Basic racial typology for Europe

[Agrippa]

What does a basic racial typology describe in Europe?

I think a 5-7 race scheme is enough to describe the basic variation inside of Europe, the most important evolutionary tendencies, specialisations, races are mainly that and can change over time.

My explanation would be as follows, there are basically 6-7 tendencies in Europe and we just see varying degrees and intermediate forms of them. But there can be more than one reason for that pattern, just to mention some:
a) the simplest is (sub-)racial mixture.
b) an evolutionary tendency can occur in various areas, but with a different specific direction, just parts of a type could have been realised for various reasons:
-) the selective pressure in the direction of a type was there but not strong enough, so certain features were never selected or it would have need more time
-) the pressure became too weak or changed before the type was fully realised
-) the direction of the selective pressure changed after the type was realised - a typical form existed but was altered by changing conditions afterwards
-) different source populations before the selective pressure began
etc.

So the types represent the "ideal goal" of a typical European evolutionary tendency which can be realised fully, partly, can be intermediate between two or more forms. In that way those which represent the typical or even extreme form of a tendency are "pure" phenotypically, those which deviate for whatever reason in another direction are "mixed" - crucial are those inherited features which are important for the specialisation and therefore the definiton of a type, an evolutionary tendency.

About which influences might have played a role in forming the various subracial tendencies in Europe I already wrote various posts on this board, so I dont want to repeat it know, but just to discuss about the basic tendencies and relations.

I made a rather rough and simplified graphic to illustrate what I mean, I didnt mentioned all variants I know of and some positions had to be a compromise - simply because of the limits of this simple 2dimensional graphic. As European I consider the basic circles of Nordid, Cromagnid, Dinarid, Mediterranid, Osteuropid and Alpinoid. The best representative form in the centre of the subrace is in brackets. Again this scheme is not meant to be perfect, but just a good illustration of some basic relations in Europe which I have in mind:


Thanks Gareth for uploading the image:


img184.imageshack.us/img184/5461/races23od.jpg

Because Skildur asked on Skadi about Nordid-Osteuropid relation in this graph I added:

The transition from Nordid to Mediterranid is very important and reflects basically a dichotomy of robust and gracile forms in the Leptodolichomorphs of Europe. In terms of general specialisation its clear that both robust Mediterranid (Atlantomediterranid) and Dinarid forms are closer to Nordid than Baltid proper.

But you must read it right, because Cromagnid can be included at least in Nordoid, what could be pointed out too. So there are two relations of Nordids, one to the other leptomorphics, one to the other forms of the North. The 2nd is represented by the Nordid transition to Cromagnid (f.e. Trönder). The transition between Nordid and Osteuropid was not possible in this graphic and as I said its far from perfect.

But it would be basically like that: Nordid (Skandonordid) - Eastnordid - West Baltid/Eastcromagnoid (beginning of Osteuropid) - Baltid - Eastbaltid (ending of Osteuropid) - Lappoid. The connection to Nordid is not direct, but just through the "Nordic (Nordoid) connection" with Cromagnids - which are, in terms of specialisation, much closer to Baltid proper than standard Nordids.
A connection to the Nordoid Cromagnids is clear since West Baltid/Eastcromagnid is Nordoid Cromagnid too and between Dalofaelid and Baltid. As are Borrebies between Cromagnid and Alpinoid...

So there the basic poles (6 without types on the borders and intrusions) in Europe and fluent transition between them both due mixture and intermediate evolutionary positions I'd say.

For comparison a good scheme from Forrester with which I can largely agree with taken from this thread:
dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=physanth&thread=1133793721&page=2

Its interesting because the graphic approach is different and most important Europid/Caucasoid racial types outside of Europe are included:

img5.imageshack.us/img5/2792/race9sp.jpg

[quarryman]

Another view that I often use could be described like this:
The starting point are the Protomorph types fund in Europe in prehistoric times (varyingly described as Cromagnids, Upper Paleolothics and the like). Even if some parameters vary (most notably the stature), most examples have fairly long (and all-over big) heads and broad faces with relatively coarse and rugged features. And I think we can expect that the pigmentation was rather dark, with black hair, brown eyes and perhaps olive skin.

Since the last ice age, the Europids began to specialize in different directions. In populations living in humid (cloudy) temperate areas, the pigmentation started to decrease. The head and body shape changed in two different directions (perhaps connected with the winter climate) - either leptomorph with slender body, long head and narrow face, or pachymorph with stocky body, round head and broad face. With specialization, the head size became smaller.

These simple principles can explain the traditionally accepted types often called Mediterranid, Nordid, Alpinid and East Baltid. It also explains the diversification linked to the different degrees of specialization in different populations.

Then there remain two problems. One is the problem concerning transitional types in the Europid fringe. Are the "Mongolid" features among East Baltids a result of some kind of Mongolid admixture, or are they Protomorph remnants? Or is it perhaps a separate development among depigmented Europids living in a cold climate? A similar discussion can be applied to populations in the north of Africa and in southwest Asia (including India).

The other problem is what Coon calls "the principle of Dinaricization". Evidently some populations develop a displacement of the balance in (mainly) the features of the head - higher with flatter back, heavier face, bigger nose and chin et cetera. The Dinaricization seems to occur independent to the other different routes of specialization and it can show in many different combinations.

My Two Cents.

[Agrippa]

Dinarisation is an adaptation to higher areas, hilly, mountainous, plateaus and originally mostly a herder-warrior existence. The bigger nasal apparatus is mostly an adaptation to that environment as seems to be the head form though I dont know of any elaborated explanation in detail which would explain the functional advantage of a planoccipital headform, though I speculated about possible reasons in the "brachycephalisation thread". All other features of Dinarids can be explained from a functional point of view as it is true for almost all features and types.

[Educate Me]

why are dinarics so tall in comparison to other mountain people like alpinids or andeans?

[Agrippa]

ienjoylurking said:

why are dinarics so tall in comparison to other mountain people like alpinids or andeans?

In my opinion mainly because they were herders.

Herders are more warlike and have stronger group and individual competition - in favor of tall, versatile body forms.
Both because of their warrior existence and the various challenges of their herder subsistence schizothymic temperaement is more advantageous - again a correlation with tall-leptomorphic-robust boned body type.
Herders live in many ways different from farmers in higher regions - with the first being mobile moving a lot, the later being immobile and carrying a lot...
So even the modification of a herder type goes in a leptomorphic direction, so does the selection as well.
The first having close social relationships, but working oftentimes alone or in small groups, the later lose social relationships, working, but working and living in close contact with many people.
The first have a better nutrition - rich on proteins and energy not solely based on grains - the later have to stand more often hunger and diseases.

So the whole Dinaroid group from the Caucasus to the Alps seems to be a herder specialisation for higher areas, Alpinids for a similar environment, but less independent, more in areas of retreat and associated companions of more propulsive and dominant types as farmers, peasants in poor areas.

[nordicyouth]

So Agrippa, what would my typology be? My father is English (Yorkshire) and my mother is Polish (Krakow and Lwow).

[Agrippa]

nordicyouth said:

So Agrippa, what would my typology be? My father is English (Yorkshire) and my mother is Polish (Krakow and Lwow).

Thats a geographical and ethnic information which doesnt have to mean to much since we have various types both in England and Poland.

[Mike the Jedi]

I'm still not quite sure I understand the distinction between the various Baltid forms.

I guess the best place to start would be what is a Baltid/Osteuropid Proper? Got any pictures/examples? What's the geographic distribution? Judging from that great diagram Agrippa made, I see that East Baltids are the Lappoid-influenced Baltids whereas West Baltids are the North Cromagnid-influenced Baltids. I understand the influences, but that doesn't help me much if I don't have a good idea of what a regular Baltid is. Perhaps a good start would be a description of the Balticization process (its cause, etc.).

[Agrippa]

xcalator1 said:

I'm still not quite sure I understand the distinction between the various Baltid forms.

I guess the best place to start would be what is a Baltid/Osteuropid Proper? Got any pictures/examples? What's the geographic distribution? Judging from that great diagram Agrippa made, I see that East Baltids are the Lappoid-influenced Baltids whereas West Baltids are the North Cromagnid-influenced Baltids. I understand the influences, but that doesn't help me much if I don't have a good idea of what a regular Baltid is. Perhaps a good start would be a description of the Balticization process (its cause, etc.).

In fact its mostly about the degree of Baltisation ranging from almost unaltered Eastern Cromagnoids (West Baltid) to Baltids which are borealised (shorter lower extremities, more pyknomorphic, shorter and more rounded head+face, more subcutaneous fat, weaker facial profile-relief) and partly infantilised-reduced-brachymorphised - Eastbaltids are even more extreme and are Lappoid influenced or at least look Lappoid influenced - be it more admixture (more likely) or similar development. Body form even shorter, more brachymorphic, longer arms, shorter legs etc...

[quarryman]

agrippa said:

Dinarisation is an adaptation to higher areas, hilly, mountainous, plateaus and originally mostly a herder-warrior existence. The bigger nasal apparatus is mostly an adaptation to that environment as seems to be the head form though I dont know of any elaborated explanation in detail which would explain the functional advantage of a planoccipital headform, though I speculated about possible reasons in the "brachycephalisation thread". All other features of Dinarids can be explained from a functional point of view as it is true for almost all features and types.

It is true that Dinarid features mostly occur in highland areas, most obviously linked to the rather homogenous Almwirtschaft (I don't know the English expression) culture of the Balkans, Alps and Carpathians. And perhaps the large amount of Dinarid features in lowland areas like Northeastern Germany, Poland, Ukraine and Hungary can be partly explained with migrations from the Southeastern European highlands. But still I find the tendency to higher skulls in the whole of Eastern Europe impossible to explain with this only. Or do you think that there is another explanation to that than Dinaricization proper?

[worshipper]

What is the relationship between "Nordid(skandonordid)" and "East Nordid"? They're more "cromagnid" (and what kind?)--because they're closer to that circle. I'm don't mean the actual physical differences, but rather the reason for the diff.

[Agrippa]

Or do you think that there is another explanation to that than Dinaricization proper?

I know the basic advantages Dinarids have, about that I'm quite sure, but seriously, the higher head was already present in some areas before Dinarisation, thats not the problem, but the planoccipital head is another matter - there I can just speculate like I did in the "brachycephalisation thread". I tried to find something substantial for explaining it, but just "Akromegaloid growth tendencies" or simply mixture "Dinarisation by mixture" doesnt explain it alone. Since its so widespread, even in a rather short time in all Taurid areas (the highland story is not just true for Dinarids but all Taurids including Armenoid original (!) forms and Pamirids) there must be imo a selective advantage or it just came up in one or more core areas and was spread simply from literary "climbing from one habitat to the other". At the moment I can just speculate, so whereas everything else can be explained functional, I'm still not sure about the possible advantage if there is one at all - could be just chance as well, of the planoccipital headform.

Its interesting to compare the distribution of the Gemse (chamois) with Dinarids btw. which have a certain habitat as well.

I think most of the later Dinarid expansion was secondary, but their original habitat and the environment for "which they were made" was being highland herders and combined economy farmers.

[Mike the Jedi]

Does anyone know the etymology of "Mtebid"? I just think that's a weird word.

[Agrippa]

worshipper said:

What is the relationship between "Nordid(skandonordid)" and "East Nordid"? They're more "cromagnid" (and what kind?)--because they're closer to that circle. I'm don't mean the actual physical differences, but rather the reason for the diff.

The main difference is most likely their partial origin, source populations, but if its about the specialisation they are very close and in fact closer to each other than Skandonordids to other Western European forms though they are most likely more influenced by Atlantomediterranids.

[$$$ FD $$$]

why have pontids and danubians been omitted from that chart? how similar are mtebids, gorids and carpathids to each other?