Mesolithic Karelians - Which one is EHG?

Neolithic people were not borned in another planet - they were *descendants of HGs - the most from East mediterranea-Near Eastern, someones from more Northern areas after acculturation - the cocktail of mt DNA of today, considered as purely "neolithical", could a mixture of previously separated groups, with two directions ways of exchange, I think in Eastern Europe - ans some male "globe-trotters" could have fared very far from their bases too even if in small numbers
 
The one on the right. The East Asian features in some skulls of the site makes sense, because the Karelia_HG had affinity to East Asians other Ancient West Eurasians lack. He was probably part East Asian/Siberian, but it was a very minor part of his ancestry.

none of these 2 types show too evident link with east-asian- and the right side one is more cromagnoid in features than 'east-asian'- but we are dealing with reconstructed fleshy parts of faces, not crania - the broad faced 'cromagnoid' type was apparently common enough among steppic people from Dniestr to Siberia, at high or between levels, even if these populations were not a completely homogenous block
 
OK Angela, it's true at individual levels and can be verified more than a time, more easily in populations where very contrasted types are mixed together -
but at collective levels, the autosomes and phenotypes tend to cluster in statistics, if not at individual level, mixing or not - so we can try to figure out the most common (even diverse) features among an ancient populations, here EHG -
 
none of these 2 types show too evident link with east-asian- and the right side one is more cromagnoid in features than 'east-asian'- but we are dealing with reconstructed fleshy parts of faces, not crania - the broad faced 'cromagnoid' type was apparently common enough among steppic people from Dniestr to Siberia, at high or between levels, even if these populations were not a completely homogenous block
And here some skulls of R1a boy
 
Angela, I googled for Cheyenne Indians and I really cannot find any resemblance between them and Mika Häkkinen. For example, Red Armed Panther (http://allphots.net/html/About-us.html) has a very broad face and quite wide eyes and broad nose while in Mika Häkkinen's face everything is quite small: face, eyes and nose. Also Cheyenne medicine man (https://www.pinterest.com/bellauthor/zizistascheyenne/) has the same very broad characteristics as Red Armed Panther.

I have seen reconstructions of WHG faces and I recall that they were also broad. So, the man on the left could belong to the race of broad faced North Eurasians.
 
Last edited:
The J man was found to be not Uralic. From text it seems he was proto-Euro guy with massive facial features.

One note - both J and R1a were labeled as women by Soviet anthropologysts.
 
But but but wasn't J an Iron Age Etruscan haplogroup? Where is that Semitic Duwa when you need him?
 
Of course, there are "Mesolithic" broad faced and strong guys in Finland. This man is a much better example of that type than Mika Häkkinen who surely has a lot of Neolithic farmer contribution in his face: http://strongestman.billhenderson.org/bios/riku.html

So, do you know what J man and R1a man were like? Was either of them reconstructed in the pictures above?
 
Of course, there are "Mesolithic" broad faced and strong guys in Finland. This man is a much better example of that type than Mika Häkkinen who surely has a lot of Neolithic farmer contribution in his face: http://strongestman.billhenderson.org/bios/riku.html

So, do you know what J man and R1a man were like? Was either of them reconstructed in the pictures above?

Were Mesolithic men all tall, muscular, and braod faced or whatever? And were all Neolithic Near Easterns smaller and weaker? I've read the narrative of small weak farmers against super macho cavemen. I doubt it is true at all. I don't understand the image of weak nerdy farmers and the noble savage hunter gatherers.

Anyways, the farmers won!! Farmers literally took over Europe. By 2800 BC they were still some 70% Anatolian. The native population left little impact.

Middle Eastern men don't have an effeminate reputation at all LOL.
rageboy.jpg
 
Of course, there are "Mesolithic" broad faced and strong guys in Finland. This man is a much better example of that type than Mika Häkkinen who surely has a lot of Neolithic farmer contribution in his face: http://strongestman.billhenderson.org/bios/riku.html

So, do you know what J man and R1a man were like? Was either of them reconstructed in the pictures above?
Mika was used as example of Uralic looking EHG R1a.
This guy you mentioned could be used as example of Meso Euro looking EHG J.
Both autosomally EHG.
 
Middle Eastern men don't have an effeminate reputation at all LOL.
rageboy.jpg
He is Pakistani, SouthEast Asian, heavily mixed with Dravidians. So, not 'Middle Eastern' at all.
 
Arvistro, I agree that Riku Kiri looks very EHG and Mesolithic but in my opinion Mika is Finnic and not so much Uralic. Fnns have quite a lot of European Neolithic farmer ancestry (c. 33-35%) and Volga Ural people are more Yamnaya like.

Krefter, you are free to believe it or not, but according to Fig 4 this new paper hunter gatherers were taller than farmers:
http://i.imgur.com/iXf0b7z.png
Also Michael Hermanussen claims that “Late Upper Palaeolithic males (8000-6600 BC) were of medium stature and robusticity while stature further decreased to below 165 cm with estimated average body weight of 64 kg in Neolithic males of the Linear Band Pottery Culture”

http://www.hormones.gr/127/article/article.html

As for broadness of face, on Dienekes’ blog it is posted that “the major shape differences separating hunter-gatherer Mesolithic populations and farming Neolithic populations are coded by PC1 with Neolithic specimens having longer and taller vaults, and Mesolithic specimens having larger, and broader faces. … How the robust, low-skulled, broad-faced hunter-gatherers became more high-skulled, narrow-faced and gracile?”

http://dienekes.blogspot.lu/2012/03/cranial-variation-and-transition-to.html

and in The Most Ancient Population of Latvia, it is said that “differences in facial width in Europe became particularly distinctive at the beginning of the Atlantic period, when farming was begun in Europe. At this time, facial width distinctly separated morphological forms in Northern Europe from those in the Mediterranean region -- two distinct geographic regions. Massive, broad-faced morphological forms dominated in northern and northeastern Europe, while gracile, narrow-faced forms are found most often in Middle Europe and the continent's southeastern reaches. During the Atlantic period, narrow-faced populations gradually moved in the northerly and northeasterly direction. They reached the Baltic region only during the Bronze Age. For this reason, during the Mesolithic and Neolithic period, people in the Baltic region (and surrounding regions) had broad faces, a fact which affirms their links to the late Paleolithic populations of Europe.”

Of course, there is a difference between looking like an angel and behaving like a bull and looking like a bull and behaving like a human.

I have always been more attracted by a man's brain than sheer physical power but I respect Riku Kiri's dimensions: height - 194 cm
weight - 150 kg, breast width - 150 cm.
 
Does anyone have actual heights for comparison? I like specificity. :) Oetzi was 5'5", yes? I thought I read that the steppe people were about 5' 7 or 8". What's the big wups?

Going by the paper, the Anatolian farmers were actually slightly taller on average than the farmers in Europe, I think. The authors seem to think that there was actually selection going on for a decrease in height in Neolithic Spain, at least.

There's no absolute value in being taller or having massive body and facial bones. It all boils down to adaptation to environment. It's been a long time since I took physical anthropology, but I thought it was pretty accepted that broad, bony faces and thickset, stocky bodies were better for cold climates. If you're living in a warmer climate, less fat is better, so are lighter bones. Someone with the body build and coloring of those men and carrying that kind of weight would pass out from one day of heavy exertion in the Mediterranean during the summer. They might not even last the day. That doesn't mean that Mediterranean type men aren't muscular. In fact, it's been my experience that they muscle easier than a lot of northern European men, but I'm not an expert on the matter; just repeating what I've seen and heard. It does make sense though that they would have had to have been able to muscle up pretty quickly. After all, clearing fields of rocks, felling trees, and building houses out of stone require long, back breaking hours of labor.

None of this has anything to do with "masculinity" either. That's a function of testosterone levels. Nothing wrong with the testosterone levels of "southern" men. I'm pretty certain about that one.:)

Nor does it have anything to do with mental toughness.

As for battle, an ox of a man might indeed have had an advantage when people were yielding battle axes, but a well placed arrow can still fell him. Except for a few occasions the smaller Romans didn't seem to have all that much trouble defeating the Celts and the Germans in battle even in the days when most of their troops came from the peninsula itself. Later on, heavy armor made northern armies more impervious to arrows etc. Even then, however, the Arabs, with their lighter horses and less heavy cavalry, but with better strategy and mounted bowmen (and certainly at least equal toughness) slaughtered the brawny, heavily armored Christian knights a number of times during the Crusades. (I just remembered...Saladin was a Kurd, wasn't he?) It may not be what some people want to hear but truth is truth.

Anyway, it's all academic now...not much need for huge, overgrown men to lift big boulders anymore or swing an ax.

As for attractiveness, it's all very subjective, and largely culturally driven, I guess, as we discussed on another thread. To each their own. I'll leave it at that.
 
Does anyone have actual heights for comparison? I like specificity. :) Oetzi was 5'5", yes? I thought I read that the steppe people were about 5' 7 or 8". What's the big wups?
I think Steppe is not WHG... Steppe is where I would intuitively search for Alpine (Short, massive folk) possibly with Uralic/Eastern features, EEF I would put as short, gracile. WHG tall, massive. But dont take me for granted.

Muscles, character and attractiveness I think depends on person :)
 
I think Steppe is not WHG... Steppe is where I would intuitively search for Alpine (Short, massive folk) possibly with Uralic/Eastern features, EEF I would put as short, gracile. WHG tall, massive. But dont take me for granted.

Muscles, character and attractiveness I think depends on person :)

I think Steppe is not WHG... Steppe is where I would intuitively search for Alpine (Short, massive folk) possibly with Uralic/Eastern features, EEF I would put as short, gracile. WHG tall, massive. But dont take me for granted.

Muscles, character and attractiveness I think depends on person :)

Ok, you're right. That was a sloppy comparison. How tall were the WHG then, or the Karelia EHG? We've got a 5'5 EEF, and a 5'7 or 5'8 Steppe-Yamnaya person, yes, just as averages?

As to your latter comment, I definitely don't think toughness of character is determined by "ethnicity". I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying the opposite. As to male musculature, I'm sure you think I have a nerve talking about it. :) I was just repeating "gym talk". Hardly scientific.

As for attractiveness, I do think someone's perception of it is in part genetically determined, and in part culturally determined, as we discussed in another thread. What is "attractive" to me may very well not be "attractive" to someone from another part of Europe, and vice versa. It doesn't make my "ideal" objectively more "attractive" than the ideal of someone from, I don't know, Finland, since those are the pictures that have been posted. I certainly meant no disrespect to them.
 
I don't get one thing. If these people in the steppe have supposedly lived in the same place for thousands of years, why would they need to get wives from other places? If an all-male group migrated to a foreign place, I can see it, but native people replacing their entire matrilineal lineage with foreign women?
 
Arvistro, I agree that Riku Kiri looks very EHG and Mesolithic but in my opinion Mika is Finnic and not so much Uralic. Fnns have quite a lot of European Neolithic farmer ancestry (c. 33-35%) and Volga Ural people are more Yamnaya like.

Krefter, you are free to believe it or not, but according to Fig 4 this new paper hunter gatherers were taller than farmers:
http://i.imgur.com/iXf0b7z.png
Also Michael Hermanussen claims that “Late Upper Palaeolithic males (8000-6600 BC) were of medium stature and robusticity while stature further decreased to below 165 cm with estimated average body weight of 64 kg in Neolithic males of the Linear Band Pottery Culture”

http://www.hormones.gr/127/article/article.html

As for broadness of face, on Dienekes’ blog it is posted that “the major shape differences separating hunter-gatherer Mesolithic populations and farming Neolithic populations are coded by PC1 with Neolithic specimens having longer and taller vaults, and Mesolithic specimens having larger, and broader faces. … How the robust, low-skulled, broad-faced hunter-gatherers became more high-skulled, narrow-faced and gracile?”

http://dienekes.blogspot.lu/2012/03/cranial-variation-and-transition-to.html

and in The Most Ancient Population of Latvia, it is said that “differences in facial width in Europe became particularly distinctive at the beginning of the Atlantic period, when farming was begun in Europe. At this time, facial width distinctly separated morphological forms in Northern Europe from those in the Mediterranean region -- two distinct geographic regions. Massive, broad-faced morphological forms dominated in northern and northeastern Europe, while gracile, narrow-faced forms are found most often in Middle Europe and the continent's southeastern reaches. During the Atlantic period, narrow-faced populations gradually moved in the northerly and northeasterly direction. They reached the Baltic region only during the Bronze Age. For this reason, during the Mesolithic and Neolithic period, people in the Baltic region (and surrounding regions) had broad faces, a fact which affirms their links to the late Paleolithic populations of Europe.”

Of course, there is a difference between looking like an angel and behaving like a bull and looking like a bull and behaving like a human.

I have always been more attracted by a man's brain than sheer physical power but I respect Riku Kiri's dimensions: height - 194 cm
weight - 150 kg, breast width - 150 cm.

If the facts show Mesolithic Europeans were bigger than I agree. I'll agree with whatever the facts show, I just don't want any assumptions that aren't based on facts. I've seen other posters do that.
 
Ok, you're right. That was a sloppy comparison. How tall were the WHG then, or the Karelia EHG? We've got a 5'5 EEF, and a 5'7 or 5'8 Steppe-Yamnaya person, yes, just as averages?

As to your latter comment, I definitely don't think toughness of character is determined by "ethnicity". I'm sorry if it sounded like I was implying the opposite. As to male musculature, I'm sure you think I have a nerve talking about it. :) I was just repeating "gym talk". Hardly scientific.

As for attractiveness, I do think someone's perception of it is in part genetically determined, and in part culturally determined, as we discussed in another thread. What is "attractive" to me may very well not be "attractive" to someone from another part of Europe, and vice versa. It doesn't make my "ideal" objectively more "attractive" than the ideal of someone from, I don't know, Finland, since those are the pictures that have been posted. I certainly meant no disrespect to them.
Again just my intuition - the EHG R1a was not tall. He had this Mongoloid or more precise Lappid touch. The EHG J could be tall, he looked Euro Meso. But then - they both were labeled as girls, so possibly were not seen as that tall :)
Will try to check for exact estimates.

____
Just a note I am not taking sides in tallness talks - Latvians are tall on average, but I am not tall myself. Looking like your average Austrian Alpine :)
 
in these days height and posture were depending on food resources
our DNA gives us the potential - or not - to grow tall and/or broad
but it depends on food during our growth period (till adolescence) whether we actually will use that potential or not
steppe people and Germans and Celts lived on dairy - they grew tall
Romans lived on cereals (and wine poisonned by lead)
in a one to one battle with a Celt or a German a Roman would have lost the battle
but the Roman legions were well-trained and disciplined fighting machines who always stayed in formation
the Celts were loose bands always going for personal honour and glory, which was more important to them than their own life
 
Again just my intuition - the EHG R1a was not tall. He had this Mongoloid or more precise Lappid touch. The EHG J could be tall, he looked Euro Meso. But then - they both were labeled as girls, so possibly were not seen as that tall :)
Will try to check for exact estimates.

____
Just a note I am not taking sides in tallness talks - Latvians are tall on average, but I am not tall myself. Looking like your average Austrian Alpine :)

It would be great if you could find some for EHG and WHG as well. I've read all sorts of broad statements, but no actual data for comparison.

Goodness, height isn't something to "take sides" over. :) Nowadays the media tells us all what to prefer. It used to be much more driven by "local" cultural norms. My mom was 5'6" tall. That was taller than the average Italian woman of her area and generation and she didn't like it. (Of course, my father's mother was 5'11", but that area was an anomaly.) I'm the same height, and I wanted to look like a model so I would have killed for an extra four inches in height. It's all sort of silly, right?

My interest is purely academic. Well, I'll admit that I don't like the kind of sub-text that I have discovered exists around the subject either. My interest in population genetics has opened my eyes to all sorts of novel, to me, ways of looking at the world and other people.
 

This thread has been viewed 37400 times.

Back
Top