Phenotypes of North-western Europe a case study the Northern Netherlands

[Alan]

Alan,

to my knowledge, and as I see the 1922 refuggees in Greece,
an anatolian is not like the links,
although close but not,
minor asians should have thin nose, and curved down.

The thin nose is common enough yes but I wasn't focused on that, the subject was the crania.
The "Anatolian" you are talking about are the Pontic Greeks from Northeast "Anatolia" which in fact isn't Anatolia but the Transcaucasus. It is a local variant/phyciscal process that took place and is often seen around Armenia (the Dinarization process). Still most Pontic Greeks are mesocephalic also though and other Pontic Greeks I have seen look quite like the people I have posted. Also I spoke of the average, there is of course variation but the avergae is mesocephalic.



It's not even the Nose, I was hinting towards the crania. The Hawk like appearance or slightly convex noses are more a CHG thing yes, but the point is that they were mesocephalic.

The "anatolians" in Greece you mean are definitely the Pontic Greeks, they are known for very thin noses. People from the Northeast are generally known for this.

See here.

Also take in mind I am speaking of the average, which indicates that there is variation.

In this video you can see well what I mean, the people are predominantly mesocephalic by crania

 

[Tomenable]

Alan,

Is this CHG K8 calculator available on Gedmatch? If not, then where can I download it?

Than there is this slightly newer calculator called Near East Neolithic K13.

One major flaw of Near East Neolithic K13 is that it lumps together CHG and EEF as one admixture. This is wrong because genetic distance between CHG and EEF was almost as large as today genetic distances between populations from different continents.

 

[Tomenable]

See min 38:05 - https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=19940&bhcp=1

 

[Alan]

Alan,

Is this CHG K8 calculator available on Gedmatch? If not, then where can I download it?



One major flaw of Near East Neolithic K13 is that it lumps together CHG and EEF as one admixture. This is wrong because genetic distance between CHG and EEF was almost as large as today genetic distances between populations from different continents.

It actually doesn't to be precise. There is also an Anatolian_Neo component there. What this CHG_EEF is, is a component that was found around Late_Neolithic in many parts of West Eurasia. It is when CHG like groups merged with EEF groups around Anatolia and another wave started. Kumtepe sample was one of this kind. It was special.

Yet I agree there is significant difference between both, the same way as there is between WHG and EHG. But differen't continents? Not in the slightest to be precise. If you take these components in global perspective, EHG, WHG, CHG_IranNeo and Anatolian Neo are a very tight group.

The K8 calculator might be on Gedmatch under the Eurogenes project.

 

[MOESAN]

Thanks for your post Moesan!

"Coon was only half wrong; 'borreby' types are not a race (but races don't exist even among animals if we consider phoenotypes don't always check genetic, look at girafes or chimpanzees) but stable phoenotypes exist it's to say genetically produced features or colours which has been linked at some stage to pops even if they did not represent the 100% of these pops. Coon was right to link 'brünnoids' and 'borreby' to ancient pop because the places where was found the most of them are places where today geneticists find the most of ancient "european" HG's..."

I think he was in this case completely wrong, he considered "borreby" and "brunn" as pure, unmixed products of the past. Then they must have lived for thousands years in caves I guess Of course the cro magnoid hunter-gartherers have had it's impact on the phenotype but not "unmixed". So in fact you can't find a pure cro-magnoid in Northwestern Europe. So Borreby is a part of Nordocromagnoid (with a higher component of cro-magnon features in the physical appearance....).

I see it's a question of concept: types are not populations; they are supposed rather homogenous ideal componants of pops, based on observation of more ancient pops supposed more "pure" phenotypically, more homogenous - some pops can be represented as formed by a dominant type, other ones not (more and more frequent as time pass for human beings!)
'cromagnoid', 'brünnoid' have been a kind of reality long ago. 'borreby' seems a less clear concept, being for me 'cromagnoid' or 'brüinnoid', brachycephalized (I say A and B to distinguish them)
the 'borreby' and 'brünn' of Coon where the ideal types that can appear phenotypically (more or less complete, he based himself rather on the head) in individuals, what shows they have inherited their appearance from the ancient pops, NOT ALL THEIR GENES, only the ones controlling these external features; COON was not stupid, he mentioned the parents or sons of these ideal types who have not the same type at all, proving it was no more question of "pure" ligneages, but only of what we call in french "atavisme" (reapparition of traits of ONE kind of ancestral ligneages. So apparently "pure" features, not pure race persons.
But statistically, when a pop present a considerable percentage of traits (set) which can be associated to a type, you can be sure that in a crossing with an other pop, different, this 'set' as a whole will appear in the crossing result in a lower %; some distorsion appears for some genetically dominant or recessive traits, but as a whole it's useful to devine the diverse ancient phenotypical componants of a modern pop, excpet in regions where the mixture has envolved too much types.
So Coon saw MORE 'borreby' and 'brünn' in some regions and these regions are among the ones in Europe where we find today the MORE of 'europoid' HG % -
the notions of population and type deserve longer but it's taking time and place; measures means without typology leads to misunderstanding in metric anthropology.

 

[MOESAN]

I agree with allot of things written but some statements with our current knowledge are wrong. Also the ancient anthropologists couldn't know better because they didn't had the genetic data but coon was in one point right the large headed "borreby" type is one of the many mesolithic European types.

Also the notion that these people came to Europe during the Paleolithic is wrong by new samples we know that the WHG we later see in Europe actually arrived there during the mesolithic from a Balkan_Anatolia_Levant refugium. Before the mesolithicum people lived in Europe who were allot more archaic belonged to Haplogroups such as CT, B F and so on.
These mesolithic Hunter and Gatherers were predominantly broad faced meso and brachycephalic types such as the Hunter on the reconstruction.

Later by Neolithicum another wave from Anatolia moved into Europe. These Neolithic farmers were predominantly dolichocephalic and mesocephalic people but not gracile yet, They were Robust people. Just around the Late Neolithic a gracilization took part but not only among those with DNA of early farmers also those mixed with Hunters and Gatherers this was the effect of agriculture (not so much use for huge bodies and muscles anymore).

details:
- Paleolithic and Mesolithic people of Europe were as a whole dolicho-mesocephalic (means: 71 to 74 as a whole) whatever the face breadth- I keep on thinking Paleol 'cromagnons' gave some of their features to descendants, distinct from the features gave by Gravettians come through Central Europe for the most maybe from far East, who have longer narrower (but robust) faces, more brutal frontal traits, higher skulls; they mixed at diverse degrees in different places, as well in West than in Balkans, apparently, the most deeply in Central Europe and Mesolithic saw the diverse results of this crossings after isolation and selection, giving way to some regional and individual variants; for I saw, the steppes HGs were not so homogenous, and the breadth they are credited for concerns more the bizygomatic than the bigonial, what is rather a 'brünnoid' features. So they inherited of both great ligneages but with some proper tendancies. I wonder if the far ancestor of this lineage of 'brünnoid' would not be the same as one of the ancestor of the first 'indo-afghan' lineages? But it's so far in time concerning phenotypes and DNA can be drift so much...
Whatever the origin of Mesolithic people in Europe (and I'm sure they received lately some Near-Eastern input through Mediterranea) I think that after wintering during the LGM a lot of their ancestors came from the Pyrenees-Cantabricas-Gascogne regions; if some others were from Balkans, it doesn't change too much, their far ancestors were more or less the same mix I bet.

 

[Northener]

I'am curious for the facts in Northwestern Europe, diverse publications underline the presence of strongholds of hunter gatherers, the old Ertebølle and Swifterbant culture :

" By the time that farming groups appeared in neighboring areas North Germany and Denmark where occupied with dense populations with successful, intensified hunting and gathering economies and, as a result, the appearance of agriculture into this area was delayed for several thousand years."

See

Is this still up to date.....???

It would be interesting if this had indeed has effect on the Northwest European phenotype....

And Moesan with a bizogamytic of approximately 160 mm (and with head size 61) I'am (sorry fire haired) in the atavistic danger zone I guess....

I agree with allot of things written but some statements with our current knowledge are wrong. Also the ancient anthropologists couldn't know better because they didn't had the genetic data but coon was in one point right the large headed "borreby" type is one of the many mesolithic European types.

Also the notion that these people came to Europe during the Paleolithic is wrong by new samples we know that the WHG we later see in Europe actually arrived there during the mesolithic from a Balkan_Anatolia_Levant refugium. Before the mesolithicum people lived in Europe who were allot more archaic belonged to Haplogroups such as CT, B F and so on.
These mesolithic Hunter and Gatherers were predominantly broad faced meso and brachycephalic types such as the Hunter on the reconstruction.

Later by Neolithicum another wave from Anatolia moved into Europe. These Neolithic farmers were predominantly dolichocephalic and mesocephalic people but not gracile yet, They were Robust people. Just around the Late Neolithic a gracilization took part but not only among those with DNA of early farmers also those mixed with Hunters and Gatherers this was the effect of agriculture (not so much use for huge bodies and muscles anymore).

details:
- Paleolithic and Mesolithic people of Europe were as a whole dolicho-mesocephalic (means: 71 to 74 as a whole) whatever the face breadth- I keep on thinking Paleol 'cromagnons' gave some of their features to descendants, distinct from the features gave by Gravettians come through Central Europe for the most maybe from far East, who have longer narrower (but robust) faces, more brutal frontal traits, higher skulls; they mixed at diverse degrees in different places, as well in West than in Balkans, apparently, the most deeply in Central Europe and Mesolithic saw the diverse results of this crossings after isolation and selection, giving way to some regional and individual variants; for I saw, the steppes HGs were not so homogenous, and the breadth they are credited for concerns more the bizygomatic than the bigonial, what is rather a 'brünnoid' features. So they inherited of both great ligneages but with some proper tendancies. I wonder if the far ancestor of this lineage of 'brünnoid' would not be the same as one of the ancestor of the first 'indo-afghan' lineages? But it's so far in time concerning phenotypes and DNA can be drift so much...
Whatever the origin of Mesolithic people in Europe (and I'm sure they received lately some Near-Eastern input through Mediterranea) I think that after wintering during the LGM a lot of their ancestors came from the Pyrenees-Cantabricas-Gascogne regions; if some others were from Balkans, it doesn't change too much, their far ancestors were more or less the same mix I bet.

 

[MOESAN]

Thanks Northerner, Moesan and Alan. That was a very interesting explanation. Just one question. Why are North Europeans dolicocephalic if Cro-Magnoids and Indo-Europeans were mesocephalic to brachycephalic? North Europeans have the lowest percentage of Neolithic farmer DNA so why are they most similar to them for head shape?

Late answer - I had not red every post (what a mistake!)
Alan is wrong when he says Hgs were mesocephalic or bracycephalic: and let's keep in mind the differences between crania classifications of CI and on life ones; crania of 80 or 80,1 or more are labelled "brachycrane" what is nonsense considering the modern pops of the world, Particuliarly Europe; 80-81 on life was the mean in the first half of the 20th Cy for pops. I prefer the CI cyphers to these broad classifications. All the Mesolithic and previous pops I know in Europe were between 70 to 77, unless some recent skulls about the 84 or more and some mesos around 78/81 which appeared lately, around the 6000 BC and in spotty regions of the Alps and maybe Balkans. I don't know but for 'europoids' I can imagine some "brachy" hearth around North Hindu-Kush??? No element, only guess here. The closer to Paleo the more dolichocephalic;

you: don't confuse shared CI and shared shapes.
Alan is more precise than me when he says Paleolithic people gave nothing (I think rather: few) to us; but the previous human stocks of Mesolithic Balkans were approximatively (for phenotypes) the same people as in western and northern Europe; diverse mixes where the two big previous stocks I described were present, one more here, another more there, but in vicinity and partly mixed. It's proved for Mesolithic Balkans if what I red is not only rubbish. Borreby's types are for me a brachycephalized result of this old mix; but it's true it appears later under this form in Denmark and N-Germany (4000 BC); I wonder if it's not of more eastern origin than the rather dolicho HGs of Scandinavia; and as I find some Tadjiks and even some Steppic late people showed here and there some close types (never the majority), and this kind of type appeared in S-Caucasus Near-East-Anatolia here an there at middle metals ages and were statistically associated with fairer hairs, I would be glad to find their first cradle: S-Baltic? Further East or South? to date I don't know; I have not the cranial traits of the FBK people who met the megalithic 'long-barrows' dolicho's of more atlantic and mediterranean origin. I was told some of them was of a similar type but without picture? Sometime ago I linked them to a lineage of Y-I2a2 men (remember: a spot East of Moskow), today I wait for more food. If this new thought I've is true, so, yes, Coon was not completely wrong, but confused eastern and western archaic people (what doesn't signify they had not a rather close shared ancestry not too long before.
Sorry for I'm long; I was writing and thinking at the same time. I hope my brain didn't too much noise?

 

[Northener]

Thats what I wrote, didn't I ~60% Near Eastern Neolithic and 40% Hunter and Gatherer. Take in mind that this calculator eats up some of the Anatolian_Neo ancestry as WHG and Caucasus. In reality it is ~35% Anatolian_Neo and ~27% CHG. Also you could test the newer calculator on yourself. Than you would know what the average for your region is.

Just received some aDNA this week,

According to FTDNA,

50% hunter gatherer
39% farmer
11 % metal age

And according to Gedmatch MDLP K23b 4-Ancestors Oracle:

# Population Percent
1 European_Hunters_Gatherers 42.61
2 European_Early_Farmers 24.62
3 Caucasian 23.45
4 South_Central_Asian 4.35
5 Ancestral_Altaic 3.63

Using 1 population approximation:
1 North_German @ 2.702885
2 Dane @ 4.053313
3 Swede @ 4.753368
4 Dutch @ 4.838142
5 Norwegian_East @ 5.059787
6 South_German @ 5.791823
7 Austrian @ 6.383281
8 Belgian @ 6.993768
9 Frisian @ 7.069386
10 Norwegian_West @ 7.489056

 

[Alan]

Just received some aDNA this week,

According to FTDNA,

50% hunter gatherer
39% farmer
11 % metal age

And according to Gedmatch MDLP K23b 4-Ancestors Oracle:

# Population Percent
1 European_Hunters_Gatherers 42.61
2 European_Early_Farmers 24.62
3 Caucasian 23.45
4 South_Central_Asian 4.35
5 Ancestral_Altaic 3.63

Using 1 population approximation:
1 North_German @ 2.702885
2 Dane @ 4.053313
3 Swede @ 4.753368
4 Dutch @ 4.838142
5 Norwegian_East @ 5.059787
6 South_German @ 5.791823
7 Austrian @ 6.383281
8 Belgian @ 6.993768
9 Frisian @ 7.069386
10 Norwegian_West @ 7.489056

Both admixture calculators are outdated and use non existent ghost population. On what ancient sample do they base "South_Central Asian" here?

Is there any ancient South_Central Asian data out to have such a component?

South_Central Asian here is just Iran_Neo ancestry that is closely related to Caucasian. Ancestral Altaic is another of those things.
European Hunters and Gatherers? Does it mean WHG? WHG is definitely not 42% believe me. Or do they mean EHG + WHG? Well that comes very close and makes sense.

But too many Outdated components by looking at it.

And I don't even want to start about company calculators like 23andme and ftDNA they are usually even more outdated than some amateur calculators.

What is Metal Age meant to be? How is a metal age sample supposed to be an ancestral component? Metal Age itself is probably a wild mix of EEF/CHG/WHG/EHG.
There is no CHG component it seems. And since they didn't clarified what these 50% Hunters and Gatherer is I assume this is basically Western Hunters and Gatherers, Eastern Hunter and Gatherers and Caucasus Hunters and Gatherers in one. Puting those three into one component as if they are the same is absurd considering how genetically different they are.

Take in mind with these calculators it always depends on what you want to know about your ancestry. Depending on the components used your results can look different but often are saying exactly the same.

For example Iran_Neo/CHG together with EHG ancetry could be labeled as Yamna like ancestry in a different calculator.

Or 3/4 Anatolian_Neo-EEF + 1/4 WHG could be labeled as MN Farmers.

 

[Expredel]

Y haplogroups influencing phenotype is almost a certainty given how old they are. So the old researchers were probably right.

 

[Northener]

Both admixture calculators are outdated and use non existent ghost population. On what ancient sample do they base "South_Central Asian" here?

Is there any ancient South_Central Asian data out to have such a component?

South_Central Asian here is just Iran_Neo ancestry that is closely related to Caucasian. Ancestral Altaic is another of those things.
European Hunters and Gatherers? Does it mean WHG? WHG is definitely not 42% believe me. Or do they mean EHG + WHG? Well that comes very close and makes sense.

But too many Outdated components by looking at it.

And I don't even want to start about company calculators like 23andme and ftDNA they are usually even more outdated than some amateur calculators.

What is Metal Age meant to be? How is a metal age sample supposed to be an ancestral component? Metal Age itself is probably a wild mix of EEF/CHG/WHG/EHG.
There is no CHG component it seems. And since they didn't clarified what these 50% Hunters and Gatherer is I assume this is basically Western Hunters and Gatherers, Eastern Hunter and Gatherers and Caucasus Hunters and Gatherers in one. Puting those three into one component as if they are the same is absurd considering how genetically different they are.

Take in mind with these calculators it always depends on what you want to know about your ancestry. Depending on the components used your results can look different but often are saying exactly the same.

For example Iran_Neo/CHG together with EHG ancetry could be labeled as Yamna like ancestry in a different calculator.

Or 3/4 Anatolian_Neo-EEF + 1/4 WHG could be labeled as MN Farmers.

Alan, difficult for me to consider the axioma's of the models behind the different tools. If I use the EEF-WHG-ANE test of Eurogenes, the one which Maciamo also has used, the spread is as follows:

EEF 43,87296332 = 44%
WHG 39,95275877= 40%
ANE 16,17427791= 16%

These are the European results:


My results are in between Orcedian and Norwegian. So typically of the Northwestern cluster, although more outmost Northwestern than in my "neighborhood" like England!

I know these results are to be taken with lots of salt. But the bottom line I can see is in any analyses I have results which are typical of the Northwestern or Northsea cluster. Even more so than average North Dutch (which is already typical Northsea cluster).

My explanation is that in area's around the Northsea, just like the Balticum, were hotspots of Loschbour kind of HG. Later on the influences of EEF like and other people were in the North Sea area bigger than in the Balticum. But I guess that within my ancestors the HG contingent survived (slightly) more than average in North Dutch.

from:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-3.pdf

 

[Huninc]

Mmm, I am Dutch, a northener from the Achterhoek region where most of my ancestors are originated for at least 500 years. My Y-DNA haplogroup is R1b-U106 (subclade R-Z8), mtDNA J1C. My results out of the Near East Neolithic K13 admixture, as is advized, says a mixture of 9.4% Anatolia Neolithic, 51.5% CHG_EEF, 19.5% EHG, 15% Scandinavian HG and 1.8% Natufian. The CHG_EEF combination is tricky, which part is Caucasian HG?

 

[MOESAN]

Mmm, I am Dutch, a northener from the Achterhoek region where most of my ancestors are originated for at least 500 years. My Y-DNA haplogroup is R1b-U106 (subclade R-Z8), mtDNA J1C. My results out of the Near East Neolithic K13 admixture, as is advized, says a mixture of 9.4% Anatolia Neolithic, 51.5% CHG_EEF, 19.5% EHG, 15% Scandinavian HG and 1.8% Natufian. The CHG_EEF combination is tricky, which part is Caucasian HG?

What a medley! these reference subcategories seem to me a bit confusing: something like carots and turlips? So the "CHG-EEF"???