What does a basic racial typology describe in Europe?

[Agrippa]

What does a basic racial typology describe in Europe?

I think a 5-7 race scheme is enough to describe the basic variation inside of Europe, the most important evolutionary tendencies, specialisations, races are mainly that and can change over time.

My explanation would be as follows, there are basically 6-7 tendencies in Europe and we just see varying degrees and intermediate forms of them. But there can be more than one reason for that pattern, just to mention some:
a) the simplest is (sub-)racial mixture.
b) an evolutionary tendency can occur in various areas, but with a different specific direction, just parts of a type could have been realised for various reasons:
-) the selective pressure in the direction of a type was there but not strong enough, so certain features were never selected or it would have need more time
-) the pressure became too weak or changed before the type was fully realised
-) the direction of the selective pressure changed after the type was realised - a typical form existed but was altered by changing conditions afterwards
etc.

So the types represent the "ideal goal" of a typical European evolutionary tendency which can be realised fully, partly, can be intermediate between two or more forms. In that way those which represent the typical or even extreme form of a tendency are "pure" phenotypically, those which deviate for whatever reason in another direction are "mixed" - crucial are those inherited features which are important for the specialisation and therefore the definiton of a type, an evolutionary tendency.

About which influences might have played a role in forming the various subracial tendencies in Europe I already wrote various posts on this board, so I dont want to repeat it know, but just to discuss about the basic tendencies and relations.

I made a rather rough and simplified graphic to illustrate what I mean, I didnt mentioned all variants I know of and some positions had to be a compromise - simply because of the limits of this simple 2dimensional graphic. As European I consider the basic circles of Nordid, Cromagnid, Dinarid, Mediterranid, Osteuropid and Alpinoid. The best representative form in the centre of the subrace is in brackets. Again this scheme is not meant to be perfect, but just a good illustration of some basic relations in Europe which I have in mind:

Between Mediterranid and Dinarid "Baskid" could be placed, between Dinarid and Alpinoid "Carpathid".

Because Skildur asked on Skadi about Nordid-Osteuropid relation in this graph I added:

The transition from Nordid to Mediterranid is very important and reflects basically a dichotomy of robust and gracile forms in the Leptodolichomorphs of Europe. In terms of general specialisation its clear that both robust Mediterranid (Atlantomediterranid) and Dinarid forms are closer to Nordid than Baltid proper.

But you must read it right, because Cromagnid can be included at least in Nordoid, what could be pointed out too. So there are two relations of Nordids, one to the other leptomorphics, one to the other forms of the North. The 2nd is represented by the Nordid transition to Cromagnid (f.e. Trönder). The transition between Nordid and Osteuropid was not possible in this graphic and as I said its far from perfect. The correlation between Cromagnoid and Mediterranoid was not to make as well if showing all primary correlations and types as well (Southern Cromagnoids: Berberid).

But it would be basically like that: Nordid (Skandonordid) - Eastnordid - West Baltid/Eastcromagnoid (beginning of Osteuropid) - Baltid - Eastbaltid (ending of Osteuropid) - Lappoid. The connection to Nordid is not direct, but just through the "Nordic (Nordoid) connection" with Cromagnids - which are, in terms of specialisation, much closer to Baltid proper than standard Nordids.
A connection to the Nordoid Cromagnids is clear since West Baltid/Eastcromagnid is Nordoid Cromagnid too and between Dalofaelid and Baltid. As are Borrebies between Cromagnid and Alpinoid...

So there the basic poles (6) in Europe and fluent transition between them both due mixture and intermediate evolutionary positions I'd say.

[Exeter]

Berid is between Mediterranid and Alpinid, if we believe in the theory that West-Alpinids were formed from from Berids. I see that you have not included Palaeo-Atlantid and Tydal. Why is that? Does it become too complicated?

Have you made up the term "Atlantid"? Dalofaelid is actually an inaccurate name. Lundman gave a good reason and said that most German researchers did not even set their foot in Dalarna.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Exeter

Berid is between Mediterranid and Alpinid, if we believe in the theory that West-Alpinids were formed from from Berids. I see that you have not included Palaeo-Atlantid and Tydal. Why is that?

Berid is between Cromagnid, Mediterranid and Alpinid, but because the graph didnt allowed it, I placed it between Cromagnid-Alpinid, thats in fact not the best solution, I even thought about that while doing it...Berberid wasnt mentioned for the same reason, because it can't be seen as being generally between Cromagnid and Alpinid

Palaeatlantid/Tydal is too unclear and of secondary importance in Europe, but the same is true as for Berberid basically.

Have you made up the term "Atlantid"?

Its a phenotypical description like "Keltic Nordic", I should have set it in " " like the other descriptions of that kind probably.
I wrote med-nor in brackets anyway.

Dalofaelid is actually an inaccurate name. Lundman gave a good reason and said that most German researchers did not even set their foot in Dalarna.

Many termini could be questioned but this is a well established one and therefore I keep it. The form is definitely present in Sweden btw.

Swedish examples for Dalofaelid here:
Swedish girl first plate/post, Swedish male second plate/post, Swedish male third plate. So this type is definitely present in Sweden and if the region of Dalarna is really the main area of their distribution in Sweden, oh well, there are different opinions on that.

[Carnyx]

Agrippa, I guess the difference you make between Atlantid and Nordatlantid is a matter of racial predominance, right? Atlantid being pred. Med and Nordatlantid Nordid. ... In my mind Atlantid was a synonym to Atlantomediterranid.

[Gil]

I think the atlantomediterranean type is less robust than the atlantid type.
As far as I know, the term "atlanto-mediterranean" was first coined by Joseph Deniker, who split the Mediterranean race into the short-statured Ibero-Insular type, and the tall-statured, mesocephalic, Atlanto-Mediterranean or Littoral type.

I think Littoral is good term, mainly because it distinguishes the type from the (stereotypical) idea of Mediterranids (gracil, short stature).

[Agrippa]

Atlantomediterranid is still Mediterranid without clear Nordid influences, just by specialisation much closer to Nordid than Gracilmediterranids are. Nordatlantids are Nordids, just somewhat, slightly closer to Mediterranid. Atlantid is really intermediate unlike the other two.

[Gil]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Atlantomediterranid is still Mediterranid without clear Nordid influences, just by specialisation much closer to Nordid than Gracilmediterranids are. Nordatlantids are Nordids, just somewhat, slightly closer to Mediterranid. Atlantid is really intermediate unlike the other two.

Therefore Atlantid = intermediate = Med+Nord stabilized type? Am I getting this right?

(then the degree of Med. or Nord. could go from Atlantid to North-Atlantid and the robusticity degree (from less robust to more robust) would range from North-atlantid to Atlantid to Paleo-Atlantid?

My try at illustrating my point:

[Agrippa]

The robusticity grade between the three forms is not that big, though present, just Palaeatlantids are signicantly more robust on average. So its Palaeatlantid, long time nothing, than Nordatlantid, Atlantid, Atlantomediterranid.
Size and robusticity of the bone structure point to a Nordoid specialisation in Atlantomediterranids anyway, thats the major difference to Gracilmediterranid.

[pls]

Interesting scheme Agrippa, your map has a good approach, maybe it could be even adapted on a map of Europe or of selected parts of Europe.

Do you think that Dinarics and Cro magnids\Borrebies form a sub group. not only for Ex Jugoslavia but also Poland, Germany even Belgium. Where I observed a number of very tall and massive built, long faced, brachycephalic individuals.

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

What does a basic racial typology describe in Europe?

I think a 5-7 race scheme is enough to describe the basic variation inside of Europe, the most important evolutionary tendencies, specialisations, races are mainly that and can change over time.

My explanation would be as follows, there are basically 6-7 tendencies in Europe and we just see varying degrees and intermediate forms of them. But there can be more than one reason for that pattern, just to mention some:
a) the simplest is (sub-)racial mixture.
b) an evolutionary tendency can occur in various areas, but with a different specific direction, just parts of a type could have been realised for various reasons:
-) the selective pressure in the direction of a type was there but not strong enough, so certain features were never selected or it would have need more time
-) the pressure became too weak or changed before the type was fully realised
-) the direction of the selective pressure changed after the type was realised - a typical form existed but was altered by changing conditions afterwards
etc.

So the types represent the "ideal goal" of a typical European evolutionary tendency which can be realised fully, partly, can be intermediate between two or more forms. In that way those which represent the typical or even extreme form of a tendency are "pure" phenotypically, those which deviate for whatever reason in another direction are "mixed" - crucial are those inherited features which are important for the specialisation and therefore the definiton of a type, an evolutionary tendency.

About which influences might have played a role in forming the various subracial tendencies in Europe I already wrote various posts on this board, so I dont want to repeat it know, but just to discuss about the basic tendencies and relations.

I made a rather rough and simplified graphic to illustrate what I mean, I didnt mentioned all variants I know of and some positions had to be a compromise - simply because of the limits of this simple 2dimensional graphic. As European I consider the basic circles of Nordid, Cromagnid, Dinarid, Mediterranid, Osteuropid and Alpinoid. The best representative form in the centre of the subrace is in brackets. Again this scheme is not meant to be perfect, but just a good illustration of some basic relations in Europe which I have in mind:

Between Mediterranid and Dinarid "Baskid" could be placed, between Dinarid and Alpinoid "Carpathid".

Because Skildur asked on Skadi about Nordid-Osteuropid relation in this graph I added:

The transition from Nordid to Mediterranid is very important and reflects basically a dichotomy of robust and gracile forms in the Leptodolichomorphs of Europe. In terms of general specialisation its clear that both robust Mediterranid (Atlantomediterranid) and Dinarid forms are closer to Nordid than Baltid proper.

But you must read it right, because Cromagnid can be included at least in Nordoid, what could be pointed out too. So there are two relations of Nordids, one to the other leptomorphics, one to the other forms of the North. The 2nd is represented by the Nordid transition to Cromagnid (f.e. Trönder). The transition between Nordid and Osteuropid was not possible in this graphic and as I said its far from perfect. The correlation between Cromagnoid and Mediterranoid was not to make as well if showing all primary correlations and types as well (Southern Cromagnoids: Berberid).

But it would be basically like that: Nordid (Skandonordid) - Eastnordid - West Baltid/Eastcromagnoid (beginning of Osteuropid) - Baltid - Eastbaltid (ending of Osteuropid) - Lappoid. The connection to Nordid is not direct, but just through the "Nordic (Nordoid) connection" with Cromagnids - which are, in terms of specialisation, much closer to Baltid proper than standard Nordids.
A connection to the Nordoid Cromagnids is clear since West Baltid/Eastcromagnid is Nordoid Cromagnid too and between Dalofaelid and Baltid. As are Borrebies between Cromagnid and Alpinoid...

So there the basic poles (6) in Europe and fluent transition between them both due mixture and intermediate evolutionary positions I'd say.

Hello, Agrippa. I found is a very interesting and comprehensive scheme. Of course it cannot hold all the suntypes, varieties and etc etc etc and one must often limitate himself to the main and most representatives subtypes. But yet, I got some questions I'd like to ask to you. I particularly agree with you when linking somewhat the keltic-nordic subtype with dinarics.I read somewhere that keltic-nordics had absorbed alpine elements but I got the feeling that they had more of dinaric than alpine and I think that's clearly visible;just consider Getafix's nose (=Panoramix ) ... Yesterday I watched on TV "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson and as I watched him carefully I also got the impression that his nose had an I-don't-know-what of dinaric (but actually, I don't know where I got that Mel G is actually a keltic-nordic...)


I read in this thread that atlanto-mediterraneans points to a "nodoid" direction or something of the sort. What should we interpret from this? that nordois and atlanto-med proper are linked in some way? or that atlanto-meds are somewhat involved in the genesis of nordoids?

There's a web site called SNPA or "society for nordish physical anthropology". They coin the "nordish" term but I found the relationships they make are not clear ;
Acc. to what I understood of their typology they classify as nordish to main groups "UP survivors" (Brunn & Borrebies) and "nordics" (Hallstadt & keltic-nordic) then they include there al the blends among these two groups and the subtypes produced by contacts of either UP or nordics and "non-nordish" racial types (alpine, med, etc...)
I don't find their typollogy very accurate, specially when they calim to support most of Coon's thesis ,including that or nordics been "mediterranean" derivatives, I suppose...If they support this last theory, wouldn't be ilogical from them to put nordics & UP survivors in a same clade,

what's your point of view in this matter?
Here, Ithe link of ther SNPA race gallery.That could be somewhat helpfull

K RGDS to all

[Señor Malo]

Sorry, another question I forgot; Deniker described the Atlanto mediterranean as mesocephalic, then came Coon and said that Deniker was wrong and that AT-MD were strongly dolicocephalic isof meso.
Who should I believe ?

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by pls

Interesting scheme Agrippa, your map has a good approach, maybe it could be even adapted on a map of Europe or of selected parts of Europe.

Do you think that Dinarics and Cro magnids\Borrebies form a sub group. not only for Ex Jugoslavia but also Poland, Germany even Belgium. Where I observed a number of very tall and massive built, long faced, brachycephalic individuals.

Borrebies and Dinarids are definitely related, but there are other influences (most likely of Atlantomediterranid, Nordoid) and a different specialisation which make them different.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by searcher of truth

Sorry, another question I forgot; Deniker described the Atlanto mediterranean as mesocephalic, then came Coon and said that Deniker was wrong and that AT-MD were strongly dolicocephalic isof meso.
Who should I believe ?

Thats in my opinion just a question of samples, obviously there is, even inside a type, subtype variation, just read what I said above why variants can be different from the abstract type - "goal" of the specialisation.
The same is true for Nordids, with individuals and local groups being dolichocephalic, averages of local populations are usually rather mesocephalic, as are many individuals. Thats why I would say both for Nordid and Mediterranid in general dolicho- to mesocephalic.

I read in this thread that atlanto-mediterraneans points to a "nodoid" direction or something of the sort. What should we interpret from this? that nordois and atlanto-med proper are linked in some way? or that atlanto-meds are somewhat involved in the genesis of nordoids?

I can mean that and genetic results might point in the same direction at least for some Western Nordid variants, but it doesnt have to mean that. Again we are speaking about specialisation - on a scale from robust to gracile we can see that the main difference in the anatomy of Skandonordid and Gracilmediterranid Leptodolichomorphics is just that.
So a more robust Mediterranid variant, be it a direct link, admixture or just similar adaptation, specialisation, is automatically closer to Nordids than the very gracile variants. F.e. if Gracilmediterranids would be under a selective pressure which would make them taller and more robust in the bone structure, while keeping a leptomorphic physique, they would "come closer" to Nordid means automatically.
Its interesting that some anthropologists noted that the similarities between male Gracilmediterranid and female Nordid skulls are sometimes higher at the first look than between skulls of males. Thats clearly related to the robusticity and size factor primarily, though there are other morphologically differences as well.

I know the SNPA site very well, it has its strength and weaknesses but the general system of "Nordish" is rather important if its about the indigenous populations, types of Northern Europe. Though the borders are obviously fluent between the types, what I showed in the graph as well.
The problem is that Coon has a quite good reputation in the English speaking world and there are not too much good alternatives, especially such available on the net, to his work. But I agree, Coon was wrong in many things and many SNPA and TNP members would disagree with many of this theories.

The graph is no map but I tried to make it geographically related as well, but however, the point of the map is to show the basic evolutionary tendencies and types of specialisation with those being closer putted closer, though there are partly cross relations which couldnt be made in this 2dimensional approach as well, but thats not that bad because they are of minor to no importance, the main relations are, by specialisation and general anatomy, like that.

[Gil]

Agrippa: so, following that logic, one can say that individuals can become "alpinized" either by specialization or by admixture of a alpine and a non-alpine, right?

I'm saying this because most people equate robust with cromagnoid/UP but robusticity can develop from harsher climate conditions, etc.