PDA

View Full Version : Mesolithic man; Loschbour brought back to life



Fire Haired14
13-01-15, 07:46
"Loschbour" is very well known by DNA-hobbyist, because of Laz 2014's analysis of his DNA. He lived in Luxembourg about 8,000 years ago belonged to Y DNA pre-I2a1b and mtDNA pre-U5b1a. His genome is used to represent "WHG" or Mesolithic west Europeans, by academics and Eurogenes.

His skull is very well preserved and we know what pigmentation he had, and so I guess someone decided to make a reconstruction of his head.

Here he is.....
http://blobsvc.wort.lu/picture/669df97ed00d98457db11dc05f9d92f3/519/291/wortv3/d676c960a6340a291eb05742f6dd2c1782fb53bc


http://blobsvc.wort.lu/picture/bbea9ba55a019d57bf5c0fec43eaf82a/519/291/wortv3/2334d8c5a0f081505ce8892d640c37f1965fa43c

Here's where I got the pictures
http://www.wort.lu/de/wissen/wissenschaft-so-sah-der-mann-von-loschbour-aus-5419bc9bb9b398870806654c

Loschbour's people(Genetically speaking not ethnic, in this sense Mayans and Cherokess would be the same people) are very important to the history of many of the people here, as anywhere from 53-30%(according to ANE K8) of our blood comes from them.

His skull looks very exotic to me, but his reconstruction looks very west Eurasian.

bicicleur
13-01-15, 09:26
The tribe of Loschbourg branched of I2a1b some 15000 years ago and is now extinct.
1,60 meter tall. Was he smaller than other from his tribe? How tall were mesolithic Europeans? Paleolithic Europeans were 1m80.

Templar
13-01-15, 11:18
I see no reason why they gave him a positive canthal tilt which mongoloids and people high in ANE have. He should have very deep-set eyes with sharp bone structure surrounding the eyes, like this:

http://gfx.svd-cdn.se/multimedia/dynamic/00757/oscar-wendt_757846c.jpg

Melancon
13-01-15, 14:53
"Loschbour" is very well known by DNA-hobbyist, because of Laz 2014's analysis of his DNA. He lived in Luxembourg about 8,000 years ago belonged to Y DNA pre-I2a1b and mtDNA pre-U5b1a. His genome is used to represent "WHG" or Mesolithic west Europeans, by academics and Eurogenes.

His skull is very well preserved and we know what pigmentation he had, and so I guess someone decided to make a reconstruction of his head.
Only a slightly darker pigmentation...but still pretty European/Caucasoid. How old is he? Is he the same age as La Brana man?

Edit: This still raises questions to me how Europeans or Mongoloid Asians developed fair skin ... was it due to environment? And were the mutations relative? (between both races) Or did they develop independently, through Selection? Are both mutations in both races different distinct mutations of white skin pigmentation?

Fire Haired14
13-01-15, 23:55
Only a slightly darker pigmentation...but still pretty European/Caucasoid. How old is he? Is he the same age as La Brana man?

Edit: This still raises questions to me how Europeans or Mongoloid Asians developed fair skin ... was it due to environment? And were the mutations relative? (between both races) Or did they develop independently, through Selection? Are both mutations in both races different distinct mutations of white skin pigmentation?

He's about 8,000 years old, so 1,000 or a few hundred years older than La Brana-1. There are 5 Mesolithic Europeans we have pigmentation genes from, and all had blue eyes, dark hair, and except for a few probably dark skin.

Loschbour was very typical for Europeans at that time. My best guess is that Mesolithic Europeans had similar skin tone as Indians, because Indians have a mixture of dark and light skin genes, like Mesolithic Europeans did. Indians also have alot of variation in skin color.

Ancient DNA from Europe has revealed that light skin and hair became much more popular around 5,000 years ago in north European's ancestors, and that it was a slow process that had begun several thousand years before. That change had everything to do with natural selection, and little to do with genetics.

North Europeans are basically a mix of 3 populations who mixed about 5,000 years ago; Sardinian and Basque-types, Loschbour-types, and Yamna(you can look it up) types. All except the Loschbour types had light skin, with a minority of light hair and eyes. These pops who were progressively becoming lighter mixed, and their mixed descendants eventually became what you see from Russia-Ireland today.

Maleth
14-01-15, 00:20
Only a slightly darker pigmentation...but still pretty European/Caucasoid. How old is he? Is he the same age as La Brana man?

Edit: This still raises questions to me how Europeans or Mongoloid Asians developed fair skin ... was it due to environment? And were the mutations relative? (between both races) Or did they develop independently, through Selection? Are both mutations in both races different distinct mutations of white skin pigmentation?

you would find this interesting http://www.eupedia.com/forum/forums/220-Pigmentation

LeBrok
14-01-15, 00:50
Once we learn everything about pigmentation he will lighten up somewhat to the tone of skin of Native American hunter gatherers.

Mars
15-01-15, 10:54
I think the main difference with present day europeans is the accentuated receding forehead, a very recessive trait today, maybe due to later admixture with EEF/mediterranean people with generally straighter foreheads? The eyes area reminds me some finns and lapps
7019

motzart
15-01-15, 18:59
Where did the skull come from? The loschbour skull im familiar with wasnt complete.

motzart
15-01-15, 19:03
They just found the rest of the pieces and glued it back together? Lol http://olmec98.net/earlyEuros.png

Angela
15-01-15, 19:30
I think the main difference with present day europeans is the accentuated receding forehead, a very recessive trait today, maybe due to later admixture with EEF/mediterranean people with generally straighter foreheads? The eyes area reminds me some finns and lapps
7019

That's pretty good except for the pigmentation, but much more "modern" looking, don't you think? You don't see people with Loschbour's forehead and eyebrow ridge walking around very often, although sometimes you see a modified version of them.

Just recently I noticed these two actors:
This is Jerome Flynn. It looks much more pronounced than this when his head is positioned normally, and the eye area and facial width is very different, of course.
http://gailkavanagh.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/29a5470a1d4fe768106dbd112a97a060.jpg
It's even more pronounced in Anthony Starr, but I don't see pictures of him actually in profile. When I googled him, a separate heading for Anthony Starr forehead came up! I'm sure he wishes Beatles haircuts were in style again too. :smile:
http://antonystarr.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ukbansheepremiere.jpg

What about Nadal? I've always thought he has a very archaic sort of look to him.
http://www.successstory.com/timthumb.php?src=http://www.successstory.com/img_people/profile/profile_1400654709.jpg&h=300&w=300&zc=0&q=100

This is a bizarre and very unflattering picture of him,but you can see his profile better:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/09/01/sports/tennis/01nadal/01nadal-blog480.jpg

what can I say? I have a thing about profiles...I notice them all the time.

motzart
15-01-15, 20:55
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WI7v1ni3rDs/T6q3hLYBseI/AAAAAAAAxQM/JQ_WvVKCbrk/s1600/russianparl.jpg

This guy has the all time greatest ridges

Better pic.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRIbM8MeI0rSXdpDT-GYaHcPEdd3ei7nIrw9WqSrwkcBWnoKtqu

motzart
15-01-15, 21:17
I am reading that there is a correlation between testosteronre and brow ridges :O

epoch
15-01-15, 21:53
I know a man that looks exactly like that, including the blue eyes and black hair, that comes from the Eiffel. In fact, this fenotype can be found more in Germany. Now if I could only find the proper search string tofind an image of one of them..

Angela
15-01-15, 22:13
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WI7v1ni3rDs/T6q3hLYBseI/AAAAAAAAxQM/JQ_WvVKCbrk/s1600/russianparl.jpg

This guy has the all time greatest ridges

Better pic.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRIbM8MeI0rSXdpDT-GYaHcPEdd3ei7nIrw9WqSrwkcBWnoKtqu

OMG! I'm speechless. Well...I'm never speechless...:laughing: Somebody dna test him quick!

Fire Haired14
16-01-15, 00:04
From this angle Loschbour and La Brana-1's skulls look very similar.

La Brana-1
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43266&d=1389566727

Loschbour


http://blobsvc.wort.lu/picture/bbea9ba55a019d57bf5c0fec43eaf82a/519/291/wortv3/2334d8c5a0f081505ce8892d640c37f1965fa43c


It can't be random that both Loschbour and La Brana-1 have a Caucasoid-looking reconstruction. There probably was some assumption on their flesh, but the skulls don't lie.

Fire Haired14
16-01-15, 00:13
We couldn't see the Caucasoid nose-ridge on Loschbour with the pictures Laz gave. I'm pretty sure WHG and ancient near easterns had the same basic Caucasoid facial features.

We'd have to have the actual skulls in our hands to really compare Loschbour and La Brana-1's to modern people's.

This Dienekes article is interesting.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/03/cranial-variation-and-transition-to.html

I don't trust the whole Mediterranean-gracile-thin faces and northern-broad faces-taller thing, it seems very ethnocentric and raciest to me. There could be some truth to it, but....

South Europeans have a very similar genetic makeup to Neolithic farmers, so of course they'll probably have similar skeletal features. If anyone it would north Europeans who would be most similar to Mesolithic Euros, but all of them except Balts still have 40-50% EEF ancestry aka 30-40% ancient near eastern ancestry.

Fire Haired14
16-01-15, 00:13
The Moatalas from Sweden had their heads put on steaks, possibly killed in war.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/tomb-sunken-skulls-sweden-sheds-light-prehistoric-inhabitants-002361

motzart
16-01-15, 03:05
I don't like the recreation because they did the eyes wrong, the brow ridges look stupid like somebody drew him without them and then inflated his eyebrows, and the eyes themselves look asian. The brow ridges should extend out over the eyes and the eyes should be deep set. His head shouldn't look round, Loschbour was "hyperdoliocephalic" as long skull as it gets, it should look like the pic I posted. You can see in the pic the guy has a very narrow long skull and the brow ridges are prominent, the recreation has a wide face.

http://i.imgur.com/Am8BwAh.png

Fire Haired14
16-01-15, 04:44
The natives of Australia have very large brow ridges, so it's not like no one brow ridges like Loschbour anymore.

https://www.google.com/search?q=australian+aboriginal+skull&espv=2&biw=1365&bih=889&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=eHm4VJzJINGdyATw24HwDw&ved=0CCAQsAQ&dpr=0.75#imgdii=_

motzart
16-01-15, 04:58
Here is another 7 foot tall white guy with prominent brow ridges, like the Russian boxer I posted. Apparently women don't get brow ridges because testosterone is what causes them to grow. I think Y DNA I men produce more testosterone so they get taller, have more body hair, more prominent brow ridges, physically larger and stronger, etc.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VKjC679Q57Q/TdjZtQWiH4I/AAAAAAAAEFo/emxz1HnAkt8/s1600/Dirk+Nowitzki+by+cool+images786+%25285%2529.jpghtt p://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Dirk+Nowitzki+Dallas+Mavericks+v+Miami+Heat+nwqyJY rcnp5l.jpg


Another two warriors with brow ridges
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5506/11208005574_a13e6fb548_n.jpg

Fire Haired14
16-01-15, 06:38
Since when did men with Y DNA I have more testosterone? More body hair doesn't always mean more masculine.

I'm getting the impression that Mesolithic Euros were genetically pretty masculine. According to statements here and there from anthropologist they were heavy boned and broad faced. Plus if you look at Neolithic Y DNA alot of it is of Mesolithic Euro origin, while hardly any of the mtDNA is. Neolithic farmers for whatever reason allowed hunter gatherer males not females to move into their communities, and most of their WHG blood was via admixture with hunter gatherer males.

This could be in part because EEF males saw WHG females as less attractive, than EEF females saw WHG males. Admixture between near eastern immigrants and native Europeans during the Neolithic was probably mostly a gradual process over 1,000's of years in many regions, not a single event, and it looks like the same pattern of admixture occured throughout time and space.

Culture I think has a bigger effect on how masculine or raw men in a society act/appear than genetics, and this is true for cultural persona in general. There's evidence of this in American society. Many Latinos basically have the same genetic makeup as white Americans, because they have mostly Spanish ancestry, but see them selves as totally different, and in urban areas are more associated with African-Americans and urban gangs-violence.

LeBrok
16-01-15, 06:56
It is so called archaic feature, and it is fairly common in other races too.

Fire Haired14
16-01-15, 07:11
Motzart, so you're apart of a brother branch to M26, very interesting I didn't know one existed. Maybe Ajv 58 belonged to one of those rare or unknown P37 branches.

Fire Haired14
16-01-15, 07:14
It is so called archaic feature, and it is fairly common in other races too.

Native Australians have alot of it, but as far as I've seen no one in Africa or east Asia have much, and I would guess Middle easterns and south Asians have around as much or less than Europeans.

If no one had gotten the genome of Loschbour I would think he might be largely of archaic origin. DNA testing has proven that it is not a law that humans must have small brow ridges, unproturding jaws, and long forheads, it's just that most around the world do.

Fire Haired14
16-01-15, 07:20
Since when did men with Y DNA I have more testosterone? More body hair doesn't always mean more masculine.

I'm getting the impression that Mesolithic Euros were genetically pretty masculine. According to statements here and there from anthropologist they were heavy boned and broad faced. Plus if you look at Neolithic Y DNA alot of it is of Mesolithic Euro origin, while hardly any of the mtDNA is. Neolithic farmers for whatever reason allowed hunter gatherer males not females to move into their communities, and most of their WHG blood was via admixture with hunter gatherer males.

This could be in part because EEF males saw WHG females as less attractive, than EEF females saw WHG males. Admixture between near eastern immigrants and native Europeans during the Neolithic was probably mostly a gradual process over 1,000's of years in many regions, not a single event, and it looks like the same pattern of admixture occured throughout time and space.

Culture I think has a bigger effect on how masculine or raw men in a society act/appear than genetics, and this is true for cultural persona in general. There's evidence of this in American society. Many Latinos basically have the same genetic makeup as white Americans, because they have mostly Spanish ancestry, but see them selves as totally different, and in urban areas are more associated with African-Americans and urban gangs-violence.

Otzi would probably stab me in the face for saying this with his flint knife, because I'm generalizing two genetically-defined people over several thousand years. Their cultures would have constantly changed. An EEF from 3,000BC would probably be very foreign and exotic to an EEF from 5,000BC. They're the same DNA wise but not culturally.

Templar
16-01-15, 11:21
[QUOTE=motzart;448267]I don't like the recreation because they did the eyes wrong, the brow ridges look stupid like somebody drew him without them and then inflated his eyebrows, and the eyes themselves look asian. The brow ridges should extend out over the eyes and the eyes should be deep set. His head shouldn't look round, Loschbour was "hyperdoliocephalic" as long skull as it gets, it should look like the pic I posted. You can see in the pic the guy has a very narrow long skull and the brow ridges are prominent, the recreation has a wide face.
[QUOTE]

Yes I totally agree, this was my point as well. There is no evidence for the high fat deposits on his upper eyelid which leads to a positive canthal tilt. It also makes the eyes looks shallow rather than deep-set, which is ridiculous for a mesolithic European skull.

motzart
16-01-15, 16:59
You dont need to take my word for it, its a scientific fact that testosterone causes mens faces to change, bones in the face get stronger and thicker, the jaw becomes more prominent as do brow ridges

http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2008/08/face-aggression

Archaic peoples, including neanderthals and chimpanzees had extremely high testosterone levels, bigger muscles, stronger bodies, more pronounced brow ridges.


Men lost testosterone and became more feminine with the transition to farming, hence more feminine features and less pronounced brow ridges.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/11944/20140802/lower-testosterone-levels-reshaped-human-face-and-civilization.htm

Hunter Gatherers like loschbour were under natural selection for testosterone the longest because they never transitioned to farming. This is why Y DNA I has a positive correlation with height.

Mars
16-01-15, 20:41
I don't trust the whole Mediterranean-gracile-thin faces and northern-broad faces-taller thing, it seems very ethnocentric and raciest to me. There could be some truth to it, but....

South Europeans have a very similar genetic makeup to Neolithic farmers, so of course they'll probably have similar skeletal features. If anyone it would north Europeans who would be most similar to Mesolithic Euros, but all of them except Balts still have 40-50% EEF ancestry aka 30-40% ancient near eastern ancestry.
Loschbur man has some features that appear common in modern europeans, in different proportions from population to population.
Anyways, EEF ancestry could have affected the look of us modern europeans (both in the north and, more frequently, in the south) quite deeply, IMHO... There are many northern euros with skeletal features very similar to meds, I noticed that, though their more exterior features (hair and eyes colour, skin tone etc.) are in the "northern" range.
I don't know if the anthropologists of old labeled this look some way:
70247025
If Loschbur is a good representative of the "mesolithic look", then it has changed through the millenia, maybe because of adaptatiion, random mutation or something, but med admixture played a big role, too, IMHO.

MOESAN
16-01-15, 20:57
I see no reason why they gave him a positive canthal tilt which mongoloids and people high in ANE have. He should have very deep-set eyes with sharp bone structure surrounding the eyes, like this:

http://gfx.svd-cdn.se/multimedia/dynamic/00757/oscar-wendt_757846c.jpg

THE MODERN MAN ABOVE IS FAR CLOSER TO THE CLASSICAL 'NORDIC TYPE' THAN TO ANY OTHER, AND VERY FAR TO BE AS RUGGISH AS THE LOSCHBOUR MAN

that said, it is true this reconstruction of the crania of Loschbour is far to be perfect: as you say not enough deep placed eyes and a lot of other defects of reconstitution -

motzart
16-01-15, 21:04
THE MODERN MAN ABOVE IS FAR CLOSER TO THE CLASSICAL 'NORDIC TYPE' THAN TO ANY OTHER, AND VERY FAR TO BE AS RUGGISH AS THE LOSCHBOUR MAN

that said, it is true this reconstruction of the crania of Loschbour is far to be perfect: as you say not enough deep placed eyes and a lot of other defects of reconstitution -

The Nordic type is defined as doliocephalic, which that man is. Loschbour is doliocephalic to the extreme. Thats why I posted a black and white image :)

MOESAN
16-01-15, 23:41
Loschbour


this strongly receding frontal is notabsent in today Europeans, you are not obliged to visit AustralianAborigens to see this sort of forehead and browridges (the « worst »in Belgium, and from late Mesolithic) -
they are typical of 'Combe-Capelle' and'Brünn' types and today are rarer because these populations weremixed with more « gentlelike » populations so we findmore often intermediary types, a bit more gentle or softer – thetrue 'Cro-Magnon', spite he was more ancient, had a more verticalforehead, just slightly receding, with a more marked angle betweenfrontal and skull roof -
speaking of this point, I avow I wouldbe glad to see more angles from La Brana I once classified as'cromagnoid' maybe to hastly...
compared to classical 'capelloid','brünnoid' seem showing faces a bit broader without reachingthe broad and short extremes of 'cromagnoid', but always with thesame dominance of bizygoma breadth (cheebones) on bigonial (jawsangles) breadth, opposite to 'cromagnoid' – a light imput of'cromagnoid' ??? it 's true that at Mesolithic times the twoligneages had had occasion to contacts and crossings either at themergins or more deeply, I believe some « new » almostfamilial ligneages of Mesolithic showing inclassifiable features arethe result of old conctacts followed by separation – by the way,his jaw seen from aside show a tendancy to 'cromagnoid' , beingshorter than 'c-capelle' for the length, and having a more markedchin, as 'cro-magnon' - and the genetic dominance in ligneagescrossings doesn't concern the whole genomes, but parts of it, genesby genes so some results are not always the expected ones -
what I think I saw on pictures is thesame cranial « brutal and primitive » features among thefew Scandinavian neolithical hunter-gatherers. Would that signify itwas the genuine features of Y-I people first bearers : notstupid... - the surveys about craniometrics at themesolithic-Neolithic transition in Central Balkans (Yougoslavia) shewthe coexistence of 'cromagnoid' and 'brünnoid' types, crossed or notaccording to sites, among the hunters-gatherers, before variated newcrossings
with three classified'mediterranean' subtypes linked to agriculture -
concerning so called 'mediterranean',it seems some subtypes ascribed to it, are still close enough to theso called 'eurafrican' type, itself still close enough to 'capelloid'or 'brünnoid' type so « brutal » profiles can be foundtoday among Mediterranea inhabitants and people akin to them (inPortugal more than in Spain, and in Sardinia and southern Italy –even in North Africa and Near-Eastern – the origin of the classical'nordic' and other 'mediterranean' softer profile seem newer but Ihave some doubt about the too common explanations by neolithizationgracilization -
as a rule the giants (genetic diseaseorigin) have more « brutal » features than meanpopulation and even in normal cases, in the same ligneage, thebrowridges, maxillars and frontal receding are more marked than amongmean brethren, the same among women, giving way to wrong « sexings »in sepultures ! – what is striking (it's of some importance todebuke too easy extensions of mechanical explanations) is that theMesolithical populations, spite loosing stature, kept for the mosttheir brutal features when they had them before – and 'nordic' andeven 'atlanto-mediterranean', spite being high enough statured, showmore gentle features (« evolved ») …
today, traces of these brutal featuresare found in Europe everywhere, either rare or common enough ; Ithink they are common in some districts of western Norway (not all ofthem), in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Latvia – not toorare among British and Irish people, and in some parts ofYougoslavia, and central Europe – present in southwest France(Aquitaine) and a bit in Brittany – finally they are absentnowhere and show densities varying from close place to closeplace as if they were spottled refuges remnants of a firstly numerouspopulation!
The recent enough (-5000 ? morerecent?) 'borreby' type or pseudotype common in North and CentralEurope is in fact a mean type and even like that it could besubdivised (by me) as a A type, very bony and robust but not too'brutal' in profile and very broad jawed, and an almost as robust Btype, less broad jawed but very more brutal, as it was a 'brünnoid'compound or a 'brünnoid' evolved result - (I doubt, I think ratherin a crossing with the other 'borreby' or with 'alpine') – what Iwould know is the genuine first Y-SNPs of the 'cromagnoid' variant :Y-C ??? or ???...
the today phenotypical landscape is byfar more complicated that the Mesolithic one, spite what is said bysomeones – it's true some old scholars even if not all of themcreated mean subtypes without any homogeneity (no research ofpossible homozygoty), more often linked to an ethnic conception thanto a genetic one – they were using the populations genetics rulesfor a typology problem -


&: concerning the reconstruction Iagree the left eye is too much on the right side, giving aprotuberant eye when it was surely more deeply placed, as said by aforumer here -
concerning links with some Amerindians(N-E plains?) I recall more than one old scholar thought the'capelloid' and 'brünnoid' people were coming from Central orEastern Eurasia – at the contrary 'cro-magnoids' descendants(surely already crossed a bit) reached central Eurasia very latelyafter the LGM, coming from Iberia-France-Italy before following theSouth Baltic regions on the way to East (all that roughly said) -

Fire Haired14
16-01-15, 23:47
You dont need to take my word for it, its a scientific fact that testosterone causes mens faces to change, bones in the face get stronger and thicker, the jaw becomes more prominent as do brow ridges

http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2008/08/face-aggression

Archaic peoplrs, including neanderthals and chimpanzees had extremely high testosterone levels, bigget muscles, stronger bodies, more pronounced brow ridges.


Men lost testosteronr and became more feminine with the transition to farming, hence more feminine features and less pronounced brow ridges.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/11944/20140802/lower-testosterone-levels-reshaped-human-face-and-civilization.htm

Hunter Gatherers like loschbour were under natural selection for testosterone the longest because they never transitioned to farming. This is why Y DNA I has a positive correlation with height.

Since when was farming feminine? You're simply making an assumption because Hunter gatherers appear more primitive, and therefore more masculine in your mind. You're also assuming Y DNA I correlates with testosterone and don't have concrete evidence. I'm sure you're also assuming Chimps have more testosterone. It's probably much more complicated than Masculine=Testosterone, there are probably other factors in play.

It takes alot of hard work to be a farmer(they also hunted), which takes masculinity. Hunter gatherers lived a more relaxed-lazy lifestyle. Farmers lived in bigger communities which probably means more competition and more fighting. Who won in the end, farmers or HGs? Maybe it isn't that simple, but if anyone won it was the farmers.

Middle easterns and south Europeans I'm guessing are the hairiest people on the planet, and have the most ancient near eastern ancestry. I don't think WHGs were super macho-men compared to near eastern farmers. West Africans have more testosterone(or so I've heard) and muscle mass than West Eurasians, but west Eurasians have more body and facial hair.

I am considering that WHG was genetically more masculine(but such a small difference, that culture makes a bigger effect) than most humans. Skull shape is evidence for that, but I don't want to make assumptions.

MOESAN
16-01-15, 23:51
You dont need to take my word for it, its a scientific fact that testosterone causes mens faces to change, bones in the face get stronger and thicker, the jaw becomes more prominent as do brow ridges

http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2008/08/face-aggression

Archaic peoplrs, including neanderthals and chimpanzees had extremely high testosterone levels, bigget muscles, stronger bodies, more pronounced brow ridges.


Men lost testosteronr and became more feminine with the transition to farming, hence more feminine features and less pronounced brow ridges.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/11944/20140802/lower-testosterone-levels-reshaped-human-face-and-civilization.htm

Hunter Gatherers like loschbour were under natural selection for testosterone the longest because they never transitioned to farming. This is why Y DNA I has a positive correlation with height.



I don't know if selection is always positively linked to testostérone but it could have been true in these times and among people with this way of life even if I ahve some defiance concerning straight-away theories -
that said hunters-gatherers like Loschbour were all of them of modest stature compared to Paleolithic, spite their "viril" aspect... spite their dominantly Y-I type
the principes you evocate have their value but rarely in nature a trait depends upon A FACTOR ONLY

MOESAN
16-01-15, 23:52
That's pretty good except for the pigmentation, but much more "modern" looking, don't you think? You don't see people with Loschbour's forehead and eyebrow ridge walking around very often, although sometimes you see a modified version of them.

Just recently I noticed these two actors:
This is Jerome Flynn. It looks much more pronounced than this when his head is positioned normally, and the eye area and facial width is very different, of course.
http://gailkavanagh.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/29a5470a1d4fe768106dbd112a97a060.jpg
It's even more pronounced in Anthony Starr, but I don't see pictures of him actually in profile. When I googled him, a separate heading for Anthony Starr forehead came up! I'm sure he wishes Beatles haircuts were in style again too. :smile:
http://antonystarr.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ukbansheepremiere.jpg

What about Nadal? I've always thought he has a very archaic sort of look to him.
http://www.successstory.com/timthumb.php?src=http://www.successstory.com/img_people/profile/profile_1400654709.jpg&h=300&w=300&zc=0&q=100

This is a bizarre and very unflattering picture of him,but you can see his profile better:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/09/01/sports/tennis/01nadal/01nadal-blog480.jpg

what can I say? I have a thing about profiles...I notice them all the time.


I agree concerning Nadal

Fire Haired14
16-01-15, 23:53
Loschbur man has some features that appear common in modern europeans, in different proportions from population to population.
Anyways, EEF ancestry could have affected the look of us modern europeans (both in the north and, more frequently, in the south) quite deeply, IMHO... There are many northern euros with skeletal features very similar to meds, I noticed that, though their more exterior features (hair and eyes colour, skin tone etc.) are in the "northern" range.
I don't know if the anthropologists of old labeled this look some way:
70247025
If Loschbur is a good representative of the "mesolithic look", then it has changed through the millenia, maybe because of adaptatiion, random mutation or something, but med admixture played a big role, too, IMHO.

I'm very interested in seeing more Mesolithic and Neolithic skulls from Europe and modern west Eurasian skulls. The Mesolithic skulls I've seen have wider faces and wider noses than modern Euros. I think near eastern ancestry has made a big effect on European skull shape, maybe making them thiner and longer. The same very thin nose is found in Arabia and northern Europe, and if anyone is the source it would be Neolithic near easterns.

Exterior features like pigmentation, eye brow shape, facial and head hair, facial expressions can make a world of a difference.

Fire Haired14
16-01-15, 23:56
The Nordic type is defined as doliocephalic, which that man is. Loschbour is doliocephalic to the extreme. Thats why I posted a black and white image :)

In my experience most northern Europeans look nothing like that guy. Many north Euros I've seen have wide faces and wide noses. Abnormally skinny ones will have the thin face that guy does. Loschbour looks nothing like him. That guy is a twig compared to Loschbour.

motzart
16-01-15, 23:57
Since when was farming feminine? You're simply making an assumption because Hunter gatherers appear more primitive, and therefore more masculine in your mind. You're also assuming Y DNA I correlates with testosterone and don't have concrete evidence. I'm sure you're also assuming Chimps have more testosterone. It's probably much more complicated than Masculine=Testosterone, there are probably other factors in play.

It takes alot of hard work to be a farmer(they also hunted), which takes masculinity. Hunter gatherers lived a more relaxed-lazy lifestyle. Farmers lived in bigger communities which probably means more competition and more fighting. Who won in the end, farmers or HGs? Maybe it isn't that simple, but if anyone won it was the farmers.

Middle easterns and south Europeans I'm guessing are the hairiest people on the planet, and have the most ancient near eastern ancestry. I don't think WHGs were super macho-men compared to near eastern farmers. West Africans have more testosterone(or so I've heard) and muscle mass than West Eurasians, but west Eurasians have more body and facial hair.

I am considering that WHG was genetically more masculine(but such a small difference, that culture makes a bigger effect) than most humans. Skull shape is evidence for that, but I don't want to make assumptions.

The articles I posted directly answer all of your questions

Templar
17-01-15, 00:00
THE MODERN MAN ABOVE IS FAR CLOSER TO THE CLASSICAL 'NORDIC TYPE' THAN TO ANY OTHER, AND VERY FAR TO BE AS RUGGISH AS THE LOSCHBOUR MAN

that said, it is true this reconstruction of the crania of Loschbour is far to be perfect: as you say not enough deep placed eyes and a lot of other defects of reconstitution -

I didn't say that he he should look exactly like the man in the picture, I was talking specifically about his eyes.

motzart
17-01-15, 01:28
maybe I won't post that haha...

Fire Haired14
17-01-15, 06:01
The Nordic type is defined as doliocephalic, which that man is. Loschbour is doliocephalic to the extreme. Thats why I posted a black and white image :)

From my own experience these are typical northern Europeans.

http://static1.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/1500-2/photos/1350433337-bosnia-beats-lithuania-30-in-world-cup-quailfier_1526972.jpg

I don't know where anyone got the idea that most north Euros have thin faces and very thin noses, maybe when they compared them to east Asians and Africans. In my opinion something that distinguishes north Euros is above-average wide nose and face(for west Eurasians) and the nasal bone being inside of the brow ridges. Loschbour has those features, but he's still seems to have very different facial features than modern west Eurasians.

My guess is Near easterns have thinner noses and thinner faces than Europeans, and that Mesolithic Europeans had Euro-specific features to the extreme.

Overall though it is hard to distinguish Europeans and most near easterns in terms of facial features. This could be because of recent selection or common WHG ancestry. Blonde hair grew in popularity in northern Europe during the bronze age, which makes it appear they have a very different phenotype from south Europeans and near easterns, and should be mostly ignored. Blonde hair does occasionally pop up in south Europe and the near east, and at a similar rate as in Neolithic EEFs.

When comparing Near easterns to Europeans, I would suggest looking at isolated ethnic groups, and not ones with significant African or south Asian ancestry.

ElHorsto
17-01-15, 19:39
Loschbur man has some features that appear common in modern europeans, in different proportions from population to population.
Anyways, EEF ancestry could have affected the look of us modern europeans (both in the north and, more frequently, in the south) quite deeply, IMHO... There are many northern euros with skeletal features very similar to meds, I noticed that, though their more exterior features (hair and eyes colour, skin tone etc.) are in the "northern" range.
I don't know if the anthropologists of old labeled this look some way:
70247025
If Loschbur is a good representative of the "mesolithic look", then it has changed through the millenia, maybe because of adaptatiion, random mutation or something, but med admixture played a big role, too, IMHO.

Old anthropologist Coon claimed 'Nordid' to be essentially depigmented 'Mediterranean', which I think is true to a large part, especially for 'Hallstatt nordids', less so for 'Corded nordids', who possibly have more mesolithic traits. Your examples above are nordid imho. Nordids of northern europe also have a long and down-pointing chin, which can be also from EEF heritage, although it is less common in southern europe today.

Sile
17-01-15, 20:14
Old anthropologist Coon claimed 'Nordid' to be essentially depigmented 'Mediterranean', which I think is true to a large part, especially for 'Hallstatt nordids', less so for 'Corded nordids', who possibly have more mesolithic traits. Your examples above are nordid imho. Nordids of northern europe also have a long and down-pointing chin, which can be also from EEF heritage, although it is less common in southern europe today.

Did he say Nordid or Noric ............they are different ( Noric is Austrian alps , close to Med. ) ?

Hallstatt was Noric , named after the area Noricum

Angela
17-01-15, 20:22
I don't like the recreation because they did the eyes wrong, the brow ridges look stupid like somebody drew him without them and then inflated his eyebrows, and the eyes themselves look asian. The brow ridges should extend out over the eyes and the eyes should be deep set. His head shouldn't look round, Loschbour was "hyperdoliocephalic" as long skull as it gets, it should look like the pic I posted. You can see in the pic the guy has a very narrow long skull and the brow ridges are prominent, the recreation has a wide face.

http://i.imgur.com/Am8BwAh.png

If I'm not mistaken, this anthropological plate is meant to illustrate the "Nordic" phenotype. According to Coon, Nordics are just depigmented Mediterraneans. While I don't know if I'd go that far, their phenotype is much more similar to the Mediterranean one than it is to Loschbour.

In terms of this thread, I think Moesan's post (#22 ) gives a very good summary of the differences between "Capelloid" and "Brunn" features on the one hand, and "Cro-Magnon" type features on the other hand, and "Borreby"as well, and how "reduced" or "softened" versions or individual traits still show up across Europe, but in some areas more than in others. However, nowhere can we still find actual "Loschbour" types. Even in far northern Europe where they found a refuge, their descendents no longer look like them because they too have ancient Near Eastern farmer input.

He also makes the point, all too often ignored, that there were "archaic" ancient types in the Mediterranean as well, and in the Near East. Then there's the phenotype brought by the Indo-Europeans, heavy perhaps with "ancient Karelian" traits, and I have a hunch they were pretty "archaic" looking as well.

The "gracile" Med phenotype is separate and distinct from what I can tell, (and the associated but somewhat different "Atlanto-Med") and I'm also not convinced it's all due to selection based on the Neolithic diet and lifestyle, or even sexual selection.

Ed. Sorry, El Horsto, I see that you already made essentially the same point.

Guys, all this talk of testosterone is sort of besides the point. In modern Europe, someone who looks like that poor unfortunate Russian legislator still has to get a date.:petrified: Absent a huge bank account, or a lucky encounter with a woman with rather esoteric tastes, I think he might have a rather difficult time. :smile:

ElHorsto
17-01-15, 20:42
Did he say Nordid or Noric ............they are different ( Noric is Austrian alps , close to Med. ) ?

Hallstatt was Noric , named after the area Noricum

He said Hallstatt-Nordid, because Coon believed that this type orininated from Hallstatt, despite this type is today most common in Sweden and Österdal/Norway.

ElHorsto
17-01-15, 21:08
He also makes the point, all too often ignored, that there were "archaic" ancient types in the Mediterranean as well, and in the Near East. Then there's the phenotype brought by the Indo-Europeans, heavy perhaps with "ancient Karelian" traits, and I have a hunch they were pretty "archaic" looking as well.


Exactly. Since I already mentioned Coon, this is what I humbly would criticise most in Coon's work. He was too much attached to the idea that mesolithic survivals should be most frequent in Ireland and Scandinavia, and that they were often rufous and freckled. But about half of his "paleolithic survivals from Ireland" plates would pass in Central europe or even Balkans, for instance this "paleolithic" irish:
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/troe091.jpg

He might be Cromagnid, but Cromagnids can be found throughout Europe rather equally, in my opinion. The guy above could well have been common among Indo-Europeans too, who were likely diverse looking afterall.
I also believe that certain mixtures of 'distant' types may sometimes result in archaic or rugged looks (the ultra-rugged looking boxer Nikolai Valuev posted by Motzart is one quarter Tatar; he even looks like a Neanderthaler), or pseudo Cro-Magnon looks, something like an ancient common denominator perhaps.
On the other hand, this "paleolithic" irish brünn is a much better example of what we know from mesolithic WHG skeletons:
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/troe094.jpg

In general, Coon's "paleolithic survivals" from Scandinavia are more convincing than the Irish examples, imho.

Sile
17-01-15, 21:26
He said Hallstatt-Nordid, because Coon believed that this type orininated from Hallstatt, despite this type is today most common in Sweden and Österdal/Norway.

IMO, he is wrong if he meant nordid.............since Hallstatt represents a celtic/illyric mix where do these scandinavians come from.

he most probably meant noric

The Noric race (German: Norische Rasse) was a racial category proposed by the anthropologist Victor Lebzelter (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victor_Lebzelter&action=edit&redlink=1). The "Noric race" was supposed to be a lighter sub-type of the Dinaric race.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinaric_race#cite_note-4) The term derived from Noricum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noricum), a province of the Roman empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire) roughly equivalent to southern Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria). The term is not to be confused with Nordic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race).

Norics were characterized by tall stature, brachycephaly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachycephaly), nasal convexity, long face (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face) and broad forehead. Their complexion was said to be light, and blondness combined with light eyes to be their anthropologic characteristic.

ElHorsto
17-01-15, 21:37
IMO, he is wrong if he meant nordid.


Yes, probably he was wrong.



............since Hallstatt represents a celtic/illyric mix where do these scandinavians come from.

he most probably meant noric

The Noric race (German: Norische Rasse) was a racial category proposed by the anthropologist Victor Lebzelter (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victor_Lebzelter&action=edit&redlink=1). The "Noric race" was supposed to be a lighter sub-type of the Dinaric race.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinaric_race#cite_note-4) The term derived from Noricum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noricum), a province of the Roman empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire) roughly equivalent to southern Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria). The term is not to be confused with Nordic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race).

Norics were characterized by tall stature, brachycephaly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachycephaly), nasal convexity, long face (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face) and broad forehead. Their complexion was said to be light, and blondness combined with light eyes to be their anthropologic characteristic.

No, as I already said he didn't mean 'Noric' but 'Nordid':



The third "Keltic" or "Hallstatt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_culture)" type Coon takes to have emerged in the European Iron Age, in Central Europe, where it was subsequently mostly replaced, but "found a refuge in Sweden and in the eastern valleys of southern Norway."[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race#cite_note-29)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race#Coon_.281939.29

MOESAN
18-01-15, 00:01
From my own experience these are typical northern Europeans.

http://static1.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/1500-2/photos/1350433337-bosnia-beats-lithuania-30-in-world-cup-quailfier_1526972.jpg

I don't know where anyone got the idea that most north Euros have thin faces and very thin noses, maybe when they compared them to east Asians and Africans. In my opinion something that distinguishes north Euros is above-average wide nose and face(for west Eurasians) and the nasal bone being inside of the brow ridges. Loschbour has those features, but he's still seems to have very different facial features than modern west Eurasians.

My guess is Near easterns have thinner noses and thinner faces than Europeans, and that Mesolithic Europeans had Euro-specific features to the extreme.

Overall though it is hard to distinguish Europeans and most near easterns in terms of facial features. This could be because of recent selection or common WHG ancestry. Blonde hair grew in popularity in northern Europe during the bronze age, which makes it appear they have a very different phenotype from south Europeans and near easterns, and should be mostly ignored. Blonde hair does occasionally pop up in south Europe and the near east, and at a similar rate as in Neolithic EEFs.

When comparing Near easterns to Europeans, I would suggest looking at isolated ethnic groups, and not ones with significant African or south Asian ancestry.

I think the most of yours have to look at hundreds of pictures of people and to read some metrics books
almost everywhere among caicasians we find narrow faces, narrow skulls, and broad faces and broad skulls (old mixtures)
but the distributions are unequal: the most of Scandinavians have means between long and average faces and between long and average skulls (and Englishmen and Duthc people)- the same for the true Mediterraneans (Iberia, Corsica Sardinia, some parts of Southern Italy, some parts of Bulagria, and more on the long narrow side, the Near Easterners and Arabs and Afghans Pakistanes -
the most of the western Balkans people have average faces, and equilibre bwetween broad and narrow faces, but a tendancy towards broad short skulls - a lot of central eastern France and %Central Europe as a rule are rather between broad and average faces and broad and average skulls:
CI of the 1940:
Ireland >79 ( 76 to >80) Wales > 78 (76 to >79) Scotland > 78 (76 to > 80) England >77 (76 to >80) Iceland >78 Spain P>77 (76 to >80 but 84, 85 in 2 points W and E Asturias) Italy >81 (73 to >86) France >83 (78 to >88) without Corsica! Germant >83 (79 to >86) Belgium >80 (78 to >83) Netherlands >78 (78 to >79) Denmark >80 (78 to >83) Norway >78 (76 to > 82) Sweden >77 (76 to >78) without Saami, Poland >83 (79 to >85) Czechoslovakia >85 (84 to >88) Hungary >84 (83 to >87) Romania >81 (79 to >85) Yougoslavia >85 (84> 86) Albania >87 (83 to >89) Greece >83 (79 to > 88) Bulgaria >79 (76 to >85) Estobia >79 (78 to >79) Finland >79 (78 to > 83) without Saami Lithuania >82 Latvia >80 Russia >83 (???) Ukraina >83 (? to > 85)
Arabia >73 (72 to >80) Yemen South (some regions >82) Turkey >83 (82 to >86) Armenia >85 (80? to >86) Lebanon >85 (84 to >86) Georgia >83 (? to ?) Palestina > >76 (7( to > 77?)
I'm not sure for other lands but as a rule every big country shows big differences region to region - even Corsica shows little differences from >73 (center) to >77 (S-W) the same for Sardinia -
brachycephaly WAS NOT linked to North in Europe but to CENTRE, as a rule and the center of propagation seems in the Alps, the western ones - the northern brachycephals are more recent - the Paleolithic men were about the 72 and in Mesolithic it passes to 72 to > 74 but in W-Alps some groups shew about the 6000 BC CI's > 82/83 and it increased later -
NO simplistic mesologic explanation can explain the brachycephalization phenomenon which NEVER concerned the all populations in the same way, whatever the place -
Neolithic people of Scandinavia were about the 73-75...
we have maybe the reaction of different genomic backgrounds to mesologic causes

the better proof the question is not simple is that 'cromagnoids' were long narrow skulled with broad short faces when the other ancient ligneages were homogenous long narrow faced and skulled, without speaking of the other numerous differences...

PLUS : proof of heterogeneity even of "typical" population:
a serie of 20 men about a mean of CI = 76 can have 1 or 2 skull over the 88!
a serie of 20 men about a mean of CI = 85 can have A or 2 skulls under the 71!
extremes (rare) are in Europe between 67 (roughly said) and 94 (the 99/100/101 CI's are seemingly peculiar cases (disease, cranial cultural deformation)

MOESAN
18-01-15, 00:04
my "extreme" cases ARE INDIVIDUAL of course! not means

MOESAN
18-01-15, 00:18
if you read what I wrote somewhere, the southern population where some EEF took their ancestors were derived also from a robust type which gave way to the 'eurafrican' type, high statured, long faced but with robust chin, robust cheekbones and browridges and receding frontal - look at some Portugueses or Sardinians and even some North-Africans: they have too their "commando" or "boxers" faces!!! don't be naive...
a later slection occurred, linked to hazard, local soliations and way of life, which selected the small 'mediterranean' but if you look well, even these small 'mediterraneans' are not so long faced, lesser than the robust types!!! their faces are SMALL but retained a common southern trait: high ratio upper-face upon lower face, and high ration cheekbones breadth upon bigonials breadth!
things are not simple because the sedentary ways of life (new ones) isloated more and more little groups and the effect of mutation/drift/selection has created a lot of subtypes uneasy to generalize and put into drawers, before the later expansions and miixings times - Combe-Capelle was very large high narrow (ratio) faced spite his "robustness" and the most of the breadth of his face was caused by the bizygoma (cheekbones) -
the more typically large narrow high faced people to come in Europe (as a mean with narrower cheekbones than the Brünn-capellids) were the 'corded' types (nevertheless someones retain the 'brünnoid' and 'eurafrican' influences -
concerning C-Capelle there were some pictures in some thread of Eupedia (I forgot where)

Mars
18-01-15, 20:58
If I'm not wrong, the farest from EEF should be the Sami
70337034
They display important similarities with Loschbur, IMHO.
On the other hand, the closest to the original EEF are sardinians
70357036
Not necessarily longer faces, but smaller and "softer" features generally.

Angela
20-01-15, 20:25
In doing some reading on the Paleolithic, I chanced upon this representation of a Venus figurine from France dated 22,000 BCE. At least it has the benefit of being done by the actual people. Of course, people may have looked different in different areas and time periods.

http://donsmaps.com/images23/brassempuouy.jpg

Fire Haired14
21-01-15, 00:38
Have you ever seen this guy? It's much mor erelaistic. He's from a Gravettian site in the Czech Republic, and I know is pre-LGM. In that site mtDNA U5* and U8c were found. He looks pretty similar to Loschbour.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/c7/fa/12/c7fa125320acc1c3268f4aac5ee4f417.jpg

Wilhelm
21-01-15, 00:50
Have you ever seen this guy? It's much mor erelaistic. He's from a Gravettian site in the Czech Republic, and I know is pre-LGM. In that site mtDNA U5* and U8c were found. He looks pretty similar to Loschbour.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/c7/fa/12/c7fa125320acc1c3268f4aac5ee4f417.jpg
He is Paleolithic, thus much older and archaich, and genetically is probably very close to the Kostenski guy

Angela
21-01-15, 05:54
Have you ever seen this guy? It's much mor erelaistic. He's from a Gravettian site in the Czech Republic, and I know is pre-LGM. In that site mtDNA U5* and U8c were found. He looks pretty similar to Loschbour.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/c7/fa/12/c7fa125320acc1c3268f4aac5ee4f417.jpg


Yes, that's right. It's the Gravettian site of Dolni Vestonice. The find is dated to 26,000 BCE. These would be the "indigenous" hunters of the area. Supposedly, the profile resembles a skull found nearby.

This is the profile view.
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/headbrugar11.jpg

It's discussed at the two links below:
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/czechdolnivestonice.htm
http://donsmaps.com/dolnivenus.html

The figurine I posted is younger, dating to 22,000 BCE, still Gravettian from what I can tell. It was found at Brassempouy, Landes, France(southwest France, near the Pyrenees).

Ed. I don't see that much difference between certain features in this man and in Loschbour...same forehead, eyebrow area, perhaps jaw and cheekbones?

LeBrok
21-01-15, 08:51
I think the nose is still fairly common in Northern Europe.
Very talented guy did this head, details, proportions, and with stone tools only.

bicicleur
21-01-15, 11:01
Yes, that's right. It's the Gravettian site of Dolni Vestonice. The find is dated to 26,000 BCE. These would be the "indigenous" hunters of the area. Supposedly, the profile resembles a skull found nearby.

This is the profile view.
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/headbrugar11.jpg

It's discussed at the two links below:
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/czechdolnivestonice.htm
http://donsmaps.com/dolnivenus.html

The figurine I posted is younger, dating to 22,000 BCE, still Gravettian from what I can tell. It was found at Brassempouy, Landes, France(southwest France, near the Pyrenees).

Ed. I don't see that much difference between certain features in this man and in Loschbour...same forehead, eyebrow area, perhaps jaw and cheekbones?

how about this : 7041
25000 years old Gravettian Venus of Brassempouy
eyes are hidden deep in the skull but no prominent brow ridges, not like the one you posted

bicicleur
21-01-15, 11:03
i see , you posted the same before ..

Mars
21-01-15, 13:32
I think the nose is still fairly common in Northern Europe.
Very talented guy did this head, details, proportions, and with stone tools only.
Also the cheekbones and jaw, IMHO, as shown in the frontal picture. The very receding forehead is similar to Loschbur's and uncommon in Europe today.

Dalmat
24-01-15, 04:51
http://blobsvc.wort.lu/picture/bbea9ba55a019d57bf5c0fec43eaf82a/519/291/wortv3/2334d8c5a0f081505ce8892d640c37f1965fa43c
Reconstruction looks bit like this guy

http://www.index.hr/images2/zvonimirbobangetty625.jpg

and this guy

http://www.index.hr/images2/pranjic_screenshot.png

MOESAN
24-01-15, 21:10
If I'm not wrong, the farest from EEF should be the Sami
70337034
They display important similarities with Loschbur, IMHO.
On the other hand, the closest to the original EEF are sardinians
70357036
Not necessarily longer faces, but smaller and "softer" features generally.



I prefer speaking about males – theirfeatures are less confusing as a rule -
the Saami man is a good reflect of abrachycephalized gracilized 'brünnoid'-'capelloid' type, a small 'borreby B' in my system – the gracilization is complete in Northbecause the Saami have very reduced absolute features as a rule –the brachycephalization could be obtained by crossing ('alpinelike'ancestors with dark hairs) – I prefer this hypothesis to theinternal evolution but who knows ? -
the pseudo-'mediterranean' Sardinianshows (as a lot of them) too brutal OR « primitive »features (frontal, eyelids form, nose form, even partly face) andseems to me a crossing between a partly reduced'brünnoid'-'capelloid' type with some eastern 'mediterranean' – Idon't even exclude in fact a first crossing 'cromagnoid'-'capelloid'which was frequent in some places of the last Mesolithic and evenin Neolithic time spite thetoo spred simplistic link made between time and culture ; buthere the most of the features are 'brünnoid'-'capelloid' inherited –a good pattern of a southern boxer indeed ! The new forms ofhumanity apparently linked to genuine 'mediterranean' (more eatsern)had more vertical (steep) frontals, weaker lighter lower jaw, longerdepressed tips noses, and, a bet of mine : a « sader »looks -
itis true « mediterranean » term, typologically speaking,is a kind of « rubbish bag » based for the most uponpigmentation (mesological?) - robust/gracile, tall/small and« primitive »/ « evolved » types exited tooin South !!! if we could go back farther in time we could seethe ancestors of 'mediterraneans' were not so « gracile »as the today majority (and yet...) - but we know the most of thefirst agricultors come from Anatolia were of the more gracile« evolved » types (the most of them : the 'danubian'ones) – they were maybe a kind of selection based upon a smallnumber (drift) and new conditions of life -
Iposted some 'mediterranean' looking people in a thread in Eupedia butI can no more attach any picture (I had interesting maps to postbut...) - things are like that !

as you say the'mediterranean' type tipically has more a tiny face (but visible cheebones >> short ovale) than a true long face (except 'irano-afghan' and derived types) - 'nordic' has a long face with not too strong cheekbones # the "Viking warrior of cinema"

MOESAN
24-01-15, 21:15
http://blobsvc.wort.lu/picture/bbea9ba55a019d57bf5c0fec43eaf82a/519/291/wortv3/2334d8c5a0f081505ce8892d640c37f1965fa43c
Reconstruction looks bit like this guy

http://www.index.hr/images2/zvonimirbobangetty625.jpg

and this guy

http://www.index.hr/images2/pranjic_screenshot.png

not completely, but I agree these guys have some ancient Mesolithic heritage (I would say: a big imput concerning the second one) : more 'brünnoid' - I red less than 15 years ago some naive "scientists" (is that possible? my God!) affirmating "the old forms of humanity linked to paleo and mesolithic had left NO trace among modern Europeans" (I smile to my glass of whisky)...

MOESAN
24-01-15, 21:22
concerning the figurines I think they are not photographic pictures - they don't describe exactly the same features, by the way - sorry for "shower" your enthusiasm - that said, the man is very different from a "gracile mediterranean" of today or from a 'nordic', I accord ...

LeBrok
24-01-15, 22:04
Reconstruction looks bit like this guy



and this guy

http://www.index.hr/images2/pranjic_screenshot.png

I agree, this could be the best example of Mesolithic European if it comes to skull shape, nose similar to gravettian figurin, and who knows maybe tone of skin is right too.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Danijel-Pranjic.jpg

Dalmat
03-02-15, 01:48
I agree, this could be the best example of Mesolithic European if it comes to skull shape, nose similar to gravettian figurin, and who knows maybe tone of skin is right too.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Danijel-Pranjic.jpg

both of them have rather caveman look, and similarity with the reconstruction

The other guy in other pictures
http://www.24sata.hr/image/zvone-boban-modric-bi-trebao-biti-posebno-zanimljiv-milanu-504x335-20101252-20101229190423-46f4cad9b9bcf5cbc4ab593188fd0434.jpg
http://dalje.com/slike/slike_3/r1/g2010/m09/y244900810687397.jpg

Szigmund
04-09-19, 14:36
"Loschbour" is very well known by DNA-hobbyist, because of Laz 2014's analysis of his DNA. He lived in Luxembourg about 8,000 years ago belonged to Y DNA pre-I2a1b and mtDNA pre-U5b1a. His genome is used to represent "WHG" or Mesolithic west Europeans, by academics and Eurogenes.

His skull is very well preserved and we know what pigmentation he had, and so I guess someone decided to make a reconstruction of his head.

Here he is.....
http://blobsvc.wort.lu/picture/669df97ed00d98457db11dc05f9d92f3/519/291/wortv3/d676c960a6340a291eb05742f6dd2c1782fb53bc


http://blobsvc.wort.lu/picture/bbea9ba55a019d57bf5c0fec43eaf82a/519/291/wortv3/2334d8c5a0f081505ce8892d640c37f1965fa43c

Here's where I got the pictures
http://www.wort.lu/de/wissen/wissenschaft-so-sah-der-mann-von-loschbour-aus-5419bc9bb9b398870806654c

Loschbour's people(Genetically speaking not ethnic, in this sense Mayans and Cherokess would be the same people) are very important to the history of many of the people here, as anywhere from 53-30%(according to ANE K8) of our blood comes from them.

His skull looks very exotic to me, but his reconstruction looks very west Eurasian.

This face totally reminds me to Patrick Swayze

https://www.stayathomemum.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Found-on-petitsbonheursquotidiens.centerblog.net_.jpg

Joey37
04-09-19, 22:07
He kind of looks Finnish, if a bit dark for a Finn.

Angela
05-09-19, 00:38
I've always thought he looks a bit like Mait Metspalu. :)
https://cache.uttv.ee/pildid/2019/04/28495.jpg

EASTEUROPID
05-09-19, 05:44
ANE k8? Where can I find this calculator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk