Is this map accurate? [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

The Black Prince

01-06-2010, 03:40 PM

It is totally unreliable...

1. As far as Eastern Europe is concerned there is a big difference in light eye percentage between Poland, Lithuania, Belarus versus Estonia and Finland. Latvia falling in-between.

2. There is no bloody way Netherlands, Skane and Jutland are darker than most Easter Europe.

3. While North-Central and Central Poland are blonder, the transition to South in not that sharp.

4. While darker than Poland, Belarus and Lithuania, certainly most of Ukraine does not fall into the same category as Caucasus and Turkey.

I completely agree with your statement Jarl.:thumb001:

However I would also like to add that Norway, here in the 50-79% radius is very incorrect. Norway subdivided in various regions has in the Valle region a light-eye percentage of 90% (3% dark or dark mixed) and in the Trøndelag region a light-eyed percentage of 97.2% (Trøndelag is the lightest eyed region in the world).

Concerning Friesland (Northern Netherlands), the figures are 81.5% pure light eyes (4% dark eyes). This is based upon the province as a whole. I have figures for towns and rural districts, the first darker and the second lighter, but I will post it later in another thread.

These figures are based upon the massive anthropological research of army conscripts during the 1920-1930's. It was the last time that such great and correct researches were done.

Sources:
Steinmetz R, JAJ Barge, L Hagedoorn & R Steinmentz (1938), De Rassen Der Menschheid.
Coon CS (1939), The Races of Europe.

Jarl

01-06-2010, 03:52 PM

I completely agree with your statement Jarl.:thumb001:

However I would also like to add that Norway, here in the 50-79% radius is very incorrect. Norway subdivided in various regions has in the Valle region a light-eye percentage of 90% (3% dark or dark mixed) and in the Trøndelag region a light-eyed percentage of 97.2% (Trøndelag is the lightest eyed region in the world).

Totally agreed. Norway is definitely not darker than Sweden. At least in terms of eye colour. Both have regional means for light eyes between 75-90% as far as I remember.

Concerning Friesland (Northern Netherlands), the figures are 81.5% pure light eyes (4% dark eyes). This is based upon the province as a whole. I have figures for towns and rural districts, the first darker and the second lighter, but I will post it later in another thread.

Obviously Netherlands is a very fair country with Friesland being one of the fairest regions in Europe. This map is some gross bullshit.

Thulsa Doom

01-06-2010, 05:11 PM

Jarl

01-06-2010, 05:14 PM

First you need to find associations to genes that account for heritability of a given trait... and that is not always so easy.

Thulsa Doom

01-06-2010, 05:25 PM

First you need to find associations to genes that account for heritability of a given trait... and that is not always so easy.

Yes, but there already exists genes that are associated with eye coulor,e g OCA2 and HERC2 genes. They don´t give the answer with 100%, but the deviation should be the same between different groups.

Cail

01-06-2010, 05:30 PM

This map is bullshit. From my personal experience (and i've traveled Europe a lot) and other data, it should look rather like this (I've added one more color. Don't know exact percents, this is more of a subjective perception):

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/6043/83134571.jpg

I'm not sure about extreme north (Saamiland) and didn't touch Iberia (don't know much about it either).

December

01-06-2010, 06:03 PM

Another question:

There is much confusion between Colour and Lightness.

(not only in that map, but in so many I've seen, and as a general obscurantist idea)

I've seen many times extremely light brown eyes VS dark intense blue eyes. Green eyes vary even more in tone. As for examples, I can immediately recall 3 friends of mine who are like this (two have very dark blue eyes, one has amber eyes - almost cat colour eyes):

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3504&stc=1&d=1262803959

In one of them, the blue is even darker, almost sapphire.

It is a very basic depiction, but you get the idea. I guess it's basic that Lightness/Tone is a property of a colour... not a colour itself. So, what are considered "light eyes" by anthropologists?

Cail

01-06-2010, 06:07 PM

kwp_wp

01-06-2010, 06:15 PM

December

01-06-2010, 06:25 PM

Iberia (don't know much about it either).
In Portugal, I'd empirically say 50% pure brown (several tones from amber to dark, being the middle tone the most common), 30% mixed hazel/green (generally saturated), 10% green or greyish (generally the light green looks like grey), 10% blue (several tones from ice-blue to sapphire).

Distribution along the country has no visible variations.

These are two different things - the type of pigment and it's intensity. The darkest blue eyes are still considered light, the fairest brown ones - dark.

Ah, ok, Thanks! Then it's a misnomer.
Hm... And where do green eyes fit then?

Jarl

01-06-2010, 06:32 PM

I am travelling by train rigth now and there is a 5 person (including me) in my compartment and everybody here (including me :)) has light eyes.
But seriously based on my own experience I'm more inclined to say that Cail's map is much more credible

---------------------
EDIT:
I forgot to add I'm travelling in North Poland

It certainly corrects the errors and disparity between Finnic countries and Slavic-Baltic ones. One would have to take a closer look at the Balkans, British Isles and Iceland, and also sort out Italy and Turkey.

kwp_wp

01-06-2010, 06:32 PM

Hm... And where do green eyes fit then?

Of course to the LIGHT category;)

Falkata

01-06-2010, 06:46 PM

There´s not place in N.Africa with higher % of light eyes than Europe

Lahtari

01-06-2010, 07:03 PM

I'm not sure, I never pay attention to that kind of things (and personal observations of foreign countries haven't got much to do with empirical science, anyway). But there's a few odd things like that dark corner in the easternmost Balkans that looks like it could be because of Turkish influence (or the influence of the same climate zone), but Turkey is marked lighter.

The problem with pigmentation studies in the early 20th century was that there wasn't any international standard, but different anthropologists from different countries had sometimes drastically different standards that were best adjusted for describing the variation among the local population. Think about what would be "light" for a Turkish or North African anthropologist.

Now with the modern gene testing technology it should be quite easy to make accurate maps. You don´t need to rely on any biased methodology, just count the frequency of the relevant SNP´s.

Before you can start finding gene associations you need to develop an unbiased methodology first.

December

01-06-2010, 07:07 PM

Of course to the LIGHT category;)
Ermm... :) Using the aforementioned logic it wouldn't make much sense, as green has an intermediate lavewength exactly halfway between browns and blues? Blue ca. 470nm, Green ca. 530nm, Brown (dark yellow/orange) ca. 590nm. Well, no need to go this scientific, we all remember the position of green in the colour wheel. :P

I had a modern article (post Genome decoding) which shown that Green is not surprisingly a separate eye colour in human genetics, recessive towards Brown, dominant towards Blue. Brown is dominant to all others; blue is always recessive.

That map definitely needs some serious reform. And sources.

The Black Prince

01-06-2010, 07:10 PM

Now with the modern gene testing technology it should be quite easy to make accurate maps. You don´t need to rely on any biased methodology, just count the frequency of the relevant SNP´s. 23andMe most have more then 10 000 Europeans in their database.
10,000 Europeans, but what for Europeans?

Most of the people I know that took such tests are persons who don't know their ancestry (who is my father etc..) or those who are offspring of mixed race. I strongly doubt that many people who's ancestors all derrived from the same region or the same ethnos would ever consider a genetic test. Most people who have no questionmarks surrounding their ancestry aren't the least interested in taking such (expensive) tests.

To be short, unless you have a genetic atlas of people that are ca. 4 generation 'purebred' for a specific region/nation or ethnos your database would still be biased.

The Black Prince

01-06-2010, 07:23 PM

The problem with pigmentation studies in the early 20th century was that there wasn't any international standard, but different anthropologists from different countries had sometimes drastically different standards that were best adjusted for describing the variation among the local population. Think about what would be "light" for a Turkish or North African anthropologist.

Martins eyecolour chart might be biased but it was a system. As long as everyone kept themself to it than such is better that the self invented light-dark schemes of the 19th century and the later 20th century.

Martin-Schultz map were patches with coloured irises on it which could be used to determine one his eyecolour. It had 16 classes:

Pure light eyes: 16-14 in Martin scale
Light mixed eyes: are 14-12 in Martin scale
Mixed eyes: 12-6 in Martin scale
Dark-mixed eyes: 6-4 in Martin scale.
Pure dark eyes: 4-1 in Martin scale

The category mixed (12-6) were eyes with blue/green/grey mixed with brown.

Tony

01-06-2010, 08:14 PM

Cail your map sounds more accurate , I'd only lightened up Southern Illyria (Montenegro , Albania and Bosnia) , source?my personal experience.
There's a "fair line" over there that the more southward it goes the thinner it gets , until it stops once it reaches the seashores of Epyrus , in North Western Greece.

Thulsa Doom

01-06-2010, 08:21 PM

10,000 Europeans, but what for Europeans?

Most of the people I know that took such tests are persons who don't know their ancestry (who is my father etc..) or those who are offspring of mixed race. I strongly doubt that many people who's ancestors all derrived from the same region or the same ethnos would ever consider a genetic test. Most people who have no questionmarks surrounding their ancestry aren't the least interested in taking such (expensive) tests.

To be short, unless you have a genetic atlas of people that are ca. 4 generation 'purebred' for a specific region/nation or ethnos your database would still be biased.

Well you could sift them out whit autosomal testing. A purebred Slovenian or halfbreed Romanian can´t be mistaken for a Swede in a good genetic test.

The Black Prince

01-06-2010, 08:40 PM

Well you could sift them out whit autosomal testing. A purebred Slovenian or halfbreed Romanian can´t be mistaken for a Swede in a good genetic test.
True perhaps, but you would need in that case some good 'original' representative to test it against.

What I mean is instead of the databases created by 23andme et such use the datasets of researches like the one done by Dupuy et al. of Norway(Geographical heterogeneity of Y-chromosomal lineages in Norway, 2006). His dataset could be used for Norway f.i. the people init were born and raise native Norwegians:

The material consists of 1766 unrelated males of Norwegian origin. The geographical distribution of the population sample reflects fairly well the population distribution around the year 1942 source: Dupuy et al.

However Dupuy et al. his dataset for Sweden (2008) would be biased since it contains also African immigrant material as these quotes from the paper mention:

The sample set of 820 females and 883 males were extracted and amplified from Guthrie cards of all the children born in Sweden during one week in 2003.

the frequencies of several haplogroups showed effects of 20th century immigration from more distant countries. The Y-chromosomal I1a had decreased frequencies in Malmö and Gothenburg most probably due to replacement by haplogroups that are common among immigrants. African immigration contributes to the frequencies of mtDNA haplogroups L3*(xN,M) and L* (xL3) (Chen et al. 2000), and Y-chromosomal haplogroup A (Underhill et al. 2001; Jobling & Tyler-Smith 2003), while Near Eastern influence can be seen in mtDNA haplogroup U7 and possibly J (Richards et al. 2000; Abu-Amero et al. 2007; Achilli et al. 2007). Asian and American immigration can be observed in the slightly elevated frequencies of mtDNA haplogroups M, A, C, D and G (Quintana-Murci et al. 2004; Hill et al. 2007) and the Y-chromosomal O, K* and P* (Underhill et al. 2001; Jobling & Tyler-Smith 2003). The frequency of the Y-chromosomal haplogroup I1b may associate to immigrants from Balkan and Eastern Europe (Rootsi et al. 2004). In Malmö and Gothenburg immigration was the main contributor to their isolated positions in the Y-chromosomal PCA plot

They took samples of born children, immigrants have a much higher birthrate. Anyway perhaps we can filter these out with your idea of autosomal testing.:)

Agrippa

01-06-2010, 08:52 PM

The map posted first is definitely not accurate.

One map from Coon:
http://www.dnaheritage.com/files/rootswebupload/Coon_Pigment.jpg

December

01-06-2010, 09:22 PM

The map posted first is definitely not accurate.

One map from Coon:
http://www.dnaheritage.com/files/rootswebupload/Coon_Pigment.jpg
I beg to differ, but this map still mixes colour of pigmentation with intensity of pigmentation. It seems to equal Blue to Light and Brown to Dark.

It could have made some sense in a time where only 2 colours were recognized (according Mendel laws), eventhough it didn't address the fact that tone does not equal colour. As I said, I'm used to see depigmentated brown eyes.

Also, the latest studies agree that is not a sole gene anymore but a combination of genes which define colour and tone. And also point Green as being a distinct colour. Thus, at least there are 3 different and defined colours, each one having different degrees of pigmentation.

Jarl

01-06-2010, 09:40 PM

Coon's map is ok, as far as terminology is concerned, and it does not concern intensity" but strictly pigmentation and presence of pigment in the iris. It basically refers to Martins scale.

Light stands for colours at 16-13 on Martins scale. With no or very little pigment These are colours that appear "blue" or "grey"

Mixed stands for colours at 7-12 on Martins scale. With moderate amounts of pigment present. These would be by most people considered grey-green and green of various shades.

Dark is generally 1-6. Mostly pigmented iris encompassin most brown shades and hazel.

Jarl

01-06-2010, 09:47 PM

As I said, I'm used to see depigmentated brown eyes.

This is oxymoron. Some brown eyes can appear lighter due to a thinner layer of pigment which makes them look more amber-yellowish than standard brown - but that does not change the fact that they are still pigmented. So blue eyes can appear darker or lighter due to coarse or fine structure of collagen fibers apparently - but they still remain depigmented. Martin's scale and most of these old anthro surveys essentially deal with the presence or absecence of pigmentation, not "intensity".

There are only 2 colours. Melanin, fully covering the iris, gives the it a range of shades from yellow to dark brown. Partially covered iris appears hazel, green to grey-green and to blue with little spotting. While fully depigmented iris will always appear blue/grey, dark or light.

Artur

01-06-2010, 10:01 PM

Yeah, I mean ... if people don't explain how they sourced the data feeding such a chart, it is to be considered hypothetical ... in plain terms, someone drew it after pulling it out of his arse.

I saw it on eupedia, but don't know their methods and sources to construct this map.

Just to make clear, I never intended to prove anything with this thread. You can see by the tone of the tittle that I putted the map in question since the very begining.

23andMe most have more then 10 000 Europeans in their database.
Can't you make an accurate map for us based on a research of your on? :D

@toni how would you estimate the % in italy, by your personal experience?

Can anyone post the Martin-Schulz map and it's informations(such as number of samples involved and etc)?

Artur

01-06-2010, 10:10 PM

There are only 2 colours. Melanin, fully covering the iris, gives the it a range of shades from yellow to dark brown. Partially covered iris appears hazel, green to grey-green and to blue with little spotting. While fully depigmented iris will always appear blue/grey, dark or light.

blue/grey eyes are not fully depigmented, they are actaully very few pigmented. The full depigmentation leads to a pink color present in some albinos.

Albinos(ethymologically a portuguese term based on the latin albus(white) used to describe the negroes that had light features during the slavery trade times) are the only persons with complete absence of melanin in skin,hair,eyes.

The pure nordic are very close to albinos but still they have a minimum amount of melanin in their features.

Isn't ironic that the most "white" individuals are of African descent? (given that the vast majority of albinos are negroids)

December

01-07-2010, 12:16 AM

This is oxymoron. Some brown eyes can appear lighter due to a thinner layer of pigment which makes them look more amber-yellowish than standard brown - but that does not change the fact that they are still pigmented. So blue eyes can appear darker or lighter due to coarse or fine structure of collagen fibers apparently - but they still remain depigmented. Martin's scale and most of these old anthro surveys essentially deal with the presence or absecence of pigmentation, not "intensity".

There are only 2 colours. Melanin, fully covering the iris, gives the it a range of shades from yellow to dark brown. Partially covered iris appears hazel, green to grey-green and to blue with little spotting. While fully depigmented iris will always appear blue/grey, dark or light.

blue/grey eyes are not fully depigmented, they are actaully very few pigmented. The full depigmentation leads to a pink color present in some albinos.

Albinos(ethymologically a portuguese term based on the latin albus(white) used to describe the negroes that had light features during the slavery trade times) are the only persons with complete absence of melanin in skin,hair,eyes.

The pure nordic are very close to albinos but still they have a minimum amount of melanin in their features.

Isn't ironic that the most "white" individuals are of African descent? (given that the vast majority of albinos are negroids)

Good points. Both.

Eitherway, it seems that the eye colour is much more than plain brown vs plain blue.

Jarl

01-07-2010, 10:15 AM

blue/grey eyes are not fully depigmented, they are actaully very few pigmented. The full depigmentation leads to a pink color present in some albinos.

Albinos(ethymologically a portuguese term based on the latin albus(white) used to describe the negroes that had light features during the slavery trade times) are the only persons with complete absence of melanin in skin,hair,eyes.

The pure nordic are very close to albinos but still they have a minimum amount of melanin in their features.

Yes. This is probably correct. However, there must be some technical difference in the pigment conferring blue eyes and brown eyes. Perhaps its the location of the pigment.

Isn't ironic that the most "white" individuals are of African descent? (given that the vast majority of albinos are negroids)

Are most Albinos African?

December

01-07-2010, 11:11 AM

Yes. This is probably correct. However, there must be some technical difference in the pigment conferring blue eyes and brown eyes. Perhaps its the location of the pigment.

I've been reading some articles (forensics, etc), and you definitely have a point.

About this doubt you pose, the fact that eyes with fewer pigment look blue is because iris' eumelanin in lower concentrations tends to let escape the blue wavelength of light.

About the tone of blue itself(dark blue vs light blue), this as you said before is indeed due to the structure of the iris, more particullary, the physical density and fibrosity of stromas.

Thus it applies to other colours as well. And it makes sense in the fact why even among equally dark brown eyes may look not equal, some have greyish brown appearance while others have an ocre shift.

Conclusion: All normal eyes have eumalenin. Its concentration will make them vary from light grey to dark brown. The structural nature of stromas will determine different shades and reflections. And last but not least, there's a special pigment (Lipochrome) which if present in the eyes, will cause the golden effect in brown eyes (amber) and the blue-greenish (not green proper) in blue and grey eyes.
Mixed-colour (hazel) eyes are caused by uneven distribution of eumelanin and sometimes with addition of lipochrome to make it even more complicate (the I-don't-what-colour-my-eyes-are effect).

Last but not least, absence of eumelanin in the iris will make the red and blue blood vessels visible, causing the uncanny pink eyes effect in albinos.

Correct?

Svanhild

01-07-2010, 02:04 PM

Isn't ironic that the most "white" individuals are of African descent? (given that the vast majority of albinos are negroids)
Being "white" is more than just the question of eye- and skin color. :wink

Jamt

01-07-2010, 02:28 PM

...

Artur

01-07-2010, 03:29 PM

Yes. This is probably correct. However, there must be some technical difference in the pigment conferring blue eyes and brown eyes. Perhaps its the location of the pigment.

Are most Albinos African?

I believe December already wrote about this technical difference that make one eye look black-brown and other ice-blue. As far as I could understand from all I read is that there is no pigment for blue eyes and other for brown. It's the lack of a main iris pigment(don't remember if melanin, eumelanin or other) that makes the eye appear blue and if this pigment is highly concentrated then the eyes will appear almost black.

Blue eyes are believed to be a mutation in one of the halothypes(or whatever the technical name is) that control the distribution of iris' pigment. Blue-eyeds therefore have small amounts of pigment in their iris while some albinos have none.

About your question, yes. Most of the albinos are from african ethnicy. I read that in Brazil, where there was huge african slaves influx, they have record number of albinos. Some cities there have 80% of it's population consisting of albinos and the only albino organization in the world is in Salvador,Bahia; given the big quantity of albinos in that region.

I already saw on tv one amerindian that was albino. He had all indian shapes, head, nose, lips and etc but with almost white hair and ice-blue eyes. But it's very rare to see an albino that isn't of african ethnicy. Do you know any?

Being "white" is more than just the question of eye- and skin color. :wink
I know, that's why I used "". :wink

I

Hussar

01-07-2010, 10:10 PM

I agree with AGRIPPA.

Afterall, the traditional map of C.Coom is still the most believable.

http://i46.tinypic.com/xqjgqc.png

Stefan

01-07-2010, 11:48 PM

I already saw on tv one amerindian that was albino. He had all indian shapes, head, nose, lips and etc but with almost white hair and ice-blue eyes. But it's very rare to see an albino that isn't of african ethnicy. Do you know any?

I know, that's why I used "". :wink

I

I have a cousin who is an albino. She is German, English, and Scottish. I also went to kindergarden with an albino boy, who looked European to my eyes(looking back at the class photo). So it isn't that rare.

Artur

01-08-2010, 10:15 PM

Honestly, I don't think Coon's map is accurate either. Rome area have probably much less light eyed and in Iberia, I think, Madrid area have less light eyed than North Portugal/Galicia.

Hussar

01-08-2010, 11:16 PM

Honestly, I don't think Coon's map is accurate either. Rome area have probably much less light eyed and in Iberia, I think, Madrid area have less light eyed than North Portugal/Galicia.

Iberia is the darkest region of European continent (except Greece).

Iberian populations share definitely the most south-european phenotype.

what we could call generically "light eyes" amongst native Iberians don't exceed 15-20% (on average). Clearly there is regional variation (and surely methodological controversy) however the statistical ratio is that.

Just to make a comparison with Italy (i guess it's the finality of your thread), the "peninsular belt" of Italy runs between 20-25% , while the "continental belt" (or Padania) it's between 35-40% on average.

To mention an extreme area of the "continental belt", Turin native inhabtants are equivalent to Savoie population (today a french department) in terms of pigmentation : light eyes (blue, grey, green) and mixed eyes (hazel shades) combined togheter approximates 70% of eyes.

Just to mention the LAST time : Iberian area and Italian/Padanian area....aren't exactly comparable. Too many historical and geographic differences

Artur

01-13-2010, 06:17 PM

Hussar, you have piedmont ancestry. This denotes possibility for biased "opinion" or manipulated facts.

Where did you get those statistics of Iberia? First of all, Iberia is very heterogeneous. South Portugal have many Moor heritage while north Portugal and Galicia have many Celt/Visigothic heritage. Have you ever been to Porto or Barcelos in Portugal? Asturias or Pamplona in Spain? I assume no because you are an italian guy trying to stabilish that Iberians are the darkest of Europe so that the italians are left alone by the nordicists.

70% of light eyeds in Torino?? lol
I've met already dozens of people from Torino and about 15% of them have light eyes. My personal experience is not useful as a proper statistic but is enough to indicate to me that you are wrong.

What's the source of your statistics? have you just made it up?

Falkata

01-13-2010, 10:05 PM

70% of light eyes in Torino seems completely wrong for me too o_O

Kadu

01-13-2010, 10:44 PM

Where did you get those statistics of Iberia? First of all, Iberia is very heterogeneous. South Portugal have many Moor heritage while north Portugal and Galicia have many Celt/Visigothic heritage.

Yes but you have to take in account the paternal and maternal haplogroup lineages*( which have the highest levels in the peninsula) of North African extraction(mesolithic origin) existent in Northern Portugal and Galicia.

*E-M81(Y-DNA) and U6b(mtDNA)

December

01-13-2010, 11:41 PM

antonio

01-17-2010, 05:22 PM

Indeed? Didn't know that. What's your source?

Have you?

The map, at Iberian Peninsula, seems for me very accurate. Region with less blue-eyes -South-Levant and Castille the New- matches very well with the data based on my own experience with the people I meet. Although there are areas of Castille the Old and areas of Andalucia with also a under-average percentage.

BTW, Galicia and North-Portugal are less Celtic that areas of Navarre and Aragon(populated not only by Celtiberian also by Gauls) , Cataluña, Navarre, Castilla, Cataluña, Extremadura...but FAR MORE (with exception of the Franc founded Cataluña) Germanic (Suebian not Visigotic): little village names, villages populated by blue-eyed fair-heared people (like my grangranparent) still are there testifying the truth: as you can read on my ethnicity data. :D

Jarl

01-17-2010, 06:46 PM

Germanic (Suebian not Visigotic): little village names, villages populated by blue-eyed fair-heared people (like my grangranparent) still are there testifying the truth: as you can read on my ethnicity data. :D

As far as truth is concerned I don't think Germanic presence is even detectable in Ibera. Bear in mind that by the time they reached Iberia, Goths have been living and mixing with Slavs, Balts, Sarmatians, Alans and Dacians for over 400 years. First in the Vistula basin (Gothiskandza). Then in the Black Sea steppes (Meotis). Then they migrated through Dacia, Thrace, Greece and Italy...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Visigoth_migrations.jpg

Then for nearly 100 years they lived in here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Visigothic_Kingdom.png

Only to conquer the Suevi in second half of the VIth century. As most migrants they most often used local women as brides ;)

Jamt

01-17-2010, 07:07 PM

As far as truth is concerned I don't think Germanic presence is even detectable in Ibera. Bear in mind that by the time they reached Iberia, Goths have been living and mixing with Slavs, Balts, Sarmatians, Alans and Dacians for over 400 years. First in the Vistula basin (Gothiskandza). Then in the Black Sea steppes (Meotis). Then they migrated through Dacia, Thrace, Greece and Italy...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Visigoth_migrations.jpg

Then for nearly 100 years they lived in here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Visigothic_Kingdom.png

Only to conquer the Suevi in second half of the VIth century. As most migrants they most often used local women as brides ;)

The Goths surly mixed some with other tribes but to what extent we do not know. The Transylvanian Saxons has been living among other peoples as a small minority without much intermarriages at all sense the middle-ages. And the Goths were newer raiding parties like the Vikings who did marry local women to a large extent. They were a migrating people.

Jarl

01-17-2010, 07:13 PM

The Goths surly mixed some with other tribes but to what extent we do not know. The Transylvanian Saxons has been living among other peoples as a small minority without much intermarriages at all sense the middle-ages. And the Goths were newer raiding parties like the Vikings who did marry local women to a large extent. They were a migrating people.

Well yes. Middle Ages is a different story. German villages in the East had a different status and some degree of autonomy. This favoured endogamy. This was also purely colonial settlement... Ancient pagan Germanics on the other hand did not peacefully settle down in the areas they ventured into. And they most often took local women. Indeed Goths were raiders! Read Getica and you will see it yourself. Wherever they moved they fell into a confilct with the locals. Even Jordanes, the Gothic historian, was of Alan descent, assimilated by Goths.

That Goths were a far cry from Scandinavian standards already in Ukraine, we know from the anthropological series from the territory Chernyakov culture. We also know it because the historical Crimean Goths were a far cry from the blonde ultra-Nordic Germanics that left Scandinavia.

Jamt

01-17-2010, 07:23 PM

Well yes. Middle Ages is a different story. German villages in the East had a different status and some degree of autonomy. This favoured endogamy. This was also purely colonial settlement... Ancient pagan Germanics on the other hand did not peacefully settle down in the areas they ventured into. And they most often took local women. Indeed Goths were raiders! Read Getica and you will see it yourself. Wherever they moved they fell into a confilct with the locals. Even Jordanes, the Gothic historian, was of Alan descent, assimilated by Goths.

That Goths were a far cry from Scandinavian standards already in Ukraine, we know from the anthropological series from the territory Chernyakov culture. We also know it because the historical Crimean Goths were a far cry from the blonde ultra-Nordic Germanics that left Scandinavia.

In their own opinion of their identity and where they come from, they were a German tribe and people. In the Romans opinion of their identity and where they come from, they were a German tribe and people.

And again, one more time: The Goths were newer raiding parties like the Vikings who did marry local women to a large extent. They were a migrating people.

Jarl, are you on a mission to refute the existence of the Germans?

Jarl

01-17-2010, 07:27 PM

In their own opinion of their identity and where they come from, they were a German tribe and people. In the Romans opinion of their identity and where they come from, they were a German tribe and people.

Never did I question their sense of Germanic ethnicity. Yet no. They were not endogamic.

And again, one more time: The Goths were newer raiding parties like the Vikings who did marry local women to a large extent. They were a migrating people.

Jarl, are you on a mission to refute the existence of the Germans?

Jamt. Yes they were. They were a patriarchal sociery of warriors. A migrating group of men, who for a long time saw protection and service in the Roman army as foederati. And yes, they did take local women. Soldiers took local women, while the elites, like the Balti or the Amali married into Roman families.

Theodosius, entrusted initially with the defence of Thrace, bought peace with the Goths by ceding large tracts of the Balkans for their settlement. Rather than hunt down and defeat the victors of Adrianople Theodosius decided to accept them as allies (“foedesati”). Indeed, when the Gothic King Athanaric died in 382 he was honoured with a state funeral in Constantinople. Unlike most Roman citizens, however, the Goths were armed and ignored Roman law with impunity. Ruled by their own chieftains and not subject to crippling imperial taxation these ‘Christianised tribesmen’ lived off the local populace as conquering heroes.

Having thus accommodated the enemy within the empire, Theodosius then recruited whole regiments of the barbarians – under their own officers – into the army, where they became the dominant influence. Barbarianisation of the army went hand-in-hand with the enfeeblement of the legions. Starved of funds which Theodosius instead directed into the church to support a growing army of parasitic clergy, the demoralised troops were forced into part-time farming to feed themselves. The greater part of the legions were downgraded to ‘border guards’. As such, they lacked the pan-continental mobility of an earlier age. Allowed to marry local women, the troops spent much of their time in ‘market gardens’ and the barter economy.

They were not happy, coherent families which managed to stay intact for 500 years, while traversing whole Europe far and wide...

Im not saying they did not have their women at all. They must have. However, I doubt they have left Scandinavia in perfect familial groups with a 50:50 male-female ratio... I bet the ratio was much more in favour of men, young able men. And I bet at every subsequent migration it was similar.

antonio

01-17-2010, 07:44 PM

As far as truth is concerned I don't think Germanic presence is even detectable in Ibera. Bear in mind that by the time they reached Iberia, Goths have been living and mixing with Slavs, Balts, Sarmatians, Alans and Dacians for over 400 years. First in the Vistula basin (Gothiskandza). Then in the Black Sea steppes (Meotis). Then they migrated through Dacia, Thrace, Greece and Italy...

Only to conquer the Suevi in second half of the VIth century. As most migrants they most often used local women as brides ;)

First-hand knowledge tells me that Gots arriving Iberia far less mixtured than you're assuring, comrade. :thumb001:

Allow me a personal experience to ilustrate my position: 30 years ago, a road was open between the little village (6 or 7 households) of my family and a near one (1 km. of an uncrossable uphill forest between). I remember playing football with them realizing how little mixture there were across the centuries between fair people of suebian-named village downhill and dark people uphill. Maybe it was a extreme case of Suebian and indigenous-hispanoroman people
being mutually isolated by nature walls, or maybe not.

BTW my grandgrandparent got married with a darker girl from a third place so Suebian features of his "estirpe" become -as recently as XX century- severely diluted.

Jarl

01-17-2010, 07:52 PM

First-hand knowledge tells me that Gots arriving Iberia far less mixtured than you're assuring, comrade. :thumb001:

First-hand? I thus understand you have had the unique chance to talk to a Goth in person? :P

Allow me a personal experience to ilustrate my position: 30 years ago, a road was open between the little village (6 or 7 households) of my family and a near one (with an uncrossable uphill forest between). I remember playing football with them realizing how little mixture there were across the centuries between fair people of suebian-named village downhill and dark people uphill. Maybe it was a extreme case of Suebian and indigenous-hispanoroman people being mutually isolated by nature walls, or maybe not.

BTW my grandgrandparent got married with a darker girl from so Suebian features of his "estirpe" become -as recently as XX century- severely diluted.

Suebi were a slightly different case than the Goths. They had a much shorter history of migrations behind. Im not saying there is no trace left. Certainly there are some Y-DNA markers. However, it is important to note that these tribes constituted a minority and they did mix with the locals.

Amapola

01-17-2010, 07:55 PM

First-hand knowledge tells me that Gots arriving Iberia far less mixtured than you're assuring, comrade. :thumb001:

Allow me a personal experience to ilustrate my position: 30 years ago, a road was open between the little village (6 or 7 households) of my family and a near one (1 km. of an uncrossable uphill forest between). I remember playing football with them realizing how little mixture there were across the centuries between fair people of suebian-named village downhill and dark people uphill. Maybe it was a extreme case of Suebian and indigenous-hispanoroman people
being mutually isolated by nature walls, or maybe not.

BTW my grandgrandparent got married with a darker girl from a third place so Suebian features of his "estirpe" become -as recently as XX century- severely diluted.
That's interesting... I have heard something similar about some isolated spots like Las Alpujarras... :eek:

Jarl

01-17-2010, 07:57 PM

And I have heard of Neanderthals in an isolated village of Welsh Mountains! Seriously! Beddoe wrote about them :P

Jamt

01-17-2010, 07:57 PM

Never did I question their sense of Germanic ethnicity. Yet no. They were not endogamic.

Jamt. Yes they were. They were a patriarchal sociery of warriors. A migrating group of men, who for a long time saw protection and service in the Roman army as foederati. And yes, they did take local women. Soldiers took local women, while the elites, like the Balti or the Amali married into Roman families.

They were not happy, coherent families which managed to stay intact for 500 years, while traversing whole Europe far and wide...

Im not saying they did not have their women at all. They must have. However, I doubt they have left Scandinavia in perfect familial groups with a 50:50 male-female ratio... I bet the ratio was much more in favour of men, young able men. And I bet at every subsequent migration it was similar.

They were settled most of the time during those 500 years Jarl and only traversed when they were forced to or saw opportunity. Do you think they left women and children behind when they were forced to leave for Western Europa?

Jarl

01-17-2010, 08:00 PM

They were settled most of the time during those 500 years Jarl and only traversed when they were forced to or saw opportunity.

No doubts about that my dear Jamt. But being a patriarchal society of migrants + Roman foederati they must have had the custom of taking local women. The very fact Theodosius had to change the code and permit them to do these things is a proof that their needs could not have been quenched even by the Roman pay.

Plus, like I said. Every such migration was almost certainly mostly undertaken by younger, more able people. Especially men.

antonio

01-17-2010, 08:11 PM

First-hand? I thus understand you have had the unique chance to talk to a Goth in person? :P

Suebi were a slightly different case than the Goths. They had a much shorter history of migrations behind. Im not saying there is no trace left. Certainly there are some Y-DNA markers. However, it is important to note that these tribes constituted a minority and they did mix with the locals.

Do not forget that they had the military power and each peasant was also a warrior, so they can choose the better lands, so they raised up more children once they finally settle down in Northwestern Hispania (Gallaecia) ...Celtic supporters in Galicia always overlooked this obvious reasoning. BTW how much Celts arrived in Gallaecia at protohistorical times, more than Suebians? Well, nevermind, these people are laughable: they better were listening to Carlos Nuñez

Jarl

01-17-2010, 08:24 PM

I don't think wealth and power translates into more children that easily. Here is a nice study:

http://download.cell.com/AJHG/pdf/PIIS0002929708005922.pdf

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/12/major-study-of-iberian-y-chromosomes.html

http://download.cell.com/AJHG/mmcs/journals/0002-9297/PIIS0002929708005922.mmc1.pdf

Germanic component seems to be rather low.

December

01-17-2010, 08:29 PM

The map, at Iberian Peninsula, seems for me very accurate. Region with less blue-eyes -South-Levant and Castille the New- matches very well with the data based on my own experience with the people I meet. Although there are areas of Castille the Old and areas of Andalucia with also a under-average percentage.

BTW, Galicia and North-Portugal are less Celtic that areas of Navarre and Aragon(populated not only by Celtiberian also by Gauls) , Cataluña, Navarre, Castilla, Cataluña, Extremadura...but FAR MORE (with exception of the Franc founded Cataluña) Germanic (Suebian not Visigotic): little village names, villages populated by blue-eyed fair-heared people (like my grangranparent) still are there testifying the truth: as you can read on my ethnicity data. :D

I'm not quite comfortable to make strong statements about Eastern Spain. I also have circa 10 to 20% of grey/blue-eyed fair-haired people in my family, many with green eyes, but they are not the rule.

As a matter a fact being a regular traveler inside Portugal and knowing Galiza also very well, I'm comfortable enough to say that I'm used to see more fair-haired and fair-haired people in southern Portugal than in northern Portugal and Galiza. Maybe in Brazil, History degrees come along with a Big-Mac and a Coke. I have articles from Brazil with the most absurd visions about Portugal and Spain.

If you go to the deep northern Portugal (supposedly more "celtic" and all), you can often see entire classes of students without a single blonde or fair-eyed student. So, the link between "celticness" and fairness lies completely lost in the realms of urban myths.

Why this then? because many lands in the post-Reconquista in Portugal were awarded to crusaders and they were invited to bring their families and relatives. This applies particulary to more depopulated zones that had been flogged by constant war. The blondism and eye fairness in Portugal is mostly explained this way.

As far as truth is concerned I don't think Germanic presence is even detectable in Ibera. Bear in mind that by the time they reached Iberia, Goths have been living and mixing with Slavs, Balts, Sarmatians, Alans and Dacians for over 400 years. First in the Vistula basin (Gothiskandza). Then in the Black Sea steppes (Meotis). Then they migrated through Dacia, Thrace, Greece and Italy...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Visigoth_migrations.jpg

Then for nearly 100 years they lived in here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Visigothic_Kingdom.png

Only to conquer the Suevi in second half of the VIth century. As most migrants they most often used local women as brides ;)

You have a point, yes. As I said above, nordid influx was insignificant in the Goth period but not at all insignificant in the post-Reconquista. Not even close to massive, but man, believe me it is not "undetectable" as you said.

It's not a collation to any "nordicness", it's just a fact. We are meds but I never had a class without "Limões" (Lemons), "Alemães" (Germans), "Russos" (Russians), etc - (some of the many nicknames for blonds), let alone fair eyes. They are everywhere. Half of the people has brown eyes, the other half has green, blue, grey, etc.

Random fact: Being recessive and in minority, nordic-alike phenotypes have always been much appreciated.

Random conversation between two guys:
A-"have you seen Mary?"
B-"yeah, she's hot"
C-"I think she's cute, but not hot"
A-"but she's blonde and has blue eyes"

( I'm usually the C :P )

Jarl

01-17-2010, 08:33 PM

December

01-17-2010, 09:08 PM

That is the thing. Like you said, ascribing blondism to Visigoths is certainly a very romantic urban myth, but still a far-fetched myth overall.

But I reckon every country/person has to go through this stage. There were ppl in Poland who also claimed all Nordics are descendants of Germanics etc.It's worse when it comes to the "Makedonian über alles" (some FYROMans said this).

Some of Iberian R1a or I might indeed be Germanic. Though it could be Celtic or even indigenous as well. One fact seems clear. From the study above it seems that the Germanic component is weaker than North African and Sephardic Jewish - so in any case it is negligible.
There was a pre-historic continuum between the aboriginal North-Africans and modern Iberians.

Some random modern-day Berbers can easily pass by many Iberians, like Khalid Bouhlarouz:
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7791/boulahrouz2df2.jpg
But that's like finding a needle in a haystack. Modern-day Berbers are mostly mongrelized. You could say that modern Portuguese and Spanish may well look like Berbers used to look.

Now about Sephardic blood? man... it's okay, as I am used to hear that. The portuguese jewish community claimed in 2004 or 2005 that Portugal's population was 60% descendant from Hebrews :D

You mean the J haplogroup? it's a typical medish haplogroup, not a jewish haplogroup.

People may believe in what they want but it's not at all like that. How could they mix if even themselves wouldn't let? Jews always lived in closed communities, at least here. The jewish communities would allow selected marriages with selected gentiles only, and most of those who converted to Christianity (New-Christians) or had jewish blood were expeled loooong ago in the "Limpezas de Sangue" (Blood Cleansings).

Read here, if you may: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpieza_de_sangre

The distinction between Old and New Christians in Portugal only ceased to exist in the end of the 18th century when Sebastião de Carvalho e Mello decreed the extinction of blood segregation... when almost of them had already been expeled (the richest fled to the Netherlands).

This article is not bad at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Synagogue,_Amsterdam

Most of Jews who currently live in Portugal came after Arthur Barros Basto and Aristides de Souza Mendes lobbied for them in the 20th century. Some also came from Gibraltar in the 19th century. Not revisionism or semitophobia, just a fact.

Osweo

01-17-2010, 09:13 PM

Even Jordanes, the Gothic historian, was of Alan descent, assimilated by Goths.

WHO SAYS?

I sniff bullshit somewhere along the line here... :rolleyes:

Something I'm discovering, researching European toponymy, is that there are so many little pockets of people in peculiar villages here and there, with a unique ethnic background, that it's easy to suppose that before modernday infrastructures arose, VERY old things could survive an awfully long time, and even have some impact on local self-identity and local feuds/nicknames. Throughout Europe, there are villages which bear the names of migrant peoples, and to deny some genetic reality behind that is folly. I'm tired, and not expressing myself very well here, but I hope you see what I mean.

Jarl

01-17-2010, 09:40 PM

WHO SAYS?

I sniff bullshit somewhere along the line here... :rolleyes:

Says Jordanes himself in Getica.

Osweo

01-17-2010, 09:44 PM

Says Jordanes himself in Getica.

Show me where. I'm lazy. :p

Jarl

01-17-2010, 09:55 PM

Osweo

01-17-2010, 10:02 PM

Jordanes writes about himself almost in passing:[5][6]

The Sciri, moreover, and the Sadagarii and certain of the Alani with their leader, Candac by name, received Scythia Minor and Lower Moesia. Paria, the father of my father Alanoviiamuth (that is to say, my grandfather), was secretary to this Candac as long as he lived. To his sister's son Gunthigis, also called Baza, the Master of the Soldiery, who was the son of Andag the son of Andela, who was descended from the stock of the Amali, I also, Jordanes, although an unlearned man before my conversion, was secretary.
Already in the Mommsen text edition of 1882 it was suggested that the very long name of Jordanes' father should be split into two parts: Alanovii Amuthis, both genitive forms. Jordanes' father's name would then be Amuth. The preceding word should then belong to Candac, signifying that he was an Alan. Mommsen, however, dismissed suggestions to emend a corrupt text [7].

Paria was Jordanes' paternal grandfather. Jordanes writes that he was secretary to Candac, dux Alanorum, an otherwise unknown leader of the Alans.

Your own quotation here demonstrates the obscurity of the statement.

Amuth doesn't look TOO unGermanic to me. Ecgmund or something might be an English parallel, indeed, but I don't know enough about Gothic to really say.

At 'worst' (though Alanic blood is something to be proud of I'm sure! Sarmatians were stationed in my own County once upon a time... ;)) Jordanes is 1/4 Alan.

Interesting matter though, I'll look it up... :thumbs up
Which online source did you use?

Falkata

01-17-2010, 10:59 PM

Amapola

01-17-2010, 11:09 PM

I also had a similar perception like December when I went to the North though...that they had darker hair (I am not talking about skin or eyes).

Kadu

01-17-2010, 11:49 PM

If you go to the deep northern Portugal (supposedly more "celtic" and all), you can often see entire classes of students without a single blonde or fair-eyed student.

I'm sorry but that's not true, in a class of thirty individuals you have on average seven light eyed individuals. Of course this only my observation.

Falkata

01-18-2010, 12:33 AM

The only differences regarding hair that i could notice is that i´ve seen less redheads in the rest of Spain than around here , about blondism i didn´t see anything different, just my impression.

Jarl

01-18-2010, 10:15 AM

Interesting matter though, I'll look it up... :thumbs up Which online source did you use?

http://cma.gbv.de/dr,cma,007,2004,a,05.pdf

We know that his ancestors have been secretaries at the court of the Alani leaders. Even if Alanoviiamuth are two different words and alanovii refers to Candac, it is still much more likely that, being high dignitaries at the Alani court for generations, they were Alani rather than Goths.

Here is another source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=AcLDHOqOt4cC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=name+Amuth+history&source=bl&ots=ewHKVvsPgb&sig=ltpt20TbVSsx_lYA389iUpzZKms&hl=en&ei=ckNUS_3LNpTu0gTa0IWtCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

There were attempts to explain the name in a Germanic fashion, however none seems really credible. Neither Peria nor Alanoviiamuth (or Amuth for that matter) are Gothic/Germanic names.

Osweo

01-18-2010, 11:39 AM

http://cma.gbv.de/dr,cma,007,2004,a,05.pdf
Too much German tires my eyes and brain... :wink

We know that his ancestors have been secretaries at the court of the Alani leaders. Even if Alanoviiamuth are two different words and alanovii refers to Candac, it is still much more likely that, being high dignitaries at the Alani court for generations, they were Alani rather than Goths.
If anything, I'd be ready most of all to find Greeks occupying bureaucratic functions at such courts in this period. What do they mean by 'secretary' though?

Here is another source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=AcLDHOqOt4cC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=name+Amuth+history&source=bl&ots=ewHKVvsPgb&sig=ltpt20TbVSsx_lYA389iUpzZKms&hl=en&ei=ckNUS_3LNpTu0gTa0IWtCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Saved the link. :thumb001: Damn though, there isn't time in one life to investigate all of this. :cry2

There were attempts to explain the name in a Germanic fashion, however none seems really credible. Neither Peria nor Alanoviiamuth (or Amuth for that matter) are Gothic/Germanic names.
Weomuth - sacred-'mutige', or Wigamuth - 'kampfmutige' seem reasonable, however.
Peria looks to be a shortened name or nickname, distorting or ignoring an original two-componant name of classical nature. You see this sort of thing a lot in early English figures. Who would think, for example, that Penda and Putta were Germanic names? The bearers certainly were ENglish, though - King of Mercia and Bishop of Exeter.

It's right to approach these things with scepticism, as relatively little is known about the Steppe Aryans' language. I am half convinced by the little hints here though. The 'Shining Alans' will doubtless have contributed something to the genepool of the Glorious Goths, in cases other than the ones already noted in the sources you offer. Interesting debate, djakuju for bringing it to our attention!

Artur

01-18-2010, 08:13 PM

Indeed? Didn't know that. What's your source?

Historical fact. South Portugal remained a Moor conquest untill very late while in North Portugal the people were of European heritage as the Asturians and the people from Leon.

Have you?

I've been to Lisbon and Porto and some minor cities, and I actually saw a difference between them. In Lisbon, many people have some arabic features, while in the northern cities, one sees more blonde/blue-eyed people, although they are still the minority there.

From the first pdf that Jarl posted:

North Africans entered the Iberian Peninsula from the
south, and after a rapid northward expansion soon retreated
southwards, being finally expelled from Andalusia
over 700 years after their arrival. Thus, they apparently
spent the least amount of time in the north, and we might
therefore expect a south-north gradient of North African
ancestry proportions. However (and in agreement with
studies of independent samples36,41,64), we find no evidence
of this. Indeed, the highest mainland proportions
of North African ancestry (>20%) are found in Galicia
and Northwest Castile, with much lower proportions in
Andalusia.
This is indeed surprising.

As a matter a fact being a regular traveler inside Portugal and knowing Galiza also very well, I'm comfortable enough to say that I'm used to see more fair-haired and fair-haired people in southern Portugal than in northern Portugal and Galiza. Maybe in Brazil, History degrees come along with a Big-Mac and a Coke. I have articles from Brazil with the most absurd visions about Portugal and Spain.

If you go to the deep northern Portugal (supposedly more "celtic" and all), you can often see entire classes of students without a single blonde or fair-eyed student. So, the link between "celticness" and fairness lies completely lost in the realms of urban myths.

Your personal experience is more valid than mine since I only stayed a few days in each place and this kind of situation can be very misleading.
About the brazilians view concerning portugueses, yes you are right. Portugueses are a joke for brazilians, in History classes is typical to hear people say that was better if we were colonized by the dutchs. Is also typical claim that Portugueses are Moors. Many people here refers to Portugueses as "Mouros" simply to mock.

Could you post this articles you mentioned???

December

01-18-2010, 08:16 PM

"If you go to the deep northern Portugal (supposedly more "celtic" and all), you can often see entire classes of students without a single blonde or fair-eyed student. "

Really? :confused: I can´t tell about N. Portugal ,but at least in Galicia and i suppose in the rest of the regions of Spain this is completely impossible, unless the class is composed by 2 persons or something.I have many light eyed friends, and just a few blond and a few redheads, although blondism in kids is quite common. I´ve checked the pics of my 5 years old class and easily the 20% of the kids were blond, including myself.

I also had a similar perception like December when I went to the North though...that they had darker hair (I am not talking about skin or eyes).

I'm sorry but that's not true, in a class of thirty individuals you have on average seven light eyed individuals. Of course this only my observation.

Wait, wait, wait... You got me wrong. I said "often", not by far always.

The only differences regarding hair that i could notice is that i´ve seen less redheads in the rest of Spain than around here , about blondism i didn´t see anything different, just my impression.

Yes, indeed. I didn't said otherwise. In average that's the reality in practically all the western Península, from Ferrol to Faro.

But, I can notice that in specific remote zones (hinterland, mountainous areas) - I can recall areas surrounding Montalegre if I'm correct - where locals looked much more homogenously atlanto-med, with almost no blondism. A solid light to olive skin dark-haired type, as Alana said.

Artur

01-18-2010, 08:20 PM

Stefan

01-18-2010, 08:29 PM

Why does light hair and eye color have to be attributed to an Ethno-Lingual group influencing the core population? I'd say that the small difference between those who speak Indo-European languages and those who don't within Europe proves that Ethnic groups have little to do with pigmentation past generalizations, as there isn't anything more divergent ethnically than that. Now some Ethnic groups have common racial traits that have a higher prevalence, but just because the prevalence is much less in one group than another doesn't mean that there has to be some influence to get that trait. So isn't it possible that there were native Iberian groups that had light eyes and hair?

Jarl

01-18-2010, 08:41 PM

So isn't it possible that there were native Iberian groups that had light eyes and hair?

It is not only possible. It is well probable. Particularly that blondism existed in North Africa at low levels. Most likely it dates back to Upper Paleolithic Atlantinean cultures and people of the Cro-Magnon type.

Artur

01-18-2010, 08:47 PM

So isn't it possible that there were native Iberian groups that had light eyes and hair?

I don't think so. From what I read in the net, light hair and eyes are from people of any Germanic tribe. As an example, ancient Romans were not germanic and by Pompea'a and Herculaneum's paintings, one can see that they didn't have blue or green eyes. Therefore, I don't think any ethnic group, besides Germanics, had light hair/eyes.

Artur

01-18-2010, 08:50 PM

It is not only possible. It is well probable. Particularly that blondism existed in North Africa at low levels. Most likely it dates back to Upper Paleolithic Atlantinean cultures and people of the Cro-Magnon type.

In what are you basing to claim that?

Jarl

01-18-2010, 08:54 PM

I don't think so. From what I read in the net, light hair and eyes are from people of any Germanic tribe. As an example, ancient Romans were not germanic and by Pompea'a and Herculaneum's paintings, one can see that they didn't have blue or green eyes. Therefore, I don't think any ethnic group, besides Germanics, had light hair/eyes.

:mmmm: ...

From what I read in the net,

I think that is the essence of the problem ;)

In what are you basing to claim that?

I am basing my claim on the fact that mutations in genes affecting pigmentation occured several times in several different places, and long before the world has heard of the first Germanics. Certain North African and Middle Eastern Afro-Asiatic branches have had a low degree of blondism.

Stefan

01-18-2010, 08:56 PM

I don't think so. From what I read in the net, light hair and eyes are from people of any Germanic tribe. As an example, ancient Romans were not germanic and by Pompea'a and Herculaneum's paintings, one can see that they didn't have blue or green eyes. Therefore, I don't think any ethnic group, besides Germanics, had light hair/eyes.

That seems very wrong to me. This is solely due to the fact that light features predate Germanics as an ethnic group. How would you even explain this? How is it that in the span of a few hundred or thousand of years Germanics accumulated these traits while their very close relatives of other Indo-European ethnicities didn't?

Edit: And then light features spread again to other groups?

Äike

01-18-2010, 08:58 PM

Therefore, I don't think any ethnic group, besides Germanics, had light hair/eyes.

I lol'd, or am I misunderstanding this statement?

The blondest people in the world are Finns and the most red-haired people in the world are Udmurts. (both Finno-Ugric)

Jarl

01-18-2010, 09:01 PM

I lol'd, or am I misunderstanding this statement?

The blondest people in the world are Finns and the most red-haired people in the world are Udmurts. (both Finno-Ugric)

I would not be 100% certain about that. But the fact is blondism most likely evolved in the Upper Paleolithic, before the last glaciation. Consequently it should have been present in the glacial refugia and indigenous to most and European populations. Maghreb in North Africa was colonised by hunter-gatherers from Iberia. Hence the similarity and Cro-Magnon, very Europid appearence of the Berbers and Gunaches. It is logical to assume blondism found its way into North Africa along with the Iberian Cro-Magnons.

Osweo

01-18-2010, 09:08 PM

I don't think so. From what I read in the net, light hair and eyes are from people of any Germanic tribe. As an example, ancient Romans were not germanic and by Pompea'a and Herculaneum's paintings, one can see that they didn't have blue or green eyes. Therefore, I don't think any ethnic group, besides Germanics, had light hair/eyes.

LOL, I can't believe you lads are even bothering to respond to this absurdity!

Artur! Please stop embarrassing yourself in public like this! Make a thread on football or TV soaps or something you can handle better. :eek:

December

01-18-2010, 09:16 PM

Historical fact. South Portugal remained a Moor conquest untill very late while in North Portugal the people were of European heritage as the Asturians and the people from Leon.

Random fact: actually I've seen more blondes in Sevilla than I will ever see in Porto. Explain that.

I've been to Lisbon and Porto and some minor cities, and I actually saw a difference between them. In Lisbon, many people have some arabic features, while in the northern cities, one sees more blonde/blue-eyed people, although they are still the minority there.

People from Lisbon have some Arabic features?? OMG.

Artur

01-18-2010, 10:06 PM

Make a thread on football or TV soaps or something you can handle better. :eek:

I knew I shouldn't have said my nacionality here.

The finns are mostly pure blonde, but I thought they were germanic as well. My view was that the Germanics were a big number of tribes where people had light features, and only them originally had light eyes/hair.

Jarl, as I'm far from being an expert on that matter, I'm not going to emphatically contest you, but what you states seems very speculative, far from being a scientific true. I've already read scientist saying different things about it.

December, você pode me dar mais informações sobre esses artigos que mencionastes?

Jarl

01-18-2010, 10:18 PM

Jarl, as I'm far from being an expert on that matter, I'm not going to emphatically contest you, but what you states seems very speculative, far from being a scientific true. I've already read scientist saying different things about it.

Ascribing genes that evolved in several different Caucasian populations 20 000 to 10 000 years ago, to a single recent meta-ethnicity is far from being a scientific truth.

Artur

01-18-2010, 11:01 PM

Well, seems that the finns are really a different ethnic group:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html?_r=1

Jarl

01-19-2010, 10:48 AM

The finns are mostly pure blonde, but I thought they were germanic as well. My view was that the Germanics were a big number of tribes where people had light features, and only them originally had light eyes/hair.

I only hope this is not because you got blue eyes yourself and feel so unique/superior in the darkish Spain that you chose to believe that only Germanics had the patent for blondism, so that you could claim your descent from the Goths ;)

Äike

01-19-2010, 01:29 PM

I would not be 100% certain about that. But the fact is blondism most likely evolved in the Upper Paleolithic, before the last glaciation. Consequently it should have been present in the glacial refugia and indigenous to most and European populations. Maghreb in North Africa was colonised by hunter-gatherers from Iberia. Hence the similarity and Cro-Magnon, very Europid appearence of the Berbers and Gunaches. It is logical to assume blondism found its way into North Africa along with the Iberian Cro-Magnons.

Finns resemble the original Upper Paleolithic population the most, thus they're the blondest Europeans and also the most Cro-Magnon Europeans.

The finns are mostly pure blonde, but I thought they were germanic as well. My view was that the Germanics were a big number of tribes where people had light features, and only them originally had light eyes/hair.

Follow Osweo's advice. :wink

Artur! Please stop embarrassing yourself in public like this! Make a thread on football or TV soaps or something you can handle better.

Artur

01-19-2010, 09:55 PM

I only hope this is not because you got blue eyes yourself and feel so unique/superior in the darkish Spain that you chose to believe that only Germanics had the patent for blondism, so that you could claim your descent from the Goths ;)

Firstly, I'm not from Spain. Secondly, I don't fell special for having blue-eyes at all.

My argument is an oposition to what you said about Germanic heritage in Spain been insignificant. You claim light eyes/hair were attributes of a minority in N Africa, but for me is hard to imagine an ancient N African like Robredo, Higueras or Ferrero (just to name a few in the tennis world).

Don't you think some features other than eye/hair color in some Spaniards resemble some Germanic people you see in Austria, France, Switzerland ? (Are Gauls considered celtic or germanic? )

@Karl, I never said I was an expert on what is been discussed. Also, I don't have an ego problem which would make me feel embarrassed for not knowing something in a random situation. I'm not here to win debates, I'm here to learn.

El Palleter

07-24-2011, 12:19 PM

First-hand knowledge tells me that Gots arriving Iberia far less mixtured than you're assuring, comrade. :thumb001:Well that's debatable. The Goths performed the longest known of the peoples wanderings. While they were originally Germanic by language group, their self-sense of identity would have relied more on their barbaric, or nomadic ways of life. The assimilation of other minor groups of nomadic warrior people through their long wandering is more than just possible. If you take modern Germany and Austria, what's called Germanic is in fact the amalgamation of very different peoples, in different territories, all unified by a superstratum that imposed a common language.

Besides, the Greeks called them Scythians, like the Alans and the Sarmatians, groups that should have been easily distinguishable from the German tribes.

Allow me a personal experience to ilustrate my position: 30 years ago, a road was open between the little village (6 or 7 households) of my family and a near one (1 km. of an uncrossable uphill forest between). I remember playing football with them realizing how little mixture there were across the centuries between fair people of suebian-named village downhill and dark people uphill. Maybe it was a extreme case of Suebian and indigenous-hispanoroman people being mutually isolated by nature walls, or maybe not.

BTW my grandgrandparent got married with a darker girl from a third place so Suebian features of his "estirpe" become -as recently as XX century- severely diluted.The problem that I see with a widespread Suebian influence in Galicia is twofold: they were a relatively small group (of about 30,000) and they settled mainly in the Bracarensis, modern N. Portugal and Leon, with Bracara Augusta (modern Braga) as their capital.

What all maps that you see on the internet depict is the expansion of the Kingdom of the Suebi, after they defeated the Hasdingi Vandals (who had settled in Galicia and eastern Asturias, and who moved then down to Betica, to join the Silingi Vandals). But it's very unlikely that that would have implied any substantial extension of Suebian population, given their numbers.

However, it is known that around the year 740 AD King Alfonso I of Asturias seized much of the Christian population living scattered throughout the buffer area north of Duero and took them to Asturias and Galicia. It's very possible that a Hispanogothic popular element was strong among them (Campos Gothicos). Also, from Christians arrived from Merida escaping from Muslim rule.

Husaria

07-24-2011, 06:02 PM

I think this map is more accurate

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v1949/162/96/542534494/n542534494_1291368_7321.jpg

Lábaru

07-24-2011, 07:21 PM

I think this map is more accurate

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v1949/162/96/542534494/n542534494_1291368_7321.jpg

All the maps with an area in North of Africa with 30% of light eyes are pure shit, trust me.

Ibericus

07-24-2011, 07:25 PM

I think this map is more accurate

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v1949/162/96/542534494/n542534494_1291368_7321.jpg
There are no areas with more than 80% , nor the north-african coastline has more than Sardinia, South-Italy, Greece, etc.

Osweo

07-25-2011, 08:12 PM

Well that's debatable. The Goths performed the longest known of the peoples wanderings. While they were originally Germanic by language group, their self-sense of identity would have relied more on their barbaric, or nomadic ways of life. The assimilation of other minor groups of nomadic warrior people through their long wandering is more than just possible.
And who would these minor groups have been? Closely related Germanics, and the odd few (proto-)Slavs. That Iranics were picked up along the way is as good as proven, given what is known of men like Jordanes and Aspar.

At the end of the day, that's a load of people in a continuous swathe of territory from the Baltic Sea to the Crimea. None of them being particularly alien in physical terms. :shrug:

If you take modern Germany and Austria, what's called Germanic is in fact the amalgamation of very different peoples, in different territories, all unified by a superstratum that imposed a common language.
Germanic on Celtic and Slavonic. (The Slavonic itself overlying a previous Germanic layer). Where is the 'very different' here? If Celts appeared in Austria and Bohemia, they will always have been in ethnic and genetic contact with Germanics. Same for the westernmost Slavs.

Besides, the Greeks called them Scythians, like the Alans and the Sarmatians, groups that should have been easily distinguishable from the German tribes.
Physically? I doubt it. The difference would merely have been in relative frequencies of certain subracial traits. Maybe Agrippa can comment? He's paid more attention to the anthro side of the Sarmatian archaeology than I have.
Ethno-culturally? Well... There were clear commonalities in religion, of course. If you can see these by comparing Hindu stuff with 12th Century Icelandic, then I'm sure it will have been even more obvious in the days of the Goths.

The problem that I see with a widespread Suebian influence in Galicia is twofold: they were a relatively small group (of about 30,000)
Is that of fighting men only? Did they bring families?

If it was only men, we can give each one two or three Celto-Iberian concubines and expect a brood of say.. four half-and-half kids each. That gives us a group of 30,000 Suebi with 120,000 half-breeds (who may have considered themselves fully Suebian in identity terms, especially the boys who joined their fathers and uncles as warriors. We can then also have some of the original 30,000 marrying some of the half-Suebian daughters of their friends and comrades. Add some 60,000 kids. Before that first pure generation die away, we've already got 210,000 Suebians. And these are in a privileged social position, with all the advantages for health and security that that affords.

The locals, on the other hand, will be terrorised at first, perhaps having their agricultural activities disrupted and suffering accordingly. Later on they'll be more or less 'oppressed', having resources 'taxed' from them, again depressing birth and survival rates.

What all maps that you see on the internet depict is the expansion of the Kingdom of the Suebi, after they defeated the Hasdingi Vandals (who had settled in Galicia and eastern Asturias, and who moved then down to Betica, to join the Silingi Vandals). But it's very unlikely that that would have implied any substantial extension of Suebian population, given their numbers.
With expansion, there will have been little groups of conquerors planted as lords of the new estates carved out of the conquests. That means several nuclei of Suebian reproduction scattered throughout the newly gained lands.

However, it is known that around the year 740 AD King Alfonso I of Asturias seized much of the Christian population living scattered throughout the buffer area north of Duero and took them to Asturias and Galicia. It's very possible that a Hispanogothic popular element was strong among them (Campos Gothicos). Also, from Christians arrived from Merida escaping from Muslim rule.

Aye, it's these later movements and population exchanges that have done so much to shape modern Spain. People who just look at a map of 700 AD are missing a LOT of what their actual genealogical heritage is. The ancient stuff is important, and was hardly wiped out and smothered, but it has been made a lot more complicated in the intervening centuries, yes.

Comte Arnau

07-25-2011, 11:38 PM

I think this map is more accurate

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v1949/162/96/542534494/n542534494_1291368_7321.jpg

I more or less agree with the area of higher frequence for blue eyes in the Iberian Peninsula, out of personal impressions but also in accordance with Hoyos Sainz, who mentioned a range of 20% to 35% in Navarre and the Ebro basin. Other areas of the Peninsula, mainly coastal, must have percentages close to 20% too.

But as it's been said, believing that there's a higher range of light eyes in North Africa than in any area of Southern Europe is mere crap, even if we can agree that northern Berbers (Riffians, Kabylians...) are lighter on average than the rest of North Africans.

Ouistreham

07-25-2011, 11:54 PM

This map is not perfect but it is way better than all others we use to see.
BTW the original graphic was somewhat more precise:

http://www.summagallicana.it/lessico/c/Coon%20Map_Hair_and_Eyes.jpg

believing that there's a higher range of light eyes in North Africa than in any area of Southern Europe is mere crap, even if we can agree that northern Berbers (Riffians, Kabylians...) are lighter on average than the rest of North Africans.

Coon's maps were mainly based on data collected before 1900. Probably there still were at that time in North Africa and the Middle East some isolates of clear complexions that have since then been obscured and wiped out by the demographic explosion that has affected primarily the lowest classes in the Arab world.

Comte Arnau

07-25-2011, 11:59 PM

Coon's maps were mainly based on data collected before 1900. Probably there still were at that time in North Africa and the Middle East some isolates of clear complexions that have since then been obscured and wiped out by the demographic explosion that has affected primarily the lowest classes in the Arab world.

Could be, but highly unlikely, if you ask me. I'd rather think he took such information from old sources of anthropologists/ethnologists who very probably exaggerated the numbers after being surprised to find light eyes in the African continent.

Ibericus

07-26-2011, 12:04 AM

This map is not perfect but it is way better than all others we use to see.
BTW the original graphic was somewhat more precise:

http://www.summagallicana.it/lessico/c/Coon%20Map_Hair_and_Eyes.jpg

Is exactly the same map. They make them look like the darkest areas of southern-Europe are equivalent to North-African, when clearly the differences are vastly great.

Kadu

07-26-2011, 12:06 AM

anthropologists/ethnologists who very probably exaggerated the numbers after being surprised to find light eyes in the African continent.

He actually lived in north Africa, must have been in a very special place...

Coon continued with coursework at Harvard. He conducted fieldwork in the Rif area of Morocco in 1925, which was politically unsettled after a rebellion of the local populace against the Spanish. He earned his Ph.D. in 1928[5] and returned to Harvard as a lecturer and later a professor. Coon's interest was in attempting to use Darwin's theory of natural selection to explain the differing physical characteristics of races. Coon studied Albanians from 1929–1930; he traveled to Ethiopia in 1933; and in Arabia, North Africa and the Balkans, he worked on sites from 1925 to 1939...

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon)

Ibericus

07-26-2011, 12:09 AM

He actually lived in north Africa, must have been in a very special place...

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon)
Really, because I have yet to see a moor with blue-eyes, at least in Spain i've never seen one.

Lábaru

07-26-2011, 12:20 AM

Really, because I have yet to see a moor with blue-eyes, at least in Spain i've never seen one.

And in Morocco are 1-5%, trust me.

El Palleter

07-26-2011, 12:24 AM

And who would these minor groups have been? Closely related Germanics, and the odd few (proto-)Slavs. That Iranics were picked up along the way is as good as proven, given what is known of men like Jordanes and Aspar.The transdanubian barbarian peoples were often confederations of Sarmatian and Germanic tribes, and the affiliation of some was mixed or, at least unclear, such as the Carpi and the Bastarnae. Unclear likely means that although they would have retained the affiliation of the majority element (e.g. Germanic), some elements were of a different origin (e.g. Sarmatian).

Further to that, Roman Emperor Maximinus Thrax (173 AD) was suspected to have been of Gothic father and Alannic mother. Not all that strange since the Alans had been federated to the Goths. But even if this was wrong, it ought to tell anyone that the "crossing" was not thought to be blasphemous...unlike in some internet fora ;)

Odoacer, King of Italy, is not even known if he was Hunnic, or from a Germanic tribe federated to Attila's Huns (such as the Heruli, Rugians, Gepids, Ostrogoths, etc). And if the latter, what would have precluded his father from having married a Hunnic woman? some vague idea pertaining to the 19th century onwards?

Of all the Germanic tribes that were federated to the Huns, do you really think that none of the men took Hunnic women before the Huns dispersed? Well, we cannot affirm nor deny can we? But we can speculate with a good degree of certainty that, being the Huns the dominating warrior group, for peoples of a warrior mentality taking a bride from them would have brought no shame (or "race betrayal") but, on the contrary, it would have brought them prestige.

The Gepids were assimilated into the Turkic Avars, of which they were federated.

And the Vandals assimilated the Alans.

When the king of the Alans proposes the king of the Suebians an alliance by marrying his daughter, the Suebian does not reject him on the basis of race. He rejects it on the basis of religion.

Mind you it's only a Roman emperor who forbids by law marriages of Roman citizens (these would include those from Italy, but also Gaul, Iberia and Britain in the West, and all others in the East) with barbarian peoples (Germanic or other), to prevent what he thought that it would be detrimental to Romans, and not the other way around.

At the end of the day, that's a load of people in a continuous swathe of territory from the Baltic Sea to the Crimea. None of them being particularly alien in physical terms. :shrug: Eurasianism sucks ;)

Germanic on Celtic and Slavonic. (The Slavonic itself overlying a previous Germanic layer). Where is the 'very different' here? If Celts appeared in Austria and Bohemia, they will always have been in ethnic and genetic contact with Germanics.If they did. But that remains speculation based on the long unquestioned theories proposed by Jubainville in the 19th century, of which:

"Simply put, de Jubainville's evidence was a range of Celtic loans into Germanic (and even a fair selection of non-loans, incorrectly assessed [...]"

Language contacts in prehistory: studies in stratigraphy (2003)
Henning Andersen

Not to mention that there aren't much Hallstatt and La Tène archaeological remains in southwestern and northwestern Europe.

Physically? I doubt it. The difference would merely have been in relative frequencies of certain subracial traits.Besides the Greeks, the Hispanian Paulus Orosius (375 - 418 AD) lists the three wildest tribes of Scythians of his times: Alans, Huns and Goths. (source: History of the Goths, by Herwig Wolfram.)

Obviously those relative frequencies of traits were widely noticed.

Maybe Agrippa can comment? He's paid more attention to the anthro side of the Sarmatian archaeology than I have.I'd rather leave nazi science-fiction out of this.

For sanity's sake. :)

Ethno-culturally? Well... There were clear commonalities in religion, of course. If you can see these by comparing Hindu stuff with 12th Century Icelandic, then I'm sure it will have been even more obvious in the days of the Goths.

Is that of fighting men only? Did they bring families?The whole lot.

If it was only menIf it was only men, they would have been known as Gaymanics :P

we can give each one two or three Celto-Iberian concubines and expect a brood of say..

The locals, on the other hand, will be terrorised at first, perhaps having their agricultural activities disrupted and suffering accordingly. Later on they'll be more or less 'oppressed', having resources 'taxed' from them, again depressing birth and survival rates.
I don't remember the sources, but what I've read from the the Suebi spoke of a rather smooth settlement among the local population. Nothing so tragic. You seem to be projecting what was probably the pattern of Saxon settlements in the eastern parts of Britain.

And of course no "Celtiberians" there in the West. Not sure if you are referring to those though.

Aye, it's these later movements and population exchanges that have done so much to shape modern Spain. People who just look at a map of 700 AD are missing a LOT of what their actual genealogical heritage is. The ancient stuff is important, and was hardly wiped out and smothered, but it has been made a lot more complicated in the intervening centuries, yes.Well, right. The fact that Alfonso I of Asturias was elected king (739 - 757) by "popular acclamation" suggests to me that the prerroman element was preeminent in the highlands of Asturias and Cantabria.

The Gothic monarchy, though elective, was elected by the magnates alone. This was a characteristic of the Gothic period, and it was most decisive in destroying the kingdom of the Goths only a few decades earlier.

Comte Arnau

07-26-2011, 12:26 AM

He actually lived in north Africa, must have been in a very special place...

In his favour, I must admit I have never been to the Rif. But more than three quarters of the Moroccans in Catalonia are Riffian Berbers (Riffian is now the third most spoken language here, you know), and, as you say, either he was really at a very special place, or the numbers over 25% can't simply be true. Higher than anywhere else in North Africa, probably (along with the Kabylia, although I wonder if French admixture there has something to do with it), but not higher than 25%. Unlike Iberia, I've seen indeed light-eyed Riffians here, specially in young women. But not in the proportion you can see them in Navarre or northern Italy, to be frank. :p

Ouistreham

07-26-2011, 12:30 AM

Could be, but highly unlikely, if you ask me. I'd rather think he took such information from old sources of anthropologists/ethnologists who very probably exaggerated the numbers after being surprised to find light eyes in the African continent.
Exceptions like that may have been over-reported (conversely, the frequency of dark hair and eyes in Wales seems to be a tad exagerated).

Is exactly the same map
Except for a big difference you should have noticed: it doesn't give the questionable percentages of the modern version.

the numbers over 25% can't simply be true
See above.

Really, because I have yet to see a moor with blue-eyes, at least in Spain i've never seen one.
There are, much more than you think, among the local elites. Syrian leader El-Assad could easily pass for a tall blue-eyed Spaniard.

Another reason for which Coon's map doesn't reflect the present reality is that the coastal regions with alleged light eyes minorities are just the areas where local population was largely Jewish. For some reason, North-African Jews had very often dark brown hair with strikingly blue eyes (no Negro admixture, since non-Muslims weren't allowed to own slaves). But now they're all in Palestina, in France, or in Florida.

Ibericus

07-26-2011, 12:31 AM

I more or less agree with the area of higher frequence for blue eyes in the Iberian Peninsula, out of personal impressions but also in accordance with Hoyos Sainz, who mentioned a range of 20% to 35% in Navarre and the Ebro basin. Other areas of the Peninsula, mainly coastal, must have percentages close to 20% too.

Hoyos-Sanz mentions 40% in Vasco-Navarre and 35% in Aragón

Logan

07-26-2011, 12:33 AM

And the percent of accuracy has diminished in time.

Comte Arnau

07-26-2011, 12:38 AM

Hoyos-Sanz mentions 40% in Vasco-Navarre and 35% in Aragón

I personally find those percentages a bit high (perhaps he's adding green eyes to it?), but I do totally coincide with the area being the most blue-eyed in the whole of Iberia.

El Palleter

07-26-2011, 12:42 AM

Really, because I have yet to see a moor with blue-eyes, at least in Spain i've never seen one.I have. A couple of Riffians.

One in fact (a woman) tried to make herself pass as an Italian. I didn't buy it and told her that she was a Moor. So she started speaking Italian as if to prove it. The next minute she was admitting that she was Riffian.

Osweo

07-26-2011, 01:29 AM

As for Coon... Wasn't he involved in intelligence? Was he there in Morocco acting against Spanish interests, perhaps? Subtly changing the wider world's perception of his newfound Berber 'friends' may have been rather expedient... :chin:

The transdanubian barbarian peoples were often confederations of Sarmatian and Germanic tribes, and the affiliation of some was mixed or, at least unclear, such as the Carpi and the Bastarnae. Unclear likely means that although they would have retained the affiliation of the majority element (e.g. Germanic), some elements were of a different origin (e.g. Sarmatian).

Further to that, Roman Emperor Maximinus Thrax (173 AD) was suspected to have been of Gothic father and Alannic mother. Not all that strange since the Alans had been federated to the Goths. But even if this was wrong, it ought to tell anyone that the "crossing" was not thought to be blasphemous...unlike in some internet fora ;)

Odoacer, King of Italy, is not even known if he was Hunnic, or from a Germanic tribe federated to Attila's Huns (such as the Heruli, Rugians, Gepids, Ostrogoths, etc). And if the latter, what would have precluded his father from having married a Hunnic woman? some vague idea pertaining to the 19th century onwards?

Of all the Germanic tribes that were federated to the Huns, do you really think that none of the men took Hunnic women before the Huns dispersed? Well, we cannot affirm nor deny can we? But we can speculate with a good degree of certainty that, being the Huns the dominating warrior group, for peoples of a warrior mentality taking a bride from them would have brought no shame (or "race betrayal") but, on the contrary, it would have brought them prestige.

The Gepids were assimilated into the Turkic Avars, of which they were federated.

And the Vandals assimilated the Alans.

When the king of the Alans proposes the king of the Suebians an alliance by marrying his daughter, the Suebian does not reject him on the basis of race. He rejects it on the basis of religion.
Hang on... Is all that just to back up and support what I said in a few quickly typed words? :p

Mind you it's only a Roman emperor who forbids by law marriages of Roman citizens (these would include those from Italy, but also Gaul, Iberia and Britain in the West, and all others in the East) with barbarian peoples (Germanic or other), to prevent what he thought that it would be detrimental to Romans, and not the other way around.
Things only get forbidden if they're actually happening on an appreciable scale, which indicates that plenty of Roman citizens thought better than their Emperor... :cool:

Eurasianism sucks ;)
Use of the word 'sucks' in that manner sucks. :ohwell: I can't believe it's got so popular. :( Do they actually imply 'sucks cock'!? :suomut:
Eurasianism, well, depends what you mean by that. :confused:

If they did. But that remains speculation based on the long unquestioned theories proposed by Jubainville in the 19th century, of which:
They make a great deal of sense. The geographic distribution of later known Celtdom underlines this upper Danubian Urheimat very well. Please, outline an alternative in a new thread.

Not to mention that there aren't much Hallstatt and La Tène archaeological remains in southwestern and northwestern Europe.
Hmm? There's a GREAT DEAL of La Tene in the British Isles. :confused:

As for Iberia, clearly the drastic change of scenery, and the radically different cultural environment had their impact on the material culture of the incomers. :shrug:

Besides the Greeks, the Hispanian Paulus Orosius (375 - 418 AD) lists the three wildest tribes of Scythians of his times: Alans, Huns and Goths. (source: History of the Goths, by Herwig Wolfram.)

Obviously those relative frequencies of traits were widely noticed.
Eh? We all know what Poles, Germans and Magyars are nowadays, but that doesn't stop them having a lot of physical types in common. Why are you bringing up ethnic divisions when I was talking about physical types?

The whole lot.
Ah, then that will have meant that the second generation would have included many more pure Germans then! My scenario should be then added on after an initial multiplication of the 30,000 figure, thereby bumping up all subsequent figures substantially.

I don't remember the sources, but what I've read from the the Suebi spoke of a rather smooth settlement among the local population. Nothing so tragic. You seem to be projecting what was probably the pattern of Saxon settlements in the eastern parts of Britain.
IF that is so, we can remove my suppositions on 'terror famine' tactics. Still, we have the imposition of a new upper class. Such impositions are never entirely welcome, as there are always locals whose ambitions will be crushed by them.

And of course no "Celtiberians" there in the West. Not sure if you are referring to those though.
Not as such, and I know what you mean. I meant a more general idea of Celts in Iberia with a native substratum.

By the way, I'm sceptical that the Celtiberos were really as distinct as they are made out to be.

Well, right. The fact that Alfonso I of Asturias was elected king (739 - 757) by "popular acclamation" suggests to me that the prerroman element was preeminent in the highlands of Asturias and Cantabria.
Why you lads put two Rs in pre-Roman baffles me. Quite unetymological!

BUT, what on Earth are you on about? What was the tradition of folk-democracy or elected kingship among Romano-Iberians!? Sounds very Germanic to me. Or otherwise a simple locally-determined phenomenon, reflective of geography and concomitant land tenure practices...

The Gothic monarchy, though elective, was elected by the magnates alone. This was a characteristic of the Gothic period, and it was most decisive in destroying the kingdom of the Goths only a few decades earlier.
The relative difference in size between the Visigothic Kingdom and that of the Swabians seems key here. More 'participatory' government was far harder in the former's wide domains than in the compact realm of the latter.

BeerBaron

07-26-2011, 01:29 AM

No, and this map was first made to show hair color, not eye color. The map is also used on a joke blog about mapping stereotypes.

Husaria

07-26-2011, 04:57 AM

All the maps with an area in North of Africa with 30% of light eyes are pure shit, trust me.

It is possible.
From what I have read Sicilians have 23 percent light eyes while Rif Berbers have 38 percent light eyes & Kabyle Berbers 48 percent Light eyes.

This is supported by a scientific study done on them in the Rif showing that some of the Rif Berbers have blond hair and blue or green eyes, a percentage higher than that found in Italians, Spaniards, or Portuguese.

Lábaru

07-26-2011, 08:14 AM

xD xDThis is very funny, you keep talking about the blue eyes of the Moors xD xD I wonder where this legend was born.

For which know the country of Morocco is very clear, for those who see an average of 100 Moroccan daily in the streets is very clear.

But you guys keep dreaming with your 25-30% of blue eyed Berber, is extremely fun for me xD xD

Comte Arnau

07-26-2011, 12:35 PM

This is supported by a scientific study done on them in the Rif showing that some of the Rif Berbers have blond hair and blue or green eyes, a percentage higher than that found in Italians, Spaniards, or Portuguese.

Source?

Frederick

07-26-2011, 01:03 PM

Besides the Greeks, the Hispanian Paulus Orosius (375 - 418 AD) lists the three wildest tribes of Scythians of his times: Alans, Huns and Goths. (source: History of the Goths, by Herwig Wolfram.)

There must have been something strange to the Goth. Tacitus (in his book of 99 AD, about Germanic peoples) aswell, denies Goth beeing Germanic, while he agress to Siones (Swedes) beeing Germanic. (the Goth of the time of Tacitus lived in northern Poland). But he does not tell what he thinks the Goth belong to instead.

Besides that, he also mentiones "Germanic" tribes in Slovakia, that he believes to be admixed, for showing "ugly" "Skythian" facial phenotypes.

Ibericus

07-26-2011, 07:41 PM

It is possible.
From what I have read Sicilians have 23 percent light eyes while Rif Berbers have 38 percent light eyes & Kabyle Berbers 48 percent Light eyes.

This is supported by a scientific study done on them in the Rif showing that some of the Rif Berbers have blond hair and blue or green eyes, a percentage higher than that found in Italians, Spaniards, or Portuguese.
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSHj3xil670pWfoPoUZDf_Huob1Win_9 vJ2ne_aX0hF9duozFhQ8A

Husaria

07-26-2011, 10:08 PM

Husaria

07-26-2011, 10:08 PM

Source?
Riffi Berbers are defined as Mediterranean with moderate Alpinid and Nordic admixture closer to Europeans than to Africans. This is supported by a scientific study done on Rif Berbers showing that 38.6% of the Rif Berbers have blond hair and blue or green eyes, a percentage higher than that found in Italians, Spaniards, or Portuguese.

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/riffian-people/physical-anthropology.html

Falkata

07-26-2011, 10:16 PM

Hahaha almost 40% of norther moroccans with blond hair and blue eyes :D
You can find similar numbers in Germany or Poland.
Crazy study. Just go there and see the reality with your own eyes

Ibericus

07-26-2011, 10:20 PM

Rif Berbers only make up a fraction of Morrocco. The mass majority of Morroccans are much darker than Rif Berbers.
Do you realize that 3/4 of moroccans in Catalonia are Riffians ? We know how they look, we see them everyday.

Mordid

07-26-2011, 10:29 PM

Hahaha almost 40% of norther moroccans with blond hair and blue eyes :D
You can find similar numbers in Germany or Poland.
Crazy study. Just go there and see the reality with your own eyes

Just ignore him, for god sake.

Comte Arnau

07-26-2011, 10:47 PM

Riffi Berbers are defined as Mediterranean with moderate Alpinid and Nordic admixture closer to Europeans than to Africans. This is supported by a scientific study done on Rif Berbers showing that 38.6% of the Rif Berbers have blond hair and blue or green eyes, a percentage higher than that found in Italians, Spaniards, or Portuguese.

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/riffian-people/physical-anthropology.html

It points towards two studies by Chamla, in which this sentence is highlighted:

"Green or light chesnut-colored eyes can frequently be found in the mountains areas (Kabylie and especially aures) and in the high plains of the east. This relative frequency of "mixed" colored eyes is not peculiar to Algerians but is apparent in other countries of North Africa as well, especially in Morocco (...) The frequency of pale-colored eyes (blue and gray), varies from two to fifteen percent according the region concerned".

So am I stupid or the 38.6% goes down in that sentence to 2%-15% ? :confused:

Tbh, between 2 and 15% is a much more credible percentage. Any numbers over 25% are, as I said, simply unbelievable.

El Palleter

07-27-2011, 12:27 AM

Hang on... Is all that just to back up and support what I said in a few quickly typed words?Well, I didn't notice that you were agreeing with me.

Things only get forbidden if they're actually happening on an appreciable scale, which indicates that plenty of Roman citizens thought better than their Emperor... :cool:So you'd agree that all Brits (or Spanish, etc) who are currently mixing with immigrants, know better.

Interesting.

Use of the word 'sucks' in that manner sucks. :ohwell: I can't believe it's got so popular. :( Do they actually imply 'sucks cock'!? :suomut: Not necessarily with a sexual connotation. But then again, I speak for myself.

They make a great deal of sense. The geographic distribution of later known Celtdom underlines this upper Danubian Urheimat very well. Please, outline an alternative in a new thread. Not only it's a very poor (and much outdated) argument, but also the Central European location of this supposed urheimat contrasts with the SW & NW location of the known ancient Celtic areas with only the Gauls offering an area of contact with Hallstatt at their easternmost limits.

I'm not willing to open a new thread over this because it would unavoidable for me to get into the reasons why you are so stuck into it. I don't see the need for it.

Hmm? There's a GREAT DEAL of La Tene in the British Isles. :confused:
Not really:

In several papers in the 1960s R.F. Hodson drew attention to the weakness of many of these supposed links, in particular the considerably restricted amount of material of proven Continental origin found in insular contexts and a system largely dependent on local pottery sequences. Hodson, in fact, advocated a return to the 'culture' approach of Childe. While movement across the English Channel cannot be entirely discounted, notably with regard to the origins of so-called 'insular' La Tène art, the continuing antipathy towards what has been termed the 'invasion hypothesis' has virtually led to the abandonment of the terms 'Hallstatt' and 'La Tène' as chronological descriptors for the Iron Age of the British Isles and Ireland. This is particularly the case for Ireland, where one of the most troublesome aspects of what has been termed 'the enigma of the Irish Iron Age' is the absence of Continental material, let alone anything which can definitely indicate a movement from the Continent.

LIMITATIONS AND CELTOSCEPTICISM

There is no doubt that the basic Hallstatt-La Tène chronology has been applied much too widely in the Continent, as in the British Isles. There seems to be little typological –or cultural– support for its use, for example, in the eastern Balkans or around the Black Sea. Some would go further; there has been much debate concerning the equation which is often made between archaeological phases –however defined– and 'cultures', a correlation between material manifestations and regional ethnicities or identities. In particular, a group of English archaeologists has questioned the existence not only of a pan-European Celtic society, but also the view that La Tène (let alone late Hallstatt) periods equal ancient Celtic society. The same scholars deny the very existence of insular Celts at any time in insular prehistory. And, from there, it is a small logical step for the abandonment of the very terms 'Hallstatt' and 'La Tène'.

Celtic culture: a historical encyclopedia (2006)
John T. Koch

As for Iberia, clearly the drastic change of scenery, and the radically different cultural environment had their impact on the material culture of the incomers. :shrug: Or, rather, the cultural activity coming through the Mediterranean explains why in their shores a different culture evolves, while at the back of those shores it remains the old Celtic.

With the exception of the Celtiberian peoples and the Suessetani, which were probably Belgic (or Gallic), originally.

Eh? We all know what Poles, Germans and Magyars are nowadays, but that doesn't stop them having a lot of physical types in common. Why are you bringing up ethnic divisions when I was talking about physical types? What? You do know that the Scythians were an Iranic people, don't you?

Ah, then that will have meant that the second generation would have included many more pure Germans then! My scenario should be then added on after an initial multiplication of the 30,000 figure, thereby bumping up all subsequent figures substantially.Well...your scenario is just that, yours. You can stretch it all you want, but it still remains a fictitious scenario, more into the realms of what-if than actual facts. :)

IF that is so, we can remove my suppositions on 'terror famine' tactics. Still, we have the imposition of a new upper class.You're still projecting what some suppose that might have happened in the eastern shores of England. But these are different scenarios. For one thing, the Suebians got along with the bagaudae, which were local rebellions against the remains of Roman administration. There bagaudae movements in Hispania and in SW Gaul, but not in Brittania.

Not as such, and I know what you mean. I meant a more general idea of Celts in Iberia with a native substratum.Yes. Those other Celtic groups that were more ancient in Iberia than Celtiberians.

By the way, I'm sceptical that the Celtiberos were really as distinct as they are made out to be.How's that?

Why you lads put two Rs in pre-Roman baffles me. Quite unetymological!Just deriving it from writing in Spanish.

BUT, what on Earth are you on about? What was the tradition of folk-democracy or elected kingship among Romano-Iberians!? Sounds very Germanic to me. Or otherwise a simple locally-determined phenomenon, reflective of geography and concomitant land tenure practices... It's explained there: with the Goths it was a number of powerful families (magnates) who elected the king. Even when a king managed to associate his son to the throne (as did Leuvegild with his son Rekhared), he still needed the support of the other magnates, and this often led to civil wars between the different parties.

In Asturias what we see is the acclamation of a warrior as a chief, by the Astures. Notice that in the first times the sources refer to the Astures as different to the refugees...for whom I think that they use the term Christians, while Goths is kept for those in Toledo under Muslim rule.

But don't quote me on this, I'm unsure of the exact terms.

The relative difference in size between the Visigothic Kingdom and that of the Swabians seems key here. More 'participatory' government was far harder in the former's wide domains than in the compact realm of the latter.You are lost here. The reasons are known and documented at least since Menéndez Pelayo (A History of the Spanish Heterodox).

You keep presuming characteristics that are common to the ancient Germanics to the Goths, missing in the way that the Goths were a unique people.