WHG or EHG look alike?

I recently saw Mait Metspalu on a video about the Pagani et al "Out of Africa" paper, and he immediately struck me as having a somewhat archaic look...WHG/EHG, maybe? I'm talking strictly facially. Am I totally off here? Does he have any unique ancestry to anyone's knowledge?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct...qNkpwy_7o6A-mbwN31bZKLsQ&ust=1474915937037976



See:


This guy above has higher cheekbones and a bonier nose, but as to the nose I'm always skeptical that they can get it right.

oh they are very much alike! I love the comparison, let's ask Mait Metspalu, how much EHG he is...

The figure 3 in Haak 2015 provides us with evidence of higher WHG ancestry in Estonia.



In this figure Estonians seem to be more than 30% Loschbour like.

The guy Angela posted is Loscbour. Isn't he?

Kristiina said:

The figure 3 in Haak 2015 provides us with evidence of higher WHG ancestry in Estonia.

View attachment 8062

In this figure Estonians seem to be more than 30% Loschbour like.

The guy Angela posted is Loscbour. Isn't he?

Click to expand...

Yes, Kristina, it is. So, maybe WHG like it is?

Yeah, could be so. Maybe he is a lookalike of "true Europeans": no African, no Mediterranean, no West Asian, no Yamnaya, no Siberian, no Native American.

Until someone here gives sources telling what WHG skeletal features were, we'll have no idea if he has a WHG look. Does anyone have said sources? Anyone can have a heavy build and beard, lots did in the ancient world, so that doesn't add to his WHGness, WHG didn't look any rougher or primitive than anyone else. EHG is basically a mixture of WHG and ANE, so if we assume there were distinct WHG looks the question is does he have a WHG or other look.

Kristiina said:

Yeah, could be so. Maybe he is a lookalike of "true Europeans": no African, no Mediterranean, no West Asian, no Yamnaya, no Siberian, no Native American.

Click to expand...

I'm being picky here but.... Modern West Asians aren't pure CHG and modern Mediterraneans aren't pure Anatolia Neolithic. Also, Anatolia Neolithic and his relatives lived in the East Mediterranean, most of the European Mediterranean was WHG. I get what you're saying though and you're right. Also, btw Western Europe wasn't the only location WHG lived in.....

Fire Haired14 said:

Until someone here gives sources telling what WHG skeletal features were, we'll have no idea if he has a WHG look.

Click to expand...

As per Angela, we are only talking about facial features. WHG is defined on the basis of Loschbour and the facial reconstruction is made of Loschbour, so we really cannot have any better facial reference for WHG than Loschbour.

Kristiina said:

Maybe he is a lookalike of "true Europeans"

Click to expand...

True Europeans would be Neandertals, anyone else is just super late comer. ^_~

Kristiina said:

As per Angela, we are only talking about facial features. WHG is defined on the basis of Loschbour and the facial reconstruction is made of Loschbour, so we really cannot have any better facial reference for WHG than Loschbour.

Click to expand...

Loschbour is only one individual. Two different individuals from the same population can have very different facial features. In some populations most individuals do have similar facial features(ex: East Asians and Native Americans), but I've noticed Europeans have lots of variation in facial features. Maybe Loschbour is representative of WHGs and maybe not.

There were NOT 2 but at least 3 ( three !! ) types of the European hunter gatherers. EHG (Eastern European), SHG (Scandinavian) and WHG (Western European).


Ancient EHG were much more shifted toward ANE than other European hunter gatherers. The distance between 'EHG and ANE' was practically the same as the distance between 'CHG/Neolithic Iran and ANE'.

But today modern day Caucasians/Iranians have more ANE than Europeans..

If you look at that map screenshot you can see that EHG and WHG were clearly 2 totally DIFFERENT species / races!!!

Could you imagine if he really was loschbour and had his own show? It would be called "An Intellectual Discourse with Professor Loscbour"

Today's episode, we shall discuss the metaphysical aspects of spearing a wild boar

Kristiina said:

"true Europeans": no African, no Mediterranean, no West Asian, no Yamnaya, no Siberian, no Native American.

Click to expand...

Ancients with Eurogenes K15:

https://s9.postimg.org/h9vj9gi9p/K15_Ancients.png

File with data: http://www85.zippyshare.com/v/E6DR0qQl/file.html



A PCA based on those results:

http://s16.postimg.org/d5v0tx1et/PCA_described.png



If we add moderns, then I guess:

http://s9.postimg.org/rkmjd7cr3/Europeans.png

Indeed!



Only European components: North Sea, Atlantic, Baltic and East Euro. That 0.8% of Oceanian is probably archaic noise.

Moi-même said:

True Europeans would be Neandertals, anyone else is just super late comer. ^_~

View attachment 8064

Click to expand...

Brilliant!

Kristiina said:

That 0.8% of Oceanian is probably archaic noise.

Click to expand...

It is not archaic, but from the First Out of Africa of Homo Sapiens 90,000 years ago:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...from-early-Out-of-Africa-migration-90-000-ybp

Note that Oceanian = Papuan-like (Papuans score ~99,99% of Oceanian admixture).

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

On the other hand, "Sub-Saharan" and "Northeast African" in some samples might be excess (above the norm) of archaic.

Because this calculator does not distinguish between Neanderthal/Denisovan (above the "modern norm") and Sub-Saharan.

It probably counts anything from Before-Out-Of-Africa as Sub-Saharan, no matter if it was 50,000 or 800,000 years before.

Check on your own:

Gedmatch kit - sample:

Fire Haired14 said:

In some populations most individuals do have similar facial features(ex: East Asians and Native Americans)

Click to expand...

No, they have as much variation as Europeans. However, we don't see this because they look just so different.

There is a condition when people cannot distinguish faces at all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopagnosia

Gather 20 stones of similar size and shape, and try to remember their features, then recognize which is which.

People with face blindness also have such difficulty but with faces.

People of a given race have more difficulty with distinguishing faces of people of another race, than their own.

Tomenable said:

No, they have as much variation as Europeans. However, we don't see this because they look just so different.

There is a condition when people cannot distinguish faces at all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopagnosia

Gather 20 stones of similar size and shape, and try to remember their features, then recognize which is which.

People with face blindness also have such difficulty but with faces.

People of a given race have more difficulty with distinguishing faces of people of another race, than their own.

Click to expand...

That's absolutely true; it's called the cross-race effect, and has to be taken into account when taking eye witness testimony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect#The_cross-race_effect_across_ethnic_groups

However, in my opinion there's no question there's less variation in east Asians. For one thing there isn't the variation in hair and eye color we have in Europe, and skin tone too. Height also varies more.

Those are all "hooks" for recognition.

The only way to know would be to test large numbers of Caucasians doing facial recognition of Caucasians, and East Asians doing it of East Asians, and see if there are differences. Of course, that might be politically incorrect, so they probably won't do it.

For one thing there isn't the variation in hair and eye color we have in Europe, and skin tone too.

Click to expand...

There is quite a lot of variation in skin tone between East Asians. Probably more than in Europe.

As for hair and eye color, here I agree.