Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture

[Maciamo]

Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture

I have noticed that Jean Manco mentioned in her new book Ancestral Journeys that the Bell Beaker culture represents the arrival of R1b people into Western Europe. I have explained before why it is extremely unlikely that R1b spread from southwest Iberia towards Central Europe. I would like to stress now that the Bell Beaker phenomenon was not an ethnic culture like most other cultures of the period, but rather represents a huge multicultural trade network inside which a variety of new artefacts, customs and ideas were exchanged and diffused.

In my eyes, the Bell Beaker phenomenon was indeed caused by the contact between the Megalithic people of Western Europe (who were an ethnic fusion Mesolithic inhabitants and Neolithic immigrants from the Near East) and the Indo-European cultures of Central Europe. What is striking about the Bell Beaker period is that it does not replace any anterior culture, but simply juxtaposes itself on top of pre-existing cultures and new cultures alike. The Bell Beaker phenomenon last from 2800 to 1800 BCE and was contemporaneous with the following cultures.

A) The Megalithic culture emerged in Western Europe (incl. Sardinia) as soon as the Neolithic reached the region, starting from c. 5500 BCE and only came to an end with the arrival of Bronze Age cultures from Central Europe, starting c. 2200 BCE in Britain and lasting as late as 1200 BCE in isolated parts of Iberia.

B) The Corded Ware culture existed from 2900 to 2350 BCE in Germany, Central Europe and the Baltic. It is associated with the partial replacement of Neolithic LBK- and TRB-related male lineages by R1a lineages.

C) The Unetice culture replaced the Corded Ware culture in Germany, Bohemia and western Poland from 2300 BCE and lasted until 1800 BCE. It marks the fusion of R1b lineages with Corded Ware lineages, although R1b tribes were already present around Hungary at least since 3000 BCE, and arrived in Germany during the Corded Ware period.

What is interesting is that we see the progressive disappearance of the Megalithic culture in the British Isles, Belgium, France and northern Italy between 2300 and 1800 BCE, right in the middle of the Bell Beaker period. The Beaker phenomenon was present in these regions several centuries before the arrival of Bronze Age cultures, but survived for a while, unlike Megalithic cultures. In and around Germany, the Corded Ware culture (R1a Bronze Age) was replaced by another Indo-European Unetice culture (R1b Bronze Age) that was the result of the migration of different people (R1b) from the Danube region. And yet the Beaker phenomenon survived, because it was not directly associated with a particular ethnic group, but was an international trade network.

Another evidence of the pluriculturality of the Bell Beaker phenomenon is that there were very distinct types of Beaker pottery in Indo-European Central Europe (the cord-impressed types, such as the "All Over Corded") and the Megalithic Western Europe (the "Maritime" type, decorated with bands filled with impressions made with a comb or cord).

It is not a coincidence that the Beaker phenomenon has been divided by archaeologists into several groups. People who made Maritime beakers were simply not the same ethnic group as those who made or used beakers in Central Europe. This is obvious from mtDNA samples we have from this period.

In German sites containing beakers we see clearly Indo-European lineages like H4a1, I1a1, T1a, U2e, U4c1 and W5a, mixed with earlier Neolithic of Mesolithic lineages (H1, H3, T2e, U5).

But in Spain, all the mtDNA lineages are in clear continuity with earlier Neolithic samples. Iberian beakers samples tested to date include H1, H3, H14, H20 (or L3), J, K, L1b, L2, L3a, T2, U, V and X.

The beaker trade network obviously involved some minor population movements across Western an Central Europe. I have no idea if the trade was dominated by people from one specific region, but I doubt so. Some R1a and R1b lineages from Central Europe might have ended up in Western Europe following trade routes during the early Beaker period. It is however unlikely that any large-scale migration or invasion of R1b people occurred before we see the archaeological replacement of Stone or Copper Age cultures using common Megalithic burial (e.g. passage graves) by Bronze Age cultures using single graves. This would have happened in the late Beaker period, hence the common, but mistaken assumption that the Beaker phenomenon itself represented the invasion of Western Europe by R1b people. Forget the bell beakers as an ethnic culture. It was more like a Silk Road than a culture of its own.

 

[Sile]

as per mr. Hammer

R1b came via anatolia to bulgaria to hungaria to central germany, then split.....one going to france and the other south into, south germany, alpine lands and then italy

I am using modern national borders for description of ancient areas

 

[toyomotor]

Maciamo: Finally, some one with some common sense. I've been saying precisely this for quite some time.

Pottery was the province of women. It could have ben spread by marriage, migration or trade.

I agree that it's not an ethnic culture.

 

[MOESAN]

My thoughts are close to Maciamo's and others ones -
pottery from women? yes, but very often selled by boys! -
I think there have been an initial move of traders-prospectors-warriors of some sort, small numbered, males, very mobile, post-neolithical concerning material culture and playing the role of "ciment" and "booster" among other cultures, proposing them material amelioration and perhaps a religious package?
these "promotors" demicly disappeared after some time, drown among the local populations: it explains the first discoverings of 'dinaricoid' skeletons and their disappearing, and the heterogeneity of BB influence spheres concerning genetics and phenotypes at the last times -
that doesn't exclude some populational moves at some scale - surely there were some demic weight of genuine Beakers in some regions at first and they put some populations fractions to move too, following economy changes - now the problem is: where were they coming from, firstly, at chalcolithoic ages? My slight preference would be Danau river, around today Croatia??? chances enough they were already I-Eans speakers, but of which variant?

 

[Sile]

Then its settled...R-U152 is celtic in origin only

 

[diverclic]

I eventually reached this discussion after you mentioned it to me. Here is my reaction. What you call "multi-ethnic" is what I call "community". Now I have to explain. Elsewhere I have developed an interpretation of R1b spread in Europe (and I consider Bell Beakers as the main part of it) as the spread of "communities" of metallurgists INSIDE pre-existing cultures in Europe. I compared it to middle ages jewish communities or, on a metallurgist ground, to the bantoo spread at iron age in Africa.
In this view, Maciamo, the very differences you are pointing are precisely what is driving me to the community way of spread : in each new society R1b people brought new technologies and a rather constant minimal background (the Bell Beaker package) but differences related to the culture in place were maintained, at least for some time. You point megalithic people as different : Again, the main difference is in the single grave newly associated with megalithic culture.
I am not saying that all (western) Europe was R1b populated from Spain. Rather, I pointed that there was several waves. R1b-L51 went into several western cultures but not all, far from it. R1b-L11 was different in that they had horses in addition to the early technologies of metallurgy, wheel and plow (plus some other features pointed on this forum) and they reached all parts of western Europe and, as genetic is pointing, 2 main branches, P312 and U106 , evolved from it. P312 may have started in Spain but I wouldn't consider it as a main feature. In my view P312 had a maritime (and river) expansion : an early spread in the Rhone valley (and soon Alpine, possibly through a Danubian expansion) and another early spread on the Atlantic coast.

Rather than a "problem" the community spread is making the link with the middle east spread of R1b. The main 2 points I want to stress are : R1b is associated with the spread of metallurgy in Europe - the timing, the places where R1b groups first settled are saying it ; and second, nowhere R1b can be associated with a specific "culture" with a known geographical place, before the Bell Beaker network. So, again, this very network and the variations from place to places are in accordance with what I called the "community spread". As I wrote elsewhere, I also see in stelae the early sign of the R1b-L11 spread : again, the variation in stelae types depends on the culture in place but these stelae have a fairly narrow timing and enough shared features.

To summarize : R1b-L23 is the incoming stage in western Europe and the karanovo culture is the outcome NOT as a specific R1b culture (far from it) but as a mix culture with a R1b community of metallurgists. In Europe and only there R1b-L23 evolved in R1b-L51 and these R1b-L51 had an early expansion (as small communities) in Europe. Later, after a specific group (R1b-L11) had acquired horses usage, a spread all over western Europe occurred. Centum languages were the outcome while R1a groups (like cordedware people) carried the satem type.

 

[Maciamo]

I eventually reached this discussion after you mentioned it to me. Here is my reaction. What you call "multi-ethnic" is what I call "community". Now I have to explain. Elsewhere I have developed an interpretation of R1b spread in Europe (and I consider Bell Beakers as the main part of it) as the spread of "communities" of metallurgists INSIDE pre-existing cultures in Europe. I compared it to middle ages jewish communities or, on a metallurgist ground, to the bantoo spread at iron age in Africa.
In this view, Maciamo, the very differences you are pointing are precisely what is driving me to the community way of spread : in each new society R1b people brought new technologies and a rather constant minimal background (the Bell Beaker package) but differences related to the culture in place were maintained, at least for some time.

I do agree with you that the Bell Beaker trading network was established by a community, perhaps at first by a single ethnic group like the trading networks of the Jews in Europe and the Mediterranean. But those traders only represented a minority of the population. The Atlantic trading routes were already established since the Neolithic, and perhaps even the Mesolithic. There is a clear continuity there. Those Atlantic Megalithic people might have expanded their trade network to Central Europe attracted by the new goods (bronze, horses) of the newly arrived Indo-Europeans. That would have been a remarkable opportunity for them to get rich as bronze artefacts/weapons and domesticated horses weren't available at all in western Europe at the time.

But after a while, Indo-European R1b folks from Germany realised that Megalithic people were rich, yet were very weak militarily. They could buy prestige bronze weapons from them, but didn't know how to mass produce them to equip armies. So some R1b adventurers started to raid Bell Beaker/Megalithic settlements. When they saw how easy it was to defeat them and how profitable such raids were, they intensified their incursions, overrunning first the Low Countries and France (c. 2400-2200 BCE), then crossing over to Britain (2100 BCE) and Ireland (2000 BCE), and eventually crossing the Pyrenees and establishing minor settlements in parts of Spain (from 1800 BCE).

You point megalithic people as different : Again, the main difference is in the single grave newly associated with megalithic culture.

Megalithic cultures never had single graves. Wherever single graves appear, Megalithic cultures disappear. The very essence of Megalithic cultures is their collective passage-tombs.

I am not saying that all (western) Europe was R1b populated from Spain. Rather, I pointed that there was several waves. R1b-L51 went into several western cultures but not all, far from it.

And where are these R1b-L51+, L11- in western Europe today ? 99% of western European R1b is L23 (L51-), P312 (i.e. descended from L11) or U106 (also descended from L11).

R1b-L11 was different in that they had horses in addition to the early technologies of metallurgy, wheel and plow (plus some other features pointed on this forum) and they reached all parts of western Europe and, as genetic is pointing, 2 main branches, P312 and U106 , evolved from it. P312 may have started in Spain but I wouldn't consider it as a main feature. In my view P312 had a maritime (and river) expansion : an early spread in the Rhone valley (and soon Alpine, possibly through a Danubian expansion) and another early spread on the Atlantic coast.

If P312 started in Spain, how comes that the greatest diversity of its subclades (L21, U152, DF27, DF19, L238) are all found in Germany, while DF19 and L238 are absent from Iberia ? Besides L21 and U152 are also very rare and have low diversity in Iberia. Their presence can be best explained by the establishment of Celtic, Roman and Frankish people in Iberia. There is only one major Iberian subclade and it is DF27. But even that one isn't uniquely Iberian and is found throughout north-western Europe as well. Of the many branches of Df27, only L196 is well represented in Iberia, hinting at a founder effect.

 

[Sile]

you can read the bulk of the 250 page 2014 theory on BB

or pay the small fee for all the book

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/19...llow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

 

[diverclic]

I made an answer and lost it because the link was refused (for a picture). i am tired of that. I have no time to waste.

 

[Sile]

I made an answer and lost it because the link was refused (for a picture). i am tired of that. I have no time to waste.

you need 10 posts before you can link stuff

 

[Aberdeen]

Maciamo: Finally, some one with some common sense. I've been saying precisely this for quite some time.

Pottery was the province of women. It could have ben spread by marriage, migration or trade.

I agree that it's not an ethnic culture.

No, pottery was not necessarily always the province of women (although I'm not sure what that would prove anyway). According to the historical record, the commercial manufacture of glazed pottery was a male activity among the Celts, Romans and Greeks of 2000 years ago, as it has been throughout the historical period in India, China and Japan. There's no way of knowing whether that was the case with the Bell Beaker folk, but they didn't just make pots. They smelted gold and copper, and appear to have introduced the use of copper daggers, spearheads and the bow and arrow to Europe. As an aside, it's been discussed in other threads that the making of glazed pottery will inevitably lead to copper smelting anywhere that there are copper ores that people might be tempted to use to colour glazed pottery. That's because the temperature needed to melt copper is lower than the temperature needed to glaze pottery. And of course, wherever copper is smelted, there remains the possibility that sooner or later someone will accidentally introduce impurities that will produce a form of bronze. Perhaps that's why there appears to be multiple places in prehistory where bronze was smelted. IMO, the spread of the Bronze Age IE folk was not merely a result of them making bronze but a result of that being combined with a nomadic and warlike culture.

Perhaps the Beaker Bell weapons, jewelry and pots introduced themselves to Europe without human agency, but I think it's more likely they were introduced by some sort of population movement. The question is whether that population movement was significant or not. For an answer to that, I await detailed mtDNA and Y DNA results from the earliest Bell Beaker sites so far discovered in Europe, on the coasts of Iberia and northwest Italy. Bell Beaker seems to have moved north from these two areas, which may explain why it has two main styles. There seem to be pottery parallels in North Africa, but they're poorly dated. However, a separate entry of Bell Beaker people from both Libya and Morocco seems possible to me, as a result of the continued drying of that region. The question for me is whether the arrival of the Bell Beaker folk in Europe had a significant genetic impact and, if it did, what haplotypes were involved.

 

[diverclic]

OK; no links, so no L51* map but I guess you know where to find it.
This additional post because I am quite surprised by the discussions going on here. The DNA testing of skeletons has found no R1b before metal age. R1b haplotypes are known to have a low variance and SNP testing is showing with no doubt at all that R1b came from the east. Yet, R1b is by far the main haplogroup in western Europe and it seems that this main fact has been forgotten. Bell beakers expansion is the only event left that can explain R1b present predominance in western Europe. The geographical extent of bell beakers culture fits with present day area with high R1b percentages. So, really, I see no way to escape : R1b has to be the main group among bell beakers. Now, I see really no point in discussing side groups. Some J2b might have been among those groups but what's the point ? The main fact ( I insist) is R1b success : 5000 years ago (for very early stages) R1b people started an expansion that was so efficient that many people thought R1b had to be in Europe since ice age until genetics disproved it . If this point isn't agreed, I quit. Well I know that some articles tried to make R1b neolithic people but testing of neolithic burials has found no R1b, mainly G2a and I2 people. I also trust haplotypes dating (may be I am one of the last ones).
R1b coming to Europe (age of R1b-L23) is associated with early copper work. Also, R1b earliest forms in Europe are concentrated in the Balkans and more precisely in the area known as the area of the Karanovo culture , around the Danube delta on the black sea coast. The very place where the earliest art pieces in copper or gold were produced. The difficulty was that the various cultures in the area , Vinca, Cucuteni etc... seem to come from an old neolithic background, precisely not the new comers expected. I have been addressing this precise issue in recent posts and I see no escape to the fact that R1b people are associated with early metallurgy : the smelting of copper ores. Even in the middle east, R1b early forms are found in the same area now known as the places where smelting started. To gather even old studies I remind you that in early genetics R1b was divided in ht15 (western type) and ht35 (eastern type and middle east). Even if I would agree that some others could have been mixed with R1b metal smith, I see R1b search for copper mining as the main driving force for the spread in the Balkans first and then as far as Portugal and it makes a very good link with bell beakers. These people developed arsenic bronze and later true bronze (with tin). This continuity, in turn is the best explanation around for R1b success.
Now , details : megalithic culture started when R1b people (and copper work) came to western Europe, just like pyramids in Egypt and it's known that such huge work could not be done without copper tools. First burials were common graves but it's also known that bell beakers used previously made megalithic places for single graves typical of bell beakers. Again, my interpretation is that R1b people were around (as metal workers) but were inside another type of society. The importance of R1b people grew and they eventually used these big places for them.

 

[Maciamo]

OK; no links, so no L51* map but I guess you know where to find it.
This additional post because I am quite surprised by the discussions going on here. The DNA testing of skeletons has found no R1b before metal age. R1b haplotypes are known to have a low variance and SNP testing is showing with no doubt at all that R1b came from the east. Yet, R1b is by far the main haplogroup in western Europe and it seems that this main fact has been forgotten. Bell beakers expansion is the only event left that can explain R1b present predominance in western Europe. The geographical extent of bell beakers culture fits with present day area with high R1b percentages. So, really, I see no way to escape : R1b has to be the main group among bell beakers. Now, I see really no point in discussing side groups. Some J2b might have been among those groups but what's the point ? The main fact ( I insist) is R1b success : 5000 years ago (for very early stages) R1b people started an expansion that was so efficient that many people thought R1b had to be in Europe since ice age until genetics disproved it . If this point isn't agreed, I quit. Well I know that some articles tried to make R1b neolithic people but testing of neolithic burials has found no R1b, mainly G2a and I2 people. I also trust haplotypes dating (may be I am one of the last ones).
R1b coming to Europe (age of R1b-L23) is associated with early copper work. Also, R1b earliest forms in Europe are concentrated in the Balkans and more precisely in the area known as the area of the Karanovo culture , around the Danube delta on the black sea coast. The very place where the earliest art pieces in copper or gold were produced. The difficulty was that the various cultures in the area , Vinca, Cucuteni etc... seem to come from an old neolithic background, precisely not the new comers expected. I have been addressing this precise issue in recent posts and I see no escape to the fact that R1b people are associated with early metallurgy : the smelting of copper ores. Even in the middle east, R1b early forms are found in the same area now known as the places where smelting started. To gather even old studies I remind you that in early genetics R1b was divided in ht15 (western type) and ht35 (eastern type and middle east). Even if I would agree that some others could have been mixed with R1b metal smith, I see R1b search for copper mining as the main driving force for the spread in the Balkans first and then as far as Portugal and it makes a very good link with bell beakers. These people developed arsenic bronze and later true bronze (with tin). This continuity, in turn is the best explanation around for R1b success.
Now , details : megalithic culture started when R1b people (and copper work) came to western Europe, just like pyramids in Egypt and it's known that such huge work could not be done without copper tools. First burials were common graves but it's also known that bell beakers used previously made megalithic places for single graves typical of bell beakers. Again, my interpretation is that R1b people were around (as metal workers) but were inside another type of society. The importance of R1b people grew and they eventually used these big places for them.

I think that what you fail to understand is that I agree that R1b entered western Europe during the Bell Beaker period. BUT R1b came from central Europe and progressively invaded the territory of the Bell Beaker people, who were mainly I2, G2a and E1b1b people (perhaps with a small minority of J1, J2 and T). It just doesn't make any sense that R1b people jump from eastern/central Europe to south-west Iberia then recolonise western and northern Europe from Iberia. I have explained in detail why that doesn't make sense here.

 

[diverclic]

What you fail to explain is the huge success of R1b against other groups. How R1b populated western Europe with such high densities, especially if the main culture at early metal age is NOT R1b. Sorry but I can't follow you. As I said in the second post above, you are missing the necessity, now that R1b is a late comer, to explain the huge success of this group against indigenous groups. Not only the success (high percentages) but the geographical spread. For example , a "Celtic" (mainly iron age) expansion can't be enough. Haplotypes diversity is also against it and now the SNP counts are also too high between R1b branches to fit with an iron age MRCA. I read the text in the link and I really think that my proposal for a community of metallurgists is the solution.

You talk of "steppe pastoralists". Certainly untrue from the geographical spread of various R1b branches in the middle east. R1b didn't come from the steppes and pastoralism in unlikely for a group (R1b-L23) with a high spot around "Varna" in Bulgaria.
" The most important argument is that Bronze Age and Indo-European values & lifestyle were not present in Iberia during the Beaker period." Precisely the point I address in the text you know (chezdidier.org - in french) . The first (old) wave from the Balkans brought copper work and wheel and plow to southern places like northern Italy (Alps) southern France and Iberia. The second wave by a SMALL group of R1b people didn't need to change everything. The lifestyle of R1b people would have been to stay apart in the societies where they had communities. R1b people brought technologies like high quality ovens but not language. When did R1b people exactly took over and became the rulers , I didn't say. So, I repeat : no way to escape that R1b people had a IE language when they came west BUT they didn't "occupy" the countries. Rather they extended a network way of living (lifestyle) and it was the rapid expansion of metallurgy that gave the opportunity to become the main group. If I consider this discussion important it's because your points "ask" for the solution I proposed : a community of metallurgists. As I pointed it too, a skill in boating was developed : maritime expansion on the Atlantic coast and main rivers. This skill could come from the Karanovo time with the advantage of trading (copper and gold jewels) by sea on the black sea and /or on the mediterranean sea. This last point (trading by boat) might have been, in early times, from another group but clearly R1b people were the main "winners".

 

[MOESAN]

sorry for the lacking spaces between words

MACIAMO in bold – MOESAN in 'italic' letters

1. I found a very good digest in the « secherbernard.blog.free.fr (anthropologiy blog) concerning new absolute RC datatations about the Bell Beakers settlements of North the Tagus river (CSW Portugal)-​
   In my eyes, the Bell Beaker phenomenon was indeed caused by the contact between the Megalithic people of Western Europe (who were an ethnic fusion Mesolithic inhabitants and Neolithic immigrants from the Near East) and the Indo-European cultures of Central Europe. What is striking about the Bell Beaker period is that it does not replace any anterior culture, but simply juxtaposes itself on top of pre-existing cultures and new cultures alike. The Bell Beaker phenomenon last from 2800 to 1800 BCE and was contemporaneous with the following cultures.
   I totally agree with the no-replacing of pre-existing cultures – but the first Bell Beakers there (Campaniformes in french) about the 2800 BC found there Chalcolithic cultures settled before them, apparently in high fortified places- these settlements of BB ceased apparently about the 2200/2000 BC there...​
   
   A) The Megalithic culture emerged in Western Europe (incl. Sardinia) as soon as the Neolithic reached the region, starting from c. 5500 BCE and only came to an end with the arrival of Bronze Age cultures from Central Europe, starting c. 2200 BCE in Britain and lasting as late as 1200 BCE in isolated parts of Iberia.​
   I'm not sure all the Neolithical cultures had megalithism – I think megalithism in Occident arose or at least developped a bit before the 4000 BC only – the phenomenon appears at first very maritime, and rapidly very atlantic : the first Cardial cultures were not megalithic and « climbed » from South to North when megalithism seems running from North-West to South-East and North-East– in South France, the dolmens expanded after the Atlantic regions, if I don't mistake – If I'm wrong, please, correct me - ​

1. And yet the Beaker phenomenon survived, because it was not directly associated with a particular ethnic group, but was an international trade network.
   Agree concerning the middle and the end of the expansion​
   
   Another evidence of the pluriculturality of the Bell Beaker phenomenon is that there were very distinct types of Beaker pottery in Indo-European Central Europe (the cord-impressed types, such as the "All Over Corded") and the Megalithic Western Europe (the "Maritime" type, decorated with bands filled with impressions made with a comb or cord).
   What is interesting is that apparently two styles were contemporaneous in the same places in Portugal – + one of the oldest BB sites in N-Portugal maybe from before 2800 BC showed only the « pointillé » dotted lines style- in other places (later?) the two styles coexisist in time NOT in place : the high fortified places (high classes) have the martitime one, the lower places which are the lower classes ones (peasants, fishers) have the « incisés » pottery – (at first the higher places were occupied by the preceding Chalcolithic people) – but in other sites again (still in Portugal), three styles cohabited at the same time, making the classical chronologic distinction between styles completely inaccurate -​
   
   It is not a coincidence that the Beaker phenomenon has been divided by archaeologists into several groups. People who made Maritime beakers were simply not the same ethnic group as those who made or used beakers in Central Europe. This is obvious from mtDNA samples we have from this period.​
   Here we're speaking about Bell Beakers = Vases Campaniformes (even if with diverse styles) not about every kind of Beaker (as, by instance, the Corded first beakers of a well indentified ethnic group)- that said I agree that the great superficy of the final BB phenomenon cannot be assigned to a single ethnic group, as the bigger number of us had agreed long before – the different well assigned BBs potteries seem different (and male mediated for the most) in a lot of places from the domestic potteries -
   
   In German sites containing beakers we see clearly Indo-European lineages like H4a1, I1a1, T1a, U2e, U4c1 and W5a, mixed with earlier Neolithic of Mesolithic lineages (H1, H3, T2e, U5).
   
   But in Spain, all the mtDNA lineages are in clear continuity with earlier Neolithic samples. Iberian beakers samples tested to date include H1, H3, H14, H20 (or L3), J, K, L1b, L2, L3a, T2, U, V and X.​

1. It is however unlikely that any large-scale migration or invasion of R1b people occurred before we see the archaeological replacement of Stone or Copper Age cultures using common Megalithic burial (e.g. passage graves) by Bronze Age cultures using single graves. This would have happened in the late Beaker period, hence the common, but mistaken assumption that the Beaker phenomenon itself represented the invasion of Western Europe by R1b people. Forget the bell beakers as an ethnic culture. It was more like a Silk Road than a culture of its own.​

Irepeat I think the first intrusive BBers, spite we have not surelyand precisely localized their european « heimat »,composed a well defined population distinct from the megalithic andcopper (calcholithic) ones, at least in western Europe, as physicalanthropology told us (whatever someones say, ignoring evidence)- what seems right is they never brutally colonized large regions with astrong demography – they look as surely well armed and skilledmales not fearing the warlike societies they came in touch with,and very often (at first at least) they kept their way of sepulture but using the already existing material structures :by force, or thank to the respect and interest they inspired :I'm almost obliged to think they exchanged profit for profit, it'sto say their skills in metallurgy (and other things?) for some oresor stuff before pass some of their habits to preceding andmore numerous population? What is surprising in some portugueseplaces is their pottery is found among high AND low classe of peoplewhen Chalcolithic people stayed in « high level » sites id they depossessed this last people of their subjects ?Or didthe nobility of these Chalco's people refuse the new way of life whenthe inferior classes accepted ???seemingly at the opposite ofintuition concerning high classes... Or I misunderstood an englishpassage ?
Apparentlyall the places they visited knew an improving in economy a bit later-A possible first settlement in Europe could have been in Carpathians(a first high place for metallurgy in Europe), before other placesmore western, around the Danau river, around N-Croatia, Adriatic andMediterranea, then Rhône and Rhine rivers? Concerning Unetice andcentral Europe I recall the teeth analysis show more likeness betweenCorded people and Unetice than between Unetice and BBs, Unetice beingthe most homogenous of the three groups (males and females) : ifwe can rely on old anthropology, they would have had strongsettlements along the Rhine before to influence the northern plain inthe Netherlands and Westphaly -

 

[Aberdeen]

The blog "For What They Were, We Are" has a link to a very interesting Portuguese paper on Bell Beaker. The abstract reads as follows.

"The complexity of the Beaker phenomenon in the Tagus estuary does not fit well with the model of three successive groups (International, Palmela and Incised Groups). The above seems to result from the nature of the settlements rather than from its chronology, as all three groups are present during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. Therefore while artefacts of the International Group predominate in the fortified sites, the Incised Group appears almost exclusively in open sites. The Palmela Group seems of minor importance, at least in the north region of the Tagus River estuary. The remarkable antiquity of Beaker pottery found in the FM hut at Leceia (which dates from the 2nd quarter of the 3rd millennium BC, re-confirmed by AMS dating) has parallels both in the North and South of Portugal, as well as in Spain. Thus we conclude that in the Lower Estremadura (one of the most important regions in Europe for the discussion of the origin and diffusion of Beaker “phenomenon”), the Beaker social formation with its own distinct cultural characteristics, coexisted with local Chalcolithic cultures, although never merged with them."

I don't read Portuguse. However, based on the abstract and the comments in the blog, it appears that the paper is indicating that early Bell Beaker sites appear to be insertions into an existing community in the form of fortified hilltop communities, as if the Bell Beaker folk represented a separate and distinct group that dominated the previously existing population without integrating with them. Of course, that raises the question of where the Bell Beaker folk came from if they were in fact a distinct ethnic group.

Here's the link to the blog.

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.ca/

 

[MOESAN]

I Take my pencil again to write about the Bell Beakers phenomenon :
a new survey by Joâo Luis Cardoso about ancient sites North the Tagus (Tajo) river, in Lower Estramadura, C-W Portugal attracted my attention (and others one too!) :
the more striking results would be :
- well separated settlements of « gentry » and basic folk at Chalcolithic
-intrusion of BBs who did not mix (at first at least) with their precedent chalcolithic population, spite what we could call commercial or cultural exchanges
-3 different sorts of BB pottery at the same time (apparently) in the same places when we believed before these sorts had a geographic and temporal well distinct distribution !


All that seems confirming our previous thoughts, it's to say, the Beakers had strangers deportment in their first settlements nad kept their distance from the previous inhabitants -
the survey say nothing about the physical types (same problem everytime) and I cannot confirm my thought they were a « male corporation »...
if they were native of Iberia we have to imagine a kind of secte members considering themselves as distinctive and superior to their other compatriots ? I prefer figure out a group of well skilled strangers knowing a lot about metals and ores places, and moving very fast -


comparisons of mt-DNA at the break between Eneolithic-Chalcolithic and Bronze ages :
new comparisons with Germany BBs and others show us :
-mt-N1a : an old mt-HGr present in Central Europe at Neolithic and fading out with the daybreak of the metals age: BBmt : the same as their contemporaneous neighbours, immediate metallurgist followers and their southern Neolithic predecessors : too late -
-mt-W : very surprising : BBs (~7-9%?) had more than every other culture at its time (based upon what we have today!) and the HGr seems absent in previous times in South and West - the today distribution shows some not-neglictible spots in Finland, North Caucasus, West Ireland, North Brittany-North Normandy, East Catalunia and also Bela-Russia, South Poland and Hungaria-North Romania ! Very errating : it does not seem an old refuge mt-HGr at first sight but ? A link with Finno-Ugric later people ? Not evident... BBmt : no comment (a BB's gene?!? to small sample ?) -
-mt-X : 0% - the neighbouring cultures of previous, contemporaneous and later times had all some % as had the Chalcolithic and neolithic cultures of Mediterranea ; BBmt : distinct from its immediate environment, closer to Atlantic people ?
-mt-T2 : (8-10% ?) far less than the preceding Neolithic cultures, a bit less than the Corded and mediterranean different cultures and a bit more than the following Unetice : BBmt : between Corded and the others Neolithic and Chalcolithic, closer to Corded but in this case I see too, again, the Atlantic Europe influence -
-mt-T1 : (3%?) : only Corded had more, all times and cultures comprised, not Unetice – in current Europe this mt-DNA went up a bit (Romania, East Anatolia East Iraq + North Portugal, french Limousin, Austria-Bohemia and North Greece-Albania) but it seems more linked to a later possible wave of metallurgist people coming from Armenia or Sumer successors, but the low percentages do not give confidence – BBmt : between Corded and Atlantic people -
-mt-K : (2-3%): this apparently common mt-DNA among first agricultors and breeders (Cardial and LBK with a possible Caucasus origin, maybe an old mediterranean stock) was very lower than among all precedent, contemporaneous and following populations except the Hunters-Gatherers and the Atlantic people – BBmt : between neighbours and Atlantic people, closer to these last ones -
-mt-J : (2-3%) - seems a non-Cardial or very late-Cardial HGr : here again BBs are under all the scores except the H-Gers and the Atlantic -BBmt : between neighbours and Atlantic people -










& : concerning BBs-Corded-Unetice :
mt-N1a : Unetice = BBs = Corded -
mt-W : Unetice between BBs and Corded -
mt-X : Unetice between BBs and Corded
mt-T2 : Unetice between BBs and Corded
mt-T1 : Unetice between BBs and Corded
mt-K : Unetice between BBs and Corded
mt-J : Unetice between BBs and Corded
so, even if based upon small samples, we have the confirmation of the intermediate position of Bronze Unetice people between the Bell Beaker people and the Corded Ware people ! It makes sense, if I did not mistake -
on the other hand, we see almost everytime BBs had a position between Central Europe and Atlantic, the most of the time even compare to precedent or following cultures, and often enough closer to Corded than to diverse Neolithic culture of Germany, except for mt-X (yet more Atlantic influence?) and the amazing mt-W (some old infiltration of it in H-Gers lands of North coastal Europen and females send with them in their travel back home ? - we have an influence of the Vessel Beakers of Ireland upon Britain and the Netherland at some stage of History, with early Inceneration in big urns, I think, roughly at the BBs times or just after... ? To verify...
So the Bell Beakers period saw some populations moves between Atlantic and Central Europe : in a short span of time or during a long enough time ? Can we be sure all these movements were initiated by the BBs males ? Are we sure they did not begin before yet, with the Megaliths people ? The vaste territory of economic exchanges built thank to the progress they permitted could have induced constant moves around Rhine and Rhône, from Mediterranea and the Channel, of true BBs and beakerized people like we see later at the Atlantic Bronze age : the Beakers could have only started the first farthest ones in direction of Rhine and Rhône and intensified the changes in the remaining Western Europe which had already begun?


Just some thoughts, maybe I missed something – I 'll try to see what mt-HGrs could have been send by genuine first BBs but I think it is almost impossible (I know yet nothing about their Y-HGrs) -

 

[MOESAN]

mt-H : helas ! No subgroup, only a para-group :
taken as a whole, mt-H seems having been common already among Hunter-Gatherers of southern Europe, and not absent among eastern (Eurasia) Hunters-Gatherers – Neolithic Portugal scored very high (70-73% ?) - mt-H was not absent among LBK people – surprise (for me) : this mt-HGr shows (as a whole) no big differences among BBs and Neolithic Cardial and Treilles (South France), late Neolithic El Mirador (Burgos, N-Spain), and the late Neolithic neigbouring cultures of Germany, AND ALSO, Chalcolithic Corded Ware and Bronze Unetice ! What stroke me too is the quasi-absence of mt-H among late Hunt-Gath's of South Scandinavia and the low % in Funnel Bk...*
* : for I think, as for BBs, the Long-Barrows North Atlantic culture in Central North Europe was more the fact of males than the one of females -
BBmt : less than southern HG- and very less than Atlantic Neolithic (Portugal), less even than Neolitic Roessen, no noticeable difference from neigbouring late Neolithic and subsequent cultures – this rough result, based upon a table from Brandt (2013) surely hides differences of geographical origins among this whole mt-H – so the %s among Neolithic of Germany would be divided into 2 parts, a western one and an eastern one : surely there BBs would be between Atlantic and others Germany Cultures – a part of the mt-H among Neolithic Germany is from East or South-East as among LBK, I think –
But there is no evidence of a overwhelming females imput mediated by BBs in Central Europe – it appears that yet precedent moves (more constant osmose over centuries than true collective movement ? see Rösen) had taken place and that the most of the gains of occidental mt-H (H1, H3) occurred also after BBs imput even if not too long time later : I think Celts (boosted by first BBs impact) made a bit of the work : the homogeneization started before them* was achieved at great scale by them : this homogeneization appears too among the skeletons remnants of La Tène period in the celtic world (even the elits).

*: starting with different sorts of Megalithers? See the land penetration in South-West Germany of Passage Graves or close megaliths, from Brittany through Île-de-France), apparently different from the northern 'long-Barrows wave via Rhine -

&: some caution : all that relies upon a small sample of the all Europe concerned periods and mt-DNA seems being submitted to natural selection in some part -



here again, even if maybe not precise enough to prove something, Unetice is between BBs and Cordeds!!!
I regret I have not more detailed subclades for mt-H on the subject

 

[Aberdeen]

I think it's difficult to make definitive statements about Bell Beaker DNA in the absence of sufficient data. The Bell Beaker site in Germany may not be representative, as it's a long way geographically from the sites where the earliest Bell Beaker sites appear to have been located. I have my views on the subject, but I don't think anyone can say that we have sufficient data to permit anyone to speak ex cathedra on the subject.

 

[MOESAN]

mt-H : helas ! No subgroup, only a para-group :
taken as a whole, mt-H seems having been common already among Hunter-Gatherers of southern Europe, and not absent among eastern (Eurasia) Hunters-Gatherers – Neolithic Portugal scored very high (70-73% ?) - mt-H was not absent among LBK people – surprise (for me) : this mt-HGr shows (as a whole) no big differences among BBs and Neolithic Cardial and Treilles (South France), late Neolithic El Mirador (Burgos, N-Spain), and the late Neolithic neigbouring cultures of Germany, AND ALSO, Chalcolithic Corded Ware and Bronze Unetice ! What stroke me too is the quasi-absence of mt-H among late Hunt-Gath's of South Scandinavia and the low % in Funnel Bk...*
* : for I think, as for BBs, the Long-Barrows North Atlantic culture in Central North Europe was more the fact of males than the one of females -
BBmt : less than southern HG- and very less than Atlantic Neolithic (Portugal), less even than Neolitic Roessen, no noticeable difference from neigbouring late Neolithic and subsequent cultures – this rough result, based upon a table from Brandt (2013) surely hides differences of geographical origins among this whole mt-H – so the %s among Neolithic of Germany would be divided into 2 parts, a western one and an eastern one : surely there BBs would be between Atlantic and others Germany Cultures – a part of the mt-H among Neolithic Germany is from East or South-East as among LBK, I think –
But there is no evidence of a overwhelming females imput mediated by BBs in Central Europe – it appears that yet precedent moves (more constant osmose over centuries than true collective movement ? see Rösen) had taken place and that the most of the gains of occidental mt-H (H1, H3) occurred also after BBs imput even if not too long time later : I think Celts (boosted by first BBs impact) made a bit of the work : the homogeneization started before them* was achieved at great scale by them : this homogeneization appears too among the skeletons remnants of La Tène period in the celtic world (even the elits).

*: starting with different sorts of Megalithers? See the land penetration in South-West Germany of Passage Graves or close megaliths, from Brittany through Île-de-France), apparently different from the northern 'long-Barrows wave via Rhine -



ERRATUM
I beg your pardon :
when UI wrote my complement about mt-H among BBs I made a terrific mistake (too much glasses of something behind my spectacles?) and I based my point upon a rough 25% of mt-H there when the true % was closer to 50%, what, contrary to what I wrote, show a seemingly¤ important impact of BBs (and maybe Chalcolithic predecessors) and all the way a rapid developpement of mt-H in Germany in a relatively short enough span of time, what is more conform to scholars precedent analysis – so, yes, some important West to East population shift at this time – So, this taken in account, if the Celts made a part of the job, a big part was made before the Celts, or before the rising of their name(s): Celts could have been there well before Iron, in the Tumuli culture of South Germany under influence of BBs culture and later Unetice culture – these precisions do'nt dismiss the process of homogeneization I supposed in my « criminal » last post – the problem is still : were all labelled BBs culture sites populated by first BBs people at the end of the period ??? Are they and their own descendants (whatever the origin of the mothers) responsible for the all populations (female, and male too, surely) movements of the period or did they only accelerate the process by boosting the economical evolution only in strategic points of the vaste territory they have investigated and spotly occupied ?
The Round Barrows people of Britain (Wessex the most) was an evolved product of BBs and they showed tight links with the Netherland-N-W-Germany mixed population... the term Bell-Beaker hides a lot of diverse enough cultures, even if they all had some debt to the BBs culture -




¤ : but a subclades internal distribution of this mt-H could clarify things, separating more precisely the part between H1/H3 + other western mt-H from the eastern mt-H of Neolithic origin...
&: I red somewhere the mt-H, high enough, in Neolithic Rössen, was not of an occidental H1-H3 type, as a whole (i've not the reference)...