Talk:Dinaric race

serious?

Is this serious? just wondering --AN 19:42 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

There is indeed a "Dinaric" type in physical anthropology. Actually, Dinaric types are found throughout the world, but are common in the West Balkans. I am not sure if Slobodan Milosevic is the best example, as he is rather short and stocky he would be more of an "Alpine".

Anyway, this classification is serious (or at least was serious until the 1960's), though of course, most scientists have moved away from these sorts of physical catagories, and now focus on genetic differences among populations.

Other such categorizations include "Nordic", "Alpine", "Mediterranean", and so on. I am sure a lot of people find these highly questionable.

It has to be taken into consideration that a HUGE proportion of the world's population is racially mixed to some extent or another, and to say the least that complicates any attempts at classification. Gringo300 10:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You should add that modern Dinarics are the tallest people in the world:

Pineau JC,Delamarche P,Bozinovic S.[Average height of adolescents in the Dinaric Alps] "This study contributes to an update of average heights among European populations. Our investigation covering 2705 boys and 2842 girls aged 17 years, shows that, contrary to the general belief, adolescents of the Dinaric Alps are, on average, the tallest in Europe. With an average height of 185,6 cm, they are taller than Dutch adolescents (184 cm on average). Above all, the density of very tall subjects appears to be characteristic of the Dinaric Alps, since 28% measure 190 cm or more in height, as opposed to only 20% in Holland and 1.5% in France. Although our information is not complete, adolescent girls in the Dinaric Alps, with an average height of 171 cm come a close second to girls in Holland."

Areas

The article mentioned Northern Italy being a Dinaric area. Could the southern regions of Switzerland also be considered as such? And what about Croatia?

Italian speaking area of Switzerland are also Dinaric, with some other strains.Croatia is not particulary Dinaric since Dalmatia is mostly Atlantid while the Zagreb centered area of Zagorje is mostly Alpine with some Nordic and Dinaric strains.Alpines are also the main population of Croatia's Slavonia region.

Are the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary also Dinaric areas?

Came across this information from http://med1nuc11.dfc.unifi.it/linnets/troe/texts/p36.htm:

Although the Czechs themselves are predominantly Alpine, the Moravians and Slovaks are frequently Dinaric.

As for the Hungarians, haven’t found anything yet.

softeners

It seems that "We are all the same" crowd took over the article, with the usual softeners and euphemisms and other PC jargon acrobations.As long as we all pay cash, we are all equal, right?A head,two arms, two legs, five fingers each and you are good at everything like everybody else.......

I'm not sure what an "acrobation" is, but I don't see any PC jargon here. As far as I am aware the concept of a "Dinaric race" is not used in modern anthropology. However, if you have examples of mainstream professional modern usage, add them. The main criticism of the concept that's included here comes from the notoriously PC Carelton Coon! Paul B 11:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbia, or Montenegro?

According to the Dinaric model, Dinarics are to be found today in the mountainous areas of the western Balkans (Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, most of northwestern Bulgaria, northwestern Republic of Macedonia and northern Albania).

Between Serbia and Montenegro, would it be safe to say that mountainous Montenegro is the more Dinaric of the two? I’m asking because we may soon have to replace Serbia and Montenegro with simply Montenegro once the latter officially declares independence, and because Serbia from what I know is mostly plains, except for Kosovo.

I see that Serbia and Montenegro in that quoted passage was split into Serbia and Montenegro. However, given that Serbia is relatively flat (and the passage states that Dinarics are found mostly in the “the mountainous areas of the western Balkans”), do we still need to include it in the enumeration, or should we remove it?

Well it's difficult to say. Deniker's orginal map seems to exclude most of Serbia, but Serbia is left white, and thus not allocated to any labelled "race" at all, as you can see (click image to enlarge). Paul B 10:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Serbians living in the political entity 'Republic of Serbia' are predominantly Dinaric, although to a certain extents they represent the southeastern periphery of the Dinaric race, and also place of settlement of many Serbs from Montenegro and other more uniformly Dinaric areas.Günther's, Coon's, maps and studies of that particular area seem to suggest that at least the single most prevalent type among these Eastern Serbs is that of Dinaric race, with several other Caucasoid variants also present in the population.

Off topic, it is a pity for the science that these categorizations have been abandoned for the several last decades, when it is obvious that even a layman may easily categorize various Caucasoid variants at a glance, after studing several classic books on the subject. A tour over Europe would quickly confront any skeptic with the fact that these categories ,indeed, do exist, both as pockets of populations, in transitional zones, and as more compact, simmilar stocks over wider areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.159.210 (talk • contribs)

The "Dinaric race"-concept can be really valid, when viewed genetically. Dinarics are the "cleanest" descendants of paleolithic hunters of the gravettian culture, who found a refuge around the Adriatic Sea in the end of the last ice age. This is obvious from the fact that the area with the most dense presence of the "Dinaric race" has the highest percentage of Y-haplogroup I. But don't worry, the old concepts will be revived again, after the social utopias created by Pc egalitarians crash everywhere in the world.Centrum99 09:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Centrum99 09:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources? Direct copy?

There are no sources other than a Franz Boas reference at the end, but the 3rd and 4th and last paragraph all sound as if they come directly from a textbook. Should these sections be in block quotes? Where is this outdated material coming from, anyway?--Parkwells (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is quite clear about the sources for the idea - originally Deniker and then Günther, Coon and the other usual-suspects among mid-20th century anthropologists, including text books such as Meyers Blitz-Lexikon. Coon wrote about "dinarics" repeatedly in the Races of Europe and numerous essays ("Occipital flattening among the Dinarics") etc. I don't know if the passage in the middle is a quotation or not. I did try to find out if it was a while ago, but couldn't find a source. Paul B (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that some of those paragraphs sounded like direct quotes from an early 20th c. encyclopedia or textbook. I think the article needs to be supplemented with at least a paragraph or more about how this approach was discredited, or why contemporary anthropologists don't use it - what was the criticism or new information.--Parkwells (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I knew what you meant. That's why I said "I don't know if the passage in the middle is a quotation or not. I did try to find out if it was a while ago, but couldn't find a source." It sounded cut-n-pasteish to me too, but I could find no evidence that it was. Maybe I just didn't look hard enough. I don't think the idea was ever discredited as such. It just came to be seen as largely useless. Even Coon eventually uses the term simply to mean nothing more than a local "type". It wasn't killed off so much as died out. Paul B (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am Shocked by the use of the word race since genetic proved that their is but one Human race, and therefore I propose that all race word should be changed by ethny...

any comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.254.206 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's called a race, like it or not. Paul B (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Really no genetic basis?

"The Dinaric race (or Adriatic race or Epirotic race) is one of the sub-categories of the Europid (White; Caucasian) race into which it was divided by physical anthropologists in the early 20th century. Such racial typologies have been increasingly criticized for several reasons, especially since the rise of molecular anthropology."

A funny statement, really, considering that genetics clearly showed that Dinaric highlanders are predominantly Slavicized Paleolithic autochthons, former bearers of the Gravettian culture. Centrum99 (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bully for them. Does being "Slavicized Paleolithic autochthons" makes them a race? I thought almost all Europeans are "Paleolithic autochthons". The French are Latinized Paleolithic autochthons. The British are Anglicized Paleolithic autochthons.... Paul B (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Dinarics are not a race, but an easily defined anthropological type. Centrum99 (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)