Post by asdf on Dec 21, 2005 12:49:07 GMT -5
First of all, when you butted into the conversation, the discussion centered on dna, not skull-shape. I know you wanted to intrude and sound smart. But by bringing up "skull-shape" you weren't adding anything germane to a discussion that was about "genetic population groups"--Italic, Alpine, Nordic, etc.
His racial character was at the topic the whole time.
"Italic" isn't a skull-shape, either--but it's a genetic, linguistic and cultural group . . . and that's what we were talking about. Whether Oetzi was from the Italic groups to the South or the Alpine groups to the North.
I·tal·ic (ĭ-tăl'ĭk, ī-tăl'-) pronunciation
adj.
1. Of or relating to ancient Italy or its peoples or cultures.
2. Of or relating to the branch of the Indo-European language family that includes Latin, Faliscan, Oscan, Umbrian, and the Romance languages.
3. italic Of or being a style of printing type patterned on a Renaissance script with the letters slanting to the right: This sentence is printed in italic type.
Ancient Italy did not exist then, nor did the Latins spread their languages throughout the Penninsula.
This is no attack: I just think a lot of your posts are ambiguous because your terminology is poorly chosen and unclear. You'll add '-ic' to something it doesn't belong to for no reason.
Again, you thought Iberia was "Atlantid". You chose that term because you thought it meant something other than it does.
No one brought up skull shape till you did--irrelevantly.
So drop the pompous know-it-all attitude, especially when you're bringing up subjects that weren't in discussion.
Skull-shape?
Come on!
So drop the pompous know-it-all attitude, especially when you're bringing up subjects that weren't in discussion.
Skull-shape?
Come on!
You said "Non-Nordic Alpine" type. Even in context, that's ambiguous... What's wrong with clarification?
No one was even talking about that until you did.
By the way, looking at other reconstructions of Oetzi, I'd say that his skull was Alpinid, too. Look at this picture of Oetzi (Before and After):
Compare his face to this photo of the "Alpine type" from an anthropology book:
The only difference between the two men is nasal type--and that was largely left to the guess-work of the artist. So Oetzi's nose probably wasn't so fleshy. In either case, he's clearly not Nordic and clearly not Mediterranean or Dinaric. He's "Alpinid".
I was discussing what evidence we have, not unreliable reconstructions like you already pointed out taken from awkward angles.
If you actually want to compare Oetzi with an Alpinid, here you are:
It's still difficult to see at this angle as well, but his CI and FI seem low and high respectfully, unlike the Alpinid skull.
Next time you want to butt in and look smart by attacking me, pick a better case.
I wasn't attacking you.
The reconstruction on the first page of this thread is what you were going by. But the reconstruction I posted was from a professor of forensics, not an "artist". So the second reconstruction (the one that is more Alpine) is probably the more accurate. So please refrain from your almost childish desire to attack people without thinking first. You come off as so dogmatic, irascible and--in this case, clownish.
No, it wasn't. His 3/4 view would look round if he were Alpinid.
Are these quotes what you consider attacks? Going by this standard--you know, asking people to qualify their statements--almost anything anyone ever says to you you must consider an attack, right?
What do your terms mean though? "Nordic"."Alpine" This is why suffixes are less confusing. "Nordics" and Germanic langauge AFAIK first appeared in Central Europe.
If you actually think Oetzi is Alpinid, please state your reasoning, as he's far, far from it.
If you actually think Oetzi is Alpinid, please state your reasoning, as he's far, far from it.
Alpinid is a specific racial specialisation named after the Alps... He is far from Alpinid.
Oetzi--like my wife's grandfather--would have been one of these: a non-Nordic Alpine type, with origins stretching back to the pre-Aryan age.
Drooperdoo, you're talking about the racial morphology of Oetzi. By your own logic, you should immediately remove yourself from this thread.
I expect all your posts deleted by tomorrow. Thanks.
The oldest Austrian type was brunet. The blondes came later.
The aborigines that the invaders found were typically Mediterranean in appearance: brown hair, brown eyes, short and furry-chested.
My Austrian wife's grandfather is of this older Austrian type. (He could pass for a Spaniard or Italian.) He's from the Tyrol region of Austria, which is where Oetzi's from.
So, since Oetzi is probably from the older stock, it's a safer guess to assume he was dark. (I'm sure his mummy yielded dark-brown hair, hence the brown hair on the reconstruction.) The question is whether he had fair eyes. I'd guess no--judging by my wife's grandfather.
But who knows? (Even the pre-Aryan paleolithic stock had low incidences of blue eyes.) It just wasn't as frequent as the blondism rates held by the invaders.
The aborigines that the invaders found were typically Mediterranean in appearance: brown hair, brown eyes, short and furry-chested.
My Austrian wife's grandfather is of this older Austrian type. (He could pass for a Spaniard or Italian.) He's from the Tyrol region of Austria, which is where Oetzi's from.
So, since Oetzi is probably from the older stock, it's a safer guess to assume he was dark. (I'm sure his mummy yielded dark-brown hair, hence the brown hair on the reconstruction.) The question is whether he had fair eyes. I'd guess no--judging by my wife's grandfather.
But who knows? (Even the pre-Aryan paleolithic stock had low incidences of blue eyes.) It just wasn't as frequent as the blondism rates held by the invaders.
Yeah, he's 0% Dinaric.
Here's a picture of the Austrian pop-singer Falco, who looks just like my wife's grandfather and uncle: He has the Alpine skull, brown eyes, dark-brown hair, paleolithic hairiness, etc.
Alpine skull? I take it you don't mean geography that time.
That's a quote from you on page 2. It's you brought up "Alpine skulls", in comparison to "Dinarics". Implying you meant Alpine as Alpinid. So why are you telling me I budded in? "Nordic", "Italic", and "Alpine" are not genetic terms.. There's nothing wrong with me trying to clarify what you've said, or correct erroneous statements such as that Falco had an Alpinid skull.
Falco:
I don't even know why I'm using new pictures. Your pictures of him at the beginning of this thread were as unsuitable examples of an "Alpine skull" as these. I didn't enter this thread trying to be right--just trying to clarify your ambiguous statements. This reminds me of Oslonor--constantly rambling about "Nordic skulls", but never clarifying what on earth that meant.