PDA

View Full Version : Human Phenotypes



Kardu
30-12-12, 16:36
It seems to be a nice page, although I still have some questions about ethnic affiliations and geographic distribution..

http://www.humanphenotypes.com/index.html

Templar
31-12-12, 01:42
Haha, yeah it really is nice. Though I disagree with some of the descriptions of certain ethnicities. They seem to have an out-dated perspective. They don't mention that Nordids are mixed. And that Alpines are completely unrelated to Cromagnoids. They seem to think that they are "reduced" versions, which I think we all know is silly.

MOESAN
01-01-13, 16:23
Haha, yeah it really is nice. Though I disagree with some of the descriptions of certain ethnicities. They seem to have an out-dated perspective. They don't mention that Nordids are mixed. And that Alpines are completely unrelated to Cromagnoids. They seem to think that they are "reduced" versions, which I think we all know is silly.

I want not immediately go into debate -
what are your explanations concerning the alpine phenotype formation? (origin type, temporal and geograpphical facts...)
thanks beforehand
Happy New Year, by the way

Templar
01-01-13, 18:29
I want not immediately go into debate -
what are your explanations concerning the alpine phenotype formation? (origin type, temporal and geograpphical facts...)
thanks beforehand
Happy New Year, by the way

I think that what people call the "East Baltid" type was the original Indo-European phenotype, which evolved to withstand the cold in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Round faces, short limbs, and a long torso are adaptations which ensure heat retention, which is extremely important in cold environments. Generally all humans who live in northern latitudes have these features (Eskimos, Russians, Irish, Poles, Sami people, etc). Subsequent Indo-European mixing with darker neolithic Mediterranean and Cro-Magnon populations created the "Alpine" physical appearance, which is very common in the Alps and all other mountain ranges which have a large quantity of useful ores (which makes sense because Indo-Europeans were the first ones to smelt bronze). And I think this because of two main reasons: the skull measurements of the Androvo skulls are apparently very close to that of the Polish average, and all countries that have an exceptionally high percentage of R1b or R1a, the people are round-faced (Ireland, Poland, Ukraine, etc). The only Northern people whose appearance goes from this pattern is that of Nordids/Scandinavians, and I think this is explained by their high frequency of haplogroup I1, and that is evidence of strong European paleolithic/Cro-Magnon ancestry. Now you could argue that Cro-Magnons were also adapted to the cold like Indo-Europeans and Mongoloids were, but I think they only partially were. Humans reached Europe many thousands of years after they first reached Central Asia, so Cro-Magnons didn't have enough time to fully adapt to it.

Happy New Year to you too!

MOESAN
02-01-13, 19:01
thanks for kind answer
I've no time right now to give my thoughts, just a remark: for me things are a bit more complicated, your descriptions concerning today populations are oversimplified, sometimes very wrong, and phenotypes in direction to alpine type are very older than metal discoveries (for I know) and I-E; even if living in cold countries Andronovo types, for I know, was not so strudy bodied as you seam claiming - I 'll try to propose rough thoughts about all that when I find time -
all that never will cause us having a bad new year!!! all the way, I discuss that for my pleasure (not without some kind of nostalgy), but human beings and our planet "earth" know other problems today. Have a good time!
I wish a happy peaceful new year for all our 'colleagues' forumers, by the way.

MOESAN
02-01-13, 19:02
sorry: sturdy, not "strudy"

Templar
02-01-13, 19:51
I've no time right now to give my thoughts, just a remark: for me things are a bit more complicated, your descriptions concerning today populations are oversimplified, sometimes very wrong

I oversimplify often, but I don't think I am wrong about the Alpines being Indo-European. The Alpine type is the most common right at the area where the Halstatt culture flourished, from there it spread all over Western Europe. There is actually a book I read that mentions how with the arrival of the Alpine type, bronze-metalworking arrived as well.

Templar
02-01-13, 19:54
even if living in cold countries Andronovo types, for I know, was not so strudy bodied as you seam claiming - I 'll try to propose rough thoughts about all that when I find time -

You have to look at their skulls, their bodies will ofcourse look fragile and not sturdy, just like Mongoloid bodies are. Their skulls are wide, chins fairly weak, cheeks prominent.

MOESAN
04-01-13, 00:58
You have to look at their skulls, their bodies will ofcourse look fragile and not sturdy, just like Mongoloid bodies are. Their skulls are wide, chins fairly weak, cheeks prominent.

I don't confuse macroskele or athletic longiline with "fragile" - and here I was only speaking about total stature, not internal proportions, in answer to the alleged small statures linked very often to cold climate (for Andronovo) - for their skulls, i suppose you like me have not their measures, only the first look at their faces (skull and face can be dysharmonic, like in wellknown 'cromagnon' type) -
concerning Bronze and 'Alpine' types, the old studies claiming that generalized very too much and confused 'dinaric' types with 'alpine' types, that is very amazing to me!!! seamingly 'alpine' type began to show up about 8000/6000 BC and cristallize about
4000/2000 BC in WESTERN Europe, in the ALPS regions and surroundings - the first 'alpine' like people appeared in Anatolia and around about only 2000 BC, running the oppsite side to Bronze propagation, for I know.
in opposition to what was said above, 'alpine' type show concerning skull (and face) a number of features which evocate 'cromagnon' (brachycephalized) more than any other type, except some gentle so called 'borreby' types (not all of them, because 'borreby' is a very wide classification of types)

Templar
04-01-13, 13:36
4000/2000 BC in WESTERN Europe, in the ALPS regions and surroundings - the first 'alpine' like people appeared in Anatolia and around about only 2000 BC, running the oppsite side to Bronze propagation, for I know.

4000-2000 BC roughly corresponds with the early part of the Bronze Age! They appeared in Anatolia only in 2000 BC you say? Well according to one theory I have read on here, R1b went North into the steppe around the Caspian Sea, there they mixed with R1a and they shared technologies with each other. After this fusion of culture (and of genes), supposedly the first proto-Indo-Europeans emerged. So maybe Alpines/East Baltids only arrived in Anatolia during R1bs back-migration from the steppe. The Hittite empire lasted from around 1600 BC to 1200 BC. And you said that the first Alpine skulls found in Anatolia are 2000 BC, this fits extremely well with my theory!

ElHorsto
04-01-13, 14:44
One question: France and especially Brittany are strongholds of alpines, but Britain and Scandinavia are the regions with the fewest alpine individuals. Yet Brittany was once populated by british-celts. Alpine phenotypes exists also in Africa and Asia, which raises the question whether alpinism is latent in many more humans than actually visible and it can emerge and disappear within very few generations depending on the lifestyle.

Templar
04-01-13, 15:38
One question: France and especially Brittany are strongholds of alpines, but Britain and Scandinavia are the regions with the fewest alpine individuals. Yet Brittany was once populated by british-celts. Alpine phenotypes exists also in Africa and Asia, which raises the question whether alpinism is latent in many more humans than actually visible and it can emerge and disappear within very few generations depending on the lifestyle.

Well if we assume that Indo-Europeans had Alpine-like skulls, it would explain the widespread presence of the Alpine phenotype. I think that Celts were very Alpine, and I think this explains why both Southern Germans and French are very Alpine in appearance.

I would argue that many British who are descendants of Celts tend to have roundish faces. Even the 19th century stereotype of round-faced Welsh and Irish seems to suggest this. Perhaps, only Brits who are descendants of the Normans, Ango-Saxons, Danish vikings, etc. are the long-faced ones. Most of the British upper classes are long-faced and it is usually them that we see in the media, so I think that we are under an illusion about what the average Brit looks like. Most British folks that I have personally met have had fairly round faces. I also heard from one of my old college professors (who was Welsh) that the Welsh (and Englishmen who live around the area of Wales) tend to have significantly rounder faces than most Englishmen.

MOESAN
06-01-13, 00:05
One question: France and especially Brittany are strongholds of alpines, but Britain and Scandinavia are the regions with the fewest alpine individuals. Yet Brittany was once populated by british-celts. Alpine phenotypes exists also in Africa and Asia, which raises the question whether alpinism is latent in many more humans than actually visible and it can emerge and disappear within very few generations depending on the lifestyle.

When we speak about anything we have to rely on precise enough facts - so concerning these last posts:
&: first 'alpine' traits are not only brachycephally - second: phenotypical traits don't disappear and emerge again so easily, it 's not a music hall trick ! even if "milieu" has an impact on them! no natural pressure eradicates and recreates strong genetical differences like that!

Already on an other forum I red someone evocating the «brachycephally» of armorican Bretons and Basques - facts: Brittany in not yet an homogenous region, according to its history: Bretons of the 1950's presented CI means running between 79 to 85 which is a wide enough ranged for the same region -

the total mean would have been about 83,5 for the 5 depatements involved – but the local «cantons» (little districts =~ 6-9 parrishes) surveys show clear enough oppositions:

the more mesocephallic areas were in Western Brittany, coastal, and in Northern Brittany, coastal too, albeit some inlands very rare exceptions: western and northern coastal: CI = 79,0 <> 82,7 mean of means =~ 81,5 – the inlands eastern parts were meso-sub-brachycephallic: CI = 83,5 <> 85,1 mean of means =~ 84,0 – all that with a roughly «central path» about 83...

the 'alpine ' type is the very dominant element among this brachycephallic trend, even if some 'dinaric' and sort of 'borreby' can be found – an exception (82,9) is the western coastal region of the 'Bro Vigouden' (south Finistère), where some more 'dinaric' element seams envolved in the brachycephallic trend even if far from being the first element -

the more 'alpine' and brachycephallic regions of France are in Auvergne and North Languedoc and Central Alps, with more or less 'dinaric' trend (more in South «Causses» and Alps but light as a whole) – there brachycephally was running between 84,5 and 88,0 with 7 departememnts about 85-86!



&: I precise in the 1930-50's true brachycephally «live» was about 88-92 CI, not 83 or 84 as defined by crania studies old classifications (some individuals ober 95!) - true dolichocephally was about 71-73 -

its true that as a whole, Norway, Sweden, Britain, Spain and Portugal was on the dolichocephalic side, but yet more meso-dolicho' than dolicho' – (Portugal 76, England 77, Spain 77, Sweden 77, Norway 78) – everywhere, local variations – but even 76 is not dolichocephally, only meso-dolichocephally (look at some Arabs tribes (73-75), Pathans (72-73)..., and even closer to us among the european lands in comparison we had already in the 1930's CI as 73 (N-E Portugal, C-E Corsica, some parts of Sardinia), 74 (C-N-E Portugal, some remote villages of N Wales) -

as a whole England mean is CI 76-77, Scotland, Ulster and Wales 78-79, Eireann 79-80 – some british orirish areas have more than 80: Kerry, Mayo, Fifeshire, Avon (Bristol)...

COON eliminated the 'alpine' type as component of Ireland, speaking of «paleolithical remnants brachycephalized» (but 'alpine' too could fit this definition, maybe), putting in the same bag so called 'borreby' types and 'brünn' as in western Norway: but where the 'brünn' descendants are the denser, the CI's are lower: only in the Norway's areas rich for 'borreby' are found meso- to sub-brachycephallic means) – Ireland is not without light 'borreby' possible influence but me I see a non negligeable 'alpine' influence, and some 'dinaric' too – the same in Eastern Scotland where at post Urnfields times were found some 'alpine like' remnants with cultrual artefats evocating Alps continental Celts...

to be complete, I think that at the 1930-1940's for people living in not too different natural conditions the mesocephally between true dolicho- and true brachycephally (whether 'alpine' or 'dinaric') lied about 81-82 – a population where was found a mean CI of 77 contained roughly 25% of pure brachy' component – a population where was found a mean CI of 85-86 contained roughly 75% - the %'s are not so evident with 'borreby' because it seams being a «mean» composite element according to surveys about Western Norway (arbitrary mean: 84, but individuals over 90, as 'alpines and 'dinaric') -

& I suppose all these cyphers (cephalic index mean) would be diminished if we should take the present day populations, even without new crossings – 1 % (one index) was lost from the 1930's to the 1950's as a mean – I should bet an lost of -2% more again between the 1950's -



history: roughly the distribution of meso- versus sub-brachychepallic regions in Brittany mimics the binary opposition between old atlantic maritime regions (atlantic bronze) where because of their insularity Insular Brittons landed more densely and the inland regions where the mix of numerous continental Gauls and some Roman citizens dominate – we know that about Iron Age colonization in western Aremorica occurred from the Parisian Bassin where 'alpine' type was very common at that time – 'alpine' phenotypes were become the heavier element among celtized people of central and eastern Gallia – the difference of insular Britton settlements densities (the ones of the 5° to 7° century) are confirmed by macro- & microtoponymy -



to conclude, when we took the Great Islands compared to Brittany, we see that at same period (relatively modern), the CI's were different, but some regions showed a pass about CI's of 80-81, a lot of others not too far, 78-83 what is not true contrast considering the toal fork of 71 to 90... I know Ceph-Index is just an aspect

ElHorsto
06-01-13, 00:42
Thank you for your comprehensive response. I should specify my question more: I mean the Alpine type in particular, not Brachycephalics in general. I'm also sceptic in particular regarding Coon's theories about alpinid admixture creating dinarids etc., because:
True Alpinids are characterized not only by brachycephaly and round face, but also short legs, short neck and long trunk.
I read somwehere (I don't have the source anymore) a claim that alpinid individuals are very robust and resilient against diseases of any kind, that they can better survive periods of starvation and their life expectancy is also higher. Germany's population allegedly was significantly more alpine in the past (until 50's or 60's), but since 80's and later their offspring tend to be much less often alpine. This is something that I personally also could observe here. This plus the new discovery of epigenetic mutations and inheritance led me to speculate that possibly the alpinid phenotype is not just a usual phenotype but rather a medical condition, which is useful from an evolutionary point of view in that it can be switched on and of quickly, depending on environmental conditions. If I find time later, I'll try to find some source for these claims.

ElHorsto
06-01-13, 00:45
Well if we assume that Indo-Europeans had Alpine-like skulls, it would explain the widespread presence of the Alpine phenotype. I think that Celts were very Alpine, and I think this explains why both Southern Germans and French are very Alpine in appearance.


Certainly, but I mean that the alpinid phenotype is possibly not exclusively indo-european but also widespread in other than IE-settlements.

ElHorsto
06-01-13, 00:57
These two people are examples for what I mean:

Poland5793


German-French border5794

Templar
06-01-13, 01:35
Certainly, but I mean that the alpinid phenotype is possibly not exclusively indo-european but also widespread in other than IE-settlements.

Well the Alpinid/East Baltic phenotype is similar to the Mongoloid one in many ways, yet they aren't very closely related. The common thing that they both have is having evolved in a very frigid environment. Both have all the additional features u listed: hort legs, short neck and long trunk.

ElHorsto
06-01-13, 14:47
Well the Alpinid/East Baltic phenotype is similar to the Mongoloid one in many ways, yet they aren't very closely related. The common thing that they both have is having evolved in a very frigid environment. Both have all the additional features u listed: hort legs, short neck and long trunk.

East Baltic is very different from Alpine in that it has much more paleolithic properties, like big stature, robustness and long arms. 19th century racialists linked it to Borreby.

5795
5796

Templar
06-01-13, 15:23
19th century racialists linked it to Borreby.

19th century racialists were wrong about MANY things. For example they thought that Germanic people were the purest Indo-Europeans, now we know that Germanic people are some of the most mixed people in Europe. In the 19th century they didn't have genetic data, and nationalism/imperialism blinded their research. I think Indo-european haplogroups (R1a, R1b) are always followed by a round-faced, short-legged, long-torsoed phenotype. Slavs are mostly R1a, and they tend to be round-faced. Celts are mostly R1b and they also tend to be round-faced. The only Europeans who have long faces are Germanic, Dinaric, and Mediterranean ones, and not surprisingly all three of these have R1b and R1a to a much lesser degree than Slavs and Celts.

Cambrius (The Red)
06-01-13, 17:17
Well if we assume that Indo-Europeans had Alpine-like skulls, it would explain the widespread presence of the Alpine phenotype. I think that Celts were very Alpine, and I think this explains why both Southern Germans and French are very Alpine in appearance.

I would argue that many British who are descendants of Celts tend to have roundish faces. Even the 19th century stereotype of round-faced Welsh and Irish seems to suggest this. Perhaps, only Brits who are descendants of the Normans, Ango-Saxons, Danish vikings, etc. are the long-faced ones. Most of the British upper classes are long-faced and it is usually them that we see in the media, so I think that we are under an illusion about what the average Brit looks like. Most British folks that I have personally met have had fairly round faces. I also heard from one of my old college professors (who was Welsh) that the Welsh (and Englishmen who live around the area of Wales) tend to have significantly rounder faces than most Englishmen.

Very outdated and just plain incorrect to some extent.

Cambrius (The Red)
06-01-13, 17:20
Indigenous Germanics are mixed significantly with other European peoples but not other races. Turkish influences, for instance, are very residual.

ElHorsto
06-01-13, 21:18
19th century racialists were wrong about MANY things.


They were mostly wrong by their historical interpretation, but not so much by their observation. However, you can just ignore the 19th century remark, my opinion is independent anyway. East Baltic is still one of the most paleolithic phenotypes up to me, which BTW was not such a popular opinion in 19th century. Still, even they could not completely deny similarities to Borreby (some called Borreby "West Baltic", which I tend to agree with, 19th century or not).



For example they thought that Germanic people were the purest Indo-Europeans, now we know that Germanic people are some of the most mixed people in Europe. In the 19th century they didn't have genetic data, and nationalism/imperialism blinded their research. I think Indo-european haplogroups (R1a, R1b) are always followed by a round-faced, short-legged, long-torsoed phenotype. Slavs are mostly R1a, and they tend to be round-faced. Celts are mostly R1b and they also tend to be round-faced. The only Europeans who have long faces are Germanic, Dinaric, and Mediterranean ones, and not surprisingly all three of these have R1b and R1a to a much lesser degree than Slavs and Celts.

Templar
06-01-13, 23:28
Indigenous Germanics are mixed significantly with other European peoples but not other races. Turkish influences, for instance, are very residual.

Germanic people have less Indo-European haplogroup frequency than most other European people. That is what I am referring to. I didn't mention races or Turks, what are you talking about?

Templar
06-01-13, 23:38
They were mostly wrong by their historical interpretation, but not so much by their observation. However, you can just ignore the 19th century remark, my opinion is independent anyway. East Baltic is still one of the most paleolithic phenotypes up to me, which BTW was not such a popular opinion in 19th century. Still, even they could not completely deny similarities to Borreby (some called Borreby "West Baltic", which I tend to agree with, 19th century or not).

Areas which have high amounts of the "East Baltic" phenotype, don't have high paleolithic haplogroup frequency (haplogroup I). They are a hot spot for R1a, not "I". I don't see how they can be paleolithic, except for maybe in the far eastern parts of Europe.

ElHorsto
07-01-13, 00:12
Areas which have high amounts of the "East Baltic" phenotype, don't have high paleolithic haplogroup frequency (haplogroup I). They are a hot spot for R1a, not "I". I don't see how they can be paleolithic, except for maybe in the far eastern parts of Europe.

1. The paleolithic covers 30000 years of european history.
2. Haplogroups are almost meaningless compared to the significance of autosomals (check the admixture component which has a peak in the baltic area). HG I is relatively old in europe, thus especially inexact.
3. The Hunter-gatherers of europe which followed the melting glaciers were connected to siberia and beyond as shown by SNP admixture (and meanwhile confirmed also by STR). Most evidences suggest a common trans-eurasian space in the northern tundra. Hence, a minor "mongoloid" admixture in north europeans is probably not a recent admixture but an integral part from very early times (the Y-HG Q traces in Scandinavia might be such old remnants, which got eradicated east of scandinavia by HG N and R1a newcomer lineages). Many north europeans also have higher cheek bones than "old" mediterraneans, though not as high as mongols of course. That would be also an explanation for the phenotype of the Kennewick man. BTW, this is quite an anti-19th-centurish point of view.
4. Who knows what HG I was originally. It is just a Haplogroup - one single lineage among hundred thousands of other predecessors. It could have belonged to one particular horde or epoch. But I find it hard to believe that all european hunter-gatherers, cro-magnons, gravettians, etc. always belonged exclusively to HG I or F.

Yetos
07-01-13, 00:16
Hey,

I don't get it

I click on Greece
and gave the 4 types among them one was Pontid

same also in East Balkans,

Then I click to Turkey, and seems Pontid is missing,
should n't be also there? more than south of Pontus is turkey.

Templar
07-01-13, 00:56
3. The Hunter-gatherers of europe which followed the melting glaciers were connected to siberia and beyond as shown by SNP admixture (and meanwhile confirmed also by STR). Most evidences suggest a common trans-eurasian space in the northern tundra. Hence, a minor "mongoloid" admixture in north europeans is probably not a recent admixture but an integral part from very early times (the Y-HG Q traces in Scandinavia might be such old remnants, which got eradicated east of scandinavia by HG N and R1a newcomer lineages)

Cro-Magnons have long faces, which Mongoloids do not. Cro-Magnons were perhaps the tallest humans alive during their time, Mongoloids are bellow average height. The haplogroup trees confirm a major difference between Cro-Magnons and Mongoloids. Indo-Europeans on the other hand are much closer to Mongoloid N, O, Q, etc. The Mongoloid part of Northern Europeans is likely due to Sami mixture perhaps.

The tallest Europeans (Germanics and Dinarics) both have the highest rates of haplogroup I, they are also both hairy, both have very long faces, etc.

Templar
07-01-13, 00:58
Hey,

I don't get it

I click on Greece
and gave the 4 types among them one was Pontid

same also in East Balkans,

Then I click to Turkey, and seems Pontid is missing,
should n't be also there? more than south of Pontus is turkey.

Yeah there are a lot of weird inconsistencies. I would take all the information with a pinch of salt.

Cambrius (The Red)
07-01-13, 01:19
Germanic people have less Indo-European haplogroup frequency than most other European people. That is what I am referring to. I didn't mention races or Turks, what are you talking about?

I just proffered clarification, that's all. In any case, autosomal DNA (full heritage) tells the real story, not haplogroups.

Templar
07-01-13, 01:26
I just proffered clarification, that's all. In any case, autosomal DNA (full heritage) tells the real story, not haplogroups.

Yes, but autosomal DNA can give us the wring impression sometimes. I will give you an example. Ashkenazi Jews are supposedly the most closely autosomally similar to Italians. Which from a historic point of view makes no sense at all. The reason why, is because both populations have a significant mix of both European and Near-Eastern genes, which when looking at it autosomally gives us an illusion of them being kin.

Cambrius (The Red)
07-01-13, 01:42
Yes, but autosomal DNA can give us the wring impression sometimes. I will give you an example. Ashkenazi Jews are supposedly the most closely autosomally similar to Italians. Which from a historic point of view makes no sense at all. The reason why, is because both populations have a significant mix of both European and Near-Eastern genes, which when looking at it autosomally gives us an illusion of them being kin.

DNA obviously behaves randomly and population groups who cluster closely autosomally does not mean they will always resemble each other phenotypically. However, the groupings will share some physical traits and sometimes many...a roll of the dice.

Templar
07-01-13, 01:56
DNA obviously behaves randomly and population groups who cluster closely autosomally does not mean they will always resemble each other phenotypically. However, the groupings will share some physical traits and sometimes many...a roll of the dice.

I know, but my point is that it always clusters people together if both people share the same ratio of mixes. So imagine a scenario where the only reason various groups are clustered in the "Northern European" cluster is because they all are a Mongoloid-Caucasoid mix. This would completely ignore the minor differences between the Caucasoid autosomals, and skip right to the biggest difference between Northern and Southern European autosomals. This could really screw up the real clusters that we are looking for.

ElHorsto
07-01-13, 02:54
Cro-Magnons have long faces, which Mongoloids do not.


Actually, the "old man of Cro-Magnon", France, had a broad face. It is at least 28000 years old:
5797

Here is a long faced skull from Combe Capelle, France. But the problem is that it is only 8000 years old:

5798

This is another long faced example from Peștera cu Oase (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%C8%99tera_cu_Oase), Romania. It is the oldest known european, but the problem is that it is not yet distinctly "european". The brain cavity was relatively gracile compared to the huge malars. This phenotype is considered to be extinct today.
5799


It is obvious that both, very broad and very long faced individuals were around in europe during the paleolithic. Only the later mediterranean phenotypes are exclusively long faced. The Combe-Capelle guy in particular could have been already an Atlanto-Med.



Cro-Magnons were perhaps the tallest humans alive during their time, Mongoloids are bellow average height. The haplogroup trees confirm a major difference between Cro-Magnons and Mongoloids. Indo-Europeans on the other hand are much closer to Mongoloid N, O, Q, etc. The Mongoloid part of Northern Europeans is likely due to Sami mixture perhaps.

The tallest Europeans (Germanics and Dinarics) both have the highest rates of haplogroup I, they are also both hairy, both have very long faces, etc.

ElHorsto
07-01-13, 03:22
Yes, but autosomal DNA can give us the wring impression sometimes. I will give you an example. Ashkenazi Jews are supposedly the most closely autosomally similar to Italians. Which from a historic point of view makes no sense at all.


Well, there could be a tiny bit of sense, because 10% of roman population was of hebrew descent, although they were probably more prevalent in the eastern provinces.



The reason why, is because both populations have a significant mix of both European and Near-Eastern genes, which when looking at it autosomally gives us an illusion of them being kin.

That's not an illusion. If they share sufficiently many genes then they are just kin. Even if their history is different and their kinship is coincidental, it is still genetic kinship, regardless how it happened. You are right, that there is no 100% reliability of a component, but if the component is geographically confined, then it is significant enough to be considered true. It is still 100 times more reliable than Y-DNA for instance, because a component is a unique combination of several SNPs that can not be eradicated suddenly in many people of a region at once. Y-DNA lineages are completely different. But if the aDNA component is not geographically confined and sparse, then it is not to be trusted too much, that's true.

Templar
07-01-13, 04:05
Actually, the "old man of Cro-Magnon", France, had a broad face. It is at least 28000 years old:

I never said that they weren't broad. Length and width aren't mutually exclusive you know. Cro-Magnon skulls were generally BOTH long and wide. My point is that though both Mongoloid and Cro-Magnon skulls are wide, Cro-Magnon skulls are also long, while Mongoloid ones are not.


That's not an illusion. If they share sufficiently many genes then they are just kin. Even if their history is different and their kinship is coincidental, it is still genetic kinship, regardless how it happened. You are right, that there is no 100% reliability of a component, but if the component is geographically confined, then it is significant enough to be considered true. It is still 100 times more reliable than Y-DNA for instance, because a component is a unique combination of several SNPs that can not be eradicated suddenly in many people of a region at once. Y-DNA lineages are completely different. But if the aDNA component is not geographically confined and sparse, then it is not to be trusted too much, that's true.

I am just saying you have to be very careful and not jump to a conclusion with it. There are a lot of people who just look at the autosomal data and immediately start making far-fetched theories which have no historic substance.

Cambrius (The Red)
07-01-13, 04:09
Good points. I agree...

Knovas
07-01-13, 16:39
Very interesting data Horsto. Yeah, the "French" Cro-Magnon was clearly broad. Difficult to say how this fits the most common theories...maybe we have to accept that Paleolithic Europeans were not homogeneous at all.

MOESAN
07-01-13, 22:51
Actually, the "old man of Cro-Magnon", France, had a broad face. It is at least 28000 years old:
5797

Here is a long faced skull from Combe Capelle, France. But the problem is that it is only 8000 years old:

5798

This is another long faced example from Peștera cu Oase (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%C8%99tera_cu_Oase), Romania. It is the oldest known european, but the problem is that it is not yet distinctly "european". The brain cavity was relatively gracile compared to the huge malars. This phenotype is considered to be extinct today.
5799


It is obvious that both, very broad and very long faced individuals were around in europe during the paleolithic. Only the later mediterranean phenotypes are exclusively long faced. The Combe-Capelle guy in particular could have been already an Atlanto-Med.

Amaze am I !
the third kind man (or men,) seam to me very closer to 'Cro-magnon' and NOT LONG FACED AT ALL! perhaps we 've not the same kind of eyes...
Could you provide other pictures of this "romanian" type (face/side/top)?
good night

MOESAN
07-01-13, 22:58
I never said that they weren't broad. Length and width aren't mutually exclusive you know. Cro-Magnon skulls were generally BOTH long and wide. My point is that though both Mongoloid and Cro-Magnon skulls are wide, Cro-Magnon skulls are also long, while Mongoloid ones are not.

I am just saying you have to be very careful and not jump to a conclusion with it. There are a lot of people who just look at the autosomal data and immediately start making far-fetched theories which have no historic substance.


Need some more documentation, I suppose?
there is dolichocephalic 'mongoloids', even in cold climates!!! don't generalize too much on too few examples...
broad european faces have not the same quality like broad mongoloid faces - and yet here I generalize me too! a lot of discret features differenciate the diverse phenotypes', more or less according to their proximity by genetic heritage

ElHorsto
07-01-13, 23:09
Amaze am I !
the third kind man (or men,) seam to me very closer to 'Cro-magnon' and NOT LONG FACED AT ALL! perhaps we 've not the same kind of eyes...
Could you provide other pictures of this "romanian" type (face/side/top)?
good night

Long faced or not, it looks more African to me and not so much Cro-magnon.

Here is the article from 2007 (in german) from University of Zürich, where I found the picture:

http://www.uzh.ch/news/articles/2007/2450.html

I searched in pnas and this seems to be their paper (in english, fulltext!!!) they mentioned "to appear" in that article:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/4/1165.full?sid=c902c7bb-7598-4c37-aea3-4844b3c98340

I haven't read it yet. Have fun!

Templar
07-01-13, 23:18
there is dolichocephalic 'mongoloids', even in cold climates!!! don't generalize too much on too few examples...

There are always exceptions to patterns we see, but I am talking about the majority of cases. I have personally never seen a Mongoloid with a dolichocephalic skull, and I have had very many Asian/Mongoloid friends. Anyways, my point is that Cro-Magnon skulls are pretty unique, they are both long faced and broad at the same time. If you measure their face length it is longer than that of the average human, but at the same time if you measure skull width it is also above average. This might explain their huge brain size. Anyways the reason why I talk about Cro-Magnons so much is because I feel like I have a kinship with them. Most males in my family have skulls which are huge, they are both long and wide. This might indicate that I have Borreby phenotype I think.

ElHorsto
07-01-13, 23:28
There are always exceptions to patterns we see, but I am talking about the majority of cases. I have personally never seen a Mongoloid with a dolichocephalic skull, and I have had very many Asian/Mongoloid friends.


It is believed that Mongoloids were not so widespread in the past and that the Ainu of northern Japan are examples of such pre-mongoloid quasi-caucasoid looking asians. Also Amerindians, which descend from asians of that period, are not fully mongoloid, especially not the south-american ones, although some are. That's one additional reason why I believe that the "cro-magnons" belonged to an ancient north-eurasian hunter typus.

Templar
07-01-13, 23:35
It is believed that Mongoloids were not so widespread in the past and that the Ainu of northern Japan are examples of such pre-mongoloid quasi-caucasoid looking asians. Also Amerindians, which descend from asians of that period, are not fully mongoloid, especially not the south-american ones, although some are. That's one additional reason why I believe that the "cro-magnons" belonged to an ancient north-eurasian hunter typus.

There is a lot of evidence that it is true that Mongoloids spread out from around the area of lake Baikal and eventually conquered the indigenous people of East and Southeast Asia. Most agree though that these indigenous people weren't Caucasoid, they were related to Australoids and Negritos. You can find small Negrito minorities throughout Southeast Asia.

According to haplogroup trees, I don't think Cro-Magnons were related to Mongoloids at all, but Indo-Europeans likely were. The closest people to Cro-Magnons were the J inhabitants of West Asia. They were both IJ, J is the result of those that stayed and I is the haplogroup that went into Europe. And I think there are still evident similarities between I and J people. Both Dinarics and Germanic people tend to be hairy like J people, especially when compared to Celts and Slavs who are stereotyped as having much less body hair. I and J people also both have long noses, while R people have snub ones.

ElHorsto
07-01-13, 23:35
@MOESAN

Here is a reconstruction of the "romanian" skull Pestera cu Oase II, which I found in an italian article, and it looks indeed African:

5800

http://www.antikitera.net/news.asp?ID=4253

Dagne
08-01-13, 11:28
East Baltic is very different from Alpine in that it has much more paleolithic properties, like big stature, robustness and long arms. 19th century racialists linked it to Borreby.

5795


Charles Bronson's orginis are from Lipka Tartars (his father is Lipka Tartar). So autosomally he would be rather different from East Baltids, and he does look like a tartar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipka_Tatars

ElHorsto
08-01-13, 11:37
There is a lot of evidence that it is true that Mongoloids spread out from around the area of lake Baikal and eventually conquered the indigenous people of East and Southeast Asia. Most agree though that these indigenous people weren't Caucasoid, they were related to Australoids and Negritos. You can find small Negrito minorities throughout Southeast Asia.


I was talking about North, not South Asia. The Ainu for instance are genetically Mongoloids and phenotypically European.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_people


Cavalli-Sforza places the Ainu in his "Northeast and East Asian" genetic cluster.


Anthropologist Arnold Henry Savage Landor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Henry_Savage_Landor) described the Ainu as having deep-set eyes and an eye shape typical of Europeans, with a large and prominent browridge, large ears, hairy and prone to baldness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldness), slightly flattened hook nose with large and broad nostrils, prominent cheek bones, large mouth and thick lips and a long region from nose to mouth and small chin region.

One additional remark: More than Balts and Finns, the Saami have been shown to descend to the former Mesolithic population of the european atlantic coast and they have the highest Amerindian (old Siberian) percentage 13%.

ElHorsto
08-01-13, 11:39
Charles Bronson's orginis are from Lipka Tartars (his father is Lipka Tartar). So autosomally he would be rather different from East Baltids, and he does look like a tartar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipka_Tatars

I know his Tatar roots, and I doubt that Tatars are so much unrelated to North Europeans. I selected Bronson as kind of evidence for that.

Dagne
08-01-13, 14:02
According to Dienekes autosomal analysis, Tartars are closest to Turkmens, then further are Turkish, Azeri, Iranian, Kurdish, Bulgarians, Armenians, Georgians, Greek etc ... North Europeans being further apart. http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/02/first-look-at-turkish-and-kyrgyz-data.html

Templar
08-01-13, 14:11
I was talking about North, not South Asia. The Ainu for instance are genetically Mongoloids and phenotypically European.

Most people agree that the original Ainu were Australoid, not Caucasoid. Search it up. Previously it was thought that they were Caucasoid, but all the evidence points to Australoid including the haplogroups.

ElHorsto
08-01-13, 15:25
According to Dienekes autosomal analysis, Tartars are closest to Turkmens, then further are Turkish, Azeri, Iranian, Kurdish, Bulgarians, Armenians, Georgians, Greek etc ... North Europeans being further apart. http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/02/first-look-at-turkish-and-kyrgyz-data.html

Dienekes compared Kyrgyz and Turks against other Turks and few neighbors. There is no much alternative other than these reference populations to be similar to Tatars. Sorry, I don't see any north european reference population you mention. Do you have more information?

ElHorsto
08-01-13, 15:35
There is no much alternative other than these reference populations to be similar to Tatars.

Sorry, I meant the other way around: There is no alternative other than that the Tatars are similar to these reference populations.

ElHorsto
08-01-13, 16:26
Most people agree that the original Ainu were Australoid, not Caucasoid. Search it up. Previously it was thought that they were Caucasoid, but all the evidence points to Australoid including the haplogroups.

Whatever they are genetically, my point is that they are not European, but still look quite Caucasoid, because the Mongoloid type was originally less widespread. Hence caucasoid looks like more archaic form or at least more common in the past than it is now. Also it is believed since 2007 that Amerindians descend from Siberia rather than east Asia, because of Y-GH Q and R1 in the Americas, whereas Y-HG C is found mosty in Northwest America and neighbouring east Asia, which indicates that the C indians came later. These north american Indians are also more mongoloid looking than the other amerindians.

MOESAN
08-01-13, 18:21
Thank you for your comprehensive response. I should specify my question more: I mean the Alpine type in particular, not Brachycephalics in general. I'm also sceptic in particular regarding Coon's theories about alpinid admixture creating dinarids etc., because:
True Alpinids are characterized not only by brachycephaly and round face, but also short legs, short neck and long trunk.
I read somwehere (I don't have the source anymore) a claim that alpinid individuals are very robust and resilient against diseases of any kind, that they can better survive periods of starvation and their life expectancy is also higher. Germany's population allegedly was significantly more alpine in the past (until 50's or 60's), but since 80's and later their offspring tend to be much less often alpine. This is something that I personally also could observe here. This plus the new discovery of epigenetic mutations and inheritance led me to speculate that possibly the alpinid phenotype is not just a usual phenotype but rathera medical condition, which is useful from an evolutionary point of view in that it can be switched on and of quickly, depending on environmental conditions. If I find time later, I'll try to find some source for these claims.


«medical» concerning the 'alpine 'phenotype? A kind of trisomical condition? Joke!

I can consider strong brachycephally as a mutation or the possible result of accumulation of certain genes adaptative under some natural environment, but not as the result of some simple mechanical processus acting during indiviual life.
two aspects without connexion between them:
1- one or more mutation (définitive) affecting only Cephalic Index (a) OR ALL the sekeleton (b) and acquired at birthday, and transmitted to descendants > < 2- environment + food + way of life (physical efforts) affecting Cephalic Index AND skeleton, during gestation and life, and NOT transmissible – (it would be the phenomenon of brachy-debrachycephallization Europe underwent from Middle Ages to 19° century and from 19° century until today, going along with a decrease/then/increase of statures -
&: (b) seams wrong to me because I'm sure I saw («crossed») individuals presenting «alpinelike» brachycephally and macroskele longiline body – but if linked to different genes but localized on close loci, it could be explained as the pigmentation, where we see sometimes a break within light/dark quality of hair, eyes and skin (Europoids)?...
weather a single mutation among europoids descendants or more than one? I 've no ready-to-use answer – all the way the same mutation applied to diverse genetical backgrounds could produce diverse effects concerning shape: look at 'dinarics' (shape is a very important fact often underconsidered in past by scholars : I think shape is not different by nature from «metrics», but implies MORE metric values yet and the possible co-varations of some measures – was brachycephally a gradual phenomenon or a brutal mutation?: I do'nt know: if I'm right the first brachycephallic skulls were found in Ofnet cave, about 7000/6000 BC, and yet these indexes were hight enough in some individuals, and there were dolicho's and meso's also, with distinct shapes for the dolicho's: same phylum or not (see shapes) the graduallity of the C-Is could be the result of a mix of mutated with non-mutated people, and not the apparition of a slight phenomenon creating firstable only slight variations among individuals and evolving after by progressive strengthening – I think we know very few about that - I consider genetic encrease or decrease of C-I as the result of more or less brachycephallic vs dolicho's skulls in the means and the result is then a modification of the I-Cs curve (the top of the curve is closer to the higher indexes or farther) – in environmental encrease (or decrease) of C-Is in an homogenous population, the top of the curve KEEPS on with its previous position even when the C-Is mean evolved – (a bit simplified, but clear enough for that) -
the Coon's idea of a crossing involving 'alpine' people with an other component was «genial» at his time – I think (AS YOU) he was wrong, but the idea had some merit then – I rather think a brachycephallizing mutation (more recent) occurred among some population with a different background than the 'alpine' one, and gave birth to the 'dinaric' type: we didn't see an encrease of 'dinaric' types in France spite of the lot of diverse dolicho's types and the heavy presence of 'alpine 'types side by side: looking at the Bronze Age, we saw the opposite -
to conclude, I see not disparition, no reapparition of brachycephally, NO SWITCH ON/OFF, only progressive evolutions in means where crossings play a heavy role – in the same family with the same medical and way-of-life background you see sometimes dolicho's along with brachy's, as concerning, say, pigmentation or other phenotypical features – it doesn't contradict the possibility of an environmental advantage sometime somewhere -
good brain work!

MOESAN
08-01-13, 18:37
Long faced or not, it looks more African to me and not so much Cro-magnon.

Here is the article from 2007 (in german) from University of Zürich, where I found the picture:

http://www.uzh.ch/news/articles/2007/2450.html

I searched in pnas and this seems to be their paper (in english, fulltext!!!) they mentioned "to appear" in that article:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/4/1165.full?sid=c902c7bb-7598-4c37-aea3-4844b3c98340

I haven't read it yet. Have fun!

More african? uneasy to say... more primitive than 'Cro-magnon' concerning skull, sure -
Thank you for the links!
all the way, 'Cro-magnon' DID NOT HAVE HIGH FACE, only broad - his skull only was large as a whole -
'come-capelle' had large face, broad enouh and very high -

Dagne
09-01-13, 08:34
Sorry, I meant the other way around: There is no alternative other than that the Tatars are similar to these reference populations.

I see – do you mean that Tartars are closer to Lithuanians than to Western Europeans (for instance, French Basks) because Lithuanians and Tartars are both shifted more towards Asia whereas West Europeans are shifted more towards Near East?

There is some nice picture about it in this Dienekes post (though Tartars as population are not there - but they must be somewhere between Iranians, Turkmens and Turks, right?
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/ (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/uzbeks-as-nexus-altai-as-source-of.html)
09/uzbeks-as-nexus-altai-as-source-of.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/uzbeks-as-nexus-altai-as-source-of.html)

ElHorsto
09-01-13, 13:56
I see – do you mean that Tartars are closer to Lithuanians than to Western Europeans (for instance, French Basks) because Lithuanians and Tartars are both shifted more towards Asia whereas West Europeans are shifted more towards Near East?


Yes. But I also think Tatars are shifted toward Europe.



There is some nice picture about it in this Dienekes post (though Tartars as population are not there - but they must be somewhere between Iranians, Turkmens and Turks, right?
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/ (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/uzbeks-as-nexus-altai-as-source-of.html)

09/uzbeks-as-nexus-altai-as-source-of.html (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/uzbeks-as-nexus-altai-as-source-of.html)

I would be very surprised if Tatars are in that range. For geographical reasons I expect them to be close to the Chuvashs, or somewhere between Mordvins and Mongols, closer to Mordvins. BTW, I'm talking about tatars from Tatarstan, not from crimean or other tatars.
Here is some older info about Tatar mtDNA:

http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2010/05/mtdna-of-tatars-from-volga-ural-region.html


It was found that mitochondrial gene pool of the Volga Tatars consists of two parts, but western Eurasian component prevails considerably (84% on average) over eastern Asian one (16%). Eastern Asian mtDNAs detected in Tatars belonged to a heterogeneous set of haplogroups (A, C, D, G, M7, M10, N9a, Y, Z), although only haplogroups A and D were revealed simultaneously in both populations. Complete mtDNA variation study revealed that the age of western Eurasian haplogroups (such as U4, HV0a and H) is less than 18,000 years, thus suggesting re-expansion of Eastern Europeans soon after the Last Glacial Maximum.

One comment from 'Ebizur' below cites Y-DNA figures from Wells 2001. According to this, Tatars are mostly R1a, followed by surprisingly high I.
I think in this case R1a again could be anything, while HG I is strange. The J2 could be a tiny link to south eurasian population, which could support a bit your assumption.

Of course there are exotic HGs in Tatars, since they look 1/4 mongloloid.

ElHorsto
10-01-13, 18:05
It seems to be a nice page, although I still have some questions about ethnic affiliations and geographic distribution.. http://www.humanphenotypes.com/index.html It is interesting to see that everywhere in europe the hair color in males is consistently darker than in females. And the lightest hair color in average is in East Baltic.

MOESAN
12-01-13, 23:14
It is interesting to see that everywhere in europe the hair color in males is consistently darker than in females. And the lightest hair color in average is in East Baltic. males darker than females??? are you sure? I' am not so sure (I can mistake): females keep often old hairs more than males that cut them more often and having already a little thicker hairs get more thicker hairs yet (darkener effect) - a male with long free hair seams always less dark than the same male with relatively short cut hairs sticked to their skull - what I believe is that for dark hues, females are not so dark than males, surely for they have often a little more 'red' pigment in hairs than males of same genetic background - it is not the same case for skin colour and yet, there, the bigger difference seams laying in the FACE skin colour perhaps have you some serious recent survey about comparable samples?

ElHorsto
13-01-13, 00:28
males darker than females??? are you sure? I' am not so sure (I can mistake): females keep often old hairs more than males that cut them more often and having already a little thicker hairs get more thicker hairs yet (darkener effect) - a male with long free hair seams always less dark than the same male with relatively short cut hairs sticked to their skull - what I believe is that for dark hues, females are not so dark than males, surely for they have often a little more 'red' pigment in hairs than males of same genetic background - it is not the same case for skin colour and yet, there, the bigger difference seams laying in the FACE skin colour perhaps have you some serious recent survey about comparable samples? I was just describing what can be seen in the particular link from Kardu (http://www.humanphenotypes.com/index.html). It is of course not scientific, but still interesting because the samples used for the averaged pictures were not selected by gender differences, yet unintentionally displaying this consistent male-female difference in hair color. You can check by yourself.

wormhole
15-01-13, 08:03
Could somebody on this thread classify somebody for me who has experience in the field?

Balder
30-03-13, 04:14
The creator of this site is here answering questions:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/40139-Official-Humanphenotypes-com-thread