What does a basic racial typology describe in Europe?

[Agrippa]

Because similar questions being raised by some in this forum, I thought it might make sense to re-post something I already posted in other fora as an introduction to the discussion of what racial typology in Europe is about.

What does a basic racial typology describe in Europe?

I think a 5-7 race scheme is enough to describe the basic variation inside of Europe, the most important evolutionary tendencies, specialisations, races are mainly that and can change over time.

My explanation would be as follows, there are basically 6-7 tendencies in Europe and we just see varying degrees and intermediate forms of them. But there can be more than one reason for that pattern, just to mention some:

a) the simplest is (sub-)racial mixture.

b) an evolutionary tendency can occur in various areas, but with a different specific direction, just parts of a type could have been realised for various reasons:

-) the selective pressure in the direction of a type was there but not strong enough, so certain features were never selected or it would have need more time

-) the pressure became too weak or changed before the type was fully realised

-) the direction of the selective pressure changed after the type was realised - a typical form existed but was altered by changing conditions afterwards

etc.


So the types represent the "ideal goal" of a typical European evolutionary tendency which can be realised fully, partly, can be intermediate between two or more forms. In that way those which represent the typical or even extreme form of a tendency are "pure" phenotypically, those which deviate for whatever reason in another direction are "mixed" - crucial are those inherited features which are important for the specialisation and therefore the definiton of a type, an evolutionary tendency.

About which influences might have played a role in forming the various subracial tendencies in Europe I already wrote various posts on this board, so I dont want to repeat it know, but just to discuss about the basic tendencies and relations.

I made a rather rough and simplified graphic to illustrate what I mean, I didnt mentioned all variants I know of and some positions had to be a compromise - simply because of the limits of this simple 2dimensional graphic. As European I consider the basic circles of Nordid, Cromagnid, Dinarid, Mediterranid, Osteuropid and Alpinoid. The best representative form in the centre of the subrace is in brackets. Again this scheme is not meant to be perfect, but just a good illustration of some basic relations in Europe which I have in mind:


Between Mediterranid and Dinarid "Baskid" could be placed, between Dinarid and Alpinoid "Carpathid".

Because Skildur asked on Skadi about Nordid-Osteuropid relation in this graph I added:

The transition from Nordid to Mediterranid is very important and reflects basically a dichotomy of robust and gracile forms in the Leptodolichomorphs of Europe. In terms of general specialisation its clear that both robust Mediterranid (Atlantomediterranid) and Dinarid forms are closer to Nordid than Baltid proper.

But you must read it right, because Cromagnid can be included at least in Nordoid, what could be pointed out too. So there are two relations of Nordids, one to the other leptomorphics, one to the other forms of the North. The 2nd is represented by the Nordid transition to Cromagnid (f.e. Trönder). The transition between Nordid and Osteuropid was not possible in this graphic and as I said its far from perfect. The correlation between Cromagnoid and Mediterranoid was not to make as well if showing all primary correlations and types as well (Southern Cromagnoids: Berberid).



But it would be basically like that: Nordid (Skandonordid) - Eastnordid - West Baltid/Eastcromagnoid (beginning of Osteuropid) - Baltid - Eastbaltid (ending of Osteuropid) - Lappoid. The connection to Nordid is not direct, but just through the "Nordic (Nordoid) connection" with Cromagnids - which are, in terms of specialisation, much closer to Baltid proper than standard Nordids.

A connection to the Nordoid Cromagnids is clear since West Baltid/Eastcromagnid is Nordoid Cromagnid too and between Dalofaelid and Baltid. As are Borrebies between Cromagnid and Alpinoid...

So there the basic poles (6) in Europe and fluent transition between them both due mixture and intermediate evolutionary positions I'd say.

Racial Specialisations and Climatic Zones

A map, unfortunely just with German terms, which shows the different climatic zones on which I added the more important racial types in their centres or basic, original areas of distribution:



Compare with the racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens:


Red circles: Progressive Europid secondary centres (were respective subtypes or important progressive populations might have their centres and are still strong).
Yellow circles: Progressive Mongoloid (including Indianid) secondary centres.
Blue circles: Borealised, cold specialised but otherwise rather progressive forms of Eurasians.
Blue line: Border of the area in which higher percentages of relatively progressive individuals naturally exist(ed).
Thin green line: Primary areas for borealisation after and partly during the last Ice Age.
Light Green (Andid) and Ethiopian circle, semi-progressive to progressive group centres.
Dark Green circles: Centres of infantilisation and reduction in the tropical forests and in groups living in unfavourable conditions.
Pink: Centres of primitive characteristics, similar to the oldest sapiens stratum - if combined with dark green both is visible, archemorphic and paedomorphic characteristics.

[Loki]

Interesting Agrippa. How is "racially progressive" defined? Is there some reading/reference you can recommend on this specific terminology?

[Agrippa]

Interesting Agrippa. How is "racially progressive" defined? Is there some reading/reference you can recommend on this specific terminology?

Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens

Racially progressive tendencies in a race are typically modern sapiens features. In this context I mean neomorphic, new features, which are both balanced, versatile, under as much conditions as possible advantageous and efficient. The new feature must be generally advantageous or at least not disadvantageous, neutral, if considering as much factors as possible, to be called progressive. Usually this tendencies are on line with the general trends of Hominisation, f.e. decrease of prognathy, prominence of the upper jaw, changes in the position of the foramen magnum and the form and position of the parietal bone etc.
Knußmann said that different races have different progressive features. For the Negrids he mentioned the full lips in the Grzimek Enzyklopädie.
The dynamic of progressive types (Europids and Mongolids, with certain types being more progressive than the average of the race) replacing in prehistoric times more primitive variants was mentioned by v. Eickstedt (1963), Lundman (1952).
Rough translation:
"The other, even more progressive main race, the white race...", from Lundman, Umriß der Rassenkunde in historischer Zeit, 1952, S. 51.
"Very clear is the connection of races to the ontogenetic development: There are races, which retain the more childlike (paedomorphic) habitus (f.e. Palaemongolids, img 308 - look at the pictures posted in the phy. anthro. section from Knußmann), and such, which are more typical adult formed - or even overreaching (f.e. Nilotids, img 304)".
"The protuberance of the mucous membrane (lips) of Negrids is a phylogenetically progressive, whereas the strong prognathy is an archaic (primitive) feature."
Knußmann (see below) S. 407.
"Highly specialised organisms or organs are being designated as phylogenetically progressive. Phylogenetic primitivity is the retaining of original, undifferentiated features. (very rough the (theoretical of primitivity) advantage is the potential for further specialisation in more directions..."
- means: Primitives can develop (in more directions theoretically), Progressives already developed. If there new development is advantageous, there form is in comparison. Now my point is not everything new is progressive, insofar I use it like Eickstedt and Lundman, because only advantageous and versatile features are progressive, too one sided are overspecialised (took further potential away).
"Original ("ancestral") features are also called plesiomorphies, specialised "derived" as apomorphies.
Knußmann, Vergleichende Biologie des Menschen, 2nd edition 1996, S. 268-269.

Some images which show progressive-neomorphic evolutionary trends during hominisation.

First the general developments of the skull:


2nd the development of the lower jaw - positive chin:


Deviating tendencies, a metrical comparison, tropical primitives (Weddoid: Malid) compared with progressive Europids (Indid: Nordindid):


Extreme paedomorphy of the skull and body compared with a normal development of progressive mature leptomorphic Europids:


Compare with Lundmans scheme of body racial body types and the body types of Kretschmer/Contrad, constitutional forms. Here Lundman:


The progressive trias is mature-virile-juvenile, which are the dominant body forms of all progressive Europid forms, with a strong overlap, but the tendency of Dinaroid = mature, Nordoid = virile, Mediterranoid = juvenile.

Sinids, Nordsinids in particular go fluently in the juvenile type and I dont agree with Lundman that they are generally speaking of the feminine body form, which is comparably also more progressive than those which retain strong child-like or protomorphic traits in their body proportions.

The developments on skull affected various areas but quite important is what was chanced at the base of the skull, especially the sphenoid bone position and angle and the positon of the formen magnum. This trend was usually associated with a decreasing grade of prognathy and a "movement of the face" under the braincase - together with a reduction of the teeth numbers and whole chewing apparatus - though the last is relative and not necessarily a main cause in my opinion.





This changes made not only a different facial form and bigger braincase possible, they also changed the centre of gravity (which moved up to the hip for the whole body and backward on the head) for which especially the changing spine and moving foramen magnum was crucial:


The Neandertal was, if compared with sapiens rather primitive in many ways, whats particulary striking, is the fact that the principle form of the braincase didnt change - just the size increased - the opposite is true if comparing with the sapiens innovation:


Even the centre of gravity of the skull was less balanced you can see that the skull-spine angle is very different:


Its important to note that even in the most progressive Homo sapiens the head is not fully balanced, in fact, an improvement would be possible - though the counterweight or muscle power necessary to keep the head straight is constantly decreased from Australopithecines to Homo sapiens with Homo neanderthalensis being still rather on the erectus level - again position of the spine and foramen magnum should be kept in mind.
The decreasing prognathy is also important during Hominisation if looking at the palatine:


But whats really important is that the features are balanced, because imbalanced orthognathy-retrognathy leads to dental and jaw-problems. We could even argue that many progressive Eurasians suffer from that, the development is in fact not optimal and balanced in every case and needs still improvement.
However, lets look what balanced retrognathy of a very progressive and fully balanced individual means if compared with primitive racial prognathy:


The comparison of the positive chin of the progressive individual with the primitive negative chin of the archomorphic one reveals the same pattern:

The Pintubi skull (1800 AD.) is an Australoid skull with very archaic dimensions.

Here it is compared with an Europid skull.

Affinities
Although we are describing differences that might seem to approach speciation, we must remember that these are differences in grade only.
Affinities suggested by these descriptions are all Homo sapiens, to be sure. Let no misinterpretation be made here.
There is, however, enough variance from the norm to suggest some carry-over morphology from earlier or archaic anscestry. A continuity or link to the past, as it were.
The link might be inferred to the influence of robust hominids of late Pleistocene Asia. The obvious candidate for this backward probe would be the aforementioned Homo erectus Soloensis of Ngandong, Java.
In a previous investigation, I was able to inspect casts of 2 calvarias - a 20,000 year old Australian aborigine (WLH-50) and an Indonesian (Ngandong, Java) Homo erectus Soloensis and was amazed at their nearly identical proportions.
A picture is worth a thousand...
This same Javan Ngandong sample will be shown in the photo section for comparison to Pintubi-1.
The photographs are the meat of this essay. They are the evidence that allow the reader to make his/her comparisons and judgements.

http://canovanograms.tripod.com/pintubi1/

This skull is a perfect example for primitive traits and they made a comparison with a progressive skull on this site too, whats really nice to show the difference between primitive and progressive traits.

Neomorphic and progressive traits can be also those, in my definition, which are new and at least not disadvantageous for a general, versatile and active adaptation. So traits being selected by sexual selection for the purpose of being sexually attractive for other individuals are per progressive for two reasons, namely for being new and advantageous in the intraspecific competition as along as they are not disadvantageous for another, more important and longer term aspect of biological adaptation. F.e. its no option for females to get larger and larger breasts, even if they would be preferred by males for exactly this reason. Larger female breasts would be a positive development as a sign of feminity, fertility, good nutrition, health etc. in that sense only to a certain limit, namely when the larger breasts become too much of a burden for a woman in too many other areas of her adaptiveness. So there might be a conflict of trends and competitiveness in this as well as in various other regards.

[Agrippa]

Here also a short least for a handy comparison of progressive (neomorphic), infantile (paedomorphic) and primitive (archemorphic) basic traits:


And a graphic in a triangular form in which the types being positioned between the three general trends of modern human evolution and form variation:


Especially in the "left progressive field" the distances are very short to non-existence, its just a graphic necessity to put them that way, since I can't write one over another.

Additionally I made this graph some time ago and would make some details somewhat different now and for many types a basic, typical variant was considered, there are other subtypes f.e. of Gracilmediterranids, Gracilindid, Aethiopids and other Palaemongolid variants than Palaungid in particular, which should be put in another, namely more progressive positions.

[Stefan]

I have a question. What causes location on the Venn Diagram? By that I mean, why are Dinarids in the center? Does that mean that they are intermediate in features, or the most "mixed" of races? This might be a stupid question, but that gets me to wonder why I'm clasified as dinarid. My Mother has Nordid, Alpinid, and Med features, as my father has Med and Berid features. So due to this heavy mixture, I get a Dinarid - intermediate morphotype? Quite interesting, and I think I agree with most of what you say. Thanks a lot for posting this.

[Agrippa]

I have a question. What causes location on the Venn Diagram? By that I mean, why are Dinarids in the center? Does that mean that they are intermediate in features, or the most "mixed" of races? This might be a stupid question, but that gets me to wonder why I'm clasified as dinarid. My Mother has Nordid, Alpinid, and Med features, as my father has Med and Berid features. So due to this heavy mixture, I get a Dinarid - intermediate morphotype? Quite interesting, and I think I agree with most of what you say. Thanks a lot for posting this.

Basically this was the result of necessity in a graph, but it also reflects the relations of the Taurid/Dinaroid variants which are between the Aurignacoid and Cromagnoid spectrum in a way.

Compare with this graph about the genesis of the various racial forms represented in a "racial tree":


Some Dinaroid variants seem to be exclusively Aurignacoid derived (Nordoid = Norid, Mediterranoid = Adriatid), but others seem to have "processed" Cromagnoid elements (like the robust Adriatid forms in Montenegro f.e.) in a general process of Dinarisation in the more mountainous regions of Central and South Eastern Europe.

Dinaroids are in a way the big & lean, robust boned and maximal mature form of the European spectrum, yet they are often closely related as the herder-warriors of the mountains to the reduced tillers in the less favourable farming areas. So because of this close proximity and sometimes almost symbiotic relationship, they must have a transition shown in the graph to the Alpinid spectrum, even if this is, in certain respects, the diametrically opposite of the Dinarid type.

Less typical Dinaroid and Dinariomorphic variants can "pop up" phenotypical wise because of a similar recombination, but that shouldnt lead to the false conclusion of C.S. Coon that this is the process of Dinarisation itself, because the Dinarid type proper is the result of selection and expansion of this herder-warrior groups and way of life.

V. Eickstedt included Dinarids into the "Bergrassengürtel" ("mountain race belt") and he was right saying that because the Dinarids and original Taurid forms in general are, or at least were, much more than Alpinoids, a specialisation for higher areas, mountains, hills and valleys, mostly living from animal husbandry.
Its interesting to compare the distribution of the Gemse (chamois) with Dinaroids and groups with Taurid influences (from West Baskid, Norid, Adriatid, Carpathid, Kaukasid-Armenoid) which have a certain habitat as well:

(probably someone has other maps of animals which live in the same habitat)

I think most of the later Dinarid and generally Taurid expansion out of the mountainous areas was secondary, but their original habitat and the environment and lifeform for "which they were made" was mainly being highland herders. Under them they survived in the purest form usually like in the Tyrolese herders and farmers of higher regions and the herders of the Balkan area. For some ethnic groups it was proven that they moved in fact from over wide distances (f.e. in Eastern Asia, v. Eickstedt wrote about that) to a similar habitat. (f.e. from highland to highland, from a fertile river valley to the next etc.) Originally a similar kind of expansion might have taken place in Europe's past and lead to the Dinarisation of certain areas.
The distribution of Dinarids in higher areas can be confirmed for Austria more or less and Carpathian herders are mostly Dinaroid as well.

[Mesrine]

What does a basic racial typology describe in Europe?

That Europeans basically look... European?

[Agrippa]

That Europeans basically look... European?

Not funny

Well, now try to define whats a "European look", what are the differences and its causes inside of Europe and you get what I meant.

[Ar-Man]

Hello Agrippa, I have a question about Cromagnoids. Are they somehow related to the Cro-Magnon[1] type (early modern humans) of Eurasia? Because I searched a little bit and read that there is a subtype of Cro-magnon called "Grimaldi man" who supposedly had "negroid traits"[2]. So, does this supposedly mean that the Cro-magnon people were not Europids? I would really appreciate your opinion on this matter. Thanks.


1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimaldi_Man

[Agrippa]

Hello Agrippa, I have a question about Cromagnoids. Are they somehow related to the Cro-Magnon[1] type (early modern humans) of Eurasia? Because I searched a little bit and read that there is a subtype of Cro-magnon called "Grimaldi man" who supposedly had "negroid traits"[2]. So, does this supposedly mean that the Cro-magnon people were not Europids? I would really appreciate your opinion on this matter. Thanks.


1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimaldi_Man

Yes it is related to the Cro-Magnon remains in the narrower sense.

That is important to note, because authors and even anthropologists speak of all early European Palaeolithic humans as of "Cro-Magnon" people so they mix up all kinds of types, which just lived at that time in Europe regardless of whether they being close by their features to "the Old of Cro-Magnon".

That's why this strange Grimaldi variants can be put in this category, but this has nothing to do with Cromagnid as I use it, because this refers strictly to the Europid type(s) which resemble the remains of Cro-Magnon, that one.

Skull:


Reconstruction:



Newer one:


There lived different types of humans, possibly even different races, in Europe at that time, but that's what is meant with Cromagnid, not "Cro-Magnon man" in the sense of everything Homo sapiens like running around in Palaeolithic Europe.

The skull of Bruenn f.e. is actually not truly Cromagnid, but rather (robust archaic) Aurignacoid, compare with this thread:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37601