|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Sept 2, 2005 6:20:36 GMT -5
And India and Persia are mesocephalic, too, then, right? Riiiight.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Sept 2, 2005 8:40:18 GMT -5
Whats with ancient Egypt, Indus Valley, Aryans, Sumerians, Corded Ware people, the base of many Civilisations, Kurgan people etc. You will see, if you go back to the population which FOUNDED HIGHER CIVILISATION, you will find more often dolichocephalic-mesocephalic types than in later decadent times. However, I'm mesocephalic, tending more towards dolichocephaly myself, but broadheaded (154mm), the head is just quite long too...
|
|
|
Post by Evil Aryan on Sept 2, 2005 13:15:39 GMT -5
nockwasright, are you a standard-issue Boasian race egalitarian? Do you believe that brain size is correlated with IQ? +.33dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/02/big-brained-people-are-smarter.htmlDo you accept the fact that brain size is correlated with the cephalic index? +.37K.L. Beals. Current Anthropology 25, 301-30. (1984). Do you deny that no dolichocephalic race has ever created a civilisation? I hope these great civilizations would be enough to close your mouth: example#1: Minoan civilization was the oldest European civilization and had great influences on their successors,the Hellenes. But who were the Minoans? -"The Cretan skulls found at various sites on the island belong to a fairly uniform type; this is a small Mediterranean variety with a mean cranial index of about 72" (= HyperDolichocephalic)
Left: Three Minoan ladies from the Palace of Knossos; Right: A Minoan man from the Palace of Knossos. Both belong to the Mediterranean racial type. -"That this was a short-statured variety of Mediterranean race is shown by the long bones; local means vary from 156 to 162cm." -"The facial features of the Cretans, if one discounts the conventions of the artists, were purely Mediterranean; the straight, prominent nose, with its high root, the smooth profile of the forehead, and the lightness of the mandible are all clearly shown." -"Most of the Early Minoan skulls belong to the Mediterranean type just described, which shows a blending between the usual Neolithic variety and the convex-nosed type prevalent in the Near East." Source: dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/minoans/Example#2: Proto-Slavic culture: Slavic is close in many respects to the original form of Indo-Iranian, a fact which cannot fail to have cultural and geographical significance. -That from Poland, the eastern half of which was included in the home of the Slavic peoples before their period of dispersion, is not very abundant. Altogether less than 40 male crania may be assembled, and few of these have complete measurements.103 (See Appendix I, col. 46.) These skulls are all predominantly dolichocephalic; the mean cranial index is 73, and not a single round-headed example is included . Among these Polish skulls are some notably long and large specimens Nvith long. narrow faces. The noses of the ,group, as a whole, are fully leptorrhine. On the whole, the ancestral Slavs of Poland were Nordics, within the range of the Indo-European group; these skulls lean to the longer- and larger-headed Corded extreme, and resemble in many respects, the Hannover series, and by extension, the Anglo-Saxons. - The skulls of these invaders belong to a generalized Nordic form, with a cranial index of 75 to 76, and an intermediate vault height. The Ukrainian skulls from the eighth to the ninth centuries A.D. do not greatly diverge from this general standard, but the early Slavic crania from the Moscow region in Russia, dated from the eleventh to twelfth centuries A.D., are, in fact, almost purely dolichocephalic, with a mean cranial index of 73.5.
-The Slavs, like all the other Indo-European-speaking peoples whom we have been able to trace, were originally Nordic, and there is no suggestion in their early remains, in the regions studied, of the numerically predominant brachycephalic racial increments which today are considered typically Slavic -However, the Slavs who migrated to southern Hungary, like the Germanic Gepidae before them, mixed with a local short-statured, broad-faced, and broad-nosed brachycephalic people, who, antedating the historic arrival of the Magyars, were descended from the central Asiatic Avars when did the Slavs become Brachycephalic? Answer: -Most of the Slavs retained their original dolichocephalic cranial form until at the earliest the "thirteenth, and the latest the fifteenth, century". At that time, those who inhabited Russia and central Europe grew progressively brachycephalic, at a rapid but consistent rate. Well-documented series from Bohemia and the Moscow government show how this change progressed from century to century, so that normal means of 73 to 75 rose as high as 83 by the nineteenth. Source: www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-VI7.htm Exapmle#3: Proto-Indo-Europeans -"From the east, a foreign IE-speaking population intruded into Europe, soon to be diluted by genetically mixing with the natives, and totally assimilated before they, or rather their language and culture, reached Europe's western shores. However, it stands to reason that they were still genetically distinct when their entry began. That is why the start of the Kurgan culture was accompanied by a change in the racial composition of the population of South Russia in about 4500 BC:The Dniepr-Donets people are known to be massive Cro-Magnons, continuous from the Upper Palaeolithic; the Strednij Stog-2 men are described as more gracile, tall-statured, dolichocephalic with narrow faces . And again, Maria Gimbutas writes:The skeletal remains are dolichomesocranial, taller-statured and of a more gracile type than those of their predecessors in the substratum." -"It is fair to observe that the racial type described here as typical of the first Kurgan-making community, is similar to the tall, robust and long-headed type which you find in the Pashtu, Panjabi and Kashmiri populations of contemporary India and Pakistan, as also in the Harappan and pre-Harappan settlements." Sourse: www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch43.htm What's your opionions Mr.OVP about these facts? We will be waiting!
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Sept 2, 2005 15:17:31 GMT -5
The English civilisation is the most important and successful civilisation ever. No one disagrees?
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Sept 2, 2005 15:47:57 GMT -5
I certainly don't, considering they are the reason we're all speaking English on this board right now and not Spanish or French (two other great seagoing powers). It's very easy to forget that. English is an international language because the success of the English people is international.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Sept 2, 2005 19:13:26 GMT -5
... and, to complete what Mike says, the success was well deserved. It is at the same time the culture that works better and that has the best grounded moral foundations. Not everybody will agree on this, but its success anyway is undeniable. No culture ever reached such world wide influence.
To QVP: Englishmen , Swedes and Spaniards are dolichos, expecially their upper classes (please remember Scots and Welsh are NOT English, they are Scots and Welsh). Everybody who has been there knows that. It's up to you actually to prove otherwise. Studies on 79 people are really laughable, you should be ashamed to propose such rubbish. As for the other quotes you give, where do they come from? Plus, more on topic, you still have to answer to this: why living longer should be a favourable trait?
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 2, 2005 19:25:16 GMT -5
To QVP: Englishmen , Swedes and Spaniards are dolichos, expecially their upper classes (please remember Scots and Welsh are NOT English, they are Scots and Welsh). Did you pack your calipers when you visited England, Sweden and Spain? I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of Coon's data.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 2, 2005 19:27:38 GMT -5
I certainly don't, considering they are the reason we're all speaking English on this board right now and not Spanish or French (two other great seagoing powers). It's very easy to forget that. English is an international language because the success of the English people is international. We're speaking English on this board, not because of the success of the English people but because the founder of the forum happens to know American English. England has nothing to do with the success of the English language, whose success is due to global dominance of the United States, a country founded on the defeat of the English king.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 2, 2005 19:30:42 GMT -5
Example#2: Proto-Slavic culture: This hardly qualifies as "civilization". The Slavs were primitive before they came into contact with Christians. I do agree about the Minoans, however. The "Proto-Indo-Europeans" never created any civilizations. Civilizations were created in only a few Indo-European speaking lands by Greeks, Iranians, Indians, etc.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Sept 2, 2005 19:30:57 GMT -5
How many individuals did Coon measure?
The USA are a product of English culture and English people. An original product but nevertheless a product.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 2, 2005 19:34:29 GMT -5
Whats with ancient Egypt, Indus Valley, Aryans, Sumerians, Corded Ware people, the base of many Civilisations, Kurgan people etc. You will see, if you go back to the population which FOUNDED HIGHER CIVILISATION, you will find more often dolichocephalic-mesocephalic types than in later decadent times. However, I'm mesocephalic, tending more towards dolichocephaly myself, but broadheaded (154mm), the head is just quite long too... It is inaccurate to compare across different periods. At earlier times almost all human groups were on average dolichocephalic. Also, your idea of "decadence" sounds just like baloney Nazi primitivism, the glorification of Tacitus' Germans, etc. I'll have to agree with QVP here, that cultural progress in Europe was associated with brachycephalization. I do not, however, ascribe a causal role to this phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 2, 2005 19:40:07 GMT -5
How many individuals did Coon measure? The USA are a product of English culture and English people. An original product but nevertheless a product. Wrong, the USA are the product of Americans, initially English Americans, and later European Americans, and today Americans of many different backgrounds.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Sept 2, 2005 19:42:33 GMT -5
I certainly don't, considering they are the reason we're all speaking English on this board right now and not Spanish or French (two other great seagoing powers). It's very easy to forget that. English is an international language because the success of the English people is international. We're speaking English on this board, not because of the success of the English people but because the founder of the forum happens to know American English. England has nothing to do with the success of the English language, whose success is due to global dominance of the United States, a country founded on the defeat of the English king. I was going to post about the same thing as Dienekes, I speak English because of the success of the USA since ww2, its music and its movies, not because of the success of England. Probably Mike sees the USA as an offshoot of the English Civilization, so ultimately, in an indirect way, we would speak English because of England. Here till the end of ww2 educated people would learn French, English gradually replaced French by the 70´s, when french greek and latin stopped being taught.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 2, 2005 19:45:29 GMT -5
I was going to post about the same thing as Dienekes, I speak English because of the success of the USA since ww2, its music and its movies, not because of the success of England. Correct. Previously French dominated the world stage, and particularly the world of diplomacy. One has to read Dostoyevsky's novels, e.g., to see the dominant position of French in the 19th century, not to mention that English in itself is half French anyway. Moreover, German was as important as English in the world of science.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Sept 2, 2005 19:46:25 GMT -5
I certainly don't, considering they are the reason we're all speaking English on this board right now and not Spanish or French (two other great seagoing powers). It's very easy to forget that. English is an international language because the success of the English people is international. We're speaking English on this board, not because of the success of the English people but because the founder of the forum happens to know American English. England has nothing to do with the success of the English language, whose success is due to global dominance of the United States, a country founded on the defeat of the English king. You make a good enough case, but in my opinion, saying that American legacy has nothing to do with the English is a really narrow-minded way of looking at things, considering the American legacy is mostly the legacy of the English people, anyway. America was founded on Anglo-Saxon principles. It has adapted and assimilated other ideologies over the passage of time, yes, but the CORE is the same. A revolution against the English was inevitable for ideological and political reasons, not cultural or linguistic ones. Americans still spoke English, followed English customs, and I'm sure even spoke in English accents after the revolution. They were for a very long time, in essence, English people living on a different continent. I'm also sure one could draw analogies with other colonial powers throughout the ages, such as the Greek colonies. Even if the success of a particular Greek colony in say, Africa, had little to do with mainland Hellas, history attributes the glory to the source nonetheless. The colony is treated as an offshoot, even if it developed a distinctive culture of its own that set it apart. And so is it with the English. I'm not saying that Americans and English are one in the same or that they should be treated as such. What I am saying is that their particular traditions and language are rooted in British soil, just as the legacies of Syracuse and Alexandria were rooted in Greek soil. And the success of the English language is a victory for the English, whether it was to their due credit or not. I mean, no one can deny the dominance and power of the English language in our world today. If that's not a win for the English-speaking world, I don't know what is. Remember, I'm American. And I have few ties with Britain besides cultural ones. And it is these cultural ones that I recognize as part of my heritage (considering biologically I am of Greek and Teutonic parentage). So don't think I'm biased toward those snaggle-toothed, chimney-sweepin' limeys or anything. I just want to recognize the English legacy for what it is: a true gem. I have no agenda here. Just speakin' my mind. Feel free to disagree. I'm used to that. I'm American, remember?
|
|