MOESAN
Elite member
- Messages
- 5,893
- Reaction score
- 1,295
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Brittany
- Ethnic group
- more celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b - L21/S145*
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3c
Craniometricsand History
Veryoften I read here and there thoughts of people about classicalphysical anthropology, affirming the measures taken from the skullshave no value and have to be neglicted. I seems that lot og thesepeople red some books where bad works and bad racist ideologies havebeen pointed out,for good reasons. But we have not to deny all worthto the old works and data furnished by old and current metricanthropology. An reading is a good thing, but comparing thinking arebetter ones.
BOASmade a survey about USA immigrants and took conclusions that arediscussed today by a lot of scientists, because his survey did nottake into account the differences of social situations changes amongdescendants of immigrants.
Aconstation was made about the cephalic index – I precise thatcephalic index (CI) is only a tiny part of all possible measurings ofskulls and that the measurings taken into account for the most in theplottings and means (averages) of today do not reveal the detailedshapes of crania – it is that the CI's changed by time, increasingfrom High Midle Ages to the 20° Cy before decreasing after it, as awhole. So one spoke of a general chronological trend tobrachycephalization. I do not deny it, but I think we have to becautious here : some questions :
-themeans we find concern the examined population whose burying we find ;did they always represent the average population, or rather theelite ? Does the proportion of elite / basic population remainthe same over time in sepultures? I think we have more chancesto find more popular classes people in the christian tombs of MiddleAges (or of today) than in the « barbaric » buryings ofthe Metals Ages, by instance.
-Couldanybody ever compare populations he was sure it represented thedescendants of the same unchanged ligneage* in the same place?And it concerns too my proper evaluations... But let us try to dosome comparisons. In Europe and surroundings (Eurasia, Near-East,Arabia, North-Africa, the extremes on life about the 1935's werepopulations of CI : 72 to CI : 89 (but individuals fromCI : 65 to CI 100 – these last ones maybe with cranialdeformations according to cradling?) - the span between these CImeans is of 17 (~= 21,11 % variation compared to the rough meanCI of 80,50).
-thedifference between IC taken on bones crania and alive people cannotbe to far from IC:# 0,09 # 0,70 so we can only at the mostconsider a CI : 1 increase from dead to alive (if I cansay it like that!) -
Ifwe compare today populations of antiquity to current ones –geographic, not ethnic critetia - we see,roughly,applying a '-0,50' mean correction:
NorthGermany : CI : 72/74 ↔ 80/82 (# +7,5) – South Germany :CI : 78/80 ↔ 84/86 (# +5,5) – France Auvergne (Gaulish) :CI : 82 ↔ 86/88 (# +4,5) – France Champagne (Gaulish) :CI : 77/78 ↔ 83/84 (# +5,5) - British Celts (Iron) :CI : 76/77 ↔ 77/79 (# +1) ; but BBs : 81-82 so #-4 !) -
& :some Last Middle Ages cemeteries of Zeeland/Noord-Brabant in theNetherlands showed CI's from 84 to 88 but we don't know their exactethnic affiliation : old pre-Celtic+Celtic populations notcompletely absorbed by Germanics ? Lorraine (brachycephalic)populations displaced to colonize uncomfortable places duringLorraine Duchy ? At the opposite, an ancient « Frisian »skulls sample gave a CI : 78 when today (1935 crit.) it is CI :79 : one could think the population never changed in Frisia,what is not proved in any way ! Scholars think the ancientTerpen' populations - in waterable zones – of North Netherlands wasmore of « mediterranean » type (roughly said, plus someslight imput of others), what could confirm today Frisians camerather from Denmark or at least from East. Seemingly a dominant trendtowards brachycephalization, sure, but at what real level ? Ithink it was of CI : 4 difference as a mean over the wholeperiod considered, except some places with more complicatedhistory...
Allthe way what we can immediatly imagine is we are comparing what isnot comparable : COON and others remarked some old populations –on skeletons criteria – seem having reconquired weight after somehistorical periods – last 19°Cy territories, even in notpresenting a completely homogenous population, were by far morehomogenous than antiquity territories which populations wereorganized in clans and which we have, I think, only the elite relics.Look at the successive Long-Barrows/BBs/Celts transitions ! Whatdoes not exclude the two mentioned opposite « mesologic »caused trends, linked I suppose to firstable sedentization, povertyand short endogamy until the 19° CY followed by stronger exogamy andchanges in body work since the 20°Cy– less oxygenation acting uponskeleton development stages ? I have not the knowledge of recentstudies so … ?
-The'alpine' question is a good one : brachycephalisation begunamong Mesolithic way-of-life populations around the Alps, about the8000/7000 BC's. An apparently 'foetalisation' process seems havingmodified 'cro-magnoid' ligneages, more strongly in South than inNorth, augmenting the CI and diminishing a bit the global face, butkeeping the low skull – as for Cro-Magnon, principally at theauricular hole level - and partially too rather low orbits. Thecauses are ignored to date even if hypothesis like a 'iodine' problemhave been proposed. Surely an endogamy/isolation + selection processunder adaptative pression, creating not only individual congenital +lifelong adaptations but also acquired genetic heredity, because the'alpine' traits have been transmitted to other geographic areas byemigration/colonization, even maritime territories (France, Asturies,Italy).
The'alpine' types were a strong minority among SOM people (parisianBassin to Ardennes and « cousin » to Eiffel) and appearshaving come there from Jura/Alps over centuries and centuries ;at Iron Ages, the Armorican population of West Brittany, which hadknown until then almost only dolicho-subdolichocephalic populations(CI:72/76) of 'teviec' and diverse 'mediterranean' types (the most :« megalither » of high stature) at the exception of veryrare 'dinaroid' types at BBs times, received progressively butquickly enough new people of strong 'alpine' imput even ifsurely no pure ; what is interesting is that according to someauthors the first brachycephalic elements arrived on the westernshores were rather females and not males ; we could see here howweak was the imput of specific Celtic elite at Bronze Ages in todayBrittany but that it was followed by a strong subsequent imput ofcelticized dominantly 'alpinoid' populations of Eastern and CentralGaul at iron Ages : the sexing of skeletons is of someimportance when we try to separate internal in situ evolutions andexternal influences of crossings : the narrowing of faces inLast Neolithic-Eneolithic of Mediterranea seems beginning by womenand children modifications : could we not imagine a firstexchange of females or at least a first acceptation of foreignfemales by the local male populations, before they were submerged bymore numerous waves of newcomers or by accepted desiquilibratedosmosis ? Concerning Breton Armoric I « hear » theall-mesologic supporters speaking of a trend to brachycephalizationthere caused by – unkonwn - change of way-of-life at Iron Age or –as unkown – dramatic change in climate -
InAnatolia Near-East the first controlled non-neglictible augmentationsin CI - and proportions of fully brachycephals - date from the Chalcolithic and the Hittites period seems one ofevident increase of brachycephals weight. Some scholars think itcould have begun before in mesopotamia, by scarce introgressionscoming from the Zagros mountains, without precise if they werecaucasic speaking populations or not, what was the thesis pushedforwards in old antrhopology – not supported by proofs –Brachycephaly is not by itself a the proof of an unique origin as weknow all, even if apparently it seems an European continentalphenomenon among 'caucasians'. What is important is that it seemsappearing lately in Near-Eastern-Anatolia, whatever the geographicalorigin : Balkans, North the Caucasus ?
Toconclude : yes, way-of-life and diet and climate and geographyhave an influence upon skulls (and skeletons and …) but we cannotdiscard the modification in skeletal types in past as witness ofemigration or colonization, for even a 100 % mesologic religion– what is far from reality - it cannot eliminate the fact thatbrutal changes proves an extra-local people arriving, classical typesleft aside.
&: I did not speak here of shapes, what is a tool even more sensible than the only habitual measures and indexes -
I wrote this post because I know someones believe craniometrics vare of no worth and that types do not help in any way to identify populations or subpopulations, now and before, opinion which is without any basis.
Veryoften I read here and there thoughts of people about classicalphysical anthropology, affirming the measures taken from the skullshave no value and have to be neglicted. I seems that lot og thesepeople red some books where bad works and bad racist ideologies havebeen pointed out,for good reasons. But we have not to deny all worthto the old works and data furnished by old and current metricanthropology. An reading is a good thing, but comparing thinking arebetter ones.
BOASmade a survey about USA immigrants and took conclusions that arediscussed today by a lot of scientists, because his survey did nottake into account the differences of social situations changes amongdescendants of immigrants.
Aconstation was made about the cephalic index – I precise thatcephalic index (CI) is only a tiny part of all possible measurings ofskulls and that the measurings taken into account for the most in theplottings and means (averages) of today do not reveal the detailedshapes of crania – it is that the CI's changed by time, increasingfrom High Midle Ages to the 20° Cy before decreasing after it, as awhole. So one spoke of a general chronological trend tobrachycephalization. I do not deny it, but I think we have to becautious here : some questions :
-themeans we find concern the examined population whose burying we find ;did they always represent the average population, or rather theelite ? Does the proportion of elite / basic population remainthe same over time in sepultures? I think we have more chancesto find more popular classes people in the christian tombs of MiddleAges (or of today) than in the « barbaric » buryings ofthe Metals Ages, by instance.
-Couldanybody ever compare populations he was sure it represented thedescendants of the same unchanged ligneage* in the same place?And it concerns too my proper evaluations... But let us try to dosome comparisons. In Europe and surroundings (Eurasia, Near-East,Arabia, North-Africa, the extremes on life about the 1935's werepopulations of CI : 72 to CI : 89 (but individuals fromCI : 65 to CI 100 – these last ones maybe with cranialdeformations according to cradling?) - the span between these CImeans is of 17 (~= 21,11 % variation compared to the rough meanCI of 80,50).
-thedifference between IC taken on bones crania and alive people cannotbe to far from IC:# 0,09 # 0,70 so we can only at the mostconsider a CI : 1 increase from dead to alive (if I cansay it like that!) -
Ifwe compare today populations of antiquity to current ones –geographic, not ethnic critetia - we see,roughly,applying a '-0,50' mean correction:
NorthGermany : CI : 72/74 ↔ 80/82 (# +7,5) – South Germany :CI : 78/80 ↔ 84/86 (# +5,5) – France Auvergne (Gaulish) :CI : 82 ↔ 86/88 (# +4,5) – France Champagne (Gaulish) :CI : 77/78 ↔ 83/84 (# +5,5) - British Celts (Iron) :CI : 76/77 ↔ 77/79 (# +1) ; but BBs : 81-82 so #-4 !) -
& :some Last Middle Ages cemeteries of Zeeland/Noord-Brabant in theNetherlands showed CI's from 84 to 88 but we don't know their exactethnic affiliation : old pre-Celtic+Celtic populations notcompletely absorbed by Germanics ? Lorraine (brachycephalic)populations displaced to colonize uncomfortable places duringLorraine Duchy ? At the opposite, an ancient « Frisian »skulls sample gave a CI : 78 when today (1935 crit.) it is CI :79 : one could think the population never changed in Frisia,what is not proved in any way ! Scholars think the ancientTerpen' populations - in waterable zones – of North Netherlands wasmore of « mediterranean » type (roughly said, plus someslight imput of others), what could confirm today Frisians camerather from Denmark or at least from East. Seemingly a dominant trendtowards brachycephalization, sure, but at what real level ? Ithink it was of CI : 4 difference as a mean over the wholeperiod considered, except some places with more complicatedhistory...
Allthe way what we can immediatly imagine is we are comparing what isnot comparable : COON and others remarked some old populations –on skeletons criteria – seem having reconquired weight after somehistorical periods – last 19°Cy territories, even in notpresenting a completely homogenous population, were by far morehomogenous than antiquity territories which populations wereorganized in clans and which we have, I think, only the elite relics.Look at the successive Long-Barrows/BBs/Celts transitions ! Whatdoes not exclude the two mentioned opposite « mesologic »caused trends, linked I suppose to firstable sedentization, povertyand short endogamy until the 19° CY followed by stronger exogamy andchanges in body work since the 20°Cy– less oxygenation acting uponskeleton development stages ? I have not the knowledge of recentstudies so … ?
-The'alpine' question is a good one : brachycephalisation begunamong Mesolithic way-of-life populations around the Alps, about the8000/7000 BC's. An apparently 'foetalisation' process seems havingmodified 'cro-magnoid' ligneages, more strongly in South than inNorth, augmenting the CI and diminishing a bit the global face, butkeeping the low skull – as for Cro-Magnon, principally at theauricular hole level - and partially too rather low orbits. Thecauses are ignored to date even if hypothesis like a 'iodine' problemhave been proposed. Surely an endogamy/isolation + selection processunder adaptative pression, creating not only individual congenital +lifelong adaptations but also acquired genetic heredity, because the'alpine' traits have been transmitted to other geographic areas byemigration/colonization, even maritime territories (France, Asturies,Italy).
The'alpine' types were a strong minority among SOM people (parisianBassin to Ardennes and « cousin » to Eiffel) and appearshaving come there from Jura/Alps over centuries and centuries ;at Iron Ages, the Armorican population of West Brittany, which hadknown until then almost only dolicho-subdolichocephalic populations(CI:72/76) of 'teviec' and diverse 'mediterranean' types (the most :« megalither » of high stature) at the exception of veryrare 'dinaroid' types at BBs times, received progressively butquickly enough new people of strong 'alpine' imput even ifsurely no pure ; what is interesting is that according to someauthors the first brachycephalic elements arrived on the westernshores were rather females and not males ; we could see here howweak was the imput of specific Celtic elite at Bronze Ages in todayBrittany but that it was followed by a strong subsequent imput ofcelticized dominantly 'alpinoid' populations of Eastern and CentralGaul at iron Ages : the sexing of skeletons is of someimportance when we try to separate internal in situ evolutions andexternal influences of crossings : the narrowing of faces inLast Neolithic-Eneolithic of Mediterranea seems beginning by womenand children modifications : could we not imagine a firstexchange of females or at least a first acceptation of foreignfemales by the local male populations, before they were submerged bymore numerous waves of newcomers or by accepted desiquilibratedosmosis ? Concerning Breton Armoric I « hear » theall-mesologic supporters speaking of a trend to brachycephalizationthere caused by – unkonwn - change of way-of-life at Iron Age or –as unkown – dramatic change in climate -
InAnatolia Near-East the first controlled non-neglictible augmentationsin CI - and proportions of fully brachycephals - date from the Chalcolithic and the Hittites period seems one ofevident increase of brachycephals weight. Some scholars think itcould have begun before in mesopotamia, by scarce introgressionscoming from the Zagros mountains, without precise if they werecaucasic speaking populations or not, what was the thesis pushedforwards in old antrhopology – not supported by proofs –Brachycephaly is not by itself a the proof of an unique origin as weknow all, even if apparently it seems an European continentalphenomenon among 'caucasians'. What is important is that it seemsappearing lately in Near-Eastern-Anatolia, whatever the geographicalorigin : Balkans, North the Caucasus ?
Toconclude : yes, way-of-life and diet and climate and geographyhave an influence upon skulls (and skeletons and …) but we cannotdiscard the modification in skeletal types in past as witness ofemigration or colonization, for even a 100 % mesologic religion– what is far from reality - it cannot eliminate the fact thatbrutal changes proves an extra-local people arriving, classical typesleft aside.
&: I did not speak here of shapes, what is a tool even more sensible than the only habitual measures and indexes -
I wrote this post because I know someones believe craniometrics vare of no worth and that types do not help in any way to identify populations or subpopulations, now and before, opinion which is without any basis.
Last edited by a moderator: