PDA

View Full Version : The look of the three ancestral components of europeans



Mars
15-10-14, 18:27
Are there theories, facial reconstructions etc. about the - at least hypothetical - look of the people belonging to the three ancestral components of europeans: ANE, hunter gatherers and neolitic farmers?
My two cents, the first two I mentioned were more robust, taller and maybe fairer than the latter. I think neolithic farmers looked mostly like modern time people from the Mediterranean basin. Am I wrong?

John Doe
15-10-14, 19:18
Are there theories, facial reconstructions etc. about the - at least hypothetical - look of the people belonging to the three ancestral components of europeans: ANE, hunter gatherers and neolitic farmers?
My two cents, the first two I mentioned were more robust, taller and maybe fairer than the latter. I think neolithic farmers looked mostly like modern time people from the Mediterranean basin. Am I wrong?

Yeah you are wrong, while the WHG (west European hunter gatherers) were blue eyed, they were dark skinned, brown skinned even, the EEF (early European farmers) were light skinned but dark eyed and haired. IDK what the ANE looked like.

Angela
15-10-14, 20:57
The academic papers have not predicted blonde hair for any of the ancient samples found so far (WHG,EEF,ANE).

John Doe
15-10-14, 20:59
The academic papers have not predicted blonde hair for any of the ancient samples found so far (WHG,EEF,ANE).
Oh, my mistake, I'll edit that.

Fire Haired14
16-10-14, 05:10
Mars, you've got a great profile picture.

Fire Haired14
16-10-14, 07:29
Are there theories, facial reconstructions etc. about the - at least hypothetical - look of the people belonging to the three ancestral components of europeans: ANE, hunter gatherers and neolitic farmers?
My two cents, the first two I mentioned were more robust, taller and maybe fairer than the latter. I think neolithic farmers looked mostly like modern time people from the Mediterranean basin. Am I wrong?

I think it's a bit of an assumption that northern Europeans are taller and more robust. Where's the evidence. Southern Europeans in America have the exact same body build as northern European Americans, it's also same with west Asians.

Mars
16-10-14, 11:54
Mars, you've got a great profile picture.
Yeah, it's a statue of the roman god Mars with goddess Venus in love. First italian latin lover ever? :grin::grin:

About the body structure of modern europeans, it's fairly different from our ancestors' one, I guess, because the three components mixed a lot in ancient times, at least after the indoeuropean invasions but probably even before. Many south europeans are as robust and tall as the northerners, I agree, but a common physical type in the south has features like gracile structure and quite short stature. I think of many sardinians, for example, who often look like this, and are considered the most similar, genetically, to EEF:
6760
6761
6762
(sardinians in folk costumes)

Maleth
16-10-14, 15:42
I think it's a bit of an assumption that northern Europeans are taller and more robust. Where's the evidence. Southern Europeans in America have the exact same body build as northern European Americans, it's also same with west Asians.

And where is your evidence that they are not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Average_height_around_the_world

irrelevant to this chart when one travels it is evident to see the difference. Peoples height averages are even evident within the same countries say Italians of the North and Italians from the South, different regions of France example. But not only Mediterranean people seem to be of a smaller stature, you also get this smaller stature in the Alps regions. Dutch are evidentally taller then average. When you worked with a mixed bag of tourists you can easily tell the differences. Of course you get exceptions, but exceptions are not the rule.

I believe that height depends on nutrition especially protein. Northern's consume much more protein (probably through meats and dairy products) compared to southerners that even till this day seem to consume less. The ancients (especially farmers) are known to have been even of a smaller stature then today. Many of the doors in ancient buildings and ruins are very small compared to what we have today even in some dwellings of up to 200/300 years ago.

John Doe
16-10-14, 16:06
And where is your evidence that they are not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Average_height_around_the_world

irrelevant to this chart when one travels it is evident to see the difference. Peoples height averages are even evident within the same countries say Italians of the North and Italians from the South, different regions of France example. But not only Mediterranean people seem to be of a smaller stature, you also get this smaller stature in the Alps regions. Dutch are evidentally taller then average. When you worked with a mixed bag of tourists you can easily tell the differences. Of course you get exceptions, but exceptions are not the rule.
Yeah, I suppose that's true. According to Coon's "The races of Europe" (if it's an irrelevant study these days please let me know) Ashkenazi Jews have a higher frequency of fair eyes and hair than south Italians, but a lower frequency of said features than north Italians. I asked on a couple of forums how I look like, and classifications ranged from northern Europe to the eastern Mediterranean, but according to most studies Ashkenazis are genetically speaking east Mediterranean/north near eastern, so I suppose it doesn't matter, just look at some Kurds.

Maleth
16-10-14, 16:39
Yeah, I suppose that's true. According to Coon's "The races of Europe" (if it's an irrelevant study these days please let me know) Ashkenazi Jews have a higher frequency of fair eyes and hair than south Italians, but a lower frequency of said features than north Italians. I asked on a couple of forums how I look like, and classifications ranged from northern Europe to the eastern Mediterranean, but according to most studies Ashkenazis are genetically speaking east Mediterranean/north near eastern, so I suppose it doesn't matter, just look at some Kurds.

Hmm. I know there has been alot discussed of how Ashkenazi Jews came to be, but the info was somewhat overwhelming to follow. My impression at the moment is that some were originals of the middle east that migrated to these parts of the world and eventually intermarried (with conversions) to the local country of migration. I believe there have also been some kind of indegeous people who converted to Judaism at some point too, but I really have no clue of percentages.

Intermixing of course would always bring different features in the new group due to gene inheratance. For example I believe that Sephardic Jews would then have a particular different look from Ashkenazi's, which might even differ from the Jews of the middle east that remained in the region. If not mistaken I also believe that there is some kind of internal racism between the two groups, but Im not too sure about this. They even adopted a somewhat different character which is not always compatible especially with the thousands that migrated back to Israel and now living in the same country. I stand to be corrected.

John Doe
16-10-14, 17:10
Hmm. I know there has been alot discussed of how Ashkenazi Jews came to be, but the info was somewhat overwhelming to follow. My impression at the moment is that some were originals of the middle east that migrated to these parts of the world and eventually intermarried (with conversions) to the local country of migration. I believe there have also been some kind of indegeous people who converted to Judaism at some point too, but I really have no clue of percentages.

Intermixing of course would always bring different features in the new group due to gene inheratance. For example I believe that Sephardic Jews would then have a particular different look from Ashkenazi's, which might even differ from the Jews of the middle east that remained in the region. If not mistaken I also believe that there is some kind of internal racism between the two groups, but Im not too sure about this. They even adopted a somewhat different character which is not always compatible especially with the thousands that migrated back to Israel and now living in the same country. I stand to be corrected.

Yeah I believe you got it quite right, I also agree that the question of how AJs came to be is still debated with no definitive answer from what I understood. As an AJ, this level of uncertainty concerning the origin of the ethnicity I belong to tends to drive me mad sometimes, I just hope the picture will get clearer with better technology and new discoveries so that this question of origin of the AJs will become clearer.

Mars
16-10-14, 23:20
Yeah I believe you got it quite right, I also agree that the question of how AJs came to be is still debated with no definitive answer from what I understood. As an AJ, this level of uncertainty concerning the origin of the ethnicity I belong to tends to drive me mad sometimes, I just hope the picture will get clearer with better technology and new discoveries so that this question of origin of the AJs will become clearer.
What about mizrahim and sephardim? Do they have any connection to the EEF? I mean, is their genetic background (at least partially) common to that of the farmers who came from the Middle East 8,000 years ago, and later mixed with european hunter-gatherers? That's something I've never grasped...:thinking:

John Doe
17-10-14, 08:41
What about mizrahim and sephardim? Do they have any connection to the EEF? I mean, is their genetic background (at least partially) common to that of the farmers who came from the Middle East 8,000 years ago, and later mixed with european hunter-gatherers? That's something I've never grasped...:thinking:

The Sephardis I think so. The term Mizrahi is quite general, it can stretch from Syrian Jews who probably have a connection to the EEF to Yemenite Jews who might not.

Maleth
17-10-14, 13:02
What about mizrahim and sephardim? Do they have any connection to the EEF? I mean, is their genetic background (at least partially) common to that of the farmers who came from the Middle East 8,000 years ago, and later mixed with european hunter-gatherers? That's something I've never grasped...:thinking:

I believe in a recent study it is found that major Jewish groups share a common Middle eastern origin, prior to the existence of the Jewish faith (as a religion) Some have intermingled with people from the country they have emigrated to since ancient times for different reasons. Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews have around 30% European ancestry (and I presume some Berber admixture but not sure) through intermarriages according to Dr. Harry Ostrer. If he is correct then its only the 'Religion' which binds. So its quite possible that Present Jews (as a religion) have same roots to non Jews from the times prior to when the Jewish faith was created

Maleth
17-10-14, 13:05
The Sephardis I think so. The term Mizrahi is quite general, it can stretch from Syrian Jews who probably have a connection to the EEF to Yemenite Jews who might not.

Joe did you get around to refine your results?

John Doe
17-10-14, 13:09
Joe did you get around to refine your results?
What do you mean? I didn't understand your question.

Maleth
17-10-14, 13:14
What do you mean? I didn't understand your question.

Your yDNA result is E-M35.1. which is quite a general one. Did you have a deeper test done to determine your subclade. I know you were going to do it at some point. With ftdna I think?

John Doe
17-10-14, 13:14
I believe in a recent study it is found that major Jewish groups share a common Middle eastern origin, prior to the existence of the Jewish faith (as a religion) Some have intermingled with people from the country they have emigrated to since ancient times for different reasons. Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews have around 30% European ancestry (and I presume some Berber admixture but not sure) through intermarriages according to Dr. Harry Ostrer. If he is correct then its only the 'Religion' which binds. So its quite possible that Present Jews (as a religion) have same roots to non Jews from the times prior to when the Jewish faith was created
Yeah, I heard of that study too. I heard of 2 more studies concerning the subject, one by Gil Atzmon who claimed Ashkenazi Jews originated in the middle east but are roughly 35-55% of European descent. Then there's the most recent study which claims that Ashkenazi Jews descend from just 300 people from 600 to 800 years ago, and are roughly of half European and half middle eastern origin (50 50). The studies just keep contradicting themselves, I don't know which study to believe anymore to be frank.

John Doe
17-10-14, 13:16
Your yDNA result is E-M35.1. which is quite a general one. Did you have a deeper test done to determine your subclade. I know you were going to do it at some point. With ftdna I think?
Yeah, I'm planning on testing with FTDNA and take the 37 or 67 markers test to see to which more specific subclade I belong to, as soon as I'll get the money, all in due time. ;-)

Maleth
17-10-14, 13:23
Yeah, I'm planning on testing with FTDNA and take the 37 or 67 markers test to see to which more specific subclade I belong to, as soon as I'll get the money, all in due time. ;-)

I understand. I did 67 markers after the deep clade test. But I did not get my joy by doing the 67 markers. I am still located in the same region in the snp map and still with the same close matches as I had on 12 markers. Geno project told me know I have to do the mouth swab all over again if I want to have updated results

John Doe
17-10-14, 13:40
I understand. I did 67 markers after the deep clade test. But I did not get my joy by doing the 67 markers. I am still located in the same region in the snp map and still with the same close matches as I had on 12 markers. Geno project told me know I have to do the mouth swab all over again if I want to have updated results
I see... So should I have the 37 markers? Does that count as deep clade?

Maleth
17-10-14, 13:59
I see... So should I have the 37 markers? Does that count as deep clade?

I will pm you not hijack thread :)

John Doe
17-10-14, 14:10
I will pm you not hijack thread :)
Alright. No problem with that.

Mars
17-10-14, 17:23
Back in full topic, the look of ANE (ancestral north eurasians) is puzzling me. My idea is that they could have been looking like modern day Saami... Or, at least, similar to them. Saami are the only known modern population from Europe with no mediterranean/neolithic admixture.
Any ideas?
6763
6764

John Doe
17-10-14, 17:41
Back in full topic, the look of ANE (ancestral north eurasians) is puzzling me. My idea is that they could have been looking like modern day Saami... Or, at least, similar to them. Saami are the only known modern population from Europe with no mediterranean/neolithic admixture.
Any ideas?
6763
6764
And yet they have light skin... How come?

MOESAN
17-10-14, 18:41
concerning stature, the Cro-Magnons typical men (Paleolith) are about 1m74 (the 1m80 first announced would be an error of calculation)
Combe-Capelle (Mesolith) were apparently smaller: about 1m67 (what is not short until the XX°Century end) -
the Mesolithic people as a whole were shorter than Cro-Magnons, even the ones showing strong links with this old type -
in Western Europe, the most about 1m60 to 1m65, even in Scandinavia for I know (I 'm not aware of this aspect for the recent discoveries), someones shorter (Teviec, Mugem: 1m55 to 1m58) - in Eastern Europe they were higher (no precise data: say, about 1m68 to more than 1m70?) -
the megalithers of last Neolithic, even in Brittany, were higher than the other Mediterraneans; these last ones were about 1m60-1m63 the former ones about 1m67/1m68 - even in North Africa, the 'eurafrican' type was higher than the average population, so to take the only stature to do correlations is hasardous -
concerning physical reconstitutions, the Hunter-Gatherers were not more uniform than for statures: two well segregated phylums seem having given birth to a lot of types by crossings, I suppose - the basic types was a Cro-magnon one, not 100% homogenous for frontal region, but commonly semi-long skulled and very short-broad faced, with broad/low orbits (quadrangular by form) of small size - the 'brünnoid'/capelloid' type (not exactly the same phylum, but very close for forms) was very long-narrow skulled and high-narrow faced with low enough quadrangular orbits, orbits larger than the Cr-Mgn 's ones - and a narrower jaw compared to Cr-Mgn -
it appears that the two phylums knew a trend towards brachycephally, partial or complete, in some regions of Europe without clear reasons - but crossings can produce so amazing types sometimes -
let's take some examples in past: the facial type of La Brana-1 seems very on the Cr-Mgn side when the Loschbour one is on a very brutal 'brünnoid' side - this type perhaps combined to a 'teviecoid' type has made maybe the brutal component of the Seine-Oise-marne cultural complexe until the very Late Neolithic, a culture common with Wallonia and Western Germany at these times -
concerning Oetzi, I already said spite the scientists first conclusions I found he had not a genuine 'mediterranean' head - his automals, analysed through different calculators, with the caution we have to take for this use of arbitrary criteria, seems confirming it was crossed with H-G's and was not a pure 'neolithical man' of South-Eastern origin what is not surprising for his time -
&: concerning the flesh-fat parts of visages I 'm always amazed by the robust selfconfidence of "reconstructers", not always of same level, and sometimes more artists than scientists:
that said, it very possible that the so called 'western mediterraneans' retained some archaic 'cromagnoid' aspects too... maybe not by nature but by crossings poorly traced back by the means we have have now -

Fire Haired14
17-10-14, 21:06
Back in full topic, the look of ANE (ancestral north eurasians) is puzzling me. My idea is that they could have been looking like modern day Saami... Or, at least, similar to them. Saami are the only known modern population from Europe with no mediterranean/neolithic admixture.
Any ideas?
6763
6764

I doubt Sami are as special as advertised. The admixture result of a Sami from Finland at Eurogenes, suggests their northeast Europeans with above average Siberian admixture(over 20%). They have some near eastern ancestry, just their Siberian ancestry really dilutes it. They're the same color as other northeast Europeans(decent % have blonde hair, which we know didn't exist in WHG, ANE, or EEF, it developed to high %'s later), because they're a modern population not a relic of the stone age.

Mars
17-10-14, 23:20
concerning Oetzi, I already said spite the scientists first conclusions I found he had not a genuine 'mediterranean' head - his automals, analysed through different calculators, with the caution we have to take for this use of arbitrary criteria, seems confirming it was crossed with H-G's and was not a pure 'neolithical man' of South-Eastern origin what is not surprising for his time -
&: concerning the flesh-fat parts of visages I 'm always amazed by the robust selfconfidence of "reconstructers", not always of same level, and sometimes more artists than scientists:
that said, it very possible that the so called 'western mediterraneans' retained some archaic 'cromagnoid' aspects too... maybe not by nature but by crossings poorly traced back by the means we have have now -
Otzi looks somehow "northern balkanic" to me... If this definition makes any sense :laughing: My two cents of course.
6765

Angela
18-10-14, 03:42
Otzi looks somehow "northern balkanic" to me... If this definition makes any sense :laughing: My two cents of course.
6765


How dare you?!http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif:laughing::laughing: The first time the reconstruction was posted, before any of the genetic analysis was released, I said that he looked like an old northern Italian/perhaps Appennine peasant who had seen better days. I was booed down, figuratively, of course. Then, he turned out to be very close to Sardinians.

Anyway, I do know what you're getting at...but I think it's also a certain type of Alpine look. I did remember and post an ad I had seen for a hotel in the valleys near where his body was found, and I thought that except for the hair color, he had an "Otzi" kind of look.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/tyrolean-rifleman-with-red-beard-at-a-meeting-in-the-news-photo/82092554

http://p2.la-img.com/1417/32291/13172907_1_l.jpg
http://tm410.dd14.firma5.com/daten/herbsturlaub_in_den_dolomiten1.jpg
http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/23/65/13/5198569/3/628x471.jpg
http://images2.tyrol.tl/images/events/main/content/649e708ec323210f75d2358d7fd10687.jpeg

Despite later migrations, I think some of those phenotypes have persisted in the Alps. Of course, maybe the artists looked around the Tyrol and just captured the look when they did the reconstruction. I think some reconstructions are incredibly bad, although this one at least makes some sense.

I think the Ladino speaking people have a bit of that look as well...
(http://images2.tyrol.tl/images/events/main/content/649e708ec323210f75d2358d7fd10687.jpeg)http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/23542438.jpg

There's also a whole group of photographs of the famous Sardinian Centenarians. Here is one of them:
Antonio Todde and his wife. He was 112. It was actually her look that I originally had in mind.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/ANTONIO_TODDE.jpg/220px-ANTONIO_TODDE.jpg

Alan
18-10-14, 16:49
Back in full topic, the look of ANE (ancestral north eurasians) is puzzling me. My idea is that they could have been looking like modern day Saami... Or, at least, similar to them. Saami are the only known modern population from Europe with no mediterranean/neolithic admixture.
Any ideas?
6763
6764

I would go with the Kalash look.Technically speaking ANE would look something like 30% North Euro, 30% West Asian, 25% Amerindian and 15 South Indian/Southeast Asian. Saami lack the SouthIndian/Southeast Asian/West Asian features/Genes and only possess North Euro, some Amerindian like genes. Maybe the Proto Saami looked more ANE like but nowadays they are heavilly Germanic admixed.

Kalash look mostly Caucasian but often with Amerindian, Southeast Asian like features.

Like these individuals 6769676667676768

MOESAN
19-10-14, 01:52
I doubt Sami are as special as advertised. The admixture result of a Sami from Finland at Eurogenes, suggests their northeast Europeans with above average Siberian admixture(over 20%). They have some near eastern ancestry, just their Siberian ancestry really dilutes it. They're the same color as other northeast Europeans(decent % have blonde hair, which we know didn't exist in WHG, ANE, or EEF, it developed to high %'s later), because they're a modern population not a relic of the stone age.

Sorry FireHaired but the true Saami were very very definitely on the darker side of Europeans - the today Saami are Saami-Finns and Saami-Scandinavians crossings for the most, and they are fairer and higher statured than old Saami (1m54 to 1m56 as a rule) - the old studies about them placed them among the darkest populations of Europe, living in the highlands constituing the vertebral colomn of Scandinavia, at the separation between Norway and Swede - or old scientists were blind all of them (I have some reserves concerning some of them but others made a good work at their time)...

MOESAN
19-10-14, 02:06
[QUOTE=Angela;442028]How dare you?!http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif:laughing::laughing: The first time the reconstruction was posted, before any of the genetic analysis was released, I said that he looked like an old northern Italian/perhaps Appennine peasant who had seen better days. I was booed down, figuratively, of course. Then, he turned out to be very close to Sardinians.

your are not to far from truth as I'm concerned
I already said he seems not too 'mediterranean' and I think he has some 'cromagnoid' and 'alpine' increments (but 'alpine' seems a kind of 'cromagnoid' brachycephajlized in a reduced or "foetusized" way when my 'borreby' 1 seems the result of a same process but in a more robust direction - his global 'sardinian' autosomals affiliation doesn't contradict that because external phenotypical aspect can be disrupted from total autosomals mean -
by the way today Sardinians show more than a 'mediterranean' type and also a so called 'archaic mediterranean' type (more in mountainous center of the island) where 'cromagnoid' traits could be traced back - Bulgaria also is considered as showing old 'mediterranean' autosomals, if in smaller percentgaes and shows too some persistant 'cromagnoid' traits along with very typical 'mediterranean' (often 'atlanto-med') and other influences.

Fire Haired14
19-10-14, 07:22
Sorry FireHaired but the true Saami were very very definitely on the darker side of Europeans - the today Saami are Saami-Finns and Saami-Scandinavians crossings for the most, and they are fairer and higher statured than old Saami (1m54 to 1m56 as a rule) - the old studies about them placed them among the darkest populations of Europe, living in the highlands constituing the vertebral colomn of Scandinavia, at the separation between Norway and Swede - or old scientists were blind all of them (I have some reserves concerning some of them but others made a good work at their time)...


The "true Saami" how do you define this? Also, don't accuse me of trying to make the Sami pale.

Sami aren't very special. They're pagean, hunter-herders, no urbanization, no written language, no currency, etc. etc. But European genetics existed before western civilization, so the Sami's primitiveness is only because of recent cultural isolation.They have plenty of relatives in Russia and the Baltic. My point is genetically they're not an ancient isolate, their pigmentation and physical features are probably not unique either.

They have light skin and a decent amount of light hair, like northern Europeans and Andronovo. The dark ones are probably the ones with more east Asian ancestry. The only Sami person Davidski has is from Finland and he/she has over 22% Siberian ancestry(almost 3 times more than average Finn). His ANE is not amazingly high, but it's about highest in Europe because of their Siberian ancestry. Their WHG is very low, at around the same total amount as Spanish. They have hardly any near eastern ancestry because their typical northeast Europeans and their Siberian ancestry dilutes it even more.

If there are very dark Sami and their east Asian ancestry has nothing to do with it, that's interesting because it goes against the northeast European trend. I would expect them to have dark skin, hair, and light eyes if it came from WHG, but remember they don't have a whole lot of WHG ancestry.

Alan
19-10-14, 15:08
As far as I know, the highest score of ANE is in Populations like Kalash with 40-45%, Burusho, Baloch with 32-35% and Pashtun with 25-35%.

After that come the North Caucasians with levels of 22-30% and with 25% followed by Northeast Europeans.

Alan
19-10-14, 15:12
If there are very dark Sami and their east Asian ancestry has nothing to do with it, that's interesting because it goes against the northeast European trend. I would expect them to have dark skin, hair, and light eyes if it came from WHG, but remember they don't have a whole lot of WHG ancestry.


Thats an interesting point because ANE was quite different from Sibirian component. All it showed relation to from the East was Amerindian, South Indian and Southeast Asian like genes but not really with genes nowadays dominant in Sibiria.

Mars
19-10-14, 15:33
I would go with the Kalash look.Technically speaking ANE would look something like 30% North Euro, 30% West Asian, 25% Amerindian and 15 South Indian/Southeast Asian. Saami lack the SouthIndian/Southeast Asian/West Asian features/Genes and only possess North Euro, some Amerindian like genes. Maybe the Proto Saami looked more ANE like but nowadays they are heavilly Germanic admixed.

Kalash look mostly Caucasian but often with Amerindian, Southeast Asian like features.

Like these individuals 6769676667676768
I think you have a good point here.

Angela
19-10-14, 17:43
[QUOTE=Angela;442028]How dare you?!http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif:laughing::laughing: The first time the reconstruction was posted, before any of the genetic analysis was released, I said that he looked like an old northern Italian/perhaps Appennine peasant who had seen better days. I was booed down, figuratively, of course. Then, he turned out to be very close to Sardinians.

your are not to far from truth as I'm concerned
I already said he seems not too 'mediterranean' and I think he has some 'cromagnoid' and 'alpine' increments (but 'alpine' seems a kind of 'cromagnoid' brachycephajlized in a reduced or "foetusized" way when my 'borreby' 1 seems the result of a same process but in a more robust direction - his global 'sardinian' autosomals affiliation doesn't contradict that because external phenotypical aspect can be disrupted from total autosomals mean -
by the way today Sardinians show more than a 'mediterranean' type and also a so called 'archaic mediterranean' type (more in mountainous center of the island) where 'cromagnoid' traits could be traced back - Bulgaria also is considered as showing old 'mediterranean' autosomals, if in smaller percentgaes and shows too some persistant 'cromagnoid' traits along with very typical 'mediterranean' (often 'atlanto-med') and other influences.

Well, that means something coming from you.:) I've mentioned before, and I think that the pictures I posted on the Eastern Ligurian/NW Tuscan thread show that there's a lot of this "Cro-Magnon"? that survived in mountainous areas, not just the Alps, but also the Appennines, and appears to varying degrees in the people there.

As to phenotype versus genotype, I think the correlation depends on the area. In some places, people look pretty homogenous, and so they could be led to believe that the two perfectly correlate. That's not true in Italy, at least. I think the thread I mentioned shows a variety of "looks", but on a genetic test like 23andme, the people are almost identical, as they are in admixture analyses like Dodecad.

As for Otzi, according to recent genetic tests, he's about 25%WHG, with the rest being Ancient Near Eastern Farmer. Even that 75% is not totally Basal Eurasian, however. Looked at another way, he's probably around 44% Basal Eurasian, like the Stuttgart woman. Still, a lot of EEF people probably looked like him.

By the way, since she's the modal for EEF, did you ever draw any conclusions from Stuttgart's skull?

In terms of Sardinia, a paper that will be coming out this week maintains that certain villages in Ogliastra are the most distinctly "Sardinian" part of Sardinia.
See:
The population structure and demographic history of Sardinia in relationship to neighboring populations. J. Novembre, C. Chiang, J. Marcus, C. Sidore, M. Zoledziewska, M. Steri, H. Al-asadi, G. Abecasis, D. Schlessinger, F. Cucca.
Numerous studies have made clear that Sardinian populations are relatively isolated genetically from other populations of the Mediterranean, and more recently, intriguing connections between Sardinian ancestry and early Neolithic ancient DNA samples have been made. In this study, we analyze a whole-genome low-coverage sequencing dataset from 2120 Sardinians to more fully characterize patterns of genetic diversity in Sardinia. The study contains one subsample that contains individuals from across Sardinia and a second subsample that samples 4 villages from the more isolated Ogliastra region. We also merge the data with published reference data from Europe and North Africa. Overall Fst values of Sardinia to other European populations are low (less than 0.015); however using a novel method for visualizing genetic differentiation on a geographic map, we formally show how Sardinia is more differentiated than would be expected given its geographic distance from the mainland, consistent with periods of isolation. Applications of the software Admixture show how Sardinia populations differ in the levels of recent admixture with mainland European populations and that there are only minor contributions from North African populations to Sardinian ancestry. Notably the Sardinians from Ogliastra contain a distinct genetic cluster with minimal evidence of recent admixture with mainland Europe.

Here is what those people look like:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/2375026490_b87e84b8a3_m.jpg

http://www.lorenzobellu.com/sito/gallerie/eventi/2010%20-%20Cagliari,%20Sant'Efisio/slides/_PLB3394.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/28vyfxw.jpg

http://www.lorenzobellu.com/sito/gallerie/eventi/2010%20-%20Sassari,%20Cavalcata%20Sarda/slides/_PLB5152.jpg

http://www.sardegnaturismo.it/sites/default/files/1_101_20071116110717.jpg?u=%2Fit%2Fpunto-di-interesse%2Fvillagrande-strisaili

(http://www.sardegnaturismo.it/sites/default/files/1_101_20071116110717.jpg?u=%2Fit%2Fpunto-di-interesse%2Fvillagrande-strisaili)
Anyone can find the pictures by going to google.it and searching for folk costumes-Ogliastra

When the paper comes out and I know the specific villages, I'll see if I can find anything.

oreo_cookie
19-10-14, 22:28
Kalash look mostly Caucasian but often with Amerindian, Southeast Asian like features.

Like these individuals 6769676667676768


They remind me somewhat of people from the Caucasus, but there is something else going on there too that I can't quite place. Possibly some Indid influence or some minor Mongoloid.

MOESAN
20-10-14, 00:09
The "true Saami" how do you define this? Also, don't accuse me of trying to make the Sami pale.

Sami aren't very special. They're pagean, hunter-herders, no urbanization, no written language, no currency, etc. etc. But European genetics existed before western civilization, so the Sami's primitiveness is only because of recent cultural isolation.They have plenty of relatives in Russia and the Baltic. My point is genetically they're not an ancient isolate, their pigmentation and physical features are probably not unique either.

They have light skin and a decent amount of light hair, like northern Europeans and Andronovo. The dark ones are probably the ones with more east Asian ancestry. The only Sami person Davidski has is from Finland and he/she has over 22% Siberian ancestry(almost 3 times more than average Finn). His ANE is not amazingly high, but it's about highest in Europe because of their Siberian ancestry. Their WHG is very low, at around the same total amount as Spanish. They have hardly any near eastern ancestry because their typical northeast Europeans and their Siberian ancestry dilutes it even more.

If there are very dark Sami and their east Asian ancestry has nothing to do with it, that's interesting because it goes against the northeast European trend. I would expect them to have dark skin, hair, and light eyes if it came from WHG, but remember they don't have a whole lot of WHG ancestry.

I was answering you about a very precise point: hair pigmentation -(there are differences and with great evidence of recent enough crossings- it is not me who says that but anthropologists of a time when crossings were more seldom, sorry) this hair pigmentation isolates them among Scandinavians - concerning skin, the old reports said they are the more often on the european dark skins side, with someones "olivâtre" (not evidently vary swarthy, by the fact the North Asian populations even of evident mongoloid origin shows skins not darker than the most darker southern Europeans) - physically the most typical show some discret mongoloid influences, I think in this component it is more a NOT DIFFERENTIATED population (siberian) before clear breaking between Europoids ("caucasoids") and Mongoloids - I concede this is only a part of their admixture, the other, more heavy, being of diverse Europoid types -
their real origin is debated - surely a lot of ancestors from the region between East Finland and the Urals, what is vaste and can shelter a lot of different types and their different crossings (so autsosomally speaking a lot of EHG and some ANE - and MAYBE TOO a western Europe paleo-mesolithical origin, from Atlantic concerning mothers ((mt-DNA) for the most- it's already old science (2000's AC) and ' have not the current autosomals results (but whose results? all the clans more or less pure in a same bunch??? it s a problem! -
I agree their are a mix as a lot of populations there and the most typical and shorter of them could be the result of some adaptation to climatic conditions but I think that so a result needs some time, more than 4000 or 5000 years - or maybe YES, it could have been accelerated by isolation of a small founder group. But I red somewhere they had some close enough cousins for body aspect in some tribes between N-Russia and the Urals so it could be ancient concerning this group of ancestors and this process for short stature -
I add the Saami of Norway and Swede in ancient time could teach us more than the ones of Finland, for I think -
thanks before hand if you can show me some autosomals analysis, by the way
good night

Alan
20-10-14, 00:16
They remind me somewhat of people from the Caucasus, but there is something else going on there too that I can't quite place. Possibly some Indid influence or some minor Mongoloid.


imo it's something more Amerindian and ASI like. For example the first Guy and the women on the second images would be considered as Amerindian mxied in America. Am I right?

MOESAN
20-10-14, 00:16
ANGELA (could be translated into AELES in breton)
you pictures are very beautiful, thank you, but to represent population we need more than 2 or 3 samples:
it could be as the forumers who publish red haired of blue eyed people from far Siberia as that could be the rule there ...
no offense at all because I appreciate your preciseness in your posts a sa rule and your politeness
buena notte (bona notti?)

Angela
20-10-14, 00:33
ANGELA (could be translated into AELES in breton)
you pictures are very beautiful, thank you, but to represent population we need more than 2 or 3 samples:
it could be as the forumers who publish red haired of blue eyed people from far Siberia as that could be the rule there ...
no offense at all because I appreciate your preciseness in your posts a sa rule and your politeness
buena notte (bona notti?)
The links for Ogliastra, Sardinia now post. To see all of them, just, as I said, go to google.it and look for costumi Ogliastra to get the whole range.

@Moesan Not a problem. My only point was that the blonde, blue-eyed Sami often posted on anthrofora are not necessarily representative of the whole group and certainly not of more unmixed people from earlier times. You might say that I was trying to present a more complete picture.

And it's buona notte, but bonne nuit would do just as well. :) I read French and do pretty well with spoken French as well, but I would be far too ashamed of my errors were I to attempt to respond to you in your own language. I believe I've said before that perfectionism is one of my many failings.

Angela
23-10-14, 04:22
I thought that it might be pertinent to this thread to report this tweet from the ASHG Conference:

Razib Khan @razibkhan (https://twitter.com/razibkhan) · Oct 19 (https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/523995104713793536) Kalash share lots of drift with ANE mal'ta boy #ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash)

Now let's not take that to the bank until we see the paper. :)

To the best of my recollection, Mal'ta Boy did not have blue eyes. Someone please correct the record if that's wrong. Yamnaya people seem to have been darker haired and eyed, at least, than some Neolithic farmers. What the story was in between, perhaps the new Lazaridis paper will tell us.

MOESAN
24-10-14, 00:29
As to phenotype versus genotype, I think the correlation depends on the area. In some places, people look pretty homogenous, and so they could be led to believe that the two perfectly correlate. That's not true in Italy, at least. I think the thread I mentioned shows a variety of "looks", but on a genetic test like 23andme, the people are almost identical, as they are in admixture analyses like Dodecad.


ANGELA
----------------------------
MOESAN
I answer you:
phenotypes and genotypes? I fact we speak here of visible phenotypes, which could reflect totally or NOT the genotypes implied in the esternal aspect -
the external (for the most here, the head) features we show reflect generally our genotypes for the concerned traits, except some cases of heterozygoty for a feature where one parental gene is dominant (possible eplanation for 'dinaric'?), and taking in account some slight modifications linked to way-of-life/external pressions -
but when we speak about autosomals analysis we speak of a roughly (but valuable nevertheless, in some way) bought criteria table used to can devine the admixture of genes attributed to diverse origins populations in individuals - keeping aside the imperfections of such a system of analysis, we know that the genes involved in the visible features (bones, meat, flesh, pillosity, pigmentation...) are just a very small part of the whole -
so, it's not surprising to find indiviudals with, say, same head aspect and almost completely different whole genome, and individuals with different head features and very close whole genome, even without speaking about dominance, penetrance or congenital accident;
it's easy to controle in the same family brethren were autosomals admixtures are very close in all, and external features different -

that said, with a little bit of chance, we know that statistically, external sets of features shared by the majority of a rather homogenous population will not be found often ALL OF THEM in members of an other rather homogenous population very different by origins, even if somme crossings occurred between these two populations - some traits can be associated by linkage, but even in this case long crossigns between populations finish to separate them in individuals: it explain the very huge diversity among individuals of a same population, sometimes the same family - but when in a crossng an homogenous enough population of origin is NUMERICALLY dominant, its common features too emerge as dominant, and the "set" of origin rather complete - when a final population is the result of a big number of different basic populations, it is very difficult to find a complete "set" of features in an individual - I think, without scientific basis just observation, than even in skull alone, there are more than one pair of genes at play, and that a skull could be divided in a number of parts or bone eahc of them having is genetic determination - only a bet here, again.

that said, a new mutation can produce a little difference in some individuals without being generalized to the whole population and so, has not to be taken a proof of new crossing.

If it is too well known (it is possible for a lot here, because there are here some well informed persons) and seems a useless repetition I beg your pardon.

have a good night full of discoveries dreams!
Oidhche mhath

Fire Haired14
24-10-14, 01:33
I thought that it might be pertinent to this thread to report this tweet from the ASHG Conference:

Razib Khan @razibkhan (https://twitter.com/razibkhan) · Oct 19 (https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/523995104713793536) Kalash share lots of drift with ANE mal'ta boy #ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash)

Now let's not take that to the bank until we see the paper. :)

To the best of my recollection, Mal'ta Boy did not have blue eyes. Someone please correct the record if that's wrong. Yamnaya people seem to have been darker haired and eyed, at least, than some Neolithic farmers. What the story was in between, perhaps the new Lazaridis paper will tell us.

Yes Mal'ta boy was dark-eyed. Yamna people were about 90% dark eyed. This makes sense because they had very little overall WHG ancestry and because their pigmentation seems to have just been a mix of near easterns-EHG(eastern hunter gatherers), not full of selection like modern Europeans.

Angela
24-10-14, 04:10
As to phenotype versus genotype, I think the correlation depends on the area. In some places, people look pretty homogenous, and so they could be led to believe that the two perfectly correlate. That's not true in Italy, at least. I think the thread I mentioned shows a variety of "looks", but on a genetic test like 23andme, the people are almost identical, as they are in admixture analyses like Dodecad.


ANGELA
----------------------------
MOESAN
I answer you:
phenotypes and genotypes? I fact we speak here of visible phenotypes, which could reflect totally or NOT the genotypes implied in the esternal aspect -
the external (for the most here, the head) features we show reflect generally our genotypes for the concerned traits, except some cases of heterozygoty for a feature where one parental gene is dominant (possible eplanation for 'dinaric'?), and taking in account some slight modifications linked to way-of-life/external pressions -
but when we speak about autosomals analysis we speak of a roughly (but valuable nevertheless, in some way) bought criteria table used to can devine the admixture of genes attributed to diverse origins populations in individuals - keeping aside the imperfections of such a system of analysis, we know that the genes involved in the visible features (bones, meat, flesh, pillosity, pigmentation...) are just a very small part of the whole -
so, it's not surprising to find indiviudals with, say, same head aspect and almost completely different whole genome, and individuals with different head features and very close whole genome, even without speaking about dominance, penetrance or congenital accident;
it's easy to controle in the same family brethren were autosomals admixtures are very close in all, and external features different -

that said, with a little bit of chance, we know that statistically, external sets of features shared by the majority of a rather homogenous population will not be found often ALL OF THEM in members of an other rather homogenous population very different by origins, even if somme crossings occurred between these two populations - some traits can be associated by linkage, but even in this case long crossigns between populations finish to separate them in individuals: it explain the very huge diversity among individuals of a same population, sometimes the same family - but when in a crossng an homogenous enough population of origin is NUMERICALLY dominant, its common features too emerge as dominant, and the "set" of origin rather complete - when a final population is the result of a big number of different basic populations, it is very difficult to find a complete "set" of features in an individual - I think, without scientific basis just observation, than even in skull alone, there are more than one pair of genes at play, and that a skull could be divided in a number of parts or bone eahc of them having is genetic determination - only a bet here, again.

that said, a new mutation can produce a little difference in some individuals without being generalized to the whole population and so, has not to be taken a proof of new crossing.

If it is too well known (it is possible for a lot here, because there are here some well informed persons) and seems a useless repetition I beg your pardon.

have a good night full of discoveries dreams!
Oidhche mhath

You've explained it very clearly. Once I saw it written down, I remembered an excerpt in one of Cavalli-Sforza's texts where he spoke about the fact that in the isolated valleys of the Appennines, there had been, as you put it, "long crossigns between populations finish to separate them in individuals: it explain the very huge diversity among individuals of a same population, sometimes the same family". In my father's case, except for some slight variation in hair coloring, all eleven of them looked very much as if they "fit" together. Indeed, the whole village had, for example, very fair pigmentation...red or fair hair, green or blue eyes, very fair, freckled skin. Yet, in the village down the valley the people are predominantly dark haired/dark eyed and olive skinned. Yet, if they were tested genetically, I'm sure they would be almost identical. In my own immediate family, except for our eyes, my brother and I don't look like brother and sister at all. In one of my mother's maternal villages also, every one shares one or two "looks". In the other one three miles away there's a lot more variation. Also, every once in a while, you get a "Phenotype" that looks almost "archaic", or like a "throwback". I do think, also, that certain traits are dominant. I can see them repeated over and over again in my family, even when people marry "out".

It's all fascinating, and I learn a lot from your posts.

epoch
24-10-14, 12:35
As far as I know, the highest score of ANE is in Populations like Kalash with 40-45%, Burusho, Baloch with 32-35% and Pashtun with 25-35%.

After that come the North Caucasians with levels of 22-30% and with 25% followed by Northeast Europeans.

And the Kalash are known for white features.

http://lilwizz.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/kalash1.jpg

O, and while off topic, please do take a look at that girl and then read this:
http://www.dawn.com/news/1086564

Angela
24-10-14, 16:42
It's fun trying to imagine what these people looked like, but I think we need to be careful not to do too much back projection into history when talking about the ANE people or the WHG people. Those two groups are outside the range of modern populations, and the predictions for things like pigmentation etc. in the ANE and WHG samples, and recent papers like Gamba et al would indicate that "light" pigmentation is the result of selective sweeps that are very recent in human history. The Mal'ta boy would most likely have been black haired, brown eyed and dark skinned, and WHG's the same except that their eyes were blue. Then there's the fact that their skulls do not look particularly "modern" to me. I'm not sure about EEF, but we do have Otzi so we have a little bit more to go on, and perhaps the Sardinians, since they plot so close to Stuttgart and Oetzi, might give us a clue, although as Moesan pointed out, snps for "appearance" form a very small part of the whole genome.

When you get to the Indo-Europeans, if, as statements about upcoming papers would indicate, they are the Yamnaya people, then the Indo-Europeans were not originally "blonde horsemen of the steppe", because we have data to show that they were predominantly dark haired and dark eyed. They were probably also not northern European like in skin pigmentation, or at least the population was heterogeneous. It's difficult to know about the skin color because given that pigmentation is a polygenic trait you really need results for more than one of the snps related to skin color. In the case of this study, they tested only SLC 45A2, not 24A5. However, for fair skin, not dark olive, you either need both or one plus Herc2 or one of the others to get a prediction for light skin on the various FBI type pigmentation predictor tests.
See Wilde et al 2014 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/03/05/1316513111.full.pdf+html)
Also, see http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-29666.html

The lighter pigmentation of the groups that moved all the way to the east and may have formed part of the ancestry of people like the Kalash would seem to me to have thus been the result of slightly later selective sweeps. I think people forget that those eastern "kurgan" settlements where some light pigmentation shows up date to 1800 B.C., more than time enough, imo, for some selective sweep to have changed their "look", especially given how far north they had traveled. Who knows, given the fact that pigmentation seems related to environment, that might have played a part in the "look" of the Kalash. Also, autsosomally, I think I recall that the Kalash are no different than the surrounding peoples. Their particular look may be the result of founder effect and drift.

MOESAN
24-10-14, 17:59
You've explained it very clearly. Once I saw it written down, I remembered an excerpt in one of Cavalli-Sforza's texts where he spoke about the fact that in the isolated valleys of the Appennines, there had been, as you put it, "long crossigns between populations finish to separate them in individuals: it explain the very huge diversity among individuals of a same population, sometimes the same family". In my father's case, except for some slight variation in hair coloring, all eleven of them looked very much as if they "fit" together. Indeed, the whole village had, for example, very fair pigmentation...red or fair hair, green or blue eyes, very fair, freckled skin. Yet, in the village down the valley the people are predominantly dark haired/dark eyed and olive skinned. Yet, if they were tested genetically, I'm sure they would be almost identical. In my own immediate family, except for our eyes, my brother and I don't look like brother and sister at all. In one of my mother's maternal villages also, every one shares one or two "looks". In the other one three miles away there's a lot more variation. Also, every once in a while, you get a "Phenotype" that looks almost "archaic", or like a "throwback". I do think, also, that certain traits are dominant. I can see them repeated over and over again in my family, even when people marry "out".

It's all fascinating, and I learn a lot from your posts.

Hum... Surely you learned a lot before them -
just a detail (I like "castrate the lice" as we say in breton, or "couper les cheveux en quatre")
as a whole you've very well understood - but on a statistical point of view, even in cases of admixtures, if you find two close villages opposing these kinds of traits, you can say: they are "complementary" in the mixture for these traits - but if you find a lot of villages of a type, grouped,opposed to a lot of other villages, it's to say, with numerous enough samplles, then you can expect a different admixture and history for these two big groups of villages (territories) even if neighbours: it recalls me that I red in a thread people close to Campobasso have had a story with Northerners (Longobards? I have to check it...sorry)- the pigmentation surveys (old) about Italy shew there was a spot of FAIRER pigmentation in this region (and maybe some denser red haired people) -not to far too, in E-Campania, there were also fairer spots: here I think at those times, these populations could have shown some differences in autosomals?

MOESAN
24-10-14, 18:03
And the Kalash are known for white features.

http://lilwizz.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/kalash1.jpg

O, and while off topic, please do take a look at that girl and then read this:
http://www.dawn.com/news/1086564

always the old stories!
: as a whole, Kalash are a dark population in the European meaning, of course, even if they are less dark than the most of the neighbouring populations - you can find blond and brown in weak percentages too among Tadjiks, and in North India, and Luri/Lurs in Iran - for bones aspect it's true they are a bit different from their neighbours too -

Angela
26-10-14, 00:43
Hum... Surely you learned a lot before them -
just a detail (I like "castrate the lice" as we say in breton, or "couper les cheveux en quatre")
as a whole you've very well understood - but on a statistical point of view, even in cases of admixtures, if you find two close villages opposing these kinds of traits, you can say: they are "complementary" in the mixture for these traits - but if you find a lot of villages of a type, grouped,opposed to a lot of other villages, it's to say, with numerous enough samplles, then you can expect a different admixture and history for these two big groups of villages (territories) even if neighbours: it recalls me that I red in a thread people close to Campobasso have had a story with Northerners (Longobards? I have to check it...sorry)- the pigmentation surveys (old) about Italy shew there was a spot of FAIRER pigmentation in this region (and maybe some denser red haired people) -not to far too, in E-Campania, there were also fairer spots: here I think at those times, these populations could have shown some differences in autosomals?

It's very difficult to tease these things apart. Yes, it was the Langobardi in Campobasso. If we look at the old Biasutti (Livy) map of Italy, there's also a "fairer" area (of course that's a relative term-we're still speaking of Italy here) in Campania, near Benevento. (Just coincidentally, my grandmother in law came from that area and had blonde hair and sky blue eyes.)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/BiasuttiMappa.gif

There are reports from antiquity that large numbers of the Alpi Apuani, a tribe that might be assoicated with the "Celt-Ligurians", were relocated there as part of a sort of "ethnic cleansing" Roman style. There was also a Lombard Duchy there. The yDna of the area was tested to see if links could be found to the Ligurians, but the results were inconclusive.

To my knowledge no autosomal testing was done of that specific small area. I do think, however, that even if they have more "fair" people in that circumscribed area of Campania than is common for southern Italy as a whole, I would still be very surprised if their autosomal results today were not more in line with their neighbors than with Ligurians. There is no major land or water feature which would have isolated them from other Campanians, and so over the centuries I think there was gene flow both in and out to some degree.

As for the villages I was discussing, which on the Biasutti map are where you find the orange and yellowish areas where northwest Tuscany and southern Emilia meet, Cavalli Sforza years ago wrote that the people of all the Apennines in the northwestern part of Italy (and the Ligruian Alps etc.) were formed by only two major groups of people, the Neolithic inhabitants (who today we know would have had some component of WHG, maybe like Otzi?) and the later migration of people from the more central and even northwestern parts of Europe. (starting perhaps with the "Indo-Europeans" of the Bronze Age, and continuing later with the "Celts" of the Iron Age. ) The "admixture" would thus have taken place long before any invasion by the Langobardi, and indeed there's no evidence of Langobard settlements there, which is unlike the case of the Lunigiana proper, where,once you get down off the mountains, every village basically dates to that era and grew out of the Langobard castles crowning every hill. Even there, however, I don't think they had a tremendous input. There has to be some element of a folk movement to really change the autosomal picture in my opinion. If all you have are some elite males, their autosomal input will be washed out in a few generations.

As for the villages of the Val Parma that Cavalli Sforza studied, they've all been isolated in that valley together for at least the last five to eight hundred years. I'd say that they are pretty evenly split, with maybe slightly more that are "fair" in appearance. They're definitely 'fairer" than the people of the flatlands along the Po. In that regard, I always thought it was interesting that the villages at the highest elevations were often "fairer". I don't know if that's an environmental effect or just coincidence because of founder effect and drift, or both. However, it's not exact. You can find families where one sibling can be 6' or more with light brown hair and green eyes, and one sibling is 5'7 with dark hair and eyes and an olive complexion. It happens. (My paternal grandmother, who comes from those villages, was almost 5'11, with fern green eyes, and in adulthood what we call blonde hair in Italy but which in America they'd probably call "dirty blonde". Her brother was actuallly a little shorter and had chestnut hair, although his eyes were blue. In fact, she looked a lot like Nilde Lotti, about whom I posted in another thread, only fairer. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/e/ec/NildeIotti.jpg/225px-NildeIotti.jpg )

Ed. You can see what I mean by looking at the musicians in this video, although the comparison is not exact, because they come from a slightly different area:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkBYn-AYULU

oreo_cookie
26-10-14, 11:35
As far as I know, the highest score of ANE is in Populations like Kalash with 40-45%, Burusho, Baloch with 32-35% and Pashtun with 25-35%.

After that come the North Caucasians with levels of 22-30% and with 25% followed by Northeast Europeans.

This may be due to my ignorance of what these components signify, but this suggests to me that ANE might be linked to the spread of Indo-European languages, and to haplogroup R1a. I know that on some calculators put out such as Eurogenes and Dodecad, sometimes you see the reverse happening with some South-Central Asians scoring some "East European" elements.

MOESAN
26-10-14, 20:52
thanks for your post -
I was just saying that if a distinctive phenetic (phenotypic?) trait exists in a large enough population, even "local", it would correspond with autosomals peculiarity too and other population partial imput - in a very small population, it could be only a drift result concerning genes, with no big modification of global autosomals and so no peculiar origin of any foundator - in case of drift, we even can wait an opposite drift in close areas, sometimes -
good evening

oreo_cookie
27-10-14, 00:44
thanks for your post -
I was just saying that if a distinctive phenetic (phenotypic?) trait exists in a large enough population, even "local", it would correspond with autosomals peculiarity too and other population partial imput - in a very small population, it could be only a drift result concerning genes, with no big modification of global autosomals and so no peculiar origin of any foundator - in case of drift, we even can wait an opposite drift in close areas, sometimes -
good evening

Founder effects can make it such that genetics and phenotypes do not line up perfectly. This usually happens in regions that have been heavily isolated for lengthy periods of time.