10 Golden Rules

[Amorsite]

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.

When classifying individuals of European descent:

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 more common towards the South. Expect an Upper Paleolithic type (or a local subvariant of an UP type) and pay attention for Mediterranean exceptions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Señor Malo]

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.

I agree with most terms.
Yet I keep some reserves on this 5th Rule.
I think this one must be used with moderation and caution.
I've got the feeling that sometimes this becomes the only one rule for many classifiers as soon as you give the sample's country.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Truth-Finder

I agree with most terms.
Yet I keep some reserves on this 5th Rule.
I think this one must be used with moderation and caution.
I've got the feeling that sometimes this becomes the only one rule for many classifiers as soon as you give the sample's country.

Agreed. If physical anthropology doesnt have any merits on its own without ancestral "historical" considerations, then one should abolish the discipline. This rule should be used with extreme moderation, and in my opinion, classifications should always be blind, and ancestry shouldnt be revealed at first.

[Weltschmerz]

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.

This one I don't agree with at all. Doubt/remarkable/"local" -> UP. That's just wrong. And I'm not convinced by the arguments offered. "Remarkable internal variability" is a very dubious concept, that doesn't offer as much as a clue in the individual case. This rule seems to be designed to prevent Mediterranean badges of honour to be handed out in dubitable cases. It's a biased rule on a certain mediterraneanist agenda, the other end of what OEN criticised in "North Atlantids Do Not Exist"; the antithesis to inclusive nordicism, only on a general mediterraneanist viewpoint. It is exclusive and obscure mediterraneanism.

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

If physical anthropology doesnt have any merits on its own without ancestral "historical" considerations, then one should abolish the discipline

That is my point, otherwise anthropologist would have never been able to identify and establish the history of proto-historical populations and phaenotypes migrations as they would gone astray in the anthropological identification of the human remains unearthed in the different archaeological sites

Originally Posted by Gnist

This one I don't agree with at all. Doubt/remarkable/"local" -> UP. That's just wrong. And I'm not convinced by the arguments offered. "Remarkable internal variability" is a very dubious concept, that doesn't offer as much as a clue in the individual case. This rule seems to be designed to prevent Mediterranean badges of honour to be handed out in dubitable cases. It's a biased rule on a certain mediterraneanist agenda, the other end of what OEN criticised in "North Atlantids Do Not Exist"; the antithesis to inclusive nordicism, only on a general mediterraneanist viewpoint. It is exclusive and obscure mediterraneanism

Well, this a rule I had overred.
To begin with I would put a tombstone on the UP / Mediterraean taxonomic system and replace it by the Cro-Magnid / Aurignacid one and I even suggest the Cro-Magnid/Aurignacid/Taurid* one.

The UP type concept is erroneous as the morphological ancestor of the so called Mediterranean, nordic, Orientalid, Irano-Afghan and Indid morphological types** where already present in the UP times, as exemplified by the Combe-Capelle man or even the Galley Hill *** man who might be a proto AM
=================================
* I'd put dinaroids, armenoids and other apparently related morphologies in a third group ("Taurid") as long as their affinities are not clearly establish or till there's not a fairly majoritary concensus on the matter
** I would not talk much about racial types as people belonging to such types are much mixed and in some instances and given locations individuals of different morphological affinity would be almost identical from the genetic point of view.
*** I think I red that the age of Galley Hill man was overestimated in the days of TROE to 47000 years BP and that in fact it was just a 12000/10000 years BP intrusive burial (i.e. the body was buried in 47.000 years old sediments - 37000/35000 years old when the burial occured )

[Amorsite]

Originally Posted by Truth-Finder

I agree with most terms.
Yet I keep some reserves on this 5th Rule.
I think this one must be used with moderation and caution.
I've got the feeling that sometimes this becomes the only one rule for many classifiers as soon as you give the sample's country.

Most people nowadays get classified online. Often what you have is 2,3 pictures (not always good) and a video if you are lucky. Ethnicity helps

Originally Posted by Gnist

This one I don't agree with at all. Doubt/remarkable/"local" -> UP.

That's not what it says. It says that there is a bigger probability that the subject is UP. UPs in general vary more than Mediterraneans from a morphological viewpoint. They are often localized and reduced which makes the situation more complex. These two individuals below are European UPs;

Originally Posted by Gnist

And I'm not convinced by the arguments offered.

These are mostly like classifying tips, there is no intent to argue.

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Truth-Finder

Well, this a rule I had overred.
To begin with I would put a tombstone on the UP / Mediterraean taxonomic system and replace it by the Cro-Magnid / Aurignacid one and I even suggest the Cro-Magnid/Aurignacid/Taurid* one.

Interesting post of yours, but I will clarify my position.

-Mediterranean (broader sense) = Aurignacian - if by Aurignacian is meant a race with a smaller skull and non-Cro-Magnon morphology.

-The UP designation of a race is also in my opinion confusing, I usually say Cro-Magnon instead.

-About dinarization, the most reasonable explanation I know of so far is that of Coon. I always thought that there was something both Mediterranean and Cro-Magnoid about dinaricized types.

-There are also more or less Mongoloid forms in Europe.

So, that makes my view of Europe a three races system as well, except that your three races system is a two races system in my view, and then I add Mongoloids to complete the system. I think you forgot about them.

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Gnist

Interesting post of yours, but I will clarify my position.

-Mediterranean (broader sense) = Aurignacian - if by Aurignacian is meant a race with a smaller skull and non-Cro-Magnon morphology.

It is my point too, but my proposal is to give up the term Mediterranean in the broader sense as it would imply that nordics (which I consider related to the mediterraneans and other aurignacians that I already mentioned) would derivate from a mediterranean form; and my position is that share a common morphological origin (Combe-Capelle, maybe or a later type) but I do not think nordics derivate from a mediterranean form.

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Amorsite

Most people nowadays get classified online. Often what you have is 2,3 pictures (not always good) and a video if you are lucky. Ethnicity helps

It can help but one must be cautious. It is neither indispensable as seems to be some times for some classifiers who seem completely helpless when no information about ethnicity is given.
Let's quote an exemple; allthough small mediterraneans are rare in the British isles, they occur from time to time.
If I post picture of a britton who might be small mediterranean predominately and I reveal before classification that he is a britton, biased by that info people might fail to see his small mediterranean features and would probably see other influencies such as AM, Nordic, KN,"Atlantid", in other words anything else but what the sample person really is.
Now if I post the pictures of the same man and give no hint about his ethnicity people would classify him as predominately small mediterranean and possible say that he must be Spanish or Italian.

Now, which of those classifications would be the most accurate?
The second one for sure, though the sample's ethnicity would be wrongly guess (and that minor mistake would be perfectly normal as is a very uncommon type for the British Isles)

[Amorsite]

Originally Posted by Truth-Finder

It can help but one must be cautious. It is neither indispensable as seems to be some times for some classifiers who seem completely helpless when no information about ethnicity is given.
Let's quote an exemple; allthough small mediterraneans are rare in the British isles, they occur from time to time.
If I post picture of a britton who might be small mediterranean predominately and I reveal before classification that he is a britton, biased by that info people might fail to see his small mediterranean features and would probably see other influencies such as AM, Nordic, KN,"Atlantid", in other words anything else but what the sample person really is.
Now if I post the pictures of the same man and give no hint about his ethnicity people would classify him as predominately small mediterranean and possible say that he must be Spanish or Italian.

Now, which of those classifications would be the most accurate?
The second one for sure, though the sample's ethnicity would be wrongly guess (and that minor mistake would be perfectly normal as is a very uncommon type for the British Isles)

I know what you mean. I think in the first case, and unless one is too familiar with the Small Mediterranean type in question, the safest thing would be to classify him as "Mediterranean" in a general sense. Overall I think knowing ancestry does more good than harm, specially since we are giving our opinion on the basis of a few pictures we see in a monitor. And by the way, can you think of 3 Small Med celebrities of British ancestry?

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Amorsite

And by the way, can you think of 3 Small Med celebrities of British ancestry?

That is why I said that they are very uncommon over there.
I can think of a some samples of known britons (not much of a celebrity maybe) and who look Small med to me...i admit I might be wrong.

William Kennedy Dickson, Anglo-Scottish, one of "Edison's Pioneers"



Scottish Noble Prize; he lloks small med + dinarid, for me


that's all I found by now.
But the deal woulkd be to find a third one (if my samples are correct), right?

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Amorsite

Overall I think knowing ancestry does more good than harm, specially since we are giving our opinion on the basis of a few pictures we see in a monitor.

Perhaps in ethnohistorical anthropology..
But I dont see where it fits in in physical anthropology, which should be as objective as possible, and not based on the inevitable prejudice that will come out of knowing the persons origins.. you will already have judged what the person "likely" is and can "possibly" be, and take into consideration a lot of other things than what it in its essence is about: physical (anthropological) features.

[Amorsite]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Perhaps in ethnohistorical anthropology..
But I dont see where it fits in in physical anthropology, which should be as objective as possible, and not based on the inevitable prejudice that will come out of knowing the persons origins.. you will already have judged what the person "likely" is and can "possibly" be, and take into consideration a lot of other things than what it in its essence is about: physical (anthropological) features.

No, it should not build prejudice. But if say you have a case like this, OEN could have told Christabel the individual was probably Bruenn and not Southern UP given his ancestry. Also it helps point in the right direction like I said, and you can try and find similarities with individuals of the same nationality. If these similarities are valid, then they can be used. If they are not, then they wont be used anyway.