Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 111

Thread: shapes and collective classifications: attempt

  1. #76
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,921

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 members found this post helpful.
    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 ‘brünnoid’ 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 « brünnoid » aspects I refer to external shapes spite I know no isolated genuine ‘cromagnon’ or ‘brünn’ 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 ‘brünn’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, Ertebölle 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 ‘brünnoid’ features, more ‘brünnoid’ 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 ‘brünn’ 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 'brünn' lasting influences were present among Ertebölle (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.

  2. #77
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,921

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Echec with Imgur.com too

  3. #78
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,149

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Germanic
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    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 by Northener; 18-04-21 at 08:19.

  4. #79
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,921

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    2 members found this post helpful.
    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.

  5. #80
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,249


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Absolutely right. Just logically, how could 2% ancestry have a huge affect on physical appearance.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  6. #81
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,149

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Germanic
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Absolutely right. Just logically, how could 2% ancestry have a huge affect on physical appearance.
    Because on a basic, 'deeper level' these still play a part in for example pigmentation, immunity.

    Yair (2021)

    While, on average, Neanderthal-derived alleles have been selected against, a few alleles exist at high frequency in present-day non-African populations and reflect putative cases of adaptive introgression (Abi43 Rached et al., 2011; Sankararaman et al., 2014; Khrameeva et al., 2014; Vernot and Akey, 2014; Dannemann et al., 2016; Deschamps et al., 2016; Gittelman et al., 2016; Racimo et al., 2017; Jagoda et al., 2018; Quach et al., 2016; Sams et al., 2016; Setter et al., 2020). These alleles have been identified based on the characteristic patterns left behind by adaptive introgression, namely high haplotype similarity between Eurasian modern humans and Neanderthals, and the deep divergence of haplotypes within modern human populations. It appears that most sweeps on Neanderthal introgressed alleles were partial sweeps, with selected alleles only reaching frequencies around 30 to 60%. Thus, dips in genetic diversity due to adaptive Neanderthal introgression are dampened relative to hard, full sweeps on de novo mutations. Some of the selected Neanderthal alleles contribute to traits that may have been under selection during modern human expansion out of Africa, such as immunity, skin pigmentation, and metabolism (Abi-Rached et al., 2011; Sankararaman et al., 2014; Khrameeva et al., 2014; Vernot and Akey, 2014; Dannemann et al.,2016; Gittelman et al., 2016; Racimo et al., 2017; Jagoda et al., 2018; Quach et al., 2016).

  7. #82
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,149

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Germanic
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    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.
    Thanks Moesan, aren't the most of us amateurs in these matters?
    I guess some "atavism" could in the end have roots along the neanderthalers, with their protruding brow, expressive mid face and big noses.

    The prominent brows could have, partly, survived as a sign of dominance....

    https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...y-nature-study

  8. #83
    Elite member
    Join Date
    10-12-15
    Posts
    657


    Country: Canada



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    Thanks Moesan, aren't the most of us amateurs in these matters?
    I guess some "atavism" could in the end have roots along the neanderthalers, with their protruding brow, expressive mid face and big noses.

    The prominent brows could have, partly, survived as a sign of dominance....

    https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...y-nature-study
    How about this neolithic guy at middle irtysh region? Does he look like Neanderthal? Denisovans's cave was found in Altai. We already knew many giant warriors at bronze age and so many giant skulls were buried in america.



    A Neanderthal’s skull (right)




  9. #84
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,149

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Germanic
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by johen View Post
    How about this neolithic guy at middle irtysh region? Does he look like Neanderthal? Denisovans's cave was found in Altai. We already knew many giant warriors at bronze age and so many giant skulls were buried in america.



    A Neanderthal’s skull (right)


    yeah pretty doesn't he? they were most probably related too....


  10. #85
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,921

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    Because on a basic, 'deeper level' these still play a part in for example pigmentation, immunity.

    Yair (2021)
    It seems Neanderthal people were very variable for pigmentation traits and that the depigmenting mutations modern people have are not inherited from them, as a whole. Concerning the prominent eyebrows, I cannot answer just now, I have to look at other ancient sapiens or proto-sapiens.
    I agree nevertheless, that even if allover autosomes package owes little to neanderthal, there could be some visible features inherited from them; but it would be very due to chance, because the most of our cranial features differences by instance don't mark a great adaptative consequence, IMO. Perhaps I'm wrong?
    our two big "models" of western HG's seems a specialisation I don't see in more eastern HG's, spite all of them they lived a long time in the same regions of the globe, for I know.

  11. #86
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,921

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    as often I confuse 'eyebrow' with 'browridge', sorry. Ridicule doens'nt kill, I'm a living proof!

  12. #87
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,921

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by johen View Post
    How about this neolithic guy at middle irtysh region? Does he look like Neanderthal? Denisovans's cave was found in Altai. We already knew many giant warriors at bronze age and so many giant skulls were buried in america.




    A Neanderthal’s skull (right)


    This reconstruction has guessed a bit too much parts of skull to be completely reliable IMO. As a whole it seems sharing traits with 'cromagnoids' and 'brünnoids', what was common, I guess, on the Russian Steppes and more northern 8000 years ago (not sure for the dates). I see nothing in direct link with 'neanderthal' features. Not to say we have inherited nothing of 'neanderthal' features, but the link is surely more ancient, what we have passed through other pop's more modernlike.
    I lack knowledge of the ancient humans of Central Eurasia to decide if some mixed features are the result of constant crossings of descendants of our old western Europe types of if at the opposite there is here a more ancient indivise form, spite I would bet on the first explication. I don't see here too much 'east-asian'like inputs, at least, nor even the famous 'WSHG' type of someones.

  13. #88
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,921

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    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?

    Very risky game! And all fancy.
    They are reconstructed types on the basis of presupposed input of 'neanderthal' (?). This way is not the better one to find the components of real admixtures; all of these "types" show a big 'mediter' (broad sense) input (long narrow faces, of middle short and very narrow faces, low chink); none is typical for any type; the only who could have some slight 'cromagnoid' input is F (and yet,very hardly!) - A show some archaic influences, on the 'brünnoid' side or better, on the 'capelloid' side (same tendancies as 'brünn', but higher narrower face and higher chin) but the jaw is too shallow and weak, chin too low, B and C would fit better for chin, but none is perfect. B, C & E are roughly said ont the 'nordic' gradiant for face, from more 'brünnoid'/'capelloid' input to more 'high faced mediter' input. Pleasant, because it isn't what was in question here for the people who made these pictures. It's seen in the low skulls of all, which is not the rule for most Europeans, and was the case with 'neand'.

  14. #89
    Elite member
    Join Date
    10-12-15
    Posts
    657


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    This reconstruction has guessed a bit too much parts of skull to be completely reliable IMO. As a whole it seems sharing traits with 'cromagnoids' and 'brünnoids', what was common, I guess, on the Russian Steppes and more northern 8000 years ago (not sure for the dates). I see nothing in direct link with 'neanderthal' features. Not to say we have inherited nothing of 'neanderthal' features, but the link is surely more ancient, what we have passed through other pop's more modernlike.
    I lack knowledge of the ancient humans of Central Eurasia to decide if some mixed features are the result of constant crossings of descendants of our old western Europe types of if at the opposite there is here a more ancient indivise form, spite I would bet on the first explication. I don't see here too much 'east-asian'like inputs, at least, nor even the famous 'WSHG' type of someones.
    How about an idol found in arkaim and seima turbino? Is it related with the guy who I posted or Neanderthal?

    [img]www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org/theearth/oct12/arkaim-8.jpg[/img]
    http://www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org...2/arkaim-8.jpg


  15. #90
    Regular Member Duarte's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-19
    Location
    Belo Horizonte
    Posts
    2,034

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-DF27-FGC35133

    Ethnic group
    Portuguese-Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Just taking a leveling course so I can understand what is being discussed in this thread, mainly the concepts of Capelloid, Brunnoid and, perhaps, cromagnoid.


    Brunnoid

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C5...ological_site)

    Capelloid

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combe-Capelle

    Cromagnoid

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl..._modern_humans

    An old thread of Eupedia:

    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30540-shapes-and-collective-classifications-attempt?highlight=Brünnoid





  16. #91
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,921

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by johen View Post
    How about an idol found in arkaim and seima turbino? Is it related with the guy who I posted or Neanderthal?

    [img]www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org/theearth/oct12/arkaim-8.jpg[/img]
    http://www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org...2/arkaim-8.jpg

    thanks for the doc!
    Very uneasy to say. AT least I'm pushed to think it evocates very more western Eurasia HG's than some 'east-asian' input; it's true that ancient proto-'east-asian' people had skulls very closer to our 'westasian' ancestors than their descendants have. But at the time concerned here, there is "no photo": archaic 'westasian' if relying on the little we can extract of it; sorry for so a superficial advice.

  17. #92
    Elite member
    Join Date
    10-12-15
    Posts
    657


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    thanks for the doc!
    Very uneasy to say. AT least I'm pushed to think it evocates very more western Eurasia HG's than some 'east-asian' input; it's true that ancient proto-'east-asian' people had skulls very closer to our 'westasian' ancestors than their descendants have. But at the time concerned here, there is "no photo": archaic 'westasian' if relying on the little we can extract of it; sorry for so a superficial advice.
    My question is always whether the idol people was an ancestor to sintashta, andronovo and seima turbino.
    http://www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org...2/arkaim-8.jpg

    It seems to me that the people with low forehead and large jaw survived even in iron age. And they cannot be explained with bronze age genetic admixture.

    Xoungnu:

  18. #93
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,149

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Germanic
    Country: Netherlands



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Duarte View Post
    Just taking a leveling course so I can understand what is being discussed in this thread, mainly the concepts of Capelloid, Brunnoid and, perhaps, cromagnoid.


    Brunnoid

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C5...ological_site)

    Capelloid

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combe-Capelle

    Cromagnoid

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl..._modern_humans

    An old thread of Eupedia:

    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30540-shapes-and-collective-classifications-attempt?highlight=Brünnoid




    Indeed Moesan deserves more discussion about this in the Forum Duarte.

    Those classifications are a minefield IMO. In earlier days they really made races from types like 'Brünn' etc. That's nonsens of course, a hypothetic 'Brünn' from Norway is not genetic closer to a 'Brünn' from Belgium than to 'Cromagnoid' from Norway. And the old classifiers never made a classification that was without discussion (so no 'given' concepts, they are in some way constructs). And even between generations the difference can be big. So I think we must take this all with salt.

    That said it keeps fascinating to see the diversity in phenotypes and the concepts are in some way 'intriguing curious fun'.

    This one from Moesan keeps puzzling me (some family members of me come close to that):

    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    the so called 'danubian mediterranean' type of COON, associated to danubian LBK and S-E Anatolia peasants, is very difficult ti define on current people today - COON thought it was the second component associated to his 'corded' type (for me the unique 'nordic' basic type) would have produced what he called his 'Hallstatt Iron Age type -


    I'm confused, but based only upon metric description not too complete, sometimes contradictory definitions by old scholars, I put here NOT TRUE "danubians" but people showing for me some 'danubian imput' - by the way COON, if I correctly recall thought that a brachycephalized ('alpine' influence) 'danubian' with some slihht 'mongoloid' imput would have procuced his 'neodanubian type', element present in 'east-baltic' type associated principally with 'borreby' (broadly said, brutal or not, rather the non brutal variant) - what seems sensible - means final types again, not basic - the more eminent trait was a very very high skull and almost vertical forehead


    so it's more bet than God 's truth

    from left to right:swede, dolicho-meso, Czech, dolicho-meso, Islandman, dolicho, Israelian, apprently dolicho-meso

    they are heterogenous as it is previsible, as crossings, but show all the high crania, vertical forehead very cerebral, and opposite to what said some scholars, even crossed, they show a tendancy towards little faces but NOT TO NARROW ones so???
    concerning face COON said spite their light skeletons, they have noses far from being typically 'mediterranean' - He dobted even they were all dark pigmented!!! Perhaps he huad truth on his side for this detail??? Wait and see next discoverings...
    taht said I would prefer have the true ancient 'danubians' in front of me, and not this honorable but "crossed" persons I selected without too much certitude-
    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post443366

    I guess that Coon hinted in the right direction, Dienekes published this:

    The Yamna population generally belongs to the European race. It was tall (175.5cm), dolichocephalic, with broad faces of medium height. Among them there were, however, more robust elements with high and wide faces of the proto-Europoid type, and also more gracile individuals with narrow and high faces, probably reflecting contacts with the East Mediterranean type (Kurts 1984: 90).
    Sound like the phenotype Moesan described!?
    Last edited by Northener; 20-04-21 at 10:33.

  19. #94
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,149

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Germanic
    Country: Netherlands



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    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.
    Some thoughts about your exposé....all tentative of course.

    I guess that the communis opinion of the laste years is that the European population , with an emphasis on the NW Europe, is derived from three major groups:
    - WHG, West European Hunter Gartherers
    - EEF Early European Farmers
    - Steppe, alle kind of groups coming from Eastern Europe, like EHG, ANE, Uralic etc.

    Their percentages for modern NW Europeans is about this:
    - WHG: about 15-20%
    - EEF: about 35%
    - Yamna/Steppe: about 45-50%

    More towards SW Europe especially the EEF amount rises and the Steppe amount lowers. And what also is a difference is for example in Northern Europe GAC/TRB Poland and Sweden has had about 70-80% EEF whereas TRB-West Northern Germany/ North Dutch had Blatterhöhle MN percentages 60-70% HG!

    Of course genotype is not phenotype. It is not equivalent or 1:1. Still it makes some sense that where there is for example low Steppe and high EEF like in Sardinia the EEF "Med" phenotypes have left a greater footprint than the Steppe ones.

    Of course when these three flows mixed since the Bronze Age and beyond the circumstances, like diet change and sexual/natural selection have had their impact and still have their impact.

    But I guess in our potpourri of phenotypes the 'originals' still shimmers through.

    So you expect in Northern Germany/ North Dutch mostly Single Grave/Yamna phenotypes (in your concepts Croma/ Brünn/Corded/Danubian(imo) mixes? Sweden in some places, besides Croma/ Brünn/Corded/Danubian higher EEF/ med?

    And towards the SW of Europe definitely more EEF derived? With some influences brought in form example by the Visogoths or the Longobards?

    Just some impressions, correct me if you think I'm wrong.....
    Last edited by Northener; 21-04-21 at 15:13.

  20. #95
    Elite member
    Join Date
    10-12-15
    Posts
    657


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by johen View Post
    How about an idol found in arkaim and seima turbino? Is it related with the guy who I posted or Neanderthal?

    http://www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org...2/arkaim-8.jpg
    I think polynesian ancestor has a similar look
    Moai on Rano Raraku

  21. #96
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,921

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 members found this post helpful.
    [QUOTE=johen;622697]How about an idol found in arkaim and seima turbino? Is it related with the guy who I posted or Neanderthal?

    [img]www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org/theearth/oct12/arkaim-8.jpg[/img]
    http://www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org...2/arkaim-8.jpg
    /QUOTE]

    Second answer, Johen:
    At second look, I would say it's very difficult to be sure of anything, with these ancient "sculptures"; they are tending to exageration of typical traits; the very low crania almost without any forehead and the long nose could evocate 'neanderthal' but the marked high chin evocates more European paleo HG's, for me.
    I don't know what confidence to have here.

  22. #97
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,149

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Germanic
    Country: Netherlands



    [QUOTE=MOESAN;622863]
    Quote Originally Posted by johen View Post
    How about an idol found in arkaim and seima turbino? Is it related with the guy who I posted or Neanderthal?

    [img]www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org/theearth/oct12/arkaim-8.jpg[/img]
    http://www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org...2/arkaim-8.jpg
    /QUOTE]

    Second answer, Johen:
    At second look, I would say it's very difficult to be sure of anything, with these ancient "sculptures"; they are tending to exageration of typical traits; the very low crania almost without any forehead and the long nose could evocate 'neanderthal' but the marked high chin evocates more European paleo HG's, for me.
    I don't know what confidence to have here.

    I'm curios what you think about the following thing, I guess for the Northern part of Europe you can take the Corded Ware phenotypes as a departure point. Corded Ware admixed with Funnelbeakers and I guess the difference within the Funnelbeaker world like high EEF in Sweden Gökhem and high (W/S)HG in TRB-West Northern Germany/ North Dutch must have had an influence on the basic phenotypes of the North. Of course afterwards lots of evolutions!

  23. #98
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,921

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by johen View Post
    I think polynesian ancestor has a similar look
    Moai on Rano Raraku

    Possible. Uneasy to say. All of them have exactly the same shapes! And very thin lips for Polynesians. Artistic creation and typification exist since long ago, everywhere.

  24. #99
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,921

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by johen View Post
    My question is always whether the idol people was an ancestor to sintashta, andronovo and seima turbino.
    http://www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org...2/arkaim-8.jpg

    It seems to me that the people with low forehead and large jaw survived even in iron age. And they cannot be explained with bronze age genetic admixture.

    Xoungnu:
    Too vague descriptions, nothing to fish of them. Drawings have some value but are not photographs. As a whole, physical anthropology and auDNA found that the allover previously light 'east-asian' input (more than a subtype, by the way) increased between BA and IA among eastern steppes tribes with individual diverse degrees. (WSHG in this question may be analysed as a between type/pop or as a first crossing closer to "west" than to "east");ATW the west-eurasian part is still present.

  25. #100
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,921

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 members found this post helpful.
    @Northerner:
    (your words in italics)

    I guess that the communis opinion of the laste years is that the European population , with an emphasis on the NW Europe, is derived from three major groups:
    - WHG, West European Hunter Gartherers
    - EEF Early European Farmers
    - Steppe, alle kind of groups coming from Eastern Europe, like EHG, ANE, Uralic etc.
    Their percentages for modern NW Europeans is about this:
    - WHG: about 15-20%
    - EEF: about 35%
    - Yamna/Steppe: about 45-50%



    Firstable, I prefer to base myself on ancient pop’s. So, ‘Yamna/steppe’ could be broken down into
    EHG and CHG, roughly said. EHG and CHG themselves have a respectable input of ANE, as have ‘uralic’ and CHG is less precise than ‘IranNeo’ and more admixed, or less homogeneised/drifted ; but EHG respectively to EEF and CHG stays very far, and very closer to WHG, I think.
    I would say for modern NW Europeans :
    - WHG+EHG : 45-50 %
    - EEF : 30-35 %
    - CHG : 20 %-25 %


    More towards SW Europe especially the EEF amount rises and the Steppe amount lowers. And what also is a difference is for example in Northern Europe GAC/TRB Poland and Sweden has had about 70-80% EEF whereas TRB-West Northern Germany/ North Dutch had Blatterhöhle MN percentages 60-70% HG!


    I had not these figures ; I read somewhere the bones types of some of the TRB and even some GAC had rather robust features compared to pure EEF (It seems it’s more the case for the NW ones, maybe recolonisation of Ertebölle/Swifterbant people? They have had also some ‘long barrow’ people input in their most megalithical parts) ;

    Of course genotype is not phenotype. It is not equivalent or 1:1. Still it makes some sense that where there is for example low Steppe and high EEF like in Sardinia the EEF "Med" phenotypes have left a greater footprint than the Steppe ones.
    Of course when these three flows mixed since the Bronze Age and beyond the circumstances, like diet change and sexual/natural selection have had their impact and still have their impact.
    But I guess in our potpourri of phenotypes the 'originals' still shimmers through.
    So you expect in Northern Germany/ North Dutch mostly Single Grave/Yamna phenotypes (in your concepts Croma/ Brünn/Corded/Danubian(imo) mixes? Sweden in some places, besides Croma/ Brünn/Corded/Danubian higher EEF/ med?
    And towards the SW of Europe definitely more EEF derived? With some influences brought in form example by the Visogoths or the Longobards?
    Just some impressions, correct me if you think I'm wrong.....



    We and me are like one eyed peope rambling in the dark !
    We know phenotypes have heavy genomic basis if not the only factor ; but as external aspect is based on a relative small number of genes compared to allover autosome making, we may have quickly drifts between ancient and new pop’s and the decoupling phenotype/complete genotype occur (as for uniparent markers) easily in small pop’s, without speak of selection on some phenotypical markers (***mentation, for instance, among others).
    At the skeletic level, you are not too far from truth. ;


    I ‘ll try it for more precision (risky!): ‘brünnoid’ (most frequent) and ‘cromagnoid’ aspects can be put on the general HG’s account ; ‘Yamna’ were of this precedent « mix » (in fact, become one pop’ at those times) + ‘east-mediterranean’ (« eurafrican »?) ; here we see genetics and physical anthropology can converge (some confirmation by non-metric anthropology, if less precise) , showing some kind of links with old pop’s of Armenia ; this mediterranean subtype was present in Anatolia along gracile ‘mediter’ in Anatolia, their proportions varying according to places and times (gracile : surely often of the EEF type, proto-’danubian’) ; in South we may find some ties between genetics and phenotypes too : ‘mediter’ (EEF+ taste of ‘natufian’) and robust ‘east-mediter’ (CHG > ‘iran’like) ; by the way I guess one and another are not so long-legged as posited by theory for all ‘mediters’ ; and it introduces the ‘nordic’ type question : more long-legged than surroundings other types, robust spite dolichomorphic, and cranialogically not « brutal » as ‘brünnoid’ or ‘capelloid’ (more short-legged than it, I suppose) ; too oftenly associated with fair ***mentation to be pure hazard and it asks for a specific cradle place. Its weight among North Germanic people and ancient Germanics make me suppose that this type spans over EEF and WHG/EHG global auDNA.
    Robust dolichocephalic/leptopropic (high-narrow faces) people have been signaled between Eastern Baltic and Ladoga at Mesolithic ages before CCC (I recall Villanova man was supposed to have some dolichimorphic trends too¤ ; some Russian scientists speak even of a « gracile dolicho type » there ; I wonder when appeared really the first broadly said ‘mediter’ types in far North?) ; around Latvia it took the place of the classical archaic broad-faced people, but I have not the clues for origins so soon. For ***mentation I thought in some of the GAC people and EHG to; as a whole Germanics are always fairer than Celts for hair, and I had supposed they were richer for eastern EEF (‘danubian’like) than are Celts ; both had two kinds of EEF, but Celts have more the western sort, « ibericlike » (Cardial and Chassey), less LBTKlike ; GAC could be the transmettor of this eastern partly modified EEF component.
    Finally, typical ‘corded’ type could be resumed to this robust dolichomorphic type, with ‘brünnoid’ and ‘east-mediter’ inputs. (CWC & GAC crossed one another in some way)
    If we can say proto-Celts (more than achieved Celts) and Germanics were very close for ancient components, in the detail, they didn’t take exactly the same dosis of the variants of these ancient components, what is explicable by history.
    & : besides, I read presence of some « old » Y-R1b-L151 (-P312/-U106, not yet) among some CWC settlements of Poland, so in a rather central-north-eastern area ; I wonder if they were not pre-U106’s we found later among Germanics ? A previous local BB to CWC shift ?

    Apart: agree with you: in mixed stable pop's the allover auDNA in more homogenous and usedful than phenotypes which are more individual;

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •