PDA

View Full Version : Did Mesolithic Europeans have dark skin, dark hair, and blue eyes?



Fire Haired
01-12-2014, 09:36 AM
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdIbQuozgl4QhrOKAXYwighnyVI8HMT iD0W9YJO0eWBkVq9SFh http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43242&d=1389519324http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43243&d=1389519494

The pictures above are from the movie 10,000BC, I saw it when I was in 5th grade. I remember the basics and just read about it on Wikipedia, it is about a group of hunter gatherers called the Yagahl who lived in the Ural mountains in far eastern Europe(probably a lot of mtDNA U5a, U4, and U2e). They were depicted as brownish skinned, dark haired, and brown eyed there was a foreign girl who they found named Evolet and was known as the blue eyed girl. The creators of the movie may have very accurately depicted what most Europeans looked like in 10,000BC. I doubt they had kinky hair though it was probably very straight because they were west Eurasian aka Caucasian.

Lazaridis 2013 (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552.full-text.pdf+html) found that a hunter gatherer from Luxemburg dated to 6220-5990 BC named Loschbour had the "blue eye" variant of SNP rs12913832 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsnpedia.com%2Findex.php%2FRs12913 832&ei=cSDSUr69FaLjsATP2oH4DA&usg=AFQjCNHtVzdx9_RYDSyYm4KR8CKSXGWxkg&sig2=qTYdn8ci4nxqtPReu8SFWQ&bvm=bv.59026428,d.aWM). I don't know why(can't download the study) but he was reported as having a 52.7% probability for blue eyes, 26.8% probability of intermediate, and 20.7% probability for brown eyes. He was reported as having a 73.4% probability of black hair, 25.6% probability of brown hair, and 1% probability of blonde hair, 97.5% probability of dark hair and 2.5% probability of light hair. He did not have the "light skin" variant of SNP rs146554 which is dominate in west Eurasia today. I can't download the Laz 2013 study(I could about a week ago and saw his alleles in rs146554 and rs12913832) that's why I don't know why they gave percentages of his chance to have certain hair and eye color and I can't see all the SNP variants associated with pigmentation that Loschbour had. I will have to just go off what others who do have access to Laz 2013 say.

I read on a Evo and Proud thread(The brown man with blue eyes (http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-brown-man-with-blue-eyes.html)) that he "lacked the ‘European’ alleles at all three genes involved in the whitening of European skin". Wikipedia(Human skin color (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHuman_s kin_color&ei=eCTSUsWPNMHHrQGyz4GICQ&usg=AFQjCNHYsCh6xxHunaULzpJxt5_LRhMtng&sig2=sSgjKMb0JTsDnrbElUOL4A&bvm=bv.59026428,d.aWM)) lists three genes with a SNP that have a variant that help cause pale skin in Europeans: SLC45A2, SLC24A5, and TYR. Those are probably the same three Evo and Proud wrote about. Based on their distribution I don't think they make a big effect on skin color but I trust the experts and do think Loschbour probably had very dark skin, I also think he most likely had blue eyes.

Late this year(not sure exactly when) it was reported by the Spanish website Leonoticias.com that some 8,000 year old(Ancestral Journeys says dated to 5,000BC) hunter gatherer from northern Spain named La Brana-1 had his full genome sequenced and a researcher named Carles Lalueza -Fox said
" Brana 1 had blue eyes "for the same mutation which citizens of Northern Europe have blue I bet he is talking about the "blue eye" variant of SNP rs12913832 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsnpedia.com%2Findex.php%2FRs12913 832&ei=cSDSUr69FaLjsATP2oH4DA&usg=AFQjCNHtVzdx9_RYDSyYm4KR8CKSXGWxkg&sig2=qTYdn8ci4nxqtPReu8SFWQ&bvm=bv.59026428,d.aWM). A new paper about La Brana-1's genome was suppose to be published a few weeks after December 11, 2013, maybe they are comparing La Brana-1 to what was found in Laz 2013 that's why it is taking so long. It will be interesting to see if La Brana-1 had the three light skin genes and what hair color he had, they probably know as much about his pigmentation as Laz 2013 do of Loschbour and the farmer Stuttgart(7,500ybp Germany, LBK culture)'s pigmentation.

We now know blue eyes were probably decently popular in Mesolithic Europeans(a least western). I don't think blue eyes found in Mesolithic Europe is a coincidence because blue is the main eye color in much of Europe today and very restricted to Europe like Mesolithic European ancestry, Y DNA I, mtDNA U5, and U2e(kind of U4). All of which we know through ancient DNA existed and probably dominated Mesolithic Europeans. It is very surprising to me that Loschbour probably had very dark skin and dark hair, because today in Europe Mesolithic ancestry correlates with paler skin, light eyes-light hair, and blue eyes tend to be more popular in light skinned and haired populations.

It is hard to believe my somewhat recent Mesolithic European ancestors may have been very dark skinned, and that light skin did not become dominate till their descendants mixed with brown eyed and dark haired near eastern farmers in the Neolithic. My family is 100% northwest European and there are multiple brown skinned people but most of us have pale skin and blue eyes and a bunch of us have light or red hair. I have not been isolated to my family though, I have known basically who I am genetically since I was very little and I know nearly all Europeans have light skin and southern Europeans are darker. I can easily recognize if someone is European especially if they are northern, central, or eastern European. It is hard to believe our signature features may have not existed as dominate traits in Europe during most of the Mesolithic.

I found through Wikipedia(click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Europe)) and two other sources(click here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdienekes.blogspot.com%2F2013%2F11 %2Feuropeans-and-south-asians-share-by.html&ei=dDTSUrL1JbSqsASqtICIDA&usg=AFQjCNFQkktXwXt3jWmQApF1ABnp0jjrVw&sig2=JJA_ZbYP-vrZFnZXIFZY_w&bvm=bv.59026428,d.aWM)and here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmbe.oxfordjournals.org%2Fcontent% 2F24%2F3%2F710.long&ei=kjTSUrClOKzisASKrYGQDA&usg=AFQjCNHY-o_sn9BvnTN4w2a8WzKBZE2A5A&sig2=FeI3XNZ0HC14X5BCog-CNg&bvm=bv.59026428,d.aWM)) that the "light skin" variant of SNP rs146554 in gene SLC24A5 is dominate in west Asia and Europe at least 90% in every population(said 97.5-100% in Europeans), and is also somewhat popular in north Africans, central Asians, and south Asians. It is said to have been found to make a major effect on lighting skin in Europeans, and causes 25-40% of the skin color difference between Europeans and west Africans. I totally believe them it causes pale skin(they dedicate their lives to science) but going from literally black to literally white is a huge step, and I am sure there are many other factors to skin color that haven't been found.

There was a study in 2007(click here (http://galsatia.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/blanche_paleur.pdf)) that estimated the light skin variant in SNP rs146554 had its selective sweep in Europe 6,000-12,000ybp. A study from 2013(click here (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/11/europeans-and-south-asians-share-by.html)) estimated this light skin gene to have coalescence age of 22,000-28,000 years old. A study from 2012(click here (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/08/25/molbev.mss207.short)) states that the three genes associated with European pale skin had their selective sweep 11,000-19,000 years ago. It is obvious these three light skin genes had positive selection and replaced their ancestral forms but it is hard to say why and when. I can tell by looking at maps of these three light skin genes that the only one that is significantly more popular in Europeans than west Asians is MATP(in gene SLC45A2) and I guess somewhat for the allele variation of an SNP in TRY.

Here are the maps I am referencing to. Map of SLC24A5(variant of one of its SNP's) on top and the one colored in green, SLC45A2(variant of one of it's SNP's) the next down, and TYR(variant of one of it's SNP's) at the bottom.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43248&d=1389522554

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43237&d=1389510061

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43247&d=1389522538


http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43249&d=1389522567



I do believe these genes are factors to creating pale skin in Europeans, but also that they are not the only factors. Like I said above there is only one maybe two that are(is) significantly more popular in Europe than west Asia. I think these studies assume all Europeans are mainly descended from one source. Europeans have many different sources of ancestry and can be very different from each other. It was common sense even before Laz 2013 that modern Europeans are mainly a mix between ingenious European hunter gatherers and near eastern farmers. There are of course other sources of ancestry for modern Europeans, Laz 2013 and other studies think Europeans, west Asians, south Asians, central Asians, native Americans, and maybe others(don't remember all the populations and cant download Laz 2013) have significant ancestry from an Upper Palaeolithic north Eurasian population. There is recent east Asian ancestry in eastern Europe, African(mainly north African) ancestry in Iberia and other parts of southern Europe, recent near eastern ancestry in Italy and the Balkans, and maybe some more sources. Greeks are more related to near easterns than they are to Finnish even though both are European.

Not all European populations have the same skin color. From what I have seen northern, central, and eastern(Balkans-) typically have very pale skin but southern Europeans have what can be described as olive skin, and brown skin isn't rare(correct me if I am wrong). Based on Laz 2013 and other sources I think northern, central, and eastern Europeans(Balkans-) have close to 50% hunter gatherer ancestry, a little under 50% farmer ancestry and significant ANE(ancient north Eurasian) ancestry. Southern European(Iberia, Italy, and Balkans) have vast majority farmer and recent near eastern ancestry, with little amount of European hunter gatherer and ANE ancestry. That is just a generalization I didn't mention east Asian ancestry in east Europeans or the higher amount of hunter gatherer ancestry in Croatians and Basque compared to other southern Europeans, etc. Light skin overall is dominate in Europe and most likely has a common source.

I totally dis agree with people who are now saying light skin comes from the near eastern farmers and blue eyes from the hunter gatherers. This is evidence I have seen these people use for that argument: of the three genes with SNP's associated with European light skin 8,000 year old hunter gatherer from Loschbour, Luxemburg didn't have any of the three, Stuttgart(7,500BP, LBK farmer girl from Germany) had one light, one dark, and one heterozygous, and ~5,250 year old early copper age farmer from the alps named Otzi had two light and one dark. I got the info in the previous sentence from a blogger on Dienekes(click here (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/ancient-dna-what-2013-has-brought.html) to see the thread he posted on) I cant verify because I cant download Laz 2013 right now but when I could I remember seeing Stuttgart did have light skin variant of SLC24A5. What those people don't understand what was found in the farmers are excepted results for modern west Asians and Europeans and Luschbour's results are extremely rare for a west Asian or European person, and most modern Europeans don't have all three anyways. Modern Sardinia are very close match's to Stuttgart and Otzi in autosomal DNA so I think they probably had olive skin, and possibly brown, and very white like modern Sardinia.

I looked at the blue eye gene(takes to long to say alleles SNP of whatever gene) click here (http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/frequencies-for-blue-eyes-snp-rs12913832-in-hgdp-populations/), it seems to be a major factor to creating blue eyes but of course it does not always result in blue eyes. There were plenty of other SNP's listed on SNPedia's page for SNP rs12913832 as being connected with blue eyes I have no idea if Loschbour had them. According to SNPedia 80% of people with alleles A,A have brown eyes, all with A,G have brown eyes, and 99% with G,G have blue eyes. To me that would mean Loschbour without almost any doubt had blue eyes, but I will just go by what Laz 2013 said 52.7% probability because they know more than me. I have heard people reference some study that claims the first person to have blue eyes lived 6,000-10,000ybp and was a farmer. I think they were basing that on a blue eye gene already found in two Mesolithic European hunter gatherers so we now know it did not first appear in the Neolithic and modern blue eyes probably descend from pre Neolithic hunter gatherers of Europe.

If blue eyes were somewhat popular in Mesolithic Europe(at least western) than that probably means they were light skinned and had a high amount of light hair. The reason is because today heavily blue eyed populations always have light skin and high amounts of light hair. I don't see how some or all Mesolithic European populations had dark skin, dark hair, and a high amount of blue eyes.

Here is a list of European populations with their WGH(west European hunter gatherer: based on Loschbour), ANE(Ancient north Eurasian based on MA1), and EEF(based on Stuttgart) results from Laz 2013 and Eurogenes EEF, WHG, and ANE test (http://bga101.blogspot.com/2013/12/eef-whg-ane-test-for-europeans.html) with their hair and eye color percentages. The hair and eye color statistics are from here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?35882-New-Hair-and-Eye-color-statistics-(2011)). I rank them from highest WGH to lowest

1.Sami(saw on this thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?109126-mtDNA-results-from-FTDNA-s-Sweden-project-organized), results for one north sami person tested in Laz 2013) EEF=28.3, WGH=51.57, ANE=20.1, Norway Sami light hair=49%(blonde=30%, red=1%), light eyes=68%(blue=50%)

2.Estonian EEF=32.2, WGH=49.5, ANE=18.3, light hair=70%(blonde=48%, red=1%), light eyes=85%(blue=69%)

3.Finn(posted results on this (http://bga101.blogspot.com/2013/12/eef-whg-ane-test-for-europeans.html) Eurogenes blog) EEF=32.49, WGH=48, ANE=19.42, light hair=80%(blonde=58%, red=2%), light eyes=89%(blue=72%)

4.Lithuanian EEF=36.4, WGH=46.4, ANE=17.2, light hair=57%(blonde=38%, red hair=0%) light eyes=78%(blue=61%)

5. 75% Swedish, 25% Finnish(posted results on this (http://bga101.blogspot.com/2013/12/eef-whg-ane-test-for-europeans.html) Eurogenes) EEF=36, WGH=46, ANE=17.9, Swedish light hair=78%(blonde=54%, red=3%), light eyes=88%(blue=72%), Finnish light hair=80%(blonde=58%, red=2%), light eyes=89%(blue=72%). There are not even 100 samples for hair and eye color for each population so I have maps under them.

6.Icelandic EEF=39.4, WGH=45.6, ANE=15, probably mixture of Irish and Scandinavian percentages.

7.Belorussian EEF=41.8, WGH=43.8, ANE=15.1 light hair=55%(blonde=35%, red=0%), light eyes=74%(blue=55%)

8.Norweigan EEF=41.1, WGH=42.8, ANE=16.1 light hair=75%(blonde=48%, red=5%), light eyes=88%(blue=72%)

8.Scottish EEF=39, WGH=42.8, ANE=18.2 light hair=52%(blonde=23%, red=11%), light eyes=80%(blue=63%)

9.Polish(averaged two posted results from Eurogenes) EEF=41.9, WGH=40.7, ANE=17.3, light hair=46%(blonde=28%, red=1%), light eyes=68%(blue=50%)

10.Ukrainian EEF=46.2, WGH=38.7, ANE=15.1, light hair=45%(blonde=28%, red=0%), light eyes=53%(blue=37%)

11.Orcadien(region of Scotland) EEF=45.7, WGH=38.5, ANE=15.8 Scotland light hair=52%(blonde=23%, red=11%), light eyes=80%(blue=63%)

12.Czech(posted results on Eurogenes) EEF=47, WGH=37.34, ANE=15.84 light hair=54%(blonde=34%, red=1%), light eyes=65%(blue=48%)

13.English EEF=49.5, WGH=36.4, ANE=14.1 light hair=56%(blonde=30%, red=6%), light eyes=74%(blue=55%)

14.Czech EEF=49.5, WGH=33.8, ANE=16.7 light hair=54%(blonde=34%, red=1%), light eyes=65%(blue=48%)

15.French EEF=55.4, WGH=31.1, ANE=13.5 light hair=37%(blonde=18%, red=3%), light eyes=48%(blue=32%)

16.Basque EEF=59.3, WGH=29.3, ANE=11.4, light hair=15%(blonde=7%, red=1%), light eyes=28%(blue=17%)

17.Croatian EEF=56.1, WGH=29.3, ANE=14.5, light hair=25%(blonde=14% red=0%), light eyes=40%(blue=26%)

18.French south EEF=67.5, WGH=19.5, ANE=13, around the same hair and eye color percentages as Basque

19.Bergamo(in north Italy) EEF=71.5, WGH=17.7, ANE=10.8, Italy light hair=15%(blonde=7%, red=1%), light eyes=30%(blue=18%)

20.Sardinian EEF=81.5, WGH=17.5, ANE=0.8, light hair=guess around 90%, light eyes=guess around 3-5%

21.Bulgarian EEF=71.5, WGH=14.7, ANE=14.1, light hair=10%(blonde=5%, red=0%), light eyes=27%(blue=17%)

22.Tuscan EEF=74.6, WGH=13.6, ANE=11.8, Italy light hair=15%(blonde=7%, red=1%), light eyes=30%(blue=18%)

23.Pais Vasco EEF=71.3, WGH=12.5, ANE=16.3 light hair guess=10-20%, light eyes guess=20-30%

24.Albanian EEF=78.1, WGH=9.5, ANE=12.7, light hair=8%(blonde=4%, red=0%), light eyes=20%(blue=11%)

25.Spainish EEF=80.9, WGH=6.8, ANE=12.3, light hair=12%(blonde=6% red=1%), light eyes=26%(blue=15%)

26.Greek EEF=79.2, WGH=5.8, ANE=15.1, light hair=4%(blonde=2%, red=0%), light eyes=17%(blue=9%)

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43244&d=1389521066 http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43245&d=1389521123 http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43246&d=1389521162

It seems to me light eyes(especially blue) and blonde hair or any light hair color that is not red correlate pretty well with WGH. This is the main reason I think they were popular in Mesolithic Europe. I don't understand people who claim they descend from near eastern farmers(EEF), there is really no evidence for that. I do think it is possible some populations in Europe during the Mesolithic were very dark overall and some very light. 2/2 blue eyes from Mesolithic west Europe makes me think they were pale but Loschbour not having all three genes associated with European light skin and that he had very dark hair may mean they were somewhat dark, we need more ancient DNA to know if Loschbour was a fluke. I think he may have been a Fluke because today in Europe darkness correlates with EEF and lightness with WGH.

Germanics and Celts probably mainly descend from Indo Europeans that spread in west Europe from far eastern Europe during the metal ages, Finnish and Sami descend from Uralic's who spread in Scandinavia from far eastern Europe during the metal ages, Slavs and Balts may mainly descend from Indo Europeans and Uralic's who spread there in the metal ages from eastern Europe. These are the Europeans who have high amount of WGH ancestry, pale skin, and high amounts of light hair and eyes and it is very possible all of them trace most of their ancestry to around the same area of Russia just 6,000 years ago. Who knows how related their ancestors in Russia where but I am sure they were somewhat related because of how close they were to each other. This could mean there was a massive spread of light skin, hair, and eyes from far eastern Europe during the metal ages.

There needs to be a lot more ancient genomes to know if this is true or not, I still think it is more likely Mesolithic Europeans were very pale skinned, light haired and eyed, but still possible they were very dark skinned, haired, and eyed or very blue eyed. It is very hard to figure out when Europeans ancestors depigmentated it happened at some point. Evo and Proud seems to support the hypothesis that pale features became dominate because of sexual selection of females, and thinks it was complete 10,000-20,000ybp. I think it was recent based on constant age estimates of the three light skin genes, blue eyes, and blonde hair that are within the range of 10,000-20,000ybp. This major change in pigmentation also had a lot to do with genetics.

safinator
01-12-2014, 09:38 AM
The studies go in that direction, in fact even the latest Loschbour sample had only 52% chance of Light Eyes so he could very well had brown eyes..

Fire Haired
01-12-2014, 09:58 AM
The studies go in that direction, in fact even the latest Loschbour sample had only 52% chance of Light Eyes so he could very well had brown eyes..

I don't know why they reported him having a 52.7% probability of blue eyes, because just based on the fact he had G,G alleles in SNP rs12913832 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsnpedia.com%2Findex.php%2FRs12913 832&ei=cSDSUr69FaLjsATP2oH4DA&usg=AFQjCNHtVzdx9_RYDSyYm4KR8CKSXGWxkg&sig2=qTYdn8ci4nxqtPReu8SFWQ&bvm=bv.59026428,d.aWM) would mean there is a very small possibility he did not have blue eyes. They also reported that he had only a 20.7% chance for brown eyes. Blue eyes were just reported in a some 8,000 year old(Ancestral journeys says dated to 5,000BC) hunter gatherer in northern Span, that researcher said he had the same blue eye gene that is in modern north Europeans so probably the gene in Loschbour I just mentioned. There is already basically prove that blue eyes existed in Mesolithic west Europe. I guess they could be wrong about that genes connection with blue eyes, and both the hunter gatherers had brown eyes. The whole reason I made this thread is because it is surprising news that Mesolithic Europeans may have been very dark and I wanted to show as much info there is that can help discover the pigmentation history of Europe. I am starting to understand Laz 2013 and probably will make multiple threads about the study.

Solin
01-12-2014, 10:08 AM
@Fire Haired

There are dozens of SNPs which are associated with eye color, a dozen probably with blue eye color, the most important one being the one which you mention. Yes, I have seen the 23andme statistics, but still...

Fire Haired
01-12-2014, 10:12 AM
@Fire Haired

There are dozens of SNPs which are associated with eye color, a dozen probably with blue eye color, the most important one being the one which you mention. Yes, I have seen the 23andme statistics, but still...

Based on that one SNP and what Laz 2013 I think Loschbour probably had blue eyes.

Hevo
01-12-2014, 10:21 AM
@Fire Haired

There are dozens of SNPs which are associated with eye color, a dozen probably with blue eye color, the most important one being the one which you mention. Yes, I have seen the 23andme statistics, but still...

I know a few people that have brown eyes and have GG(Most likely blue) at rs12913832.

Solin
01-12-2014, 10:22 AM
Based on that one SNP and what Laz 2013 I think Loschbour probably had blue eyes.

Probably according to Laz 2013, but I was trying to tell you why HG individual may have 50+% probability of having blue eyes instead of 99%. He may not have all allele associated with blue eyes common in todays people where blue eyes and people who are GG positive on rs12913832 predominate.

Again I know nothing about this, just trying to give you some explanation.

Fire Haired
01-12-2014, 10:30 AM
Probably according to Laz 2013, but I was trying to tell you why HG individual may have 50+% probability of having blue eyes instead of 99%. He may not have all allele associated with blue eyes common in todays people where blue eyes people who are GG positive on rs12913832 predominate.

Again I know nothing about this, just trying to give you some explanation.

I can't download Laz 2013 you should try here (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552) and see if he has all the right alleles in the SNP's listed that are suppose to be connected with blue eyes click here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsnpedia.com%2Findex.php%2FRs12913 832&ei=B3zSUvT_K4K_sQTMuoGADA&usg=AFQjCNHtVzdx9_RYDSyYm4KR8CKSXGWxkg&sig2=6lgfPRPVO4h7MT4Yi4aXrw&bvm=bv.59026428,d.aWM). What do you think about paleness in Europeans and our ""child like faces" being very strong sexual selection of women(click here (http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2014/01/looking-ahead-to-2014.html)). I think Evo and proud makes some good points, I don't know how true the child like face thing is. If you exclude southern Europeans, Europeans are almost totally half and half native hunter gatherer and near eastern farmer so the facial features should be a mix.

Fire Haired
01-12-2014, 10:31 AM
I know a few people that have brown eyes and have GG(Most likely blue) at rs12913832.

SNPedia said that 99% of the people with GG have blue eyes.

Fire Haired
01-12-2014, 09:58 PM
Safantor and Hakon if Mesolithic Europeans(at least western) had dark skin and dark hair there is no way they had a high amount of blue eyes, if they had a high amount of blue eyes then they also had pale skin and a high amount of light hair. Those are two facts people need to understand, possible this so called blue eye gene doesn't cause blue eyes and is just a gene from Mesolithic Europeans, and blue eyes today correlate to the distribution of Mesolithic ancestry that's why the two have been connected. I doubt that's true though, the blue eye gene found in Mesolithic Europe probably means they had pale skin and a high amount of light hair. Loschbour missing all three of the pale skin genes(debatable how much of an effect they make) and that he probably had black hair is very unexpected.

Black hair today is rare but exists in heavily Mesolithic descended Europeans like Estonians and Finns, missing the light skin genes is rare for all modern Europeans and west Asians. The farmers Stuttgart and Otzi were typical for Europeans or west Asians in their light skin genes, which probably means they ere already dominate in west Asia by the begging of farming. It is possible these genes did not exist in Neolithic west Asians long lost relatives Mesolithic Europeans, and that they were all brought to Europe with farming. I doubt that, if it is true I think there are other factors to European light skin that Loschbour probably did have.


Take a look at Loschbour's skull it is strangely archaic looking. Even though he was around 100% west Eurasian aka Caucasian(directly descended of Upper Palaeolithic Europeans), he is probably the only genome there is of a pure European. I bet he looked very strange in person.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43265&d=1389565683

Now look at La Brana-1's skull a hunter gatherer from about 1,000 years later(Spanish website said he is some 8,000 years old) and is from northern Spain he had some farmer admixture but mainly of the same blood as Loschbour. He was reported as having the same blue eye gene as modern north Europeans have, bet its that same gene Loschbour had.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43266&d=1389566727

Here is a skull of a modern European not sure what type which matters a lot. Greeks have a very small amount of hunter gatherer ancestry while Sami have well over majority hunter gatherer ancestry.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43267&d=1389567060

La Brana-1 to me obviously looks Caucasian, but Loschbour has an extremely strange skull with a flat and wide nose. There is probably a huge variety of skull shapes west Eurasians aka Caucasians can have today but they go by the same basic shapes. Loschbour could have been something unique. It is fun to imagine what these people looked like all we need right now is their pigmentation, there are already tons of skeletons.

Jackson
01-12-2014, 10:11 PM
Germanics and Celts probably mainly descend from Indo Europeans that spread in west Europe from far eastern Europe during the metal ages, Finnish and Sami descend from Uralic's who spread in Scandinavia from far eastern Europe during the metal ages, Slavs and Balts may mainly descend from Indo Europeans and Uralic's who spread there in the metal ages from eastern Europe. These are the Europeans who have high amount of WGH ancestry, pale skin, and high amounts of light hair and eyes and it is very possible all of them trace most of their ancestry to around the same area of Russia just 6,000 years ago. Who knows how related their ancestors in Russia where but I am sure they were somewhat related because of how close they were to each other. This could mean there was a massive spread of light skin, hair, and eyes from far eastern Europe during the metal ages.

There needs to be a lot more ancient genomes to know if this is true or not, I still think it is more likely Mesolithic Europeans were very pale skinned, light haired and eyed, but still possible they were very dark skinned, haired, and eyed or very blue eyed. It is very hard to figure out when Europeans ancestors depigmentated it happened at some point. Evo and Proud seems to support the hypothesis that pale features became dominate because of sexual selection of females, and thinks it was complete 10,000-20,000ybp. I think it was recent based on constant age estimates of the three light skin genes, blue eyes, and blonde hair that are within the range of 10,000-20,000ybp. This major change in pigmentation also had a lot to do with genetics.

I'm considering that a possibility, if the ancestors of these populations were effectively a much lighter hunter-gatherer group/groups than the ones in western and central Europe, the differences between north and south could partly be explained by varying amounts of ancestry in this group. Although there are parts of Europe that are relatively dark but also high in R1, so that needs to be resolved.

Jackson
01-12-2014, 10:22 PM
This passage is interesting on Evo and Proud:


When the last ice age ended some 10,000 years ago, it may be that only some European populations had acquired a fully ‘European’ phenotype, i.e., white skin, multi-hued eyes and hair, a more childlike face, and longer, straighter hair. This phenotype would have been most predominant on the former steppe-tundra of northern and eastern Europe. Moving outward from this region, one would have seen humans with more and more of the evolutionarily older traits, i.e., brown skin, uniformly brown eyes and black hair, a more robust face, and short, frizzy hair.

This older phenotype might have persisted well into the Holocene in peripheral and isolated parts of Europe. As Fleure (1945) notes:

In a few places in Sweden, Britain, and France, people have been noticed who show characteristics of the skull and face that remind one of late-Paleolithic man: these people are usually darker, in hair and eyes, than their neighbors; sometimes they even have swarthy skins.

Even in Scandinavia, we find references in folklore and mythology to an ancient dark-skinned population. A Norse poem, the Rigsthula, describes how the god Rig created a class of thralls who were black-haired, swarthy, and flat-nosed (Jonassen, 1951). This theme comes up elsewhere in Old Norse literature (Karras, 1988).

Fire Haired
01-12-2014, 10:25 PM
I'm considering that a possibility, if the ancestors of these populations were effectively a much lighter hunter-gatherer group/groups than the ones in western and central Europe, the differences between north and south could partly be explained by varying amounts of ancestry in this group. Although there are parts of Europe that are relatively dark but also high in R1, so that needs to be resolved.

Y DNA I probably dominated Europe longer than any haplogroup. R1 and R itself may have originated in a non west Eurasian people, it came to west Eurasians through inter marriage. Y DNA is just a paternal lineage, so there is no surprise that high amounts of R1 exists in dark populations. Because of bottle neck, Indo Europeans spread mainly by conquering they replaced many native paternal lineages their overall ancestry wouldn't always survive well. So you could have dark or light Indo Europeans with direct male descendants who are the opposite in pigmentation. Y DNA N1c1 came originally from east Asia but Finnish, Sami, and Balts have more purely(pre Neolithic) European ancestry than anyone around today.

Fire Haired
01-12-2014, 10:32 PM
This passage is interesting on Evo and Proud:

There is almost no way population isolates existed within Celts and Germans of the British isles, those so called black scots, Irish, etc, have the same genetic makeup as the rest of them. Those old Norse stories may very well be talking about Sami and Finnish who have a decent amount of east Asian ancestry and some can look east Asian. Flat noses were not dominate in any time frame of European history, from what I know Europe has always been dominated by tall and thin nosed west Eurasians aka Caucasians. Like I said in the thread there is brown skin in my family, people who were literally born with brown skin not just good at tanning. They also always have very dark hair and brown eyes, but through autosomal DNA test I know they are totally European and more farmer than hunter gatherer. The pre Celtic Neolithic people of the British isles would have been a lot like the LBK girl and Otzi, not Luschbour. The results of the LBK girl and Otzi in the three light skin genes is what would be excepted of an average modern west Asian or European. This mean those genes had already become dominate in the near east by probably 12,000 years ago, but who knows if they existed in Europe. There could be other factors for pale skin that Luschbour did have.

I don't know what child like faces Evo and Proud is talking about. I have never noticed Europeans have younger looking faces than non Europeans. What Europeans is she talking about either really only central, eastern, and northern Europeans should have phenotypes that are very similar to Mesolithic Europeans.

Comte Arnau
01-12-2014, 10:55 PM
According to some data from Wikipedia about the Cro-Magnon, and the fact that both light skin and eyes are said to be not much older than 6,000 or 8,000 years old, Upper Paleolithic Europeans would rather have had:

-long low skull
-wide face
-prominent nose
-moderate prognathism
-tan skin
-brown eyes
-straight or slightly wavy hair, but possibly braided

Mesolithic Europeans might have been a sort of transitional stage, depending on how early the area would have been affected by Neolithic waves.

Jackson
01-12-2014, 11:05 PM
There is almost no way population isolates existed within Celts and Germans of the British isles, those so called black scots, Irish, etc, have the same genetic makeup as the rest of them. Those old Norse stories may very well be talking about Sami and Finnish who have a decent amount of east Asian ancestry and some can look east Asian. Flat noses were not dominate in any time frame of European history, from what I know Europe has always been dominated by tall and thin nosed west Eurasians aka Caucasians. Like I said in the thread there is brown skin in my family, people who were literally born with brown skin not just good at tanning. They also always have very dark hair and brown eyes, but through autosomal DNA test I know they are totally European and more farmer than hunter gatherer. The pre Celtic Neolithic people of the British isles would have been a lot like the LBK girl and Otzi, not Luschbour. The results of the LBK girl and Otzi in the three light skin genes is what would be excepted of an average modern west Asian or European. This mean those genes had already become dominate in the near east by probably 12,000 years ago, but who knows if they existed in Europe. There could be other factors for pale skin that Luschbour did have.

I don't know what child like faces Evo and Proud is talking about. I have never noticed Europeans have younger looking faces than non Europeans. What Europeans is she talking about either really only central, eastern, and northern Europeans should have phenotypes that are very similar to Mesolithic Europeans.

Yeah i would agree in general, although these darker traits do exist alongside the lighter traits in people who are genetically very similar as you say. A lot of people who rely on physical anthropology seem to have a hard time understanding this.

Fire Haired
01-12-2014, 11:17 PM
According to some data from Wikipedia about the Cro-Magnon, and the fact that both light skin and eyes are said to be not much older than 6,000 or 8,000 years old, Upper Paleolithic Europeans would rather have had:

-long low skull
-wide face
-prominent nose
-moderate prognathism
-tan skin
-brown eyes
-straight or slightly wavy hair, but possibly braided

Mesolithic Europeans might have been a sort of transitional stage, depending on how early the area would have been affected by Neolithic waves.

Luschbour had no near eastern farmer ancestry, he was from what we know a pure European(pre Neolithic) and the only genome of one published in detail. La Brana-1 had some farmer admixture but was mainly of the same blood as Luschbour, he was reported as having blue eyes while 2/2 farmers had brown eyes and their closest modern relatives Sardinia have the lowest amount of blue eyes in Europe. It is an assumption all European paleness descends from Near eastern(important to remember) farmers. We desperately need more ancient DNA to know the pigmentation history of Europe. I doubt Mesolithic Europeans were in a transitional stage because there were so many different ones, they all couldn't be evolving the same way at the same time.

Fire Haired
01-12-2014, 11:18 PM
Yeah i would agree in general, although these darker traits do exist alongside the lighter traits in people who are genetically very similar as you say. A lot of people who rely on physical anthropology seem to have a hard time understanding this.

I thought the people on this forum who are so focused on anthropology were fools, but I can see how it can be a very good tool when used with DNA genetic studies. It is very unlikely there are isolate populations within known ethnic groups that have Luschbour like blood and features.

Jackson
01-12-2014, 11:21 PM
I thought the people on this forum who are so focused on anthropology were fools, but I can see how it can be a very good tool when used with DNA genetic studies. It is very unlikely there are isolate populations within known ethnic groups that have Luschbour like blood and features.

Yeah i agree, the common ground needs to be found between the two fields.

Gaston
01-12-2014, 11:24 PM
When the last ice age ended some 10,000 years ago, it may be that only some European populations had acquired a fully ‘European’ phenotype, i.e., white skin, multi-hued eyes and hair, a more childlike face, and longer, straighter hair. This phenotype would have been most predominant on the former steppe-tundra of northern and eastern Europe. Moving outward from this region, one would have seen humans with more and more of the evolutionarily older traits, i.e., brown skin, uniformly brown eyes and black hair, a more robust face, and short, frizzy hair.

This older phenotype might have persisted well into the Holocene in peripheral and isolated parts of Europe. As Fleure (1945) notes:

In a few places in Sweden, Britain, and France, people have been noticed who show characteristics of the skull and face that remind one of late-Paleolithic man: these people are usually darker, in hair and eyes, than their neighbors; sometimes they even have swarthy skins.

Even in Scandinavia, we find references in folklore and mythology to an ancient dark-skinned population. A Norse poem, the Rigsthula, describes how the god Rig created a class of thralls who were black-haired, swarthy, and flat-nosed (Jonassen, 1951). This theme comes up elsewhere in Old Norse literature (Karras, 1988).

WTF? Does he work for L'Oréal or something?

Evo and Proud is not the best thing to quote because there is little science there and the author is borderline narcissistic and Eurocentric.

Fire Haired
01-12-2014, 11:31 PM
WTF? Does he work for L'Oréal or something?

Evo and Proud is not the best thing to quote because there is little science there and the author is borderline narcissistic and Eurocentric.

I totally dis agree, he or she probably knows more about making accurate claims with sources and a better critical thinker than any of us on this thread. How is he or she borderline narcissistic and Eurocentric? If he(takes to long) was Eurocentric he would be claiming European features were the original features of humanity, and making un sourced claims of sometype of European superiority. A special interest in European history and modern issues in Europe is not a bad thing, someone has to be. Is the European Union being Euro centric a bad thing? He gave a source for those claims anyways. I dis agree with what he is saying that is evidence of, but their real sources. Brown skin does exist in northwest Europe I know that as a fact and the black Brit, scot, and Irish thing is real.

Gaston
01-13-2014, 11:03 AM
I totally dis agree, he or she probably knows more about making accurate claims with sources and a better critical thinker than any of us on this thread. How is he or she borderline narcissistic and Eurocentric? If he(takes to long) was Eurocentric he would be claiming European features were the original features of humanity, and making un sourced claims of sometype of European superiority. A special interest in European history and modern issues in Europe is not a bad thing, someone has to be. Is the European Union being Euro centric a bad thing? He gave a source for those claims anyways. I dis agree with what he is saying that is evidence of, but their real sources. Brown skin does exist in northwest Europe I know that as a fact and the black Brit, scot, and Irish thing is real.

Why do you always write very long posts ? Nobody wants to read a huge text you know. Have you ever realized that a significant part of your contributions is ignored for this very reason?


As for your answer, I didn't mention anything that you wrote so I don't know what your point is. I just gave a general impression of the blog Evo and Proud and pointed out the weird statement about the hair of modern Europeans (L'Oréal models) vs Paleolithic Europeans (dark frizzy people who can't grow long hair).

Jackson
01-13-2014, 01:14 PM
Why do you always write very long posts ? Nobody wants to read a huge text you know. Have you ever realized that a significant part of your contributions is ignored for this very reason?


As for your answer, I didn't mention anything that you wrote so I don't know what your point is. I just gave a general impression of the blog Evo and Proud and pointed out the weird statement about the hair of modern Europeans (L'Oréal models) vs Paleolithic Europeans (dark frizzy people who can't grow long hair).

I like the fact he writes long posts. I mean one of the good things about a forum is that you can spend more time deciding what you are going to say, and saying more.

Fire Haired
01-13-2014, 08:54 PM
Why do you always write very long posts ? Nobody wants to read a huge text you know. Have you ever realized that a significant part of your contributions is ignored for this very reason?


As for your answer, I didn't mention anything that you wrote so I don't know what your point is. I just gave a general impression of the blog Evo and Proud and pointed out the weird statement about the hair of modern Europeans (L'Oréal models) vs Paleolithic Europeans (dark frizzy people who can't grow long hair).

I know my posts are long and most people ignore them. I make them because some people read them, they help me learn, and I feel guilty if I don't put down all the details. If you know nothing about Evo and Proud besides those two quotes you shouldn't be claiming something so big.

What exactly is frizzy hair? I and some relatives have very thick and straight hair that can't grow long it just gets big, is that Frizzy?

Evo and Proud should not be generalizing how European people look. Greeks and Finnish share a very small amount of common ancestry but both are considered European. Only central, northern, and eastern Europeans have a significant amount of pre Neolithic European ancestry, southern Europeans have vast majority farmer or recent near eastern ancestry. I would except there would be skeletal differences, hair texture, etc. because of that.

Argang
01-17-2014, 08:25 PM
Since the supposedly blue-eyed La Brana from mesolithic Iberia is somewhat related to the topic... Someone "in the known" says here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29344-Guess-the-Y-haplogroup%28s%29-of-Mesolithic-Iberians-%28Bra%C3%B1a-1-amp-2%29?p=424588#post424588) that he had haplogroup C-V20 and not I, R1 or other more common haplos. The EUpedia mods say he's genuine. Might still be bullshitting but if he is, we should see within a month or so when the study is published.

Melonhead
01-17-2014, 08:37 PM
I don't know why(can't download the study) but he was reported as having a 52.7% probability for blue eyes, 26.8% probability of intermediate, and 20.7% probability for brown eyes.

It's because of gene expression. Sometimes genes are locked off so they don't function properly, so you don't always get their effects.



It is hard to believe my somewhat recent Mesolithic European ancestors may have been very dark skinned, and that light skin did not become dominate till their descendants mixed with brown eyed and dark haired near eastern farmers in the Neolithic. My family is 100% northwest European and there are multiple brown skinned people but most of us have pale skin and blue eyes and a bunch of us have light or red hair. I have not been isolated to my family though, I have known basically who I am genetically since I was very little and I know nearly all Europeans have light skin and southern Europeans are darker. I can easily recognize if someone is European especially if they are northern, central, or eastern European. It is hard to believe our signature features may have not existed as dominate traits in Europe during most of the Mesolithic.


There's lightening genes, but they don't do as much as simply not having the dark genes (of which there's many). In fact if you don't have the darkening genes, the lightening genes don't have any purpose. So it's ridiculous to assume they are very dark like africans just because they don't have the lightening genes. They are again making the big assumption people start off with a bunch of darkness genes then somehow lose them, but this is basically impossible, there's just too many of them for that to ever happen if everyone around you has them.

Fire Haired
01-18-2014, 03:15 AM
It's because of gene expression. Sometimes genes are locked off so they don't function properly, so you don't always get their effects.



There's lightening genes, but they don't do as much as simply not having the dark genes (of which there's many). In fact if you don't have the darkening genes, the lightening genes don't have any purpose. So it's ridiculous to assume they are very dark like africans just because they don't have the lightening genes. They are again making the big assumption people start off with a bunch of darkness genes then somehow lose them, but this is basically impossible, there's just too many of them for that to ever happen if everyone around you has them.

Since it was reported by a researcher that La Brana-1 had the same gene for blue eyes as modern blue eyed north Europeans, and now we know Loschbour had this so called blue eye gene, I think they would have also had pale skin. Either they didn't have blue eyes and had dark skin or had blue eyes and light skin. Who would argue that the blue eye gene in Mesolithic Europeans is not connected to the same gene that takes up a majority in so many parts of Europe today, not surprisingly in areas with the most Mesolithic ancestry. I think Loschbour had pale skin, black hair, and blue eyes. But I still consider the possibility he had very dark skin.

You will have to ask an expert on how genes and all that other stuff works. The light genes are mutations of genes that cause dark pigmentation, that's my interpretation. East Asians have the ancestral "Dark skin alleles" in those SNP's I name in this thread but they have light skin because there are other mutations(I think unknown) that cause their pale skin. Loschbour had the 'dark skin alleles" in all three of those SNP's that is why people are saying he had dark skin. Whoever said he was dark like Africans(sub Saharan or north).

If Loschbour truly had dark skin it would be at the darkest probably like southern Arabs or like north Africans. I made the point so many times that those so called white skin genes are about as popular in west asia as in Europe. West Asians are basically brownish skinned like Algerians and Arabs even though they have a low amount of these genes. So I think the effect they make on skin color is overrated and there are other factors to the very light skin in Europeans, especially the ones with high amounts of Mesolithic ancestry.

The Paper on La Brana-1(7,000 year old hunter gatherer northern Spain) should be out soon. It was reported by CLF(possible a researcher from the study on La Brana-1) on Eupedia that he had Y DNA C6-V20. A haplogroup that has been hypothesized as being descended from "Cro magnon" aka Upper Palaeolithic Europeans. He was reported by the real CLF as having that blue eye gene, we will probably learn what hair color he had and also if he had any of the three 'white skin" genes.

Melonhead
01-18-2014, 09:53 AM
Since it was reported by a researcher that La Brana-1 had the same gene for blue eyes as modern blue eyed north Europeans, and now we know Loschbour had this so called blue eye gene, I think they would have also had pale skin. Either they didn't have blue eyes and had dark skin or had blue eyes and light skin. Who would argue that the blue eye gene in Mesolithic Europeans is not connected to the same gene that takes up a majority in so many parts of Europe today, not surprisingly in areas with the most Mesolithic ancestry. I think Loschbour had pale skin, black hair, and blue eyes. But I still consider the possibility he had very dark skin.

They did not really do enough to show he has dark skin. I don't think it's certain he had pale skin, though. It was interesting to see the australoid mix in the mal'ta boy.

Could be that out of india is correct, and australoids were the first wave out (probably second, after pygmies/negritos), and in europe it's been largely washed away now.



You will have to ask an expert on how genes and all that other stuff works. The light genes are mutations of genes that cause dark pigmentation, that's my interpretation. East Asians have the ancestral "Dark skin alleles" in those SNP's I name in this thread but they have light skin because there are other mutations(I think unknown) that cause their pale skin.

There's darkening genes, and lightening genes. The lightening genes probably don't do all that much anyway, because like half the planet has them even though many are very dark.

This guy does not have the lightening genes, which is all they looked for, which seems pretty silly thing to do it's almost like they want to screw it up.




Loschbour had the 'dark skin alleles" in all three of those SNP's that is why people are saying he had dark skin. Whoever said he was dark like Africans(sub Saharan or north).

If Loschbour truly had dark skin it would be at the darkest probably like southern Arabs or like north Africans. I made the point so many times that those so called white skin genes are about as popular in west asia as in Europe. West Asians are basically brownish skinned like Algerians and Arabs even though they have a low amount of these genes. So I think the effect they make on skin color is overrated and there are other factors to the very light skin in Europeans, especially the ones with high amounts of Mesolithic ancestry.

The Paper on La Brana-1(7,000 year old hunter gatherer northern Spain) should be out soon. It was reported by CLF(possible a researcher from the study on La Brana-1) on Eupedia that he had Y DNA C6-V20. A haplogroup that has been hypothesized as being descended from "Cro magnon" aka Upper Palaeolithic Europeans. He was reported by the real CLF as having that blue eye gene, we will probably learn what hair color he had and also if he had any of the three 'white skin" genes.

Hmm. I guess again you could argue this supports "out of asia" if this is so.

Graham
01-18-2014, 10:06 AM
Don't areas in the North East Europe show highly Mesolithic in genetics? But also are high in blue eyes & light hair. Perhaps it's difficult to compare the evolution of a country & sexual preference over thousands of years, to back then. It could have been mixed & You could look into a Population bottleneck. At what age though?

blogen
01-18-2014, 10:12 AM
and now we know Loschbour had this so called blue eye gene, I think they would have also had pale skin.

Your problem, but this is the true about Loschbour:


"An interesting finding is that the Luxembourg hunter-gatherer probably had blue eyes (like a Mesolithic La Brana Iberian, a paper on which seems to be in the works) but darker skin than the LBK farmer who had brown eyes but lighter skin. Raghavan et al. did not find light pigmentation in Mal'ta (but that was a very old sample), so with the exception of light eyes that seem established for Western European hunter-gatherers (and may have been "darker" in European steppe populations, but "lighter" in Bronze Age South Siberians?), the origin of depigmentation of many recent Europeans remains a mystery. Ancient DNA continues to surprise at every turn."

So the Loschbour peoples were hardcore swarthies somewhere between the present Indians and South med peoples.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3100/37lt.jpg

Fire Haired
01-18-2014, 10:27 AM
Blogen, we don't know how much an effect the so called light skin genes had. The reason they say he probably had darker skin than Stuttgart is because of those so called light skin genes. Nothing is for sure right now, if blue eyes were popular in Mesolithic Europe they didn't have dark skin.

Fire Haired
01-18-2014, 10:29 AM
Don't areas in the North East Europe show highly Mesolithic in genetics? But also are high in blue eyes & light hair. Perhaps it's difficult to compare the evolution of a country & sexual preference over thousands of years, to back then. It could have been mixed & You could look into a Population bottleneck. At what age though?

Light eyes, hair, and skin show very strong correlation to Mesolithic ancestry. That is why it is no surprise the blue eye mutation has been found in 2/2 Mesolithic European samples. Who knows what the pigmentation all of them had and a lot can change in 8,000 years. It could be that most Mesolithic ancestry today comes from light Russian hunter gatherers who's descendants spread Indo European and Uralic langauges.

Graham
01-18-2014, 10:50 AM
I know that the Gedmatch eye predictor isn't 100% accurate(still good). But it would be fun to stick the samples through it.

Jackson
01-18-2014, 09:17 PM
Since it was reported by a researcher that La Brana-1 had the same gene for blue eyes as modern blue eyed north Europeans, and now we know Loschbour had this so called blue eye gene, I think they would have also had pale skin. Either they didn't have blue eyes and had dark skin or had blue eyes and light skin. Who would argue that the blue eye gene in Mesolithic Europeans is not connected to the same gene that takes up a majority in so many parts of Europe today, not surprisingly in areas with the most Mesolithic ancestry. I think Loschbour had pale skin, black hair, and blue eyes. But I still consider the possibility he had very dark skin.

You will have to ask an expert on how genes and all that other stuff works. The light genes are mutations of genes that cause dark pigmentation, that's my interpretation. East Asians have the ancestral "Dark skin alleles" in those SNP's I name in this thread but they have light skin because there are other mutations(I think unknown) that cause their pale skin. Loschbour had the 'dark skin alleles" in all three of those SNP's that is why people are saying he had dark skin. Whoever said he was dark like Africans(sub Saharan or north).

If Loschbour truly had dark skin it would be at the darkest probably like southern Arabs or like north Africans. I made the point so many times that those so called white skin genes are about as popular in west asia as in Europe. West Asians are basically brownish skinned like Algerians and Arabs even though they have a low amount of these genes. So I think the effect they make on skin color is overrated and there are other factors to the very light skin in Europeans, especially the ones with high amounts of Mesolithic ancestry.

The Paper on La Brana-1(7,000 year old hunter gatherer northern Spain) should be out soon. It was reported by CLF(possible a researcher from the study on La Brana-1) on Eupedia that he had Y DNA C6-V20. A haplogroup that has been hypothesized as being descended from "Cro magnon" aka Upper Palaeolithic Europeans. He was reported by the real CLF as having that blue eye gene, we will probably learn what hair color he had and also if he had any of the three 'white skin" genes.

True, but if he did have light skin but not the same mutation as modern north Europeans, it's pretty likely we didn't get our light coloration from the Mesolithic H-G,s, but we did get our blue eyes (or at least some of them) from there.

Jackson
01-18-2014, 09:19 PM
I know that the Gedmatch eye predictor isn't 100% accurate(still good). But it would be fun to stick the samples through it.

Yeah it's not so reliable when a person has one light eyed and one brown eyed parent. Both my mother and my aunt come out on that as having blue/blue-grey/blue-green eyes but in fact my aunt has brown eyes and my mother hazel eyes. Although it got my eyes very accurate.

Fire Haired
01-18-2014, 11:06 PM
True, but if he did have light skin but not the same mutation as modern north Europeans, it's pretty likely we didn't get our light coloration from the Mesolithic H-G,s, but we did get our blue eyes (or at least some of them) from there.

We probably get our blue eyes almost entirely from the hunter gatherers. Farmer ancestry today correlates with brown eyes hunter gatherer with light. I think all paleness in Europe today descends from Mesolithic Europeans that doesn't mean all were pale.

Rambo07
02-13-2014, 01:02 PM
Who cares? Their features and main attributes would have been the same.

Fire Haired
02-13-2014, 11:54 PM
Here is a link which includes a map from the 1940's showing the distribution of Mesolithic like skulls shapes in Europe and it almost perfectly matches how we now know through autosomal DNA Mesolithic ancestry is distributed.
http://img1.picload.org/image/lroorlw/whg-stuff.jpg (http://img1.picload.org/image/lroorlw/whg-stuff.jpg)<o:p></o>

Who cares? Their features and main attributes would have been the same.

What do you mean by this? Only north Europeans may have around 50% Mesolithic ancestry(some definitely have majority) so no one knows what a 100% European hunter gatherer would be like in life. From what I have heard they were robust and and broad faced. They may have been very impressive people physically like African Americans. I am just going off a few things I have read from experts and random people. Maybe north-east Europeans and Scandinavians haven't gotten the opportunity to do much world famous sports so we haven't seen their natural athletic ability which descends from Mesolithic Europeans. I doubt Mesolithic Europeans were athletic like African Americans(maybe also their relatives in Africa) because African Americans are very unique in that way. It is fun to romantsize about them being huge buff cavemen who looked like Vikings, I think the people I have read from exaggerated.

The history of pigmentation in Europe is still a mystery. We do know though that light eyes mainly descend from the hunter gatherers but the origin of light skin and light hair is a total mystery. Most Euro hunter gatherers may have been a deep shade of brown, many blue eyed, black haired, and facial features and body builds most similar to modern north-eastern Euro's and Scandinavians.

I have noticed a common occurrence of somewhat broad faces and wide noses in Europeans, including in myself and my family. Reconstructions of pre Neolithic Europeans commonly have very broad faces and wide noses.

La Brana-1 reconstruction(hair and eye color correct skin color still unknown)
44481

~26,000 year old figurine of a human face from central Europe.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=44482&d=1392339063

Some reconstructions of Upper Palaeolithic Europeans at the Lascux exhibit(for famous museums around the world).

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=44483&d=1392339150

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=44484&d=1392339162

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=44485&d=1392339187
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=44486&d=1392339228

Melonhead
02-14-2014, 12:04 AM
What's also funny is you calling me eurocentrist. In reality the Eupedia clown is a very obvious nordicist. He talks all day about how I y-dna clade is the only native european one. His bashing on the origin of r1b is what's eurocentric and ridiculous.

He claims that r1b came when IE speaking people migrated to europe. Except basques are not IE people, and they covered west of france and north of spain. IE came to spain not through settlement but it evolved from a mediterranean IE lingua franca. Since spain was not even IE until relatively recent historic times (let alone some ancient past), you can't claim this theory means anything at all.

There's not a lot of r1b found in these sites...but guess what? Celts used cremation, as did all early greeks and most of italy.

More telling, there's no really ancient r1b found anywhere else, either. So this whole migration idea is obviously pure bullshit.

That's ignoring the stuff I linked to you earlier which also shows this fantasy crap never happened. Only migration of farmers from east tow est we have is some G y-dna stuff. The rest is utterly made up fantasies, and without that then all of these ideas fall apart.

Like I said, read the wikipedia. Who is making stuff up, wikipedia which is open to all or eupedia which is run by some European Union official who is an obvious nordicist?