PDA

View Full Version : Does this drawing of skull shapes bear any resemblance to reality?



Angela
01-03-17, 22:25
In the interests of full disclosure, my skull, and my father's, and that of most of my relatives on my paternal side, as seen from this angle is either Nordic or Atlantic. Yet, I have a very broad and large skull too.

Plus, what does Atlantid mean, not in anthrofora speak, but from the point of view of the classical physical anthropologists?

You'll have to go to the link. It's not letting me post the picture directly.

http://radikal.ru/lfp/s005.radikal.ru/i210/1103/9b/46d0a501677f.jpg/htm

MOESAN
02-03-17, 21:29
Angela, when I clicked on the link you provide I was griped by a virus, seemingly of russian origin; I fear to do it again?

Angela
02-03-17, 21:57
Angela, when I clicked on the link you provide I was griped by a virus, seemingly of russian origin; I fear to do it again?

Gosh, Moesan, I'm so sorry. That didn't happen when I clicked on it. This last anti-virus program I put on my laptop must have caught it.

I took a screenshot, which is what I should have done the first time.

8526

It's only a simplistic drawing of a side view, but I thought I'd ask since I tried to describe what I meant to someone once and they had no idea what I was talking about! :)

MarkoZ
02-03-17, 23:52
http://s005.radikal.ru/i210/1103/9b/46d0a501677f.jpg

I don't know about the racial stuff, but the sketch looks like a general outline of the possible configurations of the human neurocranium. Relative cranial height increases from left to right - a low relative height of the cranium would result in the angular shape in the back of the head, while a high relative height would give it a more rounded appearance. Top-bottom is supposed to show the differences in relative cranial breadth, obviously.

I don't think any of this is very meaningful, though it does look like European hunters had relatively low neurocrania. Dienekes had a post on this a while back: http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2012/03/cranial-variation-and-transition-to.html

MOESAN
03-03-17, 01:32
the low vaulted Mesolithic people is a myth (by the way the Dienekes post do'nt speak of low-vaulted Mesolithic skulls but mentioned tall vaulted Neolithic, what was rather true at first - so by opposition one can infer, Mesolithic = broad-low faced so low vaulted, was is false!) -
The first Aurignacians (Cro-magnon) were low-vaulted, for the most above the ears, because the keel of their crania was high enough (as my one on radiographs) - an exception: the so called 'Grimaldi' types, very close for body but with an higher skull and some 'negroid' little influences at first sight, merking perhaps some new African influences, it's not clear: it could have been ancestral (atavic) traits conserved in a relic pop of same far origin and swept off by the majority of 'croma' fellows and sweat-hearts -
After came new types, very different, with higher to very higher vaults, and very very different shapes of skull - I think at Mesolithic diverses admixtures+partial isolation had produced local types, with "parents" inherited traits, not always in the same proportion: I think the second wave came from East rather than South-East, for first path even it the initial origin could be South-East (peri-Caucasus/Caspian regions? but rather North to them?) -
the common traits were low quadrangular orbits (Croma > Brünn), broad bizygoma (cheeks) - the remnant was different: broader shallower mandibula for Croma with very beaky chink, narrower deeper mandibula for Brünn - gently sloping front for Croma with middle browridges, strongly receding front for Brünn with strong browridges - linear vault for Croma with HIGH PROTUDING OCCIPUT, arcqued vault for Brünn with LESS PROTUDING AND LOWER OCCIPUT -
NO, occiput profile is not only linked to cephalic index: croma was 74, Brünn 70/72, almost the same (from 67 to 100!), and different occiputs - the brachycephals are as a rule higher vaulted by a kind of mechanical internal process but maybe due to their more ancient genetic background some are very higher than others - but if in place of a height/length only you take height/length+height/breadth index, the opposition is clear between brachycephalic pops and people, and the closer to Croma shapes ('alpine' by example) has almost the same index as Croma (spite he is subdolicho) what is not the case of 'dinarics' -
among 'mediterraneans' of every kind, very often the occiput "beak" is low, and the keel part of the skull is not so high compared to the above ears part and some "chignon" or bun is observed - but some of the Bronze Age Armenians, even dolichocephalic, had lower skulls, it was even clearer among the 'round barrows' mix -
We cannot do too tight relations between occiput shape and cephalic index -
Among pops and individuals the least mixture can give way to different types according to selection and hazard on small pops, without speak of rare but possible new mutations - I'm almost sure the skull/face shapes are the result of a lot of interactions and that every skull is multi-elements shaped like some low cost "fast" houses (it's true for pigmentation of hairs) -

MOESAN
03-03-17, 01:51
these drawings are interesting but the affirmation there are 6 races (types) is a bit inexact, I think.
their 'nordic' skull has something 'cromagnoid' enough, their 'atlanticr skull could be 'nordic' (in a broad sense: rather 'brünnlike' or a kind of 'mediter' ('brünnlike' too), their 'mediter' is a bit too rounded and cannot be assigned to every 'mediter', their 'east-baltic' seems 'brünn-borreby' - the 'alpine' profile is weird too with a ear very far from the back, their 'dinaric' is not flattened enough; some has some reality, others are fantasy -
sure some paradigm "ideal" types exists, but when I read 'atlantic' type, I'm amazed: what type? a mix where were found 'cromagnoids', 'brünnoids' + 'mediterraneans' (little of 'danubians', more of other various forms which is true have some 'cromalike' or 'brünnlike' inputs because they are gracilized forms of old more robust forms too) - in a today pop you can recognize some "ideal" types, but very often you see intermediate forms too.

Angela
03-03-17, 06:40
Thank you for responding, gentleman.

I was just curious because we do definitely (father's family and I inherited it) have long skulls with a flat area going down to a rather pronounced occiput, but our skulls are also pretty broad, at least mesocephalic, and large as well. I can't wear women's hats, for example, and even in men's hats I wear a large size. Thank God for a lot of hair, so no one can see; people think it's just it's all thick hair. :)

This is probably the answer. This whole "Atlantid" thing I noticed years ago when I mistakenly landed on some anthro sites always seemed pretty sketchy to me.


"Moesan: Among pops and individuals the least mixture can give way to different types according to selection and hazard on small pops, without speak of rare but possible new mutations - I'm almost sure the skull/face shapes are the result of a lot of interactions and that every skull is multi-elements shaped."

MarkoZ
03-03-17, 12:01
Moesan, I'm not sure what you're talking about. A tendency towards a higher relative vault and increasing breadth of the neurocranium are distinctly human adaptions - these are not 'archaic' features as you call them. A simple look at Erectus and Neanderthal skulls would have disabused you of that notion. The bony protuberance at the back of the skull is found in most long, low-vaulted neurocrania. This cannot be a feature of 'race'.

MOESAN
04-03-17, 00:05
Moesan, I'm not sure what you're talking about. A tendency towards a higher relative vault and increasing breadth of the neurocranium are distinctly human adaptions - these are not 'archaic' features as you call them. A simple look at Erectus and Neanderthal skulls would have disabused you of that notion. The bony protuberance at the back of the skull is found in most long, low-vaulted neurocrania. This cannot be a feature of 'race'.

Your remark evocates me the dogmatic anthropology/biology lessons learned and regurgited by good pupils (LOL) - maybe I misunderstand your answer - it's very good to observe with his own eyes, at big scale, and not only read what say others - but my own words were confusing in some way; when I speak of archaïsm I speak of old forms of our 'europoid' phylum not of the entire 'homo' chain, and withtout any value judgement concerning intelligence - but in my posts, I show ancient forms spite showing traits which are "archaïc" for our phylum, are not so uniform; I am not hidding myself behind this term - and do'nt forget: the more dolichocephalic 'brûnn' types had higher skulls (above ear hole) than the 'croma' !!!
and please don't play with the "race" concept - "race" (rather type here) is a consequence of a sum of diverse adaptations BUT NOT ONLY, some mutations can be without too much effect on life, so I would rather say the sum of diverse not evenly shared all of them in all the human groups, and when a new type of genes incorporate a genom, the result is not the same according to the previous combinaison of genes, what I call "background", in fact genome - you say adaptation: maybe, but not only (all is not selection, hazard exists too) - and to back my affirmation, you can see the recent evolution of modern men: are they all of the same shape, even when living and mating since generations in the same climate and culture in the same time?
protuding occiput with dolichocephaly?:yes, more flattened occipital part with brachycephaly?: yes: 'mechanical' effect - but it's not all the story - 'mechanical' processes linking some features exist but they don't explain differences of shapes (numerous) -
do read my posts: you see different shapes (observed by others than me) of occipitals within dolicho's AND within brachy's in the europoid group; why? History of hazard and selection(s), sure, but it can help to distinguish between different stories of human subgroups, what doesn't the only ad global useless concept of adaptation which says everything and nothing, spite it's undiscutable -
to come back to the word 'archaïc', it's a good word to oppose in a relatively close genetic group, the pre-adaptation and the post-adaptation forms -
I know some "scientific" postulats which turned false: the human beings will grow higher, and their skull will grow higehr and larger on every dimension, maybe more rounded, and the foreheads will become steeper: we are far from this, and if skulls don't become smaller, in proportion of body, they are rather modest; the foreheads are not stepper, maybe the contrary (perhaps a slight more protuberance of browridge due to stature increase? - and the sksulls grow rather more dolichocephalic, whatever the study young people do -
I have no explanation - perhaps at some time of humanity evolution, the lack of physical fitness of Humans in the nature urged the selection of capacities of intragroup solidarity and intelligence in absence of force? Perhaps the today domination of Mankind upon the fauna makes this first adaptations less useful? But to go farther, when you look at scholars skulls, you can see everykind of skull profiles what can interrogate the concept of skulls shapes tied to adaptation; so many factors are in play, it's true (today, principally the (bad)food and the lack of physical activity (except the fingers!) -