Seanp; We can't associate Germanic haplogroups to modern Germans. Northern Italy was colonized by tonns of Germanic tribes who might be genetically the same as North Italians now than German speakers today.
What??? So, Germanic groups in pre-history had totally different haplogroups than they have today??? Where is your proof of that? Believe me, I don't think following the y lineages is the only way to track migrations, but it's certainly one way. What are you substituting in the absence of uniparental markers, ancient dna, etc., a crystal ball?
Yet many Sicilians or Italian Americans today claim Norman heritage. (It's a solely mistake all these people concern on anthroforums)
What's the problem with claiming Norman heritage? Given how good our church records are, it's perfectly plausible that someone would be able to prove descent from one of the Norman lords or men at arms. The males of that line might possess yDna connected to either Scandinavia or France. That doesn't mean that there was much autosomal impact, although with enough endogamy in the family or village there might be some.
for contrary I don't see what's the problem for someone to mention the Berber/Carhagian ancestry in South Italy but not the Norman or Lombard. - Maybe those groups can't be viewed as European to fit someone's agenda. **Cough cough**
The only one with an agenda on this thread is you. Who says there's a problem with carrying a "Berber" y line? Who says there's a problem with having some minor ancestry from the Saracens? Certainly not me. Granted, I'm not southern Italian myself, but I assure you it doesn't bother my husband, who is southern Italian, one iota that he carries a small percentage of NA and some tenths of a percent of SSA on 23andme.
The point is to strive for accuracy, and the evidence shows that the percentage of what could be called "Berber" lines in Sicily and adjacent southern Italy is low, as you would know if you had been following the genetics instead of just posting the the same unsourced generalities on site after site. As for the Carthaginians, so far as I know, they only had two emporia in northwestern Sicily. I doubt that made a huge impact autosomally. If you're talking about J2a, I don't know where or when most of it arrived. We await ancient dna.
The same exact phenomenon exist among Antro Iberians who tries to distract themselves from Moors/North Africans but can't delete the 800 years of Moorish rule in Iberia.
I think people should realize that anthrofora Italians, Iberians, Poles, Americans and any other ethnic group don't necessarily speak for all members of their group.
So what prevents people like you calling Italians Jews non Italians when there's no strict definition on what Italian means to be. If a Jew identifty as Italian he has the right to be called as such, the same way someone of Lombard, Germanic, Italic ancestry is not less Italian than someone of Greek ancestry from the South.
Where the heck did I ever say that I don't consider Italian Jews Italians? Italian Jews have been patriotic Italians ever since they were freed from the ghettos and given their civil rights. They were a very well assimilated group and have contributed mightily to Italian culture.
The fact remains that their genetic history is different, a combination of ancient settlers in Rome, Sephardim who arrived after the expulsions in other parts of Europe, and then some Ashkenazim as well. Their own religious and cultural laws have meant that they have remained very endogamous. That was true to some extent even within the Jewish community, with separate marriage patterns, liturgy and liturgical languages etc. For example, there are Ashkenazi rite Italian Jews, Sephardic rite Italian Jews, and Italkim, who have their own unique Italian rite.
That's my identity and i don't identify myself based on DNA results. I have no problem to embrace "European" and "Asian" heritage of my ancestry as that's what makes someone Hungarian.
But to us these are just meaningless labels as we know Europe didn't even exist before the entry of Judo-Christianity which made this pseudo term "European"
I can't degrade myself to identify with modern French or Germans who sooner or later become a land of Turks and Muslims and redefine the definition of European under the blue flag.
Oh, I see, it's only Italians who have to identify themselves strictly genetically? Hungarians like yourself don't have to follow that rule?
What I also see is that you don't understand genetics and that you contradict yourself at every turn.
There's no point to any further interaction on this topic.
