Hallstatt Nordid and Skandonordid - arey they different or just 2 names for one phenotype?

[Eugene Finkelstein]

Can this two terms be used fully, 100% interchangeably? Or are there some minor differences?
Or maybe Skandonordid is a subset of types within Hallstatt range?

[Rædwald]

Physical Anthropology Wiki lists it as a synonym for Hallstatt.

[Eugene Finkelstein]

I see. But, for example: some consider Dinarids and Armenoids as two different groups with distinctive features while the other unite them under Taurid branch.

[Rædwald]

I see. But, for example: some consider Dinarids and Armenoids as two different groups with distinctive features while the other unite them under Taurid branch.

I would argue that Dinarids and Armenoids are distinct, with distinct characteristics. It doesn't mean they cannot be categorized into a larger umbrella under which both of them fit. Hallstatt isn't the only Nordid phenotype. Hallstatt would fit under the umbrella of Nordid for example, along with other Nordid types, Anglo-Saxon, Troender, Keltic-Nordid et cetera.

[Immanenz]

Hallstatt= Coon
Skandonordid= Lundmann

End of story.

And the actress that you posted lately has typical "Taurid" close-set eyes.

[Eugene Finkelstein]

Hallstatt= Coon
Skandonordid= Lundmann
End of story.

Question solved, thank you.

[Token]

I would argue that Dinarids and Armenoids are distinct, with distinct characteristics. It doesn't mean they cannot be categorized into a larger umbrella under which both of them fit. Hallstatt isn't the only Nordid phenotype. Hallstatt would fit under the umbrella of Nordid for example, along with other Nordid types, Anglo-Saxon, Troender, Keltic-Nordid et cetera.
Hallstatt Nordic is the original, unmixed Nordic type. All of the other varieties are products of mixture between Hallstatt Nordics with other racial types.

[Eugene Finkelstein]

Offtop (just not to multiple unpopular one-page threads with Hallstatt Nordid in topicname).

I'm curious, is it possible to find Hallstatt/Skandonordids in Ireland, among native Irish population? I do know it's definitely NOT the type common there, but at least some people can fit? Is there Skando N at maybe very low frequencies in Ireland, or there are no people among natives of this phenotype at all?

[Token]

Offtop (just not to multiple unpopular one-page threads with Hallstatt Nordid in topicname).

I'm curious, is it possible to find Hallstatt/Skandonordids in Ireland, among native Irish population? I do know it's definitely NOT the type common there, but at least some people can fit? Is there Skando N at maybe very low frequencies in Ireland, or there are no people among natives of this phenotype at all?
Yes. From Hooton's "The physical anthropology of Ireland":

https://i.imgur.com/e5RmrAG.png
https://i.imgur.com/Cyjv9A2.png

[Eugene Finkelstein]

Thank you, Token!

[rothaer]

Hallstatt Nordic is the original, unmixed Nordic type. All of the other varieties are products of mixture between Hallstatt Nordics with other racial types.

This is a misunderstanding. As if there would originally have been "pure subraces" without anything in between. The "pure subraces" - let's think of the nordid as an example - are themselves a product of a long development and are all but "original". The nordid subrace is essentially a depigmented and robusticised mediterranid / ENF shape that was mixed with WHG and EHG, later with some CHG, and that then experienced a genetic drift due to various selection processes ending up in a notably shrinked gene pool compared to the contributing populations.

Of course, the area with the most expressed nordid subrace type was sourrounded by areas with populations that - cline-wise - also were exposed to resembling selection processes that were less strong or that became interrupted and redirected in some other directions etc. All these populations in between - likely even a majority of all humans in Europe - were no "products of mixture" of pure subraces but were as "original" and old as them as they simply were contemporary. This is pure logic.

All this does not exclude someone today historically being the result of a mixing of subraces. But who can distinguish a mixture from an intermediate state? Essentially this is only possible if you have information for the recent genealogy and the ancestors do hail from typologically notably different populations.

[Eugene Finkelstein]

An excellent take, rothaer!
Agreed fully and ultimately.
I also consider the pure racial view and terminology a bit oldfashioned, to say the least. Maybe even outdated.
Population, which is subject to not only some geographic areas (and, by extension, localised cultural traits) but also to the time - is far better term. There're no crystal clear "races" - populations - outside the time perspective, and that always includes intensive interbreeding with gene flow, natural selection increased by culture/civilization element in humans, and many coincidental changes, or the Sewall Wright effect.
So, for me personally, when I'm speaking of "types", I'm speaking just about outfit, exterior features if you will, or how people look, to be simple. Not about races. And I do not attach human exterior to human interior, that is, the intellectual and/or moral qualities of an individual.
The entire Apricity journey for me essentially is just a way to find out: are there people today who look exactly as Hallstatt or Skandonordids, in a strict textbook manner as described in the first half of the previous century. Because I do like such a look to the craziness degree. I don't take them as gods, but for me rather Skandonordids are like dog, cat champions for dog or cat fencier associations.
Unfortunately, there are no Skandonordid fencier associations... no breeders advertising sell of the children of the champions in local press... nothing like that... and I'm not the one.

[rothaer]

An excellent take, rothaer!
Agreed fully and ultimately.
I also consider the pure racial view and terminology a bit oldfashioned, to say the least. Maybe even outdated.
Population, which is subject to not only some geographic areas (and, by extension, localised cultural traits) but also to the time - is far better term. There're no crystal clear "races" - populations - outside the time perspective, and that always includes intensive interbreeding with gene flow, natural selection increased by culture/civilization element in humans, and many coincidental changes, or the Sewall Wright effect.
So, for me personally, when I'm speaking of "types", I'm speaking just about outfit, exterior features if you will, or how people look, to be simple. Not about races. And I do not attach human exterior to human interior, that is, the intellectual and/or moral qualities of an individual.
The entire Apricity journey for me essentially is just a way to find out: are there people today who look exactly as Hallstatt or Skandonordids, in a strict textbook manner as described in the first half of the previous century. Because I do like such a look to the craziness degree. I don't take them as gods, but for me rather Skandonordids are like dog, cat champions for dog or cat fencier associations.
Unfortunately, there are no Skandonordid fencier associations... no breeders advertising sell of the children of the champions in local press... nothing like that... and I'm not the one.

Thanks.

Btw. a resembling thing applies to dogs. Most dogs do not hail from the mixing of dogs from dog races proper but from the broad stream of "doghood" tht was always there.

In zoology a race is a POPULATION that is distinct from others. So there race is always knitted to an existing population. This was soon refrained from as for subraces within Europe (not regarding the main races in the world). populations and individuals were explained as "mixtures" of imagined original races. So this this is already a little violation of what otherwise is done in zoology. True is nevertheless that the assumed subraces (or types, however) do have a a specific distribution. The Iberian peninsula doubtless has a significantly different pattern than does have the Scandinavian peninsula.

On the other hand genetic test have demonstrated that testees genetically score like what is their ancestry and not like what happens to be their individual phenotype in the face. Particularly if you have typologically different individuals from a common population that has been an intertmixing reproduction community since centuries or even millenia this makes much sense as we know that traits are inherited independently from each other. If any of those individuals has a long nose the expectation for its remaining genetics is still simply the average of his people (reproduction community).

We can go on with assuming subraces but nowadays we can completely grasp someone's genetics by sequencing. Meaningful subraces - and then again being in line with populations like what is normal in zoology - will have to be genetically defined. Admittedly, the over all genetics will not necessarly mirror the look of the head of an individual. But let's be honest: What importance do the metrics of the head of an individual (or a population) have for the living conditions in a country? These are almost entirely determined by the mental traits of the population. The desaster of Haiiti being the poorest country in the Americas is only indirectly connected to the skin colour of its inhabitants. But its not caused by the skin colour. It's directly caused by the mental traits of these folks.

So we can feel comfortable with in gthe furture defining (sub)races by their over all genetics. However, this is what matters. The thickness of the lip may be a suitable indicator but it gets obsolete in that moment when you can determine the actual over all genetics. In fact the whole "lookism" is a substitute just for not having been able to sequence someone's genetics and for based on that making an educated guess. "Lookism" is like assessing a car at 30 m distance. It's legit if you have no other possibility of assessment. But in that moment when you get the possibility to directly examine the car and its engine in detail, the assessmet by look at 30 m distance gets obsolete.

Now, if you personally like very much Scandonordids / Hallstatt nordids - which per se are not with confidence linked to any genetics other than exactly the genetics causing that look - then this to me is nothing else than having one's own personal preference. Why not? I don't even see a political dimension in that. What political dimension should there be in loving big boobs?

Btw. as for breeding, people often are attracted to both some congruence (for having the offspring being a RE-creation of oneself) as well as for some different traits of oneself as a "compensation". I'm a darker type compared to the norm of my ancestry and as I feel "too dark" I appreciate lighter complexions. As for myself a breeding partner must not have light hair, but actually light eyes. Just as an example. There are also Germans obviously feeling "too light" and then exaggerating in their compensation and as a consequence even wanting tio breed outside of their ethnicity: The Modern Talking singer Dieter Bohlen can seemingly only do with some Mediterraneans and Latinos and the tennis player Boris Becker can not without mulattos even. I might be wrong but I guess there is a connection between this and themselves being over average depigmented.