Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
This week on the blog: We continue our look at diversity in the Roman world by discussing the place of skin color. What color were the Romans? Most of them! We also discuss why skin color was less important to the Romans as an identity signal.https://acoup.blog/2021/07/23/collections-the-queens-latin-or-who-were-the-romans-part-iv-the-color-of-purple/ …
I want to note here that this question - which I expect will be more than bit contentious - is actually one in which the ancient evidence is fairly clear. We don't have to guess at what the Romans looked like - quite a lot of color artwork (frescos, mosaic, etc) survives.
We also don't have to guess what the Romans thought about it either. They tell us. And we see that the Romans could often be very bigoted and intolerant, but that they tended to focus on 'otherness' through dress, culture, customs, climate, etc. rather than physical appearance.
And I should say, for readers who want more exposure to primary source texts for both this post and the last, the @kataplexis , C.S. Roy, M.L. Goldman reader, *Race and Ethnicity in the Classical World* (2013) has a lot of it pull together and well translated.
The mummy portraits bring to mind the claim I was taught that Roman purple was more of a red-ish color, which by these pictures is clearly not the case. Do you know where that claim might have come from?
What were Roman attitudes towards Parthians/Persians? Did that also focus on dress?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
