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

[Taranis]

a lot of internet sites have the boii originating on the modern french - german border and splitting, on e going to italy the other to bohemia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boii

Yes, but there is no evidence for the Boii ever being in the Alsatian area. You also have to take archaeology into account (especially the fact that the Italian Boii, just like the Bohemian Boii, practiced inhumation and not cremation). It's far more logical to assume that Bohemia (you even have it in the name "Boiohaemum" - "Boii Home") was their original homeland.

 

[Etrusco-romano]

you do understand that the isobar of the romance language which seperates western romance from eastern romances languages in an ancient divide from the time of the iron age ( celtic migration )
This divide is called the La Spezia - Rimini line

There is no line between North and South Italy. An Italian of the south can perfectly understand a person who speaks in the Venetian or Lombard dialect, so there is not big difference. You are taliking about "accademic line".

 

[Taranis]

There is no line between North and South Italy. An Italian of the south can perfectly understand a person who speaks in the Venetian or Lombard dialect, so there is not big difference. You are taliking about "accademic line".

You might call it an "academic line", but so is for instance the Benrath Line. It has actually nothing (or very little) to do with mutual understandability, but with common sound laws found in the western Romance languages and in northern Italian dialects which are absent in southern Italian dialects (as well as Romanian). There is certainly a correlation between the innovations found in these languages/dialects, and the fact that Celtic languages used to be spoken in these areas.It is certainly tempting, but by no means necessary, that these innovations derive from the common Celtic substrate. At the flip side, a number of non-Celtic languages were also spoken in much of these areas (in particular Lusitanian and Iberian in Iberia).

 

[Dorianfinder]

I have already explained a few weeks ago that italy in the bronze age was comprised in the north of all ligurian tribes, the alps was mostly raeti tribes from the swiss to the adriatic sea.
The ligurians where basically from modern marsellie to trieste.
Around about 800-900 BC the etruscans came from the sea and landed in southern part of etruria. Veii became the capital.
Over time they moved south to create Rome ( the tiber river was called Tuscas Amnis ) and they also moved north.
When moving north they pushed into Ligurian tribes in Lombardy and came in contact in the lower alps with the raeti. around 650BC they came in contact with the Veneti and trade was established with them in a town called Cologna Veneta , south of Verona.
Early on the etruscans where seafarers and where allied with the carthagians and there combined navies tried to wreck Greek fleets and the greek wine industry. They even kicked the greeks out of Corsica.
Around the time of the pelopennisan wars, they stopped being seafarers.

approx 550BC the gallic-celts came down from the alps and pushed the etruscans out of lombardia and also Romagna.

Since there ( etruscan ) DNA was confirmed in mid 2010, it shows no U152 but does show J2a4h2. studies from 2010 by myers and capriani will enforce this further.

On U152, If it was Italian ( I think the ligurians are not really classified italian in the ancient times ) was Ligurian with maybe some gallic influences. its the only explanation for it to be carried around western europe with ease.

Okay, so you admit U152 was carried by various invasions into Italy. The Ligurian U152 theory of yours is problematic if you claim it as a pure community and don't take into consideration that the region was under Greek influence too. I agree in part with what you said regarding the Etruscans and the introduction of Gallic-Celts who carried U152. The region of Marseille and as a consequence Liguria were heavily influenced by Greek colonization. I don't think anybody really knows when the Etruscans settled in Italy for the first time though.

 

[Taranis]

Okay, so you admit U152 was carried by various invasions into Italy. The Ligurian U152 theory of yours is problematic if you claim it as a pure community and don't take into consideration that the region was under Greek influence too. I agree in part with what you said regarding the Etruscans and the introduction of Gallic-Celts who carried U152. The region of Marseille and as a consequence Liguria were heavily influenced by Greek colonization. I don't think anybody really knows when the Etruscans settled in Italy for the first time though.

The Ligurians represent quite a bit of a problem. Some people consider them to be non-Indo-European, but evidence for this is scanty. Others consider them to be Celtic, but there is the danger of circular reasoning because the Ligurians were clearly Celtic-influences: if you say that all Celtic naming influence with the Ligurians was foreign, then it stands to reason they were a non-Celtic people. If you say that the naming influence was indigenous, then it stands to reason that they spoke a language akin to Celtic. The big problem with the Ligurian language is that we have only onomastics (place names, etc.), and no Ligurian inscriptions.

If however the Ligurians were speakers of an "Italo-Celtic" language (in the wider sense, just like Lusitanian or Venetic), and if R1b-U152 is both Italic and Alpine Celtic, then it's certainly likely that the Ligurians too were to a considerable degree carriers of U152. However, I admit that these are two big "ifs".

Regarding Greek influence on the Ligurians, this was without a doubt also the case. In fact, the Greeks probably had contact with the Ligurians before they had contacts with the Celts.

 

[Dorianfinder]

The Ligurians represent quite a bit of a problem. Some people consider them to be non-Indo-European, but evidence for this is scanty. Others consider them to be Celtic, but there is the danger of circular reasoning because the Ligurians were clearly Celtic-influences: if you say that all Celtic naming influence with the Ligurians was foreign, then it stands to reason they were a non-Celtic people. If you say that the naming influence was indigenous, then it stands to reason that they spoke a language akin to Celtic. The big problem with the Ligurian language is that we have only onomastics (place names, etc.), and no Ligurian inscriptions.

If however the Ligurians were speakers of an "Italo-Celtic" language (in the wider sense, just like Lusitanian or Venetic), and if R1b-U152 is both Italic and Alpine Celtic, then it's certainly likely that the Ligurians too were to a considerable degree carriers of U152. However, I admit that these are two big "ifs".

Regarding Greek influence on the Ligurians, this was without a doubt also the case. In fact, the Greeks probably had contact with the Ligurians before they had contacts with the Celts.

I would think the composition of the Ligurians were initially less Celtic and more influenced by settlers who came from the coast, possibly more Eastern Med. types. Later however the Ligurians would probably have become more Celtic with increased migrations through their territory by the Northern tribes. Also we should consider the name Cisalpine Gaul and the population flow to and from the region of Provence (Nice, Marseille) where U152 is not as strong as in other regions.

 

[Sile]

If linguistics played any part in this topic, then this link seems interesting

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...eti&hl=en#v=onepage&q=ligurian veneti&f=false

Handy if somone could colour that map.

In the link below , tanaris might find some association with these languages

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...&dq=ligurian+veneti&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

I guess languages might not change that much in 2000 years, example
To take in venetian is Tore ( present day) , Torla ( 14th century ) Toral ( 5th century)
so link above might be handy to see if any celtic/gallic words are associted with the post. maybe the piedmonte one would be the best

 

[Taranis]

If linguistics played any part in this topic, then this link seems interesting

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...eti&hl=en#v=onepage&q=ligurian veneti&f=false

Handy if somone could colour that map.

Truth be told, that map is completely inaccurate, especially for the Atlantic region. The situation on the Iberian penninsula looked vastly different. This map is much better:

In the link below , tanaris might find some association with these languages

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...&dq=ligurian+veneti&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

I guess languages might not change that much in 2000 years, example
To take in venetian is Tore ( present day) , Torla ( 14th century ) Toral ( 5th century)
so link above might be handy to see if any celtic/gallic words are associted with the post. maybe the piedmonte one would be the best

The only word in that list that strikes me as likely Celtic in etymology from that list is "Toc" (piece).

Interestingly, the standard Italian word for apple ("mela") is a cognate with the Greek word for apple ("melo"). In contrast, the northern Italic dialects have preserved the Latin word for apple ("pomum").

 

[spongetaro]

The Ligurians represent quite a bit of a problem. Some people consider them to be non-Indo-European, but evidence for this is scanty. Others consider them to be Celtic, but there is the danger of circular reasoning because the Ligurians were clearly Celtic-influences: if you say that all Celtic naming influence with the Ligurians was foreign, then it stands to reason they were a non-Celtic people. If you say that the naming influence was indigenous, then it stands to reason that they spoke a language akin to Celtic. The big problem with the Ligurian language is that we have only onomastics (place names, etc.), and no Ligurian inscriptions.

If however the Ligurians were speakers of an "Italo-Celtic" language (in the wider sense, just like Lusitanian or Venetic), and if R1b-U152 is both Italic and Alpine Celtic, then it's certainly likely that the Ligurians too were to a considerable degree carriers of U152. However, I admit that these are two big "ifs".

Regarding Greek influence on the Ligurians, this was without a doubt also the case. In fact, the Greeks probably had contact with the Ligurians before they had contacts with the Celts.

The Ligurians are derived from Rhone and Polada cultures. Those two culture are famous for the petroglyphs they made at the "Vallée des Merveilles" in the Alpes. According to Bernard Sergent, they branched away from Unetice culture at the begining of the second millenium BC. So Ligurian and Celtic cultures have common ancestor in the bronze age Unetice culture. According to him, Ligurian names have similarities with both Italic and Celtic languages but more with the latter.

According to ancient author, Ligurians were also in the Italian Peninsula. The Terramares culture is actually an evolution of the Polada culture

 

[bertrand]

Hello,
Can someone give me the distribution of U152 in Switzerland and Germany?
I suspect the high concentration in switzerland is around Bern and Zurich and in Germany around Mainz and Frankfurt...
I'm trying to study the Franks versus Alamans mix
Can someone confirm?
thanks

 

[Dorianfinder]

Hello Bertrand and welcome to the forum.

Hello,
Can someone give me the distribution of U152 in Switzerland and Germany?
I suspect the high concentration in switzerland is around Bern and Zurich and in Germany around Mainz and Frankfurt...
I'm trying to study the Franks versus Alamans mix
Can someone confirm?
thanks

The region with Zurich at its epicenter, also noted as North-Central Switzerland, exhibits consistently higher R1b-U152 levels in FTDNA projects and the database of Dr. David Faux. At present, Germany's R1b-U152 frequencies peak in the Southwest quadrant of the country with an additional peak in the Alsace region.

It is worthwhile noting that Germany has the highest variance for R1b-U152 to date (Myres et al. 2010).

It should also be mentioned that Germany has a sizable R1b-U152 frequency of 17.6% [n=102] (U152 Frequencies Worldwide August 2011 by Tibor Fehér). Note that Germany's turbulent history, its relatively large surface area, and its genetic diversity make a distribution of more than 15% rather significant.

 

[Taranis]

Regarding both the Franks and the Alemanni, I did speculate on the possibility of to what degree R1b-U152 could be Germanic. I had neglected this possibility a tad in the past, but there is a number of good reasons why and how this could have happened even if R1b-U152 was not originally Germanic:

In the 2nd through 1st centuries BC, the Celtic presence in Central Europe essentially collapsed. As the Roman Empire expanded it's borders to the Rhine and the Danube, so did the Germanic tribes migrate southwards to the Danube. This occured in the 1st century BC, meaning we have a time span of essentially 400 years until the Migrations Period in which what remained of Celtic presence north of the Danube was firmly absorbed by the Germanic tribes. From that perspective, it should be not surprising that Germanic tribes in 400 AD (at least those along the Rhine and the Danube) were to significant degrees carriers of U152.

On the other, hand British U152 is almost certainly NOT Germanic, due to the fact that R1b-U152 is exceedingly rare in the original Anglo-Saxon homelands in northern Germany and Jutland. It is far more plausible to assume that it is Hallstatt Celtic, La-Tene Celtic (Belgic) or Roman in origin, likely a combination of the three, even though I would put my weight more on the former two than on the latter.

 

[bertrand]

Thank you to both of you.
Yes I agree with you Taranis. In fact the term Germanic is ambiguous, because as you pointed out, the old territory of Germany included ancient celtic tribes (southern half) and Old "truly germanic" tribes (north).
In 58BC, Cesar defeated the Suevian/Swabian Ariovist, who scholars believe was a celt.
Later, with the push south of northern tribes, the Alamans entered further in Roman territory and reached a border fringe from perhaps Mainz, through Alsace, Bern and Zurich. It seems that this "outer rim", now has the largest amount of U152, which in my opinion shows that U152 was largely present among the celts, but not only.

Regarding the Franks on the other hand, the U152 component seems less prevalent in their historical territories, no?

 

[Dubhthach]

The supplementary data that was attached to recent report on R-M269 had the following U152 figures for Switzerland:


Switzerland Southcentral -- n = 32

• U152 = 34.4%
• U106 = 15.6%
• L21 = --/--
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 9.4%

Switzerland (Lower Rhone Valley) -- n = 51

• U152 = 15.7%
• U106 = 11.8%
• L21 = 2%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 7.8%

Switzerland Northeast -- n = 32

• U152 = 15.6%
• U106 = 18.8%
• L21 = 3.1%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 12.5%

Switzerland Northwest -- n = 27

• U152 = 22.2%
• U106 = 3.7%
• L21 = 7.4%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 18.5%

Switzerland (Upper Rhone Valley) -- n = 33

• U152 = 6.1%
• U106 = 12.1%
• L21 = --/--
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 6.1%

Neighbouring countries starting with Germany:

Germany South -- n = 91

• U152 = 8.8%
• U106 = 19.8%
• L21 = 2.2%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 9.9%

Germany West -- n = 100

• U152 = 14%
• U106 = 24%
• L21 = 1%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 10%

Germany North -- n = 64

• U152 = 6.3%
• U106 = 18.8%
• L21 = 3.1%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 3.1%

Germany East -- n = 47

• U152 = 8.5%
• U106 = 25.5%
• L21 = 2.1%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = --/--

Austria -- n = 18

• U152 = --/--
• U106 = 22.2%
• L21 = 5.6%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = --/--

East France -- n = 80

• U152 = 22.5%
• U106 = 15%
• L21 = 5%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 7.5%

Bouches Du Rhone (At Mouth) -- n = 207

• U152 = 16.9%
• U106 = 8.2%
• L21 = 6.3%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 32.4%

North France -- n = 68

• U152 = 17.6%
• U106 = 8.8%
• L21 = 10.3%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 17.6%

Italy North -- n = 124

• U152 = 26.6%
• U106 = 5.6%
• L21 = 0.8%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 4.8%

Central Italy -- n = 115

• U152 = 19.1%
• U106 = 2.6%
• L21 = 0.9%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 2.6%

South Italy -- n = 252

• U152 = 8.7%
• U106 = 2.8%
• L21 = 1.2%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 7.1%

 

[bertrand]

Thank you; i am trying to understand where is the hot spot in Switzerland. It seems that Maciamo had more precise data. Do you know where southcentral switzerland is?
Is it south of Luzern?
In the Italian speaking region of Switzerland? I was expecting more an area around Bern or Zurich.
Thanks

Bertrand

 

[Dubhthach]

Thank you; i am trying to understand where is the hot spot in Switzerland. It seems that Maciamo had more precise data. Do you know where southcentral switzerland is?
Is it south of Luzern?
In the Italian speaking region of Switzerland? I was expecting more an area around Bern or Zurich.
Thanks

Bertrand

Well the geographic cordinates they give are: 8.233 (E)  46.900 (N)

When I feed that into Google Earth it comes up beside Lake Sarnen in Obwalden, going on what I see on the map that's south of Luzern. 

 

[bertrand]

Thank you.
This seems a little odd;
I am not aware of any prehistoric culture particularly concentrated in this region. It is neither exactly a core territory of the celts, nor that of the alamans.
Perhaps a more precise study will shed better light on this issue.
thanks again for your help

 

[Taranis]

Thanks for posting this, Dubhthach.

What bugs me up with the list is Austria. There is not one sample of R1b-U152 or P312 w/o U152/L21. If you look at the data, we have only 18 samples total 4 of which are U106 and one which is L21. I think we seriously need more samples from Austria, because I suspect U152 and P312 outside of U152/L21 are more common in Austria. I mean, yes U106 is probably the most common, but I think 18 samples are just not representative.

 

[bertrand]

Yes very good point.
Actually by studying (zooming) the maps provided on u152.org (david Faux - all U152) I notice that there is a "hole" in the U152 distribution map including Southern Alsace, Bavaria, Austria and Czech republic. But you have higher concentration around this zone.
very odd...

 

[Dubhthach]

Thanks for posting this, Dubhthach.

What bugs me up with the list is Austria. There is not one sample of R1b-U152 or P312 w/o U152/L21. If you look at the data, we have only 18 samples total 4 of which are U106 and one which is L21. I think we seriously need more samples from Austria, because I suspect U152 and P312 outside of U152/L21 are more common in Austria. I mean, yes U106 is probably the most common, but I think 18 samples are just not representative.

Indeed personally I think the best sample size up there was "South Italy" at 252. As you can see L21 is fairly consistent at about 1% across Italy (North/Central/South)

Here are the figures for countries around Austria (Hungary, Slovenia, Czech, Slovakia, Croatia)

Hungary -- n = 113

• U152 = 3.5%
• U106 = 3.5%
• L21 = 0.9%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 4.4%

Slovenia -- n = 102

• U152 = 5.9%
• U106 = 3.9%
• L21 = --/--
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 2%

Czech Republic (2 Sets) -- n = 87

• U152 = 3.4%
• U106 = 5.7%
• L21 = 1.1%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 5.7%

Slovakia (2 Sets) -- n = 276

• U152 = 2.5%
• U106 = 4%
• L21 = 0.4%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 4.3%

Croatia -- n = 144

• U152 = 0.7%
• U106 = 0.7%
• L21 = --/--
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 0.7%

Croatia Mainland -- n = 108

• U152 = 6.5%
• U106 = 0.9%
• L21 = 1.9%
• P312 (ex L21/U152) = 0.9%