# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Bell Beakers from Germany: Y-haplogroup R1b

## GloomyGonzales

*Emerging genetic patterns of the european neolithic: Perspectives from a late neolithic bell beaker burial site in Germany† 

Esther J. Lee et al. 

Abstract 

The transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture in Europe is associated with demographic changes that may have shifted the human gene pool of the region as a result of an influx of Neolithic farmers from the Near East. However, the genetic composition of populations after the earliest Neolithic, when a diverse mosaic of societies that had been fully engaged in agriculture for some time appeared in central Europe, is poorly known. At this period during the Late Neolithic (ca. 2,800–2,000 BC), regionally distinctive burial patterns associated with two different cultural groups emerge, Bell Beaker and Corded Ware, and may reflect differences in how these societies were organized. Ancient DNA analyses of human remains from the Late Neolithic Bell Beaker site of Kromsdorf, Germany showed distinct mitochondrial haplotypes for six individuals, which were classified under the haplogroups I1, K1, T1, U2, U5, and W5, and two males were identified as belonging to the Y haplogroup R1b. In contrast to other Late Neolithic societies in Europe emphasizing maintenance of biological relatedness in mortuary contexts, the diversity of maternal haplotypes evident at Kromsdorf suggests that burial practices of Bell Beaker communities operated outside of social norms based on shared maternal lineages. Furthermore, our data, along with those from previous studies, indicate that modern U5-lineages may have received little, if any, contribution from the Mesolithic or Neolithic mitochondrial gene pool.*

----------


## spongetaro

That is great news! thanks!

We've made the hypothesis that R1b could have come with Bell Beakers for months in this forum!

----------


## sparkey

This is an extremely intriguing result, although it's somewhat unfortunate that the highest SNP resolution they give is M269. I really want to know whether this is L11+ or L51* or ht35 or something else! Without that, it's difficult to call this proof of continuity between modern R1b and Beaker R1b. But it's compelling evidence nonetheless, and ought to influence future interpretations.

The variety of mtDNA is also interesting... it seems more diverse than early Neolithic and Mesolithic samples.

----------


## Knovas

In other words, this is quite similar to the present distribution. Dienekes' is going to update the info after reading the paper in detail.

----------


## Taranis

Excellent! By the way, here is the link to the original abstract.

----------


## sparkey

I don't have the study on hand, but I am reading other reports (World Families and elsewhere) that they also tested U106 in addition to M269. Why they tested U106 rather than something more useful, I'm not sure... maybe to make it comparable to other ancient DNA studies. Anyway, predictably, they were U106-.

----------


## Wilhelm

Bell-Beaker was tought to be a proto-Celtic culture, and now we know is related with R1b,

----------


## Jackson

Really interesting stuff, looking forward to more like this, and of course Dienekes' take on it.

----------


## Taranis

> Bell-Beaker was tought to be a proto-Celtic culture, and now we know is related with R1b,


Please, let's keep the horses in the stables.  :Wink: 

Yes, we do now (finally, I should say!  :Grin:  ) have the connection between Beaker-Bell and R1b, but for all that we know that does say nothing about the language(s) that the Beaker-Bell people spoke. It's possible (even quite likely, I'd say, but that isn't the only possibility) that they were speakers of an Indo-European language, but given the vast scope of Beaker Bell Culture, I keep my reservations about that. After all, Beaker-Bell sites have been identified in Sardinia and in the Maghreb, neither which seemingly had any Indo-European (let alone Celtic!) presence upon them in ancient times.




> I don't have the study on hand, but I am reading other reports (World Families and elsewhere) that they also tested U106 in addition to M269. Why they tested U106 rather than something more useful, I'm not sure... maybe to make it comparable to other ancient DNA studies. Anyway, predictably, they were U106-.


Yes, I agree that does seem fairly useless. In any case, I'd like to point out a few other issues here, because we are confronted with more than one paradox here:

- the oldest sites of Beaker-Bell metal working are found in western Iberia (such as Castro do Zambujal, which has been dated to ca. 2900 BC). This is primarily why people argumented for an Iberian origin of the Beaker-Bell Culture, and this is also where the stelae people hypothesis has it's origin. However, I find it hard to believe that people from southern Ukraine would travel by a more or less direct route to western Portugal. Additionally, the spread of R1b's subclades in Central and Western Europe is more in favour of a Central European entry and dispersion point, rather than a dispersion across Western Europe from Iberia. So we have two contraditionary patterns here. I hope that Beaker-Bell sites from Iberia will tell us more.

- In connection with the above, we still do not know how R1b got to Central Europe in the first place, or from where, or by what route. And sadly, with current data this is also pretty impossible to say.

----------


## secherbernard

A total of 10 skeletons belonging to eight graves (6 individual graves and 2 double graves) of a cemetery located at Kromsdorf in Germany, were tested. This cemetery is dated between 2600 and 2500 BC. These 10 skeletons belong to six men, three women and one individual whose sex has not been determined. Mitochondrial DNA has been successfully tested on six individuals. The results give six different haplogroups U2, W5, I1, K1, U5 and T1, indicating that these six individuals did not share maternal ancestors. On the other hand, haplogroups W5, I1, K1, U5 and T1 have been detected in ancient DNA tests on Neolithic or Mesolithic skeletons in Europe. Haplogroups K, T and W were detected in the skeletons of LBK culture in central Europe but also in Final Neolithic in Spain. The Haplogroup I was detected in the Final Neolithic in Germany and Spain. The haplogroup U is the group most frequently detected in the skeletons of Mesolithic. Thus we can conclude that the Bell Beaker female lineage are in Europe long before the third millennium BC and are inherited from previous cultures: Mesolithic for U and Neolithic for the others. The Y-DNA has been successfully tested on two individuals. The two results give the same haplogroup R1b. One has been tested specifically R1b-M269. Both are negative for the mutation U106. These results contrast sharply with the analysis of Y-DNA tests previously conducted on Neolithic skeletons: F* and G2a3 in LBK culture in Germany, G2a and E1b in cardial culture in Spain, G2a and I2a in Final Neolithic in southern France and tzi in Final Neolithic at the Austrian-Italian border is G2a2.

This first study on Bell Beaker DNA seems to show that this culture is characterized by the arrival of a new male population in sharp contrast with a genetic continuity in the female lineages.

----------


## spongetaro

> the oldest sites of Beaker-Bell metal working are found in western Iberia (such as Castro do Zambujal, which has been dated to ca. 2900 BC). This is primarily why people argumented for an Iberian origin of the Beaker-Bell Culture, and this is also where the stelae people hypothesis has it's origin. However, I find it hard to believe that people from southern Ukraine would travel by a more or less direct route to western Portugal. Additionally, the spread of R1b's subclades in Central and Western Europe is more in favour of a Central European entry and dispersion point, rather than a dispersion across Western Europe from Iberia. So we have two contraditionary patterns here. I hope that Beaker-Bell sites from Iberia will tell us more.


I read that the first stelae were found in Brittany and have been erected well BEFORE those of Ukraine.
But according to Carleton Coon:




> The Dinaric type, with which the Rhenish Bell beakers are associated, is one which entered the western Mediterranean by sea from the east, and eventually moved, by some route yet to be determined in an accurate manner, to the north, and eventually to central Europe


As we see, those German bell Beaker appeared later than Atlantic and meditteranean Bell Beakers:

campaniforme.jpg

----------


## Maciamo

Finally some Bell-Beaker Y-DNA ! Just as I was thinking we would not have any more ancient DNA for months after the Spanish and Swedish studies published recently.

Now things are getting a bit clearer. I had predicted the arrival of R1b in Central Europe from around 2,500 BCE, and this is exactly the age of these samples. Really a shame that they weren't tested at least for L11 or S116, since these could also be the older R1b-ht35 (L23). 

These 2 samples being from Thüringen in Central-East Germany, they could also be the precursors of the Unetice culture. We still don't know for sure that the Bell-Beaker culture was initiated by R1b people, or that the culture spread with the migration of people rather than trade. What makes the Bell-Beaker culture so special is that it co-existed with other cultures, like the older Megalithic culture. In this case it could simply be that Bell-Beaker objects found their way in a pre-Unetice R1b settlement that had not no other connection with the true Bell-Beaker people (presumably from the Atlantic fringe of Europe). So all we know is that R1b was indeed in Central Europe by 2500 BCE as I thought, but it is over-stretching it to assume that R1b was found in all areas associated with the Bell-Beaker Culture.

----------


## Eochaidh

Ireland is an endpoint and endpoints are good to test hypotheses.

The last of the four Megalithic building waves was the Wedge Tomb which briefly overlapped with the Bronze Age people. In this Bronze Age, the artifacts are Bell Beaker, which are found uniformly throughout the island in contrast to the Megaliths which are mostly in the north. The certifiably Celtic La Tène culture is also found entirely in the north, and the south is without any Iron Age artifacts at all.

No one has found any evidence of any "Celtic Invasions" of Ireland, yet the people are there. It has been pointed out that many of the pre-Christian royal sites (really more rex as in the Golden Bough, than king), are associated with Megalithic sites, especially Tara and the great Boyne Valley monuments. This seems to me to indicate a certain cultural continuity through the centuries, as opposed to some Celtic Invasion from Iberia who stumbled upon Newgrange.

So it has always seemed to me, that the only candidates for the presumed pre-Celts were the Bell Beakers, for if not them, then who?

These new R1b results are very intriguing.

----------


## zanipolo

> Finally some Bell-Beaker Y-DNA ! Just as I was thinking we would not have any more ancient DNA for months after the Spanish and Swedish studies published recently.
> 
> Now things are getting a bit clearer. I had predicted the arrival of R1b in Central Europe from around 2,500 BCE, and this is exactly the age of these samples. Really a shame that they weren't tested at least for L11 or S116, since these could also be the older R1b-ht35 (L23). 
> 
> These 2 samples being from Thüringen in Central-East Germany, they could also be the precursors of the Unetice culture. We still don't know for sure that the Bell-Beaker culture was initiated by R1b people, or that the culture spread with the migration of people rather than trade. What makes the Bell-Beaker culture so special is that it co-existed with other cultures, like the older Megalithic culture. In this case it could simply be that Bell-Beaker objects found their way in a pre-Unetice R1b settlement that had not no other connection with the true Bell-Beaker people (presumably from the Atlantic fringe of Europe). So all we know is that R1b was indeed in Central Europe by 2500 BCE as I thought, but it is over-stretching it to assume that R1b was found in all areas associated with the Bell-Beaker Culture.


Bell Beaker theories in Thuringia are also with Unetidat culture, then we must revisit the historians from as far back as the 1970s who together with linguists mention NorthWestBlock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock

The old theory was that thuringia was the merging of the 4 groups - Celtic, venetic, italic and baltic.
This leads to 3 logical theories ( to me )
1 - The Celts where neither germanic or Gallic and where a people in their own right, who dominated central and southwest germany prior to the germanic migrations from the north ( jutland - holstein )
2 - The Venetic base where as per the my recently posted Veneti thread, the Veneti spread in all directions in europe. but as it base ( the majority due to linguistic and archeological finds) settled in Veneto and established the Este culture.
3 - The Baltic people would defenitley had earlier and deeper inroad of people into europe than just the coasts of pommeria, vistula delta, prussia etc etc

Did this merge form R1b is another question - there are many istances of west - east migration

----------


## zanipolo

> I read that the first stelae were found in Brittany and have been erected well BEFORE those of Ukraine.
> But according to Carleton Coon:
> 
> 
> 
> As we see, those German bell Beaker appeared later than Atlantic and meditteranean Bell Beakers:
> 
> campaniforme.jpg


Don't you find it odd that the bell Beakers all went west and yet they also have sites in the carpathian mountains and the danube delta - makes you think if the map is of any relevance

----------


## rms2

Apparently there is a problem with radiocarbon dating for the 3rd millennium BC, and especially with the use of charcoal from fires, due to the problem of old wood. Scholars like Marc Vander Linden have concluded that it is impossible to fix the location of the very earliest Beaker sites with any certainty.

Here's a quote from Vander Linden's recent paper, "Demography and mobility in NW Europe in the third millennium cal BC" (posted by alan trowel hands over at World Families Network):




> _In a widely quoted paper, Muller and van Willingen re-evaluated the relatively limited 14C evidence for the entire Bell Beaker Phenomenon and systematically considered charcoal dates as unreliable because of the potential 'old wood' effect (Muller and van Willingen 2001). Although their decision seems methodologically sound, by acting so, they created an imbalanced dataset since, for instance, charcoal dates constituted until recently the only source of information for the Netherlands (Drenth and Hogestijn 2001; Lanting 2007/2008;Lanting and van der Plicht 1999/2000;Lanting and van der Waals 1976). Their statistical treatment of the resulting dataset is thus only informative of their criteria for selecting dates, but by no means of any past reality (Vander Linden 2006: 12). The Portuguese Estremadura has yielded consistently old dates, pointing to the emergence of the BellBeaker Phenomenon somewhere between 2700 and 2500 cal. BC, but similar old - and otherwise valid for any quality criteria - dates are also available for the rest of the Iberian peninsula, the French Midi and the Netherlands (Vander Linden 2006:12-14, annex). The solution, or absence thereof, of the problem lies in the radiocarbon curve for the third millennium cal. BC, which shows a lengthy plateau between 2700 and 2500 cal. BC (see Raetzel-Fabian 2001).__ All the 'old' dates fall within this plateau and are therefore virtually undistinguishable from each other. This bias in favour of the Estremadura is actually the renewed expression of a marked preference for this area which goes a long way back in the Bell Beaker historiography (e.g. Castillo 1928)._ _All things considered, it is thus not possible to assign a Portuguese origin, or any other one, for the Bell Beaker Phenomenon on the sole basis of the radiocarbon evidence.__ Because of the inherent limits to the use of the 14C dating method for the third millennium cal. BC, any attempt at locating the BellBeaker homeland must therefore eventually rest upon explicit cultural and typological arguments (Vander Linden 2006: 14)._

----------


## rms2

The first person I ever recall making the Beaker Folk/R1b connection was a man named Rick Arnold. That was back in 2008 at the now-defunct dna-forums web site.

But a number of past scholars have suggested that an early Celtic language arrived in the British Isles with the advent of the Beaker Folk, and one of the natural implications of that would be that R1b came with them, as well (whether one agrees or not).

----------


## Taranis

> The first person I ever recall making the Beaker Folk/R1b connection was a man named Rick Arnold. That was back in 2008 at the now-defunct dna-forums web site.


So did, over the years, quite a number of people on this forum, including myself.

However, I don't deny that I abandoned the hypothesis in the meantime, due to the fact that the pattern didn't seem to match up (hence my suggestion it was a native, western european phenomenon). And indeed, they _still_ don't match up (a seemingly Central European entry of R1b into Western Europe vs. Iberian metalware). If we disregard Iberian metal ware, a more Central European origin for Beaker-Bell does indeed seem much workable, and it is compatible with the patterns of R1b.

I also have to add that in the meantime, I also speculated that the pattern of R1b rather followed the _demise_ of the Beaker-Bell culture, rather than it's expansion. With the limited data that we have as of now, I would not wholly rule out that scenario, either.




> But a number of past scholars have suggested that an early Celtic language arrived in the British Isles with the advent of the Beaker Folk, and one of the natural implications of that would be that R1b came with them, as well (whether one agrees or not).


There's also the very real possibility that the Celtic languages were simply _not_ the first stratum of Indo-European languages in Western Europe (see the Lusitanian language, and also the situation in Gallaecia). In particular Gibson and Wotko "The background of the Celtic languages: theories from archaeology and linguistics" argued in favour of this scenario.

In any case, I absolutely do agree with the implication regarding the British Isles. It would be very nice now to have Y-DNA samples from the successive cultures in Britain that followed Beaker-Bell (such as the Wessex Culture) to verify this.

----------


## zanipolo

to make sense on any expansion we need to not only look at migration for need , but migration due to/for trade

http://www.paabo.ca/papers/Y-STR-PAABO.pdf

Since some trade goods , like amber due to its plant resin can be dated by year and place ( within 50K) then these are very useful.

----------


## rms2

These Beaker Folk videos were pulled from YouTube over copyright issues, so they might not last long here either, but they're pretty cool.

Part 2.

----------


## spongetaro

Nice map from U152.org showing the distribution of Bell Beakers sites and the distribution of R1b U152.

----------


## rms2

Here is a paper on Bell Beaker wristguards, with some nice photos.

----------


## Taranis

> Nice map from U152.org showing the distribution of Bell Beakers sites and the distribution of R1b U152.


This map is pretty good because it visualizes some of the problems with the identification of the Beaker-Bell people as Indo-Europeans that I mentioned on earlier: as can be clearly seen, both Sardinia and Sicily have comparably low amounts of R1b-U152, but a very large density of Beaker-Bell sites. With Sicily, the situation is particularly interesting because the Beaker-Bell sites are concentrated to the west of the island. Pre-Roman (and more importantly, Pre-Greek) Sicily was home to several ethnic groups, of which only one, the Sicules, were speakers of an Indo-European language (with possible affinities to the Italic languages), and they lived in the _east_. The inhabitants of western Sicily, the Elymians, were a non-Indo-European people.

So, _very_ preliminary, my conclusion is that the Beaker-Bell Culture cannot have been wholly Indo-European (I think this is also very safe to assume for North Africa!), or predominantly carriers of R1b. After all, Sardinia's y-chromosomal lineages today are over 50% Neolithic (mostly I2a-M26 and G2a).

----------


## zanipolo

> Nice map from U152.org showing the distribution of Bell Beakers sites and the distribution of R1b U152.


i think the full article is required

http://u152.org/index.php?option=com...=1:latest-news

----------


## Christiaan

> So, _very_ preliminary, my conclusion is that the Beaker-Bell Culture cannot have been wholly Indo-European (I think this is also very safe to assume for North Africa!), or predominantly carriers of R1b. After all, Sardinia's y-chromosomal lineages today are over 50% Neolithic (mostly I2a-M26 and G2a).


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.

----------


## MOESAN

some remarks
- 2 Y-SNP it is very few to qualify an entire male population
- the first "true" B.B.s was not determined only by pottery but also by other artefacts (dague, arrowheads, archer's armband)
it seams they was a very mobile population so the links between women and pottery is not so important
- culturally Unetice-Aunetitz culture unerwent B.B.s influences but phenotypically they own more to the 'corded' people (surely Y-R1A as a majority) without forget the neolithic peoples -
- it would be very usefull knowing where was their ultime cradle - as they was metals searchers I think this ultime cradle was not in southern Iberia (the phenotypical aspect says the same)
- their physical types in their first colonies showed very often 'dinaric' types EVEN IN IBERIA that appeared in western Europe only at the fringes of 3000 B.C. - this type had more central-eastern Europe connexions than iberian ones
- I can not imagine this kind of settlers deplacing huge populations: small groups is more sensible to me - in central Europe only they could completely acculturate other populations (for way of life and language) - I suppose south Iberia was their first western (an the most important at that time) settlement (by sea, surely) - in some places where they was not numerous they took the local ways of sepulture (I red their own ones was flat tombs or flat graves with inhumation - 
- for now I do not imagine Y-R1b was the dominant HG among true B.B.s... among the mixed ones of G.B it is different...
- what we call B.B. culture encompass several groups and among them was someones that has had contacts with the first 'beakers' but was no more direct descendants of them: in Thuringen and Sax Weimar the B.B.s was in fact contact cultures between true first B.B.s and Corded people - the Beakers of North Rhine was a mixt of true B.B.s and previous populations where mesolithic human stock and "corded" stock mixed with 'dinaric' B.B. fellows : it is these "mixed" Beakers that put their foot on the British Isles 
- their language is still a mystery: but the fact that B.B.s culture traces are found in a lot of place without I-Ean language do not proves they did not speak I-Ean - it is not the first example of a not too numerous elite not being able to impose its language - I keep thinking they could have spoken a western (centum) I-Ean language... wait and see!

----------


## sparkey

> - 2 Y-SNP it is very few to qualify an entire male population


I think that this is an important point to keep in mind. I still find it very likely that Beaker culture was a catalyst for the spread of R1b, and that the initial spread of R1b was likely largely _within_ it, against the grain of its initial spread.




> - culturally Unetice-Aunetitz culture unerwent B.B.s influences but phenotypically they own more to the 'corded' people (surely Y-R1A as a majority) without forget the neolithic peoples -


I don't see a significant geographic correlation between Unetice and R1a/Corded Ware. Sure, there was probably spillover, but more than Beaker people? What's the evidence for that? I suppose your point is that "true" Beaker people were mostly not R1b, which is still a good possibility, but I'm uneasy with this "true"/not "true" dichotomy, considering how likely it is that Beaker people had multiple languages and genetic profiles.




> - their language is still a mystery: but the fact that B.B.s culture traces are found in a lot of place without I-Ean language do not proves they did not speak I-Ean - it is not the first example of a not too numerous elite not being able to impose its language - I keep thinking they could have spoken a western (centum) I-Ean language... wait and see!


Some IE and some non-IE is still a possibility, with Beaker culture again acting as a catalyst for the spread of IE, rather than spreading IE directly from its origin. That would also follow the pattern of the apparent earlier spread of IE by R1a peoples, whereby there is a likely correlation between Y-line spread and language spread. And it would also be consistent with what others have already brought up about the more female-oriented spread of pottery, which doesn't need to correspond directly to the Y-line (or language) spread. And the genetic part is a testable hypothesis--we just need ancient YDNA samples from early Beaker Iberia now, preferably deep clade tested if any turn up as R1b.

----------


## ElHorsto

I guess this represents already one example for maritime routes of R1b coming to western europe directly.

----------


## Christiaan

> I guess this represents already one example for maritime routes of R1b coming to western europe directly.


I think they would have known two routes to Western Europe. One route along the Atlantic coast, which was already in use by the megalithic cultures before. The other along the Rhine (to Northern Italy?). 

For instance near Stonehenge the Amesbury archer seem to had originated, according to isotope analyses of the teeth from the upper Rhine region(Sw-Germany or Switzerland). The grave goods (a knife) on the other hand was coming from Northern Spain. So Britain was one of the places where the two worlds of the bell beaker people met.

For those who are allowed to see the German documentary Terra X(usally Europe, Northern America is blocked)
scroll vertical bar to 29min:52sec:
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitr...2/Tatort-Eulau

----------


## rms2

While it is true that two Beaker Folk R1b results are precious little, it is all we have for now. It is worth noting that these are the earliest R1b finds we have and that no R1b has been recovered at non-Beaker Neolithic sites. It is also worth noting that Bell Beaker is primarily a western European phenomenon, and R1b is clearly dominant in western Europe. So, it seems to me very likely that Beaker males were predominantly R1b of some kind. I could be wrong, of course, but further testing of Beaker remains will tell the tale (if such testing ever takes place).

Given the age estimates of the various R1b subclades, I think it likely these two Beaker men were R-L11 and perhaps no further up the tree than that, or perhaps very early R-P312.

----------


## MOESAN

I 'll answer Sparkey that made valuable remarks and answer the other posters: for pottery, I think that we have not to separate a female 'pottery' from the remnant of the cultural artefacts: they was a whole in the first B.B. settlements, apparently - or we have to imge a male band that sends with im all its typical artefacts but not his pottery and that go everywhere spreading a foreign pottery coming always from the same geographical source - I can't imagine that when I write "true" B.B. I mean "first B.B. people", the acculturating one, not the accultured one - everyplace B.B. "teachers" seam having mixed after sometime with other people - (let's remember the british B.B. formed on 3 phenotypes just beginning crossing one with another (it is for that it was so easy to analyse it) - one was frequent among 'Corded' people (the one that was phenotypically important yet in the Unetice Culture close geographically to Thuringen, not culturally) + one was "autochtonous" (mesolithic) in the future Germany + one was 'dinaric', type found everywhere in more or very less quantity (less in Western Europe), just AT THE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD - I trust in anthropology for recent events, it's to say for about 5000/8000 years - so the 'dinaric' element appears as the bearer or spreader of the Bell Beaker phenomenon if it is not the source of it (see in Ireland : almost only 'dinaric' at the so called 'Food Vessel"period...) but I find that curious because all there settlements seam concerned by metals and metals come from East... (dinaric phenotype, for 'dinaric-Y-I2a1b I don't know for now) my today conclusion is that, after these acculturations and the crossings that came not immediatly but finally, it is very uneasy to guess the very true original Y-HG that beared the FIRST B.B. people- as says Sparkey and I think it since long ago, the B.B.s seam having played a great role culturally in Western Europe at the Bronze Age dawn and their incursions there put them in contact with a huge number of Y-R1b people in a lot of regions. So this 2 Y-R1b don't prove anything but are not amazing at all for me - and remember : the place they was found is surely not a FIRST FOOT PLACE: it seams a contact area with Corded (the same that produced the british B.Bs: not too far fromWestfalen: see HUBERT)- I don't yet evacuate possibilities for Y-I2a1b and Y-I2a2 - play again and have a good night

----------


## rms2

Sure those R1bs prove something: that R1b-M269 (xU106) was present among Beaker Folk, at least at the Kromsdorf, Germany, site. If all the other aDNA finds "prove" anything, those two prove at least that much. 

The various anthropometrics you mentioned bring in the vacillations of autosomal dna, half of which was contributed by females. You cannot really say that because some Beaker Folk fit Coon's old idea of "Dinaric", therefore they couldn't have been R1b. 

And if two R1b among the Beaker Folk don't prove anything, then surely a father and son pair of R1a at the Corded Ware site at Eulau don't prove anything either.

----------


## Eldritch

> Sure those R1bs prove something: that R1b-M269 (xU106) was present among Beaker Folk, at least at the Kromsdorf, Germany, site. If all the other aDNA finds "prove" anything, those two prove at least that much. 
> 
> The various anthropometrics you mentioned bring in the vacillations of autosomal dna, half of which was contributed by females. You cannot really say that because some Beaker Folk fit Coon's old idea of "Dinaric", therefore they couldn't have been R1b. 
> 
> And if two R1b among the Beaker Folk don't prove anything, then surely a father and son pair of R1a at the Corded Ware site at Eulau don't prove anything either.


What do you think R1b(M-269) dispersal in Europe(Especially the Balkans)?

----------


## zanipolo

Where there germans in the area of central and southern germany at the time of the Bell-beaker......I am afraid there where no germans, there was most likely gallic people like the Volcae tribe that where both on the rhone river southern france and in Ahhalt , north bavarian region.

On the upper rhine area was I2b1
*The Bronze Age was carried to Britain by the Bell Beaker people, beginning 2475 BC. They did not come from Spain, but from Rhineland Germany. They travelled down the Rhine River through Holland into England, bringing characteristic bell beaker vessels most similar to those of the German Rhineland.

The German Rhineland was I2b1 central. The I2b1a mutation is belived to be indigenous to Britain, but some have questioned why it sporadically turns up in Germany and the Netherlands. Ken dates it to around 2000 BC; just after the beginning of the Bell Beaker culture in England. It was carried to Britain by migration and not by trade, and spread throughout Britain and most of Ireland. 

The bell beaker culture was carried through most of its range by migration and not by trade, as shown by analysis of isotopes and genetic traits. It held a big area in north central Europe.*
*People have the greatest genetic continuity with those who lived in the same place before them, in northern Spain and part of Czechoslovakia. Otherwise there is evidence of very sizable migration. Even if they did make only a difference of a few percentage points in the population of Britain, that is a mass migration, and large enough to introduce a mutation by founder effect as common as M284. The Wikipedia article does not state by what genetics they have established the size of the population change. A genetic mutation for variegate porphyria, which normally is carried by 3 of 100,000 people, was carried from Holland to South Africa by a single orphan late in the 17th century, it became established in successive little Dutch farming communities, and today, 300 years later, 2% of the people of South Africa, both Black and White, carry this mutation. It is still extremely rare in Holland, probably much less than the incidence of M284 in Holland.

When explaining M284 in Holland and Germany, it is important to realize that there was a major migration of Puritans from Britain to Holland in the 17th century.* 

The volcae also explain the movement of R1b as they also travelled to northwest Italy

----------


## MOESAN

> Sure those R1bs prove something: that R1b-M269 (xU106) was present among Beaker Folk, at least at the Kromsdorf, Germany, site. If all the other aDNA finds "prove" anything, those two prove at least that much. The various anthropometrics you mentioned bring in the vacillations of autosomal dna, half of which was contributed by females. You cannot really say that because some Beaker Folk fit Coon's old idea of "Dinaric", therefore they couldn't have been R1b. And if two R1b among the Beaker Folk don't prove anything, then surely a father and son pair of R1a at the Corded Ware site at Eulau don't prove anything either.


 I agree with almost all your post but: 'dinaric' phenotype is not only the "COON'S OLD IDEA" (bu the way, I saw a beautiful dinaric crane (alive) this afternoon in Brittany where this shape of crania is very rare (I know someones, the maximum in the 'Bigouden' region of South Finistere, Brittany) - I agree with you about the "elastic" link between autosomals, and mt and Y DNA - BUT I don't see why Y-R1b could have had so often dinaric traits because dinaric traits are hugely commoner in Balkans where Y-R1b is very seldom - Bell Beakers IN OCCIDENT was VERY MOBILE MALES, AND DINARIC AT THE FIRST STAGE, APPARENTLY... I think they never took there dinaric traits among local females on their ways, becauses the countries they covered in West was very large and variated for human phenotypes - so a male element carrying some genes giving way to a 'dinaric' aspect went from Eastern or South-Eastern Europe - I can't think in Y-R1b waiting more informations for Corded and Y-R1a, I believe as you that we lack more data - but the overwhelming presence of Y-R1a in ancient I-E Steppes Peoples and in North-Eastern Europe, and on the "trail" of R1a to Norway, all regions where the 'battle axes' culture seams having had a big impact, can put us to believe that Y-R1a was very present among 'Corded' people- but surely enough too I think, there was yet some Y-R1b-U106 and some Y-I1 among the 'corded'

----------


## rms2

> What do you think R1b(M-269) dispersal in Europe(Especially the Balkans)?


Honestly, I don't know about the original entry of R1b into Europe and how that worked. There are so many conflicting opinions and so little evidence that it's nearly impossible to say.

What we do know is that no R1b predating 2600 BC has been found in Europe and that R1b has been found among the Beaker Folk. That's a start, but it's not everything, obviously.

I do think the Beaker Folk were the vector of Indo-European languages into western Europe, if only the Italo-Celtic branch, but I don't really want to get into another interminable Indo-European argument with the R1a Fan Club, with its stupefyingly long and soporific posts, which generally triumph by being supremely tiring rather than by being persuasive.

----------


## rms2

> I agree with almost all your post but: 'dinaric' phenotype is not only the "COON'S OLD IDEA" (bu the way, I saw a beautiful dinaric crane (alive) this afternoon in Brittany where this shape of crania is very rare (I know someones, the maximum in the 'Bigouden' region of South Finistere, Brittany) - I agree with you about the "elastic" link between autosomals, and mt and Y DNA - BUT I don't see why Y-R1b could have had so often dinaric traits because dinaric traits are hugely commoner in Balkans where Y-R1b is very seldom - Bell Beakers IN OCCIDENT was VERY MOBILE MALES, AND DINARIC AT THE FIRST STAGE, APPARENTLY... I think they never took there dinaric traits among local females on their ways, becauses the countries they covered in West was very large and variated for human phenotypes - so a male element carrying some genes giving way to a 'dinaric' aspect went from Eastern or South-Eastern Europe - I can't think in Y-R1b waiting more informations for Corded and Y-R1a, I believe as you that we lack more data - but the overwhelming presence of Y-R1a in ancient I-E Steppes Peoples and in North-Eastern Europe, and on the "trail" of R1a to Norway, all regions where the 'battle axes' culture seams having had a big impact, can put us to believe that Y-R1a was very present among 'Corded' people- but surely enough too I think, there was yet some Y-R1b-U106 and some Y-I1 among the 'corded'


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.

----------


## razyn

> 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.


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.

----------


## rms2

> 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 think we could do it again via ImageShack or some other web hosting site.

----------


## Eldritch

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

----------


## pipinnacanus

> 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.

----------


## sparkey

> 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.

----------


## zanipolo

> 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

----------


## Mikewww

> 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.

----------


## MOESAN

_




 Originally Posted by rms2


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???)

----------


## Eldritch

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 %

----------


## Christiaan

> 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  :Laughing:  

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.

----------


## Maciamo

> 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.

----------


## sparkey

> 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.

----------


## MOESAN

> 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 -

----------


## MOESAN

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...

----------


## razyn

> 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.

----------


## MOESAN

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...

----------


## 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.

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.

----------


## rms2

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.

----------


## ElHorsto

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.

----------


## MOESAN

> 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

----------


## MOESAN

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 -


_

----------


## zanipolo

latest on the bell beakers

http://u152.org/

click read more after 1 st page

----------


## MOESAN

> latest on the bell beakers
> 
> http://u152.org/
> 
> click read more after 1 st page


thank you well - I' ll read it.

----------


## ElHorsto

> 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.  :Smiling: 

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.

----------


## MOESAN

> 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..._

----------


## zanipolo

unsure if you have seen this below

http://uni-kiel.academia.edu/CherylM...ite_in_Germany

----------


## ElHorsto

> _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.

----------


## ElHorsto

> 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  
> 
> 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.

----------


## MOESAN

> 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 -_

----------

