Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Norwegian Physical Anthropology and the Idea of a Nordic Master Race

  1. #1
    Spirit of the Reich „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ahnenerbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Volksdeutscher
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Y-DNA
    I-M170
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Gau Westmark
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Gemini
    Family
    Polyamory
    Occupation
    Herbalist
    Politics
    Ecological Geniocracy
    Religion
    Vedic
    Posts
    1,216
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    25
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    212
    Thanked in
    114 Posts

    Lightbulb Norwegian Physical Anthropology and the Idea of a Nordic Master Race

    About the Author: Jon Rųyne Kyllingstad is a postdoc at the Norwegian Museum of Science, Technology and Medicine (Kjelsåsveien 143, 0491 Oslo, Norway


    Abstract

    Anthropologists used to consider Norway a homeland for the so-called Nordic—or Germanic—race, which many Europeans and Americans held to be a superior race. This paper deals with the rise and decline of the idea of a Nordic master race in Norwegian physical anthropology.

    In the 1890s this idea held a key position in anthropological research on the racial identity and origin of the Norwegian population. In the early 1930s, however, leading Norwegian anthropological authorities condemned it as pseudoscientific ideology.

    I show how Norwegian discussions over this issue were related to greater conflicts within the international eugenics movement, to changing relations between German and Norwegian racial anthropologists before and after the Nazi takeover in Germany, and to conflicting and changing ideas of Norwegian nationhood among Norwegian scholars.

    The concept of a “Germanic” or “Nordic” race was a leitmotif in the racist ideology of the Nazi movement. [...] But the idea of a Nordic master race was not a Nazi invention. It was not even a German invention. [...] In this paper I deal with the history of physical anthropology in Norway from its beginnings in the nineteenth century into the interwar years. [...] Scandinavia held a key position in the worldview of the advocates of the supremacy of the Nordic race. Scandinavia was the core area of the race, and in Norway—many claimed—it was particularly pure and untouched. However, while holding a central position in the worldview of racial thinkers, Norway was a geographic, political, and scientific periphery. This situation preconditioned the development of Norwegian physical anthropology and put its stamp on the Norwegian scholarly debates on the concept of a Nordic master race.

    The smallness of the Norwegian academic community made it very responsive to influences from the outside world and at the same time stimulated a large degree of interdisciplinary cooperation within the national scientific community. [...] By studying the racial identity of past and present populations in Norway, anthropology was strongly connected to archaeological, linguistic, and historical studies of Norwegian prehistory and history. It was thus part of a research field of great importance to Norwegian national identity. [...] The Norwegian anthropologists had, however, particularly strong ties to German anthropology, and they can also to some extent be seen as a periphery in a German-speaking and Germany-centered disciplinary community.[...]


    Norwegian History and the Idea of a Germanic Race

    [...] Norway was a part of the Danish kingdom for four centuries until 1814, when a Norwegian constitution and parliament were established. Almost immediately, however, the country was forced into a union with Sweden. This union was peacefully dissolved in 1905, when Norway became fully independent. Norway was a small country with no continuous history as an independent political entity, and this shaped Norwegian nation building in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

    An unbroken national history was (re)constructed by historians, folklorists, and philologists who claimed the existence of strong cultural continuity in rural society. The focus on popular culture and rural roots attempted to bridge the gap between the modern nation-state and the independent and powerful Norwegian Kingdom that had existed before Danish rule (Lunden 1995:27–45).[...] Danish and Swedish scholars had a leading role in establishing this field of research and in the construction of a biologically defined Germanic race, which became an important building block in the national mythologies of north European countries [...]

    It was Danish archaeologists who first put forward the system of the three prehistoric ages—Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age—and created a comparative method to classify archaeological findings according to this typology (Trigger 1989:73ff.). This important breakthrough in archaeology was strongly intertwined with a methodological innovation by the Swedish anatomist Anders Retzius, namely, the cephalic index, which had important implications for physical anthropology. The cephalic index measures the relative difference between the length and the width of the skull.

    Based on contemporary theories of the anatomy, physiology, and natural history of the central nervous system, Retzius argued that the width-length ratio of the skull—and thus the brain—could be used to classify human mental development. Elaborating previous theories by the zoologist, archaeologist, and ethnographer Sven Nilsson, Retzius claimed that people of different nations had different skull shapes. Thus, the cephalic index could be used to measure the mental ability of ethnic groups and to identify the ethnicity of human archaeological remains (Gustafsson 1996:62–82; Retzius 1843, 1848; Rowley-Conwy 2007:60–65).

    Retzius and Nilsson suggested that a short-skulled (“brachycephalic”) Finnish-Sami people had been the sole inhabitants of northern Europe in the Stone Age and that the Bronze Age was introduced by short-skulled Celts, later supplanted by long-skulled (“dolichocephalic”) Germanic tribes bearing superior Iron Age technology (Nilsson 1838; Retzius 1847).

    In the mid-19th century, politically charged debates on the origin of nations stimulated archaeological research in Europe and the use of craniology to determine the ethnic identity of archaeological remains. Retzius’s cephalic index gained general recognition as a key criterion for racial classification. While no Norwegian natural historians, anatomists, or archaeologists participated in the development of the three-age chronology or the cephalic index, Sven Nilsson exchanged ideas on his migration theory with the Norwegian historian and linguist Rudolf Keyser, who was working on a similar theory on the settlement of Scandinavia (Andersen 1961:232–246).

    Keyser’s theory differed in one important aspect, however. He argued that Scandinavia had been invaded by two Germanic peoples: the south Germanics in Denmark and southern Sweden, and the north Germanics in Norway and northern Sweden. This implied that the Norwegians had a stronger claim on the cultural inheritance of the ancient Norsemen than the Swedes and the Danes (Munch 1849). Keyser based most of his arguments on comparative historical linguistics and historical sources, but he also made use of the results of Nilsson’s craniological studies. He described the ancestors of the Norwegians as biologically superior to those of the Sami. The Germanics were taller, stronger, and better mentally equipped. Norwegian nationhood was thus construed as both a biological and a linguistic and cultural entity, blurring the distinction between biological and cultural traits (Keyser 1868:232–246).

    Keyser was professor of history at the only Norwegian university [...] Together with his younger colleague Peter Andreas Munch, he created a national narrative in which the idea of the Germanic invasion giving birth to the nation was of central importance. This had a great influence on the writing and teaching of national history in Norway (Dahl 1990:80–81, 86–112; Lunden 1995:34–35). Keyser’s migration theory remained more or less unchallenged for the two decades leading up to the late 1860s, when it was undermined by geographical, historical, cultural, and linguistic arguments and by the classical theories of unilineal cultural evolution that emerged in international academic debates in the 1860s and 1870s (Dahl 1990:80, 86–112).

    The most important criticism was from the historian and ethnographer Ludvig K. Daae, who claimed that migration theories were outdated in light of modern cultural evolutionism. He argued that the physical and cultural traits of the ancient Norsemen were not the result of an invasion of a biologically distinctive tribe but a gradual adaptation to the natural environment in Norway and could be understood in the context of a universal scale of cultural development (Dahl 1957–1958).

    Daae embraced “Scandinavism,” a cultural and political movement that promoted solidarity between Scandinavian countries. He was therefore inclined to reject Keyser’s theory on political grounds. But Keyser’s theory was also rejected by the national-liberal historian Ernst Sars, who opposed Scandinavism and spent much of his professional life developing a major national-historical synthesis (Dahl 1990:86–112). Sars not only dismissed the immigration theory, he even criticized the theoretical foundation on which it was built. He claimed that Keyser had conflated the concept of “nation” with the concept of a “race” with immutable traits and had construed the history of the nation as an unfolding of these fixed traits. Instead, Sars postulated that the nation was the product of its history and that the history of the nation could be explained as the gradual evolution of a social organism adapting to a natural and cultural environment while progressing along a universal path of cultural development (Fulsås 1999:138).

    Sars was one of the most influential ideologues of the Venstre movement, the liberal party that dominated Norwegian political life from the 1880s to the interwar years. The Venstre movement embraced a blend of democratic nationalism and social liberalism and was supported by a coalition of farmers and liberal elements of the urban bourgeoisie. According to Sars’s national-evolutionary synthesis, the Venstre coalition was the logical outcome of the country’s historical development. In this view, a rural society of free farmers had ensured national continuity through the years of Danish rule. After 1814, a national and democratic rural culture had overcome the cultural and political hegemony of the Danish-Norwegian elite, and both urban and rural elements were on a path toward integration into a larger national community (Fulsås 1999).


    The Beginning of Physical Anthropology in Norway

    In the first part of the nineteenth century, discussions on the origin and identity of the Norwegian nation were dominated by historians, linguists, and folklorists. Archaeology was poorly established before the 1870s, while physical anthropology did not exist as a field of inquiry until the late 1880s. In the 1890s, Norway was swept by a wave of national feeling, leading to the dissolution of the union with Sweden in 1905. It was at this time that a Norwegian tradition of physical anthropological research was established, and prehistoric migration theories returned as an important theme in Norwegian academic debates.

    Norwegian anthropology arose in two different institutional settings. In the army, doctors began conducting anthropometric surveys of military recruits, and at the Anatomical Institute at the medical faculty of the University of Oslo, an anthropological collection of human bones was established. Some of the bones were from Sami burials, but most originated from archaeological excavations in southern Norway (Holck 1990:39–49).

    In a 1896 study titled Norrųnaskaller (Ancient Norse Skulls), the prosector of the institute, Justus Barth (1896), suggested that the Norse Germanics were characterized by a certain dolichocephalic skull shape, which he termed the “Viking type” (vikingtypen). Five years later, the enlarged collection was reexamined by the army physician Carl F. Larsen (1901), who argued for the existence of no less than five Norwegian racial types.

    The true founder of physical anthropology in Norway, however, was not a university anatomist but the army physician Carl Oscar Eugen Arbo. Financed by the Norwegian government, he conducted extensive physical measurements of army recruits. The results were published by the leading scholarly institution, the Norwegian Society of Science and Letters, and were seen as an attempt at a systematic mapping of the racial characteristics of the contemporary population in southern Norway (Arbo 1885–1904).

    Arbo measured traits such as the length of the face, width of the cheek, angle of the jaw, body height, eye and hair color, and, most importantly, the cephalic index. Arbo (1897) described a pattern of geographical distribution of skull shapes in Norway with a relatively high frequency of dark-haired and brown-eyed individuals with short skulls (“brachycephalics”) along the west and south coast while eastern Norway, especially the inland valleys, was inhabited mostly by people with blond hair, blue eyes, and long skulls (“dolichocephalics”).

    Arbo suggested that the brown-eyed, dark-haired people with short skulls were the descendents of Stone Age and Bronze Age people, while the blue-eyed and blond inhabitants of eastern Norway descended from Iron Age Germanic invaders.

    Because both groups were ethnically Norwegians, this meant the Norwegian population was racially divided, and only the blond long-skulled eastern Norwegians could claim genuine biological ties to ancient Norsemen. Arbo (1897) believed these racial differences explained geographical differences in mentality, behavior, temperament, and health, describing the short skulls of the west as weak, shy, nervous, petty, and narrow minded in contrast with the bolder, braver, and stronger long skulls of the inland valleys.

    By the turn of the twentieth century, Arbo was the leading Norwegian physical anthropologist. However, the most prominent popularizer of anthropological racial theories was not Arbo but the amateur scientist and writer Andreas M. Hansen, who gathered knowledge from various disciplines, including geology, archaeology, linguistics, and geography, and constructed a historical synthesis based on the anthropometric findings of Arbo and others.

    According to Hansen, an inferior indigenous population subsisting on hunting and fishing had lived along the Norwegian coastline during the Ice Age. After the withdrawal of the ice, a superior long-skulled race had migrated overland from the east, settled inland, and established themselves as rulers over the inferior short-skulled coastal dwellers (Hansen 1894–1898:46, 69–75).

    This theory became well known and hotly debated in Norway, and Hansen claimed that it could explain contemporary regional differences in dialects, mentality, and political attitudes. He showed that the geographical distribution of votes in parliamentary elections coincided with variations in the average cephalic index and argued that short-skulls were conservative, distrustful, and backward looking and therefore inclined to vote for Hųyre (the conservative party), while the open-minded and intelligent long skulls supported enlightenment and progress and leaned toward Venstre (the liberal party; Hansen 1809:50).

    Even though Norwegian physical anthropology at the turn of the century was mainly concerned with the origin and racial identity of the Norwegians, this issue was intertwined with the question of the prehistory of the Sami. Both Hansen and Arbo rejected Nilsson, Retzius, and Keyser’s view of the Sami as remnants of the original inhabitants of northern Europe.

    This theory had been opposed by scholars from the 1860s, and before the end of the century it was replaced by a theory of two distinct Scandinavian Stone Age cultures. Southern Scandinavia was now seen as part of a European cultural region populated by the Stone Age ancestors of the present-day Scandinavians.

    The Sami were now considered descendants of a distinct northern Scandinavian Stone Age people strongly connected to similar Stone Age cultures farther east (Furset 1994:19–60; Storli 1993). This meant that the local prehistory of the Norwegians was traced back to the Stone Age, while the ancestors of the Sami were no longer regarded as Europeans but as part of a northern Asiatic region of “Arctic cultures.”

    Moreover, while the southern Scandinavian Stone Age people had evolved culturally with the rest of Europe, the Arctic peoples had until very recently remained at the cultural level of the Stone Age.

    Hansen went a step further, claiming that the primitive short-skulled race along the coast were the earliest inhabitants of all Scandinavia, even the Sami regions in the north. The particularly “primitive,” “weak,” and “dwarflike” Sami, according to Hansen, were not indigenous inhabitants of north Scandinavia but had migrated into Scandinavia from Asia in the Middle Ages (Schanche 1997:40).

    This theory had political implications for an ongoing debate on the territorial and cultural rights of the Sami. From the end of the nineteenth century, pressure on Sami culture increased, with a strong policy of cultural assimilation of minorities and pressure from farming settlements on the territories of nomadic reindeer herders.

    After 1905, the tensions assumed international dimensions because of conflict over the grazing rights on Norwegian territory of reindeers owned by Swedish citizens. The cultural and territorial rights of the Sami could be defended on the assumption that they were the indigenous inhabitants of northern Scandinavia.

    By denying the indigenousness of the Sami population, Hansen’s theory supported an aggressively ethnonationalistic stand in the political debate (Kyllingstad 2008:304–318, 330–333). Hansen’s theory was strongly opposed by linguists, folklorists, and ethnographers expert on Sami culture, but it influenced public debate and academic research on the ethnicity of the prehistoric settlements in northern Norway (Kyllingstad 2008).


    Norwegian Physical Anthropology and Anthroposociology

    Back in the 1840s, when Retzius and Nilsson launched their migration theories, anthropology scarcely existed as a discipline. The situation had changed radically by the 1890s, when physical anthropological research was taken up in Norway.

    In the last three or four decades of the nineteenth century, museums and universities all over Europe established skeletal collections, and racial surveys were undertaken in many countries. Physical anthropology emerged as an institutionalized science with its own journals, conferences, and research activities.

    Scientific research and discussions within the new discipline of physical anthropology were infused with ideological implications. Physical anthropology can be seen as a scene where different ideologically charged ideas about evolution and race were discussed, developed, criticized, and tentatively tested against biological theories and empirical findings.

    Knowledge from anthropological research could be recruited to legitimize racialist, imperialist, and nationalist ideologies, but it could also be mobilized as a rhetorical weapon against racial ideologies.

    These debates were strongly stimulated in the 1890s, when racialist nationalism attracted growing public attention in northern Europe and a new discipline, anthroposociology, emerged at the cross-section between social sciences and physical anthropology. Anthroposociology was an attempt to create a social science based on the idea of competition between races (Hecht 1999; Massin 1996:106–114).

    The anthroposociologists held that the blond, long-skulled northern Europeans were descendants of a warrior race who had conquered Europe in the Iron Age, had established themselves as aristocratic rulers of the native short-skulled races, and had founded European civilization. In line with this theory, they studied the geographical and social distribution of bodily traits such as skull shape and hair color and claimed they could prove that the stratification of European society mirrored the racial quality of the strata.

    They also claimed that industrialization and urbanization stimulated geographical and social mobility, erased the natural distinction between classes, and led to racial mixing and biological degeneration (Hecht 1999; Massin 1996:106–114).

    The main proponents of anthroposociology were the Frenchman Vacher de Lapouge and the German Otto Ammon. [...] Otto Ammon’s career followed a strikingly different path. According to Benoit Massin, German physical anthropology in the nineteenth century was dominated by relatively egalitarian attitudes to race, which led to the exclusion of Ammon from leading anthropological journals and organizations.

    After the turn of the century, however, his academic credibility increased sharply in line with a broader change of attitudes among German anthropologists. Racial deterministic attitudes gained a growing influence on the discipline (Massin 1996:106–114).

    Conflicts on anthroposociology were part of broader scientific debates in German and French anthropology. The theoretical foundations of the entire physical anthropological enterprise and the concept of race were questioned. Leading anthropologists argued that categories such as short and long skulls were arbitrary constructs, pointing out that an infinite number of measurable anatomical traits could be used as criteria for the classification of humans and that none of them, whatsoever, was relevant for understanding human psychology (Hecht 1997; Massin 1996:106–114; Staum 2004).

    These discussions did not appear to impress those who strove to establish anthropology in Norway, however. Instead, Norwegians turned to anthroposociology for theoretical and methodological guidance. The relatively controversial racial theories of Andreas M. Hansen were strongly influenced by Ammon and Lapouge, but also the respected scientist Arbo supported anthroposociology.

    Otto Ammon’s book Der natürliche Auslese beim Menschen (Natural Selection among Human Beings) was the most cited text by Arbo (1885–1904). Even the professor of anatomy Gustav Adolf Guldberg, head of the Anatomical Institute at the University, publicly embraced Ammon’s and Lapouge’s views.

    At the urging of his German colleague Gustav Schwalbe, Guldberg (1997) proposed an extensive physical anthropological survey of Norway. Guldberg referred to Lapouge and Ammon and claimed that a mapping of regional distribution of physical traits would shed light on social, political, and historical questions because of the distinct psychological character of the different races.

    The suggestion was welcomed by the Norwegian Society of Science and Letters, and a committee to implement the plan was established.


    Norwegian Physical Anthropology and the Eugenics Movement

    Three of the four committee members died within a short space of time, and the plans were never implemented. After World War I, however, the idea was taken up again by three individuals:
    - Tthe army physician Halfdan Bryn
    - Kristian Emil Schreiner, Guldberg’s successor as professor of anatomy
    - Schreiner’s wife, the medical researcher Alette Schreiner

    Under the leadership of Kristian Schreiner, physical anthropology became an important field of research at the University of Oslo’s Anatomical Institute.

    Initially the growth of anthropology at the institute was related to an intensification of archaeological activity that expanded the collection of ancient skulls. The archaeologists were, however, almost exclusively interested in the Norwegian past, and presumed Sami settlements were seldom excavated.

    Therefore, to shed light on the prehistoric Sami settlement of northern Scandinavia, the institute began to conduct its own excavations. During the interwar years, many Sami burials were excavated, and more than 500 skulls were taken to the institute (Schreiner 1931–1935:1).

    Alette and Kristian Schreiner believed that the remains of past populations had to be studied in tandem with the living population. They therefore entered into collaboration with the army doctor Halfdan Bryn and initiated a massive publicly funded anthropometric survey of military recruits of both Norwegian and Sami districts (Kyllingstad 2004:130–133).

    This ambitious research project began in the early 1920s under the joint leadership of Bryn and Kristian Schreiner but was to end in professional and personal enmity and a loss of scientific credibility for the former.

    Bryn had been inspired by Andreas M. Hansen and was a proponent of the concept of a Nordic master race. His professional fate was tied to the diminishing support for this idea by the Norwegian academic community. To understand the context and causes of these events, we must once again examine the world outside Norway and the rise of the eugenics movement and its role in physical anthropology.

    The idea of eugenics arose in the late nineteenth century and lead to an organized international eugenics movement in the early twentieth century.

    The International Federation of Eugenics Organizations (IFEO) was established in 1912 to coordinate cooperation between national groups. Eugenicists were united by the belief that natural selection in humans was decreasing as a result of modern life. The spread of less worthy elements at the expense of valuable human material had to be counteracted by public intervention in the biological reproduction of individual members of society (Kühl 1997).

    Apart from this common goal, eugenics was a very heterogeneous movement. The idea of improving the human race was not necessarily linked to the concept of “races” in the physical anthropological meaning of the word. Much eugenic thinking was concerned with the frequency of inherited traits for health and disease without much attention to racial classification.

    However, sections of the eugenics movement adopted racial ideas similar to anthroposociology. Some eugenicists—particularly in Germany, Scandinavia, and the United States—saw the protection of the Nordic race as their primary goal (Kühl 1997). This created a new market for racial anthropology.

    Eugenics was subsequently considered an important justification for research into the racial differences of humankind.

    The growth of eugenics peaked in the wake of World War I, both worldwide and in Norway. In 1914, Jon Alfred Mjųen published Rasehygiene (Race Hygiene), a book that provoked considerable debate in Norway. Mjųen was concerned about the issue of the biological quality of the Norwegians, which he strongly—thought not exclusively—related to the purity of the Nordic race (Roll-Hansen 1996).

    His views influenced public debates in Norway but were almost unanimously rejected by leading Norwegian biologists. When the Norsk Forening for Arvelighetsforskning (Norwegian Association of Genetic Research) was established in 1919 by University of Oslo geneticists, Mjųen did not become a member. Mjųen, already a prominent member of the international eugenics movement, became the Norwegian representative of the IFEO and created his own Norwegian eugenics committee, a private laboratory, and the journal Den nordiske rase (The Nordic Race).

    Members of the Norwegian Association of Genetic Research declined offers to join the IFEO, and the controversy over Mjųen prevented the international eugenics movement from getting a real foothold in the Norwegian scientific community (Monsen 1997:59–74).

    It is, however, unlikely that Mjųen’s Nordic supremacy views were the decisive reason why he was dismissed by Norwegian biologists. Halfdan Bryn also expounded these ideas but was not similarly rejected by Mjųen’s opponents (Kyllingstad 2004:93, 170).

    In 1915, Professor Schreiner made a heated polemic attack on Mjųen’s credibility (Roll-Hansen 1996:156), but 4 years later, Alette and Kristian Schreiner were collaborating closely with Bryn. Kristian Schreiner held a powerful academic position and could facilitate funding and publication opportunities for Bryn, the army doctor who had just taken up a career as a physical anthropologist.

    By stimulating his academic career, Kristian Schreiner helped Bryn to become acknowledged as a scientific expert on racial questions, and Bryn used this academic legitimacy to promote eugenic measures aimed at the purification and expansion of the Nordic race (Kyllingstad 2001:104–117, 156).

    Ten years later, however, a schism had occurred between Bryn and the Schreiners. This had devastating consequences for Bryn’s standing in the Norwegian scientific community and marked the beginning of a trend where Bryn and the ideas he represented where redefined from “scientific” to “quasi-scientific” (Kyllingstad 2004:140–150, 162–165).

    The antagonism between Bryn and the Schreiners was intertwined with a general polarization of debates on racial questions in the international scientific community. From the second half of the 1920s, racial theories such as Bryn’s were increasingly linked together as an interconnected system of dogmas that had an international network of supporters—mainly in the United States, Germany, and Scandinavia [...]

    Opposition to orthodox racist dogmas did not necessarily lead the critics to dismiss views of a hierarchical racial order. Many scientists accepted the basic idea of superior and inferior races while rejecting dogmatic racism and the idea of a Nordic master race (Kyllingstad 2004:153–156).

    The polarized debates did, however, draw attention to the crucial foundations of the racist strain of eugenics: the notion of racial differences in intelligence, the supposed degenerating effects of racial admixture, and the concept of ancient pure races. Arguments from genetics, physical anthropology, psychology, cultural anthropology, and social science were incorporated into the debate (Barkan 1992).

    Differences in opinion strongly affected international cooperation among eugenicists. The IFEO was initially an umbrella organization for the leading institutions in relevant scientific fields that aimed at representing the whole heterogeneous spectrum of ideological and scientific attitudes within the eugenics movement.

    From the late 1920s, the organization became increasingly affected by polarization and was, according to Stefan Kühl (1997:71–97), more and more taken over by an international network of orthodox racists.

    This network was dominated by Americans, Germans, and Scandinavians such as Charles B. Davenport, Fritz Lenz, Eugen Fischer, Ernst Rüdin, Herman Lundborg, and Jon Alfred Mjųen. Except for Mjųen, these men were regarded as prominent scientists in their home countries.

    From about 1930, however, the North American and Scandinavian members of this clique experienced sinking prestige while their German counterparts gained increased prestige in their home country. This trend accelerated after the Nazi takeover in 1933 (Barkan 1992:165–168; Broberg 1995:60–87; Proctor 1988).


    Bryn and German Physical Anthropology

    The conflict between Bryn and Schreiner can be understood in this international context. Let us first consider Bryn’s relation to Mjųen and the IFEO.

    In the early 1920s, Bryn had considered collaborating with Mjųen. This failed because Bryn was not willing to choose Mjųen’s side in the conflict with Schreiner. When Schreiner and Bryn later fell out, this was partly triggered by a disagreement over Mjųen’s research on the ills of racial mixing in 1926–1927.

    Mjųen’s research was sharply criticized by U.S. geneticist William Castle, and this sparked a heated discussion at a 1927 international IFEO conference. While Bryn supported Mjųen’s theories, Schreiner condemned them as fantasy.

    When the break between Schreiner and Bryn shortly afterward became inevitable, Bryn resumed contact with Mjųen, who was quick to ensure that Bryn became a member of the IFEO. The IFEO had for many years tried, without success, to gain a foothold in the Norwegian scientific community, but getting Bryn as a member must have been a poor reward to these efforts, because Bryn was about to be marginalized by this community.

    And, ironically, his new alliance with Mjųen and the IFEO accelerated this process (Kyllingstad 2004:163ff.). Moreover, Bryn’s entrance into the IFEO was halfhearted. Even if he had now sided with Mjųen in the conflict with Schreiner, he did not adopt Mjųen’s network and the IFEO as his new arena of scientific endeavour (Kyllingstad 2004:164). So where did he turn his attention as his career possibilities in Norway were waning?

    When Bryn first went public with his racist social philosophy in the early 1920s, he was clearly inspired by American racist thinkers such as Madison Grant (Kyllingstad 2004:208ff.). He was also in close contact with Swedish peers, most notably Herman Lundborg, whose ideas where similar to Mjųen and Bryn’s and who led the internationally acknowledged State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala.

    Lundborg had a much stronger institutional foothold in Sweden than Mjųen and Bryn had in Norway, but he too was met by growing scientific and political opposition in the 1930s. When he retired in 1935, he was succeeded against his will by Gunnar Dahlberg, a proponent of nonracist eugenics who launched a research program in human genetics devoid of anthropological “races” (Broberg 1995:60–87).

    It was in Germany that the kind of science Bryn represented seemed to have the brightest future, and from the end of the 1920s, his outlook and professional network became mainly directed toward the German scientific community. [...]

    The Völkisch movement was strongly influenced by paganism and occultism, but some Völkisch nationalists also wanted to build their ideology on science and turned their attention to physical anthropology and racial hygiene. In the 1920s, German Nordic racial ideology became known by the name nordische Gedanke and gained attention and popularity.

    This also influenced German physical anthropology. From the mid-1920s, German anthropology became increasingly dominated by the nordische Gedanke, anti-Semitism, and eugenic thinking, and this was reinforced in the Nazi period. Anthropology was renamed Rassenkunde and became a major scientific tool to legitimize, design, and implement the racial policies of the Nazi regime (Barkan 1992:165–168; Proctor 1988:165–168).

    At the center of Bryn’s German network was Hans Günther. When Bryn first met him in 1923–1924, Günther was a little-known Völkisch writer. He had no scientific background but had been assigned by the anti-Semitic and ultranationalistic publisher J. F. Lehman to write popular books about the races of Europe.

    In the 1920s, Günther therefore moved around Europe to visit the institutions and scientists involved in racial anthropology. Günther, who was married to a Norwegian woman, lived for a while in Norway and became a personal friend of Bryn (Kyllingstad 2004:167ff.).

    Günther’s first book on race, Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes (The Racial Ethnology of the German People; 1922), was widely read, and it turned him into a leading proponent of the nordische Gedanke.

    In line with the rise of racist thinking in German physical anthropology, Günther’s views had an increasing influence on the scientific debates. From the mid-1920s, a younger generation of men with new ideas joined the field (Mosse 1964:224; Proctor 1988:149), and Bryn established his German network mainly among these young scientists.

    After 1933, many of them gained key positions in the new Nazi regime. Günther himself obtained a professorship at the University of Jena in 1931 with the help of local Nazi politicians, and he became a leading racial ideologist in the Nazi period (Kyllingstad 2004:166–174; Mosse 1964:224; Proctor 1988:149).

    In the early 1920s, Günther was an outsider who needed support from established scientists such as Bryn to build his career. By the end of the decade, the roles were reversed, and Günther could support his friend Bryn’s flagging career with the help of his network of German anthropologists sympathetic to the nordische Gedanke.

    Through Günther, Bryn joined the Nordische ring, an organization of supporters of the nordische Gedanke. He began publishing in German scientific and ideological journals and was commissioned by Günther’s publisher, J. F. Lehman, to write a popular account of Rassenkunde in Norway.

    When the book Der nordische Mensch (The Nordic Man) was published in 1929, Bryn gained great prestige among the adherents of the nordische Gedanke within German physical anthropology. The book was not the popularized description of the racial composition of Norway expected by Günther and Lehman but rather a new theory of the evolution and racial characteristics of the Nordic race.

    Bryn’s new theory came to serve as an argument in a highly politicized German debate on the Nordic race. Some leading German anthropologists claimed that the “Nordic race” was a purely theoretical construction, with no empirical foundation. The adherents of the nordische Gedanke welcomed Bryn’s analysis of his vast data set on Norway as an important counterargument to this claim (Kyllingstad 2004:171–174).


    The Schreiners and the Idea of the Nordic Master Race

    In the early 1920s, Alette and Kristian Schreiner were somewhat indifferent to the Nordic supremacist idea. In general they seem to have considered it as a set of yet unproven but adequate scientific hypotheses.

    But in 1929, the year Bryn published Der nordische Mensch, Alette Schreiner (1929:460–461) openly denounced as "pseudoscience" the idea of a Nordic master race. In a radio broadcast 3 years later, her husband stated that racial hygienic measures favoring the Nordic race lacked scientific support (K. Schreiner 1932).

    These views also seem to have influenced his analysis of the “Norwegian” skulls in the anthropological collection of the Anatomical Institute (Schreiner 1939–1946). One of his main conclusions was that Norway had been dominated in the Middle Ages by a “Nordic” cranial type. He did not, however, see this cranial type as a proof for the existence of an ancient and stabile Nordic race. Instead, he claimed that “Nordic race” was a descriptive term designating a “phenotype” that had occurred in northern Europe as a product of racial mixing during and after the Neolithic (Schreiner 1939–1946).

    This conclusion was put forward in a two-volume monograph, published just before and right after World War II, and there are strong reasons to believe that the war strengthened Schreiner’s critical attitude to the concept of the Nordic race. Five years of German occupation (1940–1945) opened the way to power for Vidkun Quisling and the Norwegian national socialist party Nasjonal Samling and for attempts at Nazification of the Norwegian society.

    Nazification pressure against the university provoked resistance from a majority of the students and professors, leading to the deportation of students and the imprisonment of many professors. Schreiner was among those who openly opposed the new regime and its ideology, and he was imprisoned for a period (Fure 2007:138–139, 152).

    Right after the war, Schreiner gave a lecture titled “Hva er nordisk rase” (What is Nordic race?; Schreiner 1946). Here he attacked an idea that had gained great popularity among “certain people” during “recent years”; namely, the idea of an ancient and originally pure Nordic race threatened by contamination through racial mixing with “inferior” races. Schreiner claimed that his own studies of ancient Norwegian skulls contradicted this theory, and he suggested that the “Nordic race” was a purely descriptive term for a skull shape produced by racial admixture within a prehistoric bastard population (en bastardbefolkning; Schreiner 1946).


    Kristian Schreiner, the Lappic Race, and the Notion of Superior and Inferior Races

    The fact that Alette and Kristian Schreiner already from the late 1920s opposed the notion of a Nordic master race did not imply that they dismissed the basic concept of superior and inferior races. Even after their break with Bryn, they continued to support the general idea of a hierarchy of races that could be ranked according to differences in mental abilities.

    And even in a study published after World War II, Kristian Schreiner suggested the existence of differences in mental ability between racial groups (Schreiner 1951). This attitude is, however, most clearly expressed in their studies of the anthropology of the Sami, which were published in the mid-1930s.

    Kristian Schreiner’s study of the Sami skulls collected by the Anatomical Institute in the interwar years was designed to test Andreas M. Hansen’s view of the Sami as historical latecomers in Scandinavia. Schreiner rejected this theory (Schreiner 1931–1935:273), claiming instead that the Sami settlements in the north of Norway stretched back to at least before the Viking age.

    Crucial evidence for Schreiner’s argument was provided by several skulls excavated some years earlier by Isak Saba, a Sami teacher, journalist, politician, amateur researcher, and ethnopolitical activist. Saba had been eager to demonstrate the antiquity of Sami history in northern Scandinavia, and in public debates Schreiner’s analysis of the Sami skulls was used as support for Sami claims on indigenousness.

    It is clear that Schreiner’s research was not intended as an instrument for racism or ethnonationalistic chauvinism, but it was still influenced by racial prejudices. Unlike his conclusions about the racial heterogeneity of the Nordic “race,” he claimed the existence of a pure ancient Lappic race.

    According to Schreiner, the Sami were a heterogeneous population heavily admixed with their Scandinavian and Finnish neighbors. But within this blend, he identified a pure and ancient “Lappic” racial element characterized by a certain set of traits, including short stature and legs, long arms, spaced eyes, and protruding jaw, which, according to Schreiner, indicated that the Sami were an ancient, “unspecialized,” and “infantile” race.

    He also claimed that these “primitive” physical traits correlated well with the mental characters of a typical Sami individual, which was described as carefree, joyful, shy, and simpleminded (Schreiner 1931–1935:276–288). The same descriptions of an “infantile” and “primitive” Sami psychology can be found in Alette Schreiner’s works on the living Sami populations (A. Schreiner 1932:13).

    Notions of Sami primitiveness also colored the conduct of their research. Kristian Schreiner demanded excavations of Sami graves despite local protests (Schanche 1997:50), and Alette Schreiner, in her studies of contemporary populations, sometimes used “mild violence” and “small gifts” to persuade Sami individuals to undress. She explained their shyness and their lacking recognition of the importance of her research as a sign of their racial primitiveness (A. Schreiner 1932:13).


    The Norwegian Academic Community and the Nordic Race

    The idea of a Nordic master race was part of Norwegian physical anthropology from its establishment as a discipline in the 1890s until the 1920s. This changed from about 1930, when Alette and Kristian Schreiner started arguing that this idea belonged on the scrap heap of outdated scientific concepts.

    Their change of attitude from indifference to condemnation seems to have been part of a trend among Norwegian scholars and scientists. Halfdan Bryn died the year Hitler seized power in Germany. During the last years of his life, he enjoyed increasing success as a scientist in Germany, but he felt isolated and misunderstood by the Norwegian scientific community, and his enhanced reputation in Germany and declining reputation in Norway was largely due to the same factors; namely, that his research served to justify the idea of a Nordic master race (Kyllingstad 2004:170).

    In 1941 the Norwegian Nazi writer Sigurd Saxlund examined the development of racial consciousness in Norway in the years preceding the German invasion. He complained that Norway had been slow to face the racial problem and pointed to Bryn as a lonely and misunderstood prophet in the desert (Saxlund 1941).

    German researchers of the Nazi organization Ahnenerbe made similar comments when they traveled to Norway in the 1930s in search of sources for the study of Germanic prehistory. They reported to Germany on a regrettable lack of racial consciousness among Norwegian scientists and scholars (Fure 2007:42).

    There are several possible explanations for this shift, and I will conclude by discussing some of them by placing physical anthropology in the broader context of Norwegian science and scholarship. It can hardly be claimed that three individuals, Bryn and the Schreiners, constituted a national disciplinary community.

    Instead, Bryn and the two Schreiners should be seen both as participants in transnational disciplinary networks and partly as members of a wider Norwegian scholarly community made up of many disciplines. Thus, the anthropological study of the racial identity of the Norwegians and Sami was strongly connected to Norwegian archaeological, linguistic, and historical studies of national prehistory and history.

    All these disciplines were influenced by ideas on race. Archaeologists, historians, and philologists discussed the racial theories of Arbo, Schreiner, and Bryn. Even Hansen was to some degree taken seriously in the period from about 1890 into the interwar years. However, a view of society and nationhood based on the idea of races with unchanging psychological characters never made a hegemonic breakthrough in any of these disciplines.

    Instead, it can be argued that this field of inquiry was far more influenced by an unilineal cultural evolutionism of a type that the aforementioned historian Ernst Sars advocated in the late nineteenth century.

    In 1900, Sars published an article titled “Norske folketyper” (Ethnological types of Norway) jointly with the professor of folklore Moltke Moe. They stated as an uncontroversial scientific fact that the Norwegian nation was composed of two or more craniologically distinct races.

    But according to Moe and Sars, this had no bearing on the question of the psychological properties of the nation. Instead, the nation was rather seen as the result of gradual cultural evolution and of the adaptation to a certain natural and cultural environment (Sars 1900:431).

    Both Moe and Sars were important participants in the debates on the history and identity of the nation, and the type of ideas that they propagated had greater influence on the Norwegian academic community than racial thinking in the style of Arbo, Hansen, and Bryn.

    After World War I, the Institute for Comparative Cultural Research (Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning) achieved a leading role in Norwegian archaeology, history, linguistics, folklore, and ethnography, focusing mainly on the study of the history and culture of traditional Norwegian rural society and the Sami people.

    The institute did not have a permanent staff and was a hybrid of a research institute, a scientific publisher, a research council, and a research foundation. It was this peculiar institution who published and partly financed much of the physical anthropological research by Alette and Kristian Schreiner (Kyllingstad 2008).

    The institute had a program of comparative cultural research based on the idea of unilineal cultural evolution. The basic idea was that every single “culture” or “society” was the product of adaptation to a certain environment.

    And by comparing the development of different cultures adapting to different environments, one could reach an understanding of the universal patterns—the laws—behind the development of apparently heterogeneous cultures and nations. This research strategy was based on a basic idea that all human beings are equipped with equal psychological abilities and therefore respond equally to the challenges from the natural environment (Kyllingstad 2008:97–102; Stang 1925).

    The idea of a psychic unity of humankind was also a central tenet in the ideology of the Institute for Comparative Cultural Research, which, besides the research agenda, also had a political agenda. The institute was established after World War I as an instrument for peace.

    It contributed to the restoration of the organized scientific internationalism that had been destroyed by war by bringing together leading scholars from former enemy nations at lengthy conferences in the neutral city of Oslo. (Kyllingstad 2008:11–81, 123–165, 255; Stang 1925).

    The institute was also intended to stimulate Norwegian consciousness and prestige through the study of national cultural heritage and to contribute to the “branding” of Norway as a peace-loving and peacemaking nation (Kyllingstad 2008:60–80).

    So the institute was both shaped by international academic debates on cultural research and scientific internationalism and by the international situation facing newly independent Norway as a small, vulnerable, and neutral nation during and after World War I.

    There is reason to believe that this situation, along with the activities of the institute, helped foment ideas of humanity, culture, and nationhood rather different from the Völkisch ideas that gained increasing support among German academics in the same period. This may to some extent explain the differences between the fate of the scientific concept of the Nordic race in Norway and Germany.


    References Cited

    Andersen, Per Sveaas. 1961. Rudolf Keyser. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Arbo, Carl Oscar Eugen. 1885–1904. Fortsatte bidrag til Nordmęndenes
    Anthropologi, 6 vols. Skrifter udgivne af Videnskabsselskabet i Christiania. Kristiania, Norway: I Kommission hos Dybwad.
    ———. 1897. Lister og Mandals Amt, vol. 4 of Fortsatte bidrag til Nordmęndenes Anthropologi. Skrifter udgivne af Videnskabsselskabet i Christiania. Kristiania, Norway: I Kommission hos Dybwad.

    Barkan, Elazar. 1992. The retreat of scientific racism: changing concepts of race in Britain and the United States between the world wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Barth, Justus. 1896. Norrųnaskaller. Christiania, Norway: Brųgger.

    Broberg, Gunnar. 1995. Statlig Rasforskning. Lund, Sweden: Avdelningen för Idé- och lärdomshistoria vid Lunds universitet.

    Dahl, Ottar. 1957–1958. Noen etnografiske synspunkter hos Ludv. Kr. Daa. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 16:46–58. CrossRef
    ———. 1990. Norsk historieforskning i det 19. og 20. århundre. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Fulsås, Narve. 1999. Historie og nasjon. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Fure, Jorunn Sem. 2007. Universitetet i kamp 1940–1945. Oslo: Vidarforlaget.

    Furset, Ole Jacob. 1994. Arktisk steinalder og etnisitet: en forskningshistorisk analyse. Hovedfagsavhandling. Tromsų, Norway: Universitetet i Tromsų.

    Guldberg, Gustaf Adolf. 1997. Om en samlet anthropologisk undersųgelse af Norges befolkning: Foredrag i Vidselsk: Fęllesmųde d. 7de oktober 1904. In Som lys i mųrk skodde: da genetikken kom til Norge. Arve Monsen et al., eds. Oslo: TMV-senteret/Universitetet i Oslo.

    Gustafsson, Torbjörn. 1996. Själens biologi. Stockholm: Symposion.

    Hansen, Andreas M. 1809. Norsk folkepsykologi. Kristiania, Norway: Dybwad.
    ———. 1894–1898. Menneskeslęgtens ęlde. Kristiania, Norway: Dybwad.

    Hecht, Jennifer Michael. 1997. A vigilant anthropology: Léonce Manouvrier and the disappearing numbers. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 33(3):221–240. CrossRef
    ———. 1999. The solvency of metaphysics: the debate over racial science and moral philosophy in France 1890–1919. Isis 90:1–24. Link

    Holck, Per. 1990. Den fysiske antropologi i Norge. Oslo: Anatomisk Institutt, Universitetet i Oslo.

    Horsman, Reginald. 1976. Origins of racial Anglo-Saxonism in Great Britain before 1850. Journal of the History of Ideas 37(3):387–410. CrossRef
    ———. 1981. Race and manifest destiny: the origins of American racial Anglo-Saxonism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Kevles, Daniel J. 1986. In the name of eugenics: genetics and the uses of human heredity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Keyser, Rudolf. 1868. Samlede afhandlinger. Christiania, Norway: Malling.

    Kühl, Stefan. 1997. Die internationale der rassisten. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Kyllingstad, Jon Rųyne. 2001. Antropologia norvegica: fysisk-antropologisk forskning i Norge 1890–1933. Hovedoppgave i Historie. Oslo: University of Oslo.
    ———. 2004. Kortskaller og langskaller: fysisk antropologi i Norge og striden om det nordiske herremennesket. Oslo: Spartacus.
    ———. 2008. “Menneskeåndens universalitet”: Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning 1917–1940: ideene, institusjonen og forskningen. PhD thesis, University of Oslo.

    Larsen, Carl F. 1901. Norske kranietyper: efter studier i Universitetets anatomiske Instituts Kraniasamling. Skrifter udgivne af Videnskabselskabet i Christiania 1901. Kristiania, Norway: I Kommission hos Dybwad.

    Lunden, Kåre. 1995. History and society. In Making a historical culture: historiography in Norway. William H. Hubbard et al., eds. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

    Massin, Benoit. 1996. From Virchow to Fischer: physical anthropology and modern race theories in Wilhelmine Germany. In Volksgeist as method and ethic. George W. Stocking Jr., ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Mjųen, Jon Alfred. 1914. Rasehygiene. Kristiania, Norway: Dybwad.

    Monsen, Arve. 1997. Politisk biologi: opprettelsen av Institutt for arvelighetsforskning i 1916. Oslo: TMV-senteret/Universitetet i Oslo.

    Mosse, George L. 1964. The crisis of German ideology. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
    ———. 1997. Toward the final solution: a history of European racism. New York: Fertig.

    Munch, P. A. 1849. Skandinavismen, nęrmere undersųgt med Hensyn til Nordens ęldre nationale og literaire forhold. Christiania, Norway: Johan.

    Nilsson, Sven. 1838. Skandinaviska Nordens ur-invånare: ett forsök i komparativa Ethnographien och ett bidrag till menniskoslägtets utvecklings-historia. Lund, Sweden: Norsted.

    Proctor, Robert. 1988. From Anthropologie to Rassenkunde in the German anthropological tradition. In Bones, bodies, behaviour: essays on the biological anthropology. George W. Stocking Jr., ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Retzius, Anders. 1843. Om formen af nordboernes cranier. Stockholm: Norstedt.
    ———. 1847. Foredrag om formen at hofvudets benstomme hos olika folkslag. In Forhandlinger ved de skandinaviske Naturforskeres fjerde Möde i Christiania 1844. Christiania, Norway.
    ———. 1848. Phrénologien bedömd från en Anatomisk ståndpunkt. Copenhagen: Trier.

    Roll-Hansen, Nils. 1996. Norwegian eugenics: sterilization as social reform. In Eugenics and the welfare state: sterilization policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll-Hansen, eds. Pp. 151–195. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

    Rowley-Conwy, Peter. 2007. From genesis to prehistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Sars, Ernst, and Moltke Moe. 1900. Norske folketyper. Norge i det nittende aarhundrede. Nordahl Rolfsen et al., eds. Pp. 431–432. Kristiania, Norway: Cammermeyer.

    Saxlund, Sigurd. 1941. Rase og kultur: raseblandingens fųlger. Oslo: Stenersen.

    Schanche, Audhild. 1997. Graver i ur og berg. Doctoral thesis, Universitetet i Tromsų.

    Schreiner, Alette. 1929. Livsutvikling og livsanskuelse. Kirke og kultur 36:453–474.
    ———. 1932. Anthropologische Lokaluntersuchungen in Norge: Hellemo (Tysfjordlappen). Oslo: Det Norske videnskaps-akademi.

    Schreiner, Kristian E. 1931–1935. Zur Osteologie der Lappen, 2 vols. Oslo: Aschehoug.
    ———. 1932. Europas menneskeraser. In Mennesket som ledd i naturen. Kristine Bonnevie, ed. Pp. 127–145. Universitetets radioforedrag. Oslo: Aschehoug.
    ———. 1939–1946. Crania norvegica, 2 vols. Oslo: Aschehoug.
    First citation in article
    ———. 1946. Hva er nordisk rase? Oslo: Forhandlinger, Det Norske vitenskaps-akademi.
    ———. 1951. Anthropological studies in Sogn. Oslo: Det Norske videnskaps-akademi/I Kommision hos Dybwad.

    Stang, Fredrik. 1925. Four introductory lectures. Oslo: Institute for Comparative Cultural Research.

    Staum, Martin. 2004. Nature and nurture in French ethnography and anthropology, 1859–1914. Journal of the History of Ideas 65(3):475–495. CrossRef

    Storli, Inger. 1993. Fra “kultur” til “natur”: om konstitueringa av den “arktiske” steinalderen. Viking B56:7–11.

    Trigger, Bruce G. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



    Source: University of Chicago Press Journals

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ahnenerbe For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    One with Nature
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Vķšįlfr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Daco-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Dacian (Moldavia, Transylvania) & German (Buchenland, Austrian Empire, Mecklenburg)
    Gender
    Family
    Óšins męr
    Politics
    Völkisch
    Religion
    Heathenry
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    994
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,022
    Thanked in
    477 Posts
    Very interesting and useful, thank you for sharing!

    According to Hansen, an inferior indigenous population subsisting on hunting and fishing had lived along the Norwegian coastline during the Ice Age. After the withdrawal of the ice, a superior long-skulled race had migrated overland from the east, settled inland, and established themselves as rulers over the inferior short-skulled coastal dwellers (Hansen 1894–1898:46, 69–75).
    Migrating from the East... this theory suits very well that one of people from actual Scandinavia coming from the lands of ancient Dacia.

    The last ice age:



    As it is obvious from the above map, the territory of ancient Dacia was not covered by ice (except a bit of the Carpathians). The territories of today's Scandinavia and most of the territories of other present day Germanic countries were covered by ice. When the ice melted, the population in excess from the lands of ancient Dacia migrated in all directions, also reaching the later so-called Germania.

    Carolus Lundius, as well as other authors, cannot have been wrong in these regards.
    Die Farben duften frisch und grün... Lieblich haucht der Wind um mich.

  4. #3
    Germanique extraordinaire
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    24 Minutes Ago @ 02:01 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Ancestry
    East Norwegian + distant Finnish
    Subrace
    Nordid + reduced CM
    Y-DNA
    I1a1
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Occupation
    Traditional Craftsman
    Politics
    Family, Nation & Nature
    Religion
    Heathen Worldview
    Posts
    2,545
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,540
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,552
    Thanked in
    780 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vķšįlfr View Post
    As it is obvious from the above map, the territory of ancient Dacia was not covered by ice (except a bit of the Carpathians). The territories of today's Scandinavia and most of the territories of other present day Germanic countries were covered by ice. When the ice melted, the population in excess from the lands of ancient Dacia migrated in all directions, also reaching the later so-called Germania.
    When is this migration supposed to have occurred?

    And what points to them migrating from Dacia, specifically? There was plenty of other lands not covered in ice.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Žoreišar For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    One with Nature
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Vķšįlfr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Daco-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Dacian (Moldavia, Transylvania) & German (Buchenland, Austrian Empire, Mecklenburg)
    Gender
    Family
    Óšins męr
    Politics
    Völkisch
    Religion
    Heathenry
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    994
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,022
    Thanked in
    477 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Žoreišar View Post
    When is this migration supposed to have occurred?

    And what points to them migrating from Dacia, specifically? There was plenty of other lands not covered in ice.
    You find the answers in this thread, as well in the thread I linked to in that specific thread.

    Since you already had your DNA tested, you mentioned in an earlier post these days about the possibility to compare one's DNA which was already tested to DNA from ancient peoples. Would you mind doing that and share your results here on Skadi? Since you said you have no problem with giving your DNA information like that on the internet...

    You have Norwegian and Swedish DNA according to the results you posted, so it would be interesting to see what links they find from your DNA to different ancient peoples.
    Die Farben duften frisch und grün... Lieblich haucht der Wind um mich.

  7. #5
    Senior Member
    Uwe Jens Lornsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Last Online
    44 Minutes Ago @ 01:41 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Jutland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Schleswig-Holstein Schleswig-Holstein
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Zodiac Sign
    Taurus
    Family
    Widowed
    Politics
    cons. old fashion worker class
    Religion
    Philosophical Archaic Christian
    Posts
    1,032
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    549
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    313
    Thanked in
    260 Posts

    Romanian DNA

    Searching for Romanian DNA brought up this current map :

    from https://www.romania-insider.com/gene...ch-dna-romania

    Haplogroups I and R are not mentioned in that survey .
    The Norwegian population is typical of the Northern European population
    with Haplogroup I1 being most common.
    Norwegians also show the characteristic R1a genes of the paternal ancestorship at 17.9%[29] to 30.8%.[30]
    Such large frequencies of R1a have been found only in East Europe and India.[31]
    R1b gene showing paternal descent is also widespread at 25.9%[29] to 30.8%.[30]
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegians
    Mk 10:18 What do you call me a good master, no-one is good .

    Gylfaginning 1.39 But on wine alone Odin in arms renowned Forever lives.

  8. #6
    Germanique extraordinaire
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    24 Minutes Ago @ 02:01 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Ancestry
    East Norwegian + distant Finnish
    Subrace
    Nordid + reduced CM
    Y-DNA
    I1a1
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Occupation
    Traditional Craftsman
    Politics
    Family, Nation & Nature
    Religion
    Heathen Worldview
    Posts
    2,545
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,540
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,552
    Thanked in
    780 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vķšįlfr View Post
    You find the answers in this thread, as well in the thread I linked to in that specific thread.
    I skimmed through it, and couldn't see any mention of people from Dacia migrating to Scandinavia in ancient times. Seeing as you're seemingly so convinced of the legitimacy of the proposition, I thought it would be a simple task to at least name a time frame for when this is supposed to have happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vķšįlfr View Post
    Since you already had your DNA tested, you mentioned in an earlier post these days about the possibility to compare one's DNA which was already tested to DNA from ancient peoples. Would you mind doing that and share your results here on Skadi? Since you said you have no problem with giving your DNA information like that on the internet...

    You have Norwegian and Swedish DNA according to the results you posted, so it would be interesting to see what links they find from your DNA to different ancient peoples.
    I don't understand why you're diverting the subject towards being about me. But sure, I wouldn't mind posting my results, when and if I do such a test.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Žoreišar For This Useful Post:


  10. #7
    Germanique extraordinaire
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    24 Minutes Ago @ 02:01 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Ancestry
    East Norwegian + distant Finnish
    Subrace
    Nordid + reduced CM
    Y-DNA
    I1a1
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Occupation
    Traditional Craftsman
    Politics
    Family, Nation & Nature
    Religion
    Heathen Worldview
    Posts
    2,545
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,540
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,552
    Thanked in
    780 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Uwe Jens Lornsen View Post
    Searching for Romanian DNA brought up this current map :

    from https://www.romania-insider.com/gene...ch-dna-romania

    Haplogroups I and R are not mentioned in that survey .
    That map shows mt-DNA haplogroups, while I and R are y-DNA haplogroups.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  11. #8
    One with Nature
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Vķšįlfr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Daco-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Dacian (Moldavia, Transylvania) & German (Buchenland, Austrian Empire, Mecklenburg)
    Gender
    Family
    Óšins męr
    Politics
    Völkisch
    Religion
    Heathenry
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    994
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,022
    Thanked in
    477 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Žoreišar View Post
    I don't understand why you're diverting the subject towards being about me. But sure, I wouldn't mind posting my results, when and if I do such a test.
    I was thinking to reply to that specific post of yours when you mentioned that, but it's been a few days already, so I mentioned it now. I was not trying to divert anything, but since this thread is about Norwegians, I guess it was quite fit to mention it here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Žoreišar View Post
    That map shows mt-DNA haplogroups, while I and R are y-DNA haplogroups.
    That map also shows only nowadays Romania, while Ancient Dacia was about two times bigger. Moldova and Northern Bucovina and Southern Basarabia and some parts from Hungary and Serbia and Southern Dobrogea should also be included.
    Die Farben duften frisch und grün... Lieblich haucht der Wind um mich.

  12. #9
    Germanique extraordinaire
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    24 Minutes Ago @ 02:01 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Ancestry
    East Norwegian + distant Finnish
    Subrace
    Nordid + reduced CM
    Y-DNA
    I1a1
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Occupation
    Traditional Craftsman
    Politics
    Family, Nation & Nature
    Religion
    Heathen Worldview
    Posts
    2,545
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,540
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,552
    Thanked in
    780 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vķšįlfr View Post
    I was thinking to reply to that specific post of yours when you mentioned that, but it's been a few days already, so I mentioned it now. I was not trying to divert anything, but since this thread is about Norwegians, I guess it was quite fit to mention it here.
    This thread is indeed about Norwegians (and the Nordic race), which is why I find it horribly misplaced to try to interject Dacians into the subject. Especially when you refuse to even provide the most basic information of which your claims are founded upon. If one tries to disassemble the established history of the Germanic ethnogenesis, on a Germanic preservationist forum, one should at least have the common courtesy of laying forth the facts one is basing this on. And I'm not going to spend hours of reading through articles and watching Romanian documentaries in order to understand what it's all based on. You are the one (and only one here) professing this hypothesis, so the burden of proof is on you. If not, I think it constitutes fair grounds for this Skadi forum rule to be applied:

    Felonies

    1 (a). This is a board for people of Germanic heritage. Views, ideas, and contributions that are hostile to Germanics or their heritage are not permitted. Contributions that are potentially irrelevant to Germanics or their heritage will be dealt with at the sole discretion of the Staff.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Žoreišar For This Useful Post:


  14. #10
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    3 Weeks Ago @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,999
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,414
    Thanked in
    623 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vķšįlfr View Post
    Migrating from the East... this theory suits very well that one of people from actual Scandinavia coming from the lands of ancient Dacia.
    Not to spoil your enthusiasm, but "east" in this context means the (now) Russian steppes, Siberia and the Tundra regions straight through to nowadays Mongolia/Chinese border. In the 19th century, from this developed the "Aryan migration theory" and is still to this day the working hypothesis, just renamed to the "Kurgan Hypothesis", because Aryan of course is now politically incorrect to say.

    Even though about everyone, from "politically correct" scientists to church historians and everyone in between wants a south-north migration, the genetic evidence speaks rather strongly against that. In fact, the genetic migration routes all start in the Kurgan valley and spread - seperately! - into the east (India), the south (now Iran/Persia/Mesopotamia), and into the north/Europe through Siberia into Europe. Where in turn what is now dubbed Doggerland (now sunk on the ground of the North Sea/Baltic Sea) became the Urheimat of distinctly Germanic populations.

    The south-north migration is a relatively recent phenomenon and where it isnt modern, it's related to the Roman Empire. It's not a dominant genetic influence however and can be neglected.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Physical Anthropology of the Tatars
    By Evolved in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: Monday, November 20th, 2006, 02:37 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, April 10th, 2006, 09:15 AM
  3. Physical Anthropology Booksale Page?
    By Sigurd in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Saturday, November 26th, 2005, 03:44 PM
  4. Physical Anthropology of the Hebrew Peoples
    By Vojvoda in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 05:28 PM
  5. Terms used in Physical Anthropology
    By cosmocreator in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 7th, 2004, 02:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •