beaker people

[Jean M]

I think it is key to look at the whole package.... Another logical aspect is to accept is that a new cultural package is not necessarily derived of just one preceding culture, in fact it is probably inter-cultural interaction that inspires the new (derived) culture.

Exactly. Harrison pointed out long ago that the various items in the Bell Beaker package did not not all pop up at the same time in the same place. If Bell Beaker were exactly the same as Yamnaya, we wouldn't need a new name for it. It represents a development from Yamnaya, as do a swathe of other cultures. As I put it

Either by the spread of ideas or people, Yamnaya influenced cultures including Late Baden and Makó in the Carpathian Basin, Remedello in northern Italy, Funnel Beaker, Globular Amphora, Corded Ware, and Bell Beaker in northern and western Europe. A change of lifestyle was to sweep over Europe.

And to the east Yamnaya influenced Afanasievo and Sintashta-Petrovka.

[Jean M]

Maritime BB pots are decorated with comb (or shell) stamps with sometimes cord impression for the horizontal lines which separate the different decorated zones.

Good point. Barry Cunliffe thinks that Maritime BB pots spread from Zambujal.

[Jean M]

You make your point for a migration based on stelae, so the point of Zambujal using megalithic collective tombs instead of individual tombs is very relevant.

My cases for migration, rather than cultural borrowing, is based on genetics. The southern route of the migration happens to be conveniently marked by stelae. This does not mean that the stelae were the only cultural item that passed that way. Far more important were metal-working and the secondary products revolution.   

But yes - the Bell Beaker people in places seem to have adapted themselves to local funerary practice, at least initially. From about 2100 BC there is a marked decline in the use of collective burials in Iberia. 

[Jean M]

By the way I very much appreciate the contribution of those for whom English is not the first language, whether they agree or disagree with me. Through them, I have been pointed to ideas, information and non-English language papers that I might not otherwise have found. Informed questioning tests a theory and is useful.

[IALEM]

You make your point for a migration based on stelae, so the point of Zambujal using megalithic collective tombs instead of individual tombs is very relevant.

My cases for migration, rather than cultural borrowing, is based on genetics. The southern route of the migration happens to be conveniently marked by stelae. This does not mean that the stelae were the only cultural item that passed that way. Far more important were metal-working and the secondary products revolution.    

But yes - the Bell Beaker people in places seem to have adapted themselves to local funerary practice, at least initially. From about 2100 BC there is a marked decline in the use of collective burials in Iberia.  

1) But the only ancient genetics we find indicate that Andronovo culture, derived from Yamnaya, shows  R1a1 individuals, not R1b
2)If you see it as bvell beaker adapting to collective graves, where is the revolution in individualism, warrior ethics and the rest of things so many times related to Bell beaker people?

To me, the main point in Harrison and Heyd article, besides the analisys of the individual sites, is their overview that Yamnaya expansion for some time, until EBA c.2100 BC, closed contacts between Western Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean world. They discard an Oriental origin for the Los Millares/Zambujal culture, but they do accept the local development scheme proposed by Pedro Díaz del Río. A point I still have difficulties accepting, BTW

[IALEM]

Here's another article by Volker Heyd, which is even more difficult to unravel, if anything. When the West Meets the East (2008).  

But there are a few clues in there, if you have the patience to fish them out.

a trans-European process of transformation that from 2900 BC on shatters the previous existing material, social and economical foundations. The reasons behind are complex and multi-dimensional. What certainly plays a considerable role is the intrusion of mobile Yamnaya-pastoralists from the steppes to the north and northeast of the Black Sea... an event that affects further wide-ranging changes. ...

If you have the patience to go to the next paragraph you find that
Several new radiocarbon dates have confirmed the early assignment of the phenomenon on the Iberian peninsula – as early as 2700 BC – and therefore put it in close proximity to the transformational wave that had set the stage for the Corded Ware / Single Grave cultures. However, this might be understood in a way that the respective geographical setting and substrate will materialise in very diverse forms, also taking in exogenous factors
So, the substrate still defines the phenomenon.

[Jean M]

If you have the patience to go to the next paragraph you find that
Several new radiocarbon dates have confirmed the early assignment of the phenomenon on the Iberian peninsula – as early as 2700 BC .... However, this might be understood in a way that the respective geographical setting and substrate will materialise in very diverse forms, also taking in exogenous factors

Yes I know. I've read the whole thing several times. Heyd accepts the radio-carbon dating, as is proper, but is attempting to explain the confusing picture of Bell Beaker. As he says:

Expanding westwards along the Atlantic and Mediterranean shores in the early 26th century BC and reaching the British islands, northern Italy, Central Europe and the Carpathian basin around or shortly after 2500 BC, the Bell Beaker phenomenon arrives at its peak. This should also be the moment when the underlying ideology and, deriving from that, the typical Bell Beaker package is fully developed. However, not a monolithic block can be discerned, but rather a patchwork of diverse Beaker groups in mutual contact. Another dimension arises from interaction with the sometimes very distinct local cultural groups: at least in the initial phase the Bell Beakers are never self-contained. It seems, that the phenomenon succeeds only in some areas in completely absorbing the autochthonous cultures. What we finally see is an impressively dynamic co-existence of different cultural systems between 2500-2200 BC, until the expansion of the Early Bronze Age establishes a whole new cultural basis.

He is not saying anything new there. This article is most useful for what he says about Cetina and other cultures of what he calls the Southeastern Periphery of BB. That is the point of it.

I simply linked to it because a hint of his thinking on the origins of the cultural transformation of Europe in the 3rd millennium is dropped in at the start. I'm not imagining that the pages on Yamnaya that are included in Harrison and Heyd 2007 are relevant to Sion and Bell Beaker. They were included because they are very relevant.

[Jean M]

So, the substrate still defines the phenomenon.

No - the substrate explains the geographical variations. The overall similarities are the definition of Bell Beaker. 

[secherbernard]

By the way I very much appreciate the contribution of those for whom English is not the first language, whether they agree or disagree with me. Through them, I have been pointed to ideas, information and non-English language papers that I might not otherwise have found. Informed questioning tests a theory and is useful.

Among the last interesting french studies about Bell Beaker, you have:
1) Olivier Lemercier: "Le Campaniforme dans le sud-est de la France" - 2002  about Bell Beaker in south-east France http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00087323
2) Marc Vander Linden "Le Phenomene Campaniforme Dans L'Europe Du 3eme Millenaire Avant Notre Ere" - 2004-  about Bell Beaker in Europe: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6216536-le-phenomene-campaniforme-dans-l-europe-du-3eme-millenaire-avant-notre-e
3) Jean Guilaine, Sebastiano Tusa, Primo Veneroso "La Sicile et l'Europe campaniforme : La collection Veneroso à Sciacca" - 2009 about Bell Beaker in Sicily: http://www.amazon.fr/Sicile-lEurope-campaniforme-collection-Veneroso/dp/235842000X

[Jean M]

1) But the only ancient genetics we find indicate that Andronovo culture, derived from Yamnaya, shows  R1a1 individuals, not R1b

Yes - this is the reason that I have stopped arguing with Alan on this forum. We cannot get any further by debate. We need more ancient DNA.  We have one instance of R1b together with R1a in the Lichtenstein Cave, Germany c. 1000 BC. We have nothing from Bell Beaker.

The genetic argument that weighs with me is the predominance of R1b and R1a today in Indo-European-speaking countries. But people will go on arguing until we have ancient DNA. I have other things to do.  

[Jean M]

Among the last interesting french studies about Bell Beaker, you have:
1) Olivier Lemercier: "Le Campaniforme dans le sud-est de la France" - 2002  about Bell Beaker in south-east France http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00087323
2) Marc Vander Linden "Le Phenomene Campaniforme Dans L'Europe Du 3eme Millenaire Avant Notre Ere" - 2004-  about Bell Beaker in Europe: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6216536-le-phenomene-campaniforme-dans-l-europe-du-3eme-millenaire-avant-notre-e
3) Jean Guilaine, Sebastiano Tusa, Primo Veneroso "La Sicile et l'Europe campaniforme : La collection Veneroso à Sciacca" - 2009 about Bell Beaker in Sicily: http://www.amazon.fr/Sicile-lEurope-campaniforme-collection-Veneroso/dp/235842000X

Thank you. I quote Olivier Lemercier and Marc Vander Linden, who have both produced papers in English as well.   

[IALEM]

So, the substrate still defines the phenomenon.

No - the substrate explains the geographical variations. The overall similarities are the definition of Bell Beaker. 

In the sentence I quoted, he is talking about Corded Ware, Single Graves and Bell Beaker, how they are different answers to the trasnformational wave he talks about, it is not about the geographical variance within BB. Not to deny that BB is not a monolithic block, in  fact that is something I agree very much with.

[IALEM]

As I read it, what Harrison and Hayed are proposing is something like this
1) Los Millares/Zambujal culture developes locally into a powerful urban culture c.2900/2800
2) At the same time, Yamnaya people is moving through the Balkans, setting in motion a chain reaction in neighbouring cultures
3) c.2700 Early protoBellBeaker package is developed at Zambujal
4) 2600-2500 quick expansion through all of Western Europe. In the course of that expansion BB culture meets indigenal cultures, and Yamnaya influences, or even direct contact in the Eastern borderof BB area. Those influences shape BB culture into the classic BB package
5) This cultural development takes place without Eastern Mediterranean interference, because Yamnaya expansion momentarily shut that connection, until it resumes c.2100 BC
It is a model of ideologic expansion, with room for only limited movement of elites. If you want to fit R1b present predominance in this frame it should be as population growth because of new technologies rather than population replacement. Even in the case of Sion and Aosta Harrison and Heyd talk about continuty of the population all the way since late Neolithic through BB phases.
IMO that is  good enough to explain that R1b dominance in Western Europe.

[Jean M]

In the sentence I quoted, he is talking about Corded Ware, Single Graves and Bell Beaker, how they are different answers to the transformational wave he talks about, it is not about the geographical variance within BB.

So he is. The fact remains that the common features make it possible to discern a common origin, despite the many variant forms.  

[Jean M]

As I read it, what Harrison and Heyd are proposing is something like this
1) Los Millares/Zambujal culture develops locally into a powerful urban culture c.2900/2800
2) At the same time, Yamnaya people is moving through the Balkans, setting in motion a chain reaction in neighbouring cultures
3) c.2700 Early proto Bell Beaker package is developed at Zambujal
4) 2600-2500 quick expansion through all of Western Europe. In the course of that expansion BB culture meets indigenous cultures, and Yamnaya influences, or even direct contact in the Eastern border of BB area. Those influences shape BB culture into the classic BB package
5) This cultural development takes place without Eastern Mediterranean interference, because Yamnaya expansion momentarily shut that connection, until it resumes c.2100 BC

Not quite! :)  Harrison and Heyd section 9.2: The final Neolithic (p.193)

1) 3000 BC+ the eastern Aegean brought into contact early urban society of Near East. This progresses into Central Mediterranean by 2200 BC. Meanwhile

2) (p. 194) From 4500 BC people of steppe origin had been settling in lower Danube and central Carpathian Basin. This immigration arrived in eastern and east-central Europe 2900-2700 BC. (p. 196) Yamnaya is a pastoral economy with domesticated horses, ox-drawn wagons, etc. "Its physical mobility is essential in understanding the dynamism, and capacity for long distance social contacts, (some of them no doubt belligerent), shown in the Yamnaya culture." Harrison and Heyd emphasise that they do not accept the invasion theories of Gimbutas. Instead they describe the components of the Yamnaya package (pp. 196-203), assimilation of which sets off the transformation of Europe. This includes

3) (p. 201) elements of the Yamnaya package in the Po valley in Remedello and in the form of anthropomorphic stelae all over northern Italy and the Alps, including Aosta and Sion.  And even

4) (p. 203) the development c.2900/2800 of Los Millares and Zambujal as (say Spanish archaeologists)  macro-villages i.e. large, fortified, but not fully urban settlements. The older theories that proposed that these were the result of direct contact with the Aegean early Bronze Age are obsolete. But these developments are associated with imported perforated battle-axes, copper daggers, etc.

All this is followed by (section 9.3.) the origin of Bell Beaker in Zambujal as a proto-package, with some elements added in the process of transmission to new areas.   And the second transformation of Europe c. 2500 BC with the development of the full Beaker package.

[Mikewww]

As I read it, what Harrison and Heyd are proposing is something like this
1) Los Millares/Zambujal culture develops locally into a powerful urban culture c.2900/2800
2) At the same time, Yamnaya people is moving through the Balkans, setting in motion a chain reaction in neighbouring cultures
3) c.2700 Early proto Bell Beaker package is developed at Zambujal
4) 2600-2500 quick expansion through all of Western Europe. In the course of that expansion BB culture meets indigenous cultures, and Yamnaya influences, or even direct contact in the Eastern border of BB area. Those influences shape BB culture into the classic BB package
5) This cultural development takes place without Eastern Mediterranean interference, because Yamnaya expansion momentarily shut that connection, until it resumes c.2100 BC

Not quite! :)  Harrison and Heyd section 9.2: The final Neolithic (p.193)

1) 3000 BC+ the eastern Aegean brought into contact early urban society of Near East. This progresses into Central Mediterranean by 2200 BC. Meanwhile

2) (p. 194) From 4500 BC people of steppe origin had been settling in lower Danube and central Carpathian Basin. This immigration arrived in eastern and east-central Europe 2900-2700 BC. (p. 196) Yamnaya is a pastoral economy with domesticated horses, ox-drawn wagons, etc. "Its physical mobility is essentia in understanding the dynamism, and capacity for long distance social contacts, (some of them no doubt belligerent), shown in the Yamnaya culture." Harrison and Heyd emphasise that they do not accept the invasion theories of Gimbutas. Instead they describe the components of the Yamnaya package (pp. 196-203), assimilation of which sets off the transformation of Europe. This includes

3) (p. 201) elements of the Yamnaya package in the Po valley in Remedello and in the form of anthropomorphic stelae all over northern Italy and the Alps, including Aosta and Sion.  And even

4) (p. 203) the development c.2900/2800 of Los Millares and Zambujal as (say Spanish archaeologists)  macro-villages i.e. large, fortified, but not fully urban settlements. The older theories that proposed that these were the result of direct contact with the Aegean early Bronze Age are obsolete. But these developments are associated with imported perforated battle-axes, copper daggers, etc.

All this is followed by (section 9.3.) the origin of Bell Beaker in Zambujal as a proto-package, with some elements added in the process of transmission to new areas.   And the second transformation of Europe c. 2500 BC with the development of the full Beaker package.

Okay, you guys inspired me to read Harrison and Heyd myself.   So far it feels like "The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millenium" fits in with David Anthony's view of prehistoric cultural changes in Europe.

[Jean M]

Okay, you guys inspired me to read Harrison and Heyd myself. 

Good for you Mike. You may also be interested in Alison Sheridan, Towards a fuller, more nuanced narrative of Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain 2500-1500 BC, Bronze Age Review, vol. 1 (November 2008).
It is online in full in pdf.

The section "Isotopic aliens and the question of human movement" (pp. 63-67) is really useful in identifying the various parts of Continental Europe from which Bell Beaker immigrants to Britain and Ireland came.

[Mikewww]

Okay, you guys inspired me to read Harrison and Heyd myself.  

Good for you Mike. You may also be interested in Alison Sheridan, Towards a fuller, more nuanced narrative of Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain 2500-1500 BC, Bronze Age Review, vol. 1 (November 2008).
It is online in full in pdf.

The section "Isotopic aliens and the question of human movement" (pp. 63-67) is really useful in identifying the various parts of Continental Europe from which Bell Beaker immigrants to Britain and Ireland came.

Will do.  Thanks, Jean.

I know the archaeology of prehistoric Europe is subject a wide variety of opinion in terms of much analysis and interpretation.  The same goes for the genetics.  The same goes for the linguistics.

However, when you review the disciplines together, the veils covering the evidence begin to erode.  Words like transformation are fitting. I think it may be hard to overestimate the impact of the Indo-Europeans.  Forget the pots, the Indo-Europeans seem to have a lot to do with Beaker cultures and their follow-ons.  Their languages and ways are prevalent in Western Eurasia.

I'm not saying that R1b folks ARE the original IE folks but they got on the train as it left one of the first stations or two.  That also doesn't mean that all R1b folks are IE, however, some guy with a Western Atlantic like haplotype must have left descendants who were integral to the transformation.

[IALEM]

I know the archaeology of prehistoric Europe is subject a wide variety of opinion in terms of much analysis and interpretation.  The same goes for the genetics.  The same goes for the linguistics.

However, when you review the disciplines together, the veils covering the evidence begin to erode.  Words like "transformation" are fitting. I think it may be hard to overestimate the impact of the Indo-Europeans.  Forget the pots, the Indo-Europeans seem to have a lot to do with Beaker cultures and their follow-ons.  Their languages and ways are prevalent in Western Eurasia.

I'm not saying that R1b folks the original IE folks but they got on the train as it left one of the first stations or two.

The problem with an early entry of IE in Western Europe linked to Bell Beaker is that, besides a problematic linguistic chronology, from the archaeological point of view there is the problem with Urnfields culture, a long derivation from BB through the Tumuli culture that was predominant in Central Europe, but also extended through Southern France and into NE Spain. Urnfields in NE Spain evolve without breaking into the historical Iberic culture, with a non IE language. Since early 60s some Spanish archaeologists have been looking into any trace of IE language in that region without success. That is one of the reasons I favour the Hallstatt C theory of IE expansion.

[Mikewww]

I know the archaeology of prehistoric Europe is subject a wide variety of opinion in terms of much analysis and interpretation.  The same goes for the genetics.  The same goes for the linguistics.

However, when you review the disciplines together, the veils covering the evidence begin to erode.  Words like "transformation" are fitting. I think it may be hard to overestimate the impact of the Indo-Europeans.  Forget the pots, the Indo-Europeans seem to have a lot to do with Beaker cultures and their follow-ons.  Their languages and ways are prevalent in Western Eurasia.

I'm not saying that R1b folks the original IE folks but they got on the train as it left one of the first stations or two.

The problem with an early entry of IE in Western Europe linked to Bell Beaker is that, besides a problematic linguistic chronology, from the archaeological point of view there is the problem with Urnfields culture, a long derivation from BB through the Tumuli culture that was predominant in Central Europe, but also extended through Southern France and into NE Spain. Urnfields in NE Spain evolve without breaking into the historical Iberic culture, with a non IE language. Since early 60s some Spanish archaeologists have been looking into any trace of IE language in that region without success. That is one of the reasons I favour the Hallstatt C theory of IE expansion.

Can you elaborate on the Hallstatt C hypothesis?   It is about 800-600BC, right?  Are you saying it brought IE speakers to Atlantic fringes of Europe?  R-L21* to the Atlantic fringes?   You must be saying this expansion was carrying the more archaic Celtic, Q, right?

[IALEM]

Can you elaborate on the Hallstatt C hypothesis?   It is about 800-600BC, right?  Are you saying it brought IE speakers to Atlantic fringes of Europe?  R-L21* to the Atlantic fringes?   You must be saying this expansion was carrying the more archaic Celtic, Q, right?

Well, first I am not talking about mass migration, I don´t think Hallstatt C brought L21 or P312 to the Atlantic coasts, IMO it is too late for that, and even more important, Hallstatt C-D is an elite culture.
Hallstatt C brought the work of iron to Western Europe, ruining in the process the Atlantic Bronza circuit. Their influences are visible in all Western Europe except those areas of the Iberian coast and Aquitania that in historical times we find non IE speaking populations. In Italy their limit is also the non IE Etrusci. The match is very good.

[GoldenHind]

 That is one of the reasons I favour the Hallstatt C theory of IE expansion.

How do you explain the Germanic languages, which have no connection with Hallstatt?

[Jean M]

How do you explain the Germanic languages, which have no connection with Hallstatt?

Proto-Germanic is thought to have developed by c. 500 BC in the Nordic Bronze Age Culture and spread south out of Jutland in the Iron Age. This was well away from the heart of the Hallstatt Culture.  Germanic speakers did not reach Austria and Switzerland until after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West.

There is no doubt that Hallstatt and La Tene were Celtic, and no doubt in my mind that waves of Celts spread from these centres in the Iron Age. Where I differ from Ialem is in feeling that the older forms of Celtic are best explained by an initial spread with Copper Age/Bell Beaker people, with later waves spreading P-Celtic across Gaul and into Britain (but not Ireland, which was barely touched by Hallstatt and La Tene.)

The estimated dates by corrected glottochronology fit this picture.   

[alan trowel hands.]

How do you explain the Germanic languages, which have no connection with Hallstatt?

Proto-Germanic is thought to have developed by c. 500 BC in the Nordic Bronze Age Culture and spread south out of Jutland in the Iron Age. This was well away from the heart of the Hallstatt Culture.  Germanic speakers did not reach Austria and Switzerland until after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West.

There is no doubt that Hallstatt and La Tene were Celtic, and no doubt in my mind that waves of Celts spread from these centres in the Iron Age. Where I differ from Ialem is in feeling that the older forms of Celtic are best explained by an initial spread with Copper Age/Bell Beaker people, with later waves spreading P-Celtic across Gaul and into Britain (but not Ireland, which was barely touched by Hallstatt and La Tene.)

The estimated dates by corrected glottochronology fit this picture.    

I remember some studies of the older forms that suggested that Irelands form of Celtic was actually even more archaic than Celtiiberian.  I think the logic was that both shared the lack of a P-Q shift but Celtiberian had the it-ent (e.g. Silver=Argit in Irish and Argent in Gaulish) shift which is known in Gaulish but Irish doesnt.  This made the order of archaism Gaelic then Celtiberian then Gaulish.  This was linked with a core-periphery model whereby the earlier that an area fell out of the main Celtic interacting network dictated how much the form of Celtic was archaic and did not share on the innovations that other Celts shared.  I think the archaeology (basically gauged by metalwork influences) showed Ireland's last connection to the network for c. 300+ years was Hallstatt C while Iberia sort of fell out of the mainstream after Hallstatt D.  Much of what we know as Gaul remained in some sort of network into the La Tene period.  I am not sure who wrote this.  It sounds like it is based on Koch.  

[Mikewww]

That is one of the reasons I favour the Hallstatt C theory of IE expansion.

Can you elaborate on the Hallstatt C hypothesis?   It is about 800-600BC, right?  Are you saying it brought IE speakers to Atlantic fringes of Europe?  R-L21* to the Atlantic fringes?   You must be saying this expansion was carrying the more archaic Celtic, Q, right?

Well, first I am not talking about mass migration, I don´t think Hallstatt C brought L21 or P312 to the Atlantic coasts, IMO it is too late for that, and even more important, Hallstatt C-D is an elite culture.
Hallstatt C brought the work of iron to Western Europe, ruining in the process the Atlantic Bronza circuit. Their influences are visible in all Western Europe except those areas of the Iberian coast and Aquitania that in historical times we find non IE speaking populations. In Italy their limit is also the non IE Etrusci. The match is very good.

IALEM,

I think you were saying IE languages expanded with Hallstatt C with the implication that Hallstat led IE expansion where it did not exist and that this was the major driver behind IE expansion.

Please elaborate on how you think IE rolled out across Europe.  What phases and when?