Modern Italians who resemble busts from the classical era

This is one of the best ones yet. Paolo DeVita, from Bari in Puglia. He has a very Caligula and Claudius like look. So much for Southern Italians can't harbor the phenotypes of the Romans. Not, of course, that this is the only ancient Roman look.

Y8nDtfv.png
[/IMG]
 
One from Bologna: famous chef Bruno Barbieri. It's the combination of that really broad skull with a very tapering, triangular face structure, large nose, and small, thin lipped mouth.

Bruno-Barbieri-258.jpg


In some pictures he looks a bit like that horrible reconstruction of Giulio Cesare done by the Dutch:

Bruno-Barbieri-656x505.jpg


He's a totally different type from his co-judge on Masterchef Italia Carlo Cracco:
ritratto-malgarini-alta1.jpg


He looks a bit like a Kris Kristofferson type to me.
 
Julius Caesar looks more South Germanic than Italian (noticeably, actually) to me, but apart from that, in general, I do think modern North Italians resemble the Roman elite pretty well (but NOT the original Italic tribes, who would be more like those lighter individuals Maciamo posted). Of course, North Italians would resemble the bulk of the Roman population well, and at least compared to the later stages I would say they are actually somewhat lighter.

Pigmentation of the Roman elite (not in the later stages, where Syrians were sometimes Emperor) was probably somewhat lighter on average than modern North Italians, but in a Marchisio, Totti or de Rossi sense - not anything Northern European, though the occasional emperor, like Augustus, would actually be blonde (who I think would have looked a lot like Erich Hartmann (Nazi fighter ace, somehow managed to shoot down 352 Allied aircraft in the Luftwaffe and survive the war)).
 
Rome was and is in Central Italy.
Somehow some people disregard this obvious fact when they start “theorizing” hypothesis.
















 
This is a record for the number of wrong statements that can be packed into one post. :)
 
Rome was and is in Central Italy.
Somehow some people disregard this obvious fact when they start “theorizing” hypothesis.


Wait, I know that - when did I claim otherwise? I was comparing modern North Italians to Romans (which means, at least in England, Roman-era Italians, not people from Rome).

This is a record for the number of wrong statements that can be packed into one post. :)

I honestly still don't see what I said wrong.
 
This is a record for the number of wrong statements that can be packed into one post. :)

Coon described Julius Caesar as having looks more at home in the North (he was referring to North of the Italian peninsula, not Northern Europe like Sweden), and I agree.

220px-Gaius_Iulius_Caesar_%28Vatican_Museum%29.jpg


His strong features are clearly reminiscent of Germany. He's clearly of somewhat of a Dinaric strain too, but that also spreads well into Germany. Southern Germany is where this combination of Faelid-like and Dinaric-like features best coexist - it is reminiscent of the Rheinish Bell Beakers (best described as of the Norid phenotype).

As for my point in pigmentation, do you doubt that Augustus was blonde? Because he was literally described by contemporaries (the Romans could write!) as blonde, and if I'm not mistaken statues of him show traces of yellow pigment for his hair.

In fact, I was very conservative in what I said - see here: https://www.theapricity.com/earlson/history/emperors.htm

Do you also doubt the early Latins would have been relatively light pigmented?

As regarding my point about the stock of the Roman Emperors being subject to change: I'm sure, being as well versed in history as you seem to be Angela, that you know of Philip the Arab, right? It wouldn't be like you to hastily jump to conclusions...
 


Wait, I know that - when did I claim otherwise? I was comparing modern North Italians to Romans (which means, at least in England, Roman-era Italians, not people from Rome).

Just forget everything you think you know.
It’s clear that you don’t know ... !
About this topic.
 
Coon described Julius Caesar as having looks more at home in the North (he was referring to North of the Italian peninsula, not Northern Europe like Sweden), and I agree.

220px-Gaius_Iulius_Caesar_%28Vatican_Museum%29.jpg


His strong features are clearly reminiscent of Germany. He's clearly of somewhat of a Dinaric strain too, but that also spreads well into Germany. Southern Germany is where this combination of Faelid-like and Dinaric-like features best coexist - it is reminiscent of the Rheinish Bell Beakers (best described as of the Norid phenotype).

As for my point in pigmentation, do you doubt that Augustus was blonde? Because he was literally described by contemporaries (the Romans could write!) as blonde, and if I'm not mistaken statues of him show traces of yellow pigment for his hair.

In fact, I was very conservative in what I said - see here: https://www.theapricity.com/earlson/history/emperors.htm

Do you also doubt the early Latins would have been relatively light pigmented?

As regarding my point about the stock of the Roman Emperors being subject to change: I'm sure, being as well versed in history as you seem to be Angela, that you know of Philip the Arab, right? It wouldn't be like you to hastily jump to conclusions...

There may be SOME overlap in terms of looks between southern Germans and northern Italians. However, Caesar had an ITALIAN face, not a common German face, not even a southern German one. Likewise for Barbieri, who, for what it is worth, is from Bologna, SOUTH of the Po. Now, if you want to talk about faces that tend to a more "Central European" look, that would be Cracco, from the Veneto, not Barbieri, and NOT Caesar.

The phenotype of the ancient Romans was a blend of Alpine and Mediterranean, and the combination that is Dinaric. It is NOT a phenotype common in Germany, but is very common in Italy.

Period.

Clearly, I was comparing these modern people to the Emperors from the Italian peninsula or those born in the provinces of peninsular Italian origin.

As for your perpetual obsession with pigmentation, I already mentioned above that some of the first families, prior to the Empire, were fair in coloring, such as Sulla, and probably the Claudians. Caesar, described as having "black eyes" clearly was not. In case you're unaware of it, there are "fair" Central Italians as well as Northern Italians, and indeed some fair southern Italians.
 
There may be SOME overlap in terms of looks between southern Germans and northern Italians. However, Caesar had an ITALIAN face, not a common German face, not even a southern German one. Likewise for Barbieri, who, for what it is worth, is from Bologna, SOUTH of the Po. Now, if you want to talk about faces that tend to a more "Central European" look, that would be Cracco, from the Veneto, not Barbieri, and NOT Caesar.

The phenotype of the ancient Romans was a blend of Alpine and Mediterranean, and the combination that is Dinaric. It is NOT a phenotype common in Germany, but is very common in Italy.

Period.

Clearly, I was comparing these modern people to the Emperors from the Italian peninsula or those born in the provinces of peninsular Italian origin.

As for your perpetual obsession with pigmentation, I already mentioned above that some of the first families, prior to the Empire, were fair in coloring, such as Sulla, and probably the Claudians. Caesar, described as having "black eyes" clearly was not. In case you're unaware of it, there are "fair" Central Italians as well as Northern Italians, and indeed some fair southern Italians.

Exactly right.
 
Julius Caesar looks more South Germanic than Italian (noticeably, actually) to me, but apart from that, in general, I do think modern North Italians resemble the Roman elite pretty well (but NOT the original Italic tribes, who would be more like those lighter individuals Maciamo posted). Of course, North Italians would resemble the bulk of the Roman population well, and at least compared to the later stages I would say they are actually somewhat lighter.

.

Pigmentation of Central Italians is not that different from that of the Northern Italians

Face traits are a bit different, for example Salvini is typical of Lombardy (one of the many types)

Utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Julius Caesar looks more South Germanic than Italian (noticeably, actually) to me, but apart from that, in general, I do think modern North Italians resemble the Roman elite pretty well (but NOT the original Italic tribes, who would be more like those lighter individuals Maciamo posted). Of course, North Italians would resemble the bulk of the Roman population well, and at least compared to the later stages I would say they are actually somewhat lighter.

Pigmentation of the Roman elite (not in the later stages, where Syrians were sometimes Emperor) was probably somewhat lighter on average than modern North Italians, but in a Marchisio, Totti or de Rossi sense - not anything Northern European, though the occasional emperor, like Augustus, would actually be blonde (who I think would have looked a lot like Erich Hartmann (Nazi fighter ace, somehow managed to shoot down 352 Allied aircraft in the Luftwaffe and survive the war)).

Julius Caesar would never look like a native in Germany. He's mostly Mediterranean with a specificalyl southern look. It's the Alpine types that are common everywhere in Central-Western Europe and make Germans, Italians and also the French overlap in terms of looks. To post an example, this woman (whoever she is, I hope she doesn't mind) could be from Hamburg or Palermo for all I know:

ttnCZwM.jpg


It's a look that isn't commonly found among Roman busts.
 
There may be SOME overlap in terms of looks between southern Germans and northern Italians. However, Caesar had an ITALIAN face, not a common German face, not even a southern German one. Likewise for Barbieri, who, for what it is worth, is from Bologna, SOUTH of the Po. Now, if you want to talk about faces that tend to a more "Central European" look, that would be Cracco, from the Veneto, not Barbieri, and NOT Caesar.

The phenotype of the ancient Romans was a blend of Alpine and Mediterranean, and the combination that is Dinaric. It is NOT a phenotype common in Germany, but is very common in Italy.

Period.

Clearly, I was comparing these modern people to the Emperors from the Italian peninsula or those born in the provinces of peninsular Italian origin.

As for your perpetual obsession with pigmentation, I already mentioned above that some of the first families, prior to the Empire, were fair in coloring, such as Sulla, and probably the Claudians. Caesar, described as having "black eyes" clearly was not. In case you're unaware of it, there are "fair" Central Italians as well as Northern Italians, and indeed some fair southern Italians.

I don't look at the pigmentation of the early Roman Emperors as some sort of evidence of Northern European superiority - I was just defending myself against the points you made. It is clear, though, that they were lighter pigmented - you cannot point to examples of fair Italians that go against the trend as evidence. Besides, in talking about appearance, in what world is pigmentation not important?

From Coon, and agreeing with everything I have said:

"Historically, the Romans should have been a mixture of Villanovan Italic northeners with Etruscans and Neolithic and Bronze Age predecessors. The little crania material at hand points entirely in the northern direction, and confirms the relationship between Kelts and Italici, insofar as it may be used. On the other hand, the addition of Etruscan mesocephals with Dinaric and Mediterranean elements would not greatly alter the early Kelt-like Italic metrical form.

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. 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."

Besides, if you're slating me, why not slate Maciamo? https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28907-How-did-the-ancient-Romans-turn-into-Italians
 
Coon is obsolete, unreliable, inaccurate. Only Nordicists without any education can take Coon seriously in 2018.

This has hit a nerve with the Italians lol - I disagree, though. Coon has proven himself mostly accurate, aDNA is vindicating a large chunk of his theories.
 
Do not play with me. My suggestion.

Why? Are you going to ban me for not agreeing with you? Because Maciamo has principles, and he has shown himself to stand by them when things like this have happened to me in the past.
 
Why? Are you going to ban me for not agreeing with you? Because Maciamo has principles, and he has shown himself to stand by them when things like this have happened to me in the past.

You are here just to provoke. It's obvious. Do you want to deny it?

I never banned anyone because he did not agree with me. Maciamo knows it well.
 
You are here just to provoke. It's obvious. Do you want to deny it?

I never banned anyone because he did not agree with me. Maciamo knows it well.

I wasn't referring to you. And I'm not here to provoke, just to stand up for a viewpoint. That's the point of discussion, and how conclusions are reached.

I'm wondering about whether this is the right forum for me, or whether all this is pointless discussion anyway.
 

This thread has been viewed 66586 times.

Back
Top