Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe

seen from far it seems that archeologically first BBs (Portugal) passed their knowledge or their package has been adopted by foreign elites of Central Europe origin (at a point at least); so it could confirm some archeologists hypthesis; BTW the "mixed" BB's are in central-northern Spain and southeastern France: hazard? - the more "North-East" position of british BBs is not so strange because we know the first beakers of South-West Britain showed physically an input of the northern element in CWC + an input of a kind of HG's ('borrebylike'), apparently picked in northern Germany (see JC Coon and H. Hubert).
The question of Y-R1b seems to me confirming a two ways penetration of R1b in Europe westwards, a Mediterranean one and a Danube or/and South Baltic one. But can we be sure we can attach these southern Y-R1b to first BB's pottery???

Exactly Moesan, with the help of David of Eurogenes news Global 25 can be shown that my autosomal DNA is striking familiar with that of the British Bell Beaker. Indeed the phenotype is also striking familiar as you describe.

It’s rooted in the The Northern British/North Rhine Beaker Group (N/NR) as described by Clarke:
‘The particular interest of the Northern/North Rhine group and its close cousin the Barbed Wire beaker group, is that both groups only just scrape within the de nition of beakers of the Bell beaker tradition. Both tlle Northern/North Rhine and the Barbed-Wire beaker groups comprise traditions of mixed Late Corded Ware and peripheral Bell beaker origin. This mixture of traditions can be recognised in the squat, protruding foot, ovoid body beakers with recurved rims, incised or grooved decoration with a poor repertoire� of basic beaker motifs and a neolithic poverty of grave associations. To these factors can be added the occasional use of cremation burial rite in a small grave with the beaker beside the cremation heap, and a number of vessels without decoration below the belly.
The Northern/North Rhine beaker group then is represented by the small squat . or globular vessels with protruding feet. The decoration frequently consists of heavy grooving below the rim with crude or carelessly incised zones on the body, including metopic motifs. The typical motif is the multiple outlined triangle of the diagnostic form common throughout the Corded Ware tradition and entirely alien in the Bell beakermotifassemblage(Struve, 1955,p.136).The origin of the groups seems to lie in the similar assemblages found immediately North of the old Rhine Delta and along the hinterland of the Frisian coasts. The Dutch examples of this group have been partially de ned by Modderman (1955) but the type is centered across the border in coastal Germany4. In this area it would appear that late and devolved Corded Ware groups integrated small bands of beaker settlers producing a pottery assemblage of hybrid character.
These folk, with their strong non-beaker background, apparently crossed the North Sea in a series of small bands somewhere around 1700 B.C. or slightly later. The settlers clustered in three foci based on the North Sea Coast: - around the Moray Firth, in the Border Counties and on the Yorkshire Wolds. The domestic assemblage included both undecorated and non-plastic rusticated ware. The main importance of these settlers from across the North Sea lies in the subsequent inte­ gration of certain of their pottery features with the later Dutch beakers of the Veluwe type, giving rise to regional insular variations such as the beakers with short, angular. all-over-grooved necks.

http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/download/24936/22384


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum
 
Last edited:
Berun.... its not kura araxes! the key is before them. Shulaveri -Shomu (6000bc-4900bc)!!! :)

Any way another one. Italy bell beaker in Parma full r1b -312. best fit is:
over 50% southwest Iberian CA and 30% Yamnaya Kalmykia

Hence a male eatern bell beaker, getting a Portuguese woman in north Italy! ... Jesus!

Interesting

I2477 from Parma was 45% Iberian CA and 0.3% Yamnaya, the rest Balkanic and Remedello. See it on Eurogenes blog comments

She was a woman, mtDNA T2b3+151
 
Interesting

I2477 from Parma was 45% Iberian CA and 0.3% Yamnaya, the rest Balkanic and Remedello. See it on Eurogenes blog comments

She was a woman, mtDNA T2b3+151

Exactly. She's not a "Portugese woman".

Some people have to stop thinking so literally and one dimensionally. This woman's .3% could be noise for all we know, and even if not, she could just be an average person from the surrounding area. The Remedello like and Balkan like alleles certainly fit. I've been saying for more than three years that there was a movement of Balkan area people into Italy in the Copper Age, maybe starting with a search for metals. Maybe some Copper Age farmer like genes also came from Iberia by way of southern France. I wish we had more samples from the latter area. Or maybe Copper Age farmers from around Emilia had some genetic input from Liguria that was like the alleles in Spain and southern France around that time.

Also, the people in mid-Central Europe who encountered the "eastern" soon to become "Beakers" were slightly different than the Copper Age Iberians.

I just don't think we know enough to be certain of this stuff yet.
 
Interesting

I2477 from Parma was 45% Iberian CA and 0.3% Yamnaya, the rest Balkanic and Remedello. See it on Eurogenes blog comments

She was a woman, mtDNA T2b3+151

I am talking about I2478. A male, R1b full P312.
 
I know, I2477 is one of the other two BB from Parma

See "Full output" in the comment of Eurogenes

Thanks. Just did. Wow. I respect Alberto.
I am banned in there. Can you ask alberto which one is he using to give such a clear Southwesten Iberia CA... which is Portugal. So, land of older BB.
 
actually i've never made a comment there, i'm just a lurker [emoji16]
 
actually i've never made a comment there, i'm just a lurker [emoji16]

Come on. Just ask him. :)
Its ok. As long as you dont say anything against Steppe theory they all dont care.
 
The problem is that they require a LiveJournal, Wordpress ecc account, i dont have it..i only have google plus but i prefer not to use it for privacy reasons.

I'm pretty sure that some user of this forum post there regularly
 
The problem is that they require a LiveJournal, Wordpress ecc account, i dont have it..i only have google plus but i prefer not to use it for privary reasons.

I'm pretty sure that some user of this forum post there regularly

Yes. I will get to him. ;) dont worry. thanks for bringing it to my attention.
 
If the bell-shaped phenomenon has its origin in Portugal, which is what sustains science, the hardest thing to believe is that it expanded to the center of Europe and beyond as a kind of fashion, without the intervention of people, since the phenomenon or whatever you want to call it, they were not only ceramic pieces, they were also a way of burying people that imply questions of deep beliefs and religious values, this is difficult to expand as a fashion.


Therefore, the most likely hypothesis would be:


Expansion of the phenomenon from Portugal to the rest of Europe and North Africa, by individuals mixing WHG and EEF without steppe, it is not known yet if these individuals were R1b or not and they spoke an Indo-European or Basque or Iberian language, time will tell, mix of these individuals with people from the steppe in central Europe and later expansion of this mixture to the rest of Europe including a reflux towards the Iberian peninsula.

That is exactly what I think is the most likely scenario, though I think that the admixture with the first Iberian BBs of Portugal may have been quite minor and additional admixture involved intermediary BBs or BB-influenced peoples in the rest of Iberia and maybe as far as Atlantic (western) France, who may have already been a bit influenced by steppe introgression. What I definitely do not think is most likely is that the first BBs were those who spread R1b to the entire Western and much of Central Europe. I think that, regardless of whether R1b men originally spoke IE or not, this haplogroup became associated with IE-speaking tribes of Central Europe and then expanded from there, not from Iberia, which after all has a substantial number of R1b and, more specifically, R1b-M269 only relatively late in comparison with places much further to the east in Eastern Europe (Balkans, Ukraine, Caucasus). And, coincidence or not, the steppe admixture appears in Central and Central-West Europe and we suddenly see many R1b men there.
 
This what is being challenge. And it does not matter that one tries to warn that:
No, they do not have Bell beakers from Portugal ( reich states that they do, wrong). They have people from the region of bell beakers but basicly the ones "thrown" into caves not realy Bell beakers.
Or bring their attention to the fact that Bell beakers, even the oldest ones ever radiocarbon, the ones at the footsteps of Leceia fortress, lived for hundreds of years in the same 500 meters with no bell beaker people and never mixed. So its THAT people that needs to be sampled.
That the first wave out of Portugal would have left via Galiza and north spain by something before 2500bc.... and later bell beakers in Iberia where more "Evolved" and reflux. Actually even olalde speaks about "contrary to mtdna data and non metric dental traits". So they know that Mtdna and Nmdental clearly show exit out of iberia... and have been stating for long that the exogamy in central Europe group changed their nmdental characteristics.

All the way, it seems these BB supposed "initiators" you cites with good reasons, found place in specific quarters of Chalco strongholds in Iberia, after some centuries; it seems to me that after some isolationism they were progressively integrated or at least accepted among other Chalco culture, and this could be the beginning of a spread of their artefacts (chiefly pottery to begin) perhaps in a religious or elitist snobism context. I don't see any contradiction in this spreading and the change in auDNA, as time passed and as some diverse local elites adopted it - in Alantic and Central+Rhine Europe, until the auDNA source became almost dried.
and I was stroken when I looked to PCA of BBs compared to CWC by instance:
the CWC were more grouped, compact spite their large area of settlements, compared to BB's of these studies, the ONES OF CENTRAL WEST EUROPE, more limited in cultural spreading, but covering all today Europe - PCA speaking - from Northwest to Balkans-South-East: so a very large spectrum which implies crossings with females of different places.
I think we need still more anDNA of BBs of diverse place and PERIODS if we want compare the variation + maybe chronologic evolution in auDNA making and in mtDNA.
I repeat: we don't know all about BB phenomenon and evolution...

As you can see, if I reserve my jugement concerning SHulaveri culture (I'm weak in archeol), I'm not in complete opposition to your theory of Portugal as a source; but I 'm still unsure of remote origins of BB, i'm tempted to see in somewhere in East or South-East.
 
That is exactly what I think is the most likely scenario, though I think that the admixture with the first Iberian BBs of Portugal may have been quite minor and additional admixture involved intermediary BBs or BB-influenced peoples in the rest of Iberia and maybe as far as Atlantic (western) France, who may have already been a bit influenced by steppe introgression. What I definitely do not think is most likely is that the first BBs were those who spread R1b to the entire Western and much of Central Europe. I think that, regardless of whether R1b men originally spoke IE or not, this haplogroup became associated with IE-speaking tribes of Central Europe and then expanded from there, not from Iberia, which after all has a substantial number of R1b and, more specifically, R1b-M269 only relatively late in comparison with places much further to the east in Eastern Europe (Balkans, Ukraine, Caucasus). And, coincidence or not, the steppe admixture appears in Central and Central-West Europe and we suddenly see many R1b men there.

I guess that the latest phase of the Bell Beaker, the Barbed Wire Beaker, was most probably a factor in the spread of R1BU106. For example: the samples Rise98, Lille Beddinge, Scania Sweden and Oostwoud, North Dutch.
 
From what i know Copper Age Sicily was already under "Eastern Meditearranean influences" (Anatolia or Cyprus, probably the same peoples detected by the Kılınç et al. study that replaced EEF there), but also the rest of Italy with the Rinaldone, Gaudo, Laterza culture.

Btw i have checked the Excel file, there are no Y-DNA for Sicily only mtDNA, i dont know the origin of these maternal lines so i can't say if "my theory" is true (Beaker father - Indigenous mother or grandmother). Another explanation could be that the Beakers acquired the extra CHG in Sardinia (i remember reading a post on the Eurogenes Blog "Sardinia pack a lot of CHG" or something like that), since Sicilian Beaker came from there and not from the peninsula
Already you can see the genetic cline north-south Italy. Anyway the Sicilian BBs plot close of modern-day Sicilians kinda like Myceneans.
 
Hidden secrets

[SIZE=+2]Thanks for your challenge it an intoxicating taste that won't stop until I take a sip. Since I've located the books maybe if I have some specifics I can help more. It's truly amazing that we can find so much that has been concealed.
(1) The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, by Spencer Wells[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]
[/SIZE]p. 27} Inside each of our cells, what we think of as our genome - the complete DNA sequence that encodes all of the proteins made in our bodies, in addition to a lot of other DNA that has no known function - is really present in two copies. The DNA is packaged into neat, linear components known as chromosomes - we have twenty-three pairs of them. Chromosomes are found inside a cellular structure known as the nucleus. One of the main features of our genome is the astounding compartmentalization - like computer folders within folders within folders. In all there are 3,000,000,000 (3 billion) building blocks, known as nucleotides (which come in four flavours: A, C, G and T), in the human genome, and we need some way to get at all of the information it contains in a straightforward way.
{p. 28} The reason we have two copies of each chromosome is more compli- cated, but it comes down to sex. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, one of the main things that happens is that part of the father's genome and part of the mother's genome combine in a 50:50 ratio to form the new genome of the baby. Biologically speaking, one of the reasons for sex is that it generates new genomes every generation. The new combinations arise, not only at the moment of conception with the 50:50 mixing of the maternal and paternal genomes, but also prior to that, when the sperm and egg themselves are being formed. This pre-sexual mixing, known as genetic recombination, is possible because of the linear nature of the chromosomes - it is relatively easy to break both chromosomes in the middle and reattach them to their partners, forming new, chimeric chromosomes in the process. The reason why this occurs, as with the mixing of Mum's and Dad's DNA, is that it is probably a good thing, evolutionarily speaking, to generate diversity in each generation. If the environment changes, you'll be ready to react.
But wait, you might say, why are these broken and reattached chromosomes any different from the ones that existed before? They were supposed to be duplicates! The reason, quite simply, is that they aren't exact copies of each other - they differ from each other at many locations along their length. They are like duplicates of duplicates of duplicates of duplicates, made with a dodgy copying machine that introduces a small number of random errors every time the chromo- somes are copied. These errors are the mutations mentioned above, and the differences between each chromosome in a pair are the polymorphisms. Polymorphisms are found roughly every 1,000 nucleotides along the chromosome, and serve to distinguish the chromosomes from each other. So, when recombination occurs, the new chromosomes are different from the parental types.
The evolutionary effect of recombination is to break up sets of polymorphisms that are linked together on the same piece of DNA. Again, this diversity-generating mechanism is a good thing evolutionarily speaking, but it makes life very difficult for molecular biologists who want to read the history book in the human genome.
{p. 29} Recombination allows each polymorphism on a chromosome to behave independently from the others. Over time the polymorphisms are recombined many, many times, and after hundreds or thousands of generations, the pattern of polymorphisms that existed in the common ancestor of the chromosomes has been entirely lost. The descendant chromosomes have been completely shuffled, and no trace of the original deck remains. The reason this is bad for evolutionary studies is that, without being able to say something about the ancestor, we cannot apply Ockham's razor to the pattern of polymorphisms, and we therefore have no idea how many changes really distinguish the shuffled chromosomes. At the moment, all of our estimates of molecular clocks are based on the rate at which new polymorphisms appear through mutation. Recombination makes it look like there have been mutations when there haven't, and because of this it causes us to overestimate the time that has elapsed since the common ancestor.
[SIZE=+2]
[/SIZE][SIZE=+2]2) Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project, by Spencer Wells

[/SIZE]
It goes into greater detail about haplogroups (of both mtDNA and Y Chromosome). Persons sharing a genetic marker eg M9 or M52 are assigned to haplogroups.
The major Y chromosome haplogroups for Europe are R1a1, R1b, I1a, I1b, J2, N and E36. Major mitochondrial haplogroups for Europe are H, K, T, U, V and J.
Haplogroup J is a genetic signature from the first Neoloithic agriculturalists in the Middle East about 10,000 years ago; they expanded outwards from there, east as far as the Indus Valley, and also into east and central Europe, but the lineages carried by these Neolithic expansions are found today at low frequencies.
For Haplogroup J, the ancestral line is "Eve" -> L1/L0 -> L2 -> L3 -> N -> R -> J.
For R1b, the ancestral line is "Adam" -> M168 -> M89 -> M9 -> M207 -> M173 -> M343. Persons in R1b are descendants of the Cro-Magnon people, some of whom created the cave paintings in southern France. M343 is the defining marker of haplogroup R1b.
For R1a1, the ancestral line is "Adam" -> M168 -> M89 -> M9 -> M45 -> M207 -> M173 -> M17. M17 is the defining marker of haplogroup R1a1; its bearers were the Aryan invaders from the steppes.
Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project
 
Already you can see the genetic cline north-south Italy. Anyway the Sicilian BBs plot close of modern-day Sicilians kinda like Myceneans.

Someone told me it's being discussed on Eurogenes. As usual, what's posted there on Italian genetics is usually less than convincing, shall we say.

Some good posters still on there occasionally, though why I have no idea.

"Roy King said...Nice!
The Sicilian BB sample already has IranNeo influence prior to the Minoan/Mycenaean/Archaic Greek/Phoenician possible migrations. Clearly, with the arrival of IE languages there is an increase in Yamnaya admixture. My guess is that there was a metal-searching movement to Sicily and/or Sardinia in the 3rd millennium BCE."

Roy King also posted somewhere:

"Focusing on the Eastern Mediterranean and Aegean areas: The late Neolithic Peloponnese samples are shifted toward BA Anatolia and Chalcolithic Anatolia with presumptive CHG input. The earlier Neolithic sample from the Peloponnese aligns with the early Greek Neolithic samples. The later samples are about 4000 BCE in dating and also cluster with Minoan Crete samples. The one Minoan--I9130--who is G2a in Y chromosome looks like the Early Greek Neolithic samples; the rest cluster with the late Peloponnese and the late Anatolian (Chalcolthic/BA) samples. The data strongly suggest a movement circa 4000 BCE from Anatolia to mainland Greece, perhaps associated with J2a1 and the pre-Greek substrate languages (-ss- and -nth1 toponyms)"


So, this kind of ancestry probably started arriving in Europe even before the 3rd millennium BC. We won't know whether, when, and how much of it reached Sicily until we get some ancient dna from there, but if these "models" are at all accurate, it might have been there since before the times of the Beakers.

With the arrival of those "Mycenaean" like genomes, that would have increased.

From some more of the intelligent, objective posters there:


"Alberto said...

I'm not getting any steppe admixture in that Sicilian BB, even including other Bell Beakers in the source. Instead I get:

Beaker_Sicily:I4930
Anatolia_ChL 45.4%
Balkans_N 35%
Iberia_Central_CA 10.25%
Balaton_Lasinja_CA 5.35%
Malak_Preslavets 2.5%
Vinca_MN 1.45%
LBK_EN_Austria 0.05%"


Matt:
"From visual analysis, it looks like to get to Sicilians, the easiest ancient model is Mycenaean+Central_European (though this may or may not be most historically and linguistically sensible). For Balkans it's Mycenaean+Slavic. The Balkans BA populations don't seem quite right as ancestral without extensive Anatolia_BA like ancestry.

To get to the Mycenaeans themselves, it seems like Tepecik_Ciftlik+Balkans_BA or Anatolia_BA+Balkans_BA either work, depending on whether we pick more or less Anatolian-like Balkans_BA."

I'm not sure it would make sense to model Sicilians as Sicilian Beaker plus whatever. Beakers were only in one part of the island, plus this particular sample looks like it was an early mix. I have no idea what the rest of the island would have looked like genomically in the mid 3rd century BC or even earlier.
 
Alberto at Eurogenes, is modeling one of the R1b-312 Bell beakers in north Italy as:

Beaker_Northern_Italy:I2478
Iberia_Southwest_CA 51.05%
Yamnaya_Kalmykia 33%
Tisza_LN 12.95%
Armenia_ChL 2.9%
Ireland_MN 0.1%

It looks like he is using the added individual in Olalde paper to model that later BB in italy. All other Portugal samples there are stated as Bell Beakers. None of those are!
Now, added I6601 is different. Olalde call it SW_Iberia_CA. However, having 2800bc-2600bc, was the only one that "meet" or was part of the people making those pots.
Bolores individuals were buried with care, with blades, beads, etc. Sort of an elite. Bolores is in the sizandro river that flows from Zambujal (place with the most bell beakers pots) to the sea. A region completely dominated by Zambujal people.


http://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/view/680/703
 
Alberto at Eurogenes, is modeling one of the R1b-312 Bell beakers in north Italy as:

Beaker_Northern_Italy:I2478
Iberia_Southwest_CA 51.05%
Yamnaya_Kalmykia 33%
Tisza_LN 12.95%
Armenia_ChL 2.9%
Ireland_MN 0.1%

It looks like he is using the added individual in Olalde paper to model that later BB in italy. All other Portugal samples there are stated as Bell Beakers. None of those are!
Now, added I6601 is different. Olalde call it SW_Iberia_CA. However, having 2800bc-2600bc, was the only one that "meet" or was part of the people making those pots.
Bolores individuals were buried with care, with blades, beads, etc. Sort of an elite. Bolores is in the sizandro river that flows from Zambujal (place with the most bell beakers pots) to the sea. A region completely dominated by Zambujal people.


http://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/view/680/703

Sorry, delete
 
All the way, it seems these BB supposed "initiators" you cites with good reasons, found place in specific quarters of Chalco strongholds in Iberia, after some centuries; it seems to me that after some isolationism they were progressively integrated or at least accepted among other Chalco culture, and this could be the beginning of a spread of their artefact----variation + maybe chronologic evolution in auDNA making and in mtDNA.
I repeat: we don't know all about BB phenomenon and evolution...

As you can see, if I reserve my jugement concerning SHulaveri culture (I'm weak in archeol), I'm not in complete opposition to your theory of Portugal as a source; but I 'm still unsure of remote origins of BB, i'm tempted to see in somewhere in East or South-East.

Moesan,
Shulaveri Shomu will break my heart of they don’t turn out to be something real special. Now the Bell Beakers people from Portugal, either R1b or other, won’t really kill me.
For now we have Shulaveri mtdna H15, H2a and I1… not typical of the region at all.
Now, I don’t think they are the origin of BB. Just say that M269, L23 was born there! And when they disappear (4900BC) they went north Caucasus and steppe. They went west as one sees in KUM6, and even back to Balkans (where I think they came from in the 6300bc).
Crazy , Crazy is me thinking that they formed Merimde beni salama and El-omari in Egypt. They follow “cousins” R1b-V88 that already were in Fayum . But much more crazy is me thinking that they follow their cattle to jump into Iberia in 3800-3300bc. --- And if they were the L23, already L51…then they would be the origin of Bell beakers. Crazy I know.
 

This thread has been viewed 41621 times.

Back
Top