Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 139

Thread: The Kurgan Bell Beaker People

  1. #21
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,773
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    Apparently not to Czebreszuk, who not only listed them as a CW variant but said they were among the variants "solidly grounded" in the literature on the subject.

    As I said above, lack of steppe dna does not change a culture's classification. If it did, then early Iberian BB would have to be called something else.
    It was always considered as a very peculiar one off sort of culture probably made up of multiply influences. Very unique burial monuments. Material culture has much GAC roots as well as CW influences. It’s a pretty localised culture though. I have heard it described as a kind of missing link transition between GAC and CW but I’ve personally always thought of it as a GAC group under CW influence. I understand it has Baden links too. It never looked like a group that beaker was rooted. Anyway ancient DNA makes it another one of those farmer cultures that was taking on steppe influences but not genes -like several have proved to be in that era from east-central Europe to at least north Italy c 3500-2900BC.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     rms2 (07-19-2019),  Silesian (07-20-2019)

  3. #22
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    11,814
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Ethnicity
    British and Irish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-DF41>FGC36981
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2c3a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-DF27>DF83
    mtDNA (P)
    K1a1

    Wales Ireland Scotland France Bretagne England Switzerland
    Well, like GAC and Remedello, both of which Gimbutas thought were Kurgan or kurganized cultures.

    Kurganized I guess.
     


    Hidden Content


    Y-DNA: R1b-L21> DF13> Z39589> DF41> FGC5572> BY166> FGC36974> FGC36982> FGC36981

    Additional Data:
    Lactase Persistent:
    rs4988235 AA (13910 TT)
    rs182549 TT (22018 AA)

    Red Hair Carrier:
    Arg160Trp+ (rs1805008 T) aka R160W

    Dad's mtDNA: K1a1

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to rms2 For This Useful Post:

     alan (07-20-2019)

  5. #23
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,773
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    I’m short on time so does anyone have a summary of the y DNA by period? Did they get much prehistoric yDNA?

  6. #24
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    11,814
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Ethnicity
    British and Irish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-DF41>FGC36981
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2c3a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-DF27>DF83
    mtDNA (P)
    K1a1

    Wales Ireland Scotland France Bretagne England Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    I’m short on time so does anyone have a summary of the y DNA by period? Did they get much prehistoric yDNA?
    I'm not sure what you mean, but thus far the y-dna from both GAC and Remedello has been I2a. No steppe dna in either.
     


    Hidden Content


    Y-DNA: R1b-L21> DF13> Z39589> DF41> FGC5572> BY166> FGC36974> FGC36982> FGC36981

    Additional Data:
    Lactase Persistent:
    rs4988235 AA (13910 TT)
    rs182549 TT (22018 AA)

    Red Hair Carrier:
    Arg160Trp+ (rs1805008 T) aka R160W

    Dad's mtDNA: K1a1

  7. #25
    Registered Users
    Posts
    301
    Sex
    Location
    Haifa
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & Slavic
    Nationality
    Israel & Russia
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a1b - S17250
    mtDNA (M)
    R0a4
    mtDNA (P)
    T2b5a

    Israel Israel Jerusalem Russian Federation Serbia Montenegro
    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    As I said above, lack of steppe dna does not change a culture's classification. If it did, then early Iberian BB would have to be called something else.
    As for early Iberian BB, it should have been called something else.
    In many cases defining an archeological culture" by pottery works fine, but not in this case.
    Differences in burial traditions are just one of examples of important cultural differences between two groups of Bell Beakers.

    About Zlota group I will quote the supllementary material of the same article (R.Rocca gave you the link).

    A special case is the so-called Złota group, which emerged around 2,900 BCE in the
    northern part of the Małopolska Upland and existed until 2,600-2,500 BCE. Originally
    defined as a separate archaeological “culture” (15), this group is mainly defined by the rather
    local introduction of a distinct form of burial in the area mentioned. Distinct Złota settlements
    have not yet been identified. Nonetheless, because of the character of its burial practices and
    material culture, which both retain many elements of the GAC and yet point forward to the
    Corded Ware tradition, and because of its geographical location, the Złota group has attracted
    significant archaeological attention (15, 16).
    At the same time, the Złota niche grave practice also retains central elements of the
    GAC funerary tradition, such as the frequent practice of multiple burials in one grave, often
    entailing redeposition and violation of the anatomical order of corpses, and thus differs from
    the catacomb grave customs found on the steppes which are strongly dominated by single
    graves.
    I have no doubt, that there were scientists that called Zlota group a local variant of CWC. But you can see, there is no consencus here.

    Zlota group cannot be called part of SGBR. Even if we put aside mainline GAC, Zlota group people had significant cultural differences from CWC people. The fact that these groups of people didn't intermarry, only underlines the importance of cultural differences between those two groups of people.

    P.S. If I remember it well GAC/Zlota males are all 100% I2a-L801. There was a link on AG to results of semargl (I hope I remember it well), who re-checked some CWC aDNA and found some I2a-L801 in CWC also.

  8. #26
    Registered Users
    Posts
    325
    Sex

    Greece
    Quote Originally Posted by rms2 View Post
    Speaking of the multitude of Venus figurines from the Neolithic farmer cultures of Old Europe and the likelihood they represent a mother goddess cult, it seems to me Gimbutas gets condemned as a wacky feminist mostly by people who have not read what she wrote, especially her book, The Civilization of the Goddess, which amassed a huge amount of evidence. Gimbutas was not always right, but she was mostly right, and she was way ahead of her time during a period in which her ideas were laughed off by the anti-migrationist, immobilist crowd. She may have gone too far with the "peaceful Neolithic hippies" thing, but she didn't just make it all up.

    Read her books for yourself.
    There are 'Venus figurines' in Paleolithic Europe too, the oldest is Venus of Hohle Fels, 40.000 to 35.000 thousands years ago.
    So,those who first made 'Venus figurines' had a 'WHG' autosomal profile, right? But we don't say that 'WHGs' had a Mother Godess cult or that they were matriarchal. Why is that?

    The people of 'Old Europe' could have inherited the practice of making Venus figurines from the people of Epigravettian, Gravettian, Aurignacian etc.
    Last edited by Kanenas; 07-20-2019 at 12:44 AM.

  9. #27
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    11,814
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Ethnicity
    British and Irish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-DF41>FGC36981
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2c3a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-DF27>DF83
    mtDNA (P)
    K1a1

    Wales Ireland Scotland France Bretagne England Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by Kanenas View Post
    There are 'Venus figurines' in Paleolithic Europe too, the oldest is Venus of Hohle Fels, 40.000 to 35.000 thousands years ago.
    So,those who first made 'Venus figurines' had a 'WHG' autosomal profile, right? But we don't say that 'WHGs' had a Mother Godess cult or that they were matriarchal. Why is that?

    The people of 'Old Europe' could have inherited the practice of making Venus figurines from the people of Epigravettian, Gravettian, Aurignacian etc.
    I think one has to look at the totality of the evidence, which includes more than just the large number of Neolithic Venus figurines in Old Europe, coupled with what we know of the ancient mother goddess cult among agricultural peoples in historical times. A lot has to be inferred from what is historically known to what is unknown, which is really the only way we can say anything about the religious practices of prehistoric peoples. What we think we know of early Indo-European religion is inferred from linguistics and what we know of the religions of later Indo-European peoples.

    Gimbutas amassed a large amount of evidence regarding the mother goddess cult of the Old Europeans. Rather than trying to repeat everything she wrote, I recommend you try reading it for yourself.
    Last edited by rms2; 07-20-2019 at 11:42 PM.
     


    Hidden Content


    Y-DNA: R1b-L21> DF13> Z39589> DF41> FGC5572> BY166> FGC36974> FGC36982> FGC36981

    Additional Data:
    Lactase Persistent:
    rs4988235 AA (13910 TT)
    rs182549 TT (22018 AA)

    Red Hair Carrier:
    Arg160Trp+ (rs1805008 T) aka R160W

    Dad's mtDNA: K1a1

  10. #28
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    11,814
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Ethnicity
    British and Irish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-DF41>FGC36981
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2c3a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-DF27>DF83
    mtDNA (P)
    K1a1

    Wales Ireland Scotland France Bretagne England Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by artemv View Post
    As for early Iberian BB, it should have been called something else.
    I agree with that. But, since it wasn't, I think we need separate titles for early Iberian BB and SGBR BB, which is why I call the latter "Kurgan Bell Beaker".

    Quote Originally Posted by artemv View Post
    In many cases defining an archeological culture" by pottery works fine, but not in this case.
    Differences in burial traditions are just one of examples of important cultural differences between two groups of Bell Beakers . . .
    I agree, but, unfortunately, that's not what happened with Bell Beaker, and at this point we're coping with over a hundred years of calling that culture after a pot/drinking vessel.

    Quote Originally Posted by artemv View Post
    I have no doubt, that there were scientists that called Zlota group a local variant of CWC. But you can see, there is no consencus here.
    I don't see that at all. What I see is you attempting to nitpick me about Złota. Here is what I think about that:

    1) I listed Złota among Corded Ware variants based entirely on what Janusz Czebreszuk, a Polish professor of archaeology, wrote in his article, "Corded Ware from East to West". Czebreszuk said his list was composed of the variants "solidly grounded" in the literature on the subject. Sounds like he was basing it on some kind of expert consensus reflected in the Corded Ware literature with which he is familiar. I relied on his judgment, not my own, since I am no expert on Złota or on Corded Ware in general.

    2) Perhaps ancient dna results should be a factor in the classification of cultures, but, since the names of most prehistoric cultures predate practicable ancient dna testing, that's not the case, and there would always be individual exceptions to the genetic rule anyway. In this case, we have a subgroup that is apparently regarded as belonging to Corded Ware but which thus far has no steppe dna. Ancient dna is supposed to tell us something about ancient cultures. In this case it is telling us that not everyone in every CW subgroup had steppe dna. Apparently Corded Ware was not a genetic monolith. That shouldn't be a big surprise, since Corded Ware is a cultural horizon that covered a vast area.

    3) My Google Slides presentation is entitled, "The Kurgan Bell Beaker People", not "The Złota People". The name Złota appears once in the whole presentation, on Slide 18 in the list of Czebreszuk's CW subgroups. That's where it will remain.

    So, yeah, you're nitpicking. I'm not going to change the entry, because it isn't something I made up myself but is rather solidly based on something a very knowledgeable expert wrote on the subject. If I do anything with it, I might add to the end note a word about the ancient dna test results for however many (or few?) Złota individuals there were.

    Quote Originally Posted by artemv View Post
    Zlota group cannot be called part of SGBR. Even if we put aside mainline GAC, Zlota group people had significant cultural differences from CWC people. The fact that these groups of people didn't intermarry, only underlines the importance of cultural differences between those two groups of people.
    I don't know who you are beyond a guy probably named Artėm, so for now I'll go with what Janusz Czebreszuk wrote. He's the expert, and he included Złota in his list of Corded Ware variants.

    You are entitled to your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by artemv View Post
    P.S. If I remember it well GAC/Zlota males are all 100% I2a-L801. There was a link on AG to results of semargl (I hope I remember it well), who re-checked some CWC aDNA and found some I2a-L801 in CWC also.
    Thanks for that. I knew that GAC males were thus far all I2a.
    Last edited by rms2; 07-20-2019 at 12:57 PM.
     


    Hidden Content


    Y-DNA: R1b-L21> DF13> Z39589> DF41> FGC5572> BY166> FGC36974> FGC36982> FGC36981

    Additional Data:
    Lactase Persistent:
    rs4988235 AA (13910 TT)
    rs182549 TT (22018 AA)

    Red Hair Carrier:
    Arg160Trp+ (rs1805008 T) aka R160W

    Dad's mtDNA: K1a1

  11. #29
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,773
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    An interesting thing (which I kind of knew already but it emphasises) in the recent book on beaker settlement edited by Alex Gibson is that there are only some areas where you get 'pure' bell beaker settlement sites. Interestingly the isles is one of them. I mean pure in that the pottery and other cultural material in settlement sites is usually not mixed with that of other cultures. That tallies with the ancient DNA evidence that (for some reason) the beaker people in the isles didnt mix much with locals. They didnt mix with locals much in settlements and they didnt seem to mix much with them in burial traditions.

    The opposite is true in SW Europe where many settlement sites that are called bell beaker period settlements actually only have a minority (sometimes a very small minority) of beaker pot mixed in with other local cultures. Again that also correlates with the ancient DNA evidence that beaker people in SW Europe were heavily admixed with the locals. Ancient DNA evidence tends to indicate that genetically local people had adopted beaker pot and settlement evidence often shows beaker pottery was floating about in groups who were largely using other local pottery types.

    Pre-2500BC Iberian beaker is still hard to understand and IMO the dating is still very dubious. It needs a very close review to modern standards where little trust is put in solitary RC dates. On the surface it looks to me like there was a phase where the locals simply adopted a pot type that looks like its derived from some CW or single grave prototype but otherwise didnt change material culture a lot. But then again you do get settlement sites where a specific area of it seems to be set aside for the beaker pot users and there are suggestions of it being associated with metal working parts of sites. The key problem in truly understanding the strange phenomenon of the two phases of beaker in Iberia (a non steppe one and a P312 steppe one) is trusting the dating and the contexts in the normally jumbled multi-layer settlements and burial monuments.

    Its tempting to apply Furholt's recent paper's concept that there is a disjunction between the burial and settlement evidence and steppe elements may have arrived but stayed initially on the fringes of native society and have minimal impact on the settlements of the era (other than some non-local pottery sherds) until a few generations later when the intruders started to take over in earnest. That might explain why the earliest beaker phase in Iberia consists (apparently - I dont trust the dates) of largely local native looking settlement sites (with just a few beaker sherds among mostly local pottery or with beaker pot segregated in one area of a site) and burials in local style collective tombs but with some beaker pottery and local farmer type DNA. In other words beaker elements were about on the fringes, lightly interacting with the local Iberians but it is only the locals we see in the burial and much of the settlement monuments before 2450BC when the P312 guys living on the fringes started to take over the local's burial monuments and inserting individualised burials of P312 men.
    Last edited by alan; 07-20-2019 at 02:18 PM.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (07-20-2019),  rms2 (07-20-2019)

  13. #30
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    11,814
    Sex
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Ethnicity
    British and Irish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-DF41>FGC36981
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2c3a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-DF27>DF83
    mtDNA (P)
    K1a1

    Wales Ireland Scotland France Bretagne England Switzerland
    On Slide 39 of my presentation I mention an idea I think I first heard from you, Alan, that is, that Neolithic Iberians copied CW pots they acquired at Le Grand-Pressigny while there trading for flint.

    Since they probably did not know how to make cord impressions on their home-grown versions of those pots, early Iberian beaker pots lack such impressions. That was one of the reasons Sangmeister cited for his reflux theory.

    That would explain the antiquity of beaker pottery in Iberia. It's a dead end line with no real genetic (genetic in the figurative, pottery sense) connection to Kurgan Bell Beaker pottery. Instead, KBB drinking vessels descend directly from Corded Ware AOC and AOO vessels, just like van der Waals, Glasbergen, and Lanting thought.

    Some ancient y-dna from Dutch and nearby Corded Ware might provide the answer.
     


    Hidden Content


    Y-DNA: R1b-L21> DF13> Z39589> DF41> FGC5572> BY166> FGC36974> FGC36982> FGC36981

    Additional Data:
    Lactase Persistent:
    rs4988235 AA (13910 TT)
    rs182549 TT (22018 AA)

    Red Hair Carrier:
    Arg160Trp+ (rs1805008 T) aka R160W

    Dad's mtDNA: K1a1

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rms2 For This Useful Post:

     anglesqueville (07-20-2019),  JMcB (07-20-2019)

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bell Beaker R1b-L21
    By rms2 in forum R1b-L21
    Replies: 578
    Last Post: 09-11-2019, 11:35 PM
  2. Bell Beaker and V
    By JonikW in forum V
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-08-2019, 09:08 AM
  3. Z2103 in Bell Beaker
    By rms2 in forum R1b-Z2103/Z2105
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-24-2018, 10:03 PM
  4. L2 in Bell Beaker
    By Jean-Pierre in forum L2
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-21-2018, 11:22 PM
  5. R-L21+ = Bell Beaker?
    By evon in forum R1b-L21
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-08-2015, 08:47 AM

Posting Permissions

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