PDA

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



MOESAN
04-11-11, 21:04
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

ElHorsto
06-11-11, 23:51
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.

Goga
07-11-11, 01:31
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.
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!

Segia2
07-11-11, 01:49
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!

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.

Goga
07-11-11, 01:57
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.
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
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus)
Etruscans were the FOUNDING FATHERS of the ROman Empire!

Segia2
07-11-11, 03:08
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.

Goga
07-11-11, 03:20
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.
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…

Segia2
07-11-11, 03:56
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!

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)

Goga
07-11-11, 04:18
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!

Goga
07-11-11, 04:21
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!

Vallicanus
07-11-11, 10:42
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.

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.

Yetos
07-11-11, 10:47
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!



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,



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…

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



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!

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.

zanipolo
07-11-11, 11:21
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!

etruscans had a high G2 as well

Goga
07-11-11, 16:01
etruscans had a high G2 as well
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.

MOESAN
07-11-11, 18:06
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.

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!

zanipolo
07-11-11, 21:51
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.

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

zanipolo
07-11-11, 22:00
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!

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 .

MOESAN
13-11-11, 20:37
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 .

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)

MOESAN
14-11-11, 12:21
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?

ElHorsto
23-11-11, 13:57
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!

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?

MOESAN
25-11-11, 13:17
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?


I'm an amateur like you.
What I favour now is the Y-I2a1b (I2a2) link and maybe Y-I2a2 (I2b) to 'dinaric' phenotype – Y-G was a second choice but I hesitate a lot : G seams linked to the diffusion of Cardial and LBK (for LBK it's not evident every time, wait and see) and in the previous settlements of Cardial in France it don't seam there had been a noticeable brachycephalic component -
'dinaroid' is linked with old 'armenoid' and 'taurid' concept – someones said there was no more of a kind of “forged” type in Armenia since they abandoned the cradle system with crania deformation by that flattened the occipital. Half truth – in fact the 'dinaroid' strain in these mountainous regions is not as strong as in the Dinaric Alps, even if we can find today some dinaroid-like features among a lot of people in Caucasus, Armenia, Turkey, Kurdistan, and Some Syrians highland regions and Lebanese – some of the Tadjiks also.
For Turks, Armenians and some people of Albania, the cradle deformations was responsible of a lot of 'planocciptal bracycephals' – but some true dinaroids exist yet today in these countries (In Western Europe, there is no cranial deformation and true planocciptal people exist too!) - I add that in the populations practising craddle deformations, some of the children reminded dolichocephalic.
Dinaroid type birthdate and evolution is not very well known today yet – but it seams that the planoccipital trait (and brachycephaly) could be a dominant one, and could be find in mixed populations, and with intermediary forms (not always the same occipital angle) with different faces. Even if the crane is not 100% typical dinaroid it will be classified as 'dinaroid' if it presents the occipital flattening... on dolichocephalic cranes metric anthropology scholars was more demanding... So the proportion of 'dinaroid' accretion can be widely interpreted. The 'dinaroids' of the Chalcolithic/Bronze Western Europe did not show so high crania and so narrow faces thant the Near-Eastern-Caucasus 'dinaroids' of the 1930's. It supports the crania deformation thesis, the crane tending to grow higher vertically and smaller on all the others directions when compressed -

First 'Dinaroid' appeared (scholars say, not me) in Syria, Palestina only about the Chalcolithic times.

They seam to descend from Caucasus-Anatolia. Some 'alpinoids' or 'alpines' appeared about the same time in Anatolia.Ancient Egyptians depicted the Hittites in a very different way compared to Assyrians that seamed a mix of 'dinaroids' and 'indo-afghans' (>> or more precisely 'eurafrican' types) – they gave the Hittites 'alpinoid' features on the way to the 'georgian' thick variant (found too among some Armenians) KHERUMIAN prefered seeing the 'dinaroids' come down the Balkans. All that to say I see the moderate bracycephalic people of these regions as an old crossing of 'alpinoids' and 'dinaroid' types (the 2 heavy in the crossing) with various dolichocéphalic types encompassing small 'danubian mediterraneans', 'eurafricans' (with remnants of Brünn-Combe-Capelle features), other variant of small 'mediterraneans' not too far from western 'mediterraneans', and some 'nordic' according to the places: all these dolichocephalic types put one together don't overcome the brachycephalic mixture – The true 'dinaroid' weight would not exceed some 20%, but varying depending on the place . It would be interesting to study the weight of Y-I in these regions where I believe there was languages shifts for some small tribes and Y-DNA derive too. To say that there, it would be difficult to can link an Y-HG to a global phenotype.

As you I was wondering if Y-J2 could not be linked to a sort of 'dinaroid' tendance, when settled after a long time in North Highlands (scholars believe that brachycephaly could be linked to the life in altitude far from the sea, in a complicated and not simple mechanical way). The same with Y-G2 even if it seams to be wrong.

A french Scholars believed that 'dinaroid' types was evolved on a 'brünnoid' type in highlands not too far from sea, and 'alpinoids' in highlands far from sea... I agree timidly for that, but not when he said this process can reverse so easily as it took place! And I have in mind that G and IJK was “sons” of Y-F and that they could have shared some genetic close heritage (some of their descendants, the ones stayed in the same regions , even if not all of them) – I believe Y-I2a1a-M86 (South-Western Europe) and Y-I1 (North Europe) have developped big differences compared to Y-I2a1b and Y-2a2 (I2b) stayed between (maybe) Bohem and Anatolia... I believe that the process of dinaricization is a bracycephalization of a kind of paleolithic dolichocephal closer to the brutal C-Capelle/Brünn types than to the Cro-Magnon type I link better to 'alpinoids' and 'borreby's' – just a bet!

You think that Y-I2 is from N-W Europe, I not!!! Y-I2 is from Central Europe for I think, and was separated in 3 branches yet during the LGM or just after it – I2a is from Central-South-Eastern Europe (I see very well the Carpathes) - the great age of Y-I2 in Britain has no signification for me: they could have stayed a long time in Bohem before moving West (with B.Beakers) – the high percentages of Y-I2b in Germany can be due to derive (and I keep in mind that the Harz region was a metallic one: B.Beakers yet). Even in far Russia you find Y-I2b, and in Moldaves and Gagauzes and every time I2a12. So, S-E Europe: Y-I2a1b + Y-I2a2 (I2b) ++ 'dinaroids'

sure the mtDNA an Y-DNA aren't linked to strictly to autosomals (>> phenotypes ) but the statistical links can be of some importance in big populations – In Caucasus, the old link could have been erased completely by derive, I agree -

Maciamo could give us some up-to-date data on Y-I in detailed little populations of Caucasus and Near-Eastern – Iran... it could help.

Thank and don't forget drink a glass of something to put all that down.

MOESAN
25-11-11, 18:26
just adding something:
the cradle deformations could show a kind of snobism of a population trying to mimic what has been the phenotype of an ancient elit of 'dinaroid' aspect - like the bleaking of hairs to imitate a blond aristocraty (Gauls) -who knows?

ElHorsto
28-11-11, 17:25
I'm an amateur like you.
What I favour now is the Y-I2a1b (I2a2) link and maybe Y-I2a2 (I2b) to 'dinaric' phenotype – Y-G was a second choice but I hesitate a lot : G seams linked to the diffusion of Cardial and LBK (for LBK it's not evident every time, wait and see) and in the previous settlements of Cardial in France it don't seam there had been a noticeable brachycephalic component -
'dinaroid' is linked with old 'armenoid' and 'taurid' concept – someones said there was no more of a kind of “forged” type in Armenia since they abandoned the cradle system with crania deformation by that flattened the occipital. Half truth – in fact the 'dinaroid' strain in these mountainous regions is not as strong as in the Dinaric Alps, even if we can find today some dinaroid-like features among a lot of people in Caucasus, Armenia, Turkey, Kurdistan, and Some Syrians highland regions and Lebanese – some of the Tadjiks also.
For Turks, Armenians and some people of Albania, the cradle deformations was responsible of a lot of 'planocciptal bracycephals' – but some true dinaroids exist yet today in these countries (In Western Europe, there is no cranial deformation and true planocciptal people exist too!) - I add that in the populations practising craddle deformations, some of the children reminded dolichocephalic.
Dinaroid type birthdate and evolution is not very well known today yet – but it seams that the planoccipital trait (and brachycephaly) could be a dominant one, and could be find in mixed populations, and with intermediary forms (not always the same occipital angle) with different faces. Even if the crane is not 100% typical dinaroid it will be classified as 'dinaroid' if it presents the occipital flattening... on dolichocephalic cranes metric anthropology scholars was more demanding... So the proportion of 'dinaroid' accretion can be widely interpreted. The 'dinaroids' of the Chalcolithic/Bronze Western Europe did not show so high crania and so narrow faces thant the Near-Eastern-Caucasus 'dinaroids' of the 1930's. It supports the crania deformation thesis, the crane tending to grow higher vertically and smaller on all the others directions when compressed -

First 'Dinaroid' appeared (scholars say, not me) in Syria, Palestina only about the Chalcolithic times.

They seam to descend from Caucasus-Anatolia. Some 'alpinoids' or 'alpines' appeared about the same time in Anatolia.Ancient Egyptians depicted the Hittites in a very different way compared to Assyrians that seamed a mix of 'dinaroids' and 'indo-afghans' (>> or more precisely 'eurafrican' types) – they gave the Hittites 'alpinoid' features on the way to the 'georgian' thick variant (found too among some Armenians) KHERUMIAN prefered seeing the 'dinaroids' come down the Balkans. All that to say I see the moderate bracycephalic people of these regions as an old crossing of 'alpinoids' and 'dinaroid' types (the 2 heavy in the crossing) with various dolichocéphalic types encompassing small 'danubian mediterraneans', 'eurafricans' (with remnants of Brünn-Combe-Capelle features), other variant of small 'mediterraneans' not too far from western 'mediterraneans', and some 'nordic' according to the places: all these dolichocephalic types put one together don't overcome the brachycephalic mixture – The true 'dinaroid' weight would not exceed some 20%, but varying depending on the place . It would be interesting to study the weight of Y-I in these regions where I believe there was languages shifts for some small tribes and Y-DNA derive too. To say that there, it would be difficult to can link an Y-HG to a global phenotype.

As you I was wondering if Y-J2 could not be linked to a sort of 'dinaroid' tendance, when settled after a long time in North Highlands (scholars believe that brachycephaly could be linked to the life in altitude far from the sea, in a complicated and not simple mechanical way). The same with Y-G2 even if it seams to be wrong.

A french Scholars believed that 'dinaroid' types was evolved on a 'brünnoid' type in highlands not too far from sea, and 'alpinoids' in highlands far from sea... I agree timidly for that, but not when he said this process can reverse so easily as it took place! And I have in mind that G and IJK was “sons” of Y-F and that they could have shared some genetic close heritage (some of their descendants, the ones stayed in the same regions , even if not all of them) – I believe Y-I2a1a-M86 (South-Western Europe) and Y-I1 (North Europe) have developped big differences compared to Y-I2a1b and Y-2a2 (I2b) stayed between (maybe) Bohem and Anatolia... I believe that the process of dinaricization is a bracycephalization of a kind of paleolithic dolichocephal closer to the brutal C-Capelle/Brünn types than to the Cro-Magnon type I link better to 'alpinoids' and 'borreby's' – just a bet!

You think that Y-I2 is from N-W Europe, I not!!! Y-I2 is from Central Europe for I think, and was separated in 3 branches yet during the LGM or just after it – I2a is from Central-South-Eastern Europe (I see very well the Carpathes) - the great age of Y-I2 in Britain has no signification for me: they could have stayed a long time in Bohem before moving West (with B.Beakers) – the high percentages of Y-I2b in Germany can be due to derive (and I keep in mind that the Harz region was a metallic one: B.Beakers yet). Even in far Russia you find Y-I2b, and in Moldaves and Gagauzes and every time I2a12. So, S-E Europe: Y-I2a1b + Y-I2a2 (I2b) ++ 'dinaroids'

sure the mtDNA an Y-DNA aren't linked to strictly to autosomals (>> phenotypes ) but the statistical links can be of some importance in big populations – In Caucasus, the old link could have been erased completely by derive, I agree -

Maciamo could give us some up-to-date data on Y-I in detailed little populations of Caucasus and Near-Eastern – Iran... it could help.

Thank and don't forget drink a glass of something to put all that down.

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.

MOESAN
28-11-11, 22:24
...
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.

just a partial answer before going further in my response
1- 'dinaroid' features was present in Caucasus and South Caucasus régions - some of the so looking people had undergone cranial deformation so the true 'dinaroid' weight is real but lighter than believed in these populations, lighter thant in Dinaric Alps and some others place of South-Eastern Europe -
2- nevertheless this 'dinaroid' influence could be linked to the presence of some Y-I2a1 ('b' I think) we find just centred on Armenia and Kurdistan that show some 'dinaroid' traits (Eupedia Maciamo: look at the map if it's well based): 10-20% Y-I2 ???
3- KHERUMIAN (Armenian) and some others thinked that the 'dinaroid' people, appeared very late in Anatolia and South Anatolia by the Chalcolithic period, was coming from the Balkans (I was not thinking to, but it strikes me that they could be linked to a kind of Indo-European people (because Georgians had fewer 'dinaroid' traits in them and these times could coincid well enough) - Y-J2 don't seam to me being linked so tightly to 'dianroids'
4- I was not saying 'borreby' is linked to 'dinaroid in Eastern France and Germany, or maybé linked by alliance at a certain stage of History, but that they were crossed one together by intrusion of 'dinaroid' in Western Europe (Chalcolithic yet) - I'll speak quickly later about theories (the old ones I'm aware of) concerning the phylogenese of 'dinaroids' -
I do'nt see the bulk of Western Y-R1b as bearers of 'Combe-Capelle' or 'dinaroid' forms, when speaking of a big population (in small groups, every type of exchanges between Y, mt and automals genes bearers can occur, it's evident)
good evening

sparkey
28-11-11, 23:10
nevertheless this 'dinaroid' influence could be linked to the presence of some Y-I2a1 ('b' I think) we find just centred on Armenia and Kurdistan that show some 'dinaroid' traits

I have never seen significant I2a1b-Din pop up in Armenian samples. Only I2c-B and maybe I2a2a-Cont3 break the 1% mark in the Armenians sampled. I have yet to see convincing evidence of I2a-Din in Kurds as well; Kurdish haplogroup I needs more STR tests or deeper SNP tests. We do know that the Zaza Kurds in particular have a lot of haplogroup I, but that could be from a founder effect, and part of any subclade.

IMHO I2a-Din is too young and too Northern in its diversity pattern to correlate well with the spread of Dinaric features, unless you're suggesting that Dinaric features came to the Balkans recently with I2a-Din.

Goga
29-11-11, 00:20
Yes I think that I do agree with you. First of all Kurds and Armenians have a different origin & roots, but the other thing is that Kurds have always been 'r*p*ng' Armenians 24/7.

The other thing is that it's possible that Kurds have actually much more R1a & R2 thsn we think like their Iranic relatives in Central Asia but due to a 'founder effect' of hg. I, R1a & R2a distribution in Kurds is somehow concealed.

I believe that Kurds are actually 35%+ R1a and 15%+ R2a and for about 40%+ J*...

Alan
29-11-11, 02:54
Yes I think that I do agree with you. First of all Kurds and Armenians have a different origin & roots, but the other thing is that Kurds have always been 'r*p*ng' Armenians 24/7.

The other thing is that it's possible that Kurds have actually much more R1a & R2 thsn we think like their Iranic relatives in Central Asia but due to a 'founder effect' of hg. I, R1a & R2a distribution in Kurds is somehow concealed.

I believe that Kurds are actually 35%+ R1a and 15%+ R2a and for about 40%+ J*...

I believe, no I am sure your not a Kurd to begin with but one of those fanatic Armenians I have met on hyeclub trying to show the world how "barbaric" Kurds are.

wasnt you the one trying so hard to prove that Iranic folks actually come from West Asia and now you want to sell us the Kurds as originally Central Asia? This talk sounds very familiar to me.

Tu ji ku yî. Tu derewanî, navê te û eshîra te ci ye?

Goga
29-11-11, 03:12
I believe, no I am sure your not a Kurd to begin with but one of those fanatic Armenians I have met on hyeclub trying to show the world how "barbaric" Kurds are.

wasnt you the one trying so hard to prove that Iranic folks actually come from West Asia and now you want to tell us that the Kurds originally were closer to Central Asian "relatives. This talk sounds very familiar to me.

Tu ji ku yî. Tu derewanî navê te u eshîra te ji ye????

No, Kurds ain't no 'barbarians'! Kurds have been always defending themselves against Turks, Persians, Arabs AND Armenians. Kurds do not attack other folks without any reason, if they attack somebody be sure it is because other folks started a vendetta against the Kurds. Never forget that Kurds are very proud & peaceful folks! Kurds don't have any ambitions to conquer other lands, all we want is peace and be free in our own homeland.

Armenians have always been hostile against Kurds!

Original 'Iranic' folks are from Kurdistan. And later they migrated into Central Asia before they invaded India (Indus Valley). This is what I've always been telling you! Kurds are NOT from Central Asia!

Alan
29-11-11, 03:20
???

No, Kurds ain't no 'barbarians'! Kurds have been always defending themselves against Turks, Persians, Arabs AND Armenians.

Original Iranic (Aryan) folks are from Kurdistan. And later they migrated into Central Asia, before they invaded India (Indus valley). This is what I've always been telling you!

nonsense your are changing your mind day by day. Do you find it honorable to rape other people and according to you we "raped" them by defending ourselves. Exactly the talk of an Armenian fanatic I know who claimed we raped them and call it self defense.

And could you please answer my question.

Tu ji ku yî. Tu derewanî, navê te û eshîra te ci ye?

Goga
29-11-11, 03:24
nonsense your are changing your mind day by day. Do you find it honorable to rape other people and according to you we "raped" them by defending ourselves. Exactly the talk of an Armenian fanatic I know who claimed we raped them and call it self defense.

And could you please answer my question.I'm not going to play games with you!

Are you denying that we Kurds killed, massacred and raped many Armenians? Are you denying that Armenians were always weaker than Kurds? Is this not a well known fact???

Armenians still think that Kurdistan is Armenia. As long as they're hostile toward me, be it an Armenian, a Persian, an Arab or a Turk, I (Kurds) will always defend myself and my own country!

Alan
29-11-11, 03:35
I'm not going to play games with you!

Are you denying that we Kurds killed, massacred and raped many Armenians. Are you denying that Armenians were always weaker than Kurds? Is this not a well known fact???

Armenians still think that Kurdistan is Armenia. As long as they're hostile toward me, be it an Armenian, a Persian, an Arab or a Turk, I (Kurds) will always defend myself and my own country!

playing Games? You still think I am not aware that you are an Armenian. Even All the other Kurds were aware of this when you first joined another Kurdish Forum. I have books and sources which show mass killings of Kurds through the Hands of Armenians and Russians who some of them even called themselves the "Kurdslayers". Stop talking in the name of Kurds. You are obviously even ignoring my Questions and its clear why.

Goga
29-11-11, 03:43
Do never forget that a lot Assyrians, Arabs, Turkmen, Persians and even Armenians DO speak Kurdish. I met a lot of those folks from Kirkuk and other Kurdish cities from S. Kurdistan!

So, I don't know who you are but you're definitely not a Kurd.

And I'm 100% sure that the moderator on that Kurdish forum is a Turk/Persian btw. But tell him that I will come back after my ban there!

Alan
29-11-11, 04:01
Do never forget that a lot Assyrians, Arabs, Turkmen, Persians and even Armenians DO speak Kurdish. I met a lot of those folks from Kirkuk and other Kurdish cities from S. Kurdistan!
yes just you an alleged yezidi Kurd cant while all yezidis i have met were fluent in kurdish cause their religious traditions are in kurdish.



And I'm 100% sure that the moderator on that Kurdish forum is a Turk/Persian btw. But tell him that I will come back after my ban there!

with this behave you will not be welcomed again. And you can than tell us why you did introduced yourself first as an Syrian than Anatolian and in third plays as a Georgian Kurd.

Goga
29-11-11, 04:05
LOL,

I was born in Georgia, my parents were born in Georgia and even my grandparents and their parents were born in the Russian Empire.

But my mothers great gradparents are from Wan/Kars region, where the Median kingdom was located. My dads great grandfather is from Shangal/Qamishli-Lalish region, where the Mitanni kingdom was located!

ElHorsto
29-11-11, 18:58
just a partial answer before going further in my response
1- 'dinaroid' features was present in Caucasus and South Caucasus régions - some of the so looking people had undergone cranial deformation so the true 'dinaroid' weight is real but lighter than believed in these populations, lighter thant in Dinaric Alps and some others place of South-Eastern Europe -


I think the variance of "dinaroids" is more of importance than the percentage. I'm applying the same rule of predicting Y-HG sources of origin here.



2- nevertheless this 'dinaroid' influence could be linked to the presence of some Y-I2a1 ('b' I think) we find just centred on Armenia and Kurdistan that show some 'dinaroid' traits (Eupedia Maciamo: look at the map if it's well based): 10-20% Y-I2 ???

Maybe. But I still prefer to assume Y-I2 to be a late adopter of J2-dinarids.



3- KHERUMIAN (Armenian) and some others thinked that the 'dinaroid' people, appeared very late in Anatolia and South Anatolia by the Chalcolithic period, was coming from the Balkans (I was not thinking to, but it strikes me that they could be linked to a kind of Indo-European people (because Georgians had fewer 'dinaroid' traits in them and these times could coincid well enough) - Y-J2 don't seam to me being linked so tightly to 'dianroids'


In my theory, the dinarids were not coming from balkans to caucasus, but rather vice versa, such that Y-I2 adopted dinarids later. I think a certain phenotype can be as well subject to founder effects and genetic drift like it is the case for Y-HGs. So even though dinarids are less common in caucasus than in balkans, I assume a higher diversity of phenotypes in caucasus, even if less in frequency. The balcanic dinarids with Y-I2 would be a result of founder effect. I learnt in this forum that most I-HGs bottlenecked strongly. Or take lactose tolerance mutation for instance. Highest rate is in sweden, although this mutation was found to originate somewhere north-east of the black sea.



4- I was not saying 'borreby' is linked to 'dinaroid in Eastern France and Germany, or maybé linked by alliance at a certain stage of History, but that they were crossed one together by intrusion of 'dinaroid' in Western Europe (Chalcolithic yet) - I'll speak quickly later about theories (the old ones I'm aware of) concerning the phylogenese of 'dinaroids' -


Ok, thats interesting.



I do'nt see the bulk of Western Y-R1b as bearers of 'Combe-Capelle' or 'dinaroid' forms, when speaking of a big population (in small groups, every type of exchanges between Y, mt and automals genes bearers can occur, it's evident)
good evening

Did those old scholars really postulate that "Dinarid" is a variant of "Compe-Capelle"?
For me that was not clear. I rather tended to connect Cro-Mag to Dinarid, if any.
Anyway, I'm absolutely not stating that the bulk of western R1b was Dinaroid. I just think that a tiny fraction of R1b and J2 carried dinarids to W-Europe. There are so many different R1b variants. Same with J2. I don't believe we will find a better correlating major HG for "dinarid", except certain subclades of the two mentioned.

MOESAN
30-11-11, 00:56
I have never seen significant I2a1b-Din pop up in Armenian samples. Only I2c-B and maybe I2a2a-Cont3 break the 1% mark in the Armenians sampled. I have yet to see convincing evidence of I2a-Din in Kurds as well; Kurdish haplogroup I needs more STR tests or deeper SNP tests. We do know that the Zaza Kurds in particular have a lot of haplogroup I, but that could be from a founder effect, and part of any subclade.

IMHO I2a-Din is too young and too Northern in its diversity pattern to correlate well with the spread of Dinaric features, unless you're suggesting that Dinaric features came to the Balkans recently with I2a-Din.

Thanks for the precisions about Y-I in Armenia and Kudistan (by the way I red Kurdish tribes was not so homogene between them depending of regions, Armenia no more) - But what are the number samples for these two ethnies?
for Y-I2 I was looking at the Maciamo's map.

For the dating (age) of mutations I'm not to confident in details in the calculations what ever the result, old or recent - BUT even that took in account a bunch of phenotypic features can take force in a small long time ISOLATED population (highlands? I don't bet the place here) of let's say an Y-I2(a?) upstream version and be amplified or kept in the more numerous mutated downstream Y-I2a1a population, its "son" or "daughter": an evolution on place of the Y-DNA (or mt DNA) and the date of last mutation on it don't change the composition of a previous package of other genes (autosomals and other biallelic giving phenotypes) :asa whole for I believe, long ago geographically separated SNP's can take very different phenotypes but SNP's evolved on place can keep the old phenotypes or evolve but one together...

MOESAN
30-11-11, 01:03
nonsense your are changing your mind day by day. Do you find it honorable to rape other people and according to you we "raped" them by defending ourselves. Exactly the talk of an Armenian fanatic I know who claimed we raped them and call it self defense.

And could you please answer my question.

what are you doing on my thread: are you looking for boxing competition -
genetics or every descriptive science or lobby is not a war field -
keep quiet and drink fresh!
if you want to create another thread you can, if you are authorized by the moderators

sparkey
30-11-11, 01:25
Thanks for the precisions about Y-I in Armenia and Kudistan (by the way I red Kurdish tribes was not so homogene between them depending of regions, Armenia no more) - But what are the number samples for these two ethnies?
for Y-I2 I was looking at the Maciamo's map.

For both ethnicities it's in the hundreds, but we don't have the kind of precision in studies of Kurds that we have in studies of Armenians. For Armenians, we're fairly confident that they are ~3% I2c-B and ~1% I2a2-Cont3, while with Kurds, we're just pretty sure that they have a good deal of I, but don't have subclades because it only comes from studies that don't go beyond "I" (Nasidze et al in particular, also informed by Nebel et al which is even lower resolution). Maciamo's map assumes that Nasidze et al took a representative sample and that the I there is mainly I2a, which may not be a good assumption. He explains that here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25689-New-haplogroup-I2a-map). Right now we only have one high-resolution Kurdish I sample in any database or study I've seen, and that individual was I1 from Jordan, possibly a Crusades leftover that doesn't tell us much.


For the dating (age) of mutations I'm not to confident in details in the calculations what ever the result, old or recent - BUT even that took in account a bunch of phenotypic features can take force in a small long time ISOLATED population (highlands? I don't bet the place here) of let's say an Y-I2(a?) upstream version and be amplified or kept in the more numerous mutated downstream Y-I2a1a population, its "son" or "daughter": an evolution on place of the Y-DNA (or mt DNA) and the date of last mutation on it don't change the composition of a previous package of other genes (autosomals and other biallelic giving phenotypes) :asa whole for I believe, long ago geographically separated SNP's can take very different phenotypes but SNP's evolved on place can keep the old phenotypes or evolve but one together...

The question is really how tightly autosomal DNA that influences phenotype correlates to Y-DNA haplogroups. Often, that correlation seems to be poor. I suspect that the "Dinaric" phenotypes predate I2a-Din in the Balkans but could be wrong.

Alan
30-11-11, 03:30
we got 14 tested individuals. so far 3 of them came out as I*. one Iraqi from harrapa project with I2a1. Second from 23andme with I2c and the last from FTDNA with I1.

sparkey
30-11-11, 19:20
we got 14 tested individuals. so far 3 of them came out as I*. one Iraqi from harrapa project with I2a1. Second from 23andme with I2c and the last from FTDNA with I1.

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.

Kardu
30-11-11, 23:41
Interesting! If the I2c from your group would like to share on 23andme I could give you my nick in a pm.

Alan
01-12-11, 03:46
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
01-12-11, 03:55
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
01-12-11, 11:28
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
01-12-11, 12:26
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
01-12-11, 15:26
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
01-12-11, 15:39
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
01-12-11, 23:33
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
02-12-11, 01:57
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
05-12-11, 16:44
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
23-12-11, 01:44
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
23-12-11, 18:45
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
25-12-11, 19:58
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
15-06-12, 17:29
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
15-06-12, 17:32
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
15-06-12, 18:09
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
16-06-12, 19:44
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
18-06-12, 14:16
"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
21-06-12, 23:07
[QUOTE=ElHorsto;390246]

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
21-06-12, 23:14
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!

MOESAN
25-07-12, 16:46
partly linked to this thread even if giving more weight to metrics and general autosomals than to Y-DNA:

Brachycephaly, bones metrics andevocations of environmental conditions :


after a very too confident classicalanthropology relying entirely or almost on cranial measures and funnyinterpretations, we know nowaday the domination of adaptative magicinterpretations whose goal is to evacuate any worth of metrics.Science knows apparently the same mods as fashion trade...
some basic facts : Europe SEAMShaving known a trend towards brachycephaly since the Middle Agesuntil the 1900's ; someones saw the origin of brachycephaly inhighlands (poor for 'iode'), in Great Europe at least, others saw inthis process a general trend without any selective charactere (andwithout any explication too!) - in the last years, thedebrachycephalization seams linked to stature encrease, asbrachycephalization seamed linked to a decrease of stature*
--*(Celtsof La Tène Period : 1m67 (France Marne) to 1m 70 (Ireland), butRomans (nobility or not?): 1m62 – Germanic tribes of the GreatWanderings period : 1m72 to 1m74 – Bretons of Brittany andFrank or Norman riders from Normandy in the X°C., 1m70, Bretons ofBrittain at the time 1m68 to 1m70 – French people around 1880 AC :1m60-1m62, Swede Recrues same date : 1m68 only (1930 :France people : 1m65, Sweden 1m73)...
Others facts : in anhomogenous population for metric measures that could evolve not bymutations but by modifications linked to environment, we can expect a« bell » form for the statistic curve : for, say, aCephal-Index of 82 in a population, we may expect a curve summitbetween the 81 and 83 indexes, the curve going down almost regularlyon the two sides of it – but when we compare curves obtained fordifferent populations showing very different C-I means, we see thatthe summit of the curve is excentred to the lowest indexes in themore dolichocephalic populations, and to the highest indexes in themore brachycephalic ones, whatever the period and the evolution ofthe means. We can see some secondary summits corresponding apparentlyto other expressions of the crossings and maybe to some « homozygoticpure » indexes...
concerningenvironment+selection, Western Norway shows always morebrachycephalic means than Eastern Norway, though it is in a seacoastal area. The context is mountainous but the population is as awhole living on the shores, so... ? As a whole too, the highestregions of Spain showed (in the XX°C.) the most dolichocephalicpopulations, the lowest the contrary ;
One can say theacquisition and the lost of brachycephaly can require some time, andit is sure ! And I add that the first apparition of a trendtowards meso-brachycephaly in Europe is old enough, dating from theOffnet-Solutré findings (10000BC-8000BC), and the Mugem findings(fewer brachycephalic men and when?) -
concerning the increasingof brachycephalic between Antiquity and Middle-Ages, we have to relyon burying places studies : It is very hard to get a completefigure of Europe on this basis : I add that I am almost surethat the sepultures examined for barbarian Bronze Age or Iron Agesare for the most the sepultures of ruling castes, not the basicpopulation ones : yet the Pompei population (near Napoli) ofRoman times was sub-brachycephalic (big frequence of 'alpinid' types)and surely enough was more representative of the whole population ofthis country;
some scientists seamtaking the modifications of means in a same place according to timesas a genuine purely local evolution : this bias is found veryoften ; I read in an Eupedia thread (old enough) a linked oldscholar's text that explained with a very striking certitude that thediverses tribes living at antique times in Venetia was showing nomodification with time (!), at the exception of a « modest »75 to a nowaday (1930's?) 85 C-I change explained as a normal commonall-european brachycephalic phenomenon !!! Very easy indeed !No use in searching some historical fact (emigration, colonization,invasion, plague...) to explain modification... when some historicfacts can trouble this kind of idyllic picture some authors sweapthem as a fly on the table corner... (too few invaders, indaptedinvaders, 100% endogamy for centuries and centuries...) -
When we look at thecranial evolution in France from Paleolithic to our era, we seedifferent directions and different regional evolutions at differenttimes : a seamingly genuine trend towards mesocephaly 74 >>76 (everywhere in occident) and after brachycephaly >> + >82 (in Alps for the most) among cromagnoids descendants, at theMesolithic period and in Neolithic, the apparition of small lightboned « mediterraneans » of more than a type moredolichocephalic (72) intruding among the previous population – inBrittany, stayed at the tail concerning brachycephalization, we see aset of different sub-dolichocephals taking one on another atMegalithic times, beginning the true brachycephalization by thewives mediation at the Eneolithic/Chalcolithic ages, the bulkof men-women brachycephalization taking place at the Iron Ages ;evetime, the propagation (in no mountains zones!!!) appears as comingfrom East (Parisian Bassin) ; no internal localbrachycephalization here ; the rural folk of 1950's Brittanystill showed cantons oppositions for C-I as for other phenotypicaltraits (running from 79 to 86, the most brachycephalic in the eastern« gallo(roman » cantons as a whole – GIOT) -
I do not eliminate theway-of-living-environment aspect at all but I know it can not offerus all the keys of brachy-debrachycephalization ; by instance, asurvey on the same(???)departements (cantons are parts of departments, these last ones beingmore unprecise for surveys) some 15 years later show adebrachycephalization more or less tiny in Brittany, Poitou, Anjou,Maine and Normandy (10 departements of a region that contains 16 butBrittany complete here) with a decrease of C-I running from 0,5 to2,0 according to the places (someones can be suspected of strongimmigration of other french people, others having a faster or slowerlife-level evolution due to economic orientations and ruralemigration) – Here yet, debrachycephalization was associated tostature increase – so the last Middle Ages « mechanical »and not genetic part of brachycephalization until the industrialrevolution in Europe could be seen like stature decrease as theresult of (agricultural) sedentarization associated with « worst »feeding (less meat?), harder works in pre-adolescence times beforethe skeleton would have been formed, more short inbreeding... But donot forget that brachycephals was already numerous at bronze-IronAges in some parts of Europe, and that civil cemeteries of theseperiods showed certainly more level folks than the cheftainssepultures of previous times. Keep in mind too that even in anancient population of 35 Frisian of Leeuwarden showing a mean C-Iof 78,26 you find 1 indiviual with the C-I of 88, and 1 of 85 and 2of 84 compared to 10 under 77 ! Poor bad feed brachycephals ormountain climbers ? In the same family you can find a dolichoand a brachy so : evdient genetic background too.
So without any proof, howcan we imagine brachycephaly could take place ? The adaptativeaspect
can have two aspects :a personal during-life adaptation by plastical adaptative variabilityfurnished by the genome, not genetically acquired and nottransmittable to following generations and a collective genetic longterm adaptation by selection keeping the most adapted genes :the ones that improve survival in some natural conditions and thatare linked to some cranial features, either creating them orindirectly linked to them in the genome ; I see this evolutionas acquired and dificult to loose, only by an other selective factor-


What is striking is thatin Europe we see a kind of brachycephaly taking place pace by pace(result : 'alpine type') in West and an other type ofbrachycephalic coming on sight abruptly enough in West and East andCentre, at the Eneolithic-Chalcolithic time :
aSurvey about Greece(PANAGIARIS1993 according to DIENEKE) speaks about apparition of brachycephalicpeople at the bronze Ages in Greece (Pelopponese), Creta, and ineastern Saka-land (people came from Pamir-Ferghana), excluding aphenomenon by population isolation in Greece proper – someprototypes of a future dinaric type appeared too incentral-northwestern Europe about 3000 BC : I am unaware of theprecise place of very first apparition of types on this direction ;for some old scientists the first apparition of dinarid types inAnatolia—South-Caucasus is about the 2000 BC or a few centuriesbefore, coming from the Balkans as they thought... I red too that theKurgan culture of southern Russia showed a majority ofdolichocephals, the most of high stature but not all of them (thesmallest : some « danubian mediterraneans »?), andtoo some brachycephals, more on the dinaroid side ; these lasttypes was found also very far, in light proportions, among steppicpopulations of south Siberia in a considered future I-E population.Whatever people can conclude of it, some of the present daypopulations of these areas show a majority of Y-R1a (as in ancienttimes) and Y-I2a1a + some Y-I2a2 not yet detected in ancient Y-DNA(but the story is not closed) : I say we have there an opendoor, not an answer...
Iam still tempted to see in the territory of Cucuteni-Pripoljecultures the place where East Anatolian or Near-Eastern farmers orpastors (Y-G2 + some Y-J2?) mixed with Balkans-Carpathians« autochtons » (Y-I2...? + some Y-E1b « alpha » ?)developping a high standard culture (on material criteria) beforegetting in touch with steppic tribes (Y-R1a +???).
Whatsoeverthe conditions that gave birth to the so called « dinaric »phenotype : selection on a certain genetic basis or mixture onan as certain genetic basis, these conditions seam yet to me linkedgeographically to central-eastern Europe (from mesolithic times ?or is it the admixture with neolithic people ? I have no answerfor now... but the metric surveys over the Carpathian Bassin arerecent enough : Chalcolithic ? And a survey by R. PINHASI &M. PLUCIENNIK (2004) about mesolithic to neolithic sites in southernEurope and Near-East-Anatolia did not furnish C-I data, telling onlythat the Khirokitia (Creta) neolithic population showed a peculiar« short-headness and paedomorphic features » - firstmeso-brachycephals there, but when exactly ???

Eldritch
18-02-13, 18:28
Well according to classic anthropology the Dinaric zone is in today Western Balkans, which is I2a1b but also E-V13 heavy.
So yes I2a1b seems like a good candidate but not the only one.