PDA

View Full Version : Norid vs Keltic-Nordid



OneEnglishNorman
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 09:04 AM
The component elements seem to be very similar, why do these two types look so different from each other?

Agrippa
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 03:01 PM
The component elements seem to be very similar, why do these two types look so different from each other?

Norids are essentially just light and more Nordoid looking Dinarids, Keltic Nordic is the result of Dinaroid influences or slight Dinarisation, but the basic type is still just Nordid. So Norid is in all aspects beside pigmentation in the Dinarid, Keltic beside certain facial traits Nordid.

Erbe
Sunday, July 23rd, 2006, 07:29 PM
Keltic Nordic is the result of Dinaroid influences or slight Dinarisation, but the basic type is still just Nordid.

Aha, i always knew that there are similarities to the dinarids. That's why Mel Gibson is similar in some ways to me.

Sciz
Tuesday, July 25th, 2006, 03:53 AM
Agrippa,
I understand that Keltic Nordic is a stabilized blend of a Nordid base with some Dinarid admixture. Unless I’m mistaken, having one Nordid parent and one Dinarid, or even having three generations of each, will not produce offspring who are Keltic Nordic, correct? If this is the case, what is the relative timeframe for the completion of the stabilization process?

Also, to what degree can a subracial group such as Keltic Nordic be indicative of actual ancestry? As a clarification, I myself am Keltic Nordic and, from my family photos, it would seem that most of the members from the four primary families in my paternal and maternal lines have been so as well, or at least they have been for the last five generations. Now, lets suppose that I descend, long ago, from a family who has been primarily of East-Baltid stock (Theoretical only, as my family is from the U.K. and East-Baltid seems very unlikely). How long, and how much admixture, would it take for any trace of that East-Baltid strain to become so diluted as to be virtually unnoticeable?

Nicola_Canadian
Tuesday, July 25th, 2006, 05:57 AM
Norids are essentially just light and more Nordoid looking Dinarids, Keltic Nordic is the result of Dinaroid influences or slight Dinarisation, but the basic type is still just Nordid. So Norid is in all aspects beside pigmentation in the Dinarid, Keltic beside certain facial traits Nordid.

My humble observation - Norics usually are lighter, Keltic Nordics - darker...

æþeling
Friday, September 22nd, 2006, 10:14 PM
Originally Posted by Sciz
Also, to what degree can a subracial group such as Keltic Nordic be indicative of actual ancestry?


Hmmm I would guess it is a question of predominance.

For example, in genetics, I could have a mutation on my Y-chromosome that is specific to Norway, or Denmark, but that would only indicate that one of my forefathers came from that region, it would not indicate that they all did so, I could be predominantly British.

I don’t know how far this would apply to anthropology…

joseanton
Friday, November 17th, 2006, 08:36 PM
My humble observation - Norics usually are lighter, Keltic Nordics - darker...

Agree keltics, are closer to atlantid/north-atlantids IMO

Ragnar Thorsson
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 05:33 PM
Keltics are dinaricized. No dinaroid admixture at all.
Norids are a good example of Nordids with Dinaroid admixture.

They are quite look a like, just like Bruenn and Faelid.

The only difference is that Norids are altered by Dinarids, and Keltics are altered by a natural process.

Another term for the Keltic Nordid is 'continental Nordid'.

This is my own opinion, I do not believe in the Bell Beaker Culture where dinarids have mixed with the ethnic population in Western Europe.

Vasilis
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 10:56 PM
Keltics are dinaricized. No dinaroid admixture at all.


C.S. Coon says in his book 'The Races of Europe' i have found in the SNPA site:

'...The inference is that these brachycephals were derived from the older combination of Bell Beaker and Borreby types which was formed in the upper Rhine country at the beginning of the age of metal, and which persisted into the Hallstatt period. These seem to have mixed with the expected intrusive Nordics...'

'On the whole, the Kelts were a mixed group in race as in culture; their ancestry includes both long heads of some central European Nordic type, which was in turn a combination of several Mediterranean sub-types, and brachycephals from the region in southwestern Germany in which the Dinarics of Early Bronze Age introduction had blended with earlier round heads of Mesolithic origin. Out of this combination, the Kelts developed an easily identified national type, of considerable constancy, which was a to be of some importance in the world, especially in Britain and the nations derived from her.'

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, December 7th, 2006, 05:58 AM
My answer is simple: there is very little difference between the two. Most of the difference is with other populations in which they have mixed. If you were to see the skull of a Keltic Nordic and a Hallstatt Nordic, it would be very hard to tell which was which. The pigmentation and "look" differences, I attribute to the influence of other peoples with whom both have mixed since the origin of the type. For instance, the "look" of Keltic Nordics in Ireland, mostly, is quite different from the "look" Hallstatt Nordics in Sweden.

Difference is pigmentation are partly due to admixture and partly due to trend (in my mind). Blondism, it seems to me, originated in the east Baltic region and is still moving south and west to this day. So, naturally, the eastern Nordics will be more blond.

Another point is the Dinaric problem. I think this is far overrated. Perhaps Dinarics were important in the origin of the Nordic peoples but, after this, I don't see them as a major factor, certainly nothing like the influence of the Cordeds or East Baltics.