Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 158

Thread: A deeper think about beakers in Britain and R1b DNA "from the West"

  1. #21
    Registered Users
    Posts
    364
    Sex
    Location
    aka Maabof @ Dorset, UK
    Ethnicity
    2.5% Neandertal 97.5%Frog
    Nationality
    English
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-L21 FGC5494 A1308
    mtDNA (M)
    K2a

    Hi alan, great to exchange with you. I have really enjoyed trying to catch up with all your posts ...it took me mths of intensive reading!

    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    Some of his ideas like Celtic speaking passage tomb builders for instance are borderline mad. I also think its important to remember that Koch, of great interest though he is, is pushing a minority theory not a mainstream one. Many linguists doubt that Tartessian was originally Celtic. The idea that Celtic developed out of Lusitanian also seems lunatic fringe to me. They were parallel languages, not ancestor and descendant.
    Many people called Alfred Wegener mad when he put forward his theories of continental drift. I did not stop him being right.

    So what language did the passage tomb builder use? And what is the evidence for it?
    I have seen so many different versions of Indo-European language trees and so many different dates...I am no expert to judge which could and could not be correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    The archaeology of Atlantic Iberia shows a very long period of disconnect with the rest of the future Celtic speaking world between the beaker and Atlantic Bronze Age period at- at least 2200-1000BC. Indeed Atlantic Iberia was a late addition to the later Atlantic network of the Late Bronze Age, not the originator of it and it also soon broke off again after just a couple of centuries.
    I think you miss my point. I specifically refer to the Megalithic Superhighway as it was clearly of great importance during the pre-beaker period. Look at any distribution map of megalithic culture / dolmens etc. Iberia was clearly part of an important maritime network before the development of the beaker culture. I am not argueing that it was the centre/most important part of the network. Or that the maritime network did not wane during periods of the Bronze Age. I am also equally open to the idea of maritime contacts to Liguria. I am only saying I can see no reason to reject the possibility of Iberia, France, the Isles, Netherlands, Denmark having maritime links at the start of the Beaker period - and no reason to reject the possibility of ideas, pottery, skills, people/DNA moving at that time.


    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    Iberia's role in the Atlantic Bronze Age was one of joining late and leaving early a networking which had existed for centuries before and continued for a while after Iberia's brief participation. Read 'The Atlantic Iron Age; book for a detailed analysis of this - and that is from an author who is into the Atlantic thing to a degree that seems unwarranted at times. He really shows that the Atlantic zones role was often to put its own spin on central European ideas, usually in northenr France and the isles, before transferring them through the isles along the channel and down the western seaways of France. Iberia was just a late southern extension of this and appears to really be in the main a receiver of ideas and metal from the north Atlantic (via Altantic France) rather than anything else. Now I understand more about how this worked, the only possible role I would give Iberia in this is that it is possible that Celtic reached NW and SW Iberia from NW France through those contacts. leaving the more archaic beaker-relic Lusitanian dialect in between.
    Basically I think Celtic as a distinct dialect probably really slowly converged from earlier Italo-Celtic dialects of the beaker period and that this happened first in the contact zone between Unetice, NW France and the Isles from 2000BC onwards and was probably a constant process with no sharp beginning or end. That triangle of elite contacts between those areas was still the main one in the Late Bronze Age. I have very little doubt that Celtic emerged over a wide area of elite contact in central and NW Europe and went though 1000 years of evolution and convergence. At some point in this evolution the shifts that linguists define Celtic by took place although that is in a sense an arbitrary concept of linguists because shared evolution continued for long after that as we can see by the way the Q-P shift could spread without much migration.
    My own view is that looking at the Iron Age is looking too late (that is a period of refinement). Most discussion on recent threads points to R1b becoming very established in the Isles during the Bronze Age - and I agree with that.

    Before we reject Cunliffe out of hand... what is the evidence against:
    - a proto celtic language existing on the west coast (Megalithic Superhighway) before 2000BC (lets call it an early form of Q Celtic or insular celtic for the sake of arguement)
    - P312 expanding somewhere in France having adopted the language.
    - son DF 27 heading south in to Spain/Iberia and expanding to dominate the DNA.
    - son L21 heading north and expanding in the Isles - with Celtic - and expanding to dominate the western Isles DNA
    - son U152 heading East in to the Alps and North to meet corded ware people somewhere round the Rhine (and perhaps developing the P celtic dialect or continental Celtic).
    - at a similar time brother U106 could have been slowly heading South (from Northern europe) - possibly mixed in with corded ware peoples.

    So could the early maritime beakers include some P312 DNA among others. Say with some E3b1a2 specialist metalworkers from the Balkans (sorry Razyn) thrown in (Oppenheimer 2010)?


    Please feel free to call me mad....but I would prefer it if you gave me some evidence against the above first.
    Last edited by Net Down G5L; 10-22-2013 at 06:11 PM.

  2. #22
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,292
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard A. Rocca View Post
    Just a word of caution about L11*, as its presence may be a red herring of sorts. From the 500 male samples from the "Genome of the Netherlands" study:

    L11+...........n=270
    ........U106+...........n=165
    ........P312+...........n=93
    ........DF100+.........n=12

    So, previously L11(xU106,P312) in the Netherlands is not a diverse group of L11* and the study tells us that with the inclusion of DF100, true L11* frequency in that study is ZERO. L11(xU106,P312) in the ht35 project looks to be WAMH-ish.
    Yes, that is what I meant by L11* is hard to differentiate. It could easily blend in as another subclade under P312 rather than beside it. Busby's study concludes that S127 (L11) as a whole showed no significant diversity clines across Europe. I have to agree. I guess "parachuting in" could cause that but I don't think that is the most likely. Busby used the term "localized origin" if I remember in reference to L21, U152, U106, etc. I guess that is what they thought happened after the parachuting.

  3. #23
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    2,068
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    DF27, FGC15733
    mtDNA (M)
    T2f3

    Mike W was suggesting that "three sons and a brother of Mr. P312" scenario about 2 1/2 years ago, just before Z196 was named. I think they were Ricardo, Richard (probably pronounced the French way), Reichardt... something like that. It was posted on DNA-forums and went bye-bye, as far as I know. Ultimately it had to do with the ages of the several large L11 clades, appearing to converge almost at a point.

    Btw the Google Doodle today is about "parachuting in."
    Last edited by razyn; 10-22-2013 at 04:38 PM.

  4. #24
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,798
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Ethnicity
    Italo-Iberian
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152+L2+FGC10543
    mtDNA (M)
    H4a1-T152C!

    United States of America Italy 1861-1946 Spain
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    Yes, that is what I meant by L11* is hard to differentiate. It could easily blend in as another subclade under P312 rather than beside it. Busby's study concludes that S127 (L11) as a whole showed no significant diversity clines across Europe. I have to agree. I guess "parachuting in" could cause that but I don't think that is the most likely. Busby used the term "localized origin" if I remember in reference to L21, U152, U106, etc. I guess that is what they thought happened after the parachuting.
    Of interest in the GoNL data, the counts show that there are two L51(xL11) samples that are not derived for Z2115, which has been found in every L51(xL11) sequence in the 1KG, PGP and Francalacci datasets (Tuscany, Sardinia, Puerto Rico, and USA).
    Paternal: R1b-U152 >> L2 >> FGC10543 >> PR5365, Pietro Rocca, b. 1559, Agira, Sicily, Italy
    Maternal: H4a1-T152C!, Maria Coto, b. ~1864, Galicia, Spain
    Mother's Paternal: J1+ FGC4745/FGC4766+ PF5019+, Gerardo Caprio, b. 1879, Caposele, Avellino, Campania, Italy
    Father's Maternal: T2b-C150T, Francisca Santa Cruz, b.1916, Garganchon, Burgos, Spain
    Paternal Great (x3) Grandfather: R1b-U106 >> L48 >> CTS2509, Filippo Ensabella, b.~1836, Agira, Sicily, Italy

  5. #25
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,292
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by razyn View Post
    Mike W was suggesting that "three sons and a brother of Mr. P312" scenario about 2 1/2 years ago, just before Z196 was named. I think they were Ricardo, Richard (probably pronounced the French way), Reichardt... something like that. It was posted on DNA-forums and went bye-bye, as far as I know. Ultimately it had to do with the ages of the several large L11 clades, appearing to converge almost at a point.

    Btw the Google Doodle today is about "parachuting in."
    I think someone else used the term "Mr. P312" and I did not intend to convey the sons and brother thing literally, if that is the terminology I used.

    Based on the likely close GDs, I was trying to convey it more in terms of a DNA clan project. It would be like seeing a group of people on your matches screen and in your subgrouping with some surname variants of yours. The advanced testers might have been noted as having newly discovered private SNPs like U152, L21, L2, etc. It would have been the the L11 clan, apparently big in the transportation business and prolifically successful.

    The part why I think they were not likely parachuted in is their diversification and long surviving growth in several places. I'm thinking about the early European explorers/settlers as an analogy. The explorers and traders might have been hailed by some natives, and massacred by others or first one then the other. They might not have even been well suited for the climates. Transportation is all about logistics and it is when the logistical chains and defense outposts were well in place that I think population growth and migration could have been more prolific. In other words, population growth is more about the settlers than the explorers. The first colonizers probably didn't hang on in many places. It was the large migrations that mattered.

    Don't we see the same thing in England? It was hard for elites to make a big dent in the population in places like France, named for the Franks. Meanwhile, the constant and large flow of Anglo-Saxon types, commoner folks, into England actually did make a difference.
    Last edited by TigerMW; 10-22-2013 at 07:31 PM.

  6. #26
    Registered Users
    Posts
    364
    Sex
    Location
    aka Maabof @ Dorset, UK
    Ethnicity
    2.5% Neandertal 97.5%Frog
    Nationality
    English
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-L21 FGC5494 A1308
    mtDNA (M)
    K2a

    Archaeology

    I would like to introduce the second theme of the title of this thread. - the archaeological evidence in Britain.

    I was motivated to post in the forum by your discussions about the Harrison/Heyd paper in the initial deeper think about beakers and DNA thread. I was struck by some of the similarities with a study in Wessex and thought I should share it with you. So more of that below - but I would just like to set the Wessex scene for those of you who may be less familiar with the area and its archaeology:

    Wessex is an area in central southern England. It contains Stonehenge, Avebury and a spectacular array of other Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments. Wessex is located on the eastern side of an apparent (pre-beaker) Neolithic east west divide. For example, to the east we find grooved ware pottery and to the west we find stone circles (see maps in Cunliffe p195, Britain Begins). Wessex is an area of 'overlap' (or interaction?) with both grooved ware and (occasional) stone circles. The famous blue stones of Stonehenge were transported from the west side of the divide (Wales) to the east side/area of overlap/interaction. It was certainly an area of complex activity in the period before the beakers arrived.
    When the beakers arrived it was a also complex affair. Cunliffe suggests four divisions in the practices of beaker groups arriving (see map page 210 Britain begins):
    • some maritime bell beakers, wedge tombs in the far west (similar to Amorica),
      maritime derived beakers with tumulus burials in Wessex
      finger nail and incised beakers with tumulus burials north of the Thames
      all over corded beakers north of the wash

    I put this forward as general context for the detailed study I will refer to in my next post.
    Last edited by Net Down G5L; 10-23-2013 at 11:30 AM.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Net Down G5L For This Useful Post:

     Anglecynn (10-23-2013)

  8. #27
    Registered Users
    Posts
    364
    Sex
    Location
    aka Maabof @ Dorset, UK
    Ethnicity
    2.5% Neandertal 97.5%Frog
    Nationality
    English
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-L21 FGC5494 A1308
    mtDNA (M)
    K2a

    This is an extract from your recent discussion on the Harrison/Heyd (2007) paper Transforming Europe in the Third Millennium BC" - that prompted me to start posting:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    This map is eerily reminds me of a general's battle plan. It appears that about 2425 BC is the timeframe for a change. This is important as c say,
    "The Bell Beaker A1 phase, and its swift transition to the A2 period, is the moment when the burial and cult activity of the complex is redefined. The early Bell Beaker activity is confined strictly to the primary monument M VI, where there is continuity with the Final Neolithic burials.
    ...The Beaker phase A2 is the climax of activity on the site,
    ...shift takes place at the beginning of the middle Beaker phase A2a, and the geographical connections are aligned in a different direction entirely. At this time the people at Sion were linked to the Bell Beaker East Group, as is shown quite clearly by the special finds which all have links to the east.
    ...Within two generations, another significant change takes place at both sites. This is the destruction horizon around 2425 BC,.
    Was something very similar happening in England at about the same time...

    You are probably all familiar with Mike Parker Pearson's recent accounts of the changes that took place at Stonehenge and Durringon Walls at this time.
    However, I guess you have probably not come accross Andrew Martin's account of anomolies in Wessex barrows: ( Martin, A. 2008 ‘The Alien Within: the forgotten subcultures of Early Bronze Age Wessex’ in Jones, A. and G. Kirkham (ed.s) Beyond the Core: reflections on regionality in prehistory, Oxford: Oxbow Books)

    There is a convenient extract from this copyright article on the web at:
    http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/caah/la...f_barrows.html

    I suggest you may like to read the section " A Specific Analysis of Barrows" on that web page.

    My simple summary....
    In short the first clan of beakers arrived and build simple barrows with inhumations. Then a second 'Wessex' clan arrived - put their cremation burials in to the top of the older barrows and built their own 'posh, Wessex' saucer and bell barrows nearby. The first beaker clan then retaliated and put their own inhumations in to the top of some of the 'posh' barrows.

    So who were these clans, when did they arrive, and what type(s) of DNA dominated the people in each clan?

    Well of course no-one is looking at ancient DNA of these burials yet. So there is plenty of time for anyone who wishes to speculate.........

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Net Down G5L For This Useful Post:

     Jean M (10-23-2013),  TigerMW (10-24-2013)

  10. #28
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,292
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    The first part of this post got off track on Corded Ware so I moved it over here. The 2nd half of the post is left intact.
    ....
    ... mentioned there is very little "Central European Bell Beaker influence in Atlantic France." Is that also true for northern/northwestern France along the Atlantic and English Channel? I don't know. This is a good area to investigate and right up the alley of this particular thread. This is the hotbed area for L21.

    I don't think Bell Beakers in Great Britain can be considered "Early Bell Beakers" as those of Iberia and perhaps of southern France. Bell Beakers (people) are not Bell Beakers are not Bell Beakers. There well may have been regional and time frame differences. The Bell Beaker folks of Britain showed up more like the 2400-2000 BC timeframe, several hundred years after the Yamnaya reached the Hungarian Plains. This is also several hundred years after metallurgy in Iberia and the start of the Early Bell Beakers in Iberia.

    This is probably a great time to dig up an Amesbury Archer discussion.

    The importance of the finds in Wessex Archeology online.
    Perhaps the most significant fact about the Archer is that he was from the Alps region.
    ...
    Dr Andrew Fitzpatrick, of Wessex Archaeology, said: 'This was a time of great change in Britain – the first metals were being brought here from abroad and great monuments such as Stonehenge were being built.
    We have long suspected that it was people from the continent of Europe who initiated the trade that first brought copper and gold to Britain, and the Archer is the first discovery to confirm this.
    He would have been a very important person in the Stonehenge area and it is fascinating to think that someone from abroad – probably or Switzerland, Germany or Austria – could well have played an important part in the construction of Britain’s most famous archaeological site.' ”
    http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects...her_finds.html

    I'm not trying to say the Eastern Bell Beakers reached the Atlantic intact. If the Y DNA traveled that direction, it may have been in a variant culture by the time it reached Britain, i.e. Rhenish type folks or even something more closely recognizable as Proto-Celtic.
    Last edited by TigerMW; 10-23-2013 at 08:00 PM. Reason: Grammar and fixed quote

  11. #29
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,292
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Here are a couple of other dots that were connected trade-wise, and might have genetic connections too.

    "The Únětice culture had trade links with the British Wessex culture. Unetice metalsmiths mainly used pure copper; alloys of copper with arsenic, antimony and tin to produce bronze became common only in the succeeding periods. The cemetery of Singen is an exception, it contained some daggers with a high tin-content (up to 9%). They may have been produced in Brittany, where a few rich graves have been found in this period. Irish tin was widely traded as well, a gold lunula of Irish design has been found as far south as Butzbach in Hessen (Germany). Amber was traded as well, but small fossil deposits may have been used as well as Baltic amber."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unetice_culture

  12. #30
    Legacy Account
    Posts
    7,362
    Sex
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Nationality
    British
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    United Kingdom
    @ Net Down G5L

    Thank you for pointing out that interesting publication. The switch in political power c. 2425 BC within BB that Harrison/Heyd detected at Sion would have had long distance implications. It indicates that power centres north of the Alps (Eastern Bell Beaker) had come to predominate over those in Iberia. I had assumed that there would be repercussions in the British Isles, but had not seen any study that detected rival BB groups there hitherto.

    If I am interpreting aright, some of the earliest BB arrivals in Britain and Ireland would have arrived up the Atlantic route and would have been speaking a variety of Italo-Celtic close to PIE itself. Later the bulk of arrivals would have come along the Rhine route and be speaking something closer to Celtic. I theorize that the Atlantic group might carry DF27. The Rhine group I expect carried L21.

    However we must bear in mind that there were probably rivalries even with the thrusting Rhine group. Their Celtic descendants were seldom united.
    Last edited by Jean M; 10-23-2013 at 05:13 PM.

Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-30-2019, 02:58 PM
  2. "Roman DNA" "Anglo-Saxon DNA" "Viking DNA"
    By RandomUsernameGuy in forum General
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 12-23-2018, 07:25 PM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-30-2017, 09:51 PM
  4. "Digging for Britain" - Merlin's Cave Herefordshire.
    By JohnHowellsTyrfro in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-07-2016, 12:42 PM
  5. North West Asian "Stan" People.
    By Ian B in forum General Sociology/Ethnology
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 05:14 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •