metrics, old anthropology and haplogroups: 'dinarics' Y-I2a and history

[Kardu]

Interesting! If the I2c from your group would like to share on 23andme I could give you my nick in a pm.

 

[Alan]

This is great info, Alan, the best anyone has been able to give me yet. I looked at the Harappa Project, though, and it looks like there is no I2a1 Kurd, but there is an "I2b1*"... surely a current ISOGG I2a2a, although that's a diverse subclade and I wish I knew the STRs. My first guess would be I2a2a-Cont3.

That interestingly indicates that Kurds don't really have significant I2a-Din, but instead a similar mix to Armenians. But the sample size is obviously too small to say that for sure.

yes thats him. sorry my fault your right it was the I2b1 who is on harrapa project. But according to Cobol there is also a Kurd from 23andme who is I2a1. I already shared this information long time ago. here you can see it. Scroll further down.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26761-Scythian-Sarmatian-DNA-your-thoughts./page22

 

[Alan]

Interesting! If the I2c from your group would like to share on 23andme I could give you my nick in a pm.

No sorry I dont know him personally. Only Cobol19 and another Friend who already tested with 23andme told me this. that there is a I2c Iraqi Kurd on 23andme and a I2b1 Kurd on Harrapa project. And according to Cobol there is another Kurd with I2a1 on 23adme and the last is the known Kurd from Jordan(probably one of the refugees from Gulf war) with I1.

 

[Knovas]

Alan, you mean the I2a1 which translated in the old form is I2a*, ¿right?

It would be very curious to find the Pyrenees marker in a Kurd LOL. Well, it's not impossible due to its antiquity, but very difficult.

 

[Kardu]

No sorry I dont know him personally. Only Cobol19 and another Friend who already tested with 23andme told me this. that there is a I2c Iraqi Kurd on 23andme and a I2b1 Kurd on Harrapa project. And according to Cobol there is another Kurd with I2a1 on 23adme and the last is the known Kurd from Jordan(probably one of the refugees from Gulf war) with I1.

Pity, but thanks.. I could only find about 14 people on 23andme mentioning Kurd or possible Kurd ancestry but none of them is I2*...

 

[Alan]

Alan, you mean the I2a1 which translated in the old form is I2a*, ¿right?

It would be very curious to find the Pyrenees marker in a Kurd LOL. Well, it's not impossible due to its antiquity, but very difficult.

well thats what
cobol19 wrote but i really dont know if its true. i assume he mistaked the i2b1 with i2a1

 

[Alan]

Pity, but thanks.. I could only find about 14 people on 23andme mentioning Kurd or possible Kurd ancestry but none of them is I2*...

I was told that there is another kurd on 23andme with I2. however I only know for sure about two kurds with I. I2b1 from harrapa and I1 from FTDNA.

something interesting. If we let out the reported but unknown I2c. than we only got 12 tested individuals so far and two of them I.
And the percentage we get for I becomes 16.666.. % thats very close on the estimated percentage on eupedia. however the sample size is still very small.

 

[Kardu]

I was told that there is another kurd on 23andme with I2. however I only know for sure about two kurds with I. I2b1 from harrapa and I1 from FTDNA.

something interesting. If we let out the reported but unknown I2c. than we only got 12 tested individuals so far and two of them I.
And the percentage we get for I becomes 16.666.. % thats very close on the estimated percentage on eupedia. however the sample size is still very small.

Thanks for the info, Alan! I maybe missed it but do we know how those Kurdish I cluster?

 

[Alan]

Thanks for the info, Alan! I maybe missed it but do we know how those Kurdish I cluster?

i only know that he is on harrapa project ydna i2b1 and mtdna u1a1. If i get in contact with my friend i can ask him more.

 

[MOESAN]

I did not claim that Y-I2 is from N-W Europe. Exactly like you I assume it was somewhere in central europe.
I repeat: Armenia is overwhelmingly R1b+J and very dinarid (different dinaroid varians exist), but Georgia is much less dinarid and has also much less R1b+J but much more G. Does it make sense to you then that R1b is more related to dinaroid than G?

I also agree with you that Y-I2a1b+ Y-I2a2(I2b) correlates very well with dinaroids. But I doubt this correlation to be significant in western europe, hence I assume that these Y-I2a HGs adopted dinarcism somewhat later from other HG like J. For W-Europe as I said I assume J2+R1b to be more important. I cannot comment your detailed description of France though due to lack of knowledge.

BTW It is interesting that you mention a Dinarid-Borreby relation for France, because there is a similar one in the balkans: According to Coon - we should not take him too much seriously - the only Borreby stronghold outside northern europe is Montenegro, which is situated inmidst of the nost dinaric peoples. In my opinion not only Montenegrins but many Serbs and fewer Albanians are obvious borrebies too.

This and ancient Romans are one of the reasons why I suspect a correlation with NW-R1b, NW-Borreby - Dinarid, such that some Borrebies and Brünns would be fake-Paleolithic NW-Europeans. I would like to know to which extent those paleolithic Cro-Magnons actually survived and moved back from refuge areas to north really. In turn, could it be that NW-Europe was mostly re-populated later by eurasian/anatolian (Indo-)Europeans? I know this theory is unorthodox and it would require that Paleolithic-looking humans should have been re-introduced. But what if those are just "new" Cro-Magnons from Eurasia or mixed Dinaroids, unrelated to the old Cro-Magnons of West Europe. What do you think?

I'm not expecting an answer for all of these many questions. I just want to describe theory, which is still a set of questions.

I come back again on these questions:
- COON could be taken seroiusly when he described what he had seen, metrically - theories are something else and everybody has right to do one or more - his analysis of Bell Beakers of Brittain in of useful like others anlysis he did - Munk or somebody with a close name, speakes for Campaniformes of Bohem and so that the planocciptal population was "eurymorph" (to say: large faced) - it 's a pity seeing new or young scholars beeing so generalizing without going further in details - (I bet its a mix of 'borreby'-dinaric' types as in S Sax region)

'borreby' type is supposed to be heavy boned, thick craned, sub-brachy, rounded forehead, rounded occipital, moderate high craned, broad short nosed, very broad faced with square jaw, low upper faced
'dinaric' as a paradygm is supposed to by light boned, thin craned, hyper-brachy, receding forehead, flat vertical occipital, high craned, narrow long nosed, narrow enough faced, high upper faced
'borrebey' for a lot of german scholars was a kind of partial 'alpinization' of the precise 'cro-magnon' type without so a foetalization like in 'alpine'
'cro-magnon' paradigm is dolicho, low craned, almost the same face as 'borreby' as a whole (maybe as square, but not so massive?) with a rounded forehead too, and small broader than higer eye-sockets, a high projecting
occipital, as a whole very different from 'combe-capelle' or close 'brünn' types, very very different, not only for the principal measures but fir every detail of shapes!
'brünn' and 'combe-capelle' standards wase rougher their shapes, bigger their eyes-sockets, higher and narrower their faces (but with broad bizygomatics; cheeks bones) narrower their bignonials, heavy boned jaw but higher tha 'cro-ma' -

it was said that the last sort of people came in W Europe AFTER 'cro-magnon'- what is interesting is I red newly that in Russia, between Volga and Oka river they found that the one of the pre-'comb-pottery' people of the area was coming from Center-East Europe, carried by 'cro-magnon' phenotypes (dolichocephalic, euryprosope=broad faced) taking on dolichocephalic-leptoprosope (narrow faced) phénotypes- this culture was on the Maglemose model in an area that shows remnants of place names that was not neither uralic nor slavic (basque or related???) - other threads: 2 substrates in the 'finnic' in Saami regions: one 'I-E satem' , the other: reated to basque language...
what is interesting also is that it could show that the France 'cro-magnon' paradigm was expanding eastward at these periods (about 1000 BC) and not westward -
I should be pleased if the scholars could exhibit some ancient DNA of these regions and periods (where after occurred crossing with mongoloids)
all that to say that 'dinaric' and 'borreby' types are very very different and that the process of brachycephali-zation occurred on two different phylogenetic ligneages, for me. I'm tempted to hold for a Y-R1b connection for 'cro-ma'/'borreby'/true 'alpine' (not the Alps S-E France/N Italy MEANS with mixed 'dinarics' )
I put more easier 'brünn' with possible 'I-' types...

 

[ElHorsto]

I come back again on these questions:
- COON could be taken seroiusly when he described what he had seen, metrically - theories are something else and everybody has right to do one or more - his analysis of Bell Beakers of Brittain in of useful like others anlysis he did - Munk or somebody with a close name, speakes for Campaniformes of Bohem and so that the planocciptal population was "eurymorph" (to say: large faced) - it 's a pity seeing new or young scholars beeing so generalizing without going further in details - (I bet its a mix of 'borreby'-dinaric' types as in S Sax region)

'borreby' type is supposed to be heavy boned, thick craned, sub-brachy, rounded forehead, rounded occipital, moderate high craned, broad short nosed, very broad faced with square jaw, low upper faced
'dinaric' as a paradygm is supposed to by light boned, thin craned, hyper-brachy, receding forehead, flat vertical occipital, high craned, narrow long nosed, narrow enough faced, high upper faced
'borrebey' for a lot of german scholars was a kind of partial 'alpinization' of the precise 'cro-magnon' type without so a foetalization like in 'alpine'
'cro-magnon' paradigm is dolicho, low craned, almost the same face as 'borreby' as a whole (maybe as square, but not so massive?) with a rounded forehead too, and small broader than higer eye-sockets, a high projecting
occipital, as a whole very different from 'combe-capelle' or close 'brünn' types, very very different, not only for the principal measures but fir every detail of shapes!
'brünn' and 'combe-capelle' standards wase rougher their shapes, bigger their eyes-sockets, higher and narrower their faces (but with broad bizygomatics; cheeks bones) narrower their bignonials, heavy boned jaw but higher tha 'cro-ma' -

it was said that the last sort of people came in W Europe AFTER 'cro-magnon'- what is interesting is I red newly that in Russia, between Volga and Oka river they found that the one of the pre-'comb-pottery' people of the area was coming from Center-East Europe, carried by 'cro-magnon' phenotypes (dolichocephalic, euryprosope=broad faced) taking on dolichocephalic-leptoprosope (narrow faced) phénotypes- this culture was on the Maglemose model in an area that shows remnants of place names that was not neither uralic nor slavic (basque or related???) - other threads: 2 substrates in the 'finnic' in Saami regions: one 'I-E satem' , the other: reated to basque language...
what is interesting also is that it could show that the France 'cro-magnon' paradigm was expanding eastward at these periods (about 1000 BC) and not westward -
I should be pleased if the scholars could exhibit some ancient DNA of these regions and periods (where after occurred crossing with mongoloids)
all that to say that 'dinaric' and 'borreby' types are very very different and that the process of brachycephali-zation occurred on two different phylogenetic ligneages, for me. I'm tempted to hold for a Y-R1b connection for 'cro-ma'/'borreby'/true 'alpine' (not the Alps S-E France/N Italy MEANS with mixed 'dinarics' )
I put more easier 'brünn' with possible 'I-' types...

I agree with you as far as I can understand. Meanwile I also have to admit that Coon was at least partially right about the Dinarics, because he claims them to be alpinized Atlanto-Meds (Capellid), as far as I remember. I abandon my previous assumption that Cro-Magnon was important for Dinarics, for now.

My opinion has changed also due to following news:
In February this year, scientists did Carbon-Test again using tooth collagene which revealed that the Combe-Capelle skull was not contemporary of the Cro-Magnon as believed so far, but much younger: 9500 years. That means that since Cro-Magnon and Combe-Capelle there is a time gap of > 20000 years!
Now following theory of mine:

1. The survival of Cro-Magnon people until today in Western Europe becomes more questionable now, since no Cro-Mag skull has been found from the much more recent Combe-Capelle time.

2. It is safe to assume that Combe-Capelle people have well flourished at least in Southern, Western and Northern Europe (see another threads about autosomal Mediterranean Admixture) since there was no further Ice Age since 9500 years. Possibly they expelled the Cro-Magnons, mixed with them or never met them at all.

3. Assuming the autosomal mediterranean cluster corresponds to the mediterranean leptomorphic phenotype all over the Mediterranean sea, it makes sense to assume HG I to be associated with Combe-Capelle. This makes even more sense since HG IJ is known to have originated in the warm climate of the Near East where slender Capellid forms are fit, but not in the harsh climate of Eurasia and Central-Asia where HG-I is almost lacking. Therefore, the old Cro-Magnons could actually have belonged indeed to HG R1, not HG 'I' as many believe. You seem to have a similar opinion.

4. The Cro-Magnoid forms today in West Europe can well have been re-introduced Eurasian Cro-Mags from the Indo-Europeans. Maybe some very few original Cro-Mags survived too among Mesolithic Combe-Capelles, but not significantly. You mentioned that 1000 BC there have been Cro-Mags in East Europe. Maybe they indeed came from West Europe.

4. Balkans: The leptomorphic Dinarics are prevalent among HG (I2, E) people in Balkans. That matches to Mediterranean Capellids, a possible preconditions for Dinarics. I still think the additional J2 from the neolithic made the Dinaric type. But it could also be just alpinization.

5. West-Mediterranean: fewer Dinarics, more Mediterraneans. (mind again the peculiar Y-I in isolated Sardinia!) The Bell-Beakers might well have been mixed native Meds, resulting in dinaric appearence.

6. British Isles: More obvious R1b influence but still many many Meds and Nords (Nord is a depigmented Med). As you also say, the Brünn itself is rather Capellid than Cro-Magnoid.

7. Scandinavia: Again, the more HG-I, the more leptomorphic. Maximum is in Sweden with most HG I1.

Conclusion: HG-I might be directly linked to Capellids and thus indirectly linked to Dinarics. I still think Dinaric is something else like J2.

All the above is much hobbyist speculation of course and probably outdated! But if the skulls are very old like those of the Paleolithic, they can tell something.

 

[sparkey]

ElHorsto,

One difficulty with your musings is that Haplogroup I had already differentiated into several known branches (at least 11 are known today) by the time of the known Combe-Capelle peoples. Of course, these people could have carried multiple subclades of Haplogroup I. But if they arrived in Europe later as you suggest (as opposed to being direct CM descendants or something), then we would expect traces of I where they came from. But we haven't found any evidence of ancient Haplogroup I in the Near East yet. To me, that discounts the "Combe-Capelle = relatively recent arrivals and I carriers" theory.

I also don't think that if Haplogroup I wasn't the most common haplogroup among Cro-Magnons (I doubt it was in fact), that the most likely other possibility is R1. I would sooner guess older haplogroups like F and IJ. Although I admit that there is some chance that they could have had R1* or something.

I think that there is something interesting to be said toward your end by looking at mtDNA instead. We have a pretty good idea that Cro-Magnons had more N* than is common today, and it apparently drifted away in favor of first U5, and later H. What Y-DNA corresponds to N*? I would argue that many of CF's subclades combined is probably the best match. Haplogroup I could then be a later expansion like mtDNA H. So there indeed could be a difference between surviving Paleolithic remnant Y-DNA and the Y-DNA that was most common among Cro-Magnons... no reason to assume they were the same other than lack of additional data.

 

[ElHorsto]

ElHorsto,
One difficulty with your musings is that Haplogroup I had already differentiated into several known branches (at least 11 are known today) by the time of the known Combe-Capelle peoples. Of course, these people could have carried multiple subclades of Haplogroup I. But if they arrived in Europe later as you suggest (as opposed to being direct CM descendants or something), then we would expect traces of I where they came from. But we haven't found any evidence of ancient Haplogroup I in the Near East yet. To me, that discounts the "Combe-Capelle = relatively recent arrivals and I carriers" theory.

For me the european origin of I is not so obvious yet because I'm missing the old traces of J in Europe and even old variants of I. And present HG J in Europe is believed to be a neolithic newcomer. But I have no problem to accept an european origin of I, that is not the main issue. My aim was to stress a possible change of the paleolithic population during 20000 years and a possible overlap with the contemporary Mediterraneans. The new dating of Combe-Capelle plus HG I presence in southern Europe are my main arguments for this view. On the other hand the old CM phenotype could have moved gradually to central and eastern Europe (Denmark, Balkans, Steppe), while the Mediterranean, Atlantic coast and Scandinavia have become predominantly Capelloid. The Balkans itself shows strong presence of both types.
It was my impression that paleolithic people are often used synonymously with Cro-Magnons, which I consider not correct, given the new dating of the Combe-Capelle find.

...
I think that there is something interesting to be said toward your end by looking at mtDNA instead. We have a pretty good idea that Cro-Magnons had more N* than is common today, and it apparently drifted away in favor of first U5, and later H. What Y-DNA corresponds to N*? I would argue that many of CF's subclades combined is probably the best match. Haplogroup I could then be a later expansion like mtDNA H. So there indeed could be a difference between surviving Paleolithic remnant Y-DNA and the Y-DNA that was most common among Cro-Magnons... no reason to assume they were the same other than lack of additional data.

Interesting, thanks. If I got it right, that would support some kind of transition within the paleolithic population.

 

[MOESAN]

Some remarks about the Bell Beakers or Campaniform People :


firstable : I 'm trying to differentiate the first BB impact from what I consider as following acculturations – the Desideri studies are based on mathematical means of teeth peculiarities in global populations even if these traits are summed one by one, not comparing individuals one by one with all their peculiarities, not searching features homogenous groups linked to global phenotype – so 'homogenous' is employed by her when comparing between sites, not within them ??? uneasy to answer...
a first problem is the fact that maybe BB is a phenomenon in more than a stage : I see well enough a first intrusion + demic contact + cultural contact, and then, an acculturation where « teachers » genetic influence faded out, by way of genetic crossings or/and by way of departure of these « teachers », even if some contacts remained between supposed sources and final destinations (a well achieved acculturation needs some weight of the source and maintained relations with them : look at the modern colonizations) – but Desideri's conclusions address to the cultures taken in their whole chronology -
I believe we shall not find any accord about BBs if we do not speak about the same thing – for me true BBs was out of their cradle a low numbered people travelling fast and far in a short time (very often we find the same datations, say about 2500 BC in places very far on from another) : no big population had never extended its demography so quickly on a so huge surface : they colonized roads or harbours more than entire flat regions, as I red – the « oldest » departing regions in Western Europe (3000 BC? S-W. Iberia?) are near coasts, not inlands – and it seams they have been only intrusive in close regions (E. Andalusia, Castile) : if they was born among a dense population in Iberia, it is amasing that the most of theirs settlements are again on coasts and following inwards fluvial ways to penetrate Central Iberia for finally establish themselves on hills – I am no more sure at all they carried the first I-E language in Occident – maybe they was I-Eers and carried a variant of I-E ? - Surely they had some skills and power because them seam have influenced the subsequent Bronze Age in a lot of places (maybe more in Western Europe because they found there scarcer demography or/and less developed cultures or less centralized or united political groupes?) - I think they left more demic remnants in Western Central Europe and central Europe than in Western, Southern and Northern Europe, and that it is their subsequant alliage Corded-BB culture that take the hand after in W Europe– (Wessex, Armoric tumuli etc...) before influenced Celts and Italics took the strong side at their turn – In the Isles their 'dinaroid' phenotypic remnants (diluted) are found in half-refuges : E.Scotland, N. + N-E, N-W.Ireland (regions that show low Y-I2 % of all sorts) -


cultural facts :
- if we rely on the given dates, we see that in Italy, Central Europe, North and North-Western Europe, the BBs appeared about 2500 BC : it is very amazing, and does not check either with a progressive colonization by a great number of people or cultural osmosis -

• their everyday pottery was very various (local) on the territories considered as their ones, but the sepultures pottery was more typical of their culture – very often there was the typical set of artefacts linked to Bell Beakers in their sepultures, and we can suppose that it was a kind of prestige package to mark high rank reserved to elite people, and that it could have been transmitted from culture to culture without any other implication – but I suppose, me, it could have been the common set in previous homogenous BBs population before becoming the mark of snobism among the nobility or the rich classes in the cultures drift to B.B. (later more completely acculturated) – Desideri thinks the diversification of pottery is the proof that the settlement of BBs is ancient enough (what I find correct) but also that it is the proof of the very geographical origin of the previous standard origin: can we be sure of that ? The more evolved the more autochtonous and genuine is the BB settlement ??? why these evolved forms were not carried to other places later then if they remained under the same influence ?
• chronology is very important and, « hélas ! », is very hard to determine; but in S. France, the first time section of Campaniform (BB) saw the standard pottery associated with only sepulture – in a second stage appeared differentiated pottery and domestic tools – the last stage is a transition (BB delited?) to Bronze Age : I see here again a genuine first impact and acculturation, leading to dilution of the genetic BBs impact – the 'dinaric' cranes are almost everytime linked to the first settlements, sometimes during Eneolithic times (first incursions of metal searchers? It was the Charles's opinion if not the Riquet's) - but Desideri thinks the bearers of first BBs was of « meridional » origin without precising what she means by these terms, only an Iberia geographical origin -
• In Meseta the maximum of 'maritime beakers' was found in the South, and it seams to me as stopping place marking an « étape » on the way of BB diffusion whatever the point of origin (E.Andalusia or Murcia? Western Pyrenees-Basque Country? Low Ebro in catalunia ?)– the other sorts of pottery are diverse, with a majority of Ciempozuelos type (87% of the totality), surely a local later evolution (but on what initiative ? Genuine BBs or accultured people?) - for Desideri, copper was known at the final Neolithic, before BBs / that could prove that even if BBs was interested in metals, they was not the first carriers of it there -
• concerning sepultures, it seams to me that the Central Europe BBs communauties was more homogenous (inhumation in individual shallow tombs for the most, at the beginning) contrary to the westernmost ones (Brittany, Southern France, spanish Meseta + in Switzerland) where BBs was buried in a lot of diverse ways that seam all of them reutilisations or adoptions of local burying ; the sepultures under round barrows in G-B could be already the result of the adoption of BB culture by people practising the 'tumuli' system as the Netherlands BBs (proto-Celts , proto-Germanics already? I-E almost surely but which ?: it seams that these people coming into Brittain from the Netherlands and N-W Germany about 2500 BC presented a mixt of 'dinarics' (high %), 'borrebys' brachycephalized cromagnoids (mid %) and 'corded' (low %) forms, typical of Central-Northern Germany at this time ; [maybe is this order of importance an indication that they reached N-C Germany through South ways]: the round tumuli was the dominent trait among the Wessex Culture and the linked Armorican Tumuli one, about 2000 BC) – these cases of heterogenous sepultures (South) could be due to a small number of intrusif « true » BB People ? These facts do not confirm too much a Western origin for BBs, for me – Desideri notices the eastern Switzerland BBs sepultures are individual, an that points to a more genuine BBs population BUT she did not study this eastern Switzerland BBs ! -
• The Corded Ware Culture, BBs Culture and proto-Unetice cultures did not follow one another (did not replaced totally in the same population) but cohabited some time side by side in diverse places even if Unetice began laster and remained laster too – it shows for me that the BBs vector was not only a « mode », and without a religious cause I do not see why people of same origin would choose different places of living in a same country just by snobism? And a new religion needs however a demic vector at one time -

phenotypical facts :
&: remark : it seams that Desideri did not link teeth to jaws nor skulls : it spites me !

• I am not too glad of the Desideri's choice to study the Meseta BBs in place of Portugal (Southern as Northern : 3000 BC BBs) or Southern-Southeastern Spain : (2500 BC BBs) where BB are believed to be older... - She found few changes among these populations concerning the teeth discret features as old scholars found few changes phenotypically (crania) for the same regions at the Chalcolithic : but what about the datations ? For the skulls, the studies I red concerned the 2300 BC and following periods, it is to say, a possible late acculturation compared to the theorical 2900 BC beginning of BB in Iberia (but it is true, these dates are discussed today) – other problem : in Meseta Desideri studied the teeths of males and females blended, serious cause of drowning a male intrusive BBs presence - I recall nevertheless that (hazard?) the Southern Meseta confines to the Madrid and Toledo districts where « today » high mesocephalic people metric means (I-C More than 79 in the 1935's compared to 77-78 means in Spain, with Valencia neighbours about 76) : 'alpines' or 'dinarics' crossing? I have to precise that this partial brachycephalic increase could be linked too to the Celtibers and to the « reconquista », being Central-South Castile a « front military population zone» for a long enough time, as we can imagine for the borders between Wales and England in Central Wales where lighter pigmentation and different Y-HGs distribution lead to imagine an Anglo-Saxons soldiers concentration – the I-Cs in Cantabria and Asturias were about 79-80 and the pigmentation is « fair » enough compared to Western and Eastern Spain) - the global study of Desideri about teeths does not distinguish a 'dinaric' strain drowned in a more numerous population, it was not her aim ; It spites me again -
• Desideri speak about some changes occurred in Switzerland caused by evident southern demic influences [« … the axis of external influences is clearly southern, whether this occurred during the Final Neolithic or the Bell Beaker in Western Switzerland ... »]- the contrary to Menk that tought demic movements came from East an h to Switzerland too (demic aspect) -
• the Czech BBs did not differ too much from Czech Corded as a whole, but this cluster is the most heterogenous of all...
• the Unetice former bronze Age seams homogenous enough and clusters with eastern Corded and western BBs
• the Meseta BB people, are not too far from the previous neolithical populations concerning phenotypes, and as a whole are accultured people and not former BB people, I suppose – Desidery speaks nevertheless of a slight intermediary position of the BBs remnants between last Neolithic population and the Chalcolithic one – she notes the higher variability between (not within) neolithic sites than in following sites, that can be the mark of more exchanges leading later to partial homogeneity - so for her, no notable external demic apport but internal homogenization -
  &: an example of divergent interpretations : in Catalunia Desideri (citing other works) considers 4 clearly brachycephals (qualified « intrusif ») among 12 cranes as negligeable, not me – after all that makes 33% and we are not too precise for datations, so these percentages concern possibly an already acculturated population where are mixed « true » BBs and indigenes ? These too 'dinaroids' are newcomers for I think - I recall the settlements in La Meseta (Ancient Castile) are all on hills (good seesighing) or water providing places, or water ways, as in almost all the other BBs settlements in Western Europe : new people or new way of life inspired by new people – Desideri in her teeth survey remarks heterogeneity (not weighted) began about the BB-Chalcolithical stage opposed to homogeneity in Neolithic sites (homogenous but various, what is that?), and that the BB are intermediary between Neolithic and Chalcolithic – so the BBs would be the result of mixing between Neolithics and Chalcolithics ?
  • & to put on her account Desideri remarks that the today other surveys in Spain seam excluding the research of genetic different heritages and are focalized on effects of the environment on individuals, so... some scholars have agendas as common people have, have they not ? -
• In Southern France Desideri speaks about more than 320 sites but studies only 7 of them (1 BB only) – she cites A.Riquet who says, according to her, there was a small number of brachycephals at that period Eneolithic-Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age – but other authors wrote that the first brachycephals came there only about the final Neolithic and they was new ('alpine' phenotypes from the Alps) and that other brachycephals, 'dinaroid', as new, arrived at the Chalcolithic period, often associated with BB – in these troubled times, where has been seen an Helladic influence, other new types arrived, from South West (Iberia?) or South East (Greece? Egea ?) but we saw a difference between the 'dinaric' types, that did not perdure there, and the other types that kept an heavy influence in the future crossings : so the 'dinarics', more or less pure, was just a short wave of not too numerous people that did not prosperate genetically in Southern France, loosing weight and leaving just a notable but little taste of dinaroid influence in the phenotypical landscape of the region – it is important not to confuse them with the genuine 'alpine' type, low vaulted skulled, gentle rounded, low faced and more sturdy bodied, a kind of foetalized 'cro-magnoid' – it appears that these 'alpine' late mesolithic type prospered very well after the neolithical acculturation, going northwards and westwards and southwards at the Final neolithic ; it became one of the principal components of the Gauls and Ligurians and a appreciable part of the Italic peoples: for 'dinarics' I say : intrusion of well determined people that did not perdure as independant identity but acculturate precedent populations – the problem is the difficulty to distinguish first light intrusions and their successors, the derived cultures under cultural BB influence but with less genetic impact ?
• When comparing France and Spain, Desideri (teeths) found that Late Neolithic is not homogenous, BB intermediary, and Bronze Age more homogenous (means) : late movements leading to a stable even admixture, corresponding to the rising of a phenotypical mean type that metric anthropologists constated and called « ibero-insular » type ? (influences of old cromagnoid mesolithic mediterraneans + with a taste of dinaroids and a lot of eastern mediterraneans (these last akin to an ancestor of combe-capelle or brünn? = eurafrican type ?):influences from Greece, Egea and Balkans -
• All the surveys show some movement during BBs period – Czarnetzki, about 'discret features' of skulls, found that men was moving more than women during the BBs time (no big modification for women from Final Neolithic to Unetice time in Central Europe) and that movements was linked to BBs (note it is the very contrary to Desideri's conclusions about teeths!!!) – Cerny found in the same regions that brachycephals was more typical for BBs, 'Corded' (dolichocephals) closer to Unetice people, and intermediate -(I should have better thought that Unetice's was the intermediate stock after crossings) -
• others says that the differences are limited to the crania, denying any weight to this kind of traits (what is almost stupid, a new dogma, because if Cephalic-Index can change moderately with environment, the shapes of the skulls keep some identity) ; I recall the opinion of some scholars thinking that the 'dinaric' type is an evolution of a previously dolichocephalic type close to some elements in 'corded' type or 'evolved brünn' types : evolution by isolation elsewhere I suppose, for I do not see why some « mutants » among a population would decide to promote a new culture (by inferiority complex?...) – an english scholar found that people of Knovits (later) Culture in Bohem was broader faced : it is a trait of 'alpines' and upon all of some sort of 'borreby' : traces of people from 'indigenous' Thuringen highlands or Hessen, in Central Germany ? ; all the way Knovitz is a following period (Celts for someones, surely followign a cultural BB influence) - the same man noted that cultural (so partially temporal) criteria was more important than global geographical criteria at these times, concerning phenotypes (movements yet) -
• in S. France, Menk sees BBs individuals as tall men, with a majority of brachycephals, the whole very distinct from the Neolithical previous population (it is my thoughts) and (surprise???) found that the Bronze Age following local populations was in the middle ! (clear : crossings result) – Riquet stated the same about evolutions of means but did not link too tightly 'dinaric' types to the only BB period or sites - but here as in other regions, the problem is the difficulty to separate close periods in the past -
• Zoffmann (metrics, 2000!) studied a BBs site in Hungaria and found some 'dinaric' types in sepultures (the first of this type in Carpathian Bassin, again! - we do not speak about the Carpathian Mountains here, that present a relative hotspots of modern dinarics today, and are geographically in a central position E-W - the small survey about teeth strontium in Hungaria shows, as in other places, people movements during et the BBs times – which ?
• analysis by sexes : the most worthy aspect ! Desideri (teeeth) found in Central Europe
  • a) the female teeths of Corded & BBs are closer between them and very far from the Unetice female teeths – their positions are not too evident compared to Corded an BBs males – some analysis puts the 2 male groups in the same cluster, and the 2 female groups in the other cluster, some puts BB males in closer contact to the 2 female groups, Corded males being more central – all the way, these females are not too close one to the other, spite of that !-
  • b) the Corded & BBs males form an intermediary group between their females and the very homogenous (means) Unetice males+females group -
  • c) Corded males, closer to BBs than to Unetice, but between the two (it contradicts metric surveys saying that Corded was closer to Unetice) -
  • d) all the males groups seams central compared to females !
    So I consider : BBs males and Corded males took their own females but also local females of different human stocks – not always the same foreign females because the males seam closer between them than do the females – Corded and BB are involved in Unetice Culture but Corded males played a stronger role in the Unetice fusion and this Unetice melting pot was varied but homogenous, the same elements mixed in almost the same proportions for men and women – as females and males principal traits for teeths (biallelic, parents exchanged) are mixed in their descendance, it proves that anyway the Corded and BBs societies was exogamic enough for females, taking some of their wives outside on their roads or their progression of colonization and not only at the sunrise period of their culture because otherwise they would have been closer to their females in a following stage: so they added some foreign wives after the early times in western Europe ? - this seams being proved by the ancient DNA surveys, at a small scale it is true -
    I should hazard that the BBs element in Bohem was yet a mixture between Corded and BBs (look at the British BBs case) –

& :The case of the hungarian BBs and one BBs site in E-C France being both halfway between so called BBs of La Meseta and the BBs or Bohemia prove a flood of genes (and people!!!) W to E and E to W
&& : the apparent contradiction between Desideri and Czarnetzki can be explained : the BB males (crossed and homogenized at every generation) moved more than females and they took new external females at every time in their different location : by exchanges of genes between fathers and mothers, the following sons and daughters generations tended to be closer one together within the group but as sons pick up new external wives, at every generation the « female stock » looked more heterogenous than the « male stock » even if with time this male pool tended to get very various – so females moved, but one time each, being chosen by mobile males, not on their own – and more, this work of Desideri made a mean between all the Eastern BBs groups : but they was living on a large enough spann of land, and the ethnies or tribes where they took new wives could have been of very different origines -


& :personal remarks :
I red that Riquet, cited by Desideri for an other purpose, thought that the closer features to the 'dinaroids' of Southern Chalcolithic and bronze Age France (no direct relation with BBs time for him) was the ones of the « german » Gockelbecher 'dinaroids', not to far from the Chypre (Kybros) 'dinaroids', BUT very far from the so called 'armenoids' of Near East – I recall Estern Languedoc and Provence are not far from the Rhône Valley -


my conclusions : it seams there has been 2 demic floods for BBs – but at what stage ??? the problem of the 'dinaric' type is obseding : unknown types before 3000 BC in Occident, appearing in very far places, from Romania to Spain and Ireland, almost pure in some cases and disappearing more or less in a lot of places when their culture seamed to develop very strongly, in fact melting very often with local people – the anthropological remnants are heavier in central-southern Germany , Eastern France, regions of Switzerland, Bohemia, north-eastern Italy – but these regions of western Europe saw the Urnfields movements too... (the 'dinaric' impact in Balkans could be linked to earlier and later hictoric facts if this human type is there a regional « product ») - I regret the lack of a teeths surveys taking gender in account for ALL the BBs places and if possible, separated into periods and places -
some problems of interpretation :
teeth strontium : it proves movements, it does not link to any phenotype or gene, only to geography – the same family of elite can send its genes very far and return sometimes, the changes in the strontium do not create changes in the genes or teeths features of descendance without crossing – (relative) homogeneity in teeths of males compared to relative heterogeneity in teeths of females does not prove movements of females only – I believe it is males that goes to gather females in differentes places an that send them with themselves after, I have some difficulty to figure out female potters wandering from place to place with their skills on their own choice -
added conclusions: the way of spots-colonisation of the BBs explains they could have been NO INITIAL LINK with Y-R1b bearers- they was drown in a sea of preceding peoples! - Y-R1Bs was "pupils", and some R1b-SNPs came before them and others after them I think -
I think too that 'capellid' and 'brünn' and other so called 'indo-afghans' and 'eurafrican' types are closely related in past, encompassing maybe (male Y-DNA: not too reliable) Y-I and Y-J bearers (remote cousins) arriving in WESTERN Europe only about the 10000/7000 BC... - for EASTERN Europe, Y6I could be older, no problem for me - the 'dinaric' case could be either a brachycephalization occurred in Central Europe (6000/5000 BC???) in ligneages dominated by Y-I2a1b and maybe Y-I2a2, or by a process of specific hybridation between bearers of 'capelloid' traits (I, northern J) and a brachycephalic element ('alpine', 'borreby' = maybe already Y-R1b?, producing shapes where was almost always present the occiput flattening, but where faces are broader and bonier under 'borreby' influence' and tinyer and narrower under 'alpine' influence??? all guesses! all the way every evolution give way to an hybridation between old non-mutated genes and newly mutated ones! there is raciation process when a newly mutated gene become the more spred one - the difference is that in the internal process for 'dinaric' we can support an only cranial evolution with same previous face, when in the crossing process wa would see trandformed faces and skull, with brachycephaly ('alpine'/'borreby'dominant for skull and leptoprosopy dominant for face ('capellid' whoever the subtype) - rhe role of Y-E1b is still to understand but I notice that among Kosovars where it is the more important, are more mesocephalic than truly brachycephalic

 

[MOESAN]

Portugal and Galicia seams having more Y-I2a2 than Spain as a whole - it is a pity that in surveys for Iberia Y-I2a1a and Y-I2a1b are rarely separated!!!

 

[sparkey]

Portugal and Galicia seams having more Y-I2a2 than Spain as a whole - it is a pity that in surveys for Iberia Y-I2a1a and Y-I2a1b are rarely separated!!!

I2a1b in Iberia would be really surprising.

 

[MOESAN]

I2a1b in Iberia would be really surprising.

perhaps - me, i would not be too amazed -
I think it would be rare enough, but i do not see any good reason for it would be completely absent, because we saw that some small human groups wandered very well and far during antiquity (and surely long before) -
my interest would be (if my BBs theory holds, and I know it could fall in pieces as well) to see the possible or surely difference of destiny between Y-I1a1A and Y-I1a1B bearers taken in their bulk - this last HG could be linked to movements beginning in Chalcolithic and touring Europe as never, taking more than a road (Eastern Adriatic >> Mediterranea, Danaw,Rhône, Seine and Rhine rivers, Atlantic and Channel) when its cousin was (maybe by some of the same roads) settled in Western Europe very longer time ago (Mesolithic I suppose if not older but here the ground is unsafe)
concerning Iberia, the metal period saw very well attested cultural and phenotypical (but diverse) influences coming from Eastern Mediterranea - before metal, the megalithic culture could have had some ties with East also, even if tinyer

 

[MOESAN]

"maybe BY some of the same roads" >> "maybe THROUGH some of the same roads" (my bad english!) - about mt-DNA I red that mt-K could have been introduced in Western France at the very late Paleolithic or very early Mesolithic - if true it could confirm people movements between Paleo and Neolithic, what I believe for a long time (link with Y-I in Western Europe?)

 

[MOESAN]

1. The survival of Cro-Magnon people until today in Western Europe becomes more questionable now, since no Cro-Mag skull has been found from the much more recent Combe-Capelle time.

just a detail:
there has not been found any typical Cro-magnon type in Europe in Mesolithic but we found a lot of people of reduced stature (but robust) where according to the tribes and places one can see typical cromagnoid features, as opposed to more brünnoid or capellid features, very easy to recognize too (even for the body, limbs, but shorter) - at an individual scale, typical cromagnoid "heads" can still be found today, principally in Western and Northern Europe, but not only there - in North and North-East we see more often the 'borreby's features, derived, I think - the so called 'loung barrows' type showed (and shows yet among individuals in Wales by instance) FOR ME a noticeable weight of (reduced) cromagnon influences, mixed with some lighter capelloid traits, of local (reduced in stature, not in solidity: aquitain) and far (not so reduced for stature: cappadocian-I-afghan more beaknosed) origin - ir is very possible that borreby should be for the most of Cro-magnon origin as Teviec was - old mediterranean types owe a lot to cromagnoid (low eye-sockets, low crania, short upper-face, broad enough jaw, long legs with a solid broad enough trunk (chest))- it is true that today every dolichocephalic pigmented small mediterranean show a mixture between the two basic types: cromagnoid and capelloid, according to the trait you choice to distinguish them - but there are regional differences of distributions of these types-
I add that if Cro-Magnon (not capelloids) descendants stayed in Europe during the LGM, I find very normal that in isolated regions the type can evolve in sub-types: the contrary would have been anormal!!!
I stop here because trying to interpretate the different means of regional Mesolithic peoples could take a very long time, and I believe I can bore someones
to answer you answer, yes, it is possible that cromagnoid cousins should be stayed in SIberian corners... I do not know

 

[MOESAN]

I add that the very common 'leptomorphic' term and its opposie terms are very misleading terms in anthropology if not for medical purposes - today, almost all the young people of "well economically evolved" countries would be classified in 'leptomorphic': its a way-of-life evolution (lack or oxygenation, lack of physical activity) - but even like that, differences are ssaid: 'very-broad' and middle-narrow' !!! the same for long legged and short legged people!