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

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.

I agree but making some bets is part of the game, when we wait more data leading to more serious conclusions!
 
a study about the replacement of Crucibles by Funaces in the metal workings seems confirming the Bell Beakers phenomenon was an intrusive one in Western Europe, at least at the beginning - thisnew technic, unkown in the Balkan metals provinces (and Cucuteni and Tripolje) would have been developped i southern Levant, near Gaza region, and in a first pace reached the northern Mesopotamian region before pass across Caucasus to reach the northern Pontic region and south the caspian to reach eastern Steppes - in Western Europe the owners of this technic would ha taken brutally some for targets remote regions rich for metals ores - the first BBs were surely prospectors - only after the BB phenomenon developped in western Europe, more slowly and then,, without being directed to specially rich ores regions (post-acculturation, whatever the degree of acculturation, language or no language?) - it confirms the foundings in C-S Portugal about Bbs settlements well separated from their predecessors ones -
read Nissim AMZALLAG: "From Metallurgy to Bronze Age Civilisation - The Synthetic Theory"
 
a study about the replacement of Crucibles by Funaces in the metal workings seems confirming the Bell Beakers phenomenon was an intrusive one in Western Europe, at least at the beginning - thisnew technic, unkown in the Balkan metals provinces (and Cucuteni and Tripolje) would have been developped i southern Levant, near Gaza region, and in a first pace reached the northern Mesopotamian region before pass across Caucasus to reach the northern Pontic region and south the caspian to reach eastern Steppes - in Western Europe the owners of this technic would ha taken brutally some for targets remote regions rich for metals ores - the first BBs were surely prospectors - only after the BB phenomenon developped in western Europe, more slowly and then,, without being directed to specially rich ores regions (post-acculturation, whatever the degree of acculturation, language or no language?) - it confirms the foundings in C-S Portugal about Bbs settlements well separated from their predecessors ones -
read Nissim AMZALLAG: "From Metallurgy to Bronze Age Civilisation - The Synthetic Theory"

It's a great paper...explains so much more than just the development of metallurgy.
 
A very interesting paper - I found a copy here.

www.ajaoline.org/article/300

However, some people disagree with his views, as explained in a paper entitle "A Chalcolithic Error: Rebuttal to Amzallag 2009", which can be found here.

www.ajaonline.org/forum-article/327

I don't have time today to fully review these papers so haven't decided what I think about the issue.

Okay - I understand now why there was no link - I can't get either link to work. However, both articles are available for downloading at the American Journal of Archeology website.
 
Maciamo:In German sites containing beakers we see clearly Indo-European lineages like H4a1, I1a1, T1a, U2e, U4c1 and W5a,"

Seriously,is U2e Indo-Euoean?!?!Why?How?
.
 
Thanks to Aberdeen and Angela for their "rebuttal" complement - i'll read it
 
concerning mt DNA I suppose true BBs sended some eastern or southeastern DNA - but I think they ever sedn a lot of females with them, they rather took local females - at last, the final BBs were accultured people with a strong occidental avergae of mt-DNA -
concerning the rebutting of the AMZALLAG work I red it and yes it changes some perspectives - but what inrested me in this work was the affirmation that brutally a kind of prospection course took place in remote places rich for metallic ores what could correspond to the first BBs moves and settlements - does this"technical" rebutting destroy this theory or constatation???
 
This year's ancient DNA results provide even more convincing evidence that German and Iberian populations during the Bell Beaker period were ethnically distinct. Have a look at this PCA chart made by David from Eurogenes. I have circled and underscored the relevant data.

pca-ancient-dna.jpg


What we see is that Chalcolithic Iberians were ethnically indistinguishable from Middle Neolithic Iberians, who are slightly more admixed with WHG than Early Neolithic Iberians. There was no significant population change between the Neolithic and Chalcolithic in the Iberian peninsula, which means that there was genetic continuity throughout the Megalithic and Bell Beaker periods in the peninsula. This also means that the Bell Beaker phenomenon, if it started in Iberia as current archaeological evidence suggests, was not a foreign element brought by Steppe people, but was native of Megalithic Europe, as I have always said since I made the migration maps and wrote the original R1b article in 2009.

R1b Steppe people who invaded Central Europe eventually continued their migration to Iberia in the Bronze Age, where they mixed with the local Chalcolithic population. Bronze Age Iberians are perfectly intermediary between Early Bronze Age Central Europeans (including German R1b) and Middle/Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Iberians.

Therefore it is clear that:

1) The Bell Beaker phenomenon was not an ethnic culture like Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures such as LBK, Cardium Pottery, Yamna or Corded Ware, but really just a trade network between completely unrelated peoples, just as I posited in this thread two years ago.

2) R1b people descended from Steppe invaders only reached Iberia in the Bronze Age, and not in the Chalcolithic as some suggested.

3) There doesn't seem to have been a significant migration of newcomers who brought copper metallurgy to Iberia from the Balkans or the Near East. So the Copper Age was most likely not spread by J2 or R1b-L23 people, but - in Iberia at least - evolved directly from the native G2a + I2 + E1b1b population from Neolithic Iberia.
 
concerning mt DNA I suppose true BBs sended some eastern or southeastern DNA - but I think they ever sedn a lot of females with them, they rather took local females - at last, the final BBs were accultured people with a strong occidental avergae of mt-DNA -
concerning the rebutting of the AMZALLAG work I red it and yes it changes some perspectives - but what inrested me in this work was the affirmation that brutally a kind of prospection course took place in remote places rich for metallic ores what could correspond to the first BBs moves and settlements - does this"technical" rebutting destroy this theory or constatation???

I'm not sure the BB took other wives.
The Bell Beaker pottery was made by hand, it was made in the homes by the women of the house. The Bell Beaker pottery was very uniform in style and technique.
 
This year's ancient DNA results provide even more convincing evidence that German and Iberian populations during the Bell Beaker period were ethnically distinct. Have a look at this PCA chart made by David from Eurogenes. I have circled and underscored the relevant data.

pca-ancient-dna.jpg


What we see is that Chalcolithic Iberians were ethnically indistinguishable from Middle Neolithic Iberians, who are slightly more admixed with WHG than Early Neolithic Iberians. There was no significant population change between the Neolithic and Chalcolithic in the Iberian peninsula, which means that there was genetic continuity throughout the Megalithic and Bell Beaker periods in the peninsula. This also means that the Bell Beaker phenomenon, if it started in Iberia as current archaeological evidence suggests, was not a foreign element brought by Steppe people, but was native of Megalithic Europe, as I have always said since I made the migration maps and wrote the original R1b article in 2009.

R1b Steppe people who invaded Central Europe eventually continued their migration to Iberia in the Bronze Age, where they mixed with the local Chalcolithic population. Bronze Age Iberians are perfectly intermediary between Early Bronze Age Central Europeans (including German R1b) and Middle/Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Iberians.

Therefore it is clear that:

1) The Bell Beaker phenomenon was not an ethnic culture like Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures such as LBK, Cardium Pottery, Yamna or Corded Ware, but really just a trade network between completely unrelated peoples, just as I posited in this thread two years ago.

2) R1b people descended from Steppe invaders only reached Iberia in the Bronze Age, and not in the Chalcolithic as some suggested.

3) There doesn't seem to have been a significant migration of newcomers who brought copper metallurgy to Iberia from the Balkans or the Near East. So the Copper Age was most likely not spread by J2 or R1b-L23 people, but - in Iberia at least - evolved directly from the native G2a + I2 + E1b1b population from Neolithic Iberia.

I have a question : which samples were selected to represent Iberian Chl?
The Iberian Chl started ca 5.2 ka while BB started only ca 4.9 ka, 3-400 years later.
IMO the first Iberian Chl people were not local, they seem to have arrived with some advanced knowledge of metallurgy which was not present before. Furthermore the Iberian Chl elite seems to have been burried in 'tholoi' and not in the traditional communal megalith graves.
It seems however that local people were employed by the newly arrived elite to help in digging and transporting the ores and making the charcoal. At Los Millares these local employed people lived outside the city walls.
Looking at the PCA chart, I'd say the Iberian Chl people had the same origin as the Europe EN people, i.e. the Balkans or the eastern Mediterranean.

The question is : were the Iberian BB people the same as those early Iberian Chl people?
AFAIK there is no sampled DNA of Iberian BB people whatsoever.

Iberia BA came very late, ca 1500 years later than Iberia Chl.
 
I have a question : which samples were selected to represent Iberian Chl?
The Iberian Chl started ca 5.2 ka while BB started only ca 4.9 ka, 3-400 years later.

AFAIK the only Chalcolithic Spanish genomes we have are those of El Portalon tested by Günther et al 2015, which range from 3000 to 5200 BCE, and those of El Mirador tested by Mathieson 2015, which date from circa 2880-2630 BCE. So that's a quite wide range of dates, but most of them fit within the Bell Beaker period.
 
AFAIK the only Chalcolithic Spanish genomes we have are those of El Portalon tested by Günther et al 2015, which range from 3000 to 5200 BCE, and those of El Mirador tested by Mathieson 2015, which date from circa 2880-2630 BCE. So that's a quite wide range of dates, but most of them fit within the Bell Beaker period.

It is difficult to find exact info, but Mathieson 2015 makes no mention of Bell Beaker and Günther et al 2015 names the samples 'pre-beaker copper age'.

'The human remains were associated with offerings, such as domesticanimals and pottery vessels corresponding to the pre-Bell Beakerculture and were directly radiocarbon-dated to between ∼5,500(Chalcolithic) and ∼3,500 cal yBP (Bronze Age)'
 
It is difficult to find exact info, but Mathieson 2015 makes no mention of Bell Beaker and Günther et al 2015 names the samples 'pre-beaker copper age'.

'The human remains were associated with offerings, such as domesticanimals and pottery vessels corresponding to the pre-Bell Beakerculture and were directly radiocarbon-dated to between ∼5,500(Chalcolithic) and ∼3,500 cal yBP (Bronze Age)'

BBs phenomenon is uneasy to weight because it seems first foreign people in small numbers later acculturated other people and the genetic state of first Bbs is surely not the same as the final one(s). I have no religion only feelings.
concerning females and mtDNA between MLN and Chalco, I first supposed a lot of changes in Central Europe (mtH increase) could be linked to Atlantic-Iberian pops in two possible period: 1) megaliths - 2) BBs, I suppose this last one more light. But I have not the subclades of mt-H: I wonder now if some specific mt-H from E-Romania could not have reached Western Europe in early BBs times, because I have not abandoned the idea of a remote eastern origin of BBs (with possibly a central route and a maritime southern route westwards).
I evolved a little. The very light demic imput of BBs supposed by myself could have been a bit denser in some parts of Europe (west-central for the most). SO inequal demic imput according to places.
That said, BBs seem having been a completely foreign and extarnal (dwellings) element in Portugal around the 3000 BC, distinct from the other Chalco people at first BEFORE being incorporated in Chalco people settlements. And Chalco (# BB) itself - here I desagree a little with MACIAMO - could have had some DNA imput of East in Portalôn compared to El Mirador, even if "steppic" seems a bit unsure, at least a bit "CHG" or "west-asian" (GENETIKER seems thinking in a kind of "steppic" nevertheless, but he makes personal calculations); here individuals are slightly differenet within the group?). In Andalusia, everything points to an eastern Mediterranean imput with changes in sepultures - Helladic? -
In N-W Europe and germany, I think BBs are for the most accultured people, what is not saying they had NO BB people tiny admixture.
and yes, we lask Iberian BBs DNA!
 
BBs phenomenon is uneasy to weight because it seems first foreign people in small numbers later acculturated other people and the genetic state of first Bbs is surely not the same as the final one(s). I have no religion only feelings.
concerning females and mtDNA between MLN and Chalco, I first supposed a lot of changes in Central Europe (mtH increase) could be linked to Atlantic-Iberian pops in two possible period: 1) megaliths - 2) BBs, I suppose this last one more light. But I have not the subclades of mt-H: I wonder now if some specific mt-H from E-Romania could not have reached Western Europe in early BBs times, because I have not abandoned the idea of a remote eastern origin of BBs (with possibly a central route and a maritime southern route westwards).
I evolved a little. The very light demic imput of BBs supposed by myself could have been a bit denser in some parts of Europe (west-central for the most). SO inequal demic imput according to places.
That said, BBs seem having been a completely foreign and extarnal (dwellings) element in Portugal around the 3000 BC, distinct from the other Chalco people at first BEFORE being incorporated in Chalco people settlements. And Chalco (# BB) itself - here I desagree a little with MACIAMO - could have had some DNA imput of East in Portalôn compared to El Mirador, even if "steppic" seems a bit unsure, at least a bit "CHG" or "west-asian" (GENETIKER seems thinking in a kind of "steppic" nevertheless, but he makes personal calculations); here individuals are slightly differenet within the group?). In Andalusia, everything points to an eastern Mediterranean imput with changes in sepultures - Helladic? -
In N-W Europe and germany, I think BBs are for the most accultured people, what is not saying they had NO BB people tiny admixture.
and yes, we lask Iberian BBs DNA!

Where can I find more info about chalcolithic El Mirador and El Portalon? AFAIK they are situated in the same area.
We are lacking Iberian BB DNA and we are also lacking Y-DNA from pre-BB Chalcolithic south Iberia, like Los Millares or early Zambujal.
We have some mtDNA though, and it is very much H, which may be a link with chalcolithic Bulgaria. There is 1 D which may hint to a link with the steppe.

Early EneolithicBulgariaSmyadovo [SMY3]
6500-5000 y. a.

HWilde 2014
Early EneolithicBulgariaSmyadovo [SMY4]
6500-5000 y. a.

HWilde 2014
Early EneolithicBulgariaSmyadovo [SMY9]
6500-5000 y. a.

HWilde 2014
Early EneolithicBulgariaSmyadovo [SMY11]
6500-5000 y. a.

T2eWilde 2014
Early EneolithicMoldovaVinogradnoe [VIN1]
6500-5000 y. a.

HWilde 2014
Late EneolithicBulgariaDurankulak [DUR1]
5500-4000 y. a.

U52a2Wilde 2014

PortugalCova da Moura [CM 183*]
3400 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalCova da Moura [CM 187]
3400 BC

X2bAfonso 2010
PortugalCova da Moura [CM 194 ]
3400 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalCova da Moura [CM 202]
3400 BC

U5 or HV2Afonso 2010
PortugalDólmen do Ansião [DEA 50*]
3300 BC

H or U4Afonso 2010
PortugalPaimogo [PM 13297]
3000 BC

H or HV*Afonso 2010
PortugalPaimogo [PM 13514]
3000 BC

HV* or L3*/N*Afonso 2010
PortugalPaimogo [PM 13622]
3000 BC

UAfonso 2010
PortugalPaimogo [PM 14638]
3000 BC

U5b2*Afonso 2010
PortugalPaimogo [PM 14714]
3000 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalPaimogo [PM 15079]
3000 BC

U4Afonso 2010
PortugalPaimogo [PM 15986]
3000 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalPaimogo [PM 17334]
3000 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalPaimogo [PM 17480]
3000 BC

H, HV* or R0Afonso 2010
PortugalPaimogo [PMII 527, 542]
3000 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalPaimogo [PMII 556]
3000 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalPaimogo [PMII 591]
3000 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalMonte Canelas [MCI 169.23*]
3000 BC

H, HV* or R0Afonso 2010
PortugalMonte Canelas [MCI 176.1]
3000 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalMonte Canelas [MCI 206.4*]
3000 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalMonte Canelas [MCI282.3.1]
3000 BC

H or VAfonso 2010
PortugalMonte Canelas [MCI 288.5]
3000 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalMonte Canelas [MCI 337*]
3000 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalMonte Canelas [MCI 384.11*]
3000 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalMonte Canelas [MCI 386.37 ]
3000 BC

U5a1Afonso 2010
PortugalMonte Canelas [MCI 435.3]
3000 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalSao Paulo [SP 5730, 8001, 18248]
2500 BC

HAfonso 2010
PortugalSao Paulo [SP 9222*]
2500 BC

H, HV* or R0Afonso 2010
PortugalSao Paulo [SP 18861]
2500 BC

HAfonso 2010
SpainNerja, Málaga [NE-NAP]
2260 BC

H11a or L1bFernández 2005
SpainCosta Lloguera, Castellon de la Plana [COST1]



HFernández 2006; Gamba 2008; Oliver 2008
SpainCosta Lloguera, Castellon de la Plana [COST3]



R?Fernández 2006; Gamba 2008; Oliver 2008
SpainCosta Lloguera, Castellon de la Plana [COST4, COST5, 3COST4]



H or UFernández 2006; Gamba 2008
SpainCosta Lloguera, Castellon de la Plana [3COST1, 3COST3]



H or ROFernández 2006
SpainMalpaso cave, Castellnovo (Castellon) [1MP1]



DGamba 2008
SpainMalpaso cave [4MP12]



VGamba 2008
SpainMalpaso cave [2MP4]



H20? (reported as L3?)Gamba 2008
SpainJovellus sepulchre, Benicassim (Castellon) [1JO1]



H20? (reported as L3?)Gamba 2008
SpainAssud de Villareal 2nd sepulchre, Almassora (Castellon) [1AV1]



H20? (reported as L3?)Gamba 2008
 
We discussed them here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...rly-European-farmers/page2?highlight=Portalon

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...mples-(Günther-at-al-2015)?highlight=Portalon

This is a discussion of the mtDna at El Mirador:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/08/mtdna-from-chalcolithic-iberia-el_15.html

This academia article is helpful in showing the early versus the later levels:
https://www.academia.edu/14679483/A..._Cueva_Mayor_site_Sierra_de_Atapuerca_Burgos_

This is particularly interesting:
:
"Proofs of Long-Distance Relations between Central Europe and Inland Iberian Peninsula during Neolithic and Bronze Age. Evidences from the Material Culture of the Site of El Portalón"
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/AA_2015111813360830.pdf

"The set of archaeological materials presented in this work belongs to two distinct cultural periods, the Early Neolithic on the one hand and the advanced Chalcolithic/Bronze Age on the other hand, the latter with presence of metal objects and both within the same cultural dynamics. The interval phase between these two periods, Middle-Late Neolithic and the pre bell-baker Chalcolithic, is only represented in the Portalón through complex funeral rituals."

"As for needles and bi-pointed objects, their use seems logical as decorative elements in clothing or hairstyles, although for the latter, its possible use as fishing hooks has also been indicated. In any case, both needles and bi-pointed objects are exotic products, with few parallels in the region and linked to European productions of the Rhine-Rhone valley, Switzerland and northern Italy. We think that in this case the idea of a movement of objects (not just the concepts) over long-distances is justified. At this time in Europe the sociocultural context encourages supra-regional relationships (the Bell Beaker culture is a good example), and the great value of the metals and the need to locate outcrops are another incentives. Furthermore, it is highly suggestive to relate these cultural dynamics to the latest hypotheses derived from genetic studies, which highlight the importance of post-Neolithic demographic processes and the current characterization of the gene pool of recent Europeans (Brandt et al., 2013; Kind, 2010; Ricaut et al., 2012)."

"Bi-pointed needles and V-perforated buttons point to societies established in the far east of the Pyrenees, Rhone Valley and Switzerland; the buttons with a straight perforation take us there or to the French Atlantic facade. The bony pins and bi-pointed objects were probably sumptuary samples. They could be cloth and/or elaborated hairstyles supplements, with a value beyond the useful (exceeding their traditional cost). All of them were exchanged objects between the Meseta Castellana and Central Europe along these routes. We do not rule out the possibility of the connections actually going in other directions, but archaeological evidence published on the Iberian Peninsula fails to disclose this."
 
I don't know if everyone is aware of this discussion on using nMonte to look at Bell Beaker samples:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...ncestry-in-Bell-Beaker-and-implications/page3

This argument that there was a movement from Iberia to central Europe which might have brought more mtDna "H" (Brandt et al) isn't supported by the above paper, is it? The influence seems to all be coming from northern Italy, Switzerland, the Rhone, into Iberia, not out of it. Unless we're talking about a different time period?

The finding of an extra "Levant like/Natufian like" strand in Iberia is also interesting. Again, the dates have to be checked, but there is definitely an Eastern Med influence in Murcia, in my opinion.
 
@Bicicleur,
If you're not following this other thread, in this post I quote from Jean Manco's book about copper metallurgy coming to Iberia from steppe people.

I don't know about that; I've always been a bit skeptical.

Zambujal has seemed more eastern Med to me than steppe.
 
I hope we'll get some high coverage DNA that can be clearly linked with Early Iberian BB soon.
 

This thread has been viewed 74524 times.

Back
Top