Genetic history of Italy

skin colour
Human skin color ranges in variety from the darkest brown to the lightest pinkish-white hues. Human skin pigmentation is the result of natural selection. Skin pigmentation in humans evolved to primarily regulate the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, controlling its biochemical effects.[1]



romans consitintlye said that gauls where blonde haired while romans where dark haired it is a fact romans where italiens they freakin lived in italy word italiens comes from ancient italic tribes including romans we know what they looked like yes they brought slaves but looking at modern italien dna they have italien and mid eastern blood not slaves blood
link where it states this rubbish

the Germanic languages are indo Europeans the Germanic signature is R1b s21 maciamo pleas back me up i am sick of these dumb arguments people trust what u say more. the proto Italo Celtic germanic speakers had R1b l11 R1b s21 maps out germanic language r1b has a ton to do with germans



Germanic r1b s21 is 30-40% in austria people who live in teh alps so ur wrong the two language families in the al;ps are germanic and italien so ur wrong again
The germanic people formed in modern Denmark and northern germany , there was no germans in the south or in the alps. Austria was ONLY formed in 1000AD by bavarians, there where no austrians prior to this.

The alps, had, ligures, vindelici, rhaetian, helvetian, venetic, illyrian, thracian etc people, the gauls came in from the west into the alps around the late bronze-age to early iron-age

i ever said genetic history began after the fall of Rome Europeans ancestors are from multiple migrations out of the mid east from 50,000-35,000ybp. can we please stop with these dumb arguments i get so sick of teh modern politcally corect mind which wants nothing to do with skin color the color of someones skin is one of teh best ways to define their race they have alot to do with genetics the best way to define a european is someone with Caucasian facial features and body build and white skin that is teh best way white people is a great name for Europeans it is not offensive and it is true italiens are darker haired and eyed than almost all Europeans that is a fact so for that reason they are not close relatives to celts and austomnal dna which tells ur full ancestry again shows Italians are not close relatives to celts can we get on to more important arguments that dont have answers like the ones i suggested

Show me where it says ancient romans are italians,?
the current italian government says there was no italians in Italy before 1870 thats in the constitution,
histories never call Romans , Italians ....romans are romans, etruscans are etruscans, etc
franks are germanic people that invaded gual and became french ...........but maybe the french are proto-germanic by your reckoning....I do not know how you decipher races. you clearly are tyring to merge ancient people into modern nationalities..........clearly a grave error
 
skin colour
Human skin color ranges in variety from the darkest brown to the lightest pinkish-white hues. Human skin pigmentation is the result of natural selection. Skin pigmentation in humans evolved to primarily regulate the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, controlling its biochemical effects.[1]




link where it states this rubbish

Diodorus Siculus writes that in appearance the "Gauls are tall of body, with rippling muscles, and white of skin, and their hair is blond
http://www.leyline.org/cra/1999beltaine/romans_and_gauls.html
here some paintgs done of romans by romans and they defintley are dark haired and eyed just like modern italiens
mport2.jpg
images
romanisation_article_2.jpg
romeo10.jpg
20120227-Fayum%20mummy%20portrait%20ff.jpg
PLZ-050_Woman's-Funerary-portrait_Faiyum-AD161.jpg

femaleportrait110-130temperaonwood.jpg

i have read many other physical descriptions of ancient people the romans said teh celts where fair haired and very pale skinned the germans where also fair ahired and pale skinned teh iberians where dark haired and white to olive skinned, the greeks where dark haired and white to olive skinned the romans where dfark haired and white to olive skinned the thracens and daciens whre red haired and blue eyed the sythiens where red haired or blonde haired and blue eyed the egyptiens where dark haired and brown skinned and syrians where dark haired and brown skinned

i cant find all of the links but i have read them i saw one roman writer who said we romans are perfect because we are not extreme white like Germans or brown like Egyptians when compared to people in north africa and mid east romans said they where pale skinned when compared to Celts, Germans, sythiens, Thracens, and dacens Romans said they where tan u can not argue about this simple fact i am sick of it the Romans where dark haired and eyed they where Italian the identity Italian came from italic tribes like Romans just stop arguing about this and pigmentation has alot to do with ancestry and genetics

The germanic people formed in modern Denmark and northern germany , there was no germans in the south or in the alps. Austria was ONLY formed in 1000AD by bavarians, there where no austrians prior to this.
Germanic language does not equal race the stertypical blonde haired blue eyed Germans are actulley talking about Scandinavians who are descended from hunter gathers who have lived there for over 10,000 years way way way before the Germanic language the German language would have begun in Germany about 4,000-5,000ybp they had Y DNA r1b s21 with a little I2a2 from the natives they conquered they spread to south scandnavia by conquering the native hunter gathers and farmers who had Y DNA I1a2 and they formed the nordic bronze age ask maciamo he would agree with me and hen about 3,000-2,000ybp it seems that any germanic tribes from denmark spread back into germany. yes it is true that austrians where not formed till 100ad but 30-40% of austrians still have germanic r1b s21 so they do have germanic blood

The alps, had, ligures, vindelici, rhaetian, helvetian, venetic, illyrian, thracian etc people, the gauls came in from the west into the alps around the late bronze-age to early iron-age
yes the alsp did have those people the liguraes spoke a italic language with some celtic influnce teh italic language began around the alps they would have orignalley been genticalley identical to celts and ligures who lived in the alps, the vindelici spoke either a Celtic or GERMANIC langauge this was before the Roman empire, The rhaetian litle is known about them livy a ancient roman writer said they came from estrucans who where non indo Europeans from the mid east who migrated to Italy about 4,000-3,000ybp. the helvetian where Celts, the Ventic are belived to have spoken either a Italic language or something very related, illyrians lived in modern day yugoslavia they had some borders that reached near the eastern alsp but they should not count as alsp people they spoke a extinct indo european language they had mainly paloithic european Y DNA I2a1b, the Thracens did not live in teh alsp they lived in modern day bulgaria they spoke a extinct indo european language also the dacens their close relatives who lived in bulgaira spoke a similar language some think thracen and dacen are most related to greek the thracens and dacens where known for red hair even greek writing going back 2,900ybp describe them as redheads but what does not make sense is red hair almost does not exist in modern day bulgaira.

celtic culture began around the alps that is a fact the unetice culture is where celts orignalley come from



Show me where it says ancient romans are italians,?
the current italian government says there was no italians in Italy before 1870 thats in the constitution,
histories never call Romans , Italians ....romans are romans, etruscans are etruscans, etc
franks are germanic people that invaded gual and became french ...........but maybe the french are proto-germanic by your reckoning....I do not know how you decipher races. you clearly are tyring to merge ancient people into modern nationalities..........clearly a grave error

i dont need to show u rome as a city started in central itlay just 2,700ybp the reason i know romans where italien is because they said so them selves modern italiens did not make up the name italien it came from teh first italic speakers in the alps 3,200ybp the romans spoke a italic language which is latin they called themsleves italiens that is a simple fact plus they lived just 2,000ybp there has been no real gentic change at all in italy sinec then sure germans migrated there just like they did every where in europe but there is very little german r1b s21 and I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b in italy Romans where italien i cant belive ur arguning about this the wikpedia page even says romans where italiens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italians

that is because it is a constitution uralic speaking people in finalnd have been there for 7,000-8,000 years finalnd did not become a offical country till the 1800;s but the finnish langauge and its ancestor langauge has been in finalnd for about 8,000 years and the finnish ancestry has been in scandnvai for over 10,000 years the estrucans even though they lived in italy where not italien they because they spoke a italic language today the whole penisula is called italy because now everyone speaks a italic langauge the goths and saxons thought of themselves as first saxons or goths and second as germans the italien ethnicity technically is based on the Italian language but most of Italians ancestry has been in Italy for over 7,000 years

modern day french are mainly decended from gauls but they also have a signifcant amount of mid eastern blood which came in greco roman age the french ethnicty is based on language so yes the Germanic franks migrated to France and then spoke the french language and became french even though there is very little Germanic blood in modern french germanc conquered most of post roman Europe but they where mainly just the leaders and did not inter marry alot

i think most DNA genetic experts try to figur out what ancient people formed modern people and it is not a grave error ait is easily figured out through dna modern italiens come from romans ask maciamo he is a expert on gentics and migrations of ancient and pre histroic people in europe and he will tell u that i can relate modern nationalities to ancient ones it is not black and white most modern people are a mix of many ancient people and the Italian nationality based on language began 3,200ybp and ancient Romans where part of that nationalty
 
the romans said themselves the gauls where faired haired and very pale skinned while romans and italiens where dark haired and olive skinned even romans saw the differnce and basicalley if u go by real percentages italy has much lower amounts of light hair and eyes than most of europe that is a fact.

They told that in times when Romans themselfs were not exactly the original Romans/Latins before they started to expand their rule over Etruscans, Ligures (both non-indoeuropean by origin) Sabinians and others on Italian peninsula, isn't that true?

Not to mention that term "Roman", even 200, 250 years before the Empire was a term for the individual who had roman citizenship, it was not ethnical term anymore like for CELTS, Celts in that period (before romanization) were more or less always that... CELTS. So I think we should pay attention on that term ROMAN when we speak about their genetic, original genetic of Latins before Rome itself, and durin reign of republic and not to mention Empire...

The celts where more of a light haired people that is also a fact so to me it makes sense that Italians and Celts cant be very close relatives also their only connection is y dna and language i thought everyone would agree with me and move on to more important issues about genetics of italy on that simple fact there is no arguing about it. most blue eyes are found in Scandinavia, baltic region, and northwestern russia i know where u are getting that info from it is because some experts belive the genes for blue eyes orignated in the ancestral populaton of people ine the alps but many dis agree that does not mean people in the alps have the most blue eyes and that does not help ur argument about connecting Celts with Italians because people in the alps are probably more descended from gauls than anyone

Celts were/are light hair people, but they are not exactly blondish like germanic tribes (at least original "germanics")... Celts in majority were and are brown (light brown or dark brown) & "red" haired people.

Also we are speaking here about genetic are we not? So even the TERM "GERMANIC" is a paradox, because if you look on Germanic from linguistic point of view, you will get indoeuropean language, but if you look at the genetic of scandinavian germans (and northern germans from Germany) you will get pre-indoeuropean (paleolithic) europeans.

Same thing is with majority of today Croatians, Bosnians and Serbians... Genetic is (pre-dominantely) pre-indoeuropean (Paleolithic), but by linguistic and ethnical origin this three countries consider themselfs slavic = Indoeuropean.

So I think we should make in some cases STRONG differences between linguistic, and even ethnic origin and genetic.
 
skin colour
Human skin color ranges in variety from the darkest brown to the lightest pinkish-white hues. Human skin pigmentation is the result of natural selection. Skin pigmentation in humans evolved to primarily regulate the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, controlling its biochemical effects.[1]






Diodorus Siculus writes that in appearance the "Gauls are tall of body, with rippling muscles, and white of skin, and their hair is blond
http://www.leyline.org/cra/1999beltaine/romans_and_gauls.html
here some paintgs done of romans by romans and they defintley are dark haired and eyed just like modern italiens
mport2.jpg
images
romanisation_article_2.jpg
romeo10.jpg
20120227-Fayum%20mummy%20portrait%20ff.jpg
PLZ-050_Woman's-Funerary-portrait_Faiyum-AD161.jpg

femaleportrait110-130temperaonwood.jpg

i have read many other physical descriptions of ancient people the romans said teh celts where fair haired and very pale skinned the germans where also fair ahired and pale skinned teh iberians where dark haired and white to olive skinned, the greeks where dark haired and white to olive skinned the romans where dfark haired and white to olive skinned the thracens and daciens whre red haired and blue eyed the sythiens where red haired or blonde haired and blue eyed the egyptiens where dark haired and brown skinned and syrians where dark haired and brown skinned

i cant find all of the links but i have read them i saw one roman writer who said we romans are perfect because we are not extreme white like Germans or brown like Egyptians when compared to people in north africa and mid east romans said they where pale skinned when compared to Celts, Germans, sythiens, Thracens, and dacens Romans said they where tan u can not argue about this simple fact i am sick of it the Romans where dark haired and eyed they where Italian the identity Italian came from italic tribes like Romans just stop arguing about this and pigmentation has alot to do with ancestry and genetics


Germanic language does not equal race the stertypical blonde haired blue eyed Germans are actulley talking about Scandinavians who are descended from hunter gathers who have lived there for over 10,000 years way way way before the Germanic language the German language would have begun in Germany about 4,000-5,000ybp they had Y DNA r1b s21 with a little I2a2 from the natives they conquered they spread to south scandnavia by conquering the native hunter gathers and farmers who had Y DNA I1a2 and they formed the nordic bronze age ask maciamo he would agree with me and hen about 3,000-2,000ybp it seems that any germanic tribes from denmark spread back into germany. yes it is true that austrians where not formed till 100ad but 30-40% of austrians still have germanic r1b s21 so they do have germanic blood


yes the alsp did have those people the liguraes spoke a italic language with some celtic influnce teh italic language began around the alps they would have orignalley been genticalley identical to celts and ligures who lived in the alps, the vindelici spoke either a Celtic or GERMANIC langauge this was before the Roman empire, The rhaetian litle is known about them livy a ancient roman writer said they came from estrucans who where non indo Europeans from the mid east who migrated to Italy about 4,000-3,000ybp. the helvetian where Celts, the Ventic are belived to have spoken either a Italic language or something very related, illyrians lived in modern day yugoslavia they had some borders that reached near the eastern alsp but they should not count as alsp people they spoke a extinct indo european language they had mainly paloithic european Y DNA I2a1b, the Thracens did not live in teh alsp they lived in modern day bulgaria they spoke a extinct indo european language also the dacens their close relatives who lived in bulgaira spoke a similar language some think thracen and dacen are most related to greek the thracens and dacens where known for red hair even greek writing going back 2,900ybp describe them as redheads but what does not make sense is red hair almost does not exist in modern day bulgaira.

celtic culture began around the alps that is a fact the unetice culture is where celts orignalley come from





i dont need to show u rome as a city started in central itlay just 2,700ybp the reason i know romans where italien is because they said so them selves modern italiens did not make up the name italien it came from teh first italic speakers in the alps 3,200ybp the romans spoke a italic language which is latin they called themsleves italiens that is a simple fact plus they lived just 2,000ybp there has been no real gentic change at all in italy sinec then sure germans migrated there just like they did every where in europe but there is very little german r1b s21 and I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b in italy Romans where italien i cant belive ur arguning about this the wikpedia page even says romans where italiens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italians

that is because it is a constitution uralic speaking people in finalnd have been there for 7,000-8,000 years finalnd did not become a offical country till the 1800;s but the finnish langauge and its ancestor langauge has been in finalnd for about 8,000 years and the finnish ancestry has been in scandnvai for over 10,000 years the estrucans even though they lived in italy where not italien they because they spoke a italic language today the whole penisula is called italy because now everyone speaks a italic langauge the goths and saxons thought of themselves as first saxons or goths and second as germans the italien ethnicity technically is based on the Italian language but most of Italians ancestry has been in Italy for over 7,000 years

modern day french are mainly decended from gauls but they also have a signifcant amount of mid eastern blood which came in greco roman age the french ethnicty is based on language so yes the Germanic franks migrated to France and then spoke the french language and became french even though there is very little Germanic blood in modern french germanc conquered most of post roman Europe but they where mainly just the leaders and did not inter marry alot

i think most DNA genetic experts try to figur out what ancient people formed modern people and it is not a grave error ait is easily figured out through dna modern italiens come from romans ask maciamo he is a expert on gentics and migrations of ancient and pre histroic people in europe and he will tell u that i can relate modern nationalities to ancient ones it is not black and white most modern people are a mix of many ancient people and the Italian nationality based on language began 3,200ybp and ancient Romans where part of that nationalty

The darkest people above are from EGYPT.
 
yes by Language and Y DNA R1b S28 Italiens and Celts are close cousins but i think u know maciamo that Italians have almost no light hair and eyes while Celts where know for those features by Romans. since Italians are more dark haired and eyed and white too olive skinned while Celts are light haired and eyed and very light skinned there is no way they are close genetic relatives. The orignal Italic speakers lived in later celtic terriotory they would have been geneticalley identical to swiss people or just people that live in the area they came from orignalley just when they migrated to Italy they inter married with the locales extremely quickly they kept y dna r1b s28 and the italic language but most of their blood came from the native farmers. So then when Italy became connected with greece and the civilized world they inter married like crazy with mid eastern people but id ont know about Greeks maybe that is why Y DNA j1, J2, and E1b1b v13 are so popular in greece and Italy and surrounding areas but not the rest of Europe also Italiens in globe13 austomnal DNA test have over 20% west asian and over 15% southwest asian most europeans have less than 6% west Asian and less than 1% southwest Asian only Italians, Greeks and surrounding countires have higher this means Italians have a significant amount of mid eastern heritage which came in greco Roman age. in austomnal DNA the north European part of Italiens came from the hunter gathers who had Y DNA I2a1a that where conquered by G2a (probably not J1, J2 and E1b1b farmers). The Mediterranean in Italians which is their biggest part in the globe13 test comes from y DNA G2a farmers like Otzie since Italians have mainly Mediterranean they probably have mainly Neolithic ancestry. The west Asian came in greco roman age some of the southwest Asian came in Neolithic and some in greco roman age.

i dont think u should put on the genetic history of Italy that Italians are close relatives to Celts that is not true only their language and direct male linage is but most of their blood is unrelated

Italics were a group of Bronze Age tribes. Italians are modern people. They are separate by over 3000 years of heavy genetic admixture. You cannot equal one with the other. Bronze Age Italics were most probably very Celtic-looking.
 
overall Italians are probably mainly from Neolithic Italians sardine are probably who Italians where 8,000ybp because sardines have much much less mid eastern blood than the rest of italy they are the closest relatives in DNA we have of Otzie a farmer from alps Italy from 5,300ybp and the austomnal DNA percentages of sardines are teh closest to what we have of Neolithic Europeans even though i guess people kind off think of sardines as sperate from Italians they are actulley more Italian than people in italy.

Sardines are a species of fish. Sardinians are people from Sardinia.
 
Sardines are a species of fish. Sardinians are people from Sardinia.

Europeans before the neloithic age i the glob13 aust. test had only north european austomnal DNA they possibly had other groups at very small percentages the aust. dna we have so far of farmers where mainly meditreaen all meditreaen in europe probably comes from y dna g2a farmers and sardine have the highest in europe at 71%

also otzie and a farmer from south swedan from 5,000ybp had over 7% southwest asian sardine have 7% italiens and greek have much higher amounts of west asian and southwest asian than other europeans they have 20-24% west asian and 15-18% southwest asian sardine have about 5% west asian like otzie did the west asian and southwest asian in italy and greec probably came in the greco roman age with y dna j1, j2, and most of e1b1b v13

sardine also have less north european than italiens probably because the first italic speakers would have been more like celts or modern austrians so they would have 55-65% north european and they would have increased the amount of north european in italy and decreased meditrean sardine probably arrived at the island at somepoint in teh neloithic from italy from the same Neolithic stock most Italians ancestry is from so i think they are probably what italiens where 8,000 years ago and what many western meditrean neloithic europeans where

i think u need to add mtdna and aus. dna in ur genetic history of italy because sardine defintley do not have alot of hunter gather ancestry u know they have tons of y dna i2a1a but that is just a direct lineage aust. dna shows they are the most neloithic people in europe.

when ever i mention aust. dna i mean i am talking about the globe13 test
 
Suggestion

Fire Haired, can I make a suggestion here?
Many posters at this sight do not read or speak English as their native language. Using standard English grammar will benefit the reader and/// people like me may actually start reading your lengthy dissertations.
1. Organize your thoughts. Beginning - Middle - End
2. Separate thoughts into paragraphs. Use punctuation and Capitalization to separate sentences.
3. Keep most of your posts relatively short.
I'm note a stickler on spelling and grammar, but GOOD LORD, make the post readable!
 
Fire Haired, can I make a suggestion here?
Many posters at this sight do not read or speak English as their native language. Using standard English grammar will benefit the reader and/// people like me may actually start reading your lengthy dissertations.
1. Organize your thoughts. Beginning - Middle - End
2. Separate thoughts into paragraphs. Use punctuation and Capitalization to separate sentences.
3. Keep most of your posts relatively short.
I'm note a stickler on spelling and grammar, but GOOD LORD, make the post readable!
Yes, yes and yes!!!
I have to admit I stopped reading his posts. I just hope he realizes one day that rushing his posts to the forums won't make people to read them quickly, or read them at all. People like well organized thoughts in easily readable and understandable format, hopefully quick to the point. Sadly none of these essential elements are in Fire Haired posts.
 
Fire Haired's impressive knowledge (especially considering he's in his first year of high school, as he mentioned in another thread) can make his text formating excusable. (y)
 
Sardines are a species of fish. Sardinians are people from Sardinia.


:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:


Maciamo, PLEASE make an admixture map of Europe based upon the "sardine" component!! :LOL::LOL:
 
St Decambre u do not get I1a2a1c from ur nordic ancestry. I1a3 is almost never found in Nordic countries. nordic countries have I1a2. continental europe has I1a1, i1a3, I1a4, and I1b all of these are not from Scandinavians.

I1a migrated to Scandinavia about 10,000-12,000ybp and evolved into I1a2 about 10,000ybp. ur direct paternal ancestors at that time where in contiental europe and where the I1a people that stayed in continental europe.

I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, and I1b are most popular around Germany and central Europe. Probably because I1a2 migrated to Scandinavia from central Europe 10,000-12,000ybp.

ur direct paternal ancestry either migrated to France from Germany in the Germanic migrations 2,500-1,500ybp or they are from Paloithic France over 10,000ybp.

most I1 is not Germanic or Nordic http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...t-from-Germans-or-Nordics?p=411621#post411621
 

This thread has been viewed 28461 times.

Back
Top