# Humanities & Anthropology > Anthropology & Ethnography > Guess the Ethnicity >  Guess this WHG

## Aha

This "WHG" is me. I named this thread for one reason - I find the reconstructed WHG man features spooky reminiscent of mine, except deeper set eyes and straighter forehead (overall my profile looks more like Oberkassel CM). See yourself

1. Guess the ethnicity
2. Classify 
3. Guess Y-dna and WHG/EEF/ANE admixture proportion (I will be doing the test very soon)

182, dark blond, blue, mesomorph

----------


## Aha

Neutral expression front and another side view. 





I am thinking whether to post my profile comparison to the Oberkassel  :Thinking: .

----------


## Angela

You're not WHG. There are no WHG left. They're extinct. They're outside the range of modern European variation.

Have you had a dna test? If you have, run your results through gedmatch. They're not perfect by any means but at least you'd know your breakdown.

----------


## Angela

Since Sile seems to have such a strong opinion about this, perhaps he'd care to show us proof that pure WHG still exist in Europe.

----------


## Fire Haired14

EEF/WHG/CHG/ANE or EEF/WHG/CHG(Stone age Caucasus)/EHG(Stone age Russia) or EEF/WHG/Yamnaya(extra CHG for Southern Europe) are better ways to model European's ancestry. I haven't seen Farose islands genetically analysed. You guys are a British Isles Scandinavian mix so your results won't be unheard of. It'd take a lot of research from colleges to learn what phyiscal features come from which ancestors. 

You also have to keep in mind that our differnt ancestors weren't completely unrelated to each other. If you went back 20,000 or 30,000 years they all shared a lot of ancestry. More importantly you have to keep in mind they were both human and there's more traits all humans share than don't share. Our differnt ancestors may not have looked radically differnt from each other like how Greeks don't look radically differnt from Irish. So, there may be no way to call one trait WHG and another EEF because WHG and EEF may have had mostly the same traits. 






> You're not WHG. There are no WHG left. They're extinct.


He's saying he looks like WHGs not that he is one.

----------


## LeBrok

Nice to see you. :) Northern Europeans definitely have more WHG like phenotypical features. I guess they conglomerated more in you than in average Northerner, especially if it comes to bone structure of your head. Though, you have more elongated head, not like the WHG from reconstruction, but often it is the case in tall individuals. With taller height everything is proportionally elongated. 
Regardless of this you will be 40% EEF and 60% WHG/ANE.

----------


## Alan

your looks comes allot more after the WHG portion of your ancestry indeed. But your genetic ancestry will be very mixed as the average of your ethnicity.

----------


## Alan

> Nice to see you. :) Northern Europeans definitely have more WHG like phenotypical features. I guess they conglomerated more in you than in average Northerner, especially if it comes to bone structure of your head. Though, you have more elongated head, not like the WHG from reconstruction, but often it is the case in tall individuals. With taller height everything is proportionally elongated. 
> Regardless of this you will be 40% EEF and 60% WHG/ANE.


ANE is not usable for modern West Eurasians. ANE is split between EHG and CHG-IranNeo. Modern North Europeans have around 20-25% EHG, 15-20% WHG, 35% EEF and 25% CHG. Now there is WHG *like* ancestry in EHG. If you split EHG you get additional 10-12,5% WHG. But EHG is an ancestral component for our case. You could split all the components further down.

----------


## Aha

> You're not WHG. There are no WHG left. They're extinct. They're outside the range of modern European variation.
> 
> Have you had a dna test? If you have, run your results through gedmatch. They're not perfect by any means but at least you'd know your breakdown.


I did not claim I am a WHG : D I am an Engineer Supermarket-Gatherer if you want. I just wanted to share with you guys that amusing resemblance with the reconstruction of the Loschbour man.

I am going to test myself very soon. And yes, I know about various proportions

I know the name of the topic is rather provocative, but also silly and funny ; )

----------


## Aha

> I haven't seen Farose islands genetically analysed.


I am not from the islands. The ethnicity is on for guesses. The forum rules force me to choose some flag, I just chose this one as the one with least population and association (supposedly) 





> He's saying he looks like WHGs not that he is one.


Exactly

----------


## Aha

deleted message

----------


## Angela

> I did not claim I am a WHG : D I am an Engineer Supermarket-Gatherer if you want. I just wanted to share with you guys that amusing resemblance with the reconstruction of the Loschbour man.
> 
> I am going to test myself very soon. And yes, I know about various proportions
> 
> I know the name of the topic is rather provocative, but also silly and funny ; )


No problem. It's just that with new members it's difficult to assess their baseline knowledge about these matters. So, when a new member says "This WHG is me", it's possible that the person might actually believe that.

----------


## Aha

> No problem. It's just that with new members it's difficult to assess their baseline knowledge about these matters. So, when a new member says "This WHG is me", it's possible that the person might actually believe that.


;D I almost regret being so provocational now. I thought it would be humorous : ) 

But hey, the forum is called "guess the ethnicity" and nobody has even started to guess that. Should I start a new topic with less provocative name?  :Thinking:

----------


## Aha

> EEF/WHG/CHG/ANE or EEF/WHG/CHG(Stone age Caucasus)/EHG(Stone age Russia) or EEF/WHG/Yamnaya(extra CHG for Southern Europe) are better ways to model European's ancestry


I see it changes with time. But what is the most informative or correct one? I gather that EEF/WGH/ANE was the most common one a while ago?

----------


## Aha

> You are not too marked as "WHG" I would say; 
> you show a clear 'cromagnoid' component (by instance I think I devine a high placed occiput if I cannot see your crania basis), for me associated with a more gracile types ('nordic' or kind of 'mediterranean' (slight influence on the fleshy part of the nose?)? 'nordic' itself could an ancient 'mediterranean' form adapted to more northern climate; when? where? only bets; as a whole, the combination of your 'cromagnoid' traits (at least what i believe I see) put you even farther from 'brünnoid' types and from your "model" Loschbour, itself very more on the 'brünnoid' type, even exagerated: perhaps crossing with dominant traits inherited from "antagonist" parents? you are closer to Oberkassel type spite far to be the same, Oberkassel which seems to me the same crossing as Loschbour, but with the opposite inherited traits; their bony extravagance could be the result of recent enough crossings, uneasy to prove, we were not living at their times to know their genealogy, or we were very young.
> That said, I wonder if the basis of the two opposite types of bony structure was not present since a very long time, because i believe we can discerne same opposition in pops very far from Europe. So WHG if we want when speaking of Europeans, but elsewhere? Only speculations here but?


Ok, I deleted the Oberkassel comparison above, but will post it again since you mentioned:







As for my parents (if I understood you correctly), the are not so antagonistic looking. They have many similar features

----------


## Angela

> ;D I almost regret being so provocational now. I thought it would be humorous : ) 
> 
> But hey, the forum is called "guess the ethnicity" and nobody has even started to guess that. Should I start a new topic with less provocative name?


Of course not. Anyone who has read the thread knows what you meant now. Plus, now that _I_ know what you meant, it _is_ funny. :)

Unfortunately, I don't think it's quite accurate.

In terms of ethnicity, without having read any of this, I would have said British Isles or Scandinavia.

I think it will probably disappoint you, but I don't see you as some clone of Loschbour, who is indeed WHG. You also have Med in you. I distrust these "anthropological" terms as they are used on the internet, because the definitions don't adhere to any one scheme by physical anthropologists of the past but have been given new and sometimes strange and unsupported meanings by amateurs. If I had to use the terms, I would say you have a lot of "Nordic", but that indeed pre-supposes some type of Med like admixture.


@Moesan,
If you were addressing me, that's a bit of a straw man argument. Where have I ever said that WHG "phenotype" traits (in the sense of appearance) didn't survive in modern Europeans? I have, in fact, posted numerous times on the survival of such traits, sometimes in the context of my own ancestral region.

----------


## Aha

> Of course not. Anyone who has read the thread knows what you meant now. Plus, now that _I_ know what you meant, it _is_ funny. :)


That's great! I am glad ; ) 
As for the extent of my knowledge on the major topics of the forum - I have already read roughly half the forum (concentrating on Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Bronze periods) and currently reading "The Horse, the Wheel and Language"




> I think it will probably disappoint you, but I don't see you as some clone of Loschbour, who is indeed WHG.


Don't you worry, I think my gf is happy I don't look like a clone of Loschbour  :Grin:  





> The most informative one is EEF+WHG+CHG+EHG. Europeans are mixture of four differnt races who lived in Europe and the Middle East 10,000 years ago. Different is a relative word. It has differnt definitions for differnt measurements. By some measurements European's four ancestors were closely related and by other measurements they were very unrelated. 
> 
> EEF: Lived in Turkey and surrounding regions. Their territory 10,000 years ago may have stretched from Greece to Syria. 
> WHG: Lived in all of Europe except Russia and maybe Greece. 
> EHG: Lived in Russia. Was a mixture of WHG and ANE(The Paleolithic Siberians who contributed ancestry to Native Americans). 
> CHG: Lived in the Caucasus mountains. Also had close relatives who lived in Iran. Had a lot of ANE ancestry like EHG. They also shared an ancient Middle Eastern ancestor with EEF which is called "Basal Eurasian."
> 
> A current theory is that all those ancestors were a mixture of WHG and other stuff. They might have all been to a large extent WHG. We know EHG and EEF had at least some WHG in them.
> 
> ...


Thank you! That was super informative!
Are there maps or graphs of distribution of WHG/EHG/CHG/EEF? I have seen plenty on WHG/EEF/ANE, but haven't seen one on EHG and CHG, for example. Also it would have been interesting to know what were their major phenotypical differences back in the Paleolithic/Mesolithic. 

Although I recollect one they did not include ANE, but instead contained Yamna, which is of course much more informative.

----------


## Aha

> In terms of ethnicity, without having read any of this, I would have said British Isles or Scandinavia.





> Nice to see you. :) Northern Europeans definitely have more WHG like phenotypical features. I guess they conglomerated more in you than in average Northerner, especially if it comes to bone structure of your head. Though, you have more elongated head, not like the WHG from reconstruction, but often it is the case in tall individuals. With taller height everything is proportionally elongated. 
> Regardless of this you will be 40% EEF and 60% WHG/ANE.





> your looks comes allot more after the WHG portion of your ancestry indeed. But your genetic ancestry will be very mixed as the average of your ethnicity.





> You are not too marked as "WHG" I would say; 
> you show a clear 'cromagnoid' component (by instance I think I devine a high placed occiput if I cannot see your crania basis), for me associated with a more gracile types ('nordic' or kind of 'mediterranean' (slight influence on the fleshy part of the nose?)? 'nordic' itself could an ancient 'mediterranean' form adapted to more northern climate; when? where? only bets; as a whole, the combination of your 'cromagnoid' traits (at least what i believe I see) put you even farther from 'brünnoid' types and from your "model" Loschbour, itself very more on the 'brünnoid' type, even exagerated: perhaps crossing with dominant traits inherited from "antagonist" parents? you are closer to Oberkassel type spite far to be the same, Oberkassel which seems to me the same crossing as Loschbour, but with the opposite inherited traits; their bony extravagance could be the result of recent enough crossings, uneasy to prove, we were not living at their times to know their genealogy, or we were very young.
> That said, I wonder if the basis of the two opposite types of bony structure was not present since a very long time, because i believe we can discerne same opposition in pops very far from Europe. So WHG if we want when speaking of Europeans, but elsewhere? Only speculations here but?





> If you're Scandinavian this roughly how much ancestry you get from each ancestor...
> EEF: 40
> WHG: 15
> EHG: 30
> CHG: 15
> Percentages vary in each test, but they usually get roughly the same results. Your "Steppe" and "MN" ancestry would be almost exactly 50/50 if you're Scandinavian.


Thank you guys for answers! It is always very interesting how people perceive you

I am from Kyiv, Ukraine. All the generations of my ancestors I know of are from the area around the west bank of Kyiv, on the outskirts of Kyivan Polissya (Polesia, in English) . Plus some addition from Poland

Here are the major areas:


According to the information from this study http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture14317.html, Ukrainians are relatively high on WHG. Most of my ancestors have the characteristic "cromagnoid"-like look.

----------


## MOESAN

> Ok, I deleted the Oberkassel comparison above, but will post it again since you mentioned:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for my parents (if I understood you correctly), the are not so antagonistic looking. They have many similar features


You don't understand what I ment, because i was perhaps not clear enough, it's posssible: I say your are not fully but partially influenced by something 'cromagnoidlike'; when I spoke of "antagonism" I was speaking of Oberkassel opposed to Loschbour which could have have the same two big basis for bones but inherited in an exagerated way of different traits for the same "parents", what arrives very often among mixed pops, after the very first generation which tends to give an "unified" picture, but this "unified" first picture breaks in little bits later, and the more ancient the mixture the more weird some resuits of it at the individual level (not means of course);

----------


## MOESAN

> The most informative one is EEF+WHG+CHG+EHG. Europeans are mixture of four differnt races who lived in Europe and the Middle East 10,000 years ago. Different is a relative word. It has differnt definitions for differnt measurements. By some measurements European's four ancestors were closely related and by other measurements they were very unrelated. 
> 
> EEF: Lived in Turkey and surrounding regions. Their territory 10,000 years ago may have stretched from Greece to Syria. 
> WHG: Lived in all of Europe except Russia and maybe Greece. 
> EHG: Lived in Russia. Was a mixture of WHG and ANE(The Paleolithic Siberians who contributed ancestry to Native Americans). 
> CHG: Lived in the Caucasus mountains. Also had close relatives who lived in Iran. Had a lot of ANE ancestry like EHG. They also shared an ancient Middle Eastern ancestor with EEF which is called "Basal Eurasian."
> 
> A current theory is that all those ancestors were a mixture of WHG and other stuff. They might have all been to a large extent WHG. We know EHG and EEF had at least some WHG in them.
> 
> ...


Jus a word: I was thinking Aha was speaking about its phoenotypic look; otherwise I would not have posted anything because I don't know to read in the genom of people, on pictures as well as on live; LOL of course!

----------


## MOESAN

> @Moesan,
> If you were addressing me, that's a bit of a straw man argument. Where have I ever said that WHG "phenotype" traits (in the sense of appearance) didn't survive in modern Europeans? I have, in fact, posted numerous times on the survival of such traits, sometimes in the context of my own ancestral region.


Sorry Angela if I badly interpreted you post; I did not read all your posts, spite I red a lot, because I have not time to read everything ( I rgereat it) and maybe I don't assimilate nor analyse posts as quickly as others; I agree Aha has almost NOTHING evocating Loschbour, and I explained it in my post to him. He shows more links to Oberkassel, without the bony exuberance of this one;
No problem with anyone, all this concerns only appearences linked to a small part of auDNA; only statistical value, no individual one; what doesn't say I don't find it interesting, as the amateur drawer I'm.

----------


## Aha

I did not know it is possible to _write_ with a french accent ; D 




> You don't understand what I ment, because i was perhaps not clear enough, it's posssible: I say your are not fully but partially influenced by something 'cromagnoidlike'; when I spoke of "antagonism" I was speaking of Oberkassel opposed to Loschbour which could have have the same two big basis for bones but inherited in an exagerated way of different traits for the same "parents", what arrives very often among mixed pops, after the very first generation which tends to give an "unified" picture, but this "unified" first picture breaks in little bits later, and the more ancient the mixture the more weird some resuits of it at the individual level (not means of course);


I understood you. It is not possible to be fully influenced by anything so ancient.
As for the "antagonism", thank you for clarifying, now I understand what you meant. It makes sense





> Jus a word: I was thinking Aha was speaking about its phoenotypic look; otherwise I would not have posted anything because I don't know to read in the genom of people, on pictures as well as on live; LOL of course!


Originally, in the first post of the thread I asked people to: 1)guess ethnicity; 2)classify (phenotype); 3)guess admixture. 
Purely a guess, nothing scientific.

----------


## Alan

Like how children of parents of two different ethnicities can look almost completely like one of their both parents or in many cases like only one of their 4 grandparents. You can and are 100% definitely a mix of the "4" ancestral components that dominate in your ethnicity but can look almost completely like only on of them. Of course it is rather unlikely that you are a carbon copy of Loshbour (which you are not) but you look indeed allot more similar to a average WHG who was more broad face than an average Anatolian_Farmer who would look rather like an, on average, robust, medium broadfaced individual who would have looked more like this average.

29DE58E900000578-3135210-Reveals_Joe_hinted_at_a_lot_of_racy_content_in_the_upcoming_sequ-a-11_1.jpg

----------


## Fire Haired14

To me as an American you look European. You look sort of foreign to European Americans. I think it's probably your style choice. If I had to guess I would have said French or German or really almost anything in Europe.

----------


## Aha

Btw, coming back to the topic

My bizygomatic breadth is 150mm
My bigonial breadth (mandible) is 150mm (with flexed muscle)

----------


## Northener

> Btw, coming back to the topic
> 
> My bizygomatic breadth is 150mm
> My bigonial breadth (mandible) is 150mm (with flexed muscle)


Pfff difficult to measure but my bizygomatic breadth is between 155-160mm.

Ahum now done with scissor: 160mm.

But what implications does this have AHA?


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------

