The origins of modern Europeans

Posted by Pericles on December 29, 2005, 12:09 PM | #

The Museum of London would be a good place to start looking at the shapes of British heads. 80 generations ago, the Romans were much in evidence and in 1999 I took my sons to see the then current exhibition http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/MOLsite/exhibits/bodies/bodies.htm

One exhibit profoundly demonstrated the physical changes between tthe Romano-British Londoners and today. A plastic mask representing the size of the lower half of the average RB face was available to try on one’s own face. RBs may have been short, but they were stocky and lantern jawed and could probably fight and defeat any three modern opponents in H2H combat.

Then in the 17th century there appeared the bathrocranic skull, which 1 in 10 Londoners seemed to develop for no apparent reason and this just as quickly disappeared.  Just as the RBs were appallled at the behaviour of the Saxons and the Saxons had to put up with the Danes and the Normans, so we should remember the St. Brides Day massacre had consequences that even now echo in the U>K> gene pool.

See here

Pericles

The monstrous link in the original post has been formatted using the tag—by Admin

Posted by John J Ray on December 29, 2005, 05:39 PM | #

Wow!
That link sure mucked up the page

Posted by John J Ray on December 29, 2005, 05:44 PM | #

I,ve never heard of the St. Brides Day massacre nor has google

Posted by James Bowery on December 29, 2005, 06:32 PM | #

I think Pericles attempted to link to a photograph of a brathrocranic skull, the caption for which reads:

A bathrocranic skull, 17th century. The skull has a pronounced bump at the back of the head - a trait known as bathrocrany. One in ten 17th century Londoners had it, but today the figure is one in a million. The reason for the appearance & disappearance of this skull shape is unknown

Unless it is not indigenous and is yet in existence in its native land, the loss of such a genetic lineage so recently should be profoundly disturbing to anyone with a modicum of ethics or curiousity.

Posted by Pericles on December 29, 2005, 08:31 PM | #

My apologies to all and sundry for the failing mind.

Ethelred ordered the massacre of the Danes living in England on St Brice’s Day (November 13) 1002, in response to which Sweyn Haraldsson started a series of determined campaigns to conquer England. In this he succeeded, but after his victory, he lived for only another five weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethelred_II

Then came Edmund Ironside http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_II_of_England closely followed by Canute. The point I am making is that what may seem to be impossible to face now, is not necessarily insupportable. The English stowed their swords in the thatch of their houses, ready for the time when thay would be needed to overthrow the invaders. Nothing has changed metaphorically speaking, we watch and wait. Nothing is for ever.

It was said about Ethelred that he was a bad king, but that was not necessarily a disaster as the English had had bad kings before. The tragedy was that Ethelred ruled so long. (37 years)

Pericles

Posted by James Bowery on December 29, 2005, 08:41 PM | #

Pericles.  Could you further elcidate the relevance of bathrocrany?

Posted by Pericles on December 29, 2005, 08:46 PM | #

The Battle of Maldon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maldon#The_poem_The_Battle_of_Maldon

I lived in this town in 1966. The song about the battle documents the first occasion on which the English sense of fair play let them down. You just do not let the invader get a toehold on your land.

“Thought shall be the harder, the heart the keener, courage the greater, as our strength lessens.
  Here lies our leader all cut down, the valiant man in the dust;
  always may he mourn who now things to turn away from this warplay.
  I am old, I will not go away, but I plan to lie down by the side of my lord, by the man so dearly loved.”

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/britannia/anglo-saxon/maldon/maldon.html

Pericles

Posted by Pericles on December 29, 2005, 09:10 PM | #

James,

Craniofacial measurements can be misleading. Bathrocranic skulls were significant only in the 17th century, yet a 10% presence then is now down to one in a million 12 or 13 generations later. Brace is extrapolating far too much as there are not enough fossils to substantiate his claims. If the only excavated skulls of past Londoners were those from the 17th century, then the picture we would have for the last 2000 years, would be incorrect.

In the abscence of skin tissues for a fuller understanding, I am happier with DNA than phrenology.

Pericles

Posted by J Richards on December 30, 2005, 12:07 AM | #

That seems reasonable at first glance but if the natives soon learnt to farm off the incomers, how come most of the farmer remains are not in fact those of the natives?  Surely it is absurd to claim that the natives conveniently refrained from farming until the incomers died out!

Well John, ancient human remains are not easy to come by and the paper mentions that the Neolithic communities tended to bury their dead in cemeteries—thereby increasing the likelihood that we will find their remains—whereas most upper Paleolithic people buried their dead singly and in widely separated locations.  Apparently, the hunter-gatherer natives did not bury their dead like the Middle Eastern migrants during the neolithic, i.e., one would find few native fossils.

In the abscence of skin tissues for a fuller understanding, I am happier with DNA than phrenology.

Pericles, this is not phrenology and DNA analysis shows the same picture.

Posted by Calvin on December 30, 2005, 12:40 PM | #

Could the bathrocranic bump, like the bow legs caused by rickets, be a symptom of a dietary deficiency?

As we all know the infant human skull is far more maleable than most people would credit. Could the bump be a result of some obsolete method of infant swaddling?

How interesting!