Mesolithic man; Loschbour brought back to life

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 :)

From my own experience these are typical northern Europeans.

http://static1.demotix.com/sites/de...thuania-30-in-world-cup-quailfier_1526972.jpg

I don't know where anyone got the idea that most north Euros have thin faces and very thin noses, maybe when they compared them to east Asians and Africans. In my opinion something that distinguishes north Euros is above-average wide nose and face(for west Eurasians) and the nasal bone being inside of the brow ridges. Loschbour has those features, but he's still seems to have very different facial features than modern west Eurasians.

My guess is Near easterns have thinner noses and thinner faces than Europeans, and that Mesolithic Europeans had Euro-specific features to the extreme.

Overall though it is hard to distinguish Europeans and most near easterns in terms of facial features. This could be because of recent selection or common WHG ancestry. Blonde hair grew in popularity in northern Europe during the bronze age, which makes it appear they have a very different phenotype from south Europeans and near easterns, and should be mostly ignored. Blonde hair does occasionally pop up in south Europe and the near east, and at a similar rate as in Neolithic EEFs.

When comparing Near easterns to Europeans, I would suggest looking at isolated ethnic groups, and not ones with significant African or south Asian 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:
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.

Old anthropologist Coon claimed 'Nordid' to be essentially depigmented 'Mediterranean', which I think is true to a large part, especially for 'Hallstatt nordids', less so for 'Corded nordids', who possibly have more mesolithic traits. Your examples above are nordid imho. Nordids of northern europe also have a long and down-pointing chin, which can be also from EEF heritage, although it is less common in southern europe today.
 
Old anthropologist Coon claimed 'Nordid' to be essentially depigmented 'Mediterranean', which I think is true to a large part, especially for 'Hallstatt nordids', less so for 'Corded nordids', who possibly have more mesolithic traits. Your examples above are nordid imho. Nordids of northern europe also have a long and down-pointing chin, which can be also from EEF heritage, although it is less common in southern europe today.

Did he say Nordid or Noric ............they are different ( Noric is Austrian alps , close to Med. ) ?

Hallstatt was Noric , named after the area Noricum
 
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.

Am8BwAh.png

If I'm not mistaken, this anthropological plate is meant to illustrate the "Nordic" phenotype. According to Coon, Nordics are just depigmented Mediterraneans. While I don't know if I'd go that far, their phenotype is much more similar to the Mediterranean one than it is to Loschbour.

In terms of this thread, I think Moesan's post (#22 ) gives a very good summary of the differences between "Capelloid" and "Brunn" features on the one hand, and "Cro-Magnon" type features on the other hand, and "Borreby"as well, and how "reduced" or "softened" versions or individual traits still show up across Europe, but in some areas more than in others. However, nowhere can we still find actual "Loschbour" types. Even in far northern Europe where they found a refuge, their descendents no longer look like them because they too have ancient Near Eastern farmer input.

He also makes the point, all too often ignored, that there were "archaic" ancient types in the Mediterranean as well, and in the Near East. Then there's the phenotype brought by the Indo-Europeans, heavy perhaps with "ancient Karelian" traits, and I have a hunch they were pretty "archaic" looking as well.

The "gracile" Med phenotype is separate and distinct from what I can tell, (and the associated but somewhat different "Atlanto-Med") and I'm also not convinced it's all due to selection based on the Neolithic diet and lifestyle, or even sexual selection.

Ed. Sorry, El Horsto, I see that you already made essentially the same point.

Guys, all this talk of testosterone is sort of besides the point. In modern Europe, someone who looks like that poor unfortunate Russian legislator still has to get a date.:petrified: Absent a huge bank account, or a lucky encounter with a woman with rather esoteric tastes, I think he might have a rather difficult time. :)
 
Did he say Nordid or Noric ............they are different ( Noric is Austrian alps , close to Med. ) ?

Hallstatt was Noric , named after the area Noricum

He said Hallstatt-Nordid, because Coon believed that this type orininated from Hallstatt, despite this type is today most common in Sweden and Österdal/Norway.
 
He also makes the point, all too often ignored, that there were "archaic" ancient types in the Mediterranean as well, and in the Near East. Then there's the phenotype brought by the Indo-Europeans, heavy perhaps with "ancient Karelian" traits, and I have a hunch they were pretty "archaic" looking as well.

Exactly. Since I already mentioned Coon, this is what I humbly would criticise most in Coon's work. He was too much attached to the idea that mesolithic survivals should be most frequent in Ireland and Scandinavia, and that they were often rufous and freckled. But about half of his "paleolithic survivals from Ireland" plates would pass in Central europe or even Balkans, for instance this "paleolithic" irish:
troe091.jpg


He might be Cromagnid, but Cromagnids can be found throughout Europe rather equally, in my opinion. The guy above could well have been common among Indo-Europeans too, who were likely diverse looking afterall.
I also believe that certain mixtures of 'distant' types may sometimes result in archaic or rugged looks (the ultra-rugged looking boxer Nikolai Valuev posted by Motzart is one quarter Tatar; he even looks like a Neanderthaler), or pseudo Cro-Magnon looks, something like an ancient common denominator perhaps.
On the other hand, this "paleolithic" irish brünn is a much better example of what we know from mesolithic WHG skeletons:
troe094.jpg


In general, Coon's "paleolithic survivals" from Scandinavia are more convincing than the Irish examples, imho.
 
He said Hallstatt-Nordid, because Coon believed that this type orininated from Hallstatt, despite this type is today most common in Sweden and Österdal/Norway.

IMO, he is wrong if he meant nordid.............since Hallstatt represents a celtic/illyric mix where do these scandinavians come from.

he most probably meant noric

The Noric race (German: Norische Rasse) was a racial category proposed by the anthropologist Victor Lebzelter. The "Noric race" was supposed to be a lighter sub-type of the Dinaric race.[4] The term derived from Noricum, a province of the Roman empire roughly equivalent to southern Austria. The term is not to be confused with Nordic.

Norics were characterized by tall stature, brachycephaly, nasal convexity, long face and broad forehead. Their complexion was said to be light, and blondness combined with light eyes to be their anthropologic characteristic.
 
IMO, he is wrong if he meant nordid.

Yes, probably he was wrong.

............since Hallstatt represents a celtic/illyric mix where do these scandinavians come from.

he most probably meant noric

The Noric race (German: Norische Rasse) was a racial category proposed by the anthropologist Victor Lebzelter. The "Noric race" was supposed to be a lighter sub-type of the Dinaric race.[4] The term derived from Noricum, a province of the Roman empire roughly equivalent to southern Austria. The term is not to be confused with Nordic.

Norics were characterized by tall stature, brachycephaly, nasal convexity, long face and broad forehead. Their complexion was said to be light, and blondness combined with light eyes to be their anthropologic characteristic.

No, as I already said he didn't mean 'Noric' but 'Nordid':

Wikipedia said:
The third "Keltic" or "Hallstatt" type Coon takes to have emerged in the European Iron Age, in Central Europe, where it was subsequently mostly replaced, but "found a refuge in Sweden and in the eastern valleys of southern Norway."[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race#Coon_.281939.29
 
From my own experience these are typical northern Europeans.

http://static1.demotix.com/sites/de...thuania-30-in-world-cup-quailfier_1526972.jpg

I don't know where anyone got the idea that most north Euros have thin faces and very thin noses, maybe when they compared them to east Asians and Africans. In my opinion something that distinguishes north Euros is above-average wide nose and face(for west Eurasians) and the nasal bone being inside of the brow ridges. Loschbour has those features, but he's still seems to have very different facial features than modern west Eurasians.

My guess is Near easterns have thinner noses and thinner faces than Europeans, and that Mesolithic Europeans had Euro-specific features to the extreme.

Overall though it is hard to distinguish Europeans and most near easterns in terms of facial features. This could be because of recent selection or common WHG ancestry. Blonde hair grew in popularity in northern Europe during the bronze age, which makes it appear they have a very different phenotype from south Europeans and near easterns, and should be mostly ignored. Blonde hair does occasionally pop up in south Europe and the near east, and at a similar rate as in Neolithic EEFs.

When comparing Near easterns to Europeans, I would suggest looking at isolated ethnic groups, and not ones with significant African or south Asian ancestry.

I think the most of yours have to look at hundreds of pictures of people and to read some metrics books
almost everywhere among caicasians we find narrow faces, narrow skulls, and broad faces and broad skulls (old mixtures)
but the distributions are unequal: the most of Scandinavians have means between long and average faces and between long and average skulls (and Englishmen and Duthc people)- the same for the true Mediterraneans (Iberia, Corsica Sardinia, some parts of Southern Italy, some parts of Bulagria, and more on the long narrow side, the Near Easterners and Arabs and Afghans Pakistanes -
the most of the western Balkans people have average faces, and equilibre bwetween broad and narrow faces, but a tendancy towards broad short skulls - a lot of central eastern France and %Central Europe as a rule are rather between broad and average faces and broad and average skulls:
CI of the 1940:
Ireland >79 ( 76 to >80) Wales > 78 (76 to >79) Scotland > 78 (76 to > 80) England >77 (76 to >80) Iceland >78 Spain P>77 (76 to >80 but 84, 85 in 2 points W and E Asturias) Italy >81 (73 to >86) France >83 (78 to >88) without Corsica! Germant >83 (79 to >86) Belgium >80 (78 to >83) Netherlands >78 (78 to >79) Denmark >80 (78 to >83) Norway >78 (76 to > 82) Sweden >77 (76 to >78) without Saami, Poland >83 (79 to >85) Czechoslovakia >85 (84 to >88) Hungary >84 (83 to >87) Romania >81 (79 to >85) Yougoslavia >85 (84> 86) Albania >87 (83 to >89) Greece >83 (79 to > 88) Bulgaria >79 (76 to >85) Estobia >79 (78 to >79) Finland >79 (78 to > 83) without Saami Lithuania >82 Latvia >80 Russia >83 (???) Ukraina >83 (? to > 85)
Arabia >73 (72 to >80) Yemen South (some regions >82) Turkey >83 (82 to >86) Armenia >85 (80? to >86) Lebanon >85 (84 to >86) Georgia >83 (? to ?) Palestina > >76 (7( to > 77?)
I'm not sure for other lands but as a rule every big country shows big differences region to region - even Corsica shows little differences from >73 (center) to >77 (S-W) the same for Sardinia -
brachycephaly WAS NOT linked to North in Europe but to CENTRE, as a rule and the center of propagation seems in the Alps, the western ones - the northern brachycephals are more recent - the Paleolithic men were about the 72 and in Mesolithic it passes to 72 to > 74 but in W-Alps some groups shew about the 6000 BC CI's > 82/83 and it increased later -
NO simplistic mesologic explanation can explain the brachycephalization phenomenon which NEVER concerned the all populations in the same way, whatever the place -
Neolithic people of Scandinavia were about the 73-75...
we have maybe the reaction of different genomic backgrounds to mesologic causes

the better proof the question is not simple is that 'cromagnoids' were long narrow skulled with broad short faces when the other ancient ligneages were homogenous long narrow faced and skulled, without speaking of the other numerous differences...

PLUS : proof of heterogeneity even of "typical" population:
a serie of 20 men about a mean of CI = 76 can have 1 or 2 skull over the 88!
a serie of 20 men about a mean of CI = 85 can have A or 2 skulls under the 71!
extremes (rare) are in Europe between 67 (roughly said) and 94 (the 99/100/101 CI's are seemingly peculiar cases (disease, cranial cultural deformation)
 
my "extreme" cases ARE INDIVIDUAL of course! not means
 
if you read what I wrote somewhere, the southern population where some EEF took their ancestors were derived also from a robust type which gave way to the 'eurafrican' type, high statured, long faced but with robust chin, robust cheekbones and browridges and receding frontal - look at some Portugueses or Sardinians and even some North-Africans: they have too their "commando" or "boxers" faces!!! don't be naive...
a later slection occurred, linked to hazard, local soliations and way of life, which selected the small 'mediterranean' but if you look well, even these small 'mediterraneans' are not so long faced, lesser than the robust types!!! their faces are SMALL but retained a common southern trait: high ratio upper-face upon lower face, and high ration cheekbones breadth upon bigonials breadth!
things are not simple because the sedentary ways of life (new ones) isloated more and more little groups and the effect of mutation/drift/selection has created a lot of subtypes uneasy to generalize and put into drawers, before the later expansions and miixings times - Combe-Capelle was very large high narrow (ratio) faced spite his "robustness" and the most of the breadth of his face was caused by the bizygoma (cheekbones) -
the more typically large narrow high faced people to come in Europe (as a mean with narrower cheekbones than the Brünn-capellids) were the 'corded' types (nevertheless someones retain the 'brünnoid' and 'eurafrican' influences -
concerning C-Capelle there were some pictures in some thread of Eupedia (I forgot where)
 
If I'm not wrong, the farest from EEF should be the Sami
SamiCoupleFinnmarklowrez.jpgOle_Henrik_Magga_140x190.jpg
They display important similarities with Loschbur, IMHO.
On the other hand, the closest to the original EEF are sardinians
giorgia-palmas-5.jpgMarco-Carta_articolo.jpg
Not necessarily longer faces, but smaller and "softer" features generally.

 
In doing some reading on the Paleolithic, I chanced upon this representation of a Venus figurine from France dated 22,000 BCE. At least it has the benefit of being done by the actual people. Of course, people may have looked different in different areas and time periods.

brassempuouy.jpg
 
Have you ever seen this guy? It's much mor erelaistic. He's from a Gravettian site in the Czech Republic, and I know is pre-LGM. In that site mtDNA U5* and U8c were found. He looks pretty similar to Loschbour.

c7fa125320acc1c3268f4aac5ee4f417.jpg
 
Have you ever seen this guy? It's much mor erelaistic. He's from a Gravettian site in the Czech Republic, and I know is pre-LGM. In that site mtDNA U5* and U8c were found. He looks pretty similar to Loschbour.

c7fa125320acc1c3268f4aac5ee4f417.jpg
He is Paleolithic, thus much older and archaich, and genetically is probably very close to the Kostenski guy
 
Have you ever seen this guy? It's much mor erelaistic. He's from a Gravettian site in the Czech Republic, and I know is pre-LGM. In that site mtDNA U5* and U8c were found. He looks pretty similar to Loschbour.

c7fa125320acc1c3268f4aac5ee4f417.jpg


Yes, that's right. It's the Gravettian site of Dolni Vestonice. The find is dated to 26,000 BCE. These would be the "indigenous" hunters of the area. Supposedly, the profile resembles a skull found nearby.

This is the profile view.
headbrugar11.jpg


It's discussed at the two links below:
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/czechdolnivestonice.htm
http://donsmaps.com/dolnivenus.html

The figurine I posted is younger, dating to 22,000 BCE, still Gravettian from what I can tell. It was found at Brassempouy, Landes, France(southwest France, near the Pyrenees).

Ed. I don't see that much difference between certain features in this man and in Loschbour...same forehead, eyebrow area, perhaps jaw and cheekbones?
 
Last edited:
I think the nose is still fairly common in Northern Europe.
Very talented guy did this head, details, proportions, and with stone tools only.
 
Yes, that's right. It's the Gravettian site of Dolni Vestonice. The find is dated to 26,000 BCE. These would be the "indigenous" hunters of the area. Supposedly, the profile resembles a skull found nearby.

This is the profile view.
headbrugar11.jpg


It's discussed at the two links below:
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/czechdolnivestonice.htm
http://donsmaps.com/dolnivenus.html

The figurine I posted is younger, dating to 22,000 BCE, still Gravettian from what I can tell. It was found at Brassempouy, Landes, France(southwest France, near the Pyrenees).

Ed. I don't see that much difference between certain features in this man and in Loschbour...same forehead, eyebrow area, perhaps jaw and cheekbones?

how about this : Venus_of_Brassempouy.jpg
25000 years old Gravettian Venus of Brassempouy
eyes are hidden deep in the skull but no prominent brow ridges, not like the one you posted
 
I think the nose is still fairly common in Northern Europe.
Very talented guy did this head, details, proportions, and with stone tools only.
Also the cheekbones and jaw, IMHO, as shown in the frontal picture. The very receding forehead is similar to Loschbur's and uncommon in Europe today.
 

This thread has been viewed 39808 times.

Back
Top