|
Post by Atlantid on Sept 26, 2012 14:58:38 GMT -5
Well, someone needs to set the record straight on this. There seems to be a lot of Afrocentric distortion on this topic. Here are two quotes from Carleton Coon (1962, p. 577): ''There was, in fact, only one Upper Paleolithic European race. It was Caucasoid and it inhabits Europe today. We know this not only from skeletons but also from the representations of the human body in Upper Paleolithic art.''With reference to the Grimaldi skeletons dentition, Coon (1962, p. 584) further states that: ''These are dental characteristics of the Negro, but not exclusively. They are also seen on a number of teeth from Krapina and on those of Neanderthals, and are also present, as we have just mentioned, in the Mount Carmel population. An upper canine from the Magdalenian maxilla of Farincourt has the same features. The Grimaldi child was no more Negroid than the Palestinians of Skhul and many living Europeans of the Mediterranean region.''Coon was of the opinion that the Grimaldi fall within the range of archaic Caucasoids, who were on average 5% more robust in crania than their modern descendants (Howells, 1948). Afrocentrics tend to quote-mine Boule & Vallois' study Fossil Men (1957) which asserts the Grimaldi were either Negroid or Khoisanid. One thing however greatly overlooked in regard to the Grimaldi crania, is that they have deep nasal depressions, which are neither observed in Negroids or Khoisanids. Montagu in his Introduction to Physical Anthropology (1951, p. 173) notes: "In point of fact the Grimaldi skulls exhibit traits which are far more reminiscent of the Archaic Caucasoid than they are of the Negroid type, that is to say they resemble those of Australians or Pre-Dravidians of India and Ceylon more closely"
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Sept 27, 2012 22:02:43 GMT -5
An important specification, to be sure. Looking at that figure, the nasal depression does seem a quite useful trait for differentiating between Australoids and other populations. After having analysed the specimens, Keith and Morant similarly concluded that the Grimaldi were essentially archaic Cro-Magnons, and as such, distinct from Negroids. Elliot-Smith observed what is touched on in the Australoid affinities of the Natufians thread i.e. that many of the Grimaldi type's features which were mistaken as Negroid are actually more characteristic of Australoids. As Boas noted: "Recently the special Negroid character of the "Grimaldi race" has been questioned and rejected by Sir G. Elliot Smith and by Sir Arthur Keith. These anatomists have independently arrived at the conclusion that the Grimaldi people had no special relation to any Negro group, but merely represent early and rather primitive examples of the Cro-Magnon stock. Recent comparative anthropometric studies by G. M. Morant disclose no basis for separating the Grimaldi type from the general Upper Paleolithic series. Elliot Smith also points out that many of the so-called Negroid features are even more strongly Australoid. In his opinion the remains in question are "undoubtedly related to the people of the Upper Paleolithic, commonly known as the Cro-Magnon race (and in particular to the intermediate type represented by the Combe-Capelle and Pfedmost skeletons)." These last-named, as remarked above, also present certain likenesses to the Australoid type in skull features. This does not imply any special kinship with the modern Australians, but there is a possibility that some primitive neoanthropic type in southern Asia may have given rise in Pleistocene time to a stock which migrated southward toward Australia and at the same time to another which worked westward, gradually invading Europe and Africa. Such terms as "Negroid" and "Australoid" are often used very loosely and may mean no more than that the example in question "looks like" or suggests the type referred to, when careful study and measurement may prove the fancied likeness to be quite illusory. Even fairly close resemblance may signify no more than fortuitous parallelism. Misinterpretation of such cases is an ever-present hazard in physical anthropology. On the whole, the status of the "Grimaldi race" as a people having special Negroid affinities and quite distinct from the Cro-Magnon group must be considered as extremely doubtful."
books.google.com/books?id=9R2AAAAAMAAJ&q=%22questioned+and+rejected+by+Sir+G.+Elliot+Smith+42+and+by+Sir+Arthur+Keith.43%22&dq=%22questioned+and+rejected+by+Sir+G.+Elliot+Smith+42+and+by+Sir+Arthur+Keith.43%22&source=bl&ots=hvtPu-Cn4e&sig=iBmMbkjhOwmNH_bMx2J8pvgUciM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RRFlUKCZHIfv0gHvlYGwBg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Oct 27, 2012 22:36:45 GMT -5
With reference to the Grimaldi skeletons dentition, Coon (1962, p. 584) further states that: ''These are dental characteristics of the Negro, but not exclusively. They are also seen on a number of teeth from Krapina and on those of Neanderthals, and are also present, as we have just mentioned, in the Mount Carmel population. An upper canine from the Magdalenian maxilla of Farincourt has the same features. The Grimaldi child was no more Negroid than the Palestinians of Skhul and many living Europeans of the Mediterranean region.''Can you explain the part in bold? This didn't really make sense to me. I don't see why Euro Meds would be compared to Negroids in percentages since the 2 groups are nothing alike and apart of separate races.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 29, 2012 2:30:50 GMT -5
By that, Coon seems to be referring to the relative retention of archaic physical traits. This is why he compares the Natufians' dental traits to archaic humans such as the Skhul specimen of Israel, as well as hominds like the Neanderthal. That said, there has been an important development with regard to the Natufians' ancestry. It has been brought to my attention that some human remains from Tell Halula, a prehistoric Natufian site in Syria, have been genetically tested for aDNA/ancient DNA by E. Fernández et al.. As expected, most belonged to West Eurasian clades. A few, however, apparently possessed Sub-Saharan maternal clades. I have yet to confirm this. But if true, it could explain why the Natufians sometimes cluster closer to Negroid groups than one would expect for a Paleo-Mediterranean population. As explained in greater detail in this thread, the Natufians also show few morphological ties with modern Near Eastern and Hamitic groups, as well as the Neolithic West Asian populations that actually introduced the "Neolithic package" to Europe. They are therefore likely not the source Mesolithic population from which said Neolithic Near Eastern farmers descended.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Oct 29, 2012 3:55:11 GMT -5
Afrocentrics across the internet quote-mine the following from Coon's The Races of Europe (1939):
"(1) Mediterranean Proper (hereafter meant when the word "Mediterranean" is used alone): Short stature, about 160 cm.; skull length 183-187 mm. male mean; vault height 132-137 mm. mean; cranial index means 73-75; browridges and bone development weak, face short, nose leptorrhine to mesorrhine. Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
However, the reason for this "negroid tendency" in Gracile Mediterranids as Coon explains in his The Living Races of Man is because Caucasoid Mediterraneans actually were involved in creating the Negroid through mating with African Pygmoids. The extent of this hybridization can be debated, however Negroids basically fall intermediate between Pygmoid and Caucasoid Med crania (Ibid., p. 123).
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Oct 29, 2012 16:47:45 GMT -5
Gracile Meds are mostly found in south-Western Europe like Portugal. I don't think it's very common in the rest of Europe that much. I guess all racial types descending from Mediterranean proper have a slight Negroid tendency. I'm really confused so I think I'll do some more research.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 30, 2012 0:34:14 GMT -5
the reason for this "negroid tendency" in Gracile Mediterranids as Coon explains in his The Living Races of Man is because Caucasoid Mediterraneans actually were involved in creating the Negroid through mating with African Pygmoids. The extent of this hybridization can be debated, however Negroids basically fall intermediate between Pygmoid and Caucasoid Med crania (Ibid., p. 123). Good point; forgot about that analysis.
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Nov 1, 2012 23:08:38 GMT -5
Well here's a Gracile Med
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Nov 2, 2012 10:51:28 GMT -5
Gracile Meds are very short, around 5 ft 3. In fact I was reading some old texts on a much smaller ancestral type, even approaching Pygmoid in size.
Its a common misconception that ancestral caucasoids were tall. Cro-Magnon is usually portrayed as on average 6 ft. However they were actually much shorter.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Nov 2, 2012 19:48:14 GMT -5
Its a common misconception that ancestral caucasoids were tall. Cro-Magnon is usually portrayed as on average 6 ft. However they were actually much shorter. Cro-Magnons were quite tall for their time period. Most were about the same height as modern humans, whereas other prehistoric human specimens were generally shorter.
The Mediterranean/Middle Eastern genetic component in Europe actually only has notable frequencies in the south. Northern and Eastern Europe have the highest percentages of the aboriginal European component (with built-in Northeast Asian affinity). The Mediterranean/Middle Eastern component peaks in Arabia and the Hamitic parts of Africa. These are the same modern areas where the populations still craniometrically group closely with the Neolithic Proto-Mediterraneans, the latter of whom probably looked quite similar to the ancient Egyptians (their descendants).
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Dec 3, 2012 21:30:17 GMT -5
Craniometrically, the Natufians don't cluster with any other Mesolithic or Neolithic West Asian group. They are also quite distant from all modern predominantly Caucasoid populations. Note their relatively isolated position in the plot above, for example. Clearly, they are a special population, and in more ways than one.
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Dec 4, 2012 0:36:28 GMT -5
The Mediterranean/Middle Eastern genetic component in Europe actually only has notable frequencies in the south. Northern and Eastern Europe have the highest percentages of the aboriginal European component (with built-in Northeast Asian affinity). The Middle Eastern value for Southern Italy/Sicily seems exaggerated. 33% Middle Eastern genetically? They're basically tied with Ashkenazim Jews in terms of Europeaness which doesn't seem accurate at all. Maybe if you take Sicily out of the equation, it becomes a lot less. I just think this is a bit much. Maybe a miscalculation.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Dec 4, 2012 13:16:24 GMT -5
The Middle Eastern value for Southern Italy/Sicily seems exaggerated. 33% Middle Eastern genetically? They're basically tied with Ashkenazim Jews in terms of Europeaness which doesn't seem accurate at all. Maybe if you take Sicily out of the equation, it becomes a lot less. I just think this is a bit much. Maybe a miscalculation. Lynn (2006) uses that to explain why southern Italians have lower IQ's than northern Italians. My view: I stay away from genetics entirely. I think its a red herring when it comes down to race.
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Dec 4, 2012 16:44:13 GMT -5
That's ridiculous. Multiple studies have been done confirming no major difference in IQ's between 2 parts of the country. It's not like Middle East means Sub-Saharan Africa anyways It's still Caucasoid.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Dec 4, 2012 20:36:52 GMT -5
southern Italians have lower IQ's than northern Italians. On that basis, it's rather doubtful. The Middle Eastern value for Southern Italy/Sicily seems exaggerated. 33% Middle Eastern genetically? They're basically tied with Ashkenazim Jews in terms of Europeaness which doesn't seem accurate at all. Maybe if you take Sicily out of the equation, it becomes a lot less. I just think this is a bit much. Maybe a miscalculation. The Middle Eastern component is itself a Caucasoid element; albeit of a different type from the autochthonous European component.
|
|