The Bell Beaker by Olalde and Reich et al. 2017

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,
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 BeakerGermanyOsterhofen-Altenmarkt [RISE563]M
R1b1a2a1a2bPF6570/S28/U152K1c1Allentoft 2015; Mathieson 2015

it is not dated directly, but from the context, it's the oldest R1b-U152 I know
 
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.
 
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
 
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. 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 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 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?
 
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.
 
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/2017/0...showComment=1493925545459#c430196713339443272

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:

Capture.JPG
 
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.
 
Right, though evidence suggests that Corded Ware in Switzerland was quite short-lived and disappeared before the arrival of Bell Beaker, as suggested here. 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 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 -
 
I forgot some of the Swiss valleys shew also 'alpine ' pehontypes of unkown auDNA assignation bit it's not the focus of this topic
 
[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.
 
[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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
Last edited:
[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 *medya-s and *medis , from Proto-Indo-European *medʰi-, *medʰyo- (“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/mežs#Etymology_2
 
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.

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.
 
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).
 

This thread has been viewed 87867 times.

Back
Top