http://popups.lib.uliege.be/3041-5527/index.php?id=5810 Publications de Auteurs Winfried Henke fr 0 http://popups.lib.uliege.be/3041-5527/index.php?id=6034 It has been known since Herodot (484–425 B.C.) that the differentiation of human populations depends to a high degree on climatic factors. Furthermore it is well understood that, as a result of the interrelationships between heat loss, body volume and surface area, cold environments favour large-bodied individuals with reduced limb proportions. Several authors have pointed out that the Neandertals show very short distal limb segments relative to body size. The relative shortness of the forearm and the lower leg and the limbs in general may have been an adaptation to the cold climate that many Neandertals faced (Allen’s Rule). Cranial features on the other hand, e.g. the relatively high cranial capacity and the size and shape of the nasal skeleton, are not commonly regarded as cold adaptation. This is also true for modern populations. Due to the unsolved controversies concerning a recent African origin of anatomically modern man or a gradualistic multi‑regional evolution, a comparison of the late Pleistocene and early Holocene populations of anatomically modern man from Europe (Upper Paleolithics, Early and Late Mesolithics) and Northern Africa (Iberomaurusians, Columnatians, Capsians) has been done by uni‑ and multivariate statistics, based on a sample of n = 546 skulls (and a smaller sample of postcrania). It has been tested, whether the observable uni‑ and bivariate differences and the main discriminators in the discriminant function analyses for diachronical and regional comparisons are in agreement with those patterns that have been described in the literature as related to specific environmental factors. The Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Europeans differ markedly in their cranial features from the NW‑African sample, but their special pattern cannot concisely be explained in terms of climatic adaptations. There are good arguments to submit the conclusion, that the so‑called ‘cromagnoid’ populations of NW‑Africa are autochthone. It seems plausible that the ‘Mechtoids’ developed their unique morphological pattern in isolation from European populations, but the role of their climatic adaptations in their morphology remains still unclear and ‘troublesome’, except the nasal index whose overall distribution is explicable in terms of (plausible) climatic adaptations. The findings demonstrate that the differences in the cranial features seem to be the result of a regionalization process in which climatic adaptations may have played a minor part besides socioecological influences (e.g. technological innovations, subsistence strategies). Thu, 29 Jan 2026 16:42:01 +0100 Thu, 29 Jan 2026 16:42:08 +0100 http://popups.lib.uliege.be/3041-5527/index.php?id=6034 http://popups.lib.uliege.be/3041-5527/index.php?id=5802 Ce travail analyse les relations entre les populations de la fin du Pléistocène et du début de l’Holocène en Europe, en Asie occidentale et à l’ouest de l’Afrique du Nord. Les méthodes statistiques univariées et bivariées ainsi que les analyses discriminantes indiquent une évolution autochtone des populations nord-africaines. Les affinités plus importantes des Protomagnoons pour les Africains que pour les Européens pourraient correspondre à la présence d’ancêtres communs, encore qu’on ne sache pas s’il faut les chercher en Afrique ou en Asie occidentale. Les rapprochements entre les échantillons de Natoufiens et d’Européens observés dans les analyses bivariées et discriminantes sont interprétés comme des convergences adaptatives dans des environnements socio-économique proches. Il n’y a guère d’arguments pour envisager une relation directe entre les populations du Proche-Orient et d’Europe occidentale, dans la mesure où les Européens de l’est, géographiquement plus proches, diffèrent davantage des Natoufiens que les populations d’Europe occidentale (voir Henke, 1989 pour une analyse détaillée). Les résultats de l’analyse multivariée en composantes principales ne confirment pas cette manière de voir, mais ne l’infirment pas non plus. Les études semblent montrer moins de divergence entre les échantillons européens et non-européens, mais l’examen des données dans une optique spatiale et temporelle, qui est présentée ailleurs (Henke, 1989), permet d’accorder les interprétations des diverses approches statistiques multivariées. In this paper the relationship of the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene populations of NW-Africa, the Near East and Europe is discussed. The uni- and bivariate-statistics and the discriminant analytical approaches yield only slight doubts as to the autochthonous status of the North-African populations. Because the Protomagnoids show much higher affinities to the African than does the European sample this may be an indication of common ancestry of these groups (whether in Africa or in Western Asia remains uncertain). The exclusive orientation of the Natufians to the European sample by bivariate and discriminant function analysis has been interpreted as representing convergent adaptations in a similar socio-economic environment. There are weak or even unreasonable arguments to postulate a direct relationship of the Near East populations and the Western Europeans because the geographically closer Eastern Europeans differ much more from the Natufians than the Western Europeans (for a detailed analysis of the individual affinities see Henke, 1989). The results from the principal component analysis offer no conclusive support for the above described view, but they are not in contradiction with the given interpretation either. These results seem to show less divergence between the European and non-European sample, but a detailed analysis of the regional and temporal samples, which is given in Henke (1989), allows an alignment of the interpretations of the multivariate statistics (discriminant analysis and principal component analysis). Tue, 06 Jan 2026 16:20:24 +0100 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 16:20:32 +0100 http://popups.lib.uliege.be/3041-5527/index.php?id=5802