Sardinians

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,327
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
Genetically, they are supposed to be the closest to the EEF populations. However, there was indeed some admixture, as the presence of U-152 on the island attests. There were also probably some incursions at the coast from populations from the eastern Med and North Africa. Also, there is not a perfect correspondence between genotype and phenotype. Selection, both natural and social, and drift also have their part to play.

I therefore think it's perilous to assume that the Sardinians can be held to be a perfect physical representation of the ancient EEF. More importantly, if you're going to do that, I think it's best to look at the typical or average Sardinian, and particularly those from inland, isolated regions.

I have some experience with them because not only have I been there a few times, but they have migrated to my area and many of their folksingers and dancers perform there.

These are some commonly found looks in Nuoro, arguably one of the most inbred areas of the island.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi-zOpgrkv8


See also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-m3V1cwnPY

You also can find phenotypes like these:
240284_3737199344551_1633922923_o.jpg

Redentore%20-%20donna%20costume.JPG
 
There isn't a look for any ethnic group, there's more like a million features every population has at differnt proportions or some looks only some have. Subtle things instead of hardcore difference in features is what defines differnt ethnic looks. So, it's hard to say how they look. At a quick glance Sardinians don't look West Asian at all. They'd pass as white or Latino in America.
 
@ Fire Haired

"They'd pass as white or Latino in America"

what does the word "white" aside "latino" in your statement? would not West-Asians be "whites"? (aside they are 'caucasians' in the broad anhtropological sense)

and what knew the most of folks about ancient EEF look(s) ??? I know few and a lot know lesser yet, I suppose.
 
@ Fire Haired

"They'd pass as white or Latino in America"

what does the word "white" aside "latino" in your statement? would not West-Asians be "whites"? (aside they are 'caucasians' in the broad anhtropological sense)

and what knew the most of folks about ancient EEF look(s) ??? I know few and a lot know lesser yet, I suppose.

White means American of European decent who are usually from Britain, Germany, or Scandinavia. Latino means Latino. American's Latino decent usually comes from Mexico and Puerto Rico.
 
White means American of European decent who are usually from Britain, Germany, or Scandinavia. Latino means Latino. American's Latino decent usually comes from Mexico and Puerto Rico.

So West Asians are not "white" (which ones? Caucasus or Pathans mixed with Soutern Indians?) and Southern Europeans are not "white"?
 
So West Asians are not "white" (which ones? Caucasus or Pathans mixed with Soutern Indians?) and Southern Europeans are not "white"?

White was never meant to include West Asians. Anyone from Europe today is considered white. But in the 1800s, Irish, German, Jewish, Polish, Italian, at times were not considered white by the public. Once they assimilated and spoke English they were considered white.

Sardinians to me is how I'd imagine South Europeans, even though I've never really seen any(In America everyone is mixed and it's impossible to know ethnic origins). It's obvious to me there's EEF features in all Europeans which is why Sardinians look kind of "white" to me as an American. I have seen many Pakistanis, Indians, Assyrians, Iranians, and Arabs and Sardinians don't look like them.
 
There isn't a look for any ethnic group, there's more like a million features every population has at differnt proportions or some looks only some have. Subtle things instead of hardcore difference in features is what defines differnt ethnic looks. So, it's hard to say how they look. At a quick glance Sardinians don't look West Asian at all. They'd pass as white or Latino in America.

What did you expect? Sardinians are Europeans. The vast majority of their ancestors arrived in Europe eight thousand years ago. Since then, West Asia has changed a lot genetically, and therefore in terms of phenotype.

Plus, "white" is a meaningless terms genetically. It's a term used in the US where "Anglos" were "white" and anyone with a drop of "African" ancestry was black. They didn't quite know how to classify other Europeans. According to William Penn, the Germans who flooded Pennsylvania were not "white". He apparently hadn't meant his colony for them. Neither were the Irish "white" enough, no matter how they are seen now. America operated for a long time under the "one drop" rule. Any percentage of African meant you were "black" and could be enslaved. You see the lengths to which this could go. By those standards, as we've now discovered, a certain percentage of "white" Americans, particularly those who live in southern states like Louisiana and South Carolina carry up to 5% SSA. Plus, if "white" is a synonym for a certain branch of West Eurasians, are the Finns and other northeast Europeans "white" just because they're "fair", even though they have significant percentages of East Eurasian? It's not, as I said, a very useful classification. I think West Eurasian/East Eurasian/SSA is probably a good way of categorizing it if you're going to stick to three major divisions, and Amerindian, Oceanian, if you want to go to five. Within Europe, the vast majority of the ancestry is going to be West Eurasian with a bit of East Eurasian and SSA at the periphery. West Asians are West Eurasians with, at the southern edges, a significant amount of SSA, and, around Turkey, a pretty significant amount of Central Asian.

Anyway, as regards Sardinians, I specifically said we really shouldn't be using them as a "type" for the EEF, because they have additional ancestry and then drift and selection plays a role. I was just reacting to some things I saw on the web using some very fair, obviously mainland mixed people, to stand as the "type" for the EEF, and trying to suggest you should at least need to use those who might have an older "phenotype". I didn't mean to imply all Sardinians look like that. Some don't look any different than mainland Italians.

Sardinians:
Sardinians.jpg


1st row:Sergio AtzeniCaterina MurinoPasquale TolaAmpsicoraComita I de Lacon-Zori 2nd row: Eleonor of ArboreaJoseph TorontoPaola AntonelliEnrico BerlinguerPinuccio Sciola
3rd row: Giovanni Antonio SannaFrancesco CossigaAntonio GramsciGiovanni Matteo MarioAnna Maria Pierangeli
4th row: Gian Luigi GessaCostantino NivolaMarisa SanniaGiovanni Maria AngioyFrancesco Cocco-Ortu
5th row: Giuseppe MannoGoffredo Mameli (Genoese of Sardinian descent) – Salvatore SattaGrazia DeleddaAndrea Parodi
6th row:Pope HilariusAmedeo NazzariAntonio SegniAntonio MarrasLeonardo Alagon
7th row: Maria LaiEmilio LussuPaolo FresuDomenico Alberto AzuniPope Symmachus
8th row: Domenico RuiuMarianus IV of ArboreaMaria CartaFranco ColumbuGiovanni SpanoGiovanni Soro
 
Cause we learn Sardinians are sort of an isolate posters on raciest forums will cherryick whatever image of Sardinians they want. Sardinians are the closest bet as to what EEF looked like. Sure, local evolution can make changes. I've read old-school anthropologist considered Neolithic Europeans were of the Mediterranean physical type. I'd say most EEF looked like South Europeans. There isn't really be much debate on this. Except maybe the northern ones are a source for northern fairness today.
 
In Aotosomol DNA perpective, can we call them, purest Meditterranean or South European?
Mediterranean-admixture.gif


According to map Catalans and Sardinians
 
Cause we learn Sardinians are sort of an isolate posters on raciest forums will cherryick whatever image of Sardinians they want. Sardinians are the closest bet as to what EEF looked like. Sure, local evolution can make changes. I've read old-school anthropologist considered Neolithic Europeans were of the Mediterranean physical type. I'd say most EEF looked like South Europeans. There isn't really be much debate on this. Except maybe the northern ones are a source for northern fairness today.

Back in that time most peole were dark haired, it is not a EEF sign at all. Contrary one of the first Blond and Blue eyed individuals of Europe was an EEF from ancient Hungary.

That todays people with more WHG and EHG are on average fairer based on eye and hair color is merely coincidence by the fact that H&G groups were pushed out towards the edges of Europe (mostly North Europe) by the incoming farmer waves who took the fertile lands of mostly South and Central Europe for themselves. If for whatever reason the EEF groups preffered to live in higher latitude such as North Europe and instead the WHG groups stayed in South Europe, difference between North and South Europe would still have been the same.

Take in mind even the most North European groups have still at least 40-50% of farmer DNA. Not necessary EEF but other forms of farmer DNA.

I still think people are understating the neolithic effect on Europe. I can say with conviction that modern West Eurasian lifestyle and ancestry is directed by agricultural lifestyle.
 
In Aotosomol DNA perpective, can we call them, purest Meditterranean or South European?
Mediterranean-admixture.gif


According to map Catalans and Sardinians

If we had the exact percentages for this it would be interesting to compare it to the EEF numbers from the new PUNT ancient dna calculator. Just going by the map, though, I don't think "Southern European" equals EEF, although southern Europeans have more EEF than northern Europeans do...

On that calculator I've seen scores of about 48% EEF from a Portuguese and a Tuscan, 46% for the south French, but even north Germans are getting about 38-39%, so the swing in variation really isn't as big as I expected.

"Southern European" contains other elements, including the "teal" type component (as per the PUNT calculator)that is also present in northern and eastern Europeans (although it's quite a bit lower in Iberians), and what the creator of the Punt calculator calls "Near Eastern". I'm not quite sure how to interpret the latter. Some northerners get only 1% of that, but others get around 3-4%. Some southerners, including the Portuguese, are getting 10% or more, as are Italians. It would be interesting to see some Greek scores. I thought maybe it was more modern, but I don't know anymore, because Stuttgart already had it at 13%.

Ed. Interesting as per the map the difference between Aegean Turkey and the rest of it. I wonder if that's an old distinction, with the Aegean having been its own cluster for thousands of years, or if it's due to modern relocations, or both.
 
Back in that time most peole were dark haired, it is not a EEF sign at all. Contrary one of the first Blond and Blue eyed individuals of Europe was an EEF from ancient Hungary.

That todays people with more WHG and EHG are on average fairer based on eye and hair color is merely coincidence by the fact that H&G groups were pushed out towards the edges of Europe (mostly North Europe) by the incoming farmer waves who took the fertile lands of mostly South and Central Europe for themselves. If for whatever reason the EEF groups preffered to live in higher latitude such as North Europe and instead the WHG groups stayed in South Europe, difference between North and South Europe would still have been the same.

Take in mind even the most North European groups have still at least 40-50% of farmer DNA. Not necessary EEF but other forms of farmer DNA.

I still think people are understating the neolithic effect on Europe. I can say with conviction that modern West Eurasian lifestyle and ancestry is directed by agricultural lifestyle.

In Haak's paper , in the period of 4500BC to 6000BC , central Germany/central europeans where 95% EEF as per LBK_EN

Let's not start history at BB or CW times just to show WHG was in the places noted above !
 
wow!

- Sardinians (I saw someones and red a lot about them) are the darkest people (%s an extreme shades) in Europe, along with Cyprians and Southern Portugueses, darkest than in some parts of today Turkey and even Armenia
- as said, they are not all on the same bones and flesh model, as everywhere even if less variated than other regions, but dominantly a short dolichocephalic slender (but athletic enough) bodied populations, what was named 'mediterranean' prototype, by generalization - in fact 'mediterraneans' spann diverses types, and as in Portugal, some of the Sardinians show an "archaic" type, with receding frontal, strong browridges, low implanted hair on front, strong cheekbones, ruggish facial traits, and a large shouldered long trunked long armed body with curved short legs: this type according to old scholars would have been more present among the archaic region of the island; but other dolichocephalic types of same darker complexion have steeper frontal, less ruggish face, shorter trunk and longer legs, in some way, closer to arabish 'mediterranean'; I don't speak here of other tendancies, less typical; I know a lot of person consider that every dark pigmented europoid is of the same recent root, what is an error ( Near-East knows a lot of pigmented types of same far far origin, but having evolved separately a long enough time before mixing again;
- so, some skeleton types among today Sardinians (and Portugueses, more than among other southern regions) show features recalling some 'capelloid' or 'brünnoid' HG's inherited types! history of crossings and re-selections of types in not a long steady river! I know: stereotypes are stereotypes! Sardinia even if basically more EEF, is not a pure EEF result (yet EEF was not 100% monolithic)
- I thank Fire Haired but I avow I have not understood what kind of criteria Americans ('Anglos') have to qualify somebody "white" or "not-white" speaking about Europeans
- that said, VERY dark pigmentation of hairs and eyes seems truly a EEF trait (at first sight!), along with 'olive-white' skin; the fact some Farmers of Hungary taken in a bunch of folks show mutations concerning hair and eye very not a proof that this trait was frequent among first Farmers. I think more by intuition and also based upon last results concerning Steppes that the depigmentation process, possibly begun among farmers, took strength in Eastern Europe more than in Western Europe, and was, for some reason I don't know for now, possibly later passed to HGs of East and through to Hgs of North Europe. That said other mutations can be in play for North...
-I confess I'm not sure of the validity of often red and heard explanations about natural selection, and the today difference in pigmentation concenring Eurasia - more complicated than believed - between North an South Europe, is hardly explicable by natural pressure and selection; that said, the skin colour difference, more submitted to selection I think, is small enough! I would be glad if Americans could see the "bottom" of the most of "not-white" people from Near-East: they would be surprised how fair coloured it is!!! Roughly said, they are "whites" - even the majority of Iranians and Afghans!!! In France we have a lot of 'Beurs', second generation of diverse "arabic" northafrican lands: when they are living in Strasbourg or Lille they are white enough as a whole!
- concerning selection, we have to remember some features or traits are selected because the genes causing them are linked on the chromosome to other more important genes concerning selection; at least it is a track to follow?
sorry for having been so long
 
I know there is not always total accord concerning genetics, but I red Europe population shows a complicated genetic history far from a North-South scheme, and where natural selection played a tiny role; I'm ready to believe it at least after Paleolithic.
 
In Haak's paper , in the period of 4500BC to 6000BC , central Germany/central europeans where 95% EEF as per LBK_EN

Let's not start history at BB or CW times just to show WHG was in the places noted above !

In what way does this contradict what I said? By 6000 BC you still had WHG groups in Central Europe. Prior to that you still had only WHG groups who were predominantly dark with light eyes in Central Europe as well Iberia. That does indeed support my argument.
 
I therefore think it's perilous to assume that the Sardinians can be held to be a perfect physical representation of the ancient EEF. More importantly, if you're going to do that, I think it's best to look at the typical or average Sardinian, and particularly those from inland, isolated regions.


My method to "pinpoint" the EEF look is to find phenotypes of Sardinians which I find show some cranial and other resemblences to other "isolated farming groups". Or groups with also high EEF ancestry. As example if I see a German, Scandinavian, British or Iberian person who I think could pass as an individual from another group with very high farmer ancestry and his cranial is rather associated with farming cultures. I expect this to be some sort of farmer look.


As example

When I saw this image of Raul in Qatar with an Qatari I instantly thought both look like at least 80% of their ancestry is the same.

http://www.sportsfeatures.com/PressPoint/images/49501-olympic-image1.jpg


This Sardinian boy, Iraqi guy who looks and is probably a mix of Eastern and Southern farmers, and Benzema look quite similar in cranial and many other features.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/4981704205_86f2bb643f.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8e/fe/e8/8efee82d680677cc9a8370c852cb6466.jpg
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-e6eYoCcAAU3PK.jpg:small
http://golazogoal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/benzema.jpg

Xabi Alonso, reconstruction of neolithic farmer from britain and random Lebanese Guy.
http://www.tz.de/bilder/2014/06/21/3645424/1961692379-xabi-alonso-1yKvvLuvh1ef.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/17/article-2525035-1A2418AB00000578-695_634x467.jpg
http://z3.ifrm.com/67/29/0/p400897/6a01156f68db9c970c0120a5a48c5a970b_800wilebanesemen.jpg


The same game with females. This Sardinian girl reminds me allot of some Circassian girls I have seen.

https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/a-giorgia-palmas-0.jpg

This Sardinian and Circassian females look also quite similar. Circassians have around 10% EHG therefore unlikely that the similarty is based on the WHG ancestry. And Sardinians have close to non Teal.
http://www.spettegola.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Elisabetta-Canalis.jpg
http://s15.postimg.org/piwmcj5tn/Circassiangirl4.jpg

Thats how I spot these things, I take a European person (since they have most of the EEF ancestry in them) and look if I find a Near Easten/North African equivalent in cranial and some othe physical features. If yes than I account this to EEF ancestry.
 
Last edited:
In what way does this contradict what I said? By 6000 BC you still had WHG groups in Central Europe. Prior to that you still had only WHG groups who were predominantly dark with light eyes in Central Europe as well Iberia. That does indeed support my argument.

If there was WHG where they found the LBK_EN skeletons ( 30 ) then there was no mix because the LBK is 95% EEF.

Haak had 6 samples ( 4 x G2a and 1 x T1a, 1 x H2 ) and since then another 4 of the 30 found have been analysed with ( 3 x G2a and 1 x T1a ). Clearly in another year when the other 20 are done ( fingers crossed )I doubt the EEF mix will lower much from the 95% it is today.

Meyer 2015 stating these High EEF Neolithic German samples "are not coming from Anatolia", then the path to germany IMO, was north of the black sea and then along the danube river ..............follow fresh water.
 
Ed. Interesting as per the map the difference between Aegean Turkey and the rest of it. I wonder if that's an old distinction, with the Aegean having been its own cluster for thousands of years, or if it's due to modern relocations, or both.

No not really, I pointed that out to Maciamo, that this is a false assumption about West Anatolia being genetically different/special from the rest. to Maciamo. Not only on the Mediterrean but also some other components. I have compared the Mediterranean component results from Western Turkish samples to other Turkish samples (mostly Central Turkey) they were quite identical. Ironicly Central Anatolian Turkish samples had even ~1% more Mediterranean component than Thracian Istanbul samples.

See her
Turkish_Kayseri 28%
Turkish_Aydin (Southwest Anatolia) 28.2%
Turkish_Istanbul 26.8%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...9aHzr7DLEnVq5q-wnTsfpe2a9Jg/edit?pli=1#gid=24

The difference on the map here seems to be based on the assumption that West Anatolia should have more Greek related ancestry and since Greeks are more Mediterranean... But in realiy Greeks were driven out and most modern "pure" blooded West Anatolians are of the same stock as Central Anatolians.
 
Last edited:
If there was WHG where they found the LBK_EN skeletons ( 30 ) then there was no mix because the LBK is 95% EEF.

Haak had 6 samples ( 4 x G2a and 1 x T1a, 1 x H2 ) and since then another 4 of the 30 found have been analysed with ( 3 x G2a and 1 x T1a ). Clearly in another year when the other 20 are done ( fingers crossed )I doubt the EEF mix will lower much from the 95% it is today.


Again, I have no idea what you are actually trying to tell me? What has this to do with my comment that modern Central and North Europeans are today more WHG than EEF and it is soley based on the Indo Europeans who brought some fresh WHG (additional to Teal) and diseases with them which killed off many of the farmers and the momentum for other WHG groups to re expand. So I can't quite understand in what way does this contradict my argument? My argument was even if modern Central Europeans were more EEF if they went through the same selection pressure and Vitamin D deficiency in higher latitudes, the result would have been the same. Light hair and pigmentation is not the result of a specific ancestry it's a combination of enviornment, diat and genetics. And we have a Late Neolithic Hungarian sample who is EEF and is the first ancient individual to combine blond hair, blue eyes and light skin. This is a confirmation for this hypothesis, Dienekes also pointed that back than.

Meyer 2015 stating these High EEF Neolithic German samples "are not coming from Anatolia", then the path to germany IMO, was north of the black sea and then along the danube river ..............follow fresh water.

What Meyer states is soley based on his opinion. I am not sure if you know it, but fact is that Suttgart is up to 90-95% identical to Anatolian farmers. One is a theory which might or might not be true, the other a fact. But then even if those EEF farmers really came from the Black Sea (what is quite possible) from where did they start off do you think? Do you believe they are natives of this region? While they are identical to 6000 BC Anatolian farmers in a region where farming started? Obviously they took the root from Anatolia through the Balkans to the north of the Black Sea. That means the north/northwest of the Black Sea would have been a layover.

So do you see why the statement, "they didn't came from Anatolia" is incorrect? I am certanly following fresh water but I don't know if you are.
 
Last edited:
No not really, I pointed that out to Maciamo, that this is a false assumption about West Anatolia being genetically different/special from the rest. to Maciamo. Not only on the Mediterrean but also some other components. I have compared the Mediterranean component results from Western Turkish samples to other Turkish samples (mostly Central Turkey) they were quite identical. Ironicly Central Anatolian Turkish samples had even ~1% more Mediterranean component than Thracian Istanbul samples.

See her
Turkish_Kayseri 28%
Turkish_Aydin (Southwest Anatolia) 28.2%
Turkish_Istanbul 26.8%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...9aHzr7DLEnVq5q-wnTsfpe2a9Jg/edit?pli=1#gid=24

The difference on the map here seems to be based on the assumption that West Anatolia should have more Greek related ancestry and since Greeks are more Mediterranean... But in realiy Greeks were driven out and most modern "pure" blooded West Anatolians are of the same stock as Central Anatolians.


@Alan,
I don't want to speak for Maciamo, but I think that map is based on the figures for "Mediterranean" from the Dodecad runs. I'm not aware that it's based on any assumptions. I'll take a look at the Dodecad runs myself if I get a chance.

As to phenotype, if your point is that the "Early Neolithic" look has spread far and wide, along with the genes, then I agree. However, it is mixed with other strains, additional WHG in Europe more so than in West Asia, and then ANE in both Europe and West Asia, and that means that depending on the proportions looks differ in the two areas. There's also differing amounts of SSA, and quite a bit of "East Eurasian" in some areas of Europe.

I would also agree that yes, if one sees similarities common to both areas, the early Neolithic peoples may be the source. However, this is not going to be very precise, which was my main point in cautioning against using Sardinians as some sort of exact "type" for EEF, over and above the fact that not all Sardinians look the same, and for those purposes it would be best to stick to inland, isolated areas.

I also believe that it makes sense that you might get closer to what they looked like if you start with the people where EEF is highest, which is, in fact, certain parts of southern Europe, and not West Asia. I think people have tended to look at modern West Asians and worked from there, whereas newer analyses (the PUNT calculator for example) show that EEF is lower in West Asia than in southern Europe. (The EEF "look" can also be found all over northwest and northern Europe, of course, although it may not be as obvious to people because of differing pigmentation. That brings us back to Coon's idea that Nordics are just depigmented-and perhaps slightly altered-Mediterraneans.)

I think that's brought home with some of the examples you posted. The Lebanese man is the most atypical Lebanese I think I've ever seen. The same holds true for a number of your examples. Most North Africans don't look like Benzema etc. largely because of their high SSA, twenty to twenty-five percent in some cases, but also because of the Arabic invasions and perhaps later Neolithic flows. That doesn't take away from your point that we can see the resemblance in some of them to southern Europeans, even if it's obscured in others by additional gene flow.

Also, for what it's worth, neither of the Sardinian actresses you posted is very typical for Sardinia, and most certainly not at all typical for the internal areas where "ancient" phenotypes might persist. They are much more mainland Italian looking, although still heavy in EEF, of course.

I'm not as familiar with Circassians, so I won't insist, although if googling images of folkloric events is at all accurate, the lovely Circassian looking woman is not really typical either.
 

This thread has been viewed 15729 times.

Back
Top