Race of the ancient Romans?

[Curtis24]

Self-explanatory topic

[Osweo]

Self-explanatory topic

'Current affairs' :eek:

'Racial trajedy' ?!?! :confused:

[Curtis24]

Ah crap, I thought I posted this in Anthropology :/ Mods, feel free to move it there, in fact I would prefer that. Thanks.

[Guapo]

Probably the same as what they are now.

[Ibericus]

Romans were the same as italians today. European race.

[Curtis24]

I mean, what physical anthropology racial type were they...

[Ibericus]

I mean, what physical anthropology racial type were they...
What part of "the same as Italians today" you don't understand ?

[Jack B]

Nordic Supermen

[Curtis24]

Jesus dude, go easy. I have no idea what subtype Italians are, and I suspect they're probably a bunch of different ones to boot.

[Guapo]

I mean, what physical anthropology racial type were they...

Probably Borreby-like/UP types and Med/Dinarid types. I'm sure the Army was filled with UP types. I can't picture them recruiting gracile men, same with the ancient Greeks :D

[Curtis24]

Thanks! :)

[manu]

how about him?

http://i25.tinypic.com/4h8imb.jpg

[Curtis24]

who is that guy?

[curiousman]

Romans were the same as italians today. European race.

Never existed a "Roman race" and not even a "Roman ethnicity". Since the beginnings Romans were of mixed ethnicities or tribes (in the primordial Rome: Latins, Sabines and Etruscans). People could have been "Roman" only by citizenship ("civis romanus sum"). After the Social wars Roman citizenship was extended to all the tribes living in the peninsular Italy and at the time of Augustus to the tribes living in Cisalpine Gaul too when the borders of Italy were brought to the Alps. In 212 AD with the constitutio antoniniana Roman citizenship was extended to all free peoples living inside the Empire.

[Tabiti]

Depends from where they were. There is no such thing as Roman racial type or ethnicity. I don't think they looked much different from the modern Europeans.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Depends from where they were. There is no such thing as Roman racial type or ethnicity. I don't think they looked much different from the modern Europeans.

I think they look different today compared to the past largely because of the genetic influence the Lombards (and Norman and Arab invasions of the boot and ball) may have had on the ancient Romans

[manu]

who is that guy?
a football manager, not professional though.

[Treffie]

Thread moved to History and Ethnogenesis.

[Curtis24]

Thanks Ken.

I have read that the original Italici tribes - the original Latin speakers who founded Rome - were Nordids(though, as curiousman points out, of great cultural variation), who formed a ruling class over the native Italian population, gradually admixing with them. Keep in mind, I am no supremacist, just repeating the theory of many physical anthropologists. At the same time, we know from the historical record that the Roman aristocracy could not distinguish between themselves and the slave class(there was an ongoing debate in Roman society over how to mark out slaves), so the admixture was probably very great.

As to what extent Germanic invaders had on Italy, it seems like it would probably be large. Many historians and archaeologists believe Northern and Central Italy were massively depopulated during Late Antiquity(Visigothic, Ostrogothic, and Vandal invasions) and especially during the Early Middle Ages(Justinian's War), so it seems likely that invaders during these periods would have a larger effect on the gene pool.

Not too sure about the Arabs, though. They did not rule for very long in Southern Italy.

[Matritensis]

We will never know,but contemporary descriptions of peoples living further to the North (Gauls and Germans) always stress their bigger frames and their lighter pigmentation,and that tells in my opinion that they were mainly Mediterranean,and probably a bit darker than the average Italian nowadays,not the other way around.

[Comte Arnau]

What race were the Romans, the Egyptians, the Greeks...? Is it really so difficult to believe that the most probable and logical thing is that populations then and now are pretty similar, unless there are attested dramatic changes in the population?

A probable thing, though, is that there are way prettier/healthier people nowadays. The so much appreciated beauties of the past would not stand out much today.

[Cato]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins_(Italic_tribe)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins_(Italic_tribe)#Origins

[Cato]

Roman originally referred to the inhabitants of Rome itself (the Latins), then also the Roman territories in Italia where Roman colonists settled, then also the Italic peoples after the Social War (Sabines, Samnites, Marsi, Oscans), then also the Romanized foreigners granted citizenship as the Republic began to expand outside of Italy after the Punic Wars, then.....

It's a fluid term.

[Hussar]

Probably the same as what they are now.


Yes, but WHO are they now ? Their direct descendants ?

[Cato]

Yes, but WHO are they now ? Their direct descendants ?

Given that the Romans planted colonies all over their empire, I'm sure lots of people are.

[Curtis24]

We will never know,but contemporary descriptions of peoples living further to the North (Gauls and Germans) always stress their bigger frames and their lighter pigmentation,and that tells in my opinion that they were mainly Mediterranean,and probably a bit darker than the average Italian nowadays,not the other way around.

That is a good point, the Romans did make racial distinctions between themselves and the Gauls/Germans.


[QUOTE=Ibex;243799]What race were the Romans, the Egyptians, the Greeks...? Is it really so difficult to believe that the most probable and logical thing is that populations then and now are pretty similar, unless there are attested dramatic changes in the population?

A probable thing, though, is that there are way prettier/healthier people nowadays. The so much appreciated beauties of the past would not stand out much today.

You are right that population genetics remain the same except in times of dramatic change, but most European countries have experienced such dramatic changes multiple times throughout their history.

In the case of Italy, Italy experienced numerous population declines and foreign intrusions throughout Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. I reject the Nordicist beliefs that modern Italians are descended from Mideastern slaves or Arabs, but I don't think its a far stretch to say that North Italy has been Germanized by invasions during times of low population. South Italy is probably the same as it was in ancient times.

You are right that modern people are prettier(due to better health) as well as much taller.

[Hussar]

Given that the Romans planted colonies all over their empire, I'm sure lots of people are.


The problem is that original roman stock was limited demographically, in comparison to to grand total of population of Roman empire.

But to be really precise.........romans didn't constitute more than a fraction of te population of the Italy only.

I mean that a good part of current italians aren't descendant of romans.

[Sol Invictus]

Everyone knows the Romans were shapeshifting Reptilians from Planet X. I mean, come on!

[Guapo]

how about him?

http://i25.tinypic.com/4h8imb.jpg

Continental Borreby, maybe with a bit of gracile element.

[Guapo]

Yes, but WHO are they now ? Their direct descendants ?

Lazio fans, Irreducible.

[Cato]

The problem is that original roman stock was limited demographically, in comparison to to grand total of population of Roman empire.

But to be really precise.........romans didn't constitute more than a fraction of te population of the Italy only.

I mean that a good part of current italians aren't descendant of romans.

From whence the race of Alban fathers come,
And the long glories of majestic Rome.

I doubt any antique Roman would care what our opinions of them are; they'd probably consider talk abour race to be idle Greek speculation.

Men who wore trousers and spoke Gaulish during the time of Julius Caesar had descendents who wore togas and spoke Latin and/or Greek during the time of Claudius.

Being a Roman could mean you belong to the actual Latin tribe, or be a Roman by virtue of being a citizen of the imperium.

[manu]

In Hollywood movies ancient romans (those ones from Latium or around Rome) are portrayed as fair skinned while present day italians are portrayed as swarthy.

[Curtis24]

Yes, that seems to be the stereotype of Romans, light skin with black hair and dark eyes. Interestingly many people in North Italy still look that way, which could have influenced Hollywood.

[Germanicus]

In many accounts of written descriptions of the ruling classes and early Emperors/Caesars, most had Grey/Blue eyes fair skin and light hair.

[Guapo]

The northern Romans probably looked like Franco Nero, Borreby:

http://blog.clickgratis.com.br/uploads/k/kalu1957/59517.jpg

He also played as a Serbian knight that fought Turks in an old film:

yUj6FVA_0Qc

[Hussar]

The northern Romans probably looked like Franco Nero, Borreby:

He also played as a Serbian knight that fought Turks in an old film:



Franco Nero........Страхиња Бановић ;)

I remembered it was famous in your country for that film.

(btw, i remember Yugoslavia between 60's and 80's was an interesting place for international cinematographic productions ).

[Guapo]

Franco Nero........Страхиња Бановић ;)

I remembered it was famous in your country for that film.

(btw, i remember Yugoslavia between 60's and 80's was an interesting place for international cinematographic productions ).

Yugoslav cinema was awesome. H8ers can H8. He also played in this film with other famous actors.

http://www.yugomedia.com/wp-content/gallery/bitka-na-neretvi/bitka-na-neretvi-cover.jpg

[Osweo]

Yugoslav cinema was awesome. H8ers can H8. He also played in this film with other famous actors.

http://www.yugomedia.com/wp-content/gallery/bitka-na-neretvi/bitka-na-neretvi-cover.jpg

Heh, did Jul Brynner speak Russian in that film? I saw his birthplace when I was in Владивосток. ;)

[Guapo]

Heh, did Jul Brynner speak Russian in that film? I saw his birthplace when I was in Владивосток. ;)

:D

HWUFyxIq6yQ

[Stygian Cellarius]

There are alot of ways to approach this general question about the ancients and most will chose an approach that best fits their worldview, bolsters their pride, or offends them the least.

The ultimate question behind such an inquiry is what was the source of Roman ingenuity? The same question applies to the Egyptian civilization, Persian, etc. That's what's really important. That's what people really want to know. Hypothetically speaking, who gives a damn who became a legal citizen if they weren't the genetic constituents responsible for the ideas that made Rome great? Who cares what race the general Egyptian population was if the general populous had nothing to do with Egyptian high culture?

Ideas a paramount. Identifying their source is a most important inquiry.

[Cato]

There are alot of ways to approach this general question about the ancients and most will chose an approach that best fits their worldview, bolsters their pride, or offends them the least.

The ultimate question behind such an inquiry is what was the source of Roman ingenuity? The same question applies to the Egyptian civilization, Persian, etc. That's what's really important. That's what people really want to know. Hypothetically speaking, who gives a damn who became a legal citizen if they weren't the genetic constituents responsible for the ideas that made Rome great? Who cares what race the general Egyptian population was if the general populous had nothing to do with Egyptian high culture?

Ideas a paramount. Identifying their source is a most important inquiry.

Rome's belief in her manifest destiny.

[Agrippa]

This thread might help:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16012

Out of it:
All quite progressive and largely fit into the Mediterranid-/Atlanto-Nordid with Dinarid and Alpinoid tendencies scheme of the basic Roman population type. This was a rather stable breed, going after the cemeteries, similar to "Keltic Nordic", just somewhat shorter, more robust and broader build - so a little bit more of a Cromagno-Alpinoid strain or tendency at work in comparison.

[San Galgano]

Again with the false assumption that romans were only a fraction of the italic people.
The first latins were the ones who started to build Rome, then with time they melted with umbrians who had a strong affinity with latins,then picenes, samnites and almost all of the italic people of that time who were all of indoeuropean stock.
Latin language has been said to have a strong affinity with celtic too.

Anyway, once latins melted with all the tribes above and others we have had the classic romans who started their way to their expansion and created an empire.

It's basically impossible an only tribe conquered first an entire peninsula and later started to conquer almost all Europe by itself.

[Cato]

Don't forget the Sabines.

[San Galgano]

Don't forget the Sabines.

Right.:thumb001:

[San Galgano]

Yes, that seems to be the stereotype of Romans, light skin with black hair and dark eyes. Interestingly many people in North Italy still look that way, which could have influenced Hollywood.

I 'd say more like brown hair and hazel eyes and with many light eyes.
Richard Crenna's (alias colonel Samuel Truthman in Rambo)parents were both from my region Tuscany.
http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ae/Richard_Crenna.jpg/220px-Richard_Crenna.jpg


Don't you think he could fit perfectly the ancient roman?:cool:

[Guapo]

Don't you think he could fit perfectly the ancient roman?:cool:

Yeah, him and Rambo :D

[Turkophagos]

http://ancientrome.ru/art/artwork/paint/rom/p0007.jpg


http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/2c/92/f6/naples.jpg



Wogs.

[Curtis24]

Well, I read the description of the Italian phenotypes in "Races of Europe"(Coon). Essentially, the argument is that the Latin tribes were Nordid before entering Italy, but heavily mixed with the native population. The "Roman" phenotype was a three-way admixture between Dinarid, Mediterranid, and Nordid. Predominant Nordids may have dominated the aristocracy.

(BTW, for those who have read Coon, is that a correct interpretation?)

Interestingly, Italy is extremely racially diverse and its hard to define distinct racial types. Most Italians seem to be mixes of many different phenotypes. Northern Italians tend to have mixes of Dinarid, Mediterranid, Alpinid,and Nordid in varying degrees, essentially the same as it was in the time of the Romans. Dinarid dominates though.

Southern Italians are admixtures of Mediterranid with Dinarid and Armenid in varying degrees, with Mediterranid dominating.

[Foxy]

In Hollywood movies ancient romans (those ones from Latium or around Rome) are portrayed as fair skinned while present day italians are portrayed as swarthy.

I have read the description that Caesar gives o himself in "The Bello Gallico" and he's described as having very pale skin, red lips, black hair and eyes, Roman nose.
I have very pale skin, black hair, dark brown eyes, and long streight nose. But already my bf is golden blond with brown - green eyes.
If you see us from outside you think that I am central Italian and that he's not Italian at all (in the last month he has been taken first for a Sudtiroler from two Italians then for a German by a Suisse ). I am Roman he is a barbar, characterially I like humanistic subjects and drink wine, he likes beer and practical matters (:D:D:D), but the last things maybe depend only on the fact that females in general have more humanistic attitudes. :D

[Sarmata]

I read once that Ancient Romans were similar to their neighbors from the North-Celts. From ancient romans statues strikes clearly European features.They had booth longer and shorter faces(CM's) but Aurignacids seems to be predominant(Medds(Atlanto Meds), Dinarics,).
I wonder how those people looked with their original pigmentation?

http://i27.tinypic.com/i404tj.jpg

http://i32.tinypic.com/210hmo4.jpg


However sterotypical Roman is Med-Dinaric mix with characteristic "eagle nose".

Raymond Domenech(French) looks like one of them:

http://i29.tinypic.com/2mws9jq.jpg

[Hussar]

Out of it:
All quite progressive and largely fit into the Mediterranid-/Atlanto-Nordid with Dinarid and Alpinoid tendencies scheme of the basic Roman population type. This was a rather stable breed, going after the cemeteries, similar to "Keltic Nordic", just somewhat shorter, more robust and broader build - so a little bit more of a Cromagno-Alpinoid strain or tendency at work in comparison.


It's right, Agrippa.

But prescinding such considerations, most of peoples fail to see that the so called "roman population" (belonging to the "basic roman stock" you mention), was just a fraction of the poulation of italian peninsula.

Figurative art/sculpture rapresent the upper class obviously. So it's interesting , anthropologically, to point out the thing, but if not adequately explained we risk to keep alive a big equivokation.

I think........even before asking "the race of ancient romans" we should ask " WHO are today the nearest descendnts (genetically) of the ancient romans ?
If we want to find peoples of the same genetic stock of the ancient romans, then WHERE should we go ?

[San Galgano]

Yeah, him and Rambo :D

Stallone is not from my region but from southern Italy.:D

Anyway, Rambo would have kicked people all around the empire and beyond.:sad:

[San Galgano]

http://ancientrome.ru/art/artwork/paint/rom/p0007.jpg


http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/2c/92/f6/naples.jpg



Wogs.


Sometimes being a wog is not so bad.:D
http://www.summagallicana.it/lessico/e/Ermes%20fallico%20affresco%20Pompei.jpg


LOL
Anyway those "wogs" are probably not even romans but egyptians or middle easterners and the guy could be easily a free slave.

[San Galgano]

Raymond Domenech(French) looks like one of them:

Raymond Domenech is originally from Spain, not France.

[Cato]

Sometimes being a wog is not so bad.:D
http://www.summagallicana.it/lessico/e/Ermes%20fallico%20affresco%20Pompei.jpg


LOL
Anyway those "wogs" are probably not even romans but egyptians or middle easterners and the guy could be easily a free slave.

Freed slaves, who could come from anywhere within or without the empire, often became citizens and, hence, Romans. There was an entire line of emperors of Illyrian (Balkan) origin (such as Diocletian). Trajan was from Italica in modern-day Spain. Augustus himself came from Velitrae, a city of the Volscians, a fierce enemy to Rome in her early days who were eventually conquered and granted the citizenship.

[San Galgano]

Freed slaves, who could come from anywhere within or without the empire, often became citizens and, hence, Romans. There was an entire line of emperors of Illyrian (Balkan) origin (such as Diocletian). Trajan was from Italica in modern-day Spain. Augustus himself came from Velitrae, a city of the Volscians, a fierce enemy to Rome in her early days who were eventually conquered and granted the citizenship.


Yeah of course but that doesn't clear the question of the thread i think.
It would be like asking how the first european colonizers of N.America were taking in account the waves of mexicans of the later times.
Anyway many freed slaves not even set foot in Italy and only it was granted them to be romans because they were in some part of the empire.



At a certain point every italic became a roman citizen and freed from paying taxes save the ones to support the army.
The roman citizenship outside of Italy has been a longer process from long time later.

Trajan as well as Seneca were born in Spain but from italic families moved there from the surrounding area of Latium and their families were called "hispaniensis" that is "not from Spain".

[Cato]

Trajan as well as Seneca were born in Spain but from italic families moved there from the surrounding area of Latium and their families were called "hispaniensis" that is "not from Spain".

Thanks, I suspected as much but wasn't sure.

[San Galgano]

Thanks, I suspected as much but wasn't sure.

you are welcome!:thumbs up

[Agrippa]

In the early times the basic type described was fairly common though, for quite some time, especially in the common people and it could be detected in some colonised areas, in Roman soldier's cemeteries etc. too.

So the average seem to have been quite of that kind, for quite some time in Rome and the question remains too, how much different the Etruscans and other Italics actually were, because it doesn't seem they were so completely different, neither were much of the Celts and Illyrians (immigrants, mercenaries-soldiers, slaves).

At that time, the differences in Europe were probably less pronounced than they are now anyway, at least going after the record...

[Hussar]

At that time, the differences in Europe were probably less pronounced than they are now anyway, at least going after the record...

Interesting. We need a wide reflection about how the phenotypic composition of the continent changed from region to region.

[San Galgano]

I would like to clear some incoming questions anyway....

quote:
"The average recorded age at death for the slaves of the city of Rome was extraordinarily low: seventeen and a half years (17.2 for males; 17.9 for females)."

(Harper, 1972)

quote:

"However, one piece of negative evidence...provides an intriguing hint that conventional estimates of slaves making up as much as 40 percent of Italy's population by the late first century B.C. may be far too high. An analysis of the genetic makeup of Italy's modern population argues that the various distinctive genetic combinations currently found in different regions within the peninsula by and large track the linguistic distribution that resulted from the migrations of the Iron Age. No data indicate the subsequent large-scale infusion of new genetic material into the populations of these regions except in the case of southern Italy and eastern Sicily, which is explained by the well-documented Greek migrations there. ... But if a population of 3 million slaves, representing as much as 40 percent of Italy's inhabitants in the first century B.C., was successfully reproducing itself, it would surely have left its mark on the genetic makeup of contemporary Italians. That it did not argues strongly for a very low rate of natural reproduction among Italy's slaves, which in turn is difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that the number of slaves ever grew large enough to comprise 40 percent of the Italian population."

(Rosenstein, 2004)


Mind that every time someone thinks to Rome it often happens that he thinks to middleastern slaves. I'm not denying some middleastern could have landed as slave in Rome but slaves were not only from there but from the whole empire.
Furthermore many slaves never set foot in Italy as since the middle eastern part of the empire was richer of resources than Europe so rich indeed that romans fought until the end against sassanids and many slaves were settled there.

[Foxy]

http://ancientrome.ru/art/artwork/paint/rom/p0007.jpg


http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/2c/92/f6/naples.jpg



Wogs.

Romans from Egypt (Egyptians with Roman citizenship) - the pics are from the portraits of Fayyum, an importan Egyptian arheological site.

http://rascarlo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/21131.jpg
http://download.kataweb.it/mediaweb/image/brand_reproma/2009/09/17/1253193480305_05b.gif
http://nautilus.inews.it/9712it/arte/fayum2.jpg
http://okramantropos.myblog.it/media/02/02/b69db284f6eaf85026ee361fb2bb7adf.jpg

Roman portraits from Pompei and Ercolano (Italy):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bimIj9mMtuM/St7iRmRb3CI/AAAAAAAAAdY/nR3JhF5qIHQ/s400/04.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bimIj9mMtuM/St7jWFc866I/AAAAAAAAAdw/9RvxB08O7uI/s400/07.jpg
http://eternallycool.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/pompeii-diptych3.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/images/pompeii_art_fronto_fresco.jpg
http://www.unisa.ac.za/contents/faculties/humanities/classical/images/20.jpg

For me the one on the right is not Roman or is a mix or simply a darker phenotype (dark people exist everywhere)...

[San Galgano]

Romans from Egypt (Egyptians with Roman citizenship) - the pics are from the portraits of Fayyum, an importan Egyptian arheological site.

http://rascarlo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/21131.jpg
http://download.kataweb.it/mediaweb/image/brand_reproma/2009/09/17/1253193480305_05b.gif
http://nautilus.inews.it/9712it/arte/fayum2.jpg
http://okramantropos.myblog.it/media/02/02/b69db284f6eaf85026ee361fb2bb7adf.jpg

Roman portraits from Pompei and Ercolano (Italy):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bimIj9mMtuM/St7iRmRb3CI/AAAAAAAAAdY/nR3JhF5qIHQ/s400/04.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bimIj9mMtuM/St7jWFc866I/AAAAAAAAAdw/9RvxB08O7uI/s400/07.jpg
http://eternallycool.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/pompeii-diptych3.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/images/pompeii_art_fronto_fresco.jpg
http://www.unisa.ac.za/contents/faculties/humanities/classical/images/20.jpg

For me the one on the right is not Roman or is a mix or simply a darker phenotype (dark people exist everywhere)...


Right.
You can barely find (really two or three over hundreds) roman frescoes in the whole Italy portraing egyptian or middleastern phenotype, and the one you can find are really of people of those places and not portrayed roman\italics from Italy with a "suspect" phenotype.

[Cato]

The ethnic Romans are either Nordic ubermen or sudacan wogs, depending upon which authority is currently standing at the podium. Both extremes are full of crudstunk, of course.

I'd call the Latin ancestors of the Romans Mediterranean Alpinids. A patrician Roman like Caesar, who supposedly had the kings of Alba Longa and Aeneas (Hittite?) amongst his forefathers, was described as being fairly tall, fair-skinned, and dark of hair and eye. His surviving sculptures also portray a fairly round-skulled, medium-featured man with a receeding hairline and a generously-sized nose.

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/ancientfilmCC304/lecture22/images/3caesar.jpg

Ave Caesar!

[Stygian Cellarius]

I have been collecting images of ancient Roman/Greek Mosaics and Frescoes. Basically any representation of the people that retains its color (Mosaics being the best), hundreds of images from 600 B.C. to the Renaissance, in an attempt to track changes in phenotypes.

One thing that is certain, is that the ancient and modern phenotype are not identical. There is a noticeable tendency towards fairer populations as we go back in time. Black Haired individuals being especially uncommon in Italic art. Brunettes and Blonds being quite common. That is what the Mosaics display.

Based on their artistic representation of themselves, I don't see how this can be objectively denied.

[Ibericus]

The ethnic Romans are either Nordic ubermen or sudacan wogs, depending upon which authority is currently standing at the podium. Both extremes are full of crudstunk, of course.

I'd call the Latin ancestors of the Romans Mediterranean Alpinids. A patrician Roman like Caesar, who supposedly had the kings of Alba Longa and Aeneas (Hittite?) amongst his forefathers, was described as being fairly tall, fair-skinned, and dark of hair and eye. His surviving sculptures also portray a fairly round-skulled, medium-featured man with a receeding hairline and a generously-sized nose.

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/ancientfilmCC304/lecture22/images/3caesar.jpg

Ave Caesar!
To me he looks very typical Italian.

[San Galgano]

Black Haired individuals being especially uncommon in Italic art. Brunettes and Blonds being quite common.


Mind that many patricians used blonde wigs and they were the most depicted.
As soon as you look at normal people portrayed, the brown-chestnut type becomes the most common.
Anyway black jet haired people are uncommon today too in Italy.

[Stygian Cellarius]

Mind that many patricians used blonde wigs and they were the most depicted.
As soon as you look at normal people portrayed, the brown-chestnut type becomes the most common.
Anyway black jet haired people are uncommon today too in Italy.

The wig phenomenon is definitely worth taking into consideration, but I don't think it fully explains away the difference between ancient and modern populations.

The images of Roman mosaics I possess cover a range of time from the dawn of Rome to the Renaissance, all showing relatively the same trends in pigmentation. Wigs are a fad not likely to successfully conceal the true appearance of Romans for 1500 years.

Other than that, there is something strangely curious about the nobility adopting a fashion that results in their physical approximation of Northern barbarian phenotypes. I don't know how common this trend was, nor how long it lasted, but if it was an enduring cultural item then it requires an explanation. If we imagine the Romans being darker than their Northern Barbarian enemies, it becomes counterintuitive to imagine them choosing to approach in appearance those they view with contempt. Especially when there are many alternate appearances to chose from.

However, what would make sense, is this scenario:

• Light pigmented Indo-European tribes cross the Alps and enter Italy.
• Phenetic contrast between the autochthonous and Indo-European populations.
• Indo-European population dominates autochthonous population.
• Contrasting physical attributes of Indo-Europeans became symbolic of the ruling race and converted to cultural elements, later manifesting in wigs, etc. that remain constant in time even if the phenotype of the original Indo-Europeans did not, due to admixture with the autochthonous population, like in Britian.

The above is all specualtion that I made up just now, but I don't think it is a bad explanation for their use of blond wigs. Although, it's still an unfavorable one to those that wish modern and ancient populations remained static.

That said, I still maintain that the wig phenomenon is insufficient to explain what I see in their mosaics.

However, there is one major conflict I have yet to resolve concerning the fair pigmentation trend depicted in ancient Italic art. This trend continues up to, and culminates, in the Renaissance (Northern genetic influx). I have yet to discover a shift in pigmentation towards a darker tendency represented in Italic art. It is always fairer than the modern population. Well this presents quite a problem. Shall I suppose this change in phenotype took place within the past 500 years? That is not quite what I was expecting to find and do not know if I can believe it. Although, it is not impossible.


As soon as you look at normal people portrayed, the brown-chestnut type becomes the most common.

I would say "dirty blond" and a medium brown being the most common. Which is not what we see in modern Italian populations. But you know, this disagreement assumes the appearance of subjectivity only because we simply have not counted what is represented in the art. It really is that easy to solve; collect the art, use a standard index of coloring, and start counting.


Anyway black jet haired people are uncommon today too in Italy.

I probably should not have said black, I should have said very dark brown (like mine).

[San Galgano]

The images of Roman mosaics I possess cover a range of time from the dawn of Rome to the Renaissance, all showing relatively the same trends in pigmentation. Wigs are a fad not likely to successfully conceal the true appearance of Romans for 1500 years.
I think there are several types of mosaics. The ones made by romans who portrayed usually the patricians, and the others made later by byzantine artists in Italy who tried a remake of the romans' ones(with their own customization) in their attempt to revitalize the old time of the western empire.
The mosaics of the renaissance were usually only ornamental compositions.
If you meant the renaissance paintings, artists usually portrayed nobles families as well or at least they used men or women which weren't directly connected to the poor levels of the society which comprised paesants, usually accustomed to a tanned skin due to their jobs in the fields.
For the nobles, on the other hand, the pasty skin meant that they belonged to a social class who didn't need to work in the field and this was a status they needed to respect.
If you take a look at paintings of italian commanders of the middle age though, you'll notice that it's not so difficult to find tanned skin, and this cause for them it meant they spent time fighting in the open air. There are paintings of famous commanders in which the same person in the classic knight style(horse, sword,etc,etc)presents a tan and in the other painting a pasty skin in his own castle or court or whatever.
The same goes for legionaries or emperors.

Other than that, there is something strangely curious about the nobility adopting a fashion that results in their physical approximation of Northern barbarian phenotypes. I don't know how common this trend was, nor how long it lasted, but if it was an enduring cultural item then it requires an explanation. If we imagine the Romans being darker than their Northern Barbarian enemies, it becomes counterintuitive to imagine them choosing to approach in appearance those they view with contempt.
Romans mostly despised the attitude of the nordic tribes not their appearence.
I also think that many times this fashion to use a blonde or red wig, was more like an attempt from romans to copy greeks, and etruscans since it seems they started this trend as shown by many greek and etruscan frescoes.
Of course there were even natural blonde romans too.

However, what would make sense, is this scenario:

• Light pigmented Indo-European tribes cross the Alps and enter Italy.
• Phenetic contrast between the autochthonous and Indo-European populations.
• Indo-European population dominates autochthonous population.
• Contrasting physical attributes of Indo-Europeans became symbolic of the ruling race and converted to cultural elements, later manifesting in wigs, etc. that remain constant in time even if the phenotype of the original Indo-Europeans did not, due to admixture with the autochthonous population, like in Britian.

Roman-latins were indoeuropeans. Just as much as almost all the italic tribes melted with them, save maybe etruscans, even if i'm still convinced they were proto-indoeuropeans.
But Romans worshipped etruscans and basically started their society basing over them. Gods, architecture and so on were their heritages basically.
All of roman mythology (although legendary)linked to Aenea which was a trojan. Now i suppose if romans would have been at the begin a blonde people coming with the waves of indoeuropeans retaining a "blonde" culture and superimposing themselves over a preexisting mediterranean dark haired people we should have had even a mithology linked to north of the alps too togheter with blonde wigs symbols of a past time.

This makes me think that the light skin and blond hair of the past indoeuropeans is pretty a local phenomena as well and not homogeneus.
There are manuscripts in which celts are described light haired light skinned in some places of Europe and dark haired dark eyed in others.

[San Galgano]

If you take a look at paintings of italian commanders of the middle age though, you'll notice that it's not so difficult to find tanned skin, and this cause for them it meant they spent time fighting in the open air. There are paintings of famous commanders in which the same person in the classic knight style(horse, sword,etc,etc)presents a tan and in the other painting a pasty skin in his own castle or court or whatever.

Look at these two pics.
This is Giovanni de Medici portrayed in a knight's dress:
http://www.mesemediceo.it/images/Ritratti/Medici%20Cosimo01.jpg
and this is always him in a normal dress:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/tm/2008/04/cosimoDM_428x269_to_468x312.jpg



Today having a tanned skin it's not anymore a symbol of a poor social condition, and Italy has got lot of sun days during the year.
But i assure you that in winter the skin of italians or spaniards, it's as pasty as can be.

[Comte Arnau]

We mustn't forget either that light hair was quite in fashion already in medieval to Renaissance times, so not all pictures really reflect genuine shades. And unlike nowadays in Southern Europe, pale skin was fashionable too then.


The savvy Renaissance beauty was particular about her hair. The upper-class sophisticate sought a high hairline, since a wide and high forehead was an essential trait of beauty during that era. Many women, who were not graced with a naturally high forehead plucked their hairlines in order to get the desired effect.

Blondes were the epitome of beauty during this era and, therefore highly sought after. That forced women with darker locks to come up with a mechanism to lighten the hair. Saffron and onion skin dyes, as well as elements like alum, sulfur, and soda, were commonly used for this purpose.

However, most of these products did not work alone. They required lengthy hours in the hot sun, which served as the heating mechanism that activated the bleach. The process was tricky because women also wanted to keep their skin pale and untouched by the sun. Therefore, they had to sit outside for hours in heavy clothing to protect their skin and hats to protect their faces. The hats, however, had the crowns cut out of them in order to allow in the sun’s rays to work their magic in bleaching the hair.

Unfortunately, these bleaching processes were by no means perfect and often led to some rather unusual shades of hair color, ranging anywhere from platinum blonde to a carrot-top red. Additionally, the bleaching process often severely damaged the hair, leaving it dry, brittle, and prone to easy breakage.


http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/2001/virtuebeauty/390/fig04.jpghttp://www.canvasreplicas.com/images/Young%20Woman%20Sandro%20Botticelli.jpg

http://animeonly.org/albums/FEDOROS_RULES/1600x1200/Fine-Art/Fine-Art---Renaissance/Young_Woman_Receives_Gifts_From_Venus_and_the_Thre e_Graces,_Botticelli.jpg

http://www.senat.fr/evenement/botticelli/tn_211_portrait_femme.jpg


I personally find the highly plucked hairline a more fascinating fashion trend than bleaching.

[Hussar]

Other than that, there is something strangely curious about the nobility adopting a fashion that results in their physical approximation of Northern barbarian phenotypes. I don't know how common this trend was, nor how long it lasted, but if it was an enduring cultural item then it requires an explanation. If we imagine the Romans being darker than their Northern Barbarian enemies, it becomes counterintuitive to imagine them choosing to approach in appearance those they view with contempt. Especially when there are many alternate appearances to chose from.

However, what would make sense, is this scenario:

• Light pigmented Indo-European tribes cross the Alps and enter Italy.
• Phenetic contrast between the autochthonous and Indo-European populations.
• Indo-European population dominates autochthonous population.
• Contrasting physical attributes of Indo-Europeans became symbolic of the ruling race and converted to cultural elements, later manifesting in wigs, etc. that remain constant in time even if the phenotype of the original Indo-Europeans did not, due to admixture with the autochthonous population, like in Britian.
The above is all specualtion that I made up just now, but I don't think it is a bad explanation for their use of blond wigs. Although, it's still an unfavorable one to those that wish modern and ancient populations remained static.



The SAME speculation i did after infinite reflections on the matter. I still think it's the most logic.

Great scheme (it's clear).







I would say "dirty blond" and a medium brown being the most common. Which is not what we see in modern Italian populations. But you know, this disagreement assumes the appearance of subjectivity only because we simply have not counted what is represented in the art. It really is that easy to solve; collect the art, use a standard index of coloring, and start counting.




.......very interesting problem.


What do you mean by "MEDIUM BROWN" ?

[Aviane]

Probably Borreby-like/UP types and Med/Dinarid types. I'm sure the Army was filled with UP types. I can't picture them recruiting gracile men, same with the ancient Greeks :D

I going with you on this one they are said to resemble these types (more so Alpine-Dinaric).

[Libertas]

How can the ancient Romans be mainly Alpine-Dinaric when most of their surviving skulls are dolicho-mesocephalic?

[San Galgano]

How can the ancient Romans be mainly Alpine-Dinaric when most of their surviving skulls are dolicho-mesocephalic?

Infact.
to me they were a blend of Alpine and atlanto med with some dinarid.
Basically what is today Italy with the exception of some south Italian places where the dinaro-alpo-med is the main component.

[Libertas]

Infact.
to me they were a blend of Alpine and atlanto med with some dinarid.
Basically what is today Italy with the exception of some south Italian places where the dinaro-alpo-med is the main component.

Indeed, or a Med-Nordic blend with some Alpine and Dinaric.

[San Galgano]

Indeed, or a Med-Nordic blend with some Alpine and Dinaric.

Yes, of course, there was even nordic-med.
Let's not forgive that some studies showed a strong affinity between some tribes in Italy(umbrians,Picenes, latins, etc,etc. which basically were the first romans)with celts too.

[Tyrrhenoi]

But already my bf is golden blond with brown - green eyes. If you see us from outside you think that I am central Italian and that he's not Italian at all (in the last month he has been taken first for a Sudtiroler from two Italians then for a German by a Suisse ). I am Roman he is a barbar, characterially I like humanistic subjects and drink wine, he likes beer and practical matters (:D:D:D), but the last things maybe depend only on the fact that females in general have more humanistic attitudes. :D

Oh my god... not again that story of your BF :(



In the case of Italy, Italy experienced numerous population declines and foreign intrusions throughout Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. I reject the Nordicist beliefs that modern Italians are descended from Mideastern slaves or Arabs, but I don't think its a far stretch to say that North Italy has been Germanized by invasions during times of low population. South Italy is probably the same as it was in ancient times.

Correct, the period in which the Arabs were present in Italy was very brief.... in total about 70 years? The Arabs in that period did not mix with the local Italians and stayed in military camps. This about the Italic peninsula, not the islands....

[San Galgano]

In many accounts of written descriptions of the ruling classes and early Emperors/Caesars, most had Grey/Blue eyes fair skin and light hair.

I have never read anything about the romans who could link them to a nordic phenotype, not even in the earlier time, in case a link to a celtic phenotype since even latin was the most similar language to celtic.


In any case you can find "celtic" phenotypes between our politicians today too in Italy, and even in normal people.
A nordic phenotype for romans sounds to me as blacks claiming egyptians=congoids.

[Agrippa]

I have never read anything about the romans who could link them to a nordic phenotype, not even in the earlier time, in case a link to a celtic phenotype since even latin was the most similar language to celtic.


In any case you can find "celtic" phenotypes between our politicians today too in Italy, and even in normal people.
A nordic phenotype for romans sounds to me as blacks claiming egyptians=congoids.

Some were Nordoids, that's proven, the question remains - like in the case of the Greeks, which proportions they had.

In any case, Egyptians and Negrids is a bigger jump than from Atlantomediterranid/Atlanto-Pontid to Nordoid obviously...

In the case of the first skulls can be a clear evidence, in the case of the latter it is much more difficult, as even the skulls and measurements can be very similar.

[Curtis24]

In my opinion, the original Latin speaking tribes were probably Keltic Nordid(Nordid with a Dinarid strain). They were absorbed into the native population, which was essentially racially the same as it is today(except for the Medieval reemergence of Alpinids. Thus the "Romans" were not Nordids but whatever racial mix is predominant in North Italy today, ignoring the Alpinid reemergence.

This is reflected in Roman mythology. The Romans always held that the original founders of the Roman aristocracy were foreigners who came and were absorbed into the native stock(see the Aeneas myth). In fact, correct me if I"m wrong but there are a several mythological accounts of foreign heros coming into Italy with a small band of supporters, creating some kind of reform or overthrowing a tyrant or something of that nature, and then just being absorbed into the population and culture. IMO there is always at least some truth to myth...

As for what specific type the Romans were, judging by their own accounts I would say pred. Atlanto-Mediterranid. They racially classified themselves in the same grouping as Greeks, and made a racial distinction between themselves and the Celts and Germans, so this points to the basic robust Mediterranid and not Nordid... but, as Agrippa points out, the two are very similar and classification is probably hard.

[Agrippa]

Also consider that there were not just the Indo-Europeans, but also the Etruscans which were probably foreign and those Etruscans, though being quite mixed, had a strong and dominant Mediterranid component.

And the Etruscans were definitely influential even in the Roman elite, so I guess we deal with a complex regional mixture which became somehow rather stable and gave way to a specific Roman national type which was between Mediterranid and Nordid with Cromagnoid/Cromagno-Alpinoid and Dinarid tendencies.

A shorter and broader "Keltic Nordic" morphology, like described - whether this was also due to the worse nutrition like some said, I don't know - I mean the body height.

[San Galgano]

Also consider that there were not just the Indo-Europeans, but also the Etruscans which were probably foreign and those Etruscans, though being quite mixed, had a strong and dominant Mediterranid component.

There were even villanovians and ligures in Italy, two proto-indoeuropean people.

I mean, whatever folk indoeuropeans people met when arrived in Italy we should also take in consideration what these indoeuropean people looked like.Why they should be like the stereotypical nordic?

[Agrippa]

There were even villanovians and ligures in Italy, two proto-indoeuropean people.

I mean, whatever folk indoeuropeans people met when arrived in Italy we should also take in consideration what these indoeuropean people looked like.Why they should be like the stereotypical nordic?

I don't expect that, but looking at the populations further North, at least a much stronger Nordoid and generally Atlanto-Nordoid element should be almost guaranteed.

[San Galgano]

I don't expect that, but looking at the populations further North, at least a much stronger Nordoid and generally Atlanto-Nordoid element should be almost guaranteed.


But romans(latins) were an indoeuropean people and save for the different culture at the beginning they never differentiate themselves from etruscans in appearence.
This make me think that latins were not for the most nordoids or maybe etruscans were not so mediterranean in phenotype.

[Agrippa]

But romans(latins) were an indoeuropean people and save for the different culture at the beginning they never differentiate themselves from etruscans in appearence.
This make me think that latins were not for the most nordoids or maybe etruscans were not so mediterranean in phenotype.

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.

[Curtis24]

Its interesting the Roman body build was shorter and thicker than those skeletons found from Celtic cultures. Poor nutrition is associated with urbanization and rising populations, whereas the Celts were still living in a tribal culture as subsistence farmers, and had only just begun developing cities when the Romans conquered them.
I remember reading somewhere that the average height of the Germanic tribesmen during the Dark Ages was 6 ft tall!

[Ibericus]

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

[Curtis24]

Iberia, go to SNPA and read all the resources they offer.

[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.php?attachmentid=216571&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?:(


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_29wiFklIoDw/TA1ygVY6k7I/AAAAAAAAAaI/jHGJ1ppAowQ/s400/jovanotti.jpg
http://jumpo.altervista.org/foto/20anni/diconodilui/film021.jpg
http://www.piazzagrande.info/images/img-a/marcello-lippi.jpg
http://www.mondopallone.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/allegri.jpg
http://www.libero-news.it/upload/thumbtrue1265042842598_475_280.jpg
http://www.destralab.it/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/05.jpg

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silures))

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silures))

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

I think the same, nice.

[Agrippa]

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.

Fact is, the Atlanto-Nordoid element didn't increase in meantime significantly, the Alpinoid did, that's what we can find if comparing ancients and moderns.

This change is largely due the process of Alpinisation, less so due to new immigrations. The selective process changed Northern Italy more than the invasions of Germanics...

Fact is that various waves of "more Nordoid than locals" came into Italy, among these especially the Italics, Celtics and Germanics.

But their influence was limited and though still visible the element which gained the most since ancient Romans are the Alpinoids in comparison, that's just a fact.

Alpinisation is in many areas a fairly new phenomenon, at least if talking about Alpinoids being a MAJOR element in the population.

The dominant element in all of modern Italy is Mediterranid-Alpinoid.

Talking about relative differences, Northern Italy is more Atlantomediterranid and Nordid (summed up as Atlanto-Nordid), Dinarid and Alpinoid.

In the South is Gracilmediterranid stronger, Dinarid and Alpinoid still very important, Berid more common and foreign strains here and there too (Armenoid and Orientalid) beside Nordoids occassionally, f.e. in Sicily.

I once classified a Sicilian family and the interesting thing was, that they had practically everything from Nordid to Armenoid influences, with the dominant element being Mediterranid.

[San Galgano]

If we consider biological anthropology of 19th century and of the first half of 20th century, all the people living in the Alpine area, such as north italian, swiss, austrians, bavarians, Wurttemberg, plus almost all central Italy, and french were considered alpines.

Considering that almost all of them are the main descendants of Hallstatt celts, both for proximity,language(italo-celt) and that many time the Halstatt celts were classified as alpines(the map of Madison Grant reinforce this theory too with some nordic elements in Austria,France,Bavaria and North Italy but with a large substratum of alpines in those countries), we can see that it is not a new phenomena due to selective process but rather a fingerprint of pre-roman times.
Plus i have read that many of the ancient roman and italic skulls were brachicefalic alpine.

[Curtis24]

Well I would disagree with that to an extent. The skulls at Hallstatt were clearly unmixed Nordid - "Hallstatt Nordid". At La Tene, you saw those same Nordid skulls and brachcephal skulls living next to each other. And at Celtic hill fortresses in Britain, you find pred. Nordid skulls with some Dinarid/brachycephalic influence. So it would be more accurate to say the Celts were Nordids who absorbed some brachcephaic influence during their conquests, but not enough to make them brachycephalic.

So I think its reasonable to say the Celts were pred. Nordid. And since the Italics were so linguistically similar to the Celts, they were probably pred. Nordid at first. The real question is to what extent did the Italics become absorbed into the native Italian population, vs. displace that population or rule it as a segregated elite. "Italic tribes" is not the same thing as "Romans".

[Jack B]

The Irish national football team coach Giovanni Trapattoni reminds me of those old Roman statue types sometimes

http://www.arenabola.com/data/10_6945_Giovanni_Trapattoni.jpg

http://www.telegrafi.com/fo/sport/f.0429192252868_m.jpg

[Libertas]

Fact is, the Atlanto-Nordoid element didn't increase in meantime significantly, the Alpinoid did, that's what we can find if comparing ancients and moderns.

This change is largely due the process of Alpinisation, less so due to new immigrations. The selective process changed Northern Italy more than the invasions of Germanics...

Fact is that various waves of "more Nordoid than locals" came into Italy, among these especially the Italics, Celtics and Germanics.

But their influence was limited and though still visible the element which gained the most since ancient Romans are the Alpinoids in comparison, that's just a fact.

Alpinisation is in many areas a fairly new phenomenon, at least if talking about Alpinoids being a MAJOR element in the population.

The dominant element in all of modern Italy is Mediterranid-Alpinoid.

Talking about relative differences, Northern Italy is more Atlantomediterranid and Nordid (summed up as Atlanto-Nordid), Dinarid and Alpinoid.

In the South is Gracilmediterranid stronger, Dinarid and Alpinoid still very important, Berid more common and foreign strains here and there too (Armenoid and Orientalid) beside Nordoids occassionally, f.e. in Sicily.

I once classified a Sicilian family and the interesting thing was, that they had practically everything from Nordid to Armenoid influences, with the dominant element being Mediterranid.


Biasutti in "Razze e Popoli della Terra" agrees that brachycephalisation in northern Italy dates mainly from the later Middle Ages.
He also believed that the changes came from within the existing mix of the Italian population.
Brachycephals ranged from just 15 pc in early Rome to 36pc in Rome of the Empire (Augustus onwards).
Etruscans had only 14pc at Clusium and 26pc at Caere and Tarquinia.
Pompeii destroyed by Mount Vesuvius in the year 79 had 43pc brachycephalic.
Biasutti did not believe that Alpines predominated in the Alps, even in the Swiss heartland, in antiquity.

[Foxy]

If we consider biological anthropology of 19th century and of the first half of 20th century, all the people living in the Alpine area, such as north italian, swiss, austrians, bavarians, Wurttemberg, plus almost all central Italy, and french were considered alpines.

Considering that almost all of them are the main descendants of Hallstatt celts, both for proximity,language(italo-celt) and that many time the Halstatt celts were classified as alpines(the map of Madison Grant reinforce this theory too with some nordic elements in Austria,France,Bavaria and North Italy but with a large substratum of alpines in those countries), we can see that it is not a new phenomena due to selective process but rather a fingerprint of pre-roman times.
Plus i have read that many of the ancient roman and italic skulls were brachicefalic alpine.

I agree, in my opinion alpinoids are very common in central Italy. I was in a local yesterday and was observing people. Most of them were light skinned, medium-light brown haired, dark eyed, males seem to be darker than females anyway (or is it only an impression? I am not speaking of dyed hair, also the colour of the skin).
Besides, my Tuscan mate, I have made a research about pre-roman Italic tribes. Samnites were the same people of Sabines, indeed also the name is the same (in Osco Samnites is "Safineis" and "Samnites" probably is a name given them by Greeks and then adopted by Romans"). Both didn't have in their alphabet the letter "o" and spoke Osco.
It seems that Samnites colonized the area of Abruzzo-Molise after an oracle gave the Sabines the order to send all the born in a given year to new lands southernmore.
Anyway among the sub-tribes of the Samnites, for two of them there are theories they were from Illyria (modern Croatia). The frequency of the haplogroup I in Abruzzo could confirm that, maybe.

[Foxy]

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.

I agree, the most of Germans entered in Italy during the Middle Age (Ostrogothes, Longobards, Franks, Normans) and during the renaissance it came the French troops during the Wars of Italy.
But germanic elements entered in Italy also during the Roman time, brought as slaves.
About pre-roman times we know that Celts entered in Italy, but we dunno if those Celts were from modern Germany, modern France or elsewhere. Slavs entered too from north-east.

[Libertas]

I agree, in my opinion alpinoids are very common in central Italy. I was in a local yesterday and was observing people. Most of them were light skinned, medium-light brown haired, dark eyed, males seem to be darker than females anyway (or is it only an impression? I am not speaking of dyed hair, also the colour of the skin).
Besides, my Tuscan mate, I have made a research about pre-roman Italic tribes. Samnites were the same people of Sabines, indeed also the name is the same (in Osco Samnites is "Safineis" and "Samnites" probably is a name given them by Greeks and then adopted by Romans"). Both didn't have in their alphabet the letter "o" and spoke Osco.
It seems that Samnites colonized the area of Abruzzo-Molise after an oracle gave the Sabines the order to send all the born in a given year to new lands southernmore.
Anyway among the sub-tribes of the Samnites, for two of them there are theories they were from Illyria (modern Croatia). The frequency of the haplogroup I in Abruzzo could confirm that, maybe.


Umbria is currently mainly Alpine but with some big Cromagnon/Borreby individuals and the inevitable Mediterranean and Dinaric individuals.
The Marche is similar but much more Dinaric.
However I agree with Agrippa that Alpinisation dates largely from medieval times and is not connected to any particular foreign invasions.

[Agrippa]

If we consider biological anthropology of 19th century and of the first half of 20th century, all the people living in the Alpine area, such as north italian, swiss, austrians, bavarians, Wurttemberg, plus almost all central Italy, and french were considered alpines.

Considering that almost all of them are the main descendants of Hallstatt celts, both for proximity,language(italo-celt) and that many time the Halstatt celts were classified as alpines(the map of Madison Grant reinforce this theory too with some nordic elements in Austria,France,Bavaria and North Italy but with a large substratum of alpines in those countries), we can see that it is not a new phenomena due to selective process but rather a fingerprint of pre-roman times.
Plus i have read that many of the ancient roman and italic skulls were brachicefalic alpine.

It is the same with Baltoslavs in the East, the facts are clear, the Alpinisation and Baltisation were later processes and strongest among peaceful-dependent-poor peasants, tillers to be exact.

Everything else is wrong.

You don't find such strong Alpinoid elements ANYWHERE in the Indo-European sphere, neither in the Neolithic.

Where they appeared we deal with rather smallish and isolated populations of peasants or dependent elements. The free people were rarely if every significantly Alpinoid influenced.

The Alpinisation process worked on various continental populations, producing similar results, but the ancient populations were clearly of a different kind, still:

but rather a fingerprint of pre-roman times.

IF, IF at all, it is a fingerprint of pre-Neolithic and pre-Indo-European times.

At best you can see it as "an altered reemergence".

That is what happened, because they came into the area, they began to dominate, up to 80 and 90 percent leptodolichomorphs in many areas, but they mixed with the local archaic Cromagnoids.

These were pushed into the lower classes or survived in isolated areas, but had to adapt to this new status, if they didn't already as gatherers, to the life of tillers = Alpinisation.

Once the Alpinid traits were present, they began to spread as soon as higher level individual and group selection was "switched-off".

When was that the case? F.e. in the later Roman Empire, because there was a huge mass of dependent slaves and tillers protected by the force of the Empire. No higher level individual or group selection, but hunger, diseases, hard unergonomic work - typically the Alpinoids numbers increased, not like later in Medieval Ages, but still significantly.

Generally reduction was observed in the bony material - similarly in the rather peaceful settlements of the Bronze Age.


Biasutti in "Razze e Popoli della Terra" agrees that brachycephalisation in northern Italy dates mainly from the later Middle Ages.
He also believed that the changes came from within the existing mix of the Italian population.
Brachycephals ranged from just 15 pc in early Rome to 36pc in Rome of the Empire (Augustus onwards).
Etruscans had only 14pc at Clusium and 26pc at Caere and Tarquinia.
Pompeii destroyed by Mount Vesuvius in the year 79 had 43pc brachycephalic.
Biasutti did not believe that Alpines predominated in the Alps, even in the Swiss heartland, in antiquity.

That is correct. We can only see somewhat higher rates in parts of the isolated settlements of sedentary people, that this element was present, but it rarely if ever dominated any smallish archaeological complex and was usually just a minority element EVERYWHERE.

As for the Celts, that is a typical Celtic skull from a free warrior, found in a tumulus:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5736&stc=1&d=1284028935

Also in the Hallstatt cemetery f.e. you find almost exclusively Atlanto-Nordoid skulls and typically the upper class was taller and more robust - most likely both due to their way of life and genetics.

The Alpinoid element among both Celts and Romans was lower at first and grew with time, but never to proportions like one could find them in certain Central European regions in Medieval times, in the times of the most unfavourable way of life for many simple peasants.

[Ibericus]

Well I would disagree with that to an extent. The skulls at Hallstatt were clearly unmixed Nordid - "Hallstatt Nordid". At La Tene, you saw those same Nordid skulls and brachcephal skulls living next to each other. And at Celtic hill fortresses in Britain, you find pred. Nordid skulls with some Dinarid/brachycephalic influence. So it would be more accurate to say the Celts were Nordids who absorbed some brachcephaic influence during their conquests, but not enough to change type.
What skulls are you talking about ? Who says they were Nordid ? I don't think the Celts were nordid at all. If you say "not enough to change tpye" then, look at the places with the most Celtic ancestry (Iberia, France, Italy, Switzerland, South Germany, Wales?, Ireland?, et ) are not predominantly Nordid and their Nordid elements have more to do with real nordid invasions (Vikings, Germanic tribes)

So I think its reasonable to say the Celts were pred. Nordid. And since the Italics were so linguistically similar to the Celts, they were probably pred. Nordid at first. The real question is to what extent did the Italics become absorbed into the native Italian population, vs. displace that population or rule it as a segregated elite. "Italic tribes" is not the same thing as "Romans".
I don't know if Celts were nordid or not, but all of this happened in pre-Roman times so it doesn't change the fact the Romans were the same as today Italians

[Ibericus]

As for the Celts, that is a typical Celtic skull from a free warrior, found in a tumulus:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5736&stc=1&d=1284028935

Also in the Hallstatt cemetery f.e. you find almost exclusively Atlanto-Nordoid skulls and typically the upper class was taller and more robust - most likely both due to their way of life and genetics.

The Alpinoid element among both Celts and Romans was lower at first and grew with time, but never to proportions like one could find them in certain Central European regions in Medieval times, in the times of the most unfavourable way of life for many simple peasants.
The classification of skull into racial types is wasted time and pseudo science bullshit. It was ok until the 50s/60's but today it makes no sense, since there are all types of skulls in common in the different races: negroids, caucasoids,etc

[Agrippa]

The classification of skull into racial types is wasted time and pseudo science bullshit. It was ok until the 50s/60's but today it makes no sense, since there are all types of skulls in common in the different races: negroids, caucasoids,etc

Nonsense. What does the difference between Negroids and Caucasoids/Europids have to do with the skull in Central Europe at that time? Does that skull look "Negroid" to you?

Also it is obvious that you always look at the population in question and compare the types you know of they were present.

In this case the main elements were Nordid, Cromagnid, Alpinoid, gracile Mediterranid.

What's that skull if comparing it with the respective variants?

It is at least Atlanto-Nordid and for sure no reduced Alpinid. Can you agree with that or do you have a problem with that assertion as well?

Or do you think that a distinction between Nordoid and Alpinoid is "arbitrary" and based on "nothing", because since the 1960's all those racial differences "disappeared" magically...?

Actually the coloration is in this case less important, it is a basically Nordoid skull which can only have Atlantomediterranid influences "at best", but is otherwise in clear cut position and category.

[Ibericus]

Or do you think that a distinction between Nordoid and Alpinoid is "arbitrary" and based on "nothing", because since the 1960's all those racial differences "disappeared" magically...?
No, it didn't disappear magically. It has been proved wasted efforts because such measures are not considered scientific today. Where do you cut off the line between nordid or alpinoid skuills ? What is the exact and rigurous criteria for such classifications ? It is a dead science.

Actually the coloration is in this case less important, it is a basically Nordoid skull which can only have Atlantomediterranid influences "at best", but is otherwise in clear cut position and category.
And who the fuck says that skull is Nordid ??

[Libertas]

Broca lives! No cut off between Nordids and Alpinoids?
Differences between Nordid and Alpinoid skulls extend to face length and nose breadth.
The skeletons are also dissimilar.
This Celtic skull certainly is not Alpinoid given both head dimensions and facial length.

[San Galgano]

Well I would disagree with that to an extent. The skulls at Hallstatt were clearly unmixed Nordid - "Hallstatt Nordid". At La Tene, you saw those same Nordid skulls and brachcephal skulls living next to each other. And at Celtic hill fortresses in Britain, you find pred. Nordid skulls with some Dinarid/brachycephalic influence. So it would be more accurate to say the Celts were Nordids who absorbed some brachcephaic influence during their conquests, but not enough to change type.

So I think its reasonable to say the Celts were pred. Nordid. And since the Italics were so linguistically similar to the Celts, they were probably pred. Nordid at first. The real question is to what extent did the Italics become absorbed into the native Italian population, vs. displace that population or rule it as a segregated elite. "Italic tribes" is not the same thing as "Romans".

The halstatt nordic refers to the first inhabitants of Halstatt(probably carriers of I haplogroup the largest in Scandinavia), largely replaced by subsequent waves of new indoeuropeans and present only in large number in Scandinavia. The celts were far to be an homogeneous group, and they sure varied from place to place in Europe, with the alpine celts-the ones often associated to the spread of many subclades of R1b in Europe- far from being completely nordid. It would be more accurate to say that the nordid celts were the minority of I haplogroup carriers absorbed in the vast majority of R1b subclades. Many times some people called celts were celtized more than real celts.
It's not a case if Irish and Weslh people, the most celtic nations in Europe, share dna with the Iberians people largely of R1b stock and place of people like Silures of Britannia which moved there from Spain and described by Tacitus as dark skinned and curly haired.
I think it's wrong to claim a nordid phenotype for celts when large part of Central Europe is not nordid today too even if they didn't have large infusion of new material genes if not by germans(who surely made central Europe lighter and the lightest people reflect infact the places where they settled more, and not where celtic people arose.)

As for the italo-celtic language they are associated with R1b U152 haplogroup that is not exactly nordic.

Italic and roman tribes were of the same stock,all indoeuropeans,(See, Picenes,Umbrians,Samnites,Leponti,Oscans and so on for references) and probably U152 and S28(with S28 being the main subclade in Italy, Switzerland and South France-alpine stock then-)

Anyway, there are some points to value here.
I keep on reading how fair the romans should have been, and how nordics people ruled over here.
If romans were so nordic how comes place like Scandinavia, Denmark, Germany didn't have their own civilization such as Rome and Greece?

[San Galgano]

It is the same with Baltoslavs in the East, the facts are clear, the Alpinisation and Baltisation were later processes and strongest among peaceful-dependent-poor peasants, tillers to be exact.You don't find such strong Alpinoid elements ANYWHERE in the Indo-European sphere, neither in the Neolithic.

Everything else is wrong.



Quote from wikipedia:

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many Western anthropologists classified humans into a variety of races and sub-races. Of these, the name Alpines was given to a physical type of the Caucasian race predominant in central/Eastern Europe, Celtic nations, and parts of Western/Central Asia, somewhat shorter, narrower shouldered, light-chestnut-haired and darker skinned than those they classified as Nordics. This model was first clearly defined in William Z. Ripley's book The Races of Europe (1899), which proposed three European categories: Teutonic (later termed Nordic), Mediterranean and Alpine.[1] This model was later popularised by Madison Grant.

Ripley argued that the Alpines had originated in Asia, and had spread westwards along with the emergence and expansion of agriculture, which they established in Europe. By migrating into central Europe, they had separated the northern and southern branches of the earlier European stock, creating the conditions for the separate evolution of Nordics and Mediterraneans.

This model was repeated in Madison Grant's book The Passing of the Great Race (1916), in which the Alpines were portrayed as the most populous of European and western Asian races

In Carleton Coon's rewrite of Ripley's The Races of Europe, he developed the argument that alpines were reduced Upper Paleolithic survivors indigenous to Europe. Coon argued that they were linked to their unreduced (Brünn, Borreby) counterparts.

[San Galgano]

No, it didn't disappear magically. It has been proved wasted efforts because such measures are not considered scientific today. Where do you cut off the line between nordid or alpinoid skuills ? What is the exact and rigurous criteria for such classifications ? It is a dead science.

And who the fuck says that skull is Nordid ??

Even Coon had problems in classify those skulls indeed.

[San Galgano]

I agree, in my opinion alpinoids are very common in central Italy. I was in a local yesterday and was observing people. Most of them were light skinned, medium-light brown haired, dark eyed, males seem to be darker than females anyway (or is it only an impression? I am not speaking of dyed hair, also the colour of the skin).

Alpines are usually associated with medium light skin, green or azel eyes and light chestnut hair.
If we consider them to have blended with other pre and indoeuropeans people giving the result of an atlanto-med alpine(the same of S.France)we can see what romans looked like and that is basically what Italy is today with the exception of some southern italian places.

[Curtis24]

What skulls are you talking about ? Who says they were Nordid ? I don't think the Celts were nordid at all. If you say "not enough to change tpye" then, look at the places with the most Celtic ancestry (Iberia, France, Italy, Switzerland, South Germany, Wales?, Ireland?, et ) are not predominantly Nordid and their Nordid elements have more to do with real nordid invasions (Vikings, Germanic tribes)

I don't know if Celts were nordid or not, but all of this happened in pre-Roman times so it doesn't change the fact the Romans were the same as today Italians

We have had this argument before, and quite frankly I do not wish to have it again.

Like I said, go to www.snpa.org and read Coon's "The Races of Europe". Based on skulls found at La Tene, Celtic fortress sites at Britain and England, Gaulish cities during Roman occupation, and Frankish camp sites during the Migration era, Coon believed there was a "Keltic Nordid" type that encompassed Britain, Ireland, Rhineland Germany, and Gaul. Coon also described "Itallic Nordid" as being essentially the same Keltic Nordid, with some more Alpinid/Mediterranid influence.


hen, look at the places with the most Celtic ancestry (Iberia, France, Italy, Switzerland, South Germany, Wales?, Ireland?, et ) are not predominantly Nordid and their Nordid elements have more to do with real nordid invasions (Vikings, Germanic tribes)

I will let others comment on this, but essentially brachycephalic nature of many parts of Europe changed in the Middle Ages. Why this happened is debated. According to one theory, it was because of intense natural selection, caused by endemic warfare, famines, and the nature of the feudal system. In another theory, somehow the skulls just became more brachcephalized through some kind of mutation process possibly related to changing diets.

As far as I know this did not happen in Britain, Ireland, or the Netherlands and Belgium, all of which Coon believed still had substantial populations of "Keltic Nordid">

[Agrippa]

The only difficult distinction for Nordids is if there are other robust Aurignacoids in the sample, especially Atlantomediterranid.


If romans were so nordic how comes place like Scandinavia, Denmark, Germany didn't have their own civilization such as Rome and Greece?

The Romans were not "that Nordid", they just had that element among them, that's a fact, about the proportions we can discuss.

Also the Indo-Europeans conquered many people and states, consider that as well, they just lived in a clan based society, often with a rather low population density and just indirect contacts to the older civilisation centres from the Near East.

Also consider that the agriculture of the North was not very productive until the Medieval reforms came, the new plough, crop rotation and various other inventions and innovations which changed the face of Europe.

However, talking about the ancient Romans, I don't think they were dominated by Nordoids, never said that, but they had that element among them and the Alpinoid element was weaker than it is now in the region.

[Curtis24]

The classification of skull into racial types is wasted time and pseudo science bullshit. It was ok until the 50s/60's but today it makes no sense, since there are all types of skulls in common in the different races: negroids, caucasoids,etc

If this is so, then why is the anthropological classification of skulls widely used by law enforcement? Why are we able to distinguish between homo sapiens and other hominids by skull shape? If skull shape can distinguish species, it can certainly distinguish races.

[Ibericus]

If this is so, then why is the anthropological classification of skulls widely used by law enforcement? Why are we able to distinguish between homo sapiens and other hominids by skull shape? If skull shape can distinguish species, it can certainly distinguish races.
I never said it can't distinguish species nor races. I said it can't distinguish between alpino-nordid and Nordid, such types

[Libertas]

I never said it can't distinguish species nor races. I said it can't distinguish between alpino-nordid and Nordid, such types

You can argue for or against the scientific value of phenotypes but the divisions between Nordids and Alpinoids are marked.

[Ibericus]

Can I see with my own eyes the sources of such studies on the classifications of these Celtic skulls ? Thanks
Btw I would rely on genetics rather than pseudo-science. Read the theories on the subclades of R1b associated with the Celtic spread

[Libertas]

Try Coon's "Races of Europe" for a start with all the footnotes and bibliography to support his views.

[Ibericus]

Try Coon's "Races of Europe" for a start with all the footnotes and bibliography to support his views.
Coon was a nordicist and racist and his works are from the 30's when no idea about genetics existed and the works were mostly biased on stereotypes more than real observation

[Libertas]

Glib response from somebody who has not read him or the works he based his views on.

[Curtis24]

Coon was a nordicist and racist and his works are from the 30's when no idea about genetics existed and the works were mostly biased on stereotypes more than real observation

He wasn't a nordicist and even wrote disparagingly about them in his later works(for instance, commenting that most nordicists he met weren't even nordid). Furthermore, he gave voluminous data about all the measurements he made, as well as saying specifically which skulls from which archaeological digs he used. He details which skulls have which traits in a non-typological manner, so that those who disagree with his typology can come to their own conclusions.

As for your data, genetics is an evolving field and can only prove extremely general things at this point in time. Unfortunately, it was politicized from the start and thus, media-celebrity types published books claiming things that, in retrospect, were far from conclusive from the data.

If you want a more accurate understanding of the genetic studies now being done, here's a blog I suggest:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/

[San Galgano]

He wasn't a nordicist and even wrote disparagingly about them in his later works(for instance, commenting that most nordicists he met weren't even nordid). Furthermore, he gave voluminous data about all the measurements he made, as well as saying specifically which skulls from which archaeological digs he used. He details which skulls have which traits in a non-typological manner, so that those who disagree with his typology can come to their own conclusions.

As for your data, genetics is an evolving field and can only prove extremely general things at this point in time. Unfortunately, it was politicized from the start and thus, media-celebrity types published books claiming things that, in retrospect, were far from conclusive from the data.

If you want a more accurate understanding of the genetic studies now being done, here's a blog I suggest:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/

I don't think dienekes it's the best reference for you mate.
He classified Halstatt skulls as mediterranoid-Irano-nordoid.:thumb001:

[San Galgano]

In the dienekes blog there is abstract too that basically explain what Iberia said:



Martínez-Abadías N, Esparza M, Sjøvold T, González-José R, Santos M, Hernández M.

Quantitative craniometrical traits have been successfully incorporated into population genetic methods to provide insight into human population structure. However, little is known about the degree of genetic and non-genetic influences on the phenotypic expression of functionally based traits. Many studies have assessed the heritability of craniofacial traits, but complex patterns of correlation among traits have been disregarded. This is a pitfall as the human skull is strongly integrated. Here we reconsider the evolutionary potential of craniometric traits by assessing their heritability values as well as their patterns of genetic and phenotypic correlation using a large pedigree-structured skull series from Hallstatt (Austria). The sample includes 355 complete adult skulls that have been analysed using 3D geometric morphometric techniques. Heritability estimates for 58 cranial linear distances were computed using maximum likelihood methods. These distances were assigned to the main functional and developmental regions of the skull. Results showed that the human skull has substantial amounts of genetic variation, and a t-test showed that there are no statistically significant differences among the heritabilities of facial, neurocranial and basal dimensions. However, skull evolvability is limited by complex patterns of genetic correlation. Phenotypic and genetic patterns of correlation are consistent but do not support traditional hypotheses of integration of the human shape, showing that the classification between brachy- and dolicephalic skulls is not grounded on the genetic level. Here we support previous findings in the mouse cranium and provide empirical evidence that covariation between the maximum widths of the main developmental regions of the skull is the dominant factor of integration in the human skull.

[Curtis24]

No, Iberia didn't say that. He just said "physical anthropology is a pseudo-science".

That is the published study. Where is the blog commentary on it?

[Libertas]

I don't think dienekes it's the best reference for you mate.
He classified Halstatt skulls as mediterranoid-Irano-nordoid.:thumb001:

Was Dienekes not quoting the Greek anthropologist Angel in this matter?
I find Angel's work difficult to believe.

[Curtis24]

He was, and he also quotes Coon as well.
BTW that's another point. Unlike the Nordicists, Coon explicitly says he believes the ancient Greeks are racially near-identical to modern Greeks. He also explicitly says he does not believe there was any significant racial mixing between Arabs/Berbers and the Spanish during the Muslim reign in that country.

[Guapo]

He was, and he also quotes Coon as well.
BTW that's another point. Unlike the Nordicists, Coon explicitly says he believes the ancient Greeks are racially near-identical to modern Greeks. He also explicitly says he does not believe there was any significant racial mixing between Arabs/Berbers and the Spanish during the Muslim reign in that country.

But he believed that Neo-Danubians existed. Right.

[San Galgano]

No, Iberia didn't say that. He just said "physical anthropology is a pseudo-science".

That is the published study. Where is the blog commentary on it?

Many studies are old studies of physical anthropology and as you can see by that abstract the pattern to find correlation to skull, face, and genetic are still unclear.
Many old studies were more empirical and sometimes unscientific too for the way they used to work.
I don't know if physical anthropology is a pseudo science, but looking at that abstract surely not a exact science for now.

[Curtis24]

But where's the commentary for the abstract?

[San Galgano]

But where's the commentary for the abstract?

There is not commentary:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/01/heritability-of-human-cranial.html

[Curtis24]

But he believed that Neo-Danubians existed. Right.

I never said I agreed with all of his ideas. For instance, I don't think that Neanderthals bred with homo sapiens, or that "Brunn" Irish represent prototypical Cro-Magnons, as Coon essentially did. But that doesn't disprove the actual statistics he provided.

According to basic genetics, physical traits are passed from parents to children. If physical traits change over time, it is because of natural selection - some people being weeded out by either dying or having less children, other people being more reproductively successful. The point is that noticeable changes in "phenotype" usually also imply a genetic change as well. From ancient to modern Europe, you see large changes in some sections of Europe in the types of skull physical traits. This strongly implies that there was a genetic change as well.

For instance, the population of the traditionally "Celtic" areas of Europe was pred. dolichocephalic until the collapse of the Roman Empire. This implies the people who lived in areas associated with Celtic culture were dolichocephalic as well; many Roman skeletons were also dolichocephalic. Yet, during the Middle Ages, some Celtic areas and some parts of Italy became strongly brachcephalic. Thus, there was a genetic - and thus, racial - change in those areas that went from being dolichocephalic to brachycephalic.

As I said before, I personally think the Romans were basically Mediterranid(though, the original Italic tribes were Nordid or some kind of Nordid blend). And the Alpinids who lived in Italy at the time - a small minority - probably also engaged in Roman culture and can be considered "Roman", albeit racially far from the average of the time.

At the same time, no one can deny there have been some genetic changes due to natural selection. This is moreso in the "Celtic" areas of France and Central Germany than in Italy, where most seem to think Mediterranid is still dominant. Thus, some parts of Europe are racially different than they were during ancient times.

[Curtis24]

And, consider that, as far as I know, I have some strong Alpinid influence myself( should really get my pic up in the classification forum); many great men have been Alpinid(for instance, Plato, some would say Mozart) so this is not some "Alpines are dumb peasants" idea. I"m simply pointing out the fact that Alpines are fairly far removed genetically and racially from the Roman and Celtic average.

[Libertas]

As I said before, I personally think the Romans were basically Mediterranid(though, the original Italic tribes were Nordid or some kind of Nordid blend). And the Alpinids who lived in Italy at the time - a small minority - probably also engaged in Roman culture and can be considered "Roman", albeit racially far from the average of the time.


I'm sure the Roman nobility was more Nordid than the bulk of the population.

[Tyrrhenoi]

That being said, it seems there is a racial divide between North and South Italy, since most North Italians would consider themselves different.

Different yes... but not in a racial context - more political and economical. Trying to devide Italians in north-middle-and south is useless, no Italian would make any racial remark on a ??swarthy-southerner?? (This verbum has been created by some nordic- supremacist).

Being a southener has never been a disadvantage in Italy. Italians are ONE people, trying to devide them has been tried many times by many countries.

This thread annoyed me from the beginning......

[Agrippa]

Can I see with my own eyes the sources of such studies on the classifications of these Celtic skulls ? Thanks
Btw I would rely on genetics rather than pseudo-science. Read the theories on the subclades of R1b associated with the Celtic spread

Why is it "pseudo-science" if it can be objectively measured and compared?

What else is "pseudo-science"?

And as long as genetic tests can't distinguish traits of phenotypical relevance to the same degree, measurements are the way to go.

What tells you yDNA-R1b if a practically all races can have it? All body heights? All intellectual levels and so on?

But what really mattered even then were traits of adaptive significance and this can be, if its about the physical aspects, only measured by now.

So that's still the appropriate scientific method and even in the future it will be, because the genes and their realisation in the phenotype might two things as well because of modification.

But then we will be able to state that this tall 172 cm Celtic warrior with a long head would be 185+ tall now, under the current living conditions f.e. Or he was close to his upper limit, because as a member of the upper class was well fed and has just a growing potential for 175 cm maximum.

Now when we compare these things, genetic tests will be really valuable, but by now they just make points for ancestry comparisons, not for adaptive qualities and racial categories, and not even the ancestry they got always right, if the tests are even applicable on the human remains...

As for the Hallstatt remains, I saw some skulls myself, in reality and in archaeological works, they were for the most part leptodolichomorphic.

That's the way they found the skeletons by the way:
http://www.sagen.at/doku/bergbau/images/Hallstatt_Ramsauer.jpg

[Foxy]

Why people are so obsessed with the look of old Romans?
I think they were like modern Italians... some blondes, most brunettes, some redhaired, becouse Italy was settled also at the time by Greeks, Villanovians, Celts, Italics and slavs.
Is it hard to accept that? :eek:

[Agrippa]

Why people are so obsessed with the look of old Romans?
I think they were like modern Italians... some blondes, most brunettes, some redhaired, becouse Italy was settled also at the time by Greeks, Villanovians, Celts, Italics and slavs.
Is it hard to accept that? :eek:

I don't think pigmentation was that different then, skull shape on the other hand...

[Ibericus]

Why is it "pseudo-science" if it can be objectively measured and compared?
What is the criteria of such measurments ? What are the official taxonomies ?



What tells you yDNA-R1b if a practically all races can have it?
That's not true. I was takling about the SUBCLADES of R1b, not R1b. Some subclades of R1b are only found in Europe, and outside of it is very rare and due to europeans. The branch S116-P312 is considered proto-Celt. The U152 is Italo-Celt, etc


All body heights? All intellectual levels and so on?
Height and IQ are measurable

[Libertas]

What is the criteria of such measurments ? What are the official taxonomies ?


That's not true. I was takling about the SUBCLADES of R1b, not R1b. Some subclades of R1b are only found in Europe, and outside of it is very rare and due to europeans. The branch S116-P312 is considered proto-Celt. The U152 is Italo-Celt, etc


Height and IQ are measurable

All R1bs are related otherwise they would not be included in the same R1b category. R1b is even found in Cameroon.

R1a is common in Pakistan and in Poland.

I wager that these haplogroups in due course will be found to be as useless for ethnic distinctions as the ABO blood group studies of 50 years ago.

Physical anthropology has still not been displaced by recent genetic studies which are usually based on small or even tiny samples.

[Agrippa]

What is the criteria of such measurments ?

Anthropometry:

Anthropometry (Greek άνθρωπος, man, and μέτρον, measure, literally meaning "measurement of humans"), in physical anthropology, refers to the measurement of the human individual for the purposes of understanding human physical variation.

Today, anthropometry plays an important role in industrial design, clothing design, ergonomics and architecture where statistical data about the distribution of body dimensions in the population are used to optimize products. Changes in life styles, nutrition and ethnic composition of populations lead to changes in the distribution of body dimensions (e.g., the obesity epidemic), and require regular updating of anthropometric data collections.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropometry

Its been in use in the forensic field, medicine, in anthropology, industry etc...

So obviously it is a scientific method to compare humans, the question is just what you make out of it and what's allowed or accepted and what not if it's about possible interpretations in the current Cultural Marxist, "politically correct" context.

Here some standard cranial measurement points in anthropology:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5740&stc=1&d=1284115833

Comparison of a typical Nordid and Alpinid skull after John R. Baker:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5739&stc=1&d=1284115836

[Libertas]

Anthropometry:


Its been in use in the forensic field, medicine, in anthropology, industry etc...

So obviously it is a scientific method to compare humans, the question is just what you make out of it and what's allowed or accepted and what not if it's about possible interpretations in the current Cultural Marxist, "politically correct" context.

Current genetic studies are marred not only by small sample sizes but they are compromised by associations with political correctness and an atomisation of western society. "I'm R1b or I'm J2" instead of retaining a collective identity or collective pride.

[Ibericus]

All R1bs are related otherwise they would not be included in the same R1b category. R1b is even found in Cameroon.
What a stupid and ignorant statement. First of all , haplogroups do not determine races nor ethnicities. That should be clear. Be they do tell us about human migrations. Second : Cameroon has the branch V88 of R1b, which has nothing to do with the dominating european branch is the P311. Third of all : Like I said, they tell us about human movements : For example, the fact that the branch P312 (and its subclades) is much stronger in areas with Celtic settlements while U106 is stronger in Germanic areas without much Celtic ancestry. Or the fact that U152 matches up with the Italo-Celt expansion, that's what they tell. Im not talking about race here.

R1a is common in Pakistan and in Poland.
So? What's your point ?


I wager that these haplogroups in due course will be found to be as useless for ethnic distinctions as the ABO blood group studies of 50 years ago.
Nobody says haplogroups are used for ethnic distinctions.


Physical anthropology has still not been displaced by recent genetic studies which are usually based on small or even tiny samples.
Genetic studies based on Autosomal dna can determine ancestry and race. And the samples are not tiny at all. There are hughe studies out there with reliable samples .

[Ibericus]

Current genetic studies are marred not only by small sample sizes but they are compromised by associations with political correctness and an atomisation of western society. "I'm R1b or I'm J2" instead of retaining a collective identity or collective pride.
You are wrong. The haplogroups do not determine ethnicity nor race. Haplogroups are used to determine human migrations based on subclades and their frequencies. However, to determine genetic clusters and thus ancestry and race the Autosomal dna is used, not haplogroups.

[Agrippa]

Genetic studies based on Autosomal dna can determine ancestry and race.

Ancestry primarily, just consider selective trends which favoured one element in the population while not changing the overall genetic make up. F.e. light skin pigmentation being selected, while other genetic traits remain largely unchanged. Obviously of significance, but not visible in autosomal comparisons unless you search for the disposition for that trait in the genome/genpool, like some did for light eyes already...

[Libertas]

Iberia, I am well aware that haplogroups have no direct bearing on physical appearance so why did you bring the matter up when we are discussing the physical appearance of ancient Romans?

Autosomal or the most recent genome-wide studies are sometimes based on single-figure samples as if a "deep" study of a few individuals can possibly represent ethnic groups numbering millions.

[Ibericus]

Iberia, I am well aware that haplogroups have no direct bearing on physical appearance so why did you bring the matter up when we are discussing the physical appearance of ancient Romans?
I was not talking abour race, I was talking about the Celts. Because the haplotypes (not haplogroups) do tell us about the Celtic expansion, and it's frequencies today.


or the most recent genome-wide studies are sometimes based on single-figure samples as if a "deep" study of a few individuals can possibly represent ethnic groups numbering millions.
You should know that no scientific study is ever done in millions of people because that would be stupid and too expensive. What scientists do is to take a sample as much representative of a population as possible.

[Ibericus]

Ancestry primarily, just consider selective trends which favoured one element in the population while not changing the overall genetic make up. F.e. light skin pigmentation being selected, while other genetic traits remain largely unchanged. Obviously of significance, but not visible in autosomal comparisons unless you search for the disposition for that trait in the genome/genpool, like some did for light eyes already...
Usually in autosomal studies more than 400,000 SNP's are used. That's enough to see a pattern of ancestry (or what scientists will never say : Races)

[Libertas]

I was not talking abour race, I was talking about the Celts. Because the haplotypes (not haplogroups) do tell us about the Celtic expansion, and it's frequencies today.


You should know that no scientific study is ever done in millions of people because that would be stupid and too expensive. What scientists do is to take a sample as much representative of a population as possible.

A small sample, as most are on genome-wide studies, is quite useless because it only tells us something about those individuals. Who decides how representative these individuals are? What use then are 400,000 SNPs?

Haplogroups are based on single loci, one line of descent among thousands, and are subject to genetic drift and selection. They are only one piece of a jigsaw. Physical anthropology tries to examine the whole picture.

[Agrippa]

Usually in autosomal studies more than 400,000 SNP's are used. That's enough to see a pattern of ancestry (or what scientists will never say : Races)

Iberia, they don't even know for sure which loci were under selection right now, the methods are still in the making...

They neither know what genes make up which traits with some exceptions.

Unless we know more about THIS, we know not enough to speak about all aspects of races from a genetic point of view, because race and ancestry is not the same in this regard, because people with roughly the same or a similar ancestry could have a completely different racial-adaptive quality because of limited sets of genes which were under selection.

[Ibericus]

A small sample, as most are on genome-wide studies, is quite useless because it only tells us something about those individuals. Who decides how representative these individuals are? What use then are 400,000 SNPs?
It's not true that they are small samples. On the other hand, how many people were used in Coon's anthropoemtrical studies ?


Haplogroups are based on single loci, one line of descent among thousands, and are subject to genetic drift and selection. They are only one piece of a jigsaw. Physical anthropology tries to examine the whole picture.
Haplogroups is not the same as Autosomal DNA.

[Libertas]

It's not true that they are small samples. On the other hand, how many people were used in Coon's anthropoemtrical studies ?

Some anthropological surveys,carried out by Coon and many others, run into hundreds and thosands, usually bigger samples than current genetic tests.
Haplogroups is not the same as Autosomal DNA.

Who said Y-dna and autosomal DNA were the same.
The former is limited because it relies on only one ancestral line when you have thousands and is subject to genetic drift while the latter, autosomal studies and genome-wide studies, are not scientifically established yet as Agrippa just stated.
Some anthropological studies, carried out by Coon and many others, ran into hundreds or even many thousands (schoolchildren; military recruits) unlike the often ludicrously small modern genetic samples.
Sorry, you can't convince me given the present state of genetic studies.

Getting back on topic, what is your take on the ancient Romans?

[San Galgano]

I'm sure the Roman nobility was more Nordid than the bulk of the population.

No, the roman nobilty was not more Nordid than population, in case they didn't work in the fields and were fairer but there isn't any study that claims this, save Arthur Kemp which is not nordic himself too.

Kemp:
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/images/kp_Arthur_Kemp.png

[Ibericus]

autosomal studies and genome-wide studies, are not scientifically established yet as Agrippa just stated.
That's not true. Thanks to these genetic studies it has been confirmed that what we tought about races it's true from a genetic point of view: The patterns are clear: Europeans, Asians, SS Africans, Amerindians,etc and from a given person you can determine his racial composition and ancestry.


Some anthropological studies, carried out by Coon and many others, ran into hundreds or even many thousands (schoolchildren; military recruits) unlike the often ludicrously small modern genetic samples.
well, but genetics is pure empirical science while Coon is not. And the small samples is not a problem: In the future more and more people are participating, and the future will be about full genomes. Time will tell.

Getting back on topic, what is your take on the ancient Romans?
That they were the same as today Italians, but with less germanic elements (Normans in the South, Lombards, Ostrogoths,)

[San Galgano]

And, consider that, as far as I know, I have some strong Alpinid influence myself( should really get my pic up in the classification forum); many great men have been Alpinid(for instance, Plato, some would say Mozart) so this is not some "Alpines are dumb peasants" idea. I"m simply pointing out the fact that Alpines are fairly far removed genetically and racially from the Roman and Celtic average.

There are several roman busts who show an alpinoid phenotype and if you have read my previous quote from Wikipedia, alpinoid in its several forms, was the most common in celtic areas.

[Libertas]

No, the roman nobilty was not more Nordid than population, in case they didn't work in the fields and were fairer but there isn't any study that claims this, save Arthur Kemp which is not nordic himself too.

Kemp:
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/images/kp_Arthur_Kemp.png
Coon stated that the Keltic Iron Age variety of Nordic formed the basis of the Roman patricians. See his "Races of Europe".

Remember Sulla, Cato the Elder, Augustus and Nero, among others, were described by Plutarch or Suetonius as blond or blondish. Also brachycephals were in the minority in Roman Italy so Alpines were probably not responsible for this lighter colouring.

Some Etruscan wall paintings from Tarquinia and Vulci also show blonds.

There were blonds in Italy long before the barbarian invasions.

I can assure you that Alpines are not, nor ever were, typical of Celtic areas of Britain and Ireland.
You forget about medieval Alpinisation in a large part of continental Europe.

[San Galgano]

Coon stated that the Keltic Iron Age variety of Nordic formed the basis of the Roman patricians. See his "Races of Europe".

Remember Sulla, Cato the Elder, Augustus and Nero, among others, were described by Plutarch or Suetonius as blond or blondish. Also brachycephals were in the minority in Roman Italy so Alpines were probably not responsible for this lighter colouring. Some Etruscan wall paintings also show blonds.

There were blonds in Italy long before the barbarian invasions.


If you are half italian, you should be annoyed by these quotes and some nordicists trying to depict ancient romans as nordics and the population a bunch of swarthies implying that modern italians are mixed cause the main subraces of modern days Italy are atlanto med-alpine.

Anyway this is the entire abstract from Coon over Romans:


"...the movements from the north introduced Nordics of two varieties; the classic Hallstatt type, and the Keltic Iron Age type which was later to form the basic racial element among the Roman patricians.

"...Keltic Iron Age type, which was a mixture of Nordic with Dinaric elements. ... mesocephalic and low-vaulted, with a prominent nose. ... On the whole, the Kelts were a mixed group in race as in culture; their ancestry includes both long heads of some central European Nordic type, which was in turn a combination of several Mediterranean sub-types, and brachycephals from the region in southwestern Germany in which the Dinarics of Early Bronze Age introduction had blended with earlier round heads of Mesolithic origin.

"The early Romans, judging from the busts of their descendants in the days of Augustus, and of descriptions, were not very tall, as a rule, but were often of heavy body build. Their skulls were flattish on top, and rounded on the sides, like those of the Kelts. The facial features included the well-known "Roman" nose, which may have been partly derived from an Etruscan source. On the whole, the well-known sculptures of Caesar, Augustus, and others, although not reliable from the standpoint of accurate measurement, indicate that a mesocephalic to brachycephalic head form was admired. Their facial type is not native to the Mediterranean basin, but is more at home in the north [of the Alps]. Nevertheless, the Romans considered the Kelts who invaded Italy tall and blond; hence the blondism of the Romans, including rufosity, must have been in the minority."

[Ibericus]

Coon stated that the Keltic Iron Age variety of Nordic formed the basis of the Roman patricians. See his "Races of Europe".

Remember Sulla, Cato the Elder, Augustus and Nero, among others, were described by Plutarch or Suetonius as blond or blondish. Also brachycephals were in the minority in Roman Italy so Alpines were probably not responsible for this lighter colouring. Some Etruscan wall paintings also show blonds.

There were blonds in Italy long before the barbarian invasions.
Being blonde is not equivalent of being Nordic. Btw I have read 'Races of Europe' and it has so many flaws it's incredible some people consider it to be science. Historic flaws (due to being written in 1939, huge historical updates have happened), old and dubious taxonomy (Mediterranean race ? ) etc, etc.

[San Galgano]

I can assure you that Alpines are not, nor ever were, typical of Celtic areas of Britain and Ireland.
You forget about medieval Alpinisation in a large part of continental Europe.

The celts of British isles melted with others subraces in their way to the north.
They probably mixed with I carriers, a thing that could not happen once they moved south.

[San Galgano]

Being blonde is not equivalent of being Nordic. Btw I have read 'Races of Europe' and it has so many flaws it's incredible some people consider it to be science. Historic flaws (due to being written in 1939, huge historical updates have happened), old and dubious taxonomy (Mediterranean race ? ) etc, etc.

Indeed and this passage from Coon make me laugh:

Their facial type is not native to the Mediterranean basin, but is more at home in the north [of the Alps]

What is a typical face of mediterranean basin?
All the people living in Italy are descendant for the most of indoeuropean people from north of alps and the mediterranean faces of today are the result of those people more or less.

maybe he thought that the typical face of mediterranean basin was that of North africans?

[Libertas]

If you are half italian, you should be annoyed by these quotes and some nordicists trying to depict ancient romans as nordics and the population a bunch of swarthies implying that modern italians are mixed cause the main subraces of modern days Italy are atlanto med-alpine.

Anyway this is the entire abstract from Coon over Romans:

Emotional appeals to my Italian-ness (I actually have 2 Italian parents BTW) does not take away from Coon's position which I agree with.

Coon stated that only the Roman patricians were basically Keltic Nordics
(page 554, "Italy" chapter, Races of Europe).

Elsewhere in his book he states that ancient Pompeii had an important Alpine element (43pc brachycephalic as I quoted from Biasutti in a previous post).

The Coon passage you quoted above does not detract from the literary and pictorial evidence that Roman nobles were often blonder than the masses who were more like modern Italians, of all hair colours, but mainly brunette.

Coon himself said that Caesar and Augustus had a look more "northern" than Mediterranean.

[San Galgano]

Of course i'm not saying there were not nordics between romans but they were a minority and you can find nordic phenotype in today Italy too.

This is a guy from Tuscany:
http://www.suipedali.it/wp-galleryo/cipollini-2009/_4minimario-cipollini1.jpg

Then latins though found previous tribes in Italy who were of pre-indeouropean stock and melted with them giving as result the altalnto med-alpine italian of modern days.

[Libertas]

Of course i'm not saying there were not nordics between romans but they were a minority and you can find nordic phenotype in today Italy too.



I did not imply that Nordics were anything other than a minority.
Even Coon said that they only formed the basis of the patrician class not the whole group "a la Kemp".
Coon wrote, as you quoted, that the Romans saw the Celts as tall and blond so blondism was a minority trait in Romans.

[San Galgano]

Emotional appeals to my Italian-ness (I actually have 2 Italian parents BTW) does not take away from Coon's position which I agree with.

Coon stated that only the Roman patricians were basically Keltic Nordics
(page 554, "Italy" chapter, Races of Europe).

Elsewhere in his book he states that ancient Pompeii had an important Alpine element (43pc brachycephalic as I quoted from Biasutti in a previous post).

The Coon passage you quoted above does not detract from the literary and pictorial evidence that Roman nobles were often blonder than the masses who were more like modern Italians, of all hair colours, but mainly brunette.

Coon himself said that Caesar and Augustus had a look more "northern" than Mediterranean.

Now i understand why you try to depict romans as nordic since you don't feel so tied to Italy, but in the same time you should not try too to take advantage from a southern European civility that with the north has few to share since they basically took their knowledge from etruscans.



Anyway Coon could state what he wanted over romans since he could not see real skulls of Caesar(who was described as dark haired and eyed with a fair skin) and Augustus(which was blond but with a flat head in several busts), and he could not know what average roman citizens looked like since busts only depicted patricians usually.

[Libertas]

Now i understand why you try to depict romans as nordic since you don't feel so tied to Italy, but in the same time you should not try too to take advantage from a southern European civility that with the north has few to share since they basically took their knowledge from etruscans.



Anyway Coon could state what he wanted over romans since he could not see real skulls of Caesar(who was described as dark haired and eyed with a fair skin) and Augustus(which was blond but with a flat head in several busts), and he could not know what average roman citizens looked like since busts only depicted patricians usually.

Neither you or I can see their real skulls either.

Etruscan technology (hydraulics etc) is of Middle Eastern origin and Etruscan art was a provincial version of Greek. The Romans went way beyond the Etruscans in building technlogy. Most Etruscan buildings were hardwood on stone bases before Roman times.

We don't know Julius Caesar's hair colour. Suetonius only tells us that he was fair-skinned and dark-eyed.

Some of Augustus' busts are projecting at the occiput while others are flattened so there is uncertainty there too.

[San Galgano]

I'm more and more convinced that romans were the same of the real celts who spread R1b all over Europe,and not the ones who melted their way to north Europe.

[Ibericus]

I did not imply that Nordics were anything other than a minority.
Even Coon said that they only formed the basis of the patrician class not the whole group "a la Kemp".
Coon wrote, as you quoted, that the Romans saw the Celts as tall and blond so blondism was a minority trait in Romans.
What is the prove that the patrician class was nordic ? Btw it's not true that Romans saw the Celts as tall and blonde. They said that beyond the alps, the gauls that they saw (which were not really Gauls but came from Germany) were Blonde. They also talked about the Celts in Iberia and Wales as being dark-haired. And it is also true that some Gauls died their hair in blonde.

[San Galgano]

Neither you or I can see their real skulls either.
We have to rely on what we have then and roman busts at most show atlnto-med alpine. I fail to see Dolph Lundgren alike romans in those busts.

Etruscan technology (hydraulics etc) is of Middle Eastern origin and Etruscan art was a provincial version of Greek. The Romans went way beyond the Etruscans in building technlogy. Most Etruscan buildings were hardwood on stone bases before Roman times.
Etruscans were also stopped their way from romans and their technology was that of 200 years earlier.


We don't know Julius Caesar's hair colour. Suetonius only tells us that he was fair-skinned and dark-eyed.

Some of Augustus' busts are projecting at the occiput while others are flattened so there is uncertainty there too.


But we can safely say that at most some could be keltic-nordic, but in no way strictly nordic.

[Libertas]

What is the prove that the patrician class was nordic ? Btw it's not true that Romans saw the Celts as tall and blonde. They said that beyond the alps, the gauls that they saw (which were not really Gauls but came from Germany) were Blonde. They also talked about the Celts in Iberia and Wales as being dark-haired. And it is also true that some Gauls died their hair in blonde.

I should have said that Gauls were considered blonder.

The Silures of Wales were described as curly-haired and swarthy like the Spaniards according to Tacitus (Agricola,11). He even thought that the Silures came from Spain.
Julius Caesar and Sulla were patricians. Classify their busts and give us YOUR opinion.

[Libertas]

We have to rely on what we have then and roman busts at most show atlnto-med alpine. I fail to see Dolph Lundgren alike romans in those busts.

Etruscans were also stopped their way from romans and their technology was that of 200 years earlier.



But we can safely say that at most some could be keltic-nordic, but in no way strictly nordic.

Yes, a few were Keltic-Nordic not Lundgrenesque.:)

[San Galgano]

What is the prove that the patrician class was nordic ? Btw it's not true that Romans saw the Celts as tall and blonde. They said that beyond the alps, the gauls that they saw (which were not really Gauls but came from Germany) were Blonde. They also talked about the Celts in Iberia and Wales as being dark-haired. And it is also true that some Gauls died their hair in blonde.

The most ancient celtic inscriptions has been found in Italy and Spain not in N.Europe, and the real celtic places in Europe such as Wales and Ireland are darker in comparison to the rest of British isles and share dna with Spain.

I think it's clear what real celts looked like.

[Ibericus]

I should have said that Gauls were considered blonder.

The Silures of Wales were described as curly-haired and swarthy like the Spaniards according to Tacitus (Agricola,11). He even thought that the Silures came from Spain.
Julius Caesar and Sulla were patricians. Classify their busts and give us YOUR opinion.
To me Roman busts look atlando-med-dinarid-alpinid , which is what the majority of Italians today are. To me Julius Caesar looks typical Italian, far from being nordic. I would say he is Alpine-Dinarid:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/CaesarTusculum.jpg/444px-CaesarTusculum.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Gaius_Julius_Caesar_%28100-44_BC%29.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Augustus_Statue.JPG/445px-Augustus_Statue.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Giulio-cesare-enhanced_1-800x1450.jpg/331px-Giulio-cesare-enhanced_1-800x1450.jpg

[Libertas]

What do you think, Agrippa?

[Ibericus]

The most ancient celtic inscriptions has been found in Italy and Spain not in N.Europe, and the real celtic places in Europe such as Wales and Ireland are darker in comparison to the rest of British isles and share dna with Spain.

I think it's clear what real celts looked like.
Exactly. And of course no celtic inscriptions have been found in N.Europe since the Celts didn't settle in Northern Europe :) .

[San Galgano]

Yes, a few were Keltic-Nordic not Lundgrenesque.:)

Here we can agree Libertas, but i don't understand why they should have been the patricians.
I have thousand friends who could pass as irish or german or english and they are not nor dukes nor princes nor politicians.
Those keltic-nordic people despite what some nordicists say are tons in Italy.

[Libertas]

The most ancient celtic inscriptions has been found in Italy and Spain not in N.Europe, and the real celtic places in Europe such as Wales and Ireland are darker in comparison to the rest of British isles and share dna with Spain.

I think it's clear what real celts looked like.

Remember that the Welsh and Irish are mainly dolicho-mesocephalic and rarely Alpine which you claimed was typical of Celts.

[Ibericus]

Remember that the Welsh and Irish are mainly dolicho-mesocephalic and rarely Alpine which you claimed was typical of Celts.
The Celts were far from being a homogeneus mono-type group. Plus you have to takin in account the pre-Celt peoples of Wales and Ireland

[San Galgano]

Remember that the Welsh and Irish are mainly dolicho-mesocephalic and rarely Alpine which you claimed was typical of Celts.

What i think is that celts were a darker people at the beginning than the celts we all immagine, and were mainly alpine-atlanto med, then they melted with nordics too and some reached the british isles, but the ones that were most "Inbreed" still have a darker phenotype such as Wales and Ireland.

[San Galgano]

Etruscan technology (hydraulics etc) is of Middle Eastern origin and Etruscan art was a provincial version of Greek.

Etruscan technology was not of middle eastern origin, since they invented the arch and vault that not even greeks had. Etruscans also invented paved road, the sewerages, they know the tropical year and the 365 day of the year divided in 12 months.
They have a similar art to greeks(who had not at that time) but they developed their own which was not static as the greek one typical of the greek statues and paintings.

Anyway every technology came from middle east at that time and even greeks borrowed a lot from Egyptians and phoenicians.

I think beyond the natural antipathy we have against modern middle eastern people of today we should anyway be more objective and give them credit and respect for many things of the western civilizations of the later time that are still influencing us.

[Libertas]

Etruscan technology was not of middle eastern origin, since they invented the arch and vault that not even greeks had. Etruscans also invented paved road, the sewerages, they know the tropical year and the 365 day of the year divided in 12 months.
They have a similar art to greeks(who had not at that time) but they developed their own which was not static as the greek one typical of the greek statues and paintings.

Anyway every technology came from middle east at that time and even greeks borrowed a lot from Egyptians and phoenicians.

I think beyond the natural antipathy we have against modern middle eastern people of today we should be more objective and give them credit and respect for many of the western civilization of the later time that are still influencing us.

Arches and vaults ultimately came from Mesopotamia though it was the Etruscans and not the Greeks who passed them onto the Romans.
The Fertile Crescent and the Indus valley had advanced sewerage systems and hydraulic engineering long before the Etruscans or anybody else in Europe.

The invention of Roman concrete based on pozzolana came from Campania.

Etruscan art was much more expressive than the Greek variety and the Etruscan wall paintings of Vulci and Tarquinia show a wide variety of features and hair colours just as in modern Italy.

I agree that we westerners have a ridiculously low view of the Middle East to which we owe so much.

[Ibericus]

Emperor Hadrian : The nose and the shape of the head are definately not indicative of a nordic person. I would say Aplinid-Dinarid-Med (typical in Italy) :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Hadrian_bm.jpg/450px-Hadrian_bm.jpg

[Guapo]

This is the real race of the ancient Romans! Go jew Go!!!!5

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00690/chariot-404_690617c.jpg

[Saruman]

Emperor Hadrian : The nose and the shape of the head are definately not indicative of a nordic person. I would say Aplinid-Dinarid-Med (typical in Italy) :

I believe he already got classified as Atlanto-Nordid with strong Dinarid and weaker Cromagnid element.
I really don't see Alpinoid in him though.


This is the real race of the ancient Romans! Go jew Go!!!!5
[/IMG]

http://www.seanax.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/charleton-heston.jpg
I think Heston could easily pass as an ancient Roman, his types were present among them. :D

[Guapo]

I believe he already got classified as Atlanto-Nordid with strong Dinarid and weaker Cromagnid element.
I really don't see Alpinoid in him though.



http://www.seanax.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/charleton-heston.jpg
I think Heston could easily pass as an ancient Roman, his types were present among them. :D

With those hairy arms? For sure!

[Ibericus]

I believe he already got classified as Atlanto-Nordid with strong Dinarid and weaker Cromagnid element.
I really don't see Alpinoid in him though.



http://www.seanax.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/charleton-heston.jpg
I think Heston could easily pass as an ancient Roman, his types were present among them. :D
hmm..I don't know. His front is too straight (nordic trait) to pass as a Roman

[Libertas]

Emperor Hadrian : The nose and the shape of the head are definately not indicative of a nordic person. I would say Aplinid-Dinarid-Med (typical in Italy) :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Hadrian_bm.jpg/450px-Hadrian_bm.jpg

Remember Hadrian's family was from Italica (near Seville,Spain) and his ancestry was mixed Italian-Spanish.

[Curtis24]

His front is too straight (nordic trait) to pass as a Roman

Gee, I thought you said physical anthropology was a pseudoscience.

[Curtis24]

As to the type of Roman emperors, there was another thread on this and most were classified as being robust Mediterranid with Dinarid influence. That seems most likely given the history of Northern Italy.

[San Galgano]

I believe he already got classified as Atlanto-Nordid with strong Dinarid and weaker Cromagnid element.
I really don't see Alpinoid in him though.



http://www.seanax.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/charleton-heston.jpg
I think Heston could easily pass as an ancient Roman, his types were present among them. :D


You mean like this italian named Fabio Lanzoni?
http://www.aolcdn.com/channels/02/02/4936c6eb-00329-05bba-400cb8e1


What you guy have to understand is that the phenotypes like Charlston Heston are rare in France too. Now if you guys think all the celts were like him and then coming from France too how comes are so rare in France?

[Curtis24]

Because massive amounts of people died in France, and the rest of Central Europe, during the Fall of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages. They were replaced by other people - largely Alpinids. Natural selection, like I said.

[San Galgano]

LOL
Guys if you see nordic in the Hadrian pic posted by Iberia, i give up.

I think afrocentrists would be more impartial in classify Hannibal then you romans.

[Korbis]

Certainly they weren´t neither nordic nor germanic like some bloody nordicists pretend. Otherwise they would not have considered the north-western barbarians "exotic" folk when the met them for the first time.

Atlanto Med and dinaric sounds plausible.

[San Galgano]

Because massive amounts of people died in France, and the rest of Central Europe, during the Fall of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages. They were replaced by other people - largely Alpinids. Natural selection, like I said.

Alpines were already there, and died for starvation, war, and plague the same of all the other subraces.
Many nazi officier were alpine, Hitler inclusive to a certain degree.
The idea that alpine were calm paesants, the backbone of Europe is only a speculation of Coon.

[Curtis24]

Certainly they weren´t neither nordic nor germanic like some bloody nordicists pretend. Otherwise they would not considered the north-western barbarians "exotic" folk when the met them for the first time.

Atlanto Med and dinaric sounds plausible.

Yeah, but nobody was ever really claiming they were Nordid. The claim was that they were Robust Mediterranid with Dinarid, and probably some Nordid influences. Its hard to tell, since the Atlanto Med and Nordid types are so similar. The Italic tribes probably had some strong Nordid influence at least, so there would have been some Nordid influence in the Roman population.

The argument came when people started claiming physical anthropology was bull, that the population of continental Europe was mostly Alpinid, etc.

[Curtis24]

Alpines were already there, and died for starvation, war, and plague the same of all the other subraces.

They were there, but in small numbers. They would have died from starvation at much lower rates because of advantages inherent in their body types, i.e. holding on to subcutaneous fat longer etc. This is what I mean by natural selection. Alpines were able to stay alive in larger numbers during all the chaos because they could better resist famine and possibly disease as well.

[Cato]

Remember Hadrian's family was from Italica (near Seville,Spain) and his ancestry was mixed Italian-Spanish.

Jug ears with a generous-sized nose, sort of reminds me of Augustus- who wasn't from a purely Roman/Latin background himself (he originally hailed from Velitrae/Vellitri, a town of the Volscians, folks who may've had Celtic admixture).

[Saruman]

LOL
Guys if you see nordic in the Hadrian pic posted by Iberia, i give up.

I think afrocentrists would be more impartial in classify Hannibal then you romans.

You might want to revisit my thread,
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16012

This one regarding Flavians
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18812

What about these pics of Hadrian? Also Hadrian had dark hair and light eyes, hence Atlanto-Nordid can be used, plus Dinarid and little more CM.

http://www.alamo.edu/sac/vat/arthistory/arts1303/RomeS9.jpg
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/romans/history/pictures/hadrian.jpg
http://www.intute.ac.uk/images/feature157.jpg

[San Galgano]

Yeah, but nobody was ever really claiming they were Nordid. The claim was that they were Robust Mediterranid with Dinarid, and probably some Nordid influences. Its hard to tell, since the Atlanto Med and Nordid types are so similar. The Italic tribes probably had some strong Nordid influence at least, so there would have been some Nordid influence in the Roman population.

The argument came when people started claiming physical anthropology was bull, that the population of continental Europe was mostly Alpinid, etc.


y-dna can't determine phenotype and we all agree, but how comes all the places where R1b is more presents are darker than those with R1a and I haplogroups?

Where did the italic tribes acquired I haplogroups when came in Italy?
I can understand the ones went to N.Europe who acquired R1a and I but in the south?

[San Galgano]

You might want to revisit my thread,
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16012

This one regarding Flavians
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18812

What about these pics of Hadrian? Also Hadrian had dark hair and light eyes, hence Atlanto-Nordid can be used, plus Dinarid and little more CM.

http://www.alamo.edu/sac/vat/arthistory/arts1303/RomeS9.jpg
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/romans/history/pictures/hadrian.jpg
http://www.intute.ac.uk/images/feature157.jpg



Let me know, you think that atlanto-nordid-dinarid is only in N.Europe?
I can post thousand italians with those caractheristics and they are not Kings nor princes.

[San Galgano]

They were there, but in small numbers. They would have died from starvation at much lower rates because of advantages inherent in their body types, i.e. holding on to subcutaneous fat longer etc. This is what I mean by natural selection. Alpines were able to stay alive in larger numbers during all the chaos because they could better resist famine and possibly disease as well.


And i bet they could not resist to Kryptonite as well.:D

When we talk about famine, plague and war you can be fat as you want but you die.
You would die probably 2 or 3 days later but you die.

[Curtis24]

No, because not everyone died. Obviously some people managed to survive. The Alpinids survived at higher rates than other types because they were able to save more energy.

[San Galgano]

No, because not everyone died. Obviously some people managed to survive. The Alpinids survived at higher rates than other types because they were able to save more energy.

And they were at the same time more prone to heart diseases than other subraces, just like today are.

[Tomasz]

In my opinion no tribe was ever 100% homogenous. There was never tribe of 100% Nordid people, as well as 100% Alpinid people. Maybe some tribes were more homogenous than others (f.e. ancient Slavs - predominantly East-Nordid) but Romans weren't one of them. Formation of various races usually preceeds formations of ethnic/linguistic groups.

Romans were mixture of races. There were some Nordids for sure but they were never predominant. I think that racial elements of today's Italians are essentially the same but with somewhat different proportions (more Alpinoids today).

[Saruman]

Let me know, you think that atlanto-nordid-dinarid is only in N.Europe?
I can post thousand italians with those caractheristics and they are not Kings nor princes.

Of course not but speaking of ancient Romans, it's quite obvious that they combined often robust Mediterranid plus a number of Nordoids with Dinaroid element ("Roman nose" for ex.), you could call it "Keltic Atlanto-Med"- or Baskid like, and "Keltic Nordic". Cromagnoid and Alpinoid elements were present too, look at that thread about Flavian dynasty.

[San Galgano]

In my opinion no tribe was ever 100% homogenous. There was never tribe of 100% Nordid people, as well as 100% Alpinid people. Maybe some tribes were more homogenous than others (f.e. ancient Slavs - predominantly East-Nordid) but Romans weren't one of them. Formation of various races usually preceeds formations of ethnic/linguistic groups.

Romans were mixture of races. There were some Nordids for sure but they were never predominant. I think that racial elements of today's Italians are essentially the same but with somewhat different proportions (more Alpinoids today).

Thanks Tomasz!!!!!

That what i was trying to prove since yesterday.
I realized tough that to a certain degree people here think that the patricians were all nordic inclined and the rest swarhty small mediterranoids.
Fact is that today too in Italy you can find, nordic phenotype, keltic-nordic and bruenn-borrebis.
But of course they are a minority between atlanto-med-alpine.

[San Galgano]

Of course not but speaking of ancient Romans, it's quite obvious that they combined often robust Mediterranid plus a number of Nordoids with Dinaroid element ("Roman nose" for ex.), you could call it "Keltic Atlanto-Med"- or Baskid like, and "Keltic Nordic". Cromagnoid and Alpinoid elements were present too, look at that thread about Flavian dynasty.

Okay Saruman, but those combinations are present today too in Italy it's not a prerogative of roman time.
That's want i wanted to say.

[Ibericus]

You might want to revisit my thread,
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16012

This one regarding Flavians
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18812

What about these pics of Hadrian? Also Hadrian had dark hair and light eyes, hence Atlanto-Nordid can be used, plus Dinarid and little more CM.

http://www.alamo.edu/sac/vat/arthistory/arts1303/RomeS9.jpg
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/romans/history/pictures/hadrian.jpg
http://www.intute.ac.uk/images/feature157.jpg
When I see all these Roman busts, imagining them in colour (dark hair, slightly tanned skin) all I see is typical, normal Italians. Nothing nordic. I still haven't seen a bust of a nordic Roman. Saying 'x' was blonde is not a prove of being nordic.

[Foxy]

I make an escursus...

WHO IS AN ITALIAN?

I think it is hard to speak about what were old Italians when we know neither who are modern Italians.
I post here a text which can make us reflect:


NOTION OF "ITALIAN"
La nozione di italiano è molto antica, tuttavia non è associabile a un’unica stirpe originaria, in quanto il popolo italiano è piuttosto il risultato di un amalgama di numerose componenti distinte, spesso peraltro affini, che contribuiscono a determinare la forte differenziazione regionale nettamente percepibile ancora oggi. Un elemento di forte identificazione del popolo italiano è la sua lingua di cultura, accettata e usata da secoli dalla borghesia italiana nonostante la frammentazione politica durata circa 13 secoli.

TRANLATION:

- The notion of "Italian" is very old, but it is not possible to associate it to one only original stock, becouse the Italian folk is rather the result of an amalgam of numerous distinct components, often similar, which contribute to determinate a strong differentiation on a regional basis, clearly perceivable still today. A strong element of identification of the Italian people is its language of culture, accepted and used for centuries by the Italian bourgeoisie in spite of the political fragmentation, lasted about 13 centuries.

Among the people who settled Italy before Roman period we can list:

-in Sicily, Sicans (of autoctonus origin), Siculis, speaking an indo-european language similar to sanskrit, but with a Latin alphabet (somebody connect them with an old population from the area of Punjab) and Elimis, thought to be of Anatolian origin, probably Troian.
- in Sardinia, the people of Sards (original name Shardana), of ignote origin.
Culturally they had strong influxes from the Punic world, but ethnically they mantained themselves pure through the centuries.
- in Veneto (northern Italy) and in Apulia (southern Italy) peoples of Illiric origin settled.
- central Italy (Tuscany, Umbria, Marche, Abruzzo, Molise, northern Latium and northern Campania), peoples of the sabellic stock settled. To this group belonged Samnites and Marsis, the most warlike peoples of the peninsula. These peoples were the Italic peoples belonging to the Osco-Umbro group.
An other group was formed by the Latin-Faliscis peoples (Latium and others connect also Venetes to this group instead of the Illiric origin ipothesis).
Osco-Umbros and Latin-Faliscis constituted, together, the Italic people. The division between Oscos and Latins seem to be derived to different epoque of migration. The first indoeuropeization of Italy seems to be due to their entrance in the peninsula.
-in the North various Celtic tribes and other local peoples settled (proto-Celts + Celts - Leponzis and Gauls). To them is connected a second indoeuropeization of Italy.

Storically, massive influxes from Greece touched southern Italy, while Celts/Gauls became the predominant ethnicity of Northern Italy (except Veneto).

gli stessi romani, nel periodo monarchico, avrebbero avuto Re di origine Etrusca (e una dominazione di alcune stirpi etrusche sui primi insediamenti romani potrebbe essere alla base della distinzione del popolo in Patrizi e plebei

Romans themselves, in the age of the kings, would have had Kings of Etruscan origin (and a domination by some Etruscan stocks on the first Roman settlements could be the basis of the distinction of the people between Patricians and Plebeis).

Dopo la caduta dell'Impero romano, penetrarono in Italia dal Nord popolazioni barbare di stirpe (in prevalenza) germanica

After the fall of the Roman Empire, barbaric peoples, (for the most) of the germanic stock entered Italy from North.




That's all folk, we are a strange mix of all.

[Saruman]

When I see all these Roman busts, imagining them in colour (dark hair, slightly tanned skin) all I see is typical, normal Italians. Nothing nordic. I still haven't seen a bust of a nordic Roman. Saying 'x' was blonde is not a prove of being nordic.

By Nordic you mean Nordid, I presume. Well indeed there are no typical Nordids among these 8 emperors that ruled from 69-181 AD. I will post more in the future. However some, like Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius can be considered Atlanto-Nordoid, having other influences too (like Dinarid etc.). Marcus Aurelius, we don't know about his pigmentation so we might put him as Nordo-Mediterranid predominately plus Dinarid.
I've found photos of these busts from more angles so combined with some data about their pigmentation that exists, a pretty accurate classification can be given.

[Osweo]

*mocking Coon*
Why are you so reluctant to accept that there must have been considerable prehistoric movements into your peninsula from the Continent, and that these brought types from the Zentrum? Isn't it inevitable that this would be the case, from sheer simple geographic realia? Italy is small and narrow and the Continental hinterland is vast. The same story is told for our islands up here in the northwest, and yet we don't madly resist it like you seem to. It's broadly accepted here that we have non-IE substrate, and that Central Europeans came here in several waves to change our languages and provide new elites (which of course got watered down as time went on).

All the people living in Italy are descendant for the most of indoeuropean people from north of alps and the mediterranean faces of today are the result of those people more or less.
How can you 'know' that? IE languages spread in a nonIE environment, by the Mediterranean. How can you be so sure that the earlier population didn't survive in large quantities, although assimilated?

The most ancient celtic inscriptions has been found in Italy and Spain not in N.Europe,
So? Literacy came from down there, no surprise. It's well documented that the Celts resisted literacy, indeed, in the person of the Druidic class. Very poor argumentation there!

and the real celtic places in Europe such as Wales and Ireland are darker in comparison to the rest of British isles and share dna with Spain.
The Celtic 'Fringe' is only Celtic today because it's a periphery, as its epithet suggests. Logically, here you will find pre-Celtic phenotypes and dna, coupled with Celtic speech.

I think it's clear what real celts looked like.
Apparently not! :rolleyes:

Many nazi officier were alpine, Hitler inclusive to a certain degree.
Have you never seen a good photo of the man?

[Cato]

They are the Quirites and the children of Mars, a race unto themselves.

[Libertas]

Thanks Tomasz!!!!!

That what i was trying to prove since yesterday.
I realized tough that to a certain degree people here think that the patricians were all nordic inclined and the rest swarhty small mediterranoids.
Fact is that today too in Italy you can find, nordic phenotype, keltic-nordic and bruenn-borrebis.
But of course they are a minority between atlanto-med-alpine.

That's all I've been saying in my posts.
The ancient Romans, like most populations past and present, were a mix of phenotypes.
Basically, they were an Atlanto-Med/Nordid blend, partly Dinaricised with some Alpinoid and Cromagnonoid/Borreby.
The Alpinoid element was less than in the modern Italians but present.

[Korbis]

I have yet to see one emperor or roman personality portrait bust that looks slightly nordic.

The most robust of them seem dinaric or atlanto Med at their best.

Again, this people considered the nordics almost as exotic as the negros...

[poiuytrewq0987]

Ancient Romans:

http://files.shroomery.org/files/09-16/993603207-Guidos_lol.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HbuOBuqtP18/SQoe4Z0HtkI/AAAAAAAAAVY/L9ppiCNiO60/s400/guidos.jpg

[Ibericus]

That's all I've been saying in my posts.
The ancient Romans, like most populations past and present, were a mix of phenotypes.
Basically, they were an Atlanto-Med/Nordid blend, partly Dinaricised with some Alpinoid and Cromagnonoid/Borreby.
The Alpinoid element was less than in the modern Italians but present.
How can there be more Nordid blend BEFORE the germanic invasions (Normans, Goths, Lombards, etc) ??

[Korbis]

Ancient Romans:

http://files.shroomery.org/files/09-16/993603207-Guidos_lol.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HbuOBuqtP18/SQoe4Z0HtkI/AAAAAAAAAVY/L9ppiCNiO60/s400/guidos.jpg


Young italian americans are a disgrace to humanity.

They don´t even consider themselves white. Americas propaganda machine had brainwashed new generations at that point. One can think that according media the only white americans are the WASP and the most light skinned specimens of irish folk.

I wonde what does a native sicilian or roman thinks of this greasy trash.

[Tomasz]

How can there be more Nordid blend BEFORE the germanic invasions (Normans, Goths, Lombards, etc) ??

Formation of Nordid race predates formation of Germanic language group. We cannot connect spread of Nordids with spread of Germanics.

[Ibericus]

Formation of Nordid race predates formation of Germanic language group. We cannot connect spread of Nordids with spread of Germanics.
I perfectly know that formation of nordid predates germanics, but one would expect an increase of nordid elements with the germanic invasions (because at that time germanics were long time ago mixed with nordids)

[Foxy]

Young italian americans are a disgrace to humanity.

They don´t even consider themselves white. Americas propaganda machine had brainwashed new generations at that point. One can think that according media the only white americans are the WASP and the most light skinned specimens of irish folk.

I wonde what does a native sicilian or roman thinks of this greasy trash.

I have seen in a pic my cousin's Italian friends in Australia. My cousin is 100% Italian of central Italian ancestry like me. He has got the typical Roman/central Italian look: white skin, roman nose, black eyes, brown hair, he is cute and has got an English girlfriend. His friends are Sicilians (I understood it becouse they were tagged on FB and had typical sicilian surnames) and I and my bf, looking at them, laughed and my bf said: << These guys look like "zezzoni" >> (dirty people, often used to refer to gyspies or people who dress in white top and gold chains). They had dark skin, the typical mafious look, etc.etc.
I replied <<Looking at them I am ashamed to be Italian in the eyes of the foreigners>>.
What I want to say is that Italians outside of Italy are mostly Sicilians/Calabrians, who have all the reasons to don't consider themselves 100% white. I myself consider them half Arabs.
The important for the is that this consideretion is not extended to the whole peninsula. My aunt (the mother of this cousin) is blonde-green eyed and she said that everytime she says to be Italian people answer her "You don't look Italian. I took you for Scottish".
About the Italian look there is so much to say...
In general most people where I live look this way:

http://www.italiansoflondon.com/images/bacheca/6233/6233.jpg

let's say 50% of people look this way. An other 50% includes blondes, raven hair, red hair, and all the other combionations of colours possible.
I myself look different becouse I have a far lighter skin and streight dark brown/black hair.

[Korbis]

I have seen in a pic my cousin's Italian friends in Australia. My cousin is 100% Italian of central Italian ancestry like me. He has got the typical Roman/central Italian look: white skin, roman nose, black eyes, brown hair, he is cute and has got an English girlfriend. His friends are Sicilians (I understood it becouse they were tagged on FB and had typical sicilian surnames) and I and my bf, looking at them, laughed and my bf said: << These guys look like "zezzoni" >> (dirty people, often used to refer to gyspies or people who dress in white top and gold chains). They had dark skin, the typical mafious look, etc.etc.
I replied <<Looking at them I am ashamed to be Italian in the eyes of the foreigners>>.
What I want to say is that Italians outside of Italy are mostly Sicilians/Calabrians, who have all the reasons to don't consider themselves 100% white. I myself consider them half Arabs.
The important for the is that this consideretion is not extended to the whole peninsula. My aunt (the mother of this cousin) is blonde-green eyed and she said that everytime she says to be Italian people answer her "You don't look Italian. I took you for Scottish".
About the Italian look there is so much to say...
In general most people where I live look this way:

http://www.italiansoflondon.com/images/bacheca/6233/6233.jpg

let's say 50% of people look this way. An other 50% includes blondes, raven hair, red hair, and all the other combionations of colours possible.


I thought there are a reasonable amount of sicilians quite fair skinned and light eyed, albeit most are swarthy -almost brown- and have curly hair. Even those are still caucasian for me, while they don´t look strikingly negroid.

Spaniards have to face a similar trauma since most americans seem to think that Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz - both with their fake tan- are representative of how 99% of them look. And i´m counting the ones who know that Spain is in Yurop.

[Foxy]

I thought there are a reasonable amount of sicilians quite fair skinned and light eyed, albeit most are swarthy -almost brown- and have curly hair. Even those are still caucasian for me, while they don´t look strikingly negroid.

Spaniards have to face a similar trauma since most americans seem to think that Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz - both with their fake tan- are representative of how 99% of them look. And i´m counting the ones who know that Spain is in Yurop.

I am not saying that all the Sicilian look like half Arabs, but that only in Sicily you can find people who look half Arabs.
I have two sicilian girlfriends and I make them met each others. One of them look the other and said some seconds later : <<Yes, you are Sicilian. We have all the same form of eyes>>. They made me notice it (that form of eyes) and now everytime I see a Sicilian I recognize that form.
Look this miss Sicily:

http://www.repubblica.it/2006/08/gallerie/gente/miss-italia-2007-1/esterne131433361309145722_big.jpg

and now this miss Abruzzo:
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/08/gallerie/gente/miss-italia-2007-2/esterne131434361309144017_big.jpg

Don't focus on the colours, dark hair and eyes are common also here. But look at the features...

Of course, there are also blonde Sicilians (I have never met them but there are)...
http://www.lastampa.it/multimedia/costume/16730_album/0KH4EP22.jpg

(starting from the left: Italian model from Rome, with artificial tan obviously, in the middle Suisse model, on the right, Sicilian model... For me anyway the most beautiful is the brunette, dark or not)

[Korbis]

I am not saying that all the Sicilian look like half Arabs, but that only in Sicily you can find people who look half Arabs.
I have two sicilian girlfriends and I make them met each others. One of them look the other and said some seconds later : <<Yes, you are Sicilian. We have all the same form of eyes>>. They made me notice it (that form of eyes) and now everytime I see a Sicilian I recognize that form.
Look this miss Sicily:

http://www.repubblica.it/2006/08/gallerie/gente/miss-italia-2007-1/esterne131433361309145722_big.jpg

and now this miss Abruzzo:
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/08/gallerie/gente/miss-italia-2007-2/esterne131434361309144017_big.jpg



The first one have classic Greek features.

Some Sicilians might have few negro genes but their differentiated look comes from an old inbreeding with Greeks (some say phoenicians or another eastern mediterraneans) whom settled in the island more than anything.


You mean eyes like this?


http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/images/nov_08/gun__1227544901_fabregas01.jpg


Quite typically greek looking.

[Ibericus]

The first one have classic Greek features.

Some Sicilians might have few negro genes but their differentiated look comes from an old inbreeding with Greeks (some say phoenicians or another eastern mediterraneans) whom settled in the island more than anything.

No, they don't have negro genes (the same as in the rest of Europe ) :

Romano et al. (2003) detect sub-Saharan (Negroid) mtDNA sequences at a rate of 0.65% in a Sicilian sample of 465, which is comparable to admixture levels for Western and Northern Europe. Asian mtDNA is observed at a frequency of 2.2%, again consistent with Northern and Eastern European admixture levels. [16] Note that neither Scozzari, Cruciani nor Capelli (above) detect any black African or Asian Y-chromosomes in a combined sample of 479 Sicilians.

[Ibericus]

EDIT

[Foxy]

You mean eyes like this?


http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/images/nov_08/gun__1227544901_fabregas01.jpg


Quite typically greek looking.

:eek: yes...

Where is he from?

[Korbis]

:eek: yes...

Where is he from?



From Arenys de Munt, Barcelona. His name is Cesc Fabregas -pure catalan name- and he´s the former and beloved Captain of Arsenal Football Club.


Phoenicians had a strong influence in the levant of Spain including Catalonia which sort of reinforce the theory of west mediterranid genetic influence in Sicily as well. :thumb001:

[Ibericus]

From Arenys de Munt, Barcelona. His name is Cesc Fabregas -pure catalan name- and he´s the former and beloved Captain of Arsenal Football Club.


Phoenicians had a strong influence in the levant of Spain including Catalonia which sort of reinforce the theory of west mediterranid genetic influence in Sicily as well. :thumb001:
False. The phoenician influence has been minimal in Catalonia (and the rest of Spain). In Catalonia the R1b haplogroup is about 70-80 %

[Korbis]

False. The phoenician influence has been minimal in Catalonia (and the rest of Spain). In Catalonia the R1b haplogroup is about 70-80 %

Really? they settled all along the coast for ages. Also, that would explain the typical greediness of the catalans. :p But assuming they were more meds than semites, you´re probably right.

You can exchange phoenicians for Greeks in that melting pot anyway.

[Ibericus]

Really? they settled all along the coast for ages. Also, that would explain the typical greediness of the catalans. :p But assuming they were more meds than semites, you´re probably right.

You can exchange phoenicians for Greeks in that melting pot anyway.
Phoenicians and Greeks settled only in coastal cities for commercial purposes. Their influence has been minimal. One can suppose they were very minoritary. The presence of the typical greek E-V13 in Spain is so negligible.

[San Galgano]

Why are you so reluctant to accept that there must have been considerable prehistoric movements into your peninsula from the Continent, and that these brought types from the Zentrum? Isn't it inevitable that this would be the case, from sheer simple geographic realia? Italy is small and narrow and the Continental hinterland is vast. The same story is told for our islands up here in the northwest, and yet we don't madly resist it like you seem to. It's broadly accepted here that we have non-IE substrate, and that Central Europeans came here in several waves to change our languages and provide new elites (which of course got watered down as time went on).
I have never denied that people from the continent brought those roman faces here,i resist with my truth-condivided by almost all serious genetists and anthropologists(save the nordicist charlatan ones and Kemp)-that patrician romans weren't an elite of enlightened, Dolph Lundgren alike people, who ruled a swarthy plebes, while we all know that it took all the middle eastern knowledge of phoenicians, chartaginians the greek knowledge in part borrowed by egyptians and phoenicians, to give the ancient Europe what we are today and not nordic celts nor swedish Dolph Lundgrens. if anything accepting the fact that the etruscans were part anatolians, were the swarthies that ruled at the beginning over the "nordic" latins and not the opposite.
I have nothing against a nordic phenotype-i want to be clear over this-, being myself mistaken many time in Germany and England as local, but we can't deny evidence and insist over a phenotype of statue which at most could be one or two mistaken for a keltik-atlanto-dinarid-alpinid phenotype.



How can you 'know' that? IE languages spread in a nonIE environment, by the Mediterranean. How can you be so sure that the earlier population didn't survive in large quantities, although assimilated?
Haplogroups usually serve to trace a route of people, and since the main haplogroups of Italy are the r1b associated with celtic expansions and even italo-celtic language, it's easy to find out who stayed and who is gone.


So? Literacy came from down there, no surprise. It's well documented that the Celts resisted literacy, indeed, in the person of the Druidic class. Very poor argumentation there!
why poor? In this context is not poor at all. We were talking about silures and the fact that they were described as darker by Tacitus, meaning that they were not a nordoid team of celts, but rather a more southern branch which was attested already in the VIII century b.C in S.Europe and that partially debunks the myths that celts were an homogeneous group of Charlston Hestons.

The Celtic 'Fringe' is only Celtic today because it's a periphery, as its epithet suggests. Logically, here you will find pre-Celtic phenotypes and dna, coupled with Celtic speech.
It's not a mistery though that those places have been settled heavily by Iberians people and share almost the same dna while the rest of G.B not.

Apparently not! :rolleyes:
The celts that didn't melt looked different from the ones melted with nordic people.


Have you never seen a good photo of the man?
Hitler was mixed alpine, i added "to a certain degree" infact.
Coon labeled the Germans as 40% percent Nordic I believe, the rest were pretty much Alpine and Dinaric (greater majority in the South) with a small minority as Mediterranean.
You can see that it was not so hard then to find alpines between nazi officiers.

[San Galgano]

From Arenys de Munt, Barcelona. His name is Cesc Fabregas -pure catalan name- and he´s the former and beloved Captain of Arsenal Football Club.


Phoenicians had a strong influence in the levant of Spain including Catalonia which sort of reinforce the theory of west mediterranid genetic influence in Sicily as well. :thumb001:

Uhm...catalans out of autosomal tests are pure europeans, and i have never heard of phoenician colonies in Catalonia but greeks.

[Libertas]

Nobody on this thread, not even me, said that Lundgren-lookalike Roman nobles ruled over swarthy Meds. Early Italians were Dinaricised Meds with some Alpinoid and larger-headed Cromagnonoid.

Also there was as much variety in hair colour among Etruscans and Romans in antiquity before the Germanic inroads (see Etruscan wall paintings of Vulci and Tarquinia etc and some Pompeiian wall paintings too) as in modern times.

[Foxy]

From Arenys de Munt, Barcelona. His name is Cesc Fabregas -pure catalan name- and he´s the former and beloved Captain of Arsenal Football Club.


Phoenicians had a strong influence in the levant of Spain including Catalonia which sort of reinforce the theory of west mediterranid genetic influence in Sicily as well. :thumb001:

He has got a typical Spanish face, I mean, most of the Spaniards I have seen in my life looked like him and same said a friend of mine who went to Spain (she went in Catalogna indeed, I dunno if it is a concidence). But I attend a university of foreign languages and see some Spanish professors (real Spanish, not sudacàs) and one looks like Wizard Merlin (:D) and other similar to this but with white hair and rounding glass:

http://www.cattolicanews.it/piacenza_rdax_260x276.jpg

[San Galgano]

Nobody on this thread, not even me, said that Lundgren-lookalike Roman nobles ruled over swarthy Meds. Early Italians were Dinaricised Meds with some Alpinoid and larger-headed Cromagnonoid.

Also there was as much variety in hair colour among Etruscans and Romans in antiquity before the Germanic inroads (see Etruscan wall paintings of Vulci and Tarquinia etc and some Pompeiian wall paintings too) as in modern times.

I told that, etruscans were "partly" anatolians meaning that they brought with them some greek and phoenician knowledge and those few anatolians were a real ruling class , who ruled for some time a vast majority of villanovians and umbrians.

[Ibericus]

He has got a typical Spanish face, I mean, most of the Spaniards I have seen in my life looked like him and same said a friend of mine who went to Spain (she went in Catalogna indeed, I dunno if it is a concidence). But I attend a university of foreign languages and see some Spanish professors (real Spanish, not sudacàs) and one looks like Wizard Merlin (:D) and other similar to this but with white hair and rounding glass:

http://www.cattolicanews.it/piacenza_rdax_260x276.jpg
hmm..Most spaniards look like Fabregas ? That's a stupid statement, considering Fabregas has a strange looking face even among spaniards...

[Agrippa]

There are several roman busts who show an alpinoid phenotype and if you have read my previous quote from Wikipedia, alpinoid in its several forms, was the most common in celtic areas.

In which?

I read studies about the ancient Celts, Alpinoid elements were present, especially in the lower classes and peasants, but not "the most common", where did you get that from? It is just not true!


Being blonde is not equivalent of being Nordic. Btw I have read 'Races of Europe' and it has so many flaws it's incredible some people consider it to be science. Historic flaws (due to being written in 1939, huge historical updates have happened), old and dubious taxonomy (Mediterranean race ? ) etc, etc.

That is true, Coon was far from perfect, which doesn't mean however, that his whole work was worthless and has no merits too.

Also I don't think that Atlanto-Nordid elements are that rare in Italy and consider the fact too, that light coloration is recessive, so even a percentage of 25 percent lights equals about 50 percent in genotype...

[San Galgano]

hmm..Most spaniards look like Fabregas ? That's a stupid statement, considering Fabregas has a strange looking face even among spaniards...

Iberia i start to think that people here have no idea of what the middle ground is.
For them people is like Charlston Heston or a swarthy Arafat.

I'm amazed that a country fellow of mine has got this false point of view as well.

[San Galgano]

In which?

I read studies about the ancient Celts, Alpinoid elements were present, especially in the lower classes and peasants, but not "the most common", where did you get that from? It is just not true!

did you read the abstract of wikipedia i posted?

[San Galgano]

Also I don't think that Atlanto-Nordid elements are that rare in Italy and consider the fact too, that light coloration is recessive, so even a percentage of 25 percent lights equals about 50 percent in genotype...


If for atlanto-nordid you mean something like this i agree that is not so rare in Italy(the man of the right):

http://sport.sky.it/static/contentimages/original/sezioni/sport/calciomercato/2010/07/08/giovanni_galli_patrick_dempsey.jpg

[Libertas]

I told that, etruscans were "partly" anatolians meaning that they brought with them some greek and phoenician knowledge and those few anatolians were a real ruling class , who ruled for some time a vast majority of villanovians and umbrians.

Agreed.
However how does that link up with my post you quoted?

[San Galgano]

I tell you what are the typical phenotypes in my area(Tuscany)


http://magazine.libero.it/news/gossipnewsfoto/1192181055.jpg
http://www.tuttosport.com/images/94/C_3_Media_610194_immagine_l.jpg
http://www.calciomercato.it/imagenes/original/NEWS_1282300520_to020504spo_0069.bro.jpg

And it's not that hard to find these phenotypes too:


http://img.skysports.com/09/08/218x298/Alessandro-Diamanti-Livorno-now-at-West-Ham_2353575.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_29wiFklIoDw/TA1ygVY6k7I/AAAAAAAAAaI/jHGJ1ppAowQ/s400/jovanotti.jpg

[Korbis]

He has got a typical Spanish face, I mean, most of the Spaniards I have seen in my life looked like him and same said a friend of mine who went to Spain (she went in Catalogna indeed, I dunno if it is a concidence). But I attend a university of foreign languages and see some Spanish professors (real Spanish, not sudacàs) and one looks like Wizard Merlin (:D) and other similar to this but with white hair and rounding glass:

http://www.cattolicanews.it/piacenza_rdax_260x276.jpg



He does not look like a typical spaniard at all, but not because of his dark pigmentation, but for features like the shape of the nose and the distance between the eyes, which even suggest some foreign influence. Its a strange phenotype and ive solely met others like him in the regions closest to Italy and Sicily in particular including Catalonia. ;)

[San Galgano]

Agreed.
However how does that link up with my post you quoted?

I meant that being them not an entire anatolian people but only an elite between pre-indoeuropeans and indoeuropeans people you could of course find some blond, some red haired etc,etc.

My point is that i never denied some blonde and blue eyed entered italy with the waves of indoeuropeans, but i don't believe those indoeuropeans to be heavy mixed with nordic people who carried I or R1a haplogroups.

[Agrippa]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_29wiFklIoDw/TA1ygVY6k7I/AAAAAAAAAaI/jHGJ1ppAowQ/s400/jovanotti.jpg

Typical Celtic, Central European Indo-European phenotype I'd say.

With Atlanto-Nordid I refer to all phenotypical variants from Atlanto-Pontid to Nordid, read tall-robust boned and rather lighter pigmented (to Southern Italians f.e.) leptodolichomorph Europids of Europe.

Some morphs I made (ignore colors, some B/W images among them):

Pred. Nordid sample
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/2691/nordid12more.jpg (http://img841.imageshack.us/i/nordid12more.jpg/)

Pred. Atlanto-Pontid sample
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/2397/atlantopontid6.jpg (http://img97.imageshack.us/i/atlantopontid6.jpg/)

Between Nordid and Atlanto-Pontid
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/1437/nordidatlantid4.jpg (http://img833.imageshack.us/i/nordidatlantid4.jpg/)

Some Italians which fall CLEARLY into this wide category from the current football team (which was most of the time more Atlanto-Nordid than the average btw):

Emiliano Viviano (195 cm)
http://u.goal.com/23600/23636_news.jpg

Daniele Gastaldello (185 cm)
http://www.spox.com/de/daten/pics/fussball/bilder/spieler/gross/10994.jpg

Mattia Cassani (184 cm, Dinarid influences)
http://www.footballitaliano.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Mattia-Cassani.jpg

Leonardo Bonucci (190 cm)
http://www.theworldcup2010.net/upload/news/pl20100309171940.jpg

Daniele de Rossi (184 cm, Cromagnoid/Cromagno-Alpinoid influences)
http://www.itusozluk.com/img.php/15d0e13ade7523e74520e8ef9641120a7853/daniele+de+rossi

and it goes on that way...

Giorgio Chiellini looks like many ancient Romans might have looked by the way, he has that combination of traits many Romans had - which was just shorter (Atlanto-Nordid + Taurid + Cromagnid traits in that combination):
http://www.footiewallpapers.com/pic_upload/Giorgio-Chiellini-wallpaper-2-800x600.jpg

Looking at the national football team, you clearly see the old herder- and herder-farmer warrior types being absolutely dominant, both from the Indo-Europeans (rather Nordoid-Atlantid) and Etruscans and Ligurians (rather Mediterranid).

You also see the typical reduced Alpinid peasant type not very often among this tall and robust, but still leptomorph and versatile Italians obviously, because its the physical opposite.