Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
red hair
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by clive (U2142025) on Saturday, 15th October 2005
Wounder if any tribes had red hair and how it was seen by the rest ,or where they out side the
norm ? -
Message 2
Posted by McLearns_Bald (U2179464) on Tuesday, 18th October 2005
In Tacitus books "Britain and Germany" and in "Germanica", he describes both the Caledonian tribes (later called Picts) and the German tribes as being Red haired. I don't know of any other historical sources which gives any account of red haired tribes.
-
Message 3
Posted by regnagleppod (U2272733) on Thursday, 20th October 2005
Cannot remember where I read it but there was a case of a Roman comming across some men at a river somewhere in Germania .( It is not known if they were Germanic or Celtic ).In this river they were washing their hair in red dye. Colouring their hair red as opposed to a natural red/ginger.
-
Message 4
Posted by dwrmatt (U1984005) on Friday, 21st October 2005
Silius Italicus (writer of an epic poem on the Hannibalic wars) mentions red-haired warriors. I think these were Iberians, but I'll dig out the reference for you. It's given on the Hannibal website (www.barca.com) if you want to chase it up - use the site search engine looking for Silius.
Cheers,
Matt -
Message 5
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 21st October 2005
Re: Message 3.
Regnagleppod,
we discussed that already on these boards I think two years ago. I think it was Mad Mike, who was mentioning the dying of the hair with red. I have a vague remembrance that it was for war and fighting reasons.
If I have time I will do some research. But already two hours seeking into websites for the comparison of Gaulish and Latin, for another contributor.
Kind regards. -
Message 6
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 21st October 2005
Yes that was Mad Mike and myself responding to a similar question inspired by Tacitus. We got hung up on the depictions of red headed people found in the cities of the Takla Makan in Western China.
-
Message 7
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Re: Message 6.
lol,
yes, now that you said it, some vague remembering. What a memory! But of course your own thoughts you remember the best (pedant schoolteacher's smile).
I think? to remember that Mad Mike said at the same time about the Druids: If you look to history there is also not that much know historically about the Druids. And I repeated: from the historical Charlemagne there is not much known too, apart of Einhart's biography... So we come to the historical Jesus Christ, not discussed that time, but "many" times on these boards...I tried once to close one of these discussions by: there is perhaps not that much direct historical evidence, but there are a lot of circumstantial sources making a strong probability of his historical existence. I don't remember if that stopped the discussion...
Up till I was a contributor to these boards, I wasn't aware how difficult it was to prove on an honest! way something historical. Take now for example those Greeks from the Sub-Sahara...
I did more than an hour research on the red hair dyeing of the Celts on internet trying to circumnavigate "White Stormfront" and I had only two mere results:
"Gaulish aristocracy dyed their hair bright red with goats grease and beech timber ashes..."
And on the other side: "dress their hair with lime-water mixture that appeared white...
Also a lot about "red hair and white skin" among the Celtic...But if it are "historical" pages?... I need a good local library as the "Brugean" one to do research in...
BTW. If you are still interested in my "chatting". Have a look to my post to Brigantes on the "Ancient". I had a phone call with the University of Ghent this afternoon about the "henges" and I found that the Department of "Archaeology and ancient history" is under the "Faculty of Arts and Philosophy"...Does that apply to British universities too? But yes, perhaps history writing is an art and at the same time a philosophy...
Kind regards. -
Message 8
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 24th October 2005
Yes it is, in many universities archaeology has been combined with other disciplines such as Art History, similar concerns over the survival of materials apparently. Well it beats the Classics where they were traditionally placed next to although its as much to trim down support staff.
-
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 25th October 2005
The colour of hair and eyes is nowdays considered a secondary trait in anthropological ethnology.
For example, blond hair can be found within different anthropologic groups: Nordic groups (european), Baltic groups (europeano-mongolic), Alpic groups (europeano-a-bit-mongolic), Dinaric groups (north west caucasoid), to a lesser extend in Mediterranean (though this could be attributed to mixtures) and then to certain tribes of Australian Aboriginals that carry a considerably dark skin (of indodravidian origins!). In general blond hair is considered as a mutation that 'appeared' for any or for no reason in certain places in the world, well Australia the one... and the other of course the lands of Eurasia, especially around the Baltics: the people around the Baltic sea are still the most blond people (funnily many racists still considered blond as being the 'proper colour' of the 'white tribe originating in europe' - what tribe!?' - but Baltic people are actually Europeano-mongolic as their high cheeks and round faces indicate).
Red hair can be also appear in different ethnic groups although these are usually attributed with Celtic groups. Red hair are considered a trait of even less importance than blonder/darker hair when talking in anthropologic terms being considered by some as simply one form of pigmentation.
Some mentioned here the red haired people in western China. These had been a european group of people that arrived in the ancient times in China talking a european-affiliated language who intermingled with the local mongolic groups (so that even today in these areas you may find sometimes little kids with brown hair). This ethnic group becale bouddhist and survived as a cultute until around the 12th AD century when the mongols destroyed them. We know them from their deciphered bouddhist texts (if I remember well). -
Message 10
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 25th October 2005
I think they were part of the steppe populations that ran from China to Rastern Europe North of Mesopotamia. The Takla Makan is in the far west of China and the Tarim Basin was only added to the central Kingdom in the seventh century AD.
-
Message 11
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 25th October 2005
Re: Message 8.
lol,
thanks for the reply. And: "although its as much to trim down support staff". Do I understand it well, if I compare it with the nowadays bank mergers, as the new merged bank can centralize more on staff and don't need that many anymore? Koizumi's post offices? The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ services?
Warm regards and thanks for your last macedonia post. -
Message 12
Posted by (( sean )) Free Nordmann (U2053581) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Re: I had a phone call with the University of Ghent this afternoon about the "henges" and I found that the Department of "Archaeology and ancient history" is under the "Faculty of Arts and Philosophy"...Does that apply to British universities too? But yes, perhaps history writing is an art and at the same time a philosophy...
Μύ
off topic:
i did my history MA in a 'school of history and critical studies' which is attached to an art and design school, which made it easy for me to cross disciplines from fine art to history after my undergraduate. the department also houses the philisophy and design history MAs...and yes, at my university atleast, these disciplines were generally compatable. but our required reading was wider than that of the philosophy course and deeper than what was neccessary for the design history MA...which meant that it was okay for philosophy students to take classes with us but not that productive the other way about. -
Message 13
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 29th October 2005
Re: Message 12.
Hoi,
thank you for the interesting reply and your enlightenment.
Yes, it seems that they bring it under the "arts and philosophy. But I don't agree. (smile)
I started some three years ago on these boards with my first message: "About history" and I tried to convince people that history was a science. During these three years I learned a lot on these boards from honourable contributors, but I am not yet fully convinced that it is not a science.
I did some research about history writing, some Dutch author said the "constructing" of history.
During my research I came on the French school of the "Annales". It started with Marc Bloch. If I remember it well Fernand Braudel was the latest exponent of the school. He tried to enrich the history with the contacts with other scientific disciplines. I tried to read completely his "The mediterrean" but failed. Perhaps he can't catch the attention of the reader as for instance a Barbara Tuchman, but he comes every time with figures, especially in the economic field, which point to understand, why certain events happened the way they happened.
"The Dutch revolt" of "Geoffrey Parker" is also such a "Braudel" book IMO. He goes to primary sources and with the context of other disciplines he comes to IMO more "founded" conclusions than others. As an example the "burning at the stake in the Netherlands".
I remembered the whole debate again reading a work about the evolution of the languageborder between the Romance speaking people and the Germanic people, especially for the nowadays Belgium/Netherlands, the North of France and the West of Germany. But they put it in a larger context of the European peninsula included Britain. And they use all kind of disciplines to enlighten and understand what happened at a certain moment, also in a broader context.
They use archaeology, for instance coin treasures (spelling?) and the mintage on it. If the last dated coin ends with a know emperor, when the treasure was hidden for an invasion. And if that is confirmed with written data from that time...The kind of burrial sites and the artefacts found in it, show contacts with people of a given time. The arrival of new methods seen on a map and the density of it on the map gives the extension of the cult and when it arrived.
The toponymy: the naming of the villages. When new arriving tribes found some villages and when they were abondoned or burned seen on ash layers or destructions. The liguistics, as the "p" "pf" shift and the date it happened and where, giving how far ceratin tribes were located and when.
That together with the written sources and a lot that I didn't mention yet, enabling it for the researchers to give an opinion that is based on nearly exactness. And there IMO history writing is nearing the science denomination. They only mention what they are sure of. The rest are theories, waiting for approval by further discoveries or new combinations of links.
I agree the "complete" thruth will be never known. But if she is know at a high percentage? (smile again)
BTW. What a delight to read at least once a "real" history book and not the drivel found many times on the internet and sometimes on these boards too (including some of my contributions too (reluctant smile for fairness)).
And to continue the eulogy: the authors started from a small base but gradualy extended their field of enquiry and finally because it was that good, were asked by the "Davidsfonds" (a cultural organisation based on the Flemish struggle for recognition in the nowadays Belgium) to expand it to a historybook. And although the problematic issue of the language border in the nowadays Belgium, especially about feelings and attitudes is still highly controversial, they managed to do it on a scientific and honest way.
I had a theory on these boards about the evolution of the language borders in different countries, mainly due to the geography, extending my theory to the North of France for the Romance-Germanic language border. But here the "scientists", completely debunk it, while the language border goes in the beginning diagonal through the hills of the North of France. And the reason is not geography but quite another reason. If I have time I will make a new thread about all that.
Because it is very interesting with all its details from the Indo-European sources over the Bronze Age, the Celts, the Romans, the Germanics, the evolution over the Meroving time, to the Middle-Ages...up till now, I find it a pity that it is not translated in English.
It seems IMO interesting for the British people too, as I heard in the time from my friend HEN GEST about the evolution from the Celtic Europe during and after the Roman era.
I will ask the "Davidsfonds" to make a translation for the interested readers of these boards. (big smile)
HEN GEST, IF YOU ARE STILL READING THE MESSAGES, LET SOMETHING HEAR FROM YOU.
Kind regards. -
Message 14
Posted by (( sean )) Free Nordmann (U2053581) on Sunday, 30th October 2005
hiya Paul,
i have not read any of the texts you mentioned(my reading list at any given time is always too unmanagedable) and these questions are not what interests me about history...i must add that my primary areas of study have been 19th and early-20th century history, and thus it is possible that you might consider the subject of the paper i was awarded my history masters for was not history atall. however when i hear folks make statements about 'history being a science' i have to ask, not 'what is their understanding of history?', but rather 'what is their understanding of science?'
as i understand it science is based on logic and all its disciplines (including socialogy and psychology both of which also cross into arts and philosophy) are founded primarily on numerical testing. whereas history, although some of its branchs use some of the analytical and investigative tools of science to support some of its propositions and denounce others, the kinds of knowlege that the historian deals in cannot, by their very nature, be tested in the present nor measured numerically.
best wishes
Re: Message 12.
Hoi,
thank you for the interesting reply and your enlightenment.
Yes, it seems that they bring it under the "arts and philosophy. But I don't agree. (smile)
I started some three years ago on these boards with my first message: "About history" and I tried to convince people that history was a science. During these three years I learned a lot on these boards from honourable contributors, but I am not yet fully convinced that it is not a science.
I did some research about history writing, some Dutch author said the "constructing" of history.
During my research I came on the French school of the "Annales". It started with Marc Bloch. If I remember it well Fernand Braudel was the latest exponent of the school. He tried to enrich the history with the contacts with other scientific disciplines. I tried to read completely his "The mediterrean" but failed. Perhaps he can't catch the attention of the reader as for instance a Barbara Tuchman, but he comes every time with figures, especially in the economic field, which point to understand, why certain events happened the way they happened.
"The Dutch revolt" of "Geoffrey Parker" is also such a "Braudel" book IMO. He goes to primary sources and with the context of other disciplines he comes to IMO more "founded" conclusions than others. As an example the "burning at the stake in the Netherlands".
I remembered the whole debate again reading a work about the evolution of the languageborder between the Romance speaking people and the Germanic people, especially for the nowadays Belgium/Netherlands, the North of France and the West of Germany. But they put it in a larger context of the European peninsula included Britain. And they use all kind of disciplines to enlighten and understand what happened at a certain moment, also in a broader context.
They use archaeology, for instance coin treasures (spelling?) and the mintage on it. If the last dated coin ends with a know emperor, when the treasure was hidden for an invasion. And if that is confirmed with written data from that time...The kind of burrial sites and the artefacts found in it, show contacts with people of a given time. The arrival of new methods seen on a map and the density of it on the map gives the extension of the cult and when it arrived.
The toponymy: the naming of the villages. When new arriving tribes found some villages and when they were abondoned or burned seen on ash layers or destructions. The liguistics, as the "p" "pf" shift and the date it happened and where, giving how far ceratin tribes were located and when.
That together with the written sources and a lot that I didn't mention yet, enabling it for the researchers to give an opinion that is based on nearly exactness. And there IMO history writing is nearing the science denomination. They only mention what they are sure of. The rest are theories, waiting for approval by further discoveries or new combinations of links.
I agree the "complete" thruth will be never known. But if she is know at a high percentage? (smile again)
BTW. What a delight to read at least once a "real" history book and not the drivel found many times on the internet and sometimes on these boards too (including some of my contributions too (reluctant smile for fairness)).
And to continue the eulogy: the authors started from a small base but gradualy extended their field of enquiry and finally because it was that good, were asked by the "Davidsfonds" (a cultural organisation based on the Flemish struggle for recognition in the nowadays Belgium) to expand it to a historybook. And although the problematic issue of the language border in the nowadays Belgium, especially about feelings and attitudes is still highly controversial, they managed to do it on a scientific and honest way.
I had a theory on these boards about the evolution of the language borders in different countries, mainly due to the geography, extending my theory to the North of France for the Romance-Germanic language border. But here the "scientists", completely debunk it, while the language border goes in the beginning diagonal through the hills of the North of France. And the reason is not geography but quite another reason. If I have time I will make a new thread about all that.
Because it is very interesting with all its details from the Indo-European sources over the Bronze Age, the Celts, the Romans, the Germanics, the evolution over the Meroving time, to the Middle-Ages...up till now, I find it a pity that it is not translated in English.
It seems IMO interesting for the British people too, as I heard in the time from my friend HEN GEST about the evolution from the Celtic Europe during and after the Roman era.
I will ask the "Davidsfonds" to make a translation for the interested readers of these boards. (big smile)
HEN GEST, IF YOU ARE STILL READING THE MESSAGES, LET SOMETHING HEAR FROM YOU.
Kind regards.Μύ -
Message 15
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 30th October 2005
Re: Message 14.
Hoi,
I think you are right about history not an exact science, but nevertheless IMO you can approach history with scientific methods, as I said, toponymy, archaeology, geography, linguistics, comparison of sources, economic data research and others that I don't have knowledge from for the moment.
What I mean, if you do the meticulous research and use all the scientific methods available to you, you will end not with blatant statements Γ la Hancock and Von DΓ€nicken (the father of all this).
I agree, after all this painstaking work you will have to "construct" the history by your own common sense and ability grown by doing the work of history writing during the years.
And if some other historian has some other "construction" obtained on an honest way, you can compare the two and eventually the three or more.
And as one of our former contributors Mad Mike once said, from the clash of ideas comes a broader picture. On some rare occasions, I think, we, the would-be historians have already reached that summit on these boards. (boasting smile) I will trie to apply what we said here in my new research for the Yugoslavian Civil War...(other smile)
Best wishes,
Paul.
PS. Thanks for your message about yourself on another thread. -
Message 16
Posted by (( sean )) Free Nordmann (U2053581) on Monday, 31st October 2005
thank Paul,
i agree completely...but i would say that anything that isn't an 'exact science' isn't a science in the first place.
i've been thinking about your statement about the likes of us being 'would-be historians'...wondering if i am indeed a 'would-be historian' and what would need to happen to make me an 'actual historian'...i geuss it just needs me to get one of the research papers i've already writen published. but i'm not sure what your criteria would be?
as far as 'reaching the summit of these boards', yes they are a limmited form. -
Message 17
Posted by (( sean )) Free Nordmann (U2053581) on Monday, 31st October 2005
cheers again Paul.
-
Message 18
Posted by Sam Hain (U1982945) on Monday, 31st October 2005
According to a census report in an ancient Readers Digest the majority of redheads are in Wales and the Ireland.Its weird that we assume that redheads are more prominent in Scotland. Perhaps the old Caledonai legends still colour our imagination centuries later.
-
Message 19
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
Re: Message 14,15,16,17.
Hoi,
I remembered that I had to make an extended reply to you, but with all the involvement in other threads I forgot.
Bring it back by this in the actuality, to not forget it again. Have first to reply to other "even more urgent" (big smile) messages.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 20
Posted by NeoTheVampireSlayer (U2013076) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
and the other of course the lands of Eurasia, especially around the Baltics: the people around the Baltic sea are still the most blond people (funnily many racists still considered blond as being the 'proper colour' of the 'white tribe originating in europe' - what tribe!?' - but Baltic people are actually Europeano-mongolic as their high cheeks and round faces indicate).Μύ
Everyone living around the Baltic sea is Europeano-Mongolic? Now that's as true as the existence of the Ural-Altaic language family. Swedes are clearly Germanic and Finns are mostly "assimilated"-Germanic (like the Irish and Scottish people). I'm not sure about Baltic peoples (Estonians, Latvians & Lithuanians), though.
The people with blond hair and high cheekbones are descendants of Germanic people whose ancestors those "Europeano-Mongolic" people(<--wasn't that term used by National Socialists? E.g. they considered Finns blond Mongols (!)). The Vikings and later the Swedes settled down in those other areas, e.g. modern Latvia and Novgorod. -
Message 21
Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
Some of the Tarim mummies had red hair.They date to the second millennium bce.
-
Message 22
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
I learn that from you. Hitler had suggested that modern Greeks had (among Albanians, Bulgarians etc - why do they - theyisnotonlytheHitlerics - use this ethnicicities as swearings, that is highly improper! tsk tsk tsk!) Turkish ancestors... thus Greeks were also ... somehow mongols! Now the funny things is that modern Turks have less mongolic features than ..; Finnish.
Honestly, I do not care much about anthropology Hitler's style or anyone else's style. But then that does not mean that we are not going to talk about anthrpology! Talking about races, subraces, tribes and groups of people is the only certain way of beating the so called "racism" of people around the world since the world suddenly becomes full of Mediterraneans, Mongolians, Nordics, Ethiopics, Touranics, Armenoids, Indo-Dravidians, Sun, Western africans (cos negroid has sometimes negative meaning for some, not for me though because it is another race just as the others).
Working that way one finds that the world is not divided into white, black, brown, and yellow!!! You find out that the groups of progressed tribes had within them subgroups greatly uncivilised while groups of less progressed tribes had within them subgroups that presented a relative sophistication and that the centre of civilisational gravity fell somewhere in the north only very recently because of certain prequisites (perphect climate, geography, political events and accidental events), but that was not the same at all times.
That 'lack' of training into the human races is what makes the semi-illiterate racists developing various theories so different ranging from White power to black power... hopefully Chinese will not move along the same lines cos they will eat whites and blacks together for breakfast... hahaha!
For most semi-illiterates a Sun is a blackman (no he is sun and he is very distinguishable), a Jamaican is a blackman (no most are halfcasts unless you find a Bob-Marley style in Africa!), the Somali is a blackman (no he has also roots in India) and some will even refer to Australian aborigines as blackmen (no relation, these are related to India some 40,000 years ago)!!!
For other semi-illiterates French (basically Celtic, Mediterranean, Alpine and a bit Nordic), Albanians (mostly Dinaric), Austrians (theoretically Alpine with increased Nordic presence) and Finnish (Scandinavian and Baltic) are all white. No there is nothing like that.
No, mankind has all the variations you may find.
It is much more correct in anthropologic terms to divide the groups to that extend than referring to so vague groups such as black white and yellow. It is also mostly usefull in biology since there is more variety of illnesses that hit most between subgroups of the same group rather than from group to group. In Europe for example, it is known that Nordics are less hit by anemia that hits mostly the Mediterraneans and Mediterraneans are hit less by tuberculosis in comparison to Nordics (some even tried to use that -
Message 23
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
... to say that the difference between Nordics and Mediterranean came out of these two illnesses.. personally I would not go that far).
To answer your question, yes it is true that high cheek bones and rounder heads are a mongolic trait that is so common in modern Europe from east to west (there were 100s of Atillas since 15,000 BC!!! trust me on that!!!), that if Hitler knew it he would have changed his theories to include Mongolians as a "high-race" however he defined that thing anyway!!! Haha!
Now, taking things to the boundaries of science and speculation, most anthropologists seem to incline to the idea that Nordics and Mediterraneans are the oldest habitants of Europe.
Myself not being specialist on this field I do not see the connection but then it seems that despite the external difference between them it seems that their anatomies are similar and often confused. For example you may distinguish the skull of a baltic easily, that of an Alpic also quite easily form others but a skull of Nordic or Mediterranean can be often confusing.
The above talk is always generic, please do not confuse the above anthropologic tribes with any known nation. That is the wrong thing to do. Modern Turkey is the best example. Anyone who hear the word 'turkic tribe' instantly thinks of Turkish in Turkey which are 60% Armenoids (original habitants of Minor Asia not necessarily to be confused with Armenians!), 20-25% Mediterranean and the rest is anything else (Dinaric, Slavic and mongolic). Turcic tribes in China were just another mongolic tribe. Turcic tribes of Atila were a multi-racial bunch, the turcic tribes of Avars and Petsenegks lookes pore or less like certain types of Bulgarian talking people in modern Bulgaria (and the 'Pomak' population that lives between Greece and Bulgaria)
...ai ai ai I have heard Greek historians saying such funny things like that Pomaks are the modern remains of Thraecians or Agrians while these people have obvious Mongolic traits... but I am going to open a new discussion on that....
Bascs said to be of the oldest habitants in Spain present no great variation from these two groups. -
Message 24
Posted by NeoTheVampireSlayer (U2013076) on Sunday, 4th December 2005
Very interesting indeed...my grandma from my mother's side had high cheekbones...but otherwise I can assure you I'm not related to Genghis Khan in any way!
I never knew that about Pomaks (in fact I've never even heard of them) but it's interesting how fair traits aren't only found from Scandinavian people. E.g. people in Pakistan and Afghanistan don't have the stereotypical brown eyes, take for example this famous pic taken by Steve McCurry:
Her eyes are very striking. -
Message 25
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 4th December 2005
Re: Message 13. Link to Message 34 of thread "Are we Celts or not?" Message 34 from Priscilla to me on the History Hub.
Priscilla,
I didn't found how I could transmit my message 13 to your message 34 on the History Hub.
To come back on your original question on the History Hub. In the book I referred to in my BTW in this message I found all what you asked. But now I have to write from memory...
Based on the very scientific history research I mentioned in my BTW the authors come to the constatation that there was much intermingling from the "Germanic" tribes from over the Rhine into the "Celtic" areas by conquest, settlement and retreat and again conquest...It is all detailed with names of tribes, toponomy and archaeology, density of the toponomic names and density on the archaeological artifacts.
There remained even "Germanic" islands in the middle of "Celtic" areas South of the Rhine.
To come back on the language border I mentioned in my 14th paragraph. Normally? the language border had to follow the geographical obstructions I mentioned in my theory, but it didn't because in that particular area I mentioned the region of the North of France original Germanic, but it changed to Celtic/Gaullish?/Gallic? area due to the much more important cultural influence of the Roman nowadays called city of Tournai in the nowadays Belgium. I had to admit that charisma of military power and cultural power from a higher and further developed ethny can be more important than geographical barriers.
Priscilla, if you have other questions I can borrow the mentioned book back from the local library and give some more information on specific questions you bring up.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 26
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 4th December 2005
Re: Message 13. Re: Message 12.
Hoi,
thank you for the interesting reply and your enlightenment.
Yes, it seems that they bring it under the "arts and philosophy. But I don't agree. (smile)
I started some three years ago on these boards with my first message: "About history" and I tried to convince people that history was a science. During these three years I learned a lot on these boards from honourable contributors, but I am not yet fully convinced that it is not a science.
I did some research about history writing, some Dutch author said the "constructing" of history.
During my research I came on the French school of the "Annales". It started with Marc Bloch. If I remember it well Fernand Braudel was the latest exponent of the school. He tried to enrich the history with the contacts with other scientific disciplines. I tried to read completely his "The mediterrean" but failed. Perhaps he can't catch the attention of the reader as for instance a Barbara Tuchman, but he comes every time with figures, especially in the economic field, which point to understand, why certain events happened the way they happened.
"The Dutch revolt" of "Geoffrey Parker" is also such a "Braudel" book IMO. He goes to primary sources and with the context of other disciplines he comes to IMO more "founded" conclusions than others. As an example the "burning at the stake in the Netherlands".
I remembered the whole debate again reading a work about the evolution of the languageborder between the Romance speaking people and the Germanic people, especially for the nowadays Belgium/Netherlands, the North of France and the West of Germany. But they put it in a larger context of the European peninsula included Britain. And they use all kind of disciplines to enlighten and understand what happened at a certain moment, also in a broader context.
They use archaeology, for instance coin treasures (spelling?) and the mintage on it. If the last dated coin ends with a know emperor, when the treasure was hidden for an invasion. And if that is confirmed with written data from that time...The kind of burrial sites and the artefacts found in it, show contacts with people of a given time. The arrival of new methods seen on a map and the density of it on the map gives the extension of the cult and when it arrived.
The toponymy: the naming of the villages. When new arriving tribes found some villages and when they were abondoned or burned seen on ash layers or destructions. The liguistics, as the "p" "pf" shift and the date it happened and where, giving how far ceratin tribes were located and when.
That together with the written sources and a lot that I didn't mention yet, enabling it for the researchers to give an opinion that is based on nearly exactness. And there IMO history writing is nearing the science denomination. They only mention what they are sure of. The rest are theories, waiting for approval by further discoveries or new combinations of links.
I agree the "complete" thruth will be never known. But if she is know at a high percentage? (smile again)
BTW. What a delight to read at least once a "real" history book and not the drivel found many times on the internet and sometimes on these boards too (including some of my contributions too (reluctant smile for fairness)).
And to continue the eulogy: the authors started from a small base but gradualy extended their field of enquiry and finally because it was that good, were asked by the "Davidsfonds" (a cultural organisation based on the Flemish struggle for recognition in the nowadays Belgium) to expand it to a historybook. And although the problematic issue of the language border in the nowadays Belgium, especially about feelings and attitudes is still highly controversial, they managed to do it on a scientific and honest way.
I had a theory on these boards about the evolution of the language borders in different countries, mainly due to the geography, extending my theory to the North of France for the Romance-Germanic language border. But here the "scientists", completely debunk it, while the language border goes in the beginning diagonal through the hills of the North of France. And the reason is not geography but quite another reason. If I have time I will make a new thread about all that.
Because it is very interesting with all its details from the Indo-European sources over the Bronze Age, the Celts, the Romans, the Germanics, the evolution over the Meroving time, to the Middle-Ages...up till now, I find it a pity that it is not translated in English.
It seems IMO interesting for the British people too, as I heard in the time from my friend HEN GEST about the evolution from the Celtic Europe during and after the Roman era.
I will ask the "Davidsfonds" to make a translation for the interested readers of these boards. (big smile)
HEN GEST, IF YOU ARE STILL READING THE MESSAGES, LET SOMETHING HEAR FROM YOU.
Kind regards.Μύ -
Message 27
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
>Wounder if any tribes had red hair and how it was seen by the rest ,or where they out side the
norm ?<
As far as I know (I have red it somewhere, I think on the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ)(What I mean is if its a fact, the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ has got it) it is a genetic variation, triggered by the lack of sunlight in northern regions.
What regards the considered amount of crap-talk in this tread I will not comment, it speaks for itself.(All this about racist this and that, autored by political correct indo.-europeans with black hair)(well, I just commented)
Like John Lennon who war red haired. He derives from Scotland, and then from Norway as sure as 'Amen'.
All those ridicoulous political correct crap-talkers from Belgium, note this: Life in Norway wasn't easy, nothing to envy as such. Many went to Scotland, Ireland, Iceland,Greenland, New Foundland and further afield. From them all the red haired that you see derives. Except perhaps those from China you mentions. But even here you dont know if some Vikings came around. But off cause if they otherwise are explicit mongolic, they probably got the red hair by living north OR HIGH UP A MOUNTAIN (WHERE THE CLIMAT, as you know resembles that of higher latitudes) -
Message 28
Posted by boredboadiccea (U2682027) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
Did Ramessis have red hair as often referred to by historians?
-
Message 29
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
I do not know if red hair has to do with climatic or other changes all I know is that blond hair was not the trait of one anthropologic tribe but of many and various ranging from a part of primarily baltics, then nordics, dinarics, a few celtics even some north mediterraneans. Not surprisingly all these aforementioned anthropologic tribes could be found in the greater area starting from the Baltics and around. Still today the most blond people in the world are the baltic ones and not the nordic as a few really strange people on other side of the atlantic may claim (these must be the opposite people of 'onlyoutofafrica'! Of course the Baltics are not so cool as the Vickings since they have relatively intense Mongolic traits (thus unsuitable for any """theory"""). Mind you blond hair can be found even in certain Australian aboriginals of relatively very dark skin. Thus blond hair are not at all a primary trait in anthropology but secondary just as the colour of eyes. I do not see any point why red hair would be a primary trait of tribal distinction.
PS: I am from Greece and the last to be politically correct herein! The advantage of my culture and upbringing is that I have no complexes talking on these issues freely without having to explain this and that. -
Message 30
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
On the other hand I am not into environmental explanations either so perhaps the red hair could be one tribe (why Norway though? Do Norwegians have largely red hair? Thought they had blonde and bronw).
For example, Polynesians have such a variety of tribes but they lived for 10,000s of years next to eah other under the same climate. Why do Eskimos are closer to Thaylandese than to Norwegians? And why did the extinct Tasman people were black while living there for more than 10,000 years isolated and in climate conditions similar to central Europe? And why one of the most hairy men in the planet live in the mediterranean in relatively hot climates while their northern neighbours living in colder climates are hairless?
However, the blond hair is explained by some scientists as a mutation that happened before 6000 B.C. mainly in the lands around the Baltic sea (thus it got various different tribes), then randomly in other places in the world (aboriginals). I do know if that could be true. -
Message 31
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
Re: Message 27.
Nick-Rowan,
"all those ridiculous political correct crapp-talkers from Belgium"
Nick, if you are pointing to me?
In my message 5 to the message 3 of regnagleppod and in my message 7 to lol beeble I was only speaking about the "DYING of the hair of the Celts in red with goats greese and beech timber ashes" and also about "dressing their hair with a lime-water mixture that APPEARED WHITE"
In my message 26 I was referring to a study that IMO was an example of how good history writing has to be done. If you take offense at that? So be it...
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 32
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 9th December 2005
Not sure if Iβm barking up the wrong tree but as I understand the issue the genes for red or fair hair are regressive and thus will only turn up on someone if passed on by both parents. The fact that some populations have a large proportion of red heads must suggest that at some point in the past they became isolated from populations with dark hair for it to still be common. Nowadays this is primarily associated with Scandinavian migration patterns although one might consider that historically red hair is attested across a much broader range.
Starting in North Africa there are Egyptian accounts of Libyans and Classical records of Berber populations as ginger, not to mention the Guanche on the Canaries. There are also classical accounts of red hair in parts of Inland Spain, Britain, along the Rhine Danube border as well as South Eastern Europe around the Black sea such as Thracians and Royal Scythians. Menelaus, Philip II of Macedon and Pyrrhus of Epirus are all reputed to have been carrot tops for that matter and the Ahenobarbi in Rome obviously had a tendency to ginger beards. Leaving aside Odysseus and Enkiduβs fair hair in the Epics and moving to the other end of the Eurasian steppes one arrives at the Tarim basin in the far west of China where as Rob points out red haired mummies have been excavated, commonly with packages of ephedra, a sacred plant in Zoroasterism and apparently the active ingredient in Starbucks tea, and there are two thousand year old depictions of ginger Buddhists.
Having said all this I am aware that red is quite a common dye and eagerly sought out by many communities and cosmetic modification of appearance is almost to be expected. Basically hair dyes such as henna and ochre are other possible explanations but Iβd guess that they are not the reason for such a wide distribution of accounts in areas populated by a majority of dark haired people today.
Many of these regions have been absorbed by groups with a majority of dark haired people for example the Han moved into the Tarim basin during the first millennium AD. The Eastern end of the Steppes became associated with dark haired populations such as the Xiongnu, Uighar and Mongols. These days the Communist authorities donβt like the idea of a potential separate origin for an ethnic minority such as the Uighars, nor the possibility βwesternersβ taught them the secrets of Buddhism and Bronze working. I suspect they protest that they do not want to play into the hands of western white supremacists and their view of a white super race and its supposed origins in the Far East. However some are a touch too keen on the idea of the purity of Chinese civilization to the extent many are not happy with the recent out of Africa model of human migration lest it reveal they are related to black people like the Andaman islanders. Before Nick chips in I am aware of the British intellectual foundations of the separate and distinct evolution of racial groups. Mind you now theyβve found fossil fuel deposits beneath the Tarim basin the Uighars might as well whistle in the wind so far as independence is concerned.
Red and fair hair seems to be more predominant in areas isolated from the growth of full blown urbanism until fairly recently. Even though the steppes bordered Mesopotamian and Chinese civilizations their agricultural crops could not expand in a continuous belt along the north of Eurasia and so could not overwhelm the populations in prehistory. For the most part the steppes continued to be sparsely populated by concentrations of hunter gatherers until the introduction of domestic livestock particularly horse and cattle around the Pontic region along with crops adapted to the northern climate around six thousand years ago. By three thousand years ago it seems this pattern of Nomadism supported by agricultural groups around Oases had become firmly established in the Tarim basin.
Likewise the Mediterranean has been subject to continuous contact with other dark haired populations throughout the historical record such as Egyptians, Phoenicians, Italians as well as Sub Saharan groups in North Africa. Red hair is uncommon in Greece and much of the rest of the Balkans because of their long history of interaction with the urban centres of Asia. One might consider that according to the Romans the Gauls were largely fair haired whereas after hundreds of years of urbanism and interaction with the rest of the Mediterranean under Rome modern French people are predominantly dark haired, especially in the South. Of course the continued presence of fair haired people among the French and North Italian populations suggests many only carry one gene for dark hair.
Urbanism in Northern Europe was not accompanied by mass transfers of population from the Mediterranean however as the Romans halted at the Rhine and Danube. After the adoption of horse based pastoralism Northern Europe seems to have been closely tied to the Silk Road trade routes, note the appearance of silk in Iron Age graves in central and Western Europe during the first millennium BC. Certainly the tribal migrations during the mid first millennium AD show how easy it was to move across Central and Northern Europe while interaction with the Mediterranean was more limited until at most 1500 years ago. It might also be noted how the Mediterranean was depopulated around this period and as a result could not expand like the Han during the first millennium AD so red and fair hair remained more common.
There again that suggests what happened to red heads but not so much why such populations became common in the first place. It would seem the genetic evidence suggests that many of the populations in areas associated with red hair have some common genetic signatures associated with a bottle neck of the population around 30,000 years ago. The signature has been identified as most pronounced in the Western Mediterranean, Spain and North Africa and is thought to have been caused by the onset of the last ice age isolating humans in temperate zones to the south of Europe before expanding across the Tundra. The combination of reduction in population and climatic decline seem to have caused the predominance of the regressive fair haired gene in the populations that resettled Northern Europe during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. -
Message 33
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 9th December 2005
Re: Message 32.
lol,
thank you very much for this message. I read the same about the regressive red and that in some centuries by the nowadays rapidly mondial mixing the reds will die out. And at the end people have to dye their hair...(thoughtful smile).
lol, if I have time before Prague will answer to the rest.
With esteem,
Paul. -
Message 34
Posted by Eric_Brewster (U2829317) on Saturday, 28th January 2006
Eric Brewster44th:
Red Haired, Oddly enough when I was born I was born with firey red hair. Since I am descended from the Ancient Scots and Irish of Northern Ireland where the genealogy information leads me to believe, well some of the ancient Celtic Irish kings were said to have red hair.
The Legendary irish king, Fergus MacGillicuddy, the father of Gweniyivar was said to have a head of hair that you could light a torch from......very, so was the color of his hair, of course mine has turned dark brown as most redheads will do, oddly enough some Vikings were said to have red hair.....or could it be the Danish? -
Message 35
Posted by Eric_Brewster (U2829317) on Saturday, 28th January 2006
Eric Brewster44th:
Hummm to have red hair, my father when he was young, he had red hair, my mom had dark black hair. So it seems my brother, which is 6yrs older than I am has lighter brown hair than I do, hense I get very red hair when I was young.
Now when my father grew older, his hair oddly enough turned to a Viking colored hair, mine has stayed dark brown in recient years, that is what genetics does I think. -
Message 36
Posted by Goldfinches (U2947535) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
There is some incidence of red hair in Japan. -
Message 37
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Interesting, perhaps those populations spreading across the Tundra in the upper Paleolithic got as far as the Pacific. The Kennewick man caused quite a controversy when DNA sampling showed a close relationship to some European populations.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.