World Families Forums - Beaker Folk Finds: Skulls, Reconstructions, Artifacts, etc.

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 27, 2014, 03:58:51 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Beaker Folk Finds: Skulls, Reconstructions, Artifacts, etc.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Beaker Folk Finds: Skulls, Reconstructions, Artifacts, etc.  (Read 9459 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #25 on: June 24, 2012, 09:06:33 PM »

The way I look at any correlation between P312 and the beaker folk is that, given the patterning, it looks like, much like beaker, P312 had between 2600BC and 2400BC undergone a spread across much of its territory.  That is also true of beaker.  In fact its so similar it would nearly be bizzare if the 2 are not linked given the distribution similarity too and also the linguistic similarity.  However, the way I look at it is from mr P312 to the more patterned L21 etc is probably only a century or two.  The folks arriving in Britain would potentially have known Mr P312's name!  He would maybe be their GG grandfather.  Now, even at a reproductive rate of the especially rabbit like Gaelic chiefs with their serial marrying, multiple wives and other bits on the side (I speak as one of that ancestry myself) I find it hard to believe that the male descendants of Mr P312 living in say 2600BC were much more than a few thousand in 2400BC when the beakers reached their maximum extent.  Of course Mr P312 is not going to have suddenly had fathers throwing their daughters at him if he wasnt already very powerful in some way.  So it does pose the question of who did Mr P312 arrive with (who backed him up) and where are the descendants of those others?  That is why its never made a lot of sense to me that one family line steming from one guy about 2600BC (give or take a century) can just appear to seize the reigns of power but no trace is left of who arrived with him i.e. L23XL51 guys.  Well that is what would have been expected if prior to Mr P312, the line he was from operated in a similar way to after Mr P312.  I find that very weird and hard to picture if it was some kind of martial thing.  To be frank it is easier to see them as some kind of specialist clan who were sought after due to the metal skills and perhaps other trading activities, prestige items, horses etc.  They may have been seen as high prestige traders and adventurers with a huge amount of prestige.  However, it seems to me that P312 spread too fast for it to actually create enough descendants to form a force that would threaten anyone initially.  If they did have a force that was not simply like a clan of relatives then where are their descendants?  Again, I find the idea of some kind of sweeping military conquest basically not compatible with the structure of P312 and the date and spread of its early subclades.  It just doesnt compute.  I see beaker folk as initially a sought after group who formed some sort of heroic high status merchant adventurer class who were initially welcomed and settled my local natives but who eventually became the leading class of the land (probably within a century or two).
Logged
samIsaack
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2012, 09:11:24 PM »

On one of these Beaker-related threads a couple of us got into a brief discussion of the cephalic index and measuring skulls. Well, I finally got hold of a set of calipers and measured my own skull. To get the cephalic index, you measure your skull at the widest part and again at the longest part and divide the width by the length. Then multiply by 100.

I got a cephalic index for myself of about 76 (it was actually 75.789, to be precise). That puts me in the mesocephalic or mesaticephalic range, which is kind of what I expected: Cephalic Index.

I am not sure my skull measurement is ultra-accurate, since I did the measuring by myself, without any help, and with a hardware store set of calipers.

But it was fun to do. :-)

I went about this the same way you did and came up with an index of 72..rounded up from 71.875.. Which I guess would make my skull type dolichocephalic. My ancestry is almost entirely British Isles with a few lines here and there from Germany and Ireland.
Logged

Y-Dna: R1b-SRY2627

Mtdna: J1c8
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2012, 07:17:31 AM »

did you have to make any allowance for flesh on your skull?
Or are we thin-skinned enough to get a skull measurement ??

I think you would have to be a real fat head for that to be an issue :)


I thought it might be worth mentioning.
 
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #28 on: June 25, 2012, 07:37:03 AM »

did you have to make any allowance for flesh on your skull?
Or are we thin-skinned enough to get a skull measurement ??

I think you would have to be a real fat head for that to be an issue :)


I thought it might be worth mentioning.
 

I think the flesh on the upper skull is pretty thin; at least it is on me. Long hair would seem to create more measurement problems. Fortunately, just a few days ago I got my "start-of-summer" haircut. My hair is pretty short right now.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #29 on: June 25, 2012, 07:40:24 AM »

On one of these Beaker-related threads a couple of us got into a brief discussion of the cephalic index and measuring skulls. Well, I finally got hold of a set of calipers and measured my own skull. To get the cephalic index, you measure your skull at the widest part and again at the longest part and divide the width by the length. Then multiply by 100.

I got a cephalic index for myself of about 76 (it was actually 75.789, to be precise). That puts me in the mesocephalic or mesaticephalic range, which is kind of what I expected: Cephalic Index.

I am not sure my skull measurement is ultra-accurate, since I did the measuring by myself, without any help, and with a hardware store set of calipers.

But it was fun to do. :-)

I went about this the same way you did and came up with an index of 72..rounded up from 71.875.. Which I guess would make my skull type dolichocephalic. My ancestry is almost entirely British Isles with a few lines here and there from Germany and Ireland.

That is a longheaded index, for sure.

I had a student this past school year whose ancestry is Danish (surname Larsen). He had the classic "Nordic" look: blond hair, blue eyes, and a very narrow, long head. I never measured his skull, but his dolichocephaly was pretty obvious.

When I was in Russia, however, I noticed a lot of roundheads. They are much more prevalent there, it seems to me, than in the West.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #30 on: June 25, 2012, 07:45:55 AM »

I once read that facial development is dictated by the skull shape and that the two basic types are dolichomorphoc (a more narrow thrust forward face) and brachymorphic (a wider more flattish face).  Dinaric (which seems to be the closest to beaker) is an oddity but it is essentially a dolichomorphic face and skull that is actually not that wide for some reason is flattened at the back which gives it the brachycephalic index reading.  However, I also read that the brachycephalic element is a minority anyway in beaker and the majority were mesocephalic.  

You also have to ask yourself why did the corded ware people also seem to not resemble Yamnaya.  Makes me wonder what modern populations most resemble the Yamnanya peoples.  I dont think any people in Europe sound like they really fit the type.    

Some cranial and facial bones are up to 40% heritable in a study I read from Dienekes' site but can also change rather rapidly in only a few hundred years.  With Beaker, I think something else is driving this physical type.  It has little precedent and spreads over a large area very quickly.  Lactase persistence might explain the increased stature and robusticity, but I don't think it influences head breadth.  Although, many weightlifters today tend not to have narrow heads.  The above mentioned book has Anatolian samples from the Neolithic and Bronze ages.  Only the Hittites look similiar, but they are too late.  Everything else is dolichocephalic for the most part.  

According to Coon(1939), the Beaker were mostly mesocephalic in their eastern range.  Since then though, there have been more graves discovered and sampled to get this 2001 data.  Out of 14 dimensions/indexes, the above Yamnaya and Beakers only overlap on 6.  Compared with the Baden sample of a similiar time-frame who overlap on 8.  I'm not saying Beaker emerged from Baden, only that the physical type has some precedent in the earlier late neolithic people rather than the steppe.

Corded-ware in this book seem to be intermediate between gracile neolithics and steppe people.   They share with the steppe people, in contrast to the gracile, mediterranean types longer heads (and wider faces) which gives them a similiar cranial index.  


I read somewhere that the Beaker physiognomy, including the skull and other skeletal features, is similar to that found among some men in Armenia. I'll try to find that reference.
Logged

OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #31 on: June 25, 2012, 07:47:01 AM »

did you have to make any allowance for flesh on your skull?
Or are we thin-skinned enough to get a skull measurement ??

I think you would have to be a real fat head for that to be an issue :)


I thought it might be worth mentioning.
 

I think the flesh on the upper skull is pretty thin; at least it is on me. Long hair would seem to create more measurement problems. Fortunately, just a few days ago I got my "start-of-summer" haircut. My hair is pretty short right now.

I have seen some facial/skull reconstructions where they build out the flesh on the skull. I had guessed maybe there could be 1/4 inch of flesh on the skull. This would be on both sides of the skull and may give you 1/2 inch added to your skull width. Perhaps that makes no difference??..or my guess could be off.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 07:48:24 AM by OConnor » Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #32 on: June 25, 2012, 07:52:02 AM »

did you have to make any allowance for flesh on your skull?
Or are we thin-skinned enough to get a skull measurement ??

I think you would have to be a real fat head for that to be an issue :)


I thought it might be worth mentioning.
 

I think the flesh on the upper skull is pretty thin; at least it is on me. Long hair would seem to create more measurement problems. Fortunately, just a few days ago I got my "start-of-summer" haircut. My hair is pretty short right now.

I have seen some facial/skull reconstructions where they build out the flesh on the skull. I had guessed maybe there could be 1/4 inch of flesh on the skull. This would be on both sides of the skull and may give you 1/2 inch added to your skull width. Perhaps that makes no difference??..or my guess could be off.

I think as long as the distribution of flesh on the skull is fairly even - that is, pretty much the same thickness on the sides as on the front and back - it doesn't matter, because the cephalic index is based on the proportion of width to length and not on the actual numbers of the measurements themselves.

Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #33 on: June 25, 2012, 07:58:43 AM »


I read somewhere that the Beaker physiognomy, including the skull and other skeletal features, is similar to that found among some men in Armenia. I'll try to find that reference.

I found it. It was something I posted on that thread about the Kromsdorf Beaker R1b guys.

The pertinent info was originally from a post on Dienekes' blog by a person with the screen name Derek. Here it is.

Quote from: Derek
I've found all these references to the Beaker Folk's distinct skull type extremely interesting and am trying to educate myself on the subject. A lot of the relevant academic papers seem to cite a 1953 book by Kurt Gerhardt (Die Glockenbecherleute in Mittel-und Westdeutschland) in which the author made a detailed study of 130 BB skulls. I haven't been able to find the book, but found an old review of it on JSTOR:

"The Bell-Beaker pottery and a type of skull called by Gerhardt Plano-Occipital Steilkopf appear together in late Neolithic times in Central Europe; and Gerhardt gives us a study of 130 skulls, with sketches of 73 of them, where possible three sketches of each being shown. The Plano-Occipital Steilkopf with the back of the head almost a vertical plane is the chief, the most numerous and the most marked type among the skulls showing strong brows and jaws and other features with a considerable range of variation. ........

Gerhardt emphasizes the anatomical relation of the chief type of Beaker Men to an Anatolian-Armenian breed in a proportion of the men in which one finds that steep rise of the hinder plane of the skull, but admits that there is as yet too little evidence from Armenia of the Beaker period. His view is that the type spread west in the Mediterranean."

Here's the link if you have access to JSTOR:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2795139


http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/05/bell-beakers-from-germany-y-haplogroup.html

Steilkopf literally means "steep head".

The possible connection to Anatolia/Armenia is interesting, to say the least.
Logged

samIsaack
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #34 on: June 25, 2012, 08:56:37 AM »

On one of these Beaker-related threads a couple of us got into a brief discussion of the cephalic index and measuring skulls. Well, I finally got hold of a set of calipers and measured my own skull. To get the cephalic index, you measure your skull at the widest part and again at the longest part and divide the width by the length. Then multiply by 100.

I got a cephalic index for myself of about 76 (it was actually 75.789, to be precise). That puts me in the mesocephalic or mesaticephalic range, which is kind of what I expected: Cephalic Index.

I am not sure my skull measurement is ultra-accurate, since I did the measuring by myself, without any help, and with a hardware store set of calipers.

But it was fun to do. :-)

I went about this the same way you did and came up with an index of 72..rounded up from 71.875.. Which I guess would make my skull type dolichocephalic. My ancestry is almost entirely British Isles with a few lines here and there from Germany and Ireland.

That is a longheaded index, for sure.

I had a student this past school year whose ancestry is Danish (surname Larsen). He had the classic "Nordic" look: blond hair, blue eyes, and a very narrow, long head. I never measured his skull, but his dolichocephaly was pretty obvious.

When I was in Russia, however, I noticed a lot of roundheads. They are much more prevalent there, it seems to me, than in the West.

Very interesting! I've become somewhat obsessed with all of this cephalic index stuff since I measured my head less than 24 hours ago! I too have my summer haircut, which in my case was using clippers without a guard.. This Kentucky humidity is a killer!

Its a bit of challenge looking for info online that doesn't lead to some Nordic Aryan super-men website (Ignore the idealogy and focus on the findings, I suppose!). From what I've filtered through, it seems this skull type was found to be common amongst Iron-Age Celts in Britain as well. I can't remember the exact source for this. I've also read the description you mentioned as well, seems like its referred to as Nordic-Keltic. I also have the external occipital protuberance feature.  Though I wouldn't describe it as the Nordic type, where the occiput as a whole juts out above the neck.  Rather I think what I have is referred to as the anatolian bump.. Very noticeable since I shaved my head.  Hard to find reliable info on that as well.
Logged

Y-Dna: R1b-SRY2627

Mtdna: J1c8
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #35 on: June 25, 2012, 01:54:44 PM »

did you have to make any allowance for flesh on your skull?
Or are we thin-skinned enough to get a skull measurement ??

I think you would have to be a real fat head for that to be an issue :)


I thought it might be worth mentioning.
 

Don't take my comments to seriously I was just making a small joke, truth is this forum has blessed few fat heads.
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2012, 07:39:11 AM »

On one of these Beaker-related threads a couple of us got into a brief discussion of the cephalic index and measuring skulls. Well, I finally got hold of a set of calipers and measured my own skull. To get the cephalic index, you measure your skull at the widest part and again at the longest part and divide the width by the length. Then multiply by 100.

I got a cephalic index for myself of about 76 (it was actually 75.789, to be precise). That puts me in the mesocephalic or mesaticephalic range, which is kind of what I expected: Cephalic Index.

I am not sure my skull measurement is ultra-accurate, since I did the measuring by myself, without any help, and with a hardware store set of calipers.

But it was fun to do. :-)

I went about this the same way you did and came up with an index of 72..rounded up from 71.875.. Which I guess would make my skull type dolichocephalic. My ancestry is almost entirely British Isles with a few lines here and there from Germany and Ireland.

That is a longheaded index, for sure.

I had a student this past school year whose ancestry is Danish (surname Larsen). He had the classic "Nordic" look: blond hair, blue eyes, and a very narrow, long head. I never measured his skull, but his dolichocephaly was pretty obvious.

When I was in Russia, however, I noticed a lot of roundheads. They are much more prevalent there, it seems to me, than in the West.

Very interesting! I've become somewhat obsessed with all of this cephalic index stuff since I measured my head less than 24 hours ago! I too have my summer haircut, which in my case was using clippers without a guard.. This Kentucky humidity is a killer!

Its a bit of challenge looking for info online that doesn't lead to some Nordic Aryan super-men website (Ignore the idealogy and focus on the findings, I suppose!). From what I've filtered through, it seems this skull type was found to be common amongst Iron-Age Celts in Britain as well. I can't remember the exact source for this. I've also read the description you mentioned as well, seems like its referred to as Nordic-Keltic. I also have the external occipital protuberance feature.  Though I wouldn't describe it as the Nordic type, where the occiput as a whole juts out above the neck.  Rather I think what I have is referred to as the anatolian bump.. Very noticeable since I shaved my head.  Hard to find reliable info on that as well.


I'd beware of the "Iron Age Celts" stuff. That hearkens back to the old "true-Celts-were-Aryan-Supermen" idea that was popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I believe there have been a variety of anthropological types found among Celtic remains, including a variety of skull shapes. I don't think dolichocephaly was especially prominent among the Celts.

Remember, too, that dolichocephaly is a trait of Mediterranean physical types, as well as of Subsaharan Africans and Australian Aborigines. Long-headed Mediterranean types were prevalent in the Neolithic long barrows of the British Isles, as I recall.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 07:40:22 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2012, 08:25:25 AM »

Quote from: Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe, Chapter IV, Section 10
The Neolithic in the British Isles

The next move in this geographical game is back to the extreme west again, and to Britain. The Early Neolithic culture of the British Isles was a peripheral echo of the movements which influenced the rest of western Europe. The so-called Windmill Hill culture, closely allied to the Michelsburg expression in southern Germany, may have been originally of either North African or Danubian inspiration, or a blend of both. Childe, seeing Merimdian similarities in the pottery, suggests but does not insist on the former. At any rate, we have no valid evidence in Britain itself to indicate the physical type of the people who brought it.55

The bulk of the Neolithic population of the British Isles seems to have come by sea, 56 with the Megalithic invasions which also passed on to Denmark and southern Sweden. In many parts of Scotland and in Ireland, the Megalithic people may well have been the first bringers of the Neolithic economy. In England, it was their custom to make primary interments under long barrows of earth, unchambered in Yorkshire and Derbyshire, chambered in the counties farther south.

The cranial remains of Long Barrow men, as the occupants of these monuments are called, are abundant.57 (See Appendix I, col. 13) Although over 160 skulls represent this group, the geographical distribution is far from even. Wiltshire, Staffordshire, and Gloucestershire account for 120; fourteen only are from Scotland, and one from Ireland. The remaining thirty come from a few counties of England. Wales is unrepresented as is most of Scotland; the few crania found in the latter country were all buried close to the sea. The Long Barrow people, who had come by water, selected open, unforested country to live in. A large part of the land area in the British Isles was, therefore, either uninhabited or open to the wanderings of earlier human occupants.

The Long Barrow population formed a distinct, homogeneous type; one different from any which, to our knowledge, had previously inhabited the British Isles since the days of Galley Hill; and one which cannot be duplicated, except as an element in a mixed population, anywhere on the western European continent. One is, therefore, led to conclude that the Megalithic cult was not merely a complex of burial rites which diffused without visible carriers; and also that the bearers of this complex avoided mixture by coming by sea.

In stature and bodily build, the Megalithic people belong to a large variety of Mediterranean. The stature for a large number of males58 from England ranges about a mean of 167 or 168 cm.; which is not contraverted by the meager evidence from Scotland and Ireland. Four male skeletons from a single burial in Kent59 may represent, more nearly than most, the Windmill Hill group; they are somewhat shorter than the rest.

The Long Barrow skulls are large for a Mediterranean sub-race, but not as large as those of the Upper Palaeolithic peoples. They are particularly long, moderately narrow, and of medium height. Unlike that of the Corded skulls, the height is less than the breadth. In most instances, the occiput projects far to the rear; the parietals are parallel; the forehead is moderately sloping, and, in contrast to the restricted skull width, very straight and broad.

The face is of medium length and of moderate width; the orbits are of medium dimensions, and in many instances slope downward and outward, as if the confines of the face were too narrow for them. The nasion depression is of medium depth, under browridges of medium development; and the straight-profiled nose is leptorrhine. In its totality, the Long Barrow type is both extreme and striking.

In looking for related populations of equal age, we may eliminate at once the smaller, less dolichocephalic branches of the Mediterranean race proper, including the Danubian. A few individual crania in Neolithic Spain and Italy would qualify, but none of the series from these countries. The standard Egyptian crania, as groups, are all too small, as is the single lady from Greece. In one particular feature, the nasal index, the Long Barrow people resemble the Egyptians more than most of the more northerly Mediterraneans, for the Long Barrow crania are leptorrhine.

In their extreme dolichocephaly, the Long Barrow skulls resemble the Corded group,
but the comparison does not hold for all features - the Long Barrow skulls are slightly longer, considerably broader, and much wider of forehead, than the Corded specimens, and, of course, the vault of the Long Barrow skulls is much lower.60 As far as one can tell, the orbits in the two series are much the same, while in regard to the faces, there is not enough evidence in the Corded group for a valid comparison.

A true and valid similarity, however, may be found between the English Long Barrow series and the early skulls from al 'Ubaid in Sumeria, which, whether belonging to the fourth or third millennium B.C., are in either case older than their British counterparts. The only difference, which prevents identity, is that the Mesopotamian faces and noses are somewhat longer.

The current idea that the Long Barrow people were directly derived from the Upper Palaeolithic inhabitants of Britain is clearly erroneous. The Long Barrow skulls are definitely smaller, shorter, and narrower than those of the Upper Palaeolithic group, but of equal or greater height; they have the same forehead breadth, the same upper face height, but a smaller jaw, a much narrower face, and narrower orbits. There is probably a genetic linkage, over a long period of time, between the Long Barrow or Megalithic type and an early Galley Hill or Combe Capelle variety of European man, but the continuity could not, for historical reasons, have taken place in England.

The few crania from the Scottish seashores belong to the standard Long Barrow type, and the same may be said for the one surely Neolithic specimen from Ireland - the male vault from Stoneyisland, Portumna, County Galway.61 The male skull from Ringabella, County Cork,62 which is perhaps also Neolithic, is likewise of Megalithic race, while the disputed Kilgreany specimen, whatever its age, is, although low vaulted, also basically of a Galley Hill Mediterranean type.63 However, the large mandible of the latter, and its low vault, make it atypical, so that it, like two skulls from Phoenix Park, Dublin,64 which may be Neolithic or Early Bronze Age, is not wholly characteristic of the Long Barrow race, and may derive its peculiarities from either a Mesolithic or an early Bronze Age source. We must repeat, in view of these aberrances, that the only surely Neolithic skull in Ireland is of Long Barrow race.

The Megalithic Long Barrow people must have come by sea, and they probably came from somewhere in the Mediterranean. They did not find the British Isles uninhabited, and their homogeneity, in a few restricted localities, cannot mean that they caused the extinction of earlier peoples. Nor did they, when still later invasions of another physical complex reached the British Isles, become extinct.65 The mountains of Wales, the hills of Cornwall and Devon, and almost the whole of Ireland, remain a blank in our early skeletal map of the British Isles.


http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-IV10.htm
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 08:25:53 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #38 on: June 26, 2012, 08:37:06 AM »

Since I posted a lengthy quote from Coon on the Neolithic in the British Isles, I thought I would follow up with one from him on the Beaker Folk. After all, they are the subject of this thread.

Quote from: Carleton S. Coon

(Chapter V, section 7)


The Copper Age in Europe North of the Mediterranean Lands: Danubian Movements and Bell Beakers


While the earliest Metal Age culture was being carried westward through the Mediterranean by sea, other agencies conveyed it overland into central Europe. As before, the main highroad was the Danube Valley, but this time the center of earliest diffusion was not Bohemia, but Hungary. A series of crania from Bodrogkeresztür in that country56 are uniformly dolichocephalic, with the highest individual cranial index, out of more than fifty examples, only 76. This is too low for Danubians of the usual Neolithic type, and one suspects a movement from the northeast of peoples of Corded origin. The common presence of copper battle-axes, red ochre, tumulus burials, and other south Russian cultural traits in Copper Age sites in Hungary57 would tend to confirm this deduction. In the west Corded people brought the first metal to Switzerland, and in this case crania of definitely Corded type are involved.sup>58

The inhabitants of Yugoslavia during the Copper Age were, like those of Hungary, also uniformly dolichocephalic.59 Unfortunately, here also we have no further information of racial significance. As one approaches the mouth of the Danube, however, this dolichocephalic uniformity disappears. Four skulls from Russe in Bulgaria, include one male of Corded type, a mesocephalic male, and two brachycephalic females.60

From this evidence, such as it is, we may deduce that the people who brought copper into the Danube Valley at the close of the Neolithic period came from two centers, southern Russia and the Caucasus, and Anatolia, by way of Troy. The chief carriers were the Corded people or some others equally dolichocephalic, while brachycephals from Asia Minor were of little importance from the racial standpoint.

While Copper Age civilization was thus spreading westward along the Danube and the lands to the north, a countermovement in the form of the Bell Beaker invasion travelled eastward from the Rhine to the Danube, and as far as Poland and Hungary. The remains of these Bell Beaker people occupy single graves or groups of graves, rather than whole cemeteries; they were apparently wandering traders, trafficking in metals, for their gold spirals have been found in Danish graves of the corridor-tomb period. They were thus in all likelihood rivals of the Battle-Axe people in their search for amber.

It is not known how they went from Spain to central Europe. Sporadic finds in France and northern Italy suggest the Rhône-Rhine and the Brenner Pass routes as alternatives.61 In neither case is the evidence very satisfactory, and neither excludes the other. From the Rhine Valley as a center, Bell Beaker expeditions moved eastward into Bohemia, Austria, Poland, and Hungary; those who took part in these movements were eventually absorbed into the local populations. The Bell Beaker people who remained in the Rhinelands, however, came into intimate contact with the Corded people, who had invaded from the east and northeast, and with the corridor-tomb megalithic population to the north, whose domain extended down into the Netherlands. These three, of which the Bell Beaker element formed perhaps the dominant one, amalgamated to form an Early Bronze Age cultural unit, the so-called Zoned Beaker people, who invaded England and Scotland as the first important carriers of metal.

The Bell Beaker physical type is known to us from sixty or more skulls from scattered burials in Germany, Austria, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and Hungary.62 Of these, about one-third are truly brachycephalic, while the others are, almost without exception, mesocephals. In the Rhine country around Wörms, three-fourths or more of the Bell Beaker crania are brachycephalic; in Austria, one finds an equally high ratio; but in Bohemia and Poland the high brachycephaly becomes less frequent, and at Tököl in Hungary, in a series of ten crania, four are mesocephalic and six are dolichocephalic.63

So high is the mesocephalic ratio, and except for Hungary, so infrequent the truly long-headed crania associated with this type, that the mesocephals are clearly one branch of the main type, and not the product of local mixture with long heads. Morphologieally, the mesocephals are essentially Bell Beaker.

The series of skulls from the Rhineland, including nine adult males, is the most suitable for comparison (see Appendix I, col. 21). It is identical in the cranial index mean with that of Furst's forty-four male Bronze Age skulls from Cyprus, which have already been studied, and which have been called Dinaric. The Rhenish crania are a little larger in vault dimensions, and particularly in height; hut are almost identical facially. Morphologically, the two groups are also similar, but the Bell Beaker group is more extreme in many ways; the browridges are often heavy, the general ruggedness frequently greater. The faces are characteristically narrow, the orbits medium to high, the nasal skeleton high and aquiline; the occiput frequently flat. The stature for six males reached the high mean of 177 cm.

The deviation of the Rhenish Bell Beaker skulls, such as it is, from the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean Dinaric form, lies in a Borreby direction. It is, therefore, more than likely that the invaders mixed with the descendants of the earlier Neolithic brachycephals, whose territory stretched along the North Sea coast from southern Sweden to Belgium. On the whole, however, at the period represented by the Wörms crania, the eastern or Dinaric element was the more important.

The Spanish Bell Beaker problem now stands in a somewhat clearer light than before. 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. The paucity of brachycephals in Spain may be due to the paucity of remains of this culture in general. It is still possible, one might add, that certain North African elements became involved in the Bell Beaker racial type, but such an accretion is unnecessary and hardly likely.

The Bell Beaker people were probably the first intrusive brachycephals to enter the Austrian Alps, and the mountains of northeastern Bohemia, for the push of Lake Dwelling Alpines southeastward toward the Balkans happened later in the Bronze Age. It is, therefore, possible that the present Dinaric populations of the Dinaric Alps and the Carpathians may be derived in part from this eastward irvasion. The small numbers and scattered burial habits of the Bell Beaker people on the more densely populated plains of Europe must have made them of much less ethnic importance there than in the mountains.

In their Rhineland center, the more numerous Bell Beaker people had constant relationships with the inhabitants of Denmark, who were still burying in corridor tombs. Furthermore, the Corded people, one branch of whom invaded Jutland and introduced the single-grave type of burial, also migrated to the Rhine Valley, and here amalgamated themselves with the Bell Beaker people, who were already in process of mixing with their Borreby type neighbors. The result of this triple fusion was a great expansion, and a population overflow down the Rhine, in the direction of Britain.


http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-V7.htm
Logged

samIsaack
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #39 on: June 26, 2012, 01:26:19 PM »

On one of these Beaker-related threads a couple of us got into a brief discussion of the cephalic index and measuring skulls. Well, I finally got hold of a set of calipers and measured my own skull. To get the cephalic index, you measure your skull at the widest part and again at the longest part and divide the width by the length. Then multiply by 100.

I got a cephalic index for myself of about 76 (it was actually 75.789, to be precise). That puts me in the mesocephalic or mesaticephalic range, which is kind of what I expected: Cephalic Index.

I am not sure my skull measurement is ultra-accurate, since I did the measuring by myself, without any help, and with a hardware store set of calipers.

But it was fun to do. :-)

I went about this the same way you did and came up with an index of 72..rounded up from 71.875.. Which I guess would make my skull type dolichocephalic. My ancestry is almost entirely British Isles with a few lines here and there from Germany and Ireland.

That is a longheaded index, for sure.

I had a student this past school year whose ancestry is Danish (surname Larsen). He had the classic "Nordic" look: blond hair, blue eyes, and a very narrow, long head. I never measured his skull, but his dolichocephaly was pretty obvious.

When I was in Russia, however, I noticed a lot of roundheads. They are much more prevalent there, it seems to me, than in the West.

Very interesting! I've become somewhat obsessed with all of this cephalic index stuff since I measured my head less than 24 hours ago! I too have my summer haircut, which in my case was using clippers without a guard.. This Kentucky humidity is a killer!

Its a bit of challenge looking for info online that doesn't lead to some Nordic Aryan super-men website (Ignore the idealogy and focus on the findings, I suppose!). From what I've filtered through, it seems this skull type was found to be common amongst Iron-Age Celts in Britain as well. I can't remember the exact source for this. I've also read the description you mentioned as well, seems like its referred to as Nordic-Keltic. I also have the external occipital protuberance feature.  Though I wouldn't describe it as the Nordic type, where the occiput as a whole juts out above the neck.  Rather I think what I have is referred to as the anatolian bump.. Very noticeable since I shaved my head.  Hard to find reliable info on that as well.


I'd beware of the "Iron Age Celts" stuff. That hearkens back to the old "true-Celts-were-Aryan-Supermen" idea that was popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I believe there have been a variety of anthropological types found among Celtic remains, including a variety of skull shapes. I don't think dolichocephaly was especially prominent among the Celts.

Remember, too, that dolichocephaly is a trait of Mediterranean physical types, as well as of Subsaharan Africans and Australian Aborigines. Long-headed Mediterranean types were prevalent in the Neolithic long barrows of the British Isles, as I recall.

I am weary of such things, this being the reason I mentioned the difficulty in finding any credible information online that didn't lead to or align with such nonsense.

I was also aware of the ambiguity of this skull type amongst different ethnic groups. Sounds like we've been reading from the same sources, because aside from age, the long headed "celts" I mentioned earlier were found in barrows as well and were described as being "mediterranean". So either the author of the book I took that passage from was incorrect in his dating methods or he had some sort of agenda.
Logged

Y-Dna: R1b-SRY2627

Mtdna: J1c8
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #40 on: June 26, 2012, 01:31:55 PM »

Quote from: Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe, Chapter IV, Section 10
The Neolithic in the British Isles

The Megalithic Long Barrow people must have come by sea, and they probably came from somewhere in the Mediterranean. They did not find the British Isles uninhabited, and their homogeneity, in a few restricted localities, cannot mean that they caused the extinction of earlier peoples. Nor did they, when still later invasions of another physical complex reached the British Isles, become extinct .65 The mountains of Wales, the hills of Cornwall and Devon, and almost the whole of Ireland, remain a blank in our early skeletal map of the British Isles.


http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-IV10.htm

So he is saying that Britain was variable and the natives must have been a part of that variation? How does he know it was the natives?

And when he talks about natives surviving after the arrival of "another physical complex", which natives is he referring to? The meso British, the long barrow British, a mix of the two?

Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #41 on: June 26, 2012, 03:03:10 PM »

I'd beware of the "Iron Age Celts" stuff. That hearkens back to the old "true-Celts-were-Aryan-Supermen" idea that was popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I believe there have been a variety of anthropological types found among Celtic remains, including a variety of skull shapes. I don't think dolichocephaly was especially prominent among the Celts.

Remember, too, that dolichocephaly is a trait of Mediterranean physical types, as well as of Subsaharan Africans and Australian Aborigines. Long-headed Mediterranean types were prevalent in the Neolithic long barrows of the British Isles, as I recall.

Celts/Gauls had a mean cranial index that would make them mesocranic or intermediate.  See Coon's appendix.  They were a mix of types depending on the region.

Whatever caused Beakers to be predominantly brachycephalic from Spain to Poland, I don't think happened independently in each region.  It seems like a rapidly expanding population (think R1b)  from a common source region brought this type everywhere in a relatively short period of time.  Gimbutas thought this was the slightly earlier Vucedol culture in Croatia/Serbia/Hungary.  It is interesting that this is the same region where the 'Dinaric' features are observed today.  The R1b there is mostly L51- as well.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 03:04:13 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #42 on: June 26, 2012, 03:08:24 PM »

On one of these Beaker-related threads a couple of us got into a brief discussion of the cephalic index and measuring skulls. Well, I finally got hold of a set of calipers and measured my own skull. To get the cephalic index, you measure your skull at the widest part and again at the longest part and divide the width by the length. Then multiply by 100.

I got a cephalic index for myself of about 76 (it was actually 75.789, to be precise). That puts me in the mesocephalic or mesaticephalic range, which is kind of what I expected: Cephalic Index.

I am not sure my skull measurement is ultra-accurate, since I did the measuring by myself, without any help, and with a hardware store set of calipers.

But it was fun to do. :-)

I went about this the same way you did and came up with an index of 72..rounded up from 71.875.. Which I guess would make my skull type dolichocephalic. My ancestry is almost entirely British Isles with a few lines here and there from Germany and Ireland.

That is a longheaded index, for sure.

I had a student this past school year whose ancestry is Danish (surname Larsen). He had the classic "Nordic" look: blond hair, blue eyes, and a very narrow, long head. I never measured his skull, but his dolichocephaly was pretty obvious.

When I was in Russia, however, I noticed a lot of roundheads. They are much more prevalent there, it seems to me, than in the West.

Very interesting! I've become somewhat obsessed with all of this cephalic index stuff since I measured my head less than 24 hours ago! I too have my summer haircut, which in my case was using clippers without a guard.. This Kentucky humidity is a killer!

Its a bit of challenge looking for info online that doesn't lead to some Nordic Aryan super-men website (Ignore the idealogy and focus on the findings, I suppose!). From what I've filtered through, it seems this skull type was found to be common amongst Iron-Age Celts in Britain as well. I can't remember the exact source for this. I've also read the description you mentioned as well, seems like its referred to as Nordic-Keltic. I also have the external occipital protuberance feature.  Though I wouldn't describe it as the Nordic type, where the occiput as a whole juts out above the neck.  Rather I think what I have is referred to as the anatolian bump.. Very noticeable since I shaved my head.  Hard to find reliable info on that as well.


I'd beware of the "Iron Age Celts" stuff. That hearkens back to the old "true-Celts-were-Aryan-Supermen" idea that was popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I believe there have been a variety of anthropological types found among Celtic remains, including a variety of skull shapes. I don't think dolichocephaly was especially prominent among the Celts.

Remember, too, that dolichocephaly is a trait of Mediterranean physical types, as well as of Subsaharan Africans and Australian Aborigines. Long-headed Mediterranean types were prevalent in the Neolithic long barrows of the British Isles, as I recall.

I am weary of such things, this being the reason I mentioned the difficulty in finding any credible information online that didn't lead to or align with such nonsense.

I was also aware of the ambiguity of this skull type amongst different ethnic groups. Sounds like we've been reading from the same sources, because aside from age, the long headed "celts" I mentioned earlier were found in barrows as well and were described as being "mediterranean". So either the author of the book I took that passage from was incorrect in his dating methods or he had some sort of agenda.

Just for the sake of fun, I have a CI of 75. I believe that is a meso of sorts.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #43 on: June 26, 2012, 03:37:05 PM »

I'd beware of the "Iron Age Celts" stuff. That hearkens back to the old "true-Celts-were-Aryan-Supermen" idea that was popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I believe there have been a variety of anthropological types found among Celtic remains, including a variety of skull shapes. I don't think dolichocephaly was especially prominent among the Celts.

Remember, too, that dolichocephaly is a trait of Mediterranean physical types, as well as of Subsaharan Africans and Australian Aborigines. Long-headed Mediterranean types were prevalent in the Neolithic long barrows of the British Isles, as I recall.

Celts/Gauls had a mean cranial index that would make them mesocranic or intermediate.  See Coon's appendix.  They were a mix of types depending on the region.

Whatever caused Beakers to be predominantly brachycephalic from Spain to Poland, I don't think happened independently in each region.  It seems like a rapidly expanding population (think R1b)  from a common source region brought this type everywhere in a relatively short period of time.  Gimbutas thought this was the slightly earlier Vucedol culture in Croatia/Serbia/Hungary.  It is interesting that this is the same region where the 'Dinaric' features are observed today.  The R1b there is mostly L51- as well.


Are you sure that is the case? In one of the books I have, I think I remember reading that earlier BB skulls are dolichocephalic and later ones are brachycephalic, with the earlier ones associated with Iberian pottery and the latter ones with "Begleitkeramik" from Central Europe.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #44 on: June 26, 2012, 04:28:52 PM »

I'd beware of the "Iron Age Celts" stuff. That hearkens back to the old "true-Celts-were-Aryan-Supermen" idea that was popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I believe there have been a variety of anthropological types found among Celtic remains, including a variety of skull shapes. I don't think dolichocephaly was especially prominent among the Celts.

Remember, too, that dolichocephaly is a trait of Mediterranean physical types, as well as of Subsaharan Africans and Australian Aborigines. Long-headed Mediterranean types were prevalent in the Neolithic long barrows of the British Isles, as I recall.

Celts/Gauls had a mean cranial index that would make them mesocranic or intermediate.  See Coon's appendix.  They were a mix of types depending on the region.

Whatever caused Beakers to be predominantly brachycephalic from Spain to Poland, I don't think happened independently in each region.  It seems like a rapidly expanding population (think R1b)  from a common source region brought this type everywhere in a relatively short period of time.  Gimbutas thought this was the slightly earlier Vucedol culture in Croatia/Serbia/Hungary.  It is interesting that this is the same region where the 'Dinaric' features are observed today.  The R1b there is mostly L51- as well.


Are you sure that is the case? In one of the books I have, I think I remember reading that earlier BB skulls are dolichocephalic and later ones are brachycephalic, with the earlier ones associated with Iberian pottery and the latter ones with "Begleitkeramik" from Central Europe.

Richard,

I was citing a 2001 book, although the data was collected much earlier.  I had the same impression before as you.  I think in Day's book he may be referring to crania at later dates in those locations after Bell Beaker is established.  This also makes sense if the early BB date in Iberia is found in conjunction with the older mediterranean or megalithic types.  It suggests ceramic influences were arriving via maritime networks before the actual 'roundheads', who were still in the east.  The socio-political shift at Sion about 2400 gives us one indication of a possible migration.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #45 on: June 26, 2012, 04:37:21 PM »

Richard,

I was citing a 2001 book, although the data was collected much earlier.  I had the same impression before as you.  I think in Day's book he may be referring to crania at later dates in those locations after Bell Beaker is established.  This also makes sense if the early BB date in Iberia is found in conjunction with the older mediterranean or megalithic types.  It suggests ceramic influences were arriving via maritime networks before the actual 'roundheads', who were still in the east.  The socio-political shift at Sion about 2400 gives us one indication of a possible migration.

I just found where I read it:

"Simbolo ed enigma. Il bicchiere campaniforme e l'Italia nella preistoria europea del III millennio a.C."

In Sicily, Early Bell Beaker skulls are similar to those found in Iberia and the majority are dolichocephalic (82.4%). Final Bell Beakers (Epicampaniforme) skulls are primarily brachycephalic (70%).
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #46 on: June 26, 2012, 04:51:27 PM »

Pots before people.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #47 on: June 26, 2012, 05:39:15 PM »

I'd beware of the "Iron Age Celts" stuff. That hearkens back to the old "true-Celts-were-Aryan-Supermen" idea that was popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I believe there have been a variety of anthropological types found among Celtic remains, including a variety of skull shapes. I don't think dolichocephaly was especially prominent among the Celts.

Remember, too, that dolichocephaly is a trait of Mediterranean physical types, as well as of Subsaharan Africans and Australian Aborigines. Long-headed Mediterranean types were prevalent in the Neolithic long barrows of the British Isles, as I recall.

Celts/Gauls had a mean cranial index that would make them mesocranic or intermediate.  See Coon's appendix.  They were a mix of types depending on the region.

Whatever caused Beakers to be predominantly brachycephalic from Spain to Poland, I don't think happened independently in each region.  It seems like a rapidly expanding population (think R1b)  from a common source region brought this type everywhere in a relatively short period of time.  Gimbutas thought this was the slightly earlier Vucedol culture in Croatia/Serbia/Hungary.  It is interesting that this is the same region where the 'Dinaric' features are observed today.  The R1b there is mostly L51- as well.


Are you sure that is the case? In one of the books I have, I think I remember reading that earlier BB skulls are dolichocephalic and later ones are brachycephalic, with the earlier ones associated with Iberian pottery and the latter ones with "Begleitkeramik" from Central Europe.

Richard,

I was citing a 2001 book, although the data was collected much earlier.  I had the same impression before as you.  I think in Day's book he may be referring to crania at later dates in those locations after Bell Beaker is established.  This also makes sense if the early BB date in Iberia is found in conjunction with the older mediterranean or megalithic types.  It suggests ceramic influences were arriving via maritime networks before the actual 'roundheads', who were still in the east.  The socio-political shift at Sion about 2400 gives us one indication of a possible migration.

The whole idea that some of the beaker traits like pots moved out of Iberia but the full beaker package that then spread everywhere (along with 'beaker folk' developed to the east is not a new one.  It has existed in different forms for 100 years or more as 'beaker-battle axe', the beaker reflux model and other variants.  The new variant based on Sion etc is a further variant of the general idea that the real impact of beaker folk came from a secondary take off point in west-central Europe.  All the latest evidence IMO seems to support this sort of model. 

I am sure for everyone the burning question that leaves is whether R1b was associated with the initial spread from Iberia or was part of the secondary take off of beaker in west-central Europe.  For many the idea that R1b spread from Iberia in the first phase seems counter-intuitive given all we know about R1b.  Jean has provided a scenario where immediate pre-beaker Yamnaya trends in cultures could provide the scenario where R1b spread along the Alps and into the west.  My own opinion is that for the Yamnaya trends in pre-beaker times across Europe to be seen as a migration wave that was crucial in the establishing the Y DNA of Europe sets the bar of evidence rather lower than I am comfortable with but that doesnt mean its wrong.  A lot can happen and leave modest visibility.  Personally I would think the most likely option is that R1b was encorporated into beaker in its full developed stage c. 2600 in central Europe and may have not been present in the initial phase c. 3000-2600BC.  I suspect that R1b, IE and perhaps the distinct phenotype spread from central Europe in the secondary phase.  I realise some would say 'well how did R1b get to Iberia and predominate so much if it was not there in the beginning?'.  I personally dont see that as a problem.  Put it this way a standing start c. 2600BC for beaker and R1b in other parts of Europe did not prevent it becoming dominant in other areas so why not Iberia?   
Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #48 on: June 26, 2012, 06:23:09 PM »

Quote from: alan trowel hands
Personally I would think the most likely option is that R1b was encorporated into beaker in its full developed stage c. 2600 in central Europe and may have not been present in the initial phase c. 3000-2600BC. I suspect that R1b, IE and perhaps the distinct phenotype spread from central Europe in the secondary phase.

That's exactly how I think it happened! I argued for that position primarily on the basis of autosomal DNA. My argument went like... The Eastern Beakers had to be different (autosomally) and the only way for them to have been different was by carrying their own line of R1b.

I'm still open to r1b in phase one, but phase two needed its own line.

My post is at the bottom of this page

 http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2012/05/r1b-bell-beakers-and-urnfield-tradition.html
Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #49 on: June 26, 2012, 06:44:34 PM »

If you look at Desideri 2010, the dendogram shows final neolithic people from Spain contributing to Bell Beaker at Sion Petit Chasseur.  So, there is evidence of early Beaker people coming from the west which bolsters that theory.  Some may have been R1b's returning to their homelands or trading posts in the east.  However, the situation was probably more complex.  I think the larger L11+ waves come after this as indicated by the events at Sion.  The shift in 2425 at Sion Petit Chasseur occurred with new stelae built over top of earlier Beaker ones.  The new ones had Remedello-style daggers carved on some of them indicating eastern influence, northern Italy in this case.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.186 seconds with 19 queries.