Recognizing ethnicity by the nose.

[LeBrok]

By his face he look like a tall man too,great many of such individuals to be found in Balkans,well especialy around the place he was born.
That's Gentius Illyrian king pretty similar appearance with the father of Constantine.

Cultures, languages, religion changed a lot in Balkans but not people and there DNA. At least from iron or even the Bronze Age.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[Dianatomia]

What we describe as Greek noses is usually portrayed in idealized Ancient Greek art. As in gods or heroes. Busts of ancient Greek thinkers for example show a great variety of noses. If anything, they were rather big on average.

 

[Dinarid]

People of the Balkans in general, especially men, except maybe Tosk Albanians, have very prominent noses, often "hooked"; mine is a good example, also see Zlatan Ibrahimović. I think it has to do with climate; I remember reading that human noses evolved a bridge as an adaptation to certain environments like mountainous, cold, or dry areas. We love our big noses as they make us unique, and look very masculine.

 

[Angela]

People of the Balkans in general, especially men, except maybe Tosk Albanians, have very prominent noses, often "hooked"; mine is a good example, also see Zlatan Ibrahimović. I think it has to do with climate; I remember reading that human noses evolved a bridge as an adaptation to certain environments like mountainous, cold, or dry areas. We love our big noses as they make us unique, and look very masculine.

I think old time anthropologists saw it as a function of the admixture, in certain cases, of Alpine and Mediterranean peoples. However it happened, you definitely find it in Italy too, although not at all as frequently as some people think.


Fabio Ceravolo:

My husband used to look a lot like him in his youth, although only as far as the face is concerned, which isn't all that surprising as they have ancestors from the same place.

The current heart throb in the U.S., Joe Manganiello:

Apt name for a magazine on whose cover he appears. I haven't seen any of the "Magic Mike" movies, as they're not my type of thing, but I know women who've bought them in order to watch them over and over again. It's not my nonna's world anymore, or mine, for that matter.

 

[Maleth]

I think old time anthropologists saw it as a function of the admixture, in certain cases, of Alpine and Mediterranean peoples. However it happened, you definitely find it in Italy too, although not at all as frequently as some people think.

No doubt the profile is my category.

Last year I was told by a Serb guy that I look like Novak Djokovic (at my younger age of course) I guess he was referring to my profile

 

[Dinarid]

Actually in terms of early 20th century anthropology, I think these noses were associated with the Irano-Afghan and Mediterranean subraces and later the Dinarics and Armenoids formed by intermarriage. They clearly originated from populations with generally long facial features. I believe also in the purest Nordic areas in Scandinavia (least "Alpine" admixture), we can see this nose type. It is possible that noses like mine were more common in ancient times in both Europe and the Middle East before the Central Asians invaded both regions. In any case I believe the most prominent noses in any humans are those of the Persians. Some Neanderthals' noses had very high bridges but very low roots. I think high nasal roots are a Scandinavian trait and a relatively recent phenomenon in terms of evolution.

 

[Angela]

Oh brother. The ancient Greeks were Scandinavians? It's the other way around. In actuality, some Scandinavians are de-pigmented Mediterraneans.

It's all in Coon and a lot of other physical anthropologists. Don't believe anything you read on anthrofora; they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

 

[Angela]

For those interested in these physical anthropology categories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinaric_race

"Several theories were advanced regarding the genesis of the Dinaric race. Most researchers agreed that this race was autochthonous to its present habitat from the Neolithic period. Both Günther and Coon claimed that the Bell-Beaker people of the European Bronze Age were at least partially Dinaric."

"Coon also argued, however, in The Origin of Races (1962), that the Dinaric and some other categories "are not races but simply the visible expressions of the genetic variability of the intermarrying groups to which they belong."He [Coon] referred to the creation of this distinctive phenotype from the mixing of earlier separate groups as "dinaricisation". In his view Dinarics were a specific type that arose from ancient mixes of theMediterranean race and Alpine race."

As to Scandinavians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race#Depigmentation_theory
"Coon's (1939) theory that the Nordic race was a depigmentated variation of the greater Mediterranean racial stock was also supported by his mentor Earnest Albert Hooton who in the same year published Twilight of Man, which notes: "The Nordic race is certainly a depigmented offshoot from the basic long-headed Mediterranean stock. It deserves separate racial classification only because its blond hair (ash or golden), its pure blue or grey eyes".^[31][3"

Of all the physical anthropologists, I think Coon's theories are the ones most in sync with the genetics discoveries of the past couple of years.

 

[MOESAN]

That said, 'mediterranean' does not cover a type but several types with different histories. Here Coon would have been more precise (perhaps had he been more precise in technical works for his pairs? The book we red was a "vulgarization" one I think. Because genuine 'nordic' type refers to a specific type of 'mediterranean', relatively short bodied and long legged, without speaking of facial traits and others, numerous. the large audiance 'mediterranean' definition, a bit simplistic, group all very dark pigmented and (sub)dolichocephallic 'europoids' without distinction of body proportion or cranial and facial shapes, or of pillosity and so on...
I prefer not speak here of nasal shapes because the vocabulary cannot completely help us to describe the numerous varieties of noses, in which someones, sincerely described as very like, are supported by very different genes basis, someones homozygotic other heterozygotic. I posted my thoughts about that and I think now as I was not too clear myself by lack of words. Concerning 'europoids' I'm tempted to say: the more "typed" a bony trait, the more we can suspect a crossing.
Pity I cannot scan drawings or pictures (technical problem everytime)

 

[MOESAN]

Coon did not evocate the fact that South Europe people among the ones called 'mediterraneans', roughly speaking, showed sometime the same features as 'brünnoid' descendants of Mesolithic, only gracilized (same basic crania profile, body proportions), very different from other pigmented southerners with very different features. His aim was to oppose ancient and new populations, what is simple, without evocate affinities and differences found both and concurrently in North AND in South Europe, apart the phenomenon of brachycephalization which DID NOT concern all Europoids in the same way, an other question, more recent in History for I know. Coon was surely right concerning supposed environmental and way of life effects (Souther climate + agriculture) but missed the question of remoter differences of origins.

 

[Dinarid]

I never said that Greeks were Scandinavians- I despise Nordicism. Regardless I don't think early 20th century racial anthropology should be taken as the absolute truth. I don't know that Dinaric people are a mix of Mediterranean and Alpine, because they are both short compared to Nordic people, when "pure" Dinaric people from Herzegovina (mainly ethnic Croats like myself) are the tallest people in the world on average at 186cm for men.

 

[Dinarid]

As a side note I think the most brachycephalic people in Europe are the Tosk Albanians, who are also very short, possibly the shortest people on the continent, soft features, tan skin, practically absent body hair, darker hair but lighter eyes (often blue) compared to Ghegs.

 

[Angela]

I never said that Greeks were Scandinavians- I despise Nordicism. Regardless I don't think early 20th century racial anthropology should be taken as the absolute truth. I don't know that Dinaric people are a mix of Mediterranean and Alpine, because they are both short compared to Nordic people, when "pure" Dinaric people from Herzegovina (mainly ethnic Croats like myself) are the tallest people in the world on average at 186cm for men.

Totally agree with the bolded comments. Height is a complicated issue of its own. We have some threads on it. If I get a chance I'll try to find them for you. It's very interesting.

Welcome, by the way, if I didn't say it already.

 

[LABERIA]

As a side note I think the most brachycephalic people in Europe are the Tosk Albanians, who are also very short, possibly the shortest people on the continent, soft features, tan skin, practically absent body hair, darker hair but lighter eyes (often blue) compared to Ghegs.

Where you have read this description of South Albanians? Can you quote a source pls?

 

[Dinarid]

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AFL0168.0001.001?type=simple&rgn=full+text&q1=Tosks&submit=Go

I disagree with this book's association of Ghegs being "truly Albanian"; I think it may be the opposite; or quite simply the Albanians are a racial, cultural, and linguistic composite of the two. Some Ghegs seem to fit the description of the Dinaric race quite well, whereas others in Kosovo and on the border of Montenegro have elements of a very tall (but not as tall as Dinaric) brachycephalic race with short, broad faces and very robust composition known as "Borreby" mixed with true Dinaric strains. I would say Montenegrins from the highlands are a roughly even mix between the two races, and on the coast there is a "Mediterranean" element present. The eastern Ghegs are similar to Montenegrins but with more Dinaric and less Borreby, more Mediterranean, and possibly a little "Alpine". Tosks have more of an Alpine-Mediterranean mix, which is why they are so short.

The source for cephalic index:
http://www.gammathetaupsilon.org/the-geographical-bulletin/1970s/volume08/article1.pdf

I am cautious of any source that includes "Armenoid" elements in Europe, as these would be so small so as to be of no importance.

EDIT:
Other Tosk features like blue eyes, dark hair, tan skin, lack of body hair are from my own experience.

EDIT #2:
Never mind, I found a source for skin color and body type:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tosks
As far as darker hair and lighter eyes, I can't prove it.

 

[Dinarid]

Totally agree with the bolded comments. Height is a complicated issue of its own. We have some threads on it. If I get a chance I'll try to find them for you. It's very interesting.

Welcome, by the way, if I didn't say it already.

Thanks!
Anyway, the last I will say on height is that I believe men's genes favor tallness, especially if inherited from a tall father, therefore the short population + tall population = medium-height population seems incredulous especially in terms of men. In ideal conditions with good nutrition most men continue to end up slightly taller than their fathers even with short mothers. I know that in Herzegovina it seems, and I have had friends observe this too, that sexual dimorphism in male vs. female height is exaggerated. Perhaps only our patrilineal heritage provides for tallness? That would explain Haplogroup I.

 

[MOESAN]

I leave aside the question of height increase in new generations of today, it has very little link with father or mother's transmission I think, and more links with way of life complex. If specialists are puzzled I don't know how we can do better than them on this side.
Tosks were not dwarfs in Europe, they were of middle to under-middle height compared to other Europeans, rather middle in the 1930-50's (1m67 when France mean was 1m65/66). Coon said and I agree with him if I rely on pictures, that compared to most of Ghegs, Tosks were on the almost "pure" 'alpine' side and very close to South-Central French people. The 'mediterranean' component is relatively slight in them, as it's the case for Epirus Greeks.
Concerning Ghegs and Kossovars and Montenegro people I can't say: too less pictures. I suppose Coon 's descriptions I red were of some reality, concerning aspects.
Concerning 'dinaric' type origin, I'm still uncertain. But surely Coon referred to HIS general meaning of slender neolithic types when he wrote "mediterranean" as part in his 'dinaric' type cristallization, so possibly high statured dolichocephalic long-faced types, not the 'yemenite' type of 'mediterranean'.
Seemingly, the 'armenoid' type was an artificial construction, based upon some partly different crossings + artificial skulls deformations. In this crossing result, the part of 'indo-afghanlike' types was heavier than in other so called 'dinaric' types of Balkans. In fact, whatever the validity of their thoughts, other old anthropologists thought Balkans 'dinaric' type was a local evolution of previously dolichocehalic tall and ruggish types of 'brünnoid-capelloid' ascendance, or at least a crossing where this type was involved.
I have hard work to isolate in Balkans populations a majority of people who could be taken as typical 'dinarics' when it is easier to find 'nordic' or types of 'mediterranean' and even 'alpines' in some regions. So I think the thesis of Coon is not stupid at all, just the crossing could be even more complicated! (so numerous variants!!!). Even planoccipitaly seems various, concerning occiput angles. I think we have here a complex of types with a dominant trait: planoccipitally, linked to previous dispositions among one or most of the dolichocephalic elements (# 'cromagnoid' inherited forms with broad short faces, low supraorbital skull, high placed occiput, very low orbits: kind of anti-dinaric basis?).
Whatever the complication of the synthesis of this statistical created 'dinaric' type,, the fact it could imply some not too gracilized 'brünnoid' ancestor would make sense, when we see the strong Y-I2a imput in them, even if as other I think Y-haplo's in populations could become very disconnected from their auDNA ancient basis.
&: concerning height, it seems more crossed types could have higher stature than monoplyletic types.

 

[Dinarid]

I believe that because genes in the Y chromosome control height, there is a strong relation with haplogroup. As for your theory that crossed types are often taller, I have heard other people suggest this before, but not as clearly. I still don't know that we can fully understand why someone of two ethnicities may be taller than the average from either.

As far as Dinaric origins, I see this theory as more plausible than some of the others. We don't typically have very long faces- I would say medium-long usually because of wide jaw- but it contrasts quite strongly with the short heads. I think they tried to link us to Armenoids, who are shorter, have longer faces and noses, and much darker. We do share some cultural traditions with Armenians though, and our flutes sound quite similar although this could be due to the Turks. As far as Armenoid crania being artificially deformed I doubt that's true, as most Armenians have that distinctive longfaced+shortheaded look only more pronounced than for us.

 

[Dinarid]

As far as Tosks and their height, I think that this was back then when all of Europe was shorter, but I then they are just genetically shorter regardless of nutrition. I have been to Albania, and I saw a striking distance between north and south.

 

[Dinarid]

Also, as a response to an earlier post, the droopy nose (depressed tip) seems to be predominantly Armenians and Ashkenazi Jews. "Dinaric" noses are usually sharper and more hawk-like whereas "Armenoid" noses are more like parrots.