Differences between Dinaroid and Keltic?

[Korbis]

I ask because ive seen the same kind of looking people classified under both terms, depending on the site. Is kind of confusing.


I mean people like Peter Cushing, David Tennant or Gabriel Byrne. I´m personally interested in that because its also the phenotype of my dad, my uncle (who is like a clon of Byrne, except for the brown and not black hair), and partially mine too.


http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/3255/hammerhorror0ny8.jpg

http://cdn.tvlia.com/files/2009/11/david-tennant.jpg

http://www.golem.es/aritmeticaemocional/imagen/gabriel_byrne.jpg

[Tomasz]

I guess by saying Keltic you meant "Keltic-Nordid"?

Keltic-Nordid is basically slightly dinaricized Nordid. They show predominantly Nordid traits with some Dinaroid vibe.

Dinaroids on the other hand can be translated as "Dinarid-like". So there has been much more dinaricization going on and type cannot be classified as "Keltic-Nordid" because of lack of the strong Nordid component.

[Korbis]

Can you point the nordic elements in those I mentioned above? To my eyes they don´t differ too much from other examples that ive seen of "pure dinarics". Specially Tennant, whom look might be quite common in certain regions of Britain but its also present in Spain as well - where the nordic migratory flow has been scarce or insignificant.

[Curtis24]

Hey Tomasz, I got a few questions myself about it:

1) do you think the "Keltic Nordid" type is actually responsible for spreading Keltic language and culture?

2) vs., to what extent is "Keltic Nordid" merely a localized type in England, due to the Bell BEakers being there?

3) did the Keltic Nordid type develop because of dinaricization, or because of contact with preexisting Dinarids?

[Tomasz]

@Curtis24:

I think they most likely have their Dinaroid traits because of admixture of such elements, not process of dinaricization itself. These elements were of Bell Beaker origin.

Before they absorbed this element, they were classic Skando-Nordid type most likely.

I believe they are actually responsible for spread of Celtic languages, they didn't formed later in Britain. I base my view on fact that Latins (who were closely related to Kelts both linguistically and racially at that time) were classified by some anthropologists (Coon for example) as Keltic-Nordid.

[Tomasz]

@Korbis:

Yes, Tennant seem to not be fully Keltic-Nordid and I woudn't consider him good example of this type. But Cushing is definitely good example of Keltic-Nordid. Textbook example, I'd say.

Nordid/Keltic-Nordid traits in him are: fair eyes, long and narrow face, slopping forehead, mesocephalic skull, etc. Some of these traits are difficult see on front view but google his side picture so you'll see, what I mean. :)

[Curtis24]

One last question: do you think the Dinarid influence is strong enough to classify Keltic Nordids apart from Skando-nordids?

[Tomasz]

One last question: do you think the Dinarid influence is strong enough to classify Keltic Nordids apart from Skando-nordids?

There are different opinions but I believe that Dinaroid admixture is relatively slight. It's significantly weaker than in Norids. Nordid element in Keltic-Nordid is still dominating.

In the end, I would classify Keltic-Nordids apart from Skando-Nordids but still in range of general Nordid category.

I see Nordid variety as composed of central types: East-Nordid and Skando-Nordid; and slightly altered types: Keltic-Nordid, Anglo-Saxon and some Tronders (with Nordid predominance).

[Korbis]

Thanks for the info. ;)


I must assume there´s a Keltic type too ( apart and without the Nordid) , or this only exists as a mixed hyphenated term?

[Tomasz]

Thanks for the info.

No problem. ;)


I must assume there´s a Keltic type too ( apart and without the Nordid) , or this only exists as a mixed hyphenated term?

Nope. It only exists as mixed hyphenated term meaning Nordid with slight Dinarid admixture, typical to British Isles.

[Mordid]

Hey Tomazs, since you know Noric and Nordid are common in Poland and dont you think they breed with each other to might show Keltic facial features ?

[Saruman]

"Keltic" would probably be from 55-70 % Nordid, between the two more on the Nordid side, Norid more on the Dinarid side to the point of being "light Dinarid".
From the front lot of "Keltics" look quite Dinaroid, but obviously their mesochephalic profile shows somewhat a transition between Nordid and Dinarid.

[Tomasz]

Hey Tomazs, since you know Noric and Nordid are common in Poland and dont you think they breed with each other to might show Keltic facial features ?

It's possible. Before I got some knowledge about anthropology, I actually thought I'm Keltic-Nordid, who lives in Poland for some strange reason. :D Well, I'm myself predominantly East-Nordid but I have slight Dinaroid influence most likely (a bit more rounded chin, long convex nose - both traits not completely uncommon in Nordids but some of my ancestors had Dinaroid traits so it's safe to assume that I have it as well to some extent).

So my answer is yes: some Poles combine Norid traits with Nordid ones which might create pseudo-Keltic-Nordid look. But they slightly differ from British anyway because British people have this distinct "British vibe" that is so easy to recognize. ;)

[Curtis24]

what percentage of England do you think are Keltic Nordids? or is this too hard to say?

I'm asking because I agree with you, the Keltic Nordid look does seem to be associated with the traditional "English" look IMO. in America, its strongly associated with rural Southerners.

[Tomasz]

what percentage of England do you think are Keltic Nordids? or is this too hard to say?

Carleton S. Coon claims that 25% of English are of this stock. It's difficult for me to verify since I've never been to England.


in America, its strongly associated with rural Southerners.

Thanks for this useful information. :thumbs up Didn't know that before but it's quite logical - the old stock Americans could be largely of Keltic-Nordid type.

[Curtis24]

In which of his works did he claim that?

[Tomasz]

In which of his works did he claim that?

I don't know exact work. There's a schedule roaming in the internet with his racial distribution data. It says that Keltic-Nordids are 25% of English population but I am not 100% sure if it's viable source.

I mean, his schedule for Poland was more based on stereotypes than on reality. But Coon was British so he probably knew about his country's racial makeup more than about Polish...

[Curtis24]

Yeah, I saw the same figure at Richard Mcculough's "Nordish" site. He clearly uses the same typology as Coon, also including some of Lundman's types. I don't know what system he used to come up with his percentages, though.

Coon did say that he thought the Keltic Nordids were the "principal" element in both Ireland and Britain, which I assume means they form a plurality. Funny, genetics claims that there was no Celtic invasion...

[Tomasz]

Funny, genetics claims that there was no Celtic invasion...

Interesting! I wasn't following genetics of Britain too closely so I was unaware of that. Could you give me an article or so about this?

[Beorn]

Carleton S. Coon claims that 25% of English are of this stock. It's difficult for me to verify since I've never been to England.

I'd give it a healthy estimate of at least over 50%. It's funny as I was looking over some of my old school friends from when I was a young child and couldn't help but notice the dominance of the Keltic-Nordid type.


Funny, genetics claims that there was no Celtic invasion...

Does it? I don't think so.

[Tomasz]

Does it? I don't think so.

I also have doubts. I mean - it didn't have to be one, concentrated, united invasion but some sort of movement surely happened. It would totally change my understanding of British (pre)history if such "invasion" didn't happened. ;)


I'd give it a healthy estimate of at least over 50%. It's funny as I was looking over some of my old school friends from when I was a young child and couldn't help but notice the dominance of the Keltic-Nordid type.

That's very interesting. I didn't know Keltic-Nordid is that dominant there. How would you estimate number of Bruenns in Britain/England?

[Curtis24]

Does it? I don't think so.

Rather, the geneticists Bryan Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer claim so. Their theory is that the "Celts" were actually Mediterranean people from Iberia who migrated to Britain during Neolithic times, and later adopted Celtic language/culture. Sykes even goes so far as to claim that pre-Roman British actually spoke a Germanic language, gotten through contact with the Belgae...

I may actually create a different thread for this, but Brennus, based your experience how you would describe the typology of England as a whole? I have heard many conflicting things from theorists who have never been there...

[Beorn]

How would you estimate number of Bruenns in Britain/England?

Hm. To be honest, I'd have to say I don't know. A real guestimate from the top of my head I'd go for 25 - 30%.



Their theory is that the "Celts" were actually Mediterranean people from Iberia who migrated to Britain during Neolithic times, and later adopted Celtic language/culture.

Which still suggests a degree of some genetic input. Populations don't suddenly adopt a new language and culture.


Sykes even goes so far as to claim that pre-Roman British actually spoke a Germanic language, gotten through contact with the Belgae...Yeah, that one does sound nice to imagine it is real, but unfortunately Osweo beat that dream out of my head a few years back. :D


I may actually create a different thread for this, but Brennus, based your experience how you would describe the typology of England as a whole? I have heard many conflicting things from theorists who have never been there...As a whole it would be a cement mixer. I haven't travelled around England enough to state with any authority, but from the types I have come into contact with and places I have had the opportunity to visit, I'd say England can be hacked into some loosey-woosey regional categories.

Richard McCulloch comes close to what I would be happy to agree with the most:


England = 25% Keltic Nordic (derived from pre-Roman invaders), 15% Anglo-Saxon (post-Roman Germanic invaders, most common in the southeast, especially East Anglia), 15% Brünn {indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants}, 15% North-Atlantid and 10% Palaeo-Atlantid (blend of Mesolithic Atlanto-Mediterranean invaders with both earlier and later arrivals; most common in the Midlands and northwest), 8% Hallstatt Nordic (of Viking and Norman derivation), 5% Trønder (of Norwegian Viking derivation; most common in the northeast), 3% Borreby and 2% Fälish (both of Viking and Norman derivation; associated with the landed gentry; source of the "John Bull" type), 2% Noric (from Bronze-Age invaders) = 100% Nordish (73% central and 27% periphery types
Source (http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html)I would state that I reckon his estimate of 25% for Keltic-Nordid is wrong, but then I come from an area of high incidences of that type so could be biased.

As a loose rule of thumb, I'd put the English into four distinct categories.

West: Keltic and Atlantid types. Tall to medium height, light brown hair to dark, high incidence of light coloured eyes (although higher rates of dark eyes than Eastern England but not as much as West/North) and long, very defined features.

East/South: Anglo-saxon/Faelid and Keltic. Tall to medium height, very light to light dark, very high incidence of light coloured eyes.

West/North: Mostly Brunn. Mostly dark types with higher incidences of dark eye colour. Tend to be shorter than the overall Southerner and more "wider" of build.

East/North: Nordid types: Tall and thin build with more tendency to lighter eye colours and hair.

[Curtis24]

Greatly helpful!

Its interesting, in that if Nordids are the principal element in England, as Mccouluch says and you agree with, much of the genetic evidence that says England is genetically similar to Spain, and was mostly settled during the Neolithic must be being interpreted quite incorrectly.

Furthermore, the Celtic invasions of England must have been quite violent and aggressive, for the Celtic phenotype to be able to replace the people who had been living there to such an extent...

[Korbis]

You´re interpreting it incorrectly...;) that studies speaks about the whole british isles, not just England (which dominant nordid genetic impact is irrefutable), being settled by ancient Iberians. Specially zones like Wales, Scottland -before the germanic invasions- and Ireland, but also in a lesser degree the south of England.

[Psychonaut]

Yeah, I saw the same figure at Richard Mcculough's "Nordish" site. He clearly uses the same typology as Coon, also including some of Lundman's types. I don't know what system he used to come up with his percentages, though.

Well, I can tell you what he did not do: conduct craniofacial surveys. His percentages are not backed by any verifiable experimentation.

[Ibericus]

Greatly helpful!

Its interesting, in that if Nordids are the principal element in England, as Mccouluch says and you agree with, much of the genetic evidence that says England is genetically similar to Spain, and was mostly settled during the Neolithic must be being interpreted quite incorrectly.
Wrong. The nordid elements in England are due to the nordid invasions (Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Normans).

[Psychonaut]

Wrong. The nordid elements in England are due to the nordid invasions (Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Normans).

What is your source on that idea? Coon says in TROE:


In both Great Britain and Ireland, the invasion of the Keltic Iron Age Nordics was the event which brought in the largest single body of people, and the British of today, by and large, owe more in a physical sense to these Kelts than to any other group of invaders. In both Great Britain and Ireland, the Neolithic and Bronze Age invasions were of secondary importance in respect to the present population, as were the invasions of Germanic-speaking peoples.

[San Galgano]

Another UCL study in 2006 offered a different explanation. Anglo Saxons came to dominate the gene pool not through sheer weight of numbers but rather through their imposition of an ‘apartheid-style’ social hierarchy. The native Britons were reduced to second-class status and the Anglo Saxons enjoyed greater ‘reproductive success’; they had more babies, more often and more successfully than the subjugated, downtrodden Brits.

The researchers cited examples of other apartheid systems throughout history in support of their theory, alongside fragmentary evidence that appears to show Anglo Saxon laws discriminated against native people. The UCL team theorised that a force of 200,000 invaders could have dominated the gene pool in just 15 generations.

Other historical sources indicate that there was widespread Celtic migration away from Britain during the Dark Ages, as defeated Britons fled their lands to set up enclaves in Brittany (its name derived from Briton) and Galicia in Spain. The Celtic influence is still visible in the culture of these regions today.

In addition, diseases such as the plague of Justinian may account for what historians believe was a significant population decrease in the Dark Ages. A combination of these factors, therefore, radically altered the make-up of the British population.

The gene pool received new input with the arrival of the Vikings in the ninth century and the Normans in the eleventh. However, genetic researchers have yet to find a way of distinguishing between the Y-chromosomes of the Anglo Saxons and the later invaders – making it hard to say how much impact these groups had on the population.

[Psychonaut]

San Galgano, what does y-DNA (the topic of your quotation) tell us about the entrance of the Nordid morphotypes into the British isles.

[Ibericus]

What is your source on that idea? Coon says in TROE:
Then how do you explain the ~15 % frequency of haplogroup I1 in England ? It's the highest frequency after nordic countries.

[Psychonaut]

Then how do you explain the ~15 % frequency of haplogroup I1 in England ? It's the highest frequency after nordic countries.

Again...what do y-DNA frequencies tell us about the frequencies of craniofacial morphotypes? Absolutely nothing at the moment, because large scale correlative studies have not been done. Shifting from taxonomic arguments of a point into genetically based ones for the same taxonomic point is a derailment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29) and is one of the big problems with the types of shit arguments that permeate this forum of late.

[Ibericus]

Again...what do y-DNA frequencies tell us about the frequencies of craniofacial morphotypes? Absolutely nothing at the moment, because large scale correlative studies have not been done. Shifting from taxonomic arguments of a point into genetically based ones for the same taxonomic point is a derailment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29) and is one of the big problems with the types of shit arguments that permeate this forum of late.
Using Coon quotes is also a shit argument. If the Vikings/Anglo-Saxons had no impact on England, there wouldn't be so high frequency of I1. Simple as that.

[San Galgano]

San Galgano, what does y-DNA (the topic of your quotation) tell us about the entrance of the Nordid morphotypes into the British isles.

Discrimination of Anglo Saxons against native people tell us more than Y Dna in question.
Often(i said often not always)there is a different phenotype at the base of apartheid.

[Psychonaut]

Using Coon quotes is also a shit argument.

Coon was a respected anthropologist and one of the fathers of typology, which is the subject of this discussion. He is a far better source than you, who is apparently unable to back up blind assertions about the migration patterns of morphotypes with any sources that are relevant to the topic at hand.


If the Vikings/Anglo-Saxons had no impact on England, there wouldn't be so high frequency of I1. Simple as that.

Genetic impact had not at this point in time been correlated to the distributions of craniofacial morphotypes. So, using evidence of the distribution patterns of the former as an explanatory argument about the latter is simply bad logic and is intellectually dishonest.


Discrimination of Anglo Saxons against native people tell us more than Y Dna in question.
Often(i said often not always)there is a different phenotype at the base of apartheid.

Again, you're conflating data from two disciplines that have not been correlated. Typologists claim that Nordoid morphotypes entered with the Celts; you are claiming that y-DNA patterns show that these morphotypes entered with the Germanics. Do you not see that for your argument to make sense logically there must first be a correlation of specific morphotypes to specific genotypes?

[San Galgano]

Again, you're conflating data from two disciplines that have not been correlated. Typologists claim that Nordoid morphotypes entered with the Celts; you are claiming that y-DNA patterns show that these morphotypes entered with the Germanics. Do you not see that for your argument to make sense logically there must first be a correlation of specific morphotypes to specific genotypes?


First there are few scientists that correlate Nordid morphotypes with celts Coon excluded.
Second, there have been a flux of vicking Y-dna and Mtdna after the first waves of vicking warriors with the entrance of nordic females so it make sense.


Just to clear the water, the countries with more I haplogroups(it may have not correlation but it is like that) are also the whitest in Europe.

[Psychonaut]

First there are few scientists that correlate Nordid morphotypes with celts Coon excluded.

Well, since this is a thread about typology, bringing up the specific arguments of these fellows, with links and citations, would make sense. Rambling about DNA does not.


Second, there have been a flux of vicking Y-dna and Mtdna after the first waves of vicking warriors with the entrance of nordic females so it make sense.

No, it does not. Y-DNA haplogroups have not (and most likely will not be) correlated to any craniofacial morphotypes, so the pinning down of the entrance of one haplogroup into a region, at present, tells us absolutely nothing about the entrance of a morphotype into that region.

[San Galgano]

Well, since this is a thread about typology, bringing up the specific arguments of these fellows, with links and citations, would make sense. Rambling about DNA does not.
Yes of course, just like in case citing some more anthropologists than only Coon to claim celts were nordics since Coon has been debunked at least 100 times.



No, it does not. Y-DNA haplogroups have not (and most likely will not be) correlated to any craniofacial morphotypes, so the pinning down of the entrance of one haplogroup into a region, at present, tells us absolutely nothing about the entrance of a morphotype into that region.

But it seems that it tells us about skin tone, hair and eyes since the bigger percentages of I haplogropus are in Scandinavia and they appear to be the most nordic countries. Y- haplogroups may have nothing to do with morphotypes but still it is clear that I haplogroups are concentrated in Nordic countries.

[Psychonaut]

Yes of course, just like in case citing some more anthropologists than only Coon to claim celts were nordics since Coon has been debunked at least 100 times.

I'm sorry, that sentence's grammar makes no sense to me. :shrug:


But it seems that it tells us about skin tone, hair and eyes since the bigger percentages of I haplogropus are in Scandinavia and they appear to be the most nordic countries. Y- haplogroups may have nothing to do with morphotypes but still it is clear that I haplogroups are concentrated in Nordic countries.

No, not at all. Y-DNA tells us absolutely nothing about skin, hair or eye color. Certain colors may be more likely to occur in certain haplogroups (but no studies have been done to correlate this), but since the y-DNA marker comprises such a tiny portion of one's genome, it is not an accurate predictor of such things.

[Ibericus]

In both Great Britain and Ireland, the invasion of the Keltic Iron Age Nordics was the event which brought in the largest single body of people, and the British of today, by and large, owe more in a physical sense to these Kelts than to any other group of invaders. In both Great Britain and Ireland, the Neolithic and Bronze Age invasions were of secondary importance in respect to the present population, as were the invasions of Germanic-speaking peoples.
And where is the prove that these Kelts were nordid ? And how does Coon knows that the Kelts had more impact than the Nordid invasions ? And if the Kelts had the more impact, and they were nordid, how is that England is not majority nordid ? Only the east is more nordid (strangely coinciding were most Vikings settled )

[San Galgano]

I'm sorry, that sentence's grammar makes no sense to me. :shrug:

I meant that you cited only Coon, who is not not the most reliable, especially since genetic makes progress everyday and anthropology(especially craniofacial structures correlated to facial morphology) are far from being an exact science.



No, not at all. Y-DNA tells us absolutely nothing about skin, hair or eye color. Certain colors may be more likely to occur in certain haplogroups (but no studies have been done to correlate this), but since the y-DNA marker comprises such a tiny portion of one's genome, it is not an accurate predictor of such things.

We can go on in circle for months here, but the bigger % of some Y-dna and Mtdna haplogroups in some countries seem to determine their darker or fairer phenotype.

[Psychonaut]

And where is the prove that these Kelts were nordid ?

Coonists would cite The Races of Europe (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/racesofeurope.htm).


And how does Coon knows that the Kelts had more impact than the Nordid invasions ?

A combination of osteology (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-I3.htm) and cataloging and classifying (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/troephotos.htm) extant type clusters.


And if the Kelts had the more impact, and they were nordid, how is that England is not majority nordid ? Only the east is more nordid (strangely coinciding were most Vikings settled )

What is your source for this datum that Eastern England is more Nordid?

[Psychonaut]

We can go on in circle for months here, but the bigger % of some Y-dna and Mtdna haplogroups in some countries seem to determine their darker or fairer phenotype.

If you honestly believe this, please cite one study that correlates skin, hair and eye color with y-DNA or mt-DNA.

[Tomasz]

And where is the prove that these Kelts were nordid ? And how does Coon knows that the Kelts had more impact than the Nordid invasions ? And if the Kelts had the more impact, and they were nordid, how is that England is not majority nordid ? Only the east is more nordid (strangely coinciding were most Vikings settled )

Read what Brennus said earlier: England actually IS majority Nordid.


We can go on in circle for months here, but the bigger % of some Y-dna and Mtdna haplogroups in some countries seem to determine their darker or fairer phenotype.

I wouldn't combine haplogroups with phenotype. Proto-Nordids were R1a. Today Poles have high frequencies of it but they aren't the most Nordid nation at all.

[Ibericus]

Coonists would cite The Races of Europe (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/racesofeurope.htm).
Crap. Im not gonna read that shit again.



A combination of osteology (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-I3.htm) and cataloging and classifying (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/troephotos.htm) extant type clusters.
Crap.


What is your source for this datum that Eastern England is more Nordid?
LOL, That's what Coon says.

[San Galgano]

If you honestly believe this, please cite one study that correlates skin, hair and eye color with y-DNA or mt-DNA.


This is not a matter of honesty it is an empirical thing that everybody can see with his eyes, and you are playing with words since i have never stated it exist a study that correlates Y-dna and Mtdna with skin, hair and eyes colour.

[Ibericus]

Read what Brennus said earlier: England actually IS majority Nordid.
Source. And even if it was true, how does that prove that Kelts were nordid ? What is the prove that the greatest genetic impact in England was that of Kelts ?

[San Galgano]

I wouldn't combine haplogroups with phenotype. Proto-Nordids were R1a. Today Poles have high frequencies of it but they aren't the most Nordid nation at all.

Who spoke about proto-nordids? I spoke about the vickings that set foot in England.

[Psychonaut]

This is not a matter of honesty it is an empirical thing that everybody can see with his eyes,

No, it is not. The single largest haplogroup in Western Europe, R1b, is shared by thousands of Sub-Saharan Africans. The US President undoubtedly has European mt-DNA. Such markers in no way display evidence of coloring.


and you are playing with words since i have never stated it exist a study that correlates Y-dna and Mtdna with skin, hair and eyes colour.

I know you never claimed such a study existed, but your argument implies a correlation between the two disciplines. Since, you admit, no studies have been done, your argument is...

...grounded in nothing but your unqualified opinion.

[Ibericus]

No, it is not. The single largest haplogroup in Western Europe, R1b, is shared by thousands of Sub-Saharan Africans. The US President undoubtedly has European mt-DNA. Such markers in no way display evidence of coloring.
L-O-L. First of all, the R1b in Europe and Africa is extremely rare. Second, the branches of R1b in Europa and Africa are completely different. Third, the autosomal of Africa and Europe makes them separate races.

[Ibericus]

Again...what do y-DNA frequencies tell us about the frequencies of craniofacial morphotypes? Absolutely nothing at the moment, because large scale correlative studies have not been done. Shifting from taxonomic arguments of a point into genetically based ones for the same taxonomic point is a derailment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29) and is one of the big problems with the types of shit arguments that permeate this forum of late.
By the way, what craniofacial morphotypes are you talking about ?

[Psychonaut]

L-O-L. First of all, the R1b in Europe and Africa is extremely rare.

No, it is not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R1b#Ancient_clades_within_R1b1_.28R-P25.29).


Third, the autosomal of Africa and Europe makes them separate races.

Yes, autosomal DNA is a much better indicator of almost everything than is y-DNA, which is why I thought it so ridiculous that the two of you kept harping on about it. However, no studies have been done correlating autosomal DNA analysis to craniofacial typology yet. This would, however, probably be the most fruitful path of interface.

[Ibericus]

@Curtis24:
I believe they are actually responsible for spread of Celtic languages, they didn't formed later in Britain. I base my view on fact that Latins (who were closely related to Kelts both linguistically and racially at that time) were classified by some anthropologists (Coon for example) as Keltic-Nordid.
What happend to these Keltic-Nordids in Iberia ? Because 80% of Iberia was Keltic-speaking area

[Tomasz]

Who spoke about proto-nordids? I spoke about the vickings that set foot in England.

I'm just using analogy...


Source. And even if it was true, how does that prove that Kelts were nordid ? What is the prove that the greatest genetic impact in England was that of Kelts ?

If he lives in this country and sees that most people look Nordid then it's obvious that England is Nordid. His opinion is more reliable that what people from other countries might read in "wise books".

[Ibericus]

No, it is not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R1b#Ancient_clades_within_R1b1_.28R-P25.29).
Haplogroup R1b is very rare in Europe. What most people have are SUBCLADES of R1b, and these subclades happen to be of a different branch than the African ones (V88) and they do deviate in thousands of years.


Yes, autosomal DNA is a much better indicator of almost everything than is y-DNA, which is why I thought it so ridiculous that the two of you kept harping on about it.
y-DNa is an indicator of human movements, and that's why the I1 haplogroup which happens to be most common in Scandinavia, is also very common England. As simple as that. No race, no shit, that's the only thing im saying.

[San Galgano]

No, it is not. The single largest haplogroup in Western Europe, R1b, is shared by thousands of Sub-Saharan Africans. The US President undoubtedly has European mt-DNA. Such markers in no way display evidence of coloring.

Again you are playing with words and with nothing in your hands since only few africans share a particular type of R1b that is not widely spread in Europe and then thousand years of mixing with other subsaharan haplogroups left intact only that R1b who belongs to a single ancestor.


I know you never claimed such a study existed, but your argument implies a correlation between the two disciplines. Since, you admit, no studies have been done, your argument is...

...grounded in nothing but your unqualified opinion.


No, i never implied nothing like that. I think someone should teach you what empirical means.

[Ibericus]

If he lives in this country and sees that most people look Nordid then it's obvious that England is Nordid. His opinion is more reliable that what people from other countries might read in "wise books".
But how does translate into Kelts being nordid ? You say keltic languages were spread by nordid tpyes, whereas 80 % of Iberia was Celtic-speakin area, as well as France. What happens that these counries are not by any stretch majority Nordid ?

[San Galgano]

But how does translate into Kelts being nordid ? You say keltic languages were spread by nordid tpyes, whereas 80 % of Iberia was Celtic-speakin area, as well as France. What happens that these counries are not by any stretch majority Nordid ?

I tell you what happened. Coon himself stated the halstatt nordid celts was only a tiny fraction of the celts and that they were replaced by waves of new indoeuropeans. Coon himself stated that the only Halstatt celts were reduced and settled only in Scandinavian countries.

[Psychonaut]

By the way, what craniofacial morphotypes are you talking about ?

The discussion is about Keltid Nordid morphotypes, no?

[Ibericus]

The discussion is about Keltid Nordid morphotypes, no?
yes, I just wanted to know which are the keltic-nordid craniums of Coons work

[Psychonaut]

yes, I just wanted to know which are the keltic-nordid craniums of Coons work

Why should I bother digging out sources from Coon for you, when you apparently think it's all crap (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=269486&postcount=45)? Seems like a waste of my time.

[Ibericus]

Why should I bother digging out sources from Coon for you, when you apparently think it's all crap (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=269486&postcount=45)? Seems like a waste of my time.
Indeed it's crap. But it's not Coon's fault. He wrote in 1939, with all the historic flaws that this means, with no genetics knowledge, and at that time this was tought to be science, and nordicism and racism were accepted. It's pretty much the 21st century StormFarter idiots who regard him as the absolute truth to the point arguments are always "Nordids because Coon said it"

[Psychonaut]

Indeed it's crap. But it's not Coon's fault. He wrote in 1939, with all the historic flaws that this means, with no genetics knowledge, and at that time this was tought to be science, and nordicism and racism were accepted. It's pretty much the 21st century StormFarter idiots who regard him as the absolute truth to the point arguments are always "Nordids because Coon said it"

Well, if you think that Coon in particular, and pre-Boasian physical anthropology in general are junk science, you're more than welcome to delineate why (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18349) in an appropriate venue. But, if you think so, why not stay out of discussions that presuppose taxonomy is scientific and are seeking clarification of points within it. To do so just derails well intentioned threads.

[San Galgano]

Indeed it's crap. But it's not Coon's fault. He wrote in 1939, with all the historic flaws that this means, with no genetics knowledge, and at that time this was tought to be science, and nordicism and racism were accepted. It's pretty much the 21st century StormFarter idiots who regard him as the absolute truth to the point arguments are always "Nordids because Coon said it"

Yes, and they worship and use him out of contexts too, especially when they claim Romans as nordics, when in his study he expressly stated that they were not.

[Ibericus]

Well, if you think that Coon in particular, and pre-Boasian physical anthropology in general are junk science, you're more than welcome to delineate why (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18349) in an appropriate venue. But, if you think so, why not stay out of discussions that presuppose taxonomy is scientific and are seeking clarification of points within it. Do do so just derails well intentioned threads.
Are you saying we can't argue without Ad-Coonum arguments ? I just want proves. And I am still waiting for the answer on the Keltic speakers of Iberia and France.

[Psychonaut]

Are you saying we can't argue without Ad-Coonum arguments ?

No, I'm saying that it's fallacious for your to introduce genetic non sequiters into typological discussions when you disagree with the basic premises of modern typology. The disagreement is fine in and of itself, but when you force it into discussions not revolving around the fundamental premise, it causes a derailment, which is couterproductive. It would be like jumping into a thread on Catholic liturgy with some Dawkins-esque point about how God doesn't exist. A point which may be valid on its own is not valid in every situation. In this case, genetic diversions serve no purpose other than to divert a typological discussion away from the domain of typology.

[San Galgano]

non sequiters


"Non sequitur" without the plural "s" would be more appropriate in latin.:D

[lei.talk]

"Non sequitur" without the plural "s" would be more appropriate in latin.:D
knowing only enough to criticise,
but, not enough to provide use-full information:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Wiktprintable_without_text.svg/120px-Wiktprintable_without_text.svg.png (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/non_sequuntur)
*

[Ibericus]

No, I'm saying that it's fallacious for your to introduce genetic non sequiters into typological discussions when you disagree with the basic premises of modern typology.
I talked about genetics when someone stated that Nordic invasions (nordic as in northern european) had been minimal in England. Which of course is not true, but anyways it has no importance since you guys are attributing these nordid traits to the Kelts, which brings me again to the un-answered questions of the Keltic-Nordids of Iberia and France.

[San Galgano]

knowing only enough to criticise,
but, not enough to provide use-full information:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Wiktprintable_without_text.svg/120px-Wiktprintable_without_text.svg.png (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/non_sequuntur)


I have never claimed to be an anthropologist nor a genetist despite others, i have only posted an abstract who did hit nerves, and debunked partially, many old dated studies over kelts and their nordic phenotype.

:D

[Curtis24]

But the genetic studies themselves are often misinterpreted. Sykes claimed that the British Isles received most of their genetic input from "Iberians" based on the fact that they had R1b. As it turns out, Anglo-Saxons and Central Europeans also had R1b. Surprise surprise, different historical ethnicities have different genetic Y-DNA haplogroups.

I don't understand the South European obsession with claiming there are minimal genetic differences between themselves and the British Isles. Obviously there aren't, since people in the British Isles, on average, look much different than Spanish, Italians, or Greeks.

As to the Celts, they probably encompassed many different racial types, but the fact remains that the Celts who invaded the British Isles had the criteria most physical anthropologists associate with Nordids. This is based on the fact that this type is found at the hill fortresses in Britain we associate with Celtic culture, as well as predominating in the British Isles today. Since this physical type was not found in Britain prior to the onset of Celtic culture, we can assume there was an invasion, it was composed of Nordids, and it was massive, as evidenced by Brennus'(an actual Englishman's) observation that the Keltic Nordid type is prevalent in England.

Whether or not the Celts who invaded England are racially the same as the ones who invaded Spain is debatable, but there is no doubt that the Celts who invaded England were Nordid.

[Tomasz]

I talked about genetics when someone stated that Nordic invasions (nordic as in northern european) had been minimal in England. Which of course is not true, but anyways it has no importance since you guys are attributing these nordid traits to the Kelts, which brings me again to the un-answered questions of the Keltic-Nordids of Iberia and France.

Has anyone said that all British Nordids can be linked to Kelts? No.

We just say that Keltic-Nordids (which aren't the only Nordids in Britain) can be linked to Celts.

Germanics aren't the only people, who have Nordid phenotypes, you know?

[Ibericus]

But the genetic studies themselves are often misinterpreted. Sykes claimed that the British Isles received most of their genetic input from "Iberians" based on the fact that they had R1b-
As it turns out, Anglo-Saxons and Central Europeans also had R1b. Surprise surprise, different historical ethnicities have different genetic Y-DNA haplogroups.
But there are certain subclades of R1b, such as the M167, which happen to be mostly common in Iberia, Western France and Britain.


I don't understand the South European obsession with claiming there are minimal genetic differences between themselves and the British Isles. Obviously there aren't, since people in the British Isles, on average, look much different than Spanish, Italians, or Greeks.
I never said such thing. On the contrary, I said English have nordid blood due to the nordid invasions from Viking, Normans, Anglo-Saxons, Jutes.



As to the Celts, they probably encompassed many different racial types, but the fact remains that the Celts who invaded the British Isles had the criteria most physical anthropologists associate with Nordids.
I want proves.


This is based on the fact that this type is found at the hill fortresses in Britain we associate with Celtic culture, as well as predominating in the British Isles today.
What makes you thinks these nordid types today are not due to nordid invasions (Vikings, Normans, Anglo-saxons, Jutes)

[Ibericus]

Has anyone said that all British Nordids can be linked to Kelts? No.

We just say that Keltic-Nordids (which aren't the only Nordids in Britain) can be linked to Celts.

Germanics aren't the only people, who have Nordid phenotypes, you know?
But if the Keltic speakers were Keltic-Nordid, what happened to Iberia, France, Northern Italy ? Because Iberia was 80 % Keltic-speaking territory. France as well. And the today Celtic speaking Brittany is not Keltic-Nordid by any stretch.

[Curtis24]

I want proves.
]

Read The Races of Europe, or any number of other anthropological works linked to this site.


What makes you thinks these nordid types today are not due to nordid invasions (Vikings, Normans, Anglo-saxons, Jutes)

Because they are found in Iron Age sites, long before the Germanic or Roman invasions.

[San Galgano]

I want proves.

Here's the proofs about the nordic skulls;):


During the 1885 Anthropology Congress in Karlsruhe, Virchow denounced the "Nordic mysticism," while Josef Kollmann, a collaborator of Virchow, stated that the people of Europe, be they German, Italian, English or French, belonged to a "mixture of various races," furthermore declaring that the "results of craniology" led to "struggle against any theory concerning the superiority of this or that European race".[36].

[Curtis24]

Nobody doubts that, but what does it have to do with the debate?

[San Galgano]

Nobody doubts that, but what does it have to do with the debate?

It has to do with the fact that even craniology led us to nothing when someone wants to imply this or that skull are nordics.

[Curtis24]

No it doesn't. It merely means that European countries have a multiplicity of different skull types, which nobody ever denied...

[Ibericus]

Read The Races of Europe, or any number of other anthropological works linked to this site.
I have already read it , and it's blatantly flawed



Because they are found in Iron Age sites, long before the Germanic or Roman invasions.
I've never seen such studies. Btw, are you saying the nordic invasions of Englang have nothing to do with the nordid elements in England ?

[Curtis24]

I've never seen such studies. Btw, are you saying the nordic invasions of Englang have nothing to do with the nordid elements in England ?

You must mean the Germanic invasions. Obviously they do. But Nordids were in England, at hill fortress sites associated with Celtic culture, prior to these Germanic invasions.

Furthermore, the skulls found at camp sites associated with the Anglo-Saxons are noticeably different from the "Keltic Nordic" type.

[Ibericus]

You must mean the Germanic invasions. Obviously they do. But Nordids were in England, at hill fortress sites associated with Celtic culture, prior to these Germanic invasions.

Furthermore, the skulls found at camp sites associated with the Anglo-Saxons are noticeably different from the "Keltic Nordic" type.
But what skull types are you talking about ? From what studies ? Can I see them ? Or do I have to blindly believe they were Keltic-Nordid. And then, how can we explain that Brittany (celtic speaking corner of France) is not predominantly Keltic-Nordid ?

[San Galgano]

No it doesn't. It merely means that European countries have a multiplicity of different skull types, which nobody ever denied...
And it implies that it is impossible to determine a typical nordic skull too.

[Ibericus]

Actually Coon classified North-Africans as Atlanto-Mediterraneans (wtf :confused:) and Iberians as Mediterraneans. (:confused:). He also classified Egyptians and Arabs as mediterranean. He also said mediterraneans were non-europoid. And we have to believe in Coon right...

[Davy Jones's Locker]

I don't know exact work. There's a schedule roaming in the internet with his racial distribution data. It says that Keltic-Nordids are 25% of English population but I am not 100% sure if it's viable source.

I mean, his schedule for Poland was more based on stereotypes than on reality. But Coon was British so he probably knew about his country's racial makeup more than about Polish...

Coon was from the United States.

[Tomasz]

Coon was from the United States.

Oh, I apologize then. For some strange reason I always thought he was British... :icon_redface::icon_redface: