Recognizing ethnicity by the nose.

[LABERIA]

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.

I doubt that you have been in South Albania. The description that you make about Southern Albanians is wrong. The reason(s) why? I don`t know but try to be serious in what you post.

 

[Angela]

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.

There are all sorts of variations in human noses, but in terms of hawks and parrots I don't see much difference, Dinarid.

Parrots are definitely prettier. Don't like them though, don't like any birds much...dirty, raucous creatures.

Sorry. Just amusing myself until this pouring rain stops. God, I hate rain. Love the internet, though. I can still remember having to use card catalogs at the library!

 

[Dinarid]

I doubt that you have been in South Albania. The description that you make about Southern Albanians is wrong. The reason(s) why? I don`t know but try to be serious in what you post.

I was reporting what I saw and descriptions by anthropologists, and stated it as my opinion. I'm on a forum and not publishing a scientific research paper. Perhaps you could provide sources to prove me wrong?

 

[Dinarid]

There are all sorts of variations in human noses, but in terms of hawks and parrots I don't see much difference, Dinarid.

Parrots are definitely prettier. Don't like them though, don't like any birds much...dirty, raucous creatures.

Sorry. Just amusing myself until this pouring rain stops. God, I hate rain. Love the internet, though. I can still remember having to use card catalogs at the library!

I guess that was a bad comparison, perhaps the Armenoid nose could be said to resemble an elephant's trunk vs. Dinaric bird's beak.

 

[Tomenable]

Queen Cleopatra VII Philopator of Egypt (of course she was of Greek descent):

http://www.britishmuseum.org/resear...px?partid=1&assetid=957704001&objectid=465561

 

[Tomenable]

some Scandinavians are de-pigmented Mediterraneans.

There is no really such thing as "de-pigmented Mediterraneans".

They are Nordic, and they aren't most similar to Mediterraneans, but to Upper Paleolithic Europeans.

And de-pigmentation is not the only difference. Also stature, etc.

 

[Angela]

There is no really such thing as "de-pigmented Mediterraneans".

They are Nordic, and they aren't most similar to Mediterraneans, but to Upper Paleolithic Europeans.

And de-pigmentation is not the only difference. Also stature, etc.

Whether there is or not, the second part of your statement is incorrect.

For one thing, please define your terms. What do you mean by UP Europeans? That's a specific time frame. We now know that the percentage of ancestry any Europeans carry from Gravettians or Aurignacians is tiny. If you're talking about the WHG, we've been over this height thing about them many times, and gone to the actual studies to document it. The WHG, if that's to whom you're referring, were about the same height as the Neolithic farmers in Europe. Robustness of bone structure doesn't mean height. According to the Matthiesen paper, the first real difference in height came with the steppe people, and then it was hardly large.

Obviously, we now know that the "Nordics" didn't get their fair hair and skin from the WHG either, although they had blue eyes. The Yamnaya Indo-European people certainly weren't fair; they were darker than any modern Europeans. The few EHG samples were fairer, but so were some MN people in central Europe. We've been over and over these things. No amount of revisionism is going to change the facts.

In terms of cranial structure and facial structure, modern "Nordics", or better, the definition of "Nordics" used by physical anthropoligists, does not at all match that of UP Europeans.

In terms of those physical anthropologists, the one who seems to have held up the best in terms of the genetic information is Carleton Coon, although even there I see some internal inconsistencies.

This is a summary of his opinion on the matter. Keep in mind that he is talking here, as were all the anthrpologists, not about autosomal percentages but about inherited phenotype.


Coon (1939)[edit]

"Carleton Coon in his book of 1939 The Races of Europe subdivided the Nordic race into three main types, "Corded", "Danubian" and "Keltic", besides a "Neo-Danubian" type^[23] and a variety of Nordic types altered by Upper Palaeolithic or Alpine admixture.^[24][25][26]"Exotic Nordics" are morphologically Nordic types that occur in places distant from the northwestern European center of Nordic concentration.^[27]

Coon takes the Nordics to be a partially depigmented branch of the greater Mediterranean racial stock. He suggests that the Nordic type emerged as a result of a mixture of "the Danubian Mediterranean strain with the later Corded element". Hence his two main Nordic types show Corded and Danubian predominance, respectively .^[28] The third "Keltic" or "Hallstatt" type Coon takes to have emerged in the European Iron Age, in Central Europe, where it was subsequently mostly replaced, but "found a refuge in Sweden and in the eastern valleys of southern Norway."^[29]

Depigmentation theory[edit]

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][32] A 1990s study by Ulrich Mueller found that depigmentation of Nordic peoples around the Baltic Sea likely occurred due to vitamin D deficiency amongst peoples living there 10,000-30,000 years ago who had a lack of access to vitamin D foods such as dairy products at the time. Depigmentation allowed greater amount of ultraviolet B light to be absorbed through the skin to synthesize to produce vitamin D.^[33]?"


Danubian Mediterranean people would be central European farmers, and Corded people would be 75% Yamnaya like, so about 35% Caucasus like with remaining 25% MN?

Keep in mind also he said that Nordics were a depigmented "variation" of Mediterraneans. Also keep in mind that not all people living in "Nordic" countries possess the "Nordic" phenotype.

 

[Fire Haired14]

It's interesting Coon saw Nordic as a mix of Corded and Danbuian because that's the factual truth. I haven't ever been in Europe but I see lots of YugoSlavians and White Americans, and IMO pigmentation isn't the main diffidence in appearance. Pigmentation wise there isn't much of a difference between YugoSlavians and White Americans. But often, maybe usually, I can tell if someone is YugoSlavian or not. The ones with Blonde/Blue and fair skin look just as foreign to me.

 

[Fire Haired14]

And de-pigmentation is not the only difference. Also stature, etc.

I don't really buy that. I know YugoSlavs are my only example, but whatever. They're very tall, taller than Northern European White Americans. Can't difference in height be explained by British Isles, Germany, and France being the most powerful nations in Europe in recent centuries? But then there's also countries like Finland and Lithuania who weren't prosperous, so maybe it is genetics(Steppe genes?).

The only people I notice who have noticeable abnormal body builds are Hispanics, East Asians, and South Asians. Near Easterners, African Americans, White Americans, and YugoSlavs aren't very differnt in body build. Men are usually like 5'10-6'0 and 180-220 ib.

 

[Dinarid]

By nature of our sense of beauty, the most avarage face, or nose in this case is the most beautiful. Look at this one:

It is not even a real person but an image generated by averaging of many faces. It is not a very characteristic face, face to remember, yet is extremely balanced and beautiful. It is so average that, you would probably swear that you met person like this in your life.
As with everything on this face, the nose is an average European nose. Not too small or big, not going up or down, not curved in any way. Average but beautiful. Nose like this one could be found all over the Europe and won't tell us much about where it comes from.

However, any deviation from this average can do the trick. Some parts of Europe have noses which are bigger, smaller, going up or down, narrow or wide. These characteristics can point us to a specific region or Europe, or ethnicity with very high likelihood.

Helpful diagram.

I'm not a phenotypical specialist by any stretch of imaginations, but I would like to present few of my observations, then discover about your observations, maybe find something new and intriguing.
Keep in mind that below pictures are not representations of general populations, especially if you don't like them, but just examples of characteristic noses that could be found there.

Let's have some fun!

I'm sorry for just having seen that post but that man does not look like the ideal standard of male beauty, speaking from a European perspective of course – and probably my Balkan ideas of beauty are different than yours, but still, I can't see most other people seeing that guy as beautiful. I think it is because he looks too much like the lady. He has an effeminate face, with soft and a little puffy cheeks, week soft nose with a medium bridge and low root, receding lower jaw. His chin looks like it goes back a little as well. I can't see much of the forehead but what I do see is that it looks soft, and I doubt he has any visible brow ridge. I understand that not everyone wants strong features to an extreme, especially if they do not look normal in combination with each other.

 

[Angela]

I'm sorry for just having seen that post but that man does not look like the ideal standard of male beauty, speaking from a European perspective of course – and probably my Balkan ideas of beauty are different than yours, but still, I can't see most other people seeing that guy as beautiful. I think it is because he looks too much like the lady. He has an effeminate face, with soft and a little puffy cheeks, week soft nose with a medium bridge and low root, receding lower jaw. His chin looks like it goes back a little as well. I can't see much of the forehead but what I do see is that it looks soft, and I doubt he has any visible brow ridge. I understand that not everyone wants strong features to an extreme, especially if they do not look normal in combination with each other.

Hey, easy there, Dinarid, that man's nose isn't all that far from mine, other than that mine is higher rooted and a bit smaller! :grin:

Seriously, standards of beauty are quite subjective a lot of times, formed in part by region of birth and acculturation through media among other things. There are even studies that indicate women at different stages in their life prefer a more "feminine" versus more "masculine" look, although I take all those kinds of studies with huge doses of salt.

These men are all very good looking in my book, even if the first two are not really beautiful in a classic way; it's just that two have more "refined" features, I guess you could say. Of course, handsome is as handsome does in real life, something that is often forgotten.

 

[Dinarid]

Well, different noses fit different features. Prominent noses that are narrow with high root and bridge are usually found on longer faces, and flat/wide/snub noses on broad round/square faces.

 

[Tomenable]

the second part of your statement is incorrect.

Are you saying that Scandinavians are descended mostly from ENF, just like for example Sardinians?

Or are you claiming that CWC and/or Bell Beakers were of Mediterranean subrace? If you really base your statements on Coon, you will notice that Bell Beakers were as far from being Mediterranean as possible, according to Coon. And whatever ENF ancestry is there in Scandinavia, comes from TRB culture, which was descended in a very large part from acculturated hunters who learned farming, according to all anthropologists (and genetics seems to confirm this considering that I1 is a male lineage of natively European origin, and I1 was the main lineage of TRB in Scandinavia).

Obviously, we now know that the "Nordics" didn't get their fair hair and skin from the WHG either, although they had blue eyes. The Yamnaya Indo-European people certainly weren't fair; they were darker than any modern Europeans. The few EHG samples were fairer, but so were some MN people in central Europe. We've been over and over these things. No amount of revisionism is going to change the facts.

Scandinavians got their light pigmentation from the same source as Proto-Balto-Slavs did. Namely - from Corded Ware culture.

If you look at the spreadsheet by Fire Haired that I recommended before, you will notice that the CWC were light-pigmented.

As for Coon, he wasn't sure whether Corded Ware people were Mediterranean-like or Proto-Nordic, but he clearly wrote that the reason for his uncertainty was that he had no idea what was their pigmentation. But now we already know, that they were light-pigmented - so Nordic.

As you also know, CWC people had very little of EEF admixture, and therefore they were unrelated to Mediterranean people.

So we cannot say that Nordics are "de-pigmented Meds", because Nordics originated from CWC, and Meds from ENF.

They are not descended from each other, and they are not even descended from the same group ancestral to both.

========================

As for Bell Beakers - they were described by Coon as being brachycephalic, robust, tall, Dinaric-like people.

So there were hardly any similarities between short, gracile, dolichocephalic Meds and tall, robust, brachycephalic BBs.

And as for Nordics, apart from dolichocephaly, they share practically no any other similarities with Meds.

 

[Tomenable]

By nature of our sense of beauty, the most avarage face, or nose in this case is the most beautiful.

You are mistaken here LeBrok. The most average faces or noses are NOT the most attractive ones. They are just attractive ones. They are these faces that most of us look at and rate as 7/10 - or so - on attractiveness scale.

On the other hand, what most of us usually rate as 9/10 and 10/10 on attractiveness scale are almost never the most average faces. These are in the vast majority of cases exceptional faces, which do not look "typical" at all.

Look it up, there are studies which confirm what I write.

Of course this is just statistical science, because on an individual level beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some person will rate attractiveness of a face as 6/10 while another person will rate the same face as 9/10.

Some strange-looking faces can even be considered very attractive by some, but very ugly by others.

I have an example of such a strange-looking face - Robert Kubica. It is known for a fact that he has a lot of young female fans who consider him handsome and attractive (including his beautiful fiance), but many other women see him as ugly.

Of course handsome / attractive are not exactly synonyms of beautiful - not in case of males at least.

I'm sorry for just having seen that post but that man does not look like the ideal standard of male beauty

He is beautiful but not really very handsome. He is a "pretty boy" type, his features are not very masculine.

That said, some women probably prefer such "pretty boys" while others like more masculine, "rugged" faces.

Of course it is not even a real person's face but just a composite image.

Seriously, standards of beauty are quite subjective a lot of times, formed in part by region of birth and acculturation through media among other things. There are even studies that indicate women at different stages in their life prefer a more "feminine" versus more "masculine" look, although I take all those kinds of studies with huge doses of salt.

I agree with you on this Angela.

 

[Tomenable]

What do you mean by UP Europeans? That's a specific time frame. We now know that the percentage of ancestry any Europeans carry from Gravettians or Aurignacians is tiny. If you're talking about the WHG, we've been over this height thing about them many times, and gone to the actual studies to document it. The WHG, if that's to whom you're referring, were about the same height as the Neolithic farmers in Europe.

I am talking about Mesolithic EHG / SHG, and about their Upper Paleolithic ancestors. Not about WHG.

I documented in another thread, that EHG males were on average over 10 cm taller than WHG males.

But then there's also countries like Finland and Lithuania who weren't prosperous

Neither were Norway or Sweden prosperous during Late Medieval and Early Modern Eras.

But height is about nutrition, not "prosperity" in general. You can be "backward" and still well-nourished.

Eating gold or dollars if you can't buy decent food for them will not make you healthier, that's for sure.

Of course nutrition is just one aspect of height differences, another one being genetics.

 

[Angela]

Tomenable:

Well, it's good to know the groups to which you were referring. Obviously, UP Europeans was indeed incorrect, as I stated.

As for the SHG there is to my knowledge no indication so far that modern Europeans owe much of their ancestry to them, so let's stick to the EHG. Besides, given that the SHG carried EDAR traits, their similarity to modern "Nordics" is questionable on that score at least.

So, to continue with the EHG. Could you please provide the citation for the paper where the EHG measure 10 cm higher than the WHG? I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find it.

Of course, while you're at it, a citation giving their cranial and facial metrics would be important, so they could be compared to those of modern Scandinavians of the "Nordic" type.

Also, measurements as to the robusticity of their skeletal structure would be important. As I pointed out, the WHG had very robust frames, but weren't all that tall. You can also have tall people with rather gracile frames.

Without that kind of hard data, I'm afraid none of this is very "scientific".

As for Coon, I'll repeat, his contention that the "Nordics", not all Scandinavians, of course, are the product of MN farmers and Corded Ware seems rather prescient given what we now know from genetics. Given that, and the fact that the EHG portion of the combined ancestry of those two groups is at the most about 25%, any statement that the "Nordics" are closest to the EHG seems rather far removed from reality.

On a lighter note, there are people in any ethnic group whom most of us would concede are "beautiful", even if they don't equally "draw to the heart", or even draw forth lust, to be blunt. There are also people who while not technically beautiful, are very sexy and attractive. I looked up your Mr. Kubica. No, he's not beautiful, but he does have a very charming face. I like men who look like that. Perhaps, though, I like him because he looks rather Italian to me. Anyway, in addition to his charming face, I'm sure his fame and money don't hurt!
http://citroen.com.my/newsletter/img/newsletter/2014/11/Robert-Kubica-photo.jpg

 

[Tomenable]

Angela,

So, to continue with the EHG. Could you please provide the citation for the paper where the EHG measure 10 cm higher than the WHG? I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find it.

Sure. :wink:

It is in Formicola & Giannecchini, "Evolutionary trends of stature in Upper Paleolithic & Mesolithic Europe", 1999:

Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10074386

The average height of the EHG (n=75 males) was 173.2 cm, while that of the WHG (n=96 males) was 163.1 cm.

It is not in the Abstract, it seems, but I read the paper and it is there. I can't find the link to full paper now.

So just as I wrote, the EHG were on average over 10 cm taller than the WHG.

Of course, while you're at it, a citation giving their cranial and facial metrics would be important, so they could be compared to those of modern Scandinavians of the "Nordic" type.

Also, measurements as to the robusticity of their skeletal structure would be important. As I pointed out, the WHG had very robust frames, but weren't all that tall. You can also have tall people with rather gracile frames.

The EHG often had dolichocephalic and leptomorphic, Nordic-looking skulls.

For example a 10,800 year old skull from Peschanitsa near Lake Ladoga (in Lyubytinskiy Rayon of Novgorod Oblast) and a 10,300 year old skull from Popovo near Lake Onega (in Arkhangelsk Oblast) were described as "Early Nordic" or "Proto-Nordic" types.

Peschanitsa skull is a "gracile Nordic" and Popovo skull is a "robust Nordic".

Here are some videos showing EHG skulls (there are 3 videos, so I need 3 posts):

 

[Tomenable]

BTW - in this video not all skulls are from the Mesolithic period, some are from later times:

 

[Tomenable]

 

[Dinarid]

He is beautiful but not really very handsome. He is a "pretty boy" type, his features are not very masculine.

That said, some women probably prefer such "pretty boys" while others like more masculine, "rugged" faces.

Of course it is not even a real person's face but just a composite image.



I agree with you on this Angela.

Even that I won't give him. He just has weak features that seem to have no flaws but are pretty unremarkable.