The look of the three ancestral components of europeans

[MOESAN]

ANGELA (could be translated into AELES in breton)
you pictures are very beautiful, thank you, but to represent population we need more than 2 or 3 samples:
it could be as the forumers who publish red haired of blue eyed people from far Siberia as that could be the rule there ...
no offense at all because I appreciate your preciseness in your posts a sa rule and your politeness
buena notte (bona notti?)

 

[Angela]

ANGELA (could be translated into AELES in breton)
you pictures are very beautiful, thank you, but to represent population we need more than 2 or 3 samples:
it could be as the forumers who publish red haired of blue eyed people from far Siberia as that could be the rule there ...
no offense at all because I appreciate your preciseness in your posts a sa rule and your politeness
buena notte (bona notti?)

The links for Ogliastra, Sardinia now post. To see all of them, just, as I said, go to google.it and look for costumi Ogliastra to get the whole range.

@Moesan Not a problem. My only point was that the blonde, blue-eyed Sami often posted on anthrofora are not necessarily representative of the whole group and certainly not of more unmixed people from earlier times. You might say that I was trying to present a more complete picture.

And it's buona notte, but bonne nuit would do just as well. I read French and do pretty well with spoken French as well, but I would be far too ashamed of my errors were I to attempt to respond to you in your own language. I believe I've said before that perfectionism is one of my many failings.

 

[Angela]

I thought that it might be pertinent to this thread to report this tweet from the ASHG Conference:

Razib Khan @razibkhan · Oct 19 Kalash share lots of drift with ANE mal'ta boy #ASHG14

Now let's not take that to the bank until we see the paper.

To the best of my recollection, Mal'ta Boy did not have blue eyes. Someone please correct the record if that's wrong. Yamnaya people seem to have been darker haired and eyed, at least, than some Neolithic farmers. What the story was in between, perhaps the new Lazaridis paper will tell us.

 

[MOESAN]

• As to phenotype versus genotype, I think the correlation depends on the area. In some places, people look pretty homogenous, and so they could be led to believe that the two perfectly correlate. That's not true in Italy, at least. I think the thread I mentioned shows a variety of "looks", but on a genetic test like 23andme, the people are almost identical, as they are in admixture analyses like Dodecad. ​

ANGELA
----------------------------
MOESAN
I answer you:
phenotypes and genotypes? I fact we speak here of visible phenotypes, which could reflect totally or NOT the genotypes implied in the esternal aspect -
the external (for the most here, the head) features we show reflect generally our genotypes for the concerned traits, except some cases of heterozygoty for a feature where one parental gene is dominant (possible eplanation for 'dinaric'?), and taking in account some slight modifications linked to way-of-life/external pressions -
but when we speak about autosomals analysis we speak of a roughly (but valuable nevertheless, in some way) bought criteria table used to can devine the admixture of genes attributed to diverse origins populations in individuals - keeping aside the imperfections of such a system of analysis, we know that the genes involved in the visible features (bones, meat, flesh, pillosity, pigmentation...) are just a very small part of the whole -
so, it's not surprising to find indiviudals with, say, same head aspect and almost completely different whole genome, and individuals with different head features and very close whole genome, even without speaking about dominance, penetrance or congenital accident;
it's easy to controle in the same family brethren were autosomals admixtures are very close in all, and external features different -

that said, with a little bit of chance, we know that statistically, external sets of features shared by the majority of a rather homogenous population will not be found often ALL OF THEM in members of an other rather homogenous population very different by origins, even if somme crossings occurred between these two populations - some traits can be associated by linkage, but even in this case long crossigns between populations finish to separate them in individuals: it explain the very huge diversity among individuals of a same population, sometimes the same family - but when in a crossng an homogenous enough population of origin is NUMERICALLY dominant, its common features too emerge as dominant, and the "set" of origin rather complete - when a final population is the result of a big number of different basic populations, it is very difficult to find a complete "set" of features in an individual - I think, without scientific basis just observation, than even in skull alone, there are more than one pair of genes at play, and that a skull could be divided in a number of parts or bone eahc of them having is genetic determination - only a bet here, again.

that said, a new mutation can produce a little difference in some individuals without being generalized to the whole population and so, has not to be taken a proof of new crossing.

If it is too well known (it is possible for a lot here, because there are here some well informed persons) and seems a useless repetition I beg your pardon.

have a good night full of discoveries dreams!
Oidhche mhath

 

[Fire Haired14]

I thought that it might be pertinent to this thread to report this tweet from the ASHG Conference:

Razib Khan @razibkhan · Oct 19 Kalash share lots of drift with ANE mal'ta boy #ASHG14

Now let's not take that to the bank until we see the paper.

To the best of my recollection, Mal'ta Boy did not have blue eyes. Someone please correct the record if that's wrong. Yamnaya people seem to have been darker haired and eyed, at least, than some Neolithic farmers. What the story was in between, perhaps the new Lazaridis paper will tell us.

Yes Mal'ta boy was dark-eyed. Yamna people were about 90% dark eyed. This makes sense because they had very little overall WHG ancestry and because their pigmentation seems to have just been a mix of near easterns-EHG(eastern hunter gatherers), not full of selection like modern Europeans.

 

[Angela]

• As to phenotype versus genotype, I think the correlation depends on the area. In some places, people look pretty homogenous, and so they could be led to believe that the two perfectly correlate. That's not true in Italy, at least. I think the thread I mentioned shows a variety of "looks", but on a genetic test like 23andme, the people are almost identical, as they are in admixture analyses like Dodecad. ​

ANGELA
----------------------------
MOESAN
I answer you:
phenotypes and genotypes? I fact we speak here of visible phenotypes, which could reflect totally or NOT the genotypes implied in the esternal aspect -
the external (for the most here, the head) features we show reflect generally our genotypes for the concerned traits, except some cases of heterozygoty for a feature where one parental gene is dominant (possible eplanation for 'dinaric'?), and taking in account some slight modifications linked to way-of-life/external pressions -
but when we speak about autosomals analysis we speak of a roughly (but valuable nevertheless, in some way) bought criteria table used to can devine the admixture of genes attributed to diverse origins populations in individuals - keeping aside the imperfections of such a system of analysis, we know that the genes involved in the visible features (bones, meat, flesh, pillosity, pigmentation...) are just a very small part of the whole -
so, it's not surprising to find indiviudals with, say, same head aspect and almost completely different whole genome, and individuals with different head features and very close whole genome, even without speaking about dominance, penetrance or congenital accident;
it's easy to controle in the same family brethren were autosomals admixtures are very close in all, and external features different -

that said, with a little bit of chance, we know that statistically, external sets of features shared by the majority of a rather homogenous population will not be found often ALL OF THEM in members of an other rather homogenous population very different by origins, even if somme crossings occurred between these two populations - some traits can be associated by linkage, but even in this case long crossigns between populations finish to separate them in individuals: it explain the very huge diversity among individuals of a same population, sometimes the same family - but when in a crossng an homogenous enough population of origin is NUMERICALLY dominant, its common features too emerge as dominant, and the "set" of origin rather complete - when a final population is the result of a big number of different basic populations, it is very difficult to find a complete "set" of features in an individual - I think, without scientific basis just observation, than even in skull alone, there are more than one pair of genes at play, and that a skull could be divided in a number of parts or bone eahc of them having is genetic determination - only a bet here, again.

that said, a new mutation can produce a little difference in some individuals without being generalized to the whole population and so, has not to be taken a proof of new crossing.

If it is too well known (it is possible for a lot here, because there are here some well informed persons) and seems a useless repetition I beg your pardon.

have a good night full of discoveries dreams!
Oidhche mhath

You've explained it very clearly. Once I saw it written down, I remembered an excerpt in one of Cavalli-Sforza's texts where he spoke about the fact that in the isolated valleys of the Appennines, there had been, as you put it, "long crossigns between populations finish to separate them in individuals: it explain the very huge diversity among individuals of a same population, sometimes the same family". In my father's case, except for some slight variation in hair coloring, all eleven of them looked very much as if they "fit" together. Indeed, the whole village had, for example, very fair pigmentation...red or fair hair, green or blue eyes, very fair, freckled skin. Yet, in the village down the valley the people are predominantly dark haired/dark eyed and olive skinned. Yet, if they were tested genetically, I'm sure they would be almost identical. In my own immediate family, except for our eyes, my brother and I don't look like brother and sister at all. In one of my mother's maternal villages also, every one shares one or two "looks". In the other one three miles away there's a lot more variation. Also, every once in a while, you get a "Phenotype" that looks almost "archaic", or like a "throwback". I do think, also, that certain traits are dominant. I can see them repeated over and over again in my family, even when people marry "out".

It's all fascinating, and I learn a lot from your posts.

 

[epoch]

As far as I know, the highest score of ANE is in Populations like Kalash with 40-45%, Burusho, Baloch with 32-35% and Pashtun with 25-35%.

After that come the North Caucasians with levels of 22-30% and with 25% followed by Northeast Europeans.

And the Kalash are known for white features.

O, and while off topic, please do take a look at that girl and then read this:
http://www.dawn.com/news/1086564

 

[Angela]

It's fun trying to imagine what these people looked like, but I think we need to be careful not to do too much back projection into history when talking about the ANE people or the WHG people. Those two groups are outside the range of modern populations, and the predictions for things like pigmentation etc. in the ANE and WHG samples, and recent papers like Gamba et al would indicate that "light" pigmentation is the result of selective sweeps that are very recent in human history. The Mal'ta boy would most likely have been black haired, brown eyed and dark skinned, and WHG's the same except that their eyes were blue. Then there's the fact that their skulls do not look particularly "modern" to me. I'm not sure about EEF, but we do have Otzi so we have a little bit more to go on, and perhaps the Sardinians, since they plot so close to Stuttgart and Oetzi, might give us a clue, although as Moesan pointed out, snps for "appearance" form a very small part of the whole genome.

When you get to the Indo-Europeans, if, as statements about upcoming papers would indicate, they are the Yamnaya people, then the Indo-Europeans were not originally "blonde horsemen of the steppe", because we have data to show that they were predominantly dark haired and dark eyed. They were probably also not northern European like in skin pigmentation, or at least the population was heterogeneous. It's difficult to know about the skin color because given that pigmentation is a polygenic trait you really need results for more than one of the snps related to skin color. In the case of this study, they tested only SLC 45A2, not 24A5. However, for fair skin, not dark olive, you either need both or one plus Herc2 or one of the others to get a prediction for light skin on the various FBI type pigmentation predictor tests.
See Wilde et al 2014 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/03/05/1316513111.full.pdf+html)
Also, see http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-29666.html

The lighter pigmentation of the groups that moved all the way to the east and may have formed part of the ancestry of people like the Kalash would seem to me to have thus been the result of slightly later selective sweeps. I think people forget that those eastern "kurgan" settlements where some light pigmentation shows up date to 1800 B.C., more than time enough, imo, for some selective sweep to have changed their "look", especially given how far north they had traveled. Who knows, given the fact that pigmentation seems related to environment, that might have played a part in the "look" of the Kalash. Also, autsosomally, I think I recall that the Kalash are no different than the surrounding peoples. Their particular look may be the result of founder effect and drift.

 

[MOESAN]

You've explained it very clearly. Once I saw it written down, I remembered an excerpt in one of Cavalli-Sforza's texts where he spoke about the fact that in the isolated valleys of the Appennines, there had been, as you put it, "long crossigns between populations finish to separate them in individuals: it explain the very huge diversity among individuals of a same population, sometimes the same family". In my father's case, except for some slight variation in hair coloring, all eleven of them looked very much as if they "fit" together. Indeed, the whole village had, for example, very fair pigmentation...red or fair hair, green or blue eyes, very fair, freckled skin. Yet, in the village down the valley the people are predominantly dark haired/dark eyed and olive skinned. Yet, if they were tested genetically, I'm sure they would be almost identical. In my own immediate family, except for our eyes, my brother and I don't look like brother and sister at all. In one of my mother's maternal villages also, every one shares one or two "looks". In the other one three miles away there's a lot more variation. Also, every once in a while, you get a "Phenotype" that looks almost "archaic", or like a "throwback". I do think, also, that certain traits are dominant. I can see them repeated over and over again in my family, even when people marry "out".

It's all fascinating, and I learn a lot from your posts.

Hum... Surely you learned a lot before them -
just a detail (I like "castrate the lice" as we say in breton, or "couper les cheveux en quatre")
as a whole you've very well understood - but on a statistical point of view, even in cases of admixtures, if you find two close villages opposing these kinds of traits, you can say: they are "complementary" in the mixture for these traits - but if you find a lot of villages of a type, grouped,opposed to a lot of other villages, it's to say, with numerous enough samplles, then you can expect a different admixture and history for these two big groups of villages (territories) even if neighbours: it recalls me that I red in a thread people close to Campobasso have had a story with Northerners (Longobards? I have to check it...sorry)- the pigmentation surveys (old) about Italy shew there was a spot of FAIRER pigmentation in this region (and maybe some denser red haired people) -not to far too, in E-Campania, there were also fairer spots: here I think at those times, these populations could have shown some differences in autosomals?

 

[MOESAN]

And the Kalash are known for white features.

O, and while off topic, please do take a look at that girl and then read this:
http://www.dawn.com/news/1086564

always the old stories!
: as a whole, Kalash are a dark population in the European meaning, of course, even if they are less dark than the most of the neighbouring populations - you can find blond and brown in weak percentages too among Tadjiks, and in North India, and Luri/Lurs in Iran - for bones aspect it's true they are a bit different from their neighbours too -

 

[Angela]

Hum... Surely you learned a lot before them -
just a detail (I like "castrate the lice" as we say in breton, or "couper les cheveux en quatre")
as a whole you've very well understood - but on a statistical point of view, even in cases of admixtures, if you find two close villages opposing these kinds of traits, you can say: they are "complementary" in the mixture for these traits - but if you find a lot of villages of a type, grouped,opposed to a lot of other villages, it's to say, with numerous enough samplles, then you can expect a different admixture and history for these two big groups of villages (territories) even if neighbours: it recalls me that I red in a thread people close to Campobasso have had a story with Northerners (Longobards? I have to check it...sorry)- the pigmentation surveys (old) about Italy shew there was a spot of FAIRER pigmentation in this region (and maybe some denser red haired people) -not to far too, in E-Campania, there were also fairer spots: here I think at those times, these populations could have shown some differences in autosomals?

It's very difficult to tease these things apart. Yes, it was the Langobardi in Campobasso. If we look at the old Biasutti (Livy) map of Italy, there's also a "fairer" area (of course that's a relative term-we're still speaking of Italy here) in Campania, near Benevento. (Just coincidentally, my grandmother in law came from that area and had blonde hair and sky blue eyes.)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/BiasuttiMappa.gif

There are reports from antiquity that large numbers of the Alpi Apuani, a tribe that might be assoicated with the "Celt-Ligurians", were relocated there as part of a sort of "ethnic cleansing" Roman style. There was also a Lombard Duchy there. The yDna of the area was tested to see if links could be found to the Ligurians, but the results were inconclusive.

To my knowledge no autosomal testing was done of that specific small area. I do think, however, that even if they have more "fair" people in that circumscribed area of Campania than is common for southern Italy as a whole, I would still be very surprised if their autosomal results today were not more in line with their neighbors than with Ligurians. There is no major land or water feature which would have isolated them from other Campanians, and so over the centuries I think there was gene flow both in and out to some degree.

As for the villages I was discussing, which on the Biasutti map are where you find the orange and yellowish areas where northwest Tuscany and southern Emilia meet, Cavalli Sforza years ago wrote that the people of all the Apennines in the northwestern part of Italy (and the Ligruian Alps etc.) were formed by only two major groups of people, the Neolithic inhabitants (who today we know would have had some component of WHG, maybe like Otzi?) and the later migration of people from the more central and even northwestern parts of Europe. (starting perhaps with the "Indo-Europeans" of the Bronze Age, and continuing later with the "Celts" of the Iron Age. ) The "admixture" would thus have taken place long before any invasion by the Langobardi, and indeed there's no evidence of Langobard settlements there, which is unlike the case of the Lunigiana proper, where,once you get down off the mountains, every village basically dates to that era and grew out of the Langobard castles crowning every hill. Even there, however, I don't think they had a tremendous input. There has to be some element of a folk movement to really change the autosomal picture in my opinion. If all you have are some elite males, their autosomal input will be washed out in a few generations.

As for the villages of the Val Parma that Cavalli Sforza studied, they've all been isolated in that valley together for at least the last five to eight hundred years. I'd say that they are pretty evenly split, with maybe slightly more that are "fair" in appearance. They're definitely 'fairer" than the people of the flatlands along the Po. In that regard, I always thought it was interesting that the villages at the highest elevations were often "fairer". I don't know if that's an environmental effect or just coincidence because of founder effect and drift, or both. However, it's not exact. You can find families where one sibling can be 6' or more with light brown hair and green eyes, and one sibling is 5'7 with dark hair and eyes and an olive complexion. It happens. (My paternal grandmother, who comes from those villages, was almost 5'11, with fern green eyes, and in adulthood what we call blonde hair in Italy but which in America they'd probably call "dirty blonde". Her brother was actuallly a little shorter and had chestnut hair, although his eyes were blue. In fact, she looked a lot like Nilde Lotti, about whom I posted in another thread, only fairer. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/e/ec/NildeIotti.jpg/225px-NildeIotti.jpg )

Ed. You can see what I mean by looking at the musicians in this video, although the comparison is not exact, because they come from a slightly different area:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkBYn-AYULU

 

[oreo_cookie]

As far as I know, the highest score of ANE is in Populations like Kalash with 40-45%, Burusho, Baloch with 32-35% and Pashtun with 25-35%.

After that come the North Caucasians with levels of 22-30% and with 25% followed by Northeast Europeans.

This may be due to my ignorance of what these components signify, but this suggests to me that ANE might be linked to the spread of Indo-European languages, and to haplogroup R1a. I know that on some calculators put out such as Eurogenes and Dodecad, sometimes you see the reverse happening with some South-Central Asians scoring some "East European" elements.

 

[MOESAN]

thanks for your post -
I was just saying that if a distinctive phenetic (phenotypic?) trait exists in a large enough population, even "local", it would correspond with autosomals peculiarity too and other population partial imput - in a very small population, it could be only a drift result concerning genes, with no big modification of global autosomals and so no peculiar origin of any foundator - in case of drift, we even can wait an opposite drift in close areas, sometimes -
good evening

 

[oreo_cookie]

thanks for your post -
I was just saying that if a distinctive phenetic (phenotypic?) trait exists in a large enough population, even "local", it would correspond with autosomals peculiarity too and other population partial imput - in a very small population, it could be only a drift result concerning genes, with no big modification of global autosomals and so no peculiar origin of any foundator - in case of drift, we even can wait an opposite drift in close areas, sometimes -
good evening

Founder effects can make it such that genetics and phenotypes do not line up perfectly. This usually happens in regions that have been heavily isolated for lengthy periods of time.