neolithic and metrics: some superficial observations

In a work I saw there was a PCA of principal cranial metrics measures; no mention of shapes or indexes, and I regreat it;
some statements after seeing it:
-the Körös they have is almost sticked to Natufians (an heterogenous population, it's true: here ti's a mean) -
-they are well separated from the cluster Catal Höyük and Neo Nikomedia, LBK-C and LBK-Hungary are very close to Catal Höyük too in this PCA
-Alföld AVK-ALP is almost in the middle of a ligne joigning Natufians-Körös to Catal-N-Nikomedia-LBK
-the Lengyel sample they have is very outside, at the opposite of Natufian-Körös in comparison to Catal Höyük-NN-LBK AND OPPOSITE TOO globally speaking to --the vastely spred Mesolithic and North and East Eurasian Neolithic people
-an outsider on the Mesolithic side are the Russian Neolithic group and Oleni Ostrov, at the opposite to Lengyel sample
-Neolithic and mesolithic Latvians and Neolithic Baltic are less far from the "centrum" of the graph, and cluster between them
-French Mesolithic and Lepinski Vir are close enough to this "centrum" the closer being the Portugal Mesolithic, the closer to the megagroup Neolithic samples: -from what I had red about some of these Mesolithic people (Mugem) and their internal variation, it seems to me they already had received an Eastern Mediterranean imput - this imput, if I base myself upon the evolution of "old cromagnoid mediterrean" types (means) of Eneolithic Mediterranea, could have been mediated by females, the diminution of face breadth seeming beginning among wives and children, spite it is not a sexual tendancy - a survey about chromosome X in Mediterranea (West and East), and not only about mt-DNA, concluded at X being more homogenous than Y in Mediterranean.
this PCA is not sufficient to do settle absolute conclusions but we can say
-at first sight, Neolithic people were not metrically speaking a completely homogenous mean
+ some flow of Southeatsern genes had become to reach Soutwestern Mesolithic people before Neolithic revolution was archeologically constated there -
it could explain some differences in mtDNA among Mesolithic regions in Europe; at the opposite, the considered "neolithical" mtDNA of East-central Europe could have been LESS SOUTHEASTERN than we believe today or to better say: their bearers could have been separated enough time from sources to evolve another way and acquire new mutations and traits? some quasi oppositions in distribution exist between some Neolithic groups of Central and East Europe.
the discouraging thing is that we are searching steep changes in anthropology and genetics to illustrate clear historical changes and that we find always some exceptions or some mergins moves of populations without too precise link with huge cutural changes; always this relativity making pictures fuzzy.
the autosomals tool is surely the better at high resolution scale, but very often is just roughly valuable to separate very well separated populations; it would improve with time (and money?);

I always believed, and saw on PCA (genetic distances) a connection between Mesolithic Iberians with North Africa. Perhaps Hunter Gatherers from Africa brought similar to Natufian traits, but with E-V13 haplogroup?

Interesting Moeasan. Thanks for sharing, could you please also tell the name of these sources. Would love to take a look at them.

Just a general set of observations

Some doubts aboutsome metrics recent enough works : multi-aspects analysis vs« pure mathematical » conceptions ?


Ired a survey about evolution of people and comparisons of diversepops since paleolithic to modern days, where the question of theBasques and Canaries Islands pre-supposed Cro-magnoid origin wasadressed (« The questionable contribution of the Neolithic andthe Bronze Age to European craniofacial form » by C.L. BRACE(2005).
Idon't put in doubt the seriousness of measures and calculations. Butsome conclusions amazed me : all modern European pops would bethe descendants of an unkown human group, owing very little toPaleo-, Meso- and Neolithic pops of Europe. The survey contains some« final » dendodrams regroupings pops which were not soclose in other dendograms, and the canonical variance plotting giveresults different enough from these neighbour-joining-dendograms.
Bythe way, I find dendograms are very inadapted for physical features,whatever the confidence that numbers put into equations seems to giveto someones. They are not without basis, but they are dangerous inthe way they seem showing a genealogic link between the closestpopulations in it, the ones placed on the same branches or branchingvery close.
Peopleshapes are the results of a complex mix of ancient genetic(transmissible) and on-life mesologic influences (non-hereditaryfor the very must); which doesn't exclude that mesologic influencehas also an imput upon genes (selection). Genetics crossing(s) is avery brutal and effective agent. And without individuals seriationand typology (with caution) we can make « mathematicalresults » very close with populations resulting of verydistincts crossings. The mesologic influence (way-of-life included)which impacts shapes and measures even without genetic modifications,has had an influence upon global trends seemingly linked to time :general trend towards gracilization, with internal inequal results(jaws decreasing faster than teeths by instance, without speaking ofmore discrepancies in the postcranial skeleton modifications) whatmodifies shape a bit ; with the bias of pops living at differentlevels of life, what could have « unified » modernEuropeans as opposed to other continents regions.
Ihave newly found confirmation of my doubts about dendograms, in astudy citing HIERNAUX :

It'sseems time changed more quickly the some absolute measures than itdoes for relative shapes even if these last ones evolved too, evenwithout new crossings. A well trained eye can see a genealogic (sogenetic) link between some members of the same family but ofsuccessive generations when measures can separate them and associatethem to « strangers » people of the same generation.Among modern « gracile mediterraneans » I can guess morethan a genealogy (very distinct features) when a lot of measurements(not all of them) do'nt show them, nor their links with diverseancient types more robust. And here I speak of types. The modernmetrics use no more of typology (taxinomy, a bit misused in ancienttimes) as a complement, and they group entire (always admixed) popsto make average means, sometimes with very very disparate samplessizes ;

@Alan

I red some very contradictory papers or abstracts concerning craniology. I have not conserved all the titles and authors.
I can give you some funny surveys:
one I criticize just above:
C.Loring BRACE The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European Craniofacial form. (2005)
Some contrediction in itself.
R. PINHASI: Neolithic skull shapes and demic diffusion(2006)
R. PINHASI: Spread of farming in Europe (2004)
the last is in fact the first! the second (Neolithic ...) adds some other places of study in Europe. The first (Spread...) is interesting because it contains some critics and answers of Pinhasi to these critics.
You can find something by KOZINTZEV about Steppes people of European origin and others by KAZARNITZKY about Maykop and the Pit Grave people (Steppes BA).
A confusing study of H. KHUDARVERDYANl : Bioarcheological analysis mutual relation of populations - Armenian Highlands - Eurasia using craniological and dental nonmetrical data: non-metric considered as better than metrics, is indeed less efficient in hunting biological relations between pops. This survey seems to me a bit "oriented" and simplistic in conclusions but?...
I'll find something for Natufians and first Levant farmers (somewhere in my house).
I saw a very special type of Natufian female with something vaguely "negroid" (in the sense of convergence, not by force to descendance) but with a very europoid jaw and teeth crown. I 'll send you this when i found it/.

I put here under the lines I missed to insert correctly

Ihave newly found confirmation of my doubts about dendograms, in astudy citing HIERNAUX :

problem, spite I supprimed my brackets [---] !?! Too sad.

OK. I'll take a taste of whisky to swallow the bitterness of life...

here under; I was obliged to re-type the concerned lines:

author:
Hiernaux (1972) advises against the use of dendograms "... since must living populations ... result from multiple hybridisation processes" - author: and the recent evolutionary history of man with its manifold genes exchanges and its tendancy to converge does not conform to this assumption.
Hiernaux (again): "In anthropology it looks probable that only cases strictly limited in space and time conform closely enough to this model to permit the interpretation of dendograms as evolutionary trees."
author: For this reason among others the present work does not use cluster analysis to derive dendograms but uses ordination methods to represent distance graphologically. Thse patterns of similarity may merge which can be interpreted in the light of geographical, chronological and archeological considerations.

O​uf!