Upper Paleolithics vs Mediterraneans: the biggest division of modern Caucasoids

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Distribution of mtDNA: (1)

The data that I have for the mtDNA H haplogroup in Iberia doesn't seem to agree with the pie in that map:

Andalucians: 46.2%
Basques: 57.8%
Catalans: 56.4%
Central Spanish: 46%
Galicians: 59.2%
Valencians: 53.3%
Northern Portuguese: 47%
Central Portuguese: 37.8%
Southern Portuguese: 44.1%

Ancient Iberians: 52.9%

Interesting to notice that a population of conquest (of repopulation) such as the Valencian, shows less diversity than the Catalan, Galician or Central Spanish (I'll assume Castilian) samples, in fact only matched by the Basque sample.

source: M. L. Sampietro et al., 2005

[Amorsite]

I made a new picture comparing the MED and UP nasal structure.

Compare






And Zambrotta with Morrissey

[Agrippa]

I guess Zambrotta ist pred. Mediterranid indeed, but might have Dinarid influences actually.

How do Dinarids fit in your scheme?

[Amorsite]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

I guess Zambrotta ist pred. Mediterranid indeed, but might have Dinarid influences actually.

He looks plain Eastern Mediterranean (in a broader sense) to me.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

How do Dinarids fit in your scheme?

That no separate Dinaric type exists, but that different types were subject to a similar (dinaricization) process, whatever the cause for it.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Amorsite

That no separate Dinaric type exists, but that different types were subject to a similar (dinaricization) process, whatever the cause for it.

If the end result is so similar and the specialisation convergent, shouldnt we speak in any case of a racial type on its own? I think so.

Nordisation, Alpinisation, Baltisation etc. happened too, so its nothing that specific, but just a newer development chronologically with a typical and clearly defined result.

[Amorsite]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

If the end result is so similar and the specialisation convergent, shouldnt we speak in any case of a racial type on its own? I think so.

That could be considered if:

a) all types which eventually became dinaricised were orginally the same (or very closely related).

b) dinaricisation had occurred to the same or nearly the same level in each individual.

Neither is true.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Amorsite

That could be considered if:

a) all types which eventually became dinaricised were orginally the same (or very closely related).

b) dinaricisation had occurred to the same or nearly the same level in each individual.

Neither is true.

You recognise the fact that what you said is true about most racial types of the Europid spectrum? This is no argument since the are a specialisation and adaptation on their own with very typical and easily distinguishable forms. Through mixture as well as partial Dinarisation you get less distinct "part Dinaricised" forms, but the same could be said about Alpinid and Baltid equally.

To not recognise their distinct character and specialisation on its own by putting them into their own category, you miss a great portion of the racial variation in Europe, Central and South Eastern Europe in particular.

Whether they were the same for the Dinarisation, which can be discussed, is without real relevance if seeing what racial types are about, they are a selection of variants which go into a certain direction (adaptation). You can't be sure about the common origin, if being strict, of any other racial type in Europe being more pronounced than in Dinarids actually.

[Amorsite]

This is no argument since the are a specialisation and adaptation on their own with very typical and easily distinguishable forms.

It is not always easily distinguishable. That different types were subject to a similar process is no argument to lump them together since the results can still be (and are) quite different.

Compare a dinaricised Alpine and a dinaricised Med

To not recognise their distinct character and specialisation on its own by putting them into their own category, you miss a great portion of the racial variation in Europe, Central and South Eastern Europe in particular.

The character is recognised by speaking of dinaricisation and in which areas such process takes place to a greater or lesser degree. On the other hand if we lump for example slightly dinaricised Mediterraneans and strongly dinaricised Alpines in a "dinaric" category, we indeed lose "a great portion of the racial variation in Europe". Also it is highly unaccurate, and provides no satisfactory answers from a morphological point of view.

Whether they were the same for the Dinarisation, which can be discussed, is without real relevance if seeing what racial types are about, they are a selection of variants which go into a certain direction (adaptation). You can't be sure about the common origin, if being strict, of any other racial type in Europe being more pronounced than in Dinarids actually.

Several types can be subject to a similar process but this does not mean the end result will be the same. Specially since the dinaricised European types can be so different within Caucasoid spectrum alredy.

[Agrippa]

These are both at best part Dinarised or mixed. Obviously they are no good representatives for a typical Dinarid.

That would be like posting a Nordid-Cromagnid or Nordid-Baltid as if that would matter at all if talking about the existence of a Nordid racial type.

The typical Dinarid specialisation is that of a rather leptomorphic to mesomorphic, robust boned while being often gaunt, rangy-elongated, with a very mature growth and hyperplastic-Akromegaloid tendencies quite often. They are short headed and tend to be planoccipital, with strong growth tendencies.

You can't show a short-pyknomorphic Alpinoid-Dinarid and comparing him with the typical Dinarids which have the full specialisation in parts of Tyrol, Carinthia, Carpathian mountains and Serbia-Montenegro f.e. That would be like showing a Nordid-Baltid for arguing that they are not homogeneous...

Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology
Those which are under "European Dinarics: 1" and "European Dinarics: II" in Coon's RoE, none is a typical Dinarid.

This one is a prototypical Dinarid which shows what the specialisation of Dinarids is craniofacially about:
http://www.snpa.nordish.net/bilder/troe393.jpg

FIG. 3 (2 views). An exaggeratedly tall, lean, and long-faced Dinaric from Klementi, the northernmost bairak of the tribe of Malsia ë Madhë. Northern Albania is probably the most highly Dinaricized country in Europe.

H.F.K. Günther had better examples otherwise actually and a better eye for a generalised form than Coon, even though he had other weaknesses.

Typical Dinarid body build:


Pred. Dinarid faces:


Coon's view on and explanation of Dinarisation is flawed and makes as much sense as his "Danubian Nordic" examples, or better even less.

De Niro is no simple Dinarid-Mediterranid but has obvious Cromagnoid and/or better Alpinoid influences.

Typical Dinarid variants with Mediterranid (or darkened Nordid influences which can result in similar recombinations at times) can look like this rather:


Mediterranid with Dinarid:

[Amorsite]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

These are both at best part Dinarised or mixed. Obviously they are no good representatives for a typical Dinarid.

The argument was not about what constitutes a "typical" dinaric or Coon's view on dianricisation but rather whether dinaricised individuals should be lumped in a "dianric" category. To include DeNiro and that pred Alpine man as dinaric would be highly unaccurate morphologically speaking, that is the point that was intended with my examples.

That would be like posting a Nordid-Cromagnid or Nordid-Baltid as if that would matter at all if talking about the existence of a Nordid racial type.

You are assuming that dinaricisation in their case is a result of mixture and not a separate development.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

H.F.K. Günther had better examples otherwise actually and a better eye for a generalised form than Coon, even though he had other weaknesses.

Hard to compare Carleton Coon with Günther. Coon was honest in his research which he truly meant to be scientific. He was not into it to try to prove any agenda. Günther, on the contrary, was out there with an agenda and he meant his research to be political. Of course that would qualify him to dishonesty, unless you want to argue the meaning of dishonesty.

From the pictures, the general look is that of some type of altered Mediterranoid, probably East Mediterranid or even a variance of this.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Amorsite

The argument was not about what constitutes a "typical" dinaric or Coon's view on dianricisation but rather whether dinaricised individuals should be lumped in a "dianric" category. To include DeNiro and that pred Alpine man as dinaric would be highly unaccurate morphologically speaking, that is the point that was intended with my examples.

Thats true but probably we didnt communicate that well and there were misunderstandings. Obviously SUCH examples can hardly be lumped together to form a homogeneous racial unity, but as I said, they are not good examples for what the end result of Dinarisation is looking like.

You are assuming that dinaricisation in their case is a result of mixture and not a separate development.

In the case of de Niro I'm pretty sure, in many other cases it could be both possible. But lets put it that way, even if it was an independent development, it was an imcomplete one which is not representative for the tendency as explained above. Thats like a cheetah with short legs...doesnt work out.
Its like an otherwise Nordid individual with very dark pigmentation - can hardly be considered representative for the Nordid type and specialisation, even if the ancestors would have looked that way and he has some other basic traits. For the Northern adaptation the depigmentation was part of it and is constitutive for the Nordid type - ergo. And equally you can't put short, chubby, soft and probably even infantile build, short legged individual with a broad face and softly rounded braincase equally Dinarid as the individual posted above.

Again this is a classic Dinarid:
http://www.snpa.nordish.net/bilder/troe393.jpg

Most others from Coons samples aren't and many dont even come close.

Hard to compare Carleton Coon with Günther. Coon was honest in his research which he truly meant to be scientific. He was not into it to try to prove any agenda. Günther, on the contrary, was out there with an agenda and he meant his research to be political.

There were better and more objective anthropologists than Günther, even at his time, thats not the point. The point is he was in many cases right and had "a good eye" for generalised types and what the base of a specialisation is about.

In a way thats making Coon's approach even worse, since though Günther wasn't the best and no correct scientist in a way, he was closer to the truth than Coon was, who was totally wrong in various regards - though he always said it carefully, knowing that he might get disproven later and writing in a correct, careful scientific manner. Furthermore how honest or dishonest he was could be debated, since he seems to have had an interest in proving that racial differences between Jews and Gentiles were primarily environmental, as were many other racial differences in his view, and that Northern Germany is almost exclusively "Upper Palaeolithic" - in a way he was "anti-Günther" if you like, but an intermediate approach might be closest to the truth, Coon's not.

Günther is good as an inspiration and because of his great plates, as one can see especially in comparison to some examples of Coon.

Furthermore I dont see anything negative in being political or judging if doing so the right way and making the own position clear. Finally most have an attitude which influences their view on things, Günther was probably just more honest about it.

And yes he was too tendentious, going to far in a certain direction as we both know. Still no reason to dismiss him and the aspects of his work which are valuable. Give credit where credit is due...
Neither do I dismiss Coon because of his failures.

From the pictures, the general look is that of some type of altered Mediterranoid, probably East Mediterranid or even a variance of this.

From what I know so far thats what I think actually, though many Dinarid strains have a Cromagnoid component, being related to "Balkan-Borreby"/Cromagno-Alpinoid forms. Still the base of the real Dinarids seem to be essentially Mediterranid, in Norids with a stronger Nordoid component obviously. Varying Aurignacoid or Cromagnoid tendencies can be observed at times, though the common standard is primarily Aurignacoid but with strong Cromagnoid influences, which fall back in comparison however. And Eastern, rather Pontid-Mediterranid variant might have been crucial in most truly Dinarid areas, but with influences from a shorter headed, robust Cromagnoid/Cromagno-Alpinoid form (Borreby-like).

Hmm.
For Y-Chromosom Haplogroups there are some neat new maps, that show gradients inside countries too.

These are from the company "relative Genetics" which claims their maps base on the highest number of probes so far taken (and are updated regulary).

I put all major European Y-Haplos into one image for better comparison: