PDA

View Full Version : shapes and collective classifications: attempt



MOESAN
11-10-14, 00:32
here I'll try to classify some shapes of visages: pigmentation is secondary and can mistake us (crossings!!! we are all 're'crossed, only the crossings and proportions differ but differences between countries and regions trace back to old History more than to recent events, except in some regions, albeit until the 1960's)

"pure" 'nordic' types, first element among 'Corded' people and some 'Steppic' tribes of Eneolithic to Iron Age

67126713671467156716

lefto to right: Swede, Englishman, Norwegian, Swede, Norwegian

MOESAN
11-10-14, 00:42
late 'nordic'

6717English




attenuated, "crossed" 'nordic'

6718671967206721

left to right: Icelandish, Icelandish, English, English
they seem broadened 'nordics' (or shortened), as by partial feotalization (just a word!) - the third, is closed to a (artificial) mean model of 'iron-age celtic nordic' type, a bit more complicated?

MOESAN
11-10-14, 00:50
small 'mediterranean' mean types (this term hides a lot of subpopulations)

6722672367256726

from left to right: Spanish, Portuguese, Portuguese, Spanish -
the left man has something more brutal concerning frontal: some more primitive leg from West?

MOESAN
11-10-14, 00:51
the fifth one is English and so show some less 'mediterranean' aspect on meat, but its bony structure is 'mediterranean' as awell as them

MOESAN
11-10-14, 00:58
some more 'mediterranean' types

67276728672967306731

from left to right: Southern Italian, South-Central Italian, Israelian, South-East French, Israelian

the Israelian on the right has something less "southern" in his nose, more "ancestral" or "northern"

MOESAN
11-10-14, 01:18
'brünnoid' - 'capelloid' types
almost pure:
67376738

from left to right: Norwegian, Portuguese

attenuated 'brünnoid':

6739Alemannic Swiss

MOESAN
11-10-14, 01:26
'nordic' + 'brünnoid'

6740674167426743

from left to right: Swede, Swede, Swede, Dutch
except the slightly shorter faced second Swede, they are good types for 'corded' mean (the first Swede more on the 'nordic' side, and the third Swede present an individual over-developpement)

MOESAN
12-10-14, 01:21
some 'borreby' or 'borrebylike' (attenuated, mixed)

674967506751

from left to right: Norwegian, Finn from Finnland, French from Artois-Picardie
all are rather on the 'borreby' A type, more cromagnoid than brünnoid in origin, even if the Finn, "correct" for face, could deviate a bit for skull (I cannot measure it)

MOESAN
12-10-14, 01:28
'cromagnoid' more or less typical, from North and South Europe (!) notice as for 'brünnoid' the pigmentation is not the prevalent choice

6752675367546755

from left to right: Bulgarian, Swede, Bulgarian, Finn from Finnland
the most typical for f

MOESAN
12-10-14, 01:31
'cromagnoid' more or less typical, from North and South Europe (!) notice as for 'brünnoid' the pigmentation is not the prevalent choice

6752675367546755

from left to right: Bulgarian, Swede, Bulgarian, Finn from Finnland
the most typical for f
sorry
the most typical for face is the first Bulgarian (left) and then the Finn (right) - the Swede show perhaps a bit admixture with 'nordic' (?) and the second Bulgarian with 'mediter' and 'alpine'

MOESAN
12-10-14, 01:38
'alpine' (I shall add others later): a kind of "gentle" 'borreby'

67566757

the same man, a french from SW (Gascogne) - this type was very more present in France before - among peasants - from W-Alps and Jura between Mesolithic and Neolithic it gained ground in France at Last Neolithic, accompagnied by 'meds' from South (Chasséen?) and after at Iron Age with Celts expansion (it is solely at this time that it took a solid foot in Eastern Brittany - a good strata in France, Switzerland, Wallonia, Northern Italy and, less present, in other countries - Seemingly Celts Iron elite had this type in their mix, but at very lower level -

John Doe
12-10-14, 16:42
What about this bloke? What does he look like?

http://imageshack.com/i/ezKYhq6Mj
http://imageshack.com/i/eyOLAZftj
https://imageshack.com/i/idfEHvkYj

MOESAN
17-10-14, 18:55
What about this bloke? What does he look like?

http://imageshack.com/i/ezKYhq6Mj
http://imageshack.com/i/eyOLAZftj
https://imageshack.com/i/idfEHvkYj

same divination work as always!
firstable: dolichocephalic, high-narow faced (in proportions), middle-dark brown hair (uneasy on photos), the jaw seems heavy enough -
the nose is very "european"like, if long - all that point towards a 'nordic-atlanto-mediterranean' crossing - a bit fleshy of face, but here the alimentatiton and way of life could be at work -
very not typical.... could be of a lot of places, rather in Europe ('nordic' increment)- in towns where the bracycephalic elements are very often more seldom (selection, Mediterraneans of today more traders than peasants? Jews mixes? He could be an Askhenaze Jews, then can be so typical sometimes and so Atypical some others... but French too, belgian, Swiss and so on...
bets

John Doe
17-10-14, 19:09
same divination work as always!
firstable: dolichocephalic, high-narow faced (in proportions), middle-dark brown hair (uneasy on photos), the jaw seems heavy enough -
the nose is very "european"like, if long - all that point towards a 'nordic-atlanto-mediterranean' crossing - a bit fleshy of face, but here the alimentatiton and way of life could be at work -
very not typical.... could be of a lot of places, rather in Europe ('nordic' increment)- in towns where the bracycephalic elements are very often more seldom (selection, Mediterraneans of today more traders than peasants? Jews mixes? He could be an Askhenaze Jews, then can be so typical sometimes and so Atypical some others... but French too, belgian, Swiss and so on...
bets
Thanks for presenting your opinion, pretty he has Shaten hair colour.
He's Ashkenazi Jewish. But, strange... On Eupedia it seems most people think that if he's not Ashkenazi Jewish he's either southern European or a mix of southern and northern European, while on Anthrogenica they insisted that, assuming he's not Ashkenazi, he couldn't fit anywhere north of Mediterranean Europe, and gave Greeks and Lebanese as example populations.

John Doe
19-10-14, 08:22
same divination work as always!
firstable: dolichocephalic, high-narow faced (in proportions), middle-dark brown hair (uneasy on photos), the jaw seems heavy enough -
the nose is very "european"like, if long - all that point towards a 'nordic-atlanto-mediterranean' crossing - a bit fleshy of face, but here the alimentatiton and way of life could be at work -
very not typical.... could be of a lot of places, rather in Europe ('nordic' increment)- in towns where the bracycephalic elements are very often more seldom (selection, Mediterraneans of today more traders than peasants? Jews mixes? He could be an Askhenaze Jews, then can be so typical sometimes and so Atypical some others... but French too, belgian, Swiss and so on...
bets

So you're suggesting he could pass for a Frenchman or a Swiss?

MOESAN
25-10-14, 01:05
So you're suggesting he could pass for a Frenchman or a Swiss?

completely; he is far from the bunk of initial Jews before diaspora, I think - and very far from the Lebanese as a whole, and more northern than the most typical European Mediterraneans, whatever think people in other froums - he is EVEN far from the ISRAELIANS (as a whole, always) I have yheirpictures!!!

John Doe
25-10-14, 11:05
completely; he is far from the bunk of initial Jews before diaspora, I think - and very far from the Lebanese as a whole, and more northern than the most typical European Mediterraneans, whatever think people in other froums - he is EVEN far from the ISRAELIANS (as a whole, always) I have yheirpictures!!!

Okay, thanks for the clarification. :)

oreo_cookie
25-10-14, 20:39
Would anyone be able to describe for me, either in their own words or through the words of an anthropologist who wrote about it, the difference between "Borreby" and "Brunn"? To me they look very similar.

MOESAN
26-10-14, 21:46
here a

6793man of Liechtenstein between Switzerland and Austria with 'alpine' look, robust, then on the way to "my" 'borreby' A (more cromagnoid by origin)

MOESAN
26-10-14, 22:11
Would anyone be able to describe for me, either in their own words or through the words of an anthropologist who wrote about it, the difference between "Borreby" and "Brunn"? To me they look very similar.

I've tried with my own conceptions of these types: my set is not worst than the COOK's ones
look at post #6 for 'brünnoids' (plus # 7 the second from left, slightly 'nordicized' by very close nevertheless) and to #8 for 'borreby A'

concerniing body, 'brünnoids' have long neck, very broad shoulders, long enought trunk compared to 'nordic' and the most of 'meds' so short enough legs (a bit bowed), long arms - as 'cromagnoid' they have low but broad orbits - more thick skin than true 'nordics' and 'meds', more body hairs than both (the body haired 'meds' are the ones on the 'indo-irano-afghan' side, or showing some 'cromagnoid' remnants, apparently) - the 'borreby' A is short enough legged too, but with heavier and less broad shoulders, shorter arms, more massive musculature, more fleshy as a whole - strong enough body hairs too - thick skin too - these two types are denser in Western Norway (Rogaland, Hordaland, a bit in Sogn and Sordal), mixed with 'nordic' (a lot) and others (few), and with preponderence of one on the other according to valleys and dales (scientists studies)

joeyc
26-10-14, 22:12
The Iberian Gracile Meds posted in this thread have a strong South Mediterranid/Arabid influence. The South Italian player has a Dinarid/Armenid influence. The Israelian and the South East French players look like light North Africans.

How would you classify these soccer players?

http://i.imgur.com/f8qTP22.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/sfSgqyu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rs6kYPr.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/lqzWwR8.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/xHjZtuk.jpg

MOESAN
26-10-14, 22:30
a man who evocates what were a 'long-barrow atlantic mediterranean' type to me - curiously he is Estonian, but his type is very rare among Estonians -

6794
easier to find in Western Britain, Wales, I think

MOESAN
26-10-14, 22:46
The Iberian Gracile Meds posted in this thread have a strong South Mediterranid/Arabid influence. The South Italian player has a Dinarid/Armenid influence. The Israelian and the South East French players look like light North Africans.
JOEYC

I post principally for visages bones - no dinaric nor armenian trait in any of these men, for this aspect! (no brachycephally, even partial!)
'arab' in Spanihses: but true 'arab' type was 'mediterranean'!!! only 'iran-afghan' and 'subsaharian' accretions modified the type, I think
for other aspect, a frontal picture is not always the better support to judge - the french NthAfr??? not sure - same for the israelian
but a a whole the majority of true small mediterranean people close bony structures for skull and face, nose and lips sending the most of the differences -
I put apart the higher statured mediterraneans concerning face principally - in North Africa, a lot of variants with not-mediterranean not-continental-european accretions, modifying slightly the apparence, and some archaic forms as in Mediterranea -

arvistro
26-10-14, 23:38
a man who evocates what were a 'long-barrow atlantic mediterranean' type to me - curiously he is Estonian, but his type is very rare among Estonians -

6794
easier to find in Western Britain, Wales, I think
He reminds me of Martins Dukurs Olympic Silver skeletonist from Latvia. You can check his picture in wiki/google.
Or am I totally missing the point? :)

oreo_cookie
27-10-14, 00:43
He reminds me of Martins Dukurs Olympic Silver skeletonist from Latvia. You can check his picture in wiki/google.
Or am I totally missing the point? :)

I can see the resemblance also. Not exactly, but very similar.

MOESAN
31-10-14, 02:27
He reminds me of Martins Dukurs Olympic Silver skeletonist from Latvia. You can check his picture in wiki/google.
Or am I totally missing the point? :)


maybe, but very less typical: too fleshy: but the same tendancy towards a shallow mandible - I cannot see too well the skull shape, it seems a bit higher than in my type -
I could imagine some "danubian" impact but it is guess, not science -
concerning my "model" he seems to me very close to the 'long barrows' type's mean: it could signify these megalithers of Atlantic reached farther than S-Scandinavia?
what mix of Y-HG? what mix of mt-Hg'S ?

MOESAN
01-11-14, 21:15
here some Israelians: maybe not all of them born in Israel but the majority I suppose - they are not completely homogenous, but their globally Near-Eastern affiliation is very more evident than for Askheanzes I saw in Europe!

6806

John Doe
01-11-14, 21:18
here some Israelians: maybe not all of them born in Israel but the majority I suppose - they are not completely homogenous, but their globally Near-Eastern affiliation is very more evident than for Askheanzes I saw in Europe!

6806

Most of these people have roots in north Africa or west Asia. Bar Refaeli is Israeli but if I may be fair, she's very fair. Israeli is a nationality, so you can have Israelis like Bar Refaeli and Israelis like Eyal Golan.

P.S Bar Refaeli isn't fully Ashkenazi (she's part Italian Jewish).

MOESAN
01-11-14, 21:18
whan I say Near-Eastern, I think Eastern Med's in a sense
others

6807

MOESAN
01-11-14, 21:19
others

6808

John Doe
01-11-14, 21:21
Bar Refaeli:
file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/bar_rafaeli.jpg


Eyal Golan:

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/2577059490.jpg

MOESAN
01-11-14, 22:38
the so called 'danubian mediterranean' type of COON, associated to danubian LBK and S-E Anatolia peasants, is very difficult ti define on current people today - COON thought it was the second component associated to his 'corded' type (for me the unique 'nordic' basic type) would have produced what he called his 'Hallstatt Iron Age type -

I'm confused, but based only upon metric description not too complete, sometimes contradictory definitions by old scholars, I put here NOT TRUE "danubians" but people showing for me some 'danubian imput' - by the way COON, if I correctly recall thought that a brachycephalized ('alpine' influence) 'danubian' with some slihht 'mongoloid' imput would have procuced his 'neodanubian type', element present in 'east-baltic' type associated principally with 'borreby' (broadly said, brutal or not, rather the non brutal variant) - what seems sensible - means final types again, not basic - the more eminent trait was a very very high skull and almost vertical forehead

so it's more bet than God 's truth

6809681068116812

from left to right:swede, dolicho-meso, Czech, dolicho-meso, Islandman, dolicho, Israelian, apprently dolicho-meso
they are heterogenous as it is previsible, as crossings, but show all the high crania, vertical forehead very cerebral, and opposite to what said some scholars, even crossed, they show a tendancy towards little faces but NOT TO NARROW ones so???
concerning face COON said spite their light skeletons, they have noses far from being typically 'mediterranean' - He dobted even they were all dark pigmented!!! Perhaps he huad truth on his side for this detail??? Wait and see next discoverings...
taht said I would prefer have the true ancient 'danubians' in front of me, and not this honorable but "crossed" persons I selected without too much certitude-

MOESAN
06-11-14, 15:47
Most of these people have roots in north Africa or west Asia. Bar Refaeli is Israeli but if I may be fair, she's very fair. Israeli is a nationality, so you can have Israelis like Bar Refaeli and Israelis like Eyal Golan.

P.S Bar Refaeli isn't fully Ashkenazi (she's part Italian Jewish).

I'm aware and I make the difference between 'Jews' of the diaspora(s), Sionistes freshly arrived in Israel and old Israelians: but a sa whole the most of the people I pictured here as more typical to "autochtonous Israelians" than to Askhenazes of N-Europe

John Doe
06-11-14, 16:18
I'm aware and I make the difference between 'Jews' of the diaspora(s), Sionistes freshly arrived in Israel and old Israelians: but a sa whole the most of the people I pictured here as more typical to "autochtonous Israelians" than to Askhenazes of N-Europe
I see. Thanks for the clarification.

MOESAN
08-11-14, 00:49
danubians (follow)

this type today drown in a sea of better represented type in Turkey as well as in Central Europe (and other modern Slavic lands) is very difficult to submarize as I saw -
they seem having crossed with an heavy enough 'alpine' component in West-Central Europe -
spite the 'southern' assignation made by scientists (Coon was more reserved concerning the geographical origin)
what remained easy enough to tell among today people is the very high roofed crania higher than the whole face, an apparently short enough and snub fleshy nose tip ("opposite" to 'mediterranean' paradygmus, and as a relic of an ancient human stage, as among 'cromagnoids' and even 'brünnoids') and very light lower jaw, narrow, but the bigozymatic are broad enough, this aspect of face being more 'mediterranean' - its the face and the light body which seem pushing scientists to make a 'mediterranean' of it -

6830

MOESAN
08-11-14, 00:59
danubian (parlty as you know)

MOESAN
13-11-14, 23:36
6841
one more 'alpine'like type (Yougoslavia, maybe Croatia)

MOESAN
15-11-14, 01:22
The Iberian Gracile Meds posted in this thread have a strong South Mediterranid/Arabid influence. The South Italian player has a Dinarid/Armenid influence. The Israelian and the South East French players look like light North Africans.

How would you classify these soccer players?

http://i.imgur.com/f8qTP22.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/sfSgqyu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rs6kYPr.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/lqzWwR8.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/xHjZtuk.jpg
Joeyc
it's easier to pick up some typicalguys than to evaluate more mixed people – it's only a gamechallenge for me because without measures and other angles of viewit's very hard – all what I'll say is guess and bet -
1° guy : hyperdolicho ? -narrowfaced, highfaced but strong lower jaw and chin, upperface shortenough compare to chin (# typical mediter), mean nose (# typicalmediter) – thick inferior lip (mediter) - middle-dark brown hair(nordic-mediter?) - narrow forehead – low limit of slightly wavyhead hairs (mediter) -
the high face and chink can be linkedto stature for a part but I think he is a good example of what wascalled a crossing between 'nordic' and 'atlanto-mediter'(« megalither » of someones), as awhole he could beEnglish – I think he has more chances to be from Northern Italy orSpanish but...


2° guy : meso ? Subbrachysmall headed ? - robust face, bony – short nose – very darkhaired, blackish brown ? - very low limit of straight head hair– perhaps a high statured man – hard to analyse – I would putsome pennies on a partial dinaric mixture or process, and a remotewest-balkanic origin – more chances to be from Northeastern Italyif Italian ?


3° guy : dolicho – middleproportions face with a light preponderance of cheekbones (smallmediter) but the jaw angles are strong enough – very short nose (#typical mediter) – thin enough lips (# mediter) – wavymiddle-dark brown hair, low on forehead (mediter) – as awhole 'mediter', except some archaic traits maybe linked to aprevious population in Mediterranea (absorbed 'cromagnoids' ? -more in Southern Italy but also in other places of Mediterranea -


4° guy : subdolicho ? -little mean face, almost bread in proportions – maybe very-darkbrown or blackish brown hair - straight hair (# typical mediter),very low on the forehead (mediter, but not only) – little thinshort nose (# typical mediter) - curiously his face seems fragile ifbroad at the cheekbones but is frontal is very « brutal »shaped : a reduced so called archaic mediter withgracilized shapes ? Some Portugueses and Sardinians show thisassociation of brutal shaped skull with rude enough face but the faceis reduced in height, always with preponderance of cheekbones uponlower jaw breadth – local evolution on cousins of 'eurafrican' ?– so local peculiarities can evolve in partly isolated regions on apreviously common stock – his nose shape nevertheless is notmediter at all –


5° guy : subdolicho ? - darkbrown or blackish brown head hair, less low on forehead, wavy hair ?- fleshy round nose (# typical mediter) – thin lips (# mediter) –slightly wavy hiar ? - mean face with preponderance ofcheekbones upon lower jaw breadth (mediter) – roughly 'mediter' toobut something (a taste) more « northwestern » in details, more «french » (it's moresentiment than constat) -


the 3° and 5° are more 'mediter' as awhole concerning visible bones, but with some very slight remnants ofsomething else – but the more we go back in past tracing oldfeatures, the more we can suppose different places of origin becausethe subtypes surely were less numerous converging into only 2 or 3types, and occupied larger territories – we see by instance verytypical remnants of the cro-magnon pattern, for faces, spred fromIreland to Pakistan and to Finland... also other features common tocapelloid-brünnoid, and also partly to 'chancelade' (less brutal), Isuppose to be a southern cousin of them as eurafrican : afterall the first Y-I and Y-J bearers were surely close enough at somestage) - but other parts of body and hidden organs can having evolvedvery far -


all these bets without any seriousguarantee !!!

MOESAN
22-11-14, 18:26
I'have a big problem
I cannot attach pictures whatever the size and the system PNG, JPG... when I have did that more than a time before
always the same answer: "exceed your quota by N... KB" (the weight of the picture)
I'm very sad and it could bring me to an alcoholic addiction...

Angela
22-11-14, 18:43
I'have a big problem
I cannot attach pictures whatever the size and the system PNG, JPG... when I have did that more than a time before
always the same answer: "exceed your quota by N... KB" (the weight of the picture)
I'm very sad and it could bring me to an alcoholic addiction...

Don't do that! Moderation in all things.:disappointed:

I feel your pain. I haven't been able to actually post pictures in ages, even though when you get to a certain level you're not supposed to have a limit on your attachment capability. It's such a pity, because I do so love to post and see visuals as a gestalt.

Ah well, perhaps we should go on strike? :laughing:

Seriously, if you figure out how to do it, please let me know.

LeBrok
22-11-14, 18:53
Please PM Maciamo about this problem.

Sile
22-11-14, 20:15
I'have a big problem
I cannot attach pictures whatever the size and the system PNG, JPG... when I have did that more than a time before
always the same answer: "exceed your quota by N... KB" (the weight of the picture)
I'm very sad and it could bring me to an alcoholic addiction...

I have had this problem for years...........Maciano resolution to me was to clear my cookies

oreo_cookie
23-11-14, 06:28
I've had the same issue too and never understood why.

MOESAN
27-12-17, 00:51
a try for fun
9576

MOESAN
28-12-17, 00:34
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9576

MOESAN
28-12-17, 23:18
some seemingly 'borreby' types more or less "pure"
95829583958495859586
Icelander, Czech, Czech, Murcia Spaniard, Engleman
concerning the ratio jaw/cheekbones (bigonial/bizygomatic) they are very well on my 'borreby-A' of cromagnoid inspiration, not very far from a robust 'alpin' - the Spaniard seems a bit too higher faced, and the Engleman the more mesocephallic but...as a whole they illustrate what a more or less brachycephalicized cro-magnoid basis can give for phenotype; One can suppose they inherited these traits from a unique pop and not by hazard from convergence of distinct and independant crossings; geographically, the more you get close to the Baltic shores and to some parts of Germanic, Finnic and North Balto-Slavic lands the more you can find people with these shapes.

MOESAN
28-12-17, 23:32
95879588
Czech, Czech
'Borreby-A' : attenuated, more 'alpinlike'

Northener
29-12-17, 13:13
I've tried with my own conceptions of these types: my set is not worst than the COOK's ones
look at post #6 for 'brünnoids' (plus # 7 the second from left, slightly 'nordicized' by very close nevertheless) and to #8 for 'borreby A'

concerniing body, 'brünnoids' have long neck, very broad shoulders, long enought trunk compared to 'nordic' and the most of 'meds' so short enough legs (a bit bowed), long arms - as 'cromagnoid' they have low but broad orbits - more thick skin than true 'nordics' and 'meds', more body hairs than both (the body haired 'meds' are the ones on the 'indo-irano-afghan' side, or showing some 'cromagnoid' remnants, apparently) - the 'borreby' A is short enough legged too, but with heavier and less broad shoulders, shorter arms, more massive musculature, more fleshy as a whole - strong enough body hairs too - thick skin too - these two types are denser in Western Norway (Rogaland, Hordaland, a bit in Sogn and Sordal), mixed with 'nordic' (a lot) and others (few), and with preponderence of one on the other according to valleys and dales (scientists studies)

Interesting attempt!!!

Few primair remarks.

First it's IMO too much 'Coonian' like polygenism, by that I mean the idee that the pops arose from separate creations.

Second what about the idea of Gerhardt (who denied the idea of the Borreby) who made this basic typology:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/72rn6nbxg.jpg

Third is there any connection to make with for example K12 Ancient? https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34516-(NEW)-GenePlaza-K12-Ancient-Calculator-Results
Or is this too far fetched?

For now this short posting....I hope it's clear enough for the discussion.....

MOESAN
29-12-17, 16:58
No polygeny in my thoughts, but what is polygeny and monogeny? A good piece of phylosophy.
I 'll answer you later. Thanks for the Gerhard's drawings, a bit wrong by the way.

Northener
29-12-17, 20:13
No polygeny in my thoughts, but what is polygeny and monogeny? A good piece of phylosophy.
I 'll answer you later. Thanks for the Gerhard's drawings, a bit wrong by the way.

To be more precise in the earlier days Coon was pretty stucked to typology (has something 'fixed'), later on he embraced a more adaptive approach.....

A good article about this:

http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/anthpubs/ucb/text/kas084-004.pdf

MOESAN
30-12-17, 00:16
Thanks for post.
Where do you see I speak here of polygeny ?
And what is polygeny ? We are all mammals which evolved from not-mammals (reptiles?) milions of years ago.
The notion of race is not so clear : since what % of genetic differences we consider a race exist, even in the world of animals ? Are all genetic differences of the same value ? The only strict barrier is the impossibility of durable reproduction. (Yet, it seems lions and tigers spite of different but close species have produced hybrids which could themselves reproduce with one of the parents races in the subsequent generation : females only, seemingly, it’s true). And this impossibility for the most is linked to chromosomal accidents. Otherwise, we can only speak of matings between « brothers » and « sisters », or close cousins, or remote cousins.
Concerning Coon, I looked only at the describing part of his work on Europe.
In what sense can genetists claim CHG are a different pop from EHG, WHG or Natufians?
Not long ago, scientists claimed we were one OOA offsprings, now they admit we have some crossings with Neanderthal and/or Denisova : can we speak of race here ? SO maybe, some multigeny, finally ?
But concerning the links between genetics and history, we have to take in account every sign of partial or total isolation, and (can be during a relatively short time, it does not matter), manifested in autosomes, uniparental haplos or phenotypes, it’s to say autosomes results with external manifestations. And also every sign of relatively brutal rupture of isolation we call « crossing » (at the nay-race level, we can say every sexual mating (+ fecondation!) is at the same time a crossing and a no-crossing act). The question is the evolution of these markers which is not by force palallelic and not at the same speed.
The German speaking doc’ with drawed skulls is not accurate according to me – I suppose the ‘aurignacian’ dolicho’ is the so called ‘brünn’ type and the brachy’ result what we call ‘dinaric » type ? If the case, I think the occipital of the second is in reality more steppy/vertical/flat that the brachy ‘croma’ (my ‘borreby’s A) ; concerning the sketche, it seems saying the ‘croma’ knowed a shortening of skull withtout broadening, what I find surprising ! (in fact, ‘borreby’s skulls are of very greater volume than the ‘dinaric’ ones* – BTW, I think the brachycephalization of ‘brünn’ types produced something different from ‘dinaric’ which seems asking for some (broadely said) ‘mediter’ type. Coon noticed the differences of occipital angles betwen classical ‘dinarics’ and ‘borrebys’ (lambda flattening) among Montenegro people. For the few I saw in other parts it seems it’s sensible.
* : total length+breath of skulls : the greater in Europe : Basque/Gascogne, Ireland, West and North Britain, Iceland, Northwest Germany, Wallonia, West Norway, parts of Denmark – the smaller : South Italy, Eastern Mediterranea, Dinaric lands (except Montenegro!) : as a whole, West Mediteraneans have greater heads than eastern ones...
I don’t see the apport of the K12 try. It concerns only cultural pops and not the deep ancestry ; was it to debunk every link between old shapes and old pops ? But some features are very old and came from remote ancestors, inchanged in some cases, when other genetic inherited traits evolved by mutations, crossings and redistribution. To reconize some typical ancient features in today INDIVIDUALS in pops (at some not negligible%) doesn’t signify in my posts the individuals bearing them are stayed the same inchanged « race », but it establishes a remote link at the level of the genes responsible of these traits.
‘croma’ and ‘brünn’ descendants covered until Mesolithic a large world part from Atlantic to Asia ; and the brachy’tion is maybe not only an European phenomenon ; robust brachy’s have been found too among some Steppic tribes and their origin is not so clear todate. In Europe, the first robust brachy’s of this kind (‘borreby’ of any sort and ‘dinaric’ seem appearing only about the 3000 BC or a bit earlier not too soon, rather between Germany and Denmark (except in the Alps, maybe around 8000 BC, but different, smaller statured and headed). 3500/3000 BC could mark already some intrusions from East ? (noteworthy : Andronovo people showed more mesocephalic more straight foreheaded crania than Afanasyevo, so maybe a brachycephals input, and NOT a typically east-asian one ? The same for some tribes of the North Pontic lands. It’s true a rather brachy pop inhabited the Southwestern Siberia with shapes unclassable between ‘europoid’ and ‘east-asian’ according to some authors (would it not have been the richer pop in ‘ANE’ element ?)
Elsewhere at the same dates (3500/3000 BC)in Western Europe, brachys were only small groups of individuals, prospectors at first sight, and uniquely on the ‘dinaric’ side. South the Caucasus it seems they appeared only about the 2000 BC (some ‘borreby’like and ‘dinaric’like people, until in Syria and Lebanon, today). I think we lack more ancient skulls for some regions and dates.
Your K2 run says you have almost no European Paleo or Meso ascendance, what I think is partly false. But the Steppic elements had WHG and EHG, both from Paleo parents, EHG is only kind of WHG + ‘ANE’ addition if I rely on someones opinion. But here autosomals don’t help for shapes because globally speaking the descendants of ‘croma’ and ‘brünn’ types shared same genes (a mix of genes with the same label, rather?); so if today pops (rare) don’t share same numerically dominance of these ancient shapes, it could not be seen in autosomal global admixture (except the ones responsible for the shape, it they are known and studied apart, but this is a recent thing in genetics).

Northener
30-12-17, 11:38
Thanks for post. Where do you see I speak here of polygeny ? And what is polygeny ? We are all mammals which evolved from not-mammals (reptiles?) milions of years ago. The notion of race is not so clear : since what % of genetic differences we consider a race exist, even in the world of animals ? Are all genetic differences of the same value ? The only strict barrier is the impossibility of durable reproduction. (Yet, it seems lions and tigers spite of different but close species have produced hybrids which could themselves reproduce with one of the parents races in the subsequent generation : females only, seemingly, it’s true). And this impossibility for the most is linked to chromosomal accidents. Otherwise, we can only speak of matings between « brothers » and « sisters », or close cousins, or remote cousins. Concerning Coon, I looked only at the describing part of his work on Europe. In what sense can genetists claim CHG are a different pop from EHG, WHG or Natufians? Not long ago, scientists claimed we were one OOA offsprings, now they admit we have some crossings with Neanderthal and/or Denisova : can we speak of race here ? SO maybe, some multigeny, finally ? But concerning the links between genetics and history, we have to take in account every sign of partial or total isolation, and (can be during a relatively short time, it does not matter), manifested in autosomes, uniparental haplos or phenotypes, it’s to say autosomes results with external manifestations. And also every sign of relatively brutal rupture of isolation we call « crossing » (at the nay-race level, we can say every sexual mating (+ fecondation!) is at the same time a crossing and a no-crossing act). The question is the evolution of these markers which is not by force palallelic and not at the same speed. The German speaking doc’ with drawed skulls is not accurate according to me – I suppose the ‘aurignacian’ dolicho’ is the so called ‘brünn’ type and the brachy’ result what we call ‘dinaric » type ? If the case, I think the occipital of the second is in reality more steppy/vertical/flat that the brachy ‘croma’ (my ‘borreby’s A) ; concerning the sketche, it seems saying the ‘croma’ knowed a shortening of skull withtout broadening, what I find surprising ! (in fact, ‘borreby’s skulls are of very greater volume than the ‘dinaric’ ones* – BTW, I think the brachycephalization of ‘brünn’ types produced something different from ‘dinaric’ which seems asking for some (broadely said) ‘mediter’ type. Coon noticed the differences of occipital angles betwen classical ‘dinarics’ and ‘borrebys’ (lambda flattening) among Montenegro people. For the few I saw in other parts it seems it’s sensible. * : total length+breath of skulls : the greater in Europe : Basque/Gascogne, Ireland, West and North Britain, Iceland, Northwest Germany, Wallonia, West Norway, parts of Denmark – the smaller : South Italy, Eastern Mediterranea, Dinaric lands (except Montenegro!) : as a whole, West Mediteraneans have greater heads than eastern ones... I don’t see the apport of the K12 try. It concerns only cultural pops and not the deep ancestry ; was it to debunk every link between old shapes and old pops ? But some features are very old and came from remote ancestors, inchanged in some cases, when other genetic inherited traits evolved by mutations, crossings and redistribution. To reconize some typical ancient features in today INDIVIDUALS in pops (at some not negligible%) doesn’t signify in my posts the individuals bearing them are stayed the same inchanged « race », but it establishes a remote link at the level of the genes responsible of these traits. ‘croma’ and ‘brünn’ descendants covered until Mesolithic a large world part from Atlantic to Asia ; and the brachy’tion is maybe not only an European phenomenon ; robust brachy’s have been found too among some Steppic tribes and their origin is not so clear todate. In Europe, the first robust brachy’s of this kind (‘borreby’ of any sort and ‘dinaric’ seem appearing only about the 3000 BC or a bit earlier not too soon, rather between Germany and Denmark (except in the Alps, maybe around 8000 BC, but different, smaller statured and headed). 3500/3000 BC could mark already some intrusions from East ? (noteworthy : Andronovo people showed more mesocephalic more straight foreheaded crania than Afanasyevo, so maybe a brachycephals input, and NOT a typically east-asian one ? The same for some tribes of the North Pontic lands. It’s true a rather brachy pop inhabited the Southwestern Siberia with shapes unclassable between ‘europoid’ and ‘east-asian’ according to some authors (would it not have been the richer pop in ‘ANE’ element ?) Elsewhere at the same dates (3500/3000 BC)in Western Europe, brachys were only small groups of individuals, prospectors at first sight, and uniquely on the ‘dinaric’ side. South the Caucasus it seems they appeared only about the 2000 BC (some ‘borreby’like and ‘dinaric’like people, until in Syria and Lebanon, today). I think we lack more ancient skulls for some regions and dates. Your K2 run says you have almost no European Paleo or Meso ascendance, what I think is partly false. But the Steppic elements had WHG and EHG, both from Paleo parents, EHG is only kind of WHG + ‘ANE’ addition if I rely on someones opinion. But here autosomals don’t help for shapes because globally speaking the descendants of ‘croma’ and ‘brünn’ types shared same genes (a mix of genes with the same label, rather?); so if today pops (rare) don’t share same numerically dominance of these ancient shapes, it could not be seen in autosomal global admixture (except the ones responsible for the shape, it they are known and studied apart, but this is a recent thing in genetics).

Thanks Moesan. Good explanation. I guess because of the typology, that reminds of C.S. Coon, I projected the thoughts of Coon on you. You made this clear that's not the case! Excusez-moi...
I will think twice about the rest of the text...and I'am looking forward too further postings about this subject.

MOESAN
23-05-18, 23:46
just for the fun, not with too big pretention, a try to represent the CWC 'corded' typical element in the CWC culture; surely not pure, but selected in a certain population in a certain place, before mating and crossing in Western Europe, in NW for the most; I don't exclude a dolicho robust 'brnnoid' type in the mean and also something close to what we think of the 'nordic' type, this last some type evolved maybe in the peri-Ladoga region upon some ancient 'mediter' migration from South (hypothetic at this stage). Don'r base yourself on pigmentation - I 'll add other pics with other influences (more Yamna?) - and keep in mind it's a game so ...
1019310194101951019210191

Northener
24-05-18, 23:00
just for the fun, not with too big pretention, a try to represent the CWC 'corded' typical element in the CWC culture; surely not pure, but selected in a certain population in a certain place, before mating and crossing in Western Europe, in NW for the most; I don't exclude a dolicho robust 'brünnoid' type in the mean and also something close to what we think of the 'nordic' type, this last some type evolved maybe in the peri-Ladoga region upon some ancient 'mediter' migration from South (hypothetic at this stage). Don'r base yourself on pigmentation - I 'll add other pics with other influences (more Yamna?) - and keep in mind it's a game so ...
1019310194101951019210191

Hmmmm the attach doesn’t work Monsanto may be try mupload? Easy to use.....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

MOESAN
24-05-18, 23:35
Northerner, have you problems to open my attachments; I tried them again, and when clicking on the 'anhangs' I obtain the pictures without problem; maybe I did not understand well your post?
goeden avond

MOESAN
24-05-18, 23:42
other elements possible among the 'corded' type mean

10200102011020210203

None of them shows the same inherited details from parents types, but it's very possible the mean these men can form was what we see among the 'corded' type before it lost weight in mixes

MOESAN
24-06-18, 00:56
Something I don't understand:
when I attach a picture, it first appears in full size and clear, then it turn into a link (anhang) with possibility to see the pic when clicking, and, a few days later, when I click, i have an error message!!!

I'm disperate and I think i'm going to put an end to my hopeless and sad life by slow but continual absorbtion of alcohol... luckily enough I have a bottle of good wine at hand so...

Angela
24-06-18, 01:46
Something I don't understand:
when I attach a picture, it first appears in full size and clear, then it turn into a link (anhang) with possibility to see the pic when clicking, and, a few days later, when I click, i have an error message!!!

I'm disperate and I think i'm going to put an end to my hopeless and sad life by slow but continual absorbtion of alcohol... luckily enough I have a bottle of good wine at hand so...

Moesan, this feature no longer works. Here's what to do:
Go to imgur.com. Click on new post. Click on browse to download your own photo, or paste in the url. The picture will show up. Click on share links. I use the option for forums. Click on copy. Then, on a post here, click on the picture frame, delete check mark by clicking on it, and then paste in the url.

It sounds like a lot, but when you get used to it, it's very quick.

nuno77
24-06-18, 12:46
Dear Moesan,

could you tell something about Rui Filipe (1968-1994), a former FC Porto player?

10287

Merci!

MOESAN
25-06-18, 15:04
Dear Moesan,

could you tell something about Rui Filipe (1968-1994), a former FC Porto player?

10287

Merci!

Not too much looking at only one pic like this one:
true dark blond? possible, but now they make so truelike dyeings... I remember Artur Correia, who had light brown head hair and "blondished" (lightened) them a bit; that said, I know the blond hairs (1,5% for allover genuine Portugueses) is less rare in some parts of Portugal, principally in Minho; eyes colour? uneasy to say here: seemingly intermediary, kind of greenish something? skin colour: impossible to say on pics, even more when speaking of sportmen - the head hair, just a bit wavy, checks as well classical 'med' and 'nordic'; combed like this impossible to evaluate the degree of baldness -
face features: lack of other angles to judge; not possible to see the forehead shape; the face doesn't seem to be typcially classical 'atlanto-mediter'; I would bet rather a mix of little 'mediter' and classical 'nordic' crossing: jaw and chink could very well fit this first glance; the nose is a bit too fleshy for true 'nordic', but not too long; a bit too large nostrils;
the lips, with dominance of lower lip on the upper one is not 'nordic'; rather 'mediter' as a whole, without input of 'indo-iranian' type whose mouth is greater;
it's a glance analysis by an amateur and based only on typology (but typology is not completely useless at some level of precision) - this guy could pass in Britain and in Belgium very easily, in some other countries too but less evidently -
I regreat now I didn't pay more attention in past to ears and eyebrows shapes and sizes, because they tell something about ancestry... (tears...LOL)
Don't take all this with too much seriousness.
Have a good week.

nuno77
26-06-18, 00:53
Merci pour la réponse!


Yes, it's not easy to make an analysis based on just one picture. Even when searching for "Rui Filipe FC Porto" in Google Images there isn't a lot of pictures.
1029010291
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_juovnWGPlMQ/SknGPk9f33I/AAAAAAAAANY/mezQSmQlwzE/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/rui_filipe_dragoes.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QR9bgnZDUG8/U-qoKxnkbjI/AAAAAAAACuM/gItyVD_Q7Og/s1600/r2.jpg


And he passed away in 1994 with 26 years of age at the prime of his football career for Porto and Portugal.


He comes more or less from the same region of my ancestors. It's a Celtic area according to the History books and in those isolated mountains there are lots of Megalithic monuments such as dolmens and engravings.


So based on History and his phenotype, I would bet that he could also be a R-L21, which isn't that common in Iberia.




Merci et à bientôt!

MOESAN
28-06-18, 21:05
Moesan, this feature no longer works. Here's what to do:
Go to imgur.com. Click on new post. Click on browse to download your own photo, or paste in the url. The picture will show up. Click on share links. I use the option for forums. Click on copy. Then, on a post here, click on the picture frame, delete check mark by clicking on it, and then paste in the url.

It sounds like a lot, but when you get used to it, it's very quick.

Thanks, Angela. I 'll try it when I have time.

MOESAN
28-06-18, 21:11
Merci pour la réponse!


Yes, it's not easy to make an analysis based on just one picture. Even when searching for "Rui Filipe FC Porto" in Google Images there isn't a lot of pictures.
1029010291
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_juovnWGPlMQ/SknGPk9f33I/AAAAAAAAANY/mezQSmQlwzE/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/rui_filipe_dragoes.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QR9bgnZDUG8/U-qoKxnkbjI/AAAAAAAACuM/gItyVD_Q7Og/s1600/r2.jpg


And he passed away in 1994 with 26 years of age at the prime of his football career for Porto and Portugal.


He comes more or less from the same region of my ancestors. It's a Celtic area according to the History books and in those isolated mountains there are lots of Megalithic monuments such as dolmens and engravings.


So based on History and his phenotype, I would bet that he could also be a R-L21, which isn't that common in Iberia.




Merci et bientôt!

The 'anhang' system doesn't work, it's not a surprise; but on 3/4 profile pic', his nose and mouth are not too 'nordic', confirming my 'diagnostic'; other elements are not visible enough.
Thanks for the pic's nevertheless. ba noite! (correct?)

MOESAN
29-06-18, 19:55
as a whole, globally speaking and taking the fleshy parts in account, 'med' more than 'nordic' (remnants unkown, too less clues) - sorry for these last hesitating precisions

Northener
25-10-18, 21:33
I think the following facial phenotypes as seen in the australian population is a more promising classification.

https://www.opsm.com.au/style/face-shapes

and sketches:

https://www.deniseortakales.com/paper-clippings/2017/7/16/character-face-shapes

No archaic connotations any longer....

In combination with the ci-index, pigmentation (hair, eyes, skin) and length it could give a nice impression of the different European regions.

MOESAN
26-10-18, 19:28
I think the following facial phenotypes as seen in the australian population is a more promising classification.

https://www.opsm.com.au/style/face-shapes

and sketches:

https://www.deniseortakales.com/paper-clippings/2017/7/16/character-face-shapes

No archaic connotations any longer....

In combination with the ci-index, pigmentation (hair, eyes, skin) and length it could give a nice impression of the different European regions.

Personally I don't see too much what to do with these definitions and examples: so much elements are taking part in the overall shape, and I saw often enough faces disjunct from skull and forehead (but maybe the cheekbones are more coupled with skull?); and I think more than a locus is acting in skull shape, owing to a lot of different shapes after some generations of crossings, without speaking of recent intragroup mutations, phenomenons of gracilisation or congenital diseases ;

Northener
27-10-18, 21:41
Personally I don't see too much what to do with these definitions and examples: so much elements are taking part in the overall shape, and I saw often enough faces disjunct from skull and forehead (but maybe the cheekbones are more coupled with skull?); and I think more than a locus is acting in skull shape, owing to a lot of different shapes after some generations of crossings, without speaking of recent intragroup mutations, phenomenons of gracilisation or congenital diseases ;

Yes that could be the case, but for verbs like cro-magnoid is this even more the case....the terminology of the old classifiers are suggestion a continuity, and ‘purist’ that never exists and has never exist....we should throw verbs like borreby, out of the window....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

MOESAN
29-10-18, 21:12
nevertheless these old definitions like 'borreby' depticted some statistical reality (realities in fact), the question being: could it be spoken of a type relatively stable over a respectable number of generations and forming the bulk of the pop, or of some relatively common result of simple crossing?
If crossing of different types, it produces always lesser people very close to the theorical type features , and it produces a high %age of gradual intermediary types and also a high enough %age of very different types, someones close to the "parent" types (if there were someones before) and even types that get farther than the different "founding" types from the mean; I already said that in the so called 'borreby' types, even if taking the "type" in a broad sense, we can see two very different ancient elements influences, what doesn't exclude others less evident.
"type" is based upon phenotypical features that, appearing as "coupled" within them in the most of individuals of a pop, can suggest that at least at the genetical level concerning these visible features, some stable isolation in some mesological context can have occurred creating a partial raciation whatever what could say the total autosomal picture. Sorry, I'm not sure my english makes it clear enough.

All the way, crossings/admixtures don't exclude the usefulness of rigorous phenotypical analysises, applied upon a not too long span of time (say: some few thousends of years).
And some specific traits seem having a long life, and we cannot always evocate convergent independant mutations, even if "we" have already discovered some of them.
about pre- and current- and post-Natufians periods it seems evident to me that external pops inputs was at work pointing to different directions of geographical origins and the ancient auDNA does not contradict this IMO, when we look at recent works.
goedenavond; ik heb hunger en dorst (goed?)

MOESAN
29-10-18, 21:15
concerning 'cromagnon', the serious old books spoke of the first ones the most of them in Dordogne - for the later period they used the term of 'cromagnoid' and true, I find it bad enough because among them some show the introgressions of other ancient pops and not only insitu drift, what confirms anthropology but more surely ancient DNA.

Northener
02-11-18, 20:22
nevertheless these old definitions like 'borreby' depticted some statistical reality (realities in fact), the question being: could it be spoken of a type relatively stable over a respectable number of generations and forming the bulk of the pop, or of some relatively common result of simple crossing?
If crossing of different types, it produces always lesser people very close to the theorical type features , and it produces a high %age of gradual intermediary types and also a high enough %age of very different types, someones close to the "parent" types (if there were someones before) and even types that get farther than the different "founding" types from the mean; I already said that in the so called 'borreby' types, even if taking the "type" in a broad sense, we can see two very different ancient elements influences, what doesn't exclude others less evident.
"type" is based upon phenotypical features that, appearing as "coupled" within them in the most of individuals of a pop, can suggest that at least at the genetical level concerning these visible features, some stable isolation in some mesological context can have occurred creating a partial raciation whatever what could say the total autosomal picture. Sorry, I'm not sure my english makes it clear enough.

All the way, crossings/admixtures don't exclude the usefulness of rigorous phenotypical analysises, applied upon a not too long span of time (say: some few thousends of years).
And some specific traits seem having a long life, and we cannot always evocate convergent independant mutations, even if "we" have already discovered some of them.
about pre- and current- and post-Natufians periods it seems evident to me that external pops inputs was at work pointing to different directions of geographical origins and the ancient auDNA does not contradict this IMO, when we look at recent works.
goedenavond; ik heb hunger en dorst (goed?)

Zeer goed!

“these visible features, some stable isolation in some mesological context can have occurred creating a partial raciation whatever what could say the total autosomal picture.”

I ‘m not aware of such isolated area’s in Europe. And certainly not in the last centuries.

When I take my region, the outmost northeastern part of the Netherlands, as an example than the autosomal mixture is very influenced by NW Germany. That would mean a same kind of phenotype.....ok judging from seen there some truth in it.... But does this represent some partial raciation some isolation from let's say Poland or Northern France? That would be the Coonian Borrebey That’s for a next posting.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

MOESAN
02-11-18, 21:03
I spoke of "true" types; not any pop today can says it is completely of so a type - these types are all a bit older, and IMO found birth when some provisional isolats existed with a narrowing of bilateral genes exchanges, as well as tribals systems, playing upon not too numerous pops - say: 6000/10000 years ago?

Northener
02-11-18, 21:13
concerning 'cromagnon', the serious old books spoke of the first ones the most of them in Dordogne - for the later period they used the term of 'cromagnoid' and true, I find it bad enough because among them some show the introgressions of other ancient pops and not only insitu drift, what confirms anthropology but more surely ancient DNA.

The 'cro-magnoid' type would be in (NW) Europe the Borreby.

And as far as I know this is the original Borreby type:

https://www.mupload.nl/img/yln5tenbs27kr.png

But this phenotype, see this brow ridges and this very very sloping forehead is not all very familiar in my region nor in NW Germany!

There are more phenotypes like mine, pretty steep forehead, and most of all the heads that are very long and broad (my bizygomatic breadth is 160 mm so hard to get glasses), and moderate or slightly brachycephaly. This type is more common in NE Netherlands and NW Germany. That would be the Borreby but this Borreby doesn't resemble the one and only original!

The original Borreby ^^^ does resemble my father in law a bit.....(especially the sloping forehead) but the best man is from NW France in stead of NW Germany ;)

MOESAN
02-11-18, 23:15
Agree with you.
This 'borreby' type is the one who gave birth to the naming; that said, a man is not a type - and we know that later what was put into this bag-name by classical anthropologs was a mix of diverse types sharing only sub-brachycephally and more or less tendancy to light pigmentation and rather high stature, but with big individual differences for cheekbones flaring, under jaw breadth, skull height, orbits shapes and size, frontal profile ... -
what I can say is that among modern men, not so far in time (5000 y.) is that someones in North Europe show still some ressemblances with this man (so maybe type but not by force: it could only be a common enough result of a simple crossing) - other thing: this type, aside brachycephalisation, shows strong ties with dolichocephallic most brutal 'brnn' (in this Brno region, true 'cromagoid' descendants lived close to subsequent 'brnnoid' types of very different and more brutal shapes, and later mated with them) - so this closeness of this original 'borreby' of Denmark to 'brnnoid' types excludes we can name it a direct 'cromagnoid' -

the more 'cromagnoid' so called 'borreby' collegue type except sub-brachycephally, shows very different shapes: more steep forehead, less browridges, longer flatter skull roof spite same index, smaller orbits, broader under jaw... found too among northern Europe pops - but I still don't know if we have here true types (homozigoty of every bone trait) or one of these ancient dolichocehpallic 'pattern' types crossed with a brachycephallic type? all the way, as already said, a skull is not sufficient to define a type ...
what is true is that these more or less well defined "types" travelled and when we find in a far enough region the same types in some proportion we can question ourselves about a possible introgression so an historical clue for demic input, at least over some centuries and even kilo-years.

MOESAN
03-11-18, 01:07
Agree with you.
This 'borreby' type is the one who gave birth to the naming; that said, a man is not a type - and we know that later what was put into this bag-name by classical anthropologs was a mix of diverse types sharing only sub-brachycephally and more or less tendancy to light pigmentation and rather high stature, but with big individual differences for cheekbones flaring, under jaw breadth, skull height, orbits shapes and size, frontal profile ... -
what I can say is that among modern men, not so far in time (5000 y.) is that someones in North Europe show still some ressemblances with this man (so maybe type but not by force: it could only be a common enough result of a simple crossing) - other thing: this type, aside brachycephalisation, shows strong ties with dolichocephallic most brutal 'brnn' (in this Brno region, true 'cromagoid' descendants lived close to subsequent 'brnnoid' types of very different and more brutal shapes, and later mated with them) - so this closeness of this original 'borreby' of Denmark to 'brnnoid' types excludes we can name it a direct 'cromagnoid' -

the more 'cromagnoid' so called 'borreby' collegue type except sub-brachycephally, shows very different shapes: more steep forehead, less browridges, longer flatter skull roof spite same index, smaller orbits, broader under jaw... found too among northern Europe pops - but I still don't know if we have here true types (homozigoty of every bone trait) or one of these ancient dolichocehpallic 'pattern' types crossed with a brachycephallic type? all the way, as already said, a skull is not sufficient to define a type ...
what is true is that these more or less well defined "types" travelled and when we find in a far enough region the same types in some proportion we can question ourselves about a possible introgression so an historical clue for demic input, at least over some centuries and even kilo-years.

Northener
04-11-18, 12:25
Agree with you.
This 'borreby' type is the one who gave birth to the naming; that said, a man is not a type - and we know that later what was put into this bag-name by classical anthropologs was a mix of diverse types sharing only sub-brachycephally and more or less tendancy to light pigmentation and rather high stature, but with big individual differences for cheekbones flaring, under jaw breadth, skull height, orbits shapes and size, frontal profile ... -
what I can say is that among modern men, not so far in time (5000 y.) is that someones in North Europe show still some ressemblances with this man (so maybe type but not by force: it could only be a common enough result of a simple crossing) - other thing: this type, aside brachycephalisation, shows strong ties with dolichocephallic most brutal 'br�nn' (in this Brno region, true 'cromagoid' descendants lived close to subsequent 'br�nnoid' types of very different and more brutal shapes, and later mated with them) - so this closeness of this original 'borreby' of Denmark to 'br�nnoid' types excludes we can name it a direct 'cromagnoid' -

the more 'cromagnoid' so called 'borreby' collegue type except sub-brachycephally, shows very different shapes: more steep forehead, less browridges, longer flatter skull roof spite same index, smaller orbits, broader under jaw... found too among northern Europe pops - but I still don't know if we have here true types (homozigoty of every bone trait) or one of these ancient dolichocehpallic 'pattern' types crossed with a brachycephallic type? all the way, as already said, a skull is not sufficient to define a type ...
what is true is that these more or less well defined "types" travelled and when we find in a far enough region the same types in some proportion we can question ourselves about a possible introgression so an historical clue for demic input, at least over some centuries and even kilo-years.

Thanks Moesan! I guess "brorreby" and "brunn" is all too much in the Coonian frame. I guess dead end street. Although endlessly recycled on the internet (in some fora).


So this closeness of this original 'borreby' of Denmark to 'brunnoid' types excludes we can name it a direct 'cromagnoid'


In how fare is Brunn and Borreby a Coonian frame, that even in his book is not wel defined and the connected pictures are sometimes messy.

That said what is connected to "Brunn" or "Borreby" ? Coon and the SNPA kind of classifiers give this connection:


Upper Paleolithic survivor



Modern Borrebys are derived, historically, from the old northwestern European coastal fishing population



The distinctive "Irish" features which characterize the Brünn are to some extent recalled in the Scandinavian Cro-Magnid stock


Huh huh.

Meanwhile what brings us the modern DNA research.....

Let's assume the Brunn and Borreby were connected with the Ertebolle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ertebølle_culture) culture, that's the really HG/fishing culture of NW Europe/Southern Scandinavia.

But after that there were at least two major influences:
- the Neolithic shift, migration from the Mediterranean to NW Europe/ Southern Scandinavia (see the Gokhem DNA that is Med).
- the Steppe, Bronze Age shift, we recently have publications how deep is the impact of the Bell Beaker people (and phenotype!?). We now have mostly R1b types in NW Europe mostly connected nowadays with Steppe influence.

In the modern NW Europe gene pool how much is left of the Ertebolle genes?
I guess mostly mixed with (or in some extent fused away) by the Med. genes and Steppe genes. Of course on their turn these Med. genes and Steppe genes are connected with a HG type. But that's not the HG genotype and guess not the phenotype of the Ertebølle HG population!

So may be the 'Borreby" and "Brunn" phenotypes are more pointing at Steppe influences than that of the Ertebølle!

So in the end is the Borreby/ Brunn are modern European phenotypes that ar genetically rooted in the Beaker influence (of course mixed with the older Neolithic/HG residu of NW Europe).

MOESAN
09-11-18, 23:59
Its a no-end discussion, in some way, without metrics details and auDNA of the very same pops (place and time).
Surely someones smile when they read my posts (if they do, of course). When I speak of cromagnoid and brnnoid I speak of very close features inherited by far more recent pops. Some smart people think this is ridiculous because new admixtures took place during the periods of Upper-paleolithic and Mesolithic, on great spaces between Western Europe and East-Central Asia. My fealing is that at the phenotypical level, some typical features were not always so new but only the redistribution of ancient traits genetically inherited but not particularly adaptative to selection. By example some tendancies (without adaptative advantage) seem to me bequeathed by West-Central Asian ancient HGs pops which imported these features wave after wave, without too big phenotypical change spite their adaptative auDNA could have evolved for parts with changes of echological places or of climate. When I speak of cromagnoid or brnnoid aspects I refer to external shapes spite I know no isolated genuine cromagnon or brnn stayed intouched even before Mesolithic, their first illegitimate matings beeing between both, as in Bohemia and elsewhere, according to places and time (by instance some old scholars thought both old patterns were found among Balkans Mesolithic people, mixed or not). The eastern models traits ar resumed by true dolichocephaly, large upper face but with a more or less high lower face and narrow bigonial (under jaw) spite broad bizygoma (cheekbones), a not too broad nasal hole, and very receding frontal and very strong browridges, a cranial vault with an arched lateral profile, in fact something brnnlike close which remains in upperpaleolithic combe-capelle ; these tendancies play a role, I think, partly gracilised and in composition, in the so called eurafrican type so in indo-afghan types and in some new components in the Near-Eastern pops, at the period or late Levant Farmers.
Hard to make a sketche of these migrations/mixings : admixture at a high level was not the rule everywhere, and back moves occurred more than a time (glaciation, glaces break-up and later before Neolithic) the rule would be rather a more or less level mix of both great models , with sometimes local choices of sets of traits, and in certain places preponderance of one of both ; new mutations occurred of course but I believe that some old tendancies remained which shape still the features of some today people, partly gracilised.

When we look at metric surveys about Northern Europe, we can read the most of the people - until around 4000 BC and even later in some places and cultures had kept ruggy traits with old features : as a whole, huge heads whatever the statures, rather broad faces, massive all the way, spite dolichocephalic, from hyperdolicho to meso. Relying on readings, Erteblle people as a mean were dolichocephalic, their faces were big, with relatively broad and low faces : they were close to the people of Sredny Stog and Dniestr-Dniepr of LN. Around Baltic lands, until 2500 BC or around (in their very EN), the types were close, but hyperdolicho, high faced, and a bit higher and narrower of face, even if still massive : rather mesoprosop than euryprosop : in all these incomplete descriptions I see the old heritage of dominant cromagnoid and brnnoid features, more brnnoid among pre-Balts pre-Estonian peoplee time. These people the arctics expansion of H. Hubert in in book about the Germanics? - had travelled until East-Baltic lands, Onega and Ladoga lakes, were they entered in contact with SW-Siberian HGs (archaic proto-Uralic type not well differentiated post-ANE, with some features closer to east-asian types) ; ; the result of this new admixture was a more mesocephalic types, with a rather flat horizontal profile of face, a low bridged nose with smaller nasal angle ; surely the future West-Finnic basic type. Seemingly Pit Comb Ware C. people if we consider auDNA, the proto-Uralic type would have been little enough of the so called east-asian DNA (rather northern siberian side) ;
This admixture progressed westwards around 2500 BC and after, MN, until Estonia and Eastern Latvia, not reaching Lithuania.
CWC/Battle Axe C. dolicho high skulled very high faced people came after with true Neolithic.
Their making can be discussed later.

& : personally, I think all this are average measures. The brnn heritage seems to me stronger as a whole than the croma one ; but this advantage varied according to place, croma shaped faces and skulls are still seen in Europe.


DNA level : Latvia and Ukraine Mesolithic and Neolithic : it seems some exchanges occurred between Latvia HGs descendants (who were between WHG and SHG), with introgression of more EHG people, at MN at LN, the influence of CHG is strong : here LN Latvian are almost identical to CWC people on PCAs ; this DNA study sample is helas very scarce. But it seems merking the beginning of introgression from East in Baltic regions at MN, and we can say the auDNA and metrics confirm one another, as very often IMO.
in Ukraina, HG were between SHG and EHG, and Neolithic ones drifted a little bit towards Latvian HG, so we can suggest here a partial osmosis between Ukrainian Neol and Baltic HGs descendants (the admixture runs show in Ukraine N just a bit more of CHG than Ukraine HG where it was already present at low rates) ; Kazarnitsky (metrics) thought Neolithic in Ukraine had received new human elements compared to mesolithic I think in a slight osmosis in Ukraine with a bit of Comb CCC genetically related people (and some more mt-U4) at early Neolithic (?) -

Among novelties, brachycephalisation seems occurring since 8000/6000 BC in some places, very often highlands (mesological selection?) in Western Steppes, the Pit Grave people of Kalmykia had a tendancy to brachycephaly compared to Ukraine HGs and to Ukraine Pit Grave people, tendancy shared with Ukraine, Russia and Latvia Neolithic but with a less flat facial profile and a more protuding nose than these last ones (more ando-afghan input ? More on a dinaric way ? Less of the tiny SW-Siberian HGs input?) - I regreat here again the lack of individuals and mean mesures, what we have today are plottings and dendograms, these last ones without too big sense the more often.
So weak brachycephalisation (at the average level) at those times in some places in Central and East Baltic regions, with possible mix of traits inherited from diverse horizons, for the most among robust pops on the bony angle. I wonder if our borrebies or pseudo-borrebies are not the result of these mixes with diverse results according to preponderence of types or to hazardous recombinations. The so typical (for us) eyelids of some Finnic people are labelled east-asian : in fact they are typical of only some of east-asians, and more than the not always present internal eyefold its the thin triangular aperture and the typical almost rectiligne ascending inferior eyelid that make them remarkable ; surely inherited from the proto-Uralic componant. Some of these eyelids are found also among Scandinavian and even farther in Western Europe spite more seldomly.
& : dinaric itself could be an other recombination with addition of a mediter variant. I avow Im short for dinaric concerning details, only that they does not seem to me a stable type.

to answer you (at last) yes 'croma' as well as 'brnn' lasting influences were present among Erteblle (and other northern preneol. cultures) but the 'borreby'complex ought maybe more to LN-Eneolithic intrusions from East/North-East than to a pure local 'alpinisation' which stayed steadily weak there compared to W-Alps.