Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b

[alan]

^ If we are talking about explosive expansions of Y lineages from small clans to larger populations (as you suggested), then we can't exlcude the possibility that an L11, Proto-P312, guy came from Iberia to Central Europe without having any Steppe admixture, married a woman with a lot of Steppe admixture, and had several P312 sons with 50% Iberian 50% Steppe ancestry. Those sons then married women with a lot of Steppe ancestry, and had their own P312+ sons, who were 75% Steppe and 25% Iberian. With explosive expansions of Y-DNA lineages, autosomal DNA of carriers of these lineages can change within few generations.

Take a look for example at I1-M253.

The earliest carriers of pre-bottleneck I1 were Mesolithic WHG and SHG hunters.

Later Hungarian LBK was an I1 man, but with very Neolithic Farmer autosomal DNA.

Finally we have modern Scandinavians - also I1, but 40-50% "Steppic" autosomally.

Exactly the same thing could happen to P312, or in fact any other Y-DNA lineage.

in theory anything is possible but I just dont think anyone would look at the totality of the available ancient DNA evidence blind unbiased by pottery etc and even vaguely think of Iberia as a like origin of P312. They would look at L23-Z2103 in Yamnaya in the steppes is the only hard anchor point we have in the pre-3000BC L23 story. The most striking thing otherwise is the absence of L23 or indeed any M269 (or even P297) in non-steppe Europe until the beaker era despite an ever growing sample. The several Italians, French and Iberians from the immediate pre-beaker copper age provide not suggestion of the right form of R1b or steppe autosomal ancestry. I believe steppe ancestry only reached Iberia and Italy in the very late beaker era, 2-300 years after steppe genes had become linked to the beaker culture in central and northern Europe. However, this will not be proven one way of another till a decent sample of pre-2500BC Iberian beaker users are tested.

[alan]

But I am awaiting my R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack test results.

And it is probable that I'm some basal clade of L21 (see my "R1b subclade prediction" thread). So maybe I am the "missing link" in your "L11 from the Steppe" theory, and I will confirm that L11 is from Yamnaya? Maybe I'm descended from a disobedient Yamnaya warrior, who did not listen to his chieftain's order that all of L21 should go to Britain and none of them should stay in continental Europe.

And as we know Yamnaya were better at predicting SNPs than FTDNA. They segregated themselves according to subclades. "U106 go to the northern land where the ice prevails, P312(xL21) go to warm territories where 72 Basque virgins with nice Beaker pots full of alcohol await, and L21 - you the damned stock, you are doomed to stay where there is always rain, in cloudy British Isles far away".

Said the SNP-predicting Shaman of the Yamnaya culture...

the parting of the ways of the ancestors of U106 and P312 may well have happened when there was just 2 guys involved or at least two small families. So no SNP sorting skills would be needed :0) Most patterning is probably down to founder effects

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Ha, surely these founding events requires more than one-man or even one-family.

[Kopfjäger]

^^^ Come on, show me that L151 from Yamnaya or any other Steppe culture.

It is funny that you think that L21 in Bronze Age Ireland is a proof that Celtic was spoken there, or that Z2103 in Yamnaya is a proof that Celts had come from the Steppe, but when R1a-Z280 was found in Bronze Age East Germany - nobody declared it a proof that Slavs lived at the Elbe already in the Bronze Age.

Please be consistent with what you consider "sufficient evidence" in each case.

If R1a-Z280 at Halberstadt is not sufficient to declare Slavic presence in BA Germany, then certainly Z2103 or other L23(xL151) in Yamnaya is not sufficient to declare that L151 was present in Yamnaya.

Tomenable,

L21 in Britain is proof that Indo-European was spoken there during the Bronze Age, not necessarily Celtic. Get over it.

[Kopfjäger]

in theory anything is possible but I just dont think anyone would look at the totality of the available ancient DNA evidence blind unbiased by pottery etc and even vaguely think of Iberia as a like origin of P312.

Bias is the difference between science and pseudo-science, and is evident in Tomenable's posts on this forum, as well as in Klyosov's "Übermensch" R1a-ers. Too bad some "unfortunate" papers shut some traps.

[Tomenable]

They would look at L23-Z2103 in Yamnaya in the steppes is the only hard anchor point we have in the pre-3000BC L23 story. The most striking thing otherwise is the absence of L23 or indeed any M269 (or even P297) in non-steppe Europe until the beaker era despite an ever growing sample.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially since large swathes of Europe still remain unsampled or poorly sampled untill this day - including most of the Balkans, which is the right place from which R1b-M269 could expand both into the Steppe, Western Europe and Anatolia.

Bias is the difference between science and pseudo-science, and is evident in Tomenable's posts on this forum

Yeah, surely, everyone else is unbiased, only I am biased. OK, I'm sorry for preventing this forum from ceasing to be a discussion board and turning into a mutual admiration society.

[Tomenable]

L21 in Britain is proof that Indo-European was spoken there during the Bronze Age

Did you read what I wrote about Coon and his theory about Rhenish Beaker migration into Britain?

Clearly you didn't. And nobody has proven Coon to be wrong so far.

the parting of the ways of the ancestors of U106 and P312 may well have happened when there was just 2 guys involved or at least two small families.

But this is not "massive migration from the Steppe". Two small families is not really so massive.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially since large swathes of Europe still remain unsampled or poorly sampled untill this day - including most of the Balkans, which is the right place from which R1b-M269 could expand both into the Steppe, Western Europe and Anatolia.

My money is still on the steppe. The most western and "Balkan" possibility for M269 would be CT or Varna (& subsequent offshoots like Usatavo-Cotofeni); not classic Balkan farmers like Starcevo etc which be basically Anatolian

[Helgenes50]

But this is not "massive migration from the Steppe". Two small families is not really so massive.

That depends on the size of the family !!!

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Ben Roberts has said in paper after paper that he does not believe in the independent invention of metallury in Iberia. At least one Iberian archaeologist has continued in recent years to argue patriotically for an independent invention, but the case does not add up and has been demolished by Roberts. That leaves us with migration. Do you not agree?

Thanks for your reply Jean, i sort of agree, but I'd pick at some of the details of your reconstruction, and most of all, the region which you'd like to place it arriving from (see later).

We have to distinguish between the first appearance of (finished) Copper objects from when production actually began, and these stages might be different for different parts of Iberia. Iberia is a very metalo-genetic peninsula, and individual & sporadic working of fahlore isn't too shocking, especially in the light of exchange of finished products and individual mobility of craftsmen to inspire such. All accounts for this look to southeastern France, or Alpine Europe, and this appeared - as you correctly point out, by ~ 3100 BC.

There is a difference between northern Iberia & southern Iberia. For the north, Soriano concludes

1) There is no archaeological evidence of metallurgical production in these communities. The origin of the first gold and copper objects cannot be linked to the early metallurgy of the southeast of the Iberian Peninsula.
It is, without a doubt, to be found on the other side of the Pyrenees, in the south of France and western Switzerland.

2) There were virtually no socioeconomic repercussions resulting from the introduction of metal. The new objects fulfilled similar functions to those made with other materials and in no case did they come to replace them in any sphere of society. Likewise, there was no change in community social relations.

3) The knowledge of this new technology remained “captive” in its area of origin and the other communities were mere consumers with little or no knowledge of the metallurgical process. There may be several reasons for this, although the available data point to two possible hypotheses. The first indicates that the increase in hierarchisation and conflict between the communities of the south of France, attested by a large amount of human remains showing
evidence of violent death, may have restricted knowledge of metallurgy to the neighbouring groups, thus monopolising the new technology (Guilaine & Zammit 2002: 160). The second proposes that the communities themselves would not necessarily have shown any great interest in this production. They would have been content with occasionally receiving the finished products in a similar way to other artefacts, such as the “large flint blades” or globular-winged beads.

4) Only with the emergence of the Bell Beaker phenomenon (c. 2800 cal BC) do we see the first metal production using the smelting crucible technique. It is only then that the great leap forward from a simple object of curiosity to a material with known properties was taken.

The earliest metallurgy in the north-eastern Iberian Peninsula: origin, use and socioeconomic implications

It is different in southern Iberia, eg Zambujal, where Copper Metallurgy occurred from the get-go of establishing the walled settlement - as you pointed out. (eg Zambujal and the beginnings of metallurgy in southern Portugal. Pernicka et al.)

Yes I think that they came from Yamnaya, but via northern Italy/Alps. This is what I have been saying in print for years.

I am sceptical of this explanation. The material culture in late Chalcolithic Iberian Copper-enclosures has nothing to do with Yamnaya. Ditched enclosures, macro-villages, megaliths, hypogea, tholos tombs, ivory exotica, a palaeo-zoological profile characterised by hunting wild deer, a lithic industry continuous with the preceding Neolithic, etc, etc; are features which are wholly unknown the steppe. In fact, we're looking at polar opposites.

Further, lets remember that these south Iberian copper sites appear from 3200 BC. Yamnaya had barely begun to emerge in 3200 BC, and only really began to expand into Hungary after 2900 BC.
So how do you suggest they managed to teleport to southern Iberia ? Its simply not possible. I don't buy at suggestions they all of a sudden acquired shipwrighting knowledge. All previous (Eneolithic) trade from Balkans to the steppe (eg the Khvalynsk copper) was mediated overland care of the Suvorovo trade-camp on the lower Danube. If you'd suggested some sophisticated Black Sea centres like Varna or Ilpinar (In NW Anatolia), then i'd consider it a possibility.

As the metal provenance studies suggest, I'd look to Alpine Europe. Cultures like Mondsee & Pfyn knew arsenical copper metallurgy. Movements within Late Neolithic Europe, as seen by subtle but diacernable increased affinities between certain Anatolian centres, Oetzi, & future Balkan aDNA, might be a clue to itinerant craftsmen & families.

Lastly, I don't think the "Stelae trail' is evidence, as the earliest Beaker period Stelae - type A- clearly echo toward the Rhone, not the steppe.

2200 BC is the point at which we see the new BB influx (or "reflux") from the east. This is not in the same area as El Argar. The two should be seen as separate events.

Yes 2 different phenomena were occurring in 2200 BC. 1) the first arrival of actual steppe-related admixture, mediated by late Beaker and even later Bronze Age groups.
2) the different, Argaric - Nuragic connection in south.

So i take the position that early Beaker Iberia (pre-2300 BC) will not have any significant steppe admixture. But if the aDNA proves you right, let me pre-emptively congratulate you on your finding.

The influx of BB from the east is in the region where we later find Celtiberian.

I doubt it's that simple. No sane linguist has ever suggested that Celtic is a Copper Age language (eg A Garrett places its formative period to 2nd Mill BC). In fact, we very well know it isn't - *proto-Celtic has shared terminology for iron and chariots (John Waddell - the Celticization of Ireland). Such items did not exist in 2400 BC, so whatever language(s) BB spoke, it would have been some pre-Celtic, western - IE at best.