PDA

View Full Version : Iberian Bell Beaker Y-DNA and mtDNA



berun
11-05-16, 08:01
I don't know if you are aware of it but in Cerdanyola, just some 10 km from Barcelona city, there were 11 BB tested:

http://www.cerdanyola.cat/webapps/web/continguts_portal/menu_principal/informacio/Comunicats_Premsa/comunicats/Actuals/Actuals/Resultats_Estudi_Jaciment_Carrer_Paris/Resultats_Estudi_Jaciment_Carrer_Paris.html

Google translation Catalan / English:


The analysis of samples of human remains from the site of the street culture bell Paris reveals that sex, mitochondrial DNA, the Y chromosome (in the male individuals), family relations, external physical features population affinities with other contemporary groups.

The site of the culture bell Paris street is part of a larger project that will allow rebuild that culture. It is an international project in which participating institutions like Harvard Broad Institute of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History and the Institute of Evolutionary Biology (CSIC-UPF). The main objective of the project is to find out if this culture corresponds to a movement of people and ideas, ie if the various cultural elements that identify as bell spread through networks or other commercial or van be provided directly to groups of people with a specific genetic differentiable movement of indigenous peoples. To determine this we compare the samples found in different fields of culture bell and compared with samples of Neolithic populations above in each of the geographic areas considered. Presently genomic information of 67 individuals from the culture bell, which include samples from Portugal, England, France, Italy, Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary and Spain, among which is the Hypogeum the street of Paris.

The genetic study of human remains from the site analyzed Cerdanyola has yielded positive results in 11 samples and it has been determined sex, AND mitochondrial chromosome Y (in the male individuals), family relations, the physical characteristics and external population affinities with other contemporary groups. Two of the samples correspond to first-degree relatives of females (two sisters, mother and daughter ...). It has also been told, for example, that women do not tolerate lactose and another had brown eyes.

There are also two papers in Catalan about the site (an hipogeum) that i will translate when i will have time...:

www.raco.cat/index.php/CotaZero/article/download/67362/112953

(http://www.raco.cat/index.php/CotaZero/article/download/67362/112953)http://calaix.gencat.cat/bitstream/handle/10687/91663/2006_14.pdf?sequence=1

Of course things will be settled down

Tomenable
11-05-16, 09:38
Of course things will be settled down


Judging from what Coon wrote, R1b should be there, but together with Megalithic Y-DNA (such as I2a, G2a, E1b, etc.). So Beaker Folks were mixed with Megalithic Folks in the area. But once they expanded out of Iberia (expansion out of Iberia is supported by Coon), they generally did not take Megalithic elements with them.

Anyway, I hope that we will find at least one R1b among those 11 samples, not just Megalithic haplogroups. :)


See pages 148-172, 184-189, 200, 254, 371, 396, 399, 504, 530, 535-541. Also Plates 6 and 36:


https://ia800300.us.archive.org/20/items/racesofeurope031695mbp/racesofeurope031695mbp.pdf


https://archive.org/details/racesofeurope031695mbp


These are pages of the book, not of the PDF file (148 book page = 164 / 875 PDF page).

Tomenable
11-05-16, 09:57
Judging from what Carleton S. Coon wrote about Iberia during the Early Beaker period, R1b should be there, but together with Megalithic Y-DNA (such as for example I2a, G2a, E1b, etc.). So Beaker Folks lived together with Megalithic Folks in that area. And very likely, Beaker Folks were in minority, while populations of the earlier Megalithic stock were still numerically superior to them at that time. Thus I expect that R1b will be in minority among samples from Iberian early BB period. However, as Beaker Folks expanded out of Iberia to France and Germany (this theory - expansion out of Iberia - is supported by Coon) they generally did not take Megalithic Folks with them. That's when & where R1b became the majority.

See pages 148-172, 184-189, 200, 254, 371, 396, 399, 504, 530, 535-541. Also Plates 6 and 36:

https://ia800300.us.archive.org/20/items/racesofeurope031695mbp/racesofeurope031695mbp.pdf

https://archive.org/details/racesofeurope031695mbp

These are pages of the book, not of the PDF file (and 148 book page = 164 / 875 PDF page).

==========================

There are currently 11 samples of Iberian Beaker Y-DNA in the lab, right? I guess at least 1 will be R1b.

epoch
11-05-16, 10:26
I don't know if you are aware of it but in Cerdanyola, just some 10 km from Barcelona city, there were 11 BB tested:

http://www.cerdanyola.cat/webapps/web/continguts_portal/menu_principal/informacio/Comunicats_Premsa/comunicats/Actuals/Actuals/Resultats_Estudi_Jaciment_Carrer_Paris/Resultats_Estudi_Jaciment_Carrer_Paris.html

Google translation Catalan / English:



There are also two papers in Catalan about the site (an hipogeum) that i will translate when i will have time...:

www.raco.cat/index.php/CotaZero/article/download/67362/112953

(http://www.raco.cat/index.php/CotaZero/article/download/67362/112953)http://calaix.gencat.cat/bitstream/handle/10687/91663/2006_14.pdf?sequence=1

Of course things will be settled down


It is one of the last big unresolved questions: Did Bell Beaker culture originate in Iberia? If so, did it spread with migration from Ibaria to Middle and Western Europe?

Good to see this investigated. My guess for the last question is it didn't since the Irish Bell Beaker study showed that the MN populace of Ireland was related to present day Iberians whereas their BB successors showed clear German affinity. Actually, mostly west to the Global Amphora Culture area.

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/2/368.abstract

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/2/368/F3.large.jpg

bicicleur
11-05-16, 13:56
when will the results be published?

anthropico
11-05-16, 14:48
IMHO there's no R1b (M269) in iberian BB, but E1b1b, G2a and I2a. Let's see.
BB in Kromsdorf was already indoeuropized by Yamnaya people.

berun
11-05-16, 14:53
The samples are not in the lab as they say that they have tested already adminxtures...
It's logical that BA Irish point to a more Central European origin than Neolithic Irish as their BB stayed and came from Central Europe, but as far as radiocarbon dates BB is older in Portugal.

7733

berun
11-05-16, 17:40
Better than translating is a resumé, from "L’hipogeu calcolític del carrer de París (Cerdanyola del Vallès)" and "L’hipogeu calcolític del carrer París de Cerdanyola del Vallès":

oval hypogeum, orientation east-west, usual megalithic burial (other regional types used were dolmens, hemidolmens and cists), no metalic findings, four inhumation strata here:

2880-2560 cal BC: more than 36 persons inhumated without an stablished patron, but many were in lateral decubitus position with flexed legs; seven arrow points, some pots, and dentalia linked to a person

the upper strate UE-13 had four individuals displaying no patron in position but all had attached Bell Beaker pots of diverse typology (maritime, epimaritime)

the upper strate UE-2 had two inhumations in lateral decubitus (one in the left, other in the right) and pointing to the north

the most recent strate UE-1 is from 2468-2270 cal BC, bones from at least two inhumations over a stone pavement, their grave goods were Bell Beaker pots of Pyrenean typology

Maciamo
11-05-16, 18:32
IMHO there's no R1b (M269) in iberian BB, but E1b1b, G2a and I2a. Let's see.
BB in Kromsdorf was already indoeuropized by Yamnaya people.

I agree. I would also add haplogroup J2 as a possibility. I had hypothesised that J2 metallurgists from Anatolia spread to the Balkans and southern Europe during the Copper Age. I know that many people disagree with me and prefer to see R1b-L23 as the original copper metallurgists because R1b-L23 is associated with bronze metallurgists and copper precedes bronze. However my theory hasn't changed since I formulated it in 2009. Copper, gold and silver metallurgy first developed in the Balkans and Anatolia, not in the Steppe or the North Caucasus. It is the migration or trade with people from the Balkans (Old Europe) that brought copper working to the Steppe, where locals perfected it to create bronze. So G2a, I2, J2, E1b1b, etc. developed copper metallurgy, but the migration of (presumably G2a3b1 and J2b) people from Old Europe to the Steppe before the Yamna period (Sredny Stog, Khvalysnk) prompted militaristic Steppe people to find a stronger alloy to make weapons instead of jewellery and utility goods.

bicicleur
11-05-16, 19:11
I agree. I would also add haplogroup J2 as a possibility. I had hypothesised that J2 metallurgists from Anatolia spread to the Balkans and southern Europe during the Copper Age. I know that many people disagree with me and prefer to see R1b-L23 as the original copper metallurgists because R1b-L23 is associated with bronze metallurgists and copper precedes bronze. However my theory hasn't changed since I formulated it in 2009. Copper, gold and silver metallurgy first developed in the Balkans and Anatolia, not in the Steppe or the North Caucasus. It is the migration or trade with people from the Balkans (Old Europe) that brought copper working to the Steppe, where locals perfected it to create bronze. So G2a, I2, J2, E1b1b, etc. developed copper metallurgy, but the migration of (presumably G2a3b1 and J2b) people from Old Europe to the Steppe before the Yamna period (Sredny Stog, Khvalysnk) prompted militaristic Steppe people to find a stronger alloy to make weapons instead of jewellery and utility goods.

uptill today it is rather guesswork
that is why the Y-DNA results will be very interesting

Goga
12-05-16, 00:49
I agree. I would also add haplogroup J2 as a possibility. I had hypothesised that J2 metallurgists from Anatolia spread to the Balkans and southern Europe during the Copper Age. I know that many people disagree with me and prefer to see R1b-L23 as the original copper metallurgists because R1b-L23 is associated with bronze metallurgists and copper precedes bronze. However my theory hasn't changed since I formulated it in 2009. Copper, gold and silver metallurgy first developed in the Balkans and Anatolia, not in the Steppe or the North Caucasus. It is the migration or trade with people from the Balkans (Old Europe) that brought copper working to the Steppe, where locals perfected it to create bronze. So G2a, I2, J2, E1b1b, etc. developed copper metallurgy, but the migration of (presumably G2a3b1 and J2b) people from Old Europe to the Steppe before the Yamna period (Sredny Stog, Khvalysnk) prompted militaristic Steppe people to find a stronger alloy to make weapons instead of jewellery and utility goods.
Wrong. The type of bronze you are talking about is from the Iranian Plateau. Ancient Sumerians already had this knowledge. The bronze metallurgy was perfected in West Asia. And later introduced into the Steppes via the Maykop or the eastern side of the Caspian!

Maykop kurgans predate Yamnaya kurgans.


" Alexei Rezepkin - Recent discoveries

Several important discoveries were made by Rezepkin in the course of his excavations. Among them what seems as the oldest sword in the world. This ancient bronze sword dates to around 3400 BC. It was found in a stone tomb near Novosvobodnaya, and is now on display in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. It was discovered in Kurgan 31, tomb 5 at the burial site Klady, which is attributed to the Maikop culture. This burial belongs to local Phase 3 at Klady, corresponding to the last Phase 4 of the Maikop culture. It has a total length of 63 cm and a hilt length of 11 cm. The radiocarbon dates for Phase 3 at Klady are 3500-3342 (68% probability), and 3500-3128 (95% probability). Previously, the oldest swords were reported from Arslantepe, and they are dated soon after the Klady sword, or about a century later. "

https://infopoint.co/en/Alexei%20Rezepkin/Recent%20discoveries

Goga
12-05-16, 01:29
I'm sure bronze weapons in Maykop kurgans came from Kurdistan Zagros Mountains (Iranian Plateau)

Early fourth millennium bronze artifacts has been found in Zagros.


http://s32.postimg.org/niptr2bb9/arsenic_bronze.png


http://www.jstor.org/stable/530550

MOESAN
12-05-16, 14:50
BBs were not born from nowhere, I think. So, even if the first traces of well determined BBs are in Portugal or more largely Southwest Iberia, they had to be descendants of somebody, and we cannot be sure they were a local people continuity. Some surveys seem establishing they were in Southern Portugal a foreign (new?) element outside the Chalcolithic people settlements, before their artefacts incorporated the post-Chalcolithic societies.
Their mtDNA was distinct enough from the Chalco mtDNA too. But we have very little about Western Iberia to date. Maybe this distinct mtDNA is only the Atlantic façade one? And does not reflect the parallele of BB male elites's y-DNA? All the way it seems the first BBs of Iberia buried their dead people among the collective sepultures of precedent populations, what is not the case for Central-North Europe later BBs.

berun
13-05-16, 20:32
Another "DNAleak (http://www.nos.uminho.pt/Article.aspx?id=2204)" from Pedro Soares (Centro de Biologia Molecular e Ambiental - CBMA; Instituto para a Biossustentabilidade - IB-S; professor in Genética Molecular e Bioinformática (UMinho)

In actual Portugal it was developed the Bell Beaker culture with enhaced comerce and technological development, and such new culture expanded towards Germany.
The cause of the migration to Central Europe is unknown.
The BB is linked to the wheel, the domestication of horse, so that afar sites were available to trade (per example ivory).

berun
20-05-16, 13:19
As the paper will not delay to appear in English, the Bell Beaker also had a checking three years ago from a mtDNA point of view in "Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2656.html)":


From around 2800 BC, the LNE Bell Beaker culture emerged
from the Iberian Peninsula to form one of the first pan-European
archaeological complexes. This cultural phenomenon is recognised
by a distinctive package of rich grave goods including the
eponymous bell-shaped ceramic beakers. The genetic affinities
between Central Europe’s Bell Beakers and present-day Iberian
populations (Fig. 2) is striking and throws fresh light on longdisputed
archaeological models3. We suggest these data indicate a
considerable genetic influx from the West during the LNE.

So that as the mainstream thinking is that IE Yamnayans lads from the steppes were peopling all Europe by then, it seems that such expansion was lacking chicks (or the local girls were not enough kind?) so that brunettes from Portugal were going eastwards to meet the requirements... maybe writing so in this ironicaly way will allow to some to hear the red alarms.

MOESAN
20-05-16, 14:40
Lot of statements made by scientists very often at the mergins of their own speciality. I don't buy this kind of generalities before more insight.
We lack precise between periods surveys. Archeology seems showing strong imput of Megalithic cultures into Southern Germany just before Chalcolithic or at its earlier stage, and the mt changes we see between Middle? Late? Neolithic (the ? have some weight) and Bronze, so spanning Chalcolithic, could be for a part the result of this megalithic expansion from Atlantic shores, along the Loire river eastwards, if my diverse readings have some value. And I red somewhere the BBs of Atlantic façade (or their pottery) took the same Loire way eastwards. I cannot state myself, I'm not archeologist...
Physical Anthropology show a tangled situation between Catalunya and Southern France at Chalcolithic with perhaps more than a vague or place of origin of the newcomers, some of whose have 'dinaroid' forms among other forms. BBs and others, with sepultures reutilisations. + disorderly changes in distributions of these types as time passed except constant increase of "new mediterranean" types from Greece surroundings. People of this time spoke of "Helladic" influences, without more precision. But it seems metals have always been an impulse from East Mediterranea before attested I-Eans coming. Wheel and horse are interesting things, but were the steppic I-Eans the only ones to master them at those times. (I avow I did not the link between BBs and wheel, by ignorance?)
I resume: not too clear, all that. Sorry. Only remnants analysis with well sampled people and their anDNA can help us. No bet of mine to date.

binx
06-06-16, 15:22
It is one of the last big unresolved questions: Did Bell Beaker culture originate in Iberia? Of course it didn't.

berun
06-06-16, 16:32
In scientific debates it is good to give some refs... by the way it's only a mater of godwill to find dates and facts:

7767

7768

berun
01-07-16, 23:52
More data ready to appear:

http://arqueologia.tte.cat/actes-i-jornades-2016/60-anys-despres-de-la-cova-del-calvari-amposta-montsia-revisio-en-curs-i-aportacio-de-noves-dades-analitiques-al-campaniforme-del-nord-est-de-la-peninsula-iberica

In this case from a Bell Beaker burial in a cave [ON](typical Yamnayan burial) [mode Yamnayist OFF], Cova del Calvari, midway Barcelona to Valencia. Dated to 2800-2600 BC.

holderlin
02-07-16, 18:42
Wrong. The type of bronze you are talking about is from the Iranian Plateau. Ancient Sumerians already had this knowledge. The bronze metallurgy was perfected in West Asia. And later introduced into the Steppes via the Maykop or the eastern side of the Caspian!

Maykop kurgans predate Yamnaya kurgans.


" Alexei Rezepkin - Recent discoveries

Several important discoveries were made by Rezepkin in the course of his excavations. Among them what seems as the oldest sword in the world. This ancient bronze sword dates to around 3400 BC. It was found in a stone tomb near Novosvobodnaya, and is now on display in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. It was discovered in Kurgan 31, tomb 5 at the burial site Klady, which is attributed to the Maikop culture. This burial belongs to local Phase 3 at Klady, corresponding to the last Phase 4 of the Maikop culture. It has a total length of 63 cm and a hilt length of 11 cm. The radiocarbon dates for Phase 3 at Klady are 3500-3342 (68% probability), and 3500-3128 (95% probability). Previously, the oldest swords were reported from Arslantepe, and they are dated soon after the Klady sword, or about a century later. "

https://infopoint.co/en/Alexei%20Rezepkin/Recent%20discoveries

:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

Welcome back

holderlin
02-07-16, 18:49
I'm sure bronze weapons in Maykop kurgans came from Kurdistan Zagros Mountains (Iranian Plateau)

Early fourth millennium bronze artifacts has been found in Zagros.


http://s32.postimg.org/niptr2bb9/arsenic_bronze.png


http://www.jstor.org/stable/530550

I think we still need to analyze more Maykop and steppe samples bronze and copper samples. I know that on the steppe copper is coming from the Balkans first, then there is clear stylistic influences from the Caucuses by the time Yamnaya, which also coincides with steppe people beginning to mine copper from their own sources in the Urals. I think Bronze from Zagros makes perfect sense, but the Aegean is very early as well

MOESAN
02-07-16, 19:57
IMHO there's no R1b (M269) in iberian BB, but E1b1b, G2a and I2a. Let's see.
BB in Kromsdorf was already indoeuropized by Yamnaya people.


??? Where did you red that? A guess? A bet? A shaman's dream? Have you red some newly published results? I doubt.
Not to contradict you, but we need solid results of analysis. I'm not sure at all Y-R1b were the first BBs, but ?

berun
04-07-16, 11:44
Deleted post

berun
11-07-16, 08:21
In the paper "Mitochondrial DNA from El Mirador Cave (Atapuerca, Spain) Reveals the Heterogeneity of Chalcolithic Populations" the Iberian focus of the BB culture is even more finetuned:


This site is contemporaneous to the Bell Beaker culture (BBC) but does not carry the diagnostic items of this culture that include the distinctive bell-shaped ceramics and weapons. In fact, the archaeological sites with Bell Beaker remains are very scarce in the Meseta Central of the Iberian Peninsula.


The genetic signature of H haplogroups increased up to 48.3% during the Bell Beaker period with respect to previous European cultures, suggesting a population expansion from Iberia to Central Europe [21].


The mtDNA composition of El Mirador is quite unique, and different to that found in other contemporaneous Bell Beaker populations and to present-day Iberians (Figure 2 and 3). This Chalcolithic population displays different mtDNA haplogroups that are currently present at higher frequency in the Near East populations than in continental Europe (e.g., X2, K, T2b); this could explain the clustering of El Mirador with Near Eastern populations in the PCA of modern populations (Figure 3).


In this context, El Mirador mitochondrial composition may correspond to a previous genetic substratum with a substantial contribution of lineages from the Near East that was not influenced by the expansion of Iberian Bell Beakers, despite being in the same range. Under a chronological perspective (Figure S3) El Mirador supports the continuity of the previous Middle Neolithic genetic composition into the Chalcolithic, at least in non-Bell Beaker groups.


In none of the analyses El Mirador sample shows close genetic affinities with a contemporaneous Bell Beaker population of 29 specimens gathered from three sites in Germany. The Bell Beaker mtDNA signal is characterized by high frequencies (around 50%) of H haplogroup that in El Mirador only reaches 26%.

In figure 4 the Mirador people plots with other Central European Neolithic peoples, as expected from having a common origin in Anatolia, but the BB people plots very near to the NPO people (Neolithic Portugal), which had a 70% of H mtDNA...

so what would be for the R1b question with that...?

Hauteville
11-07-16, 08:54
No Y-DNA so far?I want to see if Marija Gimbutas was right or not, since also most of Italy had BB.

berun
11-07-16, 14:20
As far as I know there are two incoming papers about BB Iberian Y-DNA.

As for Gimbutas making BB IE... she wrote some 40 years ago and many things have changed, she is now outdated and radiocarbon dates are irrefutable for a western origin. Now I believe that Gimbutas was somewhat eccentric in her conclusions as it was Sigmund Freud: after knowing about experiments trying to make rockets to travel to the space he judged that his inventor was phalus obsessed... in fact it was all the contrary, it was the psychoanalist that was obsessed with sex and everything was looked from such perspective; somewhat seems similar for Gumbutas: all peaceful and farmer cultures worshipping goddesses were non indoeuropean, and those cultures displaying violence, weapons, patriarchy, horses and so were undoubtfuly IE; of course the equation is not universal and at least it could be said that it was sexualy-biased.

Alpenjager
11-07-16, 15:49
Results from Unambiguous Bell Beaker:

Bell Beaker from Kromsdorf 4550 ybp = 0% H + 100% ( T1a, K1, I1a1, W5a, U2e, U5a1 )

Bell Beaker from Benzingerode-Heimburg 4300/4200 ybp = 0% H + 100% ( T2a, W1, U5a )

Bell Beaker from Quedlinburg 4300/4200 ybp = 50% H5/H1 + 50% ( T2e, J1c, U5a, U5b )

Bell Beaker from Rothenschirmbach 4300/4200 ybp = 60% H5/H3 + 40% ( K1a2 )

Bell Beaker from Alberstedt 4300/4200 ybp = 100% H5/H3 + 0% ( - )

1- The oldest tested Bell Beaker population is Kromsdorf and there is not found any H carrier.
2- H5 is the only H haplogroup shared among all of these Bell Beaker populations where H is found.
3- H5 is found in a 8350 ybp individual from Anatolia.
4- K1a2 is found in a 8350 ybp individual from Anatolia.
5- W1 is found in a 8350 ybp individual from Anatolia.
6- T1a is found in a 9500 ybp individual from Jordan.
7- T2e is found in a 7500 ybp individual from Neolithic Hungary.
8- J1c is found in a 9900 ybp individual from Neolithic Iran.
9- H3 is found in a 7300 ybp individual from Neolithic Portugal.

Hauteville
11-07-16, 17:36
As far as I know there are two incoming papers about BB Iberian Y-DNA.

As for Gimbutas making BB IE... she wrote some 40 years ago and many things have changed, she is now outdated and radiocarbon dates are irrefutable for a western origin. Now I believe that Gimbutas was somewhat eccentric in her conclusions as it was Sigmund Freud: after knowing about experiments trying to make rockets to travel to the space he judged that his inventor was phalus obsessed... in fact it was all the contrary, it was the psychoanalist that was obsessed with sex and everything was looked from such perspective; somewhat seems similar for Gumbutas: all peaceful and farmer cultures worshipping goddesses were non indoeuropean, and those cultures displaying violence, weapons, patriarchy, horses and so were undoubtfuly IE; of course the equation is not universal and at least it could be said that it was sexualy-biased.

Actually Marija Gimbutas is still reliable in regarding the Indoeuropeism discipline. She said that BB were IE and proto-Celts, so I'm pretty curious if this hypotesis was right, because BB were also in parts of Europe without hystoric Celts.

berun
11-07-16, 18:12
@Alpenjager, percents are not useful with low quantities, what I have is quite simple: from 17 BB samples 11 were H (2/3), even a higher proportion if they were not the first generation there; then if you compare it with all previous Neolithic and CWC samples taken in Central Europe you get only 1/9 (6 cases H and 47 no H); the history behind is evident.

@Hauteville, all "religions" have their own Holy Cows, but as i'm not Yamnayist I'm allowed to eat meat ;) Radiocarbon dates are saying that she was mistaken other than we think that proto-Celtic was spoken in Portugal around 3000 BC and IE was going there sailing with chariots; and for Yamnayans, well, DNA is showing us how they didn't contributed in anything, even their R1b clade was extingished there after the coming of the northern R1a. Of course checking if she was right or mistaken is good, but by now she was not right in the basics. What is worse, if BB were spreading Celtic languages, why then the actual archaeologists are happy with Urnfield / Hallstad / La Téne cultures spreading over all the Celtic territories? is that there were two celtizations then? Better to get the easy explanation than two explanations...

Sile
11-07-16, 20:43
@Alpenjager, percents are not useful with low quantities, what I have is quite simple: from 17 BB samples 11 were H (2/3), even a higher proportion if they were not the first generation there; then if you compare it with all previous Neolithic and CWC samples taken in Central Europe you get only 1/9 (6 cases H and 47 no H); the history behind is evident.

@Hauteville, all "religions" have their own Holy Cows, but as i'm not Yamnayist I'm allowed to eat meat ;) Radiocarbon dates are saying that she was mistaken other than we think that proto-Celtic was spoken in Portugal around 3000 BC and IE was going there sailing with chariots; and for Yamnayans, well, DNA is showing us how they didn't contributed in anything, even their R1b clade was extingished there after the coming of the northern R1a. Of course checking if she was right or mistaken is good, but by now she was not right in the basics. What is worse, if BB were spreading Celtic languages, why then the actual archaeologists are happy with Urnfield / Hallstad / La Téne cultures spreading over all the Celtic territories? is that there were two celtizations then? Better to get the easy explanation than two explanations...

Did you count the number of H mtdna in central Europe that have been discovered in the neolithic times..............clearly the logical scenario is that the marker of H ( mtdna ) is still in the area 3000 years later during BB times

or

did you dismiss these numbers?

Alpenjager
11-07-16, 21:20
@Alpenjager, percents are not useful with low quantities, what I have is quite simple: from 17 BB samples 11 were H (2/3), even a higher proportion if they were not the first generation there; then if you compare it with all previous Neolithic and CWC samples taken in Central Europe you get only 1/9 (6 cases H and 47 no H); the history behind is evident.


You are talking of a sample of 17 but I'm exposing 24 unambiguous BB samples from several settlements, is perfectly useful.

The oldest known H1 in Europe have been found in a 7200 ybp sample from Karsdorf together with the paternal haplogroup T1a1. This is 3000 years before Bell Beaker. This is the same for most of H subclades.

Sile
11-07-16, 21:23
You are talking of a sample of 17 but I'm exposing 24 unambiguous BB samples from several settlements, is perfectly useful.

The oldest known H1 in Europe have been found in a 7200 ybp sample from Karsdorf together with the paternal haplogroup T1a1. This is 2000 years before Bell Beaker.

not just H1 , but also H46 for a similar time frame

Alpenjager
11-07-16, 22:02
I will give you some numbers for 7200 ybp Central Europe settlements:


Native inhabitants from Karsdorf (YDNA: T1a1 )
43% H ( 12 samples )

Non-native inhabitants from Karsdorf
23% H + 11% HV = 34% R0 ( 9 samples )

Derenburg (YDNA: H2 + G2a )
12% H + 13% HV + 4% V = 29% R0 (24 samples )

Halberstadt (YDNA: G2a )
9% H + 13% V = 22% R0 ( 31 samples )

Naumburg
20% H ( 5 samples )

Eilsleben
100% H ( 1 sample )

Asparn Schletz
100% H ( 1 sample )

berun
11-07-16, 23:57
@Sile, the increase of H must be explained, being by a migratory process or by a particular selection; as such increase is linked to a given exogenous culture the answer is mainly migration. There is also the autosomal evidence and in some weeks maybe the Y-DNA.

@Alpenjager, you still doing percents from scanty numbers from here and there, so let's go to the big numbers. In "Ancient DNA reveals key stages in the formation of Central European mitochondrial genetic diversity" in the supp you can find out:

Oberwiederstedt 0H from 14; in Halberstadt 8H from 47, in Naumburg 2H from 10, in Karsdorf 13H from 46, in Deremburg 5H from 40; suming up 28H from 156... gives a 18% of H (but the authors assign to the LBK culture a 17%); you can find out also that the authors concede for the CWC a 23% for H... but then it doubles with BB, 48%. Maybe with this exposition you can see also the case. And such German BB plot with the Portuguese Neolithics... high also in H.

MOESAN
12-07-16, 01:10
don't know if this is serious data, but I compiled results from Ancestral Journeys-Peopling of Europe:
I found:
14 mt-H / 58 Unetice of Germany, 15 mt-H / 64 Unetice (total CN-Europe) 24,1% and 23,4%
9 mt-H / 45 CWC of Germany, 12 mt-H / 56 CWC (total CN-Europe) 20,0% and 21,4%
16 mt-H / 38 BBS of Germany, 19 mt-H / 44 BBS (total CN-Europe) 42,1% and 43,2%
9 mt- H / 36 TRBK of Germany, 12 mt-H / 42 TRBK (total CN-Europe) 25,0% and 28,6%

I don't see a strong imput of mt-H5 among BBs.
If I group H1+H3 as "west" or "ancient" and H2+H4+H5+H6 as "eastern" or "new", I found among the defined mt-H:
BBS 6 "WA" >< 2 "EN" (3 H1 + 3 H3)
TRBK 4 "WA" >< 2 "EN" (2 H1 + 2 H3)
CWC 0 "WA" >< 5 "EN"
Unetice 1 "WA" >< 7 "EN" (1 H3)
it's few and not too scoentific but surely it could signify something.
We see Tricherbecher, spite an imput from East, is still very occidental, and it PRECEDE BBs in time (Long Barrows: a come back phenomenon of Atlantic Megalithers in Northwest, after first contacts in N-Germant-DK with first "steppicized" (I-E or not) ???
the auDNA of one Gokhem man seems confirming a 'mediterranean' with more contacts with West than with East, and some WHG imput
mt-H5 which seems come from East is scarce enough among BBs and TRBK
So yes, BBs show partial difference with CWC with weight put upon supposedly "atlantic" mt-DNA. It remains that their auDNA, very unlevel, place them between Northern pops and Southeastern pops of Europe, not too close to today Iberians.
So we have to trace the origin of the MOST of the mt-H DNA in Europe, even H1 and H3, which could be linked more to Southern WHG than to the genuine Neolithic farmers; it could also have begun to colonize West-Central Europe before the BBs time.
But at the haplo's level, what we have for ancient DNA is still statistically too small, and the BBs we have are almost all from Northern Europe, Eastern Germany for the most.
What remains is the discrepancy in my drawing between german BBs and their H1/H3 mt and today Iberians rich for these two mt-haplos, and for y-R1b...

Alpenjager
12-07-16, 01:18
@Alpenjager, you still doing percents from scanty numbers from here and there, so let's go to the big numbers. In "Ancient DNA reveals key stages in the formation of Central European mitochondrial genetic diversity" in the supp you can find out:

Oberwiederstedt 0H from 14; in Halberstadt 8H from 47, in Naumburg 2H from 10, in Karsdorf 13H from 46, in Deremburg 5H from 40; suming up 28H from 156... gives a 18% of H (but the authors assign to the LBK culture a 17%); you can find out also that the authors concede for the CWC a 23% for H... but then it doubles with BB, 48%. Maybe with this exposition you can see also the case. And such German BB plot with the Portuguese Neolithics... high also in H.


46 samples in Karsdorf? There aren't 46 samples. Well, You are clearly mixing samples from several periods for almost every location. You need to diferentiate between 7200 ybp Karsdorf settlement and CWC Karsdorf, there is no-continuity from one to another. This is not a good way to understand nothing.

Also you are missinterpreting the BB results.

berun
12-07-16, 07:30
@MOESAN, take into account that the spread of the BB surely was not direct, there were surely generations to reach Germany and their aDNA was not like in the beginning. There is the autosomal i na paper refered already here were such BB ploted between the expected pops. For the mtDNA in the paper of "Mitochondrial DNA from el Mirador" realy it plots just with Neolithic Portugal (70% H), being the ancient Central European cultures far as the HG.

@Alpenjager, now if you don't like the percents you could mail to Brandt et al. to complain to the authors of the paper refered, but in the supp. they have more than 150 samples from the LBK (also other samples from different periods from the same villages but the excel is quite clear to understand); take into account that by now you have not refered your data and your data to me is not guaranteed, moreover to proceed to assign a 100% for a unique sample in a village is, in the most diplomatic way that i can express it, to don't understand the basics about statistics.

Sile
12-07-16, 08:13
@MOESAN, take into account that the spread of the BB surely was not direct, there were surely generations to reach Germany and their aDNA was not like in the beginning. There is the autosomal i na paper refered already here were such BB ploted between the expected pops. For the mtDNA in the paper of "Mitochondrial DNA from el Mirador" realy it plots just with Neolithic Portugal (70% H), being the ancient Central European cultures far as the HG.

@Alpenjager, now if you don't like the percents you could mail to Brandt et al. to complain to the authors of the paper refered, but in the supp. they have more than 150 samples from the LBK (also other samples from different periods from the same villages but the excel is quite clear to understand); take into account that by now you have not refered your data and your data to me is not guaranteed, moreover to proceed to assign a 100% for a unique sample in a village is, in the most diplomatic way that i can express it, to don't understand the basics about statistics.

You need to realise that H Mtdna was in BB central Europe thousands of years before any Iberian H Mtdna went there...............in other words H Mtdna has NO relation to the commencement of BB

berun
12-07-16, 12:31
Ok... let's say it more simple then: H came with Neolithic people here and there, ok, in LBK and Central European Middle Neolithic cultures it reached a 15-25%, even in Calcholithic Central Spain; but H by X causes was more prevalent in Neolithc Portugal (70%), ok, then in S. Portugal the BB appeared around 2800 BC, ok, then the BB people in Germany of 2500 BC display an unexpected increase of H, 48%. What do you suggest which would be the best explanation for it? To me clearly is that H was going to Germany along BB pots, arrows and buttons, increasing the H there; other solutions are available but such alternatives are not the most simple.

By the way i suggest you to read these papers as to understand what i try to explain (not so well i guess):

Mitochondrial DNA from El Mirador Cave (Atapuerca, Spain) Reveals the Heterogeneity of Chalcolithic Populations

Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans

New Population and Phylogenetic Features of the Internal Variation within Mitochondrial DNA Macro-Haplogroup R0

Alpenjager
12-07-16, 15:36
@Alpenjager, now if you don't like the percents you could mail to Brandt et al. to complain to the authors of the paper refered, but in the supp. they have more than 150 samples from the LBK (also other samples from different periods from the same villages but the excel is quite clear to understand); take into account that by now you have not refered your data and your data to me is not guaranteed, moreover to proceed to assign a 100% for a unique sample in a village is, in the most diplomatic way that i can express it, to don't understand the basics about statistics.

"moreover to proceed to assign a 100% for a unique sample in a village is, in the most diplomatic way that i can express it, to don't understand the basics about statistics"? So, do you think this invalidate my previous comment in some way?

I'm still trying to find 46 LBK samples in Karsdorf among all known Brandt papers. "in the most diplomatic way that i can express" This is falsify data to support your theory and misinform deliberately to other forum members.

You can find all Karsdorf samples here: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.5871/bacad/9780197265758.001.0001/upso-9780197265758-chapter-6

http://science.sciencemag.org/highwire/filestream/594929/field_highwire_adjunct_files/2/Brandt.tablesS1-S17.xls

The data supports my previous comments, not yours.

Please, let me know if you need any other source. See my comments again and ask for any source.

LeBrok
12-07-16, 16:57
"moreover to proceed to assign a 100% for a unique sample in a village is, in the most diplomatic way that i can express it, to don't understand the basics about statistics"? So, do you think this invalidate my previous comment in some way?

I'm still trying to find 46 LBK samples in Karsdorf among all known Brandt papers. "in the most diplomatic way that i can express" This is falsify data to support your theory and misinform deliberately to other forum members.
Don't beat yourself too much. We couldn't get to berun either with our explanations on various subjects. Unfortunately he is immune to statistics and pattern recognition, though a nice guy in general.

Alpenjager
12-07-16, 17:07
Results from Unambiguous Bell Beaker:

Bell Beaker from Kromsdorf 4550 ybp = 0% H + 100% ( T1a, K1, I1a1, W5a, U2e, U5a1 )

Bell Beaker from Benzingerode-Heimburg 4300/4200 ybp = 0% H + 100% ( T2a, W1, U5a )

Bell Beaker from Quedlinburg 4300/4200 ybp = 50% H5/H1 + 50% ( T2e, J1c, U5a, U5b )

Bell Beaker from Rothenschirmbach 4300/4200 ybp = 60% H5/H3 + 40% ( K1a2 )

Bell Beaker from Alberstedt 4300/4200 ybp = 100% H5/H3 + 0% ( - )

1- The oldest tested Bell Beaker population is Kromsdorf and there is not found any H carrier.
2- H5 is the only H haplogroup shared among all of these Bell Beaker populations where H is found.
3- H5 is found in a 8350 ybp individual from Anatolia.
4- K1a2 is found in a 8350 ybp individual from Anatolia.
5- W1 is found in a 8350 ybp individual from Anatolia.
6- T1a is found in a 9500 ybp individual from Jordan.
7- T2e is found in a 7500 ybp individual from Neolithic Hungary.
8- J1c is found in a 9900 ybp individual from Neolithic Iran.
9- H3 is found in a 7300 ybp individual from Neolithic Portugal.


Other BB populations from Germany, Czech R. and Denmark:

39% H/H46/H44/H1af/H2a and 61% non-H (K1c, U5a, W, T1a, T2a, U5b, U4c, U4*) Samples: 18

H2a found in Kumtepe 6700 ybp
H46 found in Karsdorf 7100 ybp

berun
12-07-16, 17:49
@Alpenjager, Karsdorf samples are in the excel that you posted, lines 126-171 of the third page, even so I caught now that all individuals were sampled twice, so the numbers are for all the half... but the percents remain the same.

Maybe I don't understand patterns so well, but if a village is 18 percent Schmith and in the next day it is added a 30 percent of newcomers named Ferreira... I think i would have some 48 percent of people with a nickname refering to smithers?

MOESAN
12-07-16, 20:49
@MOESAN, take into account that the spread of the BB surely was not direct, there were surely generations to reach Germany and their aDNA was not like in the beginning. There is the autosomal i na paper refered already here were such BB ploted between the expected pops. For the mtDNA in the paper of "Mitochondrial DNA from el Mirador" realy it plots just with Neolithic Portugal (70% H), being the ancient Central European cultures far as the HG.



recall: the partial surprise for me is the apparently not too big difference between today Spain and ancient German BBs concerning Y-R1b+mtH spite their auDNA is different as a whole.
As you can see i'm very cautious when speaking about BBs: what kind of BBs?
- Generations? Surely 3000/2900 BC to 2500 BC it's a long enough time. Vut someones think the first BBs, and the propagation of their typical first luggage did not take so much times to reach very remote regions of West. A first phase could have seen no colonization but rather fast travels of possible prospection.
- Is there an unique BBs phenomenon: could we not imagine two origins or at least two roads for BBs? (by instance I was imagining an eastarn people come from either Anatolia or Western Black Sea, near Carpathians, who could have taken two routes and known different environments and admictures before converging in Germany, but at this stade it's only a peplum secnario)
- After a first explorating stage, I suppose BBs intergrated diverse Chalcol societies rather than they colonized them from Southern Portugal to Poland. I see them rather as a catalizor for societies which were not exactly the same ones (some could be Chalco from East mediterranean, other Chalco from North-central Europe with Steppes ties?). What we see as a big travel from South-West to North-East could be in fact a progressive homogeneization of pops by moves from region to region with a patrolinear aspect implying wives changing place more often, homogeneization launched by progress and trade at larger scales than before, due to local elites taking part in the game under BBs impulse - whatever their ethny - No complete shared way of life, no uniformity, but differences in burying and so on, between diverse great regions labelled "BB" at the end.
- Sure, a too small number of men could have had hard work to create what seems nevertheless a big change. But nothing points to a great demic move from Iberia only. I wonder if the final success fo "BBs" is not the fact of their maybe proto-Italo-Liguro-Celtic "pupils" or "snob supporters", with in fact an expansion of Y-R1b males, taking progressively the opposite way of the females place-to-place moves: when I say move, I think osmosis, very slow.
- Have we the mt-DNA of the VERY LATE NEOLITHIC PRE-BB/PRE-CWC? i 'll try to pick what is accessible. I think a progressive osmosis of basic people had begun already since the Megaliths period, seeing Atlantic people gaining ground more in East and North. The Megalithic period seemingly saw an increse in pop in Denmark. This civilisation needed men and men I think (and women too!) and I think the Megalithers of Western Europe had their part in the FunnelBK culture along with others come from Eastern Europe, maybe Steppes.
- mt H question is not simple: some mt-H (H1 sure, maybe H3) can have reached Portugal BEFORE REAL NEOLITHIC, from South-East Europe.
others mt-H are easterners with a different "recent" story. So what seems a revolution of the mtDNA for us could have been very more subtile.
I 'll search.
Thanks for amiable debate not always the case on some of our threads!

berun
12-07-16, 23:22
For the megalithic expansion I have not idea if it was demic or cultural. This culture appears after the first neolithics are well stablished and became well populated. The megaliths appear as a way to display the richness and capacity of each local clan.

BB are more complex. In Catalonia they appear in a estrange way if they were migrants as they continue old burials (caves, megaliths, hypogeums...). It seems that they followed the same in other areas. It's not the usual invader behavior. Being from Portugal they had two factors not present in other European regions: metalurgy and above all dense villages, so they had the demographic potential and a new technology. But realy I don't know which factor aided more to the spread: overpopulation? invaders with daggers and arrows? Metalurgic services? they made the best beers? horses or donkeys allowing bigger exchange nets? Demographic crisis in other late neolithic cultures? In whichever case it seems granted that the migration was big: Western Europe is a big area but they were capable to cover the most, if they would be a bunch of men only spreading into few regions would be enough.

bicicleur
12-07-16, 23:28
For the megalithic expansion I have not idea if it was demic or cultural. This culture appears after the first neolithics are well stablished and became well populated. The megaliths appear as a way to display the richness and capacity of each local clan.

BB are more complex. In Catalonia they appear in a estrange way if they were migrants as they continue old burials (caves, megaliths, hypogeums...). It seems that they followed the same in other areas. It's not the usual invader behavior. Being from Portugal they had two factors not present in other European regions: metalurgy and above all dense villages, so they had the demographic potential and a new technology. But realy I don't know which factor aided more to the spread: overpopulation? invaders with daggers and arrows? Metalurgic services? they made the best beers? horses or donkeys allowing bigger exchange nets? Demographic crisis in other late neolithic cultures? In whichever case it seems granted that the migration was big: Western Europe is a big area but they were capable to cover the most, if they would be a bunch of men only spreading into few regions would be enough.

don't underestimate how quick a small tribe can procreate
you don't need a mass immigration to become genetically dominant
IMO that is what BB people did

as for megaliths, I think they came with oxens

bicicleur
12-07-16, 23:31
recall: the partial surprise for me is the apparently not too big difference between today Spain and ancient German BBs concerning Y-R1b+mtH spite their auDNA is different as a whole.

I think you're confusing Iberian chalcolithic with Iberian BB. We have no Iberian BB DNA.

LeBrok
13-07-16, 00:49
@Alpenjager, Karsdorf samples are in the excel that you posted, lines 126-171 of the third page, even so I caught now that all individuals were sampled twice, so the numbers are for all the half... but the percents remain the same.

Maybe I don't understand patterns so well, but if a village is 18 percent Schmith and in the next day it is added a 30 percent of newcomers named Ferreira... I think i would have some 48 percent of people with a nickname referring to smithers?Actually, because village will grow to 30% of more people village will have 130% people when compared to 100% from before arrival of Ferreira. In this case the old 18% will get smaller of 30%, to about 14% of new population. Likewise 30% won't be 30 anymore but 23%, so in total 37% smiths. Unless you meant that 30% of Ferreiras of total of population after they joind.

In numbers. Let's say population of village was 100 people with 18 Smiths. After 30 Ferreiras are added there will be 130 people in the village. 130 is new 100%. In this case 18 Smiths is (18*100%/130=) 13.8%, and 30 Ferreiras (30*100%/130=) is 23%, in total smiths are 36.8% of population.

Your calculation is right if in population of 100% we already have 18 Smiths and 30 Ferreiras, but not if 30 Ferreiras are an addition to existing population.

berun
13-07-16, 07:48
Ok... I supposed that the main concept would be taken and I was not to get the calculator, but if we go we go... so to get a 48% from a previous 18% it would be needed to add up 45 Ferreiras for each 100 old villagers: quite impressive the population change... and if samples were not first generation, so that many male Ferreiras had local mtDNA recent ancestry, the initial numbers could be even higher.

MOESAN
14-07-16, 16:00
I think you're confusing Iberian chalcolithic with Iberian BB. We have no Iberian BB DNA.

I'm not confusing anything, Bicicleur. I 'm just comparing ancient BB of Central Europe, and TODAY Iberians, who stay apart on PCA plottings, spite they have close %s for total mt-H and dominance for Y-R1b, even if in C-Europe BBs R1b seem almost 100%. I know comparing ancient and modern population could mistake us, but surely not completely. So supposed close enough males and females ligneages would, theorically, give close enough populations on PCA. Or it proves that today Iberians are descendant of other Y-R1b (+) mtH people we have to find in history, but not from BBs, or BBS of C-Europe were not as a whole BBs of 3000 BC Iberia (what I 'm should think easily enough, wiating more info). It's all. As all of us here I wait for true Iberian BBS anDNA.

berun
14-07-16, 18:18
Maybe it's a "problem" with autosomals. I don't know realy but Puertoricans may have similar Iberian haplos but plot quite different by inserting little admixture from native and black people. Extreme example but i think that the basics could be applied to Central Europe.

MOESAN
14-07-16, 18:34
Maybe it's a "problem" with autosomals. I don't know realy but Puertoricans may have similar Iberian haplos but plot quite different by inserting little admixture from native and black people. Extreme example but i think that the basics could be applied to Central Europe.
It's not the last word but it could help to ponder

... National Geographic’s Genographic Project (https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/) researches locations where different groups historically intermixed to create a modern day melting pot. Collaborating with 326 individuals from southeastern Puerto Rico and Vieques, the Genographic Project conducted the first genetic testing in the area with the goal to gain more information about their ancient past and learn how their DNA fits into the human family tree. The results, just published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, paint a picture of vast historic complexity dating back some 5,000 years, to the first Caribbean peoples.
Our Genographic team learned some key pieces of information that helped us gain more insight into the peopling of the Caribbean. Most surprisingly, we found that roughly 60% of Puerto Ricans carry maternal lineages of Native American origin. Native American ancestry, higher than nearly any other Caribbean island, originated from groups migrating to Puerto Rico from both South and Central America. Analysis of the Y Chromosome DNA found that no Puerto Rican men (0%) carried indigenous paternal lineages, while more than 80% were West Eurasian (or European).
This leads us to conclude that the Y chromosomes (inherited strictly paternally) of Tainos were completely lost in Puerto Rico, whereas the mitochondrial DNA (inherited strictly maternally) survived long and well. This stark difference has been seen in other former colonies (Brazil, Cuba, Jamaica), but the gender dichotomy appears strongest in the Spanish-speaking Americas. A look into the rest of the Puerto Rican genome using the Genographic Project’s custom genotyping tool, the GenoChip, sheds some light on what may have happened during Spanish colonial times to create this ancestral imbalance.
The average Puerto Rican individual carries 12% Native American, 65% West Eurasian (Mediterranean, Northern European and/or Middle Eastern) and 20% Sub-Saharan African DNA. To help explain these frequencies in light of the maternal and paternal differences, I used basic math and inferred that it would take at least three distinct migrations of hundreds of European men each (and practically no European women) to Puerto Rico, followed by intermixing with indigenous women. It also would necessitate the complete decimation of indigenous men (but not women), to account for those numbers. These results are surprising and also shed light into a dark colonial past that, until now, had remained somewhat unclear

berun
14-07-16, 22:01
By sure there are many varieties of admixture to take into account. For the BB it will be solved once we will know also the Y DNA variable.

For the case of Puerto Rico I don't think that the Spanish were found in chasing natives, the main objective was to get goods and if you kill natives you make more difficult to extract the goods.

The most easy explanation would be the effect of a kind of ethnic osmosis: native women would be attracted to live with newcomers by their technological advantages and increased security (no intertribal wars), and of course many men alone would be happy attracting such women. Native men were not allowed to enter in the new society or maybe they rejected it as to prevent to lose their cultural traits, the case is that the Spaniards prefered to buy African slaves for hard work instead to chase natives, so the native men were not integrated in a way or another in such colonial society. But after each generation there would be less native women available for the native men... so that their Y DNA finaly was lost.

MOESAN
01-08-16, 20:09
my aim was to show we cannot compare the Puerto Rico case proposed by yourself to the BB's and today Iberians cases ; so the problem of Y+MT discrepancy with auDNA is still there

MOESAN
26-08-16, 19:00
concerning BBs and their demic imput there is something interesting mentioned lately in 'For what they were we are' about not exactly the peopling but rather the demography of Ireland between 4000 and 2000 BC through te sight of archeology, something which could concern the BBs problem among others.

Tomenable
30-08-16, 00:41
DNA Land Ancestry Report for I0118 from Alberstedt (Bell Beaker / CWC mix) looks interesting:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml

https://s18.postimg.io/58sy6sve1/ALB3.png

https://s17.postimg.io/dta0dx4z3/I0118.png

It shows high "Southwestern European" (which is equivalent to Iberian, Basque, South French):

https://s17.postimg.io/dta0dx4z3/I0118.png

Fire Haired14
30-08-16, 07:44
Tomenable, Alberstedt might be scoring in Iberian because his people contributed ancestry to Iberians. You should run Neolithic/Chalcolithic Iberians through DNA.Land. You should also ask David Wesolski what formal stats to run in order to test whether any ancient genomes have genealogical connections to moderns. He'll definitly run the tests for you.

berun
30-08-16, 08:25
The run done with the R1a I0104 (Esperstedt, Germany), CWC, didn't had such ancestry, and the unique change among he and "Barbara Miller" is the appearance of the BB, so it would be good to check other programs if they agree or not, but with Occam's razor all it has much sense.

berun
30-08-16, 19:33
After rejecting flawed data, nowadays it's known that the Balearic Islands where first colonized quite late (around 2300 BC) by Bell Beakers, from "The Chronology of the First Settlement of the Balearic Islands":


This arrival must have been later than the functional disappearance of the Epipalaeolithic and early Neolithic industries in the surrounding area (Ramis and Alcover 2001b). The materials found in the Balearic archipelago which have the earliest chronology (i.e. wristguards, tabular flint knives, or megalithic architecture, decorated pottery of the Bell Beaker tradition) may be no earlier than the Bronze Age.

So ancient DNA samples from there could be used as a time capsule to know the BB genes, at least for those in East Iberia. The paper (https://www.academia.edu/26084155/Dissecting_mitochondrial_dna_variability_of_balear ic_populations_from_the_bronze_age_to_the_current_ era) "Dissecting mitochondrial dna variability of balearic populations from the bronze age to the current era" provides 138 ancient mtDNA from Minorca and Majorca, and after rejecting the Majorcan samples (coming from two outlier necropolises and a post-Roman cemetery), the data from Minorca (42 cases of the Bronze Age) is: 50% H, 29% U5, 5% K, 5% J, 5% T, 2% W, 5% R0.

MOESAN
01-09-16, 23:38
DNA Land Ancestry Report for I0118 from Alberstedt (Bell Beaker / CWC mix) looks interesting:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml

https://s18.postimg.io/58sy6sve1/ALB3.png

https://s17.postimg.io/dta0dx4z3/I0118.png

It shows high "Southwestern European" (which is equivalent to Iberian, Basque, South French):

https://s17.postimg.io/dta0dx4z3/I0118.png

17% SW Med is not huge! and if BBs picked females here and there, what is very possible, we have not to be amazed by such a proportion which could have been not exceptional even among other people than BBs ones, in W Europe of the time. By the way other runs give even more Med but it doesn't change the question. We don"t know how were the first BBs and the Germany ones were still, globally speaking, Central European autosomes mix as a mean and not "Iberians".
And the answer of FireHaired is not without interest too.

Tomenable
02-09-16, 11:16
Berun, do you happen to know when can we expect first Y-DNA from Iberian Bell Beakers to be published?

berun
02-09-16, 17:12
The last about the publication was that it would not delay too much (it was an involved scientist), but it was in mid may... in whichever case it will be in an English language paper. Also there is Iberian DNA tested in lab (Iberian culture no geography).

MOESAN
03-09-16, 18:07
I think you're confusing Iberian chalcolithic with Iberian BB. We have no Iberian BB DNA.

I compared today Iberians with GERMAN BBs.

MOESAN
03-09-16, 18:21
Berun, Okham's Razoris not a gift from God, only a methodologic way I practize too. Itcan be disproved sometimes.
What have weconcerning Iberia ?
- a Chalco popconcentrated in South Portugal and South Spain, for the most, notonly, it's true.
- in SW Iberia since3000 BC this Chalco pop seems divided into more than a culture :BBs and others.
- BB did not mix atfirst with the other Chalco pops.
- we cannot say ALLthe settlements were of BB origin, far from that, even in SWPortugal.


ofsome papers :
« Infact, the archaeological sites with Bell Beaker remains are veryscarce in the Meseta Central of the Iberian Peninsula.«
« Inthe abstract of the archeological paper, it is stated "weconclude that in the Lower Estremadura (one of the most importantregions in Europe for the discussion of the origin and diffusion ofBeaker "phenomemon") the Beaker social formation with itsown distinct cultural characteristics coexisted with localChalcolithic cultures although never merged with them.' »ME :This seems concerning the first stage of Bbs.Atthe opposite some scholars think they incorporated themselves inother cultures veryeasily in later times and places. Wesee that in the physical differences between Worms and British BBS..
- an increase in popin South seems proved but was not linear/continual. I red thata demic boom/bust occurred in Iberia between 5300/5150BC (decline ofCardial, starting of Epicardial) and that the Chalco/Bronze perioddid not change things in an appreciable proportion as a whole.
- Someconcentrations of pop can be linked to change in occupation of lands,with half-deserts countryside and urbanism.
- some kinds ofsettlements are rather « short » time ones, seemingly forprospection, and don't prove strong demography.
- BB in Southadopted or had already the same burying habits as the Neolithicprecursors, very dissimilar from the CWC and N-BBs habits.
- you cannot findarcheologic traces of BB come by lands from East, but you cannot findother routes for them as a huge pop whatever thedirection; it seems they settled here and there after travels by seaand through rivers, going forwards rather than expanding all around ;by the way, a stage of Vucedol (around 3000 BC) has been proposed bysome Czech scholars as prototypes for the BBs pottery ;Whatever the dubious « strong » increase in pop size, Idoubt they could have produced a so huge pop by themselves, when wesee their relative small pop allover density compared to others inIberia.
- BBs did not begindominate S and SE Spain before the 2200 BC, spite being close to itsince the 3000 BC ; were they so strong, in fine ?Nevertheless they were already in Germany about the 2500 BC. ?Have we archeologic proofs of a huge move through W Europe at thesedates ? rather infiltration. The BB settlements in Provence andRhône proximity were found among other cultures if I red well.
- BBs of Germany,spite very « largely spred » concerning auDNA in PCAs arecloser to North-Central Europeans than to Iberians of today as amean, being even farther from the Chalco Iberians. The impression isthat « northeastern autosomes » came into Iberia fromCentral Europe through France ; If the first BBs of S-Iberiawere the Y-R1bs promotors we are obliged to imagine there has been ahuge back move into Iberia after first expansion. Traces ?
- For me we have infront of our eyes the development of cultural traits among otherstraits, and passed from an original culture to some other culturesafter an « observation round » of some centuries. Surelygenuine BBs existed at first stage, found more easy conditions tosettle in W Iberia and pace by pace took stronger foot there andimposed some kind of culture/religion to the local pops beforebeing demically swallowed by them. It's very possible this localpopulation was - roughly said – of Atlantic type (« autochtones »of Mesolithic + Cardial + Megalithers, say close to modern Basquesminus 'gedrosia'?). We cannot put the mt-H increase only on theaccount of BBs moves in Europe. MtH(1&3) were surely wellimplanted in Portugal and Atlantic Europe since Neolithic, maybe LateMesolithic or even earlier in some regions (we lack anDNA fromwestern shores of Europe as a whole, you noticed it, but we haveancient Basques and Cantabrians mt-DNA) ; Megalithers and local« partners »seem having had some weight until Germanybefore BBs appeared there. Yet, Gurgy people (46) had 34,7% mt-H around 4900/4500 BC and there were not on the Atlantic shores and it was before the apparent megaliths W >> E expansion.
I think BBs are among the technical (andpolitical as elite) far promotors of Atlantic Bronze Age ?. Buttheir second way* to Germany or at least one of the ways of theirartefacts , across France (Loire/Liger and Burgundia) was alreadypractized by Atlantic Megalithers before them (I propose : a lotof Y-I2a + mtH1/3 + mtU5?). Itseems CWC in the Netherlands, by instance, did not mix immediatelywith Megalithers of Holland shores AND DID NOT TAKE the better placesthere, which explains the CWC relative lack of mt-H. So Westmt-H could be older in Germany than first BBs there ;


Shortly : BBselite were not so numerous, and they move quickly enough (2800/2500BC?) here and there, and finally were incorporated among other eliteshere and there in Western Europe, more often proto-Celtic. It seemsto me they never colonized entire inlands of some great size spitethey mastered high strategic places. I take as support the seeminglyvery bigger sign of pop density the settlements of Western Europemegaliths from 4000 BC onwards. I cannot figure out a hugecolonization move from SW Iberia to Central and Northern Europe atBBs times. What had BBs more than other pops tu produce a demicboom ? We see in Iberia rather successive periods with localbooms and declines in population. We need mt-H subclades for BBs, weneed Atlantic Façade people anDNA.

SO: first BBs can be "locals" of Portugal so the rich mt-H, OR males came from elsewhere picking local wives: rich mt-H; the problem of mt-H in Central Europe is not surely resolved nevertheless; your interesting post about Baleares (thanks) can only prove BBs came with rather western Iberian females there, at first sight; is Germany the same story?
Wait and see. I'm longing as you to new results

MOESAN
03-09-16, 18:22
Btw: Gurgy is in N-Burgundia!!! the famous route.

berun
04-09-16, 09:06
Berun, Okham's Razoris not a gift from God, only a methodologic way I practize too. Itcan be disproved sometimes.

With the lack of info it's a very practical tool, moreover the societies involved were less sofisticated and applying there the razor is more easy.

What have weconcerning Iberia ?
- a Chalco popconcentrated in South Portugal and South Spain, for the most, notonly, it's true.
- in SW Iberia since3000 BC this Chalco pop seems divided into more than a culture :BBs and others.
- BB did not mix atfirst with the other Chalco pops.
- we cannot say ALLthe settlements were of BB origin, far from that, even in SWPortugal.

The Bell Beakers are the first to display complex hierarchy and used effectively metals for weaponry, no matter the precise origin of such culture, but the case is that they mastered such pops.

« Infact, the archaeological sites with Bell Beaker remains are veryscarce in the Meseta Central of the Iberian Peninsula.«

If you travel there you will know why: it's a barren steppe with lands cultivated each five years. Even so there were BB.

« Inthe abstract of the archeological paper, it is stated "weconclude that in the Lower Estremadura (one of the most importantregions in Europe for the discussion of the origin and diffusion ofBeaker "phenomemon") the Beaker social formation with itsown distinct cultural characteristics coexisted with localChalcolithic cultures although never merged with them.' »ME :This seems concerning the first stage of Bbs.Atthe opposite some scholars think they incorporated themselves inother cultures veryeasily in later times and places. Wesee that in the physical differences between Worms and British BBS..

if they never merged is because BB absorved the Chacolithics, cultural replacement there, and quite quick.
- an increase in popin South seems proved but was not linear/continual. I red thata demic boom/bust occurred in Iberia between 5300/5150BC (decline ofCardial, starting of Epicardial) and that the Chalco/Bronze perioddid not change things in an appreciable proportion as a whole.

So if Iberian pops were still going on... you can check the paper about the European pops and how from 2500 BC CW fall from 3 to 2 millions, and one of such millions was aloctone.

- Someconcentrations of pop can be linked to change in occupation of lands,with half-deserts countryside and urbanism.

metals can inprove the extent of arable lands, so you get a chance to increase pop.

- some kinds ofsettlements are rather « short » time ones, seemingly forprospection, and don't prove strong demography.

a migratory pop as BB can settle somewhere but after some years leave for a best place.

- BB in Southadopted or had already the same burying habits as the Neolithicprecursors, very dissimilar from the CWC and N-BBs habits.

quite logical as the BB predecessors where in the south

- you cannot findarcheologic traces of BB come by lands from East, but you cannot findother routes for them as a huge pop whatever thedirection; it seems they settled here and there after travels by seaand through rivers, going forwards rather than expanding all around ;by the way, a stage of Vucedol (around 3000 BC) has been proposed bysome Czech scholars as prototypes for the BBs pottery ;Whatever the dubious « strong » increase in pop size, Idoubt they could have produced a so huge pop by themselves, when wesee their relative small pop allover density compared to others inIberia.

you compare pops of different centuries; even so what seems to matter most is the decrease of pop in Central Europe. For the lack of tracks... if they were going with horses or boats you can't cheek easily with archaeology such migrations.

- BBs did not begindominate S and SE Spain before the 2200 BC, spite being close to itsince the 3000 BC ; were they so strong, in fine ?Nevertheless they were already in Germany about the 2500 BC. ?Have we archeologic proofs of a huge move through W Europe at thesedates ? rather infiltration. The BB settlements in Provence andRhône proximity were found among other cultures if I red well.

The farmer cultures in S Iberia were quite populated already, by that the delay to get some of them if BB were herders. Simple infiltration is not the case as we read from papers about mtDNA in Germany or Y-DNA in Ireland.

- BBs of Germany,spite very « largely spred » concerning auDNA in PCAs arecloser to North-Central Europeans than to Iberians of today as amean, being even farther from the Chalco Iberians. The impression isthat « northeastern autosomes » came into Iberia fromCentral Europe through France ; If the first BBs of S-Iberiawere the Y-R1bs promotors we are obliged to imagine there has been ahuge back move into Iberia after first expansion. Traces ?

Such balance is debt to a given mix with a proportion favoring the central european genes. For migrations to Iberia with central european genes you have the late expansion of Celtics with Urnfield and Halstadt cultures.

We cannot put the mt-H increase only on theaccount of BBs moves in Europe. MtH(1&3) were surely wellimplanted in Portugal and Atlantic Europe since Neolithic, maybe LateMesolithic or even earlier in some regions (we lack anDNA fromwestern shores of Europe as a whole, you noticed it, but we haveancient Basques and Cantabrians mt-DNA) ; Megalithers and local« partners »seem having had some weight until Germanybefore BBs appeared there. Yet, Gurgy people (46) had 34,7% mt-H around 4900/4500 BC and there were not on the Atlantic shores and it was before the apparent megaliths W >> E expansion.

You can't get a 40% of H in BB Germans with a 35%, instead a figure of 70% as in S Portugal would work finely.

I think BBs are among the technical (andpolitical as elite) far promotors of Atlantic Bronze Age ?. Buttheir second way* to Germany or at least one of the ways of theirartefacts , across France (Loire/Liger and Burgundia) was alreadypractized by Atlantic Megalithers before them (I propose : a lotof Y-I2a + mtH1/3 + mtU5?). Itseems CWC in the Netherlands, by instance, did not mix immediatelywith Megalithers of Holland shores AND DID NOT TAKE the better placesthere, which explains the CWC relative lack of mt-H. So Westmt-H could be older in Germany than first BBs there ;

we need samples then, why now cultural traits - geography - DNA - population is pointing to S Portugal.

Shortly : BBselite were not so numerous, and they move quickly enough (2800/2500BC?) here and there, and finally were incorporated among other eliteshere and there in Western Europe, more often proto-Celtic. It seemsto me they never colonized entire inlands of some great size spitethey mastered high strategic places. I take as support the seeminglyvery bigger sign of pop density the settlements of Western Europemegaliths from 4000 BC onwards. I cannot figure out a hugecolonization move from SW Iberia to Central and Northern Europe atBBs times. What had BBs more than other pops tu produce a demicboom ? We see in Iberia rather successive periods with localbooms and declines in population. We need mt-H subclades for BBs, weneed Atlantic Façade people anDNA.

BB mastered metals, having so advanced weaponry. You don't need to have much population to increase it after some generations if such little pops can profit the best the lands, and even more if they were able to rule over the autochtone population.

SO: first BBs can be "locals" of Portugal so the rich mt-H, OR males came from elsewhere picking local wives: rich mt-H; the problem of mt-H in Central Europe is not surely resolved nevertheless; your interesting post about Baleares (thanks) can only prove BBs came with rather western Iberian females there, at first sight; is Germany the same story?

For Catalonia Calcolithic samples by 3500 BC (before BB) give 36% for H, so to have 60% in Minorca it's possible with drift or by an increase of alocton H in NE Peninsula.

Wait and see. I'm longing as you to new results

likewise... by the way it would be good to solve the issue with your spacing key...
:good_job:

Olympus Mons
04-09-16, 18:43
Anyways just a couple added stuff that is not common to see mentioned in this discussions.

1- Yes, south Portugal late Neolithic and Chalcolithic, the all alentejo lowlands are important in understanding the movement of people but those are highly admixture with something north African (Strontium and Nom metric dental traits).

2- A considerable amount of people (and cattle) in Zambujal were actually born (grew up) in alentejo (Perdigoes, porto torrão, etc) as per strontium. But, craniomentrics really show diverse people in the area near Lisbon (Zambujal, Carenque, leceia). Those guys went from Hyper-dolichocephalic to hyper- brachycephalic. But somehow they seem to be considered all the “same people” in the context of fortified settlements. So, enemies make different people friends I suppose. That is why the oldest bell beaker pottery was found in huts, 4 meter way from the biggest and meanest military powerhouse of its time, the Leceia settlement. So, not a chance in hell BB were “outsiders”. Leceia has inhumations at foot of its walls that nobody even care to bury. So, bell beakers were one of “them” for sure.

3. If for anything else just follow “spelt” corn and actually archeology for that matter, and one always must bear in mind that the bell beaker FOLK, left to northern Portugal, then to Galiza, then to Pais basco, then southern France and so it would be a different story to look for initials in the meseta central. Always target northern Portugal/Spain to find its genesis. Anyways here enters point 4, what I think is the most ignored papers regarded BB phenomena…. (papers go from 2008 to 2013)…

4 . If all the work done by J. Desideri and Marie Besse regarding Nom metric dental traits (a very very good proxy for DNA) had told a different story those two ladies would be true heroes lauded everywhere in the last decade. But unfortunaly (to Yamnaya junkies) this is the story they tell in several papers in the las 8 years:

So, Hundreds of sites, thousands of samples in Iberia, south France, swiss, Hungary and Czech republic.
bell beakers people (!) were “made” in Iberia where there was a large contribution of local population to their makeshift. Both Iberia FN (final Neolithic) as Cha (chalcolithic) populations gave a large contribution to what we would see in the rest of Europe as BB (those part of the study). Later in 2011 work they also note that FN are very homogenous but chalcolithic Iberia is very diverse (like I keep on saying). Anyway both are part of the makeshift of bell beakers.
Regarding south France samples, then Switzerland, there were no contribution of local populations to bell beaker folks. Hungary, maybe the most distance findings of BB also had no local population contribution to Bell beaker folks. Amazing, right? This is valid for the all period.
In the 2010 study about Switzerland Bell beakers, she was clearly after the pushed by all local archeologist theory that bell beakers in Switzerland were culturally southwestern but genetically from the Eastern group. Again a fail. Desideri works (poor girl, does not have a break) states clearly that Swiss bell beakers were Southwestern people not at all from the Eastern group.
So, lets be clear: Bell beaker phenomena for Portugal, spain, south France, Switzerland, North Italy, and even Hungary was an homogenous group of people that did not mingle at all. Period.
Now, the twist in the story, is that the other Bell beaker group that she studied that had a contribution for the local bell beakers were the Bohemia Group in the Czech rep by Corded ware pops. So when we talk about the adna of Germany BB, a bunch of people found less than a 100 miles from what clearly was a not normal event in BB life, we need to be careful about making all those inferences. Those were the Inbred BBs.
There, in Bohemia, what Desideri found out, is that the males were very closed to outside groups (so, BB males looked very homogenous as did the local CWC males). But both BB women as CW women were involved with Exogamy on those groups, meaning there were BB women found with CWC men and vice-versa. So, whatever you find in eastern Germany, miles from this Bohemia group in Elbe river, is actually representative of the this specific event. Not of the all Bell beaker. As Desideri shows, eastern group BB people did not flow back into Switzerland, south France, spain, Portugal, etc.

Too bad there is no similar study regarding BB in the rest of Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia, UK. That would really close the deal.

Olympus Mons
04-09-16, 18:44
Berun,
I agree with the annoyance of Yamnaya… its like a brand, like apple, and there is no point on calling it out on anything. Even CWC seems something different then “them”. So much that even guys back at eurogenes cant hide the fact that BB and CWC seem to “push” away from Yamnaya. Yamnaya was important to east of it… not that big to west. Although naturally being “made” of similar admixtures that became important in western Europe.

Olympus Mons
04-09-16, 19:33
MOESAN.
Its huge if you call it CWC. Its minuscule if you call it BB.
However we "all know" that Bohemia Czech BB offshoots, such as anything you find all the way up the Elbe river, is everything BUT a good proxy for understanding Bell Beaker (at least its origins and the anything south). Specially if a female. As J. Desideri work showed in this region (bohemia) males were either BB or CWC, but women were actually very exogamic between them all...

MOESAN
22-10-16, 22:38
Kind discussion

A) The Bell Beakers are the first to display complex hierarchy and used effectively metals for weaponry, no matter the precise origin of such culture, but the case is that they mastered such pops.

B) (Moesan)« Infact, the archaeological sites with Bell Beaker remains are veryscarce in the Meseta Central of the Iberian Peninsula.«

If you travel there you will know why: it's a barren steppe with lands cultivated each five years. Even so there were BB.

C) (Moesan) - an increase in popin South seems proved but was not linear/continual. I red thata demic boom/bust occurred in Iberia between 5300/5150BC (decline ofCardial, starting of Epicardial) and that the Chalco/Bronze perioddid not change things in an appreciable proportion as a whole.

So if Iberian pops were still going on... you can check the paper about the European pops and how from 2500 BC CW fall from 3 to 2 millions, and one of such millions was aloctone.

D) (Moesan) - some kinds ofsettlements are rather « short » time ones, seemingly forprospection, and don't prove strong demography.

a migratory pop as BB can settle somewhere but after some years leave for a best place.


E)- BBs did not begin dominate S and SE Spain before the 2200 BC, spite being close to itsince the 3000 BC ; were they so strong, in fine ?Nevertheless they were already in Germany about the 2500 BC. ?Have we archeologic proofs of a huge move through W Europe at thesedates ? rather infiltration. The BB settlements in Provence andRhône proximity were found among other cultures if I red well.

The farmer cultures in S Iberia were quite populated already, by that the delay to get some of them if BB were herders. Simple infiltration is not the case as we read from papers about mtDNA in Germany or Y-DNA in Ireland.

F) We cannot put the mt-H increase only on theaccount of BBs moves in Europe. MtH(1&3) were surely wellimplanted in Portugal and Atlantic Europe since Neolithic, maybe LateMesolithic or even earlier in some regions (we lack anDNA fromwestern shores of Europe as a whole, you noticed it, but we haveancient Basques and Cantabrians mt-DNA) ; Megalithers and local« partners »seem having had some weight until Germanybefore BBs appeared there. Yet, Gurgy people (46) had 34,7% mt-H around 4900/4500 BC and there were not on the Atlantic shores and it was before the apparent megaliths W >> E expansion.

You can't get a 40% of H in BB Germans with a 35%, instead a figure of 70% as in S Portugal would work finely.

spacing key...
:good_job:

A) BBs the first to have complex hierarchy? Are you sure? (I avow I have not too much clues for Cahclo Iberia but ti seems some hierarchy already existed ?
B) and E) you say thery were herders; so they were stopped by cultivators density in S Spain but not in Central Europe? and what prevented them to settle more densely in the Meseta?
C) so BBs were not a big intruders pop (if they were intruders) and they did not encrease too much the local population in S-Iberia.
D) constant migrating people in general doesn't increase their pop in great proportions, I think
F) when you pass from around 35% mtH in Catalunia to 50% in Baleares, you speak of possible drift, not of impossibility; but for Gurgey and Central Europe is not the same (I admit Baleares are smaller so drift is more possible) - but Gurgy is more East than West, and was an example and old and at this time my suggestion (not affirmation) of possible Atlantic mt-H would have bee too early, but around 3300/3000 BC it would no more be so impossible (BB arrived in central regions only around the 2500/2200 BC or later)
I know I'm splitting hairs but?...

Not to argue, only to try to precise:
Cardoso showed that first BB settlements were outside the Chalco people fortifications, and were relatively modest. They found a "lift" into the fortifications only later, but stayed sometimes like guests; a religion? a metallurgist corporation? both? and later, they took the strong side (apparently!) and we see fine BB vessels in fortifiations (elites) and more diverse, more useful, less honorific BB vessels outside the fortifications; to me it's more the proof of adoption of a kit by en elite (or fusion of elites) than the military conquest by BB's over Chalco's;
What does not exclude movesof pops after adoption. In S-France, existed a lot of diverses situations with pure BBs, pure nonBBs and mixed cultures, with adoption of BBs without demic imput in some cases, seemingly. You know what I think of the nonmetrics dental precision? I would have preferred they had tested mt-DNA and au-DNA of the teeth.
If you learn about physical traits and DNA of the southern BBs I would be glad to know more.
spacing key: I think I lost it.
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/good_job.gif

dnaforensicslab
25-10-16, 08:52
The Bell Beakers are the first to have complex hierarchy.

MOESAN
10-11-16, 23:47
what is funny is that the first BB wares entering the Iberia strongplaces were as the goods of guest people assigned a place to them but not the first one, seemingly, if I red well. After, things changed and positions changed too. A religious/metallurgists caste at first, later succesfull?
concerning mt-H in extreme Western Europe I wait more data for the period between EN and Chalco; it seems what we have to date is very scarce?

MOESAN
10-11-16, 23:48
Sorry, I repeat myself in some way (the age?)

berun
11-11-16, 09:10
For mtDNA H of EN in the source area of BB, you have the paper Using ancient DNA to examine genetic continuity at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Portugal, some 17 in 23 were H...


Two of the three Neolithic
sites represented, Gruta do Caldeirão (Zilhão 1992) and
Algar do Bom Santo (Duarte 1998) are cave burial sites.
The other, Perdigões (Lago et al. 1998), is a much larger
and slightly later development, including a necropolis,
settlement area and megalith.

For Calcho it seems that we need to wait more for the BB paper...

MOESAN
11-11-16, 15:37
Thanks Berun; I'll read it.

berun
06-12-16, 10:18
Not a real new but a "leak" already spread by DNA blogs. There was a talk in the Dorset County Museum by Volker Heyd the past week. It was announced (https://etrigg.com/event/fine-objects-in-archaeology-bell-beakers-dr-volker-heyd/45528476/) so:


Recent results from archaeological excavations and various sciences are about to alter our models describing the European Bell Beaker phenomenon and challenge established previous insights. The author will present the current state of understanding and set out to explain the wider picture of events between east and west of Europe in the late fourth and first half of the third millennium BC contributing to the emergence, expansion and establishing of Bell Beakers.

Jean Manco (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org) attended the talk and did some questions, his resumé in Anthrogenica was:


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

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

The words "challenge" and "problem" and the verbs "to make sense" and "he sticks" fit well for Yamnayists? Why Heyd must stick in a Yamnayan origin for Bell Beakers if archaeology is not providing reasons? by DNA results?

Alpenjager
07-12-16, 15:58
Results from Unambiguous Bell Beaker:

Bell Beaker from Kromsdorf 4550 ybp = 0% H + 100% ( T1a, K1, I1a1, W5a, U2e, U5a1 )

Bell Beaker from Benzingerode-Heimburg 4300/4200 ybp = 0% H + 100% ( T2a, W1, U5a )

Bell Beaker from Quedlinburg 4300/4200 ybp = 50% H5/H1 + 50% ( T2e, J1c, U5a, U5b )

Bell Beaker from Rothenschirmbach 4300/4200 ybp = 60% H5/H3 + 40% ( K1a2 )

Bell Beaker from Alberstedt 4300/4200 ybp = 100% H5/H3 + 0% ( - )

1- The oldest tested Bell Beaker population is Kromsdorf and there is not found any H carrier.
2- H5 is the only H haplogroup shared among all of these Bell Beaker populations where H is found.
3- H5 is found in a 8350 ybp individual from Anatolia.
4- K1a2 is found in a 8350 ybp individual from Anatolia.
5- W1 is found in a 8350 ybp individual from Anatolia.
6- T1a is found in a 9500 ybp individual from Jordan.
7- T2e is found in a 7500 ybp individual from Neolithic Hungary.
8- J1c is found in a 9900 ybp individual from Neolithic Iran.
9- H3 is found in a 7300 ybp individual from Neolithic Portugal.

As previously posted, new Bell Beaker results from Iberian Peninsula confirms again that mtDNA H was not linked to R1b. Instead, mtDNA H is strongly linked to Early Neolithic populations with peaks in those where Y-DNA T1a1 have been found close.
https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/frontdoor.php?source_opus=100000815&la=en

rafc
07-12-16, 16:35
Not a real new but a "leak" already spread by DNA blogs. There was a talk in the Dorset County Museum by Volker Heyd the past week. It was announced (https://etrigg.com/event/fine-objects-in-archaeology-bell-beakers-dr-volker-heyd/45528476/) so:



Jean Manco (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org) attended the talk and did some questions, his resumé in Anthrogenica was:



The words "challenge" and "problem" and the verbs "to make sense" and "he sticks" fit well for Yamnayists? Why Heyd must stick in a Yamnayan origin for Bell Beakers if archaeology is not providing reasons? by DNA results?

I don't think he is commenting on DNA issues. His theory was that at least the central european BB had a Yamnaya origin. The older dates found for Iberian BB put that in question, since they suggest an Iberian origin. Based on the usage of corded decoration he still thinks at least the central European BB has a Yamnaya origin. Also, it's very irritating that the reply window doesn't accept spaces.

zanipolo
07-12-16, 18:20
As previously posted, new Bell Beaker results from Iberian Peninsula confirms again that mtDNA H was not linked to R1b. Instead, mtDNA H is strongly linked to Early Neolithic populations with peaks in those were Y-DNA T1a1 have been found close.
https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/frontdoor.php?source_opus=100000815&la=en

Did the 2 x T1a-M70 found in Central Germany 5500BC who both had H mtdna markers , come from Iberia with "H mtdna " already or did these T1a-M70 meets the H1 and H46 in Central Germany?

Alpenjager
07-12-16, 19:26
Did the 2 x T1a-M70 found in Central Germany 5500BC who both had H mtdna markers , come from Iberia with "H mtdna " already or did these T1a-M70 meets the H1 and H46 in Central Germany?

They probably arrived together to the North European Plain coming from somewhere in the East.

berun
07-12-16, 20:10
@Alpenjager, there is a paper out there delivering some 75-80% of H in Neolithic Portugal, just look at it. And good question placed to you by zanipolo, but your answer is not matching archaeology.

@rafc, to me it's undeniable that the AOC BB has some relation with the CWC, but it's an usual case when two cultures meet. Even so, you need first International BB and CWC to get the AOC; also dates are going so, and by that Heyd and other Yamnayists will have great headaches trying to insert the square into the circle.

Alpenjager
08-12-16, 15:21
Berun, it's proven that you can't deal with facts when your agenda have not been satisfied. You are talking about Alfonso 2010 work? These samples are classified as Chalcolithic but not belonging to Bell Beakers.

berun
08-12-16, 16:02
nope, it's a paper of 2005.

Now you can try to guess the colour of my occult agenda, maybe you have more chances to get the right thing with that.

Alpenjager
08-12-16, 18:06
Of course, the "Chandler 2005" outdated paper, mostly unreliable data. Anyway, none Beaker.

berun
08-12-16, 19:20
Goal! But you was criticising my agenda as to dismiss the unsuitable data and now you say that this data is mostly unreliable...? Wow, your agenda is pretty impressive. Ans how much of this data (13 samples) is unreliable for you??? By the way i'm allways saying about Neolithic cases, no BB, no Chalco... read better.

berun
09-12-16, 09:11
Not a leak but a true doc dealing about Bell Beaker mtDNA: Roth, Christina, Once upon a time in the West : paleogenetic analyses on Mesolithic to Early Bronze Age individuals from the Iberian Peninsula (https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/frontdoor.php?source_opus=100000815&la=en), dissertation, Univ. Mainz, 2016

some points that are worth to mark:

p.33 the author is providing the mtDNA haplos found in Ukraine and steppes... no characteristic regional mtDNA is found in Iberian BB, so that whichever Yamnayist would try to link this culture to IE is left with few alternatives as the steppe warriors came without their women (no mtDNA), the warriors were selected taking into account their mtDNA (not eastern mtDNA were allowed), and they did not left any track in archaeology (no steppe cultural traits in Corded Ware and much less in BB), so that the unique way left for the steppe warriors was traveling by sea (surely riding sirens).

p.90 BB of Central Spain cluster with Portuguese Calcholithic

p.135 the author thinks that the genetic difference between Central Spain BB and other contemporary Iberian groups points to a migration, discarting a simple "pots difussion".

p.147 and 150 no genetic relation between Central Spain BB and Central Europe BB, but there is an Iberian connection with high H mtDNA groups and with the appaearance of H3. It's quite important to know that the Central Spain BB arrive there at the same time as BB in Central Europe.

the most good point is in page 148 "Genetic evidence so far can therefore dismiss an Iberian origin of the Bell Beaker phenomenon with demic distribution into Central Europe -at least on mitochondrial level; one will have to await what Y-chromosomal or autosomal ancient DNA data will show."

the case with mtDNA freq data alone is problematic: haplos are old enough as to have refugied after glaciations and expanded after warming, and haplos are old enough to have traveled along major migrations, but also step by step after so many millennia by marrying non locals and/or by considering women as a good to exchange.

Just empirism could show the case of mtDNA freqs quite well: surely the mtDNA freq in Spain, Chile, Bolivia and Ecuador will be quite different, but such differences couldn't tell anything about the common language used in such countries, or the freq of R1b there.

MOESAN
10-12-16, 16:26
If FIRST BBs were predominantly males, they could have taken females in target lands - if they came from East Mediter (not Steppes) they could have send some Near-Easternlike females mt DNA (and their own maternal mt); it's only when they were well settled near the Atlantic shores they could have taken mt-H with them, so later? I fear we overlook the possible role of Megalithic cultures in the diffusion process in West and North. I 'm angry to know their coming results. Maybe some surprises for me and others...

Sile
10-12-16, 19:15
Who can tell me what type of pots where made in early-neolithic central Europe ?

Olympus Mons
11-12-16, 13:55
... and nobody talks about that African L1B in this BB pool... everybody dismisses always the SSA component in BB admix as bad sampling for ages... or the admix in german BB having Iberian chalcolithic adna Admix noticeble by having a whiff of SSA.

Look at wikipidia Map for L1b and its noticeble the blog in Siwa desert oasis (extremely High in R1b) and also the chad basin (extremely high in R1b-V88) ---and people always follow kinship.

Olympus Mons
11-12-16, 14:34
a comment I have posted in Eurogenes.

"What is amazing is how steppe addicted some here are.
Would this paper elicit anything steppe? No! on the contrary.

It elicit comments for why would that BB have a L1b mtdna and how the hotbeds of L1b are the Chad basin and for instance the Siwa oasis that are also hotbeds of R1b-V88. Is there a connection? since we know humans follow kinship and autosomal ancestors could really identify each other as similar?
Well I have an all chapter (in Shulaveri2Bellbeaker) where I describe that journey don’t I?

It elicits questions as to U5a1. Why Portugal had so many U5a1.
There are even others that were not in this study (such as the late 2015 David Gonçalves one I posted) where you have U5a1 from 3780 ± 65 BC just next to a 3735 ± 45 (Lol and behold) recent subclade H10e whose other sample we have is a 2600bc H10e Corded ware in the exact place where BB met CWC. What does that mean?

It elicits the question that if U5a was a trademark of WHG as much as u5b was of more eastern parts (I think) and Portugal archeology states for long that Neolithic did arrive very late hence remaining very Hunter gatherer do BB show an added percentage of WHG admix and would that help to understand its mark in western Europe?

It elicits the question that if I am right (I am not saying I am!) what would a population loaded up with Barcin, CHG and a small part of EHG mixing in chalcolithic Portugal with part Neolithic (-) part still WHG (+) admixture and spreading all over Europe would look like?

So many questions it elicits… but some are stuck in there. Yamnaya. When you are an hammer everything is a nail to you. I suppose

MOESAN
11-12-16, 14:41
Nobody put a great weight on it, it doesn't mean nobody knows; but when DNA or culture traits are shared, we have always to find out the source and the target, nothing more. I don't ignore the BBs imput in North Africa nor the presence of mt H there among Berbers tribes by instance; but we need far more data for diverse places and times before we can do serious conclusions. I never thought there has not been exchanges between the two sides of Gibraltar straight. The presence of SSA or NA DNA in South Iberia to date is not sufficient to concude anything about BBs far origins, maybe only contacts. We know contacts exist between Sicilia and Tunisia at least since the 6000 BC ("second Mesolithic" or unkown origin, present too on East Adriatic shores, and pushed by Neolithic advance towards West and then North, before to disappear completelty); it could have concerned Y-E1b poto-V13 and mt-H too who knows? I lost my cristal globe.

berun
11-12-16, 18:38
... and nobody talks about that African L1B in this BB pool... everybody dismisses always the SSA component in BB admix as bad sampling for ages... or the admix in german BB having Iberian chalcolithic adna Admix noticeble by having a whiff of SSA.

Look at wikipidia Map for L1b and its noticeble the blog in Siwa desert oasis (extremely High in R1b) and also the chad basin (extremely high in R1b-V88) ---and people always follow kinship.

From my side I have not commented nothing about BB L1b because I don't know how to deal with it; to me it could be a clade just carried with the European neolitization, as well a clade got into the African neolitization (which seems that also reached south Spain and Portugal). You can check it as to know why I can't say much: Europe-endemic lineages of mtDNA hg L* and trans-Gibraltar movement in prehistory (http://sarkoboros.net/2014/09/europe-endemic-lineages-of-mtdna-hg-l-and-trans-gibraltar-movement-in-prehistory/)

Olympus Mons
12-12-16, 19:21
@Moesan
1 - I think we had a lenghtly conversation (I think it was you, if not sorry) about Bell beakers origin in Portugal near the Tagus river. Lengthly conversation about "Copos" culture and earliest BB datings in places where no exogenous population would ever be allowed to enter. At the door steppes of Leceia Fortress and over VNSP fighting ground.

2 - Then about J. Desideri work in bell beakers. large and vast samples of Nm dental traits. And how those are a good proxy for Adna. again Desideri tells the same story of an Iberian origin of Bell beakers and how actually at least on the conveyor belt she analyzed, Iberia, South France, Switzerland they moved back an forth but not mixing with locals or even ever taking BB influences from the Germanic BBC. Local mixing only occurring in late neolithic & Chalcolithic north Iberia and in Bohemia to form the mix of BB/CWC that was the germanic BB with have samples for. But no. Nm dentral didnt tell the right story so was downplayed because it was not DNA.

3 - Now we have a DNA paper that confirms by Mtdna the exact story Desideri with the added specifcity that actually DNA for those BB were actually from Portugal were we have the earliest dating for BB.

So, full circle. 90% of what is considered valid Archaeological proofs do not have this much about it behind it. That is a fact to be reckon. That simple.

Sile
12-12-16, 20:18
@Moesan
1 - I think we had a lenghtly conversation (I think it was you, if not sorry) about Bell beakers origin in Portugal near the Tagus river. Lengthly conversation about "Copos" culture and earliest BB datings in places where no exogenous population would ever be allowed to enter. At the door steppes of Leceia Fortress and over VNSP fighting ground.

2 - Then about J. Desideri work in bell beakers. large and vast samples of Nm dental traits. And how those are a good proxy for Adna. again Desideri tells the same story of an Iberian origin of Bell beakers and how actually at least on the conveyor belt she analyzed, Iberia, South France, Switzerland they moved back an forth but not mixing with locals or even ever taking BB influences from the Germanic BBC. Local mixing only occurring in late neolithic & Chalcolithic north Iberia and in Bohemia to form the mix of BB/CWC that was the germanic BB with have samples for. But no. Nm dentral didnt tell the right story so was downplayed because it was not DNA.

3 - Now we have a DNA paper that confirms by Mtdna the exact story Desideri with the added specifcity that actually DNA for those BB were actually from Portugal were we have the earliest dating for BB.

So, full circle. 90% of what is considered valid Archaeological proofs do not have this much about it behind it. That is a fact to be reckon. That simple.

where was this confirmation?

in this french paper
http://secher.bernard.free.fr/blog/index.php?post/2016/12/08/ADN-mitochondrial-ancien-dans-la-P%C3%A9ninsule-Ib%C3%A9rique-entre-le-M%C3%A9solithique-et-l-%C3%82ge-du-Bronze

or ????

Maybe the style of pots came via iberia but I see no dna markers associating this migration from iberia to central europe................what markers that was in BB lands in central Europe were already there prior to BB arriving

MOESAN
16-12-16, 13:01
@Moesan
1 - I think we had a lenghtly conversation (I think it was you, if not sorry) about Bell beakers origin in Portugal near the Tagus river. Lengthly conversation about "Copos" culture and earliest BB datings in places where no exogenous population would ever be allowed to enter. At the door steppes of Leceia Fortress and over VNSP fighting ground.

2 - Then about J. Desideri work in bell beakers. large and vast samples of Nm dental traits. And how those are a good proxy for Adna. again Desideri tells the same story of an Iberian origin of Bell beakers and how actually at least on the conveyor belt she analyzed, Iberia, South France, Switzerland they moved back an forth but not mixing with locals or even ever taking BB influences from the Germanic BBC. Local mixing only occurring in late neolithic & Chalcolithic north Iberia and in Bohemia to form the mix of BB/CWC that was the germanic BB with have samples for. But no. Nm dentral didnt tell the right story so was downplayed because it was not DNA.

3 - Now we have a DNA paper that confirms by Mtdna the exact story Desideri with the added specifcity that actually DNA for those BB were actually from Portugal were we have the earliest dating for BB.

So, full circle. 90% of what is considered valid Archaeological proofs do not have this much about it behind it. That is a fact to be reckon. That simple.


Yes it was me!
As said an other forumer I don't see any confirmation of your previous affirmations on the mt-DNA side (mtH as a marker of BBs introgression in Central Europe: today we see mt-H SEEMS having rather low in Iberia BBs); the iberian BB mt seems a bit different from Chalco end Bronze Iberia ones in proprotions + with a mt-U5a a bit surprising and a possibly African mt-L; as a whole; it could be the result of a wandering story for BBs, no?. I 'll acutely read again Desideri concerning Iberia and France/Switzerland/Hungary but I don't see any direct link with Portugal, only with Spanish Meseta in Desideri, if I red well and I could contest her interpretations, what does not disprove the Portuguese origin of the pottery. My question was not the geographical origin or first typical BB pottery but the far origin of its "authors" and the demic input these last ones AND their surely admixed descendants can have had upon the diverse subsequent territories of the so called BB culture(s?). A try to understand the cultral phenomenon, nothing else.

Northener
14-02-17, 22:35
Not a real new but a "leak" already spread by DNA blogs. There was a talk in the Dorset County Museum by Volker Heyd the past week. It was announced (https://etrigg.com/event/fine-objects-in-archaeology-bell-beakers-dr-volker-heyd/45528476/) so:



Jean Manco (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org) attended the talk and did some questions, his resumé in Anthrogenica was:



The words "challenge" and "problem" and the verbs "to make sense" and "he sticks" fit well for Yamnayists? Why Heyd must stick in a Yamnayan origin for Bell Beakers if archaeology is not providing reasons? by DNA results?

I guess that Volker Heyd will show that Bell Beaker is a fusion of Iberian expansion which fuses with Corded Ware ('Yamna package') which causes an excel and a kind of hub. And also a back flow.

That's the essence of his german lectur (https://www.academia.edu/12729720/_2016_V._Heyd_Das_Zeitalter_der_Ideologien_The_Age _of_Ideologies_Migration_Interaktion_and_Expansion _im_prähistorischen_Europa_des_4._and_3._Jahrtaus ends_v.Chr._In_Transitional_Landscapes_The_3rd_Mil lennium_BC_in_Europe_ed._by_M._Furholt_R._Großman n_and_M._Szmyt._UPA_292_Bonn_Habelt_54-85)e published in 2016, so recent.

It was David from Eurogenes (http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/06/german-bell-beakers-in-context-of.html)who already figured this out:
"they simply suggest that the ancestors of German Beakers experienced a significant pulse of admixture from an Chalcolithic Iberian-like population."

May be this will give a key for a solution to the old R1b roots and spread discussion. The most eastern zone of the Bell Beaker culture could be responsible for the influx of much of R1b to Western Europe.....The Beakers are most probably crucial in the creation of the modern population in large parts of Europe.

See for the different Bell Beaker zones (only continental) the following map about the continental Bell Beaker from Janusz Czebreszuk e.a. Similar but different Bell Beakers in Europe (2014):
http://i64.tinypic.com/zirfip.jpg

berun
14-02-17, 23:58
German beakers must have admixture if there was a demic spread and fusion with local Corded Ware. The interesting is to see if BB in France or Portugal display a Corded Ware origin also. The question of the reflux I can't see much strong, is just testimonial at the material level. Even I think it's a kind of "Dutch" revenge. The Bell Beaker was the first to have a real international trade and new cultural traits can travel also... and just as tobacco or tomatoes traveled to Europe without demic reflux the BB case could be similar.

By the way the Yamnayists have not proven archaeological evidences linking Yamna and CW, or just I m not capable to verify them. I hope that their bets are not based on their old professors teachings.

Expredel
15-02-17, 05:04
It was David from Eurogenes (http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/06/german-bell-beakers-in-context-of.html)who already figured this out:
"they simply suggest that the ancestors of German Beakers experienced a significant pulse of admixture from an Chalcolithic Iberian-like population."

http://sarkoboros.net/2015/01/bell-beakers-and-the-north-african-late-neolithic/

There is pretty solid evidence that R1b Beakers were in North Africa 3500 BC.

Northener
15-02-17, 09:57
German beakers must have admixture if there was a demic spread and fusion with local Corded Ware. The interesting is to see if BB in France or Portugal display a Corded Ware origin also. The question of the reflux I can't see much strong, is just testimonial at the material level. Even I think it's a kind of "Dutch" revenge. The Bell Beaker was the first to have a real international trade and new cultural traits can travel also... and just as tobacco or tomatoes traveled to Europe without demic reflux the BB case could be similar.

By the way the Yamnayists have not proven archaeological evidences linking Yamna and CW, or just I m not capable to verify them. I hope that their bets are not based on their old professors teachings.

One remark Heyd talks about reflux in terms of ideological package if this is genetically the case is indeed the question.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Northener
15-02-17, 09:59
http://sarkoboros.net/2015/01/bell-beakers-and-the-north-african-late-neolithic/

There is pretty solid evidence that R1b Beakers were in North Africa 3500 BC.

That would be existing news R1b S21 U106 straight away from North Africa?


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

berun
15-02-17, 16:00
One remark Heyd talks about reflux in terms of ideological package if this is genetically the case is indeed the question.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

And which artifacts display such spread of ideas or religion ftom the steppes through the Corded Ware? I might read again but in his 2007 paper there is no proof, but some 85% bla bla bla.

Sile
15-02-17, 18:56
And which artifacts display such spread of ideas or religion ftom the steppes through the Corded Ware? I might read again but in his 2007 paper there is no proof, but some 85% bla bla bla.

None of today's religions existed then ................they would have a "religion" , they most likely prayed/worshipped God, .......she would have blessed them ............maybe you can find a reference in the hundreds of female deities artifacts discovered in Europe from those times on the internet somewhere.

berun
15-02-17, 19:16
post deleted

berun
15-02-17, 19:22
Now speaking about BB religion I can't recall any figurine or symbol... as much as could get are the astronomical use in graves of such culture, but it could have a megalithic link.

MOESAN
16-02-17, 01:22
http://sarkoboros.net/2015/01/bell-beakers-and-the-north-african-late-neolithic/

There is pretty solid evidence that R1b Beakers were in North Africa 3500 BC.

There are two cemeteries on the Moroccan Atlantic coast dated roughly to the mid-4th and beginning of the 3rd Millennium BC. For these cemeteries pottery is characteristic with a bell beaker style stamp decoration (Camps-Fabrer 1966, pl. XLIII) that is identical with the later Bell Beaker ornament in the region of northern Morocco and in Europe. The cemetery at Skhirat – de Rouazi is located on southern outskirts of the Moroccan Capital Rabat. With 101 inhumation burial and total number of 132 pottery vessels (Fig. 3-5), it represents yet the richest site of the “pre-campaniforme” horizon in Morocco (Lancombe and Daugas 1988).

The second site uncovered at El-Kiffen, southwest of [Casablanca], is an abri/cave cemetery. Here 43 pottery vessels were found together with inhumation burials. Not entirely reliable (TL) absolute dates set the interval 3350-2660 BC (Bailloud et al. 1964). The decoration (Fig. 6) that is characteristic for the Moroccan Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic (Camps-Fabrer 1966, pl. XLIII) has no analogy in the European Prehistory apart from the Bell Beaker Period.

[. . .] The number of Maritime Beakers currently known from Morocco is limited (Harrison 1977, 41-42). There are only two sites in the coastal area of Northern Morocco represented by Maritime Beakers. They suggest the relations to the Tagus estuary region in Portugal: Kahf-Taht-el-Gar (Tarradell 1957-1958) and Gar-Kahal (Harrison and Gilman 1977, 91-104; Bokbot 2005, fig. 3). However, the current state of knowledge on Moroccan and Algerian Bell Beakers is rather limited.


I don't know what precise dates to took from this abstract: for El Kiffen something around 3000 BC - for Skhirat it is a bit older (they give only a span of time) but the kind of pottery envolved in it is confuse to me. That said we know they were contacts SW Europe-NW Africa (and, if of some use, a presence of mt-H1 in NW Africa); but I think we need more before to jump onto any conclusion...

Azzurro
19-02-17, 00:06
Why was Sile banned? He never started any malicious arguments, and presented good work, he was very dedicated and polite.

Northener
19-02-17, 14:02
http://sarkoboros.net/2015/01/bell-beakers-and-the-north-african-late-neolithic/

There is pretty solid evidence that R1b Beakers were in North Africa 3500 BC.

I found this quote (from the site Dispatches From Turtle Island) very striking:
"This March paper in Cambridge's Antiquity will be a revisit of an important paper that appeared in Antiquity in 1974, "Origins of the Bell Beaker cultures" by Richard J. Harrison. Harrison proposed a model for the formation of the Bell Beaker culture . . . .
To sum it up rather succinctly, Afro-Iberian Maritime Beakers electrocuted themselves in the domain of the Single Grave Culture of the Dutch Rhine. When the door of the tele-transport opens, a sort of hybrid steps out and then clobbers Europe and North Africa from this location. . . .
Another paper will be penned by Kristain Kristainsen, probably concerning the origins of the Dutch Single Grave Culture. I'll assume that we will see a fluctuation in Steppe Ancestry from the beginning of the SGC where it spikes, and then its diminishing as the Bell Beaker culture begins to take hold.
So now I'll speculate on what surprises may be in store that would truly be surprising. Surprising would be if they were able to isolate the two components at the earliest phase, like a PFB that was R1b-M269 and a MN-styled Maritime Iberian in the Lower Rhine at about the same time (or some weird combination).
Overall, I think that despite the far-flung regions where they may have genomes, they might be looking hard at a fusion area in the vicinity of the Lower Rhine."

I'am convinced that my aDNA exactly pinpointed in and from this region described above reveals some key figures about this.....
But how!?:thinking:

MOESAN
23-02-17, 01:16
close to lower Rhine we had Long-Barrows/Western FBK fusion: at this stage without too much DNA data, we would have been an admixture not so far from the Gokhem FBK (or TRBK) people, western EEF with already a solid input of Mesol.HGs, so a mix evocating MN Iberians with surely some more extra northern input with a bit more HG influence in DNA, this time from South the Baltic and not pure, with maybe already first traces of the northern Steppes not sure) - physically, the so called 'long barrow type' (a mean homogenous enough where was found southern non-danubian and cromagnoid influences I think)) + 'brünnoid-cromagnoid' mixes, apparently with brachycephals among them ('borreby' tendancy) - It could be this pop the first CWC people found just before the "pure" BBs males from South came with their 'folkshaker' + some people (females among them) picked on the way? we know the first BBlike input of importance (Round Barrows) in the Isles (Wessex) shew a mix where dominated influences of their 'dinaric' types + 'borrebys' + 'corded' types - it's possible the females were more variated, with more 'FBK' and other females of more or less Atlantic remote ancestry - I don't think the females of Iberia were the majority even if some of them came along with the first "pure" BBs male elite -
so before CWC and BB at auDNA level, the pop was already some mix close to Gokhem but with more HG of everykind, and globally rather "atlantic-oriented" - the CWC (corded types) did not mix to deeply with the West FBK of the Lower Rhine, I think, they kept away from the megalithers which preceded them and by the fact in the British BB model they were the minority according to Coon.

Brennos
26-02-17, 19:33
I found this quote (from the site Dispatches From Turtle Island) very striking:
"This March paper in Cambridge's Antiquity will be a revisit of an important paper that appeared in Antiquity in 1974, "Origins of the Bell Beaker cultures" by Richard J. Harrison. Harrison proposed a model for the formation of the Bell Beaker culture . . . .
To sum it up rather succinctly, Afro-Iberian Maritime Beakers electrocuted themselves in the domain of the Single Grave Culture of the Dutch Rhine. When the door of the tele-transport opens, a sort of hybrid steps out and then clobbers Europe and North Africa from this location. . . .
Another paper will be penned by Kristain Kristainsen, probably concerning the origins of the Dutch Single Grave Culture. I'll assume that we will see a fluctuation in Steppe Ancestry from the beginning of the SGC where it spikes, and then its diminishing as the Bell Beaker culture begins to take hold.
So now I'll speculate on what surprises may be in store that would truly be surprising. Surprising would be if they were able to isolate the two components at the earliest phase, like a PFB that was R1b-M269 and a MN-styled Maritime Iberian in the Lower Rhine at about the same time (or some weird combination).
Overall, I think that despite the far-flung regions where they may have genomes, they might be looking hard at a fusion area in the vicinity of the Lower Rhine."

I'am convinced that my aDNA exactly pinpointed in and from this region described above reveals some key figures about this.....
But how!?:thinking:

What is that PFB?

Northener
26-02-17, 21:01
close to lower Rhine we had Long-Barrows/Western FBK fusion: at this stage without too much DNA data, we would have been an admixture not so far from the Gokhem FBK (or TRBK) people, western EEF with already a solid input of Mesol.HGs, so a mix evocating MN Iberians with surely some more extra northern input with a bit more HG influence in DNA, this time from South the Baltic and not pure, with maybe already first traces of the northern Steppes not sure) - physically, the so called 'long barrow type' (a mean homogenous enough where was found southern non-danubian and cromagnoid influences I think)) + 'brünnoid-cromagnoid' mixes, apparently with brachycephals among them ('borreby' tendancy) - It could be this pop the first CWC people found just before the "pure" BBs males from South came with their 'folkshaker' + some people (females among them) picked on the way? we know the first BBlike input of importance (Round Barrows) in the Isles (Wessex) shew a mix where dominated influences of their 'dinaric' types + 'borrebys' + 'corded' types - it's possible the females were more variated, with more 'FBK' and other females of more or less Atlantic remote ancestry - I don't think the females of Iberia were the majority even if some of them came along with the first "pure" BBs male elite -
so before CWC and BB at auDNA level, the pop was already some mix close to Gokhem but with more HG of everykind, and globally rather "atlantic-oriented" - the CWC (corded types) did not mix to deeply with the West FBK of the Lower Rhine, I think, they kept away from the megalithers which preceded them and by the fact in the British BB model they were the minority according to Coon.

Moesan, as far as I know based on literature about the Bell Beakers from the Northern Nederlands, the Iberian Beakers, or Maritime Beakers, fused in some sort of way with Corded Ware to Bell Beakers. Even afterwards there were findings of Corded styles. In the same area there were also findings of the previous Funnelbeakers (even more than CW or BB). So the impression is not one of diverge.
I recently read a work from Kurt Gerhardt about the anthropophysic conditions of the Bell Beaker (1976 from of Bell Beaker symposium in 1974). He confirms your statement about mixtures. And also about the basic difference between Aurignaciden (your Brunn) or the Cromagniden. But he stressed another phenomenon along the Bell Beakers namely the planocciput or in German Steilkopf. This effect occurred on the Aurignaciden as well as on the Crogmagniden (or mixture). (By the way I'am a very clear planocciputal Steilkopf ;)
But het states that the roots of the plan occipital is more in the central/southeastern European area. More Vucedol...
This creates questions about the roots of Bell Beaker planocciput. Was is Iberian? Was it Corded Ware/Yamna? Or more Unetice/Tumulus/Urnfield (so partly Yamna, partly East Med)? The last one comes close to the opinion of Gerhardt but Tumulus is post Beaker...

Northener
26-02-17, 21:02
What is that PFB?
Good question sorry not a clue.

MOESAN
27-02-17, 00:03
Moesan, as far as I know based on literature about the Bell Beakers from the Northern Nederlands, the Iberian Beakers, or Maritime Beakers, fused in some sort of way with Corded Ware to Bell Beakers. Even afterwards there were findings of Corded styles. In the same area there were also findings of the previous Funnelbeakers (even more than CW or BB). So the impression is not one of diverge.
I recently read a work from Kurt Gerhardt about the anthropophysic conditions of the Bell Beaker (1976 from of Bell Beaker symposium in 1974). He confirms your statement about mixtures. And also about the basic difference between Aurignaciden (your Brunn) or the Cromagniden. But he stressed another phenomenon along the Bell Beakers namely the planocciput or in German Steilkopf. This effect occurred on the Aurignaciden as well as on the Crogmagniden (or mixture). (By the way I'am a very clear planocciputal Steilkopf ;)
But het states that the roots of the plan occipital is more in the central/southeastern European area. More Vucedol...
This creates questions about the roots of Bell Beaker planocciput. Was is Iberian? Was it Corded Ware/Yamna? Or more Unetice/Tumulus/Urnfield (so partly Yamna, partly East Med)? The last one comes close to the opinion of Gerhardt but Tumulus is post Beaker...

some personal points, trying to put order in this historic "mess" (I'm sorry for others forumers I keep a bit more on the physical phoenotypic aspects -
- concerning archeology, the separation between CWC and FBK (where CWC did not seem the strongest side, r at least not an agressive side) in the Netherlands could have perdured some times before fading out: I've not enough data concerning the all span of time to say something sensitive here -
- concerning flattened occiputs, artificiel or not, Coon was very affirmative for the South British first BBs: a mix closer to juxtaposition than to deep ancient crossings, numerous types very easy to distinguish, so not too much between types: kind of alliance more than an unified pop; and the planoccipital men was tall too, but their faces were slender, and the bone wall of their skulls was thinner than the so called borreby types which themselves had almost as high faces as them (for the most by a strong jaw and solid high chin) but very broader faces; so differences, whatever the basis of these types ('corded' left aside here) - the 'borreby' types, according to Coon in other texts, has a sort of flattening too, but more inclined, concerning only the 'lambda' and not a vertical all lambda-occiput flattening of 'dinarics' - he described these differences occurring among Montenegro/CrnaGora pops - the 'dinaric' thing is still a mystery to me - but a crossing between some kind(s) of 'mediterranean' + brachycephalized HGs pops could be a cause, along with others, and the Balkans or the Carpathians could a good bet for geography? the Cyprus BA people were not pure 'dinarics' but this element was very heavy among their mix; same causes but in an independant crossing, or same pop got down from Carpathians??? I remember the aspect of some today Tadjiks and the 'dinaric'+'borreby'like aspects (very European like) of some of them, and some 'dinaric'like skulls have been found among some Steppic places, so... ( I link Y-I2 pops to some 'dinaricization') - these regions between Steppes, Balkans and Anatolia/Caucasus have been so a crossroad in History...
Central Europe saw 'dinaric'like pops in BBs times and after, I 've nothing about people of Vucedol, helas...but 'dinariclike' people were already around Denmark in the 3000 BC if what I red is true, and Coon thought this type descended into West Balkans from North, and not the contrary ?!? - SO Carpathians could be better guess for 'dinarics'???
I've eaten my hen and not kept its guts to read in them! LOL.
goede avond! güede owend!

Northener
27-02-17, 12:33
some personal points, trying to put order in this historic "mess" (I'm sorry for others forumers I keep a bit more on the physical phoenotypic aspects -
- concerning archeology, the separation between CWC and FBK (where CWC did not seem the strongest side, r at least not an agressive side) in the Netherlands could have perdured some times before fading out: I've not enough data concerning the all span of time to say something sensitive here -
- concerning flattened occiputs, artificiel or not, Coon was very affirmative for the South British first BBs: a mix closer to juxtaposition than to deep ancient crossings, numerous types very easy to distinguish, so not too much between types: kind of alliance more than an unified pop; and the planoccipital men was tall too, but their faces were slender, and the bone wall of their skulls was thinner than the so called borreby types which themselves had almost as high faces as them (for the most by a strong jaw and solid high chin) but very broader faces; so differences, whatever the basis of these types ('corded' left aside here) - the 'borreby' types, according to Coon in other texts, has a sort of flattening too, but more inclined, concerning only the 'lambda' and not a vertical all lambda-occiput flattening of 'dinarics' - he described these differences occurring among Montenegro/CrnaGora pops - the 'dinaric' thing is still a mystery to me - but a crossing between some kind(s) of 'mediterranean' + brachycephalized HGs pops could be a cause, along with others, and the Balkans or the Carpathians could a good bet for geography? the Cyprus BA people were not pure 'dinarics' but this element was very heavy among their mix; same causes but in an independant crossing, or same pop got down from Carpathians??? I remember the aspect of some today Tadjiks and the 'dinaric'+'borreby'like aspects (very European like) of some of them, and some 'dinaric'like skulls have been found among some Steppic places, so... ( I link Y-I2 pops to some 'dinaricization') - these regions between Steppes, Balkans and Anatolia/Caucasus have been so a crossroad in History...
Central Europe saw 'dinaric'like pops in BBs times and after, I 've nothing about people of Vucedol, helas...but 'dinariclike' people were already around Denmark in the 3000 BC if what I red is true, and Coon thought this type descended into West Balkans from North, and not the contrary ?!? - SO Carpathians could be better guess for 'dinarics'???
I've eaten my hen and not kept its guts to read in them! LOL.
goede avond! güede owend!

Goedemorgen[emoji2]
Talking about the so called Borreby Gerhardt was in his contribution very convinced 'there is no unified Borreby cranial type!' Too heterogeneous. So according to him there, and he refers explicit to Coon, is also not a territorial spread of the Borreby.
He also refers to 'a special position' or 'even special behavior' of BB men with a flat occipital. The men of the flat occupations got special gifts, according to Gerhardt. May be something religious? I guess a bit speculative.
But in fact mine is not artificial Moesan....[emoji38]
Carpathian spread looks like post Bell Beaker to me, more Unetice, Tumulus, Urnfield?



Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Northener
28-02-17, 18:59
some personal points, trying to put order in this historic "mess" (I'm sorry for others forumers I keep a bit more on the physical phoenotypic aspects -
- concerning archeology, the separation between CWC and FBK (where CWC did not seem the strongest side, r at least not an agressive side) in the Netherlands could have perdured some times before fading out: I've not enough data concerning the all span of time to say something sensitive here -
- concerning flattened occiputs, artificiel or not, Coon was very affirmative for the South British first BBs: a mix closer to juxtaposition than to deep ancient crossings, numerous types very easy to distinguish, so not too much between types: kind of alliance more than an unified pop; and the planoccipital men was tall too, but their faces were slender, and the bone wall of their skulls was thinner than the so called borreby types which themselves had almost as high faces as them (for the most by a strong jaw and solid high chin) but very broader faces; so differences, whatever the basis of these types ('corded' left aside here) - the 'borreby' types, according to Coon in other texts, has a sort of flattening too, but more inclined, concerning only the 'lambda' and not a vertical all lambda-occiput flattening of 'dinarics' - he described these differences occurring among Montenegro/CrnaGora pops - the 'dinaric' thing is still a mystery to me - but a crossing between some kind(s) of 'mediterranean' + brachycephalized HGs pops could be a cause, along with others, and the Balkans or the Carpathians could a good bet for geography? the Cyprus BA people were not pure 'dinarics' but this element was very heavy among their mix; same causes but in an independant crossing, or same pop got down from Carpathians??? I remember the aspect of some today Tadjiks and the 'dinaric'+'borreby'like aspects (very European like) of some of them, and some 'dinaric'like skulls have been found among some Steppic places, so... ( I link Y-I2 pops to some 'dinaricization') - these regions between Steppes, Balkans and Anatolia/Caucasus have been so a crossroad in History...
Central Europe saw 'dinaric'like pops in BBs times and after, I 've nothing about people of Vucedol, helas...but 'dinariclike' people were already around Denmark in the 3000 BC if what I red is true, and Coon thought this type descended into West Balkans from North, and not the contrary ?!? - SO Carpathians could be better guess for 'dinarics'???
I've eaten my hen and not kept its guts to read in them! LOL.
goede avond! güede owend!

Reply on second thought.
I don't like "racial qualifications" or stereotypes. But certain (more or less dominant) features may be can give a hint where people are rooted....


This quote from Louwe Kooijmans, The Rhine/Meuse Delta (1974) is looking very crucial to me:
"In the Early Bronze Age we find in the Adlerberg Culture a similar assortment of skull types as was formerly found in the Bell Beaker Culture. The new type, the planoccipital Steilkopf, is also present (though in small numbers) in other Early Bronze Age groups (particularly the Unetice Culture). The Molenaarsgraaf skeletons show a similar late presence of the typical Bell Beaker skull in the Netherlands.
The Bell Beaker skull type contrasts strongly with that of the preceding Single Grave Culture .
The important differences in cultural remains and grave ritual between Single Grave and Bell Beaker Culture are therefore accompanied by a clear anthropological change from a fairly homogeneous dolichomorphic people to a varied population with the (hyper)brachymorphic planoccipital Steilkopf as a leading element. The transition from Bell Beaker Culture to the Early Bronze Age cultures is very gradual in every respect. We must therefore consider the appearance of the Bell Beaker Culture as a real immigration: the penetration of entirely new population elements with their own material culture, just as centuries earlier the bearers of the Battle Axe Culture penetrated Central and Western Europe. In this connection Gerhardt made a number of interesting remarks about the constitution of the BB population. It consists of the fusion of a number of "races" without any clear intermixing. Of the men particularly the majority have the typical planoccipital Steilkopf, while the women are mainly responsible for the heterogeneous character of the whole. It looks as if a group of male foreigners frequently recruited women from an existing population."


According to me this makes a few things clear:
1. The Steilkopf didn't belong to the Corded Ware/Single Grave/Schnurkeramik. So not to the "North European Plain Yamna horizon".
2. The Steilkopf did belong to the Eastern Bell Beaker/ Unetice (=Adlerberg!!!)/ Tumulus/Urnfield. So to the "Central European North Pontic Yamna horizon".
3. The quote from Kooijmans in 1974 "It looks as if a group of male foreigners frequently recruited women from an existing population" equals the most recent Haak c.s. finding "there were some 10 men for every woman who participated in the Yamnaya migration".
Kurt Gerhardt speculated in a symposium about the Bell Beaker in 1974 about He also to 'a special position' or 'even special behavior' of BB men with a flat occipital. The men of the flat occupations got special gifts, according to Gerhardt. May be something to do with religious/ruler rites? Has this caused some kind of natural selection?


Thesis: was it the 'Central European Yamna horizon' which spread the partly R1b "Steilkopf" warrior ;) into N-W Europe!? But also was the Steppe influence already working in the Bell Beaker phase not only in the Eastern Bell Beaker group but also in the Rhenish (German) one!?

MOESAN
05-03-17, 00:52
@Northerner
'borreby': I took the Coon's terms, he did not discuss to deeply about the British BB 'borreby's but about the global differences of their skulls compared to the typical 'dinaric' types (for me, the importers of BB culture) spite they were all subbrachy or brachy - I made my thought about 'borreby' classification before to read any scientist work, by looking at some crania and modern people of North Europe: the Scandinavian crania I had were too different, and curiously, everyone, apart its brachycephaly, show the tendancies of previous dolichocephalic phyla of Paléo Europe concerning browridges, cranial profile, orbits, bizygomatics and bigonials; so I did with my amateur terms 'borrebyA' (cromalike) and 'borrebyB' (brünnlike) - but this distingo is not so neat in reality, because, before brachycephalization process, both pops had crossed (particularly in Germany) creating local means and pseudo-types (slightly modified perhaps, by local mutations, but I think these mutations on phenotypes are very rare, long spanned in time) - based upon description by Coon and others (but not pictutes helas!) I think the most of the 'borreby' part in British BBs was on the 'borrebyB' side (more 'brünn') -
'borreby'A + B types can be found everywhere in Europe, but as a whole the concentration (modest enough all the way) is in Germany and West-Norway, in North-Slavic and Baltic and Finnish regions, with evident presence in the surroundings regions -I even know a Spanish cycler of Murcia who have e very good 'borrebyA' aspect.
Concerning History, in West-Europe, these types seems coming to light only around the 3000 BC or a little bit before, at least in Denmark N-Germany under megaliths If I'm not wrong - but the types were found too among North and East Steppes BA tribes, at low levels; a possible bet would be the 'dinaric' type was born by the crossings of such types (A as well as B) with a high statured dolicho type ('mediter'?) yet to localize - so the 'dinaric' types were maybe already somewhat cousins to the 'borreby's but already crossed before reach North, maybe in the Carpathians; all bets as often in fora!

Northener
05-03-17, 19:12
@Northerner
'borreby': I took the Coon's terms, he did not discuss to deeply about the British BB 'borreby's but about the global differences of their skulls compared to the typical 'dinaric' types (for me, the importers of BB culture) spite they were all subbrachy or brachy - I made my thought about 'borreby' classification before to read any scientist work, by looking at some crania and modern people of North Europe: the Scandinavian crania I had were too different, and curiously, everyone, apart its brachycephaly, show the tendancies of previous dolichocephalic phyla of Paléo Europe concerning browridges, cranial profile, orbits, bizygomatics and bigonials; so I did with my amateur terms 'borrebyA' (cromalike) and 'borrebyB' (brünnlike) - but this distingo is not so neat in reality, because, before brachycephalization process, both pops had crossed (particularly in Germany) creating local means and pseudo-types (slightly modified perhaps, by local mutations, but I think these mutations on phenotypes are very rare, long spanned in time) - based upon description by Coon and others (but not pictutes helas!) I think the most of the 'borreby' part in British BBs was on the 'borrebyB' side (more 'brünn') -
'borreby'A + B types can be found everywhere in Europe, but as a whole the concentration (modest enough all the way) is in Germany and West-Norway, in North-Slavic and Baltic and Finnish regions, with evident presence in the surroundings regions -I even know a Spanish cycler of Murcia who have e very good 'borrebyA' aspect.
Concerning History, in West-Europe, these types seems coming to light only around the 3000 BC or a little bit before, at least in Denmark N-Germany under megaliths If I'm not wrong - but the types were found too among North and East Steppes BA tribes, at low levels; a possible bet would be the 'dinaric' type was born by the crossings of such types (A as well as B) with a high statured dolicho type ('mediter'?) yet to localize - so the 'dinaric' types were maybe already somewhat cousins to the 'borreby's but already crossed before reach North, maybe in the Carpathians; all bets as often in fora!

Thank you for your explanation Moesan!
Especially the last remarks are keeping my busy because of my 'Steppe-Carpathian-Tumulus theory.' But maybe this can cause too much bias....[emoji6]


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

berun
30-04-17, 10:11
After reading (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/02/10/106963)"The maternal genetic make-up of the Iberian Peninsula between the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age" of Szécsényi-Nagy, Roth, Brandt et al. just some interesting notes:


At the mtDNA haplogroup level the EBA does not show new influences or population changes at the onset of the Iberian Bronze Age according to results from Fisher’s test and test of population continuity, when both the entire Peninsula and southeastern Iberia in particular were considered (Supplementary Table S7-8).

OK so the mighty steppe warriors did some 3000 km without any woman, only looking the asses of their horses from the chariot... :laughing:


The Bell Beaker phenomenon was a decisive element in the Iberian Chalcolithic, lasting from the Late CHA to the EBA (2600 -1800 BCE)35,36. Our tests of population continuity and Fisher’s tests between Early and Late CHA periods supported population continuity between the two phases. ... None of investigated Chalcolithic individuals show ‘steppe ancestry’, as seen in contemporaneous Central European Corded Ware and Bell Beaker groups, suggesting that eastern influxes did not reach the Iberian Peninsula until later periods51


The diversity of female linages in the Iberian communities continued even during the Chalcolithic, when populations became more homogenous, indicating higher mobility and admixture across different geographic regions. Even though the sample size available for Early Bronze Age populations is still limited, especially with regards to El Argar groups, we observe no substantial changes to the mitochondrial DNA pool until 1500 BCE. The expansion of groups from the eastern steppe50,96, which profoundly impacted Late Neolithic and EBA groups of Central and North Europe, cannot (yet) be seen in the contemporaneous population substrate of the Iberian Peninsula at the present level of genetic resolution

The most recent samples in the study are just from 1500 BCE so the steppe ancestry in actual Spanish people might have arrived sometime after 1500 BC, most provably with the expansion of the Urnfield culture that provided the old Celtic languages of the Atlantic Iberian façade.

berun
11-05-17, 07:16
The leak appeared just a year ago.

ToBeOrNotToBe
19-09-18, 16:47
I still think R1b will be found among the real Iberian BBs, but their remains were known to be sparse even in Coon's time.

That might not ever be found out, but I at least will guess one thing here - they will never find Steppe L51 (or least P312)...

bicicleur
19-09-18, 17:12
I still think R1b will be found among the real Iberian BBs, but their remains were known to be sparse even in Coon's time.

That might not ever be found out, but I at least will guess one thing here - they will never find Steppe L51 (or least P312)...

why do you think so ?

Olympus Mons
19-09-18, 17:55
I still think R1b will be found among the real Iberian BBs, but their remains were known to be sparse even in Coon's time.

Bell beakers in Portugal, Zambujal and VNSP region where a specific stock of people that we do not have adna. Not even close --- The Adna we have for that region/period is from people thrown into caves and bell beakers were definitely not.



That might not ever be found out, but I at least will guess one thing here - they will never find Steppe L51 (or least P312)...

Agree! – L51 was born either in Balkans (as Boian or Gulmenita) , or South of France, or in Portugal in VNSP/Zambujal bell beakers. - never in steppe. THe notion of Western Yamnaya L51 is a fantasy.

ToBeOrNotToBe
19-09-18, 18:18
why do you think so ?

I'll repost my theory:

"I personally imagine pre-L51 and pre-Z2103 splitting somewhere in the Balkans, or maybe Anatolia, with pre-L51 travelling (perhaps by sea) to Iberia and pre-Z2103 spreading somewhat Eastwards across West Asia. L51, part of the Iberian BBs and amongst typical Megalithic folk, would then travel to Central Europe (acquiring some more Steppe-like mtDNA lineages from Corded Ware women along the way), before expanding throughout Western Europe as part of the Unetice cultural complex. Z2103 would have both remained in West Asia, but also moved up into the Steppe, and from those people Yamnaya would expand into the Balkans. This entire process would be at least at first associated with the spread of metal (L23)."

Any points of contention are welcome. There's a few key reasons why I believe this over the Steppe origin of L51 though, just for example the fact that there doesn't seem to be any cultures to find L51 in, with the assumption that it would have left a trace in the present-day location of its mother culture, assuming a Steppe origin. L51 is pretty much entirely confined to Western Europe, and the Balkan expansion of Yamnaya seems so clearly linked to the present day distribution of Z2103. Moreover, a lot of the earliest subclades of L51 are in Sardinia of all places, which points to this maritime theory strongly.

L51 could have picked up Steppe admix from Corded folk, but it could easily have had Steppe admix to start with. Low noise of Steppe admix has been found in the Iberian Chalcolithic, and in this theory the carriers of this admix would have likely expanded from the Balkans, where there has been (obviously ignoring the Danubian farmer samples) a Steppe presence for a long time. I personally believe that the Balkan-Black Sea region is the original breeding ground of R1b, meaning a large Steppe presence among non-farmer samples (who were clear imports from the Neolithic Middle East, bred like rabbits, and can be paid little attention in this hypothesis) is to be expected, and has been found already (as one example, a Greek Neolithic sample has been found that even clusters with individuals of Northern European Corded Ware origin - Neolithic!).

ToBeOrNotToBe
19-09-18, 18:42
Whatever the case, we need new big papers urgently - it's been a while now and rehashing old material is getting a bit boring!

MOESAN
09-02-19, 19:47
I have read it quickly and what I downloaded is no more valid in my PC - but it seems Koch or his friends carries a vague notion of "identity usurpation" (or culture adoption) concerning northern BB, what is what I think since a long time -
Let's search an english traduction. I think it concerns this thread an others, in some part.

do google www.academia.edu/.../Achos_o_ddwyn_hunaniaeth_Pobl_y_Bceri...
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj_mOODlq_gAhUKyxoKHaOyDiMQFjAAegQIBxAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.academia.edu%2F38230420%2FAch os_o_ddwyn_hunaniaeth_Pobl_y_Bceri_Geneteg_y_Cynfy d_ac_Ymdarddiad_y_Celtiaid&usg=AOvVaw0GwX2qozt1kqvqJaNioYPw)

MOESAN
09-02-19, 19:48
Maybe an abstract of already old papers?

MOESAN
16-02-19, 00:02
Yes, Helas. Nothing new: spite it comes through Academia Edu, it's only a very short compilation for Welsh high-school - by Koch - of diverse works conclusions (Allentoft, Haak, Cassisy, Olalde, Desideri...) very similar to abstracts of some "scientific" newspapers.
The only thing is that it supports one of my hypothesis without too much details: a non-I-E origin of first BB's, a partial acculturation ("ideology" he said) of Central Europe* I-Eans with auDNA rich in 'steppic', before moves towards the Netherlands, Britain and Ireland around 2450 BC (order not discussed). This "ideology" did not change the old habits of patrilocal exogamy.
It adds Iberia became at least partly I-Ean after the first spread of genuine BB's out of it, and before the end of BA. He seems supporting some influences of the Irish BA through maritime routes around 900 BC (Burgess, O'Connor 2008). Never heard of that but I'm very weak concerning archeology.
Sorry for the wet firecarcker.
*: I suppose and I hope his 'Central Europe' is rather Southern Germany, Switzerland, Czechia and surroundings...