PDA

View Full Version : Who are Europids?



Ederico
Thursday, April 17th, 2003, 07:43 PM
I would like to know who is Europid, what Subraces I mean. I know nothing of Racial Studies, but this question interests me.

Allenson
Friday, April 18th, 2003, 01:36 PM
I'm sure Volks or others will have a thorough answer, but I'll throw in my 'two cents':

Basically, Europid is a 'blanket' term encompasing all the sub-races native to European soil. I think of it as a sub-distinction of the greater 'Caucasoid' notion. By this I mean, there are Europid Caucasoids and non-Europid Caucasoids. Historically, anthropologists have classified certain populations well outside of Europe as Caucasoids....such as many of the types found in North Africa, the Middle-East and even into India. While many of these poulations, metrically speaking, show similarities to some of the Europid sub-races, they are clearly not of a European type. Perhaps the biggest distiction here is one of hair, eye and skin pigmentaiton as well as the notion that there has been historical admixture in some of these regions where in Europe, this is far less of a chance.

In my eyes, the following sub-races fall in the greater Europid classification:

European Meds
Upper Paleolithic types (Brunn, Borreby)
Nordics
Faelids
Baltics
European Dinarics
Keltc Nordics
Corded Ware/Battle Axe
Alpines
Danubians
Pontics?

And all blends of the afore mentioned types. In some ways, I suppose it's a fancy sounding term for "white". I hope this helps.

Glenlivet
Saturday, April 19th, 2003, 11:18 AM
Thanks for your reply. It's always a matter of taste and subjectivity what we call Europid. In rough terms Europid is associated with at least skin (thin, light skin) blondism, and relatively soft wavy hair and thinner lips and a more richly-detailed face.

I would say that the biggest distinction besides pigmentation of hair, skin and eyes it's the nasal shape which differ. Europe is more related with Cro-Magnoid-related (Aurignacians) types.

The peoples in northwestern Europe, including the inhabitants of Scandinavia, Great Britain, Holland, Belgium, and the northern portions of France and Germany, are medium-headed, on the average. The peoples farther south, in central France, southern Germany, and northern Italy (as well as almost all the people of eastern Europe) are short-headed. Still farther south, along the Mediterranean, in Portugal, Spain, southern France, Italy, and the Balkans, the people are medium-headed. In North Africa and the Middle East many long-heads are found.

So longer heads (except parts of Scandinavia and maybe eastern parts of Ireland, England and Scotland) in modern times are rare in Europe north of the Alps (here I include Lombardy being north, although it's changing rapidly since the 1950's).

Western, low-skulled (low in blood allele q), sub-type: Atlantics (or West-Europids, WE).

Long-headed

a) dark

1) large-bodied and more primitive Tydalid (Coon's Irish Brunn is somewhat related to this type, but Tydalids are more localised to Inner Scandinavia, darker and Alpinised to a larger extent)

2) As a rule small-bodied (west) Mediterranid with the following sub-races: the primitive, small Berid, and the little, elegant Insulid (the actual Mediterranid), the bigger and weakly beaked-nosed Baskid and the more distantly related Arabid (which is uncommon in Europe).

b) Light: (West) Nordids, Gothic, Falid and its Västmanlandid variety in mainly central-eastern Sweden). A special type belonging here is the big-bodied and light-eyed, but dark-haired (somewhat q-richer), although it is in some extent a "hybrid race" between the Nordids (of Gothic type) and Insulids.

Short-headed (west) Alpinid race, with a special sub-type, the Strandid, in W Norway.

a) Long-headed and high-skulled (East-Europids)

1. Dark: Caspid race. Average stature, sometimes over it, often fairly small, sharp face. Many sub-races under this race, that have a spreading, although partly in big mixture, over big parts of Asia, Africa and Europe.

The most important sub-races are the Pontid, Saharid, Indid (all gracile with fine faces, narrow, straight nose, with the latter two weak beard development). The Afghanid (very big-bodied, but thicker, weakly beaked nose, fairly thin lips, heavy beard development).

2. Blond: East-Nordid (except the head height so extraordinarily
alike the West-Nordids, that it could be put as a sub-race of it in
another draw up)

Is besides that made up by an Aistin sub-race in W. Finland and
Estonia, and an Arin, spread in E. Europe and W. Asia, both tall.

I think that the Nordic element of the so called Neo-Danubian (equally high-skulled?), which is some kind of localised mix, and not a race per se) is some kind of Arin (as it should be meso - doliocephalic), possibly with Gorid admixture, especially in
northern Ukraine (old little Russia) in the Chernigov province where the Gorids are said to dominate.

I put the Trönder in this group as well, and it is then related to the higher-skulled Aistins, although it's lower in blood allele q, and the border of higher frequencies of that allele is between wester Sweden and eastern Finland in the Baltic Sea and the same relation is between the more Aistin-Tavastid western and Savolaxid eastern Finland, and Nordid (of Aistin type?) western and Tavastid eastern Estonia.

b) Short-headed

1) Taurids, big-bodied shor-heads with very high vaults (HLI approx. 78-80!) with a flat occiput, and big hooked-nose and curly hair, long face, although the facial breadth vary. Sub-types: Dinarids: Very large; in Caucasus a similar, mtebid (from Georgian mtebi = mountain land) sub-race; Armenid: average stature with a strong fleshy nose: Karpathid (relatively late mixed race?) of lower stature.

2 a) Blond, of average stature: East-Baltid with two-subtypes, Savolaxid (lower stature, small, somewhat prognathous face, somewhat oblique eyes) and Tavastids (higher stature, big, square-faced face, horizontal eyes).

b) Dark and very small (south) "Lappid" (Varid; from Vare mountain) and the not as distinctive Gorids in Poland (from Polish gora = mountain).

Of all those types mentioned above I would say that Arabids, Armenids, Saharids, Afganids, Indids, Lapponoids/Ladogans, Turanids are not natives of Europe, thus forming your non-Europid Caucasoid group. So they are clinal, Europoids but not Europids. I personally think that Savolaxids are clinal too. That can be left for discussion.





Originally posted by dalonord
I'm sure Volks or others will have a thorough answer, but I'll throw in my 'two cents':

Basically, Europid is a 'blanket' term encompasing all the sub-races native to European soil. I think of it as a sub-distinction of the greater 'Caucasoid' notion. By this I mean, there are Europid Caucasoids and non-Europid Caucasoids. Historically, anthropologists have classified certain populations well outside of Europe as Caucasoids....such as many of the types found in North Africa, the Middle-East and even into India. While many of these poulations, metrically speaking, show similarities to some of the Europid sub-races, they are clearly not of a European type. Perhaps the biggest distiction here is one of hair, eye and skin pigmentaiton as well as the notion that there has been historical admixture in some of these regions where in Europe, this is far less of a chance.

In my eyes, the following sub-races fall in the greater Europid classification:

European Meds
Upper Paleolithic types (Brunn, Borreby)
Nordics
Faelids
Baltics
European Dinarics
Keltc Nordics
Corded Ware/Battle Axe
Alpines
Danubians
Pontics?

And all blends of the afore mentioned types. In some ways, I suppose it's a fancy sounding term for "white". I hope this helps.

Von Braun
Saturday, April 19th, 2003, 06:04 PM
Volks, how can you throw Arabs in with white Mediterraneans and Armenoids in with Dinarics, et. al., and then call one group Europid and the others not Europid?

Does this mean that Dinarics should feel greater loyalty to brown-skinned middle easterners than they do to Nordics and Alpines? If this is the case, then this whole pan-Aryan thing has no point.

Ederico
Saturday, April 19th, 2003, 06:52 PM
Volk you show knowledge, but for someone like me with no or little knowledge of Race and Anthropology you are a bit too much on the expert level, well rather I am on the ignorant or unknowledgable level. Frankly what you said is all non-understandable to me. Something simpler would have been better and then proceeding to a harder level. I am like a kid still learning to talk, sorry.

I have two questions:

1. What does clinal mean?
2. What is the difference between a Europoid and a Europid? I thought it was only a difference in the way it is writtin, like Negrid and Negroid.

Von Braun
Saturday, April 19th, 2003, 06:57 PM
"Clinal" refers to a transitional zone. The thing or things that are transitioning in this context are phenotypes (physical traits). This term is frequently used by "anti-racists" who think that "race does not exist" because "areas like the middle east are transitional (clinal) zones between the so-called races" (when in fact clinal zones are what they are due to race-mixing, and not due to natural blending between distinct races). x_nono

Von Braun
Saturday, April 19th, 2003, 07:13 PM
As I said in my last post, races are real and distinct. We have the white race, which is sub-divided into Alpine, Mediterranean, Nordic, East Baltic, Upper Paleolithic and various mixtures thereof (Dinaric, etc.). "Arabids" and "Armenoinds" may both have white sub-racial elements in them, but they are also mixed with other races, perhaps negroid and mongoloid, respectively.

So in other words, this classification scheme is not fair. It is calling Dinarics borderline white because there are mongrels who are part Dinaric (thus part white), and it is calling classical "Insular" Mediterraneans border line white because arabs are part white Mediterranean, part something else (nonwhite).

If my brother married an asian woman (and he did not, he married a white woman) and reproduced with her, I would indeed be related to the mongrel offspring, but this fact would not make me "less white" or "borderline white." :rolleyes: I think classification schemes should articulate this point more clearly when lumping certain mogrelized groups in with white subgroups who added to their particular mix.

Glenlivet
Saturday, April 19th, 2003, 07:16 PM
It's a misunderstanding Braun. Arabid (and all Arabs are not this type, as they share a language and some cultural similarities, and sometimes not even that) is low-skulled and put with Mediterranids and not with high-skulled Caspids, and that is from Lundman. I said that they are not common in Europe, although they are found in places like southern Italy.

I believe you take it personally because you're predominantly Dinarid-looking. But it has to be measured. I think that it's a handsome EUROPID type.

Armenids are put in with Dinarids in a Taurid group because of the brachycephalic skull, elongated face, often flattish in the occipital region and the salient nose which is frequently convex. You have a good point Braun. These people are lumped in together disregarding their origins. I would not be surprised if Armenids have an Arabid-related (but they are very low-skulled and Armenids are high-skulled) source and Lundman claimed that the Dinarids are from the Pontids, which is possible, and they also have another source from the Borreby skulls according to the Italian anthropologist Biasutti. The flat occiput should be from the Borreby type, and/or from a brachycephalisation process of the Pontid race. Coon thought that Dinarids, Norids, and Armenids are parallel results of the same process repeated with similar materials in different places. Dinarids came to Britain in the Bronze Age from the eastern Mediterranean and Near East.

Dinarids is sometimes not a race per se, and it's fairly new, and it can sometimes be better to speak of Dinaricisations rather than Dinarids. The Dinarids can sometimes look Nordoid, if it was not for the occiput and the lower head and the very high vaults.

I don't postulate any historical unity of these races. They share some traits mentioned above, and we could say that their idiotype is different.

Armenid: Height and build, medium; round head which is short from back to front, with large and fleshy nose turned down towards the tip. The lips are rather prominent. The hair is black and curly, both the body hair and the beard grow very strong, the skin is of the swarthy colour, and the eyes are black or brown. It is a marked feature of this race that the skull goes straight up at the back; in other words, the Armenoid has "no back to his head." There is also a tendency for the eyebrows to "meet" over the nose. The chin is usually poorly developed.

Armenids are rare among the people who speak Indo-European languages, and Dinarids are not. That is why I think Dinarids are natives and Armenids are not. But Armenid is morphologically Europid, yet clinal in the sense that the traits are uncommon in the rest of Europe. But the traits are associated with certain ethnicities who live outside of what most people call Europe.

Hither Asiatic = Armenid

"The Hither Asiatic race must be considered as a branch of the Dinaric. Both have so many marks in common that there has been a tendency to look on them as a single human group."

Günther say that the Oriental race (same as Arabid), "which is found as a slight strain in Southern Europe, is short to middling height, slender, long-headed, and narrow-faced."

"...The Oriental race is probably akin to the Mediterranean". But it's associated with Semitic tongues.

"The Semitic tongues belonged originally to the Oriental race."

"THE RACIAL ELEMENTS OF EUROPEAN HISTORY" By Hans F.K. Günther

Chapter IV Part One

RACIAL STRAINS FROM OUTSIDE EUROPE

I don't know much about loyalty between the racial types (most people don't know what type they are and the majority identify themselves with their ethnicities and/or the country they live in) and "pan-Aryan" movements. Maybe you can tell me more.





Originally posted by Von Braun
Volks, how can you throw Arabs in with white Mediterraneans and Armenoids in with Dinarics, et. al., and then call one group Europid and the others not Europid?

Does this mean that Dinarics should feel greater loyalty to brown-skinned middle easterners than they do to Nordics and Alpines? If this is the case, then this whole pan-Aryan thing has no point.

Von Braun
Saturday, April 19th, 2003, 07:32 PM
I do not have curly black hair, I do not have brown or black eyes, and I do not have swarthy skin, yet I am part Dinaric. How can I be connected to Armenoids?

Glenlivet
Saturday, April 19th, 2003, 07:32 PM
1. Clinal just means that they developed in a direction which is not totally Europid, and Nordenstreng think that the Arabid type got an ancient relation with Negroids and/or mixed with them in Yemen etc. Clinal depends what you put as your centre.
We have all our own clines. What is clinal is ultimately personal.

I disagree with Braun that Armenids could be mixed with Mongolids. I cannot see any such features. But it would be interesting if he has any sources (I know that he said "perhaps", but he can still say what made him say that) which can back up that statement.

Furhermore, sub-racial mixing in Europe is as much as common as anywhere else. The idea of purity is wrong. Race is a dynamic process.

2. -Oid comes from Greek "eidos" = form, shape, as in "eidetic".
It meant that they are similar, but not the same, as in "looks like".

No, I do it deliberately and I know that it's sometimes used interchangeably. A Mediterranoid would be someone who is similar to Mediterranids but is not completely that. So that is why I used Europoid is clinal for Europid, which are the types who show more of the traits common for all Europids and are natives to a larger extent.




Originally posted by Iovvs Optimvs Maximvs
Volk you show knowledge, but for someone like me with no or little knowledge of Race and Anthropology you are a bit too much on the expert level, well rather I am on the ignorant or unknowledgable level. Frankly what you said is all non-understandable to me. Something simpler would have been better and then proceeding to a harder level. I am like a kid still learning to talk, sorry.

I have two questions:

1. What does clinal mean?
2. What is the difference between a Europoid and a Europid? I thought it was only a difference in the way it is writtin, like Negrid and Negroid.

Glenlivet
Saturday, April 19th, 2003, 09:13 PM
Read my post above, I said: I don't postulate any historical unity of these races. Races can develop in a similar direction from different sources, and that is called parallell evolutions, Norwegian West Coast Alpinids called Strandids are such a case.

The Dinarid nose is sometimes Afganid-looking and not always Pontid per se.

Many things said are in theory and from text books. You are still Von Braun and unique. You also said that you're partly Dinarid. So that would explain the fair skin and green eyes. But Dinarids are said to have brownish skin, it's just that they are not so ruddy and more pale white who tan differently. The things you would share with the Armenids is the flat occiput (or near that) and the slightly convex and prominent nose (but theirs is thicker and more fleshy).

The Croatian tennis player Goran Ivanisevic represent the fairer Dinaroid type fairly well:

http://www.tennisnet.org/eventphotos/misc/ivanisevic_01.jpg
http://www.amb-croatie.fr/images/ivainisevic3_afp_0907.jpg
http://www.rediff.com/sports/2001/jul/11gor4.jpg
http://members.chello.at/bildstatt/sports/ivanisevic.jpg
http://www.mchang.com/images/shanghai/michaelandgoran.jpg
(the gracile giant with some small Mongolids)

Are you brachycephalic?

I forgot how you look.





Originally posted by Von Braun
i do not have curly black hair, I do not have brown or black eyes, and I do not have swarthy skin, yet I am part Dinaric. How can I be connected to Armenoids?

torrent
Monday, April 21st, 2003, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by volksdeutsche
Thanks for your reply. It's always a matter of taste and subjectivity what we call Europid. In rough terms Europid is associated with at least skin (thin, light skin) blondism, and relatively soft wavy hair and thinner lips and a more richly-detailed face.

I would say that the biggest distinction besides pigmentation of hair, skin and eyes it's the nasal shape which differ. Europe is more related with Cro-Magnoid-related (Aurignacians) types.

The peoples in northwestern Europe, including the inhabitants of Scandinavia, Great Britain, Holland, Belgium, and the northern portions of France and Germany, are medium-headed, on the average. The peoples farther south, in central France, southern Germany, and northern Italy (as well as almost all the people of eastern Europe) are short-headed. Still farther south, along the Mediterranean, in Portugal, Spain, southern France, Italy, and the Balkans, the people are medium-headed. In North Africa and the Middle East many long-heads are found.

So longer heads (except parts of Scandinavia and maybe eastern parts of Ireland, England and Scotland) in modern times are rare in Europe north of the Alps (here I include Lombardy being north, although it's changing rapidly since the 1950's).

Western, low-skulled (low in blood allele q), sub-type: Atlantics (or West-Europids, WE).

Long-headed

a) dark

1) large-bodied and more primitive Tydalid (Coon's Irish Brunn is somewhat related to this type, but Tydalids are more localised to Inner Scandinavia, darker and Alpinised to a larger extent)

2) As a rule small-bodied (west) Mediterranid with the following sub-races: the primitive, small Berid, and the little, elegant Insulid (the actual Mediterranid), the bigger and weakly beaked-nosed Baskid and the more distantly related Arabid (which is uncommon in Europe).
-----so according to this we assume basques to be natives of europe but it may be a little doubfull. usually lingually no relatives can be found means that it is just that linguists do not like the possibilities. but why berid is primitive and insular is more gracile.
the term gracile should be explained here clearly. if we do not do it we will be meaningless. if a short legged stocky alpin because he lives in high places and is adopted to it why should it be nongracile. slipping on the ice is is a bad experiment who will survive most? long bodies or short and round bodies.

b) Light: (West) Nordids, Gothic, Falid and its Västmanlandid variety in mainly central-eastern Sweden). A special type belonging here is the big-bodied and light-eyed, but dark-haired (somewhat q-richer), although it is in some extent a "hybrid race" between the Nordids (of Gothic type) and Insulids.

Short-headed (west) Alpinid race, with a special sub-type, the Strandid, in W Norway.

a) Long-headed and high-skulled (East-Europids)

1. Dark: Caspid race. Average stature, sometimes over it, often fairly small, sharp face. Many sub-races under this race, that have a spreading, although partly in big mixture, over big parts of Asia, Africa and Europe.

The most important sub-races are the Pontid, Saharid, Indid (all gracile with fine faces, narrow, straight nose, with the latter two weak beard development). The Afghanid (very big-bodied, but thicker, weakly beaked nose, fairly thin lips, heavy beard development).

2. Blond: East-Nordid (except the head height so extraordinarily
alike the West-Nordids, that it could be put as a sub-race of it in
another draw up)

Is besides that made up by an Aistin sub-race in W. Finland and
Estonia, and an Arin, spread in E. Europe and W. Asia, both tall.

I think that the Nordic element of the so called Neo-Danubian (equally high-skulled?), which is some kind of localised mix, and not a race per se) is some kind of Arin (as it should be meso - doliocephalic), possibly with Gorid admixture, especially in
northern Ukraine (old little Russia) in the Chernigov province where the Gorids are said to dominate.

----what is a gorid? is it a dark savolaxid? then what is a savolaxid more or less when we are talking about east baltics we are talking about some people who show some mongoloid traits for example very deepset eyes witha high cheek look very mongoloid. i cannot understand how we exclude ancient mongoloid mixture?

I put the Trönder in this group as well, and it is then related to the higher-skulled Aistins, although it's lower in blood allele q, and the border of higher frequencies of that allele is between wester Sweden and eastern Finland in the Baltic Sea and the same relation is between the more Aistin-Tavastid western and Savolaxid eastern Finland, and Nordid (of Aistin type?) western and Tavastid eastern Estonia.

b) Short-headed

1) Taurids, big-bodied shor-heads with very high vaults (HLI approx. 78-80!) with a flat occiput, and big hooked-nose and curly hair, long face, although the facial breadth vary. Sub-types: Dinarids: Very large; in Caucasus a similar, mtebid (from Georgian mtebi = mountain land) sub-race; Armenid: average stature with a strong fleshy nose: Karpathid (relatively late mixed race?) of lower stature.

2 a) Blond, of average stature: East-Baltid with two-subtypes, Savolaxid (lower stature, small, somewhat prognathous face, somewhat oblique eyes) and Tavastids (higher stature, big, square-faced face, horizontal eyes).

b) Dark and very small (south) "Lappid" (Varid; from Vare mountain) and the not as distinctive Gorids in Poland (from Polish gora = mountain).
----armenid is a rare racial type why do we think that the indoeuropeans that brought the language to armenids were east nordids or westmenlandic the cline may be alpins blond alpins or dark alpins or even borreby may have mixed with the afganin or arabids who lived there. besides there are more clines in for example in ukrayna a longer face nonbrachycephal,, beaky nose, inclined forehead sometimes in neotenic form the forehead does not incline. since goran ivanicevic looking ones are present in ukrayna, iran, georgia i do not understand why in fact two neighbors (dinarics and armenids) are defined to be distant. it may oppose that the native balkanians albainas montenegrins are native. instead of distorting dinarid armenid afganid arabid relationship may overview albanians and montenegrins .

Of all those types mentioned above I would say that Arabids, Armenids, Saharids, Afganids, Indids, Lapponoids/Ladogans, Turanids are not natives of Europe, thus forming your non-Europid Caucasoid group. So they are clinal, Europoids but not Europids. I personally think that Savolaxids are clinal too. That can be left for discussion.
----i do not think that afganin or indids may be so easily excluded because genetical studies clearly show that utar pradesh brahmins are genetically not so far away from icelandic. we are more or less talking about relatives. so indid needs urgent definition cranially. or the scheme must change a bit. or Lundmans scheme must be explained to us more clearly.
lapponoids are an ancient cline and clearly they are depigmented. depigmentation needs cloudy areas so it means they have stayed long enough to be depigmented. they are natives of scandinavia. what is the use of saying finnish have ancient cromagnon strains (ancient cromagnon yes mongols in asia show ancient cromagon traits too with even extreme low vault) but they are not mixed with lapponoids. it is a little doubtfull.
thank you for your effort and explanations.
kind regards