Aurignacoids vs Cro-Magnoids?

[Stefan]

I have a few questions on the two. What were the major differences between Prehistoric Aurignacoids and Cro-Magnoids? How did those differences pass on to modern populations? Where did they have their concentrations and was there interaction or is it more of a recent thing? How did both groups differ from UP proto-Mongoloid populations? Any information is helpful, thank you. Also, if I have made any false assumptions, please correct them.

Btw I'm not sure if Aurignacian culture has anything to do with Aurignacoid as an anthropological term, so I want to keep away from that.

[Agrippa]

Aurignacoid vs. Cromagnoid traits on the skull:


The most basic differences being the breadth-length and shape of the cranium, but even more so of the face, orbita, jaws.

Compare with this posts:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...4&postcount=82
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...0&postcount=87

Most things which can be said were discussed at length in this thread about the Nordid type and its origins:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11720

Btw I'm not sure if Aurignacian culture has anything to do with Aurignacoid as an anthropological term, so I want to keep away from that.

About that time Aurignacoid appeared the first time.

The name derives from Combe Capelle:
http://www.combecapelle.com/index.html

[Anthropos]

No, I think it's much better if those races stay friends.

[Lenny]

What were the major differences between Prehistoric Aurignacoids and Cro-Magnoids?
...
How did both groups differ from UP proto-Mongoloid populations?

Both racial strains (Cromagnoid and 'Aurignacoid') still exist among Europeans.

The difference between proto-Mongoloids and those other two groups = The difference between modern Europeans and modern unmixed Mongoloids - the ones with extreme bracycephaly. (Many modern Orientals are the product not only of Mongoloid racial ancestry, but a mix of Mongoloid with remnant Ainu or with peoples in the Australoid spectrum [towards the south of what we call the Orient - as in Filipinos especially]).

[Stefan]

Both racial strains (Cromagnoid and 'Aurignacoid') still exist among Europeans.

I know that, but I was talking specifically of them before they specialized into specific types and altered through processes such as Alpinization for example.

The difference between proto-Mongoloids and those other two groups = The difference between modern Europeans and modern unmixed Mongoloids - the ones with extreme bracycephaly. (Many modern Orientals are the product not only of Mongoloid racial ancestry, but a mix of Mongoloid with remnant Ainu or with peoples in the Australoid spectrum [towards the south of what we call the Orient - as in Filipinos especially]).

Some questions I have then:

Wouldn't UP Mongoloids be less infantilized overall compared to modern counterparts? I come to that conclusion because they have had much less time to adapt to cold extremes, and therefore there isn't a cause for infantilization. Would you say infantile traits are the main phenotypical differences they have with Caucasoids, and that is why reduced variants of Caucasoids are sometimes mistaken for having mongoloid admixture, as is the case with Alpinids, Baltids and Lappids?

As for the Ainu and Jomon, I don't think they are Australoid remnants. I think they have closer affinities to some Amerindian groups actually.

[Lenny]

Wouldn't UP Mongoloids be less infantilized overall than modern counterparts?

That's right, but it's probably true of all peoples on Earth.

The Mongoloids of today are the most neotenistic people on the planet. Some people say their women are pretty, but in fact all they have is neoteny. (Neoteny does make for a prettier face - studies have proven. Take two photos of the same female face, slightly infantilize one, and people will rate it as more attractive). Take that away and what do they have? Roundish eyebrowless yellow-tinted faces housing coal black eyes, which are mostly concealed as they resemble two slits in the face, and with soot-black hair attached. All atop physiques resembling those of 12-yr-old boys (and the stature to match).

Actual beauty, to my mind, has to be [Neoteny]+[Something else]. Europeans actually have traits that can be called beautiful absent any neoteny.

Would you say infantile traits are the main phenotypical differences they have with Caucasoids, and that is why reduced variants of Caucasoids are sometimes mistaken for having mongoloid admixture, as is the case with Alpinids, Baltids and Lappids?

"Main difference" - no - as even the most uninfantilized Mongoloids you can find are still distinct from Europeans. But the second statement you have, about why reduced racial-Europeans may sometimes be thought to be "part-Mongoloid", I think is valid.

As for the Ainu and Jomon, I don't think they are Australid remnants. I think they have closer affinities to some Amerindian groups actually.

Agreed. I'm sorry if I was unclear: But it is northern-Orientals (mostly Japanese, I suspect a bit in Koreans though) that have Ainuoid admixture and only that.

It is southern-Orientals that are visibly part-Australoid, as in Filipinos, native-Taiwanese, and SE-Asians generally to some extent or another. Even in many southern-Chinese you can see glimmers of it.

The three racial "para-stocks" at play in the Orient (before the European colonies) from Mongolia to Australia are
-Mongoloid
-"Ainuoid"
-"Australoid"

The Mongoloids evolved into the smartest people in IQ terms on Earth (tho my experience of them is that their raw-"IQ" comes at a high price in other areas of human endeavor).

Soon enough, they began expansion processes that displaced the bottom two peoples in the above list. 'Ainuoids' and 'Australoids' were once widespread across East-Asia. As in most expansions, the expanders and settlers occasionally absorbed local racial elements - in some places more than others. By the times Europeans arrived, Ainu only survived as a distinct genepool on Hokkaido, and the Homo-Erectus holdouts that we'd call "Australoids" and Negritoes were only on a handful of islands and Australia itself.

[Stefan]

That Ainuoid description is interesting, so you consider them distinct from Mongoloid populations rather than a grouping that has retained its proto-mongoloid traits? If that is the case, how would you describe the waves out of Africa then. Would it be the Proto-Australoids first, then Proto-"Ainuoids", then Proto-Mongoloids, then finally Proto-Caucasoids? The relativity of each group increasing in that order? Or would it be the case where all Eurasians left in one wave and then all of them specialized outside of Africa? Where would Amerindians fit in? A derivation of Ainuoids or Mongoloids?

[Lenny]

That Ainuoid description is interesting, so you consider them distinct from Mongoloid populations rather than a grouping that has retained its proto-mongoloid traits?

The Japanese nationalists insist that the Ainu are archaic Mongoloids.

To me, their features are too distinct to be considered of the same stock as pure-Mongoloids. They are very hairy. They have strong browridges and large teeth. I don't think a trait like browridges can change through infantilization. Even the most gracile Europeans retain trace of our browridges. A pure Mongoloid will have absolutely no trace of a browridge - and only wisps of eyebrows, at that. See here and here also.

I think the best thesis on the Ainuoid Question is that they are a very archaic Caucasoid population that migrated eastward a very long time ago, and by a series of strokes of luck managed to retain group integrity against local competitors for a very long time. There are also the known connections to various extinct peoples in the Americas and to Easter-Island for the Ainu.

[YOUTUBE]eK33KnG0awg[/YOUTUBE]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK33KnG0awg

Speculation about the Ainu and where they/their-cousins fit into World-History is certainly the realm of fanciful imaginations.

If that is the case, how would you describe the waves out of Africa then.

I have come to reject any strict "Out of Africa" scenario as "incontrovertibly-true". The story of humanity is more complicated than that. See here for more on that.

[Jarl]

I have a few questions on the two. What were the major differences between Prehistoric Aurignacoids and Cro-Magnoids? How did those differences pass on to modern populations? Where did they have their concentrations and was there interaction or is it more of a recent thing? How did both groups differ from UP proto-Mongoloid populations? Any information is helpful, thank you. Also, if I have made any false assumptions, please correct them.

Btw I'm not sure if Aurignacian culture has anything to do with Aurignacoid as an anthropological term, so I want to keep away from that.

Cro-Magnon was the type of the Paleolithic hunters of Eurasia. Aurignacian culture was a culture of Cro-Magnons. Their racial heritage is still visible in similarities between Europeans, Ainus and some Amerindians (Pacifids and Silvids). Aurignacids on the other hand represented a different element (population?) whose origins seemed to have lied in Africa and Palestine. There is a whole thread with exactly the same title (or the other way round - Cro-Magnids vs Aurignacoids) created by Absinthe which you ought to read. "On the Nordid types..." shoud be of good use too.

As for UP proto-Mongoloids, it seems that they might represent some divergent, isolated Cro-Magnon type. Aurignacids on the other hand had still some archaic protomorphic (some anthros say "Australid") traits.

[Agrippa]

To me, their features are too distinct to be considered of the same stock as pure-Mongoloids. They are very hairy. They have strong browridges and large teeth. I don't think a trait like browridges can change through infantilization.

Hairiness might have been an archaic trait, so it is with strong browridges, both might have been lost and acquired again though, so its hard to for every single case, because there happened both gracilisation and de-gracilisation in specific contexts.

Yet its quite obvious that infantilisation and reduction can lead to a direct reduction of the browridges, its clearly visible in the maturation process and typical Alpinids vs. Cromagnoids f.e.

So the question is not, whether its possible, because it surely is, but what factors might have led to this trend and why the Ainuids were not affected - or whether they entered the region separately.

Its an open question which an be only solved by genetics. Yet Ainuids are mostly something like more progressive and pyknomorphic Australoids, so something close to the ancestral form of the Proto-Mongoloids, which means it could be, but similarly archaic-progressive intermediates were present elsewhere too and must not be a branch of the ancestral Mongoloid type, a direct survivor of a branched off, very closely related bloodline.

As for UP proto-Mongoloids, it seems that they might represent some divergent, isolated Cro-Magnon type. Aurignacids on the other hand had still some archaic protomorphic (some anthros say "Australid") traits.

On Skadi the question was raised "Did Europoids Evolve From Australoids?", blondism was mentioned as a possible connection too, my answer was:
No single trait can and should be overestimated, neither blondism nor anything else. Relationships and status can never be estimated by one trait alone, as a black, frizzy haired Aethiopid is more Europid than a blond Australid.

The thread is old, but to make things simple, the question is wrong. Its like asking whether humans evolved from chimpanzees, what they didnt. Humans and chimps had just a common ancestor quite some time ago and evolved independently on since then. Its just that the chimps, even though they made their own evolution and change since then, are still closer to ancestral form than the humans are.

With Europid and Australid is basically the same. We descent from Australiform archaic humans most likely, but since then, Europids and other races evolved on, faster and further away, from that ancestral status, than Australids did - which again made their own regional evolution, far away from the biodynamic centres of progressive development in Eurasia and East Africa, but are still much more archaic than most other races - with most similarly archaic racial types living in their area, like the Palaemelanesids or the now practically extinct Tasmanids.

The Australid type derived mostly from archaic Homo sapiens strata, though the variation inside of the Australid race might imply to me at least, and some authors, that there was a more progressive wave which came, already long time ago, later on the continent. Still even this later and more progressive wave is much more primitive than what we see in modern Eurasians usually, not talking about the average Australid of today.

Actually, the Australid race just repeated what we can observe in the animal kingdom of the Southern continent, the effect of isolation in the periphery, isolated from the competition, the dynamic, the migrations and trends which happend on the bigger continent and in the biodynamic centres. Marsupials survived there, as did a more archaic human race with its more archaic culture. Even the bow didnt made it to Australia, they kept their Atlatl...

Even though the Europids lost their primitive status long time ago, since even 30.000 years ago the Homo sapiens variants in Europe were mostly more progressive than modern Australids, they also show similarities mainly because the other big modern races (Mongolid and Negrid) made a more drastic climatic adaptation in meantime, which altered their appearance in a certain way. So the relief-rich face of the progressive Europid, with the absense of real primitive traits, is still somewhat closer to the Australid in certain regards, especially relief and hairiness etc., than the Mongoloid f.e., which in turn has other "more Australid like traits", especially in those groups which are not fully Neo-Mongolid and progressive.

I also made this racial ancestry tree, based on what I read so far:


Posted in my thread about the meaning of racial typologies:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11365

I think the best thesis on the Ainuoid Question is that they are a very archaic Caucasoid population that migrated eastward a very long time ago, and by a series of strokes of luck managed to retain group integrity against local competitors for a very long time. There are also the known connections to various extinct peoples in the Americas and to Easter-Island for the Ainu.

The question is also how you define Europid. If you define it strictly typologically, by morphology, you might say that most Indianids f.e. are pred. Mongoloid, but show Europoid tendencies. So do Sibirids.

Both might have been really influenced by Eastward going Proto-Europoids, or just retained traits other East Asians lost, since the Neo-Mongolid core seems to have expand in a wide area, often quite rapidly and the former, older strata were as a rule less Mongoloid.

Interestingly the difference between Cromagnoid & derivatives vs. Aurignacoids/Nordid-Suedeuropids being repeated in the East with Tungo-Sibirid vs. Sinoid and again the Sinoids seem to have being influenced by groups which marched up from the South, with the Tungo-Sibirids being longer in the more Northern regions.

The Sinoids marched North, evolved there in a different direction (Mongolisation) and then marched back again in the big Sinid (Chinese and related) expansion, thats, in my opinion, the reason why the pattern of the O-haplogroup in East Asia is somewhat complicated.

It might be similar to Nordoid, Proto-Nordoids marching North, mixing with locals, evolving into something new, than expanding back...