PDA

View Full Version : Are SNPA Racial Sub-Types Valid?



Azdaja
Tuesday, December 24th, 2002, 04:50 AM
Due to the SNPA website, I've become relatively familiar with the various Nordic and Nordish sub-types. And with McCullochs site I learned of some of the mediteranean racial divisions.
But I wonder: do any of the other caucasoid races have subtypes? Most especially I wonder about those races which are collectively lumped together as "the white race" (dinaric, alpine, east baltic being the 3 I havent mentioned yet).
If anyone has any information please help me out!

cosmocreator
Tuesday, December 24th, 2002, 06:09 PM
I'm sure there are subtypes but they haven't been studied. It seems only the Nordish type is most interested in the subject. I think this study should be done to all subraces of the world. This, I would hope, would lead to other subraces becoming interested in their own kind and would stop breeding with our kind.

BodewinTheSilent
Tuesday, December 24th, 2002, 10:58 PM
I suppose that you've already seen this site, but it will help give you the groundwork:

http://www4.stormfront.org/whitehistory/reoehcover.htm

As NS1488CA has noted, the northern races have been of greatest interest to scholars, for a variety of reasons.

Azdaja
Tuesday, December 24th, 2002, 11:08 PM
Yes, I read that site over a week ago or so. Very informative.
I just wanted to make sure I knew the names of all the caucasoid races/sub-races/et. And well, I guess I do!
Thanks for the help guys.

Hellstar
Monday, December 30th, 2002, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Heimdall
the northern races have been of greatest interest to scholars, for a variety of reasons.
:bravo

SouthernBoy
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 11:34 PM
What are your opinions about Nordish sub-types, in particular those on SNPA? Are all intraracial classifications invalid, or over-specific? I still believe in the validity of sub-types, but please tell me your opinions. :beer-smil :viking3:

jcs
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 01:01 AM
I believe that all of the sub-types are valid, but there is a great difficulty in differentiating between two (or more) subraces within a subracial group.

For example, the two Nordic sub-types have overlapping traits. To see what I mean, take a look at these measurements (from http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=449 ):

Keltic Nordic
Height (cm)........................171 to 182
Head Length.......................188 to 202
Head Breadth......................151 to 156
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......108 to 111
Bizygomatic Diameter...........137 to 142
Bigonial Diameter.................106 to 107
Total Facial Height...............127 to 131
Upper Facial Height..............72 to 77
Nasal Height........................60 to 66
Nasal Breadth......................31 to 36
Biorbital Width.....................87 to 97
Interorbital Width.................26 to 34
Cephalic Index.....................74 to 83
Facial Index.........................89 to 96
Upper Facial Index................51 to 56
Nasal Index.........................47 to 60

Hallstatt Nordic
Height (cm)........................170 to 175
Head Length.......................194 to 203
Head Breadth......................146 to 156
Minimum Frontal Breadth.......101 to 114
Bizygomatic Diameter...........133 to 141
Bigonial Diameter.................100 to 110
Total Facial Height...............116 to 133
Upper Facial Height..............70 to 78
Nasal Height........................54 to 59
Nasal Breadth......................32 to 37
Biorbital Width.....................88 to 98
Interorbital Width.................29 to 35
Cephalic Index.....................72 to 80
Facial Index.........................82 to 100
Upper Facial Index................50 to 59
Nasal Index.........................54 to 69

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 02:14 AM
Where did you get those measurements?

jcs
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 02:22 AM
Where did you get those measurements?
erm...

For example, the two Nordic sub-types have overlapping traits. To see what I mean, take a look at these measurements (from http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=449 )
That link is to cosmocreator's post in another section of this forum. As for where he got those measurements, he'd be the one to ask.

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 02:27 AM
...um. Looks like I missed that part.

cosmocreator
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 06:43 AM
Those measurements come from Coon's The Races of Man if I remember correctly. One of his books, anyway.

I don't think subtypes are valid and here's why:

If we look at a breed of dog for example, say a German Shepard, both it's parents and all four of it's grandparents, all 8 of it's great grandparents are German Shepards. It was created by inbreeding. Thus, for someone to be say Anglo-Saxon, all of their ancestors going back X number of generation would have to be Anglo-Saxons. Very few (if any at all) Europeans would be able to claim they are a certain subtype based on this.

Furthermore, and I'll use myself as an example. All my measurments except head length fit into Danubian. My head is longer. Several others who have been studying racial types for many years, unanimously, and independently said I was Alpine/Borreby mix. A few of my measurements are out of range for both these types including head breadth. My head is narrower. Truth is, I can't be any type because my ancestors are mixed types themselves. None of them are a purebred type. But this is probably what they'd be classified as in appearance.

Maternal Grandmother = Alpine
Maternal Grandfather= Borreby
Paternal Grandfather= Nordic
Paternal Grandmother = possibly Borreby

So, going by eye, I probably am some type of Borreby/Nordic/Alpine mix. Even though, metrically, I am closest to Danubian.

So, it would seem subjective opinion carries more weight than absolute measurements. Unless, we assume metrically, my grandparents are what I wrote above. Thus, Alpine + Borreby + Borreby + Nordic = Danubian.

Anyway, I think genetics would be more valuable in determining what group a person belongs to and that the concept Nordish is more meaningful.

jcs
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 03:29 PM
I agree with you to a point. Subtypes are invalid for those of mixed ancestry, but that does not invalidate them for purebreeds.

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 09:28 PM
There are very few who can claim "pure blood." I wouldn't place all the weight of a person's classification on measurements though. Soft part morphology appears to be of more importance. So even if someone is "mixed" subracially people can still come to a conclusion by looking at pictures and comparing them to plates. Just because someone metrically approximates a Danubian, as you do respectively, does not prove they had a single Danubian ancestor. It is more important to try to discern which type's typical phenotype you resemble the most. Even though Coon is getting a bit outdated, the majority of his sub-types can still be applied to modern populations. This is why I believe sub-types are still valid.

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 08:35 AM
What are your opinions about Nordish sub-types, in particular those on SNPA? Are all intraracial classifications invalid, or over-specific? I still believe in the validity of sub-types, but please tell me your opinions. :beer-smil :viking3:

I am of the opinion that they are valid. But you know what they say the Devil is in the details.