Where Neanderthals Brachycephalic?

[Joso]

Neanderthals were brachycephalic.


Think about it. No Neanderthal admixture = Dolichocephalic peoples (Mediterraneans, Nordics, and Africans).

Neanderthal DNA is highest in Asians, ding ding ding, they are overwhelmingly brachycephalic.


Coon on Neanderthals:

"When measured from ophyron, a point on the frontal bone behind the browridges, the crania of these Neanderthals have the following lengths: three males, 193, 186, 187; three females, 185, 183, 186 mm. These are shorter than the French Upper Palaeolithic means, taken from the same point, of 195.6 mm. for males, and 188.6 mm. for females. The cranial indices calculated from these lengths are, in five out of eight Neanderthal cases, above 80.0. Thus there was, in the Neanderthal group as we know it, a brachycranial, or brachycerebral, tendency in brain form. That it may have done so in the case of the French brachycephals, notably Solutré #2, which has a cranial length of 182.5 mm., is by no means more than a suggestion."

Here Coon speaks of Upper-Paleolithic and Mesolithic skulls:

"With a parietal breadth of 160 mm the Kassemose skull is the oldest known skull in which such a large breadth has been observed. For comparison it can be mentioned that with the exception of Solutré No. II, of uncertain breadth but hardly more than 155.5 mm, the largest breadth measured in any Upper Palaeolithic skull (Cro-Magnon No. III) is 151.5 mm, and even the breadth of the La Chapelle skull is not more than 156.2 mm (Morant, 1930, p. 140)."


It's a common error and a simple mistake that many, many people make. They were indeed brachycephalic. Here's some skulls' Parietals I could find:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLO3UWmXAAELLGV.jpg:small

https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/2v7s3601c02jbh0u/images/25-e1fe8252da.jpg


Brachycephaly is positively selected for in humans for a couple of benefits that primarily present themselves in combat or fighting scenarios.

1. Brachycephalic skulls are less likely to be damaged from being knocked down onto the back of the skull because there is less occipital lobe protrusion = less of the skull can hit an object.

2. Brachycephalic skulls absorb punches much better than thinner dolichocephalic skulls because the force dissipates over the larger skull area as opposed to being concentrated on the thin face.

[Dorian]

The last scenario sounds very pseudo-scientific,is there any source for such a thing or am I right?

[Joso]

The last scenario sounds very pseudo-scientific,is there any source for such a thing or am I right?

I think it is true because it is simply logical to me, i mean, smaller and thicker things are more difficulty to be damaged...

[Dorian]

I think it is true because it is simply logical to me, i mean, smaller and thicker things are more difficulty to be damaged...

Alright I'm not an expert in what and how things were done back then but it does not make any sense to me like many of those "selected trait" theories.
What does positively selected means?that people were choosing unconsciously brachycephals because "they have"less chance of becoming paralyzed/dying/knocked out or something?what was the speed of their punches and at what speed both dolis and brachys get fucked?
Or that all fights back then ended with a lethal punch on the back of the head and brachys survived easier?Did they have krav maga or something where they learnt that you must hit the back of the head?
You get the drift...

[Knight Slayer]

Alright I'm not an expert in what and how things were done back then but it does not make any sense to me like many of those "selected trait" theories.
What does positively selected means?that people were choosing unconsciously brachycephals because "they have"less chance of becoming paralyzed/dying/knocked out or something?what was the speed of their punches and at what speed both dolis and brachys get fucked?
Or that all fights back then ended with a lethal punch on the back of the head and brachys survived easier?Did they have krav maga or something where they learnt that you must hit the back of the head?
You get the drift...

It's not a punch to the back of the head, it's when someone is knocked unconscious and falls down to the ground. A brachycephalic skull will hit the ground later than a dolichocephalic one because of the fact that their occipital lobe does not protrude as far.

The last part is just me having some fun conjuring up ideas, admittedly. But they sound logical to me.

[Joso]

It's not a punch to the back of the head, it's when someone is knocked unconscious and falls down to the ground. A brachycephalic skull will hit the ground later than a dolichocephalic one because of the fact that their occipital lobe does not protrude as far.

The last part is just me having some fun conjuring up ideas, admittedly. But they sound logical to me.

Do you have more informations about neanderthals being brachycephalic?

[Knight Slayer]

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2014/06/20/a-mans-fighting-ability-is-written-in-his-face/


there is also research published this month suggesting that a greater face width-length ratio may be part of a facial structure evolved for resistance to punches.

That research?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/brv.12112


In this review, we suggest that many of the facial features that characterize early hominins evolved to protect the face from injury during fighting with fists. Specifically, the trend towards a more orthognathic face; the bunodont form and expansion of the postcanine teeth; the increased robusticity of the orbit; the increased robusticity of the masticatory system, including the mandibular corpus and condyle, zygoma, and anterior pillars of the maxilla; and the enlarged jaw adductor musculature are traits that may represent protective buttressing of the face.

Who (generally) has these features? Brachycephalic peoples.

[Knight Slayer]

Do you have more informations about neanderthals being brachycephalic?

Read this. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.23040

[Knight Slayer]

An excerpt from the above article I recommended to my friend, Jolsonaro.

https://wol-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/fe628834-edcf-4b15-b72e-1b24fcf407c9/ar23040-fig-0007-m.jpg

Caption of the above picture:


Two crania in superior view demonstrating population differences in vault shape. On the left is a dolichocephalic West African cranium (VL 1921) and on the right is a brachycephalic Northern European cranium (VL 3560). Endocranial capacity and cranial length are the two most commonly used measures for size standardization. This figure illustrates a potential disadvantage of scaling nasal measures against cranial length in that two specimens with similar endocranial capacity can express markedly different cranial lengths, thus impacting quantification of nasal morphology. Courtesy of the Division of Anthropology, AMNH.

[Joso]

An excerpt from the above article I recommended to my friend, Jolsonaro.

https://wol-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/fe628834-edcf-4b15-b72e-1b24fcf407c9/ar23040-fig-0007-m.jpg

Caption of the above picture:

Thanks but is the cranyum on the right a neanderthal's cranyum?

[Mr.G]

Alright I'm not an expert in what and how things were done back then but it does not make any sense to me like many of those "selected trait" theories.
What does positively selected means?that people were choosing unconsciously brachycephals because "they have"less chance of becoming paralyzed/dying/knocked out or something?what was the speed of their punches and at what speed both dolis and brachys get fucked?
Or that all fights back then ended with a lethal punch on the back of the head and brachys survived easier?Did they have krav maga or something where they learnt that you must hit the back of the head?
You get the drift...

The way I interpret it, after getting punched on the sweet spot and knocked down, there is a larger surface area at the back of the brachy skull that makes contact with the ground. The forces are defuse and not focused in one small area (occipital protuberance). Also, I think KS has said the Brachy skull is generally thicker and more robust.
So the guy who gets his lights punched out and lives can procreate whereas the guy who is punched out and dies, well, that's it.

[Dorian]

It's not a punch to the back of the head, it's when someone is knocked unconscious and falls down to the ground. A brachycephalic skull will hit the ground later than a dolichocephalic one because of the fact that their occipital lobe does not protrude as far.

The last part is just me having some fun conjuring up ideas, admittedly. But they sound logical to me.

I wouldn't be able to know,I don't even know what kind of science searches such things?biomechanics?but in my naive logic if you fall with the back of your head to the ground,it wouldn't make a difference?my intuition says that if there is a difference in the damage inflicted it'd be 0,0*-0,* or something?don't know if the "neurocognitive adaptations"as the article says are so perfectionist.



https://digest.bps.org.uk/2014/06/20/a-mans-fighting-ability-is-written-in-his-face/
Who (generally) has these features? Brachycephalic peoples.

Again not an expert but since we're talking about early hominids(while we today are gracilized-infantilized etc)I guess dolis had them too.

[Knight Slayer]

The way I interpret it, after getting punched on the sweet spot and knocked down, there is a larger surface area at the back of the brachy skull that makes contact with the ground. The forces are defuse and not focused in one small area (occipital protuberance). Also, I think KS has said the Brachy skull is generally thicker and more robust.
So the guy who gets his lights punched out and lives can procreate whereas the guy who is punched out and dies, well, that's it.

Exactly right. That's my theory, and the sources I posted confirm it.

[Knight Slayer]

I am a great fan of a former user's work. I learned a lot from his writings. "Grab the Gauge". He is banned, unfortunately. So he does not have a voice, but I took it upon myself to carry the torch of his ground breaking works and revelations. I studied and continue to study his information religiously and made that the foundation for my own system. Under his tutelage, I am slowly but surely refining my knowledge of taxonomy, and soon will be able to compose great works like he once did. In an ancient era lost to us forever he existed and posted, enlightening anthropology forums with his powerful mind.

Grab The Gauge!

[Joso]

The way I interpret it, after getting punched on the sweet spot and knocked down, there is a larger surface area at the back of the brachy skull that makes contact with the ground. The forces are defuse and not focused in one small area (occipital protuberance). Also, I think KS has said the Brachy skull is generally thicker and more robust.
So the guy who gets his lights punched out and lives can procreate whereas the guy who is punched out and dies, well, that's it.

very well explained!

[Dorian]

The way I interpret it, after getting punched on the sweet spot and knocked down, there is a larger surface area at the back of the brachy skull that makes contact with the ground. The forces are defuse and not focused in one small area (occipital protuberance). Also, I think KS has said the Brachy skull is generally thicker and more robust.
So the guy who gets his lights punched out and lives can procreate whereas the guy who is punched out and dies, well, that's it.

Hmm,I get you now and I can even imagine it,if you COULD also connect the whole skeleton like the thin bodytype with dolichocephaly(although that's not always the case) while brachycephals with more robust everything and imagine punching both of them it makes sense but again this doesn't take in account fighting skills&mind mentality but since they were probably not bruce lees I guess you're right.
Another one as a correction for the body type thing I said,could be that these early guys had smaller differences than we do today due to food scarcity plus as I said to KS could be that earlier dolichocephal hominids were also robust in the face at least.

[Joso]

I am a great fan of a former user's work. I learned a lot from his writings. "Grab the Gauge". He is banned, unfortunately. So he does not have a voice, but I took it upon myself to carry the torch of his ground breaking works and revelations.

Yes, unfortunately i didn't had any contact with Grab TheGauge but by seeing his posts i can tell that he was very knoleadgeable about anthropology( apart of his trolling), he was probably one of the greatest members that anthrofora have ever seen. R.I.P

[Knight Slayer]

To my fellow user and friend Dorian.

http://minhaortodontista.com.br/wp-content/uploads/Cranial-morphology-and-facial-type.pdf


Those studies stated that individuals with a dolichocephalic head shape tend to have a leptoprosopic facial type and thatindividuals with a brachycephalic head tend to form a euryprosopic
facial type.

Medical Definition of leptoprosopic:


having a long, a narrow, or a long narrow face with a facial index of 88.0 to 92.9 as measured on the living head and of 90.0 to 94.9 on the skull.

Definition of euryprosopic:


having a short or broad face or both with a facial index of 80 to 85.

[Knight Slayer]

Also:

http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/dpjo/v18n3/26f02.jpg

[Dorian]

To my fellow user and friend Dorian.

http://minhaortodontista.com.br/wp-content/uploads/Cranial-morphology-and-facial-type.pdf



Medical Definition of leptoprosopic:



Definition of euryprosopic:

Thanks but again aren't we supposed to use earlier hominids as a reference?Or don't more primitive doli tribes have wider faces?

[Knight Slayer]

Thanks but again aren't we supposed to use earlier hominids as a reference?Or don't more primitive doli tribes have wider faces?

You're welcome my friend. I am not sure, I haven't seen anything that would suggest that. Early hominids are an important reference but the cranial indexes don't change. There are still Dolichocephalic, Brachycephalic, and Mesocephalic hominids so I think the image and information still stands. Generally a longer head indicates a narrower face. A shorter head a narrower face. We can see this ourselves with the taxonomy. Alpines, Dinarics, Baltics, are brachycephalic types, wide faced. Nordics, Mediterraneans, SSA types, Arabic types, all primarily dolichocephalic, although they may be mesocephalic in some cases, generally narrow faces.

[Dorian]

You're welcome my friend. I am not sure, I haven't seen anything that would suggest that. Early hominids are an important reference but the cranial indexes don't change. There are still Dolichocephalic, Brachycephalic, and Mesocephalic hominids so I think the image and information still stands. Generally a longer head indicates a narrower face. A shorter head a narrower face. We can see this ourselves with the taxonomy. Alpines, Dinarics, Baltics, are brachycephalic types, wide faced. Nordics, Mediterraneans, SSA types, Arabic types, all primarily dolichocephalic, although they may be mesocephalic in some cases, generally narrow faces.

Could be
Here's a man from the dinka tribe
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/576098b81bbee0ca217e3a17/t/59320de929687f920d485404/1496452585673/image.jpg

[Knight Slayer]

Neanderthal skulls were both broad and long.

They are very different from Negroids which are much narrower skulled.

Neanderthals had an average cranial capacity of 1500cm^3, so they could definitely be dolichocephalic or even hyperdolichocephalic and still have a considerably broader head than Eurasians who average about 1300cm^3, and even more so Africans who average about 1250cm^3. Cephalic index is after all only a Proportion and is not indicative of what the absolute length and bredth is.

Neanderthals even typically had an occipital bun characteristic to Dolichocephalics.

Mass-Brachycephalicism in Central Europe is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. Lappanoid Brachycephalicism is much older, as with Brachycephalicism among Mongoloids.

Says who?

[Knight Slayer]

Lundman. Wranklyn. Ripley. It is generally agreed by anthropologists that Brachycephalicism incrased continuously starting with the Iron Age through the Middle Ages.

Neil Brodie showed that in Britain Cephalic index increased the Middle Ages like with Europe as a whole, but decreased during the 17th century on.

Lundman? You mean the nordicist and eugenicist who stole ideas from Deniker such as the Northwestern concept (a sub-type of his Atlanto-Mediterranean) and reworked it as the most overused and retarded online anthro term ever "North-Atlantid" type? That Lundman? If it's THAT Lundman, I take whatever he says with a grain of salt, generally.

In reality brachycephaly has existed for significantly longer than the Iron Age. There are several theories Coon considers, but the conclusion reached is that


The true answer to the question, “What is the origin of the western European Alpines?” cannot yet be given. But we may be reasonably certain that they are older than the Neolithic, that they may owe part, at least, of their reduced size of vault and face to mixture with Mediterraneans, and that their round headedness possessed a strong genetic survival value. At the moment, the theory of an Upper Palaeolithic survival somewhat reduced in head and face size, seems the most reasonable.

Granted, that addresses Western European Alpine types. But your assertion that brachycephaly in its totality is a recent phenomena is absurd.

[Knight Slayer]

Neanderthal skulls were both broad and long.

They are very different from Negroids which are much narrower skulled.

Neanderthals had an average cranial capacity of 1500cm^3, so they could definitely be dolichocephalic or even hyperdolichocephalic and still have a considerably broader head than Eurasians who average about 1300cm^3, and even more so Africans who average about 1250cm^3. Cephalic index is after all only a Proportion and is not indicative of what the absolute length and bredth is.

Neanderthals even typically had an occipital bun characteristic to Dolichocephalics.

Mass-Brachycephalicism in Central Europe is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. Lappanoid Brachycephalicism is much older, as with Brachycephalicism among Mongoloids.

Also, Brachycephalic skulls have higher cranial capacities, so they're closer to the Neanderthal's cranial capacity. Dolichocephalic skulls have lower cranial capacities.

Hooton, UP FROM THE APE:


Morant noted that skulls No. 2, male, and No. 3, also male, had been badly warped and distorted posthumously, so that they could not be restored satisfactorily, and measurements taken from them are of doubtful value. He thinks that the height, breadth, and cephalic index of No. 2 have been markedly increased by this post-mortem distortion. The point is of importance, because these crania are perhaps the first Homo sapiens brachycephals to be found. No. 2 has an approximate cranial length of only 182.5mm and a breadth of about 155.5 mm yielding a length-breadth index of 85.2. Morant's excellent photographs of this skull suggest that the brachycephaly has been exaggerated by warping, but that the undeformed specimen may well have been round-headed in life. Keith estimates the cranial capacity of this man, who was a young adult, at about 1550 cc., and his stature at about 1.80 meters(5 feet 10 inches). No. 3, also distorted, seems to have had a skull of about the same length, but narrower, giving a cranial index of 79.3 - on the verge of brachyephaly. From the photographs, the warping of this skull seems not to have increased the breadth and the cephalic index, but rather to have diminished them. Keith reckons the cranial capacity of this second adult male at 1472 cc, and his stature at about 1.75 meters(5 feet 9 inches). No.4 is the undeformed skull of a somewhat older adult male, with a length of 194mm, a maximum breadth of 147.5mm and a cranial index of 76, which is mesocephalic. The skull of the first female, No. 1, has a cephalic index of about 78.7, and that of the other No. 5. is frankly round-headed, cephalic index, 81.0 The faces of these Solutre skulls are, on the whole, short and broad. From the photographs, I receive the distinct impression that these people represent a blend of round-headed and long-headed strains, with the brachycephaly in ascendancy, except in No.4. Kieth states that the height of female No. 1 was about 1.55 meters(5 feet 1 inch) and that the limb bones of the Solutrians were robust, but showed no flattening of the shin bones(platycnemia), no bony pilaster of the femora( a ridge on the back of the bone buttressing the shaft at the region of greatest bowing), and no undue lengths of the forearms and the shins.

Brachycephaly and Dolichocephaly are not derivatives, they are variations.

[Knight Slayer]

From Coon:


Brachycephaly, in fact, is neither uniquely human nor wholly modern. The orangutan is brachycephalic, and so are a majority of chimpanzees. At least one of the Australopithecines (Paranthropus) is also brachycephalic. All three of the best-preserved Middle Paleolithic skulls from Krapina are roundheads, and the most complete specimen from Fontechevade is nearly so (cranial index about 79).

Among the Upper Paleolithic Caucasoids of Europe, two of the tree adult skulls from Solutre, Soane-et-Loire, France, are bracycrane, as well as some of the sample of over thirty skeletons from the Mouillian site of Afalou-bou-Rhummel, in Constantine, Algeria. Three out of eleven Mesolithic skills from Oftnet and Kaufertsberg in Bavaria are brachycrane.

[Knight Slayer]

As you can see from what I've posted, different skull shapes can exist in the same time even in the same places. Stop looking at European anthropology so linearly.

[Papastratosels26]

Neanderthal skull shape

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190217/031451d861dbc68ad7e51f925d6108a7.jpg

[Joso]

bump

[Token]

Neanderthals were cucked by Homo Sapiens, that is my contribution to this thread.

[Knight Slayer]

I apologize for being very vague. I would have originally elaborated, but I was in a rush at the time.

First thing is that I want to emphasize that I am not talking about brachiocephalicism in Europe being relatively recent, rather Mass-brachiocephalicism. My point is simply that the level of dominance of significant brachiocephalicism in much of Central Europe is something relatively recent. At the turn of the 20th century brachycephalicism in Central Europe had been at an all-time maximum until the second half of the century, going forward, were the typical trend appeared to have reversed like it started to in 17th century England (based on a 2004 Croatian study of Croatian medical students).



Let me give the exact quote from Bertil Lundman’s The Races and Peoples of Europe.

"In Central Europe the increase in mean cephalic index from the early Middle Ages to the nineteenth century was extremely pronounced. For example, in Bavaria the proportion of the population classified as brachycephalic or round- headed increased from some 30% to 80-90% during this time period.”

Bohemia as the example for Central Europe Wanklyn states in her Anthropological report titled Czechoslovakia, “Machatschek makes the comment that although there is little evidence about physical feature in early history, dolichocephaly seems to have been predominant in the population of the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, whereas brachycephaly is common today” and “This complete alteration of head-form in Bohemia is one of the most marked and best documented phenomena of its kind in the racial history of the world.”

When I mentioned Ripley (I removed his name from my previous post and replaced it with ,others,), I was actually referring a critical review of Ripley’s original The Races of Europe (1899) and Ripley (who unlike Lundman had no formal Anthropological training) claimed that cephalic index does not change, of which the critic from the Journal of Political Economy argued against. He showed based on a collection of Slavic skulls from different periods that there is indeed change. He claims that Great Britain is excepted, but as I’ve previously mentioned the trend of cephalic index increase there reversed 400+ (17th century-late20th century) years earlier than it did in Central Europe.

The critic mentions that:

I. Based on Virchow’s data of Wendish crania from the early Middle-ages, the average index was 75.

II. In the stone-age and the bronze-age, the average cephalic index in Bohemia was 72.2, in the Iron age about 80, Slavic period 78, in the sixteenth century 81.7, and from recent burials 83.3

So it may be that significant Brachiocephalicism (81+) was not typical of Bohemians until the 16th century.



Those two terms are not mutually exclusive. A proportion is by definition a derivative. You can’t determine any proportional index of the body whether it nasal index, cephalic index or facial index without deriving it from two absolute measurements. Cephalic index being a variation of human morphology has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is an absolute measurement or a proportion whatsoever. Both types can be morphological variations.

You're wrong about brachiocephalicism being indicative of a higher cranial capacity. There are small headed brachycephalic skulls and large dolichocephalic skulls. For example Brachycephalic Ashkenazi Jews in Europe were found to have a smaller cranial capacity than their host populations regardless of what the average of cephalic index is for the specific host population, even though they were often Brachycephalic. The reason is because head size and cranial capacity are absolute measurements which are not directly used in the Cephalic index which is simply [(maximum skull breadth*100)/maximum length]. There may be a limited positive correlation between Cephalic index and cranial capacity, but not universally. Among the English, the correlation between Cephalic index and cranial capacity was found to be negative (meaning dolichocephalic skulls are more likely to have larger cranial capacities). Among the ancient Egyptians, it is the opposite case with a positive correlation. Mongoloids tend to have slightly larger cranial capacities than Caucasians, but that does not mean that is necessarily related to their high cephalic index.



A cephalic index of 79 is mesocephalic not brachycephalic and I know that brachycephalicism was present, or even significant, early on in Europe. I again am only talking about a predominance of significant Brachycephalicism (81+) in parts of Europe being recent. These quotes have nothing to do with my point, but I understand how my vague post on this thread last morning could be misinterpreted.



I have never alleged that. I am only talking about a general trend over a given region. Obviously there is variation between the different types in a given population, but the variation changes. Types are not static as they are based on parameters which are proven to change. What gives a type its definition is the relative difference of these parameters compared with other types.

If you want to know any sources that have not already been mentioned you can ask me. Most of it is freely available on Google Books.

I do agree with you on the mass brachycephaly part. I misinterpreted what you said in your comment as you saying that there were no brachycephalic peoples at all in Europe before the Iron Age. That is my bad. I apologize for that. Good post and good information.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about derivatives and variations. I was saying that brachycephaly didn't necessarily just come from dolichocephaly so to speak, if that makes any sense, but rather that they pretty much coexisted for a very long time in different parts of the world in different time periods. 1 isn't the parent of another from my perspective.