|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 11, 2005 13:43:17 GMT -5
why have pontids and danubians been omitted from that chart? how similar are mtebids, gorids and carpathids to each other? "Danubian" is a term mostly used by Coon and not important for modern Europe. Mtebids are unreduced, tall Northern Armenoids, borderline Dinarid, partly even very hard to distinguish from classic Dinarid (Adriatid) variants. Gorid/Eastalpinids are a more gracile and high skulled Eastern Alpinid type, have there not too much relations with the robust boned, tall, planoccipital, prominent nosed Dinarids. Carpathids are in my opinion just the result of Dinarid-Gorid intermediates, though finally more on the Dinarid side me thinks and a local Dinaroalpinid variant. Would see too much Armenoid in them like Lundman did.
|
|
|
Post by $$$ FD $$$ on Dec 11, 2005 14:15:16 GMT -5
Agrippa you mean to say that the danubianesque types are numerically unimportant for transeuropa? and how would the pontids fit in within that chart?
|
|
|
Post by Glenlivet on Dec 11, 2005 14:33:06 GMT -5
I know. Lundman said Mtebid is from Georgian mtebi = mountain land. Likewise, Gorid is from Polish Gora = mountain. Does anyone know the etymology of "Mtebid"? I just think that's a weird word.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Dec 11, 2005 17:31:40 GMT -5
Thanks, Glen. I don't like using terms that I don't know the meaning/origin of.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 11, 2005 21:07:24 GMT -5
Agrippa you mean to say that the danubianesque types are numerically unimportant for transeuropa? Yes. Furthermore I simply dont use Coons terminology if not necessary. Pontids would be the Eastern equivalent to Atlantomediterranids-Atlantid intermediates and between Eastnordid and Levantine Eastmediterranids. Forresters graph showed it quite good.
|
|
Synthesis
Full Member
Hegelian Leftist
Posts: 156
|
Post by Synthesis on Dec 25, 2005 10:33:18 GMT -5
Dinarisation is an adaptation to higher areas, hilly, mountainous, plateaus and originally mostly a herder-warrior existence. The bigger nasal apparatus is mostly an adaptation to that environment as seems to be the head form though I dont know of any elaborated explanation in detail which would explain the functional advantage of a planoccipital headform, though I speculated about possible reasons in the "brachycephalisation thread". All other features of Dinarids can be explained from a functional point of view as it is true for almost all features and types. This individual was considered the "ultimate Dinaric" by Coon and he isn't planoccipital, he hasn't a really prominent nose and has a sloping forehead:
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Dec 25, 2005 10:35:22 GMT -5
Your image does not show. Show the text where it says he's an "ultimate Dinaric" or tell me which plate it is and what number so I can look it up.
|
|
Synthesis
Full Member
Hegelian Leftist
Posts: 156
|
Post by Synthesis on Dec 25, 2005 10:36:48 GMT -5
Now it works, i think.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Dec 25, 2005 10:38:03 GMT -5
It doesn't. Nor does your signature, nor do the plates in your Palaeo-Atlantid thread.
I will get you the plates and you can show me.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Dec 25, 2005 10:41:11 GMT -5
|
|
Synthesis
Full Member
Hegelian Leftist
Posts: 156
|
Post by Synthesis on Dec 25, 2005 10:45:46 GMT -5
It's strange. They work perfectly to me. Are you sure it is not a problem of your PC such as the firewall or similar?
However the "ultimate dinaric" is the number 5 in plate 39. The signature says "Merry Christmas to everyone!".
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Dec 25, 2005 10:50:17 GMT -5
It could easily be just me--but I can't access this site whatsoever: med1nuc11.dfc.unifi.it/But no problem now. Although what do you mean by number 5? They go up only to 4. Edit: Sorry about that, counted wrong.
|
|
Synthesis
Full Member
Hegelian Leftist
Posts: 156
|
Post by Synthesis on Dec 25, 2005 10:51:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Dec 25, 2005 10:58:45 GMT -5
Plate 39 EUROPEAN DINARICS: IV
FIG. 5. An extremely Dinaricized Zadrima Gheg; this individual may be considered an example of the ultimate in Dinaricization.
--- Eeech. You are correct. Wow. Figure 3 is far better an example.
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on Dec 25, 2005 15:21:09 GMT -5
yes Figure 3 is better check the proportions on #5
|
|