-
Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.
Iberian Bell Beaker Y-DNA and mtDNA
- Thread starter berun
- Start date
berun
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,084
- Reaction score
- 183
- Points
- 0
The last about the publication was that it would not delay too much (it was an involved scientist), but it was in mid may... in whichever case it will be in an English language paper. Also there is Iberian DNA tested in lab (Iberian culture no geography).
MOESAN
Elite member
- Messages
- 6,372
- Reaction score
- 1,613
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Brittany
- Ethnic group
- more celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b - L21/S145*
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3c
Berun, Okham's Razoris not a gift from God, only a methodologic way I practize too. Itcan be disproved sometimes.
What have weconcerning Iberia ?
- a Chalco popconcentrated in South Portugal and South Spain, for the most, notonly, it's true.
- in SW Iberia since3000 BC this Chalco pop seems divided into more than a culture :BBs and others.
- BB did not mix atfirst with the other Chalco pops.
- we cannot say ALLthe settlements were of BB origin, far from that, even in SWPortugal.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]ofsome papers :[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]« Infact, the archaeological sites with Bell Beaker remains are veryscarce in the Meseta Central of the Iberian Peninsula.[/FONT]«
« [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Inthe abstract of the archeological paper, it is stated "weconclude that in the Lower Estremadura (one of the most importantregions in Europe for the discussion of the origin and diffusion ofBeaker "phenomemon") the Beaker social formation with itsown distinct cultural characteristics coexisted with localChalcolithic cultures although never merged with them.' »[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]ME :This seems concerning the first stage of Bbs.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Atthe opposite some scholars think they incorporated themselves [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]inother cultures [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]veryeasily in later times and places. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Wesee that in the physical differences between Worms and British BBS.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif].[/FONT]
- an increase in popin South seems proved but was not linear/continual. I red thata demic boom/bust occurred in Iberia between 5300/5150BC (decline ofCardial, starting of Epicardial) and that the Chalco/Bronze perioddid not change things in an appreciable proportion as a whole.
- Someconcentrations of pop can be linked to change in occupation of lands,with half-deserts countryside and urbanism.
- some kinds ofsettlements are rather « short » time ones, seemingly forprospection, and don't prove strong demography.
- BB in Southadopted or had already the same burying habits as the Neolithicprecursors, very dissimilar from the CWC and N-BBs habits.
- you cannot findarcheologic traces of BB come by lands from East, but you cannot findother routes for them as a huge pop whatever thedirection; it seems they settled here and there after travels by seaand through rivers, going forwards rather than expanding all around ;by the way, a stage of Vucedol (around 3000 BC) has been proposed bysome Czech scholars as prototypes for the BBs pottery ;Whatever the dubious « strong » increase in pop size, Idoubt they could have produced a so huge pop by themselves, when wesee their relative small pop allover density compared to others inIberia.
- BBs did not begindominate S and SE Spain before the 2200 BC, spite being close to itsince the 3000 BC ; were they so strong, in fine ?Nevertheless they were already in Germany about the 2500 BC. ?Have we archeologic proofs of a huge move through W Europe at thesedates ? rather infiltration. The BB settlements in Provence andRhône proximity were found among other cultures if I red well.
- BBs of Germany,spite very « largely spred » concerning auDNA in PCAs arecloser to North-Central Europeans than to Iberians of today as amean, being even farther from the Chalco Iberians. The impression isthat « northeastern autosomes » came into Iberia fromCentral Europe through France ; If the first BBs of S-Iberiawere the Y-R1bs promotors we are obliged to imagine there has been ahuge back move into Iberia after first expansion. Traces ?
- For me we have infront of our eyes the development of cultural traits among otherstraits, and passed from an original culture to some other culturesafter an « observation round » of some centuries. Surelygenuine BBs existed at first stage, found more easy conditions tosettle in W Iberia and pace by pace took stronger foot there andimposed some kind of culture/religion to the local pops beforebeing demically swallowed by them. It's very possible this localpopulation was - roughly said – of Atlantic type (« autochtones »of Mesolithic + Cardial + Megalithers, say close to modern Basquesminus 'gedrosia'?). We cannot put the mt-H increase only on theaccount of BBs moves in Europe. MtH(1&3) were surely wellimplanted in Portugal and Atlantic Europe since Neolithic, maybe LateMesolithic or even earlier in some regions (we lack anDNA fromwestern shores of Europe as a whole, you noticed it, but we haveancient Basques and Cantabrians mt-DNA) ; Megalithers and local« partners »seem having had some weight until Germanybefore BBs appeared there. Yet, Gurgy people (46) had 34,7% mt-H around 4900/4500 BC and there were not on the Atlantic shores and it was before the apparent megaliths W >> E expansion.
I think BBs are among the technical (andpolitical as elite) far promotors of Atlantic Bronze Age ?. Buttheir second way* to Germany or at least one of the ways of theirartefacts , across France (Loire/Liger and Burgundia) was alreadypractized by Atlantic Megalithers before them (I propose : a lotof Y-I2a + mtH1/3 + mtU5?). Itseems CWC in the Netherlands, by instance, did not mix immediatelywith Megalithers of Holland shores AND DID NOT TAKE the better placesthere, which explains the CWC relative lack of mt-H. So Westmt-H could be older in Germany than first BBs there ;
Shortly : BBselite were not so numerous, and they move quickly enough (2800/2500BC?) here and there, and finally were incorporated among other eliteshere and there in Western Europe, more often proto-Celtic. It seemsto me they never colonized entire inlands of some great size spitethey mastered high strategic places. I take as support the seeminglyvery bigger sign of pop density the settlements of Western Europemegaliths from 4000 BC onwards. I cannot figure out a hugecolonization move from SW Iberia to Central and Northern Europe atBBs times. What had BBs more than other pops tu produce a demicboom ? We see in Iberia rather successive periods with localbooms and declines in population. We need mt-H subclades for BBs, weneed Atlantic Façade people anDNA.
SO: first BBs can be "locals" of Portugal so the rich mt-H, OR males came from elsewhere picking local wives: rich mt-H; the problem of mt-H in Central Europe is not surely resolved nevertheless; your interesting post about Baleares (thanks) can only prove BBs came with rather western Iberian females there, at first sight; is Germany the same story?
Wait and see. I'm longing as you to new results
What have weconcerning Iberia ?
- a Chalco popconcentrated in South Portugal and South Spain, for the most, notonly, it's true.
- in SW Iberia since3000 BC this Chalco pop seems divided into more than a culture :BBs and others.
- BB did not mix atfirst with the other Chalco pops.
- we cannot say ALLthe settlements were of BB origin, far from that, even in SWPortugal.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]ofsome papers :[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]« Infact, the archaeological sites with Bell Beaker remains are veryscarce in the Meseta Central of the Iberian Peninsula.[/FONT]«
« [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Inthe abstract of the archeological paper, it is stated "weconclude that in the Lower Estremadura (one of the most importantregions in Europe for the discussion of the origin and diffusion ofBeaker "phenomemon") the Beaker social formation with itsown distinct cultural characteristics coexisted with localChalcolithic cultures although never merged with them.' »[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]ME :This seems concerning the first stage of Bbs.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Atthe opposite some scholars think they incorporated themselves [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]inother cultures [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]veryeasily in later times and places. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Wesee that in the physical differences between Worms and British BBS.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif].[/FONT]
- an increase in popin South seems proved but was not linear/continual. I red thata demic boom/bust occurred in Iberia between 5300/5150BC (decline ofCardial, starting of Epicardial) and that the Chalco/Bronze perioddid not change things in an appreciable proportion as a whole.
- Someconcentrations of pop can be linked to change in occupation of lands,with half-deserts countryside and urbanism.
- some kinds ofsettlements are rather « short » time ones, seemingly forprospection, and don't prove strong demography.
- BB in Southadopted or had already the same burying habits as the Neolithicprecursors, very dissimilar from the CWC and N-BBs habits.
- you cannot findarcheologic traces of BB come by lands from East, but you cannot findother routes for them as a huge pop whatever thedirection; it seems they settled here and there after travels by seaand through rivers, going forwards rather than expanding all around ;by the way, a stage of Vucedol (around 3000 BC) has been proposed bysome Czech scholars as prototypes for the BBs pottery ;Whatever the dubious « strong » increase in pop size, Idoubt they could have produced a so huge pop by themselves, when wesee their relative small pop allover density compared to others inIberia.
- BBs did not begindominate S and SE Spain before the 2200 BC, spite being close to itsince the 3000 BC ; were they so strong, in fine ?Nevertheless they were already in Germany about the 2500 BC. ?Have we archeologic proofs of a huge move through W Europe at thesedates ? rather infiltration. The BB settlements in Provence andRhône proximity were found among other cultures if I red well.
- BBs of Germany,spite very « largely spred » concerning auDNA in PCAs arecloser to North-Central Europeans than to Iberians of today as amean, being even farther from the Chalco Iberians. The impression isthat « northeastern autosomes » came into Iberia fromCentral Europe through France ; If the first BBs of S-Iberiawere the Y-R1bs promotors we are obliged to imagine there has been ahuge back move into Iberia after first expansion. Traces ?
- For me we have infront of our eyes the development of cultural traits among otherstraits, and passed from an original culture to some other culturesafter an « observation round » of some centuries. Surelygenuine BBs existed at first stage, found more easy conditions tosettle in W Iberia and pace by pace took stronger foot there andimposed some kind of culture/religion to the local pops beforebeing demically swallowed by them. It's very possible this localpopulation was - roughly said – of Atlantic type (« autochtones »of Mesolithic + Cardial + Megalithers, say close to modern Basquesminus 'gedrosia'?). We cannot put the mt-H increase only on theaccount of BBs moves in Europe. MtH(1&3) were surely wellimplanted in Portugal and Atlantic Europe since Neolithic, maybe LateMesolithic or even earlier in some regions (we lack anDNA fromwestern shores of Europe as a whole, you noticed it, but we haveancient Basques and Cantabrians mt-DNA) ; Megalithers and local« partners »seem having had some weight until Germanybefore BBs appeared there. Yet, Gurgy people (46) had 34,7% mt-H around 4900/4500 BC and there were not on the Atlantic shores and it was before the apparent megaliths W >> E expansion.
I think BBs are among the technical (andpolitical as elite) far promotors of Atlantic Bronze Age ?. Buttheir second way* to Germany or at least one of the ways of theirartefacts , across France (Loire/Liger and Burgundia) was alreadypractized by Atlantic Megalithers before them (I propose : a lotof Y-I2a + mtH1/3 + mtU5?). Itseems CWC in the Netherlands, by instance, did not mix immediatelywith Megalithers of Holland shores AND DID NOT TAKE the better placesthere, which explains the CWC relative lack of mt-H. So Westmt-H could be older in Germany than first BBs there ;
Shortly : BBselite were not so numerous, and they move quickly enough (2800/2500BC?) here and there, and finally were incorporated among other eliteshere and there in Western Europe, more often proto-Celtic. It seemsto me they never colonized entire inlands of some great size spitethey mastered high strategic places. I take as support the seeminglyvery bigger sign of pop density the settlements of Western Europemegaliths from 4000 BC onwards. I cannot figure out a hugecolonization move from SW Iberia to Central and Northern Europe atBBs times. What had BBs more than other pops tu produce a demicboom ? We see in Iberia rather successive periods with localbooms and declines in population. We need mt-H subclades for BBs, weneed Atlantic Façade people anDNA.
SO: first BBs can be "locals" of Portugal so the rich mt-H, OR males came from elsewhere picking local wives: rich mt-H; the problem of mt-H in Central Europe is not surely resolved nevertheless; your interesting post about Baleares (thanks) can only prove BBs came with rather western Iberian females there, at first sight; is Germany the same story?
Wait and see. I'm longing as you to new results
berun
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,084
- Reaction score
- 183
- Points
- 0
Berun, Okham's Razoris not a gift from God, only a methodologic way I practize too. Itcan be disproved sometimes.
With the lack of info it's a very practical tool, moreover the societies involved were less sofisticated and applying there the razor is more easy.
What have weconcerning Iberia ?
- a Chalco popconcentrated in South Portugal and South Spain, for the most, notonly, it's true.
- in SW Iberia since3000 BC this Chalco pop seems divided into more than a culture :BBs and others.
- BB did not mix atfirst with the other Chalco pops.
- we cannot say ALLthe settlements were of BB origin, far from that, even in SWPortugal.
The Bell Beakers are the first to display complex hierarchy and used effectively metals for weaponry, no matter the precise origin of such culture, but the case is that they mastered such pops.
« Infact, the archaeological sites with Bell Beaker remains are veryscarce in the Meseta Central of the Iberian Peninsula.«
If you travel there you will know why: it's a barren steppe with lands cultivated each five years. Even so there were BB.
« Inthe abstract of the archeological paper, it is stated "weconclude that in the Lower Estremadura (one of the most importantregions in Europe for the discussion of the origin and diffusion ofBeaker "phenomemon") the Beaker social formation with itsown distinct cultural characteristics coexisted with localChalcolithic cultures although never merged with them.' »ME :This seems concerning the first stage of Bbs.Atthe opposite some scholars think they incorporated themselves inother cultures veryeasily in later times and places. Wesee that in the physical differences between Worms and British BBS..
if they never merged is because BB absorved the Chacolithics, cultural replacement there, and quite quick.
- an increase in popin South seems proved but was not linear/continual. I red thata demic boom/bust occurred in Iberia between 5300/5150BC (decline ofCardial, starting of Epicardial) and that the Chalco/Bronze perioddid not change things in an appreciable proportion as a whole.
So if Iberian pops were still going on... you can check the paper about the European pops and how from 2500 BC CW fall from 3 to 2 millions, and one of such millions was aloctone.
- Someconcentrations of pop can be linked to change in occupation of lands,with half-deserts countryside and urbanism.
metals can inprove the extent of arable lands, so you get a chance to increase pop.
- some kinds ofsettlements are rather « short » time ones, seemingly forprospection, and don't prove strong demography.
a migratory pop as BB can settle somewhere but after some years leave for a best place.
- BB in Southadopted or had already the same burying habits as the Neolithicprecursors, very dissimilar from the CWC and N-BBs habits.
quite logical as the BB predecessors where in the south
- you cannot findarcheologic traces of BB come by lands from East, but you cannot findother routes for them as a huge pop whatever thedirection; it seems they settled here and there after travels by seaand through rivers, going forwards rather than expanding all around ;by the way, a stage of Vucedol (around 3000 BC) has been proposed bysome Czech scholars as prototypes for the BBs pottery ;Whatever the dubious « strong » increase in pop size, Idoubt they could have produced a so huge pop by themselves, when wesee their relative small pop allover density compared to others inIberia.
you compare pops of different centuries; even so what seems to matter most is the decrease of pop in Central Europe. For the lack of tracks... if they were going with horses or boats you can't cheek easily with archaeology such migrations.
- BBs did not begindominate S and SE Spain before the 2200 BC, spite being close to itsince the 3000 BC ; were they so strong, in fine ?Nevertheless they were already in Germany about the 2500 BC. ?Have we archeologic proofs of a huge move through W Europe at thesedates ? rather infiltration. The BB settlements in Provence andRhône proximity were found among other cultures if I red well.
The farmer cultures in S Iberia were quite populated already, by that the delay to get some of them if BB were herders. Simple infiltration is not the case as we read from papers about mtDNA in Germany or Y-DNA in Ireland.
- BBs of Germany,spite very « largely spred » concerning auDNA in PCAs arecloser to North-Central Europeans than to Iberians of today as amean, being even farther from the Chalco Iberians. The impression isthat « northeastern autosomes » came into Iberia fromCentral Europe through France ; If the first BBs of S-Iberiawere the Y-R1bs promotors we are obliged to imagine there has been ahuge back move into Iberia after first expansion. Traces ?
Such balance is debt to a given mix with a proportion favoring the central european genes. For migrations to Iberia with central european genes you have the late expansion of Celtics with Urnfield and Halstadt cultures.
We cannot put the mt-H increase only on theaccount of BBs moves in Europe. MtH(1&3) were surely wellimplanted in Portugal and Atlantic Europe since Neolithic, maybe LateMesolithic or even earlier in some regions (we lack anDNA fromwestern shores of Europe as a whole, you noticed it, but we haveancient Basques and Cantabrians mt-DNA) ; Megalithers and local« partners »seem having had some weight until Germanybefore BBs appeared there. Yet, Gurgy people (46) had 34,7% mt-H around 4900/4500 BC and there were not on the Atlantic shores and it was before the apparent megaliths W >> E expansion.
You can't get a 40% of H in BB Germans with a 35%, instead a figure of 70% as in S Portugal would work finely.
I think BBs are among the technical (andpolitical as elite) far promotors of Atlantic Bronze Age ?. Buttheir second way* to Germany or at least one of the ways of theirartefacts , across France (Loire/Liger and Burgundia) was alreadypractized by Atlantic Megalithers before them (I propose : a lotof Y-I2a + mtH1/3 + mtU5?). Itseems CWC in the Netherlands, by instance, did not mix immediatelywith Megalithers of Holland shores AND DID NOT TAKE the better placesthere, which explains the CWC relative lack of mt-H. So Westmt-H could be older in Germany than first BBs there ;
we need samples then, why now cultural traits - geography - DNA - population is pointing to S Portugal.
Shortly : BBselite were not so numerous, and they move quickly enough (2800/2500BC?) here and there, and finally were incorporated among other eliteshere and there in Western Europe, more often proto-Celtic. It seemsto me they never colonized entire inlands of some great size spitethey mastered high strategic places. I take as support the seeminglyvery bigger sign of pop density the settlements of Western Europemegaliths from 4000 BC onwards. I cannot figure out a hugecolonization move from SW Iberia to Central and Northern Europe atBBs times. What had BBs more than other pops tu produce a demicboom ? We see in Iberia rather successive periods with localbooms and declines in population. We need mt-H subclades for BBs, weneed Atlantic Façade people anDNA.
BB mastered metals, having so advanced weaponry. You don't need to have much population to increase it after some generations if such little pops can profit the best the lands, and even more if they were able to rule over the autochtone population.
SO: first BBs can be "locals" of Portugal so the rich mt-H, OR males came from elsewhere picking local wives: rich mt-H; the problem of mt-H in Central Europe is not surely resolved nevertheless; your interesting post about Baleares (thanks) can only prove BBs came with rather western Iberian females there, at first sight; is Germany the same story?
For Catalonia Calcolithic samples by 3500 BC (before BB) give 36% for H, so to have 60% in Minorca it's possible with drift or by an increase of alocton H in NE Peninsula.
Wait and see. I'm longing as you to new results
likewise... by the way it would be good to solve the issue with your spacing key...
With the lack of info it's a very practical tool, moreover the societies involved were less sofisticated and applying there the razor is more easy.
What have weconcerning Iberia ?
- a Chalco popconcentrated in South Portugal and South Spain, for the most, notonly, it's true.
- in SW Iberia since3000 BC this Chalco pop seems divided into more than a culture :BBs and others.
- BB did not mix atfirst with the other Chalco pops.
- we cannot say ALLthe settlements were of BB origin, far from that, even in SWPortugal.
The Bell Beakers are the first to display complex hierarchy and used effectively metals for weaponry, no matter the precise origin of such culture, but the case is that they mastered such pops.
« Infact, the archaeological sites with Bell Beaker remains are veryscarce in the Meseta Central of the Iberian Peninsula.«
If you travel there you will know why: it's a barren steppe with lands cultivated each five years. Even so there were BB.
« Inthe abstract of the archeological paper, it is stated "weconclude that in the Lower Estremadura (one of the most importantregions in Europe for the discussion of the origin and diffusion ofBeaker "phenomemon") the Beaker social formation with itsown distinct cultural characteristics coexisted with localChalcolithic cultures although never merged with them.' »ME :This seems concerning the first stage of Bbs.Atthe opposite some scholars think they incorporated themselves inother cultures veryeasily in later times and places. Wesee that in the physical differences between Worms and British BBS..
if they never merged is because BB absorved the Chacolithics, cultural replacement there, and quite quick.
- an increase in popin South seems proved but was not linear/continual. I red thata demic boom/bust occurred in Iberia between 5300/5150BC (decline ofCardial, starting of Epicardial) and that the Chalco/Bronze perioddid not change things in an appreciable proportion as a whole.
So if Iberian pops were still going on... you can check the paper about the European pops and how from 2500 BC CW fall from 3 to 2 millions, and one of such millions was aloctone.
- Someconcentrations of pop can be linked to change in occupation of lands,with half-deserts countryside and urbanism.
metals can inprove the extent of arable lands, so you get a chance to increase pop.
- some kinds ofsettlements are rather « short » time ones, seemingly forprospection, and don't prove strong demography.
a migratory pop as BB can settle somewhere but after some years leave for a best place.
- BB in Southadopted or had already the same burying habits as the Neolithicprecursors, very dissimilar from the CWC and N-BBs habits.
quite logical as the BB predecessors where in the south
- you cannot findarcheologic traces of BB come by lands from East, but you cannot findother routes for them as a huge pop whatever thedirection; it seems they settled here and there after travels by seaand through rivers, going forwards rather than expanding all around ;by the way, a stage of Vucedol (around 3000 BC) has been proposed bysome Czech scholars as prototypes for the BBs pottery ;Whatever the dubious « strong » increase in pop size, Idoubt they could have produced a so huge pop by themselves, when wesee their relative small pop allover density compared to others inIberia.
you compare pops of different centuries; even so what seems to matter most is the decrease of pop in Central Europe. For the lack of tracks... if they were going with horses or boats you can't cheek easily with archaeology such migrations.
- BBs did not begindominate S and SE Spain before the 2200 BC, spite being close to itsince the 3000 BC ; were they so strong, in fine ?Nevertheless they were already in Germany about the 2500 BC. ?Have we archeologic proofs of a huge move through W Europe at thesedates ? rather infiltration. The BB settlements in Provence andRhône proximity were found among other cultures if I red well.
The farmer cultures in S Iberia were quite populated already, by that the delay to get some of them if BB were herders. Simple infiltration is not the case as we read from papers about mtDNA in Germany or Y-DNA in Ireland.
- BBs of Germany,spite very « largely spred » concerning auDNA in PCAs arecloser to North-Central Europeans than to Iberians of today as amean, being even farther from the Chalco Iberians. The impression isthat « northeastern autosomes » came into Iberia fromCentral Europe through France ; If the first BBs of S-Iberiawere the Y-R1bs promotors we are obliged to imagine there has been ahuge back move into Iberia after first expansion. Traces ?
Such balance is debt to a given mix with a proportion favoring the central european genes. For migrations to Iberia with central european genes you have the late expansion of Celtics with Urnfield and Halstadt cultures.
We cannot put the mt-H increase only on theaccount of BBs moves in Europe. MtH(1&3) were surely wellimplanted in Portugal and Atlantic Europe since Neolithic, maybe LateMesolithic or even earlier in some regions (we lack anDNA fromwestern shores of Europe as a whole, you noticed it, but we haveancient Basques and Cantabrians mt-DNA) ; Megalithers and local« partners »seem having had some weight until Germanybefore BBs appeared there. Yet, Gurgy people (46) had 34,7% mt-H around 4900/4500 BC and there were not on the Atlantic shores and it was before the apparent megaliths W >> E expansion.
You can't get a 40% of H in BB Germans with a 35%, instead a figure of 70% as in S Portugal would work finely.
I think BBs are among the technical (andpolitical as elite) far promotors of Atlantic Bronze Age ?. Buttheir second way* to Germany or at least one of the ways of theirartefacts , across France (Loire/Liger and Burgundia) was alreadypractized by Atlantic Megalithers before them (I propose : a lotof Y-I2a + mtH1/3 + mtU5?). Itseems CWC in the Netherlands, by instance, did not mix immediatelywith Megalithers of Holland shores AND DID NOT TAKE the better placesthere, which explains the CWC relative lack of mt-H. So Westmt-H could be older in Germany than first BBs there ;
we need samples then, why now cultural traits - geography - DNA - population is pointing to S Portugal.
Shortly : BBselite were not so numerous, and they move quickly enough (2800/2500BC?) here and there, and finally were incorporated among other eliteshere and there in Western Europe, more often proto-Celtic. It seemsto me they never colonized entire inlands of some great size spitethey mastered high strategic places. I take as support the seeminglyvery bigger sign of pop density the settlements of Western Europemegaliths from 4000 BC onwards. I cannot figure out a hugecolonization move from SW Iberia to Central and Northern Europe atBBs times. What had BBs more than other pops tu produce a demicboom ? We see in Iberia rather successive periods with localbooms and declines in population. We need mt-H subclades for BBs, weneed Atlantic Façade people anDNA.
BB mastered metals, having so advanced weaponry. You don't need to have much population to increase it after some generations if such little pops can profit the best the lands, and even more if they were able to rule over the autochtone population.
SO: first BBs can be "locals" of Portugal so the rich mt-H, OR males came from elsewhere picking local wives: rich mt-H; the problem of mt-H in Central Europe is not surely resolved nevertheless; your interesting post about Baleares (thanks) can only prove BBs came with rather western Iberian females there, at first sight; is Germany the same story?
For Catalonia Calcolithic samples by 3500 BC (before BB) give 36% for H, so to have 60% in Minorca it's possible with drift or by an increase of alocton H in NE Peninsula.
Wait and see. I'm longing as you to new results
likewise... by the way it would be good to solve the issue with your spacing key...
Olympus Mons
Regular Member
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 90
- Points
- 28
Anyways just a couple added stuff that is not common to see mentioned in this discussions.
1- Yes, south Portugal late Neolithic and Chalcolithic, the all alentejo lowlands are important in understanding the movement of people but those are highly admixture with something north African (Strontium and Nom metric dental traits).
2- A considerable amount of people (and cattle) in Zambujal were actually born (grew up) in alentejo (Perdigoes, porto torrão, etc) as per strontium. But, craniomentrics really show diverse people in the area near Lisbon (Zambujal, Carenque, leceia). Those guys went from Hyper-dolichocephalic to hyper- brachycephalic. But somehow they seem to be considered all the “same people” in the context of fortified settlements. So, enemies make different people friends I suppose. That is why the oldest bell beaker pottery was found in huts, 4 meter way from the biggest and meanest military powerhouse of its time, the Leceia settlement. So, not a chance in hell BB were “outsiders”. Leceia has inhumations at foot of its walls that nobody even care to bury. So, bell beakers were one of “them” for sure.
3. If for anything else just follow “spelt” corn and actually archeology for that matter, and one always must bear in mind that the bell beaker FOLK, left to northern Portugal, then to Galiza, then to Pais basco, then southern France and so it would be a different story to look for initials in the meseta central. Always target northern Portugal/Spain to find its genesis. Anyways here enters point 4, what I think is the most ignored papers regarded BB phenomena…. (papers go from 2008 to 2013)…
4 . If all the work done by J. Desideri and Marie Besse regarding Nom metric dental traits (a very very good proxy for DNA) had told a different story those two ladies would be true heroes lauded everywhere in the last decade. But unfortunaly (to Yamnaya junkies) this is the story they tell in several papers in the las 8 years:
So, Hundreds of sites, thousands of samples in Iberia, south France, swiss, Hungary and Czech republic.
bell beakers people (!) were “made” in Iberia where there was a large contribution of local population to their makeshift. Both Iberia FN (final Neolithic) as Cha (chalcolithic) populations gave a large contribution to what we would see in the rest of Europe as BB (those part of the study). Later in 2011 work they also note that FN are very homogenous but chalcolithic Iberia is very diverse (like I keep on saying). Anyway both are part of the makeshift of bell beakers.
Regarding south France samples, then Switzerland, there were no contribution of local populations to bell beaker folks. Hungary, maybe the most distance findings of BB also had no local population contribution to Bell beaker folks. Amazing, right? This is valid for the all period.
In the 2010 study about Switzerland Bell beakers, she was clearly after the pushed by all local archeologist theory that bell beakers in Switzerland were culturally southwestern but genetically from the Eastern group. Again a fail. Desideri works (poor girl, does not have a break) states clearly that Swiss bell beakers were Southwestern people not at all from the Eastern group.
So, lets be clear: Bell beaker phenomena for Portugal, spain, south France, Switzerland, North Italy, and even Hungary was an homogenous group of people that did not mingle at all. Period.
Now, the twist in the story, is that the other Bell beaker group that she studied that had a contribution for the local bell beakers were the Bohemia Group in the Czech rep by Corded ware pops. So when we talk about the adna of Germany BB, a bunch of people found less than a 100 miles from what clearly was a not normal event in BB life, we need to be careful about making all those inferences. Those were the Inbred BBs.
There, in Bohemia, what Desideri found out, is that the males were very closed to outside groups (so, BB males looked very homogenous as did the local CWC males). But both BB women as CW women were involved with Exogamy on those groups, meaning there were BB women found with CWC men and vice-versa. So, whatever you find in eastern Germany, miles from this Bohemia group in Elbe river, is actually representative of the this specific event. Not of the all Bell beaker. As Desideri shows, eastern group BB people did not flow back into Switzerland, south France, spain, Portugal, etc.
Too bad there is no similar study regarding BB in the rest of Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia, UK. That would really close the deal.
1- Yes, south Portugal late Neolithic and Chalcolithic, the all alentejo lowlands are important in understanding the movement of people but those are highly admixture with something north African (Strontium and Nom metric dental traits).
2- A considerable amount of people (and cattle) in Zambujal were actually born (grew up) in alentejo (Perdigoes, porto torrão, etc) as per strontium. But, craniomentrics really show diverse people in the area near Lisbon (Zambujal, Carenque, leceia). Those guys went from Hyper-dolichocephalic to hyper- brachycephalic. But somehow they seem to be considered all the “same people” in the context of fortified settlements. So, enemies make different people friends I suppose. That is why the oldest bell beaker pottery was found in huts, 4 meter way from the biggest and meanest military powerhouse of its time, the Leceia settlement. So, not a chance in hell BB were “outsiders”. Leceia has inhumations at foot of its walls that nobody even care to bury. So, bell beakers were one of “them” for sure.
3. If for anything else just follow “spelt” corn and actually archeology for that matter, and one always must bear in mind that the bell beaker FOLK, left to northern Portugal, then to Galiza, then to Pais basco, then southern France and so it would be a different story to look for initials in the meseta central. Always target northern Portugal/Spain to find its genesis. Anyways here enters point 4, what I think is the most ignored papers regarded BB phenomena…. (papers go from 2008 to 2013)…
4 . If all the work done by J. Desideri and Marie Besse regarding Nom metric dental traits (a very very good proxy for DNA) had told a different story those two ladies would be true heroes lauded everywhere in the last decade. But unfortunaly (to Yamnaya junkies) this is the story they tell in several papers in the las 8 years:
So, Hundreds of sites, thousands of samples in Iberia, south France, swiss, Hungary and Czech republic.
bell beakers people (!) were “made” in Iberia where there was a large contribution of local population to their makeshift. Both Iberia FN (final Neolithic) as Cha (chalcolithic) populations gave a large contribution to what we would see in the rest of Europe as BB (those part of the study). Later in 2011 work they also note that FN are very homogenous but chalcolithic Iberia is very diverse (like I keep on saying). Anyway both are part of the makeshift of bell beakers.
Regarding south France samples, then Switzerland, there were no contribution of local populations to bell beaker folks. Hungary, maybe the most distance findings of BB also had no local population contribution to Bell beaker folks. Amazing, right? This is valid for the all period.
In the 2010 study about Switzerland Bell beakers, she was clearly after the pushed by all local archeologist theory that bell beakers in Switzerland were culturally southwestern but genetically from the Eastern group. Again a fail. Desideri works (poor girl, does not have a break) states clearly that Swiss bell beakers were Southwestern people not at all from the Eastern group.
So, lets be clear: Bell beaker phenomena for Portugal, spain, south France, Switzerland, North Italy, and even Hungary was an homogenous group of people that did not mingle at all. Period.
Now, the twist in the story, is that the other Bell beaker group that she studied that had a contribution for the local bell beakers were the Bohemia Group in the Czech rep by Corded ware pops. So when we talk about the adna of Germany BB, a bunch of people found less than a 100 miles from what clearly was a not normal event in BB life, we need to be careful about making all those inferences. Those were the Inbred BBs.
There, in Bohemia, what Desideri found out, is that the males were very closed to outside groups (so, BB males looked very homogenous as did the local CWC males). But both BB women as CW women were involved with Exogamy on those groups, meaning there were BB women found with CWC men and vice-versa. So, whatever you find in eastern Germany, miles from this Bohemia group in Elbe river, is actually representative of the this specific event. Not of the all Bell beaker. As Desideri shows, eastern group BB people did not flow back into Switzerland, south France, spain, Portugal, etc.
Too bad there is no similar study regarding BB in the rest of Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia, UK. That would really close the deal.
Olympus Mons
Regular Member
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 90
- Points
- 28
Berun,
I agree with the annoyance of Yamnaya… its like a brand, like apple, and there is no point on calling it out on anything. Even CWC seems something different then “them”. So much that even guys back at eurogenes cant hide the fact that BB and CWC seem to “push” away from Yamnaya. Yamnaya was important to east of it… not that big to west. Although naturally being “made” of similar admixtures that became important in western Europe.
I agree with the annoyance of Yamnaya… its like a brand, like apple, and there is no point on calling it out on anything. Even CWC seems something different then “them”. So much that even guys back at eurogenes cant hide the fact that BB and CWC seem to “push” away from Yamnaya. Yamnaya was important to east of it… not that big to west. Although naturally being “made” of similar admixtures that became important in western Europe.
Olympus Mons
Regular Member
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 90
- Points
- 28
MOESAN.
Its huge if you call it CWC. Its minuscule if you call it BB.
However we "all know" that Bohemia Czech BB offshoots, such as anything you find all the way up the Elbe river, is everything BUT a good proxy for understanding Bell Beaker (at least its origins and the anything south). Specially if a female. As J. Desideri work showed in this region (bohemia) males were either BB or CWC, but women were actually very exogamic between them all...
Its huge if you call it CWC. Its minuscule if you call it BB.
However we "all know" that Bohemia Czech BB offshoots, such as anything you find all the way up the Elbe river, is everything BUT a good proxy for understanding Bell Beaker (at least its origins and the anything south). Specially if a female. As J. Desideri work showed in this region (bohemia) males were either BB or CWC, but women were actually very exogamic between them all...
MOESAN
Elite member
- Messages
- 6,372
- Reaction score
- 1,613
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Brittany
- Ethnic group
- more celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b - L21/S145*
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3c
Kind discussion
A) The Bell Beakers are the first to display complex hierarchy and used effectively metals for weaponry, no matter the precise origin of such culture, but the case is that they mastered such pops.
B) (Moesan)« Infact, the archaeological sites with Bell Beaker remains are veryscarce in the Meseta Central of the Iberian Peninsula.«
If you travel there you will know why: it's a barren steppe with lands cultivated each five years. Even so there were BB.
C) (Moesan) - an increase in popin South seems proved but was not linear/continual. I red thata demic boom/bust occurred in Iberia between 5300/5150BC (decline ofCardial, starting of Epicardial) and that the Chalco/Bronze perioddid not change things in an appreciable proportion as a whole.
So if Iberian pops were still going on... you can check the paper about the European pops and how from 2500 BC CW fall from 3 to 2 millions, and one of such millions was aloctone.
D) (Moesan) - some kinds ofsettlements are rather « short » time ones, seemingly forprospection, and don't prove strong demography.
a migratory pop as BB can settle somewhere but after some years leave for a best place.
E)- BBs did not begin dominate S and SE Spain before the 2200 BC, spite being close to itsince the 3000 BC ; were they so strong, in fine ?Nevertheless they were already in Germany about the 2500 BC. ?Have we archeologic proofs of a huge move through W Europe at thesedates ? rather infiltration. The BB settlements in Provence andRhône proximity were found among other cultures if I red well.
The farmer cultures in S Iberia were quite populated already, by that the delay to get some of them if BB were herders. Simple infiltration is not the case as we read from papers about mtDNA in Germany or Y-DNA in Ireland.
F) We cannot put the mt-H increase only on theaccount of BBs moves in Europe. MtH(1&3) were surely wellimplanted in Portugal and Atlantic Europe since Neolithic, maybe LateMesolithic or even earlier in some regions (we lack anDNA fromwestern shores of Europe as a whole, you noticed it, but we haveancient Basques and Cantabrians mt-DNA) ; Megalithers and local« partners »seem having had some weight until Germanybefore BBs appeared there. Yet, Gurgy people (46) had 34,7% mt-H around 4900/4500 BC and there were not on the Atlantic shores and it was before the apparent megaliths W >> E expansion.
You can't get a 40% of H in BB Germans with a 35%, instead a figure of 70% as in S Portugal would work finely.
spacing key...
A) BBs the first to have complex hierarchy? Are you sure? (I avow I have not too much clues for Cahclo Iberia but ti seems some hierarchy already existed ?
B) and E) you say thery were herders; so they were stopped by cultivators density in S Spain but not in Central Europe? and what prevented them to settle more densely in the Meseta?
C) so BBs were not a big intruders pop (if they were intruders) and they did not encrease too much the local population in S-Iberia.
D) constant migrating people in general doesn't increase their pop in great proportions, I think
F) when you pass from around 35% mtH in Catalunia to 50% in Baleares, you speak of possible drift, not of impossibility; but for Gurgey and Central Europe is not the same (I admit Baleares are smaller so drift is more possible) - but Gurgy is more East than West, and was an example and old and at this time my suggestion (not affirmation) of possible Atlantic mt-H would have bee too early, but around 3300/3000 BC it would no more be so impossible (BB arrived in central regions only around the 2500/2200 BC or later)
I know I'm splitting hairs but?...
Not to argue, only to try to precise:
Cardoso showed that first BB settlements were outside the Chalco people fortifications, and were relatively modest. They found a "lift" into the fortifications only later, but stayed sometimes like guests; a religion? a metallurgist corporation? both? and later, they took the strong side (apparently!) and we see fine BB vessels in fortifiations (elites) and more diverse, more useful, less honorific BB vessels outside the fortifications; to me it's more the proof of adoption of a kit by en elite (or fusion of elites) than the military conquest by BB's over Chalco's;
What does not exclude movesof pops after adoption. In S-France, existed a lot of diverses situations with pure BBs, pure nonBBs and mixed cultures, with adoption of BBs without demic imput in some cases, seemingly. You know what I think of the nonmetrics dental precision? I would have preferred they had tested mt-DNA and au-DNA of the teeth.
If you learn about physical traits and DNA of the southern BBs I would be glad to know more.
spacing key: I think I lost it.
dnaforensicslab
Junior Member
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The Bell Beakers are the first to have complex hierarchy.
MOESAN
Elite member
- Messages
- 6,372
- Reaction score
- 1,613
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Brittany
- Ethnic group
- more celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b - L21/S145*
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3c
what is funny is that the first BB wares entering the Iberia strongplaces were as the goods of guest people assigned a place to them but not the first one, seemingly, if I red well. After, things changed and positions changed too. A religious/metallurgists caste at first, later succesfull?
concerning mt-H in extreme Western Europe I wait more data for the period between EN and Chalco; it seems what we have to date is very scarce?
concerning mt-H in extreme Western Europe I wait more data for the period between EN and Chalco; it seems what we have to date is very scarce?
berun
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,084
- Reaction score
- 183
- Points
- 0
For mtDNA H of EN in the source area of BB, you have the paper Using ancient DNA to examine genetic continuity at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Portugal, some 17 in 23 were H...
For Calcho it seems that we need to wait more for the BB paper...
For Calcho it seems that we need to wait more for the BB paper...
berun
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,084
- Reaction score
- 183
- Points
- 0
Not a real new but a "leak" already spread by DNA blogs. There was a talk in the Dorset County Museum by Volker Heyd the past week. It was announced so:
Jean Manco attended the talk and did some questions, his resumé in Anthrogenica was:
The words "challenge" and "problem" and the verbs "to make sense" and "he sticks" fit well for Yamnayists? Why Heyd must stick in a Yamnayan origin for Bell Beakers if archaeology is not providing reasons? by DNA results?
Jean Manco attended the talk and did some questions, his resumé in Anthrogenica was:
The words "challenge" and "problem" and the verbs "to make sense" and "he sticks" fit well for Yamnayists? Why Heyd must stick in a Yamnayan origin for Bell Beakers if archaeology is not providing reasons? by DNA results?
Alpenjager
Regular Member
- Messages
- 249
- Reaction score
- 123
- Points
- 0
As previously posted, new Bell Beaker results from Iberian Peninsula confirms again that mtDNA H was not linked to R1b. Instead, mtDNA H is strongly linked to Early Neolithic populations with peaks in those where Y-DNA T1a1 have been found close.
https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/frontdoor.php?source_opus=100000815&la=en
Last edited:
I don't think he is commenting on DNA issues. His theory was that at least the central european BB had a Yamnaya origin. The older dates found for Iberian BB put that in question, since they suggest an Iberian origin. Based on the usage of corded decoration he still thinks at least the central European BB has a Yamnaya origin. Also, it's very irritating that the reply window doesn't accept spaces.
Last edited:
zanipolo
Banned
- Messages
- 2,071
- Reaction score
- 65
- Points
- 48
- Ethnic group
- Down Under
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- T1a2 - Z19945
- mtDNA haplogroup
- K1a4o
Did the 2 x T1a-M70 found in Central Germany 5500BC who both had H mtdna markers , come from Iberia with "H mtdna " already or did these T1a-M70 meets the H1 and H46 in Central Germany?
Alpenjager
Regular Member
- Messages
- 249
- Reaction score
- 123
- Points
- 0
They probably arrived together to the North European Plain coming from somewhere in the East.