Black Irish come from R1b Iranians?

[Fire Haired]

Sorry Fire Haired but here I agree with MOEASAN. There is really no reason to believe that R* haplogroups were mongoloid. In one of your other post you even implied that R1 people where "Caucasified by R2 people but now you call all R people mongolid.

The thing is Any R haplogroup is exclusively connected to West Eurasian autosomal DNA. All R people are Caucasian or have a part Caucasian history (like Turkic tribes in Central Asia who have paternal Iranian ancestry).


As I said earlier, I believe just like Moeasan, that most NOP were neither Caucasian nor Mongolid. They had characteristics of both. With R people becoming Caucasian while O East Asian and N and Q people depending on sub clades something in between while leaning slightly more towards East Asians.

Study Human Y DNA family tree R is MONGLIOD!!!!! R1b1a2a1a L11 became 50% of western European y DNA with the migration of Germanic Italo Celts which started only 5,000ybp. R1a1a1b1 Z283 became around 30-60% in most of eastern and central Europe with the spread of Corded ware culture and Balto Slavic languages starting a little over 5,000ybp. R1a1a1b2 became popular in asia with the migration of Indo Iranian and Tocharian speakers out of Yamna culture which started at the earliest 5,000ybp. There deifntley would have been some people around Russia and Ukriane 6,000-8,000ybp with close to 100% R1a1a1 M417. And R1b1a2a L23 and R1b1a2a2 Z2103 is about 20-40% in Caucus, Anatolia, Iraq, and western Iran and probably is not of Indo European origin but Is definitely connected with Germanic Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11. If you take out Indo European migrations R would be very unpopular in Eurasia. I claim that R was originally mongliod and mixed with Caucasians and formed a branch R2 maybe also R1 or maybe that was Mongliod then mixed with Caucasians. R1a probably originated in Europe and R1b around Iran or somewhere else in the Near east. I already have showed you how Caucasians and Mongliods are not that realted like so many have assumed it is the Black looking people in southern asia and Austrilla who are extremely related to Mongliods. The split between Oceania MOngliod and Caucasian Y DNA lineages most likely happened with y DNA IJK and LT I think came out of India. What is weird is Indians or south Asians mtDNA and Y DNA fit with Oceania Mongliod also in globe13 their group called south Asian does not fit with Oceania Mongliod, Caucasian, or sub sharan African families a little closer to Oceania Mongliod. But they have Caucasian skull shape it is very confusing. But since Oceania have black skin and nappy hair like sub sharan Africans and it seemd to me that is what the first humans would have. Then why are South Asians a kind of mysterious branch of the human family tree and if anything most related to Oceania Mongliod have totally Caucasian features.

 

[Degredado]

I don't get this if you want to find out who Spanish are or any people genetically just look at DNA. And its a fact the majority of Spaniards do have dark hair and eyes i don't see why there would be an argument about that. The Muslims that conquered Spain were not Arab maybe part Arab and Spanish have little to no blood from those Muslims. central and southern French people have the same hair color and eye color percentages as Iberians. So for Spanish to call themselves Celts which most of their ancestors were before Rome would not mean they would look like people in Scandinavia. Why does height have to be connected with hair color I really doubt it is. People go off stero types that I think go back to ancient Rome. I think pretty much all European countries are around the same height 5'10. Except Denmark, former Yugoslavia, and Netherlands maybe others which are over 6'0. And I have looked at studies of ancient remains the average European till really the 1800's was about 5'6-5'8 same fro the rest of the world except extra short Mongliods in Asia and definitely MesoAmericans. There was only a height difference my centimeters between Germanic tribesmen and Roman centurions and remains of ancient Gauls didn't really show a height difference from Romans even though they were almost always described as tall. I think the average Frenchmen today is 5'9 a little below the European average. If what your saying is true Spanish shouldn't be so sensitive about how they look and try to be like the stero typical northern European I though Iberians were if anything proud about being darker complicated than other Europeans.

I know that the Arabs/Berbers didn't make a significant genetic impact on Spain. It's not like they replaced the millions of natives who were already there. They were always just a ruling minority, running things from their palaces, sort of like the Normans in England. And just like it's pretty much impossible, mathematically speaking, for an Englishman born in the 20th century not to have at least a couple of Norman ancestors somewhere way back, the same goes for Spain. It doesn't mean the English are Normans or that the Spanish are Arabs. The difference is that the Arabs got kicked out from Spain, while the Normans never did. If they hadn't been kicked out, maybe Spaniards today would make extensive genealogical research to prove that they had some Arab caliph ancestor, just like Anglo people seem to have a fascination with looking for Norman ancestors and claiming Norman descent.

But the point is, if someone says Spanish people have dark hair, as someone did in this thread, some Spaniards will tend to see it as an agenda against them, as an insinuation that they are Arabic, etc. Spaniards are definitely not Arabs, and the world isn't on a mission to attack Spain. Simple as that. Now let's allow the thread to go back to its original subject...

 

[Sile]

No the genetics' of different Spaniards of course is very similar.

Really !, so the 8% of Berber E in the south is equal to what in the galician, basque, catalan etc north?

 

[Nobody1]

Looks like Drac II is having his period again;

 

[Drac II]

Looks like Drac II is having his period again;

Look who's talking, the very spokesperson of that biological function around here. Only that yours are almost a daily cycle;

 

[Drac II]

"Bash Spain & Spaniards" bandwagon... lol, wtf? I even went out of my way to make a compliment to Spain... but your paranoia only allowed you to see the so-called "international agenda to denigrate Spain".

It is notorious that in any History/Anthropology/Genetics forum, if someone makes a completely normal, neutral statement such as "the average Spaniard has dark hair", 50 Spaniards will jump on that person and will say "BUT BUT BUT WE HAVE PLENTY OF BLONDE HAIRED BLUE EYED PEOPLE! THE MOORS NEVER PUT THEIR DIRTY FEET IN THE NORTH OF SPAIN! MOORS NEVER HAD CHILDREN! WE ARE CELTSSS!" etc.

Look, anyone with an IQ over 80 and with a minimally reasonable amount of knowledge knows that there are plenty of tall, blonde haired, blue eyed, freckled people in Spain who could pass for being Vikings (all over Spain, too, not only in the "immaculate Gothic North"). But that doesn't change the fact that in most people's perception, the average Spaniard has dark hair, dark eyes and is likely to have a trace of Arabic blood. Just like there are brown haired, brown eyed Swedes, but in most people's minds, that isn't the average Swedish type.

Could this be some kind of agenda for some people? Hey, I don't doubt that there might be some people out there who might genuinely hold something against Spain, for some reason or another... but my honest impression is that it really isn't the case, in the vast majority of times.

Paranoia? I guess that you missed the very easily verifiable fact of how quickly you jumped to suck-it-up to the guy who went into a fit and started lashing out only because I "dared" to point out that the modern Spaniards he was referring to are not characterized by being black-haired.

All your other babblings about "Moors" and "Goths" and what have you has nothing to do with what was being talked about with that administrator and only reveals your own issues. Thanks for confirming that you are indeed one of these Latin Americans with a strange fixation with Spaniards.

 

[Drac II]

I told you many times, in genetics, culture, ethnicity and linguistically, Spain, Italy, Germany, France etc etc have many many differences within their own nations.
Nationality is a BS in this type of discussion.
nationality serves one purpose, to make one's family safe and have a higher standard of living . It does nothing else. If it does not achieve this , then that group or individual should leave this articifical system of the nation he resides in . Why do you think we have immigration?
So, thinking that all spaniards are identical and discussng this against another false term called Italian or German etc is misleading to all. I for one, do not even know what part of Spain you refer to, I don't even know where you are from, so how can I possibily discuss the colour of Spaniards.
Why don't you give a brief summary of what a Spaniard is suppose to be and we can discuss it

The whole thing started because one post in this thread tried to characterize Spaniards as being "black-haired", to which I replied that it is not so. I think you already have read enough about these discussions (specially in the "Anthropology" forum) to know that it's a simple matter of averages. Samples from a given population are taken and then measured. The results for Spain obviously back up what I said (the majority of Spaniards are brown haired, not black haired.) There is no "issue" or "complexes" here, except that the administrator apparently did not like a simple correction to one of his posts and then started throwing ad hominem accusations about supposed "complexes" (he has already done similar things several times in the past whenever Spaniards in this forum have corrected or defended themselves against erroneous claims, which reveals his general attitude towards this nationality.)

 

[Knovas]

Certainly, no one can think there's an agenda behind when saying most Spaniards have brown hair. It's what it is, ¿why saying it's black? Just think about it guys.

Since several months ago, I refuse to take part in discussions like this to avoid the "complexes argument". It becomes really boring when the answer is always the same.

I don't know if Drac thinks the same way (maybe according to his avatar), but I personally have no interest on definding Spain, since I am a Catalan in favor of independence and that's because we have many problems with its politicians (not the people, I have great friends in Madrid for instance). I don't consider myself Spanish and will never do so, it's that simple. So I think my opinion is enough neutral in that sense to not be replied in the terms I stated.

As for the Black Irish topic, the phenotype issue is very complex. Depeneding on how pigmenatation genes recombine, we obtain a "Black" Irish or a lighter one, but both are essentially the same. There's no mistery in my honest opinion.

 

[Alan]

Study Human Y DNA family tree R is MONGLIOD!!!!! R1b1a2a1a L11 became 50% of western European y DNA with the migration of Germanic Italo Celts which started only 5,000ybp. R1a1a1b1 Z283 became around 30-60% in most of eastern and central Europe with the spread of Corded ware culture and Balto Slavic languages starting a little over 5,000ybp. R1a1a1b2 became popular in asia with the migration of Indo Iranian and Tocharian speakers out of Yamna culture which started at the earliest 5,000ybp. There deifntley would have been some people around Russia and Ukriane 6,000-8,000ybp with close to 100% R1a1a1 M417. And R1b1a2a L23 and R1b1a2a2 Z2103 is about 20-40% in Caucus, Anatolia, Iraq, and western Iran and probably is not of Indo European origin but Is definitely connected with Germanic Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11. If you take out Indo European migrations R would be very unpopular in Eurasia. I claim that R was originally mongliod and mixed with Caucasians and formed a branch R2 maybe also R1 or maybe that was Mongliod then mixed with Caucasians. R1a probably originated in Europe and R1b around Iran or somewhere else in the Near east. I already have showed you how Caucasians and Mongliods are not that realted like so many have assumed it is the Black looking people in southern asia and Austrilla who are extremely related to Mongliods. The split between Oceania MOngliod and Caucasian Y DNA lineages most likely happened with y DNA IJK and LT I think came out of India. What is weird is Indians or south Asians mtDNA and Y DNA fit with Oceania Mongliod also in globe13 their group called south Asian does not fit with Oceania Mongliod, Caucasian, or sub sharan African families a little closer to Oceania Mongliod. But they have Caucasian skull shape it is very confusing. But since Oceania have black skin and nappy hair like sub sharan Africans and it seemd to me that is what the first humans would have. Then why are South Asians a kind of mysterious branch of the human family tree and if anything most related to Oceania Mongliod have totally Caucasian features.

Give me a link to this study.

 

[Degredado]

Paranoia? I guess that you missed the very easily verifiable fact of how quickly you jumped to suck-it-up to the guy who went into a fit and started lashing out only because I "dared" to point out that the modern Spaniards he was referring to are not characterized by being black-haired.

All your other babblings about "Moors" and "Goths" and what have you has nothing to do with what was being talked about with that administrator and only reveals your own issues. Thanks for confirming that you are indeed one of these Latin Americans with a strange fixation with Spaniards.

Those "babblings" about "Moors and Goths" are the quintessential Spanish rhetoric, which you would have eventually made in following posts, had I not pre-emptively quoted you.

Some people feel the need to believe that the entire world is conspiring against them, in order to feel motivated or special... it seems you are one of those. Again - as a Brazilian, I have very little to do with Spain. I don't speak Spanish, my country was not a Spanish colony and has never had a war with Spain, I don't know and don't care for Spanish culture, Spanish artists, etc. You are really joking with yourself if you think that I have some kind of problem or infatuation with Spain. This isn't the 16th century anymore, "Drac". There's no real reason why anyone would hate Spain in 2013... as much as you may wish that were the case.

 

[MOESAN]

Once again another case of someone trying to project his complexes onto others. Spaniards HAVE to defend themselves from such propaganda, specially coming from Latin Americans with a complex who are always trying to distort the image and history of Spain and its inhabitants, it's not like they have a choice. An old saying says "silence means consent".

I 'm sorry, but me too noticed this tendancy of Spaniards (far more than Portuguese, I believe) to affirm for themselves more fair hair and less black hair than they have -
but they have the excuse they had to fight against a "touristic conventional false image" of all uniformly black haired people, giving of them a "gitano" supposed aspect, and also to destroy the too exagerated ready-for-use opinion concerning weight of north-african-arabic influence on them...
all the way, as a whole, Portuguese present more dark hairs and eyes than Spaniards, and Spain regions are more variated than Portugal ones, even if Portugal is not completely uniform : I think in Minho by instance, South of Galicia...
(&: for pigmentation, for other traits, Portugal show even more numerous different southern strains that pigmentation cannot reveal): -
Northern Italy is not uniform in its pigmentation, even if we can tell as a whole it is fairer than center fairer itself than South and so on...(with spotty exceptions)
Spain has few blond people, it is not new: but brown non-blakish hair are very common in Castilla, Vieja and Nueva, in Catalunya, in Basque country/Navarra, in Aragon, in Cantabria, and on the shores of Asturias and N-W Galicia (all that without speak of certain spotty subregions, even in Andalusia or Valencia) - so don't forget that "blonds" genes , as black ones or very dark brown ones, are commoner than blonds or dark phenotypes, for the big majority of brown hairs are the mix or light+dark, even if some genetical homozygotous browns seem existing... so not only Iberians have some cro-magnoid remnants in some places, but they have a non negligeable blond "nordic" (?) element, as almost every land of Southern Europe - the less 'blondish' are the Sardinians and the Cypriots, and some valleys of other southern Europe in Iberia, Greece -
&&: by the way, "blond" don't signify "nordic" everytime!
my %s I recall:
Spain as a whole: blonds-very ligh browns 3,5%, diverse browns: > 37% , very dark browns and blakish and blacks: > 59%, but the regions I mentionned above, fairer:
4-5% 41-43% 52-55%
Portugal (whole) 1,5% > 19% 78-79%
Italy as a whole 7,5% > 44% > 48%
North-North Italy (rough, Piemonte darker) 10% < 50% < 40% (true rural people, not big towns!!!)

no offense to anybody
just trying to be objective, knowing pigmentation is not too well measured at this time as phenotype, what makes genetic links to it not too evident

 

[MOESAN]

Why cant you just admit y DNA R was originally Mongliod. That Mongliods and the so called negriod people in southern asia and Austrilla are really in the same sub group of Humans Mongliod Oceania Austomal, Y DNA, and MtDNA have proven this. I get so annoyed when people who don't know a lot about genetics say when Europeans and east Asians diverged. Europeans are NOT their own sub group of humans they group with near easterns and north Africans so you cant say European skull shape or whatever it is the Caucasian skull shape. I do think there is good evidence the first humans looked Negriod since Oceania do and they get it from the same source as sub sharan Africans so originally I guess Mongliods did too. In globe13 mongliod Oceania is no more related to Caucasians as Sub sharan African group is but Y DNa and mtDNA point to them coming from the same non African family. So originally Caucasians ancestors too may have had black skin and nappy hair. Since sub sharan Africans have not left Africa maybe that's why they never lost the black skin and nappy hair. But there is no true Sub Sharan African skull shape. But since straight hair just seems to make so much more sense look at apes and other animals all have straight hair and fur none have nappy. And since girls natural have longer hair even black ones than men that is more evidence maybe not the first humans had straight hair but human ancestors did.

I thought I had explained very well THE point of phenotypes and Y-haplogroups (read Maciamo too, and others)
AND WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO ADMIT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT PROVED ?!? I NEVER SAID IT WAS PROVED IT WAS NOT MONGOLOID, I SAID I DID NOT KNOW (read "Why? or Why not"), what is different in FACT - Man outside Africa did not completely mutate when just passed the doll, and first Eurasiatic people did not do so immediatly after: read again what I wrote on raciation!
no offense
Sadornwezh mad deoc'h (have a good Saterday)

 

[MOESAN]

Certainly, no one can think there's an agenda behind when saying most Spaniards have brown hair. It's what it is, ¿why saying it's black? Just think about it guys.

Since several months ago, I refuse to take part in discussions like this to avoid the "complexes argument". It becomes really boring when the answer is always the same.

I don't know if Drac thinks the same way (maybe according to his avatar), but I personally have no interest on definding Spain, since I am a Catalan in favor of independence and that's because we have many problems with its politicians (not the people, I have great friends in Madrid for instance). I don't consider myself Spanish and will never do so, it's that simple. So I think my opinion is enough neutral in that sense to not be replied in the terms I stated.

As for the Black Irish topic, the phenotype issue is very complex. Depeneding on how pigmenatation genes recombine, we obtain a "Black" Irish or a lighter one, but both are essentially the same. There's no mistery in my honest opinion.

dark hues among Europoids or Caucasians if you like are from very very dark brown (french "brun clair") to black (french "noir") - the last one seems typical overall for dolichocephalic dark populations of various stature, called unprecisely 'mediterranean', 'arabic', 'indo-afghan' or 'near-eastern', supposedly all "gracile" -
I use this "balck" term for this kind of darker dark hue among "whitish" people, because it is very close to true balck - it is true that in fact you can found "blacker" hairs among mongoloid, dravidian (not all of them) and true negroid population - it is not a matter of scandal for me -

 

[MOESAN]

to get back to the thread, I don't believe we can say all the dark haired people in Ireland are of a same unique human stock -
we do not know if a well constitued collective phenotype reached Ireland with black (what kind of "black"?), green eyes and milky (freckling) skin?
we only constate that there is a trend (not "strain" as I wrote above: I'm sorry) for too much light eyes and too much ligh skins opposed to less light hairs -
the people that reached Ireland (and surely someones were there BEFORE the Celts of any kind: think in 'Long Barrows' people and 'Food Vessels' dinaroids ones) were already mixtures of diverse European "clans" (someones surely were almost autochtonous of Atlantic Europe) - the Celts that invaded (in what proportion) Ireland in more than a wave (we find gaelic but too Brittonics and Belgae tribes) were themselves mixed with acculturated (by Y-R1b-P312 males?) shores inhabitants of the same stock than their predecessors in the island...
concerning blonds, we are almost sure Celts were poor enough of them, had dark blond-very light brown hairs when they had, surely where for the most brown haired with very dark and fair too (Belgae, maybe purer, were a bit fairer) - what is possible is that the elite were fairer than the mass of people: what elite: a new one, or the former? it is very possible that at Iron Age new warriors took the strong side upon the already formed celtic society of south-Germany tumuli... very uneasy ground -
what we know is that this elite (new or not) as a MEAN was very easy to tell from the 'corded', germanic or supposed illyrian ones, and closer to some Slavs tribes -
I have hundreds of pictures of irish people and can recognize classical 'nordic' unfluence', some more on the 'corded' side, some well attested 'brünn' and 'cro-magnoid' types, some small 'alpines' types, and too some 'small gracile mediterranean' types with more robust ones of indo-afghan-eurafrican affinities (and even some 'dinaroid' types!!!
the most of 'cro-magnoids' and 'brunnoids' AND some of the southern types were ont the shores of Atlantic a long time ago yet (Meso- and Neo-lithic), the 'alpine' types came along with some 'nordic' types from continental Celts ('alpines surely had infiltred the mesolithic types before), with some other less dense types, 'dinaroids' were among more than a wave or set of Calcholithic prospectors ...
&: what makes Irish people partly special is their new combinations of crossings sometime very old: what occurs for the most in old mixtures living a long time in small number... this said, they are very typical of N-W Atlantic Europe by this mixture and the choices made by drift and selection - Basques show the same process of recombination, with other %s
when we try to understand mixtures, features and body proportions are of more use than pigmentation, even if this last thing can help - look at the people imaginating they are all black haired or all blond haired: it changes the approach!

 

[Fire Haired]

Really !, so the 8% of Berber E in the south is equal to what in the galician, basque, catalan etc north?

Just stop look at genetics and stop making assumptions their all difffernt.

 

[LeBrok]

I am not sure where this term originated, I don`t think to be honest any-one really does. If I had to guess I would say maybe from the an gorta mór.. the great famine. In 1847 things were particularly bad and in `47 a great number of Irish headed to Canada and America, where I have read they were called the Black 47... ( the blight turned the potatoes black and `47 was a dark time). Perhaps this has something to do with the term.

It might as well be the beginning of the use or this term. And it's probably East Coast US phenomenon.

 

[LeBrok]

I "dared" to point out that the modern Spaniards he was referring to are not characterized by being black-haired.

We can agree that some people can perceive Spaniards as being too dark, but we would also need to agree, that some can be subjective at the other side of the spectrum, and see Spaniards too blond. You claim to be an objective person, therefore show us the one post where you "defended" Spain against being labeled too blond by some subjective people.
Right, there is none. You only come to "defend" (attack others) Spain when, in your eyes, it is shown too dark. This shows how "objective" you are on this point.

There is no "issue" or "complexes" here, except that the administrator apparently did not like a simple correction to one of his posts and then started throwing ad hominem accusations about supposed "complexes" (he has already done similar things several times in the past whenever Spaniards in this forum have corrected or defended themselves against erroneous claims, which reveals his general attitude towards this nationality.)

Administrator are against Spaniards, and so are most members of Eupedia? This is the biggest lie you can tell to yourself.
Scientifically speaking, external observers on any issue, are more objective than people personally involved in these issues. Wouldn't you conclude that most of Eupedia members, the external observers, are more objective than you are on issue of pigmentation in Iberia? Extending this logic, we don't give a damn, whether Spain is blond or dark. The only ones that make an issue out of it are some Iberians, actively blogging about this around internet.
Think about this, if you wouldn't care whether you're dark or white, how others (who don't like Iberians) could hurt you telling you that you're "brown"? If you wouldn't care, telling you about being darker than you are, wouldn't hurt you. Therefore your supposed enemies wouldn't use this argument, would they? Making an issue out of it and defending Spaniards against "browning" you show others your phobias and insecurities. You are making a problem where it doesn't exist (to the rest of the world), and you are showing your enemies (if they are) where they can hurt you. You are telling them that you don't want to be perceived as "brown", and this is exactly what will use against you. You are your worse enemy!
Also, vigorously and aggressively defending pigmentation status of Iberia, every time someone mentions something about this issue, doesn't help your cause either. You are acting like a child when someone hurts its feelings.
Most people who I know don't care how Spaniards look, and actually they love Spanish culture, architecture, music, etc. You don't realize obviously, but you have more sympathetic people around this planet than you imagine. Please, stop making enemies where there are none.

This kind of reaction just sounds like you have a complex about pigmentation.

That's the only logical conclusion.

 

[Butler]

It is interesting that the Vikings were referred to, by the Irish, as the Dark invaders, the Gaelic word for black is 'dubh' and for foreigner is 'gall' Many of the invaders families took Gaelic names that utilised these two descriptive words. The name Doyle is in Irish 'O'Dubhghaill' which literally means 'dark foreigner' which reveals their heritage as an invading force with dark intentions. Dubhlinn, (Dublin) itself means "black pool". The Gaelic word "dubh" forms part of many old Irish Surnames which, over time have become anglicised. My great grandmother, Mary Delaney, Gaelic surname "Ó Dubhshláine" ("descendant of Dubhshláine"). Dubhshláine, in itself, means "dark challenge," Perhaps the dubh is the foundation of the Black Irish and the description has nothing to do with physical appearance!

 

[Drac II]

I 'm sorry, but me too noticed this tendancy of Spaniards (far more than Portuguese, I believe) to affirm for themselves more fair hair and less black hair than they have -
but they have the excuse they had to fight against a "touristic conventional false image" of all uniformly black haired people, giving of them a "gitano" supposed aspect, and also to destroy the too exagerated ready-for-use opinion concerning weight of north-african-arabic influence on them...
all the way, as a whole, Portuguese present more dark hairs and eyes than Spaniards, and Spain regions are more variated than Portugal ones, even if Portugal is not completely uniform : I think in Minho by instance, South of Galicia...
(&: for pigmentation, for other traits, Portugal show even more numerous different southern strains that pigmentation cannot reveal): -
Northern Italy is not uniform in its pigmentation, even if we can tell as a whole it is fairer than center fairer itself than South and so on...(with spotty exceptions)
Spain has few blond people, it is not new: but brown non-blakish hair are very common in Castilla, Vieja and Nueva, in Catalunya, in Basque country/Navarra, in Aragon, in Cantabria, and on the shores of Asturias and N-W Galicia (all that without speak of certain spotty subregions, even in Andalusia or Valencia) - so don't forget that "blonds" genes , as black ones or very dark brown ones, are commoner than blonds or dark phenotypes, for the big majority of brown hairs are the mix or light+dark, even if some genetical homozygotous browns seem existing... so not only Iberians have some cro-magnoid remnants in some places, but they have a non negligeable blond "nordic" (?) element, as almost every land of Southern Europe - the less 'blondish' are the Sardinians and the Cypriots, and some valleys of other southern Europe in Iberia, Greece -
&&: by the way, "blond" don't signify "nordic" everytime!
my %s I recall:
Spain as a whole: blonds-very ligh browns 3,5%, diverse browns: > 37% , very dark browns and blakish and blacks: > 59%, but the regions I mentionned above, fairer:
4-5% 41-43% 52-55%
Portugal (whole) 1,5% > 19% 78-79%
Italy as a whole 7,5% > 44% > 48%
North-North Italy (rough, Piemonte darker) 10% < 50% < 40% (true rural people, not big towns!!!)

no offense to anybody
just trying to be objective, knowing pigmentation is not too well measured at this time as phenotype, what makes genetic links to it not too evident

There is no need to speculate about percentages. The works of Spanish, Portuguese and Italian anthropologist have already recorded the actual percentages of hair pigmentation in these countries.

There is no such "tendency" of Spaniards to do anything like that, except a few radicals who are not happy with reality and would like for things to be different, which kind of people you can find in any country, not just Spain. The only thing that has been said regarding hair pigmentation in Spain in this thread is that modern Spaniards are not characterized by having black hair. Maciamo argues that this is because Celts brought lighter hair to both Spain and the British Isles, so the darker prehistoric inhabitants eventually got lighter features. Fair enough, I never disagreed with this. I only disagreed with his original characterization of modern-day Spaniards as "black haired", which is not backed up by pigmentation surveys. It seems you can never make a backed-up statement about modern Spanish pigmentation in these forums without some people going into strange angry fits.

 

[JQP4545]

I question the studies that say Irish and English are closely related. For example, here is Pierce Brosnan (Irish):



Here is Antonio Banderas (Spanish):


They look very similar to me. Then here is Prince William (English):



He looks more like a Dane or maybe a German. So back to the topic. Where do the features come from?