Genetic of Italy (also taken from Wikipedia)

well, there are many, in emilia romagna you have also more north western phenotypes, it's different from tuscany.
dinaro-meds are very common in italy, and above all in tuscany. Dante alighieri, chiellini, gianna nannini, roberto benigni, and many common people.
besides, that girs surname is from Veneto, she's northern italian.


To be real Emilia and Tuscany look quite similar and if have to make a comparison i have seen more fair eyes in Tuscany than in Emilia.
Going with Livi's survey, Tuscany has more light eyed people than Emilia as well.
Why do you want to dark wash Tuscany?:unsure:

What about Irene Grandi, Vittoria Puccini, Paolo Conticini, Alessandro Diamanti?
Aren't they tuscans?
 
i think emilia romagna is more light eyed, in emilia you have celtic tribes settlements boii, all northern italy plus marche (ager gallicus) was inhabitated by tribes similar to france (gauls), tuscany was inhabitateds by neolitics, villanovians (italics?), etruscans and ligurians
 
well, of course there are also more nordic tuscans, i know many friends that have a nordic appearence, there were also goths settlement in tuscany, and longobards (mostly lucca for longobards)
 
Well Emilia too has had etruscan settlements, but i think that Etruscans and neolitich farmers were very different from modern day Levatines.
Plus Tuscany was settled by celts(Senones) who came from Marche, then there were Umbrians who were not so dissimilar from other Italic tribes akin to celts and in the Arezzo's province there were Bituriges. Later in time there have been the Longobard dukedom called Marca di Tuscia and Franks.
 
celts never came in tuscany, there are some celtic phenotypes as well (a bit rare) , but (could be medieval migrations?), umbrians were italics.
 
Well Emilia too has had etruscan settlements, but i think that Etruscans and neolitich farmers were very different from modern day Levatines.
Plus Tuscany was settled by celts(Senones) who came from Marche, then there were Umbrians who were not so dissimilar from other Italic tribes akin to celts and in the Arezzo's province there were Bituriges. Later in time there have been the Longobard dukedom called Marca di Tuscia and Franks.

ironically i have origins from arezzo (father side), Chiana Valley.
i know there were some middle ages germanic settlements, but the bulks is etruscan i belive, this part of italy was the core of etruscan civilization
 
Some Senones came from Marche and settled in South Tuscany, some Bituriges settled around Arezzo instead.
Ligures were mostly in North Tuscany but i presume they had strong relationship with Celts from Emilia.

Umbrians were Italics, but Italic tribes and Celts were very similar and celt\italic languages were intelligible meaning a common substratum.
 
Mind that Etruscans didn't find an empty Tuscany. There were various pre-etruscan tribes with which they melted.


Anyway talking about germanic settlements in Tuscany even Gioacchino Volpe admitted that Tuscany for its position was one of the most settled by Longobards, Goths and Franks.
 
celts never came in tuscany, there are some celtic phenotypes as well (a bit rare) , but (could be medieval migrations?), umbrians were italics.

Vittoria Puccini and Zeffirelli doen't look celt?(y)

la_bella_vittoria_puccini_aead.jpg
zeffirelli--147x210.jpg
 
they do. (as i said there are some phenotypes like that, but the bulk is mediterranean-dinaric-alpinid-g med-east med)
 
they do. (as i said there are some phenotypes like that, but the bulk is mediterranean-dinaric-alpinid-g med-east med)
Dinaric\alpine\tall med i agree, east med is more common in the South of Italy not in central Italy hence Tuscany.

This is a east med:
lundracesfig8.jpg

It doesn't seem so common in Tuscany or central Italy to me.
 
According to Livi's old survey, the biggest Italy has had, Tuscany as a whole is lighter in hair and eye colour than Emilia-Romagna.

Etruscan wall paintings do show a few blonds and redheads even in antiquity.

In Lucca province Nordids are less common than in the rest of Tuscany, Longobards or not, and most Lucchese blonds or near-blonds are of a Cro-Magnon/Borreby type which may also be ancient.
 
According to Livi's old survey, the biggest Italy has had, Tuscany as a whole is lighter in hair and eye colour than Emilia-Romagna.

Etruscan wall paintings do show a few blonds and redheads even in antiquity.

In Lucca province Nordids are less common than in the rest of Tuscany, Longobards or not, and most Lucchese blonds or near-blonds are of a Cro-Magnon/Borreby type which may also be ancient.

Yes. With all the respect to Julia this thread is misleading, every anthropologist would contradict everything said in the first pages.
East med phenotype is very rare in Tuscany, the commoner is alpine\dinaric\tall med, meaning even the fairest types of those subraces. Fair eyes and Hair are quite common, cro-magnoid strain too especially in the North of Tuscany, but you can find it also in the rest of the region.
Tuscany does have more fair haired and eyed people than Emilia according to Livi and even several red haired.


Etruscans had strong connection with Ligures, even the Aeneid speaks of a tribe called Rutulians(meaning reds and blondes)which is now considered according by modern scholars liguro\etruscan.
Then there are the etruscan paintings, that clearly show that fair people was not so uncommon.
 
However created this thread doesn't know nothing about anthropology and general phenotypes of Italy.
Italy is not at all gracile med and med only, but mostly alpine and dinaric\dinaricized meds with a fair amount of Atlanto-Meds as well especially in Ligury, Tuscany, Lombardia and Emilia Romagna, but you can find them all over Italy more or less. The gracile meds and berids are to be found mostly in Sardinia, the rest of Italy lacks them mostly save some parts of Calabria.

That depends on what anthropologist you read. Alpines only seem to be common in the North. They certainly are not the majority of the Italian population (and even if they were, that obviously would not prevent them from being perfectly capable of producing "dark" types. Even among the French "Alpines" you can find "dark" types. Plenty of "Alpines" are in fact darker than plenty of "Mediterraneans".) Coon, whom you seem to be trying to follow, also says that the "coarse Mediterranean" is particularly prevalent among southern Italians.

All the pictures of dark guys posted by the owner of the thread are of S.Italian origins, no one of them is from Central or N.Italy. The differences are not enormous but there are and you can notice it.

Finding "dark" Central and Northern Italians is not really difficult:

http://racialreality.110mb.com/leganord.html

http://racialreality.110mb.com/padania/



As for all the maps posted by some people here, the closeness of Spaniards to French is because of the lack of other Spaniards, as iinstead happens with Tuscans and N.Italians who of course cluster closer being of a more similar stock compared to French.

Actually it's the other way around. Genetic studies tend not to separate Spaniards into geographical areas, like they usually do with Italians. And even by lumping Spain all together and isolating Italians into geographical groups, Spaniards still cluster closer to and have more "overlap" with the French and even Swiss:


http://www.plosone.org/article/showImageLarge.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005472.g002

Italy has had a greater neolitich impact than Iberia, and then it appears a little more "toward" east. In comparison Italy has much less recent admixture from historical periods compared to Iberia, save maybe Sicily.

I am skeptical of such claims. The genetic markers that some dubious genetic studies (ex: Capelli et al. 2009) have arbitrarily labelled as "historical" are thousands of years old, so there is no way of telling if they are really of "historical" introduction in any given country. They could have been introduced long before written history. In any event, in Iberia the majority of the genetic markers supposedly associated with "historical events" are in Portugal, not Spain.
 
There were quite a few Spanish samples in many of the autosomal studies I read. They all show Spaniards clustering with French, Portuguese and Northern Italians, with some closeness to Swiss. That's pretty much a given.
 
Last edited:
That depends on what anthropologist you read. Alpines only seem to be common in the North. They certainly are not the majority of the Italian population (and even if they were, that obviously would not prevent them from being perfectly capable of producing "dark" types. Even among the French "Alpines" you can find "dark" types. Plenty of "Alpines" are in fact darker than plenty of "Mediterraneans".) Coon, whom you seem to be trying to follow, also says that the "coarse Mediterranean" is particularly prevalent among southern Italians.
Infact i spoke about a mix, sure is that Italy is not predominantly med or coarse med as somebody is trying to portray here. As for the alpines darker than meds i have my doubts and it is not corroborated by any study for what i know.
Every survey made over Italy speak about a massive presence of Dinaric\Alpine compared to coarse med anyway.



Finding "dark" Central and Northern Italians is not really difficult:

http://racialreality.110mb.com/leganord.html

http://racialreality.110mb.com/padania/
I don't get this to be real, it seems a spite to me.
Dark phenotypes are everywhere in Europe. Not only in Italy.
Spain has its fair amount too.
This does not change the fact that there are tangible clinal differences in Italy and Livi's survey given completely different datas over the biggest study ever made in Italy.



Actually it's the other way around. Genetic studies tend not to separate Spaniards into geographical areas, like they usually do with Italians. And even by lumping Spain all together and isolating Italians into geographical groups, Spaniards still cluster closer to and have more "overlap" with the French and even Swiss:


http://www.plosone.org/article/showImageLarge.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005472.g002"]
As i said, Italy has been affected more by neolitich, Spain less, that's why the closeness probably. Anyway it's well known the closeness of S.Italy with Greece, i was talking about that map with North Italy and Central Italy showing French, Spaniards, Tuscans and North Italians. It's obvious that if you put Tuscans and North Italians togheter they are closer.
Anyway:
[URL]http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/Europegenetics.jpg

I can't see all the closeness you claim for Spaniards with Swiss people.
 
The great majority of extra-European markers in both Spain and Portugal are many thousands of years old, according to most population genetics research. Autosomal studies show minor North African and Middle Eastern markers in Iberia. The percentages are only slightly higher for Portugal vis-a-vis Spain. Iberia as a whole trends much more Paleolithic.
 
Some CH (Swiss) samples fall closer to Spaniards and other Iberians although most cluster primarily with the French on the plot posted. I think "closeness" was mentioned, not general clustering.
 
Who is she? She looks likes me! I got scared for a second, I thought it was my pic! :LOL: Only I have more oval face and blue eyes (hers look like blue-gray in the pic).


...

Marianne, I once had the exact same experience! The difference was that my mirror image was staring at me from a mug shot (arrest photo), not a photo that was complimentary. I'm a cop, and I was setting up a line-up to show to a victim. While doing so I was startled to be looking at what I thought was my own face. I had to go back, look up the other guys name, and note it in case I ever got accused of anything I did not do.
 

This thread has been viewed 258984 times.

Back
Top