Are the different regional phenotypes from 40.000 years of "localized" paleolithic hunter gatherers?

[Caveat Emptor]

If indoeuropeans were homogeneous and created a single group in the Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures (still speaking proto-Indoeuropean approximately 6000 years ago), and subsequently gave birth to the Proto-Germanic, proto-Balto-Slavic, proto-Italo-Celtic, proto-Hellenic etc languages, then surely it would be logical to conclude that they shared similar phenotypes at the time of indoeuropean expansion.

So logically it follows that the different regional phenotypes (i.e. in Sweden, Spain, Poland, Greece, Britain, Ireland, Hungary, Latvia, Italy, Switzerland) are the result of 40.000 years of "localization" among the local hunter gatherers from the upper paleolithic, right?

This would be the most obvious exploitation for the variety in regional phenotypes because 40.000 years in a local environment is a lot of time to adjust to the local climate and environment.

[Token]

Nope, we have Upper Paleolithic crania from all over Europe and they were all metrically identical. The difference between Southern and Northern Europe is higher Yamnaya and lower Anatolian farmer admixture in the north, and this is enough to explain all the phenotypical differences inside Europe.

[Caveat Emptor]

Nope, we have Upper Paleolithic crania from all over Europe and they were all metrically identical. The difference between Southern and Northern Europe is higher Yamnaya and lower Anatolian farmer admixture in the north, and this is enough to explain all the phenotypical differences inside Europe.

But isn't the upper paleolithic CM population of great importance to the entirety of Europe?

Surely this explains Brunn, Borreby, Baltid, Alpine, Dalofaelid/Faelid-Nordid, Paleo-Atlantid, Paleo-Pontid, Dinarid etc

Because the paleolithic hunter gatherer population had as many as 40.000 years to adjust to the local environment and "localize".

Please correct me if I'm wrong but ... isn't this the best explanation ever?

[Token]

But isn't the upper paleolithic CM population of great importance to the entirety of Europe?

Surely this explains Brunn, Borreby, Baltid, Alpine, Dalofaelid/Faelid-Nordid, Paleo-Atlantid, Paleo-Pontid, Dinarid etc

Because the paleolithic hunter gatherer population had as many as 40.000 years to adjust to the local environment and "localize".

Please correct me if I'm wrong but ... isn't this the best explanation ever?

Half of the types you pointed out doesn't exists at all. Yes, Upper Paleolithic admixture is important in Europe but generally doesn't go higher than 20% in Northern Europe. And your 40.000 years figure is not correct, WHG only fully developed in Europe in the late Upper Paleolithic, about 15 ka ago.

[Caveat Emptor]

Half of the types you pointed out doesn't exists at all. Yes, Upper Paleolithic admixture is important in Europe but generally doesn't go higher than 20% in Northern Europe. And your 40.000 years figure is not correct, WHG only fully developed in Europe in the late Upper Paleolithic, about 15 ka ago.

All the types I've pointed out are consistently used by the taxonomy anthropologists on TA Please don't brush them off even if they are inaccurate/not precise - address it because I'd really like to know.

Well okay, 15ka then - whatever - sorry I am not an expert but bear with me. What I basically mean is all pre-indoeuropean populations, farmers, hunter gatherers, all over europe, which have survived and then mixed into the arriving IE population.

Would you not say that it logically follows that such "localized" phenotypes must surely be from these ancient populations? I would say that most diversity in Europe is from pre-IE population which "localized" for tens of thousands of years

[Caveat Emptor]

To me it seems to be like the best explanation ever and I cannot believe noone has come up with this.

This is a genius level hypothesis - I'm unsure whether I should write a book outlying this hypothesis to the world.

I need to be proven wrong by the way before I proceed so I value as much criticism as possible.

[Token]

All the types I've pointed out are consistently used by the taxonomy anthropologists on TA Please don't brush them off even if they are inaccurate/not precise - address it because I'd really like to know.

No such thing exists and 90% of TA doesn't knows what basion-bregma height means. Anyway, the so called 'Upper Paleolithic survivors' are anything but survivors, not more than 1/4 of modern-day Northern European's genome derives from UP hunter-gatherers, does this explains the predominance of broad-faced types in Northern Europe? Obviously not.

Well okay, 15ka then - whatever - sorry I am not an expert but bear with me. What I basically mean is all pre-indoeuropean populations, farmers, hunter gatherers, all over europe, which has survived and then mixed into the arriving IE population.

Would you not say that it logically follows that such "localized" phenotypes must surely be from these ancient populations? I would say that most diversity in Europe is from pre-IE population which "localized" for tens of thousands of years

Nope, it is not. Southern Europeans derives around 20% of their genome to early Indo-Europeans - this figure goes up to 50% in Northern Europeans. The increase of Yamnaya admixture and the consequent decrease of Anatolian farmer admixture explains all the modern-day intra-European phenotypical variation.

[Caveat Emptor]

No such thing exists and 90% of TA doesn't knows what basion-bregma height means. Anyway, the so called 'Upper Paleolithic survivors' are anything but survivors, not more than 1/4 of modern-day Northern European's genome derives from UP hunter-gatherers, does this explains the predominance of broad-faced types in Northern Europe? Obviously not.

So what does explain this predominance in Northern Europe? Is it "just a coincidence" that upper paleolithic hunter gatherers looked like this?

We're to certain extent from the upper stone age and there's nothing to be ashamed of, we should embrace it and be proud of it don't you think?

As you've said it's not like all survived but as you've stated 1/4 is enough to account for regional phenotypes right?

Unless - the indoeuropeans from the steppe and paleolithic europeans weren't that different after all at all to begin with?

[Token]

So what does explain this predominance in Northern Europe? Is it "just a coincidence" that upper paleolithic hunter gatherers looked like this?

We're to certain extent from the upper stone age and there's nothing to be ashamed of, we should embrace it and be proud of it don't you think?

As you've said it's not like all survived but as you've stated 1/4 is enough to account for regional phenotypes right?

Unless - the indoeuropeans from the steppe and paleolithic europeans weren't that different after all at all to begin with?

They were extremely different, as far from them as Natufians. What you doesn't seems to understand is that Upper Paleolithic Europeans were homogeneous from Iberia up to Scandinavia, both genetically and metrically. Could they have evolved blond hair and light skin independently? Yes, but these alleles would not be seem among modern-day Europeans any way. Blond hair today can be explained by KITLG, and the derived SNP has so far only been found among individuals (ancient and modern) with substantial AfontovaGora3-like admixture.

[Caveat Emptor]

They were extremely different, as far from them as Natufians. What you doesn't seems to understand is that Upper Paleolithic Europeans were homogeneous from Iberia up to Scandinavia, both genetically and metrically. Could they have evolved blond hair and light skin independently? Yes, but these alleles would not be seem among modern-day Europeans any way. Blond hair today can be explained by KITLG, and the derived SNP has so far only been found among individuals (ancient and modern) with substantial AfontovaGora3-like admixture.

Okay this is useful information but please go back to something very important you've said - not more (but up to) 1/4 of total genome may be from upper paleolithic right? So surely that explains the phenotypic differences because of "localized" CM / hunter gatherers all over Europe?

I won't accept (I mean there's no way ) that the upper paleolithic peoples could have been homogeneous - surely they adopted to the local climate conditions in Spain, Norway, Greece, Germany etc, they couldn't have been homogenous for thousands and thousands of years (possibly up to 40k years, or even 15k as you've stated, especially in the context of ice age).