Guess the ethnicity of this reconstruction

Northener said:
The point of the Funnelbeakers of the North German plain is that they were about 70% WHG (Ertebølle), and GAC Poland as TRB Gökhhem were about 70% EEF. This must have had phenotype consequences.
Click to expand...

Would you assume that the Northern German funnelbeakers wore more robust facial features than the GAC from Poland?
 
The thing is, many people can't classify people properly and are easily misled by pigmentation. On the other hand, there are not only "Nordic" and "Corded" types but also Faelid, Noric, and other types that are in between that people misclassify as "Nordic."
 
real expert said:
Would you assume that the Northern German funnelbeakers wore more robust facial features than the GAC from Poland?
Click to expand...

Don't know what the effect would be (but more CM like could be the case), but a 70% WHG influenced population must have looked differentiated from a 70% EEF influenced population don't you think?
 
real expert said:
The thing is, many people can't classify people properly and are easily misled by pigmentation. On the other hand, there are not only "Nordic" and "Corded" types but also Faelid, Noric, and other types that are in between that people misclassify as "Nordic."
Click to expand...

And basically also because of facial foto's and phenotypes based on a 'view from above' are differentiated..... Imo there was in the North with the old antrhopologist like Coon too much bias to ward the "nordic" phenotype....which is in North Europe not in all regions prevalent.
 
MOESAN said:
@Northerner
Thanks for the pics of their 'borreby' of SGC. (IMO their reconstruction seems giving always a too long fleshy nose, I would guess their noses as a whole had more upturned tips. Maybe they had all the SNP's to reconstruct it? Or only based themselves on the bony aspect (nose hole), what is an error, I think).
That said, yes, I personnally think the the BB input has been of some importance, but BB brachy people were not only 'borreby'like, they had some balkanic 'dinaric' input too, mixed with it and a bit with some 'corded' types, at least in Northwestern Germany/the Netherlands and in ancient Britain. I guess BB's got even more northwards and played a role in the Western Norway pop 's making.
WHAT WOULD PLEASE ME WOULD BE HAVING ACCESS TO OTHER SGC PEOPLE if you can provide this to me. It woul be super!
Click to expand...

No SGC, but some BB. Gerhardt 1953:

 
Northener said:
The point of the Funnelbeakers of the North German plain is that they were about 70% WHG (Ertebølle), and GAC Poland as TRB Gökhhem were about 70% EEF. This must have had phenotype consequences.
Click to expand...

Maybe my phrasing was not clear. I want say the Late Neol people from North Euro were closer to local archaic preceding pop's than the Early Neol ones were, this resurgence taking place more or less during the Trichterbeacher period. I have no mean to check that for those times, but it's the dominant view. But if we base ourselves on the today pop's, this affirmation seems correct.
 
Northener said:
I think the essential classification of Coon is wrong, partly because of the man in casu. Because this man is a real Corded Ware man, so this is the real Corded phenotype, a robust dolio. Beside that he considers Bell Beakers as Dinarid, but in fact they were the real Borreby's in the sense of robust brachycephalized types.

In that sense has Kurt Gerhardt a better classification. More spot on for Corded Ware and Bell Beakers.
Click to expand...

Your are hard concerning Coon.
BTW CWC and BB are cultural references. The "types" are formed on the dominant and most typical individuals, the global averages are less evident. Coon said, and I'm pretty sure he was right (because of the remaining traits among today pop's) that the N-W Euro BB people were dominantly 'dinaric'like, with a strong accretion of 'borreby'like types and a small proportion of 'corded' types. The most typical (for average) BB's were around Worms on Central Rhine, and they were closer to the BA Cyprus 'dinaric' types than to typical 'borreby' types. There is no confusion possible between these types; true 'dinaric' more brachtcephalic, different nose shape, different occiptal shape... lighter bones and so on... In the Great Isles he found that the Irish 'Food Vessel' people close to BB's were very closer to 'dinaric', Scotland BB's between Irish and English BB's, these last ones closer to the Netherland and Westphaly ones (it's to say: a bit more of 'borreby'...)

I think that a bit of rather dolicho 'brünn-capelloid'-like types had been at play among the 'corded' average and among the easternmost 'irano-afghan' types: among 'corded' (basis of CWC more or less) it was associated with a high 'mediter' derived type on the way to 'nordic' (the most input) + some bit's of smaller 'mediters' (~'danubian'), among the old 'irano-aghan' types it was associated with an 'eastern -mediter' type (the famous 'cappadocian' de Coon?); it formed the basis of East-Caspian sedent pops of BA often qualified of "Indo-Afghans" in 19/20th Cy times.
In what part all this could be checked among the huge amount of auDNA markers, I don't know...
 
MOESAN said:
Your are hard concerning Coon.
BTW CWC and BB are cultural references. The "types" are formed on the dominant and most typical individuals, the global averages are less evident. Coon said, and I'm pretty sure he was right (because of the remaining traits among today pop's) that the N-W Euro BB people were dominantly 'dinaric'like, with a strong accretion of 'borreby'like types and a small proportion of 'corded' types. The most typical (for average) BB's were around Worms on Central Rhine, and they were closer to the BA Cyprus 'dinaric' types than to typical 'borreby' types. There is no confusion possible between these types; true 'dinaric' more brachtcephalic, different nose shape, different occiptal shape... lighter bones and so on... In the Great Isles he found that the Irish 'Food Vessel' people close to BB's were very closer to 'dinaric', Scotland BB's between Irish and English BB's, these last ones closer to the Netherland and Westphaly ones (it's to say: a bit more of 'borreby'...)

I think that a bit of rather dolicho 'brünn-capelloid'-like types had been at play among the 'corded' average and among the easternmost 'irano-afghan' types: among 'corded' (basis of CWC more or less) it was associated with a high 'mediter' derived type on the way to 'nordic' (the most input) + some bit's of smaller 'mediters' (~'danubian'), among the old 'irano-aghan' types it was associated with an 'eastern -mediter' type (the famous 'cappadocian' de Coon?); it formed the basis of East-Caspian sedent pops of BA often qualified of "Indo-Afghans" in 19/20th Cy times.
In what part all this could be checked among the huge amount of auDNA markers, I don't know...
Click to expand...

Brachycephaly goes often together with a flat occiput. I think that Gerhardt based on real research has shown that the brachycephalic types of BB were in fact what Coon has described as Borreby (see also the picture above from a conference about BB in 1974). Gerhardt debunked the Borreby in 1969 (Homo, 20), he stated that is was a regional type an assemblage. But I couldn't get a copy yet (so I have only fragments).
 
MOESAN said:
Your are hard concerning Coon.
BTW CWC and BB are cultural references. The "types" are formed on the dominant and most typical individuals, the global averages are less evident. Coon said, and I'm pretty sure he was right (because of the remaining traits among today pop's) that the N-W Euro BB people were dominantly 'dinaric'like, with a strong accretion of 'borreby'like types and a small proportion of 'corded' types. The most typical (for average) BB's were around Worms on Central Rhine, and they were closer to the BA Cyprus 'dinaric' types than to typical 'borreby' types. There is no confusion possible between these types; true 'dinaric' more brachtcephalic, different nose shape, different occiptal shape... lighter bones and so on... In the Great Isles he found that the Irish 'Food Vessel' people close to BB's were very closer to 'dinaric', Scotland BB's between Irish and English BB's, these last ones closer to the Netherland and Westphaly ones (it's to say: a bit more of 'borreby'...)

I think that a bit of rather dolicho 'brünn-capelloid'-like types had been at play among the 'corded' average and among the easternmost 'irano-afghan' types: among 'corded' (basis of CWC more or less) it was associated with a high 'mediter' derived type on the way to 'nordic' (the most input) + some bit's of smaller 'mediters' (~'danubian'), among the old 'irano-aghan' types it was associated with an 'eastern -mediter' type (the famous 'cappadocian' de Coon?); it formed the basis of East-Caspian sedent pops of BA often qualified of "Indo-Afghans" in 19/20th Cy times.
In what part all this could be checked among the huge amount of auDNA markers, I don't know...
Click to expand...

Thank-you for the summary. As you say, there is no possible confusion between the types.
 
Angela said:
Thank-you for the summary. As you say, there is no possible confusion between the types.
Click to expand...

I won't disput that on the contrary. But imo it's about brachycephaly.

As Gerhardt as stated "capelid" + brachycephaply= steephead (the BB "abbreviation") and besides that there were more "blockheads/cromagnoid"+brachycephaly = in fact Coon's Borreby. But correct me if I'm wrong.

I always have the impression (but this is subjective, arbitrary) that Nordicists emphasize the Nordid, "Corded" phenotype, and I don't know if this has ever reflected reality, especially in BB influence area's from the Rhineland to Rogaland.
 
Northener said:
I won't disput that on the contrary. But imo it's about brachycephaly.

As Gerhardt as stated "capelid" + brachycephaply= steephead (the BB "abbreviation") and besides that there were more "blockheads/cromagnoid"+brachycephaly = in fact Coon's Borreby. But correct me if I'm wrong.

I always have the impression (but this is subjective, arbitrary) that Nordicists emphasize the Nordid, "Corded" phenotype, and I don't know if this has ever reflected reality, especially in BB influence area's from the Rhineland to Rogaland.
Click to expand...

You are right concerning Rogaland, less concerning Rhineland ( it's true, a very large region!) which was and stay a more heterogenous region for evident reasons. But the 'corded' type of Coon represented the most common element in the CWC pop's, not the only one, and in some regions CWC mixed with other pop's. So CWC pop's had not eveywhere the same proportions of elements, even less on the fringes of their huge territory where they mixed with other "mixes" of.
'corded' type is as a lot of "types" an average one, but in it were dominant the dolichocephalic and strikingly high skulled elements whatever their previous origins, and with narrower faces as a whole.
If somebody may criticize the genetic homogeneity of these "types", it remains that the Worms BB's were very closer to other 'dinaric' pop's of the time than to the 'borreby'like pop's of extreme North before subsequent overcrossngs.
Concerning the "brutal" 'borreby' type apparently linked to the "capellid" one, the result is very different from the 'dinaric' canon.
&: BB # 100% 'dinaric' - 'dinaric' was only the dominant type in numerous settlements, and appeared at Chalco in a great number of places from Cyprus to Southern Iberia and Ireland, and it had then no big ressemblance to northern 'borreby' types.
If we try to found some accord with reality, considering these "types" are averaged types and not individual units with homogenous homozygotic phenotypes, we can say all of them include archaic elements (+ - 'cromagnoid' / + - 'brünn-capelloid') and 'mediter' elements, AND some brachy element (a basic unkown type? or just the spreading of a mutation?) in the case of 'borreby' (2 "subtypes") and 'dinaric' - for these last ones, it's evident 'dinaric' has an heavy input of some kind(s) of 'mediter' what is not the case of 'borreby'. I have some possible hypothesis to propose but I fear we could go far from the preferred focus of a lot of people here, left aside the fact my hypothesis could be very hard to verify.
 
MOESAN said:
You are right concerning Rogaland, less concerning Rhineland ( it's true, a very large region!) which was and stay a more heterogenous region for evident reasons. But the 'corded' type of Coon represented the most common element in the CWC pop's, not the only one, and in some regions CWC mixed with other pop's. So CWC pop's had not eveywhere the same proportions of elements, even less on the fringes of their huge territory where they mixed with other "mixes" of.
'corded' type is as a lot of "types" an average one, but in it were dominant the dolichocephalic and strikingly high skulled elements whatever their previous origins, and with narrower faces as a whole.
If somebody may criticize the genetic homogeneity of these "types", it remains that the Worms BB's were very closer to other 'dinaric' pop's of the time than to the 'borreby'like pop's of extreme North before subsequent overcrossngs.
Concerning the "brutal" 'borreby' type apparently linked to the "capellid" one, the result is very different from the 'dinaric' canon.
&: BB # 100% 'dinaric' - 'dinaric' was only the dominant type in numerous settlements, and appeared at Chalco in a great number of places from Cyprus to Southern Iberia and Ireland, and it had then no big ressemblance to northern 'borreby' types.
If we try to found some accord with reality, considering these "types" are averaged types and not individual units with homogenous homozygotic phenotypes, we can say all of them include archaic elements (+ - 'cromagnoid' / + - 'brünn-capelloid') and 'mediter' elements, AND some brachy element (a basic unkown type? or just the spreading of a mutation?) in the case of 'borreby' (2 "subtypes") and 'dinaric' - for these last ones, it's evident 'dinaric' has an heavy input of some kind(s) of 'mediter' what is not the case of 'borreby'. I have some possible hypothesis to propose but I fear we could go far from the preferred focus of a lot of people here, left aside the fact my hypothesis could be very hard to verify.
Click to expand...


I guess that is crucial, the brutal one links Gerhardt to CM and not to Capelid.

The basics of Gerhardt are quite simple, he uses a Capelid and a CM.

And within the BB culture both (also in mixtures) get brachycephalized, with a flat occiput as clear BB sign (not all but a very significant and deviating from the earlier pops in central and west Europe).



That is the' turn' :
Capelid> brachycephlized + high vault= steephead/ flat occiput.
CM (Gerhardt "Klötze", Blockhead)> brachycepalized

The BB around the North Sea could well have been much like that.

In addition to that, Allentoft 2022:

BAC
Finally, we investigated the fine-scale genetic structure in southern Scandinavia after the
introduction of Steppe-related ancestry using a temporal transect of 38 Late Neolithic and Early
Bronze Age Danish and southern Swedish individuals. Although the overall population genomic
signatures suggest genetic stability, patterns of pairwise IBD-sharing and Y-chromosome
haplogroup distributions indicate at least three distinct ancestry phases during a ~1,000-year time
span: i) An early stage between ~4,600 BP and 4,300 BP, where Scandinavians cluster with early
CWC individuals from Eastern Europe, rich in Steppe-related ancestry and males with an R1a Y-
chromosomal haplotype (Extended Data Fig. 8A, ; ii)
Click to expand...


BB
an intermediate stage until c. 3,800 BP,
where they cluster with central and western Europeans dominated by males with distinct sub-
lineages of R1b-L51 (Extended Data Fig. 8C, D; Supplementary Note 3b) and includes Danish
individuals from Borreby (NEO735, 737) and Madesø (NEO752) with distinct cranial features
(Supplementary Note 6);
Click to expand...


NBA
and iii) a final stage from c. 3,800 BP onwards, where a distinct cluster of
Scandinavian individuals dominated by males with I1 Y-haplogroups appears (Extended Data Fig.
8E
Click to expand...

Add BB. Allentoft:
Borreby, NEO735+737; Magleby 04.04.11-45, Zealand. Passage grave
Anders Fischer, Morten E. Allentoft and Martin Sikora
Originally the Borreby passage grave was covered in a tumulus framed by up to 1¼ m high
stones that formed a semicircle 16-18 m in diameter. The oval burial chamber, horizontal
dimensions c. 5½ by 2 m, was constructed of eleven upright stones and 3 cap stones. The
ESE facing, 5½ m long entrance was constructed from 5 pairs of vertical stones and a pair of
door jambs, topped by capstones (Fig. S6.5). When excavated in 1859 the chamber and
entrance was full to the roof with human skeletal parts, in between which were scattered
burial gifts of Middle Neolithic and Late Neolithic date. The excavator judged there were
remains of at least 60-70 individuals. The Meso-Neo project sampled three of them,
characterised by unusually coarse facial characteristics (‘Borreby type’ according to previous
literature) and suspected to represent foreign ancestry (cf. text on the Madesø individual
below). The two of these skulls that produced DNA of acceptable quality were AMS dated to
the Late Neolithic period.
Our genetic analyses have indeed documented shared ancestry for these two individuals,
and for our third Borreby type individual, from Madesø, since they are all of Y-chromosomal
haplotype R1b, falling within the earlier cluster of Scandinavian Late Neolithic and Bronze
Age individuals. Interestingly the non-Scandinavian individuals of this cluster are generally
from Western Europe, and the R1b haplogroups are also more common there. If this points
to migration it would likely be from there (cf. main text’s chapter: Fine-scale structure and
multiproxy analysis of Danish transect).
Literature: Bröste et al. 1956, p. 32014; Ebbesen 2008, p. 12515; Bennike & Alexandersen
2002, p. 29716; Hansen 1993, p. 11517.
Click to expand...

Danish BB, Flint Dagger Period
This article summarizes and discusses recent research into the Danish Bell Beaker phenomenon c.2350-1950 BC. Its focus is on the meaning of material culture here represented by Bell Beakers and bifacial lanceolate flint daggers, both seen from a social perspective. The Bell Beaker pottery is known to have had a very wide distribution. However, questions remain as to why Bell Beakers were only adopted in some regions and what meaning this special pottery had? Similarly the Danish type I daggers, which were manufactured within the context of the Danish Bell Beaker phenomenon in the northern parts of Jutland, had a wide distribution. Daggers of this type, which in general denote male identity, were exported in vast quantities, especially to Norway and the western parts of Sweden. In both case studies the evidence from a Danish Bell Beaker settlement site excavated in recent years - Bejsebakken - plays a major part.
Click to expand...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461957108101240

BB Maritime networks

Thus, we envisage that a maritime network connected Thy with north-west Europe down to the modern Netherlands, as we can observe similarities in both settlement types and metalwork (Bech and Rasmussen). Likewise, there were connections to south-western Norway, as well as Bohuslän in western Sweden and the Oslofjord region in Norway starting in the Late Neolithic. Thy held a pivotal position in connecting these two trading systems, which was supported by population movements and colonization. There is much to suggest that populations from Thy and northern Jutland settled in these regions, leading to the opening of landscapes similar to Thy
[..]
However, the lack of access to good building timber during the Early Bronze Age in Thy would have been an obstacle to the construction of seagoing ships. Here it seems that the economic and political power of Thy enabled control of the trade networks in the Kattegat-Skagerrak region, networks that also connected the timber-rich Oslofjord-Bohuslän region and southwestern Norway with Thy. This system connected to a similar maritime network that brought copper and tin north in exchange for amber collected along the Thy North Sea coast
Jæren in SW Norway stands out for being a particularly rich region during this period, perhaps due to contacts like these over the Skagerrak? The other main cultural hubs were to be found in the wider Oslofjord-region, with the Eastern side (Østfold) probably belonging to the same cultural area as Bohuslän. The number of rock art-sites in Østfold now exceeds a thousand and new ones are being found quite regularly these days by hobbyists:
https://viken.no/aktuelt/her-er-hell...000.92608.aspx
Click to expand...
"

Prescott BB on Rogaland!!!


 
MOESAN said:
Thanks for info. But how this kind of PCA has been made? Seems "multidirectional" ?
Click to expand...
Yes indeed according to the designer:

[COLOR=var(--text-normal)]This is based on a 45 by 9 table of measurements of European cranial series
[/COLOR]
Click to expand...


In this serie also, but then based on clustering. T
his is based on the same table as my previous plot. The clustering and lines to nearest neighbors are based on a distance matrix of z-scores. I guess the clustering would work better if I had more than 9 columns in the table or if I didn't have NA values.
Click to expand...

 
Thanks, Northerner.
This kind of accumulation of absolute sizes and indexes reduced on an unique PCA plan is (IMO!) only a mess. It's has been proved for metric tries about more ancient pop's.No DNA concordance can be linked to these kinds of clusterings, except for some already close pop's. I fear the correct representation of numerous features correspondances/differences on a PCA is a hard task.
 
MOESAN said:
Thanks, Northerner.
This kind of accumulation of absolute sizes and indexes reduced on an unique PCA plan is (IMO!) only a mess. It's has been proved for metric tries about more ancient pop's.No DNA concordance can be linked to these kinds of clusterings, except for some already close pop's. I fear the correct representation of numerous features correspondances/differences on a PCA is a hard task.
Click to expand...


I agree it looks kind of messy, nevertheless I pick and choose the BB type out of i., The hight and especially width are very obvious, as something with the "minimal frontal width" (in pca 1). In PCA 2 we see that with obvious cranial width and length, the CW ones even passed the BB?

Anyhow we see broad and long heads with, in sum very large head size especIally in the NW Bell Beakers (and some CW related groups).

And they have left their traces unto today, I just order glasses that are 15 cm width, the opticien said from the 1000 glasses he delivers a year he sells only max. 10 with those width (no and it's not obesitas ;)
 
Last edited:
Precision concerning « brutal » : I based myself on the supraorbitals and frontal profile for the most ; here ‘croma’ patern is far less « brutal », its forehead is more vertical and rounded, its browridges very less marked ; it’s true, descendants of ‘croma’ pattern had/have broader lower jaw (inferior maxillar) but its horizontal branch seen from side is shorter or seems shorter ; seen by facing glance, the ‘croma’ jaw is massive due to its breadth, but it isn’t sure it’s heavier than the other phylum jaw, at least than the ‘capelloid’ subgroup. The cranial upper vault of ‘croma’ is more linear and long than the ‘capelle-brünn’ one, which is more ascending/descending (regular curve); the ‘croma’ occiput is high placed and protuding, more than the ‘capelle-brünn’ one. Brachys appeared too in southeastern Europe, and it’ difficult to explain their origin. Artificial deformations put aside, it is the less proximate occiput to produce the ‘dinaroid’ flat one. Among Danes I think the ‘croma’ influence is a bit stronger, as in Northern Germany, among dolichos as well as among brachys.
What produced the change between « archaic » dolichos and « archaic brachys » ?
It seems these oppositions in features can be found among what I call the 2 ‘borreby’ patterns, of course modified by the brachycephalization whose origin (genetics, time, place) is still unclear to me.
Concerning the positions of these subbrachycephalic northern types as opposed to the typical ‘dinaric’, both are heavier built, have larger skulls and thicker skull walls. In the « croma-borreby » broad jawed the vault is rather more linear than in the « brünn-borreby », so in correspondance with the dolicho original archaic types. I ‘m sorry but for me Coon’s analysis spite not perfect seems to me more acute than Gunther’s one. BTW the western Balkans people of the 20th Cy were among the smallest skull periphery owners of Europe with eastern Mediterraneans, spite their high statures. Coon discerned among SW Balkanic people (Montenegro) occiputs with a lambda oblique flattenig from occiputs with an almost vertical allover occipital region more typical of « ture » dinaric types. As a coincidence, the regions where the first types were commoner had people with more often auburn hairs, lighter skins + freckles, and their skulls were larger as a whole. Their flattening placed higher is surely more visible seen from lateral view, surely less from upper vertical view, when both angles of view show flattening in ‘dinaric’ type, I think. Here Coon shows some cline between the ‘dinaroid’ types of BA Cyprus and the two ‘borreby’ types, the first brachys in Illyrian Balkanic lands (IA) staying between the Cyprus ones and the Worms ones, these last ones staying a bit closer to ‘borreby’s, what is not surprising, in south-central Germany.
Some scholar thought (I forgot who : Coon ?, a German?) that all high statured brachycepalic types in Western Balkans went there from North (no detail : today Austria ?, Germany ?, Czechia?, Hungary ?). Concerning archeology and history, I don’t know to what period(s) and culture(s) attach to this supposed phenomenon. But I may bet : BB’s. So, as well for geography as for aspect, we can suppose the most ‘dinariclike’ types had some ‘mediter’ input which lacks almost completely among ‘borreby’s of both kinds, at first.
 
To come back to North and your interesting communications :
BAC (Battle Axe) genetically close to CWC people, for Y-haplos too. I’m not surprised here. Without ancient data so without proofs, I remarked in modern pop’s that the Y-R1a in Norway (and Scandinavia as a whole) seems the first dense wave of peopling, pushed northward and northwestwards in Norway by the Y-R1b(U106 for the most) and Y-I1a people.
About time, these subbrachycephalic types seems appearing in Northern Europe only around the 3000 BC. Before, the archaic pop’s (not the mid-late-neolithic ones) were strongly dolichocephalic, spite robust faces (whatever the jaw breadth) and robust skeletons. For the ridiculously seldom skulls I saw in pics, they seemed rather on the ‘capelle/brünn’like side. Its still represented in the « archaic » influence among the current Scandinavians. ‘croma’ weaker, ‘cap/brünn’ stronger.
The abstracts I read about the Mesolithic pop’s of North-Germany South-Scandinavia said they were dolichocranes with broad faces (in fact broad bizygomatics, which doesn’t give clue to differentiate ‘croma’ of ‘capel-brünn’). Now we have to find why some of them became brachy- or subbrachycranes, and why they present 3 different patterns of features. It seems this modification took place not too sooner than the 3000 BC.
The brachycephalization of a pop could be explained by diverse factors, sometimes independant.
but possibly cumulative :
Facts : in western Europe (Bourgogne/Bavaria) appeared first subbrachys and brachys as soon as 6000 BC or sooner. They became common later in Eastern France, Bavaria, Switzerland. In Bavaria they were found after dolichocephals rather of ‘brünnlike’ form without any link with them. These first brachy skulls were ruggish but by time became more voluminous and less ruggish (in some way more round and « cerebral »). It seems they formed elsewhere but not far upon a ‘cromagnoid’ stock, maybe by partial foetalization linked to hard life conditions, and why not, too much endogamy. The later slight increase in size and the smoothing of the cranial lines could be the result of a small input of ‘danubian-mediter’ type with rupture of endogamy producing the so called ‘alpine’ type ? . Now the process of brachycephalizing among more northern pops in unclear and occurred even later. ATW, if we follow Coon at BA times the brachys of southern Germany were more robust and roughly ‘borrebylike’. But they were less brachy too.
The frontier between them and ‘alpins’ is not steep. Whatever the primaty cause there is kind of a continuum there (geographically too) the only exception being possibly that among ‘borreby’ the basis before brachycephalization was more diverse than among southern proto-‘alpins’. But we know that both archaic bones patterns of Paléolithic dolichos were mingled (unevenly) in the majority of European places before Neolithic colonisation ; it was the case until in Balkan mesolithic (Iron Gates). I thought at first the only link was an unindentified factor of brachycephalization in Central Europe having affected particularly the archaic mesolithic pops.
I supposed the ‘croma-borreby’ was just a more robust ‘alpin’like (with less or no ‘danubian’ input). The ‘mediter’ element in ‘dinaric’ could be a different ‘mediter’ one, more ‘corded-like’ or more ‘irano-aghan-like’ (Steppic in some way?).
What puzzles me a little is the signaled presence of lambda flattened subbrachy’s as a minority in certain places occupied by nomadic tribes in eastern Steppes (it could explain the constated slightly broader/lower skull types of Andronovo – but personally I have only ONE Andronovo skull at hand). And I remarked big similarities between robust « borreby/dinaric » affinities » type and some Tadjiks, when a slight WSHG input is excluded. In Steppes, some Y-I2a has been signaled too. A link ? A far genetic global co-ancestry or just a similarity in the components having produced ‘dinaric’ and/or other brachy types ? Were the first ‘alpin’ people Y-I2a(1 or 2) in majority ?
All that push me to wonder if some links couldn’t exist between our ‘borreby’s’ of both sorts and the Steppes ; could the steppes be the first place of ‘borreby’ (often associated to very light blond) ?
I don’t know but I doubt ; but a south-Baltic cradle could have some sense ; I lack skeletons of these regions for around the 3000 BC and I read nothing about them, unless the preceding periods showed there the classical unsteady mix of dolicho ‘croma’+’capel-brünn’ types called « cromagnoids » or « proto-europoids » by scientists. Maybe I’m loosing my time by searching unprobable links in the mixture of genetic/phenotypic/archeologic partial data I have at hand… To date, the only continuum we can be sure of is the more or less vertical one in west-central Europe of since Chalco to subsequent stages.


& : The process of brachycephalizing (evolution or crossing ?) had been signaled concerning some members of the Vinça culture if I don’t mistake.
 
Thank you Moesan, it shows your passion! Sometimes I had to read it a few times, it contains some jumps in thought and, moreover, English is a second language for both of us. But we have to deal with it.

What I would like to add about the Bell Beakers is that according to archaeologist Lanting (2013) the first Bell Beaker with a plan occiput has been found in a grave in Tückelhausen near Würzburg in Bavaria where an All Over Corded Beaker (AOC) has been found. Wasn't there a high degree of edogamy with the cups? By the way, I don't see many contradictions between your analyzes and those of Gerhardt (not Günther, that seems to me a completely different type of anthropologist....).

Another side path that I wondered to what extent is there continuity in views on skulls/faces, take the following study.....I'm curious about your view!



https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/84...*MTY3ODEyNTM5NC4xLjEuMTY3ODEyNTQzMS4wLjAuMA..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 6897 times.

Back
Top