Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Dec 22, 2003 6:38:25 GMT -5
1. Racial Calculator
Are you sure you used formula for head dimentions, and not the formula for skulls? I recall when I used the formula for skulls I've got the same huge capacity...
2. TAT-C
You wrote: "Nonsense. Tat-C is a Uralic marker and the Proto-Uralic type was a flat-nosed one and has nothing to do with the Europoid race."
So is TAT-C originally Mongoloid or Europid? Make up your mind please.
If it's Mongoloid, why European bearers of TAT-C are so light pigmented. For example, Russian Pomors with almost 50% of HG12/16 have no brown and yellow eyes, with the darkest shade thus (theoretically) green with brown ring.
No, it's clearly stated by the most prominent genetists in the most RECENT works that TAT-C is EASTERN EUROPEAN marker, not "Uralic" (where [in the Ural region] it's frequencies are low or absent).
More, do you state that it's TAT-C which causes low rooted noses? Yes or No?
3. Pontic race
Do you keep insisting that comparable in pigmentation to Swedes population (Russian Pontics) belong to Mediterranian (proper) type?
4. Do you keep insisting that the Baltic race is THE MOST important race in Russia?
5. Could you please post frequencies of markers from the last study on Byelos and Russians? Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 26, 2003 5:13:06 GMT -5
Are you sure you used formula for head dimentions, and not the formula for skulls? I recall when I used the formula for skulls I've got the same huge capacity... I'm sure inasmuch as the source I used is accurate. Tat-C is strongly associated with Uralic speakers. Anthropologically, Uralic speakers are considered to be the product of hybridization between the Europoid and Mongoloid races -in various degrees along an East-West axis. However they also maintain a strong signal of the physical traits of their Proto-Uralic ancestors. Tat-C doesn't "cause" low rooted noses. It's a Y chromosome marker with no function. The Pontic race belongs to the Mediterranean race, yes. Indeed, I would say that it is.
|
|
Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Dec 26, 2003 5:32:46 GMT -5
>>>I'm sure inasmuch as the source I used is accurate.
Formula is clearly inaccurate.
>>>Tat-C is strongly associated with Uralic speakers.
Not true. There are many times more Baltic and Slavic speakers with high TAT-C (35-50%) than Finnic and Altaic speakers.
Anyway, is TAT-C ORIGINALLY Europid or Mongoloid? If the latter, could you please explaine superior levels of blondism in populations with high TAT-C (actually half of Northern Eastern Europe)?
Also, according to all anthropologists the Ladogan/Proto-Uralic type was Europid/Mongoloid - of mixed origins. You it seems are trying to say that TAT-C is neither Mongoloid nor Europid, but "Uralic" and refers to a separate race? If so, you base your onclusions on old assumptions, which were proved to be FALSE.
So make up your mind plese - Mongoloid or Europid? >>>Anthropologically, Uralic speakers are considered to be the product of hybridization between the Europoid and Mongoloid races -in various degrees along an East-West axis.
Only a part of them.
>>>Tat-C doesn't "cause" low rooted noses. It's a Y chromosome marker with no function.
Still you associate it with Uralic traits, i.e. low rooted noses?
If yes, it's not true.
>>>The Pontic race belongs to the Mediterranean race, yes.
Could you please describe the Med race n terms of pigmentation? What are Pontic regions in Eastern Europe? Does the Nordic race belong to the Mediterranian race in your scheme?
>>>Indeed, I would say that it is.
You base your opinion on an anthropological work? Do you consider this work superior to the entire Soviet school of anthropology?
And thank you, don't bother with the frequencies. I've already got them.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 26, 2003 9:46:49 GMT -5
Formula is clearly inaccurate. It may be clear to you, however I won't take your word for it. Make yourself useful and find a reference to an accurate formula if you are so inclined. The Balts and Eastern Slavs have a pre-Indo-European Finno-Ugric component. "Blondism" is encountered among many Europoid-Mongoloid mixes of northern Asia. I have explained myself clearly as to the origin of Tat-C. The Uralic-speaking peoples are the result of hybridization between the Europoid and Mongoloid races, although they maintain a distinctive Proto-Uralic anthropological component. What part of this don't you understand? Yes, the Proto-Uralic anthropological component was flat-nosed. The Nordic race belongs to the northern Europoids, unlike the Pontic subrace of the Mediterranean race which belongs to the southern Europoids. Spare me the "entire Soviet school of anthropology" nonsense. Facts, unambiguous statements by the experts, not idle rhetoric.
|
|
Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Dec 26, 2003 10:37:28 GMT -5
>>>It may be clear to you, however I won't take your word for it. It's rather funny as most of those who submitted their data turned out to be SUPER LARGE HEADED. The world record was beaten not once >>>Make yourself useful and find a reference to an accurate formula if you are so inclined. Ok, I will. I'm useful anyway, enlighteting and healing you from your delusions :-) >>>The Balts and Eastern Slavs have a pre-Indo-European Finno-Ugric component. Sure, they've absorbed a pre-IE NE European substratum. However, you referred to a linguastical category. So did I. >>>"Blondism" is encountered among many Europoid-Mongoloid mixes of northern Asia. I have explained myself clearly as to the origin of Tat-C. No, actually you didn't. Or maybe I didn't understand you? Do me a favor, Dienelkes, answer: Is TAT-C ORIGINALLY Europid or Mongoloid? >>>The Uralic-speaking peoples are the result of hybridization between the Europoid and Mongoloid races, although they maintain a distinctive Proto-Uralic anthropological component. What part of this don't you understand? Nothing is new here for me, of course. You still didn't answer the question (see above) >>>Yes, the Proto-Uralic anthropological component was flat-nosed. You clearly differentiate this component from Mongoloids and Europids, right? >>>The Nordic race belongs to the northern Europoids, unlike the Pontic subrace of the Mediterranean race which belongs to the southern Europoids. It'll be much more productive if you'll start answering my questions,and not repeating your agenda in each post. If you don't know an answer simply say so, don't ignore my questions as it leads nowhere, they'll be simply repeated and inally either answered or left (by you) unanswered. THANK YOU! 1. Could you please describe the Med race in terms of pigmentation? 2. What are Pontic regions in Eastern Europe? 3. Does the Nordic race belong to the Mediterranian race in your scheme? >>>Spare me the "entire Soviet school of anthropology" nonsense. Facts, unambiguous statements by the experts, not idle rhetoric. Good. From "Origins and ethnical history of the Russian people"//Bunak V.V., Alexeeva T.I. Zonal types and generalized Russian type. Zonal anthropological types of Russian population, reflecting INFLUENCE of the BALTIC racial type in North-West, Uralic in North-East and Middle-Volga, Neo-PONTIC in South, greatly differ from the central variants of the mentioned types. North-Western types, thou included in the Baltic racial group, form the special sub-type within it... The most characteristic variants of the Russian anthropological type - ILMEN and UPPER-OKA - slightly modified in the EAST under influence of URALIC groups. ... Formation of Ilmen and Upper-Oka types happened on the basis of a common anthropological element, to which was added the Baltic element in North, the Pontic in the South and in East - Uralic. P. 172 ===============
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 26, 2003 19:32:53 GMT -5
It's rather funny as most of those who submitted their data turned out to be SUPER LARGE HEADED. The world record was beaten not once I don't have your faith in the mental capacity of people to measure themselves correctly. By all means though, find the correct formula. Refrain from personal comments. The latter is more likely. Tat-C is associated with the Proto-Uralic population of Asia and is found in those populations which are Uralic speaking or have interbred in the past with Uralic speakers, e.g., some Turkic-speaking groups, Balts, Russians, etc. Indeed, the Proto-Uralic type has specific features differentiating it from the Mongoloid and Europoid races. You asked whether or not I considered Nordics to be Mediterranean. I told you that no, they belong to the northern Europoids, not to the southern Europoids. The pigmentation of the Mediterranean race is well-known. Bulgaria, Rumania, the Caucasus, sporadically throughout Eastern Europe and a major genetic component -in solution- in the Slavs north of the Black Sea. Thanks for the information. It does not however tell us anything about the relative strength of the various racial elements present in the Russian population.
|
|
Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Dec 26, 2003 20:04:21 GMT -5
>>>I don't have your faith in the mental capacity of people to measure themselves correctly. By all means though, find the correct formula. Neither do I, Dienekes, neither do I. But if you were a littlle bit more attentive, you could notice, that unbelievably high figures were given by your calculator on the basis of quite ordinary head dimentions. We know that capacity over 1650 cc is presented in less than 1% of Europeans, have you ever saw the result by your calculator which was below??? >>>Refrain from personal comments. Just a liitle joke :-) Joking is not allowed? Ok :-) >>>The latter is more likely. Tat-C is associated with the Proto-Uralic population of Asia and is found in those populations which are Uralic speaking or have interbred in the past with Uralic speakers, e.g., some Turkic-speaking groups, Balts, Russians, etc. Ok. Again. Same question. Is TAT-C the Europid or Mongoloid marker? I exclude the third (unlikely and proven to be false) possibility, that it's the marker of an intermediate INDEPENDENT race,transitional between Europids and Mongoloids, as you've stresssed, as I believe, that Proto-Uralics are a mix between Europid and Mongoloids. SO, DIENEKES, EUROPID OR MONGOLOID? Another question. Could you please submit any source, stating that TAT-C is ASSOCIATED with the URALIC racial type? Please, I want to see it! Or is just your personal opinion? >>>Indeed, the Proto-Uralic type has specific features differentiating it from the Mongoloid and Europoid races. If I understand you correctly, you mean the traits which are not presented neither in Europids, nor in Mongoloids? Please enumerate them! >>>You asked whether or not I considered Nordics to be Mediterranean. I told you that no, they belong to the northern Europoids, My question was simple: Med or not. I expected to get a simple answer. I can only guess your views racial classification system... >>> not to the southern Europoids. So it seems Meds are southern Europids and Nordics are Northern Europids! Finally I got it! >>> The pigmentation of the Mediterranean race is well-known. See the next questions, please >>>Bulgaria, Rumania, the Caucasus, sporadically throughout Eastern Europe and a major genetic component -in solution- in the Slavs north of the Black Sea. 1. Do you have the source which says that the "Pontic"/Med race is the DOMINANT group in Rumania and Bulgaria and Caucasus?!! 2. Please define the region of "Slavs north of the Black Sea"! It's a huge region! As big as central Europe... 3. If you believe it's the dominant type, what must be level of pigmentation there? I mean, when we may assert, basing out opinion on the pigmentation of any given presumably Med population, that the Med (Pontic) element is MAJOR? >>>Thanks for the information. It does not however tell us anything about the relative strength of the various racial elements present in the Russian population. Actually it DOES. Anyway,this piece says that the Baltic type can be encountered only in solution with the main Russian type in NW Russia. Thus, do you still insist that the Baltic race is the most important elemnt in Russia? Thank you, Dienekes, for answers! (I know youre a busy man) Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 26, 2003 21:25:11 GMT -5
Rarog, I understand that it's important to you to file away "Tat-C" as either Mongoloid or Europoid and be done with it. However, reality is not as simple as that. First, we can never be completely sure which Y chromosome types are associated with prehistoric peoples, at least until the extraction of nuclear DNA from skeletal remains becomes possible. Second, with respect to Tat C, we are aware that it is frequently found in Uralic-speaking populations, or populations which are known to have absorbed Uralic speakers. The wide distribution of these populations, coupled with the recent origin of Tat C and its marked absence in neighboring populations (e.g., Poles vs. Balts) makes it a reasonable assumption that Proto-Uralic speakers harbored the Tat C mutation. What was the race of the Proto-Uralic speakers? Two competing theories have been proposed: one, that they were a hybrid of Europoids and Mongoloids, and two, that they were a distinct (non-hybrid) race. The latest research on Uralic craniometric variation indicates that while the Uralic peoples show clear evidence of hybridization with Europoids and Mongoloids, their Proto-Uralic ancestors were actually dissimilar to both. www.dienekes.com/blog/archives/000447.htmlThis harmonizes quite well with the view from genetics: "western" Uralic-speakers have the Tat-C mutation plus various "Europoid" haplogroups (e.g., R1a); "eastern" Uralic-speakers also have the Tat-C mutation plus various "Mongoloid" haplogroups (e.g., C). PS: Also thank you for bringing the endocranial volume issue to my attention. I google'd for it and according to this source: www.jasi.net/december2002/estimation.htmlthe formula should have a -11 applied to each head dimension; this was not mentioned in my original source. The results should be more reasonable now.
|
|
Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Dec 27, 2003 6:13:43 GMT -5
>>>Rarog, I understand that it's important to you to file away "Tat-C" as either Mongoloid or Europoid and be done with it. However, reality is not as simple as that. I believe it is. No I understand that you attribute TAT-C to the separate Proto-Uralic race, which is neither Mongoloid, nor Europid. And is not the result of intermixture. >>>First, we can never be completely sure which Y chromosome types are associated with prehistoric peoples, at least until the extraction of nuclear DNA from skeletal remains becomes possible. I'm not talking about prehistoric peoples... >>>Second, with respect to Tat C, we are aware that it is frequently found in Uralic-speaking populations, or populations which are known to have absorbed Uralic speakers. The wide distribution of these populations, coupled with the recent origin of Tat C and its marked absence in neighboring populations (e.g., Poles vs. Balts) makes it a reasonable assumption that Proto-Uralic speakers harbored the Tat C mutation. Side note: Well, actually, I've searched for the Finno-Ugrian trace in the ethnogenesis of Lithuanians, and found it was absent. >>>What was the race of the Proto-Uralic speakers? Two competing theories have been proposed: one, that they were a hybrid of Europoids and Mongoloids, and two, that they were a distinct (non-hybrid) race. The latest research on Uralic craniometric variation indicates that while the Uralic peoples show clear evidence of hybridization with Europoids and Mongoloids, Not true. SOME Uralic peoples show evidences of hybridization, MOST don't >>> their Proto-Uralic ancestors were actually dissimilar to both. www.dienekes.com/blog/archives/000447.htmlAgain, you're wrong. Except a few examples in Olenij Island and Zveinieki, Racial type of Finno-Ugrias is essentially Europid. That's to say, that (also accordingto your study) the Proto-Uralic type was doubtlessly Europid. Anyway, the point is that ansectors of populations with high TAT-C were fully Europid, and not intermediate or mixed or something. >>>This harmonizes quite well with the view from genetics: "western" Uralic-speakers have the Tat-C mutation plus various "Europoid" haplogroups (e.g., R1a); "eastern" Uralic-speakers also have the Tat-C mutation plus various "Mongoloid" haplogroups (e.g., C). Yes, and EASTERN Uralic speakers have much LESS TAT-C. And helluva lot more Mongoloid mtDNA, like (if I'm not mistaken) Maris - 20%. >>>PS: Also thank you for bringing the endocranial volume issue to my attention. I google'd for it and according to this source: www.jasi.net/december2002/estimation.htmlthe formula should have a -11 applied to each head dimension; this was not mentioned in my original source. The results should be more reasonable now. ======== Sure. Minus 11. Anyway, I'm looking forward to receive answers to my questions on Pontics, and proofs that Proto-Uralic speakers/populations belonged to Europid/Mongoloid type (and not to Proto-Uralic type, which is in fact purely Europid) Regards
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 27, 2003 6:46:17 GMT -5
This conversation is going in circles. The Europoid race is characterized by a projecting nasal bone. The Proto-Uralic type was characterized by a flat nasal bone. Ergo, the Proto-Uralic type is not Europoid. What part of "flat nose" don't you understand?
|
|
Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Dec 27, 2003 7:29:11 GMT -5
This conversation is going in circles. The Europoid race is characterized by a projecting nasal bone. The Proto-Uralic type was characterized by a flat nasal bone. Ergo, the Proto-Uralic type is not Europoid. What part of "flat nose" don't you understand? With all respect, it seems it's you who don't understand... or just don't want to understand? You call the certain flat-nosed type "proto-Uralic" and perceive it as ansectral to modern Uralic-speaking peoples. NOT TRUE. The type in question - URALIC - is called so not because it's widespread among Uralic-speakers, but because it's concentrated in the Ural region, far away from most Uralic speakers and regions with high TAT-C. And indeed it's flat nosed. True, such types were found in certain burials in NW part of NE Europe (Olenij Island, Zvieneiki) but only as INDIVIDUALS and IN SOLUTION. They never formed neiter a population/group not a significant part of any group (while most groups were purely Europid). Nowdays, only faint influence of the Uralic race is detected in certain regions of NE Europe - the Volga-Kama and Middle Volga regions, and even weaker influence - in the Great Lakes area (two small groups). Ansectral types of Finnic and Baltic types had higher nasal angles than Mediterranians (up to 35") So, true, Proto-Uralic type is not fully Europid... but it has nothing to do with the absolute majority of population of Northern part of NE Europe, and thus CAN NOT be associated with TAT-C (remember my first question about association?). Do you understand what I'm talking about? I've got tables of anthro data on ansectral Finnic types - they're essentialy Europid...
|
|
Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Dec 27, 2003 7:30:27 GMT -5
And, please, Dienekes, don't forget to address to the Pontic question in your next post! I'm genuily interested in your views!
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 27, 2003 19:50:36 GMT -5
|
|
Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Dec 27, 2003 20:00:23 GMT -5
That's just fine, Dinekes, but I've asked you some direct questions. Are you going to answer them or ignore, as always?
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 27, 2003 20:12:40 GMT -5
Your questions are repetitive and have been answered. I'm sorry if my answers are not pleasing to you. It's perhaps time that you accepted that Russians have a small non-Caucasoid Uralic component and a substantial brunet southern Europoid Pontic Mediterranean component, instead of repeating your self ad nauseam.
|
|