|Forum||Europe Travel Guide||Facts & Trivia||Genetics||History||Linguistics|
|Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum|
- 2 Y-SNP it is very few to qualify an entire male population
- the first "true" B.B.s was not determined only by pottery but also by other artefacts (dague, arrowheads, archer's armband)
it seams they was a very mobile population so the links between women and pottery is not so important
- culturally Unetice-Aunetitz culture unerwent B.B.s influences but phenotypically they own more to the 'corded' people (surely Y-R1A as a majority) without forget the neolithic peoples -
- it would be very usefull knowing where was their ultime cradle - as they was metals searchers I think this ultime cradle was not in southern Iberia (the phenotypical aspect says the same)
- their physical types in their first colonies showed very often 'dinaric' types EVEN IN IBERIA that appeared in western Europe only at the fringes of 3000 B.C. - this type had more central-eastern Europe connexions than iberian ones
- I can not imagine this kind of settlers deplacing huge populations: small groups is more sensible to me - in central Europe only they could completely acculturate other populations (for way of life and language) - I suppose south Iberia was their first western (an the most important at that time) settlement (by sea, surely) - in some places where they was not numerous they took the local ways of sepulture (I red their own ones was flat tombs or flat graves with inhumation -
- for now I do not imagine Y-R1b was the dominant HG among true B.B.s... among the mixed ones of G.B it is different...
- what we call B.B. culture encompass several groups and among them was someones that has had contacts with the first 'beakers' but was no more direct descendants of them: in Thuringen and Sax Weimar the B.B.s was in fact contact cultures between true first B.B.s and Corded people - the Beakers of North Rhine was a mixt of true B.B.s and previous populations where mesolithic human stock and "corded" stock mixed with 'dinaric' B.B. fellows : it is these "mixed" Beakers that put their foot on the British Isles
- their language is still a mystery: but the fact that B.B.s culture traces are found in a lot of place without I-Ean language do not proves they did not speak I-Ean - it is not the first example of a not too numerous elite not being able to impose its language - I keep thinking they could have spoken a western (centum) I-Ean language... wait and see!
I guess this represents already one example for maritime routes of R1b coming to western europe directly.
For instance near Stonehenge the Amesbury archer seem to had originated, according to isotope analyses of the teeth from the upper Rhine region(Sw-Germany or Switzerland). The grave goods (a knife) on the other hand was coming from Northern Spain. So Britain was one of the places where the two worlds of the bell beaker people met.
For those who are allowed to see the German documentary Terra X(usally Europe, Northern America is blocked)
scroll vertical bar to 29min:52sec:
Last edited by Christiaan; 09-05-12 at 01:48.
While it is true that two Beaker Folk R1b results are precious little, it is all we have for now. It is worth noting that these are the earliest R1b finds we have and that no R1b has been recovered at non-Beaker Neolithic sites. It is also worth noting that Bell Beaker is primarily a western European phenomenon, and R1b is clearly dominant in western Europe. So, it seems to me very likely that Beaker males were predominantly R1b of some kind. I could be wrong, of course, but further testing of Beaker remains will tell the tale (if such testing ever takes place).
Given the age estimates of the various R1b subclades, I think it likely these two Beaker men were R-L11 and perhaps no further up the tree than that, or perhaps very early R-P312.
I 'll answer Sparkey that made valuable remarks and answer the other posters: for pottery, I think that we have not to separate a female 'pottery' from the remnant of the cultural artefacts: they was a whole in the first B.B. settlements, apparently - or we have to imge a male band that sends with im all its typical artefacts but not his pottery and that go everywhere spreading a foreign pottery coming always from the same geographical source - I can't imagine that when I write "true" B.B. I mean "first B.B. people", the acculturating one, not the accultured one - everyplace B.B. "teachers" seam having mixed after sometime with other people - (let's remember the british B.B. formed on 3 phenotypes just beginning crossing one with another (it is for that it was so easy to analyse it) - one was frequent among 'Corded' people (the one that was phenotypically important yet in the Unetice Culture close geographically to Thuringen, not culturally) + one was "autochtonous" (mesolithic) in the future Germany + one was 'dinaric', type found everywhere in more or very less quantity (less in Western Europe), just AT THE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD - I trust in anthropology for recent events, it's to say for about 5000/8000 years - so the 'dinaric' element appears as the bearer or spreader of the Bell Beaker phenomenon if it is not the source of it (see in Ireland : almost only 'dinaric' at the so called 'Food Vessel"period...) but I find that curious because all there settlements seam concerned by metals and metals come from East... (dinaric phenotype, for 'dinaric-Y-I2a1b I don't know for now) my today conclusion is that, after these acculturations and the crossings that came not immediatly but finally, it is very uneasy to guess the very true original Y-HG that beared the FIRST B.B. people- as says Sparkey and I think it since long ago, the B.B.s seam having played a great role culturally in Western Europe at the Bronze Age dawn and their incursions there put them in contact with a huge number of Y-R1b people in a lot of regions. So this 2 Y-R1b don't prove anything but are not amazing at all for me - and remember : the place they was found is surely not a FIRST FOOT PLACE: it seams a contact area with Corded (the same that produced the british B.Bs: not too far fromWestfalen: see HUBERT)- I don't yet evacuate possibilities for Y-I2a1b and Y-I2a2 - play again and have a good night
Sure those R1bs prove something: that R1b-M269 (xU106) was present among Beaker Folk, at least at the Kromsdorf, Germany, site. If all the other aDNA finds "prove" anything, those two prove at least that much.
The various anthropometrics you mentioned bring in the vacillations of autosomal dna, half of which was contributed by females. You cannot really say that because some Beaker Folk fit Coon's old idea of "Dinaric", therefore they couldn't have been R1b.
And if two R1b among the Beaker Folk don't prove anything, then surely a father and son pair of R1a at the Corded Ware site at Eulau don't prove anything either.
Where there germans in the area of central and southern germany at the time of the Bell-beaker......I am afraid there where no germans, there was most likely gallic people like the Volcae tribe that where both on the rhone river southern france and in Ahhalt , north bavarian region.
On the upper rhine area was I2b1
The Bronze Age was carried to Britain by the Bell Beaker people, beginning 2475 BC. They did not come from Spain, but from Rhineland Germany. They travelled down the Rhine River through Holland into England, bringing characteristic bell beaker vessels most similar to those of the German Rhineland.
The German Rhineland was I2b1 central. The I2b1a mutation is belived to be indigenous to Britain, but some have questioned why it sporadically turns up in Germany and the Netherlands. Ken dates it to around 2000 BC; just after the beginning of the Bell Beaker culture in England. It was carried to Britain by migration and not by trade, and spread throughout Britain and most of Ireland.
The bell beaker culture was carried through most of its range by migration and not by trade, as shown by analysis of isotopes and genetic traits. It held a big area in north central Europe.
People have the greatest genetic continuity with those who lived in the same place before them, in northern Spain and part of Czechoslovakia. Otherwise there is evidence of very sizable migration. Even if they did make only a difference of a few percentage points in the population of Britain, that is a mass migration, and large enough to introduce a mutation by founder effect as common as M284. The Wikipedia article does not state by what genetics they have established the size of the population change. A genetic mutation for variegate porphyria, which normally is carried by 3 of 100,000 people, was carried from Holland to South Africa by a single orphan late in the 17th century, it became established in successive little Dutch farming communities, and today, 300 years later, 2% of the people of South Africa, both Black and White, carry this mutation. It is still extremely rare in Holland, probably much less than the incidence of M284 in Holland.
When explaining M284 in Holland and Germany, it is important to realize that there was a major migration of Puritans from Britain to Holland in the 17th century.
The volcae also explain the movement of R1b as they also travelled to northwest Italy
Last edited by zanipolo; 13-05-12 at 00:43.
Pa'ura vanta'jo omo, gninte
Fear profits man, nothing
What we do know is that no R1b predating 2600 BC has been found in Europe and that R1b has been found among the Beaker Folk. That's a start, but it's not everything, obviously.
I do think the Beaker Folk were the vector of Indo-European languages into western Europe, if only the Italo-Celtic branch, but I don't really want to get into another interminable Indo-European argument with the R1a Fan Club, with its stupefyingly long and soporific posts, which generally triumph by being supremely tiring rather than by being persuasive.
Anthropometrics can flip in a couple of generations. A Dinaric great grandfather may have great grandsons who would fall into a different anthropological category. For example, I have a photo of my y-dna great-great grandfather. I don't look anything like him, other than the fact that he had blue eyes and I have blue eyes (his eye color is described in a book written by one of his daughters). He was bald by middle age (I still have my hair), and he had an aquiline nose (I do not).
I don't think you should make too much of some Beaker Folk being Dinaric at some point.
And by the way, rms2, some years ago (when there still was a DNA-Forums, and you were still active on it) you started a thread about photos of our Y-DNA ancestors. It's now gone to the cyber graveyard, but I thought in principle that was a good idea. Your WorldFamilies R1b forum isn't very photo friendly; I don't know about the FTDNA-sponsored forum, or MolGen, or Eupedia... just thought I'd run that flag up the pole, again, and see if anybody salutes.
Acatually R1b in Balkans peaks in Kosovar Albanians and in some Croatian parts.
This are the heaviest Dinarid areas in the world.
Seriously, ANYONE who cites Coon seriously on a DNA based board as being any sort of valid source should be warned once and then banned. You can measure skulls all you want and it is next to meaningless. This nonsense was attempt at a pseudo-science at at time without a real science available- Coon had a excuse, today we should no better than this.
I would hardly call anyone or anyplace in the Balkans a 'peak' of R1b. Romanians are what, 12%? How to determine what portion of this is ancient and what comes from the medieval german community is impossible at this time, anyway.
The real meat of this is being overlooked, which is that the speculation of the early germanics consisting of I1 populations is about dead at this point,
and the U-106 vein of R1b now is beaten for a position of the earliest proto-germanic R1b ancestry for what has been erroneously assigned as 'Celtic', so insistently and egregiously by keyboard commmandos at rootsweb et al.
Also, this explain that the R1b in western Czech republic is not so much need to be a artifact of German introgression of later times, but may reach back to corded ware settlements.
But what I am leading to is that since the netherlands has a lot of U106 ( as well as eastern Austria) , then this old "germanic" of U106 was restricted to BB culture initially , then Elp culture , then urnfield culture and
linguistic affinity to the Venetic language, other hypotheses connect the Northwestblock with the Raetic ("Tyrsenian") or generic Centum Indo-European (Illyrian)
I do not see no other way where the netherlands and eastern austria have a high u106
Pa'ura vanta'jo omo, gninte
Fear profits man, nothing
BUT don't confuse a single family lineage with is phenotypical variations, a so common case in a crossed populations, and a statistical admixture of phenotypes in a big population that varies very more slowly (very too often people answer to collective questions by individual exemples)
I agree there are some Y-R1b in North-Western Balkans: even if there is no accord about the time of arriving of Y-R1b in Europe everybody agrees that it come principally from Eastern lands (but: by the Donaw river only or also by the baltic shores? or for someones, by the Mediterranea sea?) -
BUT the peaks of 'dinarid' types is not there (say in North Dinaric Alps)- and don't you find it surprising seeing so big density of Y-R1b on the Atlantic side where 'dinarid' types are so seldom (even in the Bigouden region I mentionned!)- 'dinarid' type is maybe not a true homozygotic phenotype, but surely it contains a special element that I try to link IF POSSIBLE (and with care) to a Y-HG population - I agree totally that there are drifts bitween autosomal genes distributions and HG distributions and that some male elite populations could have had their weight magnyfied but a SO BIG DISCREPANCY between 'dinarid' (or 'dinaric') types centers of density and Western Atlantic Europe puts me to discard a link between Y-R1b and the 'dinarid' phenotype - Just a point of view, I 'm not God... but if the truth is with you and people thinking as you, we have to admit a unbielivable drift and overgoing of Y-R1b (I discused in another thread the validity of the 'sperm count' as a mean for a Y-DNA population to take the advantage over an other Y-DNA population...
I keep quiet and curious and wait more data about the B.B. folk (BUT WHAT ONE? THE FIRTS EXPLORERS OR THEIR PUPILS???)
Bulgaria 9.5 %
Slovenia 23.5 %
The package or the context is important, whether it belong to XY or XX no doubt, but sometimes I get the impression that some people really think that Y lineages alone dictate pottery styles. While ironical enough pottery is probably the most female biased artefact. So this alone should make clear that ethnicity identification based on pottery alone(and not the package) could lead to false interpretations. Of course it would be very interesting to know how one could become a Bell beaker person. For instance by owning BB's stuff, by birth, by marriage - and if so would the "new"woman adapt to the pottery style taught by her mother-in-law or would she stubbornly stick to the old one
The observation that women made non-wheel pottery by the way is based on ethnographic research and the discovery of female fingerprints on prehistoric pottery.
Last edited by Christiaan; 15-05-12 at 04:00.
Follow me on Facebook and Twitter ----------------- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----------------- Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.