alan
09-03-2016, 05:11 PM
It would be interesting if the current pattern of no L11 in central European corded ware continues while U106 was present in the battle axe variant in northern Europe and the Nordic Bronze Age afterwards. I know people have put ifs and buts into the U106 battle axe guy due to a relatively late date and some peculiarities in the burial BUT lets just say for now that this pattern is confirmed.
If so then what could be in northern European battle axe CW variant that isnt in the core central European CW from Poland to the Rhine? I considered a Globular Amphora substrate but that really doesnt work - it didnt make it to Scandinavia and if anything its impact should be bigger on east-central European CW not the http://journal.topoi.org/index.php/etopoi/article/viewFile/182/212
I personally think its still an open question as to whether U106 was in corded ware at all. The other option is that U106 was a small beaker line that hit the big time in a kind of founder effect in one isolated area in northern Europe and nowhere else. If that happened it would be a parallel with the way L21 probably crossed the English Channel and found what was virgin territory for metallurgists with no competition - hence a huge founder effect. The most obvious parallel to that would be if U106 found a virgin maritime territory with no rivals in coastal north Germany or even coastal Poland and Scandinavia. I seriously dount that could have happened in central Europe in general because we know that P312 lines dominated that area in beaker times.
The key to such a model for U106 is similar to L21 - it couldnt have happened until a group linked to U106 (beaker or not) had acquired or could access decent maritime transport. Once the latter had been achieved by a group, it might have unlimited domination over an area only or most easily accessed by sea. That seems to be what happened with L21 IMO. I suspect the same may have happened with U106.
Certainly ancient DNA to date would support the model of U106 being an eastern version of L21 - i.e. a beaker lineage which acquired maritime skills that inland groups like U152 could do nothing to challenge. In Europe east of the Rhine, this could only really work in a Scandinavian (or v close) context where maritime power is really vital - arguably the only place other than the isles where maritime transport is so crucial. The ancient DNA does appear to show the appearance of U106 in the beaker period in Scandinavia and its importance thereafter. The beaker culture and the beaker period is more of wooly in and adjacent to Scandinavia as there is a complex blending with battle axe cultural traits.
Anyway, I want to further flesh out a model of L21 in the north-west and U106 in Scandinavia and 'Germanic Europe' as parallel north European founder effects by beaker groups who acquired or developed maritime technology/skills that their inland bros didnt. All we know is the isles by definition require decent maritime skills for a continental group to move into. The plank-sewn boats in Britain dont survive until the immediate post-beaker era but it probably provides a hint that boat improvement may have been worked on for some time before and likely originated in a skin boat tradition. The Scandinavian boat tradition seems to have a different origin stemming from log boats that seems to gradually develop from the Neolithic to the early historic era.
So we are not talking about a pan-beaker boat type. IMO in all probability the beaker groups who crossed the northern seas likely acquired boats seaworthy enough to cross those choppy seas from people who were already there - probably traders who were responsible for the pre-beaker high status object trade in the Neolithic which is well attested and which clearly involved maritime skills. A central European group with steppe genetics doesnt just suddenly become a skilled sailing group and its unthinkable that they wouldnt have sought to team up with experienced mariners who had been plying rough northern seas to trade status goods since the time of the first farmers there. Nevertheless the beaker period and the coming of regular copper use made trading a bit more important than it had been in the Neolithic - no other way of getting copper (and later Bronze) and there is a paper that sees the beaker period as one of an upsurge in investment in maritime technology.
After a founding phase by L21 groups crossing the English channel and my hypothetical U106 one on the coasts further east, first-in advantage and genetic founder effect, there is no reason to think those two groups rule of the searoutes would ever be wrestled off them. Indeed these two groups dominated their respective areas of the Northern seas until they met each other in the migration period.
NB- The details or frequency or even modern variance of current distribution on U106 in 'Germanic' Europe is not important to this model. We know there have been huge upheavals over the last 4000 years and ancient DNA trumps all of that
If so then what could be in northern European battle axe CW variant that isnt in the core central European CW from Poland to the Rhine? I considered a Globular Amphora substrate but that really doesnt work - it didnt make it to Scandinavia and if anything its impact should be bigger on east-central European CW not the http://journal.topoi.org/index.php/etopoi/article/viewFile/182/212
I personally think its still an open question as to whether U106 was in corded ware at all. The other option is that U106 was a small beaker line that hit the big time in a kind of founder effect in one isolated area in northern Europe and nowhere else. If that happened it would be a parallel with the way L21 probably crossed the English Channel and found what was virgin territory for metallurgists with no competition - hence a huge founder effect. The most obvious parallel to that would be if U106 found a virgin maritime territory with no rivals in coastal north Germany or even coastal Poland and Scandinavia. I seriously dount that could have happened in central Europe in general because we know that P312 lines dominated that area in beaker times.
The key to such a model for U106 is similar to L21 - it couldnt have happened until a group linked to U106 (beaker or not) had acquired or could access decent maritime transport. Once the latter had been achieved by a group, it might have unlimited domination over an area only or most easily accessed by sea. That seems to be what happened with L21 IMO. I suspect the same may have happened with U106.
Certainly ancient DNA to date would support the model of U106 being an eastern version of L21 - i.e. a beaker lineage which acquired maritime skills that inland groups like U152 could do nothing to challenge. In Europe east of the Rhine, this could only really work in a Scandinavian (or v close) context where maritime power is really vital - arguably the only place other than the isles where maritime transport is so crucial. The ancient DNA does appear to show the appearance of U106 in the beaker period in Scandinavia and its importance thereafter. The beaker culture and the beaker period is more of wooly in and adjacent to Scandinavia as there is a complex blending with battle axe cultural traits.
Anyway, I want to further flesh out a model of L21 in the north-west and U106 in Scandinavia and 'Germanic Europe' as parallel north European founder effects by beaker groups who acquired or developed maritime technology/skills that their inland bros didnt. All we know is the isles by definition require decent maritime skills for a continental group to move into. The plank-sewn boats in Britain dont survive until the immediate post-beaker era but it probably provides a hint that boat improvement may have been worked on for some time before and likely originated in a skin boat tradition. The Scandinavian boat tradition seems to have a different origin stemming from log boats that seems to gradually develop from the Neolithic to the early historic era.
So we are not talking about a pan-beaker boat type. IMO in all probability the beaker groups who crossed the northern seas likely acquired boats seaworthy enough to cross those choppy seas from people who were already there - probably traders who were responsible for the pre-beaker high status object trade in the Neolithic which is well attested and which clearly involved maritime skills. A central European group with steppe genetics doesnt just suddenly become a skilled sailing group and its unthinkable that they wouldnt have sought to team up with experienced mariners who had been plying rough northern seas to trade status goods since the time of the first farmers there. Nevertheless the beaker period and the coming of regular copper use made trading a bit more important than it had been in the Neolithic - no other way of getting copper (and later Bronze) and there is a paper that sees the beaker period as one of an upsurge in investment in maritime technology.
After a founding phase by L21 groups crossing the English channel and my hypothetical U106 one on the coasts further east, first-in advantage and genetic founder effect, there is no reason to think those two groups rule of the searoutes would ever be wrestled off them. Indeed these two groups dominated their respective areas of the Northern seas until they met each other in the migration period.
NB- The details or frequency or even modern variance of current distribution on U106 in 'Germanic' Europe is not important to this model. We know there have been huge upheavals over the last 4000 years and ancient DNA trumps all of that