What's More Important for Classification? Face or Head?
What's more important for classification?
It seems Guenther favors head dimentions...
Perhaps, that's because average Scandinavian FI is 86 - 89?
http://www4.stormfront.org/whitehistory/mapspart2.htm
It seems that the Eastern border of this zone (86-89) shows where the real East-Baltic influence begins...
The map is not precise thou - you shall move the border 200 km (to 40')' to the East.
I have doubts about how accurate FIs really are. My first question is who took this data, and when? My second question is can you have a long head with a short face? I wouldn't know, don't know many short faced people besides alpines.....
Although I really could be wrong about this, I think dinarics tend to be leptoprosopic, yet brachycephalic.
If that's true, then why not the converse?
BorrebyOriginally posted by NordicPower88
I wouldn't know, don't know many short faced people besides alpines.....
They are NOT short faced, but long, thou broad...Originally posted by ns1488ca
Borreby
Maybe they just appear short faced due to their broad face. I was going on looks, not measurement.Originally posted by Ross
They are NOT short faced, but long, thou broad...
I can determine if a broad faced person is long faced (nose, mouth, chin)... short-faced people have "compressed" faces.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks