Collection of skulls.

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-genes.html
Denisovan's cave was found near lake baikal, home of ANE. According to anthro data, huge convex nose zone located from EHG to altai bronze. So is it possible of ANE's convex nose to get inherited from Denisovan's?
"The Kumsay burial site was first discovered in 2009, and is named after the village it was found nearby, near the Ulriver in western Kazakhstan. Roughly this location. This burial site was classified as being part of the Yamnaya horizon based on the burials rites of the perople. These burials were '"pit graves" covered with an earthen mound. Just like with the Yamnaya. Furthermore, many of the people ad a supine position with flexed legs, similar to the positions seen with the Yamnaya. And the people buried here were sprinkled with red ochre, another tradition also prevalent in the Yamnaya horizon.
What is interesting about the people here was that many of them were really big, sturdy people. Aside from the general robust features and all, several of the people here were well over 190 cm, reaching up to and above 2 meters tall! "

https://musaeumscythia.blogspot.com/2021/11/a-look-at-kumsay-graveyard-of-giants.html





botai skull





botai (3500bc) kumsay (3000bc) genetic admixture:

caucasus-cline-narasimhan.jpg




 
The following admixture might not explain in andronovo proper nor bellbeaker skull. When we explain in bronze age steppe skulls, I think we need to focus upon how they developed or evolved, not upon how different they are.

According greek scholar, Mycenaean skulls are composed of dinaric (bellbeaker type), pamir (andronovo type), armenoid and alpain. So I think andronovo proper and bellbeaker skulls are close to cromagnon, while krugan bronze (samples in crimea, so catacomb?) is far away from comagnon. In other words, androvo and bellbeaker steppe admixture could happen before proto-yamna admixture.

According to archaeology data, Ural east had contacted S-E Aral sea from Meso to Eneolithic. And ANF admixture appeared in ancient Iran 4,500bc. Before 4,500bc, CHG only migrated north and steppe admixture might happen continually, not one time to become an ancestor to whole bronze age steppe people.

For example, Neolithic baikal people has almost full of east asian admixture, however their skull is not a mongoloid, paleo type like america indian. They migrated north east asia. They might marry daughter of east asia farmer. So their descendant has 100% east asain admixture, however, their skull could be different from mongoloid.

c1OGFBf.png

kz3GvI5.png

"Thus, we combined all early Steppe pastoralist individuals in one group to obtain a more precise estimate for the genetic formation of proto-Yamnaya of ~4,400 to 4,000 BCE (Figure 2). These dates are noteworthy as they pre-date the archeological evidence by more than a millennium (37) and have important implications for understanding the origin of proto-Pontic Caspian cultures and their spread to Europe and South Asia."

anthro data:
F2.large.jpg




Thanks for sharing. But I don't rely too much either on SOME old or recent typologic classifications or on "blind" metrics, the above PCA shows at evidence what I mean about abosulte metrics which doesn't take in account the process of internal gracilisation or other drifts without more crossings! Very often average illusions of types have been created which didn't give account of the real admixtures of pops, even morphological admixtures.
 
@Hawk:


It's Tf1 - the jaw is not in a normal position respective to the skull, here.

Sorry, I cannot stick it here, my pic is too heavy, I've been obliged to cut it off. I 'll try later.
 
The following admixture might not explain in andronovo proper nor bellbeaker skull. When we explain in bronze age steppe skulls, I think we need to focus upon how they developed or evolved, not upon how different they are.

According greek scholar, Mycenaean skulls are composed of dinaric (bellbeaker type), pamir (andronovo type), armenoid and alpain. So I think andronovo proper and bellbeaker skulls are close to cromagnon, while krugan bronze (samples in crimea, so catacomb?) is far away from comagnon. In other words, androvo and bellbeaker steppe admixture could happen before proto-yamna admixture.

According to archaeology data, Ural east had contacted S-E Caspian sea from Meso to Eneolithic. And ANF admixture appeared in ancient Iran 4,500bc. Before 4,500bc, CHG only migrated north and steppe admixture might happen continually, not one time to become an ancestor to whole bronze age steppe people.

For example, Neolithic baikal people has almost full of east asian admixture, however their skull is not a mongoloid, paleo type like america indian. They migrated north east asia. They might marry daughter of east asia farmer. So their descendant has 100% east asain admixture, however, their skull could be different from mongoloid.

c1OGFBf.png

kz3GvI5.png

"Thus, we combined all early Steppe pastoralist individuals in one group to obtain a more precise estimate for the genetic formation of proto-Yamnaya of ~4,400 to 4,000 BCE (Figure 2). These dates are noteworthy as they pre-date the archeological evidence by more than a millennium (37) and have important implications for understanding the origin of proto-Pontic Caspian cultures and their spread to Europe and South Asia."
F2.large.jpg

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.04.490594v2

"Interestingly, two herein reported ~7,300-year-old imputed genomes from the Middle Don River region in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (Golubaya Krinitsa, NEO113 & NEO212) derive ~20-30% of their ancestry from a source cluster of hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP) (Fig. 3). Additional lower coverage (non imputed) genomes from the same site project in the same PCA space (Fig. 1D), shifted away from the European hunter-gatherer cline towards Iran and the Caucasus. Our results thus document genetic contact between populations from the Caucasus and the Steppe region as early as 7,300 years ago, providing documentation of continuous admixture prior to the advent of later nomadic Steppe cultures, in contrast to recent hypotheses, and also further to the west than previously reported.

We demonstrate that this “steppe” ancestry (Steppe_5000BP_4300BP) can be modelled as a mixture of ~65% ancestry related to herein reported hunter-gatherer genomes from the Middle Don River region (MiddleDon_7500BP) and ~35% ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from Caucasus (Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP) (Extended Data Fig. 4). Thus, Middle Don hunter-gatherers, who already carry ancestry related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers (Fig. 2), serve as a hitherto unknown proximal source for the majority ancestry contribution into Yamnaya genomes."

The contact between the southern Urals and the southern Caspian basin can clearly traced not only in the mesolithic, but also during the neolithic an eneolithic
Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate,Page 146.
 
Neolithic west siberian:
Graphical-facial-reconstruction-of-a-man-from-the-Neolithic-cemetery-of-Zhelezinka-by.ppm
SEI_117428875.jpg
Digital restoration of child and adult crania from 160,000 years ago
M. Ponce de León and Ch. Zollikofer/Univ. of Zurich

Shape of human brain has barely changed in past 160,000 years
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...rain-has-barely-changed-in-past-160000-years/

"The physical transformation of the human cranium over the past 160,000 years was probably driven by alterations in the face resulting from diet and lifestyle changes, not from the evolution of the brain itself as previously thought, a study has found.

The cranium, or braincase, of early modern humans dating back 200,000 years isn’t much different in size from those today, but has a significantly different shape, suggesting that the brain has become rounder over time.
The leading hypothesis is that changes in behaviour, such as the development of tools and art, caused the shape of the Homo sapiens brain to change and, in turn, the skull that protects it.


But fossil evidence is scarce and there are many interacting forces at play. It is simple for a skull with a large face to house a large brain, for example, but a small face complicates matters.
To investigate the causes behind the transformation of the braincase, Christoph Zollikofer at the University of Zurich in Switzerland and his colleagues digitally restored the skulls of 50 hominins recovered in Ethiopia and Israel, including H. sapiens as well as Homo erectus and Neanderthal specimens for comparison. The 3D models of the fossils were then compared with 125 modern human specimens.
Comparing the braincases of early modern human children with adults for the first time allowed the researchers to isolate the brain’s role in the evolution of the skull.


The team was surprised to find that while the size and proportions of the skulls of H. sapiens children from 160,000 years ago were largely comparable to infants today, the adults looked remarkably different to those of modern adults, with much longer faces and more pronounced features.Human faces continue to grow until the age of around 20, but the brain reaches around 95 per cent of its adult size by age 6.
If the fossil children – with near fully developed brains – resemble living ones, but fossil adults had very different skulls, we can rule out that brains have changed significantly in shape, says Zollikofer. “And if it’s not the brain driving this change, we must look for something else, like breathing, eating or moving.”
The researchers cautiously hypothesise that changes in diet or a reduced need for oxygen could have been responsible.
Faces in modern humans are far smaller, with subtler indentation, than those of their ancestors. Studies show that this change accelerated when hunter-gatherers became agriculturalists around 12,000 years ago and ate softer foods, probably due to less loading on the skull from chewing.
The authors are right to remain cautious in their hypotheses, says Chris Stringer at the Natural History Museum in London.
There is little evidence of major dietary changes between the Middle and Late Stone Age when these changes occurred, he says. Of the many possible causes, a reduction in oxygen intake could be more likely as humans have developed smaller ribcages and have less lung capacity."
Journal reference: PNAS, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2123553119
 
Modern Greek skulls are shifted to Cromagnon, due to Helladic-Logkas-MBA?
brace-2.jpg

1-s2.0-S0092867421003706-fx1.jpg

LBA Myceneans: Armenia versus Steppe-like gene flow

1-s2.0-S0092867421003706-gr3.jpg

ancient-dna-reveals-or.jpg

Skeleton of one of the two individuals who lived in the middle of the Bronze
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-ancient-dna-reveals-bronze-age.html

["The last phase of the BA is associated with a Late Helladic cul-
ture termed Mycenaean. Around 1,200 BCE, the Mycenaean
civilization began to decline, the palaces were destroyed, the
system of writing (Linear B) was abandoned, and their arts and
crafts ceased. The causes of their decline are disputed (e.g., cli-
matic change, invasions) (Middleton, 2020). Lazaridis et al.
(2017) showed that Mycenaeans were quite distinct from pre-
sent-day populations, but it remained unclear how they relate
to EBA populations.
Despite cultural similarity with the Helladic-Logkas-MBA
individuals, analyses suggest that the Mycenaean-Peloponn-
ese-LBA were quite distinct genetically, occupying a position in-
between the Logkas and the EBA Aegean and the Minoan-Lasithi-
MBA in MDS (Figure 2). Unlike the Logkas individuals, they carry a
lower European-HG-like component in ADMIXTURE (Figure 3)
and do not share significantly more alleles with Iran_N/CHG or
EHG compared to Anatolia_N in the D-statistics (Figure S6). How-
ever, like the Helladic-Logkas-MBA, they share more alleles with
Steppe_EMBA. Mycenaean-Peloponnese-LBA had previously
been shown to be consistent with a qpWave/qpAdm model that
either involved BA Steppe- or Armenian-related populations (Laz-
aridis et al., 2017). We recapitulated this result and we additionaly
found that Mycenaean-Peloponnese-LBA data are also consisent
with a model involving an EBA Aegean and Anatolia_N as source
populations (Table 3). In contrast, the Helladic-Logkas-MBA
require a Steppe-like source and cannot be explained with a sim-
ple model involving an Armenian-like source (Tables 3, S3,
and S5)."]
["our results reveal that present-day individuals fromGreece (northern Greece—Thessaloniki—and Crete) are closely
related to the Helladic-Logkas-MBA individuals of northern
Greece, falling near present-day Greeks in MDS analysis (Fig-
ure 2), sharing the same ancestry components in ADMIXTURE
(Figure 3), and having very similar D-statistics (Figure S6)"]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421003706 (2021)

["The Griffin Warrior (8), the earliest individual (~1450 BCE) from the Palace of Nestor in Pylos, is genetically right in the middle of the general population of the Aegean and was thus plausibly of entirely local Aegean origin. He had no detectable Eastern European hunter-gatherer ancestry (compared with the average of 4.8 ± 1.1% for the rest of the Mycenaean-era individuals sampled at the Palace; Fig. 1H). This finding could be consistent with a Cretan origin of this individual or his ancestors; alternatively, he could be drawn from a mainland population that had not experienced Eastern European hunter-gatherer admixture, as could two later individuals from Pylos—one buried near the Palace in a chamber tomb and another in a cist grave. Variation in Eastern European hunter-gatherer ancestry is observed at short geographical distance scales and within the same time periods: We observe that four individuals (~1450 BCE) of the sample from Attica buried at Kolikrepi-Spata had only 2 ± 1% Eastern European hunter-gatherer ancestry that was significantly less (by more than two standard errors) than that of individuals from the neighboring island of Salamis and all sampling locations in the Peloponnese. This suggests that the classical Athenian claim (e.g., Plat. Menex. 237b) of having received fewer migrants than other Greek poleis in the remote past may have had an element of truth, although larger sample sizes will be necessary to definitively establish such geographic patterns."]
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq0755 (2022)



 
Last edited:
This individual shows some traits in common with western ancient Eurasian (at first sight, based on this pics) but shows too some traits considered as typically 'east-asian' like the projecting forwards cheekbones and rather flatness of nose bridge. But it seems to me already more 'east-asian'-like than some ancient Jomon people (links with today Ainous?). Only a superficial look.
Concerning the metric cranial surveys, I have some doubt concerning their accurateness, when we know how absolute measures are grouped, without any typological approach.
 
By the way, have we clues about the language of Helladic Logkas MBA?
 
By the way, have we clues about the language of Helladic Logkas MBA?
yamna language, b/c they were buried like yamna people.

However, real indoeuropean speakers like the celts, mycenaean were buried in supine position.
Simpson1990.jpg

["Undoubtedly, the most important of them is the MM tumulus with a height of 53 meters, overlooking all the others. The original height should be around 70 meters. Its diameter, which is 300 meters now, was originally around 250 meters. It is the second largest tumulus in Anatolia after the tumulus of Lydian King Alyattes which was built almost 200 years after the MM tumulus. What is more important than the size of the MM tumulus is that it has come to the present day without being looted or damaged. MM tumulus is thought to have been built for an important Phrygian king. As a matter of fact, it was named MM as the abbreviation of Midas Mound because it was named after the most famous king of the Phrygians. However, the latest dating studies indicate that this tumulus was built in 740 BCE which is too early for the great king Midas. Researchers suggest that the occupant of the Tumulus MM was the father of Midas"]
 
@Johen
Thanks for documentation!Whatever the interpretations, I enjoy the docs you send us regularly.
I don't know if Celts re "true" IE's. But my question was: do we have some clue concerning their language (Helladic Logkas)? They were living in a region which know writing atthese dates, if I don't mistake?
 
off & nevertheless in topic:

I read very often, the most often by Anglo-Saxons posters, bloggers or authors, that 'dinaric' typical planoccipital skulls are just deformations through cradling and other not natural means. I has existed. But as I already said, present days populations who don't use these practices present nevertheless some genuine planoccipital brachycephals, rarely of often, according to places. I cited some modern Tyrolians, Bavarians and even Central-Eastern Scots, and in front of these last ones, over the North Sea, some Western Norwegians. I saw a Frisian like that too. I don't speak of Balkanites, I don't know their present habits for babies.
I recall that because I saw recently a friend, Breton of Côtes-d'Armor, with this precise cranial features. In Brittany, it occurred sometimes in the above breton departement, at very low rate, as in 'Pays Bigouden' at same low rate. For me, it's a remnant of the BB's input (the later one, linked to Round Barrows maybe more than to Iberian shores contacts?).
* BTW not all BB's or RB's people had these features too often taken as a 100% phenomenon.
It seems that COON spoke about these old cradling uses, saying that even the ones who didn't practice these present sometimes the wellkown occiput vertical flattening (not a superior lambda inclined flattening) and high but small based crania (horizontal plan). I don't deny that some people in antiquity used these deformations on skull to mimic some elites traits.
 
@Johen
Thanks for documentation!Whatever the interpretations, I enjoy the docs you send us regularly.
I don't know if Celts re "true" IE's. But my question was: do we have some clue concerning their language (Helladic Logkas)? They were living in a region which know writing atthese dates, if I don't mistake?
I have no idea, so I said "yamna language." Anyway do you know what type of skull this terminator has?
Scholar don't know when Armenoid type appeared at west asia. As far as I know, Alpine skulls were found in Hittite.

Armenia late bronze age skull. Now we knew that R1b and I reached at that time
1-s2.0-S0018442X16300567-gr1.jpg


Trepanation in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Armenia:
Trepanations-in-ancient-Armenia-1-Bakheri-chala-bur-18-2-Bover-bur-7-3-Tekhut.png
 
I would be glad to have other views of this ancient Armenian skull, before saying anything.
To come back to 'dinaric'like skulls, I read more than a time that some of Steppic people non-dolichocephalic in Central Asia and elsewhere presented flattened occiput brachycephalic skulls, artificial or not, I have no mean to know this last detail.
I 'll try to crawl among my notes to find more precision.
 
Well, the new King of England seems to have a pretty flattened occiput:

charles-prince-wales-profile-portrait-260nw-1509079.jpg


Perhaps a legacy from his Danish/German father?
prince-philip-reuters.jpg


How age changes people; he was considered the epitome of the handsome prince when they married:

mac32_book_cover06.jpg
 
Well, the new King of England seems to have a pretty flattened occiput:

charles-prince-wales-profile-portrait-260nw-1509079.jpg


Perhaps a legacy from his Danish/German father?
prince-philip-reuters.jpg


How age changes people; he was considered the epitome of the handsome prince when they married:

mac32_book_cover06.jpg


Prince Charles is rather meso-dolicho, not brachycephalic.
And we need shorn air skulls to judge features. Some (rather rare) dolicho skulls have an almost vertical occiput, but that makes not them 'dinaric'-like skulls.
All these people of the high European gentry are a mix of the allover Europe nobility, so I would not give them a too precise "ethnic" origin, even if someones pretend their Germanic part is heavy.
natural 'dinaric' features are still a mystery for me and I don't know yet how they were formed.
 
According to COON, the Minussinsk population of the first millenium BC was in majority subdolichocephalic (74), not too far of the 'corded' type but as a mean less high skulled, less long faced, and had among it some planoccipital brachcycephals.
As he saw among the 'corded' types in steppes North the Caucasus other dolichocephals more on the side of his 'megalithers' (akin to Long Barrows people, rather low headed and mean faced?) plus some 'east-mediter' littler dolichos input. COON said also that his Minussinsk LBA people showed affinities with Ukraina BA, so same elements modyfing the typical 'corded' modele? A proof of other European elements with Corded on their route to East? COON cited a few brachycecphals too North the Caucasus, for the most females. Where from, these females? Same case in Chalco of Balkans where the most of the brachy's were at first more common among females. Some hidden non steppic pop of the Carpathians, whose females were "co-opted" or rapted by steppic people??? Concerning 'dinaric' myth of BB's it could have some importance...
 
Prince Charles is rather meso-dolicho, not brachycephalic.
And we need shorn air skulls to judge features. Some (rather rare) dolicho skulls have an almost vertical occiput, but that makes not them 'dinaric'-like skulls.
All these people of the high European gentry are a mix of the allover Europe nobility, so I would not give them a too precise "ethnic" origin, even if someones pretend their Germanic part is heavy.
natural 'dinaric' features are still a mystery for me and I don't know yet how they were formed.

There's no pretend about it. In general, every Protestant dynasty in Europe has been "heavily" ; until the last half century. All those German princelings married each other, married over and over again into the British royal family after a Germanic princeling became king, and got asked by other countries to become kings, i.e. Romania and Greece. The Romanov's became, basically, a Germanic dynasty. It wasn't just the Empress Alexandra who made it that way; it went back generations.

As to Prince Philip, his family tree is extensive and verified. As the descendant of Danish kings I don't know how he could be more Germanic. His ancestors would have had to take Protestant wives, so the daughters of Germanic houses in the vast majority of cases. His only English ancestry comes by way of a daughter of Queen Victoria and a German princeling (Battenberg), and that daughter was the daughter of Prince Albert,who was also German. Even Victoria was mostly German because it's a German dynasty and they continued to marry Germans traditionally until quite late. I think George III was the first of the Hanoverian kings to speak English as his first language.

VUJbmEmXtqC3llLkj2rhGHzp96Pd-vJtC3ZlI5EExKQWltCz8sXP-982cIuFtVivrGF68V1LUIqR_pZxZLZdXGr_Ip4XTOUL9aLUD1A1YUdvOK5V8mP2fVy6LY4jNSHBsF5hrio=w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu (752×630) (googleusercontent.com)
 

This thread has been viewed 75800 times.

Back
Top