Brachycephaly..zation of the Steppe by 4500BC.

Olympus Mons

Regular Member
Messages
536
Reaction score
80
Points
28
There is new paper out on Nature from Ron Pinhasi group.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep33316

So, the part that is new and relevant in my opinion is essentially that it states that Mesolithic steppe populations (or Ukraine for that matter) were not Brachychephalic but Typolie and Dnieper-Donets II were.

"..Indeed, there is a mounting body of genetic evidence suggesting a mixed European Mesolithic and Caucasus origin for the Yamnaya culture70,71. Altogether, it is likely that the onset of agriculture in each of the three regions can be characterised by a unique set of features, with similarly idiosyncratic morphological responses in the cranium."

The period and the cultures yielding the samples the paper uses (5th millennia bc) were groups that arrived to Ukraine and north Caucasus with a full package of new pastoral (and agriculture) way of live. Very complete and compact species domestication (From triticum seeds to Goats, sheep and pigs). So New people.

With such an impact on the morphology of the steppe, clearly overturning it, who where they? Who were the newly arrived forefathers of the Yamnaya? Was it the steppe after all a chalcolithic melting pot of local EHG, with Balkan EHG (lets see what the new Balkan adna shows) and CHG/Levant adna coming with South Caucasus Population?
 
There is new paper out on Nature from Ron Pinhasi group.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep33316

So, the part that is new and relevant in my opinion is essentially that it states that Mesolithic steppe populations (or Ukraine for that matter) were not Brachychephalic but Typolie and Dnieper-Donets II were.

"..Indeed, there is a mounting body of genetic evidence suggesting a mixed European Mesolithic and Caucasus origin for the Yamnaya culture70,71. Altogether, it is likely that the onset of agriculture in each of the three regions can be characterised by a unique set of features, with similarly idiosyncratic morphological responses in the cranium."

The period and the cultures yielding the samples the paper uses (5th millennia bc) were groups that arrived to Ukraine and north Caucasus with a full package of new pastoral (and agriculture) way of live. Very complete and compact species domestication (From triticum seeds to Goats, sheep and pigs). So New people.

With such an impact on the morphology of the steppe, clearly overturning it, who where they? Who were the newly arrived forefathers of the Yamnaya? Was it the steppe after all a chalcolithic melting pot of local EHG, with Balkan EHG (lets see what the new Balkan adna shows) and CHG/Levant adna coming with South Caucasus Population?

Now the problem is, from skeletal remains from the Neolithic Caucasus we know that these guys where meso-dolichocepalic and Anatolian_Neo skulls were so either.

However by late Neolithic to Bronze Age they became mesocephlic because of a process of Brachycephalzation took place. I even once posted reconstructions of ancient proto "Circassian" skulls from the Iron Age Caucasus which were predominantly mesocephalic with some individuals being dolicho and other brachycephalic. However as I said earlier there was kinda a brachycephalization process going on in the world by Bronze Age. Also the Author isn't quite correct with his statements that Cucuteni-Trypillian and 3500 BC Steppes were Brachycephalic.
There are Cucuteni-Trypillian reconstruction those are clearly not Brachycephalic but Dolichocephalic.
Cucuteni-Trypillian reconstructions
http://alterling2.narod.ru/Il/TrpFMMd.jpg

From Yamna reconstruction it is visible that these guys were predominantly mesocephalic with some being dolicho- and some brachycephalic
http://www.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/yamnaya1z3r2ubptdc.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Yamna_cultdure.jpg

Also from reconstructions of EHG samples I have seen those guys were definitely rather meso- and brahcycepalic.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7348&d=1435955475
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/sunghir2.gif
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-10paHp_laqU/VWTB-tq7UiI/AAAAAAAAAR4/Er5Ig36nBCE/s1600/Sunghir_man.gif
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/sunghir2.gif
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/sunghir3.gif?w=220&h=319
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/sunghir4.gif?w=210&h=318

So this particular authors statements are extremely in contrast to the actual data. Especially the Cucuteni-Trypillian reconstruction look some of the most typical Dolichocephalic samples there are with vertical forheads.

However his conclusion that by 5000 BC there was a change of Crania in the Steppes and a mix of local EHG with incoming farmers is correct and widely accepted nowadays with the data we have.
 
Now the problem is, from skeletal remains from the Neolithic Caucasus we know that these guys where meso-dolichocepalic and Anatolian_Neo skulls were so either. ....

....So this particular authors statements are extremely in contrast to the actual data. Especially the Typolgie reconstruction look some of the most typical Dolichocephalic samples there are with vertical forheads.


However his conclusion that by 5000 BC there was a change of Crania in the Steppes and a mix of local EHG with incoming farmers is correct and widely accepted nowadays with the data we have.

Alan, Helps out here with something more then Pics.
The authors clearly speak of a brachycephalic increase with the onset of Agriculture in the Steppe. So are they wrong? Because they dont just say Change. They say brachycephalic.
 
Alan, Helps out here with something more then Pics.
The authors clearly speak of a brachycephalic increase with the onset of Agriculture in the Steppe. So are they wrong? Because they dont just say Change. They say brachycephalic.
The author who says there is a change of crania towards brachycephalism with the onset of Agriculture is absolutely wrong imo. Those are not simply "pics", those are professional reconstructions of archeologists and anthropologists. Either my understanding of Dolicho_Meso and Brachycephalic is wrong or those EHG samples definitely don't look "less Brachycephalic" than the Trypillian reconstructions, contrary.

Also it wouldn't make much sense would it, if we know that Anatolian_Neo, Natufian crania were identified as robust dolichocephalic and 2500 BC Caucasus reconstructions look pretty much mesocephalic?

The EHG reconstructions look anything else but Dolichocephalic to me. Climaticly seen it also makes more sense to have brachycephalic heads being evolved in colder climates.

So the authors are not incorrect with their statement that there was a change of crania during late Neolithic to Bronze Age( as I wrote above myself a brachycephalization took place throughout Eurasia) but it certanly didn't had anything to do with Trypillian culture or agriculture because the data at hand doesn't look like it.
 
A reading of the whole paper shows that the authors are extremely circumspect and cautious in what they say, and in fact are left with more questions than answers.

They summarize the results of previous studies about the possible impact of the transition to the Neolithic on cranial and facial morphology. Those studies were inconsistent as to the effect on facial morphology, here mostly having to do with the mandibles. As to the effect on the crania, they appear to have been more consistent in showing increased brachycephalisation as well as skeletal gracilisation.

Here is their summary:
Carlson and van Gerven9 measured the cranial and mandibular morphology of Nubians across the transition from hunter-gatherer populations to agriculturalists... they also found a decrease in cranial length and increase in cranial height. Similar patterns have been observed to varying degrees in numerous studies using both standard craniometric measurements5,10,11 and geometric morphometrics6,7."

The areas studied were the southern Levant (a study done by the Pinhasi group itself) and in Iberia (Lalueza-Fox).

The purpose of this study was to see if the same pattern would hold in these widely spaced groups. What they found was that once again the results were inconsistent for facial morphology. However, they also found that in only one group was there a shift in the crania, and that was in the Ukrainian samples.

So, why is that the case? They basically say they don't know. They do raise the possibility that the migration of groups from the Caucasus into the Ukraine might have had an impact, but as they themselves say, why then didn't the same change occur in Iberia, which also experienced the inflow of new populations at the time of the Neolithic transition?

One could argue that it's because we're talking about two different incoming groups, with different cranial morphology.

Still, we have a situation here where prior studies showed a change to increased brachycephaly in Iberia with the advent of the Neolithic, and here they couldn't find evidence of this change.

In the Ukraine, on the contrary, one sees the change and yet the diet didn't change all that much...
"Despite these fundamental cultural changes, it is interesting to note that isotopic evidence suggests very little consistent change dietary composition41,42, with evidence for the consumption of both freshwater and terrestrial resources through prehistory."

My take away is that no one really seems to understand the reason for these changes, changes that continue to take place, since it appears that brachycephaly has continued up until the present.

I'd also add that however interesting it is to look at photographs, they're not reliable. You need the measurements.
 
I'd also add that however interesting it is to look at photographs, they're not reliable. You need the measurements.

Angela the "photographs" and other reconstructions are based on the measurements of teams of scientists (mostly from Russia and Ukraine).

And it is in contrast to what the author says. The reconstructions don't look more Brachycephalic than EHG reconstruction to me, contrary.

However the Cucucteni culture seems to not derive mostly from the Anatolian_Neo as you have noticed too. The authros have the hypothesis that Cucuteni Agriculture might have come from the Caucasus (mostly CHG/Iran_Neo like?).
 
Last edited:
A reading of the whole paper shows that the authors are extremely circumspect and cautious in what they say, and in fact are left with more questions than answers.

My take away is that no one really seems to understand the reason for these changes, changes that continue to take place, since it appears that brachycephaly has continued up until the present.

I'd also add that however interesting it is to look at photographs, they're not reliable. You need the measurements.

short answer before maybe another longer one.
I agree for the most: we see here the heterogeneity of conclusions in diverse studies (but have they studied the very same people?!?) - question of co-occurrence of diverse facts in time and the unsure conclusions we can make about their inter-relations and causality.
concerning CI's the trend since the 1930's is to debrachycephalization: real! Caution here too! mix of envionmental changes and pops changes too; it's depends on the seriousness of surveys (# 'scoop'mania)
photographs have their worth if they are sided by measurements.
 
short answer before maybe another longer one.
I agree for the most: we see here the heterogeneity of conclusions in diverse studies (but have they studied the very same people?!?) - question of co-occurrence of diverse facts in time and the unsure conclusions we can make about their inter-relations and causality.
concerning CI's the trend since the 1930's is to debrachycephalization: real! Caution here too! mix of envionmental changes and pops changes too; it's depends on the seriousness of surveys (# 'scoop'mania)
photographs have their worth if they are sided by measurements.


So, is Ron Pinhasi known for slack, incompetent or unponderate statements?
Shall we also doubt "The genetics of an early Neolithic pastoralist from the Zagros..." ?
Why does a guy that just published something based on a genome (1.39x) from western Iran, just consider valid , or loose time with, this Crania Index study. I mean carefuly or not (I would if I were to publish something that did not state that all source of humanity was the Ukraine steppe by 3000bc).
The tables are public. so, get the Excel.

Opinions. all are fair I suppose.
 
So, is Ron Pinhasi known for slack, incompetent or unponderate statements?
Shall we also doubt "The genetics of an early Neolithic pastoralist from the Zagros..." ?
Why does a guy that just published something based on a genome (1.39x) from western Iran, just consider valid , or loose time with, this Crania Index study. I mean carefuly or not (I would if I were to publish something that did not state that all source of humanity was the Ukraine steppe by 3000bc).
The tables are public. so, get the Excel.

Opinions. all are fair I suppose.
Before longer post of mine:
I was not referring to Pinhasi when I spoke of 'seriousness' or 'scoopmania', but to some other surveys quickly published to make some kind of buzz. Pinhasi made a metrics survey about crania of first Neolithic newcomers in Europe compared to Anatolia/N-East and was challenged by other scientists, but it answered them acutely and seriously and I red a new paper of him, with more data, I 'm tempted to consider as very reliable, so... But some discrepancies between surveys can be due to difference of sample (regions by example, when someones make too quick generalizations).
Concerning some less serious works, it 's more a question of interpretation of facts than of the facts alleged; but sampling is very important; I said that too about the thread concerning genetic heritability of sportive skills.
Conclusion: I never reproach anything to this very paper! My post was not too clear, it's true.
Good appetite!
 
Olympus Mons the whole point of mine is, that if Anatolian Farmers and Natufians were Robust Dolichocephalic it sounds to me unlikely and wrong to assume that Brachycephalization was triggered by Neolithic migrants, because A: The datat at hand doesn't support this B: The "local" EHG samples don't really look less brachycephalic either (contrary).

Therefore what I propose is, that we are dealing here simply with local transformations. As Angela pointed out we have studies proving that Sardinians for example went through a gracilization process, while other agricultural communities didn't.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't mention Sardinia. The previous studies specifically discussed by Pinhasi in the paper as to increased brachycephalization with the advent of agriculture are Nubia and Iberia. If you follow the citations there are others.

I think part of the confusion may stem from the fact that there are separate processes going on with the body and the skull. The skeleton of the body becomes more gracile. The head supposedly becomes more brachy. As to the head changes, however, it seems to me that they're probably talking about degrees. So perhaps it's not that with the advent of agriculture the skull becomes brachy as we might define a modern brachy skull, but that it becomes less extremely dolicocephalic than the preceding hunter-gatherer skulls?

When prior studies of the remains of people at the interface between "Old Europe" and the steppe state that some of them are "Mediterranean" in type, do they mean that in addition to the more gracile bodies the skulls are dolichocephalic in comparison to the steppe dwellers? If that were the case, then I don't understand how it was the advent of agriculture that made the steppe people of the Ukraine more brachycephalic. Unless the steppe people at that time had already mixed with a more brachy group which had arrived from over the Caucasus. In that case, however, isn't Pinhasi's premise wrong? Doesn't Anthony show that the little agriculture that was practiced on the steppe was from adoption via "Old Europe"?

I hope Moesan can chime in as he has much more knowledge about all of this.

Perhaps we should check the dates for these "Ukrainian" skulls. Are these Samara type time periods, or is it after the presumed admixture.
 
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Sorryif I repeat what I said in other more dedicated threads, but none ofus shall go to read again all what has been posted.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Brachycephalizationor its contrary are not well understood. It seems some factors havebeen identified, without measuring their precise "penetration"in phoenotypes. Sedentism (>> decrease of mating circles),reducing in stature ([/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]<<matin[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]g[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]circles [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]too[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]?)[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif],food, physical activity and so on...[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Itseems pops and the individuals who form the pops[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]don'treact in the some way or in the some proportions.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The« idiosyncratic » term used in the study would statethis ?[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]IberianNeolithic, for I know, does not show evident brachycephalizationduring Neolithic, ony in some places without evident link with way oflife [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]shift[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif].In Italy and France the pops showed very different mean cranialindexes since the 6000 BC: the Neolithic package doesn't seem tooevident in the Alps of this period and the today pops of thesecountries showed big enough differences without it could be linked toagriculture only. The altitude [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]andsea distance [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]ha[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]ve[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]beenlooked at as possible cause (lack of iodine) and it could have someweight but does not explain the whole question. In Iberia,meso-dolicho, the higher lands have the most dolicho! in Italy(meso-brachy) the southern regions show more dolicho in refugiumplaces (hilly then) than on the coasts. My bet would be thatenvironment pressure can lead to different reactions according togenetic background [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]evenif this is surely limited[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif].[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Thefirst agricultors of Near-East were dolicho. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Treb[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]rachy'sappeared in the most of Northern Near-East only about the 2000 BC,time of great pops moves and chang[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]es[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif] ;[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]somethingnot too far from a 'borreby' proxi [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]andthey show features very different, even on faces[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif].[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]ButNeolithic is not uniform:[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]The physical activities of stock breeders and pure ploughmen aresomewhat different, food kept aside. I think the causes are diverse,and maybe cumulative. Not too clear to date. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Ireproach to all these surveys to use words in place of numbers andindexes : is a shift of CI-74 to 77 the same as one of -74 to88 ? I don't think so. I'm tired with all these « broadand long faces » or vague statements : I need absolutemeasures and numerous indexes, to judge by myself. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Iaffirm shapes are even better but need also several angles ofsight.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Ilack precise allover states about cranial index[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]es[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]in these ancient pops. I believe I understood first HG [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]inSteppes [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]andeven first Dniestr people were broad faced but dolicho-subdolicho asa whole. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Reproachhere too : « broad » is bizygomatic ; rarementions of bigonial (jaws).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]CT-culturepeople were at the crossroads of Steppes (HGs or newcomers) andNeolithic people of South; but they were close too to a region weredominated [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]in20th Cy [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]brachy's("dinaric") in Carpathians highlands (see Dinarichig[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Neolithicstations.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]hlandstoo). Their brachy component could be from the highlands and nottypically from Steppes? [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]BTWI remind a Zoffmann allusion to brachys in Vinca, where a Mesolithicfactor seems a bit less weak than among other Balkans ; helaswithout more development.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Ican even say the Mesolithic people in West showed a slight trendtowards broadening of skull : in France, the means (I know,means are not the best) were 74-7[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]5[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]and it's the newcomers from Eastern Med who sended CI of 72/73 withCardial and then Chassean! [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]InBrittany along the centuries we don't see brachycephalizationarriving with Neolithic way of life but for the most at [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]I[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]ronAge !Coming from a cradle of brachycephaly – [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]theAlps -[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]whereit increased regularly since the 6000 BC [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif];a modif in mode of agriculture could explain partly the phenomenon,partly only ; it seems more produced [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]inBrittany [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]byarrival of already anciently [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]C[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]elti[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]cspeaking [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]tribesof Eastern Gaul ; as in other places an times, there was aslight dychotomy in sexes : the first brachys [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif](beforeIron) [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]werefemales for the most ! Hazard ? The coastal pops admittedfemales at first before a true osmosis occurred ? [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Thatsaid, w[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]hatcould be imagined is that Neolithic had an effect upon Mesolithicsmore than upon its creators [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]<<difference of background.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]It'srelatively clear to me : post La Tène celtic pops were localpops of west-central Europe mountains (evolved brachy) I-E-anizedsince a long enough time by proto-celtic elites or even pre-Celticand during the expansion of the Iron culture they occupied largestterritories at the cost of Atlantic pops maybe already celtized too,but with a demic background evolved differently. (the proto-celticelites in West were rather Y-R1b-L21, the Alps ones ratherY-R1b-U152, but without too neat cutoff I think : look at L21 inRomance switzerland and in French Alps ; I think these haplo'saren't in link with this very question of skulls modif depending onautosomes). In other regions than Brittany and West France theprocess of brachycephalization of today France was begun since a longtime before I-Eization I think, by infiltration from Alps and Jura :the so called 'alpine' type had made is apparition in Parisian BassinSOM Culture, very distincts from 'mediter' classical types or« danubian » LBK types and from brutal types close to theLoschbour physical pattern for cranium, found all of them in SOM ;no apparent distinction in way-of-life otherwise... [/FONT]




[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Thebrachy phenomenon has been studied in Greece and if I remember wellthe abstract the conclusion was it could be linked to climate/reliefbut not too much to isolation. Uneasy to prove.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Ipropose (no risk!) a cumul of mesologic causes (flora/climate/way oflife) + genetic background (mesolithic pops) <> on liveadaptation + very possible mutation>>selection for moreinherited adaptation. A unique cause does not explain the variabilityof the transformations otherwise – cf central Corsica with pops CI73 to 88 or 89 of Auvergnats and Tosques in the 1930's. As certain ofthe West Ukrainian Mesolithic pops were similar if not identical toWestern Mesolithics, it's not impossible their brachycephalizationtrend was caused by neolithicization, but in a limited way. Here Isay Pinhasi mentioned opposite Neolithic effects onto pops indifferent places ! Concerning his statements about Ukraina, thechange is almost absent in « face » measurings (jaw???)and present in crania, but the centroids of pre and post-Neol don'tseem so far one from another If I don't mistake.Theoverlap is very greater that the overlap of 20th Cy pops of Corsicaor Sardinia and Croatia by example (and croatia was not S-Albania!).[/FONT]




[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]* :(I would be very interested in a solid study about Tadjiks minusEastAsian influences for this point) : some solid brachyTadjiks I saw on TV evocates very more something 'dinaric' or/and'borreby'like types according to individuals ; some well formedbrachys have been founds in ancient BA Steppes too, among moremeso-dolicho pops, all 'europoids'. I cannot check it (!) but Coonwrote the seldom blondism in Lebanon, Syria was more linked tobrachys than to dolichos pops. Same thing occurres among Hindu KushI-Ean pops ; let's keep cool here : a new pop with blonddolichos and brunet brachys in its background and arriving in a landof brunet dolichos will increase brachycephaly and blondism spite thelack of original link between them ! But as Northern Europe seesa lot of distinct blond brachys I mention it.[/FONT]
 
@Angela: it proves we - profan publiic - need also cephalic indexes and other indexes and absolute measurings (as was maid 60 years ago) to weight what these surveys call brachy/dolichocephalization!
gracilization and "robusticization" (I'm very inspired today) HAD in those times the opposite effects, yes; and yet, there are gracilization and gracilization: the today one give encrease in stature and dolichocephalization or debrachycephalization!!! it seems "gracilization" is an imperfect term. What seems proved for I know is that as a whole increase in stature go along with some dolichocephalization. The opposite is true with decrease of stature. For I saw personally, the face is more linked to true robusticity than to high stature (high stature is not by force robusticity:look at our young people skeletons!
As you seem thinking, these process in themselves can explain slight modifs but not the total diversity we see in our era pops. Additionally, I think most scientists know very more details that what we can guess with the help of their abstracts or conclusions; they serve us with a coffee spoon; everybody his job reflexe?
I appreciate your circonspection here.
 
Add:
a short abstract; Very interesting, but I 'm still confused concerning the geographical origin of some of the newcomers responsible for the changes...















  1. Previous article in issue: Masthead
  2. Next article in issue: Maternal mortality or prolonged growth: Age at death and pelvic size in three prehistoric Amerindian populations
View issue TOC
Volume 95, Issue 1
September 1994
Pages 1–26​
[FONT=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans Unicode, sans-serif]Article[/FONT][h=1][FONT=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans Unicode, sans-serif]Humandento-gnathic metric variation in mesolithic/neolithic Ukraine:possible evidence of demic diffusion in the Dnieper Rapids region[/FONT][/h][h=2][FONT=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans Unicode, sans-serif]Authors[/FONT][/h]
    1. [h=3][FONT=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans Unicode, sans-serif]Kenneth Jacobs[/FONT][/h]



  • [FONT=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans Unicode, sans-serif]First published: [/FONT][FONT=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans Unicode, sans-serif]September 1994[/FONT][FONT=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans Unicode, sans-serif]Full publication history[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans Unicode, sans-serif]DOI: [/FONT][FONT=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans Unicode, sans-serif]10.1002/ajpa.1330950102[/FONT][FONT=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans Unicode, sans-serif]View/save citation[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans Unicode, sans-serif]Cited by: 6 articles[/FONT]
    [FONT=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans Unicode, sans-serif]Citation tools[/FONT]
[h=2]Abstract[/h][FONT=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, Lucida Sans Unicode, sans-serif]Dentaland gnathic metrics from a series of Mesolithic and Neolithiccemetery samples in the Dnieper River valley (Ukraine) are compared.Both male and female Neolithic samples have larger dental dimensions,wider dental arcades, and a more robust mandibular corpus than do theMesolithic samples. In addition, the relative variances (RVs) ofbucco-lingual dental breadths (as measured by modified Levene'sTests) show an intriguing pattern of change from the Mesolithic intoand through the Neolithic. Female RVs show a clear tenency toincrease through time, while male RVs show more mixed tendencies.Such a pattern indicates that the increases in Ukrainian Neolithicdento-gnathic dimensions are plausibly attributable to low intensitygene flow (demic diffusion). Seen in the light of new chronometric,paleodietary, and paleolinguistic information, as well as in thecontext of recent archaeological models for agro-pastoralist originsin the North Pontic, these data suggest that gene flow via populationinteractions originating in or transient through the circum-Caucasusmay have played an important role in producing the UkrainianNeolithic dental increase. © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.[/FONT]
 
Not in the same place but interesting to try to understand (spite not to clear to me)
[h=1]Yugoslav Mesolithic dental reduction[/h][h=2]Authors[/h]
  • [h=3]Gloria y'Edynak[/h]





[h=2]Abstract[/h]Yugoslav Mesolithic dentition exhibits maximum mesiodistal reduction compared with contemporary European and North African groups. This reduction is not explained entirely by attrition, and may be seen as a continuation of the European Upper Paleolithic trend. Buccolingual dimension does not reduce as much. In fact, this dimension in premolars and molars is larger than in other groups. This observation also occurs in Natufians, who were grain collectors, hunters, and gatherers. The Yugoslav Mesolithic group was collecting and domesticating Cerelia as well as fishing and hunting. Linear enamel hypoplasias (LEH) indicate childhood stress through the fifth year, which corroborates previously reported incidence of rickets in this group. The central maxillary incisors and canines manifest higher degrees of LEH, but the appearance on the second molars suggest a more severe physiological disruption. Sex differences in distributions of alveolar resorption and calculus suggest differences in diet or nutritional stress. Previous reports indicate that females had higher incidence of osteomalacia. If so, female nutritional stress may explain the extreme mesiodistal reduction and minimal sexual dimorphism in this group.
 
Add:
a short abstract; Very interesting, but I 'm still confused concerning the geographical origin of some of the newcomers responsible for the changes...















  1. Previous article in issue: Masthead
  2. Next article in issue: Maternal mortality or prolonged growth: Age at death and pelvic size in three prehistoric Amerindian populations
View issue TOC
Volume 95, Issue 1
September 1994
Pages 1–26​
ArticleHumandento-gnathic metric variation in mesolithic/neolithic Ukraine:possible evidence of demic diffusion in the Dnieper Rapids region

Authors


    1. Kenneth Jacobs



Abstract

Dentaland gnathic metrics from a series of Mesolithic and Neolithiccemetery samples in the Dnieper River valley (Ukraine) are compared.Both male and female Neolithic samples have larger dental dimensions,wider dental arcades, and a more robust mandibular corpus than do theMesolithic samples. In addition, the relative variances (RVs) ofbucco-lingual dental breadths (as measured by modified Levene'sTests) show an intriguing pattern of change from the Mesolithic intoand through the Neolithic. Female RVs show a clear tenency toincrease through time, while male RVs show more mixed tendencies.Such a pattern indicates that the increases in Ukrainian Neolithicdento-gnathic dimensions are plausibly attributable to low intensitygene flow (demic diffusion). Seen in the light of new chronometric,paleodietary, and paleolinguistic information, as well as in thecontext of recent archaeological models for agro-pastoralist originsin the North Pontic, these data suggest that gene flow via populationinteractions originating in or transient through the circum-Caucasusmay have played an important role in producing the UkrainianNeolithic dental increase. © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

This is what I was suggesting upthread: that the gene flow might have come from the population from the Caucasus which was admixing with the EHG.

I've been pressed for time, so I still haven't checked whether that makes sense in terms of the dates and areas from which these Ukrainian samples were taken. Had it reached these areas in time to account for this?

It would also be interesting to know the measurements of the people in the Balkan communities along the interface between them and the steppe, since this was the area which Anthony proposes was the source of the agricultural and metallurgical technology flow in the beginning, and we know that at a certain point there was movement from these communities onto the steppe.
 
Not in the same place but interesting to try to understand (spite not to clear to me)
Yugoslav Mesolithic dental reduction

Authors


  • Gloria y'Edynak




Abstract

Yugoslav Mesolithic dentition exhibits maximum mesiodistal reduction compared with contemporary European and North African groups. This reduction is not explained entirely by attrition, and may be seen as a continuation of the European Upper Paleolithic trend. Buccolingual dimension does not reduce as much. In fact, this dimension in premolars and molars is larger than in other groups. This observation also occurs in Natufians, who were grain collectors, hunters, and gatherers. The Yugoslav Mesolithic group was collecting and domesticating Cerelia as well as fishing and hunting. Linear enamel hypoplasias (LEH) indicate childhood stress through the fifth year, which corroborates previously reported incidence of rickets in this group. The central maxillary incisors and canines manifest higher degrees of LEH, but the appearance on the second molars suggest a more severe physiological disruption. Sex differences in distributions of alveolar resorption and calculus suggest differences in diet or nutritional stress. Previous reports indicate that females had higher incidence of osteomalacia. If so, female nutritional stress may explain the extreme mesiodistal reduction and minimal sexual dimorphism in this group.
Here we go, we see more signs of vitamin D deficiency in ancient farmers in Europe. No wonder they needed to get white to survive in Europe.
 
This is what I was suggesting upthread: that the gene flow might have come from the population from the Caucasus which was admixing with the EHG.

I've been pressed for time, so I still haven't checked whether that makes sense in terms of the dates and areas from which these Ukrainian samples were taken. Had it reached these areas in time to account for this?

It would also be interesting to know the measurements of the people in the Balkan communities along the interface between them and the steppe, since this was the area which Anthony proposes was the source of the agricultural and metallurgical technology flow in the beginning, and we know that at a certain point there was movement from these communities onto the steppe.

I don't know what to think about the 2 last abstracts: both seem confirming a reduction in teeth size AMONG MESOLITHIC POPS. It would be the NEOLITHIC ones who increased the teeth size in Ukraina! the Yugoslavia paper seems introducing a nutrition factor for some specific unlevel modification ot teeth in the mouth if I understood well what is not too sure (still strong malars but reduction if foremouth teeth?). The author of the first paper look at peri-Caucasus regions for origin of the Neolithic changes; have they clues about Caucasus pops teeth peculiarities? As others I thought the most of the Neoliticisation came from Cucuteni-Tripolye, with, perhaps, some other HGs input (from carpathians?) after first times... What appears in it is that the new pop input was more through females than through males, during shift to (partial) agriculture, when we could suppose that later the warlike metals colonisation saw rather a more male biased input of circum-Caucasus pops if they are the importers of Bronze in Western Steppes what is still subject to debate for somenones (I recall the Maykop men seemed different enough from contemporeanous pops of S-Caucasus, and closer to S-E Caspian pops). At this stage I wait for more info.
&: this reduction among Mesol's is reversing the models! It confirms a kind of gracilization preceded neatly the agriculture shift!
 
The thing is gracilization and brachycephalization are two different things and do not correlate often. Here might the misunderstanding come from. The author might actually mean gracilization and not brachycephalization in the cephalic point of view of the skull. Very Robust people are often some of the most Brachycephalic people on earth, while Gracile people can still be some of the most Dolichocephalic. We actually do have signs of gracilization among some Neolithic populations for example the most typical Arabian type is a Gracile desert Mediterranean type. Those guy are Dolichocephalic but very gracile in body build.
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/profile-of-a-saudi-man-picture-id84608530

on the other hand extremely Robust people are often brachy-mesocephalic.
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/seperated-at-birth.jpg

So if he indeed is reffering gracilization and it was bad wording than I agree with him. Obviously agriculture will bring a trend of gracilization of bones and general body mass, because a farmer doesn't need to hunt his pray anymore.

And in this case indeed the CT culture people are more "gracilized" than the early H&G of the region as well even more than the Robust Dolichocephalic types of the Anatolian_Farmers.

http://alterling2.narod.ru/Il/TrpFMMd.jpg

compare to
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-10paHp_laqU/VWTB-tq7UiI/AAAAAAAAAR4/Er5Ig36nBCE/s1600/Sunghir_man.gif

I think it is just mispelling here and the authors meant gracilization. Cephalic Index =/= Gracilization. Some of the most Dolichocephalic people are gracile in stature.

More examples of gracile Dolicho-mesocephalic types in comparison to very Robust Brachy-Mesocephalic types of the same ethnicity.

http://image.gala.de/v1/cms/2d/oliver-pocher_5553777-ORIGINAL-original.jpg?v=7526696
http://s.weltsport.net/bilder/spieler/gross/97.jpg

The first one looks very farmer to me I couldn't imagine him as a Hunter, while the second looks like he came straight from a hunt searching for pray.
 
Last edited:
There is new paper out on Nature from Ron Pinhasi group.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep33316

So, the part that is new and relevant in my opinion is essentially that it states that Mesolithic steppe populations (or Ukraine for that matter) were not Brachychephalic but Typolie and Dnieper-Donets II were.

"..Indeed, there is a mounting body of genetic evidence suggesting a mixed European Mesolithic and Caucasus origin for the Yamnaya culture70,71. Altogether, it is likely that the onset of agriculture in each of the three regions can be characterised by a unique set of features, with similarly idiosyncratic morphological responses in the cranium."

The period and the cultures yielding the samples the paper uses (5th millennia bc) were groups that arrived to Ukraine and north Caucasus with a full package of new pastoral (and agriculture) way of live. Very complete and compact species domestication (From triticum seeds to Goats, sheep and pigs). So New people.

With such an impact on the morphology of the steppe, clearly overturning it, who where they? Who were the newly arrived forefathers of the Yamnaya? Was it the steppe after all a chalcolithic melting pot of local EHG, with Balkan EHG (lets see what the new Balkan adna shows) and CHG/Levant adna coming with South Caucasus Population?

In modern day, people in NW Europe have mesocephalic to dolichocephalic heads, likely leaning to the former. I have noticed people originating in SE Europe and the Caucasus are very brachycephalic....
 

This thread has been viewed 19193 times.

Back
Top