Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorsite
The rules stated below apply to over 90% of classifications of European-descended individuals. They are the conclusion of my experience in classifying such persons and have been proved to work in nearly all cases. The purpose is to help classifiers and contribute to accuracy.
|
What work? Have you studied anthropology?
[quote=Amorsite;157789]
1- The first distinction to be made is whether the person in question is Mediterranean or Upper Paleolithic in type. As a rule of thumb Upper Paleolithic types are commoner in most of Europe. Mediterraneans become commoner more towards the south. Expect an Upper Paleolithic type (or a local subvariant of an UP type) and pay attention for Mediterranean exceptions. [/uote]
But... Mediterreans has exist in Upper Paleothic too
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorsite
2- 50/50 blends are rare. In most cases, the individual belongs to a certain type (or a local variant of some type) with possible alteration by other type, but not to the extent to which the elements in the blend are indiscernible.
|
If we get into Mendelism = Mendel's law it isn't specially rare, depends on alleles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorsite
3- Don’t expect everyone to be a typical example of a given category. Also don’t assume that not having a “typical” appearance implies admixture of a different element. Specially Upper Paleolithic types are spread throughout Europe in countless different local subvariants.
|
Here right, but how Kostecki is Baltic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorsite
4- Be skeptic about blends of similar elements. A Bruenn-Phalian or Mediterranean-Nordic intermediate is unlikely if considering the morphological similarities and overlaps between these types.
|
Why? Dont see serious answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorsite
5- Demand the subject’s ancestry in classification. Though in theory classification should be independent of the place of origin, there is almost never sufficient material for complete accuracy. Knowing a person’s background usually points in the right direction. Consider the racial history and principal elements of the given country(ies) the subject descends from and ask yourself whether the person in question cannot be explained as a product of these.
|
YEAAAAAAAAH, thats why GOOD example of CORDED James Kotecki you had classified as Nordic+Baltic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorsite
6- Don’t classify on impression. An assessment on the physical type of a person is only valuable if it considers morphological traits. Stereotypes and pigment should not influence classifiers. Some stereotypes, like the “Irish” lip, have some morphological value while others like the blonde robust “Nordic” German do not. Do not mistake “Northern European” or “Germanic” with “Nordic” for example.
|
Again, you said that Kotecki doesn't look Swedish and because of that he can be Nordic LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorsite
7- Think in terms of morphology, not absolute tags. Words are insufficient when describing appearances. The most important consideration is whether the group of features which corresponds to a type is present in a given person. Most Europeans could be described as possessing a “narrow” nose, many as having a “long” face, but it does not imply belonging to any type in particular. Pictures, not words.
|
?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorsite
8– If in doubt, bet UP. Following rules 1, 2, 3 and 4. UP types have remarkable internal variability and comprehend most of Europe’s population. If the individual in question does not seem to be an easy case, or looks somehow “local”, one should begin investigating whether he or she is an UP type. Mediterraneans vary less in appearance than Upper Paleolithics.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorsite
9– No more than 3. Most European individuals could be said to belong to at most 3 different visible types. This is specially the case for Western Europe. Time has not yet permitted the formation of more complex blends.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorsite
10- Morphology > Metrics. It is possible to find individuals of Upper Paleolithic affiliation who conform to a Mediterranean type from a metrical viewpoint. The correct approach when classifying someone is to find persons with similar facial features who have previously been taxonomixed. No pictures hurt: the more material one can assemble, the better. The more resemblances you can establish and remember, the better prepared you will be for future subjects.
|
Allah akbar
