Il cromosoma Y degli antichi romani (i latini)

[raffaele.carbotti]

Non ricordo la fonte ...ma a memoria mi viene subito in mente Tacito che descriveva i Germani ..."per questo anche il tipo fisico, benchè così numerosa sia la popolazione, è eguale in tutti: OCCHI AZZURRI d’intensa fierezza, chiome rossicce, corporature gigantesche, adatte solo all’assalto. Non altrettanta è la resistenza alla fatica e al lavoro; incapaci di sopportare la sete e il caldo, ma abituati al freddo e alla fame dal clima e dalla povertà del suolo”. (Tacito, Germania,4)

e anche

Germaniae incolae flavam comam et proceram staturam habent. Agriculturam non curant et agricolarum industriam et securam vitam ignorant. Densarum et umbrosarum silvarum feras beluas captant et nectant. Miseras casas habitant

[pierluigic]

.

grazie

pierluigi


-

[Nessuno]

-

Occorre sempre far attenzione all’attendibilita’ delle fonti e alle traduzioni

Mi sembra che la traduzione classica di Svetonio dica che Ottaviano Augusto oltre ad avere gli occhi chiari era anche biondo.


pierluigi

.

E, infatti, Svetonio non era un contemporaneo di Ottaviano...

Non ricordo la fonte ...ma a memoria mi viene subito in mente Tacito che descriveva i Germani ..."per questo anche il tipo fisico, benchè così numerosa sia la popolazione, è eguale in tutti: OCCHI AZZURRI d’intensa fierezza, chiome rossicce, corporature gigantesche, adatte solo all’assalto. Non altrettanta è la resistenza alla fatica e al lavoro; incapaci di sopportare la sete e il caldo, ma abituati al freddo e alla fame dal clima e dalla povertà del suolo”. (Tacito, Germania,4)

e anche

Germaniae incolae flavam comam et proceram staturam habent. Agriculturam non curant et agricolarum industriam et securam vitam ignorant. Densarum et umbrosarum silvarum feras beluas captant et nectant. Miseras casas habitant

AZZURRI non è una traduzione corretta di caerulei: il termine, infatti, ha una vasta gamma di significati che riguardano il cielo. Dunque, gli occhi potrebbero essere anche scuri, come il cielo nuvoloso, grigi, azzurri o blu. Più propriamente, la traduzione sarebbe chiari.

[pierluigic]

.
.


Mi scuso di aver portato questo topic fuori tema

Ma forse e’ un fuori tema utile


E’ vero Svetonio e’ posteriore (70—120/140) ma questo ci dice che pensava che un romano (e di tal fatta) potesse essere biondo e con gli occhi chiari

Comunque sia cio’ non inficia la tesi

Occorre sempre far attenzione all’attendibilita’ delle fonti e alle traduzioni …….e alle convinzioni personali dell’autore e ad altro


Questo per dire che ho questa personale opinione : lo studio del DNA e’ ancora in una fase troppo embrionale (anche se sicuramente avra’ una crescita esponenziale in un breve lasso di tempo )
Quindi non e’ ancora utile confrontarlo con fonti documentarie
Solo quando ne sapremo molto di piu’ ……servira’ utilizzare le fonti per fare verifiche e anche allora occorrera’ sempre far attenzione all’attendibilita’ delle fonti e alle traduzioni …….e alle convinzioni personali dell’autore e ad altro

Un giorno il DNA aiutera’ a comprendere meglio la storia , meno facilmente con la storia che conosciamo , noi oggi possiamo comprendere meglio il DNA


pierluigi c

.

[raffaele.carbotti]

In questo bel post ( a parte l'attacco ingiusto e gratuito a Maciamo) si afferma che i discendenti degli antichi romani dell'età repubblicana -primo impero sono al Sud Italia . L'Italia romana ha la sua linea al Rubicone. Cosa ne pensate?

The Genetics of the Ancient Romans

As we've noted before, there are a bunch of charlatans in the world of Ancient DNA. The worst offender, perhaps, is a pseudonymous Belgian named Maciamo Hay, who runs a site called Eupedia. This uneducated man knows just enough to sound knowledgable, and to delude himself and some of the similarly ignorant. In the world of Ancient DNA, he is probably the best example of Dunning-Krueger effect out there.

Many of these Ancient DNA practitioners spend their time trying to digest the most recent DNA studies, but don't ever come close to picking up a history book, much less to acquiring the deep, big-picture understanding of ancient history that is needed to explain the population movements that have occurred in places like Rome and Italy over time.

In this post, we go over those population movements, to review claims made by fools like Maciamo on Eupedia.

Let's start with his baldest misstatement: "In all logic, the ancient Romans, from the original founders of Rome to the patricians of the Roman Republic, should have been essentially R1b-U152 people." This laughable statement was directly pulled from Eupedia on the same day that this post is dated, and as far as I can tell, it's still up. (I just refuse to link to it, lest any more misinformation be circulated).

As Maciamo's own maps show! -- the distribution of U152 in Italy is centered in the ALPS, and radiates outward to all the parts of Italy that were previously inhabited by CELTS.

So: Where to begin? How does one even start to explain history to someone so uneducated?

Let's start with something most people know. The saying, "he's crossed the Rubicon" is a reference to Caesar crossing the Rubicone river.

Why was that so significant? Because the Rubicon was the traditional BORDER of Italy at that time. (49 BC.) In other words, it was an act of war for Caesar to cross that border. Where is the Rubicone river? It's just south of modern Ravenna!

For 700 years, the "Italy" of Roman times -- that which was populated by Italians (versus Gauls) -- was the true peninsula parts (sticking out). Never forget that. The distribution of U152 clearly corresponds to where the population was Gaulish versus Roman! U152 is the OPPOSITE of a Roman marker.

Southern Italy, on the other hand, was considered the most desirable real estate for much of the Roman Republic and early empire. When Cicero listed the most beautiful and prosperous cities in Italy, most were in Southern Italy. Places like Reggio Calabria and Capua. When Mark Antony and Augustus' veterans demanded land, they demanded it in Southern Italy.

Furthermore, Rome devastated places like Samnium (modern Molise/Campania) and modern Cosenza, destroying most of the inhabitants, and then seizing the territory for Roman citizens. Anyone who knows Roman history knows this.

Rome planted dozens (almost a hundred) of colonies (of Roman citizens) in Southern Italy. Entire towns (like Vibo Valentia) were populated by tens of thousands of transplanted Romans. These colonies were stocked BEFORE Rome became an empire, i.e., before it became cosmopolitan. The people who founded these towns were of "pure" Roman stock.

Why does this matter? Well, this blog is no Southern Italy apologist. Southern Italy was a backwater for years. Isolated and insignificant. But from a genetic standpoint, those qualities ARE significant.

If you wanted to study the genetics of the Romans, would you go to a place where lots of people had passed through? A place that was a successful and world port in the Middle Ages? A place where people wanted to move to from elsewhere? OF COURSE NOT.

You would WANT a backwater; a place unchanged over millennia. The towns of South Italy (many of which who have never been invaded by anyone, thank you very much), are where you can find the descendants of Romans, unadulterated.

Well before modern genetic studies, very intelligent, very thorough researchers did large-scale demographic studies on Rome. These folks, mostly British historians from Oxford, scoured records in churches and cemeteries, in abbeys and books -- everywhere, -- to estimate the population demography of Rome. This much we know: at the dawn of the empire, "Italy" was Italy south of the Rubicon, well south of the Po. The population was a mix of the local Italic tribes and Roman Latins, placed there as colonies.

Want to know the genetics of the Romans? Look at which towns started out as Roman (not Gaulish, Maciamo!) and which towns have largely been untouched since.

Professor Chris Wickham produced exhaustive studies of Italy from 400-1000 AD. He provides real numbers of the "others" in Italy. He concludes the Goths and Lombards (German tribes who ruled large parts of Italy from 476 AD - c. 1000 AD) never were more than 2%-9% of the Italian population, and he believes aside from pockets in the South, they were clustered mostly in the North. Again, it's the NORTHERN Italians with the non-Roman influences, not the Southerners. Again, this skews the DNA of the North. Don't assume the Southern differences from the North are from Southern exoticness.

Chances are, Northern Italian DNA is different because it started with a large dollop of Gaulish (Celtic) genes, and they received a small smattering of Germanic genes. This is why northern Italians appear, well, more "northern." Southern Italian DNA, for the most part is not different because of subsequent influences or invasions. Southern Italians are generally darker (although not by much) because of the absence of Gaulish and Germanic influences. But those southerners more closely represent Roman DNA as it was around the years 200 BC - 50 AD.

Wickham also studied the Byzantine (Eastern Roman empire, Greek-speaking), Norman (French Viking) and Saracen (Arab or North African) occupying forces in Italy, and concluded that for peninsular Italy, these forces were tiny, much less than 1% of the population, and that they left no real permanent traces. Again, this is because these were occupying armies not settlers. Please note contrary to popular belief, much of the towns and villages of Southern Italy were never physically occupied by ANY of these groups, even though suzerainty and tax payments did change hands. Was Paris after the Nazis any less French?

Folks like Maciamo also greatly UNDERESTIMATE the effect of Roman colonies throughout the Mediterranean. Rome, through much of its thousand-year history, was a population EXPORTER. Romans bred like crazy -- there was never enough land to go around -- and they, as the most powerful people of their era, felt it was their prerogative to seize lands of the conquered and place their citizens' families there, to live long and prosper. It wasn't like now, where middle class families have 2.5 kids. Then, (aside from the patricians), a family had as many kids as it could afford -- as many kids as it could feed. Romans had many kids...

A look at the map of Roman colonies shows just how widespread this practice was. Note the concentration in Italy and Spain, followed by France and Romania. Yes folks, there's a reason why the Latin language survived in those regions, and why Romance derivatives are still spoken there today.

Despite the Romans exporting so many people, I have never seen one of these modern, unschooled-in-history geneticists raise the question as to whether the similarities between South/Central Italian DNA and that of say, Greece,or North Africa is due to Roman OUTFLOW of genes. These idiotic (and perhaps racist?) people only repeat the Quentin Tarantino-esque claims that the similarity between such genes must be from exotic INFLOWS into the population of Italy.

It's really idiotic if you think about it. Rome locates a colony of 25,000 Italian FAMILIES in some town in backwater Greece (or North Africa), and the town prospers for 1000 years and still exists today. A Byzantine (or Saracen) garrison of 1000 men holds an Italian town for 100 years and then departs. But many dummies online ascribe the similarity between Italian and Greek (or North African) genes to the latter? Incredibly myopic.

Anyway, in conclusion:

Maciamo Hay is an idiot. He should read some JB Bury, some Sir Ronald Syme, and some Chris Wickham.

Geneticists should realize if they want to find Roman genetics, they should try to discern the similarities between backwater (untouched/remote) towns in Southern Italy and Spain, which were settled around the same time with Roman colonists. There, you can detect and isolate the signal of Roman genetics.

And genetic similarities between Italy and the rest of the Mediterranean could just as easily be due to pre-Roman factors or Roman OUTFLOWS as they are to post-Roman inflows into Italy.

http://snplogic.blogspot.it/2017/06/the ... s.html?m=1

[Nessuno]

In questo bel post ( a parte l'attacco ingiusto e gratuito a Maciamo) si afferma che i discendenti degli antichi romani dell'età repubblicana -primo impero sono al Sud Italia . L'Italia romana ha la sua linea al Rubicone. Cosa ne pensate?

The Genetics of the Ancient Romans

As we've noted before, there are a bunch of charlatans in the world of Ancient DNA. The worst offender, perhaps, is a pseudonymous Belgian named Maciamo Hay, who runs a site called Eupedia. This uneducated man knows just enough to sound knowledgable, and to delude himself and some of the similarly ignorant. In the world of Ancient DNA, he is probably the best example of Dunning-Krueger effect out there.

Many of these Ancient DNA practitioners spend their time trying to digest the most recent DNA studies, but don't ever come close to picking up a history book, much less to acquiring the deep, big-picture understanding of ancient history that is needed to explain the population movements that have occurred in places like Rome and Italy over time.

In this post, we go over those population movements, to review claims made by fools like Maciamo on Eupedia.

Let's start with his baldest misstatement: "In all logic, the ancient Romans, from the original founders of Rome to the patricians of the Roman Republic, should have been essentially R1b-U152 people." This laughable statement was directly pulled from Eupedia on the same day that this post is dated, and as far as I can tell, it's still up. (I just refuse to link to it, lest any more misinformation be circulated).

As Maciamo's own maps show! -- the distribution of U152 in Italy is centered in the ALPS, and radiates outward to all the parts of Italy that were previously inhabited by CELTS.

So: Where to begin? How does one even start to explain history to someone so uneducated?

Let's start with something most people know. The saying, "he's crossed the Rubicon" is a reference to Caesar crossing the Rubicone river.

Why was that so significant? Because the Rubicon was the traditional BORDER of Italy at that time. (49 BC.) In other words, it was an act of war for Caesar to cross that border. Where is the Rubicone river? It's just south of modern Ravenna!

For 700 years, the "Italy" of Roman times -- that which was populated by Italians (versus Gauls) -- was the true peninsula parts (sticking out). Never forget that. The distribution of U152 clearly corresponds to where the population was Gaulish versus Roman! U152 is the OPPOSITE of a Roman marker.

Southern Italy, on the other hand, was considered the most desirable real estate for much of the Roman Republic and early empire. When Cicero listed the most beautiful and prosperous cities in Italy, most were in Southern Italy. Places like Reggio Calabria and Capua. When Mark Antony and Augustus' veterans demanded land, they demanded it in Southern Italy.

Furthermore, Rome devastated places like Samnium (modern Molise/Campania) and modern Cosenza, destroying most of the inhabitants, and then seizing the territory for Roman citizens. Anyone who knows Roman history knows this.

Rome planted dozens (almost a hundred) of colonies (of Roman citizens) in Southern Italy. Entire towns (like Vibo Valentia) were populated by tens of thousands of transplanted Romans. These colonies were stocked BEFORE Rome became an empire, i.e., before it became cosmopolitan. The people who founded these towns were of "pure" Roman stock.

Why does this matter? Well, this blog is no Southern Italy apologist. Southern Italy was a backwater for years. Isolated and insignificant. But from a genetic standpoint, those qualities ARE significant.

If you wanted to study the genetics of the Romans, would you go to a place where lots of people had passed through? A place that was a successful and world port in the Middle Ages? A place where people wanted to move to from elsewhere? OF COURSE NOT.

You would WANT a backwater; a place unchanged over millennia. The towns of South Italy (many of which who have never been invaded by anyone, thank you very much), are where you can find the descendants of Romans, unadulterated.

Well before modern genetic studies, very intelligent, very thorough researchers did large-scale demographic studies on Rome. These folks, mostly British historians from Oxford, scoured records in churches and cemeteries, in abbeys and books -- everywhere, -- to estimate the population demography of Rome. This much we know: at the dawn of the empire, "Italy" was Italy south of the Rubicon, well south of the Po. The population was a mix of the local Italic tribes and Roman Latins, placed there as colonies.

Want to know the genetics of the Romans? Look at which towns started out as Roman (not Gaulish, Maciamo!) and which towns have largely been untouched since.

Professor Chris Wickham produced exhaustive studies of Italy from 400-1000 AD. He provides real numbers of the "others" in Italy. He concludes the Goths and Lombards (German tribes who ruled large parts of Italy from 476 AD - c. 1000 AD) never were more than 2%-9% of the Italian population, and he believes aside from pockets in the South, they were clustered mostly in the North. Again, it's the NORTHERN Italians with the non-Roman influences, not the Southerners. Again, this skews the DNA of the North. Don't assume the Southern differences from the North are from Southern exoticness.

Chances are, Northern Italian DNA is different because it started with a large dollop of Gaulish (Celtic) genes, and they received a small smattering of Germanic genes. This is why northern Italians appear, well, more "northern." Southern Italian DNA, for the most part is not different because of subsequent influences or invasions. Southern Italians are generally darker (although not by much) because of the absence of Gaulish and Germanic influences. But those southerners more closely represent Roman DNA as it was around the years 200 BC - 50 AD.

Wickham also studied the Byzantine (Eastern Roman empire, Greek-speaking), Norman (French Viking) and Saracen (Arab or North African) occupying forces in Italy, and concluded that for peninsular Italy, these forces were tiny, much less than 1% of the population, and that they left no real permanent traces. Again, this is because these were occupying armies not settlers. Please note contrary to popular belief, much of the towns and villages of Southern Italy were never physically occupied by ANY of these groups, even though suzerainty and tax payments did change hands. Was Paris after the Nazis any less French?

Folks like Maciamo also greatly UNDERESTIMATE the effect of Roman colonies throughout the Mediterranean. Rome, through much of its thousand-year history, was a population EXPORTER. Romans bred like crazy -- there was never enough land to go around -- and they, as the most powerful people of their era, felt it was their prerogative to seize lands of the conquered and place their citizens' families there, to live long and prosper. It wasn't like now, where middle class families have 2.5 kids. Then, (aside from the patricians), a family had as many kids as it could afford -- as many kids as it could feed. Romans had many kids...

A look at the map of Roman colonies shows just how widespread this practice was. Note the concentration in Italy and Spain, followed by France and Romania. Yes folks, there's a reason why the Latin language survived in those regions, and why Romance derivatives are still spoken there today.

Despite the Romans exporting so many people, I have never seen one of these modern, unschooled-in-history geneticists raise the question as to whether the similarities between South/Central Italian DNA and that of say, Greece,or North Africa is due to Roman OUTFLOW of genes. These idiotic (and perhaps racist?) people only repeat the Quentin Tarantino-esque claims that the similarity between such genes must be from exotic INFLOWS into the population of Italy.

It's really idiotic if you think about it. Rome locates a colony of 25,000 Italian FAMILIES in some town in backwater Greece (or North Africa), and the town prospers for 1000 years and still exists today. A Byzantine (or Saracen) garrison of 1000 men holds an Italian town for 100 years and then departs. But many dummies online ascribe the similarity between Italian and Greek (or North African) genes to the latter? Incredibly myopic.

Anyway, in conclusion:

Maciamo Hay is an idiot. He should read some JB Bury, some Sir Ronald Syme, and some Chris Wickham.

Geneticists should realize if they want to find Roman genetics, they should try to discern the similarities between backwater (untouched/remote) towns in Southern Italy and Spain, which were settled around the same time with Roman colonists. There, you can detect and isolate the signal of Roman genetics.

And genetic similarities between Italy and the rest of the Mediterranean could just as easily be due to pre-Roman factors or Roman OUTFLOWS as they are to post-Roman inflows into Italy.

http://snplogic.blogspot.it/2017/06/the ... s.html?m=1

Anche alla luce degli ultimi risultati sul campaniforme, dell'ipotesi della connessione tra detta cultura e un gruppo indoeuropeo occidentale da cui nasce il ceppo italo-celtico, del fatto che latino e celtico sono imparentate strettamente, non avrei problemi ad abbracciare l'ipotesi di Maciamo Hay. Vorrei, piyuttosto, chiedere all'autore e odiatore di Maciamo di eseguire un po' di pars construens: quale dovrebbe essere, dunque, l'aplogruppo dei Romani? Lo so anch'io che non sono un addetto ai lavori che occorre indagare nei siti sicuramente romani e, magari, di epoca remota...
E, comunque, no: io non penso quello che sostiene il signore del post. Il Meridione della Penisola ha vissuto numerose migrazioni, sia via terra che via mare... impossibile dire che lì si sia creata una specie di isola genetica ospitante i discendenti duri e puri dei Romani.

Ciò che mi lascia perplesso è il livore con cui danno dell'idiota a Maciamo... Se non sbaglio, è stato il primo - e unico - a sostenere fin dal 2006, in piena era di R1b-autoctonisti, che la cultura di Yamna sarebbe stata contenitore di R1b-M269. Allora lo deridevano tutti... poi, quando Allentoft ha pubblicato i risultati nel 2015, il silenzio... Poi, non saprei dire se la sua è fortuna dovuta alla soddisfazione di aspettative personali, oppure frutto di un ragionamento realmente logico.

[raffaele.carbotti]

In questo bel post ( a parte l'attacco ingiusto e gratuito a Maciamo) si afferma che i discendenti degli antichi romani dell'età repubblicana -primo impero sono al Sud Italia . L'Italia romana ha la sua linea al Rubicone. Cosa ne pensate?

The Genetics of the Ancient Romans

As we've noted before, there are a bunch of charlatans in the world of Ancient DNA. The worst offender, perhaps, is a pseudonymous Belgian named Maciamo Hay, who runs a site called Eupedia. This uneducated man knows just enough to sound knowledgable, and to delude himself and some of the similarly ignorant. In the world of Ancient DNA, he is probably the best example of Dunning-Krueger effect out there.

Many of these Ancient DNA practitioners spend their time trying to digest the most recent DNA studies, but don't ever come close to picking up a history book, much less to acquiring the deep, big-picture understanding of ancient history that is needed to explain the population movements that have occurred in places like Rome and Italy over time.

In this post, we go over those population movements, to review claims made by fools like Maciamo on Eupedia.

Let's start with his baldest misstatement: "In all logic, the ancient Romans, from the original founders of Rome to the patricians of the Roman Republic, should have been essentially R1b-U152 people." This laughable statement was directly pulled from Eupedia on the same day that this post is dated, and as far as I can tell, it's still up. (I just refuse to link to it, lest any more misinformation be circulated).

As Maciamo's own maps show! -- the distribution of U152 in Italy is centered in the ALPS, and radiates outward to all the parts of Italy that were previously inhabited by CELTS.

So: Where to begin? How does one even start to explain history to someone so uneducated?

Let's start with something most people know. The saying, "he's crossed the Rubicon" is a reference to Caesar crossing the Rubicone river.

Why was that so significant? Because the Rubicon was the traditional BORDER of Italy at that time. (49 BC.) In other words, it was an act of war for Caesar to cross that border. Where is the Rubicone river? It's just south of modern Ravenna!

For 700 years, the "Italy" of Roman times -- that which was populated by Italians (versus Gauls) -- was the true peninsula parts (sticking out). Never forget that. The distribution of U152 clearly corresponds to where the population was Gaulish versus Roman! U152 is the OPPOSITE of a Roman marker.

Southern Italy, on the other hand, was considered the most desirable real estate for much of the Roman Republic and early empire. When Cicero listed the most beautiful and prosperous cities in Italy, most were in Southern Italy. Places like Reggio Calabria and Capua. When Mark Antony and Augustus' veterans demanded land, they demanded it in Southern Italy.

Furthermore, Rome devastated places like Samnium (modern Molise/Campania) and modern Cosenza, destroying most of the inhabitants, and then seizing the territory for Roman citizens. Anyone who knows Roman history knows this.

Rome planted dozens (almost a hundred) of colonies (of Roman citizens) in Southern Italy. Entire towns (like Vibo Valentia) were populated by tens of thousands of transplanted Romans. These colonies were stocked BEFORE Rome became an empire, i.e., before it became cosmopolitan. The people who founded these towns were of "pure" Roman stock.

Why does this matter? Well, this blog is no Southern Italy apologist. Southern Italy was a backwater for years. Isolated and insignificant. But from a genetic standpoint, those qualities ARE significant.

If you wanted to study the genetics of the Romans, would you go to a place where lots of people had passed through? A place that was a successful and world port in the Middle Ages? A place where people wanted to move to from elsewhere? OF COURSE NOT.

You would WANT a backwater; a place unchanged over millennia. The towns of South Italy (many of which who have never been invaded by anyone, thank you very much), are where you can find the descendants of Romans, unadulterated.

Well before modern genetic studies, very intelligent, very thorough researchers did large-scale demographic studies on Rome. These folks, mostly British historians from Oxford, scoured records in churches and cemeteries, in abbeys and books -- everywhere, -- to estimate the population demography of Rome. This much we know: at the dawn of the empire, "Italy" was Italy south of the Rubicon, well south of the Po. The population was a mix of the local Italic tribes and Roman Latins, placed there as colonies.

Want to know the genetics of the Romans? Look at which towns started out as Roman (not Gaulish, Maciamo!) and which towns have largely been untouched since.

Professor Chris Wickham produced exhaustive studies of Italy from 400-1000 AD. He provides real numbers of the "others" in Italy. He concludes the Goths and Lombards (German tribes who ruled large parts of Italy from 476 AD - c. 1000 AD) never were more than 2%-9% of the Italian population, and he believes aside from pockets in the South, they were clustered mostly in the North. Again, it's the NORTHERN Italians with the non-Roman influences, not the Southerners. Again, this skews the DNA of the North. Don't assume the Southern differences from the North are from Southern exoticness.

Chances are, Northern Italian DNA is different because it started with a large dollop of Gaulish (Celtic) genes, and they received a small smattering of Germanic genes. This is why northern Italians appear, well, more "northern." Southern Italian DNA, for the most part is not different because of subsequent influences or invasions. Southern Italians are generally darker (although not by much) because of the absence of Gaulish and Germanic influences. But those southerners more closely represent Roman DNA as it was around the years 200 BC - 50 AD.

Wickham also studied the Byzantine (Eastern Roman empire, Greek-speaking), Norman (French Viking) and Saracen (Arab or North African) occupying forces in Italy, and concluded that for peninsular Italy, these forces were tiny, much less than 1% of the population, and that they left no real permanent traces. Again, this is because these were occupying armies not settlers. Please note contrary to popular belief, much of the towns and villages of Southern Italy were never physically occupied by ANY of these groups, even though suzerainty and tax payments did change hands. Was Paris after the Nazis any less French?

Folks like Maciamo also greatly UNDERESTIMATE the effect of Roman colonies throughout the Mediterranean. Rome, through much of its thousand-year history, was a population EXPORTER. Romans bred like crazy -- there was never enough land to go around -- and they, as the most powerful people of their era, felt it was their prerogative to seize lands of the conquered and place their citizens' families there, to live long and prosper. It wasn't like now, where middle class families have 2.5 kids. Then, (aside from the patricians), a family had as many kids as it could afford -- as many kids as it could feed. Romans had many kids...

A look at the map of Roman colonies shows just how widespread this practice was. Note the concentration in Italy and Spain, followed by France and Romania. Yes folks, there's a reason why the Latin language survived in those regions, and why Romance derivatives are still spoken there today.

Despite the Romans exporting so many people, I have never seen one of these modern, unschooled-in-history geneticists raise the question as to whether the similarities between South/Central Italian DNA and that of say, Greece,or North Africa is due to Roman OUTFLOW of genes. These idiotic (and perhaps racist?) people only repeat the Quentin Tarantino-esque claims that the similarity between such genes must be from exotic INFLOWS into the population of Italy.

It's really idiotic if you think about it. Rome locates a colony of 25,000 Italian FAMILIES in some town in backwater Greece (or North Africa), and the town prospers for 1000 years and still exists today. A Byzantine (or Saracen) garrison of 1000 men holds an Italian town for 100 years and then departs. But many dummies online ascribe the similarity between Italian and Greek (or North African) genes to the latter? Incredibly myopic.

Anyway, in conclusion:

Maciamo Hay is an idiot. He should read some JB Bury, some Sir Ronald Syme, and some Chris Wickham.

Geneticists should realize if they want to find Roman genetics, they should try to discern the similarities between backwater (untouched/remote) towns in Southern Italy and Spain, which were settled around the same time with Roman colonists. There, you can detect and isolate the signal of Roman genetics.

And genetic similarities between Italy and the rest of the Mediterranean could just as easily be due to pre-Roman factors or Roman OUTFLOWS as they are to post-Roman inflows into Italy.

http://snplogic.blogspot.it/2017/06/the ... s.html?m=1

Anche alla luce degli ultimi risultati sul campaniforme, dell'ipotesi della connessione tra detta cultura e un gruppo indoeuropeo occidentale da cui nasce il ceppo italo-celtico, del fatto che latino e celtico sono imparentate strettamente, non avrei problemi ad abbracciare l'ipotesi di Maciamo Hay. Vorrei, piyuttosto, chiedere all'autore e odiatore di Maciamo di eseguire un po' di pars construens: quale dovrebbe essere, dunque, l'aplogruppo dei Romani? Lo so anch'io che non sono un addetto ai lavori che occorre indagare nei siti sicuramente romani e, magari, di epoca remota...
E, comunque, no: io non penso quello che sostiene il signore del post. Il Meridione della Penisola ha vissuto numerose migrazioni, sia via terra che via mare... impossibile dire che lì si sia creata una specie di isola genetica ospitante i discendenti duri e puri dei Romani.

Ciò che mi lascia perplesso è il livore con cui danno dell'idiota a Maciamo... Se non sbaglio, è stato il primo - e unico - a sostenere fin dal 2006, in piena era di R1b-autoctonisti, che la cultura di Yamna sarebbe stata contenitore di R1b-M269. Allora lo deridevano tutti... poi, quando Allentoft ha pubblicato i risultati nel 2015, il silenzio... Poi, non saprei dire se la sua è fortuna dovuta alla soddisfazione di aspettative personali, oppure frutto di un ragionamento realmente logico.

Possiamo ragionevolmente ipotizzare che mio R-L51/PF7589--->PF7590 anche se è un aplogruppo meno diffuso di R-U152 e venuto in in Italia con le migrazioni indoeurepee in età del Bronzo, si candida come un aplogruppo tipicamente italico e quindi anche latino.

[luc]

Un popolo non è mai associabile per intero ad un aplogruppo.
All'interno dei romani di sicuro già c'erano tutti gli aplogruppi come già detto.
Sicuramente R1b-U152 ma probabilmente anche R1b-L2+ con la sua variante FGC10543+ che probabilmente è in Italia dal tempo dell'età della pietra.
Non solo considera poi che Greci, fenici, cartaginesi e celti sono stati di casa in Italia da ben prima che Roma fu fondata.
L'Italia è sempre stato un crocevia di gente.

Secondo BLOCH non dovrebbero esservi dubbi sulla origine germanica dei Latini, la mitologia comparata pone le divinità latine a fianco di quelle nordiche, così come antichi istituti del Diritto Romano sono più vicini alla cultura dei popoli d'oltr'alpe, che non a quelli orientali.

[luc]

Un popolo non è mai associabile per intero ad un aplogruppo.
All'interno dei romani di sicuro già c'erano tutti gli aplogruppi come già detto.
Sicuramente R1b-U152 ma probabilmente anche R1b-L2+ con la sua variante FGC10543+ che probabilmente è in Italia dal tempo dell'età della pietra.
Non solo considera poi che Greci, fenici, cartaginesi e celti sono stati di casa in Italia da ben prima che Roma fu fondata.
L'Italia è sempre stato un crocevia di gente.

Secondo BLOCH non dovrebbero esservi dubbi sulla origine germanica dei Latini, la mitologia comparata pone le divinità latine a fianco di quelle nordiche, così come antichi istituti del Diritto Romano sono più vicini alla cultura dei popoli d'oltr'alpe, che non a quelli orientali.

Indubbiamente nel Sud Italia hanno resistito elementi culturali degli antichi Romani, dopo la formazione dei regni barbarici, nel Sud non è mai mancata l'influenza di Bisanzio e la sua altalenante protezione della thema di Longobardia. Ma, a prescindere dal fatto che non comprendo ancora i dati genetici, ritengo che tali dati debbano essere coordinati con ciò che la storia ci ha insegnato. Se poi si vuol dire, come nel post che ho letto, che al Sud sono più "darker", andrebbero fatte alcune precisazioni: la Puglia, la mia Regione, ha sempre risentito di forti influenze greche e balcaniche che sicuramente si sono incrociate con quelle Latine, così come nei centri storici di Bari e Foggia non era raro incontrare bimbi dal caschetto biondo, premetto che anch'io da piccolo ero "giallo". Quindi, vorrei ricordare che Carlo Magno non invase il Sud che è rimasto in parte sotto il controllo "Longobardo", e che molte famiglie longobarde scesero dal Nord al Sud per sfuggire ai Franchi, così come a Bari un nobile Longobardo di nome "Melo" assoldò in una taverna alcuni cavalieri normanni per contrastare i bizantini. Quindi,in attesa delle ulteriori specificazioni da parte degli interessantissimi dati genetici, non vorrei che detti elementi rifluissero in una genericità foriera di luoghi comuni.

[Nessuno]

Signori utenti,


allacciate le cinture di sicurezza, perché stiamo procedendo a gran velocità verso la pubblicazione di ben due studi sul popolamento della Penisola dal Mesolitico.

Ho raccolto alcune informazioni su Anthrogenica da parte di persone che hanno partecipato ad alcune conferenze rilasciate da alcuni degli autori (in particolare Hannah Moots) dei contributi in via di pubblicazione.

Ecco i punti più interessanti, secondo il mio parere:

1) Etruschi e Italici sono pressoché identici geneticamente;
2) i Romani sono spostati geneticamente da Etruschi e Italici verso Levante: parrebbe proprio vero quanto riportato in alcuni post precedenti, cioè che i Romani assomigliano più agli attuali abitanti del Meridione. Tuttavia, c'è un ma: il periodo studiato per la storia romana non è esente da buchi, in quanto manca proprio la fase dell'origine e quella repubblicana della città. Dunque, si hanno due tipi di popolazione: una più simile agli italiani del nord, un'altra più simile agli italiani del sud. Pare che i settentrionali siano vicini a Etruschi e Italici, mentre i meridionali ai Romani studiati;
3) Etruschi e Italici sembrano essere un misto tra componente Campaniforme e Neolitico locale.

Io devo fare mea culpa e ammettere il mio errore di valutazione: pensavo, erroneamente, che i romani fossero più simili agli altri Italici e al campaniforme. Tuttavia, occorre sempre tenere presente che non hanno monitorato tutti i periodi della storia di Roma, quindi non sapremo come sono composti geneticamente i romani delle origini. Forse erano più simili agli Etruschi, forse no. Sappiamo solamente che i romani del primo impero sono simili agli italiani meridionali.

[Nessuno]

Un popolo non è mai associabile per intero ad un aplogruppo.
All'interno dei romani di sicuro già c'erano tutti gli aplogruppi come già detto.
Sicuramente R1b-U152 ma probabilmente anche R1b-L2+ con la sua variante FGC10543+ che probabilmente è in Italia dal tempo dell'età della pietra.
Non solo considera poi che Greci, fenici, cartaginesi e celti sono stati di casa in Italia da ben prima che Roma fu fondata.
L'Italia è sempre stato un crocevia di gente.

Secondo BLOCH non dovrebbero esservi dubbi sulla origine germanica dei Latini, la mitologia comparata pone le divinità latine a fianco di quelle nordiche, così come antichi istituti del Diritto Romano sono più vicini alla cultura dei popoli d'oltr'alpe, che non a quelli orientali.

Mi è sfuggito il commento di Luc...

Io non comprendo come si faccia a sostenere che i latini abbiano origine germanica a partire dalle divinità e dal diritto. E' ovvio che siano simili: Germani e Latini hanno la medesima origine socio-culturale, cioè quella da una branca nord-occidentale di Indoeuropeo. In verità, non è neppure certa l'origine comune da tale branca, in quanto la lingua germanica ha caratteri in condivisione anche con il ramo balto-slavo. Sta di fatto che sulla religiosità dei Proto-indoeuropei ci sono pochi dubbi, data la possibilità di comparare almeno tre culture che hanno lasciato testimonianza scritte da molto tempo: i vedici, i greci e i romani.

Allora, mi scusi, come spiega anche il fatto che alcune culture più antiche di quella di Roma e dei Latini abbiano avuto dei simili a quelli dei Latini? Pensi agli Etruschi: avevano una triade di Dei con un capo celeste simile a Giove/Zeus, cioè Tinia, e la moglie sempre celeste, Thlna (il confronto con Giunone/Era è immediato). Anche gli Etruschi sono di origine germanica?

Ah, un'altra sorpresa: il diritto romano pare abbia anche attinto a piene mani da quello etrusco...