Collection of skulls.

These are skulls from Israel, dated between 80-120 thousand years ago. Possibly first exodus of Homo Sapiens from Africa, also possible interbreeding with Neanderthals. No genetic tests were done on these ones yet.
235px-Skhul.JPG


235px-Qafzeh.JPG


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skhul_and_Qafzeh_hominids
 
try;
the Kostenki crania is more archaïc than our (later or not) Cro-Magnons of Western Europe but as a whole is very "europoidlike" concerning prognathy and browridges:
different from today pure Aborigenes of Australia and different at first sight from the 'brünnoïd-capelloid' features:
his jaws, chink and degree of prognathy are very far from the Palestinian remnants (Qazfeh???) and the browridges are not so strong as in other primitive skulls (look at Loschbour, Mesolithic of Luxemburg);
as a whole a bit higher faced and more robust than average Cro-Magnon but with this taste of rotondity in skulls, opposite to the 'brünn-capelloid' trend: it seems to me the more cro-manoids shew later two tendancies, apart the progressive and more or less complete brachycephalization:
in Northern Europe they seemed stronger, heavier faced and a bit less shorter faced, skulls a bit higher and frontals seemed a bit more receding, less "cerebral" than in South -
as a whole and it could be partly an adaptative trend, South and West became smaller even if staying robust - these differences seen in Mesolithic, with northern forms more massive and slightly more "brutal" as in Oberkassel 'cromagnoid' skull, could explain the differences between 'alpine' (gracilised) and 'borreby' (A) -
as a whole this "Russian" man seems to me at the possible sources of Cro-Magnon' and 'Brünnoid' types, but if true, Cro-Magnon keepS closer concerning bones - it says nothing concerning their respective genetic drift compared to this man's autosomals, IF HE IS AMONG THEIR ANCESTORS LIGNEAGE -
distinct of Australians Aborigenes for I think to date -
 
it's hazardous because I have not occasion to compare seriously but I could bet Qazfeh skulls are closer to Australians skulls ?... all the way more 'africanoid' in the sense of 'subsaharian'
 
Neolithic "Romeo and Juliet" :) look strongly dolychocephalic to me, it's consistent with the mediterranean origins of neolithic people, IMHO.

dolichocephaly, strong or moderate, was the rule in a ot of places and eras, so it is not a criteria in itself - the brachycephalisation seems having seriously begun in Eurasia about the 7000/6000 BC -
some skulls means of Cyprus in PPN (neolithical without pottery, about the 7000 BC or earlier) were very less dolichocephalic, the survey I red did not give the CI (what a pity!) -
as a whole the Palestine settlements of this PPN gave means and shapes very heterogenous, between (inter) and sometimes within (intra) so... more than a sort of Neolithical people came in Europe - the first apparently stayed only in South-central Turkey and fared by sea very often, with almost only mt-K - other surveys concluded the first Neolithic people of S-E Europe were physically closer to a partly isolated population based around çatal-Hüyük in S-Anatolia, different alsofrom the frist Cyprus settlements and from other subsequent waves of Near-Eastern people -
 
Gravettian woman, 26,000 Predmosti, Czech Republic.
5602535852_668f194fbd_b.jpg
 
Gravettian from Czech republic. 30-20 thousand years old.
4_Skull+with+mandible+P1+anterior+view.jpg

5_Skull+with+mandible+P1+lateral+view+dx.jpg

11_Skull+%28P1%29%2C+superior+view.jpg


https://www.nespos.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=55672851

thanks for good pictures: very nice and pretty boys and girls!
curiously enough (or logically? it depends on interpretation) I find it is half way between Cro-magnon (SW France,typical) and Brünn-Combe-Capelle - a precise datation (new methods) would be welcome because it could change the notion of crossing to the one of older form undifferentiated (I bet on the first explanation but?... the 'brünnoid' forms are supposed to be came there from East AFTER the genuine 'cromagnoid' ones)
the Brno/Brünn and Predmost regions were supposed to be the meating place of the two big 'phyla' (phylums??) but the dates heavily matter here -
 
Lebrok, have you some photo's of the Magdalenian 'Chancelade ' skulls, from different angles, and have you other 'Chancelade' men or women at hand?
thanks beforehand for good sharing

looking at this specimen, I find it present something which could be seen as a step towards a proto-mediterranian type: still some archaic features but far mor numerous "modern" traits -
roughly same ratio mandibule breadth/cheekbones breadth as 'brünn' or 'combe-capelle' but more compressed, and typically modern 'mediterranian' the beginning of reducing of the inferior mandibule in all dimensions, and broadening of frontal-temporal frontier, frontal seemingly a bit bulbous on this picture - for the nose, too destroyed! -
so a trend towards 'mediterranians would be started in some ligneages of France at this time: upon what older form? not Cro-Magnon at first sight -
from what I red, without clear explanations, some Magdalenians were more ont the Cro-Magnon side: how much of this 'chancelade' form at these times? an early infiltration from South or an evolution on older more ruggish forms of 'combe-capelle'?
 
after some more observation, the Czech gravettian you posted seems to me more on C-M 's side, for a lot of details
 
Lebrok, have you some photo's of the Magdalenian 'Chancelade ' skulls, from different angles, and have you other 'Chancelade' men or women at hand?
thanks beforehand for good sharing

looking at this specimen, I find it present something which could be seen as a step towards a proto-mediterranian type: still some archaic features but far mor numerous "modern" traits -
roughly same ratio mandibule breadth/cheekbones breadth as 'brünn' or 'combe-capelle' but more compressed, and typically modern 'mediterranian' the beginning of reducing of the inferior mandibule in all dimensions, and broadening of frontal-temporal frontier, frontal seemingly a bit bulbous on this picture - for the nose, too destroyed! -
so a trend towards 'mediterranians would be started in some ligneages of France at this time: upon what older form? not Cro-Magnon at first sight -
from what I red, without clear explanations, some Magdalenians were more ont the Cro-Magnon side: how much of this 'chancelade' form at these times? an early infiltration from South or an evolution on older more ruggish forms of 'combe-capelle'?


chanceladeskull.png

The nose bridge seem to be smashed, or perhaps in young age, or he/she got disfigured due to some disease?


Here is a great link to beautiful skulls from Czech Republic.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4424854/1/
 
Awesome. Just found this thread. loschbour looks hella Neanderthal.

No Loschbour is not 'neanderthal' - he is on the brünn-capellid side of paleolithics, well distinct from the TRUE cro-magnon phylum, and he is very close to other HGs of Scandinavia -
some scholars, not too stupid I think (not all of them are!) notice after comparisons that every big group cro-magnon and brünn-c-capelle shows concerning crania innovations from more ancient patterns, but not the same - personnaly, spite a maxillar apparatus very impressive in cro-magnongroup, the cerebral part seems more "evolved" (at first look) than in brünn-c-capelle: that said let's be cautious when speaking about intelligence -
the brünnoid descendants have all of them a very more evolved faces than 'neanderthal', and more marked cheekbones- and 'neanderthal' facies is itself an aside evolution of older forms of human, concerning face it seems not "centroidal" to me - just opinion
 
chanceladeskull.png

The nose bridge seem to be smashed, or perhaps in young age, or he/she got disfigured due to some disease?


Here is a great link to beautiful skulls from Czech Republic.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4424854/1/

thank you Lebrok for kind communication - the Chancelade type seems having left dense imput in western 'mediterraneans' types, which are today still more voluminous than the eastern 'mediterraneans' (noticed by Coon) -
the question is that for Chancelade, I speak here about a lonely skull - it 's why I asked if they would have been other close specimens?
 
About conscient and unconscient agendas, I red a few months ago an observation from a "scientist" telling without laughing that the craniologic surveys have no values for more than a reason, and he saw the proof of it in the fact that some Neolithic crania of Portugal shew very close features to the Ukrainian Neolithic people's crania!!!
same period, same culture, but this acute brained man thought it was not possible to imagine a common origin for people llving so far, the only explanation according to him being independant hazardous convergence: I 've not seen the material for comparison (I would like but I'm only a poor profane) but I think this remark shows considerable prejudice: does this knowledged (young?) man know that the sources of some farmers populations of Southern Europe were from the same areas (not all the same and not always the same types but every set of colonizers send people very far, some by sea to West, some by land through Carpathians to Ukraina... just a point
 
Tomenable brought us skull of Karelian hunter gatherer, tested R1a
https://www.oagr.org.au/source/I0061/
187c9ae5ef0b.png


Interesting curvature of the skull, side view, almost one continues curve from back of the skull to the eyebrows. Borders of forehead are not very well defined. It is rather quite slanted too.
Nice teeth by the way.
 
Karelian skull reminds me of Motala hunter gatherer skull from Sweden, though they were hg I2a IIRC:
Figur_2_Kanaljorden_kranium.jpg

 
Tomenable brought us skull of Karelian hunter gatherer, tested R1a
https://www.oagr.org.au/source/I0061/
187c9ae5ef0b.png


Interesting curvature of the skull, side view, almost one continues curve from back of the skull to the eyebrows. Borders of forehead are not very well defined. It is rather quite slanted too.
Nice teeth by the way.


Thanks!
amateurish analysis of mine: evocating a partly gracilized 'brünn-capelloid' pattern; the flat enough nose bridge,and the retreating forehead BUT with relatively smooth browridge and high enough orbits could point to a 'mongoloid' slight imput: maybe this type would be what someones describe as the Forest Steppes dwellers which became Finnic for a part? Uncertain:
the cheek-bones seem here a bit pushed forwards, what would be a confirmation if true, but it's not evident enough to make solid statement.
Notice that some 'southern' ligneages seem also 'brünnoid' gracilized ligneages through the so called 'eurafrican' stage, so the frontier between so called 'mediterraneans' and some HGs is not a so clear cut for phenotypes.
 
2008 paper on Villabruna man(14,000 year WHG Italian with Y DNA R1b1)

He had the same mtDNA/Y DNA haplogroups as me :). They mention he has very similar skull morphology to a individual from Switzerland who was about as old. We also have the Swiss guy's DNA, and he like VillaBruna was WHG. Villabruna's skeleton is very well preserved. They say his body proportions are most like North Africans and his skull is Caucasian.

Here's his skull.
9


Here's his Swiss Brother's skull.
5864567.image


Here's facial reconstruction of a much younger WHG(8,000 years old) from Luxembourg.
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.
 
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.
???
 

This thread has been viewed 77887 times.

Back
Top