The Unz Review - Mobile

The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Harrison Sims Archive
What Race Were the Greeks and Romans?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored

Email This Page to Someone


 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_93975025

Recent films about ancient Greece such as Troy, Helen of Troy, and 300, have used actors who are of Anglo-Saxon or Celtic ancestry (e.g. Brad Pitt, Gerard Butler). Recent films about ancient Rome, such as Gladiator and HBO’s series Rome, have done the same (e.g. Russell Crowe). Were the directors right, from an historical point of view? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans of North European stock?

Most classical historians today are silent on the subject. For example, Paul Cartledge, a professor of Greek culture at Cambridge, writes about his specialty, Sparta, for educated but non-academic readers, yet nowhere that I can find does he discuss the racial origins of the Spartans. Some years ago I asked several classics professors about the race of the ancient Greeks only to be met with shrugs that suggested that no one knew, and that it was not something worth looking into. Today, an interest in the race of the ancients seems to be taken as an unhealthy sign, and any evidence of their Nordic origins discounted for fear it might give rise to dangerous sentiments.

A hundred years ago, however, Europeans took it for granted that many Greeks and Romans were the same race as themselves. The famed 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, published in 1911, noted that “survival of fair hair and complexion and light eyes among the upper classes in Thebes and some other localities shows that the blond type of mankind which is characteristic of north-western Europe had already penetrated into Greek lands before classical times.” It added that the early Greeks, or Hellenes, were Nordic, one of “the fair-haired tribes of upper Europe known to the ancients as Keltoi.” Sixty years ago even Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher and socialist, believed that the Hellenes “were fair-haired invaders from the North, who brought the Greek language with them” (History of Western Philosophy, 1946).

A reproduction of Phidias’ masterwork, Athena Parthenos. Credit Ancient History Encyclopedia

Scholars today recoil at this pre-1960s consensus. The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece, written in 1996, scoffs at the “undoubtedly dubious racial theories underlying much of this reconstruction,” but offers no theory to replace it, conceding only that “the origin of the Greeks remains a much-debated subject.” The Penguin author makes this startling admission, however: “Many of the ideas of racial origins were developed in the 19th century and, although they may have had some foundation in historical tradition, archaeology or linguistics, they were often combined with more dubious presumptions.” The author fails to list these dubious presumptions. Beth Cohen, author of Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art (2000), asserts that the Thracians, distant cousins of the Greeks, had “the same dark hair and the same facial features as the Ancient Greeks.”

In fact, there was a good basis for the 1911 Britannica to write about blonds in Thebes. Thebes was the leading city of Boeotia, a rich agricultural region in south-central Greece. Fragments from an ancient 150 BC travelogue describe the women of Thebes as “the tallest, prettiest, and most graceful in all of Hellas. Their yellow hair is tied up in a knot on the top of their head.” Pindar, a fifth century Theban lyric poet, refers to the Greeks as “the fair-haired Danaoi,” using a poetical name for the Hellenes. Likewise, in his Partheneia, or “Maiden Songs,” the seventh century BC Spartan poet Alcman, praised the beauty of Spartan female athletes, with their “golden hair” and “violet eyes.” He also wrote of Spartan women with “silver eyes,” meaning light gray. The seventh-century BC Greek poet Archilochus praises the “yellow hair” of one of his lovers, and Sappho — also of the seventh century BC — writes of her “beautiful daughter, golden like a flower.”

As late as the fourth century AD, Adamantius, an Alexandrian physician and scientist, wrote in his Physiognominica, that “of all the nations the Greeks have the fairest eyes,” adding, that “wherever the Hellenic and Ionic race has been kept pure, we see tall men of fairly broad and straight build, of fairly light skin, and blond.” Several centuries of mixing had presumably changed the racial character of many Greeks, but blonds still survived, and Xanthos, which means “yellow” in Greek, was a common personal name.

Professor Nell Painter of Princeton, author of The History of White People (see “Whiting Out White People,” AR, July 2010), complains that “not a few Westerners have attempted to racialize antiquity, making ancient history into white race history.” She points out that the Greeks often painted their marble statues — “the originals were often dark in color” — that the paint wore off over time, and Europeans mistakenly concluded from the white marble that the Greeks were white.

Yes, the Greeks painted their statues, but the originals were not dark. Praxiteles’ Aphrodite, from the Greek city of Knidos, was the most famous and most copied statue in the ancient world. Hundreds of copies survive. Experts have determined from microscopic paint particles that Aphrodite was painted blonde. The Romans had their own name for this goddess, Venus, and likewise her “cult images” were ubiquitous and “painted with pale-coloured flesh and golden-blonde hair” (see Joanna Pitman’s On Blondes, 2003).

Phidias’ masterwork, the Athena Parthenos, stood in the Parthenon for nearly 1,000 years until it was lost, probably in the 5th century AD. When American sculptor Alan LeQuire set out to make a faithful copy for the full-scale Parthenon replica in Nashville’s Centennial Park he modeled it on descriptions of the original work. The 42-foot-tall Athena, unveiled in 1990, has light skin, blue eyes, and golden hair (see photo above).

Red-haired Thracian woman from the fourth century BC. Credit: National Geographic

Many small terra-cotta figurines from Greece of the fourth century BC have survived with traces of paint. They show light hair, usually reddish brown, and blue eyes, as do larger statues from the time of the Persian Wars in the early fifth century BC. Even a cursory examination of ancient marble reliefs, statues, and busts reveals European features. Many of the faces could just as easily be those of Celtic chieftains or Viking kings.

There is more evidence of the appearance of the Greeks. Xenophanes, an Ionian Greek philosopher who lived in the fifth century BC, was amused to note that different peoples believed that the gods look like themselves: “Our gods have flat noses and black skins, say the Ethiopians. The Thracians (despite Prof. Cohen’s observations above) say our gods have red hair and hazel eyes.” Indeed, a fourth century BC fresco of a Thracian woman, found in the Ostrusha Mound in central Bulgaria, shows distinctly red hair and European features.

The Greek poet Hesiod (c. 700 BC) called Troy the “land of fair women.” According to the Roman historian Diodorus Sicilus, who lived in the first century BC, the Egyptian god Set had “reddish hair,” a color that was “rare in Egypt, but common among the Hellenes.” Plutarch (46–120 AD) tells us that while the Theban general Pelopidas (d. 364 BC) was campaigning in central Greece, he had a dream in which a ghost urged him to sacrifice a red-haired virgin if he wished to be victorious in the next day’s battle.

Two racial types

There were two racial types in ancient Greece: dark-haired whites and fair-haired whites, as well as gradations in between. The earliest known inhabitants were of the former type. These included the Minoans, who were not Greeks at all, and who built an impressive civilization on the island of Crete. The Pelasgians, which is the name later Greeks gave to the pre-Hellenic population of mainland Greece, were also dark. They tended to have black, curly hair and olive-shaped eyes. Their type is plainly visible on many Attic (Athenian) vases, and has lead some scholars to conclude that all Greeks looked as they did.

Neither the Minoans nor the Pelasgians spoke Greek — the linear A inscriptions of the Minoans have still not been deciphered — so the Greek language must have arrived with the light-haired conquerors who migrated from the north, most likely from the middle Danube River Valley. According to Greek national myth, the Hellenes were descended from Hellen (not to be confused with Helen of Troy), the son of Deucalion. Hellen had sons and grandsons, who correspond to the four main tribal divisions of ancient Greece: the Aeolians Achaeans, Ionians, and Dorians.

Scholars today tend to dismiss such myths but they would not have survived if they had not been generally consistent with the long folk memories of ancient peoples. In this case they point to what classical scholars have long believed was a series of Hellenic descents upon mainland Greece and the Aegean islands. The first Hellenes to arrive were the Ionians and Aeolians; then a few centuries later, the Achaeans, and finally the Dorians.

The early bronze-age Greek civilization (1600-1200 BC) was certainly influenced by Minoan and other eastern Mediterranean cultures, but it was unmistakably Greek. Linear B, which began to dominate Cretan culture around 1500 BC, has been deciphered and found to be an early form of Greek. Around the year 1200 BC this culture, known as Mycenaean, collapsed; its cities were destroyed and abandoned, and Greece entered a 400-year Dark Age. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions probably played a part in the destruction, and later Greeks attributed it to invasions from the north. Waves of Hellenic warriors swept down and burned the Mycenaean citadels and became the ruling race in Greece. They also sacked the city of Troy, and Homer’s Iliad is about them. They also seem to have snuffed out much of Mycenaean culture: Greeks stopped writing, and abandoned the arts, urban life, and trade with the outside world.

We know something about the early Hellenes from the Iliad. It was first written down in the late eighth century BC, at the end of the Greek Dark Age, after the Phoenicians taught the Greeks how to write again. It recounts events some four to five hundred years earlier. Although we think of the poem as being about the Greeks, Homer’s warrior heroes belong to the Achaean nobility, which suggests that it was the Achaeans who overthrew Mycenaean civilization, not the Dorians, who would descend upon Greece and displace the Achaeans a hundred years later. Archeology confirms this supposition, for Troy was burned around 1200 BC, and the traditional date for the Trojan War is 1184 BC. The Dorian invasion is dated by various ancient historians at 1149, 1100, or 1049 BC.

There is good reason to think that Homer was recording stories handed down during the Dark Age. He was a bard who lived in Ionia, a region on the Aegean coast of what is now Turkey, and if he were making the stories up he would have claimed that the heroes were Ionian. Instead, he sings praises to the light-haired Achaean nobility: Achilles, their greatest warrior, has “red-gold hair,” Odysseus, their greatest strategist, has “chestnut hair,” his wife Penelope has “white cheeks the color of pure snow,” Agamede, a healer and expert on medicinal plants, is “blonde,” and King Menelaus of Sparta, the husband of Helen, has “red hair.” Helen, likewise, has “fair hair,” and even slave girls are light-skinned: “fair-tressed Hecamede,” “fair-cheeked Chryseis,” and “blonde Briseis.” This is significant, for if even some of the slaves were blond it would mean the Nordic type was not unique to the Achaeans, that it was present elsewhere in the Aegean world.

Homer (and Pindar) describe most of the Olympian gods and goddesses as fair haired and “bright eyed,” meaning blue, grey or green. The goddess Demeter has “blond” or “yellow hair,” as does Leto, mother of Apollo, who is also described as “golden haired.” Aphrodite has “pale-gold” hair, and Athena is known as “the fair, bright-eyed one” and the “grey-eyed goddess.” Two of the gods, Poseidon and Hephaestus, are described as having black hair. As noted above, Xenophanes complained that all peoples imagine the gods to look like themselves.

It was the Dorians, the last Greek invaders, who ended Achaean rule and probably provoked a mass migration of Aeolian and Ionian Hellenes — no doubt including Homer’s ancestors — across the Aegean Sea to the coast of Asia Minor. The Dorians who settled in the fertile valley of the Eurotas in the southern Peloponnesus were the direct ancestors of the Spartans of the classical age, and they claimed to be the only pure Dorians.

Werner Jaeger, Director of the Institute of Classical Studies at Harvard, writes:

“The national type of the invader remained purest in Sparta. The Dorian race gave Pindar his ideal of the fair-haired warrior of proud descent, which he used to describe not only the Homeric Menelaus, but the greatest Greek hero, Achilles, and in fact all the ‘fair-haired Danaeans’ [another name for the Achaeans who fought at Troy] of the heroic age” (Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, 1939).

The classical Greeks made no claim to being autochthones, that is to say, “of the earth,” or the original inhabitants of the land. Rather, they took pride in being epeludes, the descendants of later settlers or conquerors. Two notable exceptions were the Arcadians and the Athenians, whose rocky soils presumably offered little temptation to armed colonizers. The historian Herodotus (484-420 BC) recorded that the Athenians were “a Pelasgian people [who] had occupied Attica and never moved from it,” as were the Arcadians. Language lends support to this view, for both the Athenians and Arcadians spoke unique dialects. They learned Greek from the northern invaders but retained Pelasgian elements.

Thus, classical Greece was a fusion, both cultural and racial, of these two types of whites. Some city-states, such as Thebes and Sparta, were predominantly Nordic. Others, such as Athens, were predominantly Mediterranean, and still others were mixtures of the two.

The Roman patricians

Nell Painter, author of the above-mentioned History of White People, finds it “astonishing” that the American Nordicist Madison Grant (1865-1937) argued in The Passing of the Great Race(1916) that the Roman nobility was of Nordic origin, yet there is good evidence for this view. There are many lavishly illustrated books about ancient Rome with examples of death masks, busts, and statues that clearly depict the Roman patricians not simply as Europeans but as northern European.

Blue-eyed Capitoline Brutus. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

R. Peterson’s fine study, The Classical World (1985), which includes an analysis of 43 Greek, and 32 Roman figures, is persuasive. Dr. Peterson explains that the Romans painted their death masks to preserve the color, as well as the shape, of their ancestors’ faces. Blue eyes, fair hair, and light complexions are common. A good example of racial type is the famous portrait bust of Lucius Junius Brutus, the founder of the Roman Republic, which dates from the fourth century BC. Brutus’ face is identifiably Germanic, and so is the color of his eyes. The sculptor used ivory for the whites and blue glass for the pupils. Or take the famous marble head of a patrician woman from the late first century AD, which is often included in illustrated surveys of imperial Rome to demonstrate the fashion for curled hair. Her features are typically northern European: a delicate, aquiline nose, high cheekbones, and a face angular and long rather than round. Another classic example is the famous fresco from the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii, which shows four women undergoing ritual flagellation. They are tall, light-skinned, and brown-haired.

There is also evidence from Roman names. Rutilus means “red, gold, auburn” and stems from the verb rutilo, which means “to shine with a reddish gleam.” Rufus, meaning red, was a common Roman cognomen or nickname used for a personal characteristic, such as red hair. The Flavians were an aristocratic clan whose family name was derived from flavus, meaning golden-yellow. The Flaminians were another noble family whose clan name came from flamma, meaning flame, suggesting red hair.

According to Plutarch, Marcus Porcius Cato had “red hair and grey eyes,” Lucius Cornelius Sulla, the general and dictator, had “blue-grey eyes and blond hair,” and Gaius Octavius (Augustus), the first Roman emperor, had “bright eyes and yellow hair.” Recent analysis of an ancient marble bust of the emperor Caligula found particles of the original pigment trapped in the stone. Experts have restored the colors to show that the demented ruler had ruddy skin and red hair.

The love poetry of Publius Ovidius Naso, better known as Ovid, (43 BC to AD 17) offers much evidence of the color of upper-class Roman women during the early years of the empire. That Ovid ascribes blond hair to many goddesses — Aurora, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, and Venus — tells us something about the Roman ideal of beauty; that he describes many of his lovers the same way tells us that the Nordic type was still found in imperial Rome. “I’m crazy for girls who are fair-haired and pale-complexioned,” he writes in his Amores of 15 BC, but “brunettes make marvelous lovers too.” He admires the contrast of “dark-tresses against a snow-white neck,” and adores young girls who blush. One of his favorite lovers is “tall” with a “peaches-and-cream complexion,” “ivory cheeks,” and “bright eyes.” Another was a “smart Greek blonde.”

So where did the Romans come from? They were a Latin people, although according to legend that may have some basis in fact, there were also Greek colonists and Trojan refugees among the founding races. The Latins were one of eight Nordic Italic tribes — Apulii, Bruttii, Lucanians, Sabines, Samnites, Umbrians/Oscians and the Veneti — who migrated into the Italian peninsula around 1000 BC. Of course, Italy was not vacant. The Etruscans lived to the north of Rome in what is now Tuscany, and there were other darker-complexioned whites living in the peninsula. The Etruscans are likely to have been Carians from Asia Minor.

What became of the Nordic Greeks and Romans? Their numbers were reduced and thinned through war, imperialism, immigration, and slavery. Protracted internecine war was devastating. The Hellenes lost relatively few men in their two wars with the Persian Empire (490, 480-479 BC), but they were decimated by the ruinous series of inter-Hellenic wars that followed. The Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) pitted Athens and her subject Ionian cities against the Spartan Dorian confederacy. That was followed by 35 years of intermittent warfare between Sparta and Thebes (396-362 BC), which pitted Nordics against Nordics. These wars so weakened the Greek republics that they fell under Macedonian rule about 20 years later (338 BC), bringing to an end the classical age of Greece.

Money was, as always, a racial solvent. Theognis, a noble poet from the Dorian city of Megara wrote in the sixth century BC: “The noblest man will marry the lowest daughter of a base family, if only she brings in money. And a lady will share her bed with a foul rich man, preferring gold to pedigree. Money is all. Good breeds with bad and race is lost.”

The Roman experience was similarly tragic. All of her later historians agreed that the terrible losses inflicted by Hannibal during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC) were minor compared to the horrendous losses Rome inflicted on herself during the nearly 100 years of civil war that followed the murder of the reforming Tribune Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC.

Immigration was the inevitable backwash of imperialism as slaves, adventurers, and traders swarmed into Rome. Over time, slaves were freed, foreigners gave birth to natives, non-Romans gained citizenship, and legal and social sanctions against intermarriage fell away. By the early empire, all that was left of the original Roman stock were a few patrician families.

The historian Appian lamented that “the city masses are now thoroughly mixed with foreign blood, the freed slave has the same rights as a native-born citizen, and those who are still slaves look no different from their masters.” Scipio Aemilianus (185–129 BC), a statesman and general of the famed clan of the Aemilii, called these heterogeneous subjects “step-children of Rome.”

One hundred and fifty years later, Horace (65–8 BC) wrote in Book III of the Odes:

Our grandfathers sired feeble children; theirs

Were weaker still — ourselves; and now our curse

Must be to breed even more degenerate heirs.

The last Roman writers therefore came to see their own people as both morally and physically degenerate. The subtext of Tacitus’ (56-117 AD) ethnological treatise Germania is a longing for the northern vigor and purity the Romans had lost. He saw the Gauls and Germans as superior to the Romans in morals and physique, and Roman women shared this admiration. Blond hair became the rage, and German and Gaulic slave women were shorn of their blond or reddish-brown hair to make wigs for wealthy women. By the time of Tertullian (160-225 AD), so many Roman women were dying their hair that he complained, “they are even ashamed of their country, sorry that they were not born in Germany or Gaul.” In the early second century AD, the satirist Juvenal complained of the dwindling stock of “the bluest patrician blood,” which is a figurative phrase for the nobility, whose veins appear blue through their light skin.

Viewed in a historical context, it is almost as if today’s northern Europeans have set out perfectly to imitate the ways in which the Greeks and Romans destroyed themselves. In both Europe and America, patriotic young men slaughtered each other in terrible fratricidal wars. In North America, the descendents of slaves are the majority in many great cities. Both continents have paid for imperial ambitions with mass immigration of aliens. Will we be able to resist the forces that brought down the ancients?

Mr. Sims is an historian and a native of Kentucky.

(Reprinted from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
 
Of Related Interest
shutterstock_339962798
Adventures in Genetics

233 Comments to "What Race Were the Greeks and Romans?"

Commenters to Ignore
...to Follow
Endorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. We know something about the early Hellenes from the Iliad. It was first written down in the late eighth century BC, at the end of the Greek Dark Age, after the Phoenicians taught the Greeks how to write again.

    Well, there’s much debate on this point, but most of the studies that I have read indicate that the Iliad was probably not written down until the 6th century BC during the reign of Peisistratos. The 8th century BC is commonly regarded as marking the period when the oral composition of the Iliad( and the Odyssey) reached its final stage.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    You seem to think all blonde/red-haired and light-skinned whites were Nordic.

    Maybe not.

    Just look at the facial features of the ancient Greeks in statues. Whatever their hair color and skin tone may have been, they had markedly different faces from the Nordics.

    I’ve seen a bunch of light-skinned Greeks with blonde or lighter-colored hair, and they don’t look Nordic. And Greek blonde hair has different hues than the Nordic kind that is more golden and metallic. Greek blonde is either plain yellow or almost white yellow. It generally lacks the metallic glint of Nordic blonde.
    Even light-skinned Greek women have faces that are broader and fleshier.

    I’ve seen many light-skinned Greeks with the facial feature of Huffington. They don’t look Nordic.

    http://thechalkboardmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/arianna-huffington-huffington-post-2.jpg

    At any rate, what does it matter? Most of Europe will be Africanized soon enough.

    [MORE]

    In Ancient Rome, the idiot Romans brought black Africans to serve as slaves and to fight as gladiators, and these Negroes humped white women, even elite women who developed jungalo fever. Thankfully the decadent Romans fell and Germanic barbarian Europeans swept through all of Italy.
    Romans were great at their peak, but they got too expansive, diverse, and decadent. They had to go in order for Europe to survive. If Romans had survived, succeeded, and conquered all of Europe and then exported tons of people from Africa and the Middle East, all of Europe would have been Arabized and Africanized during ancient times.

    Though the fall of Rome was tragic, it may have saved Europe from the Roman enterprise of ‘global’ diversity.
    If Rome had survived, Romans would have imported more blacks and Semites to Rome and then those people would have followed the Romans in the conquest up north. In time, even northern Europe would have been made ‘diverse’ with Africans and Semites imported into Italy.
    But northern barbarians sacked Rome and saved Europe. The Dark Ages were unpleasant, but even the Dark Ages were worth it if it kept the Dark People out.

    So, the only thing that can save Europe today is the rise of white neo-barbarism. When the elites grow decadent and commit to ‘diversity’ than to serving their own people, they must be brought down. And this downfall must be carried out by the native neo-barbarian hordes.

    Because Europe is now ruled by decadent elites who suck up to global Jews, the EU is doing nothing as it is being invaded by the massive hordes of Africans and Arabs. If there is no neo-barbarian white uprising, expect African men to hump every blonde and turn Europe mulatto while white men are reduced to pansy-ass cucks like Ken Burns and Rand Paul, the ‘Detroit Republican’ .

    With the decadent elites not defending Europe, the West is falling to the Arab barbarian migrants and African savage hordes. The only force that can defend Europe and push the foreigners/invaders out is the native neo-barbarians who say WHAT THE FUC* and take up arms and take to the streets and use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to roll back the tide, sack the elites, and create a new order.

    • Agree: Ace
    • Disagree: Vendetta
    • Replies: , ,
  3. “There were two racial types in ancient Greece: dark-haired whites and fair-haired whites, as well as gradations in between. ”

    If you visit Greece today you’ll see there still are blondes (Check the men as a lot of women in Greece is as blonde as Milo Yiannopoulos). You also see quite some blue eyes.

    • Replies:
  4. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Irene Papas, she had the classic Greek look.

    You can’t look any more Greek than Maria Callas.

    Claudia Cardinale has features that could belong to any number of Greek or Roman statues.

    Anna Vissi, classic Greek beauty

  5. Macedonian art has multiple depictions of characters with red hair:

    Macedonian Burial mound complex at Amphipolis:
    -Abduction of Persephone by Pluto
    -Abduction of Persephone by Pluto
    Abduction of Persephone by Pluto, Persephone
    Abduction of Persephone by Pluto, Pluto

    Macedonian Palace of Pella:
    -Lion Hunt
    -Lion Hunt
    -Stag Hunt
    -Amazonomachy

    Macedonian Amphipolis Casta Tomb at Vergina
    -Hades abducting Persephone
    -Hades abducting Persephone
    Hades abducting Persephone, chariot
    Hades abducting Persephone, Hades
    Hades abducting Persephone, Persephone

    Site with descriptions of alexander the Great:

    What Color Was Alexander the Great’s Hair?

    Aelian was a Roman rhetoric teacher of the second to third century A.D. who wrote in Greek

    Varia Historia

    They affirm likewise that Alexander Son of Philip was of a neglectful handsomness: For his Hair curled naturally, and was yellow

    A court historian, Callisthenes (c. 360-328 B.C.) wrote about Alexander

    For he had the hair of a lion and one eye was blue; the right one was heavy lidded and black, and the left one was blue

    Plutarch’s Life of Alexander

    Apelles … in painting him … did not reproduce his complexion, but made it too dark and swarthy. Whereas he was of a fair colour, as they say, and his fairness passed into ruddiness on his breast particularly, and in his face.

    • Replies: ,
  6. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    The way to finally settle the question is to test ancient DNA.
    Greek and Roman ancient DNA from the time period in question, is abundantly available.

  7. However, the “demise” of the nordics in the South of Europe may not be caused by immigration. Genetic studies show Thracians to be made of two different stocks, where the upper class burial showed more affinity to eastern Europeans and a normal burial more with Sardians.

    This hints on a Indo-European upperclass coming from the steppes – as the Kurgan theory goes – rules over locals not unlike current day Mediterraneans.

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2014/05/more-info-on-two-thracian-genomes-from.html

  8. Xenophanes complained that all peoples imagine the gods to look like themselves

    In which case it would make perfect sense Narcissus was Nordic:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_%28mythology%29

    In the context of this article, that would explain a lot.

  9. I am Italian and I have black hair and brown eyes. So Harrison Sims are you saying none of the ancient Romans had features like me? What is your theory for when darker Italians like me started popping up? After the Moors invaded Italy?

    • Replies: , , ,
  10. What will surprise no one here is that many of these same quotes can be found in the modern academic literature, only with careful expurgations.

    Likewise few will be surprised that the learned scholar behind the present essay will not find employment in any of our august institutions of higher education. He’s an apostate, plain and simple, and the fact that he not only relates facts but seeks to uncover hidden truth is at best irrelevant.

    Finally, this excellent piece is more proof that we need to save hard copy of vintage histories. Many are presently out of favor and out of print, and in danger of being erased from the public record. FWIW, I maintain a large library, most of which is unavailable online.

    • Agree: Thomas O. Meehan
    • Replies: ,
  11. This is an interesting article. My modern history of Greece and Turkey is pretty… non-existent… but I always under the impression that there was some kind of invasion of Greece by darker-skinned peoples very close to modern times. Didn’t peoples from Turkey blow up some monuments in Athens?

    I wonder what the Romans had to say about the Germanic peoples on first meeting them. If the Romans were Nordic, I suspect they would have recognized the Germanic tribes as “long-lost brethren”. What do, for example, Caesar’s histories say about the appearances? Do they just describe blondes, or do they say things like “blondes resembling X people who we know”…?

    • Replies: ,
  12. Bizarre that there’s so much disagreement over a basic fact. Simply look at ancient Greek and Roman sculpture and you’ll see faces entirely unlike those of today–especially in the case of Greeks. Hair color is a comparatively trivial matter.

    http://www.ancientgreece.com/media/img/scul2.jpg

    https://tinoradman.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/img_9953-copy.jpg

    http://cbmw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Apollo_Greek_God_Statue_01.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Belvedere_Apollo_Pio-Clementino_Inv1015.jpg

    https://c3.staticflickr.com/3/2515/3687846833_664b7c4bc6_b.jpg

    • Replies: , , , ,
  13. The closer to the steppe, the closer to the original Indo-European physical type if there was any to speak of.
    Thus Dorians, fresh from the North, were by all accounts truer to this type. While Ionians such as Athenians were a mixed bag, with a heavy Pelasgian Mediterranean substrate.
    To what extent were elites in Greece and Rome less admixed with the previous Med population than commoners? Only genetics will answer the question.
    At any rate, both Julius Caesar and Tacitus found Germanic tribes exotic in body and mind. Indo-European invasions were a long time ago. Even the relatively close Latin and Celtic tongues were mutually unintelligible during the times Rome and Celts clashed.
    I tend to adhere to a mild nordicist point of view: Greeks and Romans were thoroughly different genetically in classical times from northerly i.e. populations, but they were lucky enough to pick up the right high IQ and perhaps other beneficial genes from the North to wipe out the competition in the Mediterranean and beyond. In that, they were no different from modern European Mediterraneans, perhaps even phenotypically.

    • Replies:
  14. ‘Blond’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘Nordic’–the racial types we’re familiar with are likely different from those that existed in the ancient era due to hundreds of years of invasions and mixing. We don’t know how many times the blond-hair mutation arose independently.

    I get the subtext–Nordic types are responsible for all the civilization we love–but what if your theory doesn’t hold up with genetic evidence? Seems to me white civilization has enough to recommend it without theories about the ancient world. We know what happens when it wanes–look at Detroit.

    Does Razib have anything to add? He’s the expert here.

  15. This screed could be true, or it could be nonsense. DNA from ancient burials will settle the question soon enough.

    I would keep an eye on Dienekes’ blog. He deals in real science.

    • Replies:
  16. Read the article:

    The Latins were one of eight Nordic Italic tribes — Apulii, Bruttii, Lucanians, Sabines, Samnites, Umbrians/Oscians and the Veneti — who migrated into the Italian peninsula around 1000 BC. Of course, Italy was not vacant. The Etruscans lived to the north of Rome in what is now Tuscany, and there were other darker-complexioned whites living in the peninsula. The Etruscans are likely to have been Carians from Asia Minor.

  17. I swear, I think the penis must be a target that cannot be resisted whenever anyone encountered one of these statues in the times after anyone cared about them, and when they started caring again.

    Or maybe they are just prone to fracturing. But I can just picture a drunken yahoo circa 500 AD saying “Hey guys, look at this!” WHACK

    • Replies: , ,
  18. On a recent trip to Greece I don’t recall seeing any naturally blondes, though there were plenty of bottle-blondes – an affectation which has something to do with wanting to be ‘European’.

    Not sure I’m convinced by this Nordic theory though. Artistic depictions of ancient Greeks don’t quite look like modern Greeks, but at the same time they don’t look Nordic either.

    Lower average temperatures occurred at 1000 and 3000BC. And 10000BC the continent was coming out of an Ice Age. Maybe this accounted for some lightening

    http://resiliencesystem.org/insights-past-millennia-climatic-impacts-human-health-and-survival-0

    There’s a similar theory that Ancient Greek myths come from the Baltic:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltic_Origins_of_Homer%27s_Epic_Tales

  19. Seems highly dubious to me; for classical Greeks and Romans the northern barbarians were the “Other” and it probably wouldn’t be difficult to find statements contrasting their appearance with that of the Romans (e.g. the elder Pliny in his Natural History). And what’s the implication of that thesis? That modern Italians and Greeks aren’t “white”? I think that’s a very dangerous claim, especially from a “white nationalist” perspective. Can Europeans and European-descended peoples really afford in-fighting because of some Nordicist phantasms? I don’t think so.

    • Replies:
  20. I don’t see what the controversy is. It makes total sense.

    Northern barbarians have never created a civilization on their own, but have invaded more intelligent and talented southerners who disdained fighting and the resulting fusion created a new civilization.

    Its notable that those fair haired Hellen es were an obscure people before they mixed with the darker people’s of the south.

    If you had to choose between living among those fair haired northern Hellenes in their rude forests or among the gracious and civilized minoans you’d choose the latter.

    However, the northern Hellen barbarians added a not invaluable mix to the brew of southern civilization.

    Nordic people’s add a good element to other people but on their own seem not to be worth much. This pattern can be tracked to every European. Ulture where Nordic came.

    • Replies:
  21. It seems to me that that the southern Germans (Bavaria, Baden, Switzerland, Austria) who are darker and presumably with more Celtic ancestry are these days more economically successful than the northern Germans who are fairer and more Nordic. Northern Italy is one of the wealthiest areas of the world.

    • Replies:
  22. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    I think the Romans described the Germans and Celts as fair-haired. I can understand the first but the second seems strange now.

  23. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    The Macedonians under Alexander were noted for their horsemanship and shock cavalry. Shouldn’t we take into account the eastern steppe origins of this type of warfare when understanding the racial admixture of Greeks? Surely, as noted above, there is a great deal of eastern influence and origin to these warrior tribes.

  24. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    “After the Moors invaded Italy?”

    You’re part eggplant.

    • Replies: ,
  25. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    “they were lucky enough to pick up the right high IQ and perhaps other beneficial genes from the North to wipe out the competition in the Mediterranean and beyond.”

    What? Back in those days, neighboring peoples of the Greeks were just as accomplished in the arts and warfare. In cultural terms, the rise of Greece had more to do with learning from Near Eastern and North African cultures.

    And Greeks never wiped out the competition. Sometimes Greeks won, sometimes they lost.

    • Replies:
  26. “Hair color is a comparatively trivial matter”

    If their hair was really that curly, that often, then it would probably be either red or black. If the hair was red (orange), the eyes would be light and the skin pale; like men from the mountains above Milan (or if red-brown then hazel eyes and not such pale skin, like Federer perhaps). If the hair was black, the eyes would probably be dark and the skin likely olive; like the Fayum portraits.

  27. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Southern Europeans were never the same as Northern Europeans, and there are mosaics that show Ancient Romans as having brown eyes and brown hair. There were always higher concentrations of fairer skinned people in the North, and yet they were far less advanced and civilized than Southern Europe.

    • Replies:
  28. The author is clever. I notice for one, he omits the description of Octavian’s skin color. “Between light and dark”. I’m quite sure no-one would be mistaking him for a Nordic if they got a look.

    Either way, the statues/busts don’t lie. At least in the Roman case, once can quite clearly see that these are not “nordics” according to the common definition. Celtic/Slavic would be a better descriptor. Hey, and if you happen to pass by Rome or Florence one day, you’ll find numerous living citizens that are doppelgangers to those Emperors.

  29. I hesitated about agreeing because you have made a novel point to me. So “interesting”. But it might take a bit more than the comparatively higher level of culture – actual civilisation indeed – to prove that the southerners were more “intelligent” in a genetically determined way. Maybe more intelligent in the way that 2015 Irish are compared with those whose average IQ was measured at 87 in 1972. But I take you to be saying more than that. Jared Diamond would no doubt disagree with you because the northerners simply didn’t have the good fortune to be surrounded by whatever originally allowed Middle Eastern and Egyptian civilisations to take off.

    • Replies:
  30. The author seems to be using Nordic as a synonym for white or Aryan (Indo-European). If we followed his lead, we’d have to invent a new word for those currently called Nordic (the Scandinavians). What’s the point of that? No one seriously claims that post Minoan Greeks and post Etruscan Italians are not Indo-European. As for invaders or settlers coming from the north, that’s the only way to get to Greece unless it’s a sea-borne invasion. That doesn’t mean that they came all the way from what is now Scandinavia. It just indicates that the Greeks, Latins, Nordics, and other Aryan groups had common ancestors at some time in the past.

    • Replies: ,
  31. This is a goofy article. It shouldn’t be surprising some ancient Greeks and Romans were blond, because there are plenty of blond people in those countries today too. And there are plenty of dark eyed brunettes present in Northern Europe. Just because blonds are more common in Northern Europe does not mean the blonds are a separate race. Just because blond hair was idealized in goddesses does not mean the majority of the population was blond.

    Blue eyes are common among Greeks especially. In the Greek-American community near me, blue and green eyes seem predominant.

    Also nothing about the busts screams “Nordic.” They could really fit anywhere in Europe. It’s not like northern and central Italians have saudi facial features today.

    • Replies: ,
  32. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Europeans don’t need another civilizations to success, the opposite is true. Both Europeans can develop all alone and when they mix when others they loose

  33. Congratulations on being the first on this thread to spell the English word “blond” correctly.

    Now please work on “brunet”.

    • Replies:
  34. A hundred years ago, however, Europeans took it for granted that many Greeks and Romans were the same race as themselves.

    That in and of itself doesn’t tell us anything. Some of these people were saying that not just the Greeks and Romans but the Egyptians, Arabs, Muhammad and Genghis Khan were Nordic:

    http://marchofthetitans.com/earlson/nordicegypt.htm

    http://marchofthetitans.com/earlson/nordicarabs.htm

    http://marchofthetitans.com/earlson/genghis.htm

    • Replies: ,
  35. Greece was heads and shoulders at its intellectual peak, arguably during the Hellenistic period, above anything the Middle East, including Egypt, ever accomplished.

    Greeks figuratively wiped out their competition while the Romans did it literally.

    As I said, pending DNA analysis, I don’t expect ancient Greeks and Romans to have been significantly different from today. But I believe they got an IQ boost from the North. In recent times, from the Germanic invasions. In the Bronze Age, from Indo-Europeans.

    • Replies:
  36. “So Harrison Sims are you saying none of the ancient Romans had features like me?”

    No, he’s not saying that. Here’s what he said, “There were two racial types in ancient Greece: dark-haired whites and fair-haired whites, as well as gradations in between.” and “So where did the Romans come from? They were a Latin people, although according to legend that may have some basis in fact, there were also Greek colonists and Trojan refugees among the founding races.” etc.

    • Replies:
  37. As a matter of fact, Alcibiades was suspected of having done just that to the Athenian household Hermes statues in a drunken revel, a deed for which he was sentenced to death, in absentia.

  38. Brilliant movie. Also featuring the first transracial person!

  39. The author seems to be using Nordic as a synonym for white or Aryan (Indo-European). If we followed his lead, we’d have to invent a new word for those currently called Nordic (the Scandinavians).

    I tend to agree that the use of the term “Nordic” in this article is rather ambiguous and probably not the best choice. The overwhelming textual evidence regarding the appearance of the Classical Greeks and Romans focuses on their apparent coloration, especially with regard to their hair and eye-colors, and seems to indicate they probably looked much more like today’s Northern Europeans than today’s Southern Europeans. But since I think Northern Slavics are about as likely to be blond and blue-eyed as Germanics or Scandinavians, it doesn’t really help us with those fine distinctions. And although I’m absolutely no expert, the features on those statues seem a bit wider than the stereotypical narrow-faced “Nordic type” and perhaps a bit more like the wider-faced “Alpines.” So I think it might be better to use a slightly different and broader classification and say that the Ancients probably looked much more like “Nords” than like “Meds,” though obviously not exactly like either of those modern-day categories.

    As I mentioned a few days ago in a comment on a different thread, none of this should really surprise us. After all, pretty much everyone agrees that the Ancient Greeks—Achaicans, Ionians, and Dorians—were mostly the descendents of Indo-European tribes that swept down out of the north and conquered that part of Southern Europe, much like their Keltic and Germanic cousins were to do some centuries later in various other places. So shouldn’t we naturally expect them to have looked a lot like those other Northern peoples, being fair-skinned, with blond hair and blue eyes quite common?

    • Replies: , ,
  40. Well put. “much like their Keltic and Germanic cousins were to do some centuries later” when Goths (whose name derived from Gotland in Sweden) both conquered and eventually blended in with the Romans and peoples of Spain.

  41. Respectfully Jason Sims you really ought to leave historical genetics to the experts. It is a new field, it isn’t a slight if you don’t know much about it, it is a new developing field of science.

    When Unz review’s own Razib Khan talks about historical genetics he does so as a fact based scientist discussing the actual evidence. What we are on the verge of possessing is data libraries of ancient DNA which scientists can interpret to make fact based conclusions about when, where, and to what degree one population was replaced by another. We live in interesting times because historical genetics (it is such a new field I don’t know what to call it) is allowing us accurate pictures into our hidden past.

    The time of pointing at a statue and saying “hey that classical greek guy sure looks nordic to me” as the final word are gladly coming to an end.

    • Replies:
  42. ” After all, pretty much everyone agrees that the Ancient Greeks—Achaicans, Ionians, and Dorians—were mostly the descendents of Indo-European tribes ”

    I’m not sure if that’s actually uncontroversial. Greek has a lot of non-IE words, there must have been a substantial pre-IE substrate.
    Frankly, I don’t think Mr Sims’ article adds anything worthwhile, it seems to be just a rehash of the sort of Nordicism popular a hundred years ago with historians like Tenney Frank. You’ve got some very interesting and knowledgeable bloggers here like Razib Khan…but other contributors seem to be pretty low-quality (and sometimes crazy). Maybe you should be a bit more discriminating in your choice of authors.

    • Replies:
  43. That Amphipolis Casta Tomb looks like a mural. In which case the hair colour could be due to age decay in paint colour. The same colour can be found in the chariot, for instance.

  44. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Harrison Simian says Athenians were the least Nordic of the Greeks.

    We need to remember that Athenians were the most imaginative, innovative, and inventive.

    So the notion that Greeks needed Nordic blood to achieve stuff is far-fetched if we use Simian’s logic.

    Also, Persians were a great people too. As were the Ancient Egyptians(before they turned too Negro-ish).

    Anyway, Nordicist thinkers argued that just about everything great was achieved by ‘Aryans’ who were supposedly Nordic-like(even if not originated in Nordic nations). Hitler, for example, argued that even the original Egyptians were ‘Aryans’.
    This seems crackpot.

    One thing for sure, Greeks were a European-Caucasian people, and in this, they had much more in common with other Europeans than with North Africans.
    But some Greeks were genetically closer to Persians than to Northern Europeans, but then Persians were caucasian too and still are though of the Roosh beardo swarthy variety.

    There’s some degree of eek-it’s-a-greek syndrome among the Nordicists.
    Because the Greek Classical World came to be so idealized, idolized, and revered, it was a culture shock for many whites of the North to find modern day Greece to be so unspectacular. So, they romanticized the past. (It’s like a lot of people idealize spiritual India but are shocked to find a stinko nation where people shit all over and act like grubsters.)

    But let’s see a few things in perspective. Greeks were truly great only for a few centuries and that was it. From Homer to Aristotle basically. That was when Greeks were doing stuff that NO ONE else were doing. But then, Greeks sort of lost it. They still had ups and downs but no longer a seminal people whose ideas and ways changed humanity.
    Greeks under Roman rule, as Byzantines, under Turkish rule, and thereafter were hardly special at anything. And Greeks never ever regained their greatness. This is so different from Jews whose greatness always came back somehow. Jews have been great for 1000s of yrs. Greeks were great for a few centuries. So great that they are still remembered. But apart from those centuries, there is little there.

    We also need to keep in mind that the problems of today’s Greece were very much present in old Greece. Even at their height, Greeks were a bickering and quarrelsome lot, which is why they failed to unite into a nation. City-states squabbled endlessly among one another. It was the same reason why modern Italy fell behind other nations that united faster. Italian city-states were short-sighted in their locality.
    Geeks were drama queens, which is why they invented drama. And Greeks gave homos a lot of space to vent their fury, and we know homos are the biggest drama queens of all.
    Homos can be expressive and imaginative but also overly indulgent, and it could be that too many homos prancing about made Greece a kind of a silly place. And how long could Spartan society survived when its initiating rite involved ass-humping by older warriors? Talk about hazing and ‘rape culture’.
    Also, the cult of Greek competitiveness made Greeks focus on beating everyone to be like Achilles. The cult of hero undermined the need for unity and cooperation. Recall that Achilles nearly jeopardizes the entire war plan because of his wounded ego. His ego counted for more than the good of the whole. This is the danger of modern day libertarianism that emphasized individual narcissism and self-aggrandizement above all else. Trump candidacy is bemusing because here is the ultimate self-centered individualist appealing to the masses for what is ‘good for the country’. But then Elvis the King of Rock n Roll claimed to be a good mama’s boy, a good southern lad who addressed older men as ‘sir’, and a devout Christian humble before the Lord. I guess Americans go for weird dualities.
    Greek invention of the Olympics was a great thing, but Greeks took the cult of individual competition too far, and Olympics in the ancient world were ugly affairs. Bloodfests in fact. It was the Brits who invented modern day sportsmanship and turned the neo-Olympics into a festivity of grace and sportsmanship, as seen in CHARIOTS OF FIRE. But with the rise of Negro jivery, sports culture has turned into Claudia-Rankin-the-Stankin-Serena-Williams Fest.
    In some ways, the Greek way was independent-minded, but it was often uncooperative and short-sighted, which is why Greeks fell prey to Macedonians and then to Romans.

    Also, Greece and Rome are proof of the dangers of living off past capital. True, they achieved great things, but such greatness made them complacent. They could just lean back on their past achievement and feel smugly superior. Same happened to Chinese, which is why they stopped progressing and then fell prey to the Europeans. French fell into the same rut.

    Another thing we need to keep in mind. A people can be racially more like people A but culturally closer to people B. Look at modern Japan in the early 2oth century. They were racially Asian like Chiners and Mongols but they became markedly Westernized and, in that sense, were more like Europeans in some way.
    So, we need to remember that while Ancient Greeks were racially closer to northern Europeans, they were culturally closer to Near Easterners and North Africans.

    The article by Harrison Simian seems to argue that Greeks and Romans became less spectacular cuz they mixed more with southern people.
    It’s interesting that Jews became more spectacular as they mixed with northern Europeans. Sephardic Jews of the Middle East didn’t become Einsteins and such, but Ashkenazi Jews did. Was it Northern blood was a boost to Jews or because Ashkenazi Jews practiced eugenics that favored smarter Jews?

    Another thing. It’s often not been the case that the people who are best at something necessarily invented that thing. Blacks didn’t invent basketball but they are better at it. Japanese invented Karate, but I’ll bet a German with black belt in karate can whup a tiny Japper with a black belt in karate. Indians invented chess, but Jews are best at it.

    It may have been possible that northern european barbarians were more intelligent than advanced peoples of the Near East and Mediterranean. Then, why did the southern folks achieve more? There was more trade and exchange of ideas among people of that region who lived in warm places between Europe, Asia, and Africa. So, ideas came from all around.
    In contrast, northerners, smart as they were, were isolated.

    Or maybe the Germanic barbarians weren’t so smart but became smarter later on with the rise of a form of Christianity that favored the breeding of smarter folks. We know Catholicism sucked a lot of smart people into celibate priesthood. I dunno.
    FAREWELL TO ARMS seem to suggest that British rise in IQ was relatively recent due to socio-economic practices.

    • Replies: , ,
  45. ” After all, pretty much everyone agrees that the Ancient Greeks—Achaicans, Ionians, and Dorians—were mostly the descendents of Indo-European tribes ”

    I’m not sure if that’s actually uncontroversial. Greek has a lot of non-IE words, there must have been a substantial pre-IE substrate.

    Well, I don’t think anyone claims that the Ancient Greeks were pure descendants of the various Hellenic tribes that had swept down from the north, let alone that they didn’t pick up lots of words from the peoples they conquered.

    In fact, I seem to recall that the Athenians in particular claimed they were actually the descendants of people who’d always lived on the Attic Peninsula (my memory might be playing tricks on me). And perhaps it’s more than coincidence that their very well-known Attic pottery tends to show black curly hair and somewhat darkish skin. Meanwhile, most of the textual evidence for blond or red hair and blue eyes seems to come from descriptions of the various Dorian peoples, such as the Spartans and Thebans, as well as closely-related groups farther north, such as the Thracians and Macedonians.

    But just in the same way, nobody claims today’s Germans are of 100% pure Germanic ancestry, and I have the impression they’re considerably less likely to have blondish hair than Scandinavians.

    • Replies: ,
  46. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Greece was heads and shoulders at its intellectual peak, arguably during the Hellenistic period, above anything the Middle East, including Egypt, ever accomplished.”

    Egyptian and Persian architecture were just as awesome, in some ways awesomer.

    Only a handful of Greek philosophers really made a difference. And even the greatest, Aristotle, was more often wrong than right.

    I think what made Greeks a bit more special was they put signatures on stuff. They made a big fuss about which individual did what, and that fired off a lot of competitiveness.

    In contrast, even men of talent in other civilizations contributed stuff to society as nameless servants of their lords.
    In that, it’s true that the Greeks did achieve more since individualism and personalism incentivized every talented person to ‘make a name for himself’. In other cultures, it was bad form to make a name for yourself. You had to use your talent to serve the ‘higher power’ or the ‘higher good’.

    We can see this in capitalism vs communism. Under capitalism, people like steve jobs and bill gates have incentives to achieve more to make a name for themselves. Under communism, individuals must contribute their talent for the good of the whole. Less incentive.

    Even so, most of Greek creative energy didn’t lead to much of anything. It is why Greeks complained of sophistry. People who sounded smart and original but were style and no substance.

  47. I get the subtext–Nordic types are responsible for all the civilization we love–but what if your theory doesn’t hold up with genetic evidence? Seems to me white civilization has enough to recommend it without theories about the ancient world. We know what happens when it wanes–look at Detroit.

    Does Razib have anything to add? He’s the expert here.

    The question of the racial type(s) of the ancient Greeks and Romans stands on its own. It’s not like it decides the question for the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, etc., so, no, the subtext you refer to isn’t necessary (i.e., no, Nordic types are not responsible for all the civilization we love.).

    Sunbeam: arms got a rough ride, too.

    Seems highly dubious to me; for classical Greeks and Romans the northern barbarians were the “Other” and it probably wouldn’t be difficult to find statements contrasting their appearance with that of the Romans (e.g. the elder Pliny in his Natural History). And what’s the implication of that thesis? That modern Italians and Greeks aren’t “white”? I think that’s a very dangerous claim, especially from a “white nationalist” perspective. Can Europeans and European-descended peoples really afford in-fighting because of some Nordicist phantasms? I don’t think so.

    Intra-racial integration paved the way for inter-racial integration. Fuck the lot. Self-determination uber alles. Meaning, no “white” party line on the issue. Anyone who insists on one or the other (Nordicism, pan-Euro-ism, peanut butter, chocolate, peanut butter + chocolate) might as well join the left.

    Robert999
    says:

    August 29, 2015 at 3:22 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The invention of civilization had more to do with carrying capacity than HBD, per se. E.g., the Roman Empire (might as well say the Romans weren’t worth much, since they borrowed everything from the Greeks) was founded on the best piece of real estate in Europe. Certainly no coincidence that. Mesopotamia wasn’t Mesopotamia because it was founded by brown people, it was Mesopotamia because it was great real estate.

    The HBD aspect comes in when people are exposed to civilization. E.g., Didn’t take Germanics long to adopt Roman civilization and completely remake the face of Europe, while Bantus still do nothing despite the Internet.

  48. “That in and of itself doesn’t tell us anything. Some of these people were saying that not just the Greeks and Romans but the Egyptians, Arabs, Muhammad and Genghis Khan were Nordic:”

    I know Ron Unz believes that ancient Egyptians all looked like Ryan Gosling and Reese Witherspoon, in other words Cairo was just as blond as Stockholm.

  49. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    The time of pointing at a statue and saying “hey that classical greek guy sure looks nordic to me” as the final word are gladly coming to an end.

    Yes, I’ve never understood this claim. How can one tell with the statues that aren’t painted, most of which aren’t? Nordics are Caucasians with very light hair and eye colors, basically blond haired and blue eyed. Without painting, it’s impossible to tell. Furthermore, depictions don’t necessarily tell us what people looked like. There is European art that depicts Jesus and other Biblical figures as Nordic. Japanese anime features people with light hair and eye colors. Etc.

  50. But let’s see a few things in perspective. Greeks were truly great only for a few centuries and that was it. From Homer to Aristotle basically. That was when Greeks were doing stuff that NO ONE else were doing.

    Jews have been great for 1000s of yrs.

    Your definitions seem to be shifting as you go along. What did the Jews ever do to put themselves on the same footing with the truly great period of the Greeks?

    • Replies: ,
  51. “Blue eyes are common among Greeks especially. In the Greek-American community near me, blue and green eyes seem predominant.”

    Only 10 percent of Greek people have blue eyes, which is far from predominant.

    http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4581457/1/

    • Replies:
  52. “and I have the impression they’re considerably less likely to have blondish hair than Scandinavians.”

    In fact there’s a discernible difference between Northern and Southern Germany. I grew up in a small town in Lower Franconia and my impression was that most of the locals whose families had been established in the region for generations, didn’t look stereotypically Nordic at all. Lots of dark hair and brown eyes. I had two classmates (of no recent non-German ancestry that I knew of) with pretty brownish skin who in my opinion could easily have been mistaken for stereotypical Sicilians. Very different from what you’d probably see among native Germans in Northern Germany.
    Concerning ancient Greece, yes, to my knowledge, blonde hair is explicitly attested in ancient sources for some places like Thebes. But I still think Mr Sims’ article is pretty silly…I’m always suspicious of people who make claims like “Ancient Greeks and Italians were nothing like today’s Greeks and Italians”, usually there’s some agenda behind it. It’s often connected to Nordicist racial theories which claim Rome was brought down by race mixing and that modern Italians and Greeks are the degenerate descendants of slaves and Oriental/African immigrants.

    • Replies: , , ,
  53. It might have been accidental. Whacking does not usually damage a penis.

  54. “In fact there’s a discernible difference between Northern and Southern Germany. I grew up in a small town in Lower Franconia and my impression was that most of the locals whose families had been established in the region for generations, didn’t look stereotypically Nordic at all. Lots of dark hair and brown eyes. I had two classmates (of no recent non-German ancestry that I knew of) with pretty brownish skin who in my opinion could easily have been mistaken for stereotypical Sicilians. Very different from what you’d probably see among native Germans in Northern Germany.”

    Former player for the German national football team Michael Ballack does not look stereotypically German. He definitely does not look Nordic.

    http://sportsdaily.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Michael-Ballack.jpg

    http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/LegoDude1995/ME/ballack.jpg

    http://www.lavozlibre.com/userfiles/2a_decada/image/FOTOS%202012/10%20OCTUBRE%202012/18%20OCTUBRE%202012/ballack.jpg

    http://www.images99.com/i99/02/57326/57326.jpg

    http://www.express.de/image/view/2012/1/21/11682398,9543367,highRes,XSP02A_71-31372913_ori.jpg

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eGvpCHZe7Yc/UB1LVlJtDQI/AAAAAAAACds/vDAUxIYdeDM/s400/Michael-Ballack-picture1.jpg

    Michael Ballack would not look out of place on the Portuguese national football team for example.

    • Replies:
  55. Let’s see.

    1. Great Jewish architecture that has influenced architectural designs worldwide?
    2. Invention of algebra and calculus?
    3. Development of the math of optics?
    4. Explanation of the celestial mechanics?
    5. Creating the musical idioms that gave foundation for today’s music?
    6. Founding the medical sciences?
    7. Creating the engineering marvels that became an example for many generations of inventors?

    None of the above was produced by Jewish civilization. However, many great Jewish talents flourished in the context of European civilization that as created, collectively, by various European nations where Jewish men and women found their home. It was the access to the achievements of European civilization that allowed the Jews to make their contribution (to the European civilization, not to the nonexistent Jewish civilization). Before that, Jews had access to the scientific achievements of Arab civilization and they excelled in the Arab lands.

    A fabulous story of Greece and Greeks is very different.

    • Replies: , , ,
  56. Nordicist theories always come from people who aren’t particularly Nordic. Hitler, for instance, could have easily been mistaken for an intense-looking Albanian taxi driver.

    • Replies:
  57. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Recent films about ancient Greece such as Troy, Helen of Troy, and 300, have used actors who are of Anglo-Saxon or Celtic ancestry (e.g. Brad Pitt, Gerard Butler).

    Gerard Butler also played Attila the Hun:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkhstwMG2QQ

    • Replies:
  58. True based on my extensive travels and residence in Germany and Scandinavia. Much of modern Germany was once inhabited by Celts and also by the Latins who arrived during the Roman Imperium.

  59. Imagine if it were done to African statuary (if there were any of note). We could have entire university programs devoted to the assault on righteous homeboy masculinity. Oh wait.

  60. Gerard Butler also played Attila the Hun

    So did John Cleese

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-x6FBuF4JM

  61. I don’t have definite numbers, but I’d say only a minority of Germans look like the Nordic ideal. In a way even Hitler recognised this; apparently he stated during his table talk that Germans were no longer truly Nordic like Scandinavians (he blamed ethnic mixing during the Thirty Years war for this) and that steps would have to be taken to reverse this alleged decline by special breeding programs.
    Ballack is from Upper Lusatia near present-day Germany’s Eastern border. In general it’s likely that Eastern Germans are to a significant degree descended from Slavs who were germanized during the High and Late Middle Ages. Seems even to be discernible at the genetic level (I think Razib Khan alluded to this in a post a while ago, but I’m too lazy too dig it up now).

    • Replies: ,
  62. Correction fail. They are masculine/feminine variants.

    • Replies:
  63. This reads like something from the 1930s.

    First of all, forget with you thought you knew. Secondly, learn what ancient DNA is.

    Light pigmentation was not common anywhere until the Middle Bronze Age, when it started to reach frequencies similar to those in present-day Northern and Eastern Europe among Kurgan groups of the Eurasian steppe.

    However, this happened a couple thousand years after the Proto-Indo-European dispersals into southeastern Europe.

    We don’t yet have any pigmentation data from these specific early Indo-Europeans, but we do have some from their ancestors on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and they’re mostly brown eyed and dark haired.

    So it’s rather unlikely that ancient DNA will paint a picture of blond, blue-eyed “Aryans” swooping down on ancient Greece and Italy, and then mixing with the swarthy locals.

    What we’ll probably see is evidence of a migration of a people from the steppe with pigmentation similar to that found among present-day Greeks. And in terms of genetic ancestry they won’t resemble either present-day Northern or Southern Europeans; they will be more eastern than any Europeans alive today.

    This is how the modern European gene pool formed all over, except there was more steppe influence in the north than in the south. But the reason Northern Europeans are lighter than southern Europeans is because of strong recent selection, which favored lighter hair, eyes and skin in the north.

  64. “Nordicist theories always come from people who aren’t particularly Nordic. Hitler, for instance, could have easily been mistaken for an intense-looking Albanian taxi driver.”

    Do Albanian taxi drivers always look angry?

  65. ” Northern Italy is one of the wealthiest areas of the world.”

    Where did you get that?

    • Replies:
  66. Annamarina:

    Algebra was invented by the Babylonians, a Semitic people.

    Respectfully,

    Thales the Milesian of Greek and Phoenician, i.e. Semitic, ancestry.

    • Replies: ,
  67. If Ballack looks Slavic then I’m a monkey.

  68. Davidski says

    “This reads like something from the thirties”

    He is absolutely right. It appears that the writer of this article and almost every single commentator is completely unaware of what we have learned from ancient DNA.

  69. In fact there’s a discernible difference between Northern and Southern Germany. I grew up in a small town in Lower Franconia and my impression was that most of the locals whose families had been established in the region for generations, didn’t look stereotypically Nordic at all. Lots of dark hair and brown eyes. I had two classmates (of no recent non-German ancestry that I knew of) with pretty brownish skin who in my opinion could easily have been mistaken for stereotypical Sicilians.

    Yes, I’d also had that same impression. I think many of the leading anthropologists of a century ago believed that the German population gradient may partly have been a consequence of the devastation wrought by the Thirty Years War, during which Germany’s entire population was reduced by something like 1/3 or even 1/2. The idea is that after the war finally ended, lots of people from south of Germany moved up to fill the resulting depopulated vacuum and became Germans by assimilation during the 400 years that followed.

    • Replies:
  70. The frightened Caesar’s soldiers at first as they were much taller. He has to give a pep talk.

    • Replies:
  71. “What will surprise no one here is that many of these same quotes can be found in the modern academic literature, only with careful expurgations.”

    Would be helpful if could you share them and educate people on the underground truth the ancient Greco-Romans were Nordic Aryan Demigods and that this guy isn’t a charlatan (he is).

  72. You mean that Iraq belongs to Jewish civilization? – “Babylonia was an ancient Akkadian-speaking Semitic state and cultural region based in central-southern Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq).”

    Compare a rich history of the Semitic state of Babylonia to a story of a puny kingdom:

    “The earliest mention of the city of Babylon can be found in a tablet from the reign of Sargon of Akkad (2334–2279 BC), dating back to the 23rd century BC… Babylon greatly expanded during the reign of Hammurabi in the first half of the 18th century BC, becoming a major capital city… ”

    “The Kingdom of Israel emerged as an important local power by the 9th century BCE before falling to the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 722 BCE.

    Semitic people: “A Semite is a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples, mostly originating in the Near East, including: Akkadians (Assyrians and Babylonians), Ammonites, Amorites, Arameans, Chaldeans, Canaanites (including Hebrews/Israelites/Jews/Palestinians/Samaritans and Phoenicians/Carthaginians), Eblaites, Dilmunites, Edomites, Amalekites, Turukku, Ethiopian Semites, Hyksos, Arabs, Nabateans, Maltese, Mandaeans, Mhallami, Moabites, Shebans, Meluhhans, Maganites, Ubarites, Sabians and Ugarites.”

    It does not seem that “Semitic” (re the history of algebra) means “Jewish.” According to the above quotation, the “Hebrews/Israelites/Jews/Palestinians/Samaritans” make together a subgroup for Canaanites.

    • Replies:
  73. “Most classical historians today are silent on the subject. For example, Paul Cartledge, a professor of Greek culture at Cambridge, writes about his specialty, Sparta, for educated but non-academic readers, yet nowhere that I can find does he discuss the racial origins of the Spartans. Some years ago I asked several classics professors about the race of the ancient Greeks only to be met with shrugs that suggested that no one knew, and that it was not something worth looking into. Today, an interest in the race of the ancients seems to be taken as an unhealthy sign, and any evidence of their Nordic origins discounted for fear it might give rise to dangerous sentiments.”

    They’re “silent” because it’s accepted beyond just about any reasonable doubt they were of southern europe heritage. Even putting aside the idea that many are fearful of “nazi” connotations, I myself take it as an unhealthy sign because it doesn’t help Europeans at all* to introduce this division among ourselves and denigrate southern europeans by variously questioning whether they’re white or their history wasn’t truly their own (and basically acting like indigenous european people can’t have olive skin). It’s hard to tell whether the author thinks modern Greco-Romans aren’t white or that they’re just darker than they were in the past (but still white), but some of the quotations here are laughable- the references to “fair women” can hardly be considered distinctively related to specific european ethnicity and are a motif of female beauty that can be found outside of Europe (even in East Asia) without much difficulty. It’s hardly the case light hair and eyes were absent among ancient southern europeans (they can also be found in small numbers among many middle eastern populations), and I find it incredibly hard to believe the ancient Hellenes were frequently red haired. Where’s the genetic evidence for it, or better yet, modern physical evidence? Red hair may be recessive but if it was more common in the past, it would be hardly difficult to find in some small numbers in modern Greece, but it’s virtually absent today. Do you really think this trait basically disappeared? I do like this tendency of nordicists pining on about red hair, it’s frequencies reach only about 10% in Britain and Ireland and it’s in the single digits (or less) everywhere else it’s found in Europe. Not as crazy as claiming Ghenghis Khan was a redhead though (somehow, his genetic signature, shared by millions of men in Central Asia, hasn’t been linked to an increased frequency of the trait, nevermind why you’d want someone as evil as him to be white.)

    *It’s not entirely isolated though, since Richard Lynn, who’s provided the overwhelming majority of IQ data on which people rely with race, has in recent years gone on to claim southern europeans (and balkan whites) are racially mixed, that Sicilians are as dumb as mexicans, that Albanians are dumber than American blacks etc.

  74. I’m also uncertain what to make of the claims in this article and would also like to wait for confirmation from ancient genetics as to the likely pigmentation of the typical ancient Greek and Roman. However, I think the author has brought forward a good deal of literary and artistic evidence concerning light pigmentation among the ancients and I haven’t seen the critics bring forward any coherent critique of that evidence.

  75. “Simply look at ancient Greek and Roman sculpture and you’ll see faces entirely unlike those of today–especially in the case of Greeks. Hair color is a comparatively trivial matter.”

    How in any way do those look entirely like those of today? It’s way more bizarre you think there’s anything distinctively nordic about those statues and that modern Greeks and Italians look like brown, beak-nosed neanderthals. Some of those statues you post also have very wavy or outright curly hair, a trait much more common in southern europeans (and found in many other statues from back then.)

  76. Even if somehow, ancient greco-romans were predominantly light eyed (or as light eyed as modern northern europeans) and they mixed with dark eyed peoples, it would be very hard for light eyes (or light hair colors) to decrease drastically in frequency (even if they were non-whites, and if they were just other, darker europeans, it would be harder still). They aren’t purely recessive traits as many people believe and it wouldn’t be hard for frequencies to bounce back in subsequent generations. Lots of american blacks have light eyes too, for example. The reason you only really see american blacks with light hair when they have light skin is because the light hair alleles (with the possible exception of red hair) are masked in dark skinned individuals (a contrast to the ones found in australoids), but shouldn’t have any trouble appearing in olive skinned people. It would take some pretty striking genetic changes in these populations, with possibly bottlenecks to some degree, to dramatically decrease the frequency of these traits. Where’s any evidence for that?

    • Replies:
  77. Dienekes doesn’t deal in real science.

    His babble about the two recent aDNA studies on the ancient steppe expansions was very entertaining, but hardly anything to do with real science.

  78. Going off the nordic ideal, there’s also something called the “greek ideal” with respect to ancient Greek art, and it’s exactly that, an ideal. Greco-Roman statues frequently exhibited what’s been called a “greek profile” (google it, or “greek profile nose”, a very straight, nearly vertical continuity of the nose to the forehead of which few people have, whether in Europe or elsewhere. I’ve also noticed ancient Greek art, whether statues, paintings etc. often depicted rather long noses, and southern europeans (and for that matter, eastern europeans) have longer noses than northern ones.

    I know many people dislike Anthroscape (and John Baker was to a sizable degree a crank), but this quote is relevant and mostly true from everything I’ve seen: http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/1388539/1/#new

    “The continuity of the two slopes, with no alteration of slope or sunken region in the vicinity of the nasion, is unknown in any ethnic taxon of man(though well exhibited, for instance, by the Bornean leaf-monkey, Presbytis rubicundus rubudus).”

    Saying it’s “unknown in any ethnic taxon of man” is a stretch, but I can’t say I’ve seen many people with noses like what you see in ancient Greek art. Nevermind that a people’s beauty ideal doesn’t necessarily reflect how they typically look.

    • Replies: , ,
  79. “stereotypical Sicilians. ”

    like this one

    http://crimetimepreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/4301506-low_res-young-montalbano-300×200.jpg

    or this one

    http://diversamenteaff-abile.gazzetta.it/files/2013/05/Cesare-Bocci-500×336.jpg

  80. “stereotypical Sicilians. ”

    like this one

    http://crimetimepreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/4301506-low_res-young-montalbano-300×200.jpg

    or this one

    http://diversamenteaff-abile.gazzetta.it/files/2013/05/Cesare-Bocci-500×336.jpg

  81. I read this article before but forgot the author ends off with arguing that the ancient greco-romans lost these traits because they mixed with non-whites. Uh huh. Then it goes into how northern europeans were idolized by the Romans as an ideal of what they once were. It doesn’t mention that not only did some major Roman writers then disparage the paleness of northern european men, but get this, they (along with the Greeks) made many efforts even before then to physically distinguish themselves from northern europeans yet never considered them a separate race. The whole thing about the last Roman writers lamenting how degenerate Romans had become through race mixing and idolizing northern europeans as an example of a pure stock, basically what they once were, is crazy. I haven’t read Germania or many of Tacitus’ other writings about northern europeans, but I’m pretty sure you won’t find any lines claiming that this is what Romans used to look more like, or that they were basically the same people in the not too distant past, or really at all considering them particularly close to them (the fact the article doesn’t provide any seems like good evidence of this, nevermind that Tacitus had a large number of negative things to say about the Germans, so they didn’t truly consider them morally superior). The quote from Tertullian about Roman women dying their hair like Germans is nonsensical- why is he lamenting this when they would be mimicking what they used to look more like and considering this a case of self-hatred, trying to more resemble a different ethnic group, and presumably, all of these Roman women going out of their way to dye their hair lighter would likely be mixed? The only piece of evidence provided that indicates any of these fantasies are true is the one from Juvenal (no source given), and considering he was a satirist, it’s hard to say just from this he was being serious.

    I can’t fully comment on everything in this article, but I’ve often read many claims of references to light hair/eyes etc. are mistranslations, and many of the pieces of evidence here- the references to skin tone with women, the claims of light hair and eyes (and especially red hair) being so much more common in the past, the claims Greco-Roman statuary looked at all particularly northern european, that the late Roman writers compared themselves to the Germans as some kind of example of what they literally once were- are all garbage. And it does affirm the the snark from the author that a serious interest like this in questioning whether the Greco-Romans were nordic and therefore modern southern europeans aren’t white is unhealthy, because it serves to wrongfully and needlessly divide european people, and that nordicists are crazy.

  82. As an addendum, I want to emphasize again how difficult it would be for light hair and eyes to dramatically decrease in frequency, even if the scenario I outlined at the beginning of this post occurred. I have often seen american mulattos with light eyes, much more often than typical american blacks, and this is because the black parent had alleles for light eyes that were simply unexpressed because of how much less common they are in american blacks, but became easily visible in the mixed offspring. A large, extensive breeding non-white/northern european population would still have light eyes at high frequencies (and hair, assuming the non-white population was light enough.) Nordicists (or anybody who makes the argument that the ancient Greco-Romans look much different from how they did in the past) greatly exaggerate how difficult it would be to breed out light hair/eye alleles (especially red hair, and I haven’t even mentioned how those recessive for red hair have greatly increased sensitivity to the sun, sunburn, freckling, skin cancer etc. which are hardly difficult features to detect) and therefore have a poor understanding of genetics, and to that end, I have never seen them provide any genetic evidence that would support any population structure that would go in line with something like these traits greatly decreasing in frequency over the years. Nevermind actually examining the evolution of alleles for light hair and eyes in these populations. The claimed genetic evidence (of which the article provides absolutely none) I’ve seen for nordicist claims about ancient Greece and Rome is even worse than the supposed historical/archaeological/artistic evidence- why should the latter be any better in the long run?

    • Replies: ,
  83. “In Ancient Rome, the idiot Romans brought black Africans to serve as slaves and to fight as gladiators, and these Negroes humped white women, even elite women who developed jungalo fever. Thankfully the decadent Romans fell and Germanic barbarian Europeans swept through all of Italy.”

    Haha, “The romans got so decadent they started importing negro slaves and roman women started sleeping with them, but thankfully, the northern barbarians swept through and destroyed their civilization.” I don’t think you thought this one through. Or did you think the german tribes were upending the decadent elites alone and didn’t engage in plenty of plunder, looting rape and murder themselves? You refer to how there needs to be “neo-barbarism” and how we have to mimic iron age tribesmen who often painted themselves blue, fought in the nude and acted more like blacks than you seem to readily admit (0r maybe you do, and all that matters it is kept the darkies out), so I guess you’re just not too bright/sane. The salvation of Europe doesn’t lay with tattooed skinheads who are and always will be rightfully seen as among the worst examples of white people.

    • Replies: , ,
  84. The idea is that after the war finally ended, lots of people from south of Germany moved up to fill the resulting depopulated vacuum and became Germans by assimilation during the 400 years that followed.

    For what I know, in what is now South-West Germany there was no (well, not much) assimilation necessary because the new settlers came mostly from the German-speaking parts of Switzerland. In what is now E/NE Germany new settlers were a mixture of immigrants from Switzerland, Bohemia, Austria, the Netherlands & France. The only immigrants from non-German(ic) areas seem to have been the Huguenots & they only numbered a few tens of thousands. So, population structure doesn’t seem to have been affected that much after the war.

  85. The statues of Emperors are an excellent resource if you have any artistic sensibility and one can quite easily gain a sense of ethnicity without any coloring. i.e. If you can look the bust of General Titus (of the Judean wars) and think that he looks more like a Scandinavian, rather than say Joe Pesci–then you don’t belong in this conversation.

    If the description of Augustus– “His complexion was between dark and fair.”– means Nordic, well we are going to have to rewrite the dictionary.

    When the Ancient Gauls are described as “…tall of body, with rippling muscles, and white of skin, and their hair is blond (Book V. 28. 1).” Then you know there’s a clear delineation between both tribes.

    In fact, in almost every conflict Romans have with the Northern Tribes, we find descriptors of them being fairer and taller.

    The most laughable thing here though is the complete absence of information on the Etruscans. The Etruscans contribute a majority of what we term “Roman civilization” and well, wait ’til you get a load of them. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Etruscan_Painting_1.jpg
    https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art-civilizations/etruscan/a/the-etruscans-an-introduction

    But look, in an age where people trust television and comic book illustrations (like the one used at the top of this article lol)–why bother with actual science and archaeological evidence? Let’s just keep making up whatever makes us feel better.

    • Replies:
  86. “I can’t say I’ve seen many people with noses like what you see in ancient Greek art.”

    No, e.g. one surveyist (Abraham Tamir) found only 3% in his sample. But it is an extant nose form and one that is widely recognised. So maybe, the nose form just didn’t proliferate.

    Examples include Prince Lorenzo Borghese, Sylvester Stallone. It seems to be also in Sardinians so maybe it was a feature of EEF http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/10116/sard.girl-2b-art-y.jpg or maybe it was a later development, through sexual selection perhaps.

    The Greek nose seems to be less prevalent in light hair/eye people but Bondi Vet comes close.

  87. “I could now see that he was a white man like myself and that his features were even pleasing. His skin, wherever it was exposed, was burnt by the sun; even his lips were black, and his fair eyes looked quite startling in so dark a face. ”

    Ay! Old Ben Gunn were of the Nordic race, too!!

  88. Many of you out there in bright folks blog land would love to learn more about the quickly emerging science of historical genetics. Literally our long lost past is being rediscovered by the nearly complete retrieval of people that died up to 50,000 years ago. What people commenting at this blog thread can only dream about (and in some cases babble on about nearly endlessly about ) is actually being revealed.

    I am not a specialist in the field, I am just an interested dilettante like the rest of you. But I have been reading the blog Gene Expressions that Razib Khan writes right here at Unz reveiw and if you want to follow this fascinating science field as it continues to develop I suggest you start reading it.

    As of right now we are learning of multiple population changes and in some cases near complete replacements in our past because of our new found ability to recover ancient DNA and interpret it. The news unearthed in just the last year has rewritten parts of our past. We are going to find out the degree to which populations living around the Mediterranean darkened since classical times because of the infusion of African genes. It isn’t that it happened, the question is how much, and when, and where and of course why. Stay tuned.

  89. In what manner were the primitive Hebrews of 2000 years ago great? There have been small, individual accomplishments of various individuals who consider themselves to be “Jews”, but great in comparison to what? Judaism, as practiced by the Hebrews, was a primitive religion that called for crazy sacrifices and self-mutilation. Its offshoots, Christianity and Islam also have some wacky practices, but were mostly the achievement of people who did not call themselves “Jews.” Outside of religious thought, Jewish excellence in science was more because of their access to Western Universities and freedoms. The age of the “Jewish scientist” is pretty recent and carried out mostly by secular Jews who were more a part of their individual nation than the Jewish nation. Israel is a young country that survives only because the West, the US in particular, props it up. We’ll see about their accomplishments in a century or two, if they survive. By the way, Jewish IQ (not Arab) in Israel is listed between 90 and 100 depending on the site, hardly indicative of future great achievement.

    • Replies:
  90. Annamarina:

    I am in agreement with you 100%.

    I did not mean to imply Jews invented algebra. Absolutely not!

    All I wanted to say is that not everything was Greek invention.

    I myself am a Cyrillic Orthodox Slav and I worship Ancient Greece.

    In a previous incarnation I was an Athenian.

    • Replies:
  91. I am in complete harmony with your athenian musing.

  92. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Or did you think the german tribes were upending the decadent elites alone and didn’t engage in plenty of plunder, looting rape and murder themselves?”

    They were looting for whiteness and raping with whiteness, thereby spreading white genes.

  93. There’s also the issue that many of the Romans’ slaves were of Germanic origin as the Germanic peoples beyond the borders of the empire often sold off prisoners from their wars to slave traders from the empire. Even during the late Republic there seem to have been substantial numbers of slaves from the North in Italy (e.g. the remnants of the Cimbri and Teutones; the slaves rampaging through southern Italy under Spartacus are also described in fragments of Sallust as being Celts and Germans).
    Identifying the Romans’ slaves solely or primarily with subsaharan blacks is unjustified.

    • Replies: ,
  94. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    “The salvation of Europe doesn’t lay with tattooed skinheads who are and always will be rightfully seen as among the worst examples of white people.”

    By neo-barbarism, I don’t mean skinheads and white trash.

    I mean ANY WHITE PERSON WHO IS RILED UP AND ANGRY AND WILLING TO EMPLOY ANY MEANS NECESSARY TO BRING DOWN THE ELITES AND PUSH OUT THE INVADERS.

    There is a barbarian soul within every man, just like there is a wolf in every dog.

    Usually, mankind needs to be civilized, but there are times when you have to let the inner barbarian loose, like with the protagonist in STRAW DOGS.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXkqGVfm1mo

    So, I don’t mean “hand Europe over to ‘white trash skinheads’.” I mean “find the barbarian soul within yourself and revitalize the West with the warrior soul because all this cucky behavior is leading to total ruin.”

    The ‘unmanning’ of Europe must stop.

    Now, preferably, the invading hordes should be kept out the professional forces of military, police, and government apparatuses of civilization. Centurions should do the job so that most people can live civilized lives.
    BUT, when the very elites who control the system use the Centurions and Commissars to hunt down every last patriot as ‘heretical’, it means civilization itself has grown decadent and suicidal. Civilized order should be using its instruments to protect itself from savage/barbarian invaders, but when the very Order itself is aiding the invasion and using its systematic power to mentally and physically oppress Western patriots, then the only option left is neo-barbarianism among the whites. They must attack the system itself.

    Use whatever rage and power and violence to bring down the corrupt civilized order. And then use whatever means to drive out the invaders. And then create a new civilized order that represents the needs and ensures the survival of the Western races.

  95. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Identifying the Romans’ slaves solely or primarily with subsaharan blacks is unjustified.”

    I don’t think anyone does that.
    We’ve all seen SPARTACUS that shows how the Romans conquered and enslaved peoples from all over.

    But wherever they came from, the Roman Core became a hubbub of massive movements of peoples from all over, and that was not good for Europe.

  96. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    God.

    • Replies:
  97. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    “A reproduction of Phidias’ masterwork, Athena Parthenos.”

    The Parthenon is great, but the statue of Athena is no masterwork.

    She is made chubby and kitschy.

    This is much much better:

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/10657543@N00/6182544389

  98. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    You really are a dammy.

    Jews took ideas and stuff from all sorts of primitive and high religions/myths of the time and created the greatest religion that would also become the basis of Christianity, Islam, and even secular morality of universalism.

    Jews came up with the most profound concept of God, at least outside India. The truly great thing was the Jewish concept was both complex/profound and essential/simple.

    Jews weren’t notable for stuff like architecture and stuff because they never gained the kind of political and geographical power that other civilizations did. Also, Jewish laws against idolatry repressed certain artistic tendencies. But the favoring of ideas over idols made Jews more profoundly intellectual in some ways.
    And when Jews did build, they didn’t do so bad. Herod is considered one of the greatest builders of all time. (Some argue that Herod wasn’t really Jewish, but I don’t know).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7kbjETQFKQ

    A culture isn’t just about math, buildings, and weaponry. It is about philosophy and spirituality.

    But that aside, the reason why I say Jews were great for so long is that they kept coming back to achieve new heights. Greeks were never great again, but look at the rise of Jewish power in the modern world.

    • Replies: , , , ,
  99. “Most profound concept of God”? Are you nuts? Self mutilation, animal sacrifice, stoning for idolatry, blasphemy, homosexuality, being a rebellious son, etc. The Jewish religion of the Old Testament is the primitive religion of a primitive people. Success has come to the Jewish people as they’ve given up their superstitious beliefs, but this success is still in its infancy and we won’t know if it’s flash-pan for at least a couple hundred more years.
    Meanwhile, Greek accomplishment has stood the test of time.

    • Replies: ,
  100. Yes. And this God is a child of many fathers from previous civilizations.

    • Replies:
  101. It’s possible that the ancient Greeks and Romans were more Nordic-looking than their modern-day descendants. But it seems unlikely that their alleged ‘Nordicness’ was what allowed them to develop such great civilizations.

    If the Nordics were always so brainy and hard-working and disciplined, then why were they so primitive compared to not only Greece and Rome, but also the various Middle Eastern nations and empires, and China and India as well?

    And it’s not like they quickly caught up to these older civilizations. It took them centuries, if not millennia to start achieving the scientific and intellectual breakthroughs that the Greeks and others had pioneered many centuries before Christ.

    Charles Murray in Human Accomplishment lists a series of significant events in different scientific fields throughout history. Here is a summary of them, starting with the first significant event in the world, followed by the first significant event in the Germanic countries (using Germanic as a proxy for Nordic):

    ASTRONOMY: Greece, 500 BC; Denmark, 1572 AD
    BIOLOGY: Greece, 500 BC; England, 1628 AD
    CHEMISTRY: Greece, 440 BC; Germany, 1300 AD
    EARTH SCIENCES: Greece, 520 BC; Germany, 1546 AD
    PHYSICS: Greece, 260 BC; Netherlands, 1583 AD
    MATHEMATICS: Greece, 600 BC; England, 1120 AD
    MEDICINE: Greece, 400 BC; Germany, 1530 AD
    TECHNOLOGY: China & Egypt, 400 BC; Germany, 1502 AD

    It took the Germanics/Nordics an average of nearly 2000 years after the initial scientific breakthrough (usually by the Greeks) before they made their own significant contribution in that particular field. So what took them so long?

    Particularly when the Anglo-Germanic nations have since come to dominate all these scientific disciplines. In fact their domination has been accelerating throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Of course it’s not just Nordic types excelling at the sciences, but a significant minority of Southern and Eastern Europeans (especially Jews) and non-whites too. But the vast majority of scientific accomplishment still happens in the Anglo-Germanic nations.

    So why did they lag so far behind much of the rest of the world for 2000 long years? The Japanese picked up the white man’s science only in the mid-19th century, yet they became a major scientific, industrial and military powerhouse almost overnight.

    This leads me to believe that there was little Nordic influence on the civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome. If there was then we would have seen a lot more scientific and intellectual accomplishment north of the Alps, and a lot earlier.

    It seems like the Nordics/Germanics were a middling type of people through most of recorded history, but starting in the late Middle Ages an intellectual blossoming began, and hasn’t stopped since. The Anglo-Germanic nations utterly dominate the world today scientifically, militarily, economically, intellectually and culturally, and easily enjoy the world’s highest standard of living. But you would have been hard-pressed to guess that any of that would have happened 500 years ago.

    • Replies:
  102. That’s another great point- northern europeans were taller (and still are) in large part because of their higher rates of lactose tolerance. This is a clear cultural aspect that differentiated the two in antiquity, so why look at just hair and eye color and not something like lactose tolerance, or height differences based on skeletons, armor etc. ? Never once heard of the frequency of the lactase persistence allele declining during any period of Greco-Roman history, or that it was once more common.

  103. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Are you nuts? Self mutilation, animal sacrifice, stoning for idolatry, blasphemy, homosexuality, being a rebellious son, etc. The Jewish religion of the Old Testament is the primitive religion of a primitive people. Success has come to the Jewish people as they’ve given up their superstitious beliefs, but this success is still in its infancy and we won’t know if it’s flash-pan for at least a couple hundred more years.
    Meanwhile, Greek accomplishment has stood the test of time.”

    You moronic dammy, is that all you find in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition?

    As it stands, Jewish ways of punishment were no more barbaric than those of other cultures. Btw, stoning is terrible but humane compared to methods of killing and torture of OTHER cultures. I’d rather be stoned to death by Jews than end up at the hands of Romans who were specialists in all sorts of nasty ways of punishing folks. And Greeks and Assyrians had nasty ways of punishment too. Some of that stuff can be found in the myths themselves.
    And given the way the fruitkins are acting today, stoning them doesn’t seem all that bad. I prefer Jews of old on that issue than today’s Jews who use homos to destroy the moral system.

    Also, self-mutilation was a more serious thing in OTHER cultures. Jews had the thing with the puds, but then circumcision had some health benefits too in terms of hygiene. A dry ‘head’ is healthier than a slimy one.

    Anyway, the culture of Jews kept Jews as Jews for 3,500 yrs. Primitivism doesn’t offer that kind of power. There was something profound there that combined spirituality, biology, and history. And territoriality too though that was off and on due to exile.

    • Replies:
  104. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    “God is a child of many fathers from previous civilizations.”

    But Jews brought them all together into a new fusion like Bob Dylan combined and molded the elements of American folk and popular culture into something remarkably groundbreaking.
    Having all the ingredients of pizza is not the pizza. Pizza is when someone puts them all together in the right way and right amounts. Jews did it with God.

    • Replies:
  105. Saying it’s “unknown in any ethnic taxon of man” is a stretch, but I can’t say I’ve seen many people with noses like what you see in ancient Greek art.

    Not unless you’ve seen many gods. Classic Greek figures would adhere to a canon of proportion, so many hands high and the size of the head must conform to a particular shape, and then contra postura or weight shift was discovered. Earlier archaic images were more abstract, unnatural and more Egyptian. In other words, it a was an attempt to visually manifest divine order. So Greek images were a combo of abstract order and a careful study of nature rather than mere mimesis.

    Nevermind that a people’s beauty ideal doesn’t necessarily reflect how they typically look.

    No so. Asians, women in particular, use skin lighteners. Even in white-hating USA, black women straighten their hair. Beauty in women can be universal: wider spaced eyes than men, smaller jaw line, high cheek bones, round chin, light skin, moderately high forehead, thick luxurious hair, full lips. Maybe protruding butts will become classic but I doubt it.

    • Replies:
  106. Priss,
    having read through many of your threads, I have to say that you have quite a few astonishing and clever insights. I had spoken of Jewish pedagogy, social organisation and intellectual methodology as offered by the Sanhedrin of the Talmud, who preferred to dispose without fuss any values or rules, incongruent with current requirements, replacements being the result of intense debates by the intellectuals. Perhaps this has something to do with Jewish achievements, which as you point out, in many instances, are the results of adapting and improving on already existing knowledge. That the version of Zionism today (imho), is distorting much of this, is truly lamentable.

    One other minor speculation of sorts, Ashkenazi jews very likely benefitted from mixing with the Nords and the effect of a sufficiently large cohort with +1 s.d or +2 s.d IQ in an otherwise average population, can lead over time to significantly different outcomes than a uniform or standard normal distribution.

    Anyway nice reading.

  107. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Even in relatively recent times when Northern European folks achieved so much and became the rulers of the world, they’ve been mostly deficient in certain areas.

    English cooking has never been much. German was worse. Who wants to eat Swedish food, such as fish soaked in liquid drano? And what was Northern architecture but imitation of Greek and Latin ones? In music, apart from Germans, northern Europeans paled compared to the Latin races. American wasps did wonders with creating economy, stable cities, rule of law, and etc, but they were not the most creative and colorful people when it came to the arts.
    Northern Europeans lacked expressiveness and color. They gained power because of power of organization, discipline, unity, and diligence. But there was something drab and dreary about them.
    The British beat the French in economics and industry, the French led the way in the arts and stuff. One area where Brits were really great was in literature, but literature isn’t as colorful as music and painting and stuff.

    Prior to the rise of modern industry, all peoples were limited in their technological power, and the North had no decisive domination over the South. So much relied on manpower and horse-power, and southern folks could use muscle and ride horses too.
    But once the capitalist thing got started, those who were more sober, diligent, thorough, and well-organized gained the upperhand over others. But that didn’t mean that such people were necessarily culturally more interesting.
    Today, Singapore is a rich economic center but a zero when it comes to culture.
    In contrast, Jamaica is a crappy place but started the reggae craze that swept through the world.

    Prior to rise of modern economics, the north-south difference didn’t matter much in Europe. And if anything, the South seemed to have an edge in expressiveness and colorfulness. And especially the meeting points between North and South, such as France and Florence/Venice seemed the most interesting with their combination of southern fire(expressiveness) and northern ice(control).

    Maybe there is something to Harrison Simian’s thesis about the meeting of northern folks and southern folks in Greece. Maybe the northern-derived folks were less expressive but more into unity and order. Southern-derived folks were less into unity and order but more into expressive possibilities. And the combination of iron order(most represented by Sparta) and colorful expressionism(represented by other city-states) made for the Greek miracle.

    • Replies: , ,
  108. Sure. This should be of importance for religious people laying their faith on an image of the all-powerful fatherly deity. But I doubt that even among religious persons many hold a believe in an embodied Yahveh.

  109. So why did they lag so far behind much of the rest of the world for 2000 long years?

    The northern germanics didn’t lag. Humans aren’t machines. Culture is more than material or intellectual technique. It’s called civilization. The West retained and built on aspects of Ancient Greek civilization and in fact advanced spiritual sensibility. Until recently, that is.

  110. You think stoning is humane? Being bashed with stones, being gashed and bruised, cut and bleeding, dying a slow torturous death in the hot sun? Death by stoning is equivalent to being tortured to death.
    You should probably read the OT before you begin your rants. The OT also calls for death by strangulation and burning for other crimes. The OT god also supposedly told the “chosen people” to massacre whole peoples, down to the women and children (Joshua 8:1-29, Sam 15:2-3).Rape was also approved by your god (Judges 21:10-24, Num 31:7-18.)
    If this is your god, good luck to you.

  111. And what was Northern architecture but imitation of Greek and Latin ones?

    You can shuck and jive the techies but not me.

    Chartres and a thousand others. Dragon style in Norway.

    Northern art, German to be exact, invented Expressionism. Matthias Gruenwald. Have you heard of H. Bosch? Pieter Bruegel? The Nazarenes (German). The Pre-Raphaelites. Classic European.

    • Replies:
  112. Maybe the northern-derived folks were less expressive but more into unity and order.

    No. Hitler learned from Mussolini. Fascism comes from the Latin fascia, to bind.

    • Replies:
  113. Don’t get me wrong, I love Italy, Italian food, culture, people. Yes, there are differences between northern and Southern Europe but compared to the ROW (rest of the world) they are small.

  114. German was worse.

    Excuse me while I ignore everything that comes out of your mouth.
    German cooking.. bad?

    You have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?

    Who wants to eat Swedish food, such as fish soaked in liquid drano?

    Firstly, lutefisk is Norwegian, not the only thing they eat. Secondly, lye is not drano. Thirdly, work on your signal/noise ratio, ok?

  115. Dennis Hopper is wrong. Moors, North Africans, even Ethiopians are Caucasian, not [Sub-Saharan African]. (If you watch the clip, you’ll understand why I resorted to square brackets.)

  116. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    “German cooking.. bad?”

    Look, at simple meal, it aint bad. But when compared to the best of French, Italian, and stuff, it is pretty crappy stuff. I mean brats and sauerkraut aint exactly fancy cooking.
    And what kind of people eat carp as holiday meal?
    Carp is like a giant pond rat.

  117. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    “No. Hitler learned from Mussolini. Fascism comes from the Latin fascia, to bind.”

    But for the greaseballs, it was all a matter of style. Fascism hardly made Italians any more organized. When Greeks shot back during the Italian invasion, the greasers all shat their pants, ran to mama, and ate onions and pasta.

  118. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    German Expressionism should be called German Muckerism. It’s mostly messy heavy stuff.

    As for Chartres, the French are a fusion of north and south.

    I’ll give you the Viking stuff with dragons and stuff. But Viking personality style was not colorful and flamboyant. They could holler and scream and beat their chests like Hulk Hogan and them fellers in THE VIKINGS(with Kirk Douglas) but they didn’t have the swagger and the strut. They just grunted and attacked.

    As for the Dutch/Northern Renaissance, it tended to be drabber and darker than Italian art.
    Some of them were weird to be sure but in a heavy manner. And they were more humdrumish.

  119. The ancient Jews invented the weekend. I’d put that up against the Iliad and the Pythagorean Theorem any day of the week (except Shabbat).

  120. The word Hesiod uses to describe Troy is καλλιγύναικα. Kalli-gunaika is just “with beautiful women.” Kalli is the root that begins calligraphy. That means beautiful writing, not pale writing. I can’t find any evidence kalli means “fair” in the sense of light skin or hair. Someone just translated it that way. Same with kallitrikos which just means with beautiful hair, not with “fair” hair.

  121. but most of the studies that I have read indicate that the Iliad was probably not written down until the 6th century BC during the reign of Peisistratos.

    What studies are those? How many studies have you read? What is the basis for their conclusion?

    The 8th century BC is commonly regarded as marking the period when the oral composition of the Iliad( and the Odyssey) reached its final stage.

    Two poems totaling 28,000 lines remained in their “final stage” for two centuries as oral works until they were written down? That doesn’t strike me as plausible.

  122. One point some commenters miss, although mentioned in the article, is that classical Roman busts reflect the faces of individual Romans over considerable centuries. The author is right about early Romans looking less “Mediterranean” than later ones. So, as many of the busts we recognize today are of the empire period , it’s no surprise that the face of Cicero and Vespasian look exactly like modern Italians.

    It’s also striking that the dark bust with the piercing eyes resembles the Irish actor Ciaran Hinds. This is all the more so as Hinds played a Roman emperor in the delightfully pornographic BBC TV series Rome.

  123. Annamarie, you’re stealing. Algebra was invented by an Arab. The other achievements are dubious at best. Typical thieving in your part!?

    • Replies: ,
  124. The Jewish religion was developed in Persia at the time of, or after Zoroaster. That’s where they got many of their ideas, so they aren’t the original “philosophers.

  125. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    What is this junk science article doing at a website that hosts serious commenters on genetics?

    For the nth time, someone pulls together fragmentary information that fit this outdated theory about the supposedly Nordic origins of Greco-Roman civilization.
    In light of Northern Europe’s domination of the world, 19th and 20th century Northern European writers tried time and again to appropriate a past they never had, using dubious methods to argue that everything good in human history was the product of Nordics; every time things went south, it was because the Nordics were bred out!
    Can’t you just accept that Nordics didn’t contribute to civilization until much later, long after the end of Antiquity?
    This reminds me of the usual ranting here in Greece about how the Greeks have existed for at least 50,000 years as a nation and built all the great civilizations in the world, from Egypt to China to Mesoamerica; or even the desperate attempts of Pan-Africanists to squeeze themselves in a place in history.

    Why don’t we all just stop speculating and wait for the informed opinion of the ones who’re truly qualified to have a say in this matter? Either way, we’re past the time when political interpretation of ancient history had any meaningful impact.

  126. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Unz Review just lost its last shred of credibility by reposting this Nordic supremacist bullshit from American Renaissance. What’s next, an article by Stormfront’s Arthur Kemp?

    For anyone interested in *real* information on this topic . . .

    Greeks – http://bit.ly/1Q62UMz
    Italians – http://bit.ly/1IDre22

  127. Thank you for enlightening us about the origin of the word “algebra” [to add: from Arabic “al-jabr” meaning “reunion of broken parts.}

    Here was my post:
    “1. Great Jewish architecture that has influenced architectural designs worldwide?
    2. Invention of algebra and calculus?
    3. Development of the math of optics?
    4. Explanation of the celestial mechanics?
    5. Creating the musical idioms that gave foundation for today’s music?
    6. Founding the medical sciences?
    7. Creating the engineering marvels that became an example for many generations of inventors?
    None of the above was produced by Jewish civilization.”

    Then the discussion focused on a definition of the word “semitic.” What exactly was stolen?
    By the way, your post was rude.

  128. Why is the author so hung up on the distinction between ‘Nordic’ types and ‘Mediterranean’ types? They’re both white. We can plainly see that both Greeks and Romans were white European from the paintings and other art left behind – death masks, as the author mentions, are a particularly accurate depiction. So what’s the issue?

    • Replies:
  129. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Good grief! Mr. Sims article is simply nordicist claptrap, his notion that the ancient Greeks and Romans were very different from present day Greeks and Italians is wishful thinking and unsupported by the facts. This type of stuff belongs with its evil twin ‘afrocentrism’, which is just as idiotic and intellectually dishonest.

    As a disclaimer, my own heritage is half German and half Italian, with my Italian roots in the North(Veneto, Trentino and Piedmont). Interestingly, my grandmother(family in Veneto and Trentino) believes – and has told me this since I was a child – that northern italians r ‘germanic’, while southern italians she thinks are somewhat ‘arabic’. I used to believe it but it is BS.
    Normally, nordicists consider that ancient Greece and Rome became ‘mongrelized’ via the importation of middle easterners and even blacks, and that this is why they fell.
    That is all BS too. Later Sarracen invaders also left almost no trace.

    Anthropology, History and especially modern Genetics tell us a very different story, from the nonsense nordicists would want us to believe in.
    The Greeks and Romans( and other southern euros ) were NEVER nordic.
    This supposed miscigenation with non europeans also NEVER happened.

    Let’s take a look at some of the evidence;
    First the Greeks;

    American physical anthropologist, Carleton Stevens Coon, already in his popular ‘The Races of Europe’(1939), recognized the remarkable continuity in the Greek population, he wrote:

    “It is inaccurate to say that the modern Greeks are different physically from the ancient Greeks; such a statement is based on an ignorance of the Greek ethnic character…. The Greeks, in short, are a blend of [sub]racial types, of which two are most important: the Atlanto-Mediterranean and the Alpine. Dinaricism here is present, but not all pervading; true Alpines are commoner than complete Dinarics. The Nordic element is weak, as it probably has been since the days of Homer. The racial type to which Socrates belonged [Alpine] is today the most important, while the Atlanto-Mediterranean, prominent in Greece since the Bronze Age, is still a major factor. It is my personal reaction to the living Greeks that their continuity with their ancestors of the ancient world is remarkable, rather than the opposite.”

    Modern Genetics confirms:

    “In a sample of 125 Greeks from Thessaloniki and Sarakatsani, 2 Asian-specific mtDNA sequences (M and D) were detected (1.6%). No sub-Saharan African genes were observed in this population. Therefore, non-Caucasoid maternal ancestry in Greece is very low, as elsewhere in Europe.”
    (Richards et al. 2000)

    More:

    “In a sample of 366 Greeks from thirteen locations in continental Greece, Crete, Lesvos and Chios, a single African haplogroup A Y-chromosome was found (0.3%). This marks the only instance to date of sub-Saharan DNA being discovered in Greece. In another sample of 42 Greeks, one sequence of the Siberian Tat-C haplogroup turned up. Note that other studies with larger sample populations have failed to detect this paternal marker in the Greek gene pool (e.g. Malaspina et al. 2000; Weale et al. 2001), and that its frequencies are actually much higher in Scandinavian and Slavic populations.”
    (Di Giacomo et al. 2003; Helgason et al. 2000)

    And then some;

    “In this autosomal DNA plot of genetic distances derived from 120 allele frequencies, Greeks fall entirely within the cluster containing Caucasoid populations (upper right corner), wedged between Basques and Northern Europeans, and far away from Africans and Asians:”
    (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza, 1994)

    About ancient Romans, wrote Coon:

    “…through her role as mistress of the world, Rome accumulated and assimilated a heterogeneous population. That this population was by no means purely or even predominantly Mediterranean is shown by the study of the skulls of Pompeians, victims of the eruption which turned their city from a metropolis into a museum. These crania, with a mean cranial index of 80, represent a population which had acquired a [sub]racial character of its own despite its mixed origin, and in which the Alpine element was the most important. … A series of 100 modern crania from Bologna, with a mean cranial index of 83.5, is almost purely Alpo-Dinaric, with the latter element in a position of prominence. The Dinaric race is common in northern, but not southern Italy, and this distinction has been true since the Bronze Age.”

    Genetics Italians:

    Combined data from two large mtDNA studies provides an estimate of non-Caucasoid maternal ancestry in Italians. The first study sampled 411 Italians from all over the country and found five South Asian M and East Asian D sequences (1.2%) and eight sub-Saharan African L sequences (1.9%). The second study sampled 465 Sicilians and detected ten M sequences (2.2%) and three L sequences (0.65%). This makes a total of 3% non-white maternal admixture (1.3% Asian and 1.7% African), which is very low and typical for European populations, since Pliss et al. 2005, e.g., observed 1.8% Asian admixture in Poles and 1.2% African admixture in Germans.
    (Plaza et al. 2003; Romano et al. 2003)

    Another one;

    Similar data from the Y-chromosome reveals Italians’ even lower non-Caucasoid paternal admixture. Both studies obtained samples from all over the mainland and islands. No Asian DNA was detected anywhere, but a single sub-Saharan African E(xE3b) sequence was found in the first study’s sample of 416 (0.2%), and six were observed in the second study’s sample of 746 (0.8%). The total is therefore a minuscule 0.6%, which decreases to 0.4% if only Southern Italians are considered and 0% if only Sicilians are considered. Again, these are normal levels of admixture for European populations (e.g. Austrians were found to have 0.8% E(xE3b) by Brion et al. 2004). (Semino et al. 2004; Cruciani et al. 2004)

    And this:

    An analysis of 10 autosomal allele frequencies in Southern Europeans (including Italians, Sicilians and Sardinians) and various Middle Eastern/North African populations revealed a “line of sharp genetic change [that] runs from Gibraltar to Lebanon,” which has divided the Mediterranean into distinct northern and southern clusters since at least the Neolithic period. The authors conclude that “gene flow [across the sea] was more the exception than the rule,” attributing this result to “a joint product of initial geographic isolation and successive cultural divergence, leading to the origin of cultural barriers to population admixture.”
    (Simoni et al. 1999)

    Regarding slavery in Roman times:

    “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)

    At any rate, most foreigners(free men or slaves) who ended up in Italy during Roman times were themselves Europeans.

    Anybody who knows Italy well, will notice that Northern Italians are somewhat lighter, on average, than Southerners but the differences between them have been greatly exaggerated.
    This difference, unlike what my grandma thinks, has little to do with Germanic peoples, since germanic admixture in ethnic italians is low, and it’s actually HIGHER in central Italy than in the North. The North has an ancient Celtic component, absent in the rest of the country. The South, on the other hand, has a Greek component.

    • Replies: ,
  130. Dirk Dagger [AKA "Chico Caldera"]
    says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Yep!

  131. “Well, there’s much debate on this point, but most of the studies that I have read indicate that the Iliad was probably not written down until the 6th century BC during the reign of Peisistratos. The 8th century BC is commonly regarded as marking the period when the oral composition of the Iliad( and the Odyssey) reached its final stage.”

    Actually, the theory you set forth, that the Iliad (and the Odyssey) was not written down until Peisistratus was advanced by a German scholar in the late 18th century named F.A. Wolf and has been almost uniformly rejected. Peisistratus was the “tyrant” who ruled Athens from 546 B.C. to his death in 528-27 B.C., to be succeeded by his sons who were overthrown in 510 B.C. by the forces which created the first democracy. Despite his title of “tyrant,” Peisistratus is generally regarded as a very good ruler, whose reforms laid the groundwork for the democracy which followed. He was a distant relative (on his mother’s side) of the great Athenian lawgiver Solon (638-568 B.C.). We have historical evidence that Solon, who preceded Peisistratus, collected written editions of the Iliad and the Odyssey and other works of Greek literature, but we do not know how long previously manuscripts of Homer’s epics existed. Peisistratus’ great achievement in this area was to produce an “authorized version” of the Iliad and Odyssey, much like King James authorized the King James version of the Bible more than 2000 years later, since there were apparently a number of different written versions of the Iliad and the Odyssey circulating in the Greek world. The versions produced under Peisistratus became accepted as the “official” versions of the great epics of Homer. According to Wikipedia, “He commissioned the permanent copying and archiving of Homer’s two epic poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey, and the canon of Homeric works is said to derive from this particular archiving.”

    Apart from the role of Peisistratus, there is the broader “Homer Question” which has occupied thinkers back to before the classical age of Athens, which covers quite a few subsidiary questions, such as did “Homer” compose both the Iliad and the Odyssey? when did Homer compose those epic poems? did he write them down originally or did he compose them orally?
    The problem that most concerns us today is whether the two lengthy poems were composed orally or were written down. I recently posted a comment on Steve Sailer’s blog pertaining to Peisistratus. Subsequently I pulled out my copy of Robert Fagles’ translation simply to verify a factual assertion I had made in my Sailer comment and wound up rereading the Odyssey for the first time in nearly 20 years, which was when Fagles translation came out. I had previously read and reread several times over the years the famous translation by Robert Fitzgerald. One of the attractions of the Fagles’ translation is the 64-page introduction by the late Bernard Knox, one of the great classicists of the 20th century and a great man despite his left leaning politics, who himself translated a number of great works from the ancient Greek. In his introduction, Knox takes the position that the Odyssey (and the Iliad as well) had to be written down from the start. Basically, his argument is that the Odyssey (and likewise the Iliad) is too long a work, too complicated in weaving together a lot of complicated and intricate plot lines, and too unified a work of art that it is inconceivable that it was composed orally and had to be written down first. Having reread the Odyssey, I must say Knox’s argument appears to make a lot of sense, but there is a more compelling counterargument that I will be setting forth in a follow-up comment so as to not further delay the posting of this message.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=Pn0CAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR10&lpg=PR10&dq=pisistratus+%252B+works+of+Homer&source=bl&ots=8DkAAHlnTL&sig=uNYYln31_fMA_lzuSOUCXf9JjJ0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwA2oVChMI0or0wYDPxwIVQ9WACh0j_gaw%23v=onepage&q=pisistratus%2520%252B%2520w

  132. Correction fail. They are masculine/feminine variants.

    I’ve seen “blonde” used for males on this site many times. And even if it works as a noun for females, we don’t gender our adjectives in English. That’s a Continental thing. Une bizarrerie européenne.

  133. […] the hang of the country thing. They had a decent run of city-states a long time ago, but that was when Greeks had red hair and blue eyes. The more swarthy version of the Greeks seem to have trouble organizing much of […]

  134. It is highly dubious. Every time somebody comes up with a theory regarding ethnicity and migrations, it serves some agenda. Generally the one which favours the imperial Babel tower mix of peoples, and which wipes out nationalism.

  135. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Viewed in a historical context, it is almost as if today’s northern Europeans have set out perfectly to imitate the ways in which the Greeks and Romans destroyed themselves.”

    You mean by invading other countries, stealing their shit, enslaving their populations, and then whining endlessly about the influx of refugees and immigrants and the fact that your women are inevitably attracted to their manly physiques and deep bass voices (as opposed to what we may safely imagine the physique of the average Unz contributor looks like).

    You may be on to something!

    P.S. If you think that racial degradation is the greatest threat to our formerly lily-white societies, then you definitely live in your own little world.

    • Replies:
  136. This seems kind of ahistorical. For example, animal sacrifice replaced human sacrifice. And I give the Jews high marks for insisting that animals for food be slaughtered, instead of having pieces hacked off when it was dinner time.

  137. Unfortunately most people are not interested in the truth.

  138. I don’t read Unz much, but I didn’t expect a typical anti-white “YT GON GIT IT, HE GON GIT KARMA” cockroach to wash up here. Muslim countries did all of that and more to Europeans far more than vice versa, and most of the Scandinavian countries had no imperial history or ambitions, but they’re most eager to open themselves up to the world. And who can forget the timeless “MUH DIK” and bragging about sleeping with the women of another race- if you hate white people so much, why go for their women? I don’t think white women are terribly interested in 5’5 portly mestizos, if that’s also what you had in mind.

    P.S. Are you saying you’re white? You technically do live in another world if you think millions and millions of mestizos, west africans, arab muslims etc. isn’t the greatest threat our formerly lily-white (our societies used to be homogeneous? How awful! Weren’t their’s the same though?).

  139. I tried posting this comment on their blog, but I got a 404 error:

    “That’s fine and maybe it is for the best. Greeks have never got the hang of the country thing. They had a decent run of city-states a long time ago, but that was when Greeks had red hair and blue eyes. The more swarthy version of the Greeks seem to have trouble organizing much of anything.”

    Nothing like this, right?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

    Or do you actually have any genetic evidence that the Greeks once looked like this? There’s been plenty of genetic studies on the history of blue eyes and red hair, but I’ve yet to see a single one indicating ancient Greece was populated by blonde/red haired blue eyed supermen, just the ramblings of some nutcase (that also thinks Germania was also about what the Romans used to look like), and a fan of their crank history who thinks Greek accomplishment ended after the BC era.

  140. Thank you for your exceptionally rigorous post. You have quite easily ‘won’ this thread.

    One of the main reasons, it seems, that people want to believe that ancient and modern Greeks are little related is the difference in their social achievements.

    This is because they assume that if modern Greeks are quite pure descendants of ancient Greeks then it disproves the significant role of nature/genetics in the success of a society.

    But it does not at all.

    In reality it just shows how quickly social selection can change the genetic make-up in selected for traits in a population.

    Simply put, even a society entirely cut off from the rest of the world, will, after a couple of centuries of strong selection for lower intelligence, become a signficantly lower IQ society. Yet, of course, they will be pure descendents of the earlier inhabitants.

    Things can happen very quickly!

    I would be tempted to contrast modern and ancient Greek genomes in order to identify genes for exceptionally high IQ. Indeed if there were enough samples, I’d be tempted to do the same with the British population circa 1850 and now. There has clearly been strong selection for a lower IQ in my country in the last 150 years.

  141. Disproves blond euro invasion of India & Egypt then. Aryas are from Indus as the exts of Hindus & Zorastrians state.

    Our land called AryaVarta & we called AryaPutra lol yet som suicidal germanic Nordic savages try to steal our Sanskrit legacy.

    Well nature dealing with them, who the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad. Sikh for life,

  142. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Ok – speaking as someone who can show historically and genetically that his ancestors moved from Greece / Arcadia / Sparta region, to Italy, around 2500 years ago when Pythagoras and a lot of other Greeks made the same move … I found this article bizarre.

    “Racial” origins of Greeks and Romans itself is, well, again: bizarre. They were white.

    Good enough? If not, why?

    Ok … of ***MUCH*** more historical value is the ***ETHNIC*** origins of the same. The author has devoted a great deal of real estate to spreading the myth that this is somehow shrouded in mystery.

    It is not – and most of this is a few Google clicks away.

    The Greeks and the Romans – those of classical civilization, post the Bronze age collapse of about 1200 BC, … those Greeks and Romans were of Proto-IndoEuropean origin, albeit a slightly more complicated case with the Greeks.

    What isn’t complicated … what is quite straightforward, is this:

    The Greeks represent perhaps the first excursion of the Proto-IndoEuropeans from the PIE homeland, exact location still unknown but especially as relates the Greeks this is nearly surely a group near the Black Sea around the Danube. The Greeks were

    … culturally and linguistically … the “Hellenic” branch of the ProtoIndoEuropean family.

    That’s a LOT we know, for something presumably so ignored as the author would have us believe.

    Oh yeah … it’s ETHNIC, not RACIAL. Hmmmmm.

    Anyway … genetically Greeks are a high mix on the Y-haplogroup side of the more distinctively Proto-IndoEuropean R1A, R1B and the more Anatolian J2′s (the ones who discovered fermentation and invented beer and bread making) than the rest of the PIE groups except for the Indo-Iranian branch … wow, the history and examination we could do there exceeds reasonable comment length.

    The Romans … well: there were Latin Romans, Etruscan Romans, and 3 provinces like the ones I came from … Greek Romans, … but most the Romans arise out of the more distinctive R1 PIE stock if we are speaking genetically ,but historically linguistically … (again WOW do we know a lot about this when we are talking Ethnicity not Race) … at least the Latin Romans arose out of the … Latin/Italic branch of the Proto-IndoEuropeans. No mystery there. No one hiding or concealing “racial” origins.

    As for the Etruscans – it’s still argued. They may have had origins in Anatolia where it’s clear there was cultural cross-polination with the PIEs going back to prehistory, or they may have been among the original inhabitants of Europe, or they may even have been of Semitic origin, there’s evidence for all of this.

    But it isn’t hidden. The business of history and anthropology is changing and increasingly linguistic, anthropological and genetic history is becoming a part of the overall sweep – but in academic consideration it is focused on ethnicity not race. I find the pre-occupation with race in this article, together with its confused presentation of data that isn’t actually very confusing, to be conspicuous.

    As far as media (i.e.: Gladiator, etc) … the Greeks and Romans were ethnically distinct from their northern European cousins, who were and are: historically and linguistically of the Celtic, Germanic and Baltic branches of the Proto-IndoEuropeans and moved out of the PIE homeland at a later date, and to different destinations in Europe (some might say: Obviously).

  143. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Hair dye.
    Skin bleaching.
    Make up.
    Politically correct painters/sculpturs/writers…for vain patrons.

    Then of course, the author leaves out migration routes out of africa.

    Interesting read, but is missing some of the picture.

    Seems to lean toward white supremacy. No need for that. Honest science should be all honest people need.

  144. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Sorry folks I thought Nordicism went out with high top shoes and corsets. This Nordic nonsense is what has led the White race in all its various complexions and nationalities to the verge of destruction. Before Hitler rose to power and started World War II and the Holocaust the overwhelming majority of White people in every nation on earth where they lived were White Supremacists/segregationists and abhorred and condemned miscegenation and mongrelization of the races. They did not allow any non-European immigrants into western nations before World War II. Those who did not share these views either kept quiet or were viewed as depraved or deranged. The last thing we need now is any divisions to arise between the various branches of the European Caucasian race. We have fought two world wars among ourselves and nearly destroyed Western civilization. We need solidarity and unity among the White race not divisions. I have no doubt that if famous Noridicsts like Jacques de Gobineau, Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard could communicate with us they would say to the Whites of today: “Stand solid and unified and make common cause to preserve your race, your nation, and your cultures and religion from both the internal race and nation traitors and the external non-European interlopers. Make peace among yourselves and act as one to save yourselves from oblivion.” That is my opinion for what it’s worth.

  145. You are insane

  146. tl;dr

    The point is that dramatic change can happen, and we must be careful to preserve what good we have.

    Also, Persians are literal Aryans who did indeed tend toward blond hair. Scythians and Sarmatians on the steppe are Iranian peoples who were described as tall and blond. Of course, once the Huns arrive on the scene then “Scythian” begins to refer to another type altogether. Like Greece, the steppe and Iran have been a mix of peoples which can confuse the matter.

  147. Whole thread is tl;dr

    Depressed fertility would wipe out those phenotypes easily. Remember that the ancients did have access to very effective birth control, which would naturally accrue to the upper classes given its scarcity (silphium is extinct). And the author is not claiming the majority of the population was Nordic

  148. I’ve met several blond Greeks and Italians, as other commenters have noted, and as you say, the phenotype will still show up. Even at the early point of initial contact the northerners were meeting a darker population already in place.

    • Replies:
  149. actually lips were not emphasized in some cultures at all. Until the early 20th century, Persians enameled the face to a whitish color, drew a mono-brow very dark, and put khol on the eyelids. The mouth however was not emphasized. This was supposed to be like a delicate flower, just opening.

    The large mouths favored nowadays may well be the result of exposure to certain races that tend to have larger lips. Very full lips were not considered attractive on mosts whites. “Cherry lips” were the ideal, which suggest plump but not large. The lips of Scarlett Johansson, Angelina Jolie, and Julia Roberts would 1 have been considered flaws in previous eras. On races with prognathism, however, large lips look normal.

    • Replies:
  150. Of course the current bizarre fashion for negro lips is driven by hatred of traditional European standards of proportion and beauty.

  151. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    DNA evidence shows the Minoans share the same DNA as modern northwest Europeans. They analyzed the DNA of various Minoan remains dating to about 3,700 years ago.

    Quote:

    The analysis focused on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) extracted from the teeth of the skeletons, This type of DNA is stored in the cell’s “batteries” and is passed down, more or less unchanged, from mother to child.

    They then compared the frequencies of distinct mtDNA lineages, known as “haplogroups”, in this ancient Minoan set with similar data for 135 other populations, including ancient samples from Europe and Anatolia as well as modern peoples.

    The comparison seemed to rule out an origin for the Minoans in North Africa: the ancient Cretans showed little genetic similarity to Libyans, Egyptians or the Sudanese. They were also genetically distant from populations in the Arabian Peninsula, including Saudis, and Yemenis.

    The ancient Minoan DNA was most similar to populations from western and northern Europe. The population showed particular genetic affinities with Bronze Age populations from Sardinia and Iberia and Neolithic samples from Scandinavia and France.

    They also resembled people who live on the Lassithi Plateau today, a population that has previously attracted attention from geneticists.

  152. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    You are not reading the study properly, and it does not support the ancient Minoans being nordic in the least. Big surprise you took the time to bold the parts about western and northern europe and Scandinavia and France, but not Sardinia/Iberia or the Lasithi Plateau, which is in Crete. Neolithic europeans are not genetically the same as the ones today. France isn’t exactly a northern european country and has long had a mediterranean component to it’s population.

    Why should Crete be alone? There are plenty of islands in Greece far off the mainland that are homogenous and have remained largely so for millenia. If the Greeks were such different people than they are now, why are there no islands where the people resemble Scandinavians? Did the non-whites or whatever that changed the Greek phenotype also spread just the same to these islands? I previously mentioned how people act like Greek achievmenet ended with ancient times and never extended to the Byzantines- why did nobody ever consider the Byzantines to be racially non-white? Why did they depict and see themselves as European? Do they even look any different from modern Greeks, assuming they mixed with the Ottomans as some claim? The Greeks had plenty of colonies far east of Greece and well into Anatolia. These places remained Greek well up until the Turks came along. Where’s the evidence these people were also any different from modern Greeks?

    Yeah, sorry, there’s no evidence to support the idea the Greeks look much different from how they did in ancient times, because they are without a doubt the same people. But let’s also just ignore all that art from ancient Minoa that depicts people with overwhelmingly black hair.

  153. Oh how lovely all the white supremacists are at each other`s throats about who is more paler than the other. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

    • Replies:
  154. Sorry, but It’s already a proven scientific fact that the Proto Indo-Europeans on the steppe circa 3,000 BC or so were not Nordic in appearance. Since we now have the genomes of those Steppe groups buried in Kurgan Mounds, and they are darker pigmented than present Southern Europeans, lol.

    http://archhades.blogspot.com/2015/10/myth-of-light-pigmented-nordic-looking.html

    So the ancient Greeks circa 1500-300 BC descending from a “Proto Indo-European” Nordic elite is impossible. Since it never existed in the first place.

    • Replies:
  155. BTW, most of these times the author of the article is trying to mention “blonde Greeks”, the ancient writers are giving the adjective Xanthos. While Xanthos can mean blonde, it should be taken to mean ‘fair’, which has a variety of shades. The Ancient Greeks often gave the adjective Xanthos to describe any hair color short of jet black or dark brown. For example in the Illiad, yes it’s true Achilles and Menelaus were called Xanthos, but then again so were horses. Now of course there is no such thing as a literal yellow colored horse, but there are horses of this color.

    http://www.horsegroomingsupplies.com/horse-forums/attachments/horse-colors-genetics/151566d1362930892-post-your-horse-pictures-color-dsc00158.jpg

    http://www.dailybackgrounds.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/brown-horse-running-looks-beautiful.jpg

    Not platinum blonde but a light shade of brown. This is quite a frequent shade of hair color in the Mediterranean/Southern Europe. Not the dominant shade [which is chesnut-dark brown and off black] but certainly a significant minority.

    When the Ancient Greeks came into contact with real blondes like Scythians or Celts, they called them “Leukos” [taken literally means "whitish" haired] which they never call their own fair types. I see the author quotes Adamantius but ignores this quote from him.

    Adamantius, Physiognomica, II, 37.10

    “hê de agan xanthê kai hupoleukos, hopoia Skuthôn kai Keltôn, amathian kai skaiotêta kai agriotêta”

    “Very fair and whitish hair, like that of Scythians and Celts, [signifies] ignorance, dimness and savageness.”

    Notice the term leukos, the ancient Greeks never called their own fair types that color. Adamantius used the term “hupoxanthos” to describe the ‘pure Greek’s hair color, not “hupleukos”. Not to mention Adamantius’ complete prejudice and disdain for such a color present in Northern Europeans. Also the author translates the eye to “fair” in a color context when the real translations is “beautiful” eyes.

    Conclusion, the fair types seen in ancient Greece are not the same as those in Northern Europe, and the author of the article is not objective. The author of this article makes it seems like the phenotype and hair color of the North European was the ideal, it wasn’t.

  156. That’s what I’ve always thought. There are indeed distinctions between “Nordics” and “Meds” (and Slavs, and Celts,too, I guess), but they would have been most significant to Europeans who had never seen any non-white people (except for the Semites.) Even the people of the different cantons in Switzerland think differences among themselves are very great, because many have never been out of Switzerland. The Irish are dark haired in the west, lighter in the east. Scotland has a similar difference, only north/south.

    The Somalis of the 1930s, thought the English were “Turks” because they all just looked white to the Somalis. And the Turks, btw, were greatly feared by the Somalis.They had a hard time believing how decent the English were (well, this was the 1930s; their empire days were ending.)

    The people of the Italian peninsula (I know less about Greece) differ little from what they looked like 2000 years ago. I look at frescos, ancient mosaics and sculpture, and I see people ranging in coloring but all European looking. There are reds and blonds among them but not enough to be Sweden or Scotland. It’s just a matter of percentage. Rebecca West, in her 1940 travelogue, Black Lamb, Gray Falcon, had an interesting way of describing the blonds of the Balkans — their skin seemed to be infused with a certain golden color that went with their hair while blonds further north seemed to lack any color. Personally I think that was just a sunnier climate, but it could be genetics.

  157. Before you create any thought about the ancient Greeks and Roman… I advice you to learn about Albanian!
    One thing we know for sure is who the Barbarian are that distroy Romen Empire! So, it helps to exclude the Barbarian of West, North, East, or South … in order to find among the ancient people of that region the real remains of that ancient population.

  158. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Race? What’s race? Thought the Human Genome Report released in 2003 says there’s no such thing as a “race”. Genetic types cut thru “races” making the concept obsolete. Skin color, pigments, eye color may be different, but genetics makes no concessions to “race”. As for the oh-so-fair skin color of some Greeks with blue eyes, well many Turks next door or Syrians further down the street have them too. Even some Palestinians do, horrible though this may seem to some.

  159. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Keep the dark people out” ?? Wow, thats pretty racist of you.

  160. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    I am Italian, born in Piemonte region. My mother has blonde and my sister. I know my ancestry back for centuries – the church has always kept records. My sister and I have DNA test for medical reason, and without doubt we match 85% Italian/ Greek. No Nordic. My family knows our ancestry also through passing from one to the next. We laugh to think northern people want to claim the politics, architects, music, art and science or our country. Anciently Italians (Rome and Greek) called blonde/blue eyes of the north “cowardly barbarians”.

  161. Virgil in the Aeneid called Dido of Carthage (by ancestry a Phoenician, ie from the Levant) blonde – not entirely impossible given that the Phoenicians seem to have been Indo-European ‘Sea People’. Certainly more likely than an Afro-American Hannibal.

    Romans saw themselves as smaller, darker, and less physically strong than the Germanic barbarians, but they and – the Greeks even moreso – were Indo-European speakers, primarily descendants of invaders from the north ca roughly 2500 BC, with some ancestry from the earlier farming cultures. All descendants of the Indo-European speakers in Europe are ‘white’ I’d have thought, and are the same race in all but the narrowest sense – ‘the Greek race’ ‘the Scots race’ etc.

  162. It’s obvious that the early Greeks and Romans were of north European ancestry. As were the early Egyptians. No other race of people have ever built advanced cultures and civilizations, which were all eventually destroyed by darker skinned people immigrating from north Africa. Who have always attracted to culture, wealth and prosperity that they systematically dilute and destroy. At present, the wealthy and advanced cultures of Europe and the US are in the process of being destroyed by this race of people. That’s why the future of advanced civilization lies in the hands of Russia, Iran and China, who all appear to understand that allowing large numbers of dark skinned minorities into their countries would a huge mistake that would lead to irreparable damage.

    • Replies:
  163. What a nonsense! German tribes and Gauls were just wild barbarians, who had their own culture, but in comparison to romans they were barbarians all the same. In Greek and Latin the word “blond” could meand anything other than pitch black. When I look at ancient statues I see nothing Nordic in their features. In fact, if you look closely at modern Greeks you will see that they haven’t changed much.

    http://pics.livejournal.com/ultima_cruzado/pic/0012ct1d/s320x240

    http://pics.livejournal.com/ultima_cruzado/pic/0012dhs8/s320x240

    Look these links out

  164. Lots of these comments are just ridiculous.

    Throughout my life I have always been confronted with people who seem to think that ‘Nordic’ appearance is somehow better. I find that interesting, because I have been surrounded by Germanic looking peoples throughout my life, and I am hard pressed to find great men among any of them.

    Does fairer hair and fair skin make a man noble? Is ancestry a sign of being great? So many of these comments are childish. A great man isn’t born – HES MADE.

    Also, if you want to gauge if ancient peoples looked similar to today, just judge ancient statues.

  165. I stopped reading this drivel when I saw the bit about “Germanic eye color” of Roman statues ROFL!

    • Replies:
  166. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    What brought down the ancients was relentless invasion by savage merciless Northern Europeans, the most bloodthirsty horde of mass murderers that ever cursed this planet. American resistance to these genocidal invaders completely collapsed in the 19th century.

  167. The high quality of both articles and comments is something not common in the blogsphere, coming over Unz is always an enlightening experience.

  168. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    I have read somewhere that hunting nomades used to eat large amounts of meat and thereby they ingested enough Vitamin D so that they didn’t need fair skin to produce it.
    Agricultural societies used to feed on crops and less meat so that their skin was fair.
    It doesn’t affect the color of the eyes or the hair.
    I think Celts were more a cultural unity for there were both dark and fair hair among them.
    So much to learn still.

  169. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    I agree with some of the information, but disagree about the Greeks and the
    Romans mixing their blood with other races. I have looked at the Southern
    Italian DNA and it is so close to the ancient Greeks. I don’t agree that the
    Greeks and the Romans mixed their blood with Nordic or Germanic races
    simply because their facial features are completely different, obviously
    there has been some mixing of races. Generally the Greek race has remained
    pure. I don’t think that colour of hair and eyes has anything to do with it.
    Simply because the are some people from Arabic or Turkish berber origin
    that also have light skin and blue eyes, but their facial features are completely
    different.

  170. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    What about the blond Slavs, particularly from Central and North Eastern Europe? And don’t give us this Nazi bullshit that the millions of blond Slavs throughout Poland, Russia and other Slavic countries have Nordic blood. Very poor scholarship shown here.

    By the way the ancient Alans who migrated West from what is today Kazakhstan were described by the ancients as tall blonds. The famous Persian King who failed to conquer Greece was described as having red hair. Slavs migrating from the North also invaded Greece and it is believed they settled around 500 – 600 AD.

  171. Ancient Rome (particularly between Sulla and Augustus) is definitely one of the most interesting periods of time regarding the race questions its very striking how nearly all modern authors seem to avoid the subject as the author mentioned. Will Durant was a presidential medal of freedom winner and his book on the Roman Republic/Empire is one of the best, he brings up the racial transformation of Rome as it went from the Republic to empire on multiple occasions, his general opinion seems to be it worked for awhile but as time went on the native Romans (and italians for that matter) became strangers in their own country. (A senator in Sulla’s day would have been stunned to see what the inhabitants of Rome had become a few centuries later.

    (Caesar and Christ) p.221-222 (Augustus began modestly enough by seeking to check the racial transformation of Rome. Population there was not declining; on the contrary, it was growing as the sons of freedman automatically became citizens, the emancipation of slaves and fertility of aliens combined with the low birth of the native stocks to change the ethnic character of Rome.

  172. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Whitey wins again

    • Replies:
  173. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    I read Julius Caesars “Conquest of Gaul” he made mention at one point that the northern tribes often made fun of the Romans short stature. This suggests that the Romans were not that related to the northerners. But on the other hand Rome was a city state. Being Roman wasnt the same as being Italian. Also the Roman soldiers were not necessarily Roman citizens and were a collection of many different racial groups.
    Its well known Hannibals army was made up of many different groups and this didnt seem to surprise the Romans at all.
    Its also been mentioned that classical Greece was actually a remnant of a much more advanced and diverse culture which preceded it but is yet still unknown.

  174. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Identifying the Romans’ slaves solely or primarily with subsaharan blacks is unjustified.

    The ethnicity of the slaves Rome took in would depend on who they were at war with. Slaves came mostly from defeated armies and sacked cities.

    Originally it would be others states in Italy, then Cathage (originally settled by Phoenicians from Lebanon). Once the Carhaginian War was over Rome pretty much went to war with anyone and everyone on its borders.

    So originally slaves would be other Italians, presumably of similar stock, then Semitic slaves from Carthage, other North Africans allied to Carthage, as well as Spaniards. Spain was a part of Carthage until Rome took it away. After that Rome pretty much went to war with anyone and everyone on its borders. Slaves could be anything from Celts, Germans, Greeks, Slavs, Semites, Egyptians and assorted other North Africans.

    Considering how well the Romans did warfare, and the multitudes of slaves war brought in, it should be no surprise that the original Romans bitched about loosing their pure Roman blood.

    The other option would be for them to get conquered and be shipped off as slaves themselves.

  175. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    I stopped reading this drivel when I saw the bit about “Germanic eye color” of Roman statues ROFL!

    Blue/Green eyes are based on a recessive gene. Any mixing with the dominant black/brown gene will wipe out blue/green eyes in preference to black/brown.

    I believe red hair is also recessive and blonde hair as well.

    Wait a few thousand more years and a blond blue eyed person will be as rare as a hens tooth.

    • Replies: ,
  176. That: A) has nothing to do with my post B) is completely false, even two parents with brown eyes can have a child with blue eyes http://www.newkidscenter.com/images/10401804/image002.jpg
    Stick to godlikeproductions please

    • Replies:
  177. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    That: A) has nothing to do with my post B) is completely false, even two parents with brown eyes can have a child with blue eyes

    Only if both parents have the recessive gene. Then there is a quarter chance of blue/green showing.

    Also considering that most of the blue/green eye gene reside in the whites of Europe and North America, neither of which is producing offspring at a replacement level, the gene will show in a smaller and smaller percentage of the worlds population as time goes by.

    Smaller and smaller percentage of the worlds population having the gene, and the gene being recessive, and needing both mother and father to have it, makes it look like blue/green eyes have a bleak outlook for the long term.

    I did mention thousands of years in my post did I not?

  178. I know it is too late to expect a meaningful reply to this, but the sudden transition to hooded eyes in art from the Ravenna period (and earlier) of Rome until about the end of the eighth or tenth century always puzzles me.

    I am not speaking of paintings or portrayals of the subject in death, but a more general trend.

    Since, in the western and fallen empire, the new royalty were franks, goths, vandals, &c., why does the visual art of the time so heavily feature hooded eyes? Perhaps it was a religious thing?

    One of the historico-cultural things I can never understand,

  179. So Islam’s substantial origins in Judaism is now something for Jews to be proud of? No. They are both gutter religions for savage cruel peoples.

  180. Sadly, there won’t be any white peoples left, let alone blue-eyed or light-haired, within one hundred years. No need to wait thousands of years.

    Wake up, people.

  181. My mother’s mother — born in the USA to two Italian parents, with no known non-Italian ancestry, who came from the Naples area (NOT Northern Italy) — had blondish hair and green eyes.

    A good white woman and proud American. Rest in peace.

  182. Not sure about Russia, given that the population of non-Muslim ethnic Russians grows little to none in most years while the Muslim population in Russia and the Russian Federation continues to grow at a faster rate.

    A person of any skin color who adheres to that particularly cruel, savage, and anti-human religion is a danger to the host country and culture.

    I would guess that the likeliest outcome, on current trends, is an Islamicized Russia where non-Muslim Russians make up a shrinking majority, and then not a majority at all. But maybe they can turn it around. It’s not just in the Caucasus where Muslims are present in large numbers, and Russians will regret it if they fail to drive Muslims out everywhere in their country.

  183. Concerning the “Greek profile”, I’m Scandinavian from above arctic circle mixed with various German ancestry and have a nose that distinctly lines up with my forehead. So does my husband which was quite comical in our profile wedding photos. Don’t have long nose however.

    No Greek or any other southern ancestry.

    Always wondered about this trait. Is on both mother and fathers side.

  184. Zarathustras God is far superior to the Jewish God. So is islams God which was purified is some of yahwehs handiwork in the Old Testament of craziness!

  185. I fail to see why a racist, maddened comment like yours needed to be approved.

    You may want to say “more pale” or “paler” instead of “more paler”: that may betray your identity, in case your anti-white mad racism (racism so mad that it can only come from complexes of inferiority) wouldn’t already.

  186. The same analysys, by England’s Chief Rabbi, here:

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/08/europe-going-die-lord-sacks-laments-end-western-civilisation/

    Striking similarity: he even mentions ancient Greece and Rome.

    When every sensible observer observes the same, it means that’s become obvious, and unchangeable, sadly.

  187. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    I have been to Greece many times and studied Classics. A quick stroll through the Archaelogical museum of Athens will extinguish any idea that ancient Greeks and modern Greeks differ much physically at all. You can see statues come to life right in the streets of Athens. The similarities in physiognomy are actually stricking, and there is a simple explanation.

    There are only 14 million Greeks left on earth today, yet Greeks were a huge presence in the Levant and throughout the Eastern Med during the Byzantine Empire. The language of Byzantium was Greek, and Hellenization occurred for a thousand years before full invasion and destruction of eastern Christianity by Ottomans.

    What happened to all those Greeks? Many were killed fighting Ottomans, and some were absorbed into the Ottoman Empire. During the 400 year occupation of Greece, Greek girls were taken from their parents to be married off in Harems and converted to Islan. Greeks hid their daughters or dressed them up as boys to avoid these abductions. Christians and Muslims never ever mixed, but IF a Muslim man married a Christian woman, she would convert to his religion, not the other way around.

    No Christian Greek would convert to Islam willingly — they were not only devoted to Christianity, they were also devoted to their land and traditions, so many died resisting and fighting for the entirely of the occupation. See the Dance of Zalongo, look at the Meteroa monasteries built on cliffs. IF a Greek Christian did willingly convert, he would no longer be counted as a Greek but as a Turkish Muslim, and thus would enjoy the rights and privileges of Occupier, pay few taxes, and subjugate others. Ottomans certainly didn’t go around becoming Christians during their Emire.

    This is common sense, the power elite doesn’t convert to his subject’s religion for there is neither political favor or financial benefit in doing so. Hence, Greeks and others lost population to the Ottomans, not the other way around.

    When Greece finally won independence in a series of brutal wars, more Greek population was lost, but bravery and valor was in abundant display as Greeks fought naval campaigns, outnumbered, basically suicide missions just as the Spartans and Athenians two thousand years before. What remains of Greeks today (aside from Albanian immigrants and other immigrants that happen to live in Greece) is the creme de la creme, ethnically pure die hards that stuck it through millennia. Bravo.

    The Greek language is remains contiguous and unchanged for thousands of years. The Ancient dialects are similar to modern Greek, and the letters are unchanged (as Olde English is similar to modern English) but with Greek being two thousand years older the achievement and continuity is impressive.

    As far as cherry picking some ancient’s use of Xanthos to describe hair color as what we consider “blonde”, this is either a deliberate deception or simply ignorance of the Greek language. Xanthos (masculine) or Xanthia (feminine) is used to depict “not dark brown/black”, and this description is used because a common hair color in both ancient and modern Greece is chestnut brown.

    The presence of more chestnut in brown hair is what leads to the description of red hair, or “kokkinomala.” Brown hair that is in the sun through the summer often turns reddish golden, and many Greek children are born strawberry blonde, but they are not covered in freckles like gingers are, and you don’t see freckles depicted or referenced anywhere in ancient Greece. There were no Viking platinums, period.

    Greeks have mostly brown eyes, but many have green, blue and gray. Because the coloring of blue, green or gray is less common, it it no wonder that when it did occur it would be singled out. If most everyone is 6 feet tall and one person is 4 ft tall, then a good descriptor would be his height. Still, The presence of blue or green eyes wasn’t exactly celebrated by the ancients, they quite appreciated brown eyes as evidenced by thousands and thousands of extant murals, pottery drawings, mosaics and written descriptions.

    Skin color: If you visit Greece you will find some very pale people, especially women. You will find a lot of chestnut brown hair, brown eyes, and very white (not freckled) skin. It doesn’t even look like it belongs in the Med, but it is prevalent nonetheless. You will also find golden skin, tanned skin, dark hair, light hair – a pleasing variety wherein no one stands out unless he is Hulk Hogan.

    It is clearly the same light skin that the author is referring to when claiming Penelope was Nordic because Homer said she was “fair”. Good grief, if this isn’t a desperate stretch.

    We should be celebrating the few remaining Greeks for their ancestral contributions. What remains of Greeks today (aside from Albanian immigrants and other immigrants that happen to live in Greece) is the creme de la creme, ethnically pure die hards that stuck it through millennia.

    No people on earth today have fought harder for their land and their culture than the Greeks, and to suggest that those few who survive today are not related to their ancestors, and to claim those ancestors as your own Nordic fantasy, is an affront.

    • Replies:
  188. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    The Indo Europeans were not North-Western Europeans, they would have appeared more or less Balkan, not Nordic as a whole but with some Nordic like elements. Therefore neither the Romans nor the Greeks and neither their ancestors looked like Northwestern Europeans. In Southern Europe, particularly in the Aegaean there was a mixing of Indo Europeans and Afro-Asiatics. The Southern Indo Europeans adopted the culture and religion(the oldest Dionysus and Hercules were believed to be either the Phoenician or Egyptian ones) of those Afro Asiatics and gave it their own flavor.

    Quite honestly this old attempt to nordify these ancient mediterranean Indo European societies on the part of Anglo Saxons or Germans reeks of low self esteem.

    Making skin color and light features an ideology is not going to make a republic last long.

  189. Even if there were only a small number of darker-skinned, dark-haired natives among more numerous invaders, these features would have been favoured by the climate, and natural selection would have caused them to spread throughout the population. Most genes of the original population would not have spread so widely because they conferred no advantage.

  190. […] Civilizations perish the same way. Witness what happened to ancient Greece and Rome, both of which reached new heights for human civilization and then faded away, leaving behind a population far different than the original: […]

  191. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Macedonians have always been the lightest featured Greeks, and today, Greeks in that region have some of the lightest features of all the Greeks. That doesn’t make them “Nordic” however. There is a huge difference between a blue eyed and ruddy Balkans person and an actual Nordic from Scandinavia.

  192. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Didnt you invade North America? arent you the aliens that drove out the natives?
    And then you cry about the end of the white race.. get yourselfs together and stop blaming everyone and everything for your fictional problems.

    • Replies:
  193. It’s well known among economicists and historians that north Italy is one of the wealthiest areas of the world and has been since about 600 AD. What is now Belgium which used to be Burgundy/Flanders, and southern Germany/Austria/northern and central France are now and have been just about the wealthiest areas of the world, for at least a thousand years.

    Another thing, according to the first IQ chart that pops up, the average IQ in all of Italy is 102 and the Scandinavian countries all have average IQs below 100 small differences but there it is

    American Renaissance has many good articles but White Nationalists (all Whites) don’t like it because it is very oriented towards southern Americans obsessed. with their loss in the civil war and the confederate flag. There is a lot of hatred of the Catholic Church on that site I believe it’s because the RC is headquarters in Italy, home of the mongrel Mediterranean race which is totally separate from the Anglo Saxons and oh so superior Nordics

    Many amren followers firmly believe that even the French are part black

    Having lived and travelled in Europe I noticed that the Slavs, both the northern Poles and southern Serbians are far blonder, bluer, and taller than the Germans and Anglo Saxon English so admired on American Renaissance

    I have read Roman accounts that the first Romans who encountered the Germans referred to them as ghosts because their skin was so much paler than that of the Romans

    • Replies:
  194. This author does not seem to know the difference between a race and an ethnic group
    But this article is from American Renaissance Many of the readers have strange views. For instance, every British person is an Anglo Saxon There are no remnants of the original celts and the ancient indigenous people.

    Even stranger, during th hundreds of slavery and right up until 1960 no southern White man ever had a child by a black woman All the millions of mulattoes quadroons octoroons etc are the product of sluttish slave girls and black men.

    They believe that and post it continually Many are fundamentalist crazy Christians who don’t believe in evolution

    An ethnic group is not a race.

  195. People-Dynamics – Modern-Greeks are just as Greek as any ancient-Greek, or future Greeks to come.

    People-Dynamics – The genes you carry today, may not reflect faithfully ones ethnic-pride or national-identity.

    People-Dynamics – I belong to an ethnic-group if i really want it…on the proviso, the host people-group, accept me.

    Greeks have been Hellenizing peoples in closest proximity to themselves for millennia. It has to do with Hellenism, a strong historically proven resilient dominant culture. Western peoples adopted Hellenic culture for culture of choice. Show respect to Greeks – for keeping and preserving their Hellenic ancestors culture and way of life for millenniums.

    Nordic-Shytes – Show Respect.

  196. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Please scan and put on line for those of us fortunate enough to be enjoying Obama’s economic miracle…..!

  197. Fuunny how white people are the only ones feeling intimidated not to talk about their peculiarities and even willing to deny their origins for fear of being ridiculed o threatened. Articled s. like these are rare, although certainly will be followed by thousands of others soon.

  198. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Amazing subject and interesting comments! The homo sapiens have not changed for centuries. Each and every one of them wants to show the world how superior he is ….. from his special skin color, eye color, or IQ!

    1) So many IQ based opinions and comments! IQ is quite proven to be a useless metric for anything. Waste of time!
    2) Old Greeks, old Romans. They are the same…. and yet quite different. This is that part of Europe that was warm, and fertile. The Pelasgeans are the initial settlers. The Illyrians are the descendants. The Greeks and the Illirians were simply for the longest time the prime inhabitants of this area. Lots of wars, lots of back and forths, and lots of gene mixing.
    3) Due to many wars, many families were forced to live in the hard to reach mountainous areas. To this day you will find plenty of very tall, blue eye, and quite physically strong people in Greece, Albania, Montenegro, Croatia etc. Montenegro has some of the tallest people in the world, living in remote areas. So does northern Albania, southern mountainous Albania, Northern Greece, or Southern Serbia. Yet, in those same countries, you have short, dark skinned individuals who lived primarily in towns, and lower areas. These are the remnants of the many back and forth events in history.

    So, back to the article, what race are the greeks and romans? At least for the greeks, they are a heavy mixture of everything….. but today, when you see greeks, you see primarily a strong pelasgean influence. Arvanitas, there from the old Epirus days, macedonians, and turks make a big portion of today’s greeks. You simply cannot understand today’s greeks if you do not know the huge albanian (Epirus) presence and influence over centuries.

  199. To know Greeks is to know their history…Greeks since the beginning, have been a seafaring International peoples, consequently Greeks met, (married) and intermingled with a great many ‘other’ peoples. Greeks are said to be “cousins” to a wide variety of ‘other’ peoples on that basis.

    The Greek character having formed over millennia, can be summarized as being multi-layered and multifaceted. Most people would consider Greek peoples being Mediterranean(s) first and foremost, but there is more.

    1- Mediterranean: Greeks could be clustered together with Italians, Maltese, Spaniards, Portuguese, and to a lesser extent the French, within the framework of a greater Graeco-Roman civilization.

    2- Western European: since, in the West, Greece is considered to be the cradle of Western civilization.

    3- Eastern European: since Greeks baptized Christianized and civilized the Slavic Tribes into Greek culture and (Eastern) Orthodox Religion of Byzantium.

    4- Near and Middle Eastern: since Greek expansion into Asia-Minor and Asia proper, ensured prolonged ties with Eastern cultures.

    5- Balkanian: Greeks are not comfortable with this term. Greeks prefer the term ‘Haemus Native’ – anyway, a Balkan identity similar to that of Albanians, Serbians, Bulgarians, Romanians, does exist. There are common elements, contributions from the Eastern Roman Empire and from the Ottoman Empire. All of this bears testament to shared common heritage between Greeks and ‘other’ peoples in closest proximity to Hellenic world.

    Greeks have always been international peoples, since time immemorial. The Greek Character is multi-layered and multifaceted, drawing in embedded experiences from five different geographical locations. The Greeks were never restricted to one location or to one particular country, there were no countries with fixed border’s in ancient times. From the river Ebro in the West to the river Evros in the East – That space in between is Greek concept Evropi.

    Greece in ancient times could be visualized spanning from the far West of [Iberia] Spain to as far East as [Colchis] Georgia. There was never a country called ‘Greece’ in ancient times, instead there were many Greeks inhabiting many regions of Evropi. Hence, contemporary Greeks look back at themselves standing at forefront of long chain of Greek-speakers. Today’s Greeks see themselves like cultural-linguistic continuator’s of endowments received, passed-on to them from previous generations of Greeks, stretching all the way back from Mycaenean Proto-Greeks.

    The Greek language and Hellenic culture define Greeks…Old-Europe’s senior elder wiser population dynamic boasts native autochthony to Haemus (Greek) peninsula.
    From Crete in the south to Macedonia in the north. From Anatolia in the east to Sicily in the west. That space in between is Greek cultural-linguistic space – Greeks look back at themselves in awe of their Hellenic inheritance.

    The West owe Hellenism something – Respect!

  200. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    This is classic example of voodoo science.Totally out of touch with subject in serious manner.From days of 17 century German historical school which looked in creation of history to narratives of political class science has gone way ahead.Archeology digging has given rich biological data via science of Anthropology and Genetics has shown Anthropological varieties and their migration patterns.Contrary to popular believes ancient people don’t mix with each other and their Anthropological features bear characteristics of genetic line.In text above Lucius Junius Brutus was declared of German origin.German identity how we know is pretty new endeavor centuries after life of Brutus.What we perceive today to be German facial characteristics is result of recent mix of mayor 5 genetic variants of tribes not related at all in between.Simply there is no known German unique uniting Anthropological or genetic characteristic.German means language and culture. Brutus for anthropology is eazy.Near all Romans has mesocephalic features consistent with mayor genetic haplogroup J2 dominantly present in Ancient Greek and Romans but near absent in Germans today.Pelazgians on other hand had Brachycephalic features with in Dinaric anthropological type and with in genetic haplogroup I….which means that historical claims of dark features does not correspond with anthropological and genetic findings.In fact J2 has middle east darker features and Betta tallasamia which can be seen in pockets of Greeks and Italians.

  201. Someone has to mention the Neanderthals and it might as well be myself.

    White skin is entirely a Neanderthal trait (as was straight hair and an ability to take extreme cold). Interbreeding between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens arriving in Europe from Africa extended over a 10,000 year period before the Neanderthals finally went extinct for various reasons (a super volcano going off in Italy the main precipitating event) 40,000 years ago. This discussion is really about the continuing ripples extending out genetically since Neanderthals genes plunged into the human gene pool.

    In fact everyone reading this has around 2% Neanderthal in their DNA.

  202. > A fabulous story of Greece and Greeks is very different

    The Greeks were very hung up on geometric commensuration. Couldn’t handle algebraic symbolism at all.

    To be clear, the contribution (to mathematics) of Hebrews _qua_ Hebrews was….. zero.

  203. > Thales the Milesian of Greek and Phoenician, i.e. Semitic, ancestry

    The Phoenicians spoke the same language as the people just to their south.

    A number of Talmud references to boys of tribe-of-Dan running away on ships out of Tyre. Presumeably for money and adventure.

  204. > Algebra was invented by an Arab

    no shipmate, it was PUBLISHED IN THE WEST in Arabic.

    Isaac Newton’s work was published in Latin. That doesn’t mean a Roman wrote it.

    PS: The young woman in the illustration at top of this column appears to be wearing the same style of dress that women in Karachi do today.

  205. Superb assertion! There is so much whimsical envy about the ancient Greeks, and such heavy chips on the shoulders of hyperboreans/Northerners, so linguistically and culturally dependent on what fermented and developed in Greece and Italy, that dementia is a common consequence in the minds of those who cannot accept that their ancestors were still in the Bronze Age when beauty was being immortalized in a Parthenon. Thank heaven for modern genetics that have indisputably supported the unbroken continuity of Greeks from antiquity to the present. The temperament of modern Greeks still rings of the individualistic freedom that created both the glory and the plights of the Greek people. This sense of unparalleled freedom, of course, will always contrast the “herd” mentality of the slower thinking northerners who must abide by the “rules” in fear of being stricken by the shepherds…. Today, however, we are stuck between the policies of the Northern buffoons and the Southern races, who, not being able to stand their ugliness, want to attire beauty in a burka! O tempora, o mores!

    Well stated Philhellene!

  206. Those are reconstructions. you base your theories on manipulated statues, if you look at paintings you clearly see they look mediterranean, dark haired and skin

  207. There were two racial types in ancient Greece: dark-haired whites and fair-haired whites, as well as gradations in between.

    I was in Greece earlier this summer, and to some degree, that’s also the case today. Some folks look rather Turkish, but others look more or less like they’re Balkan while others look kind of like northern Italians.

    If you’re in the islands and get away from the tourist crowds and hang out among the natives at a restaurant, the ambiance seems very middle-Eastern, at least to this American. It isn’t the dress or the food, it’s the people – their look and their attitude (which is rather intense.) But then, just when you think you have a good sense of the racial or ethnic profile or nuance, some blondish fair complected native will walk up and start talking with everyone else. The Greeks islanders today don’t seem to segregate themselves among skin tones, but, then again, though the range is noticeably greater than, say, indigenous Nordics, it isn’t all that great in the scheme of things. It’s all recessive gene related and not of much consequence to them.

    There’s a man I know from North Carolina, and I always thought he looked much more midwestern than southern, as he has that very Norwegian tall red haired, pale skinned (with freckles) appearance that’s much more common in Nebraska than North Carolina. I was surprised to find out, however, that he considers himself mostly Scotch Irish, and is one fourth Cherokee Indian to boot. He may be mistaken about the exact percentage of his Indian heritage, but even if he was one eighth, he doesn’t look the part. He said his mom was dark complected and never burned in the sun, but he has to keep himself covered in sunscreen and wears long pants in the summer. That’s the power of recessive genes.

  208. The reason for the blue eyes in Greece today is because the south of the continent of Europe was invaded my Germanic Barbarian trives . Not because they were there before classic times . And Nordic people have nothing to do with the Greek language, the Greek language is an indo-European language it has nothing to do with any Germanic language.

  209. What became of the Nordic Greeks and Romans? Their numbers were reduced and thinned through war, imperialism, immigration, and slavery.

    thinned through war, imperialism, immigration, and slavery

    Yes, here is a classic “racial annihilation memorial” that nobody recognizes it for what is was, a racial annihilation.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme

    The strategic objective of that battle was to kill as many white goyim as possible.

  210. This is why I take modern historians with a grain of salt. They are not scholars but political activists.

  211. Interesting point about Catholics and Catholic priests. A lot of the priests were from the brighter sections of youth and in light of revelations from the last few decades or so, more likely to have same sex preferences.

    However, speaking of IQ in Ireland measured in the early 70s, you forgot to mention or didn’t think of the huge Irish diaspora. Millions of more motivated and more ambitious Irish left Ireland in the 19th century alone.

    Yes they were mostly the common folk but what they had in common was their desire to free themselves from all the limitations British rule had imposed including famine and the destruction of their Gaelic culture. It is not coincidental that in the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, the Irish rose in social rank and the descendants of those who left Ireland are remarkably successful given the circumstances of their ancestors in the home country.

    On the other hand, it is interesting to note that African slaves taken to the USA and the Caribbean were selected for their physical condition.

    Despite the obvious intelligence of some notable African American achievers, there could be a case made for the inability of those in urban locations such as Chicago who keep playing out black on black crime in gangs and repetitive behaviour in other black urban areas where nothing – not affirmative action, not decades of permitting entry into university and college with lower scores, not significant outlays of public money again and again – can alter behaviour patterns of non achievement and the focus on accumulating material goods while claiming racism when there is no money left for essentials.

    The catch-all slavery excuse has worn thin but is still being used by political demagogues (no, not Trump), race baiters, and the new black racists in the form of self-segregation and promotion of hatred which is rarely called racism by a spineless and manipulated media. The genetics of slave selection probably holds the answer to much of the self-defeating behaviour and easy transference of responsibility to ‘whiteness’.

  212. I’m a Lebanese guy who is almost always take to be some kind of eastern European, like many on my extended family. Others in my family look rather more olive. This causes some of my female cousins to be chased around the desk a la Miss Buxley.

    We’re a frickin’ gene salad. I think it’s pretty safe to assume the Greeks of old, like the Greeks of today were as well.

  213. JEZUS!!! you are f… retarded.

  214. Ele passou a contar com a ajuda de pequeno número de amigos, que passaram a lhe fornecer inicialmente
    historias de suas experiencias sexuais, sendo elas reais ou imaginárias.

  215. “There were always higher concentrations of fairer skinned people in the North, and yet they were far less advanced and civilized than Southern Europé”

    Yes, because of the Cold weather that stoped them from developing as fast and instead they tried to survive the cold, icy winters in the North. While the greeks had much more sunshine, warmth and easier access to fish, fresh vegetables and such.

  216. I think that all those assertions about the nordic type of the ancient Greeks is based in the cognitive dissonance that for the Anglo Americans, sadly not totally liberated of their racist prejudices , produces the fact that the Greek civilization originated there. And that the germanic peoples were practically in the Stone Age in those times.

    But it is a fact that the Western civilization is built with the remains of the wreck of the Sumerian , Egypitian Minoic , and Greek civilization began in Sumer, and spreaded to the rest of the world.

  217. >citing March of the Titans

    Hilarious!

  218. The Solutrean Hypothesis is retarded.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263808760_On_the_Inferred_Age_and_Origin_of_Lithic_Bi-Points_from_the_Eastern_Seaboard_and_Their_Relevance_to_the_Pleistocene_Peopling_of_North_America

  219. “Many amren followers firmly believe that even the French are part black”

    They are not the brightest bunch. The other day some guy was telling me that we evolved from monkeys. Another pushing the multiregional hypothesis because “you can’t make black skin white”. It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad.

  220. Modern archaeology and genetics tell us the following facts about Europe’s racial origins:

    1) The WHG’s (the original Europeans since the Paleolithic) were dark haired, BLUE eyed, and fairly dark skinned. The WHG’s had Y haplotype I2a (and probably I1 as well). These people are direct descendants of the old Cro-Magnons.

    2) The Neolithic farmers came from Anatolia or the Caucasus about 10,000 years ago. They are the people who appear to have brought light skin into the continent (based on ancient DNA). A good example of one of these people is Otzi the Iceman (5,000 year old frozen man found in the Alps). These people brought Y haplotype G2a and J into the continent (and perhaps E as well).

    3) Finally, about 5,000 years ago, the so-called “Aryans” or Indo-Europeans invaded the continent with their horses and war chariots which gave them a huge tactical advantage over the sedentary farmers. The horse was domesticated in Khazikstan by these same people in the Bakail region long before they entered Europe. These guys supplanted much of the male population of Europe (probably through genocide) but they did admix with the native females.

    Archaeologists have identified early IE burial sites from the early bronze age on the eastern fringes of Europe (in and around Ukraine) which just so happen to date to about the same time the invasion began. ( This culture is dubbed “Yamnaya”). They have done genome sequences on the remains and concluded that every single male tested thus far carried Y halogroup R1b. This is the most dominant male haplogroup in all of Europe today (almost 80%) suggesting that the Indo-European men had a jolly good time with their mating selection.

    So what does this tell us about Greece and Rome? It tells us two important things:

    1) The Indo-Europeans supplanted the languages in almost every corner of Europe (except the Basque region). Greek, Latin, all the Germanic branches and all the Romance languages are all derived from these people. That is to say all these languages evolved from a proto language brought from the steppes with the R1b males (and their women).

    2) We know they admixed with the native populations thoroughly (on both sides), which means that most of Europe was completely hybridized long before classical Greece arose.

    This means that the Greeks were probably like most modern Euros today. There were blondes, brunettes and red-heads within the same locale, same tribe and same family (with brunettes being the most numerous). The fact that there were fair haired Greeks and Romans is evident from the fact they had “nicknames” for blondes and red-heads (Flavian and Rufus, for example, in Rome).

    There isn’t much doubt based on everything known (ancient Greek writings, archaeology, linguistics) that the Hellenes were from north of the Alps. They were indeed a northern people who brought an Indo-European language (but retained some of the native Ionian vernacular).
    We know the Hellenic Greeks were of at least partial Indo-European descent because, as said already, the language itself is Indo-European. Same for Latin.

    I would categorize the Greeks into two broad racial groups: The northern Hellenes and the native Ionians (who were darker, shorter and more “Mediterranean”). The Hellenes brought what we know as classical Greek culture. However, the Ionians were already highly advanced in their own right (especially artistically and in philosophy). There is no doubt that much of the Ionian culture was adopted by the Hellenes.

    There were many blondes among the Hellenes as is evidenced by the writings of the day, but that was covered thoroughly in the article we are all replying to, so I won’t repeat it.

    Looking at the busts of ancient Greeks and Romans, I see northern European features in many of them, but not all. Some could pass in England or Germany, while others look like they are straight out of a Sopranos episode.

    My only point here is that the ancient Greeks and Romans were not all dark-haired and dark eyed. There were fair-haired, fair-skinned people in both cultures (among the earliest members). Were they “nordic?” I guess it depends on how one defines the term. If you define it to mean people with caucasian features that also have blonde hair, then some of them were nordic. Does “nordic” mean they have to look like Dolph Lundgren (Swedish)? If so, then I would say very few, if any, fit that profile.

    Do I believe that only “nordics” have created civilization? Of course not. Do I believe some people want to completely rewrite history in order to push an anti-nordic agenda? That is to say, do I think some people want to deny blondes any sort of influence in early European civilization in order to teach those white nationalists a lesson? Yes, I think some people push that agenda, especially RacialRealist88.

  221. From Tacitus’ Germania :

    “Physical Characteristics. For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence, too, the same physical peculiarities throughout so vast a population. All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them.”

  222. I am in complete agreement with your statement which appears to be clearly well thought out and based on scientific facts not on an ideological suppositions. The question is this: does phenotype (gene-derived external physical appearance) determines people’s intellectual output and creative adaptations to a changing social and physical environment?

  223. Ancient Romans & Greeks looked like modern Europeans regardless of where they might hail from now, Ancient Rome & Greece isn’t particularly ancient when you consider the European People still have essentially the same physical characteristics as Cro Magnon man. The European gene pool is overwhelming that of Cro Magon man from FORTY FIVE THOUSAND years ago, In short if modern Europeans STILL look like Cro Magnons then its obvious we still look like our relatively recent Greco/Roman ancestors.

  224. The author says:

    “… the Greek language must have arrived with the light-haired conquerors who migrated from the north, most likely from the middle Danube River Valley”.

    And gives no clue whatsoever why this should be, except the prevalence of ‘fair hair’. The closest relative to the Greek language is Armenian, which points in almost exactly the opposite direction of the “Danube River Valley” if we want to find the origins of the Greek peoples.

    Today, fair hair can occasionally be found in places like Central Asia, Afghanistan, Northern Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Armenia and Caucasus, and it was problably prevalent among the original Aryan tribes from the southern Russian steppes.

    Look East, or Southeast, not Northwest, if you’re looking for the origins of the Greeks.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone



 
Remember
My Information
Why?

 Email Replies to my Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Past
Classics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.