beaker people

[MHammers]

Good points Alan

I don't think the Beakers or any intrusive groups had any significant superiority in weaponry either.  In regards to horseback though, there probably were not too many organized cavalry units in the copper and bronze ages facing off.  I agree on that.  However, the horse would have enabled small to medium-sized groups of raiders to terrorize sedentary communities with hit and run tactics.  Also, sedentary farming groups could easily be isolated and cut-off, then besieged.  

I'm not saying this is exactly what happened on a wide scale.  It is possible though, since the groups migrating in from the east were likely to have more horses and already had settlements around the copper-rich Carpathians/Balkans.  I'm sure it is more complex than this.  Better access to copper/metallurgical centers and horses would help.  It could be a combination of this, plus more lactose persistent people, more male babies on average, better nutrition, mobile lifestyle, sedentary lifestyle=more disease/worse sanitation, etc.

[IALEM]

If we go beyong the Bell Beaker period, there is another important breaking period, the Late Bronze, when agriculture shifted from hoe to plow. Professor FJ Lomas estimated a 300% increase in population due to the increase in farming productivity. That, together with the use of general use of bronze for weapons and cavalry (with the finding of cavalry swords in graves) could account for the expansion of Hallstatt C. That could be too late to explain R1b but fits well into IE expansion

[Mikewww]

... Contrary to what a lot of people think, the beaker culture did not feature technical superiority that would provide a demographic advantage.  Certainly not in the way that the first farmers had.  They were not technically more advanced than the natives.  Indeed in many ways the natives had shown that they were capable of major projects (henges etc) and organised military attacks (huge numbers of arrowheads at causewayed enclosures).  The Gimbutas idea of peaceful natives and warlike beaker people etc is a myth.  I think it was British Archaeology that published an article in the last year that showed just how violent the Neolithic was in the British Isles.  The knowledge of copper was not really a huge advantage until it was alloyed into a harder metal.  Militarily I am not sure the beaker people had any advantage.  The main weapons of both the natives and the beaker culture were bow and flint arrows, flint javelin heads, stone axes/maces, flint knives etc.  
.....

As I said before, if the Beakers possessed metallurgy, horses and wheeled vehicles, that would have given them a tremendous military advantage over people who had none of these. I am not certain how clear the evidence is in that regard, but I believe that is Jean's position. Again I am not necessarily suggesting a hostile invasion or mass slaughter of the existing population, but people with a clear military superiority could soon take control and establish themselves as an elite among the previous inhabitants.

I don't know if the Beakers had a massive military invasion.  I kind of doubt they did as it appears the "M-O" (method of operations) for Indo-Europeans in Greece, among other places, was more of a Trojan Horse type of thing.  They moved in as elites ... and then at some time later, they end up taking control.

There is one thing that I think should not be underestimated that we may take for granted in modern military organizations and in politics. It might also difficult to pick up in the archaeology, because like language, it is in the way the peoples related to each other.

The Indo-Europeans had the client/host concept and were adept at making alliances outside of their clan.  They had a warrior concept which I think just means a professional soldier class.  Part of the client/host concept was a strong chief.  The IE peoples, which could include Beaker folks, might have had superior military and political organizational skills. They also appear to be a little larger physically and with professional soldiering skills, that could be formidable in itself.  We know Beaker folks had strong long-distance communications/trade skills as their network was far-flung.  With a chief and better command and control capabilities to cut-off, flank as well as a knack for making alliances, etc. the farmers of Old Europe might have just been a ready-made serf class.  That may not be very nice, but in my own opinion, this sounds like European history over and over again.

[GoldenHind]

I think the evidence for early wheeled vehicles does not indicate there would be much military use. We are talking ponderous heavy probably cattle drawn block wheeled slow vehicles.  Also, even as late as the Iron Age there is evidence that horse riding was transport to the battlefield more than actual fighting on horseback.  It was really only in the full Medieval period with a number of advances that horses were a force of overwhelming advantage in western Europe.  Fighting on light horses without proper saddles, stirrips etc without specialist weaponry is just not a huge advantage and hence cavalry remained less important in the pre-Norman period.  

As for metallurgy.  Arrows, javelin heads, most axes and all maces remained stone/flint in the beaker period.  The only new weapon (if they were used as such) that the early beaker period people had was the copper axe but soft copper has been shown in tests to be no better than stone for axes.  Harder bronze was not invented until well into the beaker period.

I am no expert on prehistoric warfare, but I have no doubt the mastery of horses would have provided a significant military advantage long before the advent of the heavily armoured cavalry of the feudal period. Aside from mounted raiding as mentioned above, merely moving combatants in a rapid manner could be important. I don't know when the chariot was introduced to Britain, but it horse drawn spoked wheeled chariots existed in Asia Minor in the second millenium BC. Their use by the Hyksos is generally considered to be the cause of their successful conquest of Egypt around 1750 BC.

Also swords did not exist before the discovery of metallurgy; there were no swords with stone blades. Some of the earliest known bronze sword blades have been found in Ireland, leading some to contend they may have originally been developed there. Also defensive armour such as helmets etc. can be made from metal, but not from stones.

[IALEM]

I don't know if the Beakers had a massive military invasion.  I kind of doubt they did as it appears the "M-O" (method of operations) for Indo-Europeans in Greece, among other places, was more of a Trojan Horse type of thing.  They moved in as elites ... and then at some time later, they end up taking control.

There is one thing that I think should not be underestimated that we may take for granted in modern military organizations and in politics. It might also difficult to pick up in the archaeology, because like language, it is in the way the peoples related to each other.

The Indo-Europeans had the client/host concept and were adept at making alliances outside of their clan.  They had a warrior concept which I think just means a professional soldier class.  Part of the client/host concept was a strong chief.  The IE peoples, which could include Beaker folks, might have had superior military and political organizational skills. They also appear to be a little larger physically and with professional soldiering skills, that could be formidable in itself.  We know Beaker folks had strong long-distance communications/trade skills as their network was far-flung.  With a chief and better command and control capabilities to cut-off, flank as well as a knack for making alliances, etc. the farmers of Old Europe might have just been a ready-made serf class.  That may not be very nice, but in my own opinion, this sounds like European history over and over again.

There is a good indication of the military prowess of the Bell Beaker people in the destruction of the Los Millares heavily fortified city. Client system is a widespread institution beyond IE people (Iberic Devotio, for instance), but the nomadic pastoralist character of the Bell beaker society, at least in the Iberian peninsula (according to Professor I. Barandiaran) provided by itself an organizative advantage, as seen in many historical cases of Nomadic vs Sedentary people conflicts.

[OConnor]

I would guess there could have been waves of people from other directions than Spain since the bloom of the Bell Beaker Period.

The Unetice Culture looks interesting to me. Perhaps because their burial practices.

Unetice – or more properly Únětice culture (Czech pronunciation: [ˈuːɲɛcɪt͡sɛ], German: Aunjetitz) – is the name given to an early Bronze Age culture, preceded by the Beaker culture and followed by the Tumulus culture. It was named after finds at site in Únětice, northwest of Prague. It is focused around the Czech Republic, southern and central Germany, and western Poland. It grew out of beaker roots. It is dated from 2300-1600 BC (Bronze A1 and A2 in the chronological schema of Paul Reinecke).

"Burials are normally inhumations in flat graves with bent legs and arms, lying on the side, oriented South-North or Northeast-southwest. Males are normally buried on the left, women on the right side. Some groups used hollowed out tree-trunks for burial. Stone cairns are also found, mainly in the Western part of the Aunjetitz (Unetice) area (Upper-Rhine-, Singen- and Ries-groups). Males were often buried with copper triangular daggers, flint arrowheads, stone wrist-guards and clay cups. Female grave gifts include bone or copper pins, bone arm-rings, bracelets with spiral ends and rings. The largest cemetery from Germany is the one at Singen, where 96 graves have been found. The Remseck-Aldingen graveyard of the Neckar-group consists of 34 graves."

 According to wiki. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9An%C4%9Btice_culture

[alan trowel hands.]

Unetice was one of a group of successor cultures with clear roots in the Bell Beaker culture.  It was the successor culture of beakers in west-central Europe.  However, it was far more localised than beaker culture and not particularly useful at explaining R1b1b2.  Other beaker successor cultures include the Armorican dagger culture and the Wessex culture of southern Britain.  I am pretty sure that the beaker roots of much of Early Bronze Age cultures in western and central Europe are clear. 

The same west-central area had a succession of particularly rich cultures Unetice-Tumulous-Urnfield-Hallstatt C.  The exact point of focus moved about somewhat but the same block centred on south Germany, eastern edge of France, Czech republic, the north Alpine area etc tended to be the focal area.  Personally I think it is richness of the chiefdoms in that area rather than truly separate culture than marks it out.  Still, these cultures never really spread much beyond the core area and never came near some of the main areas of R1b1b2.  If we want to find a single phase source for the dispersal of the majority of R1b1b2 it has to be in much more widespread cultures.

[GoldenHind]

While I am not totally convinced of the argument that connects the Beakers with R1b1b2, I do find it the most likely of the various scenarios. I am convinced the old Paleolithic idea is completely dead, not in the sense it has no adherents, but certainly in the sense it no longer has any credibility. While Jean has been the chief advocate of the idea, oddly enough if I remember correctly the very first to suggest it was none other than Dr. Faux, when finally abandoning the Paleolithic theory after a long period of intransigency.

Although Jean has suggested a connection between the Beakers or at least proto-Italo-Celtic and R1b-P312 and subclades, I definitely don't think the two should be equated. I don't think Jean thinks so either, as she has acknowedged there is just too much P312/subclades in areas of Europe which have no connection with the Celts. I can accept that there was a connection between the Beakers and the proto-Italo-Celtic speakers, and that P312/subclades was predominate amongst them.

If one wants to challenge Jean's idea, I think they should answer two questions:

1) If the Beakers weren't predominantly P312/subclades, what haplogroup were they? R1a? Some other R1b subclade? Is there any haplogroup in Europe whose distribution is a better match with their spread than P312/subclades?

2) If the IE lnaguage was not at least partially introduced to Europe by the Beakers, what other people did so? Were the IE languages introduced to Europe in the Neolithic with the advent of agriculture? Personally I cannot accept the idea that the IE languages spread without any connection to a migration of people. Is there any haplogroup whose distribution has a better match with IE languages in Europe than R1b? ( IMO rms answered that question several years ago- NO!)


 

[alan trowel hands.]

Goldenhind-I think there were only ever three possible horizons widespread enough in European prehistory where an intuitive single phase explanation for the distribution of R1b1b2 could be found:

1. Hunter gatherers
2. The early Neolithic farmers
3. Beaker phase

OK no.1 is dead (phylogeny, far lower variance than I etc, younger clades in the west).  It seems very likely it must be either 2. or 3. IF it is a largely single phase dispersal. 

The pros and cons of both theories have been discussed many times.  All I will say again is the real challenge to the beaker theory is to convincingly explain how an eastern origin y-line was dispersed by a culture whose earliest dates are in Iberia.  I am not saying its impossible but the models suggested to date leave a lot to the imagination and rely on subtle and complex scenarios. 

The other great challenge of the beaker model is to demonstrate that it was demographically significant in some way.  The evidence as a whole is not anywhere near an open-shut case.  OK the Amesbury archer might have been a long distance travellor but much much more is needed than that.  A population dip and rise in some localities cannot be extrapolated across Europe and such population changes in terms of numbers does not require an invasion.  The migrationist school is back in the game after looking dead but that is as far as it goes.  It will take a lot more to make a strong case for the beaker phase being THE demographically defining one in western European y-DNA genetic history.  It still is far far easier to see the early Neolithic as THE demographic event in European prehistory.   

[GoldenHind]

Goldenhind-I think there were only ever three possible horizons widespread enough in European prehistory where an intuitive single phase explanation for the distribution of R1b1b2 could be found:

1. Hunter gatherers
2. The early Neolithic farmers
3. Beaker phase

OK no.1 is dead (phylogeny, far lower variance than I etc, younger clades in the west).  It seems very likely it must be either 2. or 3. IF it is a largely single phase dispersal. 

The pros and cons of both theories have been discussed many times.  All I will say again is the real challenge to the beaker theory is to convincingly explain how an eastern origin y-line was dispersed by a culture whose earliest dates are in Iberia.  I am not saying its impossible but the models suggested to date leave a lot to the imagination and rely on subtle and complex scenarios. 

The other great challenge of the beaker model is to demonstrate that it was demographically significant in some way.  The evidence as a whole is not anywhere near an open-shut case.  OK the Amesbury archer might have been a long distance travellor but much much more is needed than that.  A population dip and rise in some localities cannot be extrapolated across Europe and such population changes in terms of numbers does not require an invasion.  The migrationist school is back in the game after looking dead but that is as far as it goes.  It will take a lot more to make a strong case for the beaker phase being THE demographically defining one in western European y-DNA genetic history.  It still is far far easier to see the early Neolithic as THE demographic event in European prehistory.   

Yes, I am familiar with your position. but you didn't answer either of my questions. If R1b in Europe stems from the introduction of agriculture during the Neolithic, then what haplogroup were the Beakers? I seem to recollect that there was evidence to suggest the Beakers were an intrusive population with different burial customs, differet phsionogamy, etc. Is it reasonable to believe they were primarily some variety of R1b who began their migrations from a home somewhere in Iberia? Or were they a different haplogroup?

Secondly, how do you explain the inroduction of the IE languages into Europe? Do you believe they came in with agriculture, or at a later date? Or do you believe the language spread culturally without a population migration?

I am not trying to be confrontational. To me the best evidence in support of the R1b/Beaker connection is that it provides the best answers to those two questions. I believe most linguists believe the IE languages arose in the Pontic Caspian area and spread westward throughout Europe. This model is reasonably close to that suggested by genetics for the migration of R1b into Europe, originating somewhere in southeast Europe or Asia Minor. I don't believe this is just a coincidence, but of course it would not in and of itself preclude a spread of IE into Europe during the Neolithic along with agriculture.

[IALEM]

1) If the Beakers weren't predominantly P312/subclades, what haplogroup were they? R1a? Some other R1b subclade? Is there any haplogroup in Europe whose distribution is a better match with their spread than P312/subclades?

2) If the IE lnaguage was not at least partially introduced to Europe by the Beakers, what other people did so? Were the IE languages introduced to Europe in the Neolithic with the advent of agriculture? Personally I cannot accept the idea that the IE languages spread without any connection to a migration of people. Is there any haplogroup whose distribution has a better match with IE languages in Europe than R1b? ( IMO rms answered that question several years ago- NO!)

I don´t challenge question 1), in fact I think I suggested the connection R1b/Bell beaker before anyone else on the DNA forums long ago.
However, I do challenge 2), Hallstatt C is a much better candidate for IE languages than Bell Beakers.

 

[rms2]

Isn't Hallstatt C a little late to be a good candidate for the spread of IE?

Isn't it also thought to be too Celtic to account for western IE, which includes Italic and Germanic, as well?

I don't think the Beaker Folk spread all of IE to the West. I think they were probably responsible for Celtic and possibly Italic, if the idea of Italo-Celtic holds up.

I am also willing to entertain the ideas of Koch and Cunliffe that Celtic actually spread east from the Atlantic coast rather than west from Central Europe.

(Now don't jump on me yet. I said I am willing to entertain those ideas - serve them tea and cookies, you know - not that I am their thoroughly-convinced advocate and partisan.)

[IALEM]

Isn't Hallstatt C a little late to be a good candidate for the spread of IE?

Isn't it also thought to be too Celtic to account for western IE, which includes Italic and Germanic, as well?

I don't think the Beaker Folk spread all of IE to the West. I think they were probably responsible for Celtic and possibly Italic, if the idea of Italo-Celtic holds up.

Not too late if we consider an scenario of a two steps spreading, first they arrive to Central Europe, where connections with the Steppe cultures are evident. They remain there for a time in which a ProtoCeltoItalic could have developed before separating in two directions, then they experiment a big expansion to the West with Hallstatt C (here the West is Atlantic Europe)
The advantage of the Hallstatt C explanation is that it matches very well Celtic regions in the West while leaving aside non IE Aquitanians and Iberians

[GoldenHind]

Isn't Hallstatt C a little late to be a good candidate for the spread of IE?

Isn't it also thought to be too Celtic to account for western IE, which includes Italic and Germanic, as well?

I don't think the Beaker Folk spread all of IE to the West. I think they were probably responsible for Celtic and possibly Italic, if the idea of Italo-Celtic holds up.

I agree with all these points. Hallstatt may have spread some of the P-Celtic languages, but it is far too late to account for all of the Celtic languages.

I also don't think the Beakers can be tied to Germanic. Corded ware is more likely, but I suspect the introduction of the IE languages to Europe is liable to have been a very complex process.

[alan trowel hands.]

Goldenhind-I simply am not yet convinced that we understand beaker origins and spread.  If the dates are right and Iberia or the west Med. anyway is the origin then its either got to be an indigenous development from earlier Neolithic peoples in the same area (ultimately Cardial?) or some sort of intrusion from elsewhere.  If beakers are an indigenous development in Iberia then I suppose they would be the same gentically as the preceding Neolithic population and if they were R1b1b2 then so were the beakers. 

Jean has suggested some stelae are evidence of an east-west movement which set up a network that later was re-used in reverse to spread an Iberian originated pottery type (beakers).  I am not knocking that but if that is the way R1b1b2 spread from the east to Iberia then elsewhere it is very much subtler than most would hope or expect for for THE genetically defining phase of European male-lineage prehistory.  It is hugely problematic if such crucial events can leave trails as subtle as that.  Indeed if it can be that subtle then we could also claim various phases of different Bronze and Iron Age metalwork trends that are no longer seen as representing 'invasions' could be resurrected as just that.

I agree with one thing though.  Its hard not to link R1b1b2 with the spread of Indo-European into the west.  It just fits so well and there is simply no other candidate as a common denominater among the various groups.  How R1a firs this I do not know but its geographical and time depth separation from R1b1b2 normally calculated suggests to me that they cannot both have originally been Indo-European.   

I have not bought into any particular view on R1b1b2 but I feel the beaker model presents huge challenges because beakers themselves are as big a problem as R1b1b2 is.  It actually hurts my head using the beaker model because between the problem of beakers, DNA dating etc there is not one fixed 'definate' to hold onto.  My opinion is that archaeologists would generally see the early Neolithic as THE demographic event of European prehistory.  There is no doubt it was a huge watershed.  Some evidence is now being presented to try to show that there was a blip and discontinuity in the middle Neolithic and that beakers represent a migration of importance.  This evidence needs greatly expanded before it becomes more than a revisionist working hypothesis and the ball remains in their court to build a stronger case.  I am far from saying they are wrong but a lot more is needed.  Personally I think ancient DNA testing will overtake the other research and provide an answer long before archaeology does.   

[alan trowel hands.]

Isn't Hallstatt C a little late to be a good candidate for the spread of IE?

Isn't it also thought to be too Celtic to account for western IE, which includes Italic and Germanic, as well?

I don't think the Beaker Folk spread all of IE to the West. I think they were probably responsible for Celtic and possibly Italic, if the idea of Italo-Celtic holds up.

I am also willing to entertain the ideas of Koch and Cunliffe that Celtic actually spread east from the Atlantic coast rather than west from Central Europe.

(Now don't jump on me yet. I said I am willing to entertain those ideas - serve them tea and cookies, you know - not that I am their thoroughly-convinced advocate and partisan.)

I would not rule out anything.  There is simply very little in the way of an anchor point to feel confident about much.  Although I do still think it is potentially revisionism I think the Atlantic Celtic thing is not impossible but it requires R1b1b2 to have spread along the Med. to Iberia then via the beaker culture through the Atlantic coast and rivers of NW Europe and somehow reaching back into central Europe with a very strong showing in places like south Germany, Switxerland, north Italy etc.  

Problem is this gives a SW jump off point for a clade (S116) that is a subclade of an upstream group that people generally place in SE Europe or even SW Asian.  How did so much of western Europe get settled from an Iberian jump off point when the ancestors upstream are from the other edge of Europe?  Jean has had a go at explaining this already.

 I think if we seek to link a SE Europe/SW Asian originated group with a secondary springboard in SW Europe then all I can think of is a two phase explanation with R1b1b2 spreading along the Med. in an upstream form followed by reverse/reflux and also northwards movement out of Iberia towards all current S116 areas.  That could either fit something like jean suggested (although the evidence is troublingly subtle) or perhaps an initial spread of R1b1b2 along the Med. in Cardial times followed by a secondary movement from Iberia in Beaker times.  However, if that was the case then Iberian R1b1b2 would be much older than the rest of western Europe and that seems unlikely.  

Perhaps the whole Med. featured upstream forms of R1b1b2 that spread in a minority in the early Neolithic and the difference is that much later one pocket of this gave rise to P310 and experienced a huge expansion.  Perhaps this mutation and the sudden cluster of other SNPs like S116, U152, U106 only happened just as expansion happened so that there is no now-detectable area where the variance for these is much higher.  Certainly ht15 could have taken off from anywhere that ht35 had already spread to.  There is no need for the group of ht35 where ht15 occurred to be the oldest group or the group nearest the most upstream forms.  There seems liittle doubt that ht35 originated n the east but it may have spread as far west as Iberia and any one of the ht35 pockets from its westwards spread could have been the location where ht15 was born.  What I wonder if in what areas does the ht15 most resemble ht35 in terms of STRs?  That could give a clue.  

[vineviz]

A fall in population level followed by a rise is not evidence of an invasion.  There are many other possible reasons. 

You don't need an invasion in order to get genetic change.  When the population drops, the hurdle for genetic drift drops with it.  Even the slightest of advantages in that kind of environment could enable a minority alllele to surf to majority status.  The advantage could be biological, technological, cultural, linguistic, or some lucky combination of all the above.

A small population is not sufficient condition, in other words, but it is very helpful.

VV

[alan trowel hands.]

A fall in population level followed by a rise is not evidence of an invasion.  There are many other possible reasons. 

You don't need an invasion in order to get genetic change.  When the population drops, the hurdle for genetic drift drops with it.  Even the slightest of advantages in that kind of environment could enable a minority alllele to surf to majority status.  The advantage could be biological, technological, cultural, linguistic, or some lucky combination of all the above.

A small population is not sufficient condition, in other words, but it is very helpful.

VV

I remember reading an anthropological study of two rival tribes and how one had a modestly highly mortanlity rate but over about 200 years this difference made a huge impact. 

[Mikewww]

A fall in population level followed by a rise is not evidence of an invasion.  There are many other possible reasons.

You don't need an invasion in order to get genetic change.  When the population drops, the hurdle for genetic drift drops with it.  Even the slightest of advantages in that kind of environment could enable a minority alllele to surf to majority status.  The advantage could be biological, technological, cultural, linguistic, or some lucky combination of all the above.

A small population is not sufficient condition, in other words, but it is very helpful.

Here is Eupedia's view.  I think it is a Maciamo who authors it.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml

What a lot of people forget is that there is also no need of a large-scale exodus for patrilineal lineages to be replaced fairly quickly. Here is why.

   1. Polygamy. Unlike women, men are not limited in the number of children they can procreate. Men with power typically have more children. This was all the truer in primitive societies, where polygamy was often the norm for chieftains and kings.
   2. Status & Power. Equipped with Bronze weapons and horses, the Indo-Europeans would have easily subjugated the Neolithic farmers and with even greater ease Europe's last hunter-gatherers.If they did not exterminate the indigenous men, the newcomers would have become the new ruling class, with a multitude of local kings, chieftains and noblemen (Bronze-Age Celts and Germans lived in small village communities with a chief, each part of a small tribe headed by a king) with higher reproductive opportunities than average.
   3. Gender imbalance. Invading armies normally have far more men than women. Men must therefore find women in the conquered population. Wars are waged by men, and the losers suffer heavier casualties, leaving more women available to the winners.
   4. Aggressive warfare. The Indo-Europeans were a warlike people with a strong heroic code emphasising courage and military prowess. Their superior technology (metal weapons, wheeled vehicles and warhorses) and attitude to life would have allowed them to slaughter any population that did not have organised armies with metal weapons (i.e. anybody except the Middle-Eastern civilizations).
   5. Genetic predisposition to conceive boys. The main role of the Y-chromosome in man's body is to create sperm. Haplogroups are determined based on mutations differentiating Y-chromosomes. Each mutation is liable to affect sperm production and sperm motility. Preliminary research has already established a link between certain haplogroups and increased or reduced sperm motility. The higher the motility, the higher the chances of conceiving a boy. It is absolutely possible that R1b could confer a bias toward more male offspring. Even a slightly higher percentage of male births would significantly contribute to the replacement of other lineages with the accumulation effect building up over a few millennia. Not all R1b subclades might have this boy bias. The bias only exist in relation to other haplogroups found in a same population. It is very possible that the fairly recent R1b subclades of Western Europe had a significant advantage compared to the older haplogroups in that region, notably haplogroup I2 and E-V13. Read more

Replacement of patrilineal lineages following this model quickly becomes exponential. Imagine 100 Indo-European men conquering a tribe of 1000 indigenous Europeans (a ratio of 1:10). War casualties have resulted in a higher proportion of women in the conquered population. Let's say that the surviving population is composed of 700 women and 300 men. Let's suppose that the victorious Indo-European men end up having twice as many children reaching adulthood as the men of the vanquished tribe. There is a number of reason for that. The winners would take more wives, or take concubines, or even rape women of the vanquished tribe. Their higher status would garantee them greater wealth and therefore better nutrition for their offspring, increasing the chances of reaching adulthood and procreating themselves. An offspring ratio of 2 to 1 for men is actually a conservative estimate, as it is totally conceivable that Bronze-Age sensibilities would have resulted in killing most of the men on the losing side, and raping their women (as attested by the Old Testament). Even so, it would only take a few generations for the winning Y-DNA lineages to become the majority. For instance, if the first generation of Indo-Europeans had two surviving sons per man, against only one per indigenous man, the number of Indo-European paternal lineages would pass to 200 individuals at the second generation, 400 at the third, 800 at the fourth and 1600 at the fifth, and so on. During that time indigenous lineages would only stagnate at 300 individuals for each generation.

Based on such a scenario, the R1b lineages would have quickly overwhelmed the local lineages. Even if the Indo-European conquerors had only slightly more children than the local men, R1b lineages would become dominant within a few centuries. Celtic culture lasted for over 1000 years in Continental Europe before the Roman conquest putting an end to the priviledges of the chieftains and nobility. This is more than enough time for R1b lineages to reach 50 to 80% of the population.

[rms2]

I'm thinking the Beaker Folk are the best candidates for spreading L21 to the British Isles (JMO - just my opinion), unless we want to make L21 older than it currently seems and bring it in with the Neolithic farmers. (I have nothing against Neolithic farmers, by the way, or with people who did not speak an IE language - both are fine with me.)

Now I'm not claiming the Beaker Folk were all L21+; probably they weren't. The original Beaker Folk may have been mostly just P312+, and perhaps L21 first arose among them. But it seems to me some folks whose men were already L21+ or mostly L21+ when they got to Britain introduced that SNP there.

Who else is there? And how did Celtic spread to the British Isles and in such a way that in Ireland the arguably older Q-Celtic was spoken (something it has in common with Iberia)?

[MHammers]

A neolithic farmer L21, while still possible with the confidence interval range, is much less likely, imo.  The I-E/Celtic language thing being one of the biggest reasons.  

If later R1b like P312+ and L21+ are primarily associated with the Beaker/Celtic languages distribution, then we also have to consider secondary movements of L21+  from of the same initial Beaker areas.   For instance, some L21+ Angles from Denmark to already L21+ Eastern Britain thus adding layer upon layer of L21 the further west you go.  Perhaps this might be why the variance in Ireland seemed highest at first.  Different L21 haplotypes arriving and proliferating with each new migration or invasion causing the variance to rise and give a false impression of origin.  Then, that gives rise to the 'Out of the Isles' hypothesis.

[rms2]

A neolithic farmer L21, while still possible with the confidence interval range, is much less likely, imo.  The I-E/Celtic language thing being one of the biggest reasons.  

If later R1b like P312+ and L21+ are primarily associated with the Beaker/Celtic languages distribution, then we also have to consider secondary movements of L21+  from of the same intitial Beaker areas.   For instance, some L21+ Angles from Denmark to already L21+ Eastern Britain thus adding layer upon layer of L21 the further west you go.  Perhaps this might be why the variance in Ireland seemed highest at first.  Different L21 haplotypes arriving and proliferating with each new migration or invasion causing the variance to rise and give a false impression of origin.  Then, that gives rise to the 'Out of the Isles' hypothesis.

I think you're right, and a Neolithic Period origin for L21 may be a bit too old, although certainly the current age estimates cannot yet be carved in stone (or even in Silly Putty).

[alan trowel hands.]

I'm thinking the Beaker Folk are the best candidates for spreading L21 to the British Isles (JMO - just my opinion), unless we want to make L21 older than it currently seems and bring it in with the Neolithic farmers. (I have nothing against Neolithic farmers, by the way, or with people who did not speak an IE language - both are fine with me.)

Now I'm not claiming the Beaker Folk were all L21+; probably they weren't. The original Beaker Folk may have been mostly just P312+, and perhaps L21 first arose among them. But it seems to me some folks whose men were already L21+ or mostly L21+ when they got to Britain introduced that SNP there.

Who else is there? And how did Celtic spread to the British Isles and in such a way that in Ireland the arguably older Q-Celtic was spoken (something it has in common with Iberia)?

Although little seems to be available on the subject, my understanding is that the Irish beakers tend to relate more to the British/Rhine group than the Iberian ones.  I remember seeing most Irish beaker of geographically specific types being categorised as types like' Wessex-Middle Rhine' etc.  i think Iberia-specific beakers are pretty different.  My understanding (and it is a little patchy) is that the Iberian beakers creep up Atlantic France but no further north. 

[alan trowel hands.]

A neolithic farmer L21, while still possible with the confidence interval range, is much less likely, imo.  The I-E/Celtic language thing being one of the biggest reasons.  

If later R1b like P312+ and L21+ are primarily associated with the Beaker/Celtic languages distribution, then we also have to consider secondary movements of L21+  from of the same initial Beaker areas.   For instance, some L21+ Angles from Denmark to already L21+ Eastern Britain thus adding layer upon layer of L21 the further west you go.  Perhaps this might be why the variance in Ireland seemed highest at first.  Different L21 haplotypes arriving and proliferating with each new migration or invasion causing the variance to rise and give a false impression of origin.  Then, that gives rise to the 'Out of the Isles' hypothesis.

Problem is. from what I can see, the variance pattersn for S116* and L21 does not at all correspond with an out of Iberia beaker model. 

[rms2]

Maybe the Beaker Folk did not really come out of Iberia originally, or at least not the ones who brought L21 to the British Isles.