How CHG did look like?

Change your freaking tone, and stop with the insults or you're going to get a heap of infractions. Moesan is a respected member here.

You can express your disbelief in traditional physical anthropology in a civil way.

I didn't insult anyone, I merely stated facts. I didn't realise this was a board that advocated Coon's (and the likes) theories. I will respectfully take my leave.
 
I didn't insult anyone, I merely stated facts. I didn't realise this was a board that advocated Coon's (and the likes) theories. I will respectfully take my leave.

Nobody's advocating anything except civility.
 
Sorry, physical anthropology based on craniometry readings and classification of humans in 'races' (i.e. alpine, med, nordic, armenoid, and the rest of the jargon of racialism) is pure pseudo-scientific racism, constructed to provide the pillars of white supremacist theories.

Coon's own work was used to justify the segregation and suppression of civil rights of African Americans until the Civil Rights movement put an end to it in the 1960s, and Coon himself was forced to resign from the American Association of Anthropologists.

Not my problem you can't see how all of this is nothing but racist garbage.

TdvyWZ3.png


Here's a genetic study from 2019 that uses the term "Mediterranean".

Clearly, they're quantifiable genetically on a PCA.

There's nothing racist about the term. It makes it easier to identify the population of interest.

Granted that phenotype doesn't always go hand in hand with genetics, but it does a lot of the time.

You seem pretty strident and impassioned about this topic, that's not helpful. Like Angela said, let's keep it civil.
 
Sorry, physical anthropology based on craniometry readings and classification of humans in 'races' (i.e. alpine, med, nordic, armenoid, and the rest of the jargon of racialism) is pure pseudo-scientific racism, constructed to provide the pillars of white supremacist theories.

Coon's own work was used to justify the segregation and suppression of civil rights of African Americans until the Civil Rights movement put an end to it in the 1960s, and Coon himself was forced to resign from the American Association of Anthropologists.

Not my problem you can't see how all of this is nothing but racist garbage.

Poor thing!
You are confusing:
1- individual physical aspect and its genetic basis -
2- partly collective typology, rather artificial and not completely accurate but which could be useful sometimes by its simplifications, and which is distinct from collective metrics means themselves closer to population (# race) genetics -
3- believing (surely unbased) in very distinct races -
4- racism felt by someone, passively -
5- active and politic racism -
Sorry for the tone, but I read so many condamnations often without basis: boring! And you seem to me a passive reader rather than an analyst.
That said, contrarily to you, I find interesting the amateurish and cool quest to devine what was the physical aspect of ancient people, knowing it was rarely homogenous spite some trends towards certain features; but it's a game and at the same time a legitimous questioning, why not?
 
yes the whole Villabruna cluster, they all have similar autosomal DNA, it is WHG

qpgraph-dzudzuana.jpg


actualy, instaed of WHG I should have referred to 'common west eurasian' as Laziridis labeled it
 
nice thanks for sharing :)
do i read the diagram correct ?
and the tafrolat = 45% ancestral north african +55% common west Eurasian ?
regards
adam
 
Both Bichon and Loschbour have some of the Aurignacian-magdalenian (Goyet type) ancestry along with some ANE as well. They are still mostly Continenza/WHG, but not as good of a proxy as Continenza mesolithic itself.
"sample": "BEL_Loschbour:Average",
"fit": 3.2962,
"ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso": 95,
"BEL_GoyetQ116-1": 3.33,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 1.67

Interestingly, Loschbour is a little more core-WHG like than Villabruna 1. Lol they could have called it a whole lot of things other than the "Villabruna cluster".

I don't have access to Bichon, but it has more of the Aurignacian-Magdalenian type ancestry than Loschbour does as per the "Survival of late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer ancestry in the Iberian peninsula". I'd wager than Loschbour and Continenza mesolithic are better approximations for the main ancestral component of the "Villabruna cluster" than Villabruna 1 and Bichon samples are.

The Loschbour model in the "Survival" paper has a P-value below 0.05 which is basically a fail. If you have a look at Fu's Ice Age paper in Table S7.3 Loschbour has a higher GoyetQ116-1 level than Bichon when compared to Villabruna. Maybe a tad of Magdalenian went into the making of WHG proper, by the way.
 
Interesting, so could the tad Magdalenian (which by extension would also have GoyetQ116-1 type ancestry) explain the mild eastern tendency in WHG when Kostenki's basal is set to 0?
Still, do you think that Continenza mesolithic has the most WHG and the least non-WHG out of all samples in the Villabruna cluster?

WHG eastern affinity seems ANE related, which requires ANE admixture in Han, whereas GoyetQ116-1's eastern affinity is related to Tianyuan. Number of recently published qpGraphs show the former, the recent Tianyuan paper the latter. If it actually were Magdalenian in WHG the Magdalenians themselves should show that affinity as well, being descendants from GoyetQ116-1, but they don't.

We might see some earlier Epigravettians DNA - I have no information on that but some Strontium sampling has been done and I hope that means they also took DNA - so we might see something more in the future.
 
Both Bichon and Loschbour have some of the Aurignacian-magdalenian (Goyet type) ancestry along with some ANE as well. They are still mostly Continenza/WHG, but not as good of a proxy as Continenza mesolithic itself.
"sample": "BEL_Loschbour:Average",
"fit": 3.2962,
"ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso": 95,
"BEL_GoyetQ116-1": 3.33,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 1.67

Interestingly, Loschbour is a little more core-WHG like than Villabruna 1. Lol they could have called it a whole lot of things other than the "Villabruna cluster".

I don't have access to Bichon, but it has more of the Aurignacian-Magdalenian type ancestry than Loschbour does as per the "Survival of late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer ancestry in the Iberian peninsula". I'd wager than Loschbour and Continenza mesolithic are better approximations for the main ancestral component of the "Villabruna cluster" than Villabruna 1 and Bichon samples are.

also questions for @epoch

What is the relationship between Villabruna and Ostuni?
Was Ostuni already very similar to Villabruna or was from a different cluster?
Did Ostuni have Basal Eurasian or ANE?
 
WHG eastern affinity seems ANE related, which requires ANE admixture in Han, whereas GoyetQ116-1's eastern affinity is related to Tianyuan. Number of recently published qpGraphs show the former, the recent Tianyuan paper the latter. If it actually were Magdalenian in WHG the Magdalenians themselves should show that affinity as well, being descendants from GoyetQ116-1, but they don't.

We might see some earlier Epigravettians DNA - I have no information on that but some Strontium sampling has been done and I hope that means they also took DNA - so we might see something more in the future.

Someone recently proposed a Transeurasian , ENA shifted ghost population contributing to WHG, CHG, ANE and Iran_N. Does that make any sense?
 

This thread has been viewed 17543 times.

Back
Top