World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: Jean M on March 28, 2012, 10:32:05 AM



Title: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on March 28, 2012, 10:32:05 AM
Olivier Lemercier,  Interpreting the Beaker phenomenon in Mediterranean France: an Iron Age analogy (http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/086/ant0860131.htm), Antiquity, Volume: 86  Number: 331  Page: 131–143.

Quote
The author offers a new descriptive explanation of the Beaker phenomenon, by focusing on Mediterranean France and making reference to the Greek influx in the same area 2000 years later. In the Iron Age, the influence began with an exploratory phase, and then went on to create new settlements and colonise new areas away from the coast. The Beaker analogy is striking, with phases of exploration and implantation and acculturation, but adjusted to include a final phase where Beaker practice was more independent. Comparing the numerous models put forward to explain it, the author shows that immigration and a cultural package are both aspects of the Beaker phenomenon.  

[The full text is available to those who have access to my Mini-Library]

Christopher Prescott and Hakon Glorstad (eds), Becoming European: The Transformation of Third Millennium Northern and Western Europe (http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/91109//Location/Oxbow) (2011)

Quote
The papers in this anthology provide an up-to-date survey of trends in Bell Beaker research, with a focus on western and northern Europe, as well as developments in the northern and eastern Scandinavian and Baltic regions.

Table of Contents

Preface (Christopher Prescott and Håkon Glørstad)
1. Introduction: becoming European (Christopher Prescott and Håkon Glørstad)
2. Personhoods for Europe: the archaeological construction and deconstruction of European-ness (Herdis Hølleland)
3. Demography and mobility in North-Western Europe during the third millennium cal. BC (Marc Vander Linden)
4. Perceiving changes in the third millennium BC in Europe through pottery: Galicia, Brittany and Denmark as examples (M. Pilar Prieto-Martínez)
5. Body use transformations: socio-political changes in the Bell Beaker context (Lucía Moragón)
6. Late Neolithic Expansion to Norway. The beginning of a 4000 year-old shipbuilding tradition (Einar Østmo)
7. Towards a new understanding of Late Neolithic Norway – the role of metal and metal working (Lene Melheim)
8. Historical ideal types and the transition to the Late Neolithic in South Norway (Håkon Glørstad)
9. The last hunter-fishers of western Norway (Knut Andreas Bergsvik)
10. Third millennium transformations in Norway: modeling an interpretative platform (Christopher Prescott)
11. Technology Talks: Material Diversity and Change in Northern Norway 3000–1000 BC (Marianne Skandfer)
12. Cultural Reproduction from Late Stone Age to Early Metal Age – a short discussion of the cultures in Finland, the northern part of Fennoscandia and Karelia, 3200 cal BC to 1500 cal BC (Mika Lavento)
13. Tracing Pressure-Flaked Arrowheads in Europe (Jan Apel)
14. The Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages: an archaeological model (Kristian Kristiansen)

 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: MHammers on March 28, 2012, 06:18:40 PM
Out of the 3 phases the paper suggests, the second phase mentioned influences from the east in places like Italy, Switzerland, and the northern Balkans.  This seems like better support for a large movement of R1b. 

Speculating with R1b as carried by the Beakers, I see something similiar to this.  The early phase suggests mostly a continuation of the late neolithic with perhaps some small-scale interactions with incoming "Beaker" pioneers or traders.  The first phase may have carried the first R1b's into Iberia, but they would still have been few in number.  I suspect lactase persistence was more common in the second or third phase when the bulk of the R1b arrived.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on March 28, 2012, 07:23:49 PM
I think that we need to separate out two factors:

1. The typical pattern of exploration followed by colonization.
2. Direction of flow, which in this case reflects a political shift.

Southern France is just part of the overall picture and not an important one in Phase One. It had no copper. The copper sources of Iberia seem to have been the big attraction, with significant settlements there. From previous work by Lemercier and others, I suggested that the primary trail out to Iberia was via Corsica and Sardinia, but one of the routes back to the Carpathian Basin was along the coast to Southern France and from there to the Alps.

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/StelaePeople.jpg

Then we have the political shift. The power centre affecting S France initially was in  Portugal. Once the people coming up the other route to central Europe (marked in black on my map) became entrenched in power centres north of the Alps, they took control of the trade routes between there and the Mediterranean. That shift can be dated pretty closely at Sion to c. 2,425 BC. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 29, 2012, 09:01:07 AM
Then we have the political shift. The power centre affecting S France initially was in  Portugal. Once the people coming up the other route to central Europe (marked in black on my map) became entrenched in power centres north of the Alps, they took control of the trade routes between there and the Mediterranean. That shift can be dated pretty closely at Sion to c. 2,425 BC. 
I don't know R1a distribution patterns. Is there any chance these people that changed things at Sion included a lot of R1a people? We know Klyosov's theory that R1a taught R1b IE languages. Could that have happened here?

"Swiss Bell Beaker population dynamics: eastern or southern influences?" by Desideri
ftp://ftp.rz.uni-kiel.de/pub/ufg/dateien_studium/glockenbecher/literatur/desideri_besse.pdf


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: razyn on March 29, 2012, 09:54:56 AM
FYI, that last url works if you delete the http:// and just start with ftp://


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Richard Rocca on March 29, 2012, 01:45:51 PM
Then we have the political shift. The power centre affecting S France initially was in  Portugal. Once the people coming up the other route to central Europe (marked in black on my map) became entrenched in power centres north of the Alps, they took control of the trade routes between there and the Mediterranean. That shift can be dated pretty closely at Sion to c. 2,425 BC.  
I don't know R1a distribution patterns. Is there any chance these people that changed things at Sion included a lot of R1a people? We know Klyosov's theory that R1a taught R1b IE languages. Could that have happened here?

"Swiss Bell Beaker population dynamics: eastern or southern influences?" by Desideri
ftp://ftp.rz.uni-kiel.de/pub/ufg/dateien_studium/glockenbecher/literatur/desideri_besse.pdf

Mike, the probability is close to zero. Underhill 2009 has R1a in southern Switzerland at 0% and the FTDNA R1a project has exactly zero samples from southern and SW Switzerland.

Underhill has very small amounts of  R1a in NW Switzerland (3.7%) and in NE Switzerland (6.3%). Not surprisingly, all FTDNA R1a project samples from Switzerland have German names and are from German speaking areas of Switzerland (zero from French speaking areas, zero from Italian speaking areas).

Klyosov's dreams of R1a grandeur in western Europe remain just that, dreams.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on March 29, 2012, 02:50:49 PM
Is there any chance these people that changed things at Sion included a lot of R1a people?

What do you think? :)

Bell Beaker coincides with the distribution of R1b. We are just talking about different strands of same. Or at least I'm assuming from present-day distributions that the people who changed things at Sion were L21+, while the ones who settled in Iberia were L21-.

I've been looking at Rich Rocca's work on DF27 with great interest, now that I've got a bit of time to catch up with all these exciting discoveries, and wondering if that mutation happened in Iberia and spread back into Central Europe from there.  


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: MHammers on March 29, 2012, 03:31:32 PM
From looking at the R1a1a project, R1a is clustered around Slavic speaking countries where it is expected.  R1b looks to have been IE-ized in the Balkans or the Hungarian plain, before they may have arrived at Sion or the west in general.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Mike Walsh on March 29, 2012, 06:06:52 PM
I've been looking at Rich Rocca's work on DF27 with great interest, now that I've got a bit of time to catch up with all these exciting discoveries, and wondering if that mutation happened in Iberia and spread back into Central Europe from there.
Yes, it would be crucial if DF27* turned out to be Iberian only.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 29, 2012, 06:10:37 PM
http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/08/73/11/PDF/Historical_Model_Bell_Beakers_-_2004.pdf


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on March 30, 2012, 06:17:04 AM
Thanks Alan. I hadn't got that one. I'll add it to the collection.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on March 30, 2012, 07:07:45 AM
I forgot that I had the abstracts for the papers in Christopher Prescott and Hakon Glorstad (eds), Becoming European: The Transformation of Third Millennium Northern and Western Europe (2011) from when they were presented to the 2008 EAA Conference. I have uploaded the pdf to the Mini-Library. I will just pick out one here:

THE BEAKER CULTURE AND BRONZE AGE BEGINNINGS ALONG THE NORWEGIAN COAST; SO MUCH SO FAST Christopher Prescott, Institute of Archaeology, University of Oslo, Norway

The Late Neolithic (the LN,2350-1750 BC) in Norway can be regarded as the initiation of the Bronze Age in southern and coastal Norway. LN-developments were probably sparked by Beaker influences, conceivably also migration, from northern Jutland in Denmark to Lista and Jæren in Southern Norway, and are thus part of wider southern Scandinavian development around the Battle Axe Period to LN Beaker transition.

From these geographically and chronologically restricted beginnings, early LN technology, modes of production and culture quickly spread throughout southern  and coastal replacing older social, cultural and production forms, and redefining a historical trajectory. Spreading perhaps as far as 1000 km from the Beaker areas in Lista and Rogaland, the speed in which these wide-reaching and dramatic changes took place is equally remarkable, perhaps taking place within a generation.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Bren123 on March 31, 2012, 04:38:30 AM

Bell Beaker coincides with the distribution of R1b. We are just talking about different strands of same. Or at least I'm assuming from present-day distributions that the people who changed things at Sion were L21+, while the ones who settled in Iberia were L21-.

 

So has there been any aDNA(R-L21) found among Bell Beaker remains?


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on March 31, 2012, 09:08:59 AM
I'd love to have any Y-DNA from a Bell Beaker site! So far the concentration has been on getting mtDNA out of ancient remains, because there is a much better chance of that than Y-DNA. If you take a look at my table of Ancient Western Eurasian DNA (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml), you will see how pitifully little Y-DNA we have from any period anywhere.

Some things are gradually emerging from the pattern. Bernard Secher posted on his new blog a few days ago (http://secherbernard.blog.free.fr/index.php?post/2012/03/24/3-synth%C3%A8ses-r%C3%A9centes-sur-les-tests-anciens-d-ADN-mitochondrial-en-Europe) on three papers that have synthesized the results from ancient mtDNA. His text is in French, but the figures are in English and speak for themselves.

Some big studies of ancient DNA are under way, so let's keep our fingers crossed that some Y-DNA comes out of those.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: razyn on March 31, 2012, 01:37:48 PM
I'd love to have any Y-DNA from a Bell Beaker site!

The 2004 paper by Lemercier, cited by Alan T.H. about five posts up, refers to quite a number of Bell Beaker sites in SE France, many from cave burials, that had "remains."  See e.g. the second paragraph of 1.1, and the first of 2.1.  If the translator (or the French original) meant the same thing we do by "remains," that should be a fruitful source of something to try to analyze.  Testing ancient Y-DNA still seems to be quite expensive, last I heard (which would have been in regard to Ötzi, King Tut, and some from SE England studied by Wessex Archaeology).

There are two statements in this paper that seem to me especially interesting.  One, with respect to the famous beakers themselves, is in 1.1:  "We still do not know where they were produced, as we are waiting for more abundant analysis."  Whether that is still the case ten years later, I don't know; but in 2002 at least, the very widespread attribution of these ceramics (and by extension, the origin of the cultural complex) to Portugal seems to have been based on radiocarbon dating of the oldest sites in which they had been found deposited -- not sites of their manufacture.

A second provocative statement is in 1.2:  "Even if all the non-funeral sites cannot be considered as strictly domestic sites, they represent more than two thirds of the recorded sites, contrary to what is known for the other areas.  Thus we can assume that the Bell Beaker culture is not a funeral phenomenon, even if there are Bell Beaker elements in the graves, in almost a hundred graves."  And he cites a then-unpublished study by himself and others, L'origine du groupe "barbelé"... L'hypothèse Italique.  Which, in itself, sounds pretty interesting.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on March 31, 2012, 02:09:29 PM
Read through all of the recent beaker papers in Jean's library (cheers Jean).  Hard going with my basic French at times but very interesting.  It does seem that we could be slowly heading towards a point where different beaker groups and phases might be associated with different clades.  The correlation between beakers and high R1b was spotted many years ago and with the dating currently suggested by the variance it is clearly the front runner.

Its clear that while Iberia is strongly believe to be the origin of the basic beaker proto-package.  Whether L11 took of from there is another matter.  If it did there is a heck of a leap geographically between Iberia and the main concentration of high variance upstream of L11 populations in Asia Minor etc.  I suppose we are left with either some sort of maritime leap along the Med. to Iberia or some sort of meeting of non-R1b Iberian beaker influences with R1b elements somewhere in central Europe (who had come from further east) followed by a secondary take off of these beakerised people. 

I personally dont think the answer is clear and I await recalculations of variance of p312 in Iberia and elsewhere as what was p312* until recently resolves into clades.  I am pretty facinated by RR's work  that seems to be showing that most of Iberian p312* is resolving into one superclade marked by a new SNP just upstream of Z196.  Its striking how much Iberian p312 descends from this one line marked by this new SNP.  If Z196 is already thought old then maybe it is the oldest SNP-defined section of p312, despite earlier calculations of variance just based on

I am also mindful that there must be a rump p312* that is negative for this new SNP and lies on lines leading to U152 and L21.  The location of 'true' P312* (negative for this new SNP above Z196) will be very enlightening in terms of the origins of L21 and U152 too and I cant wait for this to start to be tested on p312* across Europe.  It seems to me that genetics is more likely to solve the beaker origin problem than archaeology.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Richard Rocca on March 31, 2012, 04:19:45 PM
Read through all of the recent beaker papers in Jean's library (cheers Jean).  Hard going with my basic French at times but very interesting.  It does seem that we could be slowly heading towards a point where different beaker groups and phases might be associated with different clades.  The correlation between beakers and high R1b was spotted many years ago and with the dating currently suggested by the variance it is clearly the front runner.

Its clear that while Iberia is strongly believe to be the origin of the basic beaker proto-package.  Whether L11 took of from there is another matter.  If it did there is a heck of a leap geographically between Iberia and the main concentration of high variance upstream of L11 populations in Asia Minor etc.  I suppose we are left with either some sort of maritime leap along the Med. to Iberia or some sort of meeting of non-R1b Iberian beaker influences with R1b elements somewhere in central Europe (who had come from further east) followed by a secondary take off of these beakerised people. 

I personally dont think the answer is clear and I await recalculations of variance of p312 in Iberia and elsewhere as what was p312* until recently resolves into clades.  I am pretty facinated by RR's work  that seems to be showing that most of Iberian p312* is resolving into one superclade marked by a new SNP just upstream of Z196.  Its striking how much Iberian p312 descends from this one line marked by this new SNP.  If Z196 is already thought old then maybe it is the oldest SNP-defined section of p312, despite earlier calculations of variance just based on

I am also mindful that there must be a rump p312* that is negative for this new SNP and lies on lines leading to U152 and L21.  The location of 'true' P312* (negative for this new SNP above Z196) will be very enlightening in terms of the origins of L21 and U152 too and I cant wait for this to start to be tested on p312* across Europe.  It seems to me that genetics is more likely to solve the beaker origin problem than archaeology.

So far, U152* (xL2-,Z36-,Z56-) has been found almost entirely in German or Swiss-German samples. It would be very interesting to see what all of the remaining French and Belgian P312* turn out to be.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: razyn on March 31, 2012, 05:48:20 PM
I suppose we are left with either some sort of maritime leap along the Med. to Iberia or some sort of meeting of non-R1b Iberian beaker influences with R1b elements somewhere in central Europe
I agree, except that there's another side of the European peninsula that gets very little attention.  The Dover Boat, and various aspects of the tin and amber trades, hint at the use of this other route, by those inclined to maritime leaping.  As distinguished from herding and plowing their way across.  Whether this was done by DF27 guys, I don't know; but it was done in the time frame under discussion, and not just via the Mediterranean and two or three of the biggest rivers.

Quote
It seems to me that genetics is more likely to solve the beaker origin problem than archaeology.
I kind of agree with that, too... only, if we keep chatting, maybe it can be solved in an interdisciplinary fashion.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Arch Y. on March 31, 2012, 07:55:20 PM
I'd love to have any Y-DNA from a Bell Beaker site! So far the concentration has been on getting mtDNA out of ancient remains, because there is a much better chance of that than Y-DNA. If you take a look at my table of Ancient Western Eurasian DNA (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml), you will see how pitifully little Y-DNA we have from any period anywhere.

Some things are gradually emerging from the pattern. Bernard Secher posted on his new blog a few days ago (http://secherbernard.blog.free.fr/index.php?post/2012/03/24/3-synth%C3%A8ses-r%C3%A9centes-sur-les-tests-anciens-d-ADN-mitochondrial-en-Europe) on three papers that have synthesized the results from ancient mtDNA. His text is in French, but the figures are in English and speak for themselves.

Some big studies of ancient DNA are under way, so let's keep our fingers crossed that some Y-DNA comes out of those.

The studies hopefully will open a new chapter on understanding Western European anthropology. I'm pretty excited to see what comes out of those studies. I'm hoping, crossing my fingers, that some R1b will be found at Neolithic sites in Western Europe.

I'm particulary interested with the sites in Catalonia. Such as this one in SE Catalonia that you posted: http://www2.dipcas.es/servicio/Arqueologia/PNau.htm

Arch Y.



Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 01, 2012, 09:27:35 AM
Puig de la Nau is Final Bronze Age to Iron Age. We have a couple of Iron Age samples of mtDNA from there. What is the particular interest of that site?  I don't recall posting about it.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Heber on April 01, 2012, 02:16:28 PM
I suppose we are left with either some sort of maritime leap along the Med. to Iberia or some sort of meeting of non-R1b Iberian beaker influences with R1b elements somewhere in central Europe
I agree, except that there's another side of the European peninsula that gets very little attention.  The Dover Boat, and various aspects of the tin and amber trades, hint at the use of this other route, by those inclined to maritime leaping.  As distinguished from herding and plowing their way across.  Whether this was done by DF27 guys, I don't know; but it was done in the time frame under discussion, and not just via the Mediterranean and two or three of the biggest rivers.

Quote
It seems to me that genetics is more likely to solve the beaker origin problem than archaeology.
I kind of agree with that, too... only, if we keep chatting, maybe it can be solved in an interdisciplinary fashion.

I agree, I think we sometimes underestimate the navigational capabilities of the early Europeans. In his book Europe between the Oceans, Barry Cunliffe estimated the first Neolithic settlements out of Anatolia to Crete happened in boats capable of carrying up to 20 tonnes including live stock. Elsewhere it was pointed out that a round trip from the Black Sea to the Pillars of Hercules and back again could be achieved using the favourable currents of the Meditteranean, in the Summer sailing season. Likewise using the rivers a group could travel in light weight boats from The Black Sea to The estuary of the Loire at Morbihan via the Danube ( assuming the could pass hostile tribes at the Iron gates ), Rhine and Loire in a single season. This is a lot faster than the 1Km per year estimate of the Demic diffusion model.

"One of the most valuable aspects of the book, particularly from the perspective of those interested in ships, shipping, shipbuilding and the history of various watercraft, is its detailed description of the discovery and excavation of prehistoric and early historic vessels. Cunliffe presents some of the more recent discoveries that are less commonly described, not just the better-known examples along the coasts of Greece and Turkey. The cross-Channel trade between Britain and continental Europe is documented by several well-preserved wrecks, together with their cargoes, and these have led to a reassessment of the level of technical skill in shipbuilding and seafaring achieved by European populations in this region as early as the Bronze Age."

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/europa-emerging-from-the-sea


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 02, 2012, 05:55:04 PM
I agree, I think we sometimes underestimate the navigational capabilities of the early Europeans. In his book Europe between the Oceans, Barry Cunliffe estimated the first Neolithic settlements out of Anatolia to Crete happened in boats capable of carrying up to 20 tonnes including live stock. Elsewhere it was pointed out that a round trip from the Black Sea to the Pillars of Hercules and back again could be achieved using the favourable currents of the Meditteranean, in the Summer sailing season. Likewise using the rivers a group could travel in light weight boats from The Black Sea to The estuary of the Loire at Morbihan via the Danube ( assuming the could pass hostile tribes at the Iron gates ), Rhine and Loire in a single season. This is a lot faster than the 1Km per year estimate of the Demic diffusion model.
Does Cunliffe describe when Scandinavians became excellent at sea travel?


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: OConnor on April 03, 2012, 09:12:31 AM
There is Bronze Age rock art in Norway which includes depictions of ships.
Where do you think would they were sailing to? Or were they simply fishermen?

http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/helleristninger.htm


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Heber on April 03, 2012, 10:20:19 AM
Mike,

I moved to Munich this weekend and all my "travelling" books are in storage until I find a more permanent place.

I came across this review of  "Facing The Ocean: The Atlantic and Its Peoples" by Barry Cunliffe. The Vikings are dealth with in chapter 11 of this book. The Norwegian rock carvings referred to above are also detailed in Europe between the Oceans.

http://celticscholar.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/facing-the-ocean-the-atlantic-and-its-peoples-by-barry-cunliffe/


"Now let us address the elephant in the room and that is the latest theory about the Celtic Origins which this book is supposed to have presented. And really, you have to look pretty hard to see it. I’m going to make it easy on you and tell you that it can be found in chapter seven. Cunliffe gives you the short version of it when he is summing up his book in the last chapter and I’m quoting here:

Facing The Ocean: The Atlantic and Its Peoples by Barry Cunliffe“It was, no doubt, during this first cycle of maritime contact that a lingua franca developed allowing travelers by sea to communicate one with another. If, as we might reasonably suppose, the ships were the prerogative of the elite, then the language which evolved over the millennia would have become the language of the elite. In such a situation the disparate languages which might have been spoken before contact intensified would soon have converged to become a similar tongue, understandable throughout the lands of the Atlantic facade. By the first millennium BCE the common language spoken across most of the region was a branch of Indo-European known, since the seventeenth century, as ‘Celtic’ – the language which still survives, though in modified form, in parts of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the Isle of Man, and Brittany.”


Goren Burenhelt in his paper Long distance cultural interaction in Megalithic Europe, compares the Norwegian rock art to the inscriptions in Boyne valley and those of Morbihan and suggests that this is part of the Megalithic  exchange networks on the Atlantic Facade.

http://www.hgo.se/arkeologi/digital_litteratur/Burenhult_G_2001_Longdistance_cultural_interaction.pdf


 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: OConnor on April 04, 2012, 09:30:34 AM
It was an interesting read.
I suspect some of the symbols discussed could be of coincidental design. Like the spirals used in Malta and the spirals at Newgrange.

I have been inside Newgrange and a chambered tomb in Knowlth.
I also wandered around the Carromore Megalithic Cemetary.  
At Carrowmore I remember seeing what looked like an earthwork on a distant mountain.

It is referred to as Meabh's cairn at the summit of Knocknarea.
(photo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knocknarea


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Heber on April 04, 2012, 11:52:39 AM
This is the same Meabh from Táin Bó Cúailnge, Queen of Connaught in the Ulster Cycle of Irish Mythology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%A1in_B%C3%B3_C%C3%BAailnge

The first two chapters, pillow talk is worth a read an gives an insight into the Celts obsession with cattle.

http://adminstaff.vassar.edu/sttaylor/Cooley/Pillow-talk.html

"According to legend, Medb is buried in a 40-foot (12 m) high stone cairn on the summit of Knocknarea (Cnoc na Ré in Irish) in County Sligo. Supposedly, she is buried upright facing her enemies in Ulster. Her home in Rathcroghan, County Roscommon is also a potential burial site, with a long low slab named 'Misgaun Medb' being given as the most likely location."

Whatever the truth of the legends, this is a facinating location with the megalithic cemeteries of Carrowmore in the background, dating from over 6,000 years and similar to other cemetries in Morbihan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrowmore


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: OConnor on April 06, 2012, 10:28:52 AM
I spoke with an archaeologist while in Ireland. I asked him about the cairn on
Knocknarea. He jokingly said..."They think they have Meabh's resting place there, but we know we have it here on Croghan Hill."
Croghan Hill is the stomping grounds of the O'Connor's of Offaly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croghan_Hill


Back to the Beakers.

I was wondering if the  Beaker culture was related to Copper mining in Irleand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture#Ireland



Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 06, 2012, 12:33:19 PM
I was wondering if the  Beaker culture was related to Copper mining in Irleand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture#Ireland

Yes indeed. Bell Beakers were found at a Bronze Age copper-mine on Ross Island (http://www.nuigalway.ie/ross_island/ger/bronze_age_mine.htm), in Lough Leane, County Kerry.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Heber on April 06, 2012, 01:02:27 PM
"One of the most important sites in Ireland during this period is Ross Island. A series of copper mines from here are the earliest known in Ireland, starting from around 2500BC (O’Brien 2004). A comparison of chemical traces and lead isotope analysis from these mines with copper artefacts strongly suggests that Ross Island was the sole source of copper in Ireland between the dates 2500-2200BC. In addition, two thirds of copper artefacts from Britain also display the same chemical and isotopic signature, strongly suggesting that Irish copper was a major export to Britain (Northover et al. 2001). Traces of Ross Island copper can be found even further afield; in the Netherlands it makes up 12% of analysed copper artefacts, and Brittany 6% of analysed copper artefacts (Northover 1999, 214). After 2200BC there is greater chemical variation in British and Irish copper artefacts, which tallies well with the appearance of other mines in southern Ireland and north Wales. After 2000BC, other copper sources supersede Ross Island. The latest workings from the Ross Island mines is dated to around 1700BC.
As well as exporting raw copper/bronze, there were some technical and cultural developments in Ireland that had an important impact on other areas of Europe. Irish food vessels were adopted in northern Britain around 2200BC and this roughly coincides with a decline in the use of beakers in Britain (Needham 1996). The ‘bronze halberd’ (not to be confused with the medieval halberd) was a weapon in use in Ireland from around 2400-2000BC (Needham 1996, 124). They are essentially broad blades that were mounted horizontally on a meter long handle, giving greater reach and impact than any known contemporary weapon (O’Flaherty 2007). They were subsequently widely adopted in other parts of Europe (Schuhmacher 2002), possibly showing a change in the technology of warfare."

In his book Europe between the oceans, Cunliffe shows pictures of almost identical designs for shields depicted in carved stelae found in Solance de Cabanas (near Tartessian) and actual shields found in bogs in Co. Longford in Ireland.
Among the 400 or so objects dredged from the river in nearby Huevla were 88 spearheads some of the Irish type. During the Bronze age, copper mines in Ross Island in Co. Kerry (2,500  - 2,400 BC) producing flat axes and halberds  and Gold Mines in Co. Wicklow producing gold collars (lunulae) were trading with the tin producers of Cornwall and the Morbihan Loire estuary (p206).


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 06, 2012, 04:01:52 PM
I have to say though that Burnhelt is a controversial figure whose ideas on passage tombs have been rejected by many archaeologists.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 07, 2012, 02:16:06 PM
I now have a copy of Christopher Prescott and Hakon Glorstad (eds), Becoming European: The Transformation of Third Millennium Northern and Western Europe (2012) in my hands.

Marc Vander Linden manages to retrieve the old Dutch model to some extent by pointing to gaps in the radiocarbon data for the Netherlands in the now famed Muller and van  Willingen 2001 paper resulting from their dismissal of charcoal dates. He has provided new dates from the Netherlands as old as those from Portugal. The problem is that all the old dates from Portugal, the rest of Iberia, the French Midi and the Netherlands fall within the plateau on the radiocarbon curve from 2700-2500 cal BC and so cannot be distinguished from each other.

On mobility he says

Quote
After decades of theoretical dismissal, human mobility is back in fashion in archaeological - and in particular Bell Beaker - circles.

He cites isotope studies and the spread of burial customs, and presents interesting ideas on the demographic pressures.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 07, 2012, 03:33:41 PM
I now have a copy of Christopher Prescott and Hakon Glorstad (eds), Becoming European: The Transformation of Third Millennium Northern and Western Europe (2011) in my hands.

Marc Vander Linden manages to retrieve the old Dutch model to some extent by pointing to gaps in the radiocarbon data for the Netherlands in the now famed Muller and van  Willingen 2001 paper resulting from their dismissal of charcoal dates. He has provided new dates from the Netherlands as old as those from Portugal. The problem is that all the old dates from Portugal, the rest of Iberia, the French Midi and the Netherlands fall within the plateau on the radiocarbon curve from 2700-2500 cal BC and so cannot be distinguished from each other.

On mobility he says

Quote
After decades of theoretical dismissal, human mobility is back in fashion in archaeological - and in particular Bell Beaker - circles.

He cites isotope studies and the spread of burial customs, and presents interesting ideas on the demographic pressures.

Sounds very interesting. I have always had some doubt about the Muller and Willigen Iberian origin for beaker conclusion.  Purely intuitively  I always felt beaker culture was like some kind of peripheral quirky offshoot of Corded Ware (itself of TRB inspiration) influenced by a more western archery based culture.  There has always been a problem with the recent move (correct though it is) to only consider 'gold standard' radiocarbon dates from discrete short lived material like human bone, hazelnuts etc - in some areas these things do not survive.  I am not an expert but I do recall the problem with Dutch beaker burials being the bones dont survive due to soil conditions.  Clearly in such a scenario that could lead to some areas being badly represented or not represented at all.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: razyn on April 07, 2012, 03:45:09 PM
I do recall the problem with Dutch beaker burials being the bones dont survive due to soil conditions.  Clearly in such a scenario that could lead to some areas being badly represented or not represented at all.
A dissimilar but somewhat analogous scenario -- in that its effects include underrepresentation in the visible record -- is the rising of the sea (or sinking of the land) in areas that were, or might have been, archaeologically important.  The ancient shores of the Black Sea are often mentioned; and the land bridge across the Bering straits.  I've wondered whether the Vistula had an ancient mouth, or delta, somewhat farther north (and now inundated or eroded away).


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 07, 2012, 04:01:40 PM
Sounds very interesting. I have always had some doubt about the Muller and Willigen Iberian origin for beaker conclusion. 

I knew you'd like it Alan, but I should stress that Vander Linden is not pressing too hard for a Dutch origin for Bell Beaker. He recognises that this would not explain the Central European material, which has its origin in the Carpathian Basin.

Quote
Purely intuitively  I always felt beaker culture was like some kind of peripheral quirky offshoot of Corded Ware (itself of TRB inspiration) influenced by a more western archery based culture.
 

Corded Ware, Bell Beaker and TRB pottery have much in common and probably have a common origin. All appear to result from waves out of the Carpathian Basin. That does not mean that we necessarily have a trail of pottery all the way up the Danube to final destination of the exact type found at the destination. We can recognise these waves via packages of technology, artefacts etc, which end up correlated with the said pottery at the destination.  


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 07, 2012, 05:21:13 PM
[ont suppose the new Vander Linden stuff is in the bibliotheque de Jean?  By the way you probably have this one already but this paper is interesting

http://www.iansa.eu/papers/IANSA-2010-01-02-merkl.pdf


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 07, 2012, 05:24:46 PM
Sorry Alan - I actually bought the book. Would have to scan the paper. While that is possible, it is a bit time-consuming. I may get around to it. I need to read the other papers. That's not the only one you might like.

Yes Merkl  2010 is already in there. I only skimmed over it though.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 07, 2012, 06:00:14 PM
Sorry Alan - I actually bought the book. Would have to scan the paper. While that is possible, it is a bit time-consuming. I may get around to it. I need to read the other papers. That's not the only one you might like.

Yes Merkl  2010 is already in there. I only skimmed over it though.

I personally dont think a Dutch origin is likely but it does at least show that its maybe too close to call date wise.  My (guess) of the most likely origin point for beakers is in the Rhone. It just seems a very important linking point between all sorts of influences and an ideal place for Corded Ware to meet other influences including Iberian ones to mix and produce something new.  It doesnt hurt that the general area seems to have a variance peak for P312. It also just seems geographically less of a leap between the upstream of L11 R1b clade distribution and a beaker origin point.  I understand beakers may not be a simple one way monolith but it would be nice if the origin of beakers and P312 coincided.  I still cant look past the fact that the main central European megaculture that links the areas of the upstream forms of R1b in Europe to the beaker area at the time of its genesis is the Corded Ware complex.  It would certainly simplify things if that was the case and relieve us from the need for complex models need to square the circle of Iberian origin for beakers and the eastern origin of R1b. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 08, 2012, 07:29:03 AM
This book is a thrill. Here's the  review (http://www.world-archaeology.com/books/book-review-becoming-european-the-transformation-of-third-millennium-northern-and-western-europe-3/) of it in World Archaeology, which I strongly second, and I haven't read it all yet. The introduction deals with theory. It resurrects migration in archaeological explanation, pointing out that

Quote
.. the reigning modern critique of migration in archaeology created a parody of migration studies and then pretty much denied or circumvented the concept for nearly 40 years...  Research on Mesolithic and Early Neolithic societies has continued to demonstrate that mobility and migrations have been the norm in European Stone Age societies .. not rare exceptions. Thus there is no reason to suppose that large scale migration took place only once. ... The interpretive climate in archaeology once again encourages the exploration of migration study perspectives.

Lovely stuff. I may quote it.  Bell Beaker comes into many of the papers.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 08, 2012, 08:32:09 AM
This book is a thrill. Here's the  review (http://www.world-archaeology.com/books/book-review-becoming-european-the-transformation-of-third-millennium-northern-and-western-europe-3/) of it in World Archaeology, which I strongly second, and I haven't read it all yet. The introduction deals with theory. It resurrects migration in archaeological explanation, pointing out that

Quote
.. the reigning modern critique of migration in archaeology created a parody of migration studies and then pretty much denied or circumvented the concept for nearly 40 years...  Research on Mesolithic and Early Neolithic societies has continued to demonstrate that mobility and migrations have been the norm in European Stone Age societies .. not rare exceptions. Thus there is no reason to suppose that large scale migration took place only once. ... The interpretive climate in archaeology once again encourages the exploration of migration study perspectives.

Lovely stuff. I may quote it.  Bell Beaker comes into many of the papers.

Its a shame archaeology books are rather pricey for poor archaeologists (especially in this recession). I was somewhat dismayed that my university library has not even acquired a copy - probably cutbacks too.  I hate the way on Amazon the chancers who sell the 2nd hand copies charge even higher than a new copy!  I may give in and splash out though.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 08, 2012, 08:36:22 AM
I was somewhat dismayed that my university library has not even acquired a copy 

It is very new. The library may have one on order. If not you could put in an appeal for it. But fret not. If I can just get through it, I can scan the the stuff I think you and others will most want. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 08, 2012, 09:04:14 AM
I was somewhat dismayed that my university library has not even acquired a copy 

It is very new. The library may have one on order. If not you could put in an appeal for it. But fret not. If I can just get through it, I can scan the the stuff I think you and others will most want. 

Cheers.  I look forward to that.  There really seems to be a burst of new papers on beakers in the last 5 years or so.  As per usual anything older than 10 years needs read with caution in archaeology as changing mind is the archaeologists proverbial prerogitive as much as women's!


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 08, 2012, 10:15:42 AM
OK - Vander Linden is scanned and in the Bell Beaker section. Not a brilliant scanning job, but readable I hope.

Next priority has to be Lene Melheim on the prospecting for copper sources in Norway from 2400 BC, explaining how Bell Beaker got there. (And stirring up some other interesting thoughts.)


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 08, 2012, 04:18:32 PM
OK - Vander Linden is scanned and in the Bell Beaker section. Not a brilliant scanning job, but readable I hope.

Next priority has to be Lene Melheim on the prospecting for copper sources in Norway from 2400 BC, explaining how Bell Beaker got there. (And stirring up some other interesting thoughts.)

Great stuff Jean.  I will have a read of that tonight. Cheers. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 08, 2012, 05:01:10 PM
These two now in:

  • Einar Østmo, Late Neolithic Expansion to Norway. The beginning of a 4000 year-old shipbuilding tradition
  • Lene Melheim, Towards a new understanding of Late Neolithic Norway – the role of metal and metal working


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 09, 2012, 09:15:17 AM
These two now in:

  • Einar Østmo, Late Neolithic Expansion to Norway. The beginning of a 4000 year-old shipbuilding tradition
  • Lene Melheim, Towards a new understanding of Late Neolithic Norway – the role of metal and metal working

Thanks again Jean.  I skimmed them over last night. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 09, 2012, 09:27:39 AM
Østmo has pinned down for me the answer to a question that has come up periodically: when did the Scandinavians become sea-farers? Answer: the Bronze Age. That is how Bell Beaker could go straight across from Jutland to Southern Norway.

And was was the big attraction of Norway? Lene Melheim provides the answer: prospecting for copper. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 09, 2012, 09:53:57 AM
The paper by M. Pilar Prieto-Martínez is full of interest.

She sees Bell Beaker pottery as a mark of belonging to the culture (a Pan-European identity), rather than indicating high status. It is buried with men, women and children. Copper daggers are rarer and more likely therefore to indicate high status. Burials with copper daggers and Bell Beaker pots are only 5.8% of Beaker tombs. Where it gets really interesting is her map of burials with the quartet of beaker, dagger, adornments and tools, like that of the Amesbury Archer. Such high status burials are really rare (only 12 found so far in the whole of Europe) and tend to be found along important communication arteries like rivers or the coast. 

The decoration found on funerary Bell Beaker pottery is also found on some anthropomorphic stelae of warriors, stone cists and rock art. The stelae are situated in zones suited to transport and communication. Some seem to be on the frontiers with other cultural horizons - possible conflict zones.

She gives two examples of how a decorative technique learned in childhood in one area could travel with a potter in adult life, appearing in a distant area on pots made of local clay.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: razyn on April 09, 2012, 10:55:54 AM
The stelae are situated in zones suited to transport and communication. Some seem to be on the frontiers with other cultural horizons - possible conflict zones.
Or possible truce zones, for long distance traders?

Quote
She gives two examples of how a decorative technique learned in childhood in one area could travel with a potter in adult life, appearing in a distant area on pots made of local clay.
I'm glad to see somebody looking at clay, and hope they can tell what's local.  Whether the actual diffusion of specific Bell Beaker subtypes involved traveling pots or traveling potters may still be an issue, but I seriously doubt that there were boatloads of traveling clay.  Not that anyone has suggested it; but pots can't be thrown, coiled or otherwise fabricated of just any old mud.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 09, 2012, 11:03:12 AM
Exactly. It's a crucial way way to distinguish imported ware from imported design ideas.   

I am scanning that paper. The regions she concentrates on are Galicia, Brittany and  Denmark.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: OConnor on April 09, 2012, 11:20:19 AM
It's all very interesting...thanks for sharing.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Richard Rocca on April 09, 2012, 03:22:21 PM
Thanks for the papers Jean, they are very interesting. Maybe it's just me, but the tone of the BB migration proponents still seems to call for an important but not-so-drastic population augmentation/replacement, even in light of the isotope data. If L11 and subclades are to be the smoking gun for BB, then the Y-DNA frequency shift would have been drastic indeed.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 09, 2012, 04:37:25 PM
The isotope technique has been a real breakthrough in directly showing any long-distance mobility within an individual's lifetime. The limitation is that it will only show first generation migrants. The Amesbury Archer (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/archer.html) was an immigrant to Britain from the Alps, but his "companion (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/relative_intro.html)" in a nearby grave was aged 25-30 and had been raised in southern Britain. The only way that the archaeologists could tell that they were related was by the unusual bone structure in their feet. Sheer good luck!  

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

There really is no substitute for aDNA.  


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 09, 2012, 05:18:15 PM
The isotope technique has been a real breakthrough in directly showing any long-distance mobility within an individual's lifetime. The limitation of it is that it will only show first generation migrants. The Amesbury Archer (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/archer.html) was an immigrant to Britain from the Alps, but his "companion (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/relative_intro.html)" in a nearby grave was aged 25-30 and had been raised in southern Britain. The only way that the archaeologists could tell that they were related was by the unusual bone structure in their feet. Sheer good luck!  

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

There really is no substitute for aDNA.  

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


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 09, 2012, 05:22:43 PM
I collared Jackie McKinley, Osteoarchaeologist for Wessex Archaeology, at a conference and asked just that. She said that the cost of aDNA testing was prohibitive. Wessex is waiting for the price to drop.

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


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 09, 2012, 06:11:05 PM
I collared Jackie McKinley, Osteoarchaeologist for Wessex Archaeology, at a conference and asked just that. She said that the cost of aDNA testing was prohibitive. Wessex is waiting for the price to drop.

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

Someone should set up a sponser and ancient DNA test account for the Amesbury archer. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: OConnor on April 10, 2012, 07:49:56 AM
I am surprised a company like FTDNA hasn't involved itself with adna.

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

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

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


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Richard Rocca on April 10, 2012, 09:04:22 AM
The isotope technique has been a real breakthrough in directly showing any long-distance mobility within an individual's lifetime. The limitation is that it will only show first generation migrants. The Amesbury Archer (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/archer.html) was an immigrant to Britain from the Alps, but his "companion (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/relative_intro.html)" in a nearby grave was aged 25-30 and had been raised in southern Britain. The only way that the archaeologists could tell that they were related was by the unusual bone structure in their feet. Sheer good luck!  

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

There really is no substitute for aDNA.  

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


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 10, 2012, 09:45:20 AM
Precisely, and for all those reasons, I think they should go a step further and claim a drastic influx of immigrants into all areas of Western Europe.

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

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


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 10, 2012, 09:52:40 AM
Kristian Kristiansen, The Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages: an archaeological model (2012) talks in terms of language expansion through a mixture of migrations and social incorporation. He presents a model of the spread of IE that I don't entirely agree with. But it is certainly of interest and I will scan it.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Maliclavelli on April 10, 2012, 10:19:14 AM
Precisely, and for all those reasons, I think they should go a step further and claim a drastic influx of immigrants into all areas of Western Europe.

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 10, 2012, 11:14:32 AM
OK - Kristiansen 2012 is in. That's the lot I think.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: OConnor on April 10, 2012, 02:07:59 PM
The isotope technique has been a real breakthrough in directly showing any long-distance mobility within an individual's lifetime. The limitation is that it will only show first generation migrants. The Amesbury Archer (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/archer.html) was an immigrant to Britain from the Alps, but his "companion (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/relative_intro.html)" in a nearby grave was aged 25-30 and had been raised in southern Britain. The only way that the archaeologists could tell that they were related was by the unusual bone structure in their feet. Sheer good luck!  

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

There really is no substitute for aDNA.  

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 10, 2012, 02:58:32 PM
As I understand it Andrew Fitzpatrick has added together a number of clues, including the sources of the objects in the grave of the Archer, to point to the Alps as the probable place of origin. I don't have his book: The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen - Bell Beaker burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/publications/amesbury-archer-and-boscombe-bowmen), but I think I have an article somewhere... . Yes - here's the gen:

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

from  Andrew Fitzpatrick, In his hands and in his head, The Amesbury Archer as a metalworker, in Peter Clark (ed.), Bronze Age Connections: Cultural contact  in prehistoric Europe (2009), pp. 176-188.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Heber on April 10, 2012, 03:26:45 PM
I am surprised a company like FTDNA hasn't involved itself with adna.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Arwunbee on April 10, 2012, 07:36:46 PM
As I understand it Andrew Fitzpatrick has added together a number of clues, including the sources of the objects in the grave of the Archer, to point to the Alps as the probable place of origin.
Trying to follow, if I'm buried with my iPhone, does that object point to my place of birth?


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 10, 2012, 07:55:50 PM
Trying to follow, if I'm buried with my iPhone, does that object point to my place of birth?

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

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


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 12, 2012, 08:14:41 AM
Southern France is just part of the overall picture and not an important one in Phase One. It had no copper.

Golly - am I wrong, wrong, wrong. See Marie Laroche, The copper metallurgy in the third millennium BC in La Capitelle du Broum (Péret, Hérault, south of France) (http://www.eaa2011.no/absractsearch.cfm?pMode=AbstractView&pAbstractId=22448) (paper read 2011)


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 12, 2012, 08:59:34 AM
I have re-read the Harrison and Heyd paper.  Its fascinating but a great deal is explained in terms of the reaction of the natives by domino effect to the ideology of the geographically limited impact of Yamanaya in eastern Europe, albeit allowing for the migration of influential individuals.  It does tends to look at the beaker cultures this way and the changes of social ideas etc rather than in a truly migratory model (except on a more local scale between beaker groups).  Its a very interesting read but anyone looking for a nice model of beaker folk with a pottery trail from A to B leading from the Yamnaya area will not find that.  I actually think the paper feels pretty close to the truth but in terms of migration as an important factor in the genesis of beaker it feels to me like it is as easy to see the paper playing that down as emphasising it.  The conclusions feel right to me and the idea of a secondary phase when the true beaker package emerges to th east of Iberia a couple of centuries after the proto-package origin does make sense but I did not feel after reading it that I had much new ammunition about migration or how it might tie in with R1b etc. Kind of like Anthony imagines for Corded Ware, this paper emphasises existing cultures being influenced into change by a spread of ideas.  IMO the attempt to resolve how R1b moved from its eastern homelands to dominate Europe through the beaker model remains largely a mystery and if the beaker model for R1b is correct then only ancient DNA is going to throw light on it.  The closest I can come to making any sense of the spread of R1b through a beaker model is if R1b was a factor in the secondary take off point of the full beaker package somewhere in central Europe and spread from there but it still remains to explain how and from where and in which cultural guise it arrive in this hypothetical location.  Interesting paper but no smoking gun for R1b IMO.   


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Mike Walsh on April 12, 2012, 09:18:33 AM
.. Interesting paper but no smoking gun for R1b IMO. 
I don't think we can expect these archeologists to go out on a limb on paternal lineages. That is all we are talking here when we talk about R1b. I think there is some of the "anti-migrationist" influences that make these guys cautious but they should be because they aren't even looking at genetic data, be it in ancient or modern DNA.
In the case of paternal lineages, we may see (and apparently do), that whole populations do not just "turn over" into something new. It's a merger of peoples.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 12, 2012, 09:48:46 AM
.. Interesting paper but no smoking gun for R1b IMO.
I don't think we can expect these archeologists to go out on a limb on paternal lineages. That is all we are talking here when we talk about R1b. I think there is some of the "anti-migrationist" influences that make these guys cautious but they should be because they aren't even looking at genetic data, be it in ancient or modern DNA.
In the case of paternal lineages, we may see (and apparently do), that whole populations do not just "turn over" into something new. It's a merger of peoples.

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


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Bren123 on April 12, 2012, 10:04:38 AM
The isotope technique has been a real breakthrough in directly showing any long-distance mobility within an individual's lifetime. The limitation is that it will only show first generation migrants. The Amesbury Archer (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/archer.html) was an immigrant to Britain from the Alps, but his "companion (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/relative_intro.html)" in a nearby grave was aged 25-30 and had been raised in southern Britain. The only way that the archaeologists could tell that they were related was by the unusual bone structure in their feet. Sheer good luck!  

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

There really is no substitute for aDNA.  

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


At what date would someone put that influx?


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 12, 2012, 10:57:18 AM
I have re-read the Harrison and Heyd paper. ..   It does tends to look at the beaker cultures .. and the changes of social ideas etc rather than in a truly migratory model  

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

The importance of this article was not in proposing a migratory model, but in showing the archaeological link between Yamnaya and Bell Beaker - the passing on of a Yamnaya package to Bell Beaker and the evidence that Bell Beaker using people continued to revere the Yamnaya-origin ancestors at Sion (suggesting that they were actually related). I fitted this into my migratory model. That was my addition to the story, based on the genetic evidence.  


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: A.D. on April 12, 2012, 11:23:23 AM
Going back a bit O'Connor you were at New Grange/Knowth did you not notice Slane Castle
Standing out, I did and couldn't help thinking there must have been something contemporary with  New Grange and Knowth perhaps forming something like the Stonehenge processional way. If there was it would add to the continuity of the isles at the time and carry through till later?     


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 12, 2012, 11:56:05 AM
More papers coming up. At long last a volume I have been awaiting has a publication date: 9 June 2012:

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

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


Contents:

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

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

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

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

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

Details and order form (http://www.prehistoricsociety.org/files/papers/British_Chalcolithic_pre-pub_offer_final.pdf).


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: razyn on April 12, 2012, 12:13:24 PM
I think the genetics component is having a salutary effect on the discussion of what was probably going on... if only (or primarily) on the forums, so far.  Just look at the last couple of posts by Mike and Alan, on this thread -- and compare that with previous theories advanced, with more or less confidence, about Ice Age refugia, repopulation from the west of an empty Europe, conquest by metal-wielding hordes, founder effects of elites and whatnot.  I guess some of that might even have happened; but it's looking more as if some R1b guys came into western and northern Europe, quite a long time ago, and got along well with the local girls.  So there has been gradual and partial replacement, or at least augmentation (with high success), mainly of the paternal lineages.  One would think that mass migrations, as such, should have replaced the maternal ones at a fairly similar rate.

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

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


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 12, 2012, 12:41:21 PM
.. it's looking more as if some R1b guys came into western and northern Europe, quite a long time ago, and got along well with the local girls.

Actually it is looking as though women came along too, if you look at the changing frequencies of mtDNA haplogroups between the Neolithic and the age of metal. See Bernard's blog (http://secherbernard.blog.free.fr/index.php?post/2012/03/24/3-synth%C3%A8ses-r%C3%A9centes-sur-les-tests-anciens-d-ADN-mitochondrial-en-Europe). Though I agree that the process was almost certainly one of gradual and incomplete replacement. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 12, 2012, 05:08:32 PM
I think the genetics component is having a salutary effect on the discussion of what was probably going on... if only (or primarily) on the forums, so far.  Just look at the last couple of posts by Mike and Alan, on this thread -- and compare that with previous theories advanced, with more or less confidence, about Ice Age refugia, repopulation from the west of an empty Europe, conquest by metal-wielding hordes, founder effects of elites and whatnot.  I guess some of that might even have happened; but it's looking more as if some R1b guys came into western and northern Europe, quite a long time ago, and got along well with the local girls.  So there has been gradual and partial replacement, or at least augmentation (with high success), mainly of the paternal lineages.  One would think that mass migrations, as such, should have replaced the maternal ones at a fairly similar rate.

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

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

To be honest archaeologists can only interpret and discuss the possibilities of correlations with DNA when a reliable timeframe and phylogeny is provided by the geneticists.  Prior to a few years back we were basically being told the age of R1b is Palaeolithic and there was little refining of R1b's phylogeny so M269 was presented as a monolith.  Archaeologists have to accept that the baseline they are given to work with is reliable but it wasnt.  I spend 100s of hours reading up all sorts of obscure stuff on the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Europe and its spread in many countries.  It was basically pointless because the geneticists dating and phylogeny was all wrong so I was reading up on the wrong period.  However I always had a doubt in the back of my mind because the ht35 group in Turkey etc did not make sense if R1b had emerged in Iberia.  Still, on the plus side I know a lot more about the rather specialist and obscure world of European Palaeolithic cultures than I would have if I hadnt been enticed into that blind alley! 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 16, 2012, 06:54:47 AM
Not exactly a new paper, but Martine Piguet and Marie Besse, Chronology and Bell Beaker common ware (http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/downloader/pdf/tmp/5q3mm9mkt3hactgtv72vetenm5/out.pdf), Radiocarbon,  vol. 51 (2009), no. 2, pp. 817-830 is well worth a look.  It explores origins of some of the other styles of pottery that are found with Bell Beaker. It sheds a lot of light on the interactions of Bell Beaker people.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Arch Y. on April 20, 2012, 07:06:12 PM
I collared Jackie McKinley, Osteoarchaeologist for Wessex Archaeology, at a conference and asked just that. She said that the cost of aDNA testing was prohibitive. Wessex is waiting for the price to drop.

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

Someone should set up a sponser and ancient DNA test account for the Amesbury archer. 

That would be nice.

Arch


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: rms2 on April 20, 2012, 09:03:28 PM
I collared Jackie McKinley, Osteoarchaeologist for Wessex Archaeology, at a conference and asked just that. She said that the cost of aDNA testing was prohibitive. Wessex is waiting for the price to drop.

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

Someone should set up a sponser and ancient DNA test account for the Amesbury archer.  

That would be nice.

Arch

I wrote Dr. Fitzpatrick about testing the Amesbury Archer a couple of years ago. He told me then pretty much the same thing: they had no plans to do so, it's hard to get dna from old bones, etc.

I would dearly love to see some aDNA from good old Arch (there, I've named him after you, Arch).

But I'm hoping he is L21+. :-)


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: GoldenHind on April 21, 2012, 02:10:01 PM
I collared Jackie McKinley, Osteoarchaeologist for Wessex Archaeology, at a conference and asked just that. She said that the cost of aDNA testing was prohibitive. Wessex is waiting for the price to drop.

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

Someone should set up a sponser and ancient DNA test account for the Amesbury archer.  

That would be nice.

Arch

I wrote Dr. Fitzpatrick about testing the Amesbury Archer a couple of years ago. He told me then pretty much the same thing: they had no plans to do so, it's hard to get dna from old bones, etc.

I would dearly love to see some aDNA from good old Arch (there, I've named him after you, Arch).

But I'm hoping he is L21+. :-)

Nothing would please me more than if he turned out to be U106!


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 21, 2012, 02:30:53 PM
Nothing would please me more than if he turned out to be U106!

Really? Nothing!! This issue seems to be taking up an unhealthy amount of space in your mind Goldenhind. Spring has sprung you know.

Waft in my window
You blossom scents of springtime
The poor man's  pot-pourri.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: GoldenHind on April 21, 2012, 02:55:26 PM
Nothing would please me more than if he turned out to be U106!

Really? Nothing!! This issue seems to be taking up an unhealthy amount of space in your mind Goldenhind. Spring has sprung you know.

Waft in my window
You blossom scents of springtime
The poor man's  pot-pourri.


What I meant was no result for the Archer would please me more. And it was meant to be humorous (hence the exclamation point, as I dislike smiley faces).
Certainly winning the lottery or attaining a dormant viscountcy would please me more! Even a dormant baronetcy!


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: rms2 on April 21, 2012, 04:08:30 PM


Nothing would please me more than if he turned out to be U106!

That is hardly a surprise.

It is pretty obvious that one of your goals is to in some measure deprive U106 of the coveted (by somebody, somewhere) status of "Germanic".

Good luck with that.

To me it would be very disappointing if the Archer turned out to be U106 or U152. We have already had years of epic claims for those two haplogroups.

If the Archer turned out to be either, that would just be too much.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 21, 2012, 05:17:24 PM


Nothing would please me more than if he turned out to be U106!

That is hardly a surprise.

It is pretty obvious that one of your goals is to in some measure deprive U106 of the coveted (by somebody, somewhere) status of "Germanic".

Good luck with that.

To me it would be very disappointing if the Archer turned out to be U106 or U152. We have already had years of epic claims for those two haplogroups.

If the Archer turned out to be either, that would just be too much.

Your letting the ghost of a certain U152 cheerleader haunt you too much.  I wouldnt care if the archer was U152.  He was a visitor to stonehenge.  He didnt build it.  Its extremely likely it was us L21 guys (well the beaker phase part) :0)


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: rms2 on April 21, 2012, 05:24:41 PM


Nothing would please me more than if he turned out to be U106!

That is hardly a surprise.

It is pretty obvious that one of your goals is to in some measure deprive U106 of the coveted (by somebody, somewhere) status of "Germanic".

Good luck with that.

To me it would be very disappointing if the Archer turned out to be U106 or U152. We have already had years of epic claims for those two haplogroups.

If the Archer turned out to be either, that would just be too much.

Your letting the ghost of a certain U152 cheerleader haunt you too much.  I wouldnt care if the archer was U152.  He was a visitor to stonehenge.  He didnt build it.  Its extremely likely it was us L21 guys (well the beaker phase part) :0)

That is obviously true, but you know darned well that if the Archer turns out to be either U106, U152, or R1a, we'll never hear the end about how the warlike Beaker "elites" dominated the poor, downtrodden, mostly L21 British aborigines, taught them how to speak Celtic (before teaching them to upgrade to a Germanic language), etc.

The Archer has already been christened "the King of Stonehenge", regardless of who the grunts were who actually built it.

It's a nightmare scenario, if you ask me.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: GoldenHind on April 21, 2012, 05:28:07 PM


Nothing would please me more than if he turned out to be U106!

That is hardly a surprise.

It is pretty obvious that one of your goals is to in some measure deprive U106 of the coveted (by somebody, somewhere) status of "Germanic".

Attempting to divine the motivations for other people's opinions is fraught with danger. Mine have more to do with puncturing theories which I believe are unwarranted. I know neither Jean or you believe me, but my thoughts have very little to do with my own subclade status. The only relevance that has is that it was what caused me to begin looking into the subject in the first place. If I was told tomorrow there was a lab mistake and I am actually L48, it wouldn't change my thoughts in the slightest.
So I suggest you and Jean find something more fruitful to do than attempting to psychoanalyze me.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 21, 2012, 05:31:08 PM


Nothing would please me more than if he turned out to be U106!

That is hardly a surprise.

It is pretty obvious that one of your goals is to in some measure deprive U106 of the coveted (by somebody, somewhere) status of "Germanic".

Good luck with that.

To me it would be very disappointing if the Archer turned out to be U106 or U152. We have already had years of epic claims for those two haplogroups.

If the Archer turned out to be either, that would just be too much.

Your letting the ghost of a certain U152 cheerleader haunt you too much.  I wouldnt care if the archer was U152.  He was a visitor to stonehenge.  He didnt build it.  Its extremely likely it was us L21 guys (well the beaker phase part) :0)

That is obviously true, but you know darned well that if the Archer turns out to be either U106, U152, or R1a, we'll never hear the end about how the warlike Beaker "elites" dominated the poor, downtrodden, mostly L21 British aborigines, taught them how to speak Celtic (before teaching them to upgrade to a Germanic language), etc.

It's a nightmare scenario, if you ask me.


Well P312 and then L11 showed that its a lot of nonsense for U152 or U106 to claim to be much different from L21 and indeed any of the other clades and made a mockery of the whole idea one clade was hunter gatherer and the other was Iron Age Celtic.  We are always going to have people who want to claim to be something special and relegate the rest to being lesser being but that is more about human psychology than DNA IMO. All L11 people were initially basically the same, must have spoken the same language etc.  


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: GoldenHind on April 21, 2012, 05:33:47 PM


Nothing would please me more than if he turned out to be U106!

That is hardly a surprise.

It is pretty obvious that one of your goals is to in some measure deprive U106 of the coveted (by somebody, somewhere) status of "Germanic".

Good luck with that.

To me it would be very disappointing if the Archer turned out to be U106 or U152. We have already had years of epic claims for those two haplogroups.

If the Archer turned out to be either, that would just be too much.

Your letting the ghost of a certain U152 cheerleader haunt you too much.  I wouldnt care if the archer was U152.  He was a visitor to stonehenge.  He didnt build it.  Its extremely likely it was us L21 guys (well the beaker phase part) :0)

That is obviously true, but you know darned well that if the Archer turns out to be either U106, U152, or R1a, we'll never hear the end about how the warlike Beaker "elites" dominated the poor, downtrodden, mostly L21 British aborigines, taught them how to speak Celtic (before teaching them to upgrade to a Germanic language), etc.

It's a nightmare scenario, if you ask me.


Well P312 and then L11 showed that its a lot of nonsense for U152 or U106 to claim to be much different from L21 and indeed any of the other clades and made a mockery of the whole idea one clade was hunter gatherer and the other was Iron Age Celtic.  We are always going to have people who want to claim to be something special and relegate the rest to being lesser being but that is more about human psychology than DNA IMO. All L11 people were initially basically the same, must have spoken the same language etc.  

Agreed absolutely.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: rms2 on April 21, 2012, 05:35:20 PM


Nothing would please me more than if he turned out to be U106!

That is hardly a surprise.

It is pretty obvious that one of your goals is to in some measure deprive U106 of the coveted (by somebody, somewhere) status of "Germanic".

Attempting to divine the motivations for other people's opinions is fraught with danger. Mine have more to do with puncturing theories which I believe are unwarranted. I know neither Jean or you believe me, but my thoughts have very little to do with my own subclade status. The only relevance that has is that it was what caused me to begin looking into the subject in the first place. If I was told tomorrow there was a lab mistake and I am actually L48, it wouldn't change my thoughts in the slightest.
So I suggest you and Jean find something more fruitful to do than attempting to psychoanalyze me.


No problem. Your posts are doing a fine job on their own.

For purposes of this public forum, I accept that your motives are all of the highest, purest sort, are only about "puncturing theories", and are not the least bit personal.



Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: rms2 on April 21, 2012, 05:41:48 PM


Nothing would please me more than if he turned out to be U106!

That is hardly a surprise.

It is pretty obvious that one of your goals is to in some measure deprive U106 of the coveted (by somebody, somewhere) status of "Germanic".

Good luck with that.

To me it would be very disappointing if the Archer turned out to be U106 or U152. We have already had years of epic claims for those two haplogroups.

If the Archer turned out to be either, that would just be too much.

Your letting the ghost of a certain U152 cheerleader haunt you too much.  I wouldnt care if the archer was U152.  He was a visitor to stonehenge.  He didnt build it.  Its extremely likely it was us L21 guys (well the beaker phase part) :0)

That is obviously true, but you know darned well that if the Archer turns out to be either U106, U152, or R1a, we'll never hear the end about how the warlike Beaker "elites" dominated the poor, downtrodden, mostly L21 British aborigines, taught them how to speak Celtic (before teaching them to upgrade to a Germanic language), etc.

It's a nightmare scenario, if you ask me.


Well P312 and then L11 showed that its a lot of nonsense for U152 or U106 to claim to be much different from L21 and indeed any of the other clades and made a mockery of the whole idea one clade was hunter gatherer and the other was Iron Age Celtic.  We are always going to have people who want to claim to be something special and relegate the rest to being lesser being but that is more about human psychology than DNA IMO. All L11 people were initially basically the same, must have spoken the same language etc.  

Uh-huh.

That wouldn't make a dent in the drumbeat and bugle call were the Archer found to be U106, U152, or R1a.

And there would actually be some kind of difference if the Beaker Folk were found to be predominantly one thing and the pre-Beaker "aborigines" another.

The various L11 haplogroups aren't so inextricably mixed as to not have their own discrete distributions and apparent ethnic or tribal affiliations.

Otherwise, why bother with downstream SNPs? Let's just look at all of L11 together.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 21, 2012, 05:59:24 PM


Nothing would please me more than if he turned out to be U106!

That is hardly a surprise.

It is pretty obvious that one of your goals is to in some measure deprive U106 of the coveted (by somebody, somewhere) status of "Germanic".

Good luck with that.

To me it would be very disappointing if the Archer turned out to be U106 or U152. We have already had years of epic claims for those two haplogroups.

If the Archer turned out to be either, that would just be too much.

Your letting the ghost of a certain U152 cheerleader haunt you too much.  I wouldnt care if the archer was U152.  He was a visitor to stonehenge.  He didnt build it.  Its extremely likely it was us L21 guys (well the beaker phase part) :0)

That is obviously true, but you know darned well that if the Archer turns out to be either U106, U152, or R1a, we'll never hear the end about how the warlike Beaker "elites" dominated the poor, downtrodden, mostly L21 British aborigines, taught them how to speak Celtic (before teaching them to upgrade to a Germanic language), etc.

It's a nightmare scenario, if you ask me.


Well P312 and then L11 showed that its a lot of nonsense for U152 or U106 to claim to be much different from L21 and indeed any of the other clades and made a mockery of the whole idea one clade was hunter gatherer and the other was Iron Age Celtic.  We are always going to have people who want to claim to be something special and relegate the rest to being lesser being but that is more about human psychology than DNA IMO. All L11 people were initially basically the same, must have spoken the same language etc.  

Uh-huh.

That wouldn't make a dent in the drumbeat and bugle call were the Archer found to be U106, U152, or R1a.

And there would actually be some kind of difference if the Beaker Folk were found to be predominantly one thing and the pre-Beaker "aborigines" another.

The various L11 haplogroups aren't so inextricably mixed as to not have their own discrete distributions and apparent ethnic or tribal affiliations.

Otherwise, why bother with downstream SNPs? Let's just look at all of L11 together.

True but if the variance dating suggested is correct then the archer was living within a couple of centuries of p312 coming into existence, not long enough for any major diversification in culture or language.  Back in 2400BC (or thereabouts) there was no significant difference between L11 groups, assuming that the variance calculations are correct of course.      


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: rms2 on April 21, 2012, 06:04:17 PM
They'll probably never get his y-dna anyway, and, if they do, they probably won't get as far up the tree as U106 or U152. They could possibly get enough of a haplotype to predict R1a, however, and that would be just as bad, if not worse.

Whatever the Archer's haplogroup, I'll learn to live with it.

What else can one do?


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Richard Rocca on April 21, 2012, 06:36:48 PM
They'll probably never get his y-dna anyway, and, if they do, they probably won't get as far up the tree as U106 or U152. They could possibly get enough of a haplotype to predict R1a, however, and that would be just as bad, if not worse.

Whatever the Archer's haplogroup, I'll learn to live with it.

What else can one do?

Because of the 'cool' factor alone, I would love for the Archer to be U152. I think the chances of that happening however are quite small. Even if he did turn up to be U152, the most important thing it would prove is a Bell Beaker + L11 link.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: rms2 on April 21, 2012, 06:40:56 PM
They'll probably never get his y-dna anyway, and, if they do, they probably won't get as far up the tree as U106 or U152. They could possibly get enough of a haplotype to predict R1a, however, and that would be just as bad, if not worse.

Whatever the Archer's haplogroup, I'll learn to live with it.

What else can one do?

Because of the 'cool' factor alone, I would love for the Archer to be U152. I think the chances of that happening however are quite small. Even if he did turn up to be U152, the most important thing it would prove is a Bell Beaker + L11 link.

I feel the same way about the cool factor. I meant no offense in saying that I don't want the Archer to turn out to be U106, U152, or R1a.

One would have had to have been around Rootsweb and dna-forums as a lowly R-M269* a few years ago to appreciate the reasons. Alan and I and a few others here were there at that time and held that status.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Arch Y. on April 22, 2012, 02:43:42 AM
I collared Jackie McKinley, Osteoarchaeologist for Wessex Archaeology, at a conference and asked just that. She said that the cost of aDNA testing was prohibitive. Wessex is waiting for the price to drop.

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

Someone should set up a sponser and ancient DNA test account for the Amesbury archer.  

That would be nice.

Arch

I wrote Dr. Fitzpatrick about testing the Amesbury Archer a couple of years ago. He told me then pretty much the same thing: they had no plans to do so, it's hard to get dna from old bones, etc.

I would dearly love to see some aDNA from good old Arch (there, I've named him after you, Arch).

But I'm hoping he is L21+. :-)

LOL! Thanks for naming him after me. :-) I can't remember who posted the comment, but if companies like FTDNA can invest money into finding the Warrior Gene, perhaps they could find more value in analyzing aDNA instead. This would help us find our genetic heritage rather than alleged mental attributes that really mean nothing to genealogical research.

Arch


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Arch Y. on April 22, 2012, 02:52:03 AM
They'll probably never get his y-dna anyway, and, if they do, they probably won't get as far up the tree as U106 or U152. They could possibly get enough of a haplotype to predict R1a, however, and that would be just as bad, if not worse.

Whatever the Archer's haplogroup, I'll learn to live with it.

What else can one do?

All I want are results so we can narrow down the geographical range of SNPs. It's  just simply too broad or spread out with modern DNA. The only real solution is getting the aDNA and dating the artefacts found with the genetic material; to include the isotopic data for geographical proximity of early childhood. Even if the Amesbury Archer turned out to be in the E haplogroup, it's still valuable data. Cool factors I can also understand, that's how FTDNA makes it money, as well House of Names, and even ShamWow!

Arch

Because of the 'cool' factor alone, I would love for the Archer to be U152. I think the chances of that happening however are quite small. Even if he did turn up to be U152, the most important thing it would prove is a Bell Beaker + L11 link.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: secherbernard on April 22, 2012, 07:49:30 AM
Golly - am I wrong, wrong, wrong. See Marie Laroche, The copper metallurgy in the third millennium BC in La Capitelle du Broum (Péret, Hérault, south of France) (http://www.eaa2011.no/absractsearch.cfm?pMode=AbstractView&pAbstractId=22448) (paper read 2011)
The copper metallurgy began in Southern France at the end of the 4th millenium BC. See the following french paper from Laurent Carozza and Benoît Mille: Chalcolithique et complexification sociale : quelle place pour le métal dans la définition du processus de mutation des sociétés de la fin du Néolithique en France ? https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1RIQRMwAdjpWEsxZ1Q4MXJEbDA
See the figure 7 of the paper for the dates of the Cabrières-Péret copper mine.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Richard Rocca on April 22, 2012, 07:56:44 AM
LOL! Thanks for naming him after me. :-) I can't remember who posted the comment, but if companies like FTDNA can invest money into finding the Warrior Gene, perhaps they could find more value in analyzing aDNA instead. This would help us find our genetic heritage rather than alleged mental attributes that really mean nothing to genealogical research.

Arch

I suspect there are two things at play here:

1. I'm sure whoever the caretaker of the Archer is wants to publish the results themselves and not leave it to a commercial company.
2. Perhaps they are waiting for a better aDNA extraction process that doesn't destroy as much DNA.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Maliclavelli on April 22, 2012, 08:08:02 AM
The copper metallurgy began in Southern France at the end of the 4th millenium BC.
I have printed the paper and I am going to read it this afternoon, but about what you have said, the paper says: “Ce n’est que vers 3800-3500 av. J.-C. qu’elle atteint les Alpes, le plateau Suisse – notamment dans la culture de Pfyn – et l’Italie du nord». We know that Ötzi (3300 BC) used copper tools.



Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: secherbernard on April 22, 2012, 08:16:50 AM
I have printed the paper and I am going to read it this afternoon, but about what you have said, the paper says: “Ce n’est que vers 3800-3500 av. J.-C. qu’elle atteint les Alpes, le plateau Suisse – notamment dans la culture de Pfyn – et l’Italie du nord». We know that Ötzi (3300 BC) used copper tools.
Yes, metallurgy was earlier in Switzerland and Italy than in France


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 22, 2012, 04:14:28 PM
Ann Woodward and John Hunter,  An Examination of Prehistoric Stone Bracers from Britain (http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/90941//Location/Oxbow) (2011)  concludes that Bell Beaker wrist guards were not archer's bracers, but made for hawking, according to the review in British Archaeology May/June 2012. Curiously that is not mentioned in the book blurb from Oxbow.  


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on April 22, 2012, 06:48:02 PM
Ann Woodward and John Hunter,  An Examination of Prehistoric Stone Bracers from Britain (http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/90941//Location/Oxbow) (2011)  concludes that Bell Beaker wrist guards were not archer's bracers, but made for hawking, according to the review in British Archaeology May/June 2012. Curiously that is not mentioned in the book blurb from Oxbow.  

I know an archaeologist who does flint knapping, archery etc and he was of the same opinion that the wrist guards were useless and also the barbed and tanged arrows looked a lot better than they actually are as arrows and reckons the pre-beaker arrows were far better.  If I recall correctly the B&T arrows tend to fall to fracture on impact and so often cant be re-used as much as other types.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on April 23, 2012, 08:50:37 AM
What puzzled people about the wrist guards is that they seemed from burials to have been worn on the outer left forearm, rather than the inner forearm, and they have no strong association with flint arrowheads.

I have been looking for other evidence of falconry so early and find nothing, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't happening. It seems that the Goths learned falconry from the Sarmatians, which would fit with falconry not being associated with Corded Ware. The first image which appears associated with hawking is too late to tell us much - 8th C BC - but it happens to be a Luwian stele from a Neo-Hittite kingdom.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: A.D. on April 23, 2012, 12:45:03 PM
I've done a bit of archery myself and thought stone was  an unusual choice for a wrist guard. I thought it might have been some kind of brace for using really powerful bows. Maybe tied to the forearm and hand to prevent the wrist flexing? It just seems to bulky and likely to snag unless you flex the wrist which would reduce the drawing power. Mike Loades would be the person to ask.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on May 06, 2012, 09:04:33 AM
A student at Leiden University did a dissertation on Bell Beaker wrist guards (http://leidenuniv.academia.edu/SvanderVaart/Papers/705425/Bell_Beaker_wrist-guards_reconsidered._A_research_into_their_functionality_and_possible_uses). It is online and very useful for figure 1 (from Harrison 1980), showing the distribution of two types, which largely follow the routes I outline in Beaker Folk to Celts and Italics. The narrow type: Po valley, southern France, Iberia, Brittany. The broad type: clustering with Eastern Beaker, though there are narrow types there as well.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on May 06, 2012, 11:33:22 AM
A student at Leiden University did a dissertation on Bell Beaker wrist guards (http://leidenuniv.academia.edu/SvanderVaart/Papers/705425/Bell_Beaker_wrist-guards_reconsidered._A_research_into_their_functionality_and_possible_uses). It is online and very useful for figure 1 (from Harrison 1980), showing the distribution of two types, which largely follow the routes I outline in Beaker Folk to Celts and Italics. The narrow type: Po valley, southern France, Iberia, Brittany. The broad type: clustering with Eastern Beaker, though there are narrow types there as well.

That was interesting coming soon after others have dismissed them as archery equipment.  I found that paper pretty convincing that they are archery equipment. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: rms2 on May 06, 2012, 12:16:01 PM
I haven't had time to read the entire paper in detail, but what I did read was interesting, and the photos are excellent.

One thing that had crossed my mind awhile back was that the wristguards might have been the extra protective component in a larger leather guard worn over the forearm. I see in Figure 23 (and described on page 39) that I wasn't alone in that idea.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: IALEM on May 06, 2012, 03:25:35 PM
The archaeologist Vazquez Cuesta thinks that they were some multipurpose protection.

He also has come out with a theory about the Bell Beaker social origin. You all probably know that in the earliest Bell Beaker in the Tagus valley graves are collective, and usually only one person has the Bell Beaker package. He has also noticed that in contemporary graves from the same site the Bell Beaker articles are of quite different quality, so he conclude that they are not an status simbol, but rather they mark the position in a familiar structure (The head of the family), that will explain that only one individual per grave is "bell Beaker" and that they are of very dissimilar social condition.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: razyn on May 06, 2012, 06:06:51 PM
A student at Leiden University did a dissertation on Bell Beaker wrist guards (http://leidenuniv.academia.edu/SvanderVaart/Papers/705425/Bell_Beaker_wrist-guards_reconsidered._A_research_into_their_functionality_and_possible_uses). It is online and very useful for figure 1

Some of the rest of it is also useful.  I was reading the caption of the last burial (no. 31) in Appendix VI, a guy found in a ditch at Stonehenge (so, not a proper Bell Beaker burial at all).  And I recalled, but dimly, a reenactment based on that set of remains.  I don't think it discussed his wrist guard, or culture; certainly not his DNA... but there was an elaborate scenario about his having trespassed on the sacred Inner Circle, and having been shot several times (as he was attempting to flee) for his trouble.  (There were five arrowheads in the body.)  I think, but am not certain, that it was in the National Geographic Channel program, "Stonehenge Decoded."  Does that ring any bells with others?  I have a DVD of that program, which I enjoyed at the time (2008?).  Guess I could watch it again, if I had to, to answer my own question.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: OConnor on May 06, 2012, 06:51:03 PM
I wonder if the arrowheads were tanged, or leaf type?.
Perhaps people had access to both?


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on May 09, 2012, 06:55:09 AM
The dissertation mentions a paper Fokkens, H., Y. Achterkamp, & M. Kuijpers 2008. Bracers or bracelets? About the functionality and meaning of Bell beaker wrist-guards (http://leidenuniv.academia.edu/HarryFokkens/Papers/149855/Bracers_or_Bracelets_About_the_Functionality_and_Meaning_of_Bell_Beaker_Wrist-guards), Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 74, 109-140, which I think has the answer in fig 10. It is online at the link above. 

The stone item was fixed onto the outer side of a leather cuff. So the smooth leather protected the wrist while not snagging on the bow-string. The stone was either purely decorative or acting as a bracer.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on May 09, 2012, 05:41:10 PM
Maybe some kind of knuckle duster type set up :0)


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on May 09, 2012, 06:28:07 PM
I wondered if it was meant to protect the wrist in combat against swordsmen, but the sensible thing for an archer is to stay out of reach of swords. :) 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: razyn on May 12, 2012, 01:42:52 PM
A student at Leiden University did a dissertation on Bell Beaker wrist guards (http://leidenuniv.academia.edu/SvanderVaart/Papers/705425/Bell_Beaker_wrist-guards_reconsidered._A_research_into_their_functionality_and_possible_uses). It is online and very useful for figure 1

Some of the rest of it is also useful.  I was reading the caption of the last burial (no. 31) in Appendix VI, a guy found in a ditch at Stonehenge (so, not a proper Bell Beaker burial at all).  And I recalled, but dimly, a reenactment based on that set of remains.  I don't think it discussed his wrist guard, or culture; certainly not his DNA... but there was an elaborate scenario about his having trespassed on the sacred Inner Circle, and having been shot several times (as he was attempting to flee) for his trouble.  (There were five arrowheads in the body.)  I think, but am not certain, that it was in the National Geographic Channel program, "Stonehenge Decoded."  Does that ring any bells with others?  I have a DVD of that program, which I enjoyed at the time (2008?).  Guess I could watch it again, if I had to, to answer my own question.

It wasn't on that NatGeo DVD; but, as luck would have it, the correct show was aired last night (at 2 AM, gasp) and I watched enough of it to confirm that the correct show was, in fact, "Stonehenge Deciphered" -- a 2008 co-production of the BBC and the Smithsonian Channel (which aired it here, on cable TV).  It also includes a good segment on the discovery of the Amesbury Archer "six years ago," which would I guess be 2002, now ten years ago.  And in that segment, you actually see a couple of the wrist guards (not in situ, as the Archer's bones have been sorted out and were displayed on a lab table).

Also you get to see guys from Wessex Archaeology and Bournemouth University doing 30 second soundbites, as Noted Authorities.  Some of you probably know those guys.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Heber on May 12, 2012, 11:20:09 PM
I wondered if it was meant to protect the wrist in combat against swordsmen, but the sensible thing for an archer is to stay out of reach of swords. :) 

The English archers tried their best to stay out of reach of French swords during the Battle of Agincourt.

"A widespread urban legend claims that two-fingered salute or V sign derives from a gesture made by longbowmen fighting in the English army at the Battle of Agincourt (1415) during the Hundred Years' War. According to the story, the French were in the habit of cutting off the arrow-shooting fingers of captured English and Welsh longbowmen, and the gesture was a sign of defiance on the part of the bowmen, showing the enemy that they still had their fingers."


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Arch Y. on May 13, 2012, 08:26:43 PM
A student at Leiden University did a dissertation on Bell Beaker wrist guards (http://leidenuniv.academia.edu/SvanderVaart/Papers/705425/Bell_Beaker_wrist-guards_reconsidered._A_research_into_their_functionality_and_possible_uses). It is online and very useful for figure 1

Some of the rest of it is also useful.  I was reading the caption of the last burial (no. 31) in Appendix VI, a guy found in a ditch at Stonehenge (so, not a proper Bell Beaker burial at all).  And I recalled, but dimly, a reenactment based on that set of remains.  I don't think it discussed his wrist guard, or culture; certainly not his DNA... but there was an elaborate scenario about his having trespassed on the sacred Inner Circle, and having been shot several times (as he was attempting to flee) for his trouble.  (There were five arrowheads in the body.)  I think, but am not certain, that it was in the National Geographic Channel program, "Stonehenge Decoded."  Does that ring any bells with others?  I have a DVD of that program, which I enjoyed at the time (2008?).  Guess I could watch it again, if I had to, to answer my own question.

It wasn't on that NatGeo DVD; but, as luck would have it, the correct show was aired last night (at 2 AM, gasp) and I watched enough of it to confirm that the correct show was, in fact, "Stonehenge Deciphered" -- a 2008 co-production of the BBC and the Smithsonian Channel (which aired it here, on cable TV).  It also includes a good segment on the discovery of the Amesbury Archer "six years ago," which would I guess be 2002, now ten years ago.  And in that segment, you actually see a couple of the wrist guards (not in situ, as the Archer's bones have been sorted out and were displayed on a lab table).

Also you get to see guys from Wessex Archaeology and Bournemouth University doing 30 second soundbites, as Noted Authorities.  Some of you probably know those guys.

I think I've seen that episode. If I'm not mistaken, they speak of Stonehenge and the West side of the River Avon being the land of the dead, or taboo; hence the stones represent or are a representation of the deceased. Whereas the land of those who are living would be in settlements made of wood on the opposite side of the River Avon; the wooden structures long have deteriorated.

Arch



Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Arch Y. on May 13, 2012, 08:34:47 PM
Anybody read the book: "The Beaker Culture of the Balearic Islands", by Dr. Waldren? I believe it was published in 1998, and I'm wondering how really old Bell Beaker the Bell Beaker culture really is. I can't place my finger on it, but I heard the Balearic Islands have some of the oldest Bell Beaker artifacts. It would make sense if the oldest Bell Beaker Archer's equipment is found near the eastern shores of Iberia. However, I'm not sure how it plays into the Bell Beaker sites in Southern Portugal, which I am hearing are the oldest Bell Beakers found. Of course, Anatole mentions the Pyrenees are the oldest, but I'm not sure where he's getting his data from; it doesn't seem reliable.

Arch


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on June 20, 2012, 07:39:46 AM
I now have in my hands the long-awaited volume: Michael J. Allen, Julie Gardiner and Alison Sheridan (eds.), Is There a British Chalcolithic? (2012)

I listed the contents in a previous post (http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10484.msg128989#msg128989).  "Searching for the Chalcolithic: continuity and change in the Irish Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age" by Neil Carlin and Joanna Bruck is a disappointment. They argue a strongly anti-migrationist case, and fly in the face of the evidence in other ways, arguing against a link between metallurgy and Bell Beaker pottery. That is so dotty. They know these things arrived together and say so. They must know that Bell Beaker was found at the earliest copper mine in Ireland, but they avoid discussing it by saying   that this site lies outside the scope of their paper.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Mike Walsh on June 20, 2012, 01:11:07 PM
I now have in my hands ...That is so dotty. They know these things arrived together and say so. They must know that Bell Beaker was found at the earliest copper mine in Ireland, but they avoid discussing it by saying   that this site lies outside the scope of their paper.

Sounds like these folks could be good politicians. :)


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on June 20, 2012, 09:16:34 PM
I now have in my hands the long-awaited volume: Michael J. Allen, Julie Gardiner and Alison Sheridan (eds.), Is There a British Chalcolithic? (2012)

I listed the contents in a previous post (http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10484.msg128989#msg128989).  "Searching for the Chalcolithic: continuity and change in the Irish Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age" by Neil Carlin and Joanna Bruck is a disappointment. They argue a strongly anti-migrationist case, and fly in the face of the evidence in other ways, arguing against a link between metallurgy and Bell Beaker pottery. That is so dotty. They know these things arrived together and say so. They must know that Bell Beaker was found at the earliest copper mine in Ireland, but they avoid discussing it by saying   that this site lies outside the scope of their paper.

lol I knew Neill would dissapoint on migration.  He is a bit of a Francis Pryor when it comes to beakers.  I disagree with him too. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: secherbernard on June 28, 2012, 10:34:07 AM
Soon, a new book about Bell Beakers: http://www.sidestone.com/books/background-to-beakers
Quote
Background to Beakers is the result of an inspiring session at the yearly conference of European Association of Archaeologists in The Hague in September 2010. The conference brought together thirteen speakers on the subject Beakers in Transition. Together we explored the background to the Bell beaker complex in different regions, departing from the idea that migration is not the comprehensive solution to the adoption of bell Beakers. Therefore we asked the participants to discuss how in their region Beakers were incorporated in existing cultural complexes, as one of the manners to understand the processes of innovation that were undoubtedly part of the Beaker complex.

In this book eight of the speakers have contributed papers, resulting in a diverse and interesting approach to Beakers. We can see how scholars in Scandinavia, the Low Countries, Poland, Switzerland, France, Morocco even, struggle with the same problems, but have different solutions everywhere. The book reads as an inspiration for new approaches and for a discussion of cultural backgrounds in stead of searching for the oldest Beaker. The authors are all established scholars in the field of Bronze Age research.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: rms2 on June 29, 2012, 07:04:34 AM
Soon, a new book about Bell Beakers: http://www.sidestone.com/books/background-to-beakers
Quote
Background to Beakers is the result of an inspiring session at the yearly conference of European Association of Archaeologists in The Hague in September 2010. The conference brought together thirteen speakers on the subject Beakers in Transition. Together we explored the background to the Bell beaker complex in different regions, departing from the idea that migration is not the comprehensive solution to the adoption of bell Beakers. Therefore we asked the participants to discuss how in their region Beakers were incorporated in existing cultural complexes, as one of the manners to understand the processes of innovation that were undoubtedly part of the Beaker complex.

In this book eight of the speakers have contributed papers, resulting in a diverse and interesting approach to Beakers. We can see how scholars in Scandinavia, the Low Countries, Poland, Switzerland, France, Morocco even, struggle with the same problems, but have different solutions everywhere. The book reads as an inspiration for new approaches and for a discussion of cultural backgrounds in stead of searching for the oldest Beaker. The authors are all established scholars in the field of Bronze Age research[/size].

Looks interesting. Thanks, Bernard.

I wish we could get a truly comprehensive study of the Bell Beaker phenomenon, one that included dna analysis, archaeology, and anthropology.



Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: A.D. on July 02, 2012, 10:57:42 AM
The wrist guards would be more compatible with the Irish bronze age rapier type sward for parrying thrusts  than against the short thick slashing swards. I don't know if the timescale is compatible. There are round small shields of both Scandinavian and Mediterranean type in Ireland.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: razyn on July 02, 2012, 11:41:39 AM
I've been browsing through A History of the World in 100 Objects (book from the library) and noticed on the Standard of Ur (circa 2500 BC) that the Sumerian king and six of his homeboys were drinking from something reminiscent of Bell Beakers.  Just in case that's of any interest -- I know their vessels could be horn cups, or several other things, but it's an interesting and contemporary picture.  At this url, look at the "peace" side (image 3 of 8), and you can zoom in on the cups:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/cVczEWH0RVm_dFZtJBAjRw


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on July 02, 2012, 12:06:29 PM
..  noticed on the Standard of Ur (circa 2500 BC) that the Sumerian king and six of his homeboys were drinking from something reminiscent of Bell Beakers.

No - those appear to be either horn or stemmed cups, the narrow stem of which could be held in one hand. Stemmed pottery goblets are much easier to make on a wheel and so appear in the Near East after the potter's wheel. Nothing to do with Bell Beaker.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: razyn on July 02, 2012, 12:22:02 PM
Nothing to do with Bell Beaker.

Well, nothing to do with blackish cups made of coiled clay by women in Portugal.  I was focusing more on its being a 4,500 year old picture of seven elite guys drinking what looks like a toast, out of something with a "bell" silhouette at the top.  Could be about to do a libation of bull's blood, for all I know, but it's a neat picture to have.

Also, I can easily hold a large flat-bottomed beaker in one hand, and in fact I often do.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 02, 2012, 12:30:08 PM
The wrist guards would be more compatible with the Irish bronze age rapier type sward for parrying thrusts  than against the short thick slashing swards. I don't know if the timescale is compatible. There are round small shields of both Scandinavian and Mediterranean type in Ireland.

Not really period compatible.  Rapiers are a little later than the beaker copper daggers and the shields are quite a lot later in the Bronze Age. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: rms2 on July 02, 2012, 12:40:30 PM
The wrist guards would be more compatible with the Irish bronze age rapier type sward for parrying thrusts  than against the short thick slashing swards. I don't know if the timescale is compatible. There are round small shields of both Scandinavian and Mediterranean type in Ireland.

Not really period compatible.  Rapiers are a little later than the beaker copper daggers and the shields are quite a lot later in the Bronze Age.  

Not to mention the numerous arrowheads in Beaker graves which indicate the wrist guards were intended to protect the inner forearm from the bowstring.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: MHammers on July 02, 2012, 02:29:49 PM
One thing about the wrist guards is that the two-holed version were common in the west, while the four-holed ones were from east.  Both types were found in the British Isles.  However, I don't know if one preceeded ther other or just regional developments.  It's just another indication that there were two main variations of Beaker culture.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 02, 2012, 02:45:33 PM
One thing about the wrist guards is that the two-holed version were common in the west, while the four-holed ones were from east.  Both types were found in the British Isles.  However, I don't know if one preceeded ther other or just regional developments.  It's just another indication that there were two main variations of Beaker culture.

My understanding is that Atlantic France was where the two streams (Iberian and Rhine/west-central European) met.  I am not sure about the current thinking on the relative chronology of the two streams reaching Atlantic France.  I think roughly speaking the Loire was the boundary where Iberian influences pettered out and northern ones took over.  However, I was taught this a long time ago so it may not still stand.   


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Heber on July 02, 2012, 05:00:36 PM
One thing about the wrist guards is that the two-holed version were common in the west, while the four-holed ones were from east.  Both types were found in the British Isles.  However, I don't know if one preceeded ther other or just regional developments.  It's just another indication that there were two main variations of Beaker culture.

My understanding is that Atlantic France was where the two streams (Iberian and Rhine/west-central European) met.  I am not sure about the current thinking on the relative chronology of the two streams reaching Atlantic France.  I think roughly speaking the Loire was the boundary where Iberian influences pettered out and northern ones took over.  However, I was taught this a long time ago so it may not still stand.   

Alan,
When I lived in France, the country, for climate and other purposes was divided into North of the Loire and South of the Loire. The South always got the good weather. I have always looked at the Loire as being the superhighway linking the Atlantic (L21) Celts to the Contintental (U152) Celts. It was also an important hub between the Iberian Celts and the Isles. This hub position also extended to Megalithic cultures. The Loire was also the home of the Canuts and the Centre of the Celtic Druidic tradition on the continent.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on July 02, 2012, 05:52:28 PM
Could be about to do a libation of bull's blood, for all I know, but it's a neat picture to have.

It is a lovely picture to have. That sums up a problem. Because so many things were first depicted in Mesopotamia (because that is where agricultural surplus was paying artists and craftsmen), it has been assumed over and over again that everything so depicted was actually invented in Mesopotamia. Wheeled vehicles - also shown on the Standard of Sumer - are one example. I talk about this: http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/widerview.shtml

Quote
Since writing began in the cities of Mesopotamia and art was also advanced there, the first indisputable image or written record of an innovation often appears there. Many innovations were therefore credited to Mesopotamia which now seem to belong rather to the hilly flanks of the Fertile Crescent, the Eurasian steppe or even further afield. Pottery appeared in the Far East and Africa long before it was made in the Near East. Pottery reached Europe first from the steppe. Agriculture began along the great curve of the Taurus and Zagros Mountains. Metal-working too began in the hills that provided the ore. Gold was first worked in the Balkans. Horses were domesticated on the steppe and donkeys in North Africa. Wheeled vehicles were probably first made in the European steppe/forest zone. Light spoke-wheel chariots appeared first on the West Asian steppe. Wine was first produced on the southern slopes of the Caucasus, where grapes grew wild. Dairy farming, as opposed to herding cows primarily for meat (with occasional milking), first appeared around the Sea of Marmara - on both the European and Anatolian coasts. Wool sheep may have been first bred in the Caucasus, where the earliest surviving woollen textile has been discovered.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on July 04, 2012, 01:36:16 PM
Volker Heyd, Growth and expansion; social, economic and ideological structures in the European Chalcolithic, from the new book that I mentioned in April (http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10484.msg128989#msg128989), is now in the Mini-Library. I think it is one of the best of the bunch in outlining the whole Bell Beaker story. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 04, 2012, 04:11:31 PM
Volker Heyd, Growth and expansion; social, economic and ideological structures in the European Chalcolithic, from the new book that I mentioned in April (http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10484.msg128989#msg128989), is now in the Mini-Library. I think it is one of the best of the bunch in outlining the whole Bell Beaker story. 

Have you any good papers on Vucedol.  Not much on the web for free.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 04, 2012, 09:04:20 PM
Volker Heyd, Growth and expansion; social, economic and ideological structures in the European Chalcolithic, from the new book that I mentioned in April (http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10484.msg128989#msg128989), is now in the Mini-Library. I think it is one of the best of the bunch in outlining the whole Bell Beaker story.  

He follows typical archaeological tradition in being vague on migration on the whole (as opposed to mobility) and is actively hostile to it in places such as where he treats Corded Ware as a hostile native reaction to Yamanya.  Heyd is always a good read but I think he would be surprised if he was thought of as a strong plank in migration theories.  He tends to talk about interaction, networks, social change etc which is indeed the norm in archaeology in recent decades for right or wrong.  However I have got to honest and say that a lot of his papers describe widespread social changes in a non-migratory way and that actually is often more believable.  I think for example his list of selective Yamnaya influences across Europe in his previous paper if it was interpreted as migration evidence would set the evidence bar so low (ground level really) that its meaningless.At that level of evidence then you could argue migrations all over the place throughout prehistory.  I think a lot of what he writes has an anti-migration wording (very anthro). 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on July 05, 2012, 04:38:25 AM
@ Alan

I think you misunderstand Heyd's phraseology on page 104. He talks clearly enough about the origin of the spread of the Secondary Products Revolution in the interaction between the herders of the Pontic steppe belt and their advanced sedentary neighbours.

Quote
The third stage, immediately preceding the Beaker Phenomenon, is signalled by the infiltration of the Yamnaya population from the Pontic steppe into areas of south-east Europe in the early  3rd millennium, bringing with them a distinct package of innovations. Next we see neighbouring societies responding to this package. This is seen as the beginning of a Late Copper Age. The deepest social transformation occurs however north of the Carpathians. Here societies gradually react against groups of Yamnaya people migrating up the rivers Prut, Dnestr, and Dnepr. The result is the emergence of a distinctive new lifestyle, economy, settlement and social organisation, called the Corded Ware Complex...  

"react against" does not necessarily imply hostility. In this context that would make no sense. The new lifestyle etc is actually spread by the incomers. He is phrasing things tactfully certainly, to allow for a local input into this new society, as has been the traditional view.

By the way a new paper revises the traditional date for the start of CW to 2750 BC, rather than the 2900 BC given by Heyd.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 05, 2012, 01:11:58 PM
Jean. Have you got that paper?

By the way, don't get me wrong, I have always loved big picture social archaeology such as heyd and I rarely have found anything I disagree with.  However in migration terms beyond the east of Europe he does not exactly go out of his way to distinguish interaction and migration or the balance of both.  I don't blame him though because it's probably archaeology's (without the white coat backup) weakest suite.  I actually don't think lack of discussion by archaeologists on all but the most obvious migrations was often not actually ideological but just a recognition of the difficulty in inferring it and also not wanting egg on thir faces if they get it wrong, archaeologists being very cadgey and non committal as a result.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: princenuadha on July 05, 2012, 06:09:05 PM
@ Alan

I think you misunderstand Heyd's phraseology on page 104. He talks clearly enough about the origin of the spread of the Secondary Products Revolution in the interaction between the herders of the Pontic steppe belt and their advanced sedentary neighbours.

Quote
The third stage, immediately preceding the Beaker Phenomenon, is signalled by the infiltration of the Yamnaya population from the Pontic steppe into areas of south-east Europe in the early  3rd millennium, bringing with them a distinct package of innovations. Next we see neighbouring societies responding to this package. This is seen as the beginning of a Late Copper Age. The deepest social transformation occurs however north of the Carpathians. Here societies gradually react against groups of Yamnaya people migrating up the rivers Prut, Dnestr, and Dnepr. The result is the emergence of a distinctive new lifestyle, economy, settlement and social organisation, called the Corded Ware Complex...  

"react against" does not necessarily imply hostility. In this context that would make no sense. The new lifestyle etc is actually spread by the incomers. He is phrasing things tactfully certainly, to allow for a local input into this new society, as has been the traditional view.

By the way a new paper revises the traditional date for the start of CW to 2750 BC, rather than the 2900 BC given by Heyd.

So how is the Corded ware connected to the steppes given that it sprang up "north of the carpathians".


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on July 06, 2012, 08:10:18 AM
Jean. Have you got that paper?


Sure. It is in the Corded Ware section. W≥odarczak 2009.

By the way - the easy way to find stuff is to search the index by primary author for key words, or use the Google docs search engine to search full text of the whole collection.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on July 06, 2012, 08:32:38 AM
So how is the Corded ware connected to the steppes given that it sprang up "north of the carpathians".


As Heyd says, people from the steppe moved up rivers east of the Carpathians: the Prut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prut), Dnestr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dniester), and Dnepr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper_River). This is not news. The caginess that Alan mentions is simply over the degree to which the obvious flow of ideas, objects and technology reflects migration. That is a question best approached by genetics. Archaeologists can interpret the material remains in different ways. Some might point to the change of burial custom between the Neolithic/TRB and CW as pretty convincing evidence of a different people arriving. Others might want to argue continuity of certain features from the TRB as evidence that local people were just adopting new fashions.

The continuity approach has been traditional for decades, but at least one of its props has been removed by ancient DNA. (The idea the the TRB was local. In fact it came from the Balkans). What we really need now is ancient Y-DNA from the TRB, to compare with that from CW. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: secherbernard on July 14, 2012, 09:33:08 AM
This is an old (1984) but very interesting paper from Alfred Czarnetzki: The genetic Influence of Bell Beaker people in Bohemia: http://tinyurl.com/7yfdt3t
Quote
A somewahat oversimplified summary of the following would suggest that during the bell beaker period the majority of Bohemian immigrants were males, obviously bearing a different gene pool. This new intercourse between the immigrants and the indigenous neolithic Bohemians result in a gene flow with a corresponding shift in the gene pool. The examined sample  population from the Aunjetitz period admittedly contained a considerable number of hereditary factors from the original population,  yet had been sufficiently altered by the gene flow to permit reconstruction of its directionality. Whether the bell beaker people  subsequently emigrated or not does not emerge from any material investigated.

lt is hoped that this paper has brought some additional insight into the possibilities epigenetic traits analysis can open up when  interpreting and reconstructing the processes las well as their inherent directionality) involved in population differentiation - as well  as the importance of clear determination of sex.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: secherbernard on August 14, 2012, 04:14:04 AM
Soon, a new book about Bell Beakers: http://www.sidestone.com/books/background-to-beakers
Quote
Background to Beakers is the result of an inspiring session at the yearly conference of European Association of Archaeologists in The Hague in September 2010. The conference brought together thirteen speakers on the subject Beakers in Transition. Together we explored the background to the Bell beaker complex in different regions, departing from the idea that migration is not the comprehensive solution to the adoption of bell Beakers. Therefore we asked the participants to discuss how in their region Beakers were incorporated in existing cultural complexes, as one of the manners to understand the processes of innovation that were undoubtedly part of the Beaker complex.

In this book eight of the speakers have contributed papers, resulting in a diverse and interesting approach to Beakers. We can see how scholars in Scandinavia, the Low Countries, Poland, Switzerland, France, Morocco even, struggle with the same problems, but have different solutions everywhere. The book reads as an inspiration for new approaches and for a discussion of cultural backgrounds in stead of searching for the oldest Beaker. The authors are all established scholars in the field of Bronze Age research.
These are the abstracts of some papers of the book: http://tinyurl.com/cpj3ll4
Some papers seem really very interesting with new ideas: A critical review of the Dutch model, the Bell Beaker navigators, the origin of the Bell Beaker phenomenon based on the cultural communication between the Northwest Africa and Estramadura, ...
I have ordered it.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Mark Jost on August 14, 2012, 08:26:01 AM
Amazon.com pre-order available for this title will be released on December 31, 2012.

Background to Beakers: Inquiries into the Regional Cultural Background to the Bell Beaker Complex [Paperback]

MJost


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: secherbernard on September 24, 2012, 03:17:01 AM
Soon, a new book about Bell Beakers: http://www.sidestone.com/books/background-to-beakers
Quote
Background to Beakers is the result of an inspiring session at the yearly conference of European Association of Archaeologists in The Hague in September 2010. The conference brought together thirteen speakers on the subject Beakers in Transition. Together we explored the background to the Bell beaker complex in different regions, departing from the idea that migration is not the comprehensive solution to the adoption of bell Beakers. Therefore we asked the participants to discuss how in their region Beakers were incorporated in existing cultural complexes, as one of the manners to understand the processes of innovation that were undoubtedly part of the Beaker complex.

In this book eight of the speakers have contributed papers, resulting in a diverse and interesting approach to Beakers. We can see how scholars in Scandinavia, the Low Countries, Poland, Switzerland, France, Morocco even, struggle with the same problems, but have different solutions everywhere. The book reads as an inspiration for new approaches and for a discussion of cultural backgrounds in stead of searching for the oldest Beaker. The authors are all established scholars in the field of Bronze Age research.
These are the abstracts of some papers of the book: http://tinyurl.com/cpj3ll4
Some papers seem really very interesting with new ideas: A critical review of the Dutch model, the Bell Beaker navigators, the origin of the Bell Beaker phenomenon based on the cultural communication between the Northwest Africa and Estramadura, ...
I have ordered it.
The book is readable for free here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/106362709/Fokkens-Nicolis-Eds-2012-Background-to-Beakers


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: razyn on September 24, 2012, 10:20:31 AM
Thanks very much for the link.  I've been awaiting the chapter about the Bronze Age navigators -- which btw I recommend highly, having just read it.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on September 24, 2012, 03:15:32 PM
Thanks Bernard! Bought the ebook.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 24, 2012, 05:39:51 PM
Soon, a new book about Bell Beakers: http://www.sidestone.com/books/background-to-beakers
Quote
Background to Beakers is the result of an inspiring session at the yearly conference of European Association of Archaeologists in The Hague in September 2010. The conference brought together thirteen speakers on the subject Beakers in Transition. Together we explored the background to the Bell beaker complex in different regions, departing from the idea that migration is not the comprehensive solution to the adoption of bell Beakers. Therefore we asked the participants to discuss how in their region Beakers were incorporated in existing cultural complexes, as one of the manners to understand the processes of innovation that were undoubtedly part of the Beaker complex.

In this book eight of the speakers have contributed papers, resulting in a diverse and interesting approach to Beakers. We can see how scholars in Scandinavia, the Low Countries, Poland, Switzerland, France, Morocco even, struggle with the same problems, but have different solutions everywhere. The book reads as an inspiration for new approaches and for a discussion of cultural backgrounds in stead of searching for the oldest Beaker. The authors are all established scholars in the field of Bronze Age research.
These are the abstracts of some papers of the book: http://tinyurl.com/cpj3ll4
Some papers seem really very interesting with new ideas: A critical review of the Dutch model, the Bell Beaker navigators, the origin of the Bell Beaker phenomenon based on the cultural communication between the Northwest Africa and Estramadura, ...
I have ordered it.
The book is readable for free here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/106362709/Fokkens-Nicolis-Eds-2012-Background-to-Beakers

I am a bit dissapointed with the book because its basically a compilation of stuff that has all already appeared in papers.  It does bring stuff together in a single book but there is not much new there if you have been reading the latest papers.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: razyn on September 24, 2012, 07:16:53 PM
I am a bit dissapointed with the book because its basically a compilation of stuff that has all already appeared in papers.  It does bring stuff together in a single book but there is not much new there if you have been reading the latest papers.

I don't think Chapter 3 has been in other papers, including the maritime-heavy works of Cunliffe.  Most of it is new to me, anyway, and I've been looking for this stuff.  Also Lemercier's voice is heard here in English, for people who haven't checked out his recent work published in French.

Be that as it may, the conference was in 2010; it takes a while for these academic things to get collected, revised, out to "readers" and back, and published.  Meanwhile there are indeed other papers to read -- some in very preliminary form.  It's all good; it's just not all equally good, or equally timely.  In a couple of years we can read what you and Jean and a few other serious people think about it, on reflection.  At the moment, to me it looks like pretty good stuff.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 24, 2012, 07:35:29 PM
I am a bit dissapointed with the book because its basically a compilation of stuff that has all already appeared in papers.  It does bring stuff together in a single book but there is not much new there if you have been reading the latest papers.

I don't think Chapter 3 has been in other papers, including the maritime-heavy works of Cunliffe.  Most of it is new to me, anyway, and I've been looking for this stuff.  Also Lemercier's voice is heard here in English, for people who haven't checked out his recent work published in French.

Be that as it may, the conference was in 2010; it takes a while for these academic things to get collected, revised, out to "readers" and back, and published.  Meanwhile there are indeed other papers to read -- some in very preliminary form.  It's all good; it's just not all equally good, or equally timely.  In a couple of years we can read what you and Jean and a few other serious people think about it, on reflection.  At the moment, to me it looks like pretty good stuff.

It is good stuff.  I am probably being a bit humbug.  I would have loved it if I hadnt been rooting about for papers on this stuff over the last year or two.  Problem is just my own that I have read the stuff mainly already.  Doesnt make it not great.  Just spoiled it for myself really!  Still at least its a lot easier to access this.  There is a whole lot more good thinking going on in beaker studies recently.  Actually one slight further dissapointment on this is simply that there are not more chapters and more regional analysis for more countries.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on September 25, 2012, 05:35:55 AM
To be honest I did not expect great things from this book. I thought that the conference seemed a desperate effort on the part of a Dutch specialist to turn the Bell Beaker conversation away from origins, because it is too depressing to keep reading that the Dutch Model has to be ditched. He wanted a focus on regions instead, which would encourage a lot of pontification without much purpose except to break up the big picture. I saw the conference abstracts. Though some individual papers are good, as Alan says, the content has been published elsewhere in the interim. That includes Lemercier in English in Antiquity.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: secherbernard on September 25, 2012, 10:01:28 AM
The Prescott paper is interesting about Bell Beaker in Norway. He reintroduces the importance of migration in Bell Beaker spread, and the importance of spread of knowledge deduced from practices, social organization, architecture, technology (metallurgy), cosmology/ideology and language (Indo-European).


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on September 25, 2012, 10:08:10 AM
@ secherbernard

I agree, but he has already published on this in Becoming European, out earlier this year. So I am left complaining of nothing new in this compilation. Sometimes which books end up getting cited just depends on who can get a set of papers into print fastest. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: secherbernard on September 25, 2012, 10:43:27 AM
I agree, but he has already published on this in Becoming European, out earlier this year. So I am left complaining of nothing new in this compilation. Sometimes which books end up getting cited just depends on who can get a set of papers into print fastest.  
I have not read the book Becoming European, but only some papers (Prieto, Vander Linden, Heyd, Ostmo) you have put in your library (thanks for that Jean). I didn't find the Prescott paper: The Beaker Culture and Bronze Age beginnings along the Norwegian coast; So much, so fast. So I didn't read it.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 25, 2012, 03:20:24 PM
To be honest I did not expect great things from this book. I thought that the conference seemed a desperate effort on the part of a Dutch specialist to turn the Bell Beaker conversation away from origins, because it is too depressing to keep reading that the Dutch Model has to be ditched. He wanted a focus on regions instead, which would encourage a lot of pontification without much purpose except to break up the big picture. I saw the conference abstracts. Though some individual papers are good, as Alan says, the content has been published elsewhere in the interim. That includes Lemercier in English in Antiquity.

I think the origins aspect has been ducked but I think that does owe something to the radiocarbon problems and the complex multi-I actually do like the way they have imagined the effect of the beaker culture though.  They have made it a little more vivid.  I thought it was very interesting that several papers considered BB network and its incredibly mobility and emphasis on travel, trade and the exotic as the only viable common denomenator that could have brought a pan (well much of) European language across disperate peoples. Not original but its good to see archaeologists stating this again.  There seems to be a middle ground being taken on migration with the idea of some uber-mobile element everywhere tranforming local cultures.   It doesnt pinpoint the origins but I think its getting close to the nature of the beaker phenomenon and it is acknowledging a human movement element.   


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 25, 2012, 06:48:33 PM
I also kind of like the Argonaut idea of a cult of people gaining power by adventure and exotic knowledge and exotic goods.  Maybe a little over romanticised but you would see how a cult like that would capture the imagination of young men.  Sort of a making them like rock stars.  You could look at it as a far more sophisticated and imaginative phenomenon than plodding head bashing with battle axes.  Kind of Copper age Sinbads with the benefit of adventure handily tied in with economic and social gain and some weaponry advantages.  I get the feeling that although the beaker folk did appear to be expert archers and have some control of the metals for weapons, they were not knuckleheads and their power was partly capturing of hearts and minds and imagination rather than brute force.  IF the beaker people were L11 lineages then they simply wouldnt have had the numbers to go down the knuckleheaded skull bashing route.  HMMM- and perhaps therein lies the reason for the archery specialism.  A very good way for a small number to neutralise groups more into a basic might is right approach and practicing 'neroic' ideals of close combat.  In other words the beaker people were Sinbads with a 'sexy'. imagination stirring culture and provided an alternative to the basic might is right cultures represented by other groups to the east.  That may have given the beaker people a much wider group of admirers than simple tribal strong arms could ever do.     


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: razyn on September 25, 2012, 07:00:07 PM
I also kind of like the Argonaut idea of a cult of people gaining power by adventure and exotic knowledge and exotic goods.  Maybe a little over romanticised but you would see how a cult like that would capture the imagination of young men.

Not to put too fine a point on it, one really needs to capture the imagination of young women, to have a Y-DNA line explode.  I believe I've mentioned this before.  There's no necessary distinction between being possessed of magical qualities (smelting, navigating, bringing amber beads from some mythically distant place, playing a musical instrument) and getting laid, in Iberia or the Isles.  Having a bronze sword and being a good archer may have helped, too.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jarman on September 25, 2012, 11:17:19 PM
  I get the feeling that although the beaker folk did appear to be expert archers and have some control of the metals for weapons, they were not knuckleheads and their power was partly capturing of hearts and minds and imagination rather than brute force.  IF the beaker people were L11 lineages then they simply wouldnt have had the numbers to go down the knuckleheaded skull bashing route.  HMMM- and perhaps therein lies the reason for the archery specialism.  A very good way for a small number to neutralise groups more into a basic might is right approach and practicing 'neroic' ideals of close combat.  In other words the beaker people were Sinbads with a 'sexy'. imagination stirring culture and provided an alternative to the basic might is right cultures represented by other groups to the east.  That may have given the beaker people a much wider group of admirers than simple tribal strong arms could ever do.     

The time from L11 to both P312 and U106 is presumed short. To me the idea a fastly spreading few implies a reason for other cultures to welcome them (or trade for them if they were slaves) and give them wives.  Maybe Papa L11 was a good metal worker - some sort of skill that made him and his descendants welcome as they roamed (or were traded) across Europe.  Archery has been suggested but I wonder if that could readily be passed down within a family's next generation.  Another thought is that maybe they were some sort of priestly family - were any new religions rapdily expanding about the same time?


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Heber on September 25, 2012, 11:59:53 PM
 I get the feeling that although the beaker folk did appear to be expert archers and have some control of the metals for weapons, they were not knuckleheads and their power was partly capturing of hearts and minds and imagination rather than brute force.  IF the beaker people were L11 lineages then they simply wouldnt have had the numbers to go down the knuckleheaded skull bashing route.  HMMM- and perhaps therein lies the reason for the archery specialism.  A very good way for a small number to neutralise groups more into a basic might is right approach and practicing 'neroic' ideals of close combat.  In other words the beaker people were Sinbads with a 'sexy'. imagination stirring culture and provided an alternative to the basic might is right cultures represented by other groups to the east.  That may have given the beaker people a much wider group of admirers than simple tribal strong arms could ever do.    

 Another thought is that maybe they were some sort of priestly family - were any new religions rapdily expanding about the same time?

That is a good idea and one that has never been addressed before. Was it associated with some form of Druidism or secret knowledge practiced by an elite class. For example the equivilant of the Coligney calendar would have revolutionised agriculture.

http://technovate.org/web/coligny.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coligny_calendar

The timing of the Atlantic Megalithic builders and solar alignment of communal monuments could reflect this. According to Busby, the highest frequencies of all defining mutations from M269 to L21 are found in these regions.

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763811258/



Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: stoneman on September 26, 2012, 03:40:54 AM
Once the first bell beaker was traded into Ireland the people would have copied it.So what is all this talk about the Bell Beaker people?In the future will we be known as the "Mobile Phone" people and the makers of these phones migrated all over the world.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: rms2 on September 26, 2012, 03:43:30 AM
Except that it wasn't just beakers, it was a whole cultural package and a distinct physical type (i.e., identifiable people).

And the Celtic speech got to the Isles somehow.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: stoneman on September 26, 2012, 01:35:48 PM
The Bell Beakers were around for 2000 years before the Celts showed up.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 26, 2012, 01:42:44 PM
I totally agree with the points made above that the L11 variance and tree suggests that during the beaker period they really could only have been a small but special group and it does seem certain to me that they had to have been welcomed.  If L11 only came into being at say 2600BC then 100-200 years later when they reached their maximum spread they really, even allowing forr massive reproduction, could only have been a few thousand guys spread across the entire continent of Europe.  Their numerical dominance would have only come about over many centuries and millenia after this.  They must have got in as some sort of welcomed group who slowly morphed into the elites that held onto power for 2-3000 years and only such a longevity of advantage would have produced its dominance.  However, there must have been a long time before they became the numerically dominant group we see today.  As I posted above, the choice of archery was probably very logical for a small group who were initially in a sea of locals.  Self defence really.  The decline of archery in the Bronze Age in the 2nd millenium may be an indicator that by then they by then had grown enough to not require a self defence strategy.  I really do feel that may be the reason for the emphasis on archery.  A great leveler, especially in areas where battle axes etc were the preferred choice of weapon.  In such areas the non-beaker populations had the advantage of numbers and possibly a more old fashioned Indo-European heroic close combat idealogy.  The beaker people with their thinly spread small numbers could not have followed that idealogy for simple practical reasons - they were too few and therefore simply had to be archers with a more pragmatic, perhaps more defensive approach to weapons.  So, the striking non-adherence to the classic IE heroic close combat thing may have been a practical measure that they had to take.  I feel I have had a bit of a eureka moment on the reasons for beakers emphasis on archery compared to corded ware/battle axe type cultures.  They had to be practical in self defence and focus more on being a desirable element to win their place.  I kind of picture them of having something of a secret guild nature too and probably jealously gaurded their knowledge and system of contacts and made themselves needed by locals everywhere.  


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 26, 2012, 01:55:33 PM
The Bell Beakers were around for 2000 years before the Celts showed up.

Well the Celts just didnt simply come into existence because people on the Med. started writing things down and noted their existence from c. 600BC.  That is the problem with traditional Celtic studies.  Reliance on classical sources which simply didnt exist for temperate Europe before 600BC.  That has confused Celtic studies for too long.  Celts are basically first noted where Med. civilisations come into contact with them in Iberia, southern France and when spilling over the Alps and towards the Med.  That is a highly skewed source and tells us nothing other than where Med. people came into contact with them and started writting this down.  This IMO has led to us lookng to much at the contact points and contact periods with Med. civilisation when trying to understand the Celts.  That caused a long hangover from the days when people started with classical sources and imports and tries to interpret Celtic origins based on this.  I think now this is being redressed.  The old idea of Celts originating in north-Alpine areas in the end of the Bronze Age and Iron Age and little arrows on a maps based on light scatterings of Hallstatt and La Tene metalwork has rightly been increasinly dismissed.  Only the beaker culture is widespread enough to correlate with the distribution of Celto-Italic languages.  All the other cultures are essentially limited to some parts of the Celtic world and do not give a convincing common denomenator.  


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jarman on September 26, 2012, 02:40:10 PM
I kind of picture them of having something of a secret guild nature too and probably jealously gaurded their knowledge and system of contacts and made themselves needed by locals everywhere.  

Does this Wiki quote about the Vucedol culture fit?: "The community chief was the shaman-smith, possessing the arcane knowledge of avoiding poisonous arsenic gas which is connected to the technology of coppersmithing as well as understanding the year cycle. Still, the whole life of shaman-smith could not pass without biological consequences: slow loss of body movement coordination, and at the same time, stronger sexual potency. "That is why", according to Aleksandar Durman, "all eneolithic, or later gods of metallurgy are identified with fertility, and also why all gods in almost all early cultures - limp" It was a society of deep social changes and stratification that led to the birth of tribal and military aristocracy. Also, Vučedol people had enough time to express their spiritual view of the world."


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Richard Rocca on September 26, 2012, 08:03:13 PM
I totally agree with the points made above that the L11 variance and tree suggests that during the beaker period they really could only have been a small but special group and it does seem certain to me that they had to have been welcomed.  If L11 only came into being at say 2600BC then 100-200 years later when they reached their maximum spread they really, even allowing forr massive reproduction, could only have been a few thousand guys spread across the entire continent of Europe.  Their numerical dominance would have only come about over many centuries and millenia after this.  They must have got in as some sort of welcomed group who slowly morphed into the elites that held onto power for 2-3000 years and only such a longevity of advantage would have produced its dominance.  However, there must have been a long time before they became the numerically dominant group we see today.  As I posted above, the choice of archery was probably very logical for a small group who were initially in a sea of locals.  Self defence really.  The decline of archery in the Bronze Age in the 2nd millenium may be an indicator that by then they by then had grown enough to not require a self defence strategy.  I really do feel that may be the reason for the emphasis on archery.  A great leveler, especially in areas where battle axes etc were the preferred choice of weapon.  In such areas the non-beaker populations had the advantage of numbers and possibly a more old fashioned Indo-European heroic close combat idealogy.  The beaker people with their thinly spread small numbers could not have followed that idealogy for simple practical reasons - they were too few and therefore simply had to be archers with a more pragmatic, perhaps more defensive approach to weapons.  So, the striking non-adherence to the classic IE heroic close combat thing may have been a practical measure that they had to take.  I feel I have had a bit of a eureka moment on the reasons for beakers emphasis on archery compared to corded ware/battle axe type cultures.  They had to be practical in self defence and focus more on being a desirable element to win their place.  I kind of picture them of having something of a secret guild nature too and probably jealously gaurded their knowledge and system of contacts and made themselves needed by locals everywhere.  

I don't know if the scenario would have dragged on for a long period of time. In the Alps, the longest period of abandonment for the lake villages was precisely during the Bell Beaker period. It seems like the original lake dwellers were either killed off, or joined the BB phenomenon and migrated out of the Alps.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: A.D. on September 26, 2012, 08:49:27 PM
Have you heard of 'the battle of crickly hill' (I think thats right) not far from stonehenge. I don't know much other than one lot up a hill another at the bottom and loads of flint tipped arrowheads in between. I think it's copper age.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 26, 2012, 08:58:19 PM
Have you heard of 'the battle of crickly hill' (I think thats right) not far from stonehenge. I don't know much other than one lot up a hill another at the bottom and loads of flint tipped arrowheads in between. I think it's copper age.

I am pretty sure Crickley is a Neolithic causewayed enclosure which is famous for huge numbers of pre-beaker (leaf shaped?) arrow heads that are often interpreted as a massed archer attach on the enclosure.  Archery was of course common in the pre-beaker period too in western Europe.  The interesting thing is the fact that archery (well in the isles anyway) appears to practically die out in the middle Bronze Age in favour of more 'heroic' modes of fighting. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 26, 2012, 09:03:37 PM
I totally agree with the points made above that the L11 variance and tree suggests that during the beaker period they really could only have been a small but special group and it does seem certain to me that they had to have been welcomed.  If L11 only came into being at say 2600BC then 100-200 years later when they reached their maximum spread they really, even allowing forr massive reproduction, could only have been a few thousand guys spread across the entire continent of Europe.  Their numerical dominance would have only come about over many centuries and millenia after this.  They must have got in as some sort of welcomed group who slowly morphed into the elites that held onto power for 2-3000 years and only such a longevity of advantage would have produced its dominance.  However, there must have been a long time before they became the numerically dominant group we see today.  As I posted above, the choice of archery was probably very logical for a small group who were initially in a sea of locals.  Self defence really.  The decline of archery in the Bronze Age in the 2nd millenium may be an indicator that by then they by then had grown enough to not require a self defence strategy.  I really do feel that may be the reason for the emphasis on archery.  A great leveler, especially in areas where battle axes etc were the preferred choice of weapon.  In such areas the non-beaker populations had the advantage of numbers and possibly a more old fashioned Indo-European heroic close combat idealogy.  The beaker people with their thinly spread small numbers could not have followed that idealogy for simple practical reasons - they were too few and therefore simply had to be archers with a more pragmatic, perhaps more defensive approach to weapons.  So, the striking non-adherence to the classic IE heroic close combat thing may have been a practical measure that they had to take.  I feel I have had a bit of a eureka moment on the reasons for beakers emphasis on archery compared to corded ware/battle axe type cultures.  They had to be practical in self defence and focus more on being a desirable element to win their place.  I kind of picture them of having something of a secret guild nature too and probably jealously gaurded their knowledge and system of contacts and made themselves needed by locals everywhere.  

I don't know if the scenario would have dragged on for a long period of time. In the Alps, the longest period of abandonment for the lake villages was precisely during the Bell Beaker period. It seems like the original lake dwellers were either killed off, or joined the BB phenomenon and migrated out of the Alps.

I am not sure.  The main period of beaker expansion was 2600-2400BC followed by local development.  If Mr L11 was around c. 2600BC even a fairly spectacular period of growth would still amount to a very thinly spread few thousand across Europe c. 2400BC.  I actually would guess that they could have become a substantial minority by the late beaker period c. 2200BC or so, a period when in some areas beaker does seem to move from an added element to the dominant culture. 


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: IALEM on September 27, 2012, 10:21:00 AM
Apparently everybody missed the most interesting article on the origin of Bell Beakers. It is the last one on the Moroccan connection, claiming on stilistic grounds that the Maritime BB in the Tagus region can be related to the Late Neolithic of NW Morocco. A very plausible explanation, as a connection between the Zambujal/Los Millares complex and North Africa has been known for a long time.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Heber on September 27, 2012, 11:25:47 AM
I totally agree with the points made above that the L11 variance and tree suggests that during the beaker period they really could only have been a small but special group and it does seem certain to me that they had to have been welcomed.  If L11 only came into being at say 2600BC then 100-200 years later when they reached their maximum spread they really, even allowing forr massive reproduction, could only have been a few thousand guys spread across the entire continent of Europe.  Their numerical dominance would have only come about over many centuries and millenia after this.  They must have got in as some sort of welcomed group who slowly morphed into the elites that held onto power for 2-3000 years and only such a longevity of advantage would have produced its dominance.  However, there must have been a long time before they became the numerically dominant group we see today.  As I posted above, the choice of archery was probably very logical for a small group who were initially in a sea of locals.  Self defence really.  The decline of archery in the Bronze Age in the 2nd millenium may be an indicator that by then they by then had grown enough to not require a self defence strategy.  I really do feel that may be the reason for the emphasis on archery.  A great leveler, especially in areas where battle axes etc were the preferred choice of weapon.  In such areas the non-beaker populations had the advantage of numbers and possibly a more old fashioned Indo-European heroic close combat idealogy.  The beaker people with their thinly spread small numbers could not have followed that idealogy for simple practical reasons - they were too few and therefore simply had to be archers with a more pragmatic, perhaps more defensive approach to weapons.  So, the striking non-adherence to the classic IE heroic close combat thing may have been a practical measure that they had to take.  I feel I have had a bit of a eureka moment on the reasons for beakers emphasis on archery compared to corded ware/battle axe type cultures.  They had to be practical in self defence and focus more on being a desirable element to win their place.  I kind of picture them of having something of a secret guild nature too and probably jealously gaurded their knowledge and system of contacts and made themselves needed by locals everywhere.  

I don't know if the scenario would have dragged on for a long period of time. In the Alps, the longest period of abandonment for the lake villages was precisely during the Bell Beaker period. It seems like the original lake dwellers were either killed off, or joined the BB phenomenon and migrated out of the Alps.

I am not sure.  The main period of beaker expansion was 2600-2400BC followed by local development.  If Mr L11 was around c. 2600BC even a fairly spectacular period of growth would still amount to a very thinly spread few thousand across Europe c. 2400BC.  I actually would guess that they could have become a substantial minority by the late beaker period c. 2200BC or so, a period when in some areas beaker does seem to move from an added element to the dominant culture. 

I would see them as a community of:

1) Elite warriors, mastery of the new metal swords, shields, chariots, archery
2) Elite religion, eg. Druids, Agricultural Calendar, Lunar Cycles, Solstice, Equinox, Gods of nature and war
3) Bards, knowledge of the genealogy of the clan and clan origin myths
4) Elite metal workers, copper mining, arcenic alloys, bronze production, tin and later iron
5) Advanced navigation capabilities, boats, currach, maritime, river, land

If they had all of these capabilities it would be a very attractive package.
Sounds like the Celts of Proto Celts.
Their presence in history matches the migration path from M256, L23, L51, L11, P312, L21.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: razyn on September 27, 2012, 02:29:46 PM

I would see them as a community of:

1) Elite warriors, mastery of the new metal swords, shields, chariots, archery
2) Elite religion, eg. Druids, Agricultural Calendar, Lunar Cycles, Solstice, Equinox, Gods of nature and war
3) Bards, knowledge of the genealogy of the clan and clan origin myths
4) Elite metal workers, copper mining, arcenic alloys, bronze production, tin and later iron
5) Advanced navigation capabilities, boats, currach, maritime, river, land

If they had all of these capabilities it would be a very attractive package.
Sounds like the Celts of Proto Celts.
Their presence in history matches the migration path from M256, L23, L51, L11, P312, L21.


It's refreshing to see somebody looking at something besides pottery and bronze bits; not that the archaeologically surviving things aren't important, they just don't add up to a whole culture.  Anyway, as a quondam folklorist I feel that I should throw in some of the oral-traditional stuff that doesn't get left in the soil for several thousand years, but does hang around for a long time, and matches up in widely disparate societies.  A bardic example of the magical powers of these special dudes may be reflected in the Child Ballad, "The Twa Brothers," among others (although in that case, the charmer was female).  And it's echoing similar beliefs that are found in the Scandinavian ballad "Harpans kraft."  If anyone is interested, here are a couple of links about that.  The first one should go to a page about "Orphean music":

http://tinyurl.com/8hgs2wu

And this one should be the Swedish Wiki article about "Harpans kraft" (the power of the harp), the ballad:

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpans_kraft

This may seem far afield from Y-DNA; but really, we spend way more time and energy on pondering hardware and bric-a-brac than any actual culture ever did.  Most of that stuff mentioned by Heber has, at its core, the nature of mentifacts, not artifacts.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on September 27, 2012, 03:25:59 PM

I would see them as a community of:

1) Elite warriors, mastery of the new metal swords, shields, chariots, archery
2) Elite religion, eg. Druids, Agricultural Calendar, Lunar Cycles, Solstice, Equinox, Gods of nature and war
3) Bards, knowledge of the genealogy of the clan and clan origin myths
4) Elite metal workers, copper mining, arcenic alloys, bronze production, tin and later iron
5) Advanced navigation capabilities, boats, currach, maritime, river, land

If they had all of these capabilities it would be a very attractive package.
Sounds like the Celts of Proto Celts.
Their presence in history matches the migration path from M256, L23, L51, L11, P312, L21.


It's refreshing to see somebody looking at something besides pottery and bronze bits; not that the archaeologically surviving things aren't important, they just don't add up to a whole culture.  Anyway, as a quondam folklorist I feel that I should throw in some of the oral-traditional stuff that doesn't get left in the soil for several thousand years, but does hang around for a long time, and matches up in widely disparate societies.  A bardic example of the magical powers of these special dudes may be reflected in the Child Ballad, "The Twa Brothers," among others (although in that case, the charmer was female).  And it's echoing similar beliefs that are found in the Scandinavian ballad "Harpans kraft."  If anyone is interested, here are a couple of links about that.  The first one should go to a page about "Orphean music":

http://tinyurl.com/8hgs2wu

And this one should be the Swedish Wiki article about "Harpans kraft" (the power of the harp), the ballad:

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpans_kraft

This may seem far afield from Y-DNA; but really, we spend way more time and energy on pondering hardware and bric-a-brac than any actual culture ever did.  Most of that stuff mentioned by Heber has, at its core, the nature of mentifacts, not artifacts.

Well I think you need both.  If you dont have some evidence then its imagination.  However I agree the hard evidence in a means to an end, not the end itself.  Noone loves boring pottery sequences etc (unless they are a bit weird).  Ultimately we want an imaginative and vivid picture of how people thought and lived.  I do think we are getting a little closer at what made the peoples of the beaker period extraorinary and the possibility that they really did have a culture of adventure and exploring and seeing the world.  I think this may be etched into the fabric of Celtic (best recorded in Irish) mythology.  I mean the early written mythology rather than folklore though. I have started a thread on this because I think its very interesting and I know there are several people who post who know a lot about this.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: glentane on September 27, 2012, 06:34:25 PM
I am pretty sure Crickley is a Neolithic causewayed enclosure which is famous for huge numbers of pre-beaker (leaf shaped?) arrow heads that are often interpreted as a massed archer attach on the enclosure.  Archery was of course common in the pre-beaker period too in western Europe.  The interesting thing is the fact that archery (well in the isles anyway) appears to practically die out in the middle Bronze Age in favour of more 'heroic' modes of fighting. 
There's a pretty neat diagram of the Crickley arrowhead findspots about halfway down this article (http://www.rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue7/plundering-territories/) showing how it's not just a random scatter of stray finds,  they seem to indicate some sort of laying down of fire to cover an assault on the main "gates" and keep defenders off the "battlements".

There are others, but at the moment I can only think of Carn Brea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carn_Brea) and Hambledon Hill (http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=206189) (the Dorset one), both dug by Roger Mercer (he'd have been on the watch for that sort of stuff, as his thesis was on "Scythian" triangular bronze arrowheads, got a bit of a thing going on for pointy things. Other excavators might not have noticed them at all, prior to Dixon and Mercer's work, other than as general site litter ... ).

IIRC the biggest roundhouse at Carn Brea was the focus of the unwanted extra pebbledashing. At Hambledon there were actual "civilian" casualties found in the ditch.

Here's young Neil bringing home the bacon the hard way, on site at Crickley :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk-nF5BMKxQ

I reckon climatic deterioration, or just the Isles' foul climate (since forever?) might have had a hand in the demise of archery, once bronze close-combat weapons were more generally available.
Wet bowstring, and blowing a gale, and here's some hard cases charging at you with nasty-looking sharpened crowbars and unbreakable spearpoints? Ooops, no ta! Not when all I've got is a damp bendy stick with a string on it. Can't whip 'em to death :(


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Bren123 on October 01, 2012, 02:38:46 PM

Well the Celts just didnt simply come into existence because people on the Med. started writing things down and noted their existence from c. 600BC.  That is the problem with traditional Celtic studies.  Reliance on classical sources which simply didnt exist for temperate Europe before 600BC.  

True,but the problem with modern Celtic studies is that they project the Celts back into the dim and distant past!


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on October 01, 2012, 02:45:47 PM
Patrick SimsWilliams, Bronze and Iron Age Celtic speakers: what don't we know, what can't we know, and what could we know? language, genetics and archaeology in the twenty first century (http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000358151200011X), The Antiquaries Journal, September 2012, pp. 1-23


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Bren123 on October 01, 2012, 02:47:01 PM
Patrick SimsWilliams, Bronze and Iron Age Celtic speakers: what don't we know, what can't we know, and what could we know? language, genetics and archaeology in the twenty first century (http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000358151200011X), The Antiquaries Journal, September 2012, pp. 1-23

Yes thats the one sorry I should have posted the link!


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Jean M on October 01, 2012, 02:54:08 PM
Not to worry. I'm glad of the hint.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 01, 2012, 06:58:53 PM
Patrick SimsWilliams, Bronze and Iron Age Celtic speakers: what don't we know, what can't we know, and what could we know? language, genetics and archaeology in the twenty first century (http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000358151200011X), The Antiquaries Journal, September 2012, pp. 1-23

very negative paper with an annoying tone


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Bren123 on October 02, 2012, 01:52:44 PM
Patrick SimsWilliams, Bronze and Iron Age Celtic speakers: what don't we know, what can't we know, and what could we know? language, genetics and archaeology in the twenty first century (http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000358151200011X), The Antiquaries Journal, September 2012, pp. 1-23

very negative paper with an annoying tone

i thuoght it was good personally although the part on the Pictish language was bit off!


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: alan trowel hands. on October 02, 2012, 01:59:34 PM
Patrick SimsWilliams, Bronze and Iron Age Celtic speakers: what don't we know, what can't we know, and what could we know? language, genetics and archaeology in the twenty first century (http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000358151200011X), The Antiquaries Journal, September 2012, pp. 1-23

very negative paper with an annoying tone

i thuoght it was good personally although the part on the Pictish language was bit off!

The Pictish bit really does go against the norm these days.  That was one of a few things that seemed a bt odd about the paper.  There was a sort of narky attitude in it too that I didnt like.


Title: Re: New Bell Beaker papers
Post by: Bren123 on October 02, 2012, 02:04:18 PM
Patrick SimsWilliams, Bronze and Iron Age Celtic speakers: what don't we know, what can't we know, and what could we know? language, genetics and archaeology in the twenty first century (http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000358151200011X), The Antiquaries Journal, September 2012, pp. 1-23

very negative paper with an annoying tone

i thuoght it was good personally although the part on the Pictish language was bit off!

The Pictish bit really does go against the norm these days.  That was one of a few things that seemed a bt odd about the paper.  There was a sort of narky attitude in it too that I didnt like.

Alan on the Pictish language I thought it has been established now that it was a P-Celtic language related to Brythonic!