Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 191

Thread: Research about R1b-U152: probably Roman (and italic) origin, not Gallic

  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points
    Etrusco-romano's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-11
    Location
    Rome
    Posts
    82


    Ethnic group
    Roman, Etruscan, Italic, Italiot
    Country: Italy



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.

    Research about R1b-U152: probably Roman (and italic) origin, not Gallic



    Hello to all, my name is Leonardo, and it's my personal research about the origin of U152.
    I found this site very interesting, and probably one of the most "fertile" in regard to research and discussion of genetic issues. First, I ask forgiveness for not introducing myself into the "department" of this forum, and because the English with which I am writing my research is not very good (i prepare this research for italians readers, and so i had to use "google translate" fo translate it), if there should be any doubt do not hesitate to ask. I am very happy to discuss this issue with you all


    The main debate took place on the EU-152 (previously S28) to its origin. There was talk of its spread due to the "Culture of La Tene," developed during three historical periods ranging from sixth to first century BC, represents for many the "mother" culture is improperly called "Celtic" - because it improperly There was never political unity, social and even cultural cooperation between the various entities defined as "Celtic" - and in the case of "civilization" Gallic developed in France, Iberia and northern Italy. Although they have never been conducted real scientific research and historical insights on the historical and ethnic classification of U-152 off the record it is very often (and perhaps erroneously) associated with the aforementioned Celtic culture, that this association is often occurred due to a random series of events very often, in fact the result of coincidences almost never connected to each other: the underrated done, for example, that France was one of the first countries to conduct genetic research on the local population has contributed enormously to "Because Celtic", because, in statistical terms, was initially found a fair number of U-152 in France, the quantity that can not be compared to the frequencies of subclade of other countries (because genetics was the dawn, or in any case because samples "foreign" were far less numerous) deceived the various scholars, who associated it, always in an unofficial, the U-152 to the native land of the Gauls, France. Over the years there were, however, new research also and especially in other European countries, and it turned out that in many areas outside of France (and very often never touched by the Gauls and the like) the frequency of U-152 was very high , along with Switzerland, Italy is one of its most countries with high prevalence, in fact, of 283 samples analyzed R1b (country-wide) 150 are belong to the U-152 (In the northern and southern Italy, analyzed 124 samples for each of the two areas, for the first 64 and 60 belong to the second subclade in question). At first they tried to justify the presence of U-152 through historical connections (in Northern Italy with the presence of ancient Gaul, for example), but once the frequencies "foreign" exceeded (sometimes also far), the French began to doubt the actual relationship between the U-152 and the Gallo-Celtic populations, however, preferring to cover up everything with a "hic sunt leones", drawing a deep gulf between "genetic" and "history" , to each his own words.
    The development of this research, for convenience collective, using simple and schematic will go on "points", but where the argument requires it we will engage in a more detailed analysis, breaking away from the overall preparation of the article.

    The inconsistency between a historical U152 Celtic and the high spread of the islands of Sardinia and Corsica.
    Since the U152 very common in the islands of Sardinia and Corsica (the latter then with very high frequency) urgently address the issue precisely "island" of this marker, analyzing the facts since the classical age.

    The impossibility of a connection between the Celts and the islands in question

    1) At no time in history men belonging to different cultures, "Gallo-Celtic" penetrated the
    islands of Sardinia and Corsica, it will as settlers as invaders.

    2) The dialect course is one of the closest to Italian standards, much closer to
    Southern Italian dialects and the Tuscan dialect, a fact due to the Roman colonization
    island, mainly occurred through settlers from southern Italy. If within these
    cores - for talking nonsense - there had been a large number of Gauls, also seen
    the isolation of Corsica for a long time, certainly you could sense the linguistic
    heritage;

    3) Race Ethnicity is widely recognized as being part of a branch of Italy, Sardinia
    (Nuragic) or at most Ligure, and is therefore ruled out the possibility that so-called
    "Courses antiquity can't be classified as "Celtic ";

    4) Similar can be said for Sardinia, a land where, by tradition, culture and language,
    Celtic influences you hear; ethnicity "Sardinian" is in fact composed mostly of old
    Native Nuragici and to a lesser extent by Roman Italic settlers arrived in Roman times.

    The inconsistency of the possible evidence for a link between the Celts and the islands in question.

    1) As absurd as it may consider U-152 a marker Germanic, and justify its
    distribution in Corsica with the barbarian invasions of the fifth century AD, but the
    domination of Germanic
    island, which lasted little more than 60 years, left no traces, it genetic, cultural or
    artistic, and still did not explain the spread in Sardinia;

    2) Since the U-152 is extremely widespread in Liguria, you might think that (assuming
    truly absurd for a link between the Ligurian Sea and the Gauls) its
    penetration in Corsica to Genoa following the long domination of the island, but you
    have to say on the island where the Genoese established themselves there are very
    evident traces of their passage, where the heritage language (the dialect of Ligurian
    Colonial is still common in some
    small areas of Corsica), but these are very limited.

    3) The Corsica Though dominated for about 3 centuries dominated by France, it is very
    difficult credited to settlers from the latter high-frequency dell'U152 island
    primarily for these reasons: until after the second war were not kept in Corsica
    high esteem by the French, who as a destination much preferred the colonial lands
    of Africa, the advent of the Franco-Algerian veterans and displaced persons in the
    island after Algerian independence was pretty ridiculous, and however, for historical
    and cultural reasons,
    The French minority race has always kept a distance from the natives, we can finally
    added that any non-genetic researcher
    would certainly have chosen the French residents in Corsica to study the genetics of
    the population native island, and is much more likely (indeed, almost certain) that the
    samples chosen belonged to ethnic course-Italian.

    4) As absurd as it may be assumed that some Gauls are established in the islands as
    slaves, but precisely because of their condition, certainly could not imagine their
    integration into Sardinian-Corsican tissue, or at least not so that they can afford such
    a high frequency dell'U152


    It therefore seems very difficult - probably the biggest stumbling block - for supporters of the marker "Celtic" to justify its high spreading in areas where the island where the Celts and Gauls have never set foot.

    On the spread of the marker U-152 in southern Italy

    1) In the classical era of Gauls settled in Magna Graecia if they have heard only at
    mercenary, warriors often belonging to the tribe of Senonian that, by embarking
    ports Piceno in the Marche, you put the pay of the Sicilian tyrants. Their number,
    however, was
    very small, and their use took place almost exclusively in the island of Sicily, and not
    in mainland Italy.

    2) As absurd as it may suggest a penetration in the south through Hannibal
    across the Alps found that the tribes of Gaul and very willing to ally themselves with
    him throw off the yoke of Rome, and once defeated the Carthaginian general,
    however, the former socii
    Romans who had betrayed the Urbe received no treatment "for a King", is therefore
    plausible to think that the "traitors" Cisalpine were killed after the defeat of Hannibal.

    3) On the slaves imported into Italy cocks like I can talk to on the islands:
    their condition as slaves, freedmen, but also, did not provide all the integration
    Southern secular fabric (but even in the entire Italian peninsula), rather
    closed under this point of view, and that was
    except only for the Greeks freed slaves (freedmen of almost all that I hear
    Greeks are written in Roman). However the number of slaves in Italy do not you
    think never exceeded 10% of the total population, then a percentage is too low for
    justify the high prevalence of the marker U152.

    4) Another hypothesis can be formulated on centuries of Norman rule (or the Nordic race) took place in the Middle Ages (High and Low) in southern Italy, a hypothesis which, however, clashes, hard, against the apparent "incompatibility" U -152 with the people of Germanic stock (ie the Normans) and especially against the fact that the Italian tribes who ruled the south were the narrow elite, and never happened - not even be supposed - a colonization of the southern part of the Germans, apart from rare exceptions that we now discuss.

    5) At the coming of the Normans in southern Italy followed the establishment of some
    small villages with settlers from Provence (Faeto cells and in Apulia), which, however
    , is unthinkable and absurd to attribute the spread dell'U152.

    6) Always following the establishment of the Altavilla in the South, occurred a few
    repopulation of areas demographically depressed by the arrival of settlers Lombard,
    Piedmont, Emilia Romagna and Liguria, which now has a clear track in the presence
    of so-called "Gallo-Italic dialects of Sicily and Basilicata."
    Even if and when that marker was linked to the populations of
    North America, these settlers being limited in certain areas (province of Enna,
    Province of Potenza Calabria and very small areas, such as "Guardia Piemontese"),
    you do not however, explain the spread, for example, in dell'U152
    areas not affected by this small settlement (Abruzzo, Molise, Lazio, Campania
    etc. ..)

    U152 associating the marker to any Celtic population would therefore be very difficult to be able to justify such a high spread in southern Italy (often a little lower than that of northern Italy).


    On the presence of U-152 in Europe and the Near East.
    Other high-frequency dell'R1b U152 are, especially on the island of Crete, where almost 60% of the samples selected are members of haplogroup R1b to have the above-mentioned marker, and that, by excluding a priori the question "Celtic "(because the Celts did not saw in Crete), is largely explained by three assumptions: the penetration of people belonging all'U152 in Roman times (Crete was kept very classical age into consideration, it is strategic for the control of the whole eastern Mediterranean basin), the possibility that by the Dorians, Hellenic lineage of uncertain origin, and therefore perhaps Indo-European came from the Caucasus, the marker will be allocated on the island around the eleventh century BC, and finally it can be assumed that following of almost five centuries of Venetian rule the island, there are established the Italians, and so have brought with that marker.
    However, the spread of U-152 seems to follow the incredibly ancient boundaries of the Roman Empire (except for rare exceptions), and its distribution in Europe could be the result of what modern historians call the first "globalization" of ' man: the Roman, which saw people of all races to move freely within the confines of Rome (with due exceptions)

    On the presence of U-152 in Switzerland and the rest of Europe
    Switzerland
    Interesting observations on the issue can be spread from top to U-152 in south-central Switzerland, and special detail that, at first glance, it might lead us to reflect anew on the possibility of binding the marker with a Celtic-Germanic culture . But we analyze the issue more thoroughly.

    1) The Helvetii, indeed penetrated Celtic population in the south-west of Switzerland,
    may have been "carriers" of U-152, but history tells us about how they,
    trying to leave their own land, were massacred by Gaius Julius Caesar in the
    century BC, and the facts tell us a few survivors who rebelled again in Rome
    the revolt of Vercingetorix, being overwhelmed again. It seems therefore impossible
    that the "survivors of the survivors' return to Switzerland, after various struggles
    against Rome, have
    have affected the gene pool so much Helvetic.

    2) With the fall of the Roman Empire, and the consequences penetration of Eastern
    Germans Southern Switzerland fell under the blows of the tribe of the "Germans". A
    feature common early medieval barbarian invasions, which brings various Germanic
    tribes a similar organization, or substantially the method of integration with
    subject populations: the creation of an elite under the Germanic whose boots they
    were.Too few and too "elite" were the Germans, however, affect the evolution
    Switzerland's population, and therefore we can not charge to which the spread
    dell'U152.

    3) E 'may be possible to hypothesize that the high frequency of U-152 is due to the
    cartel Roman colonization, which began in the Augustan age, and lasted for more than
    three centuries, which saw from thousands of settlers from all over Italy (but not only)
    and Roman veterans who was assigned to land in Switzerland.


    The rest of Europe
    Traces dell'U152 levels are low tend, more or less, in almost all other European countries, among which is important to remember France, southeast England, the north-eastern Spain, Germany Western and especially western Poland. How to explain these frequencies, although not very high, they do their part fairly? Not excluding a priori any of the origins of the marker in question could then list the various possibilities:

    1) Celts
    2) Germans
    3) Romans (also intended Italic peoples of ancient Italy and others)

    For the first hypothesis and the latter are immediately a huge problem: the tendency for low uptake of this marker in the countries which in fact should have been the cradle of Celtic and Germanic culture. In France it is with mid-bass in the south-eastern Europe continue to the UK, from where the sharp decrease in the frequency - France, however, despite the low-mid frequencies and the total lack of "centers" crucial U-152, arguably the country with the second highest number of U-152 in proportion to the vastness of the territory, in short it is, albeit sometimes in small part, a bit 'all over the country -, was This is the land, so also fairly uniform spread the Gauls, the Celtic people par excellence, whose numbers grew to several million in the years shortly before the Roman conquest. It therefore seems unlikely (though not impossible) that the core founding ethnic France has left so few traces of genetic, partly because it must be remembered, in the fourth century AD in Gaul was still spoken of Gallo-Roman culture, reflecting the fact that Celts, even at the time, historically represented the majority in the country (with appropriate exceptions).
    Absolute similarity of this example can be done to Britain: a land populated by
    Britons, the Celtic people who acted here as a core foundation for the island ethnic and post-Roman
    Roman also here the frequency dell'U1-52 is very low, especially heading north,
    where it seems to disappear altogether (and where it thrived even better than the Celts
    southern British brothers).
    Even for Germans it is more difficult, since they own the U152 does not seem to be linked in any way, also, and above all, the fact that it is extremely low frequencies (not even 1%, and sometimes disappearing at all) in the proto-Germanic countries (Sweden, Denmark and the Baltic in general) and the Germanic (Germany, Austria), here too there are some exceptions, such as the western part of Germany, which seems to present frequencies record (8-10%?) than the rest of the country and that seems to trace precisely the incredible part of Germany on this side of the old "Danube limes", where the Roman business prospered.
    Also in Spain, the discourse is similar to earlier: relatively low frequencies and therefore not assignable nor the people nor to the Celtic-Iberian Iberian, also numerous, especially in the central part of the country.
    The presence, albeit in low frequencies, in western Poland dell'R1b U152 presents us with a question that apparently remains unsolved, it is possible that this marker has literally "propelled" several km out of its "natural habitat" at frequencies that still amounted to 5-7% among the selected R1b? The answer may perhaps be sought in two periods: between the twelfth and the sixteenth century and the later Prussian domination of Western Poland. In the first case there was a real German colonization of the west of the country (just promoted from the various Polish nobles), where these settlers, look at home, often came from that part of Germany where the frequencies are made consistent dell'U152 . Another determining factor for the frequency of subclade in question may have been religious intolerance toward Catholics Lutheran Germans in the late sixteenth century, this event that may have migrated from the Catholic German settlers to the western regions of Poland, so enriched by other U152. Ultimately can not be ruled last, and decisive, penetration of the marker during the long domination of the Prussian (later German) of western Poland.

    Conclusions
    Following this lengthy discussion, it is time to take a firm decision on the possible origin of the Y chromosome R1b dell'aplogruppo marker U152 (S28): Italic-Roman, is, in our opinion, the correct answer, This subclade being popular in Italy and less frequently in colonized countries precisely by "Italian" in Roman times. Just as the French mid-bass should make us understand how they represent (perhaps) the Roman colonization of Gaul by the Romans free citizens and veterans, the ethnic proportions would also seem appropriate, since in today's France Enit "Roman" is always in minority (perhaps 10% of the population, a figure which comes very close to the frequencies of the marker) than Gallic, which therefore can not be credited for the U152 also purely statistical issues.
    In Italy the design becomes much more clear: even if coming from the center-south, the Italians (and therefore also the Romans and the Venetians) found most of northern living space, almost depopulated as a result of various struggles against Rome, and where Indo-Italian populations could thrive without having to share the roof with people of Hellenic descent, something that had to do in the South, and for this fact in the south of the frequency dell'U152 is slightly lower, since the Italian population had to mix with those italiote (Magna Graecia), to lessen the frequency of the marker in question.

  2. #2
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,021
    Points
    15,304
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,304, Level: 37
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 346
    Overall activity: 24.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    First off, welcome on the forum.

    You have given a lot of thought into this issue and I find that decisively impressive. However, I do not agree with your idea that U152 is solely (or mainly) or Italic origin. How do you explain the relatively large concentrations in France and Britain? We talk about 15-20% of the population. This would have required a massive influx of Roman settlers, one that is not recorded in this shape in history. But, this is not the only problem.

    I also disagree on the idea that U152 in Poland comes from German settlers. You are making a very large assumption here. Bear in mind that this would require that these did exclusively come from previously Roman areas (which in Germany is limited to the left-bank Rhineland and to Swabian and Bavarian lands south of the Danube), and you need to explain levels of U152 that are nearly as high as in Britain or France, which is basically impossible from this context. The only way to explain this is that there must be U152 in Germany and/or Poland which is older.

    I think you make the (common) wrong assumption that genetic markers somehow have one specific causality, whereas it's more likely that we look at multiple sources for U152 and a cummulative effect.

    In my opinion, the original spread of U152 occured with the (Proto-Celtic) Urnfield Culture, which als resulted in the spread of the Haplogroup into Poland (Lusatian Culture) and northern Italy. Much of the subsequent distribution can be explained by the spreads of Hallstatt and La-Tene, in particular in Britain and also into Ireland. The Romans would have been mainly responsible for spreading U152 to North Africa and the Iberian penninsula (though I think some Iberian U152 could also be Celtic, thanks to the fact that iron working from central europe also spread into Iberia).

  3. #3
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points
    Etrusco-romano's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-11
    Location
    Rome
    Posts
    82


    Ethnic group
    Roman, Etruscan, Italic, Italiot
    Country: Italy



    I explained bad in the post: when talking about percentages between 15 and 20% i was not referring to the total population, but the total number of R1b. Doing a quick calculation, we can say that about 8% of the total French population (Although in the South, where the Roman presence was strongest in fact, can also be reached at 10-15% of total) belongs all'U152. If the U152 was of Gallic origin would that mean only 8% of the French population to direct Would Be descendant of the pre-Roman Celts, and i think it's impossibile.

    However, assuming for a moment that the U152 is of Celtic origin, as we justify the proliferation (one of the highest) in Corsica, Sardinia, Crete and southern Italy?
    Regarding the question you have English and German raised the answer is simple: Italy, in the Augustan period, was the "nationem" most populous of the empire (like 12 milions of peoples), and its settlers moved in blocks of 6,000 families (thus more than 20,000 people) to consolidate the domains of Roman Germany and England, is therefore very likely that, with a percentage to a single number, is ascribed to the presence dell'U152 these settlers.

  4. #4
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,021
    Points
    15,304
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,304, Level: 37
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 346
    Overall activity: 24.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Etrusco-romano View Post
    I explained bad in the post: when talking about percentages between 15 and 20% i was not referring to the total population, but the total number of R1b. Doing a quick calculation, we can say that about 8% of the total French population (Although in the South, where the Roman presence was strongest in fact, can also be reached at 10-15% of total) belongs all'U152. If the U152 was of Gallic origin would that mean only 8% of the French population to direct Would Be descendant of the pre-Roman Celts, and i think it's impossibile.
    You are incorrect about R1b-U152, this is clearly about the total number of the population:



    I also do not think that the U152 was the only "Celtic" Y-Haplogroup, either, but I think it is the main Haplogroup associated with the spread of Hallstatt and La-Tene.

    However, assuming for a moment that the U152 is of Celtic origin, as we justify the proliferation (one of the highest) in Corsica, Sardinia, Crete and southern Italy?
    Regarding the question you have English and German raised the answer is simple: Italy, in the Augustan period, was the "nationem" most populous of the empire (like 12 milions of peoples), and its settlers moved in blocks of 6,000 families (thus more than 20,000 people) to consolidate the domains of Roman Germany and England, is therefore very likely that, with a percentage to a single number, is ascribed to the presence dell'U152 these settlers.
    If you had read my post, no where in it I claimed that U152 was exclusively of Celtic origin. There clearly is both an Italic and (Pre-)Celtic component to U152.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Dorianfinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-08-11
    Location
    Milos
    Posts
    431
    Points
    7,739
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,739, Level: 26
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 411
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-U152 L2*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2

    Ethnic group
    Hellene
    Country: Greece



    Welcome to the forum Leonardo.

    In general it is difficult to comment as you have expressed much, thanks for providing an exposition of the Italian perspective regarding R1b-U152, it always helps to have it on record for quick reference. I however find your analysis omits the lower variance of R1b-U152 found in Italy and Switzerland. Secondly, I find your argument between the question of a Gallo-Celtic vs. Romano-Italic as rather a moot point as Celtic encompasses more than what can be considered either Gallic or Italic, you appear to be using a similar argument to the French, except you exchange the term Celtic with Roman. Roman is a political term lest I remind the world that although the Olympics originated in Olympia all Olympic champions were not from Olympia. These terms should not be considered as mutually exclusive or as one and the same. Its not Celtic vs. Roman, rather it should read Celtic and Roman and Gallic etc. without excluding other R1b subclades and possibly other haplogroups that may also have been prevalent, but to a lesser extent within these areas. Also, frequency is not the alpha and omega, one needs to take other factors into consideration such as geographical barriers, migration of other communities, political discriminants that may have favored one group over another, and lastly but certainly most importantly disease and fertility rates. Improved fitness over other populations can have an immense impact in combination with access to resources such as land.

    The pattern in areas with high R1b-U152 levels in Italy reflect accumulative trends such as those I've mentioned, combined with the lower variance, it appears that a migration occurred from the north.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points
    Etrusco-romano's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-11
    Location
    Rome
    Posts
    82


    Ethnic group
    Roman, Etruscan, Italic, Italiot
    Country: Italy



    I made a rough estimate, but I understand that the French national average dell'U152 does not exceed 18-20%, so I can not explain how it is possible that precisely in the land of the Gauls are percentages of minority U152 as well. The map is wrong with respect to southern Italy, where the percentage of this marker come (maximum) to 25% of the total.

    See how in Emilia there is a frequency record, and I can tell you that this region was one of the most densely populated by Italic settlers from Umbria, Piceno and Sannio.

    And 'then, perhaps, conceivable that the Italics for the most part belonged all'U152, and that instead the Gauls, although this marker, most belonged to other subclades, like L21?

  7. #7
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points
    Etrusco-romano's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-11
    Location
    Rome
    Posts
    82


    Ethnic group
    Roman, Etruscan, Italic, Italiot
    Country: Italy



    Thanks for the welcome, I'm happy to talk with a brother greek "Italians and Greeks: one face one race" :)

    You're right when you say the word "Roman" is more cultural than ethnic, but I want to say that Rome, seen as the city, was populated by free citizens from all Italy, the "real" Romans "real" were the Italics, Etruscans, Venets, Ligurians and so on .... The term "Roman", from the age of Augustus, went to enclose the Italian population, because, even in the late empire, there was always a certain amount of distrust (and racism) towards those "Roman" beyond the Alps.

  8. #8
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,021
    Points
    15,304
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,304, Level: 37
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 346
    Overall activity: 24.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Etrusco-romano View Post
    I made a rough estimate, but I understand that the French national average dell'U152 does not exceed 18-20%, so I can not explain how it is possible that precisely in the land of the Gauls are percentages of minority U152 as well. The map is wrong with respect to southern Italy, where the percentage of this marker come (maximum) to 25% of the total.

    See how in Emilia there is a frequency record, and I can tell you that this region was one of the most densely populated by Italic settlers from Umbria, Piceno and Sannio.

    And 'then, perhaps, conceivable that the Italics for the most part belonged all'U152, and that instead the Gauls, although this marker, most belonged to other subclades, like L21?
    I would like to reiterate what Dorian said, namely that you apparently assume Celtic = Gaulish, which is not the whole truth, given how Celtic-speaking peoples were also found on the Iberian penninsula, the British Isles, and in Central Europe (as far north as the Main river, and at the source of the Elbe and Oder rivers), and into the east as far as the Western Carpathians. There is a huge stretch of land in Central Europe which was for centuries Celtic, it would be unlikely that these left no traces at all.

    Regarding L21, the major problem is that with exception of Brittany/northwestern France, L21 is very rare in France, rarer indeed than U152. The only thing that seems to be genuinely associated with L21 are the Insular Celtic peoples.

    Also, U152 is certainly not the only Y Haplogroup associated with the Celts, in particular there was also a minor component of R1a to them. As has been mentioned multiple times, some of the highest concentrations of R1a in both France and Spain in areas that have the least Germanic influnce (Auvergne and Cantabria, respectively).

  9. #9
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points
    Etrusco-romano's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-11
    Location
    Rome
    Posts
    82


    Ethnic group
    Roman, Etruscan, Italic, Italiot
    Country: Italy



    You're right, in my translation I misused the term "Celts" Because even Among Them Were there huge differences.
    However, we can historically reconstructing the formation of ethnic France, we can say that the fundamental basis of french ethnicity is certainly Gallic, but we must add a small "layer" of Romans and another of Franks. Now, assuming that the U152 also belonged, and above all, to the Gauls, it remains a great unknown:if in France it does not exceed 20% of frequencies, from those who bring down the remaining 80% of the population (we take a 15/20% compounded from Roman and Germanic Franks)?

    PS: We know with near certainty that in the fourth century AD in Gaul there were 6 million people, of which only 500,000 came from Italy, and also 180,000 "foederati" Germans settled in the eastern part of the country.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Dorianfinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-08-11
    Location
    Milos
    Posts
    431
    Points
    7,739
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,739, Level: 26
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 411
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-U152 L2*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2

    Ethnic group
    Hellene
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Etrusco-romano View Post
    Thanks for the welcome, I'm happy to talk with a brother greek "Italians and Greeks: one face one race" :)

    You're right when you say the word "Roman" is more cultural than ethnic, but I want to say that Rome, seen as the city, was populated by free citizens from all Italy, the "real" Romans "real" were the Italics, Etruscans, Venets, Ligurians and so on .... The term "Roman", from the age of Augustus, went to enclose the Italian population, because, even in the late empire, there was always a certain amount of distrust (and racism) towards those "Roman" beyond the Alps.
    The original Roman people consisted of three tribal confederations according to the early Romans. The Senate was composed of 300 Senators, with 100 Senators representing each of the three ancient confederations of Rome: the Ramnes or Latin tribes, Tities or Sabine tribes (Greeks), and the Luceres or Etruscan tribes. Within each tribe, a Senator was selected from each of the tribe's ten curiae. The king had the sole authority to appoint the Senators, but this selection was done in accordance with ancient custom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Kingdom

  11. #11
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    6,559
    Points
    334,876
    Level
    100
    Points: 334,876, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 19.0%


    Ethnic group
    Celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Good timing for starting this discussion; I was also about to bring up a new argument in favour of an Italic origin for U152/S28.

    First of all, welcome to the forum, Etrusco-romano. I have long argued that R1b-S28 was an Italo-Celtic marker, not an exclusively La Tène/Hallstatt Celtic or Gaulish one, nor only an Italic or Roman one. However today I wish to give more support in favour of the Italic origin.

    I agree with you that the presence of S28 at low frequencies in such places as North Africa, Iberia, Greece or the Levant, and the strong incidence in Corsica and most of Italy is undeniably Italic or "Roman" in origin. I always believed though, that the Hallstatt and La Tène people were closely related to the Italic people, and that R1b-S28 split in two groups around the Alps : north the Hallstatt group, and south the Italic group.

    But when I had a look at the K=12 admixtures from the Dodecad Project, I realised that R1b-S28 correlated better with the Mediterranean element, while other varieties of R1b constantly fitted in West European (alongside I1 and I2b). In other words, Germanic and Celtic haplogroups correspond to West European autosomal DNA, but the Italic R1b-S28 is Mediterranean, probably because a small number of Proto-Italic men carrying the S28 lineage blended early with the Neolithic population of Italy (just like the R1b-M153 carriers blended within the Basques population). I like to think that polygamy predominated among the Indo-European invaders, and that they took mostly local wives, so that R1b thrived as a lineage, but was absorbed by local autosomes in many places, especially in the more densely populated south of Europe.

    Here is some data from the Dodecad Project.

    North Italians (average of Dodecad and HGDP members)

    - 4% East European correspond to 3.5% R1a.
    - 12% of West Asian correspond to 14% of J2 + G2a.
    - 2% of Southwest Asian correspond to 0.5% J1 + some T (1.5% out of 4.5%)
    - 33% of West European correspond to 25% of non-S28 R1b + 8.5% of I1 and I2b.
    - 47% of Mediterranean correspond to 26% of R1b-S28 + 4% of R1b ht35 + 2.5% of I2a + 11.5% of E1b1b + the leftover 3% of T and 2% of J2/G2a.

    South Italians

    - 3% East European correspond to 2.5% R1a.
    - 26% of West Asian correspond to 32% of J2 + G2a.
    - 8.5% of Southwest Asian correspond to 5% J1 + some T (3.5% out of 5%)
    - 12% of West European correspond to 7% of R1b (excluding S28 and ht35) + 5% of I1 and I2b.
    - 47% of Mediterranean correspond to 11% of R1b-S28 + 11% of R1b ht35 + 2.5% of I2a + 18% of E1b1b + the leftover 1.5% of T and 6% of J2/G2a.

    French

    - 4% East European correspond to 2.5% R1a.
    - 7% of West Asian correspond to 12% of J2 + G2a.
    - 2% of Southwest Asian correspond to 1% J1 + 1% T
    - 52% of West European correspond to roughly 40% of non-S28 R1b + 13.5% of I1 and I2b.
    - 34% of Mediterranean correspond to 20% of Mediterranean R1b (S28, M153, M167, ht35) + 2% of I2a + 7% of E1b1b + the 5% leftover of J2/G2a.


    The only way to make any reasonable link between haplogroup frequencies and autosomal admixture is to consider R1b-S28 as Mediterranean. I had already analysed the admixture data for many countries and it was obvious that there was an extremely strong correlation between :

    - R1a and East European
    - J2+G2a and West Asian
    - J1 (+ some T) and Southwest Asian

    It was obvious that the Mediterranean element included I2a and E-V13, but not just that. Likewise, it was obvious that West European meant R1b + I1 + I2b (+ most N1c1), but the West European element was higher than R1b +I1 + I2b in Latin countries and Germany, but not in the British Isles or Scandinavia. By removing S28 from West European and placing it in Mediterranean, it already looks much better. I think it is also the case for the Iberian R1b-M153 and R1b-M167.

    Naturally, if all S28 is Mediterranean, it makes it much less likely to be a Celtic (Gaulish or Hallstatt) marker, and much more likely to be an Italian/Roman one.

    This explains why Belgians (according to the data I collected from 7 people) have 10% more Mediterranean and 10% less West European than the Dutch, even though their total of R1b+I1+I2b is so to day identical (78%). The reason is that Belgians have about 10% more S28 than the Dutch (approximately 15% against 4%). I have also noticed that the Flemings have in average 7% less Mediterranean than the Walloons, and so it is for S28, although the total proportion of R1b is the same.

    This is why I now believe that S28 could really be an Italic, Roman or Italian marker, instead of a Gaulish or Hallstatt Celtic one. The only other explanation would be that Hallstatt Celts had a much higher Mediterranean admixture than other Celts. This is also possible since the Alpine region has a high incidence of Near Eastern haplogroups like Italy.
    Last edited by Maciamo; 02-09-11 at 17:35.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points
    Etrusco-romano's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-11
    Location
    Rome
    Posts
    82


    Ethnic group
    Roman, Etruscan, Italic, Italiot
    Country: Italy



    Yes but from the third century BC, the Roman conquests in Etruria, central and southern Italy, there was an amazing influx of Italics in the city of Roma, initially rejected (and even expelled from the city), but then built and incorporated. After the Social War, then, a Latin writer (perhaps Cicero, i don't remember very well) commented that the integration of Italy in Rome, "it became impossible to distinguish, at home or abroad, an Roman merchant from a Italic merchant". The concept of "Rome" had evolved to encompass the whole of Italy.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points
    Etrusco-romano's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-11
    Location
    Rome
    Posts
    82


    Ethnic group
    Roman, Etruscan, Italic, Italiot
    Country: Italy



    Thanks for the welcome Maciamo, glad to know that the subject matter is dear to you :)
    I agree with you: the high prevalence in Italy dell'U152 can not be associated to the Gauls, and therefore it is plausible that this marker is Gaul/Italic, and not only Gaul.
    It then spread into the territories to the south of Italy (North Africa, for example) is, in my opinion, to be credited to the Roman veterans settled there.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Dorianfinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-08-11
    Location
    Milos
    Posts
    431
    Points
    7,739
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,739, Level: 26
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 411
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-U152 L2*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2

    Ethnic group
    Hellene
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Etrusco-romano View Post
    Yes but from the third century BC, the Roman conquests in Etruria, central and southern Italy, there was an amazing influx of Italics in the city of Roma, initially rejected (and even expelled from the city), but then built and incorporated. After the Social War, then, a Latin writer (perhaps Cicero, i don't remember very well) commented that the integration of Italy in Rome, "it became impossible to distinguish, at home or abroad, an Roman merchant from a Italic merchant". The concept of "Rome" had evolved to encompass the whole of Italy.
    There was a difference as ancient Roman society was ruled by the curiae and patriciate. The plebeians were not in charge but were related to the original tribes as they made up the landed gentry who owned the countryside. The rest of Rome were always on the outside looking in. There were instances where generals became politicians but they were mostly from the outer provinces such as Dalmatia, Iberia and Gaul. The introduction of Italic peoples did not change the ruling class and landed gentry who ruled even in the Eastern Roman Empire, probably leaving Rome due to the Italic people's taste for revolution against the ruling aristocracy.

  15. #15
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,021
    Points
    15,304
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,304, Level: 37
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 346
    Overall activity: 24.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Etrusco-romano View Post
    You're right, in my translation I misused the term "Celts" Because even Among Them Were there huge differences.
    However, we can historically reconstructing the formation of ethnic France, we can say that the fundamental basis of french ethnicity is certainly Gallic, but we must add a small "layer" of Romans and another of Franks. Now, assuming that the U152 also belonged, and above all, to the Gauls, it remains a great unknown:if in France it does not exceed 20% of frequencies, from those who bring down the remaining 80% of the population (we take a 15/20% compounded from Roman and Germanic Franks)?

    PS: We know with near certainty that in the fourth century AD in Gaul there were 6 million people, of which only 500,000 came from Italy, and also 180,000 "foederati" Germans settled in the eastern part of the country.
    Well, you have to consider that the pre-Roman population was not 100% R1b-U152. It's totally unreasonable to assume that. If you look at the total distribution today, this gets clear:

    R1b - 61%, which then boils down into U152 (Italic / Alpine Celtic), L21 (Insular Celtic), U106 (Germanic) as well as other R1b (Basque R1b, in particular).

    But, if you look at the other Haplogroups (that account for the remaining 40%):

    R1a - 2.5%, which is of both Germanic and Alpine Celtic origin.

    I1 - 9.5% - presumably Germanic origin, even though there might be some Celtic or Pre-Celtic I1 as well that predate the Migration Period by many centuries.

    I2b - 4% - same as I1.

    G - 5% - present in France since the Neolithic (ie, obviously Pre-Celtic by a long time).

    I2a - 2% - also Neolithic.

    J2 - 7% - might be of Roman origin, but might also be older
    E1b1b - 7% - might be of Roman origin, but might also be older

    So, summarizing things:

    7% Neolithic
    16% Ambigously Germanic or older.
    14% Ambigously Roman or older.

    So, pre-Roman Gaul certainly had R1b-L21, R1b-U152, some R1a, G and I2a.
    It additionally might have had some I1, I2b, and possibly some J2, J1 and E1b1b.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points
    Etrusco-romano's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-11
    Location
    Rome
    Posts
    82


    Ethnic group
    Roman, Etruscan, Italic, Italiot
    Country: Italy



    @ Dorianfinder

    There are conflicting rumors about. Immediately after the death of Augustus, the Senate had for most of Etruscan origin senators, equites of Campania elected senators and scions of wealthy merchant families Piceno. Senators' non-Italians "were allowed (not without problems: there were even fights in the Senate during the dibattitto on the issue) from the fourth century AD
    To see the republicans Sillian and later augustean census we can say that from the first century BC to the first century AD the Roman (i mean city of Rome) population increased by 1 / 3, with immigrants coming mainly from the 'Etruria, who wanted to see her sons merchants, senators and Politicians in Rome). Approximation We Can Say That in the first century AD Perhaps 15% of the population of Rome was a direct descendant of the old Roman tribes.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Dorianfinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-08-11
    Location
    Milos
    Posts
    431
    Points
    7,739
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,739, Level: 26
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 411
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-U152 L2*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2

    Ethnic group
    Hellene
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Etrusco-romano View Post
    @ Dorianfinder

    There are conflicting rumors about. Immediately after the death of Augustus, the Senate had for most of Etruscan origin senators, equites of Campania elected senators and scions of wealthy merchant families Piceno. Senators' non-Italians "were allowed (not without problems: there were even fights in the Senate during the dibattitto on the issue) from the fourth century AD
    To see the republicans Sillian and later augustean census we can say that from the first century BC to the first century AD the Roman (i mean city of Rome) population increased by 1 / 3, with immigrants coming mainly from the 'Etruria, who wanted to see her sons merchants, senators and Politicians in Rome). Approximation We Can Say That in the first century AD Perhaps 15% of the population of Rome was a direct descendant of the old Roman tribes.
    This is a specialized issue, if we assume then that 15% of the old Roman class remained circa 1st century AD, then we should find less Roman patricians from the gens of the original Roman gentes. I can list them if you want and you will see that the figure does not change, in fact the Etruscan patrician families became less, they almost dissipated altogether before the formation of the Eastern Roman Empire. I have managed to find about ten senatorial families from ancient Rome who moved to Byzantium and carried a Greek form of their gens nomina as well as their original Roman nomina gentes.

    A couple of these families were in the consiglio maggiore Veneziane and were part of the Venetian Senate as well as the Byzantine Senate in Constantinople. Old Venetian houses that belong to this class include Cornaro (gens Cornelii) and Orsini to name but two. A number of Roman patriciate families simply changed their names or moved directly to Venice or the French-Burgundian courts. Other Roman patriciate families in Venice include the Valerii, Veturii, Marcello and Marchetti. Most other famous Venetian names such as Balbi and Crespo were originally from the Roman aristocratic class of patricians.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points
    Etrusco-romano's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-11
    Location
    Rome
    Posts
    82


    Ethnic group
    Roman, Etruscan, Italic, Italiot
    Country: Italy



    "Adoptio" is the answer. In the Republican era, when the Romans founded a colony generally assigned it to a "tribe" or, rather, to a family, from which, very often, the new settlers (or natives) took the surname. I'll take an example: my mother is come for half from Naples and her surname is "Vitiello," a word that comes from the Latin "Vitellius"; according to various historical research on the study of Italian surnames, the Latin name "Vitellius" was given as a surname all the soldiers who, during the civil war, fought for the Emperor Vitellius. So my mother has a surname of an old noble Roman family, but by no means follows from it.

    If you are looking for some good data conducted by the Department of Ancient History of the University La Sapienza, Roma Tre, Bologna and Florence, I can tell you where you can find this data:
    Jean David-Michel: "The Romanization of Italy"
    Beloch (one of the leading German scholars of classical demography): "The population of the Greek-Roman world."

    Anyway, i meant 15% of the total population of Rome, not only of the senatorial class

  19. #19
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Dorianfinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-08-11
    Location
    Milos
    Posts
    431
    Points
    7,739
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,739, Level: 26
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 411
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-U152 L2*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2

    Ethnic group
    Hellene
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Etrusco-romano View Post
    "Adoptio" is the answer. In the Republican era, when the Romans founded a colony generally assigned it to a "tribe" or, rather, to a family, from which, very often, the new settlers (or natives) took the surname. I'll take an example: my mother is come for half from Naples and she's surname is"Vitiello," a word that comes from the Latin "Vitellius"; according to various historical research on the study of Italian surnames, the Latin name "Vitellius" was given as a surname all the soldiers who, during the civil war, fought for the Emperor Vitellius. So my mother has a surname of an old noble Roman family, but by no means follows from it.

    If you are looking for some good data conducted by the Department of Ancient History of the University La Sapienza, Roma Tre, Bologna and Florence, I can tell you where you can find this data:
    Jean David-Michel: "The Romanization of Italy"
    Beloch (one of the leading German scholars of classical demography): "The population of the Greek-Roman world."

    Anyway, i meant 15% of the total population of Rome, not only of the senatorial class
    The 'Adoptio' was used within the Republican period, it lasted a few hundred years at most and don't forget that the names given to unrelated persons were almost without exception praenomen not the cognomen or nomen gentile. The nomen gentile or name of the gens was never given as part of the 'Adoptio' as this would contravene the tradition of the patriciate. I actually don't know of one case even when an emperor adopted another emperor where the cognomen or nomen gentile was ever given. Remember I am referring to the aristocracy where they did not approve of intermarriage with the ignoble classes. It is a fairy tale that important families would give their servants or non-relatives their cognomen and gentilicium. These were passports and guarded very closely.

    If it was as you say then Italy and Greece would have many surnames that can be traced to an important family. This is simply untrue.

    Poor families often asked a noble to baptize their children, this practice was widespread in Italy and Greece. Soldiers often had the honor of having their children baptized by a commanding officer or important dignitary following success on the battlefield. No surnames were ever given or anything to that effect.

  20. #20
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,021
    Points
    15,304
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,304, Level: 37
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 346
    Overall activity: 24.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    This is why I now believe that S28 could really be an Italic, Roman or Italian marker, instead of a Gaulish or Hallstatt Celtic one. The only other explanation would be that Hallstatt Celts had a much higher Mediterranean admixture than other Celts. This is also possible since the Alpine region has a high incidence of Near Eastern haplogroups like Italy.
    Maciamo: the problem I really have with the exclusively Italian/Roman interpretation is really the high levels of U152 / S28 in Poland and more generally central-eastern Europe, which do not match the extend of the Roman Empire. Granted, the German settlement during the Medieval Ages would explain Polish U152, but only if there were sizable quantities of U152 already in Germany before, which I don't quite see how that could have happened from the background that the Romans occupied only small parts of modern-day Germany (ie, left-bank Rhineland and southern Germany south of the Danube). There is also the additionally component that most of the Roman towns along the Rhine were looted/sacked by the Huns, so it is likely that a large quantity of the Roman population would have been killed. The only way that I see how there could be sufficient quantities of U152 in Germany at that point is that it was there from earlier, ie from the Celtic population in what is today southern and western Germany which got absorbed in the 2nd century BC to 1st century AD as the Germanic tribes migrated southwards.

    My favourite alternative is that most Polish U152 stems from the Lusatian Culture, which would pinpoint to the Urnfield Culture as the common original source of U152. Urnfield might also explain Italian U152.

    There is also the issue of U152 in the British Isles, which would seem to be way too high of a concentration if it was just from Roman sources, especially in Scotland, and it seems much more likely that it stems from the Hallstatt and La-Tene Celts. Consider that this also matches very well linguistically, specifically the commonalities of Gaulish with Brythonic.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points
    Etrusco-romano's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-11
    Location
    Rome
    Posts
    82


    Ethnic group
    Roman, Etruscan, Italic, Italiot
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Dorianfinder View Post
    The 'Adoptio' was used within the Republican period, it lasted a few hundred years at most and don't forget that the names given to unrelated persons were almost without exception praenomen not the cognomen or nomen gentile. The nomen gentile or name of the gens was never given as part of the 'Adoptio' as this would contravene the tradition of the patriciate. I actually don't know of one case even when an emperor adopted another emperor where the cognomen or nomen gentile was ever given. Remember I am referring to the aristocracy where they did not approve of intermarriage with the ignoble classes. It is a fairy tale that important families would give their servants or non-relatives their cognomen and gentilicium. These were passports and guarded very closely.

    If it was as you say then Italy and Greece would have many surnames that can be traced to an important family. This is simply untrue.

    Poor families often asked a noble to baptize their children, this practice was widespread in Italy and Greece. Soldiers often had the honor of having their children baptized by a commanding officer or important dignitary following success on the battlefield. No surnames were ever given or anything to that effect.
    I'm talking about a surnames in Italy, maximum in Gaul and Iberia, but not in Greece, where the Romans rather than to incorporate the Hellenic world stabilize it with them. And you say right, the adoptive was used in Republican age, when it was unified Italy.

    I carry (not exatly, i must to find the text) a speech which Marcus Aurelius in response to complaints (even a fight between senators) expressed by the senatorial class for the Emperor's decision to appoint some members of the ruling class Roman-Gallic senators: "We were not perhaps at the same point centuries ago, even before the Empire (principato), even before Caesar, when, in this same hall, your honorable and ancient ancestors revolted against generals and tribunes for the senatorial appointment of your "fathers" Etruscans and Sabines (the term Sabine we also wanted to understand the Italics)? "

    Survived many Roman families of ancient lineage, of course, but most of the Senate, in imperial times, was composed of Italic-Etruscan nobility, my same last name, Cecchi, comes from a family-Roman Etruscan civilization, the Caecina.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points
    Etrusco-romano's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-11
    Location
    Rome
    Posts
    82


    Ethnic group
    Roman, Etruscan, Italic, Italiot
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Maciamo: the problem I really have with the exclusively Italian/Roman interpretation is really the high levels of U152 / S28 in Poland and more generally central-eastern Europe, which do not match the extend of the Roman Empire. Granted, the German settlement during the Medieval Ages would explain Polish U152, but only if there were sizable quantities of U152 already in Germany before, which I don't quite see how that could have happened from the background that the Romans occupied only small parts of modern-day Germany (ie, left-bank Rhineland and southern Germany south of the Danube). There is also the additionally component that most of the Roman towns along the Rhine were looted/sacked by the Huns, so it is likely that a large quantity of the Roman population would have been killed. The only way that I see how there could be sufficient quantities of U152 in Germany at that point is that it was there from earlier, ie from the Celtic population in what is today southern and western Germany which got absorbed in the 2nd century BC to 1st century AD as the Germanic tribes migrated southwards.

    My favourite alternative is that most Polish U152 stems from the Lusatian Culture, which would pinpoint to the Urnfield Culture as the common original source of U152. Urnfield might also explain Italian U152.

    There is also the issue of U152 in the British Isles, which would seem to be way too high of a concentration if it was just from Roman sources, especially in Scotland, and it seems much more likely that it stems from the Hallstatt and La-Tene Celts. Consider that this also matches very well linguistically, specifically the commonalities of Gaulish with Brythonic.
    I think it's not so high frequency in Germany and Poland, not to justify native origin of the U152 i think. Anyway the culture of Urnfield not arrive in Corsica, Sardinia and south Italy, so we can not explain the diffusion of U152 in this places with this teory.

  23. #23
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,021
    Points
    15,304
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,304, Level: 37
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 346
    Overall activity: 24.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Etrusco-romano View Post
    I think it's not so high frequency in Germany and Poland, not to justify native origin of the U152 i think.
    Honestly, I don't think that the high concentrations in northern Italy can be explained exclusively from Italic origin, either. I think that the cummulative effect of several factors might be at work here.

    You also have to consider later history: it's possible that U152 was more common north of the Alps 2000 years ago, and that the Migrations Period (especially the Slavic and Germanic migrations) triggered U152 to be much rarer than it used to be. This may also explain the low frequency of U152 in Austria: Maciamo pointed out that the low concentration of U152 in Austria correlates with a high concentration of U106, which suggests a large-scale immigration. This is also what we see linguistically: if Austria was still majorly descended from a Celtic population, the Austrians would certainly today speak a Romance language. The fact that they are German(ic) suggests some kind of large scale immigration during the migration period.

    Anyway the culture of Urnfield not arrive in Corsica, Sardinia and south Italy, so we can not explain the diffusion of U152 in this places with this teory.
    Well, consider later history. I know that Corsica in particular did expirience fairly large-scale immigration at a later point.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points
    Etrusco-romano's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-11
    Location
    Rome
    Posts
    82


    Ethnic group
    Roman, Etruscan, Italic, Italiot
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Honestly, I don't think that the high concentrations in northern Italy can be explained exclusively from Italic origin, either. I think that the cummulative effect of several factors might be at work here.

    You also have to consider later history: it's possible that U152 was more common north of the Alps 2000 years ago, and that the Migrations Period (especially the Slavic and Germanic migrations) triggered U152 to be much rarer than it used to be. This may also explain the low frequency of U152 in Austria: Maciamo pointed out that the low concentration of U152 in Austria correlates with a high concentration of U106, which suggests a large-scale immigration. This is also what we see linguistically: if Austria was still majorly descended from a Celtic population, the Austrians would certainly today speak a Romance language. The fact that they are German(ic) suggests some kind of large scale immigration during the migration period.



    Well, consider later history. I know that Corsica in particular did expirience fairly large-scale immigration at a later point.

    The question of the barbarian invasions in Italy was, especially after the second post-war period, much emphasized, too say. To date, the scientific community, with the help of genetic fact, is precisely fundamentally rethinking their positions. Migration in Italy, will not have been after the gaul migration in the first millennium BC; the Goths and Lombards were a very small minority (about 210,000 are believed in all, on an Italian population of about 8-9 million people) who fought each other them up to the almost total "extinction", so may be we can exclude the "austrian possibility for the U152" (but, with the Germanic invasions, there was, in fact, a Romanized Germanic-Celtic people who flee to Italy from Austria/Bavaria, They Are colled "Ladins", and they actualy live in the Veneto, but they are like 40,000 or 50,000 people T, not more). I honestly do not think the U152 is penentrati in Italy at a later time in Rome, but I think that, especially in Northern Italy, they are the result of a union between a few roosters remained alive after the extermination of the Roman and Italic settlers there have appeared.


    However, the most significant migrations occurred in Corsica in a period between the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and they were conducted primarily from Pisa and Genoa, but, just as I said before, they left small traces, for example where the Ligurian settlers are established has remained a particular dialect (dialect of Ligurian colonial bonifacino).

  25. #25
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,021
    Points
    15,304
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,304, Level: 37
    Level completed: 57%, Points required for next Level: 346
    Overall activity: 24.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Etrusco-romano View Post
    The question of the barbarian invasions in Italy was, especially after the second post-war period, much emphasized, too say. To date, the scientific community, with the help of genetic fact, is precisely fundamentally rethinking their positions. Migration in Italy, will not have been after the gaul migration in the first millennium BC; the Goths and Lombards were a very small minority (about 210,000 are believed in all, on an Italian population of about 8-9 million people) who fought each other them up to the almost total "extinction", so may be we can exclude the "austrian possibility for the U152" (but, with the Germanic invasions, there was, in fact, a Romanized Germanic-Celtic people who flee to Italy from Austria/Bavaria, They Are colled "Ladins", and they actualy live in the Veneto, but they are like 40,000 or 50,000 people T, not more). I honestly do not think the U152 is penentrati in Italy at a later time in Rome, but I think that, especially in Northern Italy, they are the result of a union between a few roosters remained alive after the extermination of the Roman and Italic settlers there have appeared.


    However, the most significant migrations occurred in Corsica in a period between the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and they were conducted primarily from Pisa and Genoa, but, just as I said before, they left small traces, for example where the Ligurian settlers are established has remained a particular dialect (dialect of Ligurian colonial bonifacino).
    The Goths and Lombards would have been unlikely candidates for spreading U152 since their areas of origin before the migration (modern-day western Ukraine with the former, and northern Germany with the latter). I personally think that Italian U106 has a much better likelihood of being of Lombardic origin.

    I was thinking about this (ust for northern Italy):

    1) the pre-Etruscan population of northern Italy might have been high in U152.
    2) the Celts (I'm avoiding "Gauls" because it's clear that not all of the "Cisalpine Gauls" were originally from Gaul) who migrated into Italy in the 6th through 4th century BC would have been also carrier of it.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 85
    Last Post: 15-09-14, 02:07
  2. R1b-U152/S28 : more Gaulish or Roman ?
    By Maciamo in forum R1b
    Replies: 184
    Last Post: 03-07-14, 23:35
  3. Haplogroup G and italic people
    By spongetaro in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17-05-11, 19:43
  4. Research Methods
    By jkummer in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 29-01-11, 20:32
  5. Kilauea ignites new research
    By Hachiko in forum World News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16-08-04, 17:29

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •