Movatterモバイル変換

Were the goldsmiths of the 1500s in London englishmen or were there many that were converted jews some of whom regarded themselves as crypto jews?

Perhaps a difficult question to answer.

Replies: @Malla

Britain and the USA becoming successful powerful countries is not very surprising, that would have very likely happened anyways. It is more like Jews decided to latch themselves to these successful populations with high IQ and good martial ability, and become brain-parasite.
England of the medieval period thrived when parasitic jews were kicked out.

https://big-lies.org/spearhead/0507-smg.html
In Praise of Medieval England
A golden age recalled by Stephen Mitford Goodson

Finally, in 1290 on July 18th a statute was passed by King Edward I (1272-1307) and the House of Commons compelling all Jews* to leave England for ever by November 1st of that year. Any Jews who remained in the kingdom after that date were liable to be executed.

The announcement of the expulsion was greeted with great joy and jubilation throughout the land. Unlike with the modern practice of ethnic cleansing, the Jews after paying a tax of 1/15th of the value of their moveables and 1/10th of their specie were permitted to leave with all their goods and chattels.

With the banishment of the money-lenders and the abolition of usury, we may observe how the finances of the English nation were practised at the different levels of society.

For the individual who wished to buy a house costing, say, £100 he would be required to make a down-payment of £10 and negotiate a loan of £90 from a bank. He would own 10 per cent of the house and the bank would own the remaining 90 per cent. Rent would be payable on the house of which 10 per cent would accrue to himself and the balance of 90 per cent to the bank. The following year he would pay the bank a further instalment of 10 per cent, reducing the bank's ownership to 80 per cent and the amount of rent payable to it. These instalments would be continued until he owned 100 per cent of the property.

In the event of the buyer defaulting on his rent payments he would be evicted. However, he could never lose that portion of the house he had paid for and would continue to receive rent on it. House price inflation was not a factor during this era, as the rate of inflation was zero - as it should be. In any normal society which does not practise usury.

A business loan would be agreed on the following terms:-

A fishing captain of sufficient years' experience who wished to purchase his own boat would approach a bank for a loan. He would buy a boat, which would belong to the bank. The bank would pay him a salary. After one year he would have the option to buy 10 per cent of the boat and receive 10 per cent of the profits. This procedure would continue until he owned 100 per cent of the boat. If, for example, after two years the bank decided to cancel the agreement because the captain was doing a poor job, he would still retain his 20 per cent share. In the event of the boat sinking, the insurance would cover it. The essence of this contract was that it was fair to both sides and that risk was equally shared by both borrower and lender.

...snip....

With very few taxes, no state debt and no interest to pay, a contented and prosperous life was enjoyed by all the inhabitants of England. A labourer could provide for all the necessities his family required. People were well clothed in good woollen cloth and had plenty of meat and bread.

...snip....

The average labourer in those days worked only 14 weeks a year and, not surprisingly, there were 160 to 180 holidays a year. According to Lord Leverhulme, a writer on that period, "The men of the 15th century were very well paid." In fact they were so well paid that it would only be by the late 19th century that a worker's wages equalled the buying power of those of the mediaeval period.

An Italian traveller visiting England in the reign of King Henry VII (1485-1509) gives a glimpse of the prosperity he found in London:-

‘...In one single street, named Strada (Cheapside), leading to St. Paul's, there are fifty-two goldsmiths' shops, so rich and full of silver vessels, great and small, that in all the shops in Milan, Rome, Venice and Florence put together I do not think there would be found so many of the magnificence that are to be seen in London.’

The large amount of free time available enabled the English country folk to indulge in fishing, hunting, hawking and snaring, while studying and reading were popular in the winter months. This explains why this period has always been known as ‘Merrie England’, Shakespeare described England as being...

‘This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-Paradise.’

Replies: @Joe Levantine, @JM, @freerider

No one comes up with a different claim to deny that Yiddish isolder than German. Has anyone read such a claim anywhere? I'm interested because I intend to patent theParadox, which I named after my sonTelemachus.

I will dedicate the next discovery (the meaning of the word German) to my faithful dogArgos, who also waited for me for 20 years, who was the only one to recognize me and, out of luck, died immediately on the spot.

https://i.imgur.com/79OPjhM.png

Replies: @anon, @Odyssey

No one comes up with a different claim to deny that Yiddish isolder than German. Has anyone read such a claim anywhere? I'm interested because I intend to patent theParadox, which I named after my sonTelemachus.

I will dedicate the next discovery (the meaning of the word German) to my faithful dogArgos, who also waited for me for 20 years, who was the only one to recognize me and, out of luck, died immediately on the spot.

https://i.imgur.com/79OPjhM.png

Replies: @anon, @Odyssey

Did I say that Yiddish (which many consider to be a German dialect) is older than the German language? Gee, I guess I did. No one has said that before (at least I haven't read it). Incredible. Let's give it a name to recognize it. E.g.Telemachus' Paradox.

Replies: @Odyssey

https://www.unz.com/article/the-aryan-invasion-of-india/?showcomments#comment-6975313

Germanic Vikings? The Vikings were mostly Slavs, as genetics has confirmed on several hundred skeletons.

Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips

It is popular name, also appearing in France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneti_(Gaul)

However, the evidence points to all Veneti being some kind of Celtic peoples living at seas, not Slavs. Celts lived in Bohemia at least. I hope you don't rely on German habit of calling Slavs "Wends" as a proof that Slavs were Wends.

In Poland there is a legend of Weneta, a rich merchant city on the coast of Baltic (maybe around Szczecin) like Venice which suddenly disappeared under water which fate also awaits the real Venice (interesting coincidence nonetheless).

It could be that Veneti like Germanic Vikings means only Celtic sea travelling people, not nationality per se.

But you didn't answer my question - Serbs come from Shem, Ham or Japheth?

Replies: @Another Polish Perspective, @Odyssey

Since there were no objections (silence means approval) I think we can discover the origin of the words - tzar, kaiser, Sir, Caesar, Cesar, Zarathustra, etc. I believe that few people in the world know this, and I have not noticed that anyone on the unz knows it.

After discovering the meaning of the wordkike, we continue with discovering the meaning of words that are regularly used but no one knows their meaning such as -Aryans, Germans, Europe, Greeks, etc. Perhaps this will be an anticlimax since the word from which these titles originated has already been discovered in the above comment, #140. There, it is said (on the link posted by Curmudgeon in #109) thattsar comes from the German word -Zar.

It is true thattsar (but all other words, too) come from that word but it is not German because it has existed long before the proto-Germans from Asia came to Europe. So, when the Germans came to Europe, they borrowed that word from a much older language from the natives of today's Germany. It is easy to see that the word has remained in the above titles.

So what is its meaning? That word was taken from the Serbian language and is still in use.

It means, tataratira –>LIGHT.

But not just any light, butdivine light, thelight of a new day.

The Bible says:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there waslight.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

The Serbian wordoZARen meansilluminated. There is also a word –enlighten in English which means a special kind of situation, as for e.g. when Saint Paul wasenlightened on the road to Damascus.

On the road to Damascus, Saul was struck by a brilliant light, fell to the ground, heard a voice from heaven identified as the voice of Jesus asking, “Why are you using violence against me?” and ended up blind being led by his companions toward Damascus.

So, titles –tzar, Kaiser, Sir, Ceaser, Zarathustra, come from the Serbian word -light.

In the Serbian language there is the nameSvetlana (fromsvetlo = light) and that name (via Sanskrit) also exists in India. There are also the namesZoran(m) andZora (f)= dawn).
The original name of the city of Samarkand, which Alexander the Great gave it, was -Zorashin.

Also, the wordsveti (saint), e.g.Sveti (Saint) George, has a related origin.

Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips

It is popular name, also appearing in France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneti_(Gaul)

However, the evidence points to all Veneti being some kind of Celtic peoples living at seas, not Slavs. Celts lived in Bohemia at least. I hope you don't rely on German habit of calling Slavs "Wends" as a proof that Slavs were Wends.

In Poland there is a legend of Weneta, a rich merchant city on the coast of Baltic (maybe around Szczecin) like Venice which suddenly disappeared under water which fate also awaits the real Venice (interesting coincidence nonetheless).

It could be that Veneti like Germanic Vikings means only Celtic sea travelling people, not nationality per se.

But you didn't answer my question - Serbs come from Shem, Ham or Japheth?

Replies: @Another Polish Perspective, @Odyssey

Veneti->Wendi=Serbs=Poles...
Some info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_Veneti
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRvwEs95dGQ

Replies: @Odyssey, @Another Polish Perspective

Veneti->Wendi=Serbs=Poles...
Some info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_Veneti
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRvwEs95dGQ

Replies: @Odyssey, @Another Polish Perspective

Also, the meaning of Venice is Slovenia, i.e. Serbia, since the Slavs did not exist at that time.
 

So, who is Serbs' progenitor? Shem, Japheth or Ham..?

Replies: @Odyssey

Migrations of peoples have been going from the Balkans (and Asia Minor, e.g. Aeneas' Trojans) to the Apennines, not vice versa, since the time of Vinča. Even today, there are about 30 villages around Verona with old Serbian names. Recently, there was an entry in Wikipedia with the surnameSchiavello with a long list of famous people with that surname. That surname is actually derived from Serb.

Also, the meaning of Venice isSlovenia, i.e.Serbia, since the Slavs did not exist at that time. How many people in the world know aboutSirmium, where there were 12 mint factories for the whole empire, the largest colosseum in the Empire, where the first Christian diocese in the world was formed just a year after the crucifixion, where Saint Peter stayed on two occasions for a long time before going to Rome, where Saint George was executed, etc.

Replies: @Another Polish Perspective

If the OH is better able to explain everything, where are the Ashkenazi from in the OH?

The Italiani model has 5 factors

You are only criticizing the second factor with your claim that there is no record of large migrations (even though van Straten says we do not even have reliable population numbers from before 1800/1897)

Here are the 5 factors:

1. early migrations of Italiani to EE (less numbers are needed because population in EE was smaller)

"A small number of Italians who had converted to Judaism went to Eastern Europe at a time when there were still very few, if any, Jews living there. Thus their genetic material would have spread rather fast among the few Jews living there, or among the ones who arrived after them, thereby forming a large component of the DNA of the East European Jewish community."

2. later, continuous migrations

3. migrations to Germany, later German Jews migrated to East and introduced Yiddish to EE

4. migrations to the southeast and later they migrated to EE

5. Jits van Stratens argument that the genetic similarity between modern Italians and Ashkenazi can be explained by the migration into Italy (of Jews or of the south-Euro populations who were the source for the converts to Judaism), and the mass conversions of Jews to Christianity in Italy

 

If the migrations were early, when Jewish numbers in EE were still low, then only small migrations are needed.

I have already said that we know from the sale of the disciples of Methodius in 885 in Venice that there were early contacts between Italy and Eastern Europe via Jewish slave traders.

And in the 4th factor, Jews migrated from (southern) Italy to the east up to the region around the black sea, and then later to EE. Jews are known to have resided in Italy already since antiquity. During the period where Jews migrated due to forced baptism, the Byzantine Empire included not only Greece and Anatolia but also Southern Italy and parts of the Balkans. We know there were migrations from southern Italy to the southeast by jewish merchants and traders, but also in times of forced baptism. Later these jews migrated up to the area north of the black sea, and from there to EE.

In the meantime, the relatively strong proportion which they [the Jews] undoubtedly constituted in Apulia, e. g., in Oria, and later in Bari and Otranto, must have diminished during the ninth and tenth centuries, primarily as a result of the emigration and destruction caused by the Moslem invasions.

Starr, J. The Byzantine Empire 641 – 1204.

 

shows the mass migration of Italians to the rest of Europe. 15 millions Italians migrating to the rest of Europe in only 100 years, from 1876 to 1976. This study proves that numbers can add up, but as van Straten says, before 1800/1897 we do not have reliable numbers.

Replies: @Odyssey

It is actually true, but we still don't know the origin of the original version. There are several versions (the oldest mentioned is Latin - Caesar) and among them it says: Germanic form ->Zar. That is true, but it is not a German word, it was taken from someone. From whom? Maybe some tulip (achtung - not capitalized) can be found to tell us and explain the original meaning of that word. We are very close to the solution.

Replies: @Ustasha, @Odyssey, @Odyssey

The Empire did not have an influence on the middle Danube, but the centre of the empire was there (a couple of dozen emperors were born in Sirmium).

 

Here, we present genome-wide data from 136 Balkan individuals dated to the 1st millennium CE. Despite extensive militarization and cultural influence, we find little ancestry contribution from peoples of Italic descent.

Despite the exceptional number of Roman colonies in the region and the large military presence along this frontier, there is little ancestry contribution from populations long established in the Italian Peninsula, a pattern exemplified by the almost complete absence in our Balkan transect of Y chromosome lineage R1b-U152, the most common paternal lineage in Bronze Age and Iron Age populations in the Italian Peninsula.

The prevalence of cremation burials in the earliest centuries could bias the sample, but even after the transition to inhumation burial around the 2nd century, ancestry contributions from populations of Italian descent are not detectable.

Rome’s cultural impact on the Middle Danube was deep, but our findings suggest that it was not accompanied by large-scale population movement from the metropole, at least by the descendants of central Italian Iron Age populations.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38065079/

 

It is incredible that few have heard of Diocletian’s capital and that more than two hundred years before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, its centre was in the Balkans and not in the Apennines. And the bulk of the Roman Empire’s army was originally from the Balkans, as were dozens of Roman emperors.

 

Replies: @Odyssey

Nop, Shirley, he was a convert but he hasn't forgotten what he was. In your case, the Jesuits were much more effective, so even after reading so many of my comments, you still don't know where your head is and where your ass is.

Replies: @Seraphim

Replies: @Odyssey, @anon

''Mândra me de altădată/Visul meu te-aduce iar/Să-nșirăm pe-un fir de aur/Boabe de mărgăritar/Ești atîta de frumoasă și atît de dragă-mi ești/Flori de nufăr porți în plete ca o zînă din povești''.
But ''Țață, fost-ai 'lele' cât ai fost/Și-ai mîncat de dulce-n post...Dar acu' ești lucru prost''.
You don't want to suggest that Disraeli was a Srb?

Replies: @Odyssey

There was no "Serb" at the time of Constantine.
Serbs, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Croatians, and other came from same older people of the older Vlacho-Thracian origin.
They changed the language following the political, economical and religious changing rules and invented fantastic origin.

Replies: @Dimitrie

That's an old fake quote which was invented by the White propagandists. Get a copy of the actual memoirs of Aron Simanovitch, Rasputin: The Memoirs of His Secretary, translated by Delin Colon, 2013. The fake quote first appeared in Nash Put':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_Put%27_(newspaper)

-----
Nash Put (Russian: Наш Путь, Our Way) was a daily newspaper founded by Konstantin Rodzaevsky on 3 October 1933, that was issued in Harbin[1] (1933–41) and Shanghai (1941-1943). The newspaper was the official organ of the Russian Fascist Party...

It is the source for an alleged quote from Leon Trotsky whose source claims to be from the memoirs of Aron Simanovitch,[5] Rasputin's secretary.
-----

Replies: @anonymous

It is difficult to put together a coherent and logical story from the elements you cite. Language is your weakest point, and you did not mention it at all at the beginning, although in this case it is a much more significant and indicative thing than genetics.

Weinreich's thesis is incredible gymnastics and that is exactly what Wexler proved. It is not true that Wexler advocates the Khazar theory, I do not know where you got that from. I do not know why Elhaik is a Khazar crank? On the contrary, he wrote that Jews are not a race and that they do not have unique genetics.

And this is precisely what follows from your version, which is in fact just a modification of theRhineland one. We do not see any difference at all between Sephardim and Ashkenazim, let alone their linguistic peculiarity. It remains unexplained how hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) Jews moved unnoticed from Italy to Western and Eastern Europe. It is not clear in which direction the Ashkenazi migration took place, from Western to Eastern Europe or vice versa.

Some claims really seem naive, e.g. that Ashkenazi from the West came to Russia and taught the local(?) Ashkenazi the true faith. The examples of linguistic influences are also very naive, even if they came from Weinreich, who was a sacred cow until Wexler exposed this naivety and illogicality. It is no coincidence that Wexler was shunned and boycotted because his theory separates Sephardim from Ashkenazim, both linguistically and genetically, which is not in line with the prevailing narrative and exposes that Ashkenazim (who are the majority in Israel and especially in America) have no connection to Palestine. Interestingly, Ron did not mention him in his review either.

Why is Wexler right? Because he knows the true history, while others stick to the official mainstream in which the main link to explain the whole story is missing. The reliability of the census of Jews (Ashkenazi) in the 19th century is irrelevant because it is necessary to explain the enormous increase from about50K at the beginning of the 15th century (or 25-35K,100 years earlier) to8 million before WW2 (which is a reliable number).

If one calculates the figures, he can see that the increase in the number of Ashkenazi Jews was between160 and300 times (!!!) in 500 years. And all this in conditions of wars, persecutions, famines, epidemics, resettlement, pogroms, etc. We will call this incredible growthPenelope’s paradox. Existing and future hypotheses must first resolve this paradox (which solution is already embedded in theOdyssey’s hypothesis). If the goyim in Europe had the same natural increase as the Ashkenazi, there would now be about12 billion people in Europe, which is truly a fantasy that thePenelope Paradoxalso talks about.

Another thing - I think you know little about the history of the Roman Empire. The Empire did not have aninfluence on the middle Danube, but the centre of the empire was there (a couple of dozen emperors were born in Sirmium). It is incredible that few have heard of Diocletian's capital and that more than two hundred years before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, its centre was in the Balkans and not in the Apennines. And the bulk of the Roman Empire's army was originally from the Balkans, as were dozens of Roman emperors. The thing aboutbeautiful Roman womenwho married newly arrived Jews is both naive and ridiculous. Roman who? It was not an ethnicity but a type of state administration.

Replies: @anon, @anon, @anon

Many thanks, I'm now caught up on Laurent's essential thesis re the origins of Christianity. I still need to get a handle on why he thinks Christianity specifically led the the West being "emptied of its own sense of blood". With the advent of the widespread population mixing that has accompanied modernity any religion/society that doesn't practice endogamy would have lost its racial identity.

Replies: @geo

The Semites are unquestionably a great race, for among the few things in this world which appear to be certain, nothing is more sure than that they invented our alphabet.But the Semites now exercise a vast influence over affairs by their smallest though most peculiar family, the Jews. There is no race gifted with so much tenacity, and such skill in organisation. These qualities have given them an unprecedented hold over property and illimitable credit. As you advance in life, and get experience in affairs, the Jews will cross you everywhere. They have long been stealing into our secret diplomacy, which they have almost appropriated; in another quarter of a century they will claim their share of open government. Well, these are races; men and bodies of men influenced in their conduct by their particular organisation, and which must enter into all the calculations of a statesman. But what do they mean by the Latin race? Language and religion do not make a race — there is only one thing which makes a race, and that is blood. [Chapter LVI]

Endymion, Disraeli. Through the character Count Sergius.

Replies: @Thelma Ringbaum, @Anonymous19, @Dimitrie, @geo

Constantine was a Serb, just like Justinian and Totila mentioned in another comment and just like several dozen other Roman emperors.

Replies: @Thelma Ringbaum, @geo

Shirley, only for your ears: Handel -The Arrival of the Queen of Sheba:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TGKJ9MgCOQ

Replies: @Seraphim

Replies: @Odyssey, @anon

The Tudors were three or so dinasties back, and I have missed them being called Emperors. May be true. I would not trust the sources first, given the isolated nature of the Islands.

Emperor is a boss of bosses, with some kind of claim to an universal mandate; while kings / princes / wangs can well be bosses of somebody or of somewhere. A Prince of Monaco or a King of Swedes, Vandals etc. Then a prince/knyaz would have his boyards/earls/graffs etc., under him.

I am sure the above is simplistic and in many detail wrong. But the question of whom / of where does not make the difference here.

Replies: @Odyssey, @Wokechoke, @Photios, @Ishmael Firester

Perhaps, below this text (with Laurent's permission), we could finally discover the origin of the above-mentioned words (Czar, Caesar, Kaiser, Sir, Zarathustra, etc.). Recently, after months of research, we had a successful action to uncover the true meaning of the wordkike, which was a kind of world premiere:

https://www.unz.com/announcement/open-thread-10/#comment-6885675

The mission (to open as many eyes as possible, some of which will also turn on the brains) continues. It is true that we also encounter hopeless cases (panzers&tulips), but that must not discourage us. We are only a step away from the solution.

If there are no serious objections to deviating from the topic, we will soon discover the origin of the above-mentioned titles.

Replies: @notanonymousHere

It is difficult to put together a coherent and logical story from the elements you cite. Language is your weakest point, and you did not mention it at all at the beginning, although in this case it is a much more significant and indicative thing than genetics.

Weinreich's thesis is incredible gymnastics and that is exactly what Wexler proved. It is not true that Wexler advocates the Khazar theory, I do not know where you got that from. I do not know why Elhaik is a Khazar crank? On the contrary, he wrote that Jews are not a race and that they do not have unique genetics.

And this is precisely what follows from your version, which is in fact just a modification of theRhineland one. We do not see any difference at all between Sephardim and Ashkenazim, let alone their linguistic peculiarity. It remains unexplained how hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) Jews moved unnoticed from Italy to Western and Eastern Europe. It is not clear in which direction the Ashkenazi migration took place, from Western to Eastern Europe or vice versa.

Some claims really seem naive, e.g. that Ashkenazi from the West came to Russia and taught the local(?) Ashkenazi the true faith. The examples of linguistic influences are also very naive, even if they came from Weinreich, who was a sacred cow until Wexler exposed this naivety and illogicality. It is no coincidence that Wexler was shunned and boycotted because his theory separates Sephardim from Ashkenazim, both linguistically and genetically, which is not in line with the prevailing narrative and exposes that Ashkenazim (who are the majority in Israel and especially in America) have no connection to Palestine. Interestingly, Ron did not mention him in his review either.

Why is Wexler right? Because he knows the true history, while others stick to the official mainstream in which the main link to explain the whole story is missing. The reliability of the census of Jews (Ashkenazi) in the 19th century is irrelevant because it is necessary to explain the enormous increase from about50K at the beginning of the 15th century (or 25-35K,100 years earlier) to8 million before WW2 (which is a reliable number).

If one calculates the figures, he can see that the increase in the number of Ashkenazi Jews was between160 and300 times (!!!) in 500 years. And all this in conditions of wars, persecutions, famines, epidemics, resettlement, pogroms, etc. We will call this incredible growthPenelope’s paradox. Existing and future hypotheses must first resolve this paradox (which solution is already embedded in theOdyssey’s hypothesis). If the goyim in Europe had the same natural increase as the Ashkenazi, there would now be about12 billion people in Europe, which is truly a fantasy that thePenelope Paradoxalso talks about.

Another thing - I think you know little about the history of the Roman Empire. The Empire did not have aninfluence on the middle Danube, but the centre of the empire was there (a couple of dozen emperors were born in Sirmium). It is incredible that few have heard of Diocletian's capital and that more than two hundred years before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, its centre was in the Balkans and not in the Apennines. And the bulk of the Roman Empire's army was originally from the Balkans, as were dozens of Roman emperors. The thing aboutbeautiful Roman womenwho married newly arrived Jews is both naive and ridiculous. Roman who? It was not an ethnicity but a type of state administration.

Replies: @anon, @anon, @anon

It is difficult to put together a coherent and logical story from the elements you cite. Language is your weakest point, and you did not mention it at all at the beginning, although in this case it is a much more significant and indicative thing than genetics.

Weinreich's thesis is incredible gymnastics and that is exactly what Wexler proved. It is not true that Wexler advocates the Khazar theory, I do not know where you got that from. I do not know why Elhaik is a Khazar crank? On the contrary, he wrote that Jews are not a race and that they do not have unique genetics.

And this is precisely what follows from your version, which is in fact just a modification of theRhineland one. We do not see any difference at all between Sephardim and Ashkenazim, let alone their linguistic peculiarity. It remains unexplained how hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) Jews moved unnoticed from Italy to Western and Eastern Europe. It is not clear in which direction the Ashkenazi migration took place, from Western to Eastern Europe or vice versa.

Some claims really seem naive, e.g. that Ashkenazi from the West came to Russia and taught the local(?) Ashkenazi the true faith. The examples of linguistic influences are also very naive, even if they came from Weinreich, who was a sacred cow until Wexler exposed this naivety and illogicality. It is no coincidence that Wexler was shunned and boycotted because his theory separates Sephardim from Ashkenazim, both linguistically and genetically, which is not in line with the prevailing narrative and exposes that Ashkenazim (who are the majority in Israel and especially in America) have no connection to Palestine. Interestingly, Ron did not mention him in his review either.

Why is Wexler right? Because he knows the true history, while others stick to the official mainstream in which the main link to explain the whole story is missing. The reliability of the census of Jews (Ashkenazi) in the 19th century is irrelevant because it is necessary to explain the enormous increase from about50K at the beginning of the 15th century (or 25-35K,100 years earlier) to8 million before WW2 (which is a reliable number).

If one calculates the figures, he can see that the increase in the number of Ashkenazi Jews was between160 and300 times (!!!) in 500 years. And all this in conditions of wars, persecutions, famines, epidemics, resettlement, pogroms, etc. We will call this incredible growthPenelope’s paradox. Existing and future hypotheses must first resolve this paradox (which solution is already embedded in theOdyssey’s hypothesis). If the goyim in Europe had the same natural increase as the Ashkenazi, there would now be about12 billion people in Europe, which is truly a fantasy that thePenelope Paradoxalso talks about.

Another thing - I think you know little about the history of the Roman Empire. The Empire did not have aninfluence on the middle Danube, but the centre of the empire was there (a couple of dozen emperors were born in Sirmium). It is incredible that few have heard of Diocletian's capital and that more than two hundred years before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, its centre was in the Balkans and not in the Apennines. And the bulk of the Roman Empire's army was originally from the Balkans, as were dozens of Roman emperors. The thing aboutbeautiful Roman womenwho married newly arrived Jews is both naive and ridiculous. Roman who? It was not an ethnicity but a type of state administration.

Replies: @anon, @anon, @anon

Communist douchebags, especially Jewish ones, are famous for forcing "white negroes" to do this work. If you were not such a lazy and pompous ass, you could do a couple of internet searches yourself.

Trotsky's White Negroes: The Censored Holocaust (Book)

"Through their installed regime U.S banks and corporate interests now controlled Russia’s vast resources. Russia was ripe for exploitation using whatTrotsky described as ‘White Negroes’. It is estimated that 70 million of those ‘ethnic European Negroes’ perished before the collapse in 1990. Threatened only by the Reich the West’s investment was rescued in 1941 by Britain and the U.S.

"We must turn Russia into a desert populated by white Negroes upon whom we shall impose a tyranny such as the most terrible Eastern despots never dreamt of. The only difference is that this will be a left-wing tyranny, not a right-wing tyranny. It will be a red tyranny and not a white one. We mean the word ‘red’ literally, because we shall shed such floods of blood as will make all the human losses suffered in the capitalist wars pale by comparison.
The biggest bankers across the ocean will work in the closest possible contact with us. If we win the revolution, we shall establish the power of Zionism upon the wreckage of the revolution’s funeral, and we shall become a power before which the whole world will sink to its knees.
We shall show what real power is. By means of terror and bloodbaths, we shall reduce the Russian intelligentsia to a state of complete stupefaction and idiocy and to an animal existence.” Trotsky speaking in Petrograd December 1917 to revolutionaries as noted in Aaron Simanovich’s Memoirs, P 153 – 154. Paris 1922, Molodaya Gvardiaya, Moscow. No 6, 1991, p 55."
 

Replies: @JM, @Patrick McNally

Disraeli made no secret to whom he was referring to. He was boasting about it. He is reputed of saying in response to journalists' invectives: " Just fancy calling a fellow an adventurer when his ancestors were probably on intimate terms with the Queen of Sheba! "
Did you know that his nephew, with whom he was very close overseeing and directing his education, comes, ''giving him a start", naming him as the heir to his estate was namedConingsby Ralph Disraeli ((25 February 1867 – 30 September 1936)?

Replies: @Odyssey

Professor Boas stated that at one of the New York colleges forty per cent of the Italians were taken to be Jews, and the same percentage of Jews were adjudged Italians.This would seem to argue that if there is a “Jewish look” it is also in a large number of cases an “Italian look”—quite possible, since South Italians, like stereotyped Jews, are of Mediterranean stock. https://archive.org/details/jewstheirhistory0002fink/page/1506/mode/2up

The majority of informative subjects with no Jewish ancestry that scored most highly on PC1 were either of Italian or Eastern Mediterranean descent. This indicates that in a mixed American context, these populations may not be easily distinguishable from subjects with a single Jewish parent. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687795/

Reading up on Italian genetics, I always wondered why they are genetically similar. I always wondered why the Aquiline nose (Roman nose) is prevalent in both Italians and Ashkenazi Jews. Though, it looks better on Italians. notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/29/southern-italians-and-ashkenazi-jews-what-is-the-connection/

Ashkenazi Jewish participants showed smaller paired Fst values with southern European populations (e.g. Ashkenazi/Italian, Fst =0.004) than with northern populations (e.g. Ashkenazi/Swedish, Fst = 0.0120). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2730349/

 

Replies: @Odyssey

Replies: @Seraphim

We see a positive evolution ofAnother PPeewho accepted my thesis about Wexler and already knows more about Yiddish than about his own Polish language.

Anon continues his theory about theItaliani (the Serbian name for the Italians) although it is totally illogical. One illogicality disqualifies any hypothesis. Now we have 640K Ashkenazim in Russia in 1500 AC, and we do not know how they were created there, what language they spoke. The thesis that they somehow arrived from Italy (via Western Europe?) to Eastern Europe is unbelievable and no one noticed the hundreds of thousands of people who travelled and built themselves houses all over Russia.

Weinreich's (Zarphatic, Judeo-French, Western Loez) thesis is completely unbelievable and I think it was introduced because he had absolutely no idea what to say about the origin of Yiddish. It is even more fantastic that the Ashkenazi from northern France spread throughout Germany, received the influences of the German language and transferred all this to hundreds of thousands of Ashkenazi in Russia is more than fantastic.

The thesis about theItaliani cancels the difference between Sephardim and Ashkenazim and we do not know where the distinction was. All those Ashkenazim who supposedly passed from Italy and through the Balkans (where none of them stayed, which is incredible) were totally unnoticed.

In fact, in Serbia some Sephardim came from Spain after the expulsion (via Thessaloniki and Constantinople, one family via Venice and Dubrovnik) and there were only about 200 Ashkenazi families who came after the Austrian conquest of Belgrade from the Ottomans. However, until recently, Sephardim and Ashkenazi did not mix or intermarry, which is very indicative. So, the thesis about Ashkenazim as Jews who came from Italy to Western (and Eastern) Europe is definitely wrong.

It remains to be explained the enormous increase in the number of Ashkenazim from 50K to 8 million in just 500 years, which even Ron considered as a natural (though enormous) increase. This is the essence of thePenelope Paradox that overturns all mainstream hypotheses.

We are all in great expectation that the author of theOH hypothesiswill finally explain theParadox himself and the origin of the Ashkenazim. As far as I hear, he (after revealing the long-awaited meaning of the wordkike and presenting the Serbian-Brygian [Phrygian] cap) is currently researching the origins of the words -tzar, Kaiser, Caesar, Sir and others, and that meaning will soon be published to the delight of allunzreaders.

Replies: @anon, @Odyssey, @Tiptoethrutulips

Hell, Dizzy was a proto Harry Potter author, from what I can tell by glancing at his texts. He wrote unreadable drivel about Maylor's giving their larvae Sumptious Feasts at their Eaton/Hogwarts.

He was also a proto Evelyn Vaugh author in that he liked kissing arse of this or that Duke and Duchesse about their house, their manners or their lineage.

Probably the Zionist arias everyone quotes are the only stuffs there that is minimally readable.

Replies: @Thelma Ringbaum

I have seen numbers of 7-10 percent, this relies on some historical sources, and as Guyenot has shown, historical sources can also be fake, but it is what we have.
 

I disagree, if i remember correctly Guyenot himself has suggested in one of his articles that Jews have influenced early Christianity which they could only accomplish with elite status.

The Jews also married high status Italian women, that is where they got their high IQ from.
 

Strange hypothesis about Italian women, Jews and IQ.
Start from the fact that Jews were not known to be stupid before encountering Italian women.
And ancient Italian women were not famous for their intelligence. It is a Reneissance theme, extolling of Sophonisba etc

If what you say is true all Jews should be Sephardic since the alleged pre-Jewish population is Sicily, colonized by Pheonicians, who colonized Iberia also.
But there is a strong division between Sepahrdic and Askhenazim world.

I find these genetic studies not so reliable since they are made on very small populations. Study claiming Jews come from a small number of Italians was made on 128 (!) Askhenazi Jews. It is very easy to skew your outcome by manipulating a probe.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-350-people-study-finds/

Researchers analyzed the genomes of 128 Ashkenazi Jews and compared them to those of non-Jewish Europeans in order to determine which genetic markers are unique to Ashkenazi Jews.

Replies: @anon

It seems Jews were present in Central/East Europe for a thousand years at least; there is a lot of early medieval Polish coins with Hebrew inscriptions. These Jews could really be remnant of ten Jewish tribes exiled from Israel through Armenia (the Christian nation closest to Jews in many ways, its Apostolic Church one of choice to convert for Jews in Russian Empire too) and Georgia (once full of Georgian Jews) behind the legendry Boristhenes/Sambathon the river of stones aka Dniepr.

The Khazar theory is at least inconsistent with the Sambathon tradition. Nevertheless, there is no clear way to distinguish the exile of ten tribes from the Khazar theory but that does not make the latter more true, though, as much as it is promoted. In fact, this very fact of promotion together with lack of details speaks partly for its falsity.

The Sephardim are Punics ruled by "princes of merchants" as always.

Replies: @Another Polish Perspective, @anon, @Thelma Ringbaum

Italian?

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2K6JCNT/official-portrait-of-victoria-nuland-us-permanent-representative-to-the-north-atlantic-treaty-organization-nato-2K6JCNT.jpg

Replies: @anon

One illogicality disqualifies any hypothesis. Now we have 640K Ashkenazim in Russia in 1500 AC, and we do not know how they were created there, what language they spoke.
 

And if these are not reliable, then the same applies for migration numbers.

He is giving an estimated range instead.

These EE Jews were illiterate, they were nominally Jews but with very little knowledge of Judaism.

Therefore when the western Jews came, they were able to teach them the finer details of jewish culture and language.

Sources are all in my previous replies in this thread.

The thesis that they somehow arrived from Italy (via Western Europe?) to Eastern Europe is unbelievable and no one noticed the hundreds of thousands of people who travelled and built themselves houses all over Russia.
 

the Italiani model has 5 factors
1. early migrations of Italiani to EE (less numbers are needed because population in EE was smaller)
2. later, continuous migrations
3. migrations to Germany, later German Jews migrated to East and introduced Yiddish to EE
4. migrations to the southeast and later they migrated to EE
5. Jits van Stratens argument that the genetic similarity between modern Italians and Ashkenazi can be explained by the migration into Italy (of Jews or of the south-Euro populations who were the source for the converts to Judaism), and the mass conversions of Jews to Christianity in Italy

This is explained in previous reply.

A combination of these 5 factors is needed to explain the certainties from genetics and history and archaeology.

Weinreich’s (Zarphatic, Judeo-French, Western Loez) thesis is completely unbelievable
 

Are you a greater linguist than Weinreich?

It is even more fantastic that the Ashkenazi from northern France spread throughout Germany, received the influences of the German language and transferred all this to hundreds of thousands of Ashkenazi in Russia is more than fantastic.

 

The thesis about the Italiani cancels the difference between Sephardim and Ashkenazim and we do not know where the distinction was.

However, until recently, Sephardim and Ashkenazi did not mix or intermarry, which is very indicative. So, the thesis about Ashkenazim as Jews who came from Italy to Western (and Eastern) Europe is definitely wrong.

 

some did mix or intermarry and some not. just like the christian spaniards and italians did with each other.

In fact, in Serbia some Sephardim came from Spain after the expulsion (via Thessaloniki and Constantinople, one family via Venice and Dubrovnik) and there were only about 200 Ashkenazi families who came after the Austrian conquest of Belgrade from the Ottomans.
 

All those Ashkenazim who supposedly passed from Italy and through the Balkans (where none of them stayed, which is incredible) were totally unnoticed.

 

not all have passed through balkans if they travelled by ship, or through a more northern route.
but some of them did.

there are no italian genes in balkans:

Despite the exceptional number of Roman colonies in the region and the large military presence along this frontier, there is little ancestry contribution from populations long established in the Italian Peninsula, a pattern exemplified by the almost complete absence in our Balkan transect of Y chromosome lineage R1b-U152, the most common paternal lineage in Bronze Age and Iron Age populations in the Italian Peninsula.

Rome’s cultural impact on the Middle Danube was deep, but our findings suggest that it was not accompanied by large-scale population movement from the metropole, at least by the descendants of central Italian Iron Age populations.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38065079/

 

and if they cannot find evidence of italian genes even though mainstream historians believe that romans were in the balkans, then how are they supposed to find ashkenazis?

It remains to be explained the enormous increase in the number of Ashkenazim from 50K to 8 million in just 500 years, which even Ron considered as a natural (though enormous) increase. This is the essence of the Penelope Paradox that overturns all mainstream hypotheses.

 

Replies: @Anon

We see a positive evolution ofAnother PPeewho accepted my thesis about Wexler and already knows more about Yiddish than about his own Polish language.

Anon continues his theory about theItaliani (the Serbian name for the Italians) although it is totally illogical. One illogicality disqualifies any hypothesis. Now we have 640K Ashkenazim in Russia in 1500 AC, and we do not know how they were created there, what language they spoke. The thesis that they somehow arrived from Italy (via Western Europe?) to Eastern Europe is unbelievable and no one noticed the hundreds of thousands of people who travelled and built themselves houses all over Russia.

Weinreich's (Zarphatic, Judeo-French, Western Loez) thesis is completely unbelievable and I think it was introduced because he had absolutely no idea what to say about the origin of Yiddish. It is even more fantastic that the Ashkenazi from northern France spread throughout Germany, received the influences of the German language and transferred all this to hundreds of thousands of Ashkenazi in Russia is more than fantastic.

The thesis about theItaliani cancels the difference between Sephardim and Ashkenazim and we do not know where the distinction was. All those Ashkenazim who supposedly passed from Italy and through the Balkans (where none of them stayed, which is incredible) were totally unnoticed.

In fact, in Serbia some Sephardim came from Spain after the expulsion (via Thessaloniki and Constantinople, one family via Venice and Dubrovnik) and there were only about 200 Ashkenazi families who came after the Austrian conquest of Belgrade from the Ottomans. However, until recently, Sephardim and Ashkenazi did not mix or intermarry, which is very indicative. So, the thesis about Ashkenazim as Jews who came from Italy to Western (and Eastern) Europe is definitely wrong.

It remains to be explained the enormous increase in the number of Ashkenazim from 50K to 8 million in just 500 years, which even Ron considered as a natural (though enormous) increase. This is the essence of thePenelope Paradox that overturns all mainstream hypotheses.

We are all in great expectation that the author of theOH hypothesiswill finally explain theParadox himself and the origin of the Ashkenazim. As far as I hear, he (after revealing the long-awaited meaning of the wordkike and presenting the Serbian-Brygian [Phrygian] cap) is currently researching the origins of the words -tzar, Kaiser, Caesar, Sir and others, and that meaning will soon be published to the delight of allunzreaders.

Replies: @anon, @Odyssey, @Tiptoethrutulips

We see a positive evolution ofAnother PPeewho accepted my thesis about Wexler and already knows more about Yiddish than about his own Polish language.

Anon continues his theory about theItaliani (the Serbian name for the Italians) although it is totally illogical. One illogicality disqualifies any hypothesis. Now we have 640K Ashkenazim in Russia in 1500 AC, and we do not know how they were created there, what language they spoke. The thesis that they somehow arrived from Italy (via Western Europe?) to Eastern Europe is unbelievable and no one noticed the hundreds of thousands of people who travelled and built themselves houses all over Russia.

Weinreich's (Zarphatic, Judeo-French, Western Loez) thesis is completely unbelievable and I think it was introduced because he had absolutely no idea what to say about the origin of Yiddish. It is even more fantastic that the Ashkenazi from northern France spread throughout Germany, received the influences of the German language and transferred all this to hundreds of thousands of Ashkenazi in Russia is more than fantastic.

The thesis about theItaliani cancels the difference between Sephardim and Ashkenazim and we do not know where the distinction was. All those Ashkenazim who supposedly passed from Italy and through the Balkans (where none of them stayed, which is incredible) were totally unnoticed.

In fact, in Serbia some Sephardim came from Spain after the expulsion (via Thessaloniki and Constantinople, one family via Venice and Dubrovnik) and there were only about 200 Ashkenazi families who came after the Austrian conquest of Belgrade from the Ottomans. However, until recently, Sephardim and Ashkenazi did not mix or intermarry, which is very indicative. So, the thesis about Ashkenazim as Jews who came from Italy to Western (and Eastern) Europe is definitely wrong.

It remains to be explained the enormous increase in the number of Ashkenazim from 50K to 8 million in just 500 years, which even Ron considered as a natural (though enormous) increase. This is the essence of thePenelope Paradox that overturns all mainstream hypotheses.

We are all in great expectation that the author of theOH hypothesiswill finally explain theParadox himself and the origin of the Ashkenazim. As far as I hear, he (after revealing the long-awaited meaning of the wordkike and presenting the Serbian-Brygian [Phrygian] cap) is currently researching the origins of the words -tzar, Kaiser, Caesar, Sir and others, and that meaning will soon be published to the delight of allunzreaders.

Replies: @anon, @Odyssey, @Tiptoethrutulips

Whence came thoseMosaic Arabs whose passages across the strait from Africa to Europe long preceded the invasion of theMohammedan Arabs, it is now impossible to ascertain. [...] .Their unexampled prosperity in the Spanish Peninsula, and especially in the south, where they had become the principal cultivators of the soil, excited the jealousy of the Goths; and the Councils of Toledo during the sixth and seventh centuries attempted, by a series of decrees worthy of the barbarians who promulgated them, to root the Jewish Arabsout of the land. There is no doubt the Council of Toledo led, as directly as the lust of Roderick, to the invasion of Spain by the Moslemin Arabs. TheJewish population, suffering under the most sanguinary and atrocious persecution, looked to their sympathising brethren of the Crescent, whose camps already gleamed on the opposite shore. [...] The Saracen kingdoms were established. That fair and unrivalled civilisation arose which preserved for Europe arts and letters when Christendom was plunged in darkness.The children of Ishmael rewarded the children of Israel with equal rights and privileges with [sic] themselves.During these halcyon centuries, it isdifficult to distinguish the follower of Moses from the votary of Mahomet. Both alike built palaces, gardens, and fountains; filled equally the highest offices of the state, competed in an extensive and enlightened commerce, and rivalled each other in renowned universities.

 

Replies: @Seraphim

It is actually true, but we still don't know the origin of the original version. There are several versions (the oldest mentioned is Latin - Caesar) and among them it says: Germanic form ->Zar. That is true, but it is not a German word, it was taken from someone. From whom? Maybe some tulip (achtung - not capitalized) can be found to tell us and explain the original meaning of that word. We are very close to the solution.

Replies: @Ustasha, @Odyssey, @Odyssey

in your strange statement (I read something like that the first time in my life) that East European Jews looked to Italian Jews as their natural superiors.

 

The people to whom East European Jews looked up were the rabbis who came from the west. As mentioned before, the level of religious knowledge was very low among East European Jews.

It is plausible that when rabbis started to go to Eastern Europe and encountered a more or less ignorant Jewish community, the women were taught Jewish law by, for example, the wives of the rabbis.

Zinberg (1975, v. 6, 6) describes the situation in Kiev in the twelfth/thirteenth century: “But the number of Talmudists in the region of the Dnieper was quite limited, and their literary work was of very slight value. In this connection, one must take account of the very low cultural level of the environment.”

It is thus possible to explain that East European Ashkenazim spoke Yiddish in the end, with only a small number of them originating from a German-speak­ ing area. A similar development must have taken place in Turkey where Jews switched from the vernacular to Judeo-Spanish.
 

I find Paul Wexler’s theory unpopularity pretty strange

 

... which demonstrates that Ashkenazi Jews are not at all close to the Adygei population, and similarly to what is seen in table 1, their smallest distance is to Italians and then to Greeks. Unlike the assertion of Need et al. on the midway position, and again similarly to what is seen in table 1, Italians and Greeks are closer to the Middle Eastern populations than Ashkenazi Jews.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964539/

Thus, the genetic proximity of these European/Syrian Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to ... Northern Italian, and Sardinian populations favors the idea of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/Syrian Jewish groups and is incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs. The genetic proximity of Ashkenazi Jews to southern European populations has been observed in several other recent studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/

Overall, we estimate that most (>80%) Ashkenazi mtDNAs were assimilated within Europe. Few derive from a Near Eastern source, and despite the recent revival of the ‘Khazar hypothesis’, virtually none are likely to have ancestry in the North Caucasus. These analyses suggest that the first major wave of assimilation probably took place in Mediterranean Europe, most likely in the Italian peninsula ~2 ka https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3543

"Loco-LD confirms and sharpens the lack of evidence for the Khazar hypothesis, placing the Ashkenazi Jewish sample in close proximity to... Mediterranean non-Jewish populations such as Cypriots and Italians. ...with the most similar non-Jewish populations to Ashkenazi Jews being Mediterranean Europeans from Italy (Sicily, Abruzzo, Tuscany), Greece, and Cyprus."

 

Guyenot is to be read for entertainment, not knowledge.

 

Researchers analyzed the genomes of 128 Ashkenazi Jews and compared them to those of non-Jewish Europeans in order to determine which genetic markers are unique to Ashkenazi Jews.

 

If what you say is true all Jews should be Sephardic since the alleged pre-Jewish population is Sicily, colonized by Pheonicians, who colonized Iberia also.

 

Replies: @Another Polish Perspective, @Another Polish Perspective, @Another Polish Perspective

in your strange statement (I read something like that the first time in my life) that East European Jews looked to Italian Jews as their natural superiors.

 

The people to whom East European Jews looked up were the rabbis who came from the west. As mentioned before, the level of religious knowledge was very low among East European Jews.

It is plausible that when rabbis started to go to Eastern Europe and encountered a more or less ignorant Jewish community, the women were taught Jewish law by, for example, the wives of the rabbis.

Zinberg (1975, v. 6, 6) describes the situation in Kiev in the twelfth/thirteenth century: “But the number of Talmudists in the region of the Dnieper was quite limited, and their literary work was of very slight value. In this connection, one must take account of the very low cultural level of the environment.”

It is thus possible to explain that East European Ashkenazim spoke Yiddish in the end, with only a small number of them originating from a German-speak­ ing area. A similar development must have taken place in Turkey where Jews switched from the vernacular to Judeo-Spanish.
 

I find Paul Wexler’s theory unpopularity pretty strange

 

... which demonstrates that Ashkenazi Jews are not at all close to the Adygei population, and similarly to what is seen in table 1, their smallest distance is to Italians and then to Greeks. Unlike the assertion of Need et al. on the midway position, and again similarly to what is seen in table 1, Italians and Greeks are closer to the Middle Eastern populations than Ashkenazi Jews.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964539/

Thus, the genetic proximity of these European/Syrian Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to ... Northern Italian, and Sardinian populations favors the idea of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/Syrian Jewish groups and is incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs. The genetic proximity of Ashkenazi Jews to southern European populations has been observed in several other recent studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/

Overall, we estimate that most (>80%) Ashkenazi mtDNAs were assimilated within Europe. Few derive from a Near Eastern source, and despite the recent revival of the ‘Khazar hypothesis’, virtually none are likely to have ancestry in the North Caucasus. These analyses suggest that the first major wave of assimilation probably took place in Mediterranean Europe, most likely in the Italian peninsula ~2 ka https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3543

"Loco-LD confirms and sharpens the lack of evidence for the Khazar hypothesis, placing the Ashkenazi Jewish sample in close proximity to... Mediterranean non-Jewish populations such as Cypriots and Italians. ...with the most similar non-Jewish populations to Ashkenazi Jews being Mediterranean Europeans from Italy (Sicily, Abruzzo, Tuscany), Greece, and Cyprus."

 

Guyenot is to be read for entertainment, not knowledge.

 

Researchers analyzed the genomes of 128 Ashkenazi Jews and compared them to those of non-Jewish Europeans in order to determine which genetic markers are unique to Ashkenazi Jews.

 

If what you say is true all Jews should be Sephardic since the alleged pre-Jewish population is Sicily, colonized by Pheonicians, who colonized Iberia also.

 

Replies: @Another Polish Perspective, @Another Polish Perspective, @Another Polish Perspective

in your strange statement (I read something like that the first time in my life) that East European Jews looked to Italian Jews as their natural superiors.

 

The people to whom East European Jews looked up were the rabbis who came from the west. As mentioned before, the level of religious knowledge was very low among East European Jews.

It is plausible that when rabbis started to go to Eastern Europe and encountered a more or less ignorant Jewish community, the women were taught Jewish law by, for example, the wives of the rabbis.

Zinberg (1975, v. 6, 6) describes the situation in Kiev in the twelfth/thirteenth century: “But the number of Talmudists in the region of the Dnieper was quite limited, and their literary work was of very slight value. In this connection, one must take account of the very low cultural level of the environment.”

It is thus possible to explain that East European Ashkenazim spoke Yiddish in the end, with only a small number of them originating from a German-speak­ ing area. A similar development must have taken place in Turkey where Jews switched from the vernacular to Judeo-Spanish.
 

I find Paul Wexler’s theory unpopularity pretty strange

 

... which demonstrates that Ashkenazi Jews are not at all close to the Adygei population, and similarly to what is seen in table 1, their smallest distance is to Italians and then to Greeks. Unlike the assertion of Need et al. on the midway position, and again similarly to what is seen in table 1, Italians and Greeks are closer to the Middle Eastern populations than Ashkenazi Jews.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964539/

Thus, the genetic proximity of these European/Syrian Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to ... Northern Italian, and Sardinian populations favors the idea of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/Syrian Jewish groups and is incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs. The genetic proximity of Ashkenazi Jews to southern European populations has been observed in several other recent studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/

Overall, we estimate that most (>80%) Ashkenazi mtDNAs were assimilated within Europe. Few derive from a Near Eastern source, and despite the recent revival of the ‘Khazar hypothesis’, virtually none are likely to have ancestry in the North Caucasus. These analyses suggest that the first major wave of assimilation probably took place in Mediterranean Europe, most likely in the Italian peninsula ~2 ka https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3543

"Loco-LD confirms and sharpens the lack of evidence for the Khazar hypothesis, placing the Ashkenazi Jewish sample in close proximity to... Mediterranean non-Jewish populations such as Cypriots and Italians. ...with the most similar non-Jewish populations to Ashkenazi Jews being Mediterranean Europeans from Italy (Sicily, Abruzzo, Tuscany), Greece, and Cyprus."

 

Guyenot is to be read for entertainment, not knowledge.

 

Researchers analyzed the genomes of 128 Ashkenazi Jews and compared them to those of non-Jewish Europeans in order to determine which genetic markers are unique to Ashkenazi Jews.

 

If what you say is true all Jews should be Sephardic since the alleged pre-Jewish population is Sicily, colonized by Pheonicians, who colonized Iberia also.

 

Replies: @Another Polish Perspective, @Another Polish Perspective, @Another Polish Perspective

I find Paul Wexler's theory unpopularity pretty strange since it supports the favourite point of antisemites - that Askahenazi Jews do not come from Near East and are impostors.

This unpopularity probably testifies to hatred against Slavs on the site of Western Europeans, ideas that all civilizations, even Jewish ones, come from the West, visible in your strange statement (I read something like that the first time in my life) that East European Jews looked to Italian Jews as their natural superiors.

Interestingly, Nazis operationally supported Wexler's idea considering Slavs, and Poles especially, much more "verjuedet"(jewified) than Western Europeans, one of reasons for their harsh policies in occupied Slavic territories.

Replies: @anon

Most of Jews entered Italy as slaves after wars, and slaves’ religions are not especially popular among their masters.
 

(And in the Punic theory, we would be talking about Punics rather than Hebrews).

I also believe that they had some sort of elite status and intermarried with the elite, just like they did later.

There are historical sources that show that there were large conversions to Judaism, then there is also evidence from genetics, and from archaeology.

Historical sources clearly describe that there were mass conversions to Judaism.

"EEJ seem to be mainly Italian (Roman) in origin, which is easily understood, considering the historical evidence"

"EEJ are Europeans probably of Roman descent who converted to Judaism at times, when Judaism was the first monotheistic religion that spread in the ancient world. Any other theory about their origin is not supported by the genetic data. Future studies will have to address their genetic affinities to various Italian populations and examine the possibility of other components both European and Non-European in their gene pool."

Shlomo Sand:

We have seen that Cicero had already noted the large presence of Jewish believers in Rome in the first century BCE, and it is known that many followers of Yahweh took part in the funeral of Julius Caesar. So it is well to remember that this substantial presence existed for a long time before the war of 70 CE... Most Roman sources indicate that this presence was due to the spread of the Jewish religion. As the rate of conversion to Judaism intensified, so did the government's disquiet and the resentment on the part of many Latin intellectuals.

Jits van Straten:

Christians also converted to Judaism. Feldman (1993, 289–341) confirms the large number of Jews in the Roman Empire due to conversions. The Israeli historian Moshe Samet (1993) discusses the conversions to Judaism during the first centuries C.E. He bases his article on both Jewish sources (mainly Bible and Talmud) and non-Jewish sources (Greek and Roman authors). From his study it appears that a large number of conversions took place during the period mentioned

In the first centuries CE, the rate of conversion to Judaism in Rome was remarkably high (Bamberger 1968; Braude 1940; Rapaport 1965; Rosenbloom 1978). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365543399_A_Tale_of_Two_Hypotheses_Genetics_and_the_Ethnogenesis_of_Ashkenazi_Jewry

One study has noted a close genetic resemblance between contemporary Ashkenazi Jews and modern Italians, a resemblance that indeed accords with the historical presumption that Ashkenazi Jews started their migrations from Italy, and with historical evidence that conversion to Judaism was common in ancient Rome. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325263904_REGIONAL_IDENT_I_T_IES_AND_CULT_URES_OF_MEDIEVAL_JEWS

a very strong case for conversion to Judaism by autochthonous European women This trend is reinforced by a survey of secondary sources on Jewish conversion, which leave a clear impression that peoples from a wide variety of places in Eurasia were converting to Judaism for an equally great variety of reasons. Judaism is known to have been a proselytizing religion, especially during the first two centuries of the Common Era, but also into the Middle Ages (e.g., Cohen 1989, 1999; Golb 1988; Golb and Pritsak 1982; Goodman 1989; Gruen 2002; Leonhardt-Balzer 2007; Ruderman 2010; Schwartz 2007; Vernadsky 1933; see Stern 1974 for a review of references to Jewish proselytism in classical literature). Conversions to Judaism by traders for reasons of business acumen are also documented (Baron 1952; Gil 1974; Rabinowitz 1948). Therefore, it is logical to propose that contributions from various West Asian and European converts should be visible in the genetic record.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332958595_The_Geography_of_Jewish_Ethnogenesis

East European Ashkenazis started their European migrations in Rome, because of the genetic relationship with today’s Italians, and because conversions to Judaism were common in ancient Rome.
Jits van Straten

 

Replies: @Another Polish Perspective, @Another Polish Perspective, @Another Polish Perspective

Most of Jews entered Italy as slaves after wars, and slaves’ religions are not especially popular among their masters.
 

(And in the Punic theory, we would be talking about Punics rather than Hebrews).

I also believe that they had some sort of elite status and intermarried with the elite, just like they did later.

There are historical sources that show that there were large conversions to Judaism, then there is also evidence from genetics, and from archaeology.

Historical sources clearly describe that there were mass conversions to Judaism.

"EEJ seem to be mainly Italian (Roman) in origin, which is easily understood, considering the historical evidence"

"EEJ are Europeans probably of Roman descent who converted to Judaism at times, when Judaism was the first monotheistic religion that spread in the ancient world. Any other theory about their origin is not supported by the genetic data. Future studies will have to address their genetic affinities to various Italian populations and examine the possibility of other components both European and Non-European in their gene pool."

Shlomo Sand:

We have seen that Cicero had already noted the large presence of Jewish believers in Rome in the first century BCE, and it is known that many followers of Yahweh took part in the funeral of Julius Caesar. So it is well to remember that this substantial presence existed for a long time before the war of 70 CE... Most Roman sources indicate that this presence was due to the spread of the Jewish religion. As the rate of conversion to Judaism intensified, so did the government's disquiet and the resentment on the part of many Latin intellectuals.

Jits van Straten:

Christians also converted to Judaism. Feldman (1993, 289–341) confirms the large number of Jews in the Roman Empire due to conversions. The Israeli historian Moshe Samet (1993) discusses the conversions to Judaism during the first centuries C.E. He bases his article on both Jewish sources (mainly Bible and Talmud) and non-Jewish sources (Greek and Roman authors). From his study it appears that a large number of conversions took place during the period mentioned

In the first centuries CE, the rate of conversion to Judaism in Rome was remarkably high (Bamberger 1968; Braude 1940; Rapaport 1965; Rosenbloom 1978). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365543399_A_Tale_of_Two_Hypotheses_Genetics_and_the_Ethnogenesis_of_Ashkenazi_Jewry

One study has noted a close genetic resemblance between contemporary Ashkenazi Jews and modern Italians, a resemblance that indeed accords with the historical presumption that Ashkenazi Jews started their migrations from Italy, and with historical evidence that conversion to Judaism was common in ancient Rome. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325263904_REGIONAL_IDENT_I_T_IES_AND_CULT_URES_OF_MEDIEVAL_JEWS

a very strong case for conversion to Judaism by autochthonous European women This trend is reinforced by a survey of secondary sources on Jewish conversion, which leave a clear impression that peoples from a wide variety of places in Eurasia were converting to Judaism for an equally great variety of reasons. Judaism is known to have been a proselytizing religion, especially during the first two centuries of the Common Era, but also into the Middle Ages (e.g., Cohen 1989, 1999; Golb 1988; Golb and Pritsak 1982; Goodman 1989; Gruen 2002; Leonhardt-Balzer 2007; Ruderman 2010; Schwartz 2007; Vernadsky 1933; see Stern 1974 for a review of references to Jewish proselytism in classical literature). Conversions to Judaism by traders for reasons of business acumen are also documented (Baron 1952; Gil 1974; Rabinowitz 1948). Therefore, it is logical to propose that contributions from various West Asian and European converts should be visible in the genetic record.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332958595_The_Geography_of_Jewish_Ethnogenesis

East European Ashkenazis started their European migrations in Rome, because of the genetic relationship with today’s Italians, and because conversions to Judaism were common in ancient Rome.
Jits van Straten

 

Replies: @Another Polish Perspective, @Another Polish Perspective, @Another Polish Perspective

Most of Jews entered Italy as slaves after wars, and slaves' religions are not especially popular among their masters. How many white French turned to vodoo in Haiti?
For some time, Romans conflated Jews and Christians, and since Judaism was a licit religion in Roman eyes, Christians could take advantage of it, claiming to be some kind of Jews especially since Judeochrisitian branch of Christianity sill existed at that time.

That does not mean in any way that that 10% of Roman Empire population were Jews.

Replies: @anon, @Thelma Ringbaum

Disraeli was a proto Zionist author.

Replies: @Thelma Ringbaum

Most of Jews entered Italy as slaves after wars, and slaves’ religions are not especially popular among their masters.
 

(And in the Punic theory, we would be talking about Punics rather than Hebrews).

I also believe that they had some sort of elite status and intermarried with the elite, just like they did later.

There are historical sources that show that there were large conversions to Judaism, then there is also evidence from genetics, and from archaeology.

Historical sources clearly describe that there were mass conversions to Judaism.

"EEJ seem to be mainly Italian (Roman) in origin, which is easily understood, considering the historical evidence"

"EEJ are Europeans probably of Roman descent who converted to Judaism at times, when Judaism was the first monotheistic religion that spread in the ancient world. Any other theory about their origin is not supported by the genetic data. Future studies will have to address their genetic affinities to various Italian populations and examine the possibility of other components both European and Non-European in their gene pool."

Shlomo Sand:

We have seen that Cicero had already noted the large presence of Jewish believers in Rome in the first century BCE, and it is known that many followers of Yahweh took part in the funeral of Julius Caesar. So it is well to remember that this substantial presence existed for a long time before the war of 70 CE... Most Roman sources indicate that this presence was due to the spread of the Jewish religion. As the rate of conversion to Judaism intensified, so did the government's disquiet and the resentment on the part of many Latin intellectuals.

Jits van Straten:

Christians also converted to Judaism. Feldman (1993, 289–341) confirms the large number of Jews in the Roman Empire due to conversions. The Israeli historian Moshe Samet (1993) discusses the conversions to Judaism during the first centuries C.E. He bases his article on both Jewish sources (mainly Bible and Talmud) and non-Jewish sources (Greek and Roman authors). From his study it appears that a large number of conversions took place during the period mentioned

In the first centuries CE, the rate of conversion to Judaism in Rome was remarkably high (Bamberger 1968; Braude 1940; Rapaport 1965; Rosenbloom 1978). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365543399_A_Tale_of_Two_Hypotheses_Genetics_and_the_Ethnogenesis_of_Ashkenazi_Jewry

One study has noted a close genetic resemblance between contemporary Ashkenazi Jews and modern Italians, a resemblance that indeed accords with the historical presumption that Ashkenazi Jews started their migrations from Italy, and with historical evidence that conversion to Judaism was common in ancient Rome. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325263904_REGIONAL_IDENT_I_T_IES_AND_CULT_URES_OF_MEDIEVAL_JEWS

a very strong case for conversion to Judaism by autochthonous European women This trend is reinforced by a survey of secondary sources on Jewish conversion, which leave a clear impression that peoples from a wide variety of places in Eurasia were converting to Judaism for an equally great variety of reasons. Judaism is known to have been a proselytizing religion, especially during the first two centuries of the Common Era, but also into the Middle Ages (e.g., Cohen 1989, 1999; Golb 1988; Golb and Pritsak 1982; Goodman 1989; Gruen 2002; Leonhardt-Balzer 2007; Ruderman 2010; Schwartz 2007; Vernadsky 1933; see Stern 1974 for a review of references to Jewish proselytism in classical literature). Conversions to Judaism by traders for reasons of business acumen are also documented (Baron 1952; Gil 1974; Rabinowitz 1948). Therefore, it is logical to propose that contributions from various West Asian and European converts should be visible in the genetic record.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332958595_The_Geography_of_Jewish_Ethnogenesis

East European Ashkenazis started their European migrations in Rome, because of the genetic relationship with today’s Italians, and because conversions to Judaism were common in ancient Rome.
Jits van Straten

 

Replies: @Another Polish Perspective, @Another Polish Perspective, @Another Polish Perspective

First, I need to clarify, this point is not written very clearly so I will clarify:

4. Back-migration into Italy: Jits van Straten posits that the strong genetic similarity between modern Italians and Ashkenazi can also be, at least partly, explained by migrations into Italy. Jews (or the southern European populations who were the source of conversions to Judaism) migrated to Italy and that is the reason that they are genetically so close.
 

He explains like this:

Jits van Straten:

For the great genetic resemblance between Italians and East European Jews, two explanations are possible:... First of all, about Italian genes. I assume that the calculations of the genetic distances are correct and that there is a relationship between East European Jews and places or regions in Italy. The implication of genetic similarity with Italians is that conversions must have taken place in Italy. This is not a problem, because it is known that Romans converted to Judaism. How do we go from here?

Logically, the present Italians in the places studied would have to be descendants of the Romans. This last conclusion is disputable. (....Here Jits van Straten lists some of the migrations into Italy)

Had today’s inhabitants of Tuscany, Lazio, Campana and Lombardy lived there since Roman times, or are we dealing with people from elsewhere? And if the latter is the case, with what are we then comparing the DNA of the East European Jews? For example, blond Italians are descendants of Germanic tribes who moved into northern Italy. Genetically, current Italy is a hodgepodge, and maybe it is just for this reason that there are so many genetic similarities. As there are no representative DNA samples of the ancient Romans, it would be very difficult to show a connection between them and East European Jews....

What remains, is the relationship between East European Jews and some of the present Italians, or, to put it differently, with some European inhabitants of Italy.

 

It is not just Jits van Straten, also many others who come to simliar conclusions, examples of different geneticists :

"EEJ are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations.

"There are ambiguities in the origin of American Ashkenazi Jews, but the most accepted theory suggests that their origin is an area which is currently in Italy.

"The Med haplotype, the most frequent haplotype in Jewish communities, was also common in circum-Mediterranean populations.

"Ashkenazi Jewish as well as Sephardic Jewish origin also showed >85% membership in the “southern” population, consistent with a later Mediterranean origin of these ethnic groups.

"Consistent with recent reports, principal component analysis (PCA) using these combined datasets confirmed that the AJ individuals cluster distinctly from Europeans, aligning closest to Southern European populations along the first principal component...

"The majority of informative subjects with no Jewish ancestry that scored most highly on PC1 were either of Italian or Eastern Mediterranean descent. This indicates that in a mixed American context, these populations may not be easily distinguishable from subjects with a single Jewish parent."

"Of the European populations, the Northern Italians showed the greatest proximity to the Jews,..."

"It also explains another of the team’s findings ” that the population most closely related genetically to European Jews are Italians."

"But the study also found strong genetic ties to non-Jewish groups, with the closest genetic neighbors on the European side being Italians.."

"These analyses suggest that the first major wave of assimilation probably took place in Mediterranean Europe, most likely in the Italian peninsula ~2 ka, "

""The data are very convincing," says Antonio Torroni, a geneticist at the University of Pavia in Italy and a leading expert in the genetics of Europeans. He adds that recent studies of DNA from the cell nucleus have also shown "a very close similarity between Ashkenazi Jews and Italians.""

"Richards and his team claim that maternal lineages did not originate in the Near or Middle East or the Khazarian Caucasus but rather, for the most part, within Mediterranean Europe."

"In brief, judging from the similarity of the membership proportion distributions, Admixture demonstrates the connection of Ashkenazi, North African, and Sephardi Jews, with the most similar non-Jewish populations to Ashkenazi Jews being Mediterranean Europeans from Italy (Sicily, Abruzzo, Tuscany), Greece, and Cyprus.
"
"The major source of EU ancestry in AJ was found to be Southern Europe (≈60–80% of EU ancestry), with the rest being likely Eastern European."

"Multiple models with South-Italians were plausible (p>0.05), which would be consistent with historical models pointing to the Italian peninsula as the source for the AJ population."

"The comparisons suggested the Ashkenazi circa 1350 had a mix of ancestry resembling populations from southern Italy or Sicily today, "

"Ashkenazi Jewish participants showed smaller paired Fst values with southern European populations (e.g. Ashkenazi/Italian, Fst =0.004) than with northern populations (e.g. Ashkenazi/Swedish, Fst = 0.0120)."

"the founding event for Ashkenazi Jewry almost certainly occurred in Southern Europe "

 

Your numbers (10% of Jews in Roman Empire)
 

I have seen numbers of 7-10 percent, this relies on some historical sources, and as Guyenot has shown, historical sources can also be fake, but it is what we have.

more than 90% population of Roman Empire was rural

 

Judaism did not penetrate higher levels of Roman society in any significant ways.

 

The Jews also married high status Italian women, that is where they got their high IQ from.

I believe that Jews did penetrate the elite also in Roman times.

Second, most of Jews in Roman Empire was concentrated in Egypt, Cyrenaica, Near East, Iberia, not Italy itself.

 

Iberia is not really relevant for Ashkenazi genetics, more for Sephardic, but different scenarios involving other regions could be possible (keeping in mind the genetic relation to "modern" Italians, and what is known from conversions to Judaism in history and historical Jewish settlements).

Third, even if distribution of maternal haplogroups of Askahnazi Jews could matche Italian ones, it is hard to accept this for male ones.
...
Women did not emigrate without men at that time

 

Jewish men (or Phoenicians in the punic theory) married Italian women and founded the Ashkenazi stock. If there is some middle eastern genes in Askenazis, it is mostly in the male line.

Maybe Women did not emigrate without men at that time, but men did emigrate without women (this is what genetics seems to suggest)

The genetics shows there is a sex specific difference, the mtDNA line is clearly more southern European than the male line.

"A new genetic analysis has now filled in another piece of the origins puzzle, pointing to European women as the principal female founders, and to the Jewish community of the early Roman empire as the possible source of the Ashkenazi ancestors. The finding establishes that the women who founded the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Europe were not from the Near East, as previously supposed, and reinforces the idea that many Jewish communities outside Israel were founded by single men who married and converted local women." https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/science/ashkenazi-origins-may-be-with-european-women-study-finds.html

If the same 20000 Y- haplogroups were found in Italy, it does not mean they weren’t present somewhere else at that time

 

as you says yourself, these haplogroups really did originate in Near East

 

Secondly, older papers like Behar et al. suggested that K1a9 and N1b2 might derive from “Near Eastern” sources, but newer papers have shown that it comes instead from southern Europe.

Jewish communities tend to be insular

 

And if today they tend to be "insular" maybe it was different earlier.

Jits van Straten says that the Jews in EE were comparitively less educated, and explains that it was possible that few Germans who speak Yiddish were able to change the language to Yiddish in EE. If they had a higher status among the Jews, it could be imagined.

Somehow, it needs to be explained that there was a population increase of Jews in EE, that they switched to Yiddish, and that genetics shows a difference between West and East Ashkenazi, but genetics also shows the influx of genetics from western Ashkeanzi to the eastern Ashkenazi. Do you have a better explanation for this?

Replies: @Another Polish Perspective

Most of Jews entered Italy as slaves after wars, and slaves' religions are not especially popular among their masters. How many white French turned to vodoo in Haiti?
For some time, Romans conflated Jews and Christians, and since Judaism was a licit religion in Roman eyes, Christians could take advantage of it, claiming to be some kind of Jews especially since Judeochrisitian branch of Christianity sill existed at that time.

That does not mean in any way that that 10% of Roman Empire population were Jews.

Replies: @anon, @Thelma Ringbaum

Why are you so Italocentric?
Are you Italian [Jew] or maybe Jits van Straten, whom you so eagerly quote, himself?

There are several problems with your theory.
First, more than 90% population of Roman Empire was rural and Jews outside Palestina and Egypt (where some colonies founded for Ptolemies' Jewish soldiers existed) were city dwellers. Your numbers (10% of Jews in Roman Empire) would mean that all city inhabitants of Roman Empire were Jewish, obviously absurd conclusion. Statements like

Judaism gained many followers among all ranks of Roman Society.”
 

Replies: @Another Polish Perspective, @anon

Why are you so Italocentric?
Are you Italian [Jew] or maybe Jits van Straten, whom you so eagerly quote, himself?

There are several problems with your theory.
First, more than 90% population of Roman Empire was rural and Jews outside Palestina and Egypt (where some colonies founded for Ptolemies' Jewish soldiers existed) were city dwellers. Your numbers (10% of Jews in Roman Empire) would mean that all city inhabitants of Roman Empire were Jewish, obviously absurd conclusion. Statements like

Judaism gained many followers among all ranks of Roman Society.”
 

Replies: @Another Polish Perspective, @anon

The numbers of Jews in Western Europe that some authors mention (I can quote exactly) are 50K in the 15th century, or 25-35K somewhat earlier. So that is the order of magnitude. How did they get to 8 million before ww2? OH explains that paradox.
 

One should realizes that there are "no reliable numerical data about the size of the Jewish population in Eastern Europe before the census of 1897."

"The population sizes are based on Baron-Weinryb, and are unreliable, the population sizes are based on the data by Baron, Weinryb and DellaPergola, which I showed to be implausible."

There was no such miracle. In regions with reliable Jewish population sizes, the Jewish population increased somewhat faster than the non-Jewish population, but not twice as fast

In his Table 1: The total and Jewish population in Russia and Poland: 1 – 1800. on page 27. for the year, Straten has estimates of between 467,400 and 681,900

We do not know the size of the Jewish population in Poland/Russia before 1800.

"Different population growths for different groups (cultural, social, power) in a society is common." https://jewishdna.net/FAQ.html

 

"These lineages had been considered as typically Jewish and were wrongly presented as an indication of a Middle Eastern origin". Jits van Straten

 

"EEJ are Europeans probably of Roman descent who converted to Judaism at times, when Judaism was the first monotheistic religion that spread in the ancient world. Any other theory about their origin is not supported by the genetic data. Future studies will have to address their genetic affinities to various Italian populations"

"The close genetic resemblance to Italians accords with the historical presumption that Ashkenazi Jews started their migrations across Europe in Italy and with historical evidence that conversion to Judaism was common in ancient Rome. Conversion to Judaism was common in Rome in the first centuries BC and AD. Judaism gained many followers among all ranks of Roman Society." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964539/

"Overall, it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe, most likely through conversion. These analyses suggest that the first major wave of assimilation probably took place in Mediterranean Europe, most likely in the Italian peninsula ~2 ka" https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3543

"At the height of the Roman Empire, about 10% of the empire’s population was Jewish, although the bulk of them were converts." https://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2010/06/05/on-genes-and-jews/

"Some in particular, including N1b2, M1a1b, K1a9 and perhaps even the major K1a1b1, point to a north Mediterranean source. It seems likely that the major founders were the result of the earliest and presumably most profound wave of founder effects, from the Mediterranean northwards into central Europe" https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3543

"most modern Jews are descended on their male side from a core population of approximately 20,000 Jews who migrated from Italy over the first millennium and eventually settled in Eastern Europe." https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/ashkenazi-jewish-women-descended-mostly-from-italian-converts-new-study-asserts/

"Autosomal DNA evidence suggests that there was genetic input from Italians into the early Western Jewish ancestors of Ashkenazic Jews more than a thousand years ago." https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781644699850/html

"admixture in Europe first happened in Southern Europe, and was followed by a founder event and a minor admixture event (likely) in Eastern Europe. Admixture in Southern Europe possibly occurred in Italy, given the continued presence of Jews there and the proposed Italian source of the early Rhineland Ashkenazi communities. The results of all analyses (at least once examined in the light of simulations) point to Southern Europe as the European source with the largest contribution. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5380316/

"East European Ashkenazis started their European migrations in Rome, because of the genetic relationship with today’s Italians, and because conversions to Judaism were common in ancient Rome. Recently, it was shown that according to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) both West and East European Ashkenazis started in Southern Europe, and that there was a genetic difference between West and East European Ashkenazis"

 

Replies: @Another Polish Perspective

Why Serbian coat of arms is masked labrys, aka double-headed eagle?

You know labrys is a symbol of lesbians...? Did Odysseus bring it for Penelope from Crete?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Labrys_Lesbian_Flag.svg

Replies: @nokangaroos

I think you forgot to mention that OH (Odyssey's Hypothesis) explains the origin of Ashkenazi. The prerequisite for presenting it is to explain thePenelope Paradox, which you also forgot. That is why I said that thePenelope Paradox should be explained first.

Fordummies:
The numbers of Jews in Western Europe that some authors mention (I can quote exactly) are 50K in the 15th century, or 25-35K somewhat earlier. So that is the order of magnitude. How did they get to 8 million before ww2? OH explains that paradox.

I can’t wait for the author of OH to appear and explain these holes in this kind of scholarship. However, I think Ron is not sympathetic to the presentation of this theory, which deviates from the other three known mainstream theories (Rhineland, Punic, andKhazar).

Replies: @anon, @Another Polish Perspective, @anon, @anon

I think you forgot to mention that OH (Odyssey's Hypothesis) explains the origin of Ashkenazi. The prerequisite for presenting it is to explain thePenelope Paradox, which you also forgot. That is why I said that thePenelope Paradox should be explained first.

Fordummies:
The numbers of Jews in Western Europe that some authors mention (I can quote exactly) are 50K in the 15th century, or 25-35K somewhat earlier. So that is the order of magnitude. How did they get to 8 million before ww2? OH explains that paradox.

I can’t wait for the author of OH to appear and explain these holes in this kind of scholarship. However, I think Ron is not sympathetic to the presentation of this theory, which deviates from the other three known mainstream theories (Rhineland, Punic, andKhazar).

Replies: @anon, @Another Polish Perspective, @anon, @anon