What was the Western Hunter Gatherer (WHG) phenotype?

[Domias]

When I was a child, the books about Cro Magnons showed them stronger than modern Europeans but with similar faces (and whites, paleogenetic was not very advanced at this time).
Then according to Bernard Sergeant is his book "Les Indo-Européens", number of Proto-Indo-European skeletons were Cro-Magnids.
Finally, certain sources explain that ANF/EEF weren't so differents than WHG, or at least less differents between them than Europeans and Native Americans.

Personnally I don't know the real WHG appearance but it would be weird than they didn't look like us, even a little, except for the skin color (if they were really so dark)

[Creoda]

When I was a child, the books about Cro Magnons showed them stronger than modern Europeans but with similar faces (and whites, paleogenetic was not very advanced at this time).
Then according to Bernard Sergeant is his book "Les Indo-Européens", number of Proto-Indo-European skeletons were Cro-Magnids.
Finally, certain sources explain that ANF/EEF weren't so differents than WHG, or at least less differents between them than Europeans and Native Americans.

Personnally I don't know the real WHG appearance but it would be weird than they didn't look like us, even a little, except for the skin color (if they were really so dark)

The idea that they were extremely dark is BS. No population is darker for having extra Mesolithic European blood.

[Voyt]

They clearly were not light-skinned (La Braña 1 and Loschbour carry several ancestral skin-pigmentation alleles [Olalde et al 2014]), yet they had caucasian skull morphologies and light colored eyes. What modern populations best exemplify their phenotype? Attachment 89250

Loschbour Man reminds me of the Gypsy King:

But in other reconstructions they made him out to be more siberid looking:



You really can't trust these reconstructions as science because soft tissue can't be predicted that well


This map shows Icelanders as the closest to WHG:



But this map shows Basque as closest:

[vader]

probs my skin color. I get CG heterogenous, darker type european skin allele.

[Jingle Bell]

P. Atlantids and Berids
Medium-Tall, Dark, Robusts and Strong etc . . .

[Marshall Theodore]

Dark Faelids

[nativist]

This is a subject which identifies many of the problems of modern archaeogenetics, being in methodology. The Western Hunter Gatherers are treated as one genetic component, and our minds will naturally presume homogeny therefore.

I want to ask, then, can someone give logical proof for the classification "Western Hunter Gatherers"?

I'd like to see the arguments for this being a proper classification. There aren't many logical arguments one can give on this matter, as most of archaeogenetics, disgustingly, has returned back to interest points, or extraprimitive notions (parasitic aliens who want to advance an agenda [there is nothing wrong with primitivity, but we must understand that others' primitivity will not certainly work for our primitivity.]) But, I'd like to see someone give it a shot. Why no one has questioned this as a criteria is beyond me, or why no one has discussed the methodology for it either.

We'd be wrong to try and find one phenotype for this mythology of the "Western Hunter Gatherers". Worse of all, we'd be wrong to try and create an average composite for these "Western Hunter Gatherers". Suppose I were to now draw all of Europe and Asia into one group, we will call this "Eurasian DNA", and I will now force them all either into one composite, or, alternatively, try and find the most ideal composite and reflective composite of them all. Now, this is not 1:1, there is definitely more distance to the Western Hunter Gatherer samples to one another than to Europeans and Asians, but it highlights a bit of complexity on where we draw these lines. I hope somebody can understand that these lines which are being drawn are quite arbitrary, and I'd hope that perhaps someone can prove me wrong, and that these are infact, not arbitrary.

Perhaps, as a hypothetical ancestral component, I could lend it credence; but as a phenotypical component? That is insane. Already, to assume this as an ancestral component, implies a line which is drawn, that is simply dependent on this strange necessity for varied genetic groups to exist, without any type of actual reflection on the reality of it, besides whatever "fits" (whatever, also, that means in relation to qpAdm [perhaps we can use skeletons instead of twenty, and not just assume groups exist where we don't know?]).

I am not expecting to be right on this matter; quite the contrary! I just hope that perhaps someone can explain this better to me, because now, to ask what the "phenotype" of an already strangely defined group is, is pretty absurd, and now I have realized that Lazaridis' campaign of TOTAL EUROPEAN HISTORIC SWARTHIFICATION has gotten out of hand. These questions should be asked now, as this whole theory, to me, has spiraled out of control.