Help me? (2) - Med subtypes

**hardcorps** · Saturday, June 21st, 2003

This is a bit like Hans' thread about subraces etc.

I realise most of y'all are Nordish 'specialists' but I was wondering if any can give a brief description, or give a link to a site that does, of the major types of Med. Unlike the Nordish, this group covers elements I would certainly consider non-white, but who is who? I guess I want to work out in my own mind who I consider to be kindred peoples to pure (sorry Thorburn) Nordish, Alpinids and Dinarids, even if they are not apropriate 'breeding partners.' I just want to classify who is who. Obviously there is a world of difference between Von Braun (if he's Med) and Pete Sampras or Al Pacino. Some Med-descriptive terms I've seen here, many of which overlap, are:

North-Atlantid
Paleo-Atlantid
Atlanto-Mediterranean
Med proper(?)
Iberid
Insular Med
Pictish! lol
East Med
Some use the term for certain Indic, Iranid and Arabid (such as Lebanese) types?
A certain (small) 'fuzzy-haired' element in Southern Italy

I know SNPA would consider the first two Peripheral Nordish, but some here don't believe any Med component compatible with an honest Nordish designation.

Thanks for any responses.

**cosmocreator** · Saturday, June 21st, 2003

**hardcorps** · Saturday, June 21st, 2003

@cosmocreator

Cheers!

**Vojvoda** · Sunday, June 22nd, 2003

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-IV2.htm

---"The "Mediterranean" racial family is just as "white," in the larger meaning of the word, as the Upper Palaeolithic family. Its chief differences from the latter are: a smaller brain size, a moderate body size, and a lack of the excessive specializations which characterize the northern group. The Mediterranean group seems to be of purely sapiens ancestry, without Neanderthaloid or other mixture." -----

**Stríbog** · Sunday, June 22nd, 2003

No one has any Neanderthal admixture. That myth has long since been disproven. The Neanderthals were driven to extinction by the Cro-Magnons, and did not contribute any genes to the modern European pool.

**Loki** · Tuesday, June 24th, 2003

Of some interest, is Bertil Lundman's differentiation between East and West Mediterranean. I quote him:

The true West-Mediterranean race (the Ibero-Insular race of Deniker) in southwestern Europe is low-skulled and longskulled (dolichocephalic), dark, short-statured, and gracile in body form (See Figure 3). This race has a narrow face and is low in the frequency of blood type gene q. Within this region, however, there are remnants of the still smaller Berid race (See Map 18). This race is broader-formed in face and nose, but very similar to the West-Mediterranean race in the other anthropological traits - such as head form and pigmentation. The Berid race is also low in the frequency of blood type genes p and q.

In southern Spain and southern Portugal we have a branch of the East-Mediterranean race-the South-Mediterranean or Saharid subrace. This subrace is also high-skulled, but very similar to the West-Mediterranean race in the remaining anthropological traits. It is also low in the frequency of blood type gene q. Likewise very similar, but higher in frequency of blood type gene q, is the Pontid subrace of the East-Mediterranean race. This subrace is found in certain regions west and north of the Black Sea.

West-Mediterranean Racial Type

East-Mediterranid Racial Type

Regards,

Loki

**Frans_Jozef** · Thursday, July 3rd, 2003

No Neanderthaler admixture?
I tend to differ in opinion, as an article which I wrote some time ago for a Yahoo Group testimonizes:

During the excavations of a sandstone rockshelter in Krapina, Croatia
in 1895-1906 649 shattered and demolished pieces of skull, skeleton,
teeth were found dating back to the Last Interglacial 130000 B.P., a
period of warmish climate which lasted about 60000years.
Only five skulls were up to the point intact for examination,
labelled A thru E, C and D belonged to adults.
Skull A, pertaining to a 3-5years old child, consist of the cap of
the braincase, frontal bone, the left pariental, part of the right
pariental.
The skull was very large wth a breadth over 150mm, but modernly thin-
walled, with a steep climbing forehead and weak browridges.
It had frontal tuberas, bosses projecting from either side of the
forehead, I have to recapitulate again that this phenomenon persist
until today in the Valle Brünn and the Basques(both Westpyrenean
and
Alpine types), an indication that neanderthaloid fetures have
survived in West Europeans either due to admixture or some groups of
Neanderthalers converted in a more gracilized condition.
Skull C is from a young woman and resembles A, but her skull was
medium-size...and brachycephalic: 83.7 and unlike the extremely flat-
vaulted classic Neanderthalers afterwards, on the lower end of
orthocephaly, LHI 70.5!
Skull D was larger(breadth 169mm!) and nearly hyperbrachycephalic,
85.5.
The browridges, while heavy in confrontation with modern men, didn't
give cause to form a superciliary torus, but were divided over
nasion, the Mladec type approaches this condition.
The orbits are widely seperated and square,Cro Magnon, Plau and some
East Europid races display a similar trait.
Their facial flatness offers too room to relate them beyond the
threshold of Time to Central European roundheads.
Zygomatics and the upper jaw bone are full below the orbits, not
especially portruding, like all other Neanderthalers there's no
canine fossa(cheek hollowness), but the mandible is thin built.
The forehead is higher than usual in Neaderthal Man, but the face
conforms to mid-facial prognatism and the skull has a bun.
The post-cranial bones are with some exceptions European and modern
defined: neck vertebrae, collarbones, shoulder blades, the upper arm
bone,...in combination with the small and slender built they tend to
resemble the Vedda and Dravidians, which once were regarded as a
stagnated phyle within the evolution conducting to the Europid, or
even Nordic race.

And check this little essay:
Neanderthal Relatives
By Glenn R. Morton
Copyright 1998,1999 G. R. Morton. This may be freely distributed so
long as no monetary charges and no alterations to the text are made.
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/neanev.htm
Visitors to these pages since 12-29-97
Many anthropologists reject Neanderthal from the ancestry of modern
humans. This is based upon three arguments. There is the supposed
major morphological differences between Neanderthal and anatomically
modern men. Such features as facial shapes, and nose bones are
supposed to separate us into separate species. The second argument
involves the mitochondrial differences between Neanderthal and living
humans. First there is the evidence that the mutations within the
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) imply that all of the modern mtDNA was
derived from a single sequence of mtDNA which existed 200,000 years
ago or so. Secondly, there is the mtDNA data which shows that at
least one Neanderthal had a mtDNA sequence which was significantly
different from living humans (Krings 1997). The third argument
involves the lack of time for Neanderthal to transform or evolve into
modern man. This post will deal with this last issue as other posts
have dealt with the other two.
What is called the "Neanderthal problem" involves the issue of our
relation to them. What set the stage for this problem was the fact
that Neanderthal was the first hominid found and the difference
between him and us was exaggerated. The data which follows is much
more understandable in light of a very recent discovery of a possible
Neanderthal/Human hybrid. The Child of Lapedo was found in the fall
of 1998 in Portugal. it is said to have both modern human and
Neanderthal traits. The report has been submitted to the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. Dating 24,500 years the
approximately 4-year old child is from a time only 4000 years after
the last Neanderthal skeleton. (Bower, 1999). If there was
hybridization between Neanderthals and humans, then there should be
more evidence in the skeletons of their descendants. As we shall see,
there is.
As noted above, the differences between us and Neanderthals has been
greatly exaggerated. Frayer writes:
"Nearly three decades ago Brace documented much of this thinking,
arguing that from the moment of their discovery Neanderthals have
been consistently and unjustly ridiculed and rejected. Others on both
sides of the replacement vs. continuity issue show this attitude
continues to the present. It is my contention that Neanderthals from
Europe have been unfairly driven from the human tree, and that, while
different from the humans who followed them, Neanderthals represent
the most likely ancestors of 'modern 'Europeans."(Frayer, 1997, p. 220
The first argument for our separation from Neandertals concerning
morphology can be answered in two ways. First there are modern human
skulls from Europe, especially from Eastern Europe, which are
mixtures of traits. Mladec 5 is ostensibly a modern human, descended
from the African invaders, yet he has significant neanderthaloid
traits. Neanderthals were known for having an occipital bun, a
different shape to the back of the cranium. Mladec 5 had such a bun
(Trinkaus and LeMay 1982). Mladec 4,5 and 6 all were very robust
massive supraorbital bones, and low vaults. None of these are modern
traits. Smith states:
"The supraorbital superstructures are basically modern (i.e.,
somewhat divided into superciliary arches and superorbital trigones)
but, especially in Mladec 5 closely approach the condition of a
Neandertal supraorbital torus, particularly that of late Neandertal
tori in South-Central Europe. Wolpoff notes that the cranial contour
of Mladec 5 is similar to that of La Chapelle-aux-Saints except for a
slightly higher forehead and less projecting occiput." (Smith 1982,
p. 678
Frayer notes:
"While there is more evidence than just Mladec 5 and the comparisons
shown in Figure 16.1, it is apparent to me in 1995 just as it was in
1974 that Neanderthals must have had some relationship to the early
Upper Paleolithic Europeans. Otherwise, specimens like Mladec 5, if
uniquely descended from Qafzeh 9-like populations and unrelated to
populations represented by specimens such as Spy 2, would have had to
develop many of the same features that are commonly found in European
Neanderthals. W. W. Howells (1974) once observed that Upper
Paleolithic humans are 'instantly recognizable as anatomically
modern.' I have always disagreed with this observation and to the
contrary concluded in 1974 that Mladec 5 was 'instantly recognizable'
as having Neanderthal ancestors." (Frayer, 1997 p. 221-222)
Frayer continues,
"According to Trinkaus, the Neanderthal condition is highly variable
and 'more than half of the European "classic" neanderthals have their
mental foramen mesial to M1,' which is typically the 'modern'
position. Beyond this, Wolpoff has itemized a series of facial,
cranial, and postcranial characters which link--not separate--
European Neanderthals from the People who follow them. Thus,
considerable evidence points to the persistence of these 'neanderthal
autapomorphies and common traits' into the Upper Paleolithic
populations which succeeded the Neanderthals in Europe. "At the same
time, these identical features are generally absent in the human
fossils from Africa (Omo, Border Cave, and Klasies River Mouth) and
the Near East (Skhul and Qafzeh) who reputedly represent the source
populations for the early Upper Paleolithic people of Europe. For
example, the H-O trait is absent in the African and Levantine
mandibular samples. While these samples are small, the absence of
these features has been used to define them as modern, which is
generally true except for the early Upper Paleolithic people who
possess the 'unique' Neanderthal features. The fact that the so-
called Neanderthal autapomorphies occur in the early Upper
Paleolithic of Europe and not in the known 'Eve' populations presents
some formidable problems for the advocates of total replacement.
These authors discount any interbreeding between the resident
European Neanderthals and the invading 'moderns,' so the Neanderthal
unique features could not be due to gene flow. Thus, while Stringer
and Gamble argue that the last Neanderthals were able to get close
enough to the invading moderns to copy their tools, the two groups
were apparently not capable of breeding with each other. Some even
attempt to sustain the argument that Neanderthals and 'moderns'
existed 'side-by-side for 50,000 years and never [had] sex'. Leaving
aside the whole question of violation of competitive exclusion, the
existence of the Neanderthal features in Upper Paleolithic skeletons
undermines the logic of this position and creates the highly unlikely
requirement that the identical features evolved independently a
second time in European people who followed a supposedly nonancestral
population which nonetheless had exactly the same traits. And,
following the reappearance of these identical traits, they rapidly
decreased again in their incidence in the descendant populations. No
amount of genetic analysis or replacement thinking can get around the
fact that Neanderthal 'unique' features appear in the early Upper
Paleolithic. An alternative, more direct conclusion is that
Neanderthals contributed to the Europeans who followed them and no
abrupt replacement occurred between the Mousterian and the Upper
Paleolithic. There is no easy way to dismiss the importance of these
persisting features and, unless one simply ignores the presence of
these 'unique' Neanderthal anatomical traits in the early Upper
Paleolithic fossils, there is no reason to question the links between
Neanderthals and early Upper Paleolithic Europeans." (Frayer,1997,
p.224-225)
Frayer also notes that the H-0 mandibular foramen is almost unique
among European Neanderthals, being unknown outside of Europe at that
time. The supposed invaders, the earliest modern humans also had this
characteristic Neanderthal trait. In an earlier article Frayer has
the following info.
European H-O Normal
Foramen Foramen
% %
Neanderthal 53 47
African Eves 0 100 (the invaders)
Skhul/Qafzeh 0 100 (the invaders)
Early U. Paleolithic 18 82 (supposedly genetically separate)
Late U. Paleolithic 7 93
Mesolithic 2 98
Medieval Europeans 1 99

David W. Frayer, "Evolution at the European Edge: Neanderthal and
Upper Paleolithic Relationships," Prehistoire Europeenne, 2:9-69,
Table 7, p. 31
I would suggest that the data implies interbreeding did occur.
The second argument I raised was that of the mtDNA. The fact that all
modern mtDNA appears to have descended from a single sequence which
dates between 130 and 200 thousand years ago is often used by
Christians to suggest that God created mankind during this period and
that we are genetically unrelated to the previous hominids. What is
overlooked is that if the coalescence time for mtDNA is 200,000
years, the coalescence time for nuclear DNA is several times that
period!
"Moreover, as will be discussed shortly, molecules that do not
recombine (such as mtDNA but not nuclear DNA) show a strong bias
towards even shorter coalescence times. If the coalescence time of
mtDNA is truly about 200,000 years ago, then the expected coalescence
time of almost all nuclear genes are going to be commonly greater
than one or two million years. This places the expected coalescence
times of much nuclear DNA into a period in which all humans probably
lived in Africa. Hence, studies on nuclear DNA are expected to have
an African root under all hypotheses of modern human evolution."
(Templeton, 1997, p. 353)
Given the observed variability of our nuclear genes, and the way they
are transmitted, our genetic history MUST be over a million years
old, meaning not only are we related to Neanderthal but also to Homo
erectus and most likely Homo habilis. The mtDNA cannot be used to
exclude H. erectus from our ancestry because it does in fact support
that ancestry. And since Neanderthal by everyone's estimation is
ultimately a descendant of H. erectus, at the very least, Neanderthal
is related by common descent. And thus the differences between us and
the Neanderthal reported by Krings, et al (1997) (which are not
greater than the observed mtDNA variations among all chimpanzees and
yet they are of one single reproductive species(Wong, 1998, p. 30))
are not sufficient reason to separate them into another species.
Given this, the argument made by Christians that somehow the mtDNA
data marks when humans were created, becomes hollow. If one desires a
common descent from the first humans, it can not have happened within
the past million years! Christian apologetics must accommodate this
concept, that human genes have been on earth for at least as long as
2 million years.
The third argument against the inclusion of Neanderthals into
humanity concerns the lack of time required for Neanderthals to have
evolved into humanity. Frayer tackles this issue head on. He states
(his second argument):
"A second argument against the inclusion of European Neanderthals as
ancestors involves evolutionary rates. It is odd that the same
scholars so willing to accept an abrupt punctuational event for the
origin of modern humans (as is required in the Eve theory), or for
the rapid appearance of racial (geographic) characteristics after the
establishment of moderns in replacement models, argue that
Neanderthals could not be ancestral to modern humans because there is
not enough time for one to evolve into the other. Yet, it is a
common, decades-old argument that European Neanderthals differed so
profoundly from modern hominids that there was insufficient time to
allow them to evolve into Upper Paleolithic humans." (Frayer, 1997,
p. 225)
Frayer uses measurements from the various skulls to show that this is
not the case. He uses the definition of the darwin, a measure of
morphological change to show that to change from a Neanderthal to a
modern human requires slower evolution than to change from a pre-
farming modern human into a farmer! He defines:
"Evolutionary rates were calculated using Haldane's (1949) formula
for a darwin (d)
[loge x2 - loge x1]/t
where x1 and x2 are the sample means and t is the time interval
between the two samples expressed in millions of years." (Frayer,
1997), p. 227 ** "Despite the contention of those who argue for
elevated evolutionary rates, the rates of change in these fourteen
measurements for the Neanderthal-Upper Paleolithic comparison are
consistently low compared with those of other samples. For example,
the maximum rate observed for the European Neanderthal-early Upper
Paleolithic comparison is 1.8 darwins, which is lower than seven of
the fourteen rates for the early to late Upper Paleolithic transition
and five of the fourteen rates for the early Upper Paleolithic-
Mesolithic comparison. Moreover, the average rate of change between
the European Neanderthals and the early Upper Paleolithic is .8 d,
which is substantially below the average rates for the two post-
Mousterian comparisons. The rate between the Neanderthal and early
Upper Paleolithic sample is less than half the average darwin between
he early-late Upper Paleolithic (1.8d) or between the early Upper
Paleolithic and Mesolithic (1.6 d). Two unambiguous conclusions can
be drawn from the rates for these measures of craniofacial change:
(1) neither a 'tremendous acceleration' nor even a rapid evolutionary
rate is required for the transition of European Neanderthals into the
early Upper Paleolithic, and (2) these rates of change show that
anything but stasis characterizes the post-Neanderthal period in
Europe, which exhibits substantial reduction in facial projection
from the auricular point. Some of these rates are affected by the
time interval, but following Gingerich's logarithmic scale, the
average rate and highest rate for the Neanderthal-early Upper
Paleolithic proposed transition is well within his observed limits
and comparable to change within other lineal taxa. In short, the
Neanderthal-early Upper Paleolithic rates fit comfortably in
his 'Domain IV' post-Pleistocene rates of change, indicating that
they are not excessively high." (Frayer, 1997, p. 228)
Here is the data from his article.
"Rates of Change (in Darwins) for Facial Measurements from the
Auricular Point
Neanderthals to Early to Late Early Upper
Early Upper Upper Paleolithic Paleolithic to
Paleolithic Mesolithic
Auricular point to:
prosthion 1.1 1.9 1.6
nasospinale 1.0 1.9 1.8
nasion .9 1.4 1.3
glabella .8 1.4 1.3
zygomaxillarae 0.0 1.3 2.0
M1/M2 1.8 1.0 .8
P3/P4 1.2 2.0 1.3
I2/C 1.1 1.8 1.3
inferior
nasomaxillary suture .6 1.6 1.9
jugale .7 2.8 2.4
frontomalareorbitale .4 1.9 1.8
alare .7 1.6 1.6
palatine suture cross .6 1.8 1.7
post-orale .5 2.4 1.9
average change .8 1.8 1.6

David W. Frayer, "Perspectives on Neanderthals as Ancestors," in G.
A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed., Conceptual Issues in Modern Human
Origins Research, (New York:Aldine De Gruyter, 1997), pp 220-234, p.
228
"Table 16.2 Rates of Change in Mandibular Incisor and Canine Mesio-
Distal Lengths and Labio-Ligual Breadths between selected Groups, as
Measured by Darwins
Il lt Il Br I2 Lt I2 Br C Lt C Br Mean Mandible
Neanderthals to early .2 1.6 .3 1.1 .9 .3 .8
Upper Paleolithic
Late Neanderthals to early Upper 2.1 6.1 3.1 5.1 4.8 1.5 3.8
Paleolithic
Early to Late Upper Paleolithic 1.9 .6 2.2 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.8
Mesolithic to Neolithic 27.1 14.6 19.6 13.7 17.3 7.5 16.6
Early Upper Paleolithic to Neolithic 2.3 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.3
Maxilla Neanderthals to early .3 1.0 1.0 1.6 .7 .8 .9
Upper Paleolithic
Late Neanderthals to early Upper .9 1.1 2.7 4.9 1.5 1.8 2.1
Paleolithic
Early to Late Upper Paleolithic 2.3 .5 2.0 4.1 1.7 1.9 2.1
Mesolithic to Neolithic 29.8 11.9 25.6 0.0 15.0 10.3 15.4
Early Upper Paleolithic to Neolithic 2.6 1.7 2.4 2.4 1.8 2.1 2.2
David W. Frayer, "Perspectives on Neanderthals as Ancestors," in G.
A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed., Conceptual Issues in Modern Human
Origins Research, (New York:Aldine De Gruyter, 1997), pp 220-234, p.
230
"Table 16.3 Rates of Change in Mandibular and Maxillary Tooth Areas
between Selected Groups, as Measured by Darwins (Tooth Areas = Mesio-
Distal Length x Bucco-Lingual Breadth)
Canine P3 P4 M1 M2 M3 Mean Mandible
Neanderthals to early 1.3 1.8 1.1 .1 1.1 1.3 1.1
Upper Paleolithic
Late Neanderthals to early Upper 1.9 4.8 3.1 .6 3.2 5.3 3.2
Paleolithic
Early to Late Upper Paleolithic 4.1 2.7 3.0 1.1 1.5 1.3 2.3
Mesolithic to Neolithic 23.5 27.1 17.8 30.1 27.8 12.5 23.2
Early Upper Paleolithic to Neolithic 5.2 4.1 2.9 2.7 3.4 3.5 3.6
Maxilla Neanderthals to early 1.6 1.4 1.5 .8 .8 1.3 1.2
Upper Paleolithic
Late Neanderthals to early Upper 3.1 1.5 3.4 1.0 2.4 2.9 2.4
Paleolithic
Early to Late Upper Paleolithic 3.4 4.2 3.2 1.0 2.5 3.0 2.9
Mesolithic to Neolithic 27.7 32.9 26.1 27.0 32.1 26.3 28.7
Early Upper Paleolithic to Neolithic 4.2 4.6 3.7 3.1 4.5 3.9 3.9
~David W. Frayer, "Perspectives on Neanderthals as Ancestors," in G.
A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed., Conceptual Issues in Modern Human
Origins Research, (New York:Aldine De Gruyter, 1997), pp 220-234, p.
231
Frayer's discussion notes that the fastest rates are DURING the
period in which anatomically modern man was alone on earth!
"For anterior tooth lengths and breadths (Table 16.2), rates
expressing change between the total Neanderthal sample and the early
Upper Paleolithic never represent the highest evolutionary rate.
Rather, mean differences between the Mesolithic and Neolithic show
the highest darwin values, in each case for individual anterior tooth
lengths and breadths. For example, in the mandibular anterior teeth
the highest rate between the Neanderthal and early Upper Paleolithic
sample is 1.6 d for I1 breadth and the mean rate of change of the six
dimensions is .8 d. In the same six dimensions, the highest rate of
change between the Mesolithic and Neolithic is 27.1 d and the average
rate of change is 16.6 d. "(Frayer, 1997, p. 229)
"Nevertheless it is useful to compare rates which are calculated over
approximately the same time interval to determine if an excessive
amount of change is required to allow for the transformation of
Neanderthals into Upper Paleolithic people. In this regard, the late
Neanderthal-early Upper Paleolithic rates can be compared with the
early to late Upper Paleolithic rates( both sampled over about the
same time period of 10,000 years) or to the early Upper Paleolithic-
neolithic rates, which are sampled over about twice that length of
time(20,000 years). Both of the latter comparisons involved change
within a species (no one questions that Upper Paleolithic and
neolithic humans belong to Homo sapiens), and it is apparent from the
rates that the Neolithic, like the late Upper Paleolithic, has
undergone marked dental reduction."~David W. Frayer, "Perspectives on
Neanderthals as Ancestors," in G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed.,
Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, (New York:Aldine
De Gruyter, 1997), pp 220-234, p. 231-232 ** "In the maxillary
anterior tooth dimensions, the late Neanderthal-early Upper
Paleolithic average rate (1.8 d) is less than both the early to late
Upper Paleolithic (2.1 d) and the early Upper Paleolithic-Neolithic
(2.2 d) comparisons. One maxillary dimension for Neanderthals (I2
breadth) slightly exceeds the highest rate in the early-late Upper
Paleolithic comparison. It is apparent from the data on rates of
change in the incisor and canine dimensions of both jaws that the
transition between the Neanderthals and the early Upper Paleolithic
involved relatively high rates of change for some specific dental
dimensions, but that the overall or mean rate of change was
comparable among all three sampled intervals."(Frayer, 1997), p. 232
Further, he concludes,
"Thus, contrary to the commonly stated argument that not enough time
exists for European Neanderthals to be ancestral to subsequent
Europeans, these data clearly demonstrate that there was
no 'tremendous acceleration' in rates of change between the
Neanderthals and the Upper Paleolithic Europeans. For me, these data
falsify the argument that European Neanderthals as a group cannot be
ancestral to subsequent Homo sapiens in Europe (at least with respect
to metric features of the face and teeth) because too much change is
required over too little time. Moreover, based on the rates of dental
evolutionary change, there is nothing to support the contention that
European Neanderthals represent a separate species. Such a conclusion
would only hold if one is also willing to accept a speciation event
between the early and late Upper Paleolithic, between the Mesolithic
and Neolithic, or between the early Upper Paleolithic and Neolithic,
since all of these comparisons have similar, or in some cases
considerably higher, average or individual evolutionary
rates." "While rates of dental evolutionary change by themselves do
not prove that Neanderthals are ancestral to early Upper Paleolithic
Europeans, these results do indicate that European Neanderthals
cannot be eliminated as possible ancestors based on speculations
which require grossly elevated evolutionary rates. Moreover, the
period following the Neanderthals in Europe is not characterized by
absolute or relative stasis but by marked change within the Upper
Paleolithic and from the Upper Paleolithic to the Neolithic. These
observations should put to rest both the contention that differences
between the European Neanderthals and the early Upper Paleolithic
require an exorbitant rate of change and the unsupported claim that
tooth size shows little absolute or relative change after the
appearance of the Upper Paleolithic. Those who still maintain that
European Neanderthals are unrelated to subsequent European Homo
sapiens must look to other data; these data do not include the
presence of so-called Neanderthal autapomorphic traits or exorbitant
rates of change."(Frayer, 1997) p. 233
While I don't know how much Neanderthal ancestry is in the modern
human race and am uncertain how it got there, interbreding or
evolution, the above data seems to indicate that the apologetical
position which tries to separate the archaic hominids from
anatomically modern men fail for several reasons. Christian theology
ignores this data at its peril.
DMD Publishing
References
Bower, Bruce, "Fossil may expose humanity's hybrid roots", Science
News, Vol. 155, No. 19, May 8, 1999, p. 295
Krings, Matthias, et al, 1997. "Neandertal DNA Sequences and the
Origin of Modern Humans," Cell, 90:19-30
references
Frayer, David W. "Perspectives on Neanderthals as Ancestors," in G.
A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed., Conceptual Issues in Modern Human
Origins Research, (New York:Aldine De Gruyter, 1997), pp 220-234
Krings, et al., Matthias "Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of
Modern Humans," Cell, 90(1997):19-30
Smith, Fred H. "Upper Pleistocene Hominid Evolution in South-Central
Europe: A Review of the Evidence and Analysis of Trends," Current
Anthropology 23(1982):6:667-703, p. 678
Templeton, Alan R. "Testing the Out of Africa Replacement Hypothesis
with Mitochondrial DNA Data," in G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet,
ed., Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, (New York:
Aldine de Gryuter, 1997), pp. 329-360
Trinkhaus, Erik and Marjorie LeMay, "Occipital Bunning Among Later
Pleistocene Hominids," American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
57:27-35(1982), p.28-29
Wong, Kate "Ancestral Quandry," Scientific American, January 1998, p.
30

**Ederico** · Thursday, July 3rd, 2003

Is the East-Mediterranid Racial Type considered Europid or not? The West Mediterranid seems Europid to me, does anyone have pictures of both types in a relatively pure form?

**Vojvoda** · Thursday, July 3rd, 2003

Originally posted by Iovvs Optimvs Maximvs
Is the East-Mediterranid Racial Type considered Europid or not? The West Mediterranid seems Europid to me, does anyone have pictures of both types in a relatively pure form?

High skulled Eastern Med-Pontic:

Low skulled Western Med- Atlantic: