tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post9101205273671763623..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Complex Y chromosome structure in East Tyrol (and more IE thoughts)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-3198474291596710922015-01-07T21:57:50.856+02:002015-01-07T21:57:50.856+02:00I wonder why did the authors of this study take th...I wonder why did the authors of this study take their Slavic reference populations only from Northern Croatia, Western Croatia and Southern Poland - why not also from Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Serbia and Bosnia all of which are either geographically closer than or just as close to East Tyrol as Poland and Croatia.<br /><br />Moreover, recent (2014) publication on R1a haplogroup by Underhill et al. shows that Slovenian subclades of R1a cluster more with Slovakian, Bosnian, Serbian, Ukrainian and Polish with ancestry from Kresy (Ukraine and Belarus), while Croatian subclades are different and cluster with Czech and Southern Polish. <br /><br />Since East Tyrol was inhabited by Slovene-speakers, reference Slavic populations should be from Slovakia, Serbia, etc., among which - like among Slovenes - the prevailing subclade of R1a is M558.<br /><br />By contrast among Croats, Czechs and Southern Poles the prevailing subclade of R1a is M458.<br /><br />Take a look at this chart of major R1a subclades (I made it basing on data from most recent publication by Underhill et al.):<br /><br />http://s18.postimg.org/qzm43w3vt/Chart_R1a.png<br /><br />[img]http://s18.postimg.org/qzm43w3vt/Chart_R1a.png[/img]Tomenablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011066460569954979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33066125510151871862013-09-03T01:30:21.194+03:002013-09-03T01:30:21.194+03:00Fany but those are migrations all at different tim...Fany but those are migrations all at different times and they are MIGRATIONS. Meaning you pick up stakes and every man woman and child leaves. Which makes perfect sense because you have a period of good weather and scandinavia can grow a large population, it turns cold 4-5 years and huge settlements come out. You can do this ad nauseum.<br /><br />For the burgundians at one point they decided to kill their king and what do they do? They send off to the homeland for a new one, staying in place a couple years for him to arrive! Not only very odd behavior but obviously implies they are not complete vagabonds. Defintely something was going on we just don't know what.<br /><br />Also while currently scandinavia looks a certain way and has certain haplotypes historically we should not expect it to have very much continuity to even 1000 years ago, and it was hit especially hard by the plague.<br /><br />I think these migrations were taking place all the time, mostly north-south and south-north as weather changed but most of them were in essence r1b migrating among other r1b.<br /><br />Fiend of 9 worldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17712083368615685458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88015659098779971022013-09-03T01:22:48.658+03:002013-09-03T01:22:48.658+03:00Well the italic form of r1b seems to originate in ...Well the italic form of r1b seems to originate in anatolia so explain that. Like I said in some other thread troy was not some mythical place back then as it was to western world until relatively recently.<br /><br />However I don't think you can tie in r1b spread with IE language spread. I don't think you can necessarily even tie it to germanic migrations in roman times, let alone just guess there were some big migrations we don't know about.<br /><br />Also think you are way off about greek origins. Menelaus was supposed to have red hair, so were thracians. Spartans were militant but had extreme equality in the sexes. Red hair and sex equality and elite warriors doesn't sound like anything you are describing, sorry but I think the huge amounts of j2 and e1b in southern greece came much later than you think.Fiend of 9 worldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17712083368615685458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48582086276828074722012-08-02T19:01:17.534+03:002012-08-02T19:01:17.534+03:00I still don't have watched the video with Mall...<i>I still don't have watched the video with Mallory you advised me to look at (I will watch it) but I think you probably either misunderstood something or maybe his phrasing was ambiguous. <br /></i><br /><br />So, go on ahead and watch it. I misunderstood nothing, the meaning was quite clear.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22569014304645996102012-08-02T16:58:18.034+03:002012-08-02T16:58:18.034+03:00@Dienekes:
"Tocharians and the presence of a...@Dienekes: <br /><i>"Tocharians and the presence of a rich agricultural vocabulary in them"</i><br /><br />Sorry, I had missed this bit. <br />I still don't have watched the video with Mallory you advised me to look at (I will watch it) but I think you probably either misunderstood something or maybe his phrasing was ambiguous. <br /><br />Not only in my Mallory book he clearly states that there were wheat, barley, wheat and peas on Srednyy stog sites, but D. Anthony in <i>"The Horse, The wheel and, Language"</i> says so too, page 273 about the late sredni stog culture: <br /><br /><i>"The late Sredni stog settlement of Moliukhor Bugor was located <b>on the Dnieper in the forest-steppe zone</b>. (...) The people of Moliukhor Bugor lived in a house 15 m by 12 m with three internal hearths, hunted red der and wild boar, fished, kept a lot of horses and a few domesticated cattle and sheep, and grew grain. Eight grain impression were found among 372 sherds (one imprint in 47 sherds), a higher frequency than at Mikhailovka I. <b>They included emmer wheat, einkorn wheat, millet and barley</b>. The well-known Sredni stog settlement at Dereivka was occupied somewhat earlier, about 4000 BCE, but also produced many <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-gloss" rel="nofollow"><b>flint blades with sickle gloss</b></a> and <b>six stone querns</b> for grinding grain, and so probably included some grain cultivation. (...) The sredni stog societies on the dnieper, like the other western steppe groups, had a mixed economy that combined grain cultivation, stock-breeding, horseback riding, and hunting and fishing."</i><br /><br />--<br />Erratum: the Nal'chik site that I mentionned in a former post didn't have a kurgan.wagghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13582568982610797947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85305879368023960632012-08-01T22:02:35.287+03:002012-08-01T22:02:35.287+03:00Why is there so little evidence of greater "p...<i>Why is there so little evidence of greater "phylogentic diversity" in Russia vs the Balkans, Northern Europe, Central Europe and western Europe?</i><br /><br />Russians are eastern Slavs, and as such they probably represent a _very_ late expansion in medieval times from the Central European Slavic homeland. We should not confuse them with the people who inhabited the eastern European plain during antiquity, let alone prehistory.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90235499490205682562012-08-01T20:49:22.431+03:002012-08-01T20:49:22.431+03:00I'll wait for real representative samples; no ...<i>I'll wait for real representative samples; no need to see patterns in the clouds until then.</i><br />but that isn't what your doing when you postulate a counterclockwise movement into Europe. <br /><br />At any rate even if some M417xZ645 were to be found in Asia, this would still leave open the question of European "phylogentic diversity". Why is there so little evidence of greater "phylogentic diversity" in Russia vs the Balkans, Northern Europe, Central Europe and western Europe?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02225234218438016486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67743137744029092192012-08-01T09:11:44.056+03:002012-08-01T09:11:44.056+03:00@Moreisbetter
" He postulate that the GOTHS ...@Moreisbetter<br /><br />" He postulate that the GOTHS (North Germanic tribe)...."<br /><br />The Goth, are rated as an "East Germanic" tribe.<br /><br />In fact, Gothic is the only East Germanic language that we have text examples for.<br /><br />That the Goth are from Scandinavia is their "foundation Myth", that meanwhile "most" scientists rate as, indeed "Myth" since there is no archeological signal of Scandinavian migration into Poland but Poland is crowded with tribes claiming Scandinavian legacy.<br /><br />Burgundians, oldest proven settlement: Poland<br />Claim Scandinavian legacy. Linguistic rated as East Germanic.<br /><br />Vandals, oldest proven settlement, Poland. Linguistical rated as East Germanic. Claim Scandinavian legacy.<br /><br />Langobards, oldest proven settlement: East Germany, linguistical rated as East Germanic, claim Scandinavian legacy.<br /><br />Others did aswell.<br /><br />Saxons, oldest proven settlements, North Germany, Denmark. Linguistical rated as West Germanic claim to be from the northern most regions of Norway.<br /><br />Franks, oldest proven settlement North-West Germany. Linguistical rated West-Germanic. Claim indeed trojan legacy, but the Saxons claim the Franks had been part of them, when they left Scandinavia....<br /><br />Trusting in all these foundation myth, led to the 19th century idea that ALL Germanic tribes dwelled in Scandinavia before they rushed south around 500 before Christ and pushed the Celts from GErmany to France and the Illyrians from Poland into the Balkan. Of course in 100% replacement.<br /><br />Meanwhile we know there is genetical connection between Scandinavia and Germany but a Scenario where a 500BC invasion of Scandinavian tribes led to a 100% population replacement in Germany, is rather unlikely.Fantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07969348276219179258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12262892745612078142012-07-31T22:10:06.292+03:002012-07-31T22:10:06.292+03:00AFAIK so far no Asian M417 have been Z645-/Z647-
...<i>AFAIK so far no Asian M417 have been Z645-/Z647-</i><br /><br />I think it is a safe bet to say that there are a couple orders of magnitude more Europeans taking DNA tests than there are Iranian or Central Asians. Moreover, SNP discovery is driven by the same type of people (Europeans and 1KG).<br /><br />I'll wait for real representative samples; no need to see patterns in the clouds until then.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-584362951256794672012-07-31T21:49:18.679+03:002012-07-31T21:49:18.679+03:00It is deeply rooted in the Asian phylogeny (see re...<i>It is deeply rooted in the Asian phylogeny (see recent paper in Iran). <br />If one assumed a European origin for this clade, then one would basically have to postulate full clockwise tour of Eurasia, starting from Central Asia (which is really the only game in town where the phylogeny of any R-related lineages can be rooted), going by some route to Europe, then going back east to Asia and down to Central Asia.</i><br /><br />The Iranian study didn't type for anything downstream from M17. M417 happened long after M17. AFAIK so far no Asian M417 have been Z645-/Z647-, with all "indo-iranian" being Z93+ (or rather L342.2+. The few M417+/Z93- in Asia (I think one Armenian and one Saudi) have all been Z282+. The only known M417(xZ645) so far are found in North Western Europe. It is possible future testing will improve the picture from Asia, but I doubt it will change the story.<br /><br />Also the few likely M17xM417 found in Europe appear to be just as likely found in "Western" Europe as in Eastern Europe (a few Spaniards, a few British, a French, a German, a Dutch and a Swiss vs the lone Macedonian).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02225234218438016486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15351708438478295012012-07-31T21:34:59.632+03:002012-07-31T21:34:59.632+03:00But in reality, an Anatolian Y-chromosome in Italy...<i>But in reality, an Anatolian Y-chromosome in Italy could have come from:<br /><br />(1) A prehistoric farmer, during the spread of farming.<br /><br />(2) A slave during Roman times<br /><br />Or the myths you cite. We all believe what it most sensible to us.</i><br /><br />Of course, Italy had adopted a no-immigrants policy between the spread of farming and Roman times, lol. <br /><br />I guess you haven't heard of the Phocaeans either? For a "classic historian" you seem to lack some very basic knowledge about ancient history.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62098714076354893962012-07-31T21:29:28.722+03:002012-07-31T21:29:28.722+03:00This will be my last comment on this thread, becau...This will be my last comment on this thread, because it is outdated now, and the ridiculousness has taken on, well, MYTHICAL proportions.<br /><br />You DO know Dienekes, that "Lavinia" was MYTHICAL, right?<br /><br />And you do know, even in myths, the city she founded, was not Rome, right?<br /><br />And as for your comment that "it only takes one Y chromosome to found a nation" -- I will let the public forum judge you on the absurdity of that statement. Technically, it is correct. But in reality, an Anatolian Y-chromosome in Italy could have come from:<br /><br />(1) A prehistoric farmer, during the spread of farming.<br /><br />(2) A slave during Roman times<br /><br />Or the myths you cite. We all believe what it most sensible to us.mooreisbetterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17522884275516185288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32551187368820882692012-07-31T18:28:05.427+03:002012-07-31T18:28:05.427+03:00Most of the legends you refer to were concocted lo...Most of the legends you refer to were concocted long after the fact, and many were mere oddities, and not widely accepted.<br /><br />The tradition about Aeneas is _the_ official Roman origin story, as well as the earliest. Moreover, Bronze Age Italy was clearly connected with the Aegean world (there is the pottery to prove it). <br /><br />It is quite easy to imagine that a group of Trojan refugees would have sought refuge in Italy -they couldn't exactly go to mainland Greece for obvious reasons- just as the later Romans -in a wonderful reversal of names- would seek refuge in Italy as well when the Ottomans captured Constantinople.<br /><br /><i>3. Almost all sources, historical and archaeological, state that Troy had about 8000 fighting men, and that few survived. What is your theory on how a meaningful group of the population got around the besiegers, conjured up a boat, sailed to faraway Italy, and still were of sufficient quantity to influence the gene pool? (And if they weren't of sufficient quantity, which is my point, why are you wasting time on this theory?)</i><br /><br />It only takes one man to start a successful Y chromosome lineage. Marrying Lavinia and founding a successful line of descendant kings would surely have done wonders for his Y chromosome.<br /><br />Also, there is no mystery in how Aeneas & co. they escaped Troy; for a "classical historian" you seem to lack some fairly basic knowledge. In the summary of the Iliou Persis (7th c. BC) it is explained how Aeneas anticipated the sack of Ilium after the death of Laocoon and hence was not in the city when the Achaeans returned to capture it. And, of course, their escape could not have been impeded, because, as you must also know, the Achaeans had packed camp and sailed away and no longer controlled sea access.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19274988646929663362012-07-31T18:05:14.913+03:002012-07-31T18:05:14.913+03:00@Dienekes,
Your euhemerism is fascinating, if sel...@Dienekes,<br /><br />Your euhemerism is fascinating, if selective. It doesn't really have a place on a scientific website, but OK.<br /><br />I believe in staying scientific, so I will accept your (to me, wackt, beneath you) euhemerist theories if you can satisfactorily answer the following questions:<br /><br />(1) Aside from 2 Roman sources (citing an earlier, common Roman source), the foundation myths of the following also claimed "Trojan" ancestry:<br /><br />--Padua, Italy<br />--Trier, Germany<br />--Paris, France<br />--Macedonia<br />--The Goths<br />--King Arthur (England)<br />--Capetian Kings (France)<br />--Franks (France)<br />--Turks (Turkey)<br />--Plantagenet Kings (England, France)<br /><br />Now, almost ALL credible historians dismiss these. In fact, they are often referred to as "ancient urban legends." <br /><br />But this is your theory: If you give credit to those legends, how did the Trojans get around so much? (Did they use airplanes or UFOs?) (Is this perhaps why the prophylactic is named after them?)<br /><br />2. If you discredit the others but give credit to the roman myth, why? Padua was also in Italy. Paris is almost as old. Macedonia was much closer and older.<br /><br />3. Almost all sources, historical and archaeological, state that Troy had about 8000 fighting men, and that few survived. What is your theory on how a meaningful group of the population got around the besiegers, conjured up a boat, sailed to faraway Italy, and still were of sufficient quantity to influence the gene pool? (And if they weren't of sufficient quantity, which is my point, why are you wasting time on this theory?)<br /><br />4. Do you believe the other legendary foundation myths of historic and pre-historic Italian city states? For example, the 53 that claim descent from Hercules and his followers? If not, why do you give particular credence to Rome's myth, other than it fits in your theory du jour?<br /><br />Love the blog, love the science, but you have some questions to answer. <br /><br />And by the way, I could have accepted this if you stated it as a truism.<br /><br />"All Western Mediterranean cultures had some interactions and some gene flow with older, more estanlished cultures of the Eastern Mediterranean. This includes Greeks and visitors from ancient Anatolia. Perhaps these interactions were celebrated and memorialized in the collective memory by various foundation myths, one of which is Rome's."<br /><br />But to state it like you did, honestly, buddy, as a huge fan, has this historian laughing!mooreisbetterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17522884275516185288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-81904275779258561882012-07-30T19:44:27.204+03:002012-07-30T19:44:27.204+03:00AFAIK there is no evidence for a counter-clockwise...<i>AFAIK there is no evidence for a counter-clockwise spread of M417 into Europe.</i><br /><br />It is deeply rooted in the Asian phylogeny (see recent paper in Iran). <br /><br />If one assumed a European origin for this clade, then one would basically have to postulate full clockwise tour of Eurasia, starting from Central Asia (which is really the only game in town where the phylogeny of any R-related lineages can be rooted), going by some route to Europe, then going back east to Asia and down to Central Asia.<br /><br />In any case, my theory makes a prediction, that all R-related lineages will not be found in early Neolithic (Neolithic=agro-pastoral- not Eastern European "Neolithic" associated only with pottery) Europe, and they will turn up late in prehistory during the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83920489804624536972012-07-30T19:27:09.730+03:002012-07-30T19:27:09.730+03:00"The fountain of its spread was probably a tr...<i>"The fountain of its spread was probably a trans-Caspian (?) Central Asian staging point that followed a counter-clockwise route into Europe that spawned the northern (Germanic and Balto-Slavic) groups of Europe and the Indo-Iranians, who remained longer in their BMAC homeland, finally breaking down during the 2nd millennium BC. This would also harmonize with the increasing evidence for complementary R-M17 distributions in Europe and Asia, associated with the Z93 marker."</i><br />AFAIK there is no evidence for a counter-clockwise spread of M417 into Europe.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02225234218438016486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43281761974540783602012-07-30T13:06:03.833+03:002012-07-30T13:06:03.833+03:00Ezr:
"R1a-rich (Northwest Caucasian, maybe e...<b>Ezr</b>: <br /><i>"R1a-rich (Northwest Caucasian, maybe even Burushaski) non-IE speaking groups"</i><br /><br />About north-west Caucasian, not that rich. They are far more full of Y-DNA G (the Adygei are over 50 % IIRC) or even J2. <br /><br />The simple fact that there are tracks of some _old IE_ input in ancestral Uralic (and loanwords from the whole indo-iranian "spectrum") already undermine this view. Not much J2a in the vicinity of any place widely associated with the place of apparition of proto-Uralic (for R1a1a it's a whole different situation). <br /><br />Anyway, as for the R1a1a lineages in north-west Caucasian territory, it doesn't seem that relevant if we associate R1a1a and mesolithic populations of Russia/Ukraine. <br /><br />Even if we consider the possibility of more recent contacts (*), I don't see why it should necessarily imply an actual effective Indo-europeanization. <br /><br />(*) These R1a1a might even have something to do with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khvalynsk_culture#Sites" rel="nofollow">Nal'chik cemeteries populations</a> descendants (north of Caucasus) that seem to have a link (well, at the very least contacts) with what are seen as the early "kurgan" culture on the Volga like Khvalynsk (kurgan and sepulture customs similar to the one of the aforementionned early "kurgan" cultures and also some similar artefacts, all this roughly at the same date (older than 4500 BCE)). <br /><br />We might even claim an early bronze age link with the Kurgan populations since the Maykop culture is described as "kurganized" by several scholars. <br /><br /><br /><b>Dienekes</b>: <br /><i>"he accepts both Aeneas and the Spartan origin of the Sabines"</i> <br /><br />But I don't think any scholar would accept a linguistic link of the Umbrian language (classified within <i>Italic</i>), the language the Sabines were speaking, with the Greek Spartans, so obviously we should take all this with a grain of salt.wagghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13582568982610797947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-39073684249540879192012-07-30T04:52:03.113+03:002012-07-30T04:52:03.113+03:00If you knew Dionysius so well, you would know he i...<i>If you knew Dionysius so well, you would know he is the exemplar -- the original -- the case study in a historian of the Roman era, writing in Greek, trying to reconcile the Greeka to Roman rule, by purposefully inventing Eastern origins for them.<br /></i><br /><br />You were the one who brought up Dionysius as someone supposedly contradicting the tales of eastern origins for the Roman nation.<br /><br />I'm happy to do without him, if you so please, old Cato can't be remotely accused for Hellenophilia, and he accepts both Aeneas and the Spartan origin of the Sabines :)Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33124607772314327842012-07-30T04:23:42.128+03:002012-07-30T04:23:42.128+03:00Dienekes, your Hellenophilia does not make for goo...Dienekes, your Hellenophilia does not make for good science.<br /><br />If you knew Dionysius so well, you would know he is the exemplar -- the original -- the case study in a historian of the Roman era, writing in Greek, trying to reconcile the Greeka to Roman rule, by purposefully inventing Eastern origins for them.<br /><br />From Encyclopedia Brittanica: "His chief object was to reconcile the Greeks to the rule of Rome, by dilating upon the good qualities of their conquerors and also by arguing that the Romans were genuine descendants of the older Greeks."<br /><br />"Chief object," Dienekes. Do you understand that? He proves my point.<br /><br />And if you knew him, and had read him, you would also kmow that he utterly rejected your "Etruscans are exotic" theory too. <br /><br />You should not be citing Dionysius.mooreisbetterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17522884275516185288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90176529924426728062012-07-30T03:19:24.589+03:002012-07-30T03:19:24.589+03:00Sorry, I actually meant M-35 of E1b1b1Sorry, I actually meant M-35 of E1b1b1Gaggahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04806735362656762431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69895374548930618962012-07-30T03:01:23.570+03:002012-07-30T03:01:23.570+03:00Wondering if there have been any New findngs on E1...Wondering if there have been any New findngs on E1b1b1 M-78 yDNA ?<br /><br />I am Irish, and family can be traced back to Ireland for at a few hundred years. Southern Ireland, Cork County and Kerry County.<br /><br />Have a very common Irish surname, probably the most common in Ireland.<br /><br />Question, everything on M-78 mentions Jewish heritage, but we have been Catholic going back a few hundred years.<br /><br />Does this mean the M-78 is due to Balkan Soldiers in Roman occupied Britain. But in my case, Southern Ireland.<br /><br />I have read Wales and England have some clusters of M-78, but never Ireland.<br /><br />What is the incidence of M-78 not being Jewish ? <br /><br />And more specifically, Southern Ireland ?Gaggahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04806735362656762431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69391740742912321742012-07-29T23:42:37.795+03:002012-07-29T23:42:37.795+03:00Many Roman authors scoffed at the notion of exotic...<i>Many Roman authors scoffed at the notion of exotic roots for their origin. Read some Cicero. Or some Strabo. Or some Dionysius of Helicarnassus. </i><br /><br />Strabo and Dionysius were not Roman, they were Greek.<br /><br />Also, what dope are you smoking? Dionysius documents multiple contributions from the east into early Rome, and his sources are Roman historians themselves.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19098552559390089642012-07-29T23:40:06.724+03:002012-07-29T23:40:06.724+03:00If Cato the Censor believed in it, it's good e...If Cato the Censor believed in it, it's good enough for me. After all, no one will accuse _him_ of being open to corrupting Greek influences, will they?<br /><br /><i>You are sounding a little too Da Vinci code here, or a little selective, or perhaps you ought to leave the classical history to those who specialize in it.</i><br /><br />"Classical historian", go ahead and find me any reputable primary sources that deny the traditional foundation story.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24473142387766200312012-07-29T23:01:32.661+03:002012-07-29T23:01:32.661+03:00Dienekes, you're just . . . WRONG. Way overst...Dienekes, you're just . . . WRONG. Way overstating your case here. I suggest you read some works of classical history, and have the decency to admit your lack of knowledge of it.<br /><br />Many Roman authors scoffed at the notion of exotic roots for their origin. Read some Cicero. Or some Strabo. Or some Dionysius of Helicarnassus. They were from from in agreement that "Romans were Trojans." Your statement is laughable and innacurate.<br /><br />And the other poster is correct: My God, are we to believe the foundation legends of all peoples? Read some Jordanes! He postulate that the GOTHS (North Germanic tribe) were Trojans. Native American foundation myths UTTERLY REJECT Siberian ancestry/origin. The Franks tried to claim ancestry from Jesus's followers.<br /><br />You are sounding a little too Da Vinci code here, or a little selective, or perhaps you ought to leave the classical history to those who specialize in it.mooreisbetterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17522884275516185288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-72444041671765187182012-07-29T11:58:50.001+03:002012-07-29T11:58:50.001+03:00@Dienekes:
"The fact that myths were express...@Dienekes: <br /><i>"The fact that myths were expressed in a poetic language and included unbelievable elements, does not make them untrue."</i> <br /><br />Well, if go that way, the Scotts (in the ancient sense, including the ancient Irish peoples) originally came from greater Scythia according to the <i>Declaration of Arbroath</i> and the <i>Lebor Gabála Érenn</i> (what a nice Kurgan theory evidence!) and the Franks are descendants of the fictive (it's clearly an invention) "Francus/Francion" related to Priam and Hector (and thus Trojans). <br /><br />It's pretty common in that time to claim some (then considered) prestigious lineage/origin. <br /><br /><i>"clearly relates to the abundant traditions of eastern origins for the historical groups of Italy"</i> <br /><br />And yet, except for the Etruscans, archeology would rather see Central Europe as a particular source for archeological elements during bronze age in Italy.wagghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13582568982610797947noreply@blogger.com