Hans Günther Hoax about the "Denordisation of Italy"

[Señor Malo]

I've just been reading Hans Günther's book "rassenkundes" chapter about the denordization of Romance Europe. He was so eager to show that most influent italians where of nordic blood that we relied on inaccurate portraits and he scarcely verified his sources; let's disecate some of Günther's fallacies:
About Leonardo Da Vinci
the portrait usually displayed to ilustrate Leonardo Da Vinci's Face:

Is labelled by most historians and biographers as being a "presumed portrait of Leonardo" I asked to german historian Maike Vogt Lüerssen -personnal friend since a yer ago- and complete stranger to this "racial make-up" stuff if it was really a portrait of Leonardo Da Vinci her reply was "that's a good question; people usually thinks yes but is not so sure; at beast it could be a XVIIth century depiction based on a drawing now lost and supposed to be a self portrait of Leonardo".Most Leonardo's biographers say that his contemporaries mentioned his beauty but gave no indication about his pigmentation. Moreover, Vogt-LÜrssen has discovered at Washington Gallery a Leonardo Da Vinci new self-portrait in which he does not look nordic at all :
Leonardo da Vinci

Raphael Sanzio (1483-1521)
Günther displays this image copy from a "portrait" by Bindo Altovitti, probably idealized according to renaissance ideals and dating of 1518 :

He treachously relyed on portrait above instead of relying on Raphael's own SELF PORTRAIT BELLOW:


Galileo Galilei
He ascribes him nordic features according to this portrait

not only that Galileo shows a quite unnordic nose here but also he relyes on a portrait that he does not even now how accurate is. Contemporary portraits show him rather of cro-magnonid type:


Macchiaveli; Günther ascribes him blue eyes; on which basis???

[Lucas Corso]

I think that base on just on paintings for a serious racial investigation is not such a smart idea...
It would be better investigate written desciptions like for the roman emperors...

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Lucas Corso

I think that base on just on paintings for a serious racial investigation is not such a smart idea...
It would be better investigate written desciptions like for the roman emperors...

The difference with roman emperors is that we got only busts while in more recent italians (from the XVth century on) we have some contemporary portraits -not allways; for Leonardo for exemple we have virtually no contemporary portrait excepting maybe the self portrtait identified by MRS Luerssen-

There's however a most evident treachery by Günther with the case of Raphael, as he has chosen the portrait that fit best to his purpose instead of using Raphael Self-Portrait.
And i f you want to talk about written depictions yes; I have a concrete exemple : in the former edition of his web page ultra-nordicist Karl Earlson claimed Dante as a nordic of german descent. It's been long time since I don't visit his web page but I think he changed his exemple and he had no choice for, as a matter of fact at the time of Dante portraiture did not exist yet in western europe (it appeared only at the turn of the XIVth century) but we have instead a writen depiction of him by Boccaccio: " Our poet was of middle height; his face was long, his nose was aquiline, his jaw large, and his under lip protruding somewhat beyond the upper. His eyes rather large than small; his hair and beard thick, crisp, and black, and his countenance sad and pensive. His gait was grave and gentlemanlike, and his bearing, in public or private, wonderfully composed and polished. In meat and drink he was most temperate."

And if you want to talk about the Caesars it is true that most were light in pigmentation but if you read carefully Suetonius history you 'll sea that Julius who was the only one from True Patrician ascendense was black eyed while Augustus who was light eyed and lughtish borwn haired (and not golden haired as claimed by nordicists) as well as Nero who is described both as light eyed and blond haired, there families were at the begining they where from plebeian origin so these depictions on pigmentation may be are not as usufull for taking conclusions about the racial composition of each ancient roman society strata.

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Lucas Corso

I think that base on just on paintings for a serious racial investigation is not such a smart idea...
It would be better investigate written desciptions like for the roman emperors...

renaissance portraits are most often photographic quality, so they are indeed reliable in many cases: think of the portrait of Pero della francesca depicting the Duke of Urbino. The very same portrait shows an etruscan looking duke featuring the non nordic visage of a central italian farmer. See Immagine:Federico da Montefeltro.jpg - Wikipedia

[Menydh]

Thanks, Breha. It is interesting to notice that he was also one of the most signficant condottieri in Italy.

VITA ILLUSTRATA DI FEDERICO DEI MONTEFELTRO SIGNORE DI URBINO

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Breha

renaissance portraits are most often photographic quality, so they are indeed reliable in many cases: think of the portrait of Pero della francesca depicting the Duke of Urbino. The very same portrait shows an etruscan looking duke featuring the non nordic visage of a central italian farmer. See Immagine:Federico da Montefeltro.jpg - Wikipedia

That is right portraits can be most usefull when they are well done and as long as you can confidently prove that is an authentical one.
That is a very current problem whith people whose names has entered into history such as Galileo or Leonardo ; they have been represented and over represented through ages and ages and hence you have lot of pictures of them for which most are innacurate in many cases

Moreover it is strange to notice that when nordicists write the history of Italy they never make mention of one of the most influencial families of the rennaissance; the Medici

[Waarnemer]

Originally Posted by searcher of truth

The difference with roman emperors is that we got only busts while in more recent italians (from the XVth century on) we have some contemporary portraits -not allways; for Leonardo for exemple we have virtually no contemporary portrait excepting maybe the self portrtait identified by MRS Luerssen-

There's however a most evident treachery by Günther with the case of Raphael, as he has chosen the portrait that fit best to his purpose instead of using Raphael Self-Portrait.
And i f you want to talk about written depictions yes; I have a concrete exemple : in the former edition of his web page ultra-nordicist Karl Earlson claimed Dante as a nordic of german descent. It's been long time since I don't visit his web page but I think he changed his exemple and he had no choice for, as a matter of fact at the time of Dante portraiture did not exist yet in western europe (it appeared only at the turn of the XIVth century) but we have instead a writen depiction of him by Boccaccio: " Our poet was of middle height; his face was long, his nose was aquiline, his jaw large, and his under lip protruding somewhat beyond the upper. His eyes rather large than small; his hair and beard thick, crisp, and black, and his countenance sad and pensive. His gait was grave and gentlemanlike, and his bearing, in public or private, wonderfully composed and polished. In meat and drink he was most temperate."

And if you want to talk about the Caesars it is true that most were light in pigmentation but if you read carefully Suetonius history you 'll sea that Julius who was the only one from True Patrician ascendense was black eyed while Augustus who was light eyed and lughtish borwn haired (and not golden haired as claimed by nordicists) as well as Nero who is described both as light eyed and blond haired, there families were at the begining they where from plebeian origin so these depictions on pigmentation may be are not as usufull for taking conclusions about the racial composition of each ancient roman society strata.

as most objective anthropologists concluded the light pigmentation in nothern italy isn't nordic in origin but alpinid dinarid along with the racial composition of the region, coon also noticed the mesocephalic/brachycephalic head form was admired in roman times

[Menydh]

Maybe one day someone will come with the crazy idea that the light pigmentation in the Roman busts is due to the marble used to make them.

[Waarnemer]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Maybe one day someone will come with the crazy idea that the light pigmentation in the Roman busts is due to the marble used to make them.

Awar did that long ago

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Maybe one day someone will come with the crazy idea that the light pigmentation in the Roman busts is due to the marble used to make them.

It is true that at a first look busts could give the impression that you are in face of a light pigmented person. One cannot deny that there were light pigmented influent people in ancient Rome, that many of the caesars were light pigmented but that does not imply the conclusions that nordicists take from that; there are evidences (contemporary writen depictions as well as portraits) that influent people like Isaak Newton and henry Bessemer were brown eyed, that Capitain James Cook and Alexander Graham Bell were both dark eyed & dark haired but none would never ever be as stupid as concluding that it is evidence that the British isles were once dominated by a "meddish" elite!

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by searcher of truth

there are evidences (contemporary writen depictions as well as portraits) that influent people like Isaak Newton and henry Bessemer were brown eyed, that Capitain James Cook and Alexander Graham Bell were both dark eyed & dark haired but none would never ever be as stupid as concluding that it is evidence that the British isles were once dominated by a "meddish" elite!

Well.. the British Isles were populated by a "medish" people since ancient.

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Well.. the British Isles were populated by a "medish" people since ancient.

I agree and not by "a" but by several ones: the megalithic + gracil mediterraneans. Those strains are still visible today and visible in many notorious britons from past and present but non would go as far as claiming that they had been the ruling class in the isles as do nordicist but in the opposite way.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Well.. the British Isles were populated by a "medish" people since ancient.

True. I may sound naïve but I really had no idea so much of this Nordish nonsense existed.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by searcher of truth

I agree and not by "a" but by several ones: the megalithic + gracil mediterraneans. Those strains are still visible today and visible in many notorious britons from past and present but non would go as far as claiming that they had been the ruling class in the isles as do nordicist but in the opposite way.

Well, they would have been the ruling class over those of their own kin. I didn't imply that they ruled over other peoples.

Originally Posted by A Few Acres of Snow

True. I may sound naïve but I really had no idea so much of this Nordish nonsense existed.

It's been shaped in the last years. Quite a circus.