"Flemish people are predominantly Keltic Nordid" -*LOL*-

Rico33

Regular Member
Messages
71
Reaction score
5
Points
8
No they are not.
I don't get how people would think that, especially on forums where people are obsessed with differences in details between people.
Examples of KN-looking people rarely resemble stereotypical Flemish. I don't care if Coon said so, or any other "expert". I am not saying there aren't any people here (yes I live here in Flanders, being 100% native Belgian) that resemble this phenotype, but to state that they dominate is downward wrong. They're overal too dark, have a cephalic index that is too high (you can even see it without measuring: the distancee between face and back of the head is way too short).
On The Apricity forum it is stated by many, mostly people never been in Belgium. I also tend to think that those who did visit, tend to think that people without this phenotype were foreigners. It is extremely exasperating.
There is only an emphasys of Nordic traits around Antwerp, mostly north of the city, but even those people rarely look typical "KN", let alone they resemble Scandinavians. I think many people are simply "shape-blind" and get overwhelmed with Nordic sentiments whenever they're blinded by seeing a person with bright blue eyes and light hair.
Nobody in my family resembles this phenotype, not even the light haired ones.
I don't have any illusions: people will always be superficial about a tiny country like Belgium and especially even tinier Flanders, and will always compare them to British (who are significantly lighter skinned), Dutch (who don't look the same everywhere in the country).
Also the notion that Flemish and Walloons look "very different" is complete nonsense. It is just pan Germanic agenda.
I personally don't look that way either, i have a very different facial structure than "KN".

I assume many other countries or regions are "classified" wrongly as well, but people particularly enjoy doing a shitty job about Belgium.
 
I am a Belgian, who is very much northern to northwestern Flemish up until at least the early 18th century or so and...

I am the palest person in my near family. I don't have a single distintively blonde and blue eyed cousin or even second cousin. Look at my avatar. I am dark blonde/light brown/coppery (opinions always differ) and vaguely greygreen eyed. There are plenty of blondes, but not the majority (most Belgians are some vague medium to lightbrown and greyish greenish darkbluish or light brown eyes)

So yeah, agree.
 
Many children are blond.
Most become darker while growing older.
 
Coon described populations based on phenotypes ("looks") in the mid-20th century, long before DNA tests existed. He was not wrong to classify Belgians as Keltic Nordid as Belgians are principally a blend of Celtic and Nordic/Germanic populations. This was confirmed by DNA tests as explained in my Genetic history of the Benelux.

As for blond hairs, it is mostly a Baltic trait, found not just among Germanic, but also and even more among Finns, Baltic and North Slavic people.

blond_hair_europe.jpg



I am Belgian and I have travelled to all provinces of Belgium many times, notably to make Eupedia's Belgium Travel Guide. In my experience the parts of the country where people are the blondest are in Limburg and in the northeast of the province of Liège (roughly between Liège and Aachen). The darkest hair are found in the province of Luxembourg. In Flanders, I have seen the most dark hair in the province of West Flanders. But that's not an official statistical study, just personal observations in the last 20 years or so.
 
But my point was that the set of examples of KN-looking people (in videos on YouTube, threads on (other) forums don't look like a bunch of Belgians really. Too many natives look quite different from that. I live In Anwterp at the moment, and only here I see sometimes people that somewhat lean to this look. That being said, the Belgian people in my appartment block never look like those people for some reason.
Genetically they may be Keltic and Nordic, but usually they don't have the looks to my impression. Different head shapes in general, comparing to other regions in Europe that are inhabited by a mix of Keltic and Nordic peoples. I have been told by others talking about this, that Belgian people usually resemble Swiss, northeastern French and Southern German people. The faces are most similar in those regions, I have been told.
It is also noticable that the "original" Flemish areas are actuually furthest from having this typical "KN" look.
It just bothers me intellectually that despite classifying Belgians on forums, people usually never describe them as "KN", yet Coon's opinion on this seems like gospel to them.

I don't think Coon has ever even been here. The examples of a KN have skulls that are way too long in profile, while it's rather typical to have a short distance between the back of the head and the face.
They simply don't resemble people from here really (if you want to turn into detail, after all this is the purpose of these sections), they also have atypical look in the eyes for Belgians.
So despite having Keltic and Germanic (which isn't the same as Nordic, as far as I know) ancestry, they look different than those old examples. Of course you could cherrypick pictures of Belgians resembling this, but that doesn't prove this old statement.


Maybe Keltic -(Southern) Germanic is a better description.
 
who should care about the amount of blond people in a country? I think funny. In general, Western Europe has a lot of brown hair.
 
who should care about the amount of blond people in a country? I think funny. In general, Western Europe has a lot of brown hair.

Who are you to come here and dictate what people should care to discuss?
 
who should care about the amount of blond people in a country? I think funny. In general, Western Europe has a lot of brown hair.
I don't care about it actually, as I think it is overrated comparing to bone structure and head shape.
 
Many children are blond.
Most become darker while growing older.

Being blond in childhood doesn't say much. I am mixed Brazilian and even so I was blond until I was almost 12 years old.
 
Who are you to come here and dictate what people should care to discuss?



Dictate? Lol


Don't worry, nobody said it was forbidden, just funny. We have a terrible historical context to find this kind of concern strange, but it’s just funny most of the time.
 
Dictate? Lol
Don't worry, nobody said it was forbidden, just funny. We have a terrible historical context to find this kind of concern strange, but it’s just funny most of the time.
If you have nothing of value to contribute to the subject, do not come here to disparage those who do. This is not a history or social studies thread.
 
Can someone please clarify "Keltic Nordid"? Like a lot of the racial classifications it seems really variable and inconsistent on Google. What are its characteristics? I understand the Nordic race is characterized by a long skull, long face, long nose, athletic body, and light hair, skin, and eyes. What's special about "Keltic"?
 
'Keltic nordic' or 'Kymric' type is a type created by Coon, I think. The pictures chosen by himself for modern people of this type seem very heterogenous and not too close to his global description of the type. It seems more an "average" type of population than a well determined type (whatever the value we put in this notion of type), based on measures on what we may consider the Celtic elites of IA.
what we can say is that among old pop's the 'keltic' type was easy to distinguish from the 'saxon' types an the modern 'nordic' type by its (in means) very low skull, a shallower inferior face, spite slightly broader for bigonial, a more receading forehead, a longer nose, and maybe higher orbits, in some cases especially in the part of the orbits close to the nose, what could correspond to a high enough position of the glabella over the face. All this is statistical trends, very often not found as a complete "kit" in individuals. Rather an alteration of the classical 'nordic' type than a full formed new type, I suppose, without too much certainty. for stature, rather shorter (1m67/70) than 'nordics' and ancient Saxons (1m72/74) or the most of other ancient Germanics.
Celts apart, this average type seem having been the basis too of first Franks tribes, which were surely a mix of "true" Germanics and an heavy participation of Celtic pop's assimilated. Coon said also some Slavs and Scythians tribes were of this averaged type.
Very fuzzy!
 
Fuzzy indeed. Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me.
I'm fairly certain that the look of big eye sockets, long face, exaggerated nose, etc. has an eastern origin, in both Europe and the Middle East. Definitely from the steppes.
 
But in this averaged type, faces are less high than among typical 'nordic' types' (because of lower chin and mayby a slightly broader jaw).
That said, among western upperpaleo-mesolithic people, the so called 'combe-capelle' of Western France, close to 'brünn' type, had an overall high face, what didn't exclude broad bizygoma (cheekbones); concerning Steppes, I would say they were also often AND broad cheekboned AND high faced , what suppose overall big faces!
 
But in this averaged type, faces are less high than among typical 'nordic' types' (because of lower chin and mayby a slightly broader jaw).
That said, among western upperpaleo-mesolithic people, the so called 'combe-capelle' of Western France, close to 'brünn' type, had an overall high face, what didn't exclude broad bizygoma (cheekbones); concerning Steppes, I would say they were also often AND broad cheekboned AND high faced , what suppose overall big faces!

I agree with this. Certainly would be hard to imagine narrow-faced steppe invaders. But overall I'm pretty confident the long nose and big orbits came from the east. Look at the Middle East–see how common that is among Iranians and Iraqis, and how rare among Saudis, Yemenis, etc.

Then of course there's the same features in Native Americans. Technically East Asians (indigenous Siberian peoples, northern Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Mongols) all have leptorrhine noses, great upper facial height, and high orbits. The difference is their faces are flat. This is quite the opposite for both Amerindians and steppe peoples–the upper face is sharply profiled, the nose is aquiline, and the brow ridge is prominent.

I feel fairly certain this has something to do with the Ancient North Eurasians. ANE ancestry reaches its peak among the groups you mentioned as being supposedly "Keltic Nordic", and it ties Northern Europeans and West Asians to Amerindians.
 

This thread has been viewed 6807 times.

Back
Top