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:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3294&stc=1&d=1259938119

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:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3295&stc=1&d=1259938302

Compare with the racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3296&stc=1&d=1259938375

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:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3297&stc=1&d=1259939744

2nd the development of the lower jaw - positive chin:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3298&stc=1&d=1259939777

Deviating tendencies, a metrical comparison, tropical primitives (Weddoid: Malid) compared with progressive Europids (Indid: Nordindid):
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3299&stc=1&d=1259939808

Extreme paedomorphy of the skull and body compared with a normal development of progressive mature leptomorphic Europids:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3300&stc=1&d=1259939848

Compare with Lundmans scheme of body racial body types and the body types of Kretschmer/Contrad, constitutional forms. Here Lundman:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3301&stc=1&d=1259939926

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.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3302&stc=1&d=1259940198

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3303&stc=1&d=1259940225

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:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3304&stc=1&d=1259940297

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:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3305&stc=1&d=1259940334

Even the centre of gravity of the skull was less balanced you can see that the skull-spine angle is very different:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3302&stc=1&d=1259940373

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:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3306&stc=1&d=1259940434

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:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3307&stc=1&d=1259940472http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3308&stc=1&d=1259940497

The comparison of the positive chin of the progressive individual with the primitive negative chin of the archomorphic one reveals the same pattern:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3310&stc=1&d=1259940671http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3309&stc=1&d=1259940627
The Pintubi skull (1800 AD.) is an Australoid skull with very archaic dimensions.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3311&stc=1&d=1259940707
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:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3312&stc=1&d=1259941051

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:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3313&stc=1&d=1259941081

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":
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3318&stc=1&d=1259960106

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:
http://www.watzmanngams.de/html/oekologie_der_gemse/verbreitung.jpg
(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? :D

[Agrippa]

That Europeans basically look... European? :D

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:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromag1.jpg

Reconstruction:
http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/97/44397-004-D45BC527.jpg
http://www.kunstkamera.ru/images/exhibition/gerasimov/method/01_07.jpg

Newer one:
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mw-cromag.jpg

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

[Mordid]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3313&stc=1&d=1259941081
What interesting about that graphic you made is that Nordid is the most ''progessive'' type because Nordid, Atlanto-Med/Pontid, Nord-Indid, Gracile Med, Iranid belong to Aurignacoid speciem and should be progressive in equal way.


http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3294&stc=1&d=1259938119
It appear to me that West Baltid/Cromagnoid are closer to Cromagnid proper/Faelid, but aren't Borrebies suppose to be closer to Faelid/Cromagnid proper? Borrebies on normally are archaic Cromagnoid than West Baltids.

[Agrippa]

Both depictions suffer from the fact that they being two-dimensional, this means for some cases I had just the choice to put types side by side or changing connections in a way, I wouldn't have done in a written description or if using three dimensions.

But Borreby/Nordalpinoid is actually in the Cromagnoid spectrum or borderline in this graph too, even though it is suboptimal in this respect.

As for the progressive character of the Nordid type vs. others, on average it is just a peak type, but like you said others are pretty close, this means that almost the whole corner of the progressive side would be MUCH CLOSER if that wouldn't have been a bad graphical realisation.

Especially Atlantomediterranid, Dinarid and Iranid f.e.

[Ar-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".......

Thank you.
And you have any suppositions when & where the Europoid-Cromagnoid type was completely formed?

[Agrippa]

Thank you.
And you have any suppositions when & where the Europoid-Cromagnoid type was completely formed?

Well, not really. I just know where it was present early on and in later times, you find such variants from Europe to China, and in North Africa and Asia.

So it is a really wide range of possibilities and only the combined archaeological typolocial-physical and genetic research can (probably) solve that in the future with a higher certainty.

But my idea is, that this type of man came into existence in Central Asia, rather, and spread from there in the regions mentioned.

[Ar-Man]

Well, not really. I just know where it was present early on and in later times, you find such variants from Europe to China, and in North Africa and Asia.......

I see, I was asking you because yesterday I read the recent K12a admixture experiment of Dienekes, that shows that Blumenbach may have been right in some level, about the original West Eurasians.

According to Dienekes's K12a Experiment the core component of Caucasoid race lived 16000 BP in Gobekli Tepe Region(Western Armenian Highland & Eastern Anatolia).


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fw1LU3Ln7oM/TuYW3xfUu6I/AAAAAAAAEW0/hdBpE8PV7Jg/s1600/1_2.png

As I understood instead of West Asian term he's using now Caucasus & Gedrosia,as you can see in this graph Caucasus genetics component is centered, ie he is more closer to original Caucasoids, he explains it here:


Moreover, if these populations migrate from their original homeland and absorb the indigenous inhabitants wherever they go, then they will diverge even more, depending on how much admixture they undergo, and how distantly related the aboriginal inhabitants are.


It is clear that admixture has played a role in the overall divergence of the Six. For example, the Northwest_African component is shifted (relative to the remaining five) towards the other African components; the Southwest_Asian is also thus shifted, but less noticeably. The Gedrosia component is shifted towards the South_Asian one; and the easternmost components, the North_European, and Gedrosia ones, are shifted towards the Asian components.

All these shifts are quite salient in the MDS plot, and there is ample evidence for the aboriginal populations being shifted in the expected direction in each region.

Then he continues:





http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QAWUaqeqNT8/TuYYXgI3b2I/AAAAAAAAEXM/-pVWXhiNLrY/s1600/db_GobekliTepe_Urfa-Region9.jpg

The Neolithic of West Eurasia started, by most accounts, c. 12 thousand years ago. Its origin was in the area framed by the Armenian Plateau in the north, the Anatolian Plateau in the west, the Zagros Range in the east, and the lowlands of southern Mesopotamia and the Levant in the south. Intriguingly, the prehistoric site of Göbekli Tepe sits right at the center of this important area, in eastern Anatolia/northern Mesopotamia.

If there is a candidate for where the ur-population that became the modern Six lived, the early Neolithic of the Near East is surely it. This hypothesis makes the most sense chronologically, archaeologically, genetically, and geographically.

Migrants out of the core area would have spread their genes in all directions, becoming differentiated by a combination of drift, admixture, and the selection pressures they faced in different natural and cultural environments; some of them would acquire lighter pigmentation, others lactase persistence, malaria resistence, the ability to process the dry desert air or to survive the long winter nights of the arctic. These spreads were sometimes gradual, sometimes dramatic: they took place over thousands of years and from a multitude of secondary and tertiary staging points.

In Arabia, the migrants would have met aboriginal Arabians, similar to their next door-neighbors in East Africa, undergoing a subtle African shift (Southwest_Asians). In North Africa, they would have encountered denser populations during the favorable conditions of MIS 1, and by absorbing them they would became the Berbers (Northwest_Africans). Their migrations to the southeast brought them into the realm of Indian-leaning people, in the rich agricultural fields of the Mehrgarh and the now deserted oases of Bactria and Margiana. Across the Mediterranean and along the Atlantic facade of Europe, they would have encountered the Mesolithic populations of Europe, and through their blending became the early Neolithic inhabitants of the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts of Europe (Mediterraneans). And, to the north, from either the Balkans, the Caucasus, or the trans-Caspian region, they would have met the last remaining Proto-Europeoid hunters of the continental zone, becoming the Northern Europeoids who once stretched all the way to the interior of Asia.



Source : http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/womb-of-nations-how-west-eurasians-came.html


So I was curious about your opinion, can it be the Archaic Eurasin Sapiens or the Aurigancoid type?

Thanks.

[Comte Arnau]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fw1LU3Ln7oM/TuYW3xfUu6I/AAAAAAAAEW0/hdBpE8PV7Jg/s1600/1_2.png

The Mediterranean label there is confusing and should rather be South-Western European, as it's predominant in Sardinians and Basques, and dominant in Iberians, French, North Italians and British.

That, or Norwegians and Swedes are more Mediterranean than Sicilians.

[Ar-Man]

The Mediterranean label there is confusing and should rather be South-Western European, as it's predominant in Sardinians and Basques, and dominant in Iberians, French, North Italians and British.

That, or Norwegians and Swedes are more Mediterranean than Sicilians.

Those are just names in any case, I suppose in his new calculations he found out something new and that is why he named it Mediterranean rather than Southern European. :)

[Comte Arnau]

Those are just names in any case, I suppose in his new calculations he found out something new and that is why he named it Mediterranean rather than Southern European. :)

Well, judging from this (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGdRbkxKMDdlZkJWc21tdkpldWxwV mc#gid=0) at least, Western European would even be a better name than Southern European.

[Agrippa]

I see, I was asking you because yesterday I read the recent K12a admixture experiment of Dienekes, that shows that Blumenbach may have been right in some level, about the original West Eurasians.

According to Dienekes's K12a Experiment the core component of Caucasoid race lived 16000 BP in Gobekli Tepe Region(Western Armenian Highland & Eastern Anatolia).

Actually he and others spoke about a different option, now hardly to define, namely Central Asia.

It is quite clear that important waves to Europe, important also for the formation of the modern Europid races in Europe, came from the East. Most authors held up two options, Anatolia-Caucasus and Eastern Europe-Central Asia. From both areas came important waves of modern humans at different times, but the main problem for the case of Central Asia is, that Europid Central Asia, like it existed for thousands of years, doesn't exist any longer, because of the Turko-Mongol expansion and the huge wedge it formed.

For example between Nordo-Cromagnoid and Irano-Indoid is now a huge Mongoloid dominated wedge, but that wasn't the case in the crucial period, even on the contrary, Central Asia might have been a centre which influenced both!

Also for Blumenbach: He judged mostly by the skulls and living phenotypes, he didn't look at the genes and it is very important to note, once again, that ancient genetic relationship and modern racial-phenotypical relations can be quite different, especially if considering that the Armenoidisation happened rather late, at a time most of the immigrants from Southern West Asia (Near East) were already on the continent!

And those which brought the huge genetic impact were predominantely Mediterranoid, some had Alpinoid tendencies, but they were for the most part not even remotely Armenoid.

So genetic relationship is one thing, racial another, because many things changed in both places in meantime.

Another issue is that, like I said, a huge wave came from that Anatolian-Near Eastern area, but the question is, did a major wave (Indo-Europeans) came directly, or indirectly. In the later case, rather a package of traits and customs moved, rather than the full genetic impact.

And I think that is true for the area North of the Caucasus, were Indo-Europeans came up, mostly influenced from two sides late Mesolithic-Neolithic Mediterranoids and local robust Aurignacoids and even more Cromagnoids. The fusion produced Indo-Europeans, rather, than the original wave being Indo-European already - that's at least my opinion, also based on the fact that the "old Mediterranean" cultures had many important aspects, but lacked many others for the "Indo-European package", so additional ingredients, from race-genes to culture-memes, and local pressures, competition and selection, seems to have been needed.


So I was curious about your opinion, can it be the Archaic Eurasin Sapiens or the Aurigancoid type?

The expansive group can only have been Proto-Mediterranoid/Aurignacoid, no doubt about it, because we see an explosion and massive expansion of that type together with the higher cultural package.

It started earlier in the warmer period already, even Mesolithics, mainly in the South Eastern Europe and the area North of the Caucasus, interestingly the two main candidates today for the formation of Indo-Europeans as well...

[Ar-Man]

And those which brought the huge genetic impact were predominantely Mediterranoid, some had Alpinoid tendencies, but they were for the most part not even remotely Armenoid.


I know that Armenoid is relatively young subrace, do you have an idea how old it is? And also the age of the Nordid sub-race, if it is possible. Thanks. :)

[Agrippa]

I know that Armenoid is relatively young subrace, do you have an idea how old it is? And also the age of the Nordid sub-race, if it is possible. Thanks. :)

Well, in the case of Nordid we have Proto-Nordoid strains, different variants of Nordid in the old times and modern times.

The main problem with Nordid is, however, completely different than that with Armenoid, because in the Armenoid case, traits like pigmentation and hairiness f.e. were most likely present a long time before the proportions and morphology came up, since it is a "regional trait" going beyond subracial limitations, while for the Nordid case, we have skulls, but we don't know for sure their pigmentation, which is decisive, because there is no absolute difference between a Nordid and Mediterranid skull.

I mean there are clear differences between Nordid and classic-gracile Mediterranid, but not between robust-tall variants of Mediterranid and even where they are, we can only speak of frequency differences. At the same time, like I said, Nordid hat different variants in the past it seems.

So if you see skull and bones, which fit the "Proto-Nordoid" bill, how can you say they were blond or not for example? You can't!

You can just assume, that at a certain time, in a certain context, for example the Corded Ware population was at least ON THE WAY to lighter pigmentation, but as long as there are no historical descriptions, physical remains of the hair and skin, or genetic tests done on the bones, there remains a huge gap.

Where the first Aurignacoids in Europe light or dark? The ones in the Mesolithic period? The Neolithic settlers even, what pigmentation did they have? We don't know for sure...

But morphologically-proportionally, beside more archaic variants, Nordoid forms existed since Mesolithic times in Europe, latest, which needed to be "just depigmented", so basically Proto-Nordoid Mediterranoids one could say.

Armenoid on the other hand is difficult to distinguish from Dinarid at times, but otherwise a clear case on its own, because being so different on the bones already.

We have first remains rather from the Metal Ages on of Taurid variants, so I'd assume they came into existence in the very late Neolithic, Chalcolithic, or even Bronze Age time.

To give an example, among the Chatti, Churri and Urartian we already find significant frequencies of Armenoid traits, before that single skulls here and there, for example on Cyprus surprisingly (metal prospectors?), but in depictions and higher rates, those people are for the Near East crucial.

Of course, not every valley and mountain in the Caucasus region being so completely researched, that you can be sure, but it doesn't really matter, because it is not so much about when you have the first variant, that's like with Nordids, otherwise Nordid would be much older I guess than the Neolithics, but when the traits as an inheritable combination spread and began to dominate at least significant subpopulations, becoming an important and recognisable element in the racial variation.

[gandalf]

Sticky

[Ar-Man]

Thank you very much Agrippa. I did not know that the Nordid type was that old.
If you are interested I can help you out in recreating those archaic Europid types in 3D. It will be a great exercise for me and it is much better to do something useful and important rather than wasting my time on trolls. :)

[Agrippa]

Thank you very much Agrippa. I did not know that the Nordid type was that old.
If you are interested I can help you out in recreating those archaic Europid types in 3D. It will be a great exercise for me and it is much better to do something useful and important rather than wasting my time on trolls. :)

Thanks too, but how do you want to do that? From most specimen we have just the bones, good pictures and general measurements in most cases only from the skull - unfortunately and I'm not sure whether you can reconstruct facial features, or can you try?

[Ar-Man]

Thanks too, but how do you want to do that? From most specimen we have just the bones, good pictures and general measurements in most cases only from the skull - unfortunately and I'm not sure whether you can reconstruct facial features, or can you try?

Sure we can try. I think I will be able to make reconstructions based on the skull remains that we have,though I never tried it before. :)

[Agrippa]

Sure we can try. I think I will be able to make reconstructions based on the skull remains that we have,though I never tried it before. :)

Well, they are not archaic, but can you try these LBK sample:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12713&stc=1&d=1311365364

No. 3 is best preserved obviously.

Thanks!

[Ar-Man]

Well, they are not archaic, but can you try these LBK sample:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12713&stc=1&d=1311365364

No. 3 is best preserved obviously.

Thanks!

Thanks, I'll start in few days, I think before sculpting It'll be better If I draw few face shapes, and you confirm their validity.

So this is an Aurignacoid skull ?

[Agrippa]

So this is an Aurignacoid skull ?

Well, yes. Somewhere between Mediterranoid and Proto-Nordoid.

[Ar-Man]

As I see the thread was cleared :)

Here's the basic 3D sculpture without details, what do you think ?

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19511&stc=1&d=1328154255

[Madonna]

interesting

[Mans not hot]

Jusia je new Agrippa. :coffee:

[BLUEU]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3313&stc=1&d=1259941081


Interesting Graph.

[deusmeister]

Good thread, I have a couple questions though. What Aurignacids are the least and most robust, and which cromagnids are the most reduced?

[Roy]

Good thread, I have a couple questions though. What Aurignacids are the least and most robust, and which cromagnids are the most reduced?

The least robust should be Gracile Meds.

[Loki]

Agrippa was an online god.

[Ultra]

Agrippa was an online god.
Now es Buttlerking.

[Hevo]

Agrippa was an online god.

Where is he these days?

[Geminus]

Where is he these days?

Probably captured by henchmen of the Plutocrats.
But honestly, no one knows where he's gone.

[Abeja]

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:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3294&stc=1&d=1259938119


I noticed that in this scheme and in the further explanations, it totally misses the Pontid type.
Where should it be in this scheme? What is the Pontid type? Is it European?

[Abeja]

Bump

[Loki]

I noticed that in this scheme and in the further explanations, it totally misses the Pontid type.
Where should it be in this scheme? What is the Pontid type? Is it European?

Isn't it just an eastern Alpinid?

[Highlands]

Pontid is basically East Nordid + East Med intermediate.

[Abeja]

Isn't it just an eastern Alpinid?

Eastern Alpinid=Gorid according to Agrippa's explanation. Maybe it would be more correct to say that the Pontid type is in between Alpinid and Gorid, right?

Edit: I've just read something and what I wrote is incorrect. Cyra's post is more correct.

[FeederOfRavens]

I noticed that in this scheme and in the further explanations, it totally misses the Pontid type.
Where should it be in this scheme? What is the Pontid type? Is it European?

Pontid is pretty much an Eastern branch of Atlanto-Meditteranean

[Vigilance]

I think Iranid and Nordid both came from a proto skull

When I see Arabid~European Caucasoid Jews I get a slight Iranid vibe, much less when I see pure Arabids

so Iranid is related to Nordid first then Mediterranid then Arabid

[Vigilance]

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)

This is geographical admixture and "general racial components in the people of Germanics"

why must Nordid be related to Cro Magnid?

[Vigilance]

I think Nordids came from a warrior evolutionary pressure to get a "straight, aerodynamic to hawkish face"

[Vigilance]

but the whole Bantu expansion and the general martial/aggressive behaviour of West/Sub Saharan Africans yet not progressive traits of West Africans is just confusing

does this have to with strategy and weapons of warriors?

[Vigilance]

Well, not really. I just know where it was present early on and in later times, you find such variants from Europe to China, and in North Africa and Asia.

So it is a really wide range of possibilities and only the combined archaeological typolocial-physical and genetic research can (probably) solve that in the future with a higher certainty.

But my idea is, that this type of man came into existence in Central Asia, rather, and spread from there in the regions mentioned.

strangely I too suspect there was a proto Europid/Mongolid type that became Europid in Europe and Mongolid in Asia

dna testing should solve this suspicion

[cyberlorian]

Pontid is basically East Nordid + East Med intermediate.

East Med is not a pure phenotype. It is Iranid + Gracile Mediterranid.

[Vigilance]

I see, I was asking you because yesterday I read the recent K12a admixture experiment of Dienekes, that shows that Blumenbach may have been right in some level, about the original West Eurasians.

According to Dienekes's K12a Experiment the core component of Caucasoid race lived 16000 BP in Gobekli Tepe Region(Western Armenian Highland & Eastern Anatolia).


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fw1LU3Ln7oM/TuYW3xfUu6I/AAAAAAAAEW0/hdBpE8PV7Jg/s1600/1_2.png

As I understood instead of West Asian term he's using now Caucasus & Gedrosia,as you can see in this graph Caucasus genetics component is centered, ie he is more closer to original Caucasoids, he explains it here:

Melanesians closely resemble slightly Europid mostly Australian Australid mixed people, so the climate for Europid must be similar to Melanesia partly

and it must be close to Middle East ~ Near East if looking at Arabids(Gulf people)

the question is are Arabids and Europeans genetically closest compared to Mongolids and Africans? did some Europeans take Arabid wives or did Arabids take European wives or is a longitudinal evolutionary specialisation?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

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.

I like this, I think it describes well the existence of a "Pan-European Look" or what makes someone looks European. In my eyes it's usually straighter eyes or eyes that are semi-straight like, only occasionally minor almond like, with a straight face, often clean of any what people consider "Ugly caucasoid features" such as Armenoid, Arabid, Iranid. Although Iranid is influenced by a Europoid feature, East-Meditteranid that makes Iranid look like a mixture between a European + Middle Eastern phenotype. Persians for this reason often look more attractive than most other middle easterners. I think what made the "Pan-European look" exist in all Europeans is the prevalence of most Europeans having a mixture of Neolithic, Steppe and Western European Hunter Gatherer DNA.