The Bell Beaker by Olalde and Reich et al. 2017

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.
 
Villabruna was EHG? I can't buy your proposal. And the Neolithic Iberian R1b-V88 now is labeled as R1b1a...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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 :)

 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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).

View attachment 8677
 
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?
 
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
Thanks, Promenade. This one's been published, so here's a direct link.


Steppe is black.

C_eMgwRXoAEycTp.jpg
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.




 
@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.
 

This thread has been viewed 87854 times.

Back
Top