Who were the latter Pleistocene eastern Africans?

[Agrippa]

human2 said:

So there is no typical "Europids". They can look like everything but there is typical "Mongolids" and "Negrids"?

Let's assume that the "Europoid" is made for a "temperate" zone and this elicits a phenotype.

They can't look "like everything", they must have the crucial features, the deviation from them decides whether they are "extreme", "typical" or "deviating".
F.e. (extreme) Ostbaltids are deviating, obviously in a Mongoloid direction, but they didnt left the Europoid tolerance spectrum yet.

More extreme to typical Europids would be Nordid, Cromagnid, Dinarid, Armenoid, Mediterranid etc.

Also, these zones you posit... the "Negrid" in tropics... that's a lot of zones you squeezed in one... There's rain forests, savannahs, deserts... It's not one zone.

True, yes, right, point is that they are NOW in all of that areas, but they weren't in the past and it was never said their core area was limited to a too narrow area, but its clear it was NOT the desert and NOT the dry savannah otherwise the Negrid basic type would look differnt, simple as that. It was about wet savannah, lake areas and tropical forests. medium to wet - and hot with intensive UV-rays - close to the equator.

[Agrippa]

You define Europe and the Middle East as all "caucasid". I can define Siberia and the temperate zones of Asia as all "Mongolid. Charlie can define the rain forests of African and the open plains and desert as all "negrid".

They "are Negrid" or Mongolid respectively if Negrids or Mongolids live there, types in the range of the race, Africa is not per se Negrid nor is Asia per se Mongolid.

You can say that the wide-faced, with facial flattening, low nosed (even broad at the beginning) Cro-Magnon and the various Medi/ME type as all "Europoid"

Before the LGM we see still primitive and generalised archaic variants in all major races, you know very well that the last Ice Age was crucial for the development of the major races so we should begin speaking of the respective races rather at the end than before the last Ice Age.
The European archaic forms as some other less primitive archaic forms are simply closer to Europoids because that variants before an extreme climatic specialisation (like Mongolid and Negrid are).

I can define the Ainu, Native Americans, Siberians, East Asians as all "Mongolid".

All with the exception of Ainuids, yes. Less extreme and deviating form, but finally Mongolid, never said something else. The typical form is still Tungo-Sibirid though, because they are the living examples for the extreme cold adaptation - and thats what Mongolid is finally about.

Charlie can define elongated types, forest types and what not as all "negrid".

They are. As long as they dont deviate significantly from the Negrid standard. Even Aethiopids can be considered NegrOid - but with Europoid influence at least.
Lappids cannot be considered classic Europids neither...

[Agrippa]

human2 said:

I mean how can two morphologies that are fundamentally on opposite sides of the spectrum, the Cro-Magnon and the "Dinaroid"/"Armenoid"/"Iranoid" be both typical/extreme "Caucasid".
By the same standards, a typical jet black, kinky-headed Nigerian and a typical jet black kinky-headed Somali would be both "Negrids".

Somalis are Negrid in most systems but with Europoid influence.

You keep missing my point. Are you that dense. Do you not see that the problem is in how you define these terms?

Thats always the problem, to define it that way means to grasp the basic difference between the major races, thats the point you missed.

If you define the true "negrid" as living in the forest of Bantutia, than of course everything else is "not typical".

What everything else? Deal with examples...

If you define the true "caucasid" as living in Anatolia, than everything else wouldn't be "typical" either.

Why so? Are they heavily pigmented? Is the character of their pigmentation that different? Do they have no strong facial relief? No rather narrow nose? No simple-wavy hair? No orthognathy? Etc...
Furthermore I answered to that in the thread I linked.

The problem is in the inequitable definitions you posit, which are totally arbitrary, subjective, and biased.

All Europids with the exception of the fringes are included in this definition without any problem, same is true for Mongolids and Negrids...

[Educate Me]

human2, did you see the news äbout the new forum?

[Agrippa]

human2 said:

Again, this is predicated on how you define "Europid", isn't it?
Your argument is circular.
If you define "Europid" as something with a wide range and the typical type as something not extreme, then of course all sorts of people would fall into that.

Well, someone with frizzy hair, broad-flat nose and prognathy woudnt - just three features deviating from the definition, let alone enough even without skin color.

Ok, if these people in the picture are all "Europids", then I don't see how Ainu can't be "Mongolid"

Ainuids are an archaic and related, but finally not Mongolid form since they lack all the typical features, no epicanthus, no flat face, hair form, body hair etc. Even Indianids have low body hair and the most other features - at least a certain frequency of it, unmixed Ainuids not.

A "negrid" standard which you keep arbitrarily defining.

Define it yourself? Just show me how you would do it and I say you what mistakes you made in my opinion or if I can agree with it...

This recent Siberian admixture in NE Europe is significant. I'm not going to say who has a look that is and isn't due to this admixture, but for sure a lot of the progressive, attractive types you don't want to be "mixed" are.

How do you know? Furthermore race is about specialisation, Mongolids can be attractive and progressive too, but in another way, thats the point. A Nordid phenotype which will just produce Nordid phenotypes is Nordid - on the other hand a genetical European which has a Sibirid phenotype and would just produce Sibirid phenotypes ...

By the same token, even Mongolians are part of this contact zone.

Mongolians might be, Tungids aren't.

The problem is that while this contact zone is in Europe in a place you want to be "pure" while in Asia it's in a place where you want to have the least to do with "Europids".

Show me pictures and give me data on individuals and I say whether they could pass as phenotypical European Europids.

Europid variation in Eastern Europe:
bride.ru/ph/htcgi/ladies/in-gold/index1.html

www.firstdream.com/frameset1.htm

But whereas most, even 99 + percent of them are clearly Europid, though its not even about ethnic Europeans alone, some are borderline and look mixed, at least like this one, even if she might be really that light:



Her definition of being clearly Europid is doubtful because of her very paedomorphic facial features and extreme headshape. There are even clearer case, but not too much, look for yourself...

Where do you see the admixture in Europeans? I just wonder, even in Eastern Europe its very low and again, its about race not ancient admixture without significance.

[Agrippa]

Practical examples shown in this thread too, both Santiago and Buenos Aires might be mixed, individuals can be spotted in both, but finally the character of Buenos Aires is on average still Europid, that of Santiago just predominantely so, already Mestizo character as shown with the facial morph projects, though its not scientific, still in this case representative, too. Compare with Santiago which is still pred. Europid, the Europid component the same, but more Mestizos, face pred. Europid but already Mestizo character, interestingly, that proves the value of this depiction, both in males and females - same is true for Buenos Aires with both males and females being Europid:

Both averages are mixed, but this, is still clearly Europid:
www.faceoftomorrow.com/buenos_aires.asp?no_id=1

This already phenotypically mixed:
www.faceoftomorrow.com/santiago.asp

The same could be said for Negrid or Mongolid populations, single individuals dont make them mixed, but if the whole population type (like Aethiopids) deviates strongly into another direction of specialisation....

The definitions grasp reality, thats what counts and you can define a phenotypes racial affinity by distance from the basic features of the race.