Percent of blond hair among Ugro-Finns and their neighbours

[Norka]

Said guy, who can't properly speak in any language especially in his own...

Fucking hell you really are an autistic beast Rethel.

[Rethel]

Fucking hell you really are an autistic beast Rethel.

I try very hard to fit to your level

[Norka]

I try very hard to fit to your level

The dog barks but the caravan keeps moving

[Rethel]

The dog barks

It is good that you are aware about yourself

[Norka]

It is good that you are aware about yourself

Rethel you are like an annoying Chihuahua yapping at me go annoy someone else you keep yelping like a woman at a market shut your ugly receding jawlined face and go bother someone else. For fucks sake I even remember your voice it also sounds like you never matured properly. Those R1 testes working alright Rethel?

[Danaan]

Curonians according to that study are 20% blonde, because 'dark blonde' is brown actually.

[Lucas]

Curonians according to that study are 20% blonde, because 'dark blonde' is brown actually.

Some users here said that brown actually could be part of light spectrum. You do the opposite and dark blonde for you is brown
It's the matter of subjective opinion though.

[Harkonnen]

Some Hungarian Turanid users here will be pleased because of that.
BTW they were Ukrainian Hungarians, so maybe mixed with them.

I agree some traits overlap in CM and Mongoloid. But in ithis Mongoloid index she used:

horizontal facial flatness degree (Mongoloid mostly)
eyelid skewness (Mongoloid)
cheekbones prominency (rather Mongoloid more)
beard density (it's not CM for sure)
Mongolian fold (obvious)
height of nasal ridge (could be debatable)
degree of nasal flatenning (Mongoloid)
percentage of convex upper lid (could be debatable, but look at the map, the trend is obvious)
And in all maps for those traits you will se similar pattern. If it will be CM more, the peak would be in Finland and Estonia not Volga-Ural...

The peak in CM traits is actually in Karelia:

Over the last decades, large cranial samples representing recent 18th – early 19th century Finnic peoples were collected, including several series of Karelian crania from the principal modern distribution area, the Republic of Karelia.

Karelians display a rather unusual trait combination, characterized by mesobrachycrany and a relatively short, wide, robust and extremely high braincase. The face is medium high and medium wide (it is wide in northern Karelia). The upper horizontal facial profile is flattened by European standards, but the midfacial profile is sharp.

The nose is sharply protruding and convex. This trait combination opposes the Karelians to all modern and recent groups of Eurasia including the closest linguistic relatives of Karelians, the Baltic Finns, specifically Finns and Estonians (Khartanovich, 1986, 1990). Among the prehistoric series, the same trait combination is observed in the Meso-Neolithic sample from Zvejnieki, Latvia (Khartanovich, 1991b).

This fact along with the slight flattening of the upper facial profile in modern Karelians once again raises the issue of the so-called “prehistoric Mongoloid admixture” in Eastern Europe which has been discussedby Russian anthropologists since the 1950s.

A significant contribution to the study of the early population history of Eastern Europe and of the origins of the contradictory trait combinations distributed on that territory was made by T.I. Alekseyeva. In a joint monograph describing the Neolithic cranial series from Sakhtysh in the Upper Volga area, she notes that certain European Mesolithic groups were characterized by large dimensions of the braincase and especially by its conspicuous height. The face was wide and relatively low and a flattened upper facial profile co-occurred with a sharp midfacial profile and sharply protruding nasalbones (Alekseyeva, 1997). In Alekseyeva’s words, this unusual trait combination, which was more than once revealed by multivariate statistics, was widely distributed and was typical of Mesolithic Caucasoids of the forest and forest-steppe zones of Eastern Europe as evidencedby groups such as Zvejnieki, Popovo, Southern Oleniy (Reindeer) Island, and Vasilievka I and III. In her words, there is no doubt that robustness and upper facial flatness were inherited from earlier Caucasoid populations of Eastern Europe.

In the joint monograph integrating the anthropological studies of the Eastern Slavs, Alekseyeva formulated her conclusions regarding the origin of this trait combination: “Judging by the concentration of these unusual features in Scandinavia, the Baltic and the Onega area, people displaying them had migrated to Eastern Europe from the northwest and were possibly associated with the Mesolithic cultures ofthe circum-Baltic region. Revisiting the long-standing issue of admixture versus evolutionary conservatism in the Mesolithic population of Eastern Europe in the light of new data, we must reject the admixture hypothesis. The location of this peculiar type and its expansion from the west to the east suggest that it should be regarded as an independent ancient type which originated in northwestern Europe” (Alekseyeva, 1999: 254–255). In the Neolithic, biological continuity with the Mesolithic population was preserved but the diversity increased.



Importantly, according to Alekseyeva (Ibid.: 255), the population which in the Mesolithic had been quite Caucasoid despite the unusual combination of the two facial profiiles (flattened in the upper part and sharp in the middle part; one might add that the face was very broad and the braincase was very high) began to assume a somewhat “Mongoloid” appearance.

After the Neolithic, groups marked by the trait combination noted by Alekseyeva and others seem to have disappeared from Eastern Europe. This may have been partly due to the scarcity of cranial remains from the Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, and medieval burials in the Eastern Baltic area and to the complete absence of such remains from Karelia. However, none of the large series of 11th–17th-century crania from Leningrad Oblast, Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia too, reveal the combination described above. By contrast, several large 18th–19th-century Karelian cranial samples very clearly exhibit precisely this combination, which Alekseyeva demonstrated to be peculiar to the Circum-Baltic regionin the Mesolithic. The only noteworthy difference is a larger cranial index and a somewhat less robust braincase in the late groups. These changes are readily explainableby the two diachronic tendencies – brachycephalization and gracilization.

http://www.academia.edu/764235/New_c...burial_ground_

[Harkonnen]

...

[Lucas]

Actually Karelians are rather low on Mongoloid Index and have mostly sharp fzcial profile acording to Mark. They are grupped with Western Finns as mostly Caucasoid part of the Finno-Ugrian spectrum. Opposite to Eastern Finns and especially Ugrians as more Mongoloid admixed (but note fully of course).

Those percentage of Mongolid Index don't reflect the Mongoloid race admix but position in the spectrum from more Europid to more Mongoloid. Don't take it literally. Khantes have 86 MI and only 48% of Mongoloid admix in K23b. If on those list would be Mongolians or Koreans they wil have maybe 170 MI...