Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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.
![Luca Martinelli [Sannita]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1332482289243217923/RWLfM2kK_normal.jpg)
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.
I discuss that a bit in the post, particularly the tendency to depict women as being very pale. What I was mostly interested in was the range of skin color being presented as an indicator of what the artists understood as a 'normal' range for human skin color.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
