@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;
