Anthropological differences in Lithuanian regions

[member]

This is what Lithuanian scientists found out about anthropological differnces between Lithuanian regions in 1952-1955

http://i47.tinypic.com/5yalav.jpg

Inhabitants of majority of Lithuanian territory (Samogitia, Western Šilutė (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0ilut%C4%97_district_municipality), Suvalkija, Western Aukštaitija) have taller than the average height, theyir hair are greysih or chestnut, slightly wavy. Eyes usually light blue, greenish, grey.
The skull (occiput) is wide, round, brachycephalic (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/gloss1.htm#BRACHYCEPHALIC), forehead is steep, narrow face, long nose which is straight or with a bump and strongly protruding.
Such people live in poland, Chechia, South-Eastern Germany. This anthropoligical type based on this gepgraphical distribution is called Central European type.

The look of Eastern Lithuanians (Dzūkija and Eastern Aukštaitija) is a bit different: the height is shorter, hair are darker, more often chestnut, but the eyes are almost as light as anywhere else in Lithuania, maybe slightly darker in Ukmergė (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukmerge_district_location.png)and Šalčininkai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Salcininkai_district_location.png)surrounding s. The occiput is more oblong (less brachycephalic). This combination forned of two types that predominate not in Lithuania but neighbouring territories of the Baltic region. These are East Baltic and Valdaj types.
The looks of South-Eastern Lithuanians (Varėna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Var%C4%97na_district_municipality)-Šalčininkai are probably influenced by contacts with East and South-East neighbours - Nothern Belarus (upper Dnepr) inhabitants. They have darker hair and eyes, more gracile head proprtions than notherners.

In North-Western Lithuania (especially in Kretinga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kretinga_district_location.png) and Mažeikiai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lithuania_location_map.svg) dsitricts) besides the features typical for most Lithuanians we find this combination:
big height, very light eyes and hair (often yellowish), big occiput and facial measurements, sloping forehead, pronounced brow bows and bridge of the nose, very protruding nose. This is western Baltic (Nordic) racial type predominating in Balti sea coasts: Eastonian and Latvian seaside, Nothern Germany, Scandinavia, etc.

[PeacefulCaribbeanDutch]

interesting, I love chestnut hair, :P

[member]

Now I only need to find good representatives...

[lI]

Now I only need to find good representatives...

Why proliferate this thing if even anthropological studies unambiguously concluded that whichever differences exist in Lithuania-the-beautiful, they are negligible and in the context of not only the whole Europe but even when compared to a Latvian nation (which is smaller than Lithuanian) we are a very homogeneous group.

Starting to cherry-pick some cardinal examples to illustrate the differences which account for as little as several % would be nonsensical, sorry. I don't want to come across as mean or anything but stuff like that tends to have a "broken phone" effect:

Another important thing is to know that Lithuania basically have differences inside the country as well. People from the Baltic coast look pretty much different from people deep on the continent.

Yeah, don't know what else to add.

This will do for now:

Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA variation in Lithuanians (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2 Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source %3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEsQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253 A%252F%252Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%252Fpubmed%252F154 69421%26ei%3Dr4skUO29Ncjxsgax_oCIBw%26usg%3DAFQjCN H6iVyVKZov-fbS3URfZnKbkTR3Sw%26sig2%3D71jR32OS2rB_TwdqvrWv3w)
Our results concerning mtDNA HV1 sequence and RFLP polymorphisms, and Y chromosome biallelic and STR variation, in the Lithuanian population did not reveal any significant differences among ethnolinguistic groups of Lithuanians. Analysis showed that all mtDNA HV1 sequence and Y chromosome STR variation falls within the groups, indicating extreme homogeneity of Lithuanians.

Thus it is likely that, even if genetic differences between Baltic tribes existed in the past, they disappeared during the last millennium. After unification of Baltic tribes and formation of the Lithuanian state in 13th century, no strong barriers to dispersal existed within the country; however, until the end of the 19th century the admixture of people was limited because of the feudal system and serfdom. This resulted in linguistic differentiation that seems not to be reflected in the genetic composition of Lithuanians. However, the sample sizes of 30-40 individuals used in this study might be too small to exclude the existence of minor differences between the groups. Alternatively, the Baltic tribes from which modern Lithuanians originated may have been genetically homogeneous. In any event, the molecular genetic results are consistent with anthropological data, according to which anthropometric differences among regions of Lithuania disappeared in the medieval material, and the Lithuanian population is very homogeneous in the context of Eastern Europe or the whole Europe.
_____________________________________________

On second thought, if by "finding good representatives" you meant to show objective variation rather than cherry-picking individuals, it would be very interesting to make a sort of collaboration - collecting only group photos of regionally specific samples (i.e. sports teams, highschool graduates, etc. from small towns with small ethnic minorities). What do you say?
I could get the Dzukian samples and, perhaps, some Aukstaitian.

[member]

Yes, people of the middle ages were obviously mixed (http://www.musicalia.lt/meli/animacija.php?AId=27&id=60), but we are not mixed fully. Perhaps these differences are nothing compared to most other countries but i'm still interested. For the reason I mentioned - we are not moxed fully and there must be remaining physical differences. Whether they are small or not.

You can write it off if you want to, but it's a not notice of "a naked eye" and I believe there is some truth in it.

[lI]

Why do you think I'd want to write them off altogether? Intra ethnic Baltic diversity is one of the things that interest me most at the moment.

I just dislike when it gets ridiculously exaggerated which tends to happen when things aren't put into perspective with actual data.



The map you linked to now is about what it was like 300-500 years ago - only halfway through the mixing. Needless to say, things will have changed much since.


But what do you say about this collaboration? Collecting only group photos of regionally specific samples (i.e. sports teams, highschool graduates, etc. from small towns with small ethnic minorities) to see what exactly is the extent of the remnants of that diversity.

[member]

The main resettlements I believe happened during and several centuries after the Crusades. This map shows differences of 15-17th c. Wallach reform was done in the second half of the 16th c.

Oh well, we can try. But I probably won't use examples from my own hometown... the number of young people who speak standart Lithuanian makes me actually wonder how many of them are natives to the region...

[Waidewut]

According to some scientific research done by Lithuanian themselves in 1952-1955, Nordid phenotybe is strongest in North-western Lithuania, supposedly that phenotype predominates in coastal areas of Baltic Sea countries (including Latvia and Estonia).

Do you think that the same could be said about Latvia?

Prevalence of the Nordid phenotype must be much higher in the areas of more leptoprosopic facial index (narrow- faceness).
According to the book- Latvian anthropology in the reflection of cultural-historical territories, by the anthropologist Raisa Denisova, the morphological form geography is this:

1st type- Massive,Broad-faced
2nd type- Broad faced with Eastern Finnic component
3rd type- Somewhat massive, with narrow faced component.

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/5331/bb4b933443ca.jpg

Cephalic index of Latvians kinda correlates with this map- the more East, the higher the index.


Why proliferate this thing if even anthropological studies unambiguously concluded that whichever differences exist in Lithuania-the-beautiful, they are negligible and in the context of not only the whole Europe but even when compared to a Latvian nation (which is smaller than Lithuanian) we are a very homogeneous group.


Lithuanian nation being bigger than the Latvian one- it's just a recent time phenomenon.

[member]

People from Telšiai (some of them are just Samogitians though)

http://santarve.lt/images/articles/attvYyk2v.jpg

Mažeikiai district:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Pievenu_velykzydziai.2007-04-08.jpg

http://www.sedosgimnazija.lt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=136&Itemid=74

http://vieksniug.lt/struktura/mokiniai

From Salantai, Kretinga district:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tfEBOKLG2_E/TxRogoybL4I/AAAAAAAAAQA/E9AW7Oz-I9E/s1600/4-TIF.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xRBJmdB-E3c/TzQwUzCyvyI/AAAAAAAAAYE/KzCl6wPO1Cs/s1600/IMAGE0001-TIF.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-duql0cJ-xUU/TzQ0NrduIEI/AAAAAAAAAYM/3Z87bw0rLzs/s1600/IMAGE0005-TIF.jpg

[lI]

So, let's start with the most Neolithic piece of the Baltyland. It's also got more R1a (61.8%) than Poles (54.5%).

VARENA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varena) (in the ethnographic region of Dzukija, the southernmost LT), I chose this particular town for representation of Dzukija because Polish (http://szczecinian.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Poles_in_Lithuania_Barry_Kent.png) & Russian (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Russians_in_Baltic_states.png/350px-Russians_in_Baltic_states.png) minorities aren't numerous there at all:

http://imageshack.us/a/img534/2424/varenavejavas.jpg

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2949/varenafutbolovarybos1.jpg

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/5567/varenakrosovarzybosvaik.jpg

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/6955/varenarudenskrosasvaiki.jpg

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/2706/varenarudenskrosas.jpg

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/1939/varenakrosovarzybos.jpg

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5193/varenoskrepsininka.jpg

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/853/varenaekstra.jpg

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8674/varenamerkin.jpg

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/176/varenosmerkines.jpg

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9741/varenosazuolomokyklos.jpg

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/41/varenosazuolokreps.jpg

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/7148/varenashrooms.jpg

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/6417/varenavipreka.jpg

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/972/varenatoresto.jpg

I also got hold of some large photos of youth basketabll players but I just need to sort them all out (which one is from which city). Obviously, basketball players aren't directly comparable to normal people due to their robustness but they could be compared among themselves.

[member]

Hmm, I can't see the difference right away... but maybe there is a way to see. At least I will try to count blonds :p

[lI]

Counting blonds in photos that are taken in different settings and lighting wouldn't really make any sense though, would it? :p

I mean, I would be willing to bet that in natural daylight or with light streaming from the ceiling rather than from a faraway window the hair of most of these dudes (http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9741/varenosazuolomokyklos.jpg) would be of a light ratty shade no different than that of these folks (http://santarve.lt/images/articles/attvYyk2v.jpg).

Remember how the online counting light eyes in photos made it look as if only 67% of LTs have them when in reality it's 93% (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/11631-Lithuanians?p=770213&highlight=#post770213)? It would be even more difficult with hair.

But, speaking of pigmentation, I downloaded the 10 academic reference Lithuanian samples used in Behar et al and also started sharing with more Lithuanians @ 23andme, so the sample size is getting more solid:
http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg550/ABFforum/lithuanianseyecolour.png

[lI]

Lithuanian nation being bigger than the Latvian one- it's just a recent time phenomenon.
How so? When was it ever different? Even in the Interwar period when South East Lithuania was occupied by Poland, there were more Lithuanians in Lithuanian Republic than Latvians in Latvian.

So, unless you're going by that funny labelling where non-Latvian Balts are labelled as "ancient Latvians", there was never any point in history when Latvian nation would have been bigger than Lithuanian.
http://i.uzdevumi.lv/Resources/67c32df2-17da-4896-b5c8-e7296f6f4578/DSCF2286.JPG

_____________________________________________


This is what Lithuanian scientists found out about anthropological differnces between Lithuanian regions in 1952-1955

You left out as well as mistranslated some key parts of the original article from which you took the text in the OP

http://www.balto-slavica.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5160

For example you left out this part:

Nors dar išlikę regioniniai skirtumai, tačiau odontologiškai visi gyventojai priklauso Vidurio Europos odontologiniam tipui, kuris pasižymi nepaprastu „grynumu“ ir neturi kiek ryškesnės šiaurietiškos ar Pietų priemaišos."Even though there have survived some regional differences to this date, odontologically all inhabitants belong to Central European odontological type which is exceptionally "pure" and does not have any significant Northern or Southern admix."

And mistranslated this:
This combination formed of two types that predominate not in Lithuania but neighbouring territories of the Baltic region. These are East Baltic and Valdaj types. It should have been:
"This combination formed with admix from the two types that predominate not in Lithuania but neighbouring territories of the Baltic region. These are East Baltic and Valdaj types."

In a map that was included subsequently it is explicitly stated that this South East Lithuanian type is formed on the basis of the same Central European type as in the rest of Lithuania and Valdaj & East Baltic were just "influences" ("Vidurio Europos antropologinis tipas su Rytų Baltijos - Valdajaus tipo priemaišomis.")


God, it just gets on my nerves when these small intra-Lithuanian differences get exaggerated to a ridiculous extent, soz.
One of the latest runs from Fennoscandia Biographic Project, Samogitian LI1, Sudovian LI2, Dzukian LI3, 1/2Aukstaitian+1/2Sudovian LI4, Sudovian LI5 & Aukstaitian LI7 all cluster in a neat little group with Lithuanian academic reference samples - so much for secularism "oh, we're oh so very unique&distinct....":
http://fennoscandia.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/updated-chromopainterfinestructure.html
https://sites.google.com/site/fennobga/CCAggrWorld.png

[member]

I think it's obvious I've used a different source for translating.

[lI]

You didn't write what source you used but it was quite obvious that you used the book "Lietuvių etnogenezė":
http://www.balto-slavica.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5160

No?


The part that you left out "Even though there have survived some regional differences to this date, odontologically all inhabitants belong to Central European odontological type which is exceptionally "pure" and does not have any significant Northern or Southern admix." was FROM THE SAME CHAPTER AS THE ONE YOU CITED.


The part which you cited in GREEN the key part of that article which you did not cite in RED:

Lietuvių antropologiniai ypatumai.

Apie XIII- XIV a. lietuvių antropotipą galima kalbėti remiantis kiek vėlesniais XIV- XVII a. duomenimis. Šio laikotarpio lietuvių kaukolės mezomorfiškos (vid, dydžių), mezokraniškos, greičiau siauroko veido, žemų akiduobių, atsikišusios nosys. Nosis dominuoja veide, jos šaknis aukšta, smarkiai išvešėjusi, veidas pakankamai ryškiai horizontaliai profiliuotas. Nors dar išlikę regioniniai skirtumai, tačiau odontologiškai visi gyventojai priklauso Vidurio Europos odontologiniam tipui, kuris pasižymi nepaprastu „grynumu“ ir neturi kiek ryškesnės šiaurietiškos ar Pietų priemaišos.

Palyginti su I tūkstantmečio žmonėmis, II tūkstantmečio antrosios pusės gyventojai skyrėsi gracilumu (sumažėjusia dauguma kaukolės matmenų), mezokranija (suapvalėjusia smegenine), siauresniu veidu. Be abejonės, tai I tūkstantmečio žmonių palikuonys. Tie skirtumai atsirado savaime, be rasių maišymosi, dėl vadinamosios epochinės tendencijos, kuri kaip tik ir reiškia gracilizaciją ir brachikranizaciją.

Būtina pažymėti, kad vėlyvųjų viduramžių žmonės buvo gerokai žemesni. Antai I tūkstantmečio Lietuvos vyrų ūgis buvo vidutiniškai lygus 175,2 cm, moterų- 163,4 cm, o II tūkstantmečio viduryje sumažėjo iki 169,6 ir 159,6 cm. XIX- XX amžių sandūroje vidutinis ūgis pradeda vėl didėti.

Per du paskutiniuosius tūkstantmečius Lietuvoje išsilaikė savotiška ūgio diferenciacija. Ypač ryški ūgio žemėjimo tendencija išlieka einant iš Šiaurės vakarų į Pietryčius. Tai, matyt, reikėtų aiškinti skirtingomis šių regionų gamtos sąlygomis ir ekonominiu lygiu.

Dabartinių Lietuvos gyventojų antropologines savybes 1952- 1955 m. tyrė jungtinė kompleksinė Pabaltijo ekspedicija. Didžiojoje Lietuvos dalyje (Žemaitijoje, Pamaryje, Užnemunėje ir Vakarų Aukštaitijoje) gyvenantys žmonės yra aukštesnio negu vidutinio ūgio, jų plaukai pilkšvi arba kaštoniniai, kiek banguoti. Akys dažniausia šviesios: žydros, žalsvos, pilkos. Smegeninė galvos dalis plati, apvali (brachikefališka), kakta statoka, veidas siauras, nosis ilgoka, tiesi ar su kuprele, smarkiai išsišovusi veide, tarpuakis aukštas, skruostai neatsikišę. Tokios išvaizdos žmonės gyvena ir Lenkijoje, Čekijoje, Pietryčių Vokietijoje. Minėtas kūno ypatybių derinys pagal geografinę sritį, kurioje labiausiai paplitęs, yra vadinamas Vidurio Europos antropologiniu tipu.

Rytų Lietuvos, t.y. Dzūkijos ir Rytų Aukštaitijos gyventojų išvaizda kiek kitokia: ūgis žemėlesnis, plaukai tamsesni, dažniau pasitaiko kaštoninių, bet akys beveik tokios pat šviesios kaip ir kitur Lietuvoje, gal šiek tiek tamsėlesnės Ukmergės ir Šalčininkų apylinkėse. Galva truputį pailgesnė (ne tokia brachicefališka). Toks fizinių požymių derinys susidarė sumišus dviems rasiniams tipams, kurie vyrauja ne Lietuvoje, o kaimyninėse Pabaltijo teritorijose. Tai- rytų Baltijos ir Valdajaus tipai. Pietryčių Lietuvos (Varėnos- Šalčininkų) gyventojų išvaizdai, įtakos, matyt bus padarę ryšiai su Rytų ir Pietryčių kaimynais- Šiaurės Baltarusijos, Dnepro aukštupio gyventojais. Jie tamsesnių plaukų ir akių, grakštesnių negu šiauriečių galvos proporcijų. Lietuvos Šiaurės vakaruose, ypač Kretingos ir Mažeikių rajonuose, be daugumai lietuvių būdingų savybių, aptinkame ir tokį požymių derinį: aukštą ūgį, labai šviesias akis ir plaukus (dažnai gelsvus), didelius galvos ir veido matmenis, nuožulnią kaktą, ryškius antakių lankus ir tarpuakį, smarkiai atsikišusią nosį. Tai vakarų Baltijos (nordinis) rasinis tipas, vyraujantis Baltijos jūros pakrantėse: Estijos ir Latvijos pajūryje, Šiaurės Vokietijoje, Skandinavijoje ir tt.

Pagal atliktus odontologinius tyrimus (patikrinta daugiau kaip 5000 gyventojų iš visos Lietuvos) išaiškėjo, kad Lietuvoje vyrauja Vidurio Europos antropotipas, kurį galima laikyti tiesiog etaloniškai grynai, neturinčiu kiek nors pastebimos kaimyninių tipų įtakos.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/903/lietant2.jpg
1. Ryški šiaurietiškojo (Vakarų Baltijos tipo) priemaiša;
2. Vidurio Europos antropologinis tipas;
3. Vidurio Europos antropologinis tipas su Rytų Baltijos - Valdajaus tipo priemaišomis.

[papa diddy pop]

Well, Without trolling I promise ,I would say.......I would say......















































































They all look greatly Potato Ching Chong influenced to me :D

[member]

Oh, you are talking about odontological part. Well, obviously facial anthropology reflects regional differencess in a greater detail which I'm interested in (exact odontological differences are not mentioned anyway).

[lI]

No, I wasn't talking only about the odontological type. In that chapter it is explicitly stated that South East Lithuanians belong to the same ANTHROPOLOGICAL Central European type that is dominant in all Lithuania with only influences from Valdaj & East European:

3. Vidurio Europos antropologinis tipas su Rytų Baltijos - Valdajaus tipo priemaišomis.
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/903/lietant2.jpg

Whereas you translated it as if they were only a mix of Valdaj & East European:

This combination formed of two types that predominate not in Lithuania but neighbouring territories of the Baltic region. These are East Baltic and Valdaj types.
It should have been translated as: "This combination formed with admix from the two types that predominate not in Lithuania but neighbouring territories of the Baltic region. These are East Baltic and Valdaj types."

[member]

ok.

[lI]

Look, I wouldn't have brought this up here if the OP here wasn't inspiring factually incorrect statements like: "South-eastern Lithuania, 2/3 of Belarus and parts of western Russia fit in the same anthropological group" when in reality South-eastern Lithuania fits in the same anthropological group with other Liths first and foremost.