PDA

View Full Version : Horse Riding in Bell Beaker and Corded Ware



rms2
11-25-2015, 02:38 AM
I decided to start this thread in the R subforum because Bell Beaker thus far has yielded up R1b test results, and Corded Ware has yielded up both R1b and R1a test results (more of the latter). Since there is no R1 subforum, the R subforum seemed the most appropriate place for this discussion. I was inspired by a post in another thread in which a user accused persons unknown of "making the bell beakers some ancient elite cavalry force". I have never read anything here at Anthrogenica that even remotely makes Bell Beaker into an "ancient elite cavalry force", but I would like to discuss the evidence for horse riding among both the Bell Beaker people and the Corded Ware people.

As I understand it, both Bell Beaker and Corded Ware peoples were horse riders in an age when most of the people of Europe were not yet riding horses. Beyond the ancient dna test results, that trait links both cultures to the steppe, where horse riding evidently began.

Recently, Mathieson et al found osteological evidence of horse riding among the Bell Beaker people.

From Mathieson et al, 2015, Eight Thousand Years of Natural Selection in Europe, Supplementary Information, p. 9, re: a Bell Beaker R1b-M269, Quedlinburg, Germany (2467-2142 BC):



I0805/QLB26

Feature 19614. This 35-45 year-old individual is osteologically and genetically male. The body was buried in NO-SW orientation with the head in the north facing east. Grave goods are scarce and include three silex arrowheads, a few potsherds, and animal bones. A notable observation from the physical anthropological examination is traits at the acetabulum and the femur head suggesting that the individual frequently rode horses.

Given the frequency of horse bones at some Bell Beaker sites, this does not appear to have been a fluke or one-off.

Has there been similar osteological evidence of horse riding in Corded Ware remains? I understand there is evidence from CW sites of the importance of horses and wagons in that culture. I confess I have not yet looked for specific examples to cite here.

So, while I wouldn't go so far as to attribute "elite cavalry" status to any Copper or Early Bronze Age people, it does seem apparent that horse riding was important in both the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware cultures. I think it likely horses provided a significant military advantage, as well, and that Bell Beaker men may have been able to use their famous bows from horseback, just as Amerindians would do later on the North American Plains. Undoubtedly the famous Corded Ware battle axe was used from horseback, as well.

kinman
11-25-2015, 04:23 AM
I don't know if there is yet specific osteological evidence for Corded Ware showing an acetaulum and femur head indicating frequent riding of horses. However, even if R1a did not ride domesticated horses from the steppes into northern Europe (and that is a big if), R1b-U106 would certainly have ridden horses when it rode north from Ukraine and joined R1a in forming the Corded Ware Culture. So I would assume specific osteological evidence will be found in Corded Ware men as well.
As for using weapons from horseback, I would think that battle axes and spears would be even easier to use from horseback since they could be used with just one hand. A bow and arrow (needing the use of both hands) would require a bit more expertise and balance (especially shooting from a moving horse vs. shooting from a horse that was not moving). Of course, the advantage of arrows, is that you could carry a lot more of them than spears, and attack from a greater distance. But then again, spears and axes would be more useful in hand to hand combat. So the choice of weapons may have varied, depending on whether the attack was a quick hit and retreat from horseback or a more prolonged attack after dismounting.
--------------Ken
------------------------------------------------

Jean M
11-25-2015, 12:01 PM
I understand there is evidence from CW sites of the importance of horses and wagons in that culture..

It should be remembered that wagons were not drawn by horses initially. They were slow, heavy vehicles drawn by oxen. They were present in Funnel Beaker before Corded Ware. From Ancestral Journeys:


Pictographs of wagons appear around 3500 BC on clay tablets from Uruk in Mesopotamia and on a Funnel Beaker pot from Poland. Wagons were still rare then. Pictographs of sledges are far more common from Uruk.

The earliest evidence of the wheel comes from the Late Cucuteni-Tripolye culture in the form of wheeled toys.... Around 3600 BC this culture produced models of sledges harnessed with oxen. By the inventive stroke of adding wheels, it seems that the sledge became the cart. The forest-steppe zone had both the big trees needed for solid wheels and also access to plains traversable by wheeled traffic, and so was ideal for the development of vehicles. Just as oxen had pulled sledges and the first ploughs, they were the early choice for wheeled vehicles, as shown in cart models of c. 3000 BC from Altyn-depe, in Western Central Asia. At Bronocice, where the pot with a wagon pictograph was found, some 20 per cent of the cattle bones came from castrated males.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-25-2015, 12:17 PM
A very interesting and important question
I hope more analyses like the piece of evidence you highlighted will shed more light on just how prevalent riding was; what it was for (?predominantly droving cattle- as Heyd and others suggest); and was it a closely guarded craft of BB males ?

rms2
11-25-2015, 01:46 PM
I don't know if there is yet specific osteological evidence for Corded Ware showing an acetaulum and femur head indicating frequent riding of horses. However, even if R1a did not ride domesticated horses from the steppes into northern Europe (and that is a big if), R1b-U106 would certainly have ridden horses when it rode north from Ukraine and joined R1a in forming the Corded Ware Culture. So I would assume specific osteological evidence will be found in Corded Ware men as well.
As for using weapons from horseback, I would think that battle axes and spears would be even easier to use from horseback since they could be used with just one hand. A bow and arrow (needing the use of both hands) would require a bit more expertise and balance (especially shooting from a moving horse vs. shooting from a horse that was not moving). Of course, the advantage of arrows, is that you could carry a lot more of them than spears, and attack from a greater distance. But then again, spears and axes would be more useful in hand to hand combat. So the choice of weapons may have varied, depending on whether the attack was a quick hit and retreat from horseback or a more prolonged attack after dismounting.
--------------Ken
------------------------------------------------

It seems to me if R1b-U106 and R1a were together in Corded Ware, which seems likely, you would not have the former riding horses and the latter afoot or vice versa. I believe the evidence is pretty solid that the CW people were horse riders.

As David Mc pointed out in one of his excellent posts awhile back, the Amerindians were quite adept at the use of the bow while astride rapidly moving horses, and, like Beaker men, they did not have stirrups or the small, recurved, composite bows of Asian nomads. Of course, use of clubs, axes, maces and spears probably came first.

6704

rms2
11-25-2015, 02:34 PM
It should be remembered that wagons were not drawn by horses initially. They were slow, heavy vehicles drawn by oxen. They were present in Funnel Beaker before Corded Ware. From Ancestral Journeys:

Naturally, I did not mean to imply that evidence of wagons equals evidence of horse riding or even of horse domestication or that wagons were always pulled by horses. I believe the evidence for horse riding in CW is similar to that in Bell Beaker: horse bones and evidence of horse sacrifice at burial and settlement sites. Of course, now we have ancient osteological evidence of horse riding for Beaker. I'm sure that will come for CW, as well.

kinman
11-25-2015, 02:38 PM
Oh,
I didn't mean to imply that R-U106 rode horses and R1a didn't. Just that there is a remote possibility that R1a men might have spread into northern Europe (early on) without horses, and that R-U106 later introduced horse domestication to R1a. It depends on how early R1a moved into northern Europe. Is there any evidence that R1a in northern Europe possessed domesticated horses before U106 joined them? Anyway, I agree that R1a may well have had expanded into northern Europe on horseback, but I am still open to the possibility that they didn't do so on horseback.
-------------------Ken


It seems to me if R1b-U106 and R1a were together in Corded Ware, which seems likely, you would not have the former riding horses and the latter afoot or vice versa. I believe the evidence is pretty solid that the CW people were horse riders.

As David Mc pointed out in one of his excellent posts awhile back, the Amerindians were quite adept at the use of the bow while astride rapidly moving horses, and, like Beaker men, they did not have stirrups or the small, recurved, composite bows of Asian nomads. Of course, use of clubs, axes, maces and spears probably came first.

6704

rms2
11-25-2015, 02:48 PM
Oh,
I didn't mean to imply that R-U106 rode horses and R1a didn't. Just that there is a remote possibility that R1a men might have spread into northern Europe (early on) without horses, and that R-U106 later introduced horse domestication to R1a. It depends on how early R1a moved into northern Europe. Is there any evidence that R1a in northern Europe possessed domesticated horses before U106 joined them? Anyway, I agree that R1a may well have had expanded into northern Europe on horseback, but I am still open to the possibility that they didn't do so on horseback.
-------------------Ken

We don't even have direct evidence of U106 in Corded Ware yet, but we do have CW remains that have tested R1a and two that have tested R1b: one R1b-L1345 (on the P25 level) and one R1b-CTS11468 (on the M269 level). Of course, I agree with you that U106 was part of Corded Ware; it's just that we cannot prove that yet. So, we don't know who joined whom.

I think it likely that R1a and R1b were both part of the general steppe IE milieu and had horses at virtually the same time. If not, it will probably be impossible to ever say with any certainty which y haplogroup had them first anyway.

Jean M
11-25-2015, 04:18 PM
This may be useful: http://briai.ku.lt/en/publications/archaeologia-baltica/volumes/11-2/
The Horse and Man in European Antiquity (Worldview, Burial Rites, and Military and Everyday Life), (Archaeologia Baltica, Vol. 11) 2009.

All open access, as far as I can see. The chapter by Jurgita Žukauskaitė, Images of the Horse and Horseman in Corded Ware Culture Studies, takes a critical look at the assumption that horses were ridden in the CW culture.


The image of the Corded Ware Culture horseman in general is a theoretical construct and primarily is a result of the “migrational” viewpoint in which the horse was associated with transport and military purposes. Research concerning the origins of horseback riding as well as aspects of migrations suggests that treating the horse as a mode of transport along with its assumed degree of mobility could be overestimated when talking about Corded Ware Culture bearers. Nor does recent research support the traditional perception of the nomadic pastoral community and its image of horsemen. While some instances of domesticated horse bones have been discovered in Central Europe during the same period, they appear to be absent in the East Baltic Corded Ware Culture. Solitary instances of horse bones in East Baltic Corded Ware Culture sites may point to the use of the horse as a food resource.

rms2
11-25-2015, 05:02 PM
Thanks. I just finished reading that article, which seems to be written by an author with an anti-migrationist bias. She says there were no bones from domesticated horses in East Baltic Corded Ware sites but then speaks of
"[s]olitary instances of horse bones in East Baltic Corded Ware Culture sites", assuming, I guess, that those bones came from wild horses.

She speaks of "relatively recent growing criticism regarding the concept of global migrations" and then cites a source from 1998 to buttress her remark. I guess 1998 is "relatively recent"; but 1754 is relatively more recent than, say, 43 BC, too. It seems to me the idea of migration as a big factor in human history has been reinvigorated so really recently as to actually be current. I would say "criticism regarding the concept of global migrations" is declining rather than growing as the ancient dna evidence comes in.

Over all, I thought the article was weak. The only interesting part was the mention, on page 33, of " . . . recent biomechanical analysis of Corded Ware Culture osteological material (a cross-sectional analysis of ‘femoral midshafts’ was made in order to test mobility directly from the human skeletal record) which did not support the hypothesis about different mobility patterns in the Late Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age (Sládek et al. 2006, p.470ff)". It sounds like Sládek et al looked at Corded Ware skeletons for evidence of horse riding similar to that on that Bell Beaker skeleton from Quedlinburg, but one would have to look at the Sládek et al paper to know how many skeletons were examined and what the actual evidence was.

Jean M
11-25-2015, 05:20 PM
The only interesting part was the mention, on page 33, of " . . . recent biomechanical analysis of Corded Ware Culture osteological material (a cross-sectional analysis of ‘femoral midshafts’ was made in order to test mobility directly from the human skeletal record) which did not support the hypothesis about different mobility patterns in the Late Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age (Sládek et al. 2006, p.470ff)". It sounds like Sládek et al looked at Corded Ware skeletons for evidence of horse riding similar to that on that Bell Beaker skeleton from Quedlinburg, but one would have to look at the Sládek et al paper to know how many skeletons were examined and what the actual evidence was.

The paper in question is here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440305002001


An absence of settlement features during the Central European Corded Ware period (Late Eneolithic, 2900–2300 BC) has been interpreted as a reflection of mobile pastoral subsistence. Recent analyses of the Late Eneolithic archeological context reveal that the Late Eneolithic exhibit evidence of sedentary agricultural activities similar to the Early Bronze Age. Since the archeological analyses are not clear cut, we tested mobility pattern differences between the Late Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age using biomechanical analysis of the tibial midshaft cross-sections. The total sample of the 130 tibiae representing five archaeological cultures was used. The results of the tibial midshaft geometry do not support the hypothesis about different mobility in the Late Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age. This conclusion is supported by nonsignificant differences between the Corded Ware females and the Early Bronze Age females. Higher absolute values for the Corded Ware males should be explained either by stochastic variation or by differing amounts of physical demands despite a generally similar pattern of subsistence of the Late Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age. One of the Early Bronze Age samples, the Wieselburger group, is an exception because the individuals show both reduced overall size and bending resistance of the tibial parameters not only in comparison with the Late Eneolithic but also to the rest of the Early Bronze Age. The results suggest that the behavioral processes which affected the tibial midshaft biology operated during the Late Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age as a mosaic across time and between/within cultures.

anglesqueville
11-25-2015, 05:26 PM
I agree with rms2. The anti-migrationits obsession of some authors is exasperating. I bought recently the french translation of Gimbuta's "Language of the Goddess": the french preface writer (*) feels obliged to set himself apart from the "dated migrationist bias" of Gimbutas" ( dated...).
(*) Jean Guilaine, archeologist, former prof in the "College de France", great worshipper of the neolithic cultures, likely not coincidential.

rms2
11-25-2015, 05:33 PM
The paper in question is here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440305002001

Apparently one cannot read the whole text without paying for it, but I thought this part from the abstract was interesting:



This conclusion is supported by nonsignificant differences between the Corded Ware females and the Early Bronze Age females. Higher absolute values for the Corded Ware males should be explained either by stochastic variation or by differing amounts of physical demands despite a generally similar pattern of subsistence of the Late Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age.

Sounds like there may actually have been osteological evidence consistent with horse riding among CW males that "should be explained [away]", but not among CW females. If so, that is not at all surprising. It seems to me quite likely that horse riding/herding responsibilities fell to CW males and more sedentary, home-bound agricultural and child-rearing responsibilities fell to CW females, some of whom no doubt came from non-CW backgrounds to begin with anyway.

Also, I wonder about the comparison of CW females to EBA females. Shouldn't the comparison have been CW females to females from sedentary Neolithic farmer cultures?

Jean M
11-25-2015, 05:40 PM
Sounds like there may actually have been osteological evidence consistent with horse riding among CW males that "should be explained [away]", but not among CW females.

I suspected the same, but then looked back at the evidence for horse-riding in the Bell Beaker chap. That was the head of the femur, while this paper looked at the tibia. Am still ferreting for what this is supposed to mean.

rms2
11-25-2015, 05:46 PM
I suspected the same, but then looked back at the evidence for horse-riding in the Bell Beaker chap. That was the head of the femur, while this paper looked at the tibia. Am still ferreting for what this is supposed to mean.

Yes, but the original article from the horse riding anthology mentioned "a cross-sectional analysis of ‘femoral midshafts’ ". I guess we'd have to read the whole Sládek et al paper. Sounds like they were looking for bow-legged people. ;)

Jean M
11-25-2015, 05:52 PM
Yes, but the original article from the horse riding anthology mentioned "a cross-sectional analysis of ‘femoral midshafts’ ". I guess we'd have to read the whole Sládek et al paper. Sounds like they were looking for bow-legged people. ;)

I doubt it. From a quick look at snatches of Reconstructing Mobility (2014) it seems that studies of both midshaft femur and tibia have attempted to associate robusticity of same to activity such as walking and running i.e. a different type of mobility from riding.

rms2
11-25-2015, 06:10 PM
I thought the following artist's rendition of a Corded Ware man was interesting.

6706

It seems likely to me the horse would have been equipped with a bridle with a bit rather than simply a halter as pictured. Also, if CW men used their axes from horseback, I think a longer shaft would have been necessary to facilitate reaching the heads of opponents on foot.

rms2
11-25-2015, 06:13 PM
I doubt it. From a quick look at snatches of Reconstructing Mobility (2014) it seems that studies of both midshaft femur and tibia have attempted to associate robusticity of same to activity such as walking and running i.e. a different type of mobility from riding.

So perhaps Sládek et al weren't checking for evidence of horse riding at all but simply mobility as you described above.

Jean M
11-25-2015, 06:15 PM
It seems likely to me the horse would have been equipped with a bridle with a bit.

I suspect that what we really need is evidence of bits.

razyn
11-25-2015, 07:20 PM
I suspect that what we really need is evidence of bits.

In the western plains the Native American population got horses long before they had their own smelters. They made rawhide bits. One may still buy those for certain purposes, but originally they were a way for people who didn't have metal (e.g. the Arapaho) to control horses they were riding. I doubt if rawhide leaves any more evidence on a deceased horse's teeth than carrots.

This might apply to the relative weight of evidence among Bell Beaker vs. Corded Ware horsemen's graves. Or not; just a thought in passing.

Megalophias
11-25-2015, 07:29 PM
In the western plains the Native American population got horses long before they had their own smelters. They made rawhide bits. One may still buy those for certain purposes, but originally they were a way for people who didn't have metal (e.g. the Arapaho) to control horses they were riding. I doubt if rawhide leaves any more evidence on a deceased horse's teeth than carrots.
Anthony and Brown did argue that soft bits leave detectable wear on horse's teeth and studied it in prehistoric horse remains (e.g. at Botai), but other scholars argued that similar wear could appear by natural means.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-25-2015, 07:37 PM
Anthony and Brown did argue that soft bits leave detectable wear on horse's teeth and studied it in prehistoric horse remains (e.g. at Botai), but other scholars argued that similar wear could appear by natural means.

Yes Anthony / Browns arguements met a lot of stiff rebuttals
Rightly so; not because they're 'wrong' but because of the pleas for more evidence: we need not just "bit wear", but full post-cranial analyses (eg stress patterns on cervical vertebrae, phalanges, etc)

Gravetto-Danubian
11-25-2015, 07:41 PM
Yes, but the original article from the horse riding anthology mentioned "a cross-sectional analysis of ‘femoral midshafts’ ". I guess we'd have to read the whole Sládek et al paper. Sounds like they were looking for bow-legged people. ;)

One can only assume horseriding would produce uneven ware on the acetabulum and head of femur ("hip joint") due to them being in frequent external rotation. Im not sure what tibia stress would occur

I'll chat to my orthopaedic buddies

rms2
11-25-2015, 08:00 PM
Probably the Sládek et al paper did not even look at osteological evidence of horse riding, but I am not going to pay to read it and find out.

Apparently wear on the acetabulum and femur head was the evidence of frequent horse riding on that Beaker skeleton. One would think that from childhood or at least early youth he would have had to have spent a lot of time on horseback for it to show up in his skeleton. Probably most of that time was spent herding livestock.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-25-2015, 10:47 PM
I just scanned through the Sladek study (I have access so PM me if you want a 'read only' copy)

Its premise is that the cross-sectional geometry of the femoral shaft were 'less circular' in more mobile, non-agricultural groups : ie it has greater antero-posterio (front-back) diameter than medio-lateral (side to side).

The study found that the CWC males did have some differences in A-P diameter of the femoral shafts, but this was not statistically significant, possibly due to small sample size.
The females had differences also, but in the side-side dimensions, possibly due to different body habitus, as they could not find an explanation for this in terms of mobility patterns.

But the premise on which the assumptions were based weren't based on horse-riding , rather shifts to agriculture in PalaeoAmerican populations. So one is forced to question whether the parameters they were looking at are transferrable ? Probably not.

rms2
11-27-2015, 04:53 PM
Anyone know whether the Bell Beaker and/or Corded Ware men wore trousers as opposed to some of sort of kilt or other outfit that left their legs bare? It seems trousers would be better suited both to the temperate regions they inhabited and to a lot of time spent on horseback.

rms2
11-27-2015, 05:26 PM
Anyone know whether the Bell Beaker and/or Corded Ware men wore trousers as opposed to some of sort of kilt or other outfit that left their legs bare? It seems trousers would be better suited both to the temperate regions they inhabited and to a lot of time spent on horseback.

This image from a reconstructed Bell Beaker burial from the National Archaeological Museum of Spain in Madrid shows a Bell Beaker man in trousers. Is that a guess, or is it based on actual remains of trousers found in Beaker burial(s)?

6720

rms2
12-01-2015, 07:59 PM
In his book, The Horse the Wheel and Language, David Anthony mentions the ways of distinguishing the bones of early domesticated horses from those of wild horses. He names domestication-related pathologies (such as bit wear), variability in size, and counts of the ages and sexes of butchered animals. Interestingly, Anthony says the following about the size-variability method (pp. 203-204):



The domestication of the horse is dated about 2500 BCE by the size-variability method. The earliest site that shows both a significant decrease in average size and an increase in variability is the Bell Beaker settlement of Csepel-Haros in Hungary, represented by bar 10 in figure 10.3, and dated about 2500 BCE.


Of course, it is not likely that horse domestication actually began that late. That is just the earliest date yielded by the size-variability method alone. I mention it mainly because it is interesting that it was from a Bell Beaker site. It tends to show the importance of the horse among the Beaker Folk, as does the osteological evidence of frequent horse riding shown on the skeleton of that R1b-M269 Bell Beaker man (2467-2142 BC) from Quedlinburg, Germany, mentioned in the first post in this thread.

ADW_1981
12-01-2015, 08:05 PM
In his book, The Horse the Wheel and Language, David Anthony mentions the ways of distinguishing the bones of early domesticated horses from those of wild horses. He names domestication-related pathologies (such as bit wear), variability in size, and counts of the ages and sexes of butchered animals. Interestingly, Anthony says the following about the size-variability method (pp. 203-204):



Of course, it is not likely that horse domestication actually began that late. That is just the earliest date yielded by the size-variability method alone. I mention it mainly because it is interesting that it was from a Bell Beaker site. It tends to show the importance of the horse among the Beaker Folk, as does the osteological evidence of frequent horse riding shown on the skeleton of that R1b-M269 Bell Beaker man (2467-2142 BC) from Quedlinburg, Germany, mentioned in the first post in this thread.

EDIT: R1b-L151

rms2
12-01-2015, 08:16 PM
He was tested P312 wasn't he?

The horse rider was I0805/QLB26. He tested positive for PF6430, PF6482, PF6500, and PF6509, which are on the same level as M269. I'm guessing he probably was P312+ of some kind.

The P312+ Beaker man was I0806/QLB28, also from Quedlinburg, but a bit younger (2296-2206 BC).

rms2
12-01-2015, 08:25 PM
The R1b-L51 Beaker man was RISE564 from Osterhofen-Altenmarkt (no date on him).

rms2
12-05-2015, 03:39 PM
In his book, The Horse the Wheel and Language, David Anthony mentions the ways of distinguishing the bones of early domesticated horses from those of wild horses. He names domestication-related pathologies (such as bit wear), variability in size, and counts of the ages and sexes of butchered animals. Interestingly, Anthony says the following about the size-variability method (pp. 203-204):



The domestication of the horse is dated about 2500 BCE by the size-variability method. The earliest site that shows both a significant decrease in average size and an increase in variability is the Bell Beaker settlement of Csepel-Haros in Hungary, represented by bar 10 in figure 10.3, and dated about 2500 BCE.


Of course, it is not likely that horse domestication actually began that late. That is just the earliest date yielded by the size-variability method alone. I mention it mainly because it is interesting that it was from a Bell Beaker site. It tends to show the importance of the horse among the Beaker Folk, as does the osteological evidence of frequent horse riding shown on the skeleton of that R1b-M269 Bell Beaker man (2467-2142 BC) from Quedlinburg, Germany, mentioned in the first post in this thread.

So, what does this apparent emphasis on the domesticated horse and horse riding say about Bell Beaker and the steppe, especially when taken together with the steppe ancestry and R1b-L51 in Bell Beaker remains?

Gravetto-Danubian
01-04-2016, 11:16 PM
I think the search for horses in central Europe is an ongoing one, which is a little odd given the oft- quoted equation of Yamnaya -like groups (supposedly horse-riders, but the number of horses in Yamnaya contexts isn't exactly plentiful, and the evidence for extensive riding virtually non-existent- perhaps related to state of research (?)) -> CWC and BB

Rather, in central Europe, horse remains are found in isolated cultures here and there which appear to have no direct connection to Yamnaya, such as the remains of horses from the Cham culture (Bavaria, Germnay; 3000-2800 BC), and Bernurg culture (central Germany, late 4th Mill), and then appears in Csepel groups in Hungary (c. 2200 BC).

A recent paper again turns the focus to Iberia - but an isolated finding in the El Partalon cave site (which featured recently in aDNA)


The horse has played an important role in the prehistoric societies along the time. During the Paleolithic the horse was frequently hunted and consumed by man. In the Iberian
Peninsula, the horse was a common element at the end of the Late Pleistocene, after which there was a long period during the Early Holocene when sites containing horse remains were very rare. It was not until the Chalcolithic or Bell Beaker culture when more equine remains were found in certain regions.The horse was exploited for various reasons in the Iberian Peninsula during the Bronze Age. In some cases, horses were used for their meat. They were also used as pack or draft animals, and only after they fulfilled this purpose, were eventually consumed. Another possible purpose of horse exploitation could be to obtain milk. Nonetheless,no evidence has been found at any site in Iberia that indicates mare’s milk consumption. Lastly, during the Bronze Age, horses could have been considered goods that represented prestige. The possession and consumption of horses could have served to distinguish between different social classes living in settlements in that period. This is difficult to verify with the zooarchaeological record.

In this study, an exceptional consumption of horse remains in Early Bronze Age is documented. These remains were discovered during the sixth excavation campaign
of the El Portalón site directed by J. M. Apellániz in 1979.The material consists of 103 bones and teeth, belonging to a minimum number of six individuals of Equus sp., recovered
in a thin stratigraphic interval (around 70 centimeters) and a 2 m2 of area (called Horse stratigraphic unit: HSU). It is dated c. 2000 yr cal B.C. The mortality profile (three of the six individuals were slaughtered before reaching four years of age), butchery marks (on 27.18% of the bone remains), thermal alteration and the percussion marks suggest horse meat as an
important resource for the inhabitants from the Bronze Age of El Portalón. This is unusual among other Iberian sites where ovicaprines, bovids and suids provide the majority of the meat. The high percentage of equid remains identified in the HSU (43% of total NISP) makes this place one of few Holocene Iberian sites (with Cerro de La Encinaand the phase III of Pic del Corbs) where the horse is the most abundant species.The mentioned evidences and the low representation of the equid remains in the other levels of the whole site’s stratigraphic sequence bring forward the exceptional character of equid consumption represented in this site, and, together with other contextual evidences, suggest that this accumulation of horse remains could be the result of a feast

Link (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267452485_The_unusual_human_consumption_of_equids_ from_the_Early_Bronze_Age_of_the_El_Portalon_site_ Sierra_de_Atapuerca_Burgos)


Also, from here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.2413/abstract)


Equid remains are scarce and very fragmented in Iberian Neolithic and Bronze Age sites. Evidence suggesting that horses were domesticated does exist, but it is often inconclusive, thus leaving the question unanswered. Today, DNA analyses have provided information about a, most likely Iberian, nucleus of horse domestication, making it crucially important to expand the database. The Holocene sequence (6th and 3rd millennium cal bc) of the Cueva de El Mirador (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain) has yielded 92 equid remains distributed in 12 Neolithic and Bronze Age levels. In this paper, we present the study of the equid remains from the Cueva de El Mirador from an archaeozoological perspective, giving indirect evidence of horse domestication. Our results vary widely and lead to open interpretations about horse domestication and how humans used these animals. This study of horse remains focuses on species identification and on determining how humans economically used these animals

rms2
01-06-2016, 02:35 AM
I think it highly likely that Yamnaya men were riding horses and that horse riding was one of their chief advantages.

Here is David Anthony, from The Horse The Wheel and Language, p. 325:



Yamnaya herders watched over their herds on horseback. At Repin on the Don, 55% of the animal bones were horse bones. A horse skull was placed in a Yamnaya grave in a kurgan cemetery overlooking the Caspian Depression near Tsa-Tsa, south of the Volga, in kurgan 7, grave 12. Forty horses were sacrificed in a Catacomb-period grave in the same cemetery in kurgan 1, grave 5.


There is more that Anthony could have cited, including the horse figurines and horsehead maces found in steppe pastoralist contexts. I don't get the downplaying of the importance of the horse among steppe pastoralists and especially Yamnaya, as if the horse was an animal of little importance among them or that it isn't likely they were actually riding them.

Anthony gives the date for horse domestication among the Csepel Bell Beaker people by the size variability method as about 2500 BC, and we know that Quedlinburg Bell Beaker R1b-PF6430 (M269 level) man (QLB26) showed osteological evidence of frequent horse riding, and his remains were dated to 2467-2142 BC.

I'm not sure what is the significance of finds of horse bones in other parts of Europe, like Iberia. We know prehistoric peoples in Europe outside the steppe were hunting and eating horses, but the numbers of horse bones from early sites in western Europe are dwarfed by those from the steppe (see Figure 10.2 on page 198 of Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language).

Gravetto-Danubian
01-06-2016, 03:28 AM
I think it highly likely that Yamnaya men were riding horses and that horse riding was one of their chief advantages.

Here is David Anthony, from The Horse The Wheel and Language, p. 325:



There is more that Anthony could have cited, including the horse figurines and horsehead maces found in steppe pastoralist contexts. I don't get the downplaying of the importance of the horse among steppe pastoralists and especially Yamnaya, as if the horse was an animal of little importance among them or that it isn't likely they were actually riding them.

.

It's not about up or downplaying anything, but analysing the totality of the evidence.
I think there is no doubt that the horse was a sacral and important animal, and some form of domestication occurred in the Ponto-Caspian steppe, after Botai (c. 3800 BC). Yes, it was also probably being ridden to manage herds also. But the conclusions of Marsha Levine - which most Bronze Age specialists quote, is a little more reserved than Anthony's. Whether one agree with her conclusions or not, we cannot go past her calls for more rigorous assessment methods.



The increase in the numbers of horse bones found at Dereivka and other Chalcolithic sites, in contrast to earlier Holocene deposits, has been used as evidence that the horses from Dereivka were domesticated (Bokonyi 1984). In fact, except in the case of cemeteries, only
relatively small quantities of horse skeletal material are normally recovered from sites dated to periods when domesticated horses were common - for example, during Roman and medieval times. Therefore, although the increase in the quantity of horse bones probably
indicates that there was, during the Chalcolithic, a change in the way that horses were exploited, it is not proof of domestication. Instead, the evidence strongly suggests that horse hunting had become intensified.


Anthony gives the date for horse domestication among the Csepel Bell Beaker people by the size variability method as about 2500 BC, and we know that Quedlinburg Bell Beaker R1b-PF6430 (M269 level) man (QLB26) showed osteological evidence of frequent horse riding, and his remains were dated to 2467-2142 BC

But is that all the evidence we have from central Europe ? At the moment it looks like it was only important to isolated settlements / groups , and not the entire BB range. I suspect Volker heyd will be doing a paper on it soon, so hopefully this'll clarify the latest state of the art.

rms2
01-06-2016, 12:22 PM
It's not about up or downplaying anything, but analysing the totality of the evidence.

I don't see it. I do see repeated posts from you downplaying the role of the horse in steppe cultures, particularly Yamnaya. I think you are mistaken.



I think there is no doubt that the horse was a sacral and important animal, and some form of domestication occurred in the Ponto-Caspian steppe, after Botai (c. 3800 BC). Yes, it was also probably being ridden to manage herds also. But the conclusions of Marsha Levine - which most Bronze Age specialists quote, is a little more reserved than Anthony's. Whether one agree with her conclusions or not, we cannot go past her calls for more rigorous assessment methods.

I'm not sure why Levine is preferable to Anthony or Gimbutas. I find Anthony's arguments pretty convincing.



But is that all the evidence we have from central Europe ? At the moment it looks like it was only important to isolated settlements / groups , and not the entire BB range. I suspect Volker heyd will be doing a paper on it soon, so hopefully this'll clarify the latest state of the art.

Who said that it was the only evidence? I mentioned that horse domestication in Csepel Bell Beaker was dated to about 2500 BC by the size variability method (one of a number of methods) because you had said horse domestication in Csepel Bell Beaker dates to c. 2200 BC, 300 years later and probably after the Quedlinburg Beaker man (QLB26) lived, who showed osteological evidence of frequent horse riding.

Gimbutas mentions horse sacrifice connected with Beaker burials, and I recall another source citing carved horse phalanges found at Bell Beaker sites in Spain, as well as at Tersek sites in Kazakhstan.

When I get the time (usually in short supply) I'm going to look further into this issue of horse riding. My impression is that the evidence for horse riding in Yamnaya and Bell Beaker is pretty solid, but I have never really had to defend it before, so I will have to assemble some notes and cite more sources.

Personally, I think horse riding was one of the things that gave Yamnaya an edge over its competition in Europe west of the Dniester, and the same is true of Bell Beaker. I also suspect that the ability to use their bows on horseback was one of the things - maybe the biggest thing - that Bell Beaker men had going for them, other than their physical size advantage.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-06-2016, 12:37 PM
Is that what you're doing? I don't see it. I do see repeated posts from you downplaying the role of the horse in steppe cultures, particularly Yamnaya. I think you are mistaken.



I'm not sure why Levine is preferable to Anthony or Gimbutas. I find Anthony's arguments pretty convincing.



Who said that it was the only evidence? I mentioned that horse domestication in Csepel Bell Beaker was dated to about 2500 BC by the size variability method (one of a number of methods) because you had said horse domestication in Csepel Bell Beaker dates to c. 2200 BC, 300 years later and probably after the Quedlinburg Beaker man (QLB26) lived, who showed osteological evidence of frequent horse riding.

Gimbutas mentions horse sacrifice connected with Beaker burials, and I recall another source citing carved horse phalanges found at Bell Beaker sites in Spain, as well as at Tersek sites in Kazakhstan.

When I get the time (usually in short supply) I'm going to look further into this issue of horse riding. My impression is that the evidence for horse riding in Yamnaya and Bell Beaker is pretty solid, but I have never really had to defend it before, so I will have to assemble some notes and cite more sources.

Personally, I think horse riding was one of the things that gave Yamnaya an edge over its competition in Europe west of the Dniester, and the same is true of Bell Beaker. I also suspect that the ability to use their bows on horseback was one of the things - maybe the biggest thing - that Bell Beaker men had going for them, other than their physical size advantage.

I (sincerely) look forward to it and Thank you in advance
And I appreciate your personal preferences for Gimbutas and Anthony, but such would stand in minority amongst the wider Bronze Age academic community- as I've previously catalogued.

I personally have no predilection for 'yay' or 'nay', but do look for solid evidence for its use, that's all

rms2
01-06-2016, 12:56 PM
I (sincerely) look forward to it and Thank you in advance
And I appreciate your personal preferences for Gimbutas and Anthony, but such would stand in minority amongst the wider Bronze Age academic community- as I've previously catalogued.

I personally have no predilection for 'yay' or 'nay', but do look for solid evidence for its use, that's all

Let's just say I have my doubts about the consensus you're alleging among "the wider Bronze Age academic community", as if Anthony and Gimbutas were somehow on the fringe and outside the mainstream. I know you've said that before, but, like I said, I have my doubts about it.

But I am going to look into this further.

Jean M
01-06-2016, 05:49 PM
And I appreciate your personal preferences for Gimbutas and Anthony, but such would stand in minority amongst the wider Bronze Age academic community - as I've previously catalogued.

The writing of Gimbutas is no longer accepted in its totality by scholars generally. That includes Anthony and Mallory, who follow her basic conviction of the location of the IE homeland on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. We have much more evidence now than she had, so a lot of the details she proposed are not included in more recent works. Neither is her conviction that the Neolithic farmers lived in peaceful matriarchal societies. I have invariably cited more recent authors than Gimbutas, though giving her credit where due in AJ:


The steppe homeland thesis has a long history. It was proposed in 1890 by the German linguist Otto Schrader. Marija Gimbutas developed the idea in the 1950s. Although her core concept of the place and time of PIE has stood the test of time, other aspects of her case have been drastically revised. She pictured the spread of PIE by force. How else could Indo-European languages overcome those spoken by established Neolithic communities? As we have seen, the staying power of European Neolithic communities has been over-estimated. In places Indo-European languages entered empty territory. In others though the question remains. Andrew Sherratt's concept of the Secondary Products Revolution provides a more satisfactory answer..


However it seems strange to place Anthony outside the mainstream of the academic community specialising in the Bronze Age. He is an acknowledged expert on same. As well as his own excavations there, Anthony draws on many Russian authors for the archaeology of the steppe. As does P. L. Kohl, The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia (Cambridge World Archaeology 2007). Kohl draws many of the same conclusions as Anthony, who published his highly acclaimed The Horse, The Wheel and Language in the same year.

alan
01-06-2016, 07:46 PM
It seems to me that it is clear that the wheel oxen wagon was known widely in northern and central Europe from well pre-3000BC but beaker keeps coming up as the culture with the strongest and earliest evidence of horse riding outside the steppes. Its surely the most likely thing so far identified which could explain their unusual lifestyle, mobility and massive networks. Something set them apart from the rest.

IMO horses for riding and packhorses would be ideal for the beaker lifestyle. They clearly were not pastoralists living in mobile wagons (which would be of limited use outside the steppe) but a people who lived in scattered separate settlements whose members included an element who formed wide networks linking between these different beaker settlements by using horses, way stations etc makes perfect sense.

Mikewww
01-06-2016, 08:53 PM
The writing of Gimbutas ... Neither is her conviction that the Neolithic farmers lived in peaceful matriarchal societies....
I definitely can understand the concept of matriarchs, strong mother figures with great respect and leadership. However, I have a hard time understanding how there could be long-lived practices in the Bronze Age and pre-Bronze Age societies where property or property rights were passed down extensively via the mother. If physical possession is nine tenths of the law, ultimately, there must be some form of violence capability, be it individual or sanctioned by a ruler, to maintain order. What I'm saying is there is a reason police, military, etc. have weapons. Just by the nature of our gender and genes, males would probably have had the violence related roles, be they sanctioned by the society or not.

Jean M
01-06-2016, 09:51 PM
If physical possession is nine tenths of the law, ultimately, there must be some form of violence capability, be it individual or sanctioned by a ruler, to maintain order.

We now have evidence of violence in Neolithic societies. I'm not sure that we can say that it was always caused by the same thing. However I have an idea that it may occur when there is a shortage of food or good land. The disruption caused by climate change seems to have triggered some.

rms2
01-06-2016, 11:32 PM
It seems to me that it is clear that the wheel oxen wagon was known widely in northern and central Europe from well pre-3000BC but beaker keeps coming up as the culture with the strongest and earliest evidence of horse riding outside the steppes. Its surely the most likely thing so far identified which could explain their unusual lifestyle, mobility and massive networks. Something set them apart from the rest.

IMO horses for riding and packhorses would be ideal for the beaker lifestyle. They clearly were not pastoralists living in mobile wagons (which would be of limited use outside the steppe) but a people who lived in scattered separate settlements whose members included an element who formed wide networks linking between these different beaker settlements by using horses, way stations etc makes perfect sense.

Maybe you meant they weren't nomads? Because pastoralists they were.

rms2
01-06-2016, 11:37 PM
The writing of Gimbutas is no longer accepted in its totality by scholars generally . . .

Is anyone's writing accepted in its totality, ever, outside the realm of religion?

I think Gimbutas got more right than she got wrong and is still a valuable resource ignored by many and misunderstood - and often misrepresented - by others.

Jean M
01-07-2016, 01:32 AM
Is anyone's writing accepted in its totality, ever, outside the realm of religion?

In the long term, probably not. I generally notice mistakes in my own text just as soon as it is too late to rectify them. :)


I think Gimbutas got more right than she got wrong and is still a valuable resource ignored by many and misunderstood - and often misrepresented - by others.

One of the big problems for Mallory and Anthony was that migration and warfare went out of favour in archaeological thinking. That allowed Renfrew, for example, to make a cheap gibe at Anthony's book at one conference I attended, pretending to think that his subtitle used words like "invasion" or "conquest" or something. Anthony had actually steered clear of such vocabulary. The tide has just recently turned on the topics of migration and warfare. They are no longer a total turn-off in the world of archaeology. ;)

However it is normal practice to use the most recent useful sources, rather than ones written half a century or a century or more ago, except to give an indication of the history of a concept. This is not to say that earlier writers were totally wrong. In some cases they were amazingly right! In fact some archaeologists are (now that anti-migrationism has lost its death grip) returning to concepts first put forward by V. Gordon Childe or even older writers. But the concept will generally need some refinement or reshaping to fit the far larger database now available.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-07-2016, 01:54 AM
However it seems strange to place Anthony outside the mainstream of the academic community specialising in the Bronze Age. He is an acknowledged expert on same. As well as his own excavations there, Anthony draws on many Russian authors for the archaeology of the steppe. As does P. L. Kohl, The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia (Cambridge World Archaeology 2007). Kohl draws many of the same conclusions as Anthony, who published his highly acclaimed The Horse, The Wheel and Language in the same year.
I am certainly not stating that. Obviously, Anthony is widely respected and opened the way to new scientific methods for investigating the issue of horse domestication. Rather, I’m pointing out that – by and large- scholars have not accepted the totality of his conclusions. And in fact, some if his early conclusions were demonstrably false (see below).
------------------------------------------------


So it might be useful to break the question into component parts.

1) What is the evidence for horse domestication- as opposed to wild hunting / eating ? Where did this occur and when

2) What is the evidence for the horse being ridden. Where and when. Given the oft echoed idea (by senior and informed Anthrogenicans), and its apparent centrality to an Indo –European ‘edge’, it’s worth really looking at the evidence rather than anecdotes and personal beliefs.

3) A specific look at central Europe – the linked offshoots of “Yamnaya horse-riding folk” (viz CWC and B.B.).

Part 1

Until recently, the site at Dereivka was pointed to. However

The calibrated C14 date of a ritual horse skull was found to be 1000 years later than initially posited – and thus dated to the LBA. In fact, the entire stratigtaphy of the site appears ot have been mixed, and the entire dating a shemozzle, and “Levine's reassessment of the population structure data indicates that the vast majority of the Dereivka horses had probably been killed in the hunt”. (Kohl, Archaeological Transformations: Crossing the Pastoral/ Agricultural Divide; 2012 Levine, M.A. Domestication of the Horse, in Neil Asher Silberman (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, Second Edition. Oxford University Press, USA, 978-0-19-973578-5, pp 15-19.) Harsher critics even suggest “ a strong bias was in built into the research from its inception” and “For many years, insufficient data and ambiguous research methodology produced erroneous hypotheses about the origins of domestication of these animals in different region” (The problem of horse domestication. Selected issues.

More promising looked the site at Botai, Kazakhstan – dating from 3500 BC.
“these north-central steppe communities raised domesticated horses for meat, milk, and probably for transport (Outram et al. 2009). Evidence of corralling and leather thong-smoothers imply that some horses at Botai were being controlled (Olsen 2006b).” (Frachetti and ref therein – Multiregional Emergence of Mobile Pastoralism and Nonuniform Institutional Complexity across Eurasia. Pg 9) . However skeptics remain “Botai might well fit within the time frame expected for the origins of horse domestication. However, none of the evidence presented so far supports the hypothesis that domestic horses were present at Botai, while the evidence of population structure, butchery practices, palaeopathology incidence, as well as contextual evidence, best supports the hypothesis that the Botai horses were mostly or wholly wild and killed in herd drives.” (Levine op cit ref. pg 9) But “Still there is discussion about this subject due to the fact that some scholars think that the wear on the teeth is actually natural” (Olsen 2003, 10; in Brattinga 2012: Two Bridles and a Yoke A new study into the horse gear from the chieftain’s burial of Oss ). .

Simililarly large horse bone assemblages have been found to the south, in Early Neolithic Uzbekistan (although more formal analyses for "domestication"' is pending ( A PROBLEM OF THE EARLIEST HORSE DOMESTICATION. DATA FROM THE NEOLITHIC CAMP AYAKAGYTMA
‘THE SITE’, UZBEKISTAN, CENTRAL ASIA).

But we might conclude :
“at least some horses in the Botai culture of northern Kazakhstan were domestic. These remains date to the mid-fourth millennium BC” (From wild horses to domestic horses: a European perspective. Robin Bendrey; pp 136- 7)



What we need for more conclusive evidence is not just bit wear, but also cervical vertebrae stress patterns, phalangeal ware, ancient DNA (of horses !), stable isotopes, palaeopathology, environmental analyses, etc.


Finally mention should be made of commonly cited “false evidence’ :

- The mere presence of horse bone in human burials means little other than hotses were ritual animals. One author joked that squirrels were also found in burials, but no one claims they were domesticated.

- Alleged “cheek pieces” at Dereivka. Apart from the mis-dating, they’re so general that they’ve been rejected (Haussler, Levine, Rassamakin, Mills/ McDonnell, Dietz, Uerpmann) https://books.google.com.au/books?id=GHKuEeqC4U0C&pg=PA7&dq=horse+domestication+khazanov&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=horse%20domestication%20khazanov&f=false Pg 9

- Horse sceptres: are symbols of prestige exchange from the lower Dnaube to the steppe (Kohl 158, Bailey, Mills/ McDonnell). Moreover, they have not been found in any context with animal husbandry.


It appears that the the horse might have been domesticated in various places ;
“. Mitochondrial DNA studies, comparing a wide range of domestic horse breeds, demonstrated
that there is a high diversity of matrilines among modern horses. This indicates the utilization of wild horses from a large number of populations as founders of the domestic horse. A single geographically restricted population would not
suffice as founding stock” (Brattinga pg 12), although “the wild ancestor of modern domestic horses, Equus ferus, initially occupied vast territories of Eastern Asia and later spread to the west part of the steppe, where it was probably domesticated.” (Skrzyniecka*, p 309)

Part (2)

So there is a farily uniform agreement – although not definitive – that the horse was becoming domesticated by mid to late M4. But what was it’s role ?

Here, the concensus is overwhelming – mostly food, slow traction, and not speed or excelled control. Yes, it must have greatly impacted society, however, not war.

“But the step from taming horses to actually mounting them is too great to have been taken in just a few generations of early horse husbandry” (Dietz 2009, in Brattinga p 12)


"From an archaeological point of view, currently there is no direct evidence for the use of horse for riding or as traction animal,dated earlier than the end of the third millennium BC” (Skrzyniecka*, p 309)


"Finally, it is pertinent that the evolution of horsemanship from display and recreation to war was accomplished with the chariot. This evolution took place over about three hundred years. Can we believe that ca. 2000 BC, when the chariot was in its infancy, the steppe dwellers were already riding their horses to war, shooting arrows at each other from horseback; and that it took three hundred years before it occurred to Near Easterners that the same sort of warfare could be conducted from the platforms of chariots? There is
good reason to think that horsemanship north of the Caucasus ca. 2000 BC was not appreciably better than horsemanship in the Near East at that time, and that in the steppe and in Europe, just as in Greece and the Near East, riding continued to be a challenge all through the second millennium.’ (Drews ‘Early Riders’. P 55)

Someone mentioned Kohl earlier, he actually argues against the theory of “mounted nomads form the east” and points also to the latter M3 for the earliest evidence for horse being ridden for speed and military advantage- and this came from the area BMAC and Sintashta. (Kohl p 158, 162-3)


No reference list would be complete with Anatoly Khazanov ‘horsemanship appeared in the European and Kazakh steppes no later than the middle of the second millennium B.C.” (Nomads and the Outside World; P 94)

Finally, we have Bokovenko
“It was only at the end of the Bronze Age that a sporadic development
in the steppe cultures occurred in which horseback riding was mastered–and this was probably by shepherds. It is during this time that finds of bone and rod-shaped cheekpieces with various modifications are noted, as well as being illustrated in numerous rock drawings” (The Origins of Horse riding and the Development of Ancient Central Asian Nomadic Riding Harnesses. CSEN p 304)

I'm not stating the horse could not have been ridden before this time – of course it could. But the odd individual or clan clambering up a hrose was not something which marked a shift in warfare, or something which was passed on generation after generation. IN fact, the horse appears to have been used for traction, meat and milk. Its adotption to fast transport and warfare was very gradual, and this took a sequence of adoption of Near eastern harnesses (originally used for Oxen and Donkeys) – adopted to northern steppe horses to pull wagons/ carts, then the revolutionary chariots, then single –rider combat in the Late Bronze Age (= ‘the mounted warrior’). (Brattinga pp 12- 14; Drews - passim)

Part 3

I’ve already mentioned in the previous post the evidence for horses in Europe itself is rather uncommon and uneven.

In fact, even in the developed Bronze Age, contra the situation in the proto-indo Aryan region “the chariot did not gain widespread acceptance in Bronze Age Europe, especially because the level of social development in that area does not seem sufficient to have supported the use of chariots in war, it was rather suited for the realms of cult and mythology.” (Brattinga p 14)


I found an article devoted to horses in Europe, and a paragraph about putative links to BB.

“Widely discussed is the association of horse bones with finds of Bell Beaker pottery
across Europe in northern and southern Europe (e.g. Albarella 1999; Blaise 2010: 267–70;
Clutton-Brock and Burleigh 1991a; Uerpmann 1990; van Wijngaarden-Bakker 1975),
which has led to hypotheses of local domestication and/or diffusion of horses across
Europe by the Bell Beaker Culture. This culture has produced a range of indirect evidence
for horse husbandry and its spread (e.g. Bo¨ ko¨ nyi 1978; Uerpmann 1990). The rapid spread
of Bell Beakers as a pan-European culture present it as a possible contender for early user
of domestic horses and evidence for increasing stratification of society and mobility at this
time could well be associated with the early use of horses (Heyd 2007). Further, current
evidence indicates the earliest Bell Beakers originating on the Iberian Peninsula (Heyd
2007), which links in well with the evidence for continuity of horse populations here,
domestication/introgression of local stock and metrical evidence for changes in body size
(Liesau 2005; Uerpmann 1990; Warmuth et al. 2011). However, although there are horses
from a number of Bell Beaker sites across Europe (see a very useful recent summary in
Blaise (2010: 267–70)), there are also finds of horses from sites in many areas predating
this, as discussed above. Detailed regional examinations of the association between horse
bones and Beaker pottery at sites in southern England (Bendrey 2007a) and south-east
France (Blaise 2010) were unable to identify a direct correlation between the two. Further
work is needed on horse remains of the Bell Beaker Culture, as it is on other fourth- and
third-millennium” (From wild horses to domestic horses: a European perspective. Robin Bendrey; pp 136- 7)

And we have already noted the near absence of horses in CWC - a steppic offshoot.


__________________

It is not my intention to impress any specific perspective, but rather evaluate what the evidence is really showing, and where scholars are looking to in future studies.

I think scholars like Heyd and Rassamakin the prime factor linking eastern pastoralists toward the west (B.B.) and north (CWC) was their productive, mobile , cattle-rearing economy. Perhaps a book "The Cow, the Milk and the Indo-Europeans ??"

Finally, lets wait a few months to see where CWC and BB really came from.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-07-2016, 02:14 AM
One of the big problems for Mallory and Anthony was that migration and warfare went out of favour in archaeological thinking. That allowed Renfrew, for example, to make a cheap gibe at Anthony's book at one conference I attended, pretending to think that his subtitle used words like "invasion" or "conquest" or something. Anthony had actually steered clear of such vocabulary. The tide has just recently turned on the topics of migration and warfare. They are no longer a total turn-off in the world of archaeology. ;)

However it is normal practice to use the most recent useful sources, rather than ones written half a century or a century or more ago, except to give an indication of the history of a concept. This is not to say that earlier writers were totally wrong. In some cases they were amazingly right! In fact some archaeologists are (now that anti-migrationism has lost its death grip) returning to concepts first put forward by V. Gordon Childe or even older writers. But the concept will generally need some refinement or reshaping to fit the far larger database now available.

"Pre-historic migration is back on the menu" :)

And now, we are clarifying the exact causation, chronology, mechanisms and (hopefully) launching points.

kinman
01-07-2016, 03:04 AM
As I recall, the earliest evidence of domesticated horses in the lowermost Danube region was in Romania, dated at 5,000 years ago. This was based on color of their coats, and we know that domestication can result in such color changes in domesticate animals compared to their wild ancestors (as in dogs, and also in the more recent experiments with foxes in Russia)!!!! This is more reliable than bit wear or stirrups. etc. if riding was a simple bare-back affair (and holding onto their manes) early on.
The question is where did these Romanian horses come from, and the obvious answer is Ukraine and ultimately from an area in (or near) western Kazakhstan with their R1b domesticators. Whether the first domestication or taming occurred 6,500 years ago, or 6.000 years ago, or even 5,500 years ago, their documented presence in Romania 5,000 years ago is very strong. More research on coat color of horses earlier and further east (Ukraine and back into the western Kazakhstan area) is just a matter of future discoveries. Although the original taming and domestication of horses (6,500 years ago?) would have been for food, their usefulness for traction and then for exploration and trade would have followed long before they show up in Romania.
The big question in my mind is whether R1b's relatives (R1a) possessed domesticated horses when they first expanded west into Karelia and Poland, or was horse domestication introduced to R1a later by R1b-U106 men going north from the Ukraine-Moldova region (about 5,200-5,400 years ago?). U106 could be a key to explaining the northward spread of horse domestication and the relationship between proto-Celto-Italic and proto-Germanic languages, not to mention other common elements of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware cultures.
-------------------Ken

kinman
01-07-2016, 03:26 AM
P.S.
The evidence for horse domestication at Botai is somewhat stronger because it was 5,500 years ago, upwards of a thousand years after the simpler taming of horses further to the west in westernmost Kazakhstan (or adjacent areas). But the more important expansion of horse domestication was in the opposite direction (to Ukraine and ultimately up the Danube).

Tomenable
01-07-2016, 03:27 AM
Kinman,

The Karelian branch of R1a is extinct or near-extinct now. 99% of R1a in the world belongs to M198 subclade.

lgmayka
01-07-2016, 03:30 AM
It appears that the the horse might have been domesticated in various places ;
The use of mitochondrial DNA to determine place of domestication is a fallacy, I think. Isn't domestication of a potentially dangerous wild animal principally a matter of taming the male of the species? If so, Y-DNA and not mtDNA will trace domestication. In regard to horses (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060015):
---
While modern domestic horses (Equus caballus) exhibit abundant diversity within maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA, no significant Y-chromosomal sequence diversity has been detected.
---

Tomenable
01-07-2016, 03:36 AM
and Corded Ware has yielded up both R1b and R1a test results (more of the latter).

Two samples of suspected R1b in Corded Ware.

One "R1b" turned out not to be R1b, but R1a (see our recent discussion), while the other "R1b" sample can only be with certainty called "R1". And actually, it really could be just that - R1*. Considering, that in Baalberge Group also one sample of R1 (neither R1a nor R1b) was found.

Tomenable
01-07-2016, 03:42 AM
That said, BB and CW cultures overlapped both in space and in time (for some period), so mixing surely happened.

Eastern edges of Bell Beaker culture overlapped with western peripheries of Corded Ware culture in Central Europe.

But Corded Ware samples were more Yamnaya-like in terms of autosomal DNA - see the old good graph from Haak:

http://s13.postimg.org/p5pv4nokn/Beaker_Unetice.png

http://s13.postimg.org/p5pv4nokn/Beaker_Unetice.png

kinman
01-07-2016, 03:48 AM
I disagree,
As I said months ago in the "Horse domestication" thread, the first taming of horses was probably the more easily captured heavily-pregnant mares, perhaps initially for milkling. Any male offspring of the tame mares would then be much easier to tame (in captivity). And they could also tie a tamed mare out in the wild and wait for a wild stallion to come along and mate with her. Capturing males was not necessary IMO.
----------------------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The use of mitochondrial DNA to determine place of domestication is a fallacy, I think. Isn't domestication of a potentially dangerous wild animal principally a matter of taming the male of the species? If so, Y-DNA and not mtDNA will trace domestication. In regard to horses (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060015):
---
While modern domestic horses (Equus caballus) exhibit abundant diversity within maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA, no significant Y-chromosomal sequence diversity has been detected.
---

Tomenable
01-07-2016, 03:58 AM
It would be good to collect some ancient DNA samples from bones of prehistoric horses. Has this been done?

Gravetto-Danubian
01-07-2016, 04:08 AM
The use of mitochondrial DNA to determine place of domestication is a fallacy, I think. Isn't domestication of a potentially dangerous wild animal principally a matter of taming the male of the species? If so, Y-DNA and not mtDNA will trace domestication. In regard to horses (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060015):
---
While modern domestic horses (Equus caballus) exhibit abundant diversity within maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA, no significant Y-chromosomal sequence diversity has been detected.
---

That's true
Wild female mares were admixed in. The low Y diversity suggests only prized Stallions were bred, but whether it means a single place of origin is another question ..

alan
01-07-2016, 05:36 AM
Maybe you meant they weren't nomads? Because pastoralists they were.

yes I meant nomads

alan
01-07-2016, 05:53 AM
I am certainly not stating that. Obviously, Anthony is widely respected and opened the way to new scientific methods for investigating the issue of horse domestication. Rather, I’m pointing out that – by and large- scholars have not accepted the totality of his conclusions. And in fact, some if his early conclusions were demonstrably false (see below).
------------------------------------------------


So it might be useful to break the question into component parts.

1) What is the evidence for horse domestication- as opposed to wild hunting / eating ? Where did this occur and when

2) What is the evidence for the horse being ridden. Where and when. Given the oft echoed idea (by senior and informed Anthrogenicans), and its apparent centrality to an Indo –European ‘edge’, it’s worth really looking at the evidence rather than anecdotes and personal beliefs.

3) A specific look at central Europe – the linked offshoots of “Yamnaya horse-riding folk” (viz CWC and B.B.).

Part 1

Until recently, the site at Dereivka was pointed to. However


More promising looked the site at Botai, Kazakhstan – dating from 3500 BC. .

Simililarly large horse bone assemblages have been found to the south, in Early Neolithic Uzbekistan (although more formal analyses for "domestication"' is pending ( A PROBLEM OF THE EARLIEST HORSE DOMESTICATION. DATA FROM THE NEOLITHIC CAMP AYAKAGYTMA
‘THE SITE’, UZBEKISTAN, CENTRAL ASIA).

But we might conclude :



What we need for more conclusive evidence is not just bit wear, but also cervical vertebrae stress patterns, phalangeal ware, ancient DNA (of horses !), stable isotopes, palaeopathology, environmental analyses, etc.


Finally mention should be made of commonly cited “false evidence’ :

- The mere presence of horse bone in human burials means little other than hotses were ritual animals. One author joked that squirrels were also found in burials, but no one claims they were domesticated.

- Alleged “cheek pieces” at Dereivka. Apart from the mis-dating, they’re so general that they’ve been rejected (Haussler, Levine, Rassamakin, Mills/ McDonnell, Dietz, Uerpmann) https://books.google.com.au/books?id=GHKuEeqC4U0C&pg=PA7&dq=horse+domestication+khazanov&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=horse%20domestication%20khazanov&f=false Pg 9

- Horse sceptres: are symbols of prestige exchange from the lower Dnaube to the steppe (Kohl 158, Bailey, Mills/ McDonnell). Moreover, they have not been found in any context with animal husbandry.


It appears that the the horse might have been domesticated in various places ;

Part (2)

So there is a farily uniform agreement – although not definitive – that the horse was becoming domesticated by mid to late M4. But what was it’s role ?

Here, the concensus is overwhelming – mostly food, slow traction, and not speed or excelled control. Yes, it must have greatly impacted society, however, not war.

“But the step from taming horses to actually mounting them is too great to have been taken in just a few generations of early horse husbandry” (Dietz 2009, in Brattinga p 12)





Someone mentioned Kohl earlier, he actually argues against the theory of “mounted nomads form the east” and points also to the latter M3 for the earliest evidence for horse being ridden for speed and military advantage- and this came from the area BMAC and Sintashta. (Kohl p 158, 162-3)


No reference list would be complete with Anatoly Khazanov ‘horsemanship appeared in the European and Kazakh steppes no later than the middle of the second millennium B.C.” (Nomads and the Outside World; P 94)

Finally, we have Bokovenko

I'm not stating the horse could not have been ridden before this time – of course it could. But the odd individual or clan clambering up a hrose was not something which marked a shift in warfare, or something which was passed on generation after generation. IN fact, the horse appears to have been used for traction, meat and milk. Its adotption to fast transport and warfare was very gradual, and this took a sequence of adoption of Near eastern harnesses (originally used for Oxen and Donkeys) – adopted to northern steppe horses to pull wagons/ carts, then the revolutionary chariots, then single –rider combat in the Late Bronze Age (= ‘the mounted warrior’). (Brattinga pp 12- 14; Drews - passim)

Part 3

I’ve already mentioned in the previous post the evidence for horses in Europe itself is rather uncommon and uneven.

In fact, even in the developed Bronze Age, contra the situation in the proto-indo Aryan region “the chariot did not gain widespread acceptance in Bronze Age Europe, especially because the level of social development in that area does not seem sufficient to have supported the use of chariots in war, it was rather suited for the realms of cult and mythology.” (Brattinga p 14)


I found an article devoted to horses in Europe, and a paragraph about putative links to BB.


And we have already noted the near absence of horses in CWC - a steppic offshoot.


__________________

It is not my intention to impress any specific perspective, but rather evaluate what the evidence is really showing, and where scholars are looking to in future studies.

I think scholars like Heyd and Rassamakin the prime factor linking eastern pastoralists toward the west (B.B.) and north (CWC) was their productive, mobile , cattle-rearing economy. Perhaps a book "The Cow, the Milk and the Indo-Europeans ??"

Finally, lets wait a few months to see where CWC and BB really came from.

A mid 3rd millenium date for the take off of horse riding would be bang in line with central European beaker. Even if its origins are not clear, the linking to the sudden expansion of the beaker network c. 2500-2400BC to horse riding is very very tempting. Maybe it has no antecedents - maybe its invention or early borrowing from another culture to the east is the essence of the beaker networks expansion c. 2500BC. However, clearly there must have been some root in a pre-beaker culture with some familiarity with horses, even if not for riding.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-07-2016, 07:08 AM
A mid 3rd millenium date for the take off of horse riding would be bang in line with central European beaker. Even if its origins are not clear, the linking to the sudden expansion of the beaker network c. 2500-2400BC to horse riding is very very tempting. Maybe it has no antecedents - maybe its invention or early borrowing from another culture to the east is the essence of the beaker networks expansion c. 2500BC. However, clearly there must have been some root in a pre-beaker culture with some familiarity with horses, even if not for riding.

I think that is what the evidence is suggesting, although I was a little surprised by the findings of the Bendrey paper. https://www.academia.edu/1785218/From_wild_horses_to_domestic_horses_a_European_per spective

I think some more perspectives on Beaker archaeology are on the way

northkerry
01-07-2016, 07:39 AM
That said, BB and CW cultures overlapped both in space and in time (for some period), so mixing surely happened.

Eastern edges of Bell Beaker culture overlapped with western peripheries of Corded Ware culture in Central Europe.

But Corded Ware samples were more Yamnaya-like in terms of autosomal DNA - see the old good graph from Haak:

http://s13.postimg.org/p5pv4nokn/Beaker_Unetice.png

http://s13.postimg.org/p5pv4nokn/Beaker_Unetice.png

If the two cultures overlapped then Z2103 should be found in CWC and R1a in Yamnaya.

alan
01-07-2016, 11:36 AM
I think that is what the evidence is suggesting, although I was a little surprised by the findings of the Bendrey paper. https://www.academia.edu/1785218/From_wild_horses_to_domestic_horses_a_European_per spective

I think some more perspectives on Beaker archaeology are on the way

One factor is that its now recognised that c. 2500BC was a really horrific shock of aridity on a scale rarely seen. I understand that this saw warm dry summers and cold winters. I understand horses are well suited to arid conditions and to cold winters with snow etc. So the climate could have been a driver in the extent of horses and man's relationship with them. I suspect a period of hot dry summers and cold winters would have extended steppe type environments into areas that previously had not been so. Does make you wonder if the central European users of beaker could perhaps have been displaced from somewhere where the arid phase made life too difficult and this led to their spreading out across Europe.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-07-2016, 12:17 PM
One factor is that its now recognised that c. 2500BC was a really horrific shock of aridity on a scale rarely seen. I understand that this saw warm dry summers and cold winters. I understand horses are well suited to arid conditions and to cold winters with snow etc. So the climate could have been a driver in the extent of horses and man's relationship with them. I suspect a period of hot dry summers and cold winters would have extended steppe type environments into areas that previously had not been so. Does make you wonder if the central European users of beaker could perhaps have been displaced from somewhere where the arid phase made life too difficult and this led to their spreading out across Europe.

Yes I agree Alan

But am confused by some of the sources.

Your above reconstruction is based on Shishlina (I presume, or another source citing her). Yet Rassamakin argued that the period 3000 - 2500 was the arid one (crsp with Yamnaya), not the 2500 - 2000 period. Im inclined to believe Shishlina on this one, as does this author (pg 381 -> https://books.google.com.au/books?id=H2P7CAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+climatic+breakdown+as+a+cause+for+the+collaps e+of+the+old+world&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=A%20climatic%20breakdown%20as%20a%20cause%20for% 20the%20collapse%20of%20the%20old%20world&f=false)

I think you previously mentioned the situation was opposite in western Europe ?

rms2
01-07-2016, 12:22 PM
If the two cultures overlapped then Z2103 should be found in CWC and R1a in Yamnaya.

He said Bell Beaker and Corded Ware overlapped. No Z2103 has been found in Bell Beaker.

There may have been some mixing between BB and CW, but it sure isn't showing up in ancient dna testing, especially on the y side of things.

rms2
01-07-2016, 12:39 PM
That said, BB and CW cultures overlapped both in space and in time (for some period), so mixing surely happened.

Eastern edges of Bell Beaker culture overlapped with western peripheries of Corded Ware culture in Central Europe.

But Corded Ware samples were more Yamnaya-like in terms of autosomal DNA - see the old good graph from Haak:

http://s13.postimg.org/p5pv4nokn/Beaker_Unetice.png

http://s13.postimg.org/p5pv4nokn/Beaker_Unetice.png

As I said, the ancient y-dna thus far isn't making it look like there was much mixing between BB and CW. In fact, this is just my initial impression, but it looks like BB may have pushed CW out where the two overlapped.

As for BB's autosomal profile vs that of CW, it reflects the differences in the paths of the two cultures. It looks like BB came up the Danube from the Carpathian basin and waded through the heart of Old Europe and its Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmer peoples, acquiring ENF along the way. If Gimbutas was right, BB was the product of the blending of Vucedol and Yamnaya, and Vucedol itself was supposed to have evolved out of the blending of an earlier wave of steppe pastoralists and Old European Baden farmers. So, BB's autosomal profile is probably what we would expect, if Gimbutas was right, since Baden was largely ENF.

CW, on the other hand, appears to have emerged farther north and with less blending with Old Europeans. Its contact with them probably came via CT, which probably had less of the Near Eastern component and more native eastern Europeans. Again, it is what we should expect.

rms2
01-07-2016, 12:43 PM
Two samples of suspected R1b in Corded Ware.

One "R1b" turned out not to be R1b, but R1a (see our recent discussion), while the other "R1b" sample can only be with certainty called "R1". And actually, it really could be just that - R1*. Considering, that in Baalberge Group also one sample of R1 (neither R1a nor R1b) was found.

RISE1 has an L1345+ R1b result, but it's not the best of samples, and so we can't really rely on it and will have to wait for further R1b to show up in CW. Personally, I think it will, mainly in western CW and in the form of U106. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

lgmayka
01-07-2016, 04:26 PM
As I said months ago in the "Horse domestication" thread, the first taming of horses was probably the more easily captured heavily-pregnant mares, perhaps initially for milkling. Any male offspring of the tame mares would then be much easier to tame (in captivity). And they could also tie a tamed mare out in the wild and wait for a wild stallion to come along and mate with her. Capturing males was not necessary IMO.
Ancient and modern DNA results (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n8/full/ncomms1447.html) vigorously disagree with your scenario.
---
The abundant Y chromosomal diversity found in wild horses is in stark contrast to the complete lack of variability in modern horses. This result argues against the absence of Y chromosomal diversity in modern horses being based on properties intrinsic to wild horses, such as continuous strong selection on the Y chromosome or a strong reproductive skew among males.

Our results therefore support the hypothesis that the lack of genetic diversity in extant horses may be a consequence of the domestication process. This loss of diversity at domestication may have been achieved either through the incorporation of very few wild male horses in the domestic stocks, a global selective sweep of the Y chromosome, or breeding practices developed after domestication that reduced the effective number of males in the domestic species.
---

rms2
01-07-2016, 04:53 PM
. . .



“But the step from taming horses to actually mounting them is too great to have been taken in just a few generations of early horse husbandry” (Dietz 2009, in Brattinga p 12)
. . .



I have not had the time to research this issue satisfactorily, but I wanted to respond to the quote above, with which I disagree strongly.

I think that once horses were tamed, i.e., domesticated, the step to mounting and riding them would have occurred fairly soon and quite naturally. Within a few generations (say, 100-150 years) people would have figured out how to harness and control a mount.

It seems strange to me anyone would doubt this and imagine that it would take humans ages to come up with the idea of actually riding a horse.

razyn
01-07-2016, 05:40 PM
I think that once horses were tamed, i.e., domesticated, the step to mounting and riding them would have occurred fairly soon and quite naturally. Within a few generations (say, 100-150 years) people would have figured out how to harness and control a mount.

It seems strange to me anyone would doubt this and imagine that it would take humans ages to come up with the idea of actually riding a horse.
No kidding. All it takes is some young male daring another to try it. Horses may be big and dangerous, but that's what boys like to play with. They are also pretty friendly, as big dangerous animals go. And they go fast. What's not to like?

rms2
01-07-2016, 08:12 PM
No kidding. All it takes is some young male daring another to try it. Horses may be big and dangerous, but that's what boys like to play with. They are also pretty friendly, as big dangerous animals go. And they go fast. What's not to like?

Ever see that video making the rounds of Facebook of the two little baboons jumping on the back of a wild pig and riding it? They hadn't even domesticated it, and they were riding the doggoned thing!

What could be more natural?

Anyone who has been around little kids and big dogs has probably seen the kids mount up and ride a big dog like a horse.

I just cannot imagine humans domesticating horses and not trying to ride them very soon thereafter. Coming up with a good harness would be the thing that would take the most time, but even that wouldn't take all that long.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-07-2016, 10:19 PM
I think that once horses were tamed, i.e., domesticated, the step to mounting and riding them would have occurred fairly soon and quite naturally. Within a few generations (say, 100-150 years) people would have figured out how to harness and control a mount.

It seems strange to me anyone would doubt this and imagine that it would take humans ages to come up with the idea of actually riding a horse.

I don't think any of the sources would doubt that daredevil young men tried - and perhaps successfully so- riding horses at an individual level. Heck, I think one of those papers argued even in the Palaeolithic odd individuals tried jumping on the back of a wild horse.
Rather, what they're looking at is when riding became common place, controlled and thus an effective military adjunct. It appears it wasn't the Copper Age. Nor is the idea that Sredni Stog mounted raiders caused the collapse of Tripolje and Bulgarian (Varna-karanovo) settlements substantiated when one considers the most recent radiocarbon dates and discards mis-attributed data from Dereivka.

Bokovenko's conclusion makes much sense - war-horse riding originated in shepherds who had a long history of riding a horse, who had acquired an intimate 'collective knowledge', passed on through generations.

rms2
01-08-2016, 12:51 AM
I don't think any of the sources would doubt that daredevil young men tried - and perhaps successfully so- riding horses at an individual level. Heck, I think one of those papers argued even in the Palaeolithic odd individuals tried jumping on the back of a wild horse.
Rather, what they're looking at is when riding became common place, controlled and thus an effective military adjunct. It appears it wasn't the Copper Age. Nor is the idea that Sredni Stog mounted raiders caused the collapse of Tripolje and Bulgarian (Varna-karanovo) settlements substantiated when one considers the most recent radiocarbon dates and discards mis-attributed data from Dereivka.

Bokovenko's conclusion makes much sense - war-horse riding originated in shepherds who had a long history of riding a horse, who had acquired an intimate 'collective knowledge', passed on through generations.

Of course, we have had this discussion before. Horse riding was probably very useful in war right from the outset because it increased mobility tremendously. One could ride to the scene of a raid or conflict, dismount if need be, fight, and then remount and get away at a pace pursuers on foot could not match. That seems pretty simple and straightforward to me and hard to gainsay. It wasn't much of a step from mounted infantry tactics like that to actually learning to fight from the back of a horse, wielding a club, spear or sword or using a bow. I don't think it would take a thousand years to learn how to do that.

Besides, I was responding to this specific quote from a prior post of yours:



“But the step from taming horses to actually mounting them is too great to have been taken in just a few generations of early horse husbandry” (Dietz 2009, in Brattinga p 12).


I don't think the step from taming horses to mounting and riding them "is too great to have been taken in just a few generations of early horse husbandry". I think it certainly did occur within a few generations of horse domestication.

alan
01-08-2016, 03:10 AM
Yes I agree Alan

But am confused by some of the sources.

Your above reconstruction is based on Shishlina (I presume, or another source citing her). Yet Rassamakin argued that the period 3000 - 2500 was the arid one (crsp with Yamnaya), not the 2500 - 2000 period. Im inclined to believe Shishlina on this one, as does this author (pg 381 -> https://books.google.com.au/books?id=H2P7CAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+climatic+breakdown+as+a+cause+for+the+collaps e+of+the+old+world&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=A%20climatic%20breakdown%20as%20a%20cause%20for% 20the%20collapse%20of%20the%20old%20world&f=false)

I think you previously mentioned the situation was opposite in western Europe ?

yes in north-west Europe anyway where c. 2500BC the drier more continental conditions brought relief from the mild wet sort of constant autumn type weather we are currently experiencing again. It is generally highlighted as a good climate peak in northern Europe in the literature.

I am not sure what the effect would have been on the west Med. type area which is hot and dry in summer but has ameliorating martime effects.

rms2
01-08-2016, 12:15 PM
From what I gather from reading the Bendrey paper, From wild horses to domestic horses: a European perspective (https://www.academia.edu/1785218/From_wild_horses_to_domestic_horses_a_European_per spective), linked by Gravetto-Danubian earlier, which seems a pretty balanced assessment, there is no consensus on this issue but merely a number of competing informed opinions.

One of the things in the paper I found interesting was this comment on p. 145, which seems self-evidently true:



A further problem with the use of body-size change as a marker of animal domestication more broadly, and not just limited to horses, is that such changes are likely to suffer from a time delay and not be manifested until significantly later (Levine 2004: 120; Zeder and Hesse 2000).


That means the ~ 2500 BC date obtained by the size variability method for the Bell Beaker horses of Csepel-Haros in Hungary is likely younger than the actual beginning of domestication there.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-08-2016, 12:29 PM
From what I gather from reading the Bendrey paper, From wild horses to domestic horses: a European perspective (https://www.academia.edu/1785218/From_wild_horses_to_domestic_horses_a_European_per spective), linked by Gravetto-Danubian earlier, which seems a pretty balanced assessment, there is no consensus on this issue but merely a number of competing informed opinions.

One of the things in the paper I found interesting was this comment on p. 145, which seems self-evidently true:



That means the ~ 2500 BC date obtained by the size variability method for the Bell Beaker horses of Csepel-Haros in Hungary is likely younger than the actual beginning of domestication there.

That figure (2500 BC) arises a lot . What Alan stated about the drying c. 2500 BC led to an upturn of horse use, and probably domestication in the western steppe and Central Europe.

It's also interesting that the Csepel groups arises exactly at this point, but archaeologists see at as an arrival of a fully -formed entity from more western BB groups.

https://www.academia.edu/5785869/Funerary_Rituals_Social_Relations_and_Diffusion_of _Bell_Beaker_Csepel-Group

rms2
01-08-2016, 12:42 PM
That figure (2500 BC) arises a lot . What Alan stated about the drying c. 2500 BC led to an upturn of horse use, and probably domestication in the western steppe and Central Europe.

It's also interesting that the Csepel groups arises exactly at this point, but archaeologists see at as an arrival of a fully -formed entity from more western BB groups.

https://www.academia.edu/5785869/Funerary_Rituals_Social_Relations_and_Diffusion_of _Bell_Beaker_Csepel-Group

Thanks for the link to that paper. I'll give it a good read today as soon as I get the chance. A quick glance gives me the impression the authors think the Csepel Beaker group arrived from sources in Slovakia and Austria. Right? That may be true.

Overall, however, as I have said before, I think Gimbutas is probably right and Bell Beaker formed from the amalgam of Vucedol and Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin and acquired its equestrian habits and skills from its steppe forebears, which is why horse domestication and riding show up so early in Bell Beaker.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-08-2016, 12:48 PM
Thanks for the link to that paper. I'll give it a good read today as soon as I get the chance. A quick glance gives me the impression the authors think the Csepel Beaker group arrived from sources in Slovakia and Austria. Right? That may be true.

Overall, however, as I have said before, I think Gimbutas is probably right and Bell Beaker formed from the amalgam of Vucedol and Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin and acquired its equestrian habits and skills from its steppe forbears, which is why horse domestication and riding show up so early in Bell Beaker.

Yes Id agree with that

A look at the Bronze Age cultural sequences sees constant interactions in the corridor between Carpathian - Danube - Alpine region, through to Iron Age
It's likely links established in the copper age were continually renewed and modified, and travelled west to east as well as east to west. The middle Danube artery also served as repeated offshoots to central Germany, Poland and northern Italy .

rms2
01-08-2016, 12:52 PM
Here's a question for Alan and Jean M.

I understand both of you have and have read the book, The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe (http://www.amazon.com/The-Bell-Beaker-Transition-Europe/dp/1782979271).

Is it worth buying?

What is your opinion of the book?

Gravetto-Danubian
01-08-2016, 01:17 PM
I bought one on EBooks via Google quite cheaply, so it was worth it
Decent, IMO, nothing shockingly revolutionary

Heber
01-08-2016, 03:06 PM
Here's a question for Alan and Jean M.

I understand both of you have and have read the book, The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe (http://www.amazon.com/The-Bell-Beaker-Transition-Europe/dp/1782979271).

Is it worth buying?

What is your opinion of the book?

"Could the circulation of objects or ideas and the mobility of artisans explain the unprecedented uniformity of the material culture observed throughout the whole of Europe? The 17 papers presented here offer a range of new and different perspectives on the Beaker phenomenon across Europe. The focus is not on Bell Beaker pottery but on social groups (craft specialists, warriors, chiefs, extended or nuclear families), using technological studies and physical anthropology to understand mobility patterns during the 3rd millennium BC. Chronological evolution is used to reconstruct the rhythm of Bell Beaker diffusion and the environmental background that could explain this mobility and the socio-economic changes observed during this period of transition toward Bronze Age societies.

The chapters are mainly organised geographically, covering Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean shores and the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula, includes some areas that are traditionally studied and well known, such as France, the British Isles or Central Europe, but also others that have so far been considered peripheral, such as Norway, Denmark or Galicia. This journey not only offers a complex and diverse image of Bell Beaker societies but also of a supra-regional structure that articulated a new type of society on an unprecedented scale.

Table of Contents
1. Preface
Maria Pilar Prieto Martinez and Laure Salanova

2. Introduction. A Folk who will never speak: Bell Beakers and linguistics
Alexander Falileyev

3. Bell Beakers and Corded Ware People. Anthropological point of view in the Little Poland Upland
Elżbieta Haduch

4. Personal identity and social structure of Bell Beakers: the Upper Basins of the Oder and Vistula rivers
Przemysław Makarowicz

5. Bell Beaker stone wristguards as symbolic male ornament. The significance of ceremonial warfare in the 3rd millennium BC Central Europe
Jan Turek

6. The Emergence of the Bell Beaker set: migrations to Britain and Ireland
Andrew P. Fitzpatrick

7. Bell Beakers – chronology, innovation and memory: a multivariate approach
Johannes Müller, Martin Hinz and Markus Ullrich

8. The long-house as a transforming agent. Emergent complexity in Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age southern Scandinavia 2300–1300 BC
Magnus Artursson

9. Expanding 3rd millennium transformations: Norway
Christopher Prescott and Hĺkon Glřrstad

10. The Bell Beaker Complex: a vector of transformations? Stabilities and changes of the indigenous cultures in south-east France at the end of the Neolithic period
Jessie Cauliez

11. The dagger phenomenon: circulation from the Grand-Pressigny Region (France, Indre-Et-Loire) in Western Europe
Ewen Ihuel, Nicole Mallet, Jacques Pelegrin, and Christian Verjux

12. Long-distance contacts: the north-west Iberia during the 3rd millennium BC
Carlos Rodríguez-Rellán, Antonio Morgado Rodríguez, José Antonio Lozano and Francisco Rodríguez-Tovar

13. Early gold technology as an indicator of circulation processes in Atlantic Europe
Barbara Armbruster and Beatriz Comendador Rey

14. Environmental changes in north-western Iberia around the Bell Beaker period (2800–1400 cal BC)
Manuela Costa-Casais, Lourdes López-Merino, Joeri Kaal, and Antonio Martínez Cortizas

15. Evidence of agriculture and livestock. The palynological record from the Middle Ebro Valley (Iberian Peninsula) during the 3rd and 2nd millennia cal BC
Sebastián Pérez Díaz and José Antonio López Sáez

16. Bell Beaker pottery as a symbolic marker of property rights: the case of the salt production centre of Molino Sanchón II, Zamora, Spain
Elisa Guerra Doce, Francisco Javier Abarquero Moras, Germán Delibes De Castro, Ángel Luis Palomino Lázaro and Jesús Del Val Recio

17. Exploring social networks through Bell Beaker contexts in the central Valencia region from recent discoveries at La Vital (Gandía, Valencia, Spain)
Oreto García Puchol, Joan Bernabeu Aubán, Lluís Molina Balaguer,Yolanda Carrión Marco, and Guillem Pérez Jordŕ

18. Dynamism and complexity of the funerary models: the north-west Iberian peninsula during the 3rd–2nd millennia BC
Pablo Vázquez Liz, Laure Nonat and Maria Pilar Prieto Martínez

19. Concluding remarks
Maria Pilar Prieto Martinez and Laure Salanova"

I read it and found it useful for the Early Iberian Bell Beaker, Isles and Meditteranean Bell Beakers.
Specifically chapters 5,6,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19.
This is probably the most recent and up to date publication on Bell Beakers.

Interesting comments from Bell Beaker Blogger.
Stone wrist guards were found at the El Portalon site.
http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.ie/

"This year we'll see a lot of Atlantic genomes, possibly soon. I don't have any special gouge, however the ripples are what you'd expect [here] and [here]. In addition to the shaking bushes, there's always one study that jumps out of nowhere with a big surprise."
http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.ie/2015/09/courtesy-of-eurogenes-would-you-call.html
http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.ie/2015/10/a-now-another-one.html

Gravetto-Danubian
01-09-2016, 12:34 AM
Oh here is a good article

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5926/485.short

It used aDNA from 89 horses dating from Palaeolithic to Medieval, from Iberia to Siberia

It specifically looked for SNPs involved in coat colour. They found that, after c. 3000 BC, colour variation increased markedly in EE (but not in Iberian horses) - suggesting selective breeding

They concluded that 3000 BC is when the horse was most likely domesticated, in EE (not Iberia).

Chad Rohlfsen
01-09-2016, 01:13 AM
Western Europe retains the MN ancestry better than anywhere else. I don't see why there is any mystery how something dating from the LN has a bit of a hold-over in Bell Beaker. As we have seen from Beaker and Irish samples, there was a massive influx of immigrants into Germany and Ireland. Ireland could have seen an 80-90% population replacement during the LN/EBA, which also shows a four-fold pop increase. This also confirms it's not an elite male migration, but a massive migration that involved women. I see no problem associating Beaker with early NW European IE, bringing traits, likely from Ukraine. This makes me wonder, how similar is German Beaker to their EE ancestors. NW Europeans may be modeled as 36% Yamnaya, but we are also probably 75% German Beaker, by modeling. I'm very interested to see Sredny Stog. I am betting on L23* and pre-cursors. I'll bet the western group is our ancestor of BB and the eastern group the ancestors of our Samara bend and Kalmykia Yamnaya.

kinman
01-09-2016, 01:22 AM
Yes, an important paper. I agree that they have proven that horses were domesticated in Romania by 5000 years ago. However, it doesn't really prove that horses weren't domesticated further east and at a much earlier date.
------------------Ken
---------------------------------------------------------


Oh here is a good article

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5926/485.short

It used aDNA from 89 horses dating from Palaeolithic to Medieval, from Iberia to Siberia

It specifically looked for SNPs involved in coat colour. They found that, after c. 3000 BC, colour variation increased markedly in EE (but not in Iberian horses) - suggesting selective breeding

They concluded that 3000 BC is when the horse was most likely domesticated, in EE (not Iberia).

Gravetto-Danubian
01-09-2016, 01:34 AM
Western Europe retains the MN ancestry better than anywhere else. I don't see why there is any mystery how something dating from the LN has a bit of a hold-over in Bell Beaker. As we have seen from Beaker and Irish samples, there was a massive influx of immigrants into Germany and Ireland. Ireland could have seen an 80-90% population replacement during the LN/EBA, .

Yes, and also southern Scandinavia by Corded Ware.




which also shows a four-fold pop increase.

I think this only happends in the mid - to late Bronze Age.


This makes me wonder, how similar is German Beaker to their EE ancestors. NW Europeans may be modeled as 36% Yamnaya, but we are also probably 75% German Beaker, by modeling. I'm very interested to see Sredny Stog. I am betting on L23* and pre-cursors. I'll bet the western group is our ancestor of BB and the eastern group the ancestors of our Samara bend and Kalmykia Yamnaya

But isn't German BB itself modelled on Yamnaya ? Aren't you doubling up on components ? I don't think we've quite cracked central European BB yet. How does modelling Irish BB on Czech BB work c.f. German ?

Gravetto-Danubian
01-09-2016, 01:37 AM
Yes, an important paper. I agree that they have proven that horses were domesticated in Romania by 5000 years ago. However, it doesn't really prove that horses weren't domesticated further east and at a much earlier date.
------------------Ken
---------------------------------------------------------

The paper did test samples from Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Eneolithic Siberia and eastern Europe.
So how much further "East" do you suggest they go ?

Chad Rohlfsen
01-09-2016, 01:45 AM
Yes, and also southern Scandinavia by Corded Ware.

But isn't German BB itself modelled on Yamnaya ? Aren't you doubling up on components ? I don't think we've quite cracked central European BB yet. How does modelling Irish BB on Czech BB work c.f. German ?

Bell Beaker has a little better overlap with NC Europe than NW Europe, showing some additional MN ancestry from local sources, in agreement with the Irish paper. Bell Beaker can be modeled as 50% Yamnaya, NW Europeans, such as the English, as 36% Yamnaya. This means NW Europeans can roughly be modeled as 75% BB. The greatest stats for the admixing pop into MN, for BB is Yamnaya, by a good margin. Better than just EHG, or CHG. There does appear to be an increase in CHG ancestry since BB times, which could be a result of some flow from Iron Age East-Central Europeans and the one I think is more important, the Religious Wars. There was a decent influx into Northern Europe by Protestants. It looks larger than migrations north during the Industrial Revolution. Some Roman input is also possible.

Edit: As for Czech Beakers, there are only two samples and pretty poor coverage compared to the Haak ones, but they look slightly more Yamnaya-like. Not by much though.

MitchellSince1893
01-09-2016, 01:49 AM
The paper did test samples from Palaeolithic< Mesolithic and Eneolithic Siberia and eastern Europe.
So how much further "East" do you suggest they go ?

Big Diomede island should do it.

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist. :) I have no horse in this fight...it's Friday night and I couldn't resist being a smart ass.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-09-2016, 01:54 AM
Bell Beaker has a little better overlap with NC Europe than NW Europe, showing some additional MN ancestry from local sources, in agreement with the Irish paper. Bell Beaker can be modeled as 50% Yamnaya, NW Europeans, such as the English, as 36% Yamnaya. This means NW Europeans can roughly be modeled as 75% BB. The greatest stats for the admixing pop into MN, for BB is Yamnaya, by a good margin. Better than just EHG, or CHG. There does appear to be an increase in CHG ancestry since BB times, which could be a result of some flow from Iron Age East-Central Europeans and the one I think is more important, the Religious Wars. There was a decent influx into Northern Europe by Protestants. It looks larger than migrations north during the Industrial Revolution. Some Roman input is also possible.

Edit: As for Czech Beakers, there are only two samples and pretty poor coverage compared to the Haak ones, but they look slightly more Yamnaya-like. Not by much though.

Nothing unexpected, although I think when additional 'central European' influences arrived exactly remains an open question to be solved by aDNA. Eg it could have continuously trickled in with Urnfield culture, etc.

I'd also agree looking toward the Kuban (steppe Majkop) and Konstantinvka portion of the Sredni Stog horizon could be rewarding. Although, it might be from a touch more west than that.

Chad Rohlfsen
01-09-2016, 01:59 AM
Possibly a tad with Urnfield, but it's obvious by Y and aDNA, that modern NW Euros were pretty much fully-formed by 2000-2300BCE. Everything after that is a trickle.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-09-2016, 02:01 AM
Possibly a tad with Urnfield, but it's obvious by Y and aDNA, that modern NW Euros were pretty much fully-formed by 2000-2300BCE. Everything after that is a trickle.

It nicely gels with earlier linguistic theories - i.e. "Old (indo-)European" hydronyms dated to c. 2000 - 1500 BC, ideas of a IE dialect continuum established by early M2, etc

kinman
01-09-2016, 02:11 AM
It's not so much a problem of how far east. It's a problem of being lucky enough to sample in the right place (and just the right time period). Horse domestication in the early stages would have been in a very small area, so it's almost like looking for a needle in a haystack for the very earliest stages. And the earliest domesticated horses would have been small in number and thus greatly valued. You wouldn't see them being sacrificed to put in someone's burial. These early R1b domesticators were small in number and probably relatively poor (at least compared to some of their descendants who would afford more affluent burials and sacrifices). The place would probably be between Ukraine and the southern Urals (but not much further east than that). And we also do not know just how long it took for horse coat colors to change after domestication began. It may take longer for horses (Order Perissodactyla) than for dogs and foxes (Order Carnivora).
--------------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The paper did test samples from Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Eneolithic Siberia and eastern Europe.
So how much further "East" do you suggest they go ?

Chad Rohlfsen
01-09-2016, 02:14 AM
Yes. Possibly with less connectivity of these trade networks, there's an increasing divergence of NW IE with the BA collapse, leading to all branches we label "Celtic". One more thing that is interesting, is the fact that there is a bronze dagger, in fully-British form, dated to about 2200BCE. This suggests it is possible that Bell Beaker was already Bronze before entering Britain (2400 BCE). It may have just been in short enough supply that those remains are sparse enough to not recognize Beaker as BA before 2200BCE. It also makes sense that any lasting remnants of "Old Europe" washed away around 2000BCE in NW Europe, genetically speaking, which should also lead to linguistically speaking. I think that it is pretty obvious there was some type of caste system in play here, with R-P312 controlling all means of production, whether food or wealth, in all Beaker regions. To have such a massive population turnover without an 8-9 fold pop increase at this exact time, tells the story. While I know many, including yourself at times, argue language without genetics, but I think it is clear here that a whole new language family arrived with Beaker, and not much changed there since. Linguistic continuity (in a way) since then makes the most sense.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-09-2016, 02:28 AM
It's not so much a problem of how far east. It's a problem of being lucky enough to sample in the right place (and just the right time period). Horse domestication in the early stages would have been in a very small area, so it's almost like looking for a needle in a haystack for the very earliest stages. And the earliest domesticated horses would have been small in number and thus greatly valued. You wouldn't see them being sacrificed to put in someone's burial. These early R1b domesticators were small in number and probably relatively poor (at least compared to some of their descendants who would afford more affluent burials and sacrifices). The place would probably be between Ukraine and the southern Urals (but not much further east than that). And we also do not know just how long it took for horse coat colors to change after domestication began. It may take longer for horses (Order Perissodactyla) than for dogs and foxes (Order Carnivora).
--------------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


True.

But the issue is when it really began to take hold. A single farmstead - whether in Ukraine or Kazakhstan - precociously domesticating a horse in 4000 BC means little from a global perspective.
Moreover, we need to marry aDNA evidence with settlement evidence. I.e. - lets first of all find where exactly L51 groups might have 'began' their treck westward from, and see what evidence for domestication lies within their specific sub-region. Otherwise we're building hypotheses out of thin air. It is even theoretically possible that the clan which first domesticated the horse belong to an extinct form of R1-something, because (for whatever reason), they didn't prosper subsequently

Whatever the case, all the evidence points to large movements of entire peoples, and not a lightening military-elite conquest. And we should not lose sight of the clearly apparent facts which fueled R1b - BB expansion - a more dynamic and resilient subsistence economy suited to BA northern Europe; Copper, then Tin-Bronze technology; an intricate system of connections to their 'core' in central Europe, etc.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-09-2016, 02:37 AM
Yes. Possibly with less connectivity of these trade networks, there's an increasing divergence of NW IE with the BA collapse, leading to all branches we label "Celtic". One more thing that is interesting, is the fact that there is a bronze dagger, in fully-British form, dated to about 2200BCE. This suggests it is possible that Bell Beaker was already Bronze before entering Britain (2400 BCE). It may have just been in short enough supply that those remains are sparse enough to not recognize Beaker as BA before 2200BCE. It also makes sense that any lasting remnants of "Old Europe" washed away around 2000BCE in NW Europe, genetically speaking, which should also lead to linguistically speaking. I think that it is pretty obvious there was some type of caste system in play here, with R-P312 controlling all means of production, whether food or wealth, in all Beaker regions. To have such a massive population turnover without an 8-9 fold pop increase at this exact time, tells the story.

Ha I wrote pretty much the same thing.


While I know many, including yourself at times, argue language without genetics, but I think it is clear here that a whole new language family arrived with Beaker, and not much changed there since. Linguistic continuity (in a way) since then makes the most sense.

Oh, I have stated that language can change without mass migrations - which it can. But I never for a second would deny language change when there is large migration at hand.
The two aren't obverse ? Inverse ? Converse ? :) And I've always been a Copper-Bronze age supporter, chronologically (even before aDNA).

Early, archaic IE arrived at c. 2000 BC, etc. But I'd imagine connections between Britain, Ireland and the continent remained, and were never completely severed. Ongoing contatcs, as well as "jolts" like the Bronze Age collapse (c. 1200 BC) would have affected social structures and language development, to produce the "Classical Celtic' of the LBA. Quite obviously, contacts continued into Iron Age - especially between eastern England and Gaul (hence the development of P*-Celtic sound change in Brittonic and Gallic to the exclusion of Pictish, or Iberian Celtic, as an example).

Chad Rohlfsen
01-09-2016, 02:42 AM
The cultures that are credited with the formation of CT, are nothing like Yamnaya, so they can't be the source. They could be one of the groups barely incorporated on the way, as with German MN or Irish MN pops, but not the root. CT is rooted in groups descended from Danubian farmers, with a little influence from Anatolia just after our Anatolian samples, plus a little Dniester-Don admixture. It isn't parsimonious with current data, including the fact that the HG in Danubian farmers is like Loschbour and KO1, plus the additional hunter ancestry up to the Copper Age in Hungary is still related to Loschbour and KO1. CT may form a larger chunk of the MN in the German Beakers, but considering the way Beaker looks that late and that far west, They are more likely to be like Corded Ware back in Ukraine. I think it is very likely that CT looks like Basques, at best, but more likely I think they will be closer to CO1 than Basques.

alan
01-09-2016, 02:57 AM
From what I gather from reading the Bendrey paper, From wild horses to domestic horses: a European perspective (https://www.academia.edu/1785218/From_wild_horses_to_domestic_horses_a_European_per spective), linked by Gravetto-Danubian earlier, which seems a pretty balanced assessment, there is no consensus on this issue but merely a number of competing informed opinions.

One of the things in the paper I found interesting was this comment on p. 145, which seems self-evidently true:



That means the ~ 2500 BC date obtained by the size variability method for the Bell Beaker horses of Csepel-Haros in Hungary is likely younger than the actual beginning of domestication there.

good point. Maybe the bell beakers can just be credited with being linked to a stage where horse domestication had reached a certain level - perhaps a level that made riding more viable or important. I tend to think where process is not clear that we should just look at the results. The main oddity of bell beaker is very wide networks of apparently somewhat scattered groups who nevertheless seem to have networked with each other. This is not comparable to CW which looks more like a continuous wave of advance of pastoralists to me - very different from the more scattered beaker pattern. Beaker networking is also not comparable with classic Yamnaya with people moving about on wagons as mobile pastorlaist clans. Beaker seems to be different and kind of unique. They were highly mobile but also built scattered settlements. A group who practiced a lifestyle of small settlements placed in stategic places along routes but who also sent mobile subsets of their group along those routes would fit very well a people who possessed riding horses. Certainly it appears something new made this possible because nothing similar exists before the beaker phase. The reason for this is not copper per se as much of beaker Europe already had it. Much more likely that the key to this is horse riding.

kinman
01-09-2016, 03:08 AM
I agree with most of what you said. However, large movements of entire peoples and lightening military-elite conquests are not the only possibilities. It could have begun as a series of small bands of young adventurous males taking advantage of their horses to expand westward, picking up local mating partners along the way. During the first few centuries word gets back to their homeland that there are lots of opportunities for more males (and perhaps even some females) to join the migration. No "military-elite conquests" may have happened until they were well established in western Ukraine. So entire peoples (with lots of females) may have not been necessary for the early expansion of R1b males from the lower Urals to the lower Danube. Perhaps they took more horses than female companions in the first couple of centuries. They could collect food and females along the way.
----------------Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



True.

But the issue is when it really began to take hold. A single farmstead - whether in Ukraine or Kazakhstan - precociously domesticating a horse in 4000 BC means little from a global perspective.
Moreover, we need to marry aDNA evidence with settlement evidence. I.e. - lets first of all find where exactly L51 groups might have 'began' their treck westward from, and see what evidence for domestication lies within their specific sub-region. Otherwise we're building hypotheses out of thin air. It is even theoretically possible that the clan which domesticated the horse belong to an extinct form of R1-something, because (for whatever reason), they didn't prosper subsequently

Whatever the case, all the evidence points to large movements of entire peoples, and not a lightening military-elite conquest. And we should not lose sight of the clearly apparent facts which fueled R1b - BB expansion - a more dynamic and resilient subsistence economy suited to BA northern Europe; Copper, then Tin-Bronze technology; an intricate system of connections to their 'core' in central Europe, etc.

R.Rocca
01-09-2016, 03:08 AM
Ha I wrote pretty much the same thing.



Oh, I have stated that language can change without mass migrations - which it can. But I never for a second would deny language change when there is large migration at hand.
The two aren't obverse ? Inverse ? Converse ? :) And I've always been a Copper-Bronze age supporter, chronologically (even before aDNA).

Early, archaic IE arrived at c. 2000 BC, etc. But I'd imagine connections between Britain, Ireland and the continent remained, and were never completely severed. Ongoing contatcs, as well as "jolts" like the Bronze Age collapse (c. 1200 BC) would have affected social structures and language development, to produce the "Classical Celtic' of the LBA. Quite obviously, contacts continued into Iron Age - especially between eastern England and Gaul (hence the development of P*-Celtic sound change in Brittonic and Gallic to the exclusion of Pictish, or Iberian Celtic, as an example).

Pictish was P-Celtic... it was Gaelic that didn't change.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-09-2016, 03:09 AM
The cultures that are credited with the formation of CT, are nothing like Yamnaya, so they can't be the source. They could be one of the groups barely incorporated on the way, as with German MN or Irish MN pops, but not the root. CT is rooted in groups descended from Danubian farmers, with a little influence from Anatolia just after our Anatolian samples, plus a little Dniester-Don admixture. It isn't parsimonious with current data, including the fact that the HG in Danubian farmers is like Loschbour and KO1, plus the additional hunter ancestry up to the Copper Age in Hungary is still related to Loschbour and KO1. CT may form a larger chunk of the MN in the German Beakers, but considering the way Beaker looks that late and that far west, They are more likely to be like Corded Ware back in Ukraine. I think it is very likely that CT looks like Basques, at best, but more likely I think they will be closer to CO1 than Basques.

I don't think that's entirely true.
CT was not a monolithic block through its entire time and space. By the late CT period, it had begun to transform toward a mobile pastoral society, and cultures with kurgan burials like Cernavoda and Usatavo derived from it and settled the western-most steppe. These were in turn incorporated into a homogenized horizon c. 3000 BC (= Yamnaya propper). Maybe becuase they were conquered by the more eastern groups ? Maybe not.

Archaeologists have also often looked to northern CT groups as the 'source' for CWC.

But i take your point that CT should look Balkan- farmer like, when we get aDNA from it this year. But I'll keep an open mind. The impulses from CT and Majkop in forming the Yamnaya culture are far too obvious to be ignored. So its up to aDNA to see whether they were merely 'cultural' or also demic.

alan
01-09-2016, 03:20 AM
True.

But the issue is when it really began to take hold. A single farmstead - whether in Ukraine or Kazakhstan - precociously domesticating a horse in 4000 BC means little from a global perspective.
Moreover, we need to marry aDNA evidence with settlement evidence. I.e. - lets first of all find where exactly L51 groups might have 'began' their treck westward from, and see what evidence for domestication lies within their specific sub-region. Otherwise we're building hypotheses out of thin air. It is even theoretically possible that the clan which first domesticated the horse belong to an extinct form of R1-something, because (for whatever reason), they didn't prosper subsequently

Whatever the case, all the evidence points to large movements of entire peoples, and not a lightening military-elite conquest. And we should not lose sight of the clearly apparent facts which fueled R1b - BB expansion - a more dynamic and resilient subsistence economy suited to BA northern Europe; Copper, then Tin-Bronze technology; an intricate system of connections to their 'core' in central Europe, etc.

and a climatic change which made northern Europe much more sunny and less wet c. 2500BC. however I would still argue that the numbers migration was not large (as opposed to the number that these settlers spawned over a few generations after migration). It makes a lot more sense to see tem as making the locals dependent on them for crucial materials and perhaps turning the locals into clients as they morphed into an elite. We almost always are likely finding the graves of the elite.

Most of the population are probably invisible in terms of burials. For example in the west of Ireland the beaker era burials were in Wedge Tombs which are very robust, not easily destroyed and mainly surface-visible. I doubt there was ever vastly more than those which survived to be recorded in the last 200 years. There are only c. 550 of them. So clearly they are a set of interconnected lineages forming a distinct group probably in some sort of network chain who were a small and distinct subset of the total population in the beaker era. its clear 90-odd% of the population were not using these monuments and must have buried in ways which are very hard to identify. The native burial preference just before the beaker people arrived was small cremation deposits in small pits with no surface markers for individual graves. Many may have not even been put in pits and may have been surface depositions that simply dont survive. So I warn about looking at the more visible burials of any era and interpreting a strong difference between previous eras detected in ancient DNA as a sudden event. We are almost always looking at the burials of a privileged subset. IMO it may have taken many generations for the sharp change seen in these privileged burials to be transferred onto the population as a whole (probably achieved by wealth and status).

Chad Rohlfsen
01-09-2016, 03:21 AM
From the stats I showed, the Admixing pop from Khavalynsk to Yamnaya is closer to CHG than Georgian. Clearly, not from Europe. The Khavalysk split between EEF and CHG can explained by some WHG coming in with Z2103, if they're from Ukraine, rather than any real EEF.

alan
01-09-2016, 03:26 AM
Pictish was P-Celtic... it was Gaelic that didn't change.

I agree. Very few credible academics believe the non-IE Picts idea any more. It actually never made sense if you consider the evidence as a whole. Non-IE Picts is a bit like the Milesian Irish thing - it has been revived on the internet by people reading old books. Non-IE Picts theory was under fire over 30 years ago and was abandoned by almost everyone more than 25 years ago. Internet crackpots love it though - similar again to the Milesian myths of the Irish.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-09-2016, 03:28 AM
and a climatic change which made northern Europe much more sunny and less wet c. 2500BC. however I would still argue that the numbers migration was not large (as opposed to the number that these settlers spawned over a few generations after migration). It makes a lot more sense to see tem as making the locals dependent on them for crucial materials and perhaps turning the locals into clients as they morphed into an elite. We almost always are likely finding the graves of the elite.

.

I agree. By 'large movement' I mean of whole units , families, etc, rather than mere military men. As I pointed out to Chad, the settlement evidence in Britain is suggestive of a low population status until c. 1500 BC, so the 'marked growth' occurred considerably after their initial arrival.
I wonder if they're going to do more tests from Stonehenge peoples, etc. I know it was mostly cremation, but apparently they've pulled out entire bones.

Krefter
01-09-2016, 05:03 AM
As we have seen from Beaker and Irish samples, there was a massive influx of immigrants into Germany and Ireland. Ireland could have seen an 80-90% population replacement during the LN/EBA, ......his makes me wonder, how similar is German Beaker to their EE ancestors. NW Europeans may be modeled as 36% Yamnaya, but we are also probably 75% German Beaker, by modeling.

I'm not being abrasive. I'm pointing out that I argued for those two things last year. And even 3 years ago I believed this. I don't like to complicate data, and I tend to argue for the simplest yet most convincing scenarios.

After Laz 2014 came out I said the British Isles were repopulated in the Bronze age. You and others said it was impossible, because you thought it needed genocide and nothing in archaeology suggested genocide. In mid 2015 I said NW Europeans are mostly LNBA Central European, and not much Steppe-influx came after 2000 BC You and others said after 2000 BC many new Steppe groups came in, so all Steppe blood can't be traced to LNBA Central Europe. I argued new cultural influence from the Steppe did not make a big genetic impact.

Chad Rohlfsen
01-09-2016, 06:50 AM
I'm not being abrasive. I'm pointing out that I argued for those two things last year. And even 3 years ago I believed this. I don't like to complicate data, and I tend to argue for the simplest yet most convincing scenarios.

After Laz 2014 came out I said the British Isles were repopulated in the Bronze age. You and others said it was impossible, because you thought it needed genocide and nothing in archaeology suggested genocide. In mid 2015 I said NW Europeans are mostly LNBA Central European, and not much Steppe-influx came after 2000 BC You and others said after 2000 BC many new Steppe groups came in, so all Steppe blood can't be traced to LNBA Central Europe. I argued new cultural influence from the Steppe did not make a big genetic impact.

I don't remember disagreeing on that. German Beakers made it pretty clear. As for genocide, no, there is no evidence for that.

Chad Rohlfsen
01-09-2016, 06:58 AM
We do need Beaker aDNA from 2600BCE though. That will help with modelling.

Krefter
01-09-2016, 07:11 AM
I don't remember disagreeing on that. German Beakers made it pretty clear. As for genocide, no, there is no evidence for that.

I don't/didn't think there was genocide either.

northkerry
01-09-2016, 10:08 AM
Western Europe retains the MN ancestry better than anywhere else. I don't see why there is any mystery how something dating from the LN has a bit of a hold-over in Bell Beaker. As we have seen from Beaker and Irish samples, there was a massive influx of immigrants into Germany and Ireland. Ireland could have seen an 80-90% population replacement during the LN/EBA, which also shows a four-fold pop increase. This also confirms it's not an elite male migration, but a massive migration that involved women. I see no problem associating Beaker with early NW European IE, bringing traits, likely from Ukraine. This makes me wonder, how similar is German Beaker to their EE ancestors. NW Europeans may be modeled as 36% Yamnaya, but we are also probably 75% German Beaker, by modeling. I'm very interested to see Sredny Stog. I am betting on L23* and pre-cursors. I'll bet the western group is our ancestor of BB and the eastern group the ancestors of our Samara bend and Kalmykia Yamnaya.

Can you please show me the 36% Yamnaya dna in the Rathlin 1 sample at gedmatch?
M232268 Eurogenes K15
1 Atlantic 32.45
2 North_Sea 31.58
3 Baltic 12.95
4 Eastern_Euro 11.65
5 West_Asian 3.29
6 South_Asian 3.17
7 Amerindian 1.87
8 Sub-Saharan 1.59
9 West_Med 1.39

Chad Rohlfsen
01-09-2016, 01:27 PM
Can you please show me the 36% Yamnaya dna in the Rathlin 1 sample at gedmatch?
M232268 Eurogenes K15
1 Atlantic 32.45
2 North_Sea 31.58
3 Baltic 12.95
4 Eastern_Euro 11.65
5 West_Asian 3.29
6 South_Asian 3.17
7 Amerindian 1.87
8 Sub-Saharan 1.59
9 West_Med 1.39

I'm going to run it through my K8 test, as soon as I can.

rms2
01-09-2016, 02:09 PM
I don't think that's entirely true.
CT was not a monolithic block through its entire time and space. By the late CT period, it had begun to transform toward a mobile pastoral society, and cultures with kurgan burials like Cernavoda and Usatavo derived from it and settled the western-most steppe. These were in turn incorporated into a homogenized horizon c. 3000 BC (= Yamnaya propper). Maybe becuase they were conquered by the more eastern groups ? Maybe not.

Archaeologists have also often looked to northern CT groups as the 'source' for CWC.

But i take your point that CT should look Balkan- farmer like, when we get aDNA from it this year. But I'll keep an open mind. The impulses from CT and Majkop in forming the Yamnaya culture are far too obvious to be ignored. So its up to aDNA to see whether they were merely 'cultural' or also demic.

Here's what Gimbutas said about the physical type of CT, from The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe, p. 34:



. . . [A] medley of the indigenous inhabitants and infiltrating Mediterraneans.


Ancient CT dna could be interesting.

rms2
01-09-2016, 02:23 PM
I agree. Very few credible academics believe the non-IE Picts idea any more. It actually never made sense if you consider the evidence as a whole. Non-IE Picts is a bit like the Milesian Irish thing - it has been revived on the internet by people reading old books. Non-IE Picts theory was under fire over 30 years ago and was abandoned by almost everyone more than 25 years ago. Internet crackpots love it though - similar again to the Milesian myths of the Irish.

The erroneous "non-IE Picts" idea was just a microcosm of the erroneous "we're all Basques", R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge ideas. Like those, it was popular a few years ago, back when Oppenheimer gave R1b in the Isles the Basque nickname Ruisko.

Caramba!

Dubhthach
01-09-2016, 04:49 PM
The erroneous "non-IE Picts" idea was just a microcosm of the erroneous "we're all Basques", R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge ideas. Like those, it was popular a few years ago, back when Oppenheimer gave R1b in the Isles the Basque nickname Ruisko.

Caramba!

Well it also ties in with the whole "The Irish were never Celts" argument, after all if R1b is Basque, and Irish are 90% R1b ;) -- that and not having enough twirly metal work when it came to archaeological digs :D

The most extreme twisting of that narrative was that well "Irish language isn't indigenous to Ireland, so what if it dies!", of course now adays we have remarks such as "People are only sending their children to Irish language medium schools so they don't have to mix with children of immigrants!" (I kid you not)

alan
01-10-2016, 03:21 AM
Well Rathlin makes clear that in the more remote areas of the isles the last profound genetic change (at least in the class whose burials are recoverable) had taken place by 2000BC and was not present by 3000BC. Its very obvious that this is linked to the archaeological changes we see 2400-2000BC in the isles - basically the period where beakers were in use. This seems to be the origin of the modern genetic mix. There doesnt seem to have been any great change again except in the areas subject to Roman then Germanic settlement. So, personally I would link the period 2400-2000BC in the isles where there was the last genetic change and the present population was set in the non-Germanic settled parts of the isles with the last great language shift in prehistoric times - the arrival of Celto-Italic, west IE or whatever you wish to call it - something that was only a few minor shifts away from Celtic. Those small shifts that led it to falling into the Celtic category didnt require any genetic changes.

rms2
01-11-2016, 04:09 PM
I have not had time to fully and thoroughly research horse domestication and horse riding, but I thought I would post a couple of quotes on the subject from James Mallory's book, In Search of the Indo-Europeans.



. . . [T]his culture [Sredny Stog] flourished about 4500-3500 BC. [p.198]




Antler cheek pieces for fixing the bit in the horse's mouth are known from Dereivka and other Sredny Stog sites. This evidence, coupled with the logical requirements of controlling herds of horses from horseback, supports the thesis that the horse was probably ridden at this time. Generally, archaeologists are sceptical that the horse could also have been employed for traction. Both the small size of the animals (average withers height of 136 centimeters) and the absence of a suitable harness would have rendered these earliest domestic horses poorly suited to pull the heavy timber carts or wagons that are first attested in the Eneolithic. [p. 199]




Horse riding, which we have already seen in the Sredny Stog culture, is also evidenced in the Yamnaya culture. [p. 213]

rms2
01-11-2016, 06:40 PM
Here's a video you all might find interesting of Mongolians breaking horses. Obviously the horses have bridles and are apparently bitted, but the riders are breaking them bareback, and the relatively small size of the horses is interesting.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLYzBe1LWz8

Gravetto-Danubian
01-11-2016, 08:08 PM
I have not had time to fully and thoroughly research horse domestication and horse riding, but I thought I would post a couple of quotes on the subject from James Mallory's book, In Search of the Indo-Europeans.

Yes but that book from 1987 is a little outdated now - especially the antler "cheek piece" theory, not to mention that Dereivka material cited is from the LBA - according to the radio-dates. But it does make an interesting point about the traction issue

rms2
01-11-2016, 08:19 PM
Yes but that book from 1987 is a little outdated now - especially the antler "cheek piece" theory, not to mention that Dereivka material cited is from the LBA - according to the radio-dates. But it does make an interesting point about the traction issue

I think the antler cheek piece issue is a matter of interpretation. For those who don't think horse riding began that early, they were not used to hold a bit and have nothing to do with horse riding. For those who do think horse riding began that early, they were used to hold a bit and are evidence of horse riding. Note the absence of quotation marks in my reference to antler cheek pieces, for example.

And Dereivka has different levels, does it not? It was the Sredny Stog level that had an antler cheek piece, and there were others found at other Sredny Stog sites. Sredny Stog does not date to the LBA.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-11-2016, 08:23 PM
I think the antler cheek piece issue is a matter of interpretation. For those who don't think horse riding began that early, they were not used to hold a bit and have nothing to do with horse riding. For those who do think horse riding began that early, they were used to hold a bit and are evidence of horse riding. Note the absence of quotation marks in my reference to antler cheek pieces, for example.

And Dereivka has different levels, does it not? It was the Sredny Stog level that had an antler cheek piece, and there were others found at other Sredny Stog sites. Sredny Stog does not date to the LBA.

True, although similar pieces are found in Palaeolithic china, and elsewhere with no sign of horses. Hence most scholars (cit above) generally reject it association.
Hes the Sredni Stog horizon is Eneolithic, and the Dereivka cite is multi phase. But it would appear the material originally collected by (?) Telegin, cited in Mallory and further studied by Anthony was from 1200 BC when dated specifically ( I think it was done by Anthony him self a little later - and that's why you started looking to Kazakhstan and further east). The Err Probably came about because of mixing in the materials and disturbance of the stratigraphic layers. Also the original collectors were more interested in the pottery than faunal analyses. It was all done before archaeozoology became a propper discipline on its own right.

Another problem is museums around Ukraine and Russia simply started throwing out materials (esp horse & other animal bones) to create space, cut backs after 1990s, etc. Hope they have enough left to re-study it all properly.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-12-2016, 06:21 AM
"I think it was done by Anthony him self a little later - and that's why you started looking to Kazakhstan and further east"

That should say "that's why he started looking to Kazakhstan.."

rms2
01-12-2016, 05:54 PM
From David Anthony's book, The Horse The Wheel and Language:



Were the people of the Sredni Stog culture horse riders? Without bit wear or some other pathology associated with riding we cannot be certain. Objects from Dereivka tentatively identified as antler cheekpieces for bits (figure 11.7h) could have had other functions. One way to approach this question is to ask if the steppe societies of the Late Eneolithic behaved like horseback riders. It looks to me like they did. Increased mobility (implied by smaller cemeteries), more long-distance trade, increased prestige and power for prominent individuals, status weapons appearing in graves, and heightened warfare against settled agricultural communities are all things we would expect to occur after horseback riding started, and we see them most clearly in cemeteries of the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka type. [p. 249]




Yamnaya herders watched over their herds on horseback. At Repin on the Don, 55% of the animal bones were horse bones. A horse skull was placed in a Yamnaya grave in a kurgan cemetery overlooking the Caspian Depression near Tsa-Tsa, south of the Volga, in kurgan 7, grave 12. Forty horses were sacrificed in a Catacomb-period grave in the same cemetery in kurgan 1, grave 5. [p. 325]

The case for horse management and riding at Botai and Kozhai 1 is based on the presence of bit wear on seven Botai-Tersek horse P2s from two different sites, carcass transport and butchering practices, the discovery of horse-dung-filled stable soils, a 1:1 sex ratio, and changes in economy and settlement pattern consistent with the beginning of riding. The case against riding is based on the low variability in leg thickness and the absence of riding-related pathologies in a small sample of horse vertebrae, possibly from wild horses, which probably made up 75-90% of the horse bones from Botai. We are reasonably certain that horses were bitted and ridden in northern Kazakhstan beginning about 3700-3500 BCE. [p. 220]

Over the long term it would have been very difficult to manage horse herds without riding them. Anywhere that we see a sustained, long-term dependence on domesticated horses, riding is implied for herd management alone. Riding began in the Pontic-Caspian steppes before 3700 BCE, or before the Botai-Tersek culture appeared in the Kazakh steppes. It may well have started before 4200 BCE. It spread outside the Pontic-Caspian steppes between 3700 and 3000 BCE, as shown by increases in horse bones in southeastern Europe, central Europe, the Caucasus, and northern Kazakhstan. [pp. 221-222]

kinman
01-12-2016, 08:24 PM
Hi all,
I think Anthony was just being cautious when he said horse domestication "may well have started before 4200 BCE." I would say that it may well have started before 4500 BCE. It's a lot like estimating how old biological taxa are. Time and time again, most are eventually shown to much be older than guessimates made on the limited fossil record in the past. Then when people are shocked when a new fossil find considerably extends the group's age, I usually just roll my eyes and think (yes, I'm personally delighted, but certainly not shocked).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From David Anthony's book, The Horse The Wheel and Language:

Over the long term it would have been very difficult to manage horse herds without riding them. Anywhere that we see a sustained, long-term dependence on domesticated horses, riding is implied for herd management alone. Riding began in the Pontic-Caspian steppes before 3700 BCE, or before the Botai-Tersek culture appeared in the Kazakh steppes. It may well have started before 4200 BCE. It spread outside the Pontic-Caspian steppes between 3700 and 3000 BCE, as shown by increases in horse bones in southeastern Europe, central Europe, the Caucasus, and northern Kazakhstan. [pp. 221-222]

rms2
01-16-2016, 12:05 AM
I agree. I think the kurgans (using Gimbutas' name for convenience's sake) were horse riders and that is probably the main thing that gave them the advantage over the Old European Neolithic farmers they displaced.

Arch
03-05-2016, 09:24 AM
I agree. I think the kurgans (using Gimbutas' name for convenience's sake) were horse riders and that is probably the main thing that gave them the advantage over the Old European Neolithic farmers they displaced.

So what happened to the Kurgan people who didn't own or couldn't afford a horse? Would they still be considered Kurgan people, or just horseless?

rms2
03-05-2016, 08:09 PM
So what happened to the Kurgan people who didn't own or couldn't afford a horse? Would they still be considered Kurgan people, or just horseless?

I think they were mostly called women and children. Sometimes they rode in wagons, and most of them knew how to walk, as well.

A.D.
03-11-2016, 09:13 PM
I have a few thoughts here. Not a real theory feel free to tearit apart, I can only learn. A New Zealand Appaloosa breeder, Scott Engstrom, believes that 'true' Appaloosa horses have origins in the Altai region of southern Siberia 20-25,000ybp and still exists in the wild there. Her idea is that they crossed the Bearing Strait with the 1st Asians (to become Native Americans) to enter America. She claims genetic proof of the link between Nez Perce (American) and Kyrgyzstan Appaloosas.A study by a Cambridge University team claim a study of the mitochondrial DNA from 300 horses shows horses were first tamed 6,000 years ago on the grasslands of Ukraine, southwest Russia and west Kazakhstan.I think it is more than a coincidence that this matches the movement of Yamnaya (and there steppe ancestors) from Eurasia to Iberia. There is a Bell Beaker connection between the Cspel island horse breeders to Iberia via S.W.Switzerland.The later being where oats a good horse feed, along with lucern grass hay, seem to have been domesticated in the Bronze age. They have a lower summer heat requirement and greater tolerance of rain than other cereals, such as wheat, rye or barley. The British isles and especially Ireland suffered a wet period that left said places largely depopulated. I think this wold have hit the G2 lactose intolerant farmers hard but lactose persistent BB's (the L21 maritimers are my favorite candidates) could have gone on copper mining etc with no problem.
As for horse back archery. I don't think it was used by BB. For 2 reasons 1 the type of bows used were large 'Flat bows' made of a single piece of wood. Hard to draw and big but have a gentle angle where the arrow meets the string. 2 European's use a style where the index finger is above the arrow and the other 3 are below (2 used to draw).The arrow rests on the left side of the bow (for a right handed person). Asiatic horse archers use a shorter re-curved bow with the arrow on the right. The bow is drawn with the thumb and usually a thumb ring as the angle is sharp. I hope this is of interest.

rms2
03-12-2016, 01:06 AM
Amerindians didn't have short recurved composite bows, yet they were able to use the bows they did have from horseback to great effect, so I disagree with the part of your post in which you doubt that Bell Beaker men used their bows from horseback. I think they did and that it gave them a tremendous military advantage and explains their apparent archer's cult.

A.D.
03-12-2016, 01:50 AM
The Sioux did. Some Amerindian bows were made of horn with out the wooden center for stability. I think the draw length and size of arrows would make it more difficult too. having to cross over the bow to knock an arrow is also a lot more cumbersome. I agree if the did it would provide a great advantage. So would the ability to jump of loose a few shoots re-mount and move. Also one thing that has always puzzled me is why the bow fell so much out of favor by Celtic times. There were plenty of archers in Gaul according to Julius Ceaser. Horse archery seems like an very powerful asset to give up. Through most of history the answer to archers was cavalry and the Neolithic peoples of Europe certainly used bows extensively. BB's used both. I could be wrong.

rms2
03-12-2016, 05:43 PM
I realize medieval Japanese Yabusame bows were more sophisticated than those possessed by the Bell Beaker people, but they were also pretty long. That did not stop the Samurai from using them quite effectively from horseback.

Take a look.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K-vzMFSDQ

A.D.
03-12-2016, 08:42 PM
If you notice the Japanese bow is very asymmetric shorter at the bottom end. That was their solution to the problem. Most horse bows are asymmetric to some degree.

A.D.
03-12-2016, 09:00 PM
I've looked at the Stalae associated with Yamnaya by JeanM and they seems that the axe and dagger are more predominant than the bow. The bow is hardly if ever present without the axe and dagger. Even the Mycenaean's treated it as lesser status weapon compared to the Egyptians, Hittites etc. This seems prevalent to most IE peoples coming out of Eurasia. It might have been thought cowardly or something. It does feature strongly as a hunting tool.

rms2
03-12-2016, 10:13 PM
I think you have to look to the Bell Beaker burial rite. Had the bow been a lower status weapon, it, arrows, and archer's wrist guards would not have featured so prominently in it. Besides, the bow is present on funeral stelae from the steppe and from Beaker.

We're probably not going to agree on this. I think the prominence of both the horse and the bow among the Bell Beaker people is an indication that the bow was probably used from horseback. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

A.D.
03-12-2016, 11:30 PM
I was thinking 'lower status weapon' in a military context. As a hunting tool it was very important,the Greek Gods Apollo and Artemis were archers. Ares wasn't. This seems common idea in IE peoples. I get your idea, common sense says they could, should and did but there's not even depictions of horse archers. Personally I hope I'm wrong, I love the idea of being the descendant of a horse archer. It is puzzling.

rms2
03-12-2016, 11:53 PM
I don't believe there are any depictions of Bell Beaker people riding horses either (or of them doing much else), but we know they did.

I doubt the bow was any kind of "lower status weapon" among the Beaker people. Only upper status people got the full-on kurgan burial rite, complete with burial goods. Lower status people were lucky if they got buried at all. It is the upper status Beaker graves that yield the most archer's equipment. It is pretty glaringly obvious there was an archer's cult among the Beaker Folk. That's not evidence they were mounted archers, but they were heavily into horses, as well, so it seems likely.

There were IE gods of war who sometimes wielded bows, by the way. Take the Hindu war god Kartikeya, for example.

A.D.
03-13-2016, 01:20 AM
I know very little about Eastern IE. Bows are more prominent in India, Persia etc. Heracles was an archer and club wielder. Do you have any thought as to why the bow fell so out of favor by the iron age? The Iliad has Paris and the Lesser Ajax as an archers. The 'Great heroes' use heavy spears and swords. Lugh and Odin have spears that fly to their targets and never miss. Odysseus was an exceptional archer but did not use a bow in the Iliad but in the Odyssey under exceptional circumstances when he returns home. The context is dealing punishment rather than seeking glory. I might be straying a bit but it might reflect an over all attitude

Tomenable
03-13-2016, 01:31 AM
Something about Trypillian, Yamnaya, Corded Ware, etc. weaponry can be found here:

V. I. Klochko, "The Weaponry of the Pastoral societies in the context of the Weaponry of the Steppe - Forest-steppe Communities: 5000-2350 BC":

https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/4646/3/V.I.K.167-195.pdf

It was published as part of this book: https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/4597/3/1-10Edid%2BCONT.pdf

Tomenable
03-13-2016, 01:33 AM
And also about weapons of Catacomb culture:

http://www.myslenedrevo.com.ua/en/Sci/Archeology/BalticPonticStudies/Vol02.html

V. I. Klochko, S. Z. Pustovalov, "The Warfare of the Northern Pontic Steppe – Forest-steppe Pastoral Societies: 2750-2000 BC (Catacomb culture)"

And here about warfare in Corded Ware culture (starts on page 308):

https://books.google.pl/books?id=gcGSn0eVs2oC&pg=PA309&lpg=PA309#v=onepage&q&f=false

rms2
03-13-2016, 12:32 PM
I know very little about Eastern IE. Bows are more prominent in India, Persia etc. Heracles was an archer and club wielder. Do you have any thought as to why the bow fell so out of favor by the iron age? The Iliad has Paris and the Lesser Ajax as an archers. The 'Great heroes' use heavy spears and swords. Lugh and Odin have spears that fly to their targets and never miss. Odysseus was an exceptional archer but did not use a bow in the Iliad but in the Odyssey under exceptional circumstances when he returns home. The context is dealing punishment rather than seeking glory. I might be straying a bit but it might reflect an over all attitude

I'm not sure why the bow fell out of fashion, at least in terms of the emphasis it appears to have received among the Beaker Folk. Perhaps it came to be viewed as unheroic, since it killed at a distance, impersonally, and did not involve heroic, man-to-man, one-on-one combat.

A.D.
03-13-2016, 04:06 PM
I think we agree on that. There doesn't seem to be any other reason.

Finn
01-18-2017, 12:32 PM
May be slightly off topic. But corded ware in relationship with bell beaker fascinates me.

First all because of my aDNA. My Northern Dutch K15 (Gedmatch)

Population
North_Sea 39.01
Atlantic 27.71
Baltic 12.19
Eastern_Euro 10.20
West_Med 5.86
West_Asian 2.80
East_Med 0.51
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 1.02
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian -
Oceanian 0.48
Northeast_African 0.22
Sub-Saharan -

This looks like Bell Beaker because:
- high North sea component
- influences of Southwest Europe especially represented by de West Med (CW has defintely no West Med component!).

But it contains also relative higher Esatern Euro which is typically Corded Ware!

So in my case: 'Bell Beaker results' heavily influenced by Corded Ware!?

But I guess in the North Sea Region, especially North-Dutch, Northwest Germany, Denmark, Norway, I'am not the only one.

May be C.S. Coon has a case when he stated in Races of Europe (1948), page 156: 'The Bell Beaker people who remained in the Rhinelands, however, came into intimate contact with the Corded people, who had invaded from the east and northeast, and with the corridor-tomb megalithic population to the north, whose domain extended down into the Netherlands. These three, of which the Bell Beaker element formed perhaps the dominant one, amalgamated to form an Early Bronze Age cultural unit, the so-called Zoned Beaker people who invaded England an Scotland as the first important carriers of metal.'

May be it's due to the fact that North Sea genepool had some common layers (as mentioned by Coons)!?

The people of this area share the same genetic 'matrushka' consisting of these cultural complexes:
1. Ertebřlle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erteb%C3%B8lle_culture), HG culture (about 50% of the aDNA in these region!)
2. Funnelbeaker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funnelbeaker_culture), Early Neolithic (influx from EEF)
3. Corded ware (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture)/ single grave, Neolithic
4. Bell Beaker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture), Late Neolithic

Did indeed the 'Zoned Beaker People' have such a major impact up to and including modern Northwest Eurropeans (and offspring)??????

add see the ancient CW and BB results: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QPTmyarOBBEZfXnLI5L64ueJNG34jgy4QgQ_1nSYtnM/edit#gid=917906623