Cromagnid versus Aurignacid

[Absinthe]

Following SNPA's definitions:

CRO-MAGNID

Europid types descended from the robust, dolichocephalic and broad-faced population exemplified by Crô-Magnon, continuing the classic type of the hunter-gatherers of the temperate-cold/cold regions. Cro-Magnids proper (as exemplified by Dalo-Falids and "Brünns") are unreduced, somewhat gracilized and have narrower faces than their Upper Paleolithic ancestors. Other populations have experienced deviant evolutionary processes, leading to specializations like reduction and brachycephalization (Borreby, Alpinid and Baltid). Sporadic survivals of an eastern "pre-balticized" Cro-Magnid, similar to the western forms, may be found throughout predominantly Baltid populations.

AURIGNACID

General term, referring to Aurignacian contemporaries of Crô-Magnon characterized by e.g. narrower faces and more ellipsoidal skulls than the type(s) exemplified by the latter (Cro-Magnoid). Combe-Capelle is the primary example, and Capellid is sometimes used synonymously with Aurignacid.


Can we please post some photos of Cromagnid and Aurignacid individuals, male and female? Let's make a sample so that the difference is cleared to everyone... :)

[Barreldriver]

The Cromag vs. Aurignacian debate has left me wondering which I resemble more, I know neither truly exist since they are archaic human types, however similarities with these archaic humans still exist via natural variation.

[Absinthe]

Judging from the thousands of photos we've seen of you, I'd say you most definitely fall into the cromagnid spectrum. ;)

[Psychonaut]

Cromagnid Skull:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2320&stc=1&d=1248718094

Aurignacid Skull:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1253&stc=1&d=1239117062

Male Cromagnids:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1069&stc=1&d=1237750732

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1070&stc=1&d=1237750732

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2321&stc=1&d=1248718592

Male Aurignacids:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2322&stc=1&d=1248719329

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2324&stc=1&d=1248719526

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2325&stc=1&d=1248719526

Female Cromagnids:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2326&stc=1&d=1248719635

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2327&stc=1&d=1248719635

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=339&d=1232189663

Female Aurignacids:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2328&stc=1&d=1248719727

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2329&stc=1&d=1248720297

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2330&stc=1&d=1248720885

[Absinthe]

Awesome, thanks a lot!! :clap:

I have a general theory, when it comes to skull shape and physical attractiveness:

That cromagnid males are generally perceived as more attractive ,

whereas aurignacid females are considered to be more attractive.

What do you think? Maybe we should start a poll ;)

[Psychonaut]

That cromagnid males are generally perceived as more attractive

Definitely! It doesn't get any sexier than France's Raphaël Ibañez. ;)

http://www.wasps.co.uk/uploads/images/large/z-Wasps6705Squad1.jpg

Seriously though, were you speaking of strictly unreduced CM types, or their infantilized cousins as well? Personally, I find the most harmonious types to be the progressive CM/Aurignacian intermediaries that are so common in Northwestern Europe.

[Absinthe]

Their infantilized cousins as well :)

As opposed to very leptomorphic, aurignacid males who give that somewhat "girly" impression to most people...

[Psychonaut]

As opposed to very leptomorphic, aurignacid males who give that somewhat "girly" impression to most people...

What? You mean this isn't the very picture of rugged manliness?

http://seldo.com/pictures/Blogged/bloom_orlando.jpg

[Absinthe]

:D :p

I mean that I think that there is an attractiveness stereotype that expects men to be robust and "square jawed", whereas robust women are generally not considered to be as attractive as leptomorphic ones.

I want to verify if this is generally true. Of course all stereotypes are just that -stereotypes ;)

[Loki]

I take it Auriwhatever = Nordid then? :icon1:

[Lahtari]

Here's an illustrative head form comparison:

http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/3182/aurcro4be.jpg

Personally I don't take that old intra-European typology very seriously, but this general division shows that the variation that was already present in the Ice Age has been preserved to this day: Although most of us tend to be intermediates, you can easily spot examples of both of the presented types in any European population. :)

[Psychonaut]

I take it Auriwhatever = Nordid then? :icon1:

Aurignacid encompasses Nordid, Atlantid, Mediterranid and Corded.

[Vargtand]

Do me do me! which to I fall into!?!?! :P

[Absinthe]

Aurignacid encompasses Nordid, Atlantid, Mediterranid and Corded.
Yes, generally narrow-skulled types, not just nordid. :)

[Absinthe]

Cromagnid females

http://www.claritaslux.com/images/girls7.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/2715659551_ebca3ef06d.jpg?v=1217424777
http://leofrankowski.com/content/files/images/russianGirlTwo.jpg

Aurignacid females

http://englishrussia.com/images/seal_pet/1.jpg
http://www.russian-girls-for-marriage.com/mp/p103-1.jpg
http://c.wrzuta.pl/wi12484/4f25d550002b0a264578833a/0/russian%20girls

[Lahtari]

http://englishrussia.com/images/seal_pet/1.jpg

What the... :lol00002: :mmmm:

Is she making food? ;)

[Absinthe]

What the... :lol00002: :mmmm:

Is she making food? ;)
LMAO I have no idea :D I was hoping that she works for WWF or something :D

[Vulpix]

I have a general theory, when it comes to skull shape and physical attractiveness:

That cromagnid males are generally perceived as more attractive ,

whereas aurignacid females are considered to be more attractive.

What do you think? Maybe we should start a poll ;)

I'm not so sure about that...

You only need to look at the "Beautiful European women" thread (and the equivalent men one) to realize how subjective beauty really is :D;).

[ikki]

heh, shouldnt be too difficult placing me there... with this cubic head and squat form :D

[Barreldriver]

Cromagndoid Powwa! :D

[Ariets]

First of all there's no such thing as a "races" or "types" by biological terminology among Europids (or Mongoloids or the others), secondly there's no such thing as Cromagnoids or Aurignacids (Btw. Remains of the Cro Magnon ware in fact part of what culture? What? I dont hear you... yes, of Aurignacian culture!).

Thirdly, the fact that theres diversity among Europeans by their look is nothing more than result of few factors that include for example adaptation, climate, isolation, diet (yes! yes! yes!) and many more.

If you look even on these typological bollocks in that thread you will find relation between people of litoral zone and people of continetal zone of Europe. People living near sea or ocean tend to be more of leptosome constitution and lepto- featured, while people living more inside of continent tend to show more rubust features, inside of all of that you find intermediate "forms" and other features that are results of other factors.

Its hilarious how people still belief in that sort of things that ware proved to be wrong and are totally outdated, but funnier is that people follow Agrippa as some sort of expert in such things, the only knowledge about anthropology that he has is about outdated typological concept of race.

Modern-day anthropology is about genetics and empirical studies. I recommend reading some anthropological books from 1960+ not from the 1930's (or some earlier stuff).

End of story.

[Gooding]

Cromagnid females

http://www.claritaslux.com/images/girls7.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/2715659551_ebca3ef06d.jpg?v=1217424777
http://leofrankowski.com/content/files/images/russianGirlTwo.jpg

Aurignacid females

http://englishrussia.com/images/seal_pet/1.jpg
http://www.russian-girls-for-marriage.com/mp/p103-1.jpg
http://c.wrzuta.pl/wi12484/4f25d550002b0a264578833a/0/russian%20girls

Me Cro-Magnid..me want all all pretty big boobied womens..ooohh..aaahhhh:D:thumb001::p Me waaant..

[Barreldriver]

boobeh's rule! Cromag's rule! Lifting heavy rocks rules! :D

[Absinthe]

First of all there's no such thing as a "races" or "types" by biological terminology among Europids (or Mongoloids or the others), secondly there's no such thing as Cromagnoids or Aurignacids (Btw. Remains of the Cro Magnon ware in fact part of what culture? What? I dont hear you... yes, of Aurignacian culture!).

Thirdly, the fact that theres diversity among Europeans by their look is nothing more than result of few factors that include for example adaptation, climate, isolation, diet (yes! yes! yes!) and many more.

If you look even on these typological bollocks in that thread you will find relation between people of litoral zone and people of continetal zone of Europe. People living near sea or ocean tend to be more of leptosome constitution and lepto- featured, while people living more inside of continent tend to show more rubust features, inside of all of that you find intermediate "forms" and other features that are results of other factors.

Its hilarious how people still belief in that sort of things that ware proved to be wrong and are totally outdated, but funnier is that people follow Agrippa as some sort of expert in such things, the only knowledge about anthropology that he has is about outdated typological concept of race.

Modern-day anthropology is about genetics and empirical studies. I recommend reading some anthropological books from 1960+ not from the 1930's (or some earlier stuff).

End of story.
That is one big load of crap. :rolleyes:

[Psychonaut]

That is one big load of crap. :rolleyes:

Agreed. You don't need to prove that CM and Aurignacid types are different sub-races for the morphological schema to have classificatory utility. A note from Hans Vaihinger (The Philosophy of 'As If,' p. 17) on classification systems:


The most widely used of those "provisional methods" which we have called "semi-fictions" is artificial classification. The ultimately valid construct corresponding to it, and eventually to take its place, is the natural system. All cosmic objects present special forms which are theoretically expressed in some classification, and when this specification corresponds with reality in every respect then it is a natural system. The natural system is in itself one of the most complicated problems of philosophy and of natural science, and from it arises the vital question of the nature of species.

A natural system is one in which entities are arranged according to the principles apparently followed by nature in their development. To put it briefly, the natural system of classification must be a copy corresponding to the actual origins and the mutual relationship of all things. This is the goal of science and any direct method must work straight towards it.

It is at this point that all the considerations so far advanced are justified. The material at our disposal puts so many formidable obstacles in the direct path that the logical function strikes out along by-ways. It makes use of an artifice; it creates artificial classes. Now what does this mean? In our psychological terminology it means that it provisionally substitutes for the correct constructs others which do not directly correspond to reality. It then operates with these fictional classes as if they were real ones.

So, with the morphological classification systems we have a utilitarian function that cannot currently be filled by genetics. Genetics cannot yet tell us why some Europeans are square headed and others are long headed. It may, in the future, fill that role, but until it does, the classificatory schemas of the 30s will have to suffice.

[Absinthe]

So, with the morphological classification systems we have a utilitarian function that cannot currently be filled by genetics. Genetics cannot yet tell us why some Europeans are square headed and others are long headed. It may, in the future, fill that role, but until it does, the classificatory schemas of the 30s will have to suffice.

So it all boils down to:

Ariets, if you're only gonna be a smartass and offensive, then can you please keep away of the anthropology/taxonomy forum? :rolleyes:

'Cause if you're only gonna scorn our opinions in every thread then it's kind of pointless participating here.

Let alone, that if you're trying to incorporate all that hippy Anthroforum bullshit into this forum then you're not welcome at all, at least by me. Sorry...

Next thing you know you'll say that we're so closely related to the chimpanzee genetically-wise, that we're practically indistinguishable species :lightbul:

[Gooding]

So, with the morphological classification systems we have a utilitarian function that cannot currently be filled by genetics. Genetics cannot yet tell us why some Europeans are square headed and others are long headed. It may, in the future, fill that role, but until it does, the classificatory schemas of the 30s will have to suffice.

Aye, true enough, Psychonaut.Once science is permitted to work freely of anyone's political agenda and genetology(is that a word?) is freely and thoroughly explored, we shall indeed understand the role evolution played on human genetics and how the races and their subphyla came to be.Until then, if that aspect of scientific study was terminated after the 1930s, that era's the best we have in racial study. I choose to be grateful to those pioneers who put their findings down for us to study.

[Psychonaut]

Aye, true enough, Psychonaut.Once science is permitted to work freely of anyone's political agenda and genetology(is that a word?) is freely and thoroughly explored, we shall indeed understand the role evolution played on human genetics and how the races and their subphyla came to be.Until then, if that aspect of scientific study was terminated after the 1930s, that era's the best we have in racial study. I choose to be grateful to those pioneers who put their findings down for us to study.

And it's not that it's not being studied now, it's just that genetic studies of human variation are still in their infancy. For example, even though we know that certain haplogroups and haplotypes roughly correspond to different ethnic groups, we know that they do not correspond to craniofacial morphologies. As Ariets said, empiricism is the only way to do good science, and what is once again needed are large scale morphological studies conducted alongside DNA samplings. It is only in that way that we can even attempt to reconcile what are now divergent systems.

[Brännvin]

Modern genetics can not be ignored, many recent studies and results of genetic analyses show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift.

[Jarl]

Agreed. You don't need to prove that CM and Aurignacid types are different sub-races for the morphological schema to have classificatory utility. A note from Hans Vaihinger (The Philosophy of 'As If,' p. 17) on classification systems:

So, with the morphological classification systems we have a utilitarian function that cannot currently be filled by genetics. Genetics cannot yet tell us why some Europeans are square headed and others are long headed. It may, in the future, fill that role, but until it does, the classificatory schemas of the 30s will have to suffice.

That is correct. Every system will be biased and subjective. However, some might be more accurate and capture reality better than others. Coon's system is typological and quite anti-evolutionary. It is very rigid. His arbitrary, completely subjective, metric bounduaries between various races seem completely out of the Moon and have little to do with experiential science. In this respect, European schools went further as they more often took evolution and natural variation into account.

Now the Aurignacid versus Cro-Magnid system is Coon's idea. German, Russian or Polish scholares never adopted this system. One big problem with this system is that it lacks evidence. Where is the evidence Aurignacids and Cro-Magnids are real??? Why we can without any doubt say modern races are real, or colors are real, but the same cannot be said of Coon's typology. Fossils cannot be studied so thoroguhly as modern living races. And they allow for much more general inferences. In other ways the criteria used by Coon are far from being clear. When constructing his typology he also used the Galley Hill skull (which was a hoax) as his yardstick of early "Aurignacid". Another problem with this system is how it was carelessly applied to later fossils, and modern races using the same biased criteria.


The Cromag vs. Aurignacian debate has left me wondering which I resemble more, I know neither truly exist since they are archaic human types, however similarities with these archaic humans still exist via natural variation.

Barreldriver is correct and Ariets got a point here too. There is a lot of talk in here, but can anyone here tell me - what essentially Aurignacid and Cro-magnid means? Were these terms stem from and what's the evidence behind them?



I have written a lot about this in my discussion with Agrippa in "Question about Caucasoid morphological variation", so If I might add in few facts:


1. There is no direct relation between the European Paleolithic fossils and the modern types. What we call "Aurignacid" (Skhul, Predmost, Brno, Combe-Capelle) are several skulls representing very early, and still undifferentiated proto-Caucasoids/Australoids, with robust browridges, visible prognathism, wide noses, receding foreheads, and not so rounded crania. Several scholars even linked them to Neanderthals. Some linked to them to much later ME fossils from the Neolithic. However, relating them directly to any modern Euro race, like Nordic or Med, is completely unfounded.

2. By far majority of European fossils from the Paleolithic and Mesolithic fall into the "Cro-Magnon" category. While during and after Neolithic, there has been extensive mixing with several waves of migrants from West Asia - that perhaps has contributed towards general gracilisation of European populations. The Natufians and the Neolithic Meds had apparently very narrow crania, resembling those of Combe-Capelle. There is no doubt, however, that the "Cro-Magnon" type constituted the major phenotype in prehistoric Europe.



Now, the genepools have been mixing for ages. However, there is no doubt a broad-faced Swede is genetically much more similar to a narrow-faced Swede, than to a broad-faced Spaniard or Berber. There is no special link between narrow-faced versus broad-faced individuals. The whole Aurignacid-Cromagnid system is Coon's own invention and has not been adapted by any European anthropology school. First of all, we cannot just uncritically assume that all the genes responsible for gracile skull shape came from ME with the Neolithic farmers as some, or many, could have been present among the European Paleolithic Cro-Magnons. And vice versa - even though Middle East, Arabia and most Afro-Asiatic heimat was the nucleus of gracilisation, we still see robust, broad-faced Arabs. There were no two pure races mixing together - one with 100% freq of this allele, and the other with 100% freq if another allele. Genomes of human populations are very seldom "saturated" in such way at loci which are polymorphic.

Now, once the populations mixed - the products are not Cro-Magnid or Neolithic farmer, but both. Always both. Even if an individual's skull resembles more that of a Neolithic farmer - still a large composition of his genome might belong to Cromagnid spectrum. And by far most of his genome will belong to both. A gene could have been at 5% freq among the Cro-Magnon and at 25% freq among the Natufians or Med farmers. And this difference along with differences in freqs of other, similar genes, could account for different genomic combinations giving rise to different phenotypes. Now, how can we be certain that genes responsible for skulls shape were among such genes? They almost certainly were.

[ikki]

Modern genetics can not be ignored, many recent studies and results of genetic analyses show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift.

Intrestingly genetics studies and morphology have been found to give the very same answers regarding ancestry. Morphology is a bunch faster and cheaper tho.

[Jarl]

That is one big load of crap. :rolleyes:

Precisely what is crap? Indeed Aurginacian is the name of an archeological culture which the findings at Cro-Magnon were a part of. As for the fossilis, indeed there were some rounder ones (let's name them Cro-Magnon, Paleoasiatic, Mechtoid or whatevaer), and there were some more elongated ones (name them proto-Med or Aurignacid)... 30-50 000 years ago. Now the "Aurignacid" Combe-Capelle or Brno man may have been less related to modern man than Omo-Kibish from Ethiopia or modern Australoid.

Now if there is anything which the "Aurignacid" skulls resemble (including Combe Capelle, Predmost and Brno), that would be the much earlier, archaic and slightly Neanderthal-like Skhul series (perhaps 100, 000 year old) from Israel, and, much later, the Meso-Neolithic Middle Eastern Natufians. Thus the whole talk of "modern Aurignacids" is bizzare as these fossils have no direct relevance to modern European races.

Coon thought they had, coz he classified a XVIIIth century English piece of calvarium (Galley Hill) as a 70,000 year old specimen, and without any alternative, lumped it together with much different Predmost, Combe-Capelle and Brno series.



What is interesting Coon sees the similiarity between the early Skhul series and the later Natufians and the Neolithic Meds here:

http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/03-03.htm

He also likens them to the Afalou bou Rummel series twice - once in the link above, and the second time in the passage below:

http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/04-02.htm



By Mediterranean, in the skeletal sense alone, we mean the wide family of closely-knit racial types which are long headed, orthognathous, mesorrhine or leptorrhine, narrow faced, and of medium head size, descended from the general Galley Hill stock, and related to Combe Capelle and Afalou #28. Mediterranean, in this sense, is the name by which we propose to designate that one of the two major racial elements, concerned with the development of white peoples, which completely lacks Neanderthaloid ancestry. It differs from the major Upper Palaeolithic group of Europe and northern Africa in several respects, as shown on page 84.


The only problem is that 10,000 year old Neolithic series CANNOT descend from a XVIIIth century English piece of calvarium. This sentnece and the whole reasoning behind is incorrect. There were no gracile forms in Europe or Middle East, prior to Neolithic. However, I'd like to draw you attention to a different fact:


By Mediterranean, in the skeletal sense alone, we mean the wide family of closely-knit racial types which are long headed, orthognathous, mesorrhine or leptorrhine, narrow faced, and of medium head size, descended from the general Galley Hill stock, and related to Combe Capelle and Afalou #28. Mediterranean, in this sense, is the name by which we propose to designate that one of the two major racial elements, concerned with the development of white peoples, which completely lacks Neanderthaloid ancestry. It differs from the major Upper Palaeolithic group of Europe and northern Africa in several respects, as shown on page 84.

Coon directly relates Neolithic Meds to Combe-Capelle and Afalou, just as he did with earlier Mesolithic Natufians. Thus, we seem to arrive at a general conlusion and continuum:

Palestinian Skhul--->Predmost/Brno/CombeCapelle--->North African Afalou---> Palestinian Natufians--->Neolithic Meds from the Middle East...

SNPA glossary, fragment about the Afalou series which according to Coon were Med and related to Combe-Capelle:


A series of skulls excavated at Afalou bou Rummel in Algeria. The skulls are robust, and characterized by brachycephaly, broad- and large-headedness, a low, square face, great bigonial breadth, and a general resemblance to European Cro-Magnoids (they are not unlike the semi-alpinized Borreby crania). Afalou bou Rummel is usually referred to merely as Afalou.

:) Funny isn't it? SNPA contradicts Coon. However I reckon it is Coon who was correct. Meds do resemble Afalou series, even though Afalou series from the Mesolithic are more robust than Neolithic Med. However the Mesolithic Natufians, often considered the immediate ancestors of Neolithic Meds, were also slightly more robust... Conclusion is obvious - there were no proper gracile Meds befoe the Neolithic. Galley Hill was a fake fossil, so we can discard it altogether. What is more interesting both the article and Coon linke Afalou to the lated Mechta type (apparently Cro-Magnid). Here is a quote from Coon:


http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/03-02.htm

[quote]North Africa was occupied, during the post-glacial Mesolithic period, by the Middle Capsian successors of the Afalou people. These are known through a collection of skulls from the site of Mechta el 'Arbi, of which only nine have been studied in any detail.5 All come from what Arambourg calls the Middle Capsian, which has been correlated chronologically with the European Solutrean by Menghin, with the Solutreo-Magdalenian by Obermaier, and with the Mesolithic by Vaufrey.6 They are considered here rather than in the preceding chapter since they belong with the Mesolithic in the European sense both racially and culturally, whatever their chronological position.

It is impossible, unfortunately, to treat these skulls with complete clarity. Judging by published measurements, photographs, and drawings, we may conclude that on the whole they resemble the earlier Afalou skulls in a general way, but that most of them are smaller and lack the ruggedness of their predecessors, having weaker browridges, less pronounced muscular markings, and narrower faces. Some of them have vertical foreheads, a feature foreign to the Afalou people. They still retain in most instances however, a low face and low orbits, and a range of head form reaching the limits of the earlier series.

In their degree of size reduction, and diminution of sex-linked bony profusion, they may be likened to some of the Mesolithic crania from Europe, which will be studied later in this chapter. It is quite likely, Cole suggests, that one of the Mechta skulls showed a negroid tendency, while the others were subjected to mixture with Mediterranean racial elements. The inference is that the countries at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, from which these influences probably seeped, were already inhabited by small Mediterraneans. On archaeological grounds, it is unlikely that these Mediterranean racial elements came directly from the Sahara.

We got thus continuity Afalou--->Mechta. Both relatively robust.

As for the continuum:

Palestinian Skhul--->Predmost/Brno/CombeCapelle--->North African Afalou---> Palestinian Natufians--->Neolithic ME Meds

...it seems supported by other literature I came across. Including an excellent paper here:

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/paleo_0153-9345_1995_num_21_2_4620#

This paper (just like Coon) links the Afalou series to the Natufians, however states that Natufans were on average more gracile, and the process of gracilisation begun earlier in the Middle East than North Africa. It also states that the ME phenotypes were relatively stable up till the beginning of Neolithic - wehen major gracilisation took place.

Now, Coon linked both Afalou and Combe Capelle to the, slightly more gracile, Natufians. Aleksiejew saw this similarity too. Likewise, this article also states that there exists strong similarity between Combe-Capelle and the Natufians:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=12676758

Natufians can be in turn directly linked to Neolithic Meds. Coon on the Natufians:


The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the subdolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today. The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin prominence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low-vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. The browridges are smooth, and the whole system of muscularity in the male but slightly developed. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities.13

Thus, in conclusion, European robust "Aurignacids" have to be linked to their source: the Middle East, where a steady transition occured:

Skhul--->Natufians--->Neolithic Meds

[Jarl]

Here is a good fragment on human evolution and the Middle Eastern populations:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vfpYrleTsMcC&pg=PA315&lpg=PA315&dq=combe+capelle+natufian&source=bl&ots=uQVdtVXX_9&sig=OygILWinu4a6Rb3zfJkTDopKYnY&hl=en&ei=oMxuStrnJNKrjAeXmoGeBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

It clearly states there was a steady transition and gracilisation in the Middle East:


Skhul--->Qafzeh---(European Aurignacids)--->Natufian---> Neolithic Med


European Aurignacids like Predmost, Brno and Combe Capelle would fit early in this chain as they were still archaic and robust. On page 315, their presence in Europe is linked to the Middle Eastern nucleus. They might indeed represent ME influence. It is very likely. As for the Afalou-Mechta and Cro-Magnon types... they were contemporary to the Middle-Eastern type described above, but most likely represented earlier off-shoots which moved into different conditions and developed independently in semi-isolation.

We know that Afalou-Mechtoids resemble Cro-Magnons in some ways, yet were also linked (by Coon) to the Natufians and the Neolithic Meds. The passage in the book (link above) also states that several fossils from the Predmost and Cioclovina series fall in-between the classical Cro-Magnon type and the "Aurignacid" Combe-Capelle-Brno group, and "bridge the gap". Consequently, there is no clear cut Aurignacid-CroMagnon boundary. Most likely there has never been one.



Instead, we get a steady West-to-East gradient of forms with the earlier off-shoots, the typical Cro-Magnons and Afalou-Mechtoids restricted more towards the Western fringes of Europe and North Africa, and the influence of the Levant more and more evident as we move closer towards the Middle East. I think it is not a coincidence that Coon's European "Aurignacids" were called "Eastern UPs" or "proto-Meds".

[Ariets]

That is one big load of crap. :rolleyes:Obviously you can prove me wrong, instead of writing empty bullshit.


Agreed. You don't need to prove that CM and Aurignacid types are different sub-races for the morphological schema to have classificatory utility. A note from Hans Vaihinger (The Philosophy of 'As If,' p. 17) on classification systems
Wait, Wait, Wait, "Hans Vaihinger was a German philosopher...", are we talking about philosophy or anthropology, cause maybe some may not know, its two diffrent things mate.


Genetics cannot yet tell us why some Europeans are square headed and others are long headed. It may, in the future, fill that role, but until it does, the classificatory schemas of the 30s will have to suffice.Its about ability to adopt to environment, there's direct correlation of head-shape and minerals, nothing hard to prove. That you dont know some things, doesnt mean some pople doesnt know yet, so educate yourself please. Around 40 years ago russian schoolar V. P. Aleexev was writing about it in few of his books, here's one of the tables bellow (my translation from "Geography of human races" 1979, I can post original scans in Polish, Jarl could better translate it):
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa221/murzynzglowa/Tab.jpg
But I guess, you got some better data from 1939, dont you? phew


So it all boils down to:

Ariets, if you're only gonna be a smartass and offensive, then can you please keep away of the anthropology/taxonomy forum? :rolleyes:

'Cause if you're only gonna scorn our opinions in every thread then it's kind of pointless participating here.

So you do consider truth to be offensive? Im speaking about facts, not mythology my friend.

Well, and why you are so affraid of critics?



Let alone, that if you're trying to incorporate all that hippy Anthroforum bullshit into this forum then you're not welcome at all, at least by me. Sorry...

Next thing you know you'll say that we're so closely related to the chimpanzee genetically-wise, that we're practically indistinguishable species :lightbul:
Well as far as Im here, I dont care about your opinion, Sorry...



Ah, and folks read carrefully posts of Jarl, cause there's a lot of truth too. :thumb001:

[Absinthe]

Modern genetics can not be ignored, many recent studies and results of genetic analyses show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift.
Who ever said that modern genetics should be ignored?

I for one respect both sciences as they examine things at a different level. Level, get that?

On a microscopic level we can draw different conclusions that we can draw on a more macroscopic level, and data from both sciences can be combined to show us the bigger picture.

My objection was to Ariets coming into this thread to mock us and suggest we are some kind of outdated nutzi-pseudoscientist idiots that go around measuring people's skulls and totally ignore the advancements of "modern science" --whereas I am pretty sure that almost everyone that participates on this board is pretty much knowledgeable about the contributions of both anthropometric and genetics.

[Ariets]

My objection was to Ariets coming into this thread to mock us and suggest we are some kind of outdated nutzi-pseudoscientist idiots that go around measuring people's skulls and totally ignore the advancements of "modern science" --whereas I am pretty sure that almost everyone that participates on this board is pretty much knowledgeable about the contributions of both anthropometric and genetics.
Well, maybe not nutzi (or maybe who knows:D), but outdated for a very sure.

[Absinthe]

Well, maybe not nutzi (or maybe who knows:D), but outdated for a very sure.
That is just your opinion. If you don't like it, go back to Anthroforum :)

[Ariets]

That is just your opinion. If you don't like it, go back to Anthroforum :)
Well, then why do you not use sources of modern age?:rolleyes: That says diffrent things? Have you ever read any modern anthropological book?

[Jarl]

--whereas I am pretty sure that almost everyone that participates on this board is pretty much knowledgeable about the contributions of both anthropometric and genetics.

That's where it should be noted, there is no special link between narrow-forms and broad-forms across the populations and continents... just as there is no special link acroess blue-eyed people, people with short fingers, hairy-eared people, albinos, or poeple with blood group A. Broad and robust forms exist in every population, and classifying modern living people into races on the basis of some rigid absolute measurements taken from ancient skeletal samples (like Coon did) is a nonsense. No other antrhopologist (at least not any European one) ever did this.

[Absinthe]

Well, then why do you not use sources of modern age?:rolleyes: That says diffrent things? Have you ever read any modern anthropological book?
You little brat.

Do you know me or anyone else here at all?

FYI, I have, plus I have taken Molecular Biology and Genetics in College, alongside with Anthropology and Anatomy.

So like I said I like to combine the data from different sciences, unlike you who's only trying to be a smartass here....

[Jarl]

That is just your opinion. If you don't like it, go back to Anthroforum :)

Well, I do not think Coon's work, echoing early beliefs in pure races descending from different species represents the official opinion of the forum. It is too anti-evolutionary and abiological and disregards the way human populations and genepools evolve (this can be likened to a shifting cloud or wave model) and the significance of the natural variation, present in every human populations.

That is why no population is uniformly broad or narrow. Most have individuals that fall in-between:


Seriously though, were you speaking of strictly unreduced CM types, or their infantilized cousins as well? Personally, I find the most harmonious types to be the progressive CM/Aurignacian intermediaries that are so common in Northwestern Europe.

Now, it has been like this for centuries. Only frequencies changed. And there is no evidence for different origin of the genes responsible for a broad or a narrow face. Influx of farmers and Neoltihic revolution co-incided with gracilisation - however the genes could have been local, not Middle Eastern in origin, and gained prevalence, or indeed emerged anew, with population boom.

[Ariets]

FYI, I have, plus I have taken Molecular Biology and Genetics in College, alongside with Anthropology and Anatomy.Well prehaps you had poor grades or you simply didnt take anything from these lectures. Dont worry, shit happens.:thumb001: Anyway, you didnt answer my question, so I guess you havent read anything "new". ;)

Talking what have you studied isn't any prove of anything, show facts that are againt stuff that Im writing in this thread:cool:.



So like I said I like to combine the data from different sciences, unlike you who's only trying to be a smartass here....Oh, where? You combine not diffrent sciences but diffrent ages? Is Earth still flat too?:D

[Absinthe]

Well prehaps you had poor grades or you simply didnt take anything from these lectures.
Well honey I graduated with a GPA of 3.8 (and that's an A-, in case that the grading system is alien to you in Soviet Polakia :p) so I guess...not! :cool:


Dont worry, shit happens.:thumb001: Anyway, you didnt answer my question, so I guess you havent read anything "new". ;)

Talking what have you studied isn't any prove of anything, show facts that are againt stuff that Im writing in this thread:cool:.

Oh, where? You combine not diffrent sciences but diffrent ages? Is Earth still flat too?:D

Like I said in your introductory thread, I am gonna give you the silent treatment from now on and let nature take it's course. :thumb001:

You see it is your lack of respect and cocky attitude that I have objected to from the very beginning in this thread, so there's simply no point in arguing with a disrespectful little brat who thinks he knows it all and is being a smartass to other people.
Sort of like trying to knock some sense into my younger brother if you know what I mean -- whatever you say is utterly pointless as you got some serious growin' up to do before you learn how to conversate in a respectful manner, let alone be a gentleman :thumb001:

[Ariets]

Okay, okay, whatever, will you prove me and to the others that Im wrong or not?:rolleyes:

Stick to the thread and stop offtopics.

[Vargtand]

Okay, okay, whatever, will you prove me and to the others that Im wrong or not?:rolleyes:

Stick to the thread and stop offtopics.

How does one prove you? And what is an Im?


Your grammar sucks... So confusing.


:D

[Barreldriver]

I more or less believe along the lines of Ariets in regards to the outdated nature of the 1930's physical typology.

#1 each typologist of the day had different results, often contradictory theories and patterns, Coon's by far some of the most outrageous.

#2 the standards for the "racial classification" are not uniform and the genetics do not necessarily correspond with the physical types, these types often varying among individual families let alone among populations on a grand scale, they are hardly races when a Nordoid can have Bruennoid children, or a Bruennoid can have North Atlantoid children, and when most are not even specific to one category or the other, but rather a mix to some degree between these "types", it's simply individual variation brought on by certain environmental factors, these environmental factors being diet, climate, lifestyle, etc... The only uniform variation in the regions is depigmentation of varying degrees, anally specific cranial measurements are quite random and individual specific.

To me the 1930's typology is just a fun game to pass the time, the true knowledge lies in the genes, and the genes aren't fool proof either, many genetic concepts are just thoughts, nothing written in stone, that is why there's still no concluded idea for how R1b has such a strong base in the West without being attributed to the Indo-European route of the R1a clades, and why every other source out there states a contradictory date of origin, a contradictory date of migration in regards to these "gene types", one source will say Neolithic, the other late Upper Paleolithic early Mesolithic. We all have our theories (I personally believe in separate waves of R1b, one being after the LGM, the other following the R1a route, then backtrack during classical history), and what we think to be true or reality, but again it is nothing that has been academically uniform, despite the lack of concrete uniformity, the genetic studies are heading there much faster than typology ever did, so genes are just logically a safer bet.

[Barreldriver]

One could also note that within genetic studies the advancements within the past 15 years of this early science have definitely outdone the lack of advancement within the cranial studies that began in the early 19th Century.

The only thing cranial studies were capable of showing was the interest of man pertaining to his origins. Relying too heavily on cranial studies is comparable to wearing chain mail and a leather breast plate in a gunfight.

[Lahtari]

The only thing cranial studies were capable of showing was the interest of man pertaining to his origins.

Well, that's not entirely correct: they were, and still are, able to create accurate data about people's head forms. :D Along with that of other living or extinct mammals.

It's really not a pseudo-science, but an exact one; it is just the conclusions that are sometimes a bit far-fetched. ;)

[Tony]

Calm down people , there's no need to argue on people who lived 40,000 years ago and that doesn't help others (like me) to get the bigger picture...
so far I think I can assume there's no always a direct link between a cranial type and a subrace since that is influenced also by diet , disease , sport , what the fetus has been throu etc and that Cro-Magnon is more an anthopological (phisically speaking) concept while Aurignacian is more a cultural one , so we can't talk of them as of 2 separate subspecies right?

[Allenson]

I find facial form to be much more racially diagnostic than head form. Perhaps facial form is less subject to external influences than is the head.

[Vargtand]

To be honest, personally I've only ever used this kind of classification or what you wish to call it, to judge from what families people come from, and this was probably more useful back when each family had 15 members instead of today where they have 3 members. :P Still at least I tend to recognise people from south Sweden and north Sweden, my region etc. based on this though it is getting increasingly blurry.

[Jarl]

I more or less believe along the lines of Ariets in regards to the outdated nature of the 1930's physical typology.

#1 each typologist of the day had different results, often contradictory theories and patterns, Coon's by far some of the most outrageous.

Definitely they were outdated in that they were still grounded in XIX-century typological notions, not in modern population genetics which was in its infancty in the 20s and 30s. That is why it is so rigid in terms of classifications, ie. "that race can only have 142 mm here and 150 mm there"... The whole issue of pure, primeval races, convergent evolution from several different species is antievolutionary. So is the belief that blonde individuals (Noridcs) can somehow be more related across the populations. As if an albino African was closely related to albino Eskimo. Likewise, the rigid metrical system is abiological. Defies the laws of inhertiance and crossing over. The other major problem is that Coon made no distinction betwee fossils and living human races. He studied fossils as if they were living races. He freely assumed that such and such type of cranium was the exemplar of a blonde Nordic, or something else. As a matter of fact, his Halstatt Nordic was coined not from experiential studies of living Nordic populations, but from studies conducted on ancient cranial series from Austria. A very unusual, not to say bizzare, method to work out a classification system for modern living races...


#2 the standards for the "racial classification" are not uniform and the genetics do not necessarily correspond with the physical types, these types often varying among individual families let alone among populations on a grand scale, they are hardly races when a Nordoid can have Bruennoid children, or a Bruennoid can have North Atlantoid children, and when most are not even specific to one category or the other, but rather a mix to some degree between these "types", it's simply individual variation brought on by certain environmental factors, these environmental factors being diet, climate, lifestyle, etc... The only uniform variation in the regions is depigmentation of varying degrees, anally specific cranial features are quite random and individual specific.


Exactly. The laws of inheritance refute the typological notion of race. Nature does not work in such a way. Nordics and Dalofaelids are just two extremes of the same spectrum. Two products of the same genepool, which recombines during crossing-over and re-shuffles the genes in ever-changing combinations. We cannot just take single locus traits into consideration as its pure nonsense to say that blue eyed Palestinian should be more related to a blue eyed Irishman than his green-eyed cousin, father etc. As for polygenic traits like face shape etc.

1. They are determined by the whole genome - all genes play a role here, with many genes playing a significant role.

2. While all genomes in the population are just different combinations on a common theme - which is the evolving genepool.

Thus, there is no immediate link between a narrow faced Ethiopian and European - they have different combinations of different alleles from two different genepools. Their phenotypical similarity in complex features (head shape, face length) is not even caused by the same allele combinations. Several different alleles or allele combinations can have a similar effect (for instance there are several different alleles connected with red hair). Population concept of race is better than the typolgical one as it takes the nature of evolution and inheritance into account.

[quotablepatella]

I'm normally described as having cromagnid features on anthro forums.

[Jarl]

I'm normally described as having cromagnid features on anthro forums.

That's understandable, coz they are large and robust. But they don't even need to be. In Coon's typology no matter who you are and where you come from, as long as you are broad you are Cro-Magnid.

[Jarl]

Male Aurignacids:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2324&stc=1&d=1248719526


Anyway, to suggest that this young European "Nordic" has anything in common with the so called "Aurignacian race" of European Paleolithic is incorrect. It could be in line with ideas of some "internet anthro" experts, but I do not think even Coon would go as far as to suggest any direct semblance (although he probably would suggest an evolutionary link - which is controversial due to his bizzare lumping of Corded series with Meds).


"Aurignacian" skulls like Combe-Capelle, Brno and Predmost are characteristic for their slight prognathism, strong browridges and wide noses and other neanderthaloid features. They resemble more some early proto-Australoids and the Natufians. As a matter of fact they are most similar to Natufian series, also known for their slight negroid/australoid character. As for modern populations, Natufians reveal some affinity to the Dogon and other Niger-Kordofanian Subsaharan Africans, but also the Bantu Teita tribe. Here is a fine article:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/12/questionable-contribution-of-neolithic.html

...so there go out "Nordic" Aurignacids :rolleyes:

[Agrippa]

Now the Aurignacid versus Cro-Magnid system is Coon's idea. German, Russian or Polish scholares never adopted this system.

That is not correct, in fact the contrary is true.

It was quite common and was used to describe proportional-morphological basic types in the Europid spectrum as long as physical anthropology used the typological method.

The basic description goes back as far as to which were among the first to describe the skulls of Cro Magnon and Combe Capelle, which saw the obvious differences between these two types of skulls and later authors just noticed that there is (at least a form-) tradition into modern populations.

The terms themselves were in use especially by the author Egon Frhr. von Eickstedt which founded the Breslauer anthropological school.

Authors referring to the basic system were among others Christian Vogel, John R. Baker and Rainer Knussmann (1996).


Where is the evidence Aurignacids and Cro-Magnids are real???

Put the skulls and types beside each other?


When constructing his typology he also used the Galley Hill skull (which was a hoax) as his yardstick of early "Aurignacid".

That's not correct, in fact Coon had his ideas about the "Upper Palaeolithic survivors" which "are not fully sapiens" of which he called the basic type even Brünn! I mean "Bruenn"!

The Brünn-skull was in reality an archaic Aurignacoid skull which B. Lundman used to refer to the his "Brünnid race" = Aurignacid.

So Coon had in fact a totally different concept in which a large portion of the Cromagnoids, but probably also oversized-robust, somewhat archaic Aurignacoids had non-sapiens admixture, while the only "full sapiens" were more classic Aurignacids = Mediterranoid in the widest sense (including all South Europids and Nordids).

The original Aurignacoids were more primitive than the original Cromagnoids, but this changed overtime with todays Aurignacoid form variants being usually among the most progressive human racial forms - Cromagnoids vary between variants and types somewhat more but can have the same level.

[coyle]

That's not correct, in fact Coon had his ideas about the "Upper Palaeolithic survivors" which "are not fully sapiens" of which he called the basic type even Brünn! I mean "Bruenn"!

The Brünn-skull was in reality an archaic Aurignacoid skull which B. Lundman used to refer to the his "Brünnid race" = Aurignacid.

So Coon had in fact a totally different concept in which a large portion of the Cromagnoids, but probably also oversized-robust, somewhat archaic Aurignacoids had non-sapiens admixture, while the only "full sapiens" were more classic Aurignacids = Mediterranoid in the widest sense (including all South Europids and Nordids).

Why are they not fully sapiens?

[Agrippa]

Why are they not fully sapiens?

Because Coon believed they have a stronger genetic contribution than other humans (especially gracile Aurignacoids and Negroids) from Neandertalers and/or other older human forms.

[Hercus Monte]

I think i'm a mix of these http://www.theapricity.com/forum/member.php?8450-Hercus-Monte

[Ülev]

little bump

[Immanenz]

Precisely what is crap? Indeed Aurginacian is the name of an archeological culture which the findings at Cro-Magnon were a part of. As for the fossilis, indeed there were some rounder ones (let's name them Cro-Magnon, Paleoasiatic, Mechtoid or whatevaer), and there were some more elongated ones (name them proto-Med or Aurignacid)... 30-50 000 years ago. Now the "Aurignacid" Combe-Capelle or Brno man may have been less related to modern man than Omo-Kibish from Ethiopia or modern Australoid.

Now if there is anything which the "Aurignacid" skulls resemble (including Combe Capelle, Predmost and Brno), that would be the much earlier, archaic and slightly Neanderthal-like Skhul series (perhaps 100, 000 year old) from Israel, and, much later, the Meso-Neolithic Middle Eastern Natufians. Thus the whole talk of "modern Aurignacids" is bizzare as these fossils have no direct relevance to modern European races.

Coon thought they had, coz he classified a XVIIIth century English piece of calvarium (Galley Hill) as a 70,000 year old specimen, and without any alternative, lumped it together with much different Predmost, Combe-Capelle and Brno series.



What is interesting Coon sees the similiarity between the early Skhul series and the later Natufians and the Neolithic Meds here:

http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/03-03.htm

He also likens them to the Afalou bou Rummel series twice - once in the link above, and the second time in the passage below:

http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/04-02.htm





The only problem is that 10,000 year old Neolithic series CANNOT descend from a XVIIIth century English piece of calvarium. This sentnece and the whole reasoning behind is incorrect. There were no gracile forms in Europe or Middle East, prior to Neolithic. However, I'd like to draw you attention to a different fact:



Coon directly relates Neolithic Meds to Combe-Capelle and Afalou, just as he did with earlier Mesolithic Natufians. Thus, we seem to arrive at a general conlusion and continuum:

Palestinian Skhul--->Predmost/Brno/CombeCapelle--->North African Afalou---> Palestinian Natufians--->Neolithic Meds from the Middle East...

SNPA glossary, fragment about the Afalou series which according to Coon were Med and related to Combe-Capelle:



:) Funny isn't it? SNPA contradicts Coon. However I reckon it is Coon who was correct. Meds do resemble Afalou series, even though Afalou series from the Mesolithic are more robust than Neolithic Med. However the Mesolithic Natufians, often considered the immediate ancestors of Neolithic Meds, were also slightly more robust... Conclusion is obvious - there were no proper gracile Meds befoe the Neolithic. Galley Hill was a fake fossil, so we can discard it altogether. What is more interesting both the article and Coon linke Afalou to the lated Mechta type (apparently Cro-Magnid). Here is a quote from Coon:

[quote]http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/03-02.htm



We got thus continuity Afalou--->Mechta. Both relatively robust.

As for the continuum:

Palestinian Skhul--->Predmost/Brno/CombeCapelle--->North African Afalou---> Palestinian Natufians--->Neolithic ME Meds

...it seems supported by other literature I came across. Including an excellent paper here:

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/paleo_0153-9345_1995_num_21_2_4620#

This paper (just like Coon) links the Afalou series to the Natufians, however states that Natufans were on average more gracile, and the process of gracilisation begun earlier in the Middle East than North Africa. It also states that the ME phenotypes were relatively stable up till the beginning of Neolithic - wehen major gracilisation took place.

Now, Coon linked both Afalou and Combe Capelle to the, slightly more gracile, Natufians. Aleksiejew saw this similarity too. Likewise, this article also states that there exists strong similarity between Combe-Capelle and the Natufians:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=12676758

Natufians can be in turn directly linked to Neolithic Meds. Coon on the Natufians:



Thus, in conclusion, European robust "Aurignacids" have to be linked to their source: the Middle East, where a steady transition occured:

Skhul--->Natufians--->Neolithic Meds

Bump- a nice post many did not read.