Sunday, January 17, 2010

Norfolk : East Anglia (The British Isles)

Norfolk was settled in pre-Roman times, with neolithic camps along the higher land in the west. A Brythonic tribe, the Iceni, inhabited the county from the first century BC, to the end of the first century (AD).During the Roman era roads and ports were constructed throughout the county and farming took place.

Situated on the east coast, Norfolk was vulnerable to invasions from Scandinavia and northern Europe : by the 5th century the Angles, for whom East Anglia and England itself are named, had established control of the region and later became the "north folk" and the "south folk", hence, "Norfolk" and "Suffolk". The influence of the Early English settlers can be seen in the many "thorpes", "tons" and "hams" of placenames.

  • Sample :
Full scale

  • Brief anthropological analysis :

- Type 1 : Intermediate pigmentation, leptomorphic, long face, long convex nose, close-set eyes, forehead narrower than the jaw which is large, strong chin
~ Atlantid-Dinaric

This type - that one could label "Keltic" - is quite dominant. A more robust series :

More classical Nordids are to be found as well : light complexion, straight nose, triangular face, ...

- Type 2 : Rufous, brachymorphic, wide forehead, little and low-rooted nose, wide set eyes, wide jaws, heavy browridges, high cheekbones
~ Brünn/CM

More classical Alpinoid types are found albeit transitional with Atlantid types : this is the typical British look.

  • Final morphotypes :


  1. The alpinoids are very clear this time :)

    The Nordoid dominance was something I really expected for this region, one of the most affected by Anglo-Saxon and Viking migrations on light of the genetic data.

    1. This may be a little late, but I am going to be as honest as I can be. This whole anthropological thing just doesn't work too well.

      A lot of these photos for England are absurd, and I can attest to that as I am Swedish. The one thing that always strikes me whenever I travel anywhere in England is how much the people there remind of my home (Uppsala). Sure, the women don't use as much hair dye as in Sweden, but overall they are more like my own people than other people think.

      This atlantid thing is absolute garbage too. We all know the Irish have a unique look, despite some minor admixture with English. I spent a few nights in Cork, and immediately noticed how much darker the people were hair wise, but skin wise they were even paler than both Swedish and English people.

      A lot of these faces that have been posted to this site for different regions are subject to cherry picking. A good example is actually England. I just get annoyed as this can always be bent to whatever the person behind the computer wants everyone to believe.

      Please take this from a Swede. And no, I am not blonde. In fact 80% of us blonde 'Swedish' women dye our hair, as it seems hair dye is too popular back home.

      If you want me to be absolutely honest here, this is all rubbish. This Keltid thing is a garbage. We have a lot of people that look exactly like the people in those photos.

      I came across this by mistake, and felt I needed to vent as I am so tired of this whole nordic superiority crap. Its stupid!

  2. female alpinoids are good, but if you look correctly male Alpines really can fall into a common british skeltal type ( I.E. Coon's 'Keltid'') mesocefalic, leptoprosopic, convex nosed. Also we must consider the three examples are middle aged.


  3. The peopling the world is certainly a fascinating study. However, it is an extraordinarily complex task. There has been so much movement and interbreeding of peoples over the millenia, it seems an impossible task. In particular, using specific physical characteristics (broad nose, low forehead, etc.) in trying to distinguish differences amongst Caucasian peoples seems to be an exercise in futility. I think the best approach to use in your endeavor is one you have touched upon. The use of specific genetic markers. Concentrating on genetic information would provide a more accurate picture. Nevertheless, it is obvious you have spent a lot of time and energy trying to get an idea of the big picture of origins.


I've chosen to let people comment freely on my posts. Nevertheless, you'll lose your time taunting me and calling me a fascist (which I'm really not) : I pray you to read my introduction which will reassure that my intentions genuinely aim at achieving amateurish knowledge. I understand that you may not share my passion for the history of the peopling of the World, just don't let me know as clear conscience gained by bashing a humble documentary work is useless.