Beaker Folk Finds: Skulls, Reconstructions, Artifacts, etc.

[rms2]

I'd beware of the "Iron Age Celts" stuff. That hearkens back to the old "true-Celts-were-Aryan-Supermen" idea that was popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I believe there have been a variety of anthropological types found among Celtic remains, including a variety of skull shapes. I don't think dolichocephaly was especially prominent among the Celts.

Remember, too, that dolichocephaly is a trait of Mediterranean physical types, as well as of Subsaharan Africans and Australian Aborigines. Long-headed Mediterranean types were prevalent in the Neolithic long barrows of the British Isles, as I recall.

Celts/Gauls had a mean cranial index that would make them mesocranic or intermediate.  See Coon's appendix.  They were a mix of types depending on the region.

Whatever caused Beakers to be predominantly brachycephalic from Spain to Poland, I don't think happened independently in each region.  It seems like a rapidly expanding population (think R1b)  from a common source region brought this type everywhere in a relatively short period of time.  Gimbutas thought this was the slightly earlier Vucedol culture in Croatia/Serbia/Hungary.  It is interesting that this is the same region where the 'Dinaric' features are observed today.  The R1b there is mostly L51- as well.

Are you sure that is the case? In one of the books I have, I think I remember reading that earlier BB skulls are dolichocephalic and later ones are brachycephalic, with the earlier ones associated with Iberian pottery and the latter ones with "Begleitkeramik" from Central Europe.

Coon himself mentions the "Spanish Bell Beaker problem", which he explains is the "paucity of brachycephals in Spain". He solves it both by saying it may be due to a paucity of BB remains in general and by positing a seaborne route into the western Mediterranean from the east:

The Spanish Bell Beaker problem now stands in a somewhat clearer light than before. The Dinaric type, with which the Rhenish Bell beakers are associated, is one which entered the western Mediterranean by sea from the east, and eventually moved, by some route yet to be determined in an accurate manner, to the north, and eventually to central Europe. The paucity of brachycephals in Spain may be due to the paucity of remains of this culture in general. It is still possible, one might add, that certain North African elements became involved in the Bell Beaker racial type, but such an accretion is unnecessary and hardly likely.

[rms2]

The whole idea that some of the beaker traits like pots moved out of Iberia but the full beaker package that then spread everywhere (along with 'beaker folk' developed to the east is not a new one.  It has existed in different forms for 100 years or more as 'beaker-battle axe', the beaker reflux model and other variants.  The new variant based on Sion etc is a further variant of the general idea that the real impact of beaker folk came from a secondary take off point in west-central Europe.  All the latest evidence IMO seems to support this sort of model. 

I am sure for everyone the burning question that leaves is whether R1b was associated with the initial spread from Iberia or was part of the secondary take off of beaker in west-central Europe.  For many the idea that R1b spread from Iberia in the first phase seems counter-intuitive given all we know about R1b.  Jean has provided a scenario where immediate pre-beaker Yamnaya trends in cultures could provide the scenario where R1b spread along the Alps and into the west.  My own opinion is that for the Yamnaya trends in pre-beaker times across Europe to be seen as a migration wave that was crucial in the establishing the Y DNA of Europe sets the bar of evidence rather lower than I am comfortable with but that doesnt mean its wrong.  A lot can happen and leave modest visibility.  Personally I would think the most likely option is that R1b was encorporated into beaker in its full developed stage c. 2600 in central Europe and may have not been present in the initial phase c. 3000-2600BC.  I suspect that R1b, IE and perhaps the distinct phenotype spread from central Europe in the secondary phase.  I realise some would say 'well how did R1b get to Iberia and predominate so much if it was not there in the beginning?'.  I personally dont see that as a problem.  Put it this way a standing start c. 2600BC for beaker and R1b in other parts of Europe did not prevent it becoming dominant in other areas so why not Iberia?   

Well, it is true that the only Beaker men for whom we have y-dna results were found not in Iberia but in Central Europe, and they were R1b (xU106).

I wish we had some anthropometric info on them. Were they brachycephals?

[MHammers]

Coon himself mentions the "Spanish Bell Beaker problem", which he explains is the "paucity of brachycephals in Spain". He solves it both by saying it may be due to a paucity of BB remains in general and by positing a seaborne route into the western Mediterranean from the east:

Coon had, I think 5 brachiocephalic samples.  Day who I cited above only had 12. 

I think it's safe to say most of the brachiocephalics arrived somewhat later than the 'proto-package' and early Beaker in Iberia was mainly composed of late neolithic people (Y Hgs. E, I-M26, G, etc.).  If we suppose that R1b comes from the east around this time, then any Iberian Beaker movements into France and Switzerland would not have carried much R1b.  However, they would have encountered R1b dominated sites the closer they got to the Rhone.

[Mikewww]

.... The socio-political shift at Sion about 2400 gives us one indication of a possible migration.

The whole idea that some of the beaker traits like pots moved out of Iberia but the full beaker package that then spread everywhere (along with 'beaker folk' developed to the east is not a new one.  It has existed in different forms for 100 years or more as 'beaker-battle axe', the beaker reflux model and other variants.  The new variant based on Sion etc is a further variant of the general idea that the real impact of beaker folk came from a secondary take off point in west-central Europe.  All the latest evidence IMO seems to support this sort of model.  

I am sure for everyone the burning question that leaves is whether R1b was associated with the initial spread from Iberia or was part of the secondary take off of beaker in west-central Europe.  For many the idea that R1b spread from Iberia in the first phase seems counter-intuitive given all we know about R1b.  Jean has provided a scenario where immediate pre-beaker Yamnaya trends in cultures could provide the scenario where R1b spread along the Alps and into the west.  My own opinion is that for the Yamnaya trends in pre-beaker times across Europe to be seen as a migration wave that was crucial in the establishing the Y DNA of Europe sets the bar of evidence rather lower than I am comfortable with but that doesnt mean its wrong.  A lot can happen and leave modest visibility.  Personally I would think the most likely option is that R1b was encorporated into beaker in its full developed stage c. 2600 in central Europe and may have not been present in the initial phase c. 3000-2600BC.  I suspect that R1b, IE and perhaps the distinct phenotype spread from central Europe in the secondary phase.  I realise some would say 'well how did R1b get to Iberia and predominate so much if it was not there in the beginning?'.  I personally dont see that as a problem.  Put it this way a standing start c. 2600BC for beaker and R1b in other parts of Europe did not prevent it becoming dominant in other areas so why not Iberia?    

I agree with you, Alan, in the answer to 'well how did R1b get to Iberia and predominate so much if it was not there in the beginning?'  This same question can be asked of R1b in Ireland/Scotland/Brittany and N.Italy. It is not a problem. It is the just the pooling of the strong wave of R1b folks, be they different subclades (L21 in the Isles, U152 in N. Italy, DF27 in Iberia, or U106 in N.Germany) These were rich destination points. If these folks were strong maritime people you might expect them to have done well on the Atlantic fringes anyway.

I am learning about the Yamnaya, Bell Beaker, Urnfield cultures, etc. The only true influence on my thinking is the genetic data. There are non-P312/non-U106 forms of R1b in Italy, far eastern Europe, SW Asia, etc. causing one to think about about many, many alternatives. I don't know what happened as far as the early R1b. I can't figure it out. I don't know how and when they got there.

However, the genetic data seems to point to a L11 (S127) types coming from the Alps or outside (north, east or west) of the Alps, but not from the Mediterranean and not from Iberia.

R1b may have been in Iberia, even some forms of R1b-L23*, R1b-L51*, etc. but my opinion is that L11 sprang out of the Central Europe area with U152 staying close to home and owning the Rhine, while U106 moved north (or came from the east and the real homeland), L21 to the northwest and DF27 to Iberia and scattered all over. I really don't care about the pre-L11 forms of R1b, they could have just been a scattering of explorers, pioneers, adventurers, etc.

The settlers who took over Europe were from the P312/U106 L11* common ancestor.

[rms2]

Coon himself mentions the "Spanish Bell Beaker problem", which he explains is the "paucity of brachycephals in Spain". He solves it both by saying it may be due to a paucity of BB remains in general and by positing a seaborne route into the western Mediterranean from the east:

Coon had, I think 5 brachiocephalic samples.  Day who I cited above only had 12.  

I think it's safe to say most of the brachiocephalics arrived somewhat later than the 'proto-package' and early Beaker in Iberia was mainly composed of late neolithic people (Y Hgs. E, I-M26, G, etc.).  If we suppose that R1b comes from the east around this time, then any Iberian Beaker movements into France and Switzerland would not have carried much R1b.  However, they would have encountered R1b dominated sites the closer they got to the Rhone.

Pardon me if this post is somewhat rambling. I am using it to sort of think out loud about the Beaker Folk and the various problems concerning their origin. Of course, my main interest in them is the possibility that my y-dna ancestors were among them. That is what makes the Bell Beaker phenomenon extremely interesting. Otherwise, BB would just be another archaeological culture, interesting, yes, but not nearly as fascinating as the possible genetic connection currently makes it.

First off, given the uncertainties of radiocarbon 14 dating in this context, I wonder if we can be sure Beaker originated in the Tagus Valley, as is currently believed. Maybe it did, but Anthony mentions a date for the Csepel Beaker site in Hungary that rivals those for the earliest Beaker finds in Iberia.

Jean M believes the Stelae People eventually made their way along the Mediterranean coast by sea to Iberia, and that their influence is largely responsible for the Beaker phenomenon. I hope I am not misrepresenting what Jean M believes, but I think that is it.

In that connection, Gerhardt, whom I mentioned earlier with regard to his study of Beaker skulls (Die Glockenbecherleute in Mittel-und Westdeutschland, 1953), apparently believed the brachycephalic Beaker anthropological type spread west along the Mediterranean from Armenia.

My own thinking is that R-M269 arrived in Europe with the Beaker Folk or their immediate antecedents, call them the "Stelae People", if you will. Whether they already spoke an IE language or languages or acquired IE from their neighbors is irrelevant at this point (and nearly impossible to prove either way). I don't believe R-M269 was part of the Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture.

If Beaker originated in Iberia, then either it did so due to the arrival of the Stelae People, R-M269, and metallurgy from the east or, as MHammers said above, Neolithic peoples who were mainly E1b1b, I-M26, and G2a comprised the earliest Iberian Beaker Folk. In the latter case, Beaker was adopted in Central Europe by R-M269 men, who spread it west, in a reflux movement, and north.

Dienekes has mentioned a "West Asian" autosomal component in the European population that does not appear until about 5,000 years ago. He currently believes that component arrived with R-M269. Some have argued that cannot be true because the Basques lack the West Asian component (or have only a very small amount of it). But the Basques do have the "Gedrosia" autosomal component and a high frequency of lactase persistence.

I could be way off on all of this. I realize that.

[rms2]

. . .

Dienekes has mentioned a "West Asian" autosomal component in the European population that does not appear until about 5,000 years ago. He currently believes that component arrived with R-M269. Some have argued that cannot be true because the Basques lack the West Asian component (or have only a very small amount of it). But the Basques do have the "Gedrosia" autosomal component and a high frequency of lactase persistence . . .

Here is something Dienekes wrote relative to what I mentioned above.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/05/bell-beakers-from-germany-y-haplogroup.html

Here's a challenge to those who think the migration that brought R-M269 to Western Europe is not related to the arrival of the "West_Asian" autosomal component to Western Europe.

What is responsible for that component, if not R-M269.

You can't pin it on:

I: native European
E: rare in Caucasus/Anatolia
G: related apparently to early Neolithic and all pre-Beaker autosomal data points lack "West_Asian"

The only other candidate is J2, which occurs at trace elements in the British Isles and Scandinavia.

So, let's summarize:

- R-M269 came to Europe from the east.
- In all existing autosomal samples from Europe up to 5,000 BC R-M269 is lacking in Europe, and so is the "West_Asian" autosomal component
- Modern Europeans have R-M269 and "West_Asian" autosomal component. The latter occurs at ~10% in populations that have almost no other lineages of West Asian origin other than R-M269

The writing is on the wall.

[Jean M]

Jean M believes the Stelae People eventually made their way along the Mediterranean coast by sea to Iberia, and that their influence is largely responsible for the Beaker phenomenon. I hope I am not misrepresenting what Jean M believes...

Only a little bit. :)

1. First we have the movement up the Danube from the steppe to the Carpathian Basin. This cannot be missed out of the story without serious misunderstanding. That trek up the Danube is so marked archaeologically that (for a wonder) no archaeologists are arguing that it does not represent a massive migration of real, live people. The arguments have simply been over what happened next. That movement included anthropomorphic stelae.

2. Next there are two routes from the Carpathian Basin.  

3. Route 1: The stelae mark a trail across to North Italy and from Italy via the Mediterranean to Iberia. There is even one in the Channel Isles, showing movement up the Atlantic. These people appear to be narrow-headed and carrying P312, but not L21.  

4. Route 2: From the Carpathian Basin up to the head of the Danube and to sites north of the Alps. These people appear to be broad-headed and L21 appears to have emerged among them at some point.

5. Bell Beaker pottery travelled between the two groups. It appears to have been first made by the southern group, but the early types (Maritime and AOL) moved swiftly along the Atlantic route to the mouth of the Rhine. Eventually BB appeared in the Carpathian Basin and moved with the broad-headed types up the Danube and down the Rhine. So the two routes met in what is now the Netherlands.

6. Some broad-headed BB types arrived in eastern Iberia quite late in the BB story. Most of the BB people entering the British Isles appear to have come from the broad-headed Rhine (L21) stream.    

 

[rms2]

Jean M believes the Stelae People eventually made their way along the Mediterranean coast by sea to Iberia, and that their influence is largely responsible for the Beaker phenomenon. I hope I am not misrepresenting what Jean M believes...

Only a little bit. :)

1. First we have the movement up the Danube from the steppe to the Carpathian Basin. This cannot be missed out of the story without serious misunderstanding. That trek up the Danube is so marked archaeologically that (for a wonder) no archaeologists are arguing that it does not represent a massive migration of real, live people. The arguments have simply been over what happened next. That movement included anthropomorphic stelae.

2. Next there are two routes from the Carpathian Basin.  

3. Route 1: The stelae mark a trail across to North Italy and from Italy via the Mediterranean to Iberia. There is even one in the Channel Isles, showing movement up the Atlantic. These people appear to be narrow-headed and carrying P312, but not L21.  

4. Route 2: From the Carpathian Basin up to the head of the Danube and to sites north of the Alps. These people appear to be broad-headed and L21 appears to have emerged among them at some point.

5. Bell Beaker pottery travelled between the two groups. It appears to have been first made by the southern group, but the early types (Maritime and AOL) moved swiftly along the Atlantic route to the mouth of the Rhine. Eventually BB appeared in the Carpathian Basin and moved with the broad-headed types up the Danube and down the Rhine. So the two routes met in what is now the Netherlands.

6. Some broad-headed BB types arrived in eastern Iberia quite late in the BB story. Most of the BB people entering the British Isles appear to have come from the broad-headed Rhine (L21) stream.    

 

Thanks for that summary, Jean. That makes sense.

I did not recall all the details. I had it basically right, but I thought the Route 1 people were also probably brachycephalic. My mistake.

Skull shapes and other autosomal details are tricky at best, anyway. They're important, but hard to factor into the complete picture.

Were the narrow-headed Route 1 people physically similar to the Yamnaya people or were they more like Mediterraneans (i.e., Cucuteni-Tripolye people)?

[MHammers]

The only data I can find on Yamnaya or the above Route 1 people are 6 samples from Hungary.  Only 1 or 2 are like the steppe type, the others resemble smaller neolithic people.  This suggests that by the time Yamnaya arrived in Hungary, many other people not originally from the steppe had become part of the migration.  Nothing really conclusive, though.  The broad-headed Beaker types were already present in the Carpathian basin and probably other places.  I think Beaker was heavily influenced by the steppe people, but I'm not so sure there is a strong link via ydna or what kind of transitions took place.  Other than the larger stature of Beaker people, the cranial evidence would put them closer to the late neolithic societies already present before Yamnaya.

Think of Beaker in Iberia as a proto-package due to early trade with SE France/NW Italy.  Not quite a migration at this point.  The dental studies demonstrate this.  Bell Beaker at Sion is influenced by late neolithic related people out of Iberia later.  This makes it more likely that this would be an early Bell Beaker date before the shift there to a newer tradition. The reflux movement out of Iberia, maybe also initiated by increased trade, is a return to the source of the proto-package.  This is when the full Beaker package forms.  It is highly unlikely people from Iberia could make it all the way to Hungary to produce dates almost as early as Iberia.

[Jean M]

Were the narrow-headed Route 1 people physically similar to the Yamnaya people or were they more like Mediterraneans (i.e., Cucuteni-Tripolye people)?

I only have the Menk 1979 clustering that you can find in the Mini-Library > Anthropology > Bell Beaker. You can see there that Italian and Portuguese BB are separate from the main BB cluster. The latter will be the broad-headed lot.

One problem is that he does not distinguish between early and late BB, which is probably the reason that the results from Spain, Switzerland and Southern France sit closer to the main cluster than to Portugal and Italy. They all had a late BB input from north of the Alps, as well as an earlier one from the Mediterranean route.

I have no idea what he means by "plateau pastoralists Early Bronze Age", but they are similar to the results from Italy and Portugal.

[Jean M]

Think of Beaker in Iberia as a proto-package due to early trade with SE France/NW Italy.  Not quite a migration at this point.  The dental studies demonstrate this.

No they don't. They demonstrate that the BB people are the same as earlier people in Iberia i.e. the Stelae People.  What has confused people is that the BB people do not appear to represent new arrivals in Iberia. That is because they were not. They were descended from the people who had arrived earlier along route 1 bringing metallurgy. The same is true of Sion - the dental traits confirm what was deduced from archaeology. The earliest BB people there were related to the earlier Stelae People. The break comes within the BB period, with the input from  the NE.
 

It is highly unlikely people from Iberia could make it all the way to Hungary to produce dates almost as early as Iberia.

Once route 1 and route 2 were established, movement along them (and routes between them) was probably pretty well constant. Trade trips might take a few weeks - not a few centuries. :) The mobility of the Bell Beaker people has been stressed by a number of authors.

[MHammers]

Think of Beaker in Iberia as a proto-package due to early trade with SE France/NW Italy.  Not quite a migration at this point.  The dental studies demonstrate this.

No they don't. They demonstrate that the BB people are the same as earlier people in Iberia i.e. the Stelae People.  What has confused people is that the BB people do not appear to represent new arrivals in Iberia. That is because they were not. They were descended from the people who had arrived earlier along route 1 bringing metallurgy. The same is true of Sion - the dental traits confirm what was deduced from archaeology. The earliest BB people there were related to the earlier Stelae People. The break comes within the BB period, with the input from  the NE.
 

It is highly unlikely people from Iberia could make it all the way to Hungary to produce dates almost as early as Iberia.

Once route 1 and route 2 were established, movement along them (and routes between them) was probably pretty well constant. Trade trips might take a few weeks - not a few centuries. :) The mobility of the Bell Beaker people has been stressed by a number of authors.

By dental studies demonstrating this, I mean once Beaker has a presence (initial package) in Iberia, there is Beaker movement (people) out of Iberia.  The Desideri 2010 dendogram shows an final neolithic influence from Iberia to Sion.  I think this happened before the shift within Beaker.  The post-shift Beakers at Sion fit better with the eastern route/Yamnaya influenced R1b scenario, imo.

[Jean M]

 The Desideri 2010 dendogram shows an final neolithic influence from Iberia to Sion.  I think this happened before the shift within Beaker.

Yes exactly. What she is calling Final Neolithic is my Stelae People. These people came from the steppe via the Carpathian Basin. Yes they ended up in Iberia. Yes they made a base in the Tagus Valley. Yes they were the initial people at Sion. Yes there is a relationship between the Stelae People at Sion and the people with the headquarters in the Tagus Valley. But that does not mean that they were indigenous to Iberia from the year dot.

Desideri does not see the big picture. Her evidence reveals bits of it, which need to be put together with other bits to get the big picture. The anthropomorphic stelae are from the steppe. That is where they are earliest, not Iberia. Harrison and Heyd understand this very well. The first people at Sion came (originally) from the east. Then they were in contact with their Iberian power base during the period that BB appeared in that power base. Then there was a power shift to the North Alps. 

[Jean M]

The post-shift Beakers at Sion fit better with the eastern route/Yamnaya influenced R1b scenario, imo.

The Yamnaya influence was at Sion from the first settlement and erection of stelae. The cultural sequence is Yamnaya > Stelae People > Bell Beaker

I realise that this is a very complex and confusing sequence, because of the changes of direction.

1. Yamnaya moves up the Danube.

2. Stelae People move from the Carpathian Basin all the way to Iberia.

3. Stelae People are continually moving back and forth between Iberia and the Carpathian Basin and colonising along the various routes, which now include up the Rhone and via Alpine valleys. Sion is a part of the network with a hub in the Tagus valley. During this period BB ware moves within this network.

4. In the middle of the BB period there is a power shift to the people who had moved along Route 2, taking BB with them. So at Sion these northern BB people take over.

I would be absolutely astonished to learn that R1b is only related to the people of Route 2. Iberia is full of it.

[Richard Rocca]

Unfortunately Harrison & Heyd's Yamnaya migration event c.2900–2700 BC misses the mark chronologically. They shoot themselves in the foot by using the Remedello Culture as proof of "Yamnaya Package" elements in northern Italy in the IV millenium BC. So, how do they claim an east-to-west migration starting 2900-2700 BC when Remedello is older by a good 700-500 years ?!?

[Jean M]

There certainly are unresolved issues in the dating of Copper Age movements, but those do not blow apart the Yamnaya > Stelae People sequence, which is rock solid on stelae alone. (There is also a long list of other items in the package which we can see from Yamnaya to BB, for example the gold spiral hair rings, which appear first on the steppe.)

As far as I can work it out, there was an earlier radiation of people from the Balkans carrying metallurgy which reached Sardinia c. 4000 BC. Metal artifacts date from 4,250-3,350 B.C. - the earliest in the Central Mediterranean. The search for copper had spread to northern Italy by c. 3,500 B.C., where the earliest known copper mines in Western Europe were found at Monte Loreto.

So this copper prospecting route was known already as far as Italy, before the Stelae People started moving along it, which actually started earlier than the dates for Sion. [Added] I think I should spell that out in my text. I do talk about the earlier Copper Age stuff, but I need to point out that knowledge of at least some western copper sources predated and may have triggered the spread of the Stelae People.

[MHammers]

The post-shift Beakers at Sion fit better with the eastern route/Yamnaya influenced R1b scenario, imo.

The Yamnaya influence was at Sion from the first settlement and erection of stelae. The cultural sequence is Yamnaya > Stelae People > Bell Beaker

I realise that this is a very complex and confusing sequence, because of the changes of direction.

1. Yamnaya moves up the Danube.

2. Stelae People move from the Carpathian Basin all the way to Iberia.

3. Stelae People are continually moving back and forth between Iberia and the Carpathian Basin and colonising along the various routes, which now include up the Rhone and via Alpine valleys. Sion is a part of the network with a hub in the Tagus valley. During this period BB ware moves within this network.

4. In the middle of the BB period there is a power shift to the people who had moved along Route 2, taking BB with them. So at Sion these northern BB people take over.

I would be absolutely astonished to learn that R1b is only related to the people of Route 2. Iberia is full of it.

Alright, thanks for clearing up the events at Sion.  Do you think these Route 2/Northern Alps people were already Beaker before Sion or something else?

As far as R1b, some of it could have made it to Iberia with early Beaker.  I think most of it arrived with later waves, though.  However, it's not overly important to this model.  I see R1b concentrated at this time in a large block from Hungary in the east to south France in the west, and also from south Germany to North Italy.  This is the pre-Iberia, proto-Beaker range.

[Jean M]

Alright, thanks for clearing up the events at Sion.  Do you think these Route 2/Northern Alps people were already Beaker before Sion or something else?

The people of both routes 1 and 2 were derived from Yamnaya and at some point started to make pottery in a bell shape. They wouldn't have considered themselves a new and different people when they changed their tableware. Those at Sion not only shared the graves and settlements of their Final Neolithic and Copper Age predecessors, but were actually related to them.

The people of route 2/N Alps had already picked up the bell-shaped tableware habit before they took over Sion. The power change was by that time just a swap between one lot of BB people and another.  

far as R1b, some of it could have made it to Iberia with early Beaker.

As I keep saying Bell Beaker is just a pottery style. The woman who created it was no doubt familiar with similar styles which evolved from Yamnaya and other wares of the Danube corridor of this period, but that does not mean that there had to be a sudden influx of R1b in order for someone to come up with this pottery in the Tagus valley. The pottery is not important. The R1b people would have brought a whole lot of other, more important things to Iberia earlier, such as metallurgy, which requires a detailed package of knowledge and would have arrived with real, live people who had the know-how. It didn't suddenly spring up by itself from the people who had been farming in Iberia since the Neolithic.
 

[Mikewww]

 The post-shift Beakers at Sion fit better with the eastern route/Yamnaya influenced R1b scenario, imo.

The Yamnaya influence was at Sion from the first settlement and erection of stelae. The cultural sequence is Yamnaya > Stelae People > Bell Beaker

I realise that this is a very complex and confusing sequence, because of the changes of direction.

1. Yamnaya moves up the Danube.

2. Stelae People move from the Carpathian Basin all the way to Iberia.

3. Stelae People are continually moving back and forth between Iberia and the Carpathian Basin and colonising along the various routes, which now include up the Rhone and via Alpine valleys. Sion is a part of the network with a hub in the Tagus valley. During this period BB ware moves within this network.

4. In the middle of the BB period there is a power shift to the people who had moved along Route 2, taking BB with them. So at Sion these northern BB people take over.

I would be absolutely astonished to learn that R1b is only related to the people of Route 2. Iberia is full of it.

It only seems complex but relative to other expansions we are more familiar with, this is just par for the course. These people were mobile and not afraid to travel. This is clear, but it is exactly what the Beaker sprawling spaghetti route maps look like. They were just using the waterways, horse/cattle paths and political agreements for whatever was most expedient.

This just sounds like trappers, traders, prospectors and explorers; developing the network and knowledge. Early pioneers formed remote settlements and latter settlers then came in earnest, and probably with better military support.

[IALEM]

The R1b people would have brought a whole lot of other, more important things to Iberia earlier, such as metallurgy, which requires a detailed package of knowledge and would have arrived with real, live people who had the know-how. It didn't suddenly spring up by itself from the people who had been farming in Iberia since the Neolithic.
 

More than metallurgy, the building of fortified cities, that are larger and more complex than anything seen before in Iberia, and later for a long period. That is one of my problems with your theory, the expansion from the Tagus of BB didn´t bring that urban life to the rest of the BB area.

[princenuadha]

They were descended from the people who had arrived earlier along route 1 bringing metallurgy.

How would you tie that in with the LP found in northern iberia, dated to around 3,000 bce to 2,500 bce?

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/01/lactase-persistence-in-neolithic-iberia.html

As maju notes in the comments, there is an unexpectedly low amount of heterozygous individuals, which suggests a recent migration.

So do you think the Stelae People brought LP to iberia? When did they arrive and what is the minimum time between their arrival and these LP finds? If the time is large, then we might need many Stelae People having arrived in iberia... Or maybe its related to that network thing you mentioned.

Also, could I see the evidence for route 2? And do you think that BB arrived in Hungary by route 2? Desideri said that the first BB in Hungary where newcommers.

 

[Jean M]

They were descended from the people who had arrived earlier along route 1 bringing metallurgy.

How would you tie that in with the LP found in northern iberia, dated to around 3,000 bce to 2,500 bce?

I don't. I suspect that those people were (some of)  the ancestors of the Basques. I wouldn't want to be dogmatic about it. I don't think that we have enough information to be certain. In my Basque section I conclude that the Basques remain a bit of a mystery and plead for more aDNA.

However I suggest that the Basques are a  people of mixed origins, like all Europeans. I suggest that they descend from a sequence of peoples who settled in the shadow of the northern Pyrenees: Mesolithic hunters, Cardial Ware farmers and Copper Age pastoralists who brought R1b, LP and a language from the Balkans.

[Jean M]

More than metallurgy, the building of fortified cities, that are larger and more complex than anything seen before in Iberia, and later for a long period. That is one of my problems with your theory, the expansion from the Tagus of BB didn´t bring that urban life to the rest of the BB area.

In my view Zambujal and Los Millares were not cities, but strongholds, similar to Celtic hillforts. There is little sign of urban life in them.  The only industry was copper-smelting. Otherwise they were a bunch of simple homes for farmers, surrounded by a wall. Where a people who might be regarded as invaders arrive by sea, coastal strongholds typically appear. They created a safe base and controlled the exit route. Typically they start small and then expand as the population expands, like Troy. Los Millares follows that pattern.

[Jean M]

Also, could I see the evidence for route 2? And do you think that BB arrived in Hungary by route 2? Desideri said that the first BB in Hungary were newcomers.

Bell Beaker pottery did not arrive in Hungary by route 2 (which is the second route out of the Carpathian Basin.) I propose that the pottery style reached Csepel via people returning along route 1.  I say:

A Bell Beaker site on Csepel Island in the Danube proved to be remarkably early for eastern Bell Beaker. It has given its name to about 60 sites of the Bell Beaker Csepel group, clustered around Budapest. Hungary has no other Bell Beaker. Anthropologically and culturally the isolated Csepel group appears an intrusion into the Baden Culture, so its origin was something of a mystery. Now a study of inherited forms of teeth links the Bell Beaker folk of Csepel to those of Western Switzerland,while the latter in their turn cluster with Bell Beaker Southern group in Iberia and Southern France.

I don't spend a lot of time in my text on route 2, since it is pretty straightforward once the cultural connection Yamnaya > Bell Beaker is established. You just follow the pottery after that. It was the linking steps that were the problem. The Eastern BB route up the Danube from Csepel and down the Rhine and other rivers is all easy to follow and well known.   

[rms2]

I wish we knew more about the two Beaker men at Kromsdorf. I am thankful we know what we do, but it would be nice to have some anthropological data to go with the y-dna data. Autosomal data would also be nice. I am curious about their status relative to lactase persistence, for one thing.