shapes and collective classifications: attempt

Merci pour la réponse!


Yes, it's not easy to make an analysis based on just one picture. Even when searching for "Rui Filipe FC Porto" in Google Images there isn't a lot of pictures.
View attachment 10290View attachment 10291
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_juovnWGPl...E/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/rui_filipe_dragoes.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QR9bgnZDUG8/U-qoKxnkbjI/AAAAAAAACuM/gItyVD_Q7Og/s1600/r2.jpg


And he passed away in 1994 with 26 years of age at the prime of his football career for Porto and Portugal.


He comes more or less from the same region of my ancestors. It's a Celtic area according to the History books and in those isolated mountains there are lots of Megalithic monuments such as dolmens and engravings.


So based on History and his phenotype, I would bet that he could also be a R-L21, which isn't that common in Iberia.




Merci et à bientôt!
 
Last edited:
Moesan, this feature no longer works. Here's what to do:
Go to imgur.com. Click on new post. Click on browse to download your own photo, or paste in the url. The picture will show up. Click on share links. I use the option for forums. Click on copy. Then, on a post here, click on the picture frame, delete check mark by clicking on it, and then paste in the url.

It sounds like a lot, but when you get used to it, it's very quick.

Thanks, Angela. I 'll try it when I have time.
 
Merci pour la réponse!


Yes, it's not easy to make an analysis based on just one picture. Even when searching for "Rui Filipe FC Porto" in Google Images there isn't a lot of pictures.
View attachment 10290View attachment 10291
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_juovnWGPl...E/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/rui_filipe_dragoes.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QR9bgnZDUG8/U-qoKxnkbjI/AAAAAAAACuM/gItyVD_Q7Og/s1600/r2.jpg


And he passed away in 1994 with 26 years of age at the prime of his football career for Porto and Portugal.


He comes more or less from the same region of my ancestors. It's a Celtic area according to the History books and in those isolated mountains there are lots of Megalithic monuments such as dolmens and engravings.


So based on History and his phenotype, I would bet that he could also be a R-L21, which isn't that common in Iberia.




Merci et ? bientôt!

The 'anhang' system doesn't work, it's not a surprise; but on 3/4 profile pic', his nose and mouth are not too 'nordic', confirming my 'diagnostic'; other elements are not visible enough.
Thanks for the pic's nevertheless. b?a noite! (correct?)
 
as a whole, globally speaking and taking the fleshy parts in account, 'med' more than 'nordic' (remnants unkown, too less clues) - sorry for these last hesitating precisions
 
I think the following facial phenotypes as seen in the australian population is a more promising classification.

https://www.opsm.com.au/style/face-shapes

and sketches:

https://www.deniseortakales.com/paper-clippings/2017/7/16/character-face-shapes

No archaic connotations any longer....

In combination with the ci-index, pigmentation (hair, eyes, skin) and length it could give a nice impression of the different European regions.

Personally I don't see too much what to do with these definitions and examples: so much elements are taking part in the overall shape, and I saw often enough faces disjunct from skull and forehead (but maybe the cheekbones are more coupled with skull?); and I think more than a locus is acting in skull shape, owing to a lot of different shapes after some generations of crossings, without speaking of recent intragroup mutations, phenomenons of gracilisation or congenital diseases ;
 
Personally I don't see too much what to do with these definitions and examples: so much elements are taking part in the overall shape, and I saw often enough faces disjunct from skull and forehead (but maybe the cheekbones are more coupled with skull?); and I think more than a locus is acting in skull shape, owing to a lot of different shapes after some generations of crossings, without speaking of recent intragroup mutations, phenomenons of gracilisation or congenital diseases ;

Yes that could be the case, but for verbs like cro-magnoid is this even more the case....the terminology of the old classifiers are suggestion a continuity, and ‘purist’ that never exists and has never exist....we should throw verbs like borreby, out of the window....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum
 
nevertheless these old definitions like 'borreby' depticted some statistical reality (realities in fact), the question being: could it be spoken of a type relatively stable over a respectable number of generations and forming the bulk of the pop, or of some relatively common result of simple crossing?
If crossing of different types, it produces always lesser people very close to the theorical type features , and it produces a high %age of gradual intermediary types and also a high enough %age of very different types, someones close to the "parent" types (if there were someones before) and even types that get farther than the different "founding" types from the mean; I already said that in the so called 'borreby' types, even if taking the "type" in a broad sense, we can see two very different ancient elements influences, what doesn't exclude others less evident.
"type" is based upon phenotypical features that, appearing as "coupled" within them in the most of individuals of a pop, can suggest that at least at the genetical level concerning these visible features, some stable isolation in some mesological context can have occurred creating a partial raciation whatever what could say the total autosomal picture. Sorry, I'm not sure my english makes it clear enough.

All the way, crossings/admixtures don't exclude the usefulness of rigorous phenotypical analysises, applied upon a not too long span of time (say: some few thousends of years).
And some specific traits seem having a long life, and we cannot always evocate convergent independant mutations, even if "we" have already discovered some of them.
about pre- and current- and post-Natufians periods it seems evident to me that external pops inputs was at work pointing to different directions of geographical origins and the ancient auDNA does not contradict this IMO, when we look at recent works.
goedenavond; ik heb hunger en dorst (goed?)
 
concerning 'cromagnon', the serious old books spoke of the first ones the most of them in Dordogne - for the later period they used the term of 'cromagnoid' and true, I find it bad enough because among them some show the introgressions of other ancient pops and not only insitu drift, what confirms anthropology but more surely ancient DNA.
 
nevertheless these old definitions like 'borreby' depticted some statistical reality (realities in fact), the question being: could it be spoken of a type relatively stable over a respectable number of generations and forming the bulk of the pop, or of some relatively common result of simple crossing?
If crossing of different types, it produces always lesser people very close to the theorical type features , and it produces a high %age of gradual intermediary types and also a high enough %age of very different types, someones close to the "parent" types (if there were someones before) and even types that get farther than the different "founding" types from the mean; I already said that in the so called 'borreby' types, even if taking the "type" in a broad sense, we can see two very different ancient elements influences, what doesn't exclude others less evident.
"type" is based upon phenotypical features that, appearing as "coupled" within them in the most of individuals of a pop, can suggest that at least at the genetical level concerning these visible features, some stable isolation in some mesological context can have occurred creating a partial raciation whatever what could say the total autosomal picture. Sorry, I'm not sure my english makes it clear enough.

All the way, crossings/admixtures don't exclude the usefulness of rigorous phenotypical analysises, applied upon a not too long span of time (say: some few thousends of years).
And some specific traits seem having a long life, and we cannot always evocate convergent independant mutations, even if "we" have already discovered some of them.
about pre- and current- and post-Natufians periods it seems evident to me that external pops inputs was at work pointing to different directions of geographical origins and the ancient auDNA does not contradict this IMO, when we look at recent works.
goedenavond; ik heb hunger en dorst (goed?)

Zeer goed!

“these visible features, some stable isolation in some mesological context can have occurred creating a partial raciation whatever what could say the total autosomal picture.”

I ‘m not aware of such isolated area’s in Europe. And certainly not in the last centuries.

When I take my region, the outmost northeastern part of the Netherlands, as an example than the autosomal mixture is very influenced by NW Germany. That would mean a same kind of phenotype.....ok judging from seen there some truth in it.... But does this represent some partial raciation some isolation from let's say Poland or Northern France? That would be the Coonian Borrebey That’s for a next posting.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum
 
Last edited:
I spoke of "true" types; not any pop today can says it is completely of so a type - these types are all a bit older, and IMO found birth when some provisional isolats existed with a narrowing of bilateral genes exchanges, as well as tribals systems, playing upon not too numerous pops - say: 6000/10000 years ago?
 
concerning 'cromagnon', the serious old books spoke of the first ones the most of them in Dordogne - for the later period they used the term of 'cromagnoid' and true, I find it bad enough because among them some show the introgressions of other ancient pops and not only insitu drift, what confirms anthropology but more surely ancient DNA.

The 'cro-magnoid' type would be in (NW) Europe the Borreby.

And as far as I know this is the original Borreby type:

yln5tenbs27kr.png


But this phenotype, see this brow ridges and this very very sloping forehead is not all very familiar in my region nor in NW Germany!

There are more phenotypes like mine, pretty steep forehead, and most of all the heads that are very long and broad (my bizygomatic breadth is 160 mm so hard to get glasses), and moderate or slightly brachycephaly. This type is more common in NE Netherlands and NW Germany. That would be the Borreby but this Borreby doesn't resemble the one and only original!

The original Borreby ^^^ does resemble my father in law a bit.....(especially the sloping forehead) but the best man is from NW France in stead of NW Germany ;)
 
Last edited:
Agree with you.
This 'borreby' type is the one who gave birth to the naming; that said, a man is not a type - and we know that later what was put into this bag-name by classical anthropologs was a mix of diverse types sharing only sub-brachycephally and more or less tendancy to light pigmentation and rather high stature, but with big individual differences for cheekbones flaring, under jaw breadth, skull height, orbits shapes and size, frontal profile ... -
what I can say is that among modern men, not so far in time (5000 y.) is that someones in North Europe show still some ressemblances with this man (so maybe type but not by force: it could only be a common enough result of a simple crossing) - other thing: this type, aside brachycephalisation, shows strong ties with dolichocephallic most brutal 'br?nn' (in this Brno region, true 'cromagoid' descendants lived close to subsequent 'br?nnoid' types of very different and more brutal shapes, and later mated with them) - so this closeness of this original 'borreby' of Denmark to 'br?nnoid' types excludes we can name it a direct 'cromagnoid' -

the more 'cromagnoid' so called 'borreby' collegue type except sub-brachycephally, shows very different shapes: more steep forehead, less browridges, longer flatter skull roof spite same index, smaller orbits, broader under jaw... found too among northern Europe pops - but I still don't know if we have here true types (homozigoty of every bone trait) or one of these ancient dolichocehpallic 'pattern' types crossed with a brachycephallic type? all the way, as already said, a skull is not sufficient to define a type ...
what is true is that these more or less well defined "types" travelled and when we find in a far enough region the same types in some proportion we can question ourselves about a possible introgression so an historical clue for demic input, at least over some centuries and even kilo-years.
 
Agree with you.
This 'borreby' type is the one who gave birth to the naming; that said, a man is not a type - and we know that later what was put into this bag-name by classical anthropologs was a mix of diverse types sharing only sub-brachycephally and more or less tendancy to light pigmentation and rather high stature, but with big individual differences for cheekbones flaring, under jaw breadth, skull height, orbits shapes and size, frontal profile ... -
what I can say is that among modern men, not so far in time (5000 y.) is that someones in North Europe show still some ressemblances with this man (so maybe type but not by force: it could only be a common enough result of a simple crossing) - other thing: this type, aside brachycephalisation, shows strong ties with dolichocephallic most brutal 'br?nn' (in this Brno region, true 'cromagoid' descendants lived close to subsequent 'br?nnoid' types of very different and more brutal shapes, and later mated with them) - so this closeness of this original 'borreby' of Denmark to 'br?nnoid' types excludes we can name it a direct 'cromagnoid' -

the more 'cromagnoid' so called 'borreby' collegue type except sub-brachycephally, shows very different shapes: more steep forehead, less browridges, longer flatter skull roof spite same index, smaller orbits, broader under jaw... found too among northern Europe pops - but I still don't know if we have here true types (homozigoty of every bone trait) or one of these ancient dolichocehpallic 'pattern' types crossed with a brachycephallic type? all the way, as already said, a skull is not sufficient to define a type ...
what is true is that these more or less well defined "types" travelled and when we find in a far enough region the same types in some proportion we can question ourselves about a possible introgression so an historical clue for demic input, at least over some centuries and even kilo-years.
 
Agree with you.
This 'borreby' type is the one who gave birth to the naming; that said, a man is not a type - and we know that later what was put into this bag-name by classical anthropologs was a mix of diverse types sharing only sub-brachycephally and more or less tendancy to light pigmentation and rather high stature, but with big individual differences for cheekbones flaring, under jaw breadth, skull height, orbits shapes and size, frontal profile ... -
what I can say is that among modern men, not so far in time (5000 y.) is that someones in North Europe show still some ressemblances with this man (so maybe type but not by force: it could only be a common enough result of a simple crossing) - other thing: this type, aside brachycephalisation, shows strong ties with dolichocephallic most brutal 'br�nn' (in this Brno region, true 'cromagoid' descendants lived close to subsequent 'br�nnoid' types of very different and more brutal shapes, and later mated with them) - so this closeness of this original 'borreby' of Denmark to 'br�nnoid' types excludes we can name it a direct 'cromagnoid' -

the more 'cromagnoid' so called 'borreby' collegue type except sub-brachycephally, shows very different shapes: more steep forehead, less browridges, longer flatter skull roof spite same index, smaller orbits, broader under jaw... found too among northern Europe pops - but I still don't know if we have here true types (homozigoty of every bone trait) or one of these ancient dolichocehpallic 'pattern' types crossed with a brachycephallic type? all the way, as already said, a skull is not sufficient to define a type ...
what is true is that these more or less well defined "types" travelled and when we find in a far enough region the same types in some proportion we can question ourselves about a possible introgression so an historical clue for demic input, at least over some centuries and even kilo-years.

Thanks Moesan! I guess "brorreby" and "brunn" is all too much in the Coonian frame. I guess dead end street. Although endlessly recycled on the internet (in some fora).

So this closeness of this original 'borreby' of Denmark to 'brunnoid' types excludes we can name it a direct 'cromagnoid'

In how fare is Brunn and Borreby a Coonian frame, that even in his book is not wel defined and the connected pictures are sometimes messy.

That said what is connected to "Brunn" or "Borreby" ? Coon and the SNPA kind of classifiers give this connection:

Upper Paleolithic survivor

Modern Borrebys are derived, historically, from the old northwestern European coastal fishing population

The distinctive "Irish" features which characterize the Brünn are to some extent recalled in the Scandinavian Cro-Magnid stock

Huh huh.

Meanwhile what brings us the modern DNA research.....

Let's assume the Brunn and Borreby were connected with the Ertebolle culture, that's the really HG/fishing culture of NW Europe/Southern Scandinavia.

But after that there were at least two major influences:
- the Neolithic shift, migration from the Mediterranean to NW Europe/ Southern Scandinavia (see the Gokhem DNA that is Med).
- the Steppe, Bronze Age shift, we recently have publications how deep is the impact of the Bell Beaker people (and phenotype!?). We now have mostly R1b types in NW Europe mostly connected nowadays with Steppe influence.

In the modern NW Europe gene pool how much is left of the Ertebolle genes?
I guess mostly mixed with (or in some extent fused away) by the Med. genes and Steppe genes. Of course on their turn these Med. genes and Steppe genes are connected with a HG type. But that's not the HG genotype and guess not the phenotype of the Ertebølle HG population!

So may be the 'Borreby" and "Brunn" phenotypes are more pointing at Steppe influences than that of the Ertebølle!

So in the end is the Borreby/ Brunn are modern European phenotypes that ar genetically rooted in the Beaker influence (of course mixed with the older Neolithic/HG residu of NW Europe).
 
It?s a no-end discussion, in some way, without metrics details and auDNA of the very same pop?s (place and time).
Surely someones smile when they read my posts (if they do, of course). When I speak of ?cromagnoid? and ?br?nnoid? I speak of very close features inherited by far more recent pops. Some smart people think this is ridiculous because new admixtures took place during the periods of Upper-paleolithic and Mesolithic, on great spaces between Western Europe and East-Central Asia. My fealing is that at the phenotypical level, some typical features were not always so new but only the redistribution of ancient traits genetically inherited but not particularly adaptative to selection. By example some tendancies (without adaptative advantage) seem to me bequeathed by West-Central Asian ancient HG?s pop?s which imported these features wave after wave, without too big phenotypical change spite their adaptative auDNA could have evolved for parts with changes of echological places or of climate. When I speak of ? cromagnoid ? or ? br?nnoid ? aspects I refer to external shapes spite I know no isolated genuine ?cromagnon? or ?br?nn? stayed intouched even before Mesolithic, their first ? illegitimate ? matings beeing between both, as in Bohemia and elsewhere, according to places and time (by instance some old scholars thought both old patterns were found among Balkans Mesolithic people, mixed or not). The eastern models traits ar resumed by true dolichocephaly, large upper face but with a more or less high lower face and narrow bigonial (under jaw) spite broad bizygoma (cheekbones), a not too broad nasal hole, and very receding frontal and very strong browridges, a cranial vault with an arched lateral profile, in fact something ?br?nn?like close which remains in upperpaleolithic ?combe-capelle? ; these tendancies play a role, I think, partly gracilised and in composition, in the so called ?eurafrican? type so in ?indo-afghan? types and in some new components in the Near-Eastern pops, at the period or late Levant Farmers.
Hard to make a sketche of these migrations/mixings : admixture at a high level was not the rule everywhere, and back moves occurred more than a time (glaciation, glaces break-up and later before Neolithic) ? the rule would be rather a more or less level mix of both great ? models ?, with sometimes local ? choices ? of sets of traits, and in certain places preponderance of one of both ; new mutations occurred of course but I believe that some old tendancies remained which shape still the features of some today people, partly gracilised.

When we look at metric surveys about Northern Europe, we can read the most of the people - until around 4000 BC and even later in some places and cultures ? had kept ruggy traits with old features : as a whole, huge heads whatever the statures, rather broad faces, massive all the way, spite dolichocephalic, from hyperdolicho to meso. Relying on readings, Erteb?lle people as a mean were dolichocephalic, their faces were big, with relatively broad and low faces : they were close to the people of Sredny Stog and Dniestr-Dniepr of LN. Around Baltic lands, until 2500 BC or around (in their very EN), the types were close, but hyperdolicho, high faced, and a bit higher and narrower of face, even if still massive : rather mesoprosop than euryprosop : in all these incomplete descriptions I see the old heritage of dominant ?cromagnoid? and ?br?nnoid? features, more ?br?nnoid? among pre-Balts pre-Estonian peoplee time. These people ? the ? arctics ? expansion of H. Hubert in in book about the Germanics? - had travelled until East-Baltic lands, Onega and Ladoga lakes, were they entered in contact with SW-Siberian HG?s (archaic ?proto-Uralic? type not well differentiated post-ANE, with some features closer to ?east-asian? types) ; ; the result of this new admixture was a more mesocephalic types, with a rather flat horizontal profile of face, a low bridged nose with smaller nasal angle ; surely the future West-Finnic basic type. Seemingly Pit Comb Ware C. people? if we consider auDNA, the ?proto-Uralic? type would have been little enough of the so called ?east-asian? DNA (rather northern siberian side) ;
This admixture progressed westwards around 2500 BC and after, MN, until Estonia and Eastern Latvia, not reaching Lithuania.
CWC/Battle Axe C. dolicho high skulled very high faced people came after with true Neolithic.
Their making can be discussed later.

& : personally, I think all this are average measures. The ?br?nn? heritage seems to me stronger as a whole than the ?croma? one ; but this advantage varied according to place, ?croma? shaped faces and skulls are still seen in Europe.


DNA level : Latvia and Ukraine Mesolithic and Neolithic : it seems some exchanges occurred between Latvia HG?s descendants (who were between WHG and SHG), with introgression of more EHG people, at MN ? at LN, the influence of CHG is strong : here LN Latvian are almost identical to CWC people on PCA?s ; this DNA study sample is helas very scarce. But it seems merking the beginning of introgression from East in Baltic regions at MN, and we can say the auDNA and metrics confirm one another, as very often IMO.
in Ukraina, HG were between SHG and EHG, and Neolithic ones drifted a little bit towards Latvian HG, so we can suggest here a partial osmosis between Ukrainian Neol and Baltic HG?s descendants (the admixture runs show in Ukraine N just a bit more of CHG than Ukraine HG where it was already present at low rates) ; Kazarnitsky (metrics) thought Neolithic in Ukraine had received new human elements compared to mesolithic ? I think in a slight osmosis in Ukraine with a bit of Comb CCC genetically related people (and some more mt-U4) at early Neolithic (?) -

Among novelties, brachycephalisation seems occurring since 8000/6000 BC in some places, very often highlands (mesological selection?) ? in Western Steppes, the Pit Grave people of Kalmykia had a tendancy to brachycephaly compared to Ukraine HG?s and to Ukraine Pit Grave people, tendancy shared with Ukraine, Russia and Latvia Neolithic but with a less flat facial profile and a more protuding nose than these last ones (more ?ando-afghan? input ? More on a ?dinaric? way ? Less of the tiny SW-Siberian HG?s input?) - I regreat here again the lack of individuals and mean mesures, what we have today are plottings and dendograms, these last ones without too big sense the more often.
So weak brachycephalisation (at the average level) at those times in some places in Central and East Baltic regions, with possible mix of traits inherited from diverse horizons, for the most among robust pops on the bony angle. I wonder if our ?borrebies? or pseudo-?borrebies? are not the result of these mixes with diverse results according to preponderence of types or to hazardous recombinations. The so typical (for us) eyelids of some Finnic people are labelled ?east-asian? : in fact they are typical of only some of ?east-asians?, and more than the not always present internal eyefold it?s the thin triangular aperture and the typical almost rectiligne ascending inferior eyelid that make them remarkable ; surely inherited from the proto-Uralic componant. Some of these eyelids are found also among Scandinavian and even farther in Western Europe spite more seldomly.
& : ?dinaric? itself could be an other recombination with addition of a ?mediter? variant. I avow I?m short for ?dinaric? concerning details, only that they does not seem to me a stable type.

to answer you (at last) yes 'croma' as well as 'br?nn' lasting influences were present among Erteb?lle (and other northern preneol. cultures) but the 'borreby'complex ought maybe more to LN-Eneolithic intrusions from East/North-East than to a pure local 'alpinisation' which stayed steadily weak there compared to W-Alps.
 
Echec with Imgur.com too
 
It�s a no-end discussion, in some way, without metrics details and auDNA of the very same pop�s (place and time).
Surely someones smile when they read my posts (if they do, of course). When I speak of �cromagnoid� and �br�nnoid� I speak of very close features inherited by far more recent pops. Some smart people think this is ridiculous because new admixtures took place during the periods of Upper-paleolithic and Mesolithic, on great spaces between Western Europe and East-Central Asia. My fealing is that at the phenotypical level, some typical features were not always so new but only the redistribution of ancient traits genetically inherited but not particularly adaptative to selection. By example some tendancies (without adaptative advantage) seem to me bequeathed by West-Central Asian ancient HG�s pop�s which imported these features wave after wave, without too big phenotypical change spite their adaptative auDNA could have evolved for parts with changes of echological places or of climate. When I speak of � cromagnoid � or � br�nnoid � aspects I refer to external shapes spite I know no isolated genuine �cromagnon� or �br�nn� stayed intouched even before Mesolithic, their first � illegitimate � matings beeing between both, as in Bohemia and elsewhere, according to places and time (by instance some old scholars thought both old patterns were found among Balkans Mesolithic people, mixed or not). The eastern models traits ar resumed by true dolichocephaly, large upper face but with a more or less high lower face and narrow bigonial (under jaw) spite broad bizygoma (cheekbones), a not too broad nasal hole, and very receding frontal and very strong browridges, a cranial vault with an arched lateral profile, in fact something �br�nn�like close which remains in upperpaleolithic �combe-capelle� ; these tendancies play a role, I think, partly gracilised and in composition, in the so called �eurafrican� type so in �indo-afghan� types and in some new components in the Near-Eastern pops, at the period or late Levant Farmers.
Hard to make a sketche of these migrations/mixings : admixture at a high level was not the rule everywhere, and back moves occurred more than a time (glaciation, glaces break-up and later before Neolithic) � the rule would be rather a more or less level mix of both great � models �, with sometimes local � choices � of sets of traits, and in certain places preponderance of one of both ; new mutations occurred of course but I believe that some old tendancies remained which shape still the features of some today people, partly gracilised.
When we look at metric surveys about Northern Europe, we can read the most of the people - until around 4000 BC and even later in some places and cultures � had kept ruggy traits with old features : as a whole, huge heads whatever the statures, rather broad faces, massive all the way, spite dolichocephalic, from hyperdolicho to meso. Relying on readings, Erteb�lle people as a mean were dolichocephalic, their faces were big, with relatively broad and low faces : they were close to the people of Sredny Stog and Dniestr-Dniepr of LN. Around Baltic lands, until 2500 BC or around (in their very EN), the types were close, but hyperdolicho, high faced, and a bit higher and narrower of face, even if still massive : rather mesoprosop than euryprosop : in all these incomplete descriptions I see the old heritage of dominant �cromagnoid� and �br�nnoid� features, more �br�nnoid� among pre-Balts pre-Estonian peoplee time. These people � the � arctics � expansion of H. Hubert in in book about the Germanics? - had travelled until East-Baltic lands, Onega and Ladoga lakes, were they entered in contact with SW-Siberian HG�s (archaic �proto-Uralic� type not well differentiated post-ANE, with some features closer to �east-asian� types) ; ; the result of this new admixture was a more mesocephalic types, with a rather flat horizontal profile of face, a low bridged nose with smaller nasal angle ; surely the future West-Finnic basic type. Seemingly Pit Comb Ware C. people� if we consider auDNA, the �proto-Uralic� type would have been little enough of the so called �east-asian� DNA (rather northern siberian side) ;
This admixture progressed westwards around 2500 BC and after, MN, until Estonia and Eastern Latvia, not reaching Lithuania.
CWC/Battle Axe C. dolicho high skulled very high faced people came after with true Neolithic.
Their making can be discussed later.
& : personally, I think all this are average measures. The �br�nn� heritage seems to me stronger as a whole than the �croma� one ; but this advantage varied according to place, �croma� shaped faces and skulls are still seen in Europe.
DNA level : Latvia and Ukraine Mesolithic and Neolithic : it seems some exchanges occurred between Latvia HG�s descendants (who were between WHG and SHG), with introgression of more EHG people, at MN � at LN, the influence of CHG is strong : here LN Latvian are almost identical to CWC people on PCA�s ; this DNA study sample is helas very scarce. But it seems merking the beginning of introgression from East in Baltic regions at MN, and we can say the auDNA and metrics confirm one another, as very often IMO.
in Ukraina, HG were between SHG and EHG, and Neolithic ones drifted a little bit towards Latvian HG, so we can suggest here a partial osmosis between Ukrainian Neol and Baltic HG�s descendants (the admixture runs show in Ukraine N just a bit more of CHG than Ukraine HG where it was already present at low rates) ; Kazarnitsky (metrics) thought Neolithic in Ukraine had received new human elements compared to mesolithic � I think in a slight osmosis in Ukraine with a bit of Comb CCC genetically related people (and some more mt-U4) at early Neolithic (?) -
Among novelties, brachycephalisation seems occurring since 8000/6000 BC in some places, very often highlands (mesological selection?) � in Western Steppes, the Pit Grave people of Kalmykia had a tendancy to brachycephaly compared to Ukraine HG�s and to Ukraine Pit Grave people, tendancy shared with Ukraine, Russia and Latvia Neolithic but with a less flat facial profile and a more protuding nose than these last ones (more �ando-afghan� input ? More on a �dinaric� way ? Less of the tiny SW-Siberian HG�s input?) - I regreat here again the lack of individuals and mean mesures, what we have today are plottings and dendograms, these last ones without too big sense the more often.
So weak brachycephalisation (at the average level) at those times in some places in Central and East Baltic regions, with possible mix of traits inherited from diverse horizons, for the most among robust pops on the bony angle. I wonder if our �borrebies� or pseudo-�borrebies� are not the result of these mixes with diverse results according to preponderence of types or to hazardous recombinations. The so typical (for us) eyelids of some Finnic people are labelled �east-asian� : in fact they are typical of only some of �east-asians�, and more than the not always present internal eyefold it�s the thin triangular aperture and the typical almost rectiligne ascending inferior eyelid that make them remarkable ; surely inherited from the proto-Uralic componant. Some of these eyelids are found also among Scandinavian and even farther in Western Europe spite more seldomly.
& : �dinaric� itself could be an other recombination with addition of a �mediter� variant. I avow I�m short for �dinaric� concerning details, only that they does not seem to me a stable type.
to answer you (at last) yes 'croma' as well as 'br�nn' lasting influences were present among Erteb�lle (and other northern preneol. cultures) but the 'borreby'complex ought maybe more to LN-Eneolithic intrusions from East/North-East than to a pure local 'alpinisation' which stayed steadily weak there compared to W-Alps.

In this respect what is your opinion about the influence of the neanderthaler? Recent publications about the influence from 'neanderthaler' genes state that the influence is quantitive relative small 2-3% on the modern European people, but quite influential on a 'basic level' like immunity (indeed also covid) but also on thing like pigmentation (remarkable: both light and dark!), and may be also on the skull?

I found this pic, ranging from supposed 'unadmixed' A to no influence under G. Or do they fit in your 'croma' and 'brünn'/ 'capeloid' scheme?

 
Last edited:
I have no time just now to come into deep exchanges about this stuff. Just, as an "amateur" and at the purely craniological level, I think modern W-Eurasian pops owe very little to 'neanderthal' types (those I know, were they so homogenous allof them?) when I can imagine evident links with paleolithical and mesolithical sapiens sapiens types as 'croma' or 'brünn' or 'combe-capelle' inherited by modern people. 'neanderthal' type seems to me of its own.
 
Absolutely right. Just logically, how could 2% ancestry have a huge affect on physical appearance.
 

This thread has been viewed 90368 times.

Back
Top