Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They were much shorter for one thing. This was due to lack of nutrition in youth compared to today. I remember seeing some very old bronze age helmets - looked like they belonged to children.
I've always wondered why in almost all older western paintings i've seen, the men have very large noses. Did they *actually* have bigger noses or was it just a desirable trait that was embellished for effect?
And how could we really know since there is no "nose bones" to be found?
You need to look at more paintings
And especially statues. Greek statues have "normal" noses, Romans tend to have slightly more prominent ones but certainly nothing out of ordinary. Medieval sculptures show people with same fascias features as modern people. Of course there were some "beaky" individuals like Henry IV of France or many other members of Bourbon family, but this was not the norm.
And especially statues. Greek statues have "normal" noses, Romans tend to have slightly more prominent ones but certainly nothing out of ordinary. Medieval sculptures show people with same fascias features as modern people. Of course there were some "beaky" individuals like Henry IV of France or many other members of Bourbon family, but this was not the norm.
You actually find more people who look 'odd' in royal lines, especially when the only options to marry might be a choice of cousins. People aren't made for such inbreeding and it shows. General art is more likely to show regular looking people IF it was done. In some periods the ordinary people were not a subject of statue or art.
The "races" would look pretty much as they do today. The morphological evolution of let's say light skinned Europeans took place sometime between 7,000 to 40,000 years ago depending on which school of research you wish to believe. The 7,000 year figure comes from more recent research based upon the discovery of two men in the Cantabrian Mountains of Spain who did not possess the gene for light skin but did have the genetic markers for blue eyes, leading research by paleogeneticist Charles Lalueza-Fox, to postulate that people refer to as Caucasians appeared much later than originally thought.
But here it the problem with attempting to trace the origins of the morphological difference between humans, human migration wasn't linear meaning that once humans left Africa they didn't go to their terminal destination and stay there. There were migrations out of African and the Middle east and back again due to changes in climate.
Blue eyes have little to do with white skin. 'Caucasians' are around 10,000 years old, not 40,000. Blue eyes are indigenous to Africa as are all 'traits'.
When people refer to 'races', they are being ignorant ; if they mean the colouration of people, then say it. They are no 'races'. People's skins turning different shades due to environmental changes highlights the archaic understanding of humanity and the clinging to outmoded concepts of 'race' that even the most moderately educated person in this age knows hold little meaning.
The people that use the term 'Caucasian' have obviously limited knowledge of the word and its origins or are simply racist. I'd say it's one of the most ignorant words in common American parlance.
Blue eyes have little to do with white skin. 'Caucasians' are around 10,000 years old, not 40,000. Blue eyes are indigenous to Africa as are all 'traits'.
When people refer to 'races', they are being ignorant ; if they mean the colouration of people, then say it. They are no 'races'. People's skins turning different shades due to environmental changes highlights the archaic understanding of humanity and the clinging to outmoded concepts of 'race' that even the most moderately educated person in this age knows hold little meaning.
The people that use the term 'Caucasian' have obviously limited knowledge of the word and its origins or are simply racist. I'd say it's one of the most ignorant words in common American parlance.
Yes, the only thing different between a zulu and a Japanese is skin color. There's no differences in, say, skull structure. And genetically they are exactly the same. And of course it's racist to say that Japanese, Koreans, Chinese and American Indians all belong to the same distinct race that is different from Swedes, Italians or Poles. It's only coloring.
And especially statues. Greek statues have "normal" noses, Romans tend to have slightly more prominent ones but certainly nothing out of ordinary. Medieval sculptures show people with same fascias features as modern people. Of course there were some "beaky" individuals like Henry IV of France or many other members of Bourbon family, but this was not the norm.
The Roman statues are also more realistic than aesthetically idealistic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
