Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bell Beakers in Ireland

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stevo
    replied
    Here is something on the development of Beakers from page 161 of Jean Manco's book, Ancestral Journeys.

    Originally posted by Jean Manco
    It has been optimistically argued that the famed bell shape of Bell Beakers developed from earlier Vila Nova de São Pedro wares of slightly concave outline. Yet all the ingredients of the Bell Beaker design have precise predecessors on the Pontic steppe or in the Carpathian Basin. Pots of the same shape have been found found from before 4000 BC among Cucuteni and Svobodnoe types. Bell Beaker ware from 3rd-millennium BC Spain was decorated with white paste made of crushed bone. This technique was used earlier in the Carpathian Basin and on Funnel Beaker ware (see pp. 100-01). One of the most widespread early types of Bell Beaker pottery, known as All Over Corded (AOC), is decorated with impressions made with cord. That similarity to Corded Ware, together with the other features that the two cultures share, and the fact that they overlap geographically, led to the assumption that Bell Beaker developed from Corded Ware. It is now recognized that the two are contemporary. Their similarities, including cord impressions in pottery, reflect a shared cultural parent in Yamnaya (see p. 130). In short, the influences that culminated in this pottery could have traveled over time along the same route that brought copper-working to Iberia.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo View Post
    It is likely that bell beakers developed from predecessors in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. There is a trail across Europe of anthropomorphic stelae from Crimea to Iberia. It is likely that bell beaker pottery evolved from influences that traveled the same route as these stelae and copper metallurgy.
    The earliest Beakers came for Iberia.
    "Radiocarbon dating seems to support that the earliest "Maritime" Bell Beaker design style is encountered in Iberia, specifically in the vibrant copper-using communities of the Tagus estuary in Portugal around 2800-2700 BC and spread from there to many parts of western Europe.[3][13] An overview of all available sources from southern Germany concluded that Bell Beaker was a new and independent culture in that area, contemporary with the Corded Ware culture.[14][15]

    The inspiration for the Maritime Bell Beaker is argued to have been the small and earlier Copoz beakers that have impressed decoration and which are found widely around the Tagus estuary in Portugal.[16] Turek sees late Neolithic precursors in northern Africa, arguing the Maritime style emerged as a result of seaborne contacts between Iberia and Morocco in the first half of the third millennium BCE.[17] However, radiocarbon dating from North African sites is lacking for the most part."
    Last edited by 1798; 16 June 2014, 12:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    In Europe there were Neolithic farmers who buried their dead in communal, "long barrow" Neolithic tombs. These people had gracile skeletons and long (dolichocephalic) skulls. The only y-dna yet recovered from such a tomb came from the Dolmen of La Pierre Fritte in France, just west of Paris. It was I2, and, based on STRs, probably I-M26.

    Beginning in the Copper Age and on into the Bronze Age, the Beaker Folk spread throughout Europe. They buried their dead lying on their sides in single graves covered with a mound of earth (the "round barrows"). The Beaker Folk, especially the men, were of a different physical type than their Neolithic predecessors: they were taller, with heavier skeletons, and they had skulls that were relatively round (brachycephalic).

    The only y-dna thus far recovered from a Beaker Folk site came from two males unearthed near Kromsdorf, Germany. They were both R1b.
    Last edited by Stevo; 16 June 2014, 08:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    The earliest Bell Beakers were found in Iberia 2,800 BC so I don't see how some men have a problem being connected to Iberia 5000 years ago as opposed 8-10,000 years ago.
    It is likely that bell beakers developed from predecessors in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. There is a trail across Europe of anthropomorphic stelae from Crimea to Iberia. It is likely that bell beaker pottery evolved from influences that traveled the same route as these stelae and copper metallurgy.

    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    The first tombs were built in Ireland 6000 ybp by men some of whom were in the R1b group so what part do you not understand?
    Even Bill Murray would know that much.
    Merely asserting something does not make it true. There is no evidence any R1b men were in Ireland in time to build the first tombs there. In fact, as I have mentioned more than once, the only y-dna yet recovered from a megalithic tomb was I2, not R1b.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by EastAnglian View Post
    Don't you ever feel like Bill Murray?
    Yes, and Ground Hog Day is one of my favorite films.

    Leave a comment:


  • ironroad41
    replied
    [QUOTE=MMaddi;386270][QUOTE=ironroad41;386267]

    [quote/]Not a great deal, results from a few dozen remains. I'll grant you that. (It's still more convincing to me than circumstantial/inferential evidence.) But none of them were R1b and a strong majority were G2 of some sort. This is not just from one nation. It includes Germany, France, Spain and Italy - the heart of continental western Europe.

    It doesn't look good so far for R1b in Europe before 4,600 years ago. You can plead that R1b remains didn't survive conditions, while G2 remains did, but that's not a very convincing argument.[quote/]

    There are so many caves in France and spain; why no remains? You mention nothing in the Isles? Again, there are caves there that are almost pre-Holocene?

    I'm not pleading anything, it just makes sense to consider that R of some form was there? Was there some different sort of belief system, that exchewed burials and burnt their dead? My son has a MS in Anthropology/Archaeology. He explored Cerro de Trincheras, in Sonoma, Mexico. They found a buried body, which was unusual for that pre-Hispanic culture. It's just hard for me to accept that only G was there during that period, and there is so little G now compared to R1b? Maybe the answer is in the type of soil present there? Acidic?

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by EastAnglian View Post
    I don't understand the problem really, scientists and historians have been doing the same thing for centuries, academics have always based theories on what data is currently available and when new discoveries are made new theories are developed.

    At the moment the data is telling us that R1b in Europe is no older than 4,600 years, in the future it might tell us something different and if so a whole bunch of new theories will be developed.
    The 4,600 date for R1b is the minimum not maximum. We don't know how long this R1b line was in Germany before then.
    Beaker sherds were found in Passage tombs in Ireland. Does that mean that strangers came and buried their dead in the Irish tombs? It doesn't happen today. Why do you think that people did it in the past?
    Last edited by 1798; 16 June 2014, 01:51 AM. Reason: mistake

    Leave a comment:


  • EastAnglian
    replied
    I don't understand the problem really, scientists and historians have been doing the same thing for centuries, academics have always based theories on what data is currently available and when new discoveries are made new theories are developed.

    At the moment the data is telling us that R1b in Europe is no older than 4,600 years, in the future it might tell us something different and if so a whole bunch of new theories will be developed.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    [QUOTE=ironroad41;386267]
    Originally posted by MMaddi View Post




    How much physical evidence is available from 10K to 6K BC? Include the Isles, France, Germany and Spain (Iberia).
    Not a great deal, results from a few dozen remains. I'll grant you that. (It's still more convincing to me than circumstantial/inferential evidence.) But none of them were R1b and a strong majority were G2 of some sort. This is not just from one nation. It includes Germany, France, Spain and Italy - the heart of continental western Europe.

    It doesn't look good so far for R1b in Europe before 4,600 years ago. You can plead that R1b remains didn't survive conditions, while G2 remains did, but that's not a very convincing argument.

    I renew my pledge to congratulate you on having a theory worth considering once a few R1b (even 1 or 2) are found in remains older than 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. That's all I'm willing to offer you at this point.

    Leave a comment:


  • ironroad41
    replied
    [QUOTE=MMaddi;386260]


    Let me remind you, as I posted earlier in this thread, that what you have is circumstantial and inferential. All the physical evidence (DNA results from ancient remains) we have so far tells us that there was no R1b in Europe as early as you propose. In my view, and generally in science or a courtroom, physical evidence trumps circumstantial evidence.[quote/].

    How much physical evidence is available from 10K to 6K BC? Include the Isles, France, Germany and Spain (Iberia).

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by EastAnglian View Post
    Don't you ever feel like Bill Murray?
    The earliest Bell Beakers were found in Iberia 2,800 BC so I don't see how some men have a problem being connected to Iberia 5000 years ago as opposed 8-10,000 years ago.The first tombs were built in Ireland 6000 ybp by men some of whom were in the R1b group so what part do you not understand?
    Even Bill Murray would know that much.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by EastAnglian View Post
    Don't you ever feel like Bill Murray?
    Good point! The title for this thread should be changed to "Groundhog Day."

    Leave a comment:


  • EastAnglian
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo View Post
    Think about it.

    There is a lot of R1b in Europe now. That is one of the reasons that eight or ten years ago almost everyone thought R1b was the first y haplogroup to repopulate Europe after the LGM. They also mistakenly carried on the old, erroneous, 19th-century notion that the Basques were a Paleolithic relic population; therefore, because Basques have a high frequency of R1b, R1b must likewise be a Paleolithic relic in Europe.

    But R1b in Western Europe is almost 100% R-L11 of too little diversity to be that old there, and the SNP trail leads back to the east, to places like Armenia and northern Iran, where L23 and M269* prevail. The Basques are about 95% lactase persistent, not a Paleolithic trait, and their language contains words for Neolithic and metal age items, words that were not borrowed from other languages. In other words, the Basques aren't an Old Stone Age relic population. That was a 19th century fiction.

    Now, add to all that the fact that NO R1b has turned up at ANY Neolithic or older sites, despite the fact that R1b is the single most frequent y haplogroup in Europe today and the fact that ancient y-dna test results from Europe are mounting.

    Yes, some R1b could be recovered from a Mesolithic European site tomorrow, but that is looking less and less and less likely.

    If those two R1b Beaker men were descended from other R1b men who had been in Europe for thousands of years already, one would think some older R1b would be turning up there, but it isn't. Another thing is that the Beaker Folk, especially the males, were an intrusive population. They differed from the older inhabitants not only culturally but physically, as well. In other words, they were newcomers.
    Don't you ever feel like Bill Murray?

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by ironroad41 View Post
    I guess I would advocate what Jean M. is advocating, have patience.
    I agree with her and you. At some point in the future, evidence may emerge that makes your theory possible or even likely. If such evidence emerges, I'll congratulate you for your great foresight. But, at the moment, the evidence we have speaks against what you're proposing.

    Originally posted by ironroad41 View Post
    You and Steve say there is no evidence; That is not proof! If all the remains of certain Hgs, are "gone", then there is no evidence, but you haven't proven they weren't there? The evidence we have is of a different nature, the sheer numbers of R1b in Western Europe now; The fact that went East and is the dominant haplogroup in the native americans. The scenario seems to be that R began in SE Asia or its predecessor P, that as the oceans rose, migrations from that area occurred and R travelled north and West to Siberia and parts of Eastern Asia. (The proof of that has only become available in the last few years(Malt'a boy, Karafet paper). The Climate in the early Holocene was ideal in northern Europe east to Siberia. Why wouldn't some form of R migrate West?
    Let me remind you, as I posted earlier in this thread, that what you have is circumstantial and inferential. All the physical evidence (DNA results from ancient remains) we have so far tells us that there was no R1b in Europe as early as you propose. In my view, and generally in science or a courtroom, physical evidence trumps circumstantial evidence.

    I've bolded your statement explaining why we don't find any R1b in European remains older than 4,600 years ago. Really? Those who disagree with your theory have to "prove" that R1b wasn't in Europe but isn't available in remains to be tested, even though other haplogroups' remains have survived? You're saying that those who point out flaws in your theory have to prove a negative. You must be aware that's not possible, which is a great "out" for you.
    Last edited by MMaddi; 15 June 2014, 03:05 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1798
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo View Post
    Think about it.

    There is a lot of R1b in Europe now. That is one of the reasons that eight or ten years ago almost everyone thought R1b was the first y haplogroup to repopulate Europe after the LGM. They also mistakenly carried on the old, erroneous, 19th-century notion that the Basques were a Paleolithic relic population; therefore, because Basques have a high frequency of R1b, R1b must likewise be a Paleolithic relic in Europe.

    But R1b in Western Europe is almost 100% R-L11 of too little diversity to be that old there, and the SNP trail leads back to the east, to places like Armenia and northern Iran, where L23 and M269* prevail. The Basques are about 95% lactase persistent, not a Paleolithic trait, and their language contains words for Neolithic and metal age items, words that were not borrowed from other languages. In other words, the Basques aren't an Old Stone Age relic population. That was a 19th century fiction.

    Now, add to all that the fact that NO R1b has turned up at ANY Neolithic or older sites, despite the fact that R1b is the single most frequent y haplogroup in Europe today and the fact that ancient y-dna test results from Europe are mounting.

    Yes, some R1b could be recovered from a Mesolithic European site tomorrow, but that is looking less and less and less likely.

    If those two R1b Beaker men were descended from other R1b men who had been in Europe for thousands of years already, one would think some older R1b would be turning up there, but it isn't. Another thing is that the Beaker Folk, especially the males, were an intrusive population. They differed from the older inhabitants not only culturally but physically, as well. In other words, they were newcomers.
    Where did the two R1b men who died in Germany 4,600 ybp come from?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X