Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Help me? (2) - Med subtypes

  1. #1
    THE SEVENTH SON
    OF A SEVENTH SON
    hardcorps's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 26th, 2009 @ 11:52 AM
    Ethnicity
    Northern
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Location
    Transcending existentialism
    Gender
    Politics
    Preservation
    Posts
    147
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Question Help me? (2) - Med subtypes

    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.
    If I rest, I rust.
    - Martin Luther

  2. #2

  3. #3
    THE SEVENTH SON
    OF A SEVENTH SON
    hardcorps's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 26th, 2009 @ 11:52 AM
    Ethnicity
    Northern
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Location
    Transcending existentialism
    Gender
    Politics
    Preservation
    Posts
    147
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Smile

    @cosmocreator

    Cheers!
    If I rest, I rust.
    - Martin Luther

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 10th, 2012 @ 02:10 AM
    Ethnicity
    Afrikaner
    Ancestry
    Slavic
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    2,292
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    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." -----

  5. #5
    Senior Member Stríbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 @ 11:45 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid-Baltid (Aistin)
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Where Rust Belt meets Farm Belt
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Occupation
    college student
    Politics
    Environmentalism and eugenics
    Religion
    occultism & Nature worship
    Posts
    2,163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post

    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.

  6. #6
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Gender
    Politics
    Putinism
    Posts
    5,212
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post

    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

  7. #7
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Country
    Flanders Flanders
    Gender
    Posts
    5,484
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    16
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Post

    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

  8. #8
    Senior Member Ederico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,269
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post

    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?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 10th, 2012 @ 02:10 AM
    Ethnicity
    Afrikaner
    Ancestry
    Slavic
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    2,292
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    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:

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 @ 01:22 AM
    Subrace
    The Other Seedline
    Location
    Granby Dookey of Lindstedtia
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Politics
    No-bless O'Bleeg
    Posts
    811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Help me? (2) - Med subtypes

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



    West-Mediterranean Racial Type



    East-Mediterranid Racial Type


    Regards,

    Loki
    Western Med looks cool... Like a vampire!
    If I were a Med I'd be one of them. :bat

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Are subtypes by nature attracted to each other?
    By IlPrincipe in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Thursday, September 28th, 2006, 10:00 PM
  2. Med ?
    By goidelicwarrior in forum Mediterranid
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: Thursday, September 23rd, 2004, 09:46 AM
  3. Nordic sub-subtypes?
    By Stríbog in forum Nordid
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Sunday, August 25th, 2002, 02:49 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •