Pre-Beaker R1b in the Isles - can we rule it out?

[sweuro]

I suppose pre-R1b British Isles was similar to France or Spain (western Europe) before R1b , that is : G2a, I2, some E-V13, F, and some C.

[Jean M]

Thanks Jean,
My point is that cremation was in the Isles before Beaker arrived. In the early and middle Bronze Age there appears to be 'battles of ideology' between the Beaker single grave burials under barrows and the cremations under barrows - clearly two different groups of people.

Our problem here is that cremation was among the various ways that the early farmers of Britain and Ireland disposed of their dead, but it was not the most common way, let alone the invariable way. Likewise cremation appears among Bell Beaker groups as early as c. 2700 to 2400 BC in the Carpathian Basin, but was not the most common type of burial rite across the whole Bell Beaker world. So if we are going to argue for two different groups of people in the British Isles in the Bell Beaker period, we need more than just cremation vs burial.

If we didn't know Beaker was P312 it would be a fair conclusion that Beaker was a passing fad

A passing fad that lasted 1000 years and spread over half of Europe?

[Net Down G5L]

So if we are going to argue for two different groups of people in the British Isles in the Bell Beaker period, we need more than just cremation vs burial.

I will copy my old post that explained this:

"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......... "

[Joe B]

Interesting spread of R-P25. anyone know how reliable the * status is of those in these FTDNA projects?

A R1b tree root was created by smal recently. R1b Y-DNA tree (root). March 9, 2015

There is one interesting sample sequenced by Estonian Biocentre



I found it forms new subclade under L278. It shares several SNPs with
FTDNA-267597 (Raza/Varanasi, India) and
bhu-0984 (Bhutan) from Hallast et al. 2014.



See the detaled tree here.

[Net Down G5L]

I suppose pre-R1b British Isles was similar to France or Spain (western Europe) before R1b , that is : G2a, I2, some E-V13, F, and some C.

Thanks sweuro,
So who of these people may have 'rearranged' the Megalithic monuments c 3000BCE...and why??

Anybody have any suggestions??

[Jean M]

There is a convenient extract from this copyright article on the web at:

Page seems to have gone AWOL.

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.

Right. So we are actually talking about two lots of BB people, and not farmers vs BB, as your previous post suggested.

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

A number of persons including myself and Andrew Fitzpatrick of Wessex Archaeology* have argued in print for some early BB (c. 24000 BC) arrivals down the Atlantic route from Iberia. I suggested (AJ) that they could have carried R1b-DF27. These people seem to have been overwhelmed numerically by the BB movements down the Rhine increasing from 2200 BC. Fitzpatrick refers to the Wessex/Middle Rhine type. I suggested (AJ) that the Rhine route BB could have carried R1b-L21. I discussed in AJ the evidence at Sion in the Alps of the hostility between these 'clans', or at least of the determination of the Danube/Rhine group to prevail over the Iberian group. (From the Harrison and Heyd 2007 paper you mentioned.)

* A. P. Fitzpatrick, The arrival of the Bell Beaker Set in Britain and Ireland’ in J.T Koch and B. Cunliffe (eds), Celtic from the West 2. Rethinking the Bronze Age and the arrival of Indo-European in Atlantic Europe, Oxford, Oxbow/ Celtic Studies Publications XVI (2013), 41-70.

[Net Down G5L]

A number of persons including myself and Andrew Fitzpatrick of Wessex Archaeology* have argued in print for some early BB (c. 24000 BC) arrivals down the Atlantic route from Iberia. I suggested (AJ) that they could have carried R1b-DF27. These people seem to have been overwhelmed numery the BB movements down the Rhine increasing from 2200 BC. Fitzpatrick refers to the Wessex/Middle Rhine type. I suggested (AJ) that the Rhine route BB could have carried R1b-L21. I discussed in AJ the evidence at Sion in the Alps of the hostility between these 'clans', or at least of the determination of the Danube/Rhine group to prevail over the Iberian group. (From the Harrison and Heyd 2007 paper you mentioned.)

* A. P. Fitzpatrick, The arrival of the Bell Beaker Set in Britain and Ireland’ in J.T Koch and B. Cunliffe (eds), Celtic from the West 2. Rethinking the Bronze Age and the arrival of Indo-European in Atlantic Europe, Oxford, Oxbow/ Celtic Studies Publications XVI (2013), 41-70.

Yes, I tend to agree with that except I thought P312 or U152 as more likely the Rhine group.

But the story is full of complexities. If DF27 arrived in the west as single burial Beaker - why did they change to cremation under barrows...... and 'battle' with eastern beaker for territorial control? Also who were the 'cremation people' who were already there? And what happened to them?

I do not see a simple answer - so I still have it as an 'outstanding issue'.

I have not read Fitzpatrick in Celtic from the West 2 as I found Celtic from the West (1) interesting but slightly disappointing. Is (2) worth purchasing?

[rms2]

Of course, this is modern distribution, but if one looks at the frequency of U152 in Britain from Busby et al, he sees its highest frequency in SE England and its relative paucity elsewhere. It does not look like a clade that arrived in much force as long ago as the Copper Age or Bronze Age with the Beaker Folk. U152 looks like it might have arrived with the Belgae and then received subsequent shots with the Romans and perhaps even the Anglo-Saxons. Actually, one could say pretty much the same thing about DF27, if one interprets the P312xL21,U152 in Busby to be mostly DF27.

This thread is a bit confusing. I thought its subject was the possibility of pre-Beaker R1b in the Isles, but now it seems to have switched to early Beaker R1b versus later Beaker R1b.

If it is actually about pre-Beaker R1b in the Isles, then I doubt there was any, otherwise it would be turning up at Neolithic and earlier sites on the Continent, unless one wants to argue the Els Trocs R1b1-M415 is more significant than it seems to be.

[Jean M]

But the story is full of complexities. If DF27 arrived in the west as single burial Beaker - why did they change to cremation under barrows.

Let's call the two BB groups 'Atlantic' and 'Rhine' for the routes of arrival. Why do you think that the Atlantic group adopted cremation? That runs counter to the summary you just gave:

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: Altantic= inhumation; Rhine = cremation (at least in this small part of England, itself only part of the vast BB territory).

Also who were the 'cremation people' who were already there? And what happened to them?

If you are talking about the Neolithic farmers of Britain (for whom cremation was just one option), they were in decline before the arrival of BB. Cereal farming had ceased. The BB people seem to have gradually overtaken the remainder numerically, as they had a more efficient economy and could therefore out-breed the earlier farmers.

[rms2]

On the "I would like to elaborate on three of them in this new thread: 1 cremation; 2 later Neolithic Megalithic monuments; and 3 Neolithic meso/brachycephal remains.

2. Megalithic - 're-arrangement 3000BCE'
I find it very difficult to pin down an accurately dated sequence for Megalithic monuments. The literature is just too contradictory - menhirs, passage graves, gallery graves, dolmens etc.
I will start with just one sub-issue. Who "re-arranged the monuments" at about 3000BCE?
I attended the Prehistoric Society conference in London earlier this month. Alison Sheridon, Colin Richards and Josh Pollard made interesting comments about re-arranged monuments. Alison talked briefly about the Orkney elite introducing solar aligned monuments in Orkney c 3200-2900. Colin referred to La Hougue Bie on jersey as a composite monument made up of dismantled earlier monuments brought together to make a new monument about 3000BCE. He also described the Ring of brodgar, Stenness circle and Maeshowe as amalgams of earlier monuments on Orkney. Josh Pollard talked of 'renewed monument building' at Stonehenge c. 3000BCE and also cremation burials at the same time.
So who were the Neolithic people who rearranged older monuments, possibly worshiped a sun god and possibly practiced cremation rituals. Can we rule out R1b?

The question I would ask is: Is there any real good reason to rule in R1b?

Honestly, I can't see one.