Collection of skulls.

bicicleur said:
not worth what? what are you getting at?
there is no Siberian DNA found in paleolithic nor in post-LGM Europe
Click to expand...
Does Solutrean genomes have been study to your knowledge ?
 
just one afaik


[TD="width: 86"] Solutrian [/TD]
[TD="width: 86"] Spain [/TD]
[TD="width: 86"] Nerja, Málaga [NE-NT 79] [/TD]
[TD="width: 24"]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 138"] 18,000-15,000 BC [/TD]
[TD="width: 96"]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 86"]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 86"] U [/TD]
[TD="width: 86"] Fernández 2005 [/TD]
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...-jaw-dropping-changes-human-skull-scientists/

The largest changes in skull morphology were observed in groups consuming dairy products, suggesting that the effect of agriculture on skull morphology was greatest in populations consuming the softest food.
Click to expand...

This article that came out a few days ago suggests that consumption of dairy products and farming resulted in the shrinking of the human jaw, and made skulls more slender. The reason is because eating stuff like cheese, and cereal required less chewing.

It says farming, but I thought consumption of dairy products and animal domestication was introduced by the Yamnaya. So was it a combination of both lifestyles?
 
half amazing because the pops the most adapted to milk consomption in Europe (British, North Euro, Basques, by instance, are or at least were the pops with greater skulls (not always the heavier, here I don't know, and the shapes are variated, its only a two dimensions mean (length+breadth)...
 
I add some survey stated the Mesolithic people of Balkans were undergoing a trend towards diminution of teeths and jaw... caution then
 
Jovialis said:
This article that came out a few days ago suggests that consumption of dairy products and farming resulted in the shrinking of the human jaw, and made skulls more slender. The reason is because eating stuff like cheese, and cereal required less chewing.

It says farming, but I thought consumption of dairy products and animal domestication was introduced by the Yamnaya. So was it a combination of both lifestyles?
Click to expand...
As Moesan pointed out, we have to be careful with dairy. Dairy was also thought to stand behind white European skin, but it turned to be just a myth.
 
microc1.gif


The skull of a Minoan microcephalic was found in the excavations of Zakros, preserved and studied by Dr A. Poulianos. It belonged to a man of 20 years of age, who most probably was member of the Minoan dynasty. Its cranial capacity is of about 530 cc and reflects a genetic diversion connected to long terms isolation and endogamy of Minoans. Thus neither Cretans, nor members of the Minoan dynasty were immigrants from elsewhere, but a result of local evolution. During the military junta, in 1971, it was given to Vienna Museum for "study". It returned to Greece in 1997 after a juridical straggle of the Anthropological Association of Greece. For the benefit of science we urgently appeal to the world scientific community to assist us in protecting the Greek findings from colonial attitudes.
Click to expand...
http://www.aee.gr/english/8other_research/a_minoan_microcephalic.html

As far as I know, pygmy skull capacity is around 1,000cc. If so, ancient Minoan is so small people. Is it possible to be mixed with the other Greeks? Is there any research regarding Minoan skull?

pygmy:
pygmies.jpg

http://www.e-allmoney.com/customs/pygmies.html

mycenaean:
1300-1250%2Bbce%2Bfemale%2Bhead%2Bmade%2Bof%2Bplaster%2Bwearing%2Bheadband%2C%2BMycenaean%2C%2Bfrom%2Bthe%2Bside.jpg


main-qimg-27ad89ac1a721aeda22467d88b70f6ed.webp




 
Last edited:
johen said:
microc1.gif



http://www.aee.gr/english/8other_research/a_minoan_microcephalic.html

As far as I know, pygmy skull capacity is around 1,000cc. If so, ancient Minoan is so small people. Is it possible to be mixed with the other Greeks? Is there any research regarding Minoan skull?

pygmy:
pygmies.jpg

http://www.e-allmoney.com/customs/pygmies.html

mycenaean(41.95cm):
1300-1250%2Bbce%2Bfemale%2Bhead%2Bmade%2Bof%2Bplaster%2Bwearing%2Bheadband%2C%2BMycenaean%2C%2Bfrom%2Bthe%2Bside.jpg




Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that the average minoan was that tiny. Its probably just a defect. Like koksal baba the famous internet guy.
 
The profil shape of this Minoan skull, whatever its absolute mensurations, is far to evocate the common type among Neolithical Anatolians, and point to a roughly 'westasian' input (S-E of Caspian more remote origin???) - one of the Y-J2 introgressions in Egea and East mediterranea?
As Johan Derite says, it's dubious this size of skull would have been general in Egea islands and Creta, even if a microcephalization process was running on by isolation in some islands.
 
johen said:
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


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


97.1% probability of O2 of the Y-chromosome haplotype
Click to expand...

As a whole he seems closer to western 'cromagnoid' than to any other type, rather far from the 'br?nnoid'like descendants; maybe not the mean Botai type, supposed to be closer to SW HG's of Siberia - I regreat we have not the face picture - seems kind of an old crossing -
 
I remarked that when I posted my last pic's, they were "pinned" under a reference, not appearing at first sight, but the links posted which worked some time, no more work after some time: seemingly it is the same problem with other posters, whose links are no more effective. Explanation?
 
MOESAN said:
I thank again here Lebrok for his skulls posting -
concerning Ötzi, when I saw his skull I did not feal it as a 'mediterranean' crania, and I keep on thinking that - I said and I say again he shows features where more than a type is implied and among them some 'cromagnoid' features, on na 'alpine' way (I lack metric measures but it seems more mesocehpalic than true dolicho- or subdolichocephalic) - the skull is low, the orbits retains yet some cromagnoid traits - its lines are very far from the gentle mediterranean eastern types which appeared at Neolitical daybreak in western and eastern Europe (high skull, very dolichocephalic, narrower jaws, longer and narrower upper face, higher and rounder eyescokets... I confess it is a rough analysis because I lack measures and different angles of sight but... Ötzi was a mix where dominated yet mesolithical traits upon more m'editerranean' ones so the autosomlas dominant 'mediterranean' classification deserves surely to be refined...
I have yet some problem with the less 'north european' and more 'mediterranean' classification of Northern Italians compared to Iberians too
Click to expand...

Anatolian farmers are predominantly northwestern Anatolians. It makes no sense to discuss genetic facts with somewhat subjective 'phenotypic readings'. As for the comparison between northern Italians and Iberians: the distance between them is quite small, but Iberians are pulled further north because of the larger WHG genetic component that is more common in northwestern Europe and less common in the eastern Mediterranean. The Western Anatolian component of the Iberians is also more similar to the Anatolian component of central and northern Europe. The Italian Neolithic, on the other hand, was also influenced by a greater diversity of Anatolian groups.
 
Ack said:
Anatolian farmers are predominantly northwestern Anatolians. It makes no sense to discuss genetic facts with somewhat subjective 'phenotypic readings'. As for the comparison between northern Italians and Iberians: the distance between them is quite small, but Iberians are pulled further north because of the larger WHG genetic component that is more common in northwestern Europe and less common in the eastern Mediterranean. The Western Anatolian component of the Iberians is also more similar to the Anatolian component of central and northern Europe. The Italian Neolithic, on the other hand, was also influenced by a greater diversity of Anatolian groups.
Click to expand...


Late answer (I had not read your post yet)
You are very sure of yourself!
"phenotypic readings" ARE NOT SUBJECTIVE by themselves; the only possible critic is: could they provide some help in measuring pops distnace sor closeness; sometimes, yes! Vey often changes in allover auDNA are accompanied by changes in phenotypes distribution, it's a fact not a dream of "racists" or left back pseudo scientists:
the first introgressions of steppe DNA in Balkans/Carpathians were paralleled by arrival of "archaic europoids" -
the first types of Western Mediterranea, where cohabited archaic diverse types and types closer to Western-center Anatolia neolithic types, have been rejoined by the famous "ibero-insular mediterranean" type which is not a type by itself but a mean of types born (humor of history) rather in Southern Balkans/Greece: it isn't a "race" for sure, but this new phenotypical mean corresponds almost surely to an Helladic infuence on Iberia Southern France, carrying more 'CHG/neol iranic' DNA, by the way, the dates match rather.
Other examples could be added, along history.
So, if phenotypes are not exactly reliable to calculate true distances, they are often an index, a trace of something when their distributions change quickly enough. It was my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top