PDA

View Full Version : How Does One Distinguish Between Slavs and Germanics?



Northern Paladin
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 07:31 AM
How Does One Distinguish between Slavs and Germanics?
It's easy for me to distinguish a Slav from a Germanic but I'm not all too aware of how it works.

Jakub
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 07:39 AM
How Does One Distinguish between Slavs and Germanics?
It's easy for me to distinguish a Slav from a Germanic but I'm not all too aware of how it works.


It's not an easy thing to the untrained eye, but there are clear differences.

Of course, there are many Germanics who look Slavic, and vice verser, so it's not possible to generalize in some instances.

I might contribute my views on this topic later, when other members have had their say.

Loki
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 07:51 AM
Of course, there are many Germanics who look Slavic, and vice verser, so it's not possible to generalize in some instances.

That could be because of intermixture (ancient) on both sides. Ethnic Germans who originate beyond the Elbe, have in the past mixed plentifully with Slavs. Also, Slavs like Poles have taken in much Germanic blood in ancient times.

Zyklop
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 08:34 AM
Considering the ancient Germanic settlements as far eastwards as Lithuania and the second wave of conquests by Teutonic knights, many of the so called Slavs have in fact Germanic origins.

Jakub
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 02:12 PM
That's true.

But many Germans have Slavic origins. I would say about 25%.

Zyklop
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 02:24 PM
That's true.

But many Germans have Slavic origins. I would say about 25%.

I would say your 25% Slavs are in fact Germanics who came under Slavic rule and therefore adopted their culture and language.

Please give an example for these 25%.

Jakub
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 02:32 PM
I would say your 25% Slavs are in fact Germanics who came under Slavic rule and therefore adopted their culture and language.

Please give an example for these 25%.


Latest research has found 30% of R1a1 in the German population. And the sub-clades are the same as those in Slavic nations (Poland in particular). The bigger the sample group, it seems, the more Slavic lineages in the German population.

Zyklop
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 02:36 PM
Latest research has found 30% of R1a1 in the German population. And the sub-clades are the same as those in Slavic nations (Poland in particular). The bigger the sample group, it seems, the more Slavic lineages in the German population.

This could also be used as an argument to connect the high degree of R1a1 among Poles and other "Slavic" nations with Germanic invasions in ancient or medieval times. :confused:

Jakub
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 02:38 PM
One of the reports I am reading at the moment on the topic.

Also please note that R1a1 (HG3) is almost missing in Holland and the UK, and the HG3 in Scandinavia is of a different type than in Poland or Germany.

Jakub
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 02:40 PM
This could also be used as an argument to connect the high degree of R1a1 among Poles and other "Slavic" nations with Germanic invasions in ancient or medieval times. :confused:


R1a1 is a Slavic marker. NOT a Germanic one. It comes from the east, and appears in 55% of Poles.

Germanic markers are I1a and I1c. Also possiboy R1b, though that's more of a Celtic marker.

Zyklop
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 02:45 PM
There are neither Germanic, Slavic or Celtic markers. There also are no Germanic, Slavic or Celtic races. These are linguistic terms.
This genotype observation could also have to do with prehistoric migrations.

Jakub
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 02:53 PM
There are neither Germanic, Slavic or Celtic markers. There also are no Germanic, Slavic or Celtic races. These are linguistic terms.
This genotype observation could also have to do with prehistoric migrations.


The sub-clades of R1a1 found in Poland and western Russia are also found in eastern Germany.

They are not found in any other Germanic populations.

What does that tell you? It tells me that the gene pool that makes up the Polish and Russian populations also pushes into Germany.

That means about 30% of Germans are our brothers. And this blood did not come from the German side to us, it came from us to the German side.

Call it what you like, but Germans are carrying plenty of our lineages.

Combine that with the fact that there are lots of Slavic names in Germany (endings like ski, ow, icz...or haven't you noticed?), and there's a well documentd history of Slavic settlement in eastern Germany.

I mean, surely you can't ignore all of that. DNA, geneology and history all tell us the same thing.

So what do you think happened?

Zyklop
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 03:16 PM
hmm, first, where did HG3 originate? Doesnīt it come from central asia? Could have been brought westwards any time in history.
And if not so, why shouldnīt it be a special East-Germanic marker? :)

I disagree however, that genealogy and history support your theory. Surnames originated some hundred years ago and thus donīt give much insight into ancient movements. Language can be adopted or enforced. Look how many Jews have German names without beeing German.
And as I said, the so called Slavs eastwards of the Elba river were only unchristianized Germanics, namely Herules, Vandals and Rugier.

Jakub
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 03:33 PM
hmm, first, where did HG3 originate? Doesnīt it come from central asia? Could have been brought westwards any time in history.
And if not so, why shouldnīt it be a special East-Germanic marker? :)

I disagree however, that genealogy and history support your theory. Surnames originated some hundred years ago and thus donīt give much insight into ancient movements. Language can be adopted or enforced. Look how many Jews have German names without beeing German.
And as I said, the so called Slavs eastwards of the Elba river were only unchristianized Germanics, namely Herules, Vandals and Rugier.


R1a1 comes from north of the Black Sea.

The only Germans who carry these Polish/Russian R1a1 types are the ones who come from Slavs.

55% of Poles carry these R1a1 markers, and 54% of Russians carry them. They were probably even more common in early Slavs.

If eastern Germanics carried them, they would be found wherever the Goths and Vandals travelled. But they aren't. They're only found where Slavs are known to have been in large numbers.

But how do you suppose that so many Germans got names like Von Below and Von Kunowski?

Do you think that they kind of chose those names because the Slavs happened to be near them? Or do you think that small numbers of Slavs forced all these Germans to call themselves ow this and ski that?

These people are Germanized Slavs, not Slavinized Germans.

Slavic culture persisted until the middle ages right up to Hamburg. Archeology tells us this, names tell us this, town names tell us this, DNA tell us this.

Names like ski = Slavs, and large quantities of R1a1 = Slavs.

I don't see what your problem is?

Zyklop
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 04:13 PM
R1a1 comes from north of the Black Sea.
Source please.


But how do you suppose that so many Germans got names like Von Below and Von Kunowski?

Do you know what the prefix "Von" means in German? ;)


These people are Germanized Slavs, not Slavinized Germans.

Slavic culture persisted until the middle ages right up to Hamburg. Archeology tells us this, names tell us this, town names tell us this,

I know what you are referring to but that is a claim which has its origin in 19th century Panslavism. The Wends are in fact Vandals. Ever heard of the Urbs Vandalica et Hanseatica?
Many German towns suddenly got slavic names after WW2. Does that mean they have been slavic settlements ever since?

Jakub
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 04:45 PM
Source please.



Do you know what the prefix "Von" means in German? ;)


I know what you are referring to but that is a claim which has its origin in 19th century Panslavism. The Wends are in fact Vandals. Ever heard of the Urbs Vandalica et Hanseatica?
Many German towns suddenly got slavic names after WW2. Does that mean they have been slavic settlements ever since?


Hmmmm...

Do you realise that towns like Dresden come from Slavic names like Drezno?

There are hundreds of examples like those in Eastern Germany...any Slavic speaker can see it as plain as daylight.


Beech groves abound in the forests around Buckow, in fact, the town's name derives directly from the Slavic word for beech, buk.

And yes, I do know what Von means in German. But so what? Most Slavic names in Germany don't carry Von - only German aristocrats of Slavic origin carry Von. They usually come from Pomerania (Pomorze in Polish, which means "by the sea" in all Slavic languages) or Silesia.

Here are some more Slavic names you may find familiar, if you are German that is: Littbarski, Ramelow, Nowotny, Borowski...

Btw, the Sorbs or Wends of east Germany are fully Slavic genetically. They carry as much R1a1 as Poles. In fact, they are identical to us and Russians.

Here's a report on R1a1. I'm also going to post another report about another northern Slavic marker, that originated in Slavic populations quite recently. It is recognised as a Slavic marker, and Germans carry as much of it as Poles.

Jakub
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 04:49 PM
The distribution of a Slavic marker in Europe.

Prodigal Son
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 02:58 AM
I assume that by 'Slavs' you mean the Northern Slavs - Poles, Russians, and Belorussians. I am of Northern Slavic heritage, but have lived among people of Kelto-Germanic ancestry for most of my life. There are definite phenotypical differences between the two groups. Perhaps the most noticeable difference is that of pigmentation. Slavs (and other Northeastern Europeans) tend to combine ashen of chestnut hair, with gray or gray-mixed eyes, and a skin that is pale but tans quite easily, whereas Northwest Europeans tend towards reddish brown or golden blond (or even red hair), eyes that are more blue than gray, and ruddy skin. Slavs also have somewhat broader and shorter faces. Slavs are more brachycephalic and much higher-headed. On the Northeast periphery of Slavic territory one finds large numbers of people who fall into the East Baltic type - broad, flattish face, brachycephalic, with concave noses, but these traits are more Finnic than Slavic.

Nordhammer
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 06:05 AM
The sub-clades of R1a1 found in Poland and western Russia are also found in eastern Germany.

They are not found in any other Germanic populations.

What does that tell you? It tells me that the gene pool that makes up the Polish and Russian populations also pushes into Germany.

That means about 30% of Germans are our brothers. And this blood did not come from the German side to us, it came from us to the German side

55% of Poles carry these R1a1 markers, and 54% of Russians carry them


Does that mean you consider 45% of Poles and 46% of Russians who don't carry the markers to not be your brothers and not Slavic?

Nordhammer
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 06:08 AM
Slavs also have somewhat broader and shorter faces. Slavs are more brachycephalic and much higher-headed. On the Northeast periphery of Slavic territory one finds large numbers of people who fall into the East Baltic type - broad, flattish face, brachycephalic, with concave noses, but these traits are more Finnic than Slavic.

Then do you consider Slavs to be less Nordic than Celtics and Germanics?

Prodigal Son
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 07:07 AM
Then do you consider Slavs to be less Nordic than Celtics and Germanics?

Depends on your definition of 'Germanic'. Russians are definitely longer-headed, longer-faced, and lighter than Austrians, Swiss Germans, and most Germans proper. Poles are more brachycephalic than Russians, but on the other hand, they are as light as Scandinavians, something that can by no stretch of the imagination be said of Germans, let alone Austrians.

Nordhammer
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 07:18 AM
Depends on your definition of 'Germanic'. Russians are definitely longer-headed, longer-faced, and lighter than Austrians, Swiss Germans, and most Germans proper. Poles are more brachycephalic than Russians, but on the other hand, they are as light as Scandinavians, something that can by no stretch of the imagination be said of Germans, let alone Austrians.

You think ethnic Russians are the most Nordic of the Slavs?

Jakub
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 10:53 AM
Does that mean you consider 45% of Poles and 46% of Russians who don't carry the markers to not be your brothers and not Slavic?


No, it doesn't work like that.

I don't consider 70% of Germans my brothers because they don't seem to have any Slavic links.

On the other hand, Slavs are Slavs, whether they carry R1a1 or not. I don't need to establish links with them, because they're already established.

Jakub
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 10:56 AM
You think ethnic Russians are the most Nordic of the Slavs?


Ethnic Russians are the most Nordic of Slavs.

But there are variations. Some areas of Poland are more Nordic than many areas of Russia.

Btw, Celts and Germanics are certainly no more Nordic than Russians. Though once again, there are regional variations that need to me taken into account.

Jakub
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 11:24 AM
Ok, here are some interesting plates.

We have here a bunch of Germans and a group of Poles.

The biggest difference between the two is that the Germans show much stronger Cro-Magnoid influences.

The Poles, on the other hand, lack these features.

Often you can even tell apart Slavs and Germans who are classified as the same sub-race. For example, a Nordic Slav still looks Slavic, while a Nordic German still looks German. There are subtle, but clear differences for sure.

In Poland the Germanic Cro-Magnoid/Nordic look is not all that common. I think it reaches about 10% in Wielkopolska and Pomerania.

Nordhammer
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 11:42 AM
No, it doesn't work like that.

I don't consider 70% of Germans my brothers because they don't seem to have any Slavic links.

On the other hand, Slavs are Slavs, whether they carry R1a1 or not. I don't need to establish links with them, because they're already established.

What links, language and culture? So even if one isn't a "genetic Slav", culture and language will suffice?

Nordhammer
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 11:45 AM
Ok, here are some interesting plates.

We have here a bunch of Germans and a group of Poles.

The biggest difference between the two is that the Germans show much stronger Cro-Magnoid influences.

The Poles, on the other hand, lack these features.


Germans are tall and largeheaded as a rule, probably from UP influence.

With Poles, and especially the females, I notice a tendency for them to be smaller-headed.

Jakub
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 02:24 PM
What links, language and culture? So even if one isn't a "genetic Slav", culture and language will suffice?



You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Slavs are my brothers because they are related by blood. But they don't all have to carry R1a1 for me to know they're related by blood. If they're Slavs from way back, and they look Slavic, then they're related to me even if they don't carry any Slavic markers.

Markers and genetic composition are two different things. I assume you are aware of this.

The prblem with the Germans is that I know about 25% of them have Slavic heritage, but it's hard to say which ones. Obviously, those with R1a1 are the prime candidates.

Those who don't carry R1a1, or any other Slavic markers, but look German are not my "brothers" in theory.

I mean, there are probably Germans out there who have Slavic blood but don't carry R1a1, or anything like that. In fact, they may even look German. But how would I know they're of Slavic heritage? Impossible to say.

So yes, I use R1a1 as a rough guide in this case. But it makes little difference really. It's not like I'm gonna start hugging every German with R1a1, or even every Slav. What I'm saying here is that about 25% of Germans are my kin. So I have some kind of an ethnic link to a large proportion of the German nation - but that's all. If I were you, I wouldn't take it to mean nay more than that.

Jakub
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 02:27 PM
Germans are tall and largeheaded as a rule, probably from UP influence.

With Poles, and especially the females, I notice a tendency for them to be smaller-headed.


Young Poles are as tall as young Germans these days.

In terms of head size, I can't really say. But it appears that Germans are both broader and longer headed, while Poles are much higher headed.

Again, I take this as a sign of Cro-Magnoid influence on the Germanic gene pool.

But the Cro-Magnoid influence manifests itself even more clearly in the soft parts of German facial features - the lips, eyes and the nose.

Prodigal Son
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 07:45 PM
You think ethnic Russians are the most Nordic of the Slavs?


The short answer would be: yes. According to Polish anthropologists, the Intermarine (Aistin) type, the most common single typ[e in Poland, is even more common in Russia. In the Southeast of Russia, one will find darker-haired, longer-faced Corded types (this has been noted by Western, as well as Soviet antrhopologists). On the other hand, Littoral Nordic(Hallstaat) types are more common in Poland.

By the way, I don't know if you are aware of this, but your avatar is a painting by a Russian artist (Konstantin Vasiliev) of a Russian knight. Just thought I'd point that out.

Axelrod
Tuesday, July 27th, 2004, 03:58 PM
i also noticed slavs having smaller, rounder and broader heads than germanic people most of the time. i think the most nordic slavs are from belarus and baltic russia. but its not possible to see any difference in pigmentation.

Evolved
Wednesday, July 28th, 2004, 07:28 AM
I can tell between Scandinavian Nordics and Slavic Nordics pretty easily. Slavic Nordics have more rounded features, less neolithic features. And different facial proportions.

Loki
Wednesday, July 28th, 2004, 07:33 AM
I can tell between Scandinavian Nordics and Slavic Nordics pretty easily. Slavic Nordics have more rounded features, less neolithic features. And different facial proportions.More rounded features, as in rounder skulls and faces, most of the time IMO.

What "Neolithic features" are you talking about? Slavs have in general more Neolithic blood than Germanics.

Jakub
Wednesday, July 28th, 2004, 06:29 PM
The Neolithic component in European populations is open to debate.

What is certain is that there is a greater Mediterranean component in Germanic populations.

In fact, this is one of the main racial groups that helped to create the Germanics.

These Meds came from Iberia, and carried the haplogroup R1b.

Hence the large numbers of "Atlantids" in the UK, Holland, and even Scandinavia and Germany.

Loki
Wednesday, July 28th, 2004, 07:02 PM
The Neolithic component in European populations is open to debate.

What is certain is that there is a greater Mediterranean component in Germanic populations.

In fact, this is one of the main racial groups that helped to create the Germanics.

These Meds came from Iberia, and carried the haplogroup R1b.

Hence the large numbers of "Atlantids" in the UK, Holland, and even Scandinavia and Germany.
Your post is inaccurate and misleading. It is in no way "certain" that Germanics have a greater Mediterranean element. In fact, a great amount of Slavs (Ukrainians, southern Poles, Serbs, Croats, etc) are characteristically dark, whereas in Germanic circles, only southern Germans and Austrians can be counted as "dark" in any general sense. Also, the Atlantids in Britain did not derive from Germanic invaders as you suggest, but rather from elements still present from the pre-Germanic, pre-Celtic British population.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 28th, 2004, 07:24 PM
Slavs are my brothers because they are related by blood. But they don't all have to carry R1a1 for me to know they're related by blood. If they're Slavs from way back, and they look Slavic, then they're related to me even if they don't carry any Slavic markers.

So your sense of Slavicness is the one-drop rule in reverse?

Is it fair to say that Slavs who don't carry the "Slavic marker" are less Slavic than those who do?

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 28th, 2004, 07:58 PM
Coon on Poland:

The plain of Poland was a great center for the Corded people, who hindered the expansion of the earlier agriculturalists, and whose physical type was predominant there until the adoption of cremation. When burial had once more become fashionable, Poland was largely a Nordic country, as it remained until after the rise and spread of the Slavs, when the old Danubian peasant stock broke through its Corded and Nordic chrysalis and reemerged. Throughout its history, however, Poland has contained minor incidences of a flat-faced brachycephalic racial type, the Ladogan, whose home lay in the forests and swamps to the north, and which was initially associated with the Kammkeramik hunting and fishing culture. In the living population of Poland, this element has assumed a position of considerable, if secondary, importance.

No nation in Europe has shown greater activity in studying the physical anthropology of its people than has Poland; detailed surveys of many thousands give accurate data on every province, including every village in the Republic. As in parts of Germany and of Russia, we are embarrassed with a plethora of information, to all of which it is impossible to do justice. Our method will be to review the general surveys, and then to study some of the regional populations, including White Russians, Ukrainians, and Carpathian Mountaineers, which overlap the Polish frontiers.

The mean stature for Poland is about 165-166 cm., medium for Europeans, and close to that of Lithuanians and Carelian Finns. It is tallest (166-1 67 cm.) in the west, in the provinces of Poznan and Pomorz, in the region of maximum German settlement, including the famous Polish Corridor; this relatively tall stature may not, however, be entirely due to German influence, since the Polish tribes who settled there were as tall as that in the beginning. Shortest statures (164-165 cm.), are found especially in the southeast, in Ukrainian territory; in fact, nearest the supposed Slavic home-land, and in Lodz in central Poland.

Social differences in these characters are greater than regional differences, however; among the upper classes the stature rises to over 170 cm., and the relative span falls to the Nordic level of 102-103. Selection, which is responsible for this differentiation, has also played a great part in the migration of Poles to America; Polish immigrants in the United States have a mean stature of 170 cm., and a relative span of 103.89 Since social and economic stimuli can so readily segregate different size and bodily form elements in the Polish population, it is not surprising that submerged racial types have reappeared during the course of centuries.

The cephalic index goes down to means of 80 and 81 in various sections of North and West Poland, and up to 85 in Galicia and Ruthenia. The common level for the nation is between 82 and 83. A rise of about 5 index points has taken place since the Slavic settlement, as we have also observed in Bohemia; but the brachycephalizing agents in the two countries are not entirely the same.

The head size of the Poles, as of the Ukrainians and White Russians, is too small to be derived in any considerable measure from an unreduced Brunn or Borreby source; it is also too small for living Nordic populations, and is about equal to that of the Danubian agriculturalists, and of the Alpines and Dinarics. It is at the same time comparable to that of non-Baltic Finns, and of most Lithuanians.

The facial breadths, minimum frontal, bizygomatic, and bigonial, are approximately 108 mm., 143 mm., and 110 mm.; too wide for Nordics or for pure Danubian survivors, and necessitating Alpine, Dinaric, or Ladogan influences, or all three. The menton-nasion face height, with means as low as 118-120 mm. in central and eastern Poland, rises to the full Dinaric height of 127 mm. in Galicia and Ruthenia. Except for these mountainous southern regions, the facial index is uniformly eury- to mesoprosopic. The noses are leptorrhine in most of Poland but approach mesorrhiny in the south and east; there is a progression from means of about 63 in the Polish Corridor and Poznan to 68-70 on the opposite side of the country.

There is abundant evidence to show that all but the southern section of Poland, along the Carpathian foothills, falls within the blondest pigment area of Europe. The skin is almost uniformly light, except in the south; the commonest hair colors are medium to dark brown, and a dark ash-blond. The incidence of truly fair hair is as great here as in Scandinavia, while the eyes are predominantly light-mixed, with gray shades commoit Brown eyes seldom exceed 10 per cent except in the very southern mountain sections. With these same exceptions, Poland is too blond a country for Alpines or Dinarics to be present in any numbers. The pigmentation of the population, by and large, is Nordic in shades and in intensity; the virtual absence of rufosity argues against the presence of many Palaeolithic survivors of the types found in western Europe.

[So perhaps Poles have retained the Nordic pigmentation while losing the Nordic morphology on average.]

Although complete sets of morphological observations on Poles are not common, there is an abundance of data on the form of the nose; the profile is most commonly straight, with a large concave minority, and few in the convex category. The nasal root is usually medium in breadth, the wings medium or slightly flaring; the tip is either horizontal or inclined upward, and, in a large minority of cases, snubbed in a manner highly suggestive of Lapps and eastern Finns. Beard and body hair growth are often on the light side of the European norm, which fact again precludes a strong Alpine increment.

The facial features which typify the Polish peasantry are quite different, as a rule, from those found among the nobility and the upper classes in general. The noblemen have less blond and less really dark hair; fewer dark eyes, and fewer instances of brunet skin color, than the peasants; their noses, however, present their greatest distinction; these are not only longer and narrower, but also frequently convex in profile, with concave forms reduced to a minimum. Old Corded and Nordic tendencies segregate themselves, at least in stature, bodily build, pigmentation, and facial features, in this superordinate class, as do Danubian and Ladogan tendencies among the peasantry.

Contemporary Polish anthropologists have studied the population of their country by dividing it into types, and plotting the proportions of these types by regions. These types include what would in our present terminology be Nordic, Neo-Danubian, Lappish, Ladogan, Alpine, and Dinaric, as well as Armenoid, and both tall and short Mediterraneans. The last three, however, are admittedly much in the minority, if they are present at all. The Nordic element is strongest in the Polish Corridor, where East Baltic factors, unusual in Poland in our definition of the term, are also found. The Nordic element is also strongest on the German border, and elsewhere it is concentrated along main water courses, the highroads of migration in pre-Slavic Gothic times, as well as later. Its identity with a social and economic upper level, however, is probably stronger than its geographical differentiation. The Neo-Danubian element, which has probably gained in stature through its Nordic interlude, is as blond as the Nordic, on the whole, and this fact leads one to the conclusion that the pre-Corded peasants of eastern Europe, as of the Danube Valley, were already partly blond. The combination of ash-blond hair with gray-mixed eyes seems to be a Neo-Danubian specialty.

Members of the early forest types with their incipiently mongoloid facial features have seeped in everywhere north of the Carpathians, but more in the east than in the west. They too were probably partly blond from the beginning, but not as blond as the Danubians with whom they have become thoroughly blended. Dinarics, commonest in the Carpathians, are found in solution throughout Poland, and the same is true of the Alpines. The rare brunet Mediterraneans noted by the Polish authors are probably related to the commoner brunet long heads of southern Russia, of Bulgaria, and of the Caucasus.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 28th, 2004, 08:04 PM
The short answer would be: yes. According to Polish anthropologists, the Intermarine (Aistin) type, the most common single typ[e in Poland, is even more common in Russia. In the Southeast of Russia, one will find darker-haired, longer-faced Corded types (this has been noted by Western, as well as Soviet antrhopologists). On the other hand, Littoral Nordic(Hallstaat) types are more common in Poland.

By the way, I don't know if you are aware of this, but your avatar is a painting by a Russian artist (Konstantin Vasiliev) of a Russian knight. Just thought I'd point that out.

Yes, I am aware of who the author is, he does good work. I say again I am not anti-Russian or anti-Slav. :) I use it because it's a nice picture of a Nordic knight, and I like the black and red colors. It's difficult to find good Nordic artwork these days, so I take it where I can.

Jakub
Thursday, July 29th, 2004, 07:26 PM
Your post is inaccurate and misleading. It is in no way "certain" that Germanics have a greater Mediterranean element. In fact, a great amount of Slavs (Ukrainians, southern Poles, Serbs, Croats, etc) are characteristically dark, whereas in Germanic circles, only southern Germans and Austrians can be counted as "dark" in any general sense. Also, the Atlantids in Britain did not derive from Germanic invaders as you suggest, but rather from elements still present from the pre-Germanic, pre-Celtic British population.



Don't take this the wrong way. I'm not putting down the Germanic nations by saying that they're more Med than us.

Thanks to Norda on SAF, I've been re-educating myself in regards to European physical anthropology, past and present.

I have to say that Norda's arguments are compelling, even though they go against most of what I believed.

According to Norda, Germanic nations have a significant Med component, which contributes to their long-headedness. In Scandinavia it's called Tydal, and in the UK it's Atlantid. Whatever, it's still Med.

Anyway, I'm no expert on this matter, so perhaps you shuld check out Norda's posts on the issue. He covered this topic quite well on Skadi.

We'll be translating certain sections of Czekanowski and Czupkiewicz on SAF for no non-Polish readers. I highly recommend it.

And yeah, I am biased, but so what? Under my Slavic bias there's plenty of useful information and cunning observations. You can't deny that.

Loki
Thursday, July 29th, 2004, 07:30 PM
According to Norda, Germanic nations have a significant Med component, which contributes to their long-headedness. In Scandinavia it's called Tydal, and in the UK it's Atlantid. Whatever, it's still Med.
I don't think the blond Nordics are in any significant way related to the Tydals. The Tydals are in the minority in Scandinavia, and I think it is erroneous to think that Scandinavian Nordic longheads have derived their longheadedness from them. It is norda's theory, but I think it remains to be proven.


And yeah, I am biased, but so what? Under my Slavic bias there's plenty of useful information and cunning observations. You can't deny that.
There is nothing wrong with bias. We all have a little of it, at least. :) I also know there are useful things to be learnt in Slavic circles, and I frequently read Slavanthro.

Jakub
Thursday, July 29th, 2004, 07:31 PM
Coon on Poland:

The plain of Poland was a great center for the Corded people, who hindered the expansion of the earlier agriculturalists, and whose physical type was predominant there until the adoption of cremation. When burial had once more become fashionable, Poland was largely a Nordic country, as it remained until after the rise and spread of the Slavs, when the old Danubian peasant stock broke through its Corded and Nordic chrysalis and reemerged. Throughout its history, however, Poland has contained minor incidences of a flat-faced brachycephalic racial type, the Ladogan, whose home lay in the forests and swamps to the north, and which was initially associated with the Kammkeramik hunting and fishing culture. In the living population of Poland, this element has assumed a position of considerable, if secondary, importance.

No nation in Europe has shown greater activity in studying the physical anthropology of its people than has Poland; detailed surveys of many thousands give accurate data on every province, including every village in the Republic. As in parts of Germany and of Russia, we are embarrassed with a plethora of information, to all of which it is impossible to do justice. Our method will be to review the general surveys, and then to study some of the regional populations, including White Russians, Ukrainians, and Carpathian Mountaineers, which overlap the Polish frontiers.

The mean stature for Poland is about 165-166 cm., medium for Europeans, and close to that of Lithuanians and Carelian Finns. It is tallest (166-1 67 cm.) in the west, in the provinces of Poznan and Pomorz, in the region of maximum German settlement, including the famous Polish Corridor; this relatively tall stature may not, however, be entirely due to German influence, since the Polish tribes who settled there were as tall as that in the beginning. Shortest statures (164-165 cm.), are found especially in the southeast, in Ukrainian territory; in fact, nearest the supposed Slavic home-land, and in Lodz in central Poland.

Social differences in these characters are greater than regional differences, however; among the upper classes the stature rises to over 170 cm., and the relative span falls to the Nordic level of 102-103. Selection, which is responsible for this differentiation, has also played a great part in the migration of Poles to America; Polish immigrants in the United States have a mean stature of 170 cm., and a relative span of 103.89 Since social and economic stimuli can so readily segregate different size and bodily form elements in the Polish population, it is not surprising that submerged racial types have reappeared during the course of centuries.

The cephalic index goes down to means of 80 and 81 in various sections of North and West Poland, and up to 85 in Galicia and Ruthenia. The common level for the nation is between 82 and 83. A rise of about 5 index points has taken place since the Slavic settlement, as we have also observed in Bohemia; but the brachycephalizing agents in the two countries are not entirely the same.

The head size of the Poles, as of the Ukrainians and White Russians, is too small to be derived in any considerable measure from an unreduced Brunn or Borreby source; it is also too small for living Nordic populations, and is about equal to that of the Danubian agriculturalists, and of the Alpines and Dinarics. It is at the same time comparable to that of non-Baltic Finns, and of most Lithuanians.

The facial breadths, minimum frontal, bizygomatic, and bigonial, are approximately 108 mm., 143 mm., and 110 mm.; too wide for Nordics or for pure Danubian survivors, and necessitating Alpine, Dinaric, or Ladogan influences, or all three. The menton-nasion face height, with means as low as 118-120 mm. in central and eastern Poland, rises to the full Dinaric height of 127 mm. in Galicia and Ruthenia. Except for these mountainous southern regions, the facial index is uniformly eury- to mesoprosopic. The noses are leptorrhine in most of Poland but approach mesorrhiny in the south and east; there is a progression from means of about 63 in the Polish Corridor and Poznan to 68-70 on the opposite side of the country.

There is abundant evidence to show that all but the southern section of Poland, along the Carpathian foothills, falls within the blondest pigment area of Europe. The skin is almost uniformly light, except in the south; the commonest hair colors are medium to dark brown, and a dark ash-blond. The incidence of truly fair hair is as great here as in Scandinavia, while the eyes are predominantly light-mixed, with gray shades commoit Brown eyes seldom exceed 10 per cent except in the very southern mountain sections. With these same exceptions, Poland is too blond a country for Alpines or Dinarics to be present in any numbers. The pigmentation of the population, by and large, is Nordic in shades and in intensity; the virtual absence of rufosity argues against the presence of many Palaeolithic survivors of the types found in western Europe.

[So perhaps Poles have retained the Nordic pigmentation while losing the Nordic morphology on average.]

Although complete sets of morphological observations on Poles are not common, there is an abundance of data on the form of the nose; the profile is most commonly straight, with a large concave minority, and few in the convex category. The nasal root is usually medium in breadth, the wings medium or slightly flaring; the tip is either horizontal or inclined upward, and, in a large minority of cases, snubbed in a manner highly suggestive of Lapps and eastern Finns. Beard and body hair growth are often on the light side of the European norm, which fact again precludes a strong Alpine increment.

The facial features which typify the Polish peasantry are quite different, as a rule, from those found among the nobility and the upper classes in general. The noblemen have less blond and less really dark hair; fewer dark eyes, and fewer instances of brunet skin color, than the peasants; their noses, however, present their greatest distinction; these are not only longer and narrower, but also frequently convex in profile, with concave forms reduced to a minimum. Old Corded and Nordic tendencies segregate themselves, at least in stature, bodily build, pigmentation, and facial features, in this superordinate class, as do Danubian and Ladogan tendencies among the peasantry.

Contemporary Polish anthropologists have studied the population of their country by dividing it into types, and plotting the proportions of these types by regions. These types include what would in our present terminology be Nordic, Neo-Danubian, Lappish, Ladogan, Alpine, and Dinaric, as well as Armenoid, and both tall and short Mediterraneans. The last three, however, are admittedly much in the minority, if they are present at all. The Nordic element is strongest in the Polish Corridor, where East Baltic factors, unusual in Poland in our definition of the term, are also found. The Nordic element is also strongest on the German border, and elsewhere it is concentrated along main water courses, the highroads of migration in pre-Slavic Gothic times, as well as later. Its identity with a social and economic upper level, however, is probably stronger than its geographical differentiation. The Neo-Danubian element, which has probably gained in stature through its Nordic interlude, is as blond as the Nordic, on the whole, and this fact leads one to the conclusion that the pre-Corded peasants of eastern Europe, as of the Danube Valley, were already partly blond. The combination of ash-blond hair with gray-mixed eyes seems to be a Neo-Danubian specialty.

Members of the early forest types with their incipiently mongoloid facial features have seeped in everywhere north of the Carpathians, but more in the east than in the west. They too were probably partly blond from the beginning, but not as blond as the Danubians with whom they have become thoroughly blended. Dinarics, commonest in the Carpathians, are found in solution throughout Poland, and the same is true of the Alpines. The rare brunet Mediterraneans noted by the Polish authors are probably related to the commoner brunet long heads of southern Russia, of Bulgaria, and of the Caucasus.


Yeah, interesting reading, but a bit out of date.

All of Coon's premises about Poland were wrong anyway. He missed the point completely.

The Slavs were never Nordic in the western sense, and they aren't today either.

Also, if the average height in Poland is 165, then I'm a monkey. Any of you have been to Poland? Well I'm 1.90cm (6ft3), and that's not unusually tall for Poles my age.

Allenson
Thursday, July 29th, 2004, 09:52 PM
According to Norda, Germanic nations have a significant Med component, which contributes to their long-headedness. In Scandinavia it's called Tydal, and in the UK it's Atlantid. Whatever, it's still Med.



Hey Polak--I agree that some of the dolicho/mesocephaly in the British Isles may come from an Atlantid source but I'm not sure about the Tydals in Scandinavia.

I thought I had saved some plates of Tydals on my hard-drive but can't now seem to find them. :mad: Anyway, I seem to remember that Tydals are brachycephalic and not that distant, metrically from the Saami...?

Perhaps my memory is off...

Nordhammer
Thursday, July 29th, 2004, 10:21 PM
Yeah, interesting reading, but a bit out of date.

All of Coon's premises about Poland were wrong anyway. He missed the point completely.

The Slavs were never Nordic in the western sense, and they aren't today either.

Also, if the average height in Poland is 165, then I'm a monkey. Any of you have been to Poland? Well I'm 1.90cm (6ft3), and that's not unusually tall for Poles my age.

You and I can speculate all we want, but I think it's better to go with professional assessment and real anthropological data.

"Out of date" is fallacious thinking. Something in the past doesn't automatically make it wrong.

A minority of tall individuals has no bearing on the average of a population. Yao Ming is over 7'6" and plays basketball in the US, but the average height of Chinese men is still much shorter at 5'7".

This sample of 3200 Polish men from the 1980s has an average height of 5'6" - http://www.growtallernow.com/GrowTallerNowArticles2.htm, but I would guess the average for Poland is slightly higher than that.

Jakub
Friday, July 30th, 2004, 05:25 AM
You and I can speculate all we want, but I think it's better to go with professional assessment and real anthropological data.

"Out of date" is fallacious thinking. Something in the past doesn't automatically make it wrong.

A minority of tall individuals has no bearing on the average of a population. Yao Ming is over 7'6" and plays basketball in the US, but the average height of Chinese men is still much shorter at 5'7".

This sample of 3200 Polish men from the 1980s has an average height of 5'6" - http://www.growtallernow.com/GrowTallerNowArticles2.htm, but I would guess the average for Poland is slightly higher than that.

Whyo says I'm speculating?

I'm not going by anecdotal evidence, I'm going by the latest height measuerements by the Polish army, which is the way height is measured in Poland, and how it is compared to other nations. Such reports come out every couple of years.

The average height in Poland now is 178cm, but goes to over 180cm in people from higher socio-economic backgrounds. That's a fact.

Please note that the link you gave me includes data on Polish males up to 60 years old. That sounds "out of date" to me. NO ONE MEASURES HEIGHT LIKE THAT. Even Coon used data from men in their late teens and early twenties. ALL ANTHROPOLOGISTS DO WHEN COMPARING POPULATIONS.

If you think that the average Polish male today is 5'6", then I'm not surprised you think Coon's ideas are spot on.

Coon had no idea about Poland. In fact, I doubt he even visited the country.

I could also go on about the fact that today's Poland is a completely different country from the Poland in the 1930s - due to economic stimuli working on physical characteristics, natural selection, as well as massive movements of populations.

You have to do better than some text from the 1930s, written by someone who rehashed second-hand information, to make your point.

I read Coon when I was 15, I'm over it, and I can't believe I'm still discussing it with anyone.

Jakub
Friday, July 30th, 2004, 05:33 AM
Hey Polak--I agree that some of the dolicho/mesocephaly in the British Isles may come from an Atlantid source but I'm not sure about the Tydals in Scandinavia.

I thought I had saved some plates of Tydals on my hard-drive but can't now seem to find them. :mad: Anyway, I seem to remember that Tydals are brachycephalic and not that distant, metrically from the Saami...?

Perhaps my memory is off...


Well, I'm not sure what plates would show us.

I'm not an expert on Tydals, or this theory. But I've just been reading Czekanowski and Czupkiewicz, and it seems there was a significant Med influence on Germanic nations right from their ethnogenesis.

Like I said, Norda's posts on Skadi covered the topic well.

Nordhammer
Friday, July 30th, 2004, 06:20 AM
Whyo says I'm speculating?

I'm not going by anecdotal evidence, I'm going by the latest height measuerements by the Polish army, which is the way height is measured in Poland, and how it is compared to other nations. Such reports come out every couple of years.

The average height in Poland now is 178cm, but goes to over 180cm in people from higher socio-economic backgrounds. That's a fact.

Give us a link then or type in the information from the source.


Please note that the link you gave me includes data on Polish males up to 60 years old. That sounds "out of date" to me. NO ONE MEASURES HEIGHT LIKE THAT. Even Coon used data from men in their late teens and early twenties. ALL ANTHROPOLOGISTS DO WHEN COMPARING POPULATIONS.

I'm not using that study as an authoritative source, it was just the only one I found in a few minutes of searching.


If you think that the average Polish male today is 5'6", then I'm not surprised you think Coon's ideas are spot on.

In that sample they were, but I said I presumed the average height of today's Polish men is taller than that.


Coon had no idea about Poland. In fact, I doubt he even visited the country.

You keep attacking the man, not the argument or the facts. Coon was a professional, you are not. He used data from Polish sources.


I could also go on about the fact that today's Poland is a completely different country from the Poland in the 1930s - due to economic stimuli working on physical characteristics, natural selection, as well as massive movements of populations.

That doesn't change the racial history of Poland.


You have to do better than some text from the 1930s, written by someone who rehashed second-hand information, to make your point.

I read Coon when I was 15, I'm over it, and I can't believe I'm still discussing it with anyone.

You have to do better than make ad hominem arguments.

If you are an expert on Polish anthropology please enlighten us all with professional sources so we can learn what you know. Thank you.

Jakub
Friday, July 30th, 2004, 07:29 AM
Ok, first of all Coon may have been a professional back in the 1930s, but he's dead now.

I'm alive, and I've got a lot of information here in front of me...not to mention a pretty sound education in science.

How many times do I have to say that the world has changed in the 70 odd years? If Coon was alive today, he would never have written the same book. Or do you disagree? I'm sure he would have at least referred to the latest height data for Polish recruits, don't you think?

Moreover, Coon, compared to Polish authors like Czekanowski and Czupiekwicz was ignorant when it came to Eastern Europe. These guys have provided a lot more data and much more compelling evidence than Coon ever has. I'm currently reading their works and it's startling how much more they know about Poland and Slavic anthropology. Needless to say, their data and findings are often at odds with Coon's. It's especially interesting how Coon got it wrong when it came to the ancient Slavs. He either ignored or missed a hell of a lot of archeological info.

Anyway, here's some stuff from Polish sources on stature...

In 1986, the average Polish recruit measured 175.2cm

...176.89cm in 1991

...177.8cm in 2002.

Compare this to other countries...

Portugal 172.13cm (1996)
Bulgaria 173.6cm (1998)
Spain 173.8cm (1998)
France 174.9cm (1993)
England 175.7cm (1985)
Belgium 176.8cm (1993)
Greece 177.6cm (1995)
Austria 177.1cm (1995)
Hungary 178.5cm (1997)
Czech Republic 178.84cm (1998)
Sweden 179.5cm (1999)
Holland 184cm (2000)

Some interesting points raised...

-Poles from the highest socio-economic groups are on average over 180cm.

-Polish average stature is still increasing, while Scandinavians seem to have stopped getting taller.

-The most important factors seem to be genetics, the mother's education level and affluence.

-The countries with the most socio-economically even societies (like Scandinavia) are also some of the tallest on average.

-Nations where milk and dairy products are consumed en masse are also tall.

-Lithuanians are on average over 180cm, but I can't find any more details than that here.

I refer you to this Polish article on the web, which says similar things to what I've stated, but is much less detailed than the reports I have here...

http://polityka.onet.pl/162,1126745,1,0,2411-2003-30,artykul.html

I would also recommend this article on Portuguese stature, if you can find a link to it anywhere. I have a hard copy here. Good stuff.

"Stature and stature distribution in Portuguese male adults 1904-1998: the role of environmental factors."

I have also attached a very interesting PDF on the changes in height that have taken place in Europe since ancient times. This is extremely good stuff.

Nordhammer
Friday, July 30th, 2004, 07:47 AM
Well, I'm not sure what plates would show us.

I'm not an expert on Tydals, or this theory. But I've just been reading Czekanowski and Czupkiewicz, and it seems there was a significant Med influence on Germanic nations right from their ethnogenesis.

Like I said, Norda's posts on Skadi covered the topic well.

Norda:

"Alpine type is cross of Armenoid and Lapponoid races.
Dinaric type is cross of Armenoid and Nordic races."

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=80989&postcount=39

LOL :rolleyes:

Nordhammer
Friday, July 30th, 2004, 08:21 AM
Ok, first of all Coon may have been a professional back in the 1930s, but he's dead now.

I'm alive, and I've got a lot of information here in front of me...not to mention a pretty sound education in science.

He was a professional to the end of 1962, and published The Living Races of Man in 1965.

He's dead, and you're alive, therefore your statements are more meaningful and his are "out of date". :rolleyes:

Your reasoning also invalidates Jan Czekanowski's work, as his is even older than Coon's and he's dead. :D


How many times do I have to say that the world has changed in the 70 odd years? If Coon was alive today, he would never have written the same book. Or do you disagree? I'm sure he would have at least referred to the latest height data for Polish recruits, don't you think?

You can say it as many times as you like to yourself, but spare us the redundancy. ;)

I'm sure he would have made additions and maybe revisions. So what? We could say that about any author, including Czekanowski.

The latest data on height should be used for a current average height of Poland, of course. No one is disputing this.


Moreover, Coon, compared to Polish authors like Czekanowski and Czupiekwicz was ignorant when it came to Eastern Europe. These guys have provided a lot more data and much more compelling evidence than Coon ever has. I'm currently reading their works and it's startling how much more they know about Poland and Slavic anthropology. Needless to say, their data and findings are often at odds with Coon's. It's especially interesting how Coon got it wrong when it came to the ancient Slavs. He either ignored or missed a hell of a lot of archeological info.

Different interpretations of data give us perspective and hopefully allow us to come to more accurate conclusions.


Anyway, here's some stuff from Polish sources on stature...

In 1986, the average Polish recruit measured 175.2cm

...176.89cm in 1991

...177.8cm in 2002.

Compare this to other countries...

Portugal 172.13cm (1996)
Bulgaria 173.6cm (1998)
Spain 173.8cm (1998)
France 174.9cm (1993)
England 175.7cm (1985)
Belgium 176.8cm (1993)
Greece 177.6cm (1995)
Austria 177.1cm (1995)
Hungary 178.5cm (1997)
Czech Republic 178.84cm (1998)
Sweden 179.5cm (1999)
Holland 184cm (2000)

Some interesting points raised...

-Poles from the highest socio-economic groups are on average over 180cm.

Thanks.

According to Coon the higher socio-economic classes contain more Nordics, don't know if Czekanowski agreed. Better nutrition and health care certainly contribute, but genetics/subrace play a role as well.

Nordhammer
Friday, July 30th, 2004, 08:42 AM
According to Guinness the tallest people in the world are the Tutsis, a people who live with in the Nile area in Rwanda and Burundi in Africa.The Nueish and the Dinka people are also as tall as the Tutsis and they live around the White Nile in Sudan.The average height among these people are for males:195.5 cm(6'5") and for females:177.8 cm(5'9"7/8).

I doubt their diet is as nutritious as Europe's or America's, so then genetics play a large role in their case.

Jakub
Saturday, July 31st, 2004, 08:13 AM
He was a professional to the end of 1962, and published The Living Races of Man in 1965.


That's right, and I've read his post-war work. Not sure if you're aware of this, but his theories changed quite a bit from those he canvassed in the Races Of Europe.


He's dead, and you're alive, therefore your statements are more meaningful and his are "out of date". :rolleyes:

What's so amazing about that? A lot has happened in this field since the 1960s. Coon missed out on far too much info, that we have access to now, for his work to be relevant today.


Your reasoning also invalidates Jan Czekanowski's work, as his is even older than Coon's and he's dead. :D

Up to a point.

Czekanowski's work is also out of date. But at least his raw data on Poland is much more complete than's Coon's. So at least I can look at that, and make decisions based on current thinking.

Czekanowski was also much more insightful than Coon. It's easy to tell this man knew Poland well, and was based there. Coon sounds like a man who's barely aware of a country of that name.



I'm sure he would have made additions and maybe revisions. So what? We could say that about any author, including Czekanowski.


I'm sure both Coon and Czekanowski would've written new and entirely different books if they were alive yoday. And I'm sure both publications would be very fascinating.

Jakub
Saturday, July 31st, 2004, 08:18 AM
According to Guinness the tallest people in the world are the Tutsis, a people who live with in the Nile area in Rwanda and Burundi in Africa.The Nueish and the Dinka people are also as tall as the Tutsis and they live around the White Nile in Sudan.The average height among these people are for males:195.5 cm(6'5") and for females:177.8 cm(5'9"7/8).

I doubt their diet is as nutritious as Europe's or America's, so then genetics play a large role in their case.



The info I have is that these people are no more than 180cm (males) on average. Apparently, the GB of Records made a mistake.

Jakub
Saturday, July 31st, 2004, 08:21 AM
Norda:

"Alpine type is cross of Armenoid and Lapponoid races.
Dinaric type is cross of Armenoid and Nordic races."

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=80989&postcount=39

LOL :rolleyes:


Yup, and ancient crania back this up.

Like I said, Coon's Races of Europe was incomplete in many respects. It seems his data on ancient crania was very rough, hence his dubious conclusions.