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

MOESAN: Thank you for your comprehensive comments. I have never really accepted that the spread of Bell Beaker pottery was necessarily closely linked to the spread of R1b. Pottery, being the province of women in those times, could have spread by way of trade, inter-marriage or migration, or a combination of all three. That the spread of Bell Beaker pottery is described as a "culture" doesn't quite gel with me. In order for a "culture" to exist, imho, there would need to be many more shared factors, such as language, religion and means of existence, e.g. agriculture, hunting, fishing and so on. I know I'm arguing against experts, but I thinks there's a great deal more research that needs to be done on this subject.
 
Bell-Beaker culture probably isn't source of R1b in Western Europe, because R1b was there before it emerged. According to Myres et al.(2010) M269 emerged 10270+-1680 YBP, M412/L51 8870+-1708 YBP, S116 8630+-1529 YBP, U106 8742+-1551 YBP. That time points to LBK culture and Neolithic origin of R1b. The most probable explanation of wide spread of R1b in whole Europe and very high frequency in West Europe is due to their farming culture which provided more food for children then hunter-gatherers cultures.
Map of diffusion of agriculture in Europe clearly correlate with spread of R1b:
View attachment 6140
the same correlation is reviled by autosomal "Gedrosian" and to lesser extent "Mediterranean" components in Western Europe.

'gedrosian' component in western Europe is very peculiar because it lacks high %s of the brother 'caucasian' or we have to suppose 'gedrosian ran from W-India to Anatolia before being "smashed" by northern 'caucasians' (it is not totally absurd but very improbable for now (caucasic tribes occupied Palestina, Lebanon, Syria, Anatolia and Mesopotamia) around 4500 BC - where were they before, I don't know) - waiting more, i now think 'gedrosia' component in NW Europe could be come there by a northern way (look at its high enough % in Scandinavia as N-Celtic lands, poor enough for 'caucasian'... Myres valuations for time are evaluations, nothing else, and are debated I believe -

+ I find funny enough believing the destination places would become ALWAYS heavier for an HG than the origin place... and the more recent SNPs if they are numerous one together are not at all the proof of more recent settlement!!! it is statistical sometimes: the more numerous the more chances to undergo new mutations - some recent places can loose their few newer SNPs and keep with the older ones by the "law of great numbers" ("small number" in fact) even if I don't discuss here the fact that more remotly in time R1b came from East or South-East
 
Liguian/celtiberian : L11 or P312+/M65+/L21-/DF27-/U152-
 
"But why then is only Iberia target of these hypothetical neolithic seafaring invasions?"

What if they weren't invasions but a migration of a metalworking caste similar to the African Blacksmith castes? The difference in their effect could then simply be the difference in the degree of founder effect i.e. larger founder effect in areas of relatively low population e.g. the west and northwest.

google west african blacksmith castes
 
<blockquote>1) Geography & Chronology : R1b indubitably originated in Asia
2) R1b-U106. It could be envisaged that L11 crossed by sea from the Balkans to western Iberia, and that the Proto-Celtic R1b-P312 (aka S116) first appeared in south-western Iberia and spread with the Beaker folk from there. But then what of the other main subclade of L11, namely the Proto-Germanic U106 (S21) ? How did it end up in northern Europe if R1b-L11 migrated by sea to Iberia ? The centre of genetic diversity of R1b-U106 clearly lies between the Benelux and Denmark.
3) Steppe pastoralists do not suddenly become maritime traders.
4) A successful large-scale, organised maritime invasion of Iberia from the Balkans is highly improbable.
5) The R1b sample from Kromsdorf did not belong to Beaker people, but to Proto-Indo-European from the Unetice culture or its immediate predecessor. Both culture co-existed side-by-side in that region until about 2200 BCE.
6) Bronze Age and Indo-European values & lifestyle were not present in Iberia during the Beaker period.
</blockquote>

Caste of metalsmiths from around the Black Sea - *adjacent* to the steppe IE but themselves non-steppe - speaking an IE language dispersing around Europe to pre-existing settlements (including the pre-existing megalithic culture settlements along the Atlantic coast like Jutland) having very little demographic impact in regions of already high population but dramatic founder effects in regions of low population density like Western and Northwestern Europe.

 
"But why then is only Iberia target of these hypothetical neolithic seafaring invasions?"

What if they weren't invasions but a migration of a metalworking caste similar to the African Blacksmith castes? The difference in their effect could then simply be the difference in the degree of founder effect i.e. larger founder effect in areas of relatively low population e.g. the west and northwest.

google west african blacksmith castes

there is no plague of navigation, but the progress of the Earth of people R1b in all Europe and towards the southwest of Europe. In that case why the presence of R1b is so strong in the Iberian Peninsula and so weak in peninsula italics, according to your logic they should have the opposite but it is not so.

On the other hand they determine in the Iberian Peninsula the weakest rates of Europe of the most ancient markers R1b such L51; it proves that R1b arrives in the Iberian Peninsula and with bronze later to the arsenic which is the perfect example of the Bronze age.
No! undoubtedly nothing seems possible for a maritime plague.
 
If they were a metalsmith caste living among an existing population then any founder effect would be inversely proportional to the size of the original population: ten R1b among 1000 people would have less effect than 10 among 100.
 
If they were a metalsmith caste living among an existing population then any founder effect would be inversely proportional to the size of the original population: ten R1b among 1000 people would have less effect than 10 among 100.

For their descendants, in which epoch take percentages you it? because since it there had the plague of the Roman, be able of wisigoths, be able of basques, be able of Arabic. And however their descendants unquestionably M65, represents between 20 and 3 % in the regions of Spain, excepted the Basque country between 0.3 %-0 %.

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/bspf_0249-7638_1998_num_95_3_10813
 
Last edited:
For their descendants, in which epoch take percentages you it? because since it there had the plague of the Roman, be able of wisigoths, be able of basques, be able of Arabic. And however their descendants unquestionably M65, represents between 20 and 3 % in the regions of Spain, excepted the Basque country between 0.3 %-0 %.

Which clade's descendants? The different clades seem to show big differences in the number of their descendants. Clades centered in Regions that were the least populated like Britain, Ireland and Jutland seem to have a lot of descendants and clades in regions that had higher populations seem to have less.
 
There is some evidence R1b may have reached Portugal through North Africa around 3000 BC. If you take desertification into account they would have been pretty much forced into Iberia. Egypt had a primitive galley 3000 BC so that explains seafaring technology.

Celtic and North African languages have remarkable similarities. Bell Beaker pottery and North African pottery have a lot in common. North African cattle arrived in Spain sometime prior to 1700 BC.

R1b V88 also has a presence in Sub-Saharan Africa, it's a different lineage, but it shows there's a migration route and populations tend to use the same migration route. There's a small amount of R1b V88 left in North Africa and the same goes for R1b L11 which may be as high as 10% in some parts.

Maps of R1b L11, Bell Beaker, and the Celtic language are almost identical. It's a far better explanation for the spread of the Celtic language than the Hallstat theory early historians invented.

I also haven't seen convincing evidence for a Balkan origin of R1b L11, everything suggests R1a and R1b horse tribes moved south into the Middle East and North Africa around 4000 BC and moved back north around 3000 BC.
 
NEO-Celtic languages show SOME syntaxic similarities with hamitic-semitic languages (some of whose were perhaps spoken in Mediterranea who knows?)
but ANCIENT celtic syntax is by far very commonly I-Ean and nothing else, at first sight - SO we can, yes, imagine a link or influence from previous southern populations but not a southern origin of celtic - a substratum only - and the dominant class suremy imposed the numeric dominance of its Y-HGs (here Y-R1b) - so Y-R1b, as a whole, did not came through North Africa, even if proofs are needed - BBs were "strangers", a foreign population limited in number - they were surely not by force the Y-R1b bearers but they could have been in contact with more numerous Y-R1b bearers and have been responsible for some presence of Y-R1b in North Zfrica (# V88) -

I know bigger numbers would be an help to judge but today the only ancient Y-R1b found in Iberia is apparently of the V88 lignage, nothing to do with Celts -
and the genealogy of the "poor" (spite dense) Y-R1b lignages in Western Europe tends to prove a continental eastern origin (spite some old upstram SNPs came maybe by Mediterranea, for the most into Italy)

it'strue old celtic myhts speak of North Africa as they spoke of a Scythic origin, but when were they composed??? under which classical influence?
 
Some language experts disagree and argue that Celtic originated in North Africa, with Celtic being closer to Afro-Asiatic than to Indo European languages. Some anthropologists claim that Bell Beakers replaced the existing population.

These are grey areas and there are few hard facts.

Looks like there's some more evidence here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/envi...-why-celtic-dna-leads-back-to-africa-1.522345

It speaks of a North African lineage dated around 3600 BC which is shared by 1% of Scotts. I assume it's an Y haplogroup but the article doesn't mention which one.
 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC166441/

This 2003 study is a little old but relevant, it dates the split of Gaulish and Gaelic to 3200 BC (with some margin for error), the R1b L21 split is dated around 3000 BC, start of Bell Beaker culture is dated at 2800 BC.

fig01b_600.jpg


The study estimates Celtic and Indo-European to have diverged around 8100 BC.

The evidence is pretty strong, still a bit of a mystery where the early Celts came from and what their technological advantages were. As academics are most likely wrong about the spread of the Celtic language (500 BC according to most text books) it's very well possible that a lot of interesting historical information has been ignored.
 
Some language experts disagree and argue that Celtic originated in North Africa, with Celtic being closer to Afro-Asiatic than to Indo European languages. Some anthropologists claim that Bell Beakers replaced the existing population.

These are grey areas and there are few hard facts.

Looks like there's some more evidence here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/envi...-why-celtic-dna-leads-back-to-africa-1.522345

It speaks of a North African lineage dated around 3600 BC which is shared by 1% of Scotts. I assume it's an Y haplogroup but the article doesn't mention which one.


not very serious -the extract makes mixings of different aspects of the problem - CUNLIFFE is known for his already old positions against celticity of Ireland (not against celticity of gaelic, at first) - now he changed mind? his love for southern exotic links pushes him to imagine a southern origin for celtic language???
'scientist' is not alwats a proof of seriousness about anthropologic sciences... - I wait the details about the 1% or african genes in Scotland (what has nothing to do with Celts iorigin) -
it's not the first time british "scientists" publish iconoclastic papers that turned out as shit soon later, helas
I know celtic languages syntax and vocabulary and the links they have with hamitic-semitic languages are some ture aspects, BUT NOT an identity! and their phonology has nothing to do with them
I'll pass for a "racist", but SOMEONES in the anglo-saxon scientific world are more sellers than sharers - that said, a tiny link with Berbers would not surprise me (Mesolithic times through Iberia) but I wait autosomes proofs of it -
good evening
 
The 1% is E1b, but the question remains where and when it comes from. If it was part of the original R1b-L11 migrations that would obviously point at North Africa. North African DNA studies will be important, some R1b L23 has been found so far, but the studies are of poor quality.
 
As of June, 2015, with several major papers published, it's almost certain that the Bell Beakers were exclusively R1B.

It makes sense. A huge population shift should have left a huge archaeological record. The spread of R1A in the Bronze Age is associated with the Corded Ware culture and likewise R1b is associated with the sprawling Bell Beaker Culture.

The only question seems to be the theory that the Bell Beakers originated in Portugal. How can that be true if the R1B Bell Beakers are arriving from the East as an extension of the Yamna Horizon?

I'm speculating that the Portugal origin for Bell Beakers is in error. However, one thing that can't be ruled out is the Megalith Builders as a source for R1B We still don't have any dna from the Atlantic fringe of that period, and the Megaliths were a major culture that surely spread genes around. Again, just speculation and highly unlikely, but it has to be considered in the absence of evidence.

Still the Beakers were R1B and by far they are the most likely candidates to have spread R1B around Western Europe.
 
I don't see any reason to assume R1b was widespread in western Europe 10,000 years ago. With R1b dominating Yamnaya and now being found in Corded Ware/Battle Axe remains (predating Bell Beaker), an east to west spread seems most likely. The only R1b we have that's older in Europe IIRC is the irrelevant El Trocs...I say irrelevant because it has no relation to modern, western European R1b, whereas the other examples obviously do (a CW/BA sample being U106, apparently, the oldest such find, and probably the oldest we're likely to get if current age estimates are remotely accurate).

The R1b dominance of BB could easily be explained by BB being the organic result of IE/megalith culture contact, considering founder effect and the desirable skills of (for example) an R1b metallurgic and/or herding class...in German BB graves, something like 25% of those interred apparently came from the northeast. What if what we think of as Bell Beaker culture was simply the mixing of the megalith folk from the southwest with IEs from the northeast?

Additionally, I'm relatively sure there are non-R1b BB remains, we just haven't tested them. If nothing else, assuming the above musings were accurate, it's not at all impossible that when you arrive in a new area and start taking wives, one or more of them will have a brother or something that you end up keeping around, whether simply for peace in the home or because he makes valuable pottery. :p
 
What can I say, the proof is right in front of you.
I was thinking the same thing. Yamnaya -> Corded Ware -> western Europe, at least for U106. There is literally no evidence to suggest otherwise.
There are R1bs in Europe today. Use Occam's Razor. The simplest assumption to account for this is that there have always been R1bs in Europe, or at least for a very long time.
This is like saying "there are R1bs in North America today, the simplest assumption to account for this is that there have always been R1bs in North America, or at least for a very long time." There's literally no data to support such an assumption. The El Trocs R1b isn't ancestral to any western European R1b of the modern age.
If someone has an alternative theory, the onus of proof is on them.
You're ignoring the data.
No reputable scholar supports a Copper or Bronze age entry for R1b to Europe, this is all supported by amateurs.
Are you really trying to say all the studies recently demonstrating R1b in Yamnaya and Corded Ware are amateur work? Haak and Reich are amateurs?
The academic consensus following Balaresque et al is that R1b is early neolithic, from agriculturalists who entered Europe 6500 years ago, three millennia before the Megalisth Builders.
Again, it seems like you've just decided to ignore all the work that confirms a theory you dislike. I think if you kept up with the science, you'd see that your theory is not the academic consensus at all. You can't just stop learning around 2010 and insist on a theory from a decade ago despite the data provided by professionals.
 
BBs for I think were not only religion spreaders, rather metals searchers came from East, maybe I-Ean maybe not. they were a few number in a lot of spotty settlements, and seems relatively heavily settled only in some regions as central Rhine (Worms by instance), and they had not huge territories, only what seem "counters". in Germany it seems they mixed early enough with autochtonous people (more HG than neolithical) and Corded ones, evidently around highlands rich for metals ores and strategic places; it the source of later British BBs. the late "BB"s settlements we have some ancient DNA from, are late mixed developments where some BBs initial aspects were kept among others.it does not tell us if the DNA we find is the ninitial BBs one... BBs were economic enzymes for the most, except some places. By the way, according to some surveys about ancient densities of population, at early and later times they don't seem having helped to populations encreases at any level, in Northwestern Europe.
 
joeflood said:
I see nothing in Haak to support your assertion. I do find on searching, "The Yamnaya Samara R1b is mostly R1b-Z2103, and none is in the West ... So it's totally impossible that Yamnaya R1b is ancestral to Western Europe".

Most of the Samara R1b was Z2103. One was L23. Given that L23 is ancestor of both Z2103 and (European) L51, how does it make sense to suggest that it's "impossible" that European R1b is descended from Yamnaya?

This is like saying "well, your grandfather's father and brother lived in Russia, so it's impossible your grandfather was Russian." It just doesn't follow.

Elsewhere I see people saying it was M-269, something I doubt very much. We are looking at a big game of internet Chinese Whispers here.

Z2103 is under M269, as is L23, is it not?

This whole idea that DNA has got something to do with particular cultures or tribes is a strange one. Roman culture was all over Europe 2000 years ago, where is the Roman DNA?

All over Europe, in small amounts.

It is not the presence of R1b but the distribution that is the issue. Now here is *very strong evidence* against the East-West R1b theories.

Like what?

USA was settled East-West. Do you see the slightest indication that some haplogroup becomes more concentrated as you head west in the USA?

I think we would if, after the initial European invasion of North America, someone else then invaded the east coast several times over the centuries, pushing the descendants of the initial invaders west. or simply extirpating most of them from eastern North America...

Do you think that native american DNA has been wiped out by technologically superior conquerors? Yet this is the nonsense we are expected to believe in Europe.

Um, that's essentially what actually happened in North America. Amerindian haplogroups are very rare compared to European ones. How is this at all debatable?

Probably not, it's just one of many thousands of ancestral R1b lines that have become extinct in Europe, leaving mostly U106 -P312 [ie the descendants of two men]. However - don't you find it at least strongly suggestive that of the very few ancient Y-DNA remains sampled in Western Europe, oe should be R1b and not even M269?

Not really. Look at how far V88 traveled, long before the entrance of M269 into Europe.

There would have been very many more of these in the past and they will continue to come to light. phylogeography is littered with the debris of bogus theories like Reich's - starting with 'Neanderthals and sapiens never even met' which was current about six years ago.

I hear what you're saying, I just don't understand how you don't see that your R1b-as-European-since-the-last-Ice-Age theory is one of those bogus theories that no one really believes anymore beyond a few random people on certain message boards. You're tying to present it as scientific consensus, when the consensus has been moving steadily away from it for years.

Can you even name a scientist that currently supports it? I can't, off the top of my head.
 

This thread has been viewed 146571 times.

Back
Top