Legitimate Classical Descriptions of Picts, Silures, Vascones?

[Gewisse]

I'm really interested the more mysterious ethnic groups on the fringes of Europe like the picts, gaunches, silures, et al. I've read descriptions of the Picts supposedly translated from Latin sources decscribing them as red haired, heavy limbed, beetle-browed savages. These descriptions conjure images of some brunn-neandertal upper paleolithic survivor haven; a savage stronghold on the fringe of civilisation. The Silures are sometimes described as the dark, curly haired ancestors of Tom Jones ; ) However, the problem is, how many of these 'racial' descriptions are corrupted or twisted to support 19th century nordicist ideologies? How many original latin descriptions are twisted to suite political purposes at the time? Where does one look, without learning the original latin, to find accurate racial descriptions?

[Lutiferre]

So-called physical descriptions is an inlegitimate method of understanding ethnology, in the case of obscure and mysterious peoples and tribes found within the same areas. It is an unacademic approach. Rather, you should look at the anthropological (cultural) characteristics of a people.

[Menydh]

I don't think that he is asking to understand ethnology through the physical description of ancient from classic sources. Which in any case it would be "proto-ethnology" or "archeo-ethnology". Or am I missing something?

[Lutiferre]

Such classical descriptions would, as such, be in the realm of ethnology before anything, in the descriptions of archaic tribes and ethnic peoples.

[Menydh]

Like I said, archeoethnology would fit it better.

However, he is asking for physical descriptions, not for descriptions of social habits. Therefore not ethnology at all.

[Gewisse]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum. Let me be specific in what I'm asking.
I'm interested in legitimate classical descriptions of the racial characteristics or phenotypes associated with the aforementioned tribes. To a lesser extent, yes, I am interested in classical sources describing customs such as body painting, dress, weapons, etc.

[Lutiferre]

Yes, I think I misread the thread, and forgot the category (physical anthropology). Not my main focus.

Though the only thing I would know that comes near it would be from the Bibliotheca Historica by Diodorus Siculus, but I doubt that it mentions these specific groups, I do know it has mention of other groups in this regard.

Its doubtful how reliable most of classical sources are however.

See this search: the picts physical appearance - Google Book Search

[Gewisse]

Depictions of the picts by the picts themselves show what looks like an indo-european/Iranian profile, though it's open to interpretation as the hilarious Classify Alexander thread shows. In any case, it's worth noting, the pointed beards, and distinct noses, are very similar to scythian art. There are other similarities though; both the scythes and the picts have been described as red haired by classical sources, which was the reason for starting this thread. I question whether these classical descriptions are legitimate portraits of the phenotypes of the people, colourful descriptions by the original authors, or deceptive mistranslations of the original Latin. Granted, a few descriptions of the people, legitimate or not, is not enough to classify an entire ethnic group as a certain type of 'europid' but it's interesting nonetheless.

Pictish Warriors
Scythian Warriors

Pict with drinking horn