Race of the ancient Romans?

[Agrippa]

What are these skulls that you talk about ? Anyways, nothing happened in the Italian peninsula to consider Ancient Romans different than today Italians.

Fact is most populations changed over time and I'd say the same elements were present than in Italy as they are now, but Mediterranid and Nordid seem to have been stronger and there was this "basic Roman" stable breed out of the mix described.

Real Alpinoids were definitely rarer than they are now.

About the Etruscans, look at H.F.G. Günther, he worked quite good on them, with good skull examples and ancient depictions which are quite clear.

Also this newer study:

In conclusion, the Etruscan skulls from Tarquinia were
gracile and showed similarities in metrical traits to those
of Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from Hallstatt in Austria and Lat~
ne-Celtic skulls from Manching in South Bavaria. Due
to these similarities with neighbouring skeletal remains
on the other side of the Alps the hypothesis could be supported
that the Etruscans are more original inhabitants of
Etruria than immigrants from Asia Minor.
Acknowledgement. We would like to thank Mr. G.

From:

The Etruscan skulls of the Rostock anatomical
collection - How do they compare with the skeletal
findings of the first thousand years B.C.?*
Horst Claassen and Andreas Wree

Downloadable on Thiazi (German Forum):
http://forum.thiazi.net/attachment.p...1&d=1262567556

[San Galgano]

Etruscans had skulls metrically and proportionally similar to those from Hallstatt Celtic ones, so they were no small Mediterranids and comparable to more gracile Nordoids. But from the Etruscans we have actual depictions showing that they had blond/light variants too, but the majority was rather dark/black haired.

That's what i wanted to point out when i spoke about the non-nordic phenotype of romans and the supposed nordic elite ruling over a sea of swarthy. The substratum of etruscans(the skulls shown it) was that of an indoeuropean and pre-indoeuropean people, but their skulls were not similar to celtic skulls from North Bavaria, but rather with Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from Hallstatt in Austria.

quote:

To fit the Etruscan skulls into an ethnological grid they were compared with skeletal remains of the first thousand years B.C. E. All skulls were found to be male; their age ranged from 20 to 60 years, with an average age of about thirty. A comparison of the median sagittal outlines of the Etruscan skulls and the contemporary Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from North Bavaria showed that the former were shorter and lower. Maximum skull length, minimum frontal breadth, ear bregma height, bizygomatical breadth and orbital breadth of the Etruscan skulls were statistically significantly less developed compared to Hallstatt-Celtics from North Bavaria. In comparison to other contemporary skeletal remains the Etruscan skulls had no similarities in common with Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from North Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg but rather with Hallstatt-Celtic skulls from Hallstatt in Austria. Compared to chronologically adjacent skeletal remains the Etruscan skulls did not show similarities with Early Bronze Age skulls from Moravia but with Latène-Celtic skulls from Manching in South Bavaria. Due to the similarities of the Etruscan skulls with some Celtic skulls from South Bavaria and Austria, it seems more likely that the Etruscans were original inhabitants of Etruria than immigrants.

The romans given the fact that they never differentiate themselves from etruscans, had then a similar phenotype with etruscans (of course with some nordoid too both in romans and etruscans) but far from being a different population from the rest of Italy, which was scattered from north to south with proto and indoeuropeans. The only supposed to be non-indoeuropeans were the etruscans but skulls deny it.

[San Galgano]

---

[San Galgano]

I don't know guys..could these tuscan people fit the idea you have of romans?









Cause if you guys think we changed so much to the point we look like Arafat i think you have the wrong idea.

[Ibericus]

Fact is most populations changed over time and I'd say the same elements were present than in Italy as they are now, but Mediterranid and Nordid seem to have been stronger and there was this "basic Roman" stable breed out of the mix described.

Real Alpinoids were definitely rarer than they are now.

hmm..Actually it is the contrary. There are more Nordid elements today than in ancient Roman times because of the invasion of germanic tribes. But the Celtic element was already the same as today.

[San Galgano]

hmm..Actually it is the contrary. There are more Nordid elements today than in ancient Roman times because of the invasion of germanic tribes. But the Celtic element was already the same as today.

That's what i was thinking too. I think most of the different phenotypes in Europe are due to the later german invasions more than ancient indo-european substratum. Before indoeuropeans, Southern Europe(i mean South France, Iberia and Italy only not the rest of S.Europe) was full of pre-indoeuropeans like ligures and Iberians(the real ancient inhabitants of Europe)and they lived in south France, north and central Italy, Iberia, and they were described as shorter and darker. Ligures are supposed to have ruled in Latium under the name of Rutulians(cited in the Aeneid too)and the iberian branch reached surely Ireland and probably Britannia and they became the fierce and powerful tribes of Silures(Tacitus speaks about them)

We should take in account these tribes too when consider what latins phenotype became when arrived in Italy.

[Curtis24]

Well, my opinion is that the people of a nation have an accurate understanding of their own racial makeup. THus, self-identification plus geography can help you determine the phenotype of a people.

That being said, it seems there is a racial divide between North and South Italy, since most North Italians would consider themselves different. Most would probably also say that they consider themselves closer to the Romans than the invading Germans, with perhaps the people of Lombardy being the exception. So based on this, I would say most of North and central Italy is Atlanto-mediterranid, South Italy and Sicily is gracile Mediterranid, and the extreme North is Nordid predominant.

[Matritensis]

and the extreme North is Nordid predominant.

I'm quite sure that's not the case.Maybe in Sweden,but not in North Italy.Let's not go from stereotyping to idealizing without middle grounds!

[San Galgano]

I don't know if we can classify extreme N.Italy as Nordid predominant.
Given this classification we should consider also S.France as nordid but that is not like that to be real.
S.french are mainly atlanto-med/alpine.

[Gatillo]

That's what i was thinking too. I think most of the different phenotypes in Europe are due to the later german invasions more than ancient indo-european substratum. Before indoeuropeans, Southern Europe(i mean South France, Iberia and Italy only not the rest of S.Europe) was full of pre-indoeuropeans like ligures and Iberians(the real ancient inhabitants of Europe)and they lived in south France, north and central Italy, Iberia, and they were described as shorter and darker. Ligures are supposed to have ruled in Latium under the name of Rutulians(cited in the Aeneid too)and the iberian branch reached surely Ireland and probably Britannia and they became the fierce and powerful tribes of Silures(Tacitus speaks about them)

We should take in account these tribes too when consider what latins phenotype became when arrived in Italy.

I think the same, nice.