|
|
Post by luispaniard on Jul 12, 2005 12:14:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jul 12, 2005 12:18:17 GMT -5
Kahn is rather Bruenn/Dalofaelid though.
|
|
|
|
Post by kornelius on Jul 12, 2005 12:30:40 GMT -5
Kahn is rather Bruenn/Dalofaelid though. Agrippa, i've noticed that you use the term Dalofaelid not as Borreby+nordic blend (like Coon did). what is your definition to the term? is it Dalofaelid=Borreby=Brunn=Cromagnid? |
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 12, 2005 12:51:18 GMT -5
I think Agrippa believes the Phalian type is really just a relative of the Brunn and not the result of mixture between Borrebies and Nordics. I don't have an opinion on the subject, though I favor Coon over Eickstedt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jul 12, 2005 13:41:17 GMT -5
Coon described Bruenn as being unreduced "Upper Palaeolithics"/Cromagnids with the typical features = same is the usual description of Dalofaelids. Now if you mix Nordid with Borreby, you can get similar looking results, but usually not as typical and higher headed (Dalofaelids are lower headed usually).
Original Cromagnids were rather dolicho- to mesocephalic and thats true for typical Dalofaelids either - the Nordid-Borreby definition is obsolete and not the usual use of "Faelish", "Phalian", "Dalonord" etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by kornelius on Jul 12, 2005 14:08:00 GMT -5
so what is the difference between the Brunn and the Dalofaelid subrace according to your classification system? or there isn't differnce at all except for Brunn being in Ireland and Dalofaelid in northern Europe?
|
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jul 12, 2005 14:22:36 GMT -5
Dalofaelids is basically the same, thats not just my opinion but was seen that way by many anthropologists, I have such comparisons of the different designations for basically the same types. Dalofaelids have some variation, typical simple description is tall, light pigmented, broad face, dolicho-to mesocephalic, orthognathic-strong chin-jaw region.
|
|
|
|
Post by One Humanity on Jul 12, 2005 15:04:37 GMT -5
Kahn is rather Bruenn/Dalofaelid though. Agrippa, i've noticed that you use the term Dalofaelid not as Borreby+nordic blend (like Coon did). what is your definition to the term? is it Dalofaelid=Borreby=Brunn=Cromagnid? The Borreby is derived from Bruenn and not the other way. Coon didn't prove that Germany overwhelmingly derives from the Borreby (Upper Paleolithic brachycephalized type) since Germans vary too but he more or less just assumed a predominance of "Northern Alpinids" imho. In fact the brachycephalition of today is a result of a process that took place during the last centuries. I'm not sure whether really "older types came to surface again" as Coon claimed. It's mainly Alpinization in combination with features that were present before too, mainly the ruggedness Germans are known for. or there isn't differnce at all except for Brunn being in Ireland and Dalofaelid in northern Europe? It's only SNPA and McCulloch that use it synonymous with "Irish-looking" and they use plates of Coon that were labeled "Upper Paleolithic survivors in Ireland" identical with the term Bruenn. Coon also had a plate "Upper Paleolithic phenotypes in Morocco" and in it's description he states that many of those could be taken for Irishmen. Why didn't the SNPA use those for their "Irish UPs"? Bruenn is a city in today's Czech Republic, which isn't a Cromagnid stronghold anymore. The meaning of the term refers to cranial remnants that were found in Bruenn but a similar type also everywhere in Eurasia and Northern Africa during Upper Paleolithic times. Coon's purest Bruenn examples were Scandinavians. It isn't an exclusive Irish-derivative as the SNPA flubbed it. The SNPA"s examples of Phalian/Dalofaelid are just a load of pictures of allegedly German looking American actors and have no scientific affinity to the Cro-Magnons. If it would be a Borreby+Nordic mix it would be high-skulled with a vertical occiput, brachycephalic or even with a keeled vault. In reality it's platycephalic, with a curvy occipital chignon and dolichocephalic. img121.imageshack.us/img121/3527/abi2002paderborn9gb.jpgimg151.imageshack.us/img151/6638/klassenfotodortmund4uc.jpgCoon saw Bruenn in the whole of Western Germany, it's not that only that the other anthropologists saw it who named this type after Westphalia. The Benelux countries have the same type so it's true that it is rather found in the north-west of Europe.  Text: Brünn Survivors in Scandinaviadodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=physanth&action=display&thread=1120079901Low Cephalic Index + big head size can give a hint where Bruenns and Nordids with Cromagnid admixture can be found:   A comparison between Alpinid and Borreby I made (Borrebies are the cold-adapted variant and they already resemble the tall variant of Baltics, Allen's rule etc.): Depictions of the Cromagnon (first illustration);  dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=physanth&action=display&thread=1120079901 |
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 12, 2005 15:58:38 GMT -5
What type is dominant in northern Germany, then? Borreby or Phalian?
|
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jul 12, 2005 16:26:34 GMT -5
What type is dominant in northern Germany, then? Borreby or Phalian? Classic Nordid (Skandonordid) is dominant in most areas, but the proportion of Dalofaelids and robust (mostly Northern) Alpinoids/Borrebies is high too and after WW2 many refugees came from the Eastern provinces (incl. Dinarid, Westalpinid, Osteuropid etc.). The typical Northern German is a mixture of Skandonordid+Dalofaelid and Borreby/North Alpinoid with differences in certain areas. Just look at the pictures Gareth provided, they are representative for the original population without immigrants and lowest classes. |
|
|
|
Post by kornelius on Jul 13, 2005 6:20:37 GMT -5
thank you Agrippa and Gareth it was very helpful  |
|
