PDA

View Full Version : What is your cephalic index?



Jacker22
23-11-11, 18:36
I am surprised that this hasn't been asked before. To calculate it measure your head width, multiply by 100 and divide by your head length. It's really not easy to measure accurately so ask someone to help you. Use calipers if necessary. The best way is to measure directly from a brain scan or MRI photo, but I doubt many people have access to that.

Franco
23-11-11, 19:51
I am surprised that this hasn't been asked before. To calculate it measure your head width, multiply by 100 and divide by your head length. It's really not easy to measure accurately so ask someone to help you. Use calipers if necessary. The best way is to measure directly from a brain scan or MRI photo, but I doubt many people have access to that.

I have a McNamara cephalometric analysis of myself but I don't know well what the numbers mean. :rolleyes2:

Kardu
23-11-11, 21:34
The measurements might have a few mm margin of error but I come up brachycephalic - 80.95 :) Although by other index it's still under mesaticephalic limits.

Carlos
24-11-11, 00:39
Oh! I feel it believe that I have voted badly, it might put a tutorial of how to do it, I have not left clear how to measure the lingitud of the head, suddenly it takes me of surprise.

Maciamo
24-11-11, 11:49
This topic is ever popular. We have discussed head shape in many other threads. In summary:

- the dolicocephalic (long-headed) types are predominant in most of North and East Africa, Arabic countries, South Italy, Iberia and Northern Europe. In terms of Y-DNA haplogroups, the strongest correlation is with E1b1b, I and T.

- the brachycephalic (short-headed, broad-headed or round-headed) is most common among Amerindians, Siberians, East Asians, South Asians, Caucasians, Anatolians, East Europeans and Central Europeans. The strongest Y-haplogroup correlation is with G, N, O, Q, and R1a.

The head shape of R1b population varies hugely from place to place, which confirms my hypothesis that Indo-European R1b lineages expanded by absorbing the local female population of conquered regions, and therefore progressively diluting their autosomal genes as they advanced. The same thing seems to have happened with the expansion of J1 and J2, which are brachycephalic in their Anatolian homeland as well as in Iran and South Asia, but dolicocephalic in the Mediterranean Europe, the Arabian peninsula and North Africa.

spongetaro
24-11-11, 18:44
Many bell beaker individuals were found brachycepahlic which means that they came from the east and were not a local West European phenomenon

spongetaro
24-11-11, 18:50
Also what I find hard to link with Haplogroup is the so called Brachycephalic Alpine type since it differs totally from the Mediterranean type, but we find the same haplogroup in both regiosn (except E1b) . Was it G2a? Or G2a+ T+I2a Din?

Ivan
25-11-11, 03:03
The strongest Y-haplogroup correlation is with G, N, O, Q, and R1a.

There is some corelation in HG and skull types, but I would restrain myself connecting HG's strictly with anthropomorphic traits and include more of autosomal genes into this.

Are you sure about G being just Brachicephalic?

From what I know, when using y HG, it could be just as well proved opposite. As you said, Dolichocephalic skulls are numerous in Africa, and I think it would be just as natural in ME too. Brachicephalic skulls are, mostly East Asian, and also I cant see no such natural connection of Middle Eastern, and West Asian HG G to East Asian HGs O,P,N, R1a, but rather their natural connection with R1b.

It is actually well documented by anthropologists visiting Caucasus. G was highest among Circassians, probably much more than today's below 60%. There is little less of G in Georgians and R1b numbers rise a bit, still G being in higher numbers, and lastly in Armenians with much more R1b than G. Here it could be seen how skulls appear more rounded going south from Circassians to Armenians.

I could easily connect R1b to Brachicephalic skull based on Caucasus skull types, and G to Dolichocephalic based on this old anthropological data.

But I do not want to do this, for multitude of reasons.

There is also, quite a romantic feeling, connecting R1b and Dolichocephalic skulls and here, actually, I mostly agree. Were they always like that, I'm not sure, since we don't know where they came from. It might be their own trait - exclusive to R1b, but being common in Africa, I see a natural connection of this skull type to y HG-s and autosomal genes from ME.

I have, personally, also connected most of R1b people with tendency toward being objective in all circumstances regardless the emotional conflicts and overall outcome, a trait I value among anything else. Still, they seem to see down upon Brachicephalic traits and are vigorously trying to differentiate themselves from such. These so called Round heads once defeated nobility in England and probably in France too, and I suspect, are still part of common people of GB, as well as the rest of Europe - World.

Maciamo
25-11-11, 12:05
There is some corelation in HG and skull types, but I would restrain myself connecting HG's strictly with anthropomorphic traits and include more of autosomal genes into this.

Are you sure about G being just Brachicephalic?
...
I could easily connect R1b to Brachicephalic skull based on Caucasus skull types, and G to Dolichocephalic based on this old anthropological data.

It's just statistical correlation when you compare the haplogroup maps and cephalic index map. Furthermore, the brachycephalic types in Europe appear to have come from Anatolia and the Caucasus during the Neolithic and Bronze Age.

I admit that Sardinia is an exception in having mostly dolicocephalic types and a lot of G2a, but that's probably because of the much higher frequency of I2a1 (strongly dolicocephalic as attested by the Spaniards). Haplogroup G is otherwise most common in Anatolia, the Caucasus and North Iran, all places with very brachycephalic people.

As for R1b, there is strong evidence that it was originally brachycephalic too. The Neolithic and Bronze Age people of the Pontic-Caspian Steppe were overwhelmingly brachycephalic (David Anthony even mentions Mongoloid-like features in The Horse, the Wheel, and Language (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0691058873?ie=UTF8&tag=eupedia-21&link_code=as3&camp=2506&creative=9298&creativeASIN=0691058873)).

Ivan
25-11-11, 16:08
Yes Caucasus is more brachicephalic in general. But certainly not to extent for G to be in front of a genetically distant groups such as O,P,R1a... It just looks unnaturally displaced from ME place of origin and much closer groups such as J and I.

Just to clarify myself:

I personally, think dolichocephalic skull is, when not in extreme form, probably more appealing to us, people of Europe, with somewhat eurocentric beauty model. This is not applicable to other cultures such as of Mongols, Huns Tatars... who favored this other form to its extreme following its own warlike skull types, even shaping them to look more broad and threatening.

But for me, and most of people I know, the most beautiful people are certainly not extreme dolichocephalic nor the other one, but just somewhere in between, maybe a just a tiny bit closer to dolicocephalic. This is probably what most of anthropologists from Europe thought about Caucasus people.

I am not a supporter of racial theory, nor anything such. I posted this just for reference.


Racial scientists, after discovering an intimate similarity between the skull shapes of Caucasians (primarily judged by Circassians, Georgians and Chechens, the most numerous groups), went to declare that Europeans, North Africans, Middle Eastern peoples and Caucasians were of a common race, termed "Caucasian", or later, as it is known today, as "Caucasoid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasoid)".


Here is where I think you missed my point. HG G is a rare gene, and when it apears in Sardinia in 15 % or Turkey with 11% ( there are also 3.000.000 Circassians in Turkey), it looks like much and one is tempted using this rather small group of 15% to argue anthropology on behalf of 85% of other genes. I thing this is a big mistake.

As for Sardinia and HG I dolichocephalic connection,
Cephalic indexes map I have, shows I2 place of origin as even more brachicephalic than this of Caucasus, or at least similar, and this is quite true, at least in my experience, and my everyday observations.

Anatolian neolithic expansion with B type in not showing on the map, and it probably had no such impact. Actually this map would look diferent if Russians did not expand south, and it would connect Central Asia, Europe, and Anatolia, and Europe and Asia through north and Black sea, if we follow this map data.

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/troe-map6a.jpg
(http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/troe-map6a.jpg)http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/troe-map6b.jpg

(http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/troe-map6b.jpg)My point is that when extrapolating antropological data for G, it is best to use counties where it reaches its maximum. And there is where your connection fails. The highest G is among least of brachicephalics, such as Circassians, while in much smaller numbers among strongest brachicephalic presence in Armenia. Georgia is somewhere in between moderately B., just proportionally.

So Turkey, Sardinia ... are hardly comparable to Caucasus in terms of G prevalence, and just not the places to look for HG G anthropological connections. Also I would use autosomal genes in addition, to clarify most of uncertainties.

So I agree that brachicephalic type prevails on Caucasus, but among G IMHO is found mostly in its moderate form, still brachicephalic though, so appealing to early European visitors, but can also be found, in smaller numbers, as a strong brachicephalic.

Maciamo
25-11-11, 22:54
I think that we could get a better idea of what skull shape the "original" carriers of haplogroup G (at least G2a) had by looking at the Neolithic skulls of G2a samples from Treilles and Cogolls. I am not aware that the cephalic indices were reported though. Alternatively, we could search and compare data for other Neolithic sites.



Here is where I think you missed my point. HG G is a rare gene, and when it apears in Sardinia in 15 % or Turkey with 11% ( there are also 3.000.000 Circassians in Turkey), it looks like much and one is tempted using this rather small group of 15% to argue anthropology on behalf of 85% of other genes. I thing this is a big mistake.


1) a Y-DNA haplogroup is not a gene.

2) Y-DNA doesn't influence skull shape. Y-DNA can be passed unchanged from generation to generation while other chromosomes change, sometimes radically. The further away a haplogroup if found from its region of origin the weakest is its correlation with autosomal DNA (except in the case of mass migrations with little miscegenation with the indigenous peoples, like Europeans who moved to North America and Australia).

Skull shape is something that can change pretty fast. If one brachycephalic man has children with a dolicocephalic woman, the children will be somewhere in the middle (mesocephalic if the parents' cephalic indices are equidistant to mesocephaly). If these descendants have kids with dolicocephalic people, the third generation will be almost entirely dolicocephalic. I think this is what happened with Neolithic G2a and Bronze Age R1b in Western Europe. The G2a and R1b men had children mostly with local women (as attested by the mtDNA lineages), which diluted their original brachycephaly until their descendants were almost all dolicocephalic. Cro-Magnoids were generally dolicocephalic and many were even hyperdolicocephalic. Modern Western and Northern Europeans, who are the most dolicocephalic in Europe, have rounder/shorter heads than Cro-Magnons.

spongetaro
25-11-11, 23:28
Some barchycephalic type did exist in Paleolithic Europe such as the Borreby type found in Northern Europe

Carlos
26-11-11, 00:27
I have a very fat problem, they have to help me.
My breadth is 60 cm, my length 40, therefore my result is 150
Have I done it well?: am I hyperbrachycephalic?, I do not want, I always thought that it owed to the volume of my hairs, but it is possible that it has been cheating me himself.

ElHorsto
26-11-11, 01:03
Also what I find hard to link with Haplogroup is the so called Brachycephalic Alpine type since it differs totally from the Mediterranean type, but we find the same haplogroup in both regiosn (except E1b) . Was it G2a? Or G2a+ T+I2a Din?

Wild speculation: I once read somewhere (can not find it anymore) that alpinism is not a type but a medical condition associated with stamina, resilience and longevity, which can emerge very quickly due to malnutrition or epidemic diseases. In case that is true, todays epigenetics could provide potential explanation for this effect.

Franco
26-11-11, 01:09
I have a very fat problem, they have to help me.
My breadth is 60 cm, my length 40, therefore my result is 150
Have I done it well?: am I hyperbrachycephalic?, I do not want, I always thought that it owed to the volume of my hairs, but it is possible that it has been cheating me himself.

So your head is rubgy-ball shaped.

Goga
26-11-11, 01:23
Compared to my brother and my dad I've got rather a very 'small' head. Both are also taller than me. I did the measurements by myself so it is not 100% accurate. My head is for about 21.4 cm. long and for about 14.2 cm. wide.

So this means

14x100 = 1400
1400:21= 66 2/3 or 66.66666

or more precisely
14.2 x 100 : 21.4 = 66.355

I'm a male Kurd of Iranic stock and in the end twenties. So my head is not going to grow.

Carlos
26-11-11, 01:34
So your head is rubgy-ball shaped.

Of child I had more head than a cat male.

Fortunately I measure 1.80cm but Not man my head is not so sharp-pointed as a ball of rugby if it was like that would be employed at the circus.

My vote is void, I want to vote again, the vote that it marks in (hyperdolichocephalic) has to go in (hyperbrachycephalic)

Ivan
26-11-11, 08:48
Carlos
I have a very fat problem, they have to help me.
My breadth is 60 cm, my length 40, therefore my result is 150



If I understood well, you have measured circumference not width. Since nobody's head is more wide than long all results should fall under 100. W/L would look something like 0,65-0,85 and that is why it is multiplied by 100 first, so the results come out more statistically and visually comparable.

Measuring width of a head without any equipement is not an easy task, and that is probably why original poster sugested using brain scan. You can do it with two larger triangular ruler parallel to each other, with a help of a friend who could measure the distance between them.


1) a Y-DNA haplogroup is not a gene.

Thank you for this correction. Nevertheless I am sure you understood the point, regardless of this mistake.
It gradually became part of my vocabulary when trying to simplify and explain DNA issues to people in serbian, something they know even less than myself. I will have to improve my English.


2) Y-DNA doesn't influence skull shape.

This is close enough to what I was trying to say. Y dna is certainly not a place where information about skull type is stored. It is clearly autosomal.

I think I will have to learn this skill from you, not to be so extensive, opening many topics at the same time, and stray from original one. I hope this would make my posts more comprehensible.

When I catch some time again, I will also reduce some of my previous posts for this purpose.

Maciamo
26-11-11, 10:51
Some barchycephalic type did exist in Paleolithic Europe such as the Borreby type found in Northern Europe

Isn't the Borreby type an anthropological category for classifying modern Europeans ?

Maciamo
26-11-11, 11:06
Compared to my brother and my dad I've got rather a very 'small' head. Both are also taller than me. I did the measurements by myself so it is not 100% accurate. My head is for about 21.4 cm. long and for about 14.2 cm. wide.

So this means

14x100 = 1400
1400:21= 66 2/3 or 66.66666

or more precisely
14.2 x 100 : 21.4 = 66.355

I'm a male Kurd of Iranic stock and in the end twenties. So my head is not going to grow.

That makes you dolicocephalic, close to hyperdolicocepahlic. If you measured properly you fit in the minority for Iranian peoples.Here are the scientific studies I know about Iranians :

Morphological Evaluation of Head in Turkman Males in Gorgan-North of Iran, Golalipur et al. (2007) (http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v25n1/art13.pdf)

Out of 198 young Turkman males tested, 8% were dolicocephalic, 40% mesocephalic, 42.5% brachycephalic and 7.5% hyperbrachycephalic.


Cephalometry in 14-18 Years Old Girls and Boys of Shiraz-Iran High School, Vojdani et al. (2009) (http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v27n1/art18.pdf)

They measured the head shape of 867 girls and 960 boys. Among the boys there were 7.5% of dolicocephalic, 28.5% of mesocephalic, 30% of brachycephalic and 34.5% of hyperbrachycephalic. The girls only had 4.8% of dolicocephalic types.


In both studies (North and South Iran), the brachycephalic type is overwhelming. So perhaps your ancestry is not purely Iranic.

Maciamo
26-11-11, 11:11
My vote is void, I want to vote again, the vote that it marks in (hyperdolichocephalic) has to go in (hyperbrachycephalic)

I can delete your vote, but I don't think that the forum will let you vote again.

Carlos
26-11-11, 13:40
Ivan
If I understood well, you have measured circumference not width. Since nobody's head is more wide than long all results should fall under 100. W/L would look something like 0,65-0,85 and that is why it is multiplied by 100 first, so the results come out more statistically and visually comparable.
Measuring width of a head without any equipement is not an easy task, and that is probably why original poster sugested using brain scan. You can do it with two larger triangular ruler parallel to each other, with a help of a friend who could measure the distance between them.

Hello, thanks for answering. I have measured the length from the bone of the between eyebrow and eyebrow up to the end of the head and they begin the vertebrae of the neck, the result is a 40 cm and the width 60cm, it does not turn out to be to me difficult to realize the measurement.


Maciamo
I can delete your vote, but I don't think that the forum will let you vote again.

Thank you, really the system does not allow me to vote again.

spongetaro
26-11-11, 13:45
Isn't the Borreby type an anthropological category for classifying modern Europeans ?

Borreby is named after a Danish Paleolithic site

Knovas
26-11-11, 14:27
¿What about Irish and English people? Not sure of their cephalic index in average, I assume it's quite diverse considering the substantial Mediterranean admixture with different Northern European stock (mostly from European R1b's).

I made some calculations for me, and the thing comes out more or less 71 (dolichocephalic). However, I look very Atlantic and that's why I ask.

Goga
26-11-11, 17:02
That makes you dolicocephalic, close to hyperdolicocepahlic. If you measured properly you fit in the minority for Iranian peoples.Here are the scientific studies I know about Iranians :

Morphological Evaluation of Head in Turkman Males in Gorgan-North of Iran, Golalipur et al. (2007) (http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v25n1/art13.pdf)

Out of 198 young Turkman males tested, 8% were dolicocephalic, 40% mesocephalic, 42.5% brachycephalic and 7.5% hyperbrachycephalic.


Cephalometry in 14-18 Years Old Girls and Boys of Shiraz-Iran High School, Vojdani et al. (2009) (http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v27n1/art18.pdf)

They measured the head shape of 867 girls and 960 boys. Among the boys there were 7.5% of dolicocephalic, 28.5% of mesocephalic, 30% of brachycephalic and 34.5% of hyperbrachycephalic. The girls only had 4.8% of dolicocephalic types.


In both studies (North and South Iran), the brachycephalic type is overwhelming. So perhaps your ancestry is not purely Iranic.
It's hard for me to believe that I do belong to a minority of my own folks, because as far as I know all my close relatives have the same shape of the head. Uncles, their children etc. So I do consider myself as an average.

Turcomans are a different ethnic group and the original 'unmixed' Turcomans have nothing to do with Kurds. Turcomans are descendants of the Seljuks from East Asia and Seljucts were Turkic tribes close to the Mongols. The real Turks are more broad headed folks.

Goga
26-11-11, 17:40
This message has been deleted by the poster

Carlos
26-11-11, 23:15
18.5 cm of breadth and 23cm of length. My final score is 80,43 so that I am brachycephalic.

Thanks to Iván for sending to me a small graphic example, which is what had to make the creator of the post and not to give for fact that anyone has the duty to know how the head has to measure itself to know the encephalic index.

Maciamo
27-11-11, 08:47
18.5 cm of breadth and 23cm of length. My final score is 80,43 so that I am brachycephalic.

Thanks to Iván for sending to me a small graphic example, which is what had to make the creator of the post and not to give for fact that anyone has the duty to know how the head has to measure itself to know the encephalic index.

I don't think you measured properly. 18.5 cm of head breadth seems quite high (unless you are hydrocephalic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocephalus)). The average is usually comprised between 13 and 16 cm. Did you use callipers ? What you could also try is to put two rigid rulers vertically against each side of your head (in front of the ears) and ask someone to take a third ruler and place it perfectly perpendicularly on top of your head. This should give you a more accurate width. The length is more difficult to measure due to the curvature of the head. Try standing head against a wall, place a ruler (or any flat, hard and inflexible object) horizontally against your forehead, and ask someone to measure the distance between the wall and the ruler (on both sides simultaneously if possible to make sure that it's perpendicular).

Maciamo
27-11-11, 08:49
Due to privacy I made my face unrecognizable. But this is my head were we can see the shape of it and also my heavy jaw and a characteristic chin. I've got a very 'Kurdish (Iranic) look' if you ask me. My ancestors are from Northwest Kurdistan!


It shows you face shape but not your head shape (profile). Just to be sure, what length did you measure ? Face length or head length (forehead to back of the head) ?

Carlos
27-11-11, 15:40
I don't think you measured properly. 18.5 cm of head breadth seems quite high (unless you are hydrocephalic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocephalus)). The average is usually comprised between 13 and 16 cm. Did you use callipers ? What you could also try is to put two rigid rulers vertically against each side of your head (in front of the ears) and ask someone to take a third ruler and place it perfectly perpendicularly on top of your head. This should give you a more accurate width. The length is more difficult to measure due to the curvature of the head. Try standing head against a wall, place a ruler (or any flat, hard and inflexible object) horizontally against your forehead, and ask someone to measure the distance between the wall and the ruler (on both sides simultaneously if possible to make sure that it's perpendicular).


If it had taken badly the measurements, Ivan was wrong with the graph that he sent to me.
From here I am grateful to Ivan for the inconveniences that one has taken. Ivan has sent to me another graph that I believe it is the correct one.

My breadth is 18cm and the length 18´5cm therefore the result is 97´29

I am again hyperbrachycephalic

Goga
27-11-11, 15:59
It shows you face shape but not your head shape (profile). Just to be sure, what length did you measure ? Face length or head length (forehead to back of the head) ?Hmm, thanks. I measured my face lenght. I looked at the mirror and it is almost the same as my face lenght, but I can't measure it by myself properly. Tonight I will ask somebody to measure my head, from "g." to ".op"

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/1320/0379image.jpg

Goga
27-11-11, 16:10
If it had taken badly the measurements, Ivan was wrong with the graph that he sent to me.
From here I am grateful to Ivan for the inconveniences that one has taken. Ivan has sent to me another graph that I believe it is the correct one.

My breadth is 18cm and the length 18´5cm therefore the result is 97´29

I am again hyperbrachycephalic
Lol, this is actually very funny. But why are you fooling around? Aren't you interested in the measurements of your own body? How tall you're etc.

I know it's useless but I'm very curious and I want to know everything about myself.

Carlos
27-11-11, 16:42
Lol, this is actually very funny. But why are you fooling around? Aren't you interested in the measurements of your own body? How tall you're etc.

I know it's useless but I'm very curious and I want to know everything about myself.


Notice if I am interested that took the whole weekend measuring my head. I measure 1m 80cm. With the years probably I will be diminishing as all, by that time I already will not measure anything, until the last day, then they will be other peoples those who measure me.

It seems to me entertaining to measure my head, but one would bore to measure a shelves.

Goga
28-11-11, 00:34
My head is 19.5 - 19.6 cm 'deep', lol. And between 14.2 - 14.4 cm wide.

So my cephalic index = 14.5 : 19.5 x 100 = 74.36.

So I've got a more average head than I thought.

Btw, I'm going to delete my picture above, because it is useless now.

himagain
31-01-12, 05:35
I find my head to be at the juncture between dolichocephalic and mesocephalic. My Y-DNA Haplotype is I1.

julia90
02-04-12, 02:14
I'm mesocephalic.. or slightly dolichocephalic.. even if in my family we have very different skull shapes (both dolicho and flat)

MOESAN
24-04-12, 17:26
I red a lot of funny things on this topic
so (sorry for my english):
1- physical features can be disconnected very quickly from Y-HGs a) in a small ancient population b) in a big population but with running males classes mating with female vanquished populations
2- autsomal genes do not change too quickly, even compared to SNPs - it is the beings that change of autosomals (more seriously the répartition of autosomals can change from father and mother to children!)
3- brachycephaly for caucasoids seams ahve appeared in mesolithic (about 8000/10000 years fago) - it was preceded by a slight tendency to mesocephaly during the last paleolithic if I do not mistake
4- typical brachycéphaly is a genetic trait and if linked to life conditions it is a response of nature by mutated gene selection (pomotion) and not an "illness" or something like that - ancient anthropologists had proposed a theory based on a lack of 'iodine' selecting men or women that had this gene (or THESE geneS) - it is still to be explained for what I know - but nowaday (1950's) the brachycephalic or sub-brachycephalic populations are found also on the sea coasts and some mountainous inlands are very rich of dolichocéphalic people...
5- the today populations of Europe had almost sure lost 2% in their cranial index compared to the 1930's - it seams to be linked to the increasing of stature
6- I am not sure at all that Y-R1b rich populations are brachycephalic as a majority (even if A PART of Y-R1b bearers can have underwent this evolution (I think to the Alps) but it would signify that Y-R1b is much older in Western Europe that think a lot of people now ?-
7- some scientists have proposed Cro-Magnon type as a possible ancestor to the 'alpine' type, it is not to say that all 'cromagnon' descendants have turned into bracycephalic people - evolution in times of small groups can go very fast for some traits (not for all of them)
8- In Europe, there are some dolichocéphalic regions but they are a few number: (1930-40's):
parts of Corsica (73-74), of Portugal (73-74-75), of Sardinia (73-74) but there is no big region under 76 - only Pathans, and some Arab tribes run about 72-73-74 - Irish people: 76-77 to 80-81 according to the regions, Wales 74-75 to 79-80 (-id-), Scotland 76-77 to 80-81, England 76-77 to 80-81 (last %: Bristol:Celts and Frenchies from Aquitania in the Middle Ages)
means : Eire: 79-80, Scotland 78-79, Wales 78-79, England 77-78 - Spain 77-78, Portugal 76-77, Sweden 77-78 compared to Albania 87-88 and Saami 88-89 (they are very mixed nowaday: 83-84?), french Auvergne (86-87-88)

in late French Mesolithic the IC index was running about 74-75, with some indiviuals about 78 - and it seams that the Neolithic mediterranean new incomers brought IC about 72, that was the rule previoulsy during the Paleolithic... in Central and North Europe 'brünn' type individually well determined was about 71-72 too, when 'cro-magnon' types was about 74-75

MOESAN
28-10-12, 18:54
I add that the limit of brachycephaly in the 1930's in an anthropological sense ("racial" phenotypes controlled on live people), on live, was between 84,9 and 85, hyperbrachycephaly after 90,0 ...
the criteria here are for 'brachycrania' on skeletons (brachy: more than 80) but it indicates nothing about types: for I know, the most of the true intermediate crossings between 'alpine' types and dolichocephalic types was between 78 & 80 for skeletons, 80 & 82 on live (78-80 nowadays) - so CI 80 is more ondicative of mesocephaly than brachycephaly - yet in Iron Age Brittany (Western Aremorica) the means FOR CRANIA was 83 (85 live) and more for so called 'alpine' people (newcomers from Parisian Bassin) and they were not pure nevertheless -
I put here a little post I did not long ago:

Brachycephaly, bones metrics and evocations of environmental conditions :

after a very too confident classical anthropology relying entirely or almost on cranial measures and funny interpretations, we know nowaday the domination of adaptative magic interpretations whose goal is to evacuate any worth of metrics. Science knows apparently the same mods as fashion trade...

some basic facts : Europe SEAMS having known a trend towards brachycephaly since the Middle Ages until the 1900's ; someones saw the origin of brachycephaly in highlands (poor for 'iode'), in Great Europe at least, others saw in this process a general trend without any selective charactere (and without any explication too!) - in the last years, the debrachycephalization seams linked to stature encrease, as brachycephalization seamed linked to a decrease of stature*
--*(Celts of La Tène Period : 1m67 (France Marne) to 1m 70 (Ireland), but Romans (nobility or not?): 1m62 – Germanic tribes of the Great Wanderings period : 1m72 to 1m74 – Bretons of Brittany and Frank or Norman riders from Normandy in the X°C., 1m70, Bretons of Brittain at the time 1m68 to 1m70 – French people around 1880 AC : 1m60-1m62, Swede Recrues same date : 1m68 only (1930 : France people : 1m65, Sweden 1m73)...
Others facts : in an homogenous population for metric measures that could evolve not by mutations but by modifications linked to environment, we can expect a « bell » form for the statistic curve : for, say, a Cephal-Index of 82 in a population, we may expect a curve summit between the 81 and 83 indexes, the curve going down almost regularly on the two sides of it – but when we compare curves obtained for different populations showing very different C-I means, we see that the summit of the curve is excentred to the lowest indexes in the more dolichocephalic populations, and to the highest indexes in the more brachycephalic ones, whatever the period and the evolution of the means. We can see some secondary summits corresponding apparently to other expressions of the crossings and maybe to some « homozygotic pure » indexes...
concerning environment+selection, Western Norway shows always more brachycephalic means than Eastern Norway, though it is in a sea coastal area. The context is mountainous but the population is as a whole living on the shores, so... ? As a whole too, the highest regions of Spain showed (in the XX°C.) the most dolichocephalic populations, the lowest the contrary ;
One can say the acquisition and the lost of brachycephaly can require some time, and it is sure ! And I add that the first apparition of a trend towards meso-brachycephaly in Europe is old enough, dating from the Offnet-Solutré findings (10000BC-8000BC), and the Mugem findings (fewer brachycephalic men and when?) -
concerning the increasing of brachycephalic between Antiquity and Middle-Ages, we have to rely on burying places studies : It is very hard to get a complete figure of Europe on this basis : I add that I am almost sure that the sepultures examined for barbarian Bronze Age or Iron Ages are for the most the sepultures of ruling castes, not the basic population ones : yet the Pompei population (near Napoli) of Roman times was sub-brachycephalic (big frequence of 'alpinid' types) and surely enough was more representative of the whole population of this country;
some scientists seam taking the modifications of means in a same place according to times as a genuine purely local evolution : this bias is found very often ; I read in an Eupedia thread (old enough) a linked old scholar's text that explained with a very striking certitude that the diverses tribes living at antique times in Venetia was showing no modification with time (!), at the exception of a « modest » 75 to a nowaday (1930's?) 85 C-I change explained as a normal common all-european brachycephalic phenomenon !!! Very easy indeed ! No use in searching some historical fact (emigration, colonization, invasion, plague...) to explain modification... when some historic facts can trouble this kind of idyllic picture some authors sweap them as a fly on the table corner... (too few invaders, indapted invaders, 100% endogamy for centuries and centuries...) -
When we look at the cranial evolution in France from Paleolithic to our era, we see different directions and different regional evolutions at different times : a seamingly genuine trend towards mesocephaly 74 >> 76 (everywhere in occident) and after brachycephaly >> + > 82 (in Alps for the most) among cromagnoids descendants, at the Mesolithic period and in Neolithic, the apparition of small light boned « mediterraneans » of more than a type more dolichocephalic (72) intruding among the previous population – in Brittany, stayed at the tail concerning brachycephalization, we see a set of different sub-dolichocephals taking one on another at Megalithic times, beginning the true brachycephalization by the wives mediation at the Eneolithic/Chalcolithic ages, the bulk of men-women brachycephalization taking place at the Iron Ages ; everytime, the propagation (in no mountains zones!!!) appears as coming from East (Parisian Bassin) ; no internal local brachycephalization here ; the rural folk of 1950's Brittany still showed cantons oppositions for C-I as for other phenotypical traits (running from 79 to 86, the most brachycephalic in the eastern « gallo(roman » cantons as a whole – GIOT) -
I do not eliminate the way-of-living-environment aspect at all but I know it can not offer us all the keys of brachy-debrachycephalization ; by instance, a survey on the same(???) departements (cantons are parts of departments, these last ones being more unprecise for surveys) some 15 years later show a debrachycephalization more or less tiny in Brittany, Poitou, Anjou, Maine and Normandy (10 departements of a region that contains 16 but Brittany complete here) with a decrease of C-I running from 0,5 to 2,0 according to the places (someones can be suspected of strong immigration of other french people, others having a faster or slower life-level evolution due to economic orientations and rural emigration) – Here yet, debrachycephalization was associated to stature increase – so the last Middle Ages « mechanical » and not genetic part of brachycephalization until the industrial revolution in Europe could be seen like stature decrease as the result of (agricultural) sedentarization associated with « worst » feeding (less meat?), harder works in pre-adolescence times before the skeleton would have been formed, more short inbreeding... But do not forget that brachycephals was already numerous at bronze-Iron Ages in some parts of Europe, and that civil cemeteries of these periods showed certainly more level folks than the cheftains sepultures of previous times. Keep in mind too that even in an ancient population of 35 Frisian of Leeuwarden showing a mean C-I of 78,26 you find 1 indiviual with the C-I of 88, and 1 of 85 and 2 of 84 compared to 10 under 77 ! Poor bad feed brachycephals or mountain climbers ? In the same family you can find a dolicho and a brachy so : evident genetic background too.
So without any proof, how can we imagine brachycephaly could take place ? The adaptative aspect
can have two aspects : a personal during-life adaptation by plastical adaptative variability furnished by the genome, not genetically acquired and not transmittable to following generations and a collective genetic long term adaptation by selection keeping the most adapted genes : the ones that improve survival in some natural conditions and that are linked to some cranial features, either creating them or indirectly linked to them in the genome ; I see this evolution as acquired and dificult to loose, only by an other selective factor -


What is striking is that in Europe we see a kind of brachycephaly taking place pace by pace (result : 'alpine type') in West and an other type of brachycephalic coming on sight abruptly enough in West and East and Centre, at the Eneolithic-Chalcolithic time :
a Survey about Greece(PANAGIARIS 1993 according to DIENEKE) speaks about apparition of brachycephalic people at the bronze Ages in Greece (Pelopponese), Creta, and in eastern Saka-land (people came from Pamir-Ferghana), excluding a phenomenon by population isolation in Greece proper – some prototypes of a future dinaric type appeared too in central-northwestern Europe about 3000 BC : I am unaware of the precise place of very first apparition of types on this direction ; for some old scientists the first apparition of dinarid types in Anatolia—South-Caucasus is about the 2000 BC or a few centuries before, coming from the Balkans as they thought... I red too that the Kurgan culture of southern Russia showed a majority of dolichocephals, the most of high stature but not all of them (the smallest : some « danubian mediterraneans »?), and too some brachycephals, more on the dinaroid side ; these last types was found also very far, in light proportions, among steppic populations of south Siberia in a considered future I-E population. Whatever people can conclude of it, some of the present day populations of these areas show a majority of Y-R1a (as in ancient times) and Y-I2a1a + some Y-I2a2 not yet detected in ancient Y-DNA (but the story is not closed) : I say we have there an open door, not an answer...
I am still tempted to see in the territory of Cucuteni-Pripolje cultures the place where East Anatolian or Near-Eastern farmers or pastors (Y-G2 + some Y-J2?) mixed with Balkans-Carpathians « autochtones » (Y-I2...? + some Y-E1b « alpha » ?) developping a high standard culture (on material criteria) before getting in touch with steppic tribes (Y-R1a +???).
Whatsoever the conditions that gave birth to the so called « dinaric » phenotype : selection on a certain genetic basis or mixture on an as certain genetic basis, these conditions seam yet to me linked geographically to central-eastern Europe (from mesolithic times ? or is it the admixture with neolithic people ? I have no answer for now... but the metric surveys over the Carpathian Bassin are recent enough : Chalcolithic ? And a survey by R. PINHASI & M. PLUCIENNIK (2004) about mesolithic to neolithic sites in southern Europe and Near-East-Anatolia did not furnish C-I data, telling only that the Khirokitia (Creta) neolithic population showed a peculiar « short-headness and paedomorphic features » - first meso-brachycephals there, but when exactly ???

oreo_cookie
30-11-14, 17:30
dolichocephalic, i assume based on what I know about my facial structure.

MOESAN
30-11-14, 23:02
if correct, a cephalic index of 80,43 is not brachycephalic but mesocephalic:
you confuse or rather has been mistaken by some imprecise text: 'brachycephalic' is said of CRANIA of over CI 80: two observatios: it doesn' t take in account the true europeoid means and it concerns measures taken on dead man crania (bone only)
alive, a CI of 80 would be rather 81-81,5 and in standards of 1930-50 Europe it's still mesocephalic, subbrachycephaly beginning about 84 -
it's true that the ancient crania means were more around the 77-78 in Europe ON CRANIA, before demic encrease of some already brachyccephalic populations (or encrease of the number of their discovered buryings!!!)
today populations seem having lost 2 to 2,5 in their CI compared to 1950 standards, roughly... but keap in mind Auvergne and some french Alps or Jura regions shew in 20°Cy CIs of 86 to 88, and S-Albania (Tosques) 89!!! that's brachycephaly!
just for precision, not mentioning questions of measures

MOESAN
30-11-14, 23:06
Sorry for this answer to Carlos which falls a bit lately! after the long text I already wrote before!

Hauteville
30-11-14, 23:08
My cephalic index is 78 and i was classified as Atlanto Mediterranean in an italian page of anthro.

Angela
01-12-14, 01:04
I don't remember, but I know it came out mesocephalic, which surprised me, as I suppose I conflated "large" with a high cephalic index. (My head is embarrassingly big, I will confess...just like my Dad, who always wore the largest men's hat size...thank God for lots of long hair and that I don't have to worry about balding. :petrified: ) The closest country was Slovenia. I have no idea what that means. (I used Dienekes' calculator.)

Dalmat
01-12-14, 03:37
My CI is 81

oreo_cookie
01-12-14, 23:20
My head is somewhat round, but what's most distinct is the back of my head is almost completely flat, which is something I have seen only in Balkan people.

MOESAN
02-12-14, 13:13
That makes you dolicocephalic, close to hyperdolicocepahlic. If you measured properly you fit in the minority for Iranian peoples.Here are the scientific studies I know about Iranians :

Morphological Evaluation of Head in Turkman Males in Gorgan-North of Iran, Golalipur et al. (2007) (http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v25n1/art13.pdf)

Out of 198 young Turkman males tested, 8% were dolicocephalic, 40% mesocephalic, 42.5% brachycephalic and 7.5% hyperbrachycephalic.


Cephalometry in 14-18 Years Old Girls and Boys of Shiraz-Iran High School, Vojdani et al. (2009) (http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v27n1/art18.pdf)

They measured the head shape of 867 girls and 960 boys. Among the boys there were 7.5% of dolicocephalic, 28.5% of mesocephalic, 30% of brachycephalic and 34.5% of hyperbrachycephalic. The girls only had 4.8% of dolicocephalic types.


In both studies (North and South Iran), the brachycephalic type is overwhelming. So perhaps your ancestry is not purely Iranic.

VERY LATE ANSWER FOR VERY OLD POST

I red not long ago a study aboutcephalic index among populations of Iran. I was amazed by the resultsof these studies compared to older ones made between 50 and 70 yearsago. Not only by the results of measures but by the conclusions aboutthem.
Before the 1950's, the Iran mean for CIwas about 76-< 78 at most. Some regions (a central spot) shew CI'sof 84-85 but the more common means were regions with 73 to < 77plus some regions with 82 to < 84, these last ones in North, that's to say south the Caspian and in South. It's true these means arebased on geographical maps without ethnic specifications, what couldmask some differences.
Concerning ethnic groups, I red theCI's for Parsi in India were about 82-83...
the recent survey of M.J. Golalipour onSouth Caspian Pars(i) and Turkmen females of 17-20 years age found CI82,8 for 203 Turkmen females and CI 85,0 for 207 Pars females ;the first result is not astonishing, see above, but the 85 for Parsseems very high, compared to the CI of 75,0 found in past in Teheran,and the 81,20 found elsewhere, and the 80,8 found among Gujaratis -
this other results, more ancient it'strue, show that the global mean was surely about the 78 when we see(saw) CI's of 75/76 among mots of the I-Ean Afghans, and 72/73 amongthe Pathans of Pakistan...
&: uneasy to extrapolate from socontradictory means – we know already there were geographic andethnic differences within Iran (I don't know the CI for Lurs/Luri,maybe close to first Tadjiks?) - I think the fragmentation of thepopulation in numerous subpopulations or clans is a cause of possibledrifts (small stocks for endogamy) ; left aside theenvironment-climatic effects, in a generally dolichocephalic orbrachycephalic small population (« matings circle ») thedrift is light enough and conduct to an exageration of the dominanttrait – but as I say, IC's of 82 are not brachycephalic, but aremesocephalic in the sense of possible crossing between two extremes –and then a first large group of people about the 80-83 can remainstable as long as the matings concern the whole population, but ifsmall groups of same previous mean population migrate and goeveryone its way, drift can oppose after a few generations IC's of76/78 and others of 84-97 easily enough... and we (readers) don'tknow the way of mating of some clans : endogame, exogame ???
I think even the today iranic speakingpopulation of Iran is not of the very same origin according toregions : someones more autochtonous and I-Ean accultured, othermore steppic ancient Iranians (even the steppic I-Eans are far to bea one stem descendance)... For Kurds an ancient study spoke of 3populations with CI's of more than 84/85 and 1 sub-dolichocephalicbut I've not the localizations.
Concerning environment-way-of-lifeimpact, I very strongly doubt they can produce a change of 5-6 indexin two generations !
&: I would be very glad if thepapers about metric anthropologic would specify some indexes andabsolute measures concerning the ancient populations supposed to beenvolved in the I-Ean story, and not only the personal conclusions ofauthors, but...
+
'borreby' is a recent term of classification (taxinomy), not too precise in fact, BUT refers to a crania found in Borreby village, Denmark if I recall well, - i'm not sure it was Paleolithical, rather late-mesolithical I think - I' ll try to find the correct date -

MOESAN
02-12-14, 14:35
Damned!
I never found any precise date for Borreby's skull!!!
but from what I red it seems this crania is not older than the Eneolithic or Neolithic-Chalcolithic transition in Northern Europe - so not autochtonous but the (maybe crossed with strong 'brünn' accretions) member of early Bell Beakers advance there? I lack archeologic precise works but it seems Bell beakers and other Beakers colonized Scandinavia at these times or very short time after (early Bronze) -
the today 'borreby's types present two tendancies: a more cromagnoid form, with middle-low skull, broad square face with very broad lower jaw, evovled skull lines and weak enough browridges, small orbits, and a more brünnoïd type, with very receding front, very strong browridges and less broad lower jaw, spite it's heavy too, larger orbits - the brachycephaly (limited in some part) of these type adress the question of a crossing or an internal process: but the cromagnoid phylum that produced certainly 'alpine' type can explain the first borreby type - in Norway, when the more rugged more brutal secod type seems dominating, the brachycephaly diminish so... the frist "gentle" type (but robust!!!) appears to me as a fidele duplication of the Hvellinge crania of the same periods in Skane, near Malmö (see peter LARSSON Swede footballer born 1961 Nässjö) -
all the way, all that seems confirming brachycephaly is not too old in Scandinavia and can be linked to external influences, Saami being newcomers too -

Mars
02-12-14, 17:49
I found an old calculator by Dienekes, it requires various skull mesaurements, one of them is the cephalix index, it's 77.5 in my case (mesocephalic). It says I'm "proto-europoid" :smile:

MOESAN
05-12-14, 19:34
I found an old calculator by Dienekes, it requires various skull mesaurements, one of them is the cephalix index, it's 77.5 in my case (mesocephalic). It says I'm "proto-europoid" :smile:


proto-europoid, inded!?!

in fact so a CI can be the evolution of a type (hypothesis) OR the crossing between two very different types but with a predominance of the more dolichocephalic -
I've no proof but after personal observations, it seems to me skulls can take very various and opposed and astonishing forms through crossings, it could prove that more than a genes pair is involved in the genotype - that doesn't exclude that more common forms show very more often in a population, according to "pure" types or mixed types numerically dominant.
so meso or subdolichocephaly can be the result of ONE type or of MORE than ONE type - a diagnostic implies other measurements and shape observations (left aside possible deformations by disease) -
as a whole, on CRANIA, all the means from Paleolithic to early Neolithic in Europewere under 75, the most between 71 and 74 - EXCEPT in the Alps and Jura were roughly some 82-84 were found since the 6000 BC -
the first mediterranean Neolithic men shew as a whole CI's of 72-73 as means, and the so called braycephals of Mugem were fornt-to-rear compressed skulls, their supposed true Ci's being mesocephal rather than brachycephal (and yet we have to take inaccount the terminology for SKULLS where 80 is already considered as "brachy"...
the Cro-Magnon phylum shew a tendancy towards sub-dolichocephaly, with means of 73 to less than 75 - constant enough -

&: when we find CI's about the 77-80 on crania, whe have to examine the shapes and compare the middle element to the other elements: is it an homogenous serie of skulls between 77/80 or only a MEAN with extremes form say 68 to 94??? (it exists!!!)
in SOM late Neolithic there were 'mediterranean' skulls very recognizible for shapes, found too in caves of the southern France Causses, about the 72-73, brachy's about 83-84 or more, with easily identifiable 'alpine' shapes, and , among the meso's, a serie of very "brutally shaped" skulls; named 'sequanian' type:

someones thought it was a naturally mesocepahlic type for its peculiar shapes - possible, but i rather think it 's a dominently 'brünnoid-capelloid' type (remnants of Hunters-Gatherers as among Michelsberg culture) with a slight accretion of 'alpine' or cromagnoid on way to 'alpine', already present on the France soils : my 'borreby-B' in formation??? -
all this to say: we can inheritate our C-I from genetically homogenous or heterogneous sources, and we have to take in account the time or the generation which is ours, to try to calculate the effects of way of life and environment.

Parafarne
01-09-18, 17:59
Mine is CI=84 and my language is Persian. I should do more checks coz its very hard!

aleph
07-04-19, 03:15
My flat head condition resulted in an U-L-T-R-A-brachycephalic head with a maximum width of ~19.2 cm and a maximum length of ~20.2 cm-> CI = ~95. My father in contrast is in the middle of the mesocephalic range I think (he is obviously not flat-headed).

vandalorum
11-08-19, 18:34
what if my CI is 75,2 and head is large 21x15,8?
big head Northern Europe but dolichocephalic = Iberia and Arabian Peninsula

Lemonade
12-08-19, 15:11
77 - mesocephalic

Rico33
30-08-19, 08:37
My cephalic index is about 88.
My haplogroup is G1, but I didn't take the test personally and forgot specifications.

MOESAN
30-08-19, 23:04
what if my CI is 75,2 and head is large 21x15,8?
big head Northern Europe but dolichocephalic = Iberia and Arabian Peninsula

boring matter I know, but:
in the 36-45 period, the most of Swede regions had CI means of 76 to 77,9, the same for regions of Norway, but here with western regions means of 81-82,9,even more - some regions of wales were at 74-75 (total mean about 78,5, like SCotland), and in England the most of the regions means were 76 to 77,9 too - almost no region above CI 80,9 -Spain (total mean about 77,5 like England) had almost the same means for the most of it regions, but with peaks to more than CI 80 in coastal Asturias, with two peaks (today I don't know) of 84 and 85 (!): one in extreme West, the other in extreme East of Asturias - only N-E Portugal and some remote regions of Corsica and Sardigna had means of 73 to 74,9 (total means: about 76-77) - Bedwins of Arabia are rather 72 to 73,9 as a whole, but some southern mountainous regions, in Yemen, had people above the 80 -it's true you don"t speak of northern "Arabs" (Syria, Lebanon and even Palestina) who had very diverse regional CI means -
to verify things is not useless - No offense, BTW. (and todate, these means locally could have evolved).