 |
| Credit: Rolf Broberg |
We now resume our original programming...
Short answer first, then the careful unpacking:
The “Nordic racial type” was alleged to be very ancient—often Upper Paleolithic or even Ice Age–old—but in reality the traits associated with it are mostly late Holocene (post-Neolithic), emerging within the last ~6,000–4,000 years.
Now let’s separate what was claimed from what the evidence actually shows.
1. How old the Nordic type was alleged to be
Classical racial anthropology (late 19th–early 20th c.)
Different authors dated the Nordic type differently, but all agreed it was very old.
Typical claims:
-
Upper Paleolithic origin (30,000–15,000 BP)
-
Nordics descended from Cro-Magnons
-
Ice Age hunters of northern Europe
-
-
Mesolithic survival
-
Nordics as relict hunter-gatherers of Scandinavia
-
-
Even earlier (speculative)
-
Some writers implied a primordial European type emerging soon after modern humans entered Europe
-
Key figures and views:
-
Ripley (1899): Nordic race ancient, pre-Neolithic
-
Günther: Nordic race as the original European race
-
Coon: Nordics derived from Upper Paleolithic Europeans, later modified by selection
So in its own literature, the Nordic type was often imagined as tens of thousands of years old.
2. What traits define the “Nordic” type?
Classic Nordic package:
-
Tall stature
-
Long (dolichocephalic) skull
-
Narrow face and nose
-
Light skin
-
Blond hair
-
Light eyes (blue/gray)
Crucially:
-
These traits were assumed to co-evolve
-
And to define a stable biological “race”
That assumption is where things break down.
3. What modern genetics and archaeology show instead
A. Upper Paleolithic Europeans were not Nordic
Ancient DNA and phenotype reconstructions show:
-
Cro-Magnons:
-
Dark skin likely common
-
Hair likely dark
-
Eyes sometimes light, often dark
-
-
No evidence of a “Nordic package”
So the alleged Ice Age Nordics did not exist as such.
B. Light skin is very recent
As discussed earlier:
-
Key European light-skin alleles:
-
Rise sharply after ~8,000 BP
-
Often after agriculture
-
-
Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans:
-
Likely dark-skinned or intermediate
-
Thus:
-
A defining Nordic trait appears late, not early
C. Blond hair is also late and unstable
-
Blond hair is rare in ancient genomes before the Holocene
-
It likely spread via:
-
Sexual selection
-
Founder effects
-
-
Probably post-Neolithic
Again: not Paleolithic.
D. Tall stature & cranial shape are plastic
-
Height varies with:
-
Diet
-
Climate
-
Selection
-
-
Cranial shape shifts over millennia
-
No stable “Nordic skull” persists through deep time
4. Where the Nordic look actually comes from
Steppe ancestry (Yamnaya-related)
-
Enters Europe ~5,000 BP
-
Contributes:
-
Tall stature
-
Certain craniofacial traits
-
-
But:
-
Steppe populations themselves were not Nordic-looking in the racial sense
-
Northern latitude selection
-
Low UV → light skin
-
Possibly light hair/eyes favored
-
These traits intensify after steppe admixture
Result:
A composite phenotype emerges in northern Europe during the Bronze Age and later.
5. So how old is the Nordic type, really?
Depending on what you mean:
-
As a racial essence:
→ Never existed -
As a distinct phenotype cluster (tall, light-skinned, blond, light-eyed northern Europeans):
→ ~4,000–3,000 years old at most -
As something mistakenly projected into the Ice Age:
→ A myth retrojected backward
6. Why the illusion of great antiquity persisted
Three main reasons:
-
Skulls don’t show pigmentation
-
Anthropologists projected modern skin/hair color onto ancient bones
-
-
Romantic nationalism
-
Northern Europe wanted deep roots
-
-
Lack of time depth awareness
-
No genetics, no ancient DNA
-
They mistook:
recent local adaptations
for
primordial racial essence
7. Final synthesis
The Nordic racial type was alleged to be Ice Age–old, but the phenotype it describes is largely a late Holocene product of steppe admixture and northern-latitude selection.
Or more bluntly:
Nordic man was imagined as ancient, but he is evolutionarily young.
No comments:
Post a Comment