Bell Beakers from Germany: Y-haplogroup R1b

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 was one of them who favoured R1b over I2 for Dinaric already in another earlier thread if you remember, thus I'm happy now since the confirmation of R1b for (at least few) Bell Beakers. :)

In this regard I'd like to note that Coon's textual explanations I personally consider largely as unsound. But his photo samples are still useful as commonly known examples one can refer to. And the existance of dinaric types is undeniable and easy to identify, in my opinion. But the other "races" are mostly mixtures or fantasy. Thus I too would like to add to theories about dinarics:

I always had the impression that there are at least three variants of "Dinarics" and "Armenoid": the first (R1b-U152 and J2) is stretching along Armenia, Pontus to Italy and parts of France. The second one is "Armenoid" (again R1b and J2) and is found specifically in Armenia. The third type (I2, J2? unclear) is spread around the Balkans, South-Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine, and is probably already longer in europe than the other variants.

The "un dinaric" regions of the Atlantic coast you mention are different R1b-variants, thus one can assume the first dinaric type in West-Europe is only linked to U152, but not to other R1b variants like L21, S21 etc. The ancient Romans (probably not I2, rather R1b+J2) were also often dinaric and had rather low skulls and looked different from dinaric Albanians or Yugoslavians, who have very high skulls. Also, north Italians (rich R1b) are much more dinaric today than south Italians (much less R1b).
Also coming back to the admixtures: it seems "Gedrosian" is less related to R1b-U152 rather than to R1b-L21,S21 of the Atlantic coasts, where dinaric types are almost absent. "Dinarics" seem to be more related to "Caucasus", which makes sense given that Bell-Beaker epoch was much later than megalith culture for instance.
 
I was one of them who favoured R1b over I2 for Dinaric already in another earlier thread if you remember, thus I'm happy now since the confirmation of R1b for (at least few) Bell Beakers. :)

In this regard I'd like to note that Coon's textual explanations I personally consider largely as unsound. But his photo samples are still useful as commonly known examples one can refer to. And the existance of dinaric types is undeniable and easy to identify, in my opinion. But the other "races" are mostly mixtures or fantasy. Thus I too would like to add to theories about dinarics:

I always had the impression that there are at least three variants of "Dinarics" and "Armenoid": the first (R1b-U152 and J2) is stretching along Armenia, Pontus to Italy and parts of France. The second one is "Armenoid" (again R1b and J2) and is found specifically in Armenia. The third type (I2, J2? unclear) is spread around the Balkans, South-Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine, and is probably already longer in europe than the other variants.

The "un dinaric" regions of the Atlantic coast you mention are different R1b-variants, thus one can assume the first dinaric type in West-Europe is only linked to U152, but not to other R1b variants like L21, S21 etc. The ancient Romans (probably not I2, rather R1b+J2) were also often dinaric and had rather low skulls and looked different from dinaric Albanians or Yugoslavians, who have very high skulls. Also, north Italians (rich R1b) are much more dinaric today than south Italians (much less R1b).
Also coming back to the admixtures: it seems "Gedrosian" is less related to R1b-U152 rather than to R1b-L21,S21 of the Atlantic coasts, where dinaric types are almost absent. "Dinarics" seem to be more related to "Caucasus", which makes sense given that Bell-Beaker epoch was much later than megalith culture for instance.

I 'm not able as you to go so deeply in details -
the genetic proximity for Y-DNA of R1b-U152 to other occidental "young" R1b (L21, SY2627...), even to U106, put me to doubt about a 'dinaric' condition for U152 only and not for the others: given its geographical position I can figure out an 'alpine' phenotypic evolution (by paelo-mesolithical origin OR by absorbtion of previous people autosomals in the Alps - by origin or by admixture the problem stays the same: these regions are richer for 'alpine' types than for 'dinaric types' (the region rich for 'dinaric types' are the poorest for U152 in this half-western meta-region - even in Croatia, the 'alpine' type element is stronger in North, where 'dinaric' types AND Y-I2a1b, as by hazard, is weaker -
I have the problem, if I try to link Y-HG and phenotype, that 'dinaric' types are found among rich I2a1b populations, BUT ALSO among some rich enough for Y-E1b (greco-balkanic HG) -
if I accept that some 'dinaric' traits are genetically dominent, and sufficient to push some anthropologists to exagerate the true weight of 'dinaric' in populations, based on only some characteristic features of crane, so I can evacuate the E1b problem (thorn in my foot!) - I have to say that I do'nt find so high 'dinaric' element among Armenians (previously they deformed the skulls of their children, as other peoples of Anatolia) by a special cradle use) - maybe more among Kurds (and yet, their tribes are not so homogenous... maybe some Y-J2 (J is genetically not too far from I) had already AS Y-I a predisposition to turn into 'dinarics' under some unclear influence (theory2: 'dinaric' is not an homozygotic phenotype [theory 1] but a well determined crossing OR theory 3: its an unstable evolution under some conditions) - I lack elements to go further on -
for the B.B. question, it's still true that about roughly -3000 new conditions or mutations affected ONLY some people that appeared suddenly in western Europe and I believe these conditions or mutations took place elsewhere than in western Europe and so there have been an INTRUSION of new people, whatever the theory we profess -

on a different axis, I newly red (1060's works) that the 'dinaroid' skulls of the Eneo-Chalcolithic in southern France (-2800?) was different enough from the (artificially deformed?) ancient 'armenoid' cranes AND THAT THE CLOSER ONES WAS THE BELL BEAKERS SKULLS OF GERMANY (Glockel Bäcker) and too not so far from the 'dinaroid' ones of Chypre - COON said that the 'dinaroid' part of the british BBs was close to the Rhineland BB too...
 
I 'm not able as you to go so deeply in details -
the genetic proximity for Y-DNA of R1b-U152 to other occidental "young" R1b (L21, SY2627...), even to U106, put me to doubt about a 'dinaric' condition for U152 only and not for the others: given its geographical position I can figure out an 'alpine' phenotypic evolution (by paelo-mesolithical origin OR by absorbtion of previous people autosomals in the Alps - by origin or by admixture the problem stays the same: these regions are richer for 'alpine' types than for 'dinaric types' (the region rich for 'dinaric types' are the poorest for U152 in this half-western meta-region - even in Croatia, the 'alpine' type element is stronger in North, where 'dinaric' types AND Y-I2a1b, as by hazard, is weaker -
I have the problem, if I try to link Y-HG and phenotype, that 'dinaric' types are found among rich I2a1b populations, BUT ALSO among some rich enough for Y-E1b (greco-balkanic HG) -
if I accept that some 'dinaric' traits are genetically dominent, and sufficient to push some anthropologists to exagerate the true weight of 'dinaric' in populations, based on only some characteristic features of crane, so I can evacuate the E1b problem (thorn in my foot!) - I have to say that I do'nt find so high 'dinaric' element among Armenians (previously they deformed the skulls of their children, as other peoples of Anatolia) by a special cradle use) - maybe more among Kurds (and yet, their tribes are not so homogenous... maybe some Y-J2 (J is genetically not too far from I) had already AS Y-I a predisposition to turn into 'dinarics' under some unclear influence (theory2: 'dinaric' is not an homozygotic phenotype [theory 1] but a well determined crossing OR theory 3: its an unstable evolution under some conditions) - I lack elements to go further on -
for the B.B. question, it's still true that about roughly -3000 new conditions or mutations affected ONLY some people that appeared suddenly in western Europe and I believe these conditions or mutations took place elsewhere than in western Europe and so there have been an INTRUSION of new people, whatever the theory we profess -

on a different axis, I newly red (1060's works) that the 'dinaroid' skulls of the Eneo-Chalcolithic in southern France (-2800?) was different enough from the (artificially deformed?) ancient 'armenoid' cranes AND THAT THE CLOSER ONES WAS THE BELL BEAKERS SKULLS OF GERMANY (Glockel Bäcker) and too not so far from the 'dinaroid' ones of Chypre - COON said that the 'dinaroid' part of the british BBs was close to the Rhineland BB too...

It is valid what you say. But still, since R1b+J is present in the near east, especially among Armenians with high diversity, it seems not to be so far-fetched to assume that some R1b lineages got attached to dinarid look already there. And I was not refering to ancient deformed skulls, but contemporary living armenians (see "armenoid" examples from Coon).
So indeed, R1b might not have originally carried dinaric traits itself (as likely most other lineages didn't too), but it may have become a carrier line of dinaric looking peoples at some particular time in particular regions, e.g. Bell-Beaker arrival. In Armenia for instance, R1b lineages occur together with J lineages, though it is also possible that R1b was already in europe when it got attached to new arriving dinaric peoples. I really don't know. Regarding Balkans, it could indeed have been rather HG E or J instead of R1b which carried dinarid look from the near east. Your idea of Y-HG I being linked to dinaric can also be true, just for other particular regions like Balkan, (Kurdistan?).
My point is that I don't really see a conflict in dinaric B.B. being of R1b lineage, as Armenia shows. Of course this is not an attempted proof, just an invalidation of the attempted disproof.
 
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.

On the other hand, if the theory is true that the Bell-Beakers have introduced metallurgy and bronze weapons even to Denmark and Ireland, then the B.B. pottery was probably not that crucial despite of the pottery-based naming.
 
On the other hand, if the theory is true that the Bell-Beakers have introduced metallurgy and bronze weapons even to Denmark and Ireland, then the B.B. pottery was probably not that crucial despite of the pottery-based naming.

hard to be sure but I agree with you: in Spain, some say that metallurgy precede BB in some places (surely not everywhere, and the Meseta BBs aren't the first BB settlement in Iberia - my religion is that BB had a deep origin in people who was metallurgists, it is not saying THEY was either the only metallurgists or the metallurgy initiators...
and the kit of "genuine" BB was not limited to pottery, but comprised other artefacts too -
 

This thread has been viewed 70398 times.

Back
Top