PDA

View Full Version : Phenotypes of North-western Europe a case study the Northern Netherlands



Northener
14-10-16, 15:17
Phenotypes and races
Phenotypes of Europe are easily found on the internet. Unfortunately, it mostly consists in recycling of altered mid twentieth century phenotyping of Carleton Coon (1904-1981), Bertil Lundman (1899-1993) or much older anthropologist.
The mayor wrong assumption of them was that phenotypes (physical appearance) represent different ‘races’. Phenotypes supposed to be clear differentiated genetic phenomenon. Also some kind of frozen products of the past. According to Coon a Borreby is a large headed ‘pure Palaeolithic survivor’. Modern genetic research swept away those assumptions. No evidence for race, racial based phenotypes or whatsoever. Partly as a result of this more fuzzy than clear defined reality phenotyping has never led to a basic agreement about the different phenotypes.
So phenotypes are nonsense? As clear defined racial based stereotype: yes. But that’ s not the whole story. When we visit the different regions of the world than amidst all the differential shaped faces and body’s, in this grid, we can recognize some loose shaped patterns. Some physical appearances do more often occur in certain regions. And of course these phenotypes have a basis in the genotype. But they are never 1:1. Migration patterns, founder effects and marked geographic barriers have shaped different regional clusters or clines, and therefore different “regional faces.”(see: Barbujani 2010).
For Europe as a whole the only thing you can reasonable state is there is some kind of phenotype difference between Northern and Southern Europe whereby the Northerners usually have lighter features (light eyes, blonde hair, lighter skins) and are taller in stature than the Southerners.

Case: Northern Netherlands
But within this rough framework can there be more differentiated? I guess so. Then we must have a clear look on the different geographical situations and the migration patterns of the past. Therefore, I would like to zoom in on the situation in North-western Europe and specific the situation in the Northern parts of the Netherlands, the old Frisian-Saxon territory, mostly bordering the North Sea.
The Northern Netherlands are not only marked by the North Sea, bordering in the Northern and Western part, but in the South it is marked by the grand river the Rhine. In the Roman days this was also the frontier of the Roman empire the so called “Limes”. Eastwards there are besides a relative small river like the Ems no clear barriers. This has major consequences.
This is shown in Abeld Abdellaoui e.a. article of 2013 called Population structure, migration, and diversifying selection in the Netherlands (2013). Based on the 1000 gnomes project, important conclusions were drawn.
This essence is shown in this picture:
8104

Here is a clear difference between three regionally different gene pools in the Dutch situation:


North (East) Netherlands (above the Rhine)
South of the Netherlands (down the Rhine)
West Netherlands (so called Randstad Holland with Amsterdam/Rotterdam etc.) as a mixture of a and b. The latter mainly because of the pivotal role and appeal from the Dutch Golden Age (seventeenth century) and beyond.

Also regarding the phenotype in this article is stated that Southern Netherlands has more connections with the Southern Europe phenotype and the Northern Netherlands with the Northern Europe phenotype.
When we zoom in on the North, this is clearly a part of Northwest Europe as a whole. More specific: the North Sea Region (= Southwestern Scandinavia, Northwestern Germany and England).

Four migration waves
The Northwest European gene pool is determined by the following four founding "migratory waves":
1. The hunter-gatherers, after the last ice age. About 19,000 years ago the hunter-gatherers who had been hiding during the ice age in southern resorts of Europe, (back) to Northwest Europe. At the end of this period they were in the northern Netherlands Europe Ertebølle or also Swifterbant culture (4900-3350 BC.), With the first signs of agriculture.Eight years ago, according to the genome project in the Netherlands but to relate much as 78% of the Dutch to this group (more on that later). Cro Magnons were tall, robust, great headed. This group occurred first movements towards blue eyes, often in combination with a rather dark skin and hair.
8106
2. The first farmers of the Neolithic, coming from the eastern part of the Mediterranean (Anatolia e.o), both from coast to coast and through the rivers, north westward. These groups were genetically different from the hunter-gatherers in Northwest Europe. They settled in the first period probably detached from the indigenous hunter-gatherers, both groups gradually became intermingled. Of course differentiated by subregion. It is also possible that hunter-gatherers acquired the farming. Their appereance of the first farmers was quite different from the hunter-gatherers, more gracile dark hair and eyes, but with a much lighter skin than the hunter-gatherers
8107
The current Sardinians still seem to have the most affinity with this group. Their share in the Dutch ancestors were estimated eight years ago about 20%.
Pontus Skoglund has this genetic development (incoming farmers first unconnected with the indigenous population) outlined the Funnel Beaker Culture (3350 BC- 2750 BC.) The Northern Netherlands were an integral part of it and was the westernmost offshoot of this culture. See: http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2014/04/more-ancient-scandinavians-skoglund.html
3. The rise of the Indo European Warriors in the Bronze Age.
The Funnel Beaker Culture (South Scandinavia, northern Germany and northern Netherlands) was in the Bronze Age followed by new types of Beakerfolk ending with the Elpculture (around 800 BC.). In the Iron Age followed by Harpstedt-Nienburg group. This is most likely to mixed groups but one thing is clear: the latest genetic impulses came from the East herein, originally from the Pontic steppe. This is often associations are established with lighter, long types are mainly found along the Baltic coast:
8108.
These people have brought haplotype R1b (and R 1a) to this region. In the year 2016 about 60% of Northern Dutch men have this haplotype. It is therefore the extent to which it corresponds to the outcome of the Dutch gnome research (78% of Dutch men can be traced back to the hunter-gatherers) eight years ago because R1b came in the Bronze Age to Northwest Europe. In essence, these three waves determined the gene pool of the Northern Netherlands. For North Netherlands there is still a significant "internal" Northwest European movement:
4. The spread of the Saxons, during the migrations of the 4th and 5th centuries AD. The spread of the Angles and Saxons, peoples from the current Schleswig-Holstein, is usually associated with England. But this is also true for the Frisian Northsea coast. It is an archaeological fact that the Northern mounds largely (current Friesland), partly (current Groningen) and to a small extent (present Ost-Friesland) were abandoned after the fall of the Roman Empire. This area shows no significant activity on the 'archaeological radar’. Newcomers from the high North had relatively free reign. Their contribution has been particularly strong in Westergo, near the Frisian capital of Leeuwarden. Westergo was in the centuries that followed very rich and authoritative. Only from about the subjection to the Franks, the Frisians where back on track. So an old flag on a new ship.
There is some kind of 4b wave, because in the middle ages the people of the Northern Netherlands migrated to coastal North-western Gemany and the shaped the dikes and the marshes in these area. The Germans call it the Hollerkolonisation (after Holland, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollerkolonisation).

Nordics altered by Cro-magnoid or the Northsea Phenotype
These developments show that in the North Sea region, the major grid, or phenotype is the one who is described by Coon as a ‘mixed’ type of ‘overgrown Nordics’. So within the overall Northern European (light and tall) phenotype this subtype is more than average tall, broad-shouldered, with a larger head and face, as well as more than average-sized hands and feet. This is the dominant phenotype of the Northsea area:
(see next post!)
Of course this certainly doesn’t exclude darker, smaller featured phenotypes in this area. But what it does exclude is the ‘pure’ phenotypes of Coon like Borreby or Brunn. Or as the Guardian stated on the first of march 2015:
‘Our DNA is mixed and remixed through endless sex and continuous migration. We are too horny and mobile to have stuck to our own kind for very long.
Race doesn’t exist, racism does. But we can now confine it to opinions and not pretend that there might be any scientific validity in bigotry.’

Based mainly on:
Abeld Abdellaoui e.a. article of 2013 called Population structure, migration, and diversifying selection in the Netherlands (2013)

G. Barbujani and V. Colonna, ‘Human genome diversity: frequently asked questions’ in: Trends Genet. 2010 Jul;26(7):285-95

S.C. Coon The Races of Europe (New York 1948)

Torsten Günther & Mattias Jakobsson, Genes mirror migrations and cultures in prehistoric Europe - a population genomic perspective (1 Sept. 2016)
http://biorxiv.org/.../biorx.../early/2016/09/01/072926.full.pdf

Oost-friese landschap, Land van ontdekkingen, archeologie van het Friese kustgebied (2013)

Northener
14-10-16, 15:20
The following picture belongs to:
Nordics altered by Cro-magnoid or the Northsea Phenotype
8109

MOESAN
15-10-16, 00:33
Coon was only half wrong; 'borreby' types are not a race (but races don't exist even among animals if we consider phoenotypes don't always check genetic, look at girafes or chimpanzees) but stable phoenotypes exist it's to say genetically produced features or colours which has been linked at some stage to pops even if they did not represent the 100% of these pops. Coon was right to link 'brünnoids' and 'borreby' to ancient pop because the places where was found the most of them are places where today geneticists find the most of ancient "european" HG's...
by the way, dark 'europoids' are far to be all of them of southern origin; some dark types of Europe or surroundings are not specially of a dominantly EEF or ancient Near-Eastern/Iran origin. ancient HGs of West left some print. And a lot of EEF DNA can be found mixed among the depigmented northern pops of Europe. If we speak not of "races" but of collective phoenotypes we have more than two or three types in Europe, not a dark/light-North-South clivage only; the question is; do they correspond to well defined global genetic backgrounds or are they hazardous drifts crossing the frontiers of ancient different backgroun? I think they correspond to ancient background for the most, even if some kind of selection after crossings (cultural selection too) can skew the picture (I think brachycephally is tied to polygenic action and to one or more mutation(s) and in West Europe was passed to other pops than the first concerned one, by crossings and maybe selection if the genes involved in the process had some adaptative advantage; just a try to guess.

Alan
15-10-16, 02:47
I agree with allot of things written but some statements with our current knowledge are wrong. Also the ancient anthropologists couldn't know better because they didn't had the genetic data but coon was in one point right the large headed "borreby" type is one of the many mesolithic European types.

Also the notion that these people came to Europe during the Paleolithic is wrong by new samples we know that the WHG we later see in Europe actually arrived there during the mesolithic from a Balkan_Anatolia_Levant refugium. Before the mesolithicum people lived in Europe who were allot more archaic belonged to Haplogroups such as CT, B F and so on.
These mesolithic Hunter and Gatherers were predominantly broad faced meso and brachycephalic types such as the Hunter on the reconstruction.

Later by Neolithicum another wave from Anatolia moved into Europe. These Neolithic farmers were predominantly dolichocephalic and mesocephalic people but not gracile yet, They were Robust people. Just around the Late Neolithic a gracilization took part but not only among those with DNA of early farmers also those mixed with Hunters and Gatherers this was the effect of agriculture (not so much use for huge bodies and muscles anymore).

Than a third wave, first into South Russia happened. These guys were Herders/farmers from the eastern part of the Near East (Iran, Caucasus, Mesopotamia). They went into the Steppes merged with the Hunters and Gatherers of the Forest Steppes in the regions. And those new people, who were still predominantly tall moved towards mainland Europe. These were the Indo Europeans. Now the question only remaining is where these Herder from the eastern Near East already archaic Indo Europeans and the Steppes were a secondary homeland from where most Indo Europeans expanded, while the more archaic Indo Europeans such as Hittites already split before they moved into the Steppes. Or did all the Indo European branches emerged in the Eurasian Steppes.


However If we split these Steppe Indo Europeans back into their original parts (Near Eastern Herders/farmers and East European Hunters and Gatherers) they were half Near Eastern half Eurasian Hunters and Gatherers. The Near Eastern half was mesocephalic(with some dolicho and brachycephalic here and there) predominantly while the Eurasian Hunters and Gatherers were pedominantly meso_Brachycephalic. The result out of these two was a predominantly Mesocephalic medium broad faced Yamnaya Indo Europeans. But those Guys were actually not light skinned and based on the genetic data we have of them they were very similar to modern Anatolian-Iranian_Platea, Levant and Mesopotamian people based on pigmentation.

The modern Dutch trace around ~35% of their ancestry to the Anatolian farmers. 25% to the Eurasian Hunters and Gatherers , another ~25% to the Iranian_Plateau/Caucasus herders/farmers, and ~15% to the actual mesolithic West European Hunters and Gatherers. There are some spredsheets about this on the Net.

So they trace ~60% of their ancestry to Near Eastern farmers/Herders and 40% to West European and Eurasian Hunters and Gatherers which actually is visible in their phenotype many of Dutch are known to be tall meso or dolichocephalic people while allot are also known for broader crania. They are basically a merging of ´both.

The further towards South/Southeast Europe you get the higher the Near Eastern farmer/herder DNA gets while the closer you get to the Baltics/Northeast Europe the higher the Hunter and Gatherer DNA. This is also visible physically Baltics on average (there is allot of variation there too) have more broad faced people in comparison to South Europe. But even the people on the Baltics are at least around 45-50% Near Eastern farmer derived (with Saami being the least around ~35%).

Northener
15-10-16, 08:21
Thanks for the adds Alan, I'am curious where you found this on the net:

"The modern Dutch trace around ~35% of their ancestry to the Anatolian farmers. 25% to the Eurasian Hunters and Gatherers , another ~25% to the Iranian_Plateau/Caucasus herders/farmers, and ~15% to the actual mesolithic West European Hunters and Gatherers. There are some spredsheets about this on the Net. "

Northener
15-10-16, 08:37
Thanks for your post Moesan!

"Coon was only half wrong; 'borreby' types are not a race (but races don't exist even among animals if we consider phoenotypes don't always check genetic, look at girafes or chimpanzees) but stable phoenotypes exist it's to say genetically produced features or colours which has been linked at some stage to pops even if they did not represent the 100% of these pops. Coon was right to link 'brünnoids' and 'borreby' to ancient pop because the places where was found the most of them are places where today geneticists find the most of ancient "european" HG's..."

I think he was in this case completely wrong, he considered "borreby" and "brunn" as pure, unmixed products of the past. Then they must have lived for thousands years in caves I guess ;) Of course the cro magnoid hunter-gartherers have had it's impact on the phenotype but not "unmixed". So in fact you can't find a pure cro-magnoid in Northwestern Europe. So Borreby is a part of Nordocromagnoid (with a higher component of cro-magnon features in the physical appearance....).

Coriolan
15-10-16, 09:15
Thanks Northerner, Moesan and Alan. That was a very interesting explanation. Just one question. Why are North Europeans dolicocephalic if Cro-Magnoids and Indo-Europeans were mesocephalic to brachycephalic? North Europeans have the lowest percentage of Neolithic farmer DNA so why are they most similar to them for head shape?

Northener
15-10-16, 12:05
Thanks Northerner, Moesan and Alan. That was a very interesting explanation. Just one question. Why are North Europeans dolicocephalic if Cro-Magnoids and Indo-Europeans were mesocephalic to brachycephalic? North Europeans have the lowest percentage of Neolithic farmer DNA so why are they most similar to them for head shape?

Good question! I have no fact and figures, but I suppose that in the Northwest European case the dolio percentage is may be overrated? Anyway brachy or dolio can both be large headed. In fact I see more 'exaggerated', cro magnoid influenced, heads here... :rolleyes2:

Alan
15-10-16, 14:15
Thanks for the adds Alan, I'am curious where you found this on the net:

"The modern Dutch trace around ~35% of their ancestry to the Anatolian farmers. 25% to the Eurasian Hunters and Gatherers , another ~25% to the Iranian_Plateau/Caucasus herders/farmers, and ~15% to the actual mesolithic West European Hunters and Gatherers. There are some spredsheets about this on the Net. "


This is a little bit older calculator there are others out already but it gives you a glimpse of what I mean. Unfortunately there are no Dutch samples but what I did was take the English (~60%) Norwegian (~60%) and French (~65% average) and simply took a number in between in fact I am convinced the Dutch average will be closer to the English average. I also remember some German samples which were around ~65% too.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_uKagAzyBnSzfI1rIEclIx6kfIE-NYpiWY5Bs0XqyAg/edit#gid=1521430867


Than there is this slightly newer calculator called Near East Neolithic K13. It divides the Neolithic ancestry much deeper using more samples extraced from the Natufians of Levant and Neolithic_Iran. You could test your own DNA and as a Dutch individual you will be quite close to the average since people of the same country, especially medium and small sized countries look very similar.
The calculator is on Gedmatch under the GedrosiaDNA project.

Alan
15-10-16, 14:24
Thanks for your post Moesan!

"Coon was only half wrong; 'borreby' types are not a race (but races don't exist even among animals if we consider phoenotypes don't always check genetic, look at girafes or chimpanzees) but stable phoenotypes exist it's to say genetically produced features or colours which has been linked at some stage to pops even if they did not represent the 100% of these pops. Coon was right to link 'brünnoids' and 'borreby' to ancient pop because the places where was found the most of them are places where today geneticists find the most of ancient "european" HG's..."

I think he was in this case completely wrong, he considered "borreby" and "brunn" as pure, unmixed products of the past. Then they must have lived for thousands years in caves I guess ;) Of course the cro magnoid hunter-gartherers have had it's impact on the phenotype but not "unmixed". So in fact you can't find a pure cro-magnoid in Northwestern Europe. So Borreby is a part of Nordocromagnoid (with a higher component of cro-magnon features in the physical appearance....).
In the past the genetics were a sign of your cranial look yes but starting with the Late Neolithic already this became an obsulate thing, because people with the very same genetic make up can look broad or long headed, simply out of the fact that they are mixed of several elements now. Therefore you can't call the single cranial differences, differences in race anymore as the Nazis did. That is simply thinking too far and much.


A broad headed Dutch is genetically today much much MUCH closer to a lengthy headed Dutch than a broad headed Slav for example. The difference in crania within a ethnic group is simply that one fortunate to have inherited the physical features of one of their ancient ancestors while the other the physical features of the other. As e see from mixed raced children. Even 50/50 mixed individuals such as an African American and European American. The mixed individuals can sometimes look completely Sub Saharan or almost completely European. Interestingly there seems to be also some bias in these kind of mixes which proofs us that the physical features of some people are sometimes more dominant than these of the other half.

So it is very much possible that the broad headed Borreby guys physically represent the European Hunters and Gatherers yet despite all modern version of them being genetically mixed with allot of non "indigenous" Hunter and Gatherer DNA. They were just fortunate/unfortunate that their Hunter and Gatherer genes took the upper hand in their physical appearance.

Alan
15-10-16, 14:36
Thanks Northerner, Moesan and Alan. That was a very interesting explanation. Just one question. Why are North Europeans dolicocephalic if Cro-Magnoids and Indo-Europeans were mesocephalic to brachycephalic? North Europeans have the lowest percentage of Neolithic farmer DNA so why are they most similar to them for head shape?

I think there was a small misunderstanding here. I wrote The "Indo Europeans" who most of them probably moved into Europe from Yamnaya or nearby, were predomiantnly mesocephalic (with some dolicho and some brachycephalic individuals here and there). The "old Neolithic" Europe by Middle-Late Neolithic times was already Mesocephalic to rather dolichocephalic too through the dolicho-mesocephalic Anatolian_Farmers(3/4 of the ancestry of the time) and the admixture of meso_Brachycephalic Hunters and Gatherers (1/4 of the ancestry of that time).

Now when you mix the predominantly mesocephalic (but also partly dolicho and brachycephalic) Indo Europeans with the predominantly meso to dolichocephalic "old Europeans" . You get an average of mesocephalic to dolichocephalic with some brachycephalic people. Now we have to take into account that some kind of brachycephalization took place during the Bronze Age. Which made the people a mix of all three elements, dolicho_meso_brachycephalic. Basically what Europe is today. All three elements are there.

And the reason why North Europeans are rater more meso and dolichocephalic is because their strongest element just like in most of Europe is the Anatolian_Neo component followed by Eurasian Hunter and Gatherer, Iranian_Neo/CHG and least the mesolithic European Hunter and Gatherer component.

Even the Norwegians and Swedes are around ~60% Near Eastern farmer derived. This ancestry reaches in South Europe number as much as 70 to 90%!.

So the notion "North Europe" having the "least" is already relative because 60% even if less than South Europe is still huge. Yet it isn't true. The least is in the Baltics and Northeast Europe.

The ancestry goes this way. South Europe has most farmer DNA. Central and Northwest Europe the second most followed by Northeast Europe with the least.

Northener
15-10-16, 14:37
thank you for the facts and figures. Because we are talking about a region (Northern Netherlands) which already differs from the other parts of the Netherlands it's tricky to use neigbouring figures and transmit them to the Frisian-Saxon situation. If anything comes close it would be Kent: Anatolia 29%, Caucasus 30%, EHG 16%, WHG 23%, so almost 40% HG!

PS it makes your calculation 60% EEF, 40% HG right i guess

Northener
15-10-16, 14:41
In the past the genetics were a sign of your cranial look yes but starting with the Late Neolithic already this became an obsulate thing, because people with the very same genetic make up can look broad or long headed, simply out of the fact that they are mixed of several elements now. Therefore you can't call the single cranial differences, differences in race anymore as the Nazis did. That is simply thinking too far and much.


A broad headed Dutch is genetically today much much MUCH closer to a lengthy headed Dutch than a broad headed Slav for example. The difference in crania within a ethnic group is simply that one fortunate to have inherited the physical features of one of their ancient ancestors while the other the physical features of the other. As e see from mixed raced children. Even 50/50 mixed individuals such as an African American and European American. The mixed individuals can sometimes look completely Sub Saharan or almost completely European. Interestingly there seems to be also some bias in these kind of mixes which proofs us that the physical features of some people are sometimes more dominant than these of the other half.

So it is very much possible that the broad headed Borreby guys physically represent the European Hunters and Gatherers yet despite all modern version of them being genetically mixed with allot of non "indigenous" Hunter and Gatherer DNA. They were just fortunate/unfortunate that their Hunter and Gatherer genes took the upper hand in their physical appearance.

I think so!!!! I will take this (partly) burden hahahah ;)

Alan
15-10-16, 14:46
thank you for the facts and figures. Because we are talking about a region (Northern Netherlands) who already differs from the other parts of the Netherlands it's tricky to use neigbouring figures and transmit them to the Frisian-Saxon situation. If anything comes close it would be Kent: Anatolia 29%, Caucasus 30%, EHG 16%, WHG 23%, so almost 40% HG!


Thats what I wrote, didn't I :) ~60% Near Eastern Neolithic and 40% Hunter and Gatherer. Take in mind that this calculator eats up some of the Anatolian_Neo ancestry as WHG and Caucasus. In reality it is ~35% Anatolian_Neo and ~27% CHG. Also you could test the newer calculator on yourself. Than you would know what the average for your region is.

Northener
15-10-16, 14:52
Thats what I wrote, didn't I :) ~60% Near Eastern Neolithic and 40% Hunter and Gatherer. Take in mind that this calculator eats up some of the Anatolian_Neo ancestry as Caucasus. In reality it is ~35% Anatolian_Neo and 25% CHG. Also you could test the newer calculator on yourself. Than you would know what the average for your region is.

yes you are absolutely right!

Maciamo
15-10-16, 15:01
This is a little bit older calculator there are others out already but it gives you a glimpse of what I mean. Unfortunately there are no Dutch samples but what I did was take the English (~60%) Norwegian (~60%) and French (~65% average) and simply took a number in between in fact I am convinced the Dutch average will be closer to the English average. I also remember some German samples which were around ~65% too.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_uKagAzyBnSzfI1rIEclIx6kfIE-NYpiWY5Bs0XqyAg/edit#gid=1521430867


Than there is this slightly newer calculator called Near East Neolithic K13. It divides the Neolithic ancestry much deeper using more samples extraced from the Natufians of Levant and Neolithic_Iran. You could test your own DNA and as a Dutch individual you will be quite close to the average since people of the same country, especially medium and small sized countries look very similar.
The calculator is on Gedmatch under the GedrosiaDNA project.

What's amazing with this calculator is that modern Turks have only about 20 to 25% of Anatolian Neolithic, and some even have as little of 12% of it! In comparison Greeks have about 35%, Croatians about 30%, North Italians and Tuscans 35-40%, Sardinians 55-60%, Spaniards about 40%, French Basques about 45%, South French 40-45%, other French 30-35%, . Even Norwegians and Icelanders have about 25% and some up to 28% - twice more than some Turks. How is that possible than Turks inherited so little DNA from Neolithic Anatolians? Talk about population replacement!

davef
15-10-16, 16:17
Armenian Lebanese get about 25 percent Anatolian neolthic...how about that! I guess they were more able to hang onto that specific ancestry in comparison to Turks..

Alan
15-10-16, 17:12
What's amazing with this calculator is that modern Turks have only about 20 to 25% of Anatolian Neolithic, and some even have as little of 12% of it! In comparison Greeks have about 35%, Croatians about 30%, North Italians and Tuscans 35-40%, Sardinians 55-60%, Spaniards about 40%, French Basques about 45%, South French 40-45%, other French 30-35%, . Even Norwegians and Icelanders have about 25% and some up to 28% - twice more than some Turks. How is that possible than Turks inherited so little DNA from Neolithic Anatolians? Talk about population replacement!

Absolutely, though as I wrote above some of the Anatolian_Neo in this calculator gets eaten up by WHG and CHG therefore in reality it is more around 25-30%, it is indeed astonishing how the original homeland of these farmers has less of it's ancestry than most of Europe.

The reason for this is imo historically obvious. By Calcolthic, Bronze Age, Anatolia was already ~50/50 Anatolian_Neo/Iran_Neo_CHG. However beginning with the late Bronze, Iron Age and further on into the middle ages waves of Iran_Calcolthic LevantNeolithic like DNA reached Anatolia. First Iran_Neolithic in form of West Iranic tribes, than Levant_Neolithic like DNA with Assyrians, Aramaens, Jews and other Semitic tribes around the region. Than came the last wave of Iran_Neo like DNA with addition of East Eurasian admixture in form of Turkic tribes who previously had settled on the Iranian Plateau.

Modern Anatolians are more Iran_Neo_CHG (~50%) than Anatolian_Neo (~25-30%), with some Levant_Neo in it (~10%). And it is visible in their looks. Average Anatolian is mesocephalic just like ancient Iran_Neo_CHG people in comparison to the more dolicho-mesocephalic Anatolian_Farmers. This is why on average the South Europeans are also more dolichocephalic than Anatolians.

An average Anatolian today looks more like this.
http://humenonline.hu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/IMG_5525b-699x375.jpg
http://drkocak.com/upload/content/images/kenan-dogulu.jpg
http://i582.photobucket.com/albums/ss265/B1830188/unian/5fdb0a3f.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuEEcr3CMAAtctq.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5787/21514412698_ce757aef20.jpg
https://66.media.tumblr.com/b146a3d58cb382dcc291d7ce3900194f/tumblr_nyjh4azRxE1v0p3sro1_500.jpg

than this who would represent Anatolian_Neo better.
http://www.enforex.com/newsletter/2015/es/images/hombre-espanol.jpg
http://www.spainbuddy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Antonio-Banderas.jpg
http://www.handsomemengalaxy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Handsome-Man-of-the-Day-The-actor-and-sex-symbol-Italian-Raoul-Bova-image-of-the-campaign-to.jpg

Yetos
15-10-16, 17:46
Alan,

to my knowledge, and as I see the 1922 refuggees in Greece,
an anatolian is not like the links,
although close but not,
minor asians should have thin nose, and curved down.

Northener
15-10-16, 18:02
Alan,

to my knowledge, and as I see the 1922 refuggees in Greece,
an anatolian is not like the links,
although close but not,
minor asians should have thin nose, and curved down.

It is starting to look a little bit of topic right now....start a new thread about this matter? Thanks!

Alan
15-10-16, 19:07
Alan,

to my knowledge, and as I see the 1922 refuggees in Greece,
an anatolian is not like the links,
although close but not,
minor asians should have thin nose, and curved down.
The thin nose is common enough yes but I wasn't focused on that, the subject was the crania.
The "Anatolian" you are talking about are the Pontic Greeks from Northeast "Anatolia" which in fact isn't Anatolia but the Transcaucasus. It is a local variant/phyciscal process that took place and is often seen around Armenia (the Dinarization process). Still most Pontic Greeks are mesocephalic also though and other Pontic Greeks I have seen look quite like the people I have posted. Also I spoke of the average, there is of course variation but the avergae is mesocephalic.



It's not even the Nose, I was hinting towards the crania. The Hawk like appearance or slightly convex noses are more a CHG thing yes, but the point is that they were mesocephalic.

The "anatolians" in Greece you mean are definitely the Pontic Greeks, they are known for very thin noses. People from the Northeast are generally known for this.

See here.
https://newgeorgianyouth.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/dsc05652_22.jpg

Also take in mind I am speaking of the average, which indicates that there is variation.

In this video you can see well what I mean, the people are predominantly mesocephalic by crania

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcKkBihNs7k

Tomenable
15-10-16, 23:01
Alan,

Is this CHG K8 calculator available on Gedmatch? If not, then where can I download it?


Than there is this slightly newer calculator called Near East Neolithic K13.

One major flaw of Near East Neolithic K13 is that it lumps together CHG and EEF as one admixture. This is wrong because genetic distance between CHG and EEF was almost as large as today genetic distances between populations from different continents.

Tomenable
15-10-16, 23:25
See min 38:05 - https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=19940&bhcp=1

Alan
16-10-16, 02:01
Alan,

Is this CHG K8 calculator available on Gedmatch? If not, then where can I download it?



One major flaw of Near East Neolithic K13 is that it lumps together CHG and EEF as one admixture. This is wrong because genetic distance between CHG and EEF was almost as large as today genetic distances between populations from different continents. It actually doesn't to be precise. There is also an Anatolian_Neo component there. What this CHG_EEF is, is a component that was found around Late_Neolithic in many parts of West Eurasia. It is when CHG like groups merged with EEF groups around Anatolia and another wave started. Kumtepe sample was one of this kind. It was special.

Yet I agree there is significant difference between both, the same way as there is between WHG and EHG. But differen't continents? Not in the slightest to be precise. If you take these components in global perspective, EHG, WHG, CHG_IranNeo and Anatolian Neo are a very tight group.

The K8 calculator might be on Gedmatch under the Eurogenes project.

MOESAN
22-10-16, 00:48
Thanks for your post Moesan!

"Coon was only half wrong; 'borreby' types are not a race (but races don't exist even among animals if we consider phoenotypes don't always check genetic, look at girafes or chimpanzees) but stable phoenotypes exist it's to say genetically produced features or colours which has been linked at some stage to pops even if they did not represent the 100% of these pops. Coon was right to link 'brünnoids' and 'borreby' to ancient pop because the places where was found the most of them are places where today geneticists find the most of ancient "european" HG's..."

I think he was in this case completely wrong, he considered "borreby" and "brunn" as pure, unmixed products of the past. Then they must have lived for thousands years in caves I guess ;) Of course the cro magnoid hunter-gartherers have had it's impact on the phenotype but not "unmixed". So in fact you can't find a pure cro-magnoid in Northwestern Europe. So Borreby is a part of Nordocromagnoid (with a higher component of cro-magnon features in the physical appearance....).

I see it's a question of concept: types are not populations; they are supposed rather homogenous ideal componants of pops, based on observation of more ancient pops supposed more "pure" phenotypically, more homogenous - some pops can be represented as formed by a dominant type, other ones not (more and more frequent as time pass for human beings!)
'cromagnoid', 'brünnoid' have been a kind of reality long ago. 'borreby' seems a less clear concept, being for me 'cromagnoid' or 'brüinnoid', brachycephalized (I say A and B to distinguish them)
the 'borreby' and 'brünn' of Coon where the ideal types that can appear phenotypically (more or less complete, he based himself rather on the head) in individuals, what shows they have inherited their appearance from the ancient pops, NOT ALL THEIR GENES, only the ones controlling these external features; COON was not stupid, he mentioned the parents or sons of these ideal types who have not the same type at all, proving it was no more question of "pure" ligneages, but only of what we call in french "atavisme" (reapparition of traits of ONE kind of ancestral ligneages. So apparently "pure" features, not pure race persons.
But statistically, when a pop present a considerable percentage of traits (set) which can be associated to a type, you can be sure that in a crossing with an other pop, different, this 'set' as a whole will appear in the crossing result in a lower %; some distorsion appears for some genetically dominant or recessive traits, but as a whole it's useful to devine the diverse ancient phenotypical componants of a modern pop, excpet in regions where the mixture has envolved too much types.
So Coon saw MORE 'borreby' and 'brünn' in some regions and these regions are among the ones in Europe where we find today the MORE of 'europoid' HG % -
the notions of population and type deserve longer but it's taking time and place; measures means without typology leads to misunderstanding in metric anthropology.

MOESAN
22-10-16, 01:21
[QUOTE=Alan;492325]I agree with allot of things written but some statements with our current knowledge are wrong. Also the ancient anthropologists couldn't know better because they didn't had the genetic data but coon was in one point right the large headed "borreby" type is one of the many mesolithic European types.

Also the notion that these people came to Europe during the Paleolithic is wrong by new samples we know that the WHG we later see in Europe actually arrived there during the mesolithic from a Balkan_Anatolia_Levant refugium. Before the mesolithicum people lived in Europe who were allot more archaic belonged to Haplogroups such as CT, B F and so on.
These mesolithic Hunter and Gatherers were predominantly broad faced meso and brachycephalic types such as the Hunter on the reconstruction.

Later by Neolithicum another wave from Anatolia moved into Europe. These Neolithic farmers were predominantly dolichocephalic and mesocephalic people but not gracile yet, They were Robust people. Just around the Late Neolithic a gracilization took part but not only among those with DNA of early farmers also those mixed with Hunters and Gatherers this was the effect of agriculture (not so much use for huge bodies and muscles anymore).

details:
- Paleolithic and Mesolithic people of Europe were as a whole dolicho-mesocephalic (means: 71 to 74 as a whole) whatever the face breadth- I keep on thinking Paleol 'cromagnons' gave some of their features to descendants, distinct from the features gave by Gravettians come through Central Europe for the most maybe from far East, who have longer narrower (but robust) faces, more brutal frontal traits, higher skulls; they mixed at diverse degrees in different places, as well in West than in Balkans, apparently, the most deeply in Central Europe and Mesolithic saw the diverse results of this crossings after isolation and selection, giving way to some regional and individual variants; for I saw, the steppes HGs were not so homogenous, and the breadth they are credited for concerns more the bizygomatic than the bigonial, what is rather a 'brünnoid' features. So they inherited of both great ligneages but with some proper tendancies. I wonder if the far ancestor of this lineage of 'brünnoid' would not be the same as one of the ancestor of the first 'indo-afghan' lineages? But it's so far in time concerning phenotypes and DNA can be drift so much...
Whatever the origin of Mesolithic people in Europe (and I'm sure they received lately some Near-Eastern input through Mediterranea) I think that after wintering during the LGM a lot of their ancestors came from the Pyrenees-Cantabricas-Gascogne regions; if some others were from Balkans, it doesn't change too much, their far ancestors were more or less the same mix I bet.

Northener
05-11-16, 13:05
I'am curious for the facts in Northwestern Europe, diverse publications underline the presence of strongholds of hunter gatherers, the old Ertebølle and Swifterbant culture :

" By the time that farming groups appeared in neighboring areas North Germany and Denmark where occupied with dense populations with successful, intensified hunting and gathering economies and, as a result, the appearance of agriculture into this area was delayed for several thousand years."

See (https://books.google.nl/books?id=6b5JAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA217&dq=northgermany+hunter-gatherers&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGjPv4to_QAhURKywKHfCnAQAQ6AEIHDAA#v=sn ippet&q=netherlands&f=false)

Is this still up to date.....???

It would be interesting if this had indeed has effect on the Northwest European phenotype....

And Moesan with a bizogamytic of approximately 160 mm (and with head size 61) I'am (sorry fire haired) in the atavistic danger zone I guess....;)



[QUOTE=Alan;492325]I agree with allot of things written but some statements with our current knowledge are wrong. Also the ancient anthropologists couldn't know better because they didn't had the genetic data but coon was in one point right the large headed "borreby" type is one of the many mesolithic European types.

Also the notion that these people came to Europe during the Paleolithic is wrong by new samples we know that the WHG we later see in Europe actually arrived there during the mesolithic from a Balkan_Anatolia_Levant refugium. Before the mesolithicum people lived in Europe who were allot more archaic belonged to Haplogroups such as CT, B F and so on.
These mesolithic Hunter and Gatherers were predominantly broad faced meso and brachycephalic types such as the Hunter on the reconstruction.

Later by Neolithicum another wave from Anatolia moved into Europe. These Neolithic farmers were predominantly dolichocephalic and mesocephalic people but not gracile yet, They were Robust people. Just around the Late Neolithic a gracilization took part but not only among those with DNA of early farmers also those mixed with Hunters and Gatherers this was the effect of agriculture (not so much use for huge bodies and muscles anymore).

details:
- Paleolithic and Mesolithic people of Europe were as a whole dolicho-mesocephalic (means: 71 to 74 as a whole) whatever the face breadth- I keep on thinking Paleol 'cromagnons' gave some of their features to descendants, distinct from the features gave by Gravettians come through Central Europe for the most maybe from far East, who have longer narrower (but robust) faces, more brutal frontal traits, higher skulls; they mixed at diverse degrees in different places, as well in West than in Balkans, apparently, the most deeply in Central Europe and Mesolithic saw the diverse results of this crossings after isolation and selection, giving way to some regional and individual variants; for I saw, the steppes HGs were not so homogenous, and the breadth they are credited for concerns more the bizygomatic than the bigonial, what is rather a 'brünnoid' features. So they inherited of both great ligneages but with some proper tendancies. I wonder if the far ancestor of this lineage of 'brünnoid' would not be the same as one of the ancestor of the first 'indo-afghan' lineages? But it's so far in time concerning phenotypes and DNA can be drift so much...
Whatever the origin of Mesolithic people in Europe (and I'm sure they received lately some Near-Eastern input through Mediterranea) I think that after wintering during the LGM a lot of their ancestors came from the Pyrenees-Cantabricas-Gascogne regions; if some others were from Balkans, it doesn't change too much, their far ancestors were more or less the same mix I bet.

MOESAN
06-11-16, 23:19
Thanks Northerner, Moesan and Alan. That was a very interesting explanation. Just one question. Why are North Europeans dolicocephalic if Cro-Magnoids and Indo-Europeans were mesocephalic to brachycephalic? North Europeans have the lowest percentage of Neolithic farmer DNA so why are they most similar to them for head shape?

Late answer - I had not red every post (what a mistake!)
Alan is wrong when he says Hgs were mesocephalic or bracycephalic: and let's keep in mind the differences between crania classifications of CI and on life ones; crania of 80 or 80,1 or more are labelled "brachycrane" what is nonsense considering the modern pops of the world, Particuliarly Europe; 80-81 on life was the mean in the first half of the 20th Cy for pops. I prefer the CI cyphers to these broad classifications. All the Mesolithic and previous pops I know in Europe were between 70 to 77, unless some recent skulls about the 84 or more and some mesos around 78/81 which appeared lately, around the 6000 BC and in spotty regions of the Alps and maybe Balkans. I don't know but for 'europoids' I can imagine some "brachy" hearth around North Hindu-Kush??? No element, only guess here. The closer to Paleo the more dolichocephalic;

you: don't confuse shared CI and shared shapes.
Alan is more precise than me when he says Paleolithic people gave nothing (I think rather: few) to us; but the previous human stocks of Mesolithic Balkans were approximatively (for phenotypes) the same people as in western and northern Europe; diverse mixes where the two big previous stocks I described were present, one more here, another more there, but in vicinity and partly mixed. It's proved for Mesolithic Balkans if what I red is not only rubbish. Borreby's types are for me a brachycephalized result of this old mix; but it's true it appears later under this form in Denmark and N-Germany (4000 BC); I wonder if it's not of more eastern origin than the rather dolicho HGs of Scandinavia; and as I find some Tadjiks and even some Steppic late people showed here and there some close types (never the majority), and this kind of type appeared in S-Caucasus Near-East-Anatolia here an there at middle metals ages and were statistically associated with fairer hairs, I would be glad to find their first cradle: S-Baltic? Further East or South? to date I don't know; I have not the cranial traits of the FBK people who met the megalithic 'long-barrows' dolicho's of more atlantic and mediterranean origin. I was told some of them was of a similar type but without picture? Sometime ago I linked them to a lineage of Y-I2a2 men (remember: a spot East of Moskow), today I wait for more food. If this new thought I've is true, so, yes, Coon was not completely wrong, but confused eastern and western archaic people (what doesn't signify they had not a rather close shared ancestry not too long before.
Sorry for I'm long; I was writing and thinking at the same time. I hope my brain didn't too much noise?

Northener
19-11-16, 21:14
Thats what I wrote, didn't I :) ~60% Near Eastern Neolithic and 40% Hunter and Gatherer. Take in mind that this calculator eats up some of the Anatolian_Neo ancestry as WHG and Caucasus. In reality it is ~35% Anatolian_Neo and ~27% CHG. Also you could test the newer calculator on yourself. Than you would know what the average for your region is.

Just received some aDNA this week,

According to FTDNA,

50% hunter gatherer
39% farmer
11 % metal age

And according to Gedmatch MDLP K23b 4-Ancestors Oracle:

# Population Percent
1 European_Hunters_Gatherers 42.61
2 European_Early_Farmers 24.62
3 Caucasian 23.45
4 South_Central_Asian 4.35
5 Ancestral_Altaic 3.63

Using 1 population approximation:
1 North_German @ 2.702885
2 Dane @ 4.053313
3 Swede @ 4.753368
4 Dutch @ 4.838142
5 Norwegian_East @ 5.059787
6 South_German @ 5.791823
7 Austrian @ 6.383281
8 Belgian @ 6.993768
9 Frisian @ 7.069386
10 Norwegian_West @ 7.489056

Alan
20-11-16, 18:02
Just received some aDNA this week,

According to FTDNA,

50% hunter gatherer
39% farmer
11 % metal age

And according to Gedmatch MDLP K23b 4-Ancestors Oracle:

# Population Percent
1 European_Hunters_Gatherers 42.61
2 European_Early_Farmers 24.62
3 Caucasian 23.45
4 South_Central_Asian 4.35
5 Ancestral_Altaic 3.63

Using 1 population approximation:
1 North_German @ 2.702885
2 Dane @ 4.053313
3 Swede @ 4.753368
4 Dutch @ 4.838142
5 Norwegian_East @ 5.059787
6 South_German @ 5.791823
7 Austrian @ 6.383281
8 Belgian @ 6.993768
9 Frisian @ 7.069386
10 Norwegian_West @ 7.489056

Both admixture calculators are outdated and use non existent ghost population. On what ancient sample do they base "South_Central Asian" here?

Is there any ancient South_Central Asian data out to have such a component? :)

South_Central Asian here is just Iran_Neo ancestry that is closely related to Caucasian. Ancestral Altaic is another of those things.
European Hunters and Gatherers? Does it mean WHG? WHG is definitely not 42% believe me. Or do they mean EHG + WHG? Well that comes very close and makes sense.

But too many Outdated components by looking at it.

And I don't even want to start about company calculators like 23andme and ftDNA they are usually even more outdated than some amateur calculators.

What is Metal Age meant to be? How is a metal age sample supposed to be an ancestral component? Metal Age itself is probably a wild mix of EEF/CHG/WHG/EHG.
There is no CHG component it seems. And since they didn't clarified what these 50% Hunters and Gatherer is I assume this is basically Western Hunters and Gatherers, Eastern Hunter and Gatherers and Caucasus Hunters and Gatherers in one. Puting those three into one component as if they are the same is absurd considering how genetically different they are.

Take in mind with these calculators it always depends on what you want to know about your ancestry. Depending on the components used your results can look different but often are saying exactly the same.

For example Iran_Neo/CHG together with EHG ancetry could be labeled as Yamna like ancestry in a different calculator.

Or 3/4 Anatolian_Neo-EEF + 1/4 WHG could be labeled as MN Farmers.

Expredel
21-11-16, 00:51
Y haplogroups influencing phenotype is almost a certainty given how old they are. So the old researchers were probably right.

Northener
21-11-16, 10:25
Both admixture calculators are outdated and use non existent ghost population. On what ancient sample do they base "South_Central Asian" here?

Is there any ancient South_Central Asian data out to have such a component? :)

South_Central Asian here is just Iran_Neo ancestry that is closely related to Caucasian. Ancestral Altaic is another of those things.
European Hunters and Gatherers? Does it mean WHG? WHG is definitely not 42% believe me. Or do they mean EHG + WHG? Well that comes very close and makes sense.

But too many Outdated components by looking at it.

And I don't even want to start about company calculators like 23andme and ftDNA they are usually even more outdated than some amateur calculators.

What is Metal Age meant to be? How is a metal age sample supposed to be an ancestral component? Metal Age itself is probably a wild mix of EEF/CHG/WHG/EHG.
There is no CHG component it seems. And since they didn't clarified what these 50% Hunters and Gatherer is I assume this is basically Western Hunters and Gatherers, Eastern Hunter and Gatherers and Caucasus Hunters and Gatherers in one. Puting those three into one component as if they are the same is absurd considering how genetically different they are.

Take in mind with these calculators it always depends on what you want to know about your ancestry. Depending on the components used your results can look different but often are saying exactly the same.

For example Iran_Neo/CHG together with EHG ancetry could be labeled as Yamna like ancestry in a different calculator.

Or 3/4 Anatolian_Neo-EEF + 1/4 WHG could be labeled as MN Farmers.

Alan, difficult for me to consider the axioma's of the models behind the different tools. If I use the EEF-WHG-ANE test of Eurogenes, the one which Maciamo also has used, the spread is as follows:

EEF 43,87296332 = 44%
WHG 39,95275877= 40%
ANE 16,17427791= 16%

These are the European results:
8226

My results are in between Orcedian and Norwegian. So typically of the Northwestern cluster, although more outmost Northwestern than in my "neighborhood" like England!

I know these results are to be taken with lots of salt. But the bottom line I can see is in any analyses I have results which are typical of the Northwestern or Northsea cluster. Even more so than average North Dutch (which is already typical Northsea cluster).

My explanation is that in area's around the Northsea, just like the Balticum, were hotspots of Loschbour kind of HG. Later on the influences of EEF like and other people were in the North Sea area bigger than in the Balticum. But I guess that within my ancestors the HG contingent survived (slightly) more than average in North Dutch.

from:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-3.pdf

Huninc
24-08-17, 23:25
Mmm, I am Dutch, a northener from the Achterhoek region where most of my ancestors are originated for at least 500 years. My Y-DNA haplogroup is R1b-U106 (subclade R-Z8), mtDNA J1C. My results out of the Near East Neolithic K13 admixture, as is advized, says a mixture of 9.4% Anatolia Neolithic, 51.5% CHG_EEF, 19.5% EHG, 15% Scandinavian HG and 1.8% Natufian. The CHG_EEF combination is tricky, which part is Caucasian HG?

MOESAN
25-08-17, 20:03
Mmm, I am Dutch, a northener from the Achterhoek region where most of my ancestors are originated for at least 500 years. My Y-DNA haplogroup is R1b-U106 (subclade R-Z8), mtDNA J1C. My results out of the Near East Neolithic K13 admixture, as is advized, says a mixture of 9.4% Anatolia Neolithic, 51.5% CHG_EEF, 19.5% EHG, 15% Scandinavian HG and 1.8% Natufian. The CHG_EEF combination is tricky, which part is Caucasian HG?

What a medley! these reference subcategories seem to me a bit confusing: something like carots and turlips? So the "CHG-EEF"???