Mesolithic Karelians - Which one is EHG?

Mother Google could not find me any data on heights, if I ever stumble on such data by accident in some Russian sources, I will post here :)
 
I always turn to Dienekes' website first when I'm trying to find a paper, et voila'! :)
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/02/mesolithic-mtdna-haplogroup-u5a-from.html

I think we may have to revise our mental images here. WHG/Loschbour may have been "robust", but he was only 1.6 meters in height.

The internet website articles on Oetzi variably say 1.65 or 5.5.

Now we just need the Karelia EHG folks.
 
Hold on, I just saw this...

"Kurgan 4 at Kutuluk near Samara, Russia, dated to c. 24th century BC, contains the skeleton of a man, estimated to have been 35 to 40 years old and about 152 cm tall."

HUH?

I just tried to go back to the Supplementary Info for the paper, and I can't access #3. It's telling me the file is corrupted.

Can anyone get in and check what heights they were giving for these men on the steppe? I mean Yamnaya, not Sintashta.

Did they include Oetzi in the Neolithic data?

This is not making sense to me. They may be aggregating the data incorrectly.
 
Dienekes mentioned Steppe as 1.75 in some other source, but can't find that source anymore.
So, I was wrong re Steppe, seems they were the tall ones. But need to find that Dienekes post again.

edit:
he he, I was writing my reply before your post. So, hmm. Confusing.
 
I always turn to Dienekes' website first when I'm trying to find a paper, et voila'! :)
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/02/mesolithic-mtdna-haplogroup-u5a-from.html

I think we may have to revise our mental images here. WHG/Loschbour may have been "robust", but he was only 1.6 meters in height.

The internet website articles on Oetzi variably say 1.65 or 5.5.

Now we just need the Karelia EHG folks.

I couldn't find Karelia statistics, but Arvistro was right about the height of the steppe people, so the Wiki article contains a misprint perhaps?

As per Haak et al as quoted by Dienekes...
"The Yamna population generally belongs to the European race. It was tall (175.5cm), dolichocephalic, with broad faces of medium height. Among them there were, however, more robust elements with high and wide faces of the proto-Europoid type, and also more gracile individuals with narrow and high faces, probably reflecting contacts with the East Mediterranean type (Kurts 1984: 90)."

So, about 5'2-3, to 5'4-5, to 5'7-8?

I know, I'm like a dog with a bone. Until I get the answer, I can't quit.
 
Mika Hakkinen seems influenced by a little bit of something 'east-asian'like, but it is very light, as very often among Finns of Finland (often too, this component doesn't appear, as among Western Finns); the others trends are "europoid", some among them some kind of partly brachycephalized 'brünnoid' (HG), kind of my "borreby B"; a mix all the way as very often everyplace. that said 'east-asian' is a generic term, they are not all of them as typical, as it occurs for other types (and auDNA). and the east-asian part of Fnnic-Ugric (Uralic part) people was a "attenuated" 'mongoloid' type; not extremely evolved;
analysis of phoenotypical features is always complicated because of crossings;
concerning hte N-E Europe people with smoother features, I recall Coon thought a mix where 'mediterranean danubian' (EEF? YG2?) was heavy, colonized Eastern Europe and played a role in the genesis of 'East-Baltic' people (Poland, Belarus and others); the 'danubian type', surely rather pigmented for hair and eyes, had a profil (vaguely pedomorphic) very different from the more ruggy and crooknosed 'cappadocian' or 'irano-afghan' types, and it had a very high cranial vault with almost vertical forehead and short not too prominent nose.
 
In genetic terms East Asian (ENA) is a vague concept as is West Asian. East Asian covers Onge type, Papuan in Australia and Indonesia, Southern Mongoloid, Northern Mongoloid as well as Beringian and Amerind types and it entails more than 80 000 years of evolution and history if Chinese researchers are right in their claims. Moreover, the border line between ANE and ENA is not clear at all although in principle, ANE should be derived from India/Central Asia and ENA from East Asia. In addition, I am also pretty sure that there has been Mesolithic geneflow from Central Asia to China.

On top of this, there is also quite a lot of variation in West Eurasia: cfr.
an Estonian man (http://mutityts.com/2013/11/04/the-real-estonian-man/);
a Berber man (http://travel.nationalgeographic.co...azine/photo-contest/2012/entries/144353/view/)
a Tamili man (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vegeyum/4485148080)

Siberian features in modern Finns are surely eyes with the outer corner of the eye going upwards and probably also a small nose.

By the way, have you seen Xiaohe Yingpan Man mask? He is one of the tallest mummies and was buried in elaborate silk clothing and white mask with a gold forehead band. http://www.meshrep.com/PicOfDay/mummies/yingpan_man.jpg
http://blog.hmns.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/80_Yingpan-Detail_Silk-Road.jpg
In my eyes the mask looks quite Siberian. The mask has small slanted eyes and high cheekbones.
 
I forgot from the list Negritos, Tibetans, Taiwanese Aboriginals and Ainus. In my eyes, all the above mentioned groups look different. I would say that the human prehistory in East Asia must be very old, probably much older than in Europe, and the Near East has been repopulated several times.
 
I red a lot of approximations here concerning features and evolution* of features ( *: a "political" subject in "science")
I can give my modest point if a thread is open in athropology - just some ideas here:
- today metrics abstracts give US very low informative descriptions of populations, means of measures based not upon whole humanity range to create means criteria , but upon the range of the selected populations of every survey, and without report or tentatives of typology, reliable or not
- there was not something like ONE HGs population: 2 very opposed types concerning faces and crania were mixed in Europe at mesolithic time, with local distributions of diversely balanced crossings and some beginnings of evolution
- today diversity cannot be explained by climateonly, far of that
 

This thread has been viewed 37404 times.

Back
Top