)
P311>U106
P311>U106>Z381>Z301>L48
P311>P312
P311>P312>U152
P311>P312>DF27

The genetic distance we are considering is measured in stable SNPs. The above subclades have been tested by a variety of platforms and I'm pretty sure this includes FGC Y Elite 2.1.

The mutation rate average that FGC uses is 1 every 2.22 generations. That's the centerpoint to use for estimates. It's not the low end. It's the best estimate.

We have to bet one way or another. I'll abitrarily use 4 generations as the over/under. How would you bet if forced to? Also, what's the impact in terms of years which indirectly limits geographic safe ranges/mobility?

We don't really know the variance from the average mutation rate of 1 every 2.2 gen. This is arbitrary too but there are people using SNP mutation rates to estimate ages. Multiple studies have tried this so they must think the variance is not crazy. By the way, someone Joe Flood may actually have calculated this.

If we used 50% either way we'd take half of 2.2 which is 1.1 so the high end is 3.3 and the low end is an SNP every 1.1 generations.

I think the arbitrary 4 generations on the likely high side is fairly conservative since a 50% slower mutation rate gets to 3.3.

Back in the Bronze Age, the average life expectancy was about 26 years. Again, this is subject to a variance range that I'm not familiar with but it does not seem unreasonable to pick an average years per generation of 25, in fact I think that is on the conservative or high side.

So in the likely bad (slow mutation rate) scenario we'd have an SNP every 100 years (that's 4 times 25).

I think it is fair to say I'm being conservative to say and bet on P312 being less than 100 years younger than P311. The same goes for U106. It is less than 100 years younger than P311.

You may not like my analogy but if I had to bet, I would have to put the ages of the P311, P312 and U106 folks as decades of each other not centuries with U152, DF27, Z381 and DF19 in pretty quick order.

That's the linchpin of my genetic logical puzzle. These MRCAs were individual men and they were closely related and probably not to far apart at the start. They probably knew their common heritage, especially because they didn't have TV back then to waste time on.

Anything is possible, but what is most likely? I could be wrong, but these guys are probably 40-75 years apart.

[TigerMW]

Thanks for the two links, neither of which I was familiar with. The article shows a greater presence of Beakers near the mouth of the Oder and the map suggests the Beakers had a greater spread along the southern shore of the Baltic than I realized.

Most of the emphasis appears to me to be on the Atlantic and western Beakers, to the detriment of the eastern and northern Beakers. This may be in part due to the enormous overweighting of DNA samples from Britain and Ireland, the fact that most English speakers know next to nothing about the history of the regions to the east of the Oder, and the influence of the Celtic from the West crowd.
I just got through reading Makarowicz's "NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN BELL BEAKERS IN POLAND" one time through.
https://www.academia.edu/2022469/Northern_and_Southern_Bell_Beakers_in_Poland

I also glanced at Makarowicz's "THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL STRUCTUPIE: BELL BEAKERS AND TRZCINIEC COMPLEX IN NORTH-EASTERN PART OF CENTRAL EUROPE"
https://www.academia.edu/2022466/The_Construction_of_Social_Structure_Bell_Beakers_ and_Trzciniec_Complex_in_North-Eastern_Part_of_Central_Europe

The Trzciniec culture is a northern derivative of Corded Ware. It's interesting that the Bell Beakers encroached on their territory and the Beakers were more individual versus communal oriented.

This is all new news to me. I've been use to looking at the "reflux" and thinking the Bell Beakers were turned back but there were obviously different Bell Beaker groups and some of them infringed significantly on Corded Ware groups. The Beakers, or at least types of them, were aggressive. Population-wise, it still appears the remnants of Corded Ware stayed in the a clear majority in NE Europe.

[MitchellSince1893]

I've been loose and I think conservative but I'll put the squeeze on this to show you why I (I'll borrow from Richard) feel "strongly" about his.

In other words, I'll imagine I am forced to bet real money based on the information available and that there are no abstentions.

Let's review again. We are seeking to understand how close in relationship the MRCAs (Most Recent Common Ancestors) are for the following MRCA men that gave us some very large subclades.

P311(branch L151)
P311>U106
P311>U106>Z381>Z301>L48
P311>P312
P311>P312>U152
P311>P312>DF27

The genetic distance we are considering is measured in stable SNPs. The above subclades have been tested by a variety of platforms and I'm pretty sure this includes FGC Y Elite 2.1.

The mutation rate average that FGC uses is 1 every 2.22 generations. That's the centerpoint to use for estimates. It's not the low end. It's the best estimate.

We have to bet one way or another. I'll abitrarily use 4 generations as the over/under. How would you bet if forced to? Also, what's the impact in terms of years which indirectly limits geographic safe ranges/mobility?

We don't really know the variance from the average mutation rate of 1 every 2.2 gen. This is arbitrary too but there are people using SNP mutation rates to estimate ages. Multiple studies have tried this so they must think the variance is not crazy. By the way, someone Joe Flood may actually have calculated this.

If we used 50% either way we'd take half of 2.2 which is 1.1 so the high end is 3.3 and the low end is an SNP every 1.1 generations.

I think the arbitrary 4 generations on the likely high side is fairly conservative since a 50% slower mutation rate gets to 3.3.

Back in the Bronze Age, the average life expectancy was about 26 years. Again, this is subject to a variance range that I'm not familiar with but it does not seem unreasonable to pick an average years per generation of 25, in fact I think that is on the conservative or high side.

So in the likely bad (slow mutation rate) scenario we'd have an SNP every 100 years (that's 4 times 25).

I think it is fair to say I'm being conservative to say and bet on P312 being less than 100 years younger than P311. The same goes for U106. It is less than 100 years younger than P311.

You may not like my analogy but if I had to bet, I would have to put the ages of the P311, P312 and U106 folks as decades of each other not centuries with U152, DF27, Z381 and DF19 in pretty quick order.

That's the linchpin of my genetic logical puzzle. These MRCAs were individual men and they were closely related and probably not to far apart at the start. They probably knew their common heritage, especially because they didn't have TV back then to waste time on.

Anything is possible, but what is most likely? I could be wrong, but these guys are probably 40-75 years apart.

Based on personal experience I would argue there is more variability in how often SNPs mutate in the combBed region than you are allowing for above (1.1 to 3.3 generations).

I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, but let me use my own branch as an illustration.

Two men have a shared paternal ancestor who lived around 1600 AD.

On one line there are 8 known generations from 1744 to 1990. I estimate 5 generations back to their shared MRCA. Thus an estimated 13 generations totals with 2 private SNPs in the combBed region (region used by Yfull to date).

On the other line there are 6 known generations from 1783 to 1960. I estimate 6 generations back to their shared MRCA, with and an estimated 12 generations total with 4 private SNPs in combBED region.

In one line a new combBed region SNP has occurred, on average once every 6.5 generations. On the other line a new combBed region SNP has occurred on average every 3 generations.

Hence why I don't think it's unreasonable to think there could have been a multi generational difference between when U106 was born and P312.

But as you said you are looking at what is most likely.

JMTC

[Gravetto-Danubian]

I just got through reading Makarowicz's "NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN BELL BEAKERS IN POLAND" one time through.
https://www.academia.edu/2022469/Northern_and_Southern_Bell_Beakers_in_Poland

I also glanced at Makarowicz's "THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL STRUCTUPIE: BELL BEAKERS AND TRZCINIEC COMPLEX IN NORTH-EASTERN PART OF CENTRAL EUROPE"
https://www.academia.edu/2022466/The_Construction_of_Social_Structure_Bell_Beakers_ and_Trzciniec_Complex_in_North-Eastern_Part_of_Central_Europe

The Trzciniec culture is a northern derivative of Corded Ware. It's interesting that the Bell Beakers encroached on their territory and the Beakers were more individual versus communal oriented.

This is all new news to me. I've been use to looking at the "reflux" and thinking the Bell Beakers were turned back but there were obviously different Bell Beaker groups and some of them infringed significantly on Corded Ware groups. The Beakers, or at least types of them, were aggressive. Population-wise, it still appears the remnants of Corded Ware stayed in the a clear majority in NE Europe.

Trziniec can be seen as a post-CWC group which incorporated aspecst of BB; given that BB were just enclaves in not sure how much opposition occurred.

It is worth noting also that the different groups of Bell Baker migrated west east to Poland. In southern Poland (Silesia) they were Bell Baker east groups from Moravia. Whilst is in northern Poland they were northern Beaker groups from Denmark and northern Germany.

[GoldenHind]

I believe Ken Nordtvedt once expressed his opinion that P312 and U106 first occurred very close together in both time and place.

I believe I am also correct that the only difference between the STR modals for P312 and U106 is a single marker within the first 67, and that is DYS492, where P312 tends to have a 12 and U106 a 13.

[rms2]

The problem is not having a strong opinion or not being open. The problem is being explicitly wrong in your statistical interpretation and analysis of the data. Statistical analysis is a science, not an opinion. You repeatedly and confidently interpret the small number of ancient DNA Bell Beaker data samples we have as being representative of the larger population, and you take aggressive positions based on this interpretation. But the science of statistics says that there is only some smallish level of confidence that the minuscule sample of ancient DNA is representative of the population. (I have posted specific confidence levels for P312 and U106 in the past, and don't remember the exact details now, but you can find them if you dig through my past comments on this topic). You believe that ancient Bell Beaker must be almost entirely P312, because the small sample is almost entirely P312. But the science of statistics does not agree with you. Statistical science says there is a good chance that a large fraction of Bell Beaker may be non P312.

I am offering my point of view on the evidence we have. I realize we have a limited number of ancient Bell Beaker y-dna test results thus far, but those results are not all we have. We have evidence from modern distribution, which is not as good as ancient y-dna, but is still a factor, and we have the evidence of archaeology and history. BTW, I know you will now respond that I have in the past criticized reliance on modern distribution, and that is true, I have. And I will criticize it again if I think it forms the sole or central part of an argument, especially if there is ancient dna evidence available or if archaeological and/or historical evidence militate against what is being argued from modern distribution. Modern distribution is merely one piece of the puzzle. It has its place, but it isn't everything.

My posts are what I believe to be true based on the evidence we have. I freely admit I could be wrong, and I have said that repeatedly.

I think the ancient Bell Beaker y-dna results, coupled with the other evidence I have mentioned, make a pretty compelling case that what I think is right. Numbers are only part of that.

And if you are right, and we don't have enough results yet to be able to say anything with confidence, then you cannot with justice say that I am wrong, not based on statistics anyway.

It seems to me you don't actually ever take a position. Instead you just periodically dog my posts because of some personal animus you have developed against me and which you cherish against reason.

[GoldenHind]

DF99 may be a better diagnostic tracker than I thought.

Let us set ZZ11 and Z40481 aside as counters for SNP based age estimates. YFull would not include them and I don't know if anyone would. I'm not saying they are useless as they indicate closeness in relationships between major subclades of P312, but let's not confuse age/generation estimates by including them.

DF99 has only one equivalent so it's MRCA is quite old, in the same ballgame of U152's and DF27's MRCAs. U152 and DF27 have zero equivalents. We can hypothesize with some legitimacy that the MRCAs for P312, U152, DF27 and DF99 all lived within a few generations of each other. This means their origins could be close geographically. That's a little more iffy because the Bell Beakers were so mobile.

I don't think there are any unbiased frequency studies of DF99. You can eyeball it on the project screens but we know that will be biased. There is quite a bit of Germany compared to the Isles so given the testing penetration rates I think we have to take Germany seriously. We DF99 in Sweden but just one or two that I noticed.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-DF99?iframe=yresults

However, we also see a Spain and Italy. I wasn't really expecting that. Better yet, go to the Big tree for DF99. It has turned up in a couple of academic studies. We see Portugal, Italy, Peru and Poland.

This is NOT the kind of thing you see with L21.

Again, not everyone agrees with me but I will classify DF99 in my own mind similar to DF27, quite scattered. Both DF27 and DF99 may have been in the thick of things when the great P312 expansion occurred.

All road go back to central Europe.

I guess it is also fair to say that U152 is scattered. The difference it doesn't have the same proportion of Atlantic/western content as some of these other subclades. That's probably why I think of it as more Alpine/North Italy biased.

http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=186

I would really love it if Z290 is examined in these ancient DNA studies. We could consider it pre-L21. Z290 has only two or three equivalents so its MRCA is also old. The problem is we have like no survey of Z290+ L21- folks at all. There is just the one. It appears the L21 MRCA was more of the colonial governor type born in route to the hinterlands of NW Europe. Z290 may be close to home.

DF99 seems to attract very little attention. Maciamo only recognized its existence within the past month or so, and has absolutely nothing to say about it. While it does appear to be fairly rare, that does not mean it has any less importance than more numerous P312 subclades in determining the history of P312. Incidentaly I believe the DF99 map is more informative than the list of its members. Perhaps someone more skilled than me would care to post it.

The only academic study I know of which included DF99 is the Genomes of the Netherlands study. There were only four DF99+ out of 500 samples. But one must put this in perspective. The 500 samples included all haplogroups. Only 258 (51%) of the 500 were R1b. Also Holland probably has the largest percentage of U106 of any country in Europe, and it amounted to 165 of the R1b portion of 258. The P312 portion of the total of 500 was only 93 (18.6%). Thus DF99 constituted 4.3% of the P312 total. This seems reasonable to me, at least in those areas where it is present in any numbers.

I disagree with your comment that DF99 is as widespread as DF27. Yes, there are outliers in Portugal and Moscow, but it is clear to me that the center of gravity is in Germany and adjacent lands. It has been found throughout Germany, from north to south and west to east, including those former areas of eastern Germany now part of Poland. Even more significant to me is where it hasn't yet been found in any numbers. In France it is so far only present on the fringes of that country, in Normandy and Savoy. Three out of four from Italy are from the northernmost part of that country, and the fourth from Sicily may possibly represent a medieval migration from northern Italy. Most of the few from Spain or Mexico are descendants of a single Flemish cloth merchant who moved to Bilboa in the 17C.

DF99 in Britain and Ireland appear to be almost exclusively of English origin. Only two have been found in Ireland, which composes the largest portion of the FTDNA database, and both are from Ulster and undoubtedly of English ancestry. Only one from Scotland so far, which I believe is the second most over represented country in the FTDNA database. There is however a small group of Welsh origin or who have Welsh surnames.

At this point I would say that DF99 has the second most restricted modern distribution of the six major P312 subclades, after L238. I suspect it probably has a larger percentage of its total number who have an origin from Germany and Switzerland than any other P312 subclade. NB- I am not saying they outnumber other P312 subclades in Germany. I refer only to the percentage within the subclade with origins there.

I think it is also noteworthy that if one combines the modern distribution of P312 subclades L238, DF99 and DF19, it is remarkably similar to that of U106. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

To those who will be highly offended by any suggested connection between Germanic speaking lands and a P312 subclade, I am not proposing a Germanic origin for DF99, though I don't rule that possibility out. I do however suspect that the bulk of DF99 was incorporated into the Jastorf culture at a fairly early date. They might represent BB from NE Europe, or they could have been Hallstatt Celts. There may have been a branch which went to Britain in pre-Roman times, though I am informed by someone who is a position that know that DF99 has an insignificant presence in Wales. I wouldn't rule out an Alpine origin, but if so, they seem to have only moved to the north.

[rms2]

It seems to me the main point of disagreement here is that some of you think U106 formed a significant part of Bell Beaker.

But if U106 was an important part of Bell Beaker, why is it skewed so heavily to the eastern side and especially the southeastern corner of Britain, so that it fools us into thinking it is primarily of Anglo-Saxon provenance there? Why is it extremely small potatoes in Ireland, and where it does occur is found mainly in the places where the non-Irish settled?

Why does U106 appear so closely associated with Germanic peoples and fades as one moves away from their homelands? Why does it have such an obvious inverse relationship to historically Italo-Celtic regions?

I will admit that I have not read every single book and academic treatise on the planet, but I am fairly well read. I have never read a single scholar who attributed to Bell Beaker the genesis and spread of Germanic languages. On the other hand, a number of highly respected scholars have, over the years, attributed to Bell Beaker the origin and spread of Italo-Celtic. A number of scholars have attributed the very early origins of Germanic languages to Corded Ware, however.

Now, finally, while readily admitting we need a lot more ancient y-dna results, don't you find it odd, if U106 was big in Bell Beaker, that not a single ancient Bell Beaker test result has come up U106+, even in places in Germany where U106 is common today? Isn't it funny how these initial results seem to support those scholars who link Bell Beaker to Italo-Celtic rather than Germanic? Add to that the fact that when an ancient U106 finally popped up, it did so in the context of a Bronze Age Nordic Battle Axe cemetery and not in Bell Beaker. Isn't that odd, if U106 is really BB material?

Add to that the Hinxton Celts, who were likewise not U106, even though their skeletons were recovered in a part of what is now England that is rife with U106 today. And those three Bell Beaker men from Rathlin Island, what were they? Not U106.

If U106 or its ancestor came up with Yamnaya via the same route taken by P312 or its ancestor, something funky happened somewhere in central Europe.

[TigerMW]

It seems to me the main point of disagreement here is that some of you think U106 formed a significant part of Bell Beaker.
Just to be clear, I do not think U106 formed a significant part of Bell Beaker. However, U106 could have been in some Bell Beaker folks, particularly any in Denmark, northern Germany or northern Poland.

To me a bigger question is did U106 originate from the Yamnaya proper, Corded Ware or Bell Beaker? I don't know.


Now, finally, while readily admitting we need a lot more ancient y-dna results, don't you find it odd, if U106 was big in Bell Beaker, that not a single ancient Bell Beaker test result has come up U106+
No, I don't think it is odd at all. We just don't have that many Bell Beaker ancient DNA results. I don't think the current survey status is any kind of decent cross-section of Bell Beaker aDNA. Hopefully, that will change this year.


Add to that the fact that when an ancient U106 finally popped up, it did so in the context of a Bronze Age Nordic Battle Axe cemetery and not in Bell Beaker. Isn't that odd, if U106 is really BB material?
That's a sample of one and that is not in Corded Ware proper, but a derivative culture. At the same timeframe as the RISE98 U106+ man we are seeing the aftermath of the fusion/fission events that involved Beaker interaction with Corded Ware and then Unetice. Bell Beakers are in England, Denmark and even along the Baltic coasts of Germany and Poland.


Add to that the Hinxton Celts, who were likewise not U106, even though their skeletons were recovered in a part of what is now England that is rife with U106 today..
The Hinxton Celts were centuries later than the Bell Beakers and the origination of U106. As far as that goes, we don't have a good survey of Celtic ancient DNA.


And those three Bell Beaker men from Rathlin Island, what were they? Not U106. Again, this is not much of a survey, but I wouldn't expect to find U106 to any great degree in Ireland about 2000 BC. We have pretty good reason to think a lot of U106 came in with Anglo-Saxons, but U106 was around well before there any such thing as Proto-Germanic.


If U106 or its ancestor came up with Yamnaya via the same route taken by P312 or its ancestor, something funky happened somewhere in central Europe. Yes, something definitely happened of major significance in central Europe in the centuries surrounding 2500 BC. Perhaps fusion/fission is not a well received label so perhaps we should call it World War Zero or the first Pan-European War.

What Y DNA was going in what directions at that time I don't know. Hopefully the new studies will tell us. I just hope they investigate down below P311 a few layers.

I just think we have to consider that P312 and U106 are very closely related as well, so their source is pretty much the same. It would be great if we had precise TMRCAs as that would lead to a couple of suspect culutures. If the TMRCAs ended up on the older side, say 3400 BC, the best suspects could be one of the Yamnaya proper cultures. If we find the TMRCAs were really about 2500 BC it's hard to argue against a Bell Beaker group.

[rms2]

Just to be clear, I do not think U106 formed a significant part of Bell Beaker. However, U106 could have been in some Bell Beaker folks, particularly any in Denmark, northern Germany or northern Poland.

Well, we don't disagree as much as I thought then. It wouldn't surprise me to see U106 here and there in Bell Beaker, particularly in the easternmost reaches of Bell Beaker, but I don't think it will turn out to be common throughout Bell Beaker.

I'm betting Polish Bell Beaker turns out to be R1b-U152, if we ever get any y-dna from it. Just my guess.



To me a bigger question is did U106 originate from the Yamnaya proper, Corded Ware or Bell Beaker? I don't know.

Or maybe Globular Amphora? I don't know either.



No, I don't think it is odd at all. We just don't have that many Bell Beaker ancient DNA results. I don't think the current survey status is any kind of decent cross-section of Bell Beaker aDNA. Hopefully, that will change this year.

We have, if I recall correctly, ancient y-dna results from at least 12 Bell Beaker skeletons, 15, if one counts the three from El Sotillo in Spain. Given that you think U106 was probably in German Bell Beaker, aren't you even a little surprised that it hasn't shown up there yet?



That's a sample of one and that is not in Corded Ware proper, but a derivative culture.

You said that before in a different way: "a trend of one". It sounds devastating, but that one result does not stand by itself, it comes accompanied by other evidence: U106's pretty obvious association with Germanic peoples, its inverse relationship to Italo-Celtic peoples, and the fact that it has not yet appeared in ancient Bell Beaker results.

Those things, which could be broken down into separate detailed elements, are what make that "trend of one" a lot more significant than a single result might otherwise be. What it is really is this: All that and an ancient U106 Nordic Battle Axe skeleton too!



At the same timeframe as the RISE98 U106+ man we are seeing the aftermath of the fusion/fission events that involved Beaker interaction with Corded Ware and then Unetice. Bell Beakers are in England, Denmark and even along the Baltic coasts of Germany and Poland.

What is now England was in the Italo-Celtic orbit until the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in the 5th century A.D. It isn't likely there was much if any U106 there until then, aside from the odd Roman auxiliary or slave imported from the Continent.

I'm not denying BB sites have been found along the Baltic coast, but I am not sure how important or populous the BB people were in those regions. I think it likely they were eventually swamped by the locals.



The Hinxton Celts were centuries later than the Bell Beakers and the origination of U106. As far as that goes, we don't have a good survey of Celtic ancient DNA.

Of course they were, but they were part of the history of the place, a place now rife with U106. They are successors in time to the Bell Beaker people, likely their descendants, and likely heirs to both their dna and their language. And, if one regards Bell Beaker as probably Italo-Celtic or somewhere on that ethnolinguistic continuum, they continued the unbroken run of xU106 among such peoples.



Again, this is not much of a survey, but I wouldn't expect to find U106 to any great degree in Ireland about 2000 BC. We have pretty good reason to think a lot of U106 came in with Anglo-Saxons, but U106 was around well before there any such thing as Proto-Germanic.

I don't think the age of a y haplogroup matters much when we are talking about ancient ethnolinguistic groups. If enough members of a y haplogroup became speakers of a language early enough that it is plain that y haplogroup is strongly associated with it, that is enough. And it's plain U106 became associated with Germanic speech pretty early in its evolution, if not actually right from the very beginning. I personally think U106 was involved in the very genesis of Germanic, from pre-Proto onward.

I seriously doubt there was much if any U106 in Ireland before the Normans and, later, the English.



Yes, something definitely happened of major significance in central Europe in the centuries surrounding 2500 BC. Perhaps fusion/fission is not a well received label so perhaps we should call it World War Zero or the first Pan-European War.

I think it is possible all or most of L151 was in Yamnaya and went up the Danube Valley route, and that U106 or its ancestor stayed farther to the east and north than did P312 or its ancestor. I also think it is possible that the L151 ancestor of U106, or the first U106 man himself, if he was around, could have gone around the north side of the Carpathians and onto the North European Plain, becoming a part of Corded Ware or Globular Amphora.



What Y DNA was going in what directions at that time I don't know. Hopefully the new studies will tell us. I just hope they investigate down below P311 a few layers.

I just think we have to consider that P312 and U106 are very closely related as well, so their source is pretty much the same. It would be great if we had precise TMRCAs as that would lead to a couple of suspect culutures. If the TMRCAs ended up on the older side, say 3400 BC, the best suspects could be one of the Yamnaya proper cultures. If we find the TMRCAs were really about 2500 BC it's hard to argue against a Bell Beaker group.

Yes, U106 and P312 are closely related, but at some point they separated enough to develop distinctly different distributions and distinctly different ethnolinguistic associations. Something similar must have happened with the L23 brothers L51 and Z2103, because L51 and his descendants pretty obviously headed off to the west and north.

[Romilius]

In the middle of the debate I feel really lonely when I'm wondering if they had already loaded samples as Gravetto-Danubian suggested some weeks ago.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

In the middle of the debate I feel really lonely when I'm wondering if they had already loaded samples as Gravetto-Danubian suggested some weeks ago.

I had just heard it was due for submission imminently. I have no idea how long the publication will take, or where. I think Megalophias suggested 2 months, Davidski similarly.

[TigerMW]

Well, we don't disagree as much as I thought then. It wouldn't surprise me to see U106 here and there in Bell Beaker, particularly in the easternmost reaches of Bell Beaker, but I don't think it will turn out to be common throughout Bell Beaker.
Right, we are have very strong agreement in general on this. In fact, even on U106 in Corded Ware, I agree it probably was as evidenced by being found in a Corded Ware derivative, Swedish Boat Axe. It's just that I could flip a coin on that as the closeness of relationship and probably youthfulness (Bronze Age I mean) of P311, P312 and U106 calls for a competing alternative. It could be that P311 and P312 were Corded Ware or that Yamnaya moves from eastern Romania and Moldova were lightning fast. The blitzkrieg could definitely be true as we have folks like the Amesbury Archer who seemed to be born half way across Europe from where they were raised.


I'm betting Polish Bell Beaker turns out to be R1b-U152, if we ever get any y-dna from it. Just my guess.
Could be. I wonder what Lawrence thinks.


We have, if I recall correctly, ancient y-dna results from at least 12 Bell Beaker skeletons, 15, if one counts the three from El Sotillo in Spain. Given that you think U106 was probably in German Bell Beaker, aren't you even a little surprised that it hasn't shown up there yet?
I never said I think U106 was probably in German Bell Beaker, although I'm not sure what that even is. I think you mean Bell Beaker finds in Germany. We don't have many of those, do we? How many L21 Beaker finds do we have in Germany? That doesn't mean L21's MRCA did not live there. This is what I mean be a shortage of evidence.

I think U106 could have originated in Bell Beakers or the genesis Yamnaya-ized Beaker. This could put the origin of U106 in Hungary, Czech Rep, Slovakia or Austria or the general area. U106 could have originated in Corded Wares or Yamnaya proper too. By the way, P312 could have originated in Corded Wares or Yamnaya proper as well. It doesn't seem likely given David Anthony's "true folk" Yamnaya movement up the Danube, though.

Let us not conflate modern boundaries of Germany with the origins of Proto-Germanic. The Bell Beakers of northern Poland, northern Germany, southern Norway and Denmark (incl. the islands of Zealand and Bornholm) were in the heart of proposed Proto-Germanic speaking lands. The Bell Beakers were there long before Germanic languages were spoken. By the way, the island of Bornholm is on the other side of Malmo, Sweden. Malmo is between Zealand and Bornholm. There are people who can swim from Denmark to Sweden. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140630020246AAZ3OYk


You said that before in a different way: "a trend of one". It sounds devastating, but that one result does not stand by itself, it comes accompanied by other evidence: U106's pretty obvious association with Germanic peoples, its inverse relationship to Italo-Celtic peoples, and the fact that it has not yet appeared in ancient Bell Beaker results. [/I]
I don't see any of this as devastating one way or another, just a fun discussion.
The association of Y haplogroups with languages must have timeframe associations to be useful in a discussion. I don't know a stitch of Celtic, and speak a Germanic language as many of us do but that doesn't mean L21 was in the Proto-Germanic speaking group.
There is a long period of time between the appearance of Bell Beakers in Proto-Germanic homeland vicinity and the actual appearance of a Proto-Germanic language. We also see that IE language experts are uncertain on the timing of the influences or even cross-branch grafting of Celtic and Germanic. I refer back to the Ringe-Taylor-Warnow tree.

By the way, it is not lost on me at all that the cross-branch between Celtic and Germanic could be the impact of some forms of P312, with L238 being amongst them.


I'm not denying BB sites have been found along the Baltic coast, but I am not sure how important or populous the BB people were in those regions. I think it likely they were eventually swamped by the locals.
.. but we know the big Y haplogroups of Europe were very youthful around 2200 BC. Somehow they swamped most everybody else, although Proto-Germanic speakers appear to have been much more evenly mixed Y haplogroup-wise. This could be a could be a clue that this culture was a more balanced mix or amalgamation with multiple inputs.


Of course they were, but they were part of the history of the place, a place now rife with U106. They are successors in time to the Bell Beaker people, likely their descendants, and likely heirs to both their dna and their language. And, if one regards Bell Beaker as probably Italo-Celtic or somewhere on that ethnolinguistic continuum, they continued the unbroken run of xU106 among such peoples.
I'm not willing to agree that all or even most Bell Beakers were Italo-Celtic speakers and that there was an unbroken continuum to Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic. The Beakers may well have just spoken various dialects of IE and eventually one or two won out (i.e. Celtic and Italic) and overtook the others. We can see the case of Italic speaking expansion. It was not a one time shot back in the days of Proto-Italic. The Roman Empire was post Bronze Age big wave that changed speakers across much of Europe to Italic. What's to say to say the Urnfielders did not do something similar in earlier days. There are a lot of centuries of language dialects to diverge, converge, fade and expand.


I don't think the age of a y haplogroup matters much when we are talking about ancient ethnolinguistic groups. If enough members of a y haplogroup became speakers of a language early enough that it is plain that y haplogroup is strongly associated with it, that is enough. And it's plain U106 became associated with Germanic speech pretty early in its evolution, if not actually right from the very beginning. I personally think U106 was involved in the very genesis of Germanic, from pre-Proto onward.
I don't see how you can say the age of the haplogroup doesn't matter much in these regards. U106's MRCA is much older than Proto-Germanic as I noted before. Then the question is who was Pre-Germanic? but that may be the wrong way of looking at it. Many folks could have been Pre-Germanic, including Bell Beakers. Pre-Germanic may not even have ever existed as a distinct language if it is uncertain as Ringe-Taylor-Warnow say, that is if it is an amalgamation.


I seriously doubt there was much if any U106 in Ireland before the Normans and, later, the English.
I think for the majority of modern U106 this is true and that is heavily L48 biased. However, there may be some subclades like Z156 that broke away from pre-L48 people and got mixed in with people going northwest. You might say "but Z156 is a small subclade" but today's subclade population size has little relevance to the origin of U106, Z381, Z156, etc. It's the early branching that is more relevant.


Yes, U106 and P312 are closely related, but at some point they separated enough to develop distinctly different distributions and distinctly different ethnolinguistic associations. Something similar must have happened with the L23 brothers L51 and Z2103, because L51 and his descendants pretty obviously headed off to the west and north.
Agreed, but the separation into different ethnolinguistic groups either
1) took time to develop independently and isolated from each other or
2) involved some interjection of a subclade into another culture (like perhaps U106 and L238 into Corded Wares derivatives or P312 in general into Bell Beakers)

[TigerMW]

Based on personal experience I would argue there is more variability in how often SNPs mutate in the combBed region than you are allowing for above (1.1 to 3.3 generations).

I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, but let me use my own branch as an illustration.
There are several additional risks to the "observed" mutation rate in cases like your own.
1) Maybe most important, the variance in coverage of individual NGS runs can and does cause "missing" SNPs.
2) Absolute MRCA dates based on genealogy can (not do but can) have errors. That's generally a sore subject so I try to avoid it.
3) The use of novel/private SNPs in counting. NGS tests do generate false positives. The rate is low per millions of locations scanned but even a few false positives fall to the bottom as possible novel/private SNPs. I personally think only shared SNPs (consistently) should be used in SNP counting.

In the case of the P311 family we have many tests, including those with great coverage (i.e. FGC Y Elite 2.1 - they'll like me yet). It's really just these SNPs (no equivalents) for some very large and geographically diverse subclades.
P311
P311>U106
P311>P312
P311>P312>DF27
P311>P312>U152


Hence why I don't think it's unreasonable to think there could have been a multi generational difference between when U106 was born and P312.

But as you said you are looking at what is most likely.

Agreed. Given the coverage tested for the P311 early branching I think we can go with the average mutation rate of 1 every 2.2 generations. ... and agreed, averages are just that and a man can drown crossing the river of average depth of 3 feet.

However, I have some good news. Dr. Iain McDonald has looked at the variance from the average. He's an astrophysicist and quite capable mathematically.
Using Big Y coverage (minus DYZ19) he is coming up with an average of "129 years/SNP (125–139 years/SNP)". The range is a 95% confidence interval. I'm actually skeptical of that assuming some kind of sample size but I think the variance is not on the crazy side anyway.

McDonald uses 32 years/gen so the above amounts this amounts to a range of an SNP every 3.9 to 4.3 generations.

Using the FGC coverage for these early P311 branches and eliminating the novel/private SNP and sporadic coverage issues, we have 1 every 2.2 generations. so that 2.2 times 32 or about 1 SNP every 70 years. Since we are talking about the Bronze Age when average life spans were around 26 years I think we could use a lower years/gen than 32.

In any case, if you use anything close to Dr. McDonald's intervals, it is quite likely that the MRCAs for P311, U106, U106>Z381, P312, P312>D27, P312>U152, P312>DF99 are right on top of each other, making it difficult to source them in isolated cultures from each other. We should throw P311>S1194 in this family too as S1194 has no equivalents also.

The situation above P311's MRCA is quite different than its descendants.

The P311 (L151) block is about a dozen SNPs. Above that we have the L51 block of about six or seven SNPs. We can see there is quite a genetic distance and therefore probable time period between L23*, L23>Z2103 and what we end up with as L23>L51>P311. We hardly know anything about L51 except its prominent survivor is the P311 MRCA.

There is L51>PF7589. Does anyone know anything about PF7589? Dispersed from Turkey to Ireland to Norway to Portugal ???
http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/643/

[Joe B]

There is L51>PF7589. Does anyone know anything about PF7589? Dispersed from Turkey to Ireland to Norway to Portugal ???
http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/643/ That semargl map looks a little out of date. My guess is that the one marked in Turkey is actually from Greece. He's Big Y tested, listed Turkey for country, but has specific village and geographic coordinates in northern Greece. There is an Armenian that is predicted R1b-PF7589 and a R1b-L51 Yemeni that is also predictd R1b-PF7589. Both have DYS426=13. Otherwise, their STRs show a great deal of genetic distance from the Europeans. I suspect it will be very similar to the R1b-CTS4528* Armenian with an estimated 4900 ybp TMRCA to the Europeans. There probably are more R1b-L51 and R1b-P310 examples like that.

[Wing Genealogist]

Mike,

It appears U106 may have an equivalent SNP: Z2265. My understanding is this SNP is not found outside of U106. It is called inconsistently (throughout all of the various subclades) in NGS tests including both the Big Y as well as the various FGC tests. FGC scores this SNP as ** and *** (the lowest levels of reliability).

[Wing Genealogist]

Another item with regards to U106: With the exception of it's largest subclade (Z381), U106 apparently experienced little to no growth for a couple hundred years or so. The other subclades immediately below U106 (Z18, FGC3861/Z8056, S12025, S18632, FGC396, S19589, and others) all have a handful of equivalent SNPs.

Z381 alone appears to have had an immediate growth spurt with it's main branch defined by a series of clades with only one SNP (Z381, Z301, L48). Z381's other major subclade (Z156) only has one equivalent SNP. and L48's two main subclades (Z9 & L47) also have only a small number of equivalent SNPs.

Given this large difference, I personally believe folks should separate Z381 from U106 when looking at their history and movements.

[TigerMW]

Mike,

It appears U106 may have an equivalent SNP: Z2265. My understanding is this SNP is not found outside of U106. It is called inconsistently (throughout all of the various subclades) in NGS tests including both the Big Y as well as the various FGC tests. FGC scores this SNP as ** and *** (the lowest levels of reliability).

Thank you, Ray. This is the kind of SNP we'd want to add to the R1b-M343&M269 Backbone Pack and give it a workout.

I see Ray Banks identified it in 2015 but isn't willing to put it on the ISOGG tree yet. Alex/Iain don't put it on the Big Tree either but the backbone pack could very good for researching this.

It's not in a CombBED region so YFull wouldn't accept it for age estimations but it is ironic is this could presented as evidence that U106 is younger than P312 while YFull has U106 older by what was it, 400 years. I think that is all just their branch point SNP "pile-up" adjustment issue... or I guess I should say that is an issue for SNP counting in general.

[TigerMW]

Another item with regards to U106: With the exception of it's largest subclade (Z381), U106 apparently experienced little to no growth for a couple hundred years or so. The other subclades immediately below U106 (Z18, FGC3861/Z8056, S12025, S18632, FGC396, S19589, and others) all have a handful of equivalent SNPs.

Z381 alone appears to have had an immediate growth spurt with it's main branch defined by a series of clades with only one SNP (Z381, Z301, L48). Z381's other major subclade (Z156) only has one equivalent SNP. and L48's two main subclades (Z9 & L47) also have only a small number of equivalent SNPs.

Given this large difference, I personally believe folks should separate Z381 from U106 when looking at their history and movements.
Are there early branches in Z381 or of U106 that don't have the association with old Nordic and Germanic lands?

[Wing Genealogist]

Are there early branches in Z381 or of U106 that don't have the association with old Nordic and Germanic lands?

Z18 has a higher proportion of folks from the Baltic region than Z381. Some have called Z18 a "North Sea Tribe".

The other direct subclades of U106 are really too small to give us much information at the present time.

[TigerMW]

Z18 has a higher proportion of folks from the Baltic region than Z381. Some have called Z18 a "North Sea Tribe".

The other direct subclades of U106 are really too small to give us much information at the present time.

Is there anything to a branch of Z156 being in the British Isles long before the Romans or Anglo-Saxons?

[Wing Genealogist]

One of the suspected British "Gladiators" 6drif-3 was found to be DF98+ (a subclade of Z156). I believe he was thought to be a native to the Isles, but I can be mistaken on this aspect.

Undoubtedly, U106 folks have emigrated to Britain throughout pre-history and history.

[miiser]

One of the suspected British "Gladiators" 6drif-3 was found to be DF98+ (a subclade of Z156). I believe he was thought to be a native to the Isles, but I can be mistaken on this aspect.

Undoubtedly, U106 folks have emigrated to Britain throughout pre-history and history.

As I recall, the paper's authors were content enough to consider him a native. But some member of this forum were eager to write him off as an outsider in order to make him conform to their preconceptions. The slightly non average admixture numbers and I believe tooth isotope numbers were used as a justification for this position. But the authors made it clear that he was well within normal for an Isles native, and it was pretty transparent at the time that those attempting to peg him as a recent immigrant had ulterior motives.

[GoldenHind]

Some years ago I made a study of R1b in Scandinavia based on the data available at that time (Busby etc.), and posted the results on the old DNA forum. I don't have time at the moment to try to dig out my notes, but my memory is that the largest concentration of U106 anywhere in Scandinavia was in northern Jutland, site of the main Beaker settlement there. This was the initial reason why I began to suspect a possibility of a U106 presence in BB.

I also noted the largest concentrations of U106 were in Holland and Austria. Obviously Holland was the home of the Dutch Beakers. I am not certain about the BB presence in Austria, but I do know it lies on the Danube, long proposed as a major route for the entry of Beakers into Europe.

Yes, I do know that both Holland and Austria were later over run by Germanic people coming south from Scandinavia. But what if there was an overlay of U106 which already existed in these areas by U106 coming south from Scandinavia?

I have seen other bits of evidence that suggested a similar possibility in England, i.e. that pre-existing U106 in England was overlain by U106 which arrived with the Anglo-Saxons.

All of this is circumstantial, and there is certainly nothing which is definitive. I do however find them suggestive. AFAIK, we currently have no BB aDNA from Scandinavia, Holland or Austria. If there are a sufficient number with sufficient resolution from those areas in the long awaited study and there is no U106 among them, I will be inclined to put this down to mere coincidence.

[GoldenHind]

As I recall, the paper's authors were content enough to consider him a native. But some member of this forum were eager to write him off as an outsider in order to make him conform to their preconceptions. The slightly non average admixture numbers and I believe tooth isotope numbers were used as a justification for this position. But the authors made it clear that he was well within normal for an Isles native, and it was pretty transparent at the time that those attempting to peg him as an immigrant had ulterior motives.

This is an example of what I referred to earlier as confirmation bias.

[rms2]

As I recall, the paper's authors were content enough to consider him a native. But some member of this forum were eager to write him off as an outsider in order to make him conform to their preconceptions. The slightly non average admixture numbers and I believe tooth isotope numbers were used as a justification for this position. But the authors made it clear that he was well within normal for an Isles native, and it was pretty transparent at the time that those attempting to peg him as a recent immigrant had ulterior motives.

Right. A gladiator in an urban Roman context could never have been the y-dna descendant of someone recently brought to Britain from the Continent by the Romans.

Geez. Perhaps you yourself are letting the wish be the father to the thought.

It is your own prejudices that are transparent.

[rms2]

This is an example of what I referred to earlier as confirmation bias.

And how is it that you hover above "confirmation bias" on a golden cloud of objectivity?

[Dewsloth]

One of the suspected British "Gladiators" 6drif-3 was found to be DF98+ (a subclade of Z156). I believe he was thought to be a native to the Isles, but I can be mistaken on this aspect.

Undoubtedly, U106 folks have emigrated to Britain throughout pre-history and history.

Coincidently (?) the Driffield burial is also the earliest DF19 find, at least that I know of. If there are others, I'd love to hear about them.

[rms2]

The Romans brought many people to Britain with them from the Continent. Some of them married native British women.

A U106 gladiator from an urban Roman context is not any kind of proof that U106 was well represented in Britain prior to the advent of the Anglo-Saxons. To argue that it is at best represents a woeful ignorance of history.

[GoldenHind]

And how is it that you hover above "confirmation bias" on a golden cloud of objectivity?

Everyone is subject to conformation bias, and I don't claim to be entirely free of it. However I do try my best to resist it.

I can't speak for miiser, but I certainly haven't and wouldn't claim that the gladiator in question, or one of his immediate ancestors, could never have been an import from Germany. I think that is a reasonable possibility. But I don't discount the possibility that he comes from a native British line either.

[rms2]

Everyone is subject to conformation bias, and I don't claim to be entirely free of it. However I do try my best to resist it.

I can't speak for miiser, but I certainly haven't and wouldn't claim that the gladiator in question, or one of his immediate ancestors, could never have been an import from Germany. I think that is a reasonable possibility. But I don't discount the possibility that he comes from a native British line either.

A native British line: like his mother's, maybe?

Besides, the similarity in autosomal dna from one side of the Channel to the other is sufficient to render the claim that that Roman gladiator came from some sort of long-term native line dubious at best. We discussed all that when that paper was new. As I recall, his autosomal dna was very similar to that of people in the Netherlands.

You all are going to need some pre-Roman British U106. You're barking up the wrong tree.

BTW, I tried to send you a pm, but your box is full. That may have actually been for the best.

[rms2]

Maybe the highly anticipated big Bell Beaker bonanza will just be chock full of U106, and those who dream of that being the case, for whatever motives, will dance and sing. I will be embarrassed . . . for maybe fifteen minutes.

Then we can figure out together how U106 never was able to advance in Britain and Ireland beyond what really seriously looks like an Anglo-Saxon distribution, how it fared so lamely among Italo-Celtic peoples, and how one of its scions wound up in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery.

Fun stuff.

[rms2]

. . .

I also noted the largest concentrations of U106 were in Holland and Austria. Obviously Holland was the home of the Dutch Beakers. I am not certain about the BB presence in Austria, but I do know it lies on the Danube, long proposed as a major route for the entry of Beakers into Europe.

Yes, I do know that both Holland and Austria were later over run by Germanic people coming south from Scandinavia . . .


Phew. I am relieved to hear it. I was thinking you had forgotten that.

If U106 was right across the Channel from Britain as early as the Bell Beaker period, and if they were such great sailors, surely U106 will turn up in British Beakers in great numbers. It's a wonder how their descendants stuck so much to what is now England, though.

Didn't like Wales, Scotland, and Ireland that much, I guess.

[MitchellSince1893]

...If U106 was right across the Channel from Britain as early as the Bell Beaker period, and if they were such great sailors, surely U106 will turn up in British Beakers in great numbers. It's a wonder how their descendants stuck so much to what is now England, though.

Didn't like Wales, Scotland, and Ireland that much, I guess.

I would say there is a middle ground for U106 in Britain. That is, coming into Britain during the post Bell Beaker-pre-Roman period. This is the period when I think the majority of U152 probably arrived in the Isles. U152 was "right across the channel from Britain" during pre-roman times. Yet if you look at U152 distribution in Britain there is virtually none in Wales (see attached screen shot from FTDNA U152 project).

If U106 is found in ancient samples in present day Germany, in the same geographic regions as ancient DF27 and U152 has been found, then I don't see any reason why mixed U152/DF27/U106 groups (e.g. Urnfield, Hallstaat, La Tene, Belgae), could not have entered Britain during the the pre-roman period.

15386

I would add that I think the Anglo-Saxons were probably the source for more U106 than any other single source, but that doesn't exclude a significant amount also arriving during the pre-roman period.

[rms2]

I would say there is a middle ground for U106 in Britain. That is, coming into Britain during the post Bell Beaker-pre-Roman period. This is the period when I think the majority of U152 probably arrived in the Isles. U152 was "right across the channel from Britain" during pre-roman times. Yet if you look at U152 distribution in Britain there is virtually none in Wales.

If U106 is found in ancient samples in present day Germany, in the same geographic regions as ancient DF27 and U152 has been found, then I don't see any reason why mixed U152/DF27/U106 groups (e.g. Urnfield, Hallstaat, La Tene, Belgae, could not have entered Britain during the the pre-roman period.

15386

Are you sure U152 was right across the Channel from Britain during the Bell Beaker period? We know it was in Germany, but right across the Channel?

I guess we'll have to wait for some British Bell Beaker to sort all this out, but U152 does not have the close connection to Germanic languages that U106 does, nor the heavy concentration in the old continental homelands of the Anglo-Saxons, nor is it as numerous in what is now England as U106 is.

U152's story is a different story from that of U106. If U106's story in Britain is not primarily the story of the Anglo-Saxons, it is doing a marvelous impression of it.

[MitchellSince1893]

Are you sure U152 was right across the Channel from Britain during the Bell Beaker period? We know it was in Germany, but right across the Channel?

I guess we'll have to wait for some British Bell Beaker to sort all this out, but U152 does not have the close connection to Germanic languages that U106 does, nor the heavy concentration in the old continental homelands of the Anglo-Saxons, nor is it as numerous in what is now England as U106 is.

U152's story is a different story from that of U106. If U106's story in Britain is not primarily the story of the Anglo-Saxons, it is doing a marvelous impression of it.

I didn't say that. I said post bell beaker-pre roman period it was right across the channel.

Also I edited my post above and included comment that
I would add that I think the Anglo-Saxons were probably the source for more U106 than any other single source, but that doesn't exclude a significant amount also arriving during the pre-roman period.

[rms2]

I didn't say that. I said post bell beaker-pre roman period it was right across the channel.

Okay, then, much later than Bell Beaker.



Also I edited my post above and included comment that


I would add that I think the Anglo-Saxons were probably the source for more U106 than any other single source, but that doesn't exclude a significant amount also arriving during the pre-roman period.



Maybe, but I doubt that much if any U106 predates the Anglo-Saxons in Britain. Time will tell, if we get enough of the right kind of ancient y-dna results.

[MitchellSince1893]

What few would debate is that the Roman period also provided the opportunity for German speakers to arrive in the Isles via Roman Auxiliary units.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_auxiliary_regiments

List of auxilliaries with German speakers. I know the Batavians were in Britain, probably a few others too.
15388

Again I'm not saying the pre-Roman and Roman period brought in the majority of U106 (that would probably be Anglo-Saxon period), but it most likely brought in some. The question is really how significant was this amount.

[rms2]

That is what I have said, too. The Romans brought all sorts of people with them, and Germanic auxiliaries were among them. Thus the Roman gladiators from Eboracum (Roman York) are no kind of evidence of anything before the Romans.

There were Germans in the Roman Army. Some of them learned that Britain was a lot nicer than the Terpen of their native Friesland. (Terpen were huge piles of earth and cow manure that enabled the villages of the Anglo-Saxons to stay above the flood waters of the North Sea littoral.) They went home and told others, who returned with them to claim their share of what would become Angle-Land.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGOx4oG3Q3g

[Radboud]

As I recall, the paper's authors were content enough to consider him a native. But some member of this forum were eager to write him off as an outsider in order to make him conform to their preconceptions. The slightly non average admixture numbers and I believe tooth isotope numbers were used as a justification for this position. But the authors made it clear that he was well within normal for an Isles native, and it was pretty transparent at the time that those attempting to peg him as a recent immigrant had ulterior motives.

It's most likely R1b-U106 gladiators were born in Britain but they show elevated IBS affinity to Lithuanians and Poles and that they do show elevated Northeastern European affinity compared to the other gladiators. It suggests they have recent ancestry from the continent like Scandinavia or/and central-eastern Europe.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R91h8XEvfPg/VqRDlhTSHPI/AAAAAAAAD7M/G8QIr51Qwss/s665/England_Roman_U106_eastern_signal.png


England_Roman 0.869
Swedish 0.131
chisq 1.784 tail prob 0.775339

England_Roman 0.884
Polish 0.116
chisq 1.971 tail prob 0.741124

[Tomenable]

Are these Roman era samples from England on GEDmatch ???

[Celt_??]

U152's story is a different story from that of U106. If U106's story in Britain is not primarily the story of the Anglo-Saxons, it is doing a marvelous impression of it.

Excuse me for interrupting this U106 discussion, but I wanted to ask rms2 what is the "U152 story" in his view? A northern migration from the mountain-lake districts of southern France and Switzerland toward the English Channel mostly West of the Rhine River? Thank you.

[rms2]

Excuse me for interrupting this U106 discussion, but I wanted to ask rms2 what is the "U152 story" in his view? A northern migration from the mountain-lake districts of southern France and Switzerland toward the English Channel mostly West of the Rhine River? Thank you.

I did not mean to imply that I can actually tell the story of R1b-U152 with any precision, merely that it is different from that of U106. We know, for example, that U152 was in Bell Beaker. We can also plainly see a connection between U152 and Italo-Celtic-speaking peoples.

[Kopfjäger]

Are you sure U152 was right across the Channel from Britain during the Bell Beaker period? We know it was in Germany, but right across the Channel?


Ya, I think at some point L21 was pushed out of the Low Countries, but was the early bird there during the Bronze Age/Barbed Wire Beakers. In fact, I think the first Indo-Europeans to settle Britain were L21.

[rms2]

Ya, I think at some point L21 was pushed out of the Low Countries, but was the early bird there during the Bronze Age/Barbed Wire Beakers. In fact, I think the first Indo-Europeans to settle Britain were L21.

Hubert believed that what he called the Goidels came from the North Sea coast to Britain and Ireland as Bell Beaker people and that they left the North Sea coast pretty much lock, stock, and barrel.

[R.Rocca]

The scenario of the U152+, DF19+ and U106 skeletons from York may have two different origins/histories. It could be that the U152+ and DF19+ samples were remnants from the Late Iron Age Arras Culture. The Arras Culture had chariot burials similar to those found in the Siene and Middle Rhine Valleys.

[Kopfjäger]

Hubert believed that what he called the Goidels came from the North Sea coast to Britain and Ireland as Bell Beaker people and that they left there pretty much lock, stock, and barrel.

Our ancestors got there really early. I think this is why you may not see any L21 in Central European Bell Beaker. That will be U152 and possibly other subclades of P312, but I hope we get some samples from Rhenish Beaker.

[Rick]

I think rather that L21 was the 2nd wave. As rms2 notes Hubert identified what he called a Goidel movement from the Rhine region to The British Isles. At least one ancient writer (I don't recall the source now) described Western Europe including Britain as being occupied by Ligurians (and Iberians), who were subsequently overrun by the Keltoi. My guess is that these Keltoi were Hubert's Goidels. In my view the Ligurians are consistent with the rather broad spread of U152 and DF 27 across W Europe, suggesting perhaps an early presence, contrasted with the rather concentrated spread of L21 in NW Europe and especially the British Isles. Just my surmise. If we're lucky the much anticipated Beaker paper will put it all to rest.

[rms2]

Our ancestors got there really early. I think this is why you may not see any L21 in Central European Bell Beaker. That will be U152 and possibly other subclades of P312, but I hope we get some samples from Rhenish Beaker.

Oh, I think we will see L21 in Central European Bell Beaker, or perhaps Z290, if the testing is thorough enough and enough of their genomes is revealed.

The oldest BB burials in Britain date to about 2400 BC. Those in Ireland begin about 2300 BC. There is older BB stuff on the Continent.

[ADW_1981]

Hubert believed that what he called the Goidels came from the North Sea coast to Britain and Ireland as Bell Beaker people and that they left the North Sea coast pretty much lock, stock, and barrel.

My speculation is that since L21+ is older than both Celtic and Germanic families of language, it is actually native to both regions where the languages were spoken. It is actually quite common in Norway and Iceland, and drops to about 10% of the R1b in Sweden.

[rms2]

I'm hoping the upcoming big Bell Beaker paper will feature the genome of the Amesbury Archer, and that it will show that he is L21+. He is supposed to have been born and raised on the Continent somewhere in the Alpine region, at least according to the isotope study.

Of course, he might not be L21. Time will tell, maybe.

[Jean M]

Here is a graphic I cooked up to show how I think R1b-L51 got into Bell Beaker (with reference to Gimbutas).

An updated version of the archaeological connections can be found in the slides by Gabriella Kulcsár, with lots of maps and pottery types and a focus on the Carpathian Basin: Constant, variable and random networks: a Bronze Age beginning, slides of lecture delivered at conference Cultural Mobility in Bronze Age Europe Aarhus University Moesgård– Denmark June 5-8 2012.
https://www.academia.edu/4975314/CONSTANT_VARIABLE_AND_RANDOM_NETWORKS_A_BRONZE_AGE _BEGINNING

[Kopfjäger]

My speculation is that since L21+ is older than both Celtic and Germanic families of language.

I think so too, but to avoid too much controversy, I think L21 was just much more successful in Britain and Ireland, where it the IE dialect there would become Proto-Celtic.

[Kopfjäger]

I'm hoping the upcoming big Bell Beaker paper will feature the genome of the Amesbury Archer, and that it will show that he is L21+. He is supposed to have been born and raised on the Continent somewhere in the Alpine region, at least according to the isotope study.

Of course, he might not be L21. Time will tell, maybe.

There's a really good possibility he is. I know it's a modern example, but we have instances of L21 in Northern France and the Rhineland to support this.

[TigerMW]

Maybe the highly anticipated big Bell Beaker bonanza will just be chock full of U106...You speak in jest I'm sure, and I agree that U106 will not be found hardly at all, if at all in western Beaker folks, early or late. We think the early Bell Beakers on the Iberian side of Europe may be different than those of central Europe. Likewise the Beakers of Denmark and/or northern Poland could be a little different, with U106 in the mix at some point.
Beakers are just pots, and regional Beaker groups were each of their own distinctions too so the Y DNA may not align one for one.


Then we can figure out together how U106 never was able to advance in Britain and Ireland beyond what really seriously looks like an Anglo-Saxon distribution
I agree that there appears not to have been much U106, if at all, on the Atlantic coasts until the Iron Age expansions of the Germanic tribes. I think the big drop off of U106 frequency as you head south from Calais is a clue.

The Swedish Boat Axe U106+ and this pattern of U106 being walled off from the North Sea and Atlantic throughout the Bronze Age, apparently, are the best arguments I see that support U106 must not have been in Bell Beaker but in Corded Ware only. The cultural divide may have been the wall with the Beakers controlling the seas.

However, that is not a done deal. Particularly if P311 expanded out of central Europe then we need to see ancient DNA from the Beakers in the Germanic origin/homeland. This would have been long before Proto-Germanic was spoken and U106 may have had little presence, period, during the 2nd half of the 3 millennium BC.

[TigerMW]

I'm hoping the upcoming big Bell Beaker paper will feature the genome of the Amesbury Archer, and that it will show that he is L21+. ... .
Me too, but not because it matters if the Wessex folks were heavy L21 or not.

I think if we have a famous ancient king, even if it is questionable, i.e. Nial of Nine Hostages, that will spur interest and testing amongst L21 and L21 potential folks.

[Kopfjäger]

U106 is truly a mystery to me. Whereas it is more localized to the Northern European Plain, P312 appears to have been much more successful as it is found everywhere in Western Europe from Scandinavia to Iberia. If U106 is not found in Bell Beaker, no big deal, but where the hell did it come from? Corded Ware is R1a-heavy, so I'm not sure about that either.

[rms2]

Me too, but not because it matters if the Wessex folks were heavy L21 or not.

I think if we have a famous ancient king, even if it is questionable, i.e. Nial of Nine Hostages, that will spur interest and testing amongst L21 and L21 potential folks.

I want the Amesbury Archer to be L21+ for at least three reasons: 1) That would add weight to the argument that L21 got to the Isles via Bell Beaker, 2) Such a result would indicate that L21 probably originated on the Continent rather than in the Isles, and 3) Personal y-haplogroup chauvinism. :biggrin1:

[rms2]

. . .


I agree that there appears not to have been much U106, if at all, on the Atlantic coasts until the Iron Age expansions of the Germanic tribes. I think the big drop off of U106 frequency as you head south from Calais is a clue.

However, that does not mean the Beakers in the Germanic origin/homeland had no U106. This would have been long before Proto-Germanic was spoken.

I follow your line of reasoning, and it is sound. Maybe you are right. I don't know.

If Scandinavian BB had a lot U106 in it, then the switch to what led to Germanic must have come via some other influence, that is, if we accept the idea that BB is responsible for Italo-Celtic. Otherwise, we would have to credit BB with both Italo-Celtic and Germanic. That seems a bit of a reach to me, considering that no scholars I have ever heard of have ever attributed the genesis of Germanic to BB. It is usually attributed, along with Balto-Slavic, to Corded Ware.

[GoldenHind]

You speak in jest I'm sure, and I agree that U106 will not be found hardly at all, if at all in western Beaker folks, early or late. We think the early Bell Beakers on the Iberian side of Europe may be different than those of central Europe. Likewise the Beakers of Denmark and/or northern Poland could be a little different, with U106 in the mix at some point.
Beakers are pots, but regional Beaker groups were each of their own distinctions too so the Y DNA may not align one for one.


I agree that there appears not to have been much U106, if at all, on the Atlantic coasts until the Iron Age expansions of the Germanic tribes. I think the big drop off of U106 frequency as you head south from Calais is a clue.

However, that does not mean the Beakers in the Germanic origin/homeland had no U106. This would have been long before Proto-Germanic was spoken.

I essentially agree with that, I don't know of anyone who is suggesting all of the Beakers were chock full of U106. That is essentially a straw man argument.

The question I am focused on is whether U106 arrived in Scandinavia with the Beakers, with Corded Ware, or with both. I don't think we have an answer to that yet, and I don't understand why merely posing a possibility that it might have been from the Beakers causes such an angry reaction.

I certainly don't consider the single U106 burial n Sweden definitive proof. Someone mentioned there were indications that he may have been a victim of human sacrifice. He could have been a Beaker descended trader or prospector from Denmark who met a hostile reception on his arrival.

The supposedly upcoming BB aDNA may not answer the question unless it includes samples from the northern and eastern Beakers.

[Kopfjäger]

I certainly don't consider the single U106 burial n Sweden definitive proof.

Michal will have to opine on this, but I remember there being an issue with ascribing that U106 Nordic Bronze Age guy to Corded Ware. It wasn't clear that this individual originated from that culture.

Corded Ware is solidly R1a.

[rms2]

I essentially agree with that, I don't know of anyone who is suggesting all of the Beakers were chock full of U106. That is essentially a straw man argument . . .

If you read my post, you would see it wasn't an "argument" at all. It was a statement of the possibility that maybe the big Bell Beaker paper will reveal a lot of U106 in Bell Beaker. Not something I think likely, but a possibility.

However, you and Mike do seem to be implying that northeastern Bell Beaker will in fact be chock full of U106.



The question I am focused on is whether U106 arrived in Scandinavia with the Beakers, with Corded Ware, or with both. I don't think we have an answer to that yet, and I don't understand why merely posing a possibility that it might have been from the Beakers causes such an angry reaction.

What "angry reaction"?

Wow. It seems that disagreeing with you can be chalked up to either "confirmation bias" or anger, faults from which you are evidently immune. Ever consider the possibility that there might be good reasons for opinions other than your own?



I certainly don't consider the single U106 burial n Sweden definitive proof.

No one does. The discovery of a U106 in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery is merely part of a suite of evidence. It was never proffered as stand alone definitive proof. You can read back through my posts for the other evidence. I don't feel like repeating myself.



Someone mentioned there were indications that he may have been a victim of human sacrifice. He could have been a Beaker descended trader or prospector from Denmark who met a hostile reception on his arrival.

I don't recall any evidence that RISE98 was the victim of any sort of violence, sacrifice or otherwise. It is a real stretch to make him "a Beaker descended trader or prospector from Denmark", when there is no legitimate reason to imagine such a thing and certainly no evidence that would lead one to do so.



The supposedly upcoming BB aDNA may not answer the question unless it includes samples from the northern and eastern Beakers.

We'll have to wait and see what's in it.

[rms2]

Michal will have to opine on this, but I remember there being an issue with ascribing that U106 Nordic Bronze Age guy to Corded Ware. It wasn't clear that this individual originated from that culture.

There was a discussion recently between Jean M and Michal on that topic. As I recall the conclusion of it was that there is really no good reason to conclude that RISE98 was anything other than a member of the Nordic Battle Axe culture. If I find those posts, I will post a link to them.



Corded Ware is solidly R1a.

Not quite. RISE1 from Oblaczkowo in Poland was R1b-L1345.

Of two CW skeletons from Jagodno in Poland, one was possibly G and the other I or J, but there is some doubt about the results.

[Ryukendo]

An updated version of the archaeological connections can be found in the slides by Gabriella Kulcsár, with lots of maps and pottery types and a focus on the Carpathian Basin: Constant, variable and random networks: a Bronze Age beginning, slides of lecture delivered at conference Cultural Mobility in Bronze Age Europe Aarhus University Moesgård– Denmark June 5-8 2012.
https://www.academia.edu/4975314/CONSTANT_VARIABLE_AND_RANDOM_NETWORKS_A_BRONZE_AGE _BEGINNING

Quite a bit of network analysis here! Are there any other archaeologists using the same methodology for Neol to BA Europe? Pretty excited to see this.

[kevinduffy]

My speculation is that since L21+ is older than both Celtic and Germanic families of language, it is actually native to both regions where the languages were spoken. It is actually quite common in Norway and Iceland, and drops to about 10% of the R1b in Sweden.

I think the Vikings may be responsible for L21's presence in Iceland and Scandinavia.

[MitchellSince1893]

I want the Amesbury Archer to be L21+ for at least three reasons: 1) That would add weight to the argument that L21 got to the Isles via Bell Beaker, 2) Such a result would indicate that L21 probably originated on the Continent rather than in the Isles, and 3) Personal y-haplogroup chauvinism. :biggrin1:

I voted for L21 in your old poll http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6351-Make-a-Prediction-about-the-Amesbury-Archer

But I wouldn't be surprised if he was non-R1b.

[rms2]

I think the Vikings may be responsible for L21's presence in Iceland and Scandinavia.

There has been a lot of debate and discussion on L21 in Scandinavia over the years since L21 was rediscovered. Some of the L21 there is pretty obviously too recent to be Viking, but there is some that otherwise cannot be accounted for.

[rms2]

I voted for L21 in your old poll http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6351-Make-a-Prediction-about-the-Amesbury-Archer

But I wouldn't be surprised if he was non-R1b.

Honestly, I would be surprised if he isn't L21. A U152 or DF27 result would not shock me, but a non-R1b would surprise me.

[GoldenHind]

I think the Vikings may be responsible for L21's presence in Iceland and Scandinavia.

If you mean that all L21 in Scandinavia is due to the taking of slaves by the Vikings, I highly doubt that, though it seems reasonable that some of it was. As for Iceland, I don't doubt that most of them came with the Vikings. but not necessarily as slaves. There is no doubt there was intermarriage between the Vikings and native Irish, or that some of the latter joined forces with the Vikings.

I think much of these arguments are based on the erroneous assumption that Viking slavery was similar to the American model, where slaves were brought in to work the fields. Instead it was more a source of income, and most Viking slaves were sold on in various slave markets, many of which were located in within Britain. True, some of these markets were located farther afield, as far away as Spain. and the Rouen slave market was quite active.

There is no shortage of L21 on the continent, and I see no reason to assume none of them reached Scandinavia long before the Viking Age.

[GoldenHind]

Honestly, I would be surprised if he isn't L21. A U152 or DF27 result would not shock me, but a non-R1b would surprise me.

If he turns out to be U106 (which I think is highly unlikely but not impossible), you will probably be able to hear me laughing from clear across the country. I do expect him to be some kind of P312, but I wouldn't care to speculate which one, other than very probably NOT L-238.

[rms2]

Mike and Robert,

Thinking about it all, and you may be right. Perhaps Scandinavian and otherwise northeastern Bell Beaker will have U106 in it. From central Europe west, however, Bell Beaker will be almost 100% P312.

I still don't think RISE98 has anything to do with Bell Beaker though.

I am hedging my bets, however, and still guessing that U106 will show up in Corded Ware rather than Bell Beaker. :beerchug: (Those are beakers they are chugging in.)

[rms2]

If he turns out to be U106 (which I think is highly unlikely but not impossible), you will probably be able to hear me laughing from clear across the country. I do expect him to be some kind of P312, but I wouldn't care to speculate which one, other than very probably NOT L-238.

Believe it or not, I will probably have a good laugh on myself, too, if the Archer turns out to be U106 . . . after I have a good stiff drink of whiskey. :biggrin1:

[TigerMW]

....
I still don't think RISE98 has anything to do with Bell Beaker though.
I agree, probably not. Still, it is possible that Bell Beakers interjected some male lineages into western Corded Wares as it disintegrated into Trzciniec and Unetice, and probably spun off Swedish Boat Axes at the same time. Something big was happening in central Europe circa 2500 BC.


I am hedging my bets, however, and still guessing that U106 will show up in Corded Ware rather than Bell Beaker. :beerchug: (Those are beakers they are chugging in.)
What do you think about U106 joining Corded Wares from the south, from the Hungarian Plains during the 1st half of the 3rd millenium BC? The implication is they weren't in the early Corded Wares expansion but joined mid-stream.

This would not necessarily have anything to do with Bell Beakers but concurrently as the Yamnaya "true folk movement" (David Anthony's description of the Danube route) reached the Carpathian Basin, some might have explored northward through the passes of Slovakia and the Czech Rep. Meanwhile Yamnaya-ized Beaker types would have been forming to the south or southwest somewhere.

I'm just trying to make sense of what I think is a close relationship between P311 and its large subclades. The corollary is that David Anthony's "pre-Germanic" route on the north side of the Carpathians was only half the story. There were multiple pre-Germanic routes or the term is not even useful.

This scenario would not require P311, P312 and U106 to originate in the Hungarian Plains. They could have occurred and grown in number all along the Danube on the expansions westward. This would be a true allele surfing the wave model, which happens in fast growing populations. This scenario also accounts for my hypothesis that for colonies to be successful there must have already been a good-size population and mature logistic/supply and communications network in place. In other words, P311 was already strong when it took over the Carpathian Basin. I can argue against myself here as somehow U106 was not mixed in a balanced way with the whole group since it never ended up in Beakers to any extent. There is a trade-off between subclade strength in size and its localized nature (U106 to the north, L21 to the NW, etc.)

An advantage of this scenario is this accounts for U106 being Corded Wares and the Nordic Bronze Age without having been in the Bell Beakers. This is important because that gives plausibility to U106 having been walled off from the North Sea and the Atlantic. The cultural divide between the Bell Beakers and Corded Wares was the wall which must have been in place. This aligns with the Beakers being better at or at least controlling the seaways while their northeastern plains-men cousins lacked the same seafaring skills.

The Bell Beakers could still have been a big influence in the Nordic Bronze Age over time with their interactions along the North Sea coasts, the Jutland and southern Baltic coasts. This could account for some P312 being injected into the Nordic Bronze Age and the eventual rise of Proto-Germanic.

[rms2]

That is certainly a possibility.

Have you heard the latest scuttlebutt about the discovery of an R1b-U106 in an Iron Age Wielbark culture burial in Drozdowo, Poland? I don't have a date beyond "Iron Age". If Wielbark was connected to the Goths, as some think, and if the Goths came from Sweden, as Jordanes claimed, then a Bronze Age Nordic Battle Axe U106 in Sweden, followed subsequently by a Wielbark U106 in Iron Age Poland, makes perfect sense.

This is just a rumor thus far: Wielbark U106 Rumor (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=228608&viewfull=1#post228608)

[TigerMW]

That is certainly a possibility.

Have you heard the latest scuttlebutt about the discovery of an R1b-U106 in an Iron Age Wielbark culture burial in Drozdowo, Poland? I don't have a date beyond "Iron Age". If Wielbark was connected to the Goths, as some think, and if the Goths came from Sweden, as Jordanes claimed, then a Bronze Age Nordic Battle Axe U106 in Sweden, followed subsequently by a Wielbark U106 in Iron Age Poland, makes perfect sense.

This is just a rumor thus far: Wielbark U106 Rumor (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=228608&viewfull=1#post228608)

I dusted off the old "Old Norway Project" Y hg frequency/distribution map.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/01pk7o7ymy7h627/Old%20Norway%20Project%20y%20Hg%20map.jpg?dl=0

I'm trying to figure out what to make of the "SB" or Blekinge, Sweden. There is a noticeable difference there that may be an evidence of absence thing that is meaningful. (LOL).

Anyway, Blekinge is the most southern tip of Sweden and it has noticeably less R1b. It is not because U106 is lower but because P312 is at its lowest point there.

I don't know much about the Swedish Boat Axe Culture. Is southern Sweden the core of its presence?

If so, this might have been where the Bell Beakers had the least influence with P312 being demonstrated as the Bell Beaker influencer tracker.

Please note I'm not trying to say no P312 was in the Proto-Germanic speaking group. That was later. Given the expansion of the Bell Beakers it would be easy to see elements of P312 folks involved in the inception of Proto-Germanic.

I recognize that some P312 probably came to Scandinavia over the ages via commercial trade, Viking returns, etc. but I've always thought there was too much P312 in Nordic areas and of different proportions for there not to have been some P312 there for a very long time (Bell Beaker timeframe).

[rms2]

That area of southern Sweden was part of Denmark for much of its history.

[TigerMW]

That area of southern Sweden was part of Denmark for much of its history.

Apparently the historical lack of political boundary between Denmark and Sweden did not make them homogeneous.

The proportion of R1b in North Jutland ("DA") is significant higher than the southern tip of Sweden (Belkinge or "SB"). P312 is the difference-maker and it definitely favors the northern Jutland Peninsula. There really is a Bell Beaker alignment here, whether it is coincidental or not.

[rms2]

Apparently the historical lack of political boundary between Denmark and Sweden did not make them homogeneous.

The proportion of R1b in North Jutland ("DA") is significant higher than the southern tip of Sweden (Belkinge or "SB"). P312 is the difference-maker and it definitely favors the northern Jutland Peninsula. There really is a Bell Beaker alignment here, whether it is coincidental or not.

I could be wrong, but my impression is that Bell Beaker was much less populous in Scandinavia than it was elsewhere.

[Kopfjäger]

What do you think about [B]U106 joining Corded Wares from the south.

I REALLY don't think U106 was a Corded Ware marker (although, like other haplogroups, maybe you'll find one here and there), but if any turns up in some of these ancient remains, you can punch me in the mouth. :D

[rms2]

I REALLY don't think U106 was a Corded Ware marker (although, like other haplogroups, maybe you'll find one here and there), but if any turns up in some of these ancient remains, you can punch me in the mouth. :D

Well, for now there is as much U106 in Corded Ware test results as there is in Bell Beaker test results (zero), but we do at least have one U106 in a culture supposedly derived from Corded Ware (Nordic Battle Axe), and that in Sweden, where thus far no Bell Beaker has ever been found (AFAIK).

RISE1 from the CW site at Oblaczkowo, Poland, was R1b1-L1345. Too bad they didn't get better coverage on him so that we could find out to which subclade he really belonged.

I hope the long awaited big Bell Beaker paper includes more than just Bell Beaker results.

[Romilius]

Well, for now there is as much U106 in Corded Ware test results as there is in Bell Beaker test results (zero), but we do at least have one U106 in a culture supposedly derived from Corded Ware (Nordic Battle Axe), and that in Sweden, where thus far no Bell Beaker has ever been found (AFAIK).

RISE1 from the CW site at Oblaczkowo, Poland, was R1b1-L1345. Too bad they didn't get better coverage on him so that we could find out to which subclade he really belonged.

I hope the long awaited big Bell Beaker paper includes more than just Bell Beaker results.

Perhaps and hopefully, David Reich will say something about news in that direction on April 29th, as it will be a conference.

[rms2]

Perhaps and hopefully, David Reich will say something about news in that direction on April 29th, as it will be a conference.

I get the impression he is really into talking about autosomal dna. Unless somebody asks him about the y-dna results, we may not hear anything about them until the paper is published.

[rms2]

A lot depends upon on which side of the Carpathians L151 and his sons, U106 and P312, were born. If they were all born east of the Carpathians, and if U106 and P312 had time to separate into their distinct kinship groups and did so, then it is possible that one of them took one route and the other took a different route.

Of course, any number of scenarios are possible.

[R.Rocca]

I get the impression he is really into talking about autosomal dna. Unless somebody asks him about the y-dna results, we may not hear anything about them until the paper is published.

Given the missing link between Yamanaya (L23) and Bell Beaker (L51), I don't think one can blame him for having focused on autosomal DNA up to this point. While autosomal DNA is the smoking gun, finding L51 in westernmost Yamnaya or Corded Ware may be the shell casing and the fingerprint on the gun.

[Celt_??]

Richard - I just spent 30 minutes searching for L23 and L51 on YFull.com. A search for L23 reports "This position for SNP is not in the YTree". YFull does recognize L51 but just "spins" and never shows its Tree position. Eyeballing the Tree from P312 and below I didn't see it.

Are L23 and L51 above P312?? Thank you

[Dewsloth]

Richard - I just spent 30 minutes searching for L23 and L51 on YFull.com. A search for L23 reports "This position for SNP is not in the YTree". YFull does recognize L51 but just "spins" and never shows its Tree position. Eyeballing the Tree from P312 and below I didn't see it.

Are L23 and L51 above P312?? Thank you

See my sig line :)

[R.Rocca]

RISE1 from the CW site at Oblaczkowo, Poland, was R1b1-L1345. Too bad they didn't get better coverage on him so that we could find out to which subclade he really belonged.

It is too bad. Given that the estimated age of U106 expansion (2900 BC) is pretty close to the age of RISE1 sample, it could be U106, but it could also be L11*. Also, Z2103 gives U106 a run for its money in modern Poles, so it could be Z2103 as well given Corded Ware's autosomal links to the eastern Yamnaya samples.

[lgmayka]

Richard - I just spent 30 minutes searching for L23 and L51 on YFull.com.
R-L23 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L23/)
R-L51 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L51/)
SNP Search page (https://yfull.com/search-snp-in-tree/)

[GoldenHind]

I could be wrong, but my impression is that Bell Beaker was much less populous in Scandinavia than it was elsewhere.

I suspect you right about that. That could possibly be because it was competing with Corded Ware, which wasn't the case in most western areas where BB flourished. While it may have been less populous in Scandinavia, I don't think they were an insignificant part of the melting pot that ultimately resulted in the Nordic Bronze Age. Part of the answer to that question will depend on whether U106 is from BB, CW, or both.

[GoldenHind]

I dusted off the old "Old Norway Project" Y hg frequency/distribution map.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/01pk7o7ymy7h627/Old%20Norway%20Project%20y%20Hg%20map.jpg?dl=0

I'm trying to figure out what to make of the "SB" or Blekinge, Sweden. There is a noticeable difference there that may be an evidence of absence thing that is meaningful. (LOL).

Anyway, Blekinge is the most southern tip of Sweden and it has noticeably less R1b. It is not because U106 is lower but because P312 is at its lowest point there.

I don't know much about the Swedish Boat Axe Culture. Is southern Sweden the core of its presence?

If so, this might have been where the Bell Beakers had the least influence with P312 being demonstrated as the Bell Beaker influencer tracker.

Please note I'm not trying to say no P312 was in the Proto-Germanic speaking group. That was later. Given the expansion of the Bell Beakers it would be easy to see elements of P312 folks involved in the inception of Proto-Germanic.

I recognize that some P312 probably came to Scandinavia over the ages via commercial trade, Viking returns, etc. but I've always thought there was too much P312 in Nordic areas and of different proportions for there not to have been some P312 there for a very long time (Bell Beaker timeframe).

The Old Norway diagram was one of the most important sources I used when making the study of R1b in Scandinavia I mentioned previously. I note the chart says Preliminary results. I wonder if they ever completed it.

A couple of notes. It appears to be the best scientific study of Y-DNA ever attempted in Scandinavia, although somewhat limited outside of Norway, which was divided between the coast amdf inland. There were a total of 604 samples, primarily from Norway. It shows the overall number of haplogroups, with a further breakdown of R1b subclades. Unfortunately they dis not test P312 for L238, DF19. DF99, or DF27 outside of Sry2627 and M153, all of which are lumped together as just P312. There are some very interesting indications concerning R1b.

YDNA in Scandinavia varies widely both in distribution and composition. There is no uniformity whatsoever.

R1b all is largest in coastal Norway, about double that in the inland, which suggests to me it it may have arrived from the sea. The second strongest R1b area was northern Jutland in Denmark. Unfortunately they did not include other parts of Denmark, which are likely to be considerably different. In Sweden, R1b percentage increases as one proceeds northward, which seems counter-intuitive.

EDIT: Sorry I had to interrupt this before I could complete it. To continue:

There are also some interesting aspects of the the R1b subclades, which appear in the smaller pie charts.

U06 subclade U198 is all but absent everywhere.

U106 (XU198) is highest (as a percentage of R1b) in Blekinge in southern Sweden, followed by northern Jutland. It dominates R1b in both of those areas. It then decreases in Sweden as one proceeds north, exactly the opposite from R1b as a whole. P312*, like R1b as a whole, increases as one proceeds north in Sweden. U106 is much higher in the inland areas of Norway than the coastal areas.

In coastal Norway P312* (XL21, U152, and the DF27 markers tested) actually is considerably higher than U106. The opposite is true in inland Norway. I suspect this is largely due to P312 subclade L238, which appears to be concentrated in Norway and Sweden. The P312* group is miniscule in northern Jutland.

There is an interesting difference in the distribution of R1b subclades on opposite sides of Lake Vättern in Sweden, which has been proposed as having an ancient significance, but I won't go into it as it is pretty obscure. Suffice it to say that L21 is much greater on the west side (Skarraborg) than the east (Östergötland/Jönköpimg), and U152 is only found on the west side.

I have a feeling if someone could fit all these jigsaw pieces together, one could come up with some very interesting clues to the history of R1b in Scandinavia.

Finally I would like to point out that Blekinge is not the southern tip of Sweden. Rather that is Skåne, which is directly opposite the Øresund channel from Copenhagen. It was not included in the survey. Blekinge is on the Baltic side of Sweden, NE of Skåne. Both Blekinge and Skåne were part of Denmark from before the Viking Age until the 17th century, when it was ceded by Denmark to Sweden after a war.

[Kelso]

Perhaps and hopefully, David Reich will say something about news in that direction on April 29th, as it will be a conference.

Do you have a location for the April 29th conference that David Reich's will be at?

Thanks,

Tim

[rms2]

I don't know when we'll get more ancient y-dna from Scandinavia, and I am not sure even how many Bell Beaker burials have actually been discovered there with skeletons suitable for testing.

I'm sorry to say this, because I know it disappoints quite a few people, especially those who had hoped for Viking ancestry, but I think a fairly substantial amount of the P312 there, and maybe even some of the U106, are products of relatively recent immigration. I can't really speak with any authority about U106, but I recall quite a few of our L21 Scandinavians belong to subclades far more common in the British Isles and Ireland, and a number of them have some fairly close British and Irish haplotype neighbors.

We can say with confidence that L238 is pretty solidly Scandinavian. I'm very much less sure about the rest.

This is not something I want to start a big argument about, and I certainly don't feel like going back and researching it, but I am pretty sure I am right. Probably a substantial amount of the P312 in modern Scandinavia, aside from L238, represents historical immigration from farther south and west.

[rms2]

Do you have a location for the April 29th conference that David Reich's will be at?

Thanks,

Tim

In Philadelphia: https://www.amphilsoc.org/meetings/program/April2017

[Celt_??]

See my sig line :)

Much appreciated. Now that makes sense to me.

[Dewsloth]

Much appreciated. Now that makes sense to me.

Believe me, I put that there to remind myself. :laugh:

[GoldenHind]

I don't know when we'll get more ancient y-dna from Scandinavia, and I am not sure even how many Bell Beaker burials have actually been discovered there with skeletons suitable for testing.

I'm sorry to say this, because I know it disappoints quite a few people, especially those who had hoped for Viking ancestry, but I think a fairly substantial amount of the P312 there, and maybe even some of the U106, are products of relatively recent immigration. I can't really speak with any authority about U106, but I recall quite a few of our L21 Scandinavians belong to subclades far more common in the British Isles and Ireland, and a number of them have some fairly close British and Irish haplotype neighbors.

We can say with confidence that L238 is pretty solidly Scandinavian. I'm very much less sure about the rest.

This is not something I want to start a big argument about, and I certainly don't feel like going back and researching it, but I am pretty sure I am right. Probably a substantial amount of the P312 in modern Scandinavia, aside from L238, represents historical immigration from farther south and west.

If this were the case, I don't think we would see the differences in P312 distribution that are apparent in the Old Norway Project data, such as P312 increasing in a cline from south to north in Sweden, etc.. I would instead expect it to be much more random. The problem with L21 is the overwhelming overweighting of Ireland and Scotland (and to a lesser extent England) in the FTDNA database compared to Scandinavia, and the preponderance of L21 in the Isles. I did however look at some of the Scandinavian L21 in the P312 project. I found a couple who matched what you say. But there were about twice as many who only had Scandinavian matches at 111, 67 and even 37 markers. One of them did have some Scottish matches, most of whom had a surname which I believe means "son of Olav," which suggests they went from Sweden to Scotland rather than vice versa.

I also checked a few U152, which doesn't have the strong Isles connection that L21 has. All of them had only Scandinavian matches above 25 markers. In fact I found a subclade of U152 that appears to be exclusively Scandinavian (under BY3604).

This was quite tedious, so I only did a few. I didn't cherry pick the ones I checked- I just started at the top of the page and moved downward.

Perhaps someone more familiar with U152 or DF27 in Scandinavia can chime in.

Incidentally since I am half Scandinavian by ancestry, I have no need to fantasize about Viking ancestors.

[rafc]

In Philadelphia: https://www.amphilsoc.org/meetings/program/April2017

I see they have a live webcast of their meetings, hopefully that will cover the saturday morning presentations :)

[rms2]

If this were the case, I don't think we would see the differences in P312 distribution that are apparent in the Old Norway Project data, such as P312 increasing in a cline from south to north in Sweden, etc.. I would instead expect it to be much more random. The problem with L21 is the overwhelming overweighting of Ireland and Scotland (and to a lesser extent England) in the FTDNA database compared to Scandinavia, and the preponderance of L21 in the Isles. I did however look at some of the Scandinavian L21 in the P312 project. I found a couple who matched what you say. But there were about twice as many who only had Scandinavian matches at 111, 67 and even 37 markers. One of them did have some Scottish matches, most of whom had a surname which I believe means "son of Olav," which suggests they went from Sweden to Scotland rather than vice versa.

I also checked a few U152, which doesn't have the strong Isles connection that L21 has. All of them had only Scandinavian matches above 25 markers. In fact I found a subclade of U152 that appears to be exclusively Scandinavian (under BY3604).

This was quite tedious, so I only did a few. I didn't cherry pick the ones I checked- I just started at the top of the page and moved downward.

Perhaps someone more familiar with U152 or DF27 in Scandinavia can chime in.

Incidentally since I am half Scandinavian by ancestry, I have no need to fantasize about Viking ancestors.

Like I said, I am not going to go back and research it. Believe me, there are more than "a couple" of Scandinavian L21s who belong to subclades that are far more prevalent in the Isles than in Scandinavia or who have fairly close Isles haplotype neighbors.

I am no expert on U152, but it is pretty insignificant in Scandinavia, and I suspect much of what is there came up from farther south with relatively recent (post-Viking period) immigrants. DF27 in Scandinavia may be somewhat the same.

I am not saying all of the P312 in modern Scandinavia can be attributed to relatively recent immigration, but I suspect a substantial amount of it can. Scandinavia has not been without immigrants since the Middle Ages.

I don't think all of the subclade frequency imbalance between Scandinavia and the Isles can be chalked up to the over testing of people of Isles descent versus everyone else. It hasn't, for example, done much to blur the R1b-L238 picture, the R1a-Z284 picture, or the I-M253 picture.

It would be interesting to see if there are any particularly Scandinavian subclades of P312, besides L238, whose tmrca substantially predates the Viking period.

Otherwise, I think we are going to need some ancient y-dna from Scandinavia to say what the y haplogroup profile was like there in the distant past.

When I said some folks will be disappointed by my opinion, especially those who were hoping for Viking ancestry, I was talking about Viking ancestry on the y-dna line, not Viking or Scandinavian ancestry in general. Probably most of us have some of the latter.

[rms2]

Sorry for the double post. That comes from using my phone.

[rms2]

. . . In fact I found a subclade of U152 that appears to be exclusively Scandinavian (under BY3604) . . .

That intrigued me, so I went to YFull's tree and took a look. There are two men of Scandinavian descent and one man (represented by a new kit) of unknown origin who are R1b-A14635 under BY3604. YFull estimates the tmrca of A14635 as 300 years, so that looks like a single y-dna line whose length of residence in Scandinavia cannot really be determined. It might be of great antiquity there, or it might have arrived there with a relatively recent immigrant.

It's worth looking at the various subclades of P312 to see if there are any besides L238 that appear to have been in Scandinavia before the Middle Ages.

I doubt we'll find many, but there may be some.

[rms2]

That intrigued me, so I went to YFull's tree and took a look. There are two men of Scandinavian descent and one man (represented by a new kit) of unknown origin who are R1b-A14635 under BY3604. YFull estimates the tmrca of A14635 as 300 years, so that looks like a single y-dna line whose length of residence in Scandinavia cannot really be determined. It might be of great antiquity there, or it might have arrived there with a relatively recent immigrant.

It's worth looking at the various subclades of P312 to see if there are any besides L238 that appear to have been in Scandinavia before the Middle Ages.

I doubt we'll find many, but there may be some.

I found one that holds up a little better, with a tmrca of 1550 ybp: R1b-Y16875, with two Swedes and a Finn. It's a ways under Z49, which is under L2, which is under U152.

That one could actually be Scandinavian.

[ffoucart]

I didn't look specifically to it, but I think that given that we found some BB's with L21 haplotype more than 4000 years ago (at Rathlin Island), it could also mean that "some" L21 subclades could be ancient in Scandinavian, and could have been part of the Nordic Bronze Age. But many of them could have became extinct since then.

[rms2]

I didn't look specifically to it, but I think that given that we found some BB's with L21 haplotype more than 4000 years ago (at Rathlin Island), it could also mean that "some" L21 subclades could be ancient in Scandinavian, and could have been part of the Nordic Bronze Age. But many of them could have became extinct since then.

Yeah, I absolutely did not intend to say or even imply that there is no really old Scandinavian P312. I don't believe that. Some of it probably is really old there. It's just that I think some of it is of later provenance.

That is one of the nice things about NGS testing. It gives us the chance to find subclades we can point to and say, "Look at that one! It's old among the Scandinavians and much younger elsewhere!" (or something like that).

And of course ancient y-dna is really great. Hard to argue with it.

[rms2]

It might be worth it to start a separate thread about old Scandinavian P312. It was actually kind of fun hunting up that old Scandinavian U152 subclade, and it didn't take long. It might be fun to make a list of all the possibles and their times to mrca.

If I wasn't at work right now, I would start it myself, but my lunch break will be over in just a few minutes.

[GoldenHind]

Like I said, I am not going to go back and research it. Believe me, there are more than "a couple" of Scandinavian L21s who belong to subclades that are far more prevalent in the Isles than in Scandinavia or who have fairly close Isles haplotype neighbors.


I am not saying all of the P312 in modern Scandinavia can be attributed to relatively recent immigration, but I suspect a substantial amount of it can. Scandinavia has not been without immigrants since the Middle Ages.



Otherwise, I think we are going to need some ancient y-dna from Scandinavia to say what the y haplogroup profile was like there in the distant past.


As I have repeatedly pointed out, R1b in modern Scandinavia is roughly half U106 and half P312, although it varies by region. Do you think the immigrants since the Viking Age were only P312? I believe most immigration to Scandinavia in historical times came from Germany, where U106 is not unknown. Also many immigrants from other countries since the middle ages retained their original surname or some form of it. For instance I am aware of a Hamilton family in Sweden who came there from Scotland in the 17th century. I find it difficult to envisage a scenario where the U106 half of R1b in Scandinavia was native and the P312 half (except L238) were all or very nearly all immigrants. Also if P312 were mostly immigrants, I doubt very much they would be as widespread in Scandinavia, and found even in rural areas.

I do agree that aDNA, even as late as the Viking period, would be very helpful in solving some of the riddles of R1b in Scandinavia.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

As I have repeatedly pointed out, R1b in modern Scandinavia is roughly half U106 and half P312, although it varies by region. Do you think the immigrants since the Viking Age were only P312? I believe most immigration to Scandinavia in historical times came from Germany, where U106 is not unknown. Also many immigrants from other countries since the middle ages retained their original surname or some form of it. For instance I am aware of a Hamilton family in Sweden who came there from Scotland in the 17th century. I find it difficult to envisage a scenario where the U106 half of R1b in Scandinavia was native and the P312 half (except L238) were all or very nearly all immigrants. Also if P312 were mostly immigrants, I doubt very much they would be as widespread in Scandinavia, and found even in rural areas.

I do agree that aDNA, even as late as the Viking period, would be very helpful in solving some of the riddles of R1b in Scandinavia.

aDNA will show that Viking period was very cosmopolitan for Scandinavia (at least certain important sites). So it wasnt just brutish Vikings going out and pillaging :)

[Jean M]

aDNA will show that Viking period was very cosmopolitan for Scandinavia (at least certain important sites). So it wasnt just brutish Vikings going out and pillaging :)

I would certainly expect that. Relevant bit from AJ:


A successful Viking leader could attract warriors of many origins, hoping for a share of the spoils. Thanks to strontium isotopes, we now have an idea of who was in the army of Harald Bluetooth Gormsson, a 10th-century King of Denmark. He clearly recruited far and wide. A sample of 48 burials from his fortress at Trelleborg displayed the variety of origins. The young men in its cemetery came largely from outside Denmark, perhaps from Norway or the Slavic regions. The three females in the sample were all from overseas. Some rune stones of this period in south Scandinavia refer to foreigners coming from Norway, the Slavonic areas or elsewhere on the continent.

From Price et at 2011. Who was in Harold Bluetooth’s army? Strontium isotope investigation of the cemetery at the Viking Age fortress at Trelleborg, Denmark, Antiquity, 85 (2011): 476–489.

[Kopfjäger]

aDNA will show that Viking period was very cosmopolitan for Scandinavia (at least certain important sites). So it wasnt just brutish Vikings going out and pillaging :)

The Britons and Irish pillaged each other. That's what cattle-raiding is all about!

[rms2]

As I have repeatedly pointed out, R1b in modern Scandinavia is roughly half U106 and half P312, although it varies by region.

The modern proportions might not be representative of various stages in the past. We have ancient U106 from Sweden. I don't doubt we'll eventually get some ancient P312 from Scandinavia. See what I wrote below.



Do you think the immigrants since the Viking Age were only P312? I believe most immigration to Scandinavia in historical times came from Germany, where U106 is not unknown. Also many immigrants from other countries since the middle ages retained their original surname or some form of it. For instance I am aware of a Hamilton family in Sweden who came there from Scotland in the 17th century. I find it difficult to envisage a scenario where the U106 half of R1b in Scandinavia was native and the P312 half (except L238) were all or very nearly all immigrants. Also if P312 were mostly immigrants, I doubt very much they would be as widespread in Scandinavia, and found even in rural areas.

I do agree that aDNA, even as late as the Viking period, would be very helpful in solving some of the riddles of R1b in Scandinavia.

If you read my original post, you would see that I said maybe some of the U106 was the product of relatively recently immigration, as well. You must have missed that part. Here it is, from post #3925:



I'm sorry to say this, because I know it disappoints quite a few people, especially those who had hoped for Viking ancestry, but I think a fairly substantial amount of the P312 there, and maybe even some of the U106, are products of relatively recent immigration.

The main difference between U106 and P312 is that we actually have ancient U106 from Sweden. Eventually we'll get some ancient P312 somewhere in Scandinavia, as well, but in my second post on the topic, I was answering what you said about P312.

Unfair of you to require me to address U106 in a reply to your post that was about P312. Besides, I had already mentioned U106 and relatively recent immigration to Scandinavia and you had ignored it.

[rms2]

aDNA will show that Viking period was very cosmopolitan for Scandinavia (at least certain important sites). So it wasnt just brutish Vikings going out and pillaging :)

I thought I remembered a Scandinavian Viking era skeleton that had tested I-M253, but I guess I must have dreamed it, because I could not find it at Jean's Ancient Eurasian DNA site.

[rms2]

I thought I remembered a Scandinavian Viking era skeleton that had tested I-M253, but I guess I must have dreamed it, because I could not find it at Jean's Ancient Eurasian DNA site.

Maybe I was thinking of the Anglo-Saxon I1, NO3423, from Norton Bishopsmill, Teesside, in England, dated 650–910 A.D., but I would have sworn there was a Viking I-M253 result from somewhere. Oh, well.

[rms2]

Maybe we can get back to Bell Beaker, Gimbutas, and R1b and leave Scandinavia for another thread.

I still have my doubts about U106 and Bell Beaker, but we'll see, I guess.

[rms2]

I thought I remembered a Scandinavian Viking era skeleton that had tested I-M253, but I guess I must have dreamed it, because I could not find it at Jean's Ancient Eurasian DNA site.

Faulconer pointed out to me that I probably had Birger Magnusson in mind, from Sweden, but he was a little late to be a Viking, having died in 1266. Birger Magnusson was I-M253, not surprising for a Swede. He was the founder of a line of kings of Sweden and Norway.

I believe he is right. My memory made him a Viking, but I misremembered.

[Jean M]

The Britons and Irish pillaged each other. That's what cattle-raiding is all about!

Just to clarify. I suspect that cattle raiding was mainly land-based. It would be a lot easier to run cattle off on foot than transport them by sea. I don't know how many head of full-grown cattle could be carried on a boat of Iron Age to Medieval times. The Irish cattle-raided each other for sure. That is built into the Ulster Cycle of tales, and seems like a good reason for Black Pig's Dyke. So we can guess that the British Celtic tribes cattle-raided each other. When the Irish pillaged Post-Roman Britain, they seem to have been slave-raiding.

[Dubhthach]

Me too, but not because it matters if the Wessex folks were heavy L21 or not.

I think if we have a famous ancient king, even if it is questionable, i.e. Nial of Nine Hostages, that will spur interest and testing amongst L21 and L21 potential folks.

We may not have Niall, but we know that the senior lineage (O'Conor Don) claiming descent from his supposed older half-brother Brión is M222+ confirmed.

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/eochaid-connachta.png

15541

The early part of the genealogies are probably falsified but it might reveal a picture of the dominant lineage within what is known as the Dál Cuinn which basically take over most of northern half of Ireland in 4th-6th centuries. As historian John V. Kelleher nicely put it:

"The Uí Néill emerge into history like a school of cuttlefish from a large ink-cloud of their own manufacture; and clouds of ink continued to be manufactured by them or for them throughout their long career"

[Heber]

Iñigo Olalde & David Reich

Western Europe during the third millennium BCE: A genetic characterization of the Bell Beaker Complex
The Bell Beaker Complex (BBC) was the first widely distributed archaeological phenomenon of western Europe, arising after 2800 BCE probably in Iberia and spreading to the north and east before disappearing at the latest by 1800 BCE. An open question is the extent to which the cultural elements associated with the BBC spread through movement of ideas or people. We present new genome-wide DNA data from 196 Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans – the largest report of genome-wide data in a single study to date – and merge it with published data to form a dataset with 109 BBC individuals that provides a genomic characterization of the BBC across its geographic and temporal range. In contrast to people of the Corded Ware Complex who were partly contemporaries of the BBC in central and eastern Europe and who brought steppe ancestry into central Europe through mass migration and replacement of local populations, we show that the initial spread of the BBC into central Europe from the Iberian Peninsula was not mediated by a large-scale migration but rather through communication of ideas. However, the further spread of the BBC beyond central Europe did involve mass movement of people. Focusing on Britain, which includes 81 of our new samples in a time transect from 3900-1300 BCE, we show that the arrival of the BBC around 2400 BCE was mediated by migration from the continent: British individuals associated with Beakers are genetically indistinguishable from continental individuals associated with the same material culture and genetically nearly completely discontinuous with the previously resident population. Such discontinuity persists through to samples from the Bronze Age, documenting a demographic turnover at the onset of the Bronze Age that was crucial to understand the formation of the present-day British gene pool. The arrival of the BBC in Britain can thus be viewed as the western continuation of the massive movement of people that brought the Corded Ware Complex and steppe ancestry into central Europe a few hundred years before.

https://www.sfb1266.uni-kiel.de/de/veranstaltungen/tagungen-workshops/archeologie-et-gobelets-1/abstracts

[Heber]

Phillip Stockhammer, Corina Knipper, Alissa Mittnik, Ken Massy, Fabian Wittenborn, Stephanie Metz, Steffen Kraus, Ernst Pernicka, Johannes Krause

The Bell Beaker Complex in the Lech Valley: a Bioarchaeological Perspective
While the integration of archaeological and scientific – especially genetic – evidence has enabled a better understanding of the Corded Ware Complex in the last years, similar data for the Bell Beaker Complex has not been published yet. However, in the last years we have conducted an interdisciplinary bioarchaeological research program on 85 Corded Ware, Bell Beaker and Early Bronze Age burials in the Lech Valley south of Augsburg, which is now a key region to understand the social transformations during the 3rd millennium BC. We will present the archaeological evidence of the Bell Beaker Complex in the Lech valley and integrate the data in an archaeological-diachronic perspective as well as with regard to the
broad range of scientific analyses (ancient mitochondrial, Y and nuclear DNA, stable isotope ratios of strontium, oxygen carbon and nitrogen, radiocarbon dating, lead isotope analyses, etc.). The isotope data demonstrate a striking pattern of patrilocality and female exogamy during the Bell Beaker Complex and the Early Bronze Age where more than half of the females were non-local, while there were only rare occurrences among the male and subadult individuals. The DNA analysis enables us to understand family relations within the burial sites as well as the transformation of the genomic patterns from the Corded Ware to the Bell Beaker Complex and further on to the Early Bronze Age. In the end, we are able to present a new narrative for the genesis as well as the end of the Bell Beaker Complex at least for the Lech Valley south of Augsburg.

https://www.sfb1266.uni-kiel.de/de/veranstaltungen/tagungen-workshops/archeologie-et-gobelets-1/abstracts

[rms2]

I mentioned this over on the new papers discussion thread in the Ancient DNA subforum, but it sounds like that Olalde and Reich abstract means basically that the BB pots spread from Iberia, but the classic kurgan type of BB people picked up the pottery in and spread west from Central Europe after originating in Eastern Europe.

So, maybe the very earliest Iberian BB people were like those three skeletons found with BB pottery in the megalithic tomb at El Sotillo in Spain, the earliest of them dated to about 2900 BC? They belonged to y haplogroup I and had no steppe autosomal dna.

81 new samples from Britain sounds great. I hope the Amesbury Archer is one of them.

Should be fascinating.

[rafc]

The abstract also seems to suggest that BB in Britain was mostly R1b (as was expected by most here I guess), and that the origin of R1b is central European. Since this lecture seems to uncover a lot of details I assume the paper will be published in the next two weeks.

[rms2]

The abstract also seems to suggest that BB in Britain was mostly R1b (as was expected by most here I guess), and that the origin of R1b is central European. Since this lecture seems to uncover a lot of details I assume the paper will be published in the next two weeks.

Apparently it will be presented as part of that workshop in Kiel 17-21 May. Will we have to wait until after the workshop? I hope not.

[rms2]

Henri Hubert believed the earliest BB pots were connected to the megalith builders and that the kurgan BB people were a different people. Wish I was at home so I could supply some quotes.

[R.Rocca]

So what the abstract says explicitly is the following:

- 196 new Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans
- 109 BBC individuals (including prior data)
- Unlike CWC, the initial spread of the BBC into central Europe from the Iberian Peninsula was not mediated by a large-scale migration but rather through communication of ideas.
- Further spread of the BBC beyond central Europe did involve a mass migration
- 81 samples are from Britain (from 3900-1300 BCE)
- The arrival of BBC in Britain was mediated by migration from the continent
- British BBC people were indistinguishable to continental BBC
- British BBC are completely different than the prior British Neolithic population
- BBC continues in Britain and is very relevant to the modern British gene pool
- BBC in Britain is a continuation of the massive steppe migrations that brought about CWC

Nothing explicit about R1b, but my inferences are as follows:

1. The Earlier Iberian Bell Beaker men were not R1b and did not have steppe ancestry, but instead belonged to haplogroup I2a. I'd still be curious to see if these non-steppe/non-R1b men were really Bell Beaker men at all, or if their bodies were simply stirred up with later Bell Beaker material.
2. The tall brachycephalic Bell Beakers from Central Europe were the only ones who were R1b
3. If there is a real time separation between Iberian Bell Beaker and its arrival in Central Europe, then R1b must've been part of another culture... either CWC or Vucedol. My bet is that it will be found in the westernmost CWC periphery, perhaps in the Netherlands and/or Switzerland.

Similar to the situation in Britain, there was also a large Bell Beaker movement from Central Europe into Italy and Southern France from 2400-2150 BC (see Lemercier's Map on Figure 6... https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00087310/document). This of course could represent the movement of DF27 and U152 into those two areas respectively.

[razyn]

Similar to the situation in Britain, there was also a large Bell Beaker movement from Central Europe into Italy and Southern France from 2400-2150 BC (see Lemercier's Map on Figure 6... This of course could represent the movement of DF27 and U152 into those two areas respectively.
I noticed that Lemercier is also reading a paper at this same conference, but from the abstract, it sounds pretty abstract.

[MitchellSince1893]

Apparently it will be presented as part of that workshop in Kiel 17-21 May. Will we have to wait until after the workshop? I hope not.

As it is a "workshop" meeting; to give attendees time to digest the paper in order to facilitate informed discussion, it would be prudent to release the paper prior...unless it's being released via private channels.

If it's more of a lecture than a group discussion then we may have to wait.

FWIW,

From eurogenes blog


David, when do you expect the Bell Beaker behemoth will be released.

Within days, but I can't confirm that.

Karl seems to be think it's coming later today.

Fingers crossed

EDIT then Karl K says


So... tune in again in 2 weeks!

[vettor]

So what the abstract says explicitly is the following:

- 196 new Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans
- 109 BBC individuals (including prior data)
- Unlike CWC, the initial spread of the BBC into central Europe from the Iberian Peninsula was not mediated by a large-scale migration but rather through communication of ideas.
- Further spread of the BBC beyond central Europe did involve a mass migration
- 81 samples are from Britain (from 3900-1300 BCE)
- The arrival of BBC in Britain was mediated by migration from the continent
- British BBC people were indistinguishable to continental BBC
- British BBC are completely different than the prior British Neolithic population
- BBC continues in Britain and is very relevant to the modern British gene pool
- BBC in Britain is a continuation of the massive steppe migrations that brought about CWC

Nothing explicit about R1b, but my inferences are as follows:

1. The Earlier Iberian Bell Beaker men were not R1b and did not have steppe ancestry, but instead belonged to haplogroup I2a. I'd still be curious to see if these non-steppe/non-R1b men were really Bell Beaker men at all, or if their bodies were simply stirred up with later Bell Beaker material.
2. The tall brachycephalic Bell Beakers from Central Europe were the only ones who were R1b
3. If there is a real time separation between Iberian Bell Beaker and its arrival in Central Europe, then R1b must've been part of another culture... either CWC or Vucedol. My bet is that it will be found in the easternmost CWC periphery, perhaps in the Netherlands and/or Switzerland.

Similar to the situation in Britain, there was also a large Bell Beaker movement from Central Europe into Italy and Southern France from 2400-2150 BC (see Lemercier's Map on Figure 6... https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00087310/document). This of course could represent the movement of DF27 and U152 into those two areas respectively.

I am unable to read french, but a look at the maps 6 and 7 in your link reminds me of what italian historians say on the ancient for these italian areas
- The umbrians came from modern south germany and settled in central italy
- Etruscans comprise of mostly Umbrian peoples
- The veneto, friuli and western slovenia where lands of the ancient indigenous Euganei peoples ( who where later renamed as Venetic )
- north of the Euganei where the Rhaetic people
- italians historians state the Rhaetic and Euganei are linked/cousins with the liguri peoples of NW-Italy
- Liguri lands where from central west italy through to the Rhone river of southern France

many of these italian theories seem to fit IMO

[Heber]

I am unable to read french, but a look at the maps 6 and 7 in your link reminds me of what italian historians say on the ancient for these italian areas
- The umbrians came from modern south germany and settled in central italy
- Etruscans comprise of mostly Umbrian peoples
- The veneto, friuli and western slovenia where lands of the ancient indigenous Euganei peoples ( who where later renamed as Venetic )
- north of the Euganei where the Rhaetic people
- italians historians state the Rhaetic and Euganei are linked/cousins with the liguri peoples of NW-Italy
- Liguri lands where from central west italy through to the Rhone river of southern France

many of these italian theories seem to fit IMO

15577

15578

15579

[MitchellSince1893]

I am unable to read french, but a look at the maps 6 and 7 in your link reminds me of what italian historians say on the ancient for these italian areas
- The umbrians came from modern south germany and settled in central italy
- Etruscans comprise of mostly Umbrian peoples
- The veneto, friuli and western slovenia where lands of the ancient indigenous Euganei peoples ( who where later renamed as Venetic )
- north of the Euganei where the Rhaetic people
- italians historians state the Rhaetic and Euganei are linked/cousins with the liguri peoples of NW-Italy
- Liguri lands where from central west italy through to the Rhone river of southern France

many of these italian theories seem to fit IMO
FWIW here is a google translation Campaniform = Bell Beaker

The campaniform networks:
The standardization (2400-2150 before our era)
A second stage of the campaniform cycle is,
Also, marked by broadcasts
Important but they are then multipolar
(Figure 6).
The Iberian pole is always important for the
Setting up the Campaniforme groups
The South of France but does not seem to
Not extend much beyond that. Few
Vases with incised decoration of the cave del Fontino
In the south of Tuscany
Maximum extension and probably punctual.
At this moment another campaniform pole
Develops and widely disseminates
Central European area. It is felt
Mediterranean, by the valley of the
Rhône, but in a minor way, the region
Remaining under Iberian influence at this period.
It is in northern Italy then peninsular
That this diffusion is the most remarkable. The
Development of the recent Campaniforme of Tuscany is attributable to this current. As is
Knowledge, Sardinian furniture seems to
Much less influenced by the
Eastern Campaniform. The question of
Of the polypid cuts present at the
Times in Sardinia and Central Europe
Remains. The existence of an important
Tradition of this type of form in the
Sardinian Neolithic, prior to
The campaniform implantation, and the association
Frequent in the Sardinian Campaniform,
Foot shapes and decorations strictly
Mediterranean countries could argue for a
Development of this type of form,
And the possibility of South-North relations between
Sardinia and Central Europe can not be
discounted.
The impossibility of concluding on this issue
Refers to the standardization of the Campaniforme
Which occurs at the time of development
Regional groups through the existence
Of many exchanges between regions
Very distant.

Old networks and new roads
Beginning of the Bronze Age (2150-1900
Before our era)
In a third step (figure 7), the pole
Iberian seems to be no longer
The whole study area and the importance of
Of the center-european pole remains difficult to
specify.
In Peninsular Italy, as in Sardinia,
Evolution seems to have a great deal of
Importance in the genesis of groups
épicampaniformes. However, Italy
Northern and eastern Europe and the northwest
The Balkans play a leading role in this
For the dissemination of certain
Ceramic morphologies, such as
Of Italic types who win France
And certain particular decorations with the use of the threaded comb for the realization of the decorations
barbed wire.
These influences, which are sensitive in the Midi
Of France, but also, to a lesser extent,
In Tuscany are still more difficult to
Collect in Sardinia. The second vase of I
Calanchi is probably attributable to a
Epicampaniform facies that evokes decors
Known in Tuscany and Sardinia as the
Reported the authors of the discovery. At the end
Of the period, the development of
Ceramics of Bonnanaro testifies to a
Obvious italic community in the
Morphology of ceramics attesting to other
Relations between the islands and the continent.
For the whole period, the furniture of the cave
Del Fontino shows the existence of
(Followed or spotted) between the south of
Tuscany and Sardinia.


CONCLUSIONS AND INTERROGATIONS
Three successive broadcasting systems
Campaniform that translate relationships
Complexities that unite the studied regions,
Can therefore be proposed.
The first of Iberian origin, which is
Probably the most important in terms of
Distances traveled and the most homogeneous
From the point of view of its nature is
A rather brief and punctual phenomenon.
The second is not a single phenomenon,
But corresponds to the establishment of a
System of exchange and dissemination networks
Between the different regions of the former
Diffusion campaniforme. If the Peninsula
Iberian still plays an important role,
Particularly for the French Midi, it is the
Campaniforme of central Europe that
Massive dissemination to Italy.
The end of the transition period with age
Of the Bronze, remains poorly known but shows,
For the regions considered here, the implementation of
The introduction of a new broadcasting system
From eastern and northern Italy.
This general scheme calls for several
remarks.
First, if the general meaning of broadcasts
Can be established with some certainties, it
Seems to be relatively frequent that
Relations opened by these broadcasts
Operate quickly in both directions and
Have a tendency to standardize Europe
Beaker.
Secondly, the development of
Campaniform regions, in the
Recent, seems to depend very much on the
Presence of the first broadcast
Beaker.
There is thus a total acculturation of
Populations of the South of France with
Delays likely, for the department of Gard
- area for the establishment of the cultural
Fontbouisse with a very dynamic
Important at that time - in particular, but
There is also a greater diversity (with
Indigenous cultures) in the constitution of the
Recent Campaniform of Tuscany.
In Sardinia, the Campaniforme, with the exception
Of some objects of the first diffusion,
Is a true local integration where the
Campaniforme is adapted to the traditions
Natives and the Campaniforme is spreading
The entire island.
At the same time, Corsica shows the same
Process, but in a very localized sector
Only in the region of Sartène with the
Presence of a recent campaniform decoration or
Epicampaniform on a morphology
And on a site that had experienced
First broadcast campaniforme. The sentence
Of the Terrinian shows, on the
Same site, a transformation of the classics
Terrestrial decorations, by the use of new
Provisions and new themes which,
Without being able to be directly compared with
Campaniform decors, seem to present the
Same general features: structuring in
Horizontal stripes, patterns of checkers and
Triangles, etc. But, if it is not an effect of the weak
Number of searches, this integration started
Does not extend to the whole of the island and the Terrinian
Seems, as during its phases
Previous, little permeable to influences
Cultural events from Sardinia. It is only
The beginning of the Bronze Age as the culture of
Bonnanaro shows again an influence
Sardinia on Corsica, in a first Bronze
Where terrestrial traits are
Still perceptible.
Obviously, this little history of relations
Between four Mediterranean regions
Western world remains very schematic and will
Probably corrected in the future. If the level
Of interpretation reached for the south of France
And for Tuscany can not be totally
Questioned, our observations on the
Sardinia are based only on
Comparisons of movable items in
Very complex contexts.
For Sardinia, the definition of
Campaniform sets probably
Their relations with local cultures.
And the conditions for their development, and
For Corsica, the importance of the presence
Campaniforme can only be specified
By the search of a significant number of sites
Of habitat of the end of Neolithic ...

[TigerMW]

Henri Hubert believed the earliest BB pots were connected to the megalith builders and that the kurgan BB people were a different people. Wish I was at home so I could supply some quotes.
I love Hubert's books on the Celts. I know his work is old and without advantage of recent knowledge but he adds a lot of common sense and certainly is well versed on the Celts from every aspect available to him. I've got the "The History of the Celtic People" book which is a combination of two prior volumes. The "Origin of the Celts" chapter is applicable, particularly starting page 170.

Richard S, I bought book based on your recommendation. No slight to anyone but it's a great book. I am probably biased but you can see Hubert's great passion for the Celts.

Hubert emphasizes the German named Zoned-Beakers and distinguishes the men as different from the old southwestern Bell Beakers whom he associated with the megaliths.

Perhaps the Zone-Beakers were the Yamana-ized Beaker folks, or as Richards says Kurgan Beakers, or we could say Round Barrow Beakers.

We must turn to archaeology in order to go back so far, and even further, in the history of the movements of the Celts. The Hallstatt period is out of the question.
...
In the first period of the Bronze Age there arrive people coming from the Continent, people with very marked characteristics. The old Neolithic inhabitants (among whom I include those of all the beginning of the Bronze Age) were long-heads of Mediterranean type, who built for their dead, or, at least, for the more distinguished of them, tumuli with a funeral chamber known as 'long barrows', in which one sometimes finds those curious bell-shaped beakers adorned at regular intervals with bands of of incised or stamped decoration...
The newcomers were of a quite different type, and had other funeral practices. They buried their dead under round tumuli....
in their graves were zoned beakers...
The skeletons were of a new type, tall with round head of a fairly constant shape, the brow receding, the supraciliary ridge prominent, the cheek-bones highly developed, and the jaws massive and projecting....
The association of the physical type of this people with the beaker has led British anthropologists to call in the Beaker Folk...
From whence came these invaders? The beakers and their very ancient forms are found in Sicily, Sardinia, and Italy, but above all in Spain, and it has become practice to regard them as having originated in that country. In any case, they are one of the relics of the civilization which produced the megalithic monuments...
But they do not accompany the same type of skeleton. The beakers themselves are more like those of the British long barrows than those of the round barrows. Between these last no transitional form has yet been reported...
The bell-beaker spread in the seaboard region of Northern Europe, in the area of the megalithic monuments...
But others are found elsewhere, outside the region of the megaliths. The German archaeologists call them zone-beakers, Zonenbecher, to distinguish from the bell-shaped vases....
We must imagine warlike bodies moving fairly fast, for their cemeteries are generally small, raving the country but holding it, for the cultures which they found in possession have vanished while theirs has lasted....
This tremendous journey of the bell-beakers and the zone-beakers is full of mysteries. It was clearly not the same men who used them in Spain and (versus) in Bohemia...
It is at least certain that the Beaker folk went from Germany to Britain...

A fatal logical flaw of considering the Bell Beakers complex as a monolithic culture may finally be shot down. Beakers are not Beakers are not Beakers.

[castle3]

I love Hubert's books on the Celts. I know his work is old and without advantage of recent knowledge but he adds a lot of common sense and certainly is well versed on the Celts from every aspect available to him. I've got the "The History of the Celtic People" book which is a combination of two prior volumes. The "Origin of the Celts" chapter is applicable, particularly starting page 170.

Richard S, I bought book based on your recommendation. No slight to anyone but it's a great book. I am probably biased but you can see Hubert's great passion for the Celts.

Hubert emphasizes the German named Zoned-Beakers and distinguishes the men as different from the old southwestern Bell Beakers whom he associated with the megaliths.

Perhaps the Zone-Beakers were the Yamana-ized Beaker folks, or as Richards says Kurgan Beakers, or we could say Round Barrow Beakers.


A fatal logical flaw of considering the Bell Beakers complex as a monolithic culture may finally being shot down. Beakers are not Beakers are not Beakers.

I'm a big fan of Hubert. It's always interesting comparing Hubert, Childe, Stewart, Rhys & others & seeing how their theories stand up. I'd love to be able to see what they would make of the current available data, and their reaction to the forthcoming BB papers etc.

[rms2]

. . .


A fatal logical flaw of considering the Bell Beakers complex as a monolithic culture may finally being shot down. Beakers are not Beakers are not Beakers.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. I don't get that out of the Olalde/Reich abstract either. We've got some BB ideas coming out of Iberia and then Kurgan BB people coming out of Central Europe.

Let's wait for the paper to see just how diverse the people were. Maybe if we consider that they belonged to different P312 clades diverse, they were diverse, but we'll see.

[razyn]

We've got some BB ideas coming out of Iberia and then Kurgan BB people coming out of Central Europe.
IIRC I only climbed onto the YDNA bandwagon in early 2011; but whenever it was, just about the worst fate one could suffer on DNA-Forums was to be branded a "kurganist" (usually by Rokus, whoever that was), ridiculed, and dismissed. It happened to me -- and to others who have lived to post here, in these latter days -- back in that misty past, six years ago. I must admit that I had to look up "kurganist." I had no clue what it meant, apart from the fact that apparently I was one (for having mentioned that the project data looked to me as if Z196 was coming into northwestern Europe from Poland, or somewhere to the east of it).

[rms2]

IIRC I only climbed onto the YDNA bandwagon in early 2011; but whenever it was, just about the worst fate one could suffer on DNA-Forums was to be branded a "kurganist" (usually by Rokus, whoever that was), ridiculed, and dismissed. It happened to me -- and to others who have lived to post here, in these latter days -- back in that misty past, six years ago. I must admit that I had to look up "kurganist." I had no clue what it meant, apart from the fact that apparently I was one (for having mentioned that the project data looked to me as if Z196 was coming into northwestern Europe from Poland, or somewhere to the east of it).

I remember him. Maybe I am mistaken, but I seem to recall that he argued that y haplogroup I was the preeminent Indo-European y haplogroup and that IE spread from the Balkans. His posts were really long, as I recall. I rarely read any of them all the way to the end.

[TigerMW]

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. I don't get that out of the Olalde/Reich abstract either. We've got some BB ideas coming out of Iberia and then Kurgan BB people coming out of Central Europe.

Let's wait for the paper to see just how diverse the people were. Maybe if we consider that they belonged to different P312 clades diverse, they were diverse, but we'll see.
Agreed.. Diversity versus similarity and commonality are a matter of degree and subjective unless criteria is applied.

An important point is if P312 is found in early southwestern Beakers.

[rms2]

Agreed.. Diversity versus similarity and commonality are a matter of degree and subjective unless criteria is applied.

An important point is if P312 is found in early southwestern Beakers.

That doesn't seem likely, given the Olalde/Reich abstract about BB ideas coming out of Iberia versus BB people coming out of Central Europe. I'm pretty sure if they had P312 in early SW Beaker, they would have said something about a male-mediated BB migration out of Iberia. It would have been a big deal.

I think early SW BB will be composed of megalithic I2a men, like those three from the megalithic tomb at El Sotillo. That was the first sign of what was to come, IMHO.

[Heber]

El Sotillo is nowhere near the home of SW Beakers. It is between todays Madrid and Zaragoza.
Koch defines the Atlantic Cist and Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages Zone in the following maps and distinguishes between the PIE and non PIE zones.
If Olande/Reich has Ancient DNA from Perdigoes, Zambujal, VNSP, Tagus etc then that will be progress. If not we have to wait for DNA from that zone.

15614

15615

15616

15617

[rms2]

El Sotillo is nowhere near the home of SW Beakers . . .

Since Bell Beaker pottery was found in the megalithic tomb there, I guess that makes it prima facie part of SW Beakers.

Guess we'll just have to expand the home of SW Beakers a bit, especially since that early skeleton dates to about 2900 BC.

There was evidently something different enough about early Iberian BB to make Olalde and Reich say that BB ideas migrated out of Iberia but Iberian BB people not so much.



. . . [W]e show that the initial spread of the BBC into central Europe from the Iberian Peninsula was not mediated by a large-scale migration but rather through communication of ideas. However, the further spread of the BBC beyond central Europe did involve mass movement of people . . .

[rms2]

I'm going to repeat what I said here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9698-from-western-Yamna-to-Europe-a-I2a2-R1b-M269-joined-venture&p=215055&viewfull=1#post215055) and elsewhere, but it seems supported by Olalde's and Reich's abstract.

I've pointed out quite a few times that the very earliest Bell Beaker burials in Iberia were in collective Neolithic tombs without the steppe array of weapons, horse bones, etc., and contained skeletons that were short in stature, long headed, and gracile, of a type called Mediterranean, like what is typical of Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers. These facts separate them from the kurgan-style Bell Beaker people, who tended to be tall, robust, and round headed, and who buried their important dead, especially males, in pits in single graves under a round tumulus, accompanied by weapons and horse bones.

Coon noticed this and wrote, in his book, The Races of Europe, page 150:



Where Bell Beaker burials are found in central Europe, the skeletons are almost always of the same tall brachycephalic type which we have already studied in the eastern Mediterranean and Italy. In Spain, however, they are frequently of the Megalithic race.

Hubert mentions this difference as occurring in Britain, as well. This is from his book, The History of the Celtic People, pp. 171-173:



In the first period of the Bronze Age there arrived in the British Isles, coming from the Continent, people with very marked characteristics. The old Neolithic inhabitants (among whom I include those of all the beginning of the Bronze Age) were long-heads of Mediterranean type, who built for their dead, or, at least, for the more distinguished of them, tumuli with a funeral chamber known as the "long barrows", in which one sometimes finds those curious bell-shaped beakers adorned at regular intervals with bands of incised or stamped decoration, of a very simple and austere type. The newcomers were of quite a different type, and had other funeral practices.

They buried their dead under round tumuli, known as "round barrows", in graves in which the body was placed in a crouching position on one side and enclosed in stone flags or woodwork. Later they burned them. In their graves there were zoned beakers (Fig. 33), but of a late type in which the neck is distinguished from the belly, or vases derived from these beakers . . . The grave goods comprised buttons with a V-shaped boring, flint and copper daggers, arrow-heads, and flat perforated pieces of schist which are "bracers", or bowman's wristguards. The skeletons were of a new type: tall, with round heads of a fairly constant shape, the brow receding, the supraciliary ridge prominent, the cheek-bones highly developed, and the jaws massive and projecting so as to present a dip at the base of the nose. I have already described them as one of the types represented in Celtic burials.

The association of the physical type of this people with the beaker has led British anthropologists to call it the Beaker Folk . . . In Scotland they were accompanied by other brachycephals, with a higher index and of Alpine type. In general they advanced from south to north and from east to west, and their progress lasted long enough for there to be a very marked difference in furniture between their oldest and latest tombs.

. . . Their progress was a conquest. It is evident that they subdued and assimilated the previous occupants of the country.

This leads me to suspect that the earliest Iberian BB people are a different people from the later BB people and that perhaps they were non-R1b and had little or no steppe autosomal dna.

And all that seems to be reflected in the abstract of Olalde's and Reich's upcoming big Bell Beaker bonanza.

[TigerMW]

... This leads me to suspect that the earliest Iberian BB people are a different people from the later BB people and that perhaps they were non-R1b and had little or no steppe autosomal dna.
...
I think R1b-P311 will not be found in early southwest Beaker folks. Probably no R1b-L23 of any type either. The closeness in relation of the P312 MRCA and U106 MRCA is akin to the idea that Proto-Celtic had some kind of early Germanic influence and vice versus. It makes "Celtic from the West" hard to swallow. It also makes P312 from the Southwest hard to swallow, I think.

Still perhaps there was 1) some pause in SNPs around P312 MRCA or 2) the P311 to P312 and U106 families were exceptionally, exceptionally fast and extensive in their early colonizations. Perhaps DF27 did integrate into early southwest Beakers since they there is some commonality of practices across the Beaker cultures. It might have been a very light hedgemony of the type of the Visigoths to come later, therefore we haven't found the tall, round headed skeletons.

If there is any R1b-L23 in early southwest Beakers I would expect it to be L51+ P311- only - the early scouts and explorers.

Mike

[rms2]

From Olalde's and Reich's abstract again:



. . . [W]e show that the initial spread of the BBC into central Europe from the Iberian Peninsula was not mediated by a large-scale migration but rather through communication of ideas. However, the further spread of the BBC beyond central Europe did involve mass movement of people . . .

I am wondering what ideas they are talking about, since so much of what we think of as Bell Beaker - the horses, the burial practices, the stelae, the patriarchal society - pretty obviously came from the steppe.

The pottery?

Here's Gimbutas again, from 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.

From pages 390-391:



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.

So what ideas came out of Iberia?

[rms2]

Since this thread is about Bell Beakers, Gimbutas, and R1b, here is an interesting parallel between what Gimbutas wrote and the words of Olalde's and Reich's abstract.

First, Gimbutas, from page 401 of The Civilization of the Goddess:



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.

Now Olalde and Reich:



. . . However, the further spread of the BBC beyond central Europe did involve mass movement of people . . . The arrival of the BBC in Britain can thus be viewed as the western continuation of the massive movement of people that brought the Corded Ware Complex and steppe ancestry into central Europe a few hundred years before.

[kinman]

In the quote below, she says "Kurgan (Late Yamna)". This makes me wonder when (and where) she thought Yamna as a whole arose (i.e., beginning of Early Yamna). Would that be Wave 1 ? And did the earliest Yamna have the Kurgan burial tradition, or did that get developed or adopted along the way as they migrated west.

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

Originally Posted by Marija Gimbutas
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.

[rms2]

In the quote below, she says "Kurgan (Late Yamna)". This makes me wonder when (and where) she thought Yamna as a whole arose (i.e., beginning of Early Yamna). Would that be Wave 1 ? And did the earliest Yamna have the Kurgan burial tradition, or did that get developed or adopted along the way as they migrated west.

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

Originally Posted by Marija Gimbutas
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 believed there were three waves of steppe migration into Europe west of the Dniester:

Kurgan I. c. 4400-4300 BC

Kurgan II. c. 3500 BC

Kurgan III. soon after 3000 BC

This is from page 352 of The Civilization of the Goddess:



Russian archaeologists use the terms "early Yamna" for Kurgan I; "Mikhailovka I" or "Maikop" culture for Kurgan II; and "late Yamna" for Kurgan III. (Yamna comes from yama, "pit," i.e., "pit grave" under a barrow.)

[vettor]

From Olalde's and Reich's abstract again:



I am wondering what ideas they are talking about, since so much of what we think of as Bell Beaker - the horses, the burial practices, the stelae, the patriarchal society - pretty obviously came from the steppe.

The pottery?


So what ideas came out of Iberia?

As I stated over 2 years ago......BB in central europe is only due to pottery style............brought from iberian direction by some traders and adopted by local potters

[kinman]

If this is true, why would so many potters adopt the imported BB pottery style (and how is it different from what they had been producing). Is there something intrinsically superior about BB pottery that made it more useful or valuable?
--------------------------------------------------------------


As I stated over 2 years ago......BB in central europe is only due to pottery style............brought from iberian direction by some traders and adopted by local potters

[MitchellSince1893]

For a thing to have value it must have all of the following characteristics
D = Demand: When many people want the same item, demand increases and so does its value
U = Utility: The item must be useful in some way. The more people it is useful to, the greater its value
S = Scarcity: The more scarce the item, the greater its value.
T = Transferability: For an item to have value, the owner must be able to transfer its ownership in exchange for something else of value

Maybe the Bell Beaker style pottery was viewed as exotic, possibly having a visual appeal that made it desirable, thus increasing its value.

To use a modern example. At the time, there was something about the visual style of the 1965 Ford Mustang that appealed to a large audience and drove demand through the roof. Like other cars it got you from point a to point b, and like other pots it contained liquid, but there was something "cool" about being the owner of a mustang/bell beaker. JMO

[alan]

From Olalde's and Reich's abstract again:



I am wondering what ideas they are talking about, since so much of what we think of as Bell Beaker - the horses, the burial practices, the stelae, the patriarchal society - pretty obviously came from the steppe.

The pottery?

Here's Gimbutas again, from page 390 of her book, The Civilization of the Goddess:



From pages 390-391:



So what ideas came out of Iberia?

Probably what Harrison and Heyd called the proto package - pots, clothes style, some jewellery preferences . I think these things point to females personally.

[kinman]

Yes, I can see how something exotic or "cool" might make something popular in the short term. But for it to persist for long periods of time, I think utility would be more of a factor.
To use your car analogy, you might see a few "cool" cars from the 50s and 60s around, but after a few decades, they became dwarfed in number by millions of vehicles that are mostly bland, not particularly cool, but are much more utilitarian (aerodynamic, more comfortable, and safer). So why did BB pottery last for so long?
------------Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For a thing to have value it must have all of the following characteristics
D = Demand: When many people want the same item, demand increases and so does its value
U = Utility: The item must be useful in some way. The more people it is useful to, the greater its value
S = Scarcity: The more scarce the item, the greater its value.
T = Transferability: For an item to have value, the owner must be able to transfer its ownership in exchange for something else of value

Maybe the Bell Beaker style pottery was viewed as exotic, possibly having a visual appeal that made it desirable, thus increasing its value.

To use a modern example. At the time, there was something about the visual style of the 1965 Ford Mustang that appealed to a large audience and drove demand through the roof. Like other cars it got you from point a to point b, and like other pots it contained liquid, but there was something "cool" about being the owner of a mustang/bell beaker. JMO

[alan]

I think it's pretty clear Iberian beaker users spread to southern France and NW Italy. Probably up the Atlantic coast of France too. I think it was from these areas that the Iberian beaker users interacted with west central Europe. If the paper is right that gene flow was limited from Iberian beaker uses to central Europe I suspect it may have been females moving with their particular pot making skills and certain clothing and jewellery (most jewelry was female) preferences I think exotic wives could influence pottery and fashions as these were seen as in the female sphere and exotica had value. However core stuff like burial traditions, social structure were likely something they could not influence much

[alan]

Yes, I can see how something exotic or "cool" might make something popular in the short term. But for it to persist for long periods of time, I think utility would be more of a factor.
To use your car analogy, you might see a few "cool" cars from the 50s and 60s around, but after a few decades, they became dwarfed in number by millions of vehicles that are mostly bland, not particularly cool, but are much more utilitarian (aerodynamic, more comfortable, and safer). So why did BB pottery last for so long?
------------Ken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many were fine cups - a type little know before beakers in many areas . Some even think the form and colour echoed metal cups.

[ffoucart]

About why the BB pots were favored, 2 possible answers: symbolism and content of the pot. BB's pot were prestigious objects as each of them needed some hours of hard work. And they were connected to a form of symbolism as they were used in burials. So, they were needed by the deaths, for one thing or another. A common hypothesis could be used for some kind of beverage, perhaps beer.
Therefore, it is not so evident that this practice was transmitted by women. The pots were probably made by skilled craftsmen for a specific use, and were a symbol of wealth aka power.

[Jean-Pierre]

Mayby it are not the pots that were so interesting, but the women that made them.

[vettor]

If this is true, why would so many potters adopt the imported BB pottery style (and how is it different from what they had been producing). Is there something intrinsically superior about BB pottery that made it more useful or valuable?
--------------------------------------------------------------

better useful product............there where potters in the same area as BB in the early-neolithic period, that's thousands of years before BB

IMO, only the migration from the steppes is of any value

[Kopfjäger]

Mayby it are not the pots that were so interesting, but the women that made them.

That needs to be a motto for Bell Beaker, although I'd add something about beer/mead in there somewhere. :beerchug:

[rms2]

I'm guessing the importance of the beakers, and, clearly, they were important, since elite males were buried with them, had to do with the religious significance of drinking mead or beer or whatever it was. At one time, the French philologist Georges Dumézil proposed the existence of a common Indo-European sacred drink myth that he called the "ambrosia cycle". In it, a man tried to steal from the gods a sacred drink that made its drinkers immortal. The thief failed, humans remained mortal, and the gods kept the ambrosia of immortality for themselves (see Mallory et al, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, pp. 493-496).

Probably something like that was central to the kurgan BB religion, thus the prominence of the beakers.

Maybe if you had the right cup, the gods gave you a drink of ambrosia when you got to the other side.

[castle3]

I'm guessing the importance of the beakers, and, clearly, they were important, since elite males were buried with them, had to do with the religious significance of drinking mead or beer or whatever it was. At one time, the French philologist Georges Dumézil proposed the existence of a common Indo-European sacred drink myth that he called the "ambrosia cycle". In it, a man tried to steal from the gods a sacred drink that made its drinkers immortal. The thief failed, humans remained mortal, and the gods kept the ambrosia of immortality for themselves (see Mallory et al, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, pp. 493-496).

Probably something like that was central to the kurgan BB religion, thus the prominence of the beakers.

Maybe if you had the right cup, the gods gave you a drink of ambrosia when you got to the other side.

Make mine a Guinness!

[rms2]

Make mine a Guinness!

As I understand it, the original Gaelic word from which the English word whiskey is derived, uisce beatha, means "water of life", and sometimes distilled spirits are referred to as aqua vitae ("water of life").

Of course, as far as we know, distillation wasn't discovered until the Middle Ages. The ancients had simple natural brewing and fermentation techniques. Mead was probably about as potent as it got.

[corner]

As I understand it, the original Gaelic word from which the English word whiskey is derived, uisce beatha, means "water of life", and sometimes distilled spirits are referred to as aqua vitae ("water of life").

Of course, as far as we know, distillation wasn't discovered until the Middle Ages. The ancients had simple natural brewing and fermentation techniques. Mead was probably about as potent as it got.I had a quick read on the subject recently and apparently bell beaker beer was more potent than modern beer because they did not use hops as bitters but other plants. Traces of powerful narcotic plants like henbane have been found in beer residues at the bottom of bell beakers. Apparently, the relatively recent move towards the use of hops in brewing was frowned upon by some in Britain at first because it was thought they caused sluggishness and beer bellies.



The medieval abbess, mystic and early Christian botanist Hildegard of Bingen wrote that hops ‘were not very useful’. They ‘make the soul of man sad, and weigh down his inner organs’.


Before its Extra Special Bitters and India Pale Ales embraced the vile weed, Britain hated the hop – hopped beer, sneered Andrew Boorde in 1547, ‘doth make a man fatte, and doth inflate the bely, as it doth appere by the doche [Dutch] mennes faces and belyes’.

https://aeon.co/essays/why-are-today-s-craft-beers-so-bitter


The accompanying beaker seems to have contained beer, and in a few cases it appears sufficiently provable that beer was bittered with henbane (herb of the sun god in European history).

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/symbolism-metaphors-beaker-underworld.html

It sounds like a couple of pints of 'special brew' bell beaker beer might knock your socks off.

[Dewsloth]

As I understand it, the original Gaelic word from which the English word whiskey is derived, uisce beatha, means "water of life", and sometimes distilled spirits are referred to as aqua vitae ("water of life").

Of course, as far as we know, distillation wasn't discovered until the Middle Ages. The ancients had simple natural brewing and fermentation techniques. Mead was probably about as potent as it got.

Well, there's always freeze-distillation to make things like applejack, but it's not as easy (on a large scale) or effective as a real still.

[rms2]

I had a quick read on the subject recently and apparently bell beaker beer was more potent than modern beer because they did not use hops as bitters but other plants. Traces of powerful narcotic plants like henbane have been found in beer residues at the bottom of bell beakers. Apparently, the relatively recent move towards the use of hops in brewing was frowned upon by some in Britain at first because it was thought they caused sluggishness and beer bellies.




https://aeon.co/essays/why-are-today-s-craft-beers-so-bitter



http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/symbolism-metaphors-beaker-underworld.html

It sounds like a couple of pints of 'special brew' bell beaker beer might knock your socks off.

You probably found the secret to BB success right there: they were Europe's preeminent bartenders.

When you want a drink, you want as much bang for the buck as you can get, something that puts you right with the IE gods.

[Dewsloth]

You probably found the secret to BB success right there: they were Europe's preeminent bartenders.

When you want a drink, you want as much bang for the buck as you can get, something that puts you right with the IE gods.

Or itinerant hucksters:
"Step right up, ladies and gents, this not only works as a copper polish and wound cleanser, you can also drink it!
But wait, there's more. For every beaker you order, you'll get a second beaker free!!"

[rms2]

This abstract from the same workshop in Kiel, where Olalde and Reich will be unveiling the monster Bell Beaker paper, 17-21 May, makes it sound like Bell Beaker was not much of a population factor in Denmark but chiefly an inspiration to its potters. Read it for yourself.



Asger Meulengracht Olsen

Danish Bell Beaker Inspiration in the Early Late Neolithic

- Beautiful, Intense and Short-lived. A new perspective on Danish Bell Beaker ceramics.

The material culture of the Bell Beaker Complex never fully set its roots down in the Danish Late Neolithic. Nevertheless, in the sphere of daily life and to a lesser extent in burials, Bell Beaker-inspired ornamentation on ceramic vessels testifies to close contacts with the wider European Bell Beaker area from certain parts of the Danish territory. However, the inspiration was firmly integrated and transformed into ceramic traditions that grew out of forms and shapes of the Danish Single Grave Culture. The Danish Bell Beaker influence has its own homegrown ceramic expression with little or no space for so-called common ware. While Bell Beaker cultural symbols are mostly seen as harbingers of cultural change towards a Bronze Age culture, there may be a case for arguing that Bell Beaker inspiration in the Danish context was incorporated into resilient Neolithic traditions.

Looking at Bell Beaker-inspired ornamentation patterns and compositional design in the Danish ceramic material, it becomes clear that an apparent compositional homogeneity should be divided into a diversity of regional variation. A closer analysis of all the ceramic material from the Myrhøj settlement and statistical analysis of ceramics from settlements across Denmark shows that the internationally known “Myrhøj Style” is but one local variation in a larger sea of regional variants. Likewise, statistical analysis show that Myrhøj may not have been as central in the formation of a Danish Bell Beaker ornamental expression. Moreover, finds across the ever-expanding area, where Bell Beaker-inspiration shows up in ceramic traditions, point to a multiplicity of origins of inspiration. A direct Veluwe-connection may not be as firmly based as often cited.

It appears that the influence of Bell Beaker inspiration was not a sudden event. Elements of Bell Beaker ornamentation, techniques and design may be traced back through the later part of the Danish Single Grave Culture ceramics following a geographical path up through Jutland, rather than an original implantation in the Limfjord Area of Northern Jutland. However, through the regional variations run common approaches that also testifies to a swift and efficient exchange of ideas, techniques and rules within a network of close contacts between the potters of the regions. The presentation thus intends to present new and maybe a bit controversial views on the significance of the Myrhøj Style, on an alleged phased introduction of Bell Beaker inspiration and Bell Beaker symbols as a medium for cultural change towards a Bronze Age society.

https://www.sfb1266.uni-kiel.de/de/veranstaltungen/tagungen-workshops/archeologie-et-gobelets-1/abstracts

It sounds as if Bell Beaker's biggest impact in Denmark was merely on Single Grave culture pottery styles.

I wonder how many Bell Beaker burials have actually been found in Denmark.

[TigerMW]

https://www.sfb1266.uni-kiel.de/de/veranstaltungen/tagungen-workshops/archeologie-et-gobelets-1/abstracts
...

It's just my sense from reading some of these abstracts but we may have too much focus from these folks on the pottery itself, rather than the whole package. I'm sure it is the grave and the pottery that are easiest to study with details available.

There are a few papers where I've seen the authors include tables or checklists of the various cultural packages and shows their findings against each of the packages. I like that kind of presentation. Hopefully the full papers will do full package comparisons.

[rms2]

I get the feeling Bell Beaker was small potatoes in Scandinavia, that Scandinavia was on the very far periphery of Bell Beaker, which explains why it did not make it as far as Sweden: it barely made it to Denmark and Norway.

Maybe that's an indication that there was R1b in Corded Ware, because R1b is not small potatoes in Scandinavia. If BB cannot account for it all, then something else must.

[cacarlos]

It seems that the long-awaited samples will be published today: Bell Beaker (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962) and Southeastern Europe (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135616)

[cacarlos]

The Balkan paper seems quite interesting for the European history of R1b... I recommend the supplementary materials (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135616.figures-only)

[ffoucart]

The Balkan paper seems quite interesting for the European history of R1b... I recommend the supplementary materials (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135616.figures-only)

Yes, very interesting. But so much to read! Difficult to conclude anything now. We must take time to think about it.

[kinman]

The last sentence in the abstract really caught my attention. No surprise that Bell Beaker came from the Continent. However, I wasn't expecting replacement to be so fast (over 90% of Britain's gene pool being replaced in just a few hundred years):
"We use these observations to show that the spread of the Beaker Complex to Britain was mediated by migration from the continent that replaced >90% of Britain's Neolithic gene pool within a few hundred years, continuing the process that brought Steppe ancestry into central and northern Europe 400 years earlier."



It seems that the long-awaited samples will be published today: Bell Beaker (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962) and Southeastern Europe (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135616)