PDA

View Full Version : R1b & Bell Beaker & IE, what am I missing?



Tabaccus Maximus
19-08-13, 08:05
I am trying to understand the reluctance by some to associate Bell-Beaker people with Indo-Europeans.
So I would like to know given the experience and opions of those on this forum, what 'specific' attributes, from
any discipline, would indicate that the Beaker folk were not Indo-European?
And as a ground rule, don't offer amateur hour 'a lot of Basque people are R1b therefore, blah, blah' [throwup]
So, let me begin with those arguments in favor of a IE origin of the Beaker folk...

1) Beaker burials appear in single-grave and under a tumulus. The desceased appears on his side, usually facing a particular direction, common to early IE's. In his hand is a weapon, which probably had a significance similar to the Saxon Saxe, indicating his transition to manhood and that he was a free man and not a slave. The bow and other rich grave goods seem standard. I would argue that the positioning of the body along a particular axis indicates a particular set of religious beliefs common to 'on the side, crouched, direction positioned people (IE in my opinion) where the alignment to a heavenly body such as Saturn, Jupitar, Mars, etc., was important and so the position of the body will naturally vary among likely IE derived cultures across three and a half continents.
2) The skeletal features are not disagreable with IE, although no one cranial type seems to be standard. One thing seems seems fairly certain though; the Beaker folk were foreign to Western Europe.
3) The very early results of several studies seem to point to R1b and several clades of mtdna H spreading from Iberia with bell-beaker culture. Autosomally, you could also correlate lactose tolerance with the same folks using a map. The hotest area of lactose tolerance on Earth just so happens to overlay, exactly, the places where R1b and H are most common, in Atlantic Europe.
Although the exact location of the secondary products revolution may be difficult to pinpoint exactly, it surely wasn't Atlantic Europe and was more likely the Near East.
4) Not only was cattle herding and dairy production important to Beakers, Barley and Beer appears to be equally important; important enough that it is the single lasting memorial we have of them. The barley and cattle both have their genetic origin in the near East.
5) I find it interesting that a number of linguistic models have put the divergence point of Proto-Italo-Celtic in the realm of, oh I don't know, maybe c. 2900 B.C.? Ok, maybe not that precise, but within a limited range that seems to fall within the time frame of the first Iberian settlements.
Looking at the migration models of Beaker folk from Iberia through Central Europe, the Alps and
the British Islands, it's easy to imagine how Italic diverged and how continental Celitic diverged from Insular celtic. It also probably offers the best explanation for the formation of very early proto-Germanic, where a Beaker superstrate imposed itself on a Corded Ware folk in the Northern contact zone.
6) It's also worth pointing out that Western European languages share some features with the Anatolian and Tocharian languages, both of which, again, probably originate in the Near East.

Fire Haired
19-08-13, 22:56
The R1b thing I dis agree with the most western EuropeanR1b is almost only under R1b L11 well also its father R1b L51. WestEurope has the most recent and youngest R1b type in the world. I don'talways trust age estimates but they uselly give an idea how old haplogroups areand from what I have read R1b L51 and R1b L11 in west Europe are probably under7,000 years old. R1b L23 R1b L51's father is mainly found around Antolia,Caucus, south east Europe, and northern mid east. Maybe it did not migrateout of those areas but no matter how u but it R1b in west Europe is from aeastward migration probably 6,000-4,000ybp not far west like Iberia.R1b in Iberia is just about all under R1b P312/S116 the son ofR1b L11 their main branch is R1b Df27 the son of R1b P312 sobasically what I am saying is r1b in Iberia is most likely from bronze and ironage migrations by Celts just 3,500-2,500ybp. I don't think there is anyevidence of R1b migrating out of Iberia.

The oldest Kurgens/Tumili found are both 6,000 years oldone in southeast Poland and one in the north Caucus. Indo European culture andlanguage almost defintley started around Ukraine, Russia, and Caucus. Y DNAtotally backs that idea up with the spread of R1a1a1 M417from Ukraine to therest of east europe and then to asia with Balto Slavic and Indo Iranianlanguages. Germanic and Italo Celtic speakers probably started to conquer Bellbeaker by 5,000ybp which could explain why so called Bell Beaker remains hadIndo European cultral things. Unetice culture is the first for sure IndoEuropean like culture in west europe I would not be surprised if what we callBell Beaker in Germany 5,000ybp was also Indo European and was not Bell Beakeranymore. The mtDNA H thing in my opinon is pathetic H in Europe did not spreadin the Neolithic what H subclades are u talking about anyways. H1 and H3 mostlikely spread 15,000ybp out of Iberia. Also 20 or whatever mtDNA samples wehave of Bell Beaker in Germany means nothing and do u really think they wouldbe able to stay 100% Iberian especially on the maternal side after hundreds ofyears of contact with non Iberians. The wholwe mtDNA H being Neloithic thingreally gets on my nerves there is weak evidence for it and people take it asthere was a huge genetic replacing in europe in the neloithic even though mtdnahaplogroup only tells a very very very little part of ur ancestry.

The R1b in Bell Beaker is not a surprise that is exactleythe time and place R1b L51-L11 Germanic Italo Celts first arrived and began toconquer Bell Beaker.

Tabaccus Maximus
20-08-13, 01:42
The R1b thing I dis agree with the most western EuropeanR1b is almost only under R1b L11 well also its father R1b L51. WestEurope has the most recent and youngest R1b type in the world. I don'talways trust age estimates but they uselly give an idea how old haplogroups areand from what I have read R1b L51 and R1b L11 in west Europe are probably under7,000 years old. R1b L23 R1b L51's father is mainly found around Antolia,Caucus, south east Europe, and northern mid east. Maybe it did not migrateout of those areas but no matter how u but it R1b in west Europe is from aeastward migration probably 6,000-4,000ybp not far west like Iberia.R1b in Iberia is just about all under R1b P312/S116 the son ofR1b L11 their main branch is R1b Df27 the son of R1b P312 sobasically what I am saying is r1b in Iberia is most likely from bronze and ironage migrations by Celts just 3,500-2,500ybp. I don't think there is anyevidence of R1b migrating out of Iberia.

The oldest Kurgens/Tumili found are both 6,000 years oldone in southeast Poland and one in the north Caucus. Indo European culture andlanguage almost defintley started around Ukraine, Russia, and Caucus. Y DNAtotally backs that idea up with the spread of R1a1a1 M417from Ukraine to therest of east europe and then to asia with Balto Slavic and Indo Iranianlanguages. Germanic and Italo Celtic speakers probably started to conquer Bellbeaker by 5,000ybp which could explain why so called Bell Beaker remains hadIndo European cultral things. Unetice culture is the first for sure IndoEuropean like culture in west europe I would not be surprised if what we callBell Beaker in Germany 5,000ybp was also Indo European and was not Bell Beakeranymore. The mtDNA H thing in my opinon is pathetic H in Europe did not spreadin the Neolithic what H subclades are u talking about anyways. H1 and H3 mostlikely spread 15,000ybp out of Iberia. Also 20 or whatever mtDNA samples wehave of Bell Beaker in Germany means nothing and do u really think they wouldbe able to stay 100% Iberian especially on the maternal side after hundreds ofyears of contact with non Iberians. The wholwe mtDNA H being Neloithic thingreally gets on my nerves there is weak evidence for it and people take it asthere was a huge genetic replacing in europe in the neloithic even though mtdnahaplogroup only tells a very very very little part of ur ancestry.

The R1b in Bell Beaker is not a surprise that is exactleythe time and place R1b L51-L11 Germanic Italo Celts first arrived and began toconquer Bell Beaker.


Ok, I think it is plausible that Bell-Beaker were slowly over-run by an external IE source. I am also not too heavily invested in a theory one way or the other. The problem I have with I guess what you would call the 'Beaker Eclipse Theory' is that it doesn't address who the Beakers were in the first place.
Often it is stated that because Beakers seem to originate in Iberia, that the modern Basques somehow are a cultural vestage of the Beakers. The problem is that, culturally, I don't see anything in the goddess Mari worshipping, matrilineal, proto-Iberian culture that looks anything like the Beaker culture.

Also, if early Beakers were not R1b, then what were they? They were widespread.
And if Bell Beakers weren't a warlike, migratory IE, what else could they have been given their Near Eastern origin?

I think the problem people are having with Beakers is that it doesn't seem fit the Kurgan Hypothesis.

But my question still stands, is there anything about the Beakers that would strongly indicate they were not IE (such as facial characteristics or material culture)?

Tone
20-08-13, 20:29
The Bell Beakers could easily have been L51/L11. While it's not the only scenario, it is plausible that they spread the "father" R1B into Western Europe. There are low levels of L51 found through-out Southern France, Portugal, and even Ireland. I believe that R1B's arrival in Europe would have left some sort of archeological foot-print, and nothing left a bigger foot-print in Western Europe than the Beakers. They were the first major Western European culture/empire and they dominated along with the Corded Ware folk in the East. Corded Ware was definitely R1A. So where were the R1b folk? The most likely candidate is something just as big as Corded Ware and the Bell Beakers fit that bill.

DF-27 came later to Iberia and they were probably not Bell Beaker, IMHO. DF-27 could have originated in Central Europe from the descendants of Bell Beakers and back migrated into Iberia, replacing most of the L51/L11 still there. But that's just a guess.

I'm also leaning toward R1B as being non-Indo-European in language originally. I think it's possible that L51/L11, Df-27 all spoke something other than IE. That would easily explain why, in historical times, the Basque and Iberians did not speak IE (Df-27) yet the Celts (L21) did. The Celts were late on the scene by almost 2000 years and had picked up IE in Central Europe were they originated. But this is considered vomit in this thread so that's as far as I'll go. :indifferent:

Tabaccus Maximus
21-08-13, 05:36
The Bell Beakers could easily have been L51/L11. While it's not the only scenario, it is plausible that they spread the "father" R1B into Western Europe. There are low levels of L51 found through-out Southern France, Portugal, and even Ireland. I believe that R1B's arrival in Europe would have left some sort of archeological foot-print, and nothing left a bigger foot-print in Western Europe than the Beakers. They were the first major Western European culture/empire and they dominated along with the Corded Ware folk in the East. Corded Ware was definitely R1A. So where were the R1b folk? The most likely candidate is something just as big as Corded Ware and the Bell Beakers fit that bill.

DF-27 came later to Iberia and they were probably not Bell Beaker, IMHO. DF-27 could have originated in Central Europe from the descendants of Bell Beakers and back migrated into Iberia, replacing most of the L51/L11 still there. But that's just a guess.

I'm also leaning toward R1B as being non-Indo-European in language originally. I think it's possible that L51/L11, Df-27 all spoke something other than IE. That would easily explain why, in historical times, the Basque and Iberians did not speak IE (Df-27) yet the Celts (L21) did. The Celts were late on the scene by almost 2000 years and had picked up IE in Central Europe were they originated. But this is considered vomit in this thread so that's as far as I'll go. :indifferent:

Ha ha :rolleyes2: . Well, I suppose I will have to tolerate it.
I think there are a few problems with associating the Basque people with Beaker people...

*There is an early history of matrilinealism with the early Basque/Iberians that is unlike surrounding populations. The social organization and habits of the Beakers, such as high mobility or the warrior-centered societye, just doesn't seem to fit squarely with the cultureal Basques in my opinion....

*The early Basques worshipped a local goddess. We can't know with specificity the religious beliefs of the Beakers, but their burial habits would probably indicate a system of religious belief similar to those buried in a similar fashion, in North Africa, the Near East, Central Asia and Eastern Europe. The Beaker people probably worshipped a male centered pantheon headed by a bearded, male god. I think that is a fairly reasonable case to be made.

*I am willing to accept that the Basque language is a descendant of some sort of Near Easten or North African duplicating-type of 'Banana language' and could have been spoken by Beaker people...
I just don't get why the Basque language would be the best candidate of a vestige Beaker language given its location. It would seem that I would find a vestige language on one islands of the several archipelagos of the Atlantic and North Sea.

Tone
21-08-13, 19:33
*There is an early history of matrilinealism with the early Basque/Iberians that is unlike surrounding populations. The social organization and habits of the Beakers, such as high mobility or the warrior-centered societye, just doesn't seem to fit squarely with the cultureal Basques in my opinion....


This is a good point and, as you brought up earlier, Basque culture doesn't fit with the battle axe graves of some of the Bell Beaker sites. That said, the one problem I have with R1B being IE originally is where did they pick up the dialect? Since they separated nearly 20,000 years ago, either R1B or R1A is the original IE. Maciamo tends to believe there was some sort of interaction with R1B (unproven) in the Maykop Culture and the R1A Kurgan Culture. The evidence just seems too thin to accept at present. We do know that the Beakers and Corded Ware collided in Central Europe around 2800 bc. We have also found r1b in a Beaker site. Until there is other evidence, the best working theory is that R1B folk picked up IE from Corded Ware in Central Europe... at least until some other evidence is presented, IMHO.




*The early Basques worshipped a local goddess. We can't know with specificity the religious beliefs of the Beakers, but their burial habits would probably indicate a system of religious belief similar to those buried in a similar fashion, in North Africa, the Near East, Central Asia and Eastern Europe. The Beaker people probably worshipped a male centered pantheon headed by a bearded, male god. I think that is a fairly reasonable case to be made.
I agree that is reasonable. :) But we don't really know for sure.




*I am willing to accept that the Basque language is a descendant of some sort of Near Easten or North African duplicating-type of 'Banana language' and could have been spoken by Beaker people...
I just don't get why the Basque language would be the best candidate of a vestige Beaker language given its location. It would seem that I would find a vestige language on one islands of the several archipelagos of the Atlantic and North Sea.
Another good point. Why isn't the Beaker vestige language found on some far flung island? I don't know. But what about the Canary Islands and the Guanches? (just throwing that out there). Also, I can't think of any other island group that would have been untouched until modern times by countless other sea faring peoples (Vikings, Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, etc.) And maybe Basque isn't a vestige Beaker tongue. Maybe it's Iberian? I don't know. Plus, the Basque, hiding in and around the back end of the Pyrenees, really are in an ideal spot to avoid contact/conquest. And if Basque and Iberian are not vestige Beaker tongues, then where did they come from? Where they there before the Beakers and survived, or did they come later, after 2900 bc. like the Etruscans?


It all comes down to poking holes in the steppe origin of R1B. R1B could very well have come from the steppe, but physical evidence is thin to non-existant in this regard. I am entertaining the idea that R1B was spread to Western Europe not via the steppe, but by boat, with the Beakers being the major catalyst. The R1b Beakers could very well have been IE speakers initially, or not... hopefully we will find out for sure someday. It's just a really cool puzzle and I'm having fun trying to see which pieces fit.

Fire Haired
21-08-13, 22:46
Since it seems Bell Beaker culture could have begun in Spain means nothing. Pretty much all R1b in Spain is a Italo Celtic P312 subclade most have R1b Df27. R1b was brought to Iberia by Celts Bell Beaker is before Celts so the Spain things means nothing. I already explained this R1b in west Europe without a doubt comes from migrations from far east of west Europe not far west like Spain. The datings say probably early bronze age so like 5,000-6,000ybp is when it first arrived. So exactly when Indo Europeans were migrating. Maximus it seems like u are saying maybe R1b and indo european languages meaning Germanic and Italo Celtic were brought over in the Neolithic from the near east. Indo European culture from what we know took off around Russia, Ukraine, and the north caucus not really the near east. Also Indo European languages probably strated right before the start of the bronze age so like 7,000-6,000ybp. There are not any signs of a Neolithic culture with Kurgens or any indo european parts migrating in the Neolithic age only the bronze age. If Indo European culture was centered in Ukriane, Russia, and Caucus and probably started at the very begging or close to the begging of the bronze age. Why would randomly a group of people form the middle of the near east in the Neolithic age speak a indo european language. If u think R1b in west europe is Neloithic then why out of 31 Y DNa samples in west europe dating anywere from 7,000 to 4,725ybp 26 had G2a, 4 had I2a1a, one had E1b1b V13, one had possibly F* M89, and another had F or ones of its descendants. Not one had R1b there are 4 from Spain dating 7,000ybp they actulley were near Basque country 3 had G2a and one had E1b1b V13. Also 21 Y DNa samples from southern France dating to 5,000ybp so the place bell beaker began and just 200 years before NOT ONE HAD R1b 19 had G2a and two had I2a1a. So right there i think ur theory about Bell Beaker spreading R1b is not really possible anymore.

Degredado
22-08-13, 03:33
Two alternative scenarios which seem plausible to me, concerning the linguistic aspects of R1b/IE:

A - An R1b population, speaking a non-IE language somewhere far East during the Late Neolithic, arrives in Western Europe through Iberia, after travelling along Northern Africa and finally crossing over at the nearest point (Gibraltar); once in Iberia, a bulk of that R1b settles down, keeping their language (with possible influences from the natives), forming the embryo of what would become the Basques, while another group eventually moves deeper into Europe; that latter group, after being in contact with Corded Ware-influenced, Indo-European(ized) central Europe, eventually backmigrates to Iberia; the two groups, now both established in Bronze Age Iberia, speak completely different languages, while remaining very close cousins and close neighbors.

b) R1b-P312, fully IE and moving westwards from Central Europe, arrives near the Bay of Biscay, where they find a mountainous, rainy and heavily forested region; matching the "unfriendly" geography, the natives of the area are particularly hostile (ask Charlemagne about them); the R1b's, after perhaps taking an initial beating, decide to settle the region anyway (maybe seeing some kind of mineral potential in it?), and as a token of their good will, learn their hosts' language; by a hazard of nature, those R1b lines, over the millenia, slowly but surely become dominant in the region, eventually completely surpassing the Y-DNA genetic legacy of the natives (I2a, J2, G2a, E), maybe due to that supposed higher sperm count among R1b men.

One may point out 50 flaws for each idea, but that can also be done for just about any idea that's been thought of so far, to explain this R1b enigma. :confused2:

As for who spread which pottery, where and when, this aspect is much less interesting to me, although it only seems logical that the BB artifacts must have been spread out that widely by a sea-faring people (R1b's being the prime suspects). So it comes down to establishing which sort of R1b's it was, the IE or non-IE.

Tabaccus Maximus
22-08-13, 06:05
Maximus it seems like u are saying maybe R1b and indo european languages meaning Germanic and Italo Celtic were brought over in the Neolithic from the near east. Indo European culture from what we know took off around Russia, Ukraine, and the north caucus not really the near east.

Let me clarify my bias here. I do believe that R1b began migrating out of the Near East in the Copper Age or very late Neolithic.Although I will concede that the modernization of Indo-European language probably happened on the Steppes during a period of innovation, I don't believe that Indo-European formed in a hunter-gatherer steppe culture. The language of PIE suggests an old and sophisticated agricultural society, not dudes thowing spears at horses. The most important feature of Indo-European cultural is strict Paternalism, Patrilinealism, Patriarchy, whatever you want to call it. Patrilinealism and Militarism were probably new developments in the Agricultural revolution on a planet whose Sapien habitants were otherwise Matriaralists and Matrifocalists. Farming and husbandry require good land and water sorces which must be defended vigorously, continuously and on a large scale. The societal structure of PIE suggests Near Eastern Neolithic, not spear-chunkers.

[/QUOTE]Also Indo European languages probably strated right before the start of the bronze age so like 7,000-6,000ybp. There are not any signs of a Neolithic culture with Kurgens or any indo european parts migrating in the Neolithic age only the bronze age..[/QUOTE]

The last major upgrate to common Indo-European may have happened at the start of the Bronze age with the innovations in the Steppe Culture, but it doesn't make much sense for PIE to 'develop' as late as the Bronze age. If that were the case, then the rich lexicon of PIE words refering to their societal structure, technology, agriculture would have been borrowed, not the other way around. Dr. Gordon Whitaker recently made a more conviencing case that the Sumerian language encodes a substrate of foreign words for certain technologies and offices. It's searchable on Dienekes blog.

[/QUOTE]Why would randomly a group of people form the middle of the near east in the Neolithic age speak a indo european language. If u think R1b in west europe is Neloithic then why out of 31 Y DNa samples in west europe dating anywere from 7,000 to 4,725ybp 26 had G2a, 4 had I2a1a, one had E1b1b V13, one had possibly F* M89, and another had F or ones of its descendants.[/QUOTE]

I don't think R1b came to Europe in the Neolithic. They probably came in the so called 'Copper age', however I am curious to whether 'tinning' was not known and not used due to resource restrictions or wasn't widely known yet, I don't know. It depends on where you place the bronze age. Also, to some degree, although the Iron Age didn't come later, Iron was known early on as it is found in beads with R1b associated people in North Africa and West Africa. 2900 b.c. in Spain works for me.

[/QUOTE]
Not one had R1b there are 4 from Spain dating 7,000ybp they actulley were near Basque country 3 had G2a and one had E1b1b V13. Also 21 Y DNa samples from southern France dating to 5,000ybp so the place bell beaker began and just 200 years before NOT ONE HAD R1b 19 had G2a and two had I2a1a. So right there i think ur theory about Bell Beaker spreading R1b is not really possible anymore.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you there. That's why I would make the case, as Maciamo has, that the Basque/Iberian natives were heavily influenced by Indo-Europeans. It really doesn't even need conquest or whatever. Simple numerical bias of many generations. There have been several studies showing disposition of certain male lines to produce more sons, similar studies on women and twins, birthweight, etc.

Tabaccus Maximus
22-08-13, 06:26
Two alternative scenarios which seem plausible to me, concerning the linguistic aspects of R1b/IE:

A - An R1b population, speaking a non-IE language somewhere far East during the Late Neolithic, arrives in Western Europe through Iberia, after travelling along Northern Africa and finally crossing over at the nearest point (Gibraltar); once in Iberia, a bulk of that R1b settles down, keeping their language (with possible influences from the natives), forming the embryo of what would become the Basques, while another group eventually moves deeper into Europe; that latter group, after being in contact with Corded Ware-influenced, Indo-European(ized) central Europe, eventually backmigrates to Iberia; the two groups, now both established in Bronze Age Iberia, speak completely different languages, while remaining very close cousins and close neighbors. .

I think that's a good outline of one view. I would take exception to R1b's be Indo-Europeanized in Central Europe. I think Beakers and Corded Ware formed a contact area that became highly influential culturally and linguistically in the West, but not to the level as to form something completely alien.

[QUOTE=Degredado;414286]
b) R1b-P312, fully IE and moving westwards from Central Europe, arrives near the Bay of Biscay, where they find a mountainous, rainy and heavily forested region; matching the "unfriendly" geography, the natives of the area are particularly hostile (ask Charlemagne about them); the R1b's, after perhaps taking an initial beating, decide to settle the region anyway (maybe seeing some kind of mineral potential in it?), and as a token of their good will, learn their hosts' language; by a hazard of nature, those R1b lines, over the millenia, slowly but surely become dominant in the region, eventually completely surpassing the Y-DNA genetic legacy of the natives (I2a, J2, G2a, E), maybe due to that supposed higher sperm count among R1b men. [QUOTE]

Another good take. I would say that Spain is a big country. The initial interest that one population ancestral to Beakers may have been trade and mineral resources along waterways with minimal impact on other native populations. Another population ancestral to Beakers may have crossed from North Africa during the final phases of rapid desertification of the Mehgreb savannas. These people may have been more interested in flat plains and grazing areas. Perhaps the different peoples co-existed for a long time with typical intermarriage. Everyone rushes too quickly to crazies with horses on a extermination benge.

Tabaccus Maximus
22-08-13, 06:44
This is a good point and, as you brought up earlier, Basque culture doesn't fit with the battle axe graves of some of the Bell Beaker sites. That said, the one problem I have with R1B being IE originally is where did they pick up the dialect? Since they separated nearly 20,000 years ago, either R1B or R1A is the original IE. Maciamo tends to believe there was some sort of interaction with R1B (unproven) in the Maykop Culture and the R1A Kurgan Culture.[QUOTE]

I would agree that it's possible that Satemization began with the Steppe Culture. But as Maciamo pointed out recently, Kurgans in the Maykop have been shown to be older than those of the steppe. I'm not sure that R1a Steppe people and R1b Southerners necessarily represent to wildly different populations. If R* has its origins in Pakistan or the plain of Iran or in the Zargos, the combining of R1b and R1a in the Black Sea/Pontic Steppe area would essentially be a recombination.

[QUOTE]
It all comes down to poking holes in the steppe origin of R1B. R1B could very well have come from the steppe, but physical evidence is thin to non-existant in this regard. I am entertaining the idea that R1B was spread to Western Europe not via the steppe, but by boat, with the Beakers being the major catalyst. The R1b Beakers could very well have been IE speakers initially, or not... hopefully we will find out for sure someday. It's just a really cool puzzle and I'm having fun trying to see which pieces fit.

What's mysterious about R1b in Western Europe is the apperance of having come from nowhere. If it came from North Africa, I would expect to find in some small degree, uniquely North African haplotypes more than we do now. I don't see it.
If R1b came from Eastern Europe, where is any degree of R1a? It's not there. Sure as heck didn't punch there way through the earlier Corded Ware people. For that reason alone, I would say that a land migration across Europe in any way is unlikely.
R1b Boatmen probably offeres the best explanation as you've said.

Mikewww
22-08-13, 21:17
... What's mysterious about R1b in Western Europe is the apperance of having come from nowhere. If it came from North Africa, I would expect to find in some small degree, uniquely North African haplotypes more than we do now. I don't see it.
If R1b came from Eastern Europe, where is any degree of R1a? It's not there. Sure as heck didn't punch there way through the earlier Corded Ware people. For that reason alone, I would say that a land migration across Europe in any way is unlikely.
R1b Boatmen probably offeres the best explanation as you've said.

I agree that the Bell Beakers seem to pop in out of no where in Western Europe with technologies that you think would have come from SW Asia or Eastern Europe.

I don't know if this is the answer and if this is a direct tie to Desideri's "reflux" theory of the Beakers, but here is some food for thought.

In the "The Horse The Wheel and Language", David Anthony wrote,
"Bell Beaker sites of the Csepel type around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto-Celtic. Pre-Italic could have developed among the dialects that remained in Hungary, ultimately spreading into Italy through the Urnfield and Villanovan cultures. Eric Hamp and others have revived the argument that Italic and Celtic shared a common parent, so a single migration stream could have contained dialects that later were ancestral to both."

I can't find the paper but one of the metallurgy specialists claims that the Bell Beaker folks in Hungary were using the same kind of practices as their neighboring Corded Ware people. Also, these practices were similar to and an extension of what is known as the Circum-Pontic Metallurgy Province (CMP) which eventually replaced the dying Southeastern European Carpo-Balkans Metallurgy Province (CBMP). The CMP grew up out of the Caucaus and connections with the Southern Levant according to the "Synthesis Theory" of Amazallag.

Jean Manco, who has a book about to be released on this, has also cited a particular type of anomorphic stone stelae that followed a path into Central Europe from the Kemi Oba culture close to the Sea of Azov. She does not have them flow out of the Black Sea or along the Near East and Greece by boat. She has them going overland, hitting Central Europe and the Alps and becoming "sea-borne" in their activities in SE France and Italy where they start to surround Iberia's coasts. I'm sure her graphics are posted here somewhere.

I'm not sure if Maciamo is on board with the stelae thing, but I guess I should go over and flip to his write-ups.

Noman
23-08-13, 02:28
Since it seems Bell Beaker culture could have begun in Spain means nothing. Pretty much all R1b in Spain is a Italo Celtic P312 subclade most have R1b Df27. R1b was brought to Iberia by Celts Bell Beaker is before Celts so the Spain things means nothing. I already explained this R1b in west Europe without a doubt comes from migrations from far east of west Europe not far west like Spain. The datings say probably early bronze age so like 5,000-6,000ybp is when it first arrived.

But again you make a lot of assumptions. There's no known for certain IE homeland, as if the language and people are all one. In fact we know in iberia that the IE language comes from the roman lingua franca and not from the recent migrants like visigoth who made no impact.

A language isn't even a culture let alone a DNA.

So if you don't have expansion out of iberia (of which there's no evidence against for certain just like there's no ancient r1b found yet in india, anatolia, maykop, etc.) then you could still have it expand out of multiple areas such as north africa. There was nowhere for berbers to become r1b, it simply can't be accounted for by your theory about how things work. And no obvious way for it to happen to basques either, but the berbers are really inexplicable.

And like I said you can't even account for iberia that way. Before the romans there was no IE language in iberia! They got their IE language from them, except basques and galicians who kept theirs much longer, some to today.

In fact I don't think you could even say iberia was IE until after reconquista. So if your theory can't even account for that it's dead.

Nobody denies culture spread out from east to west but every evidence says r1a has always been where it is. I believe the evidence will eventually show the same or similar for r1b, but with even more territory. Anatolia for sure, much of persia, possibly carthage.

The "germanic" migrations in roman times, we know the cause of, fleeing from huns. Before that we don't have any direct evidence of any kind of migration. We know they had to happen but they would not have been nearly so dramatic.

Tabaccus Maximus
23-08-13, 03:30
I agree that the Bell Beakers seem to pop in out of no where in Western Europe with technologies that you think would have come from SW Asia or Eastern Europe.

I don't know if this is the answer and if this is a direct tie to Desideri's "reflux" theory of the Beakers, but here is some food for thought.

In the "The Horse The Wheel and Language", David Anthony wrote,
"Bell Beaker sites of the Csepel type around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto-Celtic. Pre-Italic could have developed among the dialects that remained in Hungary, ultimately spreading into Italy through the Urnfield and Villanovan cultures. Eric Hamp and others have revived the argument that Italic and Celtic shared a common parent, so a single migration stream could have contained dialects that later were ancestral to both."

I can't find the paper but one of the metallurgy specialists claims that the Bell Beaker folks in Hungary were using the same kind of practices as their neighboring Corded Ware people. Also, these practices were similar to and an extension of what is known as the Circum-Pontic Metallurgy Province (CMP) which eventually replaced the dying Southeastern European Carpo-Balkans Metallurgy Province (CBMP). The CMP grew up out of the Caucaus and connections with the Southern Levant according to the "Synthesis Theory" of Amazallag.

Jean Manco, who has a book about to be released on this, has also cited a particular type of anomorphic stone stelae that followed a path into Central Europe from the Kemi Oba culture close to the Sea of Azov. She does not have them flow out of the Black Sea or along the Near East and Greece by boat. She has them going overland, hitting Central Europe and the Alps and becoming "sea-borne" in their activities in SE France and Italy where they start to surround Iberia's coasts. I'm sure her graphics are posted here somewhere.

I'm not sure if Maciamo is on board with the stelae thing, but I guess I should go over and flip to his write-ups.


As with the German folk migrations, it may be the case that a realitively homogeous group of people or cultural area migrated in a complex set of routes via different means. You could look at the migration period and find examples of sea raiding, mounted attacks and even large scale migration as with the Goths.

Without being too accomadating too all theories, I would also guess that a core area within the CMP produced multiple waves of R1b immigrants and possibly even before that. Personally, I think the Beaker question may be clarified within the context of a sort of Copper Age Collapse similar to the Bronze Age. It so happens the Beaker episode coincides with the final phase of the Naqada period and chiefdom consolidation of Proto-Dynastic Egypt. Some theorerize that the sudden shift in the Monsoon caused the rapid final desertification of the Sarah. That may have had the effect of driving cattle herders from the dead grasslands into the Nile valley causing the upheaval. It may have also driven some of them from North Africa into Spain. The Corded Ware also seem to expand westward during this phase.

The climate of Europe may have improved during this period making it more attractive. Don't know enough on European climate to say.

Tabaccus Maximus
23-08-13, 03:44
I should probably put this out there to give an idea how I see Beaker Culture within a larger context:

I am a little weary of a Continental migration of Beaker folk. Completely bypassing R1a in Eastern Europe without picking any R1a up seems strange, assuming the Corded Ware people were heavily R1a. There's also a lot of early dna in Eastern Europe that doesn't seem to find it's way to the far West. Corded Ware people driving Beaker folk out Eastern Europe also seems untenable and Beaker folk moving VFR direct from the East into Western Europe doesn't make much sense either.

I'd hypothesize that a 'yet unnamed' maritime cultural horizon at the begining of the Copper Age and which was heavily R1b, established 'Phoenician style' trading colonies throughout the Mediterranian, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean and Black Sea over many centuries or longer.

The presence of R1b in many of these places might be explained by certain populations that appear along major waterways: The Gerzeh (Naqada cultures) of upper Egypt, the Halaf and Ubaidian in the Near East, Dilmun in Bahrain, the Meghreb, the Beakers of Spain(later), Western Red Sea to the horn of Africa and several Med islands, among them Greece, Crete, Corsica, etc.

Among these various cultures, a similar burial condition, a number of them possible precursors to the later Kurgans (such as the primative mastabas, burial mounds, Ubaidian pre-ziggurats), usually single grave flexed burial with the body facing a certain direction, paternalistic with grave goods and weapons, long distance trade of lapiz lazuli included in many graves, beer drinking, agricultural methods and mud-brick homes (usually the first their respective area).
In many of these cultures, bearded male deities appear to replace older, usually goddess centered religious beliefs.
In many places, there is no pre-cursor for the kinds of technology, physical type or cultural system in the previous people.

Of course there are differences too, in time, space and wares which may indicate several complex, over-lapping migrational horizons that can't be neatly placed together on day one.

The Corded Ware and Beaker peoples can probably be better understood as descending from these same people. The Corded Ware from the North Western Black Sea and the Beakers from who knows where.
In either case, trying to cram them into the context of the Kurgan Hypothesis is probably the main reason for so much of the confusion. When the data don't align with a hypothesis, find new data!

Noman
23-08-13, 22:21
Thanks TM. Finally a post on the subject that makes some sense. And obviously the maritime bell beaker didn't migrate from anywhere (at that time), probably none of them did.

Silesian
24-08-13, 07:52
R1b in Western Europe is the apperance of having come from nowhere. If it came from North Africa... .

Possible R1b L51+ could have come from Africa we still do not have a full detailed breakdown of str's or snps of Kromsdorf or King Tut[Official].

MOESAN
24-08-13, 19:30
[QUOTE=Noman;414394]



And like I said you can't even account for iberia that way. Before the romans there was no IE language in iberia! They got their IE language from them, except basques and galicians who kept theirs much longer, some to today.

maybe I made a mistake in my interpretation of your phrase: no I-E language in Iberia!?! maybe just a joke I missed?
I-E pre-Celtic and celtic languages were spoken in Iberia before Romans, were they not? and apparently well documented central-Europe like archeologic remnants too arrived in more than a wave?

Noman
24-08-13, 21:09
[QUOTE=Noman;414394]



And like I said you can't even account for iberia that way. Before the romans there was no IE language in iberia! They got their IE language from them, except basques and galicians who kept theirs much longer, some to today.

maybe I made a mistake in my interpretation of your phrase: no I-E language in Iberia!?! maybe just a joke I missed?
I-E pre-Celtic and celtic languages were spoken in Iberia before Romans, were they not? and apparently well documented central-Europe like archeologic remnants too arrived in more than a wave?

The current languages in iberia are all based on italic indo european, not anything that came down out of the north after coming thousands of miles west.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitan_language

"Occitan is a descendant of the spoken Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) language of the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire), as are languages such as Catalan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_language), Italian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language), Portuguese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_language), Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language), Romanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language) and Sardinian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardinian_language)."

And of course basque covered all aquitaine which is a large area of mosden western france and north spain.

The berbers have dna similarty to saami and every analysis so far says they have been about the same as now (minus veryr ecent arab influece) for 20k years, a mix of r1b and a sub saharan minority element. We don't have the ancient dna to prove it but that's what the current dna seems to imply.

MOESAN
25-08-13, 16:31
[QUOTE=MOESAN;414519]

The current languages in iberia are all based on italic indo european, not anything that came down out of the north after coming thousands of miles west.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitan_language

"Occitan is a descendant of the spoken Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) language of the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire), as are languages such as Catalan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_language), Italian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language), Portuguese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_language), Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language), Romanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language) and Sardinian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardinian_language)."

And of course basque covered all aquitaine which is a large area of mosden western france and north spain.

The berbers have dna similarty to saami and every analysis so far says they have been about the same as now (minus veryr ecent arab influece) for 20k years, a mix of r1b and a sub saharan minority element. We don't have the ancient dna to prove it but that's what the current dna seems to imply.

it seems you need more information: look at Wikipedia: "Languages of Iberia" (even if Wiki is not always the 'nec plus ultra') - celtic languages and other I-E languages (more archaic but close enough to celtic-italic-ligurian) were spoken in Western, Northern and central parts of Iberia at Roman times before colonization, along with diverse non-european languages - Iberia (SC Portugal comprise) received a lot of I-E tribes come from ancient Belgia, Galia and sometimes Germania before Roma domination - historically noted
AND Berbers and Saami people have very very few in common about DNA even if some mtDNA can link them one to the other at some level !!!

Noman
26-08-13, 03:59
it seems you need more information: look at Wikipedia: "Languages of Iberia" (even if Wiki is not always the 'nec plus ultra') - celtic languages and other I-E languages (more archaic but close enough to celtic-italic-ligurian) were spoken in Western, Northern and central parts of Iberia at Roman times before colonization, along with diverse non-european languages - Iberia (SC Portugal comprise) received a lot of I-E tribes come from ancient Belgia, Galia and sometimes Germania before Roma domination - historically noted

I don't know how clear that really is, and like I said before that and even until today we have non IE languages running rampant.

We do know the visigoths and suebes made no dent even though they were obviously extremely powerful. It's hard for me to think that they would have no effect on the language (and presumably less on the DNA) but that previous migrations would all but completely replace the locals. Even the romans themselves, it's believed, had very little effect on the genetics of iberia.

So how can these other migrations we don't have any knowledge of have had such a huge impact? It simply doesn't add up, even if r1b was not there already there has to be something big to help account for all that, because there's virtually zero I or G in iberia these days (and really I am pretty sure G was never big there anyway). Something like carthage being r1b, berbers being r1b, etc. Something big.



AND Berbers and Saami people have very very few in common about DNA even if some mtDNA can link them one to the other at some level !!!

Studies show that DNA has not been recently mixed. It's been in similar proportions for 20k years or so. Which is some sammi, some sub saharan african, etc. for all that time. I don't know what methodologies can lead to that conclusion but I do know they had very much expected the opposite.

So presumably if it's not a newly mixed ethnicity then the r1b has been there all along, as well.

We only see irish r1b in ireland. We only see basque r1b in basque country. So, I think there is still more we need to find on the subject.