"Baskid" and "Keltic-Nordid" types in Europe, are they related?

oreo_cookie

Banned
Messages
606
Reaction score
27
Points
0
The look we call "Baskid" in Iberia, is it related in any way to what we call "Keltic-Nordid" in the British isles?

People in the British Isles do share some genetic elements with Basques and other Iberians. Is it possible that Keltic-Nordid is just Baskid mixed with Hallstadt Nordid?
 
The look we call "Baskid" in Iberia, is it related in any way to what we call "Keltic-Nordid" in the British isles?

People in the British Isles do share some genetic elements with Basques and other Iberians. Is it possible that Keltic-Nordid is just Baskid mixed with Hallstadt Nordid?
What stuff is that? Baskid? Keltic nordid?
 
The look we call "Baskid" in Iberia, is it related in any way to what we call "Keltic-Nordid" in the British isles?

People in the British Isles do share some genetic elements with Basques and other Iberians. Is it possible that Keltic-Nordid is just Baskid mixed with Hallstadt Nordid?

Possible, but not very likely, I think. If I recall correctly from Coon and anthro-blogs (and my own classification ambitions), basques are in majority mediterranean looking with a few alpinids, and nordic is almost absent.
Keltic-Nordid is AFAIK very different. According to Coon it has even a tad dinaric, and I think he is right, assuming his plates are serious. I often disagree with Coon but here I agree. Keltic-Nordid is probably one of the few phenotypes in Britain which might show a slightly visible eastern admixture, probably representing the iron age celt migration from the continent (Edward Norton probably might be an example, but not entirely sure.). Another visibly eastern (e.g. corded) admixed British phenotype is "Anglo-Saxon" (Helen Mirren is a strong example, maybe too strong, because her father actually is a real east european).

What "Baskid" and Keltic-Nordics might have in common is a tendency towards lower skulls, which is a general tendency in western europe (long and low skulls vs. high and short skulls in eastern europe). And then of course the mediterranean looking individuals of Britain. Britain is the place in northern europe with the highest amount of mediterranean looking people. Coon later believed that the "Mediterranean race" originated there, but I think this is nonsense.

I'm really no expert, just wanted to fertilize this thread with more thoughts because it is interesting.
 
Possible, but not very likely, I think. If I recall correctly from Coon and anthro-blogs (and my own classification ambitions), basques are in majority mediterranean looking with a few alpinids, and nordic is almost absent.

I'm not asking about Basques specifically, but about the phenotype that has been labeled "Baskid". Not all Basques have it, though. It bears some resemblance to what is called "Keltic-Nordid", but without the Hallstadt Nordic influence.
 
I'm not asking about Basques specifically, but about the phenotype that has been labeled "Baskid". Not all Basques have it, though. It bears some resemblance to what is called "Keltic-Nordid", but without the Hallstadt Nordic influence.

Oh I see. Then maybe baskid influence made the continental celtics more altantic or british looking, I don't know. But I think "Keltic-Nordid" should also have something other than just "Hallstatt", in addition to "Baskid".
 
Possible, but not very likely, I think. If I recall correctly from Coon and anthro-blogs (and my own classification ambitions), basques are in majority mediterranean looking with a few alpinids, and nordic is almost absent.
Keltic-Nordid is AFAIK very different. According to Coon it has even a tad dinaric, and I think he is right, assuming his plates are serious. I often disagree with Coon but here I agree. Keltic-Nordid is probably one of the few phenotypes in Britain which might show a slightly visible eastern admixture, probably representing the iron age celt migration from the continent (Edward Norton probably might be an example, but not entirely sure.). Another visibly eastern (e.g. corded) admixed British phenotype is "Anglo-Saxon" (Helen Mirren is a strong example, maybe too strong, because her father actually is a real east european).

What "Baskid" and Keltic-Nordics might have in common is a tendency towards lower skulls, which is a general tendency in western europe (long and low skulls vs. high and short skulls in eastern europe). And then of course the mediterranean looking individuals of Britain. Britain is the place in northern europe with the highest amount of mediterranean looking people. Coon later believed that the "Mediterranean race" originated there, but I think this is nonsense.

I'm really no expert, just wanted to fertilize this thread with more thoughts because it is interesting.


I disagree for a part:
Basques have a strong imput of basic 'mediterranean' type, but they show vivible accretion of diverses other types: some 'nordic', some cromagnoid remnants, and capelloid (or brünnoid) remnants, and 'alpine', and even a little bit of 'dinaric' -
but their means are variable according to subregions; french Basques have more 'alpine' (and maybe 'dinaric' - Guipuzcoa more 'mediterranean' (and 'atlanto-mediterranean') Vitoria: 'alpine' + 'dinaric' again more visible - as a whole they lack the 'eastern-med' or 'cappadocian' imput that have eastern Spanyards and Italians and Greeks -
here I guess some component but Basques after crossings as others, lived more secluded and developped peculiar types from their crossings (in France particuliarly), but the phenomenon begun early, between their earlier components: cromagnoid, capelloid and alpine producing an abnormal (statistically) tendancy towards narrow inferior jaw, low crania tending toward sub-brachycephally,(herited from both 'cromagnoid' and 'alpine', and some abormal developpements of teeths (short endogamy?)
for colour, they show a high level of broadly spanned brown hues of hair concurrencing black and blackish dark brown, and brownishgreen, green eyes - I thin the intermediary stabile tendancy for pigmentation could be partly an archaic inheritage in Europe adding to the result of instable mix colours based on crossings fair-dark - Celts and some Slavs and Balts present the same case I think -
the 'atlanto-med' type (not to well analysed, surely more a mean than a true basic type) appeared at the megaliths period (see Long Barrows and some Passage Graves cultures)-
Keltic Iron type is not more a basic type, as you say adn as ay Coon: I never found five men presenting a very complete diagnosis of this MEANS type: it's as 'basquid' type a composite means type so defined: subdolichocephalic (so partial brachycephally), very LOW cylindric skull, but with HIGH orbits, receding foreheard with strong enough browridge, high glabella, longer upper face than 'nordic', shallower inferior jaw but broader than 'mediter', profiled nose:
I tried to analyse the basic components and fail to explain everything! COON said some of the old Slavs and Scythians and even some Iron Age Armenians have skulls close enough to this mean - surely a long process or partial re-raciation after compliacted crossings ('nordic' = 'corded' without 'brünnoid' + 'alpine' + dinaricized 'borreby' (3000/2500 BC : Bell Beakers to Round Barrows period) + 'cromagnoid' stayed dolichocephalic? (at Mesolithic, Rhine Germany presented 'cromanoid' enough people BUT with a bit higher orbits so ???):
to say: these "types" are means constructions and COON says that Basques often presented bones means close to his "Iron Age Celtic" type ("Kymric" of someones):
all the way, this celtic hotchpot' was a bit fairer pigmented for more 'nordic' (and maybe others depigmented people) were in the formule -
what we have is subdolichocephally + low skull + heavy enough archaic components, more on the 'cromagnoid' partly gracilized side, I think -




contrary to what you say,
there is no direct link between cephalic index and height of skulls: all the Europans were dolichocephalic in ancient times (say: before 7000 BC) and alreday there were different types and crossings: 'cromagnoids' were low skulled, 'brünnoids'/'capelloids' high enough, 'chancelade' very high skulled, all that prducing local crossings and means "subtypes" -
the brachycephally SEEMS appeared about the 6000 BC in Alps, rather among the 'cro-magnon' phylum and the mutation seems having progressed northwards at first, producing 'alpines' we could consider as partly feotalized and the less brachycephallic and more robust 'borreby' (I call 'borreby A' because the brutal 'borreby B' seems very unstable between this 'borreby A' and the dolichocephalic 'brünnoid' (came from East only about the 9000 BC apparently) - it would be only after that brachycephally (european) gained ground eastwards and southeastwards (late Neolithic in North? - Chalcolithic in South-East?)
the correlation between these phenotypes and their evolution by time and the invisible autosomals groups they were part of is a question!
sorry for being so long!
cheers!
 
I disagree for a part:
Basques have a strong imput of basic 'mediterranean' type, but they show vivible accretion of diverses other types: some 'nordic', some cromagnoid remnants, and capelloid (or brünnoid) remnants, and 'alpine', and even a little bit of 'dinaric' -
but their means are variable according to subregions; french Basques have more 'alpine' (and maybe 'dinaric' - Guipuzcoa more 'mediterranean' (and 'atlanto-mediterranean') Vitoria: 'alpine' + 'dinaric' again more visible - as a whole they lack the 'eastern-med' or 'cappadocian' imput that have eastern Spanyards and Italians and Greeks -

I see, basques are more diverse than I thought. But they also have that 'baskid' phenotype mentioned by oreo_cookie, although it is not at all exclusive to basques only.
I looked a bit around in the internet and quite many people seem to think that 'baskid' is a kind of 'dinaric'. That's very surprising for me and I still don't quite believe it. I rather see a strong similarity to atlanto-meds, which some authors still link to 'dinaric', however.
But if 'baskid' really is a kind of 'dinaric' then maybe 'nordic-keltic' aquired it's dinaric traits from 'baskid'? But even then there is still the question from where 'baskid' (assuming it is kind of 'dinarid') came from. Maybe it is a remnant of dinarid-looking metal-workers from the east like original Bell-Beakers, some R1b guys or whoever, or it is an independent local evolution of the pyreneés, probably similar to the other mountains in the east? Or maybe just randomness, which should not be forgotten in all discussions about phenotypes, haplogroups, lactose lolerance etc. Just some thoughts and questions. I don't know.
I also think that phenotypes, like haplogroups etc., develop independently from autosomals in the long run, that's the point of evolutionary selection.
 
I think, according to Maciamo's theory; the Basques are mostly Celtiberians on the paternal side. Their original Y-DNA was probably I2a. (Mesolithic) and to a lesser extent, G2a and I1.

The reason that Basques probably have no resemblance to Irish, Scottish or Welsh Celts is possibly because of mixture of indigenous people; and a divergent Celtic tribe, that migrated into Iberia. (which had plenty of time to evolve different looks from Northern Celts.)

However; I must admit that despite the Celto-Basque admixture; many Basques do look as Celtic as an Irish or Breton. They usually are shorter than most Europeans, and have small features and round faces.


I've noticed that most Basques and most Celts tend to lack prominent cheekbones, and usually have a rounded chin.
 
I see, basques are more diverse than I thought. But they also have that 'baskid' phenotype mentioned by oreo_cookie, although it is not at all exclusive to basques only.
I looked a bit around in the internet and quite many people seem to think that 'baskid' is a kind of 'dinaric'. That's very surprising for me and I still don't quite believe it. I rather see a strong similarity to atlanto-meds, which some authors still link to 'dinaric', however.
But if 'baskid' really is a kind of 'dinaric' then maybe 'nordic-keltic' aquired it's dinaric traits from 'baskid'? But even then there is still the question from where 'baskid' (assuming it is kind of 'dinarid') came from. Maybe it is a remnant of dinarid-looking metal-workers from the east like original Bell-Beakers, some R1b guys or whoever, or it is an independent local evolution of the pyreneés, probably similar to the other mountains in the east? Or maybe just randomness, which should not be forgotten in all discussions about phenotypes, haplogroups, lactose lolerance etc. Just some thoughts and questions. I don't know.
I also think that phenotypes, like haplogroups etc., develop independently from autosomals in the long run, that's the point of evolutionary selection.
Well, if the Basque people's original paternal haplogroup was Y-DNA I2a (Mesolithic) it is very possible that they are related to other populations', who's Y-DNA was originally I2a. Like Bosnians, Bosnian Croats and especially Sardinians.

So, I could therefore see how they (Basques) could fit into the "Dinaric" subcategory.

I2a seems to be the oldest lineage in the Basque population; second most common (behind Bronze Age R1b) and is probably the original. The Basque people have also been rumored to be relative to the Sardinians; and the Sardinians have always been thought that their pre-Indo-European indigenous language was somehow related to Basque.


Haplogroup_I2a.jpg

If you notice closely, near the Basque country. Between France and Spain ... There seems to be a little trail of I2a. I2a peeks in the Iberian peninsula at 14% in the population of Aragon. It also seems to be very prevalent amongst the Catalans; where the Gascon-Iberian R1b is also found as the main Y-DNA marker; beside the Basque country.

Haplogroup-R1b-DF27.jpg
 
Well, if the Basque people's original paternal haplogroup was Y-DNA I2a (Mesolithic) it is very possible that they are related to other populations', who's Y-DNA was originally I2a. Like Bosnians, Bosnian Croats and especially Sardinians.

So, I could therefore see how they (Basques) could fit into the "Dinaric" subcategory.

I2a seems to be the oldest lineage in the Basque population; second most common (behind Bronze Age R1b) and is probably the original. The Basque people have also been rumored to be relative to the Sardinians; and the Sardinians have always been thought that their pre-Indo-European indigenous language was somehow related to Basque.


View attachment 6825

If you notice closely, near the Basque country. Between France and Spain ... There seems to be a little trail of I2a. I2a peeks in the Iberian peninsula at 14% in the population of Aragon. It also seems to be very prevalent amongst the Catalans; where the Gascon-Iberian R1b is also found as the main Y-DNA marker; beside the Basque country.

View attachment 6826

A link between I2a and 'dinaric' is possible, but the problem is that AFAIK 'dinaric' was always considered by anthropologists to be a recent migrant into europe from the near-east. Another problem is that no older 'dinarid' skeletons have been found in (West?-)Europe except the Bell-Beaker ones. I'm not sure about the Balkans though. If 'dinarid' is a mixed phenotype ('Atlanto-Med'+'eastern Alpine' for example), then both can be true simultaneously.
Is 'dinaric' significant among Sardinians? I thought it is absent there. I think mainland Italians, where there is much R1b, are way more 'dinarid' than Sardinians.
 
El Horsto: Maybe it is a remnant of dinarid-looking metal-workers from the east like original Bell-Beakers, some R1b guys or whoever, or it is an independent local evolution of the pyreneés, probably similar to the other mountains in the east? Or maybe just randomness, which should not be forgotten in all discussions about phenotypes, haplogroups, lactose lolerance etc. Just some thoughts and questions. I don't know.
I also think that phenotypes, like haplogroups etc., develop independently from autosomals in the long run, that's the point of evolutionary selection.

I think you've laid the issue out very clearly. If this phenotype is the result of an actual migration of people, and not the result of local "crossings". it seems to me that it is tied to the Bell Beaker arrival in central Europe, and thus to the Indo-European Metal Ages migrations into Europe. From my readings, that seems to be what the old physical anthropologists thought. Modern genetics may be providing support for that view. We already know that the original Indo-Europeans can be modeled as half Ancient Karelian and half Armenian like. Now we have a J2a1 late Bronze Age sample from Central Europe. I think the pieces are starting to fall into place.

I don't think it's dispositive that the French Basque don't show very much "West Asian" in some calculators and yet some of them show some Dinaric influences. Their Gedrosia numbers are respectable. Plus, phenotype and autosomals don't necessarily correlate, given that phenotype is controlled by only a few genes. A small group of founders. some of whom carried a certain phenotype and then massively expanded would explain, it in my opinion.

As to Sardinians versus Northern Italians, there's a lot more Dinarid influence in northern Italy than there is in Sardinia, and Sardinia is virtually a genetic snapshot of pre-Bronze Age Europe.

All of that said, that "Dinaric" terminology is thrown around every time an Italian has anything other than a button nose, and in people from other countries (other than places like Albania or Serbia, for example) with obviously "Dinaric" traits, it is routinely ignored. People on the internet obviously can't tell the difference between a Mediterranean nose and a Dinaric one. That's not to mention, of course, the outright dishonesty and cherry picking that goes on.

I also don't see why "Keltics" would get their Dinaric influences from the Basque. Rather, they would both have gotten them from the Indo-Europeans. The fact that Iberians have so little Dinaric, although they have some of it, might reflect the fact that by the time the "Celts" got to Iberia they didn't have much Indo-European left in them. So, although northern Iberians are 72% EEF, and southern Iberians 83%, I think most of it is from Neolithic era migrations, and very little is from the Indo-Europeans. (Of course, North Africans also have EEF, so that would have played a part in the final numbers as well.)

FWIW, here is a map of France supposedly outlining the various phenotypes:
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/france_races.jpg

(I would agree with most of it; I don't, however, think that Littoral is Greco-Roman.)

Some of the "Dinaric" could have leaked in from their neighbors.
 
FWIW, here is a map of France supposedly outlining the various phenotypes:
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/france_races.jpg

(I would agree with most of it; I don't, however, think that Littoral is Greco-Roman.)

Some of the "Dinaric" could have leaked in from their neighbors.

I really enjoy that map a lot. I have Cajun (Acadian) French ancestry, and most of my ancestors came from the West part of France. People tell me I look Breton or Basque by appearance. So France is a country of many races. I am a bit homogeneous too. (probably more than the French) so I wouldn't be surprised if most of my ancestors were Western Gaulish, Aquitanians (related to Basques), and Bretons. I consider myself a Celto-Germanic. But I have been told that I look Breton, Basque and Irish by appearance.

I also agree and think that Greco-Roman is taking it too far. French people actually have very little Greek blood, and it is mostly centered around the area of the city of Marseille. (an old ancient Greek trading post) A lot of Southern French people are different from the Northern French people; and are more related to West Italians as well as Basques and Catalans. (they were originally Occitans before France conquered that territory.) French people of Brittany and Normandy to the Northwest are more related to English people.
 
I really enjoy that map a lot. I have Cajun (Acadian) French ancestry, and most of my ancestors came from the West part of France. People tell me I look Breton or Basque by appearance. So France is a country of many races. I am a bit homogeneous too. (probably more than the French) so I wouldn't be surprised if most of my ancestors were Western Gaulish, Aquitanians (related to Basques), and Bretons. I consider myself a Celto-Germanic. But I have been told that I look Breton, Basque and Irish by appearance.

I also agree and think that Greco-Roman is taking it too far. French people actually have very little Greek blood, and it is mostly centered around the area of the city of Marseille. (an old ancient Greek trading post) A lot of Southern French people are different from the Northern French people; and are more related to West Italians as well as Basques and Catalans. (they were originally Occitans before France conquered that territory.) French people of Brittany and Normandy to the Northwest are more related to English people.


I also agree and think that Greco-Roman is taking it too far. French people actually have very little Greek blood, and it is mostly centered around the area of the city of Marseille. (an old ancient Greek trading post) A lot of Southern French people are different from the Northern French people; and are more related to West Italians as well as Basques and Catalans. (they were originally Occitans before France conquered that territory.) French people of Brittany and Normandy to the Northwest are more related to English people.[/QUOTE]

I would be rather wary of what people, particularly Americans, tell you "you look like". Most of them don't have a clue. Just in regards to the Irish, you won't find all that many Alpines there, and they may be the most numerous group in France.

As for ultimate ancestry, one can, of course, look at the three ancient population divisions as per Lazaridis et al:

Percentages listed by EEF/WHG/ANE:

English: .495, .364, .141

French: .554, .311,.135

French Basque: .593, .293, .114

Southwestern French: .675, .195, .13

Northern Spanish: .713, .125,.163

Northern Italian: .715, .177, .108

It may be a coincidence, but northern Spain scores .163 in ANE, supposedly brought by the Indo-Europeans, southern Spain scores .123, and from what I remember, the Dinarid outposts in Spain are mostly in the north.

At the same time it must be said that northern Italy has quite a bit of Dinard, but not very high ANE scores. Bergamo might be a little anamalous in that respect, however.
 
I would be rather wary of what people, particularly Americans, tell you "you look like". Most of them don't have a clue.
Angela; I have European friends and acquaintances; who also travel around. I'm sure that they would know.
 
I think you've laid the issue out very clearly. If this phenotype is the result of an actual migration of people, and not the result of local "crossings". it seems to me that it is tied to the Bell Beaker arrival in central Europe, and thus to the Indo-European Metal Ages migrations into Europe. From my readings, that seems to be what the old physical anthropologists thought. Modern genetics may be providing support for that view. We already know that the original Indo-Europeans can be modeled as half Ancient Karelian and half Armenian like. Now we have a J2a1 late Bronze Age sample from Central Europe. I think the pieces are starting to fall into place.

Looks like.

I don't think it's dispositive that the French Basque don't show very much "West Asian" in some calculators and yet some of them show some Dinaric influences. Their Gedrosia numbers are respectable. Plus, phenotype and autosomals don't necessarily correlate, given that phenotype is controlled by only a few genes. A small group of founders. some of whom carried a certain phenotype and then massively expanded would explain, it in my opinion.

As to Sardinians versus Northern Italians, there's a lot more Dinarid influence in northern Italy than there is in Sardinia, and Sardinia is virtually a genetic snapshot of pre-Bronze Age Europe.

All of that said, that "Dinaric" terminology is thrown around every time an Italian has anything other than a button nose, and in people from other countries (other than places like Albania or Serbia, for example) with obviously "Dinaric" traits, it is routinely ignored. People on the internet obviously can't tell the difference between a Mediterranean nose and a Dinaric one. That's not to mention, of course, the outright dishonesty and cherry picking that goes on.

I also don't see why "Keltics" would get their Dinaric influences from the Basque. Rather, they would both have gotten them from the Indo-Europeans. The fact that Iberians have so little Dinaric, although they have some of it, might reflect the fact that by the time the "Celts" got to Iberia they didn't have much Indo-European left in them. So, although northern Iberians are 72% EEF, and southern Iberians 83%, I think most of it is from Neolithic era migrations, and very little is from the Indo-Europeans. (Of course, North Africans also have EEF, so that would have played a part in the final numbers as well.)

That's also my current model. There is no need to see a stumbling block in Basques.
And the north Italians are more Dinaric than the south perhaps because there are also other phenotypes which are lacking in the south and which are rather 'recessive' compared to Dinaric-like traits. It could be possible for instance, that mediterranid traits in the south are more 'dominant' compared with dinaric - at least visually - than others like 'alpine' for instance.
Afterall, phenotypes are much more fuzzy and vague than volatile haplogroups, so occasional lack or presence of a phenotype should be no obstacle.
 
I see, basques are more diverse than I thought. But they also have that 'baskid' phenotype mentioned by oreo_cookie, although it is not at all exclusive to basques only.
I looked a bit around in the internet and quite many people seem to think that 'baskid' is a kind of 'dinaric'. That's very surprising for me and I still don't quite believe it. I rather see a strong similarity to atlanto-meds, which some authors still link to 'dinaric', however.
But if 'baskid' really is a kind of 'dinaric' then maybe 'nordic-keltic' aquired it's dinaric traits from 'baskid'? But even then there is still the question from where 'baskid' (assuming it is kind of 'dinarid') came from. Maybe it is a remnant of dinarid-looking metal-workers from the east like original Bell-Beakers, some R1b guys or whoever, or it is an independent local evolution of the pyreneés, probably similar to the other mountains in the east? Or maybe just randomness, which should not be forgotten in all discussions about phenotypes, haplogroups, lactose lolerance etc. Just some thoughts and questions. I don't know.
I also think that phenotypes, like haplogroups etc., develop independently from autosomals in the long run, that's the point of evolutionary selection.


'I was not clear enough in my try for explanations:
when I say 'dinaric' or 'dinaroid' is more visible among a subregion of basques countrieS, I mean "compared to other basque regions" but that doesn't mask the fact that AS A WHOLE BASQUE HAVE VERY FEW DINARIC IMPACT IN THEM, AS HAD CELTS TOO - 'dinaric'like people were seen in some parts of future celtic lands, for the most around Bohemia, Baviera, Rhine during Chalcolithic and in BBs settlements - in North Germany Netherlands Denmark BBs came soon enough in contact of 'borreby'like people of everykind (A,B) creating the so called "Lorrain type" present among South germany Celts, later but not the dominant type among them -
as a whole, final Celts had mix of some dolichocephalic types where high skulled 'Corded' nordics' and high skulled 'Danubians mediterraneans' were almost absent, and, surprising or not in a lot of places of historical celtic culture we find also 'alpine' type, surely akin in some way to the 'Borreby' A, but more reduced in the more southern countries -
so I suppose first Celts (gentry) were more dolichocephalic but during their final genesis in Alpine regions they acquired a lot of local 'alpine' precedent people, surely a Mesolithic remnant (?) - the 'dinaroid' imput stayed in what I suppose less celticized valleys, as in Bohemia and Eastern Baviera but very mixed, just a component of a kind of osmosis -
concerning Basques, they are less 'mediterraneanlike' than the most of Southern Europeans and comparing them to Celts, don't forget some mix 'mesolithic remnants-western mediterraneans' are VERY VISIBLE among Irish people and Scottish people, as well as among Welsh people and even some English people, whatever the popular believings -
 
Looks like.



That's also my current model. There is no need to see a stumbling block in Basques.
And the north Italians are more Dinaric than the south perhaps because there are also other phenotypes which are lacking in the south and which are rather 'recessive' compared to Dinaric-like traits. It could be possible for instance, that mediterranid traits in the south are more 'dominant' compared with dinaric - at least visually - than others like 'alpine' for instance.
Afterall, phenotypes are much more fuzzy and vague than volatile haplogroups, so occasional lack or presence of a phenotype should be no obstacle.

I 'll answer both of yours;
if a dominant class passes its phenotypes (external) to subsequent generations by the elite "mating" process SO IT PASSES ALSO OTHER AUTOSOMALS!!! so phenotypes are always of some worth - phenotypes can abuse us in a small population (drift, sexual choices and yet...) - it's why I'm still looking for an explanation concerning 'mediterranean' autosomals so high among North Italians and other EUropeans -

if 'dinaric' is only the result of a CERTAIN SPECIFIC crossing, it could appear dominant because yes it 's formed by the mix of dominant traits inherited from the TWO parts of the crossing (not the same, it's evident: say: hypothesis: a long nose concerning the fleshy tip associated to a deep 'beak' nasal root, and brachycephally (+ planoccipitally) associated to a high narrower face - this type, heterozygotous, can break in a puzzle among individuals the next generation! (not statistically)
 

'I was not clear enough in my try for explanations:
when I say 'dinaric' or 'dinaroid' is more visible among a subregion of basques countrieS, I mean "compared to other basque regions" but that doesn't mask the fact that AS A WHOLE BASQUE HAVE VERY FEW DINARIC IMPACT IN THEM, AS HAD CELTS TOO - 'dinaric'like people were seen in some parts of future celtic lands, for the most around Bohemia, Baviera, Rhine during Chalcolithic and in BBs settlements - in North Germany Netherlands Denmark BBs came soon enough in contact of 'borreby'like people of everykind (A,B) creating the so called "Lorrain type" present among South germany Celts, later but not the dominant type among them -
as a whole, final Celts had mix of some dolichocephalic types where high skulled 'Corded' nordics' and high skulled 'Danubians mediterraneans' were almost absent, and, surprising or not in a lot of places of historical celtic culture we find also 'alpine' type, surely akin in some way to the 'Borreby' A, but more reduced in the more southern countries -
so I suppose first Celts (gentry) were more dolichocephalic but during their final genesis in Alpine regions they acquired a lot of local 'alpine' precedent people, surely a Mesolithic remnant (?) - the 'dinaroid' imput stayed in what I suppose less celticized valleys, as in Bohemia and Eastern Baviera but very mixed, just a component of a kind of osmosis -
concerning Basques, they are less 'mediterraneanlike' than the most of Southern Europeans and comparing them to Celts, don't forget some mix 'mesolithic remnants-western mediterraneans' are VERY VISIBLE among Irish people and Scottish people, as well as among Welsh people and even some English people, whatever the popular believings -

Thanks for the clarification. For me it is difficult to talk precisely about such fuzzy categories. However, I focused on 'baskid' only (what oreo_cookie stressed), not Basques in general. And I was not at all claiming that 'dinaric' is strong in Basques and Celts, quite contrary. I actually somewhat question even the dinaric nature of 'baskid'. Yet there are at least traces of 'dinaric', and this is interesting. Of course obviously mesolithic, mediterranean and other is much stronger in (West) Europe, but I don't find this fact so interesting at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Moesan: that doesn't mask the fact that AS A WHOLE BASQUE HAVE VERY FEW DINARIC IMPACT IN THEM

I'm not sure about "very few", but I certainly agree it's not a major component. That's why I said, " I don't think it's dispositive that the French Basque don't show very much "West Asian" in some calculators and yet some of them show some Dinaric influences."

All of my speculations based on tying "Dinaric" traits to migrations are predicated on a hypothetical, to wit: "If this phenotype is the result of an actual migration of people, and not the result of local "crossings". it seems to me that it is tied to the Bell Beaker arrival in central Europe, and thus to the Indo-European Metal Ages migrations into Europe."

As to the "look" of the Celts of the historical era (i.e. as described by the Romans etc), if we've learned nothing else, I think we have learned through many recent papers that we don't look like our remote ancestors, and I would speculate that those Celts didn't look much like the Indo-Eurpeans who first came off the steppe, not if those original people can be modeled as "half ancient Karelian like and half Armenian like". (Of course, it may turn out that the western steppe had a slightly different type of Indo-European, or those people were the result of a further mixing, so all these opinions are very provisional.)

As things stand right now, however, I am getting the feeling that perhaps BR1 wasn't very Indo-European like at all, even though it was the Bronze Age, although contrary to uninformed analysis, he did have a trace of the West Asian which I think to some degree, helps in tracking it. (I feel as if I have to italicize, if not bold my qualifying statements, as they seem to get lost, somehow. :))


if 'dinaric' is only the result of a CERTAIN SPECIFIC crossing, it could appear dominant because yes it 's formed by the mix of dominant traits inherited from the TWO parts of the crossing (not the same, it's evident: say: hypothesis: a long nose concerning the fleshy tip associated to a deep 'beak' nasal root, and brachycephally (+ planoccipitally) associated to a high narrower face - this type, heterozygotous, can break in a puzzle among individuals the next generation! (not statistically)

I'm quite interested in your comment here, and I hope you don't mind clarifying it a bit. First of all, what would you consider the source population for the two "nasal" traits?

Also, I get what you mean by the long nose with a fleshy tip, but a high root doesn't equate to a "beak" to me.

For example, these are Greek statues or Roman copies of Greek originals. I see a long nose with a fleshy tip, and I also see a high root. It doesn't look very "beak like" to me, however.
http://hcf.arizona.edu/sites/hcf.arizona.edu/files/greek-statue.png
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8366/8430355471_bdd35585f9_z.jpg
http://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/3106.jpg

It's definitely a phenotype trait that has persisted. Pauline Bonaparte...
http://www.french-engravings.com/images/artworks/ART-8315/details/03.jpg

It's a different nose than this type:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7003/6586667199_7b5424c3bf.jpg
http://booksontrial.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/bust-of-cicero.jpg

Or these, which are supposedly the Dinaric type noses, at least if google search isn't flawed, and the "old" physical anthropologists knew anything at all about it.
http://s653.photobucket.com/user/Tyranos/media/Dinaric-1.jpg.html
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/czdynarski.jpg
http://z3.ifrm.com/67/29/0/p455554/troe393.jpg

Oh, when I googled for Balkan Dinarics, this also came up. Is this what you mean?
http://i3.cn.cz/14/1209457013_huba2.jpg

Maybe I don't know what you mean by a high "root". These roots look pretty low to me. It's the bridge and the downward tip that look distinctive to me.

I have to also add that I've looked at all the old "racial" maps of Europe. Leaving aside that they're not "races", and that some of the creators were unambiguously racist, it doesn't inspire confidence that they so disagreed with one another. Just in the case of Italy, you can look at Deniker's map, and he saw Dinarics everywhere, to others who saw it nowhere except in the areas in the northeast adjacent to the Balkans.
 

This thread has been viewed 15220 times.

Back
Top