PDA

View Full Version : The Bell Beaker by Olalde and Reich et al. 2017



Olympus Mons
04-05-17, 12:34
Guys, abstract is out


Abstract: The Bell Beaker Complex (BBC) was the first widely distributed archaeological phenomenon of western Europe, arising after 2800 BCE probably in Iberia and spreading to the north and east before disappearing at the latest by 1800 BCE. An open question is the extent to which the cultural elements associated with the BBC spread through movement of ideas or people. We present new genome-wide DNA data from 196 Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans – the largest report of genome-wide data in a single study to date – and merge it with published data to form a dataset with 109 BBC individuals that provides a genomic characterization of the BBC across its geographic and temporal range. In contrast to people of the Corded Ware Complex who were partly contemporaries of the BBC in central and eastern Europe and who brought steppe ancestry into central Europe through mass migration and replacement of local populations, we show that the initial spread of the BBC into central Europe from the Iberian Peninsula was not mediated by a large-scale migration but rather through communication of ideas. However, the further spread of the BBC beyond central Europe did involve mass movement of people. Focusing on Britain, which includes 81 of our new samples in a time transect from 3900-1300 BCE, we show that the arrival of the BBC around 2400 BCE was mediated by migration from the continent: British individuals associated with Beakers are genetically indistinguishable from continental individuals associated with the same material culture and genetically nearly completely discontinuous with the previously resident population. Such discontinuity persists through to samples from the Bronze Age, documenting a demographic turnover at the onset of the Bronze Age that was crucial to understand the formation of the present-day British gene pool. The arrival of the BBC in Britain can thus be viewed as the western continuation of the massive movement of people that brought the Corded Ware Complex and steppe ancestry into central Europe a few hundred years before.



Olalde, Reich, et al., Western Europe during the third millennium BCE: A genetic characterization of the Bell Beaker Complex,

Olympus Mons
04-05-17, 12:42
so,

a. how much of Y-dna will the paper have?
b. How much of the 109 bell beakers samples are from south of parallel 45?
c. How many of the 81 samples from Britain will contribute to the 109 bell beakers?

d. Have they found Y-dna for earlier Iberian beakers? is it r1b or I2a or other?
e. do earlier Iberian (south 45 parallel) beaker show no "steppe" DNA?

So many questions, so many questions!

Maciamo
04-05-17, 13:08
Finally an abstract, but it does not provide any clear answer. Instead we get contradictory information.

"In contrast to people of the Corded Ware Complex who were partly contemporaries of the BBC in central and eastern Europe and who brought steppe ancestry into central Europe through mass migration and replacement of local populations, we show that the initial spread of the BBC into central Europe from the Iberian Peninsula was not mediated by a large-scale migration but rather through communication of ideas."

=> Here it says, just as I have always claimed (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29290-Why-R1b-couldn-t-have-been-spread-around-Western-Europe-by-the-Bell-Beaker-people), that the Bell Beaker phenomenon did not involve any mass migration or population replacement. I have explained before (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29565-Bell-Beakers-were-a-multicultural-phenomenon-trade-network-not-an-ethnic-culture) that the Bell Beaker was a cultural phenomenon that spread through a trade network.

"However, the further spread of the BBC beyond central Europe did involve mass movement of people. Focusing on Britain, which includes 81 of our new samples in a time transect from 3900-1300 BCE, we show that the arrival of the BBC around 2400 BCE was mediated by migration from the continent: British individuals associated with Beakers are genetically indistinguishable from continental individuals associated with the same material culture and genetically nearly completely discontinuous with the previously resident population."

Here they claim that there was a mass migration from the continent to Britain to completely replaced the Megalithic population. However that change only occurred from 2400 BCE, around the time of the emergence of the Únětice culture (from 2300 BCE). We already knew that R1b people with genomes very similar to Unetice introduced the Bronze Age to Ireland by 2000 BCE. I had estimated that R1b arrived in Britain around 2200 BCE based on the age of the first bronze artefacts. 200 years is a very little gap considering the inaccuracy of carbon dating. What this study seems to be showing is that Unetice-like R1b invaders entered Britain around 2400-2200 BCE, and replaced the earlier Megalithic population. However, the Iberian Bell Beaker people were in continuity with the Megalithic population. In other words there was no Bell Beaker ethnicity, as I have always said. There were Megalithic people descended from Neolithic Near Eastern farmers and Mesolithic West Europeans, and Unetice-like people who were a blend of Steppe invaders (most paternal lineages and some maternal ones) and Neolithic Central Europeans (at least half of maternal lineages).

Olympus Mons
04-05-17, 14:45
@maciamo.
What you said makes absolutly no sense. Not in a world of humans....

Elizabeth60
04-05-17, 15:53
From my understanding the abstract says that Bell Beaker started in Iberia and through cultural exchange (not people) it spread to Central Europe. The Bell Beakers in Central Europe were a continuation of the Steppe migration and what brought Bell Beaker to Britain was an actual migration of people and there was discontinuity from the earlier population. These people made a major contribution to the genetics of the British. It is similar to what happened in Ireland with the earlier Cassidy paper.

Olympus Mons
04-05-17, 15:58
It only makes sense if central european BB showed no iberian BB admix. If its the case. Correct. Case closed.

Angela
04-05-17, 16:14
One remaining question is where did R1b L51+ originate?

Olympus Mons
04-05-17, 17:00
Most important is. ___ do those CE BB show no admix from iberia BB? Because that is what i read from the abstract. If that ends up not being the case then shame on them for wording this way the abstract . it would speaks volumes of their mind set.

Elizabeth60
04-05-17, 17:14
They clearly state that "the initial spread of Bell Beaker from the Iberian Peninsula to Central Europe was not mediated by a large-scale migration but through communication of ideas".

Olympus Mons
04-05-17, 17:32
Elizabeth...yes. As long as they don't mean that CE BB had a different admix than south BB. Because E V E R Y B O D Y knows in the last 20 years that BB in CE are half breeds between BB and Cwc.

They need to mean that CE BB had NO or very little south european BB admix. Makes sense?

Angela
04-05-17, 17:52
Since they'll all be "EEF like with some additional WHG", I don't understand what kind of proof they'll have from the genetics that there was no population movement toward Central Europe, unless Iberia was much more I2a heavy than Central Europe.

MarkoZ
04-05-17, 19:22
Most important is. ___ do those CE BB show no admix from iberia BB? Because that is what i read from the abstract. If that ends up not being the case then shame on them for wording this way the abstract . it would speaks volumes of their mind set.

I suppose that the reason for this apparent contradiction is that there was an almost complete collapse of Neolithic societies in Ireland and Britain centuries before the arrival of BB culture. Note that the authors say that only the movements beyond- but not those within Central Europe involved a significant movements of people.

There's a comprehensive paper that documents these aforementioned changes in Ireland:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10963-016-9093-0

The authors included an animated map that shows several apparent population collapses starting 3200 B.C.:

http://www.edge-cdn.net/video_1052270?playerskin=37016

If Neolithic-Chalcolithic societies were equally fragile in Britain - and the archaeological records seems to indicate that they were - it's hardly surprising that the local Bell Beaker phase would look like less of an elite phenomenon than in Central Europe.

Olympus Mons
04-05-17, 19:28
To all, I think is not clear where the ambiguity of the abstract is:

…….The initial spread of BBC (from Portugal, then to Spain, then to south of France then Switzerland... package one) into (then when those BB migrated to Central europe, into package one and the one he really seems to care....) Central Europe was not mediated by a large scale migration (meaning it was not those Iberian BB from Portugal switerland etc, that massively replace cental europeans..), but rather trought communication of ideas (<I> because those BB in Central europe had a very different admix which we all know for ages since at least 2000 ... and that heavy admix moved and replaced heavly great britain... but that we already know)…..

The question is that the paragraph can mean that the first block of Iberian BB that was a package of people that actually migrated to one place to the other up until Switzerland, not mixing, women brought from other places behind to marry them etc WHEN, and only WHEN they migrated to Central Europe they did not do so based on a Large scale migration but by communication Ideias because people in Central Europe had a different admix than the southern ones of even Switzerland .

If that is the case , what Reich is saying in the paper is what I have been saying here all along and mentioning Desideri, and Nm dental traits, and Roth, hand half breeds, etc. that they did not massively replace PEOPLE IN CENTRAL EUROPE, but rather exchange Ideias WITH THOSE PEOPLE OF CWC and that is why there is people there with steppe admix that were BB. If its as simple as that than Reich has become a bullshiter!

MarkoZ
04-05-17, 19:38
The question is that the paragraph can mean that the first block of Iberian BB that was a package of people that actually migrated to one place to the other up until Switzerland, not mixing, women brought from other places behind to marry them etc WHEN, and only WHEN they migrated to Central Europe they did not do so based on a Large scale migration but by communication Ideias because people in Central Europe had a different admix than the southern ones of even Switzerland .

What's the general trajectory for BB culture in the most rudimentary sense you deem most likely? I've settled for something like Iberia -> South France - Switzlerland -> Baden (South-West Germany, where the coexist with CW for a while).

BTW: early contact between BB and CW in South-West Germany appears to have been a largely peaceful affair - despite inhabitating the same regions each culture stuck to its preferred ecosystem: CW went into the forests while BB preferred plains and mountains, which made conflict unnecessary for all intents and purposes.

bicicleur
04-05-17, 20:00
still, I would like to know who those Iberian BB people were
I don't think the Iberian chalcolithic, which started a few centuries before Iberian BB was a local neolithic development, there must have been some immigrants

did a few Iberian BB mix with incoming steppe tribes in the Carpathian Basin and did these people move en masse toward Italy, NW Europe and the British Isles?

we'll have to await the actual paper

MarkoZ
04-05-17, 20:19
still, I would like to know who those Iberian BB people were
I don't think the Iberian chalcolithic, which started a few centuries before Iberian BB was a local neolithic development, there must have been some immigrants


I think what the aDNA has shown is that what makes Chl. Iberians stand out is that they are less descended from immigrants. For some reason there was something like a Mesolithic resurgence in Western Europe.

berun
04-05-17, 21:09
A few comments: the paper is written by Yamnayists.


In contrast to people of the Corded Ware Complex who were partly contemporaries of the BBC in central and eastern Europe and who brought steppe ancestry into central Europe through mass migration and replacement of local populations, we show that the initial spread of the BBC into central Europe from the Iberian Peninsula was not mediated by a large-scale migration but rather through communication of ideas.

Well, I think that Bell Beakers had not cellulars to send whatsapps or to phone their friends of Germany, right? also I think that UPS was not delivering boxes by then... so such "communication of ideas" is clearly mediated by a little-scale migration (=/= large-scale migration).

Another case is that "Corded Ware Complex who were partly contemporaries of the BBC in central and eastern Europe and who brought steppe ancestry into central Europe through mass migration and replacement of local populations" is not very appealing to the steppes but to Eastern Europeans peopling Central Europe... otherwise why not writing just that steppe people peopled Central Europe??


However, the further spread of the BBC beyond central Europe did involve mass movement of people. Focusing on Britain,

So there were mass migrations to Britain and beyond Central Europe: Scandinavia? Poland?...


The arrival of the BBC in Britain can thus be viewed as the western continuation of the massive movement of people that brought the Corded Ware Complex and steppe ancestry into central Europe a few hundred years before.

Nothing to say about Iberia? Again is only Central Europe who received such steppe ancestry? Between 2900 BC and 2400 BC is a 500 years gap, not to mention the different state-of-the-art (R1a vs R1b).

By the way the abstract is providing a good hint: the steppe ancestry was traveling westwards (Iberia is not in the East right?), so that the original Iberian BB had not such ancestry... so it was necessary to get it in Central Europe after mixing with CW (CW = 70% steppe ancestry, Central Europe BB = 50% steppe encestry, then Iberian BB without steppe ancestry necessary to down such ancestry is 2 CW for each BB).

Promenade
04-05-17, 21:24
Can someone explain to me if I understood this correctly?

"In contrast to people of the Corded Ware Complex who were partly contemporaries of the BBC in central and eastern Europe and who brought steppe ancestry into central Europe through mass migration and replacement of local populations, we show that the initial spread of the BBC into central Europe from the Iberian Peninsula was not mediated by a large-scale migration but rather through communication of ideas. However, the further spread of the BBC beyond central Europe did involve mass movement of people."

SoReich is saying that the spread of the Bell Beaker Culture from Iberia to Central Europe was mostly material and not genetic, but the people who adopted the Bell Beaker Culture in Central Europe would lead a genetic and material replacement of people and culture in the British Isles, right?

"The arrival of the BBC in Britain can thus be viewed as the western continuation of the massive movement of people that brought the Corded Ware Complex and steppe ancestry into central Europe a few hundred years before."

And here he is saying that these Central Europeans that adopted the Bell Beaker Culture in central Europe and spread it to the British isles were genetically similar to the people of the Corded Ware and shared their steppe ancestry?

MarkoZ
04-05-17, 22:13
By the way the abstract is providing a good hint: the steppe ancestry was traveling westwards (Iberia is not in the East right?), so that the original Iberian BB had not such ancestry... so it was necessary to get it in Central Europe after mixing with CW (CW = 70% steppe ancestry, Central Europe BB = 50% steppe encestry, then Iberian BB without steppe ancestry necessary to down such ancestry is 2 CW for each BB).

I think one problem might be that Reich still adheres to the 3-way-model that includes Loschbour, which by now should be considered a reductio ad absurdum with regards to Mesolithic ancestry in present day & metal age Europeans.

It's also sad that more than 70% of their BB samples come from Britain, a place that isn't very interesting when it comes to understanding ancient migrations. I wish researchers would pay more attention to France & West Germany, Switzerland and south Iberia, but I don't have high hopes.

bicicleur
04-05-17, 22:14
I think what the aDNA has shown is that what makes Chl. Iberians stand out is that they are less descended from immigrants. For some reason there was something like a Mesolithic resurgence in Western Europe.

it's impossible to tell
Iberian chalcolithic had increased WHG, but was this increased WHG Iberian in origin?
there is no trace of a gradual development of metallurgy in Iberia, suddenly it was there with full know-how
doubtful that this was an autochtonous Iberian development

bicicleur
04-05-17, 22:29
It's also sad that more than 70% of their BB samples come from Britain, a place that isn't very interesting when it comes to understanding ancient migrations. I wish researchers would pay more attention to France & West Germany, Switzerland and south Iberia, but I don't have high hopes.

That is not a choice, I think they take their samples with good prospects for high DNA recovery wherever they can find them.

MarkoZ
04-05-17, 22:43
it's impossible to tell
Iberian chalcolithic had increased WHG, but was this increased WHG Iberian in origin?
there is no trace of a gradual development of metallurgy in Iberia, suddenly it was there with full know-how
doubtful that this was an autochtonous Iberian development

If I recall correctly, Mesolithic ancestry was markedly higher in the south of Iberia. That's also where the early metallurgical centers are.

Olympus Mons
04-05-17, 23:05
@Berun
Explain this - (CW = 70% steppe ancestry, Central Europe BB = 50% steppe encestry, then Iberian BB without steppe ancestry necessary to down such ancestry is 2 CW for each BB).

bicicleur
04-05-17, 23:06
If I recall correctly, Mesolithic ancestry was markedly higher in the south of Iberia. That's also where the early metallurgical centers are.

megalithic sites had already higher WHG then the first cardium ware sites, and chalcolithic had another step more WHG
the question remains : who brought metalurgy to Iberia?

bicicleur
04-05-17, 23:08
@Berun
Explain this - (CW = 70% steppe ancestry, Central Europe BB = 50% steppe encestry, then Iberian BB without steppe ancestry necessary to down such ancestry is 2 CW for each BB).

Iberian BB is responsable for the 20 % less steppe ancestry - a bold asumption ?

Olympus Mons
04-05-17, 23:27
@Bicicleur,
I meant the math :)

berun
04-05-17, 23:27
Yes, quick maths, if you have 70% "steppe ancestry" in CW and thereafter you have 50% in Central Europe Bell Beakers after 500 years, the reduction of such 20% could be got adding a devoid-of-steppe-ancestry BB for each two CW relatives.

Moreover Reich finds out clearly that the British BB came from Central Europe admixed beakers... if French or Iberian beakers would be also admixed I suppose that Reich would express some doubt about their origin...

Olympus Mons
04-05-17, 23:33
But berun,
BB arrived to Bohemia and Central Germany, the ones they extract DNA from, not more than 100 years after arrival of BB to the area. Prob less. So how does that math work?!

Note: come to think of it...what is the dating for those samples that they extracted Dna?

MarkoZ
05-05-17, 00:55
megalithic sites had already higher WHG then the first cardium ware sites, and chalcolithic had another step more WHG
the question remains : who brought metalurgy to Iberia?

Good question. It would seem that early copper working in Europe has a Balkan-Mediterranean association and spread along the coasts, but I'm not aware of any documented east to west movements. Though I wouldn't discount the possibility that southern Iberia simply had a population density in the Mesolithic, which relatively reduced the demic impact of migrating farmers. Who knows.

MarkoZ
05-05-17, 01:21
There's a whole lot of abstracts from that conference:

https://www.sfb1266.uni-kiel.de/de/veranstaltungen/tagungen-workshops/archeologie-et-gobelets-1/abstracts (https://www.sfb1266.uni-kiel.de/de/veranstaltungen/tagungen-workshops/archeologie-et-gobelets-1/abstract)

Stockhammer, et al., “The Bell Beaker Complex in the Lech Valley: a Bioarchaeological Perspective”

“While the integration of archaeological and scientific – especially genetic – evidence has enabled a better understanding of the Corded Ware Complex in the last years, similar data for the Bell Beaker Complex has not been published yet. However, in the last years we have conducted an interdisciplinary bioarchaeological research program on 85 Corded Ware, Bell Beaker and Early Bronze Age burials in the Lech Valley south of Augsburg, which is now a key region to understand the social transformations during the 3rd millennium BC. We will present the archaeological evidence of the Bell Beaker Complex in the Lech valley and integrate the data in an archaeological-diachronic perspective as well as with regard to the broad range of scientific analyses (ancient mitochondrial, Y and nuclear DNA, stable isotope ratios of strontium, oxygen carbon and nitrogen, radiocarbon dating, lead isotope analyses, etc.). The isotope data demonstrate a striking pattern of patrilocality and female exogamy during the Bell Beaker Complex and the Early Bronze Age where more than half of the females were non-local, while there were only rare occurrences among the male and subadult individuals. The DNA analysis enables us to understand family relations within the burial sites as well as the transformation of the genomic patterns from the Corded Ware to the Bell Beaker Complex and further on to the Early Bronze Age. In the end, we are able to present a new narrative for the genesis as well as the end of the Bell Beaker Complex at least for the Lech Valley south of Augsburg.”

Looks like we shouldn't expect much continuity on the aDNA side, as expected I guess. These are geographically quite close to earliest German Beakers. I think CW females might have been involved after all.

Fire Haired14
05-05-17, 01:30
@Maciamo,

They said Bell Beaker not Unetice brought Steppe ancestry to Britain.

Angela
05-05-17, 01:30
I don't have much in my files for autosomal results for Iberian Chalcolithic. This is it; the data is from Tomenable. Anyone have more?

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33136-ATP9-(MBA-Iberia-ca-1600-BC)?highlight=Iberian+Chalcolithic
Here is a list of post-Neolithic ancient Y-DNA and GEDmatch kits from Iberia and Italy:

Y-DNA haplogroups and autosomal DNA of Copper Age Iberians:

Sample / (dating) / Y-DNA / GEDmatch kit / Single Pop. Sharing in Eurogenes K15:

ATP16 (3211-2866 BC) - woman - M422959 - Sardinians
ATP12 (3010-2879 BC) - I2a2a2
ATP17 (3007–2871 BC) - I2a2a
ATP2 (2899-2678 BC) - H2 - M849224 - Sardinians
I1300 (2880-2630 BC) - woman - M547763 - Sardinians
I1281 (2880-2630 BC) - woman - M784782 - Sardinians
I1303 (2880-2630 BC) - I2a1a1 - M734278 - Sardinians
I0581 (2880-2630 BC) - I2a2a1
I1284 (2880-2630 BC) - I
I1302 (2880-2630 BC) - G2a2b2b
I1314 (2880-2630 BC) - G2a - M216291 - Sardinians
I1280 (2880-2630 BC) - woman - M855364 - Sardinians
I1274 (2880-2630 BC) - I2a2 - M874014 - Basques
I1277 (2568-2346 BC) - I2a2a

Bronze Age:

ATP9 (1700-1518 BC) - woman - M116706 - Basques

Y-DNA haplogroups and autosomal DNA of Remedello culture Italians:

Sample / (dating) / Y-DNA / GEDmatch kit / Single Pop. Sharing in Eurogenes K15:

RISE487 (3483-3107 BC) - I2a1a1 - T699825 - Sardinians
RISE489 (2908-2578 BC) - I2a1a1a - T135721 - Sardinians
RISE486 (2134-1773 BC) - I2a1a1a - T319214 - Sardinians

Simply SHOCKING !!! "Genetical Sardinians" everywhere. And a few Basques. But no any R1b.

See also:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32349-Upcoming-paper-on-the-Iberian-Neolithic?highlight=Iberian+Chalcolithic

Elizabeth60
05-05-17, 05:38
To me the abstract makes it clear that BB was spread to Central Europe by ideas not genetics so the Central European BB is a different group genetically than the Iberian BB. That's what I'm interpreting from what the abstract says. I don't know why they would state what they did otherwise.

Britain got their Bell Beakers from Central Europe by an influx of people. It was fairly obvious from the previous paper on Rathlin.

LeBrok
05-05-17, 06:40
To me the abstract makes it clear that BB was spread to Central Europe by ideas not genetics so the Central European BB is a different group genetically than the Iberian BB. That's what I'm interpreting from what the abstract says. I don't know why they would state what they did otherwise.

Britain got their Bell Beakers from Central Europe by an influx of people. It was fairly obvious from the previous paper on Rathlin.Exactly how I understood too.

LeBrok
05-05-17, 06:57
I don't have much in my files for autosomal results for Iberian Chalcolithic. This is it; the data is from Tomenable. Anyone have more?

Simply SHOCKING !!! "Genetical Sardinians" everywhere. And a few Basques. But no any R1b.

See also:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32349-Upcoming-paper-on-the-Iberian-Neolithic?highlight=Iberian+Chalcolithic

I found 3 samples to compare, first one is Iberian Chalcolithic, second Iberian Bronze Age, third one is German Bell Beaker to compare. The third one is way different.
We can see that there is some change from Iberian Chalcolithic to Bronze Age, however the Bronze Age sample is not the highest quality, and might be misleading.
I think, I estimated some time ago that if there was BA invasion into Spain it would be more from Hungarian Bronze/Baden than CW area.

Do we have other BA Iberian sample on GedMatch?



M422959
ATP 16

M116706
ATP9

M324645
I0112


Spain
Pre BB, 3kya
Spain
1.7kya, BA
BellBeaker


Run Time
6.67

Run Time
4.28

Run time
11.21


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
10.96


Caucasian
6.72

Caucasian
7.33

Caucasian
1.59


NE-Euro
20.52

NE-Euro
36.77

NE-Euro
54.14


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0.06


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
0.23


American
-

American
-

American
0.3


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
0.1


Mediterranean
69.97

Mediterranean
55.74

Mediterranean
32.4


SW-Asian
2.53

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.21

W-African
0.15

W-African
0.19

berun
05-05-17, 07:18
To me the abstract makes it clear that BB was spread to Central Europe by ideas not genetics so the Central European BB is a different group genetically than the Iberian BB. That's what I'm interpreting from what the abstract says. I don't know why they would state what they did otherwise.

Britain got their Bell Beakers from Central Europe by an influx of people. It was fairly obvious from the previous paper on Rathlin.

If so how do you explain the decrease of steppe ancestry and the change in Y-DNA?

berun
05-05-17, 07:45
But berun,
BB arrived to Bohemia and Central Germany, the ones they extract DNA from, not more than 100 years after arrival of BB to the area. Prob less. So how does that math work?!

Note: come to think of it...what is the dating for those samples that they extracted Dna?

So you need an example. Imagine a Ferreira arriving in Germany marrying there a local woman with 70% of Viking blood. The majority of women there are locals so this kind of case is quite commonplace. Their son will keep R1b but also a 35% Viking autosomal. If the son marries thereafter a local woman as is the most abundant source and is how prevents endogamy of little aloctone clans the grandson will have somewhat near half Viking in autosomals.

berun
05-05-17, 07:46
@Angela, the posted samples are all pre Bell Beaker.

Elizabeth60
05-05-17, 08:12
If so how do you explain the decrease of steppe ancestry and the change in Y-DNA?

I'm just paraphrasing what the abstract says. Hopefully it will all be explained when the actual paper is released. :)

Maciamo
05-05-17, 08:24
Can someone explain to me if I understood this correctly?

"In contrast to people of the Corded Ware Complex who were partly contemporaries of the BBC in central and eastern Europe and who brought steppe ancestry into central Europe through mass migration and replacement of local populations, we show that the initial spread of the BBC into central Europe from the Iberian Peninsula was not mediated by a large-scale migration but rather through communication of ideas. However, the further spread of the BBC beyond central Europe did involve mass movement of people."

SoReich is saying that the spread of the Bell Beaker Culture from Iberia to Central Europe was mostly material and not genetic, but the people who adopted the Bell Beaker Culture in Central Europe would lead a genetic and material replacement of people and culture in the British Isles, right?

"The arrival of the BBC in Britain can thus be viewed as the western continuation of the massive movement of people that brought the Corded Ware Complex and steppe ancestry into central Europe a few hundred years before."

And here he is saying that these Central Europeans that adopted the Bell Beaker Culture in central Europe and spread it to the British isles were genetically similar to the people of the Corded Ware and shared their steppe ancestry?

That's exactly how I understood it. But since Bell Beaker pottery originated in Chalcolithic Iberia and then spread through trade or minor migrations around western and central Europe, this pottery style ceased to be associated with one specific ethnic/genetic group. That is why it is senseless to be talking about 'Bell Beaker people'. Anybody who uses that terms does not understand it. It would like like saying people from industrialised countries today and expect that they are of European descent, even though many East Asian countries are now just as industrialised. The link between technology and ethnicity has vanished when the technology starting spread far and wide.




They said Bell Beaker not Unetice brought Steppe ancestry to Britain.

Then it means that the Reich team does not understand what I explained above (and you neither). It's fine to talk of Starcevo people, of Yamna people, or Corded Ware people, as they belonged to an ethnic culture. But the Bell Beaker culture is one of the first non-ethnic cultures.

Elizabeth60
05-05-17, 08:25
Regarding the ydna I'm presuming it will be R1b. Yamnaya were R1b-M269 and as the Yamnaya horizon is quite large I'm sure it is not a leap of faith to presume R1b-L51 might be found somewhere between the Steppes and Central Europe. Also I don't see any problem with BB being 50% Steppe as they obviously mixed with EEF types. I'm sure the paper will clarify some of these questions once it is released.

Elizabeth60
05-05-17, 08:31
That's exactly how I understood it. But since Bell Beaker pottery originated in Chalcolithic Iberia and then spread through trade or minor migrations around western and central Europe, this pottery style ceased to be associated with one specific ethnic/genetic group. That is why it is senseless to be talking about 'Bell Beaker people'. Anybody who uses that terms does not understand it. It would like like saying people from industrialised countries today and expect that they are of European descent, even though many East Asian countries are now just as industrialised. The link between technology and ethnicity has vanished when the technology starting spread far and wide.

Aren't German Bell Beakers virtually identical to British/Irish Bell Beakers? The earlier Bell Beakers from the Iberian Penisular are genetically different. I guess discussing this when only an abstract has been released is a bit presumptuous. This is only an appetizer to what will hopefully answer a lot of people's questions.

Sile
05-05-17, 09:22
That's exactly how I understood it. But since Bell Beaker pottery originated in Chalcolithic Iberia and then spread through trade or minor migrations around western and central Europe, this pottery style ceased to be associated with one specific ethnic/genetic group. That is why it is senseless to be talking about 'Bell Beaker people'. Anybody who uses that terms does not understand it. It would like like saying people from industrialised countries today and expect that they are of European descent, even though many East Asian countries are now just as industrialised. The link between technology and ethnicity has vanished when the technology starting spread far and wide.




Then it means that the Reich team does not understand what I explained above (and you neither). It's fine to talk of Starcevo people, of Yamna people, or Corded Ware people, as they belonged to an ethnic culture. But the Bell Beaker culture is one of the first non-ethnic cultures.

I agree........many thousands of years before BB potters there where other "potters", from LBK in germany as an example.

logically, these LBK potters just learnt a new style of "BB potting" from a trader or some immigrants......so there is no guarantee that there was mass BB migration into germany due to potting styles.

a potter in ancient times or modern times will take just one day to learn a new style of potting

MarkoZ
05-05-17, 09:48
If so how do you explain the decrease of steppe ancestry and the change in Y-DNA?

A decrease in 'steppe' ancestry could be the result of a different migration route of BB's paternal ancestors. We'd be talking about a route through Ukraine, the Carpathians into Hungary and ex-Yugoslavia culminating in Vucedol culture which has its epicenter in North-Eastern Croatia. Naturally, due to higher population densities the potential to pick up foreign aDNA would be greater than in the north.

Now, I consider that unlikely due to the complete absence of Z2103 in Western Europe as per Balanovsky, and the French centrality of L51 and S116, but ultimately we'll need ancient samples to shed light on this.

It seems that the talk about aDNA is ultimately a waste of time when it comes to BB, if the pattern in the Lech paper is indicative of broad cultural trends within the Beaker horizon. If more than 50% of all women were foreigners at any given time, the genetic makeup could be completely changed within just a few generations.

MarkoZ
05-05-17, 10:02
I agree........many thousands of years before BB potters there where other "potters", from LBK in germany as an example.

logically, these LBK potters just learnt a new style of "BB potting" from a trader or some immigrants......so there is no guarantee that there was mass BB migration into germany due to potting styles.

a potter in ancient times or modern times will take just one day to learn a new style of potting

The problem with this is that BB pottery didn't convey any discernible advantages. In fact it was quite ugly looking and generally badly made when compared to some of the painted pottery traditions of the Neolithic.

bicicleur
05-05-17, 10:18
I found 3 samples to compare, first one is Iberian Chalcolithic, second Iberian Bronze Age, third one is German Bell Beaker to compare. The third one is way different.
We can see that there is some change from Iberian Chalcolithic to Bronze Age, however the Bronze Age sample is not the highest quality, and might be misleading.
I think, I estimated some time ago that if there was BA invasion into Spain it would be more from Hungarian Bronze/Baden than CW area.

Do we have other BA Iberian sample on GedMatch?

there was an invasion into Iberia which initiated the BA, look at the history of El Argar
but the invasion of the El Argar people and the Iberian BA postdates the initial Central European BB, your sample too, it is I guess 3.7 ka (not 1.7 ka)
if Iberian BB were not immigrants to Iberia, they were Iberian CA

bicicleur
05-05-17, 10:24
I agree........many thousands of years before BB potters there where other "potters", from LBK in germany as an example.

logically, these LBK potters just learnt a new style of "BB potting" from a trader or some immigrants......so there is no guarantee that there was mass BB migration into germany due to potting styles.

a potter in ancient times or modern times will take just one day to learn a new style of potting

there is style and there is technique
a potter can easily take over a new style without learning the new technique (tempering materials, baking methods, ..)
it often happened and archeology can tell the difference
but I don't know about different techniques in BB
it has been suggested though that the pottery was made by the women

bicicleur
05-05-17, 10:29
If so how do you explain the decrease of steppe ancestry and the change in Y-DNA?

a hypothetical possibility would be a tiny BB colony like Csepl merging with a larger culture of steppe origin, like Vucedol

Olympus Mons
05-05-17, 14:59
@Maciamo,
All studies done with Nmdentral traits says south France, Switzerland, Hungary BB folk were different from local populations. It will need a lot of aDna to turn that fact/postulation. If those were of a different stock then where did they come from?

On the other hand, is Reich saying that the transition of those Iberian BB that were in Switzerland, when they crossed the alps and went to central Europe they did not replace people, but actually sold them their way of life? I means either kidnapped and Rapped their women from each other.

So, if reich has good adna from Iberia, south France, western Atlantic France and Switzerland and they show that bell beaker were from different stock of each other... than ok. He is absolutely right on stating it as he did.

Maciamo
05-05-17, 15:57
@Maciamo,
All studies done with Nmdentral traits says south France, Switzerland, Hungary BB folk were different from local populations. It will need a lot of aDna to turn that fact/postulation. If those were of a different stock then where did they come from?

Were BB also different from the locals in Portugal or other parts of Iberia? If BB spread from Portugal to the rest of western and central Europe, then it would make sense that these BB people were autosomally like Chalcolithic Portuguese, and therefore somewhat different from Chalcolithic French, Swiss, Hungarian, etc. I don't see any problem with that. Do you know of any study that say that BB people in France or Iberia had dental traits like those of Corded Ware people?

Another explanation for the different traits in BB people compared to locals is that Bell Beaker pottery was spread by merchants travelling around Europe. The BB pots probably contained something of value inside. I am not sure if enough DNA has been preserved inside to determine what it was, but it's possible that the content wasn't the same in Iberia and Central Europe.

Olympus Mons
05-05-17, 16:29
@Maciamo,
Yes it does, Shovel, double-shovel, Cusp5 and 6, bla blab la all those Nm dental traits.
Unless someone is re-carving teeth of bell beakers all over Europe. The answer is yes.
Iberia BB where of the same stock as chalcolithic Iberia, and the same as South France up until Switzerland. And those were different from Local endogenous populations in those other places.
Czepel was a bit strange, but still very related to those Iberians ….and Bohemia a complete mess!
So, to try to figure out the bell beakers conundrum they choose the complete mess? – Ah, ok.

Aaron1981
05-05-17, 16:30
If so how do you explain the decrease of steppe ancestry and the change in Y-DNA?

Admixture from residual LBK groups in central Europe prior to moving to Britain. That's what the Rathlin paper suggested. I suspect the new paper will say the same. This isn't difficult folks. tr0lling for the sake of tr0lling and being contrary for the sake of it isn't beneficial.

The latest paper concluding that BB spreading to central Europe from Iberia via ideas rather than genetics is an argument against R1b arriving from Iberia. All the central European BB have been derived for L23+. None of the genetic results will prove anything beyond a doubt, but the arguments have certainly been suggestive.

R1b arrived in Britain from Germany/Czech during the Bronze Age with BB, and modern Brits are a very closer match to these people. Nothing else is being concluded in the paper, and frankly, nothing else is relevant.

Olympus Mons
05-05-17, 16:32
I don't have much in my files....
.....
Simply SHOCKING !!! "Genetical Sardinians" everywhere. And a few Basques. But no any R1b.


Yes and to figure out what Sicilians look like genetically , lets go and sample people in Milan and Turin, shall we?

LeBrok
05-05-17, 16:33
there was an invasion into Iberia which initiated the BA, look at the history of El Argar
but the invasion of the El Argar people and the Iberian BA postdates the initial Central European BB, your sample too, it is I guess 3.7 ka (not 1.7 ka)
if Iberian BB were not immigrants to Iberia, they were Iberian CAFrom these two samples, Iberia Copper and BA, we can see some shift towards WHG type genome. Increased NE Euro and decreased Med. I think the source of potential newcomers could have been Hungarian Bronze, which was high in extra WHG. BA Iberian is missing Baloch, so CW area should be excluded from being the invaders. However it is hard to be certain, because BA Iberian sample is of low quality.
I wish we had another one.

Olympus Mons
05-05-17, 16:58
@Lebrock,
Whatever comes out for Iberia bell beakers (and I care much less than what transpires) they were not random in Iberia. Although it sounds like I might say that because I am Portuguese - The basic tradition that ended up in Bell beakers, like Copos and Long useless daggers (and there was a place 20km from VNSP that just did long and useless daggers) were typical of the VSNP guys that blocked the passage from the south Tagus to the Northern (Near Muge and so forth). They blocked the passage to the guys that for instance brought lots os cattle and sheep and pigs to be slaughtered in Zambujla, which as you all know is seen the Urhermeit of the Bell beakers.
We find Bell beakers moving to north Portugal and into Douro and then to northern Spain and to rest of europe.
So it was a very specific people. That lot of people we know from roth that they had an increase amount of WHG and their Mtdna had a bit more WHG like profile than the rest of Iberia, so less EEF.

If one wants to know than must sample those and not some washout guys in some caves in Atapuerta or whatever!

bicicleur
05-05-17, 16:59
From these two samples, Iberia Copper and BA, we can see some shift towards WHG type genome. Increased NE Euro and decreased Med. I think the source of potential newcomers could have been Hungarian Bronze, which was high in extra WHG. BA Iberian is missing Baloch, so CW area should be excluded from being the invaders. However it is hard to be certain, because BA Iberian sample is of low quality.
I wish we had another one.

CW didn't have no metallurgy, neither copper nor bronze, only few prestige copper objects, so also from that viewpoint they are ruled out.
could Balkan CA be the source for Iberian CA - and for Austrian/Italian CA (Remedello and the like)?

Iberian CA were an elite using local workforce to make a fortune with copper industry & trade

Angela
05-05-17, 17:30
@Angela, the posted samples are all pre Bell Beaker. Then what are the access numbers for Iberian Beaker versus Central European Copper Age samples? Let's run them through calculators. For that matter, how different are Iberian Beaker people from the prior population?

Without data we'retalking out of our hats.

bicicleur
05-05-17, 17:43
Then what are the access numbers for Iberian Beaker versus Central European Copper Age samples? Let's run them through calculators. For that matter, how different are Iberian Beaker people from the prior population?

Without data we'retalking out of our hats.

AFAIK there are no Iberian BB samples, the ones in the study will be the 1st ones published.

Olympus Mons
05-05-17, 17:58
AFAIK there are no Iberian BB samples, the ones in the study will be the 1st ones published.

Hey...lower your expectations. There will be no Iberian BB in this reich et al either. That is why I am a little tense about it. We need to have references in any LOB, and agreeing with him or not, he is a reference. If reference show bullshit its the all spectrum that falls.

Olympus Mons
05-05-17, 18:03
how different are Iberian Beaker people from the prior population?

according to Nm dental traits... not really different, or at least very related. -- but very different from Local population hereafter up until Bohemia were all messes up.

Hidalgo Vascongado
05-05-17, 18:24
Angela, iberian ATP3 (3516-3362 BC) was R1b-M269. So it's plausible that Bell Beaker peoples were R1b-L51 and R1b-L23. We will see when they publish it. My bet is that a small migration of R1b-L23 from anatolia-the balkans (cernavoda culture) arrived to southwestern iberia around 3.000 BC (through north italy, spreading copper technology), and created the BB package in iberia. Later on, small groups of L23 and some local neolithic lineages, encountered R1b L51 in eastern France and where acculturated in the BB package. These L-51 folks and lineages where the ones who dramatically changed the genetic landscape of Iberia (R1b Df27), France, Benelux and British islands(R1b L21), and kept spreading BB culture (and maybe vasconic languages).

Olympus Mons
05-05-17, 18:40
@Hidalgo,

Oh boy what a shit storm you're about to raise. ... not in here but in some places its all guns out! ATP as a M269!
You are allowed to Say an individual is from a certain haplogroup with 2 or 3 STR.... but one (such as ATP3) ppufff not a chance. :)

Olympus Mons
05-05-17, 18:41
Again.. there will be no Iberian BB (at least not from 2800-2500bc) in Reich et al. Anyone wants a bet?

Angela
05-05-17, 19:05
AFAIK there are no Iberian BB samples, the ones in the study will be the 1st ones published. Finally, some clarity.

From their abstract, for them to conclude that beaker pots didn't move to Central Europe with a mass movement of people, there shouldn't be much, if any, autosomal difference between Iberian Beaker and pre-steppe Central European Copper Age people, yes? I highly doubt the Reich Lab would make a mistake like this, but we'll see when the Iberian Beaker samples are released.

As for copper technology in Iberia, I highly doubt it's a local development; there's no indication of that in the archaeology. I've been arguing since the days of dna-forums that it either arrived directly from the Balkans or by diffusion along the north Mediterranean coast. It had nothing to do with the steppe. Even if there was a migration of some people, since everyone was generally "Sardinian like" genetically, you might not be able to distinguish between them.

@OM,

Why on earth would they make claims about Iberian Beakers if they have no samples?

Jason Neuharth
05-05-17, 19:22
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/iberian-bell-beakers-zero-steppe-admix.html

Jason Neuharth
05-05-17, 19:26
I2467 Inventario 0/4 Iberia_CA I2a2a I-M223 El Sotillo 2481–2212bc
I2473 ES-6G-110 Iberia_CA I2a2a I-M223 El Sotillo 2916–2714 bc
I3269 LY.II.A.10.15066 Iberia_CA I2a2a I-M223 Las Yurdinas II 3350–2750 bc

bicicleur
05-05-17, 19:45
@Hidalgo,

Oh boy what a shit storm you're about to raise. ... not in here but in some places its all guns out! ATP as a M269!
You are allowed to Say an individual is from a certain haplogroup with 2 or 3 STR.... but one (such as ATP3) ppufff not a chance. :)

he probably is
there has been several storms about it, many won't accept it

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-atp3/

R1b-L278-L389-P297-Y97/FGC46
R1b-L278-L389-P297-PF6401
R1b-L278-L389-P297-M478-Y13887
R1b-L278-L389-P297-M478-Y14051-Y14165
R1b-L278-L389-P297-M478-Y14051-Y14160
R1b-L278-L389-P297-M269-PF6518

they say PF6518 is not a reliable SNP
but they have nothing to say about the 2 SNP for R1b-P297

mind you ATP3 is about 3400 BC !

Angela
05-05-17, 21:03
Yes and to figure out what Sicilians look like genetically , lets go and sample people in Milan and Turin, shall we?

You're going to have to be a little less cryptic if you expect me to respond; when the meaning of a post is too ambiguous or difficult to decipher because of the quality of the English or other reasons, I tend to ignore it.

As for your comment about Italy, at least half of the current population of Milano and Torino is southern Italian in terms of genetics. If you include people who are half and half, it goes above that. Even in my own area, every other person is half southern Italian. So, I don't know what that does for your analogy.

Genetiker
05-05-17, 21:08
they say PF6518 is not a reliable SNP

That idea originated with this comment (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7057-The-genetic-history-of-Ice-Age-Europe&p=160114&viewfull=1#post160114) by Richard Rocca on Anthrogenica, and I refuted it in this comment (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9662-The-Neolithic-Transition-in-the-Baltic-Was-Not-Driven-by-Admixture-with-Early-Europea&p=214108&viewfull=1#post214108).

Angela
05-05-17, 21:18
I2467 Inventario 0/4 Iberia_CA I2a2a I-M223 El Sotillo 2481–2212bc
I2473 ES-6G-110 Iberia_CA I2a2a I-M223 El Sotillo 2916–2714 bc
I3269 LY.II.A.10.15066 Iberia_CA I2a2a I-M223 Las Yurdinas II 3350–2750 bc

A little more explanation, please.

Are you saying these samples are generally accepted as Iberian Beakers in terms of date and context? If not, they're not informative. If they are, has their data been uploaded? If that's the case, let's run them.

bicicleur
05-05-17, 21:25
That idea originated with this comment (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7057-The-genetic-history-of-Ice-Age-Europe&p=160114&viewfull=1#post160114) by Richard Rocca on Anthrogenica, and I refuted it in this comment (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9662-The-Neolithic-Transition-in-the-Baltic-Was-Not-Driven-by-Admixture-with-Early-Europea&p=214108&viewfull=1#post214108).

and how should we interprete your K=14 admix for the ATP samples : do they have steppe admixture?
is that what makes the ATP samples autosomal different from the other chalcolithic Iberians?

berun
05-05-17, 22:04
there was an invasion into Iberia which initiated the BA, look at the history of El Argar
but the invasion of the El Argar people and the Iberian BA postdates the initial Central European BB, your sample too, it is I guess 3.7 ka (not 1.7 ka)
if Iberian BB were not immigrants to Iberia, they were Iberian CA

can you provide a paper about that?

bicicleur
05-05-17, 22:19
can you provide a paper about that?

actualy, it is fase II of La Bastida which is proto - El Argar

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Bastida_de_Totana

fase II was built after fase I was burnt down (2000 BC)

and the fortifications and architecture are like Troj/BA Levant/BA Mesopotamia as in a paper commented by Dienekes a few years ago

and the same style was used in El Argar

in fase I Bell Beaker ceramics were found

Genetiker
05-05-17, 22:26
and how should we interprete your K=14 admix for the ATP samples : do they have steppe admixture?
is that what makes the ATP samples autosomal different from the other chalcolithic Iberians?

I would only say that they have Eastern European admixture.

Later in same thread I linked to above, Wesolowski claimed (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9662-The-Neolithic-Transition-in-the-Baltic-Was-Not-Driven-by-Admixture-with-Early-Europea&p=214203&viewfull=1#post214203), with zero evidence, that all of the ATP samples except for ATP9 "have exactly none" Eastern European admixture, and I responded by posting D-statistics (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9662-The-Neolithic-Transition-in-the-Baltic-Was-Not-Driven-by-Admixture-with-Early-Europea&p=214438&viewfull=1#post214438) and a PCA plot (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9662-The-Neolithic-Transition-in-the-Baltic-Was-Not-Driven-by-Admixture-with-Early-Europea&p=214707&viewfull=1#post214707) confirming my admixture analyses and contradicting him. He then admitted (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9662-The-Neolithic-Transition-in-the-Baltic-Was-Not-Driven-by-Admixture-with-Early-Europea&p=214714&viewfull=1#post214714) that he didn't even have the samples he was making claims about.

I did once think that R1b-P312 spread out of Iberia with the Bell Beaker culture, but I'm not attached to the idea. If the new data show that the early Iberian Beaker people were genetically more like the earlier farmers than the Central European Beaker people, then it would be consistent with what Carleton Coon wrote in The Races of Europe (https://archive.org/stream/racesofeurope031695mbp#page/n165/mode/2up):


Where Bell Beaker burials are found in central Europe, the skeletons are almost always of the same tall brachycephalic type which we have already studied in the eastern Mediterranean and Italy. In Spain, however, they are frequently of the Megalithic race.

ATP3 may have been a descendant of an early pioneer from the east, and exceptional for his time.

berun
05-05-17, 22:46
I2467 Inventario 0/4 Iberia_CA I2a2a I-M223 El Sotillo 2481–2212bc
I2473 ES-6G-110 Iberia_CA I2a2a I-M223 El Sotillo 2916–2714 bc
I3269 LY.II.A.10.15066 Iberia_CA I2a2a I-M223 Las Yurdinas II 3350–2750 bc

No beakers yet

berun
05-05-17, 22:49
actualy, it is fase II of La Bastida which is proto - El Argar

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Bastida_de_Totana

fase II was built after fase I was burnt down (2000 BC)

and the fortifications and architecture are like Troj/BA Levant/BA Mesopotamia as in a paper commented by Dienekes a few years ago

and the same style was used in El Argar

in fase I Bell Beaker ceramics were found

which paper so?

berun
05-05-17, 22:58
It's quite amazing how the steppe religion can change understanding: with my inperfect English I understand that "rather" in "the initial spread of the BBC into central Europe from the Iberian Peninsula was not mediated by a large-scale migration but rather through communication of ideas" means in a lower degree, but the Yamnayists understand somethink like "there was no genetic admixture from Iberia in Central European BB".

For the merry tale about women learning in a day to do pots, I'm amazed also about the quickness to display how to change weapons to the CW people (arrows, Palmela points, daggers) to a population used to make stone axes, yes, I imagine how the BB people would train the CW people armed with axes: shooting them first a good rain of arrows as example, and those that were able to survive it enjoyed a second lesson about how to use a dagger in the most mortal body points (of course with a first-person example).

bicicleur
05-05-17, 23:04
which paper so?

search Dienekes

berun
05-05-17, 23:21
Also it's quite amazing the history about steppe warriors of a kind of R1b not found in the steppe that had a different autosomal composition because, of course, traveled just south (the evident cause was surely an internal apartheid as R1a and R1b didn't mixed in their paths), thereafter they were so impressed by the BB pots that they just took off all their cultural traits (but keeping their language), and once they reached Iberia replaced the commoners (but the women weren't able to adapt to the hushing language of their husbands and lerant Basque to their children). Fine. Which tittle has this tale?

berun
05-05-17, 23:40
@bicicleur, and what was there new that was not 1000 years before in South Portugal ? look before at WALLS, GATES AND TOWERS. FORTIFIED SETTLEMENTS IN THE SOUTH AND CENTRE OF PORTUGAL: SOME NOTES ABOUT VIOLENCE AND WALLS IN THE 3rd MILLENIUM BCE

Olympus Mons
05-05-17, 23:47
@Berun,
I think Reich paper just wanted to give us more aDna that confirms what we know for very, very, long.
a. BB came out of Iberia.

b. We all know that they were not a massive replace of local populations. actually they kept abay. as local population tended to cluster around rivers, they maintained the tradition seen in south portugal (mercador, juromenha) and spain (la pijotilla, san blas) and in Zambujal, leceia and VNSP to always look for a small hill or mound and have the High ground. Specially spread in a distance that they could actually see the others, and then the others a mile or so away...smart dudes.

c. They moved to a place in a group of males. then females would be ferried to them there. By the low mixing they showed for centuries, one would presume BB women were the ones ferried to them.

d. so, when in Switzerland, things seemed to change. There even locals were changing and BB seemed to not halt in there the ferried of women from behind.

e. When the BB got into Central Europe, that transition was mediated by a cultural transition, because the homogeneity disappeared. And there was a good exogamy. It seems as if it was to far way to ferry many women so they needed local women and they got it from CWC.

f. From that point on, contrary to what had happened to the earlier Iberian BB up until Switzerland and even Czepel, the half breeds with CWC were a group of mean SOBs that replaced the local admix completely.

See that is all that reich is saying… I mean he says himself he is just stating facts of genetics…and it confirms what we know for a decade… even better. Its just that our different sensitivities to it makes us read more than it is to read. :)

MOESAN
05-05-17, 23:55
Admixture from residual LBK groups in central Europe prior to moving to Britain. That's what the Rathlin paper suggested. I suspect the new paper will say the same. This isn't difficult folks. tr0lling for the sake of tr0lling and being contrary for the sake of it isn't beneficial.

The latest paper concluding that BB spreading to central Europe from Iberia via ideas rather than genetics is an argument against R1b arriving from Iberia. All the central European BB have been derived for L23+. None of the genetic results will prove anything beyond a doubt, but the arguments have certainly been suggestive.

R1b arrived in Britain from Germany/Czech during the Bronze Age with BB, and modern Brits are a very closer match to these people. Nothing else is being concluded in the paper, and frankly, nothing else is relevant.

I doubt a typically LBK pop would have had a strong demic input upon British BB's (at first) as well for phenotypical reasons as for auDNA ones; their human stock seems rather come from Northwestern Alps and Rhine lands (+ Westphalen); their dolicho's (rarest) elements were on the CWC side, and I think some among the labelled 'EEF' mt-DNA found among CWC could be in fact a long stage North Pontic one, so with proper auDNA drifts compared to cousin mtDNA stayed South Caucasus and Anatolia -

berun
05-05-17, 23:56
What amazes me more about the BB people is how fast they spread: by 2500 in the Rhône Valley, by 2450 in the Rhin bassin, by 2400 in England and Central Europe and thereafter spreading further.

The abstract says that BB changed completely autosomals in Britain, but it was by profiting an empty space or by force...? if the second option was the case, what would prevent to do the same in other areas?

MOESAN
06-05-17, 00:08
too small and uneven samples for huge territories with local stories; long time span between first and last BB's - lack of samples from all megalithic regions (particularly NW Iberia and France) - I know the work is hard: BB's settlement shew variations by time, with first "pure" BB's and then starlike developpment of acculturated firstly not-BB's people (well illustrated in S-E France, but not by force the truth everywhere) - strongly new phenotypes in some first settlements and dilution after (like in S France) - I put "-" for "pure" because the so typical BB's of CSW Germany (Worms) = the prototype, were maybe a between pop controlling Rhône and Rhine between SW Iberia and North Europe, and perhaps not the genuine first BB's who knows?...
I fear we 'll be a bit disappointed by results after so long waiting, for the reasons I wrote above -

MOESAN
06-05-17, 00:21
@bicicleur, and what was there new that was not 1000 years before in South Portugal ? look before at WALLS, GATES AND TOWERS. FORTIFIED SETTLEMENTS IN THE SOUTH AND CENTRE OF PORTUGAL: SOME NOTES ABOUT VIOLENCE AND WALLS IN THE 3rd MILLENIUM BCE

interesting, but what is your point here? THat first BB's were the builders of these fortresses? Just to know. It seems they began their defined BB's life outside these walls, before coming inside to live at first in well marked quarters, at the beginning (or before their pots and maybe some pots makers come inside) Cardoso's works? - hard question.

MOESAN
06-05-17, 00:44
Finally, some clarity.

From their abstract, for them to conclude that beaker pots didn't move to Central Europe with a mass movement of people, there shouldn't be much, if any, autosomal difference between Iberian Beaker and pre-steppe Central European Copper Age people, yes? I highly doubt the Reich Lab would make a mistake like this, but we'll see when the Iberian Beaker samples are released.

As for copper technology in Iberia, I highly doubt it's a local development; there's no indication of that in the archaeology. I've been arguing since the days of dna-forums that it either arrived directly from the Balkans or by diffusion along the north Mediterranean coast. It had nothing to do with the steppe. Even if there was a migration of some people, since everyone was generally "Sardinian like" genetically, you might not be able to distinguish between them.

@OM,

Why on earth would they make claims about Iberian Beakers if they have no samples?

Agree for the most: Copper surely has nothing to do with Steppes in Europe (and maybe elsewhere) - the El Argar complex shows ties with Eastern mediterranean but before them Chalco people - as you say Copper work could be come from East-Central Europe (Hungaria, and earlier Balkans), whatever the road: Adriatic or/and North Mediterranea Sea, over lands across Italy - but I think the launching of copper mining in West began on the impulse of knowledged people from East or South-East and doesn't seem linked to Megalithers at first -

MOESAN
06-05-17, 00:51
Also it's quite amazing the history about steppe warriors of a kind of R1b not found in the steppe that had a different autosomal composition because, of course, traveled just south (the evident cause was surely an internal apartheid as R1a and R1b didn't mixed in their paths), thereafter they were so impressed by the BB pots that they just took off all their cultural traits (but keeping their language), and once they reached Iberia replaced the commoners (but the women weren't able to adapt to the hushing language of their husbands and lerant Basque to their children). Fine. Which tittle has this tale?

I've no religion to date - but Y-R1b could have been cutted off by Y-R1a introgression in N-E and CN Europe (CWC) and some Y-R1b pre-L51 stay South the Carpathians rather than North? For language, at this stage we know almost nothing.

Fire Haired14
06-05-17, 01:46
Distinct cultural traditions must have existed in Eastern Bell Beaker if they were basically local MN-Steppe hybrids who adopted a pottery style from their western neighbors. I would guess that the Eastern Beaker folk practiced many Steppe cultural traditions: Pastoralism, Nomadism, single inhumataion burials?

Fire Haired14
06-05-17, 01:49
In terms of mtDNA Neolithic Iberians and Neolithic Central Europeans differ little but do differ. One significant difference, in the samples we have so far, the Iberians have a lot more H1-H3 and basically completely lack N1a1a. German Bell Beaker had a decent amount of H1-H3. They definitely could have had Neo Iberian ancestry.

Olympus Mons
06-05-17, 01:50
@Moesan,
Maybe this have written a while back is interesting to understand.

"a. So, what we know is that prior to the rise of Bell beakers, at the exact same spot near Lisbon area, we had a warrior elite. There is a not very much talked about artisan place, Arruda dos Pisôes (http://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/viewFile/303/303) , just north of VNSP and where they made the not that famous but should be famous given the interest in Bell beakers large bifacial flaked daggers something for all purposes nonfunctional, ritualistic and Symbolic …and completely useless… Hence they were only found at local burials just like later the Copper daggers of Bell beakers.
This is something to add to the “Copos” they also made in the region, pottery cups on their way to become bell beakers pottery that was found earlier than anywhere else in the exact same region. Bell beaker dispersal occurred when the “War” was over, because it happen at a point when people started to abandon the Fortified places and moved to open ground by 2800BC, after a period of something like 5 centuries, half a millenia, where they lived beneath the power and sway of fortified places."

Olympus Mons
06-05-17, 02:07
just another fact on those very long daggers of Arruda dos Pisôes... the production was made there but the daggers were handed over to the owner, that would polished it and then at time of burial there they were, huge and shining. ...So if someone is thinking where bell beakers got the fixation for daggers...

MarkoZ
06-05-17, 04:30
I would guess that the Eastern Beaker folk practiced many Steppe cultural traditions: Pastoralism, Nomadism, single inhumataion burials?

You guessed wrong. Western Beaker is completely elusive in that there are no actual settlements - the BB bearers usually just repurpose existing megalithic or flat graves, indicating that they didn't settle for long periods. Most of the time that repurposing entailed one or two Beakers burials being inserted into an abandoned Megalithic collective grave. That's why some archaeologists refer to BB as a phenomenon rather than a material culture in the strict sense. The first proper Bell Beaker settlement appears in Bavaria, associated with the Bohemian group. Though here also Beaker people constitute minority like everywhere else except parts of the Atlantic coast.

Single burials and the pastoral economies are found all over Europe in the Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic. This is what makes this period quite vexing - it is for this reason that Gimbutas, Mallory, Heyd and others posited an early steppe introgression reaching even westernmost Europe already in the 4th millennium BC. Hence Baalberge, Baden, Remedello, Maritime Beaker and so forth were often considered 'kurganized' due to their inventories of copper axes, statue menhirs & single male burials. Obviously this is falsified by ancient DNA and adjusted radiocarbon dates which often predate those of parallel developments in Russia, so the source must be sought somewhere else.

berun
06-05-17, 07:06
interesting, but what is your point here? THat first BB's were the builders of these fortresses? Just to know. It seems they began their defined BB's life outside these walls, before coming inside to live at first in well marked quarters, at the beginning (or before their pots and maybe some pots makers come inside) Cardoso's works? - hard question.

The fortresses were build some centuries before the BB culture... South Iberia had a increase of population (there are vilages of some hectares). If the "ecosystem" that maintained such population failed you know what usualy happens... war lords start their work.

bicicleur
06-05-17, 08:23
@bicicleur, and what was there new that was not 1000 years before in South Portugal ? look before at WALLS, GATES AND TOWERS. FORTIFIED SETTLEMENTS IN THE SOUTH AND CENTRE OF PORTUGAL: SOME NOTES ABOUT VIOLENCE AND WALLS IN THE 3rd MILLENIUM BCE

the timing and the architecture

The great building programmes were implemented at the beginning of the life of
these settlements, mainly dating from the end of the first quarter of the third millennium
BCE.

Walls, doors and towers. Fortified settlements in the south and centre of Portugal: some notes about violence and walls in the 3rd millenium BCE. (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273123821_Walls_doors_and_towers_Fortified_settlem ents_in_the_south_and_centre_of_Portugal_some_note s_about_violence_and_walls_in_the_3rd_millenium_BC E [accessed May 6, 2017].

some were even late 4th millenium

Zambujal II was 2000 BC

Check Dieneke

bicicleur
06-05-17, 08:27
@Berun,
I think Reich paper just wanted to give us more aDna that confirms what we know for very, very, long.
a. BB came out of Iberia.

b. We all know that they were not a massive replace of local populations. actually they kept abay. as local population tended to cluster around rivers, they maintained the tradition seen in south portugal (mercador, juromenha) and spain (la pijotilla, san blas) and in Zambujal, leceia and VNSP to always look for a small hill or mound and have the High ground. Specially spread in a distance that they could actually see the others, and then the others a mile or so away...smart dudes.

c. They moved to a place in a group of males. then females would be ferried to them there. By the low mixing they showed for centuries, one would presume BB women were the ones ferried to them.

d. so, when in Switzerland, things seemed to change. There even locals were changing and BB seemed to not halt in there the ferried of women from behind.

e. When the BB got into Central Europe, that transition was mediated by a cultural transition, because the homogeneity disappeared. And there was a good exogamy. It seems as if it was to far way to ferry many women so they needed local women and they got it from CWC.

f. From that point on, contrary to what had happened to the earlier Iberian BB up until Switzerland and even Czepel, the half breeds with CWC were a group of mean SOBs that replaced the local admix completely.

See that is all that reich is saying… I mean he says himself he is just stating facts of genetics…and it confirms what we know for a decade… even better. Its just that our different sensitivities to it makes us read more than it is to read. :)

were exactly did BB meet CWC ?
was there CWC in the Carpathian Basin ? in Moldavia ?
what do you think about exchange between Csepl and Vucedol ?

bicicleur
06-05-17, 08:39
just another fact on those very long daggers of Arruda dos Pisôes... the production was made there but the daggers were handed over to the owner, that would polished it and then at time of burial there they were, huge and shining. ...So if someone is thinking where bell beakers got the fixation for daggers...

so stone daggers coppied by BB in copper?
and 2800 BC a switch from warring societies to the BB trading societies?

Olympus Mons
06-05-17, 16:02
were exactly did BB meet CWC ?
was there CWC in the Carpathian Basin ? in Moldavia ?
what do you think about exchange between Csepl and Vucedol ?

Bicicleur,
The reason Johannes Krause chose Augsburg for the upcoming paper is because that is because that is exactly where CWC met BB (from petit chasseur ) . Those Swiss BB (still southern kind as per Desoderi and Marie Besse) were the ones entering first in contact with CWC.

Lets see what Johannes Krause says about that encounter….

berun
06-05-17, 16:40
the timing and the architecture

The great building programmes were implemented at the beginning of the life of
these settlements, mainly dating from the end of the first quarter of the third millennium
BCE.

Walls, doors and towers. Fortified settlements in the south and centre of Portugal: some notes about violence and walls in the 3rd millenium BCE. (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273123821_Walls_doors_and_towers_Fortified_settlem ents_in_the_south_and_centre_of_Portugal_some_note s_about_violence_and_walls_in_the_3rd_millenium_BC E [accessed May 6, 2017].

some were even late 4th millenium

Zambujal II was 2000 BC

Check Dieneke

If 3300 BC is not old enough for you, you can look at Los Millares (http://www.culturandalucia.com/ALMER%C3%8DA/Los_Millares_Recorrido_fotogr%C3%A1fico.htm) instead to Dienekes...

bicicleur
06-05-17, 19:56
If 3300 BC is not old enough for you, you can look at Los Millares (http://www.culturandalucia.com/ALMER%C3%8DA/Los_Millares_Recorrido_fotogr%C3%A1fico.htm) instead to Dienekes...

so you think 1300 years later in Zambujal, those were still the same people?
and all of a sudden they had new architecture, new burial rituals and knew know-how (bronze) ?
and before constructing their fortress they burn down the village of their neighbours for 2000 years ?

berun
06-05-17, 20:59
You said that Argarians came from the Aegean by their defensive architecture, I just expose that such techniques were known many centuries before in Iberia. I'm not pointing to any ethnic origin / change / continuity, it was not the discussion.

MOESAN
06-05-17, 20:59
Bicicleur,
The reason Johannes Krause chose Augsburg for the upcoming paper is because that is because that is exactly where CWC met BB (from petit chasseur ) . Those Swiss BB (still southern kind as per Desoderi and Marie Besse) were the ones entering first in contact with CWC.

Lets see what Johannes Krause says about that encounter….

Just a precision: Augsburg is in Bavaria, not in Switzerland - an the "mediterranean" (demic and geography) nature of Swiss BB's is discutable, because Desideri herself avows there was not big differences between her W-Switzerland BBs pops and the preceding ones; maybe rather acculturation of genetically not too far pops? -

bicicleur
06-05-17, 21:17
Bicicleur,
The reason Johannes Krause chose Augsburg for the upcoming paper is because that is because that is exactly where CWC met BB (from petit chasseur ) . Those Swiss BB (still southern kind as per Desoderi and Marie Besse) were the ones entering first in contact with CWC.

Lets see what Johannes Krause says about that encounter….

Augsburg is indeed Bavaria, not Switzerland,
and this is the oldest R1b-U152 I know of, it is in Bavaria, along the Danube :



Bell Beaker
Germany
Osterhofen-Altenmarkt [RISE563]
M


R1b1a2a1a2b
PF6570/S28/U152
K1c1
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015); Mathieson 2015



it is not dated directly, but from the context, it's the oldest R1b-U152 I know

MOESAN
06-05-17, 21:24
But some CWC and BB settlements were found in vicinity near the Constance Lac, closer yet to Switzerland, and overlapped just a bit chronologically speaking - But I don't think CWC were densely settled in Southern Germany, as a whole; their strongholds were rather in Sax-Anhalt and surroundings, in the Northern half of Germany; knowing the true place of first meeting between them seems very difficult, they had continual contacts in more than a place, i suppose.

MOESAN
06-05-17, 21:47
What amazes me more about the BB people is how fast they spread: by 2500 in the Rhône Valley, by 2450 in the Rhin bassin, by 2400 in England and Central Europe and thereafter spreading further.

The abstract says that BB changed completely autosomals in Britain, but it was by profiting an empty space or by force...? if the second option was the case, what would prevent to do the same in other areas?

I think people, even certain scientists, affirm upheavals and turn over here and there without having sufficient data to cover the whole terrirories, and the most we have concerning DNA of the metals ages are elites buryings, as a rule if I'm not wrong - at some periods, warlike elites dominating local pops more numerous than these elites - in Britain it seems they took the places they wanted, and push the earlier pops a bit farther - I doubt they completely overran the preceding pops, only take the places they needed - the today auDNA of British was not made only by the BB's: they have their pre-BB's and post-BB's parts, today heavier than the BB's heritage; the Britain case is a specific one by the way -
late BBs by force? possible but not sure, maybe interactions for economical or other reasons? It seems their settlements were close enough sometimes to CWC settlements and even if the exchanges were not always peaceful they did not show a colonisation of complete large territories - sometimes they seemed more as ghests than invaders

MarkoZ
06-05-17, 21:58
Just a precision: Augsburg is in Bavaria, not in Switzerland - an the "mediterranean" (demic and geography) nature of Swiss BB's is discutable, because Desideri herself avows there was not big differences between her W-Switzerland BBs pops and the preceding ones; maybe rather acculturation of genetically not too far pops? -

Right, though evidence suggests that Corded Ware in Switzerland was quite short-lived and disappeared before the arrival of Bell Beaker, as suggested here (http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/2003_furholt.pdf). As you say, the earliest contact between CW & BB should be in South-West Germany accordingly. Incidentally, it's a mere 20 minutes hike from my house to place where Beakers tapped into the largest copper mines in Central Europpe and eventually came to outnumber the surrounding forest dwellers of CW, so I consider myself sort of an expert ;)

The indigenous Blätterhöhle-Pfahlbauten cultures of Switzlerland and West Germany should derive from the Michelsberg horizon emanating from France (Paris). That's why the numerically inferior Beakers don't noticably stick out - skeletally, those agropastoral cultures have their closest analogy in the Mesolithic Combe Capelle, as demonstrated in this (file:///C:/Users/M/Downloads/26796-76775-1-PB.pdf) paper. What this suggests to me is that in Switzerland too the inhabitants were heavily Mesolithic in their aDNA much like the Blätterhöhle samples.

Since both Michelsberg derived cultures (Blätterhöhle, Baalberge) sampled to date have yielded R1 or R1b, I suspect there might have been high frequencies in all of the associated local cultures. It would certainly explain why R1b replaced CW & Middle Neolithic lineages in these regions despite a rather weak Beaker presence.

bicicleur
06-05-17, 22:57
I think people, even certain scientists, affirm upheavals and turn over here and there without having sufficient data to cover the whole terrirories, and the most we have concerning DNA of the metals ages are elites buryings, as a rule if I'm not wrong - at some periods, warlike elites dominating local pops more numerous than these elites - in Britain it seems they took the places they wanted, and push the earlier pops a bit farther - I doubt they completely overran the preceding pops, only take the places they needed - the today auDNA of British was not made only by the BB's: they have their pre-BB's and post-BB's parts, today heavier than the BB's heritage; the Britain case is a specific one by the way -
late BBs by force? possible but not sure, maybe interactions for economical or other reasons? It seems their settlements were close enough sometimes to CWC settlements and even if the exchanges were not always peaceful they did not show a colonisation of complete large territories - sometimes they seemed more as ghests than invaders

the BB Wessex elite (2000 - 1400 BC) enlarged old Stonehenge
maybe to gain prestige from the locals they ruled?

Olympus Mons
06-05-17, 23:39
Just a precision: Augsburg is in Bavaria, not in Switzerland - an the "mediterranean" (demic and geography) nature of Swiss BB's is discutable, because Desideri herself avows there was not big differences between her W-Switzerland BBs pops and the preceding ones; maybe rather acculturation of genetically not too far pops? -


I know! - what I am saying is - Long decades argument that the Swiss bell beakers were of the eastern kind, Jocelyn and Marie Besse clearly stated and proved by Nm dental traits that swiss BB were clearly of the southtern kind or stock and not the eastern kind. So, when Bicicleur asks where BB met CWC it was in there in southern baviera. Some CWC maps even show a "peninsula" getting near the petit chasseur.... so definitly there was the point where BB met CWC.

epoch
07-05-17, 21:38
That is not a choice, I think they take their samples with good prospects for high DNA recovery wherever they can find them.

I quote Nick Pattersons replying to Fire Haireds complains at Davids with regard to this:


1)
@Samuel Andrews
< I don't understand why the sampled the bleep out of Britain. Just like I don't
< understand why they sampled the bleep out of Neolithic Hungary, East Germany, and North
< Spain.
I've seen this kind of comment quite often on this blog. It misundertands the aDNA world. We pretty much take what we can get. It's not as though you successfully
recover aDNA from everywhere one would wish.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2017/05/the-bell-beaker-behemoth-olade-reich-et.html?showComment=1493925545459#c430196713339443 272

For what it's worth it would be hugely interesting to see North-West European samples. But almost all of the Bell Beaker samples, which were almost invariably put in barrows in sand soils, have withered away due to the natural acidity of such soils. They left their mark tough as something called a "body silhouette", not unlike this Protruding Foot example:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j8jvwyRnB2U/VjeUEH8clkI/AAAAAAAAK_k/2LWx3ZAyQbo/s1600/Capture.JPG

MOESAN
07-05-17, 23:04
I know! - what I am saying is - Long decades argument that the Swiss bell beakers were of the eastern kind, Jocelyn and Marie Besse clearly stated and proved by Nm dental traits that swiss BB were clearly of the southtern kind or stock and not the eastern kind. So, when Bicicleur asks where BB met CWC it was in there in southern baviera. Some CWC maps even show a "peninsula" getting near the petit chasseur.... so definitly there was the point where BB met CWC.

Maybe I was not clear enough - only a general statement of mine: uneasy to say where and when AT FIRST BBs met CWC (or the opposite!); what is not an opposition to your thought but the manifestation of my doubts and ignorance with the data we have -
&: at the mergin, concerning Switzerland BB's things are not clear spite some discutable conclusons contradicting other words of the same authors:
Desideri dixit: ..." So, we have seen that the Swiss sites do not mix with the eastern domain, but fit well with the southern domain. The axis of external influences is clearly southern, whether this occurred during the Final Neolithic or the Bell Beaker in western Switzerland. "...
the same could be said about S-France BB's. SO demic input of great importance or acculturation there? Just a question, not an answer.

MOESAN
07-05-17, 23:24
Right, though evidence suggests that Corded Ware in Switzerland was quite short-lived and disappeared before the arrival of Bell Beaker, as suggested here (http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/2003_furholt.pdf). As you say, the earliest contact between CW & BB should be in South-West Germany accordingly. Incidentally, it's a mere 20 minutes hike from my house to place where Beakers tapped into the largest copper mines in Central Europpe and eventually came to outnumber the surrounding forest dwellers of CW, so I consider myself sort of an expert ;)

The indigenous Blätterhöhle-Pfahlbauten cultures of Switzlerland and West Germany should derive from the Michelsberg horizon emanating from France (Paris). That's why the numerically inferior Beakers don't noticably stick out - skeletally, those agropastoral cultures have their closest analogy in the Mesolithic Combe Capelle, as demonstrated in this (file:///C:/Users/M/Downloads/26796-76775-1-PB.pdf) paper. What this suggests to me is that in Switzerland too the inhabitants were heavily Mesolithic in their aDNA much like the Blätterhöhle samples.

Since both Michelsberg derived cultures (Blätterhöhle, Baalberge) sampled to date have yielded R1 or R1b, I suspect there might have been high frequencies in all of the associated local cultures. It would certainly explain why R1b replaced CW & Middle Neolithic lineages in these regions despite a rather weak Beaker presence.



I don't agree with your agreement!!! LOL - I was not saying the earliest contacts BB/CWC was in Southern Germany because I have not the knowledge to say this - I just corrected my remark made to Olympus Mons by saying there had been contacts close to Switzerland ; the first ones? I cannot confirm or infirm it -
I cannot be sure but I think from what I red that the most of Late Neolithic people of Switzerland was rather on the diverse 'mediterranean' sides (EEF for the unprecise auDNa), with ang them people come from Provence shores (Cardial and post-Cardial), with surely some Mesolithic remnants here and there; I doubt the 'capelloid'like types were remained a majority there, even if they were heavy enough some K-years before -
concerning BB's we can have an accord to say they had for the most spotted settlements, except some strongholds which never reached the state of complete regions in the modern sense -

MOESAN
07-05-17, 23:26
I forgot some of the Swiss valleys shew also 'alpine ' pehontypes of unkown auDNA assignation bit it's not the focus of this topic

Dagne
08-05-17, 06:32
[QUOTE forest dwellers of CW[/QUOTE]


it is just a short observation; I am surprised to hear that CW in Southern Germany lived in forests. In the Baltic, when CW came there, they were very much distinguished from local HG by avoiding to live in the forests, rather burning forests to turn them into pastures and staying near the busiest "hubs" rivers or lakes where they could travel easily (summer - winter migrations) and exchange goods.

LeBrok
08-05-17, 08:37
[QUOTE forest dwellers of CW it is just a short observation; I am surprised to hear that CW in Southern Germany lived in forests. In the Baltic, when CW came there, they were very much distinguished from local HG by avoiding to live in the forests, rather burning forests to turn them into pastures and staying near the busiest "hubs" rivers or lakes where they could travel easily (summer - winter migrations) and exchange goods.
Good point, all northern Europe was forested, so it seemed that they have chosen to live in forest. The truth is that they burned or cut the forest to create meadows and fields for grazing animals and crops.

MarkoZ
08-05-17, 12:43
it is just a short observation; I am surprised to hear that CW in Southern Germany lived in forests. In the Baltic, when CW came there, they were very much distinguished from local HG by avoiding to live in the forests, rather burning forests to turn them into pastures and staying near the busiest "hubs" rivers or lakes where they could travel easily (summer - winter migrations) and exchange goods.

I don't know much about CW beyond Germany to be honest, but the glaring difference of course is that the late neolithic of southern Germany and Switzerland already saw the peak of the cattle industry before the arrival of CW. I think cattle makes up more than 40% of the domesticates in Michelsberg sites and descendant cultures.

In the Bronze Age there seems to be a general shift from cattle to domestic pig that affects much of Central Europe.

Angela
10-05-17, 16:27
Finally, the paper is out.

See:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/09/135962.full.pdf

MarkoZ
10-05-17, 17:46
Finally, the paper is out.

See:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/09/135962.full.pdf

So we have R1b1a(xR1b1a1a2a) in a Spanish Bell Beaker and Croatian Vucedol belongs to the Volga-Uralian R1b1a1a2a2. That narrows the origin of Western R1b down to either France or Central-Eastern Europe.

Angela
10-05-17, 21:35
It seems to me that R1b was all over Europe, especially the Balkans and Ukraine, but also Spain and France, during the Mesolithic. The Balkans may be the "source", and it moved onto the steppe from there. So far, the only IE R1b is the eastern version which is not a big player in most of Europe, unless and until they find L51 on the steppe. Since the Bell- Beakers are around 50% steppe, it must be there somewhere.*

All the British Neolithic y is I2.

Enough with the spamming of "Spanish Bell Beaker people moved to Central Europe to mix with steppe people and form northern "Bell Beaker". They were just pots, people!

"For Beaker Complex individuals from Iberia, the best fit was obtained when Middle Neolithic and Copper Age populations from the same region were used as a source for their Neolithic farmer-related ancestry, and we could exclude central and northern European populations (P < 4.69E-03) (Fig. 2c). Conversely, the Neolithic farmer-relateancestry in Beaker Complex individuals outside Iberia was most closely related to central and northern European Neolithic populations with relatively high hunter-gatherer admixture (e.g. Globular_Amphora_LN, P = 0.14; TRB_Sweden_MN, P = 0.29), and we could significantly exclude Iberian sources (P < 3.18E-08) (Fig. 2c). These results support largely different origins for Beaker Complex individuals, with no discernible Iberia-related ancestry outside Iberia."

*I take that back. A lot of Central European Bell Beaker were not 50% steppe.

"At Szigetszentmiklós in Hungary, we find Beaker Complex- associated individuals with very different proportions (from 0% to 74%) of Steppe ancestry but overlapping dates.

"Our results suggest that a portion of the ancestry of the Neolithic farmers of Britain217 was derived from migrants who spread along the Atlantic coast. Megalithic tombs document218 substantial interaction along the Atlantic façade of Europe, and our results are consistent with219 such interactions reflecting movements of people. More data from southern Britain (where our220 sampling is sparse) and nearby regions in continental Europe will be needed to fully understandthe complex interactions between Britain and the continent in the Neolithic43 221."

arvistro
10-05-17, 22:20
[QUOTE forest dwellers of CW


it is just a short observation; I am surprised to hear that CW in Southern Germany lived in forests. In the Baltic, when CW came there, they were very much distinguished from local HG by avoiding to live in the forests, rather burning forests to turn them into pastures and staying near the busiest "hubs" rivers or lakes where they could travel easily (summer - winter migrations) and exchange goods.[/QUOTE]
Interestingly in Baltic languages name for forest comes from from Proto-Baltic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Baltic) *medya-s (https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/medya-s&action=edit&redlink=1) and *medis (https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/medis&action=edit&redlink=1) , from Proto-Indo-European (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language) *medʰi- (https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/med%CA%B0i-&action=edit&redlink=1), *medʰyo- (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/med%CA%B0yo-) (“middle; in-between”). The original meaning was “(that which is) in the middle, in-between” > “forest” (since long ago villages were like little islands between stretches of forest, “what is between (villages)” = “forest”).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/me%C5%BEs#Etymology_2

Maciamo
10-05-17, 22:48
The paper is out, and it turns out that it is exactly the way I said it would be. This is one of the topics on which the majority of people have consistently disagreed with me over the years. I explained in my first version of the R1b history in 2009 that Steppe R1b-M269 people invaded the Megalithic/Bell Beaker culture, who were ethnically descended from Mesolithic HG and Neolithic farmers. Since my original migration maps in 2009, I have used a blue colour for the Megalithic + Bell Beaker regions because I had predicted that haplogroup I2 had made a come back after blending with Neolithic farmers in western Europe, especially in the Atlantic fringe. I got an early confirmation of this suspicion from Lacan 2011, who found two out of two I2a1 in Megalithic France. Logically hunter-gatherers would survive in larger numbers and have more chance to prevail over time in regions where agriculture arrived last like Scandinavia, the British Isles, but also western France and northwest Iberia. So Megalithic people had to be a blend of I2, G2a and other minor Neolithic lineages, including some that came via North Africa like R1b-V88, I showed red dots for the progression of foreign Steppe R1b-M269 into that Megalithic/Beaker culture. Note how I stopped the advance of R1b at the Pyrenees until 1800 BCE.

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/early_middle_bronze_europe.png

When Lee et al. 2012 found R1b-M269 in Beaker sites in Germany, most people were convinced that those R1b people were the ones who created the Beaker culture and spread them around Europe. This is what Jean Manco wrote in her book Ancestral Journeys, and one of the few points on which I disagreed with her. I had to start three specific threads to explain that the Bell Beaker was not an ethnic culture and that they were just pots traded along commercial routes, and that R1b-L51 didn't reach Iberia by 2900 BCE when the Beaker pots first appeared there. But very few people listened. There are times when I am not confident about my hypotheses or theories (e.g. origin of the Anatolian branch of IE), and when that is the case I say so. But here it is the only scenario that made sense since Bell Beaker spread from SW Europe to Central Europe, in the completely opposite direction of the spread of R1b and bronze technology. That's why I stuck to it and defended my theory. I am glad I won't have to fight about this any more. Case settled.

I have said it before. I am not a career academic and I have nothing to gain from being right apart from a very ephemeral feeling of self-satisfaction for a few minutes. I have no agenda apart from discovering the truth about what happened in (pre)history, whatever that may be. I chose from the start not to publicly display my Y-haplogroup so that it wouldn't influence the way people read what I write, as I value my neutrality and try to be fair and impartial toward all haplogroups.

berun
10-05-17, 23:08
Enough with the spamming of "Spanish Bell Beaker people moved to Central Europe to mix with steppe people and form northern "Bell Beaker". They were just pots, people!

Also weapons travelled northwards... pots were to make big feasts in the aftermatch.

;)

By the way any spread from Iberia would be mediated by France and in Central Europe the admixture with locals would end in showing what it's also true, that a big bunch of the CE BB was local Neolithic. The authors say that the Neolithic source for CE BB was from North Europe but the British and French Neolithics were more Iberian-like... such BB also changed their Neolithic sources? this contradiction points goodly what it's done with that.

By the way in the supp they say :


We finally comment on three individuals with uncertain attributions ... Sample I0261 can be assigned to haplogroup R1b1a ... Thus, it seems that I0261 belonged to R1b, but not to the R1b-S116/P312 (R1b1a1a2a1a2) clade ... Sample I0257 can be assigned to haplogroup R1b1 based on derived alleles at mutations R1b1 ... This individual and I0261 could belong to the same haplogroup, but for I0257 we cannot exclude any R1b1 subclade

Quite amazing case, the Iberian Bell Bekers being R1b (2 cases from 4 samples near Barcelona), by some strange reason nobody is capable to give subclades for them. Interesting case as they were also the unique R1b BB without any steppe ancestry. Just too amazing...

BUT, in another paper appearing also today (quite amazing day isn't?), dealing about ancient Portuguese Y-DNA is providing Western R1b subclades in Bronze Age Portugal (1700-1400)... also without steppe ancestry (no CHG).

Quite amazing those far-traveling Yamnayans (and now with 36 Y-DNA samples from Ukraine none is providing a proof for the matter of faith R1b-L51 there).

Maciamo
10-05-17, 23:18
Quite amazing case, the Iberian Bell Bekers being R1b (2 cases from 4 samples near Barcelona), by some strange reason nobody is capable to give subclades for them. Interesting case as they were also the unique R1b BB without any steppe ancestry. Just too amazing...


Why is that amazing? Old clades of R1b (P297 and upstream) were very common among East European HG and also showed up occasionally in central and western Europe. Besides R1b-V88 came to Iberia in the Neolithic via North Africa and was confirmed in Neolithic Catalonia. Iberian Beaker R1b could fit in either category. There was no bronze nor any sign of Indo-Europeanised society in Iberia until 1800 to 1500 BCE at earliest, in some regions only. It's very unlikely that DNA contradicts archeology in this kind of situation.

berun
10-05-17, 23:24
Villabruna was EHG? I can't buy your proposal. And the Neolithic Iberian R1b-V88 now is labeled as R1b1a...

Angela
11-05-17, 00:10
Also weapons travelled northwards... pots were to make big feasts in the aftermatch.

;)

By the way any spread from Iberia would be mediated by France and in Central Europe the admixture with locals would end in showing what it's also true, that a big bunch of the CE BB was local Neolithic. The authors say that the Neolithic source for CE BB was from North Europe but the British and French Neolithics were more Iberian-like... such BB also changed their Neolithic sources? this contradiction points goodly what it's done with that.

By the way in the supp they say :



Quite amazing case, the Iberian Bell Bekers being R1b (2 cases from 4 samples near Barcelona), by some strange reason nobody is capable to give subclades for them. Interesting case as they were also the unique R1b BB without any steppe ancestry. Just too amazing...

BUT, in another paper appearing also today (quite amazing day isn't?), dealing about ancient Portuguese Y-DNA is providing Western R1b subclades in Bronze Age Portugal (1700-1400)... also without steppe ancestry (no CHG).

Quite amazing those far-traveling Yamnayans (and now with 36 Y-DNA samples from Ukraine none is providing a proof for the matter of faith R1b-L51 there). There was no discernible spread From Iberia into CE, Berun. The admixture took place locally, central Europe, for example. Whether anyone likes it or not, those downstream R1b carriers in Central Europe carry "steppe" ancestry,while Iberian beaker people don't, Even if they carry R1b.

As for your bolded comment, as I said above, that happened to a certain extent In the Balkans as well. People were on the move, and the groups weren't all cookie cutter clones of each other.

Nobody said Villabruna was EHG.

LeBrok
11-05-17, 02:14
I have said it before. I am not a career academic and I have nothing to gain from being right apart from a very ephemeral feeling of self-satisfaction for a few minutes. I have no agenda apart from discovering the truth about what happened in (pre)history, whatever that may be. I chose from the start not to publicly display my Y-haplogroup so that it wouldn't influence the way people read what I write, as I value my neutrality and try to be fair and impartial toward all haplogroups.I'm glad you are vindicated. Most of the time your explanations made sense to me, even though I was only learning the subject. Bravo.

Angela
11-05-17, 05:49
Razib Khan's take on the Olalde paper. Exactly how I look at the pigmentation data.

http://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/05/10/the-bronze-age-demographic-transformation-of-britiain/

berun
11-05-17, 07:12
Yes it's amazing how a lab supposedly interested to settle down the origin of BB is not testing more SNPs in Iberian R1b without steppe mix. They just don't consider dates, dental traits and mtDNA proofs. And when they process admixtures they are not capable to find Iberian-like EEF autosomals where they previously recoginze there was (Britain and France). Just I need bisteak of holy cow now!

kingjohn
11-05-17, 15:35
they found mtdna h3 in one of the neolithic britian samples
specifically in orkney dated to 3700-3380 bc I2796
that is so cool they made my day :)))):))))
many of the neolithic brits belong to y haplogroup i-m170

than came the bell beakers and change things :)

MarkoZ
11-05-17, 17:15
Yes it's amazing how a lab supposedly interested to settle down the origin of BB is not testing more SNPs in Iberian R1b without steppe mix. They just don't consider dates, dental traits and mtDNA proofs. And when they process admixtures they are not capable to find Iberian-like EEF autosomals where they previously recoginze there was (Britain and France). Just I need bisteak of holy cow now!

Well 50% R1b1 in the Barcelona Beakers means that at the very least the people who kept saying that Iberian BB would turn out to be unformly I2/G2a have been very wrong. I'm not even sure whether all of those samples are true Beakers and not just random Megalithic remains.

Though that doesn't tell us much about the origin of L51. Among the samples in the paper is an early L51 Beaker from Marlens in southern France whom the authors model as ~20% steppe admixed. I think more samples from these regions might clarify whether his y-DNA was local or came from the east.

Fire Haired14
11-05-17, 20:17
Though that doesn't tell us much about the origin of L51. Among the samples in the paper is an early L51 Beaker from Marlens in southern France whom the authors model as ~20% steppe admixed. I think more samples from these regions might clarify whether his y-DNA was local or came from the east.

I googled the locations in France where the French Beaker Y DNA is from and it is all along France's border with Germany and Switzerland. Pretty far away from Spain. The U152>L2 results in East French, German, Hungarian Beakers indicates Eastern Beaker was U152>L2 and that North Italian U152>L2 might have first arrived with Beaker folk.

MarkoZ
11-05-17, 23:34
I googled the locations in France where the French Beaker Y DNA is from and it is all along France's border with Germany and Switzerland. Pretty far away from Spain. The U152>L2 results in East French, German, Hungarian Beakers indicates Eastern Beaker was U152>L2 and that North Italian U152>L2 might have first arrived with Beaker folk.

I was referring to the earlier Marlens sample.

berun
12-05-17, 13:31
I'm not capable to find the information leaked a year ago in the BB paper:


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 a woman do not tolerate lactose and another had brown eyes.

berun
12-05-17, 14:34
from the paper itself:


A new finding that emerges from our analysis is that Neolithic individuals from southern France and Britain also show a greater affinity to Iberian Early Neolithic farmers than to central European Early Neolithic farmers (Fig. 2b), similar to previous results obtained in a Neolithic farmer genome from Ireland28.

Maybe this could be linked to the previous Megalithic cultures... but:


The distinctive genetic signatures of pre-Beaker Complex populations in Iberia compared to central Europe allow us to test formally for the origin of the Neolithic farmer-related ancestry in Beaker Complex individuals in our dataset (Supplementary Information, section 6). We grouped
individuals from Iberia (n=19) and from outside Iberia (n=84) to increase power, and evaluated the fit of different Neolithic/Copper Age groups with qpAdm under the model: Yamnaya + Neolithic/Copper Age. ... Conversely, the Neolithic farmer-related ancestry in Beaker Complex individuals outside Iberia was most closely related to central and northern European Neolithic populations with relatively high hunter-gatherer admixture (e.g. Globular_Amphora_LN, P = 0.14; TRB_Sweden_MN, P = 0.29), and we could significantly exclude Iberian sources (P < 3.18E-08) (Fig. 2c). These results support largely different origins for Beaker Complex individuals, with no discernible Iberia-related ancestry outside Iberia.

I understand well? even computing all non-Iberian farmers (with those with Iberian-like ancestry in France and UK) they were not capable to find a little "Iberian" track in them?

bicicleur
12-05-17, 16:21
from the paper itself:



Maybe this could be linked to the previous Megalithic cultures... but:



I understand well? even computing all non-Iberian farmers (with those with Iberian-like ancestry in France and UK) they were not capable to find a little "Iberian" track in them?

initially farming was introduced in eastern England by people coming from the old LBK area (middle Germany, Belgium, northern France) and the Swifterbant people (Rhine - Meuse - Scheldt delta)
then megalithic farmers from Atlantic France and Britanny took over in western England and the area around the Irish Sea

berun
12-05-17, 20:08
Bell Beakers from NL 9, HU 8, CZ 2, UK 18, D 32, PL 3, F 9 = 81 continental samples (UK samples were already mixed from CE). If the French samples would per example some 70 maybe results would be different? but with such origin for the samples of course the major Neolithic genetic imput will be LBK-like (if it would be done the contrary, some 70 samples from South France and some 10 from North Europe, surely the Neolithic origin would seem rather different).

8677

Promenade
12-05-17, 20:33
https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/862312476372869120/photo/1

It seems the Bell Beaker arrivals in south east England from central Europe had a very high amount of steppe related ancestry

berun
12-05-17, 20:34
The distinctive genetic signatures of pre-Beaker Complex populations in Iberia compared to central Europe allow us to test formally for the origin of the Neolithic farmer-related ancestry in Beaker Complex individuals in our dataset (Supplementary Information, section 6). We grouped
individuals from Iberia (n=19) and from outside Iberia (n=84) to increase power, and evaluated the fit of different Neolithic/Copper Age groups with qpAdm under the model: Yamnaya + Neolithic/Copper Age. ... Conversely, the Neolithic farmer-related ancestry in Beaker Complex individuals outside Iberia was most closely related to central and northern European Neolithic populations with relatively high hunter-gatherer admixture (e.g. Globular_Amphora_LN, P = 0.14; TRB_Sweden_MN, P = 0.29), and we could significantly exclude Iberian sources (P < 3.18E-08) (Fig. 2c). These results support largely different origins for Beaker Complex individuals, with no discernible Iberia-related ancestry outside Iberia.

Changing Iberia for England, and CE for Zaire, the Reich lab would be capable to distinguish a British migration computing together 75 Mississipi samples and 10 from Maine?

Angela
12-05-17, 21:06
https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/862312476372869120/photo/1

It seems the Bell Beaker arrivals in south east England from central Europe had a very high amount of steppe related ancestryThanks, Promenade. This one's been published, so here's a direct link.


Steppe is black.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_eMgwRXoAEycTp.jpg

epoch
12-05-17, 21:31
Hahaha. I am going to be tad nationalistic on this one, just for the sheer unadulterated hell of it: The Dutch created the English :-)

So, back to earth. On a more serious note, what I find disappointing is that we can't distinguish between several origin hypotheses: There is the Eastern Origin hypothesis and the Rhineland/Dutch origin hypothesis. When you go through the Supp Info and the paper there is more Y-DNA variability eastward than in the west. G2, I2. But we have only Tuithoorn in the Netherlands, which is bloody luck as most Veluwe samples dissolved due to acidic conditions.

But the most important details are that BB, more than CWC, seems to have been originating from combined local sources and steppe sources. We even see completely steppe-less samples such as BB_France_Heg.

EDIT: Let's make clear it isn't the paper that is disappointing. It is epic. I just wished it would have settled the origin case. But what the hell, it solved huge issues, and even more: After its ultimate discredit due to the IE migration theories reinstated, this paper brings cultural exchange as vector for archaeological change back to the table.

berun
21-05-17, 19:55
Checking again the samples and the results there are more problems in this paper:


84 Arroyal I (Arroyal, Burgos, Spain)
85 Contact person: Manuel A. Rojo Guerra
86 The site of Arroyal I was excavated by a research team from the University of Burgos in
87 2011–2012. The site is a megalithic grave with well-preserved structural elements: a
88 rectangular chamber (3x3.5 m), a long corridor (6 m), and a stone mound. The grave
89 was used as a collective burial during 400 years in the Late Neolithic (3300–2900
90 calBCE)19. The grave was then abandoned until the Chalcolithic when it was
91 extensively remodelled: Neolithic layers were almost eliminated; the corridor was filled
92 with rocks and sediment; the useful area inside the chamber was reduced when a stone
93 wall was built; and a floor of limestone blocks was built inside the chamber. Several
94 consecutive and isolated burials (9–10) were then introduced. The last one (Roy5) was a
95 young individual buried with a set of 4 vessels (2 Bell Beakers and 2 carinated bowls)
96 and surrounded by the long bones and skulls from previous burials. She represents the
97 earliest observation of steppe-related genetic affinities in the Iberian Peninsula. Then
98 the dolmen was closed using materials from the site (in secondary position) and, at the
99 same time, the mound height was increased. Finally, an isolated pit grave (Roy4) was
100 made inside the mound. We successfully analysed 5 individuals from this site:
101 Ÿ I0458/Roy1/SU25, Skull 1: 2458–2206 calBCE (3850±30 BP, UGA-15904)
102 Ÿ I0459/Roy2/UE25, Isolated human jaw: 2600–2200 BCE
103 Ÿ I0460/Roy3/SU25, Skull 2: 2461–2210 calBCE (3860±30 BP, UGA-15905)
104 Ÿ I0461/Roy4/SU19, Inhumation 1: 2348–2200 calBCE (3827±25 BP, MAMS-14857)
105 Ÿ I0462/Roy5/SU25, Inhumation 2: 2465–2211 calBCE (3870±30, UGA-15903);
106 2566–2346 calBCE (3950±26 BP, MAMS-25936)
107 Samples Roy1 and Roy3 were genetically first-degree relatives and belonged to
108 different mitochondrial haplogroups, which points to a father-son relationship.


I0460 and I0458 had Y-DNA I2a2a and mtDNA H45 and K1a1b1 (the same mtDNA that I0461, the woman with steppe ancestry buried over such family); the mtDNA of I0462 was K1a+165, and had also steppe ancestry.

In the paper "El dolmen de Arroyal I: usos y modificaciones durante elIII milenio cal AC." by EDUARDO CARMONA BALLESTERO,MIGUEL ÁNGEL ARNAIZ ALONSO & MARÍA DEL CARMEN ALAMEDA CUENCA-ROMERO


La UE 25 identica un acontecimiento representado por el depósito de un individuo joven, cuyo esqueleto se encontró en conexión anatómica, ubicado en la zona SO de la cámara. Se encontraba depositado sobre una zona empedrada elaborada con piedras calizas de mediano tamaño (UE 28). El suelo se localizaba en el lado norte de la cámara, abarcando aproximadamente 2/3 de la misma. Así, el espacio de la cámara queda dividido en dos partes diferenciadas: un suelo de piedra caliza (UE 28) sobre el que se depositan los cadáveres y una zona sin empedrado, más baja, que sirve de espacio para la colocación de ofrendas. En esta zona se encontraron 4 recipientes completos: dos vasos campaniformes de estilo marítimo internacional y dos cazuelillas lisas, que formaban un conjunto ubicado al E de la zona funeraria sin conexión física con el inhumado. ..... Todo el espacio cameral es colmatado por una potente unidad (40 cm) de coloración oscura (UE 21) y con gran cantidad de restos óseos humanos (desarticulados y por general muy fragmentados). Esta unidad tiene la particularidad de no incluir elementos campaniformes sino objetos de atribución precampaniforme. De manera particularizada se puede señalar un fragmento de cuenco decorado con triángulos incisos rellenos de puntos impresos que forman una franja muy ancha de zig-zags. La pieza recuerda bastante a otra recuperada en el cercano yacimiento de Fuente Celada (Alameda Cuenca-Romero et al. 2011) y se puede vincular a otros hallazgos similares en el marco regional (Delibes de Castro y Herrán Martínez 2007, Abarquero et al. 2012). Los materiales arqueológicos del estrato, su disposición y la desarticulación que manifestan los restos humanos indican un depósito cuya formación es consecuencia de acciones vinculadas a una remodelación del ámbito funerario. Esto permite explicar el proceso que da origen al estrato: una colmatación con sedimentos aportados de otro lugar; de igual modo adquiere sentido el carácter fragmentario y las posiciones secundarias que muestran los componentes materiales culturales.

The picture is quite different: both father and son's skulls wouldn't be surrounding the body of I0462 but would be part of a colmation done by the Bell Beakers reusing an old burial from the previous culture (as the rocks and pre-Bell Beaker pottery found in UE21). Summary: UE28 pavement, UE25 body of I0462, UE21 colmation with the skulls and pottery pre-Bell Beaker, UE20 pavement, UE19 body of I0461, UE9 colmation with bones and Ciempozuelos pottery).

Again in the Bell Beaker paper the info is taken mistakedly as such Y-DNA is not Bell Beaker, but considered so.

Olympus Mons
21-05-17, 21:39
@berun
Same with PT cova da Moura samples. 1500 years of burials in that cave and all fragments.... dating was OK, but those would never be Bell beakers.
Even Almonda samples. two girls whose only connection to BB was the coat found there that had perforated V shape buttons.

and they are comparing these kind of samples to proper bell beakers found with graves with the whole enchillada.

berun
21-05-17, 22:17
A case more, no conspirancy, just a fiasco:


52 Paris Street (Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain)
53 Contact person: Joan Francès Farré
54 During urban construction work at Paris Street in Cerdanyola del Vallès (Vallès
55 Occidental, Barcelona province) in 2003, a large amount of skeletal material and
56 associated pottery was unearthed. Follow-up excavation uncovered a Chalcolithic
57 hypogeum with more than 9,000 human remains as well as lithic and ceramic material,
58 the latter assigned to the Bell Beaker tradition18
59 The hypogeum displays several occupational phases. The oldest one presented an ash
60 layer underlying the first inhumations that could have a ritualistic significance. Charcoal
61 from that basal layer was dated to 2878-2496 calBCE (4110±60 BP, UBAR-817). The
62 first funerary phase (UE-15) shows a large number of successive inhumations (minimal
63 number of individuals 36) that are still in anatomical position, placed in lateral
64 decubitus and with flexed knees. Seven arrow points were retrieved from this layer. A
65 thin, upper layer (UE-5) probably represents a re-organization of the existing funerary
66 space, prior to the second funerary phase (UE-2). At UE-5, two Bell Beaker vessels of
67 maritime style were retrieved. The UE-2 layer comprises fewer inhumations, and all of
68 them were accompanied by typical Bell Beaker vessels: three in Maritime style, and two
69 in epi-Maritime style. There were also numerous additional pieces of diverse typology.
70 Over this layer, a final one, labelled UE-3, contained two more skeletons arranged over
71 riverbed pebbles with a Bell Beaker vessel of a regional style known as "Pyrenaic". A
72 bone from this layer yielded the youngest date in the hypogeum of 2469-2206 calBCE
73 (3870±45 BP, UBAR-860). We recovered ancient DNA data from 10 individuals:
74 Ÿ I0257/10362A: 2571–2350 calBCE (3965±29 BP, MAMS-25937)
75 Ÿ I0258/10367A: 2850–2250 BCE
76 Ÿ I0260/10370A: 2850–2250 BCE
77 Ÿ I0261/10378A: 2850–2250 BCE
78 Ÿ I0262/10381A: 2850–2250 BCE
79 Ÿ I0263/10385A: 2850–2250 BCE
80 Ÿ I0823/10360A: 2850–2250 BCE
81 Ÿ I0825/10394A: 2474–2300 calBCE (3915±29 BP, MAMS-25939)
82 Ÿ I0826/10400A: 2833–2480 calBCE (4051±28 BP, MAMS-25940)
83 Ÿ I1553/10388A: 2850–2250 BCE

No steppe ancestry, four Y-DNA results, two being R1b, one G2a, another I2a. For the last two in Catalonia there are levels of 10% for each, for the other two R1b of course would be rare clades, isn't?

Have found the trick? The hypogeum had four buriyng times separated by layers, being those associated with Bell Beakers the superior three. I0826 was I2a2 and has a date that could be assigned to the pre-Bell Beaker period, and the individual I0261, with Y-DNA R1b could be found in whichever period... If I0826 is keept out from the equation we could have a 66% R1b, a similar percent as the actual, and remember, of the same clade as the continental Bell Beakers...

A. Papadimitriou
21-05-17, 22:23
A case more, no conspirancy, just a fiasco:



No steppe ancestry, four Y-DNA results, two being R1b, one G2a, another I2a. For the last two in Catalonia there are levels of 10% for each, for the other two R1b of course would be rare clades, isn't?

Have found the trick? The hypogeum had four buriyng times separated by layers, being those associated with Bell Beakers the superior three. I0826 was I2a2 and has a date that could be assigned to the pre-Bell Beaker period, and the individual I0261, with Y-DNA R1b could be found in whichever period... If I0826 is keept out from the equation we could have a 66% R1b, a similar percent as the actual, and remember, of the same clade as the continental Bell Beakers...

Have you written a text that explains your opinion about R1b expansion(s) in Europe?

berun
21-05-17, 22:43
@ Olympus Mons, in whichever case even counting the I2a of Cova da Moura as Neolithic, there would be so 6 Y-DNA ancient Portugueses of other clades (G2a, I, I2a) with the samples taken in "The population genomics of archaeological transition in west Iberia". Even so, it would be good to check the geography of such samples.

@ A. Papadimitrou, no summary text but hypotheses: clade coming along G2a from Anatolia with the Neolithic, or WHG clade hiding somewhere in Europe and popping up in Eastern Iberia, or clade that get advantage in Anatolia of the copper technology and invaded all Europe from all directions. In whichever case no Indoeuropean (but a mild possibility could be allowed for the third case).

Fire Haired14
21-05-17, 23:30
Even though most Spanish Bell Beaker had no Steppe ancestry I still think that U5a1b1 found in Spanish Bell Beaker earlier this year came from the Steppe.

MarkoZ
21-05-17, 23:40
@ Olympus Mons, in whichever case even counting the I2a of Cova da Moura as Neolithic, there would be so 6 Y-DNA ancient Portugueses of other clades (G2a, I, I2a) with the samples taken in "The population genomics of archaeological transition in west Iberia". Even so, it would be good to check the geography of such samples.

@ A. Papadimitrou, no summary text but hypotheses: clade coming along G2a from Anatolia with the Neolithic, or WHG clade hiding somewhere in Europe and popping up in Eastern Iberia, or clade that get advantage in Anatolia of the copper technology and invaded all Europe from all directions. In whichever case no Indoeuropean (but a mild possibility could be allowed for the third case).

To me everything about R1b-L51 suggest a European origin. What makes you think it came that it could have come from Anatolia?

berun
22-05-17, 21:17
By "uncle" clade in Anatolia, presence of Kura-Araxes-Yamna R1b there, origin of the Neolithic cultures, etc. The truth is that L51 is near to Z2015 so the focus must be in a common place.

berun
22-05-17, 21:57
Leaving aside the possible Iberian pre-BB samples (not including the dubious Portuguese sample), the Y-DNA would be R1b x2, G2 x1, I2a1 x1.

Angela
23-05-17, 16:54
I just went through all the supplementary material on the Beaker sites. Unless I'm missing something, German or Northern or steppe Bell Beaker, whatever you want to call it, bears absolutely no resemblance to the "story" as proposed by Gimbutas and David Anthony: horse riding warriors if not chariot driving warriors, master metallurgists welcomed for their magic, responsible for bringing copper and bronze to Europe, and on and on.

There is none of that in these graves: no horses at all, no wheels either, and extremely poor grave goods. Forget bronze, there isn't even any copper. One grave, in Germany, from Manching-Oberstimm, has a few minor copper items. There are certainly no copper weapons. Indeed, only a few have the wrist guards for archery, which were in any case from Iberian Beaker.

Speaking of Iberian Beaker, the graves are richer, containing copper and gold.

This is even worse than Corded Ware.

Unless I'm missing something it's time to retire those old fantasies which, as I've been saying for a long time, are anachronistic, the result of an unwarranted imposition of Bronze Age culture traits from the east on much more primitive societies.

berun
23-05-17, 19:33
I think that such fantasies will endure more years, there are a lot of people that like the idea of strong and barely-civilized steppe warriors driving chariots capable to conquer all Europe and mating all Neolithic brunettes on the way; the option left would be that their ancestors were indoeuropeanized, so conquered, and the egos of many men wouldn't be so happy with that.

LeBrok
24-05-17, 05:20
I just went through all the supplementary material on the Beaker sites. Unless I'm missing something, German or Northern or steppe Bell Beaker, whatever you want to call it, bears absolutely no resemblance to the "story" as proposed by Gimbutas and David Anthony: horse riding warriors if not chariot driving warriors, master metallurgists welcomed for their magic, responsible for bringing copper and bronze to Europe, and on and on.

There is none of that in these graves: no horses at all, no wheels either, and extremely poor grave goods. Forget bronze, there isn't even any copper. One grave, in Germany, from Manching-Oberstimm, has a few minor copper items. There are certainly no copper weapons. Indeed, only a few have the wrist guards for archery, which were in any case from Iberian Beaker.

Speaking of Iberian Beaker, the graves are richer, containing copper and gold.

This is even worse than Corded Ware.

Unless I'm missing something it's time to retire those old fantasies which, as I've been saying for a long time, are anachronistic, the result of an unwarranted imposition of Bronze Age culture traits from the east on much more primitive societies. No wonder they accepted technological achievements, together with pottery, from Iberian Beakers. I didn't know much about Beakers, but CW spread was obviously due to collapse of farming in Northern Europe and the steppe population spilling out, or being squeezed out of Steppe, due to terrible climate (we have seen this scenario again in Dark Ages). No big conquering armies. Barely anyone of locals left alive to fight. Just big movement of poor population fighting elements for survival, and barely winning. Probably their "winning" attributes were, more northern hunter gatherer genetics, more hunting, more fishing and still doing herding and rudimentary farming.

Angela
25-05-17, 22:12
No wonder they accepted technological achievements, together with pottery, from Iberian Beakers. I didn't know much about Beakers, but CW spread was obviously due to collapse of farming in Northern Europe and the steppe population spilling out, or being squeezed out of Steppe, due to terrible climate (we have seen this scenario again in Dark Ages). No big conquering armies. Barely anyone of locals left alive to fight. Just big movement of poor population fighting elements for survival, and barely winning. Probably their "winning" attributes were, more northern hunter gatherer genetics, more hunting, more fishing and still doing herding and rudimentary farming.What is amazing to me is that even after this paper the conversation is continuing about horse riding men bringing metallurgy.

Either I am really missing something or these people are suffering from a massive cognitive disconnect.

Where are the horses? How could they be bringing metallurgy when the Iberian Beakers already had metallurgy, as did the Central European MN., and, indeed, it was more sophisticated metallurgy than that possessed by the Eastern Beakers. Even the pottery looks more crude to me than the Iberian Beaker pottery.

I also fail to see how this could have been a military invasion made possible by superior weapons when only ONE darn grave had a copper weapon, and that was a measly copper dagger.

The list is growing of pop gen hobbyists, posters or bloggers , whose output I no longer read. With the exception of a very few, stick to the papers by the major labs is my advice.i

Tomenable
26-05-17, 19:07
I also fail to see how this could have been a military invasion made possible by superior weapons when only ONE darn grave had a copper weapon, and that was a measly copper dagger.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d17vfJ7bUVo

bicicleur
26-05-17, 21:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d17vfJ7bUVo

2 years later the British came back with a larger, better equiped army
it happened all the time in history
in the end sheer power wins over bravery

Angela
26-05-17, 21:28
2 years later the British came back with a larger, better equiped army
it happened all the time in history
in the end sheer power wins over braveryTo paraphrase Napoleon, God is on the side of the best artillery.

MOESAN
26-05-17, 22:32
initially farming was introduced in eastern England by people coming from the old LBK area (middle Germany, Belgium, northern France) and the Swifterbant people (Rhine - Meuse - Scheldt delta)
then megalithic farmers from Atlantic France and Britanny took over in western England and the area around the Irish Sea

It seems to me the Atlantic megalithers took the strong side upon the preceding Neolithic people, allover Britain, not only in West - and their seemingly strong density in Y-I2a seems proving a turnover of leadership among Western Neolithic people of the Late period - I think the megalithic part of TRBK, more ponounced in West, is a polongation of these maritime megalithers, as their auDNA seems showing (some more WHG, and more proximity to Basques and Northern Iberians in Gokheim - all this could show the HG's heritage in the megalithic phenomenon in West, separating them in some part from Centrla Europe farmers -

MOESAN
26-05-17, 23:09
Bell Beakers from NL 9, HU 8, CZ 2, UK 18, D 32, PL 3, F 9 = 81 continental samples (UK samples were already mixed from CE). If the French samples would per example some 70 maybe results would be different? but with such origin for the samples of course the major Neolithic genetic imput will be LBK-like (if it would be done the contrary, some 70 samples from South France and some 10 from North Europe, surely the Neolithic origin would seem rather different).


8677

I suppose they have sampled what they could ! (I prefer to not imagine a Patriarcalists-Yamanayists complot here!)
- the southern auDNA among South France and Switzerland was surely more local than the result of a recent Iberian BB input: acculturation (seemingly proved in some S-France settlements by the archeologic point) -
- the Northern/Central Euro BB's were also acculturated, but of a rather different origin, as well for males than for females -
-I'm tempted to imagine an intermediary (rather male) pop or groups between first Iberian BB's and the last ones of Northern Europe, along Northern Rhône and Rhine -
Everybody can mistake...That said as you I wait more BB's DNA / Haplos from Iberia in well/better assigned archeologic layers -

berun
26-05-17, 23:27
complot? no such case, but just an old attitude.

8724

By the way sampling in detail the Barcelona's R1b would have allowed to know if such clades were rare casual extint popping up with BB or some known subclade.

Olympus Mons
26-05-17, 23:55
complot? no such case, but just an old attitude.

By the way sampling in detail the Barcelona's R1b would have allowed to know if such clades were rare casual extint popping up with BB or some known subclade.


Yes... and as if all this Balkans and southeast europe adna deluge is not because they were looking for steppe migration into anatolia to kill off the Anatolian language conundrum.... yeah right. its all a coincidence. :)

Olympus Mons
26-05-17, 23:58
@Moesan,
Nobody acculturates this fast. There's something not right with this new narrative of pots not people.

Angela
27-05-17, 00:36
Yes... and as if all this Balkans and southeast europe adna deluge is not because they were looking for steppe migration into anatolia to kill off the Anatolian language conundrum.... yeah right. its all a coincidence. :)The whole point of a lot of these papers is to test the standard, or perhaps better stated, the popularized version of the P-C steppe origin and dissemination of the Indo-European languages theory. Part of that would have to be to test whether or NOT Yamnaya like DNA turned up at the time and on the route it would have taken. That was their job. What's the problem?

As to people not acculturating that fast, look at most of the Amer-Indians of Central Mexico. How long did it take...300 years to lose language, religion, culture and adapt new technologies?

Northener
27-05-17, 09:45
I suppose they have sampled what they could ! (I prefer to not imagine a Patriarcalists-Yamanayists complot here!)
- the southern auDNA among South France and Switzerland was surely more local than the result of a recent Iberian BB input: acculturation (seemingly proved in some S-France settlements by the archeologic point) -
- the Northern/Central Euro BB's were also acculturated, but of a rather different origin, as well for males than for females -
-I'm tempted to imagine an intermediary (rather male) pop or groups between first Iberian BB's and the last ones of Northern Europe, along Northern Rhône and Rhine -
Everybody can mistake...That said as you I wait more BB's DNA / Haplos from Iberia in well/better assigned archeologic layers -


Olaide e.a. state the chance in genotype, did it also chance the phenotype?


"The Beaker Phenomenon And The Phenotype Transformation Of Northwest Europe"


For example the work of Prof. L. Kooijmans (https://books.google.nl/books?id=6PwUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA319&lpg=PA319&dq=flat+occiput+bell+beaker&source=bl&ots=bQRNEKoU-v&sig=Dxwds5HA4lU-FrGYJ0iHhlZ_PAA&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3i7-jxY_UAhVBbFAKHSgjCwoQ6AEISzAI#v=onepage&q=flat%20occiput%20bell%20beaker&f=false)

MOESAN
27-05-17, 23:39
I could say my thoughts, some well based, other deductions, but i'ts phenotypical anthropo not the focus of the present thread - to answer you, I suppose this aspect was not at all the aim of Olalde -

MOESAN
27-05-17, 23:42
Yes... and as if all this Balkans and southeast europe adna deluge is not because they were looking for steppe migration into anatolia to kill off the Anatolian language conundrum.... yeah right. its all a coincidence. :)

If I believe what you say, it's complot according to my values... But do I believe this? We have an exciting problem to resolve, and it deserves more joy and pure curiosity and less 'a priori' I think -

MOESAN
27-05-17, 23:43
complot? no such case, but just an old attitude.

8724

By the way sampling in detail the Barcelona's R1b would have allowed to know if such clades were rare casual extint popping up with BB or some known subclade.

I did not get open your attachment -

Tomenable
28-05-17, 12:57
2 years later the British came back with a larger, better equiped army

Yes, because they had more resources across the ocean. Neolithic Europeans didn't.

As for the Zulus, they were on drugs when they were attacking (IEs also had drugs).

The Zulus were using cannabis and another more powerful drug:

Watch 28:30 to 39:00 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELdBNCnjDVI#t=28m30s

The Yamnaya also had cannabis (and possibly other drugs too):

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2096440-founders-of-western-civilisation-were-prehistoric-dope-dealers/

berun
28-05-17, 16:24
I did not get open your attachment -

it was like that...

8736

berun
31-05-17, 18:17
After checking that 3 or 4 Y-DNA Iberian samples can't be adscribed with certainity to Bell Beakers (what about to use an scientific method?), I checked the Reich' lab fiasco for the Portuguese and French samples. For Portugal... I can't believe that the lab was not interested to know more about their Y-DNA Bell Beakers (they are capable to test 60 British BB but only one from the area where such culture popped up and spread...), even so it could be accepted that an individual found in a cave used from the Neolithic (hundreds of previously buried people there) with the presence of a BB pot which dates about such epoch was BB...

For SE France:
- Marlens (Savoy, herder country): individual buried inside an arranged crevice, mtDNA H, Y-DNA R1b, 20% steppe autosomal, a BB pot of (late) regional style was found
- La Fare (Alpes-Haute-Provence): individual with mtDNA K1c1 / Y-DNA unkown... it was buried with BB pots of mixed style (comb - cord impressions) as along with regional (late) pots.
- Villard's dolmen (Alpes-Haute-Provence), not far from Savoy and Aosta Valley. 25 people buried there from the BB epoch till Middle Bronze Age. Two samples from the BB epoch were mtDNA T2b3 (female) and the other mtDNA H1e, Y-DNA R1b-U152. The three samples from Alpes-Haute-Provence had some 55% steppe, similar then to their Central European colleages so.

I see some problems with the French / Alpine samples: they are somewhat late and being found in herder territories they could be herders that could have travelled a lot and mix with people afar, so mixing with people here and there or receiving migrations from other herding areas (like the German migrations south of the Alps in Aosta Valley or South Tirol). Being late samples a possible Iberian admixture would be diluted if there was one.

The Reich lab was not aware of BB remains in the Center and the West of the country... just only those near the eastern frontier and not far from the CW giant.

The other French samples are labeled as Central European as they were found in the Rhin bassin:
- Mondelange (near Luxembourg): 9 BB burials from a total of 22, the difference was by time or by migrants? no kurgans? in whichever case they found father and son: H / R1b, U5a2c3a / R1b
- Sierentz (Alsace): corded BB pots, two brothers buried with the same haplos: X2b4 / R1b, no kurgans?
- Hegenheim: a female in an individual burial, mtDNA H1+152, no kurgan ? females buried alone? what kind of steppe warriors did that? amazons? ;)
- Rouffach: the same case as above, but mtDNA J1c4

Northener
31-05-17, 18:48
I just went through all the supplementary material on the Beaker sites. Unless I'm missing something, German or Northern or steppe Bell Beaker, whatever you want to call it, bears absolutely no resemblance to the "story" as proposed by Gimbutas and David Anthony: horse riding warriors if not chariot driving warriors, master metallurgists welcomed for their magic, responsible for bringing copper and bronze to Europe, and on and on.

There is none of that in these graves: no horses at all, no wheels either, and extremely poor grave goods. Forget bronze, there isn't even any copper. One grave, in Germany, from Manching-Oberstimm, has a few minor copper items. There are certainly no copper weapons. Indeed, only a few have the wrist guards for archery, which were in any case from Iberian Beaker.

Speaking of Iberian Beaker, the graves are richer, containing copper and gold.

This is even worse than Corded Ware.

Unless I'm missing something it's time to retire those old fantasies which, as I've been saying for a long time, are anachronistic, the result of an unwarranted imposition of Bronze Age culture traits from the east on much more primitive societies.

IMO you underestimate the most important thing the Bell Beakers created a first "pan-European" culture (and beyond because the Bell Beaker culture is also found in Morocco). According to specialist Van der Linden: "The distinctive pots, possibly used as drinking vessels, are nearly ubiquitous; flint arrowheads, copper daggers and stone wrist guards are common, too." It paved the way, a basic kind of network, or hub, for later on developments in Bronze Age Europe, until La Tene/Hallstatt.

"This is even worse than Corded Ware". Worse?

In NW Europe Corded Ware and Bell Beaker fused, blended. This blend immigrated to the Isles. Coon got it right when he stated: 'The Bell Beaker people who remained in the Rhinelands, however, came into intimate contact with the Corded people, who had invaded from the east and northeast, and with the corridor-tomb megalithic population to the north, whose domain extended down into the Netherlands. These three, of which the Bell Beaker element formed perhaps the dominant one, amalgamated to form an Early Bronze Age cultural unit, the so-called Zoned Beaker people who invaded England an Scotland as the first important carriers of metal."

When the researchers are right (in the end) the BB replaced up to 90% of the Neolithic British!

Such a "pan European" development and almost total replacement of the Isles could that be done by an anachronistic, primitive backward kind of culture (compared to the Neolithic/CW)?

See:
http://www.nature.com/news/ancient-genome-study-finds-bronze-age-beaker-culture-invaded-britain-1.21996

Genetiker
19-02-18, 03:42
I'm posting Y-SNP calls here:

Y-SNP calls for Bell Beaker genomes (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018/02/19/y-snp-calls-for-bell-beaker-genomes/)

Angela
19-02-18, 04:00
IMO you underestimate the most important thing the Bell Beakers created a first "pan-European" culture (and beyond because the Bell Beaker culture is also found in Morocco). According to specialist Van der Linden: "The distinctive pots, possibly used as drinking vessels, are nearly ubiquitous; flint arrowheads, copper daggers and stone wrist guards are common, too." It paved the way, a basic kind of network, or hub, for later on developments in Bronze Age Europe, until La Tene/Hallstatt.

"This is even worse than Corded Ware". Worse?

In NW Europe Corded Ware and Bell Beaker fused, blended. This blend immigrated to the Isles. Coon got it right when he stated: 'The Bell Beaker people who remained in the Rhinelands, however, came into intimate contact with the Corded people, who had invaded from the east and northeast, and with the corridor-tomb megalithic population to the north, whose domain extended down into the Netherlands. These three, of which the Bell Beaker element formed perhaps the dominant one, amalgamated to form an Early Bronze Age cultural unit, the so-called Zoned Beaker people who invaded England an Scotland as the first important carriers of metal."

When the researchers are right (in the end) the BB replaced up to 90% of the Neolithic British!

Such a "pan European" development and almost total replacement of the Isles could that be done by an anachronistic, primitive backward kind of culture (compared to the Neolithic/CW)?

See:
http://www.nature.com/news/ancient-genome-study-finds-bronze-age-beaker-culture-invaded-britain-1.21996

Sorry, I missed this until now.

You haven't convinced me, Northener.

By worse than Corded Ware I meant they had even less metallurgy than Corded Ware and certainly no horses, where Corded Ware had at least a few. These graves don't show advanced metallurgy; they show very little metallurgy at all, certainly no bronze. That came quite a bit later. As has been the case with a lot of "steppe" lore, there's been a lot of conflation of time periods, attributing the characteristics of later periods anachronistically to earlier groups.

As for replacement in the Isles, it was hardly a feat of arms or anything else. The Neolithic population was very small to begin with. Then, agriculture totally collapsed. There are lots of papers showing the climate change and the very steep declines in population there. They'll be easy to find if you doubt it.

Then the "Beakers" come, perhaps carrying plague, according to Krause, and with a more pastoral economy good for the now wetter and colder climate.

They didn't need to be the Egyptian civilization with their armies to take over the Isles. A good number of herders would do.

It's a totally different kind of scenario.

CrazyDonkey
29-04-18, 07:46
So, if the central European BB did not come from Iberia, who were they and where did they come from? They weren't CW, which is primarily R1a, right? The so-called "BB reflux" that replaced 90% of the population of Britain and Ireland was primarily R1b, as were the Yamnaya.

halfalp
01-05-18, 23:09
So, if the central European BB did not come from Iberia, who were they and where did they come from? They weren't CW, which is primarily R1a, right? The so-called "BB reflux" that replaced 90% of the population of Britain and Ireland was primarily R1b, as were the Yamnaya.Bell Beaker mostly is a fusion with Yamnaya male lineage descendants and central european / balkans neolithic like the Vucedol culture. We know wait to have datas from prehistoric pannonian plain and danubian plain that would show cultural transition between proper neolithic and steppe pastoralism with tumuli. The idea of a Yamna -> CWC -> BB never made any sense for me.

ROS
01-05-18, 23:35
Bell Beaker mostly is a fusion with Yamnaya male lineage descendants and central european / balkans neolithic like the Vucedol culture. We know wait to have datas from prehistoric pannonian plain and danubian plain that would show cultural transition between proper neolithic and steppe pastoralism with tumuli. The idea of a Yamna -> CWC -> BB never made any sense for me.

I think that the more I visit this forum, the less I understand about genetics interpreting history, the first question, if it has not been found, to date, western branches of haplogroup R1b in Yamnaya as of say that they are descendants of Yamnaya male lineage BB? , second question, Central European or Balkan neolithics and why not Iberian, taking into account that the scientific evidence indicates the origin of BB?

halfalp
01-05-18, 23:46
I think that the more I visit this forum, the less I understand about genetics interpreting history, the first question, if it has not been found, to date, western branches of haplogroup R1b in Yamnaya as of say that they are descendants of Yamnaya male lineage BB? , second question, Central European or Balkan neolithics and why not Iberian, taking into account that the scientific evidence indicates the origin of BB?Because the study of wich we discuss on this thread by Olalde, have tested BB samples and they show strong steppe signals and steppe related male lineages. The Iberian BB origin was always made by the fact that the most ancient dated BB pots were found in modern Portugal and so Iberia. But i'm not gonna lie, i dont understand well either genetic interpretations, so i'm gonna let maybe someone more cultivate respond for you properly.

berun
03-05-18, 15:35
The problem is tricky, Olalde finds steppe, but middle Bronze Age samples show 0 (5 R1b males), mtDNA samples also 0 steppe. An admixture program fails.

Olympus Mons
03-05-18, 16:23
The problem is tricky, Olalde finds steppe, but middle Bronze Age samples show 0 (5 R1b males), mtDNA samples also 0 steppe. An admixture program fails.

Berun (or anyone for that matter), maybe you have the knowledge to explain me the following:
a. What is Steppe????
b. Isn't EHG in part WHG?
c. If someone like KUM6, with CHG and a farmer Ancestry that is not the EEF but present in "steppe" meets someone with elevated WHG doen't their offspring show "steppe" even if never ever had an ancestry from steppe?
d. Or steppe is a combination of EHG in its specific part that dos not match with WHG at all, and CHG?

holderlin
03-05-18, 18:03
Berun (or anyone for that matter), maybe you have the knowledge to explain me the following:
a. What is Steppe????
b. Isn't EHG in part WHG?
c. If someone like KUM6, with CHG and a farmer Ancestry that is not the EEF but present in "steppe" meets someone with elevated WHG doen't their offspring show "steppe" even if never ever had an ancestry from steppe?
d. Or steppe is a combination of EHG in its specific part that dos not match with WHG at all, and CHG?

I will humor you

a. "Steppe" is Yamnaya and Afanesevo, which is EHG + like 30-40% CHG/Iranian Neolithic

b. I think EHG being "part WHG and part ANE" is an over simplification of EHG. It seems to me that the "WHG portion" actually like a "very closely related to WHG portion"

c. No, but people on here like to say this so dissolve any author's conclusions of steppe admixture CHG+WHG isn't "steppe". See above.

d. Yes, it's more like this.

archaeo
16-05-18, 15:35
I will humor you

a. "Steppe" is Yamnaya and Afanesevo, which is EHG + like 30-40% CHG/Iranian Neolithic

b. I think EHG being "part WHG and part ANE" is an over simplification of EHG. It seems to me that the "WHG portion" actually like a "very closely related to WHG portion"

c. No, but people on here like to say this so dissolve any author's conclusions of steppe admixture CHG+WHG isn't "steppe". See above.

d. Yes, it's more like this.
Essential here is, what THEY (Olalde et al) mean, thus here their original definition, "The expansion of the ‘Corded Ware complex’ in north-central and northeastern Europe was associated with people who derived most of their ancestry from populations related to Early Bronze Age Yamnaya pastoralists from the Eurasian steppe2–4 (henceforth referred to as ‘steppe’)."
Hans

archaeo
16-05-18, 16:24
Please: First read it, before indulging in fantasies here. Thank you.~~~~

CrazyDonkey
20-05-18, 20:23
For an anti-steppe hypothesis to prevail, it seems to me it has to explain a 90% population replacement in Britain by R1b IE-speaking invaders post-2000 BCE, with obvious language replacement. R1b predominates there today. If not a Yamnaya-derived migration, then what?

berun
21-05-18, 18:18
There are some contras: Yamnayans were mainly R1b-Z2013, Corded Ware people was mainly R1a, Bell Beakers were R1b-L51. Another is that the CWC autosomal profile was lowered by EEF+WHG people, it's againts the steppe profile also. A third is that in Iberia 4 in 5 papers have not found steppe autosomal in ancient samples (including five R1b samples).

CrazyDonkey
22-05-18, 06:50
For an anti-steppe hypothesis to prevail, it seems to me it has to explain a 90% population replacement in Britain by R1b IE-speaking invaders post-2000 BCE, with obvious language replacement. R1b predominates there today. If not a Yamnaya-derived migration, then what?

Western (Iberian) Bell Beakers were not related to the eastern Bell Beakers, who were probably just Corded Ware who adopted or were converted to the Bell Beaker cultural (religious?) package. Corded Ware was both R1a and R1b (eastern Bell Beakers were primarily R1b). Corded Ware was a pottery style, not necessarily a single discrete people. As was Globular Amphora. They are likely a melange of IE speakers that trace back to the steps, both pre-Yamnaya and Yamnaya. Haak et al (2015):


Western and Eastern Europe came into contact 4,500 years ago, as the Late Neolithic Corded Ware people from Germany traced 75% of their ancestry to the Yamnaya, documenting a massive migration into the heartland of Europe from its eastern periphery. This steppe ancestry persisted in all sampled central Europeans until at least 3,000 years ago, and is ubiquitous in present-day Europeans. These results provide support for a steppe origin9 of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe.

Once again, how do you explain 90% population, and thus also language, replacement in Britain? If not from where there is a pool of the stuff (R1b), rather than a few droplets...

berun
22-05-18, 07:32
Your point was against an anti-steppe option, but I'm not against a 90% replacement from Central Europe, it is well tracked (autosomal, Y-DNA, strontium, cultural traits).

bicicleur
22-05-18, 08:24
Your point was against an anti-steppe option, but I'm not against a 90% replacement from Central Europe, it is well tracked (autosomal, Y-DNA, strontium, cultural traits).

the direct link between the steppe and central europe is missing indeed, we don't have the smoking gun
but the circumstances point very strong into a steppe origin
the timing is correct, near the end of Yamna
the autosomal is steppe + EEF, which is normal as central europe was full of EEF prior to the R1b-L151 expansion
and R1b-Z2103 and R1b-L151, they stem from the same branch, they are brotherclades

Olympus Mons
22-05-18, 10:20
Western (Iberian) Bell Beakers were not related to the eastern Bell Beakers, who were probably just Corded Ware who adopted or were converted to the Bell Beaker cultural (religious?) package. Corded Ware was both R1a and R1b (eastern Bell Beakers were primarily R1b). Corded Ware was a pottery style, not necessarily a single discrete people. As was Globular Amphora. They are likely a melange of IE speakers that trace back to the steps, both pre-Yamnaya and Yamnaya. Haak et al (2015):

Once again, how do you explain 90% population, and thus also language, replacement in Britain? If not from where there is a pool of the stuff (R1b), rather than a few droplets...

you seem to forget that until "recent", the british isle were "3 herder and 10 goats"! - so whats up with the Britain fixation? :)

a. check any youtube video of European population overtime and and you will notice how scarce were population in northern, and northeastern not say eastern itself, part of europe up until the beginning of the middle ages. Those things were wastlands up until "recently".

b. the upsurge of R1a/b started at the onset of climate change events (from the 5.9 kiloyear to 4.2 kiloyear) that had dramatic impacts on agriculture in europe and could very well have overall decreased local population to very low levels.

Olympus Mons
22-05-18, 10:37
the direct link between the steppe and central europe is missing indeed, we don't have the smoking gun
but the circumstances point very strong into a steppe origin
the timing is correct, near the end of Yamna
the autosomal is steppe + EEF, which is normal as central europe was full of EEF prior to the R1b-L151 expansion
and R1b-Z2103 and R1b-L151, they stem from the same branch, they are brotherclades

This is sort of misleading.
The same way the "steppe" could have picked up EEF, so could the EEF have picked up "Steppe" as those are seen quite early on places like Romania. Actually you have a Romania HG by 7000bc which is 80% EHG. you have 4000 BC CHG pouring into balkans. so lets be careful about that.

Cernovada I seems to be steppe a arrival by 4000bc at northeastern balkans the same way CHG were getting there as well : Boian to Gulmenita, to Pre-cucuteni, to cucuteni-Trypolie... etc etc.
So, the story can really be very complex, even to the ethnogenesis of Yamnaya itself that can have influx older than 3500bc from people coming from balkans/north black sea that could be related to their origina stock dispersal by 4900bc from south caucasus (if reich, krause and all others are correct). - The playstation version of Warloard as steppe warriors was bound to be just that, wasn't it? a juvenile game.

A. Papadimitriou
22-05-18, 13:11
Once again, how do you explain 90% population, and thus also language, replacement in Britain? If not from where there is a pool of the stuff (R1b), rather than a few droplets...

I am not sure but I have predicted that in regions with many Megalithic sites, for example around Cork, Ireland or roughly around Aberdeen, Scotland the people in the Bronze Age will have different genetic profile, I mean more Neolithic ancestry.

Something that I had noticed but people rarely talk about is that Ogham inscriptions (dating to the 5th and 6th centuries) are more common in the region or Ireland which had the most Megalithic sites, so more common in SW.

The other thing I had said is that even before the Neolithic movements there could have been groups of HGs in Britain. Maybe they were small groups which made no impact. But the fact that we don't find them in Neolithic sites doesn't mean they didn't exist, around them.

bicicleur
22-05-18, 14:16
This is sort of misleading.
The same way the "steppe" could have picked up EEF, so could the EEF have picked up "Steppe" as those are seen quite early on places like Romania. Actually you have a Romania HG by 7000bc which is 80% EHG. you have 4000 BC CHG pouring into balkans. so lets be careful about that.

Cernovada I seems to be steppe a arrival by 4000bc at northeastern balkans the same way CHG were getting there as well : Boian to Gulmenita, to Pre-cucuteni, to cucuteni-Trypolie... etc etc.
So, the story can really be very complex, even to the ethnogenesis of Yamnaya itself that can have influx older than 3500bc from people coming from balkans/north black sea that could be related to their origina stock dispersal by 4900bc from south caucasus (if reich, krause and all others are correct). - The playstation version of Warloard as steppe warriors was bound to be just that, wasn't it? a juvenile game.

meso/neolithic R1b in Roumenia was R1b-V88

for R1b-L151 which is a brotherclade of R1b-Z2103, and with TMRCA 4.8 ka, at the end of Yamna, and - acoording to the arceological record - after several intrusions from the steppe into the the Balkan and the Carpathian Basin, and knowing that R1b-L151 spread IE languages into Europe, and R1b-L151 was not found in the Balkans before,
what do you think is the most likely scenario : they were EEF acquiring additional steppe or the other way around?
as long as no additional data become available, I stick with the 2nd option

halfalp
22-05-18, 14:39
meso/neolithic R1b in Roumenia was R1b-V88

for R1b-L151 which is a brotherclade of R1b-Z2103, and with TMRCA 4.8 ka, at the end of Yamna, and - acoording to the arceological record - after several intrusions from the steppe into the the Balkan and the Carpathian Basin, and knowing that R1b-L151 spread IE languages into Europe, and R1b-L151 was not found in the Balkans before,
what do you think is the most likely scenario : they were EEF acquiring additional steppe or the other way around?
as long as no additional data become available, I stick with the 2nd option
The Catacomb sample of the recent paper are also labeled as R1b-V88, it might be an error.

Ernekar
22-05-18, 14:56
The Catacomb sample of the recent paper are also labeled as R1b-V88, it might be an error.

I saw someone posting that those catacomb samples were tested positive for M269, so i think they were just using old nomenclature.

Although it is weird that in the paper they wrote that they were using 2016 ISOGG nomenclature, in which R1b1a2 mean R1b-V88.

So its a bit ambiguous. But it makes more sense if they are M269.

halfalp
22-05-18, 15:37
I saw someone posting that those catacomb samples were tested positive for M269, so i think they were just using old nomenclature.

Although it is weird that in the paper they wrote that they were using 2016 ISOGG nomenclature, in which R1b1a2 mean R1b-V88.

So its a bit ambiguous. But it makes more sense if they are M269.
Making sense for what ? That would be some of the first M269 ever found no ?

Saetrus
22-05-18, 15:52
That would be some of the first M269 ever found no ?

Oldest R1b-M269 in this study: 4700 BP
Hajji Firuz R1b-L23: 7700 BP

3000 years difference.

bicicleur
22-05-18, 16:09
The Catacomb sample of the recent paper are also labeled as R1b-V88, it might be an error.

yes, I see it now, very strange
it looks like a typo to me, 1a missing everywhere?
R1b1a2 = R1b1a1a2?
R1b1a2a2 = R1b1a1a2a2?

Ernekar
22-05-18, 16:11
Making sense for what ? That would be some of the first M269 ever found no ?

All the R1b subclades we have seen on the bronze age steppes in other papers are descended from M269. So it would make sense if these were under M269 too.
But i am not ruling out that V88 could have been there somewhere too. Although it has not been found there yet afaik.

I don't know how many M269 have been found to date. But just because it is positive for M269 does not mean that it can't be something further downstream like Z2103 or L51.
You know, like the J2b in bronze age Jordan a few years ago, which later turned out to be J2b1 when people checked out the bam files.

This is the excerpt where you can see that R1b1a2 actually means R1b-M269, and that R1b1a2a means R1b-L23 in this paper:

KBD001 could be assigned as R1b1a2 based on the mutations: PF6399:C->T, M520:T->A, L773:A->G, PF6430:T->A, L265:A->G, L483:C->T, PF6434:A->G, PF6438:C->T, L150.1:C->T, PF6475:C->A, CTS8728:C->T, L500:C->A, PF6482:A->G, PF6495:G->A, PF6497:C->G, PF6505:G->A, M269:T->C, CTS12478:G->A. We note that this individual also has a downstream mutation L23: G->A determining haplogroup R1b1a2a, but this mutation might be caused by ancient DNA damage.

halfalp
22-05-18, 16:22
Oldest R1b-M269 in this study: 4700 BP
Hajji Firuz R1b-L23: 7700 BP

3000 years difference.

Hum, if the C14 is positive for Hajji Firuz 5900 BC i have to say i'm pretty much out of idea about the origin of R1b-M269. If it was North Caucasus as i was thinking in the past, it would certainly have popped in the Caucasus paper, north or south. P297 and M478 are now pretty certain north eurasians marker. Whatever the coalescence date of R1b-M269, it doesn't really make sense that it was born south of the caucasus, when it's father and brother are north of it, but who knows ? That away and the fact that Kosovo / Albania have the highest % of R1b-M269* in the world as i think, it has to be born somewhere in the Balkans or the Black Sea shores, wich would maybe " crazy thing to think " confirm the idea of Olympus Mons that R1b-M269 is born in the Balkans and roamed from the Balkans through Anatolia into Souh Caucasus. The problem of his hypothesis is that he linked it with a certain crops, so neolithic and looking at the age of Hajji Firuz we are talking about a migration of M269 something like 10'000 BC so way before or at least at very early Neolithic.

halfalp
22-05-18, 16:24
yes, I see it now, very strange
it looks like a typo to me, 1a missing everywhere?
R1b1a2 = R1b1a1a2?
R1b1a2a2 = R1b1a1a2a2?

It has to be or this is a crazy discovery.

berun
22-05-18, 17:21
the direct link between the steppe and central europe is missing indeed, we don't have the smoking gun
but the circumstances point very strong into a steppe origin
the timing is correct, near the end of Yamna
the autosomal is steppe + EEF, which is normal as central europe was full of EEF prior to the R1b-L151 expansion
and R1b-Z2103 and R1b-L151, they stem from the same branch, they are brotherclades

indeed an smoking cannon is needed, the source for EEF could be local as suggested but EHG/CHG combo could be found right in ancient Russia. The case for Z2103 is in fact against steppes, all samples linked to Yamna are related to such clade, no L51 and no R1a to justify even CWC.

berun
22-05-18, 17:32
If it was North Caucasus as i was thinking in the past, it would certainly have popped in the Caucasus paper, north or south

The paper only has two samples from Southern Caucasus, so 2 in 50 I think. Well, if Reich has 1000 samples from abroad we can expect 20 papers in the next 5 years, being Reich who manages... which is the name for the dolls that are moved by threats? pucinellis?

halfalp
22-05-18, 17:44
The paper only has two samples from Southern Caucasus, so 2 in 50 I think. Well, if Reich has 1000 samples from abroad we can expect 20 papers in the next 5 years, being Reich who manages... which is the name for the dolls that are moved by threats? pucinellis?

There is no M269 found at that day no ? i mean without putting L23 and Z2103 into account. I'm pretty sur if R1b-M269 was stationned in south caucasus, it would pop in Maikop Steppe or Northern Caucasus foothills in a local contexte.

bicicleur
22-05-18, 17:46
All the R1b subclades we have seen on the bronze age steppes in other papers are descended from M269. So it would make sense if these were under M269 too.
But i am not ruling out that V88 could have been there somewhere too. Although it has not been found there yet afaik.

I don't know how many M269 have been found to date. But just because it is positive for M269 does not mean that it can't be something further downstream like Z2103 or L51.
You know, like the J2b in bronze age Jordan a few years ago, which later turned out to be J2b1 when people checked out the bam files.

This is the excerpt where you can see that R1b1a2 actually means R1b-M269, and that R1b1a2a means R1b-L23 in this paper:

KBD001 could be assigned as R1b1a2 based on the mutations: PF6399:C->T, M520:T->A, L773:A->G, PF6430:T->A, L265:A->G, L483:C->T, PF6434:A->G, PF6438:C->T, L150.1:C->T, PF6475:C->A, CTS8728:C->T, L500:C->A, PF6482:A->G, PF6495:G->A, PF6497:C->G, PF6505:G->A, M269:T->C, CTS12478:G->A. We note that this individual also has a downstream mutation L23: G->A determining haplogroup R1b1a2a, but this mutation might be caused by ancient DNA damage.




all recent papers concentrate on autosomal DNA, which is fine,
but they are getting sloppy about Y-DNA, which IMO still provides interesting additional info

CrazyDonkey
22-05-18, 18:07
you seem to forget that until "recent", the british isle were "3 herder and 10 goats"! - so whats up with the Britain fixation? :)

a. check any youtube video of European population overtime and and you will notice how scarce were population in northern, and northeastern not say eastern itself, part of europe up until the beginning of the middle ages. Those things were wastlands up until "recently".

b. the upsurge of R1a/b started at the onset of climate change events (from the 5.9 kiloyear to 4.2 kiloyear) that had dramatic impacts on agriculture in europe and could very well have overall decreased local population to very low levels.

You're mistaking the Highland Clearances for 2,000 BCE. Neolithic populations had been there, for how long? Stonehenge and the Megalithic Culture was in full swing then.

Ernekar
22-05-18, 18:15
all recent papers concentrate on autosomal DNA, which is fine,
but they are getting sloppy about Y-DNA, which IMO still provides interesting additional info
I also think its great that they concentrate on autosomal DNA.
Although they have always been pretty sloppy Y-DNA-wise, especially in pre-prints.

But as long as they publish the bam files, it should not be a problem, because then we can just look at the Y-DNA ourselves.

berun
22-05-18, 20:35
Z2013 was found in Hajji Firuz dating to 5000 BC or so... it's not de Caucasus, it's Iranian Azerbadjan I think, that counts for one; also it's possible to count a R1b1a1 in Armenia dated to XXV BC in a Kura-Araxes medium. The case to don't see R1b in the North Caucasus piedmont could be attached that the big majority of inhabitants there were farmers, only in regions with herding as the main subsistence economy R1b could pop up more easily.

epoch
04-06-18, 07:30
Z2013 was found in Hajji Firuz dating to 5000 BC or so... it's not de Caucasus, it's Iranian Azerbadjan I think, that counts for one; also it's possible to count a R1b1a1 in Armenia dated to XXV BC in a Kura-Araxes medium. The case to don't see R1b in the North Caucasus piedmont could be attached that the big majority of inhabitants there were farmers, only in regions with herding as the main subsistence economy R1b could pop up more easily.

D(Mbuti, EHG; Hajji_Firuz_ChL_R1b_outlier, Hajji_Firuz_ChL) = -0.0151 -3.737 460845

berun
05-06-18, 22:02
√12.33~0.14∆ maybe