PDA

View Full Version : What Does a Basic Racial Typology Describe in Europe?



cosmocreator
Saturday, November 1st, 2003, 11:12 PM
BRUNN

Height and build
typically tall,
broad-shouldered,
with big bones and heavy musculature
Arms are long

The Head
large-headed
mesocephalic to sub- brachycephalic
Long-headed
forehead is high and broad,
heavy brow ridge,
the face wide and often orthognathous
malars are wide,
the lower jaw deep and broad,
and the chin is prominent and typically clefted

Male Brünn facial features can be very ruggedly masculine, often with exaggeratedly pronounced browridges and deep jaws
the degree of sexual dimorphism is high, and a corresponding ruggedness is seldom observed among the females. These are typically rounder-featured and larger-breasted than the European mean.

The Nose
The nose is moderately large,
mesorrhine to leptorrhine,
and straight in profile, with a considerable concave minority.
The tip is somewhat thick, and frequently upturned.

The Mouth
The mouth is large and the lines around the oral cavity are deeply drawn, while the lips are moderately thick and little everted. The upper lip is characteristically long and convex

The Skin
The skin, typically freckled, is very fair, and does not easily tan

The Hair
The hair is brown and wavy, and often rufous (the Irish Brünn is known for its frequent red-headedness). Curly hair seems to be an Irish specialty, as it is not common with the Scandinavian type

The Eyes
The eyes are light-mixed blue in the great majority of cases.

Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................167 to 181
Head Length.......................199 to 212
Head Breadth......................154 to 162
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......108 to 118
Bizygomatic Diameter...........147 to 156
Bigonial Diameter.................111 to 132
Total Facial Height...............126 to 134
Upper Facial Height...............72 to 80
Nasal Height........................56 to 65
Nasal Breadth......................35 to 48
Biorbital Width.....................94 to 108
Interorbital Width.................34 to 41
Cephalic Index.....................73 to 81
Facial Index.........................81 to 91
Upper Facial Index.................46 to 54
Nasal Index.........................54 to 86

cosmocreator
Saturday, November 1st, 2003, 11:12 PM
BORREBY

Height and build
typically very tall,
broad-shouldered,
with big bones and heavy musculature

The Head
large-headed
brachycephalic
occiput is nearly vertical and often slightly flattened
The temporal bones are weakly curved, but parietal tuberosities are usually strong
The forehead is broad, only slightly curved, quite high, and usually of but little slope,
The face is typically square in appearance - due mostly to the great mandibular width and the prominence of the frontal and parietal tuberosities - while round faces are almost as common
The jaw is rather deep, and the browridges of moderate size
malars are wide,
The face is usually short, broad, and somewhat flattish, with a strongly orthognathous profile,

The Nose
The nose profile is straight in about 5/6 of cases, and concave in the remainder; convexity is not common. The nose form is mesorrhine to leptorrhine.
The nasion depression is usually great.

The Mouth
The mouth is large and the lines around the oral cavity are deeply drawn, while the lips are moderately thick and little everted. The upper lip is characteristically long and convex

The Skin


The Hair
The hair is typically golden blond to light or medium brown. The total Borreby hair shade range runs from ash blond to dark brown, and the latter category accounts for some 30% of cases

The Eyes
Blue eyes are in the majority, but mixed and grayish blue are also common.

Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................172 to 184
Head Length.......................197 to 210
Head Breadth......................165 to 175
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......114 to 128
Bizygomatic Diameter...........148 to 158
Bigonial Diameter.................115 to 127
Total Facial Height...............120 to 149
Upper Facial Height...............71 to 80
Nasal Height........................54 to 65
Nasal Breadth......................36 to 46
Biorbital Width.....................96 to 106
Interorbital Width.................35 to 44
Cephalic Index.....................79 to 89
Facial Index.........................76 to 94
Upper Facial Index.................45 to 54
Nasal Index.........................55 to 85

cosmocreator
Saturday, November 1st, 2003, 11:13 PM
HALLSTATT NORDIC

Height and build
The typical Hallstatt Nordic is tall and lean, with relatively long legs and a short body, moderately broad shoulders and relatively short arms. The impression is of a long and slender type, and corpulence is rare among individuals

The bones of the Hallstatt Nordic, and of the Nordic race as a whole, are small in comparison to the Brünn and Borreby races and the various blended Nordish types.

The Head
The face is oval to slightly rhomboid in shape, with a narrow, somewhat sloping forehead - but much less so than is the case with the Keltic Nordic type - and browridges which are present but rather weakly developed

The lower jaw is long and deep with a well-developed chin, and the distance from the lower teeth to the chin is remarkably great. The gonial angles are compressed and usually not visible. The malars are small, and the zygomatic arches bowed outward to some extent

The cephalic index mean of the modern Hallstatt Nordic is mesocephalic (cephalic index ca. 77), although dolichocephaly is not uncommon among individuals. The head, when seen from above, looks like a long oval, somewhat flattened on both sides. The occiput is curved or projecting

The Nose
The nasion depression is moderate, while the nose, which is typically parallel in slope with the forehead, is mostly straight or slightly convex, with a high incidence of wavy forms. The nasal index is leptorrhine, and there is usually a noticeable transition from the nasal skeleton to the soft parts of the nose

The Mouth
The mouth is small and the lips rather thin.

The Skin
The skin, which is a pinkish white, is typically fine-textured and thin. This thinness has the effect of pronouncing the bony parts of the face and making the muscles of the body stand out in relief.

The Hair
The hair color of the Hallstatt Nordic is characteristically and almost exclusively blond, with ash-blond shades in one-third to one-half of the cases, the remainder having golden blond to medium brown shades. Rufosity is virtually absent. There is a small brunet minority

The Eyes
The Nordic eye is typically light-mixed blue, with a large pure light-eyed minority. Here also there is a small dark-pigmented minority.

Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................172
Head Length.......................194
Head Breadth......................150
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......
Bizygomatic Diameter...........138
Bigonial Diameter.................105
Total Facial Height...............130
Upper Facial Height..............
Nasal Height........................
Nasal Breadth......................
Biorbital Width.....................
Interorbital Width.................
Cephalic Index.....................77
Facial Index.........................94
Upper Facial Index................
Nasal Index.........................

cosmocreator
Saturday, November 1st, 2003, 11:14 PM
KELTIC NORDIC

Height and build
tall,
slender,
broad-shouldered

The Head
mesocephalic
low-vaulted, with foreheads of much greater recession than those of the Hallstatt type.
The Keltic face is long and narrow, and the chin is strongly developed.
The temples, malars, and gonial angles are typically compressed and not visible.

The Nose
The nose is long and high-bridged, and narrow to medium in breadth. The profile is usually straight, but wavy or concavo-convex forms are also common. The characteristic prominence of the Keltic nose is a good diagnostic for distinguishing between extremes of the two Nordic types.

The Mouth
The lips are thin to medium, and little everted.

The Skin


The Hair
The hair, which ranges in color from a blackish brown to a platinum-like ash-blond, is most commonly medium brown in pigment. Keltic hair is generally of a much darker tone than what is common among Hallstatt Nordics

The Eyes
The eyes are predominantly light-mixed.

Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................171 to 182
Head Length.......................188 to 202
Head Breadth......................151 to 156
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......108 to 111
Bizygomatic Diameter...........137 to 142
Bigonial Diameter.................106 to 107
Total Facial Height...............127 to 131
Upper Facial Height..............72 to 77
Nasal Height........................60 to 61
Nasal Breadth......................36
Biorbital Width.....................88
Interorbital Width.................26
Cephalic Index.....................74 to 83
Facial Index.........................89 to 96
Upper Facial Index................51 to 56
Nasal Index.........................59 to 60

cosmocreator
Saturday, November 1st, 2003, 11:15 PM
ANGLO-SAXON

Height and build
tall,
broad-shouldered,
more than average-sized hands and feet.

The Head
Large head and face
over-all mesocephalic, with a minor tendency towards brachycephaly
The face is long, and shows a marked skeletal relief, giving it a somewhat rugged and angular impression.
the forehead is high and the browridges heavy, and the jaw is prominent. Both Brünn and Borreby features are visible.

The Nose
The nose is large, very leptorrhine, and usually straight, with a convex minority

The Mouth
The lips are rather thin.

The Skin


The Hair
hair color range runs from golden blond to medium brown, with the latter in the majority. There is a minor tendency towards rufosity, but much less so than is the case with the Trønder type

The Eyes
The eyes are pure blue or light-mixed.

Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................172 to 175
Head Length.......................203
Head Breadth......................157
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......107
Bizygomatic Diameter...........148
Bigonial Diameter.................109
Total Facial Height...............126
Upper Facial Height..............75
Nasal Height........................62
Nasal Breadth......................32
Biorbital Width.....................97
Interorbital Width.................38
Cephalic Index.....................73 to 77
Facial Index.........................85
Upper Facial Index................51
Nasal Index.........................52

cosmocreator
Saturday, November 1st, 2003, 11:16 PM
TRONDER

Height and build
Very tall,
slender,
bones are larger and heavier than typically Nordic.
Females are not heavily boned due to sexual dimorphism

The Head
very high-vaulted,
long-headed,
high mesocephalic though some type are dolicho-mesocephalic
face is of considerable length

The forehead is very high, and at the same time both broader and much less sloping than that of the Hallstatt Nordic.
Frontal bosses, a non-Nordic trait, are frequently found, and the temporal region is much fuller.

In addition, the transitions from frontal to temporal and frontal to parietal regions are smooth and difficult to find, whereas on the Nordic head they are clearly marked.

Zygomatic arches of the Trønder type are less prominent than those of the Hallstatt Nordic, and the gonial angles are compressed and not visible. The skull is more rounded and the occiput less prominently curved than that of the Nordic type.

The Nose
Typically straight or convex, with a wide display of wavy forms
and the transition between bone and cartilage is difficult to locate without palpation (feeling with the fingers).

The Mouth
The lips are rather thin.

The Skin
The skin is coarser in texture and tougher than regular Nordic skin

The Hair
The hair is wavy and ranges in color from brown to golden blond. Rufosity is common, whereas ash-blond shades, a typical Hallstatt Nordic trait, are rarer.
And the hair is more abundant on beard and body.

The Eyes
One of the world's bluest-eyed racial types - light-mixed blue is the predominant eye color.

Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................167 to 178
Head Length.......................195 to 200
Head Breadth......................155 to 161
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......104 to 115
Bizygomatic Diameter...........138 to 143
Bigonial Diameter.................102 to 116
Total Facial Height...............129 to 138
Upper Facial Height..............68 to 77
Nasal Height........................54 to 63
Nasal Breadth......................36 to 40
Biorbital Width.....................90 to 94
Interorbital Width.................32 to 39
Cephalic Index.....................78 to 83
Facial Index.........................90 to 100
Upper Facial Index................49 to 56
Nasal Index.........................57 to 74

cosmocreator
Saturday, November 1st, 2003, 11:16 PM
FALISH

Height and build
Tall,
broad-shoulders,

The Head
Typically sub-brachycephalic and not seldom brachycephalic
The facial and upper facial indices are mesoprosopic and mesene to euryene

The Nose
Moderately leptorrhine
Usually straight, but there are local tendencies toward convexity and snub-nosed concavity.

The Mouth


The Skin


The Hair
Typically golden blond

The Eyes
Blue

Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................172 to 182
Head Length.......................190 to 197
Head Breadth......................160 to 163
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......113 to 117
Bizygomatic Diameter...........140 to 152
Bigonial Diameter.................110 to 120
Total Facial Height...............122 to 132
Upper Facial Height..............72 to 74
Nasal Height........................57 to 60
Nasal Breadth......................35 to 38
Biorbital Width.....................91 to 102
Interorbital Width.................33 to 41
Cephalic Index.....................81 to 86
Facial Index.........................80 to 94
Upper Facial Index................47 to 53
Nasal Index.........................58 to 67

cosmocreator
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 08:33 AM
NORTH ATLANTID

Height and build


The Head


The Nose


The Mouth


The Skin
The skin is not particularly darker than the northern European mean. Pigmentation is lighter than with the Paleo-Atlantid group.

The Hair
Dark brown and blackish hair is in the majority

The Eyes
The eye pigment is often scarce, and blue and green eyes are commonplace.

cosmocreator
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 08:37 AM
PALEO-ATLANTID

Height and build


The Head


The Nose


The Mouth


The Skin
The skin is not seldom darker than the northern European mean, and tending more towards a southern European Mediterranean color.

The Hair
Dark brown and black hair is unsurpassed in the majority

The Eyes
Brown and dark-mixed eyes are the rule.

cosmocreator
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 08:47 AM
NEO-DANUBIAN

Height and build


The Head
very round-skulled, and their cephalic indices frequently exceed 85 (brachycephaly)
Head form is globular, and the forehead is steep and not seldom protuberant.
Face is square to oval in shape, and the combination of a round face and a plump cheek is common. There is often a slight flatness to the Neo-Danubian face.
The cheek furrows are as a rule strong.
A fatty deposit - on the malars - seems to be a secondary sex character, as it is most common among women.
The malars are only moderately projecting, especially when compared to those of East Baltics and Ladogans.

The Nose
The nose is moderately leptorrhine, straight to concave in profile, and often snub-tipped in a Ladogan fashion. The nasal skeleton is rather low, with a broad tip.

The Mouth
The upper lip is long and convex,

The Skin

The Hair
Ash-blond hair to golden blond hair.

The Eyes
Median eyefolds are indicative of a low orbit a heavy deposit of fat in the upper lid
Blue or grey

Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................164 to 171
Head Length.......................180 to 189
Head Breadth......................161 to 162
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......109 to 113
Bizygomatic Diameter...........144 to 148
Bigonial Diameter.................107 to 111
Total Facial Height...............123 to 126
Upper Facial Height..............72 to 74
Nasal Height........................55 to 56
Nasal Breadth......................34 to 36
Biorbital Width.....................85 to 99
Interorbital Width.................30 to 37
Cephalic Index.....................85 to 90
Facial Index.........................83 to 88
Upper Facial Index................49 to 51
Nasal Index.........................61 to 65

cosmocreator
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 08:54 AM
EAST BALTICS

Height and build
Large-bodied compared to the Neo-Danubians

The Head
large-headed
sub-brachycephals (c.i. 80-83)
often square-shaped face
steep forehead; the rounded cranial vault
broad-faced and wide-jawed,
laterally prominent malars

The Nose
Round-tipped and snub nose

The Mouth
The mouth is of moderate size,
the lips are not very everted

The Skin

The Hair
Ash-Blond with a notable brunet faction

The Eyes
Grey

Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................162 to 167
Head Length.......................181 to 200
Head Breadth......................154 to 162
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......108 to 119
Bizygomatic Diameter...........143 to 148
Bigonial Diameter.................111 to 124
Total Facial Height...............121 to 129
Upper Facial Height..............69 to 80
Nasal Height........................51 to 59
Nasal Breadth......................33 to 38
Biorbital Width.....................85 to 98
Interorbital Width.................32 to 37
Cephalic Index.....................77 to 90
Facial Index.........................82 to 90
Upper Facial Index................47 to 56
Nasal Index.........................56 to 75

cosmocreator
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 09:01 AM
NORIC

Height and build
Moderately tall
smaller stature than Dinarc due to Keltic Nordic mixture

The Head
great brachycephaly (82-87CI)
planoccipital

The Nose
shallow nasion depression
leptorrhiny,
great nose length, height, and convexity,

The Mouth

The Skin
Similar to Nordic

The Hair
Medium brown to goldern blond

The Eyes
The eyes light or light-mixed

Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................170 to 180
Head Length.......................182 to 187
Head Breadth......................154 to 158
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......107 to 111
Bizygomatic Diameter...........137 to 141
Bigonial Diameter.................104 to 110
Total Facial Height...............123 to 130
Upper Facial Height..............74 to 77
Nasal Height........................53 to 64
Nasal Breadth......................33 to 34
Biorbital Width.....................91 to 96
Interorbital Width.................32
Cephalic Index.....................82 to 87
Facial Index.........................87 to 95
Upper Facial Index................52 to 56
Nasal Index.........................52 to 64

cosmocreator
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 09:03 AM
SUB-NORDIC

Height and build


The Head


The Nose


The Mouth


The Skin


The Hair


The Eyes


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................162 to 167
Head Length.......................190 to 200
Head Breadth......................154 to 164
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......103 to 113
Bizygomatic Diameter...........136 to 146
Bigonial Diameter.................107 to 117
Total Facial Height...............118 to 129
Upper Facial Height..............72 to 76
Nasal Height........................56 to 60
Nasal Breadth......................31 to 38
Biorbital Width.....................87 to 92
Interorbital Width.................32 to 34
Cephalic Index.....................77 to 86
Facial Index.........................81 to 95
Upper Facial Index................49 to 56
Nasal Index.........................52 to 68

cosmocreator
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 08:29 PM
PONTID

Height and build


The Head


The Nose


The Mouth


The Skin


The Hair


The Eyes


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................167 to 176
Head Length.......................189 to 199
Head Breadth......................148 to 158
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......106 to 112
Bizygomatic Diameter...........135 to 148
Bigonial Diameter.................102 to 114
Total Facial Height...............116 to 127
Upper Facial Height...............69 to 76
Nasal Height........................55 to 60
Nasal Breadth......................31 to 37
Biorbital Width.....................90 to 99
Interorbital Width.................32 to 36
Cephalic Index.....................74 to 84
Facial Index.........................78 to 94
Upper Facial Index.................47 to 56
Nasal Index.........................52 to 67

cosmocreator
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 09:08 PM
DINARIC

Height and build


The Head


The Nose


The Mouth


The Skin


The Hair


The Eyes


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................172 to 180
Head Length.......................170 to 183
Head Breadth......................152 to 161
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......107 to 113
Bizygomatic Diameter...........138 to 147
Bigonial Diameter.................104 to 112
Total Facial Height...............130 to 139
Upper Facial Height...............75 to 84
Nasal Height........................58 to 68
Nasal Breadth......................31 to 36
Biorbital Width.....................87 to 96
Interorbital Width.................32 to 34
Cephalic Index.....................83 to 95
Facial Index.........................88 to 100
Upper Facial Index.................51 to 61
Nasal Index.........................46 to 62

cosmocreator
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 09:12 PM
ARMENOID

Height and build


The Head


The Nose


The Mouth


The Skin


The Hair


The Eyes


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................172 to 180
Head Length.......................170 to 191
Head Breadth......................152 to 161
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......107 to 113
Bizygomatic Diameter...........138 to 147
Bigonial Diameter.................104 to 112
Total Facial Height...............124 to 139
Upper Facial Height...............68 to 84
Nasal Height........................55 to 68
Nasal Breadth......................31 to 36
Biorbital Width.....................87 to 96
Interorbital Width.................32 to 34
Cephalic Index.....................80 to 95
Facial Index.........................84 to 100
Upper Facial Index.................46 to 61
Nasal Index.........................46 to 65

cosmocreator
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 09:52 PM
ALPINID

Height and build
Medium stature, and lateral in bodily build

The Head
Their heads of moderate size and globular; their faces characteristically round and their facial features slightly infantile.
brachycephalic,
The forehead is steep to slightly sloping,
low-vaulted

The Nose


The Mouth


The Skin
Pigmentation is moderate to light but darkens as one moves East,
Skin can sometimes be freckled,

The Hair
Pigmentation ranges from blond to brunet, but is usually intermediate. Quite often with undertones of rufosity.

The Eyes
Eyes can range from blue and grey to green and brown.


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................162 to 172
Head Length.......................186 to 195
Head Breadth......................159 to 167
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......103 to 116
Bizygomatic Diameter...........134 to 152
Bigonial Diameter.................111 to 117
Total Facial Height...............115 to 130
Upper Facial Height...............66 to 76
Nasal Height........................50 to 63
Nasal Breadth......................32 to 39
Biorbital Width.....................87 to 96
Interorbital Width.................31 to 38
Cephalic Index.....................82 to 90
Facial Index.........................76 to 97
Upper Facial Index.................43 to 57
Nasal Index.........................51 to 78

cosmocreator
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003, 09:58 PM
ATLANTO-MEDITERRANEAN


Height and build


The Head


The Nose


The Mouth


The Skin


The Hair


The Eyes


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................169 to 178
Head Length.......................192 to 207
Head Breadth......................149 to 156
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......106 to 113
Bizygomatic Diameter...........130 to 142
Bigonial Diameter.................101 to 115
Total Facial Height...............121 to 127
Upper Facial Height...............69 to 77
Nasal Height........................56 to 63
Nasal Breadth......................29 to 36
Biorbital Width.....................86 to 94
Interorbital Width.................27 to 36
Cephalic Index.....................72 to 81
Facial Index.........................85 to 98
Upper Facial Index.................49 to 59
Nasal Index.........................46 to 64

cosmocreator
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 05:27 AM
CORDED

Height and build

The Head

The Nose

The Mouth

The Skin

The Hair

The Eyes


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................170 to 182
Head Length.......................200 to 215
Head Breadth......................143 to 152
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......103 to 110
Bizygomatic Diameter...........134 to 137
Bigonial Diameter.................96 to 108
Total Facial Height...............121 to 140
Upper Facial Height..............72 to 84
Nasal Height........................53 to 63
Nasal Breadth......................33 to 36
Biorbital Width.....................89 to 95
Interorbital Width.................30 to 32
Cephalic Index.....................67 to 76
Facial Index.........................88 to 104
Upper Facial Index................53 to 63
Nasal Index.........................52 to 68

cosmocreator
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 05:47 AM
DANUBIANS

Height and build

The Head

The Nose

The Mouth

The Skin

The Hair

The Eyes


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................164 to 174
Head Length.......................188 to 191
Head Breadth......................148 to 159
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......98 to 118
Bizygomatic Diameter...........132 to 145
Bigonial Diameter.................103 to 111
Total Facial Height...............110 to 118
Upper Facial Height..............68 to 72
Nasal Height........................54 to 55
Nasal Breadth......................30 to 37
Biorbital Width.....................87 to 100
Interorbital Width.................28 to 37
Cephalic Index.....................77 to 85
Facial Index.........................76 to 89
Upper Facial Index................47 to 55
Nasal Index.........................55 to 69

cosmocreator
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 05:55 AM
ARAN


Height and build


The Head


The Nose


The Mouth


The Skin


The Hair


The Eyes


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................165 to 181
Head Length.......................194 to 211
Head Breadth......................147 to 162
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......108 to 113
Bizygomatic Diameter...........138 to 145
Bigonial Diameter.................111 to 116
Total Facial Height...............132 to 136
Upper Facial Height...............76 to 78
Nasal Height........................61 to 63
Nasal Breadth......................37
Biorbital Width.....................
Interorbital Width.................
Cephalic Index.....................70 to 84
Facial Index.........................91 to 99
Upper Facial Index.................52 to 57
Nasal Index.........................59 to 61

cosmocreator
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 07:32 AM
LADOGAN

Height and build

The Head

The Nose

The Mouth

The Skin

The Hair

The Eyes


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................175
Head Length.......................192
Head Breadth......................167
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......118
Bizygomatic Diameter...........148
Bigonial Diameter.................122
Total Facial Height...............130
Upper Facial Height..............83
Nasal Height........................61
Nasal Breadth......................38
Biorbital Width.....................94
Interorbital Width.................41
Cephalic Index.....................87
Facial Index.........................88
Upper Facial Index................56
Nasal Index.........................62

cosmocreator
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 08:01 AM
ARABID MEDITERRANEAN

Height and build


The Head


The Nose


The Mouth


The Skin


The Hair


The Eyes


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................163 to 169
Head Length.......................180 to 202
Head Breadth......................135 to 147
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......100 to 111
Bizygomatic Diameter...........128 to 136
Bigonial Diameter.................100 to 111
Total Facial Height...............125 to 131
Upper Facial Height..............75 to 79
Nasal Height........................58 to 60
Nasal Breadth......................31 to 37
Biorbital Width.....................83 to 91
Interorbital Width.................30 to 31
Cephalic Index.....................67 to 82
Facial Index.........................92 to 102
Upper Facial Index................55 to 62
Nasal Index.........................52 to 64

cosmocreator
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 08:18 AM
TURKIC MEDITERRANEAN

Height and build


The Head


The Nose


The Mouth


The Skin


The Hair


The Eyes


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................169 to 176
Head Length.......................188 to 201
Head Breadth......................148 to 153
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......106 to 113
Bizygomatic Diameter...........142 to 144
Bigonial Diameter.................110 to 113
Total Facial Height...............130 to 141
Upper Facial Height..............77 to 83
Nasal Height........................61 to 69
Nasal Breadth......................35 to 38
Biorbital Width.....................90 to 96
Interorbital Width.................31 to 33
Cephalic Index.....................74 to 81
Facial Index.........................90 to 99
Upper Facial Index................53 to 58
Nasal Index.........................51 to 62

cosmocreator
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 08:35 AM
IRANO-AFGHAN

Height and build


The Head


The Nose


The Mouth


The Skin


The Hair


The Eyes


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................174
Head Length.......................
Head Breadth......................
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......
Bizygomatic Diameter...........
Bigonial Diameter.................
Total Facial Height...............
Upper Facial Height..............
Nasal Height........................
Nasal Breadth......................
Biorbital Width.....................
Interorbital Width.................
Cephalic Index.....................70
Facial Index.........................
Upper Facial Index................
Nasal Index.........................52

cosmocreator
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 10:07 AM
WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

Height and build


The Head


The Nose


The Mouth


The Skin


The Hair


The Eyes


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................167 to 172
Head Length.......................193 to 201
Head Breadth......................144 to 153
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......103 to 107
Bizygomatic Diameter...........125 to 144
Bigonial Diameter.................94 to 107
Total Facial Height...............119 to 125
Upper Facial Height..............66 to 79
Nasal Height........................54 to 65
Nasal Breadth......................30 to 37
Biorbital Width.....................86 to 90
Interorbital Width.................29 to 33
Cephalic Index.....................72 to 79
Facial Index.........................83 to 100
Upper Facial Index................46 to 63
Nasal Index.........................46 to 69

cosmocreator
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 10:18 AM
SOUTHERN EUROPEAN MEDITERRANEAN

Height and build


The Head


The Nose


The Mouth


The Skin


The Hair


The Eyes


Measurements (mm)
Height (cm)........................159 to 168
Head Length.......................187 to 196
Head Breadth......................142 to 156
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......106 to 111
Bizygomatic Diameter...........128 to 141
Bigonial Diameter.................99 to 103
Total Facial Height...............114 to 132
Upper Facial Height..............69 to 76
Nasal Height........................53 to 57
Nasal Breadth......................35 to 37
Biorbital Width.....................89 to 98
Interorbital Width.................33 to 36
Cephalic Index.....................72 to 83
Facial Index.........................81 to 103
Upper Facial Index................49 to 59
Nasal Index.........................61 to 70

Agrippa
Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 02:36 AM
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://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=45282&stc=1&d=1132799407
Between Mediterranid and Dinarid "Baskid" could be placed, between Dinarid and Alpinoid "Carpathid".

Skildur
Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 02:42 AM
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. 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://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=45282&stc=1&d=1132799407
Between Mediterranid and Dinarid "Baskid" could be placed, between Dinarid and Alpinoid "Carpathid".

So mediterranids are more close to Nordids than Osteuropids ??? How's that?

Agrippa
Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 02:53 AM
So mediterranids are more close to Nordids than Osteuropids ??? How's that?

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.

Agrippa
Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 02:52 PM
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.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=6746&stc=1&d=1132843861
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.

fog
Wednesday, November 30th, 2005, 01:08 AM
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
Perhaps you could overcome the limitations of this form by using a linear form similar to the top half of Coons racial history chart?

I see that you are not trying to demonstrate ancestry, but by using a linear format, it is possible to illustrate and infinite number of connections.

I could not find the web address for Coons chart, so I downloaded it form SNPA and attatched it here.

Agrippa
Wednesday, November 30th, 2005, 08:22 PM
Since certain developments are just evolutionary tendencies, its partly somewhat problematic to refer to ancestry, though you are right, thats another possibility, a different approach.

Sigurd
Wednesday, November 30th, 2005, 09:05 PM
Sorry but I cannot see the Lappoid features in East Baltics :scratch:

Agrippa
Wednesday, November 30th, 2005, 09:54 PM
Sorry but I cannot see the Lappoid features in East Baltics :scratch:

General head form, body form, short lower, longer upper extremities, more subcutaneous fat than in other Europids, borealised, high-wide cheekbones, wide set eyes, more often slanted eyes, epicanthus occurs more often, short-wide snub nose, high frequency of concave nasal profile. Its a typical boreal specialisation, not as extreme and more harmonious, but still obvious similarities to Lappoids, both by admixture and similar specialisation. In fact the border is rather fluent partly and Günther even used clear Lappoids as typical Eastbaltids.

frankfurter
Sunday, December 4th, 2005, 07:14 AM
It's all relative and subjective isn't it? There are a number of different ways to classify Europeans, depending on how specific or general you want to be, and how you group mixed-types. I personally think 5-7 is way too general. There are probably many more primary types, and no telling how many secondary (various mixtures between primary types) there are. And who knows how old a race is and how pure it is. Most (perhaps all) old established European races - Nordic, Dinaric, perhaps Alpine?, etc. - are the results of ancient mixtures that took place thousands of years ago and became fairly stabilised, thus appearing nowdays to be ancient, once pure races.

Agrippa
Sunday, December 4th, 2005, 01:45 PM
It's all relative and subjective isn't it?

No, dont think so, its absolute in fact because it looks at the most important characteristics in physical variation, in fact no part of it was ignored and the emphasis was done by nature, because we are speaking, as I said, about evolutionary tendencies - that are racial types. This racial types are made for a specific context, with typical advantages and disadvantages, the specialisation in Europe made up those tendencies, lets say 7, all others can be explained as being just intermediate, there are no other basic tendencies of importance if is about typological variation.


There are a number of different ways to classify Europeans, depending on how specific or general you want to be, and how you group mixed-types.

Thats true, but thats just a game, in fact totally unimportant, because the basic tendencies, as I said, are the same and all subtypes can be more or less explained by belonging to a basic tendency, even reaching it, or being between 2 or 3.


I personally think 5-7 is way too general.

No, everything else would complicate manners in an unnecessary and unproductive way, would in fact make it more difficult for people to understand what race is about. Thats like Coon who mainly made up lineages of the races but just began to understand the background. Now people read this or that and see this and that variation, but they dont understand the why nor what it is really about - the selective regimes which produced the differences, the original source populations etc. are important as well obviously.


There are probably many more primary types, and no telling how many secondary (various mixtures between primary types) there are.

Lets put it that way. Its possible that West and Eastmediterranid, Western and Eastern Nordids have not the same origin - but finally and thats the main point, they are basically the same specialisation, evolutionary tendency and thats what race is about, the origin must be just similar, similar enough to allow the same specialisation in a given context.


And who knows how old a race is and how pure it is.

Finally thats unimportant, because what we judge is the result, the specialisation that happened. If a population of nowadays Nordids consisted in the past of 3 older racial types which melted and were then selected to become a relatively homogenous type with very specific characteristia, strengths and weaknesses, adaptation, then it makes a racial type called Nordid, no matter if the neighboring group has the same or somewhat different origin. In Europe mixture took always place, there is nothing really pure, selection made the bill, not "pureness". You might have had mixed groups in which the selection produced something much more homogenous, a real block, something very specific and another region in which genetically there was no admixture since thousands and thousands of years but there is basically the same or even more variation because the selective pressure was not strong enough to eliminate a certain racial variability.


Most (perhaps all) old established European races - Nordic, Dinaric, perhaps Alpine?, etc.

Oldest forms are Cromagnoid, because the leptodolichomorphic ones were more robust, partly even more primitive at the beginning (Bruenn, Combe Capelle etc.)
The really important time for the modern racial variation in Europe was the post-Ice Age Mesolithic and Neolithic time, even going into the Bronze and Iron Age. Because the selective regime changed totally, as did the climate, as did the social structures. Now climate was partly less important, especially in the warmer phases, then the socio-economic and cultural background - which habitat do you chose to live in and to defend, there were more many alternatives (isolated vs. open, coastal - continental, herder - farmer, high - low, mountainous - flat etc.)


- are the results of ancient mixtures that took place thousands of years ago and became fairly stabilised, thus appearing nowdays to be ancient, once pure races.

Thats true and what racial types, specialisations are about - its about the characteristics, the real age and "pureness" is secondary. F.e. some populations changed their character without significant admixture, mainly because the selective regime changed and former variation was reduced - f.e. during Alpinisation, Baltisation, Nordisation etc. Whats really important is, is to look at it, search for the reasons, the advantages and disadvantages of the development in question and to analyse what are the crucial elements of the process (f.e. allometric ones based on finally just two or three fundamental changes sometimes).
Variation which has not the quality of fundamentally changing the adaptation, the potential of a racial type is not of real importance. F.e. the difference between "Hallstatt", "Keltic Nordic" and "Atlantid" is fairly unimportant in comparison, whereas the difference between lets say Borreby/Nordalpinoid and Gracilmediterranid is very significant, as is the difference between Dinarid and Alpinid, even if they would have came out of a similar line of evolution, the division is of a major importance, in fact partly almost antagonistic, even though they are so closely associated and live often even together, they are finally quite different - partly complementary even in the higher regions of Europe (f.e. herders, mobile merchants and specialists, warriors of a group rather Dinarid, typical farmers, small chandlers rather Alpinid...).

Extreme-typical Eastbaltids look like that:

KraftAkt
Tuesday, December 20th, 2005, 07:17 PM
Thanks for this great summary.

I see you are describing Borreby also as Nordalpinoid. Does that mean that the typical picture of a Bavarian ("Urbayer") that everyone has in mind is nothing else than borreby?

http://www.yecl.de/img/gerhard_polt.jpg
http://www.flimmer-kiste.de/artikel/org/pumuckllogo.jpg
The right one of course.

Agrippa
Tuesday, December 20th, 2005, 08:56 PM
Bavarians are Alpinoid (note -oid) to a large degree, though not as much as some think, with the typical local Alpinoid being more robust, going in a Borreby direction and has Nordid features too. In fact it can be argued that Bavaria was once more Nordid and Cromagnid, but over time Alpinisation lead to a brachymorphisation and reduction. But whereas this lead in individuals to an infantile character, the "average Alpinisation" there lead just to minor reduction, certain robustness was kept and size obviously too.

As I said once Alpinisation is rather a process, and the elements being "Alpinised" with the original Alpinid core keep certain features (like bigger skull, lighter pigmentation etc.) though they are now Alpinoid. Thats one of the reasons why a French, a Southern German, a Czech, Ukrainian etc. Alpinid will look different, most likely more different from each other than Nordids from the respective groups.

KraftAkt
Thursday, December 22nd, 2005, 05:26 PM
Thank you, Agrippa. I just wondered about the Bavarians. There features arent that much Alpinid for me with being big and square-faced but rather dark in appearance.

And a question for your description of "Alpinization". Does that describe a process of quasi "losing progessiveness"? It almost sounds like it, with brachymorphisation and rounder face i.e. It makes sense that then Alpinids can look very different, depending on their original basis.

Agrippa
Thursday, December 22nd, 2005, 05:56 PM
Thank you, Agrippa. I just wondered about the Bavarians. There features arent that much Alpinid for me with being big and square-faced but rather dark in appearance.

Bavarians are a population, quite mixed and not just consistent out of Alpinoids. I would say there exists a typical robust Alpinoid and Nordid-Dalofaelid influenced type which is quite typical for many parts of Bavaria.



And a question for your description of "Alpinization". Does that describe a process of quasi "losing progessiveness"?

Indeed. There are three basic tendencies which we can see in modern humans. Archemorphic or primitive traits, "original forms" of the older sapiens strata retained. Paedomorphy, or infantile traits, and progressive, new and active adapting, propulsive ones.

Infantilisation and reduction is indeed a general loss of potential and effectiveness. I might reproduce some threads about that topic on TNP soon. However, its a very specific, narrow adaptation - a decrease of versatile potential to get fully reduced, brachymorphised and infantile. Since Alpinisation is a process you can find in most Alpinoid-mixed areas everything in between from quite robust, still rather Cromagnoid, mainly with a broader rounder head and face and those small, reduced and infantile extremes, the "end result" of Alpinisation. But even in the clearly Alpinid spectrum there are strong regional and individual differences f.e. if its about the exact body type and proportions.

KraftAkt
Thursday, December 22nd, 2005, 07:25 PM
Very interesting subject. Is there an explanation why this typically happenened around the Alpine region? And I dont understand why brachymorphisation has someting to do with losing potential and effectiveness. Why should the head shape influence the potential of the humans? :scratch: But hopefully reading your threads will explain that to me. ;)


Indeed. There are three basic tendencies which we can see in modern humans. Archemorphic or primitive traits, "original forms" of the older sapiens strata retained. Paedomorphy, or infantile traits, and progressive, new and active adapting, propulsive ones.

Infantilisation and reduction is indeed a general loss of potential and effectiveness. I might reproduce some threads about that topic on TNP soon. However, its a very specific, narrow adaptation - a decrease of versatile potential to get fully reduced, brachymorphised and infantile. Since Alpinisation is a process you can find in most Alpinoid-mixed areas everything in between from quite robust, still rather Cromagnoid, mainly with a broader rounder head and face and those small, reduced and infantile extremes, the "end result" of Alpinisation. But even in the clearly Alpinid spectrum there are strong regional and individual differences f.e. if its about the exact body type and proportions.

Agrippa
Friday, December 23rd, 2005, 01:11 AM
Very interesting subject. Is there an explanation why this typically happenened around the Alpine region? And I dont understand why brachymorphisation has someting to do with losing potential and effectiveness. Why should the head shape influence the potential of the humans? :scratch: But hopefully reading your threads will explain that to me. ;)

The Alpine regions are poorer and areas of retreat, but thats not the only reason and its not true that Alpinisation is that much stronger in the Alps than in some other regions. The typical herder type of the mountains is the Dinarid type.
Furthermore the brachymorphisation of Alpinids is different from Dinarids, Dinarids just get a shorter skull, in Alpinoids its an allometric correlation influencing the whole structure of the physique, whats the main point.

Agrippa
Friday, December 23rd, 2005, 02:09 PM
Another scheme with some corrections and including the Europid forms close, but already outside of Europe and the European spectrum in the narrower sense:
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=47172&stc=1&d=1135346739

frankfurter
Monday, January 2nd, 2006, 06:42 PM
No, dont think so, its absolute in fact because it looks at the most important characteristics in physical variation, in fact no part of it was ignored and the emphasis was done by nature, because we are speaking, as I said, about evolutionary tendencies - that are racial types. This racial types are made for a specific context, with typical advantages and disadvantages, the specialisation in Europe made up those tendencies, lets say 7, all others can be explained as being just intermediate, there are no other basic tendencies of importance if is about typological variation.



Thats true, but thats just a game, in fact totally unimportant, because the basic tendencies, as I said, are the same and all subtypes can be more or less explained by belonging to a basic tendency, even reaching it, or being between 2 or 3.



No, everything else would complicate manners in an unnecessary and unproductive way, would in fact make it more difficult for people to understand what race is about. Thats like Coon who mainly made up lineages of the races but just began to understand the background. Now people read this or that and see this and that variation, but they dont understand the why nor what it is really about - the selective regimes which produced the differences, the original source populations etc. are important as well obviously.



Lets put it that way. Its possible that West and Eastmediterranid, Western and Eastern Nordids have not the same origin - but finally and thats the main point, they are basically the same specialisation, evolutionary tendency and thats what race is about, the origin must be just similar, similar enough to allow the same specialisation in a given context.



Finally thats unimportant, because what we judge is the result, the specialisation that happened. If a population of nowadays Nordids consisted in the past of 3 older racial types which melted and were then selected to become a relatively homogenous type with very specific characteristia, strengths and weaknesses, adaptation, then it makes a racial type called Nordid, no matter if the neighboring group has the same or somewhat different origin. In Europe mixture took always place, there is nothing really pure, selection made the bill, not "pureness". You might have had mixed groups in which the selection produced something much more homogenous, a real block, something very specific and another region in which genetically there was no admixture since thousands and thousands of years but there is basically the same or even more variation because the selective pressure was not strong enough to eliminate a certain racial variability.



Oldest forms are Cromagnoid, because the leptodolichomorphic ones were more robust, partly even more primitive at the beginning (Bruenn, Combe Capelle etc.)
The really important time for the modern racial variation in Europe was the post-Ice Age Mesolithic and Neolithic time, even going into the Bronze and Iron Age. Because the selective regime changed totally, as did the climate, as did the social structures. Now climate was partly less important, especially in the warmer phases, then the socio-economic and cultural background - which habitat do you chose to live in and to defend, there were more many alternatives (isolated vs. open, coastal - continental, herder - farmer, high - low, mountainous - flat etc.)



Thats true and what racial types, specialisations are about - its about the characteristics, the real age and "pureness" is secondary. F.e. some populations changed their character without significant admixture, mainly because the selective regime changed and former variation was reduced - f.e. during Alpinisation, Baltisation, Nordisation etc. Whats really important is, is to look at it, search for the reasons, the advantages and disadvantages of the development in question and to analyse what are the crucial elements of the process (f.e. allometric ones based on finally just two or three fundamental changes sometimes).
Variation which has not the quality of fundamentally changing the adaptation, the potential of a racial type is not of real importance. F.e. the difference between "Hallstatt", "Keltic Nordic" and "Atlantid" is fairly unimportant in comparison, whereas the difference between lets say Borreby/Nordalpinoid and Gracilmediterranid is very significant, as is the difference between Dinarid and Alpinid, even if they would have came out of a similar line of evolution, the division is of a major importance, in fact partly almost antagonistic, even though they are so closely associated and live often even together, they are finally quite different - partly complementary even in the higher regions of Europe (f.e. herders, mobile merchants and specialists, warriors of a group rather Dinarid, typical farmers, small chandlers rather Alpinid...).

Extreme-typical Eastbaltids look like that:

I really can't disagree with anything you say, because it is your opinion. My point was not that there are no races or that races themselves are relative, only that our interpretation of how to classify them is. Granted, racial history may not be important to you or others, but to me it is somewhat important because I believe it holds at least one key in identifying modern racial types.
I find the study of race very interesting and fun, but I cannot be dogmatic about my own conclusions because I (or anyone else) do not have even close to 100% access to all of the information that exists. In my own interpretations of racial classification, I use pigmentation (eye, hair, skin), overall body shape and size (height, weight), size and shape of various body parts, and to a lesser degree blood types and dna. DNA study is still in its infancy and in its current status the interpretation of it is still very confusing and often somewhat contradictory. Historical migrations, to the extent they are known, can also be helpful, in my opinion. As for racial classifications, certainly there are some that are wrong because they are based on faulty data or a misinterpretation of what facts do exists, but even the most knowledgeable among us can not be 100% sure about their own intrepetation of the facts, because there are too many variables and unknowns.

Agrippa
Monday, January 2nd, 2006, 07:17 PM
Granted, racial history may not be important to you or others, but to me it is somewhat important because I believe it holds at least one key in identifying modern racial types.

It is important, but to me mainly because it can explain the formation of a racial type - how and why it came up. If its about living people the actual inherited feature combination has the priority - functional analysis, especially effectiveness, at least inside a group, though especially on the regional level general genetic kinship and being of an indigenous form (what has a functional aspect - f.e. climatic+local adaptation - too) is a value on its own and has in many cases even priority.

Agrippa
Monday, July 3rd, 2006, 06:19 PM
I add a map on which the basic racial types and subtypes being mentioned and put roughly into their respectively strongest or at least visible (in the South and East) areas:
http://img276.imageshack.us/img276/3864/europe2kopie2lm.th.jpg (http://img276.imageshack.us/my.php?image=europe2kopie2lm.jpg)

Huzar
Tuesday, July 4th, 2006, 03:48 PM
I add a map on which the basic racial types and subtypes being mentioned and put roughly into their respectively strongest or at least visible (in the South and East) areas:
http://img276.imageshack.us/img276/3864/europe2kopie2lm.th.jpg (http://img276.imageshack.us/my.php?image=europe2kopie2lm.jpg)


Superb job, agrippa :thumbup . You're well-organized in showing racial maps. Very complete and precise.

In the future you could make a global (entire world) racial map, but would be a titanic work..........:P

How many sub-races exists in the world ? Over 100 of course........

Agrippa
Tuesday, July 4th, 2006, 05:26 PM
Superb job, agrippa :thumbup . You're well-organized in showing racial maps. Very complete and precise.

In the future you could make a global (entire world) racial map, but would be a titanic work..........:P

The most basic and important types being pictured on various maps which can be found here:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=36081


How many sub-races exists in the world ? Over 100 of course........

Depends on the respective taxonomy. Compare:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=3273

Nicola_Canadian
Tuesday, July 4th, 2006, 07:50 PM
Some questions -

1) Where are Keltic Nordics, Anglosaxons, Tronders, Gorids?
2) What was the reason for placing East-Nordids somewhere in Lithuania - totally Baltic region? Same time you place Baltids in the center of Rus. Shouldn't it be vice versa? True Baltid (Valdaic) type in Russia is rather to the North-West, except for a small region near Novgorod (Ilmen-Upper Dniepr) - East Nordid type. The latter is more dominant in the center Russia and in the very North - pomor types near Archangelsk. Valdaic is also present in a small region of Mordva finns of Russia...
3) Does the name Aralid is based on the name of the Aral sea? Who invented it?

Thanx

PS: Ilmen-Upper Dniepr type -

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i308/Nicola_Canadian/ilmendniepr_nordic2.gif

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i308/Nicola_Canadian/ilmendniepr_nordic.gif


I add a map on which the basic racial types and subtypes being mentioned and put roughly into their respectively strongest or at least visible (in the South and East) areas:
http://img276.imageshack.us/img276/3864/europe2kopie2lm.th.jpg (http://img276.imageshack.us/my.php?image=europe2kopie2lm.jpg)

Agrippa
Tuesday, July 4th, 2006, 09:02 PM
Some questions -

1) Where are Keltic Nordics, Anglosaxons, Tronders,

That are all just Nordid-Dinaroid and Nordid-Cromagnoid forms, no truly independent nor important types, rather "gautypes", regional variants.


Gorids?

Gorid in the sense of Eastalpinid.


2) What was the reason for placing East-Nordids somewhere in Lithuania - totally Baltic region?

The coastal region from Southern Finland over the Baltic states to Prussia has/had a strong Eastnordid component, I could have made more centres, but the same is true for most other types.


Same time you place Baltids in the center of Rus. Shouldn't it be vice versa?

In the region of White Russia and bordering Russia and Ukraine areas standard Baltid is an important component.


3) Does the name Aralid is based on the name of the Aral sea? Who invented it?

The name was used by v. Eickstedt and Schwidetzky, comes from the Aral see and means the mixed flank of the "Turanid spectrum" (compare with Pamirid). See:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=7180


PS: Ilmen-Upper Dniepr type -

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i308/Nicola_Canadian/ilmendniepr_nordic2.gif

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i308/Nicola_Canadian/ilmendniepr_nordic.gif

No Baltids in my system.

Susisaari
Tuesday, July 4th, 2006, 10:23 PM
To make things simpler, could you sum it up by saying that there is a north-south axis and a west-east axis on the genetic map (AKA racial map) of Europe?

Could you say that all different "subraces" or "subtypes" in Europe are just different degrees on the north-south dimension or on the west-east dimension?

Agrippa
Tuesday, July 4th, 2006, 10:51 PM
To make things simpler, could you sum it up by saying that there is a north-south axis and a west-east axis on the genetic map (AKA racial map) of Europe?

Could you say that all different "subraces" or "subtypes" in Europe are just different degrees on the north-south dimension or on the west-east dimension?

Well, not really because Alpinisation and Baltisation being not just a question of gradients. In a very distant past one could have argued so, but since the Neolithicum its more problematic than that and even more so in modern times.

Originally there was a very rough SW-NO gradient in Europe from Mediterranid-Atlantid-Nordid-Cromagnoid-Lappoid, which is comparable to a gradient from warm to cold. But finally its more along the lines of exact habitats, original subsistence patterns and social structures, compare:
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=348732&postcount=27

To give an example, what I answered to a question on Dodona about Asia Minor and Anadolids:
Anadolids seem to be the adaptation of essentially Mediterranoid forms to higher regions and a meagre but rather peaceful and ordered herder existence.

When the Mediterranean climate was once wider spread in Anatolia, the Mediterranoid forms were too, but with the conditions getting worse in the higher areas, more frugal farmers of Eastern/Asian Alpinoid and Anadolid type spread themselves, rather meagre herders being mostly Anadolid.

More dominant, warlike and better nourished herders being the most progressive forms, they being rather, depending on the climatic area, Nordid, Atlantomediterranid, Dinarid, Mtebid, Iranid, again in the not as ample desert Arabid.

F.e. in the East of Anatolia the social stratification was for a long time like this:
Iranid nomadic Kurdish herders = ruling class and independent groups.
Iranid-mixed Kurdish farmers, sedentary = dependent base.
Armenid and Anadolid-Asian Alpinoid Armenian farmers and townsfolk = dependent crowd.

So were mass, deficiency, compliance and a lack of positive selection ruled, the progressive herder variants decreased. Thats really striking if comparing the Kurdish free nomadic people even of lets say the 50's with the "normal people" of Eastern Anatolia under which mainly in the social elite similar variants being as common in the same way.

Anadolids coming from more gracile Mediterranoids, that could be another reason for their type beside the specific selective pressure, however, they being "made" for the way of life of Anatolian herdsmen, the Asian Alpinoids like all Alpinoids for a more frugal or social oriented life, so peasantry or low and middle class townspeople.
The Mediterranid seems to be the civilisation type, he needs to flourish rather flat land, best coastal and fluvial areas with warmer climate in which he has a sufficient energy base and can live in well ordered larger settlements.

Similar things can be said for North Eastern Europe with Nordids in the fertile flat lands and along the coastlines rather, in the worse but still good areas Cromagnoids and relatively unreduced Baltids, in the unfavourable and colder areas strong Baltisation and Eastbaltids. That the best areas being more Nordid is true since the Neolithics and the Corded expansion latest, though there was a lot of mixture and Baltisation being partly the result of it. Since the Baltisation being not just the result of stable climatic conditions, but rather social structures, subsistence patterns and related selective pressures etc., there is no clear geographic and even distribution, just tendencies with the clear gradients beginning in the more extreme areas (compare with the climatic-race comparison thread).

The North-South gradient is more clear with Nordid and Northern Cromagnoids (Dalofaelid, Borreby, Westbaltid) in the North and Mediterranid and Southern Cromagnoid (Berid, Berberid) in the South. But again, things are not that clear with Atlantid, Palaeatlantid and Strandid in the North, with Palaeatlantid being most likely a relatively old form which might even predate Dalofaelid in the North.
Depigmentation-Pigmentation being not that clear neither again with Atlantid-Palaeatlantid-Strandid in the North and light Cromagnoid forms (Berberid variants) in the South.

So one cannot simply substitute racial types with gradients, especially not in Europe, though they being present, at least for the North-South extreme, as tendencies with every shade in between.

"The problem" comes from the "not just climatic" adaptations of classic Europids (Nordoid-Mediterranoid and Cromagnoid), the further specialisations.

Nicola_Canadian
Wednesday, July 5th, 2006, 07:33 AM
That are all just Nordid-Dinaroid and Nordid-Cromagnoid forms, no truly independent nor important types, rather "gautypes", regional variants.

Certainly, however, Keltic Nordic is rather common type in Britain while you don't show anything really Nordish in Britain... PaleoAtlantid and NorthAtlantid are certainly present but are not the only racial types there for sure... Do you think they dominate?


Gorid in the sense of Eastalpinid.

Fair enough...


The coastal region from Southern Finland over the Baltic states to Prussia has/had a strong Eastnordid component, I could have made more centres, but the same is true for most other types.

I really doubt that. The population of Baltic states is almost totally Baltid (including proper Baltids, West Baltids and East Baltids)... Only in some places in west Finland (and rarely in other Baltish states) you can find a true East Nordid. There are some other types of Nordids though... Plus Lithuania has lot's of Dinarics\Pontids...


In the region of White Russia and bordering Russia and Ukraine areas standard Baltid is an important component.

Sure, Belarus is mostly Baltid... In Ukraine there is only one region (in the very north on the boarder with Balarus) full of Baltids - Poleschuk type.

However, I was talking neither about Belarus nor Ukraine. I mentioned Northern and Central Russia (meaning the european part). Baltid element is present there only in the very North West region (again on the boarder with Baltic states and Belarus)... Central Russia has way more East Nordids... than say Lithuania... I am telling you this even as a person who was living in Lithuania, Estonia, Finland and Russia...


The name was used by v. Eickstedt and Schwidetzky, comes from the Aral see and means the mixed flank of the "Turanid spectrum" (compare with Pamirid). See:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=7180

I was expecting it to be originated from Aral sea... I was just always used to Turanid term... Anyway, thanx!


No Baltids in my system.

Not quite sure of what you meant by this statement... Plz clarify...

Skalagrim
Wednesday, July 5th, 2006, 08:16 AM
I really doubt that. The population of Baltic states is almost totally Baltid (including proper Baltids, West Baltids and East Baltids)... Only in some places in west Finland (and rarely in other Baltish states) you can find a true East Nordid. There are some other types of Nordids though... Plus Lithuania has lot's of Dinarics\Pontids...






A You have any researches ( scientifically ) about that?

QUOTE=Nicola_Canadian]


I really doubt that. [/QUOTE]


P.S. search at Skadi forum about Aistins

Agrippa
Wednesday, July 5th, 2006, 01:54 PM
Certainly, however, Keltic Nordic is rather common type in Britain while you don't show anything really Nordish in Britain... PaleoAtlantid and NorthAtlantid are certainly present but are not the only racial types there for sure... Do you think they dominate?

Nordid is strong in many other parts of Europe, like Mediterranid too (compare with the climatic-racial comparision, the whole temperate and lower area is potential "primary Nordoid habitat". So the names indicate just that the respective type is very strong there, most likely its his centre now or the area in which the specialisation took first and originally place. Nordatlantid is very strong on the British Isles, but so is standard Nordid. Neither is Germany just Dalofaelid...


I really doubt that. The population of Baltic states is almost totally Baltid (including proper Baltids, West Baltids and East Baltids)... Only in some places in west Finland (and rarely in other Baltish states) you can find a true East Nordid. There are some other types of Nordids though... Plus Lithuania has lot's of Dinarics\Pontids...

In ancient times Eastnordid (Corded) groups dominated that areas totally and in later times they became more mixed with the Cromagnoid element and partly Baltised especially in the inner countries, but still the coastal areas and South of Finland is predominantely Nordid and the Nordid variant there is primarily Eastnordid.

Map:
Racial composition of Finno-Ugrians:
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2920/finnougrier13ja.th.jpg (http://img401.imageshack.us/my.php?image=finnougrier13ja.jpg)

Compare:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=55890
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=60131


Sure, Belarus is mostly Baltid... In Ukraine there is only one region (in the very north on the boarder with Balarus) full of Baltids - Poleschuk type.

No contradiction here me thinks, though again, I would never say that Belarus is just Baltid, but this type has a centre there, France is not fully Westalpinid neither...


However, I was talking neither about Belarus nor Ukraine. I mentioned Northern and Central Russia (meaning the european part). Baltid element is present there only in the very North West region (again on the boarder with Baltic states and Belarus)... Central Russia has way more East Nordids... than say Lithuania... I am telling you this even as a person who was living in Lithuania, Estonia, Finland and Russia...

I think they being present indeed, but usually not that concentrated and more often mixed with Baltid and a fluent border to Nordpontid than in the coastal regions of the Balticum, but that can be discussed. However, I didnt suggested that this is the only centre of Eastnordids, just that they being strong there and their distribution begins in this region and obviously is going further East.


Not quite sure of what you meant by this statement... Plz clarify...

They are way of out of my system and unite various traits I would attribute to different types, so look rather "mixed" to me.

Nicola_Canadian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 08:26 AM
However, I didnt suggested that this is the only centre of Eastnordids, just that they being strong there and their distribution begins in this region and obviously is going further East.

Well, it is not obvious from your map...


They are way of out of my system and unite various traits I would attribute to different types, so look rather "mixed" to me.

Here are some pic of Russians (of Alekseeva) -

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i308/Nicola_Canadian/rustypes_Alekseeva_a1-NW_a2-NE.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i308/Nicola_Canadian/rustypes_Alekseeva_b1-SW_b2-SE.jpg

First Row - North West
Second Row - North East
Third Row - South West
Fourth - South East


Some more pic of NW Russia (Pskov region)

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i308/Nicola_Canadian/pskov.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i308/Nicola_Canadian/pskov2.jpg

Agrippa
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 02:14 PM
Its interesting, Nordid and Nordpontid elements being clearly visible, but rather in a not fully typical and mixed way and high skulled are only those with a short head in a relative, practically no one in an absolute way.

Nicola_Canadian
Thursday, July 6th, 2006, 03:57 PM
Its interesting, Nordid and Nordpontid elements being clearly visible, but rather in a not fully typical and mixed way and high skulled are only those with a short head in a relative, practically no one in an absolute way.

Please refer to Russian SlavAnthro for more racial pics of Russians -

http://slavanthro.fastbb.ru/index.pl?1-0-0-00000353-000-0-0-1151323166

Susisaari
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 03:58 PM
Nordid is strong in many other parts of Europe, like Mediterranid too (compare with the climatic-racial comparison, the whole temperate and lower area is potential "primary Nordoid habitat".


And what is the reason for that?

Agrippa
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 04:01 PM
And what is the reason for that?

They being the dominant and progressive form for that area since the beginning of the last warm period. Before that Cromagnids dominated, since they being more cold resistant. Both Cromagnid and Nordoid forms being progressive, the former coming from the hunter-gatherers of the colder regions, the later being in the temperate regions more common, being finally shaped by the Neolithic revolution, in which they seem to have been the most effective herder-warrior type in the temperate climate.

They being "less expensive" than Cromagnids, but at the same time more endurant, faster, have a better range, being more often energetic schizothymes. Their pigmentation and lactose tolerance allows them to survive hard winters with their animals, their body and mind making them superior in group competition.

Their are for the temperate European climate zone just two options if speaking about the progressive peak: Nordoid and Northern Cromagnid, with both being versatile and effective both in the individual and groups selection. All others being a worse compromise and the only weakness of the progressive forms is that they need a rather favourable environment and enough energy. The latter being mainly a problem because of masses and negative selection, mainly because the structures build up and being defended by the peak types, being used biologically more often by less effective but more frugal forms, compare with Alpinisation and Baltisation.
Atlantomediterranid and Dinarid would have a similar level and very similar basic specialisation, especially the former, but being less adapted the further North one goes. So there is a large area of transition from the areas for which Nordoids are weaker, mainly because of their pigmentation and problems with Southern diseases, the areas in which both the Northern and Southern groups can flourish, and finally those areas for which the Nordoid type had at least in older times a clear advantage, like Southern and Central Sweden, Northern Germany etc.

Sigurdr
Thursday, August 3rd, 2006, 07:04 AM
Sorry Agrippa,in your racial tipology,what do you mean for "asiatic alpinoids"(maybe is the same as "volgid"or the same as "turanid"?)and what do you mean for "south mediterranid"(is orientalid/arabid race?)
Thanks.

Agrippa
Thursday, August 3rd, 2006, 12:05 PM
Sorry Agrippa,in your racial tipology,what do you mean for "asiatic alpinoids"(maybe is the same as "volgid"or the same as "turanid"?)and what do you mean for "south mediterranid"(is orientalid/arabid race?)
Thanks.

Asian Alpinoid refers to Alpinised forms of Asian origin. They are Europid or mostly Europid like the European Alpinoids, but they stem from local Cromagnoid forms. Being present especially in Anatolia, Near East, Iran etc.
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=61210
Compare with this thread about Kurds. One can see that their source groups being different, but the racial specialisation is practically the same. Thats like Nordoid or generally Irano-Nordoid (metrical) groups, one can see they have different origins, but the specialisation is similar. Thats even more true for Alpinoids since Alpinisation is a process rather - even more so than most other racial types (compare with Alpinisation).

Concerning Suedmediterranid/South Mediterranid, they are still Mediterranids, but again no European form, being rather common in North African Berber-derived relatively unmixed groups, darker and with other different traits. The border towards Orientalids is indeed especially in Egypt fluent, but they are no Orientalids. For a comparison you should look at threads about North Africans. They are the ancient element which expanded from the Levante during Neolithic times and mixed with the local Cromagnoids (Berberid).
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43269