Recognizing ethnicity by the nose.

[Fire Haired14]

Nordicism has been a plague on not only Europe, but much of humanity within the European sphere of influence for centuries. Nordic features are promoted as ideal, and people with other looks are considered unattractive. Nordicist mythology is passed as legitimate anthropology, which I find infuriating. In ancient times, Nordic people were nothing more than desolate savages.

You go from taking down mainstream accepted Nordicism which is good, to spewing racist anti-Nordicism which just trading one bad for another. "Nordics"(No single ethnic group or cultural sphere. So outside of phenotype and genetics it means nothing.) were not desolate savages in "ancient times"(Pre-Medieval).

People in the Balkans in 0 AD weren't any better off than people in Northern Europe. People in Northern Europe were apart of the same advances in civilization everyone else was. Sure compared to Greeks and some people in Italy(Etruscans, Romans) they were primitive, but those are two out of many people who lived in Southern Europe. And after the Roman empire fell apart they were equal matches to "Southern Europe"(Not a real thing. Many differnt nations. Unless you have a world map you wouldn't have a concept of it at all).

They have weak features, although occasionally some have aquiline noses (many Vikings probably did) these looked even more weird with the weak little elongated chins and feeble jaws. Blond hair and blue eyes = yet more effeminate features.

LOL man. Not true at all. People confuse Americans and Northern European countries(France, UK, Scandinavai) being rich and having easy lives in the last 60 years, with them being non-masculine and weak. Look at the statistics. Size wise, height and weight, no one else in the world is really any bigger. I've seen people from all over the world. At sports games, for whatever reason, 90%+ of the people are Northern European Americans. I feel like I'm surrounded by giants when I go. I've also seen plenty of Bosnains. Bosnians I'd say are about the same size, just there are more very tall Bosnians. I definitely don't think Bosnaisn are any bigger.

Blond hair and blue eyes = yet more effeminate features./QUOTE]

While I agree Blonde hair is more colorful and therefore girls like to have it more, it doesn't make guys look more effeminate IMO. I don't know why girls are so obsessed with it. It could have to do with accepted Nordicism in our society(assumption Blonde hair is more attractive).

Many times they have these bulging effeminate foreheads as well. Dinaric men are far better looking even by common European standards. Dinaric men have big, masculine noses, long but full faces (wide jaws), strong brow ridges, prominent chins, and are also much taller than Nordic men. I'm not saying I'm all of these things, personally I find myself quite unattractive in many ways, and I really hate the concept of a master race but if we have to compare…

Nah man I don't by that. That's all pseudo-science.

 

[Dinarid]

You go from taking down mainstream accepted Nordicism which is good, to spewing racist anti-Nordicism which just trading one bad for another. "Nordics"(No single ethnic group or cultural sphere. So outside of phenotype and genetics it means nothing.) were not desolate savages in "ancient times"(Pre-Medieval).

People in the Balkans in 0 AD weren't any better off than people in Northern Europe. People in Northern Europe were apart of the same advances in civilization everyone else was. Sure compared to Greeks and some people in Italy(Etruscans, Romans) they were primitive, but those are two out of many people who lived in Southern Europe. And after the Roman empire fell apart they were equal matches to "Southern Europe"(Not a real thing. Many differnt nations. Unless you have a world map you wouldn't have a concept of it at all).



LOL man. Not true at all. People confuse Americans and Northern European countries(France, UK, Scandinavai) being rich and having easy lives in the last 60 years, with them being non-masculine and weak. Look at the statistics. Size wise, height and weight, no one else in the world is really any bigger. I've seen people from all over the world. At sports games, for whatever reason, 90%+ of the people are Northern European Americans. I feel like I'm surrounded by giants when I go. I've also seen plenty of Bosnains. Bosnians I'd say are about the same size, just there are more very tall Bosnians. I definitely don't think Bosnaisn are any bigger.

Blond hair and blue eyes = yet more effeminate features.

While I agree Blonde hair is more colorful and therefore girls like to have it more, it doesn't make guys look more effeminate IMO. I don't know why girls are so obsessed with it. It could have to do with accepted Nordicism in our society(assumption Blonde hair is more attractive).



Nah man I don't by that. That's all pseudo-science.

No, pseudo-science is classifying people into very strict "subraces" and using these to determine someone's ancestry. Using some terms to describe certain features is not, because in many cases there are clearly certain features that are more common among certain populations. Are you seriously going to deny that people from the Balkans tend to have more prominent noses, for example? Writing observations off as "pseudo-science" is no better than taking the writings of anthropologists from a century ago as the word of God, which some here do.

 

[Fire Haired14]

@Dinarid,

Kah Koh see. Only Bosnian I know. Once I saw you use Greek alphabet I gave on learning it. Congrats on learning English I respect that.

No, pseudo-science is classifying people into very strict "subraces" and using these to determine someone's ancestry. Using some terms to describe certain features is not, because in many cases there are clearly certain features that are more common among certain populations. Are you seriously going to deny that people from the Balkans tend to have more prominent noses, for example? Writing observations off as "pseudo-science" is no better than taking the writings of anthropologists from a century ago as the word of God, which some here do.

Ok you're right. There's legitimacy to it. I just dis agree with where you were going with that, that Nordic features are worse and weaker. It depends on your opinion which feature is better. If Nordics have rubber jaws you can say their features are weaker, but does a differnt shaped face really make it stronger or weaker?

 

[Tomenable]

Angela,

When it comes to your post #159:

Figure 3 from the 2nd plate was judged to be a good example of a Nordic man by Norwegian Alette Schreiner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alette_Schreiner

"Fig. 27 The Nordic race.
When after their survey of recruits, Günther requested a portrait of a purebred Nordic man, neither Schreiner nor Bryn could help him. In 1929, however, Schreiner chose this man from the Setesdal valley":

Source: http://www.openbookpublishers.com/htmlreader/978-1-909254-54-1/Master-Race-11.xhtml

But Carleton S. Coon considered this guy as a Trønder (mixed Nordic-Brünn) type, rather than a "purebred".

His measurements and pigmentation are here - he is Fig 3.:

==================================

Angela wanted me to post skulls of those 3 EHG men that we have aDNA samples from.

I've found only one of them so far and he died as a boy (probably a young teenager), which means that his adult features were still not fully developed, so I'm not sure if we can classify him. But he was dolichocephalic.

He is one of 2 from Karelia, his Y-DNA was R1a and his mtDNA C1g or C1f.

If I recall correctly, apart from HG and ANE, he also had a bit of East Asian admixture.

Also his mtDNA haplogroup suggests, that he could be a mixed individual.

His skull has mostly Nordic features, but they seem to be mixed with something else.

He had moderate prognathism, which could be a malformation or due to his ancestry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prognathism

Prognathism in humans can be due to normal variation among phenotypes. In human populations where prognathism is not the norm, it may be a malformation, the result of injury, a disease state or a hereditary condition. Prognathism is considered a disorder only if it affects mastication, speech or social function as a byproduct of severely affected aesthetics of the face.

This is him:

MAE RAS collection number: 5773-74 Grave number: 142 (sample UzOO74)

 

[Tomenable]

As for Nordic type men having "effeminate" appearance - that's not really true, at least not for all of them.

Some examples (Nordic and related types):

/ Alexander Godunov / Max von Sydow / Wayne Gretzky / Rutger Hauer / Agnar Mykle / Kevin Costner /

Of course you can also find many who do look effeminate. But these don't. And North Europe also has Cro-Magnid related types who usually don't look effeminate (actually Rutger Hauer with his wide face could pass as a CM as well, he is on the borderline between CM and Nordic). South Europe doesn't have many CM looking people: it is WHG stock.

Mediterranean men often do look "effeminate" as well. But I agree that Dinaric men usually don't.

 

[Dinarid]

@Dinarid,

Kah Koh see. Only Bosnian I know. Once I saw you use Greek alphabet I gave on learning it. Congrats on learning English I respect that.



Ok you're right. There's legitimacy to it. I just dis agree with where you were going with that, that Nordic features are worse and weaker. It depends on your opinion which feature is better. If Nordics have rubber jaws you can say their features are weaker, but does a differnt shaped face really make it stronger or weaker?

Dobro sam, kako si ti?
I'm a Herzegovinian Croat, and our land is under occupation by the illegitimate Islamic government, so I don't feel very Bosnian.

As far as masculinity and face shape, some view broad faces as masculine; whereas others view long faces are more masculine. It is generally accepted that a man's face is usually "bigger" than a women's: both longer and wider. Square jaws are associated with broad faces, although in the Balkans we have long-ish faces but with full jaws (although some of us can have square faces). Same for short, broad foreheads which we also have. On the other hand, prominent (beak) noses are associated with long faces (they look really abnormal on broad faces I might add).

 

[Dinarid]

Angela,

"Fig. 27 The Nordic race.
When after their survey of recruits, Günther requested a portrait of a purebred Nordic man, neither Schreiner nor Bryn could help him. In 1929, however, Schreiner chose this man from the Setesdal valley":

Source: http://www.openbookpublishers.com/htmlreader/978-1-909254-54-1/Master-Race-11.xhtml

But Carleton S. Coon considered this guy as a Trønder (mixed Nordic-Brünn) type, rather than a "purebred".

That's not even Nordic at all. The face isn't long enough, the cheekbones are too high (Nordic people are supposed to have flat cheekbones), and the head is much too short. Whatever type he would be classified as, it wouldn't be Nordic.

 

[Dinarid]

As for Nordic type men having "effeminate" appearance - that's not really true, at least not for all of them.

Some examples (Nordic and related types):

/ Alexander Godunov / Max von Sydow / Wayne Gretzky / Rutger Hauer / Agnar Mykle / Kevin Costner /

Of course you can also find many who do look effeminate. But these don't. And North Europe also has Cro-Magnid related types who usually don't look effeminate (actually Rutger Hauer with his wide face could pass as a CM as well, he is on the borderline between CM and Nordic). South Europe doesn't have many CM looking people: it is WHG stock.

Mediterranean men often do look "effeminate" as well. But I agree that Dinaric men usually don't.

None of those men strike me as very masculine except for perhaps Alexander Godunov. Max von Sydow has "strong" features; Kevin Costner a little. Agnar Mykle doesn't even look Nordic in the first place.

 

[Tomenable]

except for perhaps Alexander Godunov.

^ And of all of them, Godunov is the closest to the "original" Nordic type.

Actually, Godunov and von Sydow are both the closest.

Godunov is a sub-type of Nordic that was quite typical of Corded Ware culture.

Godunov is East-Nordic, and von Sydow Scando-Nordic.

Kevin Costner a little.

He is a Celtic-Nordic sub-type.

Most of Ancient Celts were Non-Nordic, but they did have people of Nordic type too.

 

[Tomenable]

Whatever type he would be classified as, it wouldn't be Nordic.

It wouldn't be "pure" Nordic, but Nordic-related. "Pure" Nordic types are really rare, even in Scandinavia. But it all depends on criteria and definitions. Some anthropologists had broader and less restrictive definitions of what counts as Nordic than others.

==================

Now this is probably what you consider as "effeminate" Nordic type - Piotr Kaszubski (he is from Poland):

Blonde is his natural hair colour - but here a dark-haired version:

I'm not sure what is his ancestry, but his surname translates as Peter Kashubian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashubians#Genetics

Donald Tusk is also Kashubian, but he looks like mixed West Baltid + East Nordic.

West Baltid is one of Cro-Magnid descended types.

 

[ElHorsto]

As for Nordic type men having "effeminate" appearance - that's not really true, at least not for all of them.

Some examples (Nordic and related types):

/ Alexander Godunov / Max von Sydow / Wayne Gretzky / Rutger Hauer / Agnar Mykle / Kevin Costner /

Of course you can also find many who do look effeminate. But these don't. And North Europe also has Cro-Magnid related types who usually don't look effeminate (actually Rutger Hauer with his wide face could pass as a CM as well, he is on the borderline between CM and Nordic). South Europe doesn't have many CM looking people: it is WHG stock.

Mediterranean men often do look "effeminate" as well. But I agree that Dinaric men usually don't.

Let me join the fun of pseudo-science : Only the first two are undoubtly "nordid". They are both of the same corded subtype, imho. Hugh Laurie would be also a masculine looking "corded" example, although he has a slight med tendency. About the others I'm not so sure.

 

[Dinarid]

It wouldn't be "pure" Nordic, but Nordic-related. "Pure" Nordic types are really rare, even in Scandinavia. But it all depends on criteria and definitions. Some anthropologists had broader and less restrictive definitions of what counts as Nordic than others.

==================

Now this is probably what you consider as "effeminate" Nordic type - Piotr Kaszubski (he is from Poland):

Blonde is his natural hair colour - but here a dark-haired version:

I'm not sure what is his ancestry, but his surname translates as Peter Kashubian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashubians#Genetics

Donald Tusk is also Kashubian, but he looks like mixed West Baltid + East Nordic.

West Baltid is one of Cro-Magnid descended types.

I have seen several Poles who look like Piotr Kaszubski, I would not say that "effeminate" because he has a very defined jaw. But yes, that general look often has a soft jaw which is effeminate.

 

[Angela]

Let me join the fun of pseudo-science : Only the first two are undoubtly "nordid". They are both of the same corded subtype, imho. Hugh Laurie would be also a masculine looking "corded" example, although he has a slight med tendency. About the others I'm not so sure.

People do indeed take all of this stuff too seriously. By pointing to Coon's work I didn't mean to imply that this is a substitute for genetics; my only point was that if people are going to give credence to physical anthropology they should at least stick to the definitions of the professionals, and not make things up as they go along, usually out of some agenda.

As to those pictures, I agree with you about the first two. The last one (if that's who you mean) isn't Hugh Laurie, it's Kevin Costner and I'm not sure about him. (He looks like a typical German-Irish American mix to me.) I don't think the others are "Nordic", especially not Rutger Hauer, and neither, by any stretch of the imagination is the person in the last picture of post 170.

 

[Dinarid]

People do indeed take all of this stuff too seriously. By pointing to Coon's work I didn't mean to imply that this is a substitute for genetics; my only point was that if people are going to give credence to physical anthropology they should at least stick to the definitions of the professionals, and not make things up as they go along, usually out of some agenda.

As to those pictures, I agree with you about the first two. The last one (if that's who you mean) isn't Hugh Laurie, it's Kevin Costner and I'm not sure about him. (He looks like a typical German-Irish American mix to me.) I don't think the others are "Nordic", especially not Rutger Hauer, and neither, by any stretch of the imagination is the person in the last picture of post 170.

The problem is that there are no physical anthropologists nowadays, so the entire field is based on obsolete science.

 

[Tomenable]

The problem is that there are no physical anthropologists nowadays

What? Haha. Of course there are. For example:

http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/html/indexe.html

But they no longer use this typological approach.

About the others I'm not so sure.

Others are mixed types. Photos are from this website:

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/rg-main.htm

 

[ElHorsto]

People do indeed take all of this stuff too seriously. By pointing to Coon's work I didn't mean to imply that this is a substitute for genetics; my only point was that if people are going to give credence to physical anthropology they should at least stick to the definitions of the professionals, and not make things up as they go along, usually out of some agenda.

Agree, that's what I meant by calling it fun. Although I have more doubts about Coon, despite I'm citing him myself often. He is considered outdated among scientists and probably one major reason are his historical interpretations. For instance his idea of "cro-magnid paleolithic survivals" in NW-Europe has been debunked by genetics, and it is possible that he was subject to wishful thinking sometimes. Currently it looks more likely that his irish "paleolithic survivals" are more likely to be (re-)imports from the steppe. There is no reason to assume that Cro-Magnon (not to be confused with WHG) ancestry survived in Western Europe more than anywhere else in Europe.

As to those pictures, I agree with you about the first two. The last one (if that's who you mean) isn't Hugh Laurie, it's Kevin Costner and I'm not sure about him.

I agree completely and I know that this is Kevin Costner. I suggested Hugh Laurie as a third additional good example for a masculine looking corded nordid, which is not yet in the list.
Kevin Costner is indeed not a perfect example. I can also see his part amerindian ancestry.

(He looks like a typical German-Irish American mix to me.) I don't think the others are "Nordic", especially not Rutger Hauer, and neither, by any stretch of the imagination is the person in the last picture of post 170.

Agree completely.

 

[Angela]

Agree, that's what I meant by calling it fun. Although I have more doubts about Coon, despite I'm citing him myself often. He is considered outdated among scientists and probably one major reason are his historical interpretations. For instance his idea of "cro-magnid paleolithic survivals" in NW-Europe has been debunked by genetics, and it is possible that he was subject to wishful thinking sometimes. Currently it looks more likely that his irish "paleolithic survivals" are more likely to be (re-)imports from the steppe. There is no reason to assume that Cro-Magnon (not to be confused with WHG) ancestry survived in Western Europe more than anywhere else in Europe.



I agree completely and I know that this is Kevin Costner. I suggested Hugh Laurie as a third additional good example for a masculine looking corded nordid, which is not yet in the list.
Kevin Costner is indeed not a perfect example. I can also see his part amerindian ancestry.



Agree completely.

This is going to get boring. I also agree completely. The only reason I cite Coon, despite the fact that he's been proven wrong on a number of things, is that he seems "less" wrong to me than the others.

Also, my main point is, as I said, that if you're going to do this sort of "typology", you have absolutely no credibility if you make up your own definitions, which seems to me what most people on anthrofora do. So, gracile Mediterraneans become Atlanto-Meds, Atlanto-Meds become Atlantids, anyone with a long nose becomes Dinaric, anyone with a wide face is Baltid, and the list goes on and on.

To a point raised above, there are indeed still physical anthropologists, and they do measure crania, and facial features, and the bones of the body. They're very important in the realm of forensics, and quite accurate when it comes to broad, modern, "continental" groupings.

Oh, also to another point raised above, the plates these old school anthropologists published represent tiny percentages in any country. Most living people are a mixture of features from all these groups.

 

[Tomenable]

Anyway, Angela, your (and maybe Coon's, but I think you are misinterpreting him) point that Nordic type originated from Mediterranean type doesn't seem to be valid in the light of genetic evidence, because EEF is not the main ancestry of Scandinavians or even more broadly of Northern Europeans.

Also if you look at facial reconstructions of skulls from Bronze Age Russian steppe, for example facial reconstructions of Yamnaya people, you will see that quite many of them did have this Nordic phenotype. You can easily find Yamnaya facial reconstructions all over the anthrofora, or in Google Images.

So if anything I would say that Nordics are depigmented Yamnayas (as we know Yamnayas were rather dark), which makes sense since Yamnaya or Yamnaya-like autosomal ancestry is very common in Norway and Sweden.

We also know as a matter of fact that the Yamnaya people did not have EEF admixture, so they did not have anything in common with Mediterraneans, even if - by pure coincidence - they happened to produce many people of a little bit similar, long-headed and long-faced phenotype. As you know people with different genotypes and different ethnic ancestries can often produce similar phenotypes, just like people of similar genotypes and belonging to the same ethnic group can produce even phenotypes very distinct from each other. Yamnayas according to all evidence were mostly a mixture of EHG and CHG - so even if my idea that Nordic phenotype originated among EHGs is wrong, then apparently it originated later on, as a product of mixing of EHG and CHG genes.

BTW I wrote another response before, but it didn't show up so far. I will post it later.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Anyway, Angela, your (and maybe Coon's, but I think you are misinterpreting him) point that Nordic type originated from Mediterranean type doesn't seem to be valid in the light of genetic evidence, because EEF is not the main ancestry of Scandinavians or even more broadly of Northern Europeans.

If you gave these Sardinians mostly fair skin, Brown hair, and Blue eyes they still wouldn't pass as Northern European. You're totally right there're more difference than pigmentation.

So if anything I would say that Nordics are depigmented Yamnayas (as we know Yamnayas were rather dark), which makes sense since Yamnaya or Yamnaya-like autosomal ancestry is very common in Norway and Sweden.

It should be a mix of Yamnaya and Middle Neolithic. It doesn't have to be Yamnaya or Middle Neolithic. Middle Neolithic is just as common in Norway/Sweden just as Yamnaya.

We also know as a matter of fact that the Yamnaya people did not have EEF admixture, so they did not have anything in common with Mediterraneans

As much as we put emphasis on how differnt prehistoric Europeans were from each other, they weren't very differnt at all when you put them on the scale of humanoid diversity(Neanderthal vs human), human diversity, and Eurasian diversity. Yamnaya and EEF are going to have similar features because they share lots of ancestry from many of the same Paleolithic Eurasian ancestors and because they were both human. Also You don't need to be an expert to know deciphering Yamnaya and EEF traits isn't going to be a perfect science. Maybe we can learn about trends by looking at bones but it won't be black and white.

 

[Angela]

Anyway, Angela, your (and maybe Coon's, but I think you are misinterpreting him) point that Nordic type originated from Mediterranean type doesn't seem to be valid in the light of genetic evidence, because EEF is not the main ancestry of Scandinavians or even more broadly of Northern Europeans.

Also if you look at facial reconstructions of skulls from Bronze Age Russian steppe, for example facial reconstructions of Yamnaya people, you will see that quite many of them did have this Nordic phenotype. You can easily find Yamnaya facial reconstructions all over the anthrofora, or in Google Images.

So if anything I would say that Nordics are depigmented Yamnayas (as we know Yamnayas were rather dark), which makes sense since Yamnaya or Yamnaya-like autosomal ancestry is very common in Norway and Sweden.

We also know as a matter of fact that the Yamnaya people did not have EEF admixture, so they did not have anything in common with Mediterraneans, even if - by pure coincidence - they happened to produce many people of a little bit similar, long-headed and long-faced phenotype. As you know people with different genotypes and different ethnic ancestries can often produce similar phenotypes, just like people of similar genotypes and belonging to the same ethnic group can produce even phenotypes very distinct from each other. Yamnayas according to all evidence were mostly a mixture of EHG and CHG - so even if my idea that Nordic phenotype originated among EHGs is wrong, then apparently it originated later on, as a product of mixing of EHG and CHG genes.

BTW I wrote another response before, but it didn't show up so far. I will post it later.

I guess I have to say again that I don't think this kind of analysis is any sort of substitute for genetic data. All I'm saying is that if people are going to use terms like "Nordic", and trace the "evolution" of it as a phenotype, they should stick to the conclusions of actual physical anthropologists. As to Coon, I provided a summary of his work from Wiki. I'll post a few direct quotes. Please show me how I'm misrepresenting him.

Coon: The Races of Man

" The Nordic race is a partially depigmented branch of the greater Mediterranean racial stock. It is probably a composite race made up of two or more basic Mediterranean strains, depigmented separately or in conjunction by a progressive evolutionary process. As has been demonstrated on plates 9 and 10, it is impossible, as some European anthropologists believe, to derive a Nordic directly from a dolichocephalic Upper Palaeolithic ancestor of Brünn or Crô-Magnon type. Reduction of these overgrown races produces a result which is quite un-Nordic morphologically as well as in constitutional type. It is the author's thesis that the Nordic race in Europe was caused by a blending of the early Danubian Mediterranean strain with the later Corded element. At the present time both Corded and Danubian elements may be isolated, while other Nordics preserve the blended form. Nordics in eastern Europe, Asia, and North Africa may have been formed by separate recombinations or simple depigmentations of comparable Mediterranean strains, or by invasions of these regions from an European or West Asiatic depigmentation center."

"It traces the Nordic racial type, in skeletal form, back to the Early Iron Age, and derives this with little alteration from the preceding Age of Bronze. The Bronze Age population which was thus the ancestral Nordic one was in turn derived from a mixture between the local Danubian Neolithic people, who came from the east, and the later Corded invaders."

"This "Nordic" type is no special or separate race, but merely a variant of the larger Mediterranean family, of an intermediate metrical position.

It finds a ready prototype in the Bronze Age population which stretched from Austria to Siberia, and which was in turn the product of mixture between Danubian peasants and Corded invaders."

As you can see, he's not saying that the two types are identical; he's saying that they are different variants of a main type.

Also see the following where Coon (I believe) discusses a Yemeni boy in this context:
View attachment 7772

Coon is not the only physical anthropologist who believed this.

For example, John Baker on "Hallstat"
"Halstatte inhumed bodies had occiputs projected sufficiently to bring these people into the dolicocranial range; the forehead receded somewhat; the face was long and somewhat prognathous; the men must have been about 170 cm ( 5' 7") tall. The skulls are remarkably similar to the definitely Nordid ones found in the 'grace in rows' (Reihengraber) of southern Germany, though they are not quite so flat on top. It must be remembered, nevertheless, that the skulls of Nordids are not very markedly different from those of Mediterraneanids, and the suggestion has been made that inhumed people may possibly have been of the latter subrace."

There's also a great deal in Coon and others about the metrics of the Corded people and their possible ancestry if you want to take a look at them.

If people choose to follow the physical anthropologists who think "Nordics" descend from UP Europeans like Gravettians or the WHG they're free to do so, but I don't see it.

Also, in terms of your argument, you didn't say that the "Nordic" type was descended from some people on the steppe as you are doing now. You first said this type is closest to UP Europeans, and then said you were referring specifically to the EHG. The only way to prove that point would be to go through Coon or other trained physical anthropologists and note down the appropriate metrics for the "Nordic" type, and then get the metrics for the EHG and perhaps an EEF sample, and compare all of them.

The steppe people are a different story. They vary a great deal by time and area. Plus, if you're talking about the Yamnaya, they're only half EHG. The rest is CHG, so the metrics of the Yamnaya wouldn't prove your initial contention that the "Nordics" are closest to the EHG. In addition, those "reconstructions" of Yamnaya people you posted are made by God knows whom. Even then they don't look to me anything like the plates all these academic physical anthropologists have made of so called "Nordic" people.

You might want to take a look at the following paper. It has lots of information in terms of metrics about the incredible variety on the steppe at different stages. I'm not overwhelmed by the number of "Nordic" like metrics. It's also interesting that they group the "Maykop" sample with Armenians from the south Caucasus.
https://www.academia.edu/9203307/On..._in_the_Northwestern_Caspian_Cranial_Evidence