Facial recostruction of ancient 5900 years old Sicilian face

The historians date the arrive of Ligures (proto-Sicanians and proto-Elymians) during the iron age.
So this woman lived long before their arrival.

So from which group you think the facial reconstruction is in your opinion? Bel Beaker culture according to the below map was present in North Sicily and arrived some 1000 years later if not more then to the time when this woman lived in the area. Again if not mistaken Bel Beaker seems to have been more of a culture influence then a genetic one. Whats your take on that?

383px-Beaker_culture_diffusion.svg.png


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture
 
the facial reconstruction (particularily the eyes) seems to me a mess. same for the nose. for the most the face seems very too large for a "mediterranean' affiliated girl, compared to skull. No confidence! the pictures I saw (several but lack of vertical upper view) shew what seemed an aggregation of hardened sediment and bone, concerning the jaw. the crania seems a bit put out of shape (compressed?) and assymetrical - still uneasy to make an opinion without a lateral and frontal view of BONES what the photos did not show...
and frontal pcitures can very well mistake us about height of crania and shape of inferior mandibule, according to the way the skull is put: if the skull is inclined towards the rear, the visible effect is more "square" jaw, and if the forehead is not bulbous, lower skull - the contrary otehrwise. SO very oftne, myself first, we speak upon to meager visible angles

concerning old tribes in Sicily: we could perhaps see some difference in means between population of different parts of the island (by instance, cephalic index and Y-haplos) but I would not put a penny on a strict correlation between today individuals and one of the diverses layers of population settled in it as time passed - and the girl here is older than any Ligurian or Elymian imput for I know so it's out of question-
first well identified BB men were on the brachy or sub-brachycephalic side, flattened occiput etc... no discussion - it's only after that differenciation (mixtures, acculturation) occurred according to regions-
 
after a look t the other woman, of 5600 BC Malta, my first opinion is she look roughly said 'atlanto-mediterranean' - so high faced: my remark about the Sicilian one is maybe too hasty?
If I don't mistake a 14000 BC woman of Sicily was discovered, showing ruggish features of large high face with strong cheekbones evocating clearly some 'aurafrican' or 'c-capelloid-brünnoid' type, present too in North Africa at the Neolithic daybreak or even sooner - the 'atlanto's had surely inherited some traits from this old type, attenuated by crossings or simply gracilization (still to explain)-
it's a pity we are not more often given complete viewing of these old skulls (for the maybe attractive naked living bodies of these girls it's too late, I 'm afraid. Sorry, Angela!
 
What do you think for Capelloid?the proto-Mediterranid?
 
So from which group you think the facial reconstruction is in your opinion? Bel Beaker culture according to the below map was present in North Sicily and arrived some 1000 years later if not more then to the time when this woman lived in the area. Again if not mistaken Bel Beaker seems to have been more of a culture influence then a genetic one. Whats your take on that?

383px-Beaker_culture_diffusion.svg.png


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture
I think she was a neolitic woman, she would be interesting their genetic results.
About Bell Beakers i don't know but probably there are some genetic influences in the western part.
 
What do you think for Capelloid?the proto-Mediterranid?

I say 'capelloid' to mark some shapes ressemblance with the typical of Combe-Capelle, itself very close to the typical Brünn type, seejmingly people forming a second layer in Europe, coming surley after the Cro-Magnon peole. Both show archaic features compared to the most our modern 'europoid' types, but show too some innovations compared to say, Neanderthal, BUT NOT THE SAME INNOVATIONS. it 's sure the C-Capelle-Brünn "family" the C-Capelle/Brünn family arrived lately enough (9000/7000BC?) in Western £Europe, maybe earlier in Eastern Europe; what appears at first reading is they came both from East, Cro-magnon through South, C-C/Brünn through East (Steppes? East caspian?).
my thoughts are that both mixed during Mesolithic, but at very different levels according to places, and created diverse derived forms by isolation, what doesn't exclude some new populations shew still a dominance of Cro-Magnon ('cromagnoid') or Brünn/C-Capelle ('brünnoid' or 'capelloid'), undergoing a diminishing in stature and in certain places a brachycephalization. In France and Iberia appeared too the so called 'Laugerie-Chancelade' type, closer to 'brünnoid'/'capelloid' but with broader and less brutal forehead; globally "smoothed" in some way.
I cannot be sure it is or not a local evolution of 'C-C/Brünn or the same but evolved in Near-East and passed across North-Africa. some N-African skulls of Mesolithic period are close enough or between both.
what is sure is that the more steep frontal; smaller faced (all measures) 'mediterranean' arrived rather at true Neolithic times, under more than a subtype and I think also, through the two sides of the great Sea.
but everywhere in Mediterranea survives, under the crossings, odl forms where, left aside pigmentation, some skeletal and facial-cranial features do not evocate at any rate the later more evolved 'mediterranean' subtypes; "Mediterranean" geographically doesn't mean anthropogically 'mediterranean' . I observed during long years the European types of all sorts and I'm sure of the fact, as many people can verify with their eyes.
the links I found between 'mediterraneans' of all sort and the archaic types of C-C/Brünn shape is a proportionally longer vs narrower faces, (but wheekbones are rather less compressed than jaws) when the 'cxromagnoid' people show larger vs shorter faces, shallower chink but more protuding forwards -
in Europe a lot individuals show by atavisme one of the two tendancies, the more archaic formes being more ruggish, more bony, and very often a region showing more than the average of an archaic mostly unmodified "model" shows also the other archaic mostly unmodified "model" (some parts of Scandinavia, Norway the most, some places in Ireland, i the Netherlands or Germany, or Lithuania, even in some central remote parts of Sardinia or Iberia, in the Central West part of France too, finally in a lot of remote places of Europe...
so the new 'mediterranean' people are not a completely different sort of human but only more gracilized forms due possibly to adaption not only to new climate but to new ways of living and even in their most evolved results kept some facial tendancies more linked to a 'Capelloid' or better a Chancelade or C-Capelle phylum than to a Cro-magnon one, for I think. Some mutations I'm unaware of and gracilization created new types but not always evolved at the same level.
'atlanto-mediterranean' type is mean/average metrics creation, but, as 'indo-iranian' type it shows conservation of more ancient features.
all that does not exclude some Cro-Magnon heritage in Medierranea regions but they are less representative of the modern 'mediterranean' subtypes

&: this already ancient lack of metrics steep frontiers between descendants of the two big phyla (already crossed at the mergins and put in the same bag) and later with the descendants of their proper descentants (grand'children) stayed a long stage in East is reflected by the mixture we find in aDNA, since the Early Neolithic, mong peasants and HGs. there were crossings so admixture between both bit it's not sure the apparent admixture did not existed already before. Maybe m'I wrong? Wait for more ancient DNA!

*I write '-oid' but I think in good english it's '-id' -

 
What about the similarity between the reconstruction and Costanza Calabrese?
 
to FireHaired, a bit late:
Italian Mesolithic: I have not the sample size (surely small) nor the pictures nor the features in details, only some indexes:
crania
dolichocephalic: CI 72,9 (low enough at Mesolithic when some other population had grown a bit more mesolcehpalic than during old Paleolithic)
vertical index (height / length: VI: 72,7
transversal index (height / breadth: 100,2 mean of both (more informative concerning skull height): 86,5: it places these "Italians" rather among the high skulledpeople, what is not typical of Cro-Magnon and most descendants; but it is a bit less high than South France Meoslithic men -
upper face index (height from glabella to upper teeth): FI: 49,3: one of the most shallow/short faces of everytime in Europe: I've no picture so I cannot say if it is a global face (orbits and Co) breadth trait, or if it is due only to cheekbones arcs (a C-C/Brünn tendancy in Europe)?
orbital ondex: OI: 72,4: among the lowest too: the C-C/Brünn descendants seemed a bit heterogenous at the stage of Mesolithic: here it is low, as in very old times -
lack: lower jaw indexes and form, orbits shapes (OI is only an aspect), frontal profile and so on...
all the way, I would put a shilling to bet on a pire ligneage from Cr-M or C-C/Br: I think reasonable to suppose mixings/crossings were old enough in Europe between the two big ligneages (begun in Central Europe after LGM) to explain the variety of types (individuals and mean groups) caused by mixtures followed by temporary isolation, so hazard caused drift too for some traits in small "families". all the way, the big differences in means and aspects with subsequent Neolithic people, ecludes for me that the evolution could have taken place in Italy.
I wonder if the most of the modifications leading to the typical "mediterranean" it's to say to a set of features becoming the general trend even if not 100% integrated, did not come from East Africa, perhaps in today Erythrea or South Egypte??? only a question here... these traits softened the diverse heritages of alreayd partially gracilized descendants of the two old ligneages in Europe: Cr-M and C-C/Br ??? it's true that some today Erythreans have features which do not recall "black and white" modern crossings (I don't speak about whisky here) and some of the first agricultors in Palestine showed "negroid" tendancies in alveolar prognathy, what is NOT saying THEY WERE SUBSAHRIANS TYPES... a bit more northern the Upper Egyptians Badarians (4000 BC) had brunet white skins, a bit of alveolar (teeth) prognathy, very high skulls with vertical forehead, very small narrow inferior maxillar BUT wavy black or blackish brown hairs without any subsaharian tendancy to frizzy/fuzzy hairs.
 

This thread has been viewed 11273 times.

Back
Top