View Full Version : The Beaker Bell Phenomenon
I originally wanted to post this in Linguistics, but I realized that this is a topic that straddles both linguistics and genetics, so I decided to post it here. The Beaker-Bell Culture is one of the most puzzling archaeological cultures, and it has been frquently discussed on the forum as s carrier for bringing both R1b and the Indo-European languages into Western Europe. As a short summary:
Arguments against Beaker-Bell being Indo-European:
- the oldest Beaker-Bell sites are in Portugal (ca. 2900 BC)
- bears strong continuity with the older Megalithic traditions.
- the extend Beaker-Bell into (in Antiquity) decisively non-Indo-European areas (North Africa, Sardinia, western Sicily)
- presence of non-IE languages in Iberia (Basque, Iberian, Tartessian).
- existence of non-IE words for metals and metal-working in the Basque language.
- relative scarcity of Celtic loanwords in Basque (would be expected to be much larger if Basque had been in contact with IE speakers for so many millennia).
Arguments in favour of Beaker-Bell being Indo-European
- could explain the spread of Indo-European languages (broadly Centum and in particular Celtic languages) in Western Europe.
- Stelae People hypothesis might explain the arrival in Portugal.
- could in combination with Corded Ware explain the 'hybrid' nature of the Germanic languages (ancient links with Balto-Slavic, but behaves like a Centum language later on).
- We only see the language situation approximately 2000-2500 years later, it may be unrepresentative of the language situation during the Beaker-Bell period.
5272
(map of the approximate Beaker-Bell expansion, based off Müller 2000, against the maximum extend of the Corded Ware Culture).
I am going to think about this a bit more before I vote in the poll. My thoughts about Beaker Culture have mostly been with respect to Britain... like, it's fairly clear that Grooved Ware (pre-Beaker) culture in Britain was not contiguous with Continental Europe, while Beaker Culture clearly was. That cements in my mind Grooved Ware as being non-R1b as well as non-IE... it probably had a lot of I2a-Isles or similar. Similarly, it seems clear to me that Iron Age migrations are the most likely spreaders of R1b-U152, and likely also P-Celtic. In-between we don't have much evidence of outside influence into Britain other than Beaker Culture, so that seems to pin the spread of proto-Celtic and R1b-L21 (at least the initial R1b-L21) on the Beaker People. On the other hand, the situation seems far from being so obvious on the Continent.
My best guess right now is that Beaker culture was originally an indigenous, largely Haplogroups I & G-based phenomenon that nonetheless ended up running into R1a-dominant Corded Ware Culture and spreading its advancing Southern cousin, R1b, due to migrations within it. I'm not sure how I would put that into the poll, maybe all of the first four. I'm far from confident on this.
The Bell Beaker phenomenon has been the biggest question mark in my timeline of the spread of the Indo-European languages and R1b1b2a in Western Europe.
- The extend of the Bell Beaker matches the map of R1b-L11 with uncanny precision. Yet, the Bell Beaker culture spread exactly the wrong way round, from Southwest Europe towards the east and north. R1b1b2a and the Indo-European speakers should have advanced in the opposite direction.
- The Beaker culture started in the late Neolithic and ends during the Bronze Age, which is the period associated with the IE migrations. Its continuity with the Megalithic culture, so far proven to be associated with I2 and G2a people, but not R1a or R1b people, makes me believe that it was indeed not Indo-European.
Here is the scenario I envisage. The beaker cultures (Bell Beaker or Funnelbeaker) were obviously non-IE and non-R1b1b2a. At least at the beginning. I just happened that the Proto-Italo-Celts started moving from the Danube region to Western Europe in the middle of the Bell Beaker culture, and overran it completely in the ensuing centuries, killing or enslaving countless indigenous men, but keeping most of the female population. A new hybrid culture was born, which explains why the beaker phenomenon survived for a while, before being definitely replaced by a purer Indo-European culture like the Tumulus and Hallstatt culture (perhaps through a later migration). In fact, it would make sense that the very first wave of Proto-Celts invaded Iberia, bringing S116* lineages with them, then a second wave (L21) took over France, Britain and Ireland, and a last wave brought S28/U152 to central Europe and a purer steppe-like kurgan/tumulus heritage. The Urnfield culture is another abnormality, since most Bronze-age Indo-European cultures buried their dead (in tumulus, for important people), but Urnfield people cremated them (or perhaps was it indigenous women cremating their dead husbands and sons, killed by the new invaders, as creepy as this sounds).
spongetaro
11-10-11, 23:48
- the extend Beaker-Bell into (in Antiquity) decisively non-Indo-European areas (North Africa, Sardinia, western Sicily)
There is a thesis of Arnaud Etchamendy who suggests that basque can be an Indo-European language
http://www.etchamendy.com (http://www.etchamendy.com/) (only in French)
Thank you everybody for your replies. First off, I agree that the Beaker Bell Culture (or 'phenomenon', if you will) represents indeed one of the greatest puzzles we're still facing. This was more or less the reason I started this thread. :69:
I also agree that one of the most bizarre issue is really that the spread of R1b-L11 sort of looks inverse to that of Beaker-Bell, especially if you consider that U106 (in Central Europe) was the first to branch off.
The main argument for me to assume Beaker-Bell was (at least originally) not Indo-European is really a linguistic one. As mentioned, the Basque language possesses it's own native words for metals and metal-working:
hammer - gabi
forge - sutegi
lead - beruna
smith - (h)arotz
blacksmith - olagizon
iron - burdina
This would be totally unexpected if Beaker-Bell had been Indo-European. In contrast, the Finnic languages clearly make borrowings from early IE. So, for me this provoked the idea that there might have been a native Western European culture which practiced metal-working, and Beaker-Bell is the only candidate for this. Since Basque is an isolate language nowadays, it's obviously impossible to test if these words were native to Basque or borrowed, but they are clearly non-IE in origin.
One major genetics-related question that I wonder on is, if it wasn't R1b, was there another Haplogroup associated with the spread of Beaker-Bell? Another thought that occured to me is that as can be seen clearly from the map, there was a large area of overlap between Beaker-Bell and Corded Ware, and it begs the question what language situation we faced in the overlap area.
Otherwise, I also agree with Sparkey that the pattern of U152 - at least in Atlantic Europe is probably the result of iron age migrations (though I will put a question mark here on the situation Italy). I otherwise speculated already that L21 is associated with the Atlantic Bronze Age, at least the properly Celtic part of the Atlantic Bronze Age (it's pretty obvious that the late Atlantic Bronze Age wasn't a homogenous area).
Regarding Urnfield, that is another can of worms I'm going to open in detail at some other day... :laughing:
There is a thesis of Arnaud Etchamendy who suggests that basque can be an Indo-European language
http://www.etchamendy.com (http://www.etchamendy.com/) (only in French)
Well, apart from the fact that that's a minority view, even if we hypothetically assume for a moment that there is a way how Basque could be Indo-European and ignore all the obstacles (Basque is ergative-absolutive and agglutinative, whereas Indo-European is nominative-accusative and fusional, and I didn't even get started on sound correspondences!), there's basic obstacle that the core vocabulary of Basque is fundamentally non-Indo-European, and all cognates between Basque and Indo-European are loanwords (Romance, Latin or Celtic).
In fact, it would make sense that the very first wave of Proto-Celts invaded Iberia, bringing S116* lineages with them, then a second wave (L21) took over France, Britain and Ireland, and a last wave brought S28/U152 to central Europe and a purer steppe-like kurgan/tumulus heritage.
According to your R1b tree is S28/U152 a descendant of Italo-Celtic S116. S116 is 5300 years old while S28 is for about 3500 years old right?
The ancestor of (Germanic ?) L21/U106 is NOT from S116 (Italo-Celtic ?), but is the descendant of the more archaic L11/S127. L11 is 6000 old and thus older than S116.
S28/U152 is from Iberia. And I don't think that (Germanic ?) L21/U106 is from Iberia at all! But maybe somewhere from Central Europe or something.
My answer to this question is that the original Beaker-Bell Culture folks belonged to S28/U152 and some other minor & extinct subclades of the archaic (proto Italo-Celtic) P312/S116.
Asturrulumbo
12-10-11, 05:16
Alright, this is indeed an extremely hard question. But it is also one that has an enormous impact in reconstructing the ethnic movements of Europe. So first off I would begin with this reasoning: I assume, like many here do, that R1b-L11 came to Europe with the Indo-European migrations. I also assume, like is the mainstream archaeological opinion, that the (proto-)Indo-Europeans arrived to Western, Central, and Southeast Europe from the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age, and I believe most will also agree with me on this. The problem, of course, is how and (exactly) when did the Indo-European languages reach these parts of Europe.
Now, let us get to the problems in question: Was the Bell Beaker culture Indo-European (and if so, what variety?)? Did L11 (or at least S116) originate or at least expand to Western and Central Europe with them? I will try to answer the first question, as the second question is (in the opinion of most) answered by it.
First of all, those who argue for an Indo-European identity for the Beaker folk point to something that is indeed considered diagnostic in many cases for establishing whether an archaeological horizon can be considered Indo-European: the domestication of the horse. Anthony and Brown (2003:66) indeed state that:
This gradual expansion in the social and economic roles of horseback riding culminated in the first widespread adoption of riding beyond the western steppes, first in the steppes of Central Eurasia (Botai/Tersek, about 3500–3000 BC), and later in eastern Europe (Baden- Kostolac/Corded Ware/Bell Beaker, beginning about 3000–2500 BC)
Eneolithic horse rituals and riding in the steppes: new evidence, in Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse
That is, there was indeed horse-riding in the Beaker culture. However, it is also true that (Milisaukas and Kruk 2011):
...the frequencies of horse remains are low in central and western Europe prior to the Bronze Age.
Middle Neolithic/Early Copper Age, Continuity, Diversity, and Greater Complexity, 5500/5000–3500 BC, in Prehistoric Europe
That is, horse-riding (with all its sociocultural components) only became widespread after the Beaker culture.
One of the most persistent problems with the theory that the Beaker culture was Indo-European was its origins in Iberia and its northwest-southeast expansion (ibid; see map):
. In the past, the Iberian Peninsula was favored as its area of origin. Chronology tends to support this hypothesis, since the earliest radiocarbon dates around 2800 BC occur in Iberia, southern France, and northern Italy. Chronological data also indicates that the Bell Beaker phenomenon spread from the southwest toward the northeast. Today some archaeologists tend to prefer local origins for the Bell Beaker phenomenon. However, the Bell Beaker burials around Stonehenge in England indicate some migration. “On the basis of isotope testing of the man’s teeth” from a burial at Amesbury, “archaeologists concluded that he had spent his youth in the Alpine regions, while his son, buried nearby, was a native Briton” (Czebreszuk 2004:483).
5274
I, for the archaeological evidence I have pondered, believe it is indeed a culture with local origins (at least in Iberia). However it is undeniable that there was, in one way or another, a migration associated with the Beaker folk. I would (tentatively, very tentatively) associate it perhaps with the expansion of some subclades of haplogroup J2, E1b1b and/or G2 into Central and Western Europe from Iberia:
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J2.jpg
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E1b1b.jpg
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_G2a.gif
I thus believe that the most probable scenario is a later spread of Indo-European languages (and R1b) to Western Europe during the Bronze Age.
One major genetics-related question that I wonder on is, if it wasn't R1b, was there another Haplogroup associated with the spread of Beaker-Bell? Another thought that occured to me is that as can be seen clearly from the map, there was a large area of overlap between Beaker-Bell and Corded Ware, and it begs the question what language situation we faced in the overlap area.
I don't know why I haven't thought about this earlier, but what if the Bell Beaker culture was the one that spread haplogroup E1b1b (along perhaps with J2 and of course with some G2a, I2a that was already all over Europe at the time) around Western Europe ? It may sound crazy at first, but the Bell Beaker started from central Portugal, one of the earliest region where the Neolithic started in Western Europe. As we still don't have timing for the spread of E1b1b, that could be it.
According to your R1b tree is S28/U152 a descendant of Italo-Celtic S116. S116 is 5300 years old while S28 is for about 3500 years old right?
I didn't calculate the age of haplogroups. This was done by people at ISOGG and other specialists. Usually they tend to underestimate the age because many side lineages died out or weren't tested for STR yet, so they cannot get the full picture.
The ancestor of (Germanic ?) L21/U106 is NOT from S116 (Italo-Celtic ?), but is the descendant of the more archaic L11/S127. L11 is 6000 old and thus older than S116.
You have to understand that L11, S116 and S21/U106 probably all existed in small numbers back in the Pontic Steppe before R1b moved to central and western Europe.
S28/U152 is from Iberia. And I don't think that (Germanic ?) L21/U106 is from Iberia at all! But maybe somewhere from Central Europe or something.
S28/U152 is not from Iberia at all !
Eneolithic horse rituals and riding in the steppes: new evidence, in Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse
That is, there was indeed horse-riding in the Beaker culture. However, it is also true that (Milisaukas and Kruk 2011):
Horse-riding could have spread to western Europe through the contact of Bell Beaker people with Corded Ware (R1a) and Danubian R1b cultures. After all, the Amerindians of North America learned from seeing Europeans riding horses. Once a few horses are captured and the skill learned, the practice can spread like bushfire.
Another possibility is that, as I explained above, the horses appeared in the Bell Beaker culture along with the Indo-European advance from the east. What we need to know is whether the Bell Beaker folks already had horses before this culture expanded out of Iberia (before 2500 BCE). I would expect that they didn't.
Try to see the Bell Beaker period in two phases :
1) expansion from Portugal to Iberia then to all Western Europe (2900 to 2400 BCE).
2) progressive Indo-European invasion of the Bell Beaker culture from central Europe (from circa 2500 BCE until the complete disappearance of the Bell Beaker circa 1800 BCE).
I don't know why I haven't thought about this earlier, but what if the Bell Beaker culture was the one that spread haplogroup E1b1b (along perhaps with J2 and of course with some G2a, I2a that was already all over Europe at the time) around Western Europe ? It may sound crazy at first, but the Bell Beaker started from central Portugal, one of the earliest region where the Neolithic started in Western Europe. As we still don't have timing for the spread of E1b1b, that could be it.
Hmmm, there is that possibility. Given we (still) have no idea as of yet where E1b came from (it's one of those Haplogroups everybody expected to be Neolithic but it clearly isn't), this might be it. There's otherwise the possibility, as Sparkey suggested, that this was a Neolithic phenomenon and the Beaker-Bell people were predominantly G2 and I, but as Asturrulumbo pointed out, there definitely was migration associated with Beaker-Bell. There is also the issue that we do not know what the Neolithic situation in Iberia looked like: it's conceivable that E1b was already in Iberia during the Neolithic, but not in France or Germany. Of course, one issue that I wonder is: if E1b was spread by the Beaker-Bell people, why is it so rare nowadays in the British Isles?
Try to see the Bell Beaker period in two phases :
1) expansion from Portugal to Iberia then to all Western Europe (2900 to 2400 BCE).
2) progressive Indo-European invasion of the Bell Beaker culture from central Europe (from circa 2500 BCE until the complete disappearance of the Bell Beaker circa 1800 BCE).
So, you're suggesting that Beaker-Bell was essentially 'hijacked' by Indo-Europeans upon the contact with the Corded Ware area in Central Europe?
S28/U152 is not from Iberia at all !
I don't agree with you. Do you have evidence for it? S28/U152 is a descendant of S116. When S28 evolved from S116, S116 was already well established in Iberia!
So I believe that S28/U152 is from Iberia.
But it's possible that it's precursor S116 originally is from somewhere else.
I don't agree with you. Do you have evidence for it? S28/U152 is a descendant of S116. When S28 evolved from S116, S116 was already well established in Iberia!
So I believe that S28/U152 is from Iberia.
But it's possible that it's precursor S116 originally is from somewhere else.
The highest abundance of S28 is in northern italy, and after that Switzerland and southwestern Germany. In contrast, it's below 5% in Iberia. In addition to that, the highest diversity of S28 is apparently in northern Germany.
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif
In my opinion there is no reason to assume S116 originated in Iberia. In general, there are three main subclades of S116:
- S28 (mainly Italy, France, Central Europe)
- L21 (mainly British Isles, western France)
- Z196 (Iberia)
Though it should be added that R1b-Z196 has only recently been discovered and the true extend of Z196 in Iberia is uncertain.
So actually what you folks are saying is that there was no R1b (S116) in Iberian 4900 years ago or before 2900 BCE?
And that it's a pretty recent immigrant from Central Europe or even from the Pontic-Caspian steppe (!), right? Many Western scolars do not agree with you guys on that.
So actually what you folks are saying is that there was no R1b (S116) in Iberian 4900 years ago or before 2900 BCE?
And that it's a pretty recent immigrant from Central Europe or even from the Pontic-Caspian steppe (!), right?
Well, we know that there was no R1b at Treilles (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/24/1100723108.short) in ca. 2900 BC, nor was there any R1b at Derenburg, Germany at approximately the same time (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000536). Both are locations where today ~70% and ~40% of the population are R1b, respectively.
S116's outgroup (U106) is found in Central Europe, and L11x (without U106 or S116) is found in Eastern Europe. There's no reason what so ever to assume that R1b spread from Iberia.
Many Western scolars do not agree with you guys on that.
Well, who, as of the end of 2010 said that?
S116's outgroup (U106) is found in Central Europe, and L11x (without U106 or S116) is found in Eastern Europe. There's no reason what so ever to assume that R1b spread from Iberia.
Nein, S21/U106 has nothing to do with S116. S21/U106 is a descendant of L11/S127.
It's possible that L11/S127 and S116 are from the same source (area), but S116 migrated into Iberia, while L11/S127 stayed in Central Europe and mixed with Indo-Europeans (R1a & J2 folks).
Well, who, as of the end of 2010 said that?
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044.short?rss=1
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285
Nein, S21/U106 has nothing to do with S116. S21/U106 is a descendant of L11/S127.
Well, U106 has a whole lot to do with S116, because it's the outgroup. L11 is dominated by two subclades, S116 and U106.
It's possible that L11/S127 and S116 are from the same source (area), but S116 migrated into Iberia, while L11/S127 stayed in Central Europe and mixed with Indo-Europeans (R1a & J2 folks).
There is no reason to assume that S116 migrated into Iberia first and that it's subclades then migrated from Britain, Central Europe and Italy from Iberia. Otherwise we would find higher concentrations of U152 or L21 in Iberia, which we don't.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044.short?rss=1
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285
I cannot open the first article, but I am aware of the second article, and it is from January 2010 (which is why I asked "as of the end of 2010), and the Neolithic origin of R1b essentially outdated/disproven due to the absence of R1b in Neolithic sites.
There is no reason to assume that S116 migrated into Iberia first and that it's subclades then migrated from Britain, Central Europe and Italy from Iberia. Otherwise we would find higher concentrations of U152 or L21 in Iberia, which we don't.
I cannot open the first article, but I am aware of the second article, and it is from January 2010 (which is why I asked "as of the end of 2010), and the Neolithic origin of R1b essentially outdated/disproven due to the absence of R1b in Neolithic sites.
- That's my point the Beaker-Bell Culture spread all subclades of S116 from Iberia in other parts of Europe. Your 'higher concentrations of U152 or L21 in Iberia' is not a strong argument. R1b in West Asia is older than R1b in Europe and still there's much more R1b in Europe than West Asia. The same case is with S116 and it subclades. Ancient subclades of S116 evolved even further in new land into S145/L21, S28/U152 etc.
- here's a summary of it: http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/08/2011/new-gene-study-shows-origins-of-european-men
Re: the E1b hypothesis: We need to remember that we're talking about two different European E1b clades, E1b-M81 (probably came over from North Africa) and E1b-M78 (probably came over from the Near East). Now we're pretty confident that E1b-M81 came over well before the Moors, possibly as long ago as the Neolithic (I'm not familiar with STR dating of this but that's what I've read). So if we're talking about migrations out of pre-R1b Iberia, there's a very good chance that they had a lot of I2a1a, G2a, and E1b-M81... in fact, the spread of E1b-M81 into France is very likely explainable by Beaker Culture. I don't see a similar pattern for E1b-M78 though, so I'm not sure it solves our E1b problem.
spongetaro
12-10-11, 17:46
. in fact, the spread of E1b-M81 into France is very likely explainable by Beaker Culture..
E peaks in non Bell beaker areas in France. The Bell beaker complex influenced most of Atlantic and Mediterranean France where today R1b S116* and R1b L21 peak.
Re: the E1b hypothesis: We need to remember that we're talking about two different European E1b clades, E1b-M81 (probably came over from North Africa) and E1b-M78 (probably came over from the Near East). Now we're pretty confident that E1b-M81 came over well before the Moors, possibly as long ago as the Neolithic (I'm not familiar with STR dating of this but that's what I've read). So if we're talking about migrations out of pre-R1b Iberia, there's a very good chance that they had a lot of I2a1a, G2a, and E1b-M81... in fact, the spread of E1b-M81 into France is very likely explainable by Beaker Culture. I don't see a similar pattern for E1b-M78 though, so I'm not sure it solves our E1b problem.
There are much more than two subclades of E1b1b. The more I think about it the less sense it makes that E1b1b expanded from the Near East, mainly because all subclades of E1b1b are found in East Africa, even the so-called European ones like V13. I posted a new hypothesis (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26788-Did-E1b1b-cross-directly-from-North-Africa-to-Europe-due-to-climate-change) last month about the possibility that the lush green Paleolithic and Mesolithic Sahara was once inhabited by a great number of E1b1b people, who crossed the Mediterranean in search of more fertile land when the Sahara started to desertify.
- E1b1b1a (E-V68) => found in Sardinia and Africa but not in the Middle East (clearly pointing to a direct migration from North Africa to Sardinia)
- its subclade E1b1b1a1 (E-M78) => found in East Africa, North Africa, the Middle East and Europe. E-V13 is one of its numerous subclades and is found all over North Africa as well as in Europe and the Middle East. All the other subclades are mostly East African (V12, V22, V32) or North African (V65), but not Middle Eastern.
- E1b1b1b (E-L19/V257) => the parent haplogroup of E-M81, recently discovered by Trombetta et al. (2011) (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016073). It is so far found in Kenya, Morocco, Corsica, Sardinia, and Spain, once again showing a direct Africa to Southwest Europe movement. E-M81 itself is found all over the Sahara, as far south as Burkina Faso, and as far east as Sudan.
- E1b1b1c (E-M123) => extremely wide distribution, throughout East Africa, North Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia. No clear pattern of distribution so far, but some pockets here and there with higher frequency due to the sparsity of tests.
The lack of clear pattern and the very old age of these haplogroups and their surprising diversity for their age (a sign that they descend from a large Paleolithic population) all agree with a pan-Saharan distribution in the late Paleolithic (from circa 20,000 years ago) until the last desertification of the Sahara roughly 6,000 years ago.
It is a mistake to try to comprehend the world as it was 10,000 or 15,000 years ago by looking at how it is now. Just before the end of the last Ice Age, the world was a totally different place. Northern Europe was uninhabitable, southern Europe was had a climate closer to modern Scandinavia, and North Africa was a vast Eden, teeming with game and fruit trees that could support a very large hunter-gatherer population (certainly more than all Ice-age Europe put together). The Middle East, as far east as Afghanistan and Pakistan, was also much greener than today and filled with big mammals of all kind. That's why most of the late Paleolithic haplogroup diversity was to be found from the Sahara to South Asia, and haplogroups such as R1a and R1b probably arose in such a region too.
- E1b1b1a (E-V68) => found in Sardinia and Africa but not in the Middle East (clearly pointing to a direct migration from North Africa to Sardinia)
- its subclade E1b1b1a1 (E-M78) => found in East Africa, North Africa, the Middle East and Europe. E-V13 is one of its numerous subclades and is found all over North Africa as well as in Europe and the Middle East. All the other subclades are mostly East African, not Middle Eastern.
I could believe a direct migration across the Mediterranean for this. How likely is it that there was much E1b M81- in Iberia at the time of Beaker Culture, though? Much of the E1b M81- present in Iberia today (and there isn't all that much) probably came from later migrations into it, no? So if we're postulating a major movement of E1b out of Iberia during Beaker Culture time, it seems that it was mainly E1b M81+. I'm curious if you agree with that.
I have an addition regarding that African influence in Iberia and Sardinia: if Maciamo is correct about this, it would perfectly explain what we see with the autosomal DNA data (African admixture) from DODECAD.
Otherwise, I must agree with spongetario that the distribution of E1b, which is basically inverse to the actual occurence of Beaker-Bell sites in France is an argument against Beaker-Bell distributing E1b. On the flip side, if R1b arrived later (which, for all purposes, still cannot be ruled out), it could explain the pattern we do see even if Beaker-Bell carried E1b.
Hmmm, there is that possibility. Given we (still) have no idea as of yet where E1b came from (it's one of those Haplogroups everybody expected to be Neolithic but it clearly isn't), this might be it.
E1b1b wasn't found in Neolithic sites in Europe either because it came later (most common assumption), or because it was already there since the Paleolithic/Mesolithic, alongside haplogroup I. I am increasingly in favour of the second scenario, because I just can't see how E1b1b could have become so widespread in Europe with a post-Bronze Age arrival. We still don't have any Paleolithic or Mesolithic Y-DNA, and the Neolithic archaeological sites were essentially inhabited by the people who brought the Neolithic culture, not by the contemporary indigenous hunter-gatherers. There is so little haplogroup I in Italy in particular that I foresee that E-M78 (with a E-M81 and E-M123 minority) migrated from North Africa to South Italy, then to Greece, then to the Balkans. Iberia was settled by the same haplogroups but with more E-M81. There were probably several waves in both cases.
I could believe a direct migration across the Mediterranean for this. How likely is it that there was much E1b M81- in Iberia at the time of Beaker Culture, though? Much of the E1b M81- present in Iberia today (and there isn't all that much) probably came from later migrations into it, no? So if we're postulating a major movement of E1b out of Iberia during Beaker Culture time, it seems that it was mainly E1b M81+. I'm curious if you agree with that.
The Bell Beaker people didn't necessarily need a big movement of people to spread their culture because all megalithic cultures were already part of a vast Atlantic trade network. So it doesn't really matter how much E-M81 there was in East Iberia at the time.
I have an addition regarding that African influence in Iberia and Sardinia: if Maciamo is correct about this, it would perfectly explain what we see with the autosomal DNA data (African admixture) from DODECAD.
Yes and no. If the Paleolithic inhabitants of the North Sahara, or at least coastal North Africa, are the ones who brought E-M78 to Europe (in the Mesolithic ?), they could have been very different people from the modern North Africans. Present-day Maghrebans have more E-M81, which could have been the main haplogroup of the central Sahara before it turned into a vast desert. Forced to move north and south, these E-M81 could have displaced a part of this E-M78 population to southern Europe. However, the names of the Dodecad Admixtures only reflect the distribution of these genes today. If there was a major migration from North Africa to southern Europe, then it would be one of the principal admixture found in southern Europe today, but would still be found at a reasonably high (though lower) frequency in North Africa today. The only candidate that match this is the Mediterranean admixture*.
In the last two days, I have been compiling the list of all ancient European DNA (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/ancient_european_dna.shtml) tested to date, and it struck me how the only haplogroup H or HV from the Paleolithic or Mesolithic was from southern Europe. All northern or central Europe is overwhelmingly U with only some K, T and V appearing in terminal Mesolithic cultures with contact with neighbouring Neolithic ones (like the Pitted Ware in Scandinavia). I think it is a sign that I1 and I2 paternal lineages carried exclusively mtDNA U (U4 and U5) until the Mesolithic. If that is so, then who brought the H in Iberia or Italy ? My guess is that it was E-M78 (while E-M81 would have brought U6).
During the Ice Age, the Red Sea was lower and the passage from East Africa to the Arabian peninsula easier than today. The Arabian peninsula was also much greener. With all that water around, and a temperate area similar to continental Europe today, there is a high chance that the Red Sea region was more heavily populated than almost anywhere else on earth at the time. This is where E1b1b, F, G, IJ, K and T could have originated, as well as many mtDNA haplogroups, including R, HV, H, JT, J and T.
* EDIT : The top subclades of E1b1b1 (M78, M81 and M123) split away from each others 20,000 years ago, roughly the same time as R1 split into R1a and R1b, or I split into I1 and I2. So if there is a clear Dodecad admixture matching R1b (Northwest European) and one matching R1a (East European), it's only natural that the E-M81 (Northwest African) is separate from the E-M78 (Mediterranean).
E1b1b wasn't found in Neolithic sites in Europe either because it came later (most common assumption), or because it was already there since the Paleolithic/Mesolithic, alongside haplogroup I. I am increasingly in favour of the second scenario, because I just can't see how E1b1b could have become so widespread in Europe with a post-Bronze Age arrival. We still don't have any Paleolithic or Mesolithic Y-DNA, and the Neolithic archaeological sites were essentially inhabited by the people who brought the Neolithic culture, not by the contemporary indigenous hunter-gatherers. There is so little haplogroup I in Italy in particular that I foresee that E-M78 (with a E-M81 and E-M123 minority) migrated from North Africa to South Italy, then to Greece, then to the Balkans. Iberia was settled by the same haplogroups but with more E-M81. There were probably several waves in both cases.
I'm a bit confused which subclades you're putting where, when. Would you actually place E1b-M81 and E1b-V13 in Europe during the Paleolithic? Y-STR dating and diversity analysis of those clades pretty much rules that out. A Mesolithic arrival isn't impossible, though... worth investigating.
I'm a bit confused which subclades you're putting where, when. Would you actually place E1b-M81 and E1b-V13 in Europe during the Paleolithic? Y-STR dating and diversity analysis of those clades pretty much rules that out. A Mesolithic arrival isn't impossible, though... worth investigating.
According to Cruciani :
- E1b1b is 22,000 years ago
- E1b1b1a (E-M78, or actually E-V68 now) is 18,500 years
During this period, around the Last Glacial Maximum, the Sahara and Arabian peninsula were a vast patchwork of dense and sparse forests (temperate in the north, tropical in the south), not unlike eastern India and eastern China, but on a bigger scale. The regular monsoon that allowed this rich vegetation to flourish left about 13,000 years ago, then returned, then left again 6000 years ago and hasn't come back (yet). Each event brought a sudden desertification to the Sahara and Arabian peninsula, and I think that each time animals and people just moved somewhere else where there was more water and vegetation, both north and south. So E1b1b might have first arrived to southern Europe (at least in great number) roughly 12-13,000 years ago, which also coincides with the end of the Ice Age, the beginning of the Mesolithic, and the climate getting comfortably warmer in Europe, allowing Paleolithic Europeans (hg I) to move further north, and North Africans (E1b1b) to settle in southern Europe.
As for E-V13, it probably already existed at the time of this migration, and due to a founder effect became somehow a dominant lineage in Greece. It's not clear whether the founder effect applied to Mesolithic South Italy too, or if E-V13 really developed in Balkanic Greece then re-expanded to South Italy later with the Greek colonisation. It's also possible that E-V13 originated in Greece itself after E-M78 had come from North Africa, and that all the E-V13 in North Africa today is of Greco-Roman origin, but I doubt so, because E-V13 is too widespread around Europe and the Middle East too, and I don't think the Greeks and Romans are solely responsible for all of it.
Yes and no. If the Paleolithic inhabitants of the North Sahara, or at least coastal North Africa, are the ones who brought E-M78 to Europe (in the Mesolithic ?), they could have been very different people from the modern North Africans. Present-day Maghrebans have more E-M81, which could have been the main haplogroup of the central Sahara before it turned into a vast desert. Forced to move north and south, these E-M81 could have displaced a part of this E-M78 population to southern Europe. However, the names of the Dodecad Admixtures only reflect the distribution of these genes today. If there was a major migration from North Africa to southern Europe, then it would be one of the principal admixture found in southern Europe today, but would still be found at a reasonably high (though lower) frequency in North Africa today. The only candidate that match this is the Mediterranean admixture*.
Oh, I see your point now! You mean that the modern makeup of Northwest African (even if we substract the Arab influence) would not be representative at all of the ancient North African population. This is definitely a very interesting new and promising approach!
Asturrulumbo
13-10-11, 01:03
One thing that may help solve this problem is examining the distribution of R1b-L11*, which is the direct ancestor of S116 (which some say originated in Iberia among the Beaker folk) and U106. (map by Myres 2010):
5283
Here, we see 3 places where there is a relatively high concentration:
-The Midlands of England, and to a lesser extent, the rest of England as well as Wales
-A trans-alpine area stretching from Lombardy to southern Germany
-The southwest coast of the Baltic (roughly the Baltic coasts of Poland, Germany, Germany and Sweden)
The Spanish Levant, Brittany and most of Germany also show notable frequencies (though lesser than the ones mentioned).
Now then, if the Beaker Culture truly were responsible for the expansion of S116, I doubt L11* were absent in such core Beaker areas as Western Iberia and Sardinia.
Instead, I rather believe that L11 originated c. 2500-2300 BC in Central Europe in the Early Bronze Age or Late Copper Age, either with an Indo-Europeanized late Beaker culture or the Unetice culture (this would explain the abundance of L11* in the Trans-Alpine area described above).
I'm not saying that S116 IS from Iberia, I'm just suggesting that S116 MOVED INTO Iberia. Then some of S116 early subclades evolved in Iberia and moved up to north in the same direction with the original Beaker folks.
Asturrulumbo
13-10-11, 01:25
I'm not saying that S116 IS from Iberia, I'm just suggesting that S116 MOVED INTO Iberia. Then some of S116 early and first subclades evolved somewhere in Iberia and moved up to north in the same direction with the original Beaker folks.
But then, where did it come from?
I'm not saying that S116 IS from Iberia, I'm just suggesting that S116 MOVED INTO Iberia. Then some of S116 early subclades evolved in Iberia and moved up to north in the same direction with the original Beaker folks.
As I (and other board members) said before, there's no reason to assume S116's subclades (except for Z196) evolved in Iberia.
But then, where did it come from?From the same place where L11/S127 was situated.
Asturrulumbo
13-10-11, 01:32
From the same place where L11/S127 was situated.
And where would that place be?
As I (and other board members) said before, there's no reason to assume S116's subclades (except for Z196) evolved in Iberia.But S116 settled in Iberia, that's a fact and I believe it's an ancestor of S28/U152. We're talking about the linear continuity here.
And where would that place be?Maybe England or maybe Central Europe!
Asturrulumbo
13-10-11, 01:39
Maybe England or maybe Central Europe!
So... in your opinion, L11 can't be equated with the Indo-European expansion?
So... in your opinion, L11 can't be equated with the Indo-European expansion?
I don't think that the whole R1b is Indo-European at all. European R1b is native to Europe, it's European. European R1b has nothing to do with the early INDO-Europeans!
And R1a alone is not Indo-European either. The new Indo-European race/ethnicity was born when R1a and J2a mixed with each other somewhere around the Caucasus be it Northern Caucasus (or the Pontic-Caspian Steppe) or be it Southern Caucasus.
Asturrulumbo
13-10-11, 01:58
I don't think that the whole R1b is Indo-European at all. European R1b is native to Europe, it's European. European R1b has nothing to do with the early INDO-Europeans!
So when did R1b first arrive to Western and Central Europe, in your opinion, and which subclades?
Cambrius (The Red)
13-10-11, 02:05
Oh, I see your point now! You mean that the modern makeup of Northwest African (even if we substract the Arab influence) would not be representative at all of the ancient North African population. This is definitely a very interesting new and promising approach!
I agree with Maciamo on this. The original N. African Berbers were Eurasian and probably migrated from the Upper Middle-East and possibly the Caspian region.
So when did R1b first arrive to Western and Central Europe, in your opinion, and which subclades?
In Europe before the Neolithic. M269 or maybe even the ancestor of it (P297). M269 is older than beginning of the Neolithic era in Europe which started around 6500 BCE. So R1b migrated into Europe before 6500 BCE, I don't know precisely when if I must guess I would say at least 10000 BCE. Right before or after the last glacial period in Europe.
You know what, the agricultural revolution in Kurdistan started around 12000-11000 BCE. But spread into Europe only around 7000-6500 BCE.
But S116 settled in Iberia, that's a fact and I believe it's an ancestor of S28/U152. We're talking about the linear continuity here.
Yes, S28 is a subclade of S116, but there is no reason to assume that S116 specifically evolved in Iberia, especially not S28.
I agree with Maciamo on this. The original N. African Berbers were Eurasian and probably migrated from the Upper Middle-East and possibly the Caspian region.
Actually, if we think this to the end, there's no real reason to assume that the Mesolithic population of Northwest Africa were already speakers of a Berber language. The Afro-Asiatic language family (which includes the Berber languages) is obviously rather old (older than Indo-European), but not that old. At some point the Proto-Berbers must have migrated to North Africa from the Afro-Asiatic homeland (usually assumed as the Horn of Africa.
I always beleived ain Southern france, as per link below
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10512
but i do not know the genetics for it.
I'm not saying that S116 IS from Iberia, I'm just suggesting that S116 MOVED INTO Iberia. Then some of S116 early subclades evolved in Iberia and moved up to north in the same direction with the original Beaker folks.
That's the wrong way to look at it. Populations are almost never homogeneous. The Proto-Italo-Celts from the Pontic Steppes or Danube region almost certainly were an admixture comprising various clades of R1b-L11, including R1b-L11*, R1b-S21, R1b-S116*, R1b-L21, R1b-S28, R1b-Z196, + many of their subclades + other minor side lineages. Even subclades as deep as L20 (subclade of L2, itself a subclade of S28) or S68 (subclade of L176.2 and Z196) probably existed before the invasion of Western Europe by the Indo-Europeans. It's just that they were limited to a few individuals, and only expanded a few centuries or millennia later, either because this clan fared better than the others (more food, less war casualties, less diseases, more children) or because a member of that clan got into a position of power (new dynasty) that allowed him and his descendants to have more children than other people.
Don't think of the PIE as a single group, but more of a confederation of tribes, with plenty of chieftains and minor kings, a bit like in ancient Gaul, ancient Britain/Ireland and among ancient Germanic people. We can deduct from the analysis of PIE languages that PIE society was strongly hierarchical and patrilinear, but also clannish, just like the ancient Celtic and Germanic people. In this context, the dominant male (chieftain/king)'s lineage can easily expand exponentially.
My point is that S116* in Iberia is not the ancestral population of the subclades of S116 elsewhere in Europe. S116 is found throughout Europe, in Anatolia and even in Russia and Central Asia. Iberia has more S116 simply because the Indo-Europeans who migrated there just happened to have more of this lineages. Actually it is almost certainly not S116*, but a subclade that hasn't been discovered yet (or one of the numerous subclades that was discovered this year, like Z196, S182 or DF19, but wasn't tested in older Iberian studies).
I agree with Maciamo on this. The original N. African Berbers were Eurasian and probably migrated from the Upper Middle-East and possibly the Caspian region.
How can you agree with me when what you write is in complete contradiction of what I wrote ? First, I never mentioned the Berbers. They are a modern hybrid of various prehistoric populations and do not reflect the Paleolithic inhabitants of North Africa. Not all Berbers are the same. Mozabites, South Moroccans, North Moroccans, Kabyles, and Egyptian Berbers are all quite different people in terms of haplogroups and autosomal admixtures. Secondly, I never said that the Paleolithic North Africans were Eurasians. I said that E1b1b originated somewhere between East Africa and Southwest Asia (Arabian peninsula) - that's not Eurasia. I never mentioned the Caspian, which didn't exist in the Paleolithic anyway.
Dorianfinder
13-10-11, 13:05
Bell Beaker is not IE. It descended from the non-IE Funnelbeaker culture of old Europe. Malmstrom et al. 2009 extracted ancient DNA from three individuals dated to the non-IE Funnelbeaker culture in Sweden and found mtDNA haplogroups H, J, and T.
spongetaro
13-10-11, 13:28
Bell Beaker is not IE. It descended from the non-IE Funnelbeaker culture of old Europe. Malmstrom et al. 2009 extracted ancient DNA from three individuals dated to the non-IE Funnelbeaker culture in Sweden and found mtDNA haplogroups H, J, and T.
Archeologists have found a link between the Funnelbeaker culture and the Bell beaker?
Dorianfinder
13-10-11, 13:44
Archeologists have found a link between the Funnelbeaker culture and the Bell beaker?
http://www.saveyourheritage.com/images/Megalithic_architecture.png http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_96D2zI7_w6c/SBHCNUHVftI/AAAAAAAAE0Q/pXZx65RF-OE/s400/hstar+lastpoint+the+atlantic+coast170.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/European_Late_Neolithic.gif/800px-European_Late_Neolithic.gif
I have found numerous links and believe the Funnelbeaker to be one of the precursors to the Bell Beaker. Interestingly, the Bell Beaker has a shape that suggests an intermediary stage between Funnelbeaker and Anatolian (see 2nd figure above).
Cambrius (The Red)
13-10-11, 16:04
How can you agree with me when what you write is in complete contradiction of what I wrote ? First, I never mentioned the Berbers. They are a modern hybrid of various prehistoric populations and do not reflect the Paleolithic inhabitants of North Africa. Not all Berbers are the same. Mozabites, South Moroccans, North Moroccans, Kabyles, and Egyptian Berbers are all quite different people in terms of haplogroups and autosomal admixtures. Secondly, I never said that the Paleolithic North Africans were Eurasians. I said that E1b1b originated somewhere between East Africa and Southwest Asia (Arabian peninsula) - that's not Eurasia. I never mentioned the Caspian, which didn't exist in the Paleolithic anyway.
Let me qualify. I agree with you in the sense that the ancient population of North Africa (particularly Central-to-North-west Africa) was probably greatly unlike what is generally found in the region presently. I can't comment on Egyptians, however, there are some fundamental differences between Egyptians and other North Africans.
Asturrulumbo
13-10-11, 17:19
That's the wrong way to look at it. Populations are almost never homogeneous. The Proto-Italo-Celts from the Pontic Steppes or Danube region almost certainly were an admixture comprising various clades of R1b-L11, including R1b-L11*, R1b-S21, R1b-S116*, R1b-L21, R1b-S28, R1b-Z196, + many of their subclades + other minor side lineages. Even subclades as deep as L20 (subclade of L2, itself a subclade of S28) or S68 (subclade of L176.2 and Z196) probably existed before the invasion of Western Europe by the Indo-Europeans. It's just that they were limited to a few individuals, and only expanded a few centuries or millennia later, either because this clan fared better than the others (more food, less war casualties, less diseases, more children) or because a member of that clan got into a position of power (new dynasty) that allowed him and his descendants to have more children than other people.
Don't think of the PIE as a single group, but more of a confederation of tribes, with plenty of chieftains and minor kings, a bit like in ancient Gaul, ancient Britain/Ireland and among ancient Germanic people. We can deduct from the analysis of PIE languages that PIE society was strongly hierarchical and patrilinear, but also clannish, just like the ancient Celtic and Germanic people. In this context, the dominant male (chieftain/king)'s lineage can easily expand exponentially.
My point is that S116* in Iberia is not the ancestral population of the subclades of S116 elsewhere in Europe. S116 is found throughout Europe, in Anatolia and even in Russia and Central Asia. Iberia has more S116 simply because the Indo-Europeans who migrated there just happened to have more of this lineages. Actually it is almost certainly not S116*, but a subclade that hasn't been discovered yet (or one of the numerous subclades that was discovered this year, like Z196, S182 or DF19, but wasn't tested in older Iberian studies).
Exactly. Haplogroup dating only tells us at what time a haplogroup could not have expanded (too early), but doesn't tell us when it did expand (that is, became of notable frequence in a population)
In Europe before the Neolithic. M269 or maybe even the ancestor of it (P297). M269 is older than beginning of the Neolithic era in Europe which started around 6500 BCE. So R1b migrated into Europe before 6500 BCE, I don't know precisely when if I must guess I would say at least 10000 BCE. Right before or after the last glacial period in Europe.
You know what, the agricultural revolution in Kurdistan started around 12000-11000 BCE. But spread into Europe only around 7000-6500 BCE.
Ah, so therein lies the problem, we are working on different assumptions... Though we could get into an enormous discussion about the origins of R1b in Europe, 'tis not the place to do so in this thread in my opinion.
Karahundj (Karahunge) Armenia's Stonehenge! This Megalithic structure/monument is one of the oldest observatories in the world and is older than the real Stonehenge in England.
http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/5751/karahundj2jpegpagespeed.jpg
http://www.astrologycom.com/armstone1.html
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/6958/stonehengew.jpg
"Kara-henge has a history of 7,500 years and scientists believe, that there is a very tight connection between the observatory in Armenia and Stone-henge in Britain. Cara is the root word for 'carving' - that is, to cut out'."
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/Atlantis_Mysteries/message/3854
http://www.explorearmenia.net/index.cfm?objectID=AE39EC84-3FFA-DEDF-919F1350B49B197F
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8yhXdjtVrRs/SRrRFoPbKII/AAAAAAAAADM/OzBzkx18OCA/s320/26+yura.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8yhXdjtVrRs/SRrQ5vDllcI/AAAAAAAAAC8/ur1l6OSOuCQ/s320/12+yura.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8yhXdjtVrRs/SRrQvcw8sJI/AAAAAAAAAC0/6Rh7pRyFKzE/s320/3yura.jpg
http://touchthehistory.blogspot.com/2008/11/carahunge-armenian-stonehenge.html
Karahundj (Karahunge) Armenia's Stonehenge! This Megalithic structure/monument is one of the oldest observatories in the world and is older than the real Stonehenge in England.
http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/5751/karahundj2jpegpagespeed.jpg
http://www.astrologycom.com/armstone1.html
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/6958/stonehengew.jpg
"Kara-henge has a history of 7,500 years and scientists believe, that there is a very tight connection between the observatory in Armenia and Stone-henge in Britain. Cara is the root word for 'carving' - that is, to cut out'."
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/Atlantis_Mysteries/message/3854
http://www.explorearmenia.net/index.cfm?objectID=AE39EC84-3FFA-DEDF-919F1350B49B197F
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8yhXdjtVrRs/SRrRFoPbKII/AAAAAAAAADM/OzBzkx18OCA/s320/26+yura.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8yhXdjtVrRs/SRrQ5vDllcI/AAAAAAAAAC8/ur1l6OSOuCQ/s320/12+yura.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8yhXdjtVrRs/SRrQvcw8sJI/AAAAAAAAAC0/6Rh7pRyFKzE/s320/3yura.jpg
http://touchthehistory.blogspot.com/2008/11/carahunge-armenian-stonehenge.html
Goga, Megalithic traditions existed more or less all over the world, and there is absolutely no reason to assume Caucasian megaliths were in any relationship with those in Atlantic Europe. Besides, this thread is about the Beaker-Bell Culture, so please try to stay on that topic.
Asturrulumbo
13-10-11, 23:49
"Kara-henge has a history of 7,500 years and scientists believe, that there is a very tight connection between the observatory in Armenia and Stone-henge in Britain. Cara is the root word for 'carving' - that is, to cut out'."
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/Atlantis_Mysteries/message/3854
http://www.explorearmenia.net/index.cfm?objectID=AE39EC84-3FFA-DEDF-919F1350B49B197F
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8yhXdjtVrRs/SRrRFoPbKII/AAAAAAAAADM/OzBzkx18OCA/s320/26+yura.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8yhXdjtVrRs/SRrQ5vDllcI/AAAAAAAAAC8/ur1l6OSOuCQ/s320/12+yura.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8yhXdjtVrRs/SRrQvcw8sJI/AAAAAAAAAC0/6Rh7pRyFKzE/s320/3yura.jpg
http://touchthehistory.blogspot.com/2008/11/carahunge-armenian-stonehenge.html
Never did I deny that there was probably a migration from Anatolia to Europe during the early/middle Neolithic (c. 6000 BC), I merely disagree on which haplogroups they brought. In my opinion, they brought G2a, and perhaps some R1b-L23
Goga, Megalithic traditions existed more or less all over the world, and there is absolutely no reason to assume Caucasian megaliths were in any relationship with those in Atlantic Europe. Besides, this thread is about the Beaker-Bell Culture, so please try to stay on that topic.My point is that R1b in Europe is much older than the Neolithic Europe. It was here in Europe before the Neolithic farmers migrated into Europe. R1b came from the Southern Caucasus, remember that the main Y-DNA haplogroup among Armenians is hg. R1b. At that time Armenians were Urartu kind of people. (not Indo-European!!)
R1b was never Indo-European. The age of Karahunge suggests that R1b folks left Southern Caucaus at least 7,500 years ago.
Btw, Göbekli Tepe (11,500 years old) in Kurdistan is even much older than Karahunge in Armenia!
Never did I deny that there was probably a migration from Anatolia to Europe during the early/middle Neolithic (c. 6000 BC), I merely disagree on which haplogroups they brought. In my opinion, they brought G2a, and perhaps some R1b-L23No, the main Y-dna haplogroup among Armenians is R1b!!!
I'm confinced that the Megalithic structure (Stonehenge) builders were R1b people and thus the ancestors of the Beaker-Bell Culture folks! They came somewhere from Anatolia/Armenia (Southern Caucasus) more than 9,000-7,500 thousand years ago! But they were NOT Indo-European! It was even before the Indo-European race existed!
My point is that R1b in Europe is much older than the Neolithic Europe. It was here in Europe before the Neolithic farmers migrated into Europe. R1b came from the Southern Caucasus, remember that the main Y-DNA haplogroup among Armenians is hg. R1b. At that time Armenians were Urartu kind of people
R1b was never Indo-European. The age of Karahunge suggests that R1b folks left Southern Caucaus at least 7,500 years ago.
Btw, Göbekli Tepe (11,500 years old) in Kurdistan is even much older than Karahunge in Armenia!
Sorry, but the idea that R1b was in Europe before the Neolithic is hopelessly and irreversibly outdated, and we have discussed this before. The Neolithic sites of Treilles and Derenburg delivered no R1b what so ever, and the oldest find of R1b in Europe thus far is from the Urnfield Culture (1000 BC). This is a reality and we have to work with it. I also never stated that R1b as a whole was Indo-European, but it seems likely that the western European branch (L11) appears to be associated with the Indo-European migrations.
The Neolithic sites of Treilles and Derenburg delivered no R1b what so ever, and the oldest find of R1b in Europe thus far is from the Urnfield Culture (1000 BC).No finding of R1b in Europe yet doesn't mean anything. Is there any real DIRECT evidence that R1b was NOT in Europe before the Neolithic era in Europe (7,000 - 6,500 BCE)?
That "R1b is native to Europe and was here in Europe" is very up-to-date, since the recent study in England and the recent discovery of y-dna haplogroup of Tutankhamun!
No finding of R1b in Europe yet doesn't mean anything. Is there any real DIRECT evidence that R1b was NOT in Europe before the Neolithic era in Europe (7,000 - 6,500 BCE)?
Given how R1a has been found in samples of the Corded Ware Culture, yes, this means quite a lot.
Although the age estimates for various markers should be taken with a grain of salt, if you take a look at the various R1b markers relevant for Western Europe, they are consistently younger:
L23 - 5000 BC
L11 - 4,000 BC
P312 - 3,300 BC
U106 - 1,500 BC
U152 - 1,500 BC
L21 - 2,000 BC
Z196 - 1,800 BC
Mind you, if you take a look at the maps of Busby and Myres, it's clear that L23(xL11) and L11(xP312,U106) are very rare in Western Europe. If R1b was in (Western) Europe since the Neolithic (or earlier) we would see a lot more L23x and L11x.
That "R1b is native to Europe and was here in Europe" is very up-to-date, since the recent study in England and the recent discovery of y-dna haplogroup of Tutankhamun!
The recent study you are refering to is probably this. It is discussed in depth here how the specific article was misinterpreted:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26738-The-Paleolithic-R1b-Zombie-rises-again...-at-least-according-to-the-media
Regarding Pharao Tutankhamum, even if this is 100% authentic (which has been casted somewhat into doubt, but is not totally impossible), Pharao Tut was apparently R1b-M269, which doesn't automatically mean Western European.
if you take a look at the various R1b markers relevant for Western Europe, they are consistently younger:
L23 - 5000 BC
L11 - 4,000 BC
P312 - 3,300 BC
U106 - 1,500 BC
U152 - 1,500 BC
L21 - 2,000 BC
Z196 - 1,800 BC
Yeah, all these mutations are very young and they all occurred in Europe. But R1b lineage in general is at least 18,000 years old! So R1b in every European male is at least 18,000 years old.
It's even possible that your most recent mutation of R1b was 50 years ago. But this doesn't mean tha your R1b is 50 years old. It's still at least 18,000 years old!
According to you is the mutation of L23 7,000 years old and that L23 is native to Europe. It means that R1b in Europe is at least 7,000 years old! Older and it was even before the Neolithic Europe (7,000-6,500)!
Etc. etc...
Yeah, all these mutations are very young and they all occurred in Europe. But R1b lineage in general is at least 18,000 years old! So R1b in every European male is at least 18,000 years old.
It's even possible that your most recent mutation of R1b was 50 years ago. But this doesn't mean tha your R1b is 50 years old. It's still at least 18,000 years old!
According to you is the mutation of L23 7,000 years old and that L23 is native to Europe. It means that R1b in Europe is at least 7,000 years old! Older and it was even before the Neolithic Europe (7,000-6,500)!
Etc. etc...
Sorry, you are again making completely false assumption here. You're also clearly contradicting yourself because earlier you said 7000 BC (9000 years before present), and the dates I gave are all younger than 9000 YBP. Even if we discount the margin of error for such age estimates, you still have to consider that it takes a time for a marker to disperse itself and become common in a population.
Also, as I said, if you take a look at the distribution of the older markers, such as this... (L11x)
http://bsecher.pagesperso-orange.fr/genetique/Busby_R1b%28xL11%29.jpg
...you will notice the general rarity/absence in Western Europe. That should tell you something.
Asturrulumbo
14-10-11, 01:03
Sorry, you are again making completely false assumption here. You're also clearly contradicting yourself because earlier you said 7000 BC (9000 years before present), and the dates I gave are all younger than 9000 YBP. Even if we discount the margin of error for such age estimates, you still have to consider that it takes a time for a marker to disperse itself and become common in a population.
Also, as I said, if you take a look at the distribution of the older markers, such as this... (L11x)
http://bsecher.pagesperso-orange.fr/genetique/Busby_R1b%28xL11%29.jpg
...you will notice the general rarity/absence in Western Europe. That should tell you something.
That map is extremely interesting, the only map I had seen of L11* thus far is this one, and as you can see it is painfully small:
5284. Where did you get the one you are showing from?
That map is extremely interesting, the only map I had seen of L11* thus far is this one, and as you can see it is painfully small:
5284. Where did you get the one you are showing from?
Sorry, I should have been more precise, the map actually shows not L11*, but M269xL11, and Spongetario uploaded it in the Iberian place names thread, and as far as I know he has taken it from the Busby paper. I agree however that it is very interesting.
I ve found this on wikipedia
physical anthropology of Bell Beaker people
Historical craniometric studies found that the Beaker people appeared to be of a different physical type than those earlier populations in the same geographic areas. They were described as tall, heavy boned and brachycephalic. The early studies on the Beakers which were based on the analysis of their skeletal remains, were craniometric. This apparent evidence of migration was in line with archaeological discoveries linking Beaker culture to new farming techniques, mortuary practices, copper-working skills, and other cultural innovations. However such evidence from skeletal remains was brushed aside as a new movement developed in archaeology from the 1960s which stressed cultural continuity. Anti-migrationist authors either paid little attention to skeletal evidence or argued that differences could be explained by environmental and cultural influences. Margaret Cox and Simon Mays sum up the position: "Although it can hardly be said that craniometric data provide an unequivocal answer to the problem of the Beaker folk, the balance of the evidence would at present seem to favour a migration hypothesis."[14]
Non-metrical research concerning the Beaker people in Britain also cautiously pointed in the direction of immigration.[7] Subsequent studies, such as one concerning the Carpathian Basin,[15] and a non-metrical analysis of skeletons in central-southern Germany,[16] have also identified marked typological differences with the pre-Beaker inhabitants.
Jocelyne Desideri examined the teeth in skeletons from Bell Beaker sites in Northern Spain, Southern France, Switzerland, the Czech Republic and Hungary for her thesis. Looking at inherited dental traits, she found that only in Northern Spain and the Czech Republic were there demonstrable genetic links between immediately previous populations and Bell Beaker populations. Elsewhere there was a genetic discontinuity.
Asturrulumbo
14-10-11, 01:28
Sorry, I should have been more precise, the map actually shows not L11*, but M269xL11, and Spongetario uploaded it in the Iberian place names thread, and as far as I know he has taken it from the Busby paper. I agree however that it is very interesting.
Oh, then apparently I had seen it, but with a different perception :laughing:
If it's , then it's still extremely insightful: In my opinion it supports my suspicions that there was a migration to Europe from Anatolia at around 6000 BC that brought M269xL11 to Europe.
Bell Beaker is not IE. It descended from the non-IE Funnelbeaker culture of old Europe. Malmstrom et al. 2009 extracted ancient DNA from three individuals dated to the non-IE Funnelbeaker culture in Sweden and found mtDNA haplogroups H, J, and T.
I agree that the Funnelbeaker and Bell Beaker cultures are related, and both descended from the Megalithic cultures. However I doubt that the beaker culture spread with any substantial migration of people. It was probably more just a vast trade and cultural (religious ?) network related to the megaliths that diffused the artefacts.
Beaker People are from south east france which was Ligurian tribes , they went to Iberia, to Rjone valley through Alsace into Germany and beyond, went through all of Northern Italy and also sailed to Sardinia. They where I2a1
They lost there I2a1 over time to R1b
Check internet for - Bell Beaker Ligurians
http://mgu.bg/geoarchmin/naterials/46Delfino.pdf
There's more , ............
spongetaro
14-10-11, 11:46
Beaker People are from south east france which was Ligurian tribes , they went to Iberia, to Rjone valley through Alsace into Germany and beyond, went through all of Northern Italy and also sailed to Sardinia. They where I2a1
They lost there I2a1 over time to R1b
Check internet for - Bell Beaker Ligurians
http://mgu.bg/geoarchmin/naterials/46Delfino.pdf
There's more , ............
Thanks for the link. The Bell Beaker-Ligurians connection is interesting as Ligurian is an attested IE language.
Oh, then apparently I had seen it, but with a different perception :laughing:
If it's , then it's still extremely insightful: In my opinion it supports my suspicions that there was a migration to Europe from Anatolia at around 6000 BC that brought M269xL11 to Europe.
No it was happened before the agricultural revolution in West Asia. If R1b folks migrated after 11000 BCE from Southern Caucasus into Western Europe they would be the Neolithic farmers who introduced farming in Europe. But that's not the case. R1b folks who migrated into Europe didn't bring farming with them.
So it was even before the agricultural revolution took place in West Asia!
Beaker People are from south east france which was Ligurian tribes , they went to Iberia, to Rjone valley through Alsace into Germany and beyond, went through all of Northern Italy and also sailed to Sardinia. They where I2a1
They lost there I2a1 over time to R1b
Check internet for - Bell Beaker Ligurians
http://mgu.bg/geoarchmin/naterials/46Delfino.pdf
There's more , ............Very interesting view of point. I'll think about that!
Asturrulumbo
14-10-11, 17:26
No it was happened before the agricultural revolution in West Asia. If R1b folks migrated after 11000 BCE from Southern Caucasus into Western Europe they would be the Neolithic farmers who introduced farming in Europe. But that's not the case. R1b folks who migrated into Europe didn't bring farming with them.
So it was even before the agricultural revolution took place in West Asia!
No, I don't mean they brought farming with them, by 6000 BC there was already farming in Southeast Europe. I am not talking about the first Neolithic cultures of Europe (Karanovo, Sesklo, Starcevo), but rather about the Dudeşti culture of southeast Romania, with clear links to Anatolia.
spongetaro
14-10-11, 19:54
I agree that the Funnelbeaker and Bell Beaker cultures are related, and both descended from the Megalithic cultures. However I doubt that the beaker culture spread with any substantial migration of people. It was probably more just a vast trade and cultural (religious ?) network related to the megaliths that diffused the artefacts.
No real link with previous culture have been established by the Archeologist community so far.
The archeological data only tells us that the first Bell Beakers artifacts are found in Portugal.
http://bsecher.pagesperso-orange.fr/genetique/Diffusion_campaniforme.jpg
No real link with previous culture have been established by the Archeologist community so far.
The archeological data only tells us that the first Bell Beakers artifacts are found in Portugal.
Yes, and hence the idea that Beaker-Bell was originally a native phenomenon in Portugal is rather tempting: these Portuguese sites are simply too ancient too far in the west to be genuinely Indo-European. I mean, yes, I am aware of the stelae people hypothesis, but I personally find it far from convincing due to the fact that no stelae have been found anywhere along the proposed route, notably not in eastern Iberia.
I would argue that whatever language the original Beaker-Bell people spoke, but I would argue that this language is the source of the metal/metal-workings terms in Basque.
spongetaro
16-10-11, 15:05
I mean, yes, I am aware of the stelae people hypothesis, but I personally find it far from convincing due to the fact that no stelae have been found anywhere along the proposed route, notably not in eastern Iberia.
The main argument against the stelae people hypothesis is that the late neolithic site of Treilles also had those stelae but Treilles people were found to be G2a and I2a
The main argument against the stelae people hypothesis is that the late neolithic site of Treilles also had those stelae but the Treilles people were found to be G2a and I2a
This is a very good point indeed.
Asturrulumbo
16-10-11, 19:56
The main argument against the stelae people hypothesis is that the late neolithic site of Treilles also had those stelae but Treilles people were found to be G2a and I2a
Indeed. The stelae made by the Beaker folk are in my opinion more related to the indigenous megalithic traditions than the Steppe stelae.
Hmm... there is something I wonder about, where I would like to play the ball into the camp of the IE proponents in this context: assuming Beaker-Bell was indeed Indo-European, how do we explain the non-IE metal terms in Basque, as well as the relative scarcity of loans: although Basque has a substantial amount of loanwords, the vast bulk of these are Romance or Latin, and only a small number is Celtic (compare Trask). How can we reconcile this with the idea that Indo-Europeans may have arrived in Iberia as early as the early 3rd millennium BC?
Hmm... there is something I wonder about, where I would like to play the ball into the camp of the IE proponents in this context: assuming Beaker-Bell was indeed Indo-European, how do we explain the non-IE metal terms in Basque, as well as the relative scarcity of loans: although Basque has a substantial amount of loanwords, the vast bulk of these are Romance or Latin, and only a small number is Celtic (compare Trask). How can we reconcile this with the idea that Indo-Europeans may have arrived in Iberia as early as the early 3rd millennium BC?
I would think that if Beaker Culture a whole=R1b-S116 spread, as the "IE proponents" would likely argue, that would be pretty good evidence that the Basque language is tied to R1b-S116 rather than to I2a1a. Then Basque would have unique words for metals because its speakers brought metals. There's nothing preventing R1b-S116 migrations from having both IE and non-IE subgroups. That's one solution, although I don't think I favor it at the moment.
I've made a bit of an experiment. Based on the idea that the Beaker Culture may have been "hijacked" by Indo-European migrations, I've attempted to piece together when and where Beaker-Bell traditions ends (ie, when the Beaker style fell out of use), and by what it is succeeded:
Central Europe: ~2300 BC (Unetice Culture)
Soutern France: ~2150-1900 BC
Denmark: ~1900-1800 BC (Nordic Bronze)
Sardinia: ~1800 BC (Nuraghic Civilization)
Eastern Andalusia: ~1800 BC (El-Argar)
North Africa: ~1800 BC
Netherlands, Lower Rhine: ~1800 BC
Duero region: ~1700 BC (Proto-Cogotas phase)
Ireland: ~1700 BC
Britain: ~1700-1600 BC (Wessex II?)
Basque Country: ~1700 BC
Northern Portugal: ~1300 BC (Atlantic Bronze)
Balearic Isles: ~1300 BC (Talayotic Civilization)
There is obviously areas in this list which presumably were inhabited by non-Indo-European peoples by the time history recorded them (Basque country, Balearic Isles, Andalusia, North Africa, Sardinia). If you disregard these areas, you get a rough east-to-west progression, which indeed would match with the spread of R1b as well as the Indo-European languages.
Asturrulumbo
16-11-11, 03:17
I've made a bit of an experiment. Based on the idea that the Beaker Culture may have been "hijacked" by Indo-European migrations, I've attempted to piece together when and where Beaker-Bell traditions ends (ie, when the Beaker style fell out of use), and by what it is succeeded:
There is obviously areas in this list which presumably were inhabited by non-Indo-European peoples by the time history recorded them (Basque country, Balearic Isles, Andalusia, North Africa, Sardinia). If you disregard these areas, you get a rough east-to-west progression, which indeed would match with the spread of R1b as well as the Indo-European languages.
Hmmm.... interesting, of these, I would say that the following (in red) were IE and R1b with the date given:
Central Europe: (possibly including Alsace, Lorraine and Champagne)~2300 BC (Unetice Culture)
Soutern France: ~2150-1900 BC
Denmark: ~1900-1800 BC (Nordic Bronze)
Sardinia: ~1800 BC (Nuraghic Civilization)
Eastern Andalusia: ~1800 BC (El-Argar)
North Africa: ~1800 BC
Netherlands, Lower Rhine: ~1800 BC
Duero region: ~1700 BC (Proto-Cogotas phase)
Ireland: ~1700 BC
Britain: ~1700-1600 BC (Wessex II?)
Basque Country: ~1700 BC
Northern Portugal: ~1300 BC (Atlantic Bronze)
Balearic Isles: ~1300 BC (Talayotic Civilization)
Sadly, my hard drive is in a state of coma, so the archaeological and linguistic resources I would normally check are unavailable to me right now.
Bell beakers came from Iberia , and move to central europe
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/
looks like Gimbutas is also justified to some degree
I suppose Bell Beakers of Spain are not a birthplace first babies but the variant of more eastern Beakers coming form East, I bet Balkans or E-Carpathians... some very close shapes and forms were found in the Russian Steppes in company (it's funny) of Corded pottery, and I don't think they came from Iberia IF WHAT I RED IS SERIOUS -
the pottery descriptions and classifications are a very hard sports and the datations a big problems needing great precision because the phenomenon of original Bell Beakers and close forms propagated very quickly, it seems, we have a lot of nearly contemporaneous places of diffusion from Spain to the Netherlands, speaking about W-Europe only -
more questions than answers, I'm afraid -
other possibility: BB bearers went fast an far, in not to big number sometimes and appear to me as searchers-traders more than as members of numerous tribes, at a first stage - maybe they did not speak I-E but helped to developpe economy in different places - in east Europe they met Y-R1b men and mixed more deeply with them creating so a contiental BB culture, slightly different from the culture they developped on SW Iberia??? the Calcholithic 'dinarid skeletons' of Ireland and Germany and Provence and E Iberia can not be dropped out so easily...
but if we go so far in past, we are obliged to look again at the I-Eans formation, at the role played by anatolian or E-Caspian cultures (and the region they influenced so often: the Balkans) upon the first steppic people...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.