origin of the mediterranean race

[Hagogoth]

A lot about the Cro-Magnon and and Aurignac men has been written.
I understand that 78% of the Spaniards's and 45% of
the Dutch's DNA have a Cro-Magnon origin (R1b). But between the
Dutch and Spaniards there exist so big difference, the gracile darhaired
mediterranean men and the big robust faired Dutch. Who can explain
these differences?
I understand that the Mediterranean race perhaps has a origin from
Asia Minor. So the dominant mediterranean made the Iberian men
and the Upper Palaeolithic were recessive. Is this correct?

Erik

[Galaico]

Originally Posted by Hagogoth

A lot about the Cro-Magnon and and Aurignac men has been written.
I understand that 78% of the Spaniards's and 45% of
the Dutch's DNA have a Cro-Magnon origin (R1b). But between the
Dutch and Spaniards there exist so big difference, the gracile darhaired
mediterranean men and the big robust faired Dutch. Who can explain
these differences?
I understand that the Mediterranean race perhaps has a origin from
Asia Minor. So the dominant mediterranean made the Iberian men
and the Upper Palaeolithic were recessive. Is this correct?

Erik

No, don't think so.

Origin of the Mediterranid and Nordid sub-races

[Menydh]

Going by logics, with a 78% in the haplogroup R1b (don't know if that percentage is exact) and another percentage of the North-Western I haplogroup admixture, the chances that a small percentage of an addition from Asia Minor made itself an overall dominant set of traits approach zero.

Could it be the other way round? After all, if it is 45% in the Dutch, there is still a 55% to be accounted for.

However, we still have not taken into account environment adaptation.

[Hagogoth]

But where did the mediterranean race 'ancestors live during the Ice Age?

Erik

[Galaico]

Originally Posted by Hagogoth

But where did the mediterranean race 'ancestors live during the Ice Age?

Erik

Well that depends on which Mediterranean race you're talking about. West Mediterranids and Atlanto-Mediterranids most probable in Spain and Southern France, Pontids in the Balkans, and East Mediterranids and South Mediterranids in the Middle East.

There's nothing such as a unique Mediterranean race.

Mediterranean/Mediterranid is a very broad term used to identify the dark Leptodolichocephal Caucasoids, independently of their genetic or geographical origin.

[Sergius]

Originally Posted by Hagogoth

But where did the mediterranean race 'ancestors live during the Ice Age?

Mined lived in central Asia, scientists claim, but I'm not a real 'Med,' just a Pontid almost-Asian.

[ArabianKnight]

Originally Posted by Hagogoth

A lot about the Cro-Magnon and and Aurignac men has been written.
I understand that 78% of the Spaniards's and 45% of
the Dutch's DNA have a Cro-Magnon origin (R1b). But between the
Dutch and Spaniards there exist so big difference, the gracile darhaired
mediterranean men and the big robust faired Dutch. Who can explain
these differences?
I understand that the Mediterranean race perhaps has a origin from
Asia Minor. So the dominant mediterranean made the Iberian men
and the Upper Palaeolithic were recessive. Is this correct?

Erik

According to Coon the Mediterranean race in its pure form is the Arabid! Most Orinteal Jews are infact Arabids!

Mediterranean Proper: Short-statured, dolicho- and mesocephalic form found in Spain, Portugal, the western Mediterranean islands, and to some extent in North Africa, southern Italy, and other Mediterranean borderlands. Its purest present-day racial nucleus is without doubt Arabia. Most of the Cappadocian, isolated in the skeletal material, seems to have been absorbed into the western Mediterranean variety after its early Metal Age migration, while that which remained in Asia Minor became assimilated into the Dinaric and Armenoid. It still appears, however, among individuals in its original form, and is particularly common among Oriental Jews.

Arabids from Southern Arabia





Arabids from Central Arabia





Arabids of the North



North African Arabid

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by ArabianKnight

According to Coon the Mediterranean race in its pure form is the Arabid! Most Orinteal Jews are infact Arabids!

Only in the sense that he gave to the term "mediterranid" (= short-leptomorph-brunet aurignacids)

For the origin of the European mediterranids I agree with Galaico and can but think of an European origin is of invasons from West Asia and Nort Africa as estated Coon, I base my belief in:

-The existence of Aurignacian ancestors in Europe during ice-age is well attested which is not for - I think - West Asia or North Africa

-The new data of western megalithic cultures which are associated to the Atlanto-Mediterranean type in the Atlantic coasts and even to a more gracile variety in the lost megaliths from Britanny, pre-dates by far the date of the alleged invasion, estimated by Coon by 3000 BC (oldest megalithic construction in West Europe date back to 4800 BC, may be 5200 BC in some sites in Britanny)

-the presence of pontic mediterraneans in the Plains of Ukraine/South Russia and the shores of the black sea since the mesolithic, as attested by Soviet/Russian anthropologists (presence which is agreeded to pre-date the arrival of the cro-magnid early kurgan peoples which migrated from a more northernly location situated at the fringe of the steppe/forest lands)

-The Atlanto-Mediterranean type could probably be derived from the Galley Hill (which has not been proved to be fake as many say but just to be a more recent intrusion, is of a middle pleistocene man as was formerly claimed)

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Going by logics, with a 78% in the haplogroup R1b (don't know if that percentage is exact) and another percentage of the North-Western I haplogroup admixture, the chances that a small percentage of an addition from Asia Minor made itself an overall dominant set of traits approach zero.

Rather not. If a set of traits, a specific inherited feature combination is more advantageous and successful in a certain population and habitat, it doesnt matter wether it started with 1 or 70 percent, in the end, after a certain number of generations, it will prevail. The only difference between a higher and lower percentage at start would lie in the time the traits need to dominate the respective generation. It means it might take some generations more if at all, since in drastic cases certain genetically determined characteristics can be decisive for a bloodlines survival in one generation even.

I dont say that this happened in the West with just 5 percent of Neolithic newcomers, but its at least POSSIBLE though not necessary, since Aurignacoid traits were present in the respective populations before already.

So we could rather think about a shift inside of the autochthonous populations in the Mediterranoid and Nordoid areas with an additional Neolithic input because of the warmer climate and change of selective pressures even before the Neolithic transition, but even more so afterwards.

Alpinisation and Baltisation is partly similar and not caused by mass migrations or long term undisputed dominance of respective forms, but a shift of selective pressures resulting in a change of genetically determined as well as environmentally caused characteristics of the respective populations.

[Menydh]

You are missing a few details. One is that the environment here calls for similar patterns of adaptation. Another, that it wouldn't explain the Mediterranoid/Atlantoid phenotype in elements in places like The Lowlands. And last, that it is the Nordid and Northern Cromagnoid input that give the different general look in the Lowlands.

And, since the Neolithic impact seems to be fairly more significant in Germany, perhaps it would explain those though to be Mediterranoids/Atlantoids? Scratch a German.. ?

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

You are missing a few details. One is that the environment here calls for similar patterns of adaptation.

Sure.

Another, that it wouldn't explain the Mediterranoid/Atlantoid phenotype in elements in places like The Lowlands.

The way of life and selective pressures which go much beyond the climate alone can be as or even more important especially inside of a related spectrum and with not too extreme climatic differences.

And last, that it is the Nordid and Northern Cromagnoid input that give the different general look in the Lowlands.

Under the early Neolithics we find Atlantomediterranid or Atlanto-Pontid like variants, like you want, too. If you put a wider Mediterranid variation under selective pressures of different kinds, you get different results out of this process. So if there are a lot of more mobile and warlike herders in smaller and medium sized groups its different from sedentary, peaceful tillers living from crops primarily in greater groups which suffer from plagues and bad hygienic conditions.

The climate might in general lead to bigger, taller variants in the relatively colder areas, but even in a warmer environment the same variants - just darker - can come up if they are need and their advantages are more striking than their small, climate-caused, disadvantages. Which is the case especially if we have a high level individual and especially group selection.

And, since the Neolithic impact seems to be fairly more significant in Germany, perhaps it would explain those though to be Mediterranoids/Atlantoids? Scratch a German.. ?

The Neolithic influence might have had an significant impact on Nordoids as well as Mediterranids in my opinion, though the original form was simply closer to a modern Mediterranid than Nordid with a stronger input in the first.
The populations of Europe before the Ice Age were not the same as they were afterwards, even before the Neolithic transition - at least racially. There might have been a large genetic continuity, but the racial spectrum and trait-combination percentages changed.
This can be caused by more Southern input or not, depending on the exact region and type in question, but in the end this is secondary if the end result is so similar.

[Menydh]

Too many variables, too speculative, and the combination moves far, far away from Ockam's Razor.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

The Neolithic influence might have had an significant impact on Nordoids as well as Mediterranids in my opinion, though the original form was simply closer to a modern Mediterranid than Nordid with a stronger input in the first.

I remember well this old proposal of yours. But I'm afraid that it adjusts only to your own desires (not just yours though), and not to any logics and much less to any hint of evidence.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Too many variables, too speculative, and the combination moves far, far away from Ockam's Razor.

I remember well this old proposal of yours. But I'm afraid that it adjusts only to your own desires (not just yours though), and not to any logics and much less to any hint of evidence.

Why do you think about desires if talking about this? Obviously many Neolithic elements, which were not just from outside of Europe by the way but from local South Eastern Europeans as well, marched both Northwards and Westwards. There is plenty of evidence on this.

Now if the local forms changed in that direction of the Neolithic groups and stopped at a rather intermediate robust Palaeolithic-gracile Neolithic Aurignacoid final form, like it happened in the Nordid and Atlantomediterranid, Atlanto-Pontid spectrum, we can assume two possibilities:
The original population was pushed primarily or even only by the selective pressures in this direction by using the variation which was already present, since such Aurignacoid variants existed before there already. This happened for sure but in many regions or even in general it also makes sense to assume
that the newcomers had a significant impact as well. Even if there whole genetic input was rather low overall, some traits could be favoured over generations resulting in a genetically dissimilar and more local adapted but in the overall racial form similar basic type.

That is not speculative nor the result of "desires" but a reasonable assumption I'd say. Genetic and racial similarity is in my opinion not the same because the first is just about counting DNA, no matter which, no matter which function, the latter is about the more important aspects of traits determined by the DNA which had adaptive qualities and formed a biotype, a specialisation.

For sure you can find two individuals genetically close and racially distant as well as vice versa, because race is about genetic quality rather than quantity.

[Galaico]

Agrippa, would you say that a homogeneous Europid population could racially be turned into a Mongoloid population due to small Mongoloid genetic admixture (let's say 10%), if the environmental conditions were more favourable to the Mongoloid race than to the Europid one?

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Galaico

Agrippa, would you say that a homogeneous Europid population could racially be turned into a Mongoloid population due to small Mongoloid genetic admixture (let's say 10%), if the environmental conditions were more favourable to the Mongoloid race than to the Europid one?

Of course. Depending on the size of the population, even one individual could be enough. Its just a question of advantages-disadvantages of certain genes. Once a set of genes is present in a given population, only selection determines whether this traits will spread or not. The numbers of carriers at start only matter insofar as more carriers are a more secure start as well and a stronger base to start with, but if time and selective pressures are on the side of any trait, it will spread - thats evolution.

It goes vice versa too of course: A large portion of admixture can be of low to now significance if the selective forces were against the new foreign element. So at a certain point of time Mongoloid and Negroid admixture was of low importance in Europe and just counting respective genes without adaptive qualities means little. The result, the traits of adaptive quality which survived, matter.

Minor Negroid admixture in the Palaeolithicum would mean little because most they brought with them would be selected out and if they had just one single trait which was advantageous: Fine that they brought it with them...as long as the negative and deviating ones were eliminated, no problem. Selection can be in that way like a filter which proves, if the selective pressures are positive and performance enhancing, whats useful or harmful. Now we humans should do it, because evolution doesnt any more but rather favours the worst in our decadent society.

Evolution is a neutrum which can lead into dead ends too for a whole species - which might have had a much better chance to survive if another, once present variant, would have succeed. But evolution is neutral and has no long term perspective, the selective forces just chose whats more efficient right now. Thats why a rational and logical thinking species - or at least one in which are a lot of members who could think rational, shouldnt rely on "good luck" of the blind mother evolution but rather deciding where to go and to prevent negative deviations and one sided specialisation of their own kind.