Is England closer to North Dutch or Danish

[Oliver109]

This is a video of people from Galway so completely random. I've posted quite a few videos as you can't cherrypick. There is definitely degrees as far as darkness in hair colour. While Irish are apparently so dark haired they aren't comparable to Southern European populations of course because most Irish have more lighter shades of brown and a red haired minority which is always visible in random crowd videos and I haven't seen this in other populations that get posted on here. I'm sure Scots and Welsh would be similar.

This is from Galway.

Nice looking people, i think that the Irish are more similar in facial features to the British than any other groups though there are more distinct looking folks among them too. The Nordic element is only slightly larger in the UK but i think that there are more true Nordics and subnordics here than in Ireland but i think Ireland is still more Nordic than most of France or even southern Belgium.

[Grace O'Malley]

Nice looking people, i think that the Irish are more similar in facial features to the British than any other groups though there are more distinct looking folks among them too. The Nordic element is only slightly larger in the UK but i think that there are more true Nordics and subnordics here than in Ireland but i think Ireland is still more Nordic than most of France or even southern Belgium.

I don't really think that stuff means much. Genetics far outweighs the old anthropology. If you look at some of the stuff said in the past it is a load of bollocks. Some of the old anthropology maps were plain inaccurate. The Irish do indeed look closest to British populations. I don't think they look like much other European populations. Anyway I don't want to get started about the anthropology. The closest I get is asking what populations could people pass in or what are their closest populations.

[Oliver109]

I don't really think that stuff means much. Genetics far outweighs the old anthropology. If you look at some of the stuff said in the past it is a load of bollocks. Some of the old anthropology maps were plain inaccurate. The Irish do indeed look closest to British populations. I don't think they look like much other European populations. Anyway I don't want to get started about the anthropology. The closest I get is asking what populations could people pass in or what are their closest populations.

How does genetics explain the higher prevalence of red hair in the British isles or the larger head sizes of Northern peoples?

[Grace O'Malley]

How does genetics explain the higher prevalence of red hair in the British isles or the larger head sizes of Northern peoples?

Things like red hair could be down to founder effect but the reason why people like the Irish have higher amounts is because they have more people in the population that carry one of the genes for red hair. Even in my family tested we all carry a variant. Remember they are islands so it is easy for a trait to become more numerous in a population. Also in Ireland they had a clan society where there were dominant males so if some of these were redheads it could have been spread in the population just like how M222 is high in Northwestern Ireland and was spread by the Ui Neill and Connachta tribes. Traits could have easily spread in society of the past which were patriarchal as some men had access to more women so more of their genes were passed down through the generations. Climate is also a factor because of the low sunlight and cloudy weather it was an advantage to have light skin to absorb more Vitamin D and a side effect of this skin lightening is red hair. In a sunny climate it would have been a detriment.

Anyway it's pretty obvious to me it is down to climatic conditions over a period of time.



Bone structure, head size etc are all down to the populations that people are descended from. Possibly the Bell Beakers were large headed. I think the Rathlins were quite tall also.

[Immanenz]

How does genetics explain the higher prevalence of red hair in the British isles or the larger head sizes of Northern peoples?

Large head sizes does not contradict Nordic types- in wider sense, some brachy robust Alpines are not extremly large headed in maximal sense (length+ breath). Irish and Scottish have almost as much Steppe Ancestry as Scandinavians, thats what really counts. WHG (what anthropolgists connected to CM) peaks actually in Balts and it did not effect much the average head size compared to NWesteners.

[Oliver109]

Large head sizes does not contradict Nordic types, some brachy robust Alpines are not extremly large headed in maximal sense (length+ breath). Irish and Scottish have almost as much Steppe Ancestry as Scandinavians, thats what really counts. WHG (what anthropolgists connected to CM) peaks actually in Balts and it did not effect much the average head size compared to NWesteners.

Head size is larger in the Belgians for example than in the English, do they have more Steppe? Baltic types are smaller headed for a reason, apparently the Brunns and Borrebies had a climate adaption similar to some Native American groups like the Patagonians who shared a similar harsh climate.

[Immanenz]

Head size is larger in the Belgians for example than in the English, do they have more Steppe? Baltic types are smaller headed for a reason, apparently the Brunns and Borrebies had a climate adaption similar to some Native American groups like the Patagonians who shared a similar harsh climate.

I do not think so but it might depend also if we ar talking about Wallon or Flemish- Flemish have most likely more Steppe than Wallons but i do not have a very detalied knowledge in genetics.
the first map is the overview for Steppe ancestry, but again not sure if its the best map available
https://ancestralwhispers.org/maps/genetic-maps

The fact is i would not necessary connect single traits with larger genetical groups- there is too much drift possible. There is the fact that if you mix one homogenous group with either a gracile, small headed or robust, large headed group (as a very plastic example)- this groups will be most likely very different after a time, no matter if half of that was very similar before the mixing- and we are not even talking about the later selective processes which can further produce diffrences.

[Creoda]

Head size is larger in the Belgians for example than in the English, do they have more Steppe? Baltic types are smaller headed for a reason, apparently the Brunns and Borrebies had a climate adaption similar to some Native American groups like the Patagonians who shared a similar harsh climate.

English have more Steppe than Belgians, Flemish too. English are between South and Central Dutch in terms of genetic 'Northernness', similarly Celto-Germanic to Flemish and South Dutch, but more Northwestern, due to their Celtic being largely Bronze Age British.

You place too much emphasis on physical anthropology, when it's been proven that those differences can develop independently within a short timeframe (centuries). A study showed that average English are considerably more gracile now than in the later Middle Ages. Also remember something about people having shorter foreheads then.

[Oliver109]

English have more Steppe than Belgians, Flemish too. English are between South and Central Dutch in terms of genetic 'Northernness', similarly Celto-Germanic to Flemish and South Dutch, but more Northwestern, due to their Celtic being largely Bronze Age British.

You place too much emphasis on physical anthropology, when it's been proven that those differences can develop independently within a short timeframe (centuries). A study showed that average English are considerably more gracile now than in the later Middle Ages. Also remember something about people having shorter foreheads then.

Perhaps the greater gracilisation of modern English is due to more migrations from Europe over the centuries like the Huguenots and perhaps more intermarriage with descendants of Normans, even then portraits of Medieval and Tudor period English show faces that look familar to us today, Richard 3rd for example would not stick out in a modern British crowd. The English still contain a lot of robust elements, this Mesolithic man would not look out of place in England today.

https://ancestralwhispers.org/reconstructions/britwhg

[Creoda]

Perhaps the greater gracilisation of modern English is due to more migrations from Europe over the centuries like the Huguenots and perhaps more intermarriage with descendants of Normans, even then portraits of Medieval and Tudor period English show faces that look familar to us today, Richard 3rd for example would not stick out in a modern British crowd. The English still contain a lot of robust elements, this Mesolithic man would not look out of place in England today.

https://ancestralwhispers.org/reconstructions/britwhg

I don't believe in reconstructions, but the first realistic portraits of Englishmen come from Hans Holbein the Younger in the early 1500s - they were nearly all upper class and from around London, regular people didn't start being painted much until the 1700s at least.

Spoiler!

<Looks like Dennis Waterman

Obviously they fit in well with the modern population though, and have familiar faces.