I know this is a minefield, but I am interested in how Steppe peoples lightened upon moving north and west through Europe. My understanding was that this was due to admixture with EHGs and/or CHGs perhaps through admixture with Funnel Beaker peoples. What is the consensus on the process, if such a consensus exists? I am asking because a popular YouTuber (StJ) claimed in a recent video on the Yamnaya that Steppe-derived populations lightened (hair, skin, eyes) as they moved through Europe due to selection pressures. He claimed that they already had the alleles for complexion/hair from ANEs, and selection pressures made them dominant, thus emphasising contintuity and adaptation over admixtures with other groups to explain the 'Nordic' phenotype. This seems possible but implausible given the amount of admixture with lighter peoples (as I understand, many SHGs, for example, were already phenotypically 'Nordic' before significant Steppe incursions). I sense politics might be colouring his analysis. So, what is the consensus in the literature on this process?
Thanks a million.
Preservation of ancient monuments is very important to me.
This structure in Spain has been eroding at a fast rate due to a dam that was built in the 60's.
It's now submerged 90% of the time, only visible in times of drought, deteriorating the stones and destroying the monument.
the Dolmen of Guadalperal, better known as the Spanish Stonehenge used to be a burial mound similar to those found in Ireland.
The nearby ancient Roman settlement of Augustรณbriga is flooded as well.
Let's uncover all that we can in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zugA-J52icE
Fuck you.
Damn you, but most importantly, well played! ๐
https://preview.redd.it/ae91oi4evaw51.jpg?width=543&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6f52c74b593f0242f4e7a50021170724e706be69
In Neil Oliver's 'A history of ancient Britain' he comments that the Beaker people (though not necessarily a single culture) are usually identified by their eponymous beakers but would they have been important to the people themselves?
What I mean is, is there any evidence that the beakers had any significance in themselves (e.g. cultural, religious etc) or would the people have just seen them as 'utilitarian' drinking vessels?
Thanks for reading.
It occurred to me the other day that the Beakers lived in central Europe and in those areas the split between Celtic and Italic had not yet happened. I was wondering what you guys thought about this. Thanks!
...why donโt modern Britons look like this?
And if they were around 3-6000 years ago, where did that photo come from?
My budget is $300 so if anyone can help I would appreciate it!
Reason I require such a monster is I'm lacking a heavy hitter. Maybe 6 years ago I was smoked out by a bong modeled after a pyramid. I'd say the base was 10 inches long by 10 inches wide. A whole lot of smoke can build up in this SOB and it hits like a train! I tried looking for that piece but no luck.
From a confused, curious ignoramus!
I'm interested in recreating some Beaker pottery using some of the decoration techniques here. However I'd like to keep close to the techniques used as a whole: they mention using grogged clay in that link, was all Beaker ware terracotta though? Did they fire in pit-fires only or is there evidence of kilns? Did the Beaker people use glazes, did they burnish the ware - if not how did they waterproof the pieces?
Did the surface designs have a purpose beyond mere patterning - are there any theories on this at least?
That link again mentions putting holes through ware using a wooden needle or bone but I've never seen a Beaker piece with holes in, are there examples with holes through, what did they use the holes for? Are there examples of non-utility pieces, like figurines, from the Beaker period?
Thanks for any help.
Sorry if this is an odd/silly question but in Neil Oliver's A history of ancient Britain he comments that the Beaker people (though not necessarily a single culture) are usually identified by their eponymous beakers but would they have been important to the people themselves?
What I mean is, is there any evidence that the beakers had any significance in themselves (e.g. cultural, religious etc) or would the people have just seen them as utilitarian drinking vessels?
Thanks for reading.
In Neil Oliver's 'A history of ancient Britain' he comments that the Beaker people (though not necessarily a single culture) are usually identified by their eponymous beakers but would they have been important to the people themselves?
What I mean is, is there any evidence that the beakers had any significance in themselves (e.g. cultural, religious etc) or would the people have just seen them as 'utilitarian' drinking vessels?
Thanks for reading.
