Collection of skulls.

new skull for me:

_89538772_89538771.jpg


this one is said being the Villabruna skull:
it seems neither on the Cro-Magnon's side (Arignacian?) nor on the Brünn-Capelle 's side;
quickly said "harmonic" face-skull so # Cro-M, and not so receding frontal so # Brünn-Capelle. Could be closer to the Chancelade model, a more "cerebral-skulled" pattern. But it seems stronger concerning the inferior jaw. Something modern yet. I hope we 'll have profil views of the new skulls we 'll have. The occipital and frontal lines are of importance for me. I think Chancelade was already incipiently mediterraneomorph, a tep towards some modern 'mediterraneans' types, the less 'westasian' ones, the more 'anatolian'-'western neareasterner' ones, speaking in a general way.
Here I make bets, nothing more: this Villabruna skull doesn't show evidence of crossing between the 2 older phyla (C-M, Br-Cap), when Loschbour could very well be one of this crossing results. So Villabruna could be a new phylum, with surely the same more ancient ancestors, but splitted from them since already a long enough time, and isolated for a time from the crossings which could have taken place between S-W France and Czechia.
???

As Fire-Haired pointed out in the thread about the Fu et al paper, the original study of the find described the head as "Caucasoid". They also provide a picture from the side. I hope the attachment function doesn't act up on me.

Click to enlarge.

Villabruna lateral view.jpg

Villabruna-frontal view.PNG

I do see what you mean about it being more "modern" looking. Given what they're saying in Fu et al, a more "southern European", partly Mediterranean look would make sense.

Here's the paper to which Fire-Haired linked and from which the pictures come:
http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2008 vol86/09_Vercelotti.pdf

"The Late Upper Paleolithic burial Villabruna 1 (Val Cismon, Belluno, Italy), directly dated to about 14,000 years ago (calibrated chronology), includes a well preserved skeleton accompanied by grave goods and covered with painted stones. The skeleton belongs to an adult male, about twenty-five years old, characterized by a relatively tall stature for the time period, short trunk and more linear body proportions than its contemporaries, similar to those of recent North-African populations. Multivariate statistical analysis of craniofacial characteristics place Villabruna 1 close to Le Bichon 1, a geographically and chronologically nearby specimen, suggesting genetic affinity among the last hunter and gatherers from the alpine region... Whereas the information on dietary habits drawn from dental wear is not conclusive, stable isotopes analysis points to a terrestrially based diet rich in animal proteins. Biomechanical study of major long bones indicates heightened overall robusticity and marked humeral asymmetry. These results suggest intense unimanual activity, possibly linked to repeated throwing movements in hunting, and the combined effect of mobile lifestyle and mountainous terrain, as far as the femur is concerned. Paleopathological analysis did not reveal signs of any major event which might help identify a possible cause of death. However, macroscopic and radiographic examination of the skull reveals traces of porotic hyperostosis, indicative of a healed anemic condition. Finally, localized tibial periostitis, probably of traumatic origin, and lumbar hyperlordosis associated with deformations of vertebral bodies and L5 spondylolysis provide evidence of additional, minor, pathological changes."

Height was about 168.2cm. "According to Formicola and Giannecchini (1999), the average stature of the European LUP males is about 165.6 cm (SD = 3.5). Consequently, the estimate obtained for Villabruna 1 falls within the upper part of the range of its contemporaries."

"Intralimb indices of Villabruna 1 (RL/HL; TL/FL) provide values similar to those of the North African sample and intermediate between those exhibited by Sub-Saharan and European populations."

There's lots of graphs and charts of comparisons which I'm sure will make more sense to you than to me.

Fwiw, one of the charts in the Fu et al paper has Loschbour as 85% Villabruna, but Bichon is 100% Villabruna.
 
Stubby nose typical for WHGs and ANE. Still fairly defined eyebrows. Fairly big teeth. Slanted forehead. I would love to see good profile and frontal though.
I think it has a very interesting bump in the middle of his forehead. He still looks like a hunter gatherer and like many northern Europeans today, but not very archaic like some old hunter gatherers.
His forehead is not that much slanted like Northern type of WHG.
 
As Fire-Haired pointed out in the thread about the Fu et al paper, the original study of the find described the head as "Caucasoid". They also provide a picture from the side. I hope the attachment function doesn't act up on me.

Click to enlarge.

View attachment 7717

View attachment 7718

I do see what you mean about it being more "modern" looking. Given what they're saying in Fu et al, a more "southern European", partly Mediterranean look would make sense.

Here's the paper to which Fire-Haired linked and from which the pictures come:
http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2008 vol86/09_Vercelotti.pdf

"The Late Upper Paleolithic burial Villabruna 1 (Val Cismon, Belluno, Italy), directly dated to about 14,000 years ago (calibrated chronology), includes a well preserved skeleton accompanied by grave goods and covered with painted stones. The skeleton belongs to an adult male, about twenty-five years old, characterized by a relatively tall stature for the time period, short trunk and more linear body proportions than its contemporaries, similar to those of recent North-African populations. Multivariate statistical analysis of craniofacial characteristics place Villabruna 1 close to Le Bichon 1, a geographically and chronologically nearby specimen, suggesting genetic affinity among the last hunter and gatherers from the alpine region... Whereas the information on dietary habits drawn from dental wear is not conclusive, stable isotopes analysis points to a terrestrially based diet rich in animal proteins. Biomechanical study of major long bones indicates heightened overall robusticity and marked humeral asymmetry. These results suggest intense unimanual activity, possibly linked to repeated throwing movements in hunting, and the combined effect of mobile lifestyle and mountainous terrain, as far as the femur is concerned. Paleopathological analysis did not reveal signs of any major event which might help identify a possible cause of death. However, macroscopic and radiographic examination of the skull reveals traces of porotic hyperostosis, indicative of a healed anemic condition. Finally, localized tibial periostitis, probably of traumatic origin, and lumbar hyperlordosis associated with deformations of vertebral bodies and L5 spondylolysis provide evidence of additional, minor, pathological changes."

Height was about 168.2cm. "According to Formicola and Giannecchini (1999), the average stature of the European LUP males is about 165.6 cm (SD = 3.5). Consequently, the estimate obtained for Villabruna 1 falls within the upper part of the range of its contemporaries."

"Intralimb indices of Villabruna 1 (RL/HL; TL/FL) provide values similar to those of the North African sample and intermediate between those exhibited by Sub-Saharan and European populations."

There's lots of graphs and charts of comparisons which I'm sure will make more sense to you than to me.

Fwiw, one of the charts in the Fu et al paper has Loschbour as 85% Villabruna, but Bichon is 100% Villabruna.


Thanks Angela, I'm very glad.
'mediterranean'? in what sense?
1- North Africans of what period and regions? They are/were far to be homogenous, for crnaia or for body
It seems to me a basic modern eurasian, with a frontal that separates him definetly from the Brünn/Capelle phylum (Y-IJ?). His skull is low enough. Hs body proportions could put him in the ascendance of some 'nordics' and robust 'mediterranean'; the skull does not place him too close to the new 'mediterranean' types (even the high statured ones of North Africa) were very higher skulled (proportionally speaking).
Here I suppose: it could be a refined form of a not too speciliazed branch as opposed to Cromagnoids and Brünnoids. By the way it's the first so "modern" type I see (as a profan) so early in Europe and it doesn't confirm at all the metric means of Italy Mesolithic (but means are means, I never saw these mesolithic italian skulls in picture).
In France maybe we have a relatively "modern" skull with Chancelade (already something 'mediterraneanlike') but is jaw seems by far weaker than the Villabruna 's one.

&: ancestral 'mediterraneans' were surely closer to ancestral 'nordics' and I don't see their origin in early paleolithic Europe; COON was not wrong, perhaps?
somewhere in South Ukraina-Russia at first??? Or in Eastern Mediterranea before later evolutions splitting the group into pre-med and pre-nordic??? they lack the common hyper-gracilization of future 'meds' and the nasal bridge evolution of future North-Near-Easterners-West-Asians...). They had not the incipient 'brünnoid' imput as West-Asians.
???
 
It could be a proxi for the 'ancient mediterranean' / 'cromagnoid mediterranean' of the french CHARLES about Eneolithic (so recent enough times): I wrote quickly. NOw I *see his cheekbones are relatively broad, spite his jaw is strong but very narrower. CHARLES considered his type was no more homegenous concerning faces, youngs and females presenting the most often an evolution towards face narrowing and that more often among the eastern ones (Italy, Greece), when the skull itself and orbits proportions were always very close to old Cro-Magnon types. I don' know what to say, perhaps we have here an explanation of progressive narrowing of face (jaw at first) in Western Cro-Ma's supposed descendants: a types of same ancient origin but stayed in East Med and without the inferior jaw broading accentued evolution of other cousins like typical Cro-Magnons? I would rather suppose they arrived very later from farther East than first Cro-Ma's. and mixed with them later too, giving this jaw narrowing pseudo-evolution among Western Eneolithic 'cromagnoid mediterraneans' of CHARLES. Now I speak here of 2 skulls (14000 BC Italy and Switzerland) what is very very few indeed! They could have been isolated mobile outsiders.
 
It could be a proxi for the 'ancient mediterranean' / 'cromagnoid mediterranean' of the french CHARLES about Eneolithic (so recent enough times): I wrote quickly. NOw I *see his cheekbones are relatively broad, spite his jaw is strong but very narrower. CHARLES considered his type was no more homegenous concerning faces, youngs and females presenting the most often an evolution towards face narrowing and that more often among the eastern ones (Italy, Greece), when the skull itself and orbits proportions were always very close to old Cro-Magnon types. I don' know what to say, perhaps we have here an explanation of progressive narrowing of face (jaw at first) in Western Cro-Ma's supposed descendants: a types of same ancient origin but stayed in East Med and without the inferior jaw broading accentued evolution of other cousins like typical Cro-Magnons? I would rather suppose they arrived very later from farther East than first Cro-Ma's. and mixed with them later too, giving this jaw narrowing pseudo-evolution among Western Eneolithic 'cromagnoid mediterraneans' of CHARLES. Now I speak here of 2 skulls (14000 BC Italy and Switzerland) what is very very few indeed! They could have been isolated mobile outsiders.

Except that genetically, if this paper is correct, this is the group who replaced in large measure the prior inhabitants of Europe.

Anyway, this is "Il Principe", from the Arene Candide, dated to 23, 500 YBP, so much earlier and a different culture, Gravettian versus Epigravettian. How do you think it compares to the Vestonice Gravettian skulls?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/86/b3/19/86b319817c68086f3249e8d88ae77668.jpg

86b319817c68086f3249e8d88ae77668.jpg
 
I don't know what to answer about just a profil sight and with measures taken by professionals - at first sight he (she?) looks more 'cromagnoid' than 'brünnoid' concerning crania - So this is a game for me more than anthing. I consider metrics is serious even on the genetic aspect. But the evolution speed for diverse genetic traits, phoenotypic ones among them, is nt always the same; and crossings can provide big differences for some of the phoenotypical traits among individuals which are not by force reflected in the whole autosomes picture.
I think the western 'cro-magnon' type was rather typical of the Aurignacian, and the 'brünn' or 'combe-capelle' ones rather typical for the Gravettian: amateur statement.
I think too that after the LGM, in West, the crossings became to produce the variated picture of Mesolithic people there. I have to put my slow brain at work to try to provide more reasoning about the possible filiation and relations of all these types of Late Paleo/Mesolithic, always for the amateur's fun.
All the way, the 2 big types of Late Paleo are very too different IN ALL ASPECTS to be a recent forking, for I think; and the one I consider more recent IN WEST EURASIA (''brunn & co') did not erase completely the precedent ones concerning pheonotype whatever occurred concerning males haplos. I see just that the more or less pseudo-negroid form of 'grimaldi' did not appear among the pictures I saw inthese thread but?
Just guess.
Good sunday
 
erratum ..."without measures taken by ..."
 
Stop posting random, no doubt cherry picked pictures. This isn't either theapricity or italicroots. Or perhaps italicroots is too southern Italian for a northern Italian Padanist??

If you're going to post at all, link to the study from which it comes, and provide dates, measurements etc.
 
???

actually i'm not registred on those fora you mentioned. The pictures are not "cherry-picked", i thought they were interesting..

source:
NOTIZIE DEGLI SCAVI DI ANTICHITÀ, 1906
I resti scheletrici umani provenienti dalle stazioni trentine del Neo-eneolitico e dell'Età del Bronzo, 1967.

you can find the pdf online
 
@Angela
O don't know why you seem a bit upset by this posting of skulls: it's the thread aim; and they are referenced for place and time;
@Lebrok
the "roman" skull is not brachy but meso in my sense: about CI 80 - and it's for me the skull of a child, even not an adolescent, so to be taken with caution (unless it would be a person with skeleton disease? it doesn't seem the case): look at the very small face whatever the proportions (not too 'mediter'), and proportionally the large orbits and so on.
the other skull, not neol but eneolithic so at the daybreak of metals, is dolicho, true, and show strong 'cromagnoid' features and less 'mediter' ones (but the crania lateral profile): a crossing? not too surprising;
 
@Lebrok
the "roman" skull is not brachy but meso in my sense: about CI 80 - and it's for me the skull of a child, even not an adolescent, so to be taken with caution ;

yes you're right, i had the same impression so i rechecked the source..it's a skull of a 6-7 years old child (female), C.I. 75.8
 
'Gast!' ("*****")I grow half blind! a CI of about 76 and I bet 80! Damned! 76 is said "mesocrane" (limit with dolicho) but for Europeans of the 1940's it corresponded to subdolichocephally (on life, it's my C index). Scientists had two scales; one for crania, another for alife heads; the second scale is better compared to European humans.
But it 's good to know it 's a child! I haven't lost all my head...
Thanks.
 
Botai skull:

236ba91d3a10.jpg

Fig45.jpg


1.another skulls:
http://iggc.kz/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Rezultaty-raboty-Lab-Pop-Gen-noyab-2016.pdf
All Botaya 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
Part of Asia during the Eneolithic period - "Kazakh steppe type".

One of the skulls - with a lifetime trepanation.

Spoka -2 was classified as an intermediate between caucasoid and mongoloid, being similar to Okunevo. Any caucasoid skull was not found in Karzakstan before andronovo.

2. Is there any chance of yDna to be “N” like Okunevo?

The genotyping of the "Botaysky man" showed a 100% Belonging to the K1b2 mtDNA haplotype
Генотипирование “Ботайского человека« показало 100% принадлежность к K1b2 гаплотипу мтДНК (1.Del(G), 4T, 11C/T, 73G, 146C, 195C, 263G, 750G, 1189C, 1438G, 1811G, 2706G, 3480G, 4769G, 5908A, 7028T, 8860G, 9055A, 9300T, 9698C, 10398G, 10550G, 11299C,11467G, 11719A, 12308G, 12372A, 12738G, 14167T, 14766T, 14798C, 15326G, 15374A, 16213A, 16311C, 16519C, 16543A/G, 16562- 16569d)

97.1% probability of O2 of the Y-chromosome haplotype
97.1 % вероятности О2 Y-хромосомного гаплотипа (DYS390-24, DYS391-11, DYS392-13, DYS393 - 14, DYS19 - 15, DYS385 a/b - 17/18, DYS439 - 13, DYS389 I - 12, DYS389 II - 29, DYS448-23, DYS458 - 15, DYS437 - 15, GATA H4 - 11, DYS456 - 16, DYS438 - 13, DYS635 – 21)
 
Thanks Johen, it's a pleasure!
Have you a front sight of the crania?
At first sight the profile of the skull is close enough to 'europoid' archaic forms and doesn't evocate me something 'mongoloid' - even the cheekbones don't seem projected too much forwards, and the nose is typically archaic-caucasian - maybe the teeth crown is different??? I cannot say -
the profile of the skull is different from and 'croma' and 'brünn' ('croma' have kind of angle at forehead, 'brünn' is more receding and flatter for with stronger browridges - this kind of receding forehaed, gently curved without too strong browridges and the special meso skull seen from top has a curious shape: so I prefer rely on scientists judgement here, if this stateent concerns the skull you show here -
in the link you gave, there are a reconstruction of a skull (this one?) and the picture of a living 'mongoloid' of somewhere (where?): I see very few ties between both, and I don't know what the text says because it's in russian I don't understand -
 
Okunevo people were said to be archeo-siberian (not well oriented towards neat 'europoids' or 'eastasians') but some of them later in the Andronovo profile shew 'europoid' input (perhaps swept off later?) -
 
What could be interesting is to know if there is some Solutrean related skull somewhere ? This culture, seems to emerge from nowhere with a stone technology only seen in Paleosiberia and Paleoamerica. I have search for a long time on the internet, some french physical anthropologists and Carleton Coon wroth about a possible Eskimid Type... All this seems very siberian. Those skulls are very strange and very deformed... View attachment 8870 View attachment 8871
 
What could be interesting is to know if there is some Solutrean related skull somewhere ? This culture, seems to emerge from nowhere with a stone technology only seen in Paleosiberia and Paleoamerica. I have search for a long time on the internet, some french physical anthropologists and Carleton Coon wroth about a possible Eskimid Type... All this seems very siberian. Those skulls are very strange and very deformed... View attachment 8870 View attachment 8871

they also had sholdered points which originated in the middle Danube area 25 ka
 
they also had sholdered points which originated in the middle Danube area 25 ka

And you gonna take that like an argument that " Not Worth It " ?
 

This thread has been viewed 77038 times.

Back
Top