For the dude who asked

[XenophobicPrussian]

The skulls as you requested. I could even post more but I'm tired.




(Varna Bulgaria, 4200 BC. Important to note that there's also a famous site from here which is Chalcolithic, who were Steppe admixed. This person is definitely from the earlier Neolithic period. Also this guy is supposed to have Negroid features, I'm guessing how wide his nasal root is as his jaw/mouth area is normal)


(Aiterhofen Germany, LBK neolithic, definitely EEF)


https://museum.wales/articles/2010-0...-year-old-man/
(this one isn't too long faced, but is definitely more robust than what a Med is supposed to be, image says "stone age man" but it's dated to 3,600 BC, therefore it can't be either HG or Bell Beaker, it can have extra HG of course but British neolithic farmers don't get much more HG admixed than modern Sardinians)


(neolithic LBK culture from western Slovakia, LBK was definitely almost pure EEF based on other LBK genomes)


(same as above, this one's pretty reduced/infantile in his upper face though)


(same as above)


(same as above)


(LBK, Eastern Slovakia)


(Hungary LBK, very reduced/infantile but long faced)


(Herxheim neolithic, Germany, not too long faced but still way different than the typical Meds I see thrown around, funnily enough this guy was classified on Apricity before by a very "metrics"/skull analytics and anthrotard guy, the guy hated modern forum anthropology and thought metrics were the only way, he classified him as Baltid or Mongoloid influenced, without knowing the context, this was years ago though)


(another Herxheim)


(Moravia neolithic, Lengyel culture)


(here's a metric maybe Tronder, same as above)


(another probable Tronder, from LBK Bavaria)


(neoltihic northern Greece)







[IMG][/IMG]
(Xaghra circle skull from neolithic Malta, this one was actually reconstructed, she actually has very large eye orbits, but doesn't look too different from the eye orbits of this supposed Nordic skull: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/63/b1/96/6...23116d5213.jpg)

Meanwhile, one of the first things you get when you look up ancient europe neolithic Mediterannid skull :



Here are some pictures of this modern definition of Med that for some reason are supposed to have shorter faces and other reduced/infantile features(pretty clear to me these are just Alpinized although usually without influence on the occiput/CI and Meds should metrically be nearly the exact same as Nordids), from the same site as the Slovakian LBK one to compare: https://www.researchgate.net/profile...2-year-old.png, https://www.researchgate.net/profile...0-year-old.png, https://www.researchgate.net/profile...-old-child.png, https://www.researchgate.net/profile...0-year-old.png, https://www.researchgate.net/profile...5-year-old.png, https://www.researchgate.net/profile...0-year-old.png

[Bmack]

the med woman skull reconstruction looks more attractive than the disfigured uralische examples imo.

Anyway, they do look having tronder/nordid metrics for sure, especially the first skulls in the post. Yet they had low north european score. It would be interesting if they had light features as some suggest today, I've heard myths that the farmers had them.

[XenophobicPrussian]

the med woman skull reconstruction looks more attractive than the disfigured uralische examples imo.

Anyway, they do look having tronder/nordid metrics for sure, especially the first skulls in the post. Yet they had low north european score. It would be interesting if they had light features as some suggest today, I've heard myths that the farmers had them.

No, they were dark. Far darker skinned too(only had SLC24A5 in abundance, not the more important SLC45A2). Light features were present in some samples(even already in Anatolia), but the vast overwhelming majority were dark. It's said Funnelbeaker and Globular Amphora farmers have a lot of light samples in Sweden/Poland, but they were heavily admixed with SHG/Baltic HG and the most HG admixed neolithics(late/middle Spanish neolithic in second, although they were dark).

Thing is, under oldschool anthropology, we're supposed to be under the assumption that they have 0 northern or northern like admixture(yet they are indeed something like 50% WHG and 50% Basal Eurasian, but WHG is not supposed to be anything metrically Nordic, at all). Metric "Nordic" can only come from the steppe. If this isn't followed the whole system falls apart. This means the system is garbage and despite Nordics and Meds peaking in opposite ends of the continent and being very genetically distant from eachother, the differences between Nordics and Meds aren't largely metric(some anthropologists even said this, while others forgot to take their medication and called 31% of quite clearly fully genetically North African Guanche mummies "Nordic", called large parts of ancient Romans "Nordic", large parts of ancient Greeks "Nordic", of course, these were all native, dark pigmented proper Med phenotypes, just a bit more robust, sharp featured and longer faced than their family members) but by in large determined by pigmentation, differences in skin/face muscle tissue(i.e eyelids that rest reaching further down, which has nothing to do with the skull), facial hair thickness(i.e eyebrows especially), lip thickness, and very minor metric differences, etc.

[Golden Lining]

"Trönder" is not a valid classification for Neolithic crania. It also should be noted that eating carbs has and had growth-stunning effects (less so today, because of selection), so some those "infantile" traits may be the result of maladaption.

[Bmack]

No, they were dark. Far darker skinned too(only had SLC24A5 in abundance, not the more important SLC45A2). Light features were present in some samples(even already in Anatolia), but the vast overwhelming majority were dark. It's said Funnelbeaker and Globular Amphora farmers have a lot of light samples in Sweden/Poland, but they were heavily admixed with SHG/Baltic HG and the most HG admixed neolithics(late/middle Spanish neolithic in second, although they were dark).

Thing is, under oldschool anthropology, we're supposed to be under the assumption that they have 0 northern or northern like admixture(yet they are indeed something like 50% WHG and 50% Basal Eurasian, but WHG is not supposed to be anything metrically Nordic, at all). Metric "Nordic" can only come from the steppe. If this isn't followed the whole system falls apart. This means the system is garbage and despite Nordics and Meds peaking in opposite ends of the continent and being very genetically distant from eachother, the differences between Nordics and Meds aren't largely metric(some anthropologists even said this, while others forgot to take their medication and called 31% of quite clearly fully genetically North African Guanche mummies "Nordic", called large parts of ancient Romans "Nordic", large parts of ancient Greeks "Nordic", of course, these were all native, dark pigmented proper Med phenotypes, just a bit more robust, sharp featured and longer faced than their family members) but by in large determined by pigmentation, differences in skin/face muscle tissue(i.e eyelids that rest reaching further down, which has nothing to do with the skull), facial hair thickness(i.e eyebrows especially), lip thickness, and very minor metric differences, etc.

Good, that's what I wanted to know, because farmer supremacists on /his/ like to say their farmers were light featured while steppe people were swarthy like conan the barbarian or something.