The Beaker Bell Phenomenon

The Beaker-Bell Culture is probably responsible for spreading of...


  • Total voters
    18
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'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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Archeologists have found a link between the Funnelbeaker culture and the Bell beaker?

Megalithic_architecture.png
hstar+lastpoint+the+atlantic+coast170.jpg
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

karahundj2jpegpagespeed.jpg


http://www.astrologycom.com/armstone1.html

stonehengew.jpg
 

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.
 
"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

26+yura.jpg

12+yura.jpg

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-L23
No, 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.
 

This thread has been viewed 78987 times.

Back
Top