PDA

View Full Version : origin of brachycephaly



Northener
07-11-16, 00:12
One of the big mysteries in the (European) phenotyping is the origin of brachycephalic.

8183

It looks like if the common opinion is that brachycephaly a typical product of the Bronze Age. But why, and from which direction, is still a matter of discussion. I found this interesting blog in which is stated that brachycephaly is a kind of environmental adaption a side effect of brain reduction....is this the key or? Please comment!
https://rokus01.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/evolutionary-tales-behind-otzis-mesocephalic-skull/

bicicleur
07-11-16, 09:37
David Anthony describes the situation near Sredny Stog, the Island at the end of the Dnjepr rapids.
10.000 years ago there were 3 tribes competing for control over this fertile territory, 1 dolychoephalic and 2 brachycephalic with 2 different burial customs.
In the end only 1 of the brachyphalic tribes remains.

IMO the dolychocephalic were WHG and the brachycephalic EHG.

Northener
07-11-16, 10:25
David Anthony describes the situation near Sredny Stog, the Island at the end of the Dnjepr rapids.
10.000 years ago there were 3 tribes competing for control over this fertile territory, 1 dolychoephalic and 2 brachycephalic with 2 different burial customs.
In the end only 1 of the brachyphalic tribes remains.

IMO the dolychocephalic were WHG and the brachycephalic EHG.

Thanks bicicleur, interesting research. Than it's the question if this is the case due to or despite brachycephaly....What would be the evolutionary advantages? Stronger? More cute?...?

MOESAN
11-11-16, 00:30
questions of brachycephaly have been discussed in other threads (without steady conclusions) -
Bicicleur spokes of brachy pops in Eastern Europe among EHG's. OK. Which ones? I never heard of true brachycephalic pops there before relatively recnet times. Where could I find cephalic indexes of these Sredny Stog people, I'm interested. BTW brachycephalic men and pops began to appear in Alps and Bourgogne, Western Europe, since the 6000 BC, if what I red was true.
the shape attached to a peculiar genetic package has maybe no advantage but is tied to unvisible advantages of this genetic package? For 'europoids' it's true the concentrations are roughly said rather linked to highlands...

halfalp
13-01-17, 23:07
By the way, almost all East Asian populations ( mongoloids ) are brachycephals... So the theory about Cro-Magnon became Alpin race or some things like that ( infantilization ? ), are juste a non-sens. I think we focus more on facts than on details, for exemple, if Yamna R1b were Dolichocephals, ( mediteranneans and proto-europoides ? ) it doesn't mean that it was the case in the origin. R1b could be a brachycephal tribe from central asia origin ( mongoloid brachycephal ) and let that physical stock for exemple in transcaucasia ( where it became, armenid ) and later evolved physicaly in pontic steppe, with mixing with other population. So for me, Brachycephalization has an origin in time and is not something that append with sedentary or farming, or environnmental issues.

johen
13-01-17, 23:35
By the way, almost all East Asian populations ( mongoloids ) are brachycephals... So the theory about Cro-Magnon became Alpin race or some things like that ( infantilization ? ), are juste a non-sens. I think we focus more on facts than on details, for exemple, if Yamna R1b were Dolichocephals, ( mediteranneans and proto-europoides ? ) it doesn't mean that it was the case in the origin. R1b could be a brachycephal tribe from central asia origin ( mongoloid brachycephal ) and let that physical stock for exemple in transcaucasia ( where it became, armenid ) and later evolved physicaly in pontic steppe, with mixing with other population. So for me, Brachycephalization has an origin in time and is not something that append with sedentary or farming, or environnmental issues.

Here is another R1b Afanasievo tribe, who were crogmanon-type paleo European like UP, so called "proto-Europid."
Another important thing is "elongnated skull" like catacomb cuture, but this part has been totally ignored. I think it was not fashion at all.

"Henry Field; Eugene Prostov. Results of Soviet Investigations in Siberia, 1940-1941/ American Anthropologist,New Series, Vol. 44, No. 3. (Jul. - Sep., 1942), pp. 388-406.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7294%28194207%2F09%292%3A44%3A3%3C388%3AROSIIS%3E2 .0.CO%3B2-1

The oldest anthropological objects from the Altai and Minusinsk, attributed to about 2,000 B.C. and belonging to the period of the Afanas'evo culture are characterized by pronounced traits of the Europoid peoples.

Twenty-four skulls from Afanas'evo sites possess similar characters. In addition to such Europoid traits as a prominent nose and an orhtognathous, ralatively short and unflattened face, the Afanas'evo skulls have an elongated for and are massive. The latter is expressed in a greater facial breadth, a greater slant of the forehead, and in highly developed supraorbital crests. This combination of characters is unknown among the modern European races but occurs in the Upper Paleolithic period.

The closest analogy to the Afans'evo skulls offered by the Cro-Magnon type of western Europe. Since all Afanas'evo skulls belong to this type with no Mongoloid admixture, it is most probable that the ancient inhabitants of western Siberia belonged to this type.

The first explanation is that the Afanas'evo people migrated into the western Siberia and eliminated the autochthons. The second possibility is that the Afanas'evo type resembled or was connected closely with that of the more ancient populations.

At that particular stage of historical development it is difficult to understand in what manner on such extenxive a territory as the stepps of western Siberia there should have occured such a complete displacement of a people by later invaders. It is far more plausible that the most ancient populations of the steppe belt of western Siberia down to the Minusinsk region originated from and belonged anthropologicaly to the Cro-Magnon type of western Europe."

MOESAN
14-01-17, 01:02
Allways same old stories with incomplete doc -
It's evident Ötzi is not 'mesochephalic': he 's 'mesocrane' (over 75 Cranial Index) - but his skull is reasonably elongated whatever people say - on life it would have been qualified 'meso 'dolichocephalic', not mesocephalic (on life it began after IC 80)
That said I'm glad to see two views of Ötzi crania, even if not too precise (I would bet he was about IC 76)– Now I see better some ‘mediter’ aspects in his face spite he doesn’t seem too typical, but his jaw, yes, is more ‘mediter’ - his low skull is less evident, with a high placed occiput, something ‘cromagnoid’ ; surely a good example for meso-neolithic pops crossings in W-Europe, but the ‘mediter’ here doesn’t evocate the pedomorphic highskulled ‘danubian’ so common type among first agricultors of SE Europe and W Anatolia.
Brachycephaly (true : over 84 on cranium) begun roughly about the 8000 BC ?, with a future center around Bavaria/Switzerlands/Jura France (W Alps in sme way) – first brachy’s of Ofnet in Bavaria (one was IC 87) were found in company of dolicho’s more or less ‘brünnlike’ as a lot of Mesolithics but issued from Upper Paleo and also some sub-mesocephalic highskulled Azileans close to Teviec type; some details lead to the conclusion that all these skulls were not from an united cultural group. The brachy’s had big skulls, lowskulled, broad square faces and broad low orbits, with strong jaw – some evocate a brachy found before in Solutré, Bourgogne – Coon linked them to a (sub)brachycephalic type called sometimes « ofnet-afalou », whose some specimens can be found in Western Maghreb and at lower level in Palestine, close to ‘borreby’ types. At the early Neolithic, Switzerland lake-dwellings were settled by a majority of brachy’s lowheaded, broad- and lowfaced with low orbits, so not too far from the Ofnet brachys, but I think a bit smaller, and already less « paleolike », more foetalized, surely the prototypes of ‘alpine’ type. In Neolithic Switzerland, new dolicho’s arrived, with some variations but all of them evocating some kind of ‘mediter’ type. So, no, it’s not agriculture nor farmers who introduced brachycephaly in Western Europe. If first brachys came from East, it was before agriculture. Speaking of faces, the western european brachy’s whatever the subtype, are on a ‘cromagnoid’ pattern, nothing else.
In Switzerland some generations later, after crossings (apparently), some dysharmonic types appeared (broad skull, narrow face).
I think a mutation could be responsible of this brachycephaly ; the selective aspect escapes to my understanding to date ; it could be linked to other genes more effective for selection and in vicinity on the chromosome ???
concerning ‘east-asian’ types, they are far to be all brachycephalic and as a whole don’t present the extreme brachycephaly some ancient and modern Europeans present(ed) witthout speaking of differences in shape.
Concerning brachycephaly in general, Western and Eastern Europe do’nt oppose very different means, the concentration is rather in mountainous lands whatever the cause. I think the places were so called ‘alpine’ types dominated were the places of the extreme brachycephaly, in so called ‘dinaric’ lands it was a bit less extreme, as it was even lesser for ‘borreby’.


A distinct phenomenon is the brachycephalization which occurred since Middle Ages and affected almost of European regions, at least seen from far ; local reality could be more complicated. This phenomenon augmented, I would say, the CI’s of 3 ; more than a cause could ve involved (sedentism, short circles of mating, food, hard body work before adolescence, environment… I don’t know) – of you add 1 to 1,3 between skull and alife head, you can try to compare ancient pops and modern pops of the 1940’s applying a +4,0/4,3 correction : then local pops appear less different that believed ? For « evolved » 2000 pops, at the opposite, let’s apply a -2/-2,5 correction ?

MOESAN
14-01-17, 01:04
I gave dates based on my bad memory - I did not find the precise dates for Solutre and Ofnet Cave. Mesolithic at least.

johen
14-01-17, 20:13
--.
I think you are the expert. Do you think Yamna people could become paleo Europoid Afanasievo people? If so, where did yamna people come from? They are taller than even UP people.

"The Yamna population generally belongs to the European race. It was tall (175.5cm), dolichocephalic, with broad faces of medium height. Among them there were, however, more robust elements with high and wide faces of the proto-Europoid type, and also more gracile individuals with narrow and high faces, probably reflecting contacts with the East Mediterranean type (Kurts 1984: 90)."

by coon
http://i57.tinypic.com/2606gy1.png

halfalp
14-01-17, 20:29
I'm sorry, what is elongated skull ? I personnally never really understand the " proto-europoid " type, wich was used by sovietics physical anthropologists. And the race modern concept, doesn't mean anything eather, a part big evidence ( black skin, epicanthus ) because Cro-magnoid 1 is consider like the basic exemple of " caucasian race " but the rectangular orbital hole, are a " negroid " traits. For me, racial classification, is intuitive, you know who is european or not, and who have non-european ancestry or not. I'm pretty sure that, in paleolithic, when tribes where even not very metissed, ancestral population for R1a, R1b where in any case " mongolized ".

johen
14-01-17, 20:46
I'm sorry, what is elongated skull ?
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/authority.html

I want to see the elognated afanasievo skull. And I personally think that such a tradition continued to the elites of scythian and Hun, who originated in Altai area.



I personnally never really understand the " proto-europoid " type, wich was used by sovietics physical anthropologists.

The concept always makes people confused. I am not the expert, I think the afanasievo descriptions would explain the concept of proto-europid, which means broad face, short skull, no mongoloid but like Up people from cromagnon.

Important thing is this paleo European type was wide- spread in steppe zone of Eurasia from Dnieper to Altaye-Sayan region during bronze age. Moreover, it seems like the people spread Indo European language.

sample: andronovo
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/Andronovo_skull.jpg

I think the afanasievo looks like starting point of this type, but I don't know where they came from.

johen
15-01-17, 18:38
Coon on ancient races of Anatolia:

"Let us first examine what Bronze Age skeletal material there is in Asia Minor. So far, all of it comes from two sites, Alishar Hüyük, which, in its later periods, was a Hittite city, and Hissarlik, the seventh level of Which was Homer’s Troy. Both were important centers in the Bronze Age. At Alishar, fifty-three skulls have been studied, from seven archaeological periods, ranging from the earliest Copper Age, dated from between 2600 and 2300 B.C., to the Osmanli invasion.2

Ten crania from the earliest period (two “Chalcolithic,” eight Copper Age) are uniformly Danubian in type, both metrically and morphologically. The small, high-vaulted, somewhat infantile dolicho- and mesocephalic form, with small face and mesorrhine to chamaerrhine noses, is no different from that found at roughly the same time at Anau, at Mariupol, in the Kiev Government, and in the Danube Valley, in association with Neolithic cultures. Two others, which are longer, may belong to a Megalithic or Corded variety.The unity of the early food-producing peoples on both sides of the Caucasus and Black Sea is therefore indicated, and from the racial standpoint, the Danubians could have come to central Europe from either South Russia or Anatolia, or both.

In the second and third periods at Alishar, dated between 2300 and 1500 B.C., and called the Early Bronze Age, brachycephalic skulls appeared, and these persisted through the period of the Hittite Empire, for several centuries after 1500 B.C. The crania are large, low vaulted, and only moderately brachycephalic, with lambdoid flattening, and moderate browridges. The faces are of medium length, and narrow, although somewhat broader than those of the earlier Danubian type. The stature of the one male observed was tall, 174 cm.3

Not all of the Hittite Empire crania are brachycephalic. A long-headed variety, which seems to have replaced or outnumbered the brachycephals by the time of the Phrygian invasions, is both longer and lower vaulted than the Danubian type of the Copper Age; it is characterized by a very prominent nasal skeleton of true Near Eastern form, with little nasion depression. Bas-relief sculptures of historic Hittites reproduce this hook-nosed, open-eyed type of countenance.

The sequence of racial types in Asia Minor during the metal ages probably runs somewhat as follows: the earliest food-producing people were the same as those in western Turkestan and southern Russia. The latter probably came in earlier times from the highland belt of which Anatolia forms a part. Shortly before 2000 B.C., a moderately brachycephalic type, with tall stature, entered Anatolia from regions yet to be determined, followed by a low-vaulted, hawk-nosed Mediterranean form, which we have named Cappadocian,” and which is well known in the present day Near East. True Arrnenoids or Dinarics were not, apparently, common in early times."

MOESAN
15-01-17, 20:45
I'm sorry, what is elongated skull ? I personnally never really understand the " proto-europoid " type, wich was used by sovietics physical anthropologists. And the race modern concept, doesn't mean anything eather, a part big evidence ( black skin, epicanthus ) because Cro-magnoid 1 is consider like the basic exemple of " caucasian race " but the rectangular orbital hole, are a " negroid " traits. For me, racial classification, is intuitive, you know who is european or not, and who have non-european ancestry or not. I'm pretty sure that, in paleolithic, when tribes where even not very metissed, ancestral population for R1a, R1b where in any case " mongolized ".

I lack ancient archaïc SSA skulls to be sure but I doubt the more recent SSA diverse types had the angular square orbits of earlier 'eurasians' (Jomons and Ainous among them). for Y-R1 ancestral pop, I don't know; no clue but some archaïc 'east-asian' pops can indicate us they were not already so 'mongol-like' as the current pops of East-Asia.
that said, the more you go back into past the less numerous or the physical types, I think.
concerning Russians 'archeo-eurasian' types, I lack measures (means, individuals, localization); I'm not sure the pop was so homogenous, only that its mean put it far enough from the MOST of modern 'europoids'. A lot of differences are based on the vague concept of "robusticity" what is not the better marker because it is tightly tied to way of life/environment - but when you look at today Czechs or Scandinavians (noses, inferior jaw, glabella and so on), you can still see along with more mixed people the remnants (traits) of several ancient types of Western Eurasia, gracilization or not.

MOESAN
15-01-17, 23:08
I think you are the expert. Do you think Yamna people could become paleo Europoid Afanasievo people? If so, where did yamna people come from? They are taller than even UP people.

"The Yamna population generally belongs to the European race. It was tall (175.5cm), dolichocephalic, with broad faces of medium height. Among them there were, however, more robust elements with high and wide faces of the proto-Europoid type, and also more gracile individuals with narrow and high faces, probably reflecting contacts with the East Mediterranean type (Kurts 1984: 90)."

by coon
http://i57.tinypic.com/2606gy1.png


More than a time I took the party of Coon against some prejudices about his works. But here I can say I don"t rely on something as "Mesolithic" or "Neolithic" or "Modern period" statures: it's a nonsense.
in Mesolithic, Portugal Mugem were about 1m58, close to Teviec, N-Europe was about 1m65, E-Europe (no state at hand) was considered higher statured: there was not an homogenous pop all over Europe then; the most of "new mediters" coming at Cardial and after in W-Mediterranea werea bout 1m62 and it has been signaled "dwarves" in Switzerland Neolithic -
in Modern times (1940/50 for Coon?), Europe means ran from 1m60 (more in SW subregions) to 1m76 (Bosnia/Norway fringes)
at the cranium capacity level I don't know but it seems that spite regional variations the general trend has been towards a decrease in capacity by time - and W Mediterranean pops have/had constantly bigger crania than E Mediterranean pops what I'm tempted to put on the account of more Mesolithic input in S-West than in S-East.

johen
15-01-17, 23:59
I lack ancient archaïc SSA skulls to be sure but I doubt the more recent SSA diverse types had the angular square orbits of earlier 'eurasians' (Jomons and Ainous among them). for Y-R1 ancestral pop, I don't know; no clue but some archaïc 'east-asian' pops can indicate us they were not already so 'mongol-like' as the current pops of East-Asia.
that said, the more you go back into past the less numerous or the physical types, I think.
concerning Russians 'archeo-eurasian' types, I lack measures (means, individuals, localization); I'm not sure the pop was so homogenous, only that its mean put it far enough from the MOST of modern 'europoids'. A lot of differences are based on the vague concept of "robusticity" what is not the better marker because it is tightly tied to way of life/environment - but when you look at today Czechs or Scandinavians (noses, inferior jaw, glabella and so on), you can still see along with more mixed people the remnants (traits) of several ancient types of Western Eurasia, gracilization or not.

Again, I am not an expert, but I think the Russian concept of paleo Europid or proto-Europoid is closely related with the robustness of UP people and cromagnon. C. Loring brace explained the roboustness of UP and cromagnon.

- In the map, cromagnon is located with greek bronze far bellow sami/Fin

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/1/242/F2.large.jpg

- The dendrogram shows close ties between the greek Bronze and UP.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/1/242/F1.large.jpg

In that run, the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou/Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geographically diverse groups clearly have in common is "a degree of robustness" that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found

The afalou looks similar to the above andronovo's robustness.
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/chapter-II-plate3a.jpg

Moreover, C. Brace also mentioned this:

it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other.
--> modern european are close to middle East people who are not related with UP.
By the way, where did the greek bronze come from? Definitely not from middle east at all.

halfalp
18-01-17, 11:34
Ok by elongated skull you mean cranial bandage, i didnt know that the scientifical term was elongated skull. The problem with bandage its that it occurs in a lot of different population and can be a very ancestral cultural trait, or maybe they were hyperdolichocephalic elves.

johen
19-01-17, 03:34
Ok by elongated skull you mean cranial bandage, i didnt know that the scientifical term was elongated skull. The problem with bandage its that it occurs in a lot of different population and can be a very ancestral cultural trait, or maybe they were hyperdolichocephalic elves.
what bandage? elongated skull means cranial deformation like this.
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/imgs/France_Obernai_02.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation

Normally the royal elite group had that customs. Most important thing is the scythian and Hun's elites had that tradition, also originating in Altai like the Afanasievo people. If afanasievo and yamna people were same people, I think the afanasievo people would be elite group. They were original cromagnon type paleo-European.


Afanasievo Culture

an Aeneolithic culture of Southern Siberia found in the Minusinsk Basin and the Altai from themiddle of the third to the beginning of the second millennium B.C.; contemporary with theKelteminar culture, the Pit culture, and the Catacomb culture. Named for a burial ground atMount Afanasievo near the village of Bateni in the Khakass Autonomous Oblast. Unlike thesurrounding Mongoloid population, the tribes of the Afanasievo culture were of the so-called Paleo- european type.
Kiselev, S. V. Drevniaia istoriia luzhnoi Sibiri, [2nd ed.]. Moscow, 1951.
Istoriia Sibiri s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, vol. 1. Leningrad, 1968.

MOESAN
19-01-17, 21:04
Again, I am not an expert, but I think the Russian concept of paleo Europid or proto-Europoid is closely related with the robustness of UP people and cromagnon. C. Loring brace explained the roboustness of UP and cromagnon.

- In the map, cromagnon is located with greek bronze far bellow sami/Fin

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/1/242/F2.large.jpg

- The dendrogram shows close ties between the greek Bronze and UP.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/1/242/F1.large.jpg


The afalou looks similar to the above andronovo's robustness.
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/chapter-II-plate3a.jpg

Moreover, C. Brace also mentioned this:

--> modern european are close to middle East people who are not related with UP.
By the way, where did the greek bronze come from? Definitely not from middle east at all.

I've some doubts about the comparisons between ancient and modern pops; the absolute metrics classifications lead to false closeness and false remoteness concerning true genetic/genealogic links - you have not to go very far in time: already, between gentry and workers classes/peasantry of the same regions same times appear(ed) neat enough differences in robusticity with NO genetic link, only nutrition/kind of physicial work/way of life; - here I suppose they worked upon crania only - but these factors inpact shoulders breadth, arms span, arms length, breast chest, and intra/within members proportions - these differences are not so evident that between Paleo/Meso pops and the most of Neol pops but it exists... and two dolicho or two brachy persons could have very distinct shapes -
I don' deny AT ALL that difference in "robusticity" has a genetic background, but I say: not only -
I don't like dendograms...
concerning the above plottings you can see curious things as Neol GB closer to paleo people and Icelandmen far away! But neol GB men were very long headed and spite narrowheaded the addition of their absolute measures put them closer to ancient pops than a lot of North Europe pops, and they are close to Saami/Finn people spite thay have (according to me) very few in common; it show the relativeness of these means metrics plottings, for me.

Andronovo 's were not homogenous, but they shew (according to what I red) some global robusticity, and a tendancy to more mesocephalic less dolichocephalic heads compared to 'cromagnoid' people of the Mesolithic steppes; they could show sometime some closeness to Afalou based upon remote common background but they were different; what interest me is they could show in their crossings or evolution something evocating one of the famous (too famous?) 'borreby'like people found in Northern Europe and Germany about the 3000 BC or a bit earlier - since a long time I suspect one of the Y-I branches to be the source of this evolved type (compared to all dolicho or dolicho-meso pops of Mesolihtic, Alpine regions left aside) - some lambda flattened brachys have been seen among Steppes tribes and I wonder if it's not this kind of sub-brachys, alloyed with a kind of 'mediter' (rather "eastern" and semi-archaïc so Indo-Afghanlike) which gave birth to the so called 'dinaric' (mean?) type?... and I think in BBs and central and eastern European Y-I2 of any sort! Wait and sea.

warning: I'm not an expert, only a person very interested in shapes comparisons, ancient anthropology and drawing - so you can look around you for other informators too.

MOESAN
19-01-17, 21:14
what bandage? elongated skull means cranial deformation like this.
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/imgs/France_Obernai_02.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation

Normally the royal elite group had that customs. Most important thing is the scythian and Hun's elites had that tradition, also originating in Altai like the Afanasievo people. If afanasievo and yamna people were same people, I think the afanasievo people would be elite group. They were original cromagnon type paleo-European.

OTHER tribes used the same deformations, maybe after contacts with Asian pops, Huns for the most:Alani, Vandles if I red well and maybe other East Germanic tribes - all the way it seems these deformations were not generalized in the pops, as you say --
I red the Wiki article and I was surprised they say head deformations were common in France until the XX Cy - I was aware of the Toulouse one, but for other regions???

halfalp
19-01-17, 21:14
Yes bandage, for modification of cranium, we bande the head when the kid is just few months. Its nothing else, it was still practiced in europe the last century.

halfalp
19-01-17, 21:18
That afalou skull doesnt look like something that i know. the rectangular orbits are clearly a negroid or archaic human caracteristic, is cranium look like a total melting pot of early humans and he's got a very robust chin with an long face... he must have some different origins ( africa, south europe, mediterranea in general... ).

Angela
19-01-17, 21:28
Are you talking about "swaddling"? It was indeed done in Europe and very recently too. I still have my own swaddling cloths as a keep sake. My head wasn't swaddled, however.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaddling

As a teenager I teased my mother about abusing me as an infant, but lo and behold, my pediatrician recommended it for colicky babies. He said it soothes them, helps them sleep, and helps prevent Infant Death Syndrome, and so I wound up swaddling my own infants. What goes around comes around.

Are you guys saying that the head shape was deliberately deformed until recently?

halfalp
19-01-17, 21:38
Come on ! for the deformation of cranium we strip the head with a bandage ( maybe the term does not exist in english, so the case, my apologies ). In french the concept of of elongated skull is called Deformation Volontaire Crânienne, so yes, it means that it is deliberate, there is no, hyperbrachycephalic elvens in nature in ancient times.

johen
19-01-17, 22:13
Andronovo 's were not homogenous, but they shew (according to what I red) some global robusticity, and a tendancy to more mesocephalic less dolichocephalic heads compared to 'cromagnoid' people of the Mesolithic steppes

No, they were not homogenous, but dominant people were close to Afanasievo, as far as I know.
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e181/Borntobeking/4-2.jpg
From "The Tarim Mummies" by J.P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair, 2000

In the map, Yamna is close to Afanasievo, which I really don't understand. I don't think yamna,sredni stog and khvalynsk people could become Afanasievo people, but opposite is possible. Moreover, seems like the paleo european type people, especially Afanasievo people, spread Indoeuropean language. Afanasievo R1b is close to srubna R1a-z93(Aryan people) and Qawrighul(2,000bc tarim) related with tocharian.


Gimbutas (1985: 191) has suggested that the Srednij Stog II culture in the DnieperDonets region which she identifies as her Kurgan I and II cultures (ca. 4500–3500BCE) was not the result of local evolution in that region but had its source in an
intrusion from an earlier culture farther east with connections to the earliest Neoli-thic in the Middle Urals and Soviet Central Asia. The archaeological record of the regions still farther east before that time is unfortunately still largely blank.:Edwin G. PulleyblankUniversity of British [email protected] PEOPLES OF THE STEPPE FRONTIER IN EARLYCHINESE SOURCES*

halfalp
19-01-17, 22:50
Sredni Stog is called Kurgan I and II, what it means that the first kurgans sepulturs were on sredni stog or Kurgan is just a generic term for the Kurgan Hypothesis ? By the way, with the environnmental context of tarim basin, i think we should not take conclusion about them, they could be anything, to a fusion with tocharians and iranians, to rejected peoples.

MOESAN
19-01-17, 23:40
That afalou skull doesnt look like something that i know. the rectangular orbits are clearly a negroid or archaic human caracteristic, is cranium look like a total melting pot of early humans and he's got a very robust chin with an long face... he must have some different origins ( africa, south europe, mediterranea in general... ).

NO, nothing negroidlike in Afalou - archaic orbits, surely, but not particularly african, and the remnant is very very non-negroid - some Qafzeh/Skhul skulls, even more primitive (true they were more ancient), had very more proto-negroidlike tendancies, I think

MOESAN
19-01-17, 23:47
@Johen, friendly:
I add the Afalou Mongolia Bronze proximity is sufficient to prove the unaccuracy of this kind of plottings!

halfalp
19-01-17, 23:49
The rectangular orbits are an negroid influence, in archaic humans the proximity with the out of africa, explain this, in afalou, the geography explain this. Other than the rectangular orbits, he's seems pretty much a melting-pot of humans features.

MOESAN
20-01-17, 00:13
The rectangular orbits are an negroid influence, in archaic humans the proximity with the out of africa, explain this, in afalou, the geography explain this. Other than the rectangular orbits, he's seems pretty much a melting-pot of humans features.

It's your opinion, it seems withtout any basis to me - Could you provide me ancient (but "modern") skulls of plain Africa? I saw only one, but it was very very far from Afalou indeed.

MOESAN
20-01-17, 00:42
good reading - not too evident, only an abstract

contour was generally asymmetrical. Taking into account the rounded and symmetrical inferior portion, the orbit contour of the Asian sample resembles a quadrilateral shape with a slight inclination; it has a narrower superior portion and a broader inferior portion. This contradicts the assumption proposed by Lahr (1994, 1996) that a particular orbit shape associated with East Asian populations was unidentifiable. These results also do not support claims that modern Chinese have square or elliptical orbital shape (Liu et al, 2006; Lu, 2007). Lahr (1996) proposed that the orbital contour of Europeans were characterized by their moderate to pronounced inclination, which was also demonstrated in the present study. Additionally, the lower and upper margins of the European orbital contour remained parallel in a large number of specimens. Considering the straight lateral margin, the orbit shape of European specimens was almost an inclined square or rectangle. However, the orbits of some European specimens involved an obvious inclined inferior contour and a horizontal superior contour. Therefore, the degree of inclination for the inferior portion especially on the internal aspect of the lower margin is a more stable and a typical characteristic of the European orbital contour. Cameron’s (1920) suggestion that orbital contours of people from Eurasia have more rounded corners was undermined here. As proposed by Villiers (1968), the means and distribution of the orbit index categories showed that hypsiconch orbits may be a Bantu-speaking South African specific characteristic. However, the characterization of Africans as having a much taller orbit was not supported by the results of the present study or those by Masters (2008). The typical features for the African superior and inferior contour of the orbit concentrate on its shortness, although parts of African specimens were still relatively high. Villiers (1968) proposed that the orbital contour of Bantu-speaking South Africans was characteristically rectangular in shape. However, as shown in the present study, the orbit shape in the African sample resembled that of Asians and Europeans to a large degree. Therefore, it is difficult to describe it as being either rectangular or round. Generally speaking, the African orbit
is not as rectangular or as square as Europeans and was less rounded than Asians. Masters (2008) placed Asian and African orbit shape on two opposite positions and proposed that the orbit shape of Europeans fell between them, with slight affinity towards the African group. However, based on the results of the present study, in the superior contour of the orbit, Europeans had a closer affinity to Africans than to Asians. The inferior contour of Africans showed approximate affinity to both Asians and Europeans. When lines were used to connect any two populations, with the line length representing the difference of average orbit shape, then a triangle was formed to represent the relationship among these three populations. In this triangle, the line between Asians and Africans was always the shortest. This means that, in terms of overall orbital shape, the contour of Asians and Africans show closer affinity, than that between Europeans and either Asians or Africans. The most variable areas of the superior contour concentrate on the internal aspect of the upper margin and the contour near the fmo, with the contour between them being relatively stable. The portion of the frontal bone forming the upper margin of the orbital aperture in relation to the horizontal plane of the cranium varies in its inclination, which probably involves the whole orbital roof. Additionally, there was a disproportionate increase in the internal aspect of the upper margin for the Asian sample, which increases the variability of the superior contour. As in the superior contour, rather than overall change, the majority of the variation in the inferior contour comes from the partial and disproportionate transformations. The internal aspect of the inferior contour was the most variable area, especially for the European and African samples. These areas along the lower margin extend more laterally than Asians, which could explain why more specimens in the Asian sample were correctly discriminated. The variation of the contour near the fmo was relevant to change of the superior-lateral corner, and plays a significant role in determining whether the orbit was rectangular or rounded. This indicates that orbit shape should be treated as a metric feature based on its nature of being continuously

halfalp
20-01-17, 00:44
Ahah ! funny response ! the rectangular orbits are definitly negroid or archaic ( archaic humans are negroid by definition ). What do you mean by ancient and modern ? Afalou is 20'000 B.C. He's gonna be nothing else than a cro-magnoid from north africa. He's skin color is not important. So yeah, by negroid, i surely being misunderstood, i should say, Archaic Anatomicaly Modern Human Who Obviousely Look Like Modern African People, some way or another, it can be Khoisan, or something else, but definitely for a modern human eyes, he had to look more african, than modern european.

MOESAN
20-01-17, 17:20
From above: "Generally speaking, the African orbit is not as rectangular or as square as Europeans and was less rounded than Asians.
I began to wonder if your are not a bit blockheaded??? (LOL) - Excuse this rude word, but I don't understand your way of thinking - and have you ever seen a Khoisan man? He is the farthest possible you can find from Afalou, he is paedomorphic what Afalou is not at all!
and modern Africans (except SOME OF the Northern Africans from Maghreb) are all far enough to very far from Afalou; except in Maghreb the closest to Afalou would be some RARE Arabs of Yemen (not the typical Yemenite Bedwin, himself very gracile 'mediter' and light jawed, contrary to Afalou) - Afalou came FROM EAST (so Eurasia) or very close places, not from SOUTH -
today Negoids are not by force closer to ancient Humanity than Mongoloids or Europoids are: all of our ancestors evolved through different paths, just Africans stayed in a climatic region more akin to the ancient conditions - I even think that the externally colsest people to ancient Humans are Papoos and Australoids...
I think you have to look and read more about this stuff, and if possible not on the too numerous sites dedied to physical anthropology where old sagas are repeated ad nauseum.
No offense.

johen
01-04-17, 01:05
Apparently European Jews (both Ashkenazi and Sephardi ones) were/are brachycephalic (C.I. between 81.5 and 83.0):
Maurice Fishberg, "Physical Anthropology of the Jews. I. The Cephalic Index", published in: "American Anthropologist", Vol. 4, No. 4, 1902.
The "Jewish nose" is in fact Armenoid nose, and it is actually most common among ethnic Armenians.
Data on percentage of convex noses by country / ethnicity:

Armenians: 62%
Albania (Ghegs): "over 50%"
Montenegro: 52%
Jews (Ashkenazi): "below 50%"
Ireland: 45%
Basques: 43% (Spanish); 49% (French)
Netherlands (Frisians): 35%
Italy (North): 32%
Greece: 30%
Switzerland: 25%
Serbia: 25%
Ukraine (Volhynians): 17%
Spain: 15%
Bulgaria: "rare"


And how do you explain the connection between Armenians, Ashkenazi, Irish, Basques, French and Frisians (Northern Dutch)?

Italy (North) is 23,8% (31,70% males and 16,01% females = 23,8%)

I think the convex nose might be related with mesolithic-neolithic people, who lived in the yellow zone of Northern Eurasian Anthropological Formation , karzakstan, south western siberia and altai area
This people’s facial traits are low, wide and convex nose with upper facial flateness. The traits gave us a great impression of being mixed with caucasoid and mongoloid. So I agree the opinions that this people is just intermediate between caucasoid and mongoloid and that the convex nose was created in cold area. As I remembered, yamna people had that nose too.
Pretty interesting thing is that only yamna R1b was europoid and kitoi R1a mongoloid at that time, who resided at the end of the intermediate people’s huge territory.
Another mistery is, without any anthro or archaeological footprints on the huge territory, afanasisevo caucasoid popped up in altai, and mongoloid in pit-comb culture area.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mbYRi_rLvlE/UAWpFKRfa2I/AAAAAAAAALo/wVMb9PVM4xs/s1600/U2e-U4-U5region.png

Karzakstan:

All Botai 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 Parts of Asia during the Eneolithic period - "Kazakh steppe type"



Southern Siberia (which is sometimes viewed as a region that includes the Russian part of the Altai-Sayan highland) and Western Siberia (which is often believed to include
Gorny Altai, the Kuznetsk Alatau, Kuznetsk Basin, and the Salair range)
are geographically intermediate between the distribution areas of Caucasoids and Mongoloids.
In Russian physical anthropology, Western Siberia is described as a northern intermediate zone, and Southern Siberia as a southern intermediate zone. Morphological intermediacy is commonly believed to result from hybridization. Most physical anthropologists studying the prehistoric populations of Gorny Altai, too, believe that the key evolutionary factor was hybridization
between Caucasoids and Mongoloids. However, human remains recently excavated in that territory suggest that at least in certain cases, intermediacy might have been caused by evolutionary conservatism, leading to unusual combinations of diagnostic traits. Thus,
certain prehistoric cranial series from Gorny Altai are characterized by a broad face, equally flattened at the nasomalar and zygo-maxillary levels, convex nasal bones combined with a small nasal prominence angle, medium wide nasal aperture, and broad and low orbits. This combination, which is rather unusual since it cannot be described as either Caucasoid or Mongoloid, shows a remarkable persistence in Gorny Altai over several millennia. The entire complex of these traits was observed in several skeletal populations of that territory,
from the Neolithic to the Early Iron Age, strongly implying biological continuity.



Karelians display a rather unusual trait combination, characterized by mesobrachycrany and a relatively short, wide, robust and extremely high braincase. The face is medium high and medium wide (it is wide in northern Karelia). The upper horizontal facial profile is flattened by European standards, but the midfacial profile is sharp. The nose is sharply protruding and convex. This trait combination opposes the Karelians to all modern and recent groups of Eurasia including the closest linguistic relatives of Karelians, the Baltic Finns, specifically the Suomi Finns and Estonians (Khartanovich, 1986, 1990). Among the prehistoric series, the same trait
combination is observed in the Meso-Neolithic sample from Zvejnieki, Latvia (Khartanovich, 1991b).
A significant contribution to the study of the early population history of Eastern Europe and of the origins of the contradictory trait combinations distributed on that territory was made by T.I. Alekseyeva. In a joint monograph describing the Neolithic cranial series from Sakhtysh in the Upper Volga area, she notes that certain European Mesolithic groups were characterized by large dimensions of the braincase and especially by its conspicuous height. The face was wide and relatively low and a flattened upper facial profile co-occurred with a sharp midfacial profile and sharply protruding nasal bones (Alekseyeva, 1997). In Alekseyeva’s words, this
unusual trait combination, which was more than once revealed by multivariate statistics, was widely distributed and was typical of Mesolithic Caucasoids of the forest and forest-steppe zones of Eastern Europe as evidenced by groups such as Zvejnieki, Popovo, Southern Oleniy (Reindeer) Island, and Vasilievka I and III. In her words, there is no doubt that robustness and upper facial flatness were inherited from earlier Caucasoid populations of Eastern Europe (Ibid.: 26). In the joint monograph integrating the anthropological studies of the Eastern Slavs, Alekseyeva formulated her conclusions regarding the origin of this trait combination: “Judging by the concentration of these unusual features in Scandinavia, the Baltic and the Onega area, people displaying them had migrated to Eastern Europe from the northwest and were possibly associated with the Mesolithic cultures of the circum-Baltic region. Revisiting the long-standing issue of admixture versus evolutionary conservatism in the Mesolithic population of Eastern Europe in the light of new data, we must reject the admixture hypothesis.
The location of this peculiar type and its expansion from the west to the east suggest that it should be regarded as an independent ancient type which originated in northwestern Europe” (Alekseyeva, 1999: 254–255). In the Neolithic, biological continuity with the Mesolithic population was preserved but the diversity increased.
Importantly, according to Alekseyeva (Ibid.: 255), the population which in the Mesolithic had been quite Caucasoid despite the unusual combination of the two 7 facial profiles flattened in the upper part and sharp in the middle part; one might add that the face was very broad and the braincase was very high) began to assume a somewhat “Mongoloid” appearance.After the Neolithic, groups marked by the trait combination noted by Alekseyeva and others seem to have disappeared from Eastern Europe. This may have been partly due to the scarcity of cranial remains from the Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, and medieval burials in the Eastern Baltic area and to the complete absence of such remains from Karelia.

MOESAN
02-06-17, 00:32
The nose shape is a very unsteady ground, the old states were oversimplifications with simplistic categories -
it exists more than a shape that would be classified 'convex' (dame for concave), spite they have no common genetic origin nor same profile - some are convex only in their lowest 2/3, and have a "hole" between glabella and higher nose, other are less convex, more regular, and have an higher nose root under glabella and so on...
to go back to the very thread, to complete the Coon statement reproduced here (thanks to the one who send it) about apparition of brachycephaly in Anatolia, a survey of 3 Japaneses (2009) "found" that the Himrin pop was dolichocephalic like the pop of South-Mesopotamia, but more heterogeneity arose during and after the Parthians period; among Persians, mix of dolicho's and brachy's after the Achemenides (they said) - but they and others think there were already brachy's among people in the Zagros mountains (Gouteans and Kassites) just after Sumer and the Akkadians - an other one wrote "above all it is clear as a result of anthropologic researches that brachycephalisation increased in Anatolia in a very clear way after the Hittites" what can be the result of diverse factors, Hittites or the populations they submitted and/or displaced/centralized...
as a whole in Anatolia the brachycephaly as a common phenomenon seem appearing only around the 2250 BC - the problem is it is unclear yet where it came from, and brachycephaly doesn't mean ONE kind of shape nor ONE folk -

halfalp
02-06-17, 02:32
I dont think we should refer as brachycephaly in the case of metrics but more in the case of flat occiput. Flat occiput definitevly cant have multiple origins, but only one, in an ancestral population with a certain phenotypes who after expended in a large part of the world. The only legit place that thoses mutation can occurs are the eurasian steppe. If only we had the skull of ust ishim and not just a leg bone... About convexe nose, its also a non-sens to try to explain it with a multiregional mutation who occurs in different populations around the world...

MOESAN
02-06-17, 10:33
Brachycephaly is brachycephaly, and planoccipitaly is planoccipitlay, associated to some brachycephals, not all of them - specific mutation or new mix of pre-existant genes? for both I favour mutation(s) but noboby seems sure of the origin - some old anthropologists suggered the 'dinaric' so called type found birth in mountains ecosystem close to sea, on a phylum tied to 'brünn'-'capelloid', and 'dinaric' is typified by flat headback; I avow I'm short here; Coon thought in a specific crossing, so more a mix result than an unique specific mutation - he even proposed it was a condition involving brachy's and dolicho's of any sort, so producing in the details more than ONE 'dinaroid' type, according to "parents races"; nobody seems having the right answer todate, even if Coon's hypothesis doesn't seem so stupid - ATW the typical balkanic/carpathian 'dinaric' complex could be linked to a limited (in number) special result of crossing between high statured dolichomorphic/dolichocephalic type with an high-statured robust brachycephalic type, creating a rather stable type where were selected diverse homozygotous pairs of biallelics from donors, pairs which were not associated together in any of the parents type, but become associated in the new "type", and numerically dominant in the new population; so an unbalanced result of crossing (usually the result is rather a numerically dominant type of heterozygotous pairs) - maybe the lambdoid flattening among the brachycpehalic "parents" could help to create the allover flat occiput? We know very few and this matter is no more the focus of today scientists; but genetic dominance too can create curious results in crossings, I think -

halfalp
02-06-17, 13:43
The thing is, with melting of different population the result that planoccipitaly become a dominant gene is near 0, in terms of metrics brachycephaly with flat occiput or without, is not the same, because brachycephaly without flat occiput, can be charachterised by melting between a brachycephalic and dolichocephalic type of people, create a continnum between mesocephaly and brachycephaly. But flat occiput mever can be the result of a melting between dolichocephalic and brachycephalic people, so flat occiput has to be somehow a " pur " phenotype, born somewhere and expand in all part of the world.

MOESAN
02-06-17, 20:40
Or you know more than me (possible) or you don't have the smallest idea of what crossings can do at the individual level after some generations;
what doesn't exclude a specific mutation creating this so typical flattened occiput, I made only suppositions, gratis; but a crossing involving an already partly flattened lambdoid (what seems frequent among some 'borreby's') could be the beginning of a track. I don't know. How could I? But it seems the first typical 'dinaric' types were found in Europe, and they appeared relativey lately (3000 BC? or a bit before?); but new discoveries could ruin my statement. I give it up, for the moment because I've no new clue -

halfalp
13-06-17, 01:10
It's not important, because planoccipital faces are found for exemples in a south-east asia north east asia gradiant and in a continuum from armenia-anatolia-balkans. The phenotype of the face are very different on these two contexts, but the skulls are slightly the same.