Monday, October 6, 2008

European Races


In the explanations of the illustrations C (or Sk) = cephalic (or cranial) index; F = facial index; E = colour of eyes; H = colour of hair. But colouring is only stated when the illustration does not show it. Female skulls are indicated as such. In pictures of the living the name is only given when the subject is already fairly well known through other portraits.

In the case of all illustrations (in particular where no index numbers or other measurements are given) the racial designation refers only to those features which can be seen on the picture.

The illustrations are meant to be not so much statements about the subject portrayed, as examples showing the racial characteristics. Anthropology, as a social science, deals in general with the individual only in so far as he can be taken as representative of a group. The group is always the starting-point for anthropology.


WE find, in general, the most confused notions as to how the European peoples are composed of various races. We often hear, for example, a 'white race' or a 'Caucasian race' spoken of, to which the Europeans are said to belong. But probably, were he asked, no one could tell us what its bodily characteristics are. It is, or should be, quite clear that a 'race' must be embodied in a group of human beings each of whom presents the same physical and mental picture. Physical and mental differences, however, are very great, not only within Europe (often called the home of the 'white' or 'Caucasian' race) and within each of the countries in it, but even within some small district in one of the latter. There is, therefore, no 'German race,' or 'Russian race,' or 'Spanish race.' The terms 'nation' and 'race' must be kept apart.

People may be heard speaking of a 'Germanic,' a 'Latin,' and a 'Slav' race; but it is at once seen that in those lands where Germanic, Romance, or Slav tongues are spoken there is the same bewildering variety in the outward appearance of their peoples, and never any such uniformity as suggests a race.

We see, therefore, that the human groups in question -- the 'Germans,' the 'Latins,' and the 'Slavs' -- form a linguistical, not a racial combination.

The following consideration will probably be enough to keep racial and linguistical grouping distinct from one another. Is a North American negro -- a man, that is, speaking American English, a Germanic tongue, as his own -- is he a German, taking this term in its wider meaning? The usual answer would be: No; for a German is tall, fair, and light-eyed. But now a fresh perplexity comes in: In Scotland are found many tall, fair, light-eyed men and women, speaking Keltic. Are there, then, Kelts who look like 'Germans' ? It is from Kelts (according to a still prevalent belief in south Germany) that the dark, short people of Germany come. Many of the ancient Greeks and Romans are described as like Germans. Fair, light-eyed men and women are not seldom met with in the Caucasus. There are Italians of 'Germanic' appearance. I have taken the anthropometrical measurements of a Spaniard with this appearance. On the other hand, there are very many Germans, men belonging, that is, to a people speaking a Germanic tongue, who have no Germanic appearance whatever. But are not the people of Germany 'sprung from the old Germans'? How are these contradictions to be reconciled? For there can be no doubt that at first sight they are contradictions.

It is only by a careful examination of the term 'race' that a way out is found. Anyone who is going to deal with race questions must be on his guard against confusing Race and People (generally marked by a common language), or Race and Nationality, or (as in the case of the Jewish people) Blood kinship and Faith. 'Race' is a conception belonging to the comparative study of man (Anthropology), which in the first place (as Physical Anthropology) only inquires into the measurable and calculable details of the bodily structure, and measures, for instance, the height, the length of the limbs, the skull and its parts, and determines the colour of the skin (after a colour scale), and of the hair and eyes. Martin's excellent Lehrbuch der Anthropologie (Jena, 1914) may give the layman some idea through its size of the great number of individual measurements and determinations that has to be made before a human body has been anthropologically registered in all its details. Besides the inquiry into the bodily racial structure there is the inquiry into the psychological composition properly belonging to each race.

And what indeed is a 'Race'? The study of races and racial questions has suffered much harm through the circumstance that many of the books and other works that have been written about races (and so-called races), and, above all, books that have drawn, or sought to draw, general and philosophical conclusions from an examination into racial questions, have often said nothing to show what they really understand by 'race.' I had, therefore, in my Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes to go into details, which here are only summarized.

A race shows itself in an individual human group, which in turn only produces its like.

By an individual human group we are here to understand: a human group marking itself off from any other human group through its own peculiar combination of bodily and mental characteristics. Thus putting these two statements together, we reach the following result:

A race shows itself in a human group which is marked off from every other human group through its own proper combination of bodily and mental characteristics, and in turn produces only its like.

From this we see at once that Ethnology yields hardly any example of such a true-breeding human group -- that is, a race -- appearing anywhere as one people, or with one form of language, of government, or of faith. In particular, most of the peoples of Europe show a mingling of the five European races, some, a mingling of only two or three of them; while Eastern Europe shows an even simpler mixture. What generally distinguishes the European peoples from one another, therefore, is, from the anthropological standpoint, only the proportions of the mixture of the races in each case.

In all the European peoples the following five races, pure and crossed with one another, are represented:

The Nordic race: tall, long-headed, narrow-faced, with prominent chin; narrow nose with high bridge; soft, smooth or wavy light (golden-fair) hair; deep-sunk light (blue or grey) eyes; rosy-white skin.

The Mediterranean race: short, long-headed, narrow-faced, with less prominent chin; narrow nose with high bridge; soft, smooth or curly brown or black hair; deep-sunk brown eyes; brownish skin.

The Dinaric race: tall, short-headed, narrow-faced, with a steep back to the head, looking as though it were cut away; very prominent nose, which stands right out, with a high bridge, and at the cartilage sinks downward at its lower part, becoming rather fleshy; curly brown or black hair; deep-sunk brown eyes; brownish skin,

The Alpine race: short, short-headed, broad-faced, with chin not prominent; flat, short nose with low bridge; stiff, brown or black hair; brown eyes, standing out; yellowish-brownish skin.

The East Baltic race: short, short-headed, broad-faced, with heavy, massive under jaw, chin not prominent, flat, rather broad, short nose with low bridge; stiff, light (ash-blond) hair; light (grey or whitish blue) eyes, standing out; light skin with a grey undertone.1

But how do we come to determine these five races for Europe?

A consideration of the ethnographical map shows remarkable correlations between the bodily characteristics there given. For instance, in England the areas of tallest stature are at the same time those of the lightest colouring; while in the north of France an area of lightest colouring is likewise an area of tallest stature, and at the same time of longest heads. Central and southern France show dark colouring and rather low stature, but the shape of the head varies, growing longer as the Mediterranean and south-west coasts are left; so that we are led to surmise that there are two long-headed races represented in France: a light, tall one in the north, and a dark, low one in the south; while in central France dark colouring, low stature, and brachycephaly are all correlated, and thus suggest a third race. In Germany likewise there is an area in the north-west of tall stature, light colouring, and longish heads, with narrow faces; and in the south-east one with tall stature also, but with dark colouring and rather short heads. In south-west Germany dark colouring points to low stature, short heads, broad faces. These correlations between characteristics are often so strong that when one characteristic increases in a district others increase or decrease in more or less the same proportion. The maps of the Norwegian district of Möre will make this evident (see Maps I-V).

When, however, an ethnographical survey is taken too of individual countries or parts of countries, and the recorded characteristics (stature, shape of head and face, colour of skin, hair, and eyes) are set out in numerical tables, so that attention is directed not towards the local distribution of the population, but towards its grouping on the basis of its characteristics (it being looked on as a racial mixture uniformly distributed throughout its territory) -- when such a survey is taken, correlations among the characteristics are again found. Thus, to take an example, in north-west and west Germany among the taller element light colouring and long heads are found relatively far oftener, while among the shorter element this is the case with dark colouring, just as in the Norwegian district of Möre, and in northern and central France. In south-west Germany, as in the whole area from the eastern Alps as far as Greece, tall stature is the sign for dark colouring, short heads, and also for the characteristically cut-away back of the head, and the bold, outstanding nose. Finally, after a careful consideration of these correlated characteristics, we reach true, unspoilt pictures of the several races making up a given population. Even if members of the races are not to be found in all their purity owing to a long intermingling, the correlations, by making a definite picture of the related characteristics, would show which races have built up the mixed population in question.

Fig. 1 - Doliochocephalic Skull (Index, 72.9)

Fig. 2 - Brachycephalic Skull (Index 88.3)

Fig. 3 - Narrow Face (Index about 93.5)

Fig. 4 - Broad Face - (Index about 83.5)

However, this mingling has not yet gone so far in Europe and other parts of the world that we cannot find more or less clear ocular proof in certain areas of a strong preponderance of one or the other race. North-west Europe, especially Scandinavia, shows a certain homogeneity in its population which strikes even the careless onlooker with its definite combination of bodily characteristics: tall, fair, narrow-faced men and women, with long heads standing out over the nape of the neck. The Austrian Alps show likewise, even to a careless eye, a constantly appearing definite type described ethnographically as the Dinaric race; among Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Albanians, and Montenegrins it is even more striking. Spain and southern Italy show that they are settled by a relatively homogeneous population; and the same is true of North-east Europe, and of many small, mostly mountainous districts in Central Europe. Finally it is from the observation of such relatively homogeneous human groups in definite areas, when anthropology has first of all only determined the most important physical characteristics of each race, that other features, not yet submitted to measurement, are discovered; and the mental behaviour of such a relatively homogeneous human group may yield suggestions as to the psychological constitution of the race concerned.

We cannot here go into the methods of anthropological measurement. Martin's Lehrbuch der Anthropologie (1914), and the section on 'Technik und Methoden der physischen Anthropologie' by Mollison in the volume Anthropologie ('Kultur der Gegenwart,' Teil iii., Abt. v., 1923), may be mentioned here.2 The terms 'long-headed' (or 'dolichocephalic'), 'narrow-faced,' 'short-headed' (or 'brachycephalic'), 'broad-faced,' however, need a short explanation.

A skull is dolichocephalic (long) when its length from front to back (as it is seen from above) is considerably greater than that from side to side; it is brachycephalic (short) when the length from side to side is more nearly or almost equal to the length from front to back, or even (as is sometimes found) actually equal to it.

The greatest length and breadth of the head are measured (in a fixed way and with reference to fixed planes in the skull), and the cross measurement is then expressed as a percentage of the measurement from front to back; the percentage so found is called the Cranial or Cephalic Index.3

If a skull, therefore, is as broad as it is long, it represents very decided brachycephaly with index 100. If the breadth of a skull is 70 per cent. of the length this is said to be dolichocephalic (long) with index 70. An index up to 74.9 is dolichocephalic (long), from 75 to 79.9 it is mesocephalic (middling or medium), from 80 upwards it is brachycephalic (short).

The facial shape is laid down as the proportion between the height of the face and the bizygomatic diameter, the former being reckoned as a percentage of the latter. The height of the face is (speaking approximately) the distance between the bridge of the nose at the level of the ends of the interior hairs of the eyebrows and the lowest (not the foremost) point in the chin. The bizygomatic diameter is the extreme outward distance between the zygomatic arches (cheek-bones). The percentage number thus arrived at is called the (morphological) facial index. Measured on the skull, a facial index up to 84.9 is broad, from 85 to 89.9 it is middling or medium, from 90 upwards it is narrow. Measured on the living head the limits are taken lower (83.9, 84 to 87.9, 88).

A higher cephalic index, therefore, shows a shorter head, a lower one shows a longer head; while a higher facial index shows a narrower, and a lower one shows a broader face.

These definitions are important for the understanding of Maps II, III, VIII, IX, and XIII.

My last Post, Bye

From Wilhelm White

use this for your Race

Hail ALL Aryans

Keep having babies.


Anonymous said...

Scandinavians who claim purity are liars. Scandinavians actually have Mongol ancestry. It's a fact, and you cannot change history. So many with slanted blue eyes, flat noses and round faces. MY blog is full of pictures of them in their true light. However, they claim to be superior to others. I'm of German-English heritage, and my German grandmother always told me NEVER to marry a Swede or I'd end up with a very blond Asian-looking baby. So true! True Europeans are superior! NOT phony Nordics!

Now let's see if this gets posted or deleted . . .

Anonymous said...

It's very sad to read the words in your posts...I can see you are an educated person and you look like a very skilled researcher but your prejudices eliminate any sign of intelligence from your writing...please open your mind...don't be so narrow.

Anonymous said...

True White people are the Albino types...If we refer to white people as Caucasian, then Greeks are just as white as any other but If we base Whiteness solely on skin colour, that would make Albino people the only true whites as the majority of European people are not actually really white, rather a blend of olive and off-white...that said, the Whiteness of a Germanic or a Celtic or a Slavic, means what exactly ???

The Germanics were forest dwellers, the Celts an earthy people and the Slavs, well what of the Slavs, each of these so called White races are what exactly ???

Lets not forget the Greeks gave us the word Evropi [Europe] A Europe without Greek Hellenic people in it is not Europe at all, rather a place where a conglomorate alliance of the descendents of forest dwellers, earthy people and Slavs live in splendid isolation, these races do not mix easily with each other.

I look at GrecoRoman people and I see a certain beauty to behold, I look at Germanics Celtics and Slavics...a Whiteness so dull in comparison to the GrecoRoman People!

Anonymous said...

Had it not been for the Oriental Turk, the GrecoRoman people would have advanced to have moulded the continent of Europe into a singular unified force, capable of protecting the borders of Europe from Islamic or Turkic threat. The Byzantine empire [Eastern Roman Empire] destroyed by the Oriental Musulman Turk, still resonates in the mindset of some European architects who would dearly like to Terraform a political landscape which would make Europe a singular unified force made a reality in order to counter Islam and the rise of the modern Turk in the east.

European history has recorded, wherever the Oriental musulman Turk went, he destroyed civilisations and laid waste centuries of human civilization and enlightenment. Nothing good can be said of the Turk, he is the most backward of all the oriental asiatic backward in his thoughts regarding the progress and humanity.

Today, the Turkish Republic has developed in leaps and bounds but that is not due to the efforts of the Turk, rather it is due to the fact that the modern Turkish race has been significantly diluted from it's Oriental root allowing the European Balkanian and Hebrew elements in it to dominate.

The Turk destroyed a civilization and a way of life which was a bastion of Greek thought wisdom and sapience, administered under a Roman system of juridiction, it endured for almost two Millenia.

The Turk inherited the best part of Europe and the most wealthiest part of Europe with a GrecoRoman population so enlightened, I mean so advanced in all of the sholarly and academic disciplines and within a short space of time...his governance over them, converted them and that Part of Europe into the the most Illiterate and poorest. Nothing good can be said of the Eastern Asiatic Oriental Turk.

The Modern Turk has developed in many ways but that is not due to his roots or his ethno-origins, it is due to the significant Cultural and Genetic Infusion from the peoples who's enlightenment he tried his best to destroy!

If the Modern Turk should ever looks back at himself, the reflection he would see would Not be that of an Oriental Turk but a GrecoRoman or a Slav or a Hebrew or a Kurd or an Arab or an......

Anonymous said...

Macedonia:From Antiquity and Beyond

Since the forming of the Hellenes, a collection of 230 known
groups tribes and kingdoms bound together in common speech and common genus, who's culture and traditions so resiliant and so dominant...Other, lesser cultures willingly and voluntarily succumbed to Hellenisms superior elements.

Macedonians...Just one of many Greek Hellenic groups tribes and kingdoms:
The northern verge of Hellas, a relatively less populated area, containing peoples and cultures considered by most Classic Hellenes to be little better than barbarians. Yet, these northerners have contributed some of the most notable features of the Greek historical and mythological landscape. Here will be found the Macedonians and Thracians, the Epirotes and Thessalians. Here also is located Mount Olympus itself.

Macedonians have always been Greek Hellenic people, right from the time they first learned to read and write they actually told us they were Greeks in ways which resonate and are still apparent even up till today, they were Greeks and nothing else...Just Greeks!

About the forming of the Greeks [Hellenes]

The title of this section is The Greeks, and not Greece, since from the mythical days of the Argonauts to the present, neither the peninsula of Hellas nor Ionia and the Aegean Islands have been large enough to hold the far-wandering Hellenes. Greek is a language and a civilization, the Greeks a people; the Greeks are the descendants of all the peoples who have adopted and retained that language and that civilization from classical times to the present. Some of these converts to Hellenicism were inhabitants of Asia Minor, others of Thrace and Byzantium, others of the lands bordering the Black Sea, especially the Crimea.

Into the peninsula of Greece itself, many thousands of Slavs wandered as immigrants during the maximum South Slavic expansion; the Turks brought colonists, including many Albanians, and whole districts of Boeotia and Attica and of other parts of Greece are today Albanian speaking. Romance-speaking shepherds, the Vlachs, have also made the slopes of the Pindus their seasonal pastures. Since the World War many of the Greeks living in Thrace and Asia Minor have been sent to Greek soil to live, while Turks and other Moslems have been in turn repatriated. Despite these attempts at producing ethnic order, much Greek territory, especially in Macedonia, remains ethnically heterogeneous. Furthermore, the number of Greeks who live abroad, be it in Egypt, East Africa, or in the New World, is so great that the Greeks are still almost an international people. Many of the Greeks leave home to make their fortunes on less stony soil, but many of them also return.

It is inaccurate to say that the modern Greeks are different physically from the ancient Greeks; such a statement is based on an ignorance of the Greek ethnic character. In classical times the Greeks included many kinds of people living in different places, as they do today. If one refers to the inhabitants of Attica during the sixth century, or to the Spartans of Leonidas, then the changes in these localities have probably not been nearly as great as that between the Germans of Tacitus and the living South Germans, to cite but a single example.

Macedonians have always been Greek Hellenic people...Integral to the Greek Hellenic Collective of Peoples. Macedonians are Greek and Nothing Else...Just Greeks!

Anonymous said...

JohnPilkey: The Teutons.,%20papers/John%20Pilkey/The%20Teutons.pdf

Anonymous said...

Ave! It is writen good, but most important part is , that there was cleansing of history and now we slovly are getting to right place. First cleaning was done by Rome/Vatican by burning library of Alexandria with 600 000 writings of ancient world.
One must realize, that Roman empire has never die and continue her journey under Vatican flag.Pope holds title Pontius Maximus formerly title of secular rulers of Rome.
We must start at beging. 70 000 years ego humanoids almost extincts. Most likely after Koba catastrophe. This is why we have same roots DNA. But not only biblical folx survievd. There were some other races survived catastrophe. Anunnaki and Caucasians.
Abraham had 2 sons: Ishmael-islam and Isaac-judeo/christian. So there is no judeo-christian culture, but islamic-judeo-christian culture.
Origins of any religion lies in our homeland in Asia:India,Afghanistan ,Iran. All the stories goeas arround the globe under diferent names.
Roots of christianity is in Mithra/mithraism not in Jesus Creestos. Mithraism was brought into Rome by Teutonic legion of Rome army because they had some conections on. Thanx wiping histroy we dont know for sure what, but we can guess. Mithra has similarities with Brahma and Krishna. Christianity is actually not monoteism, but, I do not know this special word now, but there is central god and lower boys arround. Mithra was born to virgin in barn, 3 shepherds visit him follow star,survived killing...and so on. So Jesus is reincarnation of Mithra. Ju gugl it, am not gonna make copy/paste stuff 2 much.
Mithra was god of The sun. The same is about Akhenaten/Moses, where they said judaism was born. Quite lie. Mithra/Jesus were born december 24. longest night. Mithra has symbol WHEEL OF MITHRA. What is elipse with 2 lines crossed and Mithra has his hands wide on the cross. He was crucified and 3. day woke up and was seen in local pub to get some beers. Wheel of Mithra has pause. It looks like circled SWASTIKA. It means 4 seasons, states of the sun. Teustons who brought mitraism into Rome use Swastika as symbol instead of bird. There is many military artifacts from ancient rome with swastika on it. This is just begining of the story.
Mithraism in Rome was religion of :men/higher class/soldier. To be in was honor, not right. Official religion in Rome was PAGAN. Wait a minute. They teach us that pagans kills people, animals etc. No way. pagan god in NORTHERN europe was ODIN. Odin menas ONE in slavic languages, russian especially. But Mithraism was religion in Persia and they could not declare it as official since Persia was main enemy of Rome. They use Jesus and and change Mithra for Jesus. OK folx we have god. But whats about rituals? All rituals and holly days in christianity are formerly PAGAN holly days. Xmas,Tgiving, memory of saint, Valentine day etc. All christian world is based on PAGAN religion.
So what happend with PAGAN religion? You can hear a lot about persecusion of christians but nut much about persecution of pagans
If Y'LL rednex go over paganism, Y'LL find similarities between pagan deites in nations of Europe.
By DNA Slovaks nad Czechs are more teutons than germans. And NE nations has some DNA as well.
And Good bless Y'LL

Anonymous said...

Amazing info..thanks for the site..

Anonymous said...

What a waste of Intelligence.

As if blood and Dna could determine a race ?

The blood and Dna one carries today may not reflect faithfully, ones current ethnic-pride and current National-feelings - think about that for a moment!

England today - the blood and Dna of NoN-Englishmen profess to exalt their pride and feelings to a race their blood and Dna has no ethnic or racial ties amplify that scenario across Europe!