Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people

Thats the same game of randomly choosing out a Culture zone and designated it to be Indo-European;

At least one of two basic/simple criterias must be fulfilled:
To which Indo-European culture is there a continuity - i.e. from what culture does it stem from;
To which distinctive Indo-European culture zone does it belong;

Neither Los Cogotas nor El Arger stem from an Indo-European complex (no continuity) nor do they belong to any distinctive Indo-European culture zone; So what makes them Indo-European if there are no links to anything Indo-European to begin with;

If you know better than clealry mention the Indo-European culture (by name) from which Los Cogotas stems from or belonged to;


I told I don't think El Argar were Indo-European, but Las Cogotas was.
What's wrong with that?
Las Cogotas were simple people owning and herding their own cattle, and they probably came from outside Iberia having found good herding grounds on the Meseta.
They practised individual burials.
That seems to match the lifestyle of the Indo-Europeans that had arrived in Central and Northwest Europe.
But I'm sure you're going to learn me much more about Las Cogotas now.
 
I told I don't think El Argar were Indo-European, but Las Cogotas was.
What's wrong with that?
Las Cogotas were simple people owning and herding their own cattle, and they probably came from outside Iberia having found good herding grounds on the Meseta.
They practised individual burials.
That seems to match the lifestyle of the Indo-Europeans that had arrived in Central and Northwest Europe.
But I'm sure you're going to learn me much more about Las Cogotas now.

Be more precise - who is that Indo-European culture you claim Las Cogotas stems from and shares a continuity with? Given the time-frame there are not that many options; and why did no Indo-European language exist from it?

The only Archaeological attested migration (Hallstatt) of Indo-Europeans (Kelts) also produced the only Indo-European language (Celt-Iberian) ever spoken in Iberia until the Romans came;

Where as all the cultures that are presumed and oddly constructed to be Indo-European (Los Cogogos/El Arger) never had an Indo-European language and are not Archaeologically traceable to any cultural continuity;

I see a pattern here;
If there is no cultural continuity and no Indo-European language exists than there never was an Indo-European migration in the first place; And its an illusion to think otherwise;
 
not sure what this has to do with R1b or Hg's in general;
But this (once more) shows that the Neolithic expansion was not an expansion of ideas but of migrations;

And all Neolithic corpses [Ötzi, Gök4 and now Portalon] are closest still to modern-day South Europeans and from them the closest to Sardinians - who are along with the Finns the most isolated modern-day Europeans;

What this has to do with R1b is that it appears to support Maciamo's view that Iberia wasn't R1b until much later, unless this was an outlier, but I'd like to see more information about this find. I'm not yet sold on Maciamo's theory, but I personally don't think there's enough information about the chronology of Iberian populations to be certain of anything. My main concern is, if the Bell Beaker folk weren't R1b, who were they and what did their culture evolve from?

Edit: I should clarify that I'm not really convinced that a few cowherders from the Balkans managed to inject so much R1b into Iberia without any evidence of any IE language being there until the Celts arrived.
 
Last edited:
Be more precise - who is that Indo-European culture you claim Las Cogotas stems from and shares a continuity with? Given the time-frame there are not that many options; and why did no Indo-European language exist from it?

The only Archaeological attested migration (Hallstatt) of Indo-Europeans (Kelts) also produced the only Indo-European language (Celt-Iberian) ever spoken in Iberia until the Romans came;

Where as all the cultures that are presumed and oddly constructed to be Indo-European (Los Cogogos/El Arger) never had an Indo-European language and are not Archaeologically traceable to any cultural continuity;

I see a pattern here;
If there is no cultural continuity and no Indo-European language exists than there never was an Indo-European migration in the first place; And its an illusion to think otherwise;

Fact is, Indo-Europeans came to Iberia.
When?
I don't think El Argar was Indo-European.
I think Las Cogotas was.
I'm quite convinced Urnfeld was.
Unless you tell me what language Las Cogotas spoke, where they came from or where they got there cattle, I stick to my point of view.
 
I think Las Cogotas was

Just to be precise;
Do you mean that Las Cogotas was Indo-European in the sense that Indo-Europeans founded it in ~1800BC or in the sense that the site was later occupied by the Indo-Europeans of the actual 900BC migration;

Because those are 2 fundamentally diff. things;

I'm quite convinced Urnfeld was.

Partially;
The Urnfield culture in that part of Iberia is connected to the Ligurians;
Who are Historically recorded to have invaded that (certain) region and Archaeologically (Rhone-valley/Po-valley) came from the Urnfield complex; The Ligurians must have been already part Indo-European in order to belong to the Urnfield complex in the first place;
 
Archaeologically - in comparison to the contemporary Indo-European Unetice/Tumulus complex there is nothing Indo-European about El Argar; The changes and shifts in El Argar (Industrial/Social) are due to the new Bronze-age era itself and not invading Indo-Europeans stemming from a diff. culture zone;

If El Argar is the product of an early Bronze-age Indo-European Invasion/Migration than it naturally must stem from a previous to 1800 BC existing Indo-European culture;
Which one? And what are the clear links and continuity to it?

And most of all; The folks that emerged from El Argar were non-Indo-European (Iberians/Tartessians) in every respect; And the Horse was already domesticated in Bell-beaker (Chalcolithic) times;

Then who do you think brought the Bronze Age to Iberia, and founded the El Argar culture ?

Do you at least agree with the main point of the thread, that the Bell Beaker people could not have been the ones spreading R1b ?
 
So then as a cool suggestion; who DID spread bell-beaker culture and built Stonehenge, if it wasn't R1b then I would like to know who it was MAXXXiamo.
 
So then as a cool suggestion; who DID spread bell-beaker culture and built Stonehenge, if it wasn't R1b then I would like to know who it was MAXXXiamo.

I have said for many years that it would be a blend of Mesolithic I2 people and Neolithic E1b1b, G2a and J. The mtDNA data is consistent with that.
 
Just to be precise;
Do you mean that Las Cogotas was Indo-European in the sense that Indo-Europeans founded it in ~1800BC or in the sense that the site was later occupied by the Indo-Europeans of the actual 900BC migration;

Because those are 2 fundamentally diff. things;

Both are possible, but the second is more lilely than the first of course.
The Vettones are supposed to descend from Cogotas, and they were Celtiberians.



Partially;
The Urnfield culture in that part of Iberia is connected to the Ligurians;
Who are Historically recorded to have invaded that (certain) region and Archaeologically (Rhone-valley/Po-valley) came from the Urnfield complex; The Ligurians must have been already part Indo-European in order to belong to the Urnfield complex in the first place;

Thx for your info
 
Wow, I would never have thought but I am becoming more convinced already I suppose; I2 I believe, I guess G2 is possible? I find E3b hard to believe but my weakness in analyzing genetics has always been ancient DNA found in graves during different periods; I need to brush up on that, can anyone point me to a thread or something I can learn more on about the first European DNA?
 
Wow, I would never have thought but I am becoming more convinced already I suppose; I2 I believe, I guess G2 is possible? I find E3b hard to believe but my weakness in analyzing genetics has always been ancient DNA found in graves during different periods; I need to brush up on that, can anyone point me to a thread or something I can learn more on about the first European DNA?

E1b1b (V13) has already been found in Neolithic Spain (alongside G2a), so it is almost certain that E-V13 and G2a were part of the Megalithic and Bell Beaker cultures.
 
I agree for the most part Maciamo, and I know that it might sound like I'm splitting hairs... but how do you have paternal hg. J involved in the construction of Stonehenge? Yes on I2, G2a, and EV13 (I would be shocked if it turns out each of these weren't represented) but I don't expect to see hg. J anywhere near Stonehenge that far back. More likely might be some hold-overs from hg. F or even a tiny chance of some hg. C-- I can't see any hg. J though.

Side note: Dr. Hammer (well respected American out of Arizona) claimed very recently in a presentation that he has hg. G2a building Stonehenge with no help from R1b. Apparently he had no mention of any hg. I involvement... as you can imagine I find this perplexing to say the least. I didn't attend the conference and am going off of website material... but I don't see any hg. I linkage to it's construction according to Dr. Hammer.

EDIT-- Also I1 could have contributed to the building depending on the age of this clade. The movement of large stone does seem to be a favorite pastime for this group.
 
I agree for the most part Maciamo, and I know that it might sound like I'm splitting hairs... but how do you have paternal hg. J involved in the construction of Stonehenge? Yes on I2, G2a, and EV13 (I would be shocked if it turns out each of these weren't represented) but I don't expect to see hg. J anywhere near Stonehenge that far back. More likely might be some hold-overs from hg. F or even a tiny chance of some hg. C-- I can't see any hg. J though.

Side note: Dr. Hammer (well respected American out of Arizona) claimed very recently in a presentation that he has hg. G2a building Stonehenge with no help from R1b. Apparently he had no mention of any hg. I involvement... as you can imagine I find this perplexing to say the least. I didn't attend the conference and am going off of website material... but I don't see any hg. I linkage to it's construction according to Dr. Hammer.

EDIT-- Also I1 could have contributed to the building depending on the age of this clade. The movement of large stone does seem to be a favorite pastime for this group.

I said haplogroup J on purpose, without specifying J1 or J2, because things aren't really clear on that regard yet. I am fairly confident that both J1 and J2 were minority haplogroups of Neolithic farmers, like T. However that may have been limited to some parts of Europe. Haplogroup J1 was surely present in the Neolithic Balkans and Carpathians, perhaps as far west as the Germany through the Linear Pottery (LBK) culture. Haplogroup T appears to have been present mostly in Mediterranean Europe (Cardium Pottery ?) and might also have spread the Neolithic to the Eurasian Steppe, even penetrating as far north as Estonia and Finland, and definitely as far east as the Volga-Ural region and probably beyond. Haplogroup J2 is more complex because I believe that it spread across Europe mostly during the Chalcolithic period, especially in the Balkans and Mediterranean Europe.

As for the Megalithic and Beaker people, I said that they belonged to I2, E1b1b, G2a, J, and perhaps even T. However it is almost certain that these haplogroups were found in unequal proportions across Western Europe, and some might have been found exclusively in southern Europe, like J and T. It makes little doubt that the Neolithic and Chalcolithic population of the British Isles had a higher proportion of I2 people than that of Iberia. It's not because those regions were unified under one common culture, even for several millennia, that big regional differences in haplogroups didn't exist. I wouldn't be surprised, for example, if some sort of east-west cleavage already existed in Iberia during the Neolithic - western Iberia have a higher proportion of E-M81 while central and north-eastern Iberia could have had more I2.

J1 and J2 might well have been present in Iberia and Italy since the Neolithic or Chalcolithic, but absent from the British Isles.
 
I said haplogroup J on purpose, without specifying J1 or J2, because things aren't really clear on that regard yet. I am fairly confident that both J1 and J2 were minority haplogroups of Neolithic farmers, like T. However that may have been limited to some parts of Europe. Haplogroup J1 was surely present in the Neolithic Balkans and Carpathians, perhaps as far west as the Germany through the Linear Pottery (LBK) culture. Haplogroup T appears to have been present mostly in Mediterranean Europe (Cardium Pottery ?) and might also have spread the Neolithic to the Eurasian Steppe, even penetrating as far north as Estonia and Finland, and definitely as far east as the Volga-Ural region and probably beyond. Haplogroup J2 is more complex because I believe that it spread across Europe mostly during the Chalcolithic period, especially in the Balkans and Mediterranean Europe.

As for the Megalithic and Beaker people, I said that they belonged to I2, E1b1b, G2a, J, and perhaps even T. However it is almost certain that these haplogroups were found in unequal proportions across Western Europe, and some might have been found exclusively in southern Europe, like J and T. It makes little doubt that the Neolithic and Chalcolithic population of the British Isles had a higher proportion of I2 people than that of Iberia. It's not because those regions were unified under one common culture, even for several millennia, that big regional differences in haplogroups didn't exist. I wouldn't be surprised, for example, if some sort of east-west cleavage already existed in Iberia during the Neolithic - western Iberia have a higher proportion of E-M81 while central and north-eastern Iberia could have had more I2.

J1 and J2 might well have been present in Iberia and Italy since the Neolithic or Chalcolithic, but absent from the British Isles.

Gotcha, thank you for the additional explanation. I'm on the same page with your conclusions.
 
The reason the Kromsdorf Beaker sample has Indo-European mtDNA is because of female exogamy with nearby Indo-Europeans. This shows up in non-metric dental traits too, and it's how the Beakers became Indo-Europeans.
 
I told I don't think El Argar were Indo-European, but Las Cogotas was.
What's wrong with that?
Las Cogotas were simple people owning and herding their own cattle, and they probably came from outside Iberia having found good herding grounds on the Meseta.
They practised individual burials.
That seems to match the lifestyle of the Indo-Europeans that had arrived in Central and Northwest Europe.
But I'm sure you're going to learn me much more about Las Cogotas now.

just some points I picked here and there:
according to a lot of scholars, it is El Argar that testifies of a big change in scoial organization about the 2000/1800 BC - hyerarchic societe (albeit supposed),technical specialization, new pottery (bronze typology) individual sepultures under tumulis (collective Tholos and female deities abandoned) + not only bronze, but gold and silver - the new mode of sepulture is the forced corpse position, for the most into big jars or urns (40cm to 70 cm height) sometime in little coffers (85 cm length) - the jars inhumations were very rare in Europe (only in Unetice, a mixed culture as we know now) nad point to the Near-Eastern bronze -
it is not to say El Algar people were only intrusif colonizators from East Mediterranea - they had some exchanges with the Atlantic regions and surely with others regions of Europe -
at this stage I have not enough elements to think the newcomers of El Argar (maybe not too numerous) were Indo-European speakers...
 
I think as Maciamo Y-R1b is not the typical HG of the first BBs people - perhaps not totally for the same reasons as him -
I don't see them as a slow numerous population looking for new lands to settle their agriculture - I rather think they were groups limited in number, rather a male elite, searching spotty regions for metals, speedy in their moves at first, with maybe some maintained contacts with a source region I see not in West but in East (S-E-central Europe or East Mediterranea)- what we see as a global unique culture became I think a loosely related "daughters" cultures where initial BBs men and diverse autochtonous took part - I shall develop later my thoughts when my slow old brain (first generation model) has finished its laborious work - maybe not ONE but several hypothesis will be born then, maybe NO hypothesis (I 'm allowed, I'm retired!)
waiting that, here under the thoughts of some forumers of other sites - it could lighten some of their moves and launch some propositions concerninghtier geographical remote origin???


from another forum


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by
alan
...Anyway in terms of the topic, I stumbled across this paper

http://www.academia.edu/1633041/Copp..._Social_Demand

it relates to the fascinating pre-beaker copper age of Iberia. On other forums I have tried to dig into details of the pre-beaker post-Capatho-Balkans spread of copper working including the
Circumpontic Metallurgical Provence and the spread of post-Carpatho-Balkan metalworking and mining through the Alps, Italy and Liguria. c. 3500-3000BC. Ultimately this surely is linked to the pre-beaker Iberian copper age too. One thing that struck me when digging into the Carpatho-Balkan and CMP traditions is how very ornament orientated the former was and how this contrasted with the CMP where weapons and tools were much more prominent. Well, this seems to have also been the case with the pre-beaker Italian copper age cultures like Remedello. Now this paper seems to say the same is true about pre-beaker Iberian copper age metal work, something that I have found it hard to find a lot of information about on the web. I also found this paper on analysis of the metal of that period in Iberia although its rather technical

http://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/62...reira_2011.pdf

Thanks, Alan. Looks like another correlation with the potential smoking gun of metallurgy.

From "From Metallurgy to Bronze Age Civilizations: The Synthetic Theory" by Amzallag

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by
Amzallag
scholars frequently do not devote enough attention to the way copper is produced.
...
furnace smelting, as soon as it came into being, immediately replaced crucible smelting.
...
if the bowl furnace is no more than an enlarged crucible, we would expect to find a gradual evolution in shape and size from crucible to bowl furnace. This is not the case.
...
Furnace metallurgy was progressively expanding in the western part of the Mediterranean basin (Sardinia, Italy, southern France, and North Africa) through a pattern that parallels the spread of the Bell Beaker cultures. Also on continental Europe, furnace metallurgy was diffusing concurrently with the spread of Bell Beaker culture.
...
In Europe, this dynamic is related to the slow and multidirectional pattern of migration of the Bell Beaker people, suggesting it is not directly motivated by the search for new mining resources. Rather, the expansion of a metallurigical domain looks like a combination of the desire of populations to join the metallurgical domain and the need, for the smiths, to migrate toward new horizons.

http://www.ajaonline.org/sites/defau...Amzallag_0.pdf

Amzallag's interpretation of the evidence is that the Beaker folks were using furnace smelting and of course that
furnace smelting comes from the CMP (Circumpontic Metallurgy Province.) This correlation makes sense. If the Beaker people were using (and selling) metals usefully as tools and weapons, rather than as ornaments, a higher production system like furnace smelting (vs. crucible smelting) would be helpful. The shoe fits.

I also think the
Po River basin connection through to Liguria and southern France fits a little better with an L51/L11 trail than trying to bring the L51/L11 lineage through the boot of Italy with the early Neolithic or stringing them along North African coast to southern Iberia. That is not to say they did not touch North Africa, but just that the Po basin is a better vector for eventually hitting high diversity spot for P312 in southern France as well as spinning off U106 to the north somehow along the way.
 
I will find one or another person's arguments convincing when we have access to a lot of Y haplotype information for western Europe for the period covering from the Neolithic to the late Bronze age in various parts of western Euope.
 
My problem with all of these theories is that so far as I know it's generally accepted that for a lineage to achieve the kind of extremely fast growth and dominance over a geographic area that we see in Europe for R1b and R1a it's usually posited that the lineage was either expanding into open, virgin territory, or they were in possession of some new technology which dramatically increased the survival odds for the group. The two obvious periods that come to mind are the re-population of Europe after the LGM and the Neolithic era of agriculturization.

Of course, the "Kurgan" theory attempts to tie this rapid growth to the movement of Bronze age steppe pastoralists possessing bronze weapons, the wheel and the horse from European Russia along the Danube into central Europe. However, the problem for me has always been that any trace of a mass movement of people ends in the Hungarian plain. Nor do any of the maps I've seen for the spread of the different R1b clades from such a movement really fit the speed necessary or the actual distribution.

With R1a, things seem a little different. An impact in an area, a flat area much more conducive to travel by horse pulled cart, by the way, that is adjacent to the Russian steppe makes more sense. The later spread of R1a could perhaps also be put down to it's movement in the historic era into areas heavily depopulated by war and Justinian's plague (i.e. the Balkans), I'm not aware of any similar easy explanation for R1b. I don't find it at all obvious how some family groups of smiths or metal sellers from the east, whether they moved directly across the Alps or for some reason dumped their horses and caravans to take to the sea and go to Portugal, could so quickly and completely dominate the ydna picture of western Europe, no matter how many local wives they took.

For that reason, I'm very interested in the testing going on in the Balkans. I hope that enough samples are taken from enough cultural groups that we can get a clearer picture of what went on there. We do know that there was a collapse of the Old Europe cultures. It's important to know the y dna signatures of those cultures and of any incoming groups to see if they support some of the theories raised over the years about replacement or at least semi-replacement from the steppe. In that scenario, I suppose a semi-collapse of the farming cultures north of the Alps would have also allowed for replacement or at least much higher numbers there as well.

The other possibility, I think, is that R1b made an earlier entry into Europe proper than did R1a, through northwest Anatolia and then into the Balkans, and once they encountered Neolithic farming methods, they adopted them, unlike the people in northern and western Europe. I'm thinking, in particular, of the paper that showed rather rapid intermarriage and blending of cultures in the Balkans between the locals and the Neolithic newcomers, with the locals showing a very high rate of inter-marriage with women from the Neolithic settlements. This group, if it was able to refine the farming package to make it more compatible with continental type climate conditions, might have been in a good position to head north west and move out from staging areas there.

All speculation, of course, but we may actually soon get some DNA which will make things clearer.
 
R1b has been found as far afield as the Tarim Basin, but it is my understanding that the scientific community is still undecided on its origins, and will remain so until far more research has been done. True, it may or may not have been spread by the Bell Beaker culture, but there again, no one is sure precisely who initiated and continued the spread of Bell Beaker. It could have been the original manufacturers or it could have been itinerant traders. I'm waiting for more info.
 

This thread has been viewed 146756 times.

Back
Top