"Northwest European racial type".

[PeterThaGreat]

Originally Posted by OneEnglishNorman

That's why we discern physical type on the Anthropometrics board. One cannot tell another's genes just from a photo, but the sub-racial appearance can be judged so.

As usually your hollow head did the trick. Not even the genes can tell apart sub-race on such homogenous population as Swedes f.e, why? Because they are closely related and metric traits such as facial -or cephalic index are non-racial traits. (a fact) If the genes cannot tell apart Borrreby from Nordid or Dalofaelid then why should we try to do it? Metric system is based on assumption that metrical similarity equals relationship. But it doesn't. If you want to start to compare your fingers you may discover that the index finger of your left hand is more robust than the index finger of your right hand. However, it doesn't mean that those hands would not be related, nor does it mean the your slimmer right hand's index finger is more related to some leptomorph Somali's index finger. It's just internal variation in your body parts, allthough they seem different in size they are closely related and both fingers are results of your English genepool.

That may not have been a best example but it really describes the lunacy where metrics may take you. It's all pretty wortless activity but I cannot deny it's not fun.

Like said the only legitimate typological system is based on genomine DNA tests. Morphological differencies can be made but don't give you very little information on a living person. Through skulls one easily extract caucasoid skulls from Negroid, and Mongoloid skulls However as said, you have to yourself give the metric values for the types "Borreby" and "Nordid", the genes don't tell you the difference, such activities are called, pseudoscience. If Coon says there are very little Nordids in the strict sense then he has simply established such a strict man-made criteria based on metrical traits and facial features that very few people fall in to those. It's all man made with very little to do with reality, but obviously Coon is right, after all few people pass in his artificial Nordid criteria. However as said so many times before Coon was just among many in the 30's, lot of the stuff he said was based on the assumption that Nordids descend from mediterranians and his typological system can be viewed through that bullshit context.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by PeterThaGreat

Races does exist, genetics prove that very well, in fact genetics prove that even Caucasoids have sub-branch: based on lates genomine DNA studies, the only typological system that makes biological sense, Caucasoids can splitted into a three. 1) Northern European 2), Sourthern European, 3) Middle-Eastern. As the studies progress we may probably get third one, a North-East European. Splitting Caucasoid further than this is pure arbitrary with no scientific basis.

Based on what? Please give me a valid citation for that claim.

Originally Posted by PeterThaGreat

As science reveals us that Scandinavian Borreby is genetically indistinguishable from Scandinavian Nordid their split cannot be justified based of such non-racial traits as cephalic and facial index. Genetics have replaced metrics.

I agree, genetics have replaced metrics, so theres no point in discussing Nordids and Borreby and 500 other phenotypes. They are simply phenotypes, defined by humans, not races or "sub-races".

Scandinavian is distinguishable from a mediterranian, why? Because these two are not related

What do you mean when you say Mediterranean? Anyone in the Mediterranean, or the phenotype?

Again, please give me a valid citation to support the fact that a phenotype called Mediterranean is racially distinguishable from "Borreby" and "Nordid".

People would laugh at me, why? It's all about man-made boundaries, not science.

I agree

[PeterThaGreat]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Based on what? Please give me a valid citation for that claim.

Based on latest studies involving genome wide SNP markers , you can browse them for yourself from google, or ask them personally from Polako at HBF. It's really not difficult to assess the material.

agree, genetics have replaced metrics, so theres no point in discussing Nordids and Borreby and 500 other phenotypes. They are simply phenotypes, defined by humans, not races or "sub-races".

Correct, based on man-made boundaries and non-racial traits such as facial -and cephalic index.

What do you mean when you say Mediterranean? Anyone in the Mediterranean, or the phenotype?

Mediterranian type and Mediterranians, just like in up in the north nothing seperates Portugalian with high cephalic-index and low low facial-index as opposed to Portugalian with low cephalic index and high facial index. After all they are family, and narrow and broad individuals breed each others there as well. Although, I cannot deny that Swedish genepool provides allele frequencies which produce more leptomorph people than Portugal or Polish genepool f.e. I cannot prove this but It's based on my own personal experiences as well as those notorious metrical studies from the 30's. After all Sweden is the most "Nordid" country in the world.

Again, please give me a valid citation to support the fact that a phenotype called Mediterranean is racially distinguishable from "Borreby" and "Nordid".

Based on the typological system which I just mentioned, caucasoid can be spilitted into Northern European, Southern European and middle-eastern and in maybe North-East European (a Northern European with slight Uralic admixture) but even the so-called Ladogan types of North-Eest Europe cluster way more tightly with Nordids than Nordids cluster with any Mediterranian groups, irrespectable of phenotype. Why? Because Northern European Ladogans are genetically more related to Nordids than Nordids to Mediterranians. [b]In the end metrics don't mean a shit, why? Because metrics doesn't measure the degree of relationship.

EDIT

BTW despite I've taken a harsh tone on physical antropology alone I cannot dismiss the science itself. Physical antropology is doing well and is on the increase, it's nowdays through very advanced machines measuring crania. The study which I mentioned on previous posts regarding to Caucasoid skulls is based on these measures. 21th century physical antropology just like genetics have proved that races exist and are well alive. However, these studies have also reveled us that cephalic-index and facial index's are non-racial traits and that Caucasoid skulls have traits which unify them and differ them from negroid and mongoloid skulls.

Here's 21th century physical antropology study on baltic-Finns based on craniological measures. Involves not so much genetics although compares the result with them. Unfortunately I didn't have modern physical study of North-West European type

http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samp...ccorrected.pdf

[PeterThaGreat]

BTW as Galaico at HBF pointed out, it's interesting to note that this 1950's North-Western European stuff can be viewed as pre-genetic cluster attempt rather than purely based on antrometrics as he did in "Races of Europe". Good to see that the Harvards man was following his time. It's a pity he doesn't live anymore, he would've most likely destroyed all of his works and prohibitet their sales.

[OneEnglishNorman]

Originally Posted by PeterThaGreat

As usually your hollow head did the trick. Not even the genes can tell apart sub-race on such homogenous population as Swedes f.e, why? Because they are closely related and metric traits such as facial -or cephalic index are non-racial traits. (a fact) If the genes cannot tell apart Borrreby from Nordid or Dalofaelid then why should we try to do it?

No one is suggesting that we do. You are the one who keeps introducing genetics into forums and threads which are discussing metrics and morphology.

[Galaico]

Originally Posted by PeterThaGreat

Races does exist, genetics prove that very well, in fact genetics prove that even Caucasoids have sub-branch: based on lates genomine DNA studies, the only typological system that makes biological sense, Caucasoids can splitted into a three. 1) Northern European 2), Sourthern European, 3) Middle-Eastern. As the studies progress we may probably get third one, a North-East European.

That's not completely true, as North Europeans and Southern Europeans cluster together versus Middle-Easterners:

there is low apparent diversity in Europe with the entire continent-wide samples only marginally more dispersed than single population samples elsewhere in the world.

Measuring European Population Stratification using Microarray Genotype Data

What actually means that Europeans are a tight homogeneous population.

In fact, the study that speaks about the cluster of South Europeans vs. North Europeans, European Population Substructure: Clustering of Northern and Southern Populations, only achieves to demonstrate such clusters when the markers are pre-selected, never when the markers are randomly selected:

As a measure of informativeness (i.e., the ability to distinguish populations based on genotypes), the informativeness for assignment (In) [31] was used to select smaller SNP marker sets that might be useful in assessing European population structure. We utilized a small subset of the original participants in order to select these markers, and their performance was then tested on the remaining dataset. Thus, the most informative 400 markers (included in Table S1), selected using 74 participants from Spain and 74 participants from western Europe, showed similar distinction of “southern” and “northern” population groups in Italian and SWD samples as did the original marker set (Figure 1C) (r2 correlation coefficient = 0.77, p <10> 0.01).

In contrast, random sets of 400 markers showed poor separation of the northern and southern populations (r2 values for all ten random sets of 400 were less than 0.1, p > 0.01).

Originally Posted by PeterThaGreat

As the studies progress we may probably get third one, a North-East European.

Actually in the latest study, Measuring European Population Stratification using Microarray Genotype Data (2007), we can see three or four main clusters:

At K=3 we can see a South Eastern cluster, a South Western cluster, and a North&Central cluster.

At K=4 we can see a South Eastern cluster, a South Western cluster, a North Eastern cluster, and a North&Central cluster heavily influenced by the North Eastern one and at a lower level by the SW one.

I know it's off-topic, but let me be a bit chauvinistic

The Spanish and Basque groups are the farthest away from other continental groups, which is consistent with the suggestion that the Iberian Peninsula holds the most ancient European genetic ancestry.

[3rdEye]

I get the impression that something is missing in Coon's account of Sweden in The Races of Europe, and the Northwest European type makes the picture complete I guess, since my hunch was that he had left out something in the Cro-Magnid range that would not be Borreby or Brünn.

[Breydel]

Originally Posted by PeterThaGreat

Caucasoids can splitted into a three. 1) Northern European 2), Sourthern European, 3) Middle-Eastern. As the studies progress we may probably get third one, a North-East European. Splitting Caucasoid further than this is pure arbitrary with no scientific basis.

You didn't read the paper on the European autosomal structure very well did you?

Originally Posted by Beginner

As a beginner, i had thought " Man, they have all discovered it", now i hear that what once i thought to be true is irrelevant at all. Could you please tell me on what single instance Coon has been refuted?
rgds

Despite the fact that it maybe abused, i think typological studies may help a lot, for example TRB and LBK have different origins, Rösen is either danubean or african but hardly megalithic. At some point one has to decide: Are we going to use it to help as a guide in our exciting journey to the past or are we going to use it to manipulate current politics. A dogma is a dogma ,only the what you substitude in the porter "dogma" changes, but structurally a dogma would retain the initial characteristcs. As anyone can see any monopsone is a stalinist definition. There are only two kinds of politicians: liberals and others. Either we decide to use our knowledge of racial typology on discovering exciting mysteries of the past or we use it for manipulation. I propose to use it in the positive way because we can do it.
rgds

[PeterThaGreat]

Originally Posted by Galaico

That's not completely true, as North Europeans and Southern Europeans cluster together versus Middle-Easterners:

I agree with you Galaico, the main Cluster which are Northern European 2) Southern-European, 3) Middle-Eastern can be vaguedly divided into further sub-cluster. We must introduce the new system and start play purely on that. Well, I guess the 30's stuff will always be more intriguing and fun, however it's always good the know the background of the obsolete theory.

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Seekers

since my hunch was that he had left out something in the Cro-Magnid range that would not be Borreby or Brünn.

Well, he seems to have completely ignored the Dalo-Faelid proper

[Visigodo]

Originally Posted by PeterThaGreat

I agree with you Galaico, the main Cluster which are Northern European 2) Southern-European, 3) Middle-Eastern can be vaguedly divided into further sub-cluster. We must introduce the new system and start play purely on that. Well, I guess the 30's stuff will always be more intriguing and fun, however it's always good the know the background of the obsolete theory.

If we are talking about Physical Anthropology such division is clearly insufficient to explain all the European human variation and not necessarily one must go to the 30's to find good works on Physical Anthropology. For example you can buy nowadays "Vergleichende Biologie des Menschen". Lehrbuch der Anthropologie und Humangenetik by Rainer Kunssmann. Gustav Fischer Verlag. Oktober 1996.

I think that systems like this one are still valids:

Thiazi Forum

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Visigodo

I think that systems like this one are still valids:

Thiazi Forum

Funny thing, because it includes one "Nordatlantide" type in a broad Nordid group, while it does not make mention of the Atlantid proper.

This is incidental because "North-Atlantid" is just a blend similar to "Nordo-Mediterranean", only more estabilized.

I hate to say this, but Agrippa is being intentional here as he is [as per his own classification of himself] (ex-)Mediterranid reconverted into Atlantid (though if you asked me I would say that probably Pontid).

Needless to say, such intentionality rests value to the system.

[Amorsite]

Originally Posted by Truth-Finder

Well, he seems to have completely ignored the Dalo-Faelid proper

Look at some of his Borreby examples






Related thread

Phalian vs Borreby

[Amorsite]

A few more excerpts from the same book on Nordics




Northeast European



Mediterranean