|
Post by Ewig Berter on Dec 2, 2005 8:50:37 GMT -5
The Anatolian plateau cotninues the disturbed and mixing Neolithic population elements (A3, B1, D3, C5) with enough strength in the Eastern Alpine elements to anticipate the dominance of a short- and low-headed, somewhat hawk faced mode in the Hittite period. (Angel) The "Eastern Alpine" is a pre-Armenoid type. You posted that in the Aryan Phenotypes Thread : " According to J. Lawrence Angel, the Neolithic population elements of Anatolia were A3, B1, D3, C5 according to his terminology. So, the Proto-Indo-Europeans looked approximately like this: "
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 2, 2005 10:20:04 GMT -5
Ok, the Anatolian branch splitted earlier, well, thats something I knew already - but again, that doesnt have to mean this branch was indigenous in Anatolia - though its possible of course, its just no proof.
Btw, this are morphological types and its well known that Proto-Nordoids and Proto-Iranids are morphologically similar..."Basic White" is open to interpretation as well.
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Dec 3, 2005 8:14:31 GMT -5
Ok, the Anatolian branch splitted earlier, well, thats something I knew already - but again, that doesnt have to mean this branch was indigenous in Anatolia - though its possible of course, its just no proof. I didnt post the link above to prove Hittites were indigeneous to Anatolia; It just provide proof for Hittites being a post-proto-IE people (--- not a pre-proto-IE one). The article on Hittites I read on Encarta wasnt clear regading their position on the IE tree. Whats meant by Eurafrican in this plate!?. Looks a bit Armenoid to me.
|
|
|
Post by Glenlivet on Dec 3, 2005 8:30:23 GMT -5
Mostly the nose. Could be Litoroid in other typologies. Whats meant by Eurafrican in this plate!?. Looks a bit Armenoid to me.
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Dec 3, 2005 8:35:28 GMT -5
Glen, Do you have an illustration for whats a Litoroid!?
|
|
|
Post by Liquid Len on Dec 27, 2005 15:53:15 GMT -5
and according to most anthropologists they were mostly of alpine stock think Bernhard and Choymple(spelling?) considered them alpine since they were brachycranic but no hypsicranic nor planoccipital with a facial index around 51-52 the dominance of a short- and low-headed, somewhat hawk faced mode in the Hittite period. (Angel) I don’t know how Bernhard, Choymple (?) and Angel arrive at such conclusions. There are only two (relatively) large series of Hittite skulls known, which both disagree with them: From Alishar Hüyük in central Anatolia (20 skulls, worked on by Kansu 1930/1935 and Krogman 1937) and from the necropolis of Osmankayasi (Schaeuble 1954-1958) immediately near the ancient Hittite capital Hattusa (close to Bogazköy). Everything else were only very scarce and isolated findings. (And it should be noted that according to Senyürek 1951 even ¾ of the material from Alishar Hüyük wasn’t from the Hittite age, but younger or older.) The male series from Alishar Hüyük had a mean CI of 79,5 and an upper face index of 52,5 (both based on 8 individuals). The male series from Osmankayasi had a mean CI of 77,6 (7 individuals), the upper face index remains unknown. For the two female series the CI was naturally slightly higher and in the low brachycephalic range (80,9 [3 skulls] and 80,3 [9 skulls] respectively, for Alishar Hüyük also with a slightly lower upper face index of 49,6 (one skull). So at least the Hittite males were, although very mixed, not pred. Alpine. Schaeuble was one of those who compared the skeletal material with series from earlier ages and concluded that the Hittites must have been the bearers of the Alpine element, and that they brought it into central Anatolia, because it was much less frequent in the early bronze age; but on the other hand they were not completely absent. It seems possible that some authors might have been influenced by such shaky interpretations rather than by facts.
|
|