Ever since the publication of the Olalde et al. Beaker paper (see
here), there's been a lot of talk online about Hungarian Yamnaya as the most likely source of the Yamnaya-related, R1b-P312-rich northern Bell Beakers who went on to dominate much of Central and Western Europe during the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age.
Certainly, this is still possible, and we might find out soon if it's true because several Hungarian Yamnaya samples are apparently about to be published. But I wouldn't bet the proverbial farm on it just yet.
The most Yamnaya-like Beaker in the Olalde et al. dataset and ancient DNA record to date is from the Szigetszentmiklós burial site, which is indeed in present-day Hungary. But this individual, labeled I2787, is dated to just 2457–2201 calBCE, which isn't an early date for a Beaker and probably a couple hundred years past the proto-Beaker time frame.
Moreover, he belongs to Y-haplogroup R1b-Z2103, a paternal marker most closely associated in the ancient DNA record with eastern Yamnaya groups. And he doesn't exactly look like a classic northern Beaker, because he doesn't have a brachycephalic head with an exceedingly flat occiput (like
this).
So I'd say that this is either an acculturated Beaker of recent Yamnaya origin, or perhaps the son of a Yamnaya father and Beaker mother. Below are several qpAdm mixture models that I ran to explore the latter possibility. They look very solid.
Beaker_Hungary_I2787
Beaker_Bavaria 0.442±0.045
Yamnaya_Samara 0.558±0.045
chisq 8.562
tail prob 0.73982
Full output
Beaker_Hungary_I2787
Beaker_Czech 0.441±0.045
Yamnaya_Samara 0.559±0.045
chisq 10.009
tail prob 0.61513
Full output
Beaker_Hungary_I2787
Beaker_The_Netherlands 0.576±0.062
Yamnaya_Samara 0.424±0.062
chisq 11.469
tail prob 0.489238
Full output
The idea that I2787 is a Beaker with recent Yamnaya ancestry isn't an original one. It was put forth very eloquently and convincingly months ago by the Bell Beaker Blogger himself:
Szigetszentmiklós Cemetery (Santa's Six Foot Elves)
I2786 is another Beaker male from the Szigetszentmiklós site who shows excess Yamnaya-related ancestry compared to most other Beakers. Again, it's likely that this individual harbors recent Yamnaya ancestry, because his Y-haplogroup is I2a-M223, which has been recorded in eastern Yamnaya alongside R1b-Z2103.
So my gut feeling for now is that Hungarian Yamnaya samples will mostly belong to Y-haplogroups R1b-Z2103 and I2a-M223, rather than R1b-P312, and thus they won't fit the bill in any obvious way as the population that may have given rise to northern Beakers.
One of the oldest individuals in the ancient DNA record belonging to R1b-P312 is I5748, a Beaker dated to 2579–2233 calBCE from the Oostwoud-Tuithoorn burial site in what is now West Frisia, The Netherlands.
Interestingly, this part of Northwestern Europe was home to the Single Grave population shortly before I5748 was alive. And the Single Grave culture is a variant of the Corded Ware culture. So can anyone tell me if there's any evidence that I5748 and his kind were relative newcomers to West Frisia, from, say, somewhere in the direction of the Carpathian Basin? If not, then what are the chances that northern Beakers are by and large the descendants of the Single Grave people?
In fact, there's not much difference in terms of genome-wide genetic structure between the Beakers from the Oostwoud-Tuithoorn site and Corded Ware people from what is now Germany. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) below illustrates this well. But, you might say, Corded Ware males by and large belong to Y-haplogroup R1a-M417. Yep, but this doesn't mean that R1b-P312 wasn't common in some Single Grave clans.
At this stage, I don't have a clue where the northern Beakers might have come from, and unfortunately I don't have any inside information about the Y-haplogroups of Hungarian Yamnaya. I don't even know if any Single Grave samples are being analyzed. But I'll leave you with this map from a recent paper by French archeologist and Beaker expert Olivier Lemercier (see
here). To me it suggests rather strongly that northern Beakers developed from the synthesis of Corded Ware newcomers to Western Europe and indigenous Western Europeans. As far as I can tell, that's what the paper basically argues as well.
See also...
Single Grave > Bell Beakers
Dutch Beakers: like no other Beakers
Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...
248 comments:
1 – 200 of 248 Newer› Newest»It was kinda the leading theory, that the trajectory was largely Yamnaya -> Corded Ware -> Bell Beaker.
What about R1b-U106? Currently, we know that R1b-U106 is absent in Bell Beakers, but it shows up in Scandinavia before 2000 BC. Is it possible that U106 was common in certain Single Grave clans who did not participate in the
Eastern Bell Beaker formation?
Yes, it's possible.
Apparently Beaker Y DNA from Cspel island in Hungary is champ of R1b L23 diversity.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13779-R1b-L11-Where-from&p=369239&viewfull=1#post369239
But this can be miss leading because Cspel island Beakers are from multiple ethnic groups who all came to Cspel island from somewhere else.
The R1b P312 & U106 guys could be newcomers from the northwest. R1b Z2103 I2787 is clearly a Western Yamnaya descendant.
I'm skeptical of the R1b L51*, Vucedol-like sample (30% Yamnaya, high EEF, little WHG). In another post they said he is low coverage & not tested for P312 SNP.
From Bell Beaker blog:
"Like the Małopolskan Beakers from the previous post, the initial Beaker ethnic is wholly alien to this region, being characterized as a tall, Alpine, wide-faced, strongly-built people with pronounced brachycephaly."
I doubt that BEAKERS were the brachycephalic ones (without getting too much into physical Anthropology): it's known that the preceding EEF population were brachycephalic. It's speculated that the Alpine subrace is due to the influence of the Anatolia_N.
Yamnaya itself was mostly dolichocephalic.
EEF were overall more dolichocephalic than Yamnaya, and more gracile.
Yamnaya was mostly dolichocephalic but also very robust.
Maybe Bell Beaker in northern Germany & Netherlands was R1b U106+. Hardly any of them have been tested. Pretty much all the continental samples are from Bavaria, Czech republic, and eastern France.
RISE98, Sweden late Corded Ware, is R1b U106+. Bell Beaker never lived in Sweden!
Anthrogenica Bell Beaker experts assume he is wrongly assigned to Corded Ware & belongs to an unknown new group who arrived from the south who in an unknown way is connected to Bell Beaker. I guess Scandinavian archaeology is really ambiguous in this time period.
One, thing about him, is his farmer ancestry is very Funnel Beaker-like (especially Swedish Funnel Beaker) & he has an extra dose of pure WHG from who knows where.
Isn’t there a post-Beaker Bronze Age Netherlands sample belonging to R1b-U106?
I think Dopa made a good point a thread ago: Are there any battle axes in BB graves? I haven't found any. The pottery in the Netherlands shows some evidence of evolution from Corded Ware to Bell Beakers though, see my responses a thread ago.
Agreed about Hungarian Yamnaya being non-L51, it should be pretty obvious that Yamnaya was Z2103 through and through.
The source of L51 is very mysterious then indeed - perhaps a much earlier departure from the Steppe, perhaps actually from Iberia, or maybe even (somehow) from Corded Ware. Only aDNA will show us the answer, but they take so fucking long to publish papers :(
I am also very skeptical about Hungarian Yamnaya as a main source for the northern Beaker people. I tried to analyze the farmer ancestry in northern Bell Beaker with nMontes and it is very northern. Well, to be more precise Globular Amfora is far the best fit among the populations currently in the G25 database. There is no significant Balkan admixture, not even in a wide sense of "Balkan".
Yamnaya from Hungary should be connected to Yamnaya from Bulgaria and Bulgarian Yamnaya had significant more southern farmer ancestry.
Also Beaker populations of Britain and the Netherlands really like Battle Axe Sweden as a source population.
My money is also on a scenario where BB emerged from inside the wider CWC horizon.
Global 25 nMontes Beaker_Britain:Average
Battle_Axe_Sweden 34.17%
CWC_Baltic 48.33%
Globular_Amphora 11.67%
Yamnaya_Kalmykia 5.83%
Fit 1.2681
Global 25 nMontes Beaker_Central_Europe:Average
Battle_Axe_Sweden 17.5%
CWC_Baltic 18.33%
Globular_Amphora 40%
Yamnaya_Kalmykia 24.17%
Fit 0.6777
I am using reference populations that have main ancestries from each other, so this is over-fitting, but these might still illustrate the point at least.
There have been many poor attempts to differentiate Z2103 from the L51 block when these men were only separated by a few centuries from one another by their common ancestor (L23). It's unreasonable to suggest that Central Beaker men were all that different from Yamnaya men initially, they were not. It can be demonstrated that "Central Beaker" or "British Beaker" have substantially more EEF than Yamnaya had from our data sets, therefore, it can be reasonably assumed the maternal gene pool was the cause of the difference. To suggest L51+ and Z2103+ are fundamentally different is special pleading
I guess one advantage (if you saw it that way) of it would be that this clearly does away with the Carlos Quilles type argument where the whole Corded Ware horizon was Uralic speaking, as in this instance at least some of it would need to be the plausible agent for Indo-European languages to reach Western Europe.
I can't really follow whether Yamnaya or Corded Ware are plausible to be linked to Beaker though; there just isn't enough difference in the autosome for genetics to be much help, other than the uniparentals and those are solidly a mix of R1a1 for the few CW samples we have and R1b-Z2103 for Yamnaya and kindred EMBA.
@Davidski "EEF were overall more dolichocephalic than Yamnaya, and more gracile.
Yamnaya was mostly dolichocephalic but also very robust."
I'm completely and utterly confused. Where did the Alpine type originate from?
I was always under the impression that it were the EEF types who were brachycephalic. So do you think it was the WHG contributions?
Out of the 4 constituent populations who contributed mainly to the creation of modern Euro populations, it was said that EHG were brachycephalic vis-a-vis the CHG, who were more gracile and dolichocephalic, resulting in PIE being mostly medium-cranially.
I'm sorry that I delve into PA but I'm attempting to figure out the connection between language, genetics and "looks".
OT: BTW, is that possible that, just in the case of CHG/Anatolia_N rich Hurrians with Hap-J uniparental DNA switching to Semitic because of Semitic maternal influences, that virtually the SAME could've happened when EHG fathers and CHG mothers raised offsprings rather speaking CHG language?
@Samuel Andrews
RISE98 has no specific links to Bell Beakers or CWC, based on it's grave and burial. This sample was from the Nordic Late Neolithic I period. This period is considered as stable by Scandinavian archealogists, as there is no evidence of migrations from the south during that specific period in Sweden.
@Them meee
Yep, there was a U106 sample in post-Beaker Netherlands. But it has been argued that this sample has links to Central Europe or Scandinavia, according to users from Anthrogenica. It sure looks like this post-Beaker Bronze Age Netherlands sample was part of a different population, based on it's burial,grave and period. It cannot be excluded that this sample was a descendant of Dutch/ Northern German Bell Beakers though. Genetically, it appears that BA_Netherlands is not that different from the Dutch Bell Beakers, so who knows?
So, almost all Olalde 2018 Contiental Beaker samples are from Bavaria & Czech Republic.
The question to ask is: Is there a clear archaeological trail showing they arrived from the Rhine river area. Is there archaeology showing they arrived from the Carpathian Basin?
They came from one source and expanded out of it, that much is certain. We know this because they all share the same Y chromosome R1b U152>L2 & similar ancestry.
I'm almost done with a helpful spreadsheet with results for all Bell Beaker samples in G25.
a bit off topic but has anyone heard anything regarding Wielbark and Przeworsk publications? There was a little bit released last year but that's it. We don't have any data other than that one article on pre-medieval Poland (indeed, not much on medieval Poland either). In the meantime we have anthropologists flooding us with cranial measurements, teeth types, height and weight, etc. The geneticists could say, well, these are all no good but they haven't said that either - it's like they are asleep.
Fig 5 in the following reference about the Nordic Bronze Age (16th century BCE) describes the "migration" of a warrior tradition. The path is far too recent to be Netherland Beakers but might be a route travelled in the past.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272312010_Breakthrough_of_the_Nordic_Bronze_Age_Transcultural_Warriorhood_and_a_Carpathian_Crossroad_in_the_Sixteenth_Century_BC/download
@Hans Bresnicki
I think they should test them. It’s interesting to see if they are significantly Germanic and if they have any proto-Slavic or Celtic admixture. They were claims of R1b-U106 in Wielbark and more samples can help clear this mystery, so if we’re getting flooded with skulls and remains, then why not test them?
Here's all Northern beakers (who are also availble in G25 PCA) put in one spreadsheet with approximate Yamnaya % & list of best farmer source.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kGSHlyGZn9h9uJo_nF0k53Kjj5ZSYI4MiA-JC0B32tE/edit#gid=0
Very useful. Details matter. I look forward to see if you guys can decipher anything from this mess.
@AWood
I'm not following your arguments at all. It seems like you're arguing against things that no one here has said.
It would help to parse the data if possible a little further by snp/date. Instead of using R1b-Z2103 how about R1b-Z2109 or R1b-Z2110. If the only option is an undated generic R1b-Z2103 then say so. An example would be sample F38 Iran R-Y23838Y https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/[ very close to Hajji Firuzz Teppe ]
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-iron-age-iranian.html
https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Teppe_Hasanlu¶ms=37_00_17.39_N_45_27_32.01_E_type:landmark
https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Hajji_Firuz_Tepe¶ms=36.9944_N_45.4744_E_type:landmark
Samborzec (Małopolska, Poland)mixed grave site "2. A complex
of small cemeteries dated to the late and final Neolithic has been found (Złota, Corded Ware and Bell Beaker graves). "
Sample I4253"I4253/RISE1124/grave no. 13: 2571-2208 BCE (3920±60 BP, Ki-7929). Male inhumation burial (25-30 years), with N-S orientation, located on the left side. The only element of equipment was a ceramic bowl, posed in the northern part of the grave." [R1b1a1a2 + U5a2c]"
https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/v555/n7695/extref/nature25738-s2.pdf
@Andrzejewski
I'm completely and utterly confused. Where did the Alpine type originate from?
It's just one of the many European physical types defined by several traits that may or may not be genetically associated with each other, most of which probably aren't.
It can't be reliably linked to any ancient migration into Europe or to any language group or groups.
Brachycephaly first becomes noticeable across much of Europe during the Bronze Age as a result of the Bell Beaker expansion, but there were brachycephalic people in Europe before the emergence of the Bell Beakers, and Bell Beakers don't really fit the Alpine definition anyway.
@a
It would help to parse the data if possible a little further by snp/date. Instead of using R1b-Z2103 how about R1b-Z2109 or R1b-Z2110.
No it wouldn't. You seem obsessed with your Y-haplogroup to be honest. Try to get over it, it's not that important.
@Matt
I guess one advantage (if you saw it that way) of it would be that this clearly does away with the Carlos Quilles type argument where the whole Corded Ware horizon was Uralic speaking, as in this instance at least some of it would need to be the plausible agent for Indo-European languages to reach Western Europe.
I'm sure you understand that there aren't really any advantages to any of this. If it happened, then it happened.
I don't take Carlos Quiles seriously. But unfortunately some confused people do, so I think it's occasionally useful to provide a reality check for them.
@Davidski, yeah, sorry, that was probably a bit cheeky and unfair of me actually.
@ Davidski
Nice post. However, i disagree with the conclusions. IMO it's clear that BB & CWC are different groups. Even their diets were different (from isotopic studies).
Therefore, I don't the evolution of BB won't won't go back to Dutch CWC, despite the fact that the ceramic sequence proposed by the original Dutch models is still braodly correct (but this is just a ceramic typology, and not a complete anthropological model). In fact. there seems to have been constant flux in Netherlands between CWC (R1a-L664, hypothetc.), BB-P312-L21, and MBA R1b-U106 + ? I1), so the idea of constant newcomers shouldn't be too surprising.
My other issue is everyones insistence on a ''north'' and ''Med'' BB. split, but I won't belabour the point because even specialist Beakerologists still hinge on this false heurism.
Bell Beakers in the Rhine region mixed with local Corded Ware people, that's no news. They are less typical physically than those from Bavaria and the Czech Republic, with mixed individuals becoming more and more common and the typical BB traits being watered down.
Looking at the BB from the North, they surely came from the South East. So the origin must be sought in Central or South Eastern Europe. No way for a movement NW -> SE. Cultural and physical traits of the regional BB groups speak against such a scenario.
@zardos
But ancient DNA suggests that Bell Beakers rich in R1b-P312 moved into the Carpathian Basin as a new, cohesive unit at the tail end of Yamnaya, and mixed with Yamnaya.
Do you think they came from the east or southeast? It seems to me like they moved down from the north somewhere.
@All
I fixed the broken link in the post to the flat occiput pic.
The man with the flat occiput
@Davidski
Gimbutas thought Vucedol was ancestral to Bell Beaker, not directly Yamnaya. What I'm saying is that we may be looking at at mixed Yamnaya/Neolithic population in the Carpathian region that coexisted with the Hungarian Yamnaya proper. Then, this population expands and mixes with the Eastern Hungary plain Yamnaya, and also moves northwest through Moravia and mixes with the western CW groups.
Weren’t there Vucedol samples that were R1b-Z2103?
@Synome
Gimbutas thought Vucedol was ancestral to Bell Beaker, not directly Yamnaya. What I'm saying is that we may be looking at at mixed Yamnaya/Neolithic population in the Carpathian region that coexisted with the Hungarian Yamnaya proper. Then, this population expands and mixes with the Eastern Hungary plain Yamnaya, and also moves northwest through Moravia and mixes with the western CW groups.
Well, Gimbutas was onto something, because one of the Vucedol males belongs to R1b-Z2103, which screams contact with Yamnaya.
But this doesn't explain the R1b-P312 Beakers, not only because of their different R1b subclade, but also their much more northern-like genetic character compared to Vucedol.
Those Beakers really are very northern, unless they're clearly recently admixed, and they look intrusive to the Carpathian Basin.
Another problem is that the Dutch Beakers don't look like they mixed with anyone from the southeast. They just look like a bunch of slightly more northwesterly Corded Ware people, except with R1b-P312.
Some of you guys should take a closer look at the Hungarian Beakers, and compare them to the Dutch Beakers.
The difference is stark, with the Hungarian Beakers looking very mixed, and as if they're at the end of the Beaker journey from their original homeland, wherever that was. On the other hand, the Dutch Beakers appear very homogeneous, and very northern Beaker.
This has to mean something.
@Davidski
I've been looking closely at your post about the steppe ancestry in Beakers.
I don't have the capability to run my own admixture stuff right now so that's what I'm going off of.
In that post you mentioned the conspicuous absence of Narva and Ukraine Neolithic in the southern Beaker samples. Doesn't this suggest the similarity to CW in the northern Beakers might be the result of admixture?
@Synome
In that post you mentioned the conspicuous absence of Narva and Ukraine Neolithic in the southern Beaker samples. Doesn't this suggest the similarity to CW in the northern Beakers might be the result of admixture?
Yes, but this might just be an artifact, with, for instance the algorithm getting more creative with the hunter-gatherer ancestry in the northern samples because they have more of it.
There's no way to really know whether the Global25/nMonte method is that good, or it's just cutting a few corners here and there.
Looking at all of the data with a fresh pair of eyes, and not focusing too much on any one analysis, its' now clear to me that the Beakers from south of the former Corded Ware horizon are more heterogeneous and mixed than those from it, and unlikely to be ancestral to the classic northern Beakers like those from The Netherlands.
But like I say, I don't know what this means exactly, and I don't have a clue where the northern Beaker homeland really was.
I will go for the potential MtDNA connection between Neolithic Ukraine and the Rathlin samples. U5a1b and J2b1. And the U5b2 connection to Quedlinburg. Yes I know it is a longshot but here it is. Dereivka(Or somewhere nearby) to Northern Poland/Lithuania/Latvia to Northern Germany to the Netherlands. This is why we do not see R1b L51 amongst the Yamnaya samples sofar and we see a stronger Northern influence.
I’m sorry but folklore commonalities between Irish and Lithuanians doesn’t mean they passed through Lithuania, especially given Lithuanians come from Balto-Slavs aka Trzciniec.
@ Them meee
Have a look at the U5a1b distribution...Ireland, Latvia, Ukraine. And if I remember correctly a later dated sample in Poland...I just put the Folklore connection in there for a possibility.
@ Them meee
And that is why I said Northern Poland/Lithuania/Latvia because the Southern Poland Samples looks like a later West to East migration...
“”its' now clear to me that the Beakers from south of the former Corded Ware horizon are more heterogeneous and mixed than those from it, ””
Yeah but that’s not a problem. It certainly doesn’t mean that BB is from Northern Europe
It’s just reflective of how they ended up
There was obvious admixture between BB and CWC.
But it also means that BB is not from Vucedol fusion either. The answer won’t be as straightforward as that
Have a look here.
https://amtdb.org
And here.
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#8/50.106/18.397
1) if movement along river valleys is a factor in this then two initially closely related populations who started out relatively close to each other but centered on two different river valleys might have two very distinct end points.
2) i can think of two possible explanations for a possible boomerang effect (i.e. a population arriving in the west and then expanding back east again):
- Atlantic coast rainfall -> low crop yields -> increased dependence on cattle -> advanced cattle breeding -> competitive advantage
- Cornish tin -> plentiful supply of bronze weapons -> competitive advantage.
my knowledge of medieval Russian history mostly comes from computer games so this may be wrong but was the Kievan Rus vs Novgorod thing (if it was a thing) an expression of the two northern routes from the Black Sea to the Baltic: Dniepr vs Volga?
http://www.freeworldmaps.net/europe/eastern/easterneurope-physical-map.jpg
(as opposed to the more southern Danube route)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber#History
@epoch
The northern Beakers were obviously a distinct ethnic group, so the idea is not that they were a subset of Single Grave, but that they were potentially derived in large part from Single Grave, especially in terms of ancestry.
@Dragos
It's difficult for me to imagine that the northern Beakers acquired their very specific genetic structure and physical appearance by randomly mixing with various Corded Ware groups. The only way that they could so distinct, and homogeneous when not recently admixed, is if they came from a single, relatively homogeneous population and one homeland.
@Davidski,
Which Neolithic populations are good fits for the Dutch Bell Beakers? GAC and Funnelbeakers?
@Tesmos
I haven't looked at that closely. You might want to direct that question at Matt.
I guess Globular Amphora from Poland might work even better than anything from Northwestern Europe, but the reality might be more complex, with the farmer ancestry being a blend of all sorts of admixtures picked up on the way from the steppe.
Correct. There's no one group that BB & CWC mixed in with specifically, although of course GAC would be a big one. Therefore what makes BB & CWC distinct isn't defined by the admixing strata.
@Synome
This is what I wrote about earlier in this topic. G25 nMontes says that northern Beaker population do not have any significant Balkan farmer ancestry. In fact even in Beaker Hungary Globular Amphora is overwhelming against Vucedol, even if I use the steppe admixed Vucedol sample. If I use the Vucedol sample that is not steppe admixed, Vucedol goes down even more. Vucedol is an unlikely source for the NW and Central European Beaker populations.
Global 25 nMontes Beaker_Britain:Average
Blatterhole_MN 19.17%
Globular_Amphora 19.17%
Vucedol 4.17%
Yamnaya_Kalmykia 57.5%
Fit 1.7844
Global 25 nMontes Beaker_The_Netherlands:Average
Blatterhole_MN 20%
Globular_Amphora 19.17%
Vucedol 1.67%
Yamnaya_Kalmykia 61.67%
Fit 1.8846
Global 25 nMontes Beaker_Central_Europe:Average
Blatterhole_MN 11.67%
Globular_Amphora 35%
Vucedol 10.83%
Yamnaya_Kalmykia 42.5%
Fit 1.1022
Global 25 nMontes Beaker_Hungary:Average
Blatterhole_MN 5.83%
Globular_Amphora 45.83%
Vucedol 18.33%
Yamnaya_Kalmykia 30%
Fit 1.4055
I do not think even this 10% Vucedol in Beaker Central Europe is really Vucedol, it just comes up, because all the other farmer sources are very northern and Vucedol itself is steppe admixed.
Global 25 nMontes Beaker_Central_Europe:Average
Blatterhole_MN 5%
Globular_Amphora 47.5%
Vucedol_no_steppe 0.83%
Yamnaya_Kalmykia 46.67%
Fit 0.9393
So definitely not Vucedol.
@Slumbery
Yes, I read that earlier comment. Thanks for showing some more modeling. One day I'll get around to trying some myself.
I've been a bit of a "Devil's Carpathian Advocate" in these comments so far, but it's increasingly clear to me that these older archaeological theories aren't a great guide to what we're seeing here. I'd say its
obvious that the northern Beakers are CW derived, if it weren't for that pesky R1b issue.
So I'm flailing around a little looking for an explanation. But we might just need more data.
@ Andrzejewski
What Davidski replied is correct. But here some more info:
These are typical LBK skulls, above male, bottom female:
https://justpaste.it/6o7p8
They are longheaded; the face isn't particularly long, but narrow and not wide as typical Alpine faces are.
More examples of the cranial differences:
https://justpaste.it/1kxmz
The top row shows another LBK skull, the middle row a Corded Ware skull, and the bottom row a German Bell Beaker skull. Note how the face of the latter is somewhat elongated and the skull high and with a flat occiput. That's very different from the Alpine type which has a wide, rounded face and typically a rounded occiput. The brachycephalic type typical for the Bell Beakers is called Dinaric.
More German Bell Beakers, top row a male, bottom row a female:
https://justpaste.it/1jtez
The male skull isn't quite as high as the one in the other plate, but at least it has a flat occiput. The female on the other hand looks indeed rather Alpine: rounded face, curved occiput. But it's just not that typical for Bell Beakers.
That's an old map of the cranial index in late Neolithic/Chalcolithic Europe without consideration of the Bell Beakers:
https://justpaste.it/3yu6y
It shows: The average cranial index was nowhere above 80, hence there was no population with a truly brachycephalic average. But some had a somewhat elevated average, and this was the case around west-central Europe, parts of Italy and the Pyrenees, the Danish isles and especially Belgium. I think this is mostly due to Alpinoid types, and in Denmark the so called Borreby type.
But interestingly multivariate cranial cluster analyses repeatedly showed a certain affinity of the central European Beaker skulls to the ones from the Danish TRB:
https://justpaste.it/22qb1
In this dendrogram samples 14, 15 and 16 are from central European Bell Beakers, 23, 24 and 25 are from Danish TRB and 18 is South German EBA.
Or take this dendrogram:
https://justpaste.it/5xf8b
Here 6 is Beaker central Germany, 9 is Czech Beaker and 13 is Beaker western Germany. And closest to them is 14-16 which is the Danish middle and late Neolithic, aka TRB.
Further to the point, one could say just from the above runs that at least Beaker from Hungary have some Vucedol ancestry. It would not invalidate the argument against the Vucedol origin, but in fact, I don't think that even Beaker Hungary had any real Vucedol ancestry. That 18% came up, because:
- I used the steppe admixed Vucedol sample and that caused some "interference", since the steppe ancestry in Vucedol similar to the steppe ancestry of the Beaker people.
- Beaker Hungary had significant local farmer ancestry that is not represented by the two northern farmer reference groups I used.
Let's see what happens when I amend these problems:
Global 25 nMontes Beaker_Hungary:Average
Baden_LCA 15.83%
Globular_Amphora 48.33%
Vucedol_no_steppe 0%
Yamnaya_Kalmykia 35.83%
Fit 1.2234
Here goes Vucedol even in the Carpathian Basin Beaker population.
@Synome
One day I'll get around to trying some myself.
I am also a total amateur and never got myself into do these myself. I once set-up R and started to run things and it was too troublesome and time-consuming to learn into it.
So, I am using the online nMonte runner. This is something you could do as well, it is easy.
Here is the link: http://185.144.156.77:3000/
The main flaw of this of course that it depends on base calculations by others, that is, on Davidsky Global 25 database. That is itself already calculated, not the raw data.
I never bought that BBs could be derived from a population which reached Central Europe through the Iron Gates. Rather a Northern Route through Moravia (Yamnaya or not).
From what I know, the Deûle-Escaut group (Late Neolithic) coexisted some time with both CW and BBs, with complex interactions. Deûle-Escaut sites are not at the same places than BBs sites. It is therefore very likely that intermixing took time.
It is clear to me that Dutch BBs are very similar to the ordinal BBs population. But
It doesn’t mean they are the result of an evolution in situ. The fact they are at the mouth of the Rhine could mean a very different origin if they have followed the river.
@ Zardos
"Bell Beakers in the Rhine region mixed with local Corded Ware people, that's no news. They are less typical physically than those from Bavaria and the Czech Republic, with mixed individuals becoming more and more common and the typical BB traits being watered down.
Looking at the BB from the North, they surely came from the South East. So the origin must be sought in Central or South Eastern Europe. No way for a movement NW -> SE. Cultural and physical traits of the regional BB groups speak against such a scenario."
Where did you get that from?
Quotation from Coon, "The races of Europe":
"In the Rhine country around Worms, three-fourths or more of the Bell Beaker crania are brachycephalic; in Austria, one finds an equally high ratio; but in Bohemia and Poland the high brachycephaly becomes less frequent, and at Tököl in Hungary, in a series of ten crania, four are mesocephalic and six are dolichocephalic."
So, no way were the Bell Beakers from the Rhine less typical than the others and more watered down, unless you want to suggest that the dolichocephalic ones are the typical Beakers...
Slumbery said...
"Further to the point, one could say just from the above runs that at least Beaker from Hungary have some Vucedol ancestry. It would not invalidate the argument against the Vucedol origin, but in fact, I don't think that even Beaker Hungary had any real Vucedol ancestry. That 18% came up, because:
- I used the steppe admixed Vucedol sample and that caused some "interference", since the steppe ancestry in Vucedol similar to the steppe ancestry of the Beaker people.
- Beaker Hungary had significant local farmer ancestry that is not represented by the two northern farmer reference groups I used.."
You are making assumptions using programs/alogrithims that are prone if used in the wrong hands to reflect in group preference/bias[basic human evolutionary nature]. Steppe groups like Yamnaya almost exclusively all being R1b[natural preference to support ones own clan], to secure in group preference for their own family members/clan above others.
Just a logical thought: As the C14 dates (at least last time I checked them!) suggest an origin of the Bell Beaker package in Iberia, it must have reached the Rhine before it reached Hungary. Moreover the Bell Beaker presence in Hungary is scant, there's just a little along the Danube. So if "THE" northern Beakers rich in R1b-P312 were really from Hungary, it would either mean that Hungarian Beakers - in a bounce-back movement - completely replaced the original German Beakers, or that Yamnaya descended people from Hungary moved to Germany, without being culturally clearly Yamnaya nor Bell Beaker, and arrived just in time in Germany to be the first to adopt the new Bell Beaker fashion there. Neither variant seems very plausible.
@a
Yes, the choice of reference populations in nMontes modeling and the interpretation of the results is necessarily based on some context and assumptions. But you have to point out how my assumptions are wrong exactly, pointing out the general fallibility of this kind of modeling is not a solid counter-argument.
And I am not sure what did you want to say about this exact model and its assumptions. Your argument is that a local ancestry in Beaker Hungary is baseless assumption, because Beaker people as steppe people would have never intermixed? If that is your argument then that does not make any sense, but I am not even sure if that is what you wanted to say.
Slumbery said...
@a
Yes, the choice of reference populations in nMontes modeling and the interpretation of the results is necessarily based on some context and assumptions. But you have to point out how my assumptions are wrong exactly, pointing out the general fallibility of this kind of modeling is not a solid counter-argument.
And I am not sure what did you want to say about this exact model and its assumptions. Your argument is that a local ancestry in Beaker Hungary is baseless assumption, because Beaker people as steppe people would have never intermixed? If that is your argument then that does not make any sense, but I am not even sure if that is what you wanted to say."
Let me explain using your tools. The following are 3 samples from Bell Beaker, all are different, the only thing in common are dated snp paternal markers that can be gleaned from the data.
Beaker_Hungary
Barcin_N,49
Yamnaya_Samara,31.8
Narva_Lithuania,11.4
Blatterhole_HG,6
Ukraine_Mesolithic,1.8
[1] distance%=4.9659
Beaker_Hungary_no_steppe
Barcin_N,76.2
Blatterhole_HG,23.8
[1] distance%=2.4992
Beaker_Hungary_outlier
Yamnaya_Samara,76
Barcin_N,19
Koros_HG,4.4
Blatterhole_HG,0.6
Check out the imposing level of Narva_Lithuania ancestry in Beaker_Hungary. Admittedly, I wasn't expecting this. Is there a chance that it's real? I honestly don't know, but we've certainly seen similar signals from Northeastern Europe in later Bronze Age samples from Hungary. On the other hand, Beaker_Hungary_outlier is the guy estimated by Olalde et al. to be as much as 75% steppe-derived. Here he gets a very similar figure of 76% of Yamnaya-like ancestry. Very nice! Finally, here are the Southern European Beakers:"
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/03/on-origin-of-steppe-ancestry-in-beaker.html
"Szigetszentmiklós" names like these sohuld be forbidden, who the heck can even come up with that, Hungary??
Late to the discussion, here’s a few thoughts:
It might be a good idea to consider brachycephaly apart from the flat occtiput. The former is mostly genetic and the latter probably from cradle boards.
The natural genetic disposition of a Beaker skull I imagine was similar to that of a modern NW European but unintentionally altered due to cradling and binding (historically used to make a taller, straighter person). That’s just a guess though. A large scale study of Beaker heads looking at siblings, children at different ages and modifications might answer these questions.
Also, in those rare cases were infants are buried and well preserved like Czechia there may be a way to look at the body in a new way, maybe body or arm placement that might give clues to if the swaddleboard was present.
Dutch Beakers have some CWC mixture. There's likely no direct GAC in Beaker. Zero cultural links. There are with Baden and Balkans. Probably from a Ukraine Eneolithic-like pop mixed w Balkan group.
@Chad,
That's scenario would demand a lot of raw HG admix. We see several LNBA samples with raw HG admix but they're rare. Beaker_Netherlands is essentially identical to Unetice, Czech_EBA, and Poland_BA. Halberstadt_BA (1000 BC, R1a) is slightly Globular-shifted but also essentially the same. How did that happen? Looks like Beaker isn't a Yamnaya-Balkan mix.
=2.6071"
Beaker_The_Netherlandsavg_nooutliers
Yamnaya_Samara,52.8
Tisza_LN,19.8
Romania_HG,15.9
Baden_LCA,11.5
Ukraine_N,0
TDLN,0
Tiszapolgar_ECA,0
Hungary_LCA,0
Balaton_Lasinja_CA,0
Vinca_MN,0
Vucedol_no_steppe,0
Trypillia,0
Varna,0
1.9208"
Beaker_The_Netherlandsavg_nooutliers
Yamnaya_Samara,53.4
Globular_Amphora:ILK002, 003,38.3
Ukraine_N,6.6
Romania_HG,1.7
TDLN,0
Tisza_LN,0
Tiszapolgar_ECA,0
Hungary_LCA,0
Baden_LCA,0
Balaton_Lasinja_CA,0
Vinca_MN,0
Vucedol_no_steppe,0
Trypillia,0
Varna,0
Globular_Amphora:ILK001,0
What I meant with SE for the Rhine region was not necessarily Balkans, but just SE of the region in question. So for me its quite clear that the movement was rather going through Bavaria, Bohemia and Moravia northward. Where they came from originally, is a completely different question.
In a lot of the regions in questions you see huge changes by social stratification, with the most typical BB on top usually, the less typical at the bottom, and in time. Clearly many following populations and cultures had a signinficant BB influence, but were physically and culturally different. Take Unetice as an example.
My personal opinion on that issue is that the BB traits being largely subdominant, so as soon as they heavily mixed with the dolichocephalic populations, their traits became less frequent and less extreme, or even largely disappeared.
That is was makes their case even more interesting: How could they develop those rather extreme traits in first place?
Both that and their high frequency of specific R1b HG speaks for the expansion of a highly specialised people which probably lived in isolation for at least some generations.
Central Europe is my best bet, but I can't pin it down to a region and hoping for more ancient DNA to solve it.
Because you're using Yamnaya. You respond without reading, as usual. Try again.
Going all the back to the first Elbe and Mittle-Salle Beaker test subjects, I thought essentially we have people who are half CWC and half something else. That partial ancestry best explains the GAC, Narva and TRB affinity as Chad mentions above. But If that’s true, I don’t see any reason to assume that SGC or PFB are secretly R1b because as far as I see the CWC male are without exception R1a over a wide and overlapping area. Significant CWC ancestry in Beakers must then come from women, which I think makes perfect sense looking at early pot bodies.
I would say where I think the male component comes from but I don’t want to get the chimpanzee beatdown!
Bavaria, Czech Beakers are diverse. Their variation goes from Beaker Netherlands-like at one end to various stuff that's less Steppe at the other end. I've noticed this for a long time. I haven't been able to explain it with an origin in Carpthian basin.
@bellbeakerblogger,
What came first, Rhine Beakers or Beakers in the southeast (Bavaria, Moravia, etc)? Did Beaker arrive more recently in Poland, Hungary than elsewhere. I'm not in favor of CWC or Yamnaya origin. It's all confusing right now.
Netherlands Beaker & Britain beaker are homogeneous. Czech/Bavaria Beaker are not. If Holland/Britain Beaker had lots of CWC maternal ancestry, I think it would have to be pretty old by the beginning of the mature Bell Beaker period.
"I would say where I think the male component comes from but I don’t want to get the chimpanzee beatdown!"
Lol.
My impression is that the elite moved and the commoners stayed at home. So a lot depends on the graves in question and I wouldn't sum up whole regions that easily.
The CWC component was female mediated in most mixed contexts, including those from the Rhine region. Actually the male specimens are usually and on average much more typical for the BB type than the females, in a way which goes much beyond anything which could be explained by sexual dimorphism alone.
So even with an origin SE of the Netherlands, I would expect the Dutch samples being more CWC/steppe like, but thats actually an argument against an origin from there.
I'm not even sure we have the right samples for the original core group of the non-Iberian BB people at all, not even archaeologically. Probably there is something to detect and explore which is still off the radar.
@Chad
I like the idea of a population with Ukraine Eneolithic mixing with Balkans. After all, we wouldn't really be considering an Eastern Yamnaya like group here would we? That would, of course, make it even more difficult to tell apart from CW after mixing.
I can't recall if we have any Baden samples analysed. Are they out there?
@bellbeakerblogger
Go ahead and say what you think! It's not like anyone knows for sure yet. We're all speculating at this point and you have more expertise than most on this subject. So throw your hat in the ring!
@zardos,
"Bell Beakers in the Rhine region mixed with local Corded Ware people, that's no news. "
You can theorize that Rhine Beeaker became like Corded Ware because of CWC admixture. But what about Hungary, Czech, Bavaria, French Beaker? They are all full of individuals pretty much just like Beaker Netherlands (Rhine Beaker).
Bellbeakerblogger, this is also for you. For, CWC admixture, to explain Beaker_Netherlands/Britain being so similar to CWC, this CWC admixture would have to exist in all northern Bell beaker because they're all mostly the same as Beaker Netherlands.
Like, I said before it, if Beaker Netherlands has CWC admixture, it would have to be old. Probably from before the Bell Beaker culture emerged. Beaker Bavaria, Czech derive mostly from the same source as Beaker_Netherlands. So, if heavy CWC maternal ancestry exists, we would have to be talking about pre-Bell beaker (like 2500 BC or before) admixture with CWC.
To me, right now the only thing going against a single grave origin of R1b P312+ Beaker is that all Corded Ware across a huge distance are R1a M417. Genetically speaking, marriage between CWC women & Bell Beaker men can't explain it because the CWC-like makeup of R1b P312+ probably pre-dates the Bell Beaker culture.
@All
My impression was always that the Dutch Beakers were very typical northern Beakers, in terms of their cultural package and head shape.
And now ancient DNA has shown that they were also genetically among the most typical and homogeneous northern Beaker group.
That's why I gave them special mention in the blog post.
I can see why many would think that northern Beakers originated in or around Hungary, considering that the Carpathian Basin was such a cultural hub and the Hungarian Beakers so diverse, including some with excess Yamnaya ancestry.
But all of this looks like a red herring to me. As far as I can see right now, the overall character of the Dutch Beakers points to the Rhine region, and the contact zone between Single Grave and Atlantic Old Europe, as the homeland of the northern Beakers.
I can't see how Corded Ware admixture explains anything here. It doesn't even appear to be an issue for the Dutch Beakers, who look like a homogeneous subset of the Corded Ware population, except one that was rich in R1b-P312.
In any case, this is a very nice mystery, and hopefully we can solve it this year.
The trouble is West Indo-European (Celtic, Italic, 75+% of Germanic) couldn’t possibly descend from the macro-branch usually assumed to have been spoken across the Corded Ware horizon. It’s not that one or another is senior, but they are far too distant for any possible late divergence in Western Europe. That occurred on the Steppe, or possibly even before.
@E. Donovan
There are different theories about that.
But we can't assume that the northern Bell Beakers weren't derived from Single Grave because they may have spoken Italo-Celtic, if the archeological, genetic and anthropological data say that they were derived from Single Grave, because there's no way to confirm what language they spoke.
In any case, if it's proven without a doubt that Corded Ware > Single Grave > Bell Beakers > Unetice > Hallstatt > Celts + Italics, then West Indo-European will have to be accommodated within this framework in some way.
OT I’m fascinated by Ötzi the Iceman. Would you characterize his appearance as a typical EEF/Anatolia_N’s prior to the prevalence of the Beaker types?
@Andrzejewski
I don't know, maybe Simon does?
@Simon? Ötzi.., ;)
Corded Ware brats were extremely dolichocephalic with impressively high skulls, there is no way you can derive hyperbrachycephalic Beakers from a similar population. That and the fact that no battle axes were found in Beaker burials, one of the central elements in Single Grave burials, make it unlikely that Northern Beakers descend from anything like Single Grave or CWC in general.
@Dragos,
Read my previous posts. Beaker shares farmer-drift with Globular & Funnel beaker. It isn't just about HG percentages. Also, HGs or HG-rich pops existed as recently as 3000 BC but they were in the minority.
Slumberry has just reminded those who’ve forgotten that there were WHG rich populations in Germany and Netherlands c 3000 BC and even later
Still, that one Dutch CWC male might come out to be R1b, and an avid time traveller too !
@ BBB
I bet you’re thinking michelsberg ?
There was a poster presentation on a genomic transects of France recently . Can’t temember details but can’t recall any R1b in MN France
@ Sam
Yes I’ve read your posts. But I’m not sure you’ve demonstrated “shared drift “?
But I admit the final answer is elusive at present . You could be right
@All
The mixture between the northern Beakers and Yamnaya in the Carpathian Basin that I discussed in my blog post might be relevant to the origin and spread of Italo-Celtic, no?
@Dopa
Corded Ware brats were extremely dolichocephalic with impressively high skulls, there is no way you can derive hyperbrachycephalic Beakers from a similar population.
Of course you can. Head shape is a complex trait that can change significantly within a few generations as a result of selection and environmental factors. This has been demonstrated with very recent studies in several countries.
About three quarters of the Dutch Beakers were brachycephalic, and yet there's no sign of any genetic substructure within this population.
Dutch Beakers are clearly more genetically homogeneous than even those extremely dolichocephalic German Corded Ware brats that you speak of.
Update yourself man. You're living in the 1930s.
A lot of the Olalde 2018 Beaker samples are 1st degree & 2nd degree relatives. They can be used to help track the frequency of inter-marriage in Bell Beaker.
@David
It’s a good bet Tocharian’s a lineal descendant of Z2103 Yamnaya at least, but I’m guessing it more at the continuum stage of a partial link between L51 and R1a-associated dialects.
I2453, Bell Beaker Poland, R1b Z2103. Like, I2787 (R1b Z2103+), looks like a Western Yamnaya+Beaker mix. He is about 50/50. So, I bet his Dad was a Yamnaya person as well.
I7205, is one of the Czech beakers who cluster with Beaker_Netherlands. Notice, I4253's extra Yamnaya is associated with Varna farmer ancestry which is similar to Hungary farmers.
A trend is emerging.
2.2846"
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4253
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7205,37.1
Yamnaya_Samara,27.1
Varna,26
CWC_Czech_o,3.2
Beaker_Central_Europe_no_steppe:I1392,2.9
Loschbour,2.8
Hungary_LCA,0.9
Here's something interesting....I7282 a Beaker_Czech is the result of a mixed marriage. His mom is I7283. She has much less Steppe ancestry than him.
When modelled in nMonte with the most Steppe-rich Bavaria/Czech Beakers, I7282 comes out as roughly 50/50 from his mom and from them. Meaning his Dad, who carried R1b U152, clustered near them & Beaker Holland.
His mom could have grown up Beaker & so technically I7283 is not result of mixed marriage. Maybe, one of her parents was from a farming community. She had about 30% Yamnaya ancestry.
1.8573"
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7282
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7283 (his mom),46
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3601,27.3
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4132,10.6
Romania_HG,8.2
Vinca_MN,7.3
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1381,0.6
1.9181"
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7282
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7283 (his mom),56.5
Beaker_The_Netherlandsavg_nooutliers,37.4
Trypillia,3.2
Romania_HG,1.4
Loschbour,1.1
Germany_MN:I0172,0.2
Vinca_MN,0.2
Sam,
Most of the Beaker enclaves across Europe have roots somewhat identified with an earlier enclave somewhere else, not necessarily because of carbon dates but because of their artifacts and styles . So Beakers in Greater Poland should be similar to Denmark Beakers. Beaker’s in Little Poland, Silesia and Hungarian have roots more from Central Europe and further West and so on (at least the first immigrants). It’s a lot more complicated than that, but I think DNA has shown the archaeologists have been largely correct about the relationships and migration patterns.
But here I’m talking about movement of a cultural core. The Eastern Beakers in Malopolska, probably all of Csepel Island appear to have integrated other peoples into their cosmopolitan society including Yamnaya. But the earliest Beakers in the Eastern Domain are clearly from the West.
The earliest earliest? That’s tough. A style from Iberia and Morocco mixing with people in the Northwest European Plain. It’s a tough one
@ Bellbeakerblogger
You might benefit from re-reading Cardoso, which you featured on one of your posts. And he stated ''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''
He strongly implies that BB as foreign to the Tagus region & Iberia. In addition to the fact that BB ceramics did not derive from local ceramic traditions is the finding that BB users lived in huts, and not Chalcolithic ditched enclosures (''In fact, the possibility that there may have been coexistence of these two social formations with distinct cultural roots was suggested for the first time about the communities that lived inside the fortification of Leceia and in the two Beaker huts found on the periphery).
The differences are several others.
It is also quote obvious that these people didn't come from Morroco, when proto-Beakers are seen in Yamnaya of SEE c. 3000 BC.
@bellbeakerblogger,
Thanks for clarifying that. If, I hear you correctly: Bell Beaker in Silesia Poland (where most samples in Olalde are from), Czech, Hungary all arrived from central Europe.
@All,
Here's my take, knowing central/east Beakers are from "central Europe" (Germanyish).
Ground zero for a homeland of the Beaker/R1b L151 ethno-lingustic group (it probably was one), is somewhere in or near northern Germany.
Between 2500-2100 BC, with a new cultural package they expanded into central/eastern Europe, Britain, Po Valley Italy, France, Denmark, and Spain. They carried Bell beaker culture into these locations (xSpain, France).
I believe the archaeological evidence which shows Bell beaker & Corded Ware admixed with each other. However, how can this explain Netherlands Bell Beaker if they are homogeneous. Recently admixed populations are heterogeneous. The admixture process which created Netherlands Bell beaker therefore must pre-date the Bell beaker period.
What does that leave us with....A population in northern Germany before the Bell beaker period. Who lived there at that time (Corded Ware).
@Dragos
“It is also quote obvious that these people didn;t come from Morroco”
True but stylistically some of the earliest distinctly beaker pottery features emanate from this area and southwest Iberia. As far as Michelsberg goes, I wouldn’t put any stock in it specifically because not enough is known about it. But I do find it curious that a Baalberger (unless that early call was changed), two from Blatterhohle appear to be R1b. Also it seems from Beau et al (at least from the little there is) that Michelsberg society was ethnically stratified.
To be totally honest, a quick and mysterious paternal origin of Beaker from the steppe wins on simplicity, plausibility and ychromosome phylogeny, but all the other facts are getting in the way.
@ BBB
''True but stylistically some of the earliest distinctly beaker pottery features emanate from this area and southwest Iberia''
There is no problem with local & north African cultural tastes influences the final aesthetic of Maritime beakers, but the form has no local precedents.
However, it is difficult to maintain that the earliest BB pots are found in Iberia.
To quote Pena's summary : ''Bell-Beakers occupied the Iberian peninsula during the second half of the third millennium cal BC (2500-2000 cal BC), although some C14 dating allows us to extend this period to between 2700-2600 at the lower end,''
The first part of the sentence reflects reality, whilst the second is problematic, because of the nature of the C14 calibration curve, which shows a distinct plateau between 27 and 2500 BC; as well as the expectations that there are always going to be a few anomalous dates in the upper bounds (hence most people discard extreme outliers on either side). So in reality, BB seems to expand rapidly throughout Europe c. 26/2500 BC, and the west to east progression is not a reality.
In any case, the Csepel group happens to have Maritime beakers dating to 2800 BC from very well stratified contexts, adjcaent to a clear typological predecessor in Yamnaya. Moreover, BB from Csepel south are earlier than those in the north, which is problematic for the ''out of Netherlands'' theory espoused here.
NB The R1b in Germany MN is not M269, its not even P297.
@Dragos,
If that’s the case on early dates then so be it, however I don’t think a lot of confidence was put into those early Eastern blips. I think the dates you mention are in the Radon-B website and kind of treated as outliers.
About phenotypes.
I think I read that WHG, EHG, CHG and Farmer, all had been primaly dolchiocephalic.
And brachycephaly first showed up in large scale during the bronze age. And if I rerember, some (Southern Asian) people here on the blog claimed the same for India (increase of brachycephaly in the bronze age)
Somewhere else I read, brachycephaly beeing a phenomen that became more and more widespread since several mileania in a worldwide scale. China was named especially, where skulls become shorter since at least 3000 years.
As far as I know, all European natives (WHG/EHG) are supposed to be "robust" types with wide faces and long skulls. Anatolian farmers are supposed to have introduced filigran types and slim faces. But long skulls as had everyone back then.
The oldest ever found of those skulls that 1930s guys had a fetish for is from the Caucasus and that guy "Coon?) claimed, that skull entered the Steppe "from the south", was brought to central europe by the corded ware people and arrived at its "proper" state in the iron age Hallstatt people. At least thats what I recall.
I also recall, that a proper "Alpinid" basicly didnt exist until the middle ages. Thats the time period that phenotype "exploded" all over the place. Claim is, that for example in Germany, early middle age predominant phenotype beeing Nordid, beeing replaced by Alpinid types during the middle age.
Aaaaaaand, I recall those 1930 fanboys claim, the reason for this was the peasantsliving miserable slave lifes and because of that turning into Alpinid goblins, while the aristocrats stayed Nordid.
I also recall to have read an article of some female scientist that claimed, the Alpinisation of the phenotypes during the middle age isnt fully understood yet, but not based on migration and other than the 1930 guys claim, was prominent in the aristocracy aswell.
@ bellbeakerblogger
Something else that is interesting is MtDNA Haplogroup U5b2a2 in both Baalberge and Rathlin...
@Ric Hern,
"Something else that is interesting is MtDNA Haplogroup U5b2a2 in both Baalberge and Rathlin..."(...and Samuel Andrews).
Now, I see a pattern.
It first pops up in Blatterhole cave in 10,000BC. It's was just one of the first lineages in central/east Europe and was passed down to every new group that came afterwards. Rathlin's ancestors temporally lived there before going to Ireland so I guess that's how he got it.
"which is problematic for the ''out of Netherlands'' theory espoused here."
I'm not a die hard for this theory. It is starting to make a lot sense. I'm playing with the possibility.
Very interesting thread, but it's really becoming too much with the physical anthropology. It's never going to solve the mystery of the origins of the BB. And it quickly turns into a load of nonsense that's just hurtfull to the eyes to read.
@ Samuel Andrews
Yes U5b2a1 was widespread but it doesn't look as if U5b2a2 was the same. J2b1 looks like the Eneolithic contributor to Ukraine from the Danube, and U5a1b looks like Neolithic Ukraine but also in Latvia Corded Ware later. Taking these three into account it looks like R1b L51 maybe took a Northern Route to the West or at least not more South than Baalberge/Quedlinburg.
@BBB
RISE1 is a Corded Ware sample from middle Poland near Poznan is R1b1 and Esperstedt sample I1534/ESP14 from Mathieson 2015 is assigned to the Corded Culture and has R1b1a2.
Is that Esperstedt sample a valid CWC R1b? I don't hear anybody on it.
@BBB
OK, the has been discussed on AG:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5605-R1b-in-Corded-Ware&p=125349&viewfull=1#post125349
ESP14's assignment is challenged, supposed to be R1a instead. RISE1 is a really bad sample.
@Dragos
I can't find a reference of a Carpathian Maritime Beaker dated 2800 BC. The Csepel graveyard is dated 2420 - 2190 BC in Olalde 2018, a paper which had archaeologists such as Fokker, Kristianson and Heydt as co-authors, so I trust it as source:
"A series of five AMS radiocarbon dates from the cemetery can be subjected to Bayesian analysis. If we assume that the graves represent a single phase, the time span of the use of the cemetery can be placed to approximately 2420–2190 calBCE"
Can you provide another source?
There are some new samples from Iberia dated to ~ 2550-1550 BCE:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB29189
This study includes mitogenomes and whole nuclear genomes from prehistoric Iberian remains
Name
Ancient Iberian genomes
Submitting Centre
Universita degli studi di Ferrara
Description
We used a combination of shotgun and whole genome capture strategies to generate whole genome data from 4 ancient human remains from the Iberian Peninsula (coverage from 0.4-4.8x) dated around 4500-3500 yB. Also, we used target DNA capture on array to reconstruct complete nuclear genomes from 13 additional ancient human remains from North and South of the Iberian Peninsula, also dated around to the Copper Age
ENA-FIRST-PUBLIC
2018-12-14
Another upcoming study:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB28451 (no data for now)
Blood ties: Unraveling ancestry and kinship in a Stone Age mass burial
In 2011 archaeological excavations near the village of Koszyce, Poland, uncovered a 5000-year-old mass burial with the remains of 15 men, women and children belonging to the Globular Amphora culture. All had suffered violent deaths but had been buried with great care. To shed new light on this apparent tragedy we conducted a detailed interdisciplinary investigation of the skeletons. Genome-wide kinship analyses revealed an extended family with several first- and second-degree relationships. The bodies had been carefully arranged according to these relationships by someone who knew the deceased. Strontium isotope measurements of tooth enamel indicate a semi-settled lifestyle. The analyses provide an unprecedented level of insight into social behavior, group structure, and violent intergroup conflict at the end of the Neolithic period in Europe.
The mitochondrial haplogroups U5b2 a1 and U5b2a2 are widespread throughout western Europe since the Neolithic. It means little in the history of the BB culture. The greater age of BB culture in Iberia is not debatable, because the work of Joao Cardoso (2,014) is totally conclusive, and the migration of Iberian women to other BB regions is also demonstrated. The only mystery that remains is the origin of P312 and soon we will have the answer, but it is also clear that where there is P312 the percentage of steppe ancestry decreases.
U5b2a- Scotland, Raschoille Cave-3.511 BC.
It is one of many cases of mitochondrial haplogroups associated with the British BB that did not arrive from continental Europe, but were already on the islands.The Neolithic population did not become extinct as Reich says.
The movements of the people related to the BB culture were numerous in many directions and over a long period of time (2,800-2,000 BC), me must not think in invasions or conquests but migrations of small human groups, especially women.
The brachycephaly of the BB is clearly Western-Alpine, Pyrenean and Italian.
We already know that Iberia is a kind of taboo that should not be pronounced, but part of the explanation comes from there, if you continue searching exclusively in other places you will never find the solution.
The Czech and Dutch BBs are Bavarian, while the Poles and Hungarians are clearly newer and are a mix of Central European and Yamnaya.
Regarding the Germans, that is the great mystery, I would bet for an origin of L51 in the German Neolithic cultures, perhaps Baalberge
http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2017/05/maritime-mama-i139213-grave9.html
“The decoration can be attributed to a mixed maritime style, considered to be an early stage of the Bell Beaker tradition. The Hégenheim individual (13-Grave9, I1392) is an adult mature individual who is genetically female. The spatial orientation and the grave goods are consistent with a female Bell Beaker burial.
I1392/13-Grave9: 2832–2476 calBCE (4047±29 BP, MAMS-25935)”
@ Andrzejewski, re: Ötzi
In the reconstruction here
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7S2adtG9J54/Tmc5kzhoxcI/AAAAAAAAEF8/hH9Bb34c_qg/s1600/oetzi.jpg
he looks strikingly broad faced, and thus not like the gracile Mediterranoid type most typical for the LBK and Anatolia_EN. From the front view he could pass for Alpinoid, but I think I've seen that his head shape looks clearly elongated, not at all brachycephalic. He's a gracile Cromagnoid type, and there are Sardinians looking like this, compare this plate of residents from Busachi in central Sardinia:
https://justpaste.it/3xqe1
I think that type could be from the WHG admixture the early farmers picked up, or even from their Anatolian UHG ancestry.
Bellbeakerblogger said:
"It might be a good idea to consider brachycephaly apart from the flat occiput. The former is mostly genetic and the latter probably from cradle boards.
The natural genetic disposition of a Beaker skull I imagine was similar to that of a modern NW European but unintentionally altered due to cradling and binding (historically used to make a taller, straighter person)."
Zardos said:
"My personal opinion on that issue is that the BB traits being largely subdominant, so as soon as they heavily mixed with the dolichocephalic populations, their traits became less frequent and less extreme, or even largely disappeared."
I tend to agree with Zardos here. First of all, modern NW Euros are mesocephalic on average, with a comparatively low cranial vault and well rounded occiput.
But occasionally people with Beaker-like heads still pop up here and there, even without cradling, which is suggestive of a genetic factor, and probably can be explained with recombination.
The Belgian Thibaut Courtois for example:
https://www.news.com.au/sport/football/rumour-mill-thibaut-courtois-tells-chelsea-to-sell-him-now-chelsea-ready-to-hijack-jack-grealishs-move-to-tottenham/news-story/7148241be6599286d15fc30d4cabace7
Or the Dutchman Bert van Marwijk:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bert_van_Marwijk_005.jpg
Or my paternal uncle (top picture, with pipe and sunglasses) and his first cousin (second picture), judging from DNA testing, their clan is mostly Germanic, Celtic and a little Baltic, with no appreciable South Euro or Balkan admixture:
https://justpaste.it/1tw3n
Corina Knipper (2.017)- LECH VALLEY Germany- "The high proportion of nonlocal females occurs at the same time as a high and increasing haplotype diversity, i.e., a high diversity of
maternal lineages, and is consistent with a patrilocal residential system and female exogamy (39, 40). Predominantly nonlocal females were also found in BBC contexts in southern Bavaria (especially if 0.71050 is used as 87Sr/86Sr cutoff), Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic (18), and Britain (21), among CWC burials in southern Germany (12), and EBA inhumations in central Germany (24), pointing to a supraregional prevalence of patrilocal residential
rules.
Ric Hern- Yes I can, I guess you mean U5b2a and subclades
U5b2/a1a- Iberia, Camino del Molino, (Caravaca, Murcia). Collective burial PRE-BB Chalcolithic- 2.630 BC
U5b2/a1a/2- (Iberia-Trascabañas, Valladolid, PRE-BB CHalcolithic-2.750 BC
U5b2/a3- Germany, Haunstatten, Unterer Tallweg (2.456-2133 BC)
U5b2/a5- Iberia, dolmen de la Mina, Neolithic 3.705 BC
U5b2/a2- Iberia, Quintanilla de Onesimo, 2.465 BC BB CHalcolithic.
U5b2/a1a- Rathlin Island , 1.882 BC
U5b2/a2b- Poland, Kierzkowo, Globular Amphorae. I do not know the exact date, but it's GAC for sure
However, there are other BB mitochondrial haplogroups that are much better related to the steppe, like U2e, U4a1, K1b2/a, H6a1/a H6a1/b, H13a1/a, W3a1/a.
From my point of view steppe migration is undeniable, but I think they started earlier than everyone thinks (4,000-3,000 BC). Migrations from Iberia (mainly sea routes to the British Isles, Brittany, Morocco, Balearic Islands, Sicily, Italy, southern France and Sardinia) and Germany (to the British Isles, Holland, Czech Republic, Switzerland) are clearly Chalcolithic.
@ Jaime Arroyo
Can you point me to some other U5b2a2 samples other than Baalberge and Rathlin ?
It was said that his mtDNA was K1f, which is rare but which cake from WHG. Is that true?
Sorry Wordpredictor...No Specifically U5b2a2. So Poland Kierzkowo, Baalberge, and Iberia Quintanilla de Onesimo and Rathlin. Thanks. So most probably from Germany and Poland. Which is not far from what I suggested for migration of R1b L51 towards the West.
Rathlin 2
@Tesmos, I mostly agree with David here I think in both his statements on that topic.
Chad's statement that there may be no genuine Central Europe MN farmer ancestry from North-Central Europe in Dutch Beakers, may prove to be correct... but it would seem very strange for me if we instantly see signs of mixture in French, Hungarian, Iberian, Italian contexts with Beaker people, at the same time as zero admixture en route to Netherlands for the same culture/population.
Possible if there was a population collapse and the places they moved through were literally empty and minimal in population en route (seems to sort of be the case in the British Isles, hence minimal admix overall despite some heavily admixed indivduals showing up), but hard to imagine happening otherwise and seems a very strange idea that they would happen to otherwise change behaviour.
...
Off topic but thought others might be interested that I've noticed there's a nice little rotation function in PAST3 - examples:
https://imgur.com/a/36ZYxuy. Select the two columns you want to rotate, and it will rotate through them, without seeming to change distance. Example is rotating PC1 and PC2 so that PC1 is a Africa-East Asia dimension (West Eurasia intermediate), while PC2 becomes West Eurasia-Africa+East Asia.
As seems to leave the overall euclidean distance untouched while allowing for a different visualisation. Possibly not great to have multiple rotated versions of the datasheets about, but may be good for visualisation purposes.
Sorry I was wrong to copy obviously Rathlin 2 is U5b2/a2 not U5b2/a1a
Ballynahatty (3.343-3.020 BC)- HV0+195.
Rathlin1 (2.026-1.885 BC)- U5a1/b1e.
Rathlin2 (2.024-1.741 BC)- U5b2/a2.
Rathlin3- (1.736-1.534 BC)- J2b1/a.
Look at J2b1/a
Iberia-
El Portalón, Atapuerca, Burgos-Neolithic-5.400 BC
El Toro Cave, sierra del Torcal, Antequera-Neolithic-5.030 BC
Fuente Pecina, Burgos, Neolíthic-4.170 BC
Camino del Molino-2.900 BC
Barranc d’en Rifá, Catalonia Chalcolithic-2.760 BC
Valdescusa, la Rioja- 1.695 BC)-
Germany Koningsbrunn, 2.129-1.983 BC
Yamnaya Horizon, Pidlisivka Babyno- 1.900 BC,
Ireland- Rathlin Island-1.635 BC
U5a1/b- Poland, CW Hubinek-2.550 BC
U5a1/b1-Iberia, el Hundido, Monasterio de Rodilla, Burgos-2.412 BC
U5a1/b1-Iberia, la Hoya, Alava (400-300 BC)-
U5a1/b1 Czech R, Lovosice-2.200 BC
U5a1/b1 France, Urville, Nacqueville, Iron Age
HVO+195- Iberia, El Pirulejo Cave, Magdalenian (16.000-13.000 BC)
HV0+195-Iberia-Fuente Pecina IV, Neolithic, 4.170 BC
HV0-cova de Bon Santo, Portugal-3.725 BC
HV0-Barranc d’en Rifá, 2.700 BC
HV0-el Mirador, la Lastrilla, Segovia-2.350 BC
HV0-Germany, Koningsbrunn, 2.112-1.912 BC.
@ Them meee
U5b2a2 at Kierzkowo way up in Northeast Poland bordering Lithuania plus U5b2a2 in Rathlin 2 .....Irish vs. Lithuanian Folklore....
@ Jaime Arroyo
Yes J2b1 looks a bit like a Wild Card. In the Mesolithic and Neolithic Balkans to. However U5a1b in Neolithic Ukraine plus 5000 BCE and in Latvia Corded Ware 3000 BCE.
Ric Hern, Yes you are right- U5a1/b- Dereivka, UKraine, 4.500 BC
And this is the story about U5 and U5a
U5-Iberia-Erralla Cave, Cestona, Guipúzcoa. Magdalenian-15.970 BC
Can Sadurni-5.390 BC
Avellaner Cave, Barcelona-5.000 BC
Los Cascajos, Neolithic-4.038 BC-
U5a
Cingle del Mas Nou, Alto Maestrazgo, Castellón-5.000 BC
Urtiaga Cave, Neolithic, 5.200 BC
Fuente Hoz, Anúcita, Alava, Chalcolithic
U5a1-
Iberia-El Juncal-2.651 BC-
Peschanyi, Rostov Oblast, Russia-
U5a1/a1-
Lopatino, Samara-3.115 BC
Iberia, El Juncal, BB Chalcolithic, 2.650 BC
Germany Weichering-2.250 BC
Germmany, Haunstetten, 2.387-2.146 BC
England, Windmill Fields-2.085 BC
The migrations of women all over Europe related to the BB culture are as certain as the earth revolves around the sun
@ Andrzejewski
I'm not sure, amtdb.org lists the iceman as just K1. Eupedia claims he's K1f. And indeed there's a single Mesolithic HG from Serbia in the amtdb.org database who has K1f. But regardless of all of this, the WHG admixture in MN European Farmers is pervasive and not dependent on uniparental markers.
Off topic on rotating Global 25 dimensions again: https://imgur.com/a/OscfkbG
Rotating dimensions 1 and 2 so West and East Eurasia aren't on top of each other has some nice properties in terms of visualising all the clines between between Eurasia and African and within Eurasia all at the same time, that might be nicer to visually see all the patterns of differentiation together.
(Could be a bit confusing with Madagascans and Latinos on the plot as well, who have admixture between East Eurasian and African sets, but in this case there aren't any in G25, so no issue).
Colour scheme is same as in the datasheets - blue is European, green South Asian, etc.
“As far as I can see right now, the overall character of the Dutch Beakers points to the Rhine region, and the contact zone between Single Grave and Atlantic Old Europe, as the homeland of the northern Beakers.”
Davidski’s point makes most logical sense to me.
Note that these contact zones just happen to be located at major European watershed areas. The main Atlantic-Mediterranean watershed is the Belfort gap area (between Belfort and Mulhouse) that separates the Rhône basin from the Meuse and Rhine. The main Rhine-Danube watershed is not far to the east around Weitnau, Germany.
Interestingly, the main watershed in Central Europe passes through modern day Czech Republic (Vltava NW and Elbe and Morava SE to Danube and Black Sea.
Go with the flow....
Just a brief note on the Netherlands BB being homogeneous issue:
It’s hard to imagine when sitting in traffic around Rotterdam ring, in the worlds most densely populated country per sq km, that during the BA the whole waterlogged region must have been rather sparsely populated....
Netherlands- J. Butler, J Van der Waals- Beakers with maritime decoration "Although their decoration clearly belongs to the Atlantic Bell Beaker tradition, other elements in this group already represent eastern influence. Moreover, in the Vlaardingen Bell Beaker level a small polypod bowl is also considered to be of Central European origin (Sangmeister, 1963, p. 29). There is as yet no evidence that these people practised metal-working. For the maritime Bell Beaker level at Vlaardingen there is a series of four CI4-datings, the average of which is 1940 ± 25 BC
Metallurgy- The possibility must therefore be kept open that the As-Ni copper was imported by the Dutch Bell Beaker and the Breton Aeneolithic cultures from some common source; which on present knowledge is unlikely to have been either Central Europe or Ireland. Areas for which too few Chalcolithic analyses have so far been published, and which conceivably be involved, are Britain (where, as we have seen, one or two tanged knives in the As-Ni copper are already known) and Iberia.
It is evident that the Dutch BBs are German or Alsatian migrants, because the mitochondrial haplogroups of Oostwoud are
X2b4 (Sierentz, Alsace),
U5a1/a1 (Germany- Weichering-2.250 AC / Haunstetten, 2.387 -2.146 BC) ,
U5a2/b3 (Hugo Eckerner Strasse, 2,461-2,211 BC)
H5a1- Netherlands, Oostwoud,
H5a3- Germany, 2.250 BC
H5a1/g- Prague 2.350 BC
K1b1/a1+199- Germany Landau-2.250 BC
K1b1/a1+199 Netherlands Oostwoud-2.100 BC
K1b1/a1+199- Radovesice-2.350 BC
The consensus of the archaeologists is that the metallurgy was introduced both in the Netherlands and in the British Isles by the Bb culture.
One last piece of evidence, Bell Beaker's farmer side is related to TRB/GAC is pigmentation.
Steppe people were without exception swarthy & brunette. GAC was without exception blue eyed and blonde. TRB may have been too.
Pigmentation wise, Beaker looks like an intermediate between Yamnaya & GAC, which matches ancestry (50-60% Yamnaya, 40-50% GAC-like).
Beaker couldn't have inherited their fair complexion (compared to Atlantic farmers) from Danubian farmers who weren't much paler than Yamnaya. Danube farmer+Balkan HG, can't explain it either.
@Jaime Arroyo
"It is evident that the Dutch BBs are German or Alsatian migrants, because the mitochondrial haplogroups of Oostwoud"
There is no other ancient Dutch mtDNA known. So how do you know these aren't native Dutch?
Samples uploaded today from ancient Iberia: I2a2-L181, I2a1b1-L161.1 and H2a1a2-SK1193. Of course some like "Olympus Mons" on Eupedia and "An Idiot" here will still insist on their Caucasus > North Africa > Iberia rubbish.
Oostwoud-Tuithoorn (West Frisia, Netherlands)- Contact person: Harry Fokkens- "There is plenty of settlement evidence in the area from Late Vlaardingen/ Late Corded Ware groups, but few Bell Beaker associated remains. The Oostwoud-Tuithoorn are in that sense unique. The sequence at this site starts with skeleton 575, dated between 2579–2284 BC (3945±55 BP, GrN-6650C). After a few decades, the site was likely converted into arable land. The next stage is the erection of Tumulus II (Obviously a family Collective burial), in which 11 individuals were buried between 2200 and 1900 calBCE.
That is to say in the Netherlands the BB culture is something strange, Oostwoud I5748 is a lone explorer (2,431 BC), with the same mitochondrial haplogroup as its Alsatian relatives that are somewhat older.
The following deposits are much more modern (2.100-2.000 BC), and all of them have German haplogroups (older than the Dutch). It would be interesting to look for those mitochondrial haplogroups in the CW culture.
Archeologically, Netherlands is much less interesting than Germany, they did not even know metallurgy, until the BBs arrived
The key to the German migrations are the river Rhine to the north, Danube to the east, Po and Rhone to the south. Where do the four rivers converge? in the Alps, then that area is key to understanding the BB culture. There is also the origin of brachycephaly. Hungary, Poland, Netherlands, and the Czech Republic are peripheral provinces, with few deposits compared to France, Germany and Iberia.
These groups of migrants from Central and Western Europe went as far as they could, that is, Csepel Island and Silesia, where they met descendants of migrants from the steppes (Z2103, and some steppe mitochondrial haplogroups).
@Jaime Arroyo
I5748 doesn't look like a lone explorer. He looks like all of the other Dutch Beakers, and they all cluster very close to German Corded Ware samples, even overlapping wit some.
These people look native to the Rhine Single Grave area. And the Beakers from other parts of Europe look like them, unless they're recently admixed.
Ancient West Eurasia PCA
@them meee
They should test them but they haven't. You would think there would be no more important topic in Polish genetics and yet no one seems to want to do it.
@Davidski, inruiling posting, see for the relationship between Northern Beakers and Corded Ware this archeological work of Lanting (summary in English).
https://books.google.nl/books?id=jnNTDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=saale+elbe+lanting&source=bl&ots=FHmHmOx4JC&sig=tlUlMCw4igFLDrJc-EyT5VN4ObU&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjgk-CO1-vfAhVC_KQKHW4MA90Q6AEwAHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=saale%20elbe%20lanting&f=false
Crucial passage about Belle beaker, Single Grave and Corded Ware:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/7z4poju.17.53.png
Taking a closer look at Alberstedt_LN
“ALB3/I0118 (feature 7144.2, 2459-2345 calBCE, MAMS 21492) …
The radiocarbon date falls in line with both the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware
occupation phases of this region. Given the ambiguous archaeological classification we have decided to use the location and date to classify this sample (Late Neolithic Alberstedt). The intermediate position of this sample on the PCA plot (Figure 2a) between unambiguously assigned Corded Ware (Esperstedt) and Bell Beaker (Rothenschirmbach) individuals, and >50% Yamnaya ancestry are consistent with an individual who has mixed Corded Ware and Bell Beaker ancestry.”
From: SI6 ADMIXTURE sample clustering analysis https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/v522/n7555/extref/nature14317-s1.pdf
P 33,34
G25 Bell Beaker models including Alberstedt_LN and neighboring populations:
distance%=1.3143
Beaker_The_Netherlands
"CWC_Germany" 78.85
"Alberstedt_LN" 11.9
"Blatterhole_MN" 5.55
"France_MLN" 3.7
"Globular_Amphora" 0
Replacing CWC Germany with Czech for Hungary
distance%=1.9168
Beaker_Hungary
"Globular_Amphora" 41
"Alberstedt_LN" 32.1
"CWC_Czech" 26.9
"Blatterhole_MN" 0
"France_MLN" 0
Including Baden_LCA and removing France_MLN
distance%=1.3282
Beaker_The_Netherlands
"CWC_Germany" 75.5
"Alberstedt_LN" 15.65
"Blatterhole_MN" 6.3
"Globular_Amphora" 2.55
"Baden_LCA" 0
"distance%=1.0564
Beaker_Hungary
"CWC_Czech" 53.4
"Baden_LCA" 38.05
"Blatterhole_MN" 8.55
"Globular_Amphora" 0
"Alberstedt_LN" 0
My 2 cents. There appears to be significant admixture with neighboring populations. If The Netherland Beakers came from the SE it might be expected that they would have some Baden like admixture. My impression is that there were several rapid migrating pulses (patrilineal R1a "forest" and R1b "plains") of "steppe" people to the north of the Carpathians.
https://mapswire.com/europe/physical-maps/ They then differentiated locally subsequently adding on top a "Ceremonial" Beaker Culture coming from the SW/Iberia that moved rapidly across Europe following trade routes.
From 2006 http://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/view/5/5
The abstract is in English.
And more recently in 2018: https://neilwilkin.co.uk/2018/03/20/what-does-a-pressed-flower-tell-us-about-ancient-dna/
Worth reading: https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2017/04/kossinnas-smile-heyd-2017.html
Davidski-I said lone explorer because the Oostwoud site, remained abandoned 300 years after the death of I5748 (at least the archaeologists have not found more bodies related to the BB culture) then there is a clear discontinuity in the deposit. I do not know if there are other deposits as old as this (with human remains) in the Netherlands.
"The arable land underlying and around the burial mound contained many Bell Beaker and pot beakers sherds (Bell Beaker settlement ware). In essence, this dates all skeletons buried in mound II to older than approximately 1900 BCE.
You're right- They come from the Rhine
Netherlands-Veluwe type (Van der Waals & Glasbergen) This homogeneous Bell Beaker group represents the final integration of the elements of Atlantic and Central European origin. It is chiefly characteristic of the Veluwe and the adjacent part of the province of Utrecht. Smaller concentrations are in the Hilversum and Nijmegen areas; only one or two finds are so far known from the northern provinces. A number of closely related finds has been recorded in the Lower Rhineland, especiaIly in the Neuwieder Becken. l. The varied patterns of the decoration have aiready been alluded to as of Central European origin. The numerous associated finds also contain elements of Central European origin:
The relationship with the CW is also evident by the percentage of steppe ancestry.
There's no way around it, Beaker Netherlands has no southeast farmer in it. There's now way to model them as Corded Ware+southeast something. Instead, Beaker DNA shows movement from northwest to the southeast.
R1b U106 is not a different species than R1b P312. The two are apart of the same phenomenon. The expansion which split them is dated before the Bell Beaker period. Northern Beaker folk in Denmark & Germany probably had lots of U106.
Already, by at least 2400 BC, we see distinct R1b P312 clans in Bell beaker. These clans probably split from each other before the Bell beaker period.
IMO, what this means is R1b L151, U106, P312 clans dominated parts of Corded Ware territory in Germany & Netherlands. When, they became Beaker folk they moved southeast, into Britain, into France, etc.
I won't be surprised if we find, Corded Ware R1b L151 samples that look like CWC_Germany I0049 (80% Steppe) soon.
What I love about these dna and migration mysteries (and this blog in general), is that the best answers requires an understanding/appreciation across so many seemingly disparate disciplines.
For instance, something as seemingly benign and insignificant as river and North Sea tidal currents can provide some insight. If you dropped a dug out canoe with nothing more than a paddle, provisions and very basic skills, it is possible to easily ride the Vltava river from Ceske Budejovice (southern Czech Replublic, only 100km north of Linz on Danube) NW into the Elbe and then North Sea. Same thing along the old upper Rhine (which is also only 100km or so from Danube), on down to mouth at Katwijk.
The North Sea tidal current is generally cyclonic, which moves from Atlantic along Eastern coast of GB to Southern Bight and up along Frisia and Jutland to Norway coast and back around. At points along eastern GB Coast and Southern Bight the current (especially in Spring) rips through at 1m/s! Even as the tidal flow trends north, speeds can be 0.5m/s. You can just sit in a dug out canoe and travel 40-80km a day. The BA and IA “autobahn”...
@weure
Crucial passage about Belle beaker, Single Grave and Corded Ware:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/7z4poju.17.53.png
Thanks, this makes a lot of sense considering the genetics of the Dutch Beakers and the fact that there's no sign of anything in the Carpathian Basin or the Balkans that could give rise to the northern Beakers.
It seems like Yamnaya did penetrate Central Europe almost as far west as the Alps via Bulgaria and the Carpathian Basin, but these groups carried R1b-Z2103 and I2a-M223.
Vucedol (Croatia) I3499 2884-2666 calBCE R1b-Z2103
Yamnaya (Bulgaria) Bul4 3012-2900 calBCE I2a-M223
There's been some discussion at Anthrogenica about Budzhak groups as a possible source of the northern Beakers, but, as far as I know, Yamnaya Bulgaria is Budzhak.
@JuanRivera
As for those steppe samples that are even more eastern-shifted than ANE, it may be either because they're WSHG samples or that they're significantly WSHG-admixed individuals in Khvalynsk.
This is just an artifact of trying to plot AG3 and MA1 in a West Eurasian analysis. In a global analysis they plot with Siberians.
In other words, there are no steppe samples more eastern than ANE.
@JuanRivera
On an unrelated note about PCAs, I wonder if West and East Eurasians would show in a tight ball far from Africans.
Only in some dimensions.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k6z0j1Rt0zSHwQqpJ2OO_xcxX9UX0Zbz/view?usp=sharing
JoseJimenez:
One of the great attributes Amerindian combined with Latin based culture peoples have is naturally ability to think laterally (ie somewhat in 3D), but decisive points of relevance are hard to come by and are often far too abstract to make any logical sense. Many SE Asian cultures also suffer from this same propensity to lose any sense of logical thought in the process of trying to explain something as basic as how best to navigate to the next village....
@ Bogdan
Isn't that called ADHD ? Heheheeh ;)
@ JuanRivera
So it seems like Europeans did not leave any field unploughed...
@ Ric Hern
More like SCT... It is not unreasonable to assume the more ADHD types dominated Europe from the early BA to at least early to mid 20th Century in modern times....
@All
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but considering BP and calBCE dates, Beaker_The_Netherlands I5748 could well be the oldest sample so far belonging to R1b-P312 and R1b-L51?
@ Davidski,
Can you elaborate how, why and what is a R1b-P311 and primary difference to P312?
Some of us R1b progress through P311, not P312...
Some interesting claims there by Lanting
- sex specific burials first emerge in SEE (Varna, Tiszapolgar, Lublin-Volhyn), but agree BB probably adopted it from CWC
- Copper Daggers - obviously from Yamnaya & ultimatley Majkop. CWC were Copper poor, apart from its pre-terminal phase in Moravia , SE Poland
- lackenringe of BB based on those of CWC, yeah, but as above - late phase in the Moravia /SE Poland zone, but ultimately from Ponto -Carpathian zone.
- ditched embankments from Dutch CW ? Nope. Theyre seen since the Cernavoda - Mikhailova period, and already in early CWC from south Poland.
- Poplypod bowls from the west ? Sorry, but that's just crazy.
@Bogdan
Can you elaborate how, why and what is a R1b-P311 and primary difference to P312?
It's a different SNP that defines a more basal mutation than P312, and doesn't necessarily lead to it. For instance, many people who belong to P311 also belong to U106 rather than P312.
"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but considering BP and calBCE dates, Beaker_The_Netherlands I5748 could well be the oldest sample so far belonging to R1b-P312 and R1b-L51?"
There's one from Saxony which is older. 2678–2547 calBC. But his autosomes weren't tested. Supposedly some labelled him as Yamnaya not Bell BEaker.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174yaoT_OvTLO34_XM6_BIugQ1O0n6G5Tr7vZZ7hNPrw/edit#gid=0
Personally I've always half thought that BB was an outgrowth of the CWC, somehow.
@Dragos
Whether you agree with what Lanting says or not, the fact is that Rhenish Beakers came into existence at the tail end of Corded Ware and lived in a very different (more southerly) environment than most Corded Ware populations, so it stands to reason that even if they were a straight offshoot from Corded Ware, they should carry a more technologically advanced and probably diverse cultural package than Corded Ware.
Obviously, useful technology spreads fast, and isn't necessarily accompanied by any gene flow from the people who initially came up with it.
So even if the Rhenish Beaker package includes elements from as far as the Balkans or even the Caucasus, that still only tells us that they were well connected, for one reason or another, and doesn't necessarily suggest that there were any migrations into Single Grave territory from the southeast that may have given rise to the Rhenish Beakers.
@Samuel Andrews
Don't link to that website as a source of information here.
“It's a different SNP that defines a more basal mutation than P312, and doesn't necessarily lead to it. For instance, many people who belong to P311 also belong to U106 rather than P312.”
Thank you Davidski, greatly appreciated. Both P311/12 to U106 are used interchangeably, which confuses matters. Most understand
P311 must be more basal mutation to P312, but it seems to be at incredibly poor resolution, without ability to define these mutations in time and space. For instance, we have folks slinging R1b-L51 around Europe, but closest resolution I can pinpoint is Khvalynsk circa 4000 BC...
The oldest P312 is Sierentz (Alsace), slightly earlier in time to Oostwoud.
I1390/11-Grave68: 2566–2299 calBCE (2.432 BC) - R1b-P312.-Mit-X2b4/a
The oldest R1b-U152, Osterhofen, Altenmarkt, 2.572-2.512 BC
BBs may have taken women from the CWC, but not the form of exploitation of natural resources (types of crops). The BB ideology is peculiar and is a mixture of Western and Eastern traditions.
Jutta Lechterbeck- We show the preceding Late Neolithic, the actual Bell Beaker, and the following Early Bronze age economies each relying on different agricultural strategies that focus on distinct parts of the landscape. There is no link obvious between Late Neolithic and Bell Beaker, but there is between Bell Beaker and Early Bronze Age. Related to different modes of production, differences in ideology become visible in food preferences as well as in other parts of the material culture. We conclude that the Bell Beaker economy represents a reorientation of the mode of production focusing on single, rather small farmsteads which often do not leave a distinct signal in the archaeological record.
The Hegau and Lake Constance region belong to an area along the Rhine valley, where the distributions of Corded Ware (CW) and BBs overlap. According to our pattern of reasoning (Fig. 1) discontinuity between the settlement phases connected to CW and BB material cultures, as well as continuity between BB culture and EBA, becomes visible. It can be seen foremost in the use of different parts of landscapes for plant and animal production, as
indicated in the pollen record and in the macroremains. Furthermore, it could be shown that the low-lying hinterland of the CW settlements was used for pasture, whereas BB phase people instead used the higher-elevated forests as pasture.
A possible contemporaneity of CW and BB as well as of BB and EBA cannot be excluded. Nevertheless the sequential replacement offers the least complicated solution. (i) Up to now there are no mixed finds of CW and BB known. (ii) We therefore assume both pottery styles were not in use by the same people at the same time then (iii) the abandonment between the two phases can only be explained by repeated settlements of both groups. (iv) Sequential replacement requires only one episode of abandonment and re-settlement.The inhabitants of the Hegau and the Lake Constance area used different parts of the landscape,
they preferred different food, followed a different life style and had a different economic basis
Fascinating thread.
Thanks to David and all his contributors.
@Jaime Arroyo
The oldest P312 is Sierentz (Alsace), slightly earlier in time to Oostwoud.
I1390/11-Grave68: 2566–2299 calBCE (2.432 BC) - R1b-P312.-Mit-X2b4/a
Where did you get this date? The supp info table from Olalde et al. lists these dates...
Beaker_Central_Europe I1390 2480–2210 calBCE
Beaker_The_Netherlands I5748 2579–2233 calBCE
@ Davidski
I don't think you're gonna pin-point the earliest BB on the basis of C14 variations of 25 - 50 years. As I outlined above, there is a plateau in the calibration curve in the 27-2500 BC
Secondly, seems that people here are forgetting about GB1 from Fernandez et al.
Please try & upload there data (that's 2 of their papers your G25 is now missing).
@Matt,
Thanks for the heads up!
@Samuel Andrews
"R1b U106 is not a different species than R1b P312. The two are apart of the same phenomenon. The expansion which split them is dated before the Bell Beaker period. Northern Beaker folk in Denmark & Germany probably had lots of U106."
At this moment,the absence of U106 in the published Bell Beaker samples suggests that U106 was not part of the formation of Eastern BB, or played a small role.
I am not so sure if U106 would be present in BB Jutland/Denmark either. Jutish Bell Beakers appear to have strong connections with the Dutch Bell Beakers. I expect the Jutland Bell Beakers to be P312 for the most part.
The southern Baltic Sea region is probably the key to solve this matter.
@Dragos
What's the Y-haplogroup of GB1? Pretty sure it's not P312 or L51.
@Tesmos,
That's what I thought till I saw that...I4174, Beaker HUngary. had R1b U106>Z18. He had typical northern Beaker (Netherlands-like) ancestry.
@Samuel Andrews
You probably meant I4178 (unless I completely missed something). It's not certain that this sample is actually R1B-U106>Z18. A few people on Anthrogenica asked the user Williamson, the owner of Ytree.net, if this sample is R1b-U106. This was his reply:
"
I don't have any confidence in calling I4178 as R-U106 > Z18. There's only one read and it is a G > A mutation at the last position. This sort of mutation is typical of damaged aDNA. I can provide you a list of a dozen other calls for this kit that are downstream of L51 that are also supported by just one read and they're all from different branches. As it is, I'm not even sure he belongs to R-L51."
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC&p=373568&viewfull=1#post373568
@ Davidski
''What's the Y-haplogroup of GB1? Pretty sure it's not P312 or L51.''
She is a female, so she lacks a Y -haplogroup
My reference to her was simply to illustrate that we should not speak in superlatives (''impossible for such admixture to come from SEE'') when it is clear that the basic sciences are not a strength of many posters and bloggers here
@Dragos
Well go and prove that GB1 has any relevance at all to the Rhenish Beakers. Let me know what you come up with, since your basic sciences are obviously so strong.
Off Topic
Wonder how this might compare to G25? Are they aware of this blog?
DNA tool allows you to trace your ancient ancestry
January 14, 2019, University of Sheffield
PR blurb:https://phys.org/news/2019-01-dna-tool-ancient-ancestry.html?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Phys.org_TrendMD_1
Article: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/9/12/625
@Davidski
Iñigo Olalde-2.018- Suplementary Information- "There are two radiocarbon dates from this skeleton and we used the union for analyses:
I1390/11-Grave68: 2566–2299 calBCE [2566–2524 calBCE (3910±35 BP, Poz-41227); 2489–2299 calBCE (3875±35 BP, Poz-41226)]
I1389/10-Grave69: 2468–2278 calBCE [2481–2289 calBCE (3935±35 BP, Poz-41229); 2468–2278 calBCE (3925±30 BP, Poz-41228)] They share both mitochondrial and Y-chromosome haplogroups, which points to a sibling relationship (brothers). The two beakers are very similar to those from burial 68, although the decorations are different. The style of the pottery also indicates a medium Bell Beaker phase. Mit hap- X2b4/a
I1390- 1º- 2.566-2.299- 2.432 BC/2º- 2.489-2299- 2.394 BC
I1389- 2.373 BC. I suppose that if they are brothers this last dating (2.373 BC) will be valid because if not, there could not be a difference of 60 years between the death of both.
Oostwoud- I5748/skeleton 575-M22: 2579–2284 calBCE (3945±55 BP, GrN-6650C)- 2.431 BC
In any case the distance between Sierentz and Oostwoud is very small, P312 could be born in Alsace and 10 days later be in the Netherlandas or vice versa. If we agree that the ancient dna marks the origin of a haplogroup then Sierentz and Oostwoud currently fighting for the honor of being the cradle of R1b-P312.
@Bogdan
While modern distribution doesn't dictate where it was thousands of years ago, the parallel branches under P311+, who are not P312 or U106 appear to be concentrated in north central Europe. It's no surprise that P312+ and U106+ can be argued to originate in the same region based on similar data, such as clades of P312>L238 being north European specific for example, and U106 whose distribution is already well known. Khvalynsk as an origin for P312+ would be a bit of a stretch based on all available data.
I believe that what is really important is that people have all the information available about the BB culture because that is how we will understand that it is the first great pan-European culture. Not only because of the absolute dominance of haplogroup P312 from 2,300 BC, but also because of the amazing coincidence of mitochondrial haplogroups.I will give some examples in case you are interested.
X2b+226-
Iberia, Cerdañola del Vallés- BB culture-2.550 BC
Portugal, Verdelha Cave- BB culture-2.500 BC
Portugal, Torre Velha-Bronze Age-1.600 BC
Morocco, Kehf el Baroud Cave, Casablanca, BB culture 2.800-2.600 BC
Germany, Haunstetten, BB culture, 2.126-1.928 BC and 2.120-1.921 BC
England, Carsington Pasture, BB culture-2.088 BC
J1c1/b-
Iberia-Cabezo de Arruda, Chalcolithic 3.250 BC
Cova da Moura-Chalcolithic, 2.950 BC-
Isbister, Orkney-2.980 BC-
Italy, Remedello-1.953 BC
Germany, Untermeitingen- 1.605 BC
K1a4/a1-
Iberia- La Sarga Cave, Valencia-Neolíthic, 5.273 BC
El Prado, Pancorbo-5.124 BC
Cueva de los Botijos, Benalmádena, Málaga, Bot1-5.000 BC
Cueva de las Yurdinas, Peñacerrada, Alava-LYII-15068, 3.050 BC
Cerdañola del Vallés-2.387 BC
Cueva Verdelha-Vialonga, Portugal-BB culture-2.500 BC
Humanejos-Madrid-BB culture-2.240 BC
Morocco, Kehf el Baroud, Casablanca, 2.800-2.600 BC BB culture
GB-Amesbury-2.320 BC. BB culture
Radovesice-BB culture 2.350 BC
Poland, Iwiny-2.190 BC. BB culture
Germany, Haunstetten, 2.130-1.930 BC. BB culture
I do not think anyone can think that they are coincidences, they are simply migrations of women all over Europe, transmitting a culture including pottery, wristguards, arsenic copper and an ideology.
The key question is did they travel alone? or in small family groups accompanied by their men.
Or maybe Single Grave in Denmark already had U106, like you previously said?
@Tesmos
But couldn’t R1a in Iberia be from Germanics, Christian migrants and Slavic slaves?
@ Them meee- Obviously R1a entered Spain with the Suebi and Goths (together with U106, I1). R1a or Q have never been found in Iberian prehistoric sites.
R1b-V88 in Iberia is Neolithic (Els Trocs, Bisaurri, Huesca, 5.100 BC), and has nothing to do with BB culture.
@JuanRivera-
You said- "Steppe groups ended up overwhelming the original Beakers (except in Sardinia). They didn't only carry R1b(R1b-V88), they also carried R1a, which shows up even in Iberia, Q1a1, and Q1a2"
I don't see the x inside the parenthesis.
I have never seen a case of Q or R1a in Iberian prehistoric sites. Nor have I seen Q in studies of contemporary populations, except recently two cases of Q in Asturias that geneticists interpreted as descendants of repatriated "Indianos" from America. They are undoubtedly an anecdote in the current Spanish population, including the Basques
Indianos is a term we use in Spain to define Spanish emigrants who returned with their families to our land.
Who do you think are the original BBs?
Clarke's overview (2015) Barbed Wire and other Bell Beaker/CW derivates:
"The Northern British/North Rhine Beaker Group (N/NR)
The particular interest of the Northern/North Rhine group and its close cousin the Barbed Wire beaker group, is that both groups only just scrape within the definition of beakers of the Bell beaker tradition. Both tlle Northern/North Rhine and the Barbed-Wire beaker groups comprise traditions of mixed Late Corded Ware and peripheral Bell beaker origin. This mixture of traditions can be recognised in the squat, protruding foot, ovoid body beakers with recurved rims, incised or grooved decoration with a poor repertoir of basic beaker motifs and a neolithic poverty of grave associations. To these factors can be added the occasional use of cremation burial rite in a small grave with the beaker beside the cremation heap, and a number of vessels without decoration below the belly.
The Northern/North Rhine beaker group then is represented by the small squat or globular vessels with protruding feet. The decoration frequently consists of heavy grooving below the rim with crude or carelessly incised zones on the body, including metopic motifs. The typical motif is the multiple outlined triangle of the diagnostic form common throughout the Corded Ware tradition and entirely alien in the Bell beaker motif assemblage (Struve, 1955,p.136).The origin of the group seems to lie in the similar assemblages found immediately North of the old Rhine Delta and along the hinterland of the Frisian coasts. The Dutch examples of this group have been partially defined by Modderman (1955) but the type is centered across the border in coastal Germany4. In this area it would appear that late and devolved Corded Ware groups integrated small bands of beaker settlers producing a pottery assemblage of hybrid character.
These folk, with their strong non-beaker background, apparently crossed the North Sea in a series of small bands somewhere around 1700 B.C. or slightly later. The settlers clustered in three foci based on the North Sea Coast: - around the Moray Firth, in the Border Counties and on the Yorkshire Wolds. The domestic assemblage included both undecorated and non-plastic rusticated ware. The main importance of these settlers from across the North Sea lies in the subsequent integration of certain of their pottery features with the later Dutch beakers of the Veluwe type, giving rise to regional insular variations such as the beake s with short, angular. all-over-grooved necks.
....
"
https://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/24936/22384
At Oostwoud, West-Frisia there was also a R1b U106 sample of 1881–1646 calBCE that’s part of the so called Hoogkarspel cultture what is a part of Sögel-Wohlde or also called Elp culture. This is the Tumulus culture of the Northern NL,, NW Germany up to Northern Jutland,
The Sögel-Wohlde swords are connected to the Hungarian-Moravian room.
Prof Harry Fokkens (1998):
''The northern Netherlands is part of the northern group (NW Germany and Denmark) especially of the Sögeler Kreis characterized by a number of distinctive men's graves. The Drouwen grave is the best known Dutch example.It's remarkable that the Elp culture has never been presented as the immigration of a new group of people. Because clearly this period was a time when a number of new elements made their entry while others disappeared. The disappearance of beakers, the appearance of the Sögel men's graves with the first 'swords', among other things, the fully extended burial posture, under barrows; all the factors have been reason enough in the past to conclude that the Elp culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture)represented an immigration of Sögel warriors."
BB = R1b P312 and Elp = R1b U106!?
@Them meee,
Yeah, that's also a possiblity. We know that U106 was already in Sweden before 2000 BC. He could have been descendant of the Danish Single Grave people.
@George
DNA tool allows you to trace your ancient ancestry.
The chances of that being a useful tool are pretty slim, but I won't get into that here. Let's leave it for now.
Interesting videos from 2018 Vienna Genes talk #GIA18:
John T. Koch “Formation of the Indo-European Branches in the light of the Archaeogenetic Revolution”
https://youtu.be/XnmNbX9md1E?t=1024
Kristian Kristiansen “Genes, diseases, and migrations: what relationship? Indo-European expansions reconsidered”
https://youtu.be/oi1C1XMYU2Q?t=842
Natalia Shishlina “Movements across the Bronze Age steppes: seasonal migrations and subsistence system”
https://youtu.be/L0aFqzKTBp8?t=113
more:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgrZVIXeRf_7Dg70rcW5bMw/videos
@EastPole
I can't watch these right now. What's Kristiansen reconsidering?
@Davidski
“I can't watch these right now. What's Kristiansen reconsidering?”
Kristiansen suggests that IE expansion of Yamnaya/Corded Ware and Bell Beaker was much more violent than historians used to think and that we may not like it:
https://i.postimg.cc/tTDktzjp/screenshot-466.png
https://i.postimg.cc/v8NLYT8q/screenshot-467.png
https://i.postimg.cc/Zqwwzhf6/screenshot-468.png
https://i.postimg.cc/rmvCqy5R/screenshot-469.png
Nothing about Caucasus PIE homeland.
PCA is great for lots of purposes, but one thing that it doesn't do well is distinguish between peoples who are generally in the middle of a gradation of genetic variation in space and time, and people who are recently admixed from the extremes of that range.
For example, both my children (who are half-Korean and half-Northern European) (admixed ca. 2000 CE), Uyghurs (a population that admixed ca. 500 CE) and natives of the Altai (who are coherent less admixed populations on a gradation from Western to Eastern Eurasian), all end up very close to each other on a PCA chart despite having very different and non-overlapping ancestry.
So, while the overlap of Dutch Beakers and German Corded Ware on a PCA is consistent with having closely related ancestries, it isn't the only explanation of their coincidence on a PCA chart, particularly given the indications and hints mentioned in the OP of recent admixture in the known individuals.
@JuanRivera
If you do not know the haplogroup Y of the first BBs you can not know if there was a replacement. With what you currently know of the Yamnaya culture and unless a miracle occurs, you only have Z2013 and Q, and none of them appears in Western Europe. What appears is the steppe ancestry and to explain it there are several possibilities; 1-R1bM269 as Harvard say (including my countryman Iñigo Olalde),2-Mitochondrial haplogroups that come directly from the steppes (for example H6a), or the dispersion of the CW throughout Europe by exogamy.
I also do not think that Yamnaya Hungary is a satisfactory explanation for the eastern BBs (although both in Hungary and in Poland there are Z2013 BBs), especially considering that the R1b-L2 Bavarians are older than the Czechs.
Finding Q in Seville is as difficult as finding a needle in a haystack.
Finding Q in San Sebastián is a miracle.
I am curious, why is the R1b in I0410 (Spain_EN) not considered? It is roughly the same age as Samara-HG
It is pretty basal. It shows that basal R1b is present in the neolithic early farmers.
With EEF now known to be in Yamaya--could we be looking at R1b going into and then back out of europe via WHG--> EEF--> Steppe vector? or it pre-existing in europe/Spain? So being in spain--->Bell Beaker?
Just curious-especially with the density of R1b in the Basque
Aren’t there hunter-gatherers with R1b?
It can’t come from farmers.
I0410 is not some undifferentiated 'basal', he's R1b-Y7777 (and maybe Y8451), a very successful R1b branch. It didn't exactly boom in Western Europe, though.
Yes, he is almost the same age as Samara_HG - the Neolithic didn't happen at the same time everywhere.
@LeeAlbee
I have already tried to explain the case of the Basques in other forums because it is not a mystery (at least for us). Think of small villages practically isolated in the mountains, which agreed with the Romans to avoid being massacred as celtiberians, vettones etc ... that fiercely resisted the Goths and the Moors, and then five centuries of Catholic Monarchy and the Holy Inquisition, the result 92% R1b (83% Df27). Rest of Spain 70% R1b
Keep in mind that to enter the Army, the Administration, the Navy, the Catholic church, or be a doctor, surgeon, lawyer etc. we had to prove that we did not have Moorish or Jewish ancestors.
Who is I0410 ? I don't remember.
@ Them meee
Of course, Latvian Hunther gatherers (Narva culture) R1b-P297, Villabruna, Iboussieres, Iron gates and Romanian mesolithic hunter gatherers.
@andrew
The Rhenish Beakers cluster with German Corded Ware in practically all of the PCA dimensions, and it doesn't appear to me that they have any recent admixture. On the other hand, it's clear that the Hungarian Beakers are a very heterogeneous population, and they look like a mixture between the Rhenish Beakers and various groups from the Carpathian Basin, including Yamnaya.
Rhenish Beakers vs Hungarian Beakers
So the two main dimensions usually tell most of the story, and the rest of the story can be discerned from the other dimensions.
Indeed, if you were to have your children analyzed withe the Global25 PCA test, they'd get bad fits as Uyghurs, because the algorithm would pick up that there's something off in many of the dimensions. They'd get much better fits as two-way mixtures between Korean and English.
@Lee Albee
Your theory about R1b sounds convoluted, considering that R1b is recorded at such high frequencies in Eastern European hunter-gatherers with no farmer ancestry, while all early European farmers had hunter-gatherer ancestry.
So it's clear that R1b was introduced into early European farming populations via hunter-gatherer admixture. But R1b-M269 has a somewhat different story, because its spread into Western Europe is linked to the population movements from the steppe during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age.
@Diego
There's no Y-hg Q in any Yamnaya samples. There probably will be, but not yet.
So far, Yamnaya is all R1b (which is almost all Z2103) plus a singleton I2a2a.
@All
Here's a very tight (but not overfitted) model of the Rhenish Beakers using the Global25 (ie. 25 PC dimensions).
[1] "distance%=1.3104"
Beaker_The_Netherlands
CWC_Germany,88.2
France_MLN,9.8
Blatterhole_HG,2
@EastPole
Natalia Shishlina “Movements across the Bronze Age steppes: seasonal migrations and subsistence system”
https://youtu.be/L0aFqzKTBp8?t=113
Some interesting comments about Maykop in that one starting at around 9:35 minutes into the clip.
Quote: But this (Maykop) colonization (of the steppe) was not a success. People returned back and they only settled in a small area near the Delta of the Don River.
Kristiansen,
https://postimg.cc/MMmjDSPz"
""...our new models echo Maria Gimbutas dramatic scenario of the downfall of a Neolithic matrilineal Old Europe due to migrating warlike patrilineal Indo Europeans""
From, the little I've read, Globular Amphora looks "male-centered & violent" (hate that description) just like Kurgan cultures. Globular were the main farmer group conquered by IEs (Corded Ware).
Maybe, Beaker folk were a lot more violent & oppressive than Atlantic Neolithic but overall Gimbutas's narrative isn't looking right.
Wasn’t GAC so Kurgan-influenced Gimbutas thought it was steppe-derived?
Well there isn’t much if any steppe in GAC
There are non-steppe kurgans in eneolithic Hungary
There are the nonsteppe Remedello warriors
So the common denominator doesn’t seem to be the steppe per se - but they obviously were particularly mobile and successful Branches of a larger process
The difference between Corded Ware and GAC is that Corded Ware kept expanding, and even as it disintegrated and disappeared, its offshoot cultures were making a huge impact in many parts of Europe and Asia. That's why it has always been a strong candidate for a very early Indo-European culture.
And if it turns out that both R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 came from Corded Ware, which I think is now a good bet, then this argument will be very difficult to take apart indeed.
On the other hand, GAC didn't really leave any such legacy, and thus can't be linked to the Indo-European expansions. It certainly can't be thought of as the predecessor of Unetice, which formed on the basis of a population with heavy steppe ancestry, similar in fact to that of Corded Ware.
GAC may have been more advanced in many ways than Corded Ware, and maybe Corded Ware even borrowed a lot from it and TRB, but obviously there's a good reason why present-day Eastern, Northern and Central Europeans are overall genetically more similar to the Corded Ware and related peoples than to the GAC and TRB populations.
@Dragos,
"Cwc settled in pockets of Northern Europe- not everywhere."
Um well that changes everything. I2a2a-M223 lineages around today derive from GAC.
Davidski
I did not say GAC was IE, nor more advanced, (CWC & BB were quite sophisticated, and interestingly didn’t practice human sacrifice like the supposedly peaceful farmers did).
Aside from Western Europe (where GAC never reached), GAC haplogroups would be even more frequent was it not for the collapse of Germanic Europe c 400 AD. The Slavic migrations brought new lineages to Central Europe (R1a and different type of I2a- as I’m sure you’re aware).
I4062, not in G25, is oldest insteance of Steppe admixture in Spain. He lived near Madrid.
2566–2345 calBCE (3950±26 BP, MAMS-25936)
Not any younger than oldest Beaker Netherlands guy.
Oostwoud- I5748/skeleton 575-M22: 2579–2284 calBCE
Steppe admixed, R1b P312 penetrated all of western-central Europe by 2400 BC? Of course, coexisted with other people.
@Dragos,
Why you say there is only one Beaker culture? I read through supplements. Most Iberia Beaker with Steppe-admix have 'North Beaker' burials & burial goods. One clusters with 'North Beaker' (not in G25 PCA), had R1b, & had a Tumili burial. This rules out idea, Steppe admix arrived with European trade contacts. They migrated into Iberia.
@ Davidski- "And if it turns out that both R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 came from Corded Ware, which I think is now a good bet, then this argument will be very difficult to take apart indeed"
Of course, this is much more reasonable than bringing these haplogroups from the steppes. In addition, the territory of the CW includes the Baltic countries where there was R1b-P297 in abundance.
Corded Ware encompassed most of continental northern Europe from the Rhine on the west to the Volga in the east, including most of modern-day Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Czech Republic, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, Switzerland, northwestern Romania, northern Ukraine, and the European part of Russia, as well as coastal Norway and the southern portions of Sweden and Finland
Sorry Q1a2 -Maykop not Yamnaya.
Lemercier- "Thus, the Bell Beaker phenomenon, with Maritime beakers and a specific set of weapons and ornaments, could result from the combination of an ideology of eastern origin linked to status (warrior) and social practices (banquet) which formed a region of advanced civilization in the western Iberian Peninsula. Among a variety of adaptations or reactions, the Bell Beaker phenomenon would correspond to the adoption of certain elements of an ideology of distant origin by certain groups or individuals. These elements, largely integrated thereafter, lead to a profound transformation of material cultures and practices of cultural groups, culminating in the appearance of a kind of Bell Beaker civilization of continental scale"
I think it can not be explained better.
Let's see what happens with the papers that have to publish (Olalde, Stockhammer and Bronze Age in France)
"The DNA analysis enables us to understand family relations within the burial sites as well as the transformation of the genomic patterns from the Corded Ware to the Bell Beaker Complex and further on to the Early Bronze Age. In the end, we are able to present a new narrative for the genesis as well as the end of the Bell Beaker Complex at least for the Lech Valley south of Augsburg".
These are the R1b L51* guys from Cspel Island. They are a Yamnaya/SE European farmer mix. But this is not what purest Beaker R1b P312+ are at all.
1.9189"
Hungary_BA:I7041 I7043 (brothers)
Yamnaya_Samara,29.3
Varna,29.2
Beaker_Northern_Italy_no_steppe,16.3
Baden_LCA,11.1
Czech_EBA:I7197_o1,8.7
Remedello_BA,2.7
Czech_MN,1.5
CWC_Germany:I0049,0.8
Ireland_MN,0.4
Beaker_The_Netherlandsavg_nooutliers,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7271,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I7205,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I1381,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I4132,0
Beaker_Central_Europe:I3601,0
Yeah, that R1b-L51* in the proto-Nagyrev siblings probably has more to do with western Yamnaya than any Bell Beakers, but...this is from the Olalde et al. supp info page 135.
There is an interaction between the assimilating Bell Beaker and early Nagyrév cultures marking the beginning of the period. The process came to an end at the end of the early Nagyrév culture. The assemblages of the settlement and cemetery in Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor prove that the infiltration of the Bell Beaker Complex is a reality at the end of the EBA l/a (end of the Makó phase), and it must have preceded the development of the Nagyrév culture in the area nearby Budapest. People of the Bell Beaker Complex merged into the local inhabitants gradually.
@ Samuel Andrews
You are right. This is the list of "steppe Iberians BBs"-Olalde-2.018
Arroyal-I0462-Female- Mit-K1a+195 (2.456 BC)
Humanejos-I6539- Haplogroup Y- R1b-P312 Mit-T2b3+151 (2.325 BC)
Arroyal-I0461-Female Mit-K1a1/b1 (2.274 BC)
Magdalena-I6472-Haplogroup Y-R1b-U152-L2 Mit-HV0b (2.250 BC)
Magdalena I6471-Haplogroup Y- CT (surely P312). Mit-U5b1/c1 (2.250 BC)
Humanejos-I6588-Haplogroup Y-R1b-L151/P311 Mit-U5b2/b3 (2.250 BC)
Virgazal-I5665- Haplogroup Y- R1b-P312 Mit- K1a24/a (2.133 BC)
Yeseras-I6623- Female Mit- U5b1/f1a (1.849 BC)
According to Reich and Olalde in the paper that have to publish, the steppe ancestry came into Spain "Beginning 2,500 BC", then there are previous cases to which you mention.
The funny thing is that the mitochondrial haplogroups of those samples are all Iberian, that is to say they are documented in Spain from at least the Neolithic, ergo, that steppe ancestry could only enter via male, ergo P312 had to enter Iberia before 2,500 BC.
Or it may be that Reich is wrong and women also entered (which on the other hand is what I believe).
There are Iberian mitochondrial haplogroups not published in international scientific journals that document the entry of H7d related to the Baalberge culture and other German Neolithic cultures. It may be that steppe ancestry entered earlier.
Post a Comment