Early Italian Appearance

[julieboy]

What races did the tribes of Southern Italy,from Rome and Etruria, through Sicily belong to? What did the FIRST people living in Italy's south look like? In other words,what people in today's times,would the earliest Italians look like.

 

If anyone knows and/or uses the names or terms,such a words like "Mediterranean race","Indo Europeans","Greeks","Siculi","Sicani","Elami",,"Italics", "Etrurians" or "Etruscans","Phoenicians", "Semitic","Hamitic","Alpine","Atlanto Mediterranean","Samnites","Oscans", "Cretens",etc.,please elaborate and if you know,describe what they actually looked like and/or give thenames of the present day races,ethnic groups,etc.,that they most resemble or who they are most related to.

 

Thank you in advance for any information on this topic that you might have to offer.

[caldrail]

Its difficult to answer that one without employing someone to build up a face from a skull, but its likely they had a similar appearance to modern Italians.

[Andrew Dalby]

What races did the tribes of Southern Italy,from Rome and Etruria, through Sicily belong to? What did the FIRST people living in Italy's south look like? In other words,what people in today's times,would the earliest Italians look like.

 

If anyone knows and/or uses the names or terms,such a words like "Mediterranean race","Indo Europeans","Greeks","Siculi","Sicani","Elami",,"Italics", "Etrurians" or "Etruscans","Phoenicians", "Semitic","Hamitic","Alpine","Atlanto Mediterranean","Samnites","Oscans", "Cretens",etc.,please elaborate and if you know,describe what they actually looked like and/or give thenames of the present day races,ethnic groups,etc.,that they most resemble or who they are most related to.

 

Thank you in advance for any information on this topic that you might have to offer.

 

This is a mixture of names of language groups, names of 'tribes' (see separate thread for the problems with defining this term) and various people's ideas about 'races'. The concept of race has become rather unpopular among historians after the Second World War, for obvious reasons ... Just as the racially-minded German leaders of the 1930s didn't all look alike (picture Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Goering) so modern Americans or Italians don't all look alike, and why one earth should ancient Cretans or Etruscans all look alike? As long as we can trace human history back, people have migrated, intermarried, and learned new languages.

 

If you mean gene-based relationships, a lot of work is being done on that now. Look up the name Cavalli-Sforza on Google and you'll find masses about it. But Cavalli-Sforza himself, an acknowledged expert on population genetics in history, wrote a very bad book about languages because he forgot the point I make at the end of the previous paragraph ... Don't assume that gene-based relationships equal linguistic, cultural or political relationships.

[Virgil61]

...

If you mean gene-based relationships, a lot of work is being done on that now. Look up the name Cavalli-Sforza on Google and you'll find masses about it. But Cavalli-Sforza himself, an acknowledged expert on population genetics in history, wrote a very bad book about languages because he forgot the point I make at the end of the previous paragraph ... Don't assume that gene-based relationships equal linguistic, cultural or political relationships.

 

I read Genes, Peoples and Languages years ago. Isn't much Cavalli-Sforza's work in this area targeted to only those populations that share both genetic markers and close linguistic relationships, excluding those populations that have changed languages and of course assuming that some populations don't?

[Andrew Dalby]

...

If you mean gene-based relationships, a lot of work is being done on that now. Look up the name Cavalli-Sforza on Google and you'll find masses about it. But Cavalli-Sforza himself, an acknowledged expert on population genetics in history, wrote a very bad book about languages because he forgot the point I make at the end of the previous paragraph ... Don't assume that gene-based relationships equal linguistic, cultural or political relationships.

 

I read Genes, Peoples and Languages years ago. Isn't much Cavalli-Sforza's work in this area targeted to only those populations that share both genetic markers and close linguistic relationships, excluding those populations that have changed languages ...

 

Fine, so long as he reminds himself and his readers that this is so. My impression of this book (thanks for reminding me of the title) was that he fails to do that.

 

... and of course assuming that some populations don't?

 

Recorded linguistic history suggests that you can't ever safely make that assumption.

[Virgil61]

...

Recorded linguistic history suggests that you can't ever safely make that assumption.

 

I can't imagine doing it correctly without bringing in archaeological, linguistic and, when applicable, written evidence to correlate genetic findings with. I'll have to find a copy to reread. Cavalli-Sforza does deserve credit for bringing genetics to the table occupied by archaeology and linguistics.

[LEG X EQ]

The Etruscans(Rasenna or Rasna as they called themselves), were the indigenous people of Italy. Their culture never experienced a break or a radical change from the villanova culture. And has strong similarities to the indegenous culture of the swiss lakes.

Their culture and language was later heavily influenced by the greeks.

Rasna writings

http://www.language-museum.com/e/etruscan-1.gif

Their looks differed from dark hair to blond hair (while the dark hair was predominant)

People with blond hair in the middle and on the right

http://www.unitus.it/dipartimenti/daf/euro...%20leopardi.jpg

person with blond hair on the left

http://www.lifeinitaly.com/art/img/Etruscan-fresco.jpg

http://www.maravot.com/Etruscan_banquet6.gif

 

The Italics, were indo-european tribes. They crossed the alps from the north and settled in between the land space of etruria and magna grecia. These tribes were linguistically seperated in Latin-Faliscan and Oscan-Umbrian. These tribes were cultuarly and ethnically related to the germanic and mostly celts. Italy was than called Itali, greek and meant "land of cattles". Those tribes (who were similar in culture and language) that migrated to itali from the north, became known as the italic tribes. Samnites, were not an own tribe. The Samnites were Sabellic(italic) farmers, that settled in Samnium (region-- south east of rome).

Their looks differed from dark haired to light haired(were the dark hair were predominant as well)

 

The north of italy was settled by Ligurians--North Adriatic Veneti--Raetians--Celts. The Gauls than conquerred pretty much all of northern italy, except the North Adriatic Veneti.

The Romans than butchered and deported all of the celts in the north, just a small minority of ligurians remaind. The North Adriatic Veneti , swore loyalty to Rome and became roman citizens.

The North Adriatic Veneti were Indo-European. it is quite certain that they came from the Baltic coast and were germanic. Their look was predominant light (blonde and blue eyed).

 

Thsese 3 type of peoples and their culture Rasna--Italic--North Adriatic Veneti all fused and created the Roman culture and identity. Were modern day italy especially the North and Central is still predominate.

It is recorded that Augustus had blond hair and blue eyes, and Julius Caesar had blue eyes (nobody knows his hair colour, becuse his hairs were grey when he really became famous) But i think that it was still the minority, the majority had either brown or black hairs and brown eyes.

Roman Fresco

Roman Bikini

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/bikinib.gif

http://www.leafandstone.com.au/images/frescos-2.jpg

This is how propably the average roman looked like

http://www.geocities.jp/roundtable12knights/maturoma2.jpg

 

The south of italy was always greek or greek influenced. Sicily should not be mistaken with italy. Sicily is an island with its own culture and dialect. The island of sicily is today an autonomy island and only somewhat politically belongs to italy. Its culture was Phoenician and Greek befor the Romans conquerred it. and later had periods of Arabic, Normanic and Spanish influence and rule. So connecteing sicily with italy is wrong.

Edited March 13, 2006 by LEG X EQ

[Pantagathus]

... and of course assuming that some populations don't?

Recorded linguistic history suggests that you can't ever safely make that assumption.

 

Here here Andrew!

 

I think my favorite example is the assumption about Irish being of Celtic 'blood' because it's one of the last places where Celtic language survives (Gaelic) but in fact the overwhelming y-chromosome haplogroup of the modern Irish population is R1b; which just happens to be the same for Basque who are not Celtic and not even Indo-Europeans.

 

Language & enthnicity should be completely seperated in discussions. (Edit: When we don't have clear historical guidance to go by!)

Edited March 13, 2006 by Pantagathus

[Virgil61]

...

Language & enthnicity should be completely seperated in discussions.

 

Genetics and linguistics should not be used unquestionably together, but to completely deny each discipline the other's evidence seems misguided.

 

The example you gave is precisely how seperate disciplines can shine the light on each other's findings.

[Pantagathus]

Genetics and linguistics should not be used unquestionably together, but to completely deny each discipline the other's evidence seems misguided.

 

The example you gave is precisely how seperate disciplines can shine the light on each other's findings.

 

Oh I should have articulated myself better! I'm not advocating putting each discipline in a vaccum, I'm saying that in areas without written, historical guidance, we need to drop the assumptions, study each issue without initial regard to the other and then see where the conclusions overlap.

 

In that regard Virgil61, I think we're on the same page.

[docoflove1974]

I think my favorite example is the assumption about Irish being of Celtic 'blood' because it's one of the last places where Celtic language survives (Gaelic) but in fact the overwhelming y-chromosome haplogroup of the modern Irish population is R1b; which just happens to be the same for Basque who are not Celtic and not even Indo-Europeans.

 

This does even enter the fact that the British Isles were constantly harrassed and raided by the Vikings...I'm sure there's some of that showing up in the blood work!

[Northern Neil]

We have a problem here, in that race, culture and language appear to be regarded as a single package.

 

Take for example the Celts; This concept is a linguistic grouping, in which the Greeks grouped together a whole bunch of people who spoke a similar language, and thrust upon them an identity which has been confused with culture and race.

 

But race, language and culture are not neccessarily linked; The Celts of western Ireland bear remarkable 'racial' similarities to the northern Italians (i.e. Raven hair, olive skin and grey eyes ). And both peoples were (and are) prior to the adoption of Latin, Celtic speakers. On the other hand, the Belgae were also Celtic speakers, yet racially (according to Caesar) fit into the 'Teutonic' or german racial type, in that they were tall and were blonde and had blue eyes. They also resided in the part of the Celtic world which was closest to Germany. Again, take the Bastarnae. Linguistically Celtic, yet adopting Germanic ways in terms of religion and culture.

 

In later times, the Greeks (again!) classified the entire western peoples (Germans, French, English) as 'Franks' on account of the fact that they spoke a related language, and had a political legacy from the Frankish Empire (apart from the English).

 

Recent theories state that, until the 19th century, migration wasn't nearly as instrumental in changing populations as was previously thought, and that prior to this date populations, in an ethnic sense, remained stable. What changed was the language and culture.

 

In England, Anglo Saxon culture took hold from the borders of Scotland to the coast of Cornwall in about 200 years - yet the only people iin England who fit the 'Germanic' race type are from Essex and Kent, the initial areas of English settlement. The rest of the 'English', therefore, remain 'racially' celtic, but adopted the German (later, English) language as an expedient on account of its economical advantages. Much the same as the Gauls did, in adopting Latin over Celtic.

 

My guess is that the Italian people in Roman times looked much the same as they do now, with the posible exception of Lombardia, where you do get a sprinkling of blonde, blue eyed types. Mosaics from Ravenna and other places show that the 'Italian' morphology was as extant then as now.

[Andrew Dalby]

I think my favorite example is the assumption about Irish being of Celtic 'blood' because it's one of the last places where Celtic language survives (Gaelic) but in fact the overwhelming y-chromosome haplogroup of the modern Irish population is R1b; which just happens to be the same for Basque who are not Celtic and not even Indo-Europeans.

 

This does even enter the fact that the British Isles were constantly harrassed and raided by the Vikings...I'm sure there's some of that showing up in the blood work!

 

Dalby is surely a Viking name, though we Dalbys ceased to rape and pillage a few years ago now. I claim this Viking blood (under high pressure, according to my doctor)

 

 

Genetics and linguistics should not be used unquestionably together, but to completely deny each discipline the other's evidence seems misguided.

 

The example you gave is precisely how seperate disciplines can shine the light on each other's findings.

 

Oh I should have articulated myself better! I'm not advocating putting each discipline in a vaccum, I'm saying that in areas without written, historical guidance, we need to drop the assumptions, study each issue without initial regard to the other and then see where the conclusions overlap.

 

In that regard Virgil61, I think we're on the same page.

 

I agree too. Totally.

 

I didn't like the Cavalli-Sforza book on languages, though I much admire his work on population genetics, because I felt he hadn't sufficiently considered the ways that languages spread, change and die before writing his survey: hence the survey was really not that good. I had the impression (as also with Colin Renfrew's book Archaeology and Language) that the writer was using his own speciality to rewrite language history without having understood fully what the linguists had done. In both cases, they could have done better.

 

And I must, finally, admit that that sort of thing is going to happen, and in fact it's necessary and to be welcomed, in almost any subject area. It will get rewritten sometimes, and outsiders will have a large part in doing it. Otherwise, the subject will die.

[Pantagathus]

I had the impression (as also with Colin Renfrew's book Archaeology and Language) that the writer was using his own speciality to rewrite language history without having understood fully what the linguists had done.

 

A little off topic & a little on but did I read somewhere that Turkish is in the same language family as Korean & Japanese?

[docoflove1974]

A little off topic & a little on but did I read somewhere that Turkish is in the same language family as Korean & Japanese?

 

They are all Altaic languages, yes...although people do question this, as it seems that the gulf between Turkish on the one hand and Japanese and Korean on the other is about as big as the Atlantic Ocean.