Do you agree that the most distinct feature of Europeans is the high prevalence of light hair/eyes?

[Melkiirs]

I wonder why gelbblond (golden blond) starts from 6 there... Nothing golden in 6.

Likely he meant non-ashen shades without an obvious lack of rufous pigment. Chestnut/medium brown hair starting at #6 is light enough to show a rufous cast. Hair can show blondism if lighter than deep brunet and still not be true blond indicating fairly pronounced blondism.

I'm not sure about the Die Somatologie der Norweger nach Untersuchungen an Rekruten report you have but elsewhere he presents all the Fischer numbers for Norwegian recruits overall.

On snippet view for Der nordische Mensch: die Merkmale der nordischen Rasse mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der rassischen Verhältnisse Norwegens I can see the overall data following along exactly with Fischer's original classification:

https://books.google.com/books?newbk...volume&q=braun

[Lucas]

Likely he meant non-ashen shades without an obvious lack of rufous pigment. Chestnut/medium brown hair starting at #6 is light enough to show a rufous cast. Hair can show blondism if lighter than deep brunet and still not be true blond indicating fairly pronounced blondism.

I'm not sure about the Die Somatologie der Norweger nach Untersuchungen an Rekruten report you have but elsewhere he presents all the Fischer numbers for Norwegian recruits overall.

On snippet view for Der nordische Mensch: die Merkmale der nordischen Rasse mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der rassischen Verhältnisse Norwegens I can see the overall data following along exactly with Fischer's original classification:

https://books.google.com/books?newbk...volume&q=braun

Yes, here

[Melkiirs]

Yes, here

You have the frequency of every Fischer shade for Norway overall in that report like in the other material regrading the same data I linked to? It is rather uncommon for get a distribution of every single shade with hair color scales (either original Fischer or Fischer-Saller). When that is reported the study is on a much smaller scale. This makes Bryn's research particularly informative and unique.

[Septentrion]

Thanks so much for that! I had to search through snippet view for a while and I could have just asked you. Cendré or Aschblond in Bryn's usage corresponded to dark ash blond by Fischer's original labels so absolutely true blond. For Retzius and Fürst it included even the darker more brunet råttfärgat shades.

Hold on! As I said before it depends on the scales used or standards. Either way the vast majority of Scandinavians tend to be blond or at least fair-haired. For example in Anthropologia Suecica shows that in Sweden 52% have ash-blond and 23% golden blond hair (75% blond!). The reverse in terms happens in her neighbor Norway according to Somatologie Der Norweger shows that in Aust Agder 53.9% yellowish-blond (golden blond) and 37.7% ashen blond (90.6%!).

[Melkiirs]

Hold on! As I said before it depends on the scales used or standards. Either way the vast majority of Scandinavians tend to be blond or at least fair-haired. For example in Anthropologia Suecica shows that in Sweden 52% have ash-blond and 23% golden blond hair (75% blond!). The reverse in terms happens in her neighbor Norway according to Somatologie Der Norweger shows that in Aust Agder 53.9% yellowish-blond (golden blond) and 37.7% ashen blond (90.6%!).

As I said when Lucas asked afterward there is a difference between blondism and blond. Fischer #6-19 is lighter than dark brunet while still not being ashy. The lighter half or so of brown shades are more likely to show rufous pigment especially when exposed to the sun. Chestnut hair (which is obviously brown not red) often has a degree of rufous cast. This is contrasted with ash blondism which is lighter than brunet but totally lacks signs of rufosity.

Blond hair refers to at least moderately pronounced blondism. Where that starts is subjective (more so than general blondism) but Eugen Fischer determined #9-26 was blondish by overall consensus.

Looking at the scale here it is quite clear that blondism and blond are very much not equivalent:

[Septentrion]

As I said when Lucas asked afterward there is a difference between blondism and blond. Fischer #6-19 is lighter than dark brunet while still not being ashy. The lighter half or so of brown shades are more likely to show rufous pigment especially when exposed to the sun. Chestnut hair (which is obviously brown not red) often has a degree of rufous cast. This is contrast with ash blondism which is lighter than brunet but totally lacks signs of rufosity.

Blond hair refers to at least moderately pronounced blondism. Where that starts is subjective (more so than general blondism) but Eugen Fischer determined #9-26 was blondish by overall consensus.

Looking at the scale here is is quite clear that blondism and blond are very much not equivalent:

This is why I kept saying that blondness has a wide spectrum as well.

[Melkiirs]

This is why I kept saying that blondness has a wide spectrum as well.

No one can deny that. The question is what do people commonly refer to as blond. It is possible to create a range of shades that most people in all nations will agree on as blondish. That is for there to be an almost full consensus over a subjective matter. I trust the determination of Eugen Fischer during the creation of his original scale regarding this.

Even Östsvensk does not consider only light blond as blond but is exclusive of certain light brownish borderline shades. The standards for blondism in Northern Europe which most closely corresponds to the general consensus are not really extreme or unfair to apply elsewhere.

[Septentrion]

As I said when Lucas asked afterward there is a difference between blondism and blond. Fischer #6-19 is lighter than dark brunet while still not being ashy. The lighter half or so of brown shades are more likely to show rufous pigment especially when exposed to the sun. Chestnut hair (which is obviously brown not red) often has a degree of rufous cast. This is contrasted with ash blondism which is lighter than brunet but totally lacks signs of rufosity.

Blond hair refers to at least moderately pronounced blondism. Where that starts is subjective (more so than general blondism) but Eugen Fischer determined #9-26 was blondish by overall consensus.

Looking at the scale here it is quite clear that blondism and blond are very much not equivalent:

Even Coon who got some of h this information from these sources, explains the different types of blondism.

[Lucas]

No one can deny that. The question is what do people commonly refer to as blond. It is possible to create a range of shades that most people in all nations will agree on as blondish. That is for there to be an almost full consensus over a subjective matter. I trust the determination of Eugen Fischer during the creation of his original scale regarding this.

Even Östsvensk does not consider only light blond as blond but is exclusive of certain light brownish borderline shades. The standards for blondism in Northern Europe which most closely corresponds to the general consensus are not really extreme or unfair to apply elsewhere.

Maybe you have some source which tells what that scale is? Rather not any of German. It could be Bunak but somewhat modernized? And looks quite good.

[Septentrion]

No one can deny that. The question is what do people commonly refer to as blond. It is possible to create a range of shades that most people in all nations will agree on as blondish. That is for there to be an almost full consensus over a subjective matter. I trust the determination of Eugen Fischer during the creation of his original scale regarding this.

Even Östsvensk does not consider only light blond as blond but is exclusive of certain light brownish borderline shades. The standards for blondism in Northern Europe which most closely corresponds to the general consensus are not really extreme or unfair to apply elsewhere.

On the basis that 75% of Swedes may qualify as blond/blondes or at least fair-haired, so can 11% of the Portuguese!