The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form

Brace, C. Loring; Seguchi, Noriko; Quintyn, Conrad B.; Fox, Sherry; Nelson, Aven; Manolis, Sotiris K.; Pan, Qifeng

doi:10.1073/pnas.0509801102

Cited by 33 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, we considered another approach. Recent advances in multivariate analyses enable assessment of craniometric affinities of a single specimen to reference samples of other modern and historical populations (Albrecht, 1992;Van Vark and Schaafsma, 1992;Brace et al, 2006). We test for the presence of Paleoamerican morphology in South America and North America by analyzing the affinities between five early skulls from Lagoa Santa and worldwide prehistoric and modern reference samples.…”

Section: Statistical Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The underlying reason why such different approaches yield comparable results is because neither the nucleic acid components identified nor the particular craniofacial dimensions used have any obvious adaptive value. Both evidently behave in a manner compatible with what has been called the 'neutral theory,' where the traits assessed are under genetic control and the differences between samples are principally the result of genetic drift (Kimura, 1968;Ohta and Kimura, 1971;Brace, 2005;Brace et al, 2006). Craniofacial metric traits that anthropologists choose have no adaptive significance and they provide phylogenies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An alternative view of the peopling of South America: Lagoa Santa in craniometric perspective

Seguchi

McKeown

Schmidt

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we compare the craniofacial morphology of four Sumidouro skulls and one Lund skull of paleo South Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil, with worldwide prehistoric and recent human craniofacial metric data, and suggest an alternative view of the migration history of early South America. Affiliations of samples and individuals were examined by the principal coordinate plot generated by Relethford and Blangero's R-matrix method, the neighbor-joining method based on genetic distance generated from the same R-matrix, and Mahalanobis distances and typicality probabilities. For these analyses, we examined certain variables claimed to have been influenced by the environment, such as maximum cranial length and maximum cranial breadth. Although the number of craniometric variables seems to influence the results of the analysis, it appeared to not obscure the ancestral and descendant relationships and regional kin relationships greatly in the instance of this study. Using Howells' worldwide comparative dataset but without the Jomon sample, previous research had suggested that Brazilian Paleoamericans, the Lagoa Santa, were probably closely related to Australian Aborigines and Africans as opposed to Native Americans and Northeast Asians. On the other hand, using multivariate statistics, our results show that Lagoa Santa individuals exhibit stronger morphological affinities with the prehistoric Jomon of Japan, archaic Americans of Indian Knoll Kentucky, Windover Florida, and Tennessee, and recent Tierra del Fuegans of South America, than with the Melanesians and Australians. Moreover, Jomon, Lagoa Santa, and archaic North Americans all display close relationships and ties to each other. This suggests that the early inhabitants of South America were probably not related to Australo-Melanesians, but rather to the Late Pleistocene descendants of Northeast Asians such as the Jomon. Also, they are related to the archaic North American populations and recent Central and South Americans.

show abstract

Section: Statistical Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

An alternative view of the peopling of South America: Lagoa Santa in craniometric perspective

Seguchi

McKeown

Schmidt

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, an assessment was not possible on the basis of these results as to whether the observed craniometric patterns best fit a demic diffusion model, a stochastic microevolutionary model (such as isolation-bydistance), or any other non-neutral (i.e., selective) model. A more recent study by Brace et al (2006) included a craniometric analysis of Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic as well as modern European populations. On the basis of a Neighbor-joining analysis, they found that modern European populations from central and northern Europe were not similar to Neolithic populations from the same regions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The substantial changes in food processing associated with the shift to farming were hypothesized to have a knock-on effect on the relative size and shape of the masticatory apparatus (e.g., Pinhasi et al 2008;Sardi et al 2004b), although most studies of this kind have focused on the foragerϪfarmer transitions in other regions of the world (e.g., Carlson and Van Gerven 1977;González-José et al 2005;Paschetta et al 2010;Sardi et al 2006). Employing craniometric data as a reliable proxy for neutral genetic data is reliant upon the assumption that cranial morphology is evolving neutrally (Brace et al 2006) and, therefore, is not likely to be confounded by selective factors relating to climate, diet, or other environmental forces.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Craniometric Perspective on the Transition to Agriculture in Europe

Pinhasi

Cramon‐Taubadel

2012

Human Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debates surrounding the nature of the Neolithic demographic transition in Europe have historically centered on two opposing models: a "demic" diffusion model whereby incoming farmers from the Near East and Anatolia effectively replaced or completely assimilated indigenous Mesolithic foraging communities, and an "indigenist" model resting on the assumption that ideas relating to agriculture and animal domestication diffused from the Near East but with little or no gene flow. The extreme versions of these dichotomous models were heavily contested primarily on the basis of archeological and modern genetic data. However, in recent years a growing acceptance has arisen of the likelihood that both processes were ongoing throughout the Neolithic transition and that a more complex, regional approach is required to fully understand the change from a foraging to a primarily agricultural mode of subsistence in Europe. Craniometric data were particularly useful for testing these more complex scenarios, as they can reliably be employed as a proxy for the genetic relationships among Mesolithic and Neolithic populations. In contrast, modern genetic data assume that modern European populations accurately reflect the genetic structure of Europe at the time of the Neolithic transition, while ancient DNA data are still not geographically or temporally detailed enough to test continent-wide processes. Here, with particular emphasis on the role of craniometric analyses, we review the current state of knowledge regarding the cultural and biological nature of the Neolithic transition in Europe. Abstract Debates surrounding the nature of the Neolithic demographic transition in Europe have historically centered on two opposing models: a "demic" diffusion model whereby incoming farmers from the Near East and Anatolia effectively replaced or completely assimilated indigenous Mesolithic foraging communities, and an "indigenist" model resting on the assumption that ideas relating to agriculture and animal domestication diffused from the Near East but with little or no gene flow. The extreme versions of these dichotomous models were heavily contested primarily on the basis of archeological and modern genetic data. However, in recent years a growing acceptance has arisen of the likelihood that both processes were ongoing throughout the Neolithic transition and that a more complex, regional approach is required to fully understand the change from a foraging to a primarily agricultural mode of subsistence in Europe. Craniometric data were particularly useful for testing these more complex scenarios, as they can reliably be employed as a proxy for the genetic relationships among Mesolithic and Neolithic populations. In contrast, modern genetic data assume that modern European populations accurately reflect the genetic structure of Europe at the time of the Neolithic transition, while ancient DNA data are still not geographically or temporally detailed enough to test continent-wide processes. Here, with particular emphasis on the role of ...

show abstract

“…The aim is to refine the search for the origins of the Jomon, using skeletal information, before the future integration and synthesis of genetic and archeological evidence. While typicality probability has not been used in relation to the Jomon origins, it has previously been used by Cunningham and Jantz (2003), Neves et al (2003Neves et al ( , 2007, González-José et al (2005), and Brace et al (2006) to compare individual specimens from prehistoric sites with several reference samples.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Typicality probabilities of Late Pleistocene human fossils from East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Australia: implications for the Jomon population in Japan

Mizoguchi

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of the origins of the Jomon population is examined by Campbell's predictive approach, a method using 'typicality probability' which is currently the best way of comparing a single specimen with a reference population. Among the five Pleistocene fossils compared with a Late/Final Jomon sample from the Tohoku district, the analysis based on 13 cranial measurements revealed that Keilor from Australia was more likely a member of the Jomon population than Minatogawa I from Okinawa and Liujiang from southern China. Although, from a chronological viewpoint, it is not possible for Keilor to be an ancestor of the Jomon, these results suggest that the Australian Late Pleistocene population, or their ancestors, should also be considered when seeking the origins of the Jomon.

show abstract

The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form

Cited by 33 publications

References 25 publications

An alternative view of the peopling of South America: Lagoa Santa in craniometric perspective

An alternative view of the peopling of South America: Lagoa Santa in craniometric perspective

A Craniometric Perspective on the Transition to Agriculture in Europe

Typicality probabilities of Late Pleistocene human fossils from East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Australia: implications for the Jomon population in Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About