In the linked thread he includes personal communications with linquists James Mallory and Asko Parpola concerning the details of a new Beaker burial at Lechlade-on-Thames. (LiveScience)
I commented on this burial several posts ago before any details were known. One man was seated "Indian style" facing another important-looking man in a tightly flexed position. The archaeologists believe the seated man was some kind of shaman and the flexed man some sort of princely man.
 |
| Head and Hoof Sacrifice (via LiveScience) |
As far as I can see, the seated configuration seems most closely related to those "shaman" burials of the Maros-Yamnaya type and, at least to me, look like some kind of praying or meditative-type pose. Hopefully we'll get some photos that show the position of the hands and ankles of the seated man.
Anyhow, without waxing too long on this, I've believed for a long time that Bell Beakers spoke LPIE, and not just some of them, but probably all of them up to a point (including the interior of the Iberian Peninsula). Aside from the head and hooves burial, other burials have characteristics that seem to point toward IE metaphors or celestials, such as the "thunderstones" or the reversed sexual polarity of lunar and solar divinities.
Any other peculiarities that support (or provide evidence to the contrary) IE speech among the Beakers?
*As a side note. One question I would like to see answered here is the dietary habits of the seated man. If he was indeed someone with a religious vocation, it is quite possible there will be evidence to support a social division of diet. This seems to have been very common throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages, and we see this in the Bible oftentimes as well.
Also, is there anything about his skeleton that is out of the ordinary. Was he especially slender and tall? Did he have osteoporosis?
Maybe, maybe not. But I think we might expect a few specialized religious vocations among the Beakers, such as singers, diviners, healers and priestesses. It's quite possible that some of the Beaker men buried in the woman's position were of these sorts. That's up next...
If it were accepted that Bell Beaker commenced in Portugal and that all Bell Beakers spoke similar IE languages, would this be compatible with the hypothesis that Yamnayans brought IE into Europe from the Caspian Steppe?
ReplyDeleteI am of the opinion that looking for a Beaker language might be a bit of a wild goose chase, as languages can flip within a single generation.
The only evidence I have noticed is that Basque-speaking is positively correlated with both yDNA R1b-DF27 and the aDNA of the earliest Atapuerca sample. So I wonder whether early West European R1b and the Iberian Chalcolithic might be associated with a pre-Basque non-IE language. It is possible that IE languages arrived after this point - during Bell Beaker, the Bronze Age or even later. I doubt we will ever know for sure.
I think a fairly decent argument can be made that during the Neolithic much of the Western Continent spoke languages that could be lumped into a "Vasconic" category, whether that is a genetic family or distinct languages with typological similarity.
DeleteEven though attempts to connect Basque to ergative-absolutive-agglutinative languages of Anatolia and the Caucasus have been fruitless, it does offer a plausible explanation for a Neolithic migratory origin in that general area.
(Now let me add this quickly, I am not a linguist by any measure) But it looks as if PIE needs to develop close to an area where Proto-Uralic was spoken, so I don't see any sort of OIT or any other geographic location making much sense.
In the most recent Olalde paper I commented that I thought that a likely scenario is that the interior of Iberia, and specifically the region of Castille from the new samples, were possibly the first place that IE was spoken in Iberia and that all of the Iberian civilizations along the coasts remained strongly in the former languages. I think this disparity can be seen in the y-chromosomes as well, where the interior region begins looking like modern Iberia genetically almost instantly, but the coastal areas remain largely un-impacted.
As to the nearly uniform paternity of the Basques and neighboring folks, my guess is that is an artifact of the population size, although that profile seems to have crystalized fairly early, almost at the very beginning.
I would lean towards connecting Vasconic with the Chalcolithic specifically, and with early West-leaning branches of R1b. I'm not sure about Bell Beaker, as Olaide's data indicates that admixture with Central European Beaker/Bronze Age ancestry did not predominate in Iberia until 1,750 BC (after the Central European Beaker era had finished), indicating that IE could have been a Bronze Age (rather than a Beaker) phenomenon.
DeleteThe earliest Iberian samples with Central European ancestry are largely female and were in the minority. In my view, it is unlikely that a small number of Central European immigrant females would have stamped their IE language on the indigenous Iberian majority. However, after Bell Beaker, when Iberia was flooded with Central European ancestry (male and female, making up around 50% of the gene pool), it is much more feasible.
Hopefully they also know how to use ancient DNA as evidence Bell Beaker was Indo European speaking.
ReplyDelete"In the most recent Olalde paper I commented that I thought that a likely scenario is that the interior of Iberia, and specifically the region of Castille from the new samples, were possibly the first place that IE was spoken in Iberia"
Interesting. That makes sense.
I ran analysis of samples at a site in Castille and in Western fringe Iberia using a similar two-dimensional model to Olaide (estimating percentage associations with either local Mid Neolithic or Bavarian R1b-P312 Bell Beaker), and its results bear out the scenario proposed.
DeletePercentage Bavarian R1b-P312 associations in Castille samples were:
3,389 BC - 42%
3,095 BC - 30%
3,039 BC - 11%
2,895 BC - 8%
2,889 BC - 0%
2,739 BC - 11%
2,120 BC - 2%
1,634 BC - 46%
Percentage Bavarian R1b-P312 associations in Western fringe Iberia samples were:
2,750 BC - 0%
1,585 BC - 28%
Central European P312 Bell Beaker-like DNA looks to have arisen earlier and at higher concentrations in Castille than at the Western fringe.
It is possible that an IE language was imposed in Iberia at different date by an invading power that neither stayed nor appreciably admixed with the local populations, but I would say a language imposition would most likely have occurred at a point of major genetic influx (i.e. either with the first pulse c. 3,500 BC. or more likely with the more lasting subsequent Bronze Age influx post-2,000 BC after the BB period had ended).
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ Nicolas
DeleteThere has not been any study which produced 42% of 3389 BC samples in Castille were R1b-P312
R1b-M269 arrived ~ 2500 BC, with the BBC, and rapidly dispersed through Iberia by 2400 BC. By 22/2000 BC, its frequency was ~ 100 %
The main post-Chalcolithic centre in Iberia, (100% R1b-M269) was in coastal SE Iberia.
To clarify, I'm not looking at R1b-P312 samples in Castille, but comparing the autosomal DNA of samples of Castille to the autosomal DNA of (i) prior samples in Castille and (ii) R1b-P312 samples in Bavarian Bell Beaker.
DeleteAlthough, by the way, mid 4th millennium BC ATP3 in Castille was positive for PF6518 (within R1b-M269), Y17204 (within R1b-M269>P312) and PF6401 & FGC46 (both within R1b-M269's immediate parent SNP).
I'm interested in the SE Iberian samples, although don't want to veer off topic.
The question is whether BB was wholly or mostly IE speaking. I am indicating that if it was in Iberia (unlikely on balance in my view), then its IE languages there would have predated the major arrival of Central European DNA (which did not occur until the final days of BB).
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ Nicolas
Delete'' I'm not looking at R1b-P312 samples in Castille, but comparing the autosomal DNA of samples of Castille to the autosomal DNA of (i) prior samples in Castille and (ii) R1b-P312 samples in Bavarian Bell Beaker.''
Sorry, Im not sure what you mean there
''Although, by the way, mid 4th millennium BC ATP3 in Castille was positive for PF6518 (within R1b-M269), Y17204 (within R1b-M269>P312) and PF6401 & FGC46 (both within R1b-M269's immediate parent SNP).''
I've not devoted scrutiny personally, but the general view in the community is that this sample was poor coverage and not reliable. Certainly, if we look all other reliable samples from the 4000 - 2500 BC period, and theyre all either I2a or G2a (with a minor presence of R1b-V88 on the Mediterranean littoral)
''The question is whether BB was wholly or mostly IE speaking. I am indicating that if it was in Iberia (unlikely on balance in my view), then its IE languages there would have predated the major arrival of Central European DNA (which did not occur until the final days of BB).''
The question of language really needs to move to later periods to be realistic.
As for the latter point, BB and Central European ancestry are in fact synonymous. I find the idea of '2 different BB cultures' to be inconsistent with empirical reality, despite the widespread support that it enjoys
For each sample from Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Castille (regardless of its yDNA reading), I analysed the degree to which its autosomal profile matched the autosomal profiles of Bavarian R1b-P312 Bell Beaker samples rather than the autosomal profiles of samples from prior (Middle Neolithic) Castille.
DeleteAlthough the coverage of ATP3 was low, it was sufficient to identify four postiive readings within M269's immediate parent SNP and two within M269 itself, with no intervening negatives. Its autosomal DNA also includes the steppic component indicative of an M269 status. However, whether it was M269 or not does not affect the autosomal analysis.
If BB and Central European ancestry were synonymous, this would indicate that Iberia (both Castille and Western fringe) was predominantly non-BB, as the Central European DNA does not have a major lasting presence there until after Bell Beaker (around 1,750 BC).
I agree that we cannot be confident about language until we move to later periods. The very limited data I have is that Basque (versus Castillian) speaking is postively-correlated with both R1b-DF27 status and Chalcolithic Iberian autosomal contributions, so I would tend to guess that IE languages only arrived at a later point (perhaps with Central Europeans during the Bronze Age, perhaps even later).
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ Nicolas
Delete''as the Central European DNA does not have a major lasting presence there until after Bell Beaker (around 1,750 BC).''
I agree that more came in the ensuing centuries, but I don't think that which arrived in 2500 BC simply disappeared. Perhaps this might be more clear if more data from ~ 2000 BC is ever published
''The very limited data I have is that Basque (versus Castillian) speaking is postively-correlated with both R1b-DF27 status and Chalcolithic Iberian autosomal contributions''
It's difficult to say, because of the reconfigurations in Iberia wth the reconquista, etc. But I'm not sure the dichotomy of autosomal ancestry is quite that clear ?
Yes, it looks like the Eastern DNA that arrived in Iberia from the mid 4th millennium BC persisted in a diluted form and/or ebbed and flowed over the following 1,500 years. As Olaide shows, it remained a relatively minor presence until around 1,750 BC. Usually it was locally admixed, but plenty of Castillians had little or no Eastern admixture at all. Clearly, it did not disappear, although it might have drifted in and out.
DeleteI agree that the ancestral distinction of Basque speakers is not hugely clear, but given that (i) it correlates positively with Iberia's main R1b lineage, and (ii) there is no apparent correlation with Neolithic autosomal DNA, I do not see any genetic indication that Vasconic was a Neolithic Iberian language. Accordingly, I suspect that it came over with Easterners, especially as the Basque ancestral heritage appears to have been non-Iberian (French Aquitaine). In my view, the pre-Bronze Age occasional incidences of R1b and (principally female) Eastern DNA in Castille look likely to have come from a neighbouring Vasconic-speaking population North of the Pyrenees. The post-BB Bronze Age migration (heavily male) looks to be of a different scale and intensity.
Paradoxically, the most direct route from the Caucasus region to western Europe is with Bell Beaker, as purveyors of Caucasian metal. On the other hand, to claim such a link for the Atlantic Megalithics would be to prfoundly misunderstand their genesis
ReplyDelete