|
Post by nbz on Jun 1, 2005 16:12:29 GMT -5
Would my dad and I be considered Brunn? I think you look very irish but rather Atlantid/Alpine, Your father looks mostly Alpine. I remember you saying that your father and you are part german, maybe thats where the robust part comes from, but not necessarily so.
|
|
|
Post by Evan1211 on Jun 1, 2005 18:54:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I have some German in me but it is only 1/8- and it is Nordic anyway. Are there alpines in Ireland/ West England? I did not know that there were alpines in these regions. You also said I was atlantid. Most atlantids have freckles and are the palest people on earth. I have no freckles and am not too pale. It's confusing to see classifications of alpine when I know that the only non-Brit. Isles blood in me or my dad is Nordic German. It's interesting to research though .
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on Jun 3, 2005 6:05:03 GMT -5
Platypus, What is the rugged Keltic type gentically derived from? I was looking on the Races of Europe plates and my dad actually looks alot like that Keltic Irish guy with extremely rugged features (Im sure that you've seen the picture) that everyone puts up. Do I exhibit a Keltic, Brunn, or just plain mixed British Isles phenotype. Also, if the Keltic and Brunn strains usually have a ruddy complection, then where would the more brownish- yellow complection of my dad and I come from? Just some food for thought to put out there to you guys. The so-called 'Nordic Keltic' type, is often reffered to a kind of Nordic-Dinaroid type, common in the British isles. Ireland is recognized to harbour a distinct type we call Irish "Brunn', and it is logical that these two main types 'Kelts' and 'Brunns' are now mainly mixed . The 'Keltic' rugged type, would be then the 'Keltic' we all now that has acquired some of the 'ruggedness of the 'Brunn'. Viceversa many 'Brunns' share elements from the 'Keltic' type. see for example Liam Neeson. As far as you, I would say you look intermediate, with the features linking you the 'Brunn' direction, though you don't seem to be as wide jawed and large headed (and rufous) as the 'Brunn' stereotype. Irish can be very pale. I saw some who were almost white. Though a Pinkish complexion is predominant in the British Isles, natural darker skinned unmixed individuals like your dad, are not at all uncommon. I would post some pics I have, but they don't seem to work at the moment
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on Jun 3, 2005 6:09:47 GMT -5
What do you use to post your Pics? Imageshack and uploudyourpics dont seem to work for me, while Tinypic doesn't anymore since the website upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by Evan1211 on Jun 6, 2005 11:25:25 GMT -5
Thanks alot Platypus. Good imput indeed to the "Irish Question." You can upload images at www.photobucket.com. Thats what I do.
|
|
|
Post by bert on Jun 8, 2005 16:03:17 GMT -5
Hy from Verona , north of italy . Perhaps because the ancient inhabitants of Ireland were the so-called Pitti ( so-called by the romans due to the fact that they were used to paint their faces - painted in the Romans' language is ''depictus'' singular nominative , '' depicti'' plural nominative ) . The romans have given a description of these ''Pitti'' : short and dark very similar to the people that lived in Spain at that time ( at that time , not now ) , the Iberians . The romans ( who were mixed people made by two thirds of indoeuropeans - that's why part of them were blond ....as Commodus or Nero or ...many others - and one third not indoeuropeans , the so called Ramni that were etruscans and from which the name romans comes ) have given also a fisical description of the Kelts as well : tall and blond . Not any singular individual guy , obviously , but the typical phenotype . They well knew them as the north part of italy was the so-called gallia cisalpina i.e. the land of the gauls that stands before the alps , to distinguish it from actual france or gallia transalpina and one of those celtic peoples living exactly where i' m living , constituted the strongest roman legio of all , the 10th legio . A question by myself : I read in this forum about atlanto mediterranid etc . etc . I was asking myself : my grandparents were two blue eyed and two brown or mixed brown-green eyed . So which group or subgroup do I belong to ? Have I to measure my head' s proportions ? It's like talking about philosofy imo . No pure races exist anywhere , otherwise we would be all black as it' s from there we all came .
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jun 8, 2005 16:06:19 GMT -5
Think you mean Picti .
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on Jun 9, 2005 6:15:33 GMT -5
Hi Bert, eye colour info is just not enough to provide a racial classification for you and your grand parents. The factors we usually use are related to face dimensions, morphologyical traits, pigmentation and general constitution. post some pics if u can.
|
|
|
Post by bert on Jun 9, 2005 11:18:47 GMT -5
Sorry I don' t post photos of me in internet , anyone could take and use them as he wants . Anyway I' m well aware that brunism or blondism and the colour of the eyes as well are not enough to define where you come from . That' s why I can distinguish very accurately people from southern italy without they even open their mouths . Darker complexion , wavy hair , curved nose , etc. They seem to be copied from one another . And infact they have a different history . Here there are some of them immigrated years ago , right like to america , so one coming here from abroad could think this kind of people exist north and south of the peninsula : wrong , they' re immigrants . But this doesn' t mean imo that all theories about atlanto mediterranean , dinaric and bla , bla , bla .......are perfectly correct . As for what I know ancient germans could be both mesocephalic and dolicocephalic , so .....let's pay attention with paper theories .
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jun 9, 2005 17:50:47 GMT -5
Hy from Verona , north of italy . Perhaps because the ancient inhabitants of Ireland were the so-called Pitti ( so-called by the romans due to the fact that they were used to paint their faces - painted in the Romans' language is ''depictus'' singular nominative , '' depicti'' plural nominative ) . The romans have given a description of these ''Pitti'' : short and dark very similar to the people that lived in Spain at that time ( at that time , not now ) , the Iberians . The romans ( who were mixed people made by two thirds of indoeuropeans - that's why part of them were blond ....as Commodus or Nero or ...many others - and one third not indoeuropeans , the so called Ramni that were etruscans and from which the name romans comes ) have given also a fisical description of the Kelts as well : tall and blond . Not any singular individual guy , obviously , but the typical phenotype . They well knew them as the north part of italy was the so-called gallia cisalpina i.e. the land of the gauls that stands before the alps , to distinguish it from actual france or gallia transalpina and one of those celtic peoples living exactly where i' m living , constituted the strongest roman legio of all , the 10th legio . A question by myself : I read in this forum about atlanto mediterranid etc . etc . I was asking myself : my grandparents were two blue eyed and two brown or mixed brown-green eyed . So which group or subgroup do I belong to ? Have I to measure my head' s proportions ? It's like talking about philosofy imo . No pure races exist anywhere , otherwise we would be all black as it' s from there we all came . The Picts are associated with Scotland, not Ireland and it wasn't the Picts the Romans described as short, dark and resembling Iberians, but the Silures, a Celtic people from Wales. A useful link: www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/rac/rac05.htm
|
|
|
Post by bert on Jun 10, 2005 4:00:50 GMT -5
Short, dark people would have been called Iberians.................................................With the Pictish occupation would agree the fact that Irish Goidels called the Picts ( pre aryans i.e. not indoeuropeans ) who came to Ireland Cruithne = Qritani = Pretani. In Ireland they almost certainly adopted Goidelic .................................this is contained in what you referred to . Let me repeat just one thing : the romans gave a fisical description of these Pitti or Picti , i.e. ............... looking like Iberians......... , so the genetic studies showing at some point the arrival to the british isles of people coming from iberia , is correct imo .
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jun 10, 2005 10:56:13 GMT -5
I would like you to produce the Roman quote which describes Picts as looking like Iberians. For what I know is that Tacitus described the Silures as being short, dark, curly haired and resembling Iberians. He also notes tall, light-eyed, red/fair haired people with massive limbs in Scotland. Also, the Picts are not associated with Ireland but Scotland, considering the Romans did not write very much about being in Ireland, I wonder where you actually derive your sources.
The Goidels spoke Q-Celtic (Irish) and is different from that of P-Celtic (Britons/Welsh/Picts). It is often assumed that Pritanni applies to Britanni.
|
|
|
Post by bert on Jun 10, 2005 12:44:36 GMT -5
The romans didn' t invade scotland as well , but they knew who the scots were and how they were , the same . I don' t remember the source of this description of these Pitti or Picti , but i still well remember this as I ' ve studied latin 8 years , starting from 12 y.o. and finishing at 19 y.o. Although it' s a died language , it's a good exercise of logic capabilities of one' s mind . With regards to the kelts , i just believe they shared the same fisical characters of all original indoeuropeans i.e. a tendency to be light in colour . But history is a stratification , and especially in southern europe the indoeuropeans invaders , assimilated the not-indoeuropean peoples , that settled there long time before them . Someone say these original inhabithants of europe were the not- indoeuropean people called Pelasgi . The etruscans belong to this population for example , and the original greeks as well . Probably the iberians too . They simply are the original europeans . The fact is that the kelts assimilated them , as the kelts were not nazis and they didn' t know the concept of pure race , developed long time later by some criminals . Do you want to know one thing ? Nine kilometers far from my home , a cemetery or necropolis of these kelts has been found years ago . In the whole province there have been discovered others . Some of them show contaminations with roman elements , others are pure celtic tombs . Three kilometers far from my home instead a cemetery of langobardes has been found . Those are germans and their arrival is after the fall of rome . Their horses have been found buried with them . In the region south of that where i live , celtic tombs contaminated with etruscans elements have recently been found as well .If you go to south italy , there you find greek elements . A prove ? Where do you mean the name Naples derive from ? It comes from Neapolis ( polis in greek means city ) . Even last names reflect all this . In my province 10 % of last names are of relatively recent german derivation ( 1400 ) due to immigration from Bavaria . In the mountain around here an ancient german dialect is still spoken . Another 10-15 % probably are of ancient german derivation from the language of langobardes , so the percentage is respectable. The name of the cities ? The name of towns reflect all this as well , but I don' t want to annoy you . What does this mean ? It means that all these elements have been assimilated , so why shouldn' t the fair kelts have assimilated the iberians in the british isles ? Is it a scandal ?
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on Jun 10, 2005 13:08:52 GMT -5
Bert, You've mentioned the 'Pelasgi' now It sounds like they are connected to the sea. In addition to that If they were both common to Greece and Iberia as you say, they could have been Classic mediterranean/Cappadocians or taller Megalithic/long Barrow atlanto mediterraneans. I don't think the name 'pelasgi' would have been used for UP and Mesolithic populations.
The geographical nature of Britain devoid of any major mountain zones, besides the Pennines, The highlands and the welsh hills, doesn't really offer many refuge areas. Moreover most invaders would have been attracted by the fertile zones, and this meant that the previous owners either had to flee to less desiderable lands or simply subjugate. Each new invading line provided in turn the ruling class. (Bell Beakers, Keltic waves such as the Goidels and Belgae, The Romans, Anglosaxons, Norse and Normans) Overturned ruling militar classes fled (Romano-British fled to wales and Cornwall, Anglo Saxons to Crimea and byzanthium etc) But most of the populations would have probably stayed behind eventually mixing with the new arrivals.
|
|
|
Post by cybers on Jun 10, 2005 15:33:02 GMT -5
looking like Iberians......... , so the genetic studies showing at some point the arrival to the british isles of people coming from iberia , is correct imo . The spread of the R1b haplotype from a southwestern glacial refuge to all parts of Western Europe occured tens of thousands of years ago. I highly doubt there were 'iberians' living in the British Isles when the Romans invaded.
|
|