Question about progressive dalichocepchalic people

[Sarmata]

Well once I was read that dolichocepchalic and dolichocranial people(including Nordids and Meds) are progressive and especially this feature is evidence of progressivity...But personally I have observed that some negroidal, very primitive people are also often dolichocepchalic:

http://i40.tinypic.com/hwwdjn.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/v4ys91.jpg

More over ancient Europeans like Corded ware people are also dolichocepchalic so question is is it progressive or maybe archaic feature?

[Psychonaut]

There are more than a few non-European types that are generally considered progressive. The Negroes you posted are almost certainly Ethiopians, who are the most progressive of all Negroes. Progressive types are also quite common in Northern China, Korea and Japan. Also, in regards to the Corded types, they may seem old to us, but in the scheme of human evolution dolichocephaly is rather new.

[stormlord]

Well once I was read that dolichocepchalic and dolichocranial people(including Nordids and Meds) are progressive and especially this feature is evidence of progressivity...But personally I have observed that some negroidal, very primitive people are also often dolichocepchalic:

http://i40.tinypic.com/hwwdjn.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/v4ys91.jpg

More over ancient Europeans like Corded ware people are also dolichocepchalic so question is is it progressive or maybe archaic feature?

You do understand that "progressive" doesn't really mean "more evolved" or superior right? It's really just shorthand for certain characteristics.

[Loki]

Sub-Saharan Africans are most typically dolichocephalic from what I know. I think the European context is something entirely different, and this characteristic can not generally be seen as "progressive". What does "progressive" mean anyway, unless you adhere to some sort of racial superiority hierarchy theory?

Brachycephaly is more commonly attributed to higher intelligence.

[Allenson]

This is more Agrippa's department, really. ;)

What I think he means by "progressive" isn't so much a matter of dolicranials being more advanced or evolved with relation to peoples of other head forms. But instead, dolicranials have "progressed" away from the neotonic stage in individual human development. I believe that he dosn't refer to populations as progressive but only individuals. Infants are typically very round headed (& low nasal bridge amongst other paedomorphic traits)--regardless of their individual head form once they reach physical maturity.

So, "progressive" individuals have changed more since infancy that have brachycranials.

I should state that this is not me talking per say, but just paraphrasing another. ;)

[Sarmata]

There are more than a few non-European types that are generally considered progressive. The Negroes you posted are almost certainly Ethiopians, who are the most progressive of all Negroes. Progressive types are also quite common in Northern China, Korea and Japan. Also, in regards to the Corded types, they may seem old to us, but in the scheme of human evolution dolichocephaly is rather new.


They are Masais primitive nomads from Kenya and northern Tanzania, not supposed partelly semites from Ethiopia;)

[Sarmata]

This is more Agrippa's department, really. ;)

What I think he means by "progressive" isn't so much a matter of dolicranials being more advanced or evolved with relation to peoples of other head forms. But instead, dolicranials have "progressed" away from the neotonic stage in individual human development. I believe that he dosn't refer to populations as progressive but only individuals. Infants are typically very round headed (& low nasal bridge amongst other paedomorphic traits)--regardless of their individual head form once they reach physical maturity.

So, "progressive" individuals have changed more since infancy that have brachycranials.

I should state that this is not me talking per say, but just paraphrasing another. ;)

I have seen dolichocranial children many times...
Well many brachycranial and brachycefalic Alpinids looks infantile in fact, but did you seen paedomorpchic Dinarid?;)

[SuuT]

You do understand that "progressive" doesn't really mean "more evolved" or superior right?

'Progressive' is short-hand for "Hominisation"; or, towards Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and further away from (other) primate morphology/physio-typology. So, it actually is indicative of more or less evolved (in so far as some phenotypes plainly possess a more 'simian' visage than others).

It's a complex thesis, and an easy one to get confused especially if not taking other selective pressures (etc., etc., etc.,) into contextual account.


To illustrate, the dolichcephalic Negrids posted are not, ipso facto, "more evolved" than, say, a brachycephalic Alpinid from Hungary.

And yes, Agrippa should take it from here because, in my opinion, the holes in the theory are too big to step or even leap over.

[Loki]

And yes, Agrippa should take it from here because, in my opinion, the holes in the theory are too big to step or even leap over.

Too many holes imo. Compare longheaded Africans with broadheaded Mongoloids. Clearly the Mongoloids are of higher intelligence. But is intelligence an indication of progressiveness? Maybe Africans are the most progressive for all we know. :wink

[stormlord]

'Progressive' is short-hand for "Hominisation"; or, towards Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and further away from (other) primate morphology/physio-typology. So, it actually is indicative of more or less evolved (in so far as some phenotypes plainly possess a more 'simian' visage than others).

It's a complex thesis, and an easy one to get confused especially if not taking other selective pressures (etc., etc., etc.,) into contextual account.


To illustrate, the dolichcephalic Negrids posted are not, ipso facto, "more evolved" than, say, a brachycephalic Alpinid from Hungary.

And yes, Agrippa should take it from here because, in my opinion, the holes in the theory are too big to step or even leap over.

I know that's what it's taken to mean, but yes, what I mean is objectively people with a rudimentary knowledge of biology (a real science) would never say that something is "more evolved" except when referring to the passage of time (i.e humans are more evolved than they were a million years ago) there is no such thing as "more evolved" with regard to currently extant species though; we are no more evolved than a squirrel, because our common ancestor came into being at the same point in time, and both species have been evolving for the same amount of time. Still, given how riven this entire field is with inaccuracies I guess I'm just being picky.

[Vulpix]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=225&postcount=1

[SuuT]

I know that's what it's taken to mean, but yes, what I mean is objectively people with a rudimentary knowledge of biology (a real science) would never say that something is "more evolved" except when referring to the passage of time (i.e humans are more evolved than they were a million years ago) there is no such thing as "more evolved" with regard to currently extant species though; we are no more evolved than a squirrel, because our common ancestor came into being at the same point in time, and both species have been evolving for the same amount of time. Still, given how riven this entire field is with inaccuracies I guess I'm just being picky.


Well, I'm glad you and I are on the same page:D. You point out nicely why - at the very least - the verbiage/nomenclature utilised in the thesis is worthy of a head scratch (to say the least...).

For example, let's take the word "Progressive", from O.Fr. progres, from L. progressus - implying a sense of growth, development, and advancement to higher stages.

And the skewed use of the terminological neologism "Hominisation": Homo, from L. meaning Man/Human; and the suffix "-isation", from L., again, implying a progressus: which intimates not only a goal or end to Human development, but implicates a begining which (as we know) in Science, has yet to be determined in a definitive and final way.


And, of course, the whole thing smacks of Racism (which I don't particularly have a problem with), and opens-up a divisive intra-Europid "can-of-worms" (which I also do not necessarily have a problem with). I do, however, have a problem with explicative chasms and arroyo that, when challenged, are avoided or brushed-off as inapplicable or as a mis-understanding.


I suppose I'm just a sucker for consistency when someone (anyone!) claims hold of a thesis that they wish to call, or at the very least imply to be, "Scientific".

In short, the whole "Progressive" issue is - and quite provably so - conjecture, however interesting it may be.

[Allenson]

I have seen dolichocranial children many times...

Again, it's not my theory and I don't particularly subscribe to it. :cool:


Well many brachycranial and brachycefalic Alpinids looks infantile in fact, but did you seen paedomorpchic Dinarid?;)

LOL. :p

Indeed on both the Dinarids & Alpinids--me thinks that facial length/index has as much to do with paedomorphism as does head form. In other words, the long face of the Dinarid supercedes its truncated head with regard to neotony.

[polaciones]

I have to say that neanderthals, cro-magnons, palaeatlantids, and all the past humans, were hyper dolichocephalic.