Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b

[Piquerobi]

What is your opinion on Gimbutas' take?

Since the oldest R1b found in Europe so far has been found at a Bell Beaker site, in Kromsdorf, East Germany, I guess it would be interesting to see what Gimbutas had to say about the Bell Beakers:


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


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


The spread of the already Indo-Europeanized central European population (the Corded Ware culture) to the northwest and northeast, as well as of the Bell Beaker people to the west, is hardly explainable without some insight into the role played by this element from the east.


The Proto-Indo Europeans were able to expand to the west, to the east, and to the south primarily because of the horse. Renfrew has also failed to stress the enormous importance of the horse and horseback riding in his treatment of the Bell Beaker phenomenon.

From "The Kurgan culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe"

[Piquerobi]

This is what David W Anthony, leading IE expert, said on the contemporary classic "The Horse, the Wheel and Language":


Bell Beaker sites of Cespel around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto-Celtic.


Beel Beaker decorated cup styles, domestic pot types, and grave and dagger types from the middle Danube were adopted about 2600 BCE in Moravia and Southern Germany. This material network could have been the bridge through which pre-Celtic dialects spread into Germany.

Interestingly both Italic and Celtic speaking populations are mainly R1b carriers, with basically no R1a.

[rms2]

I have not read any of Gimbutas' work. I have read Mallory, Anthony, Renfrew, and Ivanov and Gamkrelidze. I have read about Gimbutas and her work, however. I think I will buy a copy of the book you mention above.

I suspect she was onto something with regard to the Beaker Folk.



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

I wonder about the idea that Beaker came out of Iberia. It just seems too "Kurgan" for that, if you know what I mean. But maybe it came from the steppe to Iberia in the first place? Or maybe what came out of Iberia was not the fully developed Beaker package but merely a contribution to what would become full-blown Beaker in the East?

[Piquerobi]

I have read about Gimbutas and her work, however. I think I will buy a copy of the book you mention above, however.

I suspect she was onto something with regard to the Beaker Folk.

That book is a very good one. It has a collection of her articles, following a chronological order. Her theory provides the basic model still accepted for the IE homeland and its expansion. Looking at the spread of both R1a and R1b nowadays, I think she was right about the deep impact of the Indo Europeans. I ordered it via Amazon. Besides that, I have "In Search of the Indo Europeans", by Mallory, "The Horse, the Wheel and Language", by David W Anthony and "How to Kill a Dragon", by Calvert Watkins. Reading these books will provide anyone with a good introduction on IE topics. I guess Indo Europeans are related to the expansions of both R1b and R1a in Europe and in South Asia. I expect Samara and Yamnaya studies to confirm that, if not others.

[rms2]

I wonder what happened to Gimbutas' idea that Beaker was an offshoot of Vucedol.

That would make at least some sense, especially in the case of what is considered the classic Beaker skull and skeleton, which was described by Coon and others as Dinaric (the Vucedol Culture was located mainly in Croatia, in the heartland of what used to be called by the oldtimers the "Dinaric race").

[Piquerobi]

This is a comment someone else posted at another forum:


Decorated horse phalanges have also been reported from Bell Beaker sites in Spain (Maier 1961; Piggott 1983). They are perhaps the strongest cultural marker for the Botai, and show a connection with the Tersek, a contemporaneous Copper Age culture in the Turgay region to the west (Kalieva et al. 1989).
Source: Olsen, S. (2003). "The Exploitation of Horses at Botai, Kazakhstan". In Levine, Marsha; Renfrew, Colin; Boyle, Katie. Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse. Cambridge: McDonald Institute.

Botai:

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_Archeology/botai%2520map.jpg

[rms2]

That is really interesting. Do we have dates for those Beaker sites where the decorated horse phalanges were found? They should be able to get radiocarbon dates from the phalanges themselves, right?

[Piquerobi]

^ I don't know but that would be important to measure.

[rms2]

Anyway, those decorated horse phalanges strike me as an important clue, especially turning up all the way west in Spain. The Beaker Folk just keep getting more and more mysterious . . . and fascinating.

[rms2]

Here are some interesting images from the paper Transition to the Bronze Age: Issues of Continuity and Discontinuity in the First Half of the Third Millennium BC in the Carpathian Basin (https://www.academia.edu/5717048/Transition_to_the_Bronze_Age_Issues_of_Continuity_ and_Discontinuity_in_the_First_Half_of_the_Third_M illennium_BC_in_the_Carpathian_Basin).

One can see how Yamnaya occupied the central position in the Carpathian Basin and either spun off or at least probably greatly influenced some of the subsequent cultures.

3124

The similarities in the cross-footed and pedestalled bowls are rather striking.

3125

[rms2]

Here's another set of images for your consideration. They are from Busby et al's The peopling of Europe and the cautionary tale of Y chromosome lineage R-M269 (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044).

3127

Notice that the greatest frequency of R1bxS127 (L11) occurs on the west coast of the Black Sea. Leeroy Jenkins pointed out to me that that was the home of the ancient Ezero and Cernavoda cultures, which are believed to have been Indo-European. S127/L11 then picks up as one moves west and north through Europe.

[MJost]

Here's another set of images for your consideration. They are from Busby et al's The peopling of Europe and the cautionary tale of Y chromosome lineage R-M269 (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044).

3127

Notice that the greatest frequency of R1bxS127 (L11) occurs on the west coast of the Black Sea. Leeroy Jenkins pointed out to me that that was the home of the ancient Ezero and Cernavoda cultures, which are believed to have been Indo-European. S127/L11 then picks up as one moves west and north through Europe.

Chart (bB appears to match my L23 chart showing similar highest variance occurrence on the west coast of the Black Sea from the R1b-L23asterisk Variance combining both the Karachanak etal Modern Bulgarians and the R1b-Early FtDNA hplotypes-R1 back March 2013.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNR0xpSENNWmpZSHc/view?usp=sharing

MJost

[alan]

Certainly the mobility of beaker people cannot have been all down to boats and horses would be particularly useful to them given the evidence for their mobility. I am sure there was a recent paper about domestication of horses in Spain -ether bones or DNA-but I cannot find it. I though it was Dienekes who posted it but didnt come up when I googled As far as I understand Spain was Europe's second centre of wild horses too. Maybe Jean knows.

[rms2]

Certainly the mobility of beaker people cannot have been all down to boats and horses would be particularly useful to them given the evidence for their mobility. I am sure there was a recent paper about domestication of horses in Spain -ether bones or DNA-but I cannot find it. I though it was Dienekes who posted it but didnt come up when I googled As far as I understand Spain was Europe's second centre of wild horses too. Maybe Jean knows.

Post #6 in this thread, by Piquerobi, quotes a post from another forum that cites "Maier 1961; Piggott 1983" as sources for the decorated horse phalanges. I'm not sure what books or papers are meant, however. The quote attributes the reference to Maier and Piggott to "Olsen, S. (2003). "The Exploitation of Horses at Botai, Kazakhstan". In Levine, Marsha; Renfrew, Colin; Boyle, Katie. Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse. Cambridge: McDonald Institute".

[alan]

It is amazing how tough a nut to crack pre-beaker M269 has been. Its pretty clear as day it was a late arrival in much of Europe but its still very hard to have real confidence about its pre-beaker story with a number of options possible. However, its now getting very frustrating.

[razyn]

I am sure there was a recent paper about domestication of horses in Spain -ether bones or DNA-but I cannot find it. I though it was Dienekes who posted it but didnt come up when I googled As far as I understand Spain was Europe's second centre of wild horses too. Maybe Jean knows.

Didier Vernade was interested in this topic about 3 years ago, posting in the French language part of DNA-Forums. He had a theory about Bell Beaker (culture bearers) domesticating the native Pottock ponies of Iberia. I think I once posted links to that discussion, on Eupedia -- but they would be of no use now, because they linked to a defunct forum.

Edit: Here's an allusion I made to the horses (based on Didier's earlier posts) 2 1/2 years ago on the WorldFamilies forum that was, at the time, quite popular -- and btw pretty much the sphere of our colleague rms2. Since I wrote that, I don't think I have wavered too much -- although last summer I did add grapes (from south central Asia) to the list of interesting domesticated species from the east that might be associated with this movement of people, ideas, and DNA.

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10580.msg130572#msg130572

[Joe B]

Chart (bB appears to match my L23 chart showing similar highest variance occurrence on the west coast of the Black Sea from the R1b-L23asterisk Variance combining both the Karachanak etal Modern Bulgarians and the R1b-Early FtDNA hplotypes-R1 back March 2013.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNR0xpSENNWmpZSHc/view?usp=sharing

MJost
Thanks for posting that R1b-L23* Variance map and table. A lot of progress has been made with better defining what is R1b-L23* since March 2013. The Bulgarian DNA (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/bulgariandna/default.aspx) and other projects have really been working hard in this area. Turns out there are a lot of clades to consider under L23 and that could influence this discussion. Any chance you could have another look at these early R1b-M269 clades?
R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) DNA Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new)

[dp]

Certainly the mobility of beaker people cannot have been all down to boats and horses would be particularly useful to them given the evidence for their mobility. I am sure there was a recent paper about domestication of horses in Spain -ether bones or DNA-but I cannot find it. I though it was Dienekes who posted it but didnt come up when I googled As far as I understand Spain was Europe's second centre of wild horses too. Maybe Jean knows.

I'm not sure if this is for the paper your were thinking of but check out http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3542-Equine-origins-from-Holocene-refugia&p=60602&viewfull=1#post60602
I had posted it in the Lounge cause I didnt know were else to post items related to animal domestication.
dp :-)
PS: I got bored that day...Yesterday I was looking at dog breeds. yip-yip.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

rms2 and I have been discussing a possible Late Neolthic entry of R1b into Europe via PM, so I might as well give my opinion.

I believe that R-M269 entered Europe in the form of Gimbutas' Second Kurgan Wave (3400 BC to 3200 BC). Which can be found here (http://www.ufg.uni-kiel.de/dateien/dateien_studium/Archiv/201011_furholt_hinz_lesenswert/03_sitzung/gimbutas1979.pdf) on page 120, Section II.

Supposedly, this group introduced wheeled vehicles, yokes and copper-arsenic alloys to the area; as well as leaving new symbols on stelae as far West as Northern Italy and Switzerland. These symbols differ from previous Old European symbols left on statue-menhirs in France and Italy. Also, their weapons and metallurgy appear to be related to the Kura-Araxes culture (a culture some people have listed as a possible early R1b culture). I believe this Second Wave may be related to the Cernavoda and Boleraz cultures, or if those cultures are too old and represent the First Kurgan Wave described by Gimbutas, then R-M269 may be responsible for the Ezero and related cultures that appear around ~3000 BC. From their new home on the West Coast of the Black Sea, they moved West, forming cultures such as Vucedol, Baden, and other Trans-Danubian cultures that have arsenical copper and similar pottery to one another; that also includes Troy in Western Anatolia. They also merged with Bell Beaker groups moving in from the West eventually forming the Eastern Beaker group.

If you read the passage below from The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age (http://books.google.com/books?id=6ZQeAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=bell%20beaker&f=false), you will see that the R-M269(xP311) figure from Dr. Hammer's Origins of R-M269 Diversity in European (https://gap.familytreedna.com/media/docs/2013/Hammer_M269_Diversity_in_Europe.pdf), apart from matching the described territories of the early Ezero and related cultures on the West Coast of the Black Sea, also matches the territories that came to be occupied by the Eastern Beaker group very nicely (Iwno in the Baltic, Chlopice-Vesele from Little Poland, Western Slovakia and Eastern Moravia, Pitvaros/Maros in the Southeastern Carpathians, Cetina in the Adriatic Basin and the Grotta Cappucini element of the Laterza-Cellino San Marco culture in Southeastern Italy.)

http://i61.tinypic.com/2lmt20n.png

http://i62.tinypic.com/9hid86.png

[rms2]

Great post!

What makes you think R1b-M269 came with Wave 2 rather than Waves 1 or 3?

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I was thinking Wave 3 and Yamnaya, although it could be that R1b was present in all three. I like your thinking, though.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Great post!

What makes you think R1b-M269 came with Wave 2 rather than Waves 1 or 3?

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I was thinking Wave 3 and Yamnaya, although it could be that R1b was present in all three. I like your thinking, though.

If you look at the figure of M269(xP311), you will see that there is a big hole in the frequency of M269 where Yamnaya and Corded Ware groups settled. I believe R1b entering with the Second Wave, which correlates with the formation of Eastern Beakers and has some cultural relations to Kura-Araxes (another possible R1b-influenced culture), makes more sense than the Third Wave which is supposedly related to Yamnaya and Corded Ware (likely heavily R1a).

I haven't researched the First Wave as thoroughly as the Second and Third yet, but they seem to lack arsenic-copper alloys and their migration off the steppes does not correlate as well with the distribution of M269(xP311) as the Second Wave model does. Especially since the Second Wave, through association with Ezero, can explain the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age cultural relationships between the Steppes, Balkans and Western Anatolia, while the First Wave cannot.

Below is an excerpt from Mallory's Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (http://books.google.com/books?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=ezero&f=false):

http://i58.tinypic.com/288cpdf.png

In the written part included with the map, it discusses the relationship between the Steppe, Ezero and Western Anatolia. All hot spots for M269(xP311) in the figure from Dr. Hammer, and the path taken by Gimbutas' Kurgan Wave II peoples. On pages 122 and 123 in Three Waves of Kurgan Peoples (http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2r3jsr8&s=8#.VIPE4jHF-So), you also see her explain the link that Ezero provided between the Steppe and Anatolia.

The Second Wave may also explain why we see LNE/EBA groups slightly closer to the MNE populations than CWC. While both are relatively close to one another in the image below, the Second Wave would have affected the former, and when the latter group moved into town during the Third Wave, they were absorbing a population already affected by two Steppe migrations and less Old European-like.

http://imageshack.com/a/img540/4412/blmKW4.png

Lastly, we have an Early Bronze Age girl from the Mako culture (BR1), a culture which seems related to Eastern Beakers and that descends from early arsenical copper working societies, particularly the Vucedol culture, that plots with the modern day French. This makes me think Western Europeans descend in large part from these early metal working societies, and the spread of R-M269 lineages into Western Europe may be part of what links them together.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/iXc28RLrlB_fC-eraZfNGFa6njT9_k3yDlHoowieL72TIX90gwEQBlodA7Ig__cP Gigvt4ixADo=w1576-h679

[rms2]

Here's something else to throw into the Beaker.

The map below comes from a paper reported on a few days ago by Jean Manco, Direct evidence of milk consumption from ancient human dental calculus (http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/141127/srep07104/full/srep07104.html), by Warinner et al, which appeared in the 27 November 2014 issue of Nature.com. The researchers examined Beta-Lactoglobulin (BLG) in the dental plaque of ancient teeth as evidence of the history of dairying and milk consumption. The map shows that, coupled with the frequency of lactase persistence. The dashed ovals show where ancient dental plaque was tested, the numbers of ancient remains tested, and a pie chart of the results, with black representing the presence of BLG, indicating the consumption of milk.

3133

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Here's something else to throw into the Beaker.

The map below comes from a paper reported on a few days ago by Jean Manco, Direct evidence of milk consumption from ancient human dental calculus, by Warinner et al, which appeared in the 27 November 2014 issue of Nature.com. The researchers examined Beta-Lactoglobulin (BLG) in the dental plaque of ancient teeth as evidence of the history of dairying and milk consumption. The map shows that, coupled with the frequency of lactase persistence. The dashed ovals show where ancient dental plaque was tested, the numbers of ancient remains tested, and a pie chart of the results, with black representing the presence of BLG, indicating the consumption of milk.

The spread of the 13910-T SNP, the one that allows LP in Europeans, seems to match the distribution of y-dna R1 lineages quite well.

http://thewaythetruthandthelife.net/index/2_background/2-5_societal/0-000-043-000-bc-to_2-011-ad_2-5-1_peopling-europe/0-000-043-000-bc-to_2-011-ad_2-5-1-09/13910T.jpg

[rms2]

What is interesting about the map I posted from the paper, Direct evidence of milk consumption from ancient human dental calculus (http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/141127/srep07104/full/srep07104.html), is that the researchers tested actual ancient remains, and BLG in dental plaque is pretty clear evidence of actual milk consumption rather than of dairy products with less lactose, like cheese or yogurt.

The presence of BLG in the samples from Armenia and Russia (the ring on the map centered on the Caspian Sea) is intriguing. According to Table 1 (http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/141127/srep07104/fig_tab/srep07104_T1.html), one out of two Russian samples, circa 3000–1500 BC, had BLG in its dental plaque, and one of four of the Armenian samples, circa 2000–700 BC, had BLG in its dental plaque.

There was also one of two ancient samples in Hungary that had it, c. 3000–1500 BC, and four of 17 in Italy, c. 2700 BC to 200 AD.

[MitchellSince1893]

Looking at those maps makes me wonder if there is some connection between milk consumption and blonde/red hair. This may have been discussed before, but I missed/forgot it.

3135

Or light colored eyes for that matter
3137

[rms2]

Looking at those maps makes me wonder if there is some connection between milk consumption and blonde/red hair. This may have been discussed before, but I missed/forgot it.

I know that lactase persistence in the British Isles increases as one moves north and west across them. That is the general cline for red hair carriers, as well.

3136

[MJost]

Thanks for posting that R1b-L23* Variance map and table. A lot of progress has been made with better defining what is R1b-L23* since March 2013. The Bulgarian DNA (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/bulgariandna/default.aspx) and other projects have really been working hard in this area. Turns out there are a lot of clades to consider under L23 and that could influence this discussion. Any chance you could have another look at these early R1b-M269 clades?
R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) DNA Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new)
Yes I would like to compile a new study some time. My spreadsheet is freely available for those who want to use their own set of subclade haplotypes. This old run used only seven markers because I used the Karachanak etal Modern Bulgarians dataset and pulled the HTs from the R1b-Early FtDNA using only the same seven STRs and combined the two datasets. My spreadsheet allows any subset of markers to be used to match those used in published studies.

I can load one just for this task if someone can get me the old FtDNA format (multi-copy markers non-hyphenated) with 67 marker, no nulls or blanks. I would run DUP list which would be used to exclude them from the main groups. I could then publish it for downloading for someone to run the numbers.

MJost

[rms2]

On pages 161-163 of her book, Ancestral Journeys, Jean describes the Stelae People and the trail of anthropomorphic stelae from the Pontic-Caspian steppe west across Europe to Iberia and Brittany. On p. 162 she says, "The earliest anthropomorphic stelae of this type have been found in Yamnaya burial mounds in Ukraine," and points out that "[s]imilar stelae are found at Bell Beaker sites in the Swiss and Italian Alps, and in the Italian regions of Lunigiana and Trento-Alto-Adige, southern France and Iberia."

These same types of stelae are supposed to be present at the Afanasievo and Okunevo sites in the Altai from which Alexei Kovalev is alleged to have recovered ancient R1b.

So, did the Stelae People carry R1b with them all the way to Iberia and Brittany?

Since the earliest of these stelae are found in Yamnaya burials, is that an indication, by inference, that R1b was present in Yamnaya and was part of Gimbutas's Wave 3?

That does not exclude R1b from Wave 2 or even Wave 1, but Yamnaya did occupy a central position in the Carpathian Basin relative to all those other Bronze Age cultures, and Gimbutas derived Beaker from Vučedol and Somogyvar.

Anyway, regardless of Gimbutas's waves, what impact did the Stelae People who went to Iberia have on early Bell Beaker? Did they precede it, follow it, or were they contemporaneous with it?

[Jean M]

Anyway, regardless of Gimbutas's waves, what impact did the Stelae People who went to Iberia have on early Bell Beaker? Did they precede it, follow it, or were they contemporaneous with it?

They preceded it. There are early stelae that are clearly Copper Age, but not BB. Then there are BB stelae related to the earlier ones.

If the Stelae People had actually taken BB all the way from the Carpathian Basin to Portugal along with the stelae, then the deduction that BB came from the Carpathian Basin would have been so glaringly obvious that everyone would have realised it long, long ago, and I wouldn't have had to invent the term 'Stelae People'. They would have been BB People.

It is only the trickier problems that are left for our generation to sort out. ;)

[rms2]

They preceded it. There are early stelae that are clearly Copper Age, but not BB. Then there are BB stelae related to the earlier ones.

If the Stelae People had actually taken BB all the way from the Carpathian Basin to Portugal along with the stelae, then the deduction that BB came from the Carpathian Basin would have been so glaringly obvious that everyone would have realised it long, long ago, and I wouldn't have had to invent the term 'Stelae People'. They would have been BB People.

It is only the trickier problems that are left for our generation to sort out. ;)

Could they have brought R1b to Iberia so that subsequent Beaker movement out of Iberia could have included R1b?

I'm trying to establish some sort of chronology in my own mind. If the Stelae People brought R1b to Iberia, then early Beaker could have included R1b and would not have had to pick up R1b in the East, although it could have picked up R1b reinforcements there.

And if the stelae themselves had their origin in Yamnaya, then the Stelae People were most likely derived from Yamnaya. If the Stelae People brought R1b to Iberia, then it is likely Yamnaya included R1b in its mix.

[Jean M]

Could they have brought R1b to Iberia so that subsequent Beaker movement out of Iberia could have included R1b?

Naturally they could. I'm betting that they did. Here is my most recent speculative map of R1b movements again.

3146


And if the stelae themselves had their origin in Yamnaya, then the Stelae People were most likely derived from Yamnaya. If the Stelae People brought R1b to Iberia, then it is likely Yamnaya included R1b in its mix.

I've been saying this for years. I said in AJ. It is a logical deduction. The only query has been over how R1b got into the mix. I toyed with the idea of Maikop years ago, swung round to Cucuteni because R1b is more prevalent in the offspring of western Yamnaya than eastern, whereas the Maikop intrusion onto the steppe went eastward. However there was always the possibility that R1b split, with only V88 going south into the Near East, so that we don't have to worry about getting R1b from the Near East into the steppe. We can presume that it arrived there with R1a, and just happened to settle in a more westerly area of the steppe than R1a. This we cannot sort out definitively without aDNA.

[vettor]

Naturally they could. I'm betting that they did. Here is my most recent speculative map of R1b movements again.

3146



I've been saying this for years. I said in AJ. It is a logical deduction. The only query has been over how R1b got into the mix. I toyed with the idea of Maikop years ago, swung round to Cucuteni because R1b is more prevalent in the offspring of western Yamnaya than eastern, whereas the Maikop intrusion onto the steppe went eastward. However there was always the possibility that R1b split, with only V88 going south into the Near East, so that we don't have to worry about getting R1b from the Near East into the steppe. We can presume that it arrived there with R1a, and just happened to settle in a more westerly area of the steppe than R1a. This we cannot sort out definitively without aDNA.

Are there people who are neither R1a, R1b or R2 running around ATM ?

In my haplogroup, there are people who are living who have not part of either of the 2 T branches and do not even have T-M70..........I assume this happens also to the R branches, if so, migrations happen in different geographical areas

[rms2]

Naturally they could. I'm betting that they did. Here is my most recent speculative map of R1b movements again.

3146



I've been saying this for years. I said in AJ. It is a logical deduction. The only query has been over how R1b got into the mix. I toyed with the idea of Maikop years ago, swung round to Cucuteni because R1b is more prevalent in the offspring of western Yamnaya than eastern, whereas the Maikop intrusion onto the steppe went eastward. However there was always the possibility that R1b split, with only V88 going south into the Near East, so that we don't have to worry about getting R1b from the Near East into the steppe. We can presume that it arrived there with R1a, and just happened to settle in a more westerly area of the steppe than R1a. This we cannot sort out definitively without aDNA.

I think Cucuteni unlikely as a source of R1b because it has that Near Eastern Neolithic feel, which makes me think its males will turn out to be G2a farmers and I2-natives-turned-farmers.

IMHO the western steppe was just mostly R1b before the move farther west into peninsular Europe.

[Jean M]

I think Cucuteni unlikely as a source of R1b because it has that Near Eastern Neolithic feel, which makes me think its males will turn out to be G2a farmers and I2-natives-turned-farmers.

Yes I know. You have been saying this for a while and I have been agreeing that it seems perfectly logical. Now we just have to wait for aDNA.

[rms2]

Gimbutas attributes the stelae to her Kurgan Wave 2 (3400-3200 BC) on pp. 120-121 here (http://www.ufg.uni-kiel.de/dateien/dateien_studium/Archiv/201011_furholt_hinz_lesenswert/03_sitzung/gimbutas1979.pdf).



Remnants of the home base for the Second Wave consist of a hillfort at Mikhajlovka I (Lagodovska, Shaposhnikova and Makarevich, 1962) and the hundreds of kurgans (including house-like stone cists) scattered north of the Caucasus and the Black Sea. Royal burials share a characteristic monumental style: tumuli surrounded by orthostats and stelae (engraved with geometric patterns and human and animal figures), then by an outer ring of stones; and a stone or wood lined pit (sometimes topped by a stone cupola) . . .

A new set of symbols appeared in Europe as far west as the Alps as documented by the engravings on stelae found at Valcamonica, Valtellina, Alto Adige, and other valleys of the Alps in northern Italy and at Petit-Chasseur, Valais, Switzerland . . . This new set [of symbols] in central Europe corresponds well to the symbols extant on Usatovo-Crimea-North Caucasian stelae and orthostats, and it contrasts sharply to that of the Old European substratum present on statue-menhirs in Italy and France.

Is she attributing something to her Wave 2 that actually dates only to Wave 3 (Yamnaya)?

[Jean M]

Gimbutas attributes the stelae to her Kurgan Wave 2 (3400-3200 BC) on pp. 120-121

I didn't even know that she mentioned the stelae, not having read a lot of her work. I felt sure I couldn't have been the first to see their import though. It leaps to the eye. She is interesting on the symbolism, though I tend to see the stelae as representing ancestors, rather than gods.

[alan]

One thing that may need to be factored into all of this if we can reach a level of confidence in the method is the SNP dating which seems to be throwing up dates that are significantly pre-beaker even down to DF13. Now, we have pretty strong ancient DNA evidence that it was not among the farmers of the main body of Europe. However if proven the SNP counting would appear to suggest that M269 did chronologically exist somewhere else at the same time as farmers made their pushes west. So, its no longer a case that the age of M269 precludes it having been among farmers. Its simply the case that it doesnt seem to have been - for reasons other than chronology. So geography of M269 is the likely key factor in its absence among the early farmers in Europe, probably combined with subsistence strategy.

[alan]

There are other eyebrowing raising possibilities too if forms of M269 well downtream like L11 also get their dates pushed well back into the mid Neolithic as Mjost's calculations yesterday could indicate. We might have to stop thinking of low frequency amounts of L11 derivatives in eastern Europe as later blowins and consider the possibility that they represent the start surviving as a thin scatter - variance may not help in such a case because as with everywhere a thin scatter could bottleneck very easily.

[rms2]

I wish there were a handy compendium on all that is currently known about Beaker. Instead, it seems one has to sift through all sorts of scattered references and papers.

We know that the Beaker Folk, for the most part, buried their dead, especially the richer ones, lying on their sides in individual graves covered by a round tumulus and accompanied by grave goods that included the famous beakers, daggers, arrowheads, an archer's wristguard or bracer, and buttons with v-shaped holes. The arrowheads were probably attached to wooden arrows and accompanied by a wooden bow, but the wood has long since rotted away.

This burial method resembles that of the Corded Ware people and of various steppe cultures that are regarded as possibly Indo-European speaking. It stands out from the communal burial customs of the Neolithic farmers.

The big mystery to me is that Beaker is supposed to have arisen in Iberia, perhaps Portugal, c. 2900-2800 BC. Assuming for a moment that most Beaker males were R1b (a big assumption), you have in Beaker a pastoral people who probably rode horses, practiced very kurgan-looking burial rites, and carried a y-dna haplogroup with pretty obvious eastern origins.

So, how did they suddenly pop up in Iberia?

Is there some way to connect them to Jean's Stelae People, aside from the stelae themselves?

Is the scenario that the Stelae People went from the Pontic-Caspian steppe west all the way to Iberia, evolved into the Beaker Folk, and then spread back east and north into the rest of Europe, bearing R1b with them?

What about the possible connection to the Vučedol culture suggested by Gimbutas? She derived Beaker from Vučedol by way of Somogyvar. What is the connection there?

This is kind of confusing.

Anyone know who the "Bell Beaker Blogger" is? He thinks Beaker came from North Africa (http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/p/genetics-projects.html).

[Jean M]

So, how did they suddenly pop up in Iberia? Is there some way to connect them to Jean's Stelae People, aside from the stelae themselves?

Yes. I explain this in AJ. Harrison & Heyd 2007 explain in much greater detail. If it is still confusing you, I suggest just focussing on the fact that the Carpathian Basin is where it starts and ends. We have


Yamnaya arriving in the Carpathian Basin
Centuries later Eastern Bell Beaker, a culture very obviously derived from Yamnaya, appears in the Carpathian Basin. Here's the crucial bit: the characteristic bell-shaped pottery is derived from Yamnaya and related influences which existed earlier in the Carpathian Basin.
But said bell-shaped pottery crops up elsewhere earlier, and its makers are clearly intrusive in Hungary.
So the logical conclusion is a that a Yamnaya offshoot/derivative left the Carpathian Basin, but its descendants returned to the old homeland (where in the meantime other Yamanaya derivative cultures had developed, such as Makó, with with they could intermarry.)


People had probably been coming and going in the interim along trade routes established by the Yamnaya offshoot, but not actually returning to settle in the Carpathian Basin until there were problems in Iberia.

[Jean M]

What about the possible connection to the Vučedol culture suggested by Gimbutas? She derived Beaker from Vučedol by way of Somogyvar.

She was making the obvious link between Yamnaya and Bell Beaker. It made sense to look first for a link in/near the Carpathian Basin. Vučedol is a Yamnaya derivative. As you found out for yourself, one type of Vučedol pottery is strikingly similar to a type later found accompanying the classic bell-shaped pottery of BB. This is one of a range of pottery types known as 'BB common ware' or 'accompanying pottery' which derives from types local to the region around the Carpathian Basin, which was absorbed into Eastern Bell Beaker and travelled with it.

That end of the story is straightforward. She did not need to explain the round trip to Portugal, because she did not have the radiocarbon dates that we have now, which make clear that the earliest BB pottery is not in the Carpathian Basin. Nor did she have the benefit of the years of analysis of the site at Sion, which makes clear the link between stelae and BB. She was right about Eastern BB.

[rms2]

What is confusing to me is the contradiction between the initial expansion of the Bell Beaker People out of Iberia and the phylogeography of R1b. If Beaker is responsible for the expansion of R1b (M269 or perhaps just L11) across Europe, and Beaker expanded out of Iberia in an initial West-to-East movement, then why does the phylogeography of R1b show an expansion in the opposite direction?

There would need to be a residual R1b population back in the East, in the steppe or the Carpathian Basin or both, a population never in Iberia, to move west and north across Europe to account for the phylogeography of R1b. It could not all come from an out-of-Iberia source. But I guess the European R1b phylogeography is all part of that back and forth movement you were talking about.

Here is a concatenation of some of the evidence for an eastern derivation of Beaker:


Beaker pottery techniques: shell tempering, cord impressions, etc.
Burial rites (tumulus or "kurgan", flexed position, individual burial, weapons, etc.)
Anthropomorphic funeral stelae like those on the steppe
Horses, wheeled carts and pastoralism
R1b an eastern y-dna haplogroup


And here is a list of the things that make Beaker look western in origin:


The oldest C14 dates are for Beaker sites in Iberia
mtDNA H of various clades in ancient Beaker remains


Have I left anything out?

[Jean M]

There would need to be a residual R1b population back in the East, in the steppe or the Carpathian Basin or both, a population never in Iberia, to move west and north across Europe to account for the phylogeography of R1b. It could not all come from an out-of-Iberia source. But I guess the European R1b phylogeography is all part of that back and forth movement you were talking about.

Yes exactly. R1b was from the east. It did not come from Iberia. You know this. I know this. We have been agreeing with each other for years over it. I have explained my view with diagrams. Here it is again.

3158

[Jean M]

Here is a concatenation of some of the evidence for an eastern derivation of Beaker:


Beaker pottery techniques: shell tempering, cord impressions, etc.
Burial rites (tumulus or "kurgan", flexed position, individual burial, weapons, etc.)
Anthropomorphic funeral stelae like those on the steppe
Horses, wheeled carts and pastoralism
R1b an eastern y-dna haplogroup


And here is a list of the things that make Beaker look western in origin:


The oldest C14 dates are for Beaker sites in Iberia
mtDNA H of various clades in ancient Beaker remains


Have I left anything out?

I can't say I'm paying much attention to the suppositions re mtDNA H. The earliest C14 dates are just for the bell-shaped pottery. Not the whole Yamnaya derived culture. The style of tableware is not as important as the metallurgy and the burial customs, which identify both the Stelae People and their BB offspring as a Yamnaya derivative. It is a Yamnaya derivative that went prospecting as far as the end of Europe. Very adventurous! They were new to Iberia. They were not derived from Iberian Neolithic people. OK? I really have said this dozens and dozens of times.

[rms2]

Yes exactly. R1b was from the east. It did not come from Iberia. You know this. I know this. We have been agreeing with each other for years over it. I have explained my view with diagrams. Here it is again.

3158

I know. I am just sorting this out for myself, and it helps to type it all down here. That and I am reading papers (like the recent The Known Knowns and the Known Unknowns, etc.) and comments from other sources on the web that appear confused about all this. Some folks still seem to be laboring under the illusion that R1b somehow originated in Iberia, and some of them don't seem to recognize the strong kurgan (for lack of a better term) strain in Beaker.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

The big mystery to me is that Beaker is supposed to have arisen in Iberia, perhaps Portugal, c. 2900-2800 BC. Assuming for a moment that most Beaker males were R1b (a big assumption), you have in Beaker a pastoral people who probably rode horses, practiced very kurgan-looking burial rites, and carried a y-dna haplogroup with pretty obvious eastern origins.

So, how did they suddenly pop up in Iberia?

Is there some way to connect them to Jean's Stelae People, aside from the stelae themselves?

Is the scenario that the Stelae People went from the Pontic-Caspian steppe west all the way to Iberia, evolved into the Beaker Folk, and then spread back east and north into the rest of Europe, bearing R1b with them?

What about the possible connection to the Vučedol culture suggested by Gimbutas? She derived Beaker from Vučedol by way of Somogyvar. What is the connection there?

This is kind of confusing.

This is from The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age, page 62 (http://books.google.com/books?id=6ZQeAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=bell%20beaker&f=false).

http://i57.tinypic.com/554379.png

Supposedly, there was an early precursor to Bell Beaker proper present within the Iberian Peninsula for over a century before the introduction of tanged copper daggers and wrist guards (around 2600 BC), the introduction of which also corresponds to a change in culture and the expansion of the BBC out of the Iberian Peninsula.

I believe trade contacts between the Iberian Peninsula and the early metal working societies of the Carpathian Basin are the cause of this apparent change. There may have been gene flow between the two groups occurring after trade relations were established, but I would not go as far as to say this new influence correlates with the expansion of M269 lineages in the Iberian Peninsula; as a rapid expansion from the West does not match the SNP trail of R1b in Europe at all.

An expansion from the West may still be possible, but I personally believe the majority of M269 lineages can be traced back to the Eastern Beaker Group, who according to The Handbook pg. 63, became the dominant regional players in the Bronze Age. The expansion West may have occurred later, during the Bronze Age. With BR1 and BR2 looking like modern Western Europeans, I believe this may be true.


Anyone know who the "Bell Beaker Blogger" is? He thinks Beaker came from North Africa (http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/p/genetics-projects.html).

The Proto-Beaker Phase (prior to 2600 BC) may be traceable back to North Africa, but whether this early phase is autochthonous to the peninsula or of North African origin, is irrelevant to the introduction of R1b into Europe, imo.

[Jean M]

I know. I am just sorting this out for myself, and it helps to type it all down here. That and I am reading papers (like the recent The Known Knowns and the Known Unknowns, etc.) and comments from other sources on the web that appear confused about all this. Some folks still seem to be laboring under the illusion that R1b somehow originated in Iberia, and some of them don't seem to recognize the strong kurgan (for lack of a better term) strain in Beaker.

I have done my very best to shed light on the matter. I cannot do any more. As regards R1b, we really have to await aDNA. I know that people want answers right now this minute, but more rounds of discussion are unlikely to get us any further.

[alan]

There is no doubt in my mind that the full developed beaker culture has the general feel of other cultures that appeared in the copper age in temperate Europe and seems pretty different to what was going on before it. It does look like a parallel culture to corded ware in many ways although this is a little less obvious at first in the far west because of the re-use of megaliths for single burials. There has never been a question that there is a broad social change going on from 3000-2500BC across central and western Europe, the only question is how much of this was migration.
As you can tell from all the paper used up trying to understand it, beaker by its nature is a tricky one and only DNA can really unlock it

[alan]

I know. I am just sorting this out for myself, and it helps to type it all down here. That and I am reading papers (like the recent The Known Knowns and the Known Unknowns, etc.) and comments from other sources on the web that appear confused about all this. Some folks still seem to be laboring under the illusion that R1b somehow originated in Iberia, and some of them don't seem to recognize the strong kurgan (for lack of a better term) strain in Beaker.

Well while the story of how it got to Iberia remains unclear it seems very unlikely that anything upstream of P312 and even DF27 actually originated there. While dating of the various levels of R1b remains unclear I dont think there is likely to be progress without more ancient DNA.

[alan]

This is from The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age, page 62 (http://books.google.com/books?id=6ZQeAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=bell%20beaker&f=false).

http://i57.tinypic.com/554379.png

Supposedly, there was an early precursor to Bell Beaker proper present within the Iberian Peninsula for over a century before the introduction of tanged copper daggers and wrist guards (around 2600 BC), the introduction of which also corresponds to a change in culture and the expansion of the BBC out of the Iberian Peninsula.

I believe trade contacts between the Iberian Peninsula and the early metal working societies of the Carpathian Basin are the cause of this apparent change. There may have been gene flow between the two groups occurring after trade relations were established, but I would not go as far as to say this new influence correlates with the expansion of M269 lineages in the Iberian Peninsula; as a rapid expansion from the West does not match the SNP trail of R1b in Europe at all.

An expansion from the West may still be possible, but I personally believe the majority of M269 lineages can be traced back to the Eastern Beaker Group, who according to The Handbook pg. 63, became the dominant regional players in the Bronze Age. The expansion West may have occurred later during the Bronze Age, with BR1 and BR2 looking like modern Western Europeans, I believe this may be true.



The Proto-Beaker Phase (prior to 2600 BC) may be traceable back to North Africa, but whether this early phase is autochthonous to the peninsula or of North African origin, is irrelevant to the introduction of R1b into Europe, imo.

Yes I agree that there was a point in the period 2600-2500BC when something happened to beaker and it really exploded. I think it is in some way linked to the development of the full beaker package and possibly something to do with the element with the classic beaker skulls. I still feel a lot of the early beaker traits may have been female made or associated and there may have been a primary phase where a lot of that stuff spread with women penetrating into other societies which raises the possibility that different male lines may have taken up beaker traits rather than the entire phenomenon being spread by a single male lineage. There could have been a few breaks in the chain of which male lineages carried beaker culture. The people who added the tanged daggers and wrist guards made a significant addition to what was a relatively scanty male-specific section of the beaker package - the daggers of developed beaker group is of eastern origin. So is much of the companion ware which accompanied in developed bell beaker. Its a very complex multi-directional phenomenon

[rms2]

What is confusing to me is the contradiction between the initial expansion of the Bell Beaker People out of Iberia and the phylogeography of R1b. If Beaker is responsible for the expansion of R1b (M269 or perhaps just L11) across Europe, and Beaker expanded out of Iberia in an initial West-to-East movement, then why does the phylogeography of R1b show an expansion in the opposite direction?

There would need to be a residual R1b population back in the East, in the steppe or the Carpathian Basin or both, a population never in Iberia, to move west and north across Europe to account for the phylogeography of R1b. It could not all come from an out-of-Iberia source. But I guess the European R1b phylogeography is all part of that back and forth movement you were talking about.

Here is a concatenation of some of the evidence for an eastern derivation of Beaker:


Beaker pottery techniques: shell tempering, cord impressions, etc.
Burial rites (tumulus or "kurgan", flexed position, individual burial, weapons, etc.)
Anthropomorphic funeral stelae like those on the steppe
Horses, wheeled carts and pastoralism
R1b an eastern y-dna haplogroup


And here is a list of the things that make Beaker look western in origin:


The oldest C14 dates are for Beaker sites in Iberia
mtDNA H of various clades in ancient Beaker remains


Have I left anything out?

If you all look at what I wrote above, you will see I discussed the apparent contradiction between Beaker expansion out of Iberia and the European phylogeography of R1b. Those who have seen my posts for the last eight years (in various places) already know very well that I do not think R1b (in general) expanded out of Iberia. I was one of the very earliest voices questioning the R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge orthodoxy and attributing R1b in Europe to centum-speaking Indo-Europeans.

I am just trying to figure out how Beaker evolved and how R1b was involved, as it seems pretty obvious they were intimately connected.

I was wondering about the presence of the steppe immigrants Jean calls the "Stelae People" and of anthropomorphic stelae of apparent steppe origin in Iberia that predates Beaker. If they were involved in the evolution of Beaker, why does early Beaker in Iberia lack the steppe elements? Or does it possess some of them (beyond just the stelae themselves)?

[rms2]

I have done my very best to shed light on the matter. I cannot do any more. As regards R1b, we really have to await aDNA. I know that people want answers right now this minute, but more rounds of discussion are unlikely to get us any further.

I appreciate your efforts, Jean, and you know I loved your book and am looking forward to your new one on the Celts.

I just enjoy discussing this subject, especially now, since we seem to be able to do so without having to engage in interminable battles over Ice Age Iberia, the preeminence of the Basques, and/or the exclusive rights of R1a to the title Indo-European.

[Jean M]

If they were involved in the evolution of Beaker, why does early Beaker in Iberia lack the steppe elements? Or does it possess some of them (beyond just the stelae themselves)?

Of course it does. Here is the Yamnaya package, as catalogued in Harrison and Heyd 2007, p. 197:
https://www.academia.edu/1249547/_2007_R.J._Harrison_and_V._Heyd_The_Transformation _of_Europe_in_the_Third_Millennium_BC_The_Example_ of_Le_Petit_Chasseur_I_III_Sion_Valais_Switzerland _._Praehistorische_Zeitschrift_82_2_2007_p._129-214

3166

Items from that list found with early Bell Beaker:


Single burial, some marked by anthropomorphic stelae. (A recent paper disposed of the idea that collective burial was the rule in Iberia.)
Metallurgy of any kind was new to Iberia. It wasn't invented there. There is no trail of early efforts and failures and gradual working up from crude to refined. A complete knowledge arrived with the stelae which derived from the steppe, with its arsenic-copper compound doing duty for bronze where greater hardness than pure copper was required. The technology is so complex that experts such as Ben Roberts have returned to the view held by Gordon Childe that the only way for it to move would be with actual, real, live craftsmen.
Hair binders of precious metal.
There were wild horses in Iberia (one of the few places in Europe other than the steppe where they had survived the LGM). But it is in the Copper Age that we first see signs of their domestication.
Corded decoration appears occasionally on BB pottery of the Maritime type (which appears to have sprung from coastal Central Portugal) and a few early All Over Corded pots have been found in Portugal. It wasn't particularly favoured, there being a preference for more refined decoration in early BB, but it is one of the known techniques.

[Jean M]

I appreciate your efforts, Jean, and you know I loved your book and am looking forward to your new one on the Celts.

I just enjoy discussing this subject, especially now, since we seem to be able to do so without having to engage in interminable battles over Ice Age Iberia, the preeminence of the Basques, and/or the exclusive rights of R1a to the title Indo-European.

I realise that you just want me to repeat everything I've said dozens of times before, in case anyone has missed it. :) I really must bow out though. I'm finalising the new book and very hard-pressed for time.

[alan]

If you all look at what I wrote above, you will see I discussed the apparent contradiction between Beaker expansion out of Iberia and the European phylogeography of R1b. Those who have seen my posts for the last eight years (in various places) already know very well that I do not think R1b (in general) expanded out of Iberia. I was one of the very earliest voices questioning the R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge orthodoxy and attributing R1b in Europe to centum-speaking Indo-Europeans.

I am just trying to figure out how Beaker evolved and how R1b was involved, as it seems pretty obvious they were intimately connected.

I was wondering about the presence of the steppe immigrants Jean calls the "Stelae People" and of anthropomorphic stelae of apparent steppe origin in Iberia that predates Beaker. If they were involved in the evolution of Beaker, why does early Beaker in Iberia lack the steppe elements? Or does it possess some of them (beyond just the stelae themselves)?

I think there are 2 options for beaker and R1b/other eastern aspects of beaker

1. Jean is right and R1b was carried all the way to Iberia c. 3100BC in pre-beaker times

2. Beaker started an non-R1b in Iberia and the two only became attached around 2600-2500BC in central Europe when the full beaker package formed with other new traits, the beaker skulls etc.

Either one could be right. In both cases the human movement aspect archaeologically subtle/complex rather than screamingly self evident in a wave way compared to the first farmers.

I have had a few more nuanced recent thoughts on this due to the more recent dating suggested for the Remdello 2 culture with its striking aspects and its daggers on stelae etc. This is a different period post-3000BC from the initial copper/mining spread through Italy and southern Europe c. 3600-3100BC. So, there seem to be three phenomenon 1. The spread of copper as far west as Iberia 2. Remedello II 3. Beaker in the period 3600-2600BC in south/south Alpine Europe.

To me the later date of Remedello II does make a Yamnaya or similar link more probable and therefore the stelae with Remedello daggers through the Alpine zone as far as SE France. However, I tend to think that copper spreading to Iberia is linked to the pre-Remedello 2 initial spread of copper working and mining which reached Italy by 3600BC and Iberia by 3100BC. That is possibly why there are no clear Remedello 2 objects and Remedello dagger stelae in Iberia i.e. the Iberian pre-beaker culture owes more to a wave of copper working which preceded Remedello 2 and had reached Iberia shortly before that came into existence.

I have no idea if some or any of it relates to R1b. Otzi had links with Remedello in pre-Remdedello 2 times and wasnt. However maybe there was a new human element in Remdello 2 - a period after Otzi lived. The Languedoc copper workers are also not R1b but it is again possible that they pre-date Remdello 2 so again dating to about 3000BC they may have slightly pre-dated any new human element associated with the latter culture.

I see this as possible evidence that the first wave of copper working and mining 3600BC-3100BC that swept through Italy, southern France and Iberia may have been non-R1b. However, I now realise that we dont have any DNA from the succeeding Remedello 2 culture or area/period of influence. So, it is an open question whether the very interesting societal indicators of that culture had any link to R1b people. Its possible. Personally I do not think on present evidence that the first wave of copper workers including the pre-beaker Iberians were R1b but I think the Alpine Remedello 2 groups could have been. On the other hand I would not rule out R1b having nothing to do with beaker until its developed phase in central Europe either. Inconclusive but that is about as far as I can speculate short of new ancient DNA.

[alan]

Of course it does. Here is the Yamnaya package, as catalogued in Harrison and Heyd 2007, p. 197:
https://www.academia.edu/1249547/_2007_R.J._Harrison_and_V._Heyd_The_Transformation _of_Europe_in_the_Third_Millennium_BC_The_Example_ of_Le_Petit_Chasseur_I_III_Sion_Valais_Switzerland _._Praehistorische_Zeitschrift_82_2_2007_p._129-214

3166

Items from that list found with early Bell Beaker:


Single burial, some marked by anthropomorphic stelae. (A recent paper disposed of the idea that collective burial was the rule in Iberia.)
Metallurgy of any kind was new to Iberia. It wasn't invented there. There is no trail of early efforts and failures and gradual working up from crude to refined. A complete knowledge arrived with the stelae which derived from the steppe, with its arsenic-copper compound doing duty for bronze where greater hardness than pure copper was required. The technology is so complex that experts such as Ben Roberts have returned to the view held by Gordon Childe that the only way for it to move would be with actual, real, live craftsmen.
Hair binders of precious metal.
There were wild horses in Iberia (one of the few places in Europe other than the steppe where they had survived the LGM). But it is in the Copper Age that we first see signs of their domestication.
Corded decoration appears occasionally on BB pottery of the Maritime type (which appears to have sprung from coastal Central Portugal) and a few early All Over Corded pots have been found in Portugal. It wasn't particularly favoured, there being a preference for more refined decoration in early BB, but it is one of the known techniques.


Jean - can you quote me which paper is about the single burials in Iberia. Also, the hair binders - do we find these in pre-beaker or very early beaker in Iberia or were they added later in the beaker phase? Also, is their pre-beaker evidence or horse domestication in Iberia or does it appear during the beaker phase?

[ADW_1981]

Isn't there the slightest possibility that Beaker could still be older in the east? We're talking a few hundred years here and I can't imagine every shard of pottery that ever existed is even around anymore to even test. Not only that but is carbon dating accurate to that level of granularity that we can solidify a claim either way?

We're talking 3000 BC to 2600 BC either way. I'm not expert but just throwing this out there...

[MJost]

Also, are these ancient carbon dates reported being adjusted to calendar dates? Radiocarbon dating shown as a calibrated dates?

'Radiocarbon dates are normally given as years before present (years BP), with 1950 as the base year because after that date testing of nuclear weapons added carbon 14 to the atmosphere. Years BP are not the same as calendar years.'

MJost

[Jean M]

Jean - can you quote me which paper is about the single burials in Iberia. Also, the hair binders - do we find these in pre-beaker or very early beaker in Iberia or were they added later in the beaker phase? Also, is their pre-beaker evidence or horse domestication in Iberia or does it appear during the beaker phase?

Single burials: Pratiques funéraires campaniformes en Europe Faut-il remettre en cause la dichotomie Nord-Sud ? La question de la réutilisation des sépultures monumentales dans l’Europe du 3e millénaire, "Données récentes sur les pratiques funéraires néolithiques de la Plaine du Rhin supérieur" Christian JEUNESSE, 2014
https://www.academia.edu/8379295/11_Pratiques_fun%C3%A9raires_du_Campaniforme_-_Bell_beaker_funeral_practices

Hair binders: https://www.academia.edu/5952632/Current_researches_on_Bell_Beakers, p. 181.

Haven't time to ferret out the horse stuff this minute, though I may do that shortly, as I work over text.

[Silesian]

What is confusing to me is the contradiction between the initial expansion of the Bell Beaker People out of Iberia and the phylogeography of R1b. If Beaker is responsible for the expansion of R1b (M269 or perhaps just L11) across Europe, and Beaker expanded out of Iberia in an initial West-to-East movement, then why does the phylogeography of R1b show an expansion in the opposite direction?
Have I left anything out?

You have left out R1b-M73/split and the complete Eastern branches of R1b-Z2103/L51 split. We do not even have a full understanding of Z2103 and it's branches as seen in the Bhutan sample, not found in South West Asia just like, R1b 9219+.

[Jean M]

Isn't there the slightest possibility that Beaker could still be older in the east? We're talking a few hundred years here ....

The crucial point is that Bell Beaker arrives in the Carpathian Basin with strangers. Their culture (though sharing some features with that of fellow Yamnaya derivatives there) had developed elsewhere to the point of being distinctive. According to archaeologists on the spot, it is clearly intrusive. Desideri confirmed via inherited forms of teeth that the Bell Beaker folk of Csepel were related to those of Western Switzerland, while the latter in their turn cluster with Bell Beaker Southern group in Iberia and Southern France.

Now we have to wait for ancient DNA to confirm or deny these conclusions. I have said all this before. We really can't get any further with another round of discussion. Frankly I would prefer people here to just forget the Portuguese end for the moment, until we can get relevant aDNA. There is nothing new to say about it. And I don't have time to keep on and on and on repeating what has already been said.

What is new is geneticists finally making the link between Yamnaya and both CW and BB, which I predicted. :)

[Silesian]

Isn't there the slightest possibility that Beaker could still be older in the east? We're talking a few hundred years here and I can't imagine every shard of pottery that ever existed is even around anymore to even test. Not only that but is carbon dating accurate to that level of granularity that we can solidify a claim either way?

We're talking 3000 BC to 2600 BC either way. I'm not expert but just throwing this out there...

The crucial point is setting all the pieces in correct chronological order. You cannot do that if you ignore/omit data.

[alan]

Also, are these ancient carbon dates reported being adjusted to calendar dates? Radiocarbon dating shown as a calibrated dates?

'Radiocarbon dates are normally given as years before present (years BP), with 1950 as the base year because after that date testing of nuclear weapons added carbon 14 to the atmosphere. Years BP are not the same as calendar years.'

MJost

You have to be careful as different decades and different countries tend to quote differently but I always quote calibrated dates. There are different conventions. The most unambiguous is CAL BC but I was brought up on upper case BC is calibrated and lower case uncalibrated. I dont see the point in ever quoting uncalibrated dates as they throw the dates forward centuries and even nearly a 1000 years once you get back to the Mesolithic. I even sometimes use an online calibrator when its clear they are using uncalibrated dates. It is a minefield for the uninitiated reading old papers or papers from parts of Europe where they didnt tend to quote calibrated BC. I personally dislike BP and cannot see the point in using it although I understand where the convention came from.

[rms2]

You have left out R1b-M73/split and the complete Eastern branches of R1b-Z2103/L51 split. We do not even have a full understanding of Z2103 and it's branches as seen in the Bhutan sample, not found in South West Asia just like, R1b 9219+.

I did not leave that out; it is subsumed in what I said about the East-to-West phylogeography of R1b. It wasn't my purpose to discuss every SNP detail of R1b, just the general European phylogeography.

[MJost]

You have to be careful as different decades and different countries tend to quote differently but I always quote calibrated dates. There are different conventions. The most unambiguous is CAL BC but I was brought up on upper case BC is calibrated and lower case uncalibrated. I dont see the point in ever quoting uncalibrated dates as they throw the dates forward centuries and even nearly a 1000 years once you get back to the Mesolithic. I even sometimes use an online calibrator when its clear they are using uncalibrated dates. It is a minefield for the uninitiated reading old papers or papers from parts of Europe where they didnt tend to quote calibrated BC. I personally dislike BP and cannot see the point in using it although I understand where the convention came from.
Thx. It got me thinking about Mal'ta boy's dating where I saw 24K and then 23K, but couldn't find the exact work through paper to look at.

MJost

[alan]

Thx. It got me thinking about Mal'ta boy's dating where I saw 24K and then 23K, but couldn't find the exact work through paper to look at.

MJost

He is 22000 cal BC. However one thing has always troubled me about the date. There are a good number of safe dates from his middle upper palaeolithic siberian cultural grouping. However his is an outlier by 3000 years. All the rest fall into 30-25000calBC, with the culture essentially terminating as the LGM commenced. I just wonder if the date is not slightly too young. It can happen depending on conditions. I wonder if he is really is a few thousand years older. Its such an important date that it would be worth dating him again with careful analysis of factors which could distort the dating.

[MJost]

He is 22000 cal BC. However one thing has always troubled me about the date. There are a good number of safe dates from his middle upper palaeolithic siberian cultural grouping. However his is an outlier by 3000 years. All the rest fall into 30-25000calBC, with the culture essentially terminating as the LGM commenced. I just wonder if the date is not slightly too young. It can happen depending on conditions. I wonder if he is really is a few thousand years older. Its such an important date that it would be worth dating him again with careful analysis of factors which could distort the dating.
I see a recent project (2009) called 'IntCal09 combines and reinforces data from tree-rings, ice-cores, tephra, corals, and speleothems to come up with a significantly improved calibration set for c14 dates between 12,000 and 50,000 years ago.' which I wonder if they did already or plan to date Mal'ta boys bone again.

MJost

[rms2]

We know from its phylogeography that European R1b came out of the East, but we don't know exactly when. Ancient y-dna finds have made and are making it increasingly unlikely that R1b was in Central or Western Europe before the late Neolithic/Copper Age. We know by way of the Kromsdorf site that at least some Beaker men of the Copper Age were R1b, and at least one of them was R1b-M269 U106-.

Whether Beaker included R1b men from its inception, via the Stelae People, or not, it acquired R1b from the East. If some or all of the Stelae Men were R1b, then Beaker probably had R1b in it from its very beginning; it likely just picked up more in Eastern Europe.

The R1b/Beaker connection is what I am interested in, and it is the combination of the European phylogeography of R1b and ancient y-dna evidence that tells the tale. Just to be clear, that tale is this: R1b came from the East, and it didn't come before the Copper Age.

[ADW_1981]

The crucial point is setting all the pieces in correct chronological order. You cannot do that if you ignore/omit data.

Around 3000 BC, Iberia sees an intrusive element of a new culture of people who carry genes to break down lactose. Interesting this fits the entrance of Bell Beaker. Common sense would dictate they must have either been locally derived or entered via the east. If these same people were the potters of BB, then I wouldn't exclude the possibility they arrived from Central Europe over a couple hundred years radio carbon difference, or a handful of pottery shards.

[alan]

We know from its phylogeography that European R1b came out of the East, but we don't know exactly when. Ancient y-dna finds have made and are making it increasingly unlikely that R1b was in Central or Western Europe before the late Neolithic/Copper Age. We know by way of the Kromsdorf site that at least some Beaker men of the Copper Age were R1b, and at least one of them was R1b-M269 U106-.

Whether Beaker included R1b men from its inception, via the Stelae People, or not, it acquired R1b from the East. If some or all of the Stelae Men were R1b, then Beaker probably had R1b in it from its very beginning; it likely just picked up more in Eastern Europe.

The R1b/Beaker connection is what I am interested in, and it is the combination of the European phylogeography of R1b and ancient y-dna evidence that tells the tale. Just to be clear, that tale is this: R1b came from the East, and it didn't come before the Copper Age.

Unless of course we all get wrong footed! No it does seem incredibly likely that R1b came from points east after the first farmers. Its a bit blurry in places but M269 and above it P297 and above it P25 definately moved east to west. I am still wary of dates though as the whole SNP thing seems to be in flux. It seems that we need a couple more R1 full genomes before we could have confidence in calibrating it.

What I think is missing is a paper that breaks down every beaker find type other than the pots and discusses its origins. The classic daggers do seem to be from the east. However, where did things like basket gold hair ornaments originate? What are the roots of the lunulae/spacer plate neck ornaments? Is there a connection between lunulae and those bow-like boars tooth things in central Europe? There seems to be a weird gap in goldworking between Varna etc and beaker. What are the roots of beaker gold working? Stone wrist guards seem to have been invented by beaker people obviously from some perishable prototype i.e they are Skeuomorphs. You get the picture. I think a book needs to take every aspect on beaker material culture and discuss origins. A single book with a chapter or so on each item.

[MJost]

We know from its phylogeography that European R1b came out of the East, but we don't know exactly when. Ancient y-dna finds have made and are making it increasingly unlikely that R1b was in Central or Western Europe before the late Neolithic/Copper Age. We know by way of the Kromsdorf site that at least some Beaker men of the Copper Age were R1b, and at least one of them was R1b-M269 U106-.

Whether Beaker included R1b men from its inception, via the Stelae People, or not, it acquired R1b from the East. If some or all of the Stelae Men were R1b, then Beaker probably had R1b in it from its very beginning; it likely just picked up more in Eastern Europe.

The R1b/Beaker connection is what I am interested in, and it is the combination of the European phylogeography of R1b and ancient y-dna evidence that tells the tale. Just to be clear, that tale is this: R1b came from the East, and it didn't come before the Copper Age.

We know the highest variance for L23 was on the western shores of Black Sea. My best guess, R1b - L11 is in a block (order not known) of seven SNPs so a max of 3400 bc. L51 block was 516 yrs max earlier around 3943bc. L23 block was spawned, at a max, 400 years prior at 4330bc.

MJost

[alan]

We know the highest variance for L23 was on the western shores of Black Sea. My best guess, R1b - L11 is in a block (order not known) of seven SNPs so a max of 3400 bc. L51 block was 516 yrs max earlier around 3943bc. L23 block was spawned, at a max, 400 years prior at 4330bc.

MJost

That certainly fits the idea of its emergence as Old Europe fell.

[MJost]

That certainly fits the idea of its emergence as Old Europe fell.

Is that fit from ?
The Lost World of Old Europe: The Danube Valley, 5000-3500 BC
edited by David W. Anthony et al

I don't have the book but search for 'Old Europe fell' in the Google preview and found it mentioned here.

https://books.google.com/books?id=gFEARIQ6zYoC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=Old+Europe+fell&source=bl&ots=RtYWFtFLCD&sig=yv3w3AqAh-0rSVrf6CGclCDaK3I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=N1aKVLT6HMS0ogTTkIKIBQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Old%20Europe%20fell&f=false


If it was so much money I might get it for a good read. L23's perfect storm for growth.
MJost

"In the prehistoric Copper Age, long before cities, writing, or the invention of the wheel, Old Europe was among the most culturally rich regions in the world. Its inhabitants lived in prosperous agricultural towns. The ubiquitous goddess figurines found in their houses and shrines have triggered intense debates about women's roles. The Lost World of Old Europe is the accompanying catalog for an exhibition at New York University's Institute for the Study of the Ancient World. This superb volume features essays by leading archaeologists as well as breathtaking color photographs cataloguing the objects, some illustrated here for the first time.

The heart of Old Europe was in the lower Danube valley, in contemporary Bulgaria and Romania. Old European coppersmiths were the most advanced metal artisans in the world. Their intense interest in acquiring copper, Aegean shells, and other rare valuables gave rise to far-reaching trading networks. In their graves, the bodies of Old European chieftains were adorned with pounds of gold and copper ornaments. Their funerals were without parallel in the Near East or Egypt.

[Chad Rohlfsen]

Lower Mikhailov and Kemi Oba type burials are not in the Carpathian Basin before 3000BCE. It would seem impossible for them to be in Iberian beaker. To top it off, CO1 is only about 5-6%ANE. This was a very thin wave, with not a whole lot of replacement. R1b may not appear in Germany before 2700-2800BCE. CO1's timeframe of 3000BCE, is generally accepted as the first intrusion of steppe cultures into the Carpathian Basin. It does not appear that Oetzi's people or early Remedello are Steppe influenced until after 2800BCE, and for sure 2400BCE, with Eastern Beakers. Oetzi had very little ANE, if any, so any chance of R1b being involved are about none. Compiled with the fact that 24 Neolithic samples from Southern France in 3000BCE had no R1b, throws the whole thing out. Anyone that dares say they sailed from West Asia, please find me a migration from West Asia, after 5000BCE. BR1, as discussed, is related to German Beakers. BR1 is 12% ANE, at around 2200BCE. Word is that German Beakers are less ANE than Czechs, whom are 16%. So, German Beakers are probably around 15%ANE. The fact that they said Czechs, and not English, or French, may be telling.

[MJost]

The book also has some good info on 'Decline of Old Europe' (large settlements) on page 45 and then all of page 51 where it discusses the wide spread abandonment of 4300-4100bc lower Danube valley. But stayed longer in the western part of Bulgaria and Romainia less rooted settlements possibly to the more mobile horse and wagon slowly building up again until 3400-3300bc, the true end of 'Old Europe', page 53.

Climate was a considerable factor with corresponding temperature changes over a 1000+ year period (6300-5300 ybp), well into the L11 block until the big warm up trend starting by 4700 ybp, just before P312/U106 came on the scene.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNUDdib0tnTU5uSms/view?usp=sharing

Mighty interesting timeline.

MJost

[Chad Rohlfsen]

Those earlier works on R1b L23(xL51) show a similar pattern, MJost. Highest frequencies are in Ukraine, then Bulgaria. They decrease as you go inland, then another hotspot in Hungary. I believe that was in the Bulgarian paper.

[alan]

Lower Mikhailov and Kemi Oba type burials are not in the Carpathian Basin before 3000BCE. It would seem impossible for them to be in Iberian beaker. To top it off, CO1 is only about 5-6%ANE. This was a very thin wave, with not a whole lot of replacement. R1b may not appear in Germany before 2700-2800BCE. CO1's timeframe of 3000BCE, is generally accepted as the first intrusion of steppe cultures into the Carpathian Basin. It does not appear that Oetzi's people or early Remedello are Steppe influenced until after 2800BCE, and for sure 2400BCE, with Eastern Beakers. Oetzi had very little ANE, if any, so any chance of R1b being involved are about none. Compiled with the fact that 24 Neolithic samples from Southern France in 3000BCE had no R1b, throws the whole thing out. Anyone that dares say they sailed from West Asia, please find me a migration from West Asia, after 5000BCE. BR1, as discussed, is related to German Beakers. BR1 is 12% ANE, at around 2200BCE. Word is that German Beakers are less ANE than Czechs, whom are 16%. So, German Beakers are probably around 15%ANE. The fact that they said Czechs, and not English, or French, may be telling.

While I am on the fence about the idea of a pre-beaker movement all the way to Spain 3100BC its important to note that the real dates for earliest beaker in Iberia were spun as shortly after 3000BC when in fact its more likely not earlier than 2700BC. So, there is time for central European influences to reach Spain by the beaker era anyway. Recall that part-Yamnaya inspired Corded Ware had reached the eastern boundaries of France and the western Alps by then so Spain was not far away. I am not saying corded ware made it to Spain. I am just using it as an example of how far west one culture may have brought steppe genes by 2700BC so a further trickle a little futher west is far from impossible by the start of the beaker period in Iberia.

[Jean M]

the real dates for earliest beaker in Iberia were spun as shortly after 3000BC when in fact its more likely not earlier than 2700BC.

Completely wrong and actually offensive.

As I have already said, recent dates from a really reliable context are in the 2700s i.e. older than 2700 BC.

There was no 'spin' involved by me or anyone else. As an archaeologist you know that radiocarbon dates are not precise to the year or even necessarily the century. In their review of BB dates, Mueller and van Willigen 2001 reported that BB began some time between 2900 and 2700 BC. Which precise point within that range didn't make one iota of difference to their conclusion, given that the dates for Eastern BB were more recent than this whole range by a margin of centuries. It may have shocked a lot of archaeologists that the 'Dutch model' which they had happily embraced for decades had fallen, but it should be obvious that people with names like Mueller and van Willigen are scarcely likely to have some bias towards selecting only the earliest possible dates for Iberia and neglecting early dates for the Netherlands.

I own to some initial confusion over which date to quote, due to inexperience with radiocarbon dating, but by the time I went to print in AJ, I had settled on 2700 BC as the upper date for BB. It is clear now that this was conservative.

[Jean M]

Lower Mikhailov and Kemi Oba type burials are not in the Carpathian Basin before 3000BCE. It would seem impossible for them to be in Iberian beaker.

You think that Copper Age people would take a thousand years or so to get from Hungary to Portugal? About three weeks would be my guess for a small group of prospectors on horseback and by sea. :)

It would in fact be perfectly possible for some of the stelae in northern Italy to predate all those in the Carpathian Basin, if the copper prospecting party set out earlier than the mass movement of pastoralists. They were carrying the same culture. Plus a kurgan with stele would only be erected when an important person died.

[MJost]

Those earlier works on R1b L23(xL51) show a similar pattern, MJost. Highest frequencies are in Ukraine, then Bulgaria. They decrease as you go inland, then another hotspot in Hungary. I believe that was in the Bulgarian paper.In my L23* combined variance number, Romania had considerable more 2.8 than western Bulgaria. Hungary had 1.86 in the eastern half and 2.0 in the western half. I didn't see any Ukraine data but I would assume its at a smaller percentage yet since Poland and Russia are in the variance range of 1.0 and 1.2 respectively.

MJost

[alan]

Completely wrong and actually offensive.

As I have already said, recent dates from a really reliable context are in the 2700s i.e. older than 2700 BC.

There was no 'spin' involved by me or anyone else. As an archaeologist you know that radiocarbon dates are not precise to the year or even necessarily the century. In their review of BB dates, Mueller and van Willigen 2001 reported that BB began some time between 2900 and 2700 BC. Which precise point within that range didn't make one iota of difference to their conclusion, given that the dates for Eastern BB were more recent than this whole range by a margin of centuries. It may have shocked a lot of archaeologists that the 'Dutch model' which they had happily embraced for decades had fallen, but it should be obvious that people with names like Mueller and van Willigen are scarcely likely to have some bias towards selecting only the earliest possible dates for Iberia and neglecting early dates for the Netherlands.

I own to some initial confusion over which date to quote, due to inexperience with radiocarbon dating, but by the time I went to print in AJ, I had settled on 2700 BC as the upper date for BB. It is clear now that this was conservative.

offensive LOL. I wasnt remotely thinking of you when I posted 2700BC and have no idea how you personalised that - maybe I should have said 2700s but Jeez. All I was saying is that the 2900 date started to get bandied about on the web but 2700s is probably more like it. Most refining of dates had tended to make things slightly younger than the older quoted dates i.e. in Ireland they have made the Neolithic proper probably 150 years younger than the once quoted 4000BC. I actually thought a date in the 2700s would support your view better than the old 'just after 3000BC' date which would mean a very sudden leap from east to far west for beaker. Anyway noone is denying that beaker is earliest in Iberia and that it would have had to draw on models that are outside the technical beaker definition for origin.

[Chad Rohlfsen]

Their data showed the same thing. It was highest in eastern Bulgaria than western. Romania doesn't have a lot of. There wasn't a lot of Romanian samples though. I'll have to track down the paper that had Ukrainian L-23.

I think Ezero and Cotafeni are the places to look.

JeanM,
What culture would those Sea travelers come from? We're talking about tribal societies and and rather limited types of sea navigation at that timeframe. We should see cultural traces.

[alan]

You think that Copper Age people would take a thousand years or so to get from Hungary to Portugal? About three weeks would be my guess for a small group of prospectors on horseback and by sea. :)

It would in fact be perfectly possible for some of the stelae in northern Italy to predate all those in the Carpathian Basin, if the copper prospecting party set out earlier than the mass movement of pastoralists. They were carrying the same culture. Plus a kurgan with stele would only be erected when an important person died.

I made the point that if you want an example of a partly steppe originated culture spreading west fairly quickly then corded ware gives an example of a spread across the whole of central Europe within 200 years - there is debate about the earliest dating so it could even be less. So, certainly it is possible to spread across Europe in 200 years as we do have the example of corded ware. Much much faster than the spread of farming. So, it is certainly possible that Iberia was reached within 200 years of Yamnaya exiting the steppes c. 3000BC which does put it in the frame for the earliest beaker. So, I agree it is far from an unthinkable leap although I prefer to see this as actually happening at the start of the beaker period - be that 2800, 2700 or whatever - rather than 300 years earlier in pre-beaker times but its a matter of taste.

[MJost]

SNP COUNTING:
R1b1a2 - M269 - 7233 (5233bc)
R1b1a2a - L23 - 6330 (4330bc)

STR Variance:
In my March 2013 chart using both Karachanak and FtDNA R1b-Early seven marker haplotypes, I posted that I calculated
M269 using n=415 produced and age of 4903 +-3039 ybp (CI @ 3 sigma was +-1165 ybp)
L23* using n=370 produced and age of 4589 +-2940 ybp (CI @ 3 sigma was +-1117 ybp)

MJost

[Silesian]

Around 3000 BC, Iberia sees an intrusive element of a new culture of people who carry genes to break down lactose. Interesting this fits the entrance of Bell Beaker. Common sense would dictate they must have either been locally derived or entered via the east. If these same people were the potters of BB, then I wouldn't exclude the possibility they arrived from Central Europe over a couple hundred years radio carbon difference, or a handful of pottery shards.

How old is DF25 and how did Hinxton 4 derive Caucasus/Parsia-Caucasus/Gedrosia ?
Is the sample below related to BB's?

Hinxton 4- 2000+- year R1b sample-DF25+
MDLP World 4-Ancestors Oracle
Admix Results (sorted): Hinxton4 R1b L51+

# Population Percent
1 South_and_West_European 45.16
2 North_and_East_European 40.60
3 Caucaus_Parsia 9.26
4 Middle_East 2.63
5 Arctic_Amerind 1.20

Using 1 population approximation:
1 German_V @ 1.724864
Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% German_V +50% German_V @ 1.724864
Using 3 populations approximation:
1. 50% Russian_South +25% Kosovar +25% Orcadian @ 1.286701
Using 4 populations approximation:

World9 4-Ancestors Oracle:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic_Baltic 73.94
2 Caucasus_Gedrosia 12.41
3 Southern 10.24
4 South_Asian

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Dutch + CEU30 + CEU30 + Ukranians @ 1.291180
2 CEU30 + CEU30 + Belorussian + Hungarians @ 1.310983

[Jean M]

I actually thought a date in the 2700s would support your view better than the old 'just after 3000BC' date which would mean a very sudden leap

Yes I realise that, and honour the honesty that prompted you to come to the defence of a theory that you hate and loathe. It was just unfortunate that you chose at the same time to repeat accusations of manipulation of data. That is the crime against the academic ethos that could and should destroy a career. After being recently accused of it by another forum user, I made up my mind not to tolerate it further.

[alan]

Yes I realise that, and honour the honesty that prompted you to come to the defence of a theory that you hate and loathe. It was just unfortunate that you chose at the same time to repeat accusations of manipulation of data. That is the crime against the academic ethos that could and should destroy a career. After being recently accused of it by another forum user, I made up my mind not to tolerate it further.

Theory that I hate and loathe?. Are you alright because your posts are suddenly coming across very odd and personal? I dont hate and loathe any theory. I dont have those kind of strong emotions for abstract and academic things - I hope noone does. I dont hate and loathe much but I would reserve that for things like Hitler not radiocarbon dates and beaker theories. They dont stir up much emotion in me at all TBH. I just dont understand why at times you see debate on this as antagonistic or a criticism of you. The whole beaker thing is something that has been being debated forever so theorising at models that dont 100 percent agree with one's own is just the norm for everyone.

I just dont happen to be convinced by the idea that the first copper spread to Iberia was linked to Yamnaya but I am prepared to see a Yamnaya element in beaker itself. Anyway, if we can drop all this emotive language can I ask you a question? What certain Yamnaya aspect is there to pre-beaker Iberian copper age culture? Not beakers but the pre-beaker culture.

Or are you thinking of a secondary wave sandwiched in between the first copper arrival in Iberia c 3200/3100BC and the beaker period which commenced in the 2700s? You or someone else posted that the Remedello daggers on the Alpine stelae are Remedello II and date from c. 2900BC or so so it would make sense if we were to accept that Stelae in Iberia are from the same sort of wave to place it after 2900BC but before beaker. You see, the concept of something in between the first copper spread and the commencing of beaker is something I could buy into as after all something has to explain beaker starting in Iberia without local precursors.

[alan]

My opinion on the initial spread of copper working and mining across southern Europe c. 3600 or earller-3100BC is that its most likely part of a gradual spread that slowly moved along the southern Alps and Med. from a western European starting point in Italy and deeper roots prior to that probably in the Balkans in the 4000s. I see Iberia's pre-beaker copper age as probably the tail end of a slow movement along the southern Alps and Med. that commenced in the centuries after 4000BC in the Balkans and had reached France and Iberia in the centuries before 3000BC. That just seems the simplest way of seeing it.

There then seems to me to be a phase where we see great social changes c. 2900BC or so with popular examples cited as examples penetrating beyond eastern Europe being Corded Ware and Remedello II. So this phase seems to lie between both the first spread of copper and the beaker period. This is the period where I feel that Yamnaya elements within cultures spreading into western Europe are likely - indeed pretty well proven in the case of Corded Ware.

Now IF beaker from its Iberian inception was part of this change, I would tend to look at this period after the first spread of copper but before the rise of early beaker in Portugal as the period in which Yamnaya elements may have penetrated. This c. 2900BC was apparently the period when some feel steppe influences have spread in the genesis of corded ware and as some would also suggest Remedello II. So, my own feeling is that IF steppe elements did feed into Iberia and this led to beaker then I would tend to place it in the same general timeline of 2900-2700sBC when we see similar things happening in central Europe with corded ware and north Italy with Remdello II.

I no longer see the arsenical/non-arsenical thing as as useful as I thought it might be. As soon as both techniques were known - I believe arsenical knowledge maybe commenced I think it was a matter of what was convenient and no longer is a useful cultural marker. For examle you had groups using circumpontic metallurgical provence traditions that were originally arsenical in Maykop in pure copper in Yamnaya around the Urals and you get beaker groups who used either arsenical as in Ireland and Iberia or purer copper as in the Alps. IMO its only a useful marker for the period before the arsenical copper took off. After that it seems the same culture and the same metallurgical forms could be made in totally different types of copper.

[Jean M]

I dont hate and loathe any theory.

I'm happy to hear it Alan. So let's proceed in the proper academic spirit. You have every right to disagree with me as much as you like. It has certainly proved useful to me in the past. Debate and discussion can often shake problems out or show me how I need to explain things more clearly. However I currently do not have time to take an active part in yet another round of debate on this particular issue. I'm sure everyone can carry on just as well without me. ;)

[alan]

I'm happy to hear it Alan. So let's proceed in the proper academic spirit. You have every right to disagree with me as much as you like. It has certainly proved useful to me in the past. Debate and discussion can often shake problems out or show me how I need to explain things more clearly. However I currently do not have time to take an active part in yet another round of debate on this particular issue. I'm sure everyone can carry on just as well without me. ;)

You have put your own ideas and some very hefty thinking and great and unique ideas into this and we all appreciate that greatly. The debate will go on though until ancient DNA finally resolves it simply because beaker is not something with a self evident answer to how it all worked. Even though it is the puzzler of all puzzlers that noone has been able to completely resolve in centuries its fun to carry on debating it and I find that its a subject that every so often after weeks or months when it seems done to death a new nuance to the discussion will come up so its still enjoyable to debate even if it is probably chasing a lost cause short of ancient DNA.

[Chad Rohlfsen]

Corded ware in Switzerland is 2725bce at the earliest. That's just over 300 years from Poland to Switzerland. Over 200 years from Poland to the Netherlands. They move in bands, with cattle. Hungary to Portugal in less time? Doubtful... Hungary to Portugal is twice as far, so I don't see a big deal not expecting R1b there before 2200bce.

It took from the first incursion at 4200BCE (Cernavoda), until 3000BCE, to move from Romania and Bulgaria, into the Carpathian Basin. That's 1200 years and a lot closer than Portugal is to Hungary. To go 3x as far in 1/6th of the time... extremely doubtful. This rapid migration stuff is pretty unheard of. Great claims require great evidence. The burden of proof is not on me.

Plus, those stelae in Troy, are from the early period, after 2800BCE. Probably from Ezero, and spread of L23 into Anatolia.

[Chad Rohlfsen]

For comparison, it took 200 years for Bell Beaker to go from Germany to Southern England and Remedello. The only R1b we have is from a site with no Bell Beakers... go figure.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Does anyone know of any free papers, articles, etc. that discuss Chalcolithic or even proper Bronze Age Iberian stelae? I have a copy of Mallory's Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, which has a section on "Stelae", but it does not mention Iberian stelae in particular, and the opening paragraph casts doubt on an early Indo-European origin for the Copper Age, West Mediterranean stelae.

http://i60.tinypic.com/345m0i1.png

I consistently find articles about Tartessian stelae that are dated around 825 BC, but I haven't found anything before that time with the resources I have available.

[rms2]

For comparison, it took 200 years for Bell Beaker to go from Germany to Southern England and Remedello. The only R1b we have is from a site with no Bell Beakers... go figure.

Graves 1 and 8 each had what is described as a "cup", which could be (and probably is) the characteristic Beaker. Too bad Lee et al weren't a little clearer, though.

[alan]

Corded ware in Switzerland is 2725bce at the earliest. That's just over 300 years from Poland to Switzerland. Over 200 years from Poland to the Netherlands. They move in bands, with cattle. Hungary to Portugal in less time? Doubtful... Hungary to Portugal is twice as far, so I don't see a big deal not expecting R1b there before 2200bce.

It took from the first incursion at 4200BCE (Cernavoda), until 3000BCE, to move from Romania and Bulgaria, into the Carpathian Basin. That's 1200 years and a lot closer than Portugal is to Hungary. To go 3x as far in 1/6th of the time... extremely doubtful. This rapid migration stuff is pretty unheard of. Great claims require great evidence. The burden of proof is not on me.

Plus, those stelae in Troy, are from the early period, after 2800BCE. Probably from Ezero, and spread of L23 into Anatolia.

The early corded ware dates are questioned by some though and some people think corded ware started a bit after 3000BC. It is possible it did its whole spread in just 150 years.

[Chad Rohlfsen]

MJost,
Do you have L23* variance for Eastern Bulgaria? The Bulgarian paper had L-23 slightly older in Eastern Bulgaria than Romania.

Thanks!

[MJost]

MJost,
Do you have L23* variance for Eastern Bulgaria? The Bulgarian paper had L-23 slightly older in Eastern Bulgaria than Romania.

Thanks!

Yes I had a combined variance of 4.7, the highest anywhere.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNR0xpSENNWmpZSHc/view?usp=sharing

MJost

[Chad Rohlfsen]

MJost,
Have you done anything with over 10 STRs and SNPs?

[MJost]

MJost,
Have you done anything with over 10 STRs and SNPs?No not recently. Correctly identified locations are a main issue when doing geo graphing of variance.

MJost

[rms2]

I think the main take-aways from this discussion are that 1) R1b came into Europe from the East, probably during the Copper Age at the earliest, and 2) its connection to Beaker is enigmatic, since Beaker apparently first arose at the opposite end of Europe.

The mechanics of R1b's entry into Beaker are the chief problem, which will only be resolved by means of ancient y-dna.

I wish the folks getting ancient y-dna would hurry up.

[alan]

I think the main take-aways from this discussion are that 1) R1b came into Europe from the East, probably during the Copper Age at the earliest, and 2) its connection to Beaker is enigmatic, since Beaker apparently first arose at the opposite end of Europe.

The mechanics of R1b's entry into Beaker is the chief problem, which will only be resolved by means of ancient y-dna.

I wish the folks getting ancient y-dna would hurry up.

That is pretty well nail on head. There are a number of possibilities but none have a scorched earth trail or a simple clearcut wave that screams out the answer. That is why beaker has no consensus in the overall understanding of how it worked.

If there was one thing I think we can say about beaker is that it established an unexpected phenomenon of interlinking vast areas and apparently spreading and mixing genes from all over Europe together into a modern blend. So, as well as the metals, from a genetic point of view it was clearly also a marriage network of some sort. My best guess is that beakers travelled in small family groups and when they arrived in a destination they married their daughters or sisters to the local chiefs and in return married into their daughters etc.

That would create a system where a lot of mixing would happen. That way you could have families who have their beaker characteristics because they were originally beaker male lines and you could have families who have gotten beaker characteristics because they are locals who have married a beaker woman. If beaker and its exotica were sufficiently attractive then marrying a woman who could make the pots and perhaps the fancy clothes may have been an attractive prospect and indeed the only way of obtaining these things at a time when pots and clothes were home crafts and probably not bought and sold.

In fact, we probably need to remember that a market society, even for metalwork, probably didnt exist in the way we think today and all sorts of mechanism like tribute, dowries, marriage, fosterage, clientship, ritual deposition etc were involved in the distribution of metals so compared to a modern market economy there would have been a far greater need for a human element in the movement of high status goods, while home crafts like pottery, clothing etc also would likely have spread with actual women.

Even as late as Early Christian Ireland the evidence for actual markets is very slight and there are many legal records indicating that goods were distributed in elaborate obligation exchanges of annual tribute from under-kings, clientship, dowries etc. There was a system where gifts were given and other required tribute was returned. I think its called the book of rights. I will see if I can find a copy of it online.

[alan]

Here it is - the two way system of gift and obligation/tribute among the hierachy of Irish kings. It is schematic and idealised but it gives an idea of the sort of system that happened on a slightly less glorified scale in pre-Norman Ireland

http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/cert.html

[MJost]

So the Copper Age time frame from 3500 to 2300 BC and the R1b-L11 block of 7 would have covered 3427 to P312's age of around 2524 bc. Now assuming Alan's comments stating 'home crafts like pottery, clothing etc also would likely have spread with actual women.', would we see "MtDNA Hot spots" such as western subclades found in central or eastern parts of Europe do to this movement?

MJost

[alan]

So the Copper Age time frame from 3500 to 2300 BC and the R1b-L11 block of 7 would have covered 3427 to P312's age of around 2524 bc. Now assuming Alan's comments stating 'home crafts like pottery, clothing etc also would likely have spread with actual women.', would we see "MtDNA Hot spots" such as western subclades found in central or eastern parts of Europe do to this movement?

MJost

There is all that H which appeared in beaker in central Europe - think it was a study of Germany.

[alan]

It may seem strange to us in modern western societies but access to woman and marriage in traditional societies -even today in many middle eastern cultures-requires a certain amount of wealth and many people cannot get married because they dont have the wealth. Access to marriage partners may have been a major driving force for people with access to prestige goods and skills in a societies where trading was probably not done in the way we think today. Prestige goods, skills and the right connections may have been the only card mobile people with no automatic rights to local lands had when they moved into new territories.

[alan]

Bride price
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price

[alan]

This is an interesting article on early Irish marriage customs although its fair to say that copper age one's wouldnt have been identitical and indeed travelling beaker people probably had to use some form of mobile wealth to gain a bride

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/marriage_ei.html

This part suggests a pan-Celtic normal marriage form:

The general opinion is that lánamnas comthinchuir was the normal kind of marriage between persons of property in the seventh and eighth centuries. But how old was that institution? Caesar’s brief account of marriage amongst the Gauls appears to refer to two important characteristics which are present in the Irish type: men match the herds which their wives bring as dowries by contributing an equal amount from their own property, and an account is kept of the profits of these conjoint resources (suggesting that each reserved ultimate ownership of what was contributed to the marital fund).[17] If this type of marriage is a common Celtic institution, we may have here a hint as to the meaning of comthinchor ‘common contribution’ that the wife brought a dowry (dos) in herds and that the husband matched that dowry with a payment to his wife of an equal amount from his own resources (donatio ex marito).[18] One need not, of course, assume that such dowries were always in cattle: we have seen that women could acquire real estate and other kinds of property and the glossators, whatever the value of their opinions on this point, note that land could form part of their marital contribution The equality of husband and wife is matched elsewhere and scholars have argued that the Indo-European peoples had always known a variety of marriage which left the wife her husband’s equal partner—and one could compare the Roman marriage without manus and the Germanic marriage in which the husband did not acquire his wife’s mundium.[19]

[MJost]

There is all that H which appeared in beaker in central Europe - think it was a study of Germany.

Thx. But if its this paper, it didn't find much. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4039305/

MJost

[GailT]

So the Copper Age time frame from 3500 to 2300 BC and the R1b-L11 block of 7 would have covered 3427 to P312's age of around 2524 bc. Now assuming Alan's comments stating 'home crafts like pottery, clothing etc also would likely have spread with actual women.', would we see "MtDNA Hot spots" such as western subclades found in central or eastern parts of Europe do to this movement?

The mtDNA mutation rate is slow (estimated to be about 1 mutation in 3600 years) so it's difficult to use mtDNA to do fine scale population analysis. Haplogroup H was probably widely distributed among diverse Neolithic communities, so we would need full sequence results from a very large number of ancient remains to link specific populations to specific subclades of H.

[alan]

This is extracted from a paper that gives a good summary of exchange in early Ireland and probably is the biggest instituation whereby high status portable items moved about in early Ireland


The purpose of exchange in early Ireland was not the mere swapping of goods. Most of the exchange happened to create bonds between individuals. As Charles Doherty points out: ‘Men were bound to each other in a variety of relationships, the outward expression of which was reciprocal agreements by which goods and
services circulated according to the relative status of the parties involved’ (Doherty 1980, 67). In his study on exchange Marcel Mauss describes the mechanism of giftgiving: by giving, one shows oneself as generous, and thus as deserving of respect, by receiving the gift, one shows respect to the giver, and by returning the gift one demonstrates that one's honour is equivalent to that of the original giver. By giving, receiving and returning gifts a moral bond between the persons exchanging gifts is created. The process of gift giving strengthens co-operation, competitiveness, and antagonism (1969).

Exchange was thus a means of creating and upholding bonds. In giving a gift to someone a person stated his superiority, while the acceptance of a gift demonstrated submission. This was the way over-kings tied subject kingdoms under their rule, and lords contracted clients. The subject people and clients reciprocated by paying tribute or renders, which consummated the alliance
(Doherty 1980, 73). The functioning and unity of an early Irish túath was based on a web of reciprocal personal relationships, where the king ‘held the heads of the...

[Chad Rohlfsen]

The problem with linking to Iberia with mtDNA H is this.. High frequencies of H1 and H3 appear in Central Germany 800 years before Beaker. I think it was Baalberg that was 80%+ of H1 and H3. So, we can't link that to Iberian beakers. ADNA is going to be the only answer. I'm pretty sure that you can throw out island hopping. Bell Beaker mtDNA only matches the Pontic Steppe, a bit with EHG, Pitted Ware and Neolithic Europe. There is no match with West Asia or the Mediterranean coast and islands. If that link with Iberia is solely based on H1 and H3, then it may have nothing to do with Iberia at all, as stated above. Corded Ware is the only one with West Asian and Caucasus links. If that change to Near Eastern mtDNA in Yamnaya happened after 4000BCE, that could post-date R1b's migration into the Balkans with Cernavoda, then to Cotafeni and Ezero, and only be found in Yamnaya and Corded Ware.

[MJost]

The mtDNA mutation rate is slow (estimated to be about 1 mutation in 3600 years) so it's difficult to use mtDNA to do fine scale population analysis. Haplogroup H was probably widely distributed among diverse Neolithic communities, so we would need full sequence results from a very large number of ancient remains to link specific populations to specific subclades of H.I really didn't associate such a long time between mutations for MtDNA. Full study of large ancient remains may take 3600 years in itself.. ;)

MJost

[Heber]

Does anyone know of any free papers, articles, etc. that discuss Chalcolithic or even proper Bronze Age Iberian stelae? I have a copy of Mallory's Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, which has a section on "Stelae", but it does not mention Iberian stelae in particular, and the opening paragraph casts doubt on an early Indo-European origin for the Copper Age, West Mediterranean stelae.

http://i60.tinypic.com/345m0i1.png

I consistently find articles about Tartessian stelae that are dated around 825 BC, but I haven't found anything before that time with the resources I have available.

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

http://www.aemap.ac.uk/

http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/celtic-from-the-west/

[rms2]

That first link I found especially enlightening. Thanks.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

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

http://www.aemap.ac.uk/

http://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/celtic-from-the-west/

I glanced through the links and will certainly look over them in more detail when I have the time, but from what I did see, the Alentejo stelae seem to be the oldest listed in the peninsula(1800-1300 BC). That is still a long ways from 3000-2500 BC, though. Did I miss something in my initial look at the first link, or is that the oldest listed?

[Motzart]

The problem with linking to Iberia with mtDNA H is this.. High frequencies of H1 and H3 appear in Central Germany 800 years before Beaker. I think it was Baalberg that was 80%+ of H1 and H3. So, we can't link that to Iberian beakers. ADNA is going to be the only answer. I'm pretty sure that you can throw out island hopping. Bell Beaker mtDNA only matches the Pontic Steppe, a bit with EHG, Pitted Ware and Neolithic Europe. There is no match with West Asia or the Mediterranean coast and islands. If that link with Iberia is solely based on H1 and H3, then it may have nothing to do with Iberia at all, as stated above. Corded Ware is the only one with West Asian and Caucasus links. If that change to Near Eastern mtDNA in Yamnaya happened after 4000BCE, that could post-date R1b's migration into the Balkans with Cernavoda, then to Cotafeni and Ezero, and only be found in Yamnaya and Corded Ware.

H1 has been found in LBK/FunnelBeaker, my own clade H1c is there. But the H1 that arrived with the first Neolithic farmers is a different clade than is found in Bell Beakers and other groups. H3 was not found in LBK only in Bell Beaker so far. H* is common in LBK individuals but found in equal amounts to mtDNA K & T. Bell Beakers were mostly H*,H1,H3. I don't know where you are getting the information that H1&3 were found in high frequencies but this is not accurate and you can verify it on the Ancestral Journeys index of aDNA.

mtDNA H certainly originated in the Near East and was brought into Europe by every successive migration beginning in the Neolithic. LBK was J1/K/T/H1 & H*, Bell Beaker was H1/H3/H*, Corded Ware was similar to LBK but had H2/H5/I.

You can see in these 23andme maps how mtDNA H radiates out from the Fertile Crescent
http://i.imgur.com/qneHZtz.jpg

[alan]

The problem with linking to Iberia with mtDNA H is this.. High frequencies of H1 and H3 appear in Central Germany 800 years before Beaker. I think it was Baalberg that was 80%+ of H1 and H3. So, we can't link that to Iberian beakers. ADNA is going to be the only answer. I'm pretty sure that you can throw out island hopping. Bell Beaker mtDNA only matches the Pontic Steppe, a bit with EHG, Pitted Ware and Neolithic Europe. There is no match with West Asia or the Mediterranean coast and islands. If that link with Iberia is solely based on H1 and H3, then it may have nothing to do with Iberia at all, as stated above. Corded Ware is the only one with West Asian and Caucasus links. If that change to Near Eastern mtDNA in Yamnaya happened after 4000BCE, that could post-date R1b's migration into the Balkans with Cernavoda, then to Cotafeni and Ezero, and only be found in Yamnaya and Corded Ware.

I agree that I am not at all convinced that the H has to be an Iberian link. There is a great deal about genetics that people only posit as an interpretation because they want to match it to beaker pot chronology-geography. I think that is the mistake some posters are making - trying too literally to use beaker dating to track genetic changes. There is no evidence IMO that beaker was spread by a single male lineage. There could easily have been breaks in that chain and as I have stated a few times, the beaker package is slowly gathered together with only part of it being chronologically earliest formed in Iberia.

There are always problems in using craniology but there does seem to be evidence of several contemporary types in the period c. 2600-2500BC or so. The famous beaker skull type seems to only appear in beaker c. 2500BC once beaker had reached into central and Alpine Europe. So, even at that very crude level there may be evidence that the beaker people were not of a unified lineage. The apparent presence of similar skulls in Remedello (not sure which phase - Italian archaeology is appallingly served on the internet) is interesting in this respect.

If you look at Remedello one cannot help but wonder about it having a cousinly relation to beaker - burial in pits or cists, orientation often flexed on left side facing east or NE (the male beaker orientation), lots of archery equipment, barbed and tanged arrowheads, copper or flint daggers, etc. Pottery is rare and seems to belong to the females in this case. The styles are not the same but the burial tradition is definitely broadly similar to what we see in beaker. It broadly seems to belong to some wider family of cultures that resemble beaker. Then we have the skull types too. What makes me a bit wary of assessing Remedello more boldly is there is a horrible lack of detailed information on phases etc on the web, certainly in English. I believe the single burials are Remedello II but I am not sure.

[rms2]

I think you can pretty positively say that R1b is eastern and the Yamnaya elements are eastern. How they got into Beaker, or Beaker got into them, is the question.

As Motzart mentioned in his post above, there is a lot of non-H in the mtDNA profiles of ancient Beaker sites.

Coon described the classic Beaker skull and skeleton as "Dinaric", the Vučedol culture is in the heart of the Dinaric region, and Gimbutas derived Beaker from Vučedol by way of Somogyvar. Something there?

[alan]

I think you can pretty positively say that R1b is eastern and the Yamnaya elements are eastern. How they got into Beaker, or Beaker got into them, is the question.

As Motzart mentioned in his post above, there is a lot of non-H in the mtDNA profiles of ancient Beaker sites.

Coon described the classic Beaker skull and skeleton as "Dinaric", the Vučedol culture is in the heart of the Dinaric region, and Gimbutas derived Beaker from Vučedol by way of Somogyvar. Something there?

Got to be honest, when I read up about its houses, burial traditions and google images of its metalwork etc I cannot see any resemblance at all with beaker and am puzzled as to how Gimbutas arrived at that conclusion. Very cool pottery though.

[alan]

SNP COUNTING:
R1b1a2 - M269 - 7233 (5233bc)
R1b1a2a - L23 - 6330 (4330bc)

STR Variance:
In my March 2013 chart using both Karachanak and FtDNA R1b-Early seven marker haplotypes, I posted that I calculated
M269 using n=415 produced and age of 4903 +-3039 ybp (CI @ 3 sigma was +-1165 ybp)
L23* using n=370 produced and age of 4589 +-2940 ybp (CI @ 3 sigma was +-1117 ybp)

MJost

Are there shared SNPs directly below the L23 SNP in its various branches or is L23 the last shared SNP?

How many SNPs are downstream between L23 and the non-L51 clade defining SNPs of L23xL51?

[alan]

Single burials: Pratiques funéraires campaniformes en Europe Faut-il remettre en cause la dichotomie Nord-Sud ? La question de la réutilisation des sépultures monumentales dans l’Europe du 3e millénaire, "Données récentes sur les pratiques funéraires néolithiques de la Plaine du Rhin supérieur" Christian JEUNESSE, 2014
https://www.academia.edu/8379295/11_Pratiques_fun%C3%A9raires_du_Campaniforme_-_Bell_beaker_funeral_practices

Hair binders: https://www.academia.edu/5952632/Current_researches_on_Bell_Beakers, p. 181.

Haven't time to ferret out the horse stuff this minute, though I may do that shortly, as I work over text.

The link to a summary on beaker burial not really having a collective component is very interesting. I found this bit really interesting

Finally, it is important to underline that Beaker communities in general only placed a single burial in pre-Beaker funerary chambers. There is thus not a continuity with the previous practice of collective burial, but rather the placing of an individual burial within a collective tomb. The treatment of the dead therefore obeys the same rule across the whole of the Beaker world. In the
south and in the west, this practice is clearly a rupture with indigenous use. Generally, this is merely a reproduction of the funerary system used in the Corded ware culture

[Chad Rohlfsen]

That was Salzmunde, which had the H3. Baalberg has the H1. Excuse me. Either way, they pre-date Beaker. If you look at mtDNA in Bulgarian, Romanian, and Ukrainian Yamnaya, there is a good amount of H there. You may be surprised... Nothing West Asian about Beaker mtDNA, at all!

[Motzart]

That was Salzmunde, which had the H3. Baalberg has the H1. Excuse me. Either way, they pre-date Beaker. If you look at mtDNA in Bulgarian, Romanian, and Ukrainian Yamnaya, there is a good amount of H there. You may be surprised... Nothing West Asian about Beaker mtDNA, at all!

Anyt mtDNA not under U2/U4/U5/U8 is West Asian in origin, or Near Eastern, whatever your preference.

[alan]

That comment on the bell beaker single burial tradition in the south and west being a reproduction of corded ware traditions seems surprisingly bold but it is hard not to see bell beaker burial traditions as sort of a sibling rivalry very similar but deliberately oppositional version of corded ware traditions. Anyway this again brings to mind the slightly mysterious all over corded beakers of Spain which are much less western weighted than other Iberian early beaker types and also has early dates. Is this a link to the same world as corded ware albeit an underwhelming one? It might look a bit weird that France seems to have been skipped over but leap frogging can be seen in other cultural phases including the spread of farmers and also in beaker where Provence was probably settled before parts of southern Spain.

Another thing worth considering is that Remedello influence, a culture whose traditions did include single burial with striking parallels to beaker burial was as close as SE France. Both Remdello 2 and Corded Ware stretched their tentacles towards the eastern boundaries of France by around 2800BC give or take half a century and represent the two nearest cultures to Iberia where both single burial and some sort of IE link has at times been suggested in immediately pre-beaker times. Both have cultural similarities to beaker practices. It doesnt mean that beaker has to be directly derived from either but the new element in all three may have been the same. I personally find this sort of timeframe of influences from the east reaching Iberia just as the beaker phenomenon emerges in the 2700s more likely than a link with the initial spread of copper which even in Iberia seems to date to around 3100BC and had been in Italy for several centuries before that.

Pre-beaker copper working in western Iberia has been pointed out to have a peculiar almost non-prestige role being used for practical tools etc almost like it was too plentiful to be prestigious. Also the trading network of pre-beaker western Iberia seems very disconnected to most of Europe and had links to Africa. What a group of highly mobile people entering Iberia could bring was not knowledge of copper or mining etc, it was mobility itself. The copper in Iberia may have only been valuable outside Iberia and a mobile group could have filled this gap. The ability to live in a very mobile when when necessary could have been a great asset all in itself- probably would have required horses, possibly wagons, knowledge of moving around small herds across long distances as a larder on the hoof etc. The ability to drink milk would have been damned handy too if they had that. This makes a lot of sense as we know that beaker people had little to offer in terms of metallurgy and mining in many of the areas they passed through with the exception of the northern fringe and isles. This role of mobile go-betweens fetching and moving metal products from existing more settled and sophisticated metal centres is something we already can discern as early as the Carpatho-Balkans metalwork being distributed around the steppes by Sredny Stog people in pre-wheel times. Like I said, the value of exotica would increase with distance from source and be worth least around the areas where copper was common. I think that can be seen in the use of copper in pre-beaker Iberia. I have long thought that even the choice of archery as the most practical weapon makes a lot of sense if you were moving about in relatively small clans on the hoof with cattle for subsistence and carrying valuables. It would be hard for more settled people without horses to catch or fight people who could move themselves, their larder and their valuables at speed and who were also capable of forming groups of archers in a tight spot. That is not to paint a picture of a totally mobile life.

Mobility would have just been part of it and it would have made sense to have also had settled home bases, strategically located settlements along crucial routes and to have members of the clan settled, married to the local chiefs daughter etc as part of the who operation. Its a shame the evidence for beaker horse use is patchy. Heavy oxen pulled wagons were know from at least a line from Holland to the Alps by around 3000BC so why wouldnt they also have used them when practical? Things like horses, wagons etc must have been a revolution in terms of the size of a person's world, the potential size of pastures a person could control, warfare, the trading potential, the marriage network potential and that is indeed what is implied by massive far ranging cultures like corded ware and beaker. Most changes in population ultimately stems back to new technology, improvement in transport, changes in subsistence techniques and effects of environmental change.

[MJost]

Are there shared SNPs directly below the L23 SNP in its various branches or is L23 the last shared SNP?

How many SNPs are downstream between L23 and the non-L51 clade defining SNPs of L23xL51?Here is the YFull tree info. Each branch show several or more SNP but the order of occurrence is not know until some kit is found not not positive for them all. MJost

R1b1a2--L265/PF6431 * M269/PF6517 * S3/PF6485... 4 SNPs --- S10/PF6399 * YSC0000269/PF6475/S17 * L1063/CTS8728/PF6480/S13 * PF6410/M520" {7}

R1b1a2*

R1b1a2a--L23/S141/PF6534 * L49.1/L49.2/PF6276/S349 * L150/PF6274/L150.1/PF6274.1/L150.2/PF6274.2 {3}

R1b1a2a*

R1b1a2a1--L51/M412/S167/PF6536 * CTS10373/PF6537 * PF6414... 1 SNPs --- "PF6355" {4}

R1b1a2a1*

R1b1a2a1a--L11/S127/PF6539 * L52/PF6541 * L151/PF6542... 5 SNPs --- "P310/S129/PF6546 * P311/S128/PF6545 * YSC0000191/PF6543/S1159 * CTS7650/PF6544/S1164 *

PF5856" {7}

R1b1a2a1a*

(R1b1a2a1a1--M405/S21/U106)

R1b1a2a1a2--P312/S116/PF6547 * Z1904/CTS12684/PF6548 {2}

[alan]

Here is the YFull tree info. Each branch show several or more SNP but the order of occurrence is not know until some kit is found not not positive for them all. MJost

R1b1a2--L265/PF6431 * M269/PF6517 * S3/PF6485... 4 SNPs --- S10/PF6399 * YSC0000269/PF6475/S17 * L1063/CTS8728/PF6480/S13 * PF6410/M520" {7}

R1b1a2*

R1b1a2a--L23/S141/PF6534 * L49.1/L49.2/PF6276/S349 * L150/PF6274/L150.1/PF6274.1/L150.2/PF6274.2 {3}

R1b1a2a*

R1b1a2a1--L51/M412/S167/PF6536 * CTS10373/PF6537 * PF6414... 1 SNPs --- "PF6355" {4}

R1b1a2a1*

R1b1a2a1a--L11/S127/PF6539 * L52/PF6541 * L151/PF6542... 5 SNPs --- "P310/S129/PF6546 * P311/S128/PF6545 * YSC0000191/PF6543/S1159 * CTS7650/PF6544/S1164 *

PF5856" {7}

R1b1a2a1a*

(R1b1a2a1a1--M405/S21/U106)

R1b1a2a1a2--P312/S116/PF6547 * Z1904/CTS12684/PF6548 {2}

My eyes just died and my brain shut down - its getting late here - when I saw that amount of SNP that I dont know. In a nutshell are there any shared SNPs between L51 and L23xL51 lines after the L23 SNP?

[Chad Rohlfsen]

Anyt mtDNA not under U2/U4/U5/U8 is West Asian in origin, or Near Eastern, whatever your preference.

You're not understanding what I'm talking about....

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/10/ancient-central-european-mtdna-across.html

[Chad Rohlfsen]

MJost,
Do you have anything to confirm Klyosov's view of the Bashkirs having the oldest L-23? I think he used 25 markers. Unfortunately he did not use data from Bulgaria or Romania.

[MJost]

In my run, Russian Bashkirs only had a variance of 1.38. In fact most of the high ranges were around the Black Sea and south into Turkey (Anatolia) and Iran. You look at my chart? You may read (or re-read) http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?820-R1b-Early-Branching-Phylogeny-(SNP-based-family-tree)&p=162&viewfull=1#post162

Go to page group four and read MikeW's comments. As for datings by Klysov, his TMRCAs are a tad smaller than mine but are close. You maybe looking at L23 xL51 numbers. Read specifically,

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?820-R1b-Early-Branching-Phylogeny-(SNP-based-family-tree)&p=5298&viewfull=1#post5298

I can not agree that 'R-L23 apparently arose on the eastern side of the East European Plain, where Europe meets Asia' as per Klysov based on variance. Klysov's counting has some value in haplotypes with 12 or 25 markers as per his own caveats.

Anatole Klyosov's Theory using a Linear/logarithmic Audit Method.
AK stated that "The logarithmic method is good for extended datasets"
For 37- and 67-marker haplotypes the logarithmic method is hardly applicable. The use the logarithmic method is not recommended when less than 4-5 base haplotypes are present in the haplotype series because of the large uncertainties.
Only when the two methods (logarithmic and mutation counting) method give similar results (in terms of a number of generations or years to the common ancestor), the results are justified. If the results are significantly different, such as by 1.4-2 times or higher, neither of the results can be accepted. A difference of 1.3-1.4 times is conditionally acceptable, however, results will have a high margin of error.
http://www.jogg.info/52/files/Klyosov1.pdf
He also pointed out that 'the ASD permutational method does not need a base haplotype and it does not require a correction for back mutations."

Note: ASD permutational method is also known as Variance.

This conversation can continue over on the 'STR Wars, GDs, TMRCA estimates, Variance, Mutation Rates & SNP' thread.

MJost




MJost

[Hando]

Chart (bB appears to match my L23 chart showing similar highest variance occurrence on the west coast of the Black Sea from the R1b-L23asterisk Variance combining both the Karachanak etal Modern Bulgarians and the R1b-Early FtDNA hplotypes-R1 back March 2013.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By9Y3jb2fORNR0xpSENNWmpZSHc/view?usp=sharing

MJost

Why does L23 have such high frequency in the Middle East? Iraq, Syria, Turkey etc? Did it originate in the Middle East?

[MJost]

Why does L23 have such high frequency in the Middle East? Iraq, Syria, Turkey etc? Did it originate in the Middle East?

I think the Busby summed it up best in the paper 'The peopling of Europe and the cautionary tale of Y chromosome lineage R-M269'
George B. J. Busby, et al

"The current uncertainty surrounding STR mutation rates shows that despite these recent studies, there can still be no consensus on when and where the R-M269 haplogroup originated and spread in Europe. Even if invoking the origins of the European Y chromosome gene pool ‘must be viewed cautiously especially when such an argument is based on just a single incompletely resolved haplogroup’ "

But my personal belief would be in the far Western Steppe which begins near the mouth of the Danube and extends northeast almost to Kazan and then southeast to the southern tip of the Ural Mountains.

MJost

[Chad Rohlfsen]

Near Eastern R1b is probably mostly L-23 because they didn't receive much input after Anatolian speakers came. Late Bronze and Iron Age didn't involve a great deal of flow into Anatolia. You do find L51 and L11 in some spots. There is a some P312 also. Ezero expanding out from Bulgaria to Hungary and Western Anatolia by 2800BCE could be the smoking gun.

[alan]

Why does L23 have such high frequency in the Middle East? Iraq, Syria, Turkey etc? Did it originate in the Middle East?

I suppose the simple answer was a lot of different IE groups entered the area including Hittites, other Anatolian branch speakers, Phyrgians, Armenians, Greeks etc, all of whom likely had a previous existence in the Balkans where L23 has its European peak. In all cases other than the Greeks they completely disappeared in their homelands but set up important kingdoms and even empires.

Put it another way, many IE languages like Iranian, Indic are now almost exclusively known in SW Asia and there is very little left of them in the steppes where they were replaced by Asian waves and finally Slavs. So, practically none of the IE language groups today exist in or even near the IE homeland. So looking at today's populations in the western steppe is probably terribly misleading as half a dozen waves, population and linguistic changes occurred since then. To put it bluntly, other than the Slavs who expanded across Russia and south Ukraine in modern times virtually all the IE groups who once lived there are long gone having headed to the Balkans or into south-west Asia. I think extinction at the point of origin is far more likely in a mobile pastoralist society in the steppes than in a farming society. The male lines have survived in displaced locations such as R1a in Indo-Iranians or R1b in Armenians.

[MJost]

Near Eastern R1b is probably mostly L-23 because they didn't receive much input after Anatolian speakers came. Late Bronze and Iron Age didn't involve a great deal of flow into Anatolia. You do find L51 and L11 in some spots. There is a some P312 also. Ezero expanding out from Bulgaria to Hungary and Western Anatolia by 2800BCE could be the smoking gun.
I don't believe ancient Near East was the area where L23 was spawn. The variance numbers are too low there, although higher than NW Europe or north.

MJost

[alan]

I don't believe ancient Near East was the area where L23 was spawn. The variance numbers are too low there, although higher than NW Europe or north.

MJost

I think its interesting to consider the IE languages linked to different R1b clades and look at peoples who speak them today. Its probably best to do that than look at ancient geographical positions alone as so much replacement has happened since. I believe Albanians have high M269* and the most convincing argument for their ancient origins is Dacians IMO - basically around Romania. The Armenians have a bit but much more L23xL51 and they are usually traced to the east Balkans. Anatolians also seem likely to have been come via the east Balkans but they do not survive as a living population and the empires like the Hittites were huge. The origins of the Greeks is disputed. The general impression I get of these IE dialects and their inclusion of significant R1b elements is that M269 and L23 had an ancient presence in the Balkans and far west steppe from the copper age and it was probably significantly stronger in the past before the complex history of invasions from Asiatic tribes and the Slavic expansions took their toll. As the modern languages show compared to the ancient in the same areas, very little is in-situ compared to its likely location 4000 years ago.

[Chad Rohlfsen]

I don't believe ancient Near East was the area where L23 was spawn. The variance numbers are too low there, although higher than NW Europe or north.

MJost

That's what I was saying. Anatolian speakers are PIE folks out of the Balkans and Ezero, not from the Near East. I think L23 lines up with this.

[Jean M]

Haven't time to ferret out the horse stuff this minute, though I may do that shortly, as I work over text.

Here it is.

Another rich Copper Age culture appeared in Iberia. The earliest dates of copper-working there are for mining-metallurgical complexes in South-western Iberia, such as Cabezo Juré (c. 3100 BC). It is revealing that Cabezo Juré was colonised by a community already specialised in copper production. These incomers lived within a fortified centre, dining well and importing luxuries, while in a village outside lived the lower-status workers. The well-protected elite controlled access to horses, used probably in the transport of copper ore.1 At this time Iberia had wild horses. Some of their DNA made its way into modern Iberian breeds.2 Horse bones are found together with Bell Beaker pottery throughout its range, so the idea that domesticated horses spread out of Iberia with Bell Beaker has enjoyed a certain popularity,3 but sites such as Cabezo Juré, which precede Bell Beaker, suggest that the knowledge of horse-taming and copper-working arrived in Iberia together from the European steppe.

1. Nocete 2006; Nocete 2011, 3278-3295; Hanning, Gauß and Goldenberg 2010; Roberts 2008.
2. Lira 2010.
3. Bendrey 2012.

Available online:

Nocete, F. 2006. The first specialised copper industry in the Iberian peninsula: Cabezo Juré, Antiquity, 80 (309), 646–657.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+first+specialised+copper+industry+in+the+Iberi an+peninsula%3A...-a0153513733

NB - the earlier date for Cabezo Juré comes from Nocete 2011.

Bendrey, R. 2012. From wild horses to domestic horses: a European perspective, World Archaeology, 44 (1), 135-157.
https://www.academia.edu/1785218/From_wild_horses_to_domestic_horses_a_European_per spective

Moving on to another chapter now, so this ends my contribution folks.

[Chad Rohlfsen]

Here it is.

Another rich Copper Age culture appeared in Iberia. The earliest dates of copper-working there are for mining-metallurgical complexes in South-western Iberia, such as Cabezo Juré (c. 3100 BC). It is revealing that Cabezo Juré was colonised by a community already specialised in copper production. These incomers lived within a fortified centre, dining well and importing luxuries, while in a village outside lived the lower-status workers. The well-protected elite controlled access to horses, used probably in the transport of copper ore.1 At this time Iberia had wild horses. Some of their DNA made its way into modern Iberian breeds.2 Horse bones are found together with Bell Beaker pottery throughout its range, so the idea that domesticated horses spread out of Iberia with Bell Beaker has enjoyed a certain popularity,3 but sites such as Cabezo Juré, which precede Bell Beaker, suggest that the knowledge of horse-taming and copper-working arrived in Iberia together from the European steppe.

1. Nocete 2006; Nocete 2011, 3278-3295; Hanning, Gauß and Goldenberg 2010; Roberts 2008.
2. Lira 2010.
3. Bendrey 2012.

Available online:

Nocete, F. 2006. The first specialised copper industry in the Iberian peninsula: Cabezo Juré, Antiquity, 80 (309), 646–657.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+first+specialised+copper+industry+in+the+Iberi an+peninsula%3A...-a0153513733

NB - the earlier date for Cabezo Juré comes from Nocete 2011.

Bendrey, R. 2012. From wild horses to domestic horses: a European perspective, World Archaeology, 44 (1), 135-157.
https://www.academia.edu/1785218/From_wild_horses_to_domestic_horses_a_European_per spective

Moving on to another chapter now, so this ends my contribution folks.


No R1b in France around 3000BCE or 2750BCE. I am telling you guys, it shouldn't get to Iberia any sooner than maybe 2000-2200BCE. El Portalon could be the first.

[vettor]

No R1b in France around 3000BCE or 2750BCE. I am telling you guys, it shouldn't get to Iberia any sooner than maybe 2000-2200BCE. El Portalon could be the first.

El Portalon was noted as being identical to an etruscan from Italy

[rms2]

No R1b in France around 3000BCE or 2750BCE. I am telling you guys, it shouldn't get to Iberia any sooner than maybe 2000-2200BCE. El Portalon could be the first.

Wasn't the Neolithic farmer from El Portalon a lot like Sardinians? It seems to me unlikely he will be R1b of any kind. Probably I-M26 or G2a.

[Chad Rohlfsen]

He is supposed to be Tuscan like.

[ADW_1981]

No R1b in France around 3000BCE or 2750BCE. I am telling you guys, it shouldn't get to Iberia any sooner than maybe 2000-2200BCE. El Portalon could be the first.

Did you read her post? The only aDNA which has been collected from Iberia is from a hunter gatherer site and neolithic ones. This needs to be contrasted against the arrival of new people to Iberia who were not related to the neolithic advance. This is noted in the cited article by a centralized fortified settlement, with emphasis on copper metallurgy and the absence of earlier farming traditions. If there was selective reproduction advantage for the newcomers, it doesn't surprise me at all that levels of earlier YDNA lineages linked to hunter gatherers and neolithic would decrease over time.

So R1b very well could have entered Iberia with copper working, in and around 3000 BC.

[rms2]

Here's the abstract from the El Portalon paper that appears at Dienekes (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/11/iberian-neolithic-farmer-dna.html):



The spread of farming, the neolithisation process, swept over Europe after the advent of the farming lifestyle in the near east approximately 11,000 years ago. However the mode of transmission and its impact on the demographic patterns of Europe remains largely unknown. In this study we obtained : 66,476,944 bp of genomic DNA from the remains of a 4000 year old Neolithic farmer from the site of El Portalón, 15 km east of Burgos, Spain. We compared the genomic signature of this individual to modern-day populations as well as the few Neolithic individuals that has produced large-scale autosomal data. The Neolithic Portalón individual is genetically most similar to southern Europeans, similar to a Scandinavian Neolithic farmer and the Tyrolean Iceman. In contrast, the Neolithic Portalón individual displays little affinity to two Mesolithic samples from the near-by area, La Brana, demonstrating a distinct change in population history between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago for the northern Iberian Peninsula.

As I recall, Ötzi and the Neolithic farmer from Sweden were both very close to modern Sardinians. Anyway, I doubt the farmer from El Portalon is R1b. I think he is probably like most of the other European Neolithic farmers found thus far and is G2a or I2 of some kind.

[Krefter]

He is supposed to be Tuscan like.

That's based on one PCA.

[alan]

Here's the abstract from the El Portalon paper that appears at Dienekes (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/11/iberian-neolithic-farmer-dna.html):



As I recall, Ötzi and the Neolithic farmer from Sweden were both very close to modern Sardinians. Anyway, I doubt the farmer from El Portalon is R1b. I think he is probably like most of the other European Neolithic farmers found thus far and is G2a or I2 of some kind.

If he was 4000 years old as quoted he is not a Neolithic farmer. In fact he would almost be post-beaker.

[Chad Rohlfsen]

Did you read her post? The only aDNA which has been collected from Iberia is from a hunter gatherer site and neolithic ones. This needs to be contrasted against the arrival of new people to Iberia who were not related to the neolithic advance. This is noted in the cited article by a centralized fortified settlement, with emphasis on copper metallurgy and the absence of earlier farming traditions. If there was selective reproduction advantage for the newcomers, it doesn't surprise me at all that levels of earlier YDNA lineages linked to hunter gatherers and neolithic would decrease over time.

So R1b very well could have entered Iberia with copper working, in and around 3000 BC.

Groups related to the Danubian Chalcolithic were in Western Germany by 3500BCE, so why not Iberia by 3000BCE? They also had a social structure with domesticated animals. There is no evidence at all for R1b that far west, at that time.

[alan]

Groups related to the Danubian Chalcolithic were in Western Germany by 3500BCE, so why not Iberia by 3000BCE? They also had a social structure with domesticated animals. There is no evidence at all for R1b that far west, at that time.


The Danubian=LBK and it was in Germany by 5500BC. However we have lots of LBK ancient DNA and its mostly G. The LBK didnt spread further west than northern France. The Iberian Neolithic was of the Cardial type and spread along the Med. and never made it further north than the Loire.

[rms2]

If he was 4000 years old as quoted he is not a Neolithic farmer. In fact he would almost be post-beaker.

True, but perhaps he was living at the Neolithic level. Otherwise, I don't know why they called him a Neolithic farmer.

[Chad Rohlfsen]

The Danubian=LBK and it was in Germany by 5500BC. However we have lots of LBK ancient DNA and its mostly G. The LBK didnt spread further west than northern France. The Iberian Neolithic was of the Cardial type and spread along the Med. and never made it further north than the Loire.


LBK has nothing to do with what I said. Look at my date. It's 2000 years later than what you said.

[rms2]

It seems to me we really need some ancient y-dna news. Things are mighty dull around here.

I wonder if they'll ever get any y-dna from Beaker Folk in Britain or Ireland.

[alan]

True, but perhaps he was living at the Neolithic level. Otherwise, I don't know why they called him a Neolithic farmer.

Its just not normal practice to describe anyone as Neolithic after the copper age has arrived in their area, even if we have no direct evidence they were using copper. Indeed by 4000 years ago much of Europe was in the Bronze Age. Generally speaking in many areas copper age people will not be found with direct evidence of copper in settlements and burials so there is not real way of saying whether someone was in or out of the loop of copper use once it was known locally. It is possible that its an uncalibrated date which at that period would make it 500 years or so too young but even then it would still be a couple of centuries into the beaker period and 1000 years after the term copper age first applied in Iberia. However, I do agree there must have been groups who were peripheral to the copper control but its still unheard of to use the term Neolithic farmers as late as 2000BC which is post-copper age. Its probably a case of misuse of archaeological terms by geneticists or misquoting the date.Maybe it was 4000BC instead of 4000BP

[alan]

LBK has nothing to do with what I said. Look at my date. It's 2000 years later than what you said.

ah sorry - its just that the term Danubian has a specific meaning in archaeology. I can see now you just meant it geographically.

[alan]

It seems to me we really need some ancient y-dna news. Things are mighty dull around here.

I wonder if they'll ever get any y-dna from Beaker Folk in Britain or Ireland.

I got the impression you have been champing at the bit for some new ancient DNA. Me too. There was a nice flow of new info all year and we have got used to having something new every few weeks and it has gone all tumbleweed recently. I am hoping the promise of that big study of eastern Europe coming out before Xmas happens. I think Generalisimo made some comment that he thought it was going to be a Xmas present.

[rms2]

I am anxiously waiting for some ancient y-dna news, especially some where R1b and Yamnaya are concerned. I would really like to see that rumor that Alexei Kovalev recovered R1b from Afanasievo and Okunevo remains confirmed, or some R1b from Yamnaya remains. Wouldn't that be something?

I would also like to see some y-dna from Beaker men in Britain and Ireland.

[Heber]

I hope that the Bridging the European and Anatolian Neolithic (BEAN) project which is now up and running will provide a pipeline of innovation and papers on aDNA in this area.

http://beanproject.eu/content/about-bean-network-0

About the BEAN network

The BEAN Initial Training Network is providing state-of-the-art training to early-stage researchers in the scientific disciplines of anthropology, genomics, simulations and modelling, biostatistics, demography, and prehistoric archaeology, as well as complementary skills in cultural heritage entrepreneurship, public outreach, and scientific publication.

Training opportunities in the BEAN network are embedded within a multifaceted integrated research programme investigating one of the most complex topics in modern anthropology: the Neolithisation of Europe. BEAN focuses on demographic questions surrounding the spread of the cultural, technological, and biological components of the Neolithic from western Anatolia and the Balkans to the rest of Europe.

[alan]

Isn't there the slightest possibility that Beaker could still be older in the east? We're talking a few hundred years here and I can't imagine every shard of pottery that ever existed is even around anymore to even test. Not only that but is carbon dating accurate to that level of granularity that we can solidify a claim either way?

We're talking 3000 BC to 2600 BC either way. I'm not expert but just throwing this out there...

I would like to say no but archaeology is littered with people thinking its a done deal when its not. However, I do believe there general trend is clear that the oldest beaker pots proper are towards the west Med. area. However, it seems possible to me there could be a missing link further east in Italy where some early dates have been recorded. ASAIK beaker is not well undestood in Italy. It would make sense to me if Italy was as early as Iberia because north Italy featured the broadly beaker-like Remdedello culture in pre-beaker times while corded ware folks were just through the Alpine passes. Iberia is just a bit of a leap for anything of eastern origin and if it did happen its visibility is not obvious or archaeologists would not still be debating this. The single grave in Iberia chapter summary is very interesting and it is true that in terms of geographical plausibility for a tradition of graves glorifying the individual c. 2900-2700BC then corded ware and Remedello 2 were the closest to Iberia. I must read the original book.

[alan]

I think many of us agree that while bell beaker properly defined is perhaps an Iberian invention and certainly Iberia has earlier dates than central and northern Europe, its model doesnt look local except for those who somehow fool themselves into believing the pre-beaker barrel shaped cups are its origin. It also all depends on who migrated. If it was male only then the pottery ideas would have to be conveyed to local women who would use local techniques which would I suppose provide a kind of hybrid. In terms of visible archaeology I find it very hard to see past corded ware as a basic model for the beaker shape and also the AOC beakers as in geographical and chronological terms it just seems the easiest fit. This paper on single graves does state boldly that Iberian single graves in the beaker era were using a version of corded ware traditions. The AOC beakers are found sprinkled through Iberia but they are most common in NE Iberia which reduces the geographical gap as just the width of France. I think there are stray corded ware vessel in France too. I must find the map.

[Hando]

The problem with linking to Iberia with mtDNA H is this.. High frequencies of H1 and H3 appear in Central Germany 800 years before Beaker. I think it was Baalberg that was 80%+ of H1 and H3. So, we can't link that to Iberian beakers. ADNA is going to be the only answer. I'm pretty sure that you can throw out island hopping. Bell Beaker mtDNA only matches the Pontic Steppe, a bit with EHG, Pitted Ware and Neolithic Europe. There is no match with West Asia or the Mediterranean coast and islands. If that link with Iberia is solely based on H1 and H3, then it may have nothing to do with Iberia at all, as stated above. Corded Ware is the only one with West Asian and Caucasus links. If that change to Near Eastern mtDNA in Yamnaya happened after 4000BCE, that could post-date R1b's migration into the Balkans with Cernavoda, then to Cotafeni and Ezero, and only be found in Yamnaya and Corded Ware.

What then was Yamnaya's mtDNA before the change to Near Eastern mtDNA? And are you saying H is Near Eastern? I guess you are also saying H is only found in Yamnaya and Corded Ware, and that therefore Beaker did not have H?

[Leeroy Jenkins]

What then was Yamnaya's mtDNA before the change to Near Eastern mtDNA? And are you saying H is Near Eastern? I guess you are also saying H is only found in Yamnaya and Corded Ware, and that therefore Beaker did not have H?

Reich's abstract stated that before the influx of diverse Near Eastern mtDNA lineages, the Samara Valley mtDNA lineages were primarily U4 and U5. I believe Reich told someone here (Jean M?) via email that there was at least one mtDNA H lineage found along with the older U lineages.

[Hando]

Reich's abstract stated that before the influx of diverse Near Eastern mtDNA lineages, the Samara Valley mtDNA lineages were primarily U4 and U5. I believe Reich told someone here (Jean M?) via email that there was at least one mtDNA H lineage found along with the older U lineages.

Were the U4 and U5 totally replaced by the Near Eastern mtDNA lineages?

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Were the U4 and U5 totally replaced by the Near Eastern mtDNA lineages?

No, there was not total replacement of mtDNA lineages since we find a mixture of U, H, T, Z and K lineages in the later Andronovo culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture#Ancient_DNA).

[parasar]

Reich's abstract stated that before the influx of diverse Near Eastern mtDNA lineages, the Samara Valley mtDNA lineages were primarily U4 and U5. I believe Reich told someone here (Jean M?) via email that there was at least one mtDNA H lineage found along with the older U lineages.

"Samara experienced major population turnovers over time: early samples (>6000 years) belong primarily to mtDNA haplogroups U4 and U5, typical of European hunter-gatherers but later ones include haplogroups W, H, T, I, K, J."

Why do you think they are Near Eastern and not Southern European?

[Leeroy Jenkins]

"Samara experienced major population turnovers over time: early samples (>6000 years) belong primarily to mtDNA haplogroups U4 and U5, typical of European hunter-gatherers but later ones include haplogroups W, H, T, I, K, J."

Why do you think they are Near Eastern and not Southern European?

The mainstream thinking is that U lineages were primarily spread throughout Europe before the arrival of diverse agriculturalist lineages during the Neolithic period, unless something has changed.

It is still too early to say that all of those lineages are Near Eastern, particularly mtDNA H, with absolute certainty, and some of those lineages may have already been present in at least south eastern Europe before the Neolithic. I remember seeing a pic of a slide presentation that showed mtDNA T, H, J and K in ancient Balkan remains, some of which may be pre-Neolithic, but I do not think any of the data has been published, and I haven't seen anyone confirm dates for the samples.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nbIdjDhTn3k/ULup4MYeDDI/AAAAAAAAHys/98M0zWSzmd4/s1600/haplogroups.png

The one thing that makes me think these lineages are likely from the Near East/Caucasus area, is because Yamnaya can supposedly be modeled as 50% modern Armenian and 50% ancient Karelian hunter gatherer. If Yamnaya could be modeled as 50% Sardinian and 50% Karelian HG, then I would believe Southern Europe was the likely origin for these new non-U lineages in Samara. Also, if Reich and Patterson believe Maikop may be responsible for the earliest spread of PIE culture, these non-U lineages could be related to the migration of this relatively Southern population into the steppes.

Still too early to be certain of anything, as I have already stated, but that is why I went with the current mainstream viewpoint in my previous post.

[parasar]

...
The one thing that makes me think these lineages are likely from the Near East/Caucasus area, is because Yamnaya can supposedly be modeled as 50% modern Armenian and 50% ancient Karelian hunter gatherer ...

Weren't Armenians were supposed to be migrants from Greece or the Balkans?

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Weren't Armenians were supposed to be migrants from Greece or the Balkans?

That is possible, but I've seen several difference proposals on the spread of IE languages, so it's anyone's guess. If you go to the wiki page for the Kurgan hypothesis, you will find the map below that appears to show a spread of what I would imagine is Armenian, South through the Caucasus.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/IE_expansion.png

Also, we're talking about modern Armenians, not the people that spawned the Armenian language in prehistory. So if the original speakers of the Armenian language did come from the Balkans, I doubt they had a large impact on modern Armenian autosomal DNA. Patterson and Reich believe Yamnaya may not be the PIE Urheimat due to modern Armenians and Indians lacking WHG ancestry, so a Balkan origin for Armenian is either doubtful or modern Armenians simply inherited the language without inheriting the DNA originally associated with the people that carried the language from the Balkans to West Asia.

[parasar]

... Patterson and Reich believe Yamnaya may not be the PIE Urheimat due to modern Armenians and Indians lacking WHG ancestry, so a Balkan origin for Armenian is either doubtful or modern Armenians simply inherited the language without inheriting the DNA originally associated with the people that carried the language from the Balkans to West Asia.

I think it is possible that there was little or no WHG in the Greek and Balkan populations in the Mesolithic, Neolithic and even later timeframes. WHG I associate with mtDNA U in Europe and its absence in the frame you referenced in post 163 is striking.

The Kurgan spread looks like one of Cavalli Sforza's proposed components - PC3 in Europe.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3989108/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3989108/bin/nihms436736f1.jpg

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I think it is possible that there was little or no WHG in the Greek and Balkan populations in the Mesolithic, Neolithic and even later timeframes. WHG I associate with mtDNA U in Europe and its absence in the frame you referenced in post 163 is striking.

The Kurgan spread looks like one of Cavalli Sforza's proposed components - PC3 in Europe.

That is certainly a possibility, but all modern day IE-speaking populations in the Balkans seem to carry WHG, and if Yamnaya is doubted by Reich and Patterson as the PIE homeland due to there being WHG ancestry in ancient steppe peoples but not in modern Armenians and Indians, it makes explaining how Yamnaya-derived groups in the Balkans lost their WHG ancestry only to have an influx of the component in the Balkans later in time difficult.

That doesn't mean it is impossible, it just means it won't be easy to figure out.

Btw, wasn't mtDNA U5b2a5 found in Mesolithic Croatia not too long ago?

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I think it is possible that there was little or no WHG in the Greek and Balkan populations in the Mesolithic, Neolithic and even later timeframes. WHG I associate with mtDNA U in Europe and its absence in the frame you referenced in post 163 is striking.

The Kurgan spread looks like one of Cavalli Sforza's proposed components - PC3 in Europe.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3989108/

PC3 does look Yamnaya-related and PC4 seems to mirror Dienekes' "Gedrosia" component. Interesting that Cavalli-Sforza gave the following description for the component:


Figure 1 shows PC-maps for Asia, Europe and Africa from [2, 3]. In interpreting these maps, Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues suggest that “if there is a radiation of circular or elliptic lines from a specific area, a [population] expansion is a possible explanation; and its place of origin must be the center of the radiation.” (p. 295 [3]). They also suggest centripetal population movements as an alternative explanation. Examples of their explanations for the European PC-maps in Figure 1 include: expansion of agriculturalists out of the Near East (Europe PC1); migrations of Mongoloid Uralic speakers from northwestern Asia (Europe PC2); migration of the carriers of the proto-Indo-European Kurgan culture in Europe (Europe PC3); and an expansion from Greece (Europe PC4).

[Hando]

PC3 does look Yamnaya-related and PC4 seems to mirror Dienekes' "Gedrosia" component. Interesting that Cavalli-Sforza gave the following description for the component:

I'm not sure how to read the maps properly as there are different maps labelled PC1, PC2, PC3 and PC4. And who expanded from Greece?

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I'm not sure how to read the maps properly as there are different maps labelled PC1, PC2, PC3 and PC4. And who expanded from Greece?

I was referring to the maps of Europe, specifically. If you look at the maps of Europe for PC3 and PC4, you will see that PC3 looks related to Yamnaya migrations and PC4 is very similar to Dienekes' "Gedrosia" component from his Dodecad project. Cavalli-Sforza related the Gedrosia-like PC4 component to an expansion from Greece. I personally do not know of a prehistoric migration from the Southern Balkans that would have affected both Northwestern Europeans and Iranians (presumably people from India too), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Perhaps someone else here can fit the spread of the PC4 component being discussed into a more suitable archaeological context than simply "an expansion from Greece"?

[yxc]

to say that R1b L23 expanded from Greece at the onset of Metallurgy , that R1b were there with this dodecad component since coldest times let's say at Franchthi and R1b had not been encountered by initial farming wave into central Europe , all that isn't unrealistic

[Hando]

I was referring to the maps of Europe, specifically. If you look at the maps of Europe for PC3 and PC4, you will see that PC3 looks related to Yamnaya migrations and PC4 is very similar to Dienekes' "Gedrosia" component from his Dodecad project. Cavalli-Sforza related the Gedrosia-like PC4 component to an expansion from Greece. I personally do not know of a prehistoric migration from the Southern Balkans that would have affected both Northwestern Europeans and Iranians (presumably people from India too), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Perhaps someone else here can fit the spread of the PC4 component being discussed into a more suitable archaeological context than simply "an expansion from Greece"?
Thanks. I see that by Gedrosia like PC4 component, you meant an R1b L23 expansion from Greece.

[Piquerobi]

What is your opinion on Gimbutas' take? From "The Kurgan culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe"

She was amazingly right!

[rms2]

What about the SNP testing for the Beaker male from Quedlinburg, the one who is confirmed P312+ from the new Haak et al paper, Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433)?

They tested him for some odd stuff, including my own haplogroup downstream of L21 (CTS6581, aka DF41), but not for U152, L21, or DF27. Weird. Wonder why.

Now Beaker is three-for-three R1b (two from Kromsdorf, one from Quedlinburg), and now the one from Quedlinburg is confirmed P312+. The two from Kromsdorf were U106-. It seems likely to me now that they were probably P312+, as well.

[rms2]

What about the SNP testing for the Beaker male from Quedlinburg, the one who is confirmed P312+ from the new Haak et al paper, Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433)?

They tested him for some odd stuff, including my own haplogroup downstream of L21 (CTS6581, aka DF41), but not for U152, L21, or DF27. Weird. Wonder why.

Now Beaker is three-for-three R1b (two from Kromsdorf, one from Quedlinburg), and now the one from Quedlinburg is confirmed P312+. The two from Kromsdorf were U106-. It seems likely to me now that they were probably P312+, as well.

Guess I should correct the above post to say that Haak et al tested their ancient remains for all the y-dna SNPs included in ISOGG's Tree as of 22 April 2013. Apparently they just did not get reads for U152, DF27, and L21, sad to say.

Ordinarily a finding like this one, i.e., a P312+ result for a Bell Beaker man from Germany, would be HUGE news and the subject of passionate discussion and debate. Naturally, it has been overshadowed by the seven-for-seven R1b results of the ancient males dug up from their kurgans in the Samara and Orenburg oblasts in Russia.

[Hok]

Guess I should correct the above post to say that Haak et al tested their ancient remains for all the y-dna SNPs included in ISOGG's Tree as of 22 April 2013. Apparently they just did not get reads for U152, DF27, and L21, sad to say.

Ordinarily a finding like this one, i.e., a P312+ result for a Bell Beaker man from Germany, would be HUGE news and the subject of passionate discussion and debate. Naturally, it has been overshadowed by the seven-for-seven R1b results of the ancient males dug up from their kurgans in the Samara and Orenburg oblasts in Russia.

Yes, your direct ancestor was probably a Bell Beaker guy.:) Unfortunately, R1b U106 has not been found yet, some people think R1b U106 is also Bell Beaker but i doubt it.

[rms2]

Here is something I posted elsewhere, but it bears repeating here, and the photos at the link below are interesting.

Although I sometimes find his conclusions far-fetched, the Bell Beaker Blogger (http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/) mentions the mixed nature (Beaker/Corded Ware) of the Quedlinburg Beaker site, where I0806, the P312+ Beaker man, was recovered. One of the bodies was buried with a Corded Ware pot, and a male, possibly the P312+ guy, was buried with a Corded Ware shaft-hole axe.

[Kopfjäger]

Here is something I posted elsewhere, but it bears repeating here, and the photos at the link below are interesting.

Although I sometimes find his conclusions far-fetched, the Bell Beaker Blogger (http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/) mentions the mixed nature (Beaker/Corded Ware) of the Quedlinburg Beaker site, where I0806, the P312+ Beaker man, was recovered. One of the bodies was buried with a Corded Ware pot, and a male, possibly the P312+ guy, was buried with a Corded Ware shaft-hole axe.

While there's no doubt P312 is Beaker, there may also be a P312 component in Corded Ware. I wish the researchers tested for subclades of P312, and I would obviously pull for a L21+ result, although the likelihood of its presence would increase as one approaches any rivers or the Atlantic.

Nevertheless, I didn't expect R1b to be found in eastern Yamnaya either. B)

[alan]

Guess I should correct the above post to say that Haak et al tested their ancient remains for all the y-dna SNPs included in ISOGG's Tree as of 22 April 2013. Apparently they just did not get reads for U152, DF27, and L21, sad to say.

Ordinarily a finding like this one, i.e., a P312+ result for a Bell Beaker man from Germany, would be HUGE news and the subject of passionate discussion and debate. Naturally, it has been overshadowed by the seven-for-seven R1b results of the ancient males dug up from their kurgans in the Samara and Orenburg oblasts in Russia.


Good point. Its the first time P312 has been proven in Bell Beaker and its a bit unsung. I think we had got to the point by deduction where it was almost universally accepted without ancient DNA. I think Kromsdorf being M269xU106 is overwhelmingly likely to have been P312 too although perhaps L11xP312xU106. L51xL11 is so incredibly rare in Germany today that I dont think it is at all likely. In a sense beaker=P312 was a case of the deduction being so convincing that it was accepted correctly before the final proof came. Hence it has been treated in a rather anticlimax sort of way. We basically were almost sure anyway. No other explanation would work for P312 given what we knew about its age and Neolithic absence.

[alan]

While there's no doubt P312 is Beaker, there may also be a P312 component in Corded Ware. I wish the researchers tested for subclades of P312, and I would obviously pull for a L21+ result, although the likelihood of its presence would increase as one approaches any rivers or the Atlantic.

Nevertheless, I didn't expect R1b to be found in eastern Yamnaya either. B)

What I really want to know is just how close the brotherly cultural relationship was between corded ware and beaker. It could be even that cultural hybriding and all sorts of processes mean that beaker wasnt P312 from start to finished and across all the Geography. Taking the hard evidence at face value it doenst look like L11 was present in farming Europe pre-3000BC. This together with the very unimpressive amount of L51xL11 and the fact even L11 seems to have existedlong before beaker strongly suggests to me that even L11 possibly emerged first in the steppes. Modern DNA is proving of very little use in telling us much about y lineage geography 5 or 6000 years ago and only the most ghostly and displaced shadow of the yDNA distribution remains in places of high human traffic like the steppes and parts of SW Asia. Probably true for areas like the Lower Danube, north Balkans and Anatolia too. I think there are subtle clues but that is all. Its not such a bad situation for using modern DNA is the most remote bits of north and west of Europe where change over the last 4000 years seems to have been less drastic. Few people suggest large scale migration into places like the Celtic fringe,Scandinavia for example in the last 4000 years.

[rms2]

Good point. Its the first time P312 has been proven in Bell Beaker and its a bit unsung. I think we had got to the point by deduction where it was almost universally accepted without ancient DNA. I think Kromsdorf being M269xU106 is overwhelmingly likely to have been P312 too although perhaps L11xP312xU106. L51xL11 is so incredibly rare in Germany today that I dont think it is at all likely. In a sense beaker=P312 was a case of the deduction being so convincing that it was accepted correctly before the final proof came. Hence it has been treated in a rather anticlimax sort of way. We basically were almost sure anyway. No other explanation would work for P312 given what we knew about its age and Neolithic absence.

True, but it is really satisfying and reassuring to have confirmation at long last. Now we need some Beaker y-dna from the Isles, especially an L21+ result.

[rms2]

What I really want to know is just how close the brotherly cultural relationship was between corded ware and beaker. It could be even that cultural hybriding and all sorts of processes mean that beaker wasnt P312 from start to finished and across all the Geography. Taking the hard evidence at face value it doenst look like L11 was present in farming Europe pre-3000BC. This together with the very unimpressive amount of L51xL11 and the fact even L11 seems to have existedlong before beaker strongly suggests to me that even L11 possibly emerged first in the steppes. Modern DNA is proving of very little use in telling us much about y lineage geography 5 or 6000 years ago and only the most ghostly and displaced shadow of the yDNA distribution remains in places of high human traffic like the steppes and parts of SW Asia. Probably true for areas like the Lower Danube, north Balkans and Anatolia too. I think there are subtle clues but that is all. Its not such a bad situation for using modern DNA is the most remote bits of north and west of Europe where change over the last 4000 years seems to have been less drastic. Few people suggest large scale migration into places like the Celtic fringe,Scandinavia for example in the last 4000 years.

We know there was R1b in Yamnaya, so much so, in fact, that all seven of the males from the kurgans in the Samara and Orenburg oblasts in Russia were R1b exclusively. The odds against that being a fluke must be astronomical, since some of those kurgans are separated pretty widely from one another. We know there was an R1b1 (L278) hunter-gatherer about 7700 years old recovered from a site near Samara which has also yielded finds from the Repin culture that preceded Yamnaya. Autosomally, he groups next to the R1a1 hunter-gatherer from Karelia. Now we have a P312+ Beaker man from Quedlinburg in north central Germany to go with the two R1bxU106 Beaker men from farther south at Kromsdorf, which is in the vicinity of Weimar.

I think we will find ancient L51 and L11 on the route Yamnaya and its successor cultures took to get into the West. L51 at least probably came with Yamnaya and will be found in the Carpathian Basin and on the Hungarian Plain, perhaps L11, too. Beaker probably bumped into one of the kurgan or kurganized successor cultures in that vicinity and acquired its L11 or P312 there, which it took back west. The rest is history.

I guess there is also the possibility that the Stelae People brought L11 or P312 to Iberia, which expanded from there with the original Beaker Folk, if indeed the Beaker Folk did come from Iberia originally (I reserve some doubt on that subject, pots or no pots).

[alan]

We know there was R1b in Yamnaya, so much so, in fact, that all seven of the males from the kurgans in the Samara and Orenburg oblasts in Russia were R1b exclusively. The odds against that being a fluke must be astronomical, since some of those kurgans are separated pretty widely from one another. We know there was an R1b1 (L278) hunter-gatherer about 7700 years old recovered from a site near Samara which has also yield finds from the Repin culture that preceded Yamnaya. Autosomally, he groups next to the R1a1 hunter-gatherer from Karelia. Now we have a P312+ Beaker man from Quedlinburg in north central Germany to go with the two R1bxU106 Beaker men from farther south at Kromsdorf, which is in the vicinity of Weimar.

I think we will find ancient L51 and L11 on the route Yamnaya and its successor cultures took to get into the West. L51 at least probably came with Yamnaya and will be found in the Carpathian Basin and on the Hungarian Plain, perhaps L11, too. Beaker probably bumped into one of the kurgan or kurganized successor cultures in that vicinity and acquired its L11 or P312 there, which it took back west. The rest is history.

I guess there is also the possibility that the Stelae People brought L11 or P312 to Iberia, which expanded from there with the original Beaker Folk, if indeed the Beaker Folk did come from Iberia originally (I reserve some doubt on that subject, pots or no pots).

Couldnt disagree with a word of that. A perfect summary of where we are

[rms2]

As an aside, I bet Dr. Jim Wilson of BritainsDNA, ScotlandsDNA, IrelandsDNA (EverybodysDNA!), etc., is feeling pretty good about Haak et al, since awhile back his company put out that big long blurb about Beaker that accompanies any S116+ (P312+) Chromo2 results (including S145+/L21+ results).

[rms2]

Piquerobi has put the autosomal distances from Yamnaya of the closest populations in order, which is very helpful and convenient. Beaker, which includes Benzigerode-Heimburg, is pretty close.



1-Corded_Ware_LN 0.011
2-Unetice_EBA 0.012
3-BenzigerodeHeimburg 0.013
4-Bell_Beaker_LN 0.016
5-Mordovian 0.018
6-Lezgian/Russian 0.019
7-Czech/Belarusian/Estonian/Hungarian/Icelandic 0.020
8-Norwegian/English 0.021
9-Croatian/French/Lithuanian/Orcadian 0.022
10-Bulgarian 0.023

[rms2]

Okay, so we have R1b-P312 in Bell Beaker in North Central Germany (Quedlinburg). Bell Beaker is relatively close to Yamnaya autosomally, and we know from the Samara and Orenburg oblast results that Yamnaya had some y haplogroup R1b. So, what's the connection? Here's something from David Anthony that could be very relevant:



From David Anthony's The Horse The Wheel And Language, page 367:

The many thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary suggest a more continuous occupation of the landscape by a larger population of immigrants, one that could have acquired power and prestige partly just through its numerical weight. This regional group could have spawned both pre-Italic and pre-Celtic. Bell Beaker sites of the Csepel type around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto-Celtic. Pre-Italic could have developed among the dialects that remained in Hungary, ultimately spreading into Italy through the Urnfield and Villanovan cultures. Eric Hamp and others have revived the argument that Italic and Celtic shared a common parent, so a single migration stream could have contained dialects that later were ancestral to both.

[Silesian]

Okay, so we have R1b-P312 in Bell Beaker in North Central Germany (Quedlinburg). Bell Beaker is relatively close to Yamnaya autosomally, and we know from the Samara and Orenburg oblast results that Yamnaya had some y haplogroup R1b. So, what's the connection? Here's something from David Anthony that could be very relevant:
I will tell you the connection.In a nutshell I have one of the most unusual 12 str's I also have R1b-Z2105 same as Yamnaya. So 4 years ago when someone matched me exactly on my 12 markers I was ecstatic. Then I found out he was from Northern Germany/Denmark region. However it was not to be. He ended up being 312. On closer examination I went through all 37str, and found exact hits on the slowest markers. That is why I thought there was a good chance that c Bell Beaker site of Kromsdorf, might have been L51 Z2105. As it turns out at @ 12 markers I have 2 close matches with M312 L51+ [Denmark and Northern Germany] and one Bashkir[XIX),Bashkortostan, Baysari-Buryjan clan 11/12. Take this with a grain of salt, it might just be coincidence. Then again it might be the region of the L 51 split, who knows?

[rms2]

I think you will see a connection between Z2103/Z2105 and the Anatolian branch of IE, and a connection between P312 and Italo-Celtic.



From David Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language, p. 57:

Anatolian had split away before 3500 BCE, Italic and Celtic before 2500 BCE, Greek after 2500 BCE, and Proto-Indo-Iranian by 2000 BCE. Those are not meant to be exact dates, but they are in the right sequence, are linked to dated inscriptions in three places (Greek, Anatolian, and Old Indic), and make sense.


I think the Z2103/2105 Anatolian-speaking tribes hooked a left in the Balkans and wound up crossing into Anatolia, some of them eventually going to Armenia, where they later lost their Anatolian speech to satem Armenian (not sure of that process exactly).

The L51+ tribes ended up going right (north) up through the Danube valley.

[newtoboard]

I think you will see a connection between Z2103/Z2105 and the Anatolian branch of IE, and a connection between P312 and Italo-Celtic.



I think the Z2103/2105 Anatolian-speaking tribes hooked a left in the Balkans and wound up crossing into Anatolia, some of them eventually going to Armenia, where they later lost their Anatolian speech to satem Armenian (not sure of that process exactly).

The L51+ tribes ended up going right (north) up through the Danube valley.

They lost their Anatolian speech to centum Greek. Armenian was spoken NE of Anatolian in the regions east of the Euphrates River (ie the Armenian highland/Upper Mesopotamia) and the South Caucasus. Anatolian was spoken west of the Euphrates. In fact for most of history Anatolia was indeed defined as the regions west of the Euphrates and regions east of that were Satem speaking from the start of IE presence there (Mittani, Armenian, Cimmerian, Iranian). Armenian was never really spoken in Anatolia.

[rms2]

They lost their Anatolian speech to centum Greek. Armenian was spoken NE of Anatolian in the regions east of the Euphrates River (ie the Armenian highland/Upper Mesopotamia) and the South Caucasus. Anatolian was spoken west of the Euphrates. In fact for most of history Anatolia was indeed defined as the regions west of the Euphrates and regions east of that were Satem speaking from the start of IE presence there (Mittani, Armenian, Cimmerian, Iranian). Armenian was never really spoken in Anatolia.

Look, I and everyone else knows that Greek was eventually spoken in Anatolia. I wasn't even attempting to cover the entire subsequent history of Anatolia down to modern times, or I would have said they all lost their IE speech to Turkish.

Armenia, as I understand it, has long been considered part of the eastern Anatolian highlands, as well as part of the southern Caucasus.

I think it likely that the R1b-Z2103/Z2105 folks who went to Armenia were Anatolian-speaking to begin with and came to speak Armenian later. Of course, I could be wrong about that, as with anything, since I am merely a fallible human and not imbued with omniscience.

[alan]

From what little I know about Z2103/Z2105 and lingistic associations, it seems to me that they have strong links with Armenian, Albanian-which I think was Dacian- and probably Greek. Two of these were satemised which probably tells us something about their original Geography in the north and east Balkans. A couple of them belong to the hypothetical Balkans groups which cuts across the centum-satem divide. In general these clades in Europe have their biggest concentration SE Europe in areas that were never or only partly Slavicised - the southern Slavs may well have truncated and reduced this clade where they were successful in establishing their language. As for Anatolian-that is another interesting question. The Suvorovo model would derive this from Srendy Stog-a culture that was strongest between the Dnieper and Don. So if this clade was linked to Suvorovo this implies that it was present further west than Samanara over 1000 years before the R1b Samara folk. In terms of age and dating, the Suvorovo offshoot into the Bakans sees to date as early as 4300BC although quoted dates vary a little. So, is Z2103/Z2105 old enough to match Suvorovo. I suppose the answer to that is probably. However, if we place Z2103/Z2105 on the Dnieper-Don area before 4300BC then that would place it in the sort of area where L51 might be expected to have been.

[newtoboard]

Look, I and everyone else knows that Greek was eventually spoken in Anatolia. I wasn't even attempting to cover the entire subsequent history of Anatolia down to modern times, or I would have said they all lost their IE speech to Turkish.

Armenia, as I understand it, has long been considered part of the eastern Anatolian highlands, as well as part of the southern Caucasus.

I think it likely that the R1b-Z2103/Z2105 folks who went to Armenia were Anatolian-speaking to begin with and came to speak Armenian later. Of course, I could be wrong about that, as with anything, since I am merely a fallible human and not imbued with omniscience.

Anatolian languages are never attested where Armenian was spoken. Otherwise we would see an Anatolian substrate. It is pretty clear to most that Armenian is spoken where Hurrian was not where Anatolian was.

The Balkan language family is associated with Z2103+ as much as the Anatolian one is if not more.

[Silesian]

They lost their Anatolian speech to centum Greek. Armenian was spoken NE of Anatolian in the regions east of the Euphrates River (ie the Armenian highland/Upper Mesopotamia) and the South Caucasus. Anatolian was spoken west of the Euphrates. In fact for most of history Anatolia was indeed defined as the regions west of the Euphrates and regions east of that were Satem speaking from the start of IE presence there (Mittani, Armenian, Cimmerian, Iranian). Armenian was never really spoken in Anatolia.

No but Phrygian was.

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

[newtoboard]

No but Phrygian was.

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

Phrygian was spoken in West-Central Turkey not Armenia. It isn't an Anatolian language but a Balkan one. And it seems to be a bit different from the rest of the Balkan group (it has some sort of relationship with Celtic-probably from contact in the Balkans and Galatia which makes it unlikely Phrygians somehow became Armenians in which case you might as well argue Armenians are Cimmerians, Thracians, or former Greek speakers if all we are trying to do is relate them to any sort of Balkan speakers)

[Humanist]

Anatolian languages are never attested where Armenian was spoken. Otherwise we would see an Anatolian substrate. It is pretty clear to most that Armenian is spoken where Hurrian was not where Anatolian was.

The Balkan language family is associated with Z2103+ as much as the Anatolian one is if not more.

I thought that Z2103/Z2105 may have entered West Asia via the Balkans, and thus have been associated with the Anatolian branch of IE. I have never thought that it could be associated exclusively with Armenian, given the language's relatively late introduction into the region, the apparent age of L584/L277, and the almost complete lack of influence of the Armenian language among Assyrians and NW Iranians. Now that the Yamnaya results have tested Z2103/Z2105, and assuming Z2103/Z2105 originated on the steppe, in my opinion the most probable explanation for how it arrived in populations such as Armenians, NW Iranians, and Assyrians is a route through the Caucasus. Whether that was on the heels of people still speaking an Indo-European language, I obviously do not know. Hurrian is a good candidate as well.

[newtoboard]

I thought that Z2103/Z2105 may have entered West Asia via the Balkans, and thus have been associated with the Anatolian branch of IE. I have never thought that it could be associated exclusively with Armenian, given the language's relatively late introduction into the region, the apparent age of L584/L277, and the almost complete lack of influence of the Armenian language among Assyrians and NW Iranians. Now that the Yamnaya results have tested Z2103/Z2105, and assuming Z2103/Z2105 originated on the steppe, in my opinion the most probable explanation for how it arrived in populations such as Armenians, NW Iranians, and Assyrians is a route through the Caucasus. Whether that was on the heels of people still speaking an Indo-European language, I obviously do not know. Hurrian is a good candidate as well.

I agree. Both Anatolian and Balkan speakers could be associated with (and are imo) with Z2103+. But I also wouldn't rule out a circum Caspian migration as Z2103+ in Central Asia, Iran and the Caucasus could have arrived by from some people traveling along the Caspian shoreline. The high R1b frequencies among Gilakis, Mazandarnis, Azeris, Talysh and Lezgins would support this imo. And I think this happened before Balkan/Anatolian speakers migrated into Asia. The presence of more upstream clades among these groups in comparison to Assyrians, Aremnians, Alawates, and Turks might also support the usage of this route.

[Humanist]

The presence of more upstream clades among these [NW Iranian] groups in comparison to Assyrians, Aremnians, Alawates, and Turks might also support the usage of this route.

Yes. That is a good point.

[Silesian]

I agree. Both Anatolian and Balkan speakers could be associated with (and are imo) with Z2103+. But I also wouldn't rule out a circum Caspian migration as Z2103+ in Central Asia, Iran and the Caucasus could have arrived by from some people traveling along the Caspian shoreline. The high R1b frequencies among Gilakis, Mazandarnis, Azeris, Talysh and Lezgins would support this imo. And I think this happened before Balkan/Anatolian speakers migrated into Asia. The presence of more upstream clades among these groups in comparison to Assyrians, Aremnians, Alawates, and Turks might also support the usage of this route.

Something that JeanM had brought to our attention.
http://archive.archaeology.org/0007/abstracts/stela.html
It would be nice to see if these remains had any R1b-Z2103.

[MJost]

True, but it is really satisfying and reassuring to have confirmation at long last. Now we need some Beaker y-dna from the Isles, especially an L21+ result.

First thing is to consider SNP dating, with the new information, is that there is a major constraint of the BB - QLB28b in Germany with Hg P312xU106 is dated: 2296-2206 cal BCE.

R1b1a2a1a2 P312/S116 I0806 Beaker man from Quedlinburg in north central Germany from the new Haak et al paper noting that U152, DF27, and L21 were not read. But Ancestral Journeys reports QLB 28 has been tested for: P312+, S1217-, Z262-, DF49-, DF23-, L554-, S868-, CTS6581-, CTS2457.2- Page created by Jean Manco 6 September 2009; last revised 13-02-2015. @ http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml)

(Culture: Bell Beaker 2500-2200/2050BC Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans - Paul Brotherton et al (w/ Wolfgang Haak) 23 April 2013 )

My Range between beginning of block of two SNPs, P312 (4524 (2524bc) to the end of L21 block (or beginning of DF13 3750 (1750bc). We do not know the order of mutations fits but is no younger than DF13 so the P312/S116 I0806 Beaker man from Quedlinburg Cal age fits my existing TMRCA ranges.

R1b1a2a1a2 - P312/U106 - (2 SNPs) Max 4524 (2524bc)
R1b1a2a1a2c - L21 - (4 SNPs) Max 4266 (2266bc)
DF13 - (1 SNP) Max 3750 (1750bc)

I suspect you will find I0806's actual haplotype in the L21 block and with the very low probability of being DF13 or any of its subclades.

MJost

[rms2]

Anatolian languages are never attested where Armenian was spoken. Otherwise we would see an Anatolian substrate. It is pretty clear to most that Armenian is spoken where Hurrian was not where Anatolian was.

The Balkan language family is associated with Z2103+ as much as the Anatolian one is if not more.

People move. I think it likely the Z2103 people who are now Armenians came from the Balkans, down through Anatolia, and eventually to Armenia. I guess that is pretty much what Humanist said already, but I guess there's an echo in here.

[Agamemnon]

I tend to agree with Roy King's take on Z2103: I think it initially arrived in the Near East with Anatolian speakers, that's the most parsimonious explanation as to its presence in Armenians, Assyrians, Alawites and Jews (Kohanim). Its presence in the Levant could be tied to the Hittite empire's expansion and the subsequent emergence of the Syro-Hittite city-states.
It's also quite likely to have arrived later as well, with the Phrygians and Armenians during the Late Bronze Age collapse, both scenarios would explain Z2103's presence in the Balkans.

[Humanist]

I tend to agree with Roy King's take on Z2103: I think it initially arrived in the Near East with Anatolian speakers, that's the most parsimonious explanation as to its presence in Armenians, Assyrians, Alawites and Jews (Kohanim). Its presence in the Levant could be tied to the Hittite empire's expansion and the subsequent emergence of the Syro-Hittite city-states.
It's also quite likely to have arrived later as well, with the Phrygians and Armenians during the Late Bronze Age collapse, both scenarios would explain Z2103's presence in the Balkans.

That is what I thought as well. But, that was before we learned that the Yamnaya results were Z2103. Entry via the Caucasus would help better explain its presence in all of the above groups + Iranians.

[alan]

Yes when we are dealing with dead languages and identities like Anatolian branch, it seems we have to be looking at the possibility that their genes now survive in the genes of people who speak other language. Regarding Anatolian IE, there is a big gap in time between the possible date of entry of Anatolian groups and the entry of late IE groups lie Phrygian and Armenian. We could be talking a gap of 1-2000 years or more. IMO it would be interesting to look at the fate of the Hittite, Luwian etc area and who and what language came to dominate their former areas. It seem likely to me that their genes were, at least for some time, ended up in the speakers of the post-Hittite sort of state.

I am sure a lot of the L23xL51 in Assyrians relates to the annexing of parts of the old Hittite empire by them for many centuries before they in turn fell. The Hittite empire had included the north of Mesopotamia and the north of the Levant at one time and after its fall a large amount of it was under the power of the Assyrians.

Another interesting people is he Kassites who may have had a Hurrian like language but a pre-Iranian IE elite. Their heartland was Lorestan in north-western Iran.They probably originated there and after a period of great power they retracted back to this area. From memory the people there today do have a lot of L23xL51

[alan]

That is what I thought as well. But, that was before we learned that the Yamnaya results were Z2103. Entry via the Caucasus would help better explain its presence in all of the above groups + Iranians.

Well we do know that after 4000BC the rout from Iran to the northern Caucasus was in use because a recent paper suggested Maykop took a lot of its inspiration from northern Iran and Turkmenistan. Maykop still seems rather late on the steppe c. 3500BC and small scale to have been responsible for the Yamnaya non-hunter-gatherer genes although its influence was significant. It would be very interesting to get pre-Yamnaya/Maykop/pre-3500BC DNA to see if the mystery southern component pre or post-dates 3500BC. It probably is older -but it would be nice to eliminate this. What we need is to fill the ancient DNA gap between 3100 and 5500BC on the steppe because that is the crucial period between Yamnaya and hunter-gatherers. There appears to have been some important input that didnt come from Europe or the East Med of Asia in that timeframe.

[R.Rocca]

I tend to agree with Roy King's take on Z2103: I think it initially arrived in the Near East with Anatolian speakers, that's the most parsimonious explanation as to its presence in Armenians, Assyrians, Alawites and Jews (Kohanim). Its presence in the Levant could be tied to the Hittite empire's expansion and the subsequent emergence of the Syro-Hittite city-states.
It's also quite likely to have arrived later as well, with the Phrygians and Armenians during the Late Bronze Age collapse, both scenarios would explain Z2103's presence in the Balkans.

I think Z2103 will also be found in Western Yamnaya, albeit as a smaller percentage of R1b. Perhaps a light Danubian presence would explain why Z2103 seems to be more frequent in the Alps than say Southern Italy (if that distribution hold up with more testing).

[rms2]

Here's one I wish they would test: a male skeleton from Gimbutas' Kurgan Wave 1, 4400-4200 BC, recovered from a kurgan in eastern Hungary.

3796

[Rick]

L
Well we do know that after 4000BC the rout from Iran to the northern Caucasus was in use because a recent paper suggested Maykop took a lot of its inspiration from northern Iran and Turkmenistan. Maykop still seems rather late on the steppe c. 3500BC and small scale to have been responsible for the Yamnaya non-hunter-gatherer genes although its influence was significant. It would be very interesting to get pre-Yamnaya/Maykop/pre-3500BC DNA to see if the mystery southern component pre or post-dates 3500BC. It probably is older -but it would be nice to eliminate this. What we need is to fill the ancient DNA gap between 3100 and 5500BC on the steppe because that is the crucial period between Yamnaya and hunter-gatherers. There appears to have been some important input that didnt come from Europe or the East Med of Asia in that timeframe.
Maykop dna is coming soon I understand from an online article quoting Reich or Patterson or someone from their team. I'll post a link if I can find it again.

Edit, here it is, from December in the Harvard Gazette. 4th paragraph from the end.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/

[Leeroy Jenkins]

L
Maykop dna is coming soon I understand from an online article quoting Reich or Patterson or someone from their team. I'll post a link if I can find it again.

Edit, here it is, from December in the Harvard Gazette. 4th paragraph from the end.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/

That is actually not true, unfortunately. A few weeks ago, Nick Patterson stated it was a misunderstanding in the comments section of one of the posts at Eurogenes.

[Rick]

What a shame. Thanks for the update though.

[rms2]

I know I am probably repeating myself, but now that they have those seven results (eight, counting the R1b1 (L278) hunter-gatherer from Samara) from the Volga-Ural region, they should focus on the big Yamnaya move up the Danube, from Varna to eastern Hungary, that is, if they want to know something about the spread of IE toward the west. While they're at it, they could get some ancient y-dna from the Csepel Bell Beaker Folk, as well.

And they shouldn't neglect kurgans from the earlier steppe waves into the West.

[rms2]

On pages 361-365 of his book, The Horse The Wheel and Language, David Anthony describes "The Yamnaya Migration Up the Danube Valley", which is his title for that section of Chapter 14. In it, on page 361, he says the following:



The Yamnaya migrations into the Danube valley were targeted toward at least five specific destinations (see figure 14.1).

Figure 14.1 on page 345 has a nice map that shows the five targets of Yamnaya migrants. Anthony lists them as


northwest of Varna bay in Bulgaria, with kurgan cemeteries at Plachidol, Madara, "and other nearby places"
the Balkan uplands 200 km southwest of Varna bay, with kurgan cemeteries at Kovachevo and Troyanovo
300 km farther up the Danube valley in northwestern Bulgaria, with kurgan cemeteries at Tarnava and Rast
in northern Serbia just west of the Iron Gates
on the Hungarian plains north of the Körös and east of the Tisza rivers


He says target five is the largest, with an estimated three thousand or more kurgans.

The caption for figure 14.1 says



Yamnaya migrations into the Danube valley and the east Carpathian piedmont, 3100-2600 BCE. The older western IE branches probably evolved from dialects scattered by these migrations.


Assuming that Anthony is right, it seems to me that this could be the path R1b-L51 took to the west, or at least the path the R1b-L23 that led to L51 took into the west.

I also think this Yamnaya migration could be the means through which R1b got into Beaker.

[alan]

On pages 361-365 of his book, The Horse The Wheel and Language, David Anthony describes "The Yamnaya Migration Up the Danube Valley", which is his title for that section of Chapter 14. In it, on page 361, he says the following:



Figure 14.1 on page 345 has a nice map that shows the five targets of Yamnaya migrants. Anthony lists them as


northwest of Varna bay in Bulgaria, with kurgan cemeteries at Plachidol, Madara, "and other nearby places"
the Balkan uplands 200 km southwest of Varna bay, with kurgan cemeteries at Kovachevo and Troyanovo
300 km farther up the Danube valley in northwestern Bulgaria, with kurgan cemeteries at Tarnava and Rast
in northern Serbia just west of the Iron Gates
on the Hungarian plains north of the Körös and east of the Tisza rivers


He says target five is the largest, with an estimated three thousand or more kurgans.

The caption for figure 14.1 says



Assuming that Anthony is right, it seems to me that this could be the path R1b-L51 took to the west, or at least the path the R1b-L23 that led to L51 took into the west.

I also think this Yamnaya migration could be the means through which R1b got into Beaker.

Certainly in a classic Anthony model it would be the most plausible subgroup getting the western branches of IE as far as possible from the origin point and a move c. 3000BC or so like that would fit best.

There are really on two totally clear tracks from eastern Europe around 3000BC and they are the Yamnaya groups you just described and the corded ware group. There are a few strikes against R1b in corded ware but the sample is far too small for the large area involved to conclude on that. The problem with Yamnaya is still the same problem that Yamnaya or any other cultures seen as a straight derivative of it just seem to stop on the wrong side of the old Iron curtain. This problem remains in that the links west of the old Iron Curtain from Yamnaya other than corded ware are obscure. Remedello 2 is a possible case too but its hard to get any up to date in depth look at this culture in English on the internet.

I was just thinking there that when you consider Corded ware came down towards the Alps on the north and Remedello covered part of the southern end, and you consider the barrier of the Adriatic, that doesnt leave a lot of land to cross the old Iron Curtain c. 2900BC. In between deeper in the north Alps are just a number of small cultures noone would seriously link with IE speaking.

That surely means that around 3000-2600BC almost all the land, other than some small Alpine cultures, that allows a land route to the west across the Iron Curtain without a crazy detour was essentially contained within corded ware and Remedello in the period just quoted. So it seems almost impossible that one of those cultures was not involved as a link in the marrying of Yamnaya genes to the beaker culture.

I am torn between the options. There are arguments for and against both. Whatever is the truth these groupscollectively practically blocked the land route west c. 2900-2600BC unless they went through the central Alps east to west - that would be insane- or took a boat.

[newtoboard]

I don't really see any strikes against R1b in Corded Ware. If it was there it (and likely U106 has a good chance to have been there) imo it should be somewhere in the Dniester region (Usatovo migration north) or the southern or Western edges of Corded Ware (Switzerland-Asutria-France-Belguim-the Netherlands?). I think the majority of people's doubts are about the theories that were saying U106 would be found in German/Polish/South Baltic Corded Ware (Scandinavian Coprded Ware and the Middle Dnieper-Fataynovo-Balanovo region are likely out too). But who knows? I didn't expect Z280+ in Germany for one. I would have thought Z284+ would have shown up.

[rms2]

My own opinion is that U106 will turn up in Corded Ware. I believe this because I think the line of L11 that led to U106 was present along with R1a-Z282 in that northern branch move out of the steppe that fed into Globular Amphora and Corded Ware and probably gave rise to Germanic and Balto-Slavic.

I think the move of Yamnaya up the Danube valley and into eastern Hungary was undertaken, at least in part, by the branch of L11 that led to P312 and got into eastern Beaker. This movement, the southern branch up the Danube valley, gave rise to Italo-Celtic.

I could be wrong about this, because it would mean that L11 had to arise in the western steppe before the two different branch movements, but I think it fits and explains the distinctly different distributions of P312 and U106 and their pretty obvious linguistic affinities, with Italo-Celtic in the case of the former, and Germanic in the case of the latter.

[newtoboard]

My own opinion is that U106 will turn up in Corded Ware. I believe this because I think the line of L11 that led to U106 was present along with R1a-Z282 in that northern branch move out of the steppe that fed into Globular Amphora and Corded Ware and probably gave rise to Germanic and Balto-Slavic.

I think the move of Yamnaya up the Danube valley and into eastern Hungary was undertaken, at least in part, by the branch of L11 that led to P312 and got into eastern Beaker. This movement, the southern branch up the Danube valley, gave rise to Italo-Celtic.

I could be wrong about this, because it would mean that L11 had to arise in the western steppe before the two different branch movements, but I think it fits and explains the distinctly different distributions of P312 and U106 and their pretty obvious linguistic affinities, with Italo-Celtic in the case of the former, and Germanic in the case of the latter.

I disagree. We already had this conversation a while ago with Michal and others. And nobody was able to show anything in the structure of U106 suggesting a Eastern European origin.

If U106 was only in contact with eastern Corded Ware groups or part of them then where do Germanic's similarities from Celtic come from?

[newtoboard]

To clarify I do think it will be found in Corded ware. Just its southwestern or northwestern region.

[rms2]

I disagree. We already had this conversation a while ago with Michal and others. And nobody was able to show anything in the structure of U106 suggesting a Eastern European origin.

If U106 was only in contact with eastern Corded Ware groups or part of them then where do Germanic's similarities from Celtic come from?

From contact with Celtic speakers near the boundaries of the two speech groups. That was a tough one (not).

Obviously, my theory could be wrong, but it does explain the different distributions of P312 and U106 and the pretty obvious connection of the former to Italo-Celtic and Beaker and the connection of the latter to Germanic. Otherwise, I guess one has to credit Beaker not only with Italo-Celtic but also Germanic or say that the U106 part of Beaker was Germanized. If the latter occurred, it still occurred east of the Italo-Celtic zone.

[GoldenHind]

Obviously, my theory could be wrong, but it does explain the different distributions of P312 and U106 and the pretty obvious connection of the former to Italo-Celtic and Beaker and the connection of the latter to Germanic. Otherwise, I guess one has to credit Beaker not only with Italo-Celtic but also Germanic or say that the U106 part of Beaker was Germanized. If the latter occurred, it still occurred east of the Italo-Celtic zone.

Your contention that the language of the Beakers in the west of Europe eventually developed into Italo-Celtic seems to me to be entirely reasonable. However I think the amount of P312 in Germany and especially in Scandinavia is far too great to be dismissed as merely the result of events in the historical period. Just about every P312 subclade appears to be present in significant numbers there. Since a Beaker presence in Scandinavia seems to be well established, I think whatever variety of IE they were speaking in the Bronze Age was included in the mix which eventually developed into proto-Germanic.

I also think there isn't sufficient evidence yet to say whether U106 was part of Corded Ware or Beaker, or both. Nor would I rule out at least some presence of P312 in Corded Ware. I hope one day these questions will be answered.

[rms2]

Your contention that the language of the Beakers in the west of Europe eventually developed into Italo-Celtic seems to me to be entirely reasonable. However I think the amount of P312 in Germany and especially in Scandinavia is far too great to be dismissed as merely the result of events in the historical period. Just about every P312 subclade appears to be present in significant numbers there. Since a Beaker presence in Scandinavia seems to be well established, I think whatever variety of IE they were speaking in the Bronze Age was included in the mix which eventually developed into proto-Germanic.

I also think there isn't sufficient evidence yet to say whether U106 was part of Corded Ware or Beaker, or both. Nor would I rule out at least some presence of P312 in Corded Ware. I hope one day these questions will be answered.

I don't have a problem with any of that. Beaker Folk were present in Scandinavia, but they were small potatoes there compared with Corded Ware and its offshoots. I think whatever the Beaker Folk were speaking when they arrived in Scandinavia - and I think it likely it was some kind of Italo-Celtic - they got caught up in the majority culture and language within a very short time.

I don't know if there is a problem with the language I use, but I never intend anything I write to be taken as some sort of absolute, everything-is-black-or-white dogma. I am speaking in broad generalities. Beaker was mostly P312 and Italo-Celtic speaking, IMHO. If a U106 or an E-V13 or a G2a shows up in Beaker, I won't have to go in for psychotherapy. U106 was mostly connected to the evolution of Germanic, but not to the exclusion of all other y haplogroups, including P312.

But I still think P312 has a much much greater connection to Italo-Celtic than it does to Germanic, and I think that is really obvious. Similarly, U106 has a really strong and fairly obvious connection to Germanic. Do exceptions exist? Yes, they do.

[lgmayka]

We already had this conversation a while ago with Michal and others. And nobody was able to show anything in the structure of U106 suggesting a Eastern European origin.
How many Big Y tests of Eastern European U106 did you guys finance before deciding this? Zero? I don't mean to be "snippy" (I guess the modern term is "snarky"), but it's absurd to say that "nobody can show A" when no one is willing to spend any money to investigate the issue.

My project has an intriguing U106+ Z16- Z18- Z381- L217.1- who has also ordered the FGC396 SNP test: N59802 of Lviv, Ukraine, who is clearly related to B9847 of southeastern Poland. Any contributions toward a Big Y for one of them?

[newtoboard]

From contact with Celtic speakers near the boundaries of the two speech groups. That was a tough one (not).

Obviously, my theory could be wrong, but it does explain the different distributions of P312 and U106 and the pretty obvious connection of the former to Italo-Celtic and Beaker and the connection of the latter to Germanic. Otherwise, I guess one has to credit Beaker not only with Italo-Celtic but also Germanic or say that the U106 part of Beaker was Germanized. If the latter occurred, it still occurred east of the Italo-Celtic zone.

So all the similarities with Celtic were all areal features? Thanks for letting us all know. I feel so informed now (not).

Which migration/archeological horizon would then bring U106 east into Jastorf and or/the Nordic Bronze age? These theories all hinged on some sort of migration with Lusatian but so far that theory seems to have taken a hit with the Z280+ there.

[newtoboard]

How many Big Y tests of Eastern European U106 did you guys finance before deciding this? Zero? I don't mean to be "snippy" (I guess the modern term is "snarky"), but it's absurd to say that "nobody can show A" when no one is willing to spend any money to investigate the issue.

My project has an intriguing U106+ Z16- Z18- Z381- L217.1- who has also ordered the FGC396 SNP test: N59802 of Lviv, Ukraine, who is clearly related to B9847 of southeastern Poland. Any contributions toward a Big Y for one of them?

Fair enough. I was just repeating what was said in that conversation (I wasn't really a part of it) between Michal and Mikewww. That definitely is an intriguing sample.

[rms2]

So all the similarities with Celtic were all areal features? Thanks for letting us all know. I feel so informed now (not).

Which migration/archeological horizon would then bring U106 east into Jastorf and or/the Nordic Bronze age? These theories all hinged on some sort of migration with Lusatian but so far that theory seems to have taken a hit with the Z280+ there.

Did you mean west to Jastorf?

Look, I have said my theory could be wrong, but I think it is a pretty reasonable explanation for the differences we see today in the distributions of U106 and P312 and their apparent connections to Germanic, in the case of the former, and Italo-Celtic, in the case of the latter. I also think this may be why that thus far we have seen that all three Beaker results, from two different sites in Germany, and from dates about 300 or so years apart, are U106-, and one of them is P312+ (and probably all three were P312+).

Don't expect me to have every detail of every last tribal shift worked out. And yes, I think the similarities between Celtic and Germanic, where they exist, are the result of contact and proximity to one another. I do not think Germanic and Celtic stem from the same immediate root in the way that Italic and Celtic do.

[Hando]

I don't know if there is a problem with the language I use, but I never intend anything I write to be taken as some sort of absolute, everything-is-black-or-white dogma. I am speaking in broad generalities. Beaker was mostly P312 and Italo-Celtic speaking, IMHO. If a U106 or an E-V13 or a G2a shows up in Beaker, I won't have to go in for psychotherapy. U106 was mostly connected to the evolution of Germanic, but not to the exclusion of all other y haplogroups, including P312.
:biggrin1:

[ADW_1981]

We'll need to go into therapy if U106 or P312 show up in mesolithic Spain, or to a lesser extent the neolithic period.

[newtoboard]

Did you mean west to Jastorf?

Look, I have said my theory could be wrong, but I think it is a pretty reasonable explanation for the differences we see today in the distributions of U106 and P312 and their apparent connections to Germanic, in the case of the former, and Italo-Celtic, in the case of the latter. I also think this may be why that thus far we have seen that all three Beaker results, from two different sites in Germany, and from dates about 300 or so years apart, are U106-, and one of them is P312+ (and probably all three were P312+).

Don't expect me to have every detail of every last tribal shift worked out. And yes, I think the similarities between Celtic and Germanic, where they exist, are the result of contact and proximity to one another. I do not think Germanic and Celtic stem from the same immediate root in the way that Italic and Celtic do.

Yes I meant west. And of course Italic and Celtic are much closer to each other than they are to Germanic. I would never suggest otherwise. Whether Germanic ends up being same root as Italo-Celtic or Balto-Slavic it is obvious Italic and Celitc (and Baltic and Slavic) are closer to each other than either is to Germanic. Germanic is the outlier on either one of those roots.

It doesn't look like Germanic's relation with either Italo-Celitc or Balto-Slavic can be explained away as the result of areal influence. If it could there would be no debate and it wouldn't be classified with other. Germanic imo is on the root of one of those and has an extremely heavy substrate like influence from the other. I find it perplexing how you put so much weight into an actual areal feature (satemization) and yet wash away actual similarities between Germanic and Italo-Celtic as being the result of areal contact. Areal contact just can't produce those type of similarities (see Indo-Iranian and Tocharian).

[rms2]

Yes I meant west. And of course Italic and Celtic are much closer to each other than they are to Germanic. I would never suggest otherwise. Whether Germanic ends up being same root as Italo-Celtic or Balto-Slavic it is obvious Italic and Celitc (and Baltic and Slavic) are closer to each other than either is to Germanic. Germanic is the outlier on either one of those roots.

It doesn't look like Germanic's relation with either Italo-Celitc or Balto-Slavic can be explained away as the result of areal influence. If it could there would be no debate and it wouldn't be classified with other. Germanic imo is on the root of one of those and has an extremely heavy substrate like influence from the other. I find it perplexing how you put so much weight into an actual areal feature (satemization) and yet wash away actual similarities between Germanic and Italo-Celtic as being the result of areal contact. Areal contact just can't produce those type of similarities (see Indo-Iranian and Tocharian).

Well, I think you trivialize the centum/satem split in a way that is unjustified, so obviously we don't always agree on everything. And, yes, I think the features shared by Germanic and Celtic are the consequence of proximity and contact over many centuries.

[rms2]

We'll need to go into therapy if U106 or P312 show up in mesolithic Spain, or to a lesser extent the neolithic period.

If that happens, it will be the result of contamination, which is a real danger.

It wouldn't be too shocking if P312 showed up in early Spanish and Portuguese Beaker, although I rather doubt that it will. If it does, I think it will just show that early Beaker has its roots in steppe people who went all the way to Iberia, perhaps with Jean's Stelae People. I think she mentions in her book that even early Beaker pots were made using techniques perfected on the steppe, like shell tempering.

[jeanL]

If that happens, it will be the result of contamination, which is a real danger.

It wouldn't be too shocking if P312 showed up in early Spanish and Portuguese Beaker, although I rather doubt that it will. If it does, I think it will just show that early Beaker has its roots in steppe people who went all the way to Iberia, perhaps with Jean's Stelae People. I think she mentions in her book that even early Beaker pots were made using techniques perfected on the steppe, like shell tempering.

Well that's definitely the spirit to keep up! So if R1b-P312 turns out in Neolithic remains or Mesolithic remains in Iberia, or Western Europe, then contamination! Well, you got a foolproof theory* right there, no need to call it a hypothesis or anything. If Mesolithic or Neolithic: then contamination, else if: early Beaker then Stelae, in any case, it's crystal! it must have come from the Steppe and nowhere else. So what exactly is the point of doing ancient DNA studies from now on? I suppose to study other haplogroups right? Because R1b's story is already set in stone I'm guessing!

[J Man]

The early history if R1b is obviously very complex. The fact that an R1b from a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer from Samara Russia and then the fact that an early Neolithic farmer from Spain has turned out to be R1b even though they seem to belong to different subclades makes it pretty clear that the early story of R1b is not so clear cut. A lot more ancient DNA is needed before any good conclusions can be drawn.

[Isidro]

Well maybe I am the only one that is trying to put the bell on the cat.
If I am wrong in my search it will be just reassuring for people that feel like the major migration of R1b is solved and there is only room to discuss only how it happened.

Vučedol is not Bell Beaker, is Beaker alone. The Bell beaker Package Complex includes Vučedol Beakers, but Vučedol lacks many things of said complex, uses stone axe spears instead of daggers etc.
Bell Beaker R1b in Germany finds are not genetically connected to Vučedol. Is there Autosomal ?...

The Bell Beaker Complex is a mosaic of cultural exchanges and the movement of people and haplogroups is something exciting I am looking forward to see further results when they are revealed.

[rms2]

I don't think anyone has ever said that Vucedol and Bell Beaker are one and the same thing. Gimbutas said Beaker was an offshoot of Zok-Mako, which she said was an offshoot of Vucedol. I don't know if that is right, but I suspect she was talking about fully-developed Beaker, with all the kurgan/steppe pastoralist elements in place.

The ancient Beaker results thus far have a lot of Yamnaya autosomal dna in them, and all three ancient Beaker y-dna results thus far are R1bxU106, which they have in common with all eight ancient y-dna results from the Samara and Orenburg oblasts. The Bell Beaker man from Quedlinburg in Germany was P312+, so he also shared L23 in common with six of the seven Yamnaya males.

[vettor]

Why are people ignoring the genetic markers from the haak paper in beaker lands !

these markers did not vanish because BB turned up

[R.Rocca]

Why are people ignoring the genetic markers from the haak paper in beaker lands !

these markers did not vanish because BB turned up

Because most people here belong to haplogroup R (myself included), unfortunately these other genetic markers do not get the attention they deserve. Regarding your point, I would modify it a little to say that "many" of these markers did not vanish because of Bell Beaker, but there are many that statistically have vanished since the Neolithic (e.g. haplogroups F*, C and H).

For me, the biggest story outside of haplogroup R is really the continued lack of haplogroup J and haplogroup E in all of these areas. Without a doubt, 99% of forum posts on these two had them showing up with Cardial and/or LBK.

[vettor]

Because most people here belong to haplogroup R (myself included), unfortunately these other genetic markers do not get the attention they deserve. Regarding your point, I would modify it a little to say that "many" of these markers did not vanish because of Bell Beaker, but there are many that statistically have vanished since the Neolithic (e.g. haplogroups F*, C and H).

For me, the biggest story outside of haplogroup R is really the continued lack of haplogroup J and E in all of these areas. Without a doubt, 99% of forum posts on these two had them showing up with Cardial and/or LBK.

These "R1 wars" are detrimental in finding anything out about ancient Europe. It seems R1a people are always trying to fabricate their very early place in european lands, either matching R1b or being around before R1b


I do not see J and E in these lands before early iron age. note J1 which in majority are arabic ( see genetics on marsh arabs , they are 78% J1) would be one of the last markers in non-coastal europe

[rms2]

Well, in terms of the Bell Beaker people themselves and ancient y-dna test results, there hasn't been anything other than R1b yet, so why would anyone discussing the Beaker people talk about J or E or C or F or H?

Of course, we only have three sets of Beaker y-dna results thus far, and that's not many. Still, all three were R1bxU106, one has been confirmed as P312+, and the three results are from two different sites about 300-400 years apart in time, so they are not insignificant.

On top of that, this is the "R1b General" subforum, which is another reason to not exactly be amazed when R1b kind of dominates the conversations here. :biggrin1:

[newtoboard]

These "R1 wars" are detrimental in finding anything out about ancient Europe. It seems R1a people are always trying to fabricate their very early place in european lands, either matching R1b or being around before R1b


I do not see J and E in these lands before early iron age. note J1 which in majority are arabic ( see genetics on marsh arabs , they are 78% J1) would be one of the last markers in non-coastal europe

Why? Did R1a come from West Asia? Did Underhill tell you that? Neither R1a or R1b needs to cement its place in Europe. Both have been found there already among hunter gatherers. Both are over 20000 years old so it really doesn't matter who entered Europe first. But they probably entered around the same time and probably from a similar location (North-Central Asia or South Siberia). You seeing an agenda that doesn't exist is what is detrimental to these threads. There really is no R1 war except the one you are trying to start.

Plus the concept of Europe is pretty irrelevant. We should talk of the mammoth steppe. The people of the steppe were clearly derived from and quite close to those of the Asian steppe and South Siberia. We should view this as one area to some degree seperate from the rest of Europe and Asia.

So frequency matters? J1 is extremely undiverse among Arabs. They mostly belong to a few recent subclades of P58+. There is clearly room for J1 to have entered Europe earlier on particularly rare J1 lineages like the J1b that a Portuguese user on here belongs to. We will have to see. But dismissing it as recent because Arabs are J1 is as ridiculous as the people saying R1b is recent because its presence in Semitic speakers (or R1a because of its presence in Turks).

[Agamemnon]

As newtoboard said, an overwhelming majority of J1 in arabic-speakers belongs to a ~2400 kya old subclade (J1-L222.2) which, as you can imagine, has a star-like phylogeny. Some very basal J1 subclades, such as J1-F1614 (~15000 kya old), might've been in Europe for a long time (Mesolithic? Neolithic? your guess is as good as mine), so I wouldn't exactly be surprised to learn that other subclades such as M365.1 re-expanded and spread recently from unexpected places with IE or Turkic speakers after remaining isolated in a genetic sink for thousands of years.

Remember, J1 is as diverse as R1b (if not more) and I'm quite certain it's slightly older than R1b as a whole.

[vettor]

Why? Did R1a come from West Asia? Did Underhill tell you that? Neither R1a or R1b needs to cement its place in Europe. Both have been found there already among hunter gatherers. Both are over 20000 years old so it really doesn't matter who entered Europe first. But they probably entered around the same time and probably from a similar location (North-Central Asia or South Siberia). You seeing an agenda that doesn't exist is what is detrimental to these threads. There really is no R1 war except the one you are trying to start.

Plus the concept of Europe is pretty irrelevant. We should talk of the mammoth steppe. The people of the steppe were clearly derived from and quite close to those of the Asian steppe and South Siberia. We should view this as one area to some degree seperate from the rest of Europe and Asia.

So frequency matters? J1 is extremely undiverse among Arabs. They mostly belong to a few recent subclades of P58+. There is clearly room for J1 to have entered Europe earlier on particularly rare J1 lineages like the J1b that a Portuguese user on here belongs to. We will have to see. But dismissing it as recent because Arabs are J1 is as ridiculous as the people saying R1b is recent because its presence in Semitic speakers (or R1a because of its presence in Turks).

what does thae Y-dna tree indicate! ................R1 is the youngest haplogroup.................do you think no other haplogroup entered eastern, central and western european before R1 entered?

do you think these other haplogroups left the Lasitian culture lands and BB lands void of people because they where expecting R1 to arrive in a few thousand years?

can you be logical, there where other haplogroups in Europe before the R1

[vettor]

As newtoboard said, an overwhelming majority of J1 in arabic-speakers belongs to a ~2400 kya old subclade (J1-L222.2) which, as you can imagine, has a star-like phylogeny. Some very basal J1 subclades, such as J1-F1614 (~15000 kya old), might've been in Europe for a long time (Mesolithic? Neolithic? your guess is as good as mine), so I wouldn't exactly be surprised to learn that other subclades such as M365.1 re-expanded and spread recently from unexpected places with IE or Turkic speakers after remaining isolated in a genetic sink for thousands of years.

Remember, J1 is as diverse as R1b (if not more) and I'm quite certain it's slightly older than R1b as a whole.

I stated non-coastal european , inland............J2 is another different prospect.

J1 with phoenicians in mid bronze-age time, in coastal settlements.........for sure there was

[Agamemnon]

I stated non-coastal european , inland............J2 is another different prospect.

J1 with phoenicians in mid bronze-age time, in coastal settlements.........for sure there was

J1-F1614 has been found in Finland, does that count as coastal Europe?

[R.Rocca]

Well, in terms of the Bell Beaker people themselves and ancient y-dna test results, there hasn't been anything other than R1b yet, so why would anyone discussing the Beaker people talk about J or E or C or F or H?

Of course, we only have three sets of Beaker y-dna results thus far, and that's not many. Still, all three were R1bxU106, one has been confirmed as P312+, and the three results are from two different sites about 300-400 years apart in time, so they are not insignificant.

On top of that, this is the "R1b General" subforum, which is another reason to not exactly be amazed when R1b kind of dominates the conversations here. :biggrin1:

I would cautiously classify the Iron Age Hinxton samples as "Bell Beaker by descent". :biggrin1:

[rms2]

Well that's definitely the spirit to keep up! So if R1b-P312 turns out in Neolithic remains or Mesolithic remains in Iberia, or Western Europe, then contamination! Well, you got a foolproof theory* right there, no need to call it a hypothesis or anything. If Mesolithic or Neolithic: then contamination, else if: early Beaker then Stelae, in any case, it's crystal! it must have come from the Steppe and nowhere else. So what exactly is the point of doing ancient DNA studies from now on? I suppose to study other haplogroups right? Because R1b's story is already set in stone I'm guessing!

You added "Neolithic" to that; I did not. ADW1981 mentioned Mesolithic remains showing up in Iberia as U106+ or P312+. I think that so extremely unlikely as to be the result of contamination if it were to occur. You prefer such a result because, as you have made plain in post after post, you prefer to see Iberia as the fountainhead of R1b in Europe.

My immigrant ancestors did not come from a place that is in the running for the title, "Urheimat of R1b". That frees me from the sort of chauvinistic national or ethnic pride that causes one to constantly stump for his own ancestral homeland as the wellspring of R1b.

[jeanL]

You added "Neolithic" to that; I did not. ADW1981 mentioned Mesolithic remains showing up in Iberia as U106+ or P312+. I think that so extremely unlikely as to be the result of contamination if it were to occur. You prefer such a result because, as you have made plain in post after post, you prefer to see Iberia as the fountainhead of R1b in Europe.

My immigrant ancestors did not come from a place that is in the running for the title, "Urheimat of R1b". That frees me from the sort of chauvinistic national or ethnic pride that causes one to constantly stump for his own ancestral homeland as the wellspring of R1b.

Save me the psychological analysis, perhaps the time lapse to respond to that post has made you forgot the original plot:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=71275&viewfull=1#post71275

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=71130&viewfull=1#post71130

See ADW1981 did mention the word Neolithic in it. But once more you missed the whole point of my post. But yeah sure I need to make sure that it is from Iberia, blah blah blah, childish play. I haven't said which result I prefer or not, truth be told, I cannot modify the results based on my views but the other way around, you make an observation, you postulate a hypothesis, you test your hypothesis, get results, change your hypothesis or not. Now if I have people around here like you claiming that if and when R1b-P312 were to show up in Iberia in Neolithic or god forbid Mesolithic times that it would most certainly be contaminated, then I take issue with it, because it defeats the purpose of collecting ancient DNA since pretty much have made up your minds, just as you guys are already hell bent in that the R1b1 found in Iberia is R1b-V88 even though right now all we know is that it is R1b1(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2, R1b1c2,R1b1c3). As I was saying in the other thread perhaps a basic probability class could do some good around here, might I recommend MIT 6.041 class which is in opencourseware I took it a couple of years ago in preparation for one of my graduate classes and I have to say it is a good class. Now perhaps it is me, but since you want to get into the psychological deal of reading people's minds and intentions, I have to say that my impression of your post is that the massive amount of Iberophobia(i.e. Basque R1b Paleolithic Zombie that doesn't want to die (http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10669.msg131805#msg131805), the whole is bad enough I still get people Basque=Irish big no-no (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3818-Ancient-R1b-DNA-from-Spain&p=69490&viewfull=1#post69490), etc) that spews from time to time makes it incredibly sad. But then again, I can't read your mind or your true intentions so my perspective on that is neither useful nor does it contribute to the health of the thread, instead going around making baseless accusations like that, is what contributes to uncivilized chatter.

[rms2]

I looked back at ADW1981's post, and you are right: he did mention the Neolithic. When I responded about contamination, however, I assure you what I had in mind was what he said about Mesolithic remains. I don't think that is anything to worry about, but I so strongly doubt that L11, let alone P312 and U106, was around during the Mesolithic Period that if P312 or U106 were to show up in supposed Mesolithic results, I would suspect contamination.

I think P312 results may show up in Iberia during the Neolithic Period because I think there is a possibility that early Beaker in Portugal and Spain was already predominantly P312+. But I also see Beaker as an intrusive, single-grave culture with roots among steppe pastoralists; so, if P312 shows up there, the source is still the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

The "Iberophobia" thing is just ludicrous. I have referred to the R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge theory as the "Paleolithic Zombie that refuses to die", because I thought that was an apt characterization at the time. I still think so, although the zombie is now so close to dead that there seems little point.

I realize your own ancestry is Basque, so that you are likely to take any apparent reductions in the extent of the Basque Empire personally, but I think you have to grant the Irish their independence at last.

[jeanL]

Hey rms2 how's this for a Chauvinistic Basque/Iberian who wants R1b to come from Iberia?

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10669.msg131809#msg131809





Quote from: rms2 on May 30, 2012, 09:26:13 AM

Let's see if I can summarize it.

R1b-M269 arises in Asia in the distant Paleolithic past. Some of its carriers leave all their closest genetic cousins in the old homeland and trek across Europe or perhaps North Africa to arrive in Iberia in time to hole up there for the LGM. At some point this now-western R-M269 becomes mostly R-M412/L51. When it emerges from its LGM hibernation, it spreads eastward and northward into the rest of Europe in that form.

Not likely Asia, but somewhere in Western Russia/Ukraine, and likely it did so around 15-20 kya, so not so distant. In my opinion R1b-M269 was widespread in Europe, it wasn’t just holed up in Iberia, so no point to bring in the FC refuge.

More from me in 2012.



Yes meanwhile, the R1b-L23(xL51) folks that were displaced towards the Steppes by the incoming farmers become the half story of the PIE group, the other half being R1a, and they go everywhere, but apparently just as they stop abruptly in Iran-Pakistan, they do so too around Central Europe, however the fact that some R1b-L23(xL51) is still found today in Western European shows that some of them did mingle around their distant cousins, and voila that explains why some R1b-P312 bearers are nonIndoEuropean speakers, whereas others aren't. If the R1b-L23(xL51) taught PIE to their cousins in Central Europe, then you get Celtic-Italic, you name it, expansions to explain the presence of IE languages in Western Europe. Whereas if R1b-L51 is born of PIE speaker R1b-L23 coming from the steppes in the Bronze age we would have a hard time explaining why groups with 80%+ of R1b-L51+ speak a nonIndoEuropean language.

Of course my position has change, I'm far more agnostic to R1b being nonIndoeuropean nowadays than before, is just funny that I predicted in May 2012 that R1b-L23(xL51) was going to be found in the Steppe alongside R1a.

How about this other thread:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3982-Comparison-of-Spain_MN-to-Modern-day-Iberians

I'm the worst ain't I.

PS: I want a peace of that Basque Empire! And sure why not, let's make the Irish the forefathers of all R1b(J.K).

[rms2]

Since some serious cold snaps intervened between 15-20 kya and now, where did this R1b-M269 that was widespread in Europe spend the worst of them?

[jeanL]

Since some serious cold snaps intervened between 15-20 kya and now, where did this R1b-M269 that was widespread in Europe spend the worst of them?

Thus far no R1b-M269 has been found in that time period but two R1b1 were found both in Russia and in Iberia 7000 ybp, i.e. widespread!

[rms2]

Thus far no R1b-M269 has been found in that time period but two R1b1 were found both in Russia and in Iberia 7000 ybp, i.e. widespread!

Uh, I think perhaps you are being facetious, but widespread carries the connotation of being widely distributed, in other words, found in lots of different places over a wide area. Two examples, one at each end of the continent, is not what any reasonable person would think of as widespread.

But, anyway, okay. This is unpleasant. More ancient y-dna is what we need, and I would much rather talk about Beaker.

[vettor]

But, anyway, okay. This is unpleasant. More ancient y-dna is what we need, and I would much rather talk about Beaker.

LOL, ..........we have plenty of skeltral remains in BB lands, how much more do you need?

Get a map of europe, place all ancient remains found on this map and see what you have to analyse for BB..................OR are you waiting for more R1's:(