PDA

View Full Version : Estimated Racial Composition and Nordish Percentage of Indigenous European Population



SuuT
Saturday, July 15th, 2006, 09:47 PM
Estimated Racial Composition in Europe

Sweden = 70% Hallstatt Nordic (Carleton Coon described Sweden as a refuge area for the classic Nordic race), 10% Borreby (most common in the southwest coastal region, Upper Palelithic remains or UP), 10% Falish (most common in Dalarna (Kopparberg) and the southwest coastal region, UP+Nordic mix), 5% Tronder (most common near the central Norwegian border, UP+Nordic mix), 5% East Baltic (UP+Nordic mix)= 70% Nordic / 30% UP+Nordic mix (UP+N)

Norway = 45% Tronder (most common in the W), 30% Hallstatt Nordic (most common in the SE area around Oslo, pure Nordic), 10% Borreby (most common in the SW, UP), 7% Falish (most common in the south, UP+N), 5% East Baltic (most common in the far north, UP+N+L, L is semioriental Lagodan), 3% Palaeo-Atlantid (found in western coastal areas) = 30% Nordic / 52% UP+N / 10% UP / 5% UP+N+L / 3% Med.

Denmark = 40% Borreby (UP), 30% Falish (UP+N), 20% Hallstatt Nordik (N), 5% Anglo-Saxon (UP+N), 5% Istocni Baltik (UP+N+L) = 40% UP / 35% UP+N / 20% Nord. / 5% UP+N+L

Iceland = 60% Tronder (UP+N), 22% Borreby (UP), 15% Brunn (UP), 3% Palaeo-Atlantid (Med.) = 60% UP+N / 37% UP / 3% Med.

England = 30% Keltic Nordic (derived from pre-Roman Iron Age invaders ), 20% Anglo-Saxon (post-Roman Germanic invaders, most common in the southeast, especially East Anglia), 15% North-Atlantid and 10% Palaeo-Atlantid (blend of Mesolithic Atlanto-Mediterranean invaders with both earlier and later arrivals; most common in the Midlands and northwest), 8% Hallstatt Nordic (of Viking and Norman derivation, although it is said for Normans they spoke Latin and had dark hair), 5% Brunn, 5% Tronder (of Norwegian Viking derivation; most common in the northeast), 3% Borreby and 2% Falish (again of Viking and Norman derivation; associated with the landed gentry; source of the "John Bull" type), 2% Noric (from Bronze-Age invaders, depegmented Dinarics, Dinarics are 2/3 Med + 1/3 UP) = 57% UP+N / 25% Med / 8% N / 2% Dinarik.

Scotland = 30% Keltic Nordic, 22% Tronder (most common in the NE), 10% North-Atlantid (most common - W), 10% Anglo-Saxon (most common - SE), 10% Palaeo-Atlantid (most common - SW), 5% Brunn, 5% Hallstatt Nordic, 4% Borreby, 4% Noric = 62% UP+N / 20 Med./ 9% UP / 5% N / 4% Dinaric

Ireland = 40% Brunn (indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants, most common in the west), 30% Keltic Nordic (most common - E ), 9% North-Atlantid, 9% Borreby, 3% Palaeo-Atlantid, 3% Tronder, 2% Noric, 2% Anglo-Saxon, 1% Hallstatt Nordic =49% UP / 35% UP+N / 12% Med / 2% Dinaric / 1% Nordic

Wales = 35% North-Atlantid, 30% Palaeo-Atlantid, 30% Keltic Nordic, 5% other types = 65% Med. / 30% UP+N / 5% other

The Netherlands = 50% Keltic Nordic (of Franks), 20% Borreby, 10% Anglo-Saxon (most common in Frisia), 10% Falish, 10% Hallstatt Nordic = 70% UP+N / 20% UP / 10% Nord.

Belgium = 60% Keltic Nordic (most common in Flanders, derived from the ancient Belgae and Franks), 35% Borreby and 5% Alpine (both most common in Wallonia , Alpine is upper-paleolithic remians or UP) = 60% UP+N / 40% UP

Luxembourg = 80% Alpine ( UP remains ), 15% Borreby, 5% other types = 95%UP / 5% ?

Germany = 25% Borreby (most common in the Rhine and Ruhr valleys and the north), 20% Falish (most common - N), 15% Alpine (most common in Baden and Bavaria, UP ), 15% Noric ( depegmented Dinarics, name originates from Roman Province of Noricum in todays Austria ), 6% Keltic Nordic (most common in the old Frankish country in the southwest), 5% Anglo-Saxon (most common - NW), 5% East Baltic, 5% Dinaric, 4% Hallstatt Nordic = 40% UP / 31% UP+N / 20% Dinaric / 5% UP+N+L / 4% Nordik.

France = 30% Alpine ( UP ), 30% Noric (most common in the north), 20% Mediterranean (most common - S and Corsica ), 15% Dinaric, 3% Borreby (in the NE), 2% Nordic = 45% Dinaric / 33% UP / 20% Med. / 2% Nordic

Switzerland = 40% Keltic Nordic and 30% Noric (most common in the N, W and center), 15% Dinaric and 15% Alpine (most common - S and E ) = 45% Dinarik / 40% UP+N / 15% UP

Austria = 35% Noric ( depegmented Dinaric, word Noric s derived from Roman province of Noricum - todays Austria ) , 25% Dinaric, 20% Alpine ( UP ), 15% Keltic Nordic, 5% Hallstatt Nordic = 60% Dinaric / 20% UP / 15% UP+N / 5% Nord..

Poland = 55% Neo-Danubian ( Baltic or Real Slavs/Slavics, Lagodan or L + N ), 10% Ladogan ( UP - Mongoloid ) , 10% Alpine ( UP)), 10% Dinaric, , 5% Hallstatt Nordic, 5% Noric , 5% East Baltic = 55% (L+N), 15% Dinaric, 10% L(agodan), 10% UP, 5% UP+N+L, 5% Nordic.

Finland and the Baltic States = 50% East Baltic, 15% Hallstatt Nordic (most common in the Swedish-settled areas of Finland), 30% Neo-Danubian (most common - SE Lithuania and NE Finland), 5% Ladogan ( UP - Mongoloid ) = 50% (UP+N+L), 30% L+N , 15% Nordic, 5% L(agodan)

Czech Republic and Slovakia = 40% Alpine ( UP ) and 15% Noric (most common in Bohemia), 25% Dinaric (most common in Moravia), 20% Neo-Danubian (most common in Slovakia) = 40% UP / 40% Dinarik / 20% L+N

Hungary = 35% Neo-Danubian (most common or m.c. - NE), 25% Turanid (of Magyar derivation, semi-mongoloid), 20% Dinaric (m.c. - SW), 15% Alpine (m.c. - S, UP), 2% Nordic ( Germanic invasion impact ), 2% Noric, 1% E.Mediterranean = 35% L+N / 25% T / 22% Dinaric / 15% UP / 2% Nordik / 1% Med.

Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine = 40% Neo-Danubian (most common in Belorussia and western Ukraine, Baltic Slavs ), 35% Ladogan ( UP - Mongoloid ), 8% Nordic( Germanic invasion impact ), 7% East Mediterranean (most common near the Black Sea coast), 5% Dinaric (m.c. - E. Ukraine), 5% Noric = 40% L+N / 35% L / 12% Dinarik / 8% N / 7% Med. .

Spain and Portugal = 85% West Mediterranean, 9% South Mediterranean,, 5% Dinaric ( among Basques ), 1% Nordic (most common in the remnants of the Visigoth aristocracy, remains of Germanic invasion ) = 94% Med / 5% Dinaric / 1% Nordic

Italy = 50% D.M. or Dinaricized Mediterranean (m.c. in the south and Sicily, descendants of Greek colonist when the region was known as "Magna Graecia" or "Bigger Greece" for which is said to have had more Greeks then Greece ), 20% Dinaric (m.c. - N, Venets ), 15% Alpine (m.c. in the northwest, UP ), 10% West Mediterranean (m.c. in Sardinia), , 4% Noric (m.c. - N ), 1% Nordic (remains of Germanic invasion ) = 50% D.M. / 24% Dinarik / 15% UP / 10% Med. / 1% Nordic

Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia and Macedonia = 75% Dinaric ( preslavic Illyrians) , 10% West Mediterranean (most common on the coast), 10% Noric ( depegmented Dinaric ) and 5% Neo-Danubian (most common in the north and Pannonia, Baltic Slav ) = 85% Dinarik / 10% Med. / 5% L+N

Romania = 35% Dinaric (m.c. in the W ), 25% East Mediterranean (m.c. the coast ), 20% Neo-Danubian (m.c. in the NE, Baltic Slav), 10% Alpine ( UP ), 7% Noric and 3% Nordic (m.c. in the W, German colonists) = 42% Dinarik / 25% Med. / 20% L+N / 10% UP / 3 Nordik

Albania = 75% Dinaric ( Illyrian ), 10% West Mediterranean (m.c. on the coast), 10% Alpine ( Epirus, Dorians), 5% Noric = 80% Dinarik / 10% UP / 10% Med..

Bulgaria = 60% East Mediterranean ( mainly hellenistic Thracians ), 15% Alpine ( UP, Celtic impact? ) , 15% Dinaric , 5% Turanid ( NW Bulgaria, remains of semioriental Turkic Bulgars ), 5% Nordish ( Germanic invasion impact ) = 60% Med. / 15% Dinarik / 15% UP / 5% T / 5% N

Greece = 40% East Mediterranean ( Aegean, present among Minoans, Aheans , 25% Dinaricized Mediterranean ( also present among ancient Hellenes) , 20% Alpine (most common in Epirus , Dorians ), 10% Dinaric ( Dorians were partly Dinarics ), 5% Nordish (partly assimilated remnant, or genetic recombinations from solution; most common in the N, Germanic invasion impact) = 40% Med. / 25% D.M. / 20% UP / 10% Dinarik / 5% N

Turkey=35% Dinaricized Mediterraneans ( Greek colonists), 20% Mediterraneans ( Aegean coast, greek colonists), 25% Irano-Afghans ( eastern Turkey, Kurds ), 20% Turanids ( original semi-oriental Turkics, inhabits continental parts of central Anatolia one of them being region around Konya ) = 35% D.M. / 25% I.A. / 20% Med. / 20% T.



Racial Classification within the White Family


A. LARGE-HEADED PALAEOLITHIC SURVIVORS

(1) Brunn: (Cro-Magnon, to some extent) found in solution with Borreby, Nordic, and other elements, mostly in Scandinavia and the British Isles, also in North Africa and Canary Islands. May appear in comparatively pure form among individuals although nowhere as a total population.

(2) Borreby: Large-headed brachycephals of Ofnet-Afalou type, the unreduced brachycephalic strain in Cro-Magnon; found in solution in peripheral regions of northwestern Europe, and as a major population element in most of northern and central Germany, and in Belgium. Like the Brunn race, with which it is often associated, it occurs also in North Africa and the Canary Islands.




B. PURE AND MIXED PALAEOLITHIC AND MESOLITHIC SURVIVORS OF MODERATE HEAD SIZE


(3) Alpine: A reduced and somewhat foetalized survivor of the Upper Palaeolithic population in Late Pleistocene France, highly brachycephalized; seems to represent in a large measure the bearer of the brachycephalic factor in Cro-Magnon. Close approximations to this type appear also in the Balkans and in the highlands of western and central Asia, suggesting that its ancestral prototype was widespread in Late Pleistocene times. In modern races it sometimes appears in a relatively pure form, sometimes as an element in mixed brachycephalic populations of multiple origin. It may have served in both Pleistocene and modern times as a bearer of the tendency toward brachycephalization into various population.

(4) Ladogan: I propose to give this name to the descendants of the mesocephalic and brachycephalic forest-dwelling population of northern Europe east of the Baltic in Kammkeramik times. This type is a blend of a partly mongoloid brachycephalic element with a mesocephalic form of general Upper Palaeolithic aspect; these elements are seen in crania from Lake Ladoga and Salis Roje. (See Chapter IV, section 13, pp. 125-126.) Corded and/or Danubian elements are inextricably blended here, although the mongoloid and Upper Palaeolithic elements seem at present more important. In its present form this composite type shows two numerous variants:


(a) Neo-Danubian: Strongly mixed with the old Danubian, and to a lesser extent other elements, to form the common peasant type of eastern Europe, with many local variants.

(b) East Baltic: Strongly mixed with Corded, Iron Age Nordic, and western Palaeolithic survivors to form the predominant population of much of Finland and the Baltic States.


(5) Lappish: A stunted, highly brachycephalized, largely brunet relative of the Ladogan, originally living to the east of the Ladogan type area, in the Urals and western Siberia. Has probably assimilated some evolved mongoloid, but owes its partly mongoloid appearance more to the retention of an early intermediate evolutionary condition. In modern times much mixed with Ladogan and Nordic.



C. PURE AND MIXED UNBRACHYCEPHALIZED MEDITERRANEAN DERIVATIVES


(6) Mediterraneans: Within this general class, which still retains much of its original racial unity, the following sub-classes may at present be distinguished:


(a) Mediterranean Proper: Short-statured, dolicho- and mesocephalic form found in Spain, Portugal, the western Mediterranean islands, and to some extent in North Africa, southern Italy, and other Mediterranean borderlands. Its purest present-day racial nucleus is without doubt Arabia. Most of the Cappadocian, isolated in the skeletal material, seems to have been absorbed into the western Mediterranean variety after its early Metal Age migration, while that which remained in Asia Minor became assimilated into the Dinaric and Armenoid. It still appears, however, among individuals in its original form, and is particularly common among Oriental Jews.


(b) Atlanto-Mediterranean: The tall, straight-nosed Mediterranean, not mesocephalic, as Deniker erroneously stated, but strongly dolichocephalic. Today this race forms the principal element in the population of North Africa, and is strong in Iraq, Palestine, parts of Arabia, and the eastern Balkans; in solution with varying degrees of negroid it is also the principal race in the whole of East Africa. In Europe it is a minority element in the Iberian Peninsula, Italy, and the British Isles.


(c) Irano-Afghan: The long-faced, high-headed, hook-nosed type, usually of tall stature, which forms the principal element in the population of Iran, Afghanistan, and the Turkoman country, and which is also present in Palestine, parts of Arabia, and North Africa. It is probably related to the old Corded type of the Neolithic and Bronze Age.

(7) Nordics: The basic Nordic is the Corded-Danubian blend of the Aunjetitz and of the Early Iron Age in central Europe. This type includes some Bell Beaker Dinaric absorbed in early Metal Age times. Although Danubian and Corded types may appear as individuals, they may nowhere be isolated as populations. The most important living Nordic varieties are:

(a) Keltic Iron Age Type: The Keltic sub-type, mesocephalic and low-vaulted, with a prominent nose. Commonest in the British Isles where in places it forms the principal element in the population. Also a major element in Flanders and the Frankish country in southwestern Germany ( this type is as a rule for the most part mixed with Med. elements-major being Roman elements ).

(b) Anglo-Saxon Type: The old Germanic Reihengräber type, a heavy-boned, rather high-headed Nordic variety, most prevalent in northern Germany and England.

(c) Trondelagen Type: A hybrid type of Nordic with Corded and Brunn elements, frequent in the central coastal provinces of Norway, north of the Dovre Mountains; the principal form in Iceland, and among the Frisians, and common in the British Isles. The Anglo-Saxon type lies between it and the true Nordic.

(d) Osterdal Type: The original Hallstatt Nordic, smaller-headed and finer boned than (b) or (c); occurs in many populations as individuals, typical only in Sweden and in the eastern valleys of Norway.




D. BRACHYCEPHALIZED MEDITERRANEAN DERIVATIVES, PROBABLY MIXED

(8) Dinarics: A tall, brachycephalic type of intermediate pigmentation, usually planoccipital, and showing the facial and nasal prominence of Near Eastern peoples. The basic population of the whole Dinaric-Alpine highlands from Switzerland to Epirus, also in the Carpathians and Caucasus, as well as Syria and Asia Minor. Apparently a brachycephalized blend in which Atlanto-Mediterranean and Cappadocian strains are important, with Alpine acting as the brachycephalizing agent in mixture. Borreby and Corded elements, also Nordic, appear to be involved in some regions.


(9) Armenoids: A similar brachycephalic composite type, with the same head form as the Dinaric, but a larger face and nose. The pigmentation is almost entirely brunet, the pilous development of beard and body abundant, the nose high rooted, convex, and the tip depressed, especially in advanced age. The difference between the Armenoid and the Dinaric is that here it is the Irano-Afghan race which furnishes the Mediterranean element, brachycephalized by Alpine mixture.


(10) Noric: A blond, planoccipital brachycephal frequently encountered in South Germany and elsewhere in central Europe. This is apparently an Iron Age Nordic brachycephalized by Dinaric mixture and seems in most respects to take the form of a blond Dinaric variant. Both Deniker and Czekanowski have recognized this type, and it is a standard race, under various names, in most Russian studies. The name Noric was gived it by Lebzelter. A brachycephalized Neo-Danubian, common in Jugoslavia, is a parallel or variant form.




The ten racial types within the white race listed above, with their sub-types, form two of the three main divisions of the white race, in its widest sense, when segregated on the basis of head size. The third division, that of the peoples with small heads, includes the aboriginal population of southern Arabia east of the Yemen, and various groups in Baluchistan, and again in southern India. This third variety is characterized by an abundance of wavy or ringleted hair, and facial features of a Veddoid character which in some instances suggest Australoid affinities. This third division need not, however, concern us here, because it falls outside the major range of the white race. It will be dealt with in some detail in the proper section of the regional study.


Besides the European races proper, as listed in the preceding paragraphs, and their Veddoid collaterals, there are certain fully evolved non-white races which have influenced the European population by intrusion and blending. These include at least two of the sub-divisions of the mongoloid family - the Buryat-Mongol, to which the Avars in part belonged, and which is today represented on European soil by the Samoyeds; and the Tungusic, the type of the early Huns. To these may be added an apparently stabilized mixed form, resembling a partially mongoloid Dinaric, to which many central Asiatic Turkish tribesmen belong. In addition to these Asiatics, there remains the African Negro, which has had certain influences upon the formation of race in the Mediterranean region, especially in North Africa, and in parts of Arabia. Other non-white stocks, such as the Australoid, Negrito, and Khoi-San (Bushman-Hottentot), have not affected the white group in its homelands in any discernible way.


Books used for the classification

32 Deniker, J., The Races of Man, pp. 280-284.

33 Topinard, P., RDAP, second series, vol. 1, p. 509, 1878, etc.

34 Haeckel, E. H., Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte, vol. 7, pp. 626, 647.

35 Muller, Fr., Allgemeine Ethnographie, pp. 17-19.

36 Deniker, J., loc. cit.

37 Deniker, J., BSAP, vol. 12, 1899, p. 320; JRAI, vol. 34, 1904, pp. 181-206; The Races of Man, pp. 285-286.

38 Based upon Deniker's 1912 classification with some reference to his 1889 scheme as well.

39 Sergi, G., Specie e varieta umane; L' Uomo; Le Origini Umane; The Mediterranean Race.

40 Ripley, W. Z., The Races of Europe.

41 Gobineau, A. de, Essai sur l'inegalite des races humaines.

42 Verneau, R., BMSA, Paris, ser. 2, vol. 2, 1876, pp. 408-417; Arch des Missions Scientifiques et Litteraires, Paris, 1887,ser. 3, vol. 13, pp. 567-817.

43 Meyer, H., Die Insel Teneriffe; Uber die Urbewohner der Canarischen Inseln.
Luschan, F. von, article in Meyer, Teneriffe.

44 Paudler, F., Die hellfarbigen Rassen. See also his earlier article in Anthropos, vols. 12-13, 1917-18, pp. 641-694.

45 Kossinna, G., Ursprung und Verbreitung der Germanen, MannusB, #6a, 1928.

46 Eickstedt, E. von, Rassenkunde und Rassengeschichte der Menschheit.

47 I am omitting Gunther, despite his great vogue, since his system is a close Germanization of Deniker's, with a few changes.

48 Nordenstreng, R., Europas Människoraser och Folkslag.
Lundborg and Linders, Racial Characters of the Swedish Nation, pp. 50-52.
Hooton, E. A., Up from the Ape, pp. 508-509, 535.

49 Montandon, G., La Race, Les Races.

50 Czekanowski, Jan, AAnz, vol. 5, 1928, pp. 335-359; AASF, ser. A, vol. 25, #2, 1925.

51 See Chapter IV, pp. 113-115.

52 Czekanowski, J., AFA, vol. 48, 1925, pp. 65-76.

53 Gunther, H., Rassenkunde der deutscen Volkes.

54 Luschan, F. von, JRAI, vol. 41, 1911, pp. 221-244.

55 Pruner Bey, F., MSAP, vol. 2, 1865, pp. 417-432.

http://www.geocities.com/zakus_1999/Races.html

joseanton
Sunday, July 16th, 2006, 12:25 AM
Spain and Portugal = 85% West Mediterranean, 9% South Mediterranean,, 5% Dinaric ( among Basques ), 1% Nordic (most common in the remnants of the Visigoth aristocracy, remains of Germanic invasion ) = 94% Med / 5% Dinaric / 1% Nordic


What´s the diference between west-mediterranean and south mediterranean

SuuT
Sunday, July 16th, 2006, 12:37 AM
What´s the diference between west-mediterranean and south mediterranean

Racially or Geographically?--I'm not sure what you are asking.

If Racially, different sub-racial schemas utilize slightly varying nomencalature as well as more or fewer phenotypic divisions; but all, for the most, agree with one another.

In short, there is enough phenotypical variation between a Spaniard and an individual from the South of France to make a rational delineation. Yet all might just be called "Meds" or "Medish" ergo the 94% Med. generality.

WestPrussian
Sunday, July 16th, 2006, 01:05 AM
Suut, the 'estimated racial composition of Europe' given in your post is a product of the very fertile imagination of someone going by the name of McCulloch. Here is a link:

http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html

It is purely a product of fantasy and has no basis in reality, and anyone giving credence to McCulloch's imaginations has clearly lost touch with reality. I tried to express this in a previous post which was strangely deleted by one of the admins so I have to repost.

Admin, the next time you delete one of my posts could you please have the common courtesy of letting me know what you find offensive? Thanks

SuuT
Sunday, July 16th, 2006, 01:12 AM
Suut, the 'estimated racial composition of Europe' given in your post is a product of the very fertile imagination of someone going by the name of McCulloch. Here is a link:

http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html

It is purely a product of fantasy and has no basis in reality, and anyone giving credence to McCulloch's imaginations has clearly lost touch with reality. I tried to express this in a previous post which was strangely deleted by one of the admins so I have to repost.

Admin, the next time you delete one of my posts could you please have the common courtesy of letting me know what you find offensive? Thanks

Thank you for a more cordial approach this time 'round (Many of these are good reads):

Books used for the classification

32 Deniker, J., The Races of Man, pp. 280-284.

33 Topinard, P., RDAP, second series, vol. 1, p. 509, 1878, etc.

34 Haeckel, E. H., Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte, vol. 7, pp. 626, 647.

35 Muller, Fr., Allgemeine Ethnographie, pp. 17-19.

36 Deniker, J., loc. cit.

37 Deniker, J., BSAP, vol. 12, 1899, p. 320; JRAI, vol. 34, 1904, pp. 181-206; The Races of Man, pp. 285-286.

38 Based upon Deniker's 1912 classification with some reference to his 1889 scheme as well.

39 Sergi, G., Specie e varieta umane; L' Uomo; Le Origini Umane; The Mediterranean Race.

40 Ripley, W. Z., The Races of Europe.

41 Gobineau, A. de, Essai sur l'inegalite des races humaines.

42 Verneau, R., BMSA, Paris, ser. 2, vol. 2, 1876, pp. 408-417; Arch des Missions Scientifiques et Litteraires, Paris, 1887,ser. 3, vol. 13, pp. 567-817.

43 Meyer, H., Die Insel Teneriffe; Uber die Urbewohner der Canarischen Inseln.
Luschan, F. von, article in Meyer, Teneriffe.

44 Paudler, F., Die hellfarbigen Rassen. See also his earlier article in Anthropos, vols. 12-13, 1917-18, pp. 641-694.

45 Kossinna, G., Ursprung und Verbreitung der Germanen, MannusB, #6a, 1928.

46 Eickstedt, E. von, Rassenkunde und Rassengeschichte der Menschheit.

47 I am omitting Gunther, despite his great vogue, since his system is a close Germanization of Deniker's, with a few changes.

48 Nordenstreng, R., Europas Människoraser och Folkslag.
Lundborg and Linders, Racial Characters of the Swedish Nation, pp. 50-52.
Hooton, E. A., Up from the Ape, pp. 508-509, 535.

49 Montandon, G., La Race, Les Races.

50 Czekanowski, Jan, AAnz, vol. 5, 1928, pp. 335-359; AASF, ser. A, vol. 25, #2, 1925.

51 See Chapter IV, pp. 113-115.

52 Czekanowski, J., AFA, vol. 48, 1925, pp. 65-76.

53 Gunther, H., Rassenkunde der deutscen Volkes.

54 Luschan, F. von, JRAI, vol. 41, 1911, pp. 221-244.

55 Pruner Bey, F., MSAP, vol. 2, 1865, pp. 417-432.

WestPrussian
Sunday, July 16th, 2006, 02:11 AM
Oh, did you really think I was trying to insult you? Obviously, what I said wasn't directed at you personally ... how could it be? You never expressed a personal opinion but just posted something which you felt was worth discussing so I gave you an honest assessment and I'm sorry you took it the wrong way.



Many of these are good reads

So you actually read the source material? Well that certainly settles it, doesn't it? Gobineau, Muller, Haeckel, Verneau, Paudler, Kossinna, Pruner Bey, Luschan etc etc etc ?????????? Most of it published before 1900 (far far FAR back in a fast moving field) and none if it IN THE LEAST related to an objective asessment of the racial composition in Europe as implied ... what a fraud!!! That's what really upsets me about McCulloch ... all this pretense at objectivity and honesty when it's all just a smokescreen to fool the innocent. After all, there is NO RELATION between McCulloch's sources and the information he claims they convey. To my mind intellectual dishonesty is one of the most disgusting things on earth and McCulloch epitomizes it in the field of physical anthropology.

Since you have apparently read the source material and consequently know that there is no way to deduce McCulloch's bizarre conclusions as to the racial composition of Europe from it I am sure you agree?

SuuT
Sunday, July 16th, 2006, 03:12 AM
So you actually read the source material? Well that certainly settles it, doesn't it? Gobineau, Muller, Haeckel, Verneau, Paudler, Kossinna, Pruner Bey, Luschan etc etc etc ?????????? Most of it published before 1900 and none if it IN THE LEAST related to an objective asessment of the racial composition in Europe as implied ...

You raise an interesting and implicating point here: a Racial 'census' is long over due for Europa; and one is often forced into the rigour of what might be antiquated data; however, antiquation in and of itself does not negate the rigour of the data per se. In addition, mtDNA and Halotyping ought to be merged with any such Racial census.

To my mind intellectual dishonesty is one of the most disgusting things on earth and McCulloch epitomizes it in the field of physical anthropology.

Clearly you have a beef with McCulloch--that much is clear! It would help though to demonstrate how you have a right to such a vitriolic reaction to his particular brand of Racial schemata; rather than leaving your reader the right to assume that you, yourself, may be engaging in intellectual obscurantism: what is your acumen?

Since you have apparently read the source material and consequently know that there is no way to deduce McCulloch's bizarre conclusions as to the racial composition of Europe from it I am sure you agree?

There is really the potential for a valuable discussion in all this; however, as related to the primary texts cited, none are by McCulloch. Ergo, if you wish to import a more convincing rhetoric please do. In short, I would appreciate a rudimentary explanation as to how you are not proping-up a textbook straw-man. In addition, your own exegis on the Racial composition of Europe and how you derive it would be necessary to determine the viability of said exegis.

Regards

vingul
Sunday, July 16th, 2006, 08:47 AM
This Zecanin fellow has ripped material off McCulloch and Coon without distinguishing between them or mentioning either of them as sources? Brilliant. I presume the list of "Books used for the classification" is McCulloch's, thrown in just to give the impression that the "author" Zecanin is responsible for the actual research ...

Btw, I had personal communication with McCulloch back in 1999. Afaicr, he based his figures both on the traditional literature and on his own experiences from travels, and subsequent estimations. The figures are probably adequate estimations, but bear in mind that they are mostly not derived from actual statistics, but rather the accumulated, subjective impressions of one individual.

SuuT
Sunday, July 16th, 2006, 03:14 PM
This Zecanin fellow has ripped material off McCulloch and Coon without distinguishing between them or mentioning either of them as sources? Brilliant. I presume the list of "Books used for the classification" is McCulloch's, thrown in just to give the impression that the "author" Zecanin is responsible for the actual research ...

Btw, I had personal communication with McCulloch back in 1999. Afaicr, he based his figures both on the traditional literature and on his own experiences from travels, and subsequent estimations. The figures are probably adequate estimations, but bear in mind that they are mostly not derived from actual statistics, but rather the accumulated, subjective impressions of one individual.

I think it was rather a 'follow-up' verification that was performed, which is the natural progressus of Science--be it objective or subjective i.e. verification and/or falsification by one or another individual/group either supports or refuts prior research.

His percentages, and even typology, differ (a bit) from McCulloch's. But overall, as you imply, the estimations lend support to prior research.

Not so incidentally: the entirety of phenotypical racial schemas, en toto, rest upon subjective impressions i.e. all racial classification systems of this ilk are self-consistent. But, so are Mathematics and Logic.

Galaico
Sunday, July 16th, 2006, 05:14 PM
I don't really know how accurate these figures are, but my opinion is closer to WestPrussian one.

McCulloch, describes Faelid as a Nordid + CM mix, when it is really the purest CM form, samething for Paleo-Atlantid, which McCulloch describes as Mediterranid and it's really closer to CM, it's also quite weird his Keltic-Nordic which he describes as Nordid + CM, or North-Atlantid described as pure Mediterranid. He says Basques are Dinarid, when they really are a Dinarised Atlantomediterranid type, and uses almost obsolete terms such as Neo-Danubian, and saying Hungary is 25% Turanid is enormously exaggerating IMO.

SuuT
Sunday, July 16th, 2006, 05:50 PM
I don't really know how accurate these figures are, but my opinion is closer to WestPrussian one.

McCulloch, describes Faelid as a Nordid + CM mix, when it is really the purest CM form, samething for Paleo-Atlantid, which McCulloch describes as Mediterranid and it's really closer to CM, it's also quite weird his Keltic-Nordic which he describes as Nordid + CM, or North-Atlantid described as pure Mediterranid. He says Basques are Dinarid, when they really are a Dinarised Atlantomediterranid type, and uses almost obsolete terms such as Neo-Danubian, and saying Hungary is 25% Turanid is enormously exaggerating IMO.

Interesting points.

It goes toward a need to fortify, if not ridgidify, racial classification systems i.e. I don't think any of the prominent schemas are so far apart from one another as to allow no synthesis. Our Agrippa has done much work to this end, methinks.

Yes: "Neo-Danubian" almost brings a smile out of the corner of one's mouth; and the 25% Turanid composite of Hungary is funny, actually.

Huzar
Sunday, July 16th, 2006, 07:56 PM
Once i had the same idea : renovating Mc Culloch system with the knowledge of all Skadi members (especially the most experts in anthropology, like Agrippa), so to create a more objective scale for every nation..........

Unfortunately, the "project", never started...................

Nordgau
Sunday, July 16th, 2006, 10:18 PM
I presume the list of "Books used for the classification" is McCulloch's, thrown in just to give the impression that the "author" Zecanin is responsible for the actual research ...


The "book list" are text annotations from Coon's "Races of Europe", as far as I see, and it's not a proper bibliography anyway (for instance in number 47 the note "I am omitting Günther ...", in number 53 then Günther's work listed). I think McCulloch doesn't receive non-English-language books in his works anyway and bases his race system primarily on Coon ...

Janus
Sunday, July 16th, 2006, 11:34 PM
Turkey=35% Dinaricized Mediterraneans ( Greek colonists), 20% Mediterraneans ( Aegean coast, greek colonists), 25% Irano-Afghans ( eastern Turkey, Kurds ), 20% Turanids ( original semi-oriental Turkics, inhabits continental parts of central Anatolia one of them being region around Konya ) = 35% D.M. / 25% I.A. / 20% Med. / 20% T.

Somehow I'm missing Armenids there and some other things like 25% Turanids in Hungary and 55% Neo Danubians in Poland seem a bit strange in my humble opinion.

SuuT
Monday, July 17th, 2006, 12:41 AM
Once i had the same idea : renovating Mc Culloch system with the knowledge of all Skadi members (especially the most experts in anthropology, like Agrippa), so to create a more objective scale for every nation..........

Unfortunately, the "project", never started...................

I think one man will have to step forward to advance such a thing; and it is unlikely--though not impossible--that this individual is in our midst (with all due respect to Agrippa and his efforts: he might, if he hasn't already, supply his system in its entirety to Skadi). People, especially young people, are typically more concerned with being right than advancing Science for its own sake. What is more, I am an admitted dabbler with taxonomy (none of my degrees are in Anthropology), just like the overwhelming majority of individuals in this forum that either have no degree at all, or are only just now working toward that end (I really would like to know the education level of some of the individuals that have the pills to say some of what they say!--That would be quite telling). And, while I am not bashing 20-somethings per se, that's who is here: the likelyhood of an Earth-shattering 21st century classification schema, that everyone and their cousin interested in Taxonomy will not attack and tear to shreds in this medium--is slim, indeed. So, you see, the problems are multiform.

Moreover, until someone achieves a minimum of a Masters degree in Physical Anthropology, any crticisms of individulas who produce such works as The Origin of Races (1962); The Story of Man (1954); The Races of Europe (1939); Races: A Study of the Problems of Race Formation in Man; The Hunting Peoples; Anthropology A to Z (1963); Living Races of Man (1965); Seven Caves: Archaeological Exploration in the Middle East; Adventures and Discoveries: The Autobiography of Carleton S. Coon (1981); Mountains of Giants: A Racial and Cultural Study of the North Albanian Mountain Ghegs; Yengema Cave Report (his work in Sierra Leone); Caravan: the Story of the Middle East (1958). A North Africa Story (1980); Racial Adaptations (1982); The Ideal and Destiny (1982); Destiny of Angels (1986); The Nordish Quest (1989); The Racial Compact (1994) are babbling fools, whether they know it or not: they have no legitimate credentials; and should take a seat.

vingul
Monday, July 17th, 2006, 01:38 PM
Moreover, until someone achieves a minimum of a Masters degree in Physical Anthropology, any crticisms of individulas who produce such works as (...) are babbling fools, whether they know it or not: they have no legitimate credentials; and should take a seat.

(my edit in bold text)

Basically true, but not entirely without exceptions. Some of us have completed masters, and are possibly even working on doctorates, in other and perhaps similar groves of academe, and although one cannot boast the prerequisite knowledge and experience to produce new subracial hypotheses and such, one is clearly familiar with the usual caveats, logical flaws, tenets of reference and summary etc. that require but a basic understanding of the text in order for one to constructively criticize that text. Many of the texts and hypotheses contain blaring flaws and/or misquotations, some are obvious homages to idealism, and some are based on general premises which have later been proven erroneous. So generally, one does not need a degree in phys. anth. in order to criticize the approach of physical anthropologists.

SuuT
Monday, July 17th, 2006, 08:16 PM
... So generally, one does not need a degree in phys. anth. in order to criticize the approach of physical anthropologists.

Well said. Critique of approach and practice are, indeed, mutually exclusive.

SubGnostic
Sunday, July 23rd, 2006, 07:28 PM
Once i had the same idea : renovating Mc Culloch system with the knowledge of all Skadi members (especially the most experts in anthropology, like Agrippa), so to create a more objective scale for every nation..........

Unfortunately, the "project", never started...................


This would be a good idea, for books regarding the racial composition of Europe tend to be outdated and can contain misinformation.

Pro-Alpine
Sunday, July 23rd, 2006, 08:53 PM
What´s the diference between west-mediterranean and south mediterranean

"South Mediterraneans" are the inhabitants of edges of Northern-Africa, they appear to be a minority element in Andalucia(southern Spain).

"West Mediterranean" are the South-Western Europeans and the Southern French, it also includes Atlanto-Mediterranids.

Slovenian Nationalist
Sunday, August 13th, 2006, 12:02 AM
Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia and Macedonia = 75% Dinaric ( preslavic Illyrians) , 10% West Mediterranean (most common on the coast), 10% Noric ( depegmented Dinaric ) and 5% Neo-Danubian (most common in the north and Pannonia, Baltic Slav ) = 85% Dinarik / 10% Med. / 5% L+N

I doubt that.

Maybe that's true for Serbia and Croatia, but we Slovenians are more Nordic and Alpine than Dinaric.

Gefjon
Sunday, January 13th, 2008, 12:04 AM
Thought I should add these figures from Richard McCulloch (http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html). How accurate do you think they are? :confused:



Sweden = 70% Hallstatt Nordic (Carleton Coon described Sweden as a refuge area for the classic Nordic race), 10% Borreby (most common in the southwest coastal region), 10% Fälish (most common in Dalarna [Kopparberg] and the southwest coastal region), 5% Trønder (most common near the central Norwegian border), 5% East Baltic = 100% Nordish (95% central and 5% periphery types)
Norway = 45% Trønder (most common in the west), 30% Hallstatt Nordic (most common in the southeast area around Oslo), 10% Borreby (most common in the southwest), 7% Fälish (most common in the south), 5% East Baltic (most common in the far north), 3% Palaeo-Atlantid (found in western coastal areas) = 100% Nordish (92% central and 8% periphery types)
Denmark = 40% Borreby, 30% Fälish, 20% Hallstatt Nordic, 5% Anglo-Saxon, 5% East Baltic = 100% Nordish (95% central and 5% periphery types)
Iceland = 60% Trønder, 22% Borreby, 15% Brünn, 3% Palaeo-Atlantid = 100% Nordish (97% central and 3% periphery types)
England = 25% Keltic Nordic (derived from pre-Roman invaders), 15% Anglo-Saxon (post-Roman Germanic invaders, most common in the southeast, especially East Anglia), 15% Brünn {indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants}, 15% North-Atlantid and 10% Palaeo-Atlantid (blend of Mesolithic Atlanto-Mediterranean invaders with both earlier and later arrivals; most common in the Midlands and northwest), 8% Hallstatt Nordic (of Viking and Norman derivation), 5% Trønder (of Norwegian Viking derivation; most common in the northeast), 3% Borreby and 2% Fälish (both of Viking and Norman derivation; associated with the landed gentry; source of the "John Bull" type), 2% Noric (from Bronze-Age invaders) = 100% Nordish (73% central and 27% periphery types)
Scotland = 25% Keltic Nordic, 22% Trønder (most common in the northeast), 10% North-Atlantid (most common in the west), 10% Anglo-Saxon (most common in the southeast), 10% Palaeo-Atlantid (most common in the southwest), 10% Brünn, 5% Hallstatt Nordic, 4% Borreby, 4% Noric = 100% Nordish (76% central and 24% periphery types)
Ireland = 40% Brünn (indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants, most common in the west), 30% Keltic Nordic (most common in the east), 9% North-Atlantid, 9% Borreby, 3% Palaeo-Atlantid, 3% Trønder, 2% Noric, 2% Anglo-Saxon, 1% Hallstatt Nordic = 100% Nordish (86% central and 14% periphery types)
Wales = 35% North-Atlantid, 30% Palaeo-Atlantid, 30% Keltic Nordic, 5% other types = 100% Nordish (35% central and 65% periphery types)
The Netherlands = 50% Keltic Nordic (of Frankish derivation), 20% Borreby, 10% Anglo-Saxon (most common in Frisia), 10% Fälish, 10% Hallstatt Nordic = 100% Central Nordish
Belgium = 60% Keltic Nordic (most common in Flanders, derived from the ancient Belgae and Franks), 35% Borreby and 5% Alpine (both most common in Wallonia) = 95% Central Nordish
Luxembourg = 80% Alpine, 15% Borreby, 5% other Nordish types = 20% Central Nordish
Germany = 25% Borreby (most common in the Rhine and Ruhr valleys and the north), 20% Fälish (most common in the north), 15% Alpine (most common in Baden and Bavaria), 15% Noric, 6% Keltic Nordic (most common in the old Frankish country in the southwest), 5% Anglo-Saxon (most common in the northwest), 5% East Baltic, 5% Dinaric, 4% Hallstatt Nordic = 80% Nordish (60% central and 20% periphery types)
France = 30% Alpine, 30% Noric (most common in the north), 20% Mediterranean (most common in the south and Corsica), 15% Dinaric, 3% Borreby (in the northeast), 2% Nordic = 35% Nordish (5% central and 30% periphery types)
Switzerland = 40% Keltic Nordic and 30% Noric (most common in the north, west and center), 15% Dinaric and 15% Alpine (most common in the south and east) = 70% Nordish (40% central and 30% periphery types)
Austria = 35% Noric, 25% Dinaric, 20% Alpine, 15% Keltic Nordic, 5% Hallstatt Nordic = 55% Nordish (20% central and 35% periphery types)
Poland = 55% Neo-Danubian, 10% Ladogan, 10% Alpine, 10% Dinaric, 5% Hallstatt Nordic, 5% Noric, 5% East Baltic = 70% Nordish (5% central and 65% periphery types)
Finland and the Baltic States = 50% East Baltic, 15% Hallstatt Nordic (most common in the Swedish-settled areas of Finland), 30% Neo-Danubian (most common in southeast Lithuania and northeast Finland), 5% Ladogan = 95% Nordish (15% central and 80% periphery types)
The Czech Republic and Slovakia = 40% Alpine and 15% Noric (most common in Bohemia), 25% Dinaric (most common in Moravia), 20% Neo-Danubian (most common in Slovakia) = 35% Periphery Nordish
Hungary = 35% Neo-Danubian (most common in the northeast), 25% Turanid (of Magyar derivation), 20% Dinaric (most common in the southwest), 15% Alpine (most common in the south), 2% Nordic, 2% Noric, 1% East Mediterranean = 39% Nordish (2% central and 37% periphery types)
Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine = 40% Neo-Danubian (most common in Belorussia and western Ukraine), 35% Ladogan, 8% Nordic, 7% East Mediterranean (most common near the Black Sea coast), 5% Dinaric (most common in eastern Ukraine), 5% Noric = 53% Nordish (8% central and 45% periphery types)
Spain and Portugal = 85% West Mediterranean, 9% South Mediterranean, 5% Dinaric, 1% Nordic (most common in the remnants of the Visigoth aristocracy) = 1% Central Nordish
Italy = 50% Dinaricized Mediterranean (most common in the south and Sicily), 20% Dinaric (most common in the north), 15% Alpine (most common in the northwest), 10% West Mediterranean (most common in Sardinia), 4% Noric (most common in the north, 1% Nordic (most common in the remnants of the Ostrogoth and Lombard aristocracy) = 5% Nordish (1% central and 4% periphery types). Italy, much like the other southern European countries of the Mediterranean region -- Spain, Portugal and Greece -- experienced several waves of Nordish invasions during ancient and early Medieval times, from the Danubians (circa 2,000-1,500 B.C.), who brought the Indo-European language that developed into Latin, and the Kelts (beginning circa 500 B.C.), to the Germanic Ostrogoths and Lombards (A.D. 400-700). These Nordish elements have been gradually assimilated into the majority Mediterranean population, but some of their genetic traits, existing in solution, occasionally recombine to appear in individuals whose other traits are mostly non-Nordish.
Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia and Macedonia = 75% Dinaric, 10% West Mediterranean (most common on the coast), 10% Noric and 5% Neo-Danubian (most common in the north) = 15% periphery Nordish types
Romania = 35% Dinaric (most common in the west), 25% East Mediterranean (most common on the coast), 20% Neo-Danubian (most common in the northeast), 10% Alpine, 7% Noric and 3% Nordic (most common in the west) = 30% Nordish (3% central and 27% periphery types)
Albania = 75% Dinaric, 10% West Mediterranean, 10% Alpine, 5% Noric = 5% periphery Nordish
Bulgaria = 60% East Mediterranean, 15% Alpine, 15% Dinaric, 5% Turanid, 5% Nordish
Greece = 40% East Mediterranean, 25% Dinaricized Mediterranean, 20% Alpine (most common in Epirus), 10% Dinaric, 5% Nordish (partly assimilated remnant, or genetic recombinations from solution, of various past Nordish invaders, mostly of Danubian type, going back to the ancient Achaeans and Dorians; most common in the north)

Æmeric
Sunday, January 13th, 2008, 12:40 AM
I have quoted his research before, but a lot of people dispute his figures. Since I'm not qualified to call myself an amateur anthropologist, let along a professional, I'm not sure what to make of them. A lot of people also dispute the classifications over at SNPA. Anthropology seems to be something people debate rather then agree on.

OneEnglishNorman
Sunday, January 13th, 2008, 12:56 AM
Sweden = 70% Hallstatt Nordic (Carleton Coon described Sweden as a refuge area for the classic Nordic race), 10% Borreby (most common in the southwest coastal region), 10% Fälish (most common in Dalarna [Kopparberg] and the southwest coastal region), 5% Trønder (most common near the central Norwegian border), 5% East Baltic = 100% Nordish (95% central and 5% periphery types)

I doubt Sweden is 70% unmixed Nordic.


Norway = 45% Trønder (most common in the west), 30% Hallstatt Nordic (most common in the southeast area around Oslo), 10% Borreby (most common in the southwest), 7% Fälish (most common in the south), 5% East Baltic (most common in the far north), 3% Palaeo-Atlantid (found in western coastal areas) = 100% Nordish (92% central and 8% periphery types)

Seems somewhat more reasonable that the Swedish entry.


Denmark = 40% Borreby, 30% Fälish, 20% Hallstatt Nordic, 5% Anglo-Saxon, 5% East Baltic = 100% Nordish (95% central and 5% periphery types)

Sceptical 1 out of 20 Danes are East Baltic.


Iceland = 60% Trønder, 22% Borreby, 15% Brünn, 3% Palaeo-Atlantid = 100% Nordish (97% central and 3% periphery types)

Troender figure seems off. I doubt Iceland is more Borreby than Bruenn given it's population history but who knows.


England = 25% Keltic Nordic (derived from pre-Roman invaders), 15% Anglo-Saxon (post-Roman Germanic invaders, most common in the southeast, especially East Anglia), 15% Brünn {indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants}, 15% North-Atlantid and 10% Palaeo-Atlantid (blend of Mesolithic Atlanto-Mediterranean invaders with both earlier and later arrivals; most common in the Midlands and northwest), 8% Hallstatt Nordic (of Viking and Norman derivation), 5% Trønder (of Norwegian Viking derivation; most common in the northeast), 3% Borreby and 2% Fälish (both of Viking and Norman derivation; associated with the landed gentry; source of the "John Bull" type), 2% Noric (from Bronze-Age invaders) = 100% Nordish (73% central and 27% periphery types)

It doesn't make sense that England has more Scandinavian/north German Nordic-mixed derivatives (AS, Troender, Hallstatt) than Keltic Nordics. The Noric statistic is likely false.


Scotland = 25% Keltic Nordic, 22% Trønder (most common in the northeast), 10% North-Atlantid (most common in the west), 10% Anglo-Saxon (most common in the southeast), 10% Palaeo-Atlantid (most common in the southwest), 10% Brünn, 5% Hallstatt Nordic, 4% Borreby, 4% Noric = 100% Nordish (76% central and 24% periphery types)

Scotland is over 4 times more Troender than Sweden??!


Ireland = 40% Brünn (indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants, most common in the west), 30% Keltic Nordic (most common in the east), 9% North-Atlantid, 9% Borreby, 3% Palaeo-Atlantid, 3% Trønder, 2% Noric, 2% Anglo-Saxon, 1% Hallstatt Nordic = 100% Nordish (86% central and 14% periphery types)

More reasonable...


Wales = 35% North-Atlantid, 30% Palaeo-Atlantid, 30% Keltic Nordic, 5% other types = 100% Nordish (35% central and 65% periphery types)

Again, the North-Atlantid & Palaeo-Atlantid terms as they are used are problematic.


The Netherlands = 50% Keltic Nordic (of Frankish derivation), 20% Borreby, 10% Anglo-Saxon (most common in Frisia), 10% Fälish, 10% Hallstatt Nordic = 100% Central Nordish

Probably under-estimates the UP contingent but one of the more reasonable entries.


Belgium = 60% Keltic Nordic (most common in Flanders, derived from the ancient Belgae and Franks), 35% Borreby and 5% Alpine (both most common in Wallonia) = 95% Central Nordish

Where are the Atlanto-Meds? And is surely more Alpine.


Luxembourg = 80% Alpine, 15% Borreby, 5% other Nordish types = 20% Central Nordish

Dunno.


Germany = 25% Borreby (most common in the Rhine and Ruhr valleys and the north), 20% Fälish (most common in the north), 15% Alpine (most common in Baden and Bavaria), 15% Noric, 6% Keltic Nordic (most common in the old Frankish country in the southwest), 5% Anglo-Saxon (most common in the northwest), 5% East Baltic, 5% Dinaric, 4% Hallstatt Nordic = 80% Nordish (60% central and 20% periphery types)

Reasonable.


Anyway enough of that. Since sub-types are not often unmixed the utility of putting numbers on such things is questionable. To make a fair assessment, one would have to spend days or weeks in each country, which I doubt McCulloch has done. It's interesting to read for those new to anthro I suppose.