Metrics taxinomic anthropology and DNA - Steppes and I-E? use?

I know old anthropology cannot provide certainties, but it can help to see some historical changes:
in Latvia and Estonia a change occurred at the beginning of the CCC (Comb...): the prceding types, already well known during Mesolithic, an old mix favouring large dolichocephalic skulls with low and broad faces but rather prominent noses, received a ne input leading to mesocephalic skulls and flatter nose and horizontal face profil, evocating closely enough the Karelia pop of the time and more remotely the Neolithic Siberian types, so richer in north-east-asian input. But only genetics can say us if this modification is correlated to influx of new auDA and new uniparental haplos ( some Y-N1 subclades by examples?) -
this phenotypical influence of north-east-asians seems having been strongly diminished at the LN by the arrival of bearers of CWClike cultures (Battle Axe C)-
BTW, at the physical level, it seems that more than a time, it has been some alternative moves of Europeanlike WHG/EHG pops and Siberianlike ones in the Steppes (look at Botai, look at the Kalmykia Pit Grave) post Maykop Steppes people...
 
MOESAN said:
I had not redt correctly this post and it deserves some remarks:
- the Steppes cultures (here I 'm sure you know) appear more and more as a long time exchanges zone on every direction, and scholars are in disaccord about some affiliations; this large cultural horizon, long during, saw cultures which someones put in the same bag when in fact they were neighbouring cultures interacting one with another, and one taking the place of the other here and there, not without borrow something to this other -
- robust and gracile concepts are mistaking when they are integrated into metrics studies without some individual level examens - in fact scientists are not so naive, but as a whole their abstracts and even sometimes their complete papers are very misleading -
- almost NO PGC pop could be seen at as a "gracile" pop: they were a crossing begun early enough AND FOR A PART BEFORE BRONZE, but the result was rather on a "robust" and high statured type; surely the southern element in them was rather a robust enough type close to the so called 'eurafrican' or to kind of 'indo-afghan' type without too much of the smaller near-eastern variant of mediter' ; in short, the weight of HG's (rather EHG) was stronger in the admixture on the phenotypical side (it could be due to selection of some traits because autosomal DNA seems more balanced -
Crimea Kurgans would be an exception. (not aware of but my confidence in BRACE is limited, based on other papers) -
- apparently more gracile and more robust (to speak with this awful simplification) inputs are seen according to places BUT ALSO TIMES, with not chronological tendancies; some so called "gracile" types have be seen in Southwest Siberia and Steppes places before return of more "robust" types in the same places before again some new inputs of "graciles" ones! Not a simplistic model! the question could be here: where were coming the diverse "graciles" and "robusts" FROM? Here we need serious physical anthropology, an-DNA and archeology (without linguistic helas) - the only constant is that a 'proto-europoid' type was all the time the link (french "fond de sauce") between all these Steppic pops, and surely at a lower level, some west-asian not too gracile 'east-mediter' type - this constancy of the 'proto-europoid' type inherited from local HG's is not too informative by the way -
- UP is not a phenotypical (or whatever) label - there have been UP's of every sort - I don't think first eastern Huns were "UP" in any way and 'proto-europoid' and 'proto-uralic' types (bad namings BTW) where not the same and were no more "UP" neither; thet were just pops stayed phenotypically closer to their ancestors, for diverse reasons -
- as we cannot put all the "robust archaic" types in the same bag, we cannot do it to all the "gracile modern" types; UP pops did not disappear, they left us genes in different ways, only some traits disappeared in different ways when some other remained, according to drift and selection or lifestyle so according to places too - it's ridiculous to say UP heritage disappeared completely in Western Europe since the Neolithic, it's nonsense, event phenotypically speaking -
- I don't know if Yamna is ancestor to Andronovo; not directly, either genetically or culturally - we can just say they share a lot of common ancestors, either before or after the Yamna existed, and common cultural features through a more or less short chain - but yes, metrically they share a common layer as I said above, but in the most of Andronovo sites people had a taste of 'proto-uralic' type common among 'WSHG's Yamna people did not have, and the southern element "infusion" in them was weaker too, withtout speak of surely a bit more true 'east-asian' dosis -
Konitsev wrote it was not the very Yamna which was the closer to Afanasyavo people but other pops like Catacombs and Srubna/TGC - but this is only physical proximity, with time spans so long is only the proof of a shared layer of ancestors between close pops -
only steep differences between means of pops - occurred in a short space of time - can be useful to prove an upheaval or at least an heavy change -
Click to expand...

Imo it would be nice to compare this with the SNP's and the pictures Doggerland is producing based on that.

In my 'case' I'm pretty robust near to Srubnaya, Cheddar Man and Andronovo.

At least something to consider!

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...nd-World/page2?p=645301&viewfull=1#post645301
 
I checked some weeks ago what are the main physical differences between the European founding populations in terms of SNPs.

In old archaeological records (Coons era) the researchers claimed a strong differentiation between the skeletons.
The modern literature I read rarely uses the old terminology and did not propagate, that there was a huge difference. There are outstanding individuals of height, females that where though to be males because of their facial bone physiology, but after all I do not remember that in any book I read the researchers claimed those people to be of different races.

I will post some examples for SNPs that differed between populations and are related to bone physiology:

rs10165224 A = Steppe and Mesolithic
This allele causes an African like facial trait, that is rated unattractive by male raters in a study. Most common in African populations today, also very present in San and Pygmy samples, Siberians and Iberomaurusians.

rs6709347 A= Neolithic
This allele is associated with eye socket shape. Rare trait today, most common in Europeans.

rs12570134 G = Mesolithic
This allele causes an eyelid shape that is more common in East Asians and Africans, but generally more uncommon in all populations today.

rs2058742 T = Neolithic
This allele causes a higher nasal angle, most common in Africans today.

rs927833 T = Steppe
This allele causes broader nostrils. Most common in Africans today.

rs3758477 T = Neolithic
More inverted forehead.

rs4927012 C = Neolithic
Associated with hand morphology, digit length decreased.

rs878639 GG = Mesolithic + Steppe
Associated with body height

rs7235010 GG = Mesolithic
Smaller body height, lesser waist to hip ratio.

And that was all that reached a relevance for European Mesolithic and Neolithic populations in terms of bone physiology. Things like facial breadth, jaw shape or nose length didn’t reached a relevance, there was too much variation between the populations(too much heterozygosity) or all populations had the same alleles for one trait.

For example like you can see, there where different facial features even in homogeneous thought groups:

A Baltic HG and a Maglemosian:



Irish Neolithic and Cardial Pottery(Cardium Ware):



Early Neolithic Greece and Bulgarian Neolithic:



I personally think that there are phenotypes that clearly show a continuity by looking at the pictures and those are the Anatolia Neolithic related ones (Exception Cardial Pottery) and the Yana/CHG/EHG complex including Yamnaya. Cardial Pottery seems to be somehow related to this complex too and an early mix between the two.
The Mesolithic Hunters seem to differ in traits more. On the one side the ones like Ertebölle, Cheddar Man and Maglemose, who are looking more archaic, and the ones like Pitted Ware and Baltic HG, who looked more modern.
I use over 100 SNPs to reconstruct a face, maybe things that not appear relevant in a PCA, can be seen as a pattern with the human eye.

But there are limitations. I cannot compare SNPs that are not found in the samples. For example there are many newer studies on facial bone morphology, but these SNPs are not tested in general so no way to proof who had them or not.
Head shape defining SNPs did not reached a relevance, but brachycephalic vs dolichiocephalic was often discussed in the past. Maybe the SNPs are not found till today, or I overlooked them or social things like cradling played a greater role.

And we should not forget that nursing practices and childhood nutrition play a large role in the development of height and skeletal features. Chewing plays an important role in facial bone development. Social status and access to food sources plays a role in development.
 
Doggerland said:
I checked some weeks ago what are the main physical differences between the European founding populations in terms of SNPs.

In old archaeological records (Coons era) the researchers claimed a strong differentiation between the skeletons.
The modern literature I read rarely uses the old terminology and did not propagate, that there was a huge difference. There are outstanding individuals of height, females that where though to be males because of their facial bone physiology, but after all I do not remember that in any book I read the researchers claimed those people to be of different races.

I will post some examples for SNPs that differed between populations and are related to bone physiology:

rs10165224 A = Steppe and Mesolithic
This allele causes an African like facial trait, that is rated unattractive by male raters in a study. Most common in African populations today, also very present in San and Pygmy samples, Siberians and Iberomaurusians.

rs6709347 A= Neolithic
This allele is associated with eye socket shape. Rare trait today, most common in Europeans.

rs12570134 G = Mesolithic
This allele causes an eyelid shape that is more common in East Asians and Africans, but generally more uncommon in all populations today.

rs2058742 T = Neolithic
This allele causes a higher nasal angle, most common in Africans today.

rs927833 T = Steppe
This allele causes broader nostrils. Most common in Africans today.

rs3758477 T = Neolithic
More inverted forehead.

rs4927012 C = Neolithic
Associated with hand morphology, digit length decreased.

rs878639 GG = Mesolithic + Steppe
Associated with body height

rs7235010 GG = Mesolithic
Smaller body height, lesser waist to hip ratio.

And that was all that reached a relevance for European Mesolithic and Neolithic populations in terms of bone physiology. Things like facial breadth, jaw shape or nose length didn’t reached a relevance, there was too much variation between the populations(too much heterozygosity) or all populations had the same alleles for one trait.

For example like you can see, there where different facial features even in homogeneous thought groups:

A Baltic HG and a Maglemosian:



Irish Neolithic and Cardial Pottery(Cardium Ware):



Early Neolithic Greece and Bulgarian Neolithic:



I personally think that there are phenotypes that clearly show a continuity by looking at the pictures and those are the Anatolia Neolithic related ones (Exception Cardial Pottery) and the Yana/CHG/EHG complex including Yamnaya. Cardial Pottery seems to be somehow related to this complex too and an early mix between the two.
The Mesolithic Hunters seem to differ in traits more. On the one side the ones like Ertebölle, Cheddar Man and Maglemose, who are looking more archaic, and the ones like Pitted Ware and Baltic HG, who looked more modern.
I use over 100 SNPs to reconstruct a face, maybe things that not appear relevant in a PCA, can be seen as a pattern with the human eye.

But there are limitations. I cannot compare SNPs that are not found in the samples. For example there are many newer studies on facial bone morphology, but these SNPs are not tested in general so no way to proof who had them or not.
Head shape defining SNPs did not reached a relevance, but brachycephalic vs dolichiocephalic was often discussed in the past. Maybe the SNPs are not found till today, or I overlooked them or social things like cradling played a greater role.

And we should not forget that nursing practices and childhood nutrition play a large role in the development of height and skeletal features. Chewing plays an important role in facial bone development. Social status and access to food sources plays a role in development.
Click to expand...


It spites me but I think these studies about some SNP's efficiency for bones formation are at the dawn of their lives, and based on too few markers themselves selected by too approximative approaches, for I think. It's enough looking at the results of diverse tentatives to illustrate their features to state they are still (for a while) inaccurate. All this remarks bind only myself, of course...

&: BTW what are they thinking when they say: "Africanlike facial trait"?
 
@Doggerland
a bit "sharp" and hasty my answer to you!
100 marker is not so few, and at individual level it seems you can approach a little to some of the physical features.
But I wonder how accurate has been their definition and dispatching of people bones traits before to try to localise the SNP's concerned?
And what use can have averaged features in relatively or strongly mixed pop's at the phoenotypîc level ?
As I said to Northerner, the reconstructions I saw seem having passed over nose length and mouth/lip forms.
To date I give the priority to stated features - whatever their causes - on trials to link them to SNP's, spite it 's of worth to try to.
 
Of course there are problems. But they are also present in skull based reconstructions. For example the Tarim Mummies seem to be slim nosed and have thin lips, when it comes to the dried bodies. But the SNPs are indicated the opposite, more East Asian like features and thick nose tips and lips.

Kostenki has one of the worst reconstructions, in reality a massive jaw and broad head, but the reconstruction looks like Asterix:
https://proza.ru/pics/2011/11/08/348.jpg

https://www.donsmaps.com/images9/kostenkifig1415.jpg

Cheddar man a similar problem with the jaw:

https://xekinima.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/xcheddar_man_for_web-pagespeed-ic-1mwojrtngm-2.jpg

Real Cheddar Man Skull:

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/WHAC02/cheddar-man-skull-of-cheddar-man-from-cheddar-gorge-WHAC02.jpg

Or Sunghir was reconstructed as looking Russian, but they where really dark skinned with thick noses and far from looking like Russians.

The studies about the SNPs linked to facial features never say something like: “1.5 centimeters distance between the mouth and the vomer bone”
They indicate things like: “The A allele was associated with larger mouth to vomer bone distance” and then I had to interpret the word “Larger” myself.

Eye color is sometimes also hard to interpret. Blue eyes are the easiest ones, also very dark eyes. All colors between are a kind of guessing by luck, because there are over 22 Snps I am using for the feature eye color alone.
My own gedmatch eye color prediction was ok, but not completely accurate. Hirisplex total fail, they think I have blue eyes, but I do not have.

The SNPs I am using for facial features are the ones that reached the highest ratings in GWAs or one of the ones that did that, but artist interpretation remains still a factor.
 
OK Doggerland, I don't think the collect of concerned SNP's is a loss of time. Surely things will come better and better.
BTW skulls are a thing, reconstruction are another thing, as you say yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 24905 times.

Back
Top