Human Phenotypes

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Indigenous Germanics are mixed significantly with other European peoples but not other races. Turkish influences, for instance, are very residual.

 

[ElHorsto]

19th century racialists were wrong about MANY things.

They were mostly wrong by their historical interpretation, but not so much by their observation. However, you can just ignore the 19th century remark, my opinion is independent anyway. East Baltic is still one of the most paleolithic phenotypes up to me, which BTW was not such a popular opinion in 19th century. Still, even they could not completely deny similarities to Borreby (some called Borreby "West Baltic", which I tend to agree with, 19th century or not).

For example they thought that Germanic people were the purest Indo-Europeans, now we know that Germanic people are some of the most mixed people in Europe. In the 19th century they didn't have genetic data, and nationalism/imperialism blinded their research. I think Indo-european haplogroups (R1a, R1b) are always followed by a round-faced, short-legged, long-torsoed phenotype. Slavs are mostly R1a, and they tend to be round-faced. Celts are mostly R1b and they also tend to be round-faced. The only Europeans who have long faces are Germanic, Dinaric, and Mediterranean ones, and not surprisingly all three of these have R1b and R1a to a much lesser degree than Slavs and Celts.

 

[Templar]

Indigenous Germanics are mixed significantly with other European peoples but not other races. Turkish influences, for instance, are very residual.

Germanic people have less Indo-European haplogroup frequency than most other European people. That is what I am referring to. I didn't mention races or Turks, what are you talking about?

 

[Templar]

They were mostly wrong by their historical interpretation, but not so much by their observation. However, you can just ignore the 19th century remark, my opinion is independent anyway. East Baltic is still one of the most paleolithic phenotypes up to me, which BTW was not such a popular opinion in 19th century. Still, even they could not completely deny similarities to Borreby (some called Borreby "West Baltic", which I tend to agree with, 19th century or not).

Areas which have high amounts of the "East Baltic" phenotype, don't have high paleolithic haplogroup frequency (haplogroup I). They are a hot spot for R1a, not "I". I don't see how they can be paleolithic, except for maybe in the far eastern parts of Europe.

 

[ElHorsto]

Areas which have high amounts of the "East Baltic" phenotype, don't have high paleolithic haplogroup frequency (haplogroup I). They are a hot spot for R1a, not "I". I don't see how they can be paleolithic, except for maybe in the far eastern parts of Europe.

1. The paleolithic covers 30000 years of european history.
2. Haplogroups are almost meaningless compared to the significance of autosomals (check the admixture component which has a peak in the baltic area). HG I is relatively old in europe, thus especially inexact.
3. The Hunter-gatherers of europe which followed the melting glaciers were connected to siberia and beyond as shown by SNP admixture (and meanwhile confirmed also by STR). Most evidences suggest a common trans-eurasian space in the northern tundra. Hence, a minor "mongoloid" admixture in north europeans is probably not a recent admixture but an integral part from very early times (the Y-HG Q traces in Scandinavia might be such old remnants, which got eradicated east of scandinavia by HG N and R1a newcomer lineages). Many north europeans also have higher cheek bones than "old" mediterraneans, though not as high as mongols of course. That would be also an explanation for the phenotype of the Kennewick man. BTW, this is quite an anti-19th-centurish point of view.
4. Who knows what HG I was originally. It is just a Haplogroup - one single lineage among hundred thousands of other predecessors. It could have belonged to one particular horde or epoch. But I find it hard to believe that all european hunter-gatherers, cro-magnons, gravettians, etc. always belonged exclusively to HG I or F.

 

[Yetos]

Hey,

I don't get it

I click on Greece
and gave the 4 types among them one was Pontid

same also in East Balkans,

Then I click to Turkey, and seems Pontid is missing,
should n't be also there? more than south of Pontus is turkey.

 

[Templar]

3. The Hunter-gatherers of europe which followed the melting glaciers were connected to siberia and beyond as shown by SNP admixture (and meanwhile confirmed also by STR). Most evidences suggest a common trans-eurasian space in the northern tundra. Hence, a minor "mongoloid" admixture in north europeans is probably not a recent admixture but an integral part from very early times (the Y-HG Q traces in Scandinavia might be such old remnants, which got eradicated east of scandinavia by HG N and R1a newcomer lineages)

Cro-Magnons have long faces, which Mongoloids do not. Cro-Magnons were perhaps the tallest humans alive during their time, Mongoloids are bellow average height. The haplogroup trees confirm a major difference between Cro-Magnons and Mongoloids. Indo-Europeans on the other hand are much closer to Mongoloid N, O, Q, etc. The Mongoloid part of Northern Europeans is likely due to Sami mixture perhaps.

The tallest Europeans (Germanics and Dinarics) both have the highest rates of haplogroup I, they are also both hairy, both have very long faces, etc.

 

[Templar]

Hey,

I don't get it

I click on Greece
and gave the 4 types among them one was Pontid

same also in East Balkans,

Then I click to Turkey, and seems Pontid is missing,
should n't be also there? more than south of Pontus is turkey.

Yeah there are a lot of weird inconsistencies. I would take all the information with a pinch of salt.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Germanic people have less Indo-European haplogroup frequency than most other European people. That is what I am referring to. I didn't mention races or Turks, what are you talking about?

I just proffered clarification, that's all. In any case, autosomal DNA (full heritage) tells the real story, not haplogroups.

 

[Templar]

I just proffered clarification, that's all. In any case, autosomal DNA (full heritage) tells the real story, not haplogroups.

Yes, but autosomal DNA can give us the wring impression sometimes. I will give you an example. Ashkenazi Jews are supposedly the most closely autosomally similar to Italians. Which from a historic point of view makes no sense at all. The reason why, is because both populations have a significant mix of both European and Near-Eastern genes, which when looking at it autosomally gives us an illusion of them being kin.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Yes, but autosomal DNA can give us the wring impression sometimes. I will give you an example. Ashkenazi Jews are supposedly the most closely autosomally similar to Italians. Which from a historic point of view makes no sense at all. The reason why, is because both populations have a significant mix of both European and Near-Eastern genes, which when looking at it autosomally gives us an illusion of them being kin.

DNA obviously behaves randomly and population groups who cluster closely autosomally does not mean they will always resemble each other phenotypically. However, the groupings will share some physical traits and sometimes many...a roll of the dice.

 

[Templar]

DNA obviously behaves randomly and population groups who cluster closely autosomally does not mean they will always resemble each other phenotypically. However, the groupings will share some physical traits and sometimes many...a roll of the dice.

I know, but my point is that it always clusters people together if both people share the same ratio of mixes. So imagine a scenario where the only reason various groups are clustered in the "Northern European" cluster is because they all are a Mongoloid-Caucasoid mix. This would completely ignore the minor differences between the Caucasoid autosomals, and skip right to the biggest difference between Northern and Southern European autosomals. This could really screw up the real clusters that we are looking for.

 

[ElHorsto]

Cro-Magnons have long faces, which Mongoloids do not.

Actually, the "old man of Cro-Magnon", France, had a broad face. It is at least 28000 years old:


Here is a long faced skull from Combe Capelle, France. But the problem is that it is only 8000 years old:



This is another long faced example from Peștera cu Oase, Romania. It is the oldest known european, but the problem is that it is not yet distinctly "european". The brain cavity was relatively gracile compared to the huge malars. This phenotype is considered to be extinct today.



It is obvious that both, very broad and very long faced individuals were around in europe during the paleolithic. Only the later mediterranean phenotypes are exclusively long faced. The Combe-Capelle guy in particular could have been already an Atlanto-Med.

Cro-Magnons were perhaps the tallest humans alive during their time, Mongoloids are bellow average height. The haplogroup trees confirm a major difference between Cro-Magnons and Mongoloids. Indo-Europeans on the other hand are much closer to Mongoloid N, O, Q, etc. The Mongoloid part of Northern Europeans is likely due to Sami mixture perhaps.

The tallest Europeans (Germanics and Dinarics) both have the highest rates of haplogroup I, they are also both hairy, both have very long faces, etc.

 

[ElHorsto]

Yes, but autosomal DNA can give us the wring impression sometimes. I will give you an example. Ashkenazi Jews are supposedly the most closely autosomally similar to Italians. Which from a historic point of view makes no sense at all.

Well, there could be a tiny bit of sense, because 10% of roman population was of hebrew descent, although they were probably more prevalent in the eastern provinces.

The reason why, is because both populations have a significant mix of both European and Near-Eastern genes, which when looking at it autosomally gives us an illusion of them being kin.

That's not an illusion. If they share sufficiently many genes then they are just kin. Even if their history is different and their kinship is coincidental, it is still genetic kinship, regardless how it happened. You are right, that there is no 100% reliability of a component, but if the component is geographically confined, then it is significant enough to be considered true. It is still 100 times more reliable than Y-DNA for instance, because a component is a unique combination of several SNPs that can not be eradicated suddenly in many people of a region at once. Y-DNA lineages are completely different. But if the aDNA component is not geographically confined and sparse, then it is not to be trusted too much, that's true.

 

[Templar]

Actually, the "old man of Cro-Magnon", France, had a broad face. It is at least 28000 years old:

I never said that they weren't broad. Length and width aren't mutually exclusive you know. Cro-Magnon skulls were generally BOTH long and wide. My point is that though both Mongoloid and Cro-Magnon skulls are wide, Cro-Magnon skulls are also long, while Mongoloid ones are not.

That's not an illusion. If they share sufficiently many genes then they are just kin. Even if their history is different and their kinship is coincidental, it is still genetic kinship, regardless how it happened. You are right, that there is no 100% reliability of a component, but if the component is geographically confined, then it is significant enough to be considered true. It is still 100 times more reliable than Y-DNA for instance, because a component is a unique combination of several SNPs that can not be eradicated suddenly in many people of a region at once. Y-DNA lineages are completely different. But if the aDNA component is not geographically confined and sparse, then it is not to be trusted too much, that's true.

I am just saying you have to be very careful and not jump to a conclusion with it. There are a lot of people who just look at the autosomal data and immediately start making far-fetched theories which have no historic substance.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Good points. I agree...

 

[Knovas]

Very interesting data Horsto. Yeah, the "French" Cro-Magnon was clearly broad. Difficult to say how this fits the most common theories...maybe we have to accept that Paleolithic Europeans were not homogeneous at all.

 

[MOESAN]

Actually, the "old man of Cro-Magnon", France, had a broad face. It is at least 28000 years old:
View attachment 5797

Here is a long faced skull from Combe Capelle, France. But the problem is that it is only 8000 years old:

View attachment 5798

This is another long faced example from Peștera cu Oase, Romania. It is the oldest known european, but the problem is that it is not yet distinctly "european". The brain cavity was relatively gracile compared to the huge malars. This phenotype is considered to be extinct today.
View attachment 5799


It is obvious that both, very broad and very long faced individuals were around in europe during the paleolithic. Only the later mediterranean phenotypes are exclusively long faced. The Combe-Capelle guy in particular could have been already an Atlanto-Med.

Amaze am I !
the third kind man (or men,) seam to me very closer to 'Cro-magnon' and NOT LONG FACED AT ALL! perhaps we 've not the same kind of eyes...
Could you provide other pictures of this "romanian" type (face/side/top)?
good night

 

[MOESAN]

I never said that they weren't broad. Length and width aren't mutually exclusive you know. Cro-Magnon skulls were generally BOTH long and wide. My point is that though both Mongoloid and Cro-Magnon skulls are wide, Cro-Magnon skulls are also long, while Mongoloid ones are not.

I am just saying you have to be very careful and not jump to a conclusion with it. There are a lot of people who just look at the autosomal data and immediately start making far-fetched theories which have no historic substance.

Need some more documentation, I suppose?
there is dolichocephalic 'mongoloids', even in cold climates!!! don't generalize too much on too few examples...
broad european faces have not the same quality like broad mongoloid faces - and yet here I generalize me too! a lot of discret features differenciate the diverse phenotypes', more or less according to their proximity by genetic heritage

 

[ElHorsto]

Amaze am I !
the third kind man (or men,) seam to me very closer to 'Cro-magnon' and NOT LONG FACED AT ALL! perhaps we 've not the same kind of eyes...
Could you provide other pictures of this "romanian" type (face/side/top)?
good night

Long faced or not, it looks more African to me and not so much Cro-magnon.

Here is the article from 2007 (in german) from University of Zürich, where I found the picture:

http://www.uzh.ch/news/articles/2007/2450.html

I searched in pnas and this seems to be their paper (in english, fulltext!!!) they mentioned "to appear" in that article:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/4/1165.full?sid=c902c7bb-7598-4c37-aea3-4844b3c98340

I haven't read it yet. Have fun!