Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
Is it me or does anybody else find the Dinaric explanation for Bell Beakers hard to accept. This would mean that Bell Beaker folk treked from their assumed point of origin in the Balkans or Anatolia in the Bronze Age all the way to Britain within that same Bronze Age time frame. If so, why did they come---what reason would there be for this migration? Bell Beaker pottery is found in continental Europe but was there an organized Bell Beaker culture as, for instance, the Celts or were they some sort of metal working trade people such as the African iron blacksmiths?
Hm, I answered your enquiry in German last week at Skadi Forum; sadly I forgot to archive that thread of mine nor am I sure if you read my replies and was sufficiently helped to understand the mystery of origin of the Beaker Folk. In due time, I repost those answers, so hold on tight.

The planoccipital component in the Beaker Folk is often but erroneously regarded as a Dinaric property and hence the Dinaric element made prevalent despite some complex issues; the broadish, rugged cranio-facial aspects receive only the slightest of importance and the issue around pigmentation isn't much touched on, either.

This niggling aside, the matter remains complex.
Absorption of local populations surely has had its impact on the Beaker Folk, but not necessary did it lead to attentuation of features.

In their westward contiguous wanderings, they would meet in the Ardennes the stunted but rugged Furfooz type, an Alpine-Borreby intermediate that also till today might be found in NE France, commingled with the prevalent Noric race though, next to the cromagnoid Borreby the kernel element of the Beaker Folk - stronger graded into a dinaroid morphology, less corpulent, long-faced but fair-pigmentated.

Furtheron, the Southern Netherlands and NW France had a strong Alpine countenance, by the end of the Neolitic however the Nordic/Nordoid comes to the surface and while the Alpine race decreases in the north, this period marks probably the instance that the SubNordic comes in the scene.

SubNordic is of course a misnomer. It either relates to a mesocephalic variety of the East Baltic race, sometimes identified as Vistulian, or to a subbranch of Georges Montandon's Greater Blond Race, which includes all Northern races which aren't equally blond, long-headed and so on, but not a Nordic-Alpine blend, which he calls "pseudo-dinaroid": tall in appearance, chestnut brown-haired, fair-skinned, brachycephalic (curvo/planoccipital condition not specified) and unlike 'true' Dinarics, face and head form are in harmonic measures.

But let us not delve deeper into semantics and stick to the misnomer before things go hazy.

In my view, SubNordics can be seperated in three possible typological outcomes: a) the basic and stabilized pseudo-Dinaroid , b) a re-emerged Borreby through hybrid vigour and c) a roundheaded Nordic/Nordoid, sometimes barely distinguishable from a pure Nordic, sometimes more akin to an overgrown Noric.

All these populations must have helped to underscore the dinariomorphic Cromagnoid strain of the Beaker Folk, yet simultaniously it egressed in a profuseness in variability, thus creating a composite race upon which a classification might reflect its very diverse origin.