Human Phenotypes

there is dolichocephalic 'mongoloids', even in cold climates!!! don't generalize too much on too few examples...
Click to expand...
There are always exceptions to patterns we see, but I am talking about the majority of cases. I have personally never seen a Mongoloid with a dolichocephalic skull, and I have had very many Asian/Mongoloid friends. Anyways, my point is that Cro-Magnon skulls are pretty unique, they are both long faced and broad at the same time. If you measure their face length it is longer than that of the average human, but at the same time if you measure skull width it is also above average. This might explain their huge brain size. Anyways the reason why I talk about Cro-Magnons so much is because I feel like I have a kinship with them. Most males in my family have skulls which are huge, they are both long and wide. This might indicate that I have Borreby phenotype I think.
 
Templar said:
There are always exceptions to patterns we see, but I am talking about the majority of cases. I have personally never seen a Mongoloid with a dolichocephalic skull, and I have had very many Asian/Mongoloid friends.
Click to expand...

It is believed that Mongoloids were not so widespread in the past and that the Ainu of northern Japan are examples of such pre-mongoloid quasi-caucasoid looking asians. Also Amerindians, which descend from asians of that period, are not fully mongoloid, especially not the south-american ones, although some are. That's one additional reason why I believe that the "cro-magnons" belonged to an ancient north-eurasian hunter typus.
 
ElHorsto said:
It is believed that Mongoloids were not so widespread in the past and that the Ainu of northern Japan are examples of such pre-mongoloid quasi-caucasoid looking asians. Also Amerindians, which descend from asians of that period, are not fully mongoloid, especially not the south-american ones, although some are. That's one additional reason why I believe that the "cro-magnons" belonged to an ancient north-eurasian hunter typus.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of evidence that it is true that Mongoloids spread out from around the area of lake Baikal and eventually conquered the indigenous people of East and Southeast Asia. Most agree though that these indigenous people weren't Caucasoid, they were related to Australoids and Negritos. You can find small Negrito minorities throughout Southeast Asia.

According to haplogroup trees, I don't think Cro-Magnons were related to Mongoloids at all, but Indo-Europeans likely were. The closest people to Cro-Magnons were the J inhabitants of West Asia. They were both IJ, J is the result of those that stayed and I is the haplogroup that went into Europe. And I think there are still evident similarities between I and J people. Both Dinarics and Germanic people tend to be hairy like J people, especially when compared to Celts and Slavs who are stereotyped as having much less body hair. I and J people also both have long noses, while R people have snub ones.
 
Templar said:
There is a lot of evidence that it is true that Mongoloids spread out from around the area of lake Baikal and eventually conquered the indigenous people of East and Southeast Asia. Most agree though that these indigenous people weren't Caucasoid, they were related to Australoids and Negritos. You can find small Negrito minorities throughout Southeast Asia.
Click to expand...

I was talking about North, not South Asia. The Ainu for instance are genetically Mongoloids and phenotypically European.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_people

Cavalli-Sforza places the Ainu in his "Northeast and East Asian" genetic cluster.
Click to expand...

Anthropologist Arnold Henry Savage Landor described the Ainu as having deep-set eyes and an eye shape typical of Europeans, with a large and prominent browridge, large ears, hairy and prone to baldness, slightly flattened hook nose with large and broad nostrils, prominent cheek bones, large mouth and thick lips and a long region from nose to mouth and small chin region.
Click to expand...

One additional remark: More than Balts and Finns, the Saami have been shown to descend to the former Mesolithic population of the european atlantic coast and they have the highest Amerindian (old Siberian) percentage 13%.
 
Dagne said:
Charles Bronson's orginis are from Lipka Tartars (his father is Lipka Tartar). So autosomally he would be rather different from East Baltids, and he does look like a tartar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipka_Tatars
Click to expand...

I know his Tatar roots, and I doubt that Tatars are so much unrelated to North Europeans. I selected Bronson as kind of evidence for that.
 
I was talking about North, not South Asia. The Ainu for instance are genetically Mongoloids and phenotypically European.
Click to expand...

Most people agree that the original Ainu were Australoid, not Caucasoid. Search it up. Previously it was thought that they were Caucasoid, but all the evidence points to Australoid including the haplogroups.
 
Dagne said:
According to Dienekes autosomal analysis, Tartars are closest to Turkmens, then further are Turkish, Azeri, Iranian, Kurdish, Bulgarians, Armenians, Georgians, Greek etc ... North Europeans being further apart. http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/02/first-look-at-turkish-and-kyrgyz-data.html
Click to expand...

Dienekes compared Kyrgyz and Turks against other Turks and few neighbors. There is no much alternative other than these reference populations to be similar to Tatars. Sorry, I don't see any north european reference population you mention. Do you have more information?
 
ElHorsto said:
There is no much alternative other than these reference populations to be similar to Tatars.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant the other way around: There is no alternative other than that the Tatars are similar to these reference populations.
 
Templar said:
Most people agree that the original Ainu were Australoid, not Caucasoid. Search it up. Previously it was thought that they were Caucasoid, but all the evidence points to Australoid including the haplogroups.
Click to expand...

Whatever they are genetically, my point is that they are not European, but still look quite Caucasoid, because the Mongoloid type was originally less widespread. Hence caucasoid looks like more archaic form or at least more common in the past than it is now. Also it is believed since 2007 that Amerindians descend from Siberia rather than east Asia, because of Y-GH Q and R1 in the Americas, whereas Y-HG C is found mosty in Northwest America and neighbouring east Asia, which indicates that the C indians came later. These north american Indians are also more mongoloid looking than the other amerindians.
 
ElHorsto said:
Thank you for your comprehensive response. I should specify my question more: I mean the Alpine type in particular, not Brachycephalics in general. I'm also sceptic in particular regarding Coon's theories about alpinid admixture creating dinarids etc., because:
True Alpinids are characterized not only by brachycephaly and round face, but also short legs, short neck and long trunk.
I read somwehere (I don't have the source anymore) a claim that alpinid individuals are very robust and resilient against diseases of any kind, that they can better survive periods of starvation and their life expectancy is also higher. Germany's population allegedly was significantly more alpine in the past (until 50's or 60's), but since 80's and later their offspring tend to be much less often alpine. This is something that I personally also could observe here. This plus the new discovery of epigenetic mutations and inheritance led me to speculate that possibly the alpinid phenotype is not just a usual phenotype but rathera medical condition, which is useful from an evolutionary point of view in that it can be switched on and of quickly, depending on environmental conditions. If I find time later, I'll try to find some source for these claims.
Click to expand...


«medical» concerning the 'alpine 'phenotype? A kind of trisomical condition? Joke!

I can consider strong brachycephally as a mutation or the possible result of accumulation of certain genes adaptative under some natural environment, but not as the result of some simple mechanical processus acting during indiviual life.
two aspects without connexion between them:
1- one or more mutation (définitive) affecting only Cephalic Index (a) OR ALL the sekeleton (b) and acquired at birthday, and transmitted to descendants > < 2- environment + food + way of life (physical efforts) affecting Cephalic Index AND skeleton, during gestation and life, and NOT transmissible – (it would be the phenomenon of brachy-debrachycephallization Europe underwent from Middle Ages to 19° century and from 19° century until today, going along with a decrease/then/increase of statures -
&: (b) seams wrong to me because I'm sure I saw («crossed») individuals presenting «alpinelike» brachycephally and macroskele longiline body – but if linked to different genes but localized on close loci, it could be explained as the pigmentation, where we see sometimes a break within light/dark quality of hair, eyes and skin (Europoids)?...
weather a single mutation among europoids descendants or more than one? I 've no ready-to-use answer – all the way the same mutation applied to diverse genetical backgrounds could produce diverse effects concerning shape: look at 'dinarics' (shape is a very important fact often underconsidered in past by scholars : I think shape is not different by nature from «metrics», but implies MORE metric values yet and the possible co-varations of some measures – was brachycephally a gradual phenomenon or a brutal mutation?: I do'nt know: if I'm right the first brachycephallic skulls were found in Ofnet cave, about 7000/6000 BC, and yet these indexes were hight enough in some individuals, and there were dolicho's and meso's also, with distinct shapes for the dolicho's: same phylum or not (see shapes) the graduallity of the C-Is could be the result of a mix of mutated with non-mutated people, and not the apparition of a slight phenomenon creating firstable only slight variations among individuals and evolving after by progressive strengthening – I think we know very few about that - I consider genetic encrease or decrease of C-I as the result of more or less brachycephallic vs dolicho's skulls in the means and the result is then a modification of the I-Cs curve (the top of the curve is closer to the higher indexes or farther) – in environmental encrease (or decrease) of C-Is in an homogenous population, the top of the curve KEEPS on with its previous position even when the C-Is mean evolved – (a bit simplified, but clear enough for that) -
the Coon's idea of a crossing involving 'alpine' people with an other component was «genial» at his time – I think (AS YOU) he was wrong, but the idea had some merit then – I rather think a brachycephallizing mutation (more recent) occurred among some population with a different background than the 'alpine' one, and gave birth to the 'dinaric' type: we didn't see an encrease of 'dinaric' types in France spite of the lot of diverse dolicho's types and the heavy presence of 'alpine 'types side by side: looking at the Bronze Age, we saw the opposite -
to conclude, I see not disparition, no reapparition of brachycephally, NO SWITCH ON/OFF, only progressive evolutions in means where crossings play a heavy role – in the same family with the same medical and way-of-life background you see sometimes dolicho's along with brachy's, as concerning, say, pigmentation or other phenotypical features – it doesn't contradict the possibility of an environmental advantage sometime somewhere -
good brain work!
 
ElHorsto said:
Long faced or not, it looks more African to me and not so much Cro-magnon.

Here is the article from 2007 (in german) from University of Zürich, where I found the picture:

http://www.uzh.ch/news/articles/2007/2450.html

I searched in pnas and this seems to be their paper (in english, fulltext!!!) they mentioned "to appear" in that article:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/4/1165.full?sid=c902c7bb-7598-4c37-aea3-4844b3c98340

I haven't read it yet. Have fun!
Click to expand...

More african? uneasy to say... more primitive than 'Cro-magnon' concerning skull, sure -
Thank you for the links!
all the way, 'Cro-magnon' DID NOT HAVE HIGH FACE, only broad - his skull only was large as a whole -
'come-capelle' had large face, broad enouh and very high -
 
ElHorsto said:
Sorry, I meant the other way around: There is no alternative other than that the Tatars are similar to these reference populations.
Click to expand...

I see – do you mean that Tartars are closer to Lithuanians than to Western Europeans (for instance, French Basks) because Lithuanians and Tartars are both shifted more towards Asia whereas West Europeans are shifted more towards Near East?

There is some nice picture about it in this Dienekes post (though Tartars as population are not there - but they must be somewhere between Iranians, Turkmens and Turks, right?
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/
09/uzbeks-as-nexus-altai-as-source-of.html
 
Dagne said:
I see – do you mean that Tartars are closer to Lithuanians than to Western Europeans (for instance, French Basks) because Lithuanians and Tartars are both shifted more towards Asia whereas West Europeans are shifted more towards Near East?
Click to expand...


Yes. But I also think Tatars are shifted toward Europe.

There is some nice picture about it in this Dienekes post (though Tartars as population are not there - but they must be somewhere between Iranians, Turkmens and Turks, right?
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/
Click to expand...
09/uzbeks-as-nexus-altai-as-source-of.html
Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if Tatars are in that range. For geographical reasons I expect them to be close to the Chuvashs, or somewhere between Mordvins and Mongols, closer to Mordvins. BTW, I'm talking about tatars from Tatarstan, not from crimean or other tatars.
Here is some older info about Tatar mtDNA:

http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2010/05/mtdna-of-tatars-from-volga-ural-region.html

It was found that mitochondrial gene pool of the Volga Tatars consists of two parts, but western Eurasian component prevails considerably (84% on average) over eastern Asian one (16%). Eastern Asian mtDNAs detected in Tatars belonged to a heterogeneous set of haplogroups (A, C, D, G, M7, M10, N9a, Y, Z), although only haplogroups A and D were revealed simultaneously in both populations. Complete mtDNA variation study revealed that the age of western Eurasian haplogroups (such as U4, HV0a and H) is less than 18,000 years, thus suggesting re-expansion of Eastern Europeans soon after the Last Glacial Maximum.
Click to expand...

One comment from 'Ebizur' below cites Y-DNA figures from Wells 2001. According to this, Tatars are mostly R1a, followed by surprisingly high I.
I think in this case R1a again could be anything, while HG I is strange. The J2 could be a tiny link to south eurasian population, which could support a bit your assumption.

Of course there are exotic HGs in Tatars, since they look 1/4 mongloloid.
 
Kardu said:
It seems to be a nice page, although I still have some questions about ethnic affiliations and geographic distribution.. http://www.humanphenotypes.com/index.html
Click to expand...
It is interesting to see that everywhere in europe the hair color in males is consistently darker than in females. And the lightest hair color in average is in East Baltic.
 
ElHorsto said:
It is interesting to see that everywhere in europe the hair color in males is consistently darker than in females. And the lightest hair color in average is in East Baltic.
Click to expand...
males darker than females??? are you sure? I' am not so sure (I can mistake): females keep often old hairs more than males that cut them more often and having already a little thicker hairs get more thicker hairs yet (darkener effect) - a male with long free hair seams always less dark than the same male with relatively short cut hairs sticked to their skull - what I believe is that for dark hues, females are not so dark than males, surely for they have often a little more 'red' pigment in hairs than males of same genetic background - it is not the same case for skin colour and yet, there, the bigger difference seams laying in the FACE skin colour perhaps have you some serious recent survey about comparable samples?
 
MOESAN said:
males darker than females??? are you sure? I' am not so sure (I can mistake): females keep often old hairs more than males that cut them more often and having already a little thicker hairs get more thicker hairs yet (darkener effect) - a male with long free hair seams always less dark than the same male with relatively short cut hairs sticked to their skull - what I believe is that for dark hues, females are not so dark than males, surely for they have often a little more 'red' pigment in hairs than males of same genetic background - it is not the same case for skin colour and yet, there, the bigger difference seams laying in the FACE skin colour perhaps have you some serious recent survey about comparable samples?
Click to expand...
I was just describing what can be seen in the particular link from Kardu (http://www.humanphenotypes.com/index.html). It is of course not scientific, but still interesting because the samples used for the averaged pictures were not selected by gender differences, yet unintentionally displaying this consistent male-female difference in hair color. You can check by yourself.
 
Could somebody on this thread classify somebody for me who has experience in the field?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 20595 times.

Back
Top