shapes and collective classifications: attempt

Please PM Maciamo about this problem.
 
MOESAN said:
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...
Click to expand...

I have had this problem for years...........Maciano resolution to me was to clear my cookies
 
attachment.php
 
some seemingly 'borreby' types more or less "pure"
View attachment 9582View attachment 9583View attachment 9584View attachment 9585View attachment 9586
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 said:
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)
Click to expand...

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:
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.....
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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).
 
MOESAN said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 'br?nnoid' 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 ...
View attachment 10193View attachment 10194View attachment 10195View attachment 10192View attachment 10191
 
MOESAN said:
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 ...
View attachment 10193View attachment 10194View attachment 10195View attachment 10192View attachment 10191
Click to expand...

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


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum
 
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
 
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 said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dear Moesan,

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

ruifilipe.jpg

Merci!
 
nuno77 said:
Dear Moesan,

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

View attachment 10287

Merci!
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 91113 times.

Back
Top