PDA

View Full Version : New map of R1b-S28 (U152)



Maciamo
09-08-11, 15:19
There was already a map of this haplogroup on U152.org (http://www.u152.org/), but I wasn't entirely satisfied by it as it sometimes conflicted with the data from Cruciani et al. (2010) and Myres et al. (2010), or with the frequencies for other haplogroups. Then, I thought it would be better to have a map at the same format as the others, using the Eupedia colours. So here it is.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif

Taranis
09-08-11, 15:32
Again, many thanks Maciamo. I promtly have a question: where exactly is that hotspot in northern Italy?

LeBrok
09-08-11, 16:56
Thanks Maciamo.
It will be really difficult to explain why U152 didn't spread into Scandinavia and Netherlands at all together with rest of R1bs.
Must be one of the youngest R1b hg?

If Romans were so rich in U152, they didn't do much input in Iberia, ha?

Taranis
09-08-11, 17:13
Thanks Maciamo.
It will be really difficult to explain why U152 didn't spread into Scandinavia and Netherlands at all together with rest of R1bs.
Must be one of the youngest R1b hg?

If Romans were so rich in U152, they didn't do much input in Iberia, ha?

You have a very good point about U152 in Iberia. I have my doubts as well that U152 is associated with the Romans.

- I have the hypothesis that U152 originated in Urnfield times, and spread later with the La-Tene culture. U152 clearly is linked with La-Tene, but not exclusively so.

- The Lusatian Culture, which in itself is an offshot of Urnfield, might be responsible for the spread of U152 in Poland. If this is the case, some of the later East Germanic peoples (Burgundians, Vandals) might be also carriers of U152. In particular, the Vandals would explain U152 in North Africa.

- One might speculated that U152 in Britain originated from the Anglo-Saxons, but if you look at the distribution of U152 in Belgium and in northern Germany (or rather, the absence of U152 in the Saxon homeland), it's far more likely that British U152 originated from the Belgic tribes that migrated into Britain.

Maciamo
09-08-11, 17:18
Again, many thanks Maciamo. I promtly have a question: where exactly is that hotspot in northern Italy?

In the Po valley in Emilia-Romagna, roughly between Milano and Bologna, where the frequency of R1b can exceed 70%, and at least 60% of it is S28.

Cambrius (The Red)
09-08-11, 17:30
Thanks Maciamo.
It will be really difficult to explain why U152 didn't spread into Scandinavia and Netherlands at all together with rest of R1bs.
Must be one of the youngest R1b hg?

If Romans were so rich in U152, they didn't do much input in Iberia, ha?

A great majority of "Romans" in Iberia were not from the Italian Peninsula but from other parts of the empire, including Slavic and North African lands. Apparently, this was also the case in the British Isles.

Maciamo
09-08-11, 17:30
Please reload the page. I have modified a bit the distribution in North Italy to match better the overall R1b frequency, and removed the hotspot in the Belgian province of Liège as it was based on a too small same size.

Cambrius (The Red)
09-08-11, 17:33
You have a very good point about U152 in Iberia. I have my doubts as well that U152 is associated with the Romans.

- I have the hypothesis that U152 originated in Urnfield times, and spread later with the La-Tene culture. U152 clearly is linked with La-Tene, but not exclusively so.

- The Lusitanian Culture, which in itself is an offshot of Urnfield, might be responsible for the spread of U152 in Poland. If this is the case, some of the later East Germanic peoples (Burgundians, Vandals) might be also carriers of U152. In particular, the Vandals would explain U152 in North Africa.

- One might speculated that U152 in Britain originated from the Anglo-Saxons, but if you look at the distribution of U152 in Belgium and in northern Germany (or rather, the absence of U152 in the Saxon homeland), it's far more likely that British U152 originated from the Belgic tribes that migrated into Britain.

Your comments on the Lusitanians and U152 are interesting. Would you have any references on this as regards U152 in Poland?

Vallicanus
09-08-11, 18:37
What is the explanation for the high frequency in northern Corsica?

Maciamo
09-08-11, 18:37
Personally, I think that R1b-S28's presence in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Scandinavia is simply due to the progressive movement of German people to these areas over the centuries. Except for Poland, which was heavily colonised by the Germans, other areas have a very low frequency of S28 (around 1% or max. 2%). After all, the Germans who settled in Poland came from various parts of Germany, not just from the border.

As for the S28 in Iberia, North Africa, Greece, Anatolia or the Balkans, it is quite evidently of Roman origin. I don't expect the Romans to have contributed to more than 10% of the modern lineages in conquered territories only reachable by sea (the Italian peninsula and Gaul are a different story). Among this maximum 10%, only about 20% of it (= 2% of the total) would have been R1b-S28, judging from the average frequency for Italy. That is exactly what we observe.

I really cannot see how Germanic tribes could have left up to 3 or 4% of R1b-S28 in Iberia but almost no R1b-S21, only traces of I2b and barely 1 to 3% of I1. The Romans had 500 years to leave some genes in Iberia. Vandals, Suebi and Visigoths had a smaller impact altogether, perhaps 5% of modern lineages, but divided between I1, I2b, R1a and R1b-S21. There might be occasionally one S28 of Germanic origin out of 10 or 20 in Iberia, but that's negligible.

Maciamo
09-08-11, 18:40
What is the explanation for the high frequency in northern Corsica?

Colonisation of the north of the island by people from North Italy. Corsica has a tiny population (300,000), so a founder effect among the settlers in the Bronze Age or Roman period would have pretty much that effect.

Taranis
09-08-11, 18:54
Your comments on the Lusitanians and U152 are interesting. Would you have any references on this as regards U152 in Poland?

Sorry, I really did a Freudian slip there. I was a tad in a hurry when I made this post earlier, but I actually meant "Lusatian Culture".

Taranis
09-08-11, 19:15
In the Po valley in Emilia-Romagna, roughly between Milano and Bologna, where the frequency of R1b can exceed 70%, and at least 60% of it is S28.

That is very interesting. I personally suspect that such a high frequency would have a combined cummulative source, rather one single origin.

- The Ligurians, as well as the pre-Etruscan population of Etruria (I noticed that the concentration in Tuscany is also very high) may have been carriers of U152 to a considerable degree.

- The Celts invaded northern Italy circa 4th century BC, and also settled considerably in this area, notably Milano (Mediolanum).

- Movements of slaves during the Roman period (I'm a bit doubftul on the real extend of this one, though).

Taranis
09-08-11, 19:34
Personally, I think that R1b-S28's presence in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Scandinavia is simply due to the progressive movement of German people to these areas over the centuries. Except for Poland, which was heavily colonised by the Germans, other areas have a very low frequency of S28 (around 1% or max. 2%). After all, the Germans who settled in Poland came from various parts of Germany, not just from the border.

The problem I have with the idea that U152 stems from German settlements is that it does not really match the historic pattern of German settlements. I also wonder if, U152 did indeed arrive, is the absence of U152 in former East Prussia the result of the removal of settlers from East Prussia.

The reason I came up with this is mainly due to Urnfield. If U152 was spread by Urnfield, we would expect such a presence and distribution in Poland. And at the same time Urnfield would also help accounting for a sizable degree for Italian U152.


As for the S28 in Iberia, North Africa, Greece, Anatolia or the Balkans, it is quite evidently of Roman origin. I don't expect the Romans to have contributed to more than 10% of the modern lineages in conquered territories only reachable by sea (the Italian peninsula and Gaul are a different story). Among this maximum 10%, only about 20% of it (= 2% of the total) would have been R1b-S28, judging from the average frequency for Italy. That is exactly what we observe.

I really cannot see how Germanic tribes could have left up to 3 or 4% of R1b-S28 in Iberia but almost no R1b-S21, only traces of I2b and barely 1 to 3% of I1. The Romans had 500 years to leave some genes in Iberia. Vandals, Suebi and Visigoths had a smaller impact altogether, perhaps 5% of modern lineages, but divided between I1, I2b, R1a and R1b-S21. There might be occasionally one S28 of Germanic origin out of 10 or 20 in Iberia, but that's negligible.[/QUOTE]

I think you have a valid point about the origin of U152 in Iberia, especially the comparison of Roman and Germanic impact. Besides I was thinking mainly of North Africa with U152 and the Vandals, however I concede that your argument regarding Roman origin there still holds.

Maciamo
09-08-11, 20:13
The problem I have with the idea that U152 stems from German settlements is that it does not really match the historic pattern of German settlements. I also wonder if, U152 did indeed arrive, is the absence of U152 in former East Prussia the result of the removal of settlers from East Prussia.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. The data for Poland comes mostly from Myres et al. which only divided Poland in West, North East and South. It's hard to make an accurate map with that. Only East Poland had 0% (but I placed it in 1-5% because the FTDNA project had a few members in East Poland). I could redesign the map to follow the parts of Poland that used to be Germany, but that will remain hypothetical until we have more data.


The reason I came up with this is mainly due to Urnfield. If U152 was spread by Urnfield, we would expect such a presence and distribution in Poland. And at the same time Urnfield would also help accounting for a sizable degree for Italian U152.


The Urnfield Culture is indeed a possible candidate for the original spread of S28/U152. I have long associated S28 with La Tène and Hallstatt, but Urnfield is merely the forerunner of these cultures, so it makes sense too.

Austria seems to have been "purged" from most of its S28, probably by the Huns, Lombards and others that invaded the region.

Taranis
09-08-11, 20:37
I wouldn't worry too much about that. The data for Poland comes mostly from Myres et al. which only divided Poland in West, North East and South. It's hard to make an accurate map with that. Only East Poland had 0% (but I placed it in 1-5% because the FTDNA project had a few members in East Poland). I could redesign the map to follow the parts of Poland that used to be Germany, but that will remain hypothetical until we have more data.

I see your point. I have generally wondered on the exact impact of the expulsions of Germans from historic eastern Germany, and the pre-1945 genetic makeup in the region, and also the impact of medieval population movement.


The Urnfield Culture is indeed a possible candidate for the original spread of S28/U152. I have long associated S28 with La Tène and Hallstatt, but Urnfield is merely the forerunner of these cultures.

Well, my point really is, if Urnfield was already spreading U152, we should expect some U152 in Poland to have originated from the Lusatian Culture, since as mentioned, the Lusatian Culture was a northeastern outgrowth of Urnfield. The problem of course is, the exact ethnic nature of the Lusatian Culture is pretty uncertain, partly because it was so early. By the way, I'm also surprised that your map has relatively little U152 in Catalonia. I've seen past maps of U152 which had higher concentrations of it in Catalonia, which ostensibly mirrored the maximum extend of Urnfield.

One issue that bugs me up regarding Hallstatt is the U106 peak in Austria since it doesn't really fit into the pattern. If however Austrian U106 is solely of Germanic origin and a result of the migrations period, one doesn't have to worry about that.

zanipolo
10-08-11, 07:58
Sorry, I really did a Freudian slip there. I was a tad in a hurry when I made this post earlier, but I actually meant "Lusatian Culture".

I think you left out the main culture for the area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golasecca_culture

Which represent the heart of the R1b - S28 ( U152) , that is from Pavia, Varese, Piacenza, Milan and Mantua. It is clearly an etruscan/ligure/celtic mix. Note map in link is only a lingiustic map and not a tribal map.

http://www.societasviaromana.net/Collegium_Historicum/architaly.php

Corsica would represent the ancient Etruscan followed by centurians of Ligurian migration. It was said the republic of Genoa could only control the northern part of the isalnd , while the Corse clan ruled the other

Taranis
10-08-11, 11:24
I think you left out the main culture for the area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golasecca_culture

Which represent the heart of the R1b - S28 ( U152) , that is from Pavia, Varese, Piacenza, Milan and Mantua. It is clearly an etruscan/ligure/celtic mix. Note map in link is only a lingiustic map and not a tribal map.

http://www.societasviaromana.net/Collegium_Historicum/architaly.php

Corsica would represent the ancient Etruscan followed by centurians of Ligurian migration. It was said the republic of Genoa could only control the northern part of the isalnd , while the Corse clan ruled the other

I was talking about Poland (Lusatian Culture), not about Italy there. But in regard for Italy I agree. Regarding the Golasecca Culture, it should be added that just like Hallstatt and the Lusatian Culture, it was an offshot of Urnfield.

Maciamo
10-08-11, 12:40
I see your point. I have generally wondered on the exact impact of the expulsions of Germans from historic eastern Germany, and the pre-1945 genetic makeup in the region, and also the impact of medieval population movement.


Nothing excludes that some S28 in Poland dates from Urnfield, and the rest from the Germanisation of Poland from the late Middle Ages to 1945.



By the way, I'm also surprised that your map has relatively little U152 in Catalonia. I've seen past maps of U152 which had higher concentrations of it in Catalonia, which ostensibly mirrored the maximum extend of Urnfield.

Unfortunately data about S28 in Catalonia is sparse. The region wasn't tested by either Myres or Cruciani et al., and all the other regions tested in Spain had between 1 and 4% of S28 (except 6% in Valencia). Iberianroots (http://www.iberianroots.com/Statistics/spain.html) has the most extensive commercial data for Spain, but only reports 1% of S28/U152 for Catalonia, out of a very reasonable 193 samples. Most of the Catalan R1b is M269 or S116 (50% of the population) and SRY2627 (22%). It could be that some of the M269 members didn't test for subclades, but even so, there is at present 20x more SRY2627 than S28, so I don't see how S28 could exceed 5-6%, or 10% at the very most.




One issue that bugs me up regarding Hallstatt is the U106 peak in Austria since it doesn't really fit into the pattern. If however Austrian U106 is solely of Germanic origin and a result of the migrations period, one doesn't have to worry about that.

There surely was a massive settlement of Germanic people in Austria, otherwise there is no reason that the region should be German speaking nowadays. It was traditionally a strongly Celtic, then Latin speaking region. If North Italy and France still speak Romance languages despite the Franks, Burgunds, Visigoths and Lombards, the only way Austria would have become German-speaking at the boundary of the Latin and Slavic worlds is through the implantation of a very large Germanic population (which IMHO is represented by R1b-U106 because Austria doesn't have that much I1 or I2b).

zanipolo
10-08-11, 13:04
I was talking about Poland (Lusatian Culture), not about Italy there. But in regard for Italy I agree. Regarding the Golasecca Culture, it should be added that just like Hallstatt and the Lusatian Culture, it was an offshot of Urnfield.

my error , i misunderstood

zanipolo
10-08-11, 13:10
There surely was a massive settlement of Germanic people in Austria, otherwise there is no reason that the region should be German speaking nowadays. It was traditionally a strongly Celtic, then Latin speaking region. If North Italy and France still speak Romance languages despite the Franks, Burgunds, Visigoths and Lombards, the only way Austria would have become German-speaking at the boundary of the Latin and Slavic worlds is through the implantation of a very large Germanic population (which IMHO is represented by R1b-U106 because Austria doesn't have that much I1 or I2b).

I still hold the belief that raeti and illyric people occupied Austria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noricum

And that their genetics had some G. The german migration only came in the form of bavarian migration which is why austrians speak a bavarian dialect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_language#Samples_of_Bavarian_and_Austrian

The interesting thing would be to find the similarity of genetics of bavaria and eastern austria

Dubhthach
10-08-11, 15:06
Interesting the distrubition you put for Ireland, are you mapping it along Leath Cuinn versus Leath Mogha?

It is theorised after all that there was some La Tène influence introduced into northern half of Ireland (Leath Cuinn -- Conn's half) probably from Northern Britain. This can be seen with certain archaelogical items such as Beehive quern stones which are restricted to northern half of Ireland (line drawn from Galway to Dublin)

Taranis
10-08-11, 15:17
Nothing excludes that some S28 in Poland dates from Urnfield, and the rest from the Germanisation of Poland from the late Middle Ages to 1945.

Good points. There is no reason the Haplogroup is there for just a single reason, anyways. That approach almost never works out, anyways.


Unfortunately data about S28 in Catalonia is sparse. The region wasn't tested by either Myres or Cruciani et al., and all the other regions tested in Spain had between 1 and 4% of S28 (except 6% in Valencia). Iberianroots (http://www.iberianroots.com/Statistics/spain.html) has the most extensive commercial data for Spain, but only reports 1% of S28/U152 for Catalonia, out of a very reasonable 193 samples. Most of the Catalan R1b is M269 or S116 (50% of the population) and SRY2627 (22%). It could be that some of the M269 members didn't test for subclades, but even so, there is at present 20x more SRY2627 than S28, so I don't see how S28 could exceed 5-6%, or 10% at the very most.

Yeah, I see your point. The question for Catalonian U152 just came to my mind because the Urnfield Culture extended into Catalonia, and if U152 was indeed connected with Urnfield, we should be able to see it. At the same time, I absolutely agree that it's unlikely to exceed 5%.


There surely was a massive settlement of Germanic people in Austria, otherwise there is no reason that the region should be German speaking nowadays. It was traditionally a strongly Celtic, then Latin speaking region. If North Italy and France still speak Romance languages despite the Franks, Burgunds, Visigoths and Lombards, the only way Austria would have become German-speaking at the boundary of the Latin and Slavic worlds is through the implantation of a very large Germanic population (which IMHO is represented by R1b-U106 because Austria doesn't have that much I1 or I2b).

This is a very good point, especially when comparing against the situation in France. We would expecting the area of modern Austria to speak a Romance language of some kind, and since this isn't the case this argues in favour of a large-scale immigration. This is also very elegant because it solves A LOT of problems associated with the distribution of U106 and U152.


I still hold the belief that raeti and illyric people occupied Austria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noricum

And that their genetics had some G. The german migration only came in the form of bavarian migration which is why austrians speak a bavarian dialect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_language#Samples_of_Bavarian_and_Austrian

The interesting thing would be to find the similarity of genetics of bavaria and eastern austria

I told you before that there is no evidence that the Norici were Illyrian, and why you still continue to hold that believe despite contrary evidence eludes me. The traditional view is that western Hallstatt was Celtic, but eastern Hallstatt was Illyrian, but this is a 19th / early 20th century view which has actually little basis. The situation in Antiquity is very clear: Noricum was clearly Celtic (by place names, by inscriptions and by what ancient authors wrote about them). If you go to the north into Bohemia, you have a Celtic substratum and recent Germanic newcomers (the Marcomanni and other tribes, who migrated there and subjugated the Boii in the 1st century BC), but there is no evidence of Illyrians.

Besides, if you assume that Austrian U106 somehow stems from a pre-Celtic population (which I find dubious), you would have to rather seek ties with pre-Germanic or proto-Germanic peoples from the north, rather than the Illyrians from the south. It just makes no sense.

Maciamo
10-08-11, 16:12
Interesting the distrubition you put for Ireland, are you mapping it along Leath Cuinn versus Leath Mogha?

It is theorised after all that there was some La Tène influence introduced into northern half of Ireland (Leath Cuinn -- Conn's half) probably from Northern Britain. This can be seen with certain archaelogical items such as Beehive quern stones which are restricted to northern half of Ireland (line drawn from Galway to Dublin)

No, it's based on the distribution of S28/U152 members from the FTDNA Ireland Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/IrelandHeritage/default.aspx?section=ymap). It has nearly 5000 members, yet there isn't a single R1b-U152 (or its L2 subclade)in the south.

Angela
10-08-11, 23:26
In the Po valley in Emilia-Romagna, roughly between Milano and Bologna, where the frequency of R1b can exceed 70%, and at least 60% of it is S28.

Could you supply a source for that figure as it applies to Emilia Romagna, or explain how it was computed?

The highest frequencies for R1b that I have seen were in the Di Giacomo et al study, which found a frequency of 76.2% for P*(not R1a) in the Garfagnana in northwest Tuscany. The next highest frequency was in the Val di Non in the Trentino.

Neither is in Emilia, although it could be argued that the Garfagnana is part of Lunezia, a cultural area that also includes Parma and Modena.
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/italy.pdf

(The map is particularly interesting.)

The following study does show a high frequency for R1b in Modena, which indeed is in Emilia, but the figure is 67.6%, lower than the Garfagnana and Val di Non figures in DiGiacomo. http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973%2808%2900082-3/abstract

Also, this study of the Rimini area of Romagna shows that Emilia, not Romagna, is where these kinds of levels might be found.It is a large sample, and shows a 51% frequency for R1b in the Rimini area.

http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/c34/Ferri%202008%20Male%20haplotypes%20and%20haplogrou ps%20in%20Romagna%
20region%20yNorth%20Italyp.pdf

The only figure I know of for Lombardia as a whole was in the old Scozzari et al study. (61.1%) http://www.volgagermanbrit.us/documents/Scozzari2001.pdf I couldn't find the exact source of the data within Lombardia.

Unfortunately, given the age of some of these studies, U-152 was not typed, but if the over 60% proportion of U-152 for R1b holds, then the Garfagnana and Val di Non are very high in U-152, perhaps higher than in Emilia.

However, the triangular hotspot on your U-152 map does correspond generally with the area known as "Lunezia", which roughly includes Massa Carrara(north west Tuscany), Emilia from Modena up to Piacenza, and perhaps part of southern Lombardia to the north, and Lucca to the south. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunezia&ei=gutCTtXUM4jL0QHdicTVCQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum. La Spezia, which was sometimes included, is more typically Ligurian, and therefore probably a little lower in R1b. (Genoa-48.3)

I think Emilia could very well be the "heart" of U-152 in Italy,(with the Val di Non and Garfagnana numbers inflated because of their isolation and the subsequent drift) and you can find evidence for Villanovans, Ligures, Etruscans, and Celts in the area. The group that had the most impact, however, was probably the Ligures.

Angela
11-08-11, 00:29
I apologize for the prior two posts. It won't let me finish the posts, and it won't let me delete them. If someone could get rid of them (Not the first one!) I would be grateful.

This is my last try.

Also, this study of the Rimini area of Romagna shows that Emilia, not Romagna, is where these kinds of levels might be found. It's a large sample, and shows a 51% frequency for R1b's in the Rimini area. http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/c34/Ferri%202008%20Male%20haplotypes%20and%20haplogrou ps%20in%20Romagna%20region%20yNorth%20Italyp.pdf

The only figure I know of for Lombardia as a whole was in the Scozzari et al study. (61.1%) http://www.volgagermanbrit.us/documents/Scozzari2001.pdf. I couldn't find the exact source of the data in Lombardia.

Unfortunately, given the age of some of these studies, U-152 was not typed, but if the over 60% proportion of U-152 for R1b holds, then the Garfagnana and the Val di Non are very high in U-152, and perhaps even higher than Emilia.

However, the triangular hot spot in Italy in your map of U-152 does correspond generally with the area known as "Lunezia", which roughly includes Massa Carrara (North West Tuscany), Emilia from around Modena up to Piacenza and perhaps part of southern Lombardia to the north, and La Spezia and Lucca to the south, although La Spezia looks more Ligurian to me. (Genova levels for R1b are around 48%) http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunezia&ei=gutCTtXUM4jL0QHdicTVCQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DLunezia%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DPSG%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Dnp%26prmd%3Divns

I think I could make a good argument that Emilia is the "heart" of U-152 in Italy, if that is defined as the area of highest frequecy. (with the Garfagnana and the Val di Non numbers inflated because of their isolation and subsequent drift), and you can find evidence there for the Villanovans, the Ligures, the Etruscans, and some Celts.

zanipolo
11-08-11, 08:00
I told you before that there is no evidence that the Norici were Illyrian, and why you still continue to hold that believe despite contrary evidence eludes me. The traditional view is that western Hallstatt was Celtic, but eastern Hallstatt was Illyrian, but this is a 19th / early 20th century view which has actually little basis. The situation in Antiquity is very clear: Noricum was clearly Celtic (by place names, by inscriptions and by what ancient authors wrote about them). If you go to the north into Bohemia, you have a Celtic substratum and recent Germanic newcomers (the Marcomanni and other tribes, who migrated there and subjugated the Boii in the 1st century BC), but there is no evidence of Illyrians.

Besides, if you assume that Austrian U106 somehow stems from a pre-Celtic population (which I find dubious), you would have to rather seek ties with pre-Germanic or proto-Germanic peoples from the north, rather than the Illyrians from the south. It just makes no sense.

I was talking bronze age and you are talking iron age.

see this link
http://www.davidkfaux.org/LaTene_Celt_R1b1c10.pdf

You do know that the first documented naming of Austria occurred in 998AD , u do realise on post #1 there is a void of percentages due to the areas of eastern austria and bavaria. You do realise that the majority of 'germanic" people into eastern austrai was the bavarians.
You do know that celts assimilated illyrians in pannonia and illyric lands.
I really do not know why you start history only from the iron age.

And yes, I agree, noricum was named after the norici celtric tribe in the iron age. There was also the catali, cotini, osi as well in the area ( up to the danube )

http://www.u152.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5:deeper-look-myres-and-cruciani-studies&catid=1:latest-news

zanipolo
11-08-11, 08:03
Also, this study of the Rimini area of Romagna shows that Emilia, not Romagna, is where these kinds of levels might be found. It's a large sample, and shows a 51% frequency for R1b's in the Rimini area. http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/c34/Ferri%202008%20Male%20haplotypes%20and%20haplogrou ps%20in%20Romagna%20region%20yNorth%20Italyp.pdf

.

The map on post #1 does show that Emilia and not Romagna was the centre .

this link below does excplain it in more detail

http://www.davidkfaux.org/LaTene_Celt_R1b1c10.pdf

and


www.u152.org/

Maciamo
11-08-11, 09:05
I apologize for the prior two posts. It won't let me finish the posts, and it won't let me delete them. If someone could get rid of them (Not the first one!) I would be grateful.

This is my last try.

Also, this study of the Rimini area of Romagna shows that Emilia, not Romagna, is where these kinds of levels might be found. It's a large sample, and shows a 51% frequency for R1b's in the Rimini area. http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/c34/Ferri%202008%20Male%20haplotypes%20and%20haplogrou ps%20in%20Romagna%20region%20yNorth%20Italyp.pdf

The only figure I know of for Lombardia as a whole was in the Scozzari et al study. (61.1%) http://www.volgagermanbrit.us/documents/Scozzari2001.pdf. I couldn't find the exact source of the data in Lombardia.

Unfortunately, given the age of some of these studies, U-152 was not typed, but if the over 60% proportion of U-152 for R1b holds, then the Garfagnana and the Val di Non are very high in U-152, and perhaps even higher than Emilia.

However, the triangular hot spot in Italy in your map of U-152 does correspond generally with the area known as "Lunezia", which roughly includes Massa Carrara (North West Tuscany), Emilia from around Modena up to Piacenza and perhaps part of southern Lombardia to the north, and La Spezia and Lucca to the south, although La Spezia looks more Ligurian to me. (Genova levels for R1b are around 48%) http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunezia&ei=gutCTtXUM4jL0QHdicTVCQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DLunezia%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DPSG%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Dnp%26prmd%3Divns

I think I could make a good argument that Emilia is the "heart" of U-152 in Italy, if that is defined as the area of highest frequecy. (with the Garfagnana and the Val di Non numbers inflated because of their isolation and subsequent drift), and you can find evidence there for the Villanovans, the Ligures, the Etruscans, and some Celts.

Thanks for the links, Angela. I actually didn't have the Ferri and Scozzari studies. They will be very useful to fine-tune all the haplogroup maps. Scozzari 's data for Corscia and Sardinia is a real boon. I wish I had access to the supplementary data of Ferri's Modena study.

Nothing I have seen contradicts the hotspots around Emilia (or Lunezia if you prefer). It is true that the total R1b is even higher in Lombardy and Trentino, but that is because the Lombards settled Alpine Italy and brought a lot of R1b-S21 (and some L21) with them. In that particular region the incidence of S28 may well be lower than 50% of R1b (so probably between 30 and 40% of all lineages, or even just 20 to 30% in the foothills, as shown on the map).

Dorianfinder
11-08-11, 15:32
The Vandals carrying U152 seems unlikely. The Przeworsk culture often viewed as the precursor culture to that of the Vandals is in the proto-Slavic R1a region of Europe. Byzantine source state that all the Vandals who survived Belisarius' campaign in Africa were taken to Asia Minor where they were incorporated into the Byzantine military.

Angela
11-08-11, 16:07
[QUOTE=zanipolo;377624]The map on post #1 does show that Emilia and not Romagna was the centre .

this link below does excplain it in more detail

http://www.davidkfaux.org/LaTene_Celt_R1b1c10.pdf



I provided the study as confirmation, and because I wasn't sure that Maciamo was including that study in his calculations.

As for Dr. Faux's arguments; I am aware of them, it's just that I'm not totally persuaded by them.

Angela
11-08-11, 16:28
I hate to disagree with someone who has just thanked me, or perhaps I'm just not understanding your post. Just for clarity, I'm talking here about R1b as a whole. The Trentino isn't Lombardia, and the samples were taken from a very isolated region. So were the ones from the Garfagnana in Tuscany, so an argument could be made that they shouldn't be weighted as highly, but for map purposes, the data is the data. Therefore it seems to me there are two hot spots from the data we have, with the largest hot spot in north west Tuscany for R1b, (76.2), the next one in the Trentino (73.3), and the third in Modena, Emilia (67.6). Lombardia comes in fourth with 61.1%. http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/italy.pdf and http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S...082-3/abstract (http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973%2808%2900082-3/abstract)

A question just occurred to me; are the maps based on counting all the samples? Some of these samples are, as you know, larger than others, although I was surprised at how large some of them are.

As for U-152, I know you have to use the typed data you have. My only point was that the area from north west Tuscany to Piacenza and west to Modena still seems to be the hotspot, as it would be if you took a kind of straight percentage from the R1b data. The only exception, of course, would be the Trentino data, but I would argue that the percentage of U=152 might actually be lower there, because I would think there might be more 106 there.

I have a link to an Onofri study on central Italy on my computer. It is behind a pay wall, but I will include a link to it later as perhaps someone might have access.

Regards, Angela

Angela
11-08-11, 18:09
Here is the link to the Onofri study. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531513105014305

You may already be using this large study of Sardinian Y-dna, but if you aren't, http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001430. Their conclusions are certainly debatable, but understandable, given the way that they compute the TMRCA of these Y dna lineages. Still, the data is good.

Taranis
12-08-11, 01:02
I was talking bronze age and you are talking iron age.

see this link
http://www.davidkfaux.org/LaTene_Celt_R1b1c10.pdf

How does this relate? The Illyrians are not mentioned in a single instant in that file. Besides, if you take things back into the bronze age, this arguably just makes things even worse. As I said, if you go back into the bronze age, you get the Urnfield Culture, which in my opinion is a good candidate for spreading U152.


You do know that the first documented naming of Austria occurred in 998AD , u do realise on post #1 there is a void of percentages due to the areas of eastern austria and bavaria. You do realise that the majority of 'germanic" people into eastern austrai was the bavarians.

Yes, Austria was "originally" (at start of the medieval ages, that is), part of Bavaria. But how does this relate to the question of the thread?


You do know that celts assimilated illyrians in pannonia and illyric lands.
I really do not know why you start history only from the iron age.

Yes, this is the case. But that still does not change the fact that there is no evidence for Illyrians in what today is Austria. There is also no specifically "Illyrian" marker in Austria that would link the area of Austria with the Pannonian basin or the western Balkans.


And yes, I agree, noricum was named after the norici celtric tribe in the iron age. There was also the catali, cotini, osi as well in the area ( up to the danube )

The Cotini lived much farther to the east, in what today is Slovakia (in the Western Carpathians), and they were also Tacitus explicitly mentions them as Gaulish.


http://www.u152.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5:deeper-look-myres-and-cruciani-studies&catid=1:latest-news

The sample size for Austria is ludicrously small (18 samples!). I suspect that this may be just a sampling error hence and U152 is actually more common in Austria.

Sorry Zanipoli, I just do not understand why you are so focused on the Illyrians.


The Vandals carrying U152 seems unlikely. The Przeworsk culture often viewed as the precursor culture to that of the Vandals is in the proto-Slavic R1a region of Europe. Byzantine source state that all the Vandals who survived Belisarius' campaign in Africa were taken to Asia Minor where they were incorporated into the Byzantine military.

The Przreworsk Culture occupied an area that half a millennium earlier was occupied by the Lusatian Culture, which was an offshot of Urnfield. If the Urnfielders were indeed carriers of U152, the Vandals who originally occupied an area that was located entirely inside the former area of the Lusatian Culture. Besides, to label R1a "Proto-Slavic" is quite a bit of a misnomer, because R1a was far from being uniquely associated with the Slavic peoples, and also because the Slavic peoples lived considerably further to the east in Antiquity.

What I do find valid is the fact that the Vandals were only relatively shortly in North Africa whereas the Romans were there for centuries. Hence, Romans are much more likely to be source of North African U152 than the Vandals because of a far longer presence.

In any case, when the Slavic peoples arrived in the area formerly occupied by the East Germanic peoples like and Vandals and absorbed the local population, it's certainly conceivable that this population carried U152 to some degree.

zanipolo
12-08-11, 09:23
How does this relate? The Illyrians are not mentioned in a single instant in that file. Besides, if you take things back into the bronze age, this arguably just makes things even worse. As I said, if you go back into the bronze age, you get the Urnfield Culture, which in my opinion is a good candidate for spreading U152.



Yes, Austria was "originally" (at start of the medieval ages, that is), part of Bavaria. But how does this relate to the question of the thread?



Yes, this is the case. But that still does not change the fact that there is no evidence for Illyrians in what today is Austria. There is also no specifically "Illyrian" marker in Austria that would link the area of Austria with the Pannonian basin or the western Balkans.



The Cotini lived much farther to the east, in what today is Slovakia (in the Western Carpathians), and they were also Tacitus explicitly mentions them as Gaulish.



The sample size for Austria is ludicrously small (18 samples!). I suspect that this may be just a sampling error hence and U152 is actually more common in Austria.



Ok, i did not know who was in noricum , and was using Geza Alfoldy book , Noricum and also John Williams book , Illyrians to see what culture was in Noricum. Now I have found other details via relatives. Below it s in English

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Wn0PAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA64&dq=taurisci+tribe&hl=en#v=onepage&q=taurisci%20tribe&f=false

So, the Taurisci where a Gallic-ligurian people makes sense as the friuli who speak gallic language ( still today) and where the Carni tribe of the ancient times, fits well with this.

In the other matter, since Maciano has placed U-152 and u-106 maps recently, I do not know why you say that the austrians ( and Bavarians ) would be U-152, when clearly the maps show a percentage void in these areas fro U-152. Why is this?

It would seem to me that the raeti where u-152 while the vindelici ( bavarians ) where u-106. If this is correct, then we must assume that gallic-celts where different from germanic-celts ( as per a thread I started in eupedia)

The question is also, was celtic only a linguistic group and not a cultural people in the alps. was celtic a lingua-franca , like latin was in the Roman empire.

Taranis
12-08-11, 12:34
In the other matter, since Maciano has placed U-152 and u-106 maps recently, I do not know why you say that the austrians ( and Bavarians ) would be U-152, when clearly the maps show a percentage void in these areas fro U-152. Why is this?

Stop twisting my words and start finally reading my posts more thoroughly. I never claimed that Austrians would be predominantly U152. I merely wanted to say that I thought to find an explanation why U152 is not dominant in Austria. Given the otherwise strong correlation of U152 with the spread of Hallstatt and La-Tene (though not exclusively so, because U152 clearly also has an Italic component), this raises the question why it is not common there today.

Maciamo brought up the good point that this strong concentration of U106 might have arrived in Bavaria/Austria from a large-scale migration during the migrations period, which upon contemplating I find quite convincing: Maciamo brought up a very strong case for this that the Bavarians/Austrians obviously speak a Germanic language today, whereas looking from Antiquity we would expect these areas today to speak a Romance language like the French do.


It would seem to me that the raeti where u-152 while the vindelici ( bavarians ) where u-106. If this is correct, then we must assume that gallic-celts where different from germanic-celts ( as per a thread I started in eupedia)

There clearly is relatively little continuity between the Vindelici and the Bavarians/Austrians, except a few towns such Bregenz (Brigantium) or Kempten (Cambodunum), primarily because this was a frontier area that was frequently ravaged in the subsequent centuries. There is a reason why the province of Vindelicia was lumped to the province of Raetia later in the Roman period.

What also speaks against your idea, in my opinion, is the fact that you forget the situation further to the north: the Boii for instance originally dwelled in Bohemia (which derives it's name from the Boii), and the Boii also migrated into the Pannonian basin, to Galatia and Italy (the city of Bologna derives it's name from the Boii). A part of the Boii also migrated into Gaul alongside the Helveti during the Gallic Wars.

The original 'Bohemian' Boii were conquered by the Germanic Marcomanni in the 1st century BC and subsequently the region was heavily settled by Germanic tribes, which reached the Danube by the 1st century AD. Strabo refers to the region as "Boiian Desert".

Also, the connection is frequently made between the name "Bavari" (Baiovarii) and "Bohemia" (Boiohaemum). I think it makes more sense to assume that the modern Bavarians (and Austrians, though Austria obviously was originally part of the tribal duchy of Bavaria (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Bayern_im_10.Jh.png)) are descended from Germanic tribes who migrated from Bohemia during the migration period.

The more I contemplate this, the more I find Maciamo's explanation for Austrian U106 convincing.

Dorianfinder
12-08-11, 14:41
zanipolo wrote, 'The question is also, was celtic only a linguistic group and not a cultural people in the alps. was celtic a lingua-franca , like latin was in the Roman empire.'

Celtic was a broad term used to distinguish between Europeans of the typically Western-type [Frisian (West Germanic), Southern Germanic, Iberian & Brythonic etc.] and the Eastern-type [Balkanic, Slavic and Greco-Italic]. When I see the word Celto-Italic I know it not to refer to ancient Italic but the later introduction of Lombard (Frankish Germanic) and Gallic input. In central European terms, Celtic is a very broad and inclusive term that is more a phenotype nowadays than a cultural or linguistic classification. I only use Celtic to refer to Irish Celts and perhaps the Welsh & some Scots. This distinction I make as both the Irish and Welsh have Celtic physiognomy, Celtic dialects and Celtic culture (i.e. druid priests). Europe was heavily influenced by the Roman-Christian age.

Taranis
12-08-11, 16:01
zanipolo wrote, 'The question is also, was celtic only a linguistic group and not a cultural people in the alps. was celtic a lingua-franca , like latin was in the Roman empire.'

If you mean that the Celtic-speaking never constituted a homogenous ethnic group, I agree.


Celtic was a broad term used to distinguish between Europeans of the typically Western-type [Frisian (West Germanic), Southern Germanic, Iberian & Brythonic etc.] and the Eastern-type [Balkanic, Slavic and Greco-Italic]. When I see the word Celto-Italic I know it not to refer to ancient Italic but the later introduction of Lombard (Frankish Germanic) and Gallic input. In central European terms, Celtic is a very broad and inclusive term that is more a phenotype nowadays than a cultural or linguistic classification.

"Italo-Celtic" is a linguistic term. It generally refers to the close relationship of the Celtic and Italic language families and common innovations. Some other, non-Celtic and non-Italic languages such as Lusitanian and Venetic also share these innovations. Although it is disputed amongst linguists if there was an Italo-Celtic proto-language, it is clear that the Celtic and Italic languages have a lot of commonalities which argue for a close proximity between the area where the Celtic and Italic languages originated. Some people have also suggested the Beaker-Bell Culture as the original speakers of Italo-Celtic languages. Also, generally, I find any phenotypical distinction completely nonsensical.


I only use Celtic to refer to Irish Celts and perhaps the Welsh & some Scots. This distinction I make as both the Irish and Welsh have Celtic physiognomy, Celtic dialects and Celtic culture (i.e. druid priests). Europe was heavily influenced by the Roman-Christian age.

I must admit, I find your definition of Celtic funny because neither the Irish nor the Britons did consider themselves as "Celtic" until the 19th century.

Dorianfinder
12-08-11, 16:28
Taranis wrote, 'neither the Irish nor the Britons did consider themselves as "Celtic" until the 19th century.'

Your statement suggests a general ignorance regarding the Irish. I said Irish, Welsh and some Scots; the terms Briton, British or Brython are all interchangeable and were introduced for the sole purpose of modern nation building (see United Kingdom) and are too inclusive to mean anything regarding the Celtic culture. These constructs reflect British attempts to isolate Brittany from France as the historical name dispute documents. I prefer to specify regarding the Celtic Irish, Welsh (Gaelic) and Scottish (Gaelic) than lump them into a false group. Irish Celtic Christianity was documented for its 'peculiarities' during Roman times and although the Irish claim Celtic Christian as uniquely Irish the Roman chroniclers did not distinguish between Irish and the rest of the regions inhabitants (so-called Britons). This last observation testifies to the degree of Roman ignorance regarding the Irish as a distinct group, similar to your ignorance I might say.

Taranis
12-08-11, 16:46
Taranis wrote, 'neither the Irish nor the Britons did consider themselves as "Celtic" until the 19th century.'

Your statement suggests general ignorance of the Irish identity. I said Irish, Welsh and some Scots; the term Briton is a construct for unifying the British Empire and is clearly too inclusive to mean anything specific. It also smacks of British attempts to isolate Brittany from France as the historical name dispute documents. I prefer to specify regarding the Celtic Irish, Welsh (Gaelic) and Scottish (Gaelic) than lump them into a false group. Irish Celtic Christianity was documented for its 'peculiarities' during Roman times and although the Irish claim Celtic Christian sources as Irish the Roman chroniclers did not distinguish between Irish and the rest of the regions inhabitants (so-called Britons).

I'm not ignorant of the Irish identity. The Irish considered themselves as "Gaels", not as "Celts". Which is exactly my point. The "Celtic" identity of the Irish is a fabrication of modern times.

You have a point that the Brythonic identity is essentially also a modern concept (based on linguistic affiliations), but this only enforces my point: that the concept of "Celticity" (that is, a common "Celtic" identity of Irish, Manx, Scottish Gaels, Bretons, Cornish and Welsh) is a fabrication of modern times.

Usage of the term "Celt" (Latin "Celtae", Greek "Keltoi") was generally used only for the Gauls, as well as their eastern cousins. Likewise, it was inconsistently used for the Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian penninsula. The only Celtic-speaking peoples who, in Antiquity probably considered to themselves as "Celts" were the Gauls and related peoples such as the Norici and the Galatians.

Dorianfinder
12-08-11, 16:57
All you have to do is a small survey, ask any Irish people you may know whether they are Celts. Gaelic and Brythonic are Celtic languages. Not similar to but actually Celtic, the only countries where Celtic languages are still spoken in quantity are Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Manx is the other Celtic language still spoken but this is limited to the Isle of Man.

Dorianfinder
12-08-11, 17:19
The term Celt was used very loosely by Roman and Greek chroniclers. Much later, during the early years of the Church, in the East the term Celt was used interchangeably with Frank to refer to a Latin Christian and the term Frank was used exclusively to refer to a crusader. Each period and source of chronicle utilizes the term Celt according to period-specific biases/needs. Celt or Frank as terms are still used in a derogatory manner within the East today. The crusaders were often termed Franks but we know that many were from Normandy, Burgundy, Provence and Anjou. The term Frank refers to Western Germanic culture but the words French or Frankryk or any other derivative denotes the region we today know as France. Its a geopolitical and semantic quagmire.

Taranis
12-08-11, 17:29
All you have to do is a small survey, ask any Irish people you may know whether they are Celts.

Well, you should have tried that 500, 1000 or 2000 years ago.


Gaelic and Brythonic are Celtic languages. Not similar to but actually Celtic, the only countries where Celtic languages are still spoken in quantity are Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Manx is the other Celtic language still spoken but this is limited to the Isle of Man.

Yes, Gaelic/Goidelic and Brythonic are branches of the Celtic language family, and it is absolutely correct to refer to them as speakers of Celtic languages. But that is not the point. My point is that the speakers of these languages did not consider themselves to be "Celtic" until the 19th century.


The term Celt was used very loosely by Roman and Greek chroniclers.

Yes, it was used loosely, but it was never applied for the Irish or Britons in Antiquity, and it was only appied inconsistently for the Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian penninsula.


Much later, during the early years of the Church, in the East the term Celt was used interchangeably with Frank to refer to a Latin Christian and the term Frank was used exclusively to refer to a crusader. Each period and source of chronicle utilizes the term Celt according to period-specific biases/needs. Celt or Frank as terms are still used in a derogatory manner within the East today. The crusaders were often termed Franks but we know that many were from Normandy, Burgundy, Provence and Anjou. The term Frank refers to Western Germanic culture but the words French or Frankryk or any other derivative denotes the region we today know as France. Its a geopolitical and semantic quagmire.

I have never heard about this usage of the term "Celt" before, nor have I seen anybody claim the usage of the term in the medieval ages, or claim that it was interchangable with "Frank". It also utterly eludes me why you bring in the term "Frank" her because it has nothing to do with the Celts. The Franks were a Germanic people who conquered Gaul in the 5th/6th century, and yes, the term "Frank" was also used as a general term for anybody from Christian Western Europe during the medieval ages, but this is completely unrelated to the term "Celt".

EDIT. You earlier claimed this:


the terms Briton, British or Brython are all interchangeable and were introduced for the sole purpose of modern nation building (see United Kingdom) and are too inclusive to mean anything regarding the Celtic culture.

This is also not completely true. The Brythonic people of Antiquity called themselves Britons ("Priteni", rendered as "Pryden" in modern Welsh). This is very important because, as I stated, they did not consider themselves as "Celts".

zanipolo
12-08-11, 21:54
There clearly is relatively little continuity between the Vindelici and the Bavarians/Austrians, except a few towns such Bregenz (Brigantium) or Kempten (Cambodunum), primarily because this was a frontier area that was frequently ravaged in the subsequent centuries. There is a reason why the province of Vindelicia was lumped to the province of Raetia later in the Roman period.


what is this reason


What also speaks against your idea, in my opinion, is the fact that you forget the situation further to the north: the Boii for instance originally dwelled in Bohemia (which derives it's name from the Boii), and the Boii also migrated into the Pannonian basin, to Galatia and Italy (the city of Bologna derives it's name from the Boii). A part of the Boii also migrated into Gaul alongside the Helveti during the Gallic Wars.

what is my idea.

The boii , unless i read wrongly originated in lorraine/alsace area and migrated to 2 places bohemia and north central Italy with other celtic people Semones and lingones. This was pre- Roman expansion into central Italy. They then ended up in pannonia


The original 'Bohemian' Boii were conquered by the Germanic Marcomanni in the 1st century BC and subsequently the region was heavily settled by Germanic tribes, which reached the Danube by the 1st century AD. Strabo refers to the region as "Boiian Desert".

Also, the connection is frequently made between the name "Bavari" (Baiovarii) and "Bohemia" (Boiohaemum). I think it makes more sense to assume that the modern Bavarians (and Austrians, though Austria obviously was originally part of the tribal duchy of Bavaria (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Bayern_im_10.Jh.png)) are descended from Germanic tribes who migrated from Bohemia during the migration period.

The more I contemplate this, the more I find Maciamo's explanation for Austrian U106 convincing.


I agree

Greek script says the Boii where Boetians, but then how far back is this?

Taranis
13-08-11, 11:21
what is this reason

As I said, it was a permanent frontier area for the Roman empire, and also it was relatively small.


what is my idea.

The boii , unless i read wrongly originated in lorraine/alsace area and migrated to 2 places bohemia and north central Italy with other celtic people Semones and lingones. This was pre- Roman expansion into central Italy. They then ended up in pannonia

There is no evidence that the Boii ever were in Alsace/Lorraine. The Gaulish tribes in those areas were completely different ones such as the Leuci and the Mediomatrici. As far as I understand it, Bohemia was their original homeland, and they migrated from there to Italy and Pannonia.


I agree

Greek script says the Boii where Boetians, but then how far back is this?

I don't know, that does not make much sense. Just because their names were vaguely similar-sounding does not automatically mean they were related.

Completely unrelated, there is an U152 "peak" in central Anatolia. I wonder if this originates from the Galatians. It could be also Roman, obviously.

Dorianfinder
13-08-11, 12:32
there is an U152 "peak" in central Anatolia. I wonder if this originates from the Galatians. It could be also Roman, obviously.

I must add with a pinch of salt, probably the Venetians who 'owned' Crete for nearly 500yrs and went for a stroll to central Anatolia.:innocent:

Or possibly the expedition of 279BC by the Gauls into Northern Greece.:useless:

Dorianfinder
13-08-11, 12:45
Well, you should have tried that 500, 1000 or 2000 years ago.

The Brythonic people of Antiquity called themselves Britons ("Priteni", rendered as "Pryden" in modern Welsh). This is very important because, as I stated, they did not consider themselves as "Celts".

Your reasoning is circular and goes something like this: The Irish only claim they were Celts from the 19th cent. therefore a survey would not tell us if they really saw themselves as Celts in antiquity. Then you go on to say that the Brythonic people in all their glory did not consider themselves as Celtic because some arbitrary people whom the modern Welsh (great source) call 'Pryden' and around and around you go. What are you trying to say? Are you claiming that the Celts did not see themselves as Celts and therefore they were not Celtic? Or are you convinced that the Irish are not a Celtic people?

Taranis
13-08-11, 12:59
Your reasoning is circular and goes something like this: The Irish only claim they were Celts from the 19th cent. therefore a survey would not tell us if they really saw themselves as Celts in antiquity. Then you go on to say that the Brythonic people in all their glory did not consider themselves as Celtic because some arbitrary people whom the modern Welsh (great source) call 'Pryden' and around and around you go.

It's not circular reasoning. Look into Irish or Welsh literature from the medieval ages. The term "Celt" is completely absent there. The fact alone that ancient authors refered to the Irish as "Iverni"/"Hibernoi" and the British as "Priteni"/"Britanni" and NOT "Keltoi"/"Celtae" should tell you something, namely that they did not consider themselves "Celts".


What are you trying to say, God forbid you may have made an error and the reference for your elaborate fumble is neither Irish nor Welsh.

I have not made any mistake. The idea that the Irish or any other modern Celtic peoples consider themselves "Celts" is a product of 19th century romanticism. To claim anything else is completely unfounded and ahistoric.

Read Caesar's commentary on the Gallic War.

Dorianfinder
13-08-11, 13:13
I have not made any mistake. The idea that the Irish or any other modern Celtic peoples consider themselves "Celts" is a product of 19th century romanticism. To claim anything else is completely unfounded and ahistoric.

You are in error because you claim the Irish are not a Celtic people and never were. You base your claim on what Caesar may or may not have said and a story about the 'Pryden'. Do you always blame others for your mistakes, don't blame me for exposing your revisionist rubbish.

My comment concerning the Venetians was not aimed at you, sorry I should have stated that it was in relation to what zanipolo said, a direct quote of his actually.:laughing:

Taranis
13-08-11, 13:21
You are in error because you claim the Irish are not a Celtic people and never were. You base your claim on what Caesar may or may not have said and a story about the 'Pryden'. You are the *****, don't blame me for exposing your revisionist rubbish.

I did not claim that they never were a Celtic people. They spoke/speak a Celtic language, by that definition they are Celts. There is no doubt about that. But they never called themselves "Celts" until the 19th century. By your logic, the Vikings refered to themselves as "Germans" because they spoke a Germanic language.

I am not a revisionist in any kind.


My comment concerning the Venetians was not aimed at you, sorry I should have stated that it was in relation to what zanipolo said, a direct quote of his actually.:laughing:

In that case, I will apologize.

Dorianfinder
13-08-11, 13:24
The fact alone that ancient authors refered to the Irish as "Iverni"/"Hibernoi" and the British as "Priteni"/"Britanni" and NOT "Keltoi"/"Celtae" should tell you something, namely that they did not consider themselves "Celts".

Many names for many different peoples so what, this proves nothing except that ancient authors used the term 'Iverni/Hibernoi' in relation to the Irish. The Greeks were not called Greeks until mutch later, in fact they did not even refer to themselves as Greek but Ellines/Hellenes. Does this reasoning work for you?

how yes no 2
13-08-11, 13:33
Completely unrelated, there is an U152 "peak" in central Anatolia. I wonder if this originates from the Galatians. It could be also Roman, obviously.

that would imply relation to Celtic people....
while I agree that spread around Balkan to Asia minor might fit to idea of Celtic migrations and hotspot in north Italy might fit idea of Boii, thing is Boii didnot stay to live in north Italy, so their contribution to genetics of the region should be minor, and most important:


http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif
if it was a Celtic marker it should be in Galatia..

hotspot in Asia minor seems to be Phrygia and not Galatia...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Anatolia_Ancient_Regions_base.svg/800px-Anatolia_Ancient_Regions_base.svg.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygians

Phrygia location backs up my hypothesys that Franks were earlier known as Phrygians (as attested in Serbian name Fruzi (singular Frug) for Franks (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruska_gora) and by myth of origin of Franks themselves that places them among Trojans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks) ...

Phrygians lived in Asia minor and were in turn before known as Bryges who lived in Balkan and migrated from south Albania via Macedonia to Asia minor perhaps explaining south Balkan elevated levels as well..... if you look at known position of Bryges it is north line of this haplogroup spread.... the fact that haplogroup is than spreading further to south speaks that remaining Bryges must have been incorporated in hellenic people rather than into northern barbarians....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Map_of_ancient_Epirus_and_environs.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryges

as for UK, well there was tribe known as Brigantes there as well..their position is matching northern part of spread of the haplogroup...Brigantes were Celtic...but important to note is that tribes change language and culture under influence of environment, but their tribal name is their identity and key to their historically (and often genetically) dominant origin.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Map_of_the_Territory_of_the_Brigantes.svg/250px-Map_of_the_Territory_of_the_Brigantes.svg.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigantes

number 10 here, curiously 11 are Parisi which may again bear relation to Troy...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/images/ironage_native_britain_tribes.gif
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/iron_01.shtml

perhaps, using same cap is no coincidence:
Phrygian cap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygian_cap

Phrygia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Bust_Attis_CdM.jpg/150px-Bust_Attis_CdM.jpg

France:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Marianne_Symbol_of_french_republic_3.jpg/65px-Marianne_Symbol_of_french_republic_3.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Louis_le_dernier3.jpg/82px-Louis_le_dernier3.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Sansculottes.jpg/220px-Sansculottes.jpg


not sure about Italy.... could be Germanic people who brought it there.... or it was that from long time ago e.g. Ligurians...

Dorianfinder
13-08-11, 14:13
In that case, I will apologize.

Apology accepted!

Dorianfinder
13-08-11, 14:14
that would imply relation to Celtic people....
while I agree that spread around Balkan to Asia minor might fit to idea of Celtic migrations

The Balkan and Anatolian civilizations are older than the rest of Europe and this is evident by the variety of Haplogroups from the near east and their higher frequencies within Greece and Turkey. Therefore a frequency of U152 nearing 5 or more percent suggests that its introduction occurred long ago most likely long before 279BC when the Gauls invaded Greece.


if it was a Celtic marker it should be in Galatia...hotspot in Asia minor seems to be Phrygia and not Galatia...

The position of U152 in Anatolia suggests the Eastern Roman city of Antiochia. They called it Antiochia in Pisidia and sometimes Antiochia in Lycaonia. This region was also known as Cappadocia, your map is not detailed enough. Not to be confused with Antiochia in the middle-east.


Phrygia location backs up my hypothesys that Franks were earlier known as Phrygians (as attested in Serbian name Fruzi (singular Frug) for Franks

The Phrygians are believed to have R1b L23- in Anatolia, akin to the Armenian R1b found throughout the region.

Reinaert
13-08-11, 14:26
Well... It still exists. :grin:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CUwfoQXkWnA/TUc1pn7WqmI/AAAAAAAAAMs/Y2ey5W7-WJ8/s1600/strumf+poster+film.jpg

In The Netherlands and Germany there were also little humans called "kabouter/dwerg" and "zwerg".
Meaning dwarf.

They were good folks. Helped people with their work, at night.
But when the evil people came (Romans) they fled to Ireland.

The Franks came into Western Europe when the Roman Empire already started to collaps.
I haven't seen this cap in the Merovingian or Karolingian period.

So, I guess the use of the Frygian cap by the French must have been inspired by the renaissance.
And has nothing to do with the Franks.

zanipolo
13-08-11, 21:34
that would imply relation to Celtic people....
while I agree that spread around Balkan to Asia minor might fit to idea of Celtic migrations and hotspot in north Italy might fit idea of Boii, thing is Boii didnot stay to live in north Italy, so their contribution to genetics of the region should be minor, and most important:


http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif
if it was a Celtic marker it should be in Galatia..


not sure about Italy.... could be Germanic people who brought it there.... or it was that from long time ago e.g. Ligurians...

There is a possibility that this anatolian marker is the hittite one, since they began to leave to the west as part of the great bronze age migration - 1200 BC. As haplogroups grow in percentages over time, they also retract in percentages over time.

iapetoc
13-08-11, 23:18
The Vandals carrying U152 seems unlikely. The Przeworsk culture often viewed as the precursor culture to that of the Vandals is in the proto-Slavic R1a region of Europe. Byzantine source state that all the Vandals who survived Belisarius' campaign in Africa were taken to Asia Minor where they were incorporated into the Byzantine military.


R1a protoslavic?

where you extract that?

better read the markers.

R1a is also connected with Non Slavic pop, Like ancient Greeks and Norway and British Islands which share same analogy of subs
R1a is connected with Iran and ancient Persia and armenia giving the explain of Greaco-aryan
R1a is connected also with India,
and R1a is connected with slavic
R1a is also connected with a non IE race in Georgia,
R1a is not a founder effect of Slavic people

iapetoc
13-08-11, 23:45
Well, you should have tried that 500, 1000 or 2000 years ago.



Yes, Gaelic/Goidelic and Brythonic are branches of the Celtic language family, and it is absolutely correct to refer to them as speakers of Celtic languages. But that is not the point. My point is that the speakers of these languages did not consider themselves to be "Celtic" until the 19th century.



Yes, it was used loosely, but it was never applied for the Irish or Britons in Antiquity, and it was only appied inconsistently for the Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian penninsula.



I have never heard about this usage of the term "Celt" before, nor have I seen anybody claim the usage of the term in the medieval ages, or claim that it was interchangable with "Frank". It also utterly eludes me why you bring in the term "Frank" her because it has nothing to do with the Celts. The Franks were a Germanic people who conquered Gaul in the 5th/6th century, and yes, the term "Frank" was also used as a general term for anybody from Christian Western Europe during the medieval ages, but this is completely unrelated to the term "Celt".

EDIT. You earlier claimed this:



This is also not completely true. The Brythonic people of Antiquity called themselves Britons ("Priteni", rendered as "Pryden" in modern Welsh). This is very important because, as I stated, they did not consider themselves as "Celts".


In Byzantine empire and in Greek language there is a big difference,

Greeks call France, Gallia and the language Gallika (gaulish)
but the term Franks means Germanic, not Celtic gaulish, it is a a difference that was from Byzantine times,
so when Byzantines and Greeks say Franks and FranKish means a the Franks and not the gauls,
but when they say Gallia they mean the gauloises and the celtic part of France,
Byzantines made a clear difference of the area south and west of modern France, and the Ron's valley
while they named Paris, Bezanzon etc as Frankia,
same differences were also in other areas,
example in Italy Byzantines made clear diefference of cities,
Venice Savoy Firence Genova, Lombardia considering them as different from the rest of Italians
all the rest Italians were Romans but the above where not Romans

Spain, Spanish were only the Spania area, Catalans the North of Spagna and the rest Iberians,
so when you refer to Spanish in Byzantines you do not mean the castilians but the area south of Bercelona until Gibraltar
(I think modern name is Murcia)

iapetoc
13-08-11, 23:47
All you have to do is a small survey, ask any Irish people you may know whether they are Celts. Gaelic and Brythonic are Celtic languages. Not similar to but actually Celtic, the only countries where Celtic languages are still spoken in quantity are Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Manx is the other Celtic language still spoken but this is limited to the Isle of Man.


you are talking about Q-celtic

try to read about P-celtic and compare it with Homeric

iapetoc
14-08-11, 00:07
The Brygians is still a mystery much solved but not clear,

Brygian were considered Thracians, But Greco Brygian is the primary language from were both jump,
Brygian words still exist in Greek language,

we are sure that Brygians had no connection with Pelasgians
so less of J2 G and E-V13
in the area were were Brygian lived and in the area they moved and from History we know that the Brygian that stayed Behind unite with Makedonians to one nation,

the cut of Gordium by Alexander and why Alexander honored Gordium gives the connection,

the Brygian that did not Leave were named Mygdonians,

a search in Mygdonian pop could help us more,

zanipolo
14-08-11, 00:22
In Byzantine empire and in Greek language there is a big difference,

Greeks call France, Gallia and the language Gallika (gaulish)
but the term Franks means Germanic, not Celtic gaulish, it is a a difference that was from Byzantine times,
so when Byzantines and Greeks say Franks and FranKish means a the Franks and not the gauls,
but when they say Gallia they mean the gauloises and the celtic part of France,
Byzantines made a clear difference of the area south and west of modern France, and the Ron's valley
while they named Paris, Bezanzon etc as Frankia,
same differences were also in other areas,
example in Italy Byzantines made clear diefference of cities,
Venice Savoy Firence Genova, Lombardia considering them as different from the rest of Italians
all the rest Italians were Romans but the above where not Romans



This is correct, because the name Italy is a greek name and was only from below tuscany to the toe of italy ( not sicily ).

In italy , they say gallia for french celts and celtae for german celts

Dorianfinder
14-08-11, 12:10
you are talking about Q-celtic

try to read about P-celtic and compare it with Homeric

Read about the Insular Celtic languages. What do you want me to look at when comparing the Homeric dialect (Ionian) and P-Celtic? Are there perhaps some words that exchange (k) with (p) in Homeric?

Dorianfinder
14-08-11, 12:16
In italy , they say gallia for french celts and celtae for german celts

The Greek word for France is Gallia which is derived from 'the land of the Gauls'.

Who do you consider 'german celts'?

Taranis
14-08-11, 12:28
Read about the Insular Celtic languages.

The concept of "Insular Celtic" languages is paraphyletic, primarily because the typically "insular celtic" features in Goidelic and Brythonic arose independently at a later point. The Brythonic languages share common innovations with Gaulish (as well as it's possible to say from the scarce evidence, Noric and Galatian) that are not found in Goidelic or Celtiberian.

zanipolo
14-08-11, 12:41
The Greek word for France is Gallia which is derived from 'the land of the Gauls'.

Who do you consider 'german celts'?

In BC times, none of modern france , basically the west german state ares. switzerland was gallic as well as austria and northern italy.



around 500AD, in framce , gallic celts where aquitane, brittany, gascony, provence, langedoc ............bascially the old Occitan language area ( not including brittany in this )


a map would make it clearer

Taranis
14-08-11, 14:02
that would imply relation to Celtic people....
while I agree that spread around Balkan to Asia minor might fit to idea of Celtic migrations and hotspot in north Italy might fit idea of Boii, thing is Boii didnot stay to live in north Italy, so their contribution to genetics of the region should be minor, and most important:

Actually, you are completely wrong. If you look at the map, a connection with the Celtic peoples is clear. Also, the Boii (well, their Italian branch) very much stayed in Italy until they were subjugated by the Romans. You are very wrong if you think that the Boii did not stay in Italy. Besides, the Boii were not the only Celtic tribe to migrate into Italy, as Zanipoli correctly pointed out, there were also other tribes such as the Cenomani, Lingones and Senones. There is a reason the Romans refered to northern Italy as "Gallia Cisalpinensis" (ie, "Gaul on this side of the Alps").

U152 is not exclusively Celtic, however, in particular in Italy, and I personally suspect that the Italic and pre-Etruscan peoples were carriers of U152 to a significant degree.

Besides, your scenario completely does not work out. There's absolutely no reason to assume that U152 originated in Anatolia, especially because it's related Haplogroup (L21, U106) are all found in Western Europe.


In BC times, none of modern france , basically the west german state ares. switzerland was gallic as well as austria and northern italy.

Sorry, that is complete nonsense. By the time of Caesar (1st century BC) it's pretty clear that Gaulish tribes were all over Gaul.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png


around 500AD, in framce , gallic celts where aquitane, brittany, gascony, provence, langedoc ............bascially the old Occitan language area ( not including brittany in this )

a map would make it clearer

By 500 AD, continently Celtic languages (including Gaulish) were virtually extinct except maybe in vestigial rural areas of (sub-roman / early frankish) Gaul.

Where are you making this up from?! :startled:

Dorianfinder
14-08-11, 18:32
U152 is not exclusively Celtic, however, in particular in Italy, and I personally suspect that the Italic and pre-Etruscan peoples were carriers of U152 to a significant degree.

Correct! This is clear but unfortunately some people are having difficulty accepting this fact. Significant frequencies of U152 in Greece and Anatolia indicate an ancient connection independent but related to the pre-Veneti and pre-Roman U152.


There's absolutely no reason to assume that U152 originated in Anatolia, especially because it's related Haplogroup (L21, U106) are all found in Western Europe.

Correct, U152 entered the Balkans from central Europe during the Bronze Age.

Taranis
14-08-11, 20:10
Correct! This is clear but unfortunately some people are having difficulty accepting this fact.

Well, people tend to seek one-on-one correlations between Haplogroups, which in my opinion is totally unrealistic to expect. People intermingle too much with each other for that assumption to work out in any realistic way. I mean, yes, you can sometimes expect certain ethnolinguistic groups or archaeological cultures as bearers of a certain Haplogroup which then dispersed this Haplogroup in question, but you only very rarely can assume that this culture was the only one which dispersed the Haplogroup.


Significant frequencies of U152 in Greece and Anatolia indicate an ancient connection independent but related to the pre-Veneti and pre-Roman U152.

Honestly, I don't quite follow why you think that Greek/Anatolian U152 should be pre-Roman. The concentrations (~1-5%) are quite what you would expect from the Roman period alone, and also the pattern seems to quite well match.


Correct, U152 entered the Balkans from central Europe during the Bronze Age.

Actually, the relatively high concentrations of U152 in Romania surprise me quite a bit. It wasn't that clear in earlier maps of U152 (probably due to lack of data).

zanipolo
14-08-11, 21:36
Sorry, that is complete nonsense. By the time of Caesar (1st century BC) it's pretty clear that Gaulish tribes were all over Gaul.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png



By 500 AD, continently Celtic languages (including Gaulish) were virtually extinct except maybe in vestigial rural areas of (sub-roman / early frankish) Gaul.

Where are you making this up from?! :startled:

The question was , where were the germanic celts....I replied, none in modern France. .................so we are saying the same thing

zanipolo
14-08-11, 21:44
Correct! This is clear but unfortunately some people are having difficulty accepting this fact. Significant frequencies of U152 in Greece and Anatolia indicate an ancient connection independent but related to the pre-Veneti and pre-Roman U152.



Correct, U152 entered the Balkans from central Europe during the Bronze Age.

in my opinion , U152 is a gallic-ligurian marker, which reached modern austrian lands. This marker then travelled down the balkans by celtic migration/invasion in the balkans, which brings us to the question of ...........there is no U106 in the southern Balkans, so we can assume that the "germanic celts" stayed roughly north or in the vicinity of the danube

Taranis
14-08-11, 21:45
The question was , where where the germanic celts....I replied, none in modern France. .................so we are saying the same thing

Not quite. The Volcae originally migrated from the area of Germania into Gaul (another branch of the Volcae also migrated into Anatolia). Likewise, the Helveti originally lived in approximately the area of modern-day Württemberg (Ptolemy refers to that approximate area as "Helvetian Desert").


in my opinion , U152 is a gallic-ligurian marker, which reached modern austrian lands. This marker then travelled down the balkans by celtic migration/invasion in the balkans, which brings us to the question of ...........there is no U106 in the southern Balkans, so we can assume that the "germanic celts" stayed roughly north or in the vicinity of the danube

You still seem to assume that Austrian U106 was already there in Antiquity. I find Maciamo's argument pretty convincing that Austrian U106 arrived only with the migration period.

Dorianfinder
14-08-11, 21:58
I don't quite follow why you think that Greek/Anatolian U152 should be pre-Roman. The concentrations (~1-5%) are quite what you would expect from the Roman period alone, and also the pattern seems to quite well match.

The Bronze Age brought changes to Greece and Anatolia that influenced primarily regions known to have been settled by the Dorians. The similarities with central European proto-Celts are striking so I won't elaborate unless you insist on more clarity.

These people settled on Crete, the Peloponnese, the West coast of Anatolia and Southern Italy approximately 1200BC. We can deduce from the scattered nature, yet specific locations where U152+ has been discovered in Anatolia and Greece, as well as the slightly higher frequencies of U152+ in the Calabrian Greek population that U152+ is to some degree a Dorian marker.

The diversity and overall variance in Greece and Anatolia makes these findings too specific to ignore and warrant serious consideration in the overall scheme of things.

zanipolo
14-08-11, 22:04
Not quite. The Volcae originally migrated from the area of Germania into Gaul (another branch of the Volcae also migrated into Anatolia). Likewise, the Helveti originally lived in approximately the area of modern-day Württemberg (Ptolemy refers to that approximate area as "Helvetian Desert").



You still seem to assume that Austrian U106 was already there in Antiquity. I find Maciamo's argument pretty convincing that Austrian U106 arrived only with the migration period.

volcae where gauls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcae

Strange how you say the Helvetii where Germanic when all their leaders had gallic names, plus they where pushed out of southern germany by germanic tribes

Taranis
14-08-11, 22:08
volcae where gauls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcae

Strange how you say the Helvetii where Germanic when all their leaders had gallic names, plus they where pushed out of southern germany by germanic tribes

I did not say that these were Germanic (in the ethnolinguistic sense), but the statement that these tribes originated in Germania still holds true. Both the Helvetii and the Volcae originally lived in Germania.

This is only definition of "Germanic Celts" that I see that makes sense in any appreciable way.

Dorianfinder
14-08-11, 22:10
in my opinion , U152 is a gallic-ligurian marker, which reached modern austrian lands. This marker then travelled down the balkans by celtic migration/invasion in the balkans, which brings us to the question of ...........there is no U106 in the southern Balkans, so we can assume that the "germanic celts" stayed roughly north or in the vicinity of the danube

There is R-U106 in the Southern Balkans. Whether R1b-U106 is indeed a 'germanic celtic' marker well I think that since R-P312, R-U106 and R-L11* are closely related phylogenetically and TMRCA-wise, this is a debatable issue. Of course, there is an underlying assumption that R-P312 has a strong correlation with Celtic and that is not a given.

iapetoc
14-08-11, 22:13
Read about the Insular Celtic languages. What do you want me to look at when comparing the Homeric dialect (Ionian) and P-Celtic? Are there perhaps some words that exchange (k) with (p) in Homeric?

Nope Gaulish is the western IE branch that uses same sounds, and same endings with Homerick

the most western IE simmilar to Graeco-Aryan is Gaulish, and P-Celtic,
infact they share unique words in IE language and I am not about to develop here,
I don't know if these words enter Gaulish from Greek language, at Illyros times, or via Merselle (Massalia) or they come From a Hettit-minor asian pop that moved west,
But I know it is the most relative after The Graeco-Brygian and Aryan


Q-celtic is the Celtic of North, Irish cornish Scottish etc
P-Celtic is gaulish Italo-celtic and Balcanic Galatians

zanipolo
14-08-11, 22:18
I did not say that these were Germanic (in the ethnolinguistic sense), but the statement that these tribes originated in Germania still holds true. Both the Helvetii and the Volcae originally lived in Germania.

This is only definition of "Germanic Celts" that I see that makes sense in any appreciable way.

I do not know the ancient borders of gallic-celts and germanic-celts, but there was a difference. The only thing I can say on the germanic border was the dnieper river in the east , due to the Germanic bastanae tribe. The western border I cannot say.

But if we have , IMO, established a difference between the celtic people ( gallic and germanic) , then we can safely say that all ( most ) of the alps was under gallic influence

Taranis
14-08-11, 22:21
iapetoc: the Scottish Gaels did arrive only in Britain during the Migration Period. The previous inhabitants (the so-called "Picts") were also P-Celtic.


I do not know the ancient borders of gallic-celts and germanic-celts, but there was a difference. The only thing I can say on the germanic border was the dnieper river in the east , due to the Germanic bastanae tribe. The western border I cannot say.

But if we have , IMO, established a difference between the celtic people ( gallic and germanic) , then we can safely say that all ( most ) of the alps was under gallic influence

Frankly, really I have no idea what you are trying to say here and what you are trying to argue.

zanipolo
14-08-11, 22:21
Not entirely correct, U106 has been found on Crete in the Lasithi population, although significant as it supports evidence for a Bronze Age migration into the Balkans, I would prefer a few more Greek U106 results.

There is further evidence for a Bronze Age U152 migration into the Balkans when you consider the fact that Southern Italy where traditionally ancient Dorians had settled shows higher frequencies of U106 than North Italy.

South Italy 5.9% R-U106 of R1b.
North Italy 5.6% R-U105 of R1b.
National average Italy 3.55% of R1b.

U105 ? is that a typo?

iapetoc
14-08-11, 22:26
The Bronze Age brought changes to Greece and Anatolia that influenced primarily regions known to have been settled by the Dorians. The similarities with central European proto-Celts are striking so I won't elaborate unless you insist on more clarity.

These people settled on Crete, the Peloponnese, the West coast of Anatolia and Southern Italy approximately 1200BC. We can deduce from the scattered nature, yet specific locations where U152+ has been discovered in Anatolia and Greece, as well as the slightly higher frequencies of U152+ in the Calabrian Greek population that U152+ is to some degree a Dorian marker.

The diversity and overall variance in Greece and Anatolia makes these findings too specific to ignore and warrant serious consideration in the overall scheme of things.


Dorians are connected with Iron age not Bronze, their estimation time is 900 BC and not 1200,

zanipolo
14-08-11, 22:26
Frankly, really I have no idea what you are trying to say here and what you are trying to argue.

The discussion arose due to the question of ...who where the germanic celts and where the germanic celts

Dorianfinder
14-08-11, 22:52
U105 ? is that a typo?
It's a typo, meant to write U106.

Dorianfinder
14-08-11, 23:08
Dorians are connected with Iron age not Bronze, their estimation time is 900 BC and not 1200,

The Late Bronze Age continued until 1000BC in the Balkans and ended a little later around 750BC in central Europe. The sudden changes in Greece and archaeological evidence from the period just before the introduction of iron technology in the Balkans suggests that the migration began entering the Balkans around 1200BC. Once they had established themselves in the Balkans they founded iron technology in the Balkans. It is for this reason that they have been associated with the Iron Age. This new technology would only reach central Europe from the Balkans in around 750BC.

zanipolo
14-08-11, 23:08
Not entirely correct, U106 has been found on Crete in the Lasithi population, although significant as it supports evidence for a Bronze Age migration into the Balkans, I would prefer a few more Greek U106 results.

There is further evidence for a Bronze Age U152 migration into the Balkans when you consider the fact that Southern Italy where traditionally ancient Dorians had settled shows higher frequencies of U106 than North Italy.

South Italy 5.9% R-U106 of R1b.
North Italy 5.6% R-U106 of R1b.
National Italian average R-U106 3.55% of R1b.


makes no sense, south italy has 0.8% U106.

your figures above should show 5.7% for average in Italy

see u106 thread

Dorianfinder
14-08-11, 23:15
best to direct you u106 issues to the u106 thread

My comment states that U152 arrived together with U106 and as a direct result both U152 and U106 are found on Crete and in South Italy within the Greek Calabrian population.

Well done!:rolleyes2:

Dorianfinder
15-08-11, 11:30
makes no sense, south italy has 0.8% U106. your figures above should show 5.7% for average in Italy

You are mistaken, I wrote that in South Italy 5.9% of the R1b was found to be R1b-U106 whereas in North Italy 5.6% of the R1b population was found to be R1b-U106.

zanipolo
15-08-11, 12:07
You are mistaken, I wrote that in South Italy 5.9% of the R1b was found to be R1b-U106 whereas in North Italy 5.6% of the R1b population was found to be R1b-U106.

And I said you are wrong , because the number for south Italy is 0.8 % of u106 , which matches maciano map

Dorianfinder
15-08-11, 13:28
And I said you are wrong , because the number for south Italy is 0.8 % of u106 , which matches maciano map

How can something be 0.8% of U106, you probably mean 0.8% of the entire South Italian pop.?

I did not say 5.7% of Southern Italy I said 5.9% of the R1b in South Italy which is what Maciamo indicates on his distribution map.:bored:

Taranis
15-08-11, 13:43
The discussion arose due to the question of ...who where the germanic celts and where the germanic celts

Yes, and I still have no idea what you've trying to argue with that term "Germanic Celts", or why you bring it up in this thread, for that matter.

If you ask wether there were Celtic tribes that lived in Germania*, the answer has to be yes. I showed multiple examples of that.

If you ask if some of those "Germanic Celts" migrated into Gaul (or Italy, for that matter), the answer has also to be yes.

If it is something else you want to argue, I have no idea what that could be.

*Germania as perceived by the Romans, that is the lands north of the Danube and east of the Rhine

Dorianfinder
15-08-11, 13:59
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif

The higher frequencies along the Danube running to the Black Sea is what I'm referring to when I think about the origin of the Dorian migration into the South Balkans from the North (c.1200BC).

zanipolo
15-08-11, 22:28
How can something be 0.8% of U106, you probably mean 0.8% of the entire South Italian pop.?

I did not say 5.7% of Southern Italy I said 5.9% of the R1b in South Italy which is what Maciamo indicates on his distribution map.:bored:

what ? ..........you where talking about U106, below is the december 2010 figures for U106. As you will see, it says 0.8% for south Italy.
You are not being confused by U152 are you ?

Can you show me this map for 5.9% for all R1b in Italy , in which this nuimber reresents for south Italy it's U106


R-U106 peaks in northern Europe. Its frequency (including the R-U198 sublineage) is 36.8% in the Netherlands, 20.9% in Germany and Austria, 18.2% in Denmark, 18.2% in England, 12.6% in Switzerland, 7.5% in France, 6.1% in Ireland, 5.9% in Poland, 5.6% in north Italy 4.4% in Czech Republic and Slovakia, 3.5% in Hungary, 4.8% in Estonia, 4.3% in south Sweden, 2.5% in Spain and Portugal, 1.3% in eastern Slavs, 0.8% in south Italy, 0.6% in Balkan Slavs, 0.5% in Greeks (i.e. 2 of 193 Cretans, and no mainland Greeks), 0.4% in Turks, 0% in Middle East.

These percentages are from December 2010

zanipolo
15-08-11, 22:46
Yes, and I still have no idea what you've trying to argue with that term "Germanic Celts", or why you bring it up in this thread, for that matter.

If you ask wether there were Celtic tribes that lived in Germania*, the answer has to be yes. I showed multiple examples of that.

If you ask if some of those "Germanic Celts" migrated into Gaul (or Italy, for that matter), the answer has also to be yes.

If it is something else you want to argue, I have no idea what that could be.

*Germania as perceived by the Romans, that is the lands north of the Danube and east of the Rhine

The initial discussion revolved around .........did the Hallstatt and La-Tene cultures evolve from the Gallic-celts which where U152 predominently or was U106 also involved.
Since U106 bavarians "migrated" into eastern austria and U106 was originally further north ( bascially north sea ) , then we can say that the Hallstatt and La-Tene cultures where purely gallic and maybe also predomintly u152.

Dorianfinder
16-08-11, 00:58
what ? ..........you where talking about U106, below is the december 2010 figures for U106. As you will see, it says 0.8% for south Italy.

I am only going to say this one more time so please move on to something new. Italy has 49% R1b according to Eupedia, and out of this total there is about 5% R-U106. This figure varies slightly depending on your collected sample or study. Now we can express this either as a percentage of R1b or as a percentage of the total population. You are stating U106 as a percentage of the entire Italian population whereas I merely stated it as a percentage of the total R1b population. Right, move on ...

zanipolo
16-08-11, 02:14
I am only going to say this one more time so please move on to something new. Italy has 49% R1b according to Eupedia, and out of this total there is about 5% R-U106. This figure varies slightly depending on your collected sample or study. Now we can express this either as a percentage of R1b or as a percentage of the total population. You are stating U106 as a percentage of the entire Italian population whereas I merely stated it as a percentage of the total R1b population. Right, move on ...


As per your comments in post # 79 , below are the numbers
of the 49% of R1b in Italy

Myres and Cruciani studies 2010

37.1% is U152
11.9% is U106

Of the 37.1%
U152 in North italy = 72%
U152 in Central Italy = 18%
U152 in South Italy = 10%

Of the 11.9%
U106 in North italy = 79.8%
U106 in Central Italy = 15%
U106 in South Italy = 5.2%

This is my last post on this matter as I do not know what you are aiming for

geiserich
19-08-11, 17:04
Hi Macimo,
I think you must correct the map of Scotland.
In the western lowlands there is the greatest value for R1b-U152 for the United Kingdom.
Source: www.u152.org (http://www.u152.org)

corinth
29-01-12, 02:33
It is true that the total R1b is even higher in Lombardy and Trentino, but that is because the Lombards settled Alpine Italy and brought a lot of R1b-S21 (and some L21) with them.

Hi I am new to this list and actually joined to respond to this statement. I appreciate you hosting this site for discussion and I fully respect your right to your opinions but I really do think this is a huge assumption.

There is a 900 pound gorilla in the room that certain people for some personal commitment or closely held theories seem to be consciously bypassing entirely.

The highest pcts of U-152/S-28 are the ground-zero for massive Goth and shortly thereafter Lombard resettlement (eastern germanic). Eastern Germanics are a destroyed population, that except for small residual populations in crimea were lost into the western euro and frankish populations after Chalons. No one can honestly at this point say what Hg the eastern germanic tribes consisted of.

The reason that this really has to be the first 'stop' for real consideration before moving on to other theories is, we know from Roman historians that the last large scale resettlement of modern Lombardy and its surroundings was by these eastern germanic populations. We are also told they brought every man, woman, and child, farm implements etc.. on the scale of 200,000 souls to settle what the Romans state was a war-decimated, largely depopulated region.

To be totally unwilling to delve into this is frankly surprising, since from the experiences of this time, the last group to settle a known area enmasse, generally are the most over-represented in the gene pool.. This was the center of Eastern Germanic rule in Italy for a very long period, they had total control, brought and settled their families there in the region of Lombardy so intensely that it bears the tribal name of its settlers to this day..

For that reason, the Goth/Lombardic presence there has to be a first runner up for consideration of the U-152 concentration.

Lets also remember that at Chalons it was the Goths in Gaul who formed the main combatant party against the Huns, and were and this east germanic (now destroyed culturally) population was significant enough, with a intent to hold and settle in Gaul that they had the manpower and will to fight a apocalyptic battle inside of modern North Central France..

This is a way to explain the U-152 found in a seeming belt along the eastern borders of france into the low countries. It is pretty doubtful that a Goth force large enough and determined enough to take on a full Hunnic army was leaving the area any time soon once they had finally won the conflict against their asiatic opponents who had pursued them from the southern Ukraine.

Suggesting we know that any Lombard was R1b-s21, is not a logical conclusion, given that there are mutiple Hg present in germanic populations historically besides S-21 (G2a is for instance often encountered in ancient germanic and gaulish remains.)

There is not any way without a true historical Y-dna study of culturally identifiable remains that we could conclude that U-106 was brought to Lombardy (or any other SNP) by a population that was totally scattered and usurped in ancient times and whose homelands now are slavic R1a populations.

To refuse to acknowledge what we do know as fact= the lombards and goths settled in large numbers (100's of thousands) in the Lombardy region that today is a italian genetic anomaly with sky-high pct of U-152/s-28,
they controlled this area into the onset of the renaissance, were the last large scale population movement we know of to settle the area,
and the same elevated pct of S-28 is found in regions of Gaul that the Goths and other eastern germanic culturally extinct groups fought to possess and later were folded into the greater Frankish population-
today most people are attributing U-152 to some sort of 'Belgic' descent in this area, however U-152 is not a really huge presence in that area and seems a lot more likely to be the result of later Frankish allies introgression than a pre-roman continuous genetic presence.
In conclusion we have U-152 now found as far east as central southern russia / Bashkortostan from the eastern lands that the Goths/ East Germanics first emerged from, and this was immed chalked up to some rare founder effect with no other real examination.

The flat truth is, we have absolutely no ancient results that can attribute any Hg to any Eastern Germanic population(s), no genetic wellspring exists in continuity to test as a proxy, and its entirely possible that U-152 was a central or even main component of Lombardic tribal populations of Gothic populations within their settlement pool in Northern Italy.

Given that the central, most concentrated population of U-152 in Europe are pretty unique in that the very province in which U-152 becomes the supermajority of the population (along with Corsica- also Gothic / eastern germanic settled) is literally named after a Elbe Germanic Tribal confederation is frankly the first place one has to look to explain the ubiquitous U-152 in that locale.

MOESAN
29-01-12, 20:59
I don't believe in massive replacements of population - I do think Lombards in North Italy mixed with Celtic previous occupants (not at the beginning, surely, the keeped the better lands, but after - In different places we see previous vanquished population growing numerous enough again and crossing (East England after the Saxons, preceltic or pre-beakers populations in some places of France...) we are speaking about PRESENT DAY populations after all and other events took place as local emigrations, erasing of previous ethnic barriers... - for Y-G I assume they reminded with strong %s in higland regions of Germany (retaining for a while different cultural traits) and that they was of no weight in the big germanic movements - the other Y-Gs we see in Northern Europe could be associated for a part to Alani people - That Y-R-U152 could be present among last Western Germanic tribes is not absurd at all (see Western Poland and possible Urnfield influence there) but I do not think it could explain the huge presence in Corsica and N-Italy -
we are obliged to do hypothesis in absence of ancient DNA, it is true: but common sense is necessary when speaking about numerous populations and their collective movings

corinth
30-01-12, 03:49
I don't believe in massive replacements of population - I do think Lombards in North Italy mixed with Celtic previous occupants (not at the beginning, surely, the keeped the better lands, but after - In different places we see previous vanquished population growing numerous enough again and crossing (East England after the Saxons, preceltic or pre-beakers populations in some places of France...)

Respectfully of course there are many, many instances of near complete population replacement. We can look to Poland, Czech Republic, and the Sudeten Germans/Sorbs/Masurians in modern european times, the American Indian in North America, the Taino once conquered in the Caribbean are now genetically extinct for all intent and purposes-
Keep in mind all these events took place in non-tribal periods, during which the victor population was acculturated into the cultural aspects of Christianity and its morality, which was no impediment to these acts.

The tribal migration era peoples would not be affected in any cultural way by this form of morality. Also, keep in mind that even one year of failed/stolen/destroyed crops meant almost certain mass famine in these eras.. A population falling under the control of another tribe would be the last in line for such resources if they were allowed to share them at all.
Even in Britain, if we look at roughly 20% of the current (supposedly historical) Y-dna being I1, R1a, or Q, which we could comfortably attribute to migrations from non-brythonic peoples, probably for the most part Scandinavians,
another probably 20% are R1b-s21 which is not shared with other Isles' peoples and is likely largely anglo-saxon, and throw in another 10% or so for the various forms of Hg J1/J2 and E3b, G..etc...

With this very conservative estimate comfortably 50% of modern "English" testees can be determined non-Brythonic celt via Y-dna. Keep in mind here that very significant recent influxes of Irish and Scots populations fully indentify as 'British', 25% of 'English' people have at least one Irish grandparent, and all these persons descendants are included in the 'Engish' Y-results in cases where the ancestor is not a recent immigrant.

All in all, in England for example, you are easily well over the 50th percentile, and probably closing on at least the 60th percentile of non-brythonic paternal heritage. (Including U-152/S-28, as well would EVEN further raise this population replacement pct)

This all means that easily 60% of self-identified cultural Britons are pretty likely to be descendants of some other population than males of the celtic tribal confederations that tried to oppose Ceasars landing..

It is too major a factor in the case of Lombardy/Po valley over-representation of U-152/S-28 to not first look to the Lombards and Goths, and really the only reason not to do this is that many have made personal assumptions that they are committed to defending, and conceding that U-152 stands a notable chance of being a legacy of Lombards, Goths, and other eastern Germanic (destroyed) populations interferes with past assumptions they have declared.
As I said before, the smaller pcts. of U-152 in so-called Belgic or Rhenish French populations is also right were a very large and well armed population of Goths settled and later disappeared into the general Frankish populations.
There is no basis for assuming that the SNP/Hg of Western Germanic tribal populations would be the same as now defunct Eastern Germanic tribal era populations. We can demonstrate this based on the differences in SNP/Hg between extant North Germanic populations from extant Western Germanic speaking populations, whose largest Y-dna components are not even in the same Haplogroup- let alone different SNP's.


we are speaking about PRESENT DAY populations after all and other events took place as local emigrations, erasing of previous ethnic barriers... - for Y-G I assume they reminded with strong %s in higland regions of Germany (retaining for a while different cultural traits) and that they was of no weight in the big germanic movements - the other Y-Gs we see in Northern Europe could be associated for a part to Alani people - That Y-R-U152 could be present among last Western Germanic tribes is not absurd at all (see Western Poland and possible Urnfield influence there) but I do not think it could explain the huge presence in Corsica and N-Italy -
we are obliged to do hypothesis in absence of ancient DNA, it is true: but common sense is necessary when speaking about numerous populations and their collective movings

There are certainly massive and often unrecorded population movements that must be taken into account, Plague impact and resistance in a given area or population for instance. To do due-dilligence in assessing this is important, but I think also one must pursue a LOGICAL, not scatter-shot approach that focuses first on known settlements, size of settlement, most recent mass resettlement, in making such a assessment.


"Meeting with little opposition, for the country had been ravaged by war and plague, they occupied the great plain between the Alps and the Apennines, ever since called Lombardy. It was a thorough conquest. They made no pretense of alliance with the empire, as the Ostrogoths had done, nor did they leave the conquered Italians in possession of their estates. The continuity of Roman civilization, which had survived so many invasions, was at last broken, or at least severely strained. About 575 A.D., marauding bands of Lombards began to push farther south, and within a decade had occupied the center of Italy almost to the southern end of the peninsula."

With the specific instance of Lombardy and U-152 constituting 1/2 the population in the Historic settlement area, no real investigation of the genetics behind this can be started until one starts with the potential for this to have been carried to its current area of elevated occurrence by the Lombards.

A lot of people are in my opinion disinclined or resistive to such a consideration because they may have already attributed U-152 as "italo-celtic", "belgic", gaulish, etc.. and to accept that this may in fact be the result of Lombardic genetic introgression disturbs these earlier assessments. In any event, I appreciate your response, forum and thoughts on this matter.

Vallicanus
06-02-12, 00:44
Is this Corinth for real with his outlandish reading of the evidence?:confused2:

MOESAN
06-02-12, 20:49
As per your comments in post # 79 , below are the numbers of the 49% of R1b in Italy Myres and Cruciani studies 2010 37.1% is U152 11.9% is U106 Of the 37.1% U152 in North italy = 72% U152 in Central Italy = 18% U152 in South Italy = 10% Of the 11.9% U106 in North italy = 79.8% U106 in Central Italy = 15% U106 in South Italy = 5.2% This is my last post on this matter as I do not know what you are aiming for sorry, these percentages are surely correct but they don't make any sense (for me, a break down of my brain? joke) what matters is 1- the absolute %s of every SNP compared to the total population of EVERY region 2- the relative %s of every SNP within the R1b "population" of EVERY region the cifers above says nothing to us, only the global heavier weight of R1b in North Italy

MOESAN
06-02-12, 20:57
to Corinth: these Longobards did not keep with their language: surprising for a so imposant composant of North Italy population, according to you... so either they were not very numerous or they had been overflowed AFTER by surrounding populations - and their phenotypes taken as mean don't make them good ambassadors of a South baltic population...

spongetaro
06-02-12, 21:37
U152.org also favors the Ligurian origin of R1b U152:


During the historical period, the best representation of U152 tribes were probably the Ligurians and Golaseccans, the former speaking a Celtic language with some links to Italic and the latter speaking Lepontic, an archaic P-Celtic language with close affinities to Gaulish. The Ligurians were seafarers which were known to have colonized Corsica and have also been linked to the Sicels of Sicily. As for the Lepontics, Caesar stated that they inhabited the Alps all the way up to the origin of the Rhine. 6. To further the Ligurian link, but not plotted on the map, Garfagnana which was the most heavily populated Ligurian area during the Roman period, had the highest amount of R1b (76.2%) in all of Italy as per Di Giacomo et al. (2003). For a variety of reasons, I have very little doubt that most of this R1b is U152.

Vallicanus
06-02-12, 21:44
U152.org also favors the Ligurian origin of R1b U152:

The fact that this website dedicated to the sub-clade U-152 supports this Western Alps view of origin is good enough for me.

corinth
07-02-12, 06:12
to Corinth: these Longobards did not keep with their language: surprising for a so imposant composant of North Italy population, according to you...

Neither did yours.. are you typing in the language of your tribal ancestors, are you conversational in ancient celtic?


so either they were not very numerous or they had been overflowed AFTER by surrounding populations - and their phenotypes taken as mean don't make them good ambassadors of a South baltic population...

First of all, I have replied to you courteously, but at this point it is getting to the point that I must ask.. why do you care?

This is not your Hg by your own information, so what do you care what I suggest, it does not related to you anyway.

The moment you start discussing phenotypes you are wasting literally the time of everyone reading what you type, because according to phenotype 1 out of every three negro americans should be 'I1' and 'R1b-m269' africans.... when we are all quite aware how 1 out of every three of them carries a genetically dominant phenotype inspite of having paternal input from a Northern European male ancestry.

corinth
07-02-12, 06:20
U152.org also favors the Ligurian origin of R1b U152:

"the best representation"
"probably"

this is what your quote says, which is a fairly worded pronouncement on the part of the site owner, Richard Rocco.
Like most southern italics, he favors a native italic origin for U-152, as their own tribal marker that is functionally indigenous.

the problem is, the regions that U-152 are found at their highest levels are the regions with the most intense and prolonged domination by non-italics.

This will eventually be settled by ancient DNA results.. not by my argument, Rocca's argument or yours.

The reality is, in current ancient y-dna results,..
0.0% within europe are U-152. While this currently supports at least for the moment my theory that this is a recent intrustion into europe/italy from the east that came with Lombardic domination over the Po Valley, that could change.

I do not believe that it will change, and I do believe my arguments will in the most part be confirmed, but for the time we only have what we have. What we know now is that in ancient Y-dna for R1b in europe we have U-106 results and L21..

For now, the results are not there to show U-152 as a ancient presence before the Lombardic invasions.. anywhere in Italy or Europe.

Vallicanus
07-02-12, 10:28
U-152 is only very strong in the western part of the Po valley down into western Tuscany and Corsica and up into the Swiss Alps and is of prehistoric, non-Germanic origin.

Lombards were a Western Germanic people with a tendency to U-106 like Anglo-Saxons and Frisians.

That will not change.

All you have is your theory based on no hard evidence.

R.Rocca
07-02-12, 20:55
"the best representation"
"probably"

this is what your quote says, which is a fairly worded pronouncement on the part of the site owner, Richard Rocco.
Like most southern italics, he favors a native italic origin for U-152, as their own tribal marker that is functionally indigenous.

the problem is, the regions that U-152 are found at their highest levels are the regions with the most intense and prolonged domination by non-italics.

This will eventually be settled by ancient DNA results.. not by my argument, Rocca's argument or yours.

The reality is, in current ancient y-dna results,..
0.0% within europe are U-152. While this currently supports at least for the moment my theory that this is a recent intrustion into europe/italy from the east that came with Lombardic domination over the Po Valley, that could change.

I do not believe that it will change, and I do believe my arguments will in the most part be confirmed, but for the time we only have what we have. What we know now is that in ancient Y-dna for R1b in europe we have U-106 results and L21..

For now, the results are not there to show U-152 as a ancient presence before the Lombardic invasions.. anywhere in Italy or Europe.

If you can find a quote where I (Richard Rocca) favor an Italian origin for U152, I'll send $10 to your Paypal account.

corinth
08-02-12, 02:21
If you can find a quote where I (Richard Rocca) favor an Italian origin for U152, I'll send $10 to your Paypal account.

I was presented with the below quote, and i am more than familiar with the attempts to associate U-152 with the Ligurians, who are deemed at least indigenous to the Italian penninsula, and "linked" to Italic or celt-italic ancestry culture by many theories.

I apologize if I am taking your position out of complete context as pertains to the quote that I was presented, and I did say in my response that I felt yours was a fairly worded theory. I do not agree with it, or the basis for it, sans SOME actual historical ancient Y results, and even so I did acknowledge that I feel it is fairly worked and I would add thought out logically.

I am not opposed to any one theory or another, but I am opposed to a theory that has ZERO ancient y results to support it, or modern population linkages to support such a assertion being presented alone, or as a fait-accompli because you see here in this very thread what happens when this is done-

You end up with those who are ill-informed or prone to jumping on a 'bandwagon' then regurgitating theories that they have made a final decision on and are not capable of actually parsing or aware of the fact that this theory is totally unsubstantiated by any actua historical Y results in-situ to confirm such a conclusion.


U152 tribes were probably the Ligurians and Golaseccans, the former speaking a Celtic language with some links to Italic and the latter speaking Lepontic, an archaic P-Celtic language with close affinities to Gaulish. The Ligurians were seafarers

The one part, in fairness, that is left out of this quote and would lend some support to your theory in my opinion is that there is mention of Consuls relocating Ligures to central Italy as a means of preventing further rebellions or uprisings in the province, which could be taken as accounting for the lesser pcts. of U-152 that are found in central Italy.
That said, it cuts both ways given the later historical introgressions into Liguria, and the toll taken on the indigenous population over many catastrophic events that impact the Ligures numbers in their home region.

My strongest basis for U-152 having a relation to "Lombardic" introgression is that they were repeatedly able to do what the Goths could not- repulse strong Byzantine attacks- attacks that were supported by the indigenous populations around them on the part of Ravenna.

The "Lombards" could not reasonably (in their initial centuries) have called upon the subjected Italics for support to defend their conquered territories, so attempts to minimize their numbers, manpower, and reproduction success within the Po Valley are refuted by the fact they could not be dislodged and quite the opposite were able to constantly TAKE additional territory over the centuries steadily and surely.

To chalk this territorial success up to roughly 6% +/- of the population,
(which has to include bastard-offspring within the Italic community born to Italic females who are not likely to have been available to "lombardic" interests for defense/offensive purposes - reducing actual numbers to probably under 4%)
whose modern descendants are the I1/U-106/R1a composite of North Italy does not seem probable.

Vallicanus
08-02-12, 10:23
Can you not understand the map in the U-152.org site? Expand the map to see the local detail more clearly.

There is no strong frequency of U-152 across northern Italy. North-east Italy has as little of the U-152 type as southern Italy.

It DECREASES eastwards in both northern and central Italy.

Italy's U-152 is more in a NW sector from the Swiss and French Alps (not Lombard areas!) down into western Tuscany and Corsica where the Lombards were just thin garrisons.

Your historical theory is just that, a theory, not anything based on statistical facts.

The Byzantines in Italy had diverted their best troops to fight Persians, Arabs and Slavs so the Lombards had an easy time expanding.

MOESAN
08-02-12, 12:08
Neither did yours.. are you typing in the language of your tribal ancestors, are you conversational in ancient celtic?

it is funny: you seams almost 'upset' !?!

I understand very well your thoughts here but:
Roman Empire had a very good political-commercial-militar (administrative) net and took about 400 years before imposing its language in Gaul lands (and yet maybe not everywhere) - according to you Longobards had a very strong inprint on the (central?) North part of present Italy - maybe they was not as well organized than Romans but they had a smaller territory to rule, so... In Switzerland and Austria is spoken germanic yet, because (and phenotypes tell that us too) they received more germanic people - I think typical present day Bavarians have less germanic "blood" (or genes as a whole) than some swiss and austrian valleys people (arrows of the germanic advance there) but they were and stayed surrounded by germanic speaking populations - (even them has more Y-I1 and Y-RU106 and i suppose more Y-R1a than present Lombards) - Lombardia is still very close to germanic speaking areas and don't speak germanic - Lombardia at the time of Lomgobards was not in a centralized territory as Gaul during the Roman Empire, so why no more germanic language there...?

First of all, I have replied to you courteously, but at this point it is getting to the point that I must ask.. why do you care?
This is not your Hg by your own information, so what do you care what I suggest, it does not related to you anyway.

What????????????????????
I am not allowed by you to speak about R-U152 because it is not my personal HG? I have no right to care what is said about a topic because of that??? curious no? we are thinking and debating about history: History concerns everybody that want... (if I have well understood your meanings)

The moment you start discussing phenotypes you are wasting literally the time of everyone reading what you type, because according to phenotype 1 out of every three negro americans should be 'I1' and 'R1b-m269' africans.... when we are all quite aware how 1 out of every three of them carries a genetically dominant phenotype inspite of having paternal input from a Northern European male ancestry.

You remark here is of some worth, I agree - so, to come along you on your way (after all it is possible) we can consider than Longobards was almost only males (seldom germanic wives with them) to explain the huge Y-RU152 "longobard" majority in today Lombardia without a similar majority of phenotypes (even if you can answer that germanic tribes was not all the same: hard to prove yes or not) - for black Americans I am not surprised because they are Afro-European crossing where white 'planteurs' took dirty advantages on black women slaves and after these crossing, because of the bad statute given to them, "negroes" of the States did not cross again very often with other populations, keeping with them this imbalanced crossing - for Longobards and their descendants I am not sure they could keep on without underbreeding with other italian people - I told you my thoughts, taking in account all sorts of things, phenotypes as possible help among them, I never said I was a close cousin to God... You maybe? and be carefull when expressing things: a genetic dominance is not a numeral dominance: nothing proves us at this time that Y-I or Y-R-M269 are "genetically" dominant at all... ( I say that because I read very often that recessive genes are exposed to disparition, what is a nonsense if they are numerous enough)

zanipolo
08-02-12, 12:18
I looked at u152.org site and one understand that the central and eastern part of the po valley ( lombardy and veneto) was in majority up to the year 4500BC underwater. So the golasecca and la tene culture had to be only in the western part of north Italy.
Up to 1500BC the ligurians where still as far as narbon ( montpellier area) up to eastern piedmont.

The venetic where not italians , latest find from italian historians a month ago, is that the venetic and raeti by 1000BC where basically the same people,

the conclusion to me is that U-152 is ligurian and western helvetic and the ligurian part sits mostly between the rhone river and genoa (provenzal, french and italian rivieras )

MOESAN
08-02-12, 12:18
sorry my answer to Corinth is mixed with his meanings - I did a mistake maybe?
but readers can easily make the difference between our theories!
by chance there are others forumers here that can put arguments (different ones) on my side?
let's keep quite and drink fresh!

Taranis
08-02-12, 14:21
You end up with those who are ill-informed or prone to jumping on a 'bandwagon' then regurgitating theories that they have made a final decision on and are not capable of actually parsing or aware of the fact that this theory is totally unsubstantiated by any actua historical Y results in-situ to confirm such a conclusion.

Please, there's no reason for such a language. You should treat your discussion others a bit more respectfully, no matter how much you disagree with them.

First off, your own claims are just as unsubstantiated as those of your discussion others, due to the absence of ancient samples of R1b-U152. However, a very strong case can be made against by taking a look at the sister clades of R1b-U152. I admit it's a bit weird to talk about "sister clades" when talking Y-DNA, but be that as it is, the age and the phylogenetic structure of western Europe R1b heavily speaks against your idea that R1b-U152 is somehow of Lombardic or East Germanic origin.

The 'sister' clades of R1b-U152 are:
- R1b-L21, which is most prevalent on the British Isles and in Atlantic France.
- R1b-Z196, which is most prevalent on the Iberian penninsula (in particular Basque Country and Catalonia) as well as southwestern France (Gascogne).
- R1b-M65, which is found predominantly in the Basque country.

All of the above, including R1b-U152, are part of the clade R1b-S116, which in turn forms a "sister" clade to R1b-U106. How does it become sensible, from the above, to argue for an origin of R1b-U152 in the homelands of the East Germanic peoples (eastern part of Central Europe)? It just doesn't make sense. Regardless of any speculation of ethnic affiliation, R1b-U152 must originated somewhere in the vicinity of the western Alps, and not in the Elbe-Oder-Vistula areas.

An additional issie is that R1b-U152, and the other subclades of R1b-S116 should have roughly the same age. Likewise, R1b-U106 and R1b-S116, being 'sister' clades should have roughly the same age as well.

In any case, if we unearthen East Germanic DNA, I'd make the personal wager that we're more likely to find I1, R1a and R1b-U106 than R1b-U152.

sparkey
08-02-12, 20:05
I admit it's a bit weird to talk about "sister clades" when talking Y-DNA

That's why I call them "brother clades." :good_job:


The 'sister' clades of R1b-U152 are:
- R1b-L21, which is most prevalent on the British Isles and in Atlantic France.
- R1b-Z196, which is most prevalent on the Iberian penninsula (in particular Basque Country and Catalonia) as well as southwestern France (Gascogne).
- R1b-M65, which is found predominantly in the Basque country.

All of the above, including R1b-U152, are part of the clade R1b-S116, which in turn forms a "sister" clade to R1b-U106. How does it become sensible, from the above, to argue for an origin of R1b-U152 in the homelands of the East Germanic peoples (eastern part of Central Europe)? It just doesn't make sense. Regardless of any speculation of ethnic affiliation, R1b-U152 must originated somewhere in the vicinity of the western Alps, and not in the Elbe-Oder-Vistula areas.

I agree with this. The center of diversity of both R1b-S116, and even R1b-U152 itself, is nowhere near where we expect Eastern Germanic peoples to have come from. We'd have to postulate some sort of a displacement or a multiple pooling point theory to have the diversity patterns make sense for that.


An additional issie is that R1b-U152, and the other subclades of R1b-S116 should have roughly the same age. Likewise, R1b-U106 and R1b-S116, being 'sister' clades should have roughly the same age as well.

Mikewww has pointed to (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?27049-More-precise-R1b-subclade-estimates-using-Nordtvedt-s-methodology&p=388532&viewfull=1#post388532) proof that R1b-S116's subclades began to expand quite shortly after its TMRCA. There is little difference between them. And U106 fits right in there with them, as you indicate.


In any case, if we unearthen East Germanic DNA, I'd make the personal wager that we're more likely to find I1, R1a and R1b-U106 than R1b-U152.

I would also bet on more I2a2a (old I2b1) than R1b-U152. Heck, R1b-U152 might not even be in the top 5 in East Germanics, as Q might beat it, as well.

corinth
08-02-12, 23:46
Mikewww has pointed to (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?27049-More-precise-R1b-subclade-estimates-using-Nordtvedt-s-methodology&p=388532&viewfull=1#post388532) proof that R1b-S116's subclades began to expand quite shortly after its TMRCA. There is little difference between them. And U106 fits right in there with them, as you indicate.

except for the fact that we do in fact have U-152 far to the east, in Bashkortostan and there is no evidence or historical record to show that it is a alien introduction as opposed to the remnant of a indigenous overrun population, as the region fell to asiatics. Thus we can show that U-152 has the potential to be far outside the scope of the confines that Mikewww has posited.
Also, all the other SNP you cite have centers of identifiable dominance into modern times, that are related to identifiable cultural milieu.
U-152 is not clearly and unambiguously related to a given cultural region and unlike L21* and U-106, U-152 has yet to be found in any ancient Y-results from within the continent of europe.. in any locality.
You need to be careful about accepting theories as evidence, or simply regurgitating what someone else has taught you.


I would also bet on more I2a2a (old I2b1) than R1b-U152. Heck, R1b-U152 might not even be in the top 5 in East Germanics, as Q might beat it, as well.

Given the omni-presence of I2 in europe going back in ancient Y-results to far prior to the celt/german/slavic split, I would say it is virtually all indigenous that later gets conquered and in some areas subordinated to the later arriving modern populations that we speak of as celt/german/slav.

I dont think there is any reason to find it within these populations, but it is a conquered indigenous precursor (I2) that the modern cultural groups arrive to largely displace.

Vallicanus
09-02-12, 00:30
So there we have it according to Corinth.

Bashkirs and Lombards had a common origin.

Were Bashkirs East Germanic or were Lombards Asiatic in his view?

Mikewww
09-02-12, 00:53
Mikewww has pointed to (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?27049-More-precise-R1b-subclade-estimates-using-Nordtvedt-s-methodology&p=388532&viewfull=1#post388532) proof that R1b-S116's subclades began to expand quite shortly after its TMRCA. There is little difference between them. And U106 fits right in there with them, as you indicate.
I think the R1b-L11/S127 family, including P312/S116 and U106/S21 expanded rapidly and at about the same time across Europe, but I can hardly say I've proven anything... just provided some evidence.


except for the fact that we do in fact have U-152 far to the east, in Bashkortostan and there is no evidence or historical record to show that it is a alien introduction as opposed to the remnant of a indigenous overrun population, as the region fell to asiatics.
There is little evidence to show U152 far to the east is NOT an alien introduction, either. We don't know. My understanding is that the U152 in Bashkortostan has low diversity. If anything, this indicates a recent founder rather than an ancient presence, but we don't know.


Thus we can show that U-152 has the potential to be far outside the scope of the confines that Mikewww has posited.
What are you saying I "posited?" I don't remember positing anything about U152's origin. I speculate it expanded from the north side of the Alps including SE France. It could have originated far to the east, along with P312 and L11.


Also, all the other SNP you cite have centers of identifiable dominance into modern times, that are related to identifiable cultural milieu.
U-152 is not clearly and unambiguously related to a given cultural region and unlike L21* and U-106, U-152 has yet to be found in any ancient Y-results from within the continent of europe.. in any locality.
I disagree with you. U152 is not that much different in the proportions of its geographic spread than U106 or L21. If anything, Z196 is much more scattered, reaching up into the Scandinavian Peninsula, but also quite strong across France, Iberia and even surprisingly so in Germany and Eastern Europe. L21 can also be found, albeit in low frequencies in East Europe and in Iberia. U152 is predominately northern Italy and across the Alps up the Rhine and into Benelux... and as has been noted to the east and into Iberia lightly. L21, U106 and U152 each have a predominate territory but then end up in scattered placed. I'd say the elements of L11 that are different are P312* and Z196 for which it is harder to find a clearly predominant location. L11* would fit in as scattered too, but only lightly and to the hilt.

sparkey
09-02-12, 00:54
except for the fact that we do in fact have U-152 far to the east, in Bashkortostan and there is no evidence or historical record to show that it is a alien introduction as opposed to the remnant of a indigenous overrun population, as the region fell to asiatics. Thus we can show that U-152 has the potential to be far outside the scope of the confines that Mikewww has posited.

Mike didn't really confine it geographically, he just showed that the TMRCA of the known samples are close to the TMRCA of S116. Is the Bashkortostan sample an out member? If not, I don't see a reason to suppose that it's an example of a more ancient group of U152. And even if it was an out member, there would be no reason to suppose that the rest of U152 therefore expanded from a more Eastern group.


Also, all the other SNP you cite have centers of identifiable dominance into modern times, that are related to identifiable cultural milieu.
U-152 is not clearly and unambiguously related to a given cultural region and unlike L21* and U-106, U-152 has yet to be found in any ancient Y-results from within the continent of europe.. in any locality.

That's because of a lack of ancient samples overall. We only have about 10 European Bronze Age samples total, and nothing from the Iron Age outside of Russia. So R1b-U152 still has a shot.


You need to be careful about accepting theories as evidence, or simply regurgitating what someone else has taught you.

I accept STR dating estimates and diversity analyses as evidence, of course. I've even performed similar analyses myself before, so I understand what goes into it.


Given the omni-presence of I2 in europe going back in ancient Y-results to far prior to the celt/german/slavic split, I would say it is virtually all indigenous that later gets conquered and in some areas subordinated to the later arriving modern populations that we speak of as celt/german/slav.

I dont think there is any reason to find it within these populations, but it is a conquered indigenous precursor (I2) that the modern cultural groups arrive to largely displace.

I think it's an oversimplification to think of I2 solely in terms of being an indigenous displacement. Yes, I2 is effectively entirely indigenous to Europe. Yes, it was probably held in greater percentages in Europe in the past (at least, in Western and Central Europe). But most of its modern distribution can be explained by known post-Neolithic expansions. So, the modern distribution of I2a2a doesn't make sense without understanding the Migration Period; I2a2b doesn't make sense without understanding the Iron Age Celts; I2a1b1a doesn't make sense without understanding the spread of Slavs; etc.

R.Rocca
09-02-12, 04:17
There is little evidence to show U152 far to the east is NOT an alien introduction, either. We don't know. My understanding is that the U152 in Bashkortostan has low diversity. If anything, this indicates a recent founder rather than an ancient presence, but we don't know.

It's even more than that - the North Bashkirs that turned up U152+ all had the same exact haplotype, meaning they were the result of a recent founder effect.

corinth
09-02-12, 06:06
There is little evidence to show U152 far to the east is NOT an alien introduction, either. We don't know. My understanding is that the U152 in Bashkortostan has low diversity. If anything, this indicates a recent founder rather than an ancient presence, but we don't know.

Mike, if you check back in my post history within this thread, you will see I have acknowledged exactly what you are saying.
I fully conceded that I can no more confirm that the far-eastern U-152 is a product of a relic local indigenous population, than I can assert that it is a imported, late arriving transplanted european population.
I think that it is less likely to be a modern or late arriving population because I do not foresee that such a western/europid population would have a lot of paternal reproductive success in a Islamic tribal state that was part of the repeated invasion forces that were primarily focused on brutalizing western europid populations that they could subject, and was not known for kind or benevolent treatment of these populations in their own homelands.
It is a lot more likely to my estimation that such a enslaved population arriving into a Tribal islamic turko-mongol state would find that its males lasted as long as the first hunnic/mongol raiding or provisioning party passed through.

Admittedly this is my OPINION, and presented as such, but it is founded in precedent.



What are you saying I "posited?" I don't remember positing anything about U152's origin. I speculate it expanded from the north side of the Alps including SE France. It could have originated far to the east, along with P312 and L11.

I am dealing with a third-party quoting you who infers that this is a western-euro originating population that arises in western europe at the same time and within the same conditions as all other P312. The TMRCA ancestor estimates and assumptions are effectively close to valueless, and many pundits have asserted their ability to confidently mathematically predict these ages, to the glee of those who wish to believe this. It is theory, and for specific mathematical reasons cannot be proven because of missing data that must be inferred, and mutational estimates that must be assumed.
For this reason, SNP ages and TMRCA should always be presented as educated opinion, not as fact. I am not saying that you are guilty of this, or criticizing you personally in this regard, but you see above what happens once these estimates are turned loose "in the wild", which is they are taken as holy gospel by those who want facts but do not have the ability to discern, or interest to discern, a educated guess from proven fact.



I disagree with you. U152 is not that much different in the proportions of its geographic spread than U106 or L21. If anything, Z196 is much more scattered, reaching up into the Scandinavian Peninsula, but also quite strong across France, Iberia and even surprisingly so in Germany and Eastern Europe. L21 can also be found, albeit in low frequencies in East Europe and in Iberia. U152 is predominately northern Italy and across the Alps up the Rhine and into Benelux... and as has been noted to the east and into Iberia lightly. L21, U106 and U152 each have a predominate territory but then end up in scattered placed. I'd say the elements of L11 that are different are P312* and Z196 for which it is harder to find a clearly predominant location. L11* would fit in as scattered too, but only lightly and to the hilt.

Undifferentiated L21 is a lost cause in trying to tie to any one population or culture, at this time. I am not pretending to be any sort of expert (or interested) in the latest advances in L21 SNP since it does not apply to me, and I do not really care to be honest.
IMHO, L21* is effectively a "waiting seat" holding a undifferentiated population until a deeper SNP can be found that is meaningful to its members, so including them as a example in the above statement is really a unfair inclusion of a population that cannot yet be assigned to a locally meaningful SNP.

I think like a lot of other Hg or SNP, (i.e.- nordtvedt=I1) U-152 should be left in large part to those who are in U-152 and are researching their own clade/SNP.
A lot of the comments regarding U-152 are coming from L21* individuals who are a VERY LARGE IN NUMBER, they are all members of the same message boards and same forums, and they are often basically "pissed" that there is very little they can determine, and are for some reason adamant on inserting themselves into discussion on U-152 and become furious if that discussion moves outside what they feel is the prevailing opinion on the array of message boards and forums that they are regurgitating information from.

corinth
09-02-12, 06:13
I think it's an oversimplification to think of I2 solely in terms of being an indigenous displacement. Yes, I2 is effectively entirely indigenous to Europe. Yes, it was probably held in greater percentages in Europe in the past (at least, in Western and Central Europe). But most of its modern distribution can be explained by known post-Neolithic expansions. So, the modern distribution of I2a2a doesn't make sense without understanding the Migration Period; I2a2b doesn't make sense without understanding the Iron Age Celts; I2a1b1a doesn't make sense without understanding the spread of Slavs; etc.

I think that most I2 in europe long predates most of the cultural divisions that we would recognize today, its found in remnant survivor locales across the continent and in the Isles, and a reasonable interpretation is that it managed to hang on in some places by being adopted or allying with the dominant invading populations, which was done most successfully in the Balkans and scattered regions of france, germany and scotland, but I do not think it is actually a part of those populations originally.

As before, this is simply my opinion, but I2 is no stranger to any slavic, germanic, or celtic region, its no stranger to ancient DNA found in-situ across all these centers of culture, and its best explained as pre-existing aboriginals who managed to integrate into those arriving populations.

corinth
09-02-12, 06:23
It's even more than that - the North Bashkirs that turned up U152+ all had the same exact haplotype, meaning they were the result of a recent founder effect.

what is the Ht differential among modern remnant Samaritans?

(Hint, they are all from only a couple male Y-lines and were reduced to only 100 people-
out of a ancient population of over ONE Million)

We can place the Samaritans in the Levant from before the time of Jesus, and we know that they are a very ancient and indigenous population, yet only a couple male Y-lines survive to this day, and were very close to being functionally EXTINCT only a couple decades ago.

Be careful about inferring that a remnant, disadvantaged but ancient population would necessitate a population of Ht diversity, because the fact that they are a remnant population is also why the surviving percentage of a once sizable population is likely to have very minimal genetic diversity.

The case here of the U-152 Bakshir vs. Samaritans Ht diversity comparison is also a excellent caution about people who go looking for something that will support the argument they hope to present, usually finding a way to present the results in the manner that will be most useful to that purpose.

Vallicanus
09-02-12, 10:30
What has this to do with a map of U-152 distribution?

R.Rocca
09-02-12, 23:54
There are hundreds of public surname projects in FTDNA that have similar, but not identical STR signatures. The ones who have a closer MRCA have more similar haplotypes and the ones with older MRCA have less similar haplotypes in common. This is common sense. If you think that having an identical STR signature only means an old family lineage, then you are not going to be taken seriously by anyone.

By the way, your Samaritan example was a very poor one. Please read the Shen 2004 paper:

"The four Samaritan families clustered to four distinct Y-chromosome haplogroups according to their patrilineal identity"

That's four families, four different haplotypes. If I took my family and those of my three closest friends, guess what? I would have four haplotypes. That is not very special is it?

sparkey
10-02-12, 01:30
I think that most I2 in europe long predates most of the cultural divisions that we would recognize today, its found in remnant survivor locales across the continent and in the Isles, and a reasonable interpretation is that it managed to hang on in some places by being adopted or allying with the dominant invading populations, which was done most successfully in the Balkans and scattered regions of france, germany and scotland, but I do not think it is actually a part of those populations originally.

As before, this is simply my opinion, but I2 is no stranger to any slavic, germanic, or celtic region, its no stranger to ancient DNA found in-situ across all these centers of culture, and its best explained as pre-existing aboriginals who managed to integrate into those arriving populations.

Well, I think I see where we disagree. You seem to have a concept of Germanic expansions as including largely R1b-U152 peoples, with I2a2a peoples being Paleolithic remnants until quite late who were overrun by these R1b-U152 Germanics who then continued onto Italy. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

The way I see it, proto-Germanic didn't really form entirely until it had become a fusion of (1) R1b-U106-type Centum Indo-Europeans related to the proto-Italo-Celts with (2) the extant late Neolithic R1a peoples who we can relate to Corded Ware culture, quite possibly also IE speakers, who had already absorbed almost all of the I1 peoples and some of the I2a2a peoples. So proto-Germanic didn't really form until I2a2a was already a part of it, and that's why I2a2a can be considered both a Paleolithic remnant and a Germanic invader haplogroup.

Also you'll note that R1b-U152 doesn't really come into my Germanic haplogroup scenario outside of being a cousin, and I'll grant, possibly having some limited spillover.

corinth
10-02-12, 23:49
There are hundreds of public surname projects in FTDNA that have similar, but not identical STR signatures. The ones who have a closer MRCA have more similar haplotypes and the ones with older MRCA have less similar haplotypes in common. This is common sense. If you think that having an identical STR signature only means an old family lineage, then you are not going to be taken seriously by anyone.

Respectfully, that is not- in any way- what I said. I feel you are putting words in my mouth to be frank.

I said that finding one clan of U-152 or (other m269) in this locality and assuming it is therefor recent or late introgression based on the fact that- of the portion you tested -you have what appears to be one clan, is not probable cause to make such a determination.


By the way, your Samaritan example was a very poor one. Please read the Shen 2004 paper:
"The four Samaritan families clustered to four distinct Y-chromosome haplogroups according to their patrilineal identity"
That's four families, four different haplotypes. If I took my family and those of my three closest friends, guess what? I would have four haplotypes. That is not very special is it?

except that the entire STR/Hg tree of every Samaritan clan is known and tested. Moreover, we know that of the current 700 or so ethnic/genetic Samaritans, they are the product of population of only 100 people at its low point.

With the steppe U-152 or other M269, we have a population in total of over FOUR MILLION in Bashkortostan alone, not even mentioning the surrounding state of millions more, and the numbers of paternal ancestries mapped are well under 1% of the entire indigenous local populations..

So, while you are correct that of the 85% portion of Samaritan males in Hg J,
there are three male founder lines that are still extant, with their own three Ht's, this offers you a whopping 3x increase over your assertions as pertains to declaring the U-152 Bakshirs recent introgression instead of being a destroyed remnant of a local population..

which is a far cry from being notable.

Most importantly, we do not have a full paternal genomic/Hg/Ht map of extant Bakshir/Perm populations, who number in the many millions, so suggesting that the known limit of three J clades within the Samaritan populations = the entire mapped paternal Y-lines within Perm Bakshir or related steppe populations is not even close to accurate.
There is only currently a scratch of the surface as relates to exposing the steppe genetics within these remote and numerous populations of many, many millions,
while within the Samaritans we have a confined and fully mapped ancient population that is now reduced to only three Hg H Y-lines accounting for 85% of its remaining population.

The entire point of this analogy was that few and confined in number does not automatically = recent introgression, esp when it is applied to strictly tribal clan populations.

BTW, I respect you efforts on your site, and strongly encourage and support your dedication and work.

Sennevini
11-02-12, 00:51
How does it come, the Frisian area is free of U152? Was it present at an earlier time, and wiped out by Germanic tribes, or was it never there? Are there theories regarding this?

corinth
11-02-12, 01:19
Well, I think I see where we disagree. You seem to have a concept of Germanic expansions as including largely R1b-U152 peoples, with I2a2a peoples being Paleolithic remnants until quite late who were overrun by these R1b-U152 Germanics who then continued onto Italy. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Yes, you would be wrong as pertains to your portrayal of my stance, or I did a really bad job of explaining my position.. one or the other.

Under my entire scenario, I am suggesting that the Getae/Massagetae are the Goths/Lombards/Gepids/Heruli etc.. who arise from the same homelands after the Getae disappear from history in that region,
and are effectively a eastern-germanic population that is long native to the eastern steppes, and never originated from or went to Scandinavia. Thus they are not ethnically 'Germanic' in the same modern, familiar sense of modern Scandinavian or Western German U-106, nor do I feel that U-152 relates to the origin of those western Continental or Scandinavian germanic cultures, or to modern "Germany" as a landmass.

I think a significant pct of U-152 get dispersed in some of these continental regions as the Goths are dispersed into the local populations in large numbers, especially in and around Chalons where they composed the majority of the fighting force that defeat the Huns.
In my opinion this residual U-152 is wrongly termed "Belgic" in and around this region, when it is a fairly minor component of all these regions Belgic of otherwise, even within the local R1b.

(To the ire of many I1 Hg, I am also pretty certain that I1 is effectively a 'Svearish' Hg, since R1b only arrives in Finland after the Svearish domination of Scandinavia, and is not followed to Finland by any U-106/R1b from Scandinavia where it comprises 1/3 of the population, since that R1b/U-106 is probably 'Geatish' and was then a recently subjected population to the I1 Svears-
I1 thus is not 'germanic' in the sense that it is the orginator of the culture, and we do not know where or when the Svears come into Scandinavia.)

The Getae/Getic name is used interchangeably by many ancient historians for the Goths and related tribes,
and this is only refuted by those who note that other ancient sources cite the Dacians/Illyrians and Getae reportedly 'speaking the same language'.
A ancient greek or roman observer - who is not fluent in either dacian/illyrian or german/gothic- seeing these parties conversing has no idea who is conversing in the others language, or what pct of the population(s) would have such skills even if they could decipher the languages.
The Dacians and Getae obviously are recorded as cooperating with one another, and some or even most would potentially be converstationally bi-lingual, in the same way that a Alan or Slav later in history (all of whom natively speak different languages) cooperate with the Lombards in Italy, not because they are the same ethnic population or the same Language families, but because portions of their populations are bi-lingual and able to mutually converse.

I am not in any way suggesting that U-152 = western-Germanics as would comprise the extant Germanic populations in western europe. They are a early germanic cultural offshoot that stayed in the east, and began migrating west for the safety of other europid populations once they became largely subjected in the east.

At this point in history even the Alani/Alans are recorded as blonde europids, but many generations later in Europe are asiatics/Hunnic in appearance, by greek and roman sources.

So.. those who were of a europid phenotype on the steppes at this point in history faced a 'migrate, die or be enslaved' option.

As the Migrating steppe germanics reach the west, they create and tell myths with the assistance of their new neighbors to explain who they are and how they got there, which is why the myths of the Goths and Lombards are essentially the same.

In a nutshell, U-152 is a steppe population of germanic linguistic background and in some ancient disconnected form, culture, that moves east as it becomes overwhelmed in its homelands, and it has been known to history for a long time by a variety of tribal names and historical mentions. (my theory!)

As to I2, I simply see no reason at this time to place it anywhere outside of europe, and it is in no way restricted to any celtic, germanic, slavic, or mediterranean population, its found across all of them,..
and not found in any non-european setting, so the best explanation is a aboriginal population that falls to the R1a/R1b populations and in some places manages to hand on or become adopted into those various cultures.

My own mothers' paternal line is Hg I2 from Scotland BTW, and its a very notable and important clade especially in ancient remains, where I2 and G2 appear to have played a very strong role early on in Europe. There is simply no reason, evidence, or basis to attach the origin of I2 to any of the arriving cultural groups though for all the above reasons.

zanipolo
11-02-12, 02:03
Yes, you would be wrong as pertains to your portrayal of my stance, or I did a really bad job of explaining my position.. one or the other.

Under my entire scenario, I am suggesting that the Getae/Massagetae are the Goths/Lombards/Gepids/Heruli etc.. who arise from the same homelands after the Getae disappear from history in that region,
and are effectively a eastern-germanic population that is long native to the eastern steppes, and never originated from or went to Scandinavia. Thus they are not ethnically 'Germanic' in the same modern, familiar sense of modern Scandinavian or Western German U-106, nor do I feel that U-152 relates to the origin of those western Continental or Scandinavian germanic cultures, or to modern "Germany" as a landmass.

I think a significant pct of U-152 get dispersed in some of these continental regions as the Goths are dispersed into the local populations in large numbers, especially in and around Chalons where they composed the majority of the fighting force that defeat the Huns.
In my opinion this residual U-152 is wrongly termed "Belgic" in and around this region, when it is a fairly minor component of all these regions Belgic of otherwise, even within the local R1b.

(To the ire of many I1 Hg, I am also pretty certain that I1 is effectively a 'Svearish' Hg, since R1b only arrives in Finland after the Svearish domination of Scandinavia, and is not followed to Finland by any U-106/R1b from Scandinavia where it comprises 1/3 of the population, since that R1b/U-106 is probably 'Geatish' and was then a recently subjected population to the I1 Svears-
I1 thus is not 'germanic' in the sense that it is the orginator of the culture, and we do not know where or when the Svears come into Scandinavia.)

The Getae/Getic name is used interchangeably by many ancient historians for the Goths and related tribes,
and this is only refuted by those who note that other ancient sources cite the Dacians/Illyrians and Getae reportedly 'speaking the same language'.
A ancient greek or roman observer - who is not fluent in either dacian/illyrian or german/gothic- seeing these parties conversing has no idea who is conversing in the others language, or what pct of the population(s) would have such skills even if they could decipher the languages.
The Dacians and Getae obviously are recorded as cooperating with one another, and some or even most would potentially be converstationally bi-lingual, in the same way that a Alan or Slav later in history (all of whom natively speak different languages) cooperate with the Lombards in Italy, not because they are the same ethnic population or the same Language families, but because portions of their populations are bi-lingual and able to mutually converse.

I am not in any way suggesting that U-152 = western-Germanics as would comprise the extant Germanic populations in western europe. They are a early germanic cultural offshoot that stayed in the east, and began migrating west for the safety of other europid populations once they became largely subjected in the east.

At this point in history even the Alani/Alans are recorded as blonde europids, but many generations later in Europe are asiatics/Hunnic in appearance, by greek and roman sources.

So.. those who were of a europid phenotype on the steppes at this point in history faced a 'migrate, die or be enslaved' option.

As the Migrating steppe germanics reach the west, they create and tell myths with the assistance of their new neighbors to explain who they are and how they got there, which is why the myths of the Goths and Lombards are essentially the same.

In a nutshell, U-152 is a steppe population of germanic linguistic background and in some ancient disconnected form, culture, that moves east as it becomes overwhelmed in its homelands, and it has been known to history for a long time by a variety of tribal names and historical mentions. (my theory!)

As to I2, I simply see no reason at this time to place it anywhere outside of europe, and it is in no way restricted to any celtic, germanic, slavic, or mediterranean population, its found across all of them,..
and not found in any non-european setting, so the best explanation is a aboriginal population that falls to the R1a/R1b populations and in some places manages to hand on or become adopted into those various cultures.

My own mothers' paternal line is Hg I2 from Scotland BTW, and its a very notable and important clade especially in ancient remains, where I2 and G2 appear to have played a very strong role early on in Europe. There is simply no reason, evidence, or basis to attach the origin of I2 to any of the arriving cultural groups though for all the above reasons.

answer me on what was the haplo type in northern italy before the lombards and previously the goths arrived

If I understand your concepye, you are saying these germanic left the steppes and moved westerly, settled in modern germany, then retraced there footseps to dacian areas before going to Italy.

Since the bastanae and peucini where the extreme eastly germanic tribes, do you have knowledge of their haplotypes

Taranis
11-02-12, 02:04
Under my entire scenario, I am suggesting that the Getae/Massagetae are the Goths/Lombards/Gepids/Heruli etc.. who arise from the same homelands after the Getae disappear from history in that region,
and are effectively a eastern-germanic population that is long native to the eastern steppes, and never originated from or went to Scandinavia. Thus they are not ethnically 'Germanic' in the same modern, familiar sense of modern Scandinavian or Western German U-106, nor do I feel that U-152 relates to the origin of those western Continental or Scandinavian germanic cultures, or to modern "Germany" as a landmass.

This scenario has a very huge problem, namely the linguistic perspective: if the Gothic/East Germanic peoples purportedly had nothing to do with the West Germanic peoples, how come that, well, they spoke a Germanic language? It also certainly seems quite unlikely, under that U152 is indeed majorly Germanic in origin, to link it only to East Germanic peoples. In my opinion, if there's a Germanic component to U152, I would wager that there is a link to the Alemannic peoples, given how the southwest Germanic areas have some of the highest concentrations of U152.

Also, regarding the connection between the Getae and the Goths, this can be soundly refuted on linguistic grounds. The ethnonym "Massagetae" in particular is telling here, which is supposed to mean "great Getae". This 'massa-' is derived from the PIE root *meg´-, which is also found in Greek "megas" ("big", "great"), Sanskrit "mahant" ("great") and "maharaja" ("great king"), as well as Gothic "mikili" and antiquated English "mickle". Thus, the element "massa-" is the signature of a Satem language (note, before you accuse me of adhering to the Centum/Satem hypothesis, that I merely use "Centum" and "Satem" as a descriptive feature here). Regardless of the exact linguistic affinity of the Massagetae, Dacian and Scythian for instance were both Satem languages, whereas Germanic is a Centum language, and additionally, due to Grimm's Law, PIE *g´ is reflected as *k in Germanic (hence *meg´- > *mik-).

It's pretty clear that the Gothic language from the 4th century AD is pretty close to what can be reconstructed as Proto-Germanic. So, there's also the question when exactly Grimm's Law (the first Germanic sound shift) did occur. There has been some recent scepticism (Euler 2009) that, as assumed in the past, the sound shift occured at the start of the northern european iron age, and instead it has been proposed that Grimm's Law occured only in the late 1st century BC / early 1st century AD. If this scenario is correct, it would seem very difficult to argue for such a distinctiveness of the East Germanic peoples.

sparkey
11-02-12, 02:19
(To the ire of many I1 Hg, I am also pretty certain that I1 is effectively a 'Svearish' Hg, since R1b only arrives in Finland after the Svearish domination of Scandinavia, and is not followed to Finland by any U-106/R1b from Scandinavia where it comprises 1/3 of the population, since that R1b/U-106 is probably 'Geatish' and was then a recently subjected population to the I1 Svears-
I1 thus is not 'germanic' in the sense that it is the orginator of the culture, and we do not know where or when the Svears come into Scandinavia.)

I1 can't be entirely "Svearish," because although it's a surprisingly young haplogroup in terms of TMRCA, it is well older than migrations of the Svears, and has an apparently launching point near Schleswig-Holstein... not exactly Sweden. I do tend to agree that it is mainly Germanic in the context of Finland, although others contest this, largely on the basis of Finnish I1 being very uniform (which I contend strengthens the case... but that's getting off topic). Either way, it seems to end up in places where West, North, and East Germanic peoples ended up settling. If that's not evidence for I1 being a part of the whole of the proto-Germanic peoples, I don't know what is.


I am not in any way suggesting that U-152 = western-Germanics as would comprise the extant Germanic populations in western europe. They are a early germanic cultural offshoot that stayed in the east, and began migrating west for the safety of other europid populations once they became largely subjected in the east.

At this point in history even the Alani/Alans are recorded as blonde europids, but many generations later in Europe are asiatics/Hunnic in appearance, by greek and roman sources.

So.. those who were of a europid phenotype on the steppes at this point in history faced a 'migrate, die or be enslaved' option.

As the Migrating steppe germanics reach the west, they create and tell myths with the assistance of their new neighbors to explain who they are and how they got there, which is why the myths of the Goths and Lombards are essentially the same.

I don't understand how far east you're trying to place the East Germanic peoples, or where, exactly, that would end up placing the formation of proto-Germanic. I think that's where I'm getting confused regarding your theory.


In a nutshell, U-152 is a steppe population of germanic linguistic background and in some ancient disconnected form, culture, that moves east as it becomes overwhelmed in its homelands, and it has been known to history for a long time by a variety of tribal names and historical mentions. (my theory!)

You mean that they moved west, right? What other haplogroups did this "population" have in your theory? Did U152 also belong to other populations? Why do you think we observe low diversity of U152 in the steppe, was the displacement so severe that they didn't even leave remnants?

I think you'll need to answer these sorts of questions convincingly to convince me of your theories...


As to I2, I simply see no reason at this time to place it anywhere outside of europe, and it is in no way restricted to any celtic, germanic, slavic, or mediterranean population, its found across all of them,..
and not found in any non-european setting, so the best explanation is a aboriginal population that falls to the R1a/R1b populations and in some places manages to hand on or become adopted into those various cultures.

My own mothers' paternal line is Hg I2 from Scotland BTW, and its a very notable and important clade especially in ancient remains, where I2 and G2 appear to have played a very strong role early on in Europe. There is simply no reason, evidence, or basis to attach the origin of I2 to any of the arriving cultural groups though for all the above reasons.

I'm not trying to place I2 outside of Europe myself, nor do I see how placing it within the proto-Germanic, proto-Celtic, etc. cultures, all of which formed in Europe, makes it any less indigenous.

zanipolo
11-02-12, 02:29
I1 can't be entirely "Svearish," because although it's a surprisingly young haplogroup in terms of TMRCA, it is well older than migrations of the Svears, and has an apparently launching point near Schleswig-Holstein... not exactly Sweden. I do tend to agree that it is mainly Germanic in the context of Finland, although others contest this, largely on the basis of Finnish I1 being very uniform (which I contend strengthens the case... but that's getting off topic). Either way, it seems to end up in places where West, North, and East Germanic peoples ended up settling. If that's not evidence for I1 being a part of the whole of the proto-Germanic peoples, I don't know what is.



I don't understand how far east you're trying to place the East Germanic peoples, or where, exactly, that would end up placing the formation of proto-Germanic. I think that's where I'm getting confused regarding your theory.



You mean that they moved west, right? What other haplogroups did this "population" have in your theory? Did U152 also belong to other populations? Why do you think we observe low diversity of U152 in the steppe, was the displacement so severe that they didn't even leave remnants?

I think you'll need to answer these sorts of questions convincingly to convince me of your theories...



I'm not trying to place I2 outside of Europe myself, nor do I see how placing it within the proto-Germanic, proto-Celtic, etc. cultures, all of which formed in Europe, makes it any less indigenous.

I read other sources ( modern ) that place the germanic bastanae/peucini tribes as far east as the dniepr river, on the other side where "slavs" ( unsure if russian or other slavs)

sparkey
11-02-12, 02:32
I read other sources ( modern ) that place the germanic bastanae/peucini tribes as far east as the dniepr river, on the other side where "slavs" ( unsure if russian or other slavs)

They just place some tribes like the Bastarnae there, or they place proto-Germanic and East Germanic as having formed there? I can understand the first, but the second seems absurd to me, given how Germanic languages diversified.

Mikewww
13-02-12, 05:47
I am dealing with a third-party quoting you who infers that this is a western-euro originating population that arises in western europe at the same time and within the same conditions as all other P312.
If someone misuses a quote from me, please dispute it rather than proliferate the misuse with additional misuses.


The TMRCA ancestor estimates and assumptions are effectively close to valueless, and many pundits have asserted their ability to confidently mathematically predict these ages, to the glee of those who wish to believe this. It is theory, and for specific mathematical reasons cannot be proven because of missing data that must be inferred, and mutational estimates that must be assumed....
Just because something is not proven beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt doesn't mean the evidence is valueless. On the other hand, unfounded opinions are valueless.

We have to work with the data we have, and we actually have quite a bit. The available mathematical models have been enhanced. For example, we now have Ken Nordtvedt's interclade estimation method which weeds out some of the biases with intraclade variance.


.... I think like a lot of other Hg or SNP, (i.e.- nordtvedt=I1) U-152 should be left in large part to those who are in U-152 and are researching their own clade/SNP.
Why? This is not very open and logical thinking. Should only men discuss Y DNA and paternal lineages? By the way, you might check out (and I think you have) your mother's father's lineage or her mother's father's lineage or your father's mother's lineage. You might find they are all not of the same haplogroup. That's what I've found.

If I can get Ken Nordtvedt or some of the other stronger minds to discuss my subclades, I'm pleased as punch. I (we) might learn something.


A lot of the comments regarding U-152 are coming from L21* individuals who are a VERY LARGE IN NUMBER, they are all members of the same message boards and same forums, and they are often basically "pissed" that there is very little they can determine, and are for some reason adamant on inserting themselves into discussion on U-152 and become furious if that discussion moves outside what they feel is the prevailing opinion on the array of message boards and forums that they are regurgitating information from.
Are you a pyschoanalyst or something?

zanipolo
13-02-12, 08:44
They just place some tribes like the Bastarnae there, or they place proto-Germanic and East Germanic as having formed there? I can understand the first, but the second seems absurd to me, given how Germanic languages diversified.

i do not understand by what you mean second

sparkey
13-02-12, 21:39
i do not understand by what you mean second

I mean, do your sources just say that some Germanic peoples, like the Bastarnae, ended up so far East? That sounds reasonable to me. Or do they say that proto-Germanic or East Germanic formed so far East? That doesn't sound as reasonable to me.

Taranis
13-02-12, 22:15
I mean, do your sources just say that some Germanic peoples, like the Bastarnae, ended up so far East? That sounds reasonable to me. Or do they say that proto-Germanic or East Germanic formed so far East? That doesn't sound as reasonable to me.

The way I understand Ptolemy, the Bastarnae lived at the Dniester (not the Dniepr!) river. Tacitus doesn't exactly give a location for them, but mentions that "Bastarnae" is an alternate name for the Peucini, whom he places in the vicinity of the Sarmatians.

In any case, the formation/origin of the East Germanic peoples is a problematic issue due to the unclear archaeological affiliation (for example, it's somewhat questionable if the Pomeranian Culture was "Germanic" in any way, and it's highly doubtful if the earlier Lusatian Culture was "Germanic").

spongetaro
13-02-12, 22:36
In any case, the formation/origin of the East Germanic peoples is a problematic issue due to the unclear archaeological affiliation (for example, it's somewhat questionable if the Pomeranian Culture was "Germanic" in any way, and it's highly doubtful if the earlier Lusatian Culture was "Germanic").

And to which culture belonged the Proto-Goths people? Because I read that it was a legend that they came from Scandinavia and that they actually formed in Northern Poland.

Taranis
13-02-12, 23:01
And to which culture belonged the Proto-Goths people? Because I read that it was a legend that they came from Scandinavia and that they actually formed in Northern Poland.

Well, not just 'Proto-Goths' but Eastern Germanic peoples in general. The legend about the East Germanic peoples coming from Scandinavia is well-known, but from the archaeological perspective it's very hard to verify this. As I mentioned, the (bronze age / early iron age) Lusatian Culture, which is the northeastern outgrowth of the Urnfield Culture, is certainly too early to be Germanic in any way. The Pomeranian Culture, which follows it, is also questionable in it's identity. The only archaeological cultures we can be certain about that they're East Germanic (because they fall into the times of historic record!) are really the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhov cultures.

spongetaro
13-02-12, 23:59
Well, not just 'Proto-Goths' but Eastern Germanic peoples in general. The legend about the East Germanic peoples coming from Scandinavia is well-known, but from the archaeological perspective it's very hard to verify this. As I mentioned, the (bronze age / early iron age) Lusatian Culture, which is the northeastern outgrowth of the Urnfield Culture, is certainly too early to be Germanic in any way. The Pomeranian Culture, which follows it, is also questionable in it's identity. The only archaeological cultures we can be certain about that they're East Germanic (because they fall into the times of historic record!) are really the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhov cultures.

Thank you. Lusatian has much in common with the Villanovian culture which itslef is the direct ancestor of Latin people therefore Lusatian people might have spoken some sort of Italic language.
Btw what do you imply when you say that it is too early to be Germanic? you mean before the Grimm's Law?

Taranis
14-02-12, 00:22
Thank you. Lusatian has much in common with the Villanovian culture which itslef is the direct ancestor of Latin people therefore Lusatian people might have spoken some sort of Italic language.
Btw what do you imply when you say that it is too early to be Germanic? you mean before the Grimm's Law?

Principally this concerns Grimm's Law, yes, but also the general question of ethnogenesis. I have to add that not everybody agrees with the Pre-Germanic hypothesis of Euler, ie that Grimm's Law only occured in the 1st century BC, but even the tradionalist view concedes that it's unlikely that Grimm's Law occured before the start of the iron age (as a reminder, most Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic are subject to Grimm's Law).

Regarding the Villanovan Culture (which, as you correctly point out, has parallels with the Lusatian Culture, but so does Hallstatt), I thought they were generally considered Etruscan?

spongetaro
14-02-12, 01:07
Principally this concerns Grimm's Law, yes, but also the general question of ethnogenesis. I have to add that not everybody agrees with the Pre-Germanic hypothesis of Euler, ie that Grimm's Law only occured in the 1st century BC, but even the tradionalist view concedes that it's unlikely that Grimm's Law occured before the start of the iron age (as a reminder, most Celtic loanwords into Proto-Germanic are subject to Grimm's Law).

Aside from the Grimm laws, didn't they speak some sort of German during the Nordic bronze age? In the same way that Lusitanian spoke some sorts of Celt (without the loss of initial "p") probably since the bronze age.


Regarding the Villanovan Culture (which, as you correctly point out, has parallels with the Lusatian Culture, but so does Hallstatt), I thought they were generally considered Etruscan?

Etruscan culture was founded on a Villanovian basis that was colonized by Near easterns (sea people from Anatolia?) folks.

Taranis
14-02-12, 18:18
Aside from the Grimm laws, didn't they speak some sort of German during the Nordic bronze age? In the same way that Lusitanian spoke some sorts of Celt (without the loss of initial "p") probably since the bronze age.

Yes, of course. This is more or less the point that Euler makes, about the Proto-Germanic language before the first sound shift, ie the so-called "Pre-Germanic" or "Pre-Proto-Germanic" language. The problem however is twofold: the first issue is how, if not via Grimm's Law, do we define the Germanic languages against the backdrop of the western Indo-European spectrum. The second issue tackles the same problem from the opposite direction: if we go back sufficiently far, we'd have to expect that all (well, western) branches of Indo-European would have been more or less variants of one dialect continuum.

Otherwise, I absolutely agree that from the archaeological perspective, it would seem tempting to assume that the people of the Nordic Bronze Age spoke some kind of early Proto-Germanic, which would have to be in the described "Pre-Germanic" stage, both by the traditionalist model (early iron age) and by Euler's model (1st century BC).


Etruscan culture was founded on a Villanovian basis that was colonized by Near easterns (sea people from Anatolia?) folks.

The way that I understood it (please correct me if I'm wrong!), the Villanovan culture continues without any discontinuity into historic times as the Etruscan city states.

GloomyGonzales
15-02-12, 16:55
Well, not just 'Proto-Goths' but Eastern Germanic peoples in general. The legend about the East Germanic peoples coming from Scandinavia is well-known, but from the archaeological perspective it's very hard to verify this. As I mentioned, the (bronze age / early iron age) Lusatian Culture, which is the northeastern outgrowth of the Urnfield Culture, is certainly too early to be Germanic in any way. The Pomeranian Culture, which follows it, is also questionable in it's identity. The only archaeological cultures we can be certain about that they're East Germanic (because they fall into the times of historic record!) are really the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhov cultures.


Taranis, you ask yourself very very smart questions that means that you already know that East Germanic (in fact authentic Germanic people) were predominantly Z280 while those guys with U106 and I1 haplo were just Germanized (U106 gave not IE substrate) but still can not reconcile yourself with the idea.

Taranis
15-02-12, 17:45
Taranis, you ask yourself very very smart questions that means that you already know that East Germanic (in fact authentic Germanic people) were predominantly Z280 while those guys with U106 and I1 haplo were just Germanized (U106 gave not IE substrate) but still can not reconcile yourself with the idea.

You're basically supposing that the origin of the Germanic peoples lies further to the east? Sorry, that is impossible. There's multiple reasons due to which really speak against that. For starters, the Corded Ware Culture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Corded_Ware_culture.png), for which R1a samples are known (the Eulau site in Germany, dated to 2600 BC), predates the presumed age of U106. There's a number of reasons to assume that the Corded Ware people already spoke an early form of Indo-European, notably common Germanic and Balto-Slavic words that predates the Centum/Satem split, as well as loanwords from PIE into the Uralic languages. Since the Battle Axe Culture in Scandinavia was an offshot of Corded Ware, it stands to reason that there were already Indo-Europeans in Scandinavia by the start of the Bronze Age, and that, by extension, the people of the Nordic Bronze Age spoke some form of Pre-Proto-Germanic. Another issue is that there's too much continuity between the Nordic Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman iron age of northern Europe.

MOESAN
15-02-12, 18:33
The way that I understood it (please correct me if I'm wrong!), the Villanovan culture continues without any discontinuity into historic times as the Etruscan city states.

I believe I share the views of Spongetaro about Villanovians: I see them as Indo-European speaking people coming from Central Europe (South the Danaw river?), of Italic stock - Etruscans appears like a newcoming foreign elite among a previous villanovian culture (but is the etruscan known language the language of this new elite or that of Villanovians? the so called non
-I-E rhaetian language is a problem: is it autochtonous or brought by cousins of the new Etruscan elite? or this new elite has nothing to do with 'etruscan' language that was there beofre it? it can change a lot of thing, because some of the Rhaetians appears to have spoken a phonetically 'hardening' (unvoicING) consonnants language that could explain the germanic mutation in some way (the second mutation only maybe?) - So we could be wrong and Villanovia be an 'etruscan' (known) language culture that afterwards influenced I-E italic languages? or the meeting place of two different languages? (Toscan dialect is very curious for stops and it and south italian dialects are the only one which kept on with unvoiced intervocalic stops compared to PRESENT DAY North Italy languages and ALL the other neo-latine languages of Western Europe... - FOR I KNOW AT THIS VERY TIME I PREFER SEE THE VILLANOVIANS AS ITALIC PEOPLE BUT MORE OSCO-OMBRIAN SPEAKING THAN LATIN, waiting more

zanipolo
16-02-12, 09:21
I believe I share the views of Spongetaro about Villanovians: I see them as Indo-European speaking people coming from Central Europe (South the Danaw river?), of Italic stock - Etruscans appears like a newcoming foreign elite among a previous villanovian culture (but is the etruscan known language the language of this new elite or that of Villanovians? the so called non
-I-E rhaetian language is a problem: is it autochtonous or brought by cousins of the new Etruscan elite? or this new elite has nothing to do with 'etruscan' language that was there beofre it? it can change a lot of thing, because some of the Rhaetians appears to have spoken a phonetically 'hardening' (unvoicING) consonnants language that could explain the germanic mutation in some way (the second mutation only maybe?) - So we could be wrong and Villanovia be an 'etruscan' (known) language culture that afterwards influenced I-E italic languages? or the meeting place of two different languages? (Toscan dialect is very curious for stops and it and south italian dialects are the only one which kept on with unvoiced intervocalic stops compared to PRESENT DAY North Italy languages and ALL the other neo-latine languages of Western Europe... - FOR I KNOW AT THIS VERY TIME I PREFER SEE THE VILLANOVIANS AS ITALIC PEOPLE BUT MORE OSCO-OMBRIAN SPEAKING THAN LATIN, waiting more

you need to take into consideration the earlier POLADA culture and the later ESTE culture

Vico
09-11-12, 17:06
There was already a map of this haplogroup.Gorgeous map!
I think it is obvious descendants now - U152 is haplogroup of the Celts of Early La Ten.

But why has Corsica many descendants? There is an assumption. Not all of the Celts, who steel Roman citizenship in 1BC - 2AC, sought to Rome. The very promising was to shift to Corsica, where the coastal areas of Corsica could have a career, as well as indigenous people of the island led patriarchal, secluded life in the center of the island.

I should be added that Corsica was a colony of Genoa during many centuries and be able to take migrants from the metropolis.

Tabaccus Maximus
12-11-12, 17:59
This may have already been stated; I admit I didn't look at every post:

It would seem the distribution and its lack thereof in certain areas would agree with the collapse of the Roman empire and the begining of the Holy Roman (Germanic Empire). Specifically, the hot red spots in Lombardy and Austria were those decidedly settled by the Lombards, although several of the migrating tribes at this time (Saxons, Vandals, Visigoths, etc) may have also had this signature to a lesser degree, taking it to North Africa and Crimea. Towards the end of the end of the Roman Empire, it wouldn't be surprising to see many of the soldiers coming from these northern areas and seeding children, perhaps to a smaller degree.

Most instresting, and telling it think, is when you look at the islands of Corisica, Sardinia, Sicily and (later) Crete. A little more hot, and probably less diverse than the mainland. That's the begining of a non-native, Germanic caste in the first millennium.

diverclic
01-06-13, 03:59
Nice map indeed but we now are at the point where the U152 entity should be questioned through its known main subclades. Also spotted areas who be interesting to study more carefully. One example : the Ligurian land like the Cinqueterre ; these isolated places might prove interesting to link U152 to the Ligurian culture. Corsica and Liguria have in common these villages packed on the slopes of mountains ; I see a clear common culture.
The question / remark above about the poor link of U152 spread with places like Spain is a good one and can be generalized to the rest of the map : romans clearly didn't spread U152 in any significant amounts.
I see 3 "limits" : one between "gaule" and "Aquitania - Iberia" [U152 / DF27 clades], another one between Gaul and "Holland" [U152 / U106] , another one in the Alps between Suisse and Austria ; this last one is a surprise but it helps proving that U152 probably started around the upper Rhone valley and expanded north and south of the western Alps. The northern part was later defeated by German migrations and this probably accounts for the difference between north and south.
So, one early clade of U152 was probably Ligurian (possibly in association with some other group) and other U152 branches may account for some Celtic expansion. I can see no "limit" between L21 and U152 as if these 2, although fighting were considering each other as part of a same entity - "celtic ?"

fdboucher
12-07-13, 05:28
Fantastic! Thank you very much.

adamo
13-07-13, 13:57
R1b u152 seems to dominate Italians, blond haired blue eyed ones or very Celtic looking ones in particular, an extension of the Gaul/Swiss race into Italy, we all know of the many Gallic tribes that migrated from all over France to Italy with bellovesus, we know about the even older golasecca Gaul culture in Lombardy, in fact, the ancient Romans themselves may have in part descended from men that crossed the Swiss alps into Italy long ago, forgetting about their Gallic cousins and eventually conquering them thousands of years later with the rise of the Roman Empire, the original Romans, the "Latini" tribe centred around modern day Latina province in lazio, Italy, where probably a Gallic group deep in italian territory, that eventually conquered the rest of italics and would create the Roman Empire, wat drastically separates the French from the Italians is the Greco-Turk and north-African influence the southern Italians acquired; northern Italy was bombarded by Germanic, but, particularly, Gallic genetic influence. My own grandfather was from Pisa ( northern Tuscany) in a region where about 52% of males are R1b, and the majority is u152. He had hi-liter blonde hair, and baby blue eyes, through a genographic test on his son (my uncle, mothers brother) it was discovered that he was R1b u152+ positive.

MOESAN
13-07-13, 21:22
first point: I cannot at this stage pretend to link pigmentation to Y-DNA
second point: compared to Y-R1b-L21, the Y-R1b-U152 seems late in W-Europe, and the link it seems having with AND LA TENE CELTS AND ITALIC PEOPLE, confirms for me this more eastern gravity center (look at presence in SW Poland and the Lusace-Culture link too with Villanovians)- So I don' believe as Adamo (I respect his opinion nevertheless) the Italics never got down from Switzerland - but it is true that all these people were 'cousins' in some part but I find better think in Ligurians concerning Switzerland and the W-Alps...
for Germanics, I don't think Y-R1b-U152 were the core of them - I suppose a proto-germanic was spoken yet in N-Europe before U152 won some weight there (the Cimbers Teutons story is perhaps not only a tale, and they were maybe Celts???)

adamo
13-07-13, 22:09
lol, what? the italics never got down from switzerland ? so what explains the maximal 40-45% R1b u152 across much of north-central italy ?

adamo
13-07-13, 22:14
as for the germanics they where high u106 obviously.

Drac II
13-07-13, 23:52
A great majority of "Romans" in Iberia were not from the Italian Peninsula but from other parts of the empire, including Slavic and North African lands. Apparently, this was also the case in the British Isles.

Source? The conquest of Iberia was carried out during the times when Roman armies were by and large made up of Romans. The conquest of Britain was carried out at a time when even many "Roman" emperors were North Africans and Near Easterners. The "Roman" armies of those later times were quite different in ethnic composition than those of earlier centuries. I am not aware of any Roman governors of Iberia being from North Africa and the Near East, while Britain has well known examples (Quintus Lollius Urbicus, Lucius Alfenus Senecio, Gaius Valerius Pudens, Caracalla, etc.)

Jackson
22-10-13, 01:02
Hi Maciamo, there's some new data on R1b-U152 in the Netherlands...A sample of 500 (larger than previous samples) found it at 7.2%, apparently more in line with neighboring areas. Will you update the map at all?

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1216-U152-Z367-in-the-Netherlands

Might actually look more like this:

http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/Haplogroup-R1b-S28.png

MOESAN
22-10-13, 09:33
lol, what? the italics never got down from switzerland ? so what explains the maximal 40-45% R1b u152 across much of north-central italy ?

if you look well at the distribution, it seems the denser zones are very more on the western side than on the eastern one: more ancient, with Ligurians, I suppose, plus some Celts contacts?
and Y-R-U152 even if concentrated around the W-Alps, was found more eastern, if less dense:
I suppose Terramare people began later the latine speakers but they took a lot of Ligurians with them on their way - but the italic language formed more easternly around south Hungary N-Croatia, I think - the later italics, osco-umbrian speakers, did not meat the Ligurians in the N-E Italy and carried less Y-R-U152 even if they did some percentages too; NO, for me, Italics did not came from Switzerland, at this stage of my knowledge at least...and their phonetic is more remote from celtic than was ligurian phonetic (this one not too well known, I confess) -
I red somewhere, and it could explain some odd things, that some rare enough latine words show phonetic evolution close to the celtic or other ones, strange compared with the core of global italic evolution -

MOESAN
22-10-13, 09:40
we need regional survey
I 'm almost sure the U152 percentages vary quite a lot according to regions in the netherlands (By instance I think Frisians have less)...

MOESAN
22-10-13, 10:04
I saw in an other forum (helas I did not note the references of the surveys) a Y-R1b-U152 percentage of 7,5% in North Wales and 19,4% in E-N-E Scotland (around Fraserburgh? not far from Aberdeen) - the samples were under 100 everytime, it is true -
N-E England had 3,6%, N-W England 6,4%, EE England 8,1%, E-Anglia 16,7%, S-E England (close) 15,4%, and two different results for two regions:
S-W England: 16,0% and 8,3% and C England 9,7% and 0,0% !!!
but I suppose Maciamo had these %s ?

adamo
23-10-13, 14:42
Liechtenstein has 33% u152 and Belgium has about 10% I believe.

adamo
23-10-13, 17:00
I find it interesting that a third one men from Lichtenstein are u152 due to its proximity to Switzerland and it also borders Austria, not to mention being to the north of Italy.

adamo
23-10-13, 17:04
U152 is highest in north Italy and just to the north of that in switErland and with a heavier northwestern distribution in the eastern parts of France near Alsace, coincidental with a la tene culture distribution thus meaning Gauls.

Maciamo
23-10-13, 19:13
Liechtenstein has 33% u152 and Belgium has about 10% I believe.

Where on earth did you get data on Lichtenstein ?

adamo
23-10-13, 19:34
Genographic project 2.0

adamo
23-10-13, 19:36
About one third of all males in the country are positive for R-S28.

adamo
23-10-13, 19:44
Also the Lusatian region of southwestern Poland on the northern Austrian (Czech Republic just to the west) needs to be further investigated as generally this zone is associated with a mild high of u152

adamo
30-10-13, 01:31
​Say if we wanted to phenotypically analyze Italians. Let's take as a sample the country's national soccer team. I would personally guess that these players are R1b; since they are italian it is probably u-152 (note that physical appearance is NOT a good indicator of haplogroup membership at all.); mattia destro, manolo gabbiadini, daniele de Rossi, davide santon, daniele gastaldello, federico peluso, mattia de sciglio, christian Maggio, giuseppe Rossi, Alessandro florenzi, marco verratti, alessandro diamanti, emanuele Giaccherini, claudio marchisio, riccardo Montolivo, lorenzo de Silvestri, ignazio abate, federico balzaretti etc. other than their names that clearly differ from English or American ones lol, they seem to me to "look" the part of the typically west European profile nations with higher R1b frequencies. Genetics indicate a nice chunk of Italian males (40%) might as well list their ethnicity as Swiss as both nations have the world's highest Gallic component today in modern times. Then we can see nice examples of other Italians; Lorenzo insigne, giorgio chiellini, alessio cerci, Alberto Aquilani, andrea Pirlo, leonardo bonucci, ranocchia and davide astori. These guys probably have those Neolithic lineages like E3b,J2, that come from the Middle East and for E3b probably from north-Africa before arriving to the Balkans then Italy. Insigne looks like an Etruscan Greco-Turk type as does Alberto Aquilani. Chiellini MUST be a Jew lol, Pirlo bonucci and ranocchia may pass for Jews as well. Astori is difficult to class and alessio cerci looks like a north-African in my opinion.

adamo
30-10-13, 01:36
If an individual were to have a typically west-European genetics on one family side (Irish,English,Belgian,German) mixed generation after generation with a neoliic component on the other family side (Greece,turkey,Lebanon) it would probably eventually culminate into an individual that looks like leonardo bonucci or davide astori in my opinion.

adamo
31-10-13, 21:28
Don't christian Maggio, federico balzaretti and claudio marchisio for example look so stereotypically French? They could all pass as a French "Gaston" name guy lolll

brianco
24-01-14, 14:26
http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1071&d=1387258850

Greying Wanderer
24-01-14, 21:46
If you mentally overlap the distribution maps for R1b-DF27, R1b-S28 (minus the extension to the west) and R1b-S21 you pretty much get a Roman's eye view of Vascones, Gauls and Belgae. (Even more so if that western extension of S28 happened after Caesar).


edit: great maps btw

Jackson
24-01-14, 22:11
http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1071&d=1387258850

Is there one for L21, U106, other S116 etc from the same source?

Hmm found this one for S145/L21, seems oddly low in many parts to me, the east and southeast agrees with busby, but many other areas don't:
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu7/Brodir93/L21Isles.jpg

Maciamo
29-09-16, 18:00
I have updated the R1b-S28 (U152) map based especially on the data from Valverde et al. (2016) (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v24/n3/full/ejhg2015114a.html), and Lucotte et al (2015) (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=53754). The biggest changes are the higher levels in Galicia, Portugal, Andalusia and along the Mediterranean coast of France. This haplogroup looks increasingly associated with the Romans rather than the Celts/Gauls. I think it's not an either/or question. It is almost certain that Hallstatt and La Tène Celts carried U152, and so did the Romans and all Italic tribes. But the high incidence of U152 in southern France, eastern and southern Iberia can only be explained by the Roman colonisation.

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-S28.gif

berun
29-09-16, 21:57
Being a clade 4500 years old it's too radical to assign it only to Romans... in fact the high frequency areas seem somehow related to ancient Ligurian regions (Languedoc, Provence, Liguria, Piemonte, Corsica...). Even the high freq in SW Iberia is not problematic with tiying this clade to Celts, as there was in such region the Celtici and the Baeturi (but for Portugal and Spain south of the Duero and Ebro rivers is not a good deal to take much from there as it received Arab and Berber tribes and thereafter Christian colons). Moreover the Turkish spot would fit quite well with the migration of the Galatians.

berun
04-10-16, 14:30
Also the map could display just the contrary: if such clade expanded with Bell Beakers, and Bell Beakers popped up in SW Iberia... the high frequencies could point the area of origin and the area(s) of success, taking for that a Mediterranean route as the Maritime BB. Frequencies per se are not decisive and to check up this possibility it would be needed to know geographic variance of subclades.

Belmonde
25-05-17, 23:55
Contrary to popular belief, it appears that the clade was founded somewhere near the Bashkirs. According to Myres et al. 2010, the highest frequency of 74% of 70 samples of Bashkirs from norhtern Bashkorostan belonged to U152. I don't know if this is a typo of the team as the one with Croats and M458 in Underhill et al. 2014. In all other southern and eastern Bashkirs U152 is mentioned with a maximum frequency of 1%.

Pax Augusta
26-05-17, 03:16
Contrary to popular belief, it appears that the clade was founded somewhere near the Bashkirs. According to Myres et al. 2010, the highest frequency of 74% of 70 samples of Bashkirs from norhtern Bashkorostan belonged to U152. I don't know if this is a typo of the team as the one with Croats and M458 in Underhill et al. 2014. In all other southern and eastern Bashkirs U152 is mentioned with a maximum frequency of 1%.


The Y-DNA haplogroups among its Bashkir members include R1b-M73, R1b-M269, R1b-Z2105, R1b-U152, R1a-Z2123, R1a-Z282, R1a-Z280, N1, G, I1-Z59, I2, H, and C. (...) Regarding Y-DNA haplogroups genetic studies have revealed that most Bashkir males belong to haplogroup R1b (R-M269 and R-M73) which is, on average, found at the frequency of 47,6%. Following are the haplogroup R1a at the average frequency of 26,5%, and haplogroup N1c at 17%. In lower frequencies were also found haplogroups J2, C, O, E1b, G2a, L, N1b, I, T.[7] The main branch of R1a in Bashkirs is Z93, specifically Z2125, which peaks in Central Asia, among Bashkirs at 31%.


Most mtDNA haplogroups found in Bashkirs (60-65%) consist of the haplogroups G, D, С, Z and F; which are lineages characteristic of East Eurasian populations. On the other hand, mtDNA haplogroups characteristic of European and Middle Eastern populations were also found in significant amounts (35-40%).


The Bashkirs physically and genetically have a mixture of European and Asiatic traits, which is fitting because they live on both sides of the Ural Mountains geographically separating Europe and Asia. Fedorova's team found them to be 60.7% Caucasian and 39.3% Mongoloid. That makes them more Mongoloid than the Volga Tatars and Chuvashes but less Mongoloid than some Central Asian Turkic-speaking peoples like the Uyghurs and Kazakhs.

U-152 was found in Bashkirs from Perm province. Anyway it was already widely discussed here

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26878-Bashkirs-What-Subclades-of-R1b-Were-They

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-U152-tree.png

Ailchu
22-06-17, 23:41
the peak in south western iberia matches somehow with the celtici. can't post the link but just search for celtici in google. the wikipedia site has a nice map.
but it's strange that the haplogroup is not as common in other former celtic region in iberia.
wikipedia says that the celtici were a mix of celtiberians and celts form central and northeastern gaul. maybe they could have had a higher percentage of U152 than the other celtiberians because of this.
Edit: probably not. the percentage should still not be higher than in gaul.

MOESAN
24-06-17, 20:08
the peak in south western iberia matches somehow with the celtici. can't post the link but just search for celtici in google. the wikipedia site has a nice map.
but it's strange that the haplogroup is not as common in other former celtic region in iberia.
wikipedia says that the celtici were a mix of celtiberians and celts form central and northeastern gaul. maybe they could have had a higher percentage of U152 than the other celtiberians because of this.
Edit: probably not. the percentage should still not be higher than in gaul.

A possible answer could be that SW Iberia knew numerous immigrations of tribes or sets of tribes from Belgia after Hallstatt, the most of them Celtic, some others Germanic but in tight contact with NE Celts among whom U152 seems having been heavy enough...It seems the Tajo/Tagus river became a "highway" towards the S-W:

Ailchu
25-06-17, 13:44
i just saw that the distribution of u152 is corresponing a bit to the italian admixture map on this site.
can't post link. but i searched for autosomal distribution maps in europe and got a link to a eupedia site. the map of the italian admixture is probably not very accurate considering the sharp borders around italy but according to this map the peaks in iberia could come from people that lived in or around italy and probably not in north eastern gaul.

MOESAN
25-06-17, 14:37
we are just making bets, lacking precise sublineages; very possible that U152 in SW Iberia is the result of diverse waves (Ligurians?, Celts, Latins and ...?) - BTW U152 in Italy seems to me more a Ligurian input than a pure Italic input, without speaking of the Celt input or better said: Ligurians had greater % of U152 than Italics had (it's true during Roma Empire both were smelted more or less) - in Catalunia Ligurians and Latins (Romans) would be the source, but who knows?

Parafarne
18-09-17, 16:18
Wow! in big regions of central, eastern, southern France R1b numbers don't add up like big time if one sees maps? If we add 20% U152, 7% L21, 7% DF27, 4% S21, 2% Z2103 & others then 20% of R1b remains unaccounted for, so could it(U152) be under valued by up to 20% in these regions or other subclades are under valued?

Twilight
18-09-17, 16:54
Wow! in big regions of central, eastern, southern France R1b numbers don't add up like big time if one sees maps? If we add 20% U152, 7% L21, 7% DF27, 4% S21, 2% Z2103 & others then 20% of R1b remains unaccounted for, so could it(U152) be under valued by up to 20% in these regions or other subclades are under valued?

We'll just have to wait and see, part of the problem is that for most of genetic geneology's history France's legal system hasn't been taking too kindly with Genetics. However as of recent years, Eupedia gets visited by members with the French flag; most of our data pertaining to French Genetic History is obtained via Quebec populations. This URL link below was first created in 2013. http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28882-Ordering-a-DNA-test-in-France-is-a-crime-punishable-by-heavy-fines-and-jail-time

Parafarne
19-09-17, 04:49
Oh I didn't know that! that's very unfortunate.By giving swipe people agree to test so government should not have discouraged it.