PDA

View Full Version : How and where did R1b get into the Bell Beaker folks?



TigerMW
04-18-2013, 10:25 PM
Alan asks a good question and it has got to be worth a thread of it own.:welcome:

The most controversial and interesting aspect of European R1b is not really how it spread with beaker networks but more how it reached the zone where beaker networks developed. Focussing on the beaker aspect is interesting but European R1b clearly had a pre-beaker life.

At least we have a starting point. We know for sure some form of R1b was found in Bell Beaker remains. It's the earliest (oldest) R1b ancient DNA that we've found so far.

"Emerging genetic patterns of the european neolithic: Perspectives from a late neolithic bell beaker burial site in Germany" by Lee, et al., 2012.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22074/abstract

The transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture in Europe is associated with demographic changes that may have shifted the human gene pool of the region as a result of an influx of Neolithic farmers from the Near East. However, the genetic composition of populations after the earliest Neolithic, when a diverse mosaic of societies that had been fully engaged in agriculture for some time appeared in central Europe, is poorly known. At this period during the Late Neolithic (ca. 2,800–2,000 BC), regionally distinctive burial patterns associated with two different cultural groups emerge, Bell Beaker and Corded Ware, and may reflect differences in how these societies were organized. Ancient DNA analyses of human remains from the Late Neolithic Bell Beaker site of Kromsdorf, Germany showed distinct mitochondrial haplotypes for six individuals, which were classified under the haplogroups I1, K1, T1, U2, U5, and W5, and two males were identified as belonging to the Y haplogroup R1b. In contrast to other Late Neolithic societies in Europe emphasizing maintenance of biological relatedness in mortuary contexts, the diversity of maternal haplotypes evident at Kromsdorf suggests that burial practices of Bell Beaker communities operated outside of social norms based on shared maternal lineages. Furthermore, our data, along with those from previous studies, indicate that modern U5-lineages may have received little, if any, contribution from the Mesolithic or Neolithic mitochondrial gene pool.


Grave 5: ydna R1b1b2 U106-, mtdna I1, 35-50yo, no grave goods, bone age n.d.
Grave 8: ydna R1b^, mtdna K1, 21-26yo, cup & flake grave goods, bones 2678-2547 BC
^unable to obtain M269 result

GailT
04-19-2013, 02:19 AM
There was a lot of discussion of the Lee et al paper on Dienekes blog in May (link). (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/05/bell-beakers-from-germany-y-haplogroup.html)

I want to point out that there was no evidence supporting their last statement above that there was no continuity of U5 from the Mesolithic. Perhaps it was poorly worded and that's not what they intended to say?

Jean M
04-19-2013, 10:55 AM
there was no evidence supporting their last statement above that there was no continuity of U5 from the Mesolithic.

What we appear to see from ancient DNA is a new set of mtDNA haplogroups appear in Neolithic Europe, completely replacing U5 in many (not all) places. Then U5 reappears widely, from the ages of metal onwards, in company with Neolithic haplogroups. So we can conclude that Bell Beaker and Corded Ware carried U5 from a homeland where it had not been completely replaced, and spread it once more across territory from which it had vanished long before as hunter-gatherers faded from the scene. This newly arrived U5 would boost the stock of U5 in those places where it had survived locally, such as the NE, since the foraging way of life survived there. We should be able to demonstrate local continuity of specific U5 subclades in certain parts of Europe from Mesolithic aDNA to modern, but that seems likely to be relatively rare.

R.Rocca
04-19-2013, 11:57 AM
Alan asks a good question and it has got to be worth a thread of it own.:welcome:


At least we have a starting point. We know for sure some form of R1b was found in Bell Beaker remains. It's the earliest (oldest) R1b ancient DNA that we've found so far.

"Emerging genetic patterns of the european neolithic: Perspectives from a late neolithic bell beaker burial site in Germany" by Lee, et al., 2012.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22074/abstract

In order to get a good handle on where Bell Beaker started, we have to understand where it ended up phylogenetically. I don't think it is at all difficult to speculate that late Bell Beaker lineages where already regionally L21+ in the isles and DF27+ in Iberia.

U152 is a little more difficult to project, but it looks like the highest branches may also be related to Bell Beaker or the preceding Copper Age cultures like Remedello.

alan
04-19-2013, 02:09 PM
The mtDNA change is very interesting. Unless it was selective in some way it looks migratory. One thing I find of interest is that some papers have commented on the inward looking tribal localised feel to the distribution and style choices of even immediate pre-beaker copper working. Beaker clearly saw some kind of profound change to an outward looking society where local barriers became very porous and somehow a unified (or partly unified) idealogy and expression of it spread incredibly wide. I think women may well have had an unsung role in this that maybe mtDNA may ultimatley show. I understand that the beaker mtDNA at Kromsdorf showed an outward looking marriage network and that this somehow contrasted with other cultures. There may have been a relay style movement of female lines which although perhaps in short steppes amounted to a chain that created very wide movement of mtDNA over a century or so. Also, some greater leaps may have happened in terms of higher status marriage networks where marriage was essentially for alliance and network building and high status individuals would have moved much longer distances to the patrilocal home. Indeed maybe most of the prominant beaker burials are of the higher status group and the Kromsdorf pattern may be common. That sort of network would also be very useful in spreading ideas, trends, fashions and maybe even had a linguistic impact. I am in no way trying to play down the male role as we know there was unusal mobility too among them in the beaker period. However in addition to male mobility marriage networks may have mean major changes to mtDNA geography.

GailT
04-19-2013, 04:57 PM
What we appear to see from ancient DNA is a new set of mtDNA haplogroups appear in Neolithic Europe, completely replacing U5 in many (not all) places. Then U5 reappears widely, from the ages of metal onwards, in company with Neolithic haplogroups. So we can conclude that Bell Beaker and Corded Ware carried U5 from a homeland where it had not been completely replaced, and spread it once more across territory from which it had vanished long before as hunter-gatherers faded from the scene. This newly arrived U5 would boost the stock of U5 in those places where it had survived locally, such as the NE, since the foraging way of life survived there. We should be able to demonstrate local continuity of specific U5 subclades in certain parts of Europe from Mesolithic aDNA to modern, but that seems likely to be relatively rare.

Jean - I agree with you on the concept of both migration and some continuity of U5, but I think the evidence suggests that continuity was not relatively rare.

Looking at the current distribution of U5, I think we can say that Mesolithic U5 populations were probably not completely replaced anywhere in Europe, as we still find very rare and very diverse U5 subclades throughout Europe. The original Mesolithic European U5 probably survived at higher percentages in northern Europe. Perhaps there was some recent movement of rare U5 subclades from northern European reservoirs to southern Europe, and this might explain some of the current diversity of U5 in southern Europe. But I think a more likely scenario is that U5 hunter-gatherers survived everywhere, albiet at low frequency, and adopted Neolithic technologies throughout Europe. Given that Mesolithic peoples had low population density, it's possible that they could have largely survived and still represent a small component of the current population.

U5a1h is an example of a very old branch that is only found in the Brittish Isles and seems to have undergone a bottleneck there. U5b1f is another old branch that has an Iberian or Franco Cantabrian origin and is found very rarely from Portugal to Germany, but is found in 12% of the Basques (perhaps U5b1f married into a small Basque immigrant community). And we have many other cases of rare U5 lineages that date to between 10,000 to 20,000 years ago and have been found in only one or two samples of modern Europeans. I agree that we seem to see a few dominant U5 subclades moving from the east back into central and western Europe during the Neolithic or Bronze age, and these few subclades represent a large fraction of the current U5 population in Europe, but most of the diversity of U5 in Europe appears to represent continuity from Mesolithic populations.

So I think the evidence suggests a very complex process, with multipe waves of migration but also significant continuity of early populations. Overly broad simplifications such as those in the Lee et al. paper are almost certainly wrong, and it would be safer to recognize that there is complexity and uncertainty that can't be resolved with a small number of ancient mtDNA samples, especially when results for these samples are reported only for the control region. The small number of FMS results available seem to suggest continuity of U5 in Europe.

TigerMW
04-19-2013, 08:38 PM
... I understand that the beaker mtDNA at Kromsdorf showed an outward looking marriage network and that this somehow contrasted with other cultures. There may have been a relay style movement of female lines which although perhaps in short steppes amounted to a chain that created very wide movement of mtDNA over a century or so. ... .
I think I know generally what you mean by "outward looking marriage network" but what are some of the things the archaeologists see that indicate this? I'm just trying to understand this better and how that specifically applies to Beaker folks, and is this all Beaker folks or just the Rhenish or what?

alan
05-02-2013, 07:37 PM
Mike- in reply to your question, what I meant was pre-beaker cultures around the Alps were noted to use style of metalwork etc to define a relatively localised identity with different small areas having different styles. This is thought to have been to define themselves and mark themselves apart from others. This contrasts with the beaker package which apparently established a material identity that was accepted far and wide across borders. That is what sets the beaker package apart. it was the acceptance of a pan European idenity that linked people rather than divided them.

Anyway in terms of the topic, I stumbled across this paper

http://www.academia.edu/1633041/Copper_Ornaments_in_the_Iberian_Chalcolithic_Techn ology_versus_Social_Demand

it relates to the fascinating pre-beaker copper age of Iberia. On other forums I have tried to dig into details of the pre-beaker post-Capatho-Balkans spread of copper working including the Circumpontic Metallurgical Provence and the spread of post-Carpatho-Balkan metalworking and mining through the Alps, Italy and Liguria. c. 3500-3000BC. Ultimately this surely is linked to the pre-beaker Iberian copper age too. One thing that struck me when digging into the Carpatho-Balkan and CMP traditions is how very ornament orientated the former was and how this contrasted with the CMP where weapons and tools were much more prominent. Well, this seems to have also been the case with the pre-beaker Italian copper age cultures like Remedello. Now this paper seems to say the same is true about pre-beaker Iberian copper age metal work, something that I have found it hard to find a lot of information about on the web. I also found this paper on analysis of the metal of that period in Iberia although its rather technical

http://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/6220/1/Pereira_2011.pdf

TigerMW
05-02-2013, 09:06 PM
...Anyway in terms of the topic, I stumbled across this paper

http://www.academia.edu/1633041/Copper_Ornaments_in_the_Iberian_Chalcolithic_Techn ology_versus_Social_Demand

it relates to the fascinating pre-beaker copper age of Iberia. On other forums I have tried to dig into details of the pre-beaker post-Capatho-Balkans spread of copper working including the Circumpontic Metallurgical Provence and the spread of post-Carpatho-Balkan metalworking and mining through the Alps, Italy and Liguria. c. 3500-3000BC. Ultimately this surely is linked to the pre-beaker Iberian copper age too. One thing that struck me when digging into the Carpatho-Balkan and CMP traditions is how very ornament orientated the former was and how this contrasted with the CMP where weapons and tools were much more prominent. Well, this seems to have also been the case with the pre-beaker Italian copper age cultures like Remedello. Now this paper seems to say the same is true about pre-beaker Iberian copper age metal work, something that I have found it hard to find a lot of information about on the web. I also found this paper on analysis of the metal of that period in Iberia although its rather technical

http://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/6220/1/Pereira_2011.pdf

Thanks, Alan. Looks like another correlation with the potential smoking gun of metallurgy.

From "From Metallurgy to Bronze Age Civilizations: The Synthetic Theory" by Amzallag

scholars frequently do not devote enough attention to the way copper is produced.
...
furnace smelting, as soon as it came into being, immediately replaced crucible smelting.
...
if the bowl furnace is no more than an enlarged crucible, we would expect to find a gradual evolution in shape and size from crucible to bowl furnace. This is not the case.
...
Furnace metallurgy was progressively expanding in the western part of the Mediterranean basin (Sardinia, Italy, southern France, and North Africa) through a pattern that parallels the spread of the Bell Beaker cultures. Also on continental Europe, furnace metallurgy was diffusing concurrently with the spread of Bell Beaker culture.
...
In Europe, this dynamic is related to the slow and multidirectional pattern of migration of the Bell Beaker people, suggesting it is not directly motivated by the search for new mining resources. Rather, the expansion of a metallurigical domain looks like a combination of the desire of populations to join the metallurgical domain and the need, for the smiths, to migrate toward new horizons.
http://www.ajaonline.org/sites/default/files/AJA1134Amzallag_0.pdf

Amzallag's interpretation of the evidence is that the Beaker folks were using furnace smelting and of course that furnace smelting comes from the CMP (Circumpontic Metallurgy Province.) This correlation makes sense. If the Beaker people were using (and selling) metals usefully as tools and weapons, rather than as ornaments, a higher production system like furnace smelting (vs. crucible smelting) would be helpful. The shoe fits.

I also think the Po River basin connection through to Liguria and southern France fits a little better with an L51/L11 trail than trying to bring the L51/L11 lineage through the boot of Italy with the early Neolithic or stringing them along North African coast to southern Iberia. That is not to say they did not touch North Africa, but just that the Po basin is a better vector for eventually hitting high diversity spot for P312 in southern France as well as spinning off U106 to the north somehow along the way.

alan
05-02-2013, 10:27 PM
http://www.academia.edu/1633041/Copp..._Social_Demand

Having read the first paper now (I often post before I have read a paper myself if I think it is important) it does make a case that Iberian copper working may have essentially been a native development and rebutts the arguements that link it to a spread from points east such as France. The paper is so recent that I dont think the rebuttal has been rebutted yet. That of course would have major implications on the idea of the spread of copper spreading R1b as far as Iberia in the pre-beaker era. However, I dont think that arguement is done and dusted yet. For instance it would seem a heck of a coincidence if copper working was invented completely independently just before 3000BC at the same time as it was arriving in France from the east.

Maybe a half way house arguement is that the Iberians became aware of copper working in France and the basic concept but then tried to copy it without the movement of outside expert lineages. That of course would still remove this window of movement for R1b into Iberia from the east.

alan
05-02-2013, 10:37 PM
Here are interesting recent papers on the spread of metallurgy by Benjamin Roberts who has the reverse view of the origin of metallurgy in Iberia i.e. that it must have been diffusion/migration rather than independent invention

http://www.academia.edu/378209/Migration_craft_expertise_and_metallurgy_analysing _the_spread_of_metal_in_Europe

http://www.academia.edu/371361/Creat...Western_Europe

alan
05-02-2013, 11:16 PM
The relevance of all of this is whether a model showing R1b moving into a H moving out of Iberia in the copper age is on solid ground. If Roberts is correct then maybe it is. If the proposal that copper working was an independent invention in Iberia and unrelated to other European traditions is correct then this is clearly a problem for such a model.

TigerMW
05-02-2013, 11:29 PM
Another interesting recent paper on the spread of metallurgy. This chap has the reverse view of the origin of metallurgy in Iberia i.e. that it must have been diffusion rather than independent invention...
I just don't see how it was an independent invention in Iberia. Even if it developed uniquely the timing and other elements of eastern originated items just makes it too much of a coincidence to be independent in origin.

Jean M
05-02-2013, 11:47 PM
Having read the first paper ... it does make a case that Iberian copper working may have essentially been a native development.

It attempts to do so, but with striking illogicality. The authors point out that the early features of copper-working (found where it is earliest i.e. in the Near East) are missing in Iberia, where metallurgy arrives much later in a fully-fledged form. Is this evidence of native development in Iberia? Of course not. It is evidence of the reverse.

Where we see a long period of development from scratch and experimentation in any craft, we can assume it arose there. Where a highly-specialised craft suddenly appears in sophisticated form in place A, having been apparent in place B long before, the logical conclusion is not that it arose all by itself in place A.

But thanks for both papers Alan. They have been added to my collection.

alan
05-02-2013, 11:59 PM
I am very skeptical about the idea of an independent invention, especially if it happened just as copper working was arriving in France - just too much of a coincidence. I agree with jean that the lack of focus on ornaments over weapons and tools seems to me an artifact of late arrival and was part of the general pattern of the new wave of metallurgical traditions that swept west from 3500BC onwards after the more ornament obsessed Carpatho-Balkan traditions had fallen away.

Jean M
05-03-2013, 12:29 AM
Copper is relatively soft without arsenic or tin added, so it wasn't ideal for axes etc in pure form. One can see why ornamental use would strike people first. A wider range of uses might become more popular when copper sources that happened to have arsenic mixed in was noticed to yield a tougher product.

TigerMW
05-03-2013, 07:26 AM
Is this map a fair representation? I find it noteworthy that it also depicts what some of the papers say about metallurgy moving from Maykop into the Pontic Steppes. Metallurgy just doesn't look like something that spread all over Europe from the Steppes.

In retrospect, it seems a little odd that Anthony titled his book with the "The Horse The Wheel The Language". He says these people were "Bronze Age riders" but he isn't really emphasizing that the steppes people brought metallurgy to Europe. I know the word for "ore" is in the base PIE lexicon but maybe the PIE homeland is a little more gray around the edges or wider than Anthony may think .... and could include people who were bi-lingual like a pre-supra-regional group might be. By supra-regional I mean a group like the Bell Beaker folks which were a pan-European phenomenon.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Metallurgical_diffusion.png

What's the justification for not the conventional Renfrew/Anthony type PIE homeland not reaching further south and west around the Black Sea?

alan
05-03-2013, 10:33 AM
Is this map a fair representation? I find it noteworthy that it also depicts what some of the papers say about metallurgy moving from Maykop into the Pontic Steppes. Metallurgy just doesn't look like something that spread all over Europe from the Steppes.

In retrospect, it seems a little odd that Anthony titled his book with the "The Horse The Wheel The Language". He says these people were "Bronze Age riders" but he isn't really emphasizing that the steppes people brought metallurgy to Europe. I know the word for "ore" is in the base PIE lexicon but maybe the PIE homeland is a little more gray around the edges or wider than Anthony may think .... and could include people who were bi-lingual like a pre-supra-regional group might be. By supra-regional I mean a group like the Bell Beaker folks which were a pan-European phenomenon.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Metallurgical_diffusion.png

What's the justification for not the conventional Renfrew/Anthony type PIE homeland not reaching further south and west around the Black Sea?

I think it accepted that the steppes recieved its first actual mining and in-situ metallurgical tradition from the CMP tradition which is dated as commencing several centuries earlier in the Maykop and other cultures to their south. In fact as far as I am aware the latest dating tends to also place Kurgans and general social complexity in that region before the steppes.

I dont think it is any coincidence at all that the appearance of CMP in the steppes (apparently primarily heading to the Urals sources, Kargaly etc) is at exactly the same time that Yamnaya and Afanansievo cultures take off and social complexity appears on the steppes. I suspect (and apparently several scholars far more expert than my dabblings outside my comfort zone) that this metallurgy was a major driver in the changes. I dont think it is a coincidence that Yamnaya rises in the Ural/Volga zone just at this time. I also personally think metallurgy may have been a major factor in why Afansievo apparently headed towards another major metal ore area at the east end of the steppes. Anthony and many scholars tend to concentrate on the mobile pastoralism aspect but could a major driver in this move to mobility have been the wealth of metals and the wish to control the sources and trade routes that had newly appeared on the steppes? Tha vast distances and steppes landscape involved would have made exploitation of steppe metal sources very difficult without mobile pastoralism.

Prior to this the steppes had simply been peripheral recipients of Carpatho-Balkan metals passed to them via Cucut-Tryp middlemen. From everything I have read, scholars believe that the sudden appearance of CMP traditions of metal and mining in the Urals was so similar to the older CMP tradtions of the Caucasus that it must have involved at least some people moving into the steppes. By that I dont mean a major element but an important one. I do suspect that L23 and/or M73 may have been the minority lineages that were involved in the bringing of the metallurgical revolution to the steppes from points south although clearly I cannot prove that.

I am not going to extend this speculation into the linguistic sphere but I would say this - the extension of the CMP, kurgans and social complexity into the steppes may have been an important contributor into trasnforming the steppes cultures into what we think of as classic PIE society as opposed to the less hierarchical and simpler societies in that area before that. It may not have brought the language but it would seem to me to have been very important in creating the PIE society. I think concepts like that are better than some R1a primordialism approaches (I am thinking of other websites) that look at everything in PIE society as simply developing on the steppes without crediting important outside influences and other groups.

Regarding Anthony not crediting the spread of CMP and other post-Carpatho-Balkans metallurgical groups, I think that is pretty well in line with what most scholars seem to say or, to be more accurate, it seems this issue is simply not usually discussed. However, once the CMP on the steppes was established the steppe peoples could have been responsible for its spreading into SOME areas. I have really struggled to get enough information on what experts (this is a very niche field) say about CMP on the western shore of the steppes and just beyond in areas like Bulgaria etc where the Carpatho-Balkan traditions (this was their heartland) and networks had collapsed. Those areas of course saw really early steppe intrusions (Suvorovo etc) that pre-date the extension of CMP metallurgy to steppe groups. They (and the climate) seem to have killed the Carpatho-Balkans tradition and its important to note that they did this before the CMP had extended into the steppes (in fact I dont think it existed anywhere at this stage). From memory they were basically extremely metal poor. In areas like that it may well be that CMP metallurgical traditions were probably brought by later steppe groups like Yamnaya.

However, as far as I am aware the spread of the new wave of metallurgy west (which seems to me to be similar to the CMP) seem in Remedello etc seems to have been independent of steppe groups and perhaps a century or two ahead of even the entry of CMP into the steppes creation of Yamnaya and related cultures. To me the common denomentor is not steppe groups but rather CMP and the new metallurgical groups further west. Groups like Remedello around the time that a new wave of metallurgy and mining spread west appear to have already been creating a new type of society a little ahead of the arrival of CMP in the steppes or the development of Yamnaya etc.

Anyway, I know this appears to be very off-topic for this thread but it does ultimately lead to the question of the origin and nature of the pre-beaker copper age groups along the Alps, Liguria and ultimately Iberia in the period 3500-3000BC and then the beaker phenomenon itself.

One thing I think stands out in my recent reading of recent papers on all of this is that the pre-beaker copper age groups in the west c. 3500-3000BC did lack some of the major characteristics of the beaker phenomenon. Several papers I have read do contrast the localised nature of those groups and their more closed aspect with the border-smashing aspect of the beaker culture which seemed to create a pan-European code.

One thing the paper on Iberian copper working posted above does raise (even if its idea that copper was an independent invention in Iberia seems unlikely) is that the copper cultures of Iberia that seem to have been present for 2 or 3 centuries before beakers had a very different approach, settlement pattern and set up to the beaker culture. That is something that needs to be discussed further IMO. The paper raises the issue that copper in immediate pre-beaker Iberia was exploited in a different way and seen in a different way.

One simple explanation that strikes me is simply that at-source where it was easily obtained copper may have lacked value or interest and hierachies simply could not be built on something that was ubiquitous. The value of items was down to exoticness and hierachies were built on control of difficult to obtain materials. It is noticeable even in beaker times that ore source areas like Iberia, NW France, Ireland, Wales etc lack the individualistic burial traditions that far-from-source (middlemen?) areas like the Lower Rhine, England etc had. Perhaps that is a natural contrast that occurs where at-source hierachy is hard to build while at distance from source middle men can get rich. Think the lack of value of gold in south America that the conquestadors found. Or the British phrase 'carrying coals to Newcastle'.

To give a more specific example it is thought by many that the rich graves of the beaker and post-beaker phase of Wessex (and indeed the wealth to build the later stages of stonehenge) was down to the local elites positioned on the area between the Thames to the east and the Severan and Avon to the west acting as middlemen controlling the flow of materials from Ireland and Wales in the west and passing them on to the Thames and probably passing other materials in the opposite direction too.

The importance of this observation is that it seems likely that hierachical societal structure did not arise at raw material source points but at important nodes away from them. This means to me that these nodes at distance from source are likely to be where the beaker society (rather than the pots) with its elites etc arose.

Jean M
05-03-2013, 11:06 AM
No-one is arguing that metallurgy began on the European steppe. It simply travelled east and west from there because people happened to be travelling from there after they had acquired metallurgy, and at a time when they had a monopoly of the craft in most (not all) of the territory they entered. In Europe the earlier Balkan metallurgy had collapsed before it had a chance to spread over the whole continent. The Afansievo people seem to have introduced metallurgy to East Asia. At one time it was thought to be an independent invention there. See Xiang Wan, Early Development of Bronze Metallurgy in Eastern Eurasia (http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp213_bronze_metallurgy.pdf), Sino-Platonic Papers, Number 213 (August, 2011)

It is a useful map Mike. I see that it is from WikiMedia, and the source is M. Otte, Vers la Préhistoire (2007). Here is one from Ben Roberts:

415

Jean M
05-03-2013, 12:34 PM
One thing the paper on Iberian copper working posted above does raise ... is that the copper cultures of Iberia that seem to have been present for 2 or 3 centuries before beakers had a very different approach, settlement pattern and set up to the beaker culture.

Really? Perhaps I didn't get far enough into the paper to encounter that idea. What convinced me that the initial copper-working arrivals were the same people who made the earliest BB was the sequence at Zambujal. Bell Beaker is found in the same citadel created by the copper-workers, without any other sign of cultural break. Copper goes on being worked in the same way.

Of course there was a later influx of Bell Beaker into NE Iberia from Central Europe via France, that seems to have brought the round-headed type and some new types of object. By "Bell Beaker culture", do you mean Late Bell Beaker as found in southern Britain? Or early Bell Beaker as found at Zambujal?

R.Rocca
05-03-2013, 12:47 PM
...

However, as far as I am aware the spread of the new wave of metallurgy west (which seems to me to be similar to the CMP) seem in Remedello etc seems to have been independent of steppe groups and perhaps a century or two ahead of even the entry of CMP into the steppes creation of Yamnaya and related cultures. To me the common denomentor is not steppe groups but rather CMP and the new metallurgical groups further west. Groups like Remedello around the time that a new wave of metallurgy and mining spread west appear to have already been creating a new type of society a little ahead of the arrival of CMP in the steppes or the development of Yamnaya etc.

Anyway, I know this appears to be very off-topic for this thread but it does ultimately lead to the question of the origin and nature of the pre-beaker copper age groups along the Alps, Liguria and ultimately Iberia in the period 3500-3000BC and then the beaker phenomenon itself.

...



Let's not forget however that CMP was a full Bronze Age Culture, which Bell Beaker was not. The Bronze Age traditions of Central and Western Europe seem to signal the end of Bell Beaker.

The 3500-3000 BC period in Liguria is heavily tied to the Stelae people and their metallurgy is that of Rinaldone and Remedello. During this time period skulls in Northern and Central Italy start to become more Brachycephalic. Rinaldone and Remedello are seen as IE groups (Gimbutas, Mallory, Anthony).

Trying to project the pre-Copper Age Y-DNA of this area is a real head scratcher though. It is heavily R1b today (perhaps the highest in Italy) but Bell Beaker material is rare there. The proceeding Neolithic culture was that of Lagozza, which along with Cortaillod, is an extension of Chasseen. On paper Chaseen has always looked like the most obvious culture for an R1b expansion (also see Myres), but ancient DNA by association has painted a different picture. As best I can tell, the Trielles Group is a late Chasseen group, and Chasseen seems to be evolved from Cardial. So, we have one Cardial-derived group once removed (Epicardial) that is heavily G2a and another Cardial group three times removed (Cardial>Chasseen>Treilles) that is also heavily G2a. We should not forget Otzi who had a Ligurian mined copper axe in the Remedello tradition and also Remedello style arrow points in his quiver and lodged in his shoulder. And of course we all know that he belonged to G2a.

alan
05-03-2013, 02:02 PM
Iberia seems to me, based on the recent paper I posted above, to be a primary extraction and export point. However, assuming that that area didnt invent copper working separately (which seems unlikely) it leaves the question as to who arrived there bringing the knowledge. The fortified settlements and intensive copper working is striking. However I still have never seen any archaeological publication in recent times suggest parallels or external origins for anything in the record other than copper working itself (and you can see that not even that is agreed). That makes it remain terribly difficult to find evidence of how an eastern derived group like R1b (actually DF27) got into Iberia in the pre or early beaker period other than the presence of copper working itself. I think its as stark as that. That is not to say that some day that wont change. There was strong anti-migrationist feeling about the later Argaric culture in Iberia and its spectacular fortified settlements having an east Med. origin until recent excavations of a fortification made a stronger case for an intrusion c. 2200BC. This is only a little later and only a little different geographically than the pre-beaker copper age in Iberia c. 3000BC which also featured a sudden appearance of fairly impressive fortified settlements. So new evidence might emerge for this period just as it did for the Argaric culture. However, as it stands, the only change that points to eastern movement into Iberia from any potentially identifiable source is copper working itself.

Jean M
05-03-2013, 02:35 PM
Let's not forget however that CMP was a full Bronze Age Culture, which Bell Beaker was not.

The CMP represents "the first widescale use of artificial copper-arsenic alloys (arsenical bronzes)." Chernykh 2008. These were also used by the first copper-workers in Iberia/early Bell Beaker people.

"True" bronze is a tin-copper alloy, which developed in Britain a couple of centuries or so after the arrival of Bell Beaker people. Because of the short period between the arrival of BB and the development of true (tin) bronze, archaeologists in the British Isles have in the past not bothered with a Copper Age, and just gone straight from Neolithic to Bronze. So texts tend to talk in terms of the Bell Beaker people bringing bronze to Britain. In fact they brought arsenical bronze and developed tin bronze.

Jean M
05-03-2013, 02:51 PM
That makes it remain terribly difficult to feel any level of confidence as to how an eastern derived group like R1b (actually DF27) got into Iberia in the pre or early beaker period.

On the contrary, I find it impossible to imagine how a fully-fledged craft that is well-known to have developed earlier outside Iberia could have arrived in Iberia without human agency. As for new artefacts in addition to metal-working, I keep pointing out anthropomorphic stelae. For solid evidence of R1b we shall of course have to await ancient DNA.

alan
05-03-2013, 03:03 PM
Let's not forget however that CMP was a full Bronze Age Culture, which Bell Beaker was not. The Bronze Age traditions of Central and Western Europe seem to signal the end of Bell Beaker.

The 3500-3000 BC period in Liguria is heavily tied to the Stelae people and their metallurgy is that of Rinaldone and Remedello. During this time period skulls in Northern and Central Italy start to become more Brachycephalic. Rinaldone and Remedello are seen as IE groups (Gimbutas, Mallory, Anthony).

Trying to project the pre-Copper Age Y-DNA of this area is a real head scratcher though. It is heavily R1b today (perhaps the highest in Italy) but Bell Beaker material is rare there. The proceeding Neolithic culture was that of Lagozza, which along with Cortaillod, is an extension of Chasseen. On paper Chaseen has always looked like the most obvious culture for an R1b expansion (also see Myres), but ancient DNA by association has painted a different picture. As best I can tell, the Trielles Group is a late Chasseen group, and Chasseen seems to be evolved from Cardial. So, we have one Cardial-derived group once removed (Epicardial) that is heavily G2a and another Cardial group three times removed (Cardial>Chasseen>Treilles) that is also heavily G2a. We should not forget Otzi who had a Ligurian mined copper axe in the Remedello tradition and also Remedello style arrow points in his quiver and lodged in his shoulder. And of course we all know that he belonged to G2a.

lol yes its been a real head scratcher. I have definately felt my eye drawn away from beaker pot and Portugal towards Italy and its very interesting pre-beaker copper age cultures. Even if the same people settled Iberia in pre-beaker times (and there is nothing to suggest this other than knowledge of copper working) I feel that the out of Iberia element of the beaker culture is only echoed by DF27 and maritime beaker (as well as a few other trinkets). Geography; L51XL11, L11*, P312* (or rather P312 overall), U152 and even L21; overall R1b geographic phylogeny; skull morphology; the kind of society represented by burials; the link with centum IE languages etc are much easier to see as being prefigured in north Italy than in Iberia.

Although Iberia may have invented the beaker pots (and this is not absolutely certain) I cant see it is as more than a western-terminus offshoot of something bigger. R1b phylogeny just doesnt allow any other interpretation. The only thing that Iberia aquires from the east in the right timeframe is copper working. It doesnt look like it is radically trasformed socially in the same way as we see in Italy and central Europe at this time.

Beaker pottery and other material only seems to be associated with radically transformed social structures and beliefs when it enters areas to the east where that sort of transformation had already occurred in pre-beaker times. It was only in subsequent phases that beaker seems to become attached to these social changes or societies. I notice in a Lemercier paper that in SE France a classic beaker single burial was found associated with the early beaker (presumably maritime) phase. This was at Forcalquier-La Fare (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence) an area that touches the Italian NW border in the Alps. That to my knowledge is one of the earliest marryings of beaker pot to that sort of burial. This kind of idealogy (not the details) is much earlier known in Italy.

alan
05-03-2013, 03:20 PM
On the contrary, I find it impossible to imagine how a fully-fledged craft that is well-known to have developed earlier outside Iberia could have arrived in Iberia without human agency. As for new artefacts in addition to metal-working, I keep pointing out anthropomorphic stelae. For solid evidence of R1b we shall of course have to await ancient DNA.

Copper working seems to me the only clearcut (well with exceptions) evidence of an input from further east in pre-beaker times. What I am saying is that the society seen in the Iberian 1st copper age and the early beaker period in Iberia otherwise does not look particularly derivable from anything to the east or much in line with the changes seen in the eastern half of Europe. That could simply be down to size and nature of the movement that brought copper. Maybe it was a really small lineage at the maximum stretch of their exploring range who arrived in Iberia and to a large extent accepted local traditions to win over the locals. Hence the lack of obvious eastern traits other than the copper working. As for the Iberian stelae, I just have never found them remotely as convincing as the Alpine ones in terms of a pre-beaker copper age date with clear cultural associations in terms of depicted artefacts etc. The Alpine pre-beaker stelae just have neat and tidy cultural associations and links such as with the Remedello group who are very interesting indeed. However, I am willing to be convinced on the Iberian stelae. What is the best paper on Iberian stelae? I have read all the ones I could find before and I really could not see dating evidence linking them with pre-beaker copper age material.

Jean M
05-03-2013, 03:22 PM
l I have definitely felt my eye drawn away from beaker pot and Portugal towards Italy and its very interesting pre-beaker copper age cultures.

My eye has been drawn to Italy from the start. It is the route to Iberia. :)


Although Iberia may have invented the beaker pots ....

Bell Beaker pots did not need to be invented exactly. It is just a pottery style, drawing on elements already present on the steppe and/or up the Danube i.e. the route taken by the very people that eventually came up with this combination of them somewhere or other on the route to Iberia or in Iberia. It really does not matter where, except that the pottery today has assumed a huge importance in the minds of archaeologists, as it is so easy to use pottery to link sites and so identify "cultures".


I cant see it is as more than a western-terminus offshoot of something bigger

Well of course it is the western end of something bigger. :) The fact remains that French archaeologists see the early BB influences clearly and definitely flowing east from Iberia, Harrison and Heyd say the same for Sion, and Barry Cunliffe shows the flow of them along the Atlantic facade, whereas the later power centre (if you like) seems to be north of the Alps with a flow down the Rhine. I would link DF27 with the former and L21 with the latter.

alan
05-03-2013, 03:24 PM
On the contrary, I find it impossible to imagine how a fully-fledged craft that is well-known to have developed earlier outside Iberia could have arrived in Iberia without human agency. As for new artefacts in addition to metal-working, I keep pointing out anthropomorphic stelae. For solid evidence of R1b we shall of course have to await ancient DNA.

Edited that bit. I should have qualified it with 'other than copperworking'.

alan
05-03-2013, 03:28 PM
The CMP represents "the first widescale use of artificial copper-arsenic alloys (arsenical bronzes)." Chernykh 2008. These were also used by the first copper-workers in Iberia/early Bell Beaker people.

"True" bronze is a tin-copper alloy, which developed in Britain a couple of centuries or so after the arrival of Bell Beaker people. Because of the short period between the arrival of BB and the development of true (tin) bronze, archaeologists in the British Isles have in the past not bothered with a Copper Age, and just gone straight from Neolithic to Bronze. So texts tend to talk in terms of the Bell Beaker people bringing bronze to Britain. In fact they brought arsenical bronze and developed tin bronze.

You saved me posting that! I would tend to agree with one of the Roberts papers that its best to avoid normal archaeological period terminology when talking about metallurgy as it so chronologically variable by region and the meaning changes.

alan
05-03-2013, 04:08 PM
My eye has been drawn to Italy from the start. It is the route to Iberia. :)



Bell Beaker pots did not need to be invented exactly. It is just a pottery style, drawing on elements already present on the steppe and/or up the Danube i.e. the route taken by the very people that eventually came up with this combination of them somewhere or other on the route to Iberia or in Iberia. It really does not matter where, except that the pottery today has assumed a huge importance in the minds of archaeologists, as it is so easy to use pottery to link sites and so identify "cultures".



Well of course it is the western end of something bigger. :) The fact remains that French archaeologists see the early BB influences clearly and definitely flowing east from Iberia, and Barry Cunliffe shows the flow of them along the Atlantic facade, whereas the later power centre (if you like) seems to be north of the Alps with a flow down the Rhine. I would link DF27 with the former and L21 with the latter.

Yep the French archaeologists have definately convinced me that the initial maritime beaker flow (predominantly along the Med. eastwards) was from Iberia. If a copper age model for the spread of R1b into western and central Europe is correct (and only a middle Neolithic model seems any sort of a realistic alternative given recent evidence) then I do think the sort of model of a pre-beaker 'seeding' of various spots along the Alps and west Med. with R1b that you propose makes a great deal more sense. I really cant see R1b being 'out of Iberia' except for DF27. However for that sort of pre-beaker copper lineage model to work it must mean P312 is no younger than 5000 years old (preferably a century or so older).

The only alternative I can think of in terms of a beaker model is that the pre-beaker spread of copper (or at least its western part) was not an R1b one and that R1b only became attached to beaker around the France-Italy border area or the Rhone, having previously been within some other pre-beaker copper age culture around the Alps in the Italy-SE France-Swiss sort of area. It then spread in the secondary phase of beakers. That of course brings its own problems. Certainly the earliest beaker single grave of the classic sort I am aware of was that one from France (very close to the Italian border) that I posted about above.

TigerMW
05-03-2013, 04:37 PM
....I also think the Po River basin connection through to Liguria and southern France fits a little better with an L51/L11 trail than trying to bring the L51/L11 lineage through the boot of Italy with the early Neolithic or stringing them along North African coast to southern Iberia. That is not to say they did not touch North Africa, but just that the Po basin is a better vector for eventually hitting high diversity spot for P312 in southern France as well as spinning off U106 to the north somehow along the way.

I will have to say that there is new data (to me anyway) from the Lucotte study (see R1b Early Clades category) that shows a heavy presence of L23xL11 of some sort in the boot of Italy. Italy seems to be bi-polar. L11 types to the north and non L11 types of L23 in the south.

R.Rocca
05-03-2013, 05:23 PM
On the contrary, I find it impossible to imagine how a fully-fledged craft that is well-known to have developed earlier outside Iberia could have arrived in Iberia without human agency. As for new artefacts in addition to metal-working, I keep pointing out anthropomorphic stelae. For solid evidence of R1b we shall of course have to await ancient DNA.

Jean, I see you have Díaz-Guardamino's paper on Iberian Bronze Age stelae in your library, but her thesis touches on the earliest Iberian Neolithic/Chalcolithic ones as well and is the best I've seen on the subject for Iberia. A distribution map is on page 70...

http://eprints.ucm.es/11070/1/T32200.pdf

The 'owl eyes' from the Asqueroas, Moncorvo and St. Luzia 2 stelae are very telling of a relationship with those found in Italy and France. Enjoy!

Jean M
05-03-2013, 06:09 PM
Enjoy!

Thanks! Actually she also has good maps showing gold and silver resources in Iberia as well. I was just looking for one. One thing I don't mention in my text (and it is too late now) is the significance of these deposits. The map of gold locations is telling. Shows I think why Zambujal and Los Millares were sited where they are.

TigerMW
05-07-2013, 08:26 PM
Thanks! Actually she also has good maps showing gold and silver resources in Iberia as well. I was just looking for one. One thing I don't mention in my text (and it is too late now) is the significance of these deposits. The map of gold locations is telling. Shows I think why Zambujal and Los Millares were sited where they are.

I'm going to switch gears a little. We know we have different Bell Beaker groups. It also appears there was some conflict between groups.

"The conflict of ideas could therefore be seen as a doctrinal conflict within the Bell Beaker ideology."..."This fits the two distinct Beaker traditions that we identify, coming respectively from the southwest and the east." - Harrison and Heyd.

What was going on? Was this some kind of struggle over ore sources or just an extra aggressive/militaristic set of values on one side? Is this part of the "reflux" concept?

alan
05-07-2013, 11:32 PM
I'm going to switch gears a little. We know we have different Bell Beaker groups. It also appears there was some conflict between groups.

"The conflict of ideas could therefore be seen as a doctrinal conflict within the Bell Beaker ideology."..."This fits the two distinct Beaker traditions that we identify, coming respectively from the southwest and the east." - Harrison and Heyd.

What was going on? Was this some kind of struggle over ore sources or just an extra aggressive/militaristic set of values on one side? Is this part of the "reflux" concept?

I do not think anyone can honestly say they know the answer to that. I am not even convinced that the early maritime group was genetically and linguistically the same as the later groups. They could be but the evidence is hardly clinching. There is quite a difference in the traditions of the early maritime group and the subsequent groups that emerged in central and NW Europe. The biggest was that the early maritime group along the west Med. used collective burial and craniology of the maritime groups in Iberia suggested they were very similar to the Cardial Neolithic people while later groups had a different type of skull of a type already known in north Italy and central Europe in pre-beaker times. I remain open to the possibility that they may not even have been R1b related. The alternative that R1b only combined with beaker in the Alps or west central Europe certainly cannot be dismissed out of hand. I notice that one of the only convincing classic beaker burials of the early maritime phase in France was practically on the border with Italy. It suggests this tradition only arrived into the beaker world through influences from areas like Italy or the Alps where broadly similar traditions were known in pre-beaker times. There are several other aspects of the classic beaker package that only became common in the later beaker period too and probably originated in central Europe or the Alps area and refluxed west. I dont see any real reason to think rule out the possibility that this could also be true of R1b. I am not commited to that idea but its a possibility. However, inference is all there really and there are a variety of DNA interpretation that could be made. The only hard fact we have is R1b was found in east Germany rather early in the beaker period in that part of the world. One of the two guys tested R1b had an RC date centred on 2600BC but no info as to orientation or the type of pot. There were some classic beaker burials at this site but also odd things like a woman in the corded ware orientation and other oddities. Its a shame that more on this site is not available such as types of beakers etc. It seems really early in the beaker sequence and is north of the Carpathians, well north of the Danube and well west of the Rhine.

TigerMW
05-08-2013, 12:50 AM
I will have to say that there is new data (to me anyway) from the Lucotte study (see R1b Early Clades category) that shows a heavy presence of L23xL11 of some sort in the boot of Italy. Italy seems to be bi-polar. L11 types to the north and non L11 types of L23 in the south.

The part of my wife's family that is Italian are emphatic that there are major differences between northern and southern Italians (their northern but I won't go into details.) R1b seems to be as I noted and now there may be more evidence.

"The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry across Europe" by Ralph and Coop, 2013.

There is relatively little common ancestry shared between the Italian peninsula and other locations, and what there is seems to derive mostly from longer ago than 2,500 ya. An exception is that Italy and the neighboring Balkan populations share small but significant numbers of common ancestors in the last 1,500 years, as seen in Figures S16 and S17S17. The rate of genetic common ancestry between pairs of Italian individuals seems to have been fairly constant for the past 2,500 years, which combined with significant structure within Italy suggests a constant exchange of migrants between coherent subpopulations.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555#abstra ct1

I think Ralph/Coop are saying that the Italian Peninsula is not just different from North Italy, i.e. Cisalpine Gaul, but is also different than the rest of Europe, except parts of the Balkans.

I bring this up dependent on what we understand about the Maritime Beakers/Early Beakers of Iberia. I don't know if R1b was with them but they do have at least some different physical types showing up all of the sudden out in Iberia. Maritime folks might have come though Calabria on the way. Is it probable that the Maritime Beakers were the R1b-L23xL51 type mostly and the overland Alpine/Central Europe Beakers were where L51/L11 lineages came from? I guess that doesn't solve how DF27 got all over Iberia.. unless we make DF27 the equivalent of L21 in terms of being probable immigrants from the continent who eventually swamped/found safe haven on the Atlantic fringe.

R.Rocca
05-08-2013, 02:00 AM
I do not think anyone can honestly say they know the answer to that. I am not even convinced that the early maritime group was genetically and linguistically the same as the later groups. They could be but the evidence is hardly clinching. There is quite a difference in the traditions of the early maritime group and the subsequent groups that emerged in central and NW Europe. The biggest was that the early maritime group along the west Med. used collective burial and craniology of the maritime groups in Iberia suggested they were very similar to the Cardial Neolithic people while later groups had a different type of skull of a type already known in north Italy and central Europe in pre-beaker times. I remain open to the possibility that they may not even have been R1b related. The alternative that R1b only combined with beaker in the Alps or west central Europe certainly cannot be dismissed out of hand. I notice that one of the only convincing classic beaker burials of the early maritime phase in France was practically on the border with Italy. It suggests this tradition only arrived into the beaker world through influences from areas like Italy or the Alps where broadly similar traditions were known in pre-beaker times. There are several other aspects of the classic beaker package that only became common in the later beaker period too and probably originated in central Europe or the Alps area and refluxed west. I dont see any real reason to think rule out the possibility that this could also be true of R1b. I am not commited to that idea but its a possibility. However, inference is all there really and there are a variety of DNA interpretation that could be made. The only hard fact we have is R1b was found in east Germany rather early in the beaker period in that part of the world. One of the two guys tested R1b had an RC date centred on 2600BC but no info as to orientation or the type of pot. There were some classic beaker burials at this site but also odd things like a woman in the corded ware orientation and other oddities. Its a shame that more on this site is not available such as types of beakers etc. It seems really early in the beaker sequence and is north of the Carpathians, well north of the Danube and well west of the Rhine.

I know you are not saying with certainty the Iberian BB weren't R1b, and I'm not saying with certainty that they were, but I think the percentage is pretty well stacked in favor of Iberian BB being R1b, if nothing else because no subsequent migration into all corners of Iberia that can answer for it.

I do think the planoccipital brachycephalic support a secondary movement from Central Europe hundreds of years later. More than likely this secondary movement produced L21, U152+L2+ and U152+Z36+ and even early U106(xL48) branches.

TigerMW
05-08-2013, 02:31 AM
... I'm not saying with certainty that they were, but I think the percentage is pretty well stacked in favor of Iberian BB being R1b, if nothing else because no subsequent migration into all corners of Iberia that can answer for it.

I do think the planoccipital brachycephalic support a secondary movement from Central Europe hundreds of years later. More than likely this secondary movement produced L21, U152+L2+ and U152+Z36+ and even early U106(xL48) branches.

I assume you are saying that DF27 must have been in the initial Beaker folks movements into Iberia or born soon after.

Why do you say the "a secondary movement produced ..."? What I mean is why can't there be 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. movements into Iberian from France that could have brought the DF27 in?

There may have been many migrations across the Pyrenees into Iberia but I can't say I know, other than probably the Basques came from Aquitaine, Celtic>Celtiberian, Urnfield also reached Spain, etc., etc. It could have secondary phase movements of people after the initial movements that completed to spread to all corners of Iberia, so to speak. I think that is what happened in Ireland. I don't think it was one fell swoop of initial Beaker folks. It looks like Gauls, Britons/Picts, Bretons, Belgae or what have you involved many waves of immigrants into Ireland and Scotland. Is there a reason we don't think that happened in Iberia?

R.Rocca
05-08-2013, 11:34 AM
I assume you are saying that DF27 must have been in the initial Beaker folks movements into Iberia or born soon after.

Why do you say the "a secondary movement produced ..."? What I mean is why can't there be 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. movements into Iberian from France that could have brought the DF27 in?

There may have been many migrations across the Pyrenees into Iberia but I can't say I know, other than probably the Basques came from Aquitaine, Celtic>Celtiberian, Urnfield also reached Spain, etc., etc. It could have secondary phase movements of people after the initial movements that completed to spread to all corners of Iberia, so to speak. I think that is what happened in Ireland. I don't think it was one fell swoop of initial Beaker folks. It looks like Gauls, Britons/Picts, Bretons, Belgae or what have you involved many waves of immigrants into Ireland and Scotland. Is there a reason we don't think that happened in Iberia?

We can't just assume that every time we see a cultural expansion it is attributed to mass migrations. Some do, most don't. Once established in an area, there had to be local "big men" that contributed greatly to the local gene pool and produced novel subclades. We see in the isotopes at Sion that the only BB immigrant in the group was the very oldest and all subsequent BB burials seem to be born locally, spanning hundreds of years. Same goes for the BB Amesbury Archer (immigrant) and the "younger" BB archer (local). Of the subsequent Iberian migrations you mentioned, I've never read that any of them had a great impact on the population of Iberia. In fact, the reflux planoccipital brachycephalics seem not to have been too successful in spreading south of the Pyrenees.

I can't really speak for the influences on Ireland, but I would imagine that it is probably one of, if not the top place in all of Western Europe that experienced the least amount of Y-DNA turnover in the last 5000 years. You want to see a mess of Y haplogroups, look a the FTDNA Italy project and then also the autosomal DNA paper you posted above. :eek:

alan
05-08-2013, 12:45 PM
I understand that the possibility of seeing beakers early phase out of Iberia as a different people does cause problems explaining the distribution of R1b. However, almost all models create difficulties for some area or other. However, the contrast between the beaker culture in its earliest phases when it predominantly spread along the Med. with the later phases is pretty strong. I have no doubt though that there was an early phase of spread from Iberia associated with the maritime beakers, predominantly along the west Med. and probing into the fringes of the Alps. However, I do have significant doubts that they are the same people we see using beakers at a later phase and wonder if the wider story of the socio-lingusitic-genetic was in the 2nd phase after 2600BC and really relates to beakerised peoples. As I posted before this alternative is not without evidence given major changes seen in the secondary phase that draw beaker culture more in line with the pre-beaker copper age cultures of central Europe and north Italy. Many many archaeologists including even into the last few years have gone for variants in the model of a distinction between early beaker peoples and later beakerisedor hybrid peoples.

I do however also see value in the idea of a pre-beaker spread creating separate pre-beaker R1b nodes along the west Med. It does help some of the issues. On the other hand I have also seen now several papers that actually contrast the behavour and use of metal among pre-beaker copper using groups c. 3500-3000BC along the Alps, France and Iberia, suggesting they used metal in a different way than beaker groups and lacked some of their most important characteristics, instead using the metal for localised expressions of tribal identity (Alps, France) or for practical tools locally used (Iberia). The beaker phase does show a contrast to this in its expansive penetration of other cultures and ultimately the creation of materially expressed identities that were pan-European. There is a big difference and this is discussed in several recent articles. In that sense beaker more resembles the pre-beaker mega cultures like Corded Ware to the east. I am not saying that it derives from corded ware but in its developed phase the beaker culture is more like it than it is like the old pre-beaker localised copper age groups of west Med. and west Alpine Europe. So, for me there are some issues in seeing classic developed beaker culture (which is much more than pots) as a simple development of pre-beaker groups of the west Med. and west Alps.

Perhaps the early maritime phase was, as the French archaeologists describe, mainly enclaves looking to export or replicate goods from their Iberian homeland. Copper after all was probably more valuable outside Iberia then inside judging by the recent paper showing the ease of its winning and utilitarian use in Iberia. These groups, other than the copper, did tend to have what are essentially old western traits including collective burial in megaliths, archery etc. Even copper was well established and apparently more common and varied in the pre-beaker copper age groups in France for example and the latter may have actually excluded these migrants from the old ore sources. However, perhaps they did provide alternative sources of copper and copper goods which might have impacted the existing groups and diminished their prestige. Its all very complex but there are significant distinctions between pre-beaker copper age groups in the west, early maritime groups and developed beaker groups and all sorts of scenarios in terms of genes, languages etc are possible. As I posted before, the R1b guy at Kromsdorf has a surprisingly early date c. 2600BC and is part of a beaker site which includes classic beaker central/NW European beaker burial fashions as well as what seems to me to be slighly abherant burials and a woman who appears to have a corded ware type orientation. However, no orientation data was given for the R1b guys and the pot or cup in one of their graves was not described. Its a pity the paper did not include more archaeological analysis of the site, its finds etc as its early date and interesting mix of characteristics makes the presence of R1b males particularly interesting.

Jean M
05-08-2013, 01:28 PM
We can't just assume that every time we see a cultural expansion it is attributed to mass migrations. Some do, most don't. Once established in an area, there had to be local "big men" that contributed greatly to the local gene pool and produced novel subclades.

Agree entirely.


We see in the isotopes at Sion that the only BB immigrant in the group was the very oldest and all subsequent BB burials seem to be born locally, spanning hundreds of years.

The important point at Sion is that the newcomer was in the middle of BB, not the start. He was the brachycephalic chap who brought the new BB influence from North of the Alps, wasn't he? I have a vague idea that he was just assumed to be the first BB arrival until Harrison and Heyd revised the thinking on Sion.

alan
05-08-2013, 01:50 PM
I assume you are saying that DF27 must have been in the initial Beaker folks movements into Iberia or born soon after.

Why do you say the "a secondary movement produced ..."? What I mean is why can't there be 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. movements into Iberian from France that could have brought the DF27 in?

There may have been many migrations across the Pyrenees into Iberia but I can't say I know, other than probably the Basques came from Aquitaine, Celtic>Celtiberian, Urnfield also reached Spain, etc., etc. It could have secondary phase movements of people after the initial movements that completed to spread to all corners of Iberia, so to speak. I think that is what happened in Ireland. I don't think it was one fell swoop of initial Beaker folks. It looks like Gauls, Britons/Picts, Bretons, Belgae or what have you involved many waves of immigrants into Ireland and Scotland. Is there a reason we don't think that happened in Iberia?

I agree that the evidence of L21 subclades in particular does suggest that for a place like Ireland there was multiple movements between Ireland and Britain throughout prehistory and particularly the Bronze Age where R1b was likely involved. In fact that is very much in line with archaeological evidence and Mallory in his recent book essentially sees Ireland and Britain as constantly featuring population movements echoed by very close parallel developments in both countries. So yes I think the one fell swoop idea for Ireland anyway is not supported by either the DNA or archaeological evidence. Whether or not this pattern is common is not clear. It may be or a result of Ireland being an island and the last stop west and having a neighbour who is as little as 11 miles away (NE Ireland to SW Scotland) against the nearest part of the continent which is NW France about 30 times that distance (the nearest part of Iberia is 60 times the distance from the nearest part of Britain). So, putting historical baggage and poltics aside, its always been clear that Ireland was extremely close to Britain in prehistory and in constant conttact and closely mirroring each other culturally for most of the 8000 years of prehistory with only a few exceptions in the later Mesolithic (basically Ireland was isolated from the entire world) and Iron Age (when outside impact was modest and the culture very much an isolate and Irish-specific). So the pattern is essentially one of extremely close parallel development suggestive of constant human movement across the Irish Sea. That seems genetically echoed in the isles L21 subclades.

That said, I still think crucial nodes and early basal clades were established in pockets in the beaker period and that a basic pattern was established. The main evidence is the strong geographical pattern in the main DF27-U152-L21 divisions in Europe. So, I do think that some sort of basic first-in advantage was there but any such carve up into the three megaclade blocks does not mean that within these megaclade blocks that subclade lineages did not expand, contract, compete etc throughout prehistory. Also, even the major three blocks may have expanded and contracted depending on who controlled the power.

R.Rocca
05-08-2013, 02:14 PM
The important point at Sion is that the newcomer was in the middle of BB, not the start. He was the brachycephalic chap who brought the new BB influence from North of the Alps, wasn't he?

Correct, and with it an extreme cultural shift. In my opinion it is the differences between earlier P312 clades and younger P312 subclades. The latter ones would have arisen hundreds of years after the earliest BB folk and would have adopted new traditions based on their closest neighbors. I keep harping back to the fact that BB lasted a whopping 900 years and so traditions would have changed depending on many factors. Even the variability of those factors are likely different from region to region.

TigerMW
05-08-2013, 03:13 PM
... I'm not saying with certainty that they were, but I think the percentage is pretty well stacked in favor of Iberian BB being R1b, if nothing else because no subsequent migration into all corners of Iberia that can answer for it.

I do think the planoccipital brachycephalic support a secondary movement from Central Europe hundreds of years later. More than likely this secondary movement produced L21, U152+L2+ and U152+Z36+ and even early U106(xL48) branches.


... I think that is what happened in Ireland. I don't think it was one fell swoop of initial Beaker folks. It looks like Gauls, Britons/Picts, Bretons, Belgae or what have you involved many waves of immigrants into Ireland and Scotland. Is there a reason we don't think that happened in Iberia?


We can't just assume that every time we see a cultural expansion it is attributed to mass migrations. Some do, most don't.
I agree that not every cultural expansion is attributed to mass migrations, but I think we have to consider there were many, many expansions and migrations into and within Iberia. It is quite likely that R1b was carried in many of these one direction or another.

We should also not assume that a singular super expansion is needed to distribute Y DNA to all corners of Iberia.


Once established in an area, there had to be local "big men" that contributed greatly to the local gene pool and produced novel subclades. We see in the isotopes at Sion that the only BB immigrant in the group was the very oldest and all subsequent BB burials seem to be born locally, spanning hundreds of years. Same goes for the BB Amesbury Archer (immigrant) and the "younger" BB archer (local). Of the subsequent Iberian migrations you mentioned, I've never read that any of them had a great impact on the population of Iberia. In fact, the reflux planoccipital brachycephalics seem not to have been too successful in spreading south of the Pyrenees.

Remember, we are talking about Y DNA flow and related paternal associated productivity and survivability. There does not have to be immediate and dramatic changes to the population's skeletal structures. R1b types today can look very different in Sweden than in Italy. I'm just saying there is a long period of time where R1b types were probably on both sides of the Pyrenees with mobility between the too and within Iberia itself.


I can't really speak for the influences on Ireland, but I would imagine that it is probably one of, if not the top place in all of Western Europe that experienced the least amount of Y-DNA turnover in the last 5000 years. You want to see a mess of Y haplogroups, look a the FTDNA Italy project...

I just use Ireland as an example but it is also the Atlantic fringe. The more I examine L21 there in comparison to Britain the more apparent it is that many of the old Gaelic lineage types that think they've been there forever were on Britain (regardless of what they were speaking) prior to hitting Ireland. Meanwhile the most diverse types STR wise, but still showing some of the same SNPs are in France. It appears like there was a somewhat continual flow over the millennia. Of course this part of the Atlantic fringe is the Northwest Europe.

I'm not sure Southwest Europe would be all that different.... maybe not quite to this disagree of "safe haven" but Iberia is slightly off the core of the continent and separated by the Pyrenees. As the core of the continent continued in the mixing bowl, more and more R1b of some type from Gaul may have flowed over. It seems very plausible. Maybe we could think of the whole Atlantic Seaboard as place were many old Gauls (including pre-Gauls) either fled to, conquered or otherwise pooled to with less dilution than the continental core. Of course, a lot of DF27 could have moved from Gaul to Iberia. The Basques seem to be an historical example, but I definitely don't think people migration was stagnant other than the initial Bell Beaker spread and a lot of less visible smaller migrations may outweigh one large, early one.

I also agree that Italy is a totally different story. It's right in the cross-hairs of everything.

razyn
05-08-2013, 03:23 PM
As I posted before, the R1b guy at Kromsdorf has a surprisingly early date c. 2600BC and is part of a beaker site which includes classic beaker central/NW European beaker burial fashions as well as what seems to me to be slighly abherant burials and a woman who appears to have a corded ware type orientation. However, no orientation data was given for the R1b guys and the pot or cup in one of their graves was not described. Its a pity the paper did not include more archaeological analysis of the site, its finds etc as its early date and interesting mix of characteristics makes the presence of R1b males particularly interesting.

What the paper included (or didn't) and what the site excavation crew had to offer are probably wildly different. The journal may only have allowed a few photos of artifacts or remains in situ, but that doesn't mean there are no such photos, etc. When I was dabbling in historic site archaeology in the Delaware Valley about 40 years ago, I had pretty good success by contacting people who had dug a New Jersey site in the early 1950s. They still had their color slides, and were delighted that somebody else wanted to look at them. That sort of thing. With a few notable exceptions (such as "gag orders" imposed by employers, funders, commercial site developers), the people who have carried out a dig are eager to share their findings. Some people who were in an archaeology club (or class) around Kromsdorf probably know the answers to a lot of your questions. It might be worth the trouble to look them up.

alan
05-08-2013, 03:51 PM
What the paper included (or didn't) and what the site excavation crew had to offer are probably wildly different. The journal may only have allowed a few photos of artifacts or remains in situ, but that doesn't mean there are no such photos, etc. When I was dabbling in historic site archaeology in the Delaware Valley about 40 years ago, I had pretty good success by contacting people who had dug a New Jersey site in the early 1950s. They still had their color slides, and were delighted that somebody else wanted to look at them. That sort of thing. With a few notable exceptions (such as "gag orders" imposed by employers, funders, commercial site developers), the people who have carried out a dig are eager to share their findings. Some people who were in an archaeology club (or class) around Kromsdorf probably know the answers to a lot of your questions. It might be worth the trouble to look them up.

If there isnt a thorough record with scale drawings, context sequences, samples etc from a recent dig like that they need shot a dawn IMO lol. Usually archaeological excavation requires licensing of an appropriately qualified person by a government regulating body and the terms of the license include best practice techniques and a report being produced (although this is often delayed). if not, the person might be 'struck off' from doing any future work. I would imagine in a country like Germany its very unlikely that they dont have a system like that. The requirement for secrecy would be rare (except in terms of official publicity) and almost unheard of after a dig has finished except in very rare cases where something exceptional (usually gold or something precious) has been found that may attract dodgy unlicensed people with metal detectors who would plunder the site without care for the archaeological information contained in it.

alan
05-08-2013, 04:27 PM
What the paper included (or didn't) and what the site excavation crew had to offer are probably wildly different. The journal may only have allowed a few photos of artifacts or remains in situ, but that doesn't mean there are no such photos, etc. When I was dabbling in historic site archaeology in the Delaware Valley about 40 years ago, I had pretty good success by contacting people who had dug a New Jersey site in the early 1950s. They still had their color slides, and were delighted that somebody else wanted to look at them. That sort of thing. With a few notable exceptions (such as "gag orders" imposed by employers, funders, commercial site developers), the people who have carried out a dig are eager to share their findings. Some people who were in an archaeology club (or class) around Kromsdorf probably know the answers to a lot of your questions. It might be worth the trouble to look them up.

In the UK usual an interim report and ultimately a final report is a requirment of the holder of the archaeological license. I tried googling using German terms like Glockenbecker (bell beaker) and the site name but I couldnt find it. Even if I did my German is very limited.

Jean M
05-08-2013, 05:40 PM
Are we talking about Esther J. Lee et al., Emerging genetic patterns of the European neolithic: Perspectives from a late neolithic bell beaker burial site in Germany (http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22074), American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 148, Issue 4 (August 2012), pages 571–579? That was not an archaeological report. According to the paper, the actual excavation was carried out in 1994, and the skeletal remains were then stored at the Thuringian State Office for Archaeology and the Preservation of Historical Monuments. Since no published archaeological report is cited, I assume it was also deposited as a desk-top report. It is always frustrating when potentially interesting material is buried in grey literature, but the growing trend is to make such material available online. It may yet turn up.

What we do know from Lee 2012 is that there were radiocarbon dates from three burials, of which one was a male buried in BB fashion, North-south, on his left side. Two other burials were in the correct orientation for BB and there was a characteristic Bell Beaker (Glockenbecher) vessel. By contrast one female was in the correct position for Corded Ware. That burial was undated and so might I suppose belong to a different phase on the site. Or it is possible that she was a CW woman who had married into a BB group, and who had enough of her kin nearby to ensure her burial with CW rites.

R.Rocca
05-08-2013, 05:53 PM
I agree that not every cultural expansion is attributed to mass migrations, but I think we have to consider there were many, many expansions and migrations into and within Iberia. It is quite likely that R1b was carried in many of these one direction or another.

We should also not assume that a singular super expansion is needed to distribute Y DNA to all corners of Iberia.



Remember, we are talking about Y DNA flow and related paternal associated productivity and survivability. There does not have to be immediate and dramatic changes to the population's skeletal structures. R1b types today can look very different in Sweden than in Italy. I'm just saying there is a long period of time where R1b types were probably on both sides of the Pyrenees with mobility between the too and within Iberia itself.



I just use Ireland as an example but it is also the Atlantic fringe. The more I examine L21 there in comparison to Britain the more apparent it is that many of the old Gaelic lineage types that think they've been there forever were on Britain (regardless of what they were speaking) prior to hitting Ireland. Meanwhile the most diverse types STR wise, but still showing some of the same SNPs are in France. It appears like there was a somewhat continual flow over the millennia. Of course this part of the Atlantic fringe is the Northwest Europe.

I'm not sure Southwest Europe would be all that different.... maybe not quite to this disagree of "safe haven" but Iberia is slightly off the core of the continent and separated by the Pyrenees. As the core of the continent continued in the mixing bowl, more and more R1b of some type from Gaul may have flowed over. It seems very plausible. Maybe we could think of the whole Atlantic Seaboard as place were many old Gauls (including pre-Gauls) either fled to, conquered or otherwise pooled to with less dilution than the continental core. Of course, a lot of DF27 could have moved from Gaul to Iberia. The Basques seem to be an historical example, but I definitely don't think people migration was stagnant other than the initial Bell Beaker spread and a lot of less visible smaller migrations may outweigh one large, early one.

I also agree that Italy is a totally different story. It's right in the cross-hairs of everything.

All valid points, but the scope of this thread is about the distribution of R1b (DF27 vs. U152 vs. L21) in a BB context and really their cores are too far apart and too successful to not see very large migrations across great distances. That is a lot different than looking at smaller incursions flipping back and forth between Britain/Ireland, the French Pyrenees/Spanish Pyrenees or northern Alps/southern Alps.

alan
05-09-2013, 12:34 AM
Yep thats the paper and what you describe is about all I remember being given. I think though that one of the north-south male burials was on its right side which either means his head was to the south and facing east(the female way) or his head was to the north and he was facing west (not typical of either beaker or corded). A women was buried in classic Corded Ware style. However, the report gave no info on the positions of the two guys who were R1b.

I have to say it seemed poor to me that some sort of archaeological interpretation for that complex site was not given, especially when it has a mix of cultural indicators. If its like the UK, it should by now have had a final report and this may be buried in grey literature but the public here can certainly request to see it. In Ireland all (or most) excavations appear as written summaries in the annual excavations bulletin publication which includes an online version. If I googled a site name in Ireland its summary report would probably pop up at excavations bulletin. However, I have had no luck doing that for Kromsdorf. As you note grey literature is a problem but an even bigger one is long term rescue excavations where the developer has gone bust and there are no funds to do the post-excavation work and write up the report. There are several major excavations like that in Ireland.

TigerMW
05-09-2013, 04:52 AM
All valid points, but the scope of this thread is about the distribution of R1b (DF27 vs. U152 vs. L21) in a BB context and really their cores are too far apart and too successful to not see very large migrations across great distances. That is a lot different than looking at smaller incursions flipping back and forth between Britain/Ireland, the French Pyrenees/Spanish Pyrenees or northern Alps/southern Alps.

Okay, but we do lean in somewhat different directions on this. I just don't think we need to see a singular massive migration to account for R1b at such high frequencies along the Atlantic fringe. The flow may have been over a long period of time combined with higher productivity in a safer area than in the core of the continent where they saw more dilution/strife.

I think the general trend in direction was not back and forth but more west and west/southwest/northwest, or to the Atlantic and/or across the mountains to the "fringes." We call this the Copper and Bronze Ages but as far as Western Europe it might as well be considered the Italo-Celtic Age with some Pan-European network of folks that maintained a long period of advantage.

R.Rocca
05-09-2013, 12:53 PM
Okay, but we do lean in somewhat different directions on this. I just don't think we need to see a singular massive migration to account for R1b at such high frequencies along the Atlantic fringe. The flow may have been over a long period of time combined with higher productivity in a safer area than in the core of the continent where they saw more dilution/strife.

I think the general trend in direction was not back and forth but more west and west/southwest/northwest, or to the Atlantic and/or across the mountains to the "fringes." We call this the Copper and Bronze Ages but as far as Western Europe it might as well be considered the Italo-Celtic Age with some Pan-European network of folks that maintained a long period of advantage.

And I am not proposing one single massive migration either. There are at least two areas of expansion in the Maritime/Reflux theory and even within those, different migration paths (i.e. Atlantic France and Mediterranean France for Maritime, etc.).

alan
05-09-2013, 02:56 PM
The way I see it is that

1. Seperate crucial nodes or important position/zone/natural route were captured by the three main subdivisions of P312, each gaining first-in advantage in their respective areas. The numbers may have been small and concentrated in important nodes. I think this happened not terribly long after the P312 and around the time the three major P312 clade defining SNPs came into existence.In fact I imagine the fact these three clades survived is down to them finding a nice niche or node early on.

2. After that early carving up of Europe into blocks, the movement would tend to be internal within the blocks and therefore subclades of the same major clade division would tend to move internally creating patterning of subclades but retaining the basic early uber-clade divisions. This I think is partly down to the geography of the nodes and (as I posted in another thread) some clades (I am thinking L21 and DF27) may have gained an unshakable grip in maritime areas simply by developing maritime skills which would make them nearly impossible to challenge without gaining similar skills - not an easy thing to do for non-coastal groups. Other groups like U152 may have had other advantages that came naturally to people settled in Alpine and inland environments (maybe they had higher development of equestrine skills etc???). The isles had strong very early importance in terms of the network diffusing Ross Island copper and subsequently the rise of tin Bronzes which one would assume took place in SW England. The wealth of the western metals seems to have been especially concentrated among middlemen groups such as in Wessex.

It is also fair to say that a strong echo of this continued into the post-beaker Bronze Age with its pattern of strong links between the isles and the area between the Loire and the Rhine while to the east and south they were more linked into central Europe. Again this seems really to be geographical and logistical as there is no point in that area where the isles and the continent are not linked by a short boat journey (essentially with the channel being the final hop in the network). This probably extended up the rivermouths of the Loire, Seine etc as far as they were navigable. The cultural impression in Bronze Age post-beaker times does give the impression that once the Rhine was crossed this north Atlantic maritime power faded somewhat and looked more to central Europe.

That all said, the borders of these blocks were not writen in stone and ultimately were altered. I suspect that L21 was pushed back to the north-west on the continent by U152 and later by U106 (Germanic) just as it was in the isles. I suspect U152 made inroads at L21's expense in France, Belgium in the Urnfield and later periods. However, As L21 seems to have been a north-west maritime clade and may have been strongly coastal in Europe, I suspect that the real dent in it was made by U106 which expanded along the north coasts as far west as NE France. For example I suspect that it was strongest in the part of Belgium that is now Flemish rather than in the inland area that is now French speaking. So the Germanic expansion may have hurt L21 a lot more than U152. The indirect evidence that L21 once extended its area of strength considerable further east on the continent is that L21 is dominant even on the east coast of northern Britain. That seems unlikely to have happened in L21 on the continent had been concentrated in NW France.

TigerMW
05-13-2013, 03:50 PM
The way I see it is that

1. Seperate crucial nodes or important position/zone/natural route were captured by the three main subdivisions of P312, each gaining first-in advantage in their respective areas. The numbers may have been small and concentrated in important nodes. I think this happened not terribly long after the P312 and around the time the three major P312 clade defining SNPs came into existence.In fact I imagine the fact these three clades survived is down to them finding a nice niche or node early on.

2. After that early carving up of Europe into blocks, the movement would tend to be internal within the blocks and therefore subclades of the same major clade division would tend to move internally creating patterning of subclades but retaining the basic early uber-clade divisions. This I think is partly down to the geography of the nodes and (as I posted in another thread) some clades (I am thinking L21 and DF27) may have gained an unshakable grip in maritime areas simply by developing maritime skills which would make them nearly impossible to challenge without gaining similar skills - not an easy thing to do for non-coastal groups. Other groups like U152 may have had other advantages that came naturally to people settled in Alpine and inland environments (maybe they had higher development of equestrine skills etc???). The isles had strong very early importance in terms of the network diffusing Ross Island copper and subsequently the rise of tin Bronzes which one would assume took place in SW England. The wealth of the western metals seems to have been especially concentrated among middlemen groups such as in Wessex.
....

I have to think the advantage(s) the P312 folks had some commonality* across L21, DF27 and U152 just because they are so closely related and all three became and held dominance for a long period.

Given the different terrains - mountains, coasts, riverways, etc. - I don't think it could be just boating/sailing technology or just equestrian skills or what have you. I could see that metallurgy seems to be the most common thread appearing across these people. I guess I should say not just metallurgy, as that may have already been present, but apparently the Beakers brought some kind of significant advancement in metallurgy.

Somehow mobility/transportation is tied into this, though, as we end up with a far-flung Pan-European phenomenon. Perhaps the mobility/transportation is more about the desire to travel and the ability to map out and navigate.

This reminds of me of the IE short vidoes on YouTube that Richard S pointed out to us a year or two ago. The video made a point that new European culture had a notion of a king and you did what the king said.
There may be important social/religious agencies at work that are the key. Perhaps all of this was just no different than the Spanish, Dutch, English explorers of the Western Hemisphere... searching for metals and other goods, supported by a chieftain (king) back home and with a moral/spiritual inspiration and code to back it up. Literally, there was a command and control structure that was far advanced compared to the prior inhabitants' capabilities. Of course, via treaties and trade the prior people were just parts of the structure, although perhaps unwittingly.

* and probably U106 too.

razyn
05-13-2013, 04:17 PM
One of the newer papers about Bell Beakers commented on the fact that many of the things deposited as grave goods had in common that they were either shiny (metal or polished stone) or translucent. I wonder if their shaman class had found some method of detecting polarized light, that was helpful in long distance travel (by sea, or otherwise). This was way before the Viking era, when that sort of knowledge is documented. Just another WAG, as far as I'm concerned -- I'm not looking for argument about this detail. If they had it, it would have helped.

Joe B
05-13-2013, 06:25 PM
There may be important social/religious agencies at work that are the key. Perhaps all of this was just no different than the Spanish, Dutch, English explorers of the Western Hemisphere... searching for metals and other goods, supported by a chieftain (king) back home and with a moral/spiritual inspiration and code to back it up. Literally, there was a command and control structure that was far advanced compared to the prior inhabitants' capabilities. Of course, via treaties and trade the prior people were just parts of the structure, although perhaps unwittingly.

Another advantage the Old World explorers of the Western Hemisphere had was smallpox. Smallpox dramatically reduced the native population and their social structure.
The horse was a huge advantage. A man on a horse was a real game changer. Domestic equine gave greater mobility, could do work and an angry man on a horse could do real damage.
Is it possible that R1b and the Bell Beaker tribes had the advantage of infectious disease and the horse?

alan
05-16-2013, 10:42 PM
I have to think the advantage(s) the P312 folks had some commonality* across L21, DF27 and U152 just because they are so closely related and all three became and held dominance for a long period.

Given the different terrains - mountains, coasts, riverways, etc. - I don't think it could be just boating/sailing technology or just equestrian skills or what have you. I could see that metallurgy seems to be the most common thread appearing across these people. I guess I should say not just metallurgy, as that may have already been present, but apparently the Beakers brought some kind of significant advancement in metallurgy.

Somehow mobility/transportation is tied into this, though, as we end up with a far-flung Pan-European phenomenon. Perhaps the mobility/transportation is more about the desire to travel and the ability to map out and navigate.

This reminds of me of the IE short vidoes on YouTube that Richard S pointed out to us a year or two ago. The video made a point that new European culture had a notion of a king and you did what the king said.
There may be important social/religious agencies at work that are the key. Perhaps all of this was just no different than the Spanish, Dutch, English explorers of the Western Hemisphere... searching for metals and other goods, supported by a chieftain (king) back home and with a moral/spiritual inspiration and code to back it up. Literally, there was a command and control structure that was far advanced compared to the prior inhabitants' capabilities. Of course, via treaties and trade the prior people were just parts of the structure, although perhaps unwittingly.

* and probably U106 too.

There is no doubt that the beaker phenomenon indicates a deep change in societies. I agree that this would have been shared by all P312 and maybe also all L11. I dont see the clades as much different from each other. However, I think two out of the three big clades must have established predominantly maritime networks and that may explain the patterning we see. The question I ponder is whether a maritime skills base was strong from earlier in the R1b story or whether this was acquired from locals they settled among on the coast. Its hard to address this entirely satisfactoraly. L51XL11 does have a distribution which does look like the west Med. and inland rivers may have been important although I wouldnt want to overstate that. The recent L23* paper and other studies like the Bulgaria one do seem to point to the Black Sea as important and also draws some attention to a reasonable amount on the Aegean and south Adriatic coasts too.

TigerMW
05-17-2013, 05:24 PM
There is no doubt that the beaker phenomenon indicates a deep change in societies. I agree that this would have been shared by all P312 and maybe also all L11. I dont see the clades as much different from each other. However, I think two out of the three big clades must have established predominantly maritime networks and that may explain the patterning we see. The question I ponder is whether a maritime skills base was strong from earlier in the R1b story or whether this was acquired from locals they settled among on the coast. Its hard to address this entirely satisfactoraly. L51XL11 does have a distribution which does look like the west Med. and inland rivers may have been important although I wouldnt want to overstate that. The recent L23* paper and other studies like the Bulgaria one do seem to point to the Black Sea as important and also draws some attention to a reasonable amount on the Aegean and south Adriatic coasts too.

Do we know anything about the Maykops and their boating and navigation skills?

What do we know about the interaction of Maykops with the Steppes herders? One hypothesis is that the herders put pressure on the Maykops and caused the Maykops to disperse via the Black Sea out into the Mediterranean. Somewhere a long the line one expansion turns into the Bell Beaker folks or their predecessors.

alan
05-18-2013, 12:21 AM
Do we know anything about the Maykops and their boating and navigation skills?

What do we know about the interaction of Maykops with the Steppes herders? One hypothesis is that the herders put pressure on the Maykops and caused the Maykops to disperse via the Black Sea out into the Mediterranean. Somewhere a long the line one expansion turns into the Bell Beaker folks or their predecessors.

Where did you hear that hypothesis? Sounds very like a varient of the ones discussed in this hobby in terms of R1b spreading west.

Most of what I have read in recent papers is tending to put the emphasis on the influence of Maykop on the steppe, its role in the establishment of metallurgy (CMP) in the steppes (Urals) and its role in introducing ideas of hierarchy, Kurgans etc. I have tried to limit my reading on this to stuff within the last 5 years and I noticed most papers were tending to emphasise the south to north influence and the primacy of things like Kurgans in Maykop.

Of course both things could be true, with a phase of influence going south-north before pressure pushing back the other way. In fact I do recall reading something of that sort.

rms2
05-18-2013, 10:27 AM
My own feeling - and I could be wrong - is that U106 was not part of the Beaker phenomenon. I suspect U106 was born too far east and got swept up in the Corded Ware culture and that Beaker was primarily a P312+ development.

R.Rocca
05-18-2013, 12:29 PM
My own feeling - and I could be wrong - is that U106 was not part of the Beaker phenomenon. I suspect U106 was born too far east and got swept up in the Corded Ware culture and that Beaker was primarily a P312+ development.

I think that early branches of U106 had a very important role in BB, but only in the later reflux expansions that started around 2400 BC. The fact that haplogroups R1a, E, and I (predicted) have been found in Corded Ware makes it very unlikely that U106 was anywhere near the Baltic in the Copper Age.

rms2
05-18-2013, 12:56 PM
I think that early branches of U106 had a very important role in BB, but only in the later reflux expansions that started around 2400 BC. The fact that haplogroups R1a, E, and I (predicted) have been found in Corded Ware makes it very unlikely that U106 was anywhere near the Baltic in the Copper Age.

I was aware of the R1a at the Corded Ware site near Eulau, but where were E and I found among Corded Ware? Finding y haplogroup I in CW doesn't surprise me, but E does.

Last I heard, the greatest U106 variance was found in Poland. What makes you think U106 was nowhere near the Baltic when Corded Ware was ascendant there?

If the connection between Beaker and Italo-Celtic is accurate, I don't see U106 associated with it. It is too closely connected to Germanic languages and appears only to have moved west and south with Germans after 200 BC. This is one of the reasons for the U106- results for those two Beaker skeletons at Kromsdorf, in my opinion, in an area that is now probably predominantly U106+ but wasn't back then, especially in Beaker settlements.

R.Rocca
05-18-2013, 01:13 PM
I was aware of the R1a at the Corded Ware site near Eulau, but where was E and I found among Corded Ware? Finding y haplogroup I in CW doesn't surprise me, but E does.

Last I heard, the greatest U106 variance was found in Poland. What makes you think U106 was nowhere near the Baltic when Corded Ware was ascendant there?

If the connection between Beaker and Italo-Celtic is accurate, I don't see U106 associated with it. It is too closely connected to Germanic languages and appears only to have moved west and south with Germans after 200 BC. This is one of the reasons for the U106- results for those two Beaker skeletons at Kromsdorf, in my opinion, in an area that is now probably predominantly U106+ but wasn't back then, especially in Beaker settlements.

Corded Ware samples found here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440313000459

The Polish variance data point looks to be a red herring, possibly made up of different waves of U106 coming from different directions at different times. Kind of like doing a variance on P312 "All". The BB samples from Germany are dated earlier than the reflux migrations by a few hundred years. U106 in SW France, Iberia and Italy (all earlier BB areas) is much lower in L48 (a.k.a "Frisian marker") than in heavy Germanic areas.

Jean M
05-18-2013, 01:20 PM
I was aware of the R1a at the Corded Ware site near Eulau, but where were E and I found among Corded Ware?

Gworys 2013 in fact did not produce firm Y-DNA haplogroup designations from two young male skeletons at Jagodno, Wroclaw, Poland. One was possibly G, the other possibly J or I. See my aDNA compendium and bibliography. These were from an early CW site and may represent lineages from pre-CW, especially because they were young males who met (it seems) violent deaths after deprivation in early life. (The late TRB shows signs of conflict and population decline.)

rms2
05-18-2013, 01:36 PM
@Rich -

Don't you have to do an overall variance to get anything like an overall age for U106? I must admit I have not kept up with U106's growing plethora of subclades, but are you saying L48 is the only Germanic subclade of U106? I tend to think that Tacitus' division of the Germanic tribes could be reflected in their y-dna profile, with L48 a North Sea or Ingvaeoni group. Tacitus' other two classifications were Irminoni and Istvaoni.

We see differences in P312 profile among the Celts of the Continent and those of the Isles (and no doubt even finer tribal differences will show up between the subclades of L21 on the one hand and U152 and DF27 on the other). Why shouldn't we expect a similar sort of thing within Germans and U106? For example, the Lombards who settled in Italy were an Irminoni people rather than Ingvaeoni like the Frisians and Anglo-Saxons.

lgmayka
05-18-2013, 03:54 PM
Gworys 2013 in fact did not produce firm Y-DNA haplogroup designations from two young male skeletons at Jagodno, Wroclaw, Poland. One was possibly G, the other possibly J or I.
Here is what I wrote in another forum on February 27 regarding the Jagodno skeletons:
---
If I ignore P25 because of its unreliability, and also ignore IN/117 and SRY because I don't know what the authors are referring to, I find that the following haplogroups and subhaplogroups cannot be ruled out:

Both skeletons:
A, B, F, H, I, J, K1-K3, L, M, N(xTat,M128), S, T

Additional, skeleton 1:
G

Additional, skeleton 2:
E2, Q

It is foolish to rule out clades that are not common in Europe today, because the genetic landscape of Europe 4800 years ago may have been very different. Clades from 4800 years ago may well survive today only as mysterious traces. So besides G, I, and J, consider:

F, N1-P189.2, T, Q1a2, Q1a3
---

lgmayka
05-18-2013, 04:15 PM
The Polish variance data point looks to be a red herring, possibly made up of different waves of U106 coming from different directions at different times.
What specific evidence do you have for this? Our real problem is the absence of evidence either way: Many people whose ancestry comes from east of Germany are (let us say) less than thrilled to get a result of R1b-U106, precisely because it is popularly stereotyped as recent German admixture. Consequently, many such people promptly end their testing without ever determining their subhaplogroup.

Just yesterday, an Estonian was surprised to get a Geno 2.0 result of L257+ (which FTDNA calls R1b1a2a1a1a8). When I told him that the Polish-Lithuanian Project has two confirmed L257+ members, one Polish and one Lithuanian, he was happy to join my project (even though he's slightly out of my geographic range). Here they are with their first 47 markers:


N113458 Jaan Ruut, born circa 1915 Estonia R1b1a2a1a1a8 13 24 14 11 13 16 12 12 12 13 12 29 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 11 11 19 23 15 14 19 16 36 38 12 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10
162154 Franciskus Debesys, c. 1778-1818 Lithuania R1b1a2a1a1a8 13 25 14 10 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 28 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 15 16 17 10 11 19 23 16 15 17 18 38 38 12 12 12 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10
48671 Piotr Talanda, b.c.1800, Szczebrzeszyn, Poland Poland R1b1a2a1a1a8 13 25 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18 9 10 11 11 24 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 11 10 19 23 15 15 19 17 35 37 12 12 11 9 16 17 8 10 11 8 11 10

R.Rocca
05-18-2013, 05:12 PM
@Rich -

Don't you have to do an overall variance to get anything like an overall age for U106? I must admit I have not kept up with U106's growing plethora of subclades, but are you saying L48 is the only Germanic subclade of U106? I tend to think that Tacitus' division of the Germanic tribes could be reflected in their y-dna profile, with L48 a North Sea or Ingvaeoni group. Tacitus' other two classifications were Irminoni and Istvaoni.

The Karachanak paper found U106 oldest in Bulgaria, so go figure. When we group at such a high level it is easy to see variance magically jump around from country to country. Heck, I've even seen it jump from one corner of Europe to another!

Regarding L48, no, I'm not saying L48 is the only Germanic subclade of U106. What I am saying is that L48 seems to have expanded heavily at a certain point in time. I wouldn't even try to project which SNPs were in which Germanic speakers based on Tacitus' divisions as the answer is likely "all of them found in Northern and Central Europe today". That is the very point I was trying to make by bringing up Corded Ware. We were all shocked when they weren't all R1a, just like we were all shocked when the so called "Original Celts", the Urnfelders came out relatively low in R1b. I think we should all stop being shocked because by the time the Romans starting recording history, these haplogroups and subclades of haplogroups were likely heavily mixed. Let's not forget that the Romans themselves had a really hard time figuring out who was a Celt and who was Germanic.


We see differences in P312 profile among the Celts of the Continent and those of the Isles (and no doubt even finer tribal differences will show up between the subclades of L21 on the one hand and U152 and DF27 on the other). Why shouldn't we expect a similar sort of thing within Germans and U106? For example, the Lombards who settled in Italy were an Irminoni people rather than Ingvaeoni like the Frisians and Anglo-Saxons.

Again, we are talking about languages and cultures thousands of years after the first L11 expansion, so to project one singe subclade to a group of people does not make sense to me. I have no doubt that in the isles L21 was heavily Celtic, but can we really rule out that U152+L2 and U106(xL48) was not also Celtic in the isles?...or that there weren't early Norwegian L21 folks that spoke IE and within centuries of mixing with the locals did not wind up speaking a Germanic language, never to have uttered a Celtic word?

rms2
05-18-2013, 09:22 PM
I never thought Urnfield was the precursor to the Celts. That's an old, discredited notion.

I still cannot find any reason to believe that U106 had any part in Beaker; it just doesn't appear to have gotten far enough west and south in time. Regardless of the subclade trees obscuring the haplogroup forest, U106 has an overall distribution and an apparent correlation with historic speakers of Germanic languages.

I think much of the U152 in the Isles was Celtic: probably largely Belgic. I don't believe U106 in the Isles (or on the Continent) has any connection to the Celts, however, unless there was a bit of it already in the Belgic tribes via contact with the Germans, which I tend to doubt.

Of course, we can't rule anything out, and we don't know it all. When we speak of y haplogroups and ancient languages and cultures, one must generalize. It's impossible to say whether this or that specific U106 individual spoke what ancient language. But it is possible to look at the overall, broad distribution of U106 and, combining that with what we know of history, archaeology and linguistics, to make some generally true statements. I don't think U106 was here, there, and everywhere so long ago that it was Beaker and yet somehow became Germanic. It was closely connected to Germanic speech from very early on, that is my opinion.

As for L21 in Norway, the jury is still out on that. There were Beaker settlements in Norway, and those may account for some of the L21 there. If so, those early L21s may never have spoken fully-fledged Celtic, but they might have spoken its ancestor before going native.

alan
05-18-2013, 10:56 PM
I sort of think U106 may not have existed until its first phase of travelling was over. By that I mean I tend to think that a stray L11* line from western Europe or thereabouts headed into eastern Europe and settled there. I see U106 as occurring among an L11* group who had settled in eastern Europe a few centuries earlier. It is possible that the original L11* line was connected to beaker but I suspect as an outlier it may have not participated for long (if at all) in the Celtic language. It clearly was not of much importance until the U106 line was established and I do think its expansion west related to the spread of Germanic peoples.

TigerMW
05-24-2013, 03:10 PM
I copied this from the L21 sub-category. I have a follow-up question.


The difference in grave tradition between Ireland and Britain should not be overegged. Ireland has always been peculiar in terms of burials...

I have no problem with that, but we must then afford that same wiggle room in funerary and two-holed wrist guard traditions to Iberian BB, which quite often get classified as non-R1b by posters.

I'm sure we have a little bit of everything as far as hypotheses about the Bell Beakers but is there any logic for considering the Iberian Bell Beaker folks did not have R1b in them? I guess this is a consideration. This would be born out of Desideri's reflux theory and R1b came from the continent as a part of the reflux. Genetically, as far as R1b goes, then it would follow that the early Beaker pottery in Iberia was a red herring for R1b. I suppose the amount of L23xL51, L51xL11 and L11* in Portugal would be an important indicator, although not conclusive.

One view could be that L23xL51 and L51xL11 reached the Iberian Atlantic Coast by sea from a Southeast France launch point while the bulk of P312, particularly DF27, moved over land and cross the Pyrenees into the Iberian Peninsula. This is not really a bad alternative for considering DF27's spread in context of L21, U152 and U106. The DF27 potential map shows the North/Northeast of Spain as the heaviest potential for DF27 along with Southern France.

rms2
05-25-2013, 10:04 PM
One thing solid about the Beaker Folk we do have, and that is the ancient y-dna results from the Beaker site at Kromsdorf in Germany, circa 2600 BC. We know the two male skeletons at Kromsdorf were R1bXU106, one of them R-M269 at least; they could only squeeze an M343+ result out of the other one. I think that U106- result for both skeletons could be quite significant, given the notion, held by David Anthony, for one, and a number other scholars, that there was a connection between the Beaker Folk and Celtic or Italo-Celtic.

I know that doesn't resolve the question of Beaker origins, and the Kromsdorf site is about 300 years younger than the oldest radiocarbon-dated Beaker site in Portugal. But we do know there was R1b-NOT-U106 in Beaker by about 2600 BC and as far east and north as Kromsdorf, near Weimar in Thuringia in central Germany. And knowing something beats the heck out of guessing.

I wish we had some more anthropological data on the remains at Kromsdorf.

MJost
05-25-2013, 10:11 PM
One thing solid about the Beaker Folk we do have, and that is the ancient y-dna results from the Beaker site at Kromsdorf in Germany, circa 2600 BC. We know the two male skeletons at Kromsdorf were R1bXU106, one of them R-M269 at least; they could only squeeze an M343+ result out of the other one. I think that U106- result for both skeletons could be quite significant, given the notion, held by David Anthony, for one, and a number other scholars, that there was a connection between the Beaker Folk and Celtic or Italo-Celtic.

I know that doesn't resolve the question of Beaker origins, and the Kromsdorf site is about 300 years younger than the oldest radiocarbon-dated Beaker site in Portugal. But we do know there was R1b-NOT-U106 in Beaker by about 2600 BC and as far east and north as Kromsdorf, near Weimar in Thuringia in central Germany. And knowing something beats the heck out of guessing.

I wish we had some more anthropological data on the remains at Kromsdorf.

What SNP(s) did they test for? Could 4.6 ybp even had the first U106 yet? Only L11 would sort of let one conclude that fact, right?

MJost

rms2
05-25-2013, 10:18 PM
What SNP(s) did they test for? Could 4.6 ybp even had the first U106 yet? Only L11 would sort of let one conclude that fact, right?

MJost

As far as I know they only tested them for M343, M269, and U106. I think they went for U106 because the site is in U106-rich Germany; they may have been hoping to hit pay dirt. Those Beaker remains could have been L11* and no farther up the tree than that, I suppose. Too bad they didn't test them for P312, at least, but they probably only had so much y-dna to work with.

Isn't circa 4.6 ybp within the margin of error for U106? While I don't think L11 and its offspring are Paleolithic or even Mesolithic in Europe, I don't think we can or should put too fine an edge on age estimates.

rms2
05-25-2013, 10:27 PM
I have posted this elsewhere before, but here it is again. It was pointed out to me originally by Jean Manco. Part 2 is there at a link in the lower right, after you've watched Part 1.

Beaker Folk Video (http://videopediaworld.com/video/44732/Indo-Europeans-in-Northern-Europe-12)

razyn
05-25-2013, 10:57 PM
we do know there was R1b-NOT-U106 in Beaker by about 2600 BC and as far east and north as Kromsdorf (second set of italics mine).

Also, I would remind everyone, as far west and south as Kromsdorf. In that we have zero R1b that early from anywhere else in Europe, and no good reason to think it got there from Iberia. Pottery, maybe si; R1b, no. The lady potters were not R1b, whatever else they may have been (such as Portuguese, or Siberian, or whatever).

I'm just sayin'.

rms2
05-25-2013, 11:05 PM
(second set of italics mine).

Also, I would remind everyone, as far west and south as Kromsdorf. In that we have zero R1b that early from anywhere else in Europe, and no good reason to think it got there from Iberia. Pottery, maybe si; R1b, no. The lady potters were not R1b, whatever else they may have been (such as Portuguese, or Siberian, or whatever).

I'm just sayin'.

That's a good point. My remark, as far east and north as Kromsdorf, was meant in light of the current thinking that the Beaker culture is oldest in Iberia, due to the radiocarbon results from Zambujal in Portugal (about 2900 BC).

We don't know what the y-dna at Zambujal was, but we do know what it was at Kromsdorf.

Anthony mentions that the Csepel Beaker site in Hungary has been dated to about 2800 BC. That's not far behind Zambujal, so who knows?

razyn
05-25-2013, 11:19 PM
Really I'm just yanking Rich's chain again -- feel like it's my duty. (Dirty work, but somebody has to do it.) Also, I think he's one of the good guys, here.

I don't know what haplogroup(s) of males was (were) in Portugal in 2900 BC. Might have been, or included, R1b (or even DF27) for all I know; but that's an easy assumption, and based on pretty thin evidence -- not an established fact. We'll see.

rms2
05-25-2013, 11:30 PM
I don't know the answer; that's why I posted about Kromsdorf: it's nice to have something we do know about. Some of the package, like the distinctive pots, might have come out of Iberia, while other aspects of the package, including the R1b y-dna, might have come out of the East.

I like the potential of ancient y-dna results.

I just wish they could get further up the tree from the root than M269. A P312+ result at Kromsdorf would have been splendid and a signal to break out the really good beer. :beerchug:

Webb
05-26-2013, 12:01 AM
I don't know the answer; that's why I posted about Kromsdorf: it's nice to have something we do know about. Some of the package, like the distinctive pots, might have come out of Iberia, while other aspects of the package, including the R1b y-dna, might have come out of the East.

I like the potential of ancient y-dna results.

I just wish they could get further up the tree from the root than M269. A P312+ result at Kromsdorf would have been splendid and a signal to break out the really good beer. :beerchug:

And because its bell beaker we are talking about, it could have been all about the beer.

razyn
05-26-2013, 12:03 AM
A P312+ result at Kromsdorf would have been splendid and a signal to break out the really good beer.

In that regard, I heard a radio discussion today about a new one called 80 Acre Ale, from Kansas City. Sort of a hoppy hefeweizen... I think you brew your own, so that's just one direction of many one might take. But it sounded like a good idea, especially with spicy grilled seafood. And we live near Chesapeake Bay.

Our glorious leader may perceive this remark as off-topic, so read it while you can... Anyway, if I could drink some 80 Acre from a Bell Beaker, I certainly would.

rms2
05-26-2013, 12:14 AM
In that regard, I heard a radio discussion today about a new one called 80 Acre Ale, from Kansas City. Sort of a hoppy hefeweizen... I think you brew your own, so that's just one direction of many one might take. But it sounded like a good idea, especially with spicy grilled seafood. And we live near Chesapeake Bay.

Our glorious leader may perceive this remark as off-topic, so read it while you can... Anyway, if I could drink some 80 Acre from a Bell Beaker, I certainly would.

Me too! I once tried to find some Beaker-style cups for sale on the internet, but was unsuccessful.

I do have two really nice drinking horns from Dagestan (yes, Dagestan) hanging on the wall in my computer room, right below my picture of Blarney Castle. The two horns look just like the Celtic ones. I don't drink from them, though. They're souvenirs.

alan
05-26-2013, 12:44 AM
I certainly think there is a possibility that R1b only met beaker in central Europe or the Alps. I am a believer that there may not be a single beaker people. I dont know for sure but there are regionally as many differences as similarities between groups who used beaker pottery. The pottery type could even have been spread by female lines, females often being credited with making pottery in the Neolithic. Beaker users tended to use a mixture of international and local aspects in their burial traditions for example. The actual traditions often look like spins on local pre-existing ones (sometimes odd spins) in each area although encorporating international symbols like beakers, arrows, bracers, knives etc. Its not surprising that happened given that beaker lineages must have been very much tiny minorities among local populations and this kind of thing is almost inevitable. That of course makes population movement details incredibly hard to infer. I would say this though - many of our ideas of the beaker people come from the phase from 2600BC onwards where beaker pots reached central Europe and not from the early west Med. phase. That is why the possibility that there were several beaker peoples has to be considered. Kromsberg is interesting. It contained both a classic central European male beaker burial and a corded ware style female burial as well as other ones of atypical traditions or not published. Its a real shame its not been published in detail because its a very interesting site.

razyn
05-27-2013, 04:51 AM
I once tried to find some Beaker-style cups for sale on the internet, but was unsuccessful.

There is this guy: http://www.crumbleholme.plus.com/Beakerfolk/pottery/beakers-beakerfolkpottery.htm# I haven't had much luck finding his price list, though. I did find extended discussion of a commission he executed last winter for the Museum of Somerset, making copies of three beakers found in 1907 in the Wick Barrow. Those would hold some serious quaffs: http://archaeologyathinkleypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/spn_5171.jpg

A more fine-art [i.e. elitist] approach is taken by this other person, but I don't think the Bell Beakers per se have caught his fancy. Prices are prominently displayed, and high: http://venetiancat.com/CELTIC-IronAge.htm

rms2
06-16-2018, 12:03 PM
Please delete. A too-early-in-the-morning error.