|
Post by wendland on Dec 21, 2005 20:22:40 GMT -5
It's funny how for Britain, Celtic is associated with dark hair, while for the Italian poster (and I know for other Italians, too) Celtic is associated with blond hair. Where did this dichotomy start? As far as the impact of the Langobards on Italy, there was a paper on the rate of the I haplotype in Italy and it was quite low (it is often considered to correspond to a Germanic presence in Western Europe), also I believe the Langobards were not by far as numerous as the people already present in Northern Italy, maybe they left their impact on the aristocratic population. So, couldn't light hair and eyes be just indigenous to Northern Italy, does it have to mean Celtic or Germanic impact? Linguistically, Germanic groups left quite a few traces throughout the Romance languages, there are numerous traces also in Spanish and Portuguese, and even more in French. However, this doesn't mean they left a big trace genetically. How genetically English are all the Black Africans, or other caucasoids who are native speakers of English? Linguistic traces mean nothing for phenotypes, genotypes, race. About the British (this thread): It seems to me that they get grey early, this could add to the perception of lightness, and obviously grey hair usually happens in brown or black-haired individuals. Does it seem like that to anyone else that the English get grey earlier and more than Italians or others?
|
|
|
Post by Glenlivet on Dec 21, 2005 20:33:17 GMT -5
Simply put, the Celtic-speaking populations have a large pre-Celtic element.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 21, 2005 21:05:01 GMT -5
Simply put, the Celtic-speaking populations have a large pre-Celtic element. Indeed. Ethnocultural and racial unities must not be the same. Thats true for Celts and its true for other ethnic groups as well. Usually just the racial borders are clear but inside of most bigger, especially expanding ethnocultural groups we can find a certain variation and various assimilated variants.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Dec 21, 2005 21:11:16 GMT -5
I liked some of Hooten's work.
|
|
|
Post by wendland on Dec 22, 2005 0:53:59 GMT -5
Who is Hooten? What's his work about?
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Dec 22, 2005 1:40:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by osservatore on Dec 22, 2005 4:30:07 GMT -5
I' ve got a straight thin nose and a face probably related to the german peoples that settled here , although my complexion is less pale . As for what I know , blondism is recessive as to maintain it , it is needed to have both parents so , and here it is much easier to have at least one dark haired . But , what I have read once is that face itself tells your story . Pay attention that I don' t believe much in all those theories that consist of measuring skulls , but anyway as I live near the Garda Lake and I see millions germans in summer here , being able to recognize them also when they are dark haired , dark eyed , I have to believe that typologies of different faces linked to different peoples , exist . That' s the same reason why I am 95 % of times able to recognize immigrants from southern regions of the peninsula . The faces you see in martin scorsese' s films are theirs . May I ask you where do you live? my father (Emilia-Romagna) looks like Scorsese. And, BTW, I'm able to recognize germans, but can't distnguish southerners from "locals" by physical aspect. So, probably, we have really differnet "racial" backgrounds. PS A lot of roman villas, tombs, and even an etruscan necropolis here! ciao!
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on Dec 24, 2005 9:41:33 GMT -5
History is written by the winners, and the Kelts, besides heroic moments and great pillages have never really triumphed in any European contest, just look at the Geography and youj will see how now they are confined to the western most fringes of Europe, pushed there by other cultures.
therefore is likely that in the dark haired South, the Kelts are seen as blonde since blonde is in a minority, viceversa in the fairer north, the Kelts are seen as dark, because Dark is in a minority, whenever they are the Kelts , have to be different from the ruling culture. The darkness of West Britain is endemic, and much earlier than the Kelts, possibly originating from the late mesolithic and neolithic settlers. Coon for his Irish kelt said that Brown hair is typical, its a safe answer and rings true.
|
|
|
Post by One Humanity on Dec 24, 2005 10:57:59 GMT -5
The culture of the Kelts and the area inhabited by them were a bit too great for such a conclusion but it's most likely true for the time after their zenith. Brown hair in combination with light eyes is frequent in Southern Germany and may have evolved before the area became Germanic. Ilse Schwidetzky speculated about it being a "Keltic trait". See map: forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=42374
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on Dec 24, 2005 12:10:44 GMT -5
The area in South West (Baden) is very dark, I know Coon mentioned 'Keltic' types in the South west and Franconia, is that coinciding with wat Schwidetzky said?. Also do you think there is a 'Keltic' type in West Germany?
|
|
|
Post by One Humanity on Dec 25, 2005 14:13:55 GMT -5
The area in South West (Baden) is very dark I should have mentioned this earlier: the map shows the frequency of a combination (dark hair + light eyes). I have honestly no idea and according to Schwidetzky, Germany is one of the anthropologically least examined populations. She defined types (based on anthropologic traits) in Westphalia and Rheinland-Pfalz however, I'm currently reading the book. This is a Franconian:
|
|