Bell Beakers From West to East

[celtiberian-II]

An important period of European prehistory is related to the Bell Beaker complex. An interesting study has been published in

www dot encyclopedia dot com / humanities / encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps / bell-beakers-west-east

 

[MOESAN]

Threads have been dedicated to this topic already

 

[celtiberian-II]

Threads have been dedicated to this topic already

Thank you for your reply Moesan. I have been reading the posts of the related thread "Iberian Bell Beaker Y-DNA and mtDNA" but the last post was of July 2018 or about. There were an interesting discussion and some reasonable hypothesis but I couldn't see a clear conclusion. In fact, a forumer (ToBeOrNotToBe) asked urgently for new data.
Is the origin of the inverted-bell pottery the Iberian peninsula? Why the genetic impact of these people was high in the British isles and low in the continental shores? Is the BB integrated to the CW pottery? Has been demonstrated the logical maritime reflux of the BB from central to SW Europe? Is this reflux associated to a maritime gene flow? Simultaneously, in the late Chalcolithic there was a genetic turnover in the British isles with dominance of steppe R1b y-hg. At the same time appeared this new y-hg in some places of the Iberian peninsula (Asturias, Burgos, Madrid, Castilla-La Mancha), all related with geographical areas considered indoeuropean 2000 years later. Coincidence?
Sorry, many questions with answers that I am going to search in the published threads.

 

[MOESAN]

To begin with,
It seems first BB pots were manufactured in Western Iberia. But the spreading of this pottery style has been so quick...
Nothing proves us first BBers were of Y-R1b-P312 stock. If no error, their Y-haplo's were variated, maybe of Neolithic origin or Megalithic, spite not by force local.
It seems the first BB users and makers lived outside the first Chalcolithic fortresses. Their pottery untruded into the fortresses a bit later, not in complete set of forms but only under selected forms (fine, often 'maritime') rather than domestic forms. Nothing tell us this kind of selected pottery entered the fortresses with numerous people, and a fortiori, brought by conquerent people. To me it seems the pottery was adopted by Chalco people of some kind (Y-R1b-P312?) in Iberia. The propagation into other parts of Europe where R1b dominated too could have been realised through a common network between these elites, or maybe by a distinct group of prospectors having created this network, R1b or not. In fact, BB's settlements in western Europe has been rather spotty first.
The BB area, so huge, was surely not so homogenous that the published maps suggest (often the cas of historical cultural maps). The pottery does not tell us everything about population ethnic and genetic homogeneity.
I stop here for now, because I'm still a bit puzzled by this phenomenon.

 

[celtiberian-II]

To begin with,
It seems first BB pots were manufactured in Western Iberia. But the spreading of this pottery style has been so quick...
Nothing proves us first BBers were of Y-R1b-P312 stock. If no error, their Y-haplo's were variated, maybe of Neolithic origin or Megalithic, spite not by force local.
It seems the first BB users and makers lived outside the first Chalcolithic fortresses. Their pottery untruded into the fortresses a bit later, not in complete set of forms but only under selected forms (fine, often 'maritime') rather than domestic forms. Nothing tell us this kind of selected pottery entered the fortresses with numerous people, and a fortiori, brought by conquerent people. To me it seems the pottery was adopted by Chalco people of some kind (Y-R1b-P312?) in Iberia. The propagation into other parts of Europe where R1b dominated too could have been realised through a common network between these elites, or maybe by a distinct group of prospectors having created this network, R1b or not. In fact, BB's settlements in western Europe has been rather spotty first.
The BB area, so huge, was surely not so homogenous that the published maps suggest (often the cas of historical cultural maps). The pottery does not tell us everything about population ethnic and genetic homogeneity.
I stop here for now, because I'm still a bit puzzled by this phenomenon.

The genetic relation of the British and the neolithic farmers (arriving 4000 BC in a Mediterranean/Athlantic front) has been published and it is reasonable that these people reached the north shores of central Europe, isn't it? There, they could meet the Anatolian people migrated following the continental front and a common network could be formed. Chronologically, maritime BB pots appeared in Iberia (2800 BC) before any sample of R1b-P312 (Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic, according to the R1b tree in Eupedia). An Early Chalcolithic I2a1b1 was dated 2700-2300 BC in the Tagus estuary. Likewise, in the British isles (e.g., a sample I2a2a1 3300-2500 BC) and France (I2a1a 2750-2725 BC), with no presence of steppe R1b. Then, the original maritime BB people would be of I2a stock. In the Late Chalcolithic, a sudden genetic turnover happened and steppe-R1b is present with a higher frequency than the I2a y-hg, in West-Central Europe, the British isles and also in the Iberian peninsula. The original maritime BB style and the CW style brought by steppe-R1b people could be merged before these successful people occupied the B. isles. It is reasonable also a maritime reflux of the new BB style from central to SW Europe related with this genetic turnover. There are remains of R1b-L23 (Pontic Steppe) in Asturias (NW Spain) 2500-2200 BC, R1b-L51 (Central Europe) in Burgos (N Spain) (2287-2044 BC) and in Castilla-La Mancha (Central Spain) 2271-1984 BC, and R1b-U152 (Italo-Gaulish) in Madrid (Central Spain) (2500-2000 BC), to put some examples. All these places are in regions considered Celts (or at least indoeuropeans) in Greek and Roman historic time, around 2000 years later.
Thank you again Moesan for your comments.

 

[MOESAN]

The question is that the "neolithic" (crossed with WHG) ancestry in NW Europe, if linked in a big part to the same pop in Iberia, was already in the Isles before the BB phenomenon began. So the auDNA similarities are not a good marker of possible SW BB's introgression into the Isles. There, the BB's pottery is not too sooner than 2500 BC, and at the same dates (2500) it seems first Y-R1b-L51>P312 were already putting their feet into Sth Britain, surely from SE (Rhinemouth?).
I regret I have not a clear description of the Y-haplo's of the first outside and inside BB's pots bearers or adopters at the time of the Iberian Chalco fortresses. Seemingly, R1B of P312 modle was not present in Sth Iberia between 2900 and 2500, perhaps even a bit later. But are we sure?
Maybe the first BB potters were rather people with a stronger input of megalithics males than the Chalco elites inside the first fortresses? I don't have clue helas.
Other questions: the 'dinaric' aspect of a lot of people associated with BB's pots in diverse places of Europe, before their almost complete disparition in West (spite some current input in Central Europe): they don't show evident links with previous Neolithic and Megaliths pops, or with the first CWC people either. Are they the spreaders (# not the potters) of the BB mode among Y-R1b-P312 elites or are they THE first Y-R1b-P312?
The change in sizes and shapes and quality between the first outside settlements and the subsequent inside setllements don't plaid for a pure ethnic question...
Just some thoughts; too much ink has been used for this question to be too simple.

 

[MOESAN]

If their Y-I2a(1 or 2) had have ties with their cousins of eastern Europe, it could have explained (perhaps) the 'dinaric' aspect, but it seems it isn't the case.
concerning megaliths or at least barrows builders of the Atlantic coasts, we had the famous 'long barrows' people of Britain with their possible input on the western aspect of the TRBK, and possible ties with Iberia and W-France, but they had no BB pottery.

 

[celtiberian-II]

I agree, this question is far to be simple. At least for me.

To my knowledge, the steppe-R1b started the genetic replacement of Britain in 2500 BC carrying a Bell Beaker pottery result of the fusion of the original and the Corded Ware styles.

Almost at the same time the new R1b people also started the genetic male replacement in Iberia. How they arrived? A terrestrial migration has not be proven by archeology, by genetics (the human bones with steppe-R1b are not in the east or the west sides of the Pyrenees), and by linguistics neither (they invaded dominating a non Indo-european territory and then assumed the dominated culture (that's possible), and then they recovered their own language when arrived to the western territories of the Peninsula? The third possibility is an arrival employing the maritime network in use more than one millennium. This is consistent with the geographical distribution of the languages in the peninsula: Indo-european in the Atlantic shores and the non Indo-european in the Mediterranean shore. By the way, this maritime network included Brittany .

It is interesting what you say about the first BB users and makers lived outside the first Chalcolithic fortresses. Honestly, I am not able to interpret this fact but sure that it would be important to the knowledge of the BB phenomenon. Do you refer to Chalcolithic fortresses in the peninsula, lets say, at 2800 BC or after 2500 BC?

Yes, there is a connection of the oldest maritime BB style in Iberia and in Brittany, at least this can be read in wikipedia. Not sure if there are other scientific opinions.

 

[Questions]

To my knowledge, the steppe-R1b started the genetic replacement of Britain in 2500 BC

Genetic replacement isn't as easy as it seems, and it hardly ever happens without the sort of genocide that would have created mass-graves... which would have covered the island of Britain, corner to corner. The Gog-Magog Hills aren't enough proof that Britain was ever entirely overrun by big round-headed blondes, either.

Where is it written that R1b came from the steppes, anyway? R1a is the token of the Cimmerian/Scythian/Sarmatian Barbarian Invasion. If written at all, was it pounded in stone... or is it more of a hopeful theory?

 

[Tamakore]

Genetic replacement isn't as easy as it seems, and it hardly ever happens without the sort of genocide that would have created mass-graves... which would have covered the island of Britain, corner to corner.

How large do you think the population of Britain was in the 3rd millennium BC? The estimate of demographers is that the population of the British Isles increased from around 25,000 people in 3000 BC to 50,000 by 2000 BC ("Atlas of World Population History" McEvedy and Jones). Hardly a case of mass graves covering the island from corner to corner.

Part of the genetic replacement may have been an influx of immigrants swamping the locals, although this was no doubt accompanied by a "sort of genocide", as you wrote, over a period of about a hundred years.

It is unlikely that there was a sudden invasion by an army (like the Nazi invasion of Poland). They were tribal peoples, and it was probably a piecemeal process of establishing a small but well defended bridgehead, and then a regular flow of boatloads of immigrants across the English Channel. As few as 500 immigrants per annum would amount to 50,000 over one hundred years.

Leaving aside Y DNA, the main evidence of genetic replacement is that the autosomal DNA of British people before 2500 BC is distinctly different from that of modern British people, and of ancient Britons from 2300 BC onwards.

 

[celtiberian-II]

There is autosomal evidence and also Y-DNA evidence. We have now a large data base of human bones for a period of time ranging from the last glaciation to the present days. According to these data, the Y haplogroups can be traced and it is possible to observe the migration of the steppe-R1b from east to west Europe. In particular, if we consider the snapshot of the Early Calcolithic age, there were no steppe-R1b in Iberia, the British isles and west-central Europe, only neolithic farmers Y-DNA. Suddenly, in the next Late Calcolithic age, the snapshot shows Y-DNA mostly steppe-R1b and the neolithic Y-DNA vanished.
How this happened? Knowing the violent character of Sapiens, I consider very reasonable some brutality. But it is not necessary the complete genocide of the neolithic males, only the conquerors had a more successful procreation.

 

[celtiberian-II]

Interesting article: "Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans[FONT=&quot]"

From around 2800 BC, the Late Neolithic Bell Beaker culture emerged from the Iberian Peninsula to form one of the first pan-European archaeological complexes. This cultural phenomenon is recognised by a distinctive package of rich grave goods including the eponymous bell-shaped ceramic beakers. The genetic affinities between Central Europe’s Bell Beakers and present-day Iberian populations (Figure 2[/FONT]) is striking and throws fresh light on long-disputed archaeological models. We suggest these data indicate a considerable genetic influx from the West during the Late Neolithic. These far-Western genetic affinities of Mittelelbe-Saale’s Bell Beaker folk may also have intriguing linguistic implications, as the archaeologically-identified eastward movement of the Bell Beaker culture has recently been linked to the initial spread of the Celtic language family across Western Europe. This hypothesis suggests that early members of the Celtic language family (e.g. Tartessian) initially developed from Indo-European precursors in Iberia and subsequently spread throughout the Atlantic Zone; before a period of rapid mobility, reflected by the Beaker phenomenon, carried Celtic languages across much of Western Europe. This idea not only challenges traditional views of a linguistic spread of Celtic westwards from Central Europe during the Iron Age, but also implies that Indo-European languages arrived in Western Europe substantially earlier, presumably with the arrival of farming from the Near East.

 

[Angela]

Despite the fact that you didn't provide a link, it's an old and discredited study.

On this site, when no one responds to you it's quite often because they know it's a t-roll posting nonsense, and don't want to encourage posts.

Just some advice to not waste your time. You'll not convince anyone who is actually reading ancient dna papers.

 

[celtiberian-II]

Despite the fact that you didn't provide a link, it's an old and discredited study.

On this site, when no one responds to you it's quite often because they know it's a t-roll posting nonsense, and don't want to encourage posts.

Just some advice to not waste your time. You'll not convince anyone who is actually reading ancient dna papers.

Dear Angela,
Thank you for your post.
I didn't provide a link because I don't have permissions. Instead, I presented the title of the scientific article
"Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans", authored by Paul Brotherton et al., and published in Nat Commun. 2013.
Since I am interested in the mtDNA hg H, I visited the Eupedia page where the reference Roostalu et al. (2006) is cited. Then, I posted this reference.

After registering, this forum encourages to participate, if I am not wrong. I admit that I am not an expert, but very interested in these threads and my posts have been respectful. Some of them were dedicated to a gentle debate with other participants. More than convince to anybody, I want to expose scientific (in my non-expert opinion) results. However, I am open to know the points that have been discredited and the new results that update that knowledge.

Best wishes.

 

[Angela]

Dear Angela,
Thank you for your post.
I didn't provide a link because I don't have permissions. Instead, I presented the title of the scientific article
"Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans", authored by Paul Brotherton et al., and published in Nat Commun. 2013.
Since I am interested in the mtDNA hg H, I visited the Eupedia page where the reference Roostalu et al. (2006) is cited. Then, I posted this reference.

After registering, this forum encourages to participate, if I am not wrong. I admit that I am not an expert, but very interested in these threads and my posts have been respectful. Some of them were dedicated to a gentle debate with other participants. More than convince to anybody, I want to expose scientific (in my non-expert opinion) results. However, I am open to know the points that have been discredited and the new results that update that knowledge.

Best wishes.

I would specifically refer you to Olalde et al
https://research-information.bris.a...9979/Olalde_et_al._2017_Nature_BellBeaker.pdf

It is discussed at length here on the site:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...ormation-of-northwest-Europe?highlight=Olalde

And here when it was a pre-print:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...-Olalde-and-Reich-et-al-2017?highlight=Olalde

 

[celtiberian-II]

Thank you for the links, Angela.

For sure, I will enjoy the lecture.