1 Supplementary Information 2 3 SI 1- Archaeological background of the Beaker Complex ....................................... 2 4 SI 2- Archaeological context of newly reported individuals .................................... 8 5 SI 3- Direct AMS 14C Bone Dates ........................................................................... 138 6 SI 4- Experimental procedures ............................................................................... 140 7 SI 5- Y-chromosome analysis .................................................................................. 142 8 SI 6- f-statistics ......................................................................................................... 144 9 SI 7- qpGraph analysis ............................................................................................. 147 10 SI 8- qpAdm/qpWave analysis .................................................................................. 149 11 References .................................................................................................................... 182 12 1 13 SI 1- Archaeological background of the Beaker Complex 14 Volker Heyd, Harry Fokkens, Kristian Kristiansen, and Karl-Göran Sjögren 15 Introduction 16 Since the time of the Riva del Garda conference (1998), what used to be known as the 17 Bell Beaker Culture is now more often referred to as the Bell Beaker Phenomenon, Bell 18 Beaker Complex or simply Beaker Complex1. The reason for speaking of a Beaker 19 Complex is that traditionally, an archaeological ‘culture’ is defined as a regionally 20 restricted assemblage of certain types of remains – pots, implements, ornaments, burial 21 rites and house forms – that tend to recur2. Beakers and associated artefacts do have 22 strong similarities across western and central Europe, but there is also substantial 23 variation, which has made many archaeologists uncomfortable with the term “culture”3. 24 In discussing the Beaker Complex, it is important to begin by noting that there is major 25 contention in the archaeological literature about its interpretation, with some 26 archaeologists who are authors of this paper having very different views from others. 27 We have therefore attempted to write this archaeological summary as neutrally as 28 possible, highlighting points that all co-authors agree upon. This is in line with the 29 philosophy of this paper, which is to refrain from discussion about archaeological 30 implications except where the evidence is overwhelming. By focusing on the genetic 31 facts, we hope that archaeologists across the spectrum of opinions will perceive this 32 study as a reliable presentation of the genetic findings and thus as a valuable reference 33 for future debates. 34 We finally add a note on our terminology for the chronological placement of the Beaker 35 Complex. When we refer to the period when the Beaker Complex flourished, we use the 36 term “Copper Age”. This terminology is accurate everywhere in Europe because copper 37 was an important part of the economy for all groups practicing the Beaker Complex. In 38 contrast, we avoid the terms used to chronologically place the Beaker Complex in 39 central and northern Europe (“Late Neolithic” or “Final Neolithic”), southern Europe 40 (“Chalcolithic” or “Late Copper Age”), and Hungary and southeastern Europe (“Early 41 Bronze Age”). While the terms are accurate within each regional sequence, they are 42 confusing when considered together and so we prefer “Copper Age.” 2 43 Objects associated with the Beaker Complex 44 The Beaker Complex consists of a set of artefacts, also called the Beaker package, 45 generally found in burial contexts, and frequently found together in one grave and in a 46 similar position in relation to the (crouched) body. Burials often contain only a selection 47 of objects from the set. A famous exception is the very rich Amesbury Archer burial 48 that contains almost the entire set of characteristic artefacts4. 49 Beaker burials generally include a Beaker vessel, which may have been associated with 50 drinking or presentation of food. The iconic pottery vessel of the early Beaker Complex 51 is the Maritime Bell Beaker, defined by its monotonously repeated decoration of up to 52 fifteen horizontal bands covering the whole surface from bottom to rim. Bands are 53 mostly bordered and filled by using comb-stamp impressions, or a shell (Cardium) 54 when ready available. It is only in Sicily where the painting of the horizontal bands is 55 practiced. The form is, compared to later Beakers, slimmer and less curvy. Vessels are 56 usually thin-walled, finely tempered, surface polished, and well fired in an oxidizing 57 atmosphere to create a bright red colour. Horizontal bands were originally filled with a 58 white paste to have a distinctive red-white effect. The name ‘Maritime’ refers to an 59 often coastal distribution along the Atlantic and Mediterranean shores. Pure Maritime 60 Beakers are rare in Britain and Ireland, and in Central Europe east of the Rhine. There 61 are varieties of the Maritime Beaker with horizontal bands zoned in cord-impressions 62 (‘Cord-Zoned Maritime Beakers’, CZM) and/or marked by decoration of the inner rim. 63 In male Beaker burials, there is often paraphernalia associated with archery, including 64 stone wrist-guards and flint arrow-heads5,6. The archer paraphernalia sometimes 65 includes bow and crescent shaped pendants, often carved from boar’s tusks or (in the 66 Mediterranean) shell. Copper tanged daggers and (in Iberia and France) copper Palmela 67 ‘points’ add to the impression that hunting and fighting may have been important to 68 males associated with the Beaker Complex. Female Beaker burials also tend to include 69 a characteristic set of objects. These include buttons with V-shaped holes on one side, 70 which are made of tooth, bone, antler, shale or amber, and characteristic head 71 ornaments, notably metal hair, temple or noppen rings. In Iberia, however, V-perforated 72 buttons and beads are usually associated to males. There are major geographical 73 differences in preferences for particular sets of objects. For example, wrist-guards are 74 infrequent in Iberia, while Palmela points are prominent only in the west. Arrowheads 3 75 also show distinct differences in manufacture, for example when comparing Brittany 76 and Denmark7. 77 Absolute chronology and geographic origins 78 The Beaker Phenomenon is restricted to the period between 2500 and 2000 BCE over 79 most of its geographic range1. Only in western Iberia is there radiocarbon evidence for 80 an earlier presence of beakers, reaching perhaps back as early as c. 2750 BCE8. 81 However, there is contention about whether the Beaker Phenomenon is indeed so old in 82 Iberia. While arguments for an Iberian origin have always been popular9,10, since the 83 1970s the Dutch model11 has gained prominence amongst scholars driven largely by the 84 availability of more radiocarbon dates. The Dutch model also rests on arguments that 85 the Maritime Beaker style, now acknowledged as standing at the beginnings of the 86 Beaker sequence, may have developed locally out of the All-Over-Ornamented Beaker 87 style of the lower Rhine region, which are clearly a feature of the late Corded Ware- 88 Early Bell Beaker transition there. However, it is important to recognize that the 89 original motivation for the Dutch model—based on 14C dating—has become weaker in 90 recent years due to fluctuations in atmospheric 14C fractions over the key period. This 91 means that it is difficult to precisely resolve dates over a several-hundred year period 92 that overlaps the time of the Beaker Complex12,13, which limits the value of 14C dating 93 for resolving questions about the geographic origin. 94 We have not settled the questions of the geographic origin of the Beaker Complex in 95 this study. However, because of the long-standing interest of the role of Iberia, we have 96 paid special attention to our findings from individuals from this peninsula. Our result 97 that the majority of Beaker-associated skeletons from Iberia are genetically continuous 98 with previous Iberian populations—with no evidence for a strong contribution of 99 Iberian Beaker-associated populations to non-Iberian Beaker-associated ones—is an 100 important fact to take into account in future discussions of the origin and spread of the 101 Beaker Complex. 102 Beyond the question of origin, it is clear that from 2600 BCE onwards the Beaker 103 Complex gained momentum over an ever-widening region of Europe as a set of ideas, 104 values and as a world-view. Its fast spread over large distances has long been speculated 105 to be associated with the movement of people, and many archaeologists still consider 106 this a strong explanation while others view the spread as also potentially driven by the 4 107 communication of ideas. Whatever the mechanism—and the genetic findings of this 108 study show that both played important roles—it is clear that the set of Bell Beaker 109 objects and burial customs developed into a well-defined package. Within about 150 110 years the Beaker Complex expanded to encompass a vast territory: From northern 111 Africa in the south; to Ireland and Britain and Denmark in the north; to Portugal in the 112 west; and to Hungary and Poland in the east. By integrating into existing regional 113 traditions, the phenomenon was itself transformed, becoming absorbed into regional 114 communities with particular characteristics. 115 Economy and settlement organization