Very handy !
I have a question concerning pilosity.

Biasutti mentions that Mediterraneans have "not excessive pilosity", while Nordics have "rather abundant pilosity". Even taking into account that pilosity on Nordics is relatively depygmentated and thus less visible, it´s an empirical fact to any casual observer that Southern Europeans have more abundant body-hair (and facial hair as well). You could point to an alpine mix in Mediterranean countries to explain that. In classical anthropology (though not in Biasutti, it seems), Alpines were supposed to show heavier body hair than both Nordics and Mediterraneans. This statement again counters common observation.

Are there serious studies on this subject you could point me to, Dienekes (comparative studies on body and/or facial hair)?

Very good observations. I know for a fact that body hair cover is very developed in Cretan Greeks according to the detailed statistics of Aris Poulianos. The difference of Cretans with Montenegrins is striking 33% to 3% of very developed chest hair. There is a cline of hairiness centered on the Caucasus which diminishes as one moves towards the Aegean. I don't have any data on West Mediterraneans (Deniker's Ibero-Insular race). North Africans have much less body hair than Greeks.

My guess is that there are "centers" of hairiness which happen to be located in e.g., Mediterranean or Nordic territory, and not that Nordics are hairier or vice versa.

'Orientalid'-type Mediterraneans do indeed have sparse body hair.
It's well known here in Israel that soldiers of Yemeni descent only have to shave once every week or two to maintain an acceptable military appearance. I observed this 'phenomenon' myself many times when I was in the army.

An objective, generalized and very inclusive classification system of the Caucasoid race. Although, there is a area of tall stature (Atlanto-Mediteranneans) in the Pontics and the Fertile Crescent, where does it fit in this system?
I always thought that that was the Oriental race, but with an average of 165cm height given for it by Biasutti, there must be another race to account for.

Example (height for certain areas of the Eastern Mediterannean)

Eastern Greece: 168 cm
Palestine : 169 cm
Iraq: 171 cm
Algeria: 172 cm

Stature is not a very good criterion for racial classification. Certainly populations differ in their genetic predisposition to great stature, but the environmental component is significant. Biasutti does retain the "Atlanto-Mediterranean" as a subrace of the Mediterranean race (Littoral, Deniker's original name for it).

>> It's well known here in Israel that soldiers of Yemeni descent only have to shave once every week or two to maintain an acceptable military appearance.

The evolution of body hair is an interesting problem. It might have an adaptive significance, but it's also a powerful sexual signal.

Nice system Dienekes, just the names are partly unusual and not always are the terms perfect.

But I think everybody which has an idea of the subject know what type is meant.

I really see a centre of hairiness in the eastern mediterraneans and caucasus. Thats mainly because of the specific mediterranean (berid, eastmediterranean) and armenid type there.
There is no region in Europe with more body hair than in the eastern mediterranean.

Normal western mediterraneans are not to hairy but the Atlantid type has more body hair on average especially in the British/Irish islands.

Prehistoric Form: Borreby.
Subraces: Padanian, Noric.

Well I would just say Dinaric (Adriatic) + Noric, but thats no serious problem.

But to say that the Prehistoric Form of the Dinarics is the Borreby race is something, lets say unusual.

For sure the Borreby/north Alpine type was important for the formation of this race, but to say thats the "prehistoric form" is wrong.

Its often quite obvious that an Mediterranean or similar type (Atlantid/Pontid?) was important for the formation of the Adriatics and the Nordic race for the Norics.

I live in Austria and its really obvious that the most Norics are nothing else but mixed Nordics with Dinaric (Adriatic) and/or strong Alpine/Borreby admixture.

Dienekes: "My guess is that there are "centers" of hairiness which happen to be located in e.g., Mediterranean or Nordic territory, and not that Nordics are hairier or vice versa."

The Caucasus seems indeed a good guess. Where would the Western center of hairiness be?

Chris: "Normal western mediterraneans are not to hairy but the Atlantid type has more body hair on average especially in the British/Irish islands."
I agree that on average, Greeks have slightly more abundant body hair than, say, Portuguese or Spaniards.
Northern Africans have less pilosity than either Italians, Portuguese or Spaniards, except perhaps for some Berbers.

Still, as you go North of the Pirinees and north of the Po River in Italy, the body and facial hirsuteness gradualy decrease.

Alpine and nordic pilosity is a myth in my view.

Could strong pilosity be related to Paleolithic ancestry, and the proportion thereof in european populations?

>> Normal western mediterraneans are not to hairy but the Atlantid type has more body hair on average especially in the British/Irish islands.

The Littoral (Atlanto-Mediterranean) type was described by Lundman as an Armenoid-Mediterranean cross. Perhaps that explains its hairiness, if indeed it is hairier than other Mediterraneans.

Hmm, I think that there is no significant admixture of Armenids in the Atlantid type.

And this hairiness is just really significant in the british (North-) Atlantids, not to much f.e. in the French or Spanish.

Maybe that explains why some people especially british said that Nordics are more hairy than Meds, because they saw at the British Atlantids which are intermediate between Nordics and Meds? (but got their features on their own too f.e. the hairiness)

Take a look here on the Littoroid type:

000069.html

Ok, you could at least argue that these types could have admixture of Dinaroid or Armenid types.

But if you do so the type "Littoral (Swiss, after SCHLAGINHAUFEN)" can be no littoral and littoral and Atlantid wouldnt be the same.

I see two types which you called litoral, a Dinaroid one and the Atlantid which is represented f.e. by Pierce Brosnan on the British Island and they have not too much Armenoid features - not much more than any other Mediterranean or Nordic type.

I think someone, maybe you or me has confused different terms.
I was surprised to see a Atlantid type called littoral but I accepted this description, but normally I wouldnt call Atlantid people with Armenoid/Dinaroid features.

No one else found it unusual that one Swiss guy was classified with a Berber, a couple thousand kilometers and a sea away, while another Swiss guy was classified with a Georgian, another couple thousand kilometers and some mountain ranges and a sea away? And, who knows, those Swiss guys could be brothers!

The broad geographical racial classifications have validity because 1.) distant common ancestors; 1.) little or no gene flow between populations; and 3.) different selective pressures due to radically different physical and cultural environments. These races form virtually discrete sets with little ambiguity.

These conditions do not hold well for subraces. Not that there aren't subraces, it's just that they are far more ambiguous than the broad racial categories. The older classifications rely too heavily on physical traits. Those two Swiss guys could easily fall within the variation of a single population. My own immediate family of 6 people - all "100%" Polish - can be classified into at least 3 different races.

For a racial classification system to work, it needs to correspond to the genetic evidence. Again, placing one Swiss guy with a Berber and another with a Georgian in non-sensical from that perspective. Just as placing an Irish guy with a Finnish guy also doesn't follow from genetic relationships.

"Irish guy with a Finnish guy also doesn't follow from genetic relationships."

Thats for sure, but I think he relied just on physical anthropology.
Then the Mediterranean group is correct in my opinion, and the Alpine group too.

Just to say that all groups which living in the North and are quite fair are more related to each other than f.e. the Nordic and the Atlantid type is something you can argue, but is not too reasonable.

I think there's some validity to these classifications, it's just that I think with modern genetics, there are better ways to classify subraces - one that doesn't rely heavily on physical traits.

These classifications are to some extent only physical types, not necessarily reflecting race in the sense of extended kinship.

Are the Swiss guy and the Georgian of similar physical type because they sprang from the same ancient population or is it just part of the normal variation within populations?

>> I think there's some validity to these classifications, it's just that I think with modern genetics, there are better ways to classify subraces - one that doesn't rely heavily on physical traits.

Race is both an esthetic and a genealogical phenomenon. Classifying race based on shared phenotype is no better or worse than doing it based on degrees of kinship.

"Classifying race based on shared phenotype is no better or worse than doing it based on degrees of kinship"

I disagree. Should Melanesians be classified with Africans? I think inherent in the definition of race IS kinship relationships. I understand prior to genetic analysis, classifying races based physical features and blood types were the only ways to do so, but I think given recent developments, a better job can now be done.

To say there is an esthetic element to race is undoubtedly true to some extent, but it does make it far too subjective and unscientific.

Just counting chemical substances without knowing for what they are for is not that much more objective too.

Features AND kinship are important, but features more.

I guess it is, as usual, a question of semantics. I define race as extended kinship – shared genes, rather than shared physical traits. I think this definition is more in keeping with the conventional definition.

I agree with this fellow Steve. Race is like an extended family, defined by kinship. One does not say that a total stranger is more a member of your family than is your own brother, just because this stranger may "look more like you." That's nonsense. True enough, on a global level, there is a _rough_ approximation between genetics and phenotype, but it is "rough." Phenotype is subjective. For someone to suggest that DNA is just "chemicals" is absurd. DNA is the building blocks of life. One may as well call the Earth 'a rock.'

"My own immediate family of 6 people - all "100%" Polish - can be
classified into at least 3 different races."

here Steve puts forth a huge weakness in the "phenotype is most important" school. How can members of the same family - all of the same ethnic group - be different races or even different subraces? This is the same family! Brothers and sisters with the same set of co-ethnic parents - different races? Nonsense!

Thanks for the support, Reinzi;-)

"different races? Nonsense!"

Phaenotypical subraces.

If you mix European Europids with Negrids than its possible to breed more or less one new race which is f.e. more European or more Subsaharan.

If you would breed long enough and you would have a person with all important European features, is it logical to say that a mixed person with more genetic kinship but with no good or real European features is more related than the breeded one?

Same for European subraces which AT LEAST EXISTED even if today the most are mixed.
They are just partly subjective and look at primary features.

All real Europeans are members of the main Europid subraces of Europe.
This and kinship is real important I see no conflict usually and no useful argument against the European subraces.
You can just define more accurat one or define new (f.e. genetic) features.

How would the "race as kinship" position deal with the following situation? Suppose that a white man has children with an East Asian woman. His children share a greater kinship with him than the average white person does. Hence, under the "race as kinship" model, his Eurasian children would belong to the same race as he.

Therefore, I think that kinship is an insufficient criterion for defining race.

Genetic kinship alone, especially if its just about junk-genes and genetic drift by chance.

We all know that some liberals argue that some junk genes are more important than features determining genes for kinship, and say the whole concept of race and ethnic kinship is wrong which is really idiotic.
Just think that even people which lived 1000's of years together and are of the same physical race could be divided sometimes with such arguments.

That can go in both ways...

Only the combination of features and genetic-kinship + cultural characteristics should be TOGETHER really important.

The distinction between appearance and genes is artificial. Appearance is determined by genes. One can cluster genetic variation based on either neutral markers which establish genealogical relationships or based on genes coding for visible traits which establish observable phenotypical relationships.

I thought it might be useful to try to clarify a few things here. If two people share similar physical traits, it is only supposed that those traits stem from some hypothetical ancient race. So if a Swiss man and a Georgian are both brachycephalic, does that mean that that trait stems from the same source and hence both the Swiss and the Georgian are of the same racial type? I would accept Chris and Dienekes’ reasoning if this were the case, even if there were greater genetic difference between them than between the two Swiss guys. However, I don’t think you can take a few traits, find a rough correlation between two people and conclude that they represent the same racial type.

Similarly, classifying an Iranian, a Yemeni Jew and a Libyan together lacks any geographical sense. So what if they have similarly shaped noses. How many different ways can a nose look? I’m not objecting to racial classification in general, just a couple instances where I think these particular classifications should be viewed skeptically.

Taking Biasutti’s claim as a hypothesis, let’s assume there was an alpine race formed like all races are formed by a small breeding population isolated for several centuries or even Millennia. Then there would need to be archeological evidence of such a population with a general location in time and place. Also, it would have left a genetic trail as the population expanded. If the genetic data indicates a date of expansion prior to the expansion showing in the archeological evidence, then the two guys cannot be of the same “racial” type. Though it’s perfectly all right to refer to them as belonging to the same “physical” type. Just semantics as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t think the evidence is conclusive. The main hyplotypes in Georgia are Eu9 and Eu11, each of which shows up about with about in about a quarter of the population sample in central northern Italy. So there is some genetic connection between the two areas. How far it goes back and how much it’s responsible for the shared characteristics is another question.

In general, though, there is the question of which type of classification is the most accurate requires defining race less ambiguously. I agree that the genetic evidence is equally ambiguous at this stage and should only trump the physical evidence when it’s pretty conclusive. In the meantime…

"each of which shows up about with about in about a quarter of the population sample in central northern Italy."

Sorry 'about' that.

"each of which shows up in about a quarter of the population sample in central northern Italy."

We must remember that neutral markers, like Y chromosome haplogroups, etc. can be used for genealogical inference, but don't tell us much about the distribution of racial traits. For example, brown Dravidians, semi-Mongoloid Kazaks, broad-faced Ukrainians and narrow-faced Englishmen can all have Y chromosome haplogroup R1a, yet obviously they are not racially similar. We may say that these populations share a common genetic component.

It should also be remembered that much of the observable racial variation in the world is very recent in origin and was shaped in the Mesolithic/Neolithic. For example, the very long faces, or very high skulls, or very flat Mongoloid faces are very rare in Palaeolithic humans. So, we should not interpret e.g., Y chromosome haplogroups as being "races" of Upper Paleolithic date. There were probably "races" in UP times, just as there are now, but these are only vaguely related to living races which acquired their typical traits later.

I will perhaps blog about the functional vs. genealogical conceptions of race at some time in the future.

“We must remember that neutral markers, like Y chromosome haplogroups, etc. can be used for genealogical inference, but don't tell us much about the distribution of racial traits.”

Granted, but the point I’m trying to get across is that if two populations have similar racial traits, but little or no genetic connection, then we shouldn’t think of them as belonging to the same race. It would be like categorizing Melanesians with Africans. Races require both common descent and shared physical characteristics.

“we should not interpret e.g., Y chromosome haplogroups as being "races" of Upper Paleolithic date.”

It is tempting, however, to view the Y chromosome haplogroups as stemming from UP "races" because they seem to be dispersed from a somewhat central location. For example, thinking of Eu18 as representing the Iberian refuge population, Eu19 the Ukrainian refuge, Eu7 the Balkan population, Eu4 an Eastern Mediterranean population, etc. And later populations or races being an amalgam of one or more of these earlier races, which then acquired a novel set of recognizable physical characteristics.

Races come and go and subraces seem to have a much shorter life span than broader racial categories, which are of shorter duration than species. Subraces are fuzzier sets than races, which means that more people cannot be accurately placed within a subrace, though there is no ambiguity as to which race they belong to.

enjoyed your sute

I would like to make an Inquiry of the sub races, noticing that there are no Iberian's in his description's of the Sub-Races of europids, or French for that matter. What would you put them under if any?
I also feel that in some ways his perceptions are arbitrary because they don't account for many of the mixtures of Sub-races within and outside of the europid group. Like the Moorish people, those who are half Berber and Half Arab located along the coast of North Africa. Or the fact that the many invasions of the Mongols into Europe, Persia, and India would of obviously mixed into those populations. Then even in Ethiopia and Southern Sudan many of the facial lines bear resemblence to Arab influence of Black influence.
I feel to an effect that race can't have a clear line drawn, but is more of a spectrum.