PDA

View Full Version : Cephalic index of ancient populations and reconstructions



LeBrok
19-11-15, 01:02
The cephalic index or cranial index is the ratio of the maximum width of the head (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head) of an organism (human or animal) multiplied by 100 divided by its maximum length (i.e., in the horizontal plane, or front to back). The index is also used to categorize animals, especially dogs and cats.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Cephalic_index.svg/801px-Cephalic_index.svg.png

Tomenable
21-11-15, 12:34
Hunters of Sri Lanka - the Vedda people - whose native language is neither Indo-European nor Dravidian - also have these features:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedda_language#Substratum_influence_in_Sinhalese

http://vedda.org/pix/dambana_veddas_2000.jpg

http://vedda.org/pix/danigala-chief300.jpg

http://www.srilankaholidayarchitects.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/034A9260-copy1-e1418233717893-1024x550.jpg

http://vedda.org/pix/tissahamy.jpg

This first old guy has blue eyes, it seems:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f89NuukY32U

Tomenable
21-11-15, 12:38
Do these Veddas from Sri Lanka - or other forager groups from South India - score any CHG autosomal DNA ???:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52ELI1Vumdc


I suspect most "Caucasoid" features come from Paleolithic West Asia with "ENF" people.

Mesolithic European hunters were Caucasoid as well.

Morphologically they were not much different from modern Europeans.

Pigmentation has changed much more than morphology.

Alan
21-11-15, 14:59
We're going to need formal stats, not just ADMIXTURE, to back up the idea of CHG-like ancestry in West Asia. F3(not drift) shows that Assyrian/Lezgin/Turkish fit as a mixture of CHG+EEF(best proxy of Neolithic Near East?).




has he gone insane lol? (or did you add this part) Why should CHG+EEF be the best proxy for Neolithic Near Easterners because modern heavily admixed and post Bronze and Iron Age populations such as Turks/Assyrians/Lezgians appear like EEF+CHG? I thought the conensus was that a EEF like group mixed into the Caucasus over time this is visible from one of the CHG samples who shows first signs of EEF.

Or did you mean by Neolithic times the Near East was dominated by two components CHG (in the East and Caucasus) and EEF in the West. Than I agree. In fact I go further and say ancient Near East beginning with Neolithic was dominated by three groups, EEF in West, CHG in East and something like "Southern Farmers" in South.

In Anatolia obviously those CHG like groups pushed from the Caucasus and likely Iranian Plateau into Anatolia and the Levant. Why should the Neolithic Near Easterners(by that I assume you mean Neolithic farmers?) be EEF+CHG if Neolithic West and Central Anatolians appear EEF?



I suspect most "Caucasoid" features come from Paleolithic West Asia with "ENF" people.


Fire there was never an "ENF" people. Thats at least what we should know from now. But if you replace ENF with EEF and CHG (sidenote both are heavy in something "Basal Eurasian like" ) that makes sense and I agree.


I wrote month ago what I think people of different components looked like. And I wrote that EEF would be the archetype of those what former anthropologists called Nordics and Mediterranids.

"Teal " or now CHG would be very akine to EEF with the difference of signs of "dinarization" aka "mtebidization" and slightly more broad faced.

WHG would be like broad or rounder faced Europeans. And ANE like something Kalash like who have Native American vibes on them.

EHG would be a cross of WHG and ANE look.

Tomenable
21-11-15, 21:53
Yamna people can be modelled genetically as a mix of EHG and either "Teal" or CHG. This also applies already to Khvalynsk people, even though in slightly different proportions. In anthropological terms I'm not sure how things looked like in Yamna culture (maybe the population was already so intermixed that it comprised a single anthropological type), but a morphological duality of Khvalynsk population can be observed.

Let's quote Mathieson's study:

"The unusually large cemetery at Khvalynsk contained southern Europeoid and northern Europeoid cranio-facial types, consistent with the possibility that people from the northern and southern steppes mingled and were buried here."

I guess that originally (before they merged into one population) EHG = northern types and "Teal" or CHG = southern types.

I wonder which cranio-facial type or types can be attributed to males SVP35 with R1b (grave 12) and SVP46 with R1a (grave 1) ???

Were both of them of northern Europeoid cranio-facial type, or was one or both of them of southern Europeoid type?

Tomenable
21-11-15, 22:24
Alan,

Here are some reconstructions of WHGs:

1) Loschbour male:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUnh_X3jH0w

http://im9.kommersant.ru/Issues.photo/CORP/2014/09/18/KMO_111307_08348_1_t218_144834.jpg

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

2) Loschbour female:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmlovynSh4

http://s2.postimg.org/67xqxjbp5/Loschbour_woman.jpg

3) La Brana male:

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mw-cromag.jpg
http://www.iflscience.com/sites/www.iflscience.com/files/styles/ifls_large/public/blog/%5Bnid%5D/la%20brana%20man.jpg?itok=lw8ZZlID

Sile
21-11-15, 22:28
In fact I go further and say ancient Near East beginning with Neolithic was dominated by three groups, EEF in West, CHG in East and something like "Southern Farmers" in South.

As seen on Jones et al the Levant looks like a mix of EEF and something "East African" shifted. That "East African" shift must have come with those "Southern/Southwestern farmers who probably gave later birth to Proto Afro_Asiatic speakers.

The only haplogroups in East Africa to create this "something EEF and East african " was either ancient F or E

Tomenable
21-11-15, 22:33
Yamna people can be modelled genetically as a mix of EHG and either "Teal" or CHG. This also applies already to Khvalynsk people, even though in slightly different proportions. In anthropological terms I'm not sure how things looked like in Yamna culture (maybe the population was already so intermixed that it comprised a single anthropological type), but a morphological duality of Khvalynsk population can be observed.

Let's quote Mathieson's study:

"The unusually large cemetery at Khvalynsk contained southern Europeoid and northern Europeoid cranio-facial types, consistent with the possibility that people from the northern and southern steppes mingled and were buried here."

I guess that originally (before they merged into one population) EHG = northern types and "Teal" or CHG = southern types.

I wonder which cranio-facial type or types can be attributed to males SVP35 with R1b (grave 12) and SVP46 with R1a (grave 1) ???

Were both of them of northern Europeoid cranio-facial type, or was one or both of them of southern Europeoid type?

Reconstructions of Khvalynsk people:

http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-1.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-4.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-6.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-6-1-.jpghttp://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-6-2.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-7-1.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-7-2.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-7-3.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-10.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-12.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-13.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-17.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-18.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-21.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-22.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-23.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-24.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-25.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-27.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-28.jpg

Source:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/38378-First-Indo-Europeans?p=1025629&viewfull=1#post1025629

Tomenable
21-11-15, 22:37
^ Continued (due to the limit of 20 images per post):

http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-147.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-127.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-35.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-33.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-31.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-30-.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-30.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-29.jpg

Tomenable
21-11-15, 23:12
I believe, as I said at the time, that the people who helped to form Corded Ware, in particular, could have been a "related" population to Yamna and not a descendent of Yamna, and therefore an "Indo-Europeanized" population. In either case, however, they were heavier in EHG, and with some EEF, and therefore carrying less "CHG". Further north, some of the Indo-Europeanized groups might have been very heavily EHG. Further south the Indo-European groups might have been more heavily CHG.

I'm not sure why do you consider Yamnaya as the "original Indoeuropeans". That culture was not the first stage of PIE, but the last one:

According to linguist Robert Stephen Paul Beekes: "There seems to be no doubt that the Yamnaya culture represents the LAST phase of an Indo-European linguistic unity, although there were probably already significant dialectal differences within it."

Marija Gimbutas who was the original author of the Kurgan Hypothesis also didn't consider Yamna as the earliest PIE, but a later stage.

Gimbutas saw early stages of PIE in Chalcolithic steppe cultures which preceded Yamna - Samara and Khvalynsk cultures.

According to Mayu's blog, Corded Ware was descended from PIE groups which emigrated from the steppe during Early Yamna phase:

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

AFAIK, all Yamna samples collected so far are from later phases of Yamna culture, so they are people who stayed in that part of the steppe after several other groups had already emigrated in various directions before. Which may be the reason why all that we can see there is ht35.

All Yamna samples tested so far, are from period called by Mayu "Indoeuropean stage 3", not from "stage 2":

Stage 2:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CeK4gX-YKHI/U1dzIlx0RjI/AAAAAAAAChs/M1ZJy-pavXY/s1600/IE2.png

Stage 3:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4lp4uK-eJ0M/U1dzIjfPofI/AAAAAAAACho/6Ljb1_71WlY/s1600/IE3.png

By the time of Stage 3 some haplogroups and subclades - such as R1b-L51 - could already be outside of the steppe zone.

Maybe R1b-L51 - which is absent from Yamna samples known to date - was in Coţofeni culture or in Ezero culture ???

Alan
22-11-15, 03:31
Alan,

Here are some reconstructions of WHGs:

1) Loschbour male:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUnh_X3jH0w

http://im9.kommersant.ru/Issues.photo/CORP/2014/09/18/KMO_111307_08348_1_t218_144834.jpg

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

2) Loschbour female:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmlovynSh4

http://s2.postimg.org/67xqxjbp5/Loschbour_woman.jpg

3) La Brana male:

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mw-cromag.jpg
http://www.iflscience.com/sites/www.iflscience.com/files/styles/ifls_large/public/blog/%5Bnid%5D/la%20brana%20man.jpg?itok=lw8ZZlID


predominantly broad or round faced. Of course there will be exception but in German we say, "exceptions prove the rule".

Some modern "WHG" type. Of course less depigmented. No one said WHG or ANE looked "non Caucasoid", just that the majority would have been more similar to the significantly broader or rounder faced types.

http://ais.badische-zeitung.de/piece/02/a6/57/b4/44455860.jpg

http://img.mypopulars.com/images/dolph-lundgren/Dolph-Lundgren-11.jpg

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/2/11425/z11425902X.jpg
http://cdn-premiere.ladmedia.fr/var/premiere/storage/images/tele/news-tele/rendez-vous-en-terre-inconnue-pour-gerard-jugnot-destination-la-bolivie/30035751-1-fre-FR/Rendez-vous-en-terre-inconnue-pour-Gerard-Jugnot-destination-la-Bolivie_portrait_w532.jpg

Tomenable
22-11-15, 07:30
Alan, are you writing about face shape (height : breadth) or skull shape (length : width ratio, level of roundness)?

In case of Mesolithic WHGs they were dolichocephalic (long-skulled), it can be seen when you look at Loschbour skull's profile.

In Europe a trend of brachycephalization (skulls becoming rounder over time) has been observed since Neolithic times until recently.

This is being discussed for example in this paper: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

Alan
22-11-15, 14:26
Alan, are you writing about face shape (height : breadth) or skull shape (length : width ratio, level of roundness)?

In case of Mesolithic WHGs they were dolichocephalic (long-skulled), it can be seen when you look at Loschbour skull's profile.

In Europe a trend of brachycephalization (skulls becoming rounder over time) has been observed since Neolithic times until recently.

This is being discussed for example in this paper: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

I am talking about head broudness, the loshbour Guy is also broad headed even though he is slightly longer headed than average.
Loshbours headshape is rather Dolichocephalic and broad and he is an exception since he seems to be the only one out of the the males who is very longheaded, We can't conclude that WHG are long headed based on Loshbour if the two other male reconstructions are rather brachycephalic.

As I said in one of my posts month ago. I never claimed WHG were all brachycephalic.

Based on what I have seen from the cranial material found and reconstructions. WHG and EHG are predominantly Meso- to Brachycephalic. That means there are many WHG samples who are middle longheaded and many who are short headed. And they were also very broad faced on average. But also characteristics of WHG and EHG are strong browridges and sloping forhead.

While found EEF skeletons were Dolicho- to Mesocephalic and Robust (medium broad) or sometimes long faced.

CHG samples from what I have seen in people who are very heavy in this component are like EEF but with a slight dinarization process and some characterstics of EHG. Basically like many of the Yamna reconstructions. They would be meso-to dolichocephalic.



I have seen other mesolithic H&G reconstructions from Germany they are pretty round or broad headed.

Alan
22-11-15, 14:56
Here are some more mesolithic WHG reconstructions. pred. meso- to brachycephalic. Often broader/rounder faced
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/seperated-at-birth.jpghttp://www.revolution-jungsteinzeit.de/images/blog_neu/Blaetterhoehlenfrau_Halbprofil_links__440pix.jpg
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/78818000/jpg/_78818461_c0208178-early_human,_stone_age_culture-spl.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/07/91/3f/07913f4a549daf8cbfc2646b3cc75cd2.jpg

EEF reconstructions on the other hand are pred. Dolicho- to Mesocephalic and mostly Robust.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Du0ZHP7oifI/UrBuOhn-OLI/AAAAAAAAJa4/oJes4IzZBqs/s1600/article-2525035-1A24190400000578-122_634x773.jpghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yhkJPXA0fTA/UcmCW44wOtI/AAAAAAAApi0/0THHyVkqx98/s640/2013-05-07T220717Z_434523928_GM1E9580FMQ01_RTRMADP_3_MALTA .jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t7QOYwJzDAc/VE_F_Us6VKI/AAAAAAAAOBc/BBn_T-NhsII/s1600/Lagolo%2Band%2BOtzi%2B260.jpg

Tomenable
22-11-15, 15:27
Alan,

You claim that they are brachycephalic and to support this claim, you then post pictures showing their faces from the front.

This indicates, that you are one of many people who confuse Head Shape with Face Shape. You can't tell if someone is brachycephalic, mesocephalic or dolichocephalic by looking at his head just frontally - you must take a look from either left or right profile. Long-headedness is about the length of skull as measured from forehead to occiput (the back of your head). It is not about the height of face measured from chin to the top of head. Someone can be "broad-faced + long-headed" or "long-faced + short-headed" as well.

Loschbour is obviously dolichocephalic (long-headed).

Mesolithic HGs in Europe used to be more dolichocephalic than modern Europeans (see: the trend toward brachycephalization).

By the way - the last of your picture shows Ötzi, who was a Neolithic EEF farmer.

Ötzi was indeed brachycephalic or mesocephalic (this is the only profile picture you posted).

Alan
22-11-15, 15:35
Of course there will be allot of overlap, since EEF is virtually made up of 50% pre WHG like ancestry.

The point is just to show the average. On Average EEF types are longer headed(dolicho- to mesocephalic) and Robust while WHG types shorter headed (meso- to brachycephalic) and broad/rounder faced.

Alan
22-11-15, 15:42
@Tomenable

I don't know if you even red what I write. I wrote WHG were pred. meso- to brachycephalic. Means some samples were mesocephalic(middle longheaded) other were brachycephalic(short headed).

If you have knowledge about this stuff you should know that someone with this kind of facial structure can no way be anything else but brachycephalic.
http://www.revolution-jungsteinzeit.de/images/blog_neu/Blaetterhoehlenfrau_Halbprofil_links__440pix.jpg



On the other hand this guy looks pred. mesocephalic
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/07/91/3f/07913f4a549daf8cbfc2646b3cc75cd2.jpg

Tomenable
22-11-15, 15:46
Posting some random pictures is un-scientific.

Why don't you check numerical data from some anthropological publication? I remember reading that from Paleolithic to Mesolithic the trend in Europe was generally toward dolichocephalization, but then from Neolithic to the 19th century the trend was toward brachycephalization. So Mesolithic Europeans were apparently more dolichocephalic, on average, than modern Europeans.

What is behind these processes is still largely unknown (maybe it's just random drift).

But according to this publication, brachycephalic skulls are more "cost-effective" in terms of volume vs. staying warm:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

In general populations around the equator tend to be more dolichocephalic so maybe relationship with climate exists. But there are some exceptions (e.g. brachycephalic Native Americans near the equator, dolichocephalic Scandinavians near the Arctic Circle).

That said, Scandinavia has seen the trend of brachycephalization as well (they used to be more dolicho- in the past than now).

Alan
22-11-15, 15:50
Also you need to see it in this perspective. There are some people in Northeast Europe mostly who have this kind of extreme broad,round heads which are not so relevant in other regions of the continent and therefore can only be traced to WHG or EHG ancestry, while there are some kind of facial features in South Europe or Western Asia (especially among some Bedouin tribes which are rare in Northeast Europe and can only be traced to EEF ancestry.

Just to give two extreme examples.

Alan
22-11-15, 15:53
Today North Africans and Middle Easterners are indeed more dolichocephalic - on average - than Europeans. But the most dolichocephalic populations (CI 73-75) are Sub-Saharan Africans, South Indians, Eskimos, Inuits, and Australo-Melanesians.

According to this map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/PSM_V50_D602_World_cephalic_index_map.jpg



I still don't know if you are talking about face shape or skull shape.

Ötzi looks rather medium- or short-headed (meso- or brachycephalic), and he was EEF.

disagree, Todays West Asians are not more or not less meso-Dolichocephalic than South or Central Europeans.
Going from what we know about the skeletons the ancient West Asians were more Longheaded dolicho-mesocephalic than modern West Asians who have undergone a shortening process. That was even mentioned by old school anthropologists.

That is exactly the reason why I say the EEF were the most dolicho-mesocephalic types of West Eurasia by that time, because virtually all Neolithic skeletons from Anatolia and the Levant were Robust Dolichocephalic types.

Sub Saharan Africans, South Indians, Eskimos, Inuits or whatever are not West Eurasians so they don't play any role.

Though Sub Saharan Africans and South Indians are not more Dolichocephalic. South Indian tribals are meso- or brachycephalic. There is also huge variation in Sub Saharan Africans. In fact the most Dolichocephalic Sub Saharan Africans are the West Eurasian (EEF) mixed East Africans like Ethopians and Eritreans. And in West Africa the Mali and Mauritanians(Afro_Asiatic admixed).

And Eskimos, Inuits Dolichocephalic? The Eskimos I have seen were average Mesocephalic (middle longheaded) and Inuits mostly brachycephalic round faced.

But than again. They don't play any role in our discussion about West Eurasian types and the differences between WHG and EEF.

Tomenable
22-11-15, 15:54
I was talking about North Africa and Middle Eastern Arabic-speaking countries, not about West Asia in general.

The shortening (and widening) process is the general trend seen in most parts of the world.

The lengthening process of skulls (dolichocephalization) is less frequently observed than brachycephalization.

Tomenable
22-11-15, 16:02
The Eskimos and Inuits I have seen are as broad faced as possible.

Time and again I am repeating, that face shape and skull shape are two very different things.

You posted short-faced individuals claiming that they are short-skulled. But these are different things - see e.g. these pictures, a long-faced (measured from chin to top of the head) but short-skulled Japanese vs. a short-faced but longer-skulled Caucasoid:

https://sites.google.com/site/sleepapneasyndrome/_/rsrc/1322012472049/home/Fig.1.jpg?height=275&width=400

The map from Wikipedia shows Eskimos as dolichocephalic (see the link above), I don't know how credible is that map, but certainly posting opinions or pictures of several individual faces like you are doing now will not contribute to a statistical analysis.

Some numerical data would be nice, I don't have anything at hand, but I wrote what I recall.

If you have some solid data on CIs of various prehistoric populations, I will gladly take a look.

Alan
22-11-15, 16:08
Posting some random pictures is un-scientific.




:thinking:haven't you actually started posting images?

Those are professional reconstructions not some simple "random pictures".

Alan
22-11-15, 16:11
@Tomenable I give up on this, you are simply in denial and confuse or deliberately mix up any of my arguments. The woman I posted was not only short faced for the sake of god. She was round/broud faced this was what old school racialists called "Alpinoid" or "Baltid" type and this type is described as brachycephalic by any means.

Here is another of those short faced individuals who is brachycephalic because his head is broad/round and all his mass goes into the width of his head.
http://www.nordish.org/bilder/gl-alpinid.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Alpinoid_Race_Caucasoid_Ripley.PNG/360px-Alpinoid_Race_Caucasoid_Ripley.PNG

Nevermind I need some rest.

Tomenable
22-11-15, 16:11
Alan, as I wrote, you are confusing face shape with skull shape.

Or at least I don't know when are you referring to face, and when to skull.

You claimed (after posting a short-faced individual):

"someone with this kind of facial structure can no way be anything else but brachycephalic."

But of course this claim of yours is not true at all.

Someone with a short face can be dolichocephalic, and someone with a long face can be brachycephalic.

Example:

https://sites.google.com/site/sleepapneasyndrome/_/rsrc/1322012472049/home/Fig.1.jpg?height=275&width=400

It seems that you are one of many people, who are confusing face shape with skull shape.

I used to confuse these two things some time ago as well.

=================================================

What you have been showing, is that WHGs were usually short-faced.

But you have not proven so far, that they were not dolichocephalic.

Angela
22-11-15, 20:22
I haven't yet gone over all of the pictures that have been posted in this thread, but I personally don't have any confidence that even forensic artists can give us a good sense of the appearance of these ancient peoples, much less people just posting sketches on the internet.

This is the first reconstruction of Oetzi. In my opinion, it obviously owes a lot to a perception, conscious or not, that he would have looked like modern Central Europeans.
http://www.nals.info/bilder/248-6-oetzi-archeologie-museum-bozen.jpg


This is the second reconstruction. I have some familiarity with these areas, and I think that his time, as well as correcting the pigmentation based on the snp analysis, they looked at phenotypes common in the Tyrol.
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/325/cache/iceman-oetzi-otzi-reconstructed-new_32525_600x450.jpg

A reconstruction for La Brana was recently done. Yet prior reconstructions of European hunter-gatherers looked slightly different. Which ones are more correct?
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/97/44397-004-D45BC527.jpg

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Cro-Magnon

Where does this Les Elyzies sample fit?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/411559023_4d7e42d34f.jpg

Tomenable
22-11-15, 21:10
much less people just posting sketches on the internet.

But those are not that random guy's own sketches but some professional reconstructions as well.

He just scanned them or something, and posted on the internet.

What I like about those sketches is that authors didn't pretend that they know pigmentation. :)

holderlin
22-11-15, 23:06
Yamna people can be modelled genetically as a mix of EHG and either "Teal" or CHG. This also applies already to Khvalynsk people, even though in slightly different proportions. In anthropological terms I'm not sure how things looked like in Yamna culture (maybe the population was already so intermixed that it comprised a single anthropological type), but a morphological duality of Khvalynsk population can be observed.

Let's quote Mathieson's study:

"The unusually large cemetery at Khvalynsk contained southern Europeoid and northern Europeoid cranio-facial types, consistent with the possibility that people from the northern and southern steppes mingled and were buried here."

I guess that originally (before they merged into one population) EHG = northern types and "Teal" or CHG = southern types.

I wonder which cranio-facial type or types can be attributed to males SVP35 with R1b (grave 12) and SVP46 with R1a (grave 1) ???

Were both of them of northern Europeoid cranio-facial type, or was one or both of them of southern Europeoid type?

Everything in the region after Dnieper Donets/Samara is a mix of "Southern" and "Northern". But of course with no evidence for contact with Caucuses until darn close to Yamnaya this was assumed to be a result of contact with the Balkans, at least prior to ancient genetic revelations. I was trying to match the individual Khvalynsk samples with some of these other characteristics as well but I couldnt dig it up. I don't know that it's all been curated together, or at least it's not readily available.

Stredny Stog was clearly a mix of Balkan(WHG+EEF)+Steppe(EHG+(dash of Teal at this stage?)), and it seems to be implied by one of these research groups that this is the source of EEF/WHG in Sintashta rather than requiring a Corded War migratiion back to the East Pontic after penetration into Northern Europe.

Tomenable
22-11-15, 23:15
Currently available Ancient samples of R1b haplogroup (in total 45+ samples) and R1a haplogroup (in total 71+ samples) suggest, that both R1b-M269/L23 and R1a-M198/M417 could initially increase in numbers (demographic expansion) in the Volga steppe. If not counting R1b-V88 Iberians, the oldest known samples of R1a and R1b come from exactly the same prehistoric peoples and cultures - from EHGs and from Khvalynsk culture (= the best candidate for the earliest PIE culture according to M. Gimbutas).

Roughly from that area, they could later expand territorially, roughly at the same time, but along distinct routes.

I've made two maps showing possible early expansion routes & ranges, based on available samples and their chronology:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31728-Early-expansion-of-R1a-M198-M417-in-the-light-of-aDNA-evidence

R1a M198/M417:

http://s1.postimg.org/di5tzku0d/Early_expansion_of_R1a_M198.png

http://s1.postimg.org/di5tzku0d/Early_expansion_of_R1a_M198.png

R1b M269/L23:

http://s1.postimg.org/r1lbqot7h/Early_R1b_expansion.png

http://s17.postimg.org/3x1m9tbgt/Early_R1b_M269_L23_expansion.png

MOESAN
22-11-15, 23:26
Alan, as I wrote, you are confusing face shape with skull shape.

Or at least I don't know when are you referring to face, and when to skull.

You claimed (after posting a short-faced individual):



"someone with this kind of facial structure can no way be anything else but brachycephalic."

But of course this claim of yours is not true at all.

Someone with a short face can be dolichocephalic, and someone with a long face can be brachycephalic.

Example:

https://sites.google.com/site/sleepapneasyndrome/_/rsrc/1322012472049/home/Fig.1.jpg?height=275&width=400

It seems that you are one of many people, who are confusing face shape with skull shape.

I used to confuse these two things some time ago as well.

=================================================

What you have been showing, is that WHGs were usually short-faced.

But you have not proven so far, that they were not dolichocephalic.



@Tomenable
don't worry about me humble present remarks: you are one of the most serious posters here, and I enjoy your habitual documentation and reasonings; but physical anthropology, even when seriousley made, is an unsure ground - spite it can provide some clues - the examples you show us are rubbish anthropology, oversimplification: some typical details can statistically distinguish Caucasians from other great phoenetypical divisions of Humanity, but there is not something as ONE 'caucasian' unique type, nor ONE 'negroid' or 'subsaharian' typical type and so on;
bit I agree someones confuse skull and face, and think there is always "harmony" between them in the same man or even ligneages; and Japanses present more than a type too!

and NO, all WHG were not shortfaced if short faces were very common, with variations in shapes; for I red - with measures, absolute and proportional, WHG were yet a mix of diverse Paleo-Mesolithic ligneages, 2 principal at least (because I don't believe we can create a "subrace" everytime we find partly new features!)
I repeat, Tomenable, this doesn't contradict the observation you do in your post. Dobra noc, Nos vad deoc'h

MOESAN
22-11-15, 23:33
But those are not that random guy's own sketches but some professional reconstructions as well.

He just scanned them or something, and posted on the internet.


What I like about those sketches is that authors didn't pretend that they know pigmentation. :)





some unverifiable traits in facIal reconstruction BASED ON SKELETONS:
pigmentation form and implantation of head hairs, facial pillosity: moustaches, beard, eyebrows, fleshy form of nose tip, eyelids, thickness and form of lips, and so on: AnD ALL THESE FEATURES ARE OF THE GREATER IMPORTANCE CONCERNING EXTERNAL LOOK AND PROFANS JUDGEMENT AND FEELINGS.
it's why I don't accord too much weight to these artistic reconstitutions

Tomenable
22-11-15, 23:49
MOESAN, thank you for your comments.

I think we should just leave physical anthropology alone, at least for now.

What do you think about my R1b and R1a expansion maps posted above?

Many people pursue a "South of Caucasus" agenda for the origin of either just R1b M269 or both M269 and R1a M198.

Considering that both M269 and M198 formed ca. 14 - 13 thousand years ago, I think it is probable that either one or both of them originally came from south of the Caucasus. But they most likely came as hunters, not as farmers (because it was too early for farming). And I think that L23 and M417 arose already in the steppe, most likely within the Samara & Khvalynsk cultures. There is solid evidence that demographic expansion of those lineages took place already in the steppe, and we also found aDNA samples of both R1b and R1a at first in EHGs, then in Khvalynsk culture. I think the "Southern Agenda" pursued by some users - which seems to be their substitute for the old Anatolian Hypothesis (which is now totally dead) - can't be sustained in the light of new findings.

Another nail to the coffin of this "Southern Agenda" was the discovery that "Teal people" could in fact be... hunters from Caucasus. Every supporter of the "Southern Agenda" was expecting them to be already farmers or herders, not still hunter-gatherers.

So this is a huge unpleasant surprise for them as well.

I think supporters of this "Southern Agenda" want to claim, that Proto-IE language first evolved south of the Caucasus, then went to the steppe. But this is impossible to claim if we assume that the migration from the south took place in Mesolithic times.

Because we know from linguists, that PIE language is not so old.

So even if some R1b or R1a came from the Middle East to the north in Mesolithic times, they were not yet PIE-speakers.

It seems increasingly more probable, that Marija Gimbutas was right not just in general outline, but also in many details - it seems that Samara culture (the first guys ever who domesticated horses) and Khvalynsk culture were the earliest PIE speakers.

holderlin
23-11-15, 00:05
I'm not sure why do you consider Yamnaya as the "original Indoeuropeans". That culture was not the first stage of PIE, but the last one:

According to linguist Robert Stephen Paul Beekes: "There seems to be no doubt that the Yamnaya culture represents the LAST phase of an Indo-European linguistic unity, although there were probably already significant dialectal differences within it."

Marija Gimbutas who was the original author of the Kurgan Hypothesis also didn't consider Yamna as the earliest PIE, but a later stage.

Gimbutas saw early stages of PIE in Chalcolithic steppe cultures which preceded Yamna - Samara and Khvalynsk cultures.

According to Mayu's blog, Corded Ware was descended from PIE groups which emigrated from the steppe during Early Yamna phase:

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

AFAIK, all Yamna samples collected so far are from later phases of Yamna culture, so they are people who stayed in that part of the steppe after several other groups had already emigrated in various directions before. Which may be the reason why all that we can see there is ht35.

All Yamna samples tested so far, are from period called by Mayu "Indoeuropean stage 3", not from "stage 2":

Stage 2:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CeK4gX-YKHI/U1dzIlx0RjI/AAAAAAAAChs/M1ZJy-pavXY/s1600/IE2.png

Stage 3:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4lp4uK-eJ0M/U1dzIjfPofI/AAAAAAAACho/6Ljb1_71WlY/s1600/IE3.png

By the time of Stage 3 some haplogroups and subclades - such as R1b-L51 - could already be outside of the steppe zone.

Maybe R1b-L51 - which is absent from Yamna samples known to date - was in Coţofeni culture or in Ezero culture ???

Yep, the archaeology is in strong support of everything radiating from Samara(Possibly Dnieper Donets as well because they clearly share ancestors). For this reason many call Samara the actual PIE's. Yamnaya is used simply because it's the last layer exhibiting cultural homogeneity across the region before we see historically attested, already differentiated, IE's. Therefore, as a result it also clearly displays all of the characteristics we would expect based on the reconstructed lexicon. In other words, it's the safest bet, where linguists and archaeologists are in agreement and other pre-genetics data is also aligned. Just like the sources you reference, many claim that Hittites, if not Tocharians as well, probably left before Yamnaya as we define it existed.

The Volga also shows evidence of an unbelievably early Neolithic for the region, which the Samara and related cultures are a direct result of. Considering this, one shouldnt be surprised at hegemony.

The genetics are actually already in support of a Samara as PIE hypothesis, but people like to ignore this for various reasons.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 00:16
why is it that every paper that comes out gets distorted by fabrication about ydna R1 ??

the paper has 2x J and 1 x I ydna
lets not have R1 fantasy dreams as per usual

when you find CHG in a per with R1 .........then we can talk about it

Both CHG males, who are presumed to be "Teal people", had haplogroup J - not R1.

On the other hand, both R1a and R1b were present among EHGs, already before they acquired "Teal admixture".

The lack of R1 in CHGs seems to confirm what has been suggested time and again before - namely, that their "Teal admixture" perhaps came exclusively from women.

In wartime, prehistoric people used to capture enemy women. After conquering enemy settlements, they used to kill all men, but to take possession of their women. So a group of EHGs could either raid a group of CHGs (capturing a lot of their women in the process), or they could even entirely conquer a group of CHGs, thus acquiring their autosomal DNA, but not their Y-DNA.

There is of course also a more peaceful possibility - namely, exchanging brides between EHGs and "Teals" or CHGs, which led to the dillution of "Teal admixture" in EHGs.

Alan
23-11-15, 15:30
I haven't yet gone over all of the pictures that have been posted in this thread, but I personally don't have any confidence that even forensic artists can give us a good sense of the appearance of these ancient peoples, much less people just posting sketches on the internet.

This is the first reconstruction of Oetzi. In my opinion, it obviously owes a lot to a perception, conscious or not, that he would have looked like modern Central Europeans.
http://www.nals.info/bilder/248-6-oetzi-archeologie-museum-bozen.jpg


This is the second reconstruction. I have some familiarity with these areas, and I think that his time, as well as correcting the pigmentation based on the snp analysis, they looked at phenotypes common in the Tyrol.
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/325/cache/iceman-oetzi-otzi-reconstructed-new_32525_600x450.jpg

A reconstruction for La Brana was recently done. Yet prior reconstructions of European hunter-gatherers looked slightly different. Which ones are more correct?
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/97/44397-004-D45BC527.jpg

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Cro-Magnon

Where does this Les Elyzies sample fit?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/411559023_4d7e42d34f.jpg


Angela the point is the cranial features and not the facial features per se. Depending on the artists own opinion facial features can vary but as seen on both Oetzi reconstruction (by the way one seems to display a slightly younger Oetzi while the other an older aged one), they are Robust Dolicho-meso(younger Oetzi) to mesocephalic(older Oetzi) cranially.

And the La Brana reconstruction again looks broad headed This is the point Tomenable doesn't seem to understand.

All scientists consider and describe the WHG(Cromagnon human) as broad headed. And honstly all the WHG reconstruction I have seen so far were extremely broad or round headed. This alone makes it impossible for them to have very long heads. I have yet to see very broad heads which are at the same time very long.

From what I have seen most WHG samples are mesocephalic (middle long headed) to sometimes brachycephalic (short headed) but always broad headed.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 15:36
both Oetzi reconstruction (...) are Robust Dolicho to mesocephalic cranially.
As I wrote before, he wasn't dolichocephalic. Maciamo wrote that Ötzi had a brachycephalic skull:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26782-Who-was-really-Ötzi-Your-guesses-about-various-genes?p=380254&viewfull=1#post380254


unless there was a significant amount of E1b1b blended with the G2a, but I doubt that considering Ötzi's brachycephalic skull.
Quick googling of "Ötzi's skull" gives me such answers, that he was brachycephalic to mesocephalic.

Alan
23-11-15, 15:36
But those are not that random guy's own sketches but some professional reconstructions as well.

He just scanned them or something, and posted on the internet.

What I like about those sketches is that authors didn't pretend that they know pigmentation. :)



I scanned them and than posted them? These accusations are laughable.

One of the samples (La Brana) is the same reconstruction you posted.
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mw-cromag.jpg

the second reconstruction is an up to date made by forensic scientists using DNA.

http://www.revolution-jungsteinzeit.de/index.php/aktuelle-meldungen/44-das-gesicht-einer-jaeger-und-sammlerin.html

The other female is a reconstruction of an upper paleolithic individual from Southern France.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29940694


So where did you got your sketches from? Forumbiodiversity??

Alan
23-11-15, 15:44
This female is what racialists of the 19th to 20th century called the Baltic/Alpinoid type.

http://www.revolution-jungsteinzeit.de/images/blog_neu/Blaetterhoehlenfrau_Halbprofil_links__440pix.jpght tp://i.imgur.com/FTj9F.jpghttps://i.ytimg.com/vi/T2iJgU9kOnc/hqdefault.jpg



This type is by definition brachycephalic yet you refuse to accept that a considerable portion of WHG are brachycephalic too. I am not even saying all are brachycephalic.

I am saying the majority is mesocephalic(middle longheaded), followed by brachycephalic (shortheaded) as second strongest and only a minority having real dolichocephalic cranial features.

In comparison to EEF who are (mostly Robust) Dolichocephalic by majority, followed by mesocephalic at second place and only a minority of brachycephalic.

While CHG are (mostly Robust) mesocephalic by majority, followed by dolichocephalic at second most frequenty and brachycephalic only at third place.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 15:44
both Oetzi reconstruction (...) are Robust Dolicho to mesocephalic cranially.
As I wrote before, he wasn't dolichocephalic. Maciamo wrote that Ötzi had a brachycephalic skull:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26782-Who-was-really-Ötzi-Your-guesses-about-various-genes?p=380254&viewfull=1#post380254 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26782-Who-was-really-%C3%96tzi-Your-guesses-about-various-genes?p=380254&viewfull=1#post380254)


unless there was a significant amount of E1b1b blended with the G2a, but I doubt that considering Ötzi's brachycephalic skull.
Quick googling of "Ötzi's skull" gives me such answers, that he was brachycephalic to mesocephalic.
And another quote about Ötzi:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4146614/1/


He looks kind of Pamirid, very brachycephalic.

Alan
23-11-15, 15:54
As I wrote before, he wasn't dolichocephalic. Maciamo wrote that Ötzi had a brachycephalic skull:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26782-Who-was-really-Ötzi-Your-guesses-about-various-genes?p=380254&viewfull=1#post380254


Quick googling of "Ötzi's skull" gives me such answers, that he was brachycephalic to mesocephalic.



Thats Maciamos opinion. I who has been in contact to racialist German dudes as Agrippa for over 8 years, who was consider like a "king among anthropologist" in anthropology forums, tell you the modern Oetzi reconstruction of older age (cranial with age becomes often rounder) IS mesocephalic, while his old reconstruction of younger Oetzi seems Dolicho to mesocephalic.

Considering that Oetzi is one of the less pure EEF individuals (he had something around 15-20% real WHG admixture, that is pretty longheaded.
But than as I said even among EEF there should have been few brachycephalic individuals but a small minority.
The point is that archeologists who did analys the skeletal remains of Anatolian farmers say, all of them had Robust Dolichocephalic cranials.

By the way Pamirid can be mesocephalic or brachycephalic. It is a reduced form of the classical Iranic-Mediterranean type.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 15:56
Maciamo's and mine too.

"Racialist German dudes" is not a good source to learn about physical anthropology.

Why don't you consult some works by modern anthropologists, anthropology is not a "dead discipline".

For example: http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/html/indexe.html

Tomenable
23-11-15, 15:58
Not only Maciamo's opinion but also mine.

"Racialist German dudes" is not a good source to learn about physical anthropology.

Why don't you consult some works by modern anthropologists, anthropology is not a "dead discipline".

For example: http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/html/indexe.html

Alan
23-11-15, 16:14
This guy would possibly go into the direction of some sort of the mesocephalic WHG type in comparison to the brachycephalic type above.

http://cdn02.cdn.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/camilla-premiere/camillla-belle-10000-bc-premiere-06.jpg

Tomenable
23-11-15, 17:00
Maciamo's and mine too.

"Racialist German dudes" is not a good source of knowledge about physical anthropology.

Why don't you consult some modern studies, physical anthropology is not a "dead discipline".

I'm talking about publications by university anthropology departments, such as:

http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/html/indexe.html

Also cephalic index should not be measured on reconstructions, but on "bare skulls".

Tomenable
23-11-15, 17:00
Maciamo's and mine too.

"Racialist German dudes" is not at all a good source of knowledge about physical anthropology.

Why don't you consult some modern studies, physical anthropology is not a "dead discipline".

I'm talking about publications by university anthropology departments, such as:

http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/html/indexe.html

Also CI should not be measured on reconstructions, but on "bare skulls" or heads of living people.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 17:09
For example here is a publication about CIs in Mesolithic Europe:

http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/anthpubs/ucb/text/kas013-004.pdf

Out of all WHGs described in this study, most are dolichocephalic.

Some are even so dolichocephalic that they hardly fit into modern human variation.

This passage is about the male from Loschbour (pages 72 - 73):


Loschbour.
The rocksheltor site of Loschbour is located near the villageof Rouland, approxinately 20 kiloneters northeast of the city of Luxemburg. A nearly conploteadult lale skeleton was found in the lower level, lying in a flexed position. Restoration of theskull was done by Clavelin of the Musoun d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris.The materials are described by Heuertz (1950). (...) Head form is long and relatively very narrow, giving a hyperdolichocephalic (65.0) index. The frontal is high and noderately inclined, andthe vault is of nedium height. The face is leptoprosopic total faciallyand nesene upper facially with a very straight profile (total profileangle 95°). Danage to the nasal region prevented precise neasurenent, butHeuertz states that the nasal forn probably is in the platyrrhine range.Brow ridges are heavy. The orbits are low, but the facial breakage preventedthe accurate restoration of this region. The nalars and mnndibleare noderately strong and a pronounced chin is present.

65.0 is so hyperdolichocephalic that today IIRC no people with such CI exist in Europe.

Maybe apart from some relatively rare individual cases.

As I wrote, modern Europeans are much more brachycephalic compared to WHGs.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 17:40
In fact the most Dolichocephalic Sub Saharan Africans are the West Eurasian (EEF) mixed East Africans like Ethopians and Eritreans.

No, the most dolichocephalic of all Africans are Negroids (= West Africans):

Brachycephalic East Asian vs. dolichocephalic West African:

http://s23.postimg.org/e7uq3wj1n/Brachy_vs_Dolicho.png

Dolichocephalic West Africans:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh5j55ML6k1qawpkeo1_400.jpg

http://s13.postimg.org/jlajat1zb/Dolicho.png

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2076/2405397376_8f24df7a40_z.jpg

Australoids (left) are also on average more dolichocephalic than modern Caucasoids (right):

This Australoid skull is particularly robust / archaic:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=642061&d=1179358381

Prehistoric Caucasoid hunter, more dolichocephalic than the modern one above (longer and narrower skull):

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/crom02.jpg

Here another dolichocephalic (see the lower left photo) Australoid skull - this one is more gracile:

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/Fig.60.jpg

In Europe the most dolichocephalic group are Scandinavians which is why "racialist German dudes" considered dolichocephalic to be superior shape. But they did not extend that notion onto other dolichocephalic groups, such as Negroids or Australoids.

In the past it was also believed that skull shape is related to intelligence.

But now we know that genotypic intelligence is related to certain alleles of certain genes, rather than to bones:

Piffer 2013 - http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/upl...ment-and-IQ.pdf (http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Factor-Analysis-of-Population-Allele-Frequencies-as-a-Simple-Novel-Method-of-Detecting-Signals-of-Recent-Polygenic-Selection-The-Example-of-Educational-Attainment-and-IQ.pdf)
Piffer 2014 - http://www.ibc7.org/article/journal_v.php?sid=317
Piffer&Kirkegaard - http://openpsych.net/OBG/2014/04/the-genet...nitive-ability/ (http://openpsych.net/OBG/2014/04/the-genetic-correlation-between-educational-attainment-intracranial-volume-and-iq-is-due-to-recent-polygenic-selection-on-general-cognitive-ability/)
Rietveld 2013 (https://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6139/1467.abstract) - http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/laibson/f...ence_053013.pdf (http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/laibson/files/gwas_science_053013.pdf)
Benyamin 2013 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935975/
Gosso 2007 - http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2350/8/66


Nine of the 10 alleles associated with educational attainment were derived, thus unique to humans and not shared with non-human primates. This result was significant (p=0.01) and is predicted on the basis of the assumption that humans have evolved by natural selection to become more intelligent than their primate cousins. The results show that this evolutionary process, which was already far advanced at the time when modern humans spread across the globe approximately 65,000 years before present, has continued in modern human populations after that time. It invalidates theories that assume, explicitly or implicitly, that human cognitive evolution has ended with the first appearance of physically modern Homo sapiens (e.g., Tooby and Cosmides, 1992).

Tomenable
23-11-15, 18:35
(cranial with age becomes often rounder)

Skull is not plasteline but bone, how can it become rounder with age? Maybe until ~21 years of age, but not later.

Alan just admit that you were mistaken, this argument is getting more and more ridiculous.

And stop listening to these "racialist German dudes", who considered Tibetans as Aryans, Jews as subhumans, etc.

Alan
23-11-15, 22:05
Friend, this discussion seems not going to end.

Just to make it short.

Do you agree that, just as anthropologists and archeologist say, on average EEF groups were significantly longer headed while WHG broader in comparison or not?

MOESAN
27-11-15, 18:39
for the fun, and hoping it will not launch a third mondial war...
a bit late inthis thread, I fear, but I go on:
I red a lot of true and wrong things in this thread, so I cannot give my personal point to every poster; I’ll try to be clear (not always easy with my short English)
Yes: confusion of skull shape with face shape – and sometimes confusion of some basic measures with shapes (which need very more numerous measures). Confusion between crania definitions of dolicho-brachycephaly and on life definitions of dolicho-brachycephaly. In fact, based upon modern means I find better the “on life” ones.Cranial categories were : hyper dolicho under 70, dolicho from 70 to 75, meso 75 > 80, brachy 80 > 85, hyperbrachy> 85; but I find better to postulate mesocephaly around 78-82 (1950 criteria, today the young generations have at least 2 points less), so subdolicho 75 to 78, dolicho 72 > 75, hyperdolicho under that, and subbrachy 82 > 85, brachy 85 > 88, hyperbrachy over that… understood all that is classification of measures, not classification of types, because with the same genetic basis your CI can change a bit according to way of life and nutrition (but not move from 69 to 95 as believe someones!!!)
We cannot base or judgement about a population upon a lonesome skeleton. And WHGs as I said before were not the same everywhere; easy to see when we look at Loschbour compared to La Brana1; let’s keep in mind WHG were Mesolithic people, not Paleolithic one; the very homogenous type of Cro-Magnon (subdolichocranial, brachyfacial (and squarelike), present before LGM, saw the arrival of other types after LGM, seemingly coming from East Europe, dolichocranial and dolichofacial like the “true” ‘nordic’ type and some of the ‘mediterranean’ types of classical anthropology, but with very more ruggish and primitive features, as the close types of Combe-Capelle and some of the Brünn (Brno) types. When I look at the mean measures for different sites in Mesolithic Europe I cannot think otherwise that in everyplace or almost it had been crossings between these two great phyla of men, the first regions concerned being Central Europe. These crossings, in them different proportions of the 2 basic ligneages can produce a lot of different mean regional “types” with unlevel redistributions of peculiar features, without speaking of some details produced by new more local mutations.
I red here and there some affirmation without basis. Concerning CI (index) almost all the Upperpaleo-Mesolithic people of Europe falled in the dolicho-subdolichocephalic indexes from 70 to 75 (NOT dolicho-CRANIAL, let’s remember). But at around the 6000 BC, maybe a bit sooner (8000 BC in Solutré?), appeared first subbrachy+brachycephals in the Alps regions and surroundings (Burgundy, Baviera); this new type of crania, is supposed by some scholars as a local evolution upon a dominantly ‘cromagnoid’ population, put on the account of a kind of partial foetalization; someones spoke of a lack of iodin… it’s true that the today general shape evocates more a gentle “infantile” ‘cromagnoid’ with a partly reduced face breadth (but it keeps short, and by the same evolution, the orbits index spite being higher than in Cro-magnon, remains low enough), retaining the lower skull height, very different from the ‘brünnoid’ or ‘capelloid’ crania height indexes. Somenes spoke of an arrival from Asia Minor, or from North Maghreb (uneasy to confirm or infirm). But the first brachy’s people faces were more on the ‘cromagnoid’ squarefaced model, what could confirm a local evolution; but the same evolution upon a same common basis could also have occurred elsewhere! Coon compared Ofnet Bavarian skulls to some brachy’s of Afalou, who were found too in some number in Palestina (Natufian period?). I don’t buy the only mechanical mesologic explananations so we have to find where occurred the first mutation if only one.
Concerning the so called ‘borreby’ type which appeared later (4000 BC in North Europe?) I think there were(in fact 2 types – a ‘cromagnoid’ based and a ‘brünnoid’ based, without knowing if the brachycephalic trait was passed from one to another or inherited in both from a third group – I would prefer a ‘cromagnoid’ basis, because the first distribution we have is North the Alpine regions where more of the proto-‘alpine’ types were found at first. The ‘borreby’ on ‘cromagnoid’ basis seems in fact very close to the first subbrachycephals of Mesolithic Central Europe, but did not undergo the reducing of well defined ‘alpine’ types. At Eneo-Neolithic times ‘alpine’ types were become very common around Alps (forming the majority among Palafittes) and penetrated lands as far as Pyrenees to Greece; we could also imagine a reasonable imput of a kind of ‘mediterraean’ gracile type in the progressive gracilization of ‘alpine’??? open to debate.
The brachycephaly is a question for amateurs because the ancient populations are poorly described to us by scholars, and I would say it is worst today than in past! Brachycephals have been signaled here and there in popular digests but we have no populations means. At Chalcolithic times and later it seems brachycephals of unkown origin appeared in Anatolia and Near-East Palestine where (at this time) they were a new form of skulls.. And not fromSouth! Some were already planoccipital so roughly said ‘dinaric’ or ‘dinarid’ at least, other ‘alpine’ and other more robust, evocating a kind of ‘borreby’ according to descriptions.
Before that if my readings are right Anatolians were dolicho-subdolicho’s. as were bearers of the ‘danubian’ type associated to the most of Neolithic Catal Höyök farmers. Other civilizations of Mesopotamia were also dolicho, more akin to ‘eurafrican’ “viril” type with crooked nose. So we cannot say it’s Neolithic which sends brachycephaly to Europe, at least not through Anatolia or Near-East. Someones think the ‘alpine’ type was very common among Hittites; I think the ‘borrebylike’ more robust brachy can have the same source. Some Neolithic people of the Vinca sites of Starcevo Culture were brachycephalic and seemed to Zsoffmann as exceptions among Neolithic people…
I have no detail about the CI of CHG of old Western Caucasus, helas! The maps of TODAY CI indexes means in South Eurasia show, by simplification, a Northern distribution of dominant brachycephaly and a southern one of dominant dolichocephaly; Bedawins of the 1950’s are all dolichocephals as a mean, often between 73-74. Palestinians and Iraqians a bit higher: 76-78. But Alawit Syrians and Lebanese were about 84-86; Kurds very variated. Turks about 83 as France or Germany, but with regional variations from 82 to 87. Armenians 84-87 except around Van Lake (more meso and more lighted pigmented). 1950’s Caucasus was between 82-84 (West) and 85-87 (East) but most of Azerbadji were under 80… Iranians are between Dolicho’s (more South) and meso-subbrachy’s (more North) but it’s a rough simplification. In the eastern part of West-Asia it’s not clearer:Tadjiks are brachy’s for the most, more in mountains than in plains, Afghans as a mean 75-76 and Pathans 72-73! . The question is: when appeared first brachycephals there and where from? What is the part of natural selection and the part of isolation/hazard?
Chalco-Early Bronze Age of Steppes “caucasian”types deserve a special attention (a so large space of lands!). The Corded dominant type was a kind of selection (some small tribes at first?)on the dolichocephalic side, high-narrow faced (# ‘cromagnoid’). I recall we are here dealing with the description of features, not in the genetic genealogy: we have yet to find the genealogy and interrelations of these types and to find which ones are based or not on homozygoty concerning external features (genetical aspect). Very hard…
To resume the above lignes concerning Caucasus and surroundings, I have not the answer to when arrived Brachy’s there. None of the Neolithic people living in fertile Crescent or Anatolia or East Caspian farmers colonies of BMAC was brachycephalic and brachycephaly seems to me arrived in there from more than a point, Balkans as well as Hindu Kush slopes and ??? I long to surveys upon ancient Kurdistan too // The ‘teal’ population could have been geographically partly differentiated by time, because a bunch of mutations concerning external aspect does not need a complete turn over of the whole genome! The same in every case of these “types”.
Loschbour and others ‘s reconstutions are good enough based on what they have at hand; I wonder nevertheless if they took in account the muscular mass of jaws muscles which augments in a big part the visible breadth of the inferior jaw, specially in they way of life? It seems to me the same case for La Brana and Ötzi (very poorly ‘mediterraneanlike’, this Ötzi’s reconstitution, by the way!)
Loschbour (male) is an individual type among a local population which left genetic imput among S.O.M. and Eiffel Wallonia Eneolithic populations. Its “brutal” frontal profile (# ‘cromagnoid’)seems close to the Scandinavian HG’s too. It illustrates well for me one of the possible results of the Mesolithic mix of the 2 great ancient types with ‘c-c/brünn’ dominating ’before Neolithic new populations whose evolution in Near-East is still to be explained. By the way the Neolithic populations were not all on the same pattern!
To conclude I agree with the remarks saying the today populations cannot be taken as pictures of the ancient populations; History did not stop around Iron Age!. And Caucasus seems looked at it as a cradle of Humanity, but I think it received a lot too.
Rather long my speech… Sorry for the diarrhea.

MOESAN
27-11-15, 18:49
Friend, this discussion seems not going to end.

Just to make it short.

Do you agree that, just as anthropologists and archeologist say, on average EEF groups were significantly longer headed while WHG broader in comparison or not?

For me it's clear: Europoids descendants showed a clear trend toward brachycephaly by time since Upperpaleolithic. But this trend was not general, it concerned certain ligneages of the total group, and perdured during Neolithic and after. It seems stabilized on the genetic side today. Only tiny variations are observed in numerous populations, i think they are linked to less endogamy, encrease in stature (surely partly link one together). concerning EEF OF EUROPE (so ancient people compared to us) and WHG their variations in CI were very tiny (the 2 groups show 72 to 76), the most of cranial differences were in absolute dimensions and in shapes SO IN OTHER INDEXES than cephalic horizontal index..

MOESAN
27-11-15, 18:53
Skull is not plasteline but bone, how can it become rounder with age? Maybe until ~21 years of age, but not later.

Alan just admit that you were mistaken, this argument is getting more and more ridiculous.

And stop listening to these "racialist German dudes", who considered Tibetans as Aryans, Jews as subhumans, etc.


you are right as a whole, but a survey "showed" skulls evolve with ages, very little after adolescence, but they saw the glabella-browridges of females augment a little bit after menopause. American survey, I think. True? someones know how compare what is not comparable, we saw that in previous studies...

MOESAN
27-11-15, 19:06
And another quote about Ötzi:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4146614/1/


I 've not the mensurations but I doubt Ötzi was a true brachycephal: he was rather what scientists name "brachycrane" (over IC 80) - for European criteria 80 is mesocephalic indeed) - but I repeat I've not the CI, the only "referee" here; but it's true I first noticed some 'alpine' and 'cromagoid' (low skull) trend in Ötzi's head, very far from genuine 'mediterrnean' of any form

MOESAN
27-11-15, 20:20
MOESAN, thank you for your comments.

I think we should just leave physical anthropology alone, at least for now.

What do you think about my R1b and R1a expansion maps posted above?

Many people pursue a "South of Caucasus" agenda for the origin of either just R1b M269 or both M269 and R1a M198.

Considering that both M269 and M198 formed ca. 14 - 13 thousand years ago, I think it is probable that either one or both of them originally came from south of the Caucasus. But they most likely came as hunters, not as farmers (because it was too early for farming). And I think that L23 and M417 arose already in the steppe, most likely within the Samara & Khvalynsk cultures. There is solid evidence that demographic expansion of those lineages took place already in the steppe, and we also found aDNA samples of both R1b and R1a at first in EHGs, then in Khvalynsk culture. I think the "Southern Agenda" pursued by some users - which seems to be their substitute for the old Anatolian Hypothesis (which is now totally dead) - can't be sustained in the light of new findings.

Another nail to the coffin of this "Southern Agenda" was the discovery that "Teal people" could in fact be... hunters from Caucasus. Every supporter of the "Southern Agenda" was expecting them to be already farmers or herders, not still hunter-gatherers.

So this is a huge unpleasant surprise for them as well.

I think supporters of this "Southern Agenda" want to claim, that Proto-IE language first evolved south of the Caucasus, then went to the steppe. But this is impossible to claim if we assume that the migration from the south took place in Mesolithic times.

Because we know from linguists, that PIE language is not so old.

So even if some R1b or R1a came from the Middle East to the north in Mesolithic times, they were not yet PIE-speakers.

It seems increasingly more probable, that Marija Gimbutas was right not just in general outline, but also in many details - it seems that Samara culture (the first guys ever who domesticated horses) and Khvalynsk culture were the earliest PIE speakers.


You accord too much credit to my brain skills! I 'll try to answer you, ,evertheless:
I' m still confused by all these recent discoveries:


Samara HG (not so ancient) had NO 'westasian' but Samara Yamanya had a bit (not too much it'strue: around 17/19% acc. to K12/K15 pool. That said 'westasian' is not broken down here into 'gedrosia' and 'caucasus' and the CHG component og old times extended maybe from Caucasus to Hindu Kush... That said, the old age of the 'teal' component as a whole doesn't mean it reached Samara region long before Metals Ages... So I think the introgression of SOME KIND OF WESTASIAN into Yamanya people was recent enough, or they were very different tirbes in vicinity, but I heard the other Yamanya sites gave almost the same resuluts (?). The question which remains is: did tje PIE people or SOME of the EARLY IE people take their 'westasian' or rather 'teal' auDNA through Caucasus from South or through N-Caspian from East? Physical anthropo showed ONZ of Khvalynsk sites and Sredny Stog people were between Dniestr Neolithic population and something southern, if not by force from Maykop or Armenia, the drift towards Steppes HG's being less evident then towards Dniestr neolithic sites. Whatever the kind of southern people wi can bealmost sure some admixture occurred between Steppes Neolithic and Chalco or Bronze Age... the lack of EEF among Yamanya seems to me curious if the southerners came from -4000/-3000 Caucasus but...
concerning haplos Y we have another question:
L23 in Steppes? very possible (L51 towards Baltic Poland and West, Danube...
I lack (and others too I suppose) a break down of the Y-R1b in ancient and today populations, Caucasus and Near-East by instance; what I saw in Myres survey is that Europeans of Center, ITaly and East-Center have a complete enough 'panoply' of SNP's (I rely more on them tha on STRs), M269, L23, L51, L11, and more recent ones evidently, and even some OLD R-M343 ABSENT FROM CAUCASUS even if rare-
some R-M73's - under M297, "sister" of M269 so absent among IEans (or almost) are found among some small populations of Caucasus, but represent only 19 /2005 all Caucasians (0,99%)- this SNP is also present among Asia Steppes populations of Turkic language but unsure deep origin. I did not find traces of R-M335 in Myres.
some R-269* are found in North Iran and Caucasus, but ONLY EAST CAUCASUS, not on the way to Maykop nor in Kurdistan, they are found in Ukraine C-South and Moldavia too, and in C-West Turkey, what is not the proof of anything (a two-directions boulevard, it was!).
STRs variance of R-L23 is the highest in Pakistan, higher than in Caucasus, Turkey, Romania, Italy. and I read it was of the Z2103 sort, so not western IE but perhaps a close cousin fo Z2105 of Yamnaya; a clade Z2105 wasfound among today Ossetians, and among Hungary Jaszag Osset; but Ossetians were born lately concerning PIE story. In Balkans, when we take the returns from West off (Celts and Co) we find only M269+L23 and a very low %s (true for Caucasus too).
taken V88 apart which seems having had a very peculiar story and its own way Southwestwards, I find regions south the Black Sea show weak evidence for an "earth" of previously rich Y-R1b. East Caspian, Steppes and Central Eastern Europe seem to me more evident for a path; but it's true the small %s of R1b can explain the disparition of some upstreams SNPs became seldom and some new SNPs stayed seldom (but the R1b %s are denser among Armenians and it doesn't change too much the facts) .
Here I answer Goga and Alan at the same time; yes R1b was in Near Easy but when, which SNPs at what time, from where???
concerning Y-R1a I'm perplexe but a Central Steppesorigin, well separated from R1b, seem probable at the daybreak of Metals or just before.
Sorry, I cannot be sure of anything, only speculations with my brain and the present data.
by the way, I think a proto-porot-IE was already in South Steppes somewhere, out fo Caucasus Anatolia, who knows? It would not be the first time I mistake!

MOESAN
27-11-15, 20:21
M343 absent of Caucasus eùven if rare elsewhere

Tomenable
26-01-16, 15:31
Photos show the skull of Mesolithic Karelian with R1a Y-DNA and C1g or C1f mtDNA (he died as a boy):

MAE RAS collection number: 5773-74 Grave number: 142 (sample UzOO74) (https://www.oagr.org.au/source/I0061/)

Skull:

http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,2890.msg285478.html#msg285478

http://s018.radikal.ru/i506/1502/48/187c9ae5ef0b.png

Ignore the description - Russian anthropologists wrongly identified him as a female.

In fact he was a male but not an adult one since he died as a boy.

MOESAN
29-01-16, 15:23
Photos show the skull of Mesolithic Karelian with R1a Y-DNA and C1g or C1f mtDNA (he died as a boy):

MAE RAS collection number: 5773-74 Grave number: 142 (sample UzOO74) (https://www.oagr.org.au/source/I0061/)

Skull:

http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,2890.msg285478.html#msg285478

http://s018.radikal.ru/i506/1502/48/187c9ae5ef0b.png

Ignore the description - Russian anthropologists wrongly identified him as a female.

In fact he was a male but not an adult one since he died as a boy.


Thanks: the young age can change things about crania as the first scientists error shows!
my amateurish "analysis" (!)
the most of the skull shape evocates me a softened 'brünn-capelloid' descendance; the fornt is retreating BUT with weak browridges and the height of orbits and the relative flatness of the nose bridge could be the result of slight roughly said 'mongoloid' imput, what could confirm the mt-C was more associated with these 'mongoloid' features - his cheekbones seems to me a bit forwards ('mongoloid' too) but I may mistake. I would be glad to see from height his teeth crown; a less triangluar, more rounded profile could confirm 'mongoloid' imput, slight all the way.
I red somewhere this kind of associations of traits was not seldom among people of the forest steppes (Finno-Ugric zone?). Maybe this combination became dominant (numerically) among Samoyedes?
just to write a bit because pictures observations are not sufficient and the impression of combination can hide a non-evolved non-specialized condition. I lack numerous examples of these places and times.

MOESAN
29-01-16, 15:31
THanks Tomenable
young age can mistake scientists!
amateurish analysis of mine (!)
seemingly dominant softened 'capelloid-brünn' inheritage with maybe 'mongoloid' accretions (weak browridges even for a teenager), somewhat flat nose bridge, maybe too high orbits - the cheekbones seem a bit forwards, 'mongoloid' too? I cannot see the teeth crown from upside: if rounder than triangular it could confirm 'mongoloid' ascendance - I red womewhere this type was not so seldom in the Forest Steppes at some time: Finnic-Ugric? this types could well represented among Samoyedes?
if 'mongoloid' accretion is confirmed it could fit with the mt-C.
all that to say something: stable crossing+selection can be confused with non-specialized types?

Tomenable
01-02-16, 01:25
Moesan, thank you for your comments.

There is also paper with metrics of this skull 5773-74 (pdf pages 132-140):

http://www.kunstkamera.ru/files/lib/mae_xix/mae_xix_06.pdf

So the Cephalic Index of this skull is 76.2 (so dolichocephalic / long-skulled).

Its zygomatic width is 142 mm, second widest in the whole group of 18 skulls.

And because of it, it is medium-faced - 85.9 and mesorrhine - 48.1 (medium-nosed).

Dalmat
01-02-16, 20:22
tomenable, you did post dolicho skulls, probably predefined in your sources, but from reading your posts you have no idea what you are talking about


Head width has all about someone being dolicho or brahi, cephalic index is a width of the skull at its highest width divided by length of the skull at its highest length viewing top down

So if someone has wide head that IS a clue that that person is most likely brahi.



Some brahi people have longer skulls then dolicho people because their skulls are much wider as well, and overall bigger, resulting in higher cephalic index, as an example

CI of <75 is considered dolicho, 75-80 meso, and 80+ brachy

MOESAN
05-02-16, 15:54
'wide', 'broad', 'large', 'long', high' are all absolute mensurations; it says nothing about indexes which are proportions, these last ones saying little about detailed shape...
it's why I'm bored by some metrics surveys abstracts when these kinds of descriptions are given in place of true mensurations and numerous indexes (the new wave or in abstracts world!)

Tomenable
05-02-16, 17:33
Check this book, for example PDF pages 154-155 out of 532 (about CI):

http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/Genesis%20X%20and%20Origins/Races%20of%20Europe_McMahon.pdf

ardyco
11-04-20, 02:51
hello

from what I understand, even ancient populations of hunter gatherers were diverse. Australoid DNA groups like CT, CF1a, F and K have showed up in ancient European populations alongside typically European I groups. That would explain their difference appearance. La Brana was a mixture of Australoid and Caucasoid (u5b mt-DNA)

MOESAN
16-04-20, 15:01
La Brana appears as a typical 'europoid' (rather with 'cromagnoid' affinities in form concerning crania for what I can see (no profile), what put it far from Loschbour BI (more "akin" to Australoids), concerning phenotype.
I don't see nothing 'australoid' in him, even at the uniparental level: Y-C (if it's his one) was common in the whole Eurasia some times ago. We descend for the most of the same ancestors, and our haplogroups descend too from ancient forms.Today Australoids are not our ancestors in any way, they are lon ago separated cousins with a lot of archaic traits. Reality is fuzzy. Our ancient Y-C did not come for far South-East Asia, they seem to me relics of unmutated lineages at this unipârental level, what doesn't disprove a community with ancient people bearing more recent Haplos. No steep frontier. All our genes don't develop or mute at the smae speed, even in a stable population.

ratchet_fan
26-06-20, 00:38
Do these Veddas from Sri Lanka - or other forager groups from South India - score any CHG autosomal DNA ???:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52ELI1Vumdc



Mesolithic European hunters were Caucasoid as well.

Morphologically they were not much different from modern Europeans.

Pigmentation has changed much more than morphology.

If the original Veddas were something like y H or C1b I would imagine they have some Caucasian ancestry from early on.

ratchet_fan
26-06-20, 00:54
La Brana appears as a typical 'europoid' (rather with 'cromagnoid' affinities in form concerning crania for what I can see (no profile), what put it far from Loschbour BI (more "akin" to Australoids), concerning phenotype.
I don't see nothing 'australoid' in him, even at the uniparental level: Y-C (if it's his one) was common in the whole Eurasia some times ago. We descend for the most of the same ancestors, and our haplogroups descend too from ancient forms.Today Australoids are not our ancestors in any way, they are lon ago separated cousins with a lot of archaic traits. Reality is fuzzy. Our ancient Y-C did not come for far South-East Asia, they seem to me relics of unmutated lineages at this unipârental level, what doesn't disprove a community with ancient people bearing more recent Haplos. No steep frontier. All our genes don't develop or mute at the smae speed, even in a stable population.

Agree complexity. Y C was probably very ancient in North Eurasia and some of the Y C (C1b?) in SE/S Asia if rom the North imo.

However, if K2b/P is from SE Asia then all West Eurasians have Australoid ancestors though no even if diluted.

ratchet_fan
26-06-20, 00:56
THanks Tomenable
young age can mistake scientists!
amateurish analysis of mine (!)
seemingly dominant softened 'capelloid-brünn' inheritage with maybe 'mongoloid' accretions (weak browridges even for a teenager), somewhat flat nose bridge, maybe too high orbits - the cheekbones seem a bit forwards, 'mongoloid' too? I cannot see the teeth crown from upside: if rounder than triangular it could confirm 'mongoloid' ascendance - I red womewhere this type was not so seldom in the Forest Steppes at some time: Finnic-Ugric? this types could well represented among Samoyedes?
if 'mongoloid' accretion is confirmed it could fit with the mt-C.
all that to say something: stable crossing+selection can be confused with non-specialized types?

Speaking of Mongoloid, is there Mongoloid influence in the types of the Baltic region?

How much mongloid (either direct Mongloid) or from ANE would these individuals from this thread score?

https://ais.badische-zeitung.de/piece/02/a6/57/b4/44455860.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/FTj9F.jpg

Progon
26-06-20, 15:58
Mesolithic Hunter Gatherer from Egypt. Probably Y-DNA E-M35, or E-M78*.

https://i.imgur.com/th38jVK.jpg

Progon
26-06-20, 19:05
Luke Arnolds gives me a WHG vibe somehow.

https://heavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/gettyimages-483605672.jpg

MOESAN
29-06-20, 18:52
If the original Veddas were something like y H or C1b I would imagine they have some Caucasian ancestry from early on.

I havn't the time to check dates of apparition of ancient Y-haplo's subclades, just now.
But it's perilous to attribute modern external types or genetic populationnal affiliations to ancient monoparental subclades (SNP's bearers) and also to recent monoparental ones for opposite reasons (not so much mutations but crossings for the most) : 'caucasian' is already a forked term ('caucasian' phenotype? - 'westeurasian' old population?): all the way, the physical separation between our ancestors, externally and or internally, has been gradual for the most of our genome, except maybe for some very strong adaptative genes: so a gradual accumulation of small differences, I think.
Or are you speaking of geographically Caucasian pop's?