Guest Scanderbeg Posted May 21, 2005 Report Share Posted May 21, 2005 England = 30% Keltic Nordic (derived from pre-Roman Iron Age invaders ), 20% Anglo-Saxon (post-Roman Germanic invaders, most common in the southeast, especially East Anglia), 15% North-Atlantid and 10% Palaeo-Atlantid (blend of Mesolithic Atlanto-Mediterranean invaders with both earlier and later arrivals; most common in the Midlands and northwest), 8% Hallstatt Nordic (of Viking and Norman derivation, although it is said for Normans they spoke Latin and had dark hair), 5% Brunn, 5% Tronder (of Norwegian Viking derivation; most common in the northeast), 3% Borreby and 2% Falish (again of Viking and Norman derivation; associated with the landed gentry; source of the "John Bull" type), 2% Noric (from Bronze-Age invaders, depegmented Dinarics, Dinarics are 2/3 Med + 1/3 UP) = 57% UP+N / 25% Med / 8% N / 2% Dinarik. Scotland = 30% Keltic Nordic, 22% Tronder (most common in the NE), 10% North-Atlantid (most common - W), 10% Anglo-Saxon (most common - SE), 10% Palaeo-Atlantid (most common - SW), 5% Brunn, 5% Hallstatt Nordic, 4% Borreby, 4% Noric = 62% UP+N / 20 Med./ 9% UP / 5% N / 4% Dinaric Ireland = 40% Brunn (indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants, most common in the west), 30% Keltic Nordic (most common - E ), 9% North-Atlantid, 9% Borreby, 3% Palaeo-Atlantid, 3% Tronder, 2% Noric, 2% Anglo-Saxon, 1% Hallstatt Nordic =49% UP / 35% UP+N / 12% Med / 2% Dinaric / 1% Nordic Wales = 35% North-Atlantid, 30% Palaeo-Atlantid, 30% Keltic Nordic, 5% other types = 65% Med. / 30% UP+N / 5% other http://www.geocities.com/zakus_1999/Races.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scaevola Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 What's so fun about this? I may not be getting it, but it seem to be a very left handed attempt at tracing invasions through genetic or racial typing? Also, the website you linked to shows it weakness in the bibliography. It didn't list enough publication information, but the closest it did come to proper citation shows the source materials to be dated fairly old (eldest in the 1890s, most recent the 1930s). You may wish to be careful here, the sources on this type of material (especially from that time period) has some severe problems with political agendas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.