Bell Beakers from Germany: Y-haplogroup R1b

Acatually R1b in Balkans peaks in Kosovar Albanians and in some Croatian parts.
This are the heaviest Dinarid areas in the world.

Coon / Dinarid nonsense is a nearly farcical attempt by an old man without any actual science, to assert historical racial or ethnic characteristics based on his own casual anecdotal opinion.
Seriously, ANYONE who cites Coon seriously on a DNA based board as being any sort of valid source should be warned once and then banned. You can measure skulls all you want and it is next to meaningless. This nonsense was attempt at a pseudo-science at at time without a real science available- Coon had a excuse, today we should no better than this.

I would hardly call anyone or anyplace in the Balkans a 'peak' of R1b. Romanians are what, 12%? How to determine what portion of this is ancient and what comes from the medieval german community is impossible at this time, anyway.

The real meat of this is being overlooked, which is that the speculation of the early germanics consisting of I1 populations is about dead at this point,
and the U-106 vein of R1b now is beaten for a position of the earliest proto-germanic R1b ancestry for what has been erroneously assigned as 'Celtic', so insistently and egregiously by keyboard commmandos at rootsweb et al.

Also, this explain that the R1b in western Czech republic is not so much need to be a artifact of German introgression of later times, but may reach back to corded ware settlements.
 
The real meat of this is being overlooked, which is that the speculation of the early germanics consisting of I1 populations is about dead at this point,

...because pipinnacanus has a different theory...

and the U-106 vein of R1b now is beaten for a position of the earliest proto-germanic R1b ancestry for what has been erroneously assigned as 'Celtic', so insistently and egregiously by keyboard commmandos at rootsweb et al.

Because it's likely that some of the early Germanic R1b was U106-, therefore, it all was? And Beaker culture was the only major contributor to proto-Germanic culture? Am I understanding your argument right?

Also, this explain that the R1b in western Czech republic is not so much need to be a artifact of German introgression of later times, but may reach back to corded ware settlements.

...how? That doesn't seem clear at all to me.
 
Because it's likely that some of the early Germanic R1b was U106-, therefore, it all was? And Beaker culture was the only major contributor to proto-Germanic culture? Am I understanding your argument right?

well the netherlands speak a language dating back in time to be originally called old-germanic, but there was the term used by linguistics calling it North west Block
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock

But what I am leading to is that since the netherlands has a lot of U106 ( as well as eastern Austria) , then this old "germanic" of U106 was restricted to BB culture initially , then Elp culture , then urnfield culture and
linguistic affinity to the Venetic language, other hypotheses connect the Northwestblock with the Raetic ("Tyrsenian") or generic Centum Indo-European (Illyrian)
I do not see no other way where the netherlands and eastern austria have a high u106
 
I agree with this, what people often tend to forget is that most of the prehistoric pottery was made by women not by men. Only when pottery was made with a potter's wheel and it was sold on markets it became also the working field of men. Since the technology of making pottery was lying literally in the hands of women, one should not make the mistake to conclude it is simply the reflection of one specific Y-chromosome.
I'm not well versed in pottery, but another thing to keep in mind is that the label "Bell Beakers" is reflective of one of the most common, available artifacts - the pottery. However, that is just the label! My understanding is that these Bell Beaker sites are designated by identification of elements of the Bell Beaker package. This would include the archer's wrist guards and a number of other artifacts. It is not as important who made the pottery, it's the nature of the archeological site in toto and the Bell Beaker package that matters more.
 
R1b is not uncommon in the Balkans. It is just less frequent there than it is in western Europe. Unless I am mistaken, the R1b SNP trail leads through the Balkans on its way northwest. That is, there is more R-11* and R-L23 (xL11) in the Balkans than elsewhere in Europe. As one moves north and west, the amount of the L11+ clades P312 and U106 becomes overwhelming. That seems to me to establish a trail from or through the Balkans on its way to northern and western Europe.

Anthropometrics can flip in a couple of generations. A Dinaric great grandfather may have great grandsons who would fall into a different anthropological category. For example, I have a photo of my y-dna great-great grandfather. I don't look anything like him, other than the fact that he had blue eyes and I have blue eyes (his eye color is described in a book written by one of his daughters). He was bald by middle age (I still have my hair), and he had an aquiline nose (I do not).

I don't think you should make too much of some Beaker Folk being Dinaric at some point.

maybe future will tell us
BUT don't confuse a single family lineage with is phenotypical variations, a so common case in a crossed populations, and a statistical admixture of phenotypes in a big population that varies very more slowly (very too often people answer to collective questions by individual exemples)
I agree there are some Y-R1b in North-Western Balkans: even if there is no accord about the time of arriving of Y-R1b in Europe everybody agrees that it come principally from Eastern lands (but: by the Donaw river only or also by the baltic shores? or for someones, by the Mediterranea sea?) -
BUT the peaks of 'dinarid' types is not there (say in North Dinaric Alps)- and don't you find it surprising seeing so big density of Y-R1b on the Atlantic side where 'dinarid' types are so seldom (even in the Bigouden region I mentionned!)- 'dinarid' type is maybe not a true homozygotic phenotype, but surely it contains a special element that I try to link IF POSSIBLE (and with care) to a Y-HG population - I agree totally that there are drifts bitween autosomal genes distributions and HG distributions and that some male elite populations could have had their weight magnyfied but a SO BIG DISCREPANCY between 'dinarid' (or 'dinaric') types centers of density and Western Atlantic Europe puts me to discard a link between Y-R1b and the 'dinarid' phenotype - Just a point of view, I 'm not God... but if the truth is with you and people thinking as you, we have to admit a unbielivable drift and overgoing of Y-R1b (I discused in another thread the validity of the 'sperm count' as a mean for a Y-DNA population to take the advantage over an other Y-DNA population...
I keep quiet and curious and wait more data about the B.B. folk (BUT WHAT ONE? THE FIRTS EXPLORERS OR THEIR PUPILS???)
 
From Eupedia

R1b

Albania 16%
Bosnia&Herzegovina 4%
Bulgaria 9.5 %
Croatia 8%
Greece 15.5%
Macedonia 13.5%
Romania 16%
Serbia 7%
Slovenia 23.5 %
 
I'm not well versed in pottery, but another thing to keep in mind is that the label "Bell Beakers" is reflective of one of the most common, available artifacts - the pottery. However, that is just the label! My understanding is that these Bell Beaker sites are designated by identification of elements of the Bell Beaker package. This would include the archer's wrist guards and a number of other artifacts. It is not as important who made the pottery, it's the nature of the archeological site in toto and the Bell Beaker package that matters more.


The package or the context is important, whether it belong to XY or XX no doubt, but sometimes I get the impression that some people really think that Y lineages alone dictate pottery styles. While ironical enough pottery is probably the most female biased artefact. So this alone should make clear that ethnicity identification based on pottery alone(and not the package) could lead to false interpretations. Of course it would be very interesting to know how one could become a Bell beaker person. For instance by owning BB's stuff, by birth, by marriage - and if so would the "new"woman adapt to the pottery style taught by her mother-in-law or would she stubbornly stick to the old one :LOL:

The observation that women made non-wheel pottery by the way is based on ethnographic research and the discovery of female fingerprints on prehistoric pottery.
 
Last edited:
Hear, hear! Although I am in fact bald, like my gr-gr-grandfather (and his other male-line descendants).

And by the way, rms2, some years ago (when there still was a DNA-Forums, and you were still active on it) you started a thread about photos of our Y-DNA ancestors. It's now gone to the cyber graveyard, but I thought in principle that was a good idea. Your WorldFamilies R1b forum isn't very photo friendly; I don't know about the FTDNA-sponsored forum, or MolGen, or Eupedia... just thought I'd run that flag up the pole, again, and see if anybody salutes.

Its perfectly fine to do this kind of thread on Eupedia.
 
Hear, hear! Although I am in fact bald, like my gr-gr-grandfather (and his other male-line descendants).

And by the way, rms2, some years ago (when there still was a DNA-Forums, and you were still active on it) you started a thread about photos of our Y-DNA ancestors. It's now gone to the cyber graveyard, but I thought in principle that was a good idea. Your WorldFamilies R1b forum isn't very photo friendly; I don't know about the FTDNA-sponsored forum, or MolGen, or Eupedia... just thought I'd run that flag up the pole, again, and see if anybody salutes.

I would contribute a photo of my great-grandfather and one of my great-great grandfather along my Y-line if you started that here, and I never even did so in the DNA Forums one, despite me being moderately active in that forum.
 
well the netherlands speak a language dating back in time to be originally called old-germanic, but there was the term used by linguistics calling it North west Block http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock But what I am leading to is that since the netherlands has a lot of U106 ( as well as eastern Austria) , then this old "germanic" of U106 was restricted to BB culture initially , then Elp culture , then urnfield culture and linguistic affinity to the Venetic language, other hypotheses connect the Northwestblock with the Raetic ("Tyrsenian") or generic Centum Indo-European (Illyrian) I do not see no other way where the netherlands and eastern austria have a high u106
according to the believing of everyone, Y-R1b-U106 can be pre-I-Ean or I-Ean... but its distribution and SNPs succession puts me to think that it was a early enough branching of the Western R1b and that the MAJORITY (not all of them maybe) of its bearers evolved south to the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, in a land that became germanic speaking - on another side, I do'nt sea any evident link between a North-Western I-E language either with a Raetic or a Tyrsenian language - we see nowaday flourish a lot of new theories about languages affinities without deap solid basis to come back to the B.B. folks and culture, I would be glad if someone here could tell me how was the BB pottery elaborated at that time? by YX? by XX? (to write short) - in Western Europe, according to MY (incomplete) readings, the first arrivings of B.B. in some corners seam like intrusions, male intrusions, with "loaned" sepultures from the local people - in others corners, were they seam have been more numerous, they have their own sepultures (often the case in Brittain, where they surely became dense enough in S-W, E and E Scotland - for females (XXs) it appears that they was often of diverse origins, but surely local ones was numerous enough (the males was very mobile, according to teeth surveys on trondium) - a B.B. folk in the demic sense? surely in some regions (the origin ones) but AS A RULE in a lot of occidental places (very well situated places for communication, trading, minerals etc...) the impact of 'dinaric' phenotype' (I trust in COLLECTIVE phenotypes, even if not "races") seams have been of short life (an argument for external intrusion) I think that previous "true" B.B. was firstable an homogenous enough population but not "pure" in the naive meaning with demography and culture (and a proto-centum-I-E language) of central Europe late origin that colonizes small places in Western Europe from Portugal to Scotland and Ireland about roughly 2800/2400BC sending their language in these places (but not imposing it everytime) - it 's possible that they became more dense between Southern & Western present day Germany and also Central Europe, and in these last regions they have acculturated durably the local "autochtonous" populations, giving way to proto-celtic, proto-italic and proto-ligurian, maybe too to a proto-germanic without the consonantal shift that ocurred later, with transmission to other more northern inhabitants of Europe (rich for Y-R1b-U106- the demic impact seams to me being lighter in Iberia - but the beginning of a early "plantation" towards a kind of lusitanian language is not ridiculous - a far origin near the Carpathians is not without sense (linguistically not at all), there we can find Y-I2a1b AND some Y-I2a2 (old I2b), two HGs we find in Germany nowaday and in litlle drops in Brittain, and among East Central Italians (and in Western Iberia too) - in Central-Western Europe they could mix with very numerous Y-R1b-U152 we find also associated (in a bigger number) with them in the same regions - R1b L21 & U106 became associated (very partially for U106) later, during the final processus of acculturation -my plan is quite naive and simple but it is an approach - I don't link B.B. to the big drifts of Y-I2a1b purely 'dinaric' (balkanic-slavic) or Y-I2a1a sardinian that was separated events -
 
I read very often that peoples are supposed to carry some kinds of genes because on their way they had gone through (crossed) regions inhabited by people carrying these genes - I wrote yet that it was not a fatality in the ancient times (we have proofs of that) - evidently they occurred some genes exchanges during the peoples movements but that did not imply a mixture at a huge scale everytime - it is important to note it - the big crossings occurs when foreign people stay a long time in a yet inhabited region (the present day case in big towns) or when they are but a small number elite...
 
I would contribute a photo of my great-grandfather and one of my great-great grandfather along my Y-line if you started that here, and I never even did so in the DNA Forums one, despite me being moderately active in that forum.

I'll give it a try. Does anybody object in principle to the notion of including Y-DNA descendants, as well as ancestors, if it's the same line? It will be a new thread -- I'm only asking here because this is where I brought it up, and there have been several responses.
 
in B.SERGENT (compilation of scholars about I-E) I red (surprised) that 'corded' ware was found in a lot of I-E cultures of the Steppes BUT also 'corded' + Bell Beakers ones was found in one, the Khavlynsk culture in Russia (stage Kurgan III, before -3000?) - if it's true, it's very important, isn't it? putting my poor old brain to work I see: B.B + metal working, metal searching, horse + heavy presence of 'dinaric phenotypes' (Ukraina, numerous enough, but also, lighter, in sepulture of the far Steppes) + Y-I2a: difficult to accord a cradle to all that in Occident! the problem of aging the beakers (some possible prototypes too on Danaw North Croatia in a site that became later the cradle or the "étape" for Italics ancestors: Neolithic Vucedol - my conclusion: the cradle is surely more eastern than western, that makes more sense for me - I think always in the crossroads that was Cucuteni-Tripolje last Neotlhic sites: steppic Ino-Europeans meating well evolved neolithic people (mix where the autochtonous Y-I2a was the denser ones) - possibly the crossings between some Y-I2a and some Y-R1b could have taken place in North Croatia (majority of U152?) yet and NOT AS I THOUGHT before (I'm not sure of any case) in Germany or Switzerland??? - BUT I HOLD ON FOR A REMOTE EASTERN EUROPEAN ORIGIN FOR BELL BEAKERS because for me Southern Iberia was just a destination for prospectors in a first stage - possible first wave of a centum I-Ean speakers group...
 
I mean no offense, but you're too fixated on the "Dinaric phenotype" thing, its name ("Dinaric"), and on connecting it to y haplogroups found frequently among peoples supposedly possessing Dinaric traits today. That is my opinion.

I-P37.2 has been found at non-Beaker, Neolithic Treilles in France, dated to about 3,000 BC. Thus far, the Kromsdorf Beaker R1b, dated to circa 2600-2500 BC, is the oldest ancient R1b we have.

Autosomal dna is not stable over the sorts of long periods we are discussing. It can flip and re-flip any number of times over the millennia and is as much influenced by females, who contribute half of the autosomal dna, as males.

We don't know where the Beaker package began. We also cannot tell exactly who was where that long ago.
 
I think there was a basic Mediterranean-type population inhabiting much of Europe before R1b got there, from the Neolithic villages in the Balkans to those in Iberia, France and even Britain. On the y-dna side of things, it was probably mostly what we have seen thus far from the various Neolithic sites: I2a (P37.2), E1b1b, and G2a.

I think the Paleolithic and Mesolithic remnants might have been F and perhaps some older kinds of I, and some of them will show up here and there.

I suspect R1b came up from Anatolia or perhaps even from the western steppe. If it came from the P-C steppe, then it probably left en masse at some point. The void it left was later backfilled by peoples who were mostly R1a.

These are just my opinions. I could be wrong, of course.
 
I too think all coastal regions of europe got increasingly populated by an unspecific mixed mediterranean-like population, up to scandinavia, where autosomal mediteranean influences is still strong (25-30%). That's probably because maritime coasts represent a unique living environment with mild temperatures.
 
I mean no offense, but you're too fixated on the "Dinaric phenotype" thing, its name ("Dinaric"), and on connecting it to y haplogroups found frequently among peoples supposedly possessing Dinaric traits today. That is my opinion.

I-P37.2 has been found at non-Beaker, Neolithic Treilles in France, dated to about 3,000 BC. Thus far, the Kromsdorf Beaker R1b, dated to circa 2600-2500 BC, is the oldest ancient R1b we have.

Autosomal dna is not stable over the sorts of long periods we are discussing. It can flip and re-flip any number of times over the millennia and is as much influenced by females, who contribute half of the autosomal dna, as males.

We don't know where the Beaker package began. We also cannot tell exactly who was where that long ago.

NO OFFENSE, we are ALL doing bets here, finally - BB is just a stage, whatever its origin -
I shall answer you longer in a short time - just that: autosomals and phenotypes do'nt change so quickly in not too small populations: crossings (immigration, invasion) do very more than internal evolution - we read too much "truisms" like that without any value
good night
 
Originally Posted by rms2
I mean no offense, but you're too fixated on the "Dinaric phenotype" thing, its name ("Dinaric"), and on connecting it to y haplogroups found frequently among peoples supposedly possessing Dinaric traits today. That is my opinion.


As I already answered you, no offense, why ?
I'm not fixated on 'dinaric' phenotype but on new skeletal features (phenotypicial << for a big part genetical, one source or more ?) scattered in Europe at a well defined cultural period (3000 BC and after) in places linked archeologically to a certain culture incompassed in this cultural period – the connexion with modern population possessing these dinaric traits is a bet, but a bet founded on historical and geographical coincidences that make it POSSIBLE (what are we doing here : if everything in History was already proved we should not have to prove any theory, should we ? And the connexion between modern phenotypes and Y-HG (or mt-HG) is also a bet, knowing the weakness of their links with other part of the genome...
It is necessary to read whole the theory : I'm not speaking about the terminal Bell Beaker world but about the germinal one, the beginning and its sources:I don't believe Celts are true Indo-Europeans, I believe they was accultured, maybe by more than a wave of elites I-Eans... I affirm (modestly and knowing how scarce are the data) that B.B. In not from Western Europe, Or it is a second stage of a culture that was born few years before in Eastern Europe)

I-P37.2 has been found at non-Beaker, Neolithic Treilles in France, dated to about 3,000 BC. Thus far, the Kromsdorf Beaker R1b, dated to circa 2600-2500 BC, is the oldest ancient R1b we have.


I have not too precise data concerning this Y-I2a1b subHG but I red it was found for the most of it in N-W Germany and a little bit too in the British Islands : bet : I should not amazed if it was part of the B.B. Of the british Round Barrows people, come from the Netherlands and W. Germany about -2400 – let's be carefull when we speak about « Neolithic » : the 2600/2500 BC period in France is classified « neolithic » and it is said that only about 2200 BC appeared the first Chalcolithic traces – I don't say all the bearers of Y-I-P37.2 (which is a bit « ancestral » and then not too informative compared to more mutated brothers HG) came one together and with the same culture : your interesting precision here asks a more detailed study about traces of B.B. Artefacts (or not) among the neolithical material of Treilles – but on another side, I 'm almost sure the neolithical sites of southern France saw soonest the arrival of Beakers people by Languedoc coasts - So the door is still open...
for Y-R1b associated to B.B. I'm sure it was the case in the stage of complete western development of this culture, but I'm not sure (for the moment) it was the case at the beginning -


Autosomal dna is not stable over the sorts of long periods we are discussing. It can flip and re-flip any number of times over the millennia and is as much influenced by females, who contribute half of the autosomal dna, as males.


- affirmation No proved anyway – autosomals are as a whole very steadier than people believe, in a not too small population, but the ones linked very tight to selection (and yet : some recessive letal genes pass through the centuries because in an heterozygotic environment they have positive effects : so genetic diseases have nothing to do with short endogamy in a lot of cases, despite the popular believing) – OK. Concerning the male-female transmission of biallelic genes, but why not to try : the dominent male elite bias exists surely, more in ancient « barbars » times than now but what is the solution : to consider all these threads are of no worth ? Me and others learn something, finally, don't we ?

We don't know where the Beaker package began. We also cannot tell exactly who was where that long ago.
So I do proposals, I have no pretention about being scholar or scientist – positival proposals only...but based on common sense – passive erudition is not sufficient -


 
latest on the bell beakers

http://u152.org/

click read more after 1 st page
 

This thread has been viewed 70478 times.

Back
Top