Embracing the Bell Beakers

[Rodoorn]

Thread dedicated to the origins, spread, archeology and genetics of the Bell Beaker phenomenon

[Rodoorn]

https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?...16#pid6916

alanarchae

whatever the true date of maritime pottery in Iberia, it is likely pretty early though I don’t think the earliest dates pushing it to the 2700s are safe. However it’s easy to lost sight of the big picture and the key fact here - all beaker including maritime quite blatantly derives it’s shape from the beaker shaped pots of pre beaker central northern and eastern Europe which are dated earlier than even the most dubious early dates claimed for Iberian beaker.  It’s as clear as day that the beaker has no prototype in Iberia. I think maritime beaker is an Iberian approximate copy (with Iberian decoration applied) of a model from the CW world. As there was a trade route from the Loire to the Rhine and Iberian contacts with western France up to the Loire, the most likely explanation imo is Iberians saw (or got a couple of wives from) Dutch traders they met around the Loire. Probably at some point in the date range  2700-2550BC. Though a Rhone - Med -Iberia route is possible too. One thing is clear - there is no convincing progenitor of the beaker in Iberia but there are plenty in central/morthern/eastern Europe.

My suspicion is that the beaker pot idea arrived in Iberia a couple of centuries before detectable steppe genes did. Both originated in the CW world but one was early and not a migration and the actual migration came a couple of centuries later. Those two v different phases of into-Iberia contact have caused a lot of confusion.


@alanarchae

Ok, sorry to insist on the mtdna....but when I take your narrative as starting point. Then it's strange that a woman from now that has on the autosomal level the most closest distance with a supposed North Dutch Belll Beaker (according to Davidski) of all modern (and ancient) available samples.... and has a mtdna that doesn't show up in the Anglo-Saxon/ Germanic 'layer' of her regio, but obviously has connection with a previous layer namely that of BB with only links to old BB hotspots (or later on refuge areas of i), Rhineland, Wales, Ireland, Scotland? As H10e has obviously Iberian roots....

When I put in G25 some Dutch samples (from North to South) in vahaduo only the ones that have a very clear connection to the sandy area's in the NE part of the Netherlands (indeed the old BB hotspot areas) come close. Southern as coastal Frisian have big distances to the North Dutch Beaker.

[Rodoorn]

Isidro
Fresh from the oven...if it was bread it would be still warm... . It's publications like these that makes me realize how much there is to find out.

Cintas-Peña, M., Garrido Pena, R., Herrero-Corral, A.M. et al. Isotopic Evidence for Mobility in the Copper and Bronze Age Cemetery of Humanejos (Parla, Madrid): a Diachronic Approach Using Biological and Archaeological Variables. J Archaeol Method Theory (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-023-09633-6

"Type of Grave and Grave Goods
There are no significant diferences concerning type of burial structure across time
periods (Tables 7 and 8). Simple pit burials are the most common structure in all
periods, containing both males (or likely males) and female (or likely females) individuals. Some people during PBCA, NBCA-BCA, and EBA-MBA were inhumed in
other types of structures, such as stone structures or pit with post holes, but there are
no associations between the type of burial and strontium values."


"While these data could indicate a more frequent relationship between
Steppe ancestry, maleness, and Beaker grave goods, as has been already proposed (Olalde et al., 2019a), at Humanejos, we see a divergence between aDNA
and strontium values.
Strontium isotopic and genetic data inform us about mobility at diferent levels. Strontium isotopic values inform us about intra-lifetime mobility, while aDNA
can inform us about genetic ancestry and therefore infer ancestral homelands and
past migration events. Since our analysis is diachronic, one could expect some
degree of correspondence among these two types of information. However, the
strontium isotopic data presented here, with no statistically signifcant diferences
between males and females — and with no signs of increasing mobility in Bell
Beaker period — does not support large-scale male long-distant migration for
PBCA, NBCA-BCA, nor MBE-EBA. This contrasts with what is suggested by the
genetic data presented in Olalde et al., (2019). In fact, in the group of 44 individuals analyzed here, there is only one individual who clearly arrived to Humanejos from a very diferent geological area: female 19,643."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...23-09633-6

@Isidro, I guess we have indeed a "BB potpourri" not one size fit's all. Let alone it would fit in a clearcut model, either Dutch or Iberian. You know with a heartland a nucleus and then a spread. I guess this doesn't fit within a model May be a "loose fit" -but nevertheless- network.....



https://postimg.cc/gnh6bh53/e5ce7462




From this book related to the title of this thread:
https://www.sidestone.com/books/embracing-bell-beaker



Or as Marc vander Linden has stated:
"Two preliminary conclusions can be drawn. First, the BB phenomenon is not the
ineluctable wave of social and/or cultural advance so often described or invoked, although its
impact and originality must not be underestimated in the areas where it is recorded. Secondly,
the definition of the BB phenomenon as a suite of isolated communities does not imply
that relationships with external groups do not happen, although sometimes they seem to be
explicitly denied. This rather leads to the re-affirmation that the BB phenomenon witnesses
the establishment of privileged typological links between areas, a process of structured
interaction which must be further explored."

[Isidro]

@Isidro, I guess we have indeed a "BB potpourri" not one size fit's all. Let alone it would fit in a clearcut model, either Dutch or Iberian. You know with a heartland a nucleus  and then a spread. I guess this doesn't fit within a model   May be a  "loose fit" -but nevertheless- network.....

I like the pun "potpourri" analogy... lol
Indeed, I see it as a mosaic of different cultures that binds them toghether with Bell Beaker products, something like Amazon with distribution main routes and tributaries, like a fluvial system. 

To look for a single origin is secondary for me; when I come across similarities like the copoz vase and the Portuguese  Bell Beaker or the Corded Ware similarity to it, I don't see either or so why not embrace both? or discard the relation and look for a more nuanced connection. 

I just  started reading Embracing the Bell Beakers and found this on page 20:

...Exceptions are the work of Besse (1998, 2003a) and Strahm (2004a). Their studies
into settlement and pottery evidence is clear and important. It is Besse (2003a) who
studied the Late Neolithic settlement pottery in detail and identified three separate
domains within the Bell Beaker phenomenon based on settlement pottery (domain
orientale, domain meridionale and domain septentrionale). These domains show
different transformations of Late Neolithic traditions into Bell Beaker communities. It is telling that none of these transformations are even mentioned in studies
focusing on migrations using ancient DNA or isotopic evidence!
There are several problems with this narrow epistemological viewpoint in which
burial evidence accounts for all our interpretive strength. In order to understand
this phenomenon to take these problems and try to resolve them somehow. First of
all, burial evidence is value specific. At a burial ritual, specific values are played out
which are chosen and deliberately put attention to certain elements and purposefully neglect or subdue others...

[alanarchae]

bell beaker as a culture was imo obviously formed by a conveying of traits from various direction among a stlll-tightly-linked tribe that was almost exclusively P312.

My view is that ideas fed into that group because they were in a geographical nodal point with unusually east access to influences from multiple directions. I think the lower rhine had this magpie like dynamism because it was unique in that it had easy access deep into Europe from the Rhine, access to the north by land and sea and access to the west by the Grand Pressigny trade route through France. It had a location on the frontier of the CW culture with unusual access to other groups beyond. You can also see from stray burials in northern France and Germany that they had a low visibility pioneering phase where they likely set up networks c. 2600-2500BC prior to the big expansions after 2450BC.ein

I do think most attributes of the classic beaker package came from CW, there being no geographically plausible other culture to derive them from. Though it may have been put together by one tribe but from influence of several different CW groups using some of the CW networks seen on Furholt’s maps plus contact with non CW groups to the west of the Rhine. The CW groups on the lower rhine according to Furholt had networks that stretched south up to the upper rhine, east To S Holstein (which in turn link r them indirectly to the Baltic and Sweden), the upper Elbe and apparently some (surely maritime indirect) link to Lithuania. That’s a lot of connections with other CW groups Furholt is indicating.

You could explain a lot of beaker traits by that networking with other CW groups alone. Other traits could be explained by contacts with the archaeologically well established contact route through the Paris basin towards the Loire. The Lower Rhine seems to me to be the only place where the right suite of contacts to develop classic P312 beaker cultute existed. Furthet west is impossible and much further east is less convincing too. But note i’m not saying bell beaker just evolved in situ out of the local CW culture. I am saying that one particular P312 group on the lower rhine put together a new culture there by borrowing stuff from both other CW groups further south and north-east/east as well as a small amount ot borrowing from non CW groups to the west in France.

The whole subject of how the beaker type pot idea got Iberia with no genetic impact
and how (if you take this view) Iberian maritime decoration reached Holland again with no genetic impact is probably answered by the grand presigny trade with groups around the Loire as some indirect contact area. It’s also explained by the thin trail of AOC later single grave/early beaker burials which thingly mark a trail along what looks like a route going from the lower rhine, along the Belgian Meuse then through the paris basin crossing the seine en route to the Loire. They are v thinly spread and clearly aliens in other people’s territory but not invaders. Likely tiny band of traders tolerated by the locals. Important for cultural transmission but not in terms of genes.

By the way, another trace of these small groups who crossed the rhine and ended up settling on the Meuse are likely those Belgian R1b guys with steppe signal but local non beaker/non CW culture. They must have just settled among locals and lost their cultural identity. Interesting that both with those folk and the grand pressigny route traders it seems the Meuse was the start of the route CW people took west in their journeys west beyond the CW zone. So CW groups clearly were capable of moving west of the Lower Rhine and into Belgium and France from c. 2700BC. What they clearly didn’t have the ability to do at that stage was be more than scattered aliens or traders. They obviously simply didn’t have the population size relative to the natives of Belgium and France to have a bigger impact. It was only a few generations later that they developed the numbers

[Isidro]

The idea that  Bell Beaker culture is a product of cultural transmission within a P312 tribe is interesting, it does face some potential counterarguments:
The spread of the Bell Beaker cultural package from Iberia without significant genetic shifts, well recent DNA studies show some evidence of admixture between Bell Beaker groups and local populations throughout Europe. While the magnitude of gene flow may vary, it suggests more than just cultural exchange occurred.
The emphasis on the Lower Rhine as the sole point of origin and transmission can be questioned. Archaeological evidence points to potential alternative sources for certain Bell Beaker traits, like the Atlantic coast of Portugal and Ireland. A multi-focal origin with subsequent interaction and exchange seems more likely.
Attributing most Bell Beaker features solely to Corded Ware (CW) influences may be oversimplifying. Other cultures like the Michelsberg and Seine-Oise-Marne played significant roles in shaping specific elements of the Bell Beaker package. Relying solely on the Grand Pressigny trade route for west-east connections overlooks established networks like the Danubian route or maritime interaction in the Mediterranean. These alternative pathways could have facilitated cultural exchange.
While the Grand Pressigny route might explain some connections, it leaves the question of how Iberian traits reached the Lower Rhine without genetic impact unanswered. Other potential routes or intermediaries in southern France need consideration.
Assuming a single P312 tribe orchestrated the entire Bell Beaker phenomenon seems unlikely. The cultural package's diversity across Europe suggests multiple groups with varying degrees of P312 ancestry were involved in its transmission and adaptation.
While P312 is a significant element, emphasizing it exclusively overlooks the complex interplay of genetic and cultural factors behind the Bell Beaker phenomenon. Other Y-DNA haplogroups like R1a and I2 also show connections to different aspects of the Beaker culture.
Your timeline suggests a pioneering phase for Bell Beaker groups in northern France and Germany starting around 2600-2500 BC. However, archaeological evidence for this remains scarce, and some researchers place the Beaker arrival in these regions closer to 2450 BC https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reic...iquity.pdf
Relying solely on a single tribe, one geographical origin point, and limited genetic interaction paints an overly simplistic picture. A more nuanced approach that considers multiple sources, trade networks, and diverse actors within the Bell Beaker world is likely a more accurate representation of its complex history.
Archaeology is a field of ongoing research and new discoveries can revise our understanding of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. Keeping an open mind to alternative interpretations and emerging evidence is crucial for piecing together this fascinating chapter of European prehistory.

[Rodoorn]

@alanarchae @Isidro

thanks, interesting discussion!

In add to it.

I guess more regional in depth analysis are needed because on one hand we see very wide stretching networks, really pan European. And on the other hand we see a lot of regional diversity, the BB phenomenon was not one size fits all!

Even in the tiny Netherlands we see two BB cultures (Veluvian and NE Dutch) that of course interfered but were also different.



An illustrative study about a regional BB phenomenon was that of BB Swiss.

Some quotes:

"To conclude, this research underlines the value of diachronic, regional case studies and the relevance of examining and comparing pottery from domestic and funerary contexts when investigating the integration mechanisms of extensive cultural phenomena. This technological study of ceramic assemblages confirms that human mobility probably drove the emergence of the Bell Beaker phenomenon in Alpine Switzerland. Above all, it reveals that this mobility seemingly included potters, an hypothesis discussed several times in the literature, now corroborated by archaeological data."


....

"7 Bell Beaker Integration in the Upper Rhône Valley: Final Considerations
This study’s ceramic technological data revealed how exogenous traits characterised pottery traditions produced in the second half of the third millennium BCE and how, as shown in the previous section, these findings corroborated the conclusions of other studies on Bell Beaker material from the Upper Rhône valley.

All these lines of evidence point to the arrival of new people or communities in the western Alps around 2500 BCE, and they suggest that some of these individuals were potters. We thus argue that some of the actors responsible for bringing the Bell Beaker phenomenon to the Upper Rhône valley were craftspeople. Bell Beaker artisan mobility has already been considered for other regions in Europe, such as southern Britain with the case of the Amesbury Archer (Brodie, 1997; Fitzpatrick, 2011; Sheridan, 2008), but rarely in relationship with pottery making, which this work has now successfully proven.

Such conclusions advance our knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the advent of the phenomenon in our research area, but they inevitably lead to additional questions. Once attested to, human mobility and population influxes necessarily pose the question of how those individuals, having left their homeland, might be integrated into their adopted territory. Were they known by the local communities before their move, through communication or exchange networks, or seasonal mobility? Were they complete newcomers? If so, how were their arrival and establishment perceived? These broader questions are not new and have troubled archaeologists for more than a century. Over the years, diffusionist theories argued that the “Beaker people” (or “Beaker folk”), a culturally (and perhaps also genetically) homogenous group, migrated and often took control of the territories they entered, forcing local communities to adopt their way of life (e.g., Brotherton et al., 2013; Harrison, 1974; Kunst, 2001). This thesis has, of course, been challenged many times, even though, as several researchers have pointed out in recent years, the archaeogenetics “revolution” has tended to revive this type of argument. Although some publications focused on ancient DNA tried to highlight the different ways in which the Bell Beaker phenomenon spread across Europe (Olalde et al., 2018), a more nuanced approach is still necessary to answer the question of the origins of the phenomenon and especially its mechanisms of integration. Critical assessments on the topic of archaeogenetic studies have been published by various researchers (e.g., Furholt, 2018, 2019, 2021; Heyd, 2017; Lemercier, 2020; Vander Linden, 2016).

In the focus region of this study, the Upper Rhône valley, the term “Bell Beaker populations” should refer to the communities that produced or used Bell Beaker artefacts – or both – during the second half of the third millennium BCE. As bioanthropological and isotopic analyses hinted at, only some of the individuals within these communities were non-local (Desideri et al., 2010). The “Beaker people” thus combined individuals whose traditions and way of life were rooted in the Alpine context of southwestern Switzerland and others for whom this was not the case. Furthermore, one should keep in mind that the individuals buried in the dolmens were probably not representative of society as a whole. This observation applies to any study on human remains with a specific focus on mobility, as Parker Pearson et al.’s study (2019, p. 436) reminds us, and confirmed by bioanthropological analyses in the case of the ‘Petit-Chasseur’ site (Perréard Lopreno, 2014). By acknowledging the intrinsic heterogeneity of the communities who buried their dead in ‘Petit-Chasseur’, we can therefore propose a more refined interpretation of the evolution seen within the necropolis and its associated social, funerary, and ritual practices.

It seems that the traits of the Bell Beaker phenomenon are connected with power – the power and social status of the people who had access to this particular funerary site. But nothing in this observation strictly establishes that this power was exogenous to the valley. It solely indicates that the powerful, whoever they were, adopted part of the Bell Beaker norms and applied them within the context of the megalithic site. These individuals may very well have been the descendants of the people who built and used the triangular dolmens during the Valaisian Final Neolithic period. The changes observed in ‘Petit-Chasseur’ may thus be related to a Bell Beaker cultural influx partially brought by migrating individuals, the norms of which were then adapted and re-appropriated by the local communities who reinvented their way of interacting with the site accordingly. Throughout history, powerful people adopting new cultural norms, ideologies, political systems, or religions often had a strong impact on their diffusion and integration among the populations for whom they were the elite, highly accelerating this process.

For all these reasons, our final interpretation on this topic is much closer to the one reached by Grupe et al. (1997), who proposed that the Bell Beaker phenomenon was brought to Bavaria not by warriors or invaders, but by families who subsequently integrated into the local communities. Conclusions drawn by Parker Pearson et al. (2019) also went in a similar direction, as they discussed and subsequently qualified some of the migration hypotheses developed from aDNA studies regarding Britain (Olalde et al., 2018)."

And was the role of women?

From Embracing Bell Beaker:



Zoom in to Brandt et al (2013):

"Event D (~2,500 cal BC) is defined by the BBC (Movie S1), the western counterpart of the CWC (Fig. S2) (2–4). BBC groups appeared ~300 years later in Mittelelbe-Saale and coexisted alongside the CWC for more than 300 years (4). The BBC is distinguished from the CWC by the absence of haplogroup I and U2, and an overwhelmingly dominant genetic signature of haplogroup H (48.3%) (Fig. S3), leading to a separation of the BBC from all other Mittelelbe-Saale cultures in PCA and cluster analyses (Figs. 1C-D). H remains the most frequent haplogroup in West European populations today (~40%) (8–9) and was absent in Central European hunter-gatherers (10, 14), but prevalent in ancient populations of the Iberian Peninsula since Mesolithic times (20.7–70.7%) (Table S9) (22–24). As a result, the BBC clusters with these Iberian populations (Figs. 1C-D), whereas the results from Procrustes and MDS were less informative. However, genetic links between the BBC and modern Iberian populations were supported by genetic distance maps accounting for H sub-haplogroups (Fig. S7H) and ancient mitochondrial H genomes (12). These suggest the BBC was associated with a genetic influx from Southwest Europe (Movie S1), which is consistent with the oldest archaeological signs of this culture being found in Portugal ~2,800 cal BC (2–3)."

And last but not least @Isidro points elsewhere on the dominant role of the Iberian woman during the BB period....and guess what one of the richest graves on the Hondsrug (center of the NE Dutch BB) belonged to a woman, with gold jewelry, with also some Central European influences. Was the BB culture in every aspect patriarchal?

And I'm still working on it but it seems like that the available Dutch BB samples were autosomal different from the Lech Valley sample that Davidski qualifies as a typical North Dutch Beaker. The interesting thing is that some nowadays NE Dutch come close to these last sample. So even in tiny Dutch the BB could have been besides somewhat archeological differentiated also somewhat genetic differentiated....

Sources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4039305/
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/1...-0264/html
https://www.academia.edu/35711273/Klokbe...roote_Veen

[Isidro]

Chugging along nicely. Unfortunately there are no women Bell Beaker dental remains from the southern sphere in this study.

DESIDERI, Jocelyne. When Beakers Met Bell Beakers, An analysis of dental remains. Oxford : Archaeopress, 2011. (British Archaeological Reports International Series; 2292).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...eries_2292
...the emergence of the Bell Beaker culture in the
southern sphere resulted from the displacement of
individuals from the Iberian Peninsula into Europe.
The biological impact was recorded to at least
Switzerland, and possibly also to Hungary. Thus, the
Bell Beakers – small groups of individuals equipped
with their material culture and know-how – formed
the basis for Bell Beaker diffusion in this region of
the phenomenon.
- the situation in the eastern sphere is more complex.
Dental data suggest evolution within a single society.
Nevertheless, women – Corded Ware and Bell Beaker
– were differentiated from the local populations,
probably resulting from societies practicing exogamy.
For N. Brodie (2001), it was eastern Bell Beaker
women who integrated the western region. Our data
support neither this hypothesis nor the inverse. Dental
morphologies strongly diverge in the two spheres and
the population basis of Bell Beaker women was not
part of the southern zones studied here.
Thus, to understand the modalities for the
establishment of the Bell Beaker phenomenon, we
must dissociate the diffusion of southern elements
from the exogamic diffusion of women in the eastern
domain into two distinct points in times. On the basis
of currently available radiocarbon dates suggesting a
southwest-northeast gradient for the expansion of the
Bell Beaker, we propose the following:
Migration of groups of Bell Beaker individuals from
the Iberian Peninsula toward the east, while the
eastern domain is still occupied by the Corded Ware
culture.
Part of the Corded Ware on the edge of the
phenomenon was individualized and adopted, by
borrowing, some of the southern Bell Beaker
traditions. Diffusion of this new society – the Beakers
– continued toward the east. At the same time, certain
eastern elements were diffused toward the west...

In case there is nothing else to read about Bell Beakers...LOL:
Sex/gender system and social hierarchization in Bell Beaker burials from Iberia
Soriano a, A.M. Herrero-Corral b, R. Garrido-Pena c, T. Majó a
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...6521000684

...Nevertheless, regardless the eventual origin of the people associated with Bell Beakers or the origin of this phenomenon itself, which sure will be subject of debate in the next decades, what it is important to understand is that this package of special material items that we called Bell Beakers is not that characteristic of the whole population of that time. Those objects and the burial rituals in which they were displayed are exclusive of a particular social group, the elite or the rulers of those small-scale social hierarchies. In fact, in the last years several Iberian sites in most of the regions have shown the characteristics of the burial rituals of the rest of the population contemporary with Beakers, where grave goods are scarce and extremely modest. ...

[Rodoorn]

bell beaker as a culture was imo obviously formed by a conveying of traits from various direction among a stlll-tightly-linked tribe that was almost exclusively P312.
......

It was only a few generations later that they developed the numbers

I wondered if they left traces in the population until today. And tentattive, hypothetical I guess this is the case.

I guess there could be a segment in the nowadays population that is related to the Bell Beakers. It's very clear that the nowadays North Dutch were for a major part an Anglo-Saxon offshoot, especially in the coastal area's and esepcially in nowadays province of Friesland, in the western part of it the population was gone in the fourth century, it was repopulated in the fifth century by the 'Anglo-Saxon amalgam'.

But in in North Drenthe on the Hondsrug there were until the turmoil of the migration time villages that were rooted in the BB area. One famous example is Eelde-Groote Veen

"A disappeared burial mound near Eelde – New Stone Age
Posted on: September 12, 2018
During the investigation of a settlement from the Iron Age and Roman times, archaeologists from De Steekspraak found the remains of a burial mound from 2,400 to 2,200 BC. The hill dates from the so-called Bell Beaker period of the New Stone Age. The burial mound was no longer visible on the surface. The hill was also not indicated on historical maps. The burial mound was probably leveled long ago.

In the burial mound we found the cremated remains of a 30 to 40 year old person, probably a woman. Before the burial mound was built, a pit was dug in which the cremated remains of the deceased were placed. In addition to these cremated remains, two earthenware bell beakers and a bowl were placed in the grave. Remains of proteins were found in one of the beakers. This probably indicates that the dead were given food.

The most surprising find were two pieces of gold jewelry. These tube-shaped jewelry were probably worn around braids in the hair. We know similar jewelry from the famous grave of the “Amesbury Archer” in England. The bell beakers, bowl and gold jewelry can be admired in the Drents Museum."




"During archaeological research in Eelde (Dr.), many traces of inhabitants from the Iron Age and the late Roman period were found. At this location, shards of pottery, animal bone, metals, glass, weaving weights and spinning bobbins were found. In Groote Veen, plans of 43 stable houses, 20 barns, 40 huts and 239 spiekers were eventually recognized. The buildings were abandoned around 400 AD, during the time of the population migration. A striking find is the remains of a Bell Beaker grave from the Neolithic. In addition to shards of two bell beakers, a bowl and cremation remains, two pieces of gold jewelry were also found in the grave. The bell beakers and bowl have been restored and the grave contents are exhibited in the Drents Museum in Assen."

I guess that the incoming Anglo-Saxons may drove some people out, but not committed an en masse genocide.....

Going back in time we are talking about one of Europe's and for sure Dutch BB hotspots, in the red square the Hondsrug, Drenthe (incl. Eelde):



The BB of this area belonged according expert and archeologist Lanting to the NE Dutch and NW Germany Bell Beakers, so along the North Sea Coast.





Do we have samples from these NE Dutch/NW Germany Bell Beakers, no....except this possibility of Davidksi:

"- WEHR_1192SkA is very similar to Bell Beakers from the northern Netherlands with whom he shares the R1b-P312 Y-haplogroup, suggesting that he was part of a population that moved into the Lech Valley from potentially as far away as the North Sea coast."

When I throw this sample and besides that all modern and ancient G25 samples of Eurogenes in the file and the Dutch samples in my collection I get this:



Rodoorn Mom has almost unsino roots in the Hondsrug area. The Creatags (sims) are NE Dutch too.....

It's clear that Rodoorn Mom comes very close to this Lech NE Dutch Beaker "proxy".

Some state that is due to the same kind of HG/EEF/Steppe division.

Although the division comes close to that of Rodoorn Mom this is also the case for Afke (Frisian):


Nevertheless Afke is and much more on distance, and this model is very clear:


So Rodoorn's mom affinity is something different then the same kind of HG/EEF/Steppe division. The affinity must be more than that!

The difference between Afke and Rodoorn mom is that Afke has mostly Frisian, Anglo-Saxon ancestors, in the case of Rodoorn mom there are much more NE Dutch references. She stands literally on the shoulders of the NE Dutch Beakers!

I know I know kind of N=1 situation, all quite meager.....but nevertheless imho a finger points towards the possibility of a BB segment in the nowadays NE Dutch population....

[Isidro]

Happy New Year Rodoorn!
I came across this publication, in case you or anyone interested missed it.

Beakers in Britain. The Beaker package reviewed
Des gobelets en Grande Bretagne. Le « set » Campaniforme reconsidéré
Alex Gibson
https://doi.org/10.4000/pm.2286
Cet article est une traduction de :
Des gobelets en Grande Bretagne. Le « set » Campaniforme reconsidéré [fr]

"From round-headed warrior invaders to introducers of a cult package, accounts of the appearance of Beakers in Britain have varied considerably. The basis of Burgess & Shennan’s ‘Beaker Package Hypothesis’ was that, other than the distinctive burial and associated artefacts, Beaker users had little impact on the other aspects of the contemporary archaeological record. But is this the case? With an improved radiocarbon-based chronology, new excavations and discoveries since 1976, and the reinterpretation of older data that these discoveries allow, we can instead see some fundamental changes coinciding with the arrival of Beakers. This is particularly the case in the domestic sphere, but other changes in ritual monument and artefacts can also be identified. In addition, we can document the demise of Later Neolithic Grooved Ware-using societies and the emergence of a new Early Bronze Age but with its roots very firmly in the Middle, not Late, Neolithic."

"Amongst others, Stuart Piggott subsequently identified some Neolithic burials below round barrows and again, in the days of a short relative chronology, he suggested that these crouched inhumations represented native Neolithic peoples highly influenced by the single-grave burial traditions of the Early Bronze Age. Because they were accompanied by native Neolithic artefacts rather than items from the Beaker package or Bronze Age in style they were seen to date to a period before full integration between locals and immigrants had been achieved (Piggott 1954: 111). Calibrated radiocarbon dating has now demonstrated that some of these Neolithic round barrows may have pre-dated Beakers by over a millennium (Gibson & Bayliss 2009). As late as 1970, in the published version of his doctoral thesis on British Beaker pottery, David Clarke was still advocating invasion/migration to explain the Beaker phenomenon though he suggested a number of waves of migration rather than a single event (Clarke 1970)."...

[Rodoorn]

Happy New Year Rodoorn!
I came across this publication, in case you or anyone interested missed it.

Beakers in Britain. The Beaker package reviewed
Des gobelets en Grande Bretagne. Le « set » Campaniforme reconsidéré
Alex Gibson
https://doi.org/10.4000/pm.2286
Cet article est une traduction de :
Des gobelets en Grande Bretagne. Le « set » Campaniforme reconsidéré [fr]

"From round-headed warrior invaders to introducers of a cult package, accounts of the appearance of Beakers in Britain have varied considerably. The basis of Burgess & Shennan’s ‘Beaker Package Hypothesis’ was that, other than the distinctive burial and associated artefacts, Beaker users had little impact on the other aspects of the contemporary archaeological record. But is this the case? With an improved radiocarbon-based chronology, new excavations and discoveries since 1976, and the reinterpretation of older data that these discoveries allow, we can instead see some fundamental changes coinciding with the arrival of Beakers. This is particularly the case in the domestic sphere, but other changes in ritual monument and artefacts can also be identified. In addition, we can document the demise of Later Neolithic Grooved Ware-using societies and the emergence of a new Early Bronze Age but with its roots very firmly in the Middle, not Late, Neolithic."

"Amongst others, Stuart Piggott subsequently identified some Neolithic burials below round barrows and again, in the days of a short relative chronology, he suggested that these crouched inhumations represented native Neolithic peoples highly influenced by the single-grave burial traditions of the Early Bronze Age. Because they were accompanied by native Neolithic artefacts rather than items from the Beaker package or Bronze Age in style they were seen to date to a period before full integration between locals and immigrants had been achieved (Piggott 1954: 111). Calibrated radiocarbon dating has now demonstrated that some of these Neolithic round barrows may have pre-dated Beakers by over a millennium (Gibson & Bayliss 2009). As late as 1970, in the published version of his doctoral thesis on British Beaker pottery, David Clarke was still advocating invasion/migration to explain the Beaker phenomenon though he suggested a number of waves of migration rather than a single event (Clarke 1970)."...

A happy new year Isidro!

Interesting paper enjoyed to read it.

With regard to the "round headed warrior", I remember the publications of the Swiss archeologist Kurt Gerhardt.  He was the last in the physical anthropological tradition with regard to the Bell Beakers.

That branche has produced lot's of rubbish, nevertheless with regard to the Bell Beakers there is one sign that no one doubt it characterizes the Bell Beakers (at least the Northern ones): a flat occiput.

Gerhardt made lots of research in the field, his assumption was that the flat occiput was really cultivated among the BB (connected to religion and power).

This was the change of the skulls among Bell Beakers, according to Gerhardt (1976):


Could this be a result of a fuze of phenotypes between SGC and Ertebølle HG in the NE Dutch/NW German territory? Hard to say....

[Isidro]

^^^
Phenotypes can really be misleading for sure, the skull varieties Europeans have in every country just shows how limited finding some logic on it is, we are mixed in extremis. I myself have the the flat occipitus, growing up in Spain at boarding schools even when I was young I did notice certain guys with the skull like the Aurignac image you posted, another visible hint is people with a tall and slanted foreheads I always wondered how it correlates, I was always curious about that as is quite noticeable. Height and diet is another issue to debunk, WHG were taller than EEF and both shorter than ANE. I myself am 180cm, taller than my father, my nephew is 205 cm, way taller than his parents (both from Spain) and so on, I married a German-Swede and my son is shorter than me, back in the day when plotting them in PCA's, both my kids were consistenly landing in the Netherlands and Germany, a real puzzle as complex as the Bell Beakers.

[Rodoorn]

^^^
Phenotypes can really be misleading for sure, the skull varieties Europeans have in every country just shows how limited finding some logic on it is, we are mixed in extremis. I myself have the the flat occipitus, growing up in Spain at boarding schools even when I was young I did notice certain guys with the skull like the Aurignac image you posted, another visible hint is people with a tall and slanted foreheads I always wondered how it correlates, I was always curious about that as is quite noticeable. Height and diet is another issue to debunk, WHG were taller than EEF and both shorter than ANE. I myself am 180cm, taller than my father, my nephew is 205 cm, way taller than his parents (both from Spain) and so on, I married a German-Swede and my son is shorter than me, back in the day when plotting them in PCA's, both my kids were consistenly landing in the Netherlands and Germany, a real puzzle as complex as the Bell Beakers.

Indeed true.

Nevertheless there is less discussion about that the flat occiput was a "mark" of the BB phenotype (at least the North Europeans ones in the South European ones....).

I was a bit lazy so asked chatgpt about the relationship between autosomal DNA and the phenotype:
"Autosomal DNA refers to the DNA found in the autosomes, which are the non-sex chromosomes. Humans typically have 22 pairs of autosomes. These chromosomes carry a large portion of our genetic information and play a significant role in determining our phenotype.

The phenotype is the observable physical and biological traits of an organism, including characteristics such as hair color, eye color, height, and many others. Autosomal DNA contains genes that encode for various proteins and other molecules responsible for the development and functioning of the body. These genes influence the phenotype through the expression of proteins and the regulation of biological processes.

The relationship between autosomal DNA and the phenotype is complex, and it involves a combination of genetic and environmental factors. The DNA sequence in autosomes contains instructions for building and maintaining the structures and functions of the body. Genetic variations in these sequences can lead to differences in phenotype among individuals.

However, it's crucial to note that while autosomal DNA contributes significantly to the determination of phenotype, it is not the only factor at play. Environmental factors, lifestyle, and interactions between genes (gene interactions) also influence how genes are expressed and contribute to the overall phenotype.

In summary, autosomal DNA carries the genetic information that contributes to the development and functioning of an individual, influencing various aspects of the phenotype. The interplay between genetics and environment is a key aspect of understanding how traits are expressed and inherited in populations."

Is it coincidental that I come very close to the autosomal of the NE Dutch BB proxy Lech Wehr and that I also have the BB phenotype incl flat occiput. brachycephaly etc??

[Capsian20]

this topic is intriguing and wonderful despite being an old publication dating back approximately 4 years
Abstract
The ways in which the “Bell Beaker package” spread across most of Central and Western Europe may have been different from region to region. Prestigious artefacts circulated through exchange, migration by infiltration, interregional marriages and mobility of individuals. This, however, does not explain why people from geographically and culturally distant regions suddenly shared a distinct uniform style and symbolic system. The new symbolic system and the package of significant artefacts helped to reinforce collective identity and maintained a range of spiritual activities. Within these individualised funerary practices people emphasised communication with their ancestors and a display of their social status, as well as confirmation of social hierarchy and reinforcement of a genealogical system of hereditary wealth of individuals and families. I believe that this unification and rapid spread of shared uniformity occurred as a result of a common ideology that used the new assemblage of the Bell Beaker package as a formal expression of symbolical and cosmological unity.

https://journals.openedition.org/pm/2351?lang=it

[Capsian20]

for Genetic i have been seen long time there this samples from Sardinia and Iberia back a period bell-beaker and have admixture North African ( Taforalt ) and also in Y-DNA (E-V2729 <V1039)  and mtDNA M1a