BBs and skulls and strontium

M

MOESAN

Elite member
Messages
5,879
Reaction score
1,291
Points
113
Location
Brittany
Ethnic group
more celtic
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b - L21/S145*
mtDNA haplogroup
H3c
This new concerns as well ancient DNA as History, but as they posted a picture of skull I made my mind to put it here. Moderators could break down this thread later according to the direction taken by forumers observations
I reserve my opinions concerning males and females moves and the moves lengths
from EUROGENES, thanks to "Davidski" and others

[h=2]Wednesday, June 1, 2016[/h][h=3]The man with the flat occiput[/h]


The image below is of a skull from a Bell Beaker burial at Bee Low, Derbyshire, UK, dated to 2200–2030 cal BC. It belonged to a man whose "extremely low" oxygen isotope value of 16.2‰ matches that of the Amesbury Archer, and suggests that he may have been a migrant from a place with a cold and "continental" climate, possibly outside of Britain. You can read more about him in a new paper about British Beakers by Pearson et al. at Antiquity here. If you don't have academic access to journals, try the link here. Bell Beaker Blogger also has a useful summary of the paper here.

​
Abstract: The appearance of the distinctive ‘Beaker package’ marks an important horizon in British prehistory, but was it associated with immigrants to Britain or with indigenous converts? Analysis of the skeletal remains of 264 individuals from the British Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age is revealing new information about the diet, migration and mobility of those buried with Beaker pottery and related material. Results indicate a considerable degree of mobility between childhood and death, but mostly within Britain rather than from Europe. Both migration and emulation appear to have had an important role in the adoption and spread of the Beaker package.​
Mike Parker Pearson, Andrew Chamberlain, Mandy Jay, Mike Richards, Alison Sheridan, Neil Curtis, Jane Evans, Alex Gibson, Margaret Hutchison, Patrick Mahoney, Peter Marshall, Janet Montgomery, Stuart Needham, Sandra O'Mahoney, Maura Pellegrini and Neil Wilkin (2016). Beaker people in Britain: migration, mobility and diet. Antiquity, 90, pp 620-637 doi:10.15184/aqy.2016.72



Posted by Davidski at 2:27 AM



 
Looks to me like mostly EEF skull. Do we have front view?
 
LeBrok said:
Looks to me like mostly EEF skull. Do we have front view?
Click to expand...

I rather disagree. the skull looks very short at the back. The skulls of Anatolian farmers at least have been described by archeologist as longer at the back.

This skull resembles those often found nowadays in the Balkans, Northeast Caucasus and modern West Asian highlands.
 
Alan said:
I rather disagree. the skull looks very short at the back. The skulls of Anatolian farmers at least have been described by archeologist as longer at the back.

This skull resembles those often found nowadays in the Balkans, Northeast Caucasus and modern West Asian highlands.
Click to expand...
Didn't I say mostly EEF? Thanks for agreeing with me. :)
 
EEF is a well defined term in time, and Southern Europe knew a lot of demic moves in History, so, sorry Lebrok, but I agree with the observation of Alan here.
I don't know if we have here an planoccipitaly due to cradle deformation, I'm not sure/. (1950's Germans, Swiss and Austrians showed often enough this planoccipitaly without cradle special uses). I lack too a facial vew of the skull. One skull is not a tribe, but this skull doesn't seem to me only 'mediterranean' oriented, even for face.
As said Alan, Neolithic types of Europe were dolicho-subolichocephalic as a whole, spite they showed different subtypes. The most common in Danubian and S-E Europe regions was the famous "danubian mediteranean" type of Coon, very high skulled, steep foreheaded, frontalized profil, "cerebral" in some way, different enough of other Neolithic 'meds' of West and very different from other dolichocephalic so called 'mediterraneans' of Iran plateau or future Cappadoce. This type as confirmed by more recent studies, was the dominant one in Catal Höyük where it could have been born by isolation/short endogamy, and in S-E Europe first settlements it seems a kind of selection among this first selection (departure of some close families?)!
THis central Anatolia population was different enough or even very different from other Neolithic populations of East Anatolia (Cayonu I think)and Near Eastern, by the way these last populations very more various if I red well.
Spite the naming of "eastern-mediterranean" employed by some anthropologists concerning brachycephal populations of West Asia, caucasus or S-E Europe, it seems the first true brachycephals ('alpinoid', 'dinaroid' or between types) appeared very lately in Anatolia and South Caucasus: around 2200 BC for I know. It seems more linked to newcomers, surely some of them from Balkans (so with CHG of some sort) but not only (some planoccipital skulls foud in the Bronze and later times Steppes), THAN TO A LOCAL evolution in Anatolia.
Maybe new founds will change this picture?
 
LeBrok said:
Didn't I say mostly EEF? Thanks for agreeing with me. :)
Click to expand...

I think Alan meant that the "Dinaric" Bell Beaker skulls are not like the early EEF skulls of people like Stuttgart, which I think were more dolichocephalic, although I can't find anything right now that has the measurements. However, some "EEF" people, like Otzi, were more mesocephalic, or shorter and broader, so it varied. That may have been the result of the arrival of a slightly later Neolithic group or a reaction to the environment. I don't know about the ENF skulls in Anatolia.

Anyway, what people are mostly talking about in describing the "Dinaric" like skull of the Bell Beakers is, I think, the flat occiput and the fact it's shorter and broader than the gracile Mediterranean skull or even the Atlanto-Med skull, if you even consider the latter a valid "type".

Dinaric Armenian plate:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...noid_Lebanese.jpg/800px-Armenoid_Lebanese.jpg

Balkan Dinaric type: I think the first one is Albanian...an extreme type, as too many of these plates are...
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/troe393.jpg
http://forumimage.ru/uploads/20080429/120946396991274437.jpg

Italian Dinaric type:
http://s11.postimg.org/u1o5ejqgz/dinaric2.png

A lot of northern Italians are actually "Noric" I think, because they're lighter. Or it's mixed with med.


These are listed as Polish Dinaric, but isn't her skull a little round, or is it just the angle? Sometimes I think even the "professional" anthropologists don't know what they're doing.
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/cass22/media/dinaric.jpg.html


I'm not "typing" them, mind, so don't attack the messenger. :) I'm only posting anthropologist's plates.

For instance, I don't know who "typed" this Polish woman, but how can you tell the shape of her skull? The hair totally obscures it.

The "Mediterranean" or Atlanto-Mediterranean type: (I've tended to think of this as the original EEF type or at least of some of the EEF type, but, as I said, Otzi is different, and even some of the LBK skulls look more mesocephalic to me. Maybe Moesan can chime in.

Coon's Atlanto-Med: The first one is Portuguese. The second one is Piemonte. The third is Irish.

http://img.index.hu/imgfrm/4/0/6/6/THM_0012984066.jpg

http://www.geocities.ws/racial_reality/p23f1.jpg

http://www.geocities.ws/racial_reality/p24f3.jpg

This is listed as a med type: Napoli
http://i50.tinypic.com/sqt769.png

Ed. Ah, I was too late. Sorry, Moesan.
 
The 'med' type of Napoli, your last link, has very few 'meds' traits: he has conserved mesolithic features in face and skull: by mesolithic here I mean and 'cromagnoid-like' and 'capelloid-like' features of zygomatic and jaw. Very often i'm poorly satisfied by the pictures picked as examples for phoenotypes, even by Coon. The most of South and West "genuine" meds for me have long oval or short oval faces. The 'armenian' type seemingly has been debunked, as the only common trait was a the flattening of occiput, which revealed itself a cradle deformation. Btw, the picture (first link) you posted shows a man with strong 'cromagnoid' tendancies concerning face, for me. The opposite of standard 'dinaric'. Phoenotypes show very often differences that auDNA classification fail to show for more than a reason.
 
Moesan: The 'med' type of Napoli, your last link, has very few 'meds' traits: he has conserved mesolithic features in face and skull: by mesolithic here I mean and 'cromagnoid-like' and 'capelloid-like' features of zygomatic and jaw. Very often i'm poorly satisfied by the pictures picked as examples for phoenotypes, even by Coon. The most of South and West "genuine" meds for me have long oval or short oval faces.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear you say that. There's so much inconsistency even within one anthropologist's work, without even looking at the inconsistencies between the researchers. It never seemed quite right to me that types like this could be "Mediterranean", not even "Coarse Mediterranean".
http://i50.tinypic.com/sqt769.png
 
Yep, I missed that dolicho and meso part of Neolithic skull. Perhaps because all natufian skulls are always covered with plaster, lol. However there are some parts of Neolithic traits in this skull. Front upper teeth are really small Otzi like, nose bridge is really vertical, top view of skull (the shape of crania) matches Natufian shape.
an00347879_544x725.jpg
 
But seemingly, Natufians skulls were rather dolichocephalic. I don't know if this occiput is typical for all natufians or others from Near-Eastern. It could be natural OR created by cradle flattening. Btw, It seems a cradle hard surface permanent contact can flatten the occiput region, without modifying too much the cephalic index, in absence of bandages involving also forehead region. I red somewhere the artificial flattening in certain cultures had not modified too much the CI's, only the shape...
concerning this BB man (?) I don' bet about his nasal profile (too short bit); concerning his jaw and inferior jaw prognathy I'm not sure at all his jaw is correctly ajusted as on life.
As others I would be glad to have frontal view, and the skulls of others men/women of the same "clan" (and BBs in general).
It seems the BBs of Provence (not the majority?), Poland, Central-South Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bohemia were often of a brachy planocciptal type. The British ones were more variated, as explained by Coon (autochtonous people of Northcentral Germany and some Cordeds).
I say also some Eastern Scots (coastal Grampians) and Western Norwegians of the past century showed flattened occiput without any cradle special tradition. And Coon said the Ireland 'Food Vessel' people were dominantly brachycephalic of the classical 'dinaric' type (thinner bones of skulls and body than the borrebylike ones), the southern England ones the more mixed (principally with 'borrebylike' people), the Scotland ones between both. The crossings added robusticity to the 'dinaric'like skeletons (not completely "pure" in England). The partial brachycephaly of Western Norwegians (CI 82 compared to central mean 76/77 in the 1940's) and Western Jutland (CI 82/83 same period) and the presence of Borrebylike types in greater number yet than the 'dinaric' types, push me to think in a BBs imput there. The first brachycephalic types with trend towards 'dinaric' type in Europe (surely due to lack of data from Balkans/Carpathians) are supposed to have been in Denmark/North Germany after the 3000 BC !?! What does not prove they were autochtnous there. Bet: 'dinarics' born in some way in a more Southeastern country, colonizing Germany along the Rhine, and taking with them 'borreby' people of Central Germany.
&: I have'nt complete documentation about the skulls of Scandinavia mesolithic people but the few I saw in pictures seemed of dolichocephalic types, 'brünnlike' (as Loschbour and a lot of Vestovice). The brachycephaly seems come from South and recently enough in History, concerning Scandinavia. But I cannot exclude more than a source. The high stature, compared to first 'alpine' people, could imply at some stage a path throug more Northeastern regions of Europe than Alps; or we could explain this by recent crossings increasing stature?


&: Borreby: meaning here: some already ancient mixt of 'cromagnoids' and 'brünnoids', partly brachycpehalized, so WHG / SHG inherited for the most, Y-I(2) dominant. The 'dinaric' people could have been rich too in Y-I2 picked elsewhere, mixed to produce their special NEW type? in Carpathians??? more bet than science for now.
 
Concerning movements of BBs. It seems the strontium result favours intra-Britain moves for the most. But the Aylesbury bowyer showed a West-Central mountainous region of childhood. His son buryied with him was born in Scotland. SO: remote origins for someones, closer for others, but a very mobile population (traders-prospectors-metallurigsts? original elite only?). If I red well, and it would confirm what I thought, concerning Britain we have a colonization with fast moves before more steady settlings followed by integration of previous non BB people, not without keep in touch with "brothers and cousins". Coon said that at first the Round Barrows people had push Megalithers and others into less advantageous lands, in a first stage. Later we see easily there have been mixtures. Surely the Y-DNA of this late northern BBs is remained the leading one (Y-R1b).
I don' know what is the mainstream knowledge now, but it would have been Food Vessel settlements in Ireland (N-E?) before they came to W-Scotland... Now FV are considered as a branch of BBs, I don't know... It could imply taht at Beakers time Scotland was colonized by South in its East and by West (sea) in its West:
 
MOESAN said:
But seemingly, Natufians skulls were rather dolichocephalic. I don't know if this occiput is typical for all natufians or others from Near-Eastern. It could be natural OR created by cradle flattening. Btw, It seems a cradle hard surface permanent contact can flatten the occiput region, without modifying too much the cephalic index, in absence of bandages involving also forehead region. I red somewhere the artificial flattening in certain cultures had not modified too much the CI's, only the shape...
concerning this BB man (?) I don' bet about his nasal profile (too short bit); concerning his jaw and inferior jaw prognathy I'm not sure at all his jaw is correctly ajusted as on life.
As others I would be glad to have frontal view, and the skulls of others men/women of the same "clan" (and BBs in general).
It seems the BBs of Provence (not the majority?), Poland, Central-South Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bohemia were often of a brachy planocciptal type. The British ones were more variated, as explained by Coon (autochtonous people of Northcentral Germany and some Cordeds).
I say also some Eastern Scots (coastal Grampians) and Western Norwegians of the past century showed flattened occiput without any cradle special tradition. And Coon said the Ireland 'Food Vessel' people were dominantly brachycephalic of the classical 'dinaric' type (thinner bones of skulls and body than the borrebylike ones), the southern England ones the more mixed (principally with 'borrebylike' people), the Scotland ones between both. The crossings added robusticity to the 'dinaric'like skeletons (not completely "pure" in England). The partial brachycephaly of Western Norwegians (CI 82 compared to central mean 76/77 in the 1940's) and Western Jutland (CI 82/83 same period) and the presence of Borrebylike types in greater number yet than the 'dinaric' types, push me to think in a BBs imput there. The first brachycephalic types with trend towards 'dinaric' type in Europe (surely due to lack of data from Balkans/Carpathians) are supposed to have been in Denmark/North Germany after the 3000 BC !?! What does not prove they were autochtnous there. Bet: 'dinarics' born in some way in a more Southeastern country, colonizing Germany along the Rhine, and taking with them 'borreby' people of Central Germany.
&: I have'nt complete documentation about the skulls of Scandinavia mesolithic people but the few I saw in pictures seemed of dolichocephalic types, 'brünnlike' (as Loschbour and a lot of Vestovice). The brachycephaly seems come from South and recently enough in History, concerning Scandinavia. But I cannot exclude more than a source. The high stature, compared to first 'alpine' people, could imply at some stage a path throug more Northeastern regions of Europe than Alps; or we could explain this by recent crossings increasing stature?


&: Borreby: meaning here: some already ancient mixt of 'cromagnoids' and 'brünnoids', partly brachycpehalized, so WHG / SHG inherited for the most, Y-I(2) dominant. The 'dinaric' people could have been rich too in Y-I2 picked elsewhere, mixed to produce their special NEW type? in Carpathians??? more bet than science for now.
Click to expand...

From what I recall, the Bell Beaker skulls in Iberia were more typically "EEF" like. This is one reason why some people believe that these were two different groups of people, with the eastern group being the "steppe" related group. These people also believe that this "eastern" Bell Beaker group were R1b, whereas the Iberian group would carry more typically "EEF" y dna lineages. In this case, presumably, the central European Bell Beakers would have adopted the pottery from people who had moved east into central Europe from Iberia.

There are a couple of papers in the works on Iberian Bell Beaker dna, so hopefully we'll soon know more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 5980 times.

Back
Top