Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Serbia- E3b (M35) Questions??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The plainest way to express what I understand at the moment is to say that Eb3's did migrate all over Europe and Africa for centuries for various reasons. During Roman times, improved methods of transportation and communications (plus slave trade and wars in distant lands) caused a much more accelerated process of people moving. (St. Paul, for instance, went thousands of miles from his birthplace; Pricilla and Aquilla were Jews kicked out of Rome who sometimes accompanied Paul).

    What I understand the website is saying is that Romans took some of the folks from the Middle East with them to Great Britian. Others were taken or voluntarily travelled to Dalmatia, Pontius, Spain and other places where Romans had outposts and colonies.

    The question now is whether the 21st Century "matches" some of us are finding throughout Europe are the result of very ancient migration (10,000 years or more), Roman movements or more recent situations like when my parents had to decide like many others after WW 2 who wanted to get as far from Europe as possible whether to emigrate to Argentina or Canada. How do the Genographic Study figure this out?

    Comment


    • #17
      [QUOTE=Stevo]I hope you mean ancient, pagan Rome.


      Imposing 21st century value judgments on ancient peoples is a double-edged sword. It is difficult to say the Romans were any worse than their contemporaries.

      QUOTE]

      I MEAN ROMANS LOOK YOU DO YOUR USUAL I WOULD BE ASHAMED TO BE ROMAN. I dont think people who lit christians to light their garden parties to be anything but better then the ss and himler

      Comment


      • #18
        [QUOTE=Jim Denning]
        Originally posted by Stevo
        I hope you mean ancient, pagan Rome.


        Imposing 21st century value judgments on ancient peoples is a double-edged sword. It is difficult to say the Romans were any worse than their contemporaries.

        QUOTE]

        I MEAN ROMANS LOOK YOU DO YOUR USUAL I WOULD BE ASHAMED TO BE ROMAN. I dont think people who lit christians to light their garden parties to be anything but better then the ss and himler
        Jim -

        Not all Romans lit Christians on fire.

        Many Romans were among the first Christians. Those Romans were the ones being persecuted by crazy emperors like Nero and Caligula.

        How many Romans were early Christian martyrs?

        Many of them.

        Besides, Christianity was fairly widespread in Britain before the Romans withdrew and the invading Anglo-Saxons drove the Christians either out of Britain or into the West and Northwest of the island.

        I don't think the ancient Romans were any worse than their contemporaries or those who came before them. The Celts were notorious headhunters and practitioners of human sacrifice, for example.

        The ancient Egyptians, who were probably mostly E3bs, weren't exactly choirboys either.
        Last edited by Stevo; 1 May 2006, 07:13 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          You' re right Stevo. On this same forum I had a similar discussion about this issue with Hetware (where has he gone???), who opposed the brutal violence of the Romans to those presumed rousseauian good savages who were the Germanic tribes who set the Western Roman Empire on fire...
          Certain forms of violence are to contextualize in their age and they're not the inevitable fruit of a particular people or (!!!) haplogroup

          Francesco

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by F.E.C.
            You' re right Stevo. On this same forum I had a similar discussion about this issue with Hetware (where has he gone???), who opposed the brutal violence of the Romans to those presumed rousseauian good savages who were the Germanic tribes who set the Western Roman Empire on fire...
            Certain forms of violence are to contextualize in their age and they're not the inevitable fruit of a particular people or (!!!) haplogroup

            Francesco
            Absolutely.

            Besides, in many ways Roman civilization was the work of tremendous genius and a real boon to mankind.

            If I found out my Y-DNA came via the Romans, I would certainly NOT be ashamed.

            Just the opposite, in fact.

            Comment


            • #21
              Roman Empire

              Originally posted by Stevo
              Absolutely.

              Besides, in many ways Roman civilization was the work of tremendous genius and a real boon to mankind.

              If I found out my Y-DNA came via the Romans, I would certainly NOT be ashamed.

              Just the opposite, in fact.
              Francesco and Steve,

              I agree with your general points and, as someone all four of whose grandparents came from southern Italy and Sicily, I would never attribute wrongs committed by Romans to something "in the genes." However, historically speaking, I think the Roman Empire was culturally inferior to the previously dominant Greek culture. It was a Roman soldier who killed the great mathmetician and scientist Archimedes, who by the way was a Greek-speaking Sicilian.

              My point is that when a people become the dominant force within an empire, there will inevitably be invasions against and repression of other nations and ethnic groups. It's nothing specific to the Roman Empire, but is the character of empires in general. Any lessons there for our nation and other nations today should be heeded.

              Mike Maddi

              Comment


              • #22
                Hi Mike,

                I'm not going to further hijack a thread that was hijacked enough I only would like to briefly tell you my point of view.

                Sure, the general belief is that the Romans improved what the Greeks had already invented and this is true for science and, only partially, literature. Nevertheless the Romans were as brilliant in putting into practice what the Greeks had only put into theory, from warfare down to architecture. Continental Europeans just have to think at the legal system and the administrative apparatus of their countries (not to mention the Christian religion as we know it) to evaluate how tremendously important the Roman contribution was to the modern world in terms of original ideas.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Probably we should start another thread about this, but when some of us hear "Rome" we think of it more as a philosophical template. Revelation 11 calls Rome "Babylon" and "Egypt."

                  Rome universalized the Hellenistic culture, which drew heavily on Egyptian and Chaldean (Babylonian) sources. The ligua franca of the Roman Empire was Greek (only the "rough" element in the city of Rome spoke Latin).

                  In our present view of the world UK=Greece (originator of a certain culture and language) while US=Rome (has the power and influence to globalize the culture and language). Rome started out as a Republic and gained ground horizontally by taking the side of oppressed nations. When Rome "turned over" and became an Empire it traded its land grab (it had enough) for a philosophical hold on its people--Emperor worship. Christians were ones who opposed this and paid the consequences...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Marttinen
                    Probably we should start another thread about this, but when some of us hear "Rome" we think of it more as a philosophical template. Revelation 11 calls Rome "Babylon" and "Egypt."
                    Revelation deals with the Rome of Nero's day and the persecution Christians were enduring.

                    Nero's name - Neron Caesar - when written in Hebrew letters, which also counted as numbers (Gematria), totals 666.

                    In some manuscripts of Revelation, that number, the number of "the Beast," is given as 616.

                    If one leaves the last n off of Neron, that substracts 50 and leaves 616. It was common to do so and to refer to Neron Caesar simply as Nero Caesar.

                    Originally posted by Marttinen
                    Rome universalized the Hellenistic culture, which drew heavily on Egyptian and Chaldean (Babylonian) sources. The ligua franca of the Roman Empire was Greek (only the "rough" element in the city of Rome spoke Latin).
                    Greek was the lingua franca only in the East. Latin was spoken throughout the West.

                    Originally posted by Marttinen
                    In our present view of the world UK=Greece (originator of a certain culture and language) while US=Rome (has the power and influence to globalize the culture and language). Rome started out as a Republic and gained ground horizontally by taking the side of oppressed nations. When Rome "turned over" and became an Empire it traded its land grab (it had enough) for a philosophical hold on its people--Emperor worship. Christians were ones who opposed this and paid the consequences...
                    Excuse me . . .

                    The UK is like Greece to the US as Rome?

                    Hardly!

                    On whose empire did the sun never set?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Marttinen
                      Rome universalized the Hellenistic culture, which drew heavily on Egyptian and Chaldean (Babylonian) sources. The ligua franca of the Roman Empire was Greek (only the "rough" element in the city of Rome spoke Latin).
                      Only the "rough" element in Rome??? Then how come today in Italy, France, Spain and Portugal we speak neolatin languages and not "neogreek"?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Marttinen
                        The ligua franca of the Roman Empire was Greek (only the "rough" element in the city of Rome spoke Latin) ...
                        The rough element? Catullus? Horace? Juvenal? Ovid? Virgil? etc, etc, etc...

                        F.E.C., don't forget Romania.

                        Contra facta non valent argumenta

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Thank you for the feedback. Blame my pontifications on sitting too long in a windy castle reading the Da Vinci Code, waiting for the deeper tests to come back (the date was just pushed back another 5 days today).

                          I have all the respect in the world for the Latin tongue. I meant "rough element" meaning common, everyday people as opposed to the formal and prissy. English was once also considered too crude for a translation of the Scriptures to be written in it, yet Shakepeare, Dickens and Darwin all used English.

                          The US is only like Rome in that it is a nation that spreads cultural ideas with roots from other nations, predominately the UK. I didn't mean to stretch the metaphors to imply anything more.

                          My view of Apocalyptic writing like Matt. 24, Luke 21, Daniel, 2 Thess. 2 and Revelation tends towards the more old-fashioned historicist, where prophecies fit into the entire Christian era of history. They can have 3 applications--immediate (as in Nero's world), in history (a ruling power can act Rome-like) and personal (my own character).

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by robe3b
                            F.E.C., don't forget Romania.
                            Right, sorry

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              [QUOTE=Jim Denning]
                              Originally posted by Stevo
                              I hope you mean ancient, pagan Rome.


                              Imposing 21st century value judgments on ancient peoples is a double-edged sword. It is difficult to say the Romans were any worse than their contemporaries.

                              QUOTE]

                              I MEAN ROMANS LOOK YOU DO YOUR USUAL I WOULD BE ASHAMED TO BE ROMAN. I dont think people who lit christians to light their garden parties to be anything but better then the ss and himler
                              We can't be responsible of what our ancerstors did or didn't do. Most, if not all, of us have among our ancestors murderers, slave owners, cannibals and other people we might consider nasty by modern moral standards. I've just been reading about how Saint Olaf was converting Norway to Christianity. He wasn't particularily nice to those who refused to convert. And what about those massacres the Crusaders committed in the Middle East that the Muslims are still bitter about?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Going way back to the original question. E3b in Serbia isn't suprising in our times although E3b does not seem to be a common Haplogroup carried by them into the region.

                                When the Serbian peoples arrived in the Balkans they began interacting with the existing peoples there. They traded, intermarried, etc. Today's conflicts in the region are fairly new developments.

                                E3b is common in Albania, Greece and other Med areas. I can hear some people that I have discussed Balkan current events, history and genetics with, "I'm NOT an Albanian!" It happened folks, our ancestors intermarried; way back then the current social and political climate just did not exist.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X