Mesolithic man; Loschbour brought back to life

[motzart]

Here is another 7 foot tall white guy with prominent brow ridges, like the Russian boxer I posted. Apparently women don't get brow ridges because testosterone is what causes them to grow. I think Y DNA I men produce more testosterone so they get taller, have more body hair, more prominent brow ridges, physically larger and stronger, etc.

Another two warriors with brow ridges

 

[Fire Haired14]

Since when did men with Y DNA I have more testosterone? More body hair doesn't always mean more masculine.

I'm getting the impression that Mesolithic Euros were genetically pretty masculine. According to statements here and there from anthropologist they were heavy boned and broad faced. Plus if you look at Neolithic Y DNA alot of it is of Mesolithic Euro origin, while hardly any of the mtDNA is. Neolithic farmers for whatever reason allowed hunter gatherer males not females to move into their communities, and most of their WHG blood was via admixture with hunter gatherer males.

This could be in part because EEF males saw WHG females as less attractive, than EEF females saw WHG males. Admixture between near eastern immigrants and native Europeans during the Neolithic was probably mostly a gradual process over 1,000's of years in many regions, not a single event, and it looks like the same pattern of admixture occured throughout time and space.

Culture I think has a bigger effect on how masculine or raw men in a society act/appear than genetics, and this is true for cultural persona in general. There's evidence of this in American society. Many Latinos basically have the same genetic makeup as white Americans, because they have mostly Spanish ancestry, but see them selves as totally different, and in urban areas are more associated with African-Americans and urban gangs-violence.

 

[LeBrok]

It is so called archaic feature, and it is fairly common in other races too.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Motzart, so you're apart of a brother branch to M26, very interesting I didn't know one existed. Maybe Ajv 58 belonged to one of those rare or unknown P37 branches.

 

[Fire Haired14]

It is so called archaic feature, and it is fairly common in other races too.

Native Australians have alot of it, but as far as I've seen no one in Africa or east Asia have much, and I would guess Middle easterns and south Asians have around as much or less than Europeans.

If no one had gotten the genome of Loschbour I would think he might be largely of archaic origin. DNA testing has proven that it is not a law that humans must have small brow ridges, unproturding jaws, and long forheads, it's just that most around the world do.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Since when did men with Y DNA I have more testosterone? More body hair doesn't always mean more masculine.

I'm getting the impression that Mesolithic Euros were genetically pretty masculine. According to statements here and there from anthropologist they were heavy boned and broad faced. Plus if you look at Neolithic Y DNA alot of it is of Mesolithic Euro origin, while hardly any of the mtDNA is. Neolithic farmers for whatever reason allowed hunter gatherer males not females to move into their communities, and most of their WHG blood was via admixture with hunter gatherer males.

This could be in part because EEF males saw WHG females as less attractive, than EEF females saw WHG males. Admixture between near eastern immigrants and native Europeans during the Neolithic was probably mostly a gradual process over 1,000's of years in many regions, not a single event, and it looks like the same pattern of admixture occured throughout time and space.

Culture I think has a bigger effect on how masculine or raw men in a society act/appear than genetics, and this is true for cultural persona in general. There's evidence of this in American society. Many Latinos basically have the same genetic makeup as white Americans, because they have mostly Spanish ancestry, but see them selves as totally different, and in urban areas are more associated with African-Americans and urban gangs-violence.

Otzi would probably stab me in the face for saying this with his flint knife, because I'm generalizing two genetically-defined people over several thousand years. Their cultures would have constantly changed. An EEF from 3,000BC would probably be very foreign and exotic to an EEF from 5,000BC. They're the same DNA wise but not culturally.

 

[Templar]

I don't like the recreation because they did the eyes wrong, the brow ridges look stupid like somebody drew him without them and then inflated his eyebrows, and the eyes themselves look asian. The brow ridges should extend out over the eyes and the eyes should be deep set. His head shouldn't look round, Loschbour was "hyperdoliocephalic" as long skull as it gets, it should look like the pic I posted. You can see in the pic the guy has a very narrow long skull and the brow ridges are prominent, the recreation has a wide face.

Yes I totally agree, this was my point as well. There is no evidence for the high fat deposits on his upper eyelid which leads to a positive canthal tilt. It also makes the eyes looks shallow rather than deep-set, which is ridiculous for a mesolithic European skull.

 

[motzart]

You dont need to take my word for it, its a scientific fact that testosterone causes mens faces to change, bones in the face get stronger and thicker, the jaw becomes more prominent as do brow ridges

http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2008/08/face-aggression

Archaic peoples, including neanderthals and chimpanzees had extremely high testosterone levels, bigger muscles, stronger bodies, more pronounced brow ridges.


Men lost testosterone and became more feminine with the transition to farming, hence more feminine features and less pronounced brow ridges.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...vels-reshaped-human-face-and-civilization.htm

Hunter Gatherers like loschbour were under natural selection for testosterone the longest because they never transitioned to farming. This is why Y DNA I has a positive correlation with height.

 

[Mars]

I don't trust the whole Mediterranean-gracile-thin faces and northern-broad faces-taller thing, it seems very ethnocentric and raciest to me. There could be some truth to it, but....

South Europeans have a very similar genetic makeup to Neolithic farmers, so of course they'll probably have similar skeletal features. If anyone it would north Europeans who would be most similar to Mesolithic Euros, but all of them except Balts still have 40-50% EEF ancestry aka 30-40% ancient near eastern ancestry.

Loschbur man has some features that appear common in modern europeans, in different proportions from population to population.
Anyways, EEF ancestry could have affected the look of us modern europeans (both in the north and, more frequently, in the south) quite deeply, IMHO... There are many northern euros with skeletal features very similar to meds, I noticed that, though their more exterior features (hair and eyes colour, skin tone etc.) are in the "northern" range.
I don't know if the anthropologists of old labeled this look some way:

If Loschbur is a good representative of the "mesolithic look", then it has changed through the millenia, maybe because of adaptatiion, random mutation or something, but med admixture played a big role, too, IMHO.

 

[MOESAN]

I see no reason why they gave him a positive canthal tilt which mongoloids and people high in ANE have. He should have very deep-set eyes with sharp bone structure surrounding the eyes, like this:

THE MODERN MAN ABOVE IS FAR CLOSER TO THE CLASSICAL 'NORDIC TYPE' THAN TO ANY OTHER, AND VERY FAR TO BE AS RUGGISH AS THE LOSCHBOUR MAN

that said, it is true this reconstruction of the crania of Loschbour is far to be perfect: as you say not enough deep placed eyes and a lot of other defects of reconstitution -

 

[motzart]

THE MODERN MAN ABOVE IS FAR CLOSER TO THE CLASSICAL 'NORDIC TYPE' THAN TO ANY OTHER, AND VERY FAR TO BE AS RUGGISH AS THE LOSCHBOUR MAN

that said, it is true this reconstruction of the crania of Loschbour is far to be perfect: as you say not enough deep placed eyes and a lot of other defects of reconstitution -

The Nordic type is defined as doliocephalic, which that man is. Loschbour is doliocephalic to the extreme. Thats why I posted a black and white image

 

[MOESAN]

Loschbour


this strongly receding frontal is notabsent in today Europeans, you are not obliged to visit AustralianAborigens to see this sort of forehead and browridges (the « worst »in Belgium, and from late Mesolithic) -
they are typical of 'Combe-Capelle' and'Brünn' types and today are rarer because these populations weremixed with more « gentlelike » populations so we findmore often intermediary types, a bit more gentle or softer – thetrue 'Cro-Magnon', spite he was more ancient, had a more verticalforehead, just slightly receding, with a more marked angle betweenfrontal and skull roof -
speaking of this point, I avow I wouldbe glad to see more angles from La Brana I once classified as'cromagnoid' maybe to hastly...
compared to classical 'capelloid','brünnoid' seem showing faces a bit broader without reachingthe broad and short extremes of 'cromagnoid', but always with thesame dominance of bizygoma breadth (cheebones) on bigonial (jawsangles) breadth, opposite to 'cromagnoid' – a light imput of'cromagnoid' ??? it 's true that at Mesolithic times the twoligneages had had occasion to contacts and crossings either at themergins or more deeply, I believe some « new » almostfamilial ligneages of Mesolithic showing inclassifiable features arethe result of old conctacts followed by separation – by the way,his jaw seen from aside show a tendancy to 'cromagnoid' , beingshorter than 'c-capelle' for the length, and having a more markedchin, as 'cro-magnon' - and the genetic dominance in ligneagescrossings doesn't concern the whole genomes, but parts of it, genesby genes so some results are not always the expected ones -
what I think I saw on pictures is thesame cranial « brutal and primitive » features among thefew Scandinavian neolithical hunter-gatherers. Would that signify itwas the genuine features of Y-I people first bearers : notstupid... - the surveys about craniometrics at themesolithic-Neolithic transition in Central Balkans (Yougoslavia) shewthe coexistence of 'cromagnoid' and 'brünnoid' types, crossed or notaccording to sites, among the hunters-gatherers, before variated newcrossings
with three classified'mediterranean' subtypes linked to agriculture -
concerning so called 'mediterranean',it seems some subtypes ascribed to it, are still close enough to theso called 'eurafrican' type, itself still close enough to 'capelloid'or 'brünnoid' type so « brutal » profiles can be foundtoday among Mediterranea inhabitants and people akin to them (inPortugal more than in Spain, and in Sardinia and southern Italy –even in North Africa and Near-Eastern – the origin of the classical'nordic' and other 'mediterranean' softer profile seem newer but Ihave some doubt about the too common explanations by neolithizationgracilization -
as a rule the giants (genetic diseaseorigin) have more « brutal » features than meanpopulation and even in normal cases, in the same ligneage, thebrowridges, maxillars and frontal receding are more marked than amongmean brethren, the same among women, giving way to wrong « sexings »in sepultures ! – what is striking (it's of some importance todebuke too easy extensions of mechanical explanations) is that theMesolithical populations, spite loosing stature, kept for the mosttheir brutal features when they had them before – and 'nordic' andeven 'atlanto-mediterranean', spite being high enough statured, showmore gentle features (« evolved ») …
today, traces of these brutal featuresare found in Europe everywhere, either rare or common enough ; Ithink they are common in some districts of western Norway (not all ofthem), in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Latvia – not toorare among British and Irish people, and in some parts ofYougoslavia, and central Europe – present in southwest France(Aquitaine) and a bit in Brittany – finally they are absentnowhere and show densities varying from close place to closeplace as if they were spottled refuges remnants of a firstly numerouspopulation!
The recent enough (-5000 ? morerecent?) 'borreby' type or pseudotype common in North and CentralEurope is in fact a mean type and even like that it could besubdivised (by me) as a A type, very bony and robust but not too'brutal' in profile and very broad jawed, and an almost as robust Btype, less broad jawed but very more brutal, as it was a 'brünnoid'compound or a 'brünnoid' evolved result - (I doubt, I think ratherin a crossing with the other 'borreby' or with 'alpine') – what Iwould know is the genuine first Y-SNPs of the 'cromagnoid' variant :Y-C ??? or ???...
the today phenotypical landscape is byfar more complicated that the Mesolithic one, spite what is said bysomeones – it's true some old scholars even if not all of themcreated mean subtypes without any homogeneity (no research ofpossible homozygoty), more often linked to an ethnic conception thanto a genetic one – they were using the populations genetics rulesfor a typology problem -


&: concerning the reconstruction Iagree the left eye is too much on the right side, giving aprotuberant eye when it was surely more deeply placed, as said by aforumer here -
concerning links with some Amerindians(N-E plains?) I recall more than one old scholar thought the'capelloid' and 'brünnoid' people were coming from Central orEastern Eurasia – at the contrary 'cro-magnoids' descendants(surely already crossed a bit) reached central Eurasia very latelyafter the LGM, coming from Iberia-France-Italy before following theSouth Baltic regions on the way to East (all that roughly said) -

 

[Fire Haired14]

You dont need to take my word for it, its a scientific fact that testosterone causes mens faces to change, bones in the face get stronger and thicker, the jaw becomes more prominent as do brow ridges

http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2008/08/face-aggression

Archaic peoplrs, including neanderthals and chimpanzees had extremely high testosterone levels, bigget muscles, stronger bodies, more pronounced brow ridges.


Men lost testosteronr and became more feminine with the transition to farming, hence more feminine features and less pronounced brow ridges.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...vels-reshaped-human-face-and-civilization.htm

Hunter Gatherers like loschbour were under natural selection for testosterone the longest because they never transitioned to farming. This is why Y DNA I has a positive correlation with height.

Since when was farming feminine? You're simply making an assumption because Hunter gatherers appear more primitive, and therefore more masculine in your mind. You're also assuming Y DNA I correlates with testosterone and don't have concrete evidence. I'm sure you're also assuming Chimps have more testosterone. It's probably much more complicated than Masculine=Testosterone, there are probably other factors in play.

It takes alot of hard work to be a farmer(they also hunted), which takes masculinity. Hunter gatherers lived a more relaxed-lazy lifestyle. Farmers lived in bigger communities which probably means more competition and more fighting. Who won in the end, farmers or HGs? Maybe it isn't that simple, but if anyone won it was the farmers.

Middle easterns and south Europeans I'm guessing are the hairiest people on the planet, and have the most ancient near eastern ancestry. I don't think WHGs were super macho-men compared to near eastern farmers. West Africans have more testosterone(or so I've heard) and muscle mass than West Eurasians, but west Eurasians have more body and facial hair.

I am considering that WHG was genetically more masculine(but such a small difference, that culture makes a bigger effect) than most humans. Skull shape is evidence for that, but I don't want to make assumptions.

 

[MOESAN]

You dont need to take my word for it, its a scientific fact that testosterone causes mens faces to change, bones in the face get stronger and thicker, the jaw becomes more prominent as do brow ridges

http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2008/08/face-aggression

Archaic peoplrs, including neanderthals and chimpanzees had extremely high testosterone levels, bigget muscles, stronger bodies, more pronounced brow ridges.


Men lost testosteronr and became more feminine with the transition to farming, hence more feminine features and less pronounced brow ridges.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...vels-reshaped-human-face-and-civilization.htm

Hunter Gatherers like loschbour were under natural selection for testosterone the longest because they never transitioned to farming. This is why Y DNA I has a positive correlation with height.

I don't know if selection is always positively linked to testostérone but it could have been true in these times and among people with this way of life even if I ahve some defiance concerning straight-away theories -
that said hunters-gatherers like Loschbour were all of them of modest stature compared to Paleolithic, spite their "viril" aspect... spite their dominantly Y-I type
the principes you evocate have their value but rarely in nature a trait depends upon A FACTOR ONLY

 

[MOESAN]

That's pretty good except for the pigmentation, but much more "modern" looking, don't you think? You don't see people with Loschbour's forehead and eyebrow ridge walking around very often, although sometimes you see a modified version of them.

Just recently I noticed these two actors:
This is Jerome Flynn. It looks much more pronounced than this when his head is positioned normally, and the eye area and facial width is very different, of course.

It's even more pronounced in Anthony Starr, but I don't see pictures of him actually in profile. When I googled him, a separate heading for Anthony Starr forehead came up! I'm sure he wishes Beatles haircuts were in style again too.

What about Nadal? I've always thought he has a very archaic sort of look to him.

This is a bizarre and very unflattering picture of him,but you can see his profile better:

what can I say? I have a thing about profiles...I notice them all the time.

I agree concerning Nadal

 

[Fire Haired14]

Loschbur man has some features that appear common in modern europeans, in different proportions from population to population.
Anyways, EEF ancestry could have affected the look of us modern europeans (both in the north and, more frequently, in the south) quite deeply, IMHO... There are many northern euros with skeletal features very similar to meds, I noticed that, though their more exterior features (hair and eyes colour, skin tone etc.) are in the "northern" range.
I don't know if the anthropologists of old labeled this look some way:
View attachment 7024View attachment 7025
If Loschbur is a good representative of the "mesolithic look", then it has changed through the millenia, maybe because of adaptatiion, random mutation or something, but med admixture played a big role, too, IMHO.

I'm very interested in seeing more Mesolithic and Neolithic skulls from Europe and modern west Eurasian skulls. The Mesolithic skulls I've seen have wider faces and wider noses than modern Euros. I think near eastern ancestry has made a big effect on European skull shape, maybe making them thiner and longer. The same very thin nose is found in Arabia and northern Europe, and if anyone is the source it would be Neolithic near easterns.

Exterior features like pigmentation, eye brow shape, facial and head hair, facial expressions can make a world of a difference.

 

[Fire Haired14]

The Nordic type is defined as doliocephalic, which that man is. Loschbour is doliocephalic to the extreme. Thats why I posted a black and white image

In my experience most northern Europeans look nothing like that guy. Many north Euros I've seen have wide faces and wide noses. Abnormally skinny ones will have the thin face that guy does. Loschbour looks nothing like him. That guy is a twig compared to Loschbour.

 

[motzart]

Since when was farming feminine? You're simply making an assumption because Hunter gatherers appear more primitive, and therefore more masculine in your mind. You're also assuming Y DNA I correlates with testosterone and don't have concrete evidence. I'm sure you're also assuming Chimps have more testosterone. It's probably much more complicated than Masculine=Testosterone, there are probably other factors in play.

It takes alot of hard work to be a farmer(they also hunted), which takes masculinity. Hunter gatherers lived a more relaxed-lazy lifestyle. Farmers lived in bigger communities which probably means more competition and more fighting. Who won in the end, farmers or HGs? Maybe it isn't that simple, but if anyone won it was the farmers.

Middle easterns and south Europeans I'm guessing are the hairiest people on the planet, and have the most ancient near eastern ancestry. I don't think WHGs were super macho-men compared to near eastern farmers. West Africans have more testosterone(or so I've heard) and muscle mass than West Eurasians, but west Eurasians have more body and facial hair.

I am considering that WHG was genetically more masculine(but such a small difference, that culture makes a bigger effect) than most humans. Skull shape is evidence for that, but I don't want to make assumptions.

The articles I posted directly answer all of your questions

 

[Templar]

THE MODERN MAN ABOVE IS FAR CLOSER TO THE CLASSICAL 'NORDIC TYPE' THAN TO ANY OTHER, AND VERY FAR TO BE AS RUGGISH AS THE LOSCHBOUR MAN

that said, it is true this reconstruction of the crania of Loschbour is far to be perfect: as you say not enough deep placed eyes and a lot of other defects of reconstitution -

I didn't say that he he should look exactly like the man in the picture, I was talking specifically about his eyes.

 

[motzart]

maybe I won't post that haha...