Phenotypes of Hunters and Farmers

March 2, 2015

Europeans are descended from prehistoric hunter-gatherers and farmers. Here's what we know about the origins and physical appearance of these two populations from anthropology (Coon 1939, Pinhasi 2012) and genetics (Lipson 2012, Lazaridis 2014), along with representations of what they might have looked like:

Mesolithic Hunters had broad faces, dark skin, light eyes and were intermediate between Western and Eastern Eurasians. So to represent them I chose a Uralic Norwegian Lapp that I darkened and gave blue eyes.

Neolithic Farmers had narrow faces, light skin, dark eyes and were Western Eurasian, closest to modern Sardinians. So I chose an untanned, long-faced Mediterranean soccer player from Sardinia to represent them.

Of course, they didn't all look exactly the same. We know that there was diversity and overlap in some of their traits (Gamba 2014). But in general, the phenotypic variation we see in Europe today is the result of waves of settlements by these two distinct types from Siberia and the Middle East since ancient times, and the mixing that occurred between them in different proportions (Haak 2015), plus selective pressures favoring further depigmentation in some places.

Related: Who's Really "More European"?


Samequeen said...

You darkened the Saami young persons face and lightened(?) the Middle Eastern farmers. As what I've seen of all the classifications in your own forum (Anthroscape)that it is not the fact that those differences exist. The Saami are lighter than the Middle Eastern or Levantine farmers, on your classification threads.

Broad face or long narrow face is also something that can be because of the food people eat.

A food with a lot of carbohydrates change the cheek arches to be narrower, I recommend you to read Weston Price, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. A comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and their Effects". Face bones are underdeveloped causing a marked constriction of the arches with a crowding of the teeth.
That is what the "farmers" suffer from, and that made their skulls more elongated and narrow and their teeth had not enough space.

Racial Reality said...

I don't know why you're talking about classification threads of modern individuals. This post is about prehistoric populations, and the ancient DNA evidence shows that hunters had darker skin than farmers, which is why I depicted them the way I did. Also, farmers had narrow faces because they were fully Caucasoid, and hunters had broad faces because they were partly proto-Mongoloid.

Samequeen said...

I've never read anywhere that Hunters were Proto-Mongoloid, that was news, where have you find that?

The persons you show are modern people. A Saami from Norway, and you have darkened him.
I wrote about the food we eat and as a matter of fact Saami people have better teeth arches than people from Farmer populations, especially as those last who eat grain, in bread or porridge, what Saamis don't do, they eat much meat and fat, but of course modern people eat much the same all over the world today.

I recommend you to read the mentioned book.

Very little is known about Saami ancestry, I wouldn't use a Saami as an illustration for your theory about protomongoloism.

Racial Reality said...

You don't seem to know much of anything regarding the subject of this post. Why don't you try clicking the links above and reading those studies I referenced. I don't really care about the Saami and the food they eat. That's not what this post is about. Obviously, I had to use modern people as illustrations because there are no prehistoric people around anymore. And we do know what Saamis' ancestry is, from Lazaridis: intermediate between Western and Eastern Eurasian, similar to Mesolithic hunters.

Samequeen said...

I do know a lot about the subject of this post. I've read works for many years now about this subject.
I have also followed scientific works on this matter, I don't need to be an idiot to understand the development during time of who are from where in this world.

I don't agree neither with you or with some other racist investigator of how people look. We have seen enough of such bullshit till this day.

I don't know why i wrote here on your blog, you are no scientist, I waste my time only.

Racial Reality said...

I don't know why you wrote here either, because it was all off-topic nonsense. I never claimed to be a scientist, but what I'm talking about is real science and not "bullshit" or in any way "racist". You're obviously lying when you say you know a lot about the subject. You've proven you don't, and wasted everybody's time.

Unknown said...

I love you

Unknown said...

Its senseless to attempt to use people today to represent people thousands of years ago, totally unscientific and driven by ideology.

Racial Reality said...

We only have phenotypes of people today available, and based on the genetic and anthropological evidence, the two I chose are the closest possible representations of the ancient populations. The choice was driven by known facts not ideology. But I'm sure your obvious problem with how your ancestors looked is driven by some kind of ideology.

And as for it being unscientific, it's a lot better than what a recent study did, which was draw a picture of a dirty homeless man and call him a Mesolithic hunter.

Unknown said...

MaN I need to clear up many of the misinformation thats floating around here?

For one thing Ancient Middle Eastern farmers had more elongated narrow features because of hotter environment they lived in, and not because the food people ate or even that they where fully Caucasoid. And being sandwiched between mountain highlands and arid deserts seemed to helped in evolving more projecting facial features (similar results happened in tibet, andes and other places).
While European hunters looked the way they did because of colder climate and borealization, not because they were proto-Mongoloid.

Also Middle Eastern farmers were not pure Caucasoids, European hunters aren't Proto-Mongoloids and also european hunters are not originally coming from Siberia or did they live in siberia. plus its bigger mistake for racial reality to call european foragers by the term of "north eurasian hunters." because Ancient north eurasians were a central asian/siberian people who where separate group very different from both middle-eastern farmers and european hunters.

Unknown said...

Anyways terms like "being fully Caucasoid" and even the "greater australoid race" are now obsolete ideas that has no support from genetic science. Ancient Middle Eastern farmers came about because of hybrid mixing between two very different groups in the near-east. And european Mesolithic hunters were an unique separate westeursian group and not some intermediate between both Western and Eastern Eurasian.

and finally both Middle Eastern farmers and European hunters were darker than modern northern european standards. both northern European skin paleness and light hair became more and more dominate in europe only during the bronze age. Also there was some skin color variation between european hunters, like scandinavian hunters were lighter than european hunters further south. and some may not like using modern people today to represent ancient people, but i believe coastal berber north african populations are genetically even closer more to Ancient Middle Eastern farmers than even sardinians. So therefore I don't thing far fetched viewing north-african look being the closest to that of neolithic farmers. And as for what European hunters looked-like its harder to say because they didn't survive well into modern europe comparing to neolithic farmers. maybe a darker versions of kelly mittendorf was the common look during mesolithic europe, but at this point its hard to say, because ancient skulls can't tell you much about the shape of eyes, mouth, lips and nose tip

Racial Reality said...

>>> Anyways terms like "being fully Caucasoid" and even the "greater australoid race" are now obsolete ideas that has no support from genetic science. Ancient Middle Eastern farmers came about because of hybrid mixing between two very different groups in the near-east. And european Mesolithic hunters were an unique separate westeursian group and not some intermediate between both Western and Eastern Eurasian.

There's plenty of genetic support for the Caucasoid race, the Australoid race and all other races. And it's also a genetic fact that Neolithic farmers were Caucasoid (Western Eurasian) while Paleo/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers had mixed Western and Eastern Eurasian ancestry reflecting their intermediate racial status. MA1 and Brana are both very Eastern-shifted and way outside the range of Western Eurasians. They're not Caucasoid.

>>> So therefore I don't thing far fetched viewing north-african look being the closest to that of neolithic farmers [...] maybe a darker versions of kelly mittendorf was the common look during mesolithic europe

Unmixed native North Africans are Mediterranean and often look Southern European, and Kelly Mittendorf is Lapponoid, so I don't see how your examples are any better than mine.

Unknown said...

I have no problem with your picture examples of Sardinian man or Saami girl and I believe you did better job this time around than previously in south-asian example for ASI. I am just saying that certain North Africans preserved Neolithic farmer ancestry even better than both Arabians Or Sardinians(who have good amount Mesolithic hunter mix) in general.

Now I don't believe that MA1(ANE) and Brana(WHG) are Caucasoids, to me caucasoid type basically originated from mesolithic middle-eastern populations and expanded during the neolithic in every direction. And these Caucasoids which equals both Mediterranean + West Asian types do genetically cluster close together and are quiet separate from both sub-saharan africans and east-asians. But calling them a pure race or pure type has no genetic support, because Caucasoid origins shows a hybrid mixing between two very different populations. Basically mesolithic northern middle-eastern types mixed with a southern arabian "basal eurasian" types, which means modern Caucasoids are more similar to mestizo and mulatto populations the only diffrence being the two populations that gave birth to Caucasoids doesn't exist anymore. Anyways basal eurasian ancestry is what makes Caucasoids so genetically unique.

And an unified Australoid race also has no genetic support, because south-asians and native Australians are equally divergent from eachother. Now why they look some-what similar to each other could be because of Convergent independent evolution or the 2nd possibility is ancient south-asians inter-mixed at minor levels with native Australians. If 2nd theory is happens to be true that still doesn't mean they are the same race, anymore than ethiopian-oromo is the same race as person from greece.

Racial Reality said...

>>> I am just saying that certain North Africans preserved Neolithic farmer ancestry even better than both Arabians Or Sardinians(who have good amount Mesolithic hunter mix) in general.

North Africans are mixed with a bunch of stuff too. I believe Anatolian Cappadocians are closest to Neolithic farmers, but I don't have any photos of them.

>>> Basically mesolithic northern middle-eastern types mixed with a southern arabian "basal eurasian" types, which means modern Caucasoids are more similar to mestizo and mulatto populations

Total nonsense. Both of those components are Western Eurasian (Caucasoid). Basal Eurasian is just a lot older. Mestizos and Mulattoes are a mix of Caucasoid and non-Caucasoid. So there's no similarity at all.

>>> And an unified Australoid race also has no genetic support, because south-asians and native Australians are equally divergent from eachother.

Incorrect. South Asians diverge from Australian Aborigines because they have Caucasoid (ANI) admixture. You can see it in this admixture analysis (purple/yellow are Eastern Eurasian, and blue is Western Eurasian). So they're only part Australoid.

Unknown said...

1) I did not say all North Africans, only certain groups like Riffians, Kabyle, Djerba berber and others, And North Africans have miniscule amount of WHG and ANE ancestry unlike southern europeans and Anatolian(Turks) who have alot of it. And all Anatolians are influenced by migrations coming from Caucasus and the Asian steppes from bronze-age onwards, so you are terribly wrong even about the Cappadocians.

2) That Mestizos and Mulattoes being a mix of Caucasoid and non-Caucasoid has nothing do with the point I was trying to make and you even know it deep inside. They were just examples of racial hybrids, because if you are unhappy with them, then I can easily replace them with Malagasy and/or Native Fijians if you like. The point is neolithic caucasoids coming out of middle-east were also a racial hybrid group which is the only similarity they share with anyother racial hybrid groups of history.

3) do south-asians only diverge from australian aborigines because of Caucasoid (ANI) admixture? explain to me so why the Onge(adaman islanders) already have only 50% purple showing up, while the other half is 40% yellow east-asian and 10% is blue west-asian? And if you look at Mala-caste(who have high ASI) in south-india that yellow east-asian element shows up quiet strong as well, which makes no sense because south-india unlike some other parts of india has the least amount of east-asian admixture. Could ASI like that Onge adaman islanders already carried yellow and blue elements even if studies have shown that both groups are very different from both Eastern and Western Eurasians. Also how does this evidence you present show us that Australian Aborigines don't diverge ASI or Onge, because they very different eachother

Unknown said...

Don't you speak quiet abit of nonsense when you claim that mesolithic-europeans were partly proto-Mongoloid, therefore you are implying the other half is maybe proto-Caucasoid? Mesolithic-europeans from what i read were an unique people living in westeurasia and not some partly proto-Mongoloids types. plus them being Asian-shifted is no different from that of Ancestral-south-indians(ASI) or andaman people being Asian-shifted also.

And also what proof do you have that Basal Eurasians are an older Caucasoid Western Eurasian element? Isn't there enough evidence that mesolithic north middle-eastern element was also more closer to mesolithic-europeans(WHG) and Ancient central-asians(ANE) before mixing with Basal Eurasians in southern arabia. And this mesolithic north middle-eastern type is also sometimes termed by many researchers as an european WHG-like type of Unknown-hunter gatherers. If mesolithic-europeans(WHG) and Ancient central-asians(ANE) were both Asian-shifted then couldn't the same also be said of mesolithic north middle-eastern too.

Finally isn't it true that Basal Eurasians were somewhat intermediate between sub-saharan africans and Eastern Eurasians(or all non-africans) genetically speaking. Also if physical anthropology is you thing, then why does carlton coon claim that southern arabia the Basal Eurasian homeland was once home to people more similar to australian/melanesia phenotype or why the Natufians where physically unlike modern cauacasoid middle-eastern people

Racial Reality said...

You don't know what you're talking about.

Neolithic farmers were not "racial hybrids". They were 100% Western Eurasian. They have nothing to do with the Australoid survivals in Yemen, and they're not descended from Natufians.

Anatolian Cappadocians have been used as a proxy for Neolithic farmers because they lack Turkic admixture. I've never seen any North Africans used that way before.

South Asians are a mix of Australoids (ASI) and Caucasoids (ANI). That's why they don't cluster with Australoids, but in between Australoids and Caucasoids. They're true racial hybrids.

Unknown said...

Neolithic farmers were not 100% Western Eurasian, but maybe something like 56% Western Eurasian and the rest made of Basal Eurasian admixture which was quiet divergent on its own.

^ just to give example of what I am talking about, on this diagram model there's an ancient population labeled W that gave rise to both Ancient North-eurasian and Western eurasian groups. Then later Western eurasians further split into two different groups, one group went on to become loschbour and la-brana type mesolithic europeans and while the other a west-asian mystery group labeled Y in northern middle-east. Its seems both the Y-westasians and Basal-Eurasians were the parental groups giving rise to Neolithic farmers in near-east, and these Neolithic farmers then went on to found both modern north middle-eastern(labeled TEST) and early european farmers like stuttgart.

Unknown said...

And whether Anatolian Cappadocians have been used as a proxy for Neolithic farmers before doesn't have much relevance anymore, and mainly because they fail miserably at proving any closeness to Neolithic farmers. And only thing that study end up proving was Neolithic farmers likely colonized westwards mostly by maritime sailing and rarely by traveling by land to land.

^ And as for which modern populations are closest to "Early European Farmers," then that would be Sardinians and even better choice would be north-african canary islanders. while Anatolian Cappadocians sandwiched between the Cypriots and Druze don't even come close. Anyways older finds of Early European Farmers like Stuttgart was found later to carry some mesolithic european admixture, which is why they pulled so much closer to Sardinians. Sardinians always had some mesolithic european ancestry and while canary islanders picked up more by mixing with Spanish.

But as more Neolithic farmers remains were discovered, then many without much mesolithic european ancestry was also found which were pulling them slightly closer to middle eastern bedouin direction. The only modern populations that are closet to Neolithic farmers like koros 2nd neolithic sample are north-africans like riffians and kabyles.

Unknown said...

even in your example of PCs 1 (A) South Asians aren't close to Oceanians comparing to east-asians who are much closer to papuans, and while PCs 3 does show South Asians as being closer to Oceanians it still doesn't prove they are an intermediate Oceanian-group like mexicans are intermediate are amerindian-group. rather south-asians seem to form a tight cluster of its own and are much farther away from papuans than comparing to west-asians who are closer to east-asians in PCs 3.

And if your whole argument is about unmixed ASI being closer to Oceanians then even that is still untrue, because again Dienekes recreated an ASI-zombie showing that ASI as being much distant(divergent) to papuans as they are to chinese(CHB). Now you would never call east-asians an ASI-related group therefore then why bother calling Oceanians an ASI-related people, because when in reality there is only one ASI-related group out there being the andaman onge.

Racial Reality said...

Stop talking nonsense and making me repeat myself.

Basal Eurasian is deep Eurasian ancestry from the Near East, which makes it Western Eurasian:

"The Near East was the staging point for the peopling of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans. As a result, it is entirely plausible that it harbored deep Eurasian ancestry which did not initially participate in the northward colonization of Europe, but was later brought into Europe by Near Eastern farmers."

That's why Basal Eurasian-admixed Stuttgart has 100% Western Eurasian ancestry:

"K=3 reveals a West Eurasian ancestry component. The ancient samples appear to be mostly West Eurasian in their ancestry, although the hunter gatherers are also inferred to have greater or lesser extents of an eastern non-African (ENA) component lacking in Stuttgart. This is consistent with the positive f4(ENA, Chimp; Hunter Gatherer, Stuttgart) statistic reported in SI12, which we interpret there as showing that ENA populations are closer to European Hunter-Gatherers than to Stuttgart."

As for your other nonsense, unless you can post a study that uses Riffians and Kabyles as proxies for Neolithic farmers, you better not make that unsupported claim again.

And you should also learn how to interpret a PCA plot because you obviously have no clue.

I'm tired of arguing with self-hating South Asians who can't accept the fact that they're part Australoid. You're a racial hybrid. Neolithic farmers were not. Deal with it, and stop spamming my blog with your insecurities.

Unknown said...

I would really be interested in seeing a facial composite of Madagascar. They are a diverse population of mixed African and Asiatic people.

lyovmyshkin said...

What about the third stream of European ancestry the Indo-Europeans? Is there a modern population, like the Sardinians and ancient ME farmers, that most closely resembles them?

Racial Reality said...

The Indo-Europeans (Yamnaya) were a mix of "Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer", which is similar to Neolithic farmers, and "Eastern Hunter-Gatherer", which is similar to Mesolithic hunters. So it's basically more of the first and second streams. See the Haak 2015 link above.

Yamnaya are distinct from all modern populations, but sort of in-between Northeast Europeans and Caucasus people.

BigBig said...

Ancient North Eurasians had only dark eyes, thats sort of a well known fact []
and they were caucasoid racially.
Terribly wrong pic

Andrewsarchus said...

The ANE probably looked Asiatic (according to a research paper) and Western Hunter Gatherers definitely looked Australo-Mongoloid as far as their facial constructions are concerned but were very much west Eurasian, atleast the WHGs. But no ASI or AASI ancient remains were found, so you cannot argue what they looked like. Unlike Europeans, who have Mesolithic HG genomes extracted to compare to, tests on South Asians (mostly Reich's labs) only used these imperfect living proxies, the Andamanese groups. The fact that they were first used for ASI, now for AASI is enough to prove how much erroneous these studies can get. And in both cases, they were found to be off the Indian-cline for harboring much East Asian admixture and were kept out of it. ASI itself is a mix of Iranian N HGs and SA HGs, similar to how Early European Farmers were a mix of WHG and Anatolian Farmers. People have used different Shahr-i-Sokhta samples instead of Andamanese groups with success. Ust-Ishim samples were used too. If you model South Asians and Europeans and use Africans and Han Chinese as ref populations, Europeans will be more African shifted, but that would mean that Europeans are a hybrid of Chinese and Africans. These depend on the reference pops.

As for looks of the Meditarranean people (mostly Ancient Farmers), they probably had some Australoid in them, which is why Thomas Huxley categorized them as a mix of Xanthochroi and Australoid, mention southern Europeans have substantial African ancestry. European farmers were racial hybrids just like a lot of ancient populations and most populations of the modern world.

Anonymous said...

The above commment is the most retard comment of all.
*We do not know the physical appearance of the Ancient North Eurasians, there is not a single well-preserved skull of an individual of that lineage.
*There is nothing Australoid in WHG's appearance. No anthropologist has ever classified a European from the Mesolithic as "Mongolian-Australoid". To say that is pathetic.
*Depending on South-Asian population, Europeans are not more African shifted
*Australoid in mediterranean people? Like, from Anatolia? Ohhh boy... not really

Unknown said...

Hey everyone.. Had to add my two cents.

Classifications of humans based on craniometry is an outdated form of analysis. There are just too many environmental factors that impact this, including (as another commenter mentioned) mastication which depended greatly on diet (ex. consistency based on whether food was cooked, carby, etc.). Unfortunately, even though I studied craniometry and have a love for it, it's simply not a reliable method of classification of humans. That goes for many similar phenotypes.

For that reason, when I see terms like Carlton Coon's classification terms like "Mediterranean", "Caucasoid", etc. I immediately lose interest (and the author loses all credibility) because this is a framework that has been outdated for probably half a century.

Genetics is still in many ways an untapped field, and many discoveries are still to be made about the way genetic, epigenetic, and other environmental factors impact phenotypes. Keep a close eye on the findings, and don't get married to any particular framework because we'll likely be rewriting our understanding of all this many times over.

All that being said, I think it's fun to speculate and I don't see any problem with taking a guess at what ancient peoples looked like - as long as its presented as a guess for fun because the layman will not know the difference.


totosafeguide said...

Thanks for sharing. I found a lot of interesting information here. A really good post, very thankful and hopeful that you will write many more posts like this one. Feel free to visit my website; 안전놀이터