[Agrippa]

You are the one who follow silly things like super-duper progressive Nordids, which are obviosuly Meds, how can be else? Why Nordids? Why not Iranids? Even your view of "racial progression" I like personally in few things it have some partholes. To much Eickstedt here, huh wasn't he said that Alpines stoped their own evolution?

He thought of them being primitive in a way. In fact, if looking at Berid, Alpinoid and certain Baltid variants, the protomorphic tendency can be observed - rather protomorphic Cromagnids they were, before they became reduced-brachycephalised-infantilised.

But probably you can elaborate what you mean with what you said above. I explained what I consider progressive, infantile and primitive traits and this tripartition makes sense I think. What you want to criticise is still unclear if just having the sentence above to refer to.

Ps. There's nothing superrior about Nordids.

Depends on with which type you are comparing them and which the living conditions and habitat you take as rating as well as which society and traits you like to see in mankind in general.

Yes, you use that words, Baltised, why Nordoids can become "Baltised"? Just why?

Nordids became not Baltised. Nordids might have become Dinaricised in certain regions, but not Baltised. Northern Europid population usually get Baltised if there was a Cromagnoid component and a Borealised intrusion, as well as a colder climate and worse living conditions, lower level individual and group selection.

A jump from a classic Nordid to a classic Baltid is like a path with three detours, whereas the development can happen much faster through the combination of Cromagnoid with Lappoid/Borealised NE-Europoids.

The Nordids themselves became less common, had lower fertility rates over time among those dependent farmers in a situation of deficiency. So the population became Baltised, Nordids not, they disappeared and left just certain traits and genetic markers behind in heavily Baltised regions with a former Nordid dominance.

Yes, I know, in times where poplations ware stricly related and isolated as whole population living in same living conditions, environments and diet people ware much more similar to themself because of same factors.

Well, they usually kept to a large degree their traits even if being born in another environment. What seem to ignore is the intrapopulation variation! They were not just more similar because of the living conditions, but also because they cam directly from a tribal past with a more strict selection and higher level of relative inbreeding, endogamy.

Such a milieu theory like that of your's is worse than what many Marxist anthropologists taught, really strange...

Ps. As for Nordids as "of Mediterrean stock", Schwitedzky says:
"To imagine a colonization of Central-, North- and Eastern Europe by humans which expanded from the Mediterranean Sea and brought the indigenous populations to extinction by cultural or biological superiority, is so absurd, that it does not even deserve to be discussed."
Ilse Schwidetzky, 1969

Where did I say anything else? Very true spoken from her.

The only question which remains is how big the influx was and how much influences of phenotypical importance came with it. Furthermore we should discuss the nature of the Mediterranid racial forms, which we shouldnt exclusively derive from Neolithic expansions obviously (!). If seeing it as autochthonous development with little foreign Neolithic influence in many, especially Western European regions, things look very different.

Furthermore she carefully spoke in a very drastic way of extinction and left open how big the impact really was. We can see a rise of Aurignacoid form types already beginning with the warmer period, after the last Ice Age and in Mesolithic times. The Neolithic living conditions led just to an intensified selection of this racial forms.

What you have to understand is that Cromagniform and Aurignaciform racial variants lived most of the time side by side, thats true, but that basic Europoid variation was the base on which selection could work on. Which means depending on the situation more this or that feature combination could be favoured.

But again, its not possible to jump from Cromagnoid to Aurignacoid individually just by changing the environmental influences, thats impossible considering all the traits involved.

Just a simple note, why mixed?

Because of the Western (Nordoid) and Eastern (Borealised) and central (basic Cromagniform of that region) variants. As you can read in the text, different variants came in from the West and I assume, though this being not made as clear, that there was also an Eastern influence. In any case there was the Western Nordoid influence and they distinguished those two complexes which leads to the conclusion of this population being mixed.

Nah, in same populations ware two diffrent "types", but shared common features and being relative, severed by geographical territory and living conditions, and period (when changes happened too).

Of course. I once used that example for comparing Nordeuropid Aurignacoid and Cromagnoid with Suedeuropid Aurignacoid and Cromagnoid:
Its like it is in many families, there might have been a common ancestor with a certain appearance, but he mixed with other individuals of different appearance. Now its absolutely possible that two brothers out of this mixed clan might be much more different phenotype wise, though being genetically closer related, than one of the two brothers to a cousin, who by chance inherited, like he himself, more traits from the common ancestor.

What I refer to as Aurignacoid is just a specific craniofacial trait combination, namely primarily leptodolichomorphy with related proportional and detail traits. Individuals and groups having it being referred to as Aurignacoid. Same goes for the Cromagnoid trait combination (eurydolichomorphy or even more generalised robust-broad faced and related traits).

Like it is with pigmentation or other traits, individuals can mix and will show a certain pattern of inheritance. If you mix a light and a dark haired group, you will get a cetain proportion of light, mixed and dark haired individuals. Same goes for the Aurignacoid and Cromagnoid trait combination.
The recombination can go in a genetically related population on forever, over many, many generations, with inheritance patterns repeating itself. The only way this could change, is that a selective regime comes up, which favours one of the two trait combinations over the other, like f.e. a cooling of the climate, a warming of the climate, different nutritions, sexual or group selection etc.

Obviously if you inherit a craniofacial trait combination, which can be altered, IN CERTAIN LIMITS through environmental pressures, BUT this limits, the potential for development (f.e. maximal head length) being fix and can only change through mutations or genflow happening on an individual or group level.

The other type is mesocranic, more gracile, with a broader, lower and slightly flattened face.

Thanks for that. This shows again differences which go much beyond simple proportional variation of the cranium, they were really fully different in racial character. With one being classic Europid, I assume Nordoid, the other Baltid.

Obviously, like I said above, these types mixed and both being Europid, so yes, they also share traits. But by basic type and specialisation the first is MUCH closer to the people of Southern Sweden than to his fellow countryman!

Whats quite funny is, that the eyeholes are also very different in those two, but that the 1st classic Europid has the rather Cromagniform rectangular shape. I never claimed that the Aurignacoid and Cromagnoid forms are totally different races in the historic and current European populations, but they are morphological extremes and might have a different origin - but even if not they show basic racial difference which at times had an adaptive quality.

The Cromagnoids can be as racially progressive as Aurignacoids and are classic Europids as well.

Concerning the genetic formula: We still dont have the crucial genes for phenotypical traits identified, but in CERTAIN cases, not all, we can come up with relations like those shown above. Namely in NE-Europe classic Europids vs. Borealised ones.

b) Not all traits are determined by genotype, to phenotype environment has clear influnce, beside of that certain genes are turned on or off by geography and lifestyle. Similarity among Europids, Europeans etc. in diffrent populations come from common genepool among them, and living conditions, not by affinity.

But what should be done to prove the unlikely "jump" from a Aurignacoid to a Cromagnoid phenotype?
You would have to take bloodlines, families which didnt varied over generations and look for environmentally caused changes. To simply look on a whole population or subpopulation and analyse through time without looking at the intrapopulation variation means little to nothing but that there is a "general change". How it affects CARRIERS OF DIFFERENT GENES and how you can distinguish between genetic and environmentally is still a wholly different story.

c) Associate with haplogroups? Since when, seriously I'd like to read serious study that write "huh, dude aR1an's are Baltid, R1b are Nordick's" (j/k, i know a bit infantile, but I guess you get what I mean). Their variation aren't specially related to their haplogroup/types, we can find "Nordid" guy with N3a, I1a, R1b, R1a etc haplogroup, and that does not mean anything. (I know, you write only "partly")

To repeat it in a meaningful way for you:

The same people which brought the classic Europid phenotypes to the region also brough the classic Europid markers to it and the same is true for the Borealised and partly Mongoliform variants (!).

This means today it might say little about an individuals racial type whether he carries R1a or N3, because of the long term intermixture. But lets put it that way: If he is a classic Nordid and carries N3, we can say that he doesnt have his racial qualities from the N3 ancestor or vice versa (!).

And haplogroups are of little to no relevance on an individual level should be clear, since a classic Nordid or Mediterranid could also have a Negrid or Mongolid marker, that means nothing if that ancestor lived 10.000 years ago and if considering all the other ancestors contributing to the genome of that person, with the possibility than almost nothing else from that f.e. Negrid ancestor survived but the y-DNA.

Last bold text says all. Beside, baltised, borealised, why only "Cromagnoids"? (do you have any prove for that Nordoid cannot be borealised?).

The authors I read usually said that such a "jump" is not likely. To repeat it, an evolution Nordid - Baltid is like a way with 3 detours whereas it can be a direct path from Cromagnoid to Baltid or Alpinid, namely primarily due to reduction and infantilisation, partial ontogenetic retardation. That way a racially infantile Alpinid is like the childlike version in some regards of a mature-progressive Cromagnid.

If you would do the same with a Nordid variant, you rather get a very gracile leptodolichomorphic form, more similar to a Gracilmediterranid or Gracilindid, than an Alpinid or Baltid.

This is something Coon recognised too, as he derived those forms from his "Upper Palaeolithic" - which is a bad term and definition, but still largely consists of Cromagnoids. From the point of sexual selection, the infantilisation of very robust Cromagnid forms to an Alpinid makes also more sense than from a Nordid example. A more feminised, reduced and gracialised Nordid, such exist though not as a variant or population on its own, is closer to certain Gracilmediterranid and Gracilindid forms, like explained.
So a Nordid must first become Cromagniform and then infantile - a Cromagnid just has to become infantile...

Alpinids and Baltid are Cromagnid derivatives, as you can see on their craniofacial characteristics as well as relations.

Young vs. Older - yes, such drastic changes can occur. One of the reasons I prefer classifying people at the most important, early fertile and mature age, when they show up their racial characteristics the strongest. Neither children nor old are as good for a comparison.

Concerning this individual in particular, he has a much broader and rounded forehead and his face looks longish and narrowing, but not generally as narrow in the first image. So you can see the Alpinoid/Alpo-Baltid admixture in him even at the young age and he doesnt look typically Alpinoid when being older.
His eyes for example have a typical "Western form" I might add. But thats why I always spoke of different typological categories like racial, constitutional, sex, age and social - environmental variants. But what you were trying to do is to substitute one (social - environmental) for all others, which is erroneous. That was at least my impression from some things you wrote.

Dude, these whole stuff aren't stable thats why basic "spectrum" should taken by genetics rather that few features.

But these few features were of crucial importance for certain specialisations and adaptive strategies and they partly still are. But you are right, geneticists should deal with it, BUT also consider typological relations and they should turn MUCH more to adaptive strategies and qualities rather than evolutionary trees and simple genetic affinities. Of course that was limited by the lack of means, but hopefull that will change in the future due to scientific progress and not being handicapped by political inclinations.

How is for example for Poles, in early Middle Ages, long-headed, high-statured Nordoid population become "baltised" or "alpinised" as you may say in late Middle Ages, become brachylicephalised, shrink, and how in XX century? Poles in last 80 years grow sometimes about 18-25 cm's, being of average stature of 180-182 cm's (after Malinowski), what does that mean to you? Just Alpines or what? There was no influx of foreing influnce of some kind Army of Osteuropids since Poles are genetically rather homogeneus to most degree.

Brachycephalisation and infantilisation-pyknomorphisation is only partly related, with the great exception of Dinaroids as we know. However, there is the environmentally caused change you and others claim, BUT this didnt affect all variants the same way nor did it annihilate racial differences.

I would like to read studies about rather homogenous bloodlines/families over generations. So no averages of highly variable populations, which tells us little, but by looking at typically leptodolichomorphic-leptomorphic vs. eurybrachymorphic-pyknomorphic families over many generations, also looking for possible sources of admixture etc.

In many cases I personally know, there were ancestors much more like the juvenile leptomorph in back in his ancestry if the parents don't fit, often with surprising similarities. That a family had over many generations just typically Alpinid individuals and suddenly you get a Nordid out of nothing is simply not possible.

But again, the "unclear cases", so those which are mixed by definition, might move more closer to this or that, like one can change over time and with age, but others, more classic variants, dont.

So you say, that "Osteuropid" can't progress? Because of WHAT?

What you mean with "progress"? If you mean with "progress" becoming Nordid - no they can't if not being selected for it. You can breed out of a largely Osteuropid population typical Nordids if the necessary genes are available, but you cant possibly form an environment in which a Baltid family will give without mutations nor admixture birth to a Nordid individual, thats no realistic option.

No, no dude. These Nordoids ware Nordoid before they become "Alpinised" or whatever you call it, when they had bad living conditions, now durring acceleration of secular change they "come back" to their proper "version".

But there were in all times and all social strata such Nordoid forms and there are still plenty of Alpinid variants. If those Alpinids have now a somewhat higher stature and somewhat longer head, they are still much shorter and shorter headed than their Nordid counterpart which might have grown even more and higher. So again, you can't conclude from population averages "to jumps" in the basic racial variation, that are two different things. One is really the environmental change, so that Nordids are no longer on average 170 but 180 cm + and Alpinids no longer 162 but probably about 170-175 on average.

There's no need to be mixed, Nordoid people are just type of trend rather than specific type, where all Nordoids are related et cetera

Yes in a way types are trends, racial trends, breeding trends. Not trends of "veggies vs. carnivores"

Now you talk about randomisation of features, not all need to come in same way.

Well, you should explain WHY, what you can't, because your premise is wrong.

If you are saying that "Nordid" guy what will not eat much calcium, than "Alpine" guy will be allways taller than the second, now there's a joke, now thats truly funny

Look, a life form, human or other, having the genetic imprint of reaching in a normal case a size of x to y, will suffer more from being forced to the lower end with all kinds of disturbances of growth than a "naturally shorter" individual which needs less energy or generally "material" for a healthy growth and can deal with deficiencies better. Thats why humans and animals in such situation of deficiency shrink alike with drastic examples being in humans Bambutids and Negritids.

They became the frozen starving status of their ancestors and no, they are not the same as the Tutsis f.e. just because the later get more proteins. You won't make out of a typical Twa a Tutsi type. And basically we deal with similar partition as in Europe, just being even more extreme.

Prove your claim, and prove that Europeans/Europids does not share common genepool. Btw. Prove that there is so great diffrentation among Europids of Aurignacid vs Cromagnoid.

S.a., already explained. You construct a claim I never made. I spoke about the specific traits in question which being genetically determined, thats the point.

Give me one biological-anthropological book, of "modern age" that use typological terminology seriously.

Well, going after that we dont have a right to keep our own racial and cultural heritage alive and keeping a purely European nation going after most "modern age" books, because there are obvious political inclinations.

I myself experienced how they try to brainwash young students by deliberately distorting the truth and works of various authors. This was a true shame and had nothing to do with science. The "race exhibition" in the Viennese museum of Natural History was once decorated for its neutral and objective character by the UNESCO even, but when the "politically correct" wave came from the USA, politicians called it "a shame".

Without this idiotic "there is no race dogma" scientists could still use a much clearer and direct terminology, but unfortunately thats not the case.

But if knowing the facts, you can conclude from new productions as well, since its enough to point to a characterisation like that you posted for Estonia. They just dont use the same names which makes it much harder to categorise for those who have no idea, what is partly what the politically correct talkers want, namely that people dont even recognise obvious differences and so can't think about them too much.

Many works of the past were indeed too simple or even one sided, but the understandable way there were written opened a perspective on the subject for the common people and made it a topic in a time in which we still had a pride and awareness of our ethnic and racial heritage.

So what do you want to tell me? If you forbid or stigmatise all people claiming the opposite, you easily get just one official opinion.

For the scientific detail work and studies, you dont need those terms, you can charactise after traits and populations-subpopulations in various ways.

F.e. after I. Schwidetzky on prehistoric European populations:


You have an obvious Nordoid cluster from on the right (5-21). Now whether you name it that way or not, its just the case.