search this blog

Friday, December 2, 2016

Bell Beaker behemoth coming real soon


Interesting post here by author Jean Manco. Emphasis is mine:

Reporting back on the lecture on Bell Beaker by Volker Heyd this evening in Dorchester. The expected two aDNA papers on Bell Beaker have been delayed for the best possible reason. The two teams, one from Harvard and the other from Copenhagen, have agreed to amalgamate their results into one huge paper, which will give the results of over 200 samples. It is due to be published in a couple of months. Until then all the results are embargoed. Volker Heyd would only say that they are exciting.

He would also prefer me not to divulge everything he said at the lecture on the archaeological side, since he has a paper coming out in the March issue of Antiquity on Bell Beaker; while in the same issue will be one by Kristiansen on Corded Ware. So I'll be brief. He went through the various theories of the origins of Bell Beaker: the Dutch model prevalent until the 1990s, the change wrought by the Muller and Van Willigen radiocarbon date compilation of 2001 and subsequent publications of early dates in Iberia, the various attempts to make sense of an Iberian origin. The problem of the latter and of the idea of a North African origin are the same in his view. There is no prior usage of cord in pottery decoration of either. So he sticks by the Yamnaya link to a pre-BB culture proposed in Harrison and Heyd 2007. The icing on the cake lies in two significant new discoveries, which are not entirely published as yet.

See also...

The man with the flat occiput

Population genomics of Early Bronze Age Europe in three simple graphs

101 comments:

Samuel Andrews said...

"So he sticks by the Yamnaya link to a pre-BB culture proposed in Harrison and Heyd 2007."

This makes sense. A local Western European origin never made sense considering the genetic makeup of German Bell Beaker. Yamnaya being an ancestor of BB probably means Steppe ancestry was all over the Atlantic coast of Europe in 2300 BC.

Gioiello said...

Davidski, I am here. Hope that this ha-tiqwah of Sam Huelsenrath ends like the mt H32 found in aDNA of Natufians and Iranians (clearly come from Western Europe, very likely from Italy).

Ryan said...

Any idea what the geographic distribution of the samples are?

Davidski said...

No discussions about Sam Huelsenrath thanks.

Gioiello said...

@ Rob

If the new findings had confirmed previous theories, there wouldn't have been any surprise. Imagine something related to Italy, Southern France or also Northern-Western Europe.

Davidski said...

Strange post by Olympus Mons deleted.

Alberto said...

This is going to be great. I think the sampling will cover all of Western Europe, so I hope there won't be any reason to complain.

This is Heyd's paper where he proposes a proto-Bell Beaker package from Iberia merging with the eastern influences that were moving throughout Europe (last part of the paper, specially):

https://www.academia.edu/1249547/_2007_R.J._Harrison_and_V._Heyd_The_Transformation_of_Europe_in_the_Third_Millennium_BC_The_Example_of_Le_Petit_Chasseur_I_III_Sion_Valais_Switzerland_._Praehistorische_Zeitschrift_82_2_2007_p._129-214

Nirjhar007 said...

Hi folks, Of course wonderful news , 200+ samples are magnificent !!. This will solve BBC mystery mostly IMO .

Now, this is OT here but any chap with interest in genetics will find it very interesting . It appears that J-Mtdna people are physically superior ! .

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214540016300858

Something interesting on the Hg-
"It has been theorized that the uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation related to SNPs which define mt-haplogroup J consequently produces higher body heat in the phenotype of mtDNA J individuals."

Gioiello said...

"The mtDNA haplogroups of 100 Iranian athletes and 100 healthy, non-athletic individuals were genotyped".

Perhaps in Iran... but how many Golden medals did they win?

Rob said...

@ Alberto

I see little to no role of Iberian input in BB East, which is probably the key group to understanding the genetic shifts.
IMO they are a late Yamnaya offshoot arriving to alpine Europe c.2500 BC (?via (CWC inhabited) southern Poland or the west Carpathians. The figure of 2500BC means they arrived after, and partially replaced, CwC from Central Europe.

Alberto said...

@Rob

I too don't quite see Iberia having a role in the genesis of the Bell Beakers from Central Europe. I just find it geographically difficult. Though it's intriguing that some material coincidences (?) are also supported by an apparent genetic coincidence (Iberia Chalcolithic being the best match for Bell Beakers from Germany).

Whatever the case, we'll soon find out. With "2 significant new discoveries" and the samples being "exciting", I'm open to any possibility (within reason).

Iranocentrist said...

@Giollio

"How many gold medals did they win"

Its not about quantity but quality, Iran dominates strength sports such as weightlifting and wrestling.

Rob said...

@ Alberto

Yes, if i use Iberia Chalcolitic, BB Germany gets 25%. But i don't think this is real, because using Iberia Chalc is problematic given that it dates from 3000-2000 Bc (i.e. more or less contemporary with BB, so we are risking redundancy/ duplication.
In fact, it seems there was movement into Iberia even before steppe types, as the WHG-inflated MN / Chalcolithic Iberia source population had its source from central Europe. Removing 'Iberian Chalc' brings Baalberg to the fore, although I wouldn't exclude *some* minor backflow from Iberia to central Europe.

BTW: the new finds in this paper are archaeological, not aDNA. So perhaps more signs of eastern -type BB moving west, like that at Sioni.

So atm I consider 'BB East' to be largely steppic, whilst Iberian BB probably middle Neolithic genetically (barring some surprising aDNA results from Estramedura or Los Millares), and the two meeting in France/ Rhone region.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"Yes, if i use Iberia Chalcolitic, BB Germany gets 25%. But i don't think this is real, because using Iberia Chalc is problematic given that it dates from 3000-2000 Bc (i.e. more or less contemporary with BB"

True but the assumption is that Iberia Chalcolithic is a good representative of older Iberians who could be ancestors of German BB.

"In fact, it seems there was movement into Iberia even before steppe types, as the WHG-inflated MN / Chalcolithic Iberia source population had its source from central Europe."

WHG ancestry rose in Central Europe and Iberia during the same time period. There's no indications that people high in WHG from Central Europe mgrated to Iberia.

"BTW: the new finds in this paper are archaeological, not aDNA. So perhaps more signs of eastern -type BB moving west, like that at Sioni."

They said they have 200 Bell Beaker genomes. The guy who knows their results supports a Yamnaya origin for pre-Bell Beaker which suggests all of Bell Beaker country had loads of R1b and Steppe ancestry.

Rob said...

Sam

The MNE WHG rise in Iberia came from Central Europe- I2a2 isn't Iberian . Nothing further to discuss

So chcolithic Iberians aren't BB German ancestors but descended from the Central European Neolithic subsrate also present in BB

Yes I know the author is aware of aDNA , but his piece is entire archaeological and the boldened "new finds" presented here are *archaeological*

If you paid attention and read carefully you wouldnt make redundant & incorrect comments

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"The MNE WHG rise in Iberia came from Central Europe- I2a2 isn't Iberian . Nothing further to discuss "

What evidence is there which suggests I2a2 is Central European? It's most popular there today but that isn't good evidence it originated there.

"Yes I know the author is aware of aDNA , but his piece is entire archaeological and the boldened "new finds" presented here are *archaeological* "

True but I'm assuming genetics influenced his decision.

Rob said...

@ Sam

"What evidence is there which suggests I2a2 is Central European? It's most popular there today but that isn't good evidence it originated there. "

ALl the evidence - phylogeny, aDNA, archaeology, as will become clear soon. But if I2a2 isn't from central Europe (i.e. if its from Iberia), how'd it end up in Ulan IV ?

"True but I'm assuming genetics influenced his decision."

No doubt. I'd say it cemented his earlier position.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob.
"ALl the evidence - phylogeny, aDNA, archaeology, as will become clear soon. But if I2a2 isn't from central Europe (i.e. if its from Iberia), how'd it end up in Ulan IV ?"

We need to put things in perspective. I2a2 is probably over 20,000 years old. It existed during the Ice age when no humans lived in Central Europe. 8,000 years ago I2a2's brother; I2a1, was the dominate lineage from Portugal to Lithuania. Therefore it isn't hard to believe I2a2 was just as native to Iberia as to Central Europe because that was the case for I2a1.

Aram said...

@Samuel

What You think about mtdna U4c1/U4c1a? One U4c1a was found in LBA Armenia, another in BA Danemark. Also two cases of U4c1 in BB Germany. I couldn't find any U4c1 in Yamna but maybe more samples are needed.
Behar proposes the age of U4c1a as 3000 year ago which doesn't stick well with the aDNA.

Aram said...

Nirjhar

Thanks for the link. It seems mitogenomes can be strongly affected by biological factors and they are not a good marker for population migrations. The rapid expansion of H in Europe is a good example of that.

epoch2013 said...

I wonder if now we'll see the source of I1 in NW-Europe. It has a high incidence, and while I read the suggestion that the high Scandinavian incidence might be the result of some sort of founder effect, that can't have been the case for all NW-Europe, I suppose.

Gioiello said...

@ Iranocentrist

I have no interest in watching sports from so long, after that it has been used for:
1) some nations from their prestige using any kinds of doping (see DDR, URSS, China, but also all the principal Western countries): look at the recent accusations between Russian Federation and USA, and also the best black runners has been found doped
2) pay televisions use it in an obsessive manner, football matches practically every day
3) sport has become the drug of people (look at Marx about religion)
4) I think that Iran should fund researches about aDNA in Iran and to-day haplotypes rather than these useless researches. It risks to be on the same plane of those powers which fund Western European papers, all biased

Samuel Andrews said...

@epoch2013,

"It has a high incidence, and while I read the suggestion that the high Scandinavian incidence might be the result of some sort of founder effect, that can't have been the case for all NW-Europe"

I1 isn't a pan NW European lineage and isn't related to Bell Beaker. I1 is popular in Britain because of historical Germanic migrations. So we can scratch off Britain as being an original hot spot of I1.

Also, I1 might not have reached the low countries and Germany till the Iron age. The reason is that area seems to have been dominated by R1b-P312 up until the Iron age. Our only Bronze age German genome belonged to R1b-U152 and is very French-like autosomally. France didn't become Germanizied and they have low I1. It's probably safe to assume most of Germany and the low countries had low I1 when they were non-Germanic.

Helgenes50 said...

@Samuel Andrews

The results I posted in your thread on Eupedia confirm with what you're saying.

Grey said...

exciting stuff, in capital letters

Grey said...

Nirjhar

""It has been theorized that the uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation related to SNPs which define mt-haplogroup J consequently produces higher body heat in the phenotype of mtDNA J individuals.""

originally adapted to a cold climate maybe

Grey said...

Iranocentrist

"Its not about quantity but quality, Iran dominates strength sports such as weightlifting and wrestling."

A bit like Icelanders.

Grey said...

I don't know if guesses are allowed but purely for the purpose of scoring points with myself mine is...

the two BBs have a common source region X but took different paths to the Atlantic coast, one being a faster but fewer in number maritime move to Iberia where they mixed with the pre-existing Atlantic megalith people (coastal trader culture imo) (possible egyptian connection?) and a second, larger, slower land move to the northern Atlantic coast.

With the northerners becoming the majority ydna through the land being marginal for neolithic crops (heavy rain) but perfect for dairying (heavy rain). The Iberian R1b becoming majority by the copper miners/metal workers getting tin first from Cornwall and thereby bronze swords first - major competitive advantage for a while.

This was a pre-Villabruna theory though so who knows.

Grey said...

Apols for spamming, last one

I think pre-historic discussion is missing an age. Stone, copper, bronze, iron etc are tool ages and I think the missing age is the stone tool / metal money age that sits in between the stone and copper ages.

The least reactive metals can be found in their native form in rare locations and don't need mining or smelting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_metal

"Only gold, silver, copper and the platinum metals occur in nature in larger amounts."

(but only in a few locations)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_copper

and can be cold hammered into simple shapes like beads to use as money

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_during_the_Copper_Age_in_Europe

so given the limited locations where these metals can be found in their native form and assuming the use of such finds as money then it wouldn't be surprising if neolithic era people went looking for them.

(Crete and Cyprus were two of those rare locations for example.)

Also, once the available native metal was all collected those same locations would be the obvious sites for people to learn mining *however* early mining apparently used lots of wood (to heat crack the stone) so native locations without wood wouldn't be suitable to move onto the next stage (mining/smelting).

"Their method seems to be this. They make a great fire of wood in the bottom of their rakes which were always open up on that account, and when the rock was sufficiently hot they cast water upon it, which shiver’d it; and then with stone wedges, which they drove in with other stones, they work’d their way through the hardest rocks, tho’ but slowly."

Simon_W said...

@ Samuel Andrews

„Our only Bronze age German genome belonged to R1b-U152 and is very French-like autosomally.“

That isn't quite right. I suppose you mean RISE471 from Untermeitingen. But he was from southern Germany, which later became part of the homeland of Hallstatt and La Tene. But we also have Halberstadt_LBA from northern Germany, and he comes out rather North European-like in many tests. He was an R1a-Z280, in line with the Lusatian cultural affinity of the Halberstadt area. And moreover we have many I2a's (though just inferred by STR testing) from the Lichtenstein cave, dated to the late Bronze Age. Your point that there was no I1 still stands, however. Except probably in northernmost Germany, where the Nordic Bronze Age was thriving.

Ric Hern said...

Tripolye migrants then followed by more Steppe like people maybe....? Isn't there a proposed connection between Cucuteni-Tripolye and Basque people genetically ?

Ric Hern said...

The Remedello Culture apparently revealed Steppe Cultural influence but no Steppe Y-DNA...Y-DNA Haplogroup I2a....

Rob said...

Ric

Not an expert on Remedello, but elite burials, copper metals, even kurgans, etc aren't a "steppe" invention. These all existed prior to Yamnaya, so can naturally be found in areas without such admixture. But this doesn't take away from the fact that there was indeed significant migration from the steppe, but it appears to have reached Italy and Iberia later and indirectly - eg via Unetice or Urnfield (on present aDNA basis).

bellbeakerblogger said...

This is a great privilege for us.

I predict they'll show that Beakers did in fact have an ethnic or genetic profile despite great distances.


FrankN said...

The recent archeological discussion, not at last driven by Harrison/Heyd 2007 (H&H), has moved away from any kind of "BB homeland" and towards the idea of a trans-European network drawing influences from many areas/cultures, e.g.:

- Beakers rooted in the NC European Funnelbeaker/ GAC/ CWC tradition, with early "proto-BB" appearing on the upper Middle Rhine and Elbe (Schönfelder Culture (c.f. the enigmatic Bleckendorf burial described by H&H on p. 201 and Fig. 49);
- Amber amulets/ beads (the latter assuming currency functions latest from the EBA onwards) from the Baltic See (esp. Curonian Lagoon), following and expanding GAC traditions.
- Spiral rings ("Lockenringe") and flange-hilted daggers going back to Maykop, the former ultimately originating in Georgia (Kura-Araxes, see Stöllner/ Gambashidze 2014), the latter on the Iranian Plateau (Ivanova 2014);
- Archery (arrow-heads) replacing axes as male symbol reminding of Portuguese CA traditions (H&H, p. 206), but interestingly also being a hallmark of Polish CWC;
- Wrist Guards possibly reflecting Alpine traditions, and clearly "exported" down the Danube (though they seem to be a secondary phenomenon, only represented in phases B/C of Eastern BB).

So, ultimately, it comes to “connecting the dots”:

- One connection, namely Maykop – Yamnaya - GAC (incl. Baltic) – Upper Middle Elbe is already pointed at in H&H Fig. 50.

- The second connection there, namely via Yamnaya up the Danube, now can be ruled out from aDNA, at least as concerns Eastern Hungary (it was anyway at odds with H&H’s interpretation of the Baden Culture as “old European”). An older (2004) PhD had already archeologically demonstrated BB in Moravia and Lower Austria as “immigration horizon” layering over CWC substrate, and then quickly forming hybrids with Balkan Cultures such as Vucedol. While unable to specify the source of the “immigration horizon” (Silesia, Middle Elbe, Rhine and Rhone as candidates), it ruled out Balkans and NE Italy.
http://scidok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2004/320/pdf/BaerbelMetzinger-Schmitz_ProfDrJanLichardus_Band1.pdf

- There is quite some hinting at contacts along the Atlantic façade, e.g. H&H’s cryptic notes on batte axes and cord decorated early Bell Beakers in N Iberia (p. 204f.), and contemporary finds of Baltic amber in Galicia. Such maritime link should already have been present during the MN, manifested a/o by the spread of Megalithsm, and Neolithicisation of the British Isles and Scandinavia (c.f. Swedish FB aDNA).
In that respect, I expect quite some clarification from the upcoming paper. [I would also like to add temporal transsects of French and British aDNA, and especially Brittany, to my Christmas wishlist]

- H&H are skeptical about any trans-Mediterranean connection. However, we now have DNA analyses of ivory artefacts from Iberian CA and BB contexts. While the C14 results are certainly troubling, and provenance varies strongly by location, up to 50% of the ivory in SW Iberia stemming from Asian elephants should give reason to review such skepticism, as are finds of Sicilian amber. [Ivory from Savannah elephants, as well as ostrich eggs, put an interesting perspective on the introgression of Eurasian aDNA into the Sahel some 5kya].
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/353784/1/Garc%C3%ADa%20Sanju%C3%A1n%20et%20al.pdf

Thus, BB may possibly have been a Circum-European, maritime phenomenon, with the E. European river systems, Vistula-Dniepr, Volga-Dvina etc. acting as “fourth coast”.

andrew said...

"I predict they'll show that Beakers did in fact have an ethnic or genetic profile despite great distances."

I totally agree.

"Maykop – Yamnaya"

I think that a Maykop origin for a lot of the "Bell Beaker package" and even some linguistic influence, that leads to ethnogenesis when shared with gentically Yamnaya folks followed by a long distance migration to W. Europe that continues until areas not already occupied by Corded Ware folks who have a partially common source for their technological package, is a pretty plausible scenario. Then, I think you get a migrating founder population that admixes in Iberia and the new admixed population expands across Europe from there.

Rob said...

@ FrankN

Thanks for your comments, as usual
I'd beg to differ with your conclusions. The remarkable heterogeneity of BB material culture doesn't mean that BB people were a nebulous, diffuse "folk". Only certain aspects of material culture are used to communicate origins and identity. Eg the Amber beads doesn't mean that we should look to the Baltic for BB origins, it means that BB folk appropriated the trade routes there, thus setting the scene for the historic "Amber road" (as Heyd himself points out). Similarly, Italian sea shells merely commmuciated prestige and long distance contacts of the BB elite.

Can you recall the paper we discussed earlier about some BB weapons in cwc context in south Poland ? I think this is a likely route, but would not exclude the Danube route either, as kurgans make it all the way to Austria. The lack of Yamnaya admixture in Baden or even EBA Hungary is certainly pertinent, but it doesn't exclude a "leap frog" migration from Hungary to Danube Germany. In fact, I think that's what happened.

FrankN said...

@Rob (e.a.):

"the paper we discussed earlier about some BB weapons in cwc context in south Poland" was, IIRC, from M. Szmyt, but I fail to recover it now. It stressed the difference between FB/ GAC burials dominated by axes (mostly Kujawya), and "arrowhead plus dagger" burials by CWC more upland/ to the south. IIRC, there wasn't much ceramics in either of the burial types, and ceramics may anyway be difficult to assign in that part of Europe as signified by the Bleckendorf Beaker (proto-BB to Heyd, classic CWC to Furholt/ Müller).
So the CWC association may primarily have been chronology-driven, in the sense of "differing from previous cultures, but too early for (proto-)BB". Some regional German analyses (I checked on Northern Saxony and the Schweinfurt area) explicitly follow that logic in order to provide some structuring principle to scattered surface finds (shards, arrowheads, axes etc.) in the virtual absence of excavated burials and settlements dating to the first half of the 3rd mBC. Note in this context, referring to excavation findings relating to construction of the Polish A1 and A2 motorways, and of pipelines:
http://www.academia.edu/11603429/Bell_Beakers_and_the_cultural_milieu_of_north_European_plain
In every respect, both in terms of pottery fragments left behind and the number of sites, the Corded Ware culture stage sets a minimum.” That is still put nicely: 250 CWC pottery fragments vs. 4,006 BB, 9,667 FB, 20,722 GAC

On the implicit question, that I - thinking out loudly - have occasionally brought up: Could Polish CWC represent (Eastern) Proto-BB? An article co-authored by M. Szmyt on Polish BB describes three regionalized connections:
a) Jutland/ Holstein to Pomerania (the BB North Group so often ignored in Anglo-Saxon literature, spread from west to east),
b) Bohemia - Silesia, temporal relation unclear,
c) Moravia - Lesser Poland. The latter is commonly interpreted as offshoot from the former, but provides surprisingly early AMS datings (first peak around 2550 BC). This may be one of the two surprises hinted at by J Marco; let’s wait and see…

https://books.google.de/books?id=57OVD144tUIC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=szmyt+Corded+Ware+Poland&source=bl&ots=GL_7EfR_mM&sig=OveE47EHykuLPqsmSxvC7DFDd0k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9-9mD79vQAhXC_iwKHdSdAy4Q6AEITTAI#v=onepage&q=szmyt%20Corded%20Ware%20Poland&f=false

a [BB] "leap frog" migration from Hungary to Danube Germany” is ruled out by virtually all German language archeological publications I have read. BB Hungary (Csepel, Budapest) is described as hybrid of BB East and Danubian cultures (Mako etc.).

Amber”: In general, BB seems to be more about networks, i.e. genetic admixture, than expansion out of a specific homeland. In that sense, I am certainly not proposing a Baltic origin. But the role of BB in establishing amber beads as objects of value (currency, worship) shouldn’t be underestimated. Amber bead chains to date function as prayer beads in both Christianity and Islam. While Christianity also allows for prayer beads from Carneol (typical IVC export into the Aegean !), the Koran stipulates for amber prayer beads, even though (or because?) amber doesn’t occur on the Arab peninsula and around the Persian Gulf (while there are a few minor deposits in the Levante, E.Med attention has from the BA on focused onto the Baltics).

Iberia_CA aDNA: We need to differentiate between the El Portalon and El Mirador samples here. The former, acc. to Dave’s Admix.13.Q, incorporate some 10% Bedouin (~Natufian) admix, plus 7-10% of various Asian components combined (Iran_Neo, Sahul, Sib., Andaman), at the expense of either EEF or WHG., and are from the 4th mBC, thus clearly preceding BB. El Mirador, OTOH, is straight-forward 75% EEF/ 25% WHG, contemporaneous to BB, but without respective cultural affiliation. Putting it differently: El Portalon has a clear Levante/SAs signature, El Mirador looks like typical Central European MN.

Simon_W said...

Interesting discussion @ FrankN & Rob. In this context it's noteworthy that RISE1, an early Corded Ware male from Poland, had yDNA haplogroup R1b1. Afaik it's the only Corded Ware male that was found to be R1b.

Rob said...

@ Simon_W

Yes i also recall, however, that there was some debate in the community about whether RISE 1 was in fact R1b. Some called R*, some R1a.

Rob said...

@ FrankN

"
“a [BB] "leap frog" migration from Hungary to Danube Germany” is ruled out by virtually all German language archeological publications I have read. BB Hungary (Csepel, Budapest) is described as hybrid of BB East and Danubian cultures (Mako etc.)."

Yes, I do not mean that German BB came from Mako, as Mako is a later move east to Hungary. I meant directly from Yamnaya in Hungary.
Maybe I misunderstood something, but i thought it was strongly implied in Heyd's article. For example certain key features of their burials

1) the westernmost Yamnaya kurgan is eastern Austria, so not a considerable distance from Germany at all.
2) specific burial traits in German BB, such as
- the gold and precious metals in single inhumations have most proximate analogies
"in the Carpathian Basin and in regions to its east, small gold hair-rings and similar objects in gold and silver were deposited in individual burials. Here, the dead were invariably buried in deep pits under tumuli, lying supine with their legs contracted, and with ochre sprinkled over the body. This practice recalls aspects of the Yamnaya Culture..."
3) Also the tanged daggers, although daggers were already widespread as prestige objects (in various zones), incl the one at Bleckendorf, whose closest analogies are in Yamnaya, which dated to c. 28/ 2700 BC.
4) A pastoralist, esp cattle, albeit mixed economy.

Genetically, German BB look:
Bell_Beaker_Germany_UDG
"Baalberge_MN" 25.95
"Yamnaya_Samara" 15.8
"Anatolia_Chalcolithic" 14.25
"Samara_Eneolithic" 13
"Iberia_MN" 10.7
"Hungary_HG" 9.1

Somewhere NW Black Sea to Germany. ?

Rob said...

For comparison, CWC look decidedly different:

Corded_Ware_Germany
"Yamnaya_Samara" 56.25
"LBK_EN" 16.15
"Hungary_CA" 8.5
"Eastern_HG" 6.65
"Satsurblia" 6.5
"Hungary_HG" 3.35

As Frank mentioned, CWC appears earlier than BB, but gradually BB supplants CWC in central Europe, although it's probably more like a fusion in Unetice areas by 2200 BC.

Olympus Mons said...

What an Eco chamber we’ve got here!
If one stops having the cool aid. Here are some facts:

1. Earliest Bell beakers were found at the doorsteps of military powerhouses near Lisbon by 2900BC (FM hut by leceia?), completely embroiled in local late chalcolithic context. – Very strong argument against exogenous population.

2. Bell beaker pottery clearly, CLEARLY, seem an evolution from the slightest earlier (3000bc?) “Copos” (meaning cups) from places such as VNSP (same area) found also in such “Warlike” fortifications such as Zambujal as well. Some copos (that looked like bells) seem very close to bell beakers forms. This arguments supports a very local population participating in the “local war” that seemed to have raged from 3300BC to 2900BC (time everybody arrived to Iberia). Locally the complexity of items is clear from the start (from copper, to weapons) as soon as the fortified period were declining.

3. Bell Beaker dispersal by 2800bc, 2700bc, 2600bc seem to have occurred by North Iberia (first Galicia), south France and Switzerland. And that dispersal was made by a considerable amount of people. Another argument against exogenous population having that amount of numbers to show up all over Europe migrating from there.

4. At least, at least, for that specific conveyer belt (Portugal, north Spain, south France, Switzerland) all indicates that the population remains admix for the greatest part of the all period. So, whatever samples used for studies, better have prior to 2500bc for those parts (Pt, IBn, sFR, CH). Those are the initial thrust of the bell beaker phenomenon. – So, it’s crucial to analyze this samples in their own context.

5. As we are learning CHG does not mean Yamnaya. CHG in south Caucasus and CHG was in Kumetepe (Kum6) so, CHG admix after 4900bc went a lot of different places. – So, one needs to factor the fact that finding good adna in ice covered places of northern parts of Europe and Eurasia is creating a bias on perception. Having lots of those in samples does not mean that lots of other places further south will not have it as well.

6. So, if Iberia Bell beakers (outside Bohemia group) show CHG it does not mean it came from Yamanya or central Europe. I am sure that if the Iberia BB in those coming massive, uber super coverage adna papers that are about to come out only have samples from 2500 bc onward in Iberia from the meseta central of Iberia, lots will say those samples show central Europe admix going south. But bear in mind, that there are no indications of a central Europe BB back flow to Switzerland, South france or Iberia. Bohemia BB stayed up north!

7. Having in the birthplace of Bell beakers (Portugal) lusitanians people (1500bc-0AD) speaking a very old PIE language full of archaisms older than any PROTO (Celtic, italic, so forth) and having so many links to indo-aryan archaism should really trigger a couple warnings in anyone’s brain.

Just some facts... if anyone even cares about those anymore.

Olympus Mons said...

Just an added note on the bell beaker.

Most forgotten "detail" is that one of the oldest Bell beaker sites in Portugal in also in PORTO TORRÃO. So, way south Portugal in Alentejo, in a city that had at least 200ha (so tens upon tens of thousands of people). So the narrative of exogenous people arriving to Lisbon area also does not go well with having so early that dating from Porto Torrão (some argue is the oldest one) bearing in mind that those fortified places were not for fun and games. Bell beakers stock moved freely in the chalcolithic flow and substratum (10% of people that died in Zambujal were actually born in Alentejo, ie porto torrão).






Davidski said...

I can tell you now that you'll have to scrap your thesis after this paper comes out.

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidski,
and I can tell you now, that if I tell you what I think of this statment of yours... you will delete the comment. And is not because it would be rude. That we know for sure, right?

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidsi,
... and, after the support I have form Joahnnes Krause team... if any of those bell beakers in Iberia show up with CHG... oh boy, you are in for a spanking. Old fashion!

Nirjhar007 said...

OM,

You must understand that since a leading scholar who happens to be an archaeologist also is associated with the research , that certainly means there will be new C14 dates, which supports the suggestions that the authors are suggesting .

Also there is certainly steppe like admixture in genetics aspect from perhaps all over BB?.

But I would love to read the references or papers which suggest ~3000 BC BB presence in Portugal etc.

Antoni Małkowski said...

Coś mi się wdaje że znowu nie zobaczę Z2109 , cts7822, cts9212.

Olympus Mons said...

Nirjhar007,

*Oldest Portugal ( Leceia hut (Lisbon) and Porto torrão (Alentejo) BB are AT LEAST 2870/2830BC. 3000BC are the “copos” stratigraphy in VNSP region, not bell beaker, but look for the copos (cups) in VNSP and those are clearly Proto-bb and since in the same area it’s a no brainer.

*If you are blue. You see blue everywhere. It’s a human fact. See for eg:
“More hard evidence that those more intelligent and knowledgeable are PARTICULARLY BADLY AFFECTED BY BIAS.” ---- It really makes you better understand this blog comments!
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23231020-500-changing-minds-how-to-trump-delusion-and-restore-the-power-of-facts/

*what Jean M wrote is, in my opinion, very well craft in the sense of my previous point. Notice how nothing is really said… nor it’s contrary. “Mights” , “Seems” , “could” …. “cant tell” ... and everybody surfs the cool aid.
Have you noticed how everything was settled… and Johannes Krause shows the slide he showed?…. IS he not in the know, for those secrets everybody “knows” but cant tell?! - Amazing. How dumb of him!

Olympus Mons said...

@Nirjhar007,
had not BB be associated with R1b-M269.. and all I wrote about bell beaker wouldn't even be a topic for discussion.
But since it is, there is something Freudian in the works here!

I can only stress so much that... Germany/Bohemia BB were half breeds between BB and CWC and in the context very late to be the origin of anything. so if one wants to talk about the half-breeds exchanging wifes in there, fine. Its one topic.
But if the topic is BB origin and its dna outlook... just trough those off the window. Pretty much worthless.

Nirjhar007 said...

So OM, you are emphatically suggesting that its impossible for BB to be originating from around C Europe. Since according to you there is absolutely no archaeological weight behind such suggestion and sites there are new comers and younger by hundreds of years . I do respect your suggestion OM , I know you have some knowledge regarding the culture .

I think by only an outstanding archaeological discovery can this situation be changed and perhaps its already found !. I think you should directly contact Dr.Heyd . I believe with the knowledge of the culture you have , you will be able to impress him and know something crucial. I personally can't , since I don't have such depth about the BBC issue right now.

Olympus Mons said...

Nirjhar007,

*If BBC inhumation found thus far were not M269... this would be a non-issue that nobody even cared about.

*BBC meeting CWC in bohemia seemed to have created a different strand. Was that strand that important for the current genetic admix and y haplos we see in Europe?
That is the question this people is really worried about, not if BBc were originally a south Iberian stock of warrior people craft in the fortification environment of south Iberia (mainly Portugal).

*That bohemia/Germanic strand was important at least for the later creation of Celtic substratum I suppose… so, could they really be the dispersal engine of R1b in Western Europe? Maybe. But one thing is the origin of BBC the other is the importance of what some call Beaker culture (BBC from Bohemia group) that would lead us to the importance of Celts, Iron age dispersal and AD dispersal of European populations.

Having said that …. To me it’s all about Merimde and El-omari stock in Delta Nile in the 5th millennia BC. That was the route for these PIE speaking bunch. You will see. Too bad, Chris Davis didn’t reply about is thoughts of CHAD Pie words. Just too bad.

FrankN said...

@OM:
Here is recent (2014) research on early BB in Portugal, with extensive discussion of the Leceia hut and a summary on Porto Torrao.
http://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/viewFile/665/687

AMS dating for Leceia was carried out on mammal bones associated with the pottery sherds, meaning (a) there isn't much concern about freshwater effects, but (b) they supply only an age range for occupation, not an exact dating of the sherds (the BB pottery may only have occured at a later stage of occupation).
Based on all available AMS dating from Leceia, Porto Torrao and other sites, early Portuguese BB is dated to the second quarter of the 3rd mBC, "between about 2700 and 2600 BC". Such dating is comparable to, if not a bit later, the appearance of the West German Beakers on the Lower Rhine (see link below)
https://books.google.de/books?id=AANDCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT110&lpg=PT110&dq=M%C3%BCller+Bell+Beaker+chronology&source=bl&ots=mIorKBgYvP&sig=Gwc0_fnaFsahGGjY880UXpWoZh8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNo9jb1N3QAhWFDSwKHe7aBCwQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=M%C3%BCller%20Bell%20Beaker%20chronology&f=false

Moreover, Leceia BB are clearly intrusive. The hut was placed outside a chalcolithic fortification, Inside that fortification, traditional "acacia leaf" pottery continued to be used until the end of the 3rd mBC. Both ceramic traditions, BB and "acacia leaf", interacted during the second half of the 3rd mBC.

The pattern is very similar to what happened (somewhat later) in Lower Austria, Moravia and Hungary. It also corresponds to observations from SE France (link, first BB after ca. 2550 BC)
https://books.google.de/books?id=QQBDCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=Bell+Beaker+AMS+France&source=bl&ots=SefB6o0y3v&sig=efcPlu4UCL6XQNmkKZaF7fpMiuk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiv4sCI4N3QAhXJXSwKHT7aAfMQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Bell%20Beaker%20AMS%20France&f=false

Olympus Mons said...

FrankN.
Does it really change anything? First readings read (Sac-1317: 4220 ± 50 BP: 2920-2630 cal BC, 2 σ) new AMS (Beta-260297: 4140 ± 40 BP and Beta-260299: 4100 ± 40 BP) – Frank, show me AMS readings earlier than these.

That simple. - Show me an AMS reading for bell beaker that is earlier than these AMS readings.

Olympus Mons said...

@FrankN.
And Porto torrão, so a not fortified 300ha city. As per paper of João Cardoso
“For example, there is a date obtained for a Beaker occupation of the settled area of Porto Torrão (Ferreira do Alentejo) (Arnaud 1993; Cardoso and Soares 1990/1992). This yielded the result of ICEN 60/61 –4220 ± 45 BP, which, after being calibrated corresponds to the interval of 2823-2658 cal BC 2 s.”

But most important

A. All BB in south Portugal follow the same places that are seem from the beginning of the chalcolithic Portugal , 3300bc Porto carretas (and others), 3300 BC Juromenha (others) , Porto Torrão, Perdigoes,etc. When bell beaker full implements in the south Portugal, they resettled exactly places, some completely meagre, paltry and unremarkable, that a time when most of them were abandoned centuries ago. – Why would bell beakers, an Exogenous population like you say, decided to go back to the those places that symbolize de earlier (3300bc) arrival of populations in south Iberia?
B. Do you really think that whoever erected Leceia, a true military Powerhouse would let any exogenous population sit 6 meters away from their wall? And like you say they lived there for centuries near others that did not show bell beaker package.
C. If bell beaker was an evolution of the “copos” culture soldiers of VNSP fortifications (and there, those were inside the walls) wouldn’t it make sense that getting to Leceia they would settle at their walls and not inside?

Olympus Mons said...

@ all,
To those that do not know where VNSP was, it meant that people to cross with cattle the tagus river to take it to places like Zambujal or to agressors to attack it, always needed to go by VNSP (easiast place to cross tagus). so if Zambujal and leceia were so fortified than to get there the first line of defense would be VNSP and these would be the ones taking most often the blunt of fighting.

So, if you are looking for a soldiering and warrior setup for bell beakers, none better than VNSP.

Olympus Mons said...

@Frank,
... and now a request for help. Maybe you (or anyne else) can help me. for instance, the paper you inserted, from Joao Cardoso states:

"The model postulated that Beaker sequence
began with vessels decorated by a stippling technique,
involving a predominance of maritime
AOO Beakers decorated with alternately-filled
horizontal bands (“herringbone” pattern), "


herringbone” pattern was present at Shulaveri (realy latest phase), clearly present at Merimda and el-omari... present in Early bell beakers. ---so, anyone can point to other places that pattern was on and correspondent dates?


Rob said...

@ FrankN

Do you at all see any similarities between Copper Age Iberian enclosures and those in west-central Europe (eg Michelsberg e.a.) ?

FrankN said...

@OM: I suggest you acquaint yourself with some of the pitfalls of AMS dating. Start with calibration and wiggle-matching, i.e. how to deal with fluctuations of athmospheric C14 content as known from Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. Then continue towards reservoir effects: C14 content in water may be quite different (typically lower) from the athmospheric one; if humans/ animals follow a mostly acquatic diet, their AMS dating may show up several centuries too old. You can control for such effects by analysing Nitrogene isotopes, which reveal the acquatic share in the diet, but the approach is rather recent and was most likely not pursued on the Porto Torrao samples dated in 1990.

Professional archeologists know about all these pitfalls and consider them when putting forward datings. That surely applies to J. Cardoso as much as it applies to J. Müller when working on Rhinish Beakers, or his Dutch/ French/ Polish/ Czech etc. colleagues. There is no point in "Show me an AMS reading for bell beaker that is earlier". IIRC, there were a couple of them from the Netherlands, but all have been discarded for technical or stratigraphic concerns. When J. Cardoso, who himself has produced the Porto Torrao dates and apparently has worked on Portuguese BB for more than 25 years, puts forward datings like "2nd quarter of the 3rd Millennium" and "between 2700 and 2600", I just trust his expert assesment. Case closed. Portuguese BB datings are early and precede the European BB mainstream by some 2-3 centuries, but they fall well in line with other "proto-BB" datings, e.g. from the Rhine. Note also that we are just talking the pot here. The Cardoso paper doesn't mention any other elements of the "BB package", except for a dagger from Ponte de Lage (2460-2210 BC).

Herringbone has been around everywhere. It is well documented as secondary CW decorative element, but IIRC also quite frequent in 4th mBC Britain, and with various "forest cultures" around the Baltic Sea. The earliest occurence appears to be herringbone-decorated bricks from Jericho (PPN B, 7000-5200 BCE). Can't make much of the pattern itself, one would need an expert to compare and relate specific decorations.

@Rob: I am not very familiar with the Iberian Neolithic/ Chalcolithic, and use this thread as opportunity to work on that deficit. However, from the little I know about Iberian CA enclosures, there are in fact a few parallels to Michelsberg and related CE enclosures (the tradition goes back to LBK, and sets forth with FB), such as segmential ditching and subsequent refill with settlement waste. The wide variability in terms of location and use seems to be also shared. Smaller Michelsberg enclosures are usually understood as festival places: Pastoralists return from uphill summer grazing to the valleys, cull up the herds for winter, and share the exctess with the valley farmers to secure winter pasture. Such festivals would of course include trade, marriage brokerage, and (secondary) burial of those who died while the pastoralists stayed uphill. However, some enclosures, strategically located and in control of tradeable resources (e.g. salt, basalt for grindstones) developed into permanently-settled trade spots.
Whether the same applies to Iberia is beyond my knowledge. However, if so, it could explain why incoming BB re-selected those locations - to connect with their foreign merchandise into pre-existing local trade networks. Possibly initially not even living there, just coming for the trade fair. But when you celebrate, a beaker may break and end up in the garbage pit together with the slaughtering remains..

Rob said...

@ FrankN

Have a read of 'Social Change in the late 3rd Millenium BC in Portugal. Twilight of Enclosures" by Valera. BB logger featured it a while back.
From what I understood, it seems the enclosures occurred sporadically since Middle Neolithic, but really accelerated in southern Portugal by late 4th and first 1/2 of 3rd. They then ceased being built by terminal stages of M2, with many subsequently abandoned. That this coincides with appearance of the fashion of individual, well-equipped burials is perhaps not due to chance.

I noticed in your reply to OM (you must be a very patient man), you mentioned 'proto-Beaker' in Germany. What's that ?

Nirjhar007 said...

FN :

Portuguese BB datings are early and precede the European BB mainstream by some 2-3 centuries, but they fall well in line with other "proto-BB" datings, e.g. from the Rhine. Note also that we are just talking the pot here.

So, I find this suggestion quite intriguing . If its the case then we must think that Proto-BB was there around Central Europe or around and this Proto-BB element predate that of around Portugal or its contemporary? .

But IIUC the transition to the Proto-Phase to Proper BB phase happened around Portugal earlier whereas in others the Proto-Phase was more longer?. Can't that mean that the Proper phase did arrive from where it first emerged or I am getting it incorrectly?.

Kurti said...

@Grey

interestingly both the Iranian Plateau and Iceland are mtDNA J heavy. Indeed I have red quite a few times the theory of J being cold adapted. Take in mind even the deserts are extremely cold during the night. In general I have noticed that people of mtDNA HV and J have heavy bodies. Interstingly in all of Scandinavia the rare Haplogroup HV also peaks in Iceland.

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-J-map.png

Ric Hern said...

We see Cardial Impressed Ware in Iberia. We see Tholoi that reminds us of something Minoan or Cretan related. We see the Butmir Culture as existing between the Cardial Impressed Ware and the Vincá Cultures that hints at something Minoan or Proto-Minoan related in their Pottery. We see that the Mediterranean Islands were populated very early which points to a seafaring tradition. The type of fortification and buildingsee at Al Algar and Altamera shows clear influence from the Mediterranean. We see the earliest Copper Smelting in Serbia.We see that the Bell Beaker Culture had many different types and their spread looks more like along Trade Route links than a solid continues spread. More like creating colonies....We see some MtDNA similarities between the Basques and Cucuteni-Tripolye. We see a migration from the Balkans to the West into Italy at roundabout 3200 bC.(Remedello)...

Ric Hern said...

Sorry not Altamera but Los Millares...

Rob said...

Ric
Right . Where did all the Balkan copper age centres "disappear" to ?

Ric Hern said...

We see that Tin became important for producing Bronze that is safer because of much less Arsenic. The biggest Tin deposits are found in Northern Spain, the Czech/Germany border and the British Isles...

Simon_W said...

@ Rob, re: RISE1, yes, the genome is low quality, but according to Jean Manco's site he's positive for marker L1345. There was also another Corded male (I1534 from Esperstedt) who allegedly was R1b1a2, but that was negatively verified by Sergey Malyshev.

Rob said...

@ SimonW
Yes , my mistake

Davidski said...

By the way, seems like a few, or a lot, of people think that all of the 200 samples will be of Bell Beakers and that the paper will come out in March next year.

200 Bell Beaker Genomes Tea Leaves

200 Ancient Bell Beaker Genomes To Be Released March 2017

Based on some of the hints I've seen, that's unlikely to be true. The samples will probably be from a variety of ancient cultures relevant to the Bell Beaker story, and the paper will probably come out in Nature much sooner than March 2017.



Ric Hern said...

Thanks.

Olympus Mons said...

@Rob,
"I noticed in your reply to OM (you must be a very patient man),..." - Yes, Rob, that is your role. The barking dog (actually more of a growling puppy).

In the meanwhile Frank didn't really contradict any, absolutely any of my arguments. What Proto-BB. What is that supposed to mean?

This post fact world is amazing. Pathetic, but amazing. However in the real world:
a. Earliest dates for BB are still in Portugal, and plentiful, at its iconic places (VNSP, Zambujal, Leceia).
b. If BBC was anything of a warrior like assemblage, not a better place in the world to have developed than by the crossing of Tagus river by the look of fortified places and a clear similitude with “copos” culture.
c. Copper, daggers (although not Copper ones), Danged material (arrows), archery culture, propensity to avoid river beds and settle in mounds, Spelt wheat… gosh, pick any and is mostly there!
d. Non metric dental traits (actually the best ever made) make a clear case. Just o remember everyone the work of J.desideri, M. besse, etc) :
a. BB in early dates in Iberia had traits of local late neolithic and chacolithic.
b. BB moving out of Iberia did not take any genetic mixture (as far as seen in Nmdt) from local pops in south france, north italy, and Switerland.
c. BB in Bohemia and extensive exogamy with CWC by exchanging women. BB mane tended to remain BBish and women were exchanged. So, BB in Germany are the worst ever to trace the origins or original makeshift of BB.


So, not arguments right Rob... just growling. Ok.



Olympus Mons said...

@FrankN.
Thanks.
Although for Herrington bone decorations I don’t see that ubiquous dispersal that you mentioned.
I Find PPNB (7000BC) , I find it at Starčevo–Kőrös–Criș culture, mostly Koros (5500BC), Find it in late Shulaveri-Shomu(by around 5500-5000BC), find it at Merimda and El-omari (4800-4300bc) in delt Nile and later arriving to Iberia by 3500-3300 BC – called the arrival of arrows and caneladas (herringtonbone) pottery decoration - and then in ” copos” and bell beakers (2700BC).

Was just something I found intriguing and Just to add to all the things that made chalcolithic Iberia (as described last century) as Oriental and “eastern”. Blade making was never “western/south European” ; Ivory, carnelian, obsidian all eastern, a tone of characteristics that always made archeology referring to it as EASTERN. But ok.

Rob said...

@ OM

"BB in Bohemia and extensive exogamy with CWC by exchanging women. BB mane tended to remain BBish and women were exchanged. So, BB in Germany are the worst ever to trace the origins or original makeshift of BB."

Can you please verify this incontrovertible theory with data or some numbers, please ?
We have aDNA from 4000 - 3000 BC Iberia, Ireland, Scandinavia, Armenia, Anatolia, Russia, Italy, Germany, Iran, Anatolia and Levant. You have a wealth of material to demonstrate your theory.

Can you also properly communicate why we should accept that you summarily dismiss Franks, Alberto's, or anyone else's heedings that your interpretation of what is Bell beaker might be wrong ?

Nirjhar007 said...

Awesome! so perhaps this very month !.

Davidski said...

Don't celebrate too much. The steppe hypothesis will get a huge boost from the data in this paper.

Nirjhar007 said...

What is the suggested pub date?.

Davidski said...

Don't know. My best guess is January, but it might come out sooner.

Nirjhar007 said...

No pre-prnits in biorxiv?

Davidski said...

No idea.

Nirjhar007 said...

I guess this month a pre-print is on the cards.

epoch2013 said...

" The samples will probably be from a variety of ancient cultures relevant to the Bell Beaker story"

Considering the former Dutch BB origin hypothesis we might even see Dutch or Rhenish samples. That would cover a not yet cobered part of Europe. I hope to see FB.

Olympus Mons said...

@Rob,
Because:

a. if you don’t accept carbon dating published as a origin of an archeological fact which theory or arch thus far postulated in the last 200 years will remain valid? Or those datings are to be used only when suits (Post-fact)?~

b. If you don’t accept that they were called Bell beakers (lo and behold) because that original found pottery from Portugal is seen all over Europe, and that original Bell shaped Copos really look like “Copos canelados” from the same area, what can be used as reference to Terminus post quem ?

c. If one ignores and rejects obvious things such as that almost all (not to say all) the hallmarks of bell beaker lifestyle is seen in Chalcolithic Iberia from 3300 BC onward…. What line of argument can be used as common ground?

Karl_K said...

@OM

"If one ignores and rejects obvious things such as that almost all (not to say all) the hallmarks of bell beaker lifestyle is seen in Chalcolithic Iberia from 3300 BC onward…"

Nobody is ignoring anything. Techniques have improved. Carbon dating is not universally accurate. Not all sites were accurately put into an appropriate context prevously. That is the entire point of the new analysis.

Olympus Mons said...

@Karl,
This is pure relatism applied to what should be a "non-issue". - Had not Bell beaker been connected to R1b-M269 dispersal and all of this would go uncontested.

Intelligence does not pursue truth. Intelligence pursues good advocacy of our views. That is coming out amazingly strong in latest neurocognitive research.

So, I suppose one just needs to follow this blog and see how very intelligence people pursue completely different reads of the same data (as research is showing does everywhere).

Anyway. We live in a world where people truly believe its possible to put man on mars by 2030 or 2050. Pure madness.


Olympus Mons said...

@Rob.
“Can you please verify this incontrovertible theory with data or some numbers, please ?
We have aDNA from 4000 - 3000 BC Iberia, Ireland, Scandinavia, Armenia, Anatolia, Russia, Italy, Germany, Iran, Anatolia and Levant. You have a wealth of material to demonstrate your theory. “

If an alien lands in the Sahara desert will report that the all planet is made of Sand.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

While reading some of the posts here, I can't help but think of George Carlin. I believe he said to just think of how stupid the average person is, and then think of how stupid half of the others are.

Bell Beaker's ancestors are from Eastern Europe. This was finalized with the Yamnaya results. L51 and Z2103 share the same source population no earlier than 4500 BCE and likely lived in the same place much longer. This is the nail in the coffin. The funny thing is, no matter what the results are, some are still going to doubt it and come up with some complete bs. Half of the time this is like trying to explain evolution to creationists.

If you lack any kind of deductive reasoning, scientific fields and hobbies are probably not your thing. The thing about science is that one should adjust their beliefs as new data comes in and not try to twist it to fit their beliefs.

Ric Hern said...

Something interesting knaws at the back of my mind. Bulls fighting bulls. Common today in the Balkans and Portugal and in ancient times in Ireland. Wonder if there is a connection ? This does not seem to have the same origin as the Minoan man vs. bull....

André de Vasconcelos said...

Where did you get the idea that bulls fighting bulls are common in Portugal, Ric? I don't remember hearing about it, and I do happen to live in the country.

Annie Mouse said...

@Chad

Lets keep things civilized. The strategy of intimidating your opposition until they cease to debate is not scientific.

"The thing about science is that one should adjust their beliefs as new data comes in and not try to twist it to fit their beliefs."

You would do well to follow your own advice. We are all so sure that we are right that we cannot see our own bias. The Bell Beaker story is not at all clear and there will be twists and turns ahead. Hopefully more will be revealed in the up coming paper (facts, rather than assertions).

If we are talking R1b then it was in paleolithic southern Europe (Villabuna) well before Yamnaya was a thing. And despite lots of testing in Eastern Europe, if it is there, is is hiding very well. I can buy lurking in Central Asia but Eastern Europe seems less and less likely. It is 5k years before we see it in Samara (~5500 BCE) at the far, far eastern edge. A lot of genetic pot mixing can occur in 5k years. For all we know Samara came from southern Europe. Occam's Razer says so at the moment, albeit with not much data.

If we are talking eastern autosomal influences and other genetic curiousities related to modern populations, have a look at Goyet Q116-1 sitting in Belgium in the paleolithic. Fascinating to see someone so autosomally modern-looking in western europe so early.

If we are talking the Yamnaya genetic package then that is promising but it still is just evidence for Yamnaya-LIKE ancestry. Not necessarily Yamnaya, wherever Yamnaya came from (most recently).

We all have African ancestry, but the situation is much more complicated than that. Like everyone Bell Beaker came from Africa in the paleolithic, and lots of other places most probably. The paleolithic pot had a long time to stir before Bell Beaker emerged. I am not certain what actually happened, yet, and I dont think anyone else can be either. There are too many missing pieces. A great time for creative ideas and reasoned debate.

Olympus Mons said...

@Chad,
Next post please. Seems African L1b was actually Yamnaya!

FrankN said...

@Rob: "proto-Beakers": First of all the "West German Beaker" Group as described by Müller (link in my post above, where I also linked the Cardoso paper). Then early Dutch finds. The Schönfelder Group on the Lower Middle Elbe (from ca. 3000 BC). Typologically, the Bleckendorf beaker fits there as well, and there are a couple of Schönfelder sites in some 25 km radius around Bleckendorf. Danish early Single Grave (29th to 27th cBC) has a number of interesting (cord-decorated) pots. Hell, one might even consider early BB as a fusion of bell-shaped Ebbsfleth Ware and heringbone-decorated Mortlake Ware from Eastern England (2nd half of 4th/ 1st half of 3rd mBC). Proto-forms abound all around the North Sea.

@OM: "pick any [of BB signatures] and is mostly there [in Portugal]" No, it isn't! We have the pots, and H&H allude to the archery as possible Portuguese contribution to the "BB package", that's about it. No [baltic] amber beads (they stop in Galicia), no [alpine] wrist plates, hardly any [Maykop] tanged copper daggers. Spiral rings [Maykop]? Boar tusks [GAC]?
O.k., the package seems anyway much less standardised than commonly suggested: Wrist plates and arrowheads, e.g., very rarely occur together in the same grave. Still, the essence of the BB phenomenon, namely amalgamating elements from all corners of Europe into one half-way cohesive "package", is poorly represented in Portugal. Which is actually to be expected from a "corner", and if the archery symbolism is in fact of Portuguese origin, it has nevertheless substantially shaped (but not "created") the BB phenomenon.

@Nijhar: At least in SE France and Austria/Moravia, there is an archeologically very thin and short, but nevertheless visible BB "immigration horizon" that quickly picks up local sub- and adstrate and develops into its own regional variant of the BB phenomenon. Portugal seems to be a bit different in this respect, as the "proto-Phase" (pots only) started earlier and took longer to (be) absorb(ed into) pre-existing cultural settings.
However, H&H report that in Sion, the "immigration horizon" was almost completely cleared from graves. If the same happened elsewhere, we may miss most archeological evidence of the earliest settlement.

@OM: "If BBC was anything of a warrior like assemblage.." But it wasn't, not even in Portugal (read Cardoso!). They most likely were traders.

As a thought experiment, let's look at 15th century Portuguese arrival in India. A few centuries later, in Goa and Sri Lanka we have people buried with a cross pendant, most of whom have no or little Portuguese ancestry. Similar pendants in Brazil, but of course more Portuguese ancestry. Now imagine an archeologist living some 4000 years from now. There shouldnt be much of a problem in tracing back the "Cross Culture" to Europe, but search for a "homeland" may easily lead to Latium, or Poland, instead of Portugal. Then he starts with secondary cultural treats - glass beads (Egypt > Rome), fireweapons (CE) etc., and things get more complicated for W. Africa appearing on the map. Chinese pottery in Europe, aDNA shows more South Asian and African immigration into Britain than the other way around - do we really have the direction correct? What about the W. African expansion into the Americas?

Ric Hern said...

André maybe I phrased it wrong. It still occurs there. The Barossa Cattle breed are used in these duels. ☺

Ric Hern said...

We also see Cow vs.Cow in Switzerland. The Herens Cattle Breed...

Ric Hern said...

Montalegre....

Sam Hilsen said...

@Gioiello

Why are you talking about me? We haven't spoken in years, and I'm not even sure what ideas of mine you're even criticising here. I am aware my MTDNA is most likely not from the Natufians - my YDNA, on the other hand, probably is.

Gioiello said...

Sam, I write with my real name, Gioiello Tognoni. Of course I used other nicknames elsewhere (Maliclavelli on www.worldfamilies.net, Rathna on Anthrogenica, I used Claire, given to me from Vernade after that I was banned on DNA-Forums), but everyone knew who I was. You are using many nicknames, but the picture is always the same. Perhaps it would be better that you used only your real name: Sam Huelsenrath.
With the other nicknames you are writing in favour of the kurgan theory. It is right. Everyone should be free to write his own opinion, which is the same also of the owner of this blog. We all are waiting for this paper about Bell Beaker aDNA, but of course you know who are the authors and the sponsors. It is part of the game. But the unique who announced Villabruna was I.
Perhaps your Y may have come from Natufians, but anyway your autosome from Middle East isn't more thatn 10/20% after the Medieval bottleneck. Very likely your Italian percentage is at least the double... thus you shouldn't dislike Italy and Europe.

Karl_K said...

@Sam Hilsen

Gioiello is a highly respected expert on this blog. I believe I speak for everyone here when I say we have all read and ascribe to his thesis verbatim.

Annie Mouse said...

For all the R1b fanboys (and girls).

I stumbled over this juicy document by Iain MacDonald (U109 project coadministrator at FTDNA) on R1b1a1a2a1a1 (U106). I had not previously seen it and I thought I would share it with you in case some of you guys had missed it also. I do not agree with everything he says, (and wish he would use the other format or at least provide a translation key) but all the lovely data is just heavenly. Its not been updated with the latest aDNA yet.

Gioiello, have a look at the relatively high concentration of basal U106 family lines in Italy(dark brown). It might be an artifact but it is curious and perhaps evidence of early U109 movements.

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-overview-2016.pdf

Annie Mouse said...

This older version also has British regional data.

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-geography-2015-revised.pdf

Gioiello said...

@ Annie Mouse

I thank you for these very interesting papers. I'll study them and write my opinion. I did know Iain McDonald, and frequently I have some analyses of his from dartraighe (Ciaran Boylan), a very old R-U106 from Ireland, who has been banned from everywhere for saying that his ancestry may be in the Isles long before the Anglo-Saxons invasion, and is one of the few people who corresponds with me on www.eng-molgen.org, after that the group linked to FTDNA abandoned that blog for creating Anthrogenica.