The association between mid-facial morphology and climate in northeast Europe differs from that in n

[Harkonnen]

The climate of northeastern Europe is likely to resemble in many ways Late Pleistocene periglacial conditions in Europe, but there have been relatively few studies exploring the association between climate and morphology in the mid-face of modern northeastern European populations. To fill this gap, we sampled 540 male skulls from 22 European and Near Eastern groups, including 314 skulls from 11 populations from northeastern Europe, to test for possible climate-morphology association at the continental scale. Our results found a moderate and highly significant association (R=0.48, p=0.0013, Mantel test) between sets of 23 mid-facial measurements and eight climatic variables. A partial least squares analysis revealed this association to be mostly driven by differences between groups from northeastern Europe and populations from the Mediterranean and the Caucasus. Matrices of between-group genetic distances based on Y-chromosome and mtDNA markers, as well as cranial non-metric and geographic distance matrices, were used to control for the possible influence of shared population history. Irrespective of which measure of neutral between-population distances is taken into account, the association between cranial variables and climate remains significant. The pattern of association between climate and morphology of the mid-face in western Eurasia was then compared to that in east and north Asia. Although differences between the two were found, there were also similarities that support existing functional interpretations of morphology for the bony parts of the upper airways. Last, in a preliminary analysis using a reduced set of measurements, mid-facial morphology of several Upper Paleolithic European Homo sapiens specimens was found to be more similar to groups from northern and northeastern Europe than to southern European populations. Thus, the population of northeastern Europe rather than east and north Asian groups should be used as a model when studying climate-mediated mid-facial morphology of Upper Paleolithic European H. sapiens.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...47248417300921

[Harkonnen]

[Harkonnen]

Most Northeast Finnish midfaces were: Sungir, Cro Magnon 1, Grotte des Enfants 6 and Oberkassel. Especially Sungir and Oberkassel showed very high similarity with Northeast Finns.

Most Mordvinian midfaces were: Arene Candide (Gravettian), Arene Candide (Epigravettian) and Romito 3

Most Norse midface was: Arene Candide 4

[Harkonnen]

Meh I guess this is somewhat related

European Mesolithic groups were characterized by
large dimensions of the braincase and especially by its
conspicuous height. The face was wide and relatively
low and a flattened upper facial profile co-occurred with
a sharp midfacial profile and sharply protruding nasal
bones (Alekseyeva, 1997). In Alekseyeva’s words, this
unusual trait combination, which was more than once
revealed by multivariate statistics, was widely distributed
and was typical of Mesolithic Caucasoids of the forest
and forest-steppe zones of Eastern Europe as evidenced
by groups such as Zvejnieki, Popovo, Southern Oleniy
(Reindeer) Island, and Vasilievka I and III. In her words,
there is no doubt that robustness and upper facial flatness
were inherited from earlier Caucasoid populations of
Eastern Europe (Ibid.: 26). In the joint monograph
integrating the anthropological studies of the Eastern
Slavs, Alekseyeva formulated her conclusions regarding
the origin of this trait combination: “Judging by the
concentration of these unusual features in Scandinavia,
the Baltic and the Onega area, people displaying them
had migrated to Eastern Europe from the northwest and
were possibly associated with the Mesolithic cultures of
the circum-Baltic region. Revisiting the long-standing
issue of admixture versus evolutionary conservatism in
the Mesolithic population of Eastern Europe in the light
of new data, we must reject the admixture hypothesis.
The location of this peculiar type and its expansion from
the west to the east suggest that it should be regarded
as an independent ancient type which originated in
northwestern Europe” (Alekseyeva, 1999: 254–255). In
the Neolithic, biological continuity with the Mesolithic
population was preserved but the diversity increased.
Importantly, according to Alekseyeva (Ibid.: 255), the
population which in the Mesolithic had been quite
Caucasoid despite the unusual combination of the two
facial profiles (flattened in the upper part and sharp in
the middle part; one might add that the face was very
broad and the braincase was very high) began to assume
a somewhat “Mongoloid” appearance.
After the Neolithic, groups marked by the trait
combination noted by Alekseyeva and others seem to
have disappeared from Eastern Europe. This may have
been partly due to the scarcity of cranial remains from
the Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, and medieval burials
in the Eastern Baltic area and to the complete absence
of such remains from Karelia. However, none of the
large series of 11th–17th-century crania from Leningrad
Oblast, Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia too, reveal the
combination described above. By contrast, several large
18th–19th-century Karelian cranial samples very clearly
exhibit precisely this combination, which Alekseyeva
demonstrated to be peculiar to the Circum-Baltic region
in the Mesolithic. The only noteworthy difference is a
larger cranial index and a somewhat less robust braincase
in the late groups. These changes are readily explainable
by the two diachronic tendencies – brachycephalization
and gracilization.


http://www.academia.edu/764235/New_c...burial_ground_

[Harkonnen]

This is also interesting:

[Harkonnen]

Paleolithic Euros were mongoloids

[Harkonnen]

EHGs are closest to modern Siberian populations. Already Coon established this FACT. Modern science confirms Coon's results:

We establish that no cranial data, whether the face and the neurocranium are analysed
together or separately, allow us to recover geographical relationships between the modern populations in our sample. Nevertheless,
clusters that have been recovered with the help of the whole cranium data correspond well with the expected generic relationships
between the sampled modern groups. As a result, we choose to analyse the shape of the complete cranium, where such is available,
in fossil individuals as well. Our results highlight a high level of variation within Mesolithic and within Neolithic populations of
the Eastern Europe and Siberia as compared with the pooled sample of the modern humans from different geographical locations
worldwide. However, a certain structure among the analysed groups can still be revealed. The results suggest that Mesolithic groups
from the Dnieper region have close morphological affinities with each other, while Yushny Oleni Ostrov have a large overlap with
modern humans in general and with some of the mongoloid groups in particular. Neolithic groups are, on the whole, closer to mod-
ern populations than to the Mesolithic sample. At the same time, Siberian individuals show a complex pattern of morphological
relationships which may be revealing of their genetic identity.

[Harkonnen]

Here is what Coon wrote about EHG types

https://theapricity.com/snpa/troeplate02.htm

Ostiaks are Khanty's, so according to Coon Khanty are the population which has preserved the original Karelian EHG physical type. This same was confirmed by Bulygina's modern methods.