PDA

View Full Version : The Nordish Concept


Loki
Wednesday, June 18th, 2003, 05:44 PM
There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding on these boards on what the term "Nordish" actually means. I don't blame people for the confusion, since there are so many people going around, spreading their "opinions" about the Nordic race and the Nordish concept.

There has been a lot of criticism of the SNPA (http://www.nordish.com) website. But in all honesty, I am yet to see a better anthropological definition of the northern European peoples. People are quick to criticize, but slow to read up and try to understand. Quick to criticize, but slow to offer a viable alternative. The SNPA has drawn most of their teachings and observations from accredited anthropologists, like Carleton Coon.

Unfortunately, many people who are non-Nordish want to be Nordish - and thus they attempt to bend the parameters to include them too in the Nordish community. So now we have the situation where people argue that they are perfectly Nordish, when in fact they are not at all. Nordish is not equivalent to white or European. Many people seem to think so, and that is why many white Europids want to claim the Nordish classification for themselves... but in fact they are predominantly Dinarid, Alpinid or Mediterranid, or even some other Europid category. We have to be honest with ourselves, people. There is no reward for deceiving ourselves.


Regards,

Loki

Loki
Wednesday, June 18th, 2003, 06:13 PM
What Nordish is NOT:

- White
- European
- Ethnically and/or linguistically Germanic
- Superior Ubermensch
- Alpine
- Dinaric
- Mediterranean
- A prerequisite to be a proud white person
- A Neo-Nazi skinhead
- A rightwing American nationalist


What Nordish IS:

- People of northern European racial heritage, generally having the characteristically fair hair and eyes. There are some darker strains, though, too.

- Generally includes individuals from these traditional ethnic groups: Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Baltic and a few selected others. Please note that the Germanic volkerwanderung has introduced these racial types into other communities outside northern Europe - most notably Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, North Africa (Vandals), and several others. Thus, the Nordish element is to be found in individuals and/or families in such cases.

- Peripheral cases of Nordish may include varying degrees of non-Nordish Europid ancestry. These may be Dinarid, Alpinid, Mediterranid or other Europid strains. But these admixtures are always in the background, and never predominate. When these non-Nordish features predominate, the individual should be classified with the particular non-Nordish group.

Scáthach
Wednesday, June 18th, 2003, 06:58 PM
i agree that there is no reward for deceiving ourselves i just wanted to add that there is no reward for being nordish or not either- if you happen to find out youre nordish tomorrow no one is going to arrive on your doorstep wielding flowers and chocolates - the same way that if you are not nordish no one is going to try and kill you either.
its a very interesting subject but i just think people should bear in mind that their personality wont suddenly change because they find out theyre alpine or hallstatt :)

cosmocreator
Wednesday, June 18th, 2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Scathach
its a very interesting subject but i just think people should bear in mind that their personality wont suddenly change because they find out theyre alpine or hallstatt :)


Demigorgona comes to mind.

Loki
Wednesday, June 18th, 2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Scathach
i agree that there is no reward for deceiving ourselves i just wanted to add that there is no reward for being nordish or not either- if you happen to find out youre nordish tomorrow no one is going to arrive on your doorstep wielding flowers and chocolates - the same way that if you are not nordish no one is going to try and kill you either.
its a very interesting subject but i just think people should bear in mind that their personality wont suddenly change because they find out theyre alpine or hallstatt :)

You are right, of course. :thumb

Scáthach
Wednesday, June 18th, 2003, 08:45 PM
thanks :yipee

Azdaja
Wednesday, June 18th, 2003, 11:53 PM
My problem with the SNPA website is the bias in favour of Northwest European types over Northeast European types. It's subtle, but clearly there.
For instance: look at the pics they have of the 'Neo-Danubian' type. Compare those to the pics they have of any of the NW European types. Now come on. You mean to tell me they could not find pictures of attractive Neo-Danubians? Fionn posted a huge string of pics of attractive Neo-Danubians a couple months back, so clearly such pics are not hard to find.
Personally this is not a huge issue to me. I only rate a '3' on that scale (according to Karl Earlson and Northstar, anyway), so it's not like I'm uber-nord. And besides, I find East meds and Dinarics more attractive than 'nordish' types.
The bias shown by McCulloch and the SNPA is more irritating than anything else, but hey - no one is perfect. And Loki is right: The SNPA is the best (only) site of its kind.

Siegfried
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 05:11 PM
The more time I spend on Skadi, the more I feel drawn towards Nordicism. I have, however, repeatedly been told that the ‘Nordish’ group has no real anthropological value, and I’d like to know why. What’s wrong with the concept? Speak now, or forever hold your peace ;)

Vestmannr
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 05:19 PM
Because the Nordish concept is primarily Political, and used as such, I'm okay with that. It is based upon some anthropology. The main problems I have with the idea as presented by McCulloch is how the lines are drawn, and what is considered acceptable for 'assimilation' on his scale. I dont think the term Nordish is tied to McCulloch anymore, however, as many of us use the same term for similar ideas that are a little less political, and a little more scientific. What I find odd about the Nordish concept as presented by McCulloch is the high ranking of Alpinids on his scale, and how the 'Meds' are split into 'gracile' and ungracilized .... an E. Med. is an E. Med. Basically that is saying: "well, we dont like your folk: but if you're a pretty one, thats okay." ;) I dont wonder if one was consistent, we could just apply the 'gracile/non-gracile' to others on the scale: Alpinids, Atlantids, UPs, heck... even Nordics. We could call it Gracile Nationalism, or 'skinny pretty people movement'. Of course, it would be where all the hot girls are. (for the humor cripples, there was humor in this response.. though I am serious about the criticism.)

In other words, there are issues with how the term is used, but I dont think that by any form of logic requires the rejection of the term, or even much of the concept.

Johnny Reb
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 05:30 PM
I'm kind of up in the air on the whole Nordish thing. Some use it to mean any North Western European, regardless of pigmentation and physical form. Others are pretty strict, but allow any gracile depigmented type in. To me, it's more of a political construct, a League of Relatively Depigmented Mostly Northern Europeans. I've been a little confused on the anthropology side of things, and an experience the other day cemented my confusion/doubt. I was talking with some acquaintances, one being a gigantic Brunn, the other some sort of gracile Nordic. Looking at the two of them side by side I thought to myself "how the heck can these two people be linked anthropologically at all?"

In short, I've no idea what I'm talking about :D

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 08:27 AM
It is about paleo-Europeans and the percentage of such in each modern European people.

White Preservationist
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 07:31 PM
What’s wrong with the concept? Speak now, or forever hold your peace ;)The Irish have more in common with Spaniards than Lithuanians or Icelanders. That is what is wrong with the term.

Awar
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 08:20 PM
It is about paleo-Europeans and the percentage of such in each modern European people.

You can find a whole population of paleo-Europeans along the adriatic coast of the Balkans... very dark ones too.

Abby Normal
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 10:00 PM
The Nordish concept has no validity because it groups together several (real and fabricated) subgroups due to simple pigmentation, and not genetic proximity. It is just an excuse for blond, blue-eyed "Upper Paleolithics" to attach themselves to the hips of real Indo-European Iron Age Nordics, while excluding Mediterraneans and other Indo-European types from the "in-club."

"Upper Paleolithics" such as the Borreby type have no relation to Iron Age Nordics, who are more related to other Indo-European types than to any "Upper Paleolithic" type. ...However, these "UP" types are nevertheless included in the 'Nordish' club simply for having blond hair. "Skull width and interorbital distance be damned, let's determine race simply by pigmentation!" It's ludicrous.

Krampus
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 10:08 PM
White Preservationist
The Irish have more in common with Spaniards than Lithuanians or Icelanders. That is what is wrong with the term.

Please explain your comments. I think you'll find the Irish have more in common with Icelanders than either Spaniards or Lithuanians.

Awar
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 10:14 PM
It's not that simple as Abby put it. By far the most blonde are the east-Baltics, who are put in the 'periphery nordish' category.

The fact is that Southwestern, Western Europe, Britain, parts of Scandinavia and parts of Italy and Central Europe are very closely related between themselves, on the other hand, most of Scandinavia, Central Europe, half of the Balkans and parts of Eastern Europe make another group, there are also 'Greek' and 'Neolithic' influenced parts of Europe, Uralic Europe, Eastern Europe etc.

There are no basis for some real anthropologic and genetic 'groups' to be founded inside Europe.

Geo-Politics, history and culture are a different thing altogether, but even then, Europe can't be grouped for any sort of concept ( as history has shown ) the best way to separate Europeans is by their ethnic sense of belonging.

America is the only place where the 'Nordish' concept can work to some extent, but I'm not sure how good it would prove once DNA heritage testing becomes more common, and scientific knowledge about genetic relations becomes greater.

The divisions by Palaeolithic or Neolithic ancestry would be ridiculous, just as pigmentation-only, or superficial phenotype classifications are ridiculous.

Glenlivet
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 10:36 PM
It is based mainly based on more (e.g. Hallstatt Nordic and East Baltid) or less (North-Atlantid and even more Paleo-Atlantid) depigmentation and certain physical characteristics located in North Western Europe, irrespective of a weaker blondism.

The types concentrated in North Eastern (East Baltic) and Eastern Europe (Neo-Danubian) diverge anthropometrically more, but if morphology is neglected they may give the impression of being closer to the stronger depigmentation possessed by Hallstatt Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, Trönder, Brünn and Borreby. Keltic Nordic is intermediary in pigmentation, often darker haired (sometimes with rufosity, read Coon) than the other Central Nordish types, but frequently light eyed and light skinned.

Brünn and Borreby should often be found in solution, and perhaps the latter should be seen as an ancestral (read R Biasutti, R Nordenstreng, G Backman etc.) race.

Nordish has its flaws because sub races and types with different morphology are lumped together, which I assume is because they show more depigmentation than the Mediterranids that should not have more than 25 % (also almost never complete, thus disharmonic, coincidental to a greater degree and less stable in terms of inheritance) in any region.

I think many Europeans and even non-Europeans have something similar to the Nordish concept in their mind. I had it even as a young boy.

I personally think that Nordish should be reserved for Nordid types, thus I propose Hallstatt Nordic, Keltic Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, Trønder, Fälish and Brünn (R Biasutti use the same pictures as Coon and label it Irish sub race of Nordid). If you wish one can add v. Eickstedt's Fenno-Nordid or Lundman's aistin (common in W Estonia), which is probably a local form of the Fenno-Nordid which according to G Backman is now almost extinct (also due to brachycephalisation too, through change of the original stock or mixture with broad heads from the Carpathians). Except for Trønder the others are rather close. Trönder got its partially presumed eastern relation (B Lundman put it in an East Nordid branch of Europids). The other types are mainly found in Central, North Western and Northern Europe.

North-Atlantid may still be added. I am not sure. I think that Lundman's North-Atlantid is Coon's Atlanto-Mediterranid in mainly Scotland and Ireland, which is frequently blue-eyed. The Paleo-Atlantid is as far as I know not a term from Coon. Lundman use it to designate some proto-morphic types spread here and there in Western Europe. In one of Biasutti's maps one can see such an archaic element in Northern Wales and also another one in SE Sardinia. There is also one near lake Ladoga that should coincide with the proto-morphic Ladogan of Coon. So they are not that related. In Inner Scandinavia we have the Tydal, a long headed and robust, un-reduced "Cro-Magnid". It is also called proto-morphic and Lundman claim that the type resemble proto-Mediterranids, put in the same group as Berid, who are often reduced and alpinised (especially in N Spain and S France).

In conclusion, from the concept that McCulloch created, I propose Keltic Nordic, Hallstatt Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, Trønder, Fälish and Brünn. You can give me arguments for or against the inclusion of Fenno-Nordid and North-Atlantid should be added. I also saw that Earlson, a well-read man in the field of anthropology, got a similar concept for Nordish. He believe that Borreby is the same as Fenno-Nordid. He may be right and we should study that too. However, the Borreby (also the one in Vellinge that represent the race) was short headed. That is a problem, but it was high skulled like Fenno-Nordid. Maybe the Fenno-Nordid was and still (but not as common as it used to be etc.) is of the same branch of Europids as the Borreby, perhaps a long headed form? Please add thoughts regarding the presumed relation of Fenno-Nordid and Borreby.

Loki
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 10:49 PM
The more time I spend on Skadi, the more I feel drawn towards Nordicism.

Welcome to the true circle of friends, my Dutch brother! ;) I don't have much time right now to go into the detail, but let me say that I am pleased that Skadi makes you feel drawn towards Nordicism - it is our ethno-racial-linguistic heritage. The call of the blood! :D

Awar
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 11:01 PM
http://www.dnaheritage.com/images/masterclass/europe_haplogroups_3.jpg
http://i.1asphost.com/berschneider/Haplogroups.jpg
http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/63%20Blood%20Types/Blood%20TypesEn_files/image008.gif

Loki
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 11:12 PM
AWAR, these maps tell only a small part of the story. They are not sufficient as tools to "refute Nordicism".

For starters, one cannot lump an entire huge country like Germany or France into one haplogroup division, since there are several regional differences within the country. Also, until now the sample sizes were far too small to be representative of any region, let alone a country. We are still miles away from a complete genetic mapping of Europe. Only a tiny fraction of the population has been tested genetically.

Awar
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 11:17 PM
Yes, that's correct. I wasn't trying to refute Nordicism, just display what are the main 'family relations' found in Europe.

morfrain_encilgar
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 12:52 AM
The fact is that Southwestern, Western Europe, Britain, parts of Scandinavia and parts of Italy and Central Europe are very closely related between themselves, on the other hand, most of Scandinavia, Central Europe, half of the Balkans and parts of Eastern Europe make another group, there are also 'Greek' and 'Neolithic' influenced parts of Europe, Uralic Europe, Eastern Europe etc.

There are no basis for some real anthropologic and genetic 'groups' to be founded inside Europe.

But just because these groups merge together, it doesn't mean these groups aren't real. In anthropology the "subrace" or "minor race" is more important than "major race". This is for the reason Loki said, about the genetic sampling of Germany.

Most Europeans do form one group by their overall genetic distance. But there are three European groups which are outliers, and all of them are also physically distinct. So, despite showing admixture with outsiders, they remain seperate from other Caucasian groups.

They are Lapps, Sardinians, and south-Eastern Europe (which forms part of a Black Sea genetic group, that is neither European or Middle Eastern.) The Lapps and the Sardinians are both associated with unusual racial types, and then around the Black Sea from the Adriatic to the Caspian, there are several related racial groups (Taurid, Carpathid, Pontid, Danubid, Iranoafghanid and Pamirid).

Because of the assimilation that has been drawing the smaller groups together, by gene recombination, distinct groups like the Lapps and Sardinians are important to understand relationships and migrations.

the best way to separate Europeans is by their ethnic sense of belonging.

Because of the admixture, neither the genetic groups or physical types can be used to draw strict boundaries. I think its important to remember, not everyone has a racial type, because races are labels given to populations. "Atlantids" and "dinaricised Italians" are European examples of this, because they are mixed populations. So I think youre right, this is the only way to organise people politically. But its nothing to do with the need for scientific classification.

morfrain_encilgar
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 01:03 AM
Yes, that's correct. I wasn't trying to refute Nordicism, just display what are the main 'family relations' found in Europe.

Itis possible to trace both the maternal and paternal lineages, but you have to remember that they can be lost over time. And, because of the difference in contribution from each parental side, they don't match up.

They're useful in following migrations, by identifying which race contributed to where. But to see how populations are overall related, its overall genetic distance which is used.

nordic_canadian_male
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 01:49 AM
Mixture has occured everywhere in europe, to group people together based on territory seems more difficult than to just use a root race. To create a group based entirely on the amount of nordic blood would be much easier to logically justify. At the top would be the nordics, then you would have overgrown nordics(Up admixture), also exotic nordics(med, especially atlantid admixture), these two groups would have classical nordic blood as the the predominant strain. You can then have a third group-those types with nordic as the minor component, another predominating. Basiclly nordic at the top, predominant nordics in the middle, with those having minor yet visible nordic infusion making up the third group. call it the Nordic concept, not Nordish, never did like that name much.

morfrain_encilgar
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 02:02 AM
Mixture has occured everywhere in europe, to group people together based on territory seems more difficult than to just use a root race.

But someone could show strong traces of Nordic ancestors, but be from a region that isn't predominantly Nordic. So they would be genetically non-Nordic and have non-Nordic descendants.

So I don't think you can do more than isolate the mostly Nordic countries, to preserve the subtypes by their nation or metaethnicity.

To create a group based entirely on the amount of nordic blood would be much easier to logically justify.

But, are you sure this would even be possible?

Abby Normal
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 07:41 PM
AWAR, as usual I stand in awe of your anthropological knowledge. I agree that the best way to separate Europe is by culture; however, I do not think that divisions by Neolithic and Paleolithic ancestry would be ridiculous.

By the way, the maps were helpful.

http://www.dnaheritage.com/images/masterclass/europe_haplogroups_3.jpg
Apparently I am part dark blue and part pink. ;)

Loki
Monday, May 17th, 2004, 09:06 PM
AWAR, as usual I stand in awe of your anthropological knowledge. I agree that the best way to separate Europe is by culture; however, I do not think that divisions by Neolithic and Paleolithic ancestry would be ridiculous.

By the way, the maps were helpful.


Here is another helpful genetic map, which follows closely the boundaries of the Nordish peoples.... which goes to show that sometimes Nordishness can be the lack of admixture - in this case, Neolithic.

http://skadi.net/scans/pc1.jpg

Triglav
Tuesday, May 18th, 2004, 11:39 AM
Here is another helpful genetic map, which follows closely the boundaries of the Nordish peoples.... which goes to show that sometimes Nordishness can be the lack of admixture - in this case, Neolithic.

http://skadi.net/scans/pc1.jpg

Then again, the Nordics invaded in the Neolithic period.

This is the full map:

http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=12479

Utilitarianism
Friday, August 27th, 2004, 10:47 PM
Hasn't anyone noticed how extremely anti-german Coon is? It isn't in the interest of any German to promote McCullochism.

Gareth
Sunday, September 5th, 2004, 05:46 AM
Hasn't anyone noticed how extremely anti-german Coon is? It isn't in the interest of any German to promote McCullochism. Example? He called us a blond people even, what we are not. Light eyed in the majority- clearly yes but not blond.

The Germans as a nation are blond or of light-mixed pigmentation.

Rocky
Sunday, September 5th, 2004, 02:51 PM
Gareth, you are misunderstanding Coon's use of English probably because you are not a native English speaker. Blond/Brunet are use by Coon to mean skin pigmentation, skin tone if you understand American English. It means a light skin colour tinged by the red of blood showing throught the pale skin. You are interpreting blond only with hair colour whereas Coon uses it in a holistic way to refer to skin or eye or hair colour.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Monday, September 6th, 2004, 06:04 AM
My problem with the SNPA website is the bias in favour of Northwest European types over Northeast European types. It's subtle, but clearly there.
For instance: look at the pics they have of the 'Neo-Danubian' type. Compare those to the pics they have of any of the NW European types. Now come on. You mean to tell me they could not find pictures of attractive Neo-Danubians? Fionn posted a huge string of pics of attractive Neo-Danubians a couple months back, so clearly such pics are not hard to find.
Personally this is not a huge issue to me. I only rate a '3' on that scale (according to Karl Earlson and Northstar, anyway), so it's not like I'm uber-nord. And besides, I find East meds and Dinarics more attractive than 'nordish' types.
The bias shown by McCulloch and the SNPA is more irritating than anything else, but hey - no one is perfect. And Loki is right: The SNPA is the best (only) site of its kind.

Coon used a picture of a very attractive Finnish girl to represent Caucasoids in his book, The Living Races of Man. McCulloch is not a scientist, he is a popularizer. About every ten years, someone massages Coon's work into their own book. McCulloch's focus is on the importance of UP types in Euorpe. Maybe that is a good idea.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Monday, September 6th, 2004, 06:06 AM
Hasn't anyone noticed how extremely anti-german Coon is? It isn't in the interest of any German to promote McCullochism.

I have never noticed any anti-German bias in Coon's work. In fact, Coon expends a great deal of print dealing with Germanic countries. Please cite an example.

Glenlivet
Wednesday, December 1st, 2004, 06:11 AM
I think that the lads behind SNPA made a great contribution, but I agree that the gallery can be improved. We must remember that it takes a lot of time and patience to create such a website.


Also, even the experts at Nordish.com make mistakes, for instance some of the pics of celebrities they use for examples are known to have semetic (jewish) admixture.

DreamWalker
Wednesday, December 1st, 2004, 06:31 AM
I think that the lads behind SNPA made a great contribution, but I agree that the gallery can be improved. We must remember that it takes a lot of time and patience to create such a website.

I agree, it is a very nice webpage, my point was that it is not an exact science, trying for instance to guess the percent of Nordish and Borreby in a particular Falish individual is pretty difficult.

Glenlivet
Wednesday, December 1st, 2004, 06:38 AM
I don't even think that their idea of Fälish is correct. Phalian is defined as long-headed (in theory, in practice most modern ones are mesocephalic and perhaps even sub-brachycephalic) and it exist irrespective of Scando-Nordid or Borreby (which did not even yield an independent race according to Lundman). Karl Earlson has adressed this issue very well.

Their definition of North-Atlantid is also unique and it can't be based on the work of any anthropologist that I have read. Coon didn't even mention such a type, but European anthropologist did, and they didn't define it as SNPA.

http://www.white-history.com/earlson/phalian.htm

http://www.white-history.com/earlson/fal001.htm

I should mention though that dalischen (or Dalic) is according to Lundman a misnomer, from German anthropologist who never set their foot in Sweden. There's no such type in Dalarna.

I think that Earlson's Nordish concept is more satisfactory.

http://www.white-history.com/earlson/Nordish.htm

However, the "Pomeranian Man" does not look Scando-Nordid. The closest would be Trönder-approximative, but he does not look like a western European Germanic Nordid. I think that the idea is interesting but the examples are not that good. The problem is still genetical relatedness. It doesn't take a genious to see that the Fenno-Nordic man is probably not that closely related.

I suggest that three Nordid (which you can call central) types are enough, Scando-Nordid (Göta, Västmanland and Trönder), Phalian and North-Atlantid. These are the main Nordids of Swedish anthropologist Bertil Lundman, who wrote material up to 1988. The higher-skulled East-Nordids are derived from different proto-groups, and they should therefore not be lumped together.







I agree, it is a very nice webpage, my point was that it is not an exact science, trying for instance to guess the percent of Nordish and Borreby in a particular Falish individual is pretty difficult.

DreamWalker
Wednesday, December 1st, 2004, 06:47 AM
Yes, your statement adds to my point, can hardly be considered an exact science when the leading anthropologists have different opinions.

Glenlivet
Wednesday, December 1st, 2004, 06:55 AM
Many names mean the same, but Coon has some unique ones not found among other anthropologists.

There's more modern German anthropology too, by e.g. Schwidetzky.

Some works are somewhat outdated. There are different opinions in all sciences. The theories are always modified by new knowledge. The problem is that physical anthropology (especially in western countries) have been influenced by the social sciences since the 60's. That is a political issue.

They still talk about race in Hungarian medical schools. They don't do that in Sweden. There are also physiological differences not only between races, but also inbetween the sub-races. All people don't even have the same amount of muscles.


Yes, your statement adds to my point, can hardly be considered an exact science when the leading anthropologists have different opinions.

Glenlivet
Wednesday, December 1st, 2004, 07:03 AM
I think that we could make a Nordish concept with Scando-Nordid as central, then Phalian, and third North-Atlantid.

You can have Palaeo-Atlantid and Tydal as Peripheral.

The Anglo-Saxon would fit in Phalian.

Borreby is too obscure, and it's something ancient.

Keltic Nordic would fit in West-Nordid with minor Litoroid (Mediterranid + Bell Beaker Taurid, Dinarid or Armenoid).

Sub-Nordic is phenotypically between Lundman's Phalian and Coon's Keltic Nordic.

cosmocreator
Thursday, December 2nd, 2004, 03:39 AM
I've split these posts from MommyGoosestep's My Picture thread. They were getting off topic.


Borreby exists as one the components of Nordish. I think Drew Carey is Borreby.

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&id=1800193155&cf=mm&intl=us

Glenlivet
Thursday, December 2nd, 2004, 09:24 AM
Cosmocreator, you may have a point, but I'm thinking of an important quote from Lundman (1962).

"Toward the end of the Stone Age, somewhat after 2000 B.C., a time from which date the oldest known northern craniological series (no longer single finds), the people of the north were a rather mixed society. The Nordic race, which later on is so clearly distinguishable, had hardly developed completely, and the different racial elements which had come from various regions were either confined to certain marginal areas or had entered into various mixtures. The mass, however, consisted of low-vaulted or Cro-Magnid types. On the Danish Islands, and partly in the Swedish province of Skåne, southeastern types, both coarse and fine, were more common. Evidently a strain
of the "Beaker people," who came originally from the Mediterranean and, probably, the Near East, was present. (The well known Borreby site on the Danish island Möen did not, indeed, yield any independent race, but a characteristic local mixed population, in part very coarse-the so-called Borreby type)."

Bertil J. Lundman, Ph.D, THE RACIAL HISTORY OF SCANDINAVIA, An Outline, THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ETHNOLOGY AND EUGENICS (IAAEE), New York, 1962

Nordgau
Thursday, December 2nd, 2004, 07:04 PM
I should mention though that dalischen (or Dalic) is according to Lundman a misnomer, from German anthropologist who never set their foot in Sweden. There's no such type in Dalarna.

What exactly do Lundborg and his co-authors write in their great, however rather older book on Sweden about the Dalarna or Dalics? (I've got the German edition of that Lundborg book myself, but not here, in this minute, with me.)

I think that Earlson's Nordish concept is more satisfactory.

http://www.white-history.com/earlson/Nordish.htm

However, the "Pomeranian Man" does not look Scando-Nordid. The closest would be Trönder-approximative, but he does not look like a western European Germanic Nordid. I think that the idea is interesting but the examples are not that good. The problem is still genetical relatedness. It doesn't take a genious to see that the Fenno-Nordic man is probably not that closely related.

I suggest that three Nordid (which you can call central) types are enough, Scando-Nordid (Göta, Västmanland and Trönder), Phalian and North-Atlantid. These are the main Nordids of Swedish anthropologist Bertil Lundman, who wrote material up to 1988. The higher-skulled East-Nordids are derived from different proto-groups, and they should therefore not be lumped together.

This try of Earlson of equalising certain Nordid subtypes of Coon respectively McCulloch and Eickstedt is a bit skew, if you ask me:

A careful scrutiny of this typological scheme reveals clear parallels between von Eickstedt's nordische Rasse and McCulloch's Central Nordish group. The Teuto-Nordic subrace of von Eickstedt is clearly McCulloch's two Nordic racial types. The Dalo-Nordic subrace of von Eickstedt is clearly McCulloch's Brünn racial type. Finally, the Fenno-Nordic subrace of von Eickstedt has certain similarities with McCulloch's Borreby racial type: a tendency towards rufosity, light eyes, broad-headedness and a coarse body-build. This match is hardly precise, but the two types converge in more features than they diverge on.

The Borrebys rather should be thrown also somehow into the Dalo-Nordid pot. Eickstedt doesn't say too much about the Fenno-Nordids in his book, but they are given as a regional variant of the Nordids in northeastern-eastern Europe. Equalizing Coon's Borrebys with Eickstedt's Fenno-Nordids doesn't make sense already in respect of the rough geographical localisation of the forms.

SouthernBoy
Thursday, December 2nd, 2004, 10:08 PM
It is odd that Coon's definition of Upper Paleolithic survivors (Brunn, and Borreby) defines them both as having high-vaults. Almost all other anthropologists have implied that Cro-Magnon is for the most part low-skulled. Perhaps I have confused the defintions of Upper Paleolithic survivors and Cro-Magnons.

SouthernBoy
Thursday, December 2nd, 2004, 10:15 PM
Balder, doesn't Lundman attempt to correlate the large cranial measurements found on Moen to other Cro-Magnon (Upper Paleolithic survivors)? Am I misunderstanding the information? I can't think of any areas where low-skulledness is predominant.

Glenlivet
Friday, December 3rd, 2004, 02:59 AM
What exactly do Lundborg and his co-authors write in their great, however rather older book on Sweden about the Dalarna or Dalics? (I've got the German edition of that Lundborg book myself, but not here, in this minute, with me.)

I don't have that book at home. He was a racial biologist and not a physical anthropologist. Lundborg is interesting, but perhaps not so reliable, unless he got information from more knowledgeable sources than himself.

I know what Lundman wrote and I shall quote him.

"...Då hela denna nomenklaturiska utveckling försigått så gott som alldeles självständigt här i Norden, behöva vi knappast alls gå in på vad tyska forskare, i senare tider främst Paudler och Kern menat med "Dalrasse", särsiskt som åtm. de flesta av dem aldrig satt sin fot i Dalarna. - Det enda vi behöva säga är att namnet dalras går tillbaka på en uppgift från 1874 hos Quatrefages (och Hamy): Crania ethnica, I (s. 91, not 2). Där omtalas (s.s liknande den samtidigt nybeskrivna cromagnon-rasen) ett kranium av "type dalecarlien", hämtat till Paris av zoologen Paul Gaimard, som deltog i en officiell fransk vetenskaplig expedition till N. Skandinavien år 1839. Några mått och indices omtalas (HL = 193, HB = 143, OB = 135, AH 93, allt mm, samt att HI var 74,07, AI = 68,7; och NI = ca 51; huvudhöjden och dess indices nämnas däremot ej) men inga avbildningar eller andra uppgifter lämnas, än att tvenne liknande skallar skulle finnas på Karolinska Institutet i Stockholm. (Intet alls nämnes om kraniet i den off. franska reseberättelsen: Voyage du comm. scientifique du Nord. Paris 1843 off.)"

Lundman, B., p. 84, DALA-ALLMOGENS ANTROPOLOGI, ALMQVISTS & WIKSELLS BOKTRYCKERI, UPPSALA, 1945

Translated (by me),

When all this nomenclatural development has been carried on as good as altogether independently here in the Nordic countries, we hardly at all need to go into what German researchers, in later times mainly Paudler and Kern meant with "Dalrasse", especially as at least most of them never set theit foot in Dalarne. - The only thing we need to say is that the name Dal race go back to an information from 1874 by Quatrefages (and Hamy): Crania ethnica, I (p. 91, note 2) (as similar to the simultaneously newly descrived Cromagnon race) a cranium of "type dalecarlien", collected to Paris by the zoologist Paul Gaimard, whom participated in an official French scientific expedition to N. Scandinavia year 1839. Some measurements and indices are reported (Head length = 193, Head breadth = 143, bizygomatic breadth = 135, Upper Facial Height = 93, all in mm, and that Head Index was 74,04, Facial Index = 68,7; and Nasal Index approx. 51; the head height and its indices are however not mentioned) but no depictions or other information is given, than that two similar skulls would be found at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm. (Nothing at all is mentioned of the crania in the official French account of a journey: Voyage du comm. scientifique du Nord Paris 1843 official.)

The Borrebys rather should be thrown also somehow into the Dalo-Nordid pot.

The Danish anthropologist Birket-Smith suggested that the Borreby is derived from the same proto-stock as the Phalian, but brachycephalic (or alternatively: brachycephalised).

However, what have confused some is that e.g. Biasutti linked Borreby (as a prehistoric form) to the modern Dinarid.

Adriatic (Dinaric)

"Prehistoric Form: Borreby."

http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/biasutticaucasoid/

A good friend of mine who know Italian and who has read his book have suspected that he showed a bias (together with Skerlj?) because they wanted to see something native in the Dinarid, and not that it came from an eastern stream.

If I have understood Lundman correctly the Borreby did not yield an independent race, and that it existed before the arrival of the Bell Beaker Dinarids whom modified the stock.

Some Dinarids might have a component similar to Borreby (what Coon call "Carpathian and Balkan Borreby-like types", which could be the same as A. N Poulianos Epirotic found among the ancient people of Europe, the Sarakatsani). Hooton (Up From The Ape, 1958) describe Dinarid as a composite subrace that is "probably Upper Palaeolithic + Alpine + Armenoid + Nordic". What he mention as Upper Palaeolithic could be the prehistoric form Biasutti mentioned, that is Borreby (if so Borreby-like and most likely something like Epirotic, as they are also found in the Balkan mountains, and not only in the Pindus mountains). Coon had a similar composition as Hooton for Dinarid, but the most important strains he wrote about was Atlanto-Mediterranean and Cappadocian.

Triglav
Friday, December 3rd, 2004, 08:10 PM
A good friend of mine who know Italian and who has read his book have suspected that he showed a bias (together with Skerlj?)

Unfortunately, I wouldn`t know about that, but he was certainly not unbiased (in fact he was biased in favour of Mediterranids) and he was a pretty staunch Communist as well.

frankfurter
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 03:24 AM
Coon said that Dinarics are not a single race but a process (dinaricization) that occurs when acertain % of dolichocephals mix with a certain % of brachycephals over many centuries, producing a type that is sub-brachycephalic to brachycephalic, but with a face that is more long and narrow. He says that "Dinarics" in different parts of Europe were formed by different combinations of Meds and/or Nords (in the case of Norics) with round-headed races, generally Alpine. The Bell-Beaker Type had a fairly broad range, in all parts of Europe. It was formed in the Syrian Highlands and adjacent parts of southern Asia Minor (now Turkey) from a combination of Cappadocian, Atlantomed and Alpine. From there, it migrated into southern and central Europe, with some smaller groups reaching as far as Britain and north Germany. However, Coon says that many Dinaric Types were actually formed locally in Europe, out of mixtures between Atlantomed, Pontid and/or Gracile Med with Alpine.
The Carpathian and Balkan Borreby-like Types are not Dinarics, they are simply often mixed with Dinarics. In some areas of central and northern Germany, a type he called "Zoned Beaker" was formed from a combination of Borreby, Bell-Beaker and some Corded elements. This was prior to the arrival of Nordics. The Bell-Beaker and other Dinaric types are virtually non-existant in Scandinavia, and only of minor importance in Britain and northern Germany, except in the case of Britain, the Keltic Nordic has Bell-Beaker elements.