For comparison, ancient Egyptian crania seem to be mostly on the dolichocephalic (long-headed) side, albeit with a few exceptions.
quote:Strouhal reported that the cranial index “CI” in ancient Egyptians from different periods (from 1st Dynasty up to Ptolemaic) and from different sites ranged between 71.80 and 76.10. The mean value of the “CI” in Bahriyah was 82.404 ± 5.573, which means that crania are brachycranic.
Below is a chart of cranial indices across world populations in the modern era. Link
Do you think the report of dolicho- and brachycephalic crania being mixed together in ancient Middle Eastern crania might attest to African admixture in the region?
posted
^ I've been meaning to respond to this. The most salient feature of cranial morphology of not just the Egyptians or even North Africans but seemingly all Africans in general is dolichocephaly.
The above source is old so there are some outdated racial theories but that aside, the analytical and statistical findings still ring true. One of which is the fact that dolichocephaly peaks in Northeast Africa where there is an incredibly low number of brachycephaly compared to neighboring Western Asia.
Here's another old source: “In Relation to the Form of the Human Skull” by Professor Anders Retzius (1860) All the people of this continent are dolichocephalic. This fact, to which I have heretofore had occasion to draw attention at different times, and which I do not know to have been contradicted by anyone, is altogether peculiar to this portion of the world. Europe, Asia, the lands of the South Sea, America, comprise populations belonging to the two forms of head. In Europe, and still more in Asia, the brachycephales much exceed in point of numbers; in the isles of the South Sea the two forms are nearly balanced, I think, as to numbers, but the brachycephales have the moral preponderance. On the other hand, the brachycephalic populations are, to all appearance, completely unrepresented in Africa. The museum of the Carolinska Institute possesses an important collection of African skulls, of North Africans, Abyssinians, Copts, Berbers, and Guanches. All present the same form of the upper half of the skull, being large, capacious, oval, resembling much those of the Arabs. The Abyssinian skulls, which we owe to the liberality of our countryman, M. Behm, and the Copts, are slightly prognathic. The Guanches, of which we have four, all belonged to individuals of advanced age, who had lost their teeth; their alveolar processes having consequently become rudimentary, their prognathism is but slightly perceptible.
In all these skulls, whether of Abyssinians or Egyptians and Guanches, the vault of the skull is depressed in an arch elongated towards the occipital protuberance, which is a little compressed at the sides; the parietal tuberosities are little prominent. We may regard this form of skull as prevailing on the coasts and the flat country of northern Africa..
Only 1% of pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls are brachycephalic (round or spherical): El Amrah 1% (101 skulls), Nagada, 1.9% (314 skulls), El Badari 0% (79 skulls).
From Dynasty I to VI (Old Kingdom), brachycephaly does also not exceed a single percent. However during the First Intermediate Period of Egypt 2181–2055 BC or Dynasty IX, 11.6% of skulls are brachycephalic or round.
There's plenty more good info from the site as well as photos. But one thing the website points out is not simply the occurance dolichocephaly but hyper-dolichocephaly which many old sources commonly associate with Africans.
According to this site: http://humanphenotypes.net/metrics/ci-hyperdoliocephaly.html Hyperdolichocephaly is characterised by the skull width reaching less than 71 percent of the skull breadth. It was found in some early humans, but is rare today on the population level. The largest area of hyperdolichocephalic dominance is found from Central Australia to North Australia (esp. Arnhem Land, Tiwi Islands). It dominates in some Nilotes (Nuer, Shilluk) and sporadically appears in North Africa (e.g. Western Egyptians). It has been found to dominate in the Chenchu of India, other Indian populations only reach hyperdolichocephaly on the individual level. In America it occurs in some western Inuit, some Lagids (U'wa, Tapuya), and was present in a very pronounced form in the extinct Pericú of Baja California.
^ According to the above source, the largest continuous area where hyper-dolichocephaly occurs is in the Australian continent followed by Africa in smaller more sparse distributions though interestingly the two biggest concentrations are along the Nile in the Upper Nile among Nilotic people and in Egypt, specifically around the Western Desert.
posted
Now of course even though dolichocephaly is very predominant in the African continent mesocephaly also occurs with occasionaly brachycephaly in certain populations. For example, there was a recent source that discusses the prevalence of brachycephaly among Pygmy groups like the Mbuti.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: @ DJ
Just curious about the exact phenotype of earlier posted Palaeolithics. I remember a couple of reconstructions of various feature sets. Most were like African blacks, some more asmixed looking. Between Ish and Mena many were posted over the years.
I tend to shy away from teeth and head shapes. I used to believe that all long headed African thing. Then one day I saw my brother's head from the top, round. Nope not even mesocephalic, we are round heads, low end brachycephalic. Yet my son is the epitome of Sergi's pentagonoides acutus.
Plus Nordheimers are longheaded. The field shit-listed Dixon's race book. His typology disregarded skin and hair. It strictly used head, face,and nose indices. The results negroidized too many Europeans.
Yeah, I know individuals (and families) can be outside the so-called 'norm'. But, sheesh, nothing beats the genome for bio relationships. Not discounting anything in the trans-discipline arsenal though.
The popular theory is that hyper-dolichocephaly was the original or primordial head shape of early modern humans which has today become relatively rare, though note above that it is most common among Australian Aborigines followed by Africans.
As for brachycephaly, again while a relative 'rarity' in the African continent overall, it is not uncommon among certain populations. I think one of the pitfalls to racial stereotyping is people get caught up in the stereotypes.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
"All the people of this continent are dolichocephalic." Bullshit, not true even in 1862.
I am round headed and of 100% African parentage. I stand 6' tall, no male siblings shorter than 5'10". There are African round heads got nothing to do with Rainforesters.
Notice that outside forensics, nobody uses CI anymore. Wonder why?
Dixon is now available online. Perusing the African chapter is revealing. One will see a variety of head lengths. With any analytic skill this is what one will find. No way can all non-longheads be attributed to foreign influx.
Just like with ADMIXTURE results, there ain't no evidence of Eurasians roaming all over Africa to seed the origin of recent ethnic groups.
Why won't anybody take-up the fact of Nordic longheadedness? CI can't tell Nordics from 'Negroes'. Look at T-hotep's 100 year old 'modern era'map
Relying on CI alone against other cephalic indicators leads to error. At least Dixon welds it to facial and nasal indices. And still it doesn't work. Why? Natural within group variety is why. And it requires no miscegenation.
Inner Africans are the diversity champs. They say a tiny town in Africavs got more genetic diversity than the whole non-African world. I doubt that's due to Eurasian incretion. African diversity and substructure? It's just not driven by migrating West Eurasian invaders.
Dixon shows a variety of African CIs. Sergi banked everything on African cranial shapes. They're the goto boys if one wants to step backwards to use 1800s early 1900's craniology and Africa.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Bahariya data is for the 100 mile away from Nile Valley oasis after the nadir of native ruled Egypt.
Temporal demographics. Were Tjemehu integral to early Bahariya? How did pharaonic Egypt use Bahariya? What about post-Naucratis and Cyrenean Greeks? Where Romans settled in this oasis?
Tourist info. Amenhotep Huy's tomb. Chapels and tombs c Apries, Amasis, and Greco-Roman periods. Temple of Alexander the Great. Roman triumphal arch.
Bahariya has transSaharan MSY E. It also has R-V88, iinm. Don't know its mtDNA or other nrY DNA.
posted
^ That's what I've been saying Tukuler. The old 'experts' were just making generalizations. To say "ALL" Africans are dolichocephalic is obviously erroneous as saying all Africans are heavily melanated i.e. ebony complexioned or that there are no Africans with loose or straight hair etc.
To say that round-headedness in Africans is due to Eurasian influx is as stupid as saying long-headedness in Eurasia is due to (recent) Africans.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Grrr, let's find something to disagree about so we both can learn something new.
To be fair though, in both Afro & Euro instances some small amount of it is.
Then there's the venerable hoary art of shaping a baby's head. Every group's not so into it as Maya were and Mangebutu still are. Many ethies or families within an ethny gently shape a baby's skull. And other factors could impact length and /or width of a skull. For instance, we know herbivore vs carnivore diet affects jaws. Somehow it's inheritable.
But Graham Hancock? Me? I've outgrown his 'technique'.
Say, you seen Americam Gods? With your mythology background wanna disect it? In another thread of course or by pm.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: This was something I dug up while looking up information on cranial (or cephalic) indices in the ancient Near East:
For comparison, ancient Egyptian crania seem to be mostly on the dolichocephalic (long-headed) side, albeit with a few exceptions.
quote:Strouhal reported that the cranial index “CI” in ancient Egyptians from different periods (from 1st Dynasty up to Ptolemaic) and from different sites ranged between 71.80 and 76.10. The mean value of the “CI” in Bahriyah was 82.404 ± 5.573, which means that crania are brachycranic.
Below is a chart of cranial indices across world populations in the modern era. Link
Do you think the report of dolicho- and brachycephalic crania being mixed together in ancient Middle Eastern crania might attest to African admixture in the region?
Hyperdolichocephalic: Hyperdolichocephaly is characterised by the skull width reaching less than 71 percent of the skull breadth. It was found in some early humans, but is rare today on the population level. The largest area of hyperdolichocephalic dominance is found from Central Australia to North Australia (esp. Arnhem Land, Tiwi Islands). It dominates in some Nilotes (Nuer, Shilluk) and sporadically appears in North Africa (e.g. in Siwans). It has been found to dominate in the Chenchu of India, other Indian populations only reach hyperdolichocephaly on the individual level. In America it occurs in some western Inuit, some Lagids (U'wa, Tapuya), and was present in a very pronounced form in the extinct Pericú of Baja California.
Dolichocephalic: Dolichocephaly is characterised by the skull width reaching less than 76 percent of the skull breadth. It was widespread in many early humans, including Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals. Dolichocephaly is very common in many tropical populations today, especially throughout Africa, India, Australia, and New Guinea. Here it appears in all climate zones from rainforests to deserts, but not all groups are on average dolichocephalic. In Europe a few areas of Spain, South Italy, Scandinavia, and Great Britain have traditionally been dolichocephalic, although European dolichocephaly has recently increased. In America it appears in Inuit as well as some Lagid groups, in East Asia dolichocephaly appears only sporadically, more frequently only in Ainu.
Mesocephalic: Mesocephaly is the most common ratio of skull length to skull width in the world today, but was rarer in prehistoric times. It is characterised by the skull width reaching less than 81 and at least 76 percent of the skull breadth. Mesocephalic groups are common on all continents except Australia. In Africa, many forest groups and some savannah groups like Bobo and Shari show mesocephaly, but also people of Madagascar. It is common in Northern Europe and the Mediterranean, South Arabia, West India, much of China, Japan, Indonesia, and Siberia. It occurs in Western Polynesians and New Guineans. In North America, Silvid groups as well as those of the Mexican steppes show mesocephaly. It is common in the Amazon rainforest and in Fuegians.
Brachycephalic: Brachycephaly is characterised by the skull width reaching more than 81 percent of the skull breadth. It developed relatively recently through various processes of brachycephalisation around the world. It is most common in Europe, Asia, and America, often, but not always in cold climate. In Africa it is sporadically found in some populations of the Congo forest, more rarely in savannahs (e.g. in Shari) as well as the interior of Madagascar. In Central and Eastern Europe brachycephaly dominates, just like in Turkey, Central Asia, and Korea. Brachycephaly is common in many valley and coastal populations of Indochina and the Sunda Islands as well as in East Polynesia. In America it is found in the natives of the Pacific forest, around the Caribbean, in Central America as well as the Andes and Patagonia.
Hyperbrachycephalic: Hyperbrachycephaly is characterised by the skull width reaching at least 85.5 percent of the skull breadth. The highest population means ever measured reach values close to 90 (e.g. in Sumo of Central America). On the individual level, ultrabrachycephaly may appear with a cephalic index of at least 91. In evolutionary terms, such round skulls are a relatively recent phenomenon in humans. It seems to appear in different climate zones, e.g. in Europe among French Alpines, Montenegrin Dinarics, and Scandinavian Saami, in the Central Asian steppes among some Turkic people, and Armenoids of Turkey and the Caucasus. In tropical regions, hyperbrachycephals are found in Lao and Thai of the plains as well as Central Americans (Sumo, Paya, Cuna, Totonachi...). In North America, hyperbrachycephals have been identified in Pueblids (e.g. Mohave) as well as Pacifids (e.g. Chilcotin). They may also have been typical for some extinct Patagonians.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
though only showing a mean or average, DJ's "skullduggery" maps can be useful for those who still value cranial index as valid for ancestry.
From the Wiki Early anthropology The cephalic index was widely used by anthropologists in the early 20th century to categorize human populations. It is now mainly used to describe individuals' appearances and for estimating the age of fetuses for legal and obstetrical reasons.
The cephalic index was defined by Swedish professor of anatomy Anders Retzius (1796–1860) and first used in physical anthropology to classify ancient human remains found in Europe. The theory became closely associated with the development of racial anthropology in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when prehistorians attempted to use ancient remains to model population movements in terms of racial categories. Carleton S. Coon also used the index in the 1960s.
Humans are characterized by having either - dolichocephalic (long-headed), - mesaticephalic (moderate-headed), or - brachycephalic (short-headed) cephalic index or cranial index.
Also, Franz Boas studied the children of immigrants to the United States in 1910 to 1912, noting that the children's cephalic index differed significantly from their parents', implying that local environmental conditions had a significant impact on the development of head shape.[2]
Boas argued that if craniofacial features were so malleable in a single generation, then the cephalic index was of little use for defining race and mapping ancestral populations. Scholars such as Earnest A. Hooton continued to argue that both environment and heredity were involved. Boas did not himself claim it was totally plastic.
In 2002, a paper by Sparks and Jantz re-evaluated some of Boas' original data using new statistical techniques and concluded that there was a "relatively high genetic component" of head shape.[3] Ralph Holloway of Columbia University argues that the new research raises questions about whether the variations in skull shape have "adaptive meaning and whether, in fact, normalizing selection might be at work on the trait, where both extremes, hyperdolichocephaly and hyperbrachycephaly, are at a slight selective disadvantage."[2]
In 2003, anthropologists Clarence C. Gravlee, H. Russell Bernard, and William R. Leonard reanalyzed Boas' data and concluded that most of Boas' original findings were correct. Moreover, they applied new statistical, computer-assisted methods to Boas' data and discovered more evidence for cranial plasticity.[4]
In a later publication, Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard reviewed Sparks' and Jantz' analysis. They argue that Sparks and Jantz misrepresented Boas' claims, and that Sparks' and Jantz' data actually support Boas. For example, they point out that Sparks and Jantz look at changes in cranial size in relation to how long an individual has been in the United States in order to test the influence of the environment. Boas, however, looked at changes in cranial size in relation to how long the mother had been in the United States. They argue that Boas' method is more useful, because the prenatal environment is a crucial developmental factor.[4]
Jantz and Sparks responded to Gravlee et al., reiterating that Boas' findings lacked biological meaning, and that the interpretation of Boas' results common in the literature was biologically inaccurate.[5] In a later study, the same authors concluded that the effects Boas observed were likely the result of population-specific environmental effects such as changes in cultural practices for cradling infants, rather than the effects of a general "American environment" which caused populations in America to converge to a common cranial type, as Boas had suggested.[6][7]
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic