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

Old question :
Links between metrics and haplogroups :
everybody knows there is no straight link between these two things because the autosomals (coding genes) are submitted partly to natural selection - OK – but it is erroneous to say there is no possible correlation at all. Because in the natural way of reproduction the chromosome Y is transmitted the same time as the others chromosomes, and if for every of us our chromosomes are transmitted independently the one from another, in a population there are statistical correlations between them, even if a derive can take place after a lot of generations. Other thing: phenotype coding genes (alleles) can have very old versions (somebody says that on a forum) and if the distribution of some of the phenotypes can vary quickly (in comparison to the age of our specie) it is not to say that the genes involved in this variation are new mutation. So, some presently divergent populations but from the same ancient roots, despite their now different Y-haplogroups (divergent but not since a so long time, recent enough branching) can have liven a long time in the same area before go away and carry some common physical traits.
Long introduction, I know.
Well, I remember the old 'planocciptal brachycephal 'Dinarics' associated by some ones to the Bell Beakers People (imprecise naming) and the laughing at them also. Maybe it would be better do not eliminate sources like that even if we have to be careful in our interpretations. Bell Beakers* appeared on two fronts but just at the same time, the passage from late Neolithic to Chalcolithic. At the same time a new phenotype of tall brachycephalics appeared in a lot of places of Western Europe, true type (with some homozygoty) or tight combination between two types (very hard to prove), all that in a relatively short time. Some meso-brachycephalic people, at the first sight different form metissages with 'alpines', was found in the S.O.M. Area, neolithic for the culture, but just before the Chalcolithic. It would be interessant to knew if they were coming from a foreign place? They was mixed with a very rough type, mesocephalic (crossing between brachycephalic 'cro-magnoids' on the way to true 'borreby' and some dolichocephalic 'brünnoids' or 'combe-capelloids'). By the way, these types was found in a large region between Eastern Ile-de-France, Champagne, Lorraine, Wallonia and Western Germany, were someones claim to have determined the famous bony 'Lorraine type' that presents likenesses with a lot of mesolithic types and the 'dinaric' at the same time. What I believe is that 'Dinaric' is a true phenotype and that we have to explain is “recent” presence in our lands.
The trade of 'commercial prestige kit' associated with Bell Beakers can not explain for me the all Bell beakers settlements. What is sure is that if they gave their cultural traits to 'aborigene' peoples, there was people themselves, “flesh and bones” and it is sure it was found traces of 'dinaric' types in more that one Bell beaker settlement, in Spain, in France, England, Scotland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and Central Europe. Sure is also the fact they were a metallurgist community traveling by sea but also going through mountains passes, and settling in minerals areas. Going and coming quickly and far and keeping remote connections (archeology and the study of teeth confirms that). Sure the people carrying that culture was not “pure” 'dinaric types' but this phenotype was very important in the mixture.
What I' m trying to do now is to find a link between this curious type and some haplogroups, Y-I2a2 in first place, maybe someones of the Y-G. Where do we find a lot of 'dinarics' today? At the frontier between Dalmatian Croatia and Herzegovina. Ancient Yugoslavia as a whole presents a lot of 'dinarics', and some places in the Balkans are not to poor of them. A lot of that types is found in the Carpathians mountains of Romania. According to studies there are plots of partially 'dinaric' population, in the Grison Alps of Switzerland (Rhaetian romance speakers), in the Austrian and Italian Tyrol, not far from the Inn river, some traces in Bohemia, Baviera, Poland Carpathes, Western Ukraina, Moldavia, South Hungary, Ghegs of Northern Albania, Epire Grecs, Central Turkey. I see myself some 'dinaric' influence in South of the Massif Central of France (Vivarais, Rouergue, S. Auvergne), in Lorraine, Franche-Comté, some parts of Burgundy, Dauphiné Alps, as in Italian Piemonte. Someones found some traces also on the Northern coasts of Spain, Pyrenees, and I think in Southern Portugal and Cadiz region too. I found some types among Frisons and Eastern Scots without speaking about Caucasus-Armenia-Kurdistan.


I stop here, letting who wants to answer. I shall develop after this very venturous (that is what makes it interesting?) thread. A lot of (too partial?) data exists but scattered in differences human sciences

I have wondered too why the dinaric skeletons of Bell Beakers are so rarely visible in todays populations of western europe. I think it is not less valid to look for corellations between Y-HG and a particular trait, than to look for corellations between two different Y-HGs.
Regarding Haplogroup Y-I2a2 corellation, at least Italy may already represent an exception, because it has dinarics but almost no I2. I've also read once in a forum that anthopologists classified the ancient romans (R1b+J2?) as dinarics. I'm not sure because they were rather short statued. But maybe this was due to their lifestyle. Ancient Roman population was exposed to lead due to its water supply. As for dinarids in general, one should not forget the Caucasus, Anatolia (R1b, J2?) and Kurdistan (I2a2?). Well, I have no real answers to your question, just food for more discussion.

ElHorsto said:

Seems like metrics becomes fashioned again in some forums. Well, nevertheless I admit to have wondered too why the dinaric skeletons of Bell Beakers are so rarely visible in todays populations of western europe. I think it is not less valid to look for corellations between Y-HG and a particular trait, than to look for corellations between two different Y-HGs.
Regarding Haplogroup Y-I2a2 corellation, at least Italy may already represent an exception, because it has dinarics but almost no I2. I've also read once in a forum that anthopologists classified the ancient romans (R1b+J2?) as dinarics. I'm not sure because they were rather short statued. But maybe this was due to their lifestyle. Ancient Roman population was exposed to lead due to its water supply. As for dinarids in general, one should not forget the Caucasus, Anatolia (R1b, J2?) and Kurdistan (I2a2?). Well, I have no real answers to your question, just food for more discussion.

Click to expand...

Romans are descendants of the ancient Etruscans. Do you remember the story of Romulus and Remus? It is the birth of the Roman empire. Ancient Etruscans were Aryan J2 folks and they came from West Asia!

Also, Kurds in general are much bigger than their neighbors. Kurds are known by their neighbors as 'warrior' folks, because they are known for their posture and their fighting skills.

Small folks can't be warriors, because they are not strong and tough enough. And they have not enough straight in the battles. While big folks would survive much easier in deadly battles. That's why Kurds have that reputation!

Romans are descendants of the ancient Etruscans. Do you remember the story of Romulus and Remus? Ancient Etruscans were Aryan J2 folks and they came from West Asia!

Click to expand...

Romans partialy descended form etruscans -who weren't aryans nor IE-, but they were mainly "latini" (italic IE) Romans "ate" etruscan territory and latinized their inhabitants. In the first century a.D etruscan language was virtualy extinct.

Segia2 said:

Romans partialy descended form etruscans -who weren't aryans nor IE-, but they were mainly "latini" (italic IE) Romans "ate" etruscan territory and latinized their inhabitants. In the first century a.D etruscan language was virtualy extinct.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter which language Etruscans spoke scientists took their ancient DNA recently and they found out that they were J2 folks from West Asia. West Asia is a homeland of 'Aryan' (Hurro-Iranic) people. According to me J2 is a 'true' Aryan haplogroup. It was part of all greatest ancient civilizations on earth. Think about the ancient Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Indian (Indus valley), Jews etc. and even European, like Greece and Roman empire. I believe that the Roman empire would never exist without J2 haplogorup! And I'm not even talking about many Iranic empires of Zoroastrians!

So it doesn't matter what language they spoke, the thing is that they were all J2 folks from West Asia!


The story of the Roman Empire begins with Romulus and Remus, the founders of ROME!

"Traditional scholarship says the wolf-figure is Etruscan, 5th century BC, with figures of Romulus and Remus added in the 15th century by Antonio Pollaiuolo."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus

Etruscans were the FOUNDING FATHERS of the ROman Empire!

Ethnicities are composed by different "hgs" and cultural elements. There is no such a thing as "aryan marker", there were aryans who carried -for sure- different hg's, phenotypes, and so on. But, without any doubt, they spoke an IE language. Etruscans didn't do it, so they could hardly be aryans.

ME region has been populated by several peoples, with different languages and cultures. J2 is only a genetic marker widespread all along the caucasoid world. There were J2 IE, semitic, etruscan, sumerian etc..carriers.

Segia2 said:

Ethnicities are composed by different "hgs" and cultural elements. There is no such a thing as "aryan marker", there were aryans who carried -for sure- different hg's, phenotypes, and so on. But, without any doubt, they spoke an IE language. Etruscans didn't do it, so they could hardly be aryans.

ME region has been populated by several peoples, with different languages and cultures. J2 is only a genetic marker widespread all along the caucasoid world. There were J2 IE, semitic, etruscan, sumerian etc..carriers.

Click to expand...

The biggest prove according to me that hg. R* was not really an important part of the ancient Aryans is the ancient Aryan world in Egypt and in India.

In Egypt there's almost no R1a (R1b neither) and in India there's almost no R1b.
So if R1a was Aryan you would find a lot R1a in Egypt and if R1b was part of the ancient Aryans we would find a lot of R1b in India.
But in contrary, the only common marker that we can find in both countries is J2 and G!

It is just a coincident that folks that wrote Rig Veda spoke an IE language. Some Aryans spoke an IE languages and some Caucasian languages. Take Georgians for instance, according to me they're descendants of Aryan folks, but they don't speak an IE language! The same case was the with the Etruscans. They didn't speak an IE language but they were closely related to the Hurrians (the modern Georgians). Actually they were just a branch of the ancient Hurrians, like the modern Georgians are nowadays…

In Egypt there's almost no R1a (R1b neither) and in India there's almost no R1b.
So if R1a was Aryan you would find a lot R1a in Egypt and if R1b was part of the ancient Aryans we would find a lot of R1b in India.
But in contrary, the only common marker that we can find in both countries is J2 and G!

Click to expand...

When Egypt has been an aryan country? Never! As I wrote above, don't link hgs and ethnicities. Ireland is IE and it's mainly R1b, Basque Country also peaks R1b, but euskara is a non IE language, and so on...J peaks in semitic countries, but it is also important in parts of Europe..

Make a list of the IE speaking (a really big list) countries and compare their hg's. Do the same with semitics. You won't find a common pattern that leads you to label a hg as exclusive or originary.

Aryans spoke an IE language, and it's not only the Rig Veda. Persians, medians and others knew writting too, they did it in an IE language and they identified themselves as aryans (this is very important, because non IE speakers as sumerians, semitics, etruscans or hurrians never called themselves aryan)

I think that R1b has absolutely nothing to do with the ancient so called Aryans. Somehow it is only correlated with the modern West European population, but not with folks from the ancient civilizations. Possible some Aryanised subclades of R1a, but I've very big questions! There's almost no R1a in Egypt.


Of course there's a lot J2 in Semitic countries. Why? Because J2 IS from West Asia.
Hg. IJ and later J* was evolved somewhere in Northwest Asia. Of course these proto Aryans would influence (due to invasions/ raids) the Semitic speaking folks in the South.
Egypt was many times ruled by the ancient Aryans dynasties from West Asia! Egyptians pharaohs had close contacts with folks from Babylon, Mitanni, Kassites etc.
Also before the Arab (Islamic) conquests in the Middle East, Aryans ruled the whole Middle East, with Egypt included. Of course the so called Aryans would leave their (Aryan) marker/imprint in the whole Middle East! Duh...


Semitic speakers are only known for their hg. E and some subclades of J1!

Semitic languages = Afro + Asiatic = hg. E from Africa + hg. J1 from SOUTHwest Asia (next to Africa)!

Semitic languages have absolutely nothing to do with hg. J2, since J2 is from NORTHwest Asia!

Segia2 said:

Romans partialy descended form etruscans -who weren't aryans nor IE-, but they were mainly "latini" (italic IE) Romans "ate" etruscan territory and latinized their inhabitants. In the first century a.D etruscan language was virtualy extinct.

Click to expand...

The earliest Romans were a mix of Latins and Sabines.

Etruscans were mostly the craftsmen of the city.
There was even a VICUS TUSCUS or Etruscan Quarter near the Forum which indicates that Etruscans were seen as OUTSIDERS in Rome.

Direct and indirect Greek influence was important in Roman culture from the earliest period.
The Tarquin dynasty was partly Corinthian Greek and moved to Rome because being of mixed parentage they could not rise to the highest positions in Etruscan society.

Goga said:

Romans are descendants of the ancient Etruscans. Do you remember the story of Romulus and Remus? It is the birth of the Roman empire. Ancient Etruscans were Aryan J2 folks and they came from West Asia!

Also, Kurds in general are much bigger than their neighbors. Kurds are known by their neighbors as 'warrior' folks, because they are known for their posture and their fighting skills.

Small folks can't be warriors, because they are not strong and tough enough. And they have not enough straight in the battles. While big folks would survive much easier in deadly battles. That's why Kurds have that reputation!

Click to expand...

nope Etruscans were not Aryan
Aryan means IE and etruscans were not,

about short or tall warriors, has nothing to do,
a short one moves faster and has less body exposed,
in fact small folks can also have better oxygen to their parts etc,

height has nothing to do with fighting skill,

Goga said:

The biggest prove according to me that hg. R* was not really an important part of the ancient Aryans is the ancient Aryan world in Egypt and in India.

In Egypt there's almost no R1a (R1b neither) and in India there's almost no R1b.
So if R1a was Aryan you would find a lot R1a in Egypt and if R1b was part of the ancient Aryans we would find a lot of R1b in India.
But in contrary, the only common marker that we can find in both countries is J2 and G!

It is just a coincident that folks that wrote Rig Veda spoke an IE language. Some Aryans spoke an IE languages and some Caucasian languages. Take Georgians for instance, according to me they're descendants of Aryan folks, but they don't speak an IE language! The same case was the with the Etruscans. They didn't speak an IE language but they were closely related to the Hurrians (the modern Georgians). Actually they were just a branch of the ancient Hurrians, like the modern Georgians are nowadays…

Click to expand...

that is why Egypt is not Aryan, not IE
and that is why India is IE but not Aryan

Goga said:

R1b has absolutely nothing to do with the ancient Aryans. Possible some Aryanized subclades of R1a, but I've very big questions! There's amost no R1a in Egypt!


Of course there's a lot J2 in Semitic countries. Why? Because J2 IS from West Asia.
Hg. IJ and later J* was evolved somewhere in Northwest Asia. Of course these proto Aryans would influence (due to invasions/ raids) the Semitic speaking folks in the South.
Egypt was many times ruled by the ancient Aryans dynasties from West Asia! Egyptians pharaohs had close contacts with folks from Babylon, Mitanni, Kassites etc.
Also before the Arab (Islamic) conquests in the Middle East, Aryans ruled the whole Middle East, with Egypt included. Of course the so called Aryans would leave their (Aryan) marker/imprint in the whole Middle East! Duh...


Semitic speakers are only known for their hg. E and some subclades of J1!

Click to expand...

But what I know R1b L40 if I am correct is indeed an IE speaker which occupied Minor Asia,

Although I agree with you about J2, J2 is a mystery since is expand from India to Europe via south path, and is in Big % in the LPIE the Greco-Aryan
the roll of J2 is something which must be searched,

Semitism has also to do with muslimization of Areas.

Goga said:

Romans are descendants of the ancient Etruscans. Do you remember the story of Romulus and Remus? It is the birth of the Roman empire. Ancient Etruscans were Aryan J2 folks and they came from West Asia!

Also, Kurds in general are much bigger than their neighbors. Kurds are known by their neighbors as 'warrior' folks, because they are known for their posture and their fighting skills.

Small folks can't be warriors, because they are not strong and tough enough. And they have not enough straight in the battles. While big folks would survive much easier in deadly battles. That's why Kurds have that reputation!

Click to expand...

etruscans had a high G2 as well

zanipolo said:

etruscans had a high G2 as well

Click to expand...

Ok thanks. But it is possible that haplogroup G already settled in Italy before J2 arrived.

Is there a coincident that - agricultural river Nile delta cultures, the Indus river, Tiber river in Europe, Tigris & Euphrates - all these rivers created huge civilizations?

And it all happened after a rapid expansion of J2 (and maybe G) folks.

metrics, old anthropology and haplogroups

ElHorsto said:

I have wondered too why the dinaric skeletons of Bell Beakers are so rarely visible in todays populations of western europe. I think it is not less valid to look for corellations between Y-HG and a particular trait, than to look for corellations between two different Y-HGs.
Regarding Haplogroup Y-I2a2 corellation, at least Italy may already represent an exception, because it has dinarics but almost no I2. I've also read once in a forum that anthopologists classified the ancient romans (R1b+J2?) as dinarics. I'm not sure because they were rather short statued. But maybe this was due to their lifestyle. Ancient Roman population was exposed to lead due to its water supply. As for dinarids in general, one should not forget the Caucasus, Anatolia (R1b, J2?) and Kurdistan (I2a2?). Well, I have no real answers to your question, just food for more discussion.

Click to expand...

Metrics, classical anthropology and haplogroups


Oops !
My thread has taken off and is going on every side !


My first aim was to speak about possible statistical links between global phenotypes and HG's. And I focused on the 'Bell Beakers' interesting period.
But I'll answer to some things. 1- Roman people is a vague term. In the previous 'patricians' (nobility) there was a mixt of so called 'mediterraneans' and a few 'nordics' and a few 'dinarics' according to COON and someones else. COON wrote their nobility was small enough (1m65) and in its mixture present often enough low mesocephalic cranes with high eye-sockets not unlike the Celtic ruling class of the Iron age and not unlike other people like previous Slavs and previous Scythes. This stature ('mediterraneans' phenotypes of this period was 1m60-1m62 high) do not give a preponderant play to 'nordics' or 'dinarics'. These first 'true Italic' people mixed with anterior population (Mesolithics and Neolithics) and with the colonizing Greeks I the South. (HG Y-J2, Y-G2 and Y-E1b was present yet among these two previous populations – I believe that Italics send a lot of Y-R1b(U156+old P312) with them, and a few other HG's, “won” on their way to Central Italy. Difficult to be more precise without magic crystal globe. Etruscans for what I know (it can change) was a ruling elite of Anatolian people (yet almost the same HG's: Y-J2 (a kind of) and Y-G2 , the DNA mt seams to confirm this origin plus some Near Eastern influences. They speake almost surely a non indo-european language that shows affinity in some Helladic islands language, maybe a cousin of Caucasian languages.
Another answer of mine: even the small statured people can be very aggressive an warlike people in a part of their history: it is to simplistic, I think, to associate the phenotypic stature to a collective deportment. Man's size plays a role inside a collectivity, not outside. Remember the Huns!!!


To come back to the thread I'll speak about Europe only.
As I said before I think an adapted phenotype can be ancient enough and suit to different HG's if this HG's are born by people living side by side and intermarrying for a very long time in a region. For 'dinaric' features we can believe that it was a common enough trait among some populations of South-Eastern Europe since the late Neolithic times and also in the Caucasus and Anatolia region (I think 'dinaric' types was part of the mixing among Assyrians, and went southward with the Gouteans and other Caucasus people. Hittites people according to the not too reliable Egyptian pictures was more 'alpine'like. In short terms: if Y-I2a2 of the Balkans seams to be tightly attached to 'dinaric' features (as a whole), it could be the same for Caucasus Y-G2. That could explain the generally partial 'dinaric' and the totally individual 'dinaric' types we found in some parts of Western Europe, yet from Neolithic times? Today, 'dinaric' features are very present in Tyrol, Swiss Grisons, but also in Venitian districts, in the Western Alps as a whole, in South Massif Central in France. In these regions, Y-G2 is present, and in some of them, it found Y-I2a2 too. 'dinaric' features is not to say ”pure dinaric phenotype”, but some features like the planoccipital cut could be genetically dominant phenotypical features, with a percentage bigger than the true weight of the global phenotype in the population... Here I am talking about Y-G2 matured in Caucasus – other Y-G2 population living in others areas can be different in some degrees and not typically 'dinaric' - genes are exchanged in the mixed population and with derive some features can be acquired or lost with time – but it is possible also that G2s men of Caucasus or Anatolia kept their features even when colonizing other lands. I say that because when we find 'dinaric' influence in region without Y-I2a2 we find Y-G2 in place. Bell-Beakers culture(s) profile appears to be culturally linked to the Anatolian and Near East regions. The closer could be the Cucuteni/Tripolje cultures (Neolithic and Post-beolithic) where East Mediterranean and Anatolian people met an apparently (yes I know, there is no certainties) 'dinaric' people: I'am not aware of 'dinaric phenotypes' settlement found in the buries of these periods but today, the second peak for 'dinarics' is in the Carpathians mountains of Romania ( a lot of Y-I2a2 men) , and the influence of the type is not negligible in West Ukraina, Moldavia. Some traces can be seen in the Carpathian mountains of Sloavakia and Poland too! Scholars first findings for 'dinaric' skeletons are in Western Europe (Denmark, Germany) and others speak about 'taurid' types (a kind or 'dinaric' closer to the so called 'armenian-touranian' one) coming in the Capathian Bassin at the Bronze Age with the Celts (I don't approve) from the West. I don't manage imagining the 'dinaric types' coming form the West, I rather see their cradle in Eastern-Europe/Caucasus area or Czechoslovakia,(after, BUT also DURING the LGM there was more people living in central Europe than in the Dinaric Alps of Yougoslavia, and there was some settlements in the Carpathians highlands, in Ukraina too I suppose because I have no data on this last region) 'dinaric' features are not rare in some Northern population of Afghanistan (Tadjiks), and among Kurds and Armenians. What is of some importance also is that we find some 'dinaric' influences on skeletons mixed with so called 'proto-nordic-cromagnoid' (strange words!: another thread to open?) people in burials (Indo-European Proto-Scythes?) in Western Siberia. And some scholars find some Y-I2a2 among a lot of Y-R1a in skeletons of the apparently same ancient population. Today Y-I2a2 is present (but not dominant) in almost all the Slavic population (the lowest: Poland as a whole) – It is not to say it is the founder HG of the Slavic peoples! But its presence North of the Caucasus and East the Carpathes seams to make a linking agent ( a “bridge” in the mixing of populations) in the propagation of Metal Cultures from Anatolia and the permanent presence of 'dinarics' influence in these countries put me to think to the link Y-I2a2 (and Y-G2? - not so evident) <> 'dinaric' phenotype.
There are traces of a few Y-I2a2 in Ireland and Britain. COON found a majority of typical 'dinarics' among people of the 'Food Vessels' Culture (Calcho-Bronze) and in South, Eastern England and Eastern Scotland with the 'Bell beakers' complex a big percentage of brachycephalic 'dinarics' mixed with fewer brachycephalic 'borreby' (he thought) and yet fewer 'Cordé' types (true dolichocephalic steppes people tall: a kind of 'nordics' with maybe an admixture of brutal 'brünns' and some indo-afghan' types?) - what is interesting is that there was 'Food Vessels' people landing in Western Britain and in Scotland: and in Scotland, the mean is between the Irish measurements and the English ones. 'Food Vessels' ones, purer 'dinaric', are linked by COON and others with Portugal-Spanish cultures of the same period, and 'Bell-beakers' (metissages) are closer to the Rhine beaker cultures of the same period too. Today (in rural districts!) the 'dinaric' phénotype is perceptible in Eastern Scotland (South Aberdeen/Fifeshire) and some features are found in Ireland too (very diluted). I find very interesting the fact that it is found some Y-I2a2 (and Y-I2b) in Northern Ireland and in Scotland today! It appears that the Iron Age intrusions in the Isles was not the great age of 'dinarics' compared to the 'Calcholithic-Bronze' ages. It could explain why the first 'masters' was pushed Northward by the new ones. But it is said now that Scottish (Picts/Cruithni?) people landed so in Northern ireland: two possible explanations for the same fact. There are battles to measure the reliable age of haplotypes (I am not too comfident in these evaluations) and someones tell that I2a2 “isles” is older than the I2a2 of the Balkans. But as says Maciamo the great age of an 'haplo' don't prove its ancient presence in a place.
Maybe the 'dinaric' like people with a high percentage of I2a was living previously between central Europe (Czechoslovakia) + Carpathians highlands? And their intermediary position, after a first acculturation by agricultural peoples of Anatolia and some metissages, gave them a central role in the trade between Western Europe and Near East. They could have had a role too in the propagation of secondary Indo-European languages? What is sure, they HAD a role in the propagation of metal working, by the Croatia (first 'Bell Beakers' of Eastern Europe) – This position central gave them the possibility of using the Danube river Westward AND Eastward, and the Tyrrhenian Sea between Italy and Dalmatia. The weight of 'dinaric' types is appreciable too among the first Hellene Greeks.
I suppose (for a while, before more informations) that they was the link between Indo-European dialects of the big cultural-commercial-center of Romania-Ukraina region, and predate the individualisation of the Celtic, Italic and Germanic languages. The Cucuteni-Triploje culture region stays for me the place where an Indo-European culture could arise, mayby by the melting of Finno-Ougric and Alarodian (Caucasic) languages... a lot of “mayby”'s, just a disgression from the central problem of western 'dinarics and Y-I2a2...
They remaind things to say about the continental place of origin of the British Bell Beakers and the
first apparitions of 'dinaric' types in France. The question is vast enough yet.
Take a rest after this heavy reading!

Goga said:

Ok thanks. But it is possible that haplogroup G already settled in Italy before J2 arrived.

Is there a coincident that - agricultural river Nile delta cultures, the Indus river, Tiber river in Europe, Tigris & Euphrates - all these rivers created huge civilizations?

And it all happened after a rapid expansion of J2 (and maybe G) folks.

Click to expand...

err..........when people migrate like the etruscans, they would have brought G2 and J2 and other minor HGs.
Same as when Goths migrated, apart form I they would have had R1a as well.

Never assume that tribes where only 1 Hg

MOESAN said:

Metrics, classical anthropology and haplogroups


Oops !
My thread has taken off and is going on every side !


My first aim was to speak about possible statistical links between global phenotypes and HG's. And I focused on the 'Bell Beakers' interesting period.
But I'll answer to some things. 1- Roman people is a vague term. In the previous 'patricians' (nobility) there was a mixt of so called 'mediterraneans' and a few 'nordics' and a few 'dinarics' according to COON and someones else. COON wrote their nobility was small enough (1m65) and in its mixture present often enough low mesocephalic cranes with high eye-sockets not unlike the Celtic ruling class of the Iron age and not unlike other people like previous Slavs and previous Scythes. This stature ('mediterraneans' phenotypes of this period was 1m60-1m62 high) do not give a preponderant play to 'nordics' or 'dinarics'. These first 'true Italic' people mixed with anterior population (Mesolithics and Neolithics) and with the colonizing Greeks I the South. (HG Y-J2, Y-G2 and Y-E1b was present yet among these two previous populations – I believe that Italics send a lot of Y-R1b(U156+old P312) with them, and a few other HG's, “won” on their way to Central Italy. Difficult to be more precise without magic crystal globe. Etruscans for what I know (it can change) was a ruling elite of Anatolian people (yet almost the same HG's: Y-J2 (a kind of) and Y-G2 , the DNA mt seams to confirm this origin plus some Near Eastern influences. They speake almost surely a non indo-european language that shows affinity in some Helladic islands language, maybe a cousin of Caucasian languages.
Another answer of mine: even the small statured people can be very aggressive an warlike people in a part of their history: it is to simplistic, I think, to associate the phenotypic stature to a collective deportment. Man's size plays a role inside a collectivity, not outside. Remember the Huns!!!


To come back to the thread I'll speak about Europe only.
As I said before I think an adapted phenotype can be ancient enough and suit to different HG's if this HG's are born by people living side by side and intermarrying for a very long time in a region. For 'dinaric' features we can believe that it was a common enough trait among some populations of South-Eastern Europe since the late Neolithic times and also in the Caucasus and Anatolia region (I think 'dinaric' types was part of the mixing among Assyrians, and went southward with the Gouteans and other Caucasus people. Hittites people according to the not too reliable Egyptian pictures was more 'alpine'like. In short terms: if Y-I2a2 of the Balkans seams to be tightly attached to 'dinaric' features (as a whole), it could be the same for Caucasus Y-G2. That could explain the generally partial 'dinaric' and the totally individual 'dinaric' types we found in some parts of Western Europe, yet from Neolithic times? Today, 'dinaric' features are very present in Tyrol, Swiss Grisons, but also in Venitian districts, in the Western Alps as a whole, in South Massif Central in France. In these regions, Y-G2 is present, and in some of them, it found Y-I2a2 too. 'dinaric' features is not to say ”pure dinaric phenotype”, but some features like the planoccipital cut could be genetically dominant phenotypical features, with a percentage bigger than the true weight of the global phenotype in the population... Here I am talking about Y-G2 matured in Caucasus – other Y-G2 population living in others areas can be different in some degrees and not typically 'dinaric' - genes are exchanged in the mixed population and with derive some features can be acquired or lost with time – but it is possible also that G2s men of Caucasus or Anatolia kept their features even when colonizing other lands. I say that because when we find 'dinaric' influence in region without Y-I2a2 we find Y-G2 in place. Bell-Beakers culture(s) profile appears to be culturally linked to the Anatolian and Near East regions. The closer could be the Cucuteni/Tripolje cultures (Neolithic and Post-beolithic) where East Mediterranean and Anatolian people met an apparently (yes I know, there is no certainties) 'dinaric' people: I'am not aware of 'dinaric phenotypes' settlement found in the buries of these periods but today, the second peak for 'dinarics' is in the Carpathians mountains of Romania ( a lot of Y-I2a2 men) , and the influence of the type is not negligible in West Ukraina, Moldavia. Some traces can be seen in the Carpathian mountains of Sloavakia and Poland too! Scholars first findings for 'dinaric' skeletons are in Western Europe (Denmark, Germany) and others speak about 'taurid' types (a kind or 'dinaric' closer to the so called 'armenian-touranian' one) coming in the Capathian Bassin at the Bronze Age with the Celts (I don't approve) from the West. I don't manage imagining the 'dinaric types' coming form the West, I rather see their cradle in Eastern-Europe/Caucasus area or Czechoslovakia,(after, BUT also DURING the LGM there was more people living in central Europe than in the Dinaric Alps of Yougoslavia, and there was some settlements in the Carpathians highlands, in Ukraina too I suppose because I have no data on this last region) 'dinaric' features are not rare in some Northern population of Afghanistan (Tadjiks), and among Kurds and Armenians. What is of some importance also is that we find some 'dinaric' influences on skeletons mixed with so called 'proto-nordic-cromagnoid' (strange words!: another thread to open?) people in burials (Indo-European Proto-Scythes?) in Western Siberia. And some scholars find some Y-I2a2 among a lot of Y-R1a in skeletons of the apparently same ancient population. Today Y-I2a2 is present (but not dominant) in almost all the Slavic population (the lowest: Poland as a whole) – It is not to say it is the founder HG of the Slavic peoples! But its presence North of the Caucasus and East the Carpathes seams to make a linking agent ( a “bridge” in the mixing of populations) in the propagation of Metal Cultures from Anatolia and the permanent presence of 'dinarics' influence in these countries put me to think to the link Y-I2a2 (and Y-G2? - not so evident) <> 'dinaric' phenotype.
There are traces of a few Y-I2a2 in Ireland and Britain. COON found a majority of typical 'dinarics' among people of the 'Food Vessels' Culture (Calcho-Bronze) and in South, Eastern England and Eastern Scotland with the 'Bell beakers' complex a big percentage of brachycephalic 'dinarics' mixed with fewer brachycephalic 'borreby' (he thought) and yet fewer 'Cordé' types (true dolichocephalic steppes people tall: a kind of 'nordics' with maybe an admixture of brutal 'brünns' and some indo-afghan' types?) - what is interesting is that there was 'Food Vessels' people landing in Western Britain and in Scotland: and in Scotland, the mean is between the Irish measurements and the English ones. 'Food Vessels' ones, purer 'dinaric', are linked by COON and others with Portugal-Spanish cultures of the same period, and 'Bell-beakers' (metissages) are closer to the Rhine beaker cultures of the same period too. Today (in rural districts!) the 'dinaric' phénotype is perceptible in Eastern Scotland (South Aberdeen/Fifeshire) and some features are found in Ireland too (very diluted). I find very interesting the fact that it is found some Y-I2a2 (and Y-I2b) in Northern Ireland and in Scotland today! It appears that the Iron Age intrusions in the Isles was not the great age of 'dinarics' compared to the 'Calcholithic-Bronze' ages. It could explain why the first 'masters' was pushed Northward by the new ones. But it is said now that Scottish (Picts/Cruithni?) people landed so in Northern ireland: two possible explanations for the same fact. There are battles to measure the reliable age of haplotypes (I am not too comfident in these evaluations) and someones tell that I2a2 “isles” is older than the I2a2 of the Balkans. But as says Maciamo the great age of an 'haplo' don't prove its ancient presence in a place.
Maybe the 'dinaric' like people with a high percentage of I2a was living previously between central Europe (Czechoslovakia) + Carpathians highlands? And their intermediary position, after a first acculturation by agricultural peoples of Anatolia and some metissages, gave them a central role in the trade between Western Europe and Near East. They could have had a role too in the propagation of secondary Indo-European languages? What is sure, they HAD a role in the propagation of metal working, by the Croatia (first 'Bell Beakers' of Eastern Europe) – This position central gave them the possibility of using the Danube river Westward AND Eastward, and the Tyrrhenian Sea between Italy and Dalmatia. The weight of 'dinaric' types is appreciable too among the first Hellene Greeks.
I suppose (for a while, before more informations) that they was the link between Indo-European dialects of the big cultural-commercial-center of Romania-Ukraina region, and predate the individualisation of the Celtic, Italic and Germanic languages. The Cucuteni-Triploje culture region stays for me the place where an Indo-European culture could arise, mayby by the melting of Finno-Ougric and Alarodian (Caucasic) languages... a lot of “mayby”'s, just a disgression from the central problem of western 'dinarics and Y-I2a2...
They remaind things to say about the continental place of origin of the British Bell Beakers and the
first apparitions of 'dinaric' types in France. The question is vast enough yet.
Take a rest after this heavy reading!

Click to expand...

I agree mostly with you, but you do leave out people which no longer exist today, when they should still be mentioned today...example your G2 from grisons, venetians and tyrolese would be the Rhaetian people.

The Romans , since they developed from Etruscans would have had G2 and J2 . I also think their victories over the sabellic people gave them the power to make an empire , but the sabellic where the different HG of the etruscans and romans .

zanipolo said:

I agree mostly with you, but you do leave out people which no longer exist today, when they should still be mentioned today...example your G2 from grisons, venetians and tyrolese would be the Rhaetian people.

The Romans , since they developed from Etruscans would have had G2 and J2 . I also think their victories over the sabellic people gave them the power to make an empire , but the sabellic where the different HG of the etruscans and romans .

Click to expand...

Thank you for taking part in this thread
Roman people was a mixed population even if we can bet that patricians are more closer to first Northern Italic people at the beginning (principal: Y-R1B-S28/U152)- for I know, i don't believe the Etruscan ethnic element was too important in the making of the Roman people of felsh and bones (outside of Toscana, even in Toscana they was a ruling elite on Italic people of the Villanova Culture: Osco Ombrians?) -
I am trying to found out a possible link between 'dinaric' phenotypes and HG's like I2a2 (strong statistical link) and perhaps G2 (questionnable) -
culturally, I do'nt link G2 to the Beakers, not at all (not in the first periods) - I think G... and upon all G2 was carried to Central Europe and Italy by more than a mean - the first one could have been 'cardial' people ( alot), by the Provence-Rhone way, and LBK Linear Pottery (a little) by Danube - to say: Neolithic people - after that, yes, for some others places in Italy and in the Rhaetian portions of Switzerland Tyrol North Eatsern Italy, I thought to Etruscans, as you and as others.
for G2 we can think to the Alani people in some parts of Europe, difficult to weight without closer subHG's.
All the way, almots all the South-Eastern Europe-Near-Eastern Y-HG's (and maybe mt) it's to say J2, J1, E1b, G2 were carried into Europe by different cultures at different times, if coming from the same big area, and without more detailed and NUMEROUS HG's (SNP's) if'll be hard to appreciate the weight of every carrier.
&: I don't speak here of individual dispersed HG's (tiny percentages) of every kind that can have been involved in a lot of events along the whole History and difficult to be attached to whatever ethny (I forget Jews very often but there was good carriers too, in little numbers)

I am trying to found out a possible link between 'dinaric' phenotypes and HG's like I2a2 (strong statistical link) and perhaps G2 (questionnable) -
culturally, I do'nt link G2 to the Beakers, not at all (not in the first periods) -

Metrics, classical anthropology and haplogroups


ANSWER 2 to the 'Metrics, classical Anthropology and haplogroups'


warning: all I am are doing here is speculations as very often (obliged by the lack of numerous data) : there are facts, but the links between them remind tiny. what I 'm doing is trying putting scattered facts found in works one together. There is no dogme here.
Trying to figure out the cristalization of Celtic cultures HUBERT wrote about a hole in the settlements of the region situated between The Netherlands and Westphalia in North-Western Germany at the same time that seamed appear the Bell-Beakers people in Britain(about -2300). Not an invasion but some spots of colonization. He thought they was the Goidelic ancestors, what can be challenged. The geographic last origin near the Rhine is proved by the analysis of the numerous enough skeletons found in Bell Beakers settlements of Britain. Upon that, an analysis of strondium component of teeth of an adult (noble? - trading man? - and is son in a burying of the Wessex region told us the father was born near the Alps Mountains (Bavaria, Switzerland, and his son in Scotland: proofs they was moving people involved in trade, linked surely to metallurgy). I'm not so sure, but I believe they were yet Indo-European speakers, maybe a kind of proto-”something” (“celto-liguro-germanic”?). The ground is unsteady here! Some scholars think that a lot of place-names in Scotland was indo-european before the attested differentiated celtic languages. The fact that the Ligurians ( remember 'Alba'/'Albion' names of Britain) spoke an indo-european language close to celtic and italic (some say, on a tiny material it's true, that ligurian was closer to celtic concerning the phonetic) and were also placed by some among the great Bell-Beaker world is not without weight. Apart, I have to say that some linguists doubt about a too close relationship between Celtic and Italic, and I so (Italic closer to Greeks language for some phonetic phenomenons?). The geographic origin of Food Vessels of Ireland at the same time is not so evident. Their skeletons was more 'dinaric', little mixed and the cultural links was with Iberia according to someones. Presently their origins is seen in the Lower Rhine Valley, as for conventional Beakers. Their individual burying with inhumation and cremation (more cremation?) put them among the 'elitist' societies of the period, like the elite of Bell Beaker but these ones prefer inhumation, as the 'Corded' people. But COON said the mixture in Britain Bell Beakers skeletons was closer to a blending than to a finished process of genetic crossing. It 's to say, the 'dinarics' there could be an elite not yet completely absorbed in the autochtones population. Bell Beakers arrived a little later there in Central and Northern Germany than in South Germany. The 'borrebys' or so called was the autochtonous people. And also there has been an indo-european language spoken in the Atlantic area of the Iberia peninsula, languages that was close to the Celtic ones but lacking the 'P-' fall, according to some scholars (Lusitanian languages? Other scholars, galician, deny a precise celtic origin to their 'Castreja Culture' without being opposed to a central European Indo-European origin). Scholars say the 'Beakers' or every kind of 'Campaniformes' appears in Europe about -2500 and their spread over Europe seams have been very fast. Invasions? maybe not, but a speedy movement as a whole. In Britain they say: about -2300/-2200. in Southern France, according to some works, the CHARLES one (1960...) among them, the first 'dinaric' skeletons appeared only at the local Chalcolithic period (-2200/-1800), the appearance of metal working or trade in Western Europe. CHARLES believed in the relatively rapid adaptation of phenotypes (I'm more dubitative), and linked the 'dinarics' to his 'neo-mediterrean' types by way of a quick adaptation of continental 'dinarics' to the seaside environment (I don't agree with this magic trick): people from Greece and Aegean sea (Hellade) for him. What is sure, the distribution of his typical 'dinarics' don't seam to be attached to tightly to the one of his 'neo-mediterraneans', neither in geography nor in chronology (for the 'dinaric' impact diminished during Bronze when 'neomediterranean impat grew regularly). It's true that the samples are tiny on this ground for a long spanning period from Eneolithic to Bronze-Iron times, covering Spain, France, Italy and Greece/Hellade. It reminds sure that the two sorts of phenotypes was foreigners in Western Mediterranee at that times. I warn you that the following percentages are only partially valuable when taken in an unique period and unique place for samples are to scarce, but as a whole they show the arriving of 1 (or 2) new population(s). The 'dinarics' types appeared in force in coastal South Languedoc (Aude/Hérault: 10,4%) before appearing in the mountainous regions of the dry chalky Causses (Aveyron/Lozère: 11,7%), and more interesting as a whole more numerous in the Dolmens (14,3%) than in the Grottes (2,6%) of the pastor neolithical population. When taking in account the Dolmens only one finds 13,8% in West and 16,9% near the Rhône, and Grottes of Grandes Causses only: 1,4%. It plaids for a foreign colonization seamingly linked to the metallurgist peoples. In Bronze times this percentages went back to 10% (coasts) and 7,5% (Causses) and it seams that there was not big arrivals of newcomers of that phenotype and that they dispatched themselves progressively from the shores to the dry highlands what is natural enough (cultural and demic osmose). In the mountainous dry inland it seams to my that more 'dinarics' went than the 'neomediterraneans' (Neo-M: very little impact but on the coasts) an that put me to imagine a Rhone next origin (East) for some of the 'dinaric' men: some went mixed (a little) with other 'Greek-Helladic' people, but some more 'dinaric' (?) went also from maybe Central Europe (Baviera?)??? If there are historians of that period on this forum?!! (I think to some Y-I2a2/Y-I2b following the Rhône southward).
Interesting enough, at the same time, these two kinds of phenotypes took a foot in Eastern Iberia with Helladic cultural traits, according to someones. It is not to say they went all of them in a tight group. Today yet 'dinaric' physical influence is more perceptible among Albania and Epire than in Eastern Greece: (Greece is very contrasted for cephalic index regionally): more than a people could be interested by far countries to supply metals. But all have a taste of 'dinaric' and all had not too remote ancestors in the creating melting pot of the Balkans. Not speaking the same languages? Uneasy to say. I-E of Europe (Kentum), I-E of Anatolia, Alarodian of Caucasus, Aegean (maybe the Aegean ones can be linked to the Alarodian ones)? Or a little of every language? For Southern France, a feel a Beaker connexion for the most of the 'dinarics', not too much a Helladic one even if it's uneasy to make sure here. I would be very glad if I had the precise I2b-I2a2 percentages in present day Aveyron/Lozère/Hérault/Gard/Ardèche departments and ancient DNA of these period in them.
Difficult to guess in details. But what I try to show is that suddenly enough at the Chalcolithic times, demic diffusion carried cultural/commercial features and new somatic traits: in every horn of this vaste world of Europe settled by them we find some decades later remnants of powerfull centers of culture/life/diffusion and relations maintained between this centers. An elite I think but also teachers making learners after? In Germany they were numerous around Rhine and in Bavaria/W.Bohem, and not only an elite. They gave phenotypical partial heritage to present day Moselle-Rhine-Main surroundings populations giving way to the famous very mixed type of 'lorrain' ('dinaric'+'borreby' I think) Maybe there was yet I-E languages before them (KOCH, ALINEI...) in Western Europe, hard to say, but this possible “teachers” seam to have preceded and “boosted” Celtic and maybe Proto-Germanic cultures (Harz/South Nieder-Sachsen/Western Thuringen?) - They had the metals skills. The present local populations of France show for me that the Rhône and Saône rivers was “avenues” for 'dinaric' phenotypes circulation. I have in mind a report mentioning that a local (old) study on Burgundy that stated that 'dinaric' phenotypes was (it's their conclusions) that about -1700, brachycephalic 'dinarics' was the most frequent type there – the authors thought they was of Campaniform cultural obediance – Surveys about the impact of Burgundian people found in present days Burgundy and the Lyon-Forez-N. Dauphiné region that the most pure and earlier settlement presented a predominently dolichocephalic impact, when following and younger settlement in the Rhône Valley and surroundings presented a more mixed mesocephalic-brachycephalic population (in sepultures). This is in link with other statements that found dolichocephalic enough means among all Germanic tribes supposed to be went down from North after Rome decline. Only Bavarians tribes showed higher cephalic index (but they are suspected to be a blend of Celtic or celtized people with 'true' Germanics). It could mean that the bulk of brachycephaly in Eastern France was in place before the true wandering times Germanics and that the more precise 'dinaric' form came there between the Chalcolithic and the Urnfield movements, coming for the most from the same regions. (other possible thread: “immediate blendings between proto-historic populations: an fateful obligation?”) - cultural melting pot where we can see the same human elements playing role of 'boosters', elements that was come there from Central-South-Eastern post-Neolithic Europe, or maybe from further East? Genetic and Anthropology can't go more in details as I know.
Sure there are some speculations here. But who knows?

MOESAN said:

Metrics, classical anthropology and haplogroups


Oops !
My thread has taken off and is going on every side !


My first aim was to speak about possible statistical links between global phenotypes and HG's. And I focused on the 'Bell Beakers' interesting period.
But I'll answer to some things. 1- Roman people is a vague term. In the previous 'patricians' (nobility) there was a mixt of so called 'mediterraneans' and a few 'nordics' and a few 'dinarics' according to COON and someones else. COON wrote their nobility was small enough (1m65) and in its mixture present often enough low mesocephalic cranes with high eye-sockets not unlike the Celtic ruling class of the Iron age and not unlike other people like previous Slavs and previous Scythes. This stature ('mediterraneans' phenotypes of this period was 1m60-1m62 high) do not give a preponderant play to 'nordics' or 'dinarics'. These first 'true Italic' people mixed with anterior population (Mesolithics and Neolithics) and with the colonizing Greeks I the South. (HG Y-J2, Y-G2 and Y-E1b was present yet among these two previous populations – I believe that Italics send a lot of Y-R1b(U156+old P312) with them, and a few other HG's, “won” on their way to Central Italy. Difficult to be more precise without magic crystal globe. Etruscans for what I know (it can change) was a ruling elite of Anatolian people (yet almost the same HG's: Y-J2 (a kind of) and Y-G2 , the DNA mt seams to confirm this origin plus some Near Eastern influences. They speake almost surely a non indo-european language that shows affinity in some Helladic islands language, maybe a cousin of Caucasian languages.
Another answer of mine: even the small statured people can be very aggressive an warlike people in a part of their history: it is to simplistic, I think, to associate the phenotypic stature to a collective deportment. Man's size plays a role inside a collectivity, not outside. Remember the Huns!!!


To come back to the thread I'll speak about Europe only.
As I said before I think an adapted phenotype can be ancient enough and suit to different HG's if this HG's are born by people living side by side and intermarrying for a very long time in a region. For 'dinaric' features we can believe that it was a common enough trait among some populations of South-Eastern Europe since the late Neolithic times and also in the Caucasus and Anatolia region (I think 'dinaric' types was part of the mixing among Assyrians, and went southward with the Gouteans and other Caucasus people. Hittites people according to the not too reliable Egyptian pictures was more 'alpine'like. In short terms: if Y-I2a2 of the Balkans seams to be tightly attached to 'dinaric' features (as a whole), it could be the same for Caucasus Y-G2. That could explain the generally partial 'dinaric' and the totally individual 'dinaric' types we found in some parts of Western Europe, yet from Neolithic times? Today, 'dinaric' features are very present in Tyrol, Swiss Grisons, but also in Venitian districts, in the Western Alps as a whole, in South Massif Central in France. In these regions, Y-G2 is present, and in some of them, it found Y-I2a2 too. 'dinaric' features is not to say ”pure dinaric phenotype”, but some features like the planoccipital cut could be genetically dominant phenotypical features, with a percentage bigger than the true weight of the global phenotype in the population... Here I am talking about Y-G2 matured in Caucasus – other Y-G2 population living in others areas can be different in some degrees and not typically 'dinaric' - genes are exchanged in the mixed population and with derive some features can be acquired or lost with time – but it is possible also that G2s men of Caucasus or Anatolia kept their features even when colonizing other lands. I say that because when we find 'dinaric' influence in region without Y-I2a2 we find Y-G2 in place. Bell-Beakers culture(s) profile appears to be culturally linked to the Anatolian and Near East regions. The closer could be the Cucuteni/Tripolje cultures (Neolithic and Post-beolithic) where East Mediterranean and Anatolian people met an apparently (yes I know, there is no certainties) 'dinaric' people: I'am not aware of 'dinaric phenotypes' settlement found in the buries of these periods but today, the second peak for 'dinarics' is in the Carpathians mountains of Romania ( a lot of Y-I2a2 men) , and the influence of the type is not negligible in West Ukraina, Moldavia. Some traces can be seen in the Carpathian mountains of Sloavakia and Poland too! Scholars first findings for 'dinaric' skeletons are in Western Europe (Denmark, Germany) and others speak about 'taurid' types (a kind or 'dinaric' closer to the so called 'armenian-touranian' one) coming in the Capathian Bassin at the Bronze Age with the Celts (I don't approve) from the West. I don't manage imagining the 'dinaric types' coming form the West, I rather see their cradle in Eastern-Europe/Caucasus area or Czechoslovakia,(after, BUT also DURING the LGM there was more people living in central Europe than in the Dinaric Alps of Yougoslavia, and there was some settlements in the Carpathians highlands, in Ukraina too I suppose because I have no data on this last region) 'dinaric' features are not rare in some Northern population of Afghanistan (Tadjiks), and among Kurds and Armenians. What is of some importance also is that we find some 'dinaric' influences on skeletons mixed with so called 'proto-nordic-cromagnoid' (strange words!: another thread to open?) people in burials (Indo-European Proto-Scythes?) in Western Siberia. And some scholars find some Y-I2a2 among a lot of Y-R1a in skeletons of the apparently same ancient population. Today Y-I2a2 is present (but not dominant) in almost all the Slavic population (the lowest: Poland as a whole) – It is not to say it is the founder HG of the Slavic peoples! But its presence North of the Caucasus and East the Carpathes seams to make a linking agent ( a “bridge” in the mixing of populations) in the propagation of Metal Cultures from Anatolia and the permanent presence of 'dinarics' influence in these countries put me to think to the link Y-I2a2 (and Y-G2? - not so evident) <> 'dinaric' phenotype.
There are traces of a few Y-I2a2 in Ireland and Britain. COON found a majority of typical 'dinarics' among people of the 'Food Vessels' Culture (Calcho-Bronze) and in South, Eastern England and Eastern Scotland with the 'Bell beakers' complex a big percentage of brachycephalic 'dinarics' mixed with fewer brachycephalic 'borreby' (he thought) and yet fewer 'Cordé' types (true dolichocephalic steppes people tall: a kind of 'nordics' with maybe an admixture of brutal 'brünns' and some indo-afghan' types?) - what is interesting is that there was 'Food Vessels' people landing in Western Britain and in Scotland: and in Scotland, the mean is between the Irish measurements and the English ones. 'Food Vessels' ones, purer 'dinaric', are linked by COON and others with Portugal-Spanish cultures of the same period, and 'Bell-beakers' (metissages) are closer to the Rhine beaker cultures of the same period too. Today (in rural districts!) the 'dinaric' phénotype is perceptible in Eastern Scotland (South Aberdeen/Fifeshire) and some features are found in Ireland too (very diluted). I find very interesting the fact that it is found some Y-I2a2 (and Y-I2b) in Northern Ireland and in Scotland today! It appears that the Iron Age intrusions in the Isles was not the great age of 'dinarics' compared to the 'Calcholithic-Bronze' ages. It could explain why the first 'masters' was pushed Northward by the new ones. But it is said now that Scottish (Picts/Cruithni?) people landed so in Northern ireland: two possible explanations for the same fact. There are battles to measure the reliable age of haplotypes (I am not too comfident in these evaluations) and someones tell that I2a2 “isles” is older than the I2a2 of the Balkans. But as says Maciamo the great age of an 'haplo' don't prove its ancient presence in a place.
Maybe the 'dinaric' like people with a high percentage of I2a was living previously between central Europe (Czechoslovakia) + Carpathians highlands? And their intermediary position, after a first acculturation by agricultural peoples of Anatolia and some metissages, gave them a central role in the trade between Western Europe and Near East. They could have had a role too in the propagation of secondary Indo-European languages? What is sure, they HAD a role in the propagation of metal working, by the Croatia (first 'Bell Beakers' of Eastern Europe) – This position central gave them the possibility of using the Danube river Westward AND Eastward, and the Tyrrhenian Sea between Italy and Dalmatia. The weight of 'dinaric' types is appreciable too among the first Hellene Greeks.
I suppose (for a while, before more informations) that they was the link between Indo-European dialects of the big cultural-commercial-center of Romania-Ukraina region, and predate the individualisation of the Celtic, Italic and Germanic languages. The Cucuteni-Triploje culture region stays for me the place where an Indo-European culture could arise, mayby by the melting of Finno-Ougric and Alarodian (Caucasic) languages... a lot of “mayby”'s, just a disgression from the central problem of western 'dinarics and Y-I2a2...
They remaind things to say about the continental place of origin of the British Bell Beakers and the
first apparitions of 'dinaric' types in France. The question is vast enough yet.
Take a rest after this heavy reading!

Click to expand...

You seem to have much knowledge. I'm an amateur, but I conclude from your writing that there is no clear corellation between dinaroid look and one haplogroup. But this topic is too interesting to be ignored
I agree, that mountainous areas are important (Dinaric mountains, alps, carpathians, caucasus). You seem to favour HG G and I2. Thats possible but I have the gut feeling that J2 (goat herding in the mountains) and even some R1b is more important. Assuming that dinaroid look originates from south-eastern rather than north-western direction, HG compositions in SE should be considered as more reliable correlators with dinaroid look than remote places due to lower selection bias. The caucasus is famous for its genetic and anthropologic diversity like a mosaic. It was rather source rather than target of migration. So lets look at armenians who are mainly J2+R1b and look very dinaroid. Georgians look much less so and have much less R1b and more G (I'm not sure here). Dinaric correlates well with I2a2 in eastern europe, but not elsewhere. Maybe the original HG I man have not looked dinaroid, yet HG I might have accidentally become an attached genetic trait in SE-Europe by interbreeding or genetic drift (perhaps Cucuteni-Tripolye?). To summarize my point: the present haplogroups in the Caucasus or Anatolia might be more reliable explanations for dinaroid look than those in present europe. It might be worth to investigate some R1b clades. Unfortunately I've not much knowledge, especially not about R1b.
Since I'm a follower of Maciamo's IE-steppe-theory as opposed to paleolithic continuity I wonder: Could it be that R1b is responsible for brachycephalization in Denmark, South-Scandinavia, Germany and Britain such that "Borrebys" and "Brünns" are not paleolithic remnants but rather the result of very slight dinaroid admixtrure?