Orientalids?

[Ostrogorski]

I must say, that I'm quite surprised that no one mentions Orientalid race ( or races) here. I know that Coon considered all Neareasternes as Mediterranids, but it's quite strange that he couldn't see the difference between, for example, Italian Mediterranean and Yemen Arabid. Or perhaps he didn't wanted to see the difference.

Obviously,to him all dolichocephals from London to Tokyo are Mediterraneans and all brachycephals on the same trace are Alpinids, so to say.

Any thoughts on this?

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Ronin

I must say, that I'm quite surprised that no one mentions Orientalid race ( or races) here. I know that Coon considered all Neareasternes as Mediterranids, but it's quite strange that he couldn't see the difference between, for example, Italian Mediterranean and Yemen Arabid. Or perhaps he didn't wanted to see the difference.

Obviously,to him all dolichocephals from London to Tokyo are Mediterraneans and all brachycephals on the same trace are Alpinids, so to say.

Any thoughts on this?

In fact "orientalids" are a small mediterranid variety ; not that he did not want to see the diffrence between SE gracil meds proper and orientalids but just that he tied them all in a same larger group.
BTW when Coon talks about "mediterraneans in the Larger sense" one must understand "aurignacids" I.E. lepto-dolicomorph europoids grouping thus the Mediterranean proper , the atlanto-meds, the nordids and all the African-Asian cuacasoid leptomorphs: arabids, saharids, iranids, indids.

[Ostrogorski]

Originally Posted by searcher of truth

In fact "orientalids" are a small mediterranid variety ; not that he did not want to see the diffrence between SE gracil meds proper and orientalids but just that he tied them all in a same larger group.
BTW when Coon talks about "mediterraneans in the Larger sense" one must understand "aurignacids" I.E. lepto-dolicomorph europoids grouping thus the Mediterranean proper , the atlanto-meds, the nordids and all the African-Asian cuacasoid leptomorphs: arabids, saharids, iranids, indids.

Well, I don't know. It always seemed to me that orientalids are a peripheral group of caucasoids and that europoids are a central group.

I also think that groups like orientalids, lappoids, turanids, indids and others, are only secondary related to europids. What genetics has to say about it???

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Ostrogorski

I also think that groups like orientalids, lappoids, turanids, indids and others, are only secondary related to europids. What genetics has to say about it???

Well, it's very hard to connect anthro types with genetic haplogroups, due to intensive mixing of populations through centuries, but we can assume that certain haplogroups predominated in certain populations.
For example, I believe that Y-DNA haplogroup I was predominant in Dinaroid anthro type, at least 2000 years ago.
The other mentioned groups, like orientalids, lappoids, turanids, indids, are present in various nations, and their origins(Y-DNA haplogroups, as well as mtDNA) may vary, making it extremely difficult to reveal their original genetic markers.
Furthermore, contemporary populations who belong to the same anthropological group can often be carriers of different markers, thus making the situation more difficult.

In my humble opinion, the only reliable evidence lies in archaeology(ancient burial sites), anthropometrics(skull measurements) and genetics.
Sometimes, the archaeologists can find preserved teeth in very old graves, and can extract DNA which was shielded by a vacuum, that was formed inside of teeth. I even saw a documentary,in which this technique was used, to compare DNA extracted from the tooth of an ancient Phoenicean ruler, and the DNA of contemporary Lebanese population.That way, it is possible to prove correlation between anthro types and genetic markers, making the whole situation a lot easier.

[Ostrogorski]

Here is one example from wikipedia titled - "An autosomal DNA plot of genetic distances derived from 120 allele frequencies in Cavalli-Sforza's The History and Geography of Human Genes."




And I find very hard to believe that near eastern population is closer to europids than Berbers are, no matter what these geneticists have to say, because Berbers have a good number of cromagnoid-looking people, while near easterners are, like you said ( and I agree) a mixture of various types.

[Agrippa]

Near Easterners have foreign (non-Europid) admixture, but so have other populations. The problem is just that especially the slave trade altered the classic Arabic variant, which was Arabid.
This Arabid is a clearly Europid variant and can be called Mediterranoid, but never Mediterranid. They are the "desert type" of the Southern Europid spectrum, simple as that and can be mainly distinguished from Mediterranids by their facial features and craniological details.

In v. Eickstedts work Iranids being the second subtype after Arabid of Orientalids, and Iranids (Irano-Afghans) are a clearly Europid form close not just to Arabids, but to Mediterranid, Nordoid and Indid the same time (the Aurignacoid spectrum of the East).
Nordindids are even classic Europids, Indid proper (Gracilindid) is a rather tropical adaptation of the Europid spectrum.

In fact Nordid, Mediterranid, Orientalid and Indid are to me, in a way, just different forms of the same basic theme, adaptations to the local climate of a similar basic (leptodolichomorphic/Aurignacoid) Europid form.

So it makes more sense to look at their habitat and way of life they lived in the times when they were formed rather than speaking about admixture alone.

The most Arabid regions of the Near East are, probably unfortunately, those which are now probably the most affected by Negroid admixture because of the slave trade. The "urban Armenid type" and Asian Alpinoid spread as well, especially in the cities and probably because of contraselective trends like elsewhere, so we deal with more complex mixtures in Arabic people of today.

Like I wrote in another thread about these two, clearly Europid/Caucasoid Arabids:
http://i19.tinypic.com/6gjeule.jpg

These two are two perfect Arabids who go somewhat, slightly in an Eastmediterranid direction even, like some Arabid variants do, others not - probably this is partly due to stronger-weaker Armenoid influences as well, though the classic Arabid morphology looks usually less "Mediterranid like" than these two. Clearly in the classic Europid spectrum and without visible non-Europid admixture.

[EagleEye]

Posts 2 and 6 are clearly correct. Arabid indeed is a branch of the greater Mediterranean forum. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably has some euro-unitarian agenda. This wouldn't be unbiased anthropology.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by EagleEye

Posts 2 and 6 are clearly correct. Arabid indeed is a branch of the greater Mediterranean forum. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably has some euro-unitarian agenda. This wouldn't be unbiased anthropology.

Before I move this to C.O.^*, please enlighten us with how to think otherwise equals to having a "euro-unitarian" agenda.

While you are at it, you should also explain what an "euro-unitarian" agenda means to someone who is not European himself, but American.

(^*) the reason to move your post out is because it is a lowbrow comment to a discussion which was highbrow (until your post)

[EagleEye]

Your position as a mod doesn't make you a qualified judge of quality. If anything, your reaction is evidence that the truth is too much for you to take. Logic 101 would demonstrate that ad hominem attacks do not consistute arguments. Your pointing out that my address comes form America has absolutely nothing to do with whether I am correct or not. Attacking motives does not refute arguments. Whatever my motive, I am right, and you are wrong. In a dicussion of foresnic evidence, you do not win by circumstantially attacking motives. This is so basic to fundamental logic that your attack on me can be labeled low brow.

The facts are that arabid and mediterranean are closely related. If you deny it, you are probably trying to promote unity between europeans at the expense of the true revelations that anthropology reveal. This is what it appeared the opening poster was doing (if you carefully analyze the post), and the other two posters correctly refuted him. The fact that you feel compelled to censor me will only feed my confidence. Your forum is simply a small player in a big game.

If you can produce the genetic studies to prove the three of us wrong, you are welcome to, but labeling posts as low brow in an attempt to hide from reality is not the answer.

[Menydh]

1. Anyone with a bare minimum working brain, will have understood, from my post, that I have not denied or a confirmed.
2. Anthropology also --apparently-- reveals that Mediterranids and Nordids are closely related (possibly through an Aurignacoid origin), while Alpinids, Berids and Baltids are of a different type derived (reduced) from Cromagnoid. And that doesn't tell me that Nordids and Mediterranids are related, at all. The same goes for Arabids.
3. It also --appparently-- reveals that Alpinids are related to Western Asian types, and that Nordids are to Indids and others. Like you see, it is far from being any exact science.
4. Genetic studies do not link Middle Easterners to e.g. West Mediterranids. They don't link West Mediterranids to East Mediterranids either.
5. I am pointing to you being an American, because this is clearly a forum for Europeans and not for Asians, Africans, Australians or Americans. Here your rights are the same as those of any other outsider: you are an alien.
6. Arguing with your average American white-trash is a waste of time, and it only diverts attention from civilized discussion.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by EagleEye

The facts are that arabid and mediterranean are closely related. If you deny it, you are probably trying to promote unity between europeans at the expense of the true revelations that anthropology reveal. This is what it appeared the opening poster was doing (if you carefully analyze the post), and the other two posters correctly refuted him. The fact that you feel compelled to censor me will only feed my confidence. Your forum is simply a small player in a big game.

I am not going to argue whether "mediterranids" and "arabids" are related or not - however, your assumption that physical anthropology (and perhaps cranial morphology, etc) somehow has political implications for Europe is erroneous. I dont think its possible to argue that Arabids and many other Middle Eastern groups definitively are not close to or in the Europid spectrum, and may be related anthropologically to some Europeans. However, even in that sense, one must understand that they probably have significant componental ancestry from the same groups that European types derive from, and thus it would only be strange if there was no relation. They also have a number of elements completely alien to Europe, especially African ancestry from their 30 million slaves, that have intermixed with them to an extreme extent.

I think Moors, Berbers, Arabians and other North African/Middle Eastern groups were much more Europid in ancient times than today. And their cultures were also much less degenerate than today - today their only achievement is their oil sale, and their religious fanaticism, whereas they used to achieve much in many sciences and make many inventions.

A depiction of Berbers, Libyans and ancient Egyptians from the Tomb of Seti. Very Europid features.

So it seems we have a culture and people which used to be Europid and be a great, prosperous culture, seemingly with a great destiny and having made many achievements - and look how destructive the alien African elements have been - look whats happened to the culture.

I dont know if its arguable that Mediterranids and Arabids in specific are so "closely related" - however, thats not really the point. Only a fool would rely on anthropological typology to base his politics on, and that is what you are doing.

One must also remember that physical types can change with not much genetic change - very small mutations can make someone look like a space alien. We can use things like autosomal DNA markers to see the full spectrum of genetic distance - which tells us much more than the shape of a skull - and we can look at Y-DNA and mtDNA to reveal ancestry through haplogroups. The autosomal markers tell us that there indeed exists a "Europid" cluster or "European" cluster, and that certain Eastern groups are close to it, certain Indo-Europeans (Persians) are even directly in it, but generally there is a trend which makes sense in the context of our existing understanding. Easterners may have related anthropological types, but any two European nations are closer genetically (autosomally, which is what counts - the actual genome) than Easterners are to Europeans.

If that is a surprise, you are a moron. But it also does not determine cultural history, and neither does physical anthropology.

[Taurin]

Originally Posted by EagleEye

The facts are that arabid and mediterranean are closely related. If you deny it, you are probably trying to promote unity between europeans at the expense of the true revelations that anthropology reveal. This is what it appeared the opening poster was doing (if you carefully analyze the post), and the other two posters correctly refuted him. The fact that you feel compelled to censor me will only feed my confidence. Your forum is simply a small player in a big game.

I'm afraid you are not a leptodolychomorph - thus you won't be able to vaunt any morphological relation with Nordids, Mediterranids, Arabids and Indids altogether.

Maybe you belong to the brachycephalic club, as I do. It's the harsh reality of having a cephalic index above 80. I hope you are a progressive, slender leptoprosopic Dinaroid like me (hey, long face is more manly and attractive), and not one of those squat, yellowish critters one can find in the horror descriptions of Günther's ostische and ostbaltische Rassen.

Now don't take this personally - I'm on your side. If the now suppressed "true revelations that anthropology reveal" were finally disclosed to the public, maybe it will be easier for us Northern Italians to split from Sergi's Eurafrican long-heads. Maybe. In fact I deem convenient to inform you, that in matters of identity and ethnicity, nobody gives a damn about anthropometric measurements.

[ArabianKnight]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Near Easterners have foreign (non-Europid) admixture, but so have other populations. The problem is just that especially the slave trade altered the classic Arabic variant, which was Arabid.
This Arabid is a clearly Europid variant and can be called Mediterranoid, but never Mediterranid. They are the "desert type" of the Southern Europid spectrum, simple as that and can be mainly distinguished from Mediterranids by their facial features and craniological details.

In v. Eickstedts work Iranids being the second subtype after Arabid of Orientalids, and Iranids (Irano-Afghans) are a clearly Europid form close not just to Arabids, but to Mediterranid, Nordoid and Indid the same time (the Aurignacoid spectrum of the East).
Nordindids are even classic Europids, Indid proper (Gracilindid) is a rather tropical adaptation of the Europid spectrum.

In fact Nordid, Mediterranid, Orientalid and Indid are to me, in a way, just different forms of the same basic theme, adaptations to the local climate of a similar basic (leptodolichomorphic/Aurignacoid) Europid form.

So it makes more sense to look at their habitat and way of life they lived in the times when they were formed rather than speaking about admixture alone.

The most Arabid regions of the Near East are, probably unfortunately, those which are now probably the most affected by Negroid admixture because of the slave trade. The "urban Armenid type" and Asian Alpinoid spread as well, especially in the cities and probably because of contraselective trends like elsewhere, so we deal with more complex mixtures in Arabic people of today.

Like I wrote in another thread about these two, clearly Europid/Caucasoid Arabids:
http://i19.tinypic.com/6gjeule.jpg

These two are two perfect Arabids who go somewhat, slightly in an Eastmediterranid direction even, like some Arabid variants do, others not - probably this is partly due to stronger-weaker Armenoid influences as well, though the classic Arabid morphology looks usually less "Mediterranid like" than these two. Clearly in the classic Europid spectrum and without visible non-Europid admixture.

Most of the Southern Coasts are effected by Negroid admixture, however Arabia does still have Arabids as in the majorty, also their was previous proto-Australoid or Veddiod component in Arabia. Arabia was never pure Caucasoid, especially in the Southern regions. However most of Arabia was in fact Caucasoid today Indid influnce is the strongest after the Arabid component. The Nomadic Arabs are in Arabia are still pure Arabids to large extent.

Saudi Arabia still has great amount of the Arabids, in Arabia, in the Southern regions its the nomads who pretty much untouched by foregin influnce.

After Saudi Arabia, Iraq houses a great number of Arabids. What is intersting is that the Iraqi Central Arab Sunnis are more Arabid looking than their Shia Arab brethern who tend to look Iranid often and live in the South.


Beduions









Saudis









I belive the Indid admixture is the most foregin influnce upon Arabia, than any other influnce.

Example former Miss Saudi Arabia, very stunning in my opinion.

[ArabianKnight]

Here is an intersting article about the Arabs:

[Agrippa]

Most of the Southern Coasts are effected by Negroid admixture, however Arabia does still have Arabids as in the majorty, also their was previous proto-Australoid or Veddiod component in Arabia. Arabia was never pure Caucasoid, especially in the Southern regions.

I'm not that sure about it, especially if its about Negroid influences. But thats really a question for geneticists primarily, since what we can do if looking at a living population is just to say whether individuals or the group as a whole deviates in this or that direction by visible or measurable traits, most likely with adaptive qualities and of relevance to kinship.

You should also consider that at the other side of the sea there were mostly no typical Negrids but just Aethiopoids, but today in many regions mixed in Arabia you have no Europid-Aethiopid mixes but Nilotid and Sudano-Kafrid traits primarily among the mulattoes and clearly/heavily influenced, which can be mostly attributed with little doubt to the slave trade. So at least the significant real Negrid influence seems to be of later date in Arabia. I would never underestimate the impact of hundreds and thousands of years of slave trade - same goes for North Africa.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

I would never underestimate the impact of hundreds and thousands of years of slave trade - same goes for North Africa.

The strange thing is that, as far as I can recall now, the levels of Sub-Saharan admixture that I've read for North Africa are high but not as high as I would have expected.