Research about R1b-U152: probably Roman (and italic) origin, not Gallic

The 'Adoptio' was used within the Republican period, it lasted a few hundred years at most and don't forget that the names given to unrelated persons were almost without exception praenomen not the cognomen or nomen gentile. The nomen gentile or name of the gens was never given as part of the 'Adoptio' as this would contravene the tradition of the patriciate. I actually don't know of one case even when an emperor adopted another emperor where the cognomen or nomen gentile was ever given. Remember I am referring to the aristocracy where they did not approve of intermarriage with the ignoble classes. It is a fairy tale that important families would give their servants or non-relatives their cognomen and gentilicium. These were passports and guarded very closely.

If it was as you say then Italy and Greece would have many surnames that can be traced to an important family. This is simply untrue.

Poor families often asked a noble to baptize their children, this practice was widespread in Italy and Greece. Soldiers often had the honor of having their children baptized by a commanding officer or important dignitary following success on the battlefield. No surnames were ever given or anything to that effect.

I'm talking about a surnames in Italy, maximum in Gaul and Iberia, but not in Greece, where the Romans rather than to incorporate the Hellenic world stabilize it with them. And you say right, the adoptive was used in Republican age, when it was unified Italy.

I carry (not exatly, i must to find the text) a speech which Marcus Aurelius in response to complaints (even a fight between senators) expressed by the senatorial class for the Emperor's decision to appoint some members of the ruling class Roman-Gallic senators: "We were not perhaps at the same point centuries ago, even before the Empire (principato), even before Caesar, when, in this same hall, your honorable and ancient ancestors revolted against generals and tribunes for the senatorial appointment of your "fathers" Etruscans and Sabines (the term Sabine we also wanted to understand the Italics)? "

Survived many Roman families of ancient lineage, of course, but most of the Senate, in imperial times, was composed of Italic-Etruscan nobility, my same last name, Cecchi, comes from a family-Roman Etruscan civilization, the Caecina.
 
Maciamo: the problem I really have with the exclusively Italian/Roman interpretation is really the high levels of U152 / S28 in Poland and more generally central-eastern Europe, which do not match the extend of the Roman Empire. Granted, the German settlement during the Medieval Ages would explain Polish U152, but only if there were sizable quantities of U152 already in Germany before, which I don't quite see how that could have happened from the background that the Romans occupied only small parts of modern-day Germany (ie, left-bank Rhineland and southern Germany south of the Danube). There is also the additionally component that most of the Roman towns along the Rhine were looted/sacked by the Huns, so it is likely that a large quantity of the Roman population would have been killed. The only way that I see how there could be sufficient quantities of U152 in Germany at that point is that it was there from earlier, ie from the Celtic population in what is today southern and western Germany which got absorbed in the 2nd century BC to 1st century AD as the Germanic tribes migrated southwards.

My favourite alternative is that most Polish U152 stems from the Lusatian Culture, which would pinpoint to the Urnfield Culture as the common original source of U152. Urnfield might also explain Italian U152.

There is also the issue of U152 in the British Isles, which would seem to be way too high of a concentration if it was just from Roman sources, especially in Scotland, and it seems much more likely that it stems from the Hallstatt and La-Tene Celts. Consider that this also matches very well linguistically, specifically the commonalities of Gaulish with Brythonic.

I think it's not so high frequency in Germany and Poland, not to justify native origin of the U152 i think. Anyway the culture of Urnfield not arrive in Corsica, Sardinia and south Italy, so we can not explain the diffusion of U152 in this places with this teory.
 
I think it's not so high frequency in Germany and Poland, not to justify native origin of the U152 i think.

Honestly, I don't think that the high concentrations in northern Italy can be explained exclusively from Italic origin, either. I think that the cummulative effect of several factors might be at work here.

You also have to consider later history: it's possible that U152 was more common north of the Alps 2000 years ago, and that the Migrations Period (especially the Slavic and Germanic migrations) triggered U152 to be much rarer than it used to be. This may also explain the low frequency of U152 in Austria: Maciamo pointed out that the low concentration of U152 in Austria correlates with a high concentration of U106, which suggests a large-scale immigration. This is also what we see linguistically: if Austria was still majorly descended from a Celtic population, the Austrians would certainly today speak a Romance language. The fact that they are German(ic) suggests some kind of large scale immigration during the migration period.

Anyway the culture of Urnfield not arrive in Corsica, Sardinia and south Italy, so we can not explain the diffusion of U152 in this places with this teory.

Well, consider later history. I know that Corsica in particular did expirience fairly large-scale immigration at a later point.
 
Honestly, I don't think that the high concentrations in northern Italy can be explained exclusively from Italic origin, either. I think that the cummulative effect of several factors might be at work here.

You also have to consider later history: it's possible that U152 was more common north of the Alps 2000 years ago, and that the Migrations Period (especially the Slavic and Germanic migrations) triggered U152 to be much rarer than it used to be. This may also explain the low frequency of U152 in Austria: Maciamo pointed out that the low concentration of U152 in Austria correlates with a high concentration of U106, which suggests a large-scale immigration. This is also what we see linguistically: if Austria was still majorly descended from a Celtic population, the Austrians would certainly today speak a Romance language. The fact that they are German(ic) suggests some kind of large scale immigration during the migration period.



Well, consider later history. I know that Corsica in particular did expirience fairly large-scale immigration at a later point.


The question of the barbarian invasions in Italy was, especially after the second post-war period, much emphasized, too say. To date, the scientific community, with the help of genetic fact, is precisely fundamentally rethinking their positions. Migration in Italy, will not have been after the gaul migration in the first millennium BC; the Goths and Lombards were a very small minority (about 210,000 are believed in all, on an Italian population of about 8-9 million people) who fought each other them up to the almost total "extinction", so may be we can exclude the "austrian possibility for the U152" (but, with the Germanic invasions, there was, in fact, a Romanized Germanic-Celtic people who flee to Italy from Austria/Bavaria, They Are colled "Ladins", and they actualy live in the Veneto, but they are like 40,000 or 50,000 people T, not more). I honestly do not think the U152 is penentrati in Italy at a later time in Rome, but I think that, especially in Northern Italy, they are the result of a union between a few roosters remained alive after the extermination of the Roman and Italic settlers there have appeared.


However, the most significant migrations occurred in Corsica in a period between the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and they were conducted primarily from Pisa and Genoa, but, just as I said before, they left small traces, for example where the Ligurian settlers are established has remained a particular dialect (dialect of Ligurian colonial bonifacino).
 
The question of the barbarian invasions in Italy was, especially after the second post-war period, much emphasized, too say. To date, the scientific community, with the help of genetic fact, is precisely fundamentally rethinking their positions. Migration in Italy, will not have been after the gaul migration in the first millennium BC; the Goths and Lombards were a very small minority (about 210,000 are believed in all, on an Italian population of about 8-9 million people) who fought each other them up to the almost total "extinction", so may be we can exclude the "austrian possibility for the U152" (but, with the Germanic invasions, there was, in fact, a Romanized Germanic-Celtic people who flee to Italy from Austria/Bavaria, They Are colled "Ladins", and they actualy live in the Veneto, but they are like 40,000 or 50,000 people T, not more). I honestly do not think the U152 is penentrati in Italy at a later time in Rome, but I think that, especially in Northern Italy, they are the result of a union between a few roosters remained alive after the extermination of the Roman and Italic settlers there have appeared.


However, the most significant migrations occurred in Corsica in a period between the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and they were conducted primarily from Pisa and Genoa, but, just as I said before, they left small traces, for example where the Ligurian settlers are established has remained a particular dialect (dialect of Ligurian colonial bonifacino).

The Goths and Lombards would have been unlikely candidates for spreading U152 since their areas of origin before the migration (modern-day western Ukraine with the former, and northern Germany with the latter). I personally think that Italian U106 has a much better likelihood of being of Lombardic origin.

I was thinking about this (ust for northern Italy):

1) the pre-Etruscan population of northern Italy might have been high in U152.
2) the Celts (I'm avoiding "Gauls" because it's clear that not all of the "Cisalpine Gauls" were originally from Gaul) who migrated into Italy in the 6th through 4th century BC would have been also carrier of it.
 
The only way to make any reasonable link between haplogroup frequencies and autosomal admixture is to consider R1b-S28 as Mediterranean.

It works with France and R1b U152 but which haplogroup or subclade makes the Mediterranean component in Orcadian for example?
 
The Goths and Lombards would have been unlikely candidates for spreading U152 since their areas of origin before the migration (modern-day western Ukraine with the former, and northern Germany with the latter). I personally think that Italian U106 has a much better likelihood of being of Lombardic origin.

I was thinking about this (ust for northern Italy):

1) the pre-Etruscan population of northern Italy might have been high in U152.
2) the Celts (I'm avoiding "Gauls" because it's clear that not all of the "Cisalpine Gauls" were originally from Gaul) who migrated into Italy in the 6th through 4th century BC would have been also carrier of it.

Yes yes i know this abouth Goths and Longobards, i say it only for enclose historically the period of invasions in Italy :)

You say right: Celts in Cisalpine are one of the most "father" of U152 in north Italy i think, but just one moment, i want to say one important things about this subject.
May be you know the actualy politic situation in Italy, and may be you know the politican party "Lega Nord", a secessionist party of the North Italy who say that the people who come from this lands are discendent of Celts, and so all the Italian academics worked on the issue "the Cisalpine Celts", even to deny what this political party is saying, and the result is renowned at international level, is roughly this: the Cisalpine Celts are not to much, and later two war against Rome and a revolt with Hannibal for get rid from Roma they'r number was reduced drastically; thanks to archeology and history Latin and Greek we can estimate they'r population in maximum 110.000 person in all the Cisalpine, but that should be added about 400,000 settlers arrived between the second century BC and the second century AD from other parts of Italy. So we can say that only a little part of Lombardia, High Piemont, Emilia and Romagna (we exclude Liguria ed Veneto, becouse the population who lives in this region are not Celts) come from Celts.
 
The Goths and Lombards would have been unlikely candidates for spreading U152 since their areas of origin before the migration (modern-day western Ukraine with the former, and northern Germany with the latter). I personally think that Italian U106 has a much better likelihood of being of Lombardic origin.

I was thinking about this (ust for northern Italy):

1) the pre-Etruscan population of northern Italy might have been high in U152.
2) the Celts (I'm avoiding "Gauls" because it's clear that not all of the "Cisalpine Gauls" were originally from Gaul) who migrated into Italy in the 6th through 4th century BC would have been also carrier of it.

The pre-Etruscans sound promising, who might they have been? Any thoughts as to who inhabited Italy before the migrations from the west coast of Anatolia (Etruscans) and the R1b-U152 from the north? If we take R1b and some J away we are left with a typical early Balkan admixture. Pelasgian soup ..
 
The pre-Etruscans sound promising, who might they have been? Any thoughts as to who inhabited Italy before the migrations from the west coast of Anatolia (Etruscans) and the R1b-U152 from the north? If we take R1b and some J away we are left with a typical early Balkan admixture. Pelasgian soup ..

It Is not certain that as the etruscans come from Anatolia, it is very likely yes, but not certain. In Italy, for quite some time, we are working on this, and, above all thanks to Cippus Perusinus, we are assuming that the Etruscans were may be native of Italy and built a civilization that had no independent influence "foreign". This is obviously a guess, also because on the other hand we discovered a certain affinity between the Etruscan language and other spoken in Anatolia, the Luwian language.

However it is true, is it possible to associate the arrival of some U152 in northern Italy in pre-Etruscan people, though honestly i have no news of disparate groups of "explorers" Indo-Europeans arrived earlier than their cousins proto-celts, proto-italics and proto-germans.
 
It Is not certain that as the etruscans come from Anatolia, it is very likely yes, but not certain. In Italy, for quite some time, we are working on this, and, above all thanks to Cippus Perusinus, we are assuming that the Etruscans were may be native of Italy and built a civilization that had no independent influence "foreign". This is obviously a guess, also because on the other hand we discovered a certain affinity between the Etruscan language and other spoken in Anatolia, the Luwian language.

However it is true, is it possible to associate the arrival of some U152 in northern Italy in pre-Etruscan people, though honestly i have no news of disparate groups of "explorers" Indo-Europeans arrived earlier than their cousins proto-celts, proto-italics and proto-germans.

Well, the evidence for Etruscans not being native to Italy is fairly compelling, both from the genetic perspective (Tuscan cattle, and also the J1 peak in Tuscany), but also from linguistic perspective. Etruscan is clearly a non-Indo-European languages, but it shows some affinities with the Anatolian languages. There is also the issue that there is no linguistic evidence for Etruscan being spoken outside of the realm of the Etruscan civilization, with possible exception of the north*. As for who the pre-Etruscans were, in my opinion they would have been Indo-Europeans. There is also the (provocativ, but interesting) idea that the arrival of the Etruscans caused a disjunction in what was previous an "Italo-Celtic" if you will dialect continuum and actually brought about the difference between Celtic and Italic languages. What is fact is that there are a few Indo-European loans in Etruscan which seem to fall into that spectrum.

*with "north", I mean the Raetians: the problem is that we have a disparity between the "Raetian" inscriptions (which clearly show a language akin to Etruscan), and the "Raetian" people, who were a very heterogenic group that clearly also included Celts, Ligurians and possibly others. Therefore, the people who wrote the Raetian inscriptions may not have been the same as the Raetic tribes.
 
It works with France and R1b U152 but which haplogroup or subclade makes the Mediterranean component in Orcadian for example?

R1b ht35. That's why I started another thread yesterday about the frequencies of R1b ht35 (i.e. non-S116 and and non-S26). There are surprisingly high percentages in Germany (about 5%), the Netherlands (4.5%), Norway (4%) and up to 6% in parts of Britain. It is 2.5% in Orkney. However, Orkney being so tiny, I suspect that a few lineages of the last people to conquer the island could have easily superseded older ones. I wouldn't be surprised if Neolithic Orcadians had a lot of I2a and/or G2a, and that this only survives through maternal lineages, explaining the high Mediterranean autosomes.
 
I'm talking about a surnames in Italy, maximum in Gaul and Iberia, but not in Greece, where the Romans rather than to incorporate the Hellenic world stabilize it with them. And you say right, the adoptive was used in Republican age, when it was unified Italy.

I carry (not exatly, i must to find the text) a speech which Marcus Aurelius in response to complaints (even a fight between senators) expressed by the senatorial class for the Emperor's decision to appoint some members of the ruling class Roman-Gallic senators: "We were not perhaps at the same point centuries ago, even before the Empire (principato), even before Caesar, when, in this same hall, your honorable and ancient ancestors revolted against generals and tribunes for the senatorial appointment of your "fathers" Etruscans and Sabines (the term Sabine we also wanted to understand the Italics)? "

Survived many Roman families of ancient lineage, of course, but most of the Senate, in imperial times, was composed of Italic-Etruscan nobility, my same last name, Cecchi, comes from a family-Roman Etruscan civilization, the Caecina.

There are other more likely sources for the name Caecina such as the river that ran through the ancient town of Volaterrae. Sabine is definitely not Italic, this is clear. There were no surnames as we know today during the time of the Romans. Only the aristocracy held to the tradition of having three nomina as I have mentioned. To assume that the peasants and slaves held three nomina as was the tradition of the nobility is baseless. I would like to see examples where non-aristocrats held a gentilicium (nomina gentile) during the Roman period. The 'Adoptio' simply refers to the fact that a commoner was given a single name (praenomen) or a patronym to refer to their commanding general but certainly not the gentilicium or cognomen.
 
There are other more likely sources for the name Caecina such as the river that ran through the ancient town of Volaterrae. Sabine is definitely not Italic, this is clear. There were no surnames as we know today during the time of the Romans. Only the aristocracy held to the tradition of having three nomina as I have mentioned. To assume that the peasants and slaves held three nomina as was the tradition of the nobility is baseless. I would like to see examples where non-aristocrats held a gentilicium (nomina gentile) during the Roman period. The 'Adoptio' simply refers to the fact that a commoner was given a single name (praenomen) or a patronym to refer to their commanding general but certainly not the gentilicium or cognomen.

I know where Caecina come, and they have given their name to a little city near my natal city, Cecina.
The Sabines were Italics. The Umbrians consecrated all their children born in a year to the god Mars and, due to overpopulation, when they grow up they sent to the border south-west, where they took the name of Sabine. Marcus Aurelius, in his speech, referring to the Sabines as "mixed Italic people" just to indicate the more general term "italic".

The slaves had no real last name, and on this we agree, but free citizens yes, and one of the many examples is undoubtedly one of the tribunes of the people, who, despite coming from the populace, had the name, surname and nickname (Gaius Licinius Stolons, Albinius Paterculus Lucius, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus: all plebeians with the last name), so I can not understand where and how you might have read that only the aristocracy enjoyed a last name.
 
I know where Caecina come, and they have given their name to a little city near my natal city, Cecina.
The Sabines were Italics. The Umbrians consecrated all their children born in a year to the god Mars and, due to overpopulation, when they grow up they sent to the border south-west, where they took the name of Sabine. Marcus Aurelius, in his speech, referring to the Sabines as "mixed Italic people" just to indicate the more general term "italic".

The slaves had no real last name, and on this we agree, but free citizens yes, and one of the many examples is undoubtedly one of the tribunes of the people, who, despite coming from the populace, had the name, surname and nickname (Gaius Licinius Stolons, Albinius Paterculus Lucius, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus: all plebeians with the last name), so I can not understand where and how you might have read that only the aristocracy enjoyed a last name.

Mars was not a local God-cult but introduced by the Sabines who introduced the war God-cult of Aris (Mars) and Artemis (Bellona) themselves. This Italic Sabine theory of yours is based on what exactly. Where did the Italics get their Mars from? I am not a purist and do not claim the Sabines were pure Spartan or Greek as no such thing exists, but to call them Italic I suppose you mean they lived in Italy. Following your logic everybody in Italy after a couple of generations are Italic? This is a moot point, Sabine is clearly from the Doric Peloponnese introduced into Italy. Their culture, Gods and own testimony assert this from the earliest times.

The name Gaius Licinus Stolons is a perfect example of how the commoners did not carry the gentilicium or noble Roman gens. Firstly, when you read the name you start with the 3rd name first as this provides the gens or heritable clan-name; with freemen commoners their 3rd name was related to their occupation or region or origin NOT a recognizable gens of noble origin. Stolons is NOT a gens.

The second or middle nomina is the cognomen depicting the specific lineage of the gentilicium. Therefore, this freeman's cognomen or family name Licinus belonged to his father and is no doubt his paternal cognomen.

The first name or praenomen Gaius is in fact a family name of the Roman gens. Here it is used as a praenomen by a freeman of ignoble birth as I have mentioned that the 'Adoptio' tradition held that a noble would give his gentilicium or cognomen as a praenomen as is the case here also.

The other two examples are the same, their praenomens are in fact not heritable and depict Roman gentiliciae!

The praenomen in you examples are the nomina of noble lineage - Gauis, Albinius and Tiberius. In noble Romans we find these names as gentiliciae in the 3rd position NOT in the first as a praenomen. They can also be found as cognomens in the 2nd position amongst noble Romans as well!
 
Mars was not a local God-cult but introduced by the Sabines who introduced the war God-cult of Aris (Mars) and Artemis (Bellona) themselves. This Italic Sabine theory of yours is based on what exactly. Where did the Italics get their Mars from? I am not a purist and do not claim the Sabines were pure Spartan or Greek as no such thing exists, but to call them Italic I suppose you mean they lived in Italy. Following your logic everybody in Italy after a couple of generations are Italic? This is a moot point, Sabine is clearly from the Doric Peloponnese introduced into Italy. Their culture, Gods and own testimony assert this from the earliest times.

The name Gaius Licinus Stolons is a perfect example of how the commoners did not carry the gentilicium or noble Roman gens. Firstly, when you read the name you start with the 3rd name first as this provides the gens or heritable clan-name; with freemen commoners their 3rd name was related to their occupation or region or origin NOT a recognizable gens of noble origin. Stolons is NOT a gens.

The second or middle nomina is the cognomen depicting the specific lineage of the gentilicium. Therefore, this freeman's cognomen or family name Licinus belonged to his father and is no doubt his paternal cognomen.

The first name or praenomen Gaius is in fact a family name of the Roman gens. Here it is used as a praenomen by a freeman of ignoble birth as I have mentioned that the 'Adoptio' tradition held that a noble would give his gentilicium or cognomen as a praenomen as is the case here also.

The other two examples are the same, their praenomens are in fact not heritable and depict Roman gentiliciae!

The praenomen in you examples are the nomina of noble lineage - Gauis, Albinius and Tiberius. In noble Romans we find these names as gentiliciae in the 3rd position NOT in the first as a praenomen. They can also be found as cognomens in the 2nd position amongst noble Romans as well!


Italia omnium terrarum parens (Milano, Albanese B.)

Gli interventi degli Italici nella lotta politica romana durante il Tribuno Livio Druso (Studi classicali ed orientali)

Les elites municipales italiaennes de l'italie pensinsulaire des Graques a Neron

La Romanizzazione dell'Italia, Jean-Michele David


Die Nobilitat der romischen Republik

Genti e culture dell'Italia preromana 1981, Roma


These are only 6 of the Italian, French ed German academic texts that says:

1) The surnames were not the prerogative of the Roman aristocracy (I'm not talking about the
various Gens original, but only of surnames)

2) the adoption, in the Republican era, were the mass.

3) The Sabines were Italics (and honestly this is the first time in my life i hear that the Sabines
come from the Peloponnese)

4) During the imperial period the majority of the senatorial class was composed of the
already emerged Italic and Etruscan families.



Honestly I am a bit puzzled in front of them your observations, because during my studies, in both private and collective academic world, no one had ever raised concerns about these issues, because even considered the "obvious" and therefore I am in the "unarmed".

Do you still carry the comments of scholars on the Sabine:

"Traditionally, Piceno, who lived more Este to (the Umbrian), on the Adriatic side of the Apennines, were linked to the Sabines, the southernmost, which would be separated by a migration of those related to the true sacredness." (La Romanizzazione dell'Italia, pag. 13 Editori Laterza)

What i want to tell you is that in Italy we conduct, of course, many studies of Rome and the Italian people in general, so what I'm saying is not the result of a rough looking, but about 200 years of academic studies.
I know the history of Greece, also quite good, but certainly if we started a discussion on the possible surname to the Hellenic people in classical timesI know it less of a greek academic, of course; similar, but inverse, can be said instead of talking about a situation purely Italian.
 
Italia omnium terrarum parens (Milano, Albanese B.)

Gli interventi degli Italici nella lotta politica romana durante il Tribuno Livio Druso (Studi classicali ed orientali)

Les elites municipales italiaennes de l'italie pensinsulaire des Graques a Neron

La Romanizzazione dell'Italia, Jean-Michele David


Die Nobilitat der romischen Republik

Genti e culture dell'Italia preromana 1981, Roma


These are only 6 of the Italian, French ed German academic texts that says:

1) The surnames were not the prerogative of the Roman aristocracy (I'm not talking about the
various Gens original, but only of surnames)

2) the adoption, in the Republican era, were the mass.

3) The Sabines were Italics (and honestly this is the first time in my life i hear that the Sabines
come from the Peloponnese)

4) During the imperial period the majority of the senatorial class was composed of the
already emerged Italic and Etruscan families.



Honestly I am a bit puzzled in front of them your observations, because during my studies, in both private and collective academic world, no one had ever raised concerns about these issues, because even considered the "obvious" and therefore I am in the "unarmed".

Do you still carry the comments of scholars on the Sabine:

"Traditionally, Piceno, who lived more Este to (the Umbrian), on the Adriatic side of the Apennines, were linked to the Sabines, the southernmost, which would be separated by a migration of those related to the true sacredness." (La Romanizzazione dell'Italia, pag. 13 Editori Laterza)

What i want to tell you is that in Italy we conduct, of course, many studies of Rome and the Italian people in general, so what I'm saying is not the result of a rough looking, but about 200 years of academic studies.
I know the history of Greece, also quite good, but certainly if we started a discussion on the possible surname to the Hellenic people in classical timesI know it less of a greek academic, of course; similar, but inverse, can be said instead of talking about a situation purely Italian.

This is how I understand your situation. You obviously studied this stuff in Italy under professors who have viewed as experts by many people, right? Good, now to be honest about Italian history or Greek history one needs to take a foreigner's view of history. We need to remove ourselves from all the hype back in the fatherland of our ancestors and try to observe what others see from a more objective view. First off, the Sabines are not pure, the sources that say they are Italic are modern sources, do you agree with this?

Secondly, the Sabines inhabited the region stretching from Lazio, Umbria and Abruzzo to the East coast, do you agree with this?

Thirdly, the Sabines are viewed as one of the fundamental groups that make up the history of Roman Italy. This is the problem why objective Italian academics will be branded heretics or professionally castrated.

What do the earliest sources say about the identity of the Sabine? [do you agree that early sources are better than modern ones?]
Plutarch states in the life of Numa Pompilius, 'Sabines, who declare themselves to be a colony of the Lacedaemonians'.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus states that the Sabines left Sparta circa 800BC - 730BC in protest of Lycurgus, who laws had become severe. The Spartans founded the colony of Foronia near the Pomentine plains and settled as part of the Sabine tribal confederation.

I can also give you reputable British authors who do not have Italian or Greek biases.

Now, regarding surnames - The Roman name tradition is well-documented and not a mystery to anybody who cares to understand the significance of the names, their order and which names are heritable and which are not.

Surnames did not exist in ancient Rome! What you call surnames were often the name of a clan that had various branches with each branch having its own cognomen. The cognomen was not initially passed down, only the gens was. To distinguish people from the same gens the tradition stated that the praenomen be used to identify the individual and a cognomen used to identify the paternal descent. The paternal descent was not inherited obviously as the father changed!

The constant that was passed on was the gentilicium or the name of the gens, this was NOT a surname though, very different thing.
 
Here is an example of the Roman naming tradition:

Imperial title: Caesar (1) Marcus (2) Aurelius (3) Antoninus (4) Augustus (5)

1. Title
2. Praenomen
3. Cognomen [Aurelii of the gens Verus]
4. Adopted by predecessor [took his praenomen] - [Antoninus Pius]
5. Title

Marcus Aurelius was originally born as: Marcus (1) Aelius (2) Aurelius (3) Verus (4)

1. Praenomen
2. Cognomen [Aelii of the gens Verus]
3. Cognomen [Aurelii of the gens Verus]
4. Nomen Gentile [Gens: Verus]

The gens Verii supported the party of the gens known to everybody as 'Severus' or the Severan dynasty. It is clear in this example that Marcus Aurelius' father Marcus Annius Verus did NOT pass down his cognomen, Annius!
 
This is how I understand your situation. You obviously studied this stuff in Italy under professors who have viewed as experts by many people, right? Good, now to be honest about Italian history or Greek history one needs to take a foreigner's view of history. We need to remove ourselves from all the hype back in the fatherland of our ancestors and try to observe what others see from a more objective view. First off, the Sabines are not pure, the sources that say they are Italic are modern sources, do you agree with this?

Secondly, the Sabines inhabited the region stretching from Lazio, Umbria and Abruzzo to the East coast, do you agree with this?

Thirdly, the Sabines are viewed as one of the fundamental groups that make up the history of Roman Italy. This is the problem why objective Italian academics will be branded heretics or professionally castrated.

What do the earliest sources say about the identity of the Sabine? [do you agree that early sources are better than modern ones?]
Plutarch states in the life of Numa Pompilius, 'Sabines, who declare themselves to be a colony of the Lacedaemonians'.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus states that the Sabines left Sparta circa 800BC - 730BC in protest of Lycurgus, who laws had become severe. The Spartans founded the colony of Foronia near the Pomentine plains and settled as part of the Sabine tribal confederation.

I can also give you reputable British authors who do not have Italian or Greek biases.

Now, regarding surnames - The Roman name tradition is well-documented and not a mystery to anybody who cares to understand the significance of the names, their order and which names are heritable and which are not.

Surnames did not exist in ancient Rome! What you call surnames were often the name of a clan that had various branches with each branch having its own cognomen. The cognomen was not initially passed down, only the gens was. To distinguish people from the same gens the tradition stated that the praenomen be used to identify the individual and a cognomen used to identify the paternal descent. The paternal descent was not inherited obviously as the father changed!

The constant that was passed on was the gentilicium or the name of the gens, this was NOT a surname though, very different thing.

Perhaps there is the language barrier, because if in Italy or France i say that the surnames would not exist in Roman times they take my paper qualifications and burn it. Here we talk about Roman sunames, which all, except slaves, had. And, again, are not fully able to argue about this for the simple fact that here the issue of "not existence of roman surname" has never been addressed as a "debate" and is the first time I hear something like that, becouse the roman surnames for us are a obvius subject. Language barrier.
separate history from legend. All this to tell you that the Sabines claimed to be descended from the Spartans did not mean it was true, indeed, in all probability was a legend.
 
You are doing the the mistake of basing national cognomistica with cases of Roman emperors. Among the common people was different. Chose the name for the child, he took its cognomen from his father and acquired the nickname after: it's simple and straightforward.
 
Among the common people was different. Chose the name for the child, he took its cognomen from his father and acquired the nickname after: it's simple and straightforward.

Commoners did not use the three nomina, only nobles did, if you find examples of commoners with three nomina then they were Roman officials who had priviledges beyond that of a mere freeman.

The cognomen for a commoner was patronymic, you are not wrong when you say this is a surname, I am emphasizing two things you do not seem to know:
1. Patronymics never stayed the same as the fathers changed - This means the patronymic was not passed down for very long!
2. Patronymics have limitations - To claim a patronym as a Roman surname is pointless ... it changed the following generation.

The idea of a surname is when a patronym is passed down despite the name of the following paternal praenomen being different. This is what I mean when I say strincly speaking there were NO Roman surnames! The patronymic as a surname was established after the Roman period. Your professors need to give you half your tuition back, they only taught you half the story.:LOL:

Language barrier, definitely a problem. It also helps when we know the difference between a constant and a differential.
 

This thread has been viewed 170035 times.

Back
Top