Classify Colin Murray

[Jack B]

A TV presenter from Belfast

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Football/Pix/pictures/2010/4/22/1271960868946/Colin-Murray-001.jpg

http://www.hji.co.uk/blogs/photo/colin%20murray%20new.jpg

http://www.belfastzoo.co.uk/images/celebritygallery/colinmurray.jpg

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/apr2010/2/1/colin-murray-pic-getty-images-647599169.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/ColinMurray.jpg/220px-ColinMurray.jpg

[exceeder]

Very atlantomed looking!

[Raskolnikov]

More at classic Mediterranid.

[exceeder]

More at classic Mediterranid.

So a gracile med eh?

[Raskolnikov]

Aye.

[Rouxinol]

Gracile Med.

[Sikeliot]

Iberian-looking Atlanto-Med. Black Irish :)

[Rouxinol]

Aren't Atlanto Meds more robust? He looks gracilised. Just my two cents...

[Sikeliot]

Gracile Meds to my understanding have rounder faces but small and delicate facial features. Atlanto-Meds have longer, almost horsy faces and are usually taller and lighter (but not always).

[Adalwolf]

Very atlantomed looking!

This.

If I saw him on the street, Irish would be my first impression.

[aherne]

Looks like a Semitic Jew. Totally un-European looking...

[Mordid]

Looks like a Semitic Jew. Totally un-European looking...

http://files.sharenator.com/Blank_Facepalm_You_are_now_aware-s387x259-68260-475.gif

[Heimmacht]

He looks like he's at least 50% indid, especially on the second picture.

[Rouxinol]

Indeed the 2nd pic is somewhat misleading, might be the angle or so, but he looks mostly Euro on the others.

[Heimmacht]

Indeed the 2nd pic is somewhat misleading, might be the angle or so, but he looks mostly Euro on the others.

On the third picture you can see his nose would fit that description too, Nord-Indid'isch :P.

[Treffie]

Looks like a Semitic Jew. Totally un-European looking...

You're such a dick

[Guapo]

Black Irish :)

Black Irish didnt mean swarthy but outcasts due to not being WASP in America.

[Pallantides]

I would have guessed him to have South Asian admixture... atleast he'd look very out of place in Scandinavia.

[Hess]

Silence, Fools.

High Inquisitor Aherne has spoken, and this guy who looks like a typical gracile med is actually a semitic jew.

[Jack B]

Hmm some interesting posts, Btw I'm not aware of him having any Jewish ancestry or anything so it's not like a trick question on my part, was just wondering how he would be classified..

A couple more pictures

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radioassets/photos/2006/4/19/522_2.jpg

http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/210x600/colin-murray-23855.jpg?1173515612

http://www.andresworld.co.uk/uni/galleries/radio1/CIMG5396.jpg

[Adalwolf]

He looks fully European to me. Honestly don't know where his ''semitic'' input is coming from. Many Celtic people just have a swarthy appearance.

[Don]

An interesting case.

He has not a typical iberian look, what means an old atlantic european look found in many irish or ancient british breeds.

His features are too "weak".

There is something rare in him, not ancient westerner.

[Lábaru]

http://www.beehivecity.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/colin-murray.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NNLNhx9iPh4/0.jpg

To my eyes is a European, sure He is dark to be Irish, but falls into the spectrum, although he represents a minority in Ireland.

[Agrippa]

Atlantid rather, but I would have guessed that he is rather between Keltic Nordic and basic Mediterranid (would call it definitely Atlanto- or Gracile- so far), probably approaching more gracile Baskid variants too.

Anything known about his body height?

On pictures like this one can see the Dinaroid/Keltic Nordic tendency more clearly in my opinion:
http://markhadfield.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5503069b888340120a8576add970b-800wi

With the beard he looks more "Southern", which is often the case with dark haired people anyway. I think he is a quite general European and especially Western European type.


There is something rare in him, not ancient westerner.

On some pictures it seems to be the case, might be attributed to Beaker people or whatever, if he has no specific ancestry.

[aherne]

On the third picture you can see his nose would fit that description too, Nord-Indid'isch :P.

Not exactly. He has no veddoid influences, thus doesn't look like Gypsy/N-Indian. He looks totally out of place in Europe. Way too dark for a Romanian, let alone a British Islander... He HAS to have some recent Jewish/Syrian/Lebanese ancestry, or he just happens to inherit the type which neolithic farmers from fertile crescend belonged to... Either way, he looks Syrian.

Those who claim this guy looks "Celtic" have had their brains amputated by guys of same physical attire as this greasy semite... I bet they would also accept a mullatto as "English":puke:

[Don]

Atlantid rather, but I would have guessed that he is rather between Keltic Nordic and basic Mediterranid (would call it definitely Atlanto- or Gracile- so far), probably approaching more gracile Baskid variants too.

With the beard he looks more "Southern", which is often the case with dark haired people anyway. I think he is a quite general European and especially Western European type.


On some pictures it seems to be the case, might be attributed to Beaker people or whatever, if he has no specific ancestry.

I have ever associated Ancient Westerners to more potent and strong facial bone features, in opposition to these called "dinaric" features, not old atlantic for sure (As Spain's population comparative in regions clearly shows).

More like:
http://opiniones.terra.es/tmp/swotti/cacheC2VHBIBJB25UZXJ5UGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgSean%20Connery3.jpg


Than:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oO2CQs957oo/TA3w0mP0PYI/AAAAAAAADBE/ptFW3ieaL00/s1600/ringo_starr.jpg

[Lábaru]

Way too dark for a Romanian

Come to my mind a number of Romanians as dark as this man, no gypsys, two of them, with same dark features but most eastern faces, are in my gym.

[Agrippa]

Don't forget (if assuming he has no other specific ancestry):
http://www.zonu.com/images/500X0/2009-12-09-11377/Bell-Beaker-culture-en-Europe-2400--1900-BC.png

The Bell Beakers were not that homogenous everywhere, but those which moved to the British islands came mostly from the Rhine/Benelux areas and were mixed, but had still a very strong Taurid/Dinaroid component, especially in their upper class ("German" Dinaroid Bell Beakers):
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7935&stc=1&d=1302013776

(after Kurt Gerhardt)

I wouldn't wonder if many "Keltic" (and Baskid?) phenotypes have influences from these and some are just more South Eastern and more strongly Dinaroid than most modern British, which are harmonised longheads even if having those influences, that is just individual recombination (if there is no other specific more recent ancestry).

[Raskolnikov]

Atlantid rather, but I would have guessed that he is rather between Keltic Nordic and basic Mediterranid (would call it definitely Atlanto- or Gracile- so far), probably approaching more gracile Baskid variants too.

Anything known about his body height?

On pictures like this one can see the Dinaroid/Keltic Nordic tendency more clearly in my opinion:
http://markhadfield.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5503069b888340120a8576add970b-800wi

With the beard he looks more "Southern", which is often the case with dark haired people anyway. I think he is a quite general European and especially Western European type.



On some pictures it seems to be the case, might be attributed to Beaker people or whatever, if he has no specific ancestry.
I agree completely about the Western Dinaroid variant, and for precisely that reason ask, why Keltic Nordid?

[Agrippa]

I agree completely about the Western Dinaroid variant, and for precisely that reason ask, why Keltic Nordid?

Because he is distinctively longheaded and shows, despite certain facial details in the range of Keltic, no strong Dinarid traits in my opinion. I think his exoticness comes rather from the fact, that he combines a darkish Mediterranid variant with these facial features of many Keltics, just somewhat more pronounced Dinaroid.

If you look at various Keltic Nordic phenotypes, they often looks morphologically more exotic, but the light pigmentation brings it back - now add to that his smooth beard and darker pigmentation, with more Southern inspired Mediterranid and it might suffice.

Because cranial wise I see nothing really Dinaroid.

[aherne]

Don't forget (if assuming he has no other specific ancestry):
http://www.zonu.com/images/500X0/2009-12-09-11377/Bell-Beaker-culture-en-Europe-2400--1900-BC.png

The Bell Beakers were not that homogenous everywhere, but those which moved to the British islands came mostly from the Rhine/Benelux areas and were mixed, but had still a very strong Taurid/Dinaroid component, especially in their upper class ("German" Dinaroid Bell Beakers):
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7935&stc=1&d=1302013776

(after Kurt Gerhardt)

I wouldn't wonder if many "Keltic" (and Baskid?) phenotypes have influences from these and some are just more South Eastern and more strongly Dinaroid than most modern British, which are harmonised longheads even if having those influences, that is just individual recombination (if there is no other specific more recent ancestry).
All of the people you have exemplified are brachicephalic and short-headed, whereas this guy is pure east-mediterannean (long headed and dolicocephalic). If he doesn't have recent non-European ancestry (highly unlikely), he simply must inherit an unadulterated levantine look due to 8.000 years old Neolithic invaders. He can pass as Turk, Persian, Armenian, Jew, Arab. It pisses me off to see you guys classify this semite as "Celt". It is obvious you have no idea what a Celt is.

Most Celts were blondish: light brown hair was majority, and golden blond a significant minority. Black hair was very uncommon. This is how a typical Celt looked like:
http://imstars.aufeminin.com/stars/fan/gerard-depardieu/gerard-depardieu-20060622-138953.jpg
Or:
http://reviewonmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/liam_neeson.jpg
Or:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/StervendeGalaathoofd.jpg

[Agrippa]

Look, Celts historically or ethnolinguistically and "Keltic Nordic" is not the same, obviously.

That is like Armenid and Armenians f.e., yet even more Armenians might be Armenoid than Celts are "Keltic Nordic".

Also I agree with you insofar, as his look could be found in many regions, in almost all West and South of a certain line I'd say.

Don't forget that different ingredients can recombine to a similar result as well...

F.e. some Dinarid-Mediterranid people can looks somewhat similar to Armenid-Arabid, yet if looking at their ancestors, the thing becomes clear at once.

[Saruman]

I have ever associated Ancient Westerners to more potent and strong facial bone features, in opposition to these called "dinaric" features, not old atlantic for sure (As Spain's population comparative in regions clearly shows).

More like:
http://opiniones.terra.es/tmp/swotti/cacheC2VHBIBJB25UZXJ5UGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgSean%20Connery3.jpg


Than:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oO2CQs957oo/TA3w0mP0PYI/AAAAAAAADBE/ptFW3ieaL00/s1600/ringo_starr.jpg

That's not how real Dinarid looks like. Real Dinarids have stronger facial relief that "Atlantics", it's one of their definining features. And Dinarids are more robust that Atlantomediterranids, Sean Connery is no Atlantomediterranid proper he is an intermediate between Atlantomediterranid and Cromagnoid.

Real Dinarics look like this:

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z61/Andresh-photos/balkan-caucasian/12A.jpg

http://www.pressonline.rs/upload/boxImageData/2009/10/13/79386/rs-0403.jpg

http://www.mojevijesti.ba/slike/novosti/AAA%20MOJE%20VIJESTI/POLITIKA/hdz/dragan%20covic8.jpg

http://www.jutarnji.hr/multimedia/archive/00256/milo__ukanovi__crn_256088S1.jpg

http://www.24media.me/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Ranko_Krivokapic.jpg

http://www.pressonline.rs/upload/boxImageData/2009/10/2/78196/0201-igor-pavicevic.jpg

http://webdizajn.me/odbrana/images/stories/kontakti/Ministri/Ilija_Plamenac.jpg

[Mordid]

Ok Sarmo, we all know that Dinarid are master race. ;) :D

[Lábaru]

Most Celts were blondish: light brown hair was majority, and golden blond a significant minority. Black hair was very uncommon. This is how a typical Celt

Celtic is not a racial designation that includes hair or eye color. The Celts lived in both the central and northern Europe and the South, Andalusia, and in each area were as different as can be now, perhaps the western & Atlantic appearance is the common trait shared.

[aherne]

Celtic is not a racial designation that includes hair or eye color. The Celts lived in both the central and northern Europe and the South, Andalusia, and in each area were as different as can be now, perhaps the western & Atlantic appearance is the common trait shared.

False. This is cultural semitism! It's like saying English is not a racial designation, thus blacks can be English too:) One must obviously draw distinction between Celts of Northern Gaul and East Britain (later moved into Britanny, which is among the LIGHTEST regions of France), who were pretty much the same as the root ethnolinguistic ancestor in Upper Danube basin and people who were Celticized a few centuries before Romans came, all speaking non-Aryan languages previously (Celts from S France, N Italy or Iberia).

Secondly, Andalusia was never inhabited by Celts, but by Iberians. Besides, most Celts in Iberian peninsula concentrated in the Mesetas and they were simply celticized natives and, as opposed to Celts from Northern Gaul, they were not described by Romans as "blonds". The resurgence of Iberian types among modern Celts is a RECENT development, just like the de-Aryanization of Slavs. THis can be easily proven by comparing skulls from our time to those 2000 years ago. Celts were of EXACTLY THE SAME physical type as early Italics before they entered Italy (because they were born in adjacent areas): subnordid type was predominant, followed by all sorts of mixtures that also included a good share of dinarid and cro-magnid elements. Iberian was ABSENT in Celts ethnogenesis. It was absent among Eastern Britons too, until Romans and Anglo-Saxons came and Britons moved into inhospitable regions that used to be inhabited by un-Aryan relics, including offshots of Megalithic Iberians. Swarthy people like:
- Colin Farrell
- Catherine Zeta Jones
- Sean Connery
are simply products of this very late admixture and absolutely NOT typical of Celts in general. Romans like emperor Augustus (who was Italic) looked SO MUCH MORE Celtic by comparison.

Here is yet another typical Celtic woman (Celine Dion):
http://turbo.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2010/04/celine-dion.jpg

Or Catherine Deneuve (of Briton ancestry, illustrating types still very much present in England, too):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Deneuve

[Mordid]

Shut up, Aherne.

[Don]

"Shameful show of ignorance about"

El peor mal del necio es no ser consciente de su propia ignorancia.


Study, you pathetic ignorant.

Then, once you recover yourself from the shame you will eventually feel from discovering how ridiculous and stupid "were" your statements and deep your ignorance shown in posts like these (and most of your contributions in here)...

... then maybe you could be a little closer to the level of knowledge and formation of the average member in these threads.

Until the day your contributions are worthless for the instructed reader, except in the case of looking for these kind of shamefull displays of ignorance that can only cause embarrasment or enjoy to the reader.

[Ibericus]

Iberian-looking Atlanto-Med. Black Irish :)
He doesn't look Iberian to me. Not every black-irish can pass for iberian.


All of the people you have exemplified are brachicephalic and short-headed, whereas this guy is pure east-mediterannean (long headed and dolicocephalic). If he doesn't have recent non-European ancestry (highly unlikely), he simply must inherit an unadulterated levantine look due to 8.000 years old Neolithic invaders. He can pass as Turk, Persian, Armenian, Jew, Arab. It pisses me off to see you guys classify this semite as "Celt". It is obvious you have no idea what a Celt is.

Most Celts were blondish: light brown hair was majority, and golden blond a significant minority. Black hair was very uncommon. This is how a typical Celt looked like:
http://imstars.aufeminin.com/stars/fan/gerard-depardieu/gerard-depardieu-20060622-138953.jpg
Or:
http://reviewonmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/liam_neeson.jpg
Or:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/StervendeGalaathoofd.jpg
These people look nordic, rather than Celtic. If celts were like you described, then all of France, North-Italy, West Iberia, etc would be majority Nordic.

[Rouxinol]

Would anyone post a pic of what a "pure" Celt must have looked like?

[Ibericus]

Would anyone post a pic of what a "pure" Celt must have looked like?
Face reconstruction of a real Celtic man :

http://www.white-history.com/hwr14_files/iaman.jpeg

[Ibericus]

Secondly, Andalusia was never inhabited by Celts, but by Iberians.
False. There were the celtic tribe Celtici living in part of today Andalusia.

[Agrippa]

The typical original Celt was pred. Nordoid with various amounts of other influences. Mediterranid is hard to distinguish, but morphologically, tendencies towards Dinaroid and Alpinoid were pretty common, especially in the later periods. Which is why "Keltic Nordic" is a low headed Nordoid with Dinaro-Alpinoid/Dinaroid tendencies (mostly Bell Beaker derived) in Coon's system.

The upper class was more Atlanto-Nordid later too, whereas the average became "mesomesomorph". But not always because of the homogeneity, but rather the variation present.

After the expansions regional variation became stronger of course.

[Mordid]

The typical original Celt was pred. Nordoid with various amounts of other influences. Mediterranid is hard to distinguish, but morphologically, tendencies towards Dinaroid and Alpinoid were pretty common, especially in the later periods. Which is why "Keltic Nordic" is a low headed Nordoid with Dinaro-Alpinoid/Dinaroid tendencies (mostly Bell Beaker derived) in Coon's system.


Similiar to ancient Roman ?

[Agrippa]

Similiar to ancient Roman ?

Yes.

Interestingly, ancient Romans, Celts and Etruscans were proportionally not that different from each other actually.

Etruscans were just more gracile (Mediterranoid) and approached the more gracile Hallstatt-Celts (gracile Nordoid). Romans were less rangy, shorter, more compact and broader, that was the main difference of Romans vs. Celts, which can be attributed to various factors from more Mediterranid-Alpinoid to nutrition (in Romans).

Typical skull which could be interpreted as "Keltic Nordic" (in my opinion) from an upper class warrior hill grave from Austria:
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1088/katzelsdorfhgelgrab.jpg (http://img40.imageshack.us/i/katzelsdorfhgelgrab.jpg/)

[Lábaru]

Secondly, Andalusia was never inhabited by Celts, but by Iberians. Besides, most Celts in Iberian peninsula concentrated in the Mesetas and they were simply celticized natives and, as opposed to Celts from Northern Gaul, they were not described by Romans as "blonds". The resurgence of Iberian types among modern Celts is a RECENT development,

OMG the full history of my country needs to be written again because this man Aryan from Romania say that the Semites created the fairy tale of the Celts of Iberia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Cantabros.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantabri


The Celtici (in Portuguese and Spanish, Célticos) were a Celtic tribe of the Iberian peninsula, akin either to the Lusitanians and Gallaecians or the Celtiberians, living in what today are the provinces of Alentejo and the Algarve in Portugal (though some migrated north alongside the Turduli), and in the Province of Badajoz and north of Province of Huelva in Spain.

Huelva is Andalusia.

http://fisterras.soios.com/europa/imagen/celtiberia.jpg

http://www.viejaiberia.es/images/historia/celtas.GIF

you can see a lot of Celtiberians descendants in this videos:

egAvgPmsTJw

SQlktU5gAxE

[Curtis24]

The typical original Celt was pred. Nordoid with various amounts of other influences. Mediterranid is hard to distinguish, but morphologically, tendencies towards Dinaroid and Alpinoid were pretty common, especially in the later periods. Which is why "Keltic Nordic" is a low headed Nordoid with Dinaro-Alpinoid/Dinaroid tendencies (mostly Bell Beaker derived) in Coon's system.

The upper class was more Atlanto-Nordid later too, whereas the average became "mesomesomorph". But not always because of the homogeneity, but rather the variation present.

After the expansions regional variation became stronger of course.

Would mesomesomorph just be full-blown athletic?

[Agrippa]

Would mesomesomorph just be full-blown athletic?

In this case it has little (only indirectly) to with that and refers to medium face + medium headshape (mesoprosopic + mesocephalic).

Nordid/Mediterranid/Orientalid/Indid = Aurignacoid = typically leptodolichomorphic.

Dalofaelid/Berberid = Cromagnid = typically eurydolichomorphic

Dinarid, Armenid, (Pamirid) = Taurid = typically leptobrachymorphic

Alpinoid, Osteuropid = Cromagnoid derivatives, reduced forms = typically eurybrachymorphic.

While many "longheaded" variants are actually mesocephalic (just with a tendency towards dolichocephaly), especially in modern times, the Celtic average (especially in later times) was rather really intermediate by facial and head proportions (on the continent).

Since they were not all typical Cromagnoids, also not by size and dimension, we have to assume a growing Alpinoid element (Alpinisation) in the later period of various Celtic regions.

[Adalwolf]

Facial reconstruction shouldn't be taken as anything more seriously than speculation.

[antonio]

I read that Irish and Spaniards are always distinguisable. It's a dare assertion. This is a more or less famous Spaniard looking like the former Irish:

http://www.elmundotoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/flipy.jpeg

[aherne]

OMG the full history of my country needs to be written again because this man Aryan from Romania say that the Semites created the fairy tale of the Celts of Iberia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Cantabros.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantabri



I bet I know the history of "your country" much better than all of you browny butt munchers;) Hey, Don, where the fuck are you? I miss you, babe!

Iberia 200 BCE:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Prehispanic_languages.gif

No Celts in Andalusia. Also notice how many of Celtiberian tribes have iberian endings:
- Lusitani
- Carpetani
- Oretani
So we are speaking here of a Celticized population, who adopted the language of the conquerors but was never overwhelmed by incomers. It is even unclear if a Celtic dialect was only spoken just by elites and Iberian continued in commoners. What is clear is that Spanish emerged as an Iberian-substrate language (hence similarities to Basque), even though it emerged in an area unanimously defined as "celtiberian" (Old Castilia). I find that very odd...

[Ibericus]

Iberia 200 BCE:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Prehispanic_languages.gif
No Celts in Andalusia.
mmm...You can clearly see in the map that north Andalusia is part of the Celtic area.


Also notice how many of Celtiberian tribes have iberian endings:
- Lusitani
- Carpetani
- Oretani
These names were given by Romans actually.


What is clear is that Spanish emerged as an Iberian-substrate language (hence similarities to Basque), even though it emerged in an area unanimously defined as "celtiberian" (Old Castilia). I find that very odd...
Spanish emerged from vulgar Latin, not from Iberian.

[antonio]

. What is clear is that Spanish emerged as an Iberian-substrate language (hence similarities to Basque), even though it emerged in an area unanimously defined as "celtiberian" (Old Castilia). I find that very odd...

All more or less likeliable but this. Basques were rivals of Celtiberians, so quite allies with Romans, at least to the point they regain presence Southwards and Westwards (f.e. current Spanish Basque Country) from their Pirenaic core area. And in those areas Castilian were born and in a time probably Celtiberian language was yet extinct, maybe due to the fact more civilized Celtiberians (compared to Basques) adopt early another IE language of conquerors: another good cause it died whilst Euzkera remained.

[Don]

Face reconstruction of a real Celtic man :

http://www.white-history.com/hwr14_files/iaman.jpeg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_H_nBi7tngIQ/TCaZxCcMAGI/AAAAAAAAACs/MrKigCYyUS0/s1600/n_f_c_barcelona_andres_iniesta-13225.jpg

[Lábaru]

I bet I know the history of "your country" much better than all of you browny butt munchers;)

:) yeah, that seems endemic in these times, the outsiders people know Spain better than the Spanish.





No Celts in Andalusia.

In the north and west, what happens is that you do not know the geographical limits of the Andalusia.

But yes, Andalusia was predominantly Iberian, although the current Andalusia is a land repopulated by Castilians so no matter.



So we are speaking here of a Celticized population, who adopted the language of the conquerors but was never overwhelmed by incomers. It is even unclear if a Celtic dialect was only spoken just by elites and Iberian continued in commoners. What is clear is that Spanish emerged as an Iberian-substrate language (hence similarities to Basque), even though it emerged in an area unanimously defined as "celtiberian" (Old Castilia). I find that very odd...

Iberians were culturally more advanced than the Celts, the most advanced peoples never adopt the language and culture of the most uneducated. The only explanation for the customs and language Celtic is that not only were dominant, too numerically superior to the Iberian people.

No doubt there was more Celts individuals who adopted lifestyle and language of the Iberians than vice versa.


About the current Spanish language.

Castilian evolved from Vulgar Latin (common Latin) that had been introduced to the Iberian Peninsula by Romans during the Second Punic War around 210 BC, with influences from native languages such as Celtiberian, Basque and other paleohispanic languages, and later external influences, most notably Arabic of the Andalusian period.

Local versions of Vulgar Latin are thought to have evolved into Castilian in the central-north of the Iberia during the 9th and 10th centuries, in an area defined by the remote crossroad strips of Alava, Cantabria, Burgos, Soria and La Rioja, within the Kingdom of Castile (see Glosas Emilianenses)


Geographical spread of Castilian with repopulations.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Linguistic_map_Southwestern_Europe.gif

[aherne]

...

As a matter of fact, being an ethnologist, I know very well your country ethnic history.

Allow me to correct you:
- "Iberians were more culturally advanced by Celts."
Depends on the Iberian tribes. What Iberians lacked and Celts had was superior organization and superior military strength. Celts, being Aryans, were a warrior culture. By virtue of these strengths, Celts subdued Iberia and if Roman conquest would have come 200 years later it would have found a fully-Celtic-led peninsula.
- "Spanish comes from vulgar Latin, not Iberian"
I've never said otherwise: it is just the substrate, coming from the popular language that was superseded by Latin, which was CERTAINLY Iberian instead of Celtic, even though, no matter how you put it, Castilian was born in Celtiberian area. Castilian phonology also witnesses basque-like linguistic reflexes, coming from Iberians having to learn a totally foreign language:
factum >> hecho
This happens because in Iberian language (or Basque, its only surviving descendant), there is no "f" letter, so speakers assimilated "f" to "h", hence this isogloss distribution among Ibero-Romance as well as Aquitanian-Romance, In the western part of the peninsula, there was no such reflex because these areas were truly Celticized:
factum >> feito

[Lábaru]

As a matter of fact, being an ethnologist, I know very well your country ethnic history.

Allow me to correct you:

A man who talks about Aryans wants to correct me :eek: I am traveling to the past, anthropologists with monocle and titles preceded by a "Sir" seeking the source of the river Nile.



- "Iberians were more culturally advanced by Celts."
Depends on the Iberian tribes. What Iberians lacked and Celts had was superior organization and superior military strength. Celts, being Aryans, were a warrior culture. By virtue of these strengths, Celts subdued Iberia and if Roman conquest would have come 200 years later it would have found a fully-Celtic-led peninsula.

"being Aryans, were a warrior culture" OMG let´s be serious please, Iberians were excellent warriors recruited as mercenaries by other cultures. You know the "Devotio Ibérica" -----> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devotio_ib%C3%A9rica sorry, can not find it in English, but try to use a translator and better understand the Iberians.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_S1TKIPAU4rs/SwSk3gRvqRI/AAAAAAAAAMI/OUIT7ZXpNj8/s1600/devoti.JPG

http://www.esacademic.com/pictures/eswiki/70/Falcata_%C3%ADbera_%28M.A.N._Madrid%29_01.jpg

http://arquehistoria.com/files/ibero-guerrero.jpg

WtYt9MgZYfI


The Iberians had relations with Phoenicians and Greeks along the coast of the Mediterranean, border with the Celts of the west and center side, That made ​​them more advanced than the Celts, less primitive, certainly less numerous, their territory was smaller. Maybe you're confusing the Iberians with pre-Celtic ancient inhabitants of Cantabria and other areas of the peninsula? we know nothing about them except that they repopulated Western Europe after the Ice Age and probably were the ancestors of those who later came as Celts, were certainly not iberians, although for sure the oldest " peninsulares" or Spanish or oldest europeans.




- "Spanish comes from vulgar Latin, not Iberian"
I've never said otherwise:

Faltaría más caballero.

[Ibericus]

- "Spanish comes from vulgar Latin, not Iberian"
I've never said otherwise: it is just the substrate, coming from the popular language that was superseded by Latin, which was CERTAINLY Iberian instead of Celtic, even though, no matter how you put it, Castilian was born in Celtiberian area.
Lol, by the time castillian emerged, the iberian languages were already extinct. And the area was celtic-speaking anyways.



Castilian phonology also witnesses basque-like linguistic reflexes, coming from Iberians having to learn a totally foreign language:
factum >> hecho
There are basque influences in castillian, but it's not because it emerged from Iberian as you say, it's because of the part of Castille being close to basqueland.


This happens because in Iberian language (or Basque, its only surviving descendant),
It's not even clear that Basque and the other Iberian languages were related.

[Wyn]

Iberian language (or Basque, its only surviving descendant)

lol.

Stop it, man.

[Don]

Faltaría más caballero.

I admire your patience and altruism in educating ignorants, a behaviour rare in me.

En cambio, pienso que para ser caballero hace falta ganárselo. :)



lol.

Stop it, man.

We don't know nothing about Iberian's language and all our best sages are still looking for a "roseta" to read and understand our ancestors' runes...

... and this guy has already discovered all that!!! :o

SOMEONE CALL THE NEWS!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Bronce_luzaga.jpg/400px-Bronce_luzaga.jpg


The correlation between speeches with recurrency in the word Aryan and a shameful prove of confusion between History and Fantasies D&D of the speaker is positive and high. Very High. Confirmed once more.

[Lábaru]

The funny thing is that the Celts of Gaul were conquered in 7 years and the "Celticized population" of iberia in 200 years, yes, true aryans warriors. Asterix's village is in Iberia, guys and his name is Numancia or any other Celtiberian city that resisted the Romans.

http://wa2.www.artehistoria.jcyl.es/numancia/jpg/IMR33026.jpg


http://www.planetasapiens.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Guerreros_celtiberos.jpg

[Agrippa]

The funny thing is that the Celts of Gaul were conquered in 7 years and the "Celticized population" of iberia in 200 years

Both were good warriors, but first of all, the land and topography of Gaul being quite different. Once you are in France, you can take it all much easier than Spain in my opinion.

And of course, while the Iberian wars were long, it was rather a continuous war against rebellions here and there, than a big decisive war, guerilla warfare more often as well...

[Lábaru]

Both were good warriors, but first of all, the land and topography of Gaul being quite different. Once you are in France, you can take it all much easier than Spain in my opinion.

And of course, while the Iberian wars were long, it was rather a continuous war against rebellions here and there, than a big decisive war, guerilla warfare more often as well...


To take the small region of Cantabria were needed 8 romans legions, one legion lost his title of "Augusta" after losing at the hands of "people of Iberia celtiticed" or not true aryan warrior, sorry Agrippa, I know you don´t think the same that Aherne.


The quality of the Cantabrian (and our Astures brothers) enemy was such that Augustus was obliged to deploy a number of legions in the conflict:

Legio I Augusta
II Augusta
IIII Macedonica
V Alaudae (operated in Asturias)
VI Victrix (operated in Asturias)
VIIII Hispana
X Gemina (operated in Asturias)
XX Valeria Victrix

to which he added various auxiliary troops:

Ala II Gallorum,
Cohors II Gallorum,
Ala II Thracum Victrix Civium Romanorum,
Cohors IV Thracum Aequitata,
Ala Parthorum
Ala Augusta

The Roman navy was also sent to the Cantabrian coast from Gallia Aquitania. It was an important factor in the conflict's resolution, since it completed the encirclement of the Cantabri begun by the ground forces. It is calculated that, in total, the Roman Army deployed 70,000 men, although these calculations vary amongst authors, because they used a 5,000 men per legion base. In reality, the figure should surpass 80,000 men counting auxiliaries since, through the reforms of Gaius Marius, the legion had about 6,000 soldiers. However, in Augustus' time, although a legion was officially composed of 6,200 men, for various reasons, the number usually oscillated between 5,000 and 8,000.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Astur-Cantabrian-Wars.png

Iberian warriors sang in the crosses where they were executed, according to the Roman chronicles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantabrian_Wars

The extensive lands of the Gauls were taken in 7 years for just ten legions.

Numancia:

No... Numancia did not help the topography of the land



Numantia (Numancia in Spanish) is the name of an ancient Celtiberian settlement, whose remains are located 7 km north of the city of Soria, on a hill known as Cerro de la Muela in the municipality of Garray.

Numantia is famous for its role in the Celtiberian Wars. In the year 153 BC Numantia experienced its first serious conflict with Rome. After 20 years of hostilities, in the year 133 BC the Roman Senate gave Scipio Aemilianus Africanus the task of destroying Numantia. He laid siege to the city, erecting a nine kilometre fence supported by towers, moats, impaling rods and so on. After 13 months of siege, the Numantians decided to burn the city and die free rather than live and be slaves.

Scipio Aemilianus Africanus he commanded at the final siege and destruction of Carthage in 146 BC, not a unknow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_Aemilianus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numantia

Iberian society was extremely warlike.

[Agrippa]

Iberian society was extremely warlike.

Most tribals were at that time, just think about the Dacians etc. However, Gaul in particular is no good terrain for a prolonged fight and the Gauls simply fought for everything or nothing so to say - and lost.
There were fights and rebellions there as well by the way and a significant portion of the Gaulish population died during and after the wars, conquest...

[Lábaru]

Most tribals were at that time, just think about the Dacians etc. However, Gaul in particular is no good terrain for a prolonged fight and the Gauls simply fought for everything or nothing so to say - and lost.
There were fights and rebellions there as well by the way and a significant portion of the Gaulish population died during and after the wars, conquest...

Yes, agree but the swords of the Gauls were broken and deformed as the plastic in the battles, Agrippa, ineffective in the war, virtually toys.

Gladius Hispaniensis:

Gladius (Latin: glădĭus) was the Roman word for sword, and is used to represent the primary sword of Ancient Rome soldiers. Early ancient Roman swords were similar to those used by the Greeks. From the 3rd century BC, the Romans adopted swords similar to those used by the Celtiberians and others during the early part of the conquest of Hispania. This sword was known as the Gladius Hispaniensis, or "Hispanic Sword".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius

[Agrippa]

I know, the Gaulish swords had to be, often, reshaped during battle. Before the spatha-type, longer swords were often more of a problem...

The Celtic sword was better for fighting from the horseback than in close quarter infantry fights probably.

The better Celtic type swords were part of the evolution:

The spatha was introduced to the Roman Army in the early imperial period by Celtic cavalry auxiliaries who continued to wear their Celtic long swords, with blade lengths of 60 to 85 cm, in Roman service. The earlier gladius type was gradually replaced by the spatha over the period of the late 2nd to the 3rd century. From the early 3rd century, legionaries and cavalrymen began to wear the sword on the left side, perhaps because of the abandonment of the scutum and the adoption of the longer spatha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatha

[Lábaru]

Yes, but is the basically same weapon, only that the Spatha is longer and heavier, to attack riding a horse.

Spatha:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Spatha_end_of_second_century_1.jpg/200px-Spatha_end_of_second_century_1.jpg

Gladius Hispanensis:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Gladius_in_hand.jpg/220px-Gladius_in_hand.jpg

As anecdote the word "Espada" in Spanish "Sword" has origin in "Spatha"

[aherne]

The funny thing is that the Celts of Gaul were conquered in 7 years and the "Celticized population" of iberia in 200 years, yes, true aryans warriors. Asterix's village is in Iberia, guys and his name is Numancia or any other Celtiberian city that resisted the Romans.

By the way, the name of Aryans should be capitalized, because we are speaking about an ethnic group. Anyway, the weakness of your arguments, based on little to no real knowledge of your country history (which is shamefull), replaced by romantic-popular novels about "Asterix" or whatever, hardly needs attention.

Still, of many ramblings you made a good point: Iberians were good warriors by the time Romans came to conquer them. Still, that doesn't mean the same was true centuries before, when Celts conquered the peninsula.

Celtic influx in Iberia came in two waves:
- one during Bronze Age, around 1300 BC, of archaic Celts who preserved the initial "P" letter. They were identified by Urnfield culture, an Aryan cultural complex shared by ancestors of Celts, Italics, Venetans and Illyrians. It was mostly confined to modern Catalonia, while the rest of the peninsula remained pure Iberian (local cultures can all be traced back from local developments). These were the ancestors of Lusitanians.
- one during Iron Age, around 800 BC, who pushed their kin from Catalonia into the fringes of Iberia and settled the mesetas, conquering and presumably assimilating local Iberians. They were a hyper-warlike and hyper-successful ethnic group, who littered Iberia with their fortifications called "oppida". There is no such equivalent among Iberians, who did not live in fortified towns, because they were NOT a warrior culture. All evidence indicates at the time of this late wave of Celtic expansion, Celts had an edge, enough to subdue indigenous peoples. Why they settled the Mesetas and not the more fertile Southern and Eastern regions remains unclear. Most likely this happened because, being Aryans, Celts were mostly herder-warriors and the temperate Mesetas fitted their lifestyles perfectly. Actually, wherever Aryans came, open steppe country was always prefered, because even after 2000 years when ancestors of Celts moved in Upper Danube valley, they kept steppe animals (the horse), steppe implements (wagons) and steppe lifestyles (herder-warrior, even when lands they settled were fertile).

The reason why Gaul was subdued so easily is that Gaul was organized, thus could be won over through a single massive war. Superior organization is the primary reason why the whole Western Europe was Aryanized.

^ Yet another masterful arguments brought to you by Aherne. You should build a monument to his wisdom as well as beautiful language!

[Lábaru]

Still, of many ramblings you made a good point: Iberians were good warriors by the time Romans came to conquer them. Still, that doesn't mean the same was true centuries before, when Celts conquered the peninsula.


And not means the opposite, the Iberians were known as warriors, mercenaries and even before the Celts.

But we talked about a date unknown, too old, you're making assumptions lightly, leaning on fairy tales about efficient Aryan warriors, I assume you're kidding, must be it.




Celtic influx in Iberia came in two waves:
- one during Bronze Age, around 1300 BC, of archaic Celts who preserved the initial "P" letter. They were identified by Urnfield culture, an Aryan cultural complex shared by ancestors of Celts, Italics, Venetans and Illyrians. It was mostly confined to modern Catalonia, while the rest of the peninsula remained pure Iberian (local cultures can all be traced back from local developments). These were the ancestors of Lusitanians.
- one during Iron Age, around 800 BC, who pushed their kin from Catalonia into the fringes of Iberia and settled the mesetas, conquering and presumably assimilating local Iberians. They were a hyper-warlike and hyper-successful ethnic group, who littered Iberia with their fortifications called "oppida". There is no such equivalent among Iberians, who did not live in fortified towns, because they were NOT a warrior culture. All evidence indicates at the time of this late wave of Celtic expansion, Celts had an edge, enough to subdue indigenous peoples. Why they settled the Mesetas and not the more fertile Southern and Eastern regions remains unclear. Most likely this happened because, being Aryans, Celts were mostly herder-warriors and the temperate Mesetas fitted their lifestyles perfectly. Actually, wherever Aryans came, open steppe country was always prefered, because even after 2000 years when ancestors of Celts moved in Upper Danube valley, they kept steppe animals (the horse), steppe implements (wagons) and steppe lifestyles (herder-warrior, even when lands they settled were fertile).


A bunch of crap mixed with some truths, Catalonia never were celtiticed, Catalonia area retained his Iberian identity. How is that possible if the Celts were invaders as efficient? warlike Aryans warriors and the Iberians weak in the war?




By the way, the name of Aryans should be capitalized, because we are speaking about an ethnic group. Anyway, the weakness of your arguments, based on little to no real knowledge of your country history (which is shamefull), replaced by romantic-popular novels about "Asterix" or whatever, hardly needs attention.



The reason why Gaul was subdued so easily is that Gaul was organized, thus could be won over through a single massive war. Superior organization is the primary reason why the whole Western Europe was Aryanized.


^ Yet another masterful arguments brought to you by Aherne. You should build a monument to his wisdom as well as beautiful language!

I'm assuming you're joking, you seem to know some correct facts of history, it's a shame that you mistake it all trying to explain the rest of the story with the mythic tale of the Aryan superiors.

[Lábaru]

My point is that Catalonia and the mediterranean coast never has open to invasion and Celtic influence because were more advanced culturally, because of relationship with the Mediterranean peoples, the rest of Iberia, for example ancients cantabrians and other pre-Celtic people of which we know nothing at the moment, were less culturally advanced and for that reason we merged with Celtic peoples.

[aherne]

Catalonia never were celtiticed, Catalonia area retained his Iberian identity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Iberia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iberia_Late_Bronze.gif
Notice how Urnfield culture occupies Modern Catalonia and all Urnfield people had Aryan languages, Aryan cultures and for the most part Aryan physique. The historical descendants of these early Urnfield people were Lusitanians. THis is the most likely possibility, given that the only other wave of Aryan settlement came with Iron-Age Celts 500 years later, and their movement coincides with the Celtification of Mesetas.

Here is a text in their language:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idioma_lusitano
OILAM TREBOPALA
INDO PORCOM LAEBO
COMAIAM ICONA LOIM
INNA OILAM USSEAM
TREBARUNE INDI TAUROM
IFADEM REUE.

This language has been lumped into Celtic without being really Celtic, but an independent branch rooted in the same dialect continuum that dates back to 2000-1000 BC in central europe and predates the formation of Celts, Italics and other less fortunate ethnicities.

[Lábaru]

I do not understand your point, You're telling me the Catalans were Celtic and Galician were not Celts or what do you mean? in the region of Catalonia, spoken Iberian language, including Basque in some areas.

Look, this is the map of your link.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE.PNG

You can see the Mediterranean coast, the most advanced civilizations in contact with Greek and Phoenician are occupied by Iberian people, the Celts occupying the West where we do not know anything of its original inhabitants about anything, except when they were Celts.


if your point is this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/UrnfieldCulture.jpg

You must know that the French East area (Mediterranean) were people like the Iberians of the East, not Celts. This is precisely the area of Iberian influence of Spain, the Mediterranean Coast, the Southwest Atlantic were not Iberians.

That's why I repeat again, what is your point? Iberians were "Aryans" then?

[aherne]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/UrnfieldCulture.jpg

You must know that the French East area (Mediterranean) were people like the Iberians of the East, not Celts. This is precisely the area of Iberian influence of Spain, the Mediterranean Coast, the Southwest Atlantic were not Iberians.

That very map shows how an Aryan culture penetrated into Catalunya. What happened with this pocket after the second migration wave is open to speculation. The only likely explanation for the existence of Lusitanian language is that they were pushed westwards, otherwise we would have to believe they came along with Halstatt Culture bearers, which is highly unlikely given that this was a proved Celtic culture.

Urnfield Mediterannean expansion left behind Aryanized groups, speaking languages with still underdeveloped particular features, thus hard to classify morphologically into known branches:
- Ligurian: celtified during Halstatt expansion, preserving traces of the old language in toponymy and vocabulary.
- Lusitanian: surviving till Roman era, with plenty of attestations, including short texts, which prove it shared features with Celtic and Italic, but it was a totally distinct language already.
http://http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Iberia_Late_Bronze.gif

[Lábaru]

That very map shows how an Aryan culture penetrated into Catalunya. What happened with this pocket after the second migration wave is open to speculation. The only likely explanation for the existence of Lusitanian language is that they were pushed westwards, otherwise we would have to believe they came along with Halstatt Culture bearers, which is highly unlikely given that this was a proved Celtic culture.

Urnfield Mediterannean expansion left behind Aryanized groups, speaking languages with still underdeveloped particular features, thus hard to classify morphologically into known branches:
- Ligurian: celtified during Halstatt expansion, preserving traces of the old language in toponymy and vocabulary.
- Lusitanian: surviving till Roman era, with plenty of attestations, including short texts, which prove it shared features with Celtic and Italic, but it was a totally distinct language already.
http://http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Iberia_Late_Bronze.gif

I understand, these theories are interesting, but somehow we know that Celtic culture came through the Pyrenees, in successive waves, Celtic, Indo-europeans ect... yes, but the reality is that in the east of Iberia the language continued talking is Iberian as usual, Celtic or Indo-European presence does not take root in the Mediterranean and for this reason we speak of Celtiberians in Spain.

Therefore, and although it may agree with your previous post, I repeat, what is your point? where you going with this?

[Aviane]

Colin Murray is probably something like a Keltic Nordid-Mediterranid or perhaps Armenoid-Med-Nordid mixed.

I can say that there is people like him but more like scattered thoughout the Isles and not necessary the most typical common looks either.

[Radovan]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bQ0SqifjNcg/TAcnWDfgBSI/AAAAAAAAVbI/nBhwY_E8wNE/s400/adrien-
http://www.rtlgroup.com/public/Website/images/pictures/Colin_Murray_380.jpg

That's Adrien Brody and Colin Murray - I'll bet they share a few haplotypes.

[Radovan]

Looks like a Semitic Jew. Totally un-European looking...

This guy called it - well played, sir.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1204796/Former-Radio-1-DJ-Colin-Murray-talks-travelling-cold-fish.html

The fact that Murray seems to get every tv and radio vacancy in the UK media, despite being deeply unpopular, is further proof of his Jewish identity.

[Treffie]

This guy called it - well played, sir.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1204796/Former-Radio-1-DJ-Colin-Murray-talks-travelling-cold-fish.html

The fact that Murray seems to get every tv and radio vacancy in the UK media, despite being deeply unpopular, is further proof of his Jewish identity.

Where in that article does it say that he's Jewish? :confused:

[Radovan]

Where in that article does it say that he's Jewish? :confused:

Shit, you got me! DAMMIT!
Guess he's not Jewish after all!:thumb001:

[Radovan]

I suspect that you're merely playing devil's advocate with your seeming bewilderment. Colin Murray grew up in Ballybeen which is a desperately poor Protestant housing estate to the East of Belfast yet says he was conceived in Tel Aviv. He also says he visited friends in Jerusalem and that everyone should visit it at least once "whatever your religous beliefs", implying that his beliefs were at least a factor in his visit. How many non-Jews have "friends in Jerusalem"? I live 40 miles north of Belfast and I've never known anyone who looks, or indeed acts, like Colin Murray. A lot of people in this thread have made themselves look clueless and you're just the latest one.

[Raskolnikov]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bQ0SqifjNcg/TAcnWDfgBSI/AAAAAAAAVbI/nBhwY_E8wNE/s400/adrien-
http://www.rtlgroup.com/public/Website/images/pictures/Colin_Murray_380.jpg

That's Adrien Brody and Colin Murray - I'll bet they share a few haplotypes.
Brody looks truly Semitic (Arab, Arabid) whereas Murray has (some) Dinaroid traits very common to Britons. If he is Near Eastern, so are a great deal of others.

[Treffie]

I suspect that you're merely playing devil's advocate with your seeming bewilderment. Colin Murray grew up in Ballybeen which is a desperately poor Protestant housing estate to the East of Belfast yet says he was conceived in Tel Aviv. He also says he visited friends in Jerusalem and that everyone should visit it at least once "whatever your religous beliefs", implying that his beliefs were at least a factor in his visit. How many non-Jews have "friends in Jerusalem"? I live 40 miles north of Belfast and I've never known anyone who looks, or indeed acts, like Colin Murray. A lot of people in this thread have made themselves look clueless and you're just the latest one.

I'm bewildered because you have no source for your claim. I'd be very interested if you could provide this.

[Radovan]

I'm bewildered because you have no source for your claim. I'd be very interested if you could provide this.

WTF are you on about? Source? Everything on here is about speculation. I pointed out that the man was conceived in Tel Aviv and visited Jerusalem for what he implied were religous reasons. You simply chose to ignore that. If the preservation of the culture and ethnicity of white Europeans is down to the likes of you, then God help us. Source indeed! Oh yeah, just remembered! I was at his Barmitzvah! Muppet.

[Radovan]

Brody looks truly Semitic (Arab, Arabid) whereas Murray has (some) Dinaroid traits very common to Britons. If he is Near Eastern, so are a great deal of others.

Let me make this easy for you - you're obviously not the brightest. Murray's not Dinaroid, he's not Armenoid, he's not Keltic Nordid-Mediterranid. HE'S JUST A FUCKIN' JEW and he does look like Adrien Brody. What would you know about Britons anyway? Most Australians I know have a bit of "blood" in them. lol:thumb001:

[Radovan]

Spanish ancestry - enough said. You're obviously a jewboy who, like Murray, thinks he can go under the radar! oi va voy!!!

[Mordid]

What the fuck is wrong with you ?