Australoid
http://www.thephora.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1187&stc=1

Negroid
http://www.thephora.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1188&stc=1

Mongoloid
http://www.thephora.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1189&stc=1

European Female
http://www.thephora.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1190&stc=1

Craniums of Neanderthal and modern man
http://www.thephora.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1191&stc=1

Neanderthal
http://www.thephora.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1192&stc=1

Skulls are a relatively poor way of looking at evolutionary progress. Negroe youngsters for instance, have larger heads than whites at that age, yet have inferior intelligence-this is a heat adaption, IMO, yet many might conclude on the basis of skulls alone that negroes are the next step, yet their lineage is the oldest of all races, australoids included, despite what appearances may suggest.

Skulls are a relatively poor way of looking at evolutionary progress. Negroe youngsters for instance, have larger heads than whites at that age, yet have inferior intelligence-this is a heat adaption, IMO, yet many might conclude on the basis of skulls alone that negroes are the next step, yet their lineage is the oldest of all races, australoids included, despite what appearances may suggest.


Where are you getting this from? I would think the opposite. Australoids are probably about 40,000 years old. Same as Upper Paleolithic Europeans. Nordic, Mediterraneans and Negroes are about 10,000 years old.

Where are you getting this from?

I subscibe to out-of-africa, which evidence from the HGP supports.

I would think the opposite. Australoids are probably about 40,000 years old. Same as Upper Paleolithic Europeans. Nordic, Mediterraneans and Negroes are about 10,000 years old.

I've never seen anything claiming this. Is this based upon craniometry? I trust genetics, myself.

How old are the asians?

I subscibe to out-of-africa, which evidence from the HGP supports.

I think there is major piece about genetics that is still unknown. I doubt the out of Africa view.

I've never seen anything claiming this. Is this based upon craniometry? I trust genetics, myself.

It's based on the skulls and other bones that have been found and their date. I think the regional theory is more likely even though genetics doesn't support it. Again, I think our understanding of genetics is missing something.

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=91

How old are the asians?

I'm not really sure.

What exactly are UP europeans? The tall doliocephalics? Are the bald non-UP? Baldness is more common in the south.

As for the aboriginies, I have a suspicion that once, they looked more like us than what they have mutated into. It's quite sad, actually

What exactly are UP europeans? The tall doliocephalics? Are the bald non-UP? Baldness is more common in the south.


They are tall, big-headed, big-boned, muscular. Brunn have longer heads, Borreby shorter heads.

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/rg-brunn.htm
http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/rg-borreby.html

THE UPPER PALEOLITHICS AND THEIR CULTURE

Between 40,000 to 29,000 BC was a time of racial and cultural change. Neanderthals were replaced by Upper Paleolithic people similar to modern Europeans. The Neanderthal's Mousterian flake culture was succeeded by a blade culture that endured up to about 8,000BC. Similar, but not identical, blade cultures have been found in Siberia, northern Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine.

Coon believed that the Upper Paleolithic culture and racial type were imported into Europe and could only have come from the East, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and possibly western Iran.

THE RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF UPPER PALEOLITHIC EUROPEANS

The UP that lived 30,000 to 10,000 years ago were modern Caucasoids in appearance. The men were not notably tall. The mean stature was 5' 8" with the tallest being 5' 11" and the shortest 5' 3." The mean stature of women was 5" 1." Not only were the females shorter, their skulls were smaller as well. The male cranial capacity was 1,580cc, the females 1,370cc -- about the size of Swanscombe.

The long bones are slender and a lean body build is indicated. The skulls are very long and moderately broad and have a high brain case. The face is moderate to great length and considerable breadth. The bizygomatic diameter (width from cheek to cheek) exceeds the cranial breadth. This is not the case for Neanderthals or even for most modern Europeans.

There is little UP remains in western Asia mainly because it hasn't been looked for. There have been 3 skeletons from Iran and a few bones from Palestine. The Iranian ones look like western Europeans. The ones from Palestine are ancestral Mediterraneans.

I'm tempted to think baldness is related to UPs.

Those heights seem quite tall when you consider the probably poor diet. On a modern diet...

They are tall, big-headed, big-boned, muscular. Brunn have longer heads, Borreby shorter heads.

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/rg-brunn.htm
http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/rg-borreby.html

THE UPPER PALEOLITHICS AND THEIR CULTURE

Between 40,000 to 29,000 BC was a time of racial and cultural change. Neanderthals were replaced by Upper Paleolithic people similar to modern Europeans. The Neanderthal's Mousterian flake culture was succeeded by a blade culture that endured up to about 8,000BC. Similar, but not identical, blade cultures have been found in Siberia, northern Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine.

Coon believed that the Upper Paleolithic culture and racial type were imported into Europe and could only have come from the East, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and possibly western Iran.

THE RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF UPPER PALEOLITHIC EUROPEANS

The UP that lived 30,000 to 10,000 years ago were modern Caucasoids in appearance. The men were not notably tall. The mean stature was 5' 8" with the tallest being 5' 11" and the shortest 5' 3." The mean stature of women was 5" 1." Not only were the females shorter, their skulls were smaller as well. The male cranial capacity was 1,580cc, the females 1,370cc -- about the size of Swanscombe.

The long bones are slender and a lean body build is indicated. The skulls are very long and moderately broad and have a high brain case. The face is moderate to great length and considerable breadth. The bizygomatic diameter (width from cheek to cheek) exceeds the cranial breadth. This is not the case for Neanderthals or even for most modern Europeans.

There is little UP remains in western Asia mainly because it hasn't been looked for. There have been 3 skeletons from Iran and a few bones from Palestine. The Iranian ones look like western Europeans. The ones from Palestine are ancestral Mediterraneans.

I'm tempted to think baldness is related to UPs.


IMO, the idea that "upper paleolithic" Europeans constitute a prevalent and distinct bloc is overstated.

One would think that if they diverged so early from the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans, their DNA would clearly present itself on genetic tests that are able to distinguish from the "Nordic" and "Mediterranean" branches of Indo-Europeans. A possible explanation is that they are descendants from a group that converged with Indo-Europeans early on, and whose physical traits re-assert themselves in Indo-European populations (somewhat like when a large dog and a small dog breed and produce large dogs and small dogs rather than medium-sized dogs). In the opposite vein, they could be the last descendants of the Neanderthal-- or, this could apply only to specific groups such as the Basques.

What exactly are UP europeans? The tall doliocephalics? Are the bald non-UP? Baldness is more common in the south.

It is fairly evenly distributed-- the "UP"-theorists even separate "subtypes" based on pigmentation, calling bald, round-headed Italians "Alpines" and bald, round-headed Germans "Borrebys". This, of course, goes along with my speculation that they display phenotypic characteristics of a group that merged with Indo-Europeans rather than constituting a group in themselves.

IMO, the idea that "upper paleolithic" Europeans constitute a prevalent and distinct bloc is overstated.

One would think that if they diverged so early from the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans, their DNA would clearly present itself on genetic tests that are able to distinguish from the "Nordic" and "Mediterranean" branches of Indo-Europeans. A possible explanation is that they are descendants from a group that converged with Indo-Europeans early on, and whose physical traits re-assert themselves in Indo-European populations (somewhat like when a large dog and a small dog breed and produce large dogs and small dogs rather than medium-sized dogs). In the opposite vein, they could be the last descendants of the Neanderthal-- or, this could apply only to specific groups such as the Basques.


So you think UPs and the IEs have different ancestral sources? What are they?

So you think UPs and the IEs have different ancestral sources? What are they?

At this point, I'm just speculating. All of the legitimate information we have on this subject is way outdated, IMO (many of Coon's assertions, for example, have since been proven wrong or only partially true). Of course, research is no longer being conducted on so intricate a subject-- as "Race Doesn't Exist."

However, it does appear that what information we have regarding "UPs vs. IEs" is insubstantial-- even if it doesn't present a wrong picture, it likely doesn't present the whole picture, either.