PDA

View Full Version : Collection of skulls.



LeBrok
29-01-14, 00:17
skulls on wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils)



Neanderthal

http://www.bjwinslow.com/albums/skulls/neanderthal_skull_100.jpg

Neanderthal left, Human right
http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Neanderthals/Neanderthal-and-Cro-Magnon-skulls.jpg


http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Neanderthals/Neanderthal-Cro-Magnon.jpg

LeBrok
29-01-14, 00:36
Cro Magnon

http://www.macroevolution.net/images/cro-magnon-skull-542-485-45.jpg

http://www.macroevolution.net/images/cro-magnon-skull-350-500-31.jpg
I'm not sure if this jaw looks original?



http://www.boneclones.com/images/bc-093-c-lg.jpg
Cro Magnon from Southwest Germany

LeBrok
29-01-14, 00:40
La Braña 1, 5,000 BCE

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2014/gbhjnik.jpg
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-spanish-hunter-gatherer-blue-eyes-dark.html

LeBrok
29-01-14, 01:40
LBK skull, 5,000 BC
The archaeological site of Herxheim, located in the municipality of Herxheim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herxheim_am_Berg) in southwest Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany), was a ritual center and a mass grave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_grave) formed by people of theLinearbandkeramik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearbandkeramik) (LBK) culture in Neolithic Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe). The site is often compared to that of the Talheim Death Pit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talheim_Death_Pit) and Schletz-Asparn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talheim_Death_Pit#Mass_burial_at_Schletz-Asparn), but is quite different in nature. The site dates from between 5300 and 4950 BC
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Schaedel_Herxheim_01.jpg/600px-Schaedel_Herxheim_01.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schaedel_Herxheim_01.jpg

LeBrok
29-01-14, 01:58
Motala skull from Sweden, 8ky old.
http://www.history.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/cranium-during-excavation.jpg
http://www.history.com/news/human-skulls-mounted-on-stakes-found-at-stone-age-burial-site

LeBrok
29-01-14, 02:09
Supposedly this is Loschbour skull. 6,000 BCE

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-R_BZZam1jlk/Urwk1uI31XI/AAAAAAAACVM/_LI7YcKEdZU/s1600/Lochsbourskull.png
The Loschbour skull.
The prominent browridge
is very unusual for
Paleolithic Europeans.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TOoQa2QJPRI/AAAAAAAAC54/hLYU-7kUkYE/s1600/loschbour.jpg

LeBrok
29-01-14, 02:16
The best picture I've found of Mal'ta boy.
http://donsmaps.com/images29/maltaboyposition.jpg
http://donsmaps.com/malta.html

LeBrok
29-01-14, 07:18
Don't Lochsbour and Motala look more archaic? They have quite slanted forehead and strong eye brow ridges. The hg I2a and mt U trait?

On other hand La Brana hg C6 looks more Chro Magnoid and more modern.

LBK skull, their contemporary looks very modern.

LeBrok
29-01-14, 07:23
Otzi, the ice man 3,300 BCE
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/10/article-0-19378B80000005DC-891_306x436.jpg

LeBrok
29-01-14, 07:41
Do we have Stuttgart man skull, the EEF?

LeBrok
29-01-14, 08:00
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/630/skulls2at4.jpghttp://img238.imageshack.us/img238/4162/skulls1pa5.jpg

ElHorsto
29-01-14, 15:02
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/630/skulls2at4.jpghttp://img238.imageshack.us/img238/4162/skulls1pa5.jpg

The Combe-Capelle age of 35,000 BP is not correct anymore, it is much younger:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combe-Capelle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combe-Capelle)



The famous Homo sapiens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens) from Combe Capelle was for a long time considered to be a Paleolithic Cro-Magnon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon) man and one of the oldest findings of modern humans in Europe. However, in 2011 collagen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collagen) from a tooth of the skull in Berlin was dated with accelerator mass spectrometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator_mass_spectrometry) to an age of only 7575 BC.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combe-Capelle#cite_note-1) Consequently, it was clearly a man of the Epipaleolithic (Holocene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene)).

MOESAN
01-02-14, 00:01
Cro Magnon
I'm not sure if this jaw looks original?



http://www.boneclones.com/images/bc-093-c-lg.jpg
Cro Magnon from Southwest Germany
thiq "cromagnon" is not a pure 'cromagnon':
too large and to rounded orbits and too high orbits, too high and narrow mandibule (lower jaw); the crania only shows some references - very too often ancient scientists named "cromagnoid" mesolithical people of diverse origin, very often crossed with the 'c-capelle-brünn' phylum -
this one by the way presents (for me at first sight at a single angle picture) NO c-capelle-brünn' trend
an amateur analysis

MOESAN
01-02-14, 00:06
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/630/skulls2at4.jpghttp://img238.imageshack.us/img238/4162/skulls1pa5.jpg

i,nteresting - thanks -
as an amateur I would say the Kennewick man seems already slightly on the way to a 'mongoloid' type - (excessively flaring jaws, high orbits, soft frontal lines and anterior cheek bones (always with the risks of misinterpretation due to too lees angles of view) - but the older the skulls the less evident the differences, very often, for modern men -

MOESAN
01-02-14, 00:07
The Combe-Capelle age of 35,000 BP is not correct anymore, it is much younger:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combe-Capelle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combe-Capelle)

correct if I rely on the late papers - but Predmost is very close to Combe-Capelle -all are supposed to be come from FarEast into Europe

MOESAN
01-02-14, 12:35
Otzi, the ice man 3,300 BCE
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/10/article-0-19378B80000005DC-891_306x436.jpg

I thank again here Lebrok for his skulls posting -
concerning Ötzi, when I saw his skull I did not feal it as a 'mediterranean' crania, and I keep on thinking that - I said and I say again he shows features where more than a type is implied and among them some 'cromagnoid' features, on na 'alpine' way (I lack metric measures but it seems more mesocehpalic than true dolicho- or subdolichocephalic) - the skull is low, the orbits retains yet some cromagnoid traits - its lines are very far from the gentle mediterranean eastern types which appeared at Neolitical daybreak in western and eastern Europe (high skull, very dolichocephalic, narrower jaws, longer and narrower upper face, higher and rounder eyescokets... I confess it is a rough analysis because I lack measures and different angles of sight but... Ötzi was a mix where dominated yet mesolithical traits upon more m'editerranean' ones so the autosomlas dominant 'mediterranean' classification deserves surely to be refined...
I have yet some problem with the less 'north european' and more 'mediterranean' classification of Northern Italians compared to Iberians too

MOESAN
01-02-14, 12:37
the only point for Ötzi which differs it from ancestral western Europeans is the narrow inferior jaw

MOESAN
01-02-14, 13:02
there a skull considered by Wikipedia as one of the Hirxheim ones on their site about Hirxheim - it seems different from the other, more rugged, more "viril" - more between 'cromagnon' and 'brünn' even if partially gracalized, very little influenced by south-eastern types??? even the one Lebrok produced is far from being a good example for firts neolithical agricultors if I judge upon these too single photos... but ONE angle picture is very poor help... the LBK of western Germany differed from one place to another I think: some genuine farmers and acculturated hunters gatherers according to places

ElHorsto
01-02-14, 15:18
Don't Lochsbour and Motala look more archaic? They have quite slanted forehead and strong eye brow ridges. The hg I2a and mt U trait?

On other hand La Brana hg C6 looks more Chro Magnoid and more modern.

LBK skull, their contemporary looks very modern.

I agree and to my eyes LBK is not less Cro Magnoid than both HGs. Merely the lower jaw is slightly narrower as Moesan also pointed out.

I find an almost 100% resemblance between Combe-Capelle (France) and Roonka (Australia), as if they were twins. Noticeably they both are of similar age. I wonder what it means...

Thank you for the image collection, it is very useful to have it in one place.

LeBrok
01-02-14, 22:10
Did Neanderthals have canine teeth like Sapiens? Do you think N teeth from post one are authentic?
http://www.identalhub.com/userfiles/image/Wisdom1_May10.JPG

LeBrok
01-02-14, 22:31
Skull and limb morphology differentially track population history and environmental factors in the transition to agriculture in Europe.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23902904
Is there a way to access the whole paper?

ElHorsto
25-02-14, 02:05
Supposedly this is Loschbour skull. 6,000 BCE

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-R_BZZam1jlk/Urwk1uI31XI/AAAAAAAACVM/_LI7YcKEdZU/s1600/Lochsbourskull.png
The Loschbour skull.
The prominent browridge
is very unusual for
Paleolithic Europeans.

Here is a view from top found at Dienekes. Meanwhile I don't find this skull so unusual anymore. Feel free to place this pic to an appropriate place and remove my post if necessary.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TOoQa2QJPRI/AAAAAAAAC54/hLYU-7kUkYE/s1600/loschbour.jpg

MOESAN
01-03-14, 15:43
I saw in other blogs that concerning craniology and bones, the Neolithic period corresponded to an almost disparition of ancient types (archaic: cromagnoid and brünn-capelloid) in western and central Europe: concerning western and north-western Europe I can say it is erroneous; some quoted "neolithical mediterranean" population showed a mix between ancient and new populations (in Spain by example), with some general gracilization, but this gracilization could not conceal the differences of origins; and MODERN specialists found that west-central Portugueses of the mesoloithical period were already unlevel before Neolithic people introgression (I'm glad, it confirm my previous knowledge) -
in the Seine-Oise-marne SOM culture in France (about -2300 and later) you have the possibility to see the 33%-40% remnants of a brutal type inherited from a specific local 'cromagnoid-capelloid' crossing + other types were an 'alpine-like' type and a specific new 'mediterranean' type are obvious and new enough ( chassean << post-cardial) - in Michelberg culture too (a bit earlier but not far cousins of SOM) you could see the same resistance of ancient types- by the way, this SOM Province took over until Wallonia (Ardennes) and Luxemburg-Eiffel West-Rhine region as a whole -
don't forget old anthropology: features are autosomals in a big part! so the mesolithic people resurgence is not so a miracle mediated by females or not...

LeBrok
30-03-14, 05:38
Corded-ware period, Eulau in central Germany. Tested as R1a, presumably L664

http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/116pub905c2tp3ji/images/6-5603e47d09.jpg
http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/116pub905c2tp3ji/images/3-70a99b4ed6.jpg
http://www.academia.edu/649220/The_Eulau_Eulogy_Bioarchaeological_Interpretation_ of_Lethal_Violence_in_Corded_Ware_Multiple_Burials _from_Saxony-Anhalt_Germany

I think it shows more modern skull, with no archaic features.

martiko
31-03-14, 01:08
really interesting, thank you! but I will not dare to dig on my property ;))

Angela
01-04-14, 20:15
One more to add, although it's not a close-up, so I don't know how much you can tell from it. This is a Scythian skull:
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Burialheader.jpg

I don't know how this corresponds with these self-representations by the Scythians. It's sometimes difficult to know if the artists are always using their own people as models, or are copying the style as well as the technique of another culture. The answer differs depending on the time period.

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pic%5CS%5CC%5CScythian%20art_Chortomlyk%20kurhan%2 0Dionysos%20head.jpg

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/images/scythians1.jpg

MOESAN
04-04-14, 19:39
scythian: mesocephalic or rather sub-brachycephalic (uneasy to say with this angle) - doesn't seem 'mongoloid' at first sight - it is a pity we have not several angles for every skull...
all the way I thank the people who provide this pictures of crania

Angela
02-05-14, 16:42
I don't know how much you can tell from this photo, but these are the remains from a mesolithic burial in Brittany. The majority opinion seems to be that the two young women were murdered by blows to the head.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/doggerland/img/02-murdered-women-mesolithic-cemetery-670.jpg

bicicleur
02-05-14, 19:55
they all look pretty dead to me

Angela
02-05-14, 21:50
How profound.

MOESAN
03-05-14, 11:32
playing again:
looking again at the Shkul skulls (Palestine, 100000 BC), I find they show in the same time a) archaïc features b) evident subsaharian features: were these features lost after by our ancestors by the mutations-selection system or were they another phylum without to close relations with us? they seem to me more "negroid" than a lot of East African people of today -

Angela
03-05-14, 18:41
playing again:
looking again at the Shkul skulls (Palestine, 100000 BC), I find they show in the same time a) archaïc features b) evident subsaharian features: were these features lost after by our ancestors by the mutations-selection system or were they another phylum without to close relations with us? they seem to me more "negroid" than a lot of East African people of today -

The answer might be affected by which side one takes as to the dating for the out of Africa migrations leading to West Eurasians? In other words, are we West Eurasians descended from people who migrated from Africa over 100,000 years ago, only 60,000 years ago, or both?

MOESAN
05-05-14, 17:52
The answer might be affected by which side one takes as to the dating for the out of Africa migrations leading to West Eurasians? In other words, are we West Eurasians descended from people who migrated from Africa over 100,000 years ago, only 60,000 years ago, or both?

in fact I insisted too much on the supposed (by myself) subsaharian traits - as a whole it seem now to me it is by far the "archaïc" asec (something 'neanderthaloid') which predominates in teseShkul skulls (a storm in a glass of water?)

MOESAN
02-11-14, 20:17
when I look at Motala skull, Loschbour skull and others skulls of mesolithical cultural communities during neolithic time in Sweden, I see everytime a strong 'brünn-capelloid' trend in them all - could be interesting if we can prove they were as a whole Y-I2 people ???... so the more occidental more cromagnoid ones could have been bearing another Y- HaploG??? which one? Y-C??????????? Y-E1??????? confusing!

Mars
03-11-14, 18:50
Two skeletons entwined (male and female) from Neolithic Italy (5000 years ago), Mantua area. People in the neolithic era were endowed with romanticism
6818
6819

Angela
03-11-14, 19:14
Two skeletons entwined (male and female) from Neolithic Italy (5000 years ago), Mantua area. People in the neolithic era were endowed with romanticism
6818
6819

I'd say a capacity for love and tenderness. :)

Not all that far in terms of geography, at least, from the Etruscan era:
6821

Different skull shapes, though.

Mars
03-11-14, 19:19
Neolithic "Romeo and Juliet" :-) look strongly dolychocephalic to me, it's consistent with the mediterranean origins of neolithic people, IMHO.

LeBrok
09-11-14, 22:04
36-39 thousand year old hunter gatherer from Kostenki Russia. Also known as K14. Y DNA C, mtDNA U2. Supposedly very Cro-Magnoid.

http://i.imgur.com/e3ODI7A.jpg
http://www.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.cam.ac.uk/files/inner-images/untitled-2_1.jpg

Angela
09-11-14, 22:42
36-39 thousand year old hunter gatherer from Kostenki Russia. Also known as K14. Y DNA C, mtDNA U2. Supposedly very Cro-Magnoid.

http://i.imgur.com/e3ODI7A.jpg

Very archaic looking to me...look at those brow ridges and those incisors. Still, is the reconstruction originally done on the skull accurate?

See: Kostenki Man

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_BfC6j03vee0/TB-kaTjTMPI/AAAAAAAACo4/eVUrWmBcl5g/57754564-bbc-news_thumb%5B8%5D.jpg?imgmax=800

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7t4meQzsnBY/TrMu5mGheDI/AAAAAAAAH7I/RXb3Mrd69yY/s1600/Kostenki.jpg

If it is, then his people were pretty "Australoid" looking, and perhaps Mal'ta was too.

LeBrok
11-11-14, 05:47
Very archaic looking to me...look at those brow ridges and those incisors. Still, is the reconstruction originally done on the skull accurate?

See: Kostenki Man

If it is, then his people were pretty "Australoid" looking, and perhaps Mal'ta was too.
Yes, it does look archaic, in old European Cro-Magnoid terms, so are Australoid skulls. Perhaps this is where the artist got his inspiration to finish the flesh. Can we find skulls of farmers from Near East from 10kya to see if modern European skull comes from there? Where this full forehead with no eyebridges developed first. Is it the first farmer thing?

LeBrok
11-11-14, 05:59
These are skulls from Israel, dated between 80-120 thousand years ago. Possibly first exodus of Homo Sapiens from Africa, also possible interbreeding with Neanderthals. No genetic tests were done on these ones yet.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Skhul.JPG/235px-Skhul.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Qafzeh.JPG/235px-Qafzeh.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skhul_and_Qafzeh_hominids

MOESAN
14-11-14, 00:28
try;
the Kostenki crania is more archaïc than our (later or not) Cro-Magnons of Western Europe but as a whole is very "europoidlike" concerning prognathy and browridges:
different from today pure Aborigenes of Australia and different at first sight from the 'brünnoïd-capelloid' features:
his jaws, chink and degree of prognathy are very far from the Palestinian remnants (Qazfeh???) and the browridges are not so strong as in other primitive skulls (look at Loschbour, Mesolithic of Luxemburg);
as a whole a bit higher faced and more robust than average Cro-Magnon but with this taste of rotondity in skulls, opposite to the 'brünn-capelloid' trend: it seems to me the more cro-manoids shew later two tendancies, apart the progressive and more or less complete brachycephalization:
in Northern Europe they seemed stronger, heavier faced and a bit less shorter faced, skulls a bit higher and frontals seemed a bit more receding, less "cerebral" than in South -
as a whole and it could be partly an adaptative trend, South and West became smaller even if staying robust - these differences seen in Mesolithic, with northern forms more massive and slightly more "brutal" as in Oberkassel 'cromagnoid' skull, could explain the differences between 'alpine' (gracilised) and 'borreby' (A) -
as a whole this "Russian" man seems to me at the possible sources of Cro-Magnon' and 'Brünnoid' types, but if true, Cro-Magnon keepS closer concerning bones - it says nothing concerning their respective genetic drift compared to this man's autosomals, IF HE IS AMONG THEIR ANCESTORS LIGNEAGE -
distinct of Australians Aborigenes for I think to date -

MOESAN
14-11-14, 00:31
it's hazardous because I have not occasion to compare seriously but I could bet Qazfeh skulls are closer to Australians skulls ?... all the way more 'africanoid' in the sense of 'subsaharian'

MOESAN
14-11-14, 00:43
Neolithic "Romeo and Juliet" :-) look strongly dolychocephalic to me, it's consistent with the mediterranean origins of neolithic people, IMHO.

dolichocephaly, strong or moderate, was the rule in a ot of places and eras, so it is not a criteria in itself - the brachycephalisation seems having seriously begun in Eurasia about the 7000/6000 BC -
some skulls means of Cyprus in PPN (neolithical without pottery, about the 7000 BC or earlier) were very less dolichocephalic, the survey I red did not give the CI (what a pity!) -
as a whole the Palestine settlements of this PPN gave means and shapes very heterogenous, between (inter) and sometimes within (intra) so... more than a sort of Neolithical people came in Europe - the first apparently stayed only in South-central Turkey and fared by sea very often, with almost only mt-K - other surveys concluded the first Neolithic people of S-E Europe were physically closer to a partly isolated population based around çatal-Hüyük in S-Anatolia, different alsofrom the frist Cyprus settlements and from other subsequent waves of Near-Eastern people -

LeBrok
22-01-15, 01:31
Gravettian from Czech republic. 30-20 thousand years old.
https://www.nespos.org/download/attachments/55672851/4_Skull+with+mandible+P1+anterior+view.jpg
https://www.nespos.org/download/attachments/55672851/5_Skull+with+mandible+P1+lateral+view+dx.jpg
https://www.nespos.org/download/attachments/55672851/11_Skull+%28P1%29%2C+superior+view.jpg

https://www.nespos.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=55672851

LeBrok
22-01-15, 01:36
Gravettian woman, 26,000 Predmosti, Czech Republic.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5303/5602535852_668f194fbd_b.jpg

LeBrok
22-01-15, 01:46
Magdalenian culture, 17-13 thousands year ago, France:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Moulage_de_cr%C3%A2ne%2C_Raymonden%2C_Chancelade%2 C_Dordogne.jpg/800px-Moulage_de_cr%C3%A2ne%2C_Raymonden%2C_Chancelade%2 C_Dordogne.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancelade_man

MOESAN
23-01-15, 16:52
Gravettian from Czech republic. 30-20 thousand years old.
https://www.nespos.org/download/attachments/55672851/4_Skull+with+mandible+P1+anterior+view.jpg
https://www.nespos.org/download/attachments/55672851/5_Skull+with+mandible+P1+lateral+view+dx.jpg
https://www.nespos.org/download/attachments/55672851/11_Skull+%28P1%29%2C+superior+view.jpg

https://www.nespos.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=55672851

thanks for good pictures: very nice and pretty boys and girls!
curiously enough (or logically? it depends on interpretation) I find it is half way between Cro-magnon (SW France,typical) and Brünn-Combe-Capelle - a precise datation (new methods) would be welcome because it could change the notion of crossing to the one of older form undifferentiated (I bet on the first explanation but?... the 'brünnoid' forms are supposed to be came there from East AFTER the genuine 'cromagnoid' ones)
the Brno/Brünn and Predmost regions were supposed to be the meating place of the two big 'phyla' (phylums??) but the dates heavily matter here -

MOESAN
20-02-15, 23:34
Lebrok, have you some photo's of the Magdalenian 'Chancelade ' skulls, from different angles, and have you other 'Chancelade' men or women at hand?
thanks beforehand for good sharing

looking at this specimen, I find it present something which could be seen as a step towards a proto-mediterranian type: still some archaic features but far mor numerous "modern" traits -
roughly same ratio mandibule breadth/cheekbones breadth as 'brünn' or 'combe-capelle' but more compressed, and typically modern 'mediterranian' the beginning of reducing of the inferior mandibule in all dimensions, and broadening of frontal-temporal frontier, frontal seemingly a bit bulbous on this picture - for the nose, too destroyed! -
so a trend towards 'mediterranians would be started in some ligneages of France at this time: upon what older form? not Cro-Magnon at first sight -
from what I red, without clear explanations, some Magdalenians were more ont the Cro-Magnon side: how much of this 'chancelade' form at these times? an early infiltration from South or an evolution on older more ruggish forms of 'combe-capelle'?

MOESAN
20-02-15, 23:35
after some more observation, the Czech gravettian you posted seems to me more on C-M 's side, for a lot of details

LeBrok
21-02-15, 04:50
Lebrok, have you some photo's of the Magdalenian 'Chancelade ' skulls, from different angles, and have you other 'Chancelade' men or women at hand?
thanks beforehand for good sharing

looking at this specimen, I find it present something which could be seen as a step towards a proto-mediterranian type: still some archaic features but far mor numerous "modern" traits -
roughly same ratio mandibule breadth/cheekbones breadth as 'brünn' or 'combe-capelle' but more compressed, and typically modern 'mediterranian' the beginning of reducing of the inferior mandibule in all dimensions, and broadening of frontal-temporal frontier, frontal seemingly a bit bulbous on this picture - for the nose, too destroyed! -
so a trend towards 'mediterranians would be started in some ligneages of France at this time: upon what older form? not Cro-Magnon at first sight -
from what I red, without clear explanations, some Magdalenians were more ont the Cro-Magnon side: how much of this 'chancelade' form at these times? an early infiltration from South or an evolution on older more ruggish forms of 'combe-capelle'?


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jmZUK95Kpv4/T8RjP8DGhXI/AAAAAAAAAO0/vWHLCF8HZMU/s1600/chanceladeskull.png
The nose bridge seem to be smashed, or perhaps in young age, or he/she got disfigured due to some disease?


Here is a great link to beautiful skulls from Czech Republic.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4424854/1/

holderlin
21-02-15, 18:38
Awesome. Just found this thread. loschbour looks hella Neanderthal.

MOESAN
21-02-15, 21:18
Awesome. Just found this thread. loschbour looks hella Neanderthal.

No Loschbour is not 'neanderthal' - he is on the brünn-capellid side of paleolithics, well distinct from the TRUE cro-magnon phylum, and he is very close to other HGs of Scandinavia -
some scholars, not too stupid I think (not all of them are!) notice after comparisons that every big group cro-magnon and brünn-c-capelle shows concerning crania innovations from more ancient patterns, but not the same - personnaly, spite a maxillar apparatus very impressive in cro-magnongroup, the cerebral part seems more "evolved" (at first look) than in brünn-c-capelle: that said let's be cautious when speaking about intelligence -
the brünnoid descendants have all of them a very more evolved faces than 'neanderthal', and more marked cheekbones- and 'neanderthal' facies is itself an aside evolution of older forms of human, concerning face it seems not "centroidal" to me - just opinion

MOESAN
21-02-15, 21:32
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jmZUK95Kpv4/T8RjP8DGhXI/AAAAAAAAAO0/vWHLCF8HZMU/s1600/chanceladeskull.png
The nose bridge seem to be smashed, or perhaps in young age, or he/she got disfigured due to some disease?


Here is a great link to beautiful skulls from Czech Republic.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4424854/1/

thank you Lebrok for kind communication - the Chancelade type seems having left dense imput in western 'mediterraneans' types, which are today still more voluminous than the eastern 'mediterraneans' (noticed by Coon) -
the question is that for Chancelade, I speak here about a lonely skull - it 's why I asked if they would have been other close specimens?

MOESAN
20-03-15, 01:25
About conscient and unconscient agendas, I red a few months ago an observation from a "scientist" telling without laughing that the craniologic surveys have no values for more than a reason, and he saw the proof of it in the fact that some Neolithic crania of Portugal shew very close features to the Ukrainian Neolithic people's crania!!!
same period, same culture, but this acute brained man thought it was not possible to imagine a common origin for people llving so far, the only explanation according to him being independant hazardous convergence: I 've not seen the material for comparison (I would like but I'm only a poor profane) but I think this remark shows considerable prejudice: does this knowledged (young?) man know that the sources of some farmers populations of Southern Europe were from the same areas (not all the same and not always the same types but every set of colonizers send people very far, some by sea to West, some by land through Carpathians to Ukraina... just a point

LeBrok
26-01-16, 19:57
Tomenable brought us skull of Karelian hunter gatherer, tested R1a
https://www.oagr.org.au/source/I0061/
http://s018.radikal.ru/i506/1502/48/187c9ae5ef0b.png

Interesting curvature of the skull, side view, almost one continues curve from back of the skull to the eyebrows. Borders of forehead are not very well defined. It is rather quite slanted too.
Nice teeth by the way.

LeBrok
26-01-16, 19:58
Karelian skull reminds me of Motala hunter gatherer skull from Sweden, though they were hg I2a IIRC:
http://www.academia.dk/Blog/wp-content/uploads/Figur_2_Kanaljorden_kranium.jpg

MOESAN
01-02-16, 01:03
Tomenable brought us skull of Karelian hunter gatherer, tested R1a
https://www.oagr.org.au/source/I0061/
http://s018.radikal.ru/i506/1502/48/187c9ae5ef0b.png

Interesting curvature of the skull, side view, almost one continues curve from back of the skull to the eyebrows. Borders of forehead are not very well defined. It is rather quite slanted too.
Nice teeth by the way.


Thanks!
amateurish analysis of mine: evocating a partly gracilized 'brünn-capelloid' pattern; the flat enough nose bridge,and the retreating forehead BUT with relatively smooth browridge and high enough orbits could point to a 'mongoloid' slight imput: maybe this type would be what someones describe as the Forest Steppes dwellers which became Finnic for a part? Uncertain: the cheek-bones seem here a bit pushed forwards, what would be a confirmation if true, but it's not evident enough to make solid statement.
Notice that some 'southern' ligneages seem also 'brünnoid' gracilized ligneages through the so called 'eurafrican' stage, so the frontier between so called 'mediterraneans' and some HGs is not a so clear cut for phenotypes.

LeBrok
05-05-16, 03:20
2008 paper on Villabruna man(14,000 year WHG Italian with Y DNA R1b1) (http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2008%20vol86/09_Vercelotti.pdf)

He had the same mtDNA/Y DNA haplogroups as me :). They mention he has very similar skull morphology to a individual from Switzerland who was about as old. We also have the Swiss guy's DNA, and he like VillaBruna was WHG. Villabruna's skeleton is very well preserved. They say his body proportions are most like North Africans and his skull is Caucasian.

Here's his skull.
http://tinypic.com/r/6nz8dc/9

Here's his Swiss Brother's skull.
http://www.rts.ch/2015/11/16/15/37/5864567.image?w=700&h=393

Here's facial reconstruction of a much younger WHG(8,000 years old) from Luxembourg.

Stubby nose typical for WHGs and ANE. Still fairly defined eyebrows. Fairly big teeth. Slanted forehead. I would love to see good profile and frontal though.
I think it has a very interesting bump in the middle of his forehead. He still looks like a hunter gatherer and like many northern Europeans today, but not very archaic like some old hunter gatherers.

MOESAN
05-05-16, 22:06
new skull for me:

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/6C87/production/_89538772_89538771.jpg

this one is said being the Villabruna skull:
it seems neither on the Cro-Magnon's side (Arignacian?) nor on the Brünn-Capelle 's side;
quickly said "harmonic" face-skull so # Cro-M, and not so receding frontal so # Brünn-Capelle. Could be closer to the Chancelade model, a more "cerebral-skulled" pattern. But it seems stronger concerning the inferior jaw. Something modern yet. I hope we 'll have profil views of the new skulls we 'll have. The occipital and frontal lines are of importance for me. I think Chancelade was already incipiently mediterraneomorph, a tep towards some modern 'mediterraneans' types, the less 'westasian' ones, the more 'anatolian'-'western neareasterner' ones, speaking in a general way.
Here I make bets, nothing more: this Villabruna skull doesn't show evidence of crossing between the 2 older phyla (C-M, Br-Cap), when Loschbour could very well be one of this crossing results. So Villabruna could be a new phylum, with surely the same more ancient ancestors, but splitted from them since already a long enough time, and isolated for a time from the crossings which could have taken place between S-W France and Czechia.
???

Angela
05-05-16, 23:09
new skull for me:

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/6C87/production/_89538772_89538771.jpg

this one is said being the Villabruna skull:
it seems neither on the Cro-Magnon's side (Arignacian?) nor on the Brünn-Capelle 's side;
quickly said "harmonic" face-skull so # Cro-M, and not so receding frontal so # Brünn-Capelle. Could be closer to the Chancelade model, a more "cerebral-skulled" pattern. But it seems stronger concerning the inferior jaw. Something modern yet. I hope we 'll have profil views of the new skulls we 'll have. The occipital and frontal lines are of importance for me. I think Chancelade was already incipiently mediterraneomorph, a tep towards some modern 'mediterraneans' types, the less 'westasian' ones, the more 'anatolian'-'western neareasterner' ones, speaking in a general way.
Here I make bets, nothing more: this Villabruna skull doesn't show evidence of crossing between the 2 older phyla (C-M, Br-Cap), when Loschbour could very well be one of this crossing results. So Villabruna could be a new phylum, with surely the same more ancient ancestors, but splitted from them since already a long enough time, and isolated for a time from the crossings which could have taken place between S-W France and Czechia.
???

As Fire-Haired pointed out in the thread about the Fu et al paper, the original study of the find described the head as "Caucasoid". They also provide a picture from the side. I hope the attachment function doesn't act up on me.

Click to enlarge.

7717

7718

I do see what you mean about it being more "modern" looking. Given what they're saying in Fu et al, a more "southern European", partly Mediterranean look would make sense.

Here's the paper to which Fire-Haired linked and from which the pictures come:
http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2008%20vol86/09_Vercelotti.pdf

"The Late Upper Paleolithic burial Villabruna 1 (Val Cismon, Belluno, Italy), directly dated to about 14,000 years ago (calibrated chronology), includes a well preserved skeleton accompanied by grave goods and covered with painted stones. The skeleton belongs to an adult male, about twenty-five years old, characterized by a relatively tall stature for the time period, short trunk and more linear body proportions than its contemporaries, similar to those of recent North-African populations. Multivariate statistical analysis of craniofacial characteristics place Villabruna 1 close to Le Bichon 1, a geographically and chronologically nearby specimen, suggesting genetic affinity among the last hunter and gatherers from the alpine region... Whereas the information on dietary habits drawn from dental wear is not conclusive, stable isotopes analysis points to a terrestrially based diet rich in animal proteins. Biomechanical study of major long bones indicates heightened overall robusticity and marked humeral asymmetry. These results suggest intense unimanual activity, possibly linked to repeated throwing movements in hunting, and the combined effect of mobile lifestyle and mountainous terrain, as far as the femur is concerned. Paleopathological analysis did not reveal signs of any major event which might help identify a possible cause of death. However, macroscopic and radiographic examination of the skull reveals traces of porotic hyperostosis, indicative of a healed anemic condition. Finally, localized tibial periostitis, probably of traumatic origin, and lumbar hyperlordosis associated with deformations of vertebral bodies and L5 spondylolysis provide evidence of additional, minor, pathological changes."

Height was about 168.2cm. "According to Formicola and Giannecchini (1999), the average stature of the European LUP males is about 165.6 cm (SD = 3.5). Consequently, the estimate obtained for Villabruna 1 falls within the upper part of the range of its contemporaries."

"Intralimb indices of Villabruna 1 (RL/HL; TL/FL) provide values similar to those of the North African sample and intermediate between those exhibited by Sub-Saharan and European populations."

There's lots of graphs and charts of comparisons which I'm sure will make more sense to you than to me.

Fwiw, one of the charts in the Fu et al paper has Loschbour as 85% Villabruna, but Bichon is 100% Villabruna.

LeBrok
06-05-16, 03:06
Stubby nose typical for WHGs and ANE. Still fairly defined eyebrows. Fairly big teeth. Slanted forehead. I would love to see good profile and frontal though.
I think it has a very interesting bump in the middle of his forehead. He still looks like a hunter gatherer and like many northern Europeans today, but not very archaic like some old hunter gatherers.
His forehead is not that much slanted like Northern type of WHG.

MOESAN
06-05-16, 13:56
As Fire-Haired pointed out in the thread about the Fu et al paper, the original study of the find described the head as "Caucasoid". They also provide a picture from the side. I hope the attachment function doesn't act up on me.

Click to enlarge.

7717

7718

I do see what you mean about it being more "modern" looking. Given what they're saying in Fu et al, a more "southern European", partly Mediterranean look would make sense.

Here's the paper to which Fire-Haired linked and from which the pictures come:
http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2008%20vol86/09_Vercelotti.pdf

"The Late Upper Paleolithic burial Villabruna 1 (Val Cismon, Belluno, Italy), directly dated to about 14,000 years ago (calibrated chronology), includes a well preserved skeleton accompanied by grave goods and covered with painted stones. The skeleton belongs to an adult male, about twenty-five years old, characterized by a relatively tall stature for the time period, short trunk and more linear body proportions than its contemporaries, similar to those of recent North-African populations. Multivariate statistical analysis of craniofacial characteristics place Villabruna 1 close to Le Bichon 1, a geographically and chronologically nearby specimen, suggesting genetic affinity among the last hunter and gatherers from the alpine region... Whereas the information on dietary habits drawn from dental wear is not conclusive, stable isotopes analysis points to a terrestrially based diet rich in animal proteins. Biomechanical study of major long bones indicates heightened overall robusticity and marked humeral asymmetry. These results suggest intense unimanual activity, possibly linked to repeated throwing movements in hunting, and the combined effect of mobile lifestyle and mountainous terrain, as far as the femur is concerned. Paleopathological analysis did not reveal signs of any major event which might help identify a possible cause of death. However, macroscopic and radiographic examination of the skull reveals traces of porotic hyperostosis, indicative of a healed anemic condition. Finally, localized tibial periostitis, probably of traumatic origin, and lumbar hyperlordosis associated with deformations of vertebral bodies and L5 spondylolysis provide evidence of additional, minor, pathological changes."

Height was about 168.2cm. "According to Formicola and Giannecchini (1999), the average stature of the European LUP males is about 165.6 cm (SD = 3.5). Consequently, the estimate obtained for Villabruna 1 falls within the upper part of the range of its contemporaries."

"Intralimb indices of Villabruna 1 (RL/HL; TL/FL) provide values similar to those of the North African sample and intermediate between those exhibited by Sub-Saharan and European populations."

There's lots of graphs and charts of comparisons which I'm sure will make more sense to you than to me.

Fwiw, one of the charts in the Fu et al paper has Loschbour as 85% Villabruna, but Bichon is 100% Villabruna.


Thanks Angela, I'm very glad.
'mediterranean'? in what sense?
1- North Africans of what period and regions? They are/were far to be homogenous, for crnaia or for body
It seems to me a basic modern eurasian, with a frontal that separates him definetly from the Brünn/Capelle phylum (Y-IJ?). His skull is low enough. Hs body proportions could put him in the ascendance of some 'nordics' and robust 'mediterranean'; the skull does not place him too close to the new 'mediterranean' types (even the high statured ones of North Africa) were very higher skulled (proportionally speaking).
Here I suppose: it could be a refined form of a not too speciliazed branch as opposed to Cromagnoids and Brünnoids. By the way it's the first so "modern" type I see (as a profan) so early in Europe and it doesn't confirm at all the metric means of Italy Mesolithic (but means are means, I never saw these mesolithic italian skulls in picture).
In France maybe we have a relatively "modern" skull with Chancelade (already something 'mediterraneanlike') but is jaw seems by far weaker than the Villabruna 's one.

&: ancestral 'mediterraneans' were surely closer to ancestral 'nordics' and I don't see their origin in early paleolithic Europe; COON was not wrong, perhaps?
somewhere in South Ukraina-Russia at first??? Or in Eastern Mediterranea before later evolutions splitting the group into pre-med and pre-nordic??? they lack the common hyper-gracilization of future 'meds' and the nasal bridge evolution of future North-Near-Easterners-West-Asians...). They had not the incipient 'brünnoid' imput as West-Asians.
???

MOESAN
08-05-16, 23:22
It could be a proxi for the 'ancient mediterranean' / 'cromagnoid mediterranean' of the french CHARLES about Eneolithic (so recent enough times): I wrote quickly. NOw I *see his cheekbones are relatively broad, spite his jaw is strong but very narrower. CHARLES considered his type was no more homegenous concerning faces, youngs and females presenting the most often an evolution towards face narrowing and that more often among the eastern ones (Italy, Greece), when the skull itself and orbits proportions were always very close to old Cro-Magnon types. I don' know what to say, perhaps we have here an explanation of progressive narrowing of face (jaw at first) in Western Cro-Ma's supposed descendants: a types of same ancient origin but stayed in East Med and without the inferior jaw broading accentued evolution of other cousins like typical Cro-Magnons? I would rather suppose they arrived very later from farther East than first Cro-Ma's. and mixed with them later too, giving this jaw narrowing pseudo-evolution among Western Eneolithic 'cromagnoid mediterraneans' of CHARLES. Now I speak here of 2 skulls (14000 BC Italy and Switzerland) what is very very few indeed! They could have been isolated mobile outsiders.

Angela
14-05-16, 20:25
It could be a proxi for the 'ancient mediterranean' / 'cromagnoid mediterranean' of the french CHARLES about Eneolithic (so recent enough times): I wrote quickly. NOw I *see his cheekbones are relatively broad, spite his jaw is strong but very narrower. CHARLES considered his type was no more homegenous concerning faces, youngs and females presenting the most often an evolution towards face narrowing and that more often among the eastern ones (Italy, Greece), when the skull itself and orbits proportions were always very close to old Cro-Magnon types. I don' know what to say, perhaps we have here an explanation of progressive narrowing of face (jaw at first) in Western Cro-Ma's supposed descendants: a types of same ancient origin but stayed in East Med and without the inferior jaw broading accentued evolution of other cousins like typical Cro-Magnons? I would rather suppose they arrived very later from farther East than first Cro-Ma's. and mixed with them later too, giving this jaw narrowing pseudo-evolution among Western Eneolithic 'cromagnoid mediterraneans' of CHARLES. Now I speak here of 2 skulls (14000 BC Italy and Switzerland) what is very very few indeed! They could have been isolated mobile outsiders.

Except that genetically, if this paper is correct, this is the group who replaced in large measure the prior inhabitants of Europe.

Anyway, this is "Il Principe", from the Arene Candide, dated to 23, 500 YBP, so much earlier and a different culture, Gravettian versus Epigravettian. How do you think it compares to the Vestonice Gravettian skulls?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/86/b3/19/86b319817c68086f3249e8d88ae77668.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/86/b3/19/86b319817c68086f3249e8d88ae77668.jpg

MOESAN
15-05-16, 12:24
I don't know what to answer about just a profil sight and with measures taken by professionals - at first sight he (she?) looks more 'cromagnoid' than 'brünnoid' concerning crania - So this is a game for me more than anthing. I consider metrics is serious even on the genetic aspect. But the evolution speed for diverse genetic traits, phoenotypic ones among them, is nt always the same; and crossings can provide big differences for some of the phoenotypical traits among individuals which are not by force reflected in the whole autosomes picture.
I think the western 'cro-magnon' type was rather typical of the Aurignacian, and the 'brünn' or 'combe-capelle' ones rather typical for the Gravettian: amateur statement.
I think too that after the LGM, in West, the crossings became to produce the variated picture of Mesolithic people there. I have to put my slow brain at work to try to provide more reasoning about the possible filiation and relations of all these types of Late Paleo/Mesolithic, always for the amateur's fun.
All the way, the 2 big types of Late Paleo are very too different IN ALL ASPECTS to be a recent forking, for I think; and the one I consider more recent IN WEST EURASIA (''brunn & co') did not erase completely the precedent ones concerning pheonotype whatever occurred concerning males haplos. I see just that the more or less pseudo-negroid form of 'grimaldi' did not appear among the pictures I saw inthese thread but?
Just guess.
Good sunday

MOESAN
15-05-16, 12:28
erratum ..."without measures taken by ..."

Cato
25-09-16, 20:08
Early Roman skulls from the Roman Forum

8043

North Italian neolithic skull

8044

(click to zoom)

Angela
25-09-16, 20:30
Stop posting random, no doubt cherry picked pictures. This isn't either theapricity or italicroots. Or perhaps italicroots is too southern Italian for a northern Italian Padanist??

If you're going to post at all, link to the study from which it comes, and provide dates, measurements etc.

Cato
25-09-16, 20:47
???

actually i'm not registred on those fora you mentioned. The pictures are not "cherry-picked", i thought they were interesting..

source:
NOTIZIE DEGLI SCAVI DI ANTICHITÀ, 1906
I resti scheletrici umani provenienti dalle stazioni trentine del Neo-eneolitico e dell'Età del Bronzo, 1967.

you can find the pdf online

LeBrok
25-09-16, 23:12
Early Roman skulls from the Roman Forum

8043

North Italian neolithic skull

8044

(click to zoom)
If these are good proxies for their contemporaries, then Neolithic farmers in Northern Italy were dolicho and the invaders IE Romans were brachio.

MOESAN
30-09-16, 13:04
@Angela
O don't know why you seem a bit upset by this posting of skulls: it's the thread aim; and they are referenced for place and time;
@Lebrok
the "roman" skull is not brachy but meso in my sense: about CI 80 - and it's for me the skull of a child, even not an adolescent, so to be taken with caution (unless it would be a person with skeleton disease? it doesn't seem the case): look at the very small face whatever the proportions (not too 'mediter'), and proportionally the large orbits and so on.
the other skull, not neol but eneolithic so at the daybreak of metals, is dolicho, true, and show strong 'cromagnoid' features and less 'mediter' ones (but the crania lateral profile): a crossing? not too surprising;

Cato
02-10-16, 12:21
@Lebrok
the "roman" skull is not brachy but meso in my sense: about CI 80 - and it's for me the skull of a child, even not an adolescent, so to be taken with caution ;

yes you're right, i had the same impression so i rechecked the source..it's a skull of a 6-7 years old child (female), C.I. 75.8

MOESAN
02-10-16, 20:18
'Gast!' ("*****")I grow half blind! a CI of about 76 and I bet 80! Damned! 76 is said "mesocrane" (limit with dolicho) but for Europeans of the 1940's it corresponded to subdolichocephally (on life, it's my C index). Scientists had two scales; one for crania, another for alife heads; the second scale is better compared to European humans.
But it 's good to know it 's a child! I haven't lost all my head...
Thanks.

johen
29-03-17, 23:11
Botai skull:

http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af312/geomjr/236ba91d3a10.jpg
http://www.carnegiemnh.org/uploadedImages/CMNH_Site/Anthropology/Graphics/Botai/Fig45.jpg

1.another skulls:
http://iggc.kz/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Rezultaty-raboty-Lab-Pop-Gen-noyab-2016.pdf

All Botaya skulls are large, have a characteristic horizontal
Flatness in the front part, which is also noted in some ancient
Finds of Western Siberia (Protoka & Sopka-2), the steppe Urals (Gladunino-3),
Western Kazakhstan (Shoktybai, Kumsai, Zhirenkopa, Ishkinovka), the Eastern
Kazakhstan (Shiderty, Zhelezinka, Ust-Narymsky, Rough II), and the Northern
Turkmenistan (Tumek-Kichidzhik / Priaralye). Thus the Botany skulls
Represent a separate anthropological type, formed in the steppe
Part of Asia during the Eneolithic period - "Kazakh steppe type".

One of the skulls - with a lifetime trepanation.

Spoka -2 was classified as an intermediate between caucasoid and mongoloid, being similar to Okunevo. Any caucasoid skull was not found in Karzakstan before andronovo.

2. Is there any chance of yDna to be “N” like Okunevo?

The genotyping of the "Botaysky man" showed a 100% Belonging to the K1b2 mtDNA haplotype

Генотипирование “Ботайского человека« показало 100% принадлежность к K1b2 гаплотипу мтДНК (1.Del(G), 4T, 11C/T, 73G, 146C, 195C, 263G, 750G, 1189C, 1438G, 1811G, 2706G, 3480G, 4769G, 5908A, 7028T, 8860G, 9055A, 9300T, 9698C, 10398G, 10550G, 11299C,11467G, 11719A, 12308G, 12372A, 12738G, 14167T, 14766T, 14798C, 15326G, 15374A, 16213A, 16311C, 16519C, 16543A/G, 16562- 16569d)

97.1% probability of O2 of the Y-chromosome haplotype

97.1 % вероятности О2 Y-хромосомного гаплотипа (DYS390-24, DYS391-11, DYS392-13, DYS393 - 14, DYS19 - 15, DYS385 a/b - 17/18, DYS439 - 13, DYS389 I - 12, DYS389 II - 29, DYS448-23, DYS458 - 15, DYS437 - 15, GATA H4 - 11, DYS456 - 16, DYS438 - 13, DYS635 – 21)

MOESAN
31-03-17, 20:13
Thanks Johen, it's a pleasure!
Have you a front sight of the crania?
At first sight the profile of the skull is close enough to 'europoid' archaic forms and doesn't evocate me something 'mongoloid' - even the cheekbones don't seem projected too much forwards, and the nose is typically archaic-caucasian - maybe the teeth crown is different??? I cannot say -
the profile of the skull is different from and 'croma' and 'brünn' ('croma' have kind of angle at forehead, 'brünn' is more receding and flatter for with stronger browridges - this kind of receding forehaed, gently curved without too strong browridges and the special meso skull seen from top has a curious shape: so I prefer rely on scientists judgement here, if this stateent concerns the skull you show here -
in the link you gave, there are a reconstruction of a skull (this one?) and the picture of a living 'mongoloid' of somewhere (where?): I see very few ties between both, and I don't know what the text says because it's in russian I don't understand -

MOESAN
31-03-17, 20:22
Okunevo people were said to be archeo-siberian (not well oriented towards neat 'europoids' or 'eastasians') but some of them later in the Andronovo profile shew 'europoid' input (perhaps swept off later?) -

halfalp
19-06-17, 10:03
What could be interesting is to know if there is some Solutrean related skull somewhere ? This culture, seems to emerge from nowhere with a stone technology only seen in Paleosiberia and Paleoamerica. I have search for a long time on the internet, some french physical anthropologists and Carleton Coon wroth about a possible Eskimid Type... All this seems very siberian. Those skulls are very strange and very deformed... 8870 8871

bicicleur
19-06-17, 10:22
What could be interesting is to know if there is some Solutrean related skull somewhere ? This culture, seems to emerge from nowhere with a stone technology only seen in Paleosiberia and Paleoamerica. I have search for a long time on the internet, some french physical anthropologists and Carleton Coon wroth about a possible Eskimid Type... All this seems very siberian. Those skulls are very strange and very deformed... 8870 8871

they also had sholdered points which originated in the middle Danube area 25 ka

halfalp
19-06-17, 11:12
they also had sholdered points which originated in the middle Danube area 25 ka

And you gonna take that like an argument that " Not Worth It " ?

bicicleur
19-06-17, 12:17
And you gonna take that like an argument that " Not Worth It " ?

not worth what? what are you getting at?
there is no Siberian DNA found in paleolithic nor in post-LGM Europe

halfalp
19-06-17, 15:10
not worth what? what are you getting at?
there is no Siberian DNA found in paleolithic nor in post-LGM Europe
Does Solutrean genomes have been study to your knowledge ?

bicicleur
19-06-17, 16:14
just one afaik



Solutrian
Spain
Nerja, Málaga [NE-NT 79]


18,000-15,000 BC




U
Fernández 2005 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2005)

halfalp
28-08-17, 14:42
Hey i fought i could share some photos that i take in Berlin.

Combe Capelle. 9085


9086

halfalp
28-08-17, 14:44
Neanderthal. 9087

Johane Derite
28-08-17, 14:48
Hey i fought i could share some photos that i take in Berlin.

Combe Capelle. 9085


9086

The attached photos are'nt showing up, as a rule you should upload them to imgur and hyperlink them here, that method never has issues

Jovialis
28-08-17, 15:51
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/08/25/birth-farming-caused-jaw-dropping-changes-human-skull-scientists/

The largest changes in skull morphology were observed in groups consuming dairy products, suggesting that the effect of agriculture on skull morphology was greatest in populations consuming the softest food.


This article that came out a few days ago suggests that consumption of dairy products and farming resulted in the shrinking of the human jaw, and made skulls more slender. The reason is because eating stuff like cheese, and cereal required less chewing.

It says farming, but I thought consumption of dairy products and animal domestication was introduced by the Yamnaya. So was it a combination of both lifestyles?

halfalp
28-08-17, 16:42
Neanderthal. 9087
Oh thanks... I'm gonna see about that.

MOESAN
28-08-17, 20:58
half amazing because the pops the most adapted to milk consomption in Europe (British, North Euro, Basques, by instance, are or at least were the pops with greater skulls (not always the heavier, here I don't know, and the shapes are variated, its only a two dimensions mean (length+breadth)...

MOESAN
28-08-17, 21:00
I add some survey stated the Mesolithic people of Balkans were undergoing a trend towards diminution of teeths and jaw... caution then

LeBrok
30-08-17, 04:39
This article that came out a few days ago suggests that consumption of dairy products and farming resulted in the shrinking of the human jaw, and made skulls more slender. The reason is because eating stuff like cheese, and cereal required less chewing.

It says farming, but I thought consumption of dairy products and animal domestication was introduced by the Yamnaya. So was it a combination of both lifestyles?
As Moesan pointed out, we have to be careful with dairy. Dairy was also thought to stand behind white European skin, but it turned to be just a myth.

johen
04-03-18, 23:08
http://www.aee.gr/english/8other_research/microc1.gif


The skull of a Minoan microcephalic was found in the excavations of Zakros, preserved and studied by Dr A. Poulianos. It belonged to a man of 20 years of age, who most probably was member of the Minoan dynasty. Its cranial capacity is of about 530 cc and reflects a genetic diversion connected to long terms isolation and endogamy of Minoans. Thus neither Cretans, nor members of the Minoan dynasty were immigrants from elsewhere, but a result of local evolution. During the military junta, in 1971, it was given to Vienna Museum for "study". It returned to Greece in 1997 after a juridical straggle of the Anthropological Association of Greece. For the benefit of science we urgently appeal to the world scientific community to assist us in protecting the Greek findings from colonial attitudes.
http://www.aee.gr/english/8other_research/a_minoan_microcephalic.html

As far as I know, pygmy skull capacity is around 1,000cc. If so, ancient Minoan is so small people. Is it possible to be mixed with the other Greeks? Is there any research regarding Minoan skull?

pygmy:
http://www.e-allmoney.com/customs/images/pygmies.jpg
http://www.e-allmoney.com/customs/pygmies.html

mycenaean:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cOF3DP8rA2c/VR6TWS0JZPI/AAAAAAAABAE/KKTh6t5dgMA/s1600/1300-1250%2Bbce%2Bfemale%2Bhead%2Bmade%2Bof%2Bplaster%2 Bwearing%2Bheadband%2C%2BMycenaean%2C%2Bfrom%2Bthe %2Bside.jpg

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-27ad89ac1a721aeda22467d88b70f6ed.webp

Johane Derite
05-03-18, 00:02
http://www.aee.gr/english/8other_research/microc1.gif


http://www.aee.gr/english/8other_research/a_minoan_microcephalic.html

As far as I know, pygmy skull capacity is around 1,000cc. If so, ancient Minoan is so small people. Is it possible to be mixed with the other Greeks? Is there any research regarding Minoan skull?

pygmy:
http://www.e-allmoney.com/customs/images/pygmies.jpg
http://www.e-allmoney.com/customs/pygmies.html

mycenaean(41.95cm):
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cOF3DP8rA2c/VR6TWS0JZPI/AAAAAAAABAE/KKTh6t5dgMA/s1600/1300-1250%2Bbce%2Bfemale%2Bhead%2Bmade%2Bof%2Bplaster%2 Bwearing%2Bheadband%2C%2BMycenaean%2C%2Bfrom%2Bthe %2Bside.jpg





I seriously doubt that the average minoan was that tiny. Its probably just a defect. Like koksal baba the famous internet guy.

MOESAN
06-03-18, 17:20
The profil shape of this Minoan skull, whatever its absolute mensurations, is far to evocate the common type among Neolithical Anatolians, and point to a roughly 'westasian' input (S-E of Caspian more remote origin???) - one of the Y-J2 introgressions in Egea and East mediterranea?
As Johan Derite says, it's dubious this size of skull would have been general in Egea islands and Creta, even if a microcephalization process was running on by isolation in some islands.

MOESAN
19-05-18, 22:39
Botai skull:

http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af312/geomjr/236ba91d3a10.jpg
http://www.carnegiemnh.org/uploadedImages/CMNH_Site/Anthropology/Graphics/Botai/Fig45.jpg

1.another skulls:
http://iggc.kz/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Rezultaty-raboty-Lab-Pop-Gen-noyab-2016.pdf


Spoka -2 was classified as an intermediate between caucasoid and mongoloid, being similar to Okunevo. Any caucasoid skull was not found in Karzakstan before andronovo.

2. Is there any chance of yDna to be “N” like Okunevo?

The genotyping of the "Botaysky man" showed a 100% Belonging to the K1b2 mtDNA haplotype


97.1% probability of O2 of the Y-chromosome haplotype

As a whole he seems closer to western 'cromagnoid' than to any other type, rather far from the 'brnnoid'like descendants; maybe not the mean Botai type, supposed to be closer to SW HG's of Siberia - I regreat we have not the face picture - seems kind of an old crossing -

MOESAN
19-05-18, 22:54
here under pictures of two Teviec females (7000/6000BCE) of ancient western Brittany (small islands today, in sea!)

1014810149101501015110152

they are very similar spite not identical!
they remind me of some 'cromagnoid' but partly "phoetalized" (men: stature 1m55/1m58); some others from Teviec, not here, showed some input of 'chancelade' type, so some upperpaleo first 'mediter'like influence for shapes -

MOESAN
29-05-18, 18:34
I remarked that when I posted my last pic's, they were "pinned" under a reference, not appearing at first sight, but the links posted which worked some time, no more work after some time: seemingly it is the same problem with other posters, whose links are no more effective. Explanation?

Ack
23-11-19, 23:47
I thank again here Lebrok for his skulls posting -
concerning Ötzi, when I saw his skull I did not feal it as a 'mediterranean' crania, and I keep on thinking that - I said and I say again he shows features where more than a type is implied and among them some 'cromagnoid' features, on na 'alpine' way (I lack metric measures but it seems more mesocehpalic than true dolicho- or subdolichocephalic) - the skull is low, the orbits retains yet some cromagnoid traits - its lines are very far from the gentle mediterranean eastern types which appeared at Neolitical daybreak in western and eastern Europe (high skull, very dolichocephalic, narrower jaws, longer and narrower upper face, higher and rounder eyescokets... I confess it is a rough analysis because I lack measures and different angles of sight but... Ötzi was a mix where dominated yet mesolithical traits upon more m'editerranean' ones so the autosomlas dominant 'mediterranean' classification deserves surely to be refined...
I have yet some problem with the less 'north european' and more 'mediterranean' classification of Northern Italians compared to Iberians too

Anatolian farmers are predominantly northwestern Anatolians. It makes no sense to discuss genetic facts with somewhat subjective 'phenotypic readings'. As for the comparison between northern Italians and Iberians: the distance between them is quite small, but Iberians are pulled further north because of the larger WHG genetic component that is more common in northwestern Europe and less common in the eastern Mediterranean. The Western Anatolian component of the Iberians is also more similar to the Anatolian component of central and northern Europe. The Italian Neolithic, on the other hand, was also influenced by a greater diversity of Anatolian groups.

MOESAN
20-08-20, 14:24
Anatolian farmers are predominantly northwestern Anatolians. It makes no sense to discuss genetic facts with somewhat subjective 'phenotypic readings'. As for the comparison between northern Italians and Iberians: the distance between them is quite small, but Iberians are pulled further north because of the larger WHG genetic component that is more common in northwestern Europe and less common in the eastern Mediterranean. The Western Anatolian component of the Iberians is also more similar to the Anatolian component of central and northern Europe. The Italian Neolithic, on the other hand, was also influenced by a greater diversity of Anatolian groups.


Late answer (I had not read your post yet)
You are very sure of yourself!
"phenotypic readings" ARE NOT SUBJECTIVE by themselves; the only possible critic is: could they provide some help in measuring pops distnace sor closeness; sometimes, yes! Vey often changes in allover auDNA are accompanied by changes in phenotypes distribution, it's a fact not a dream of "racists" or left back pseudo scientists:
the first introgressions of steppe DNA in Balkans/Carpathians were paralleled by arrival of "archaic europoids" -
the first types of Western Mediterranea, where cohabited archaic diverse types and types closer to Western-center Anatolia neolithic types, have been rejoined by the famous "ibero-insular mediterranean" type which is not a type by itself but a mean of types born (humor of history) rather in Southern Balkans/Greece: it isn't a "race" for sure, but this new phenotypical mean corresponds almost surely to an Helladic infuence on Iberia Southern France, carrying more 'CHG/neol iranic' DNA, by the way, the dates match rather.
Other examples could be added, along history.
So, if phenotypes are not exactly reliable to calculate true distances, they are often an index, a trace of something when their distributions change quickly enough. It was my point.