World Families Forums - Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA

ARCHIVAL COPY
Home Help Search Login Register

WorldFamilies has changed our Forum Operating system and migrated the postings from the prior system. We hope that you’ll find this new system easier to use and we expect it to manage spammers much better. If you can’t find an old posting, please check our Legacy Forum to see if you can see the old posting there.
+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: Maliclavelli)
| | |-+  Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 17 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Bell Beaker link to R1b confirmed by Ancient DNA  (Read 113415 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #225 on: May 22, 2012, 11:29:56 AM »

This is not to say that all IE folks were Brachyceplic or Mesaticephalic, but it appears that where ancient IE cultures show up, the proportion of long headed dolichocephalic folks goes down to make room for the broad and moderate head people.

For the western European IE types to have such a heavy quantity of R1b (without R1a1 in the west) that are also sprinkled with Bell Beaker types of skeletons implies to me that R1b did not come out of the Cucuteni-Trypolye (or other Old Europe/early Neolithic types), but if anything, went into it.  If the Hittites of Anatolia were gracile types that would impact my opinion, but it looks like they were not. Perhaps the Hittlties were just a second wave of R1b and the first one (dairymen in Anatolia) was gracile with the second (Hittites) more Steppes like.  I don't know. I'm just having a hard time figuring out how non-long headed Beaker guys showed up in Western Europe without their R1a counterparts, assuming R1b was sourced by Cucuteni-Trypolye.

P.S. - Is "do_e" where the underscore is an "s" a bad word in some language? Every time I post with that word it gets removed by worldfamilies.net.  It's strange. I've had to resort to using the word "quantity" instead.

The steppe populations were almost completely long-headed in just about every sample I can find.  This goes for Maykop, Kemi-Oba (Crimea) and Corded-ware as well, although they  were more gracile than the steppe foragers probably due to contact with nearby farming populations.  This would be TRB with Corded-ware, Cucuteni-Tripolye with Kemi-Oba, and Mesopotamia for Maykop.  I have found a small sample of Yamnaya from Ukraine that reached a cranial index of 78.9.  This approaches the broad-headedness of Bell Beaker and hints at contact with western populations.  Also, there were already broad-headed types in Europe before Bell Beaker or Yamnaya, but not so much in the P-C steppe.

For some reason in the 4th millenium BC, the brachycephals seems to increase in number in SE Europe particularly the Hungarian plain.  Whether this is the result of hundred of years of farmer/forager mixing, new movement from Anatolia, or something much more complex is less clear?  I tend to think a farmer/ forager "hybridization" model may be one factor because, the broad-headed element is not observed in Anatolia until after 2300 BC.
This is intestering. By SE Europe, do you include Romania?  or are you primarily talking about the Balkan Peninsula?

Probably all of the above, but the few papers I've seen mostly have data from the Danube corridor/Carpathian basin/Hungarian plain.  So, yes Romania would be a possibility.

The eastern beakers were more diverse physically.  It is more in the west where the large, broad-head types show up as a majority.  I think this can be attributed to larger remnant mesolithic populations surviving in the west away from the more entrenched farmers of SE Europe (think Hg.'s I1, I2, F, U5, etc.).  This is not going to exactly correlate with the travels of r1b, but along with Desideri's studies it does demonstrate that Bell Beakers were made up of various mobile people.

Here is a paper on Bell Beaker common ware showing the ceramic influences.  All from the east.
http://archiveouverte.unige.ch/downloader/pdf/tmp/tar5cka3cq9qj0efie0d3l2gp2/out.pdf
Also, one about BB sites in the east.  Notice the lack of horse remains compared to cattle on p. 193.
http://www.menhir-cz.eu/library/Turek-Dvorak-Peska2003.pdf
I'm lost a little on why you think the larger proportion of large, broad-head Beaker folks in the west could be attributed to mixing with western Mesolithic populations.  I assume you are thinking of Gaul and Iberia because the LBK didn't fully reach there.  We know Cardial Wares Neolithic people did get to the Atlantic fringes, but are you saying they didn't have the penetration of the population like the LBK farmers did?

Is there an implication that you think the Beakers mixed with the Mesolithic peoples in remote areas first, rather than with the farmers in valleys?

Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #226 on: May 22, 2012, 11:34:33 AM »

I've said this before, but I don't think Cucuteni-Tripolye was predominantly R1b. I think when we get some aDNA from there it will be I-P37.2, E1b1b, and G2a.

I agree that it seems unlikely to be solidly R1b. In fact I went for the idea that I2 was carried by local foragers of the Danube Basin who adopted farming from incoming farmers and ended up in Cucuteni-Tripolye villages long before it occurred to me that R1b could have been the same villages! That would account for the way that some I2+ seems to travel with R1b.    
Jean M, are saying something different here?    My guess is that R1b in the origional Cucuteni-Tripolye would have been very light.  I see you think that R1b would NOT be "solid" within Cucuteni-Tripolye, but that is not the same thing.  Are you saying that you think R1b was in the majority or the largest or even the most significant element of the Y hg's in Cucuteni-Tripolye?

The problem is that no Y-DNA haplogroup determines the shape of the head, just as it doesn't determine hair colour or height.  Brachycephaly is associated with some Bell Beaker groups - those who radiated north of the Alps. It could have entered that group by inter-marriage with brachycephalic females, or even stem from just one brachycephalic female somewhere along the line.  

If we take it that R1b is associated with Bell Beaker, then R1b was carried by dolichocephalic men into Iberia.....
I understand Y DNA does not have anything to do with one's skeletal/skull structure.

However, just like M153 appears to be a diagnostic marker for where Basque populations are found, the proportion of broad and medium heads seems to be diagnostic both of IE and at least in some places of Bell Beakers.  After much inter-marriage, these characteristics could easily have washed out, which may be what happened for Iberian Bell Beakers, having inter-mixed many times over on the way to western Europe.

We also have R1b as well as R1a1a in Corded Ware. The Corded Ware makers were distinctly different from the brachycephalic Bell Beaker types.
Is this true? Do we know R1b was in Corded Ware cultures?  I don't think this is necessarily so.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 01:27:51 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #227 on: May 22, 2012, 11:44:27 AM »

T2a1b1 descendants are all Western Europeans.

You mean the people in the Family Tree DNA T2 project?  
 
Yes - all 5 of the confirmed T2a1b1 and T2a1b1a persons listed there are either European or from the US with European names. That's no surprise, surely? mtDNA found in Andronovo would most probably be also found among those from the steppe who travelled west as well.

Since there is a severe shortage of Iranian and Indian persons testing with Family Tree DNA, we'd be lucky to find one in the T2 project at all, let alone one with a rare mtDNA haplogroup. I wouldn't know how to find out if there are any T2a1b1a persons out there in India or Iran or Afghanistan or wherever.

The point is that if you have a haplogroup from Cucuteni appearing also in Andronovo, there must have been some gene flow between steppe groups and Cucuteni.



Thanks. This is what I was asking for. Evidence of tripoyle admixture.

I bet mtdna T2a1b1a wll trun up in afghanistan, uzbekistan, tajikistan or turkmenistan. I know T is very common in Turkmenistan.
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #228 on: May 22, 2012, 11:59:23 AM »


What were the Cucuteni-Tripolye like? Were the people of the late Cucuteni-Tripolye people different than the earlier versions?

While I'm asking, what about early IE possible folks in Anatolia?  The Hittites?

I have given up trying to tie cephalic indices with populations.  Evidence of too much plasticity, in my opinion.  For example, the populations of what is today Georgia, and the Armenian Highland, were apparently dolichocephalic and mesocephalic, 1500+ years ago.  Today, of course, they are brachycephalic.  Our nearest genetic cousins, the Iraqi Mandaeans, are long-headed.  While we are not.  

FWIW.  From Henry Field's “Ancient and Modern Man in Southwestern Asia.”

Quote
TABLE 23: CEPHALIC INDEX OF 375 HITTITE CRANIA   
Subdolichocephals   10.93 %
Mesocephals   12.53 %
Subbrachycephals   27.46 %
Brachycephals   14.93 %
Hyperbrachycephals   26.13 %
Ultrabrachycephals   8.00 %

Quite the variety.

Is there evidence of long headed skull in the Caucasus and Anatolia?

And what accounts for iranians (even azeri iranians) being so long headed?
Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #229 on: May 22, 2012, 12:10:20 PM »

I'm lost a little on why you think the larger proportion of large, broad-head Beaker folks in the west could be attributed to mixing with western Mesolithic populations.  I assume you are thinking of Gaul and Iberia because the LBK didn't fully reach there.  We know Cardial Wares Neolithic people did get to the Atlantic fringes, but are you saying they didn't have the penetration of the population like the LBK farmers did?

Is there an implication that you think the Beakers mixed with the Mesolithic peoples in remote areas first, rather than with the farmers in valleys?
To your first question, it seems as though the farmers were more sparsely populated towards the continental NW based on hg. patterns.  I'm not sure about Britain.  Hopefully someone can weigh in on it's pre-beaker population compared to the continent.  All I'm saying is that a larger, perhaps broad-headed element persisted longer in the north and west, pre-Beaker though.  If incoming proto-Beakers or Bell beakers (including a "Dinaric" or similiar meso-brachycephalic types) absorbed these western types then the western brachycephalic component would be become even more prominent in the short term, imo.  Actually, this type was primarily clustered in Britain and the Rhineland. As the Beaker period went on and into Celtic times, this initial Bronze age broad-head type became diluted possibly as more people from the east (further R1b waves?) arrived.  The Celts seemed to have reverted back to a more mesocephalic eastern Beaker type.
Certainly other factors were involved, this is just from a admixture standpoint.

By the time any "Beaker" population arrived, I think the previous mesolithic peoples were already adapted to a farming culture.  I don't think the mesolithic types were in remote areas as much at this point.  For example, Ertebolle transistioned into TRB by 4000.  The old farmer/forager frontier was probably more fluid, but these robust phenotypes persisted longer in the NW.

See here for the round-headed neolithic populations of western Europe.  Yes, it is Coon's work, but I think his take on the neolithic and metal ages are pretty straight-forward.  He mentions Switzerland, North France, Auvergne, and Belgium as areas where neolithic brachycephalic populations were important.  The Beakers would have moved through all of them.
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-IV11.htm
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 12:26:21 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #230 on: May 22, 2012, 12:19:49 PM »


What were the Cucuteni-Tripolye like? Were the people of the late Cucuteni-Tripolye people different than the earlier versions?

While I'm asking, what about early IE possible folks in Anatolia?  The Hittites?

I have given up trying to tie cephalic indices with populations.  Evidence of too much plasticity, in my opinion.  For example, the populations of what is today Georgia, and the Armenian Highland, were apparently dolichocephalic and mesocephalic, 1500+ years ago.  Today, of course, they are brachycephalic.  Our nearest genetic cousins, the Iraqi Mandaeans, are long-headed.  While we are not.  

FWIW.  From Henry Field's “Ancient and Modern Man in Southwestern Asia.”

Quote
TABLE 23: CEPHALIC INDEX OF 375 HITTITE CRANIA   
Subdolichocephals   10.93 %
Mesocephals   12.53 %
Subbrachycephals   27.46 %
Brachycephals   14.93 %
Hyperbrachycephals   26.13 %
Ultrabrachycephals   8.00 %

Quite the variety.

Is there evidence of long headed skull in the Caucasus and Anatolia?

And what accounts for iranians (even azeri iranians) being so long headed?

Most of West Asia was dolichocephalic or mesocephalic in antiquity and in periods prior.  What made certain (mostly northern) modern populations nearly uniformly brachycephalic, I have not a clue.  There does not appear to be any intrusive genetic elements that could have impacted Druze, Alawites, Anatolian Turks, Caucasians, Armenians, Assyrians, and others, in the last, say, 1500 years.  Assyrians were dhimmis for nearly the entire period (with the rise of Islam).  Our genetic brothers to the central and south of Mesopotamia, remain largely dolichocephalic/mesocephalic.
Logged

Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #231 on: May 22, 2012, 01:39:06 PM »

Probably all of the above, but the few papers I've seen mostly have data from the Danube corridor/Carpathian basin/Hungarian plain.  So, yes Romania would be a possibility.

The eastern beakers were more diverse physically.  It is more in the west where the large, broad-head types show up as a majority.  I think this can be attributed to larger remnant mesolithic populations surviving in the west away from the more entrenched farmers of SE Europe (think Hg.'s I1, I2, F, U5, etc.).  This is not going to exactly correlate with the travels of r1b, but along with Desideri's studies it does demonstrate that Bell Beakers were made up of various mobile people.

Here is a paper on Bell Beaker common ware showing the ceramic influences.  All from the east.
http://archiveouverte.unige.ch/downloader/pdf/tmp/tar5cka3cq9qj0efie0d3l2gp2/out.pdf
Also, one about BB sites in the east.  Notice the lack of horse remains compared to cattle on p. 193.
http://www.menhir-cz.eu/library/Turek-Dvorak-Peska2003.pdf

There seems to a few horse remains in figure 9, and I assume the ratio makes sense when you consider cattle was a source of food and horses probably weren't.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #232 on: May 22, 2012, 02:29:35 PM »

Although they tend to be described as 'broad headed' I understand the beaker type skull is essentially a narrow one whose width is almost entirely down to a flattening at the rear which has shortened the length and widened to back part of the head.  The front of the head includin the forehead is meant to be narrow as is the face.  To me that sounds very very like plasticity and flattening of an otherwise long head and the shape sounds incredibly like the effects on babies.  I wonder if its some kind of lifestyle effect peculiar to the beaker way of life or simply a tradition of cradle practice.  The beaker groups seem to have an incredibly mobile lifestyle and must have been on the hoof and in boats and possibly living a less domestic lifestyle so lord knows what effect even this factor alone would have on phenotype.  

There could even have been some kind of deliberate aspect to this.  I read a very interesting article that the shape of the skull does to a substantial degree dictate facial form with a narrow skull tending to give a more projecting narrow face, more projecting nose, deeper set eyes etc while a wider sull tends to lead to a softer look with larger eyes, smaller nose etc.  There could have been some sort of deliberate attempt to manipulate skull development to produce a certain look relating to standard of beauty.

I found this on the web


Two extremes exist for the shape of the head:  the long, narrow (dolichocephalic) headform and the wide, short, globular (brachycephalic) headform.
The facial complex attaches to the basicranium and the early growing cranial floor is the template that establishes many of the dimensional, angular, and topographic characteristics of the face.
The dolichocephalic headform sets up a developing face that becomes narrow, long and protrusive.  This facial type is termed leptoprosopic.
The brachycephalic headform establishes a face that is more broad, but somewhat less protrusive.  This facial type is called euryprosopic.
The dolichocephalic nose is vertically longer and much more protrusive.  The nose sometimes "bends" to produce an aquiline ("Roman or Dick Tracy") type of convex nasal contour.
The pug-like brachycephalic nose is vertically and protrusively shorter.
Because the nasal part of the narrow (leptoprosopic) type of face is more protrusive, the external bony table of the contiguous forehead is correspondingly more sloping and the glabella and upper orbital rims tend to be mush more prominent.  The cheekbones are more prominent and the eyes are more deep-set.  The face is more angular and less flat.
The forehead of the wide (euryprosopic) facial type is more bulbous, upright, and the frontal sinus tends to be thinner.  The face is wider, flatter and less protrusive.  The cheekbones are squared.  Eyeballs appear more exophthalmic (proptotic, bulging).
Dolichocephalics tend to a retrusively placed mandible and lower lip with a retrognathic (convex) facial profile.  Posture of the head is more slumped.  The maxillary arch and palate is longer, narrower and deeper
In brachycephalics, the lower jaw tends to be variably more protrusive, with a greater tendency for a straighter or even concave facial profile and a more prominent appearing chin.  The mandible is more prominent in appearance.  Posture of the head is more erect. The maxillary arch and palate is shorter and more shallow.
The palate is a configurational projection of the anterior cranial fossa.  The configuration of the apical base of the maxillary dental arch, in turn, is established by the perimeter of the palate.
An intermediate headform, mesocephalic can occur.
In each headform category, a range typically exists for the expression of features.
The Dinaric Headform
A mixture between brachycephalic and dolichocephalic headforms.  Characterized by a long face and large nose but with a brachycephalic cranial index.
Although technically brachycephalic because it is anteroposteriorly short, it is primarily the posterior part of the dinaric head that has been brachycephalized.
Two basic variations exist, both of which involve bossing of the skull roof.  May be genetic or due to sleeping patterns.
The dinaric headform, with its variations and degrees of magnitude shows different malocclusion tendencies and responses to different treatment procedures.
The ears of the dinaric characteristically appear much closer to the back of the head because of the occipital flattening.
The anterior part of the skull retains the relative narrowness that characterizes the dolichocephalic pattern.
The form of the face is distinctively leptoprosopic.  The forehead is often sloping, the supraorbital ridges are prominent and the face is long and protrusive.  The nose is often large and often aquiline with a high nasal bridge.  The mandible is less retrusive, the face is less retrognathic.
Malocclusion in a dinaric will have a combination of structural features different from that in a dolichocephalic.
Extraoral and functional appliances have divergent responses in the different headform groups and subgroups.  Awareness of headform variations and facial differences is a fundamentally important consideration for orthodontic treatment planning.



So basically Dinaric and beaker type skull form is most akin to a dolichocephalic head with flattening/widening of the rear of the head.

In general the way skull shape changes from generation to generation with no known major gene flow and the way their were pan European alterations in head shape even in periods of limited migration makes me think the whole skull shape thing has to be handled with really extreme care.  
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 02:36:05 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #233 on: May 22, 2012, 02:56:21 PM »

Probably all of the above, but the few papers I've seen mostly have data from the Danube corridor/Carpathian basin/Hungarian plain.  So, yes Romania would be a possibility.

The eastern beakers were more diverse physically.  It is more in the west where the large, broad-head types show up as a majority.  I think this can be attributed to larger remnant mesolithic populations surviving in the west away from the more entrenched farmers of SE Europe (think Hg.'s I1, I2, F, U5, etc.).  This is not going to exactly correlate with the travels of r1b, but along with Desideri's studies it does demonstrate that Bell Beakers were made up of various mobile people.

Here is a paper on Bell Beaker common ware showing the ceramic influences.  All from the east.
http://archiveouverte.unige.ch/downloader/pdf/tmp/tar5cka3cq9qj0efie0d3l2gp2/out.pdf
Also, one about BB sites in the east.  Notice the lack of horse remains compared to cattle on p. 193.
http://www.menhir-cz.eu/library/Turek-Dvorak-Peska2003.pdf

There seems to a few horse remains in figure 9, and I assume the ratio makes sense when you consider cattle was a source of food and horses probably weren't.

That's the one.  It suggests that Bell Beakers there were more into sedentary stockbreeding than pastoralism much like the previous mixed farming cultures.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #234 on: May 22, 2012, 03:08:32 PM »

Although they tend to be described as 'broad headed' I understand the beaker type skull is essentially a narrow one whose width is almost entirely down to a flattening at the rear which has shortened the length and widened to back part of the head.  The front of the head includin the forehead is meant to be narrow as is the face.  To me that sounds very very like plasticity and flattening of an otherwise long head and the shape sounds incredibly like the effects on babies.  I wonder if its some kind of lifestyle effect peculiar to the beaker way of life or simply a tradition of cradle practice.  The beaker groups seem to have an incredibly mobile lifestyle and must have been on the hoof and in boats and possibly living a less domestic lifestyle so lord knows what effect even this factor alone would have on phenotype.  

There could even have been some kind of deliberate aspect to this.  I read a very interesting article that the shape of the skull does to a substantial degree dictate facial form with a narrow skull tending to give a more projecting narrow face, more projecting nose, deeper set eyes etc while a wider sull tends to lead to a softer look with larger eyes, smaller nose etc.  There could have been some sort of deliberate attempt to manipulate skull development to produce a certain look relating to standard of beauty.

I found this on the web


Two extremes exist for the shape of the head:  the long, narrow (dolichocephalic) headform and the wide, short, globular (brachycephalic) headform.
The facial complex attaches to the basicranium and the early growing cranial floor is the template that establishes many of the dimensional, angular, and topographic characteristics of the face.
The dolichocephalic headform sets up a developing face that becomes narrow, long and protrusive.  This facial type is termed leptoprosopic.
The brachycephalic headform establishes a face that is more broad, but somewhat less protrusive.  This facial type is called euryprosopic.
The dolichocephalic nose is vertically longer and much more protrusive.  The nose sometimes "bends" to produce an aquiline ("Roman or Dick Tracy") type of convex nasal contour.
The pug-like brachycephalic nose is vertically and protrusively shorter.
Because the nasal part of the narrow (leptoprosopic) type of face is more protrusive, the external bony table of the contiguous forehead is correspondingly more sloping and the glabella and upper orbital rims tend to be mush more prominent.  The cheekbones are more prominent and the eyes are more deep-set.  The face is more angular and less flat.
The forehead of the wide (euryprosopic) facial type is more bulbous, upright, and the frontal sinus tends to be thinner.  The face is wider, flatter and less protrusive.  The cheekbones are squared.  Eyeballs appear more exophthalmic (proptotic, bulging).
Dolichocephalics tend to a retrusively placed mandible and lower lip with a retrognathic (convex) facial profile.  Posture of the head is more slumped.  The maxillary arch and palate is longer, narrower and deeper
In brachycephalics, the lower jaw tends to be variably more protrusive, with a greater tendency for a straighter or even concave facial profile and a more prominent appearing chin.  The mandible is more prominent in appearance.  Posture of the head is more erect. The maxillary arch and palate is shorter and more shallow.
The palate is a configurational projection of the anterior cranial fossa.  The configuration of the apical base of the maxillary dental arch, in turn, is established by the perimeter of the palate.
An intermediate headform, mesocephalic can occur.
In each headform category, a range typically exists for the expression of features.
The Dinaric Headform
A mixture between brachycephalic and dolichocephalic headforms.  Characterized by a long face and large nose but with a brachycephalic cranial index.
Although technically brachycephalic because it is anteroposteriorly short, it is primarily the posterior part of the dinaric head that has been brachycephalized.
Two basic variations exist, both of which involve bossing of the skull roof.  May be genetic or due to sleeping patterns.
The dinaric headform, with its variations and degrees of magnitude shows different malocclusion tendencies and responses to different treatment procedures.
The ears of the dinaric characteristically appear much closer to the back of the head because of the occipital flattening.
The anterior part of the skull retains the relative narrowness that characterizes the dolichocephalic pattern.
The form of the face is distinctively leptoprosopic.  The forehead is often sloping, the supraorbital ridges are prominent and the face is long and protrusive.  The nose is often large and often aquiline with a high nasal bridge.  The mandible is less retrusive, the face is less retrognathic.
Malocclusion in a dinaric will have a combination of structural features different from that in a dolichocephalic.
Extraoral and functional appliances have divergent responses in the different headform groups and subgroups.  Awareness of headform variations and facial differences is a fundamentally important consideration for orthodontic treatment planning.



So basically Dinaric and beaker type skull form is most akin to a dolichocephalic head with flattening/widening of the rear of the head.

In general the way skull shape changes from generation to generation with no known major gene flow and the way their were pan European alterations in head shape even in periods of limited migration makes me think the whole skull shape thing has to be handled with really extreme care.  

I agree about using caution.  It is just one resource we can use to form a big picture.  I would just add that the first observation of "Bell Beaker" types and the marked increase in brachycephaly during the later neolithic, is a clue that something was happening in the population dynamics of SE Europe. 
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #235 on: May 22, 2012, 04:33:54 PM »

In fact so much of the beaker head shape resembles positional brachycephally that you really got to wonder 

http://www.healthylittleheads.org/What-is-Brachycephaly.asp
They were a nomadic people? Maybe this is how you drag infants around on trips. It beats carrying them.
http://clio.missouristate.edu/lburt/Images510/travois.jpg
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #236 on: May 22, 2012, 04:54:56 PM »

Although they tend to be described as 'broad headed' I understand the beaker type skull is essentially a narrow one whose width is almost entirely down to a flattening at the rear which has shortened the length and widened to back part of the head.  The front of the head includin the forehead is meant to be narrow as is the face.  To me that sounds very very like plasticity and flattening of an otherwise long head and the shape sounds incredibly like the effects on babies.  I wonder if its some kind of lifestyle effect peculiar to the beaker way of life or simply a tradition of cradle practice.  The beaker groups seem to have an incredibly mobile lifestyle and must have been on the hoof and in boats and possibly living a less domestic lifestyle so lord knows what effect even this factor alone would have on phenotype.  

There could even have been some kind of deliberate aspect to this.  I read a very interesting article that the shape of the skull does to a substantial degree dictate facial form with a narrow skull tending to give a more projecting narrow face, more projecting nose, deeper set eyes etc while a wider sull tends to lead to a softer look with larger eyes, smaller nose etc.  There could have been some sort of deliberate attempt to manipulate skull development to produce a certain look relating to standard of beauty.

I found this on the web


Two extremes exist for the shape of the head:  the long, narrow (dolichocephalic) headform and the wide, short, globular (brachycephalic) headform.
The facial complex attaches to the basicranium and the early growing cranial floor is the template that establishes many of the dimensional, angular, and topographic characteristics of the face.
The dolichocephalic headform sets up a developing face that becomes narrow, long and protrusive.  This facial type is termed leptoprosopic.
The brachycephalic headform establishes a face that is more broad, but somewhat less protrusive.  This facial type is called euryprosopic.
The dolichocephalic nose is vertically longer and much more protrusive.  The nose sometimes "bends" to produce an aquiline ("Roman or Dick Tracy") type of convex nasal contour.
The pug-like brachycephalic nose is vertically and protrusively shorter.
Because the nasal part of the narrow (leptoprosopic) type of face is more protrusive, the external bony table of the contiguous forehead is correspondingly more sloping and the glabella and upper orbital rims tend to be mush more prominent.  The cheekbones are more prominent and the eyes are more deep-set.  The face is more angular and less flat.
The forehead of the wide (euryprosopic) facial type is more bulbous, upright, and the frontal sinus tends to be thinner.  The face is wider, flatter and less protrusive.  The cheekbones are squared.  Eyeballs appear more exophthalmic (proptotic, bulging).
Dolichocephalics tend to a retrusively placed mandible and lower lip with a retrognathic (convex) facial profile.  Posture of the head is more slumped.  The maxillary arch and palate is longer, narrower and deeper
In brachycephalics, the lower jaw tends to be variably more protrusive, with a greater tendency for a straighter or even concave facial profile and a more prominent appearing chin.  The mandible is more prominent in appearance.  Posture of the head is more erect. The maxillary arch and palate is shorter and more shallow.
The palate is a configurational projection of the anterior cranial fossa.  The configuration of the apical base of the maxillary dental arch, in turn, is established by the perimeter of the palate.
An intermediate headform, mesocephalic can occur.
In each headform category, a range typically exists for the expression of features.
The Dinaric Headform
A mixture between brachycephalic and dolichocephalic headforms.  Characterized by a long face and large nose but with a brachycephalic cranial index.
Although technically brachycephalic because it is anteroposteriorly short, it is primarily the posterior part of the dinaric head that has been brachycephalized.
Two basic variations exist, both of which involve bossing of the skull roof.  May be genetic or due to sleeping patterns.
The dinaric headform, with its variations and degrees of magnitude shows different malocclusion tendencies and responses to different treatment procedures.
The ears of the dinaric characteristically appear much closer to the back of the head because of the occipital flattening.
The anterior part of the skull retains the relative narrowness that characterizes the dolichocephalic pattern.
The form of the face is distinctively leptoprosopic.  The forehead is often sloping, the supraorbital ridges are prominent and the face is long and protrusive.  The nose is often large and often aquiline with a high nasal bridge.  The mandible is less retrusive, the face is less retrognathic.
Malocclusion in a dinaric will have a combination of structural features different from that in a dolichocephalic.
Extraoral and functional appliances have divergent responses in the different headform groups and subgroups.  Awareness of headform variations and facial differences is a fundamentally important consideration for orthodontic treatment planning.



So basically Dinaric and beaker type skull form is most akin to a dolichocephalic head with flattening/widening of the rear of the head.

In general the way skull shape changes from generation to generation with no known major gene flow and the way their were pan European alterations in head shape even in periods of limited migration makes me think the whole skull shape thing has to be handled with really extreme care.  

I agree about using caution.  It is just one resource we can use to form a big picture.  I would just add that the first observation of "Bell Beaker" types and the marked increase in brachycephaly during the later neolithic, is a clue that something was happening in the population dynamics of SE Europe.  

As I posted before, if the beakers are the source of L51 and downstream, their spread was very rapid and they had a penchant for interacting with other beaker groups.  I would think this involved intermarriage too.  They may around 2400BC (when beaker was reaching its widest extent) have still seen themselves as a clan who may well have even known the name of their common early beaker GGGGG grandfather L51* ancestor.  They maybe even had a lineage name rather like the Gaelic clans had.  Its not that far fetched.  The rapidly branching group actually puts me in mind of an ultra-mobile version of the later clans we see in Ireland and the Celtic world.  So, the beaker people in say 2400BC really were an extended family of 6th cousins if the whole R1b model is correct.  If they had a tendency to network between other beaker groups of distant cousins and intermarried alliance-style with the daughters of distant cousins, it might have been that some family likeness remained for a number of centuries until the big network broke down into smaller networks and more localised interactions.  
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 04:58:50 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #237 on: May 22, 2012, 05:03:58 PM »

In fact so much of the beaker head shape resembles positional brachycephally that you really got to wonder  

http://www.healthylittleheads.org/What-is-Brachycephaly.asp
They were a nomadic people? Maybe this is how you drag infants around on trips. It beats carrying them.
http://clio.missouristate.edu/lburt/Images510/travois.jpg

They might have had something like the papoose board American Indians used for easy transport of small children.  Definitely a possibility for a mobile population, unfortunately I don't think anything like this has been found yet.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 05:08:11 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #238 on: May 22, 2012, 05:24:14 PM »

Jean M, are saying something different here?    My guess is that R1b in the original Cucuteni-Tripolye would have been very light.  I see you think that R1b would NOT be "solid" within Cucuteni-Tripolye, but that is not the same thing.  Are you saying that you think R1b was in the majority or the largest or even the most significant element of the Y hg's in Cucuteni-Tripolye?

We simply don't know the proportions of Y-DNA haplogroups in C-T, let alone with whom exactly they mixed and what the result was. Bear in mind that surfing effect and/or founder effect could completely change the proportions of haplogroups between a source population and offshoot populations (quite apart from new mutations arising from old stock in the actual process of migration.) So I'm not taking any bets, except on a mixture.

« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 06:23:01 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #239 on: May 22, 2012, 05:52:06 PM »

In fact so much of the beaker head shape resembles positional brachycephally that you really got to wonder 

http://www.healthylittleheads.org/What-is-Brachycephaly.asp
They were a nomadic people? Maybe this is how you drag infants around on trips. It beats carrying them.
http://clio.missouristate.edu/lburt/Images510/travois.jpg

One thing is clear is they were incredibly mobile if the isotopic stuff is anything to go by and that must have had implications on how they lived and brought up families etc.  
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #240 on: May 22, 2012, 06:01:49 PM »

Quote from: Mikewww link=topic=10580.msg131302#msg131302
Do we know R1b was in Corded Ware cultures?  I don't think this is necessarily so.

My mistake. You are right. I was getting confused with Urnfield. 
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #241 on: May 22, 2012, 07:33:31 PM »


What were the Cucuteni-Tripolye like? Were the people of the late Cucuteni-Tripolye people different than the earlier versions?

While I'm asking, what about early IE possible folks in Anatolia?  The Hittites?

I have given up trying to tie cephalic indices with populations.  Evidence of too much plasticity, in my opinion.  For example, the populations of what is today Georgia, and the Armenian Highland, were apparently dolichocephalic and mesocephalic, 1500+ years ago.  Today, of course, they are brachycephalic.  Our nearest genetic cousins, the Iraqi Mandaeans, are long-headed.  While we are not.  

FWIW.  From Henry Field's “Ancient and Modern Man in Southwestern Asia.”

Quote
TABLE 23: CEPHALIC INDEX OF 375 HITTITE CRANIA   
Subdolichocephals   10.93 %
Mesocephals   12.53 %
Subbrachycephals   27.46 %
Brachycephals   14.93 %
Hyperbrachycephals   26.13 %
Ultrabrachycephals   8.00 %

Quite the variety.

Is there evidence of long headed skull in the Caucasus and Anatolia?

And what accounts for iranians (even azeri iranians) being so long headed?

Most of West Asia was dolichocephalic or mesocephalic in antiquity and in periods prior.  What made certain (mostly northern) modern populations nearly uniformly brachycephalic, I have not a clue.  There does not appear to be any intrusive genetic elements that could have impacted Druze, Alawites, Anatolian Turks, Caucasians, Armenians, Assyrians, and others, in the last, say, 1500 years.  Assyrians were dhimmis for nearly the entire period (with the rise of Islam).  Our genetic brothers to the central and south of Mesopotamia, remain largely dolichocephalic/mesocephalic.

I just don't believe that. Mountain people always tend to be not as long headed which makes me doubt Armenians being anything other than short and broad faced. I have been told by Iranian friends that this even appli es to Iran where Persians tend to be dolichocephalic but Iranian Azeris due to their surroundings are mesocephalic.
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #242 on: May 22, 2012, 07:42:10 PM »

well done spotting the similarity between the Bell Beaker and Andronovo mtDNAs. As you know, Andronovo groups originated in modern Poland,

No I don't know that at all Polako. : ) You can scarcely be blamed for thinking that, since anti-migrationism has ruled archaeology for decades, and the standard view of Corded Ware has been that it sprang locally from the TRB, which sprang locally from hunter-gatherers. Now we have evidence both genetic and anthropological that the TRB actually was the result of farmers fleeing north from the Balkans as the climate changed c. 4000 BC. The Corded Ware people look completely different from them and more like hunter-gatherer types, which was one of the reasons people thought there was continuity from local hunter-gatherers right through to Corded Ware. Not so. The Corded Ware types were derived from Yamnaya and probably some earlier drift northwards from the steppe.

So I would expect a resemblance between Corded Ware, Bell Beaker and  Andronovo mtDNA haplogroups, because they were all from the same mixture of sources.





Thank you. Andronovo groups do not come from Poland. Is the similarity in Andronovo mtdna and Bell beaker mtdna due to shared Neolithic bell beaker influence or due to shared northern hunter gathrer nomad influence?

Meaning did the andronovo people bring their own northeast european women (uessing mtdna u4/u5) or did they migrate as men to central asia picking up bell beaker and central asian neolithic and east eurasian women?
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #243 on: May 22, 2012, 07:48:08 PM »

Jean M, are saying something different here?    My guess is that R1b in the original Cucuteni-Tripolye would have been very light.  I see you think that R1b would NOT be "solid" within Cucuteni-Tripolye, but that is not the same thing.  Are you saying that you think R1b was in the majority or the largest or even the most significant element of the Y hg's in Cucuteni-Tripolye?

We simply don't know the proportions of Y-DNA haplogroups in C-T, let alone with whom exactly they mixed and what the result was. Bear in mind that surfing effect and/or founder effect could completely change the proportions of haplogroups between a source population and offshoot populations (quite apart from new mutations arising from old stock in the actual process of migration.) So I'm not taking any bets, except on a mixture.

Yes, it could be a bit tricky.  I could see a scenario where Usatovo steppes people imposed hedgemony over the suffering (crop failure/climate) Cucuteni-Tripolye farmers/dairymen and probably made allies with some of them as part of the hedgemony.  The turncoat (but smart) Cucuteni families learned some new stuff about horses, fighting, or what have you but perhaps didn't like playing second fiddle.... so headed west.   This is a very speculative endeavor, no doubt about it. The integration process could have several scenarios.

... but I still have a hard time accepting so many R1b IE speaking people way out west (Atlantic fringe & Gaul) with very little of the IE "base" R1a1 folks accompanying them, unless instead some R1b was part of the the IE "base" by the time it hit the Cucuteni-Tripolye.  It's not just the IE culture that went west, but some apparently NOT small, NOT gracile bone structured folks too (who don't match the Early Neolithic farmers.) If the Beakers were these folks, we know there was at least some R1b among them.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 08:32:02 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #244 on: May 22, 2012, 09:37:01 PM »

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

It might seem like that at first glance, but the study looked very closely at mtDNA U5. It found that modern U5 does not descend from the Mesolithic and Neolithic U5 so far discovered in aDNA. Continuity does not appear.

It is highly likely that many European hunter-gatherer lineages died out in both the direct female and direct male lines. However in some places hunter-gatherers survived successfully because farmers were not in competition with them (the far north), or because they adopted farming or pastoralism (as on the riverine fringes of the Pontic-Caspian steppe). The hunter-gatherer lineages from the latter region burst upon the wider European scene in the Copper Age.

MtDNA U2 appears at Kostenki 14 [Markina Gora], Russia  in 30,000 BP. It has not appeared in any Mesolithic or Neolithic aDNA from Europe.

U2 today is scattered at low frequencies in populations from South and Western Asia, Europe and North Africa, with its oldest branches (U2a-c) in South Asia. That is a clue that people carrying U2 had spent a long time in the warm south before a group split off to travel north into Europe, where the mutation creating U2e probably occurred. U2e is mainly found in those of European descent. It seems likely that U2 moved north into what is now Russia in the first instance and that U2e was born somewhere in East Europe.  

Both Central and NW south asia have U2e.
Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #245 on: May 22, 2012, 09:38:21 PM »

Jean M, are saying something different here?    My guess is that R1b in the original Cucuteni-Tripolye would have been very light.  I see you think that R1b would NOT be "solid" within Cucuteni-Tripolye, but that is not the same thing.  Are you saying that you think R1b was in the majority or the largest or even the most significant element of the Y hg's in Cucuteni-Tripolye?

We simply don't know the proportions of Y-DNA haplogroups in C-T, let alone with whom exactly they mixed and what the result was. Bear in mind that surfing effect and/or founder effect could completely change the proportions of haplogroups between a source population and offshoot populations (quite apart from new mutations arising from old stock in the actual process of migration.) So I'm not taking any bets, except on a mixture.

Yes, it could be a bit tricky.  I could see a scenario where Usatovo steppes people imposed hedgemony over the suffering (crop failure/climate) Cucuteni-Tripolye farmers/dairymen and probably made allies with some of them as part of the hedgemony.  The turncoat (but smart) Cucuteni families learned some new stuff about horses, fighting, or what have you but perhaps didn't like playing second fiddle.... so headed west.   This is a very speculative endeavor, no doubt about it. The integration process could have several scenarios.

... but I still have a hard time accepting so many R1b IE speaking people way out west (Atlantic fringe & Gaul) with very little of the IE "base" R1a1 folks accompanying them, unless instead some R1b was part of the the IE "base" by the time it hit the Cucuteni-Tripolye.  It's not just the IE culture that went west, but some apparently NOT small, NOT gracile bone structured folks too (who don't match the Early Neolithic farmers.) If the Beakers were these folks, we know there was at least some R1b among them.

I guess people will never stop trying to connect IE and R1b no matter how much evidence has been presented against it.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 09:38:42 PM by intrestedinhistory » Logged
intrestedinhistory
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #246 on: May 22, 2012, 09:42:01 PM »

All 6 samples are different, but at least 4 of the 6 look very North-Eurasian in origin - probably carrying a lot of DNA that might be hunter-gatherer. (W5, I1a1, U5, U2)  

What are other people's thoughts on this?

What they are saying about the U5 is extremely interesting. They have looked at Mesolithic and Neolithic U5 previously found in Europe and concluded

Quote
that these lineages did not continue into the present. Based on this haplotype distribution, due to genetic drift or some demographic event modern U5 haplotypes do not appear to have had significant contributions from the Mesolithic/Neolithic gene pool. At least for this haplogroup, it appears there is no simple story of continuity from the Neolithic to the present and that central Europe may have experienced complex demographic events since the Neolithic involving groups that harbored distinctive maternal lineages  

I'm not all that surprised, as I guessed that much of present U5 arrived with the Indo-Europeans, but I have yet to take in the data on where they got their modern samples. I would expect continuity in certain areas of Europe, notably the eastern fringe.

Intresting about the U5 connecting. Would you associate Bell Beakers with Celts?

Does the shared mtdna T indicate tripoyle admixture in andronovo or bell beaker admixture?
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #247 on: May 22, 2012, 09:51:00 PM »

I guess people will never stop trying to connect IE and R1b no matter how much evidence has been presented against it.

Care to list them here, because I haven't seen any evidence/proof.
Logged

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

Posts: 186


« Reply #248 on: May 22, 2012, 09:53:24 PM »

I guess people will never stop trying to connect IE and R1b no matter how much evidence has been presented against it.

Care to list them here, because I haven't seen any evidence/proof.

Haha seriously? Nobody has connected R1a and IE. The connection is clear. Why should I argue with a theory embraced by no one but Western Europeans. Whats the difference between accepting that theory and the garbage out of india theory? Both motivated by racism and nationalism. But neither supported by science. IE comes from the steepe and is connected with R1a not R1b.
Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #249 on: May 22, 2012, 09:55:43 PM »


Haha seriously? Nobody has connected R1a and IE. The connection is clear. Why should I argue with a theory embraced by no one but Western Europeans. Whats the difference between accepting that theory and the garbage out of india theory? Both motivated by racism and nationalism. But neither supported by science. IE comes from the steepe and is connected with R1a not R1b.

Don't be jealous now.
Logged

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


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 17 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 0.188 seconds with 18 queries.