Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 812
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
There is no data on the ancient Italic tribes who morphed into the cities with the Greeks and Romans.
Central and Southern Italy is where the Italics lived, and both regions today are Greek in terms of paternal haplogroup. Not admixture or other charts.
If they are right:
Initially, historical linguists had generally assumed that the various Indo-European languages specific to ancient Italy belonged to a single branch of the family, parallel for example to that of Celtic or Germanic. The founder of this hypothesis is considered Antoine Meillet (1866-1936).
Gray and Atkinson come up by using their Bayesian phylogenetic model that the Italic branch separated from the Germanic branch 5500 years ago, roughly the start of the Bronze Age.
Then I am right. The Celts split the Germanic language speaking people to the north and the Italic speaking speaking to the south, into two different groups. Each developed their own new dialect, and thus language.
29% R1b in Latium; 29% R1b in Campania:
both 18% of J2 and both 11% of G:
https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml
You should not presume that modern frequencies of haplogroups in specific regions are representative of how they were 2000 ago, far less that they are representative of the even much earlier population that brought the language that would eventually thrive in that region. That's bound to lead to disappointing conclusions. Consider the genetic drift that is especially fast and dynamic in the Y-DNA haplogroups, the progressive loss of close association between autosomal ancestry and Y-DNA haplogroups, the mixing over the generations, the fact that a language can be and is often established by a socioculturally powerful minority (and that may happen multiple times, for instance: the language of people A is adopted to region of people B with a genetic influx of ~30%; then the people B transmits its language to people C, with a genetic influx of ~20%; then it's passed to people D with a genetic influx of ~20%... in the end the people D will speak the language that was ultimately spoken by the people A, who contributed to just 12% of their genetics - that might well have been the case of Italic peoples between the BA and the modern era)...
These similarities in frequencies of Y-DNA haplogroups may mean something, but they also may be totally coincidental. You shouldn't assume two populations have exactly the same origins based on a similarity of Y-DNA distribution. Even populations that are basically identical can have very different proportions of Y-DNA haplogroups just due to genetic drift. Genetic relatedness has even much more to do with Autosomal DNA, not paternal markers.
Besides, the Gray & Atkinson Bayesian model of IE languages has been heavily criticized in its premises and methodology by a vast array of linguists, who pointed out that some of its more suspicious conclusions (for starters, the dating of the earlier splits itself) could only have happened as a result of a model that was wrong in several of its very basis, treating the evolution of languages exactly as if they were the evolution of biological living beings. Many linguists presented solid counter-evidences and counter-arguments that clearly demonstrate the mistake of trying to "reinvent the wheel" (a popular expression here) of an entire science with some hi-tech "mathematical method" supposed to solve it all using just a few algorithms based on a method devised for biology originally. If you want to understand some of the caveats that render these results unreliable, see here:
https://www.languagesoftheworld.inf...ics/atkinsons-theory-of-language-origins.html
http://literaryashland.org/?p=10433
The assumption that Italic and Germanic are more related is also extremely doubtful from the point of view of historical linguistics. In terms of isoglosses and shared grammatical innovations, Germanic probably shares less with Italic than with several other IE branches (even Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian), and most current scholars only see a direct relationship of Italic with Celtic.