COMMENTS
Good job ,though some of the Northern Italians in these biodiversity/race forums wont like it ,they hate being labeled Southern European so much they just wont stand for looking the same,lol.
I too am just tired of hearing the same ol' nonsense being spewed out that Northerner's are different from Southerners on these boards over the years with the same lies being repeated like a broken record . Its already almost a decade into the 21st century .
Again, nice work!
Northern Italians look southern europeans as well but generally fairer and more western looking compared to Southern Italians who have a levantine strain on a certain degree.
Also Southern Italians female are generally shorter, stocky with broad-hips belonging mostly to a gracilmed/reduced alpinid type while Northern ones are more atlantomed/dinarid and therefore leptomorphic.
I can anticipate the objections you will receive about this post. First, a variety of ad hominem attacks, centered around your \"inability to accept the reality of northern/southern Italian differences.\"
Next - and something you may have anticipated with your comment on Veneto and internal migration - it will be asserted that the northern Italian subjects you used are actually the descendants of southern immigrants. In other words, if you don't have exact genealogical records for each subject, your conclusions will be summarily dismissed. This will be particularly true for the first set, which includes samples from regions of Italy that has seen large levels of internal migration.
Next, it will be claimed that Veneto is not particularly northern in character, and you cannot use the more northern-type regions because of the internal migration.
Next, it will be claimed that the samples are not representative of the average person of these regions.
Next, that facial averaging eliminates real differences that can be observed looking at individual samples.
Etc etc etc
Any conclusion that can be made that does not, a priori, assume that northern and southern Italians are radically different with respect to race will be deconstructed and nitpicked away.
Of course, had you come to the opposite conclusion, none of these counter-arguments would be posed, and no problems would be considered about sampling, etc.
posting random pictures of selected groups of people makes no sense at all and has no scientific relevance as even a kid can imagine, but I'm not expecting anything else from this blog after having seeing the pics of supposed \"Basques\" who are anything but real Basques.
What are real Basques like?
pictures of real Basques:
http://forum.stirpes.net/showthr...ghlight=basques
Your 'real' Basques (on pictures) are more or less real as your description of southern Italians.
I suspected it, thank you for conferming.
They are for sure more real than those posted on this blog who are people of unknown origin dressed up like Basques.
My description of Southern Italians is based on my personal experience as I've spent most of my life in Italy.
Large hips are said to be a general Mediterranean trait found in the females. Its ideal for child bearing and sexual desire, as men prefer the hourglass figure on women.
Alpine's are in the Northern region of Italy in great abundance cause thats where the Alpine region is. Its wonderful how you try and make out that Alpines glace over the North,the place were their most likely to be found,and somehow wide up in the South. That's cute,lol.
Alpines also arent Levantine-looking(least of all any type of \"reduced Alpine) in anyway,you have a better chance of claiming Dinarics are,cause they are really what they call Armenoids,and the difference between the two is arbitrary and trivial.
Also the Atlanto-Mediterranean type and Dianric's are rugged and thick boned...a far cry from a leptomorphic.
\"Large hips are said to be a general Mediterranean trait found in the females. Its ideal for child bearing and sexual desire, as men prefer the hourglass figure on women.\"
bloated hips are common in gracilmed women and aren't that much appreciated by men nowadays
\"Alpine's are in the Northern region of Italy in great abundance cause thats where the Alpine region is. Its wonderful how you try and make out that Alpines glace over the North,the place were their most likely to be found,and somehow wide up in the South. That's cute,lol.\"
Alpines are common all over Italy, but generally in the South tend to be shorter, stocky and pyknomorphic. reduced, indeed.
\"Alpines also arent Levantine-looking(least of all any type of \"reduced Alpine) in anyway,you have a better chance of claiming Dinarics are,cause they are really what they call Armenoids,and the difference between the two is arbitrary and trivial.\"
there is no confirmation of a relation between Armenoids and Dinarids, afaik.
\"Also the Atlanto-Mediterranean type and Dianric's are rugged and thick boned...a far cry from a leptomorphic.\"
Atlanto-med and dinaric types are tall and slender, in a word, leptomorphic.
I wonder how a woman can be \"stocky with braoad hips\" and gracilmed at the same time. such a woman is not exactly gracile, you see...Maria Grazia Cucinotta, a woman you no doubt con
I wonder how a woman can be \"stocky with braoad hips\" and gracilmed at the same time...such a woman is not exactly 'gracile', you see. Maria Grazia Cucinotta, who you no doubt consider the epithome of a southern italian, is for instance very tall and thin, everything but \"stocky\". the vast majority of southern italian girls aren't unlike her, even if not necessarily as tall, thanks to diet and living very different from fifty years ago, so your 'personal experience' is quite outdated nowadays. bye bye.
Marisa Laurito is what I define the epithome of southern italian woman
http://www.archivio.raiuno.rai.i...0159/015917.jpg
insular med type, while Monica Bellucci is atlanto-med.
Bepi your full of shit!
Atlanto-Mediterranean's are sturdy,rugged and more robust built Paleolithic version of the Gracile Mediterranean which are more leptomorphic as their afterall \"Gracile\".
Atlanto-Mediterranean's inhabited the islands of Italy(most of which belong to Sicily and been so since time immemorial when they colonized by Sicilians) and Sicily itself. Their only sporadically found in Northern Italy,far outnumbered by the Alpine's and Dinaric types or some mix of those two. Actually majority of Atlanto-Mediterranean's are found in North Africa.
Dinaric's by the way are stocky build.
The hour glass figure has and still is the most ideal. Stop sniffing glue.
Marisa Laurito is a good example. but she is not short (170 cm); moreover, she's got fattier with age. as a girl she was much more thinner.
Crimson Tard, you are challenging every theory conceived so far. A-med are more common in the north, while gracilmed or insular med are more common in the south. Gracile and leptomorphic aren't synonymous.
Dinarics are typically medium-tall, dolicocephalic, convex-nosed and not stocky at all.
the hourglass figure is different from the \"pear-shaped\" figure.
Its funny to see the great difference from the \"supposed basques\" as bepi the spumoni nut claims compared to the basques on the racialist messageboard, who by the way,are just another white nationalist group.Aww yes,bepi the spumoni fruit thank you for opening our eyes....
http://www.armiarma.com/zubi/egi...udiak/00113.GIF
http://img301.imageshack.us/img3.../basques4kg.jpg
http://img231.imageshack.us/my.p...ues013vc6kj.jpg
http://www.parlonsfoot.com/image...intro___001.jpg
They dont look northern european,hell yea!
\"Northern Italians look southern europeans as well but generally fairer and more western looking compared to Southern Italians who have a levantine strain on a certain degree.\"
Yes the levantine strain that also in northern itay.
\"Also Southern Italians female are generally shorter, stocky with broad-hips belonging mostly to a gracilmed/reduced alpinid type while Northern ones are more atlantomed/dinarid and therefore leptomorphic.\"
This has nothing to with \"race\" but diet.Deal with it.
My final words:
http://www.giovanipadani.leganor...elli/misss7.jpg
\"They dont look northern european,hell yea!\"
Basques look like Basques, not like Gypsies or South Americans like those
posted on this blog. If you aren't able to understand the difference you shouldn't waste your time with physical anthropology.
Regardless I still trust more those Spaniard board posters than
an American guy on this topic.
\"Yes the levantine strain that also in northern itay.\"
again, it's funny being lectured on Italy by people who actually have never spend
a single day in Italy.
I really fail to see loads of levantine looking people among
indigenous northern italians such like the following sicilian ones
http://www.gazzetta.it/Foto%20He...2M--310x210.jpg
http://www.iene.mediaset.it/medi...tobiografia.jpg
\"http://www.giovanipadani.leganor...elli/ misss7.jpg\"
you can do better:
Gianluigi Paragone, north leaguer chief editor (how curious of southern descent, he's in good company)
http://www.radionews.it/admin/do...paragonemic.JPG
Why isn't the webmaster here defending his work, especially the accusations of fraud concerning the Basque images?
To Bepi:
I think it's obvious why the site owner chose those pictures of Basques that you are complaining about. He's trying to point out that even among one of the more genetically isolated European groups you can still have people that display \"weird\" or \"dark\" phenotypes (in other words, \"weird\" or \"dark\" phenotypes among Caucasoid groups do not necessarily have to do with \"race mixing\", as some racist fanatics claim.) He's not trying to say that's how all or even average Basques look like. Whether the people in question are real Basques or not I don't know, since there is nothing posted about their family histories, but I suppose the site owner tried to make sure as far as possible that they were Basques.
Those people listed as Basques look mostly foreign to Europe.
The author doesn't provide sources, anyway.
So I finally found the Coon's chapter on Italy and it confirms exactly my impressions:
\"Italy, one of the most clearly demarcated geographical units in Europe, is a country of considerable racial variability.\"
\"In other words, the southern Italians are a blend for the most pat of Alpines and small Mediterraneans, while among the northern Italians the most important dolichocephalic strain is the Atlanto-Mediterranean.\"
\"Besides conventional Mediterraneans and Alpines there are two special types which are particularly common, and will be familiar to anyone living in Italian sections of the United States, as well as to anyone who has visited southern Italy. These are: (1) a coarse Mediterranean, short-statured, thick-limbed, mesocephalic, possessing a narrow forehead, wide malars, heavy browridges, a short, broad, straight or lightly concave nose with upturned tip, a strong jaw, and some prognathism; (2) a local approximation to an Armenoid, short-statured, especially thick-set and short-necked, with a flattened occiput, dome-shaped lateral vault profile, heavy browridges, a high-rooted, high-bridged, thick-tipped and depressed-tipped nose, and an especially prominent jaw.\"
that's exactly what I have observed in many years, the south has a distinct presence of med-levantine and coarse med/berid types who are not common in the north as well.
I was referring to the berid type in regards of those short, stocky, pear-shaped type of women common among southerners.
It's funny how Racial Reality keeps quoting 'Races of Europe' left and right and suddenly he descards Coon when the statements reported there don't suit his agenda anymore.
more evidence to me about the unreliability and bad faith of this site.
>>> the south has a distinct presence of med-levantine and coarse med/berid types who are not common in the north
Coon links the coarse Mediterranean type to Paleolithic Iberians, so it isn't foreign or eastern or whatever nonsense you're thinking. And the Armenoid-like type parallels the \"med-levantine\" elements common in the north. I guess you missed this part of the chapter:
\"In the population of the Bolognese there is a strong prevalence of Alpine and Dinaric types, especially the former, but approximately one-third of the population is long-headed or nearly so. Among this third, Nordics are not uncommon, but the most important element is a tall, slender, brunet, long-faced type, with a thin, straight or convex nose, and thin lips. It is a variant of the Atlanto-Mediterranean, with some of the Cappadocian facial features brought from western Asia by early navigators, including the Etruscans. Associated with this type is a frequent obliquity of the eye slits, which are very long; highly arched eyebrows and full malars.\"
>>> more evidence to me about the unreliability and bad faith of this site.
A Padanianist accusing someone of \"unreliability and bad faith\" is like a skunk accusing someone of smelling bad.
Now stop spamming my blog with your crap.
>Coon links the coarse Mediterranean type to Paleolithic Iberians, so it isn't foreign or eastern or whatever nonsense you're thinking
It's still not common and perceived as sign of southern descent:
http://popwatch.ew.com/photos/un...640__vito_l.jpg
>In the population of the Bolognese
in Bologna with no reference to other places and it's still atlanto-med with some occasional different features, not plain or mostly armenoid looking as in the south.
the data about pigmentation are also taken from a sample of bolognese population and are not an average of all Northern Italy as you deceptively suggested. the skin color in the bolognese sample is 1/2 light-brunet and 1/2 pinkish white with no mention of olive complexion as in the South, but of course this is not specified either in your oversimplified quotation.
that it's called bad faith. or gross approximation.
>>> It's still not common and perceived as sign of southern descent
Coarse/Berid types are quite common in Iberia and Sardinia, and found as far north as France:
http://carnby.altervista.org/immagini/lundracesmap18.jpg
They're mainly a sign of ancient western descent.
>>> it's still atlanto-med with some occasional different features, not plain or mostly armenoid looking as in the south.
First off, Atlanto-Mediterraneans are the predominant racial element of North Africa, so I don't know what you're trying to prove with that. Secondly, there are plenty of \"armenoid looking\" Northern Italians in addition to the Cappadocian strains -- they're called Dinarics:
Dinaric Italian
Armenoid Armenian
>>> the data about pigmentation are also taken from a sample of bolognese population and are not an average of all Northern Italy as you deceptively suggested.
Coon only provided data for the Bolognese. He obviously felt that they were representative of Northern Italians, but I'm sure you know better.
>>> the skin color in the bolognese sample is 1/2 light-brunet and 1/2 pinkish white with no mention of olive complexion as in the South
Both Northern and Southern Italians are described as ~50% \"light brown\", which is the darkest skin tone observed in Europe (#15-18 on von Luschan's scale). \"Olive\" is an undefined label used generically, but if anything it would be slightly lighter than brown.
![http://carnby.altervista.org/immagini/lundracesmap18.jpg](\"http://carnby.altervista.org/immagini/lundracesmap18.jpg\"){kind=link}
![Dinaric Italian](\"http://carnby.altervista.org/immagini/troe372.jpg\"){kind=link}
![Armenoid Armenian](\"http://carnby.altervista.org/immagini/troe422.jpg\"){kind=link}
![von Luschan's scale](\"http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/scale.jpg\"){kind=link}
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=fe49dde889e333cba36c88b8db1721d4&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=32\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
The Italian anthropologist Livi examined 300,000 young Italian army recruits in the late 19th century and skin colour was lightest in northern Italy ranging from 49 per cent fair skin in Lombardy to 25-31 per cent in southern Italy and Sicily falling to 18 per cent in Sardinia.
Piedmont, Lombardy, Veneto, Umbria and Tuscany were lightest in hair and eye colour.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=16c6b1dbf515a4a3a11b37d75058cc26&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=32\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
It is interesting, the dacial composities of the legislature deputies from Southern Italy look strikingly like Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, who is of Southern Italian ancestry.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=32\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
>Coon only provided data for the Bolognese. He obviously felt that they were representative of Northern Italians, but I'm sure you know better.
Italy is a country of remarkable variability, so it's rather unprobable that a single city might be representative of a whole greater area. indeed other maps suggest this way.
>Both Northern and Southern Italians are described as ~50% \"light brown\", which is the darkest skin tone observed in Europe (#15-18 on von Luschan's scale). \"Olive\" is an undefined label used generically, but if anything it would be slightly lighter than brown.
between pinkish-pale and olive there's a wide range of shades, so light brown is an umbrella term who might be misleading and inaccurated.
northern italy (Bologna included) is still in the fairer belt, anyway
http://img58.imageshack.us/img58.../8895/12mi9.png
>First off, Atlanto-Mediterraneans are the predominant racial element of North Africa, so I don't know what you're trying to prove with that. Secondly, there are plenty of \"armenoid looking\" Northern Italians in addition to the Cappadocian strains -- they're called Dinarics:
Coon considered the general italian dinaric type as a different thing from the \"local approximation to an armenoid\" common in the south, otherwise he would have lumped the two types together rather than treating them distinctly.
the only thing I want to prove is that there is a significant difference between north and south of Italy, as Coon wrote in the ending lines of his chapter and the opposite of what this blog entry seems to suggest.
>>> between pinkish-pale and olive there's a wide range of shades, so light brown is an umbrella term who might be misleading and inaccurated. northern italy (Bologna included) is still in the fairer belt, anyway
No. \"Light brown\" is defined according to the von Luschan scale. \"Olive\" is not, but I did a search and in the chapter on Gypsies, Coon equates it with \"brunet-white\", which is slightly lighter. The South's non-brunet component may not all be pinkish-white like the North's (Coon doesn't specify), but that's irrelevant to the ~50% brunet component shared by both regions.
>>> Coon considered the general italian dinaric type as a different thing from the \"local approximation to an armenoid\" common in the south, otherwise he would have lumped the two types together rather than treating them distinctly.
If you had read TRoE more carefully, you would have noticed that Coon is vague about those two types, often mentioning them interchangeably or at the same time. That's because they're so similar in appearance that it's difficult to tell them apart. Here's an example from the chapter on Slavs:
\"There is, however, a minority which shows Dinaric or Armenoid features; a convex nasal profile, present in 17 per cent of the group, indicates this, as do other nasal and facial characters. This minority Dinaric strain is connected geographically with the population of the Carpathians immediately southwest of Volhynia.\"
>>> the only thing I want to prove is that there is a significant difference between north and south of Italy, as Coon wrote in the ending lines of his chapter and the opposite of what this blog entry seems to suggest.
I know you WANT to prove that, but you haven't done so. All of the data (including Coon's) show relatively minor statistical differences that are obviously not manifested in averages of multiple random individuals.
>No. \"Light brown\" is defined according to the von Luschan scale. \"Olive\" is not, but I did a search and in the chapter on Gypsies, Coon equates it with \"brunet-white\", which is slightly lighter. The South's non-brunet component may not all be pinkish-white like the North's (Coon doesn't specify), but that's irrelevant to the ~50% brunet component shared by both regions.
the South has more than 50% of light brown (\"over 50 per cent of unexposed shades are definitely light brown or olive-colored\"), anyway you can see there's a difference between white with yellow undertones, slightly darker, olive etc. so light-brown for anything darker than pinkish-pale is a misleading and grossly inaccurated definition.
>if you had read TRoE more carefully, you would have noticed that Coon is vague about those two types, often mentioning them interchangeably or at the same time. That's because they're so similar in appearance that it's difficult to tell them apart.
the \"local approximation to an armenoid\" is described as typical of the South and not of all Italy. if Coon had considered that type as common all over the country he would have done that way. dinarids are common even in Germany or Slovakia but that doesn't make them indistinguishable from armenoid or armenoid looking types.
>I know you WANT to prove that, but you haven't done so. All of the data (including Coon's) show relatively minor statistical differences that are obviously not manifested in averages of multiple random individuals.
c'est ą la carte:
\"No country in Europe in which one language and one cultural tradition prevail shows a greater diversity of race between its southern and its northern extremities than does Italy\".(C.S. Coon)
one might argue this difference is not radical, but still is significant and noticeable, that's my point.
>>> the South has more than 50% of light brown (\"over 50 per cent of unexposed shades are definitely light brown or olive-colored\"), anyway you can see there's a difference between white with yellow undertones, slightly darker, olive etc. so light-brown for anything darker than pinkish-pale is a misleading and grossly inaccurated definition.
I don't know what you're babbling about. These are the main skin tones defined and used by Coon, in order from lightest to darkest:
- Pinkish-white
- Brunet-white (a.k.a. Olive)
- Light brown
- Medium brown
- Dark brown
Northern Italians are ~50% light brown, and Southern Italians are >50% light brown and brunet-white.
>>> the \"local approximation to an armenoid\" is described as typical of the South and not of all Italy. if Coon had considered that type as common all over the country he would have done that way. dinarids are common even in Germany or Slovakia but that doesn't make them indistinguishable from armenoid or armenoid looking types.
Why don't you take a look at some Dinarics and Armenoids and see for yourself how similar they are:
http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/troephotos.htm
(Plates 36-42)
>>> c'est ą la carte:
\"No country in Europe in which one language and one cultural tradition prevail shows a greater diversity of race between its southern and its northern extremities than does Italy\".(C.S. Coon)
Talk is cheap. It's data that counts. Coon's chapter on Italy demonstrates that the North is about 1/3 Alpine, 1/3 Dinaric and 1/3 Atlanto-Mediterranean with minor Cappadocian influences, and the South is about 1/2 Alpine and 1/2 Mediterranean with minor Berid and Armenoid influences. So basically, the same three types are at play throughout the country, as Coon points out in the second half of that paragraph:
\"The binding element which is common to all sections is the Alpine, which has reėmerged from obscure beginnings through a superstructure composed of Dinaric, Nordic, and various kinds of Mediterranean accretions. Italy stands on the fence between the Alpine and Mediterranean worlds.\"
>>> one might argue this difference is not radical
One of us IS arguing that. The other has been arguing the opposite.
>I don't know what you're babbling about. These are the main skin tones defined and used by Coon, in order from lightest to darkest:
- Pinkish-white
- Brunet-white (a.k.a. Olive)
- Light brown
- Medium brown
- Dark brown
where exactly are these types defined in Coon?
>Northern Italians are ~50% light brown
the bolognese sample is 50%, not northern italy as a whole.
>Why don't you take a look at some Dinarics and Armenoids and see for yourself how similar they are:
oh yes, and baltids and alpines are similar because they are both brachycephalic...
>Talk is cheap. It's data that counts.
the data reported by Coon show exactly what I previously said: a significant difference.
>the South is about 1/2 Alpine and 1/2 Mediterranean with minor Berid and Armenoid influences.
minor?
again, c'est ą la carte;
\"there are two special types which are particularly common, and will be familiar to anyone living in Italian sections of the United States, as well as to anyone who has visited southern Italy.\"
>>> where exactly are these types defined in Coon?
All throughout the book whenever pigmentation is discussed. You'd have to read it or search through it. I've already done that and posted the values for each category on my Skin Color page.
>>> the bolognese sample is 50%, not northern italy as a whole.
No, it's probably the whole, since the Ladin-speakers of northern Trentino are also 50% brunet-skinned.
>>> oh yes, and baltids and alpines are similar because they are both brachycephalic...
Similarities between types go beyond cephalic index, and Dinarics and Armenoids share many features. Go and look at the plates instead of arguing like a fool.
>>> the data reported by Coon show exactly what I previously said: a significant difference.
Incorrect. I outlined exactly what Coon's data shows. You obviously can't refute it, so be quiet.
>>> minor?
again, c'est ą la carte;
\"there are two special types which are particularly common, and will be familiar to anyone living in Italian sections of the United States, as well as to anyone who has visited southern Italy.\"
Coon says the same thing about the Cappadocian-influenced Mediterranean type in the North, but you don't mention that. We've been through all this before. You repeat yourself because you have no argument.
there's a wide variety of skin tones after pinkish-pale
white with yellow undertones http://www.nonsolobiografie.it/p...ano_accorsi.jpg
slightly darker http://www.panorama.it/media/020...20001059307.jpg
olive http://www.mediaset.it/binary/88...ileimmagine.jpg
deep dark olive
http://www.zeusnews.it/immagini/...80-taricone.jpg
or whatever you want to call them, the substance doesn't change.
lumping all this skin tones in just one category is
misleading because the more you go South the more you find people with
darker complexion within the range of \"light brown\"
>Similarities between types go beyond cephalic index, and Dinarics and Armenoids share many features. Go and look at the plates instead of arguing like a fool.
I just rely on what Coon wrote without your personal (mis)interpretations.
when he talks about \"a local approximation to an armenoid\" he just refers to the South.
the litoris types found in the British Isles are supposedly influenced by Mid-East but that doesn't make them plain Sicilian looking.
it's funny how you keep quoting Coon as if he's Bible or Coran and then you say \"he's vague about these two types\" when he doesn't support your opinions anymore.
>Incorrect. I outlined exactly what Coon's data shows. You obviously can't refute it, so be quiet.
I thought English was your native language but apparently it's not since your not able to understand that when Coon said:
\"No country in Europe in which one language and one cultural tradition prevail shows a greater diversity of race between its southern and its northern extremities than does Italy\"
he was actually saying that there's a noticeable and significant different between the two extremities of Italy.
I already expressed my opinions which basically match what Coon wrote.
I'm yet to understand what are yours.
>>> there's a wide variety of skin tones after pinkish-pale
I know, I just listed and defined them all for you. This issue has already been settled. You have nothing intelligent to add, so don't bring it up again.
>>> the litoris types found in the British Isles are supposedly influenced by Mid-East but that doesn't make them plain Sicilian looking.
Actually, Coon describes that type as Armenoid-looking as well, so it would probably be even closer to the Southern Italian type than either Dinarics or Cappadocians are.
>>> there's a noticeable and significant different between the two extremities of Italy.
Extremities refers to the fringes, not to entire regions. Whatever differences Coon is talking about (he doesn't specify) only apply to the outer edges, not to the whole north and south, as his data clearly shows.
>I know, I just listed and defined them all for you. This issue has already been settled. You have nothing intelligent to add, so don't bring it up again
I just stated what is evident to everyone's eyes.
>Extremities refers to the fringes, not to entire regions. Whatever differences Coon is talking about (he doesn't specify) only apply to the outer edges, not to the whole north and south, as his data clearly shows.
thanks Mr. Obvious, I did notice the difference is higher between transpadanian regions and the deep south (Calabria, Sicily and Salento) while it's smaller between Tuscany and Campania.
It's always a gradient.
>>> I just stated what is evident to everyone's eyes.
Your statement is unsupported and contradicts the data at hand. If you repeat it again, it will be deleted.
>>> I did notice the difference is higher between transpadanian regions and the deep south (Calabria, Sicily and Salento)
There's no evidence that \"extremities\" refers to all of those areas either. Coon simply doesn't say. All we know is that differences between Bologna and the South/Sicily are minor.
>Your statement is unsupported and contradicts the data at hand. If you repeat it again, it will be deleted.
your logic and your kindergarden attitude are unsupported and full of contradictions.
>There's no evidence that \"extremities\" refers to all of those areas either. Coon simply doesn't say. All we know is that differences between Bologna and the South/Sicily are minor
and which are supposed to be the two extremities? west and east?
are you kidding or it's again your kindergarden attitude in refuting
the evidence?
anyway nobody's gonna buy this blog entry. http://www.biodiversityforum.com...ites-t4857.html
Sorry, you already lost this debate. Returning three weeks later with nothing but repetition and ad hominem won't help you. Don't make any more useless posts.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=66be3b41827ae732bc30201b1345997d&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=32\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Coon based most of his Italy observations on Livi's study of some 300,000 army recruits from the late 19th century. Racial Reality fails to mention this, the biggest original single study of Italian physical anthropology. Possible ignorance of the Italian language is no excuse.
Livi said that the blondest parts of Italy bordered the Alps.
Here is his regional list of PINKISH (roseo) SKIN COLOUR:
Lombardy 49.7 per cent
Piedmont 48.8
Venetia 46.8
Emilia/
Romagna 38.5
Liguria 45.6
Tuscany 43.4
Umbria 41.5
Marche 31.4
Lazio 35.3
Abruzzo/
Molise 37.6
Campania 31.0
Apulia 30.3
Calabria 25.1
Basilicata 31.1
Sicily 28.3
Sardinia 18.3
All Italy 38.6
Italy north of the Po, Liguria,Tuscany and Umbria are all clearly fairer than southern Italy and Sicily in SKIN COLOUR.
The same can be said for HAIR AND EYE COLOUR concerning these regions.
Trentino-Alto Adige and Friuli-Venezia-Giulia were still part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and were not therefore surveyed by Livi
.
Study all the known facts, RR!
If Livi's data is the basis for Coon's observations, and I quoted Coon's observations, then I've already studied Livi's data and incorporated it into my argument, haven't I?
You made the same post in this very discussion nine months ago. It wasn't relevant to the point I was making then, and it's even less relevant now that the debate is long over.
Instead of pointlessly repeating yourself, why don't you go study the similar pigmentation gradients in France, Germany, Britain and other large European nations.
All rhetoric RR! You are the one who REPEATEDLY claims that there is very little to choose between North and South Italians and now you admit that various European countries have pigmentation gradients. So has Italy.
Let's see you explain away these figures for Italian skin colour. I also have Livi's hair and eye colour regional variations from this survey.
Yeah, I've never mentioned pigmentation gradients before...
\"All of the material below comes from Carelton Coon's The Races of Europe. It discusses the similar subraces and phenotypes found throughout Italy (with neither Nordics nor blondes being significant anywhere), and shows that minor differences within the country result from natural clines, which have parallels in other European countries, as well as Europe as a whole.\"
http://racialreality.shorturl.com/padania/
Get out of here, you idiot.
Have you nothing to say about these figures on Italian pigmentation levels except insults?
Coon says that the Bolognese population in the north is fairer than southern Italy though still mainly brunette.
You would deny all significant differences because RR dies not do facts only abuse because he cannot debate only show bitterness.
You are the idiot,sir, and a coward.
Why are you telling me what Coon says when I've quoted him repeatedly?
Until you figure out what your point is, don't waste any more of my time.
My point is that you only use Coon SELECTIVELY and you have not read (or you ignore) the main primary source on Italian physical anthropology namely Ridolfo Livi's ANTROPOMETRIA
MILITARE which covers about 300,000 army recruits from all over Italy.
Remember Coon's quote:
NO COUNTRY IN EUROPE IN WHICH ONE LANGUAGE AND ONE CULTURAL TRADITION PREVAIL SHOWS A GREATER DIVERSITY OF RACE BETWEEN ITS SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN EXTREMITIES THAN DOES ITALY.
Using Coon selectively is pulling a tired quote while ignoring all of the data that reveals more similarities than differences between Italians, and shows the differences to mirror those in other large European nations.
That's the oldest Padanianist/Nordicist trick in the book, but SHOUTING IT is a new twist.
You just lost what little credibility you had left.
You can't have it both ways RR.
One minute you are writing that there are no real differences between Southern and Northern Italians.
Now you say there are more similarities than differences.
Consistency is not your strong point is it?
How much data do you need?
Is a sample of 300,000 Italians not enough for your twisted \"logic\"?
Idiotic morphing of photos proves nothing as your samples are too small.
I have NEVER claimed that there were no differences at all between Northern and Southern Italy. I've only maintained that the differences are relatively small, which is supported by various lines of evidence.
You're using a straw man \"argument\" because you have no real argument.
Stop trolling.
They are NOT relatively small.
There are large Y chromosome differences between north and south.
Haplogroup r1b ranges all the way from 76 percent to 11 percent. Much of the north and part of the centre has twice the rate of the south.
These seem small differences to you?
You have lost the phenotype argument and you will lose the genotype argument too.
You can't prove large phenotypic differences, so you abandon that approach and go the genetic route. Bad move.
http://www.biodiversityforum.com...3&postcount=187
http://www.biodiversityforum.com...7&postcount=259
http://www.biodiversityforum.com...1&postcount=263
CHECKMATE
You made the shift to genotypes first, Dubious Reality, not me.
The figures I have quoted to you ad nauseam in 2 threads prove you have no answer to the facts.
Still ducking and diving?
Scared of numbers are we, Dub?
Read again \"Refuting \"Racial Reality\" re Italians and Sicilians\" in the Molecular Anthropology and Genetics section on the OneDropRule.org site.
*Yawn*
http://www.biodiversityforum.com...2&postcount=267
Good riposte. Your distortions bore me too.
Also to quote Coon in his \"Races of Europe\":
Talking about Southern Italians and Sicilians-
\"The lips vary in thickness, but more fall into the thick category than in most European groups: well over a third show a visible degree of facial or alveolar prognathism\".
Thick lips and prognathism indicate Sub-Saharan African admixture.
Live with it. It's no disgrace, RR.
Your stupidity knows no bounds.
http://www.biodiversityforum.com...1&postcount=279
Your sense of denial knows no bounds.
You obviously know more than Coon.
Sad fellow.
I think you'll find that in Hanihara's data you posted the more modern mostly Southern Italians featured are more prognathous than the more ancient Italians in the same study.
Sub-Saharan African admixture under the Roman Empire perhaps.
Coon also mentions thick lips and frequently flaring nostrils in SouthItalians and Sicilians.
Any bright denials or twisting of the truth there, Dub?
The Modern Italians in Hanihara's study are sandwiched tightly between Norwegians and Neolithic Britons, and they have less prognathism than Germans, Czechs and the Ancient French.
You're the only one here denying and twisting the truth.
However the modern Italian group (largely southern)is still more prognathous than the ancient group.
You can't deny that.
Probably Sub-Saharan African admixture there brought in indirectly by North Africans who occupied Sicily and also had temporary bases in Southern Italy, e.g. mouth of the Garigliano river.
Did your mother do drugs when she was pregnant with you?
Do you even HAVE a human mother or are you just dumb in thought and word?
Oh dear I don't like what he said so I will call him nasty names and suck my (TWO)thumbs.
That's you all over.
Claiming something DOES NOT make it so,fella.
I provide evidence and numerical data and you just twist or weasel word everything.
You claimed a few posts ago on another site that north and south Italians are mostly in a Southern cluster within Europe and then you accept dubious evidence that South Italians are close to English and Irish groups.
Are YOU HIGH ON SOMETHING or just highly dumb?
KEYWORD: \"mostly\". In both Seldin and Bauchet, Italians from different regions display some membership in the \"northern\" cluster, as do the Spanish, but they're mostly in the \"southern\" cluster.
That's NOT what you were implying.
Stop being such a snake.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=ab83d85d6867cbf2c99a93eddea0034f&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=32\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
What is disgraceful and frustrating is to read ignorant people calling mexicans n other non white spanish speaking people \"spanish\".People slander us n put people againsts us especially the clueless americans making people believe that mexicans n other immigrants are \"Spanish\"Someone educate those fools.
this lame attempt to make all Italians look the same is utterly ridiculous.
I worked as a hotel concierge and I could easily tell apart northerners from southerners at first glance in many cases as it's backed up in anthropological literature.
you italian-americans should really get over yourself and stop talking trash about Italy when you have no real knowledge or understanding of it besides Google.
Zenigata - Listen my little bell hop friend. I am Italian, I live in Italy, and you're an idiot.
Although it is true, Italians don't all look the same, we still all look Italian, and we're proud of it!
And it is stupid to make fun of Italian Americans because they are from the North and South. I'm sorry you are just so ignorant. So get an education and come back when you graduate high school.
Al the septic parasite - Since when is Cavalli Sforza dubious?
Crawl back into the swamp.
All these facial compositions end up looking the same.
Even a sicilian composition looks very similar to a swedish one.
Not reliable at all. It just serves to the purposes of Racialreality and Dienekis Pontikos on spreading their mediterranean ideal through anthroboards.
The software used is very failing.
\"I worked as a hotel concierge and I could easily tell apart northerners from southerners at first glance\"
You are totally right. I also work for the Hotel industry and I'm able to tell northern italians tourist apart from southern ones all day long.
Even when both are similarly dark for the most part they look different.
Whether northern italians look southern european or not isn't the big deal.
But do the southern europeans look like proper southern europeans? It leads us to think that southern europeans are no longer true southern europeans
![](\"http://www.haloscan.com/images/secretbuilders.jpg\")
Commenting by HaloScan