Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You got it wrong. Yes, in the past, many people were named by their hair colour, like the great Viking explorer Eric the red, others such Barbarosa, etc... According to the Irish annals, Norwegians who were also the earliest Viking group to come to Ireland were described as Fionn Gall, see. Colour of shields? Come on! The Gaelic people themselves had shields of various colours. The Fionn Gall were called as such, because they were a terrifying in sight, blond, muscular, "wild-looking" barbarians Even in the Old Irish mythology, the first inhabitants of Ireland called the Fir Bolg were described as not being so fair-haired rather dark-haired while the others, the Danaan are described as fair-haired or blonde. So do not confuse contexts, today we don't do it, but in those days they did, Many names such as White describes a person's hair colour or others such as Ruddy for a red-head and so forth.
This is what I have read and it makes the most sense (not necessarily shields but it could also be armour). The Vikings whether they were Norse or Danes would not have all been uniformly dark or fair haired. There are various theories of why Fionn Gall or Dubh Gall was used and even that it meant old and new. Anyway I just don't see it relating to hair colour.
Smyth concludes that in this context, finn and dub should not be related to colour or brightness, but must be translated as "old" and "new". He finds precedent for this in part on Mageoghagan's translations of the Annals of Clonmacnoise from the early 17th century, where Sihtric (Sigtrygg) Cáech in his epitaph is called "prince of the new & old Danes".
Smyth argued that Finn- and Dub- did not imply an ethnic distinction but rather "old" and "new", and also pointed out that "large viking armies were not exclusively either Danish or Norwegian.
Norse? don't you know its a dead language like latin the language that English gets many of its words.
I speak Icelandic, Danish, and English. If Farrell is type III then every Icelander is type I OR II because I've never seen any Icelander look like that. nearly all Icelanders live in Reykjavik and the population is small so I've seen nearly every one. of course I know its about skin type and ICELAND is colder than Ireland in every season and just as cloudy if not cloudier. I would say most Icelanders look just like the Irish in skin type.
Farrell is type III, his natural skin colour is clearly fair, but his hair and eye colour are dark. 65.5% of Icelanders are of skin type III, less than 20% of the Irish are of that skin type! That's all. Ha!ha!ha! Don't fall for the fake tans that some celebrities put on! Just because someone has darker hair colour doesn't necessarily make them darker-skinned! There are plenty of dark-haired Irish and also Welsh people who can hardly tan, while many very blonde-haired Scandinavians tan. Icelandic is the closest language to the Old Norse which is now dead. Iceland, Scandinavia are colder lands than the British Isles, who doesn't know that? But they are less cloudier, still receive more sunlight per year than the British Isles, especially Scotland and Ireland, the same lands where red hair and very light skin is most frequent. It was the cloudy or gloomy weather of northwestern Europe which favored a lighter skin tone than normal in order to absorb even faster Vitamin D which is essential for the body. Plenty of skin types tests have been done also in the United States, especially involving skin cancer studies, results show that American whites of predominantly Irish, Welsh, Scottish (Celtic) and to an extent also English ancestry to have the highest frequency of skin type I and are also the most vulnerable to get skin cancer if they exposed dangerous UV light. Scandinavians and other Northern Europeans come second after the British Islanders, in terms of light skin types. This is why skin phototype I has sometimes nicknamed "Celtic" by many dermatologists. However skin phototypes I, II, III are all white skin types, the biggest differences is their reaction sunlight. Skin type I has no or very little tanning ability.
This is what I have read and it makes the most sense (not necessarily shields but it could also be armour). The Vikings whether they were Norse or Danes would not have all been uniformly dark or fair haired. There are various theories of why Fionn Gall or Dubh Gall was used and even that it meant old and new. Anyway I just don't see it relating to hair colour.
Smyth concludes that in this context, finn and dub should not be related to colour or brightness, but must be translated as "old" and "new". He finds precedent for this in part on Mageoghagan's translations of the Annals of Clonmacnoise from the early 17th century, where Sihtric (Sigtrygg) Cáech in his epitaph is called "prince of the new & old Danes".
Smyth argued that Finn- and Dub- did not imply an ethnic distinction but rather "old" and "new", and also pointed out that "large viking armies were not exclusively either Danish or Norwegian.
Too much wikipedia is not good for you. Sometimes, you've got to find much more reliable sources. The Irish Annals were not written in the context of today, people in those days were much more frank and descriptive of things not theorizing everything. Nobody, ever said that they were equally fair or dark-haired, but Norwegians Vikings were on average fairer than the average European in those days, thus could be called Fionna ( meaning fair/white). It is so simple to understand. Smyth is theorizing it too much. Was Eric the Red called so, because he carried a red shield? obviously not! He was a red-head.
Guys, the point of my thread wasn't to argue who's whiter... I just wanted to know if there are really places in Scandinavia where 99 percent of the population is blonde
Too much wikipedia is not good for you. Sometimes, you've got to find much more reliable sources. The Irish Annals were not written in the context of today, people in those days were much more frank and descriptive of things not theorizing everything. Nobody, ever said that they were equally fair or dark-haired, but Norwegians Vikings were on average fairer than the average European in those days, thus could be called Fionna ( meaning fair/white). It is so simple to understand. Smyth is theorizing it too much. Was Eric the Red called so, because he carried a red shield? obviously not! He was a red-head.
Wiki does cite actual sources and it is a good way to get quick information. I can see where individuals would be named for something like hair colour e.g. Fionn MacCool, Red Hugh O'Donnell and Eric the Red but not a large group like the Vikings. I'm sure the Danes weren't called Dubh Gall because they had dark hair.
Being Irish myself I know in the past the Irish used terms like Black or White for various reasons. My Grandmother used to use the term the Black North to describe Northern Ireland and she wasn't using it as a description of their physical characteristics.
I just can't see Norse and Danes being that different to Irish eyes as far as physical characteristics so it makes more sense to not take it so literally. There is a lot of different theories out there on why they gave them these descriptors.
It is also of note that the other areas of the British Isles didn't differentiate them by those terms.
Guys, the point of my thread wasn't to argue who's whiter... I just wanted to know if there are really places in Scandinavia where 99 percent of the population is blonde
No arguments please! !!
Then the answer would be no. This is especially the case into adulthood. I wouldn't think it would be anywhere near 99%.
Farrell is type III, his natural skin colour is clearly fair, but his hair and eye colour are dark. 65.5% of Icelanders are of skin type III, less than 20% of the Irish are of that skin type! That's all. Ha!ha!ha! Don't fall for the fake tans that some celebrities put on! Just because someone has darker hair colour doesn't necessarily make them darker-skinned! There are plenty of dark-haired Irish and also Welsh people who can hardly tan, while many very blonde-haired Scandinavians tan. Icelandic is the closest language to the Old Norse which is now dead. Iceland, Scandinavia are colder lands than the British Isles, who doesn't know that? But they are less cloudier, still receive more sunlight per year than the British Isles, especially Scotland and Ireland, the same lands where red hair and very light skin is most frequent. It was the cloudy or gloomy weather of northwestern Europe which favored a lighter skin tone than normal in order to absorb even faster Vitamin D which is essential for the body. Plenty of skin types tests have been done also in the United States, especially involving skin cancer studies, results show that American whites of predominantly Irish, Welsh, Scottish (Celtic) and to an extent also English ancestry to have the highest frequency of skin type I and are also the most vulnerable to get skin cancer if they exposed dangerous UV light. Scandinavians and other Northern Europeans come second after the British Islanders, in terms of light skin types. This is why skin phototype I has sometimes nicknamed "Celtic" by many dermatologists. However skin phototypes I, II, III are all white skin types, the biggest differences is their reaction sunlight. Skin type I has no or very little tanning ability.
that study is irrelevant it does not show the whole population because I certainly wasn't tested or was my family and were all type I because we all burn. I live in Iceland and would know that it is just as cloudy as Ireland. very blonde people tanning I don't think so. people with tan skin and very blonde hair either sun bleach or dye it, because with very blonde hair would burn just like me.
that study is irrelevant it does not show the whole population because I certainly wasn't tested or was my family and were all type I because we all burn. I live in Iceland and would know that it is just as cloudy as Ireland. very blonde people tanning I don't think so. people with tan skin and very blonde hair either sun bleach or dye it, because with very blonde hair would burn just like me.
You are the one who is irrelevant.Now are you that "blonde" that you unable to understand scientific speech? Just kidding! You talking about your own family. Skin types studies are done on much grander scale than just an individual family! Skin type I is most frequent among those of Celtic descent (Scots, Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Bretons), these people in comparison to other populations, they have a higher frequency of freckling (because of their very fair skin) and their skins burn easily. People with the "Celtic" skin type are most at risk for skin cancer. You might be skin type I, I never refuted that! The fact is that, it is most common amongst Celtic folks, that's all. It does not only come from one study O.K., it comes from various studies done over the years. As we say in America, "please chill", don't take it personal!
SOME Pakistanis can be lighter than SOME Brits and Icelanders...compare please...notice how the Pakistani girl has fairer hair and skin than the European counterpart
What I love about Nordicists it is when you they claim that the most important figures of Antiquity (from Alexander to Caesar) were all blondes but then all Southern Europe has the same hair/eyes complexion of Sudan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
!!