[Menydh]

Originally Posted by PeterThaGreat

With Teutonic I merely meant just Scandinavians

Ok.

Germans and English are obviously very similar just way more diverse than relatively homogenous Scandinavians.

Yes. I've heared a number of Scandinavians agreeing in that they only find that "Germanic affinity" in northern Germans. The English are just about as distant, unless you isolate a certain type of Anglo-Saxon, from the areas in eastern England. Then you should get that "Germanic affinity" too.

But overall (England and Germany) we are speaking of an element of Nordo-Germanic (Teutonic?) origin among a number of other well differed elements.

I just wanted to point this since the common dogma in all online antro forums is that Nordids are somewhat different branch of human as opposed to "broad" Dalo-Faelids and Borreby's f.e.

Anthropometrically speaking, this difference is clear.

A different matter is whether Physical Anthropology and Human Genetics correlate with each other. Or, a more interesting question, if we are processing the information derived from P. Anthropology correctly and even if the so-called Anthropologists were not in fact just mere Anthropometrists and their interpretations should not be given the status of a logos.

Much of this stuff is stemming from the fact that in an era prior to genetics

Of course you mean here that it comes from years where P. Anthropology was the only information, and H. Genetics was not yet known or developed. That's correct.

it was assumed that metrical similarity equals relationship, that's why Coon believed that Nordids must have evolved from mediterranians because these types similar in morphology and metrics.

I agree in that that must be a terrible mistake.

It starts with the error of assuming the existance of a one big "Mediterranid" group. And then it moves onto the error of presuming a relation between this Mediterranid group, and the Nordid group.

If we agree in that, ceteris paribus, differences in skeletal morphology come mainly as a result of long-term adaptation to different environments --and I believe that no one would argue against that--, then I believe that one explanation for any metrical similarities between Nordids and Mediterranids, may well come from the fact that both are types that evolved in environments that offered some coincidence. Most likely this coincidence is that they were coastal regions.

This could be further extended to explain another coincidential fact. Though Nordids and Mediterranids would have evolved in environments that coincided in that particular geographical (but in my opinion very important) detail, the environments at the same time differed in the details of climate and sunlight. This obviously explains the difference in pigmentation between Nordids and Mediterranids. But, more important, it also explains the similarities in pigmentation between very different types which are, nonetheless, all dumped under the umbrella term of "Mediterranid".

So, to summarize all of the above, I do not believe for a moment that Nordids and Mediterranids are of a same race source. Neither do I believe that all Mediterranids are of a same race source.

And if we take this deconstruction of the Mediterranid umbrella to the fields of the Nordid type, we could see that what you are suggesting is perhaps the construction of a similar umbrella around the Nordid typology. Why would you want to do that?

I'm not sure. I can only guess that your mind is working around the idea that race stricto sensu is the whole concept around which nations are formed, instead of ethnicity.

Genetics are clearly a more reliable source than Anthropology to find out. Take a look at the map.



The haplogroup variability is too big within each of the Scandinavian countries. You can only account for one clear dominant haplogroup in Sweden (I) and another in Denmark (R1b). And in none of the cases it goes beyond 50%. Again, the proportions for each haplogroup in all countries should tell of a different story for each country.

Does that mean anything in terms of ethnicity? Well, no. Except that the ethnic identity of each of those countries was composed by some different but well defined genetic types, which they could have come all together at the time of the ethnic genesis of each nation, or they could even be together in the genetic pool of the different people at that time.

And the same could be said for a Scandinavian meta-ethnicity.

The bottomline is that nation and identity is about ethnicity, not about race (be it anthropolically or genetically explained). Among other reasons, because nation and identity explain the evolution of the individuals.