|
Post by Evil Aryan on Sept 3, 2005 7:22:29 GMT -5
According to this source,Brachycephaly may not be a normal feature: Brachycephaly is present since birth and is caused when the skull is formed incorrectly. Specifically, bones of the skull (known as coronal sutures) come together too early, which results in the head growing out too much to the sides. The coronal sutures connect the frontal (front) bone of the skull with the bone directly behind it (the parietal bone). The growth of the head to the sides is what gives it the short and broad appearance that it is characteristic of brachycephaly.And now read about the superior Brachycephalic peoples!: The Native Americans Indians, Burmese (people from Burma), and Malays (people from the Malay Peninsula), are races of people that are characterized with brachycephaly I think that these peoples never created a respectful civilization. Source: www.medfriendly.com/brachycephaly.htmlAlso by looking at these skulls,one could easily concluse that obviously the Caucasoid skull is more Long-headed,more narrow-faced in comparison to other races: Caucasoid: Negroid: www.theoryofuniverse.com/man/races/Image91.jpg[/img]Mongoloid:
|
|
Bryce
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bryce on Sept 3, 2005 10:04:14 GMT -5
To get back to the topic, here are questions to consider under the evolutionary and medical angle: Aren't today's high statures (that is when the average for adult men is 1.85 m, 1.90 + is frequent et 2 m + is becoming common) in some Western countries totally artificial? If these are the result of engineered foods, especially vitamin-saturated dairy products and cereals, notwithstanding a heavy daily absorption of vitamin tablets, is such a rise "normal" and is it really profitable regarding health? After having been very sought-after during the first part of their adulthood, how are men with two-meter high frames and 110-kg (and more) bulks going to approach middle-age then eld, in terms of fitness, for instance spine- and joint-condition? Do we have statistics about hip, knee, ankle, tarsal and metatarsal condition and ability to practice sports for elderly very tall people?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Aryan on Sept 3, 2005 13:58:43 GMT -5
There is an interesting thread in Dodona,describng the physical features of the Etruscans: dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=informative&action=display&thread=1122896191According to the author,Etruscans were : dolicocephalia or sub-dolicocephalia, height cranium, narrow face, and narrow nose (leptorrine). This is another example,showing wrongness of the QVP-Dieneks' claims about superiority of the so-called "Alpish" race and importance of the Brachycephaly! As you know,it was the Etruscans who helped the primitive Indo-European Romans to become progressive. I'm waiting for DP and QVP's responses!
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 3, 2005 14:57:34 GMT -5
As you know,it was the Etruscans who helped the primitive Indo-European Romans to become progressive. I'm waiting for DP and QVP's responses! "The cranial evidence from Etruscan tombs ... a mesocephalic mean for the cranial index covers the presence of pronounced long heads and round heads, with the two extremes, in this case, forming about equal proportions." "The Etruscans... resemble both the Cappadocian type found in the Hittite period at Alishar, and the planoccipital brachycephals which appeared in the Bronze Age cemetaries of Cyprus. By Roman times these two varieties had blended..." The Races of Europe, p. 154 "On the whole, the well-known sculptures of Caesar, Augustus, and others, although not reliable from the standpoint of accurate measurement, indicate that a mesocephalic to brachycephalic head form was admired" The Races of Europe, p. 194
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 3, 2005 15:02:25 GMT -5
According to this source,Brachycephaly may not be a normal feature: Where exactly do you get that it is not a "normal" feature? Both dolichocephaly and brachycephaly are part of normal human variation. Yeah, Native Americans like the Maya, Inca, Aztecs, etc. etc. did not create a civilization, right. Your "observations" notwithstanding, the cephalic index is not used to distinguish between the races. There are long-headed Mongoloids and broad-headed Caucasoids.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 3, 2005 15:10:29 GMT -5
You raise an interesting point. My recollection is that both extremely short and extremely tall people tend to be less healthy than a broad segment of more average people. In the case of very short people, they may have suffered some problems during development which did not help them reach their full height, whereas in very tall people there may be some hormonal imbalances. To get back to the topic, here are questions to consider under the evolutionary and medical angle: Aren't today's high statures (that is when the average for adult men is 1.85 m, 1.90 + is frequent et 2 m + is becoming common) in some Western countries totally artificial? If these are the result of engineered foods, especially vitamin-saturated dairy products and cereals, notwithstanding a heavy daily absorption of vitamin tablets, is such a rise "normal" and is it really profitable regarding health? After having been very sought-after during the first part of their adulthood, how are men with two-meter high frames and 110-kg (and more) bulks going to approach middle-age then eld, in terms of fitness, for instance spine- and joint-condition? Do we have statistics about hip, knee, ankle, tarsal and metatarsal condition and ability to practice sports for elderly very tall people?
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 3, 2005 15:14:48 GMT -5
-And now somthing to laugh at Alpines: (how ancient Greeks thout about their Alpine countrymen?) Villains, comical characters, satyrs, centaurs, giants, and all unpleasant people and those not to be admired, are often shown in sculpture and in vase painting as broad-faced, snub-nosed, and heavily bearded. Socrates, who belonged to this type, was maliciously compared to a satyr. This type may still be found its Greece, and is an ordinary Alpine.www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-V4.htmAs you see,in all the Greek (Hellenic) period,it were Dolichocephals that had a great rule in creation of the Greek civilization. There is no evidence that Greeks ever considered racial type to be important. Actually, very diverse morphological varieties were represented in Ancient Greece. And, actually the fact that Socrates was an Alpine kinda goes against your theory that "Dolichocephals that had a great rule in creation of the Greek civilization" doesn't it? Unless you don't consider Socrates to be an important world figure, that is. dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/greekmorphological/
|
|
|
Post by Evil Aryan on Sept 4, 2005 8:29:02 GMT -5
-And now somthing to laugh at Alpines: (how ancient Greeks thout about their Alpine countrymen?) Villains, comical characters, satyrs, centaurs, giants, and all unpleasant people and those not to be admired, are often shown in sculpture and in vase painting as broad-faced, snub-nosed, and heavily bearded. Socrates, who belonged to this type, was maliciously compared to a satyr. This type may still be found its Greece, and is an ordinary Alpine.www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-V4.htmAs you see,in all the Greek (Hellenic) period,it were Dolichocephals that had a great rule in creation of the Greek civilization. There is no evidence that Greeks ever considered racial type to be important. Actually, very diverse morphological varieties were represented in Ancient Greece. And, actually the fact that Socrates was an Alpine kinda goes against your theory that "Dolichocephals that had a great rule in creation of the Greek civilization" doesn't it? Unless you don't consider Socrates to be an important world figure, that is. dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/greekmorphological/Greek art is a definitive tool to see how they thought about various types.As you read,Coon believed that the ancient Greeks didn't consider the Alpine type as a perfect and favorable type. I didn't say that brachycephals didn't have ANY contribution in creation of the Hellenic civilization.I simply with Coon's essay,proved that Dolichocephaly was always more common in both pre-Hellenic and Hellenic times.This is the fact and I think that you would not reject it. As you know,QVP had claimed that the Dolichocephals never created a civilization and unfortunately you also support his theory.I only refuted his Alpish superiority theory.End of the story!
|
|
|
Post by Evil Aryan on Sept 4, 2005 8:35:27 GMT -5
About Native Americans and other peoples I had refered to whom,I didn't want to insult them.I simply showed that Brachycephaly doesn't equal being progressive.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Sept 4, 2005 8:36:35 GMT -5
No single healthy and normal feature can be that important. Furthermore I discussed about tendencies in racial types and populations, single individuals prove not too much neither for this or that side. However, the broadskulled brachycephalecy is correlated with physical degeneration if we speaking about a versatile ideal. To put it in simple words: Alpinisation is like a trend towards frugal compact cars in times of poverty and not enough oil, they are not as versatile and efficient, but simply cheaper so that they can survive situation in which mainly hunger, plagues and oppression (compliant and less risk taking behaviour favoured) - small thinking and family orientation without higher aspirations are advantageous.
The same is not true for the Dinaroid brachycephalisation which produced in fact an ALMOST too mature-masculine European variant, a strong and active type though sometimes to rude, quite the opposite of Alpinisation which means infantilisation and reduction though both are brachycephalic.
Etruscans are a complex mixture, from what I read mostly Mediterranid with Armenid, Dinarid, Nordid and Alpinid admixture.
The difference between progressive physical features and degeneration can be even explained inside the wider Armenoid spectrum if comparing Caucasian Mtebids (Kaukasids in German) with the Southern Armenid, Assyrid type, especially the urban variant. Social intelligence seem to be higher in the later, as rather asocial behaviour and physical weakness, a tendency towards extreme Asthenic and Pyknic constitution (weaker healthy middle), whereas the herder and farmer-warrior type of the Mtebids has no real signs of physical degneneration nor the exaggerated character.
Brachycephalecy is in general the result of self-domestication in various steps. If a drastic and fast change occurs, the fasted possible way of reduction is infantilisation as visible in African Pygmies. The poor farmer life of inner Europe furthered such a tendency and only group selection prevented the worst - for a long time the frugal types had no real chance, but in stable farmer groups with constant overpopulation, plagues, hunger, negative results of risky and intelligent behaviour (which meant soon less children if thinking economically, especially for the elite in the city) etc.
The extremely gracile Mediterranid type is just a finer and more balanced reduced type of another background, but show partly a similar pattern though never as extreme as in really infantile types.
Because thats just a trend you can see everything from fully Cromagnoid, brachycephalised Cromagnoid, partly reduced, fully reduced, infantilised etc. oftentimes in one and the same basically AlpinOid population...
|
|
|
Post by Evil Aryan on Sept 4, 2005 9:12:52 GMT -5
No single healthy and normal feature can be that important. Furthermore I discussed about tendencies in racial types and populations, single individuals prove not too much neither for this or that side. However, the broadskulled brachycephalecy is correlated with physical degeneration if we speaking about a versatile ideal. To put it in simple words: Alpinisation is like a trend towards frugal compact cars in times of poverty and not enough oil, they are not as versatile and efficient, but simply cheaper so that they can survive situation in which mainly hunger, plagues and oppression (compliant and less risk taking behaviour favoured) - small thinking and family orientation without higher aspirations are advantageous. The same is not true for the Dinaroid brachycephalisation which produced in fact an ALMOST too mature-masculine European variant, a strong and active type though sometimes to rude, quite the opposite of Alpinisation which means infantilisation and reduction though both are brachycephalic. Etruscans are a complex mixture, from what I read mostly Mediterranid with Armenid, Dinarid, Nordid and Alpinid admixture. The difference between progressive physical features and degeneration can be even explained inside the wider Armenoid spectrum if comparing Caucasian Mtebids (Kaukasids in German) with the Southern Armenid, Assyrid type, especially the urban variant. Social intelligence seem to be higher in the later, as rather asocial behaviour and physical weakness, a tendency towards extreme Asthenic and Pyknic constitution (weaker healthy middle), whereas the herder and farmer-warrior type of the Mtebids has no real signs of physical degneneration nor the exaggerated character. Brachycephalecy is in general the result of self-domestication in various steps. If a drastic and fast change occurs, the fasted possible way of reduction is infantilisation as visible in African Pygmies. The poor farmer life of inner Europe furthered such a tendency and only group selection prevented the worst - for a long time the frugal types had no real chance, but in stable farmer groups with constant overpopulation, plagues, hunger, negative results of risky and intelligent behaviour (which meant soon less children if thinking economically, especially for the elite in the city) etc. The extremely gracile Mediterranid type is just a finer and more balanced reduced type of another background, but show partly a similar pattern though never as extreme as in really infantile types. Because thats just a trend you can see everything from fully Cromagnoid, brachycephalised Cromagnoid, partly reduced, fully reduced, infantilised etc. oftentimes in one and the same basically AlpinOid population... very usefull.I'm not as informative as you are,but I do have a right as a reader to see how QVP would response!
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 4, 2005 9:13:02 GMT -5
Agrippa's posts need not be taken very seriously, since they largely represent outdated pre-WWII German rassenkunde + a romantic idealization of "progressive laptosomic athletic dolichocephalic" types.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 4, 2005 9:18:29 GMT -5
As you know,QVP had claimed that the Dolichocephals never created a civilization and unfortunately you also support his theory.I only refuted his Alpish superiority theory.End of the story! I never agreed with anything, especially with an "Alpish superiority theory". The only thing that I will agree with, is that certainly there has been a long-term tendency towards brachycephalization in our species, so brachycephaly must confer at least some advantage in terms of genetic fitness averaged over long periods of time.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 4, 2005 9:21:57 GMT -5
I didn't say that brachycephals didn't have ANY contribution in creation of the Hellenic civilization.I simply with Coon's essay,proved that Dolichocephaly was always more common in both pre-Hellenic and Hellenic times.This is the fact and I think that you would not reject it. Incorrect, Classical Greeks were mesocephalic on the average, and modern Greeks are sub-brachycephalic. There were both brachycephalic and dolichocephalic Greeks from the earliest times until the present.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Aryan on Sept 4, 2005 10:25:31 GMT -5
But Coon had said somthing difrent Dienekes!
|
|