World Families Forums - New Bell Beaker papers

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 24, 2014, 10:45:24 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  New Bell Beaker papers
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8 Go Down Print
Author Topic: New Bell Beaker papers  (Read 12328 times)
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #50 on: April 09, 2012, 03:22:21 PM »

Thanks for the papers Jean, they are very interesting. Maybe it's just me, but the tone of the BB migration proponents still seems to call for an important but not-so-drastic population augmentation/replacement, even in light of the isotope data. If L11 and subclades are to be the smoking gun for BB, then the Y-DNA frequency shift would have been drastic indeed.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 03:32:29 PM by Richard Rocca » Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #51 on: April 09, 2012, 04:37:25 PM »

The isotope technique has been a real breakthrough in directly showing any long-distance mobility within an individual's lifetime. The limitation is that it will only show first generation migrants. The Amesbury Archer was an immigrant to Britain from the Alps, but his "companion" in a nearby grave was aged 25-30 and had been raised in southern Britain. The only way that the archaeologists could tell that they were related was by the unusual bone structure in their feet. Sheer good luck!  

In cases where only a small percentage of people in a cemetery can be proven to be immigrants, and the rest were brought up locally, naturally there is more than one possible interpretation. Anti-migrationists leap upon such data as "proof" that immigration was limited, when it is perfectly possible that the "local" burials (if they follow the known immigrants in date) are later generations.

There really is no substitute for aDNA.  
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 05:32:41 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #52 on: April 09, 2012, 05:18:15 PM »

The isotope technique has been a real breakthrough in directly showing any long-distance mobility within an individual's lifetime. The limitation of it is that it will only show first generation migrants. The Amesbury Archer was an immigrant to Britain from the Alps, but his "companion" in a nearby grave was aged 25-30 and had been raised in southern Britain. The only way that the archaeologists could tell that they were related was by the unusual bone structure in their feet. Sheer good luck!  

In cases where only a small percentage of people in a cemetery can be proven to be immigrants, and the rest were brought up locally, naturally there is more than one possible interpretation. Anti-migrationists leap upon such data as "proof" that immigration was limited, when it is perfectly possible that the "local" burials (if they follow the known immigrants in date) are later generations.

There really is no substitute for aDNA.  

Jean - any idea why no yDNA extraction from beaker burials has been done to date given what a hot potato issue it is?
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #53 on: April 09, 2012, 05:22:43 PM »

I collared Jackie McKinley, Osteoarchaeologist for Wessex Archaeology, at a conference and asked just that. She said that the cost of aDNA testing was prohibitive. Wessex is waiting for the price to drop.

Andrew Fitzpatrick of Wessex has given that as the reason for not testing the Amesbury Archer, along with the fact that there is no database for comparisons. I told him I was maintaining an online table of aDNA and he assumed it would be minute. He was surprised to learn of its size.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 05:45:55 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #54 on: April 09, 2012, 06:11:05 PM »

I collared Jackie McKinley, Osteoarchaeologist for Wessex Archaeology, at a conference and asked just that. She said that the cost of aDNA testing was prohibitive. Wessex is waiting for the price to drop.

Andrew Fitzpatrick of Wessex has given that as the reason for not testing the Amesbury Archer, along with the fact that there is no database for comparisons. I told him I was maintaining an online table of aDNA and he assumed it would be minute. He was surprised to learn of its size.

Someone should set up a sponser and ancient DNA test account for the Amesbury archer. 
Logged
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #55 on: April 10, 2012, 07:49:56 AM »

I am surprised a company like FTDNA hasn't involved itself with adna.

They seem to like to sensationalize dna tests like the Warrior gene, and Niall of the hostages.

I believe an amesbury archer test would fetch a lot of $$

At least we have the Archer's bones. That is more than can be said for the Niall thing.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 07:51:27 AM by OConnor » Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #56 on: April 10, 2012, 09:04:22 AM »

The isotope technique has been a real breakthrough in directly showing any long-distance mobility within an individual's lifetime. The limitation is that it will only show first generation migrants. The Amesbury Archer was an immigrant to Britain from the Alps, but his "companion" in a nearby grave was aged 25-30 and had been raised in southern Britain. The only way that the archaeologists could tell that they were related was by the unusual bone structure in their feet. Sheer good luck!  

In cases where only a small percentage of people in a cemetery can be proven to be immigrants, and the rest were brought up locally, naturally there is more than one possible interpretation. Anti-migrationists leap upon such data as "proof" that immigration was limited, when it is perfectly possible that the "local" burials (if they follow the known immigrants in date) are later generations.

There really is no substitute for aDNA.  

Precisely, and for all those reasons, I think they should go a step further and claim a drastic influx of immigrants into all areas of Western Europe.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #57 on: April 10, 2012, 09:45:20 AM »

Precisely, and for all those reasons, I think they should go a step further and claim a drastic influx of immigrants into all areas of Western Europe.

The genetic evidence is the key here. Because I'm factoring that in, I can talk in terms of a massive impact in the long term from the Bronze Age movements. The impact varied in significant ways. It was highest in areas where the Neolithic population had fallen in the Late Neolithic. If we picture small groups entering a sparsely-populated landscape, then the incomers would have plenty of growing space and could gradually out-breed the Neolithic farmers.

The paper by Marc Vander Linden talks of the potential of plough agriculture to support an increase in population. The plough arrived with these Copper/Bronze Age incomers. He sagely points out that once the population had risen to level the land could support, there would be less scope for migration. So the Pan-European Bell Beaker Phenomenon would fragment into regional blocks. The Bronze Age is the last time that we see a culturally united Europe (in broad terms), and therefore the most likely time for a new language to spread across Europe, which later split/developed into local languages.     
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #58 on: April 10, 2012, 09:52:40 AM »

Kristian Kristiansen, The Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages: an archaeological model (2012) talks in terms of language expansion through a mixture of migrations and social incorporation. He presents a model of the spread of IE that I don't entirely agree with. But it is certainly of interest and I will scan it.
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #59 on: April 10, 2012, 10:19:14 AM »

Precisely, and for all those reasons, I think they should go a step further and claim a drastic influx of immigrants into all areas of Western Europe.

You are young, Rich, but many years ago, on Rootsweb, before I was banned by Mr Bullock (in Italian we’d say “torello”), I was saying that the inhabitants of the Isles came from Italy, and this probably disliked many of them. Of course I had, and much more I have now, “proofs” (Genetic, Linguistic, Historic ones). Now we know that R1b1* till R-L51* was born and formed above all in Italy, and for not saying the G of Oetzi or the G-L497 etc. Of course I haven’t at my disposal labs and other, but I have tested myself and some relatives of mine:

the R1b1a2*/DYS462=12 of Fabrizio Federighi
the R1b1a2a1/L23 of Giorgio Tognarelli matches persons from Italy to the Isles
my R1b1a2a1/L23 is rarer, but matches many persons in Switzerland-South Germany

my mt K1a1b1e (now) is overwhelming Italian
the K1c1f of my wife from Sicily matches persons from Central Europe till Scandinavia
the H41a (now) of my father is the same of the Hutterites tested by Irene Pichler
Giorgio Tognarelli is H6a1

I could speak of the infinite haplotypes I have studied, but the most sensational one is the U7 I have spoken in another thread, found in  Finland but with some links with Italy, if only they were tested by an FGS. It lacks 5 mutations in the coding region, thought eventually back mutations by Behar et al. if it weren’t out of any rule. If it had been found in India or Iran where they thought it must be born, they have spoken of an ancestor of U7, an ur-U7, but, as it is European, the same Behar et al. haven’t batted an eyelid.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #60 on: April 10, 2012, 11:14:32 AM »

OK - Kristiansen 2012 is in. That's the lot I think.
Logged
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #61 on: April 10, 2012, 02:07:59 PM »

The isotope technique has been a real breakthrough in directly showing any long-distance mobility within an individual's lifetime. The limitation is that it will only show first generation migrants. The Amesbury Archer was an immigrant to Britain from the Alps, but his "companion" in a nearby grave was aged 25-30 and had been raised in southern Britain. The only way that the archaeologists could tell that they were related was by the unusual bone structure in their feet. Sheer good luck!  

In cases where only a small percentage of people in a cemetery can be proven to be immigrants, and the rest were brought up locally, naturally there is more than one possible interpretation. Anti-migrationists leap upon such data as "proof" that immigration was limited, when it is perfectly possible that the "local" burials (if they follow the known immigrants in date) are later generations.

There really is no substitute for aDNA.  

I remember reading about the Archer and the Alps. But the "Blue-Green" area associated with him seems to run up through Scandinavia if you look at the map.
Unless I'm missing something?

http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/tests/oxygen_isotope.html

"Oxygen isotope analysis of dental enamel from the two burials at Amesbury indicate that the “Archer” came from a colder climate region than we find in Britain today, possibly from some where in central Europe - the dark blue-green area in the oxygen isotope map.

An early formed tooth from the younger man has an oxygen isotope value that is compatible with living in southern England or Ireland but the value obtained from his wisdom tooth suggest that he may have spent his late teens in the Midlands (yellow area on the map) or north-east Scotland (mid green area on the map). However these results for the younger man do not rule out a European origin."
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #62 on: April 10, 2012, 02:58:32 PM »

As I understand it Andrew Fitzpatrick has added together a number of clues, including the sources of the objects in the grave of the Archer, to point to the Alps as the probable place of origin. I don't have his book: The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen - Bell Beaker burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire, but I think I have an article somewhere... . Yes - here's the gen:

Quote
Oxygen isotope analysis of the enamel of one of his molar teeth has demonstrated that as a child the Archer lived in a colder climate than that of Britain today, in central Europe or Scandinavia. The area may be refined by strontium isotope analysis of the tooth enamel. This excludes the northern tracts of the distribution, while archaeological evidence, assuming that the Archer came from a cultural milieu that was using Bell Beaker materials (cf Czebreszuk and Kryvaltsevich 2003; Nicolis 2001), points to an origin towards the Alpine region ..

from  Andrew Fitzpatrick, In his hands and in his head, The Amesbury Archer as a metalworker, in Peter Clark (ed.), Bronze Age Connections: Cultural contact  in prehistoric Europe (2009), pp. 176-188.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 03:07:59 PM by Jean M » Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #63 on: April 10, 2012, 03:26:45 PM »

I am surprised a company like FTDNA hasn't involved itself with adna.

They seem to like to sensationalize dna tests like the Warrior gene, and Niall of the hostages.

I believe an amesbury archer test would fetch a lot of $$

At least we have the Archer's bones. That is more than can be said for the Niall thing.

European churches and museums are full of relics (bones) from famous people with well documented lives and tribal affiliations. For example the bones of Charlemagne's, King of the Franks from 768 and Holy Roman Emperor from 800 to his death in 814, are preserved in a golden casket in the Treasury of Aachen Cathedral and he has one of the most extensive European genealogies. The challange is testing him for DNA as he does not get out often.

"In 1861, Charlemagne's tomb was opened by scientists who reconstructed his skeleton and estimated it to be measured 74.9 in (190 cm). An estimate of his height from an X-ray and CT Scan of his tibia performed in 2010 is 1.84 m (72 in). This puts him in the 99th percentile of tall people of his period, given that average male height of his time was 1.69 m (67 in)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/germany/aachen-cathedral

As for Niall, according to estimates 2-3 million living people are direct decendants.

http://www.familytreedna.com/landing/matching-niall.aspx

« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 03:29:08 PM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Arwunbee
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #64 on: April 10, 2012, 07:36:46 PM »

As I understand it Andrew Fitzpatrick has added together a number of clues, including the sources of the objects in the grave of the Archer, to point to the Alps as the probable place of origin.
Trying to follow, if I'm buried with my iPhone, does that object point to my place of birth?
Logged

Map of L44 subclade (of U106): http://g.co/maps/9xswy
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #65 on: April 10, 2012, 07:55:50 PM »

Trying to follow, if I'm buried with my iPhone, does that object point to my place of birth?

I expect so, if the police find out to whom it is registered and then do a thorough check on you.

... But seriously, I quoted from the article by Andrew Fitzpatrick that explained that one isotope result was refined by another which cut out the more northern region and so honed in on the Alpine region. The objects in his grave were Bell Beaker, indicating that he came of that culture and furthermore that he was with companions familiar with that culture, who understood the Bell Beaker burial ritual. (In other words these were not goods traded into a different culture.) That certainly isn't enough to pinpoint a particular Bell Beaker settlement in or near the Alps. There are too many to choose from. But it is not bad.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 12:06:47 PM by Jean M » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #66 on: April 12, 2012, 08:14:41 AM »

Southern France is just part of the overall picture and not an important one in Phase One. It had no copper.

Golly - am I wrong, wrong, wrong. See Marie Laroche, The copper metallurgy in the third millennium BC in La Capitelle du Broum (Péret, Hérault, south of France) (paper read 2011)
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #67 on: April 12, 2012, 08:59:34 AM »

I have re-read the Harrison and Heyd paper.  Its fascinating but a great deal is explained in terms of the reaction of the natives by domino effect to the ideology of the geographically limited impact of Yamanaya in eastern Europe, albeit allowing for the migration of influential individuals.  It does tends to look at the beaker cultures this way and the changes of social ideas etc rather than in a truly migratory model (except on a more local scale between beaker groups).  Its a very interesting read but anyone looking for a nice model of beaker folk with a pottery trail from A to B leading from the Yamnaya area will not find that.  I actually think the paper feels pretty close to the truth but in terms of migration as an important factor in the genesis of beaker it feels to me like it is as easy to see the paper playing that down as emphasising it.  The conclusions feel right to me and the idea of a secondary phase when the true beaker package emerges to th east of Iberia a couple of centuries after the proto-package origin does make sense but I did not feel after reading it that I had much new ammunition about migration or how it might tie in with R1b etc. Kind of like Anthony imagines for Corded Ware, this paper emphasises existing cultures being influenced into change by a spread of ideas.  IMO the attempt to resolve how R1b moved from its eastern homelands to dominate Europe through the beaker model remains largely a mystery and if the beaker model for R1b is correct then only ancient DNA is going to throw light on it.  The closest I can come to making any sense of the spread of R1b through a beaker model is if R1b was a factor in the secondary take off point of the full beaker package somewhere in central Europe and spread from there but it still remains to explain how and from where and in which cultural guise it arrive in this hypothetical location.  Interesting paper but no smoking gun for R1b IMO.   
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #68 on: April 12, 2012, 09:18:33 AM »

.. Interesting paper but no smoking gun for R1b IMO. 
I don't think we can expect these archeologists to go out on a limb on paternal lineages. That is all we are talking here when we talk about R1b. I think there is some of the "anti-migrationist" influences that make these guys cautious but they should be because they aren't even looking at genetic data, be it in ancient or modern DNA.
In the case of paternal lineages, we may see (and apparently do), that whole populations do not just "turn over" into something new. It's a merger of peoples.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #69 on: April 12, 2012, 09:48:46 AM »

.. Interesting paper but no smoking gun for R1b IMO.
I don't think we can expect these archeologists to go out on a limb on paternal lineages. That is all we are talking here when we talk about R1b. I think there is some of the "anti-migrationist" influences that make these guys cautious but they should be because they aren't even looking at genetic data, be it in ancient or modern DNA.
In the case of paternal lineages, we may see (and apparently do), that whole populations do not just "turn over" into something new. It's a merger of peoples.

True but where there is no straight forward A to B movement that can be inferred and its more about morphing of cultures into something new that is neither very similar the old local culture or very similar to an external one then it entirely a matter of opinion what the human vector was.  In the case of beaker and other later Neolithic and copper age cultures the archaeology is picking up broad brush changes involving new ideas spreading and transforming rather than really picking up migrants or providing any real way of assessing migration.  Sadly old style archaeology cant really conclude on the nature and degree of human movement other than where A to B migration seems certain (such as initial settlement of empty lands by hunters and spread of farmers and other later more clear-cut cases of sudden radical change) and its really only ancient DNA that is going to help out on these subtler more complex periods of change like the beaker phase.  Of course there has to be some human element but the nature of it is hard to define.  In the case of beakers and corded ware we may suspect strongly the origin point of new ideas was coming from the Yamnaya area in the late Neolithic/copper age but its not (especially for beaker) a simple trail of cultures.  Indeed, its probably fair to say that we should not expect a simple trail after Europe was settled by farmers.  Once that was the case, all other additions (short of some epic scorched earth wipeout conquest which clearly doesnt generally happen) are going to lead to a complex slow morphing of existing and new elements creating a resulting culture that is something new and constantly changing.  I think once the Mesolithic and then the first farmers models began to seem less likely then the possibility of archaeology solving the issue of lineage dispersal has diminished hugely, simply because new elements filtering into a well established settled world in small numbers are going to be incredibly hard to spot 1st generation using simple old fashioned archaeological inference.  So its going to be the hard science that will resolve this if we are looking at late Neolithic and later.  More widespread extraction of ancient yDNA is probably the only way forward as I think the inference based social science of traditional archaeology cant resolve the subtler human migratory patterns involved in creating of new cultures like beaker and corded ware that are a third entity either to the receiving or donating cultures. So its going to be over to the folks in the lab coats on this one I think.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 09:51:08 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #70 on: April 12, 2012, 10:04:38 AM »

The isotope technique has been a real breakthrough in directly showing any long-distance mobility within an individual's lifetime. The limitation is that it will only show first generation migrants. The Amesbury Archer was an immigrant to Britain from the Alps, but his "companion" in a nearby grave was aged 25-30 and had been raised in southern Britain. The only way that the archaeologists could tell that they were related was by the unusual bone structure in their feet. Sheer good luck!  

In cases where only a small percentage of people in a cemetery can be proven to be immigrants, and the rest were brought up locally, naturally there is more than one possible interpretation. Anti-migrationists leap upon such data as "proof" that immigration was limited, when it is perfectly possible that the "local" burials (if they follow the known immigrants in date) are later generations.

There really is no substitute for aDNA.  

Precisely, and for all those reasons, I think they should go a step further and claim a drastic influx of immigrants into all areas of Western Europe.


At what date would someone put that influx?
Logged

LDJ
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #71 on: April 12, 2012, 10:57:18 AM »

I have re-read the Harrison and Heyd paper. ..   It does tends to look at the beaker cultures .. and the changes of social ideas etc rather than in a truly migratory model  

Naturally enough. Harrison was one of the seminal figures in attacking the old Bell Beaker Folk idea and applying the then fashionable anti-migrationist approach to Bell Beaker. He can't help but be aware that some of his younger colleagues in the field are swinging back to a migratory model, but it would be a surprise if he rushed to do that. (He is now retired by the way.)

The importance of this article was not in proposing a migratory model, but in showing the archaeological link between Yamnaya and Bell Beaker - the passing on of a Yamnaya package to Bell Beaker and the evidence that Bell Beaker using people continued to revere the Yamnaya-origin ancestors at Sion (suggesting that they were actually related). I fitted this into my migratory model. That was my addition to the story, based on the genetic evidence.  
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 11:46:29 AM by Jean M » Logged
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #72 on: April 12, 2012, 11:23:23 AM »

Going back a bit O'Connor you were at New Grange/Knowth did you not notice Slane Castle
Standing out, I did and couldn't help thinking there must have been something contemporary with  New Grange and Knowth perhaps forming something like the Stonehenge processional way. If there was it would add to the continuity of the isles at the time and carry through till later?     
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #73 on: April 12, 2012, 11:56:05 AM »

More papers coming up. At long last a volume I have been awaiting has a publication date: 9 June 2012:

Michael J. Allen, Julie Gardiner and Alison Sheridan (eds.), Is There a British Chalcolithic? volume of research papers from the Prehistoric Society Price £39.95 (pre-publication price £29.95).

Quote
This volume brings together many leading authorities in 20 papers that address the question ‘Is there a British Chalcolithic?’ (c. 2450/2400–2200/2150 BC). This question was posed at a conference of the Prehistoric Society held in April 2009 and the volume contains a selection of key papers presented on that occasion, together with a number of commissioned additional contributions. The volume does not present a consensus view; rather, it has provided contributors with the opportunity to examine in depth a range of materials, issues, and themes, and to show just how much new information (particularly chronological and isotopic) has come to light in the last decade. The diversity of views expressed in these papers as to whether we should adopt a ‘new’ period classification for British Prehistory – i.e. the Chalcolithic or Copper Age – reflects the lively debate that surrounded this question during the conference. ....


Contents:

DEFINITIONS, ISSUES and DEBATE
1. Case and Place for the British Chalcolithic By STUART NEEDHAM
2. Drawing Boundaries and Building Models: investigating the concept of the ‘Chalcolithic frontier’ in northwest Europe By BENJAMIN W. ROBERTS and CATHERINE FRIEMAN
3. A Rumsfeld Reality Check: what we know, what we don’t know and what we don’t know we don’t know about the Chalcolithic in Britain and Ireland By ALISON SHERIDAN
4. Before 29Cu became copper: tracing the recognition and invention of metalleity in Britain and Ireland during the third millennium BC By PETER BRAY

CONTINENTAL PERSPECTIVES
5. The importance of being insular: Britain and Ireland in their North-West uropean context during the 3rd millennium BC By MARC VANDER LINDEN
6. Sense and non-sense of the term ‘Chalcolithic’ By MARTIN BARTELHEIM and RAIKO KRAUSS
7. Growth and expansion; social, economic and ideological structures in the European Chalcolithic By VOLKER HEYD
8. Dutchmen on the Move? A discussion of the adoption of the Beaker package By HARRY FOKKENS
9. Working copper in the Chalcolithic; a long term perspective on the development of metallurgical knowledge in Central Europe and the Carpathian Basin By TOBIAS KIENLIN

AROUND BRITAIN & IRELAND
10. Chronology, corpses, copper and lithics By FRANCES HEALY
11. Is there a Scottish Chalcolithic? By IAN SHEPHERD† (completed by Alison Sheridan and Lekky)
12. A date with the Chalcolithic in Wales; a review of radiocarbon determinations for the period 2450- 2100 BC

By STEVE BURROW
13. Searching for the Chalcolithic: continuity and change in the Irish Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age By NEIL CARLIN and JOANNA BRÜCK
14. The Chalcolithic in Ireland; a chronological and cultural framework By WILLIAM O’BRIEN

PEOPLE
15. The Beaker People Project: an interim report on the progress of the isotopic analysis of the organic skeletal material. By MANDY JAY, MIKE PARKER PEARSON, MIKE RICHARDS, OLAF NEHLICH, JANET MONTGOMERY, ANDREW CHAMBERLAIN, and ALISON SHERIDAN
16. The Regionality of Beakers and Bodies in the Chalcolithic of North-East Scotland By NEIL CURTIS and NEIL WILKIN
17. Stepping out together: men, women and their Beakers in time and space By ALEXANDRA SHEPHERD ECONOMY, LANDSCAPES and MONUMENTS
18. Beaker land-use, animals and economy – a chronological changing point? By MICHAEL J. ALLEN and MARK MALTBY
19. The present dead: the making of past and future landscapes in the British 'Chalcolithic’ By PAUL GARWOOD
20. The Revenge of the Native: monuments, material culture and burial and other practices in the third quarter of the 3rd millennium BC in Wessex by ROSAMUND CLEAL and JOSHUA POLLARD

Details and order form.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 12:07:09 PM by Jean M » Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #74 on: April 12, 2012, 12:13:24 PM »

I think the genetics component is having a salutary effect on the discussion of what was probably going on... if only (or primarily) on the forums, so far.  Just look at the last couple of posts by Mike and Alan, on this thread -- and compare that with previous theories advanced, with more or less confidence, about Ice Age refugia, repopulation from the west of an empty Europe, conquest by metal-wielding hordes, founder effects of elites and whatnot.  I guess some of that might even have happened; but it's looking more as if some R1b guys came into western and northern Europe, quite a long time ago, and got along well with the local girls.  So there has been gradual and partial replacement, or at least augmentation (with high success), mainly of the paternal lineages.  One would think that mass migrations, as such, should have replaced the maternal ones at a fairly similar rate.

If I still had to think like an anthropologist, I might suggest looking at the Stelae People's stelae (among other sites) as places for long distance trade, maybe under the protection of some godlike, scary-powerful figure... be he dead or alive.  (I've been trying for about 35 years not to think that way, but it's hard to forget every class I ever sat in.)  Anyway, there wouldn't have been much trade, if the traders were usually killed and eaten; and there would be a lot more artifacts, if they typically traveled in armed hordes to prevent that.  So the Bell Beaker travel insurance plan (among others) probably involved religion, rather broadly defined.  Mana, the supernatural, the Wholly Other, dragons -- whatever it took.

Jean M has recently mentioned (on the thread, "Where did Germanic languages expand from?") the trading-post nature of the Isle of Thanet.  Nordic and Iberian bones in the same burial, and that sort of thing.  As I dimly recall from Jean's blog about a Wessex Archaeology project (I think), it didn't sound much like a battleground.
Logged

R1b Z196*
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.13 seconds with 18 queries.