Pigmentation of European Hunter Gatherers

[Tomenable]

Ha

I think he had big wallet

sometimes I wonder if he was a racist????

People should just get comfortable with their appearance whether they are dark-skinned or white-skinned.

 

[Yetos]

People should just get comfortable with their appearance whether they are dark-skinned or white-skinned.

except if they have thick wallets

 

[Fire Haired14]

Tomenable, there's discussing genetics because you're interested and there's discussing genetics because you want to claim some-type of superiority. You're doing the later. The white look is probably from early IEs of LN East Europe, big deal. It doesn't make anyone superior like you think.

Some people haven't quite absorbed the fact that Eastern Europe - and not Western Europe - was the "cradle of White people".

I agree Hyprid LN East Europeans(Germany-Ukraine) are probably the source of the white look. Keyword is hyprids. One ancestor can't be the source of the white look, like you want EHG to be. Eastern Europe in the Late Neolithic was a genetic mis mash like Latin America is today(Mexican=Hungary BA, Agrentia=Corded Ware, Peru=Bell Beaker, you get the idea). Because of mixed people like LN East Europeans I like to stick to genetics not phenotype because phenotype is harder to trace origins for when people are so mixed. Anatolia_Neolithic is as important or more important than EHG in Europeans, excluding outliers like Saami and Udmurts.

What is the white-look? I can't find a way to define it beyond pigmentation yet can always recognize it. Two different white people can have drastically different body build and facial features. Ashkenazi Jews usually pass as white but have like maybe 20% ancestry from LN Eastern Europe. Indians are 30%+ whiteish(more Steppe, less EEF) but not a single one could pass as white. How do we explain that? Ashkenazi's non-white side being more related to LN Eastern Europe is a decent explanation, but still....

What is the white look when it is 50%+ what Middle Easterners are? If an Iraqi or maybe Sardinian(I don't know) is easily distinguishable from a German, yet a German has so much in common with them genetically, what is causing that distinguishableness? It's a mystery.

I speak in trends for phenotype not absolutes, because phenotype has variety in the same populations, phenotype has sharing between different populations, and phenotype is harder to trace origins of than ancestry. Native Americans have East Asianish features, this is obviously because they're 60% East Asian-like. So the white look could be from LN Eastern Europe, but relatives of LN East Europeans like Sardinians and Georgians(I've meet Georgians who I thought were normal white Americans at first) can still have this white look without LN East European ancestry.

So Northern European pigmentation does not come from Anatolia, but from those "Aryans" in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.

Dude seriously, a Pole going along with Nazi names for their ideal race, whatever it might be. Aryans are Indians or Iranians, whatever they are they have nothing to do with Europe. We have no writtings from the Steppe before like 500 BC or so, how would we ever know what they called themselves anyways?

Some people apparently still haven't quite absorbed the fact that, originally, "White" = "Indo-European".

If by Indo European you mean Corded Ware, Unetice, you're mostly right. But then there's Finno Urgics. Once again I don't like absolutes. Don't put a badge of superiority on this like it seems you are. Everyone comes from somewhere, one origin isn't better than another.

 

[Kristiina]

It appears that Motala hunter-gatherers who surely were not IE speakers were white and had blue eyes:
“Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.”

More importantly, we do also have a pigmentation analysis from the Pontic Caspian Steppe, including Yamnaya and Catacomb cultures who should be the source of white skin in Europeans:


The graph clearly shows that Yamnaya and Catacomb people are remarkably much darker than modern Slavic-speaking Ukrainians.

The palest people in Europe are found the Baltic area, Western Russia and Finland. Even today, Yamnaya area with its Slavic migration does not reach the Western Russian blondism level.


The Samara hunter-gatherer is pre R1b-M73. This line is absent in Yamnaya and Europe. It is almost exclusively found in Turkic speakers and Samoyeds. His whiteness is irrelevant for Europeans.

You surely make yourself believe that when Yamnaya and Catacomb people were moving towards Europe, they was positive selection among them. And when Yamnaya people were invading the Baltic area and Volosovo area they was an extreme positive selection resulting in the eradication of the earlier darker skin. LOL

 

[Rethel]

It appears that Motala hunter-gatherers who surely were not IE speakers were white and had blue eyes:

Motala had IE admixture:

 

[Volat]

Rethel strikes me as a Khakassian of Altai mountains loaded with R1a1 (~70%).

 

[bicicleur 2]

Rethel strikes me as a Khakassian of Altai mountains loaded with R1a1 (~70%).

no, all Poles look like Rethel

and the Motala population was quite diverse, they were a mixture of several competing tribes, be it all I2

 

[Alan]

Check this pattern of genetic clustering around the world, where Cluster "A" are modern Europeans.

All Europeans are more closely related to each other than any of European groups is to Non-Europeans:

1) Europe (cluster A): http://s13.postimg.org/rr8z5vu2f/Cluster_A.png

2) The entire world: http://s23.postimg.org/nyqxhpjcb/global_genetic_distances_map.jpg

This statement is not entirely correct, even if we said we could picture the genetic relationship of humans based on a single two dimensional map and this map being the ultimate one, even on this map your statement is not supported.

Depending on if you preceive the Adygei as European or not, they are as close to the EUropean core as they are to Pashtuns. That is also the case with the Komi and Mari (Uralic people). Even more so extreme are the Lapps. Now Lapps are European aren't they? Than we have Sardinians who are as distant from the "European core" as the Adygei. Does that mean Sardinians are non European or does it mean Adygei and Sardinians are? And if so how about the Lapps and Komi/Mari, are they? I am confused.

Genetics doesn't work that way. What the graph actually shows best is that the European core is located between Sardinians, Adygei and Komi/Mari&Lapps. Now these are obviously not good proxys of ancient components since they are mixed (for example Komi&Mari and Lapps have some East Eurasian admixture) but they kinda remind of CHG(Adygei), Anatolian_Neo(Sardinian) and EHG(Lapps, Komi/Mari). Only a "proxy" for WHG is missing that would explain the slight drag towards "Northwest" of the plot.

 

[Alan]

Motala had IE admixture:

View attachment 8003

that moment when people don't know the difference between ANE and "Indo European".

 

[Angela]

that moment when people don't know the difference between ANE and "Indo European".

Incredible, isn't it?

 

[Rethel]

that moment when people don't know the difference between ANE and "Indo European".

So, Yamna, Chwałyńsk aso were 100% ANE?
Amerindian component (visible here) is not ANE?

Bell Beakers were partially ANE?

 

[Tomenable]

Nice thread title...

 

[Ukko]

How does that really change what I said? You want me to change it to European hunter-gatherers? OK, fine by me.

Societies like Cucuteni were practicing a culture developed in the Near East. That's where the "Neolithic" was invented, right?Contact continued even after the initial migration and with it the transfer of not only goods, but technology.

As for the steppe dwellers, it is unclear whether the wheel was invented by them or by Neolithic "Old Europe" in the Balkans or in the Near East. Use the search engine to get to the threads where all the papers are discussed.

After sifting through all the books and papers, the two de novo, unequivocal achievements of the steppe dwellers seem to be the domestication of the horse, and the invention of the spoked wheel chariot. The latter was not until 2000 BC.

I don't get what the problem is with giving proper credit to the civilizations which deserve it. As I said above, the Industrial Revolution is Great Britain's contribution, the Age of Enlightenment is a western European philosophical movement, and I could go on and on. At different periods in history the center of innovation and achievement was in different areas. In the future it might not be in Europe or even America any more. That's the way it goes. No group or area is ordained by God to be superior and the source of all knowledge.

Any Europeans who look as if they can't accept that just look stupid and childish, in my opinion. (Of course, that's not directed at you personally.)

For many of us the point is not about being superior but preserving our genes to the future, that is the ultimate goal of every life form.
Groups that dont succeed in preserving their genes will go extinct and are the loosers in evolution.
If Asian and African genes replace most of the genes of the present European populations we deserve it, some of us dont want that to happen and are against mass movements of people in Europe.

 

[Angela]

You speak as if you are from some "pure" ethnic group. Like everyone else in Europe your genes and those of your ethnic group are the result of the admixture of three vastly different ancestral populations. In your particular case, your people also have ancestry from Siberians.

I'm sure the WHG might have said similar things when the Neolithic farmers from Anatolia showed up, and MN Central Europeans might have felt much the same when the barbarians from the steppes showed up, and continue it with "eastern" admixture. That's the way it goes. Everybody wants to shut the door once their own group has arrived.

Does that mean that I'm in favor of unregulated immigration into Europe from parts of the world that don't share its values and culture, and which immigration will overwhelm the economic structure and the system of social benefits? No, it doesn't. I just object to the false and delusional genetic and historical narratives, and to the dishonesty and lack of scientific objectivity which is endemic to much of the discussion.

 

[Nik]

For many of us the point is not about being superior but preserving our genes to the future, that is the ultimate goal of every life form.
Groups that dont succeed in preserving their genes will go extinct and are the loosers in evolution.
If Asian and African genes replace most of the genes of the present European populations we deserve it, some of us dont want that to happen and are against mass movements of people in Europe.

Spoken like the guy who doesnt want his wife to cheat on him, so he locks her up at home.

If ur people want to "preserve" their genes they can easily do that by marrying each other. U speak as if u know that if these African and Middle Eastern men will come to Finland, they will take ur women and marry them.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

The Yamnayans weren't particularly light. Also Kura-Araxes R1b1-M415(xM269) was.. (if we trust Genetiker) black. While on the other hand, an L1a sample from Armenia 6161 ± 89 YBP was light-eyed and light-haired.

 

[Fire Haired14]

@Angela,

I see a want to preserve genes and culture as a legitimate argument against immigration. It is a legitimate argument because genes and culture are valuable to people. Distantly old origins of people is irrelevant in this debate. If WHG complained about EEFs moving into their land, their complaints were legitamte, the fact it happened 1,000s of years ago doesn't make it ok and a good argument against nativity in modern Europe. European genetic isn't as turbulent as it seems when discussion is focused only on the very few times it changed, there was always a period of many 1,000s of years with no change before change. Only twice in 14,000 years did people who were noticeable different from the natives migrate in large numbers.

 

[Ukko]

You speak as if you are from some "pure" ethnic group. Like everyone else in Europe your genes and those of your ethnic group are the result of the admixture of three vastly different ancestral populations. In your particular case, your people also have ancestry from Siberians.

I'm sure the WHG might have said similar things when the Neolithic farmers from Anatolia showed up, and MN Central Europeans might have felt much the same when the barbarians from the steppes showed up, and continue it with "eastern" admixture. That's the way it goes. Everybody wants to shut the door once their own group has arrived.

Does that mean that I'm in favor of unregulated immigration into Europe from parts of the world that don't share its values and culture, and which immigration will overwhelm the economic structure and the system of social benefits? No, it doesn't. I just object to the false and delusional genetic and historical narratives, and to the dishonesty and lack of scientific objectivity which is endemic to much of the discussion.

You are projecting, something.

I want to preserve Finnish genes, the Siberian ones also, is that a crime?

 

[Ukko]

Spoken like the guy who doesnt want his wife to cheat on him, so he locks her up at home.

If ur people want to "preserve" their genes they can easily do that by marrying each other. U speak as if u know that if these African and Middle Eastern men will come to Finland, they will take ur women and marry them.

Nation states where founded to preserve nations, that is their principal function.

Most also include historical minorities in to this concept, they would in Finland be the Finland-Swedes and Sami.
Today Somalis (20.000) Arabs (15.000), Kurds (10.000) Turks (10.000), Albanians (10.000) and many other groups in Finland outnumber the Sami (6000).
Together these groups soon will outnumber the Finland-Swedes, in many countries they outnumber the locals in major cities.

Finland is a nation of 5 million, replacement immigration can and will change the demographics and culture of the whole country in one generation without anyone marrying outside their ethnicity.

 

[Moi-même]

The glorification of white skin here and elsewhere is madness. As a pale-skinned person, I can say that on a white face, all red spots, capillaries and the like are clearly visible. On white legs, all veins and hair are catching the attention. A fat white body easily looks like an uncooked weisswurst. A white-skinned person easily becomes a cooked crab at the sun and must hide in the shade.

On the bright side, fungus are less easily visible on light skin.

I want to preserve Finnish genes, the Siberian ones also, is that a crime?

Then marry a like minded women and get about 20 kids. Tell your friend to do the same.